Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

R. Miliūnaitė. The prestige of language and its planning 231 Language iR UniverseArt RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lithuanian Language Institute Language Prestige and His Plan In the multinational and multilingual context of globalisation, it is becoming increasingly clear that the processes of interaction between languages must not be left to their natural course, but regulated by a variety of deliberate language policy measures. The national and linguistic conflicts that have flared up in various countries in recent years – in Hungary over the Serbs, in Belgium over the Flemish and Walloon, and in Lithuania – over the interests of the Polish national minority to write names in non-Lithuanian characters in personal documents, to introduce Lithuanian and Polish bilingualism in public records in South-East Lithuania, etc. – only confirm the necessity of such regulation. Therefore, one of the branches of sociolinguistics – language planning (which forms the basis for implementing language policy) and especially its branch relating to the status of languages – is given a lot of attention in the world and there is talk of a revival of language planning in general (Ferguson 2006: 4–5)1. 1 This is evidenced by the topics of the articles published in the scientific journals dedicated to language planning and language policy that have emerged in the last decade – Current Issues in Language Planning (since 2000), Language policy (since 2002), Language problems and language planning (founded in 1977 and revived after a break), etc., as well as by the numerous monographs and thematic collections of articles in which language policy and planning issues in various countries are examined in a broad social, ethnic, religious, political, cultural and economic context of language functioning. 232 Languages Culture | 83 The history of the development of the Lithuanian language in the last century shows that the functioning of its most important variants, i.e. the common language and dialects, in society, and in interwar Lithuania and the time of restored independence – the relationship of the state language with other languages, were also tried to be determined in one way or another. only the concept of language planning itself appeared in the works of world sociolinguists from the second half of the 20th century, and in Lithuania it has been mentioned more frequently in recent decades, with preference given to more specific concepts of language contacts, language (languages) policy, etc. For some time, some foreign sociolinguists have added another branch of language planning to the traditional ones – language prestige planning. true, there is still the opinion that the prestige of a language or variant is in principle only natural, so it can not be controlled in any way. However, it is increasingly recognised that language planning is not only a tool for governments to change the language situation and implement language policy. the attitudes of the language users must also change, so that they themselves would like to support one or another language or its variant, thus strengthening its prestige in society. The state or individual groups of society, having an interest in the support of a language or its variant, can also plan its prestige. The current socio-linguistic situation of Lithuanian language, as far as fragmentary studies allow, also requires not only a clearer definition of the concept of language prestige, but also the provision of ways and means of language prestige planning that would allow Lithuanian language, its common variant and dialects, not to lose its role in the life of society and the state, when the influence of English language is strengthening under the conditions of globalization. It is precisely from the linguistic self-awareness of the society, from which language and which means of expression will be given preference in public and private usage, that it will increasingly depend on how much and how the Lithuanian language will survive in general. understanding that the scope of the article does not allow to cover many issues belonging to the field of language planning, it is focused more on one aspect related to the strengthening of the common language and its norms. 1) to show how language prestige planning is viewed in the works of foreign sociolinguists; 2) to reveal the importance of language prestige planning, to describe its most important tasks in the current Lithuanian language community (which concentrates not only in Lithuania, but also in emigration) and to justify the necessity of this activity. R. Miliūnaitė. The prestige of language and its planning 233 2. Language PlanAviMo sVoKos Raida It is accepted to call language planning both the practical activity, which consciously aims to change the use of language and its internal characteristics, and the theoretical discipline, whose object is that practical activity (Ferguson 2006: 1). Without examining the entire history of the emergence of language planning as a direction of sociolinguistics2, this time it is important only to show why and how a separate branch of it – language prestige planning – emerged. Although the history of the world is full of problems of regulating the relations between nations and their languages, language planning as a way of solving them was first discussed in the second half of the 20th century. Language planning as a branch of sociolinguistics emerged from the practical need to solve language problems that arose in the post-World War II era of nation-states (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113). The problem of language planning began to develop rapidly and became the subject of sociolinguistics in the 1960s, especially when many nations in Africa and Asia that had won independence had to decide on a national language (Mesthrie, Swann et al. 2000: 384; Ricento 2000: 196– 213; Ferguson 2006: 1–2). Later, the problem of language contacts became more prominent, and since the last decade of the 20th century, aspects of human rights related to the use of languages have become relevant. In different historical periods, the language planning tasks posed by governments or social organizations in different countries are different, determined by the language ideology3 chosen by those countries, the socio-linguistic situation, as well as the political, cultural experience and traditions, but it is recognized that the goal is similar. The planned measures are aimed at ensuring that the language or its variants meet the linguistic needs of a particular society as well as possible, which, by the way, have recently been often understood in the world only as communicative, forgetting the other functions of language4. 