LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

LANGUAGE PRESTIGE AND ITS PLANNING

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

In the multilingual and multicultural environment of globalization, it is increasingly clear that processes of interaction between languages must not be left to develop spontaneously, but should be regulated through various considered language-policy measures. The national—and, at the same time, linguistic—conflicts erupting in recent years in various countries—in Hungary over Serbs, in Belgium over Flemings and Walloons, and also in Lithuania over the interests of the Polish national minority, including writing surnames in personal documents using non-Lithuanian characters, introducing Lithuanian-Polish bilingualism in public signs in southeastern Lithuania, and so on—only confirm the necessity of such regulation. Therefore, much attention is devoted worldwide to one of the branches of sociolinguistics—language planning (which provides the basis for implementing language policy), and especially to its branch concerned with the status of languages—and, more generally, people speak of a revival of language planning (Ferguson 2006: 4–5)¹.

¹ This is reflected in the topics of articles published in scholarly journals devoted to language planning and language policy that have appeared over the past decade—Current Issues in Language Planning (since 2000), Language Policy (since 2002), and articles in the journal Language Problems and Language Planning, founded in 1977 and revived after a hiatus, among others—as well as in the many monographs and edited thematic collections published, which examine language policy and planning issues in various countries within the broad social, ethnic, religious, political, cultural, and economic contexts in which languages function.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

231

The history of the development of the Lithuanian language over the past century shows that efforts were made, in one way or another, to regulate the functioning in society of its principal varieties, that is, the standard language and dialects, and, in interwar Lithuania and after the restoration of independence, also the relationship between the state language and other languages. The concept of language planning itself appeared in the work of sociolinguists worldwide only from the second half of the 20th century, while in Lithuania it began to be mentioned more frequently in recent decades, with preference given to more specific concepts such as language contact, language (or languages) policy, and so forth.

For some time now, another branch—language prestige planning—has been included among the traditional branches of language planning in some works by foreign sociolinguists. Admittedly, the view that the prestige of a language or variety arises entirely spontaneously, and therefore cannot be controlled in any way, remains prevalent. Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that language planning is not merely a tool of government for changing the language situation and implementing language policy. Language users’ attitudes must also change, so that they themselves wish to maintain one language or another, or one of its varieties, and thus strengthen its prestige in society. The state or particular social groups that have an interest in maintaining a given language or variety can also plan its prestige.

The current sociolinguistic situation of Lithuanian, insofar as its fragmentary studies allow us to assess it, calls not only for a clearer definition of the concept of language prestige, but also for devising approaches and measures for planning language prestige that would enable Lithuanian, its standard variety, and its dialects to retain their role in the life of society and the state as the influence of English grows under conditions of globalization. How long and in what ways the Lithuanian language will survive at all will increasingly depend precisely on the linguistic self-awareness of society and on which language and forms of expression are given priority in public and private use.

Recognizing that the length of this article does not allow it to cover the many issues belonging to the field of language planning, it focuses primarily on one aspect related to strengthening the standard language and its norms. It has two aims: 1) to show how language prestige planning is viewed in the work of foreign sociolinguists; 2) to reveal the significance of language prestige planning, describe its main tasks in the present-day Lithuanian speech community (which is based not only in Lithuania but also in emigration), and substantiate the necessity of this activity.

232

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE PLANNING

Language planning is commonly used to refer both to practical activity that deliberately seeks to change language use and its internal features, and to the theoretical discipline whose subject is that practical activity (Ferguson 2006: 1). Without undertaking to examine the entire history of the emergence of language planning as a branch of sociolinguistics², here 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 replete with problems concerning the regulation of relations between peoples and their languages, language planning began to be discussed as a way of addressing them only in the second half of the 20th century. Language planning as a branch of sociolinguistics arose from the practical need to resolve language problems that emerged when national states were being established after the Second World War (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113). The field of language planning began to develop rapidly and became an object of sociolinguistics in the 1960s, particularly when many peoples in Africa and Asia who had won independence had to decide on a national language (Mesthrie, Swann et al. 2000: 384; Ricento 2000: 196–213; Ferguson 2006: 1–2). Somewhat later, issues of language contact came to the fore, and from the final decade of the 20th century, aspects of human rights related to language use became salient.

In different historical periods, the language-planning objectives pursued by the governments or social organizations of different countries vary, determined by the linguistic ideology adopted by those countries³, their sociolinguistic situation, and their accumulated political and cultural experience and traditions; nevertheless, it is recognized that the objective is similar. The measures adopted in planning aim to ensure that a language or its varieties best meet the linguistic needs of a particular society, which, moreover, are often understood in the world today as purely communicative, with other functions of language being forgotten⁴.

² For an account of the three historically established stages of language planning, associated with macrosociopolitical and other factors, see Ricento 2000: 196–213.

³ Four types of linguistic ideology are generally distinguished: linguistic assimilation (the view that every member of a society must know the dominant language of that society, even if it is not their native language; language policy applied to immigrants is most often based on this view), multilingualism (the support of many languages within the same society), vernacularization (the restoration of a local language and its adoption as the state’s official language), and internationalization (the selection of a non-local language as the official language for general societal purposes or for a particular sphere of communication within that society) (Cobarrubias 1983).

⁴ In other words, pragmatic language policy is often preferred to ideological policy, or to a combination of the two: the former views language only as a tool of communication, while the latter regards it as a symbol of values external to language (see Bakmand 2000).

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

233

The concept of language planning appeared in the work of sociolinguists around the world in the late 1950s. The first to use it was the Norwegian-born American linguist Einar Haugen. Drawing on his study of Norway’s efforts to modernize, promote, and develop its national language, he provided a definition of the term and later refined it further. At the time, language planning was associated only with internal aspects of language (standardization): a normative grammar and dictionary were prepared, and spelling was regulated so that writers and speakers in a heterogeneous linguistic community could rely on them (Daoust 1997: 438; Bakmand 2000). In the late 1960s, E. Haugen characterized language planning as the evaluation of language change: “The essence of LP (i.e., language planning. — R. M.) is to decide on one particular form of a language,” but he also raised another aspect: it is also “an attempt to influence the choice” (Haugen 1994 [1966]: 15). Thus, language planning was understood as language standardization and cultivation, that is, conscious efforts “from above,” in accordance with predetermined goals, to change both the development of a language and the linguistic behaviour of its speech community. E. Haugen’s language-planning model consists of four components (the names and order of these components differed in versions of the model published at different times). According to the 1983 version of the model, these are: 1) selection of norms, 2) codification of norms, 3) implementation of functions, 4) elaboration, or development, of functions (Haugen 1983: 270–275). As E. Haugen notes, the first and third components (or stages of language planning) are social and external to language, while the second and fourth are linguistic and internal to language. Drawing on the distinction made by the German linguist Heinz Kloss (Kloss 1969) between language corpus planning⁵ and language status planning, in his revised 1983 model E. Haugen identified the social aspects of the model—selection of norms and implementation of functions—as corresponding to status planning, and language codification and functional elaboration as corresponding to language corpus planning.

