JURGITA GIRČIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

BROADCAST PRESENTERS ON INFORMAL LINGUISTIC EXPRESSION IN THE MEDIA

1. INTRODUCTION

Recently, the privatization of the public sphere and its links to the simplification of language, or an informal speaking style¹, have been intensely debated around the world and in Lithuania (see Fairclough 1995; Hedin 2005; Nevinskaitė 2006; Webster 2006: 168–208; Pečiulis 2007: 198–204; Fiske 2008: 94–100; Marcinkevičienė 2009, among others). Media representatives are among the most important creators of the linguistic background of the public sphere. Researchers from various fields, including linguists, have expressed differing opinions about the informal expressive means used by journalists. Some, traditionally considering correctness the principal criterion of good public language, interpret informal speech as a deterioration of media language, as nonstandard variants on the margins of the standard language. Others, viewing public discourse from the perspective of a transforming, liberalizing society and of media that have renounced the role of teacher and create the appearance of friendly dialogue with the addressee, associate informal speech with more effective communication and good communicative competence, which helps media representatives create an informal communicative environment characteristic of the period in question².

In view of this divergence of opinion, it is appropriate to investigate what media representatives themselves think about the spread of informal expression into the media. This question is addressed on the basis of a study of TV and radio presenters’ attitudes toward public language and language policy, conducted as part of the project “Baltic Sociolinguistics (BALSOC):

¹ In sociolinguistic theory, the informal style, as a feature of communication rather than of usage, is understood as the opposite of the formal style (see Trudgill 1999: 117–128; for a fuller discussion of the relationship between these terms and the concepts they denote and other terms that denote similar notions, e.g., free vs. official usage, and their scope, see Miliūnaitė 2009: 40 ff.; Tamaševičius 2010: 192).

² For a fuller discussion of the arguments presented by researchers who interpret language simplification differently, see Girčienė 2009: 299–232; Tamaševičius 2009; 2010, among others.

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

307

“Linguistic self-awareness of society in Lithuania and Latvia”³ – based on data encompassing assessments of one’s own linguistic competence, specifically the influence of domain of use and addressee on journalists’ speech. The study involved 24 structured qualitative interviews with typical (popular and well-known) programme hosts—men aged 32–42. Although this sampling limits the generalisation of results to all media representatives, a homogeneous sample makes it possible to reveal the greatest possible diversity of opinions within a single group, regardless of age and gender (Nevinskaitė 2009). Some respondents host analytical programmes (ANALIT.) intended for more mature audiences, while others host popular entertainment programmes (POP.), more often intended for young people. It should be noted that classifying programmes according to this criterion proved difficult; therefore, this distinction should be treated with reservations (Nevinskaitė 2009). Half of the respondents are classified as professionals—that is, journalists or actors who received systematic training in language and speech during their studies (PROF.); the others constitute the group of so-called non-professionals, who have no journalistic education and received no thorough linguistic preparation during their studies (NEPROF.).

The sample was formed using the two criteria mentioned above and comprises four groups, each consisting of six programme hosts. Hosts of TV and radio programmes (as among the most prominent manifestations of the public sphere) constitute a particularly relevant group of professional speakers for the study described in this article, since their speech undoubtedly influences language users in general. Moreover, programme hosts, as word professionals, are competent to reason about language change (cf. Nevinskaitė 2009). It may be assumed that their expressed attitudes (unlike those of so-called “naïve” language users), although studied by a direct method, could be related to actual language use in the public sphere (see Vaicekauskienė 2010: 171).

2. THE NEED FOR MOTIVATED ANTINORMS

One of the questions put to respondents concerning their personal linguistic competence sought to establish whether there were occasions when, while hosting programmes, they deliberately broke the norms of standard language, and what the possible reasons were. In general, most (20 out of 24) programme hosts say that, when necessary and for various reasons, they deliberately break language norms for a reason (see Fig. 1).

³ The project was carried out by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (2009) and supported by the State Science and Studies Foundation.