2 on the three historically developed stages of language planning, linked to macro-socio-political and other factors, see Ricento 2000: 196–213. 3 Four types of linguistic ideology are generally distinguished: linguistic assimilation (the assumption that a member of a society must know the dominant language of that society, even if it is not his or her native language; this is usually the basis of language policies applied to immigrants), multilingualism (the support of many languages in the same society), vernacularization (the restoration of a local language and its transformation into the official language of the state) and internationalization (the choice of a non-local language as the official language for the general affairs of that society or as a separate area of communication) (Cobarrubias 1983). 4 In other words, a pragmatic rather than an ideological language policy or a combination of both is often preferred: the former sees language only as a tool of communication, the latter as a symbol of values external to language (see bakmand 2000). 234 Languages Culture | 83 The concept of language planning appeared in the works of world sociolinguists at the very end of the 1950s. It was first used by the Norwegian-born American linguist Einar Haugen. Based on a study of Norwegian efforts to modernize, promote and develop the national language, he gave a definition of the term, and later further refined it. at that time language planning was only related to internal aspects of the language (standardization): normative grammar and vocabulary were prepared, spelling was arranged so that writers and speakers in a heterogeneous linguistic community could refer to them (daoust 1997: 438; bakmand 2000). At the end of the 1960s, e. Haugen described language planning as an assessment of language changes: “The essence of KP (i.e. language planning – R.M.) is to decide on one form of language”, but he also raised another aspect: it is also “an attempt to influence choice” (Haugenas 1994 [1966]: 15). Therefore, language planning is understood as language standardization and development, i.e. a conscious effort “from above”, according to the intended goals, to change both language development and linguistic behaviour of the linguistic community. The Haugen language planning model consists of four components (the names and order of these components differed in different versions of the model published at different times). According to the 1983 version of this model, these are: 1) selection of norms, 2) codification of norms, 3) implementation of functions, 4) improvement or expansion of functions (Haugen 1983: 270–275). As e. Haugen points out, the first and third aspects (or stages of language planning) are social, external to the language, and the second and kettaan virtas are linguistic, internal to the language. Based on the distinction drawn by the German linguist Heinz Kloss (Kloss 1969) between language structure planning5 and language status planning, e. Haugen, in an improved model in 1983, identified the social aspects of the model – the selection of norms and the implementation of functions – as corresponding to status planning, and language codification and function development as corresponding to language structure planning. Furthermore, e. Haugen emphasized the important idea that the four steps of the model, although showing a certain logical sequence, are not necessarily sequenced in time: they can be simultaneous or cyclical (Haugen 1983: 270). Planning of language status is the object of normative (prescriptive) regulation in Lithuanian linguistic literature, when it is aimed at changing the language structure (the development of language forms) – some authors call it a borrowed corpus; others avoid it with this unusual meaning and use it differently. For example, in the documents of the State Lithuanian Language Commission (see Guidelines 2003, Guidelines 2008) the term is used in this sense as planning of the language system and usage. This article proposes the term language structure planning. R. Miliūnaitė. The language's prestige and its planning 235 vimas. Which language or variant can be promoted or reduced by language status planning measures. Language structure planning aims to change the internal features of a language to make it more vibrant. It includes graphization (selection and improvement of the system of writing signs), standardization (codification of the norms of one chosen variant and its improvement) and modernization (development of language resources, especially lexicon, including terminology, according to the newly emerging needs of society). The results of this activity are normative dictionaries, grammar, sets of rules, publications of language usage recommendations and various normative lists. Although e. Haugen’s language planning model, especially its first version, is often criticised6, it is also recognized as a good starting point for describing any language planning process, because it shows its ideal development, which can differ from the real situation at various levels (Groof 2002: 117–121). In fact, e. Haugen’s language planning model is often viewed as the stages of the development of a bend rine language – from the choice of one dialect on the basis of a common language to the establishment of that common language in society (cf. subačiai 2002: 132–133; 2004: 105–113). So this model was improved and applied to describe the history of various general languages as a standard creation (being), varying the order of the four elements specified by e. Haugen, but this, according to Giedrius subačius, shows not so much the shortcomings of this theory as its flexibility. Therefore, the second important step in the development of the concept of language planning is the dual language planning model developed by H. Kloss and adopted by e. Haugen: it was believed that the most important problems of language support in society could be solved by applying scientific methods and by language planners precisely planning the processes of language development and their interaction (Groof 2002: 118–119; baldauf 2004: 376–388; Zhao, liu 2007: 113). This model of language planning prevailed almost until the end of the 20th century. The concept of language planning has continued to change over time. The third stage of development can be identified when the American linguist Robert L. Cooper began to talk about language teaching planning (Cooper 1989). This is a type of language planning, where the main goal is to influence the literacy of the society, the spread of the language and its norms, and at the same time – the status of the language through public education and the education system. 