KALBA IR VISUOMENĖ

LAIMA NEVINSKAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGE POLICY IN INTERNET COMMENTS

In recent years, language policy and linguists have been the subject of lively discussion. This topic repeatedly arises at conferences devoted to language issues and is examined in various language-related publications. For example, issues concerning the implementation of language policy have been studied by Laima Grumadienė (2003), Arnoldas Piročkinas (2004), and Loreta Vaicekauskienė (2007), while internet comments about linguists and the relationship between society and linguists were examined by Rita Miliūnaitė (2006).

The public’s interest in language policy is reflected in the large number of comments posted in response to articles on language issues on internet portals. For example, most language-related articles published in 2007–2008 on the delfi.lt portal received around 200 comments; some articles received as many as 400–600 comments, while the article by Jonas Vaiškūnas and Vytautas V. Landsbergis, “Can We Defend the Lithuanian Language from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language?” received as many as fifteen hundred comments. The topic’s relevance is also demonstrated by the fact that, over two years, two reader-written articles on language issues appeared in the “Vox Populi” section of the delfi.lt portal.

While it is not possible to conduct representative public opinion polls, online discussions are one of the more readily accessible sources for researchers seeking to examine public attitudes toward language policy. The aim of the article is to analyze assessments of language policy in online comments. Online commenters’ views on language policy issues are examined using a language policy analysis framework, assigning the thoughts and ideas expressed in the comments to assessments of one or another element of language policy. Such analysis is useful because it can reveal which aspects are im-

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

245

that are evaluated positively and those negatively, as well as which of them are problematic and provoke the most discussion. In interpreting the study’s results, the analysis draws on one theoretical aspect of discourse analysis, which can be called the analysis of framing patterns (English framing analysis).

Internet comments about linguists were examined in R. Miliūnaitė’s article “The Internet Public and Linguists” (2006). It provides a fairly comprehensive account of the diversity of commenters’ attitudes. This article continues the topic introduced there, but its new contribution is that the expressed opinions are organized according to a language policy model.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This article does not seek to encompass the full diversity of evaluations of language policy; rather, it aims to demonstrate the principle of comment analysis and reveal the problematic nature of evaluating language policy. A qualitative analysis of comments is conducted to identify opinions evaluating various elements of language policy. The study follows the principle of qualitative data presentation: it presents formulated summary statements accompanied by examples from the comments (much as in the analysis of qualitative interviews).

When selecting online comments as a source for analysis, the question of representativeness must be kept in mind—this also informs the choice of a qualitative research methodology. Nevertheless, comment analysis can be relied upon at least in part, since their authors, albeit not proportionally, represent different age groups. According to data from a representative public opinion survey commissioned by the “Electronic Democracy” project and conducted in March–April 2008, among people who regularly wrote comments about public life and politics on news portals (once a week or more often), 67.4 percent were aged 18–29, 10.9 percent were aged 30–39, and 15.2 percent were aged 40–49. Among those who wrote comments on these portals once a month, the corresponding figures for these age groups were 52.4, 16.7, and 9.5 percent. Among people in older age groups who regularly wrote comments, there were a few percent in each group. According to the same survey, the news portal where comments are most often written is delfi.lt—almost three times as many people write comments there as on any other portal (Vilmorus, 2008).

The article analyzes comments on articles published by the most popular delfi.lt portal that address language policy or general language issues. This portal

246 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

was also chosen because it is a general-interest portal, better suited to examining the attitudes of ordinary language users. Lively discussions of various language matters also take place on the discussion website of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, but it is thought that comments there are written mainly by translators and editors.

To investigate a range of viewpoints, articles reflecting different attitudes toward language policy were selected (see the list of sources). Comments on five articles were analyzed in total—more than 1,000 comments were reviewed. The comments selected were those most valuable in terms of content, discussing essential issues; comments that digressed into other topics or said nothing new were omitted.

The aspects of language policy evaluated in the comments are classified on the basis of the language policy analysis model proposed by R. L. Cooper, which is well known and frequently applied in the literature on language planning (including in Lithuanian; cf. Vaicekauskienė 2007).

The full version of this model is as follows: “Which actors seek to influence what behavior, of which people, for what purposes, under what conditions, by what means, while making what decisions, and achieving what results?” (Cooper 1989: 98; translated from: Vaicekauskienė 2007: 109). A more detailed explanation of the model’s elements, including how to identify language policy elements in comments, is provided in the following table.

LENTELĖ. Kalbos politikos modelis (Cooper 1989: 87–98)

Language policy element

Description

Actors (who?)

E.g., the formal elite, influential individuals in society, hostile groups, and other actors outside the elite.

Objects (what behavior?)