308

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

Break norms for a reason Do not deliberately break norms

FIG. 1. Programme hosts classified according to whether they break standard language norms in the programmes they host

2.1. Two of the four respondents initially assigned to the subgroup of those who do not break norms on the basis of a strictly negative answer (No; No, I do not deliberately break them), as they elaborate on their answers, admit that in very rare (exceptional, isolated) cases they can bypass norms that obstruct the communication process:

No. No. Because, as I say, the only case was with “Audra”; that was it. I really do try, even if it sounds awful and I know that 90 percent of my acquaintances certainly wouldn’t say it that way, because they really don’t know that it should be said that way⁴. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

No, I don’t deliberately break them. I really don’t deliberately break them. But if I need to use that word<...> draivas, when there’s no Lithuanian equivalent, <...> then it happens that I say, “as musicians say, draivas.” So I might throw in that same slang, warning the listener, the viewer beforehand that there’ll be slang, but that makes things clearer for everyone. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

It should be noted that three of the four respondents who say they do not deliberately break standard language norms in their programmes host programmes of more serious content, of an analytical nature and intended for a more mature audience, which require more formal linguistic expression. Two of them belong to the subgroup of non-professionals, as does the sole host of popular programmes who said that he certainly does not intentionally break language norms. Among the respondents belonging to the subgroup of professionals, only one said that he does not break language norms—a journalist hosting an analytical, formal political debate programme⁵ (see Fig. 2).

⁴ Both stress variants áudra (1) and audrà (4) are standard. (Editor’s note.) Quoted speech is not corrected. – J. G.

⁵ For a fuller discussion of the distinction between (in)formality in so-called public-affairs talk shows and its influence on the choice of informal means of expression, see G i r č i e n ė J. Nominative designations of addressees in talk shows discussing public issues: a sociolinguistic aspect, 2010 (submitted for publication in Žmogus kalbos erdvėje).

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

309

FIG. 2. Distribution of program hosts according to the relationship between (non-)observance of standard language norms and the type of program they host and their education

Only a few (5 of all 24) program hosts associate the violation of language norms with the quality of the norms (three of the twenty who admitted doing so consistently, and two of the four assigned to the subgroup of those who do not violate them). These respondents simply do not follow rules that constrain the expression of thought and deviate greatly from what, according to one respondent, has become established in spoken language and folk traditions:

It is hard for me to understand <...> why, for example, certain things long established in our country, in our spoken language, are suddenly <...> being struck out <...>. I understand where slang and all sorts of other things come in, but, for instance, those very same „Joninės“. Now we’re supposed to say „Joninės“, but not „Joninės“. But all our lives everyone has said „Joninės“. Why change something like that? <...> These sorts of things <...> seem <...> pointless to me. And surely sometimes one can draw on folk wisdom and make a certain exception. Let „Joninės“ remain „Joninės“, and not „Joninės“⁶. [NEPROF. POP.]

I break the norms <...> because some thoughts, if you want to express them precisely, [when spoken] do not necessarily conform to the rules established by linguists. <...> [most of the time] I submit to the linguists’ diktat, although I do not always agree. [NEPROF. ANALIT.] (see also the first two illustrative examples)

It is worth noting that all five respondents who associate motivated violations with a norm they consider poor, as a communicative hindrance, do not have a journalism degree.

⁶ Both accentuation variants Jonìnės (2) and Jõninės (1) are standard. (Editor’s note).

310

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

2.2. Most (19) respondents link instances of motivated use of antinorms not to the quality of the norms themselves, but to the opportunity offered by elements beyond the boundaries of standard language to expand the arsenal of linguistic expressive means required for effective communication—that is, to go beyond one of the requirements of good language, correctness—so that, by drawing on stylistically expressive elements from other linguistic codes, they can activate other segments of good, or stylish, language needed in a particular communicative situation: vividness, liveliness, and so on (cf. Župerka 2001: 9). The opinion of this predominant group is summed up in a quotation from one of its members, a respondent with a journalism degree:

Journalism involves certain matters of style, and if you use certain words deliberately, deliberately break [the rules], or deliberately misplace the stress, then, in my view, that is normal. This has little to do with linguistic correctness; it is more a matter of style. [PROF. ANALIT.]

Analysis of the responses of program hosts who deliberately violate standard language norms revealed certain broader reasons for respondents’ use of informal lexical and prosodic elements.