6 For example, Moshe’eh Nahir criticized e. Haugen’s model, saying that it is only four theoretical starting points, since nothing is said about the motives and ultimate goals of the language planners (nahir 2006 [1984]: 423–448). e. Haugen, by the way, acknowledged this criticism. 236 Language Culture | 83 It is understood that all three elements of language planning are related and depend on each other. For example, if the status of a language is changed, for example, if new functions are assigned to the language, the structure of the language must usually also change (new styles are developed, new lexical units must be established) (Mesthrie, swann et al. 2000: 387; Milligan 2007: 195). Language planning theorists in the second half of the 20th century focused on the planning carried out by state authorities and their institutions, but paid little attention to the results of language planning itself and the behavior and psychological aspects of people adopting those results. Since the 1990s, when the political and social conditions in some Western European countries began to change dramatically in the context of macro-socio-political changes in the world, language planning has also been re-examined on the basis of the models developed by postmodern research (Ricento 2000: 196–213; Groof 2002: 118). the provision that language planning is only a matter for third countries, only a means of establishing and standardizing national languages, only a part of modernization and nation-building has been abandoned. Implementation of language planning has begun to be studied from the recipient perspective; the view has emerged that the old binary or triangular model is too narrow and that more emphasis should be placed on the recognition of language planning products and the attitude of adopters to them (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113). Perhaps the most important feature of this fourth stage of the development of the concept of language planning is the emphasis on the role of language prestige and the necessity of its planning. thus language planning acquires a fourth dimension – language prestige (the concept of language image is also used in this context). The Finnish-born German linguist Harald Haarmann was the first to conduct research into the role of the individual in both accepting and rejecting language planning products. in his theoretical work H. Haarmann argues that prestige planning must be an independent branch of language planning (Haarmann 1990: 103). According to this author, language structure and status planning is a productive activity, while prestige planning is an acceptance or value function that influences how productively planning actions are performed by planners and how they are accepted by people. In order for planning products to gain prestige, language planning activities must take place at four levels (individuals, public organizations, official institutions and government). In Haarmann’s model, for the first time, the “bottom-up” planning was officially recognized alongside the “top-down” language planning of the authorities and state institutions. is understood that the effectiveness of language planning is determined by the interaction of all factors (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113). R. Miliūnaitė. 237 Robert b. Kaplan and Richard b. baldauf (Kaplan, baldauf 1997), theoretically recognizing language planning not only as a practical activity, but also as an independent field of scientific research, further developed H. Haarmann’s construct, where, in addition to prestige, they inserted the aforementioned R. l. Cooper’s language-in-education planning as an independent element of the language-in-education planning activity model (or, in Cooper’s terms, acquisition planning). this contributed to the emergence of the theory of language prestige and image planning; it was developed in the scientific literature of language planning by the British Dennis Ager (more about this in the fourth section of this article). Thus, taking into account all four stages of the development of the concept of language planning, it can be said that at the theoretical level, language planning involves the setting of goals, tasks and strategies to change the way in which language is used. On a practical level, it is the choice and promotion of one language or variant, i.e. the conscious change of the conditions under which the language functions, and the regulation of the language’s resources itself, the change of its development. The essence of the four parts of language planning, according to R. baldaufu (2006), can be described as follows: • language status planning – changing language functions, • language structure planning – changing language form (features), • language teaching planning – changing language skills of the public, • language prestige planning – changing language image. Early language planning practitioners held the view that language could be planned through state policies, focusing mainly on language form and function development. The evolution of the concept of language planning, with language planning raising ever new goals and encompassing an ever broader subject, has naturally expanded from affecting language to affecting language users and encouraging them to act on language development, or, according to Denis Daoust, the subject of language planners has expanded from conflicting norms to conflicting language problems (daoust 1997: 438). An article written by Einar Haugen in the 1960s, as well as an article published by Donna Christian in 1990, were translated into Lithuanian and published in 1994 (see Haugenas 1994 [1966]: 14–28; Christian 1994 [1990]: 29–40]). However, as mentioned in the introductory part of the article, the concept of language planning has begun to spread in Lithuanian literature relatively recently (cf. Vaicekauskienė 2004, 2007; Pupkis 2005: 191–196)7, 7 about the attempt of Petros Jonikis in the book Lithuanian language and nation in the course of time. Social features of the history of Lithuanian language (Chicago, 1987) based on e. Haugen model see subačius 2004: 111–112. 