(A) Structural (linguistic) features of the behavior to be influenced (e.g., homogeneity, similarity). (B) Goals/functions: what the behavior to be influenced is used for. (C) The intended level of adoption of the behavior (knowledge, evaluation, proficiency, use).

Target group (which people?)

(A) The nature of the target group (e.g., individuals or organizations, direct or intermediate). (B) The target group’s capacity to learn the intended behavior. (C) The target group’s incentives (stimuli) to learn the intended behavior. (D) The target group’s incentives to reject the intended behavior.

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

247

Continuation of the table

Element of language policy

Description

Goals (for what purposes?)

(A) Overt (language-related behavior). (B) Hidden (non-language-related behavior, goals of satisfying interests).

Conditions (under what conditions?)

(A) Situation (events, short-term conditions). (B) Structural factors: political, economic, social / demographic / ecological. (C) Cultural: social order (political culture), cultural norms, experience of language policy actors. (D) Environmental factors (external influence). (E) Information factors (data required for an appropriate decision).

Means (by what means?)

E.g., legal measures, coercion, incentives, persuasion.

Decision-making (how are decisions made?)

(A) Formulation of the problem / goal. (B) Formulation of measures.

Results (what is the result?)

Whether the desired result is achieved.

Not all the factors of policy elements listed by R. L. Cooper are relevant when analyzing language policy in Lithuania; on the other hand, the analysis of internet comments yielded additional ideas related to these elements of language policy.

Evaluations of language policy in internet comments are interpreted using the idea of framing (English frames), which helps explain the significance of such an analysis. As sociologist E. Goffman, who introduced the concept of frames, argues, people perceive information according to certain interpretive frameworks. These frameworks help simplify the processes of thinking and perception and determine which elements or aspects of reality receive attention (Zhou et al. 2007). For example, a passer-by may understand a group of people standing beside a road through the “bus stop” frame. This specific frame structures perception—attention is drawn to a larger number of people gathered in one place, which is one of the features of the “people waiting for something” frame—

248

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

… features. The schema also draws attention to other elements of the situation, such as a bus-stop sign. At the same time, it directs attention away from other details, for example, the clothing, body build, or interactions of the supposed bus passengers (Koenig 2004).

According to communication researchers, information presented and perceived in this way in the media, as well as other texts, highlights certain aspects of the problem under consideration, thereby shaping an attitude toward it and defining what the problem is. Foreign scholars explain the presentation of information according to such schemas by invoking the metaphor of a picture frame, which also gave rise to the English term for this approach (frame analysis). A picture frame presents a particular part of an image (a photograph or painting), rather than other parts, and draws attention to it; on the basis of the selected fragment, the viewer forms an impression of the entire situation depicted (Tankard 2001: 99).

R. M. Entmanas (1993) skiria keturias pagrindines pateikties schemų žiniasklaidoje funkcijas. Pasak jo, šios schemos apibrėžia problemą ir išryškina svarbiausius jos aspektus; apibrėžia priežastis ir nurodo problemą sukeliančias jėgas; pateikia moralinį vertinimą; siūlo tolesnio elgesio ir veiksmų rekomendacijas.

Thus, a frame is a significant choice regarding the perspective from which a topic is examined: presenting an issue to be resolved according to one frame rather than another can determine what measures will be taken to address it. Because frames have the power to define a problem and indicate ways of solving it, the concept of framing is often chosen for the analysis of politics and political discourse (Tankard 2001).

Authors examining the application of the concept of framing in media research distinguish between media (text) frames and individual (recipient) frames. The frames according to which texts are presented are expressed through certain key words, phrases, stereotypical images, the selection of information sources, and sentences conveying a set of facts and evaluations. Recipients think on the basis of individual frames, which may or may not coincide with the frames of the text (Scheufele 1999; Entman 1993).

Thus, the aspects of language policy emphasized in the comments can be regarded as expressions of the individual frames on which the comment authors draw. Readers’ comments usually draw attention to certain aspects of the issue being discussed, and it is precisely these that are emphasized and considered more important,

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

249

while other aspects are ignored. In this way, the issue under consideration (in this case, language policy) is understood and presented as a particular problem, for example, the inappropriate choice of an object for language regulation, a lack of competence among linguists, and so on.

RESULTS OF THE COMMENT ANALYSIS

The following section reviews the analysis of comments according to the elements of the language policy analysis model listed above. It is important to emphasize that the opinions expressed in the comments are presented here without evaluating whether they correspond to reality—for example, whether the commenters correctly understand language policy decisions or whether their opinions are well-founded (the language of the comments has been edited minimally).