1) A motivated antinorm is identified as an important means of better conveying the characters (created in the program), for example:

For a character created for television <...>, incorrect speech gives the impression of a villain, <...> an idiot, or something else. Because it would look funny <...> and even stupid if that character, [for example] a bandit, <...>, spoke in very polished literary language. [PROF. POP.]

I play <...> a boy, <...>, with that kind of slang... their ears would probably flop down; they hadn’t heard it before. I have a conversation: <...> “We baked, Mom. – What did you bake?” Of course I say “pancakes,” not “pancakes.” <...> “Totally, totally unnecessary when you’re knead-ing the dough to pick the eggshells lūkštus out of the batter <...>. That’s how they eat in Brazil.” <...> You have to mispronounce every word because, according to the plot, <...> the sister is a nerd, <...> while the brother is a little slow, so he can’t speak correctly. <...> This is even a character trait: the character speaks badly, very expressively, but very badly. [PROF. POP.]

Only a few people translate films well <...>. Because our editors are very inflexible. So I think that in such fields as art—cinema, literature—Lithuanian is very poor. It’s a situation of lifeless dialogue <...>. I am much freer in those places <...>, because it’s a completely different matter. <...> Characters talking continuously, who have to be convincingly alive, and very rarely do you believe what is happening there: they’re wooden, like that. [PROF. ANALIT.]

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

311

2) Means of expression that do not conform to the standard of the standard language, for example, elements of colloquial speech, help presenters create an informal atmosphere, break down communication barriers, and encourage the openness of show participants required for certain programs (talk shows and the like) and expected by viewers, e.g.:

Sometimes you need to shock the audience a little in order to attract it. [PROF. ANALIT.]

You allow yourself something, because <...> well, let’s say, it breaks down certain barriers. [PROF. POP.]

3) A stylistically expressive, motivated antinorm often enables a presenter to emphasize a point when necessary and convey the required context more economically, e.g.:

I would think [it allows you] to emphasize something, <...> to place logical stress on an idea. [NERPOF. POP.]

[I break the rules] if that is needed to emphasize some paradox. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

In some situations, <...> involving words or some phrase, <...> uttered by some well-known person <...>, it may be, for example, <...> the “nafik” used by the “Žinios” character, the chairman of the pseudo-family, <...> “purvasklaidė” or some other neologism, <...> which are not part of the standard language, <...> yet as phenomena they <...> have certain nuances of meaning <...> and can convey the whole context. Instead of explaining how some politician said it in some context, <...> it is simply enough to recall that one word, and it tells the audience everything. [PROF. ANALIT.]

4) In journalists’ view, informal elements on the fringes of the standard language help create an overall expressive backdrop that captivates viewers and enliven the program, especially through humorous interludes, e.g.:

I have a specific morning program that above all has to be fun and relaxed, <....> there has to be a lot of good-natured humor and no inhibitions. Anything can happen, anything. [PROF. POP.]

If the situation calls for, say, some kind of humorous presentation, sometimes it helps to <...> break the rules of language. <...> I use various words that should not be used. [PROF. POP.]

My colleague <...> stumbled over her words and said “veržliarakŠtis” instead of “veržliaraktis.” I liked it so much, I got hooked on it, <...> and repeated it throughout the whole program: “Well, there you go, we’ll take the veržliarakŠtį.” That would be an example of [breaking the rules]. [PROF. POP.]

312

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

It should be emphasized that respondents associate the need for motivated antinorms with the quality of informal means of expression, their suitability for a particular program format, and responsibility toward oneself and the addressee (which is why informal expression is sometimes accompanied by metalinguistic comments)—that is, with professionalism. For example:

It should sound delicious. I really avoid banal, streetwise, widespread things used on air, because I imagine that the people on air in particular should be role models, <...> that they are there for that reason, because they stand out from others in some way, they prepare, <...> what is hackneyed, <...> is no longer interesting to the viewer. [PROF. POP.]

So if, let’s say, some element of a show or program requires it—that you have to include some Samogitian sentence or a Russian one, or something [similar]. [NEPROF. POP.]