238 Language Culture | 83 Although language planning is directly related to the standardization of the common Lithuanian language, language policy and the development of language culture and linguistic education of the public are raised and constantly discussed throughout the history of the development of the common Lithuanian language. During the last decade, several general goals of language planning have been raised in Lithuanian language research: “to identify at least the most important changes in language functioning circumstances and the direction of those changes”, “to clearly and strictly foresee the general subjects of language standardization and to plan the work of codification”, and to present the results of this work to the public through various forms of language education (Pupkis 2005: 193). At the same time, the importance of language planning is emphasized, with the understanding that if language planners “present ill-considered solutions, variability in usage will increase, and this will hinder the stability of language norms and reduce the functionality of the general language itself” (Pupkis 2005: 194). However, it must be admitted that the standardization of our language is still more focused on strictly traditional codification and the attempt to impose it on the usage, while real linguistic planning can only be expected in the future, with detailed studies of the current situation. After reviewing the development of the theoretical thought of language planning as a sociolinguistic direction, it is important to understand the idea of the pioneer of language planning Einar Haugen that language planning should be seen as an endless process, because every living language and its sociolinguistic situation are constantly changing, and language norming never really reaches an end8. The prestige of a language has been discussed by sociolinguists (and also in Lithuanian) for a long time before it was associated with language planning, and in recent times it has become an important subject of sociolinguistics. Prestige, as a characteristic of a language or its variant, distinguishes one language or its variant from the many spoken in the same linguistic community. 8 Another new stage in the development of language planning could be considered the beginning of the 21st century, when the increased language contacts under the conditions of globalization raise new problems of interaction between languages and revive theoretical discussions, especially related to the status of languages. Language management is discussed as a new subject of sociolinguistic theory and practice, which transcends the boundaries of language planning of a single linguistic community and a single state; The term language management itself has been used by sociolinguists since 1987 (see nekvapil 2006). R. Miliūnaitė. The prestige of language and its planning 239 3.1. Language prestige, prestigious language, prestigious means of expression One of the axioms of sociolinguistics is that spoken languages or their variants, without excluding common languages, are linguistically equivalent (equally suitable for communicative and expressive functions), only they may have different social status granted by society (Edwards 1996). The prestige of languages or their variants is determined by various factors. Heinz Klos mentions four of the most important: a rich written heritage, a high degree of modernization of the language, a strong international position or a high prestige of the speakers of that language (Kloss 1966: 143–144). it is understood that over time, as circumstances change, the level of prestige also changes. Most often, the prestigious language variant is defined by social and geographic parameters. It is usually associated with a social stratum that has the greatest political, economic and/or cultural power and thus prestige9 in a society, and that chooses one language or language variant from among the many that function within that linguistic community. Based on earlier sociolinguistic studies by William Mackey, Peter Trudgill, Howard Giles (the latter’s theory of linguistic adaptation) and others, John Edwards argues that the prestige of a language or variant is not created by linguistic or aesthetic features of that language or variant; it is determined by people's perception of social matters. the language or variant spoken by the socially dominant and powerful group in society will have greater prestige10. The prestige of a language is also related to its power: the more functions a language performs, the more prestigious it is. but not necessarily everyone's prestige is the same. For some, the same language can be powerful and prestigious, while for others it may not be. 9 Cf. prestige – authority, influence, respect, good name (Dictionary of International Words, Vilnius: alma littera, 2001). 10 The prestige and image of a language is determined by the socio-economic status of its users, which also influences people’s choice of language, since language is seen as conferring socio-economic status on its users (Zhao, Liu 2007: 114). An interesting sociolinguistic study conducted by researchers at a Singaporean university to investigate the status of Chinese in Singapore (Zhao, liu 2007: 113–126). In a multilingual and multicultural Singaporean society with an active bilingualism policy and a dominant role for English, Chinese (as well as the other two ethnic languages in Singapore, Malay and Tamil) has lost its prestige over time, according to a study of the correlation between the language used at home by children and the socio-economic status of their parents. English has exceeded the boundaries of language policy: it has become not only the basis for maintaining economic relations, but has also begun to push native languages out of cultural and domestic communication. Critics of the bilingualism policy conclude that in order for Chinese to be supported and used, it is necessary to raise the prestige of this language and create a positive image of it through language planning measures. 