Agents of Language Policy

Although language planning was traditionally regarded as an objective and ideologically neutral process, authors examining language policy currently draw attention to the fact that the agents who carry out language planning are an important factor in language policy. A considerable number of authors question the traditional role of language planners and argue that society should also be involved in implementing language policy—that is, the people to whom language-policy decisions apply (Kaplan 1997).

In analyzing internet comments, all agents whose decisions and actions are written about in the comments were assigned to the category of language-policy agents. The analysis considered not only which agents were mentioned, but also how they were evaluated. The comments show that people perceive those engaged in language regulation as a unified group: comments most often refer abstractly to linguists (using various terms—see below), and less often identify specific institutions or surnames. Among institutions, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language is mentioned very often, as are the commission’s chair and other staff; the Institute of the Lithuanian Language is mentioned only a couple of times.

A fairly critical attitude toward those who carry out language regulation emerges from the many internet comments examined. Commenters object to the fact that terminology for specialized fields is being created without consulting specialists in the relevant fields (thus criticizing the exclusion of necessary groups from language-policy agents), and that linguists generally “appropriate” the language, creating words and making decisions at their own discretion:

250

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

It would truly be immensely gratifying if the dear creators of neologisms would consult specialists in the relevant fields at least a little. Reading, for example, the dictionary proposed for the IT field makes you want to burst out laughing.

The language needs to be protected from some linguists who think that the language is their property and that they can do whatever they want with it.

Language users writing comments criticize not only the institutions implementing language policy, but also their characteristics and the image of linguists in general, which emerges as rather negative from the comments analyzed. This is an important consideration when discussing the implementation of language policy, since the image of policy agents can influence people’s attitudes and willingness to accept or reject their proposals. For example, comments evaluate linguists’ professional competence:

As with teachers and doctors, the ranks of theoreticians among scholars of all disciplines are also dwindling. What do we expect? In the past, becoming a linguist was an honor; you had to get through the toughest admissions competitions. And now? There are no more distinctive personalities; craftsmen are taking charge—and these are the results. As everywhere, we need a creative and tolerant approach, not blind application of the rules. I see no way out.

The following terse quotation also illustrates the negative image of linguists:

The worst thing is when they pretend to be patriots (those guardians of the language whose names end in -aitė, constantly wagging a spinsterish little finger), while in reality they are too lazy to work and create a complete mess...

The attitude toward linguists is summed up by the words used to describe them: “kalbinykai,” “kalbišiai,” “language manglers.” Similar labels appear in R. Miliūnaitė’s analysis of comments: “kalbainiai,” “kalbiai,” “guardians of the language,” and others (Miliūnaitė 2006: 52).

Objects of language policy

The category of language policy objects indicates what linguistic behavior is intended to be changed through language planning measures, for what purpose this should be done, and what level of adoption (acquisition) of that behavior is sought. This category includes generalizing statements that correspond to this definition of language planning objects, without delving into specific language policy decisions (e.g., the evaluation of neologisms and the like).

In the view of the commenters, efforts to regulate language are not always directed at the right objects. They complain that linguists interfere excessively

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

251

in areas where, in the commenters’ opinion, they should not interfere. But they also identify areas where the work of linguists is lacking.

More than one commenter objects to the fact that, in their opinion, linguists seek to regulate spoken language. The comment, for example, points not only to the difference between spoken and written language but also to what the author describes as the highest level of language acquisition, which is unattainable for ordinary people:

I would say that a purified language is worthless, because everyone adorns it with their filler words, expressions, and neologisms (as a child, I used to call a big buzzing fly a KIRMĖLŠĖJA:). Besides, each of our ways of speaking is also influenced by the dialectal aspect... My opinion is this: there should be SPOKEN or SLANG language and WRITTEN or OFFICIAL language. Because perhaps only 5 people in Lithuania (Smalinskas, Pupkis, Malakauskas) can speak perfectly. Everyone else is like the majority...

Commenters value linguistic freedom and each person’s distinctive way of speaking, while overly correct language, in their opinion, sounds unnatural. Admittedly, even among the commenters themselves there are some who disagree with this view:

And God forbid having to listen to a linguist speaking in an exceedingly correct way. Super-correctness is simply unpleasant, because language loses its freedom and sonority, and just sounds affected.

Yes, when your ear gets used to Mikutavičius’s “leibelai” [leiblai], to the blondes’ conversations on Dviračio žinios, and to Surskis and Mauzeris’s sonorous speech, it is simply terribly difficult to listen to normal Lithuanian conversation. [...] I also think that something is wrong in Lithuania if even female Lithuanian language specialists find correct speech grating, affected, and barely comprehensible.