Moreover, E. Haugen emphasized the important point that these four steps of the model, although they indicate a certain logical order, do not necessarily occur sequentially in time: they may be simultaneous or cyclical (Haugen 1983: 270).

Language status planning is the regulation of the legal foundations of language use and of relations with other languages and with other varieties of the same language—

⁵In Lithuanian linguistic literature, some authors call the object of normative (prescriptive) regulation, where the aim is to change the structure of a language (the development of language forms), by the loanword korpusas (English corpus); others avoid using it in this unusual sense and use various alternatives. For example, in documents of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (cf. Guidelines 2003, Guidelines 2008), the term language system and usage planning is used in this sense. This article proposes the term language corpus planning.

234 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

…vity. The use of a particular language or variety can be encouraged or discouraged through language status planning measures.

Corpus planning aims to change the internal features of a language so that it becomes more viable. It includes graphization (the selection and development of a writing system), standardization (the codification and development of the norms of one selected variety), and modernization (the development of the resources of a language, especially its lexicon, including terminology, in response to newly emerging societal needs). The results of these activities are normative dictionaries, grammars, sets of rules, publications offering recommendations for language use, and various normative lists.

Although E. Haugen’s language planning model, especially its earliest versions, is often criticized⁶, it is nevertheless recognized as a good starting point for describing any language planning process, since it presents an ideal development that may differ from the actual situation to varying degrees (Groof 2002: 117–121). E. Haugen’s language planning model is indeed often viewed as outlining the stages in the development of a standard language—from the selection of one dialect as the basis for the standard language to the establishment of that standard language in society (cf. Subačius 2002: 132–133; 2004: 105–113). Thus, this model was refined and applied to describe the histories of the creation and development of various standard languages, with the order of the four components identified by E. Haugen rearranged in different ways; however, according to Giedrius Subačius, this indicates not so much the shortcomings of the theory as its flexibility.

Thus, a second important step in the development of the concept of language planning was the binary model of language planning developed by H. Kloss and adopted by E. Haugen: it was believed that the most important problems of maintaining a language in society could be solved by applying scientific methods and by language planners precisely planning the processes of language development and interaction (Groof 2002: 118–119; Baldauf 2004: 376–388; Zhao, Liu 2007: 113). This model dominated language planning practice almost until the end of the 20th century.

The concept of language planning continued to evolve over time. A third stage of development can be identified when the American linguist Robert L. Cooper began to discuss language-in-education planning (Cooper 1989). This is a type of language planning that, usually at the state level, seeks through public education and the education system to influence the literacy of society, the spread of a language and its norms, and, in turn, the status of the language.

⁶ For example, Moshe Nahir criticized E. Haugen’s model, saying that it comprised only four theoretical starting points, since it said nothing about the motives or ultimate goals of language planners (Nahir 2006 [1984]: 423–448). E. Haugen, incidentally, acknowledged this criticism.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas 235

It is understood that all three components of language planning are interrelated and interdependent. For example, if the status of a language changes—for instance, if new functions are assigned to it—its corpus usually has to change as well (new styles emerge, and new lexical items need to be established) (Mesthrie, Swann et al. 2000: 387; Milligan 2007: 195).

In the second half of the 20th century, theorists of language planning mostly discussed planning carried out by state authorities and their institutions, but paid little attention to the outcomes of language planning themselves or to people’s behavior and the psychological aspects involved in adopting those outcomes. From the 1990s onward, as political and social conditions began to change markedly in some Western European countries amid global macrosociopolitical transformations, language planning was also viewed afresh, drawing on developing postmodern research models (Ricento 2000: 196–213; Groof 2002: 118). The assumption was abandoned that language planning was solely a concern of developing countries, merely a means of establishing and standardizing national languages, and simply part of modernization and nation-building. The implementation of language planning (Eng. implementation) began to be studied from the recipients’ perspective; a view emerged that the old binary or ternary model was too narrow and that greater emphasis should be placed on the recognition of language planning products and recipients’ attitudes toward them (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113).

Perhaps the most important feature of this fourth stage in the development of the concept of language planning is the emphasis placed on the role of language prestige and the need to plan it. Thus, language planning gains a fourth component—language prestige (the concept of language image also begins to be used in this context).

Harald Haarmann, a German linguist living in Finland, was the first to conduct research examining the role of the individual in both accepting and rejecting the products of language planning. In his theoretical work, H. Haarmann argues that prestige planning should be an independent branch of language planning (Haarmann 1990: 103). According to this author, corpus and status planning are productive activities, whereas prestige planning is a receptive or evaluative function that affects how productively planners carry out planning measures and how people receive them. For planning products to acquire prestige, language planning must operate on four levels (the activities of individuals, social organizations, official institutions, and government). In H. Haarmann’s model, alongside language planning conducted “from above” by the government and state institutions, planning “from below” was officially recognized for the first time. It was understood that the effectiveness of language planning depends on the interaction of all factors (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113).

236

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

Robertas B. Kaplanas ir Riĉardas B. Baldaufas (Kaplan, Baldauf 1997), teoriškai pripažindami kalbos planavimą ne tik kaip praktinės veiklos, bet ir kaip savarankišką mokslinių tyrimų sritį, toliau plėtojo H. Haarmanno konstruktą, kur, be prestižo, įterpė ir minėtą R. L. Cooperio kalbos mokymo planavimą kaip savarankišką kalbos planavimo veiklos modelio dėmenį (angl. language-in-education planning, arba, Cooperio terminu, acquisition planning). Tai padėjo atsirasti kalbos prestižo ir įvaizdžio planavimo teorijai; ją kalbos planavimo mokslinėje literatūroje išplėtojo britas Dennisas Ageris (plačiau apie tai – ketvirtame šio straipsnio skyrelyje).

Thus, taking all four stages in the development of the concept of language planning into account, one can say that, at the theoretical level, language planning involves establishing goals, objectives, and strategies for changing the way a language is used. At the practical level, it entails selecting and promoting one language or variety—that is, consciously changing the conditions under which a language functions—and regulating the resources of the language itself, thereby changing its development.

Keturių kalbos planavimo dalių esmę, remiantis R. Baldaufu (2006), galima nusakyti taip:

• language status planning – changing the functions of a language,

• language corpus planning – changing the form (features) of a language,

• language-in-education planning – changing society’s language skills,

• language prestige planning – changing the image of a language.