246 Language Culture | 83 working on the common language basis and language codification, as well as working with specialists from other fields on terminology and adapting it to the new needs of society. The role of writers is also highlighted among the language planning actors: they maintain the written tradition, strengthen the standardized language variant, and contribute to the development of the artistic style. In Lithuania, ethnologists are also not to be overlooked, as they can help to create a wider context of the language, its value and uniqueness. For the planning of language prestige in general, the most important is the joint activity of institutions and individuals from various fields and disciplines. This idea has naturally taken hold in Lithuania as well: it is understood that to maintain the prestige of the Lithuanian language in society, the interaction of the state and society is necessary (labutis 2006): the burden of organizational work should not be borne by the employees of educational and cultural centres, members of patriotic organizations and, of course, all those who associate themselves with the Lithuanian Language Society. Many heads of institutions and entrepreneurs who consider themselves Lithuanians could consider the material support of mother tongue events as a matter of prestige. The state cannot remain aside here either – after all, it is all related to the goals of adult education. […] The most beautiful idea can be ruined by not being able to find and involve professional, honest, responsible performers. and they are worth looking for not only among busy Lithuanian teachers and urban language managers, but also among dozens, perhaps hundreds, of good specialists in this field who have retired. It is strange that no one needs even the professional and life experience of many retired university professors or associate professors. 5. Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Language Prestige Plans in the Language Policy Guidelines Documents of a similar nature from the three countries allow us to compare the attitude of current language policymakers to language prestige and its planning, as well as to clarify from what elements the concept of language prestige is created and what measures are envisaged to strengthen it. Lithuania stops and broadens. Estonia The Estonian language policy planning document “The Strategy for the Development of the Estonian Language 2004-2010”, which was approved by the Government of the Republic of Estonia, mentions, among other goals and tasks, the creation of a public image of the Estonian language (dsel 2004: 29–30). indicates the need to raise the linguistic public R. Miliūnaitė. 247 to raise awareness, shape language attitudes, promote good use in society and create a positive image of the language. it is stated that until now in Estonia philologists, writers and mother tongue teachers take care of the image of the language out of reason, understanding their mission. no one considers it professionally and systematically. The aim is to create a system of image creation for the Estonian language and to develop research-based image creation activities. To achieve this goal, specific tasks have been envisaged: • launch the national programme “Estonian Identity 2005-2009”; • developing an identity concept, adapted to general education schools, and organizing courses for mother tongue teachers on linguistic image building; • highlight language issues and events in the media; • to develop and distribute textbooks and databases, television and video films, information material, etc. to the general public in order to promote the use of the Estonian language; • to organise events, as far as possible, to promote the image of the Estonian language in all areas of life; • create student language support groups; • support the functioning of the Estonian language on the Internet and raise its profile there. 5.2. Latvia In the document State Language Policy Guidelines 2005-2014 (GslP 2007: 28-30), approved by the Government of the Republic of Latvia in 2005, there is no separate mention of creating the image or prestige of the Latvian language, but from the stated language policy goals and measures it is clear that activities in this direction are also planned in Latvia: the aim is to support and develop the use of the Latvian language not only through official state actions, but also creatively – through original and high-quality translated literature, art (cinema, theatre), to introduce in society the notion that it is necessary to know and use the state language, to create a favourable environment for the development of the Latvian language, revealing its multifaceted creative potential, and to involve the media in the popularization of the language and its culture. 5.3. Lithuania The document of the State Lithuanian Language Commission “Strategic Action Plan for 2007-2009” recognizes that one of the threats to the functioning of the Lithuanian language is “the decline of the prestige of the Lithuanian language in some public 248 Language Culture | 83 Arts Groups". This provision was also reflected in the Strategic Operational Plan 2010-2012 adopted in 200916. Language prestige was mentioned in the guidelines of the State Language Policy 2003–2008 (Guidelines 2003), and more extensively in the new draft for 2009–2013 (Guidelines 2008). In the third part, “Overview of the situation”, the language status is described as follows: 21. in the face of current changes, not only its legal status, but also its prestige is of great importance for the survival of the Lithuanian language. A democratizing society can only preserve its language by consciously realizing its value and potential, by being more actively involved in language standardization and by contributing to its enrichment and development. In recent years, new ways have been found to interest the public in Lithuanian: a national dictation competition is being organized, online language competitions for schoolchildren are being organized, electronic language games are being created, a state program to promote reading has been launched. However, building the prestige of the Lithuanian language requires a more professional and systematic approach, based on studies of changes in linguistic behaviour and values in society. The prestige of the Lithuanian language is related to the context of the whole Lithuanian culture, therefore it is necessary to promote and support more actively the publishing of books in Lithuanian, the supply of libraries with books, including Lithuanian books, and the enrichment of Lithuanian content on the Internet. In the fifth part of the draft Guidelines, “Tasks of State Language Policy and Ways of Solving Them”, in addition to the language status, it is indicated how the current situation could be improved: 43. strengthen the prestige of the Lithuanian language: 43.1 Develop the concept of the connection of Lithuanian studies in the broad sense (not only Lithuanian language, but also Lithuanian literature, Lithuanian history) with Lithuanian identity and promote public discourse on this topic. 43.2 Develop a political and cultural dialogue between the media, the academic community and the general public on the perspectives of national languages in a globalizing world. 