Commenters find attempts to Lithuanianize the names of things that are well known around the world strange and unnecessary:

By the way, I remember an occasion when I was working in a restaurant and the Language Commission inspected the menu. We received its findings—of course, spaghetti and carpaccio had to go, but the best part was that we were supposed to write “Finnish” vodka instead of vodka “Finlandia.” The director lost his nerve and called the Language Commission: “If you’re translating a proper name, at least translate it accurately—vodka ‘Suomija’ [Finland]:)” By the way, we also paid a fine then, because we didn’t correct all the “errors” listed on the menu:)

On the other hand, the commenters feel that public signs should be regulated more strictly (the comments do not distinguish between public signs and name-

252

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

(names), criticism is directed at the failure to resolve the problem of writing names in Polish (in the Vilnius district).

And what experts everyone is in Lithuanian terminology—from professors to cleaners—even though, for some reason, such “Lithuanian” names as “Crowne plaza” and others have been officially approved, which a true Lithuanian can barely pronounce without tying their tongue in knots.

It is very sad that the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language can do no more than state the facts. But where are the fruits of its work? [...] It just “rakes” taxpayers’ money into its own pockets—the results of its work are absolutely nowhere to be seen; it cannot even demand Lithuanian-language signs in the Vilnius district.

Target group of language policy

According to R. L. Cooper, the goals and measures of language policy may be applied to particular, narrower groups in society. The comments examined contained few opinions that could be assigned to this aspect of language policy. National minorities were mentioned as a direct target group of language policy that could be given greater attention:

Put more pressure on the Russkies and Poles who study Lithuanian in their own schools, because they are the ones prone to case-agreement errors;) just like “boyyna” or “girlyna”:)

Young people were often mentioned in the comments as the social group with the poorest command of language. In one of the articles analyzed, young people are accused of ruining the Lithuanian language in a reader’s opinion piece in the delfi.lt “Vox Populi” section (“The Lithuanian Language Is Dying”). The comments both agree and disagree with this opinion:

In my opinion, Lithuanian is most corrupted by Slavicisms and the jargon of the criminal underworld. This vice is especially widespread among young people.

To be honest, adults very often speak much less correctly than young people. Most young people study language culture at school, and something still sticks in their minds. Educated young people speak more correctly than adults, for example politicians, who use constructions, expressions, and prefixes borrowed incorrectly from Russian.

Other groups whose language commenters draw attention to are representatives of professions that are visible and audible in public—journalists and politicians:

But we shouldn’t blame young people alone. Let’s look at how journalists write and politicians speak. There are loads of anglicisms, barbarisms, and all sorts of hybrid words.

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

253

By the way, do you watch the news? Have you heard how our men in government speak? Sometimes, when I get tired of listening to nothing but talk about Uspaskich having returned, I start counting the language mistakes our politicians make as soon as they open their mouths:)

However, such comments do not suggest that any specific measures should be taken for these groups in society; rather, they present this as an assessment of the state of the language or as an eternal problem of generational differences, and therefore it falls under assessments of other language-policy elements (see the sections “The Language-Policy Environment” and “Other Aspects of Assessing Language Issues”).

The Goals of Language Policy

Among the comments that directly or indirectly assess the goals of language policy were some that supported language cultivation—that the language must be cared for so that it survives:

But they [linguists] need to do their work, otherwise our language will drown in “lifts, printers, mines, offices, scanners, etc.”

The situation is not so simple. If you believe in such freedoms, then perhaps business should be given complete freedom? (That is, no antitrust laws, etc.). And everything will sort itself out? We need to look deeper... Bear in mind that most people are “mediocre” and do not care at all about the future of the language. If such people were in charge, Lithuanian would by now have changed beyond recognition. 70% of its vocabulary would be Slavic/English. The sentence structure would be Russian. Such a language would not deserve respect. Listen to Russian/Polish. Sometimes it is amusing how ordinary words in those languages are replaced with foreign words. So let us respect and love our language = and care for its purity.

Nevertheless, negative opinions predominated in comments assessing policy goals. As R. L. Cooper points out, language policy can also serve hidden (language-unrelated) goals—such goals are discernible in the comments analyzed here as well. In them, the work of linguists is portrayed as pointless, done “for lack of anything better to do,” and necessary only so that they can appear to be working:

[...] How do such distortions come about? Does someone defend a dissertation?

[...] but those people who coin neologisms (vaizduoklis, didžkukulis, etc., and so on) really have nothing to do, while it is essential to submit reports on work completed! So they work with their mouths hanging open. Perhaps over a cup of coffee and a slice of cake...