The first practitioners of language planning took the view that language could be planned through state policy, focusing primarily on language form and the development of its functions. As the concept of language planning evolved, setting new goals and encompassing an increasingly broad object, it naturally expanded from influencing language to influencing language users and encouraging them to shape language development themselves, or, in Denise Daoust’s words, the object of language planners expanded from conflicting norms to problems involving conflicting languages (Daoust 1997: 438).

An article written by Einar Haugen in the 1960s, as well as an article published by Donna Christian in 1990, was translated into Lithuanian and published as early as 1994 (see Haugenas 1994 [1966]: 14–28; Christian 1994 [1990]: 29–40). However, as noted in the introductory part of this article, the concept of language planning began to gain wider currency in Lithuanian linguistic literature relatively recently (cf. Vaicekauskienė 2004, 2007; Pupkis 2005: 191–196)⁷,

⁷ See Subačius 2004: 111–112 for Petras Jonikas’s attempt to draw on E. Haugen’s model in the book Lietuvių kalba ir tauta amžių būvyje. Visuomeniniai lietuvių kalbos istorijos bruožai (Chicago, 1987).

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

237

Although issues directly related to language planning—standardization of Standard Lithuanian, language policy, the development of language culture, and the public’s linguistic education—have been raised and continually discussed throughout the history of the development of Standard Lithuanian.

Over the past decade, scholarly works on the Lithuanian language have put forward several general aims of language planning: “to identify at least the most important changes in the circumstances in which language functions and the directions of those changes”; “to clearly and rigorously define general matters of language standardization and to carry out codification work systematically,” and to present the results of that work to the public through various forms of language development (Pupkis 2005: 193). The importance of language planning is also emphasized, on the understanding that if language planners “put forward ill-considered decisions, variation in usage will increase, undermining the stability of language norms and reducing the functionality of the standard language itself” (Pupkis 2005: 194). However, it must be acknowledged that our language standardization is still focused more on a strict, tradition-based codification and an attempt to implement it in usage; genuine planning of the structure of the language can scarcely be expected before the future, once the existing situation has been thoroughly studied.

Having reviewed the development of theoretical thought on language planning as a branch of sociolinguistics, it is important to understand the view of Einar Haugen, a pioneer of language planning, that language planning should be regarded as an ongoing process, since every living language and its sociolinguistic situation are constantly changing, and language standardization in practice never reaches an end⁸.

3. LANGUAGE PRESTIGE AND PRESTIGIOUS LANGUAGE

Sociolinguists (including in Lithuania) have discussed language prestige for considerably longer than it has been linked to language planning, and in recent years it has become an important object of sociolinguistics. Prestige, as a characteristic of a language or its variety, distinguishes one language or variety from several others used in the same linguistic community.

⁸ The beginning of the 21st century could be considered another new stage in the development of language planning, when language contact intensified under conditions of globalization, giving rise to new problems of interaction between languages and stimulating theoretical discussions, especially those concerning language status. Language management is discussed as a new object of sociolinguistic theory and practice that transcends the boundaries of language planning within a single linguistic community or a single state; the term language management itself began to be used in sociolinguists’ works as early as 1987 (see Nekvapil 2006).

238

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

3.1. Language prestige, prestigious language, prestigious forms of expression

One of the axioms of sociolinguistics is that all languages and their varieties, including standard languages, are linguistically equivalent (equally suited to communicative and expressive functions), although they may have different social statuses conferred on them by society (Edwards 1996).

The prestige of languages or their varieties has arisen for various reasons. Heinz Kloss identifies four principal ones: a substantial written heritage, a high level of language modernization, an important international position, or the high prestige of the language’s speakers (Kloss 1966: 143–144). Naturally, as circumstances change over time, the level of prestige changes as well.

A prestigious language variety is most often defined in terms of social and geographical parameters. It is generally associated with the social stratum that has the greatest political, economic, and/or cultural power—and thus prestige⁹—in society, and that selects one language or variety from among several used in that linguistic community. Drawing on earlier sociolinguistic studies by William Mackey, Peter Trudgill, Howard Giles (in the latter’s case, the theory of linguistic accommodation), and others, John Edwards argues that the prestige of a language or variety is not created by its linguistic or aesthetic features; it is determined by people’s perceptions concerning social matters. The language or variety spoken by the socially dominant and powerful group in society will have greater prestige¹⁰. Language prestige is also related to its power: the more functions a language performs, the more prestigious it is. But prestige is not necessarily the same for everyone. The same language may be powerful and prestigious for some, but not for others.

⁹ Cf. prestige [French prestige] – authority, influence, respect, good reputation (Dictionary of International Words, Vilnius: Alma littera, 2001).

¹⁰The prestige and image of a language are defined by the socioeconomic status of its speakers, which also affects people’s language choices, since language is viewed as conferring a socioeconomic marker on its users (Zhao, Liu 2007: 114). An interesting sociolinguistic study was conducted by researchers at a university in Singapore to determine the status of Chinese in Singapore (Zhao, Liu 2007: 113–126). An examination of the relationship between the language children use at home and their parents’ socioeconomic status found that in Singapore’s multilingual and multicultural society, where an active bilingualism policy was pursued and English played the most important role, Chinese (like the other two languages of Singapore’s ethnic communities—Malay and Tamil) gradually lost its prestige. English exceeded the limits set by language policy: it became not only the basis for maintaining economic relations, but also began to displace native languages from cultural and domestic communication. Critics of the bilingualism policy conclude that, for Chinese to be maintained and used, language-planning measures must be taken to raise its prestige and create a positive image for it.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

239

If one seeks to enter a higher social stratum and acquire greater power, one also learns (adopts) the language of that stratum. When a prestigious variety is officially established as the standard and begins to be used in the domains most important for social control, it becomes the normative variety, that is, the standard language:

[...] the prestigious language is considered to be that variety of the standard language toward which most users of the standard language orient themselves, from which they learn, and which various sociolects and semi-dialectal speech gradually approach. It is the exemplary language of schools, language instruction for foreigners, and the media (Pukpis 1995: 1).

Because, owing to historically established circumstances, Lithuania still lacks a clearly defined, cohesive social stratum whose language would be prestigious (cf. Subačius 2002: 135), this sociolinguistic situation is rather complex; society orients itself less toward the language of a particular social stratum than toward the language used in specific domains of standard-language use (for example, the media and belles lettres).

Geographically, the prestigious language often becomes the variety used by the inhabitants of a country’s capital. Its use is also encouraged by language specialists and supported by professional speakers and writers, who are part of the ruling class or work alongside it (cf. Ammon 2004: 275). In Lithuania, however, things developed differently: the capital’s dialect did not become the basis of the standard language.