43.3 To support literary, theatrical, cinematographic and musical works that reveal the uniqueness and richness of the Lithuanian language and to promote their dissemination. 43.4. developing the linguistic awareness of the public. 43.5. To take care of the image of Lithuanian language in Lithuanian communities abroad. Therefore, in Lithuanian language policy, the prestige of the language is associated with the status of the Lithuanian language and is not yet extended to the level of independent language planning (policy), but in official documents it is given 16 Access to the Internet: <http://www.vlkk.lt/i/u/file/Metu_planas/2010_planas_patiksl.pdf> (accessed 2010 07 12). R. Miliūnaitė. Language prestige and its planning 249 considerable attention: the main goals, directions and means for achieving those goals are defined. Of the ways of strengthening the prestige of the Lithuanian language mentioned in the draft Guidelines, the provision to develop the linguistic awareness of the society is particularly important, because it is the internal motivation of the society to use the Lithuanian language, to give it preference over other languages and their manifestations, which is the basis for supporting the prestige of the language. therefore, according to bronius savkynas, it is necessary to “make the common language attractively necessary to the society” (discussion 2005). Linguistic awareness means first of all to understand the value of the Lithuanian language – symbolic and practical, and after realizing this, to support the vitality of the Lithuanian language both in Lithuania and abroad. However, this task is becoming difficult to achieve due to the recent shift in values of the society itself. Value-based linguistic orientation is inseparable from the entire changing field of values of society: the decline of patriotism, disappointment in the general idea of the nation and its future, the associated large emigration (taking into account the fact that Lithuanians are the fastest dying nation in Europe), changes in attitude to the family and other basic traditional values, as well as the levelling of nations and languages under the influence of globalization. Assessing these changes and anticipating the most important future goals and tasks for the nation and the state is a common task of many authorities. Psychotherapist Eugenijus Laurinaitis in an interview has said that for this most common cause the state should not be limited only to drafting laws and allocating funds to achieve the intended goals. Propaganda is also necessary (laurinaitis 2010): Propaganda would include long-term programs aimed at changing the values and attitudes of our society. If we want something to change in society, we have to plan adequate actions in advance. and adequate action must generally be focused on very long-term things, because values change very slowly. Propaganda (in its true and not distorted meaning)17 must also become part of the planning of language prestige – it must not be straightforward, banal and intrusive, but thoughtful, subtle and psychologically impactful. Otherwise, in the long run, the nihilistic ideas, especially among young people, that Lithuanian language is not worth learning and will disappear anyway, will take hold in society (cf. Kalėdienė 2009: 290). therefore not accidentally in the new Lithuanian language education in general education schools stra17 Plg.: propagánda [lat. propago – spread, distribute], philosophy, science, rel. and other theories, ideas to educate, influence people's views, moods, encourage certain actions (International Dictionary of Words, Vilnius: alma littera, 2001). 250 Language Culture | 83 the following provision is also included in the document: “To introduce in the public sphere the view that a correct and rich Lithuanian language is the basis of education for all strata of society and a mark of social prestige.” (Strategy 2010). Another important thing is that society must have something to focus on. The very concept of language prestige planning and the practice of language planning in foreign countries show that the spontaneously evolving prestige of a language or a variety is no longer left to its own course: it is included in the process of conscious regulation of language changes and development. Therefore, the creation and maintenance of a prestigious language benchmark requires considerable attention from language planners – it requires clearly formulated goals and practical activities. In fact, there are quite a few measures aimed at language education of the public and strengthening the prestige of the Lithuanian language in recent times: the national dictation, which is not lacking in popularity every year, articles and discussions on language issues in the internet media, one after another TVR programme or quiz, presentation of language publications at book fairs, competitions for pupils (for example, the competition “Clean head – clean language”, www.lituanika.lt, which has been running since 2008), campaigns (“I create language”, www.kalbakuriuaš.lt), the Internet initiative to write names and addresses in Lithuanian characters (www.lietuviškai.lt), registration of foreign words and search for equivalents (Language Commission together with the internet portal www.delfi.lt)18, etc. The activities of state institutions operating in Lithuania, as well as public organizations (Lithuanian language society, commission operating in Vilnius city municipality), looking from the outside, do not seem particularly planned and consistent, rather evolving from spontaneously arising needs, having formulated in advance only the most general goals, rather than specific tasks. move from individual actions to coherently organized activities and, as befits speech planners, not only anticipate the results of the activities, but also assess what has been achieved over time. At the moment, we can say that there is exploratory work going on: there are individual good initiatives, but there is a lack of coordination. The recent establishment of the Lithuanian Language Defenders’ Union in July 2010 shows that there is a need for an active gathering to solve the current problems of language policy. Therefore, recognizing that language policy in Lithuania is based on language planning, the prestige of the Lithuanian language should also be viewed as a planning 18 more information about this activity can be found in the annual reports published on the websites of the State Lithuanian Language Commission, the State Language Inspection, the Lithuanian Language Institute, the Lithuanian Language Society. R. Miliūnaitė. Language prestige and