254

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

Language-related goals are also viewed negatively. Some people dislike the aim of preserving language as an archaic value and adhering to unchanging rules. Instead, they suggest paying more attention to language’s communicative function, which can be fulfilled only by a living language that everyone understands:

Language is alive—stop preserving it like some archaic value. If a new word is born somewhere in the world, such as, for example, blog, why shouldn’t we adopt it into Lithuanian? The world is becoming more globalized, and cultures are coming together. Becoming more integrated certainly won’t make us any less Lithuanian.

Technical Lithuanian has been impoverished as much as possible—many terms have no synonyms to be found anywhere, and the terms themselves are replaced with “better” ones every few years, just to make them sound “more Lithuanian.” Never mind that they fail to perform their primary function—to be informative and make communication between people easier.

“Smetonienė emphasized the need to strengthen the image of the Lithuanian language and of its necessity”... I think the need for a language increases when it is convenient to use and understood by most people, rather than through linguists’ endless talk and the creation of such absurd words that they already require a “Lithuanian-to-Lithuanian” translation. That is why the need for Lithuanian is diminishing, especially in technical language.

Conditions for language policy

Although R. L. Cooper lists many possible conditions for language policy, the comments examined mainly discuss environmental (external influence) factors—the threats facing the Lithuanian language. There is active discussion of the situation of Lithuanian, the influence of Russian and English, as well as other factors in the language environment: the language of the media, information and communication technologies, and so on. Although most of these comments do not directly mention language policy or its measures, such statements nevertheless suggest support for language planning.

The influence of Russian and English on Lithuanian is discussed particularly extensively (the large number of comments was primarily due to a couple of articles on this topic that were selected for analysis; however, this issue is also discussed in comments on other articles). To sum up, the comments expressed a range of opinions, with particular concern about the serious threat posed by Russian and English. This can be illustrated by statements such as:

The worst thing is that Russian slang is taking hold among young people who do not know Russian and therefore do not even realize that it is Russian. Lievas, krūtas, tusovkė, atka-tas, not to mention the huge number of swear words, have become established precisely among

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

255

During the years of independence. Twenty years ago, when I was a student, few of my friends swore in Russian; now few can speak a sentence without filling it with swear words.

We were Russified for centuries and kept our language. We have been Anglicizing for just twenty years, and the results are spilling over the edges—listen to television programs for young people, look at the signs in cities. The Russian language was forced on us, while we ourselves eagerly grab at English. So which poses the greater threat?!

Just look at how little kids talk: it’s full of all kinds of English words, which are terribly fashionable now, so when they grow up our language will be a real hodgepodge of Russian, English, and Lithuanian.

On the other hand, the influence of these languages is assessed differently, primarily because of their differing status, since English is considered more necessary or almost indispensable (because it is the language of global science and business):

It’s simply that the influence of English is new, so it is noticeable and grates on people, whereas Russian calques (alongside untranslated swear words) have been circulating through the Lithuanian language without resistance for decades, and even longer.

We need as many signs and advertisements in English as possible, to strengthen English teaching in government[al] and private companies, and to show films on TV in the original language with Lithuanian subtitles—then we’ll be Europeans, not Asians.

In this context, some commenters negatively assess linguists’ excessive fear of other languages. They especially criticize the fear of Russian, which even leads to giving up certain words simply because similar ones are also used in Russian:

Every nation likes to insert foreign words. It makes the expression more piquant, that’s all.

I completely agree with [the opinion expressed earlier] about replacing the term s e k a n t i s (next, sledujuscij, folgende) with k i t a s. The next thing is not necessarily the following one. If Russian says sledujuscij, then we’ll say it differently, even if incorrectly.

The comments identify numerous other threats to the purity of the Lithuanian language: the media (the “celebrities” who speak on it, both of Lithuanian and especially non-Lithuanian origin, politicians, officials and other public figures, even journalists); more than one comment criticizes the decision to subtitle films shown only in Russian, as well as modern information and communication technologies and the poorer language skills of national minorities. Most of these comments do not link threats to the language with language policy, but some rhetorically appeal to language oversight institutions and lament their lack of accountability:

256

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

The media do the greatest damage to the language—the gutter press, dung-beetle-like TV stars, the non-elite elite, politicians who have crawled out of the bushes, barely literate officials, and even ministers who cannot correctly put together not only a simple sentence but also stress a word or name they have heard thousands of times.

Why be surprised, when all sorts of Armenians like Maratas and Black girls like Bernyn, who cannot speak Lithuanian, work as television presenters on our TV channels...

There is total Russification through TV, DVD, and other means—surely Smetonienė cannot see that.

And what about the spread of the Polish language and the spelling of Polish surnames, followed by the legitimization of a second official language—Polish?

When you ask about film translations, where personal pronouns are chronically and maliciously omitted—as if it were obvious who did what—you feel sick. The sentences are chopped up; the language is like an armful of brushwood. Soon we’ll all be talking like SMS messages.