J. Edwards revealed the essence of the concept of language prestige by comparing it with other related concepts—language status, language functions, and the opposing concept of stigma¹¹ (Edwards 1996: 703–705). Prestige is associated with influence or reputation derived from achievements attained earlier. It is always said to be positive. Status is associated with position in society and is a neutral term: it can refer to something positive or neutral, but when used alone it usually carries a positive connotation. The status of a language is its position within the linguistic community in comparison with other languages.

Prestige and stigma arise in societies that are divided and in which different linguistic communities come into contact. Wherever there are dialects, there are differing opinions; where languages come into contact, they are compared. Thus prestige and stigma, as positive and negative evaluations, developed

¹¹ Cf. stigma [Gr. brand, mark]—a concept used in sociology and psychology to describe a phenomenon in which a person or group has a physical, social, or psychological characteristic that differs from culturally established norms, as a result of which that person or group is discriminated against or shunned by others (according to http://lt.wikipedia.org, accessed 2010 11 29).

240

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

historically. It is acknowledged that some languages are more fully developed and better suited to the purposes and functions required by modern society. All languages can be standardized and modernized, but practical social needs do not always call for this.

The scope and subject of this article do not allow all aspects of language prestige to be examined. Nevertheless, it is worth at least mentioning that, given sociolinguistics’ division into macro- and micro-levels, one can speak of macroprestige, created by relations between languages or language varieties when, within the same linguistic community, one linguistic form has greater prestige than another. One can also speak of microprestige, when, within the same language or variety, forms of expression that enjoy prestige in the eyes of users compete with non-prestigious ones.

When languages come into contact and new varieties emerge at their interface (through creolization), the language with greater prestige has a greater influence, though the effects vary across social strata (cf. Spolsky 1998: 63–65). The lower-prestige language provides the new form with its phonological system, while the higher-prestige language provides its lexical and grammatical structure. In diglossia, the same society uses languages or varieties of differing prestige in different situations (for example, the standard language in the media and at work, and dialectal or semi-dialectal speech in everyday life). If the influence of a more prestigious language or variety on a less prestigious one is weaker, one can speak of the borrowing of individual linguistic elements, especially lexical ones, and of their often imitative, but otherwise unmotivated, use.

William Labov, a pioneer of American sociolinguistics, was the first to speak of covert and overt prestige (see Trudgill 2003: 30). Various tests and experiments have shown that nonstandard or low-status (incorrect) forms are used by many people. Standard forms have overt prestige because they are publicly recognized as correct and as indicating the user’s high social status. But nonstandard, low-status forms are also to some extent publicly recognized as covertly prestigious, and people continue to use them. An interesting phenomenon related to this, but little studied in Lithuania (perhaps more by dialectologists), is so-called hypercorrection: speakers of lower-prestige varieties, in trying to adopt features of higher-prestige varieties, misunderstand the differences between those varieties and generalize them on the basis of the similarities they have noticed (cf. Trudgill 2003: 59–60).

A question particularly relevant to Lithuania’s linguistic environment calls for separate consideration: to what extent is the prestige of standard-language norms created by codification, and

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

241

how much is codified as prestigious in society. The answer to that question would, of course, vary across different periods in the development of the standard language. Here it is only necessary to emphasize that, in the practice of standard Lithuanian, two things are confused: the prestigious norm and the principal (codified) norm; in other words, there is a tendency to identify these norms with one another. The former—the prestigious norm—is, however, a sociolinguistic category, associated with the prestige accorded (created) by society itself to a particular norm¹², usually the usage of society’s elite. The principal norm, that is, the more systematic, more prospective, or otherwise preferable norm (as opposed to a secondary one), is a concept in the codification of the standard language. The prestigious and principal norms may not coincide; moreover, there may be more than one prestigious norm, depending on the different social groups of language users. If it is argued that the principal codified norm should reflect society’s prestigious norm (which would be the ideal case), it is first necessary to establish and agree whose norm is to be considered prestigious. Furthermore, if someone uses the principal codified norms (for example, this is required of news presenters for at least some media outlets), one can say that their pronunciation and accentuation are exemplary, but not necessarily prestigious (at least some members of society consider this language artificial and unnatural¹³). In a broader view, prestigious language encompasses not only matters of norms (correctness), but also style and language ethics.

3.2. Studies of language prestige in Lithuania

In Lithuania, language prestige, like other components of language planning, has not yet been clearly discussed and defined in theoretical terms, although the prestige of Lithuanian itself and measures to enhance it are addressed in official state language policy documents—the State Language Law (“Article 19. The State shall promote the prestige of correct Lithuanian—

¹² For example, however unsystematic a university lecturer’s accentuation may be (e.g., informacinis, su vienu projektu), publicly pronouncing the word universitete with retracted stress on the penultimate syllable rather than on the ending would probably be considered non-prestigious. In this case, the prestigious and codified norms do indeed coincide.

¹³ For example, at least until the end of 2010, presenters and reporters on Lithuanian national television news programs were required to pronounce the words biblioteka, kioskas with j. The apparent basis for this was Vytautas Vitkauskas’s Lietuvių kalbos tarties žodynu (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2nd ed., 2001), in which the variants with a jot are listed as principal, and those without a jot as colloquial. However, this principal norm can hardly be considered realistic or forward-looking; it is more likely an unnecessary overcorrection (see P u p k i s A. Ką parodė Kalbos švaros dienos? – Gimtoji kalba 6, 2006, 11).

242

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

¹⁴”) and the 2003–2008 Guidelines for State Language Policy (Guidelines 2003), as well as their new draft (Guidelines 2008) (for more on this, see section 5 of the article).

An increasing number of sociolinguistic studies on language attitudes related to the concept of the prestige of a language or one of its varieties are appearing in Lithuania. The works of Daiva Aliūkaitė and Meilutė Ramonienė are well known; they examine the relationship between the standard language and individual dialects in terms of prestige (cf. two of them: Ramonienė 2006: 137–147; Aliūkaitė 2009: 160–187).

Irena Kruopienė studied students’ attitudes toward the use of correct language and how the value and prestige of Lithuanian are understood (Kruopienė 2006: 74–79). The findings showed that students are not indifferent to language matters, but earlier research findings were clearly confirmed: the prestige of Lithuanian in our society is insufficient (this was the view of about 61 percent of respondents). In students’ view, the situation in the most important spheres where correct language should be used is unsatisfactory: somewhat fewer than half of the students reported hearing correct language on television and radio, and slightly fewer than a third in state institutions. Moreover, far from all respondents associate linguistic correctness with prestige (in this case, about 65 percent of the students surveyed).