If you make a mistake deliberately, then you have to be prepared... People will notice anyway. In most, most cases, it does not escape the audience’s notice. And in that case, you have to have at least two explanations, <...> have an argument ready for yourself. And, of course, those should be solid arguments, <...> whether you wanted, let’s say, to emphasize something more. <...> Again, if it is slang, it usually draws attention, draws attention because it is unusual, nonstandard for that setting, or sounds unfamiliar to someone else; perhaps in our village they say it differently... [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

To summarize the answers to the question about violations of the norms of standard language, most respondents regard their own instances of motivated antinorms as a deliberate, responsible linguistic game requiring competence and facilitating effective communication. The insight that breaking norms is more often perceived as a stylistic device than as disregard for correctness is further reinforced by the fact that all respondents making up the majority of the sample, when linking the question of deliberate norm-breaking not to the quality of the norm, nor to the norm as an obstacle (cf. 2.1), but to the additional opportunity offered by elements on the fringes of standard language to broaden the range of expression, essentially said the same thing when answering the question about the use of expressive means of expression.

3. THE NEED FOR EXPRESSIVE MEANS OF EXPRESSION

The need for linguistic means of expression that provide expressivity, and their necessity on air, is also evidenced by the fact that almost all respondents answered positively when asked about the use in programs of expressive elements—words, including neologisms, constructions, and the like. The main means of making language expressive largely coincide with those mentioned in response to the question about breaking norms—they most often-

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

313

-belong to the lexical subsystem: respondents mention (their own) neologisms, words from other languages or other varieties of Lithuanian (colloquial speech, slang, dialects), and, more rarely, phraseology; only interjections and sound-imitative words are cited as markers of expressivity. Prosodic elements are also used playfully, while syntactic means of expression are mentioned in individual cases. A few of the respondents’ answers illustrating specific means of making language expressive are given below:

Maybe more interjections. <...> [they convey], let’s say, great astonishment: “voooo,” but it isn’t “wow, woou”—you do it by puffing out air; it’s very charming to repeat. [PROF. POP.]

I like to shock people too... And to come up with neologisms, replacing “guest – visitor” with “guestr.” [PROF. POP.]

Actually, coming up with words is hard work <...>. I say, I’ve introduced a couple of neologisms and I know what that means, how much you struggle. But I perhaps prefer to use things like “whistled-up, swiped-off,” all sorts of things that sometimes pop into my head; I don’t know where they come from <...> But sometimes you pull some of those out, and I really like to give those words a completely different [meaning], to put them into an entirely different context. [NEPROF. POP.]

All hosts of popular programs, and most respondents who host analytical programs, make use when needed of these often likewise informal linguistic resources, which can be assigned to the fringes of standard language (three of the four who do not use means of making language expressive explained that they had used them when hosting popular programs). Respondents associate the use of informal expressive means of expression with humor, novelty, emotionality, a more apt and livelier thought, and individual style. For example:

Well, if it’s got flair—at least, I think it should have flair. [PROF. POP.]

You choose your own manner of speaking, your own speaking style—that is, [you need] to strengthen each person’s individuality. <...> Just as I am alive, so language is alive. [NEPROF. POP.]

Sometimes, in certain situations, it livens up the language and brings in <...>, let’s say, healthy, healthy humor. In some situations you simply need to use neologisms like that, but again, without crossing the line. Everything in moderation <...> And sometimes, why not use a neologism to spice up a particular situation? [NEPROF. POP.]

To enliven the expression of the thought itself, <...> to illustrate the emotion. [NEPROF. POP.]

To exaggerate something, to highlight major differences. [PROF. ANALIT.]

314

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

So that the language would be more precise. <...> The work is fascinating precisely because every day you come up with something new and forget it the next day. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

You’re looking for some kind of <...> aphoristic quality... <...> Something new, something new has to ring out. <...> Obviously, you’re always trying to make people say, once you’ve said it—oh, that’s good! [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

In answering the question about expressive language use, respondents not only mentioned essentially the same means of expression as those used for motivated antinorms, but also explicitly linked them to one another, for example:

If there’s something specific in the image, sometimes you deliberately come up with some specific word or somehow break some rule. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

But, I say, we also make every effort not to overstep the bounds—let’s start with the bounds of decency, and then those of language culture. [NEPROF. POP.]

4. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN MOTIVATED INFORMAL EXPRESSION AND COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

Thus, for most respondents, the motivated breaking of standard-language norms is synonymous with expressive language use and the expansion of expressive means, and vice versa (cf. Sections 2 and 3). Both processes are understood not merely as a linguistic intellectual game requiring competence on the part of the programme host, but also of the viewer or listener—a conscious game that enhances the impact of communication, rather than the deliberate or accidental use of so-called ordinary language or a lowering of the quality bar. This attitude of programme hosts is associated with good communicative competence, which, in informal circumstances, requires the ability to shift to informal communication and thus to make use of informal means of expression as well, to play with language (cf. Hedin 2005: 60; Tamaševičius 2010). Playfulness and language play in general are considered distinctive features of the postmodern era (Hassan 1987, cit. from Lapėnienė 2007; Lyotard 2010: 32).

Insights into the responsible, conscious use of informal linguistic expression as a form of play are further reinforced by respondents’ answers to other questions related to the topic under discussion, concerning differences between public and private speech, the reasons for them, and adaptation to the addressee. All respondents’ affirmative answers to the question of whether they make an effort to speak when hosting programmes undoubtedly demonstrate responsibility for

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

315

the public word. While on air, most said they think not only about what they say, but also how they speak, and noted that they prepare for this in advance, for example:

I think about it a lot. [PROF. POP.]

If it’s a live broadcast or a recording, you always think about how you speak. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

In view of this, it is natural that all the presenters interviewed change the nature of their speech when speaking publicly compared with in private settings (a little / more / a great deal; among those who indicated a percentage, 20, 30, 40 percent): on air, they speak more correctly, fluently, eloquently, and elegantly. It is not only the vocabulary of the public register that differs, but also syntax and prosody—pronunciation and stress. Although many respondents mentioned the need to speak correctly in public and to have the necessary skills, they associated this with an inner need and with the communicative benefits of good speech, of which correctness is an integral part. Only a few respondents (2 out of 24) associated the aforementioned “higher-quality” code used publicly with external pressure to conform to language norms, saying that they had the opportunity to speak (somewhat) more freely in public. It is worth noting that those who feel (more) constrained by the language system, and who speak of correctness more as an aspiration, are the so-called non-professionals—presenters without a journalism education (cf.: When a person starts thinking, they lose their freedom straight away, because a person is free when they’re not thinking, when everything just flows out of them. And if you’re unsure, you’re not used to speaking correctly, <...> you express your thoughts with a little more difficulty [NEPROF. ANALIT.]). For professionals, this is already an acquired skill, a foundation on which they can pursue effective communication—switching codes, using a nonstandard variant when needed, and so on.

Most presenters associate their more correct, fluent, eloquent, and elegant public speech with the communicative function of language as a means of communication, expressing thoughts, and creating an image, and thus also with its consequences—responsibility to the audience and to themselves as professionals, for example:

It’s a way of showing respect for the audience you’re addressing. [PROF. POP.]

Here, I think it’s more a question of <...> professional self-respect. <...> everything starts to smell of professionalism or unprofessionalism. [NEPROF. POP.]

At least I have an idea of the image I’ve built up. Naturally, to maintain that image, you also need to maintain <...> the same beauty of language. Because otherwise you can quickly go from a “Mercedes” to a “Zaporozhets.” That’s very easy. But going from a “Zaporozhets” back to a “Mercedes” is harder. [NEPROF. POP.]

316

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

Not only the public or private sphere, but also the differing circumstances of public speaking encourage most respondents to change their way of speaking and adapt it to different programme formats, e.g.:

I can speak differently on every programme. [PROF. POP.]

When I work on a programme <...> aimed at a young audience, I may speak a little more freely—not exactly more relaxed, but simply without worrying so much about what I’m going to say, <...> and perhaps I use slightly different words. For instance, if I’m working on a sports programme about sports news and events, <...> I try to speak like an ordinary sports fan, to use their words—there’s no script written for me to read from, or a teleprompter, because a sports fan is emotional, a little, well, rather mocking, perhaps in the positive sense of the word. [PROF. POP.]

All the programmes I’ve hosted <...> were fairly informal in style <...>; they even asked me to bring a certain kind of emotion, along with phrases or words that might not be gems of standard language. [PROF. POP.]