There are also comments that acknowledge that the language really is deteriorating, and therefore justify the work of language regulation:

Many opponents of Lithuanian studies and linguists base their arguments on some kind of “feel for their own language,” but that feeling is no longer there.

Language policy measures

This element of language policy indicates the means by which language-policy objectives are pursued, for example: legal measures, coercion, incentives, and persuasion. In the comments examined, this aspect is assessed mostly negatively: linguists are criticized primarily for going too far in demanding correct language use and regulating language itself:

Teaching the language is a sacred matter, but within the bounds of COMMON SENSE! Because everyone knows perfectly well—TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS BAD! And this psychosis over nurturing, purifying, or whatever you want to call it, the Lithuanian language really does resemble a pathology.

It’s going too far if it turns out that 80% of the population “doesn’t know” their native language—then something is wrong here. Maybe the rules are too strict? Maybe the demands are too great? After all, one way or another, people manage to talk to one another and write to one another in that language, understand each other, and read newspapers. And they do all this while “not knowing” the language?

The measures considered not very effective by commentators, such as language dictation, as well as unattractive language-teaching methods in general, also came in for criticism:

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

257

Soon we won’t know how to write or speak at all. Today, only linguists know how to speak beautifully. Aren’t we paying too much attention to all kinds of dictations and so on? Ordinary people live their lives and speak their own language.

First of all, children are alienated from the Lithuanian language by very outdated Lithuanian language and literature curricula. From the first grade, children are fed all kinds of archaisms that mean nothing to them. Supposedly, out of respect for their mother tongue, children must know them. But to a child, this seems like pointless mental drudgery, and they lose the motivation to learn. [...] It is then only natural that, when they pick up colorful, modern English-language textbooks, they gravitate toward that language and literature.

Making language policy decisions

At this stage of language policy, the focus is on analyzing how language-policy decisions are made—for example, whether the views of those affected by the decisions are taken into account (Kaplan 1997), whether decision-making is based on all the necessary information, and whether all possible alternatives are considered, among other things (Cooper 1989). Similar issues are raised in comments about the work of Lithuanian linguists: the most common criticism is that language rules and words are proposed without taking actual usage into account:

I agree: language specialists create language for themselves, not for everyone.

Lithuanian language specialists create a language that is not used in real life.

Neither lexical nor grammatical features are usually imposed from above. They are incorporated into language norms when they emerge and are used within the language itself. Unfortunately, things are different in Lithuania.

The commenters also complain that linguists change their decisions too often and that the requirements set by individual specialists do not agree:

And if you want fewer people speaking incorrectly, then finally make up your minds ONCE AND FOR ALL about what the rules should be, and don’t change them for 50 years. You’ll see—the results will come. And it will be easier for taxpayers, since there will be fewer positions.

Linguists are going crazy with their neologisms... And anyway, they’re trying to teach us some kind of synthetic language. The absurdity is so extreme it makes you want to spit... Sometimes you have to write something very urgently, but you’re forced to waste time waiting until some [Lithuanian language specialist] decides whether one way or the other is correct. By the way, a day or so later another [Lithuanian language specialist] will start tearing into you for mangling the language, because it can’t be that way... Maybe linguists should first find common ground among themselves, and then explain things to others... I’m so angry I could burst.

258

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

Results of language policy

When analyzing the results of language policy, the central question is whether the language policy being implemented achieves the desired results. This aspect is a frequent topic in comments, with many positive as well as negative assessments.

In comments that assess the results of linguists’ work positively, their authors acknowledge that language use improved after independence was restored. They are pleased that linguists have proposed good neologisms that have caught on:

Be that as it may, [...], it must nevertheless be acknowledged that over the past eighteen years the use of the Lithuanian language has improved. It has improved everywhere—in the street, on public signs, in the press, and on television.

There are examples of good neologisms, in my opinion. For example, degalinė (“gas station”) caught on really quickly and effortlessly.

Critical comments claim that linguists, through their efforts, have not improved but impoverished the language, or even created a language detached from reality that is impossible to speak. This also includes the numerous remarks about unsuccessful neologisms coined by linguists that have failed to catch on:

It is essential to understand that life is much more complex than the rules of “standardization” devised for dissertations, and that authentic Lithuanian is much richer than the semi-language imposed on us.

Unfortunately, neologisms seem like nothing more than elementary showing off, because of which it is becoming impossible for ordinary people to master correct Lithuanian.

A common view is that, because of the excessive number and complexity of the rules, people think they no longer know their mother tongue and feel uncomfortable speaking in public:

[Linguists], with their zealous “efforts,” instill fear and insecurity in people—that at any moment they might misplace an accent, after which they will even fine some program host, and then everyone will truly be burning with love for their mother tongue and the language inspectorate. Well, maybe they mean well, but the result is the opposite.