A similar study was conducted by Giedrė Bertašienė and Genovaitė Kači台škienė: it examined the attitudes of teachers at two gymnasiums in Tauragė District toward the prestige and use of Lithuanian (Bertašienė, Kači台škienė 2009: 7–11). Seventy-one percent of the teachers indicated that the prestige of Lithuanian was insufficient. Although the article concludes that respondents regard the language of television and radio, and to some extent that of the school itself, as the benchmark for prestigious language, only 29 percent associate television and radio with correct language, and 16 percent associate the school with it; 27 percent of teachers believe that the language of both TVR and the school is correct.

The attitudes of middle-aged male journalists toward language policy, including prestigious language, were studied as part of the joint Lithuanian-Latvian project “Balsoc” (see Nevinskaitė 2009: 173–189). In terms of breadth of coverage, the “Languages of Cities” project stands out among other studies in this field conducted in Lithuania (see Kalėdienė 2009: 287–293)¹⁵. One of the findings of the latter project is—

¹⁴ Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas. – Žin., 1995, Nr. 15-344; 2002, Nr. 68-2760); žr. <http://vlkk.lt/l/i/u/file/Istatymai/Valstybines_Kalbos_ist.doc>

¹⁵ The findings of both projects are still being collated, and further publications are expected in the near future. Detailed information about the projects can be found online: <http://www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=485&Itemid=10> and <http://projektai.vu.lt/miestairkalbos> (accessed 2010 08 15).

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

243

“The linguistic attitudes of urban residents toward dialects point to negative trends in dialect prestige, which may lead to the disappearance of dialects, local cultures, and local identity.”

Although progress is being made in the right direction, these studies, as at the outset, tend more often to cover the linguistic attitudes of narrowly selected social groups based on various criteria (geographical origin, age, or occupation), rather than those of all language users, represented as the intended recipients of the goals of this planning; therefore, they do not give an overall picture, and for now it is impossible to say more precisely what different strata of society consider a prestigious language. Without investigating these linguistic attitudes across various social characteristics, language policymakers still find it difficult to determine which language-planning measures would have the greatest impact in achieving the desired goals; it is too early to speak of the practical planning of prestige itself, although, as noted, guidelines for such planning are set out in official documents.

From what it has been possible to gather from the Lithuanian-language press about the prestige of the Lithuanian language, it can be concluded that the following components are important for planning it:

• the relationship between the prestige of Lithuanian and that of other languages (especially English, as well as the languages of minorities living in Lithuania),

• the relationship between the prestige of the standard language and that of dialects,

• the domains of use of the standard language in which a model (prestigious) language should function,

• the social stratum that speaks the prestigious variety of the language,

• the prestigious form of the language (its relationship to the standard language norm),

• the authority of linguists and the prestige of their profession as part of language prestige.

4. KALBOS PRESTIŽO PLANAVIMAS, JO TIKSLAI, VYKDYTOJAI IR PRIEMONĖS

Returning to the issues of language prestige planning discussed in foreign-language scholarship, it should be said that its proponents regard language status planning and language education planning as only half the work; the goals of language planning (language revitalization, maintenance, or replacement by another language) could not be achieved without language prestige planning, whether explicit or implicit (Zhao, Liu 2007: 124). Greater attention has begun to be paid to the motivation underlying language planning itself (cf. Ager 2001) and to improving the theory of the adoption of language-planning outcomes

244

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

(Ager 2005). When discussing the revitalization of a language or variety, four theoretical concepts are distinguished: status, prestige, identity, and image. Their relationships unfold in pairs: image can be regarded as a reflection of a certain social identity, while prestige is the result of attitudes toward language status. Planning to change status or identity is often regarded as real planning, akin to planning social or economic change, whereas changing prestige or image requires manipulating emotions, as in marketing management. It is therefore unsurprising that management and advertising elements, along with various ways of encouraging language users (for example, prizes for the best proposed new words, the best creative writing, or achievements in language quizzes), can be used as instruments of language prestige planning.

It is emphasized that language prestige planning cannot be equated with language status planning, since the latter is generally implemented through imposition, characteristic of “top-down” methods. Prestige and image planning require “bottom-up” actions based on democracy and persuasion. Prestige planning is directed toward changing attitudes and creating identity through gentler and less provocative means. It relies on longer-term cooperation with and support from the target groups for whom language products are planned. If a planned product is used by individuals with prestige (the social elite), whose linguistic behavior influences society as a whole, this creates prestigious models to emulate, which are spontaneously imitated and spread rapidly (Zhao, Liu 2007: 114).

The most important goal of language prestige planning is to create a favorable psychological basis for a language or variety (Mesthrie, Swann et al. 2000: 387). The goals of language prestige planning are related to the needs of those languages or varieties—that they be developed, promoted, and intellectualized, with particular attention paid to the language of science, professional language, and the language of high culture (which, it should be understood, is contrasted with mass culture. – R. M.) (Baldauf 2005: 962). Language prestige planning must involve those individuals, their groups, and institutions that are responsible for creating the image of a language and promoting the use of a prestigious language in the main domains of language use.

Since language planning generally addresses problems that are essentially sociopolitical, E. Haugen already pointed out that language specialists are by no means the only agents of language planning (Haugenas 1994 [1966]: 25–27). Here, the joint efforts of sociologists and lawyers, politicians and political scientists are essential, and, when language-teaching planning is concerned, collaboration with education specialists as well. Language specialists are needed above all to decide on the basis for the standard language and to carry out language codification work, as well as to work with specialists in other fields to manage terminology and adapt it to society’s new needs.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

245

Writers’ role is also highlighted among those involved in language planning: they sustain the written tradition, strengthen the standardized variety of the language, and themselves contribute to the development of literary style. In Lithuania, ethnologists should not be overlooked either, as they can help create a broader context for the language, its value, and its uniqueness.

For language prestige planning in general, the most important thing is the joint activity of institutions at different levels and in different fields, as well as of individuals. This idea has naturally taken root in Lithuania too: it is understood that preserving the prestige of the Lithuanian language in society requires interaction between the state and society (Labutis 2006):

The burden of organizational work should not be shirked by employees of education and cultural centers, members of patriotic organizations, and, of course, everyone who identifies with the Lithuanian Language Society. Heads of many institutions and businesspeople who consider themselves Lithuanian could regard material support for events devoted to the mother tongue as a matter of prestige. The state, too, cannot stand aside here—for all this is connected with the aims of adult education. [...] The finest plan can be ruined by failing to find and involve professional, conscientious, responsible implementers. They are worth seeking not only among overburdened teachers of Lithuanian and municipal language officers, but also among the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of good specialists in this field who have retired. It is strange that no one needs the professional and life experience of so many retired university professors and associate professors.