its planning 251 object and not only clearly define the immediate and further tasks, consider what means will be used to achieve them, but also foresee how the results will be evaluated. There must be a clear goal for the survival of the nation and the language, a direction towards strengthening the community of Lithuanians living all over the world and specific tasks: to enrich the resources of the Lithuanian language and create a favourable environment for its existence, so that society does not devalue, but through joint efforts strengthens the prestige of the Lithuanian language both in our country and in the world. Learning from world experience, a variety of ways can be found for this activity. but it's not just the job of language specialists. iŠVados 1. the works of foreign language planning theorists and practitioners show that this direction of sociolinguistics has been noticeably activated and strengthened in the last decade due to the globalization processes and the interaction of peoples and cultures. The content of the concept of language planning has expanded considerably, as new goals are being set for language planning, its direction is changing and it covers an ever broader subject. From the influence on the language to the influence on the language users, and they themselves are encouraged to influence the language development: to the traditional elements – standardization of the language structure and development of functions – was added the regulation of language relations (status), later language teaching and finally language prestige planning. It is understood that language planning can only be successful if people have an inner motivation to use a language or a variety, rather than by applying coercive administrative methods. thus the prestige of a language or its variant is no longer left to itself, but becomes an object of planning. 2. official Lithuanian language policy documents indicate the importance of the prestige of the Lithuanian language – primarily as a state language – in society (with regard to the context of other languages used) and provide ways to strengthen it. However, the practical activities of state institutions, public organisations and individuals lack clearly defined tasks and closer joint activities. 3.As socio-linguistic research shows, the prestige of the Lithuanian language is not strong for various reasons, especially due to the decline of national identity and traditional values, large emigration and other factors. It requires a clear language planning strategy with a clear direction and objectives for language development and defined language prestige planning tasks, which must be based on sociolinguistic linguistic attitudes of the society and the current situation. 252 Language Culture | 83 new usage research results. Society, not forgetting the diaspora and emigrants interested in the preservation of the Lithuanian language, must be more actively involved in the process of maintaining the language heritage and language creation. 4. it is important to take care of the prestige of the common Lithuanian language, to include in this activity target groups of users of the common Lithuanian language – journalists, writers, translators, language editors, teachers, students, etc. The necessary basis for this is the prestigious standard of the common language, i.e. a real codification corresponding to current usage. The most important directions of planning the prestige of the general Lithuanian language could be the following: 1) dissemination of normative linguistic information, its operationality, clarity and argumentation; 2) maintaining a language benchmark and training exemplary language users (e.g., tVR news presenters) and overseeing the most important areas of language use that affect society; 3) the deliberate introduction of language innovations (especially new ones), softening the current often negative reaction of users; 4) raising the prestige of language practitioners’ activities; 5) examination of the best experience of foreign language prestige planners and adaptation to the needs of Lithuanian language. liteRatūRa ager d. 2001: Motivation in language planning and language policy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. a g e r d. 2005: Prestige and image planning. – Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. ed. e. Hinkel, london: lawrence erlbaum associates Publishers, 1035–1054. a l i ū k a i t ė d. 2009: Visual accuracy of common language: a quasi-standard problem. – Respectus Philologicus 16 (21) a, 160–187. a m m o n u. 2004: standard Variety. – Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society. eds. u. ammon, n. dittmar, K. J. Mattheier, P. trudgill, 2nd ed., V. 1, Walter de Gruyter, 273–283. b a k m a n d b. 2000: national language planning, why (not)? – Intercultural Communication 3. ed. J. Allwood. Internet access: <http://www.immi. se/intercultural/nr3/bakmand.htm> (accessed 15 August 2010). balda u f R. b. 2004: issues of prestige and image in languageineducation planning in australia. – Current Issues in Language Planning 5(4), 376–388. b a l d a u f R. b. 2005: language planning and policy research: an overview. – Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Chapt 52). ed. e. Hinkel, Mahwah, nJ: erlbaum, 957–970. R. Miliūnaitė. The prestige of language and its planning 253 ba ld a u f R. b. 2006: Rearticulating the Case for Micro language Planning in a language ecology Context. – Current Issues in Language Planning 7 (2–3), 147–170. Retrieved 2010-11-11. <http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:121324/HCA10UQ121324.pdf>. b e r t a š i n ė G., K a č i u š k i e n ė G. 2009: Attitude of teachers in Tauragė to the prestige of Lithuanian common language and its use. – Young Scientists’ Works 2 (23), 7–11. C h r i s t i a n d. 1994 [1990]: Language Planning from a Linguistic Perspective. – Sociolinguistics and language culture. ed. laima Grumadienė and Rūta Marcinkevičienė, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 29–40. C o b a r r u b i a s J. 1983: ethical issues in status Planning. – Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives. eds. J. Cobarrubias, J. Fishman, new york: Mouton Publishers. Cooper R. l. 1989: Language Planning and Social Change, Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. d a o u s t d. 1997: language planning and language reform. – The handbook of sociolinguistics. ed. F. Coulmas, oxford: blackwell, 436–452. discussion 2005: from the discussion “Lithuanian language and Lithuanian culture in future Europe: development perspectives” in the