The different nature of programmes also determines their different audiences: most respondents said they adapt their way of speaking to the guests taking part in the programme and to its presumed viewers, e.g.:

Journalists should adapt to the person they are interviewing. [NEPROF. ANALIT.]

Yes, I want as many listeners as possible to accept me, and if you’re overly correct, well, some people will reject you as untrustworthy, arrogant, a snob, I don’t know... Well, especially <...> people from smaller towns. They want you to talk to them like one of their own, so you try to please them and speak more intelligibly, in a language they can understand better. [PROF. POP.]

It’s the setting you’re addressing—the audience—that prompts you to do this. <...> if I’m speaking to schoolchildren, <...> I speak differently, in a way that’s easier for them to understand, using more humour that they can relate to <...>. If <...> I’m talking there about certain natural monuments <...> to a more formal audience, then of course I speak a little differently. [PROF. POP.]

It depends on the person. If you’re interviewing <...> some respected public figure, you obviously try to speak a little differently, correctly; <...> the guest’s status, after all, obliges you to, as does respect for them. [PROF. POP.]

This attitude among programme hosts demonstrates their good communicative competence, associated with speech accommodation—the addressee’s adaptation of their speech to the audience or to a particular interlocutor (cf. Holmes 2008: 242–243; Tamaševičius 2009: 139–141). The respondents’ attitudes described above also suggest that the hosts may have good sociolinguistic competence, associated with the ability to ex-

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

317

to vary linguistic expression according to the nature of the discourse, and to use informal means of expression in informal circumstances (cf. Hedin 2005: 60; Holmes 2008: 431–434; Tamaševičius 2010).

The results of this descriptive study, based on a portion of the BALSOC project material concerning television and radio hosts’ personal linguistic competence, are consistent with the results of other studies based on BALSOC data. It has been established that most respondents approve of the use of informal expression in public; this view is most strongly supported by hosts of entertainment programmes aimed at young people, and less so by respondents who host analytical current-affairs programmes for an academic audience (Vaicekauskienė 2010: 171). There are several types of programme hosts: more freewheeling “creators” who play with language, and more restrained “constructors” (Vaicekauskienė 2009: 20). Respondents perceive the current situation as a natural change in language, a living organism; they see a need for a more open standard in response to these changes, and links between informal linguistic expression and programme format and the age of the (addressee). In the opinion of some, impoverished language hinders the development of communicatively effective public discourse. Creative linguistic means that help expand the expressive capacity of language and encourage activity are viewed positively, while those that control and regulate it are not (cf. Nevinskaitė 2009: 182–184).

Studies based on BALSOC project material reveal the attitudes of public discourse creators. Given professional programme hosts’ view of language as a tool of their trade, it may be assumed that their attitudes are likely to be connected with their actual speech (cf. Vaicekauskienė 2010: 171). This is also supported by several more recent studies (Aleksandravičiūtė 2010: 46 ff.; Tamaševičius 2010) examining the actual speech of individual respondents who participated in the project: preliminary data indicate that programme hosts’ attitudes are related to their language use.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis of typical television and radio programme hosts’ views on 1) the reasons for breaking standard-language norms, 2) language expressivization, and 3) differences between public and private speech, as well as the variation in public speech determined by programme format and addressee, show that public discourse creators’ views on the spread into the media of informal linguistic expression as a communicatively effective means of language expressivization essentially correspond to the views of researchers who associate informal speech with communicative effectiveness—

318

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

and good communicative competence, which helps media representatives create an informal communicative environment characteristic of the period in question:

1. Most of the programme hosts surveyed say that, when necessary, they deliberately break standard-language norms for various reasons, that is, they use informal linguistic expression.

2. Most word professionals associate this process with the opportunity afforded by stylistically expressive elements on the margins of standard language to expand the range of linguistic means needed for effective communication—breaking norms is synonymous, for them, with language expressivization.

3. This is a conscious linguistic and intellectual game that requires competence not only from the addresser—the programme host—but also from the addressee, and that enhances the impact of communication; it is not associated with a straightforward transfer of the private register into the public sphere. It helps create a general expressive backdrop characteristic of contemporary media, an informal setting for programmes of a particular style, break down communication barriers, reveal a (character’s) personality, and convey the necessary context more closely.