We are probably the only nation in the world whose language even its own speakers cannot speak correctly. So who is to blame here—the linguists who keep refining the rules of our language, or all the incompetent compatriots who cannot keep up with those refinements?

“Because of its complexity, language is a more difficult science than mathematics.” — Well, that’s really bad! Why turn speaking into a science!? What, if you don’t, people won’t be able to understand one another? It’s awful if a language that a child acquires with its mother’s milk is more complex than Riemann integrals and Fourier transforms.

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

259

Lithuanian language authorities have devised spelling rules such that barely a few LITHUANIANS can write the national dictation without mistakes, while programmers are unable to develop an algorithm for the rules and finally create a spell-checking program.

It is often claimed that linguists’ efforts foster negative attitudes toward language corrections and proofreaders, or even encourage people to switch to some other, simpler language.

The Lithuanian language is very interesting and beautiful—let’s make the most of that, rather than forcing the language where it has never belonged. [...] And whatever is foisted on people by force always provokes the opposite response.

I can’t remember anything worse from my school days than Lithuanian lessons... The “cultivation” of the Lithuanian language instilled such hatred of the whole business that, to this day, I can’t forget those hysterical language teachers, who generally had little truck with reason and logic. But when it came to nitpicking over every comma or some accent mark—which changes more often than fashion in France—they were professionals at their job. The same goes for all these “guardians” of the language. After their “work,” one feels not love but hatred for one’s native language. Or perhaps that is their aim?

You should love your native language, but if “linguists” put you off it, then who is to blame?

To tell the truth, I’d find it even more convenient if Lithuanian remained only a spoken language: it’s much more convenient not to translate specialized terms into Lithuanian, but to take them from English [...] Let those linguists read a Lithuanian macroeconomics textbook, and then talk about which language is more convenient for studying...

On the other hand, among the comments there are quite a few neutral ones, which try to justify both opposing sides and sum up the situation:

People simply get very angry when someone interferes in their lives; that’s quite natural. By the way, when Jablonskis came up with the word degtukas (“match”) (and many others), they probably sounded strange at the time, too. And today? An ordinary word. The same will happen with other words coined today. Well, I think so, anyway.

The dilemma is this: the systematicity of language VS the natural development of language. Users have to support naturalness, while theoreticians have to support systematicity.

It is interesting that everyone is surprised by language errors, yet forgets that we all learned language and writing at school. There, we were given grades. Some got better ones, some worse ones, but after finishing school everyone is expected not to make mistakes. IMPOSSIBLE!!! If someone’s knowledge of Lithuanian at school was judged barely satisfactory because of their mistakes, it is naïve to expect that, when writing outside a school notebook, that person will suddenly and miraculously stop making mistakes.

260

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

Other aspects of evaluation

The internet comments examined included opinions that cannot be assigned to any of the elements of language policy, because in them language is evaluated not as an object of language policy. They suggest that language quality depends on other factors that are not regulated by language-policy measures. Based on the previously mentioned concept of framing, it can be argued that language is generally understood not as an object of policy. For example, in such comments language quality is regarded as a sign of an individual’s personal culture and even as a reflection of the condition of society as a whole:

Correct language is first and foremost an indicator of intellectual potential. For understandable reasons, this is simply beyond the capabilities of most “turnips.” Our company’s management understood this a long time ago. So, when taking on a new employee, they first give them a half-page dictation from a Soviet dictation collection for seventh grade. After that, it immediately becomes clear who is worth talking to further. So far, we haven’t had a miss.

The situation is such that a large proportion of Lithuanians now know only how to drink, steal, fight, and do hard labor (when there is nothing to steal, but they want a drink). The Lithuanian language will no longer help here, and the situation is hopeless. Smetonienė is simply wasting money.

Language quality is also evaluated as a sign of generational difference:

Even today, old-generation journalists like Mr. Vaitiekūnas host interesting programs in correct Lithuanian. He, of course, writes and expresses his thoughts beautifully too—without mistakes!!! But listening to young people is awful; nobody cares about stress or spelling. We went beyond the pale in our pursuit of writing.

A storm in a teacup. When I myself was a teenager, I used Anglicisms intensively because they seemed stylish and cool, and showed your “level” (in part, that was true—back then far fewer people knew English). A few more years passed, I got into my mid-twenties—and my attitude changed. And everything fell into place. The same happened with my friends. Even in the computer field we work in, we started using the little bird and the ogonek diacritic. I think the same will happen to others who have at least a little more sense, too. In short, everything will be fine; there’s no need to make a fuss over advertising.