5. PLANNING THE LANGUAGE PRESTIGE OF ESTONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA IN LANGUAGE POLICY GUIDELINES

Documents of a similar nature from the three countries make it possible to compare contemporary language policymakers’ views on language prestige and its planning, and to determine which components shape the concept of language prestige and what measures are envisaged to strengthen it. Lithuania merits closer and more extensive attention.

5.1. Estonia

The Estonian language policy planning document “Estonian Language Development Strategy 2004–2010,” approved by the Government of the Republic of Estonia, also addresses the creation of a public image of the Estonian language among its other aims and objectives (DSEL 2004: 29–30). It states that society’s linguistic

246

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

awareness must be raised, language attitudes shaped, good usage encouraged in society, and a positive image of the language created. It is asserted that, until now, philologists, writers, and mother-tongue teachers in Estonia have cared for the language’s image intuitively, aware of their mission. No one has considered this professionally and systematically. The aim is to create a system for shaping the image of the Estonian language and to develop image-building activities based on scientific research. To achieve this aim, specific objectives were also set:

launch the national programme “Estonian Identity 2005–2009”;

develop an identity concept adapted to general education schools, and organize courses for mother-tongue teachers on linguistic image-building;

cover language issues and events in the media;

create and distribute corpora and databases, television and video films, informational materials, etc., for the whole society, in order to encourage the use of the Estonian language;

organize events and, as far as possible, promote the image of the Estonian language in all areas of life;

establish student language support groups;

support the functioning of the Estonian language on the internet and promote its image there.

5.2. Latvia

The document Guidelines for State Language Policy 2005–2014, approved by the Government of the Republic of Latvia in 2005 (GSLP 2007: 28–30), does not address the creation of an image or prestige for the Latvian language specifically. However, the language-policy objectives and measures it sets out indicate that activities in this area are also planned in Latvia: the aim is to sustain and develop the use of Latvian not only through official state action but also creatively—through original and high-quality translated literature and the arts (film and theatre); to foster the understanding in society that the state language must be learned and used; to create a favourable environment for the development of Latvian by revealing its diverse creative potential; and to involve the media in promoting the language and its culture.

5.3. Lithuania

The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language’s document “Strategic Activity Plan for 2007–2009” acknowledges that one of the threats to the functioning of the Lithuanian language is “the declining prestige of the Lithuanian language in some groups of society

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

247

segments.” This provision was also carried over into the strategic activity plan for 2010–2012, approved in 2009¹⁶. Language prestige is mentioned in the Guidelines for State Language Policy 2003–2008 (Guidelines 2003), and is discussed somewhat more extensively in the new 2009–2013 draft (Guidelines 2008). In Part Three, “Review of the Situation,” the section on language status states:

21. In the face of current changes, not only its legal status but also its prestige is of great importance to the survival of the Lithuanian language. A society becoming more democratic can preserve its language only by consciously recognising its value and potential, participating more actively in language standardisation, and contributing to its enrichment and development. In recent years, new ways of engaging the public with the Lithuanian language have been found: the National Dictation competition is organised, online language competitions are held for schoolchildren, electronic language games are being created, and a state Programme to Encourage Reading has been launched. However, shaping the prestige of the Lithuanian language requires a more professional and systematic approach, grounded in research into changes in linguistic behaviour and value attitudes in society. The prestige of the Lithuanian language is connected with the broader context of Lithuanian culture; therefore, it is necessary to provide more active encouragement and support for publishing books in Lithuanian, supplying libraries with books, including Lithuanian-studies titles, and increasing the amount of Lithuanian-language content on the internet.

In the fifth part of the draft Guidelines, “State Language Policy Objectives and Ways of Addressing Them,” the section on language status indicates how the current situation could be improved:

43. Strengthen the prestige of the Lithuanian language:

43.1. Develop a conception of the connection between Lithuanian studies in the broad sense (not only the Lithuanian language, but also Lithuanian literature and the history of Lithuania) and Lithuanian identity, and encourage public discourse on this topic.

43.2. Develop political and cultural dialogue among the media, the academic community, and the general public on the prospects for national languages in a globalising world.

43.3. Support literary, theatrical, cinematic, and musical works that reveal the distinctiveness and richness of the Lithuanian language, and encourage their dissemination.

43.4. Foster linguistic awareness in society.

43.5. Attend to the image of the Lithuanian language among Lithuanian communities abroad.

Thus, in Lithuanian language policy, language prestige is associated with the status of the Lithuanian language and has not yet been developed into an independent component of language planning (policy); nevertheless, official documents devote attention to it

¹⁶ Available online: <http://www.vlkk.lt/i/u/file/Metu_planas/2010_planas_pat iksl.pdf> (accessed 2010 07 12).

248

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

considerable attention: the principal goals, directions, and measures for achieving those goals are defined.

Among the ways of strengthening the prestige of the Lithuanian language listed in the draft “Guidelines,” particularly important is the provision to foster society’s linguistic awareness, since society’s inner motivation to use Lithuanian, to give it precedence over other languages and their forms, is precisely the basis for sustaining the language’s prestige. Thus, in the words of Bronys Savukynas, it is necessary “to make the standard language attractively necessary to society” (Diskusija 2005).

Linguistic awareness first of all means recognizing the value of the Lithuanian language—symbolic and practical—and, once this has been recognized, supporting the vitality of Lithuanian language use in every way, both in Lithuania and in the diaspora. This task, however, is becoming difficult to accomplish because of society’s recent shift in values. Linguistic orientation in terms of values is inseparable from the entire changing field of social values: declining patriotism, disillusionment with the shared idea of the nation and its future, the considerable emigration associated with this (bearing in mind also that Lithuanians are the fastest-disappearing nation in Europe), changes in attitudes toward the family and other fundamental traditional values, as well as the leveling 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 the shared concern of many government institutions. In an interview, psychotherapist Eugenijus Laurinaitis said that, in addressing this broadest concern, the state should not limit itself to drafting laws and allocating funds to achieve the designated goals. Propaganda is also necessary (Laurinaitis 2010):

Propaganda would encompass long-term programs aimed at changing the values and attitudes of our society. If we want something in society to change, we must plan appropriate actions in advance. And appropriate actions usually have to be directed toward very long-term matters, because values change very slowly.

Propaganda (in its true, rather than distorted, sense)¹⁷ must also become part of language prestige planning—it should not be blunt, banal, or intrusive, but considered, subtle, and psychologically persuasive. Otherwise, over time, nihilistic ideas will take hold in society, especially among young people: that learning Lithuanian is not worthwhile, since it will disappear anyway (cf. Kalėdienė 2009: 290). It is therefore no coincidence that the new Lithuanian language education strategy for general education schools includes

¹⁷ Cf.: propagánda [Latin propago — I spread, disseminate], the dissemination of philosophical, scientific, religious, and other theories and ideas with the aim of cultivating and influencing people’s views and moods, and encouraging certain actions (Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera, 2001).