Constitution Hall of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 14 February 2005 – Literature and Art, 6 May 2004: Development strategy of the Estonian language 2004–2010, tartu. e d w a rd s J. 1996: language, prestige and stigma. – Contact linguistics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. ed. H. Goebl et al., Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 703–708. F e r g u s o n G. 2006: Language planning and education, edinburgh university Press ltd. Guidelines 2003: Guidelines of the State Language Policy 2003-2008. – Access via the Internet: <http://vlkk.lt/lit/apie/kalbos-politikos-gaires> (accessed 2010 01 10). Guidelines 2008: Guidelines of the State Language Policy 2009-2013 (draft). – Access via the Internet: <http://vlkk.lt/lit/10110> (accessed 2010 01 10). G r o o f J. d e 2002: two hundred years of language planning in belgium. – Standardization. Studies from the Germanic languages. eds. a. R. linn, n. Mclelland, John benjamins, 117–134. GslP 2007: Guidelines of the state language policy for 2005–2014, Rīga. H a r m a n n H. 1990: language planning in the light of a general theory of language: a methodological framework. – International Journal of the Sociology of Language 86 (1), 103–126. H a u g e n e. 1983: the implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice. – Progress in language planning. International perspectives. eds. Cobarrubias, J. a. Fishman, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 269–289. 254 Languages Culture | 83 H a u g e n a s e. 1994 [1966]: Linguistics and Language Planning. – Sociolinguistics and language culture. ed. laima Grumadienė and Rūta Marcinkevičienė, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 14–28. K a l ė d i n ė l. 2009: Public opinion and language policy. – Language culture 82, 287–293. Kaplan R. b., soon after R. b. Jr. 1997: Language planning: from practice to theory, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. K l o s s H. 1966: types of Multilingual Communities: a discussion of ten Variables. – Sociological Inquiry 36 (2), 135–145. K l o s s H. 1969: Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report. – Québec: international Center for Research on bilingualism. K r u p i e n ė i. 2006: Regular language usage through the eyes of students. – Man and Word 1, 74–79. l a b u t i s V. 2006: How to interest the public in Lithuanian language. – Literature and Art, May 4. l a u r i n a t i s e. 2010: e. laurinaitis: with the current politics, we will disappear as a nation [interview: spoke Vladimiras laučius]. – www.delfi.lt, January 15. Accessed via Internet: <http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/elaurinaitis-esant-kabartinei-politikai- -nyksime-kaip-tauta.d?id=27697855> (accessed 2010 04 25). Mesthrie R., Swann J., Deumert A., Leap W. L. 2000: Introducing sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press. M i l l i g a n l. 2007: a systems Model of language Planning. – Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, 192–198. Accessed via the Internet: <http://www.ling.cam.ac.uk/camling/Manuscripts/CamLing2007_Milligan.pdf> (accessed 2010 01 05). n a h i r M. 2006 [1984]: language Planning Goals: a Classification. – Sociolinguistics: the essential readings. eds. Ch. b. Paulston, G. R. tucker, 2nd ed., blackwell Publishing ltd, 423–448. n e k va p i l J. 2006: From language Planning to language Management. – Sociolinguistica 20, tübingen: niemeyer, 92–104. Accessed via the Internet: <http://uk-online.uni-koeln.de/remarks/d5134/rm2169329.pdf> (accessed 2010 03 20). 2007-09-29). 2009: Threats to language and language surveillance: journalists’ perspectives. – Language Culture 82, 173–189. P u p k i s a. 1995: The prestigious language and the authority of Jablonski. – Native language 12, 1–4. Pupkis a. 2005: Language Culture Studies, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. Ramonienė M. 2006: Provisions on common language and dialect: the case of Joniškėlis. – Language Culture 79, 137–147. R i c e n t o t. 2000: Historical and theoretical Perspectives in language Policy and Planning. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2), 196–213. s p o l s k y b. 1998: Sociolinguistics, oxford university Press. R. Miliūnaitė. Language prestige and its planning 255 Strategy 2010: Strategy for Lithuanian language education in schools with general education programs 2010-2014. – Access via the Internet: <http://www.smm.lt/ugdymas/docs/Lietuviu%20kalbos%20strategija%20(1). pdf> (accessed 20 January 2011). s u b a č i u s G. 2002: two types of standard language History in Europe. – Res Balticae 8, 131–150. subačiu s G. 2004: chronology of the history of standard (common) languages. – Metmenys 84, 97–115. Accessed via the Internet: <http://www.uic.edu/classes/lith/lith520/SUB_strp/SUB_2004_Chron%20METM. PDF> (accessed 2010-03-15). trudgill G. 2003: A glossary of sociolinguistics, edinburgh university Press. 2004: Theoretical assumptions for the standardization of foreign words. – Borrowing and common Lithuanian language. South. Jurgita Girčienė, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 9–29. Vaicekauskienė l. 2007: New foreign words in Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Z h a o s. , l i u y. 2007: Home language shift and its implications for language Planning in singapore: From the Perspective of Prestige Planning. – The AsiaPacific education researcher 16 (2), 111–126. Accessed via Internet: <www.philjol.info/index.php/TAPER/article/viewFile/230/231> (Accessed 2010-01-06). Gauta 2010 12 06 lanGuaGe PRestiGe and its PlanninG Summary although the discussion of language planning has only recently appeared in the lithuanian linguistic works, the issues of language standardization, language policy and increase of language awareness in society have always been dealt with during the development history of standard lithuanian. the article deals with a relatively new aspect of language planning, i. e. language prestige planning. the aim of the article is to define the concept of language prestige planning and present its treatment in the works of foreign sociolinguists as well as to describe the status of language prestige planning in the current lithuanian language community, existing both in lithuania and its exile communities. due to the current sociolinguistic situation, which is characterized by an increased influence of the english language and other globalization factors arising from international and intercultural contacts, as well as the low prestige of language policy makers in society, these problems become particularly serious.