Finally, language is understood as an expression of identity and an object of national pride, so respect for it is elevated as a value in itself, on which language quality depends more than on any other factors:

The problem is not the English or Russian language, but the greatest problem is failing to respect one’s own language and getting lost in a jungle of foreign words. We must cherish, protect, and defend the Lithuanian language by every possible means, and not lurch from one extreme to another.

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

261

I read the comments and saw that they were all written in unaccented Lithuanian, mangling some Lithuanian words. You’d be better off not commenting. And configure your computer programs so that they can type in Lithuanian. If you can’t manage that, then don’t talk about the Lithuanian language, which you have no respect for at all. A person who respects the language would not mangle it by writing in unaccented Lithuanian.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of online comments revealed a diversity of views on Lithuanian language-policy issues across the elements of language policy: actors, object, measures, and so on. As the analysis shows, each aspect of language policy may be evaluated positively, negatively, or neutrally, although evaluations in one direction—namely, negative ones—predominate. Nevertheless, some discussion is evident in the comments, with differing opinions expressed; negative views therefore cannot be explained solely by the generally negative nature of online comments.

The most positive evaluations concerned the state of language policy. This aspect includes statements about threats to the Lithuanian language that are causing its condition to deteriorate, and, consequently, about the need for the work of linguists. The comments identify target groups whose language is the poorest: young people, journalists, and politicians. Positive aspects are also associated with some other elements of language policy—its goals (support for the need to purify the language) and outcomes (the language improved after independence was restored).

Other elements of language policy are evaluated mostly negatively: actors (linguists claim ownership of the language and do not consult specialists); objects (spoken language is regulated, while foreign names in public settings and the spelling of personal names of foreign origin are not Lithuanianized); goals (corrections are offered because linguists need to justify their work; rules are created for their own sake rather than to make communication simpler); measures (outdated); decision-making methods (usage is disregarded, rules are changed too frequently, and there is no agreement among the parties); outcomes (people are made to feel that they do not know their native language, they are afraid to speak in public, and they lose the desire to correct their own language). Statements were also found that do not fit the framework for presenting language policy—for example, when language is understood not as an object of policy but as a sign of an individual’s culture, a matter of generational difference, or an object of national pride.

Frameworks for presenting views on language policy may be just as significant as in other policy areas. If a discussion highlights some aspects while dismissing others, it gives preference to certain policy

262

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

decisions and reduces the possibility of dialogue. For example, if someone believes that linguists work unprofessionally, they will find it difficult to accept the decisions linguists propose. If threats to the language are emphasized, there will be a tendency to protect it by any means. If someone holds the view that language is a sign of being cultured, they see no point in discussing language-policy measures, let alone more attractive ones designed to encourage language users. If the issue is framed as a problem between generations, attention is likewise diverted from language-policy measures, and so on.

The important point is that negative evaluations of language policy cannot simply be dismissed by claiming that people do not understand language policy. It is proposed that this lack of understanding should also be seen as indicating certain gaps in communication, which may be treated as a subject for further work by linguists. This, in particular, points to a clearer path toward dialogue between the public and linguists.

Similar statements appear in the articles of other language researchers: linguists lack an understanding of the psychology of language users (Piročkinas 2004: 6); “the public is asked for more than the knowledge it is given” (Grumadienė 2002: 9); “the public dislikes incessant, insistent sermons, so the result is not always what is expected” (Grumadienė 2003: 11). The analysis of the comments shows that one reason for the lack of communication may also be that people are talking about different things—for example, when some want to discuss language-policy measures and decision-making methods, while others refuse to do so, claiming that the former simply know nothing about language.

The analytical principles chosen in this article can be applied to a broader analysis of discourse (not only comments), including discussion taking place in the media itself. The research data could also be useful in drawing up a questionnaire for a public-opinion survey on language policy, since statements selected to correspond to language-policy elements may help describe the research objectives and formulate response options.

ŠALTINIAI

Jackevičius M. 2008 05 07: I. Smetonienė: rusifikaciją keičia anglų kalba. Interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=16933192

Jackevičius M. 2008 06 30: G. Subačius: rusų kalbos įtaka lietuvių kalbai didesnė nei anglų. Interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=17570907

Jankauskaitė D. 2008 05 07: Kalbos klaidos pakerta kojas (perspausdinta iš laikraščio Klaipėda). Interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=16927453

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

263

Lituanistės teorinės pamąstymai, arba requiem kalbos darkytojams (Vox Populi). 2008 04 02. Interneto prieiga: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=16539144

Rotautaitė I. 2007 10 09: Lietuvių 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, New York: 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

264

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

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 LT-10308

[email protected]

L. NEVINSKAITĖ. Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose

265