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

249

The strategy document also includes the following provision: “Promote in the public sphere the view that correct and rich Lithuanian is the foundation of education for all social strata and a mark of social prestige.” (Strategija 2010).

Another important point is that society must have something to look to as a model. The very concept of language prestige planning and the language-planning practices of other countries show that the prestige of a language or variety, which develops spontaneously, is no longer left to take its own course: it is incorporated into the process of consciously regulating language change and development. Thus, language planners must also devote considerable attention to creating and maintaining a benchmark for a prestigious language—clear goals and practical action are needed.

Indeed, recently there have been many initiatives to educate the public linguistically and strengthen the prestige of the Lithuanian language: the national dictation, which remains popular year after year; articles and discussions about language issues in online media; an occasional TVR program or quiz; presentations of language publications at book fairs; student competitions (for example, the “Švari galva – švari kalba” competition, held since 2008, www.lituani-ka.lt); campaigns (“Kalbą kuriu aš,” www.kalbakuriaš.lt); a drive to write internet domain names and addresses using Lithuanian characters (www.lietuviškai.lt); the registration of foreign words and the search for Lithuanian equivalents (the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language together with the online portal www.delfi.lt)¹⁸, and so on. It is important that private companies also contribute to activities organized by state institutions.

From an outside perspective, the activities of state institutions operating in Lithuania, as well as of public organizations (the Lithuanian Language Society and the commissions operating within the Vilnius City Municipality), do not appear particularly well planned or consistent; rather, they seem to arise spontaneously in response to needs, with only the broadest goals formulated in advance, rather than specific tasks. We should move from isolated campaigns to consistently organized activity and, as befits language planners, not only anticipate outcomes but also assess what has been achieved over a given period. At present, one might say, exploratory work is under way: individual worthwhile initiatives are being undertaken, but coordination is lacking. The Lithuanian Language Defenders’ Union, established recently, in July 2010, shows that society has a need for an active association to address current language-policy issues.

Thus, recognizing that language policy in Lithuania is based on language planning, the prestige of the Lithuanian language should also be viewed as an aspect of planning

¹⁸ Further information about these activities can be found in the annual reports published on the websites of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, the State Language Inspectorate, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, and the Lithuanian Language Society.

250

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

the object, and not only clearly define the immediate and longer-term objectives and consider the means by which they will be achieved, but also anticipate how the results obtained will be evaluated. The goal of the nation’s and language’s survival must be clear, as must the direction of strengthening the solidarity of Lithuanians living throughout the world and the specific objectives: to increase Lithuanian-language resources and create a favorable environment for its continued vitality, so that society does not diminish but, through joint efforts, strengthens the prestige of the Lithuanian language both in our country and throughout the world. Learning from global experience, a wide range of approaches can be found for this work. However, this is no longer the work of language specialists alone.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The work of language-planning theorists and practitioners in other countries shows that this branch of sociolinguistics has gained markedly in relevance and strength over the past decade as a result of globalization and interaction among nations and cultures. The scope of the concept of language planning has expanded considerably, as new objectives are continually set for language planning, its direction changes, and the object it encompasses grows broader. The focus has shifted from influencing language to influencing language users, who are themselves encouraged to shape language development: alongside the traditional components—standardizing language structure and expanding its functions—came the regulation of relations between languages (status), followed by language teaching and, finally, language-prestige planning. It has been recognized that language planning can succeed only when people are internally motivated to use a particular language or variety, rather than when coercive administrative methods are applied. Thus, the prestige of a language or its variety is no longer left to evolve on its own, but becomes an object of planning.

2. Official Lithuanian language-policy documents indicate the importance to society of the prestige of the Lithuanian language—first and foremost as the state language—(with other languages in use taken into account) and envisage ways to strengthen it. However, the practical efforts of state institutions, public organizations, and individuals lack clearly formulated objectives and closer coordination.

3. As sociolinguistic studies conducted in Lithuania show, the prestige of the Lithuanian language is not strong for various reasons, particularly the decline of national identity and traditional values, high emigration, and other factors. Strengthening it requires a language-planning strategy that sets a clear direction and objectives for language development, as well as defined language-prestige planning objectives grounded in the results of sociolinguistic research into the public’s language attitudes and current usage—

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

251

patterns. Society, including the diaspora and emigrants who have an interest in preserving the Lithuanian language, must be more actively involved in sustaining the linguistic heritage and in the process of language creation.

4. It is important to foster the prestige of standard Lithuanian in a systematic way and to involve target groups of standard Lithuanian users in this work—journalists, writers, translators, language editors, teachers, students, and others. An essential foundation for this is a prestigious standard-language model, that is, a codification reflecting actual contemporary usage. The main directions for planning the prestige of standard Lithuanian could be as follows:

1) disseminating prescriptive linguistic information, and ensuring its timeliness, clarity, and sound argumentation;

2) maintaining the language model and cultivating exemplary language users (for example, TVR news presenters), as well as overseeing the most important domains of language use that influence society;

3) the considered introduction of language innovations (especially neologisms), while mitigating users’ current, often negative, reactions;

4) raising the prestige of language practitioners’ work;

5) examining the best experience of language-prestige planners in other countries and adapting it to the needs of the Lithuanian language.

LITERATŪRA

Ager D. 2001: Motivation in language planning and language policy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ager 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.

Aliūkaitė D. 2009: Bendrinės kalbos vaizdinių tikslumas: kvazistandarto problema. – Respectus Philologicus 16 (21) A, 160–187.

Ammon 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, 2^nd ed., V. 1, Walter de Gruyter, 273–283.

Bakmand B. 2000: National language planning, why (not)? – Intercultural Communication 3. Ed. J. Allwood. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr3/bakmand.htm> (žiūrėta 2010 08 15).

Baldauf R. B. 2004: Issues of prestige and image in language-in-education planning in Australia. – Current Issues in Language Planning 5(4), 376–388.

Baldauf 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.

252

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

Baldauf 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. Prieiga per internetą: <http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:121324/HCA10UQ121324.pdf> (žiūrėta 2010 11 11).

Bertašienė G., Kačiūškienė G. 2009: Tauragiškių mokytojų požiūris į lietuvių bendrinės kalbos prestižą ir jos vartoseną. – Jaunųjų mokslininkų darbai 2 (23), 7–11.

Christian D. 1994 [1990]: Kalbų planavimas kalbotyros požiūriu. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra. Sud. Laima Grumadienė ir Rūta Marcinkevičienė, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 29–40.

Cobarrubias 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.

Daoust D. 1997: Language planning and language reform. – The handbook of sociolinguistics. Ed. F. Coulmas, Oxford: Blackwell, 436–452.

Diskusija 2005: Iš diskusijos „Lietuvių kalba ir Lietuvos kultūra ateities Europoje: raidos perspektyvos“ Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo Konstitucijos salėje 2005 m. vasario 14 d. – Literatūra ir menas, gegužės 6.

DSEL 2004: Development strategy of the Estonian language 2004–2010, Tartu.

Edwards 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.

Ferguson G. 2006: Language planning and education, Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Gairės 2003: Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2003–2008 m. gairės. – Prieiga per internetą: <http://vlkk.lt/lit/apie/kalbos-politikos-gaires> (žiūrėta 2010 01 10).

Gairės 2008: Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2009–2013 m. gairės (projektas). – Prieiga per internetą: <http://vlkk.lt/lit/10110> (žiūrėta 2010 01 10).

Groof J. de 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.

Haarmann 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.

Haugen E. 1983: The implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice. – Progress in language planning. International perspectives. Eds. J. Cobarrubias, J. A. Fishman, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 269–289.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

253

Haugenas E. 1994 [1966]: Kalbotyra ir kalbos planavimas. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra. Sud. Laima Grumadienė ir Rūta Marcinkevičienė, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 14–28.

Kalėdienė L. 2009: Viešoji nuomonė ir kalbų politika. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 287–293.

Kaplan R. B., Baldauf R. B. Jr. 1997: Language planning: from practice to theory, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kloss H. 1966: Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten Variables. – Sociological Inquiry 36 (2), 135–145.

Kloss H. 1969: Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report. – Québec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.

Kruopienė I. 2006: Taisyklingos kalbos vartosena studentų akimis. – Žmogus ir žodis 1, 74–79.

Labutis V. 2006: Kaip visuomenę sudominti lietuvių kalba. – Literatūra ir menas, gegužės 4.

Laurinaitis E. 2010: E. Laurinaitis: esant dabartinei politikai, nyksime kaip tauta [interviu: kalbėjosi Vladimiras Laučius]. – www.delfi.lt, sausio 15. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/elaurinaitis-esant-dabartinei-politikai-nyksime-kaip-tauta.d?id=27697855> (žiūrėta 2010 04 25).

Mesthrie R., Swann J., Deumert A., Leap W. L. 2000: Introducing sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press.

Milligan L. 2007: A Systems Model of Language Planning. – Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, 192–198. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.ling.cam.ac.uk/camling/Manuscripts/CamLing2007_Milligan.pdf> (žiūrėta 2010 01 05).

Nahir M. 2006 [1984]: Language Planning Goals: A Classification. – Sociolinguistics: the essential readings. Eds. Ch. B. Paulston, G. R. Tucker, 2^nd ed., Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 423–448.

Nekvapil J. 2006: From Language Planning to Language Management. – Sociolinguistica 20, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 92–104. Prieiga per internetą: <http://uk-online.uni-koeln.de/remarks/d5134/rm2169329.pdf> (žiūrėta 2010 03 20).

Nevinskaitė L. 2009: Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 173–189.

Pupkis A. 1995: Prestižinė kalba ir Jablonskio autoritetas. – Gimtoji kalba 12, 1–4.

Pupkis A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtas žodis.

Ramonienė M. 2006: Nuostatos dėl bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės: Joniškėlio atvejis. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 137–147.

Ricento T. 2000: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2), 196–213.

Spolsky B. 1998: Sociolinguistics, Oxford University Press.

254

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

Strategija 2010: Lietuvių kalbos ugdymo bendrojo lavinimo programas vykdančiose mokyklose 2010–2014 metų strategija. – Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.smm.lt/ugdymas/docs/Lietuviu%20kalbos%20strategija%20(1).pdf> (žiūrėta 2011 01 20).

S u b a č i u s G. 2002: Two Types of Standard Language History in Europe. – Res Balticae 8, 131–150.

S u b a č i u s G. 2004: Standartinių (bendrinių) kalbų istorijos chronologija. – Metmenys 84, 97–115. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.uic.edu/classes/lith/lith520/SUB_strp/SUB_2004_Chron%20METM.PDF> (žiūrėta 2010 03 15).

T r u d g i l l G. 2003: A glossary of sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press.

V a i c e k a u s k i e n ė L. 2004: Teorinės svetimžodžių norminimo prielaidos. – Skoliniai ir bendrinė lietuvių kalba. Sud. Jurgita Girčienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 9–29.

V a i c e k a u s k i e n ė L. 2007: Naujieji lietuvių kalbos svetimžodžiai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

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 Asia- Pacific education researcher 16 (2), 111–126. Prieiga per internetą: <www.philol.info/index.php/TAPER/article/viewFile/230/231> (žiūrėta 2010 01 06).

Gauta 2010 12 06

LANGUAGE PRESTIGE AND ITS PLANNING

S u m m a r y

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.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Kalbos prestižas ir jo planavimas

255

The article contains an overview of the concept of language planning based on theoretical work by foreign sociolinguists, including E. Haugen, H. Haarmann, R. Cooper, H. Kloss, R. Kaplan, R. Baldauf, and D. Ager. The context of language planning and its issues encompasses both the traditional elements, i. e. language status, language corpus and the planning of teaching, and a new component, which is language prestige planning. The article analyzes the major principles inscribed in the official political instruments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia which regulate the issues of language prestige. It also discusses research insights from the studies of language prestige in Lithuania and covers the most important tools for prestige raising implemented during the recent years by the state and private institutions in Lithuania.

The following conclusions have been drawn:

1. Foreign experience in language planning shows that the focus of measures and influence is moving from the influence on language to the influence on language users who are encouraged to develop a conscious approach to language matters. It has been realized that success in language planning can only be achieved when individual language users are personally motivated to choose one or another language variety rather than being forced to do so by administrative tools. Hence, the prestige of a language or its variety becomes an object of planning.

2. The official documents on language policy in Lithuania stress the importance of prestige of the Lithuanian language in society and provide measures for its implementation. Yet the subjects of this activity, i. e. state authorities and individuals, do not have clearly formulated objectives and a well-coordinated plan of action.

3. Scarce sociological research in Lithuania has revealed that the prestige of Lithuanian for different reasons, which in particular are related to the national identity, the low status of traditional values, intense emigration etc., is not very high. Thus its planning and strengthening call for the following measures: 1) a language planning strategy that would outline the direction and objectives of language development and define the tasks for language prestige planning, based on the sociolinguistic principles and studies of the current language use; 2) an institution charged with the task of language prestige planning which would involve relevant target groups into prestige planning activities, namely, journalists, writers, translators, editors, teachers, students, interested members of the emigrants’ communities and others; 3) a standard of prestige language variety, i. e. a codification reflecting the current language use.

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

256

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83