The choice of informal variants of expression is determined by the programme format and its intended addressee, as well as by the host’s professionalism: informal expression for expressive linguistic play is more often chosen by hosts of entertainment programmes aimed at younger audiences, whereas hosts without journalistic training who present analytical current-affairs programmes for a more mature audience—programmes that require more formal linguistic expression—are more inclined to adhere to standard-language norms.

LITERATŪRA

Aleksandravičiūtė S. 2010: Sakytinės viešosios kalbos tyrimas: kalbinės elgsenos ir nuostatų santykis. Bakalauro darbas, Vilniaus universitetas.

Fairclough N. 1995: Media discourse, London: Edward Arnold.

Fiske J. 2008: Populiariosios kultūros supratimas, Vilnius: Žara.

Girčienė J. 2009: Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje (sociolingvistinis aspektas). – Kalbos kultūra 82, 214–234.

Hassan I. 1987: The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture, Ohio State University Press.

Hedin T. 2005: Changing Identities. Language Variation on Czech Television, Stockholm, Stockholm University.

Holmes J. 2008: An Introduction To Sociolinguistics, Harlow: Pearson Education.

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

319

Lapėnienė D. 2007: Žodžiai ir prasmės perteikiant postmodernistinę realybės sampratą. Prieiga per internetą: www.lhpa.net/files/Straipsniai/Lapenai-te_Zodziai_ir_prasmes.doc.

Lyotard J. F. 2010: Postmodernus būvis, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Marcinkevičienė R. 2009: Nuo Habermaso iki Valinsko. Viešosios erdvės privatėjimas. – Akiračiai 2–3 (409), 1, 4. Prieiga per internetą: www.akira-ciai.lt/Akiraciai/Tema/Nuo-Habermaso-iki-Valinsko.-Viesosios-erdves-privatėjimas

Miliūnaitė R. 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Nevinskaitė L. 2006: Viešosios erdvės transformacija Lietuvoje 1988–2000 m.: laikraščių atvejis. Daktaro disertacija, Vilniaus universitetas.

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

Pečiulis Ž. 2007: Iki ir po televizijos. Žvilgsnis į XX amžiaus audiovizualinės masinės komunikacijos fenomeną, Kaunas: Versus aureus.

Tamaševičius G. 2009: Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 138–148.

Tamaševičius G. 2010: „Bloga“ kalba ir sociolingvistinė kompetencija. – Darbai ir dienos 53, 189–198.

Trudgill P. 1999: Standard English: what it isn’t. – Standard English: the widening debate. Ed. T. Bex, R. J. Watts, London: Routledge, 117–128. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2009: „Kūrėjai“ ir „konstruktoriai“: asmenybės tipo įtaka kalbinėms nuostatoms. – 17-oji Jono Jablonskio konferencija: Kalbos variantiškumas ir kalbinės nuostatos. Pranešimų tezės, 20.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2010: Lietuvių kalbos norminimo šimtmetis. Daug ideologijų ir šiek tiek vartosenos. – Naujasis židinys 5–6, 165–172.

Webster F. 2006: Informacinės visuomenės teorijos, Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika.

Župerka K. 2001: Stilistika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetas.

Gauta 2010 11 23

320

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

TV AND RADIO PRESENTERS ON THE NONSTANDARD LANGUAGE USE IN THE MEDIA

Summary

The article presents data from the study Baltic sociolinguistics (BALSOC): language awareness and orientation in Lithuania and Latvia which was carried out to investigate views of TV and radio journalists on public language use and language policy, including self-assessment of linguistic competence and, more specifically, the impact of the field and addressees on the way the journalists speak. The analysis of the data shows that the majority of typical TV and radio journalists deliberately and owing to various reasons violate the norms of standard language and switch to the nonstandard language use. This practice is related to the fact that the use of nonstandard but stylistically expressive elements allows the speakers to expand their repertoire of lexical expression. Hence, violating the norm has become a way of enriching one’s speech. The whole process can be seen as an intellectual and challenging interplay between the journalist, or show presenter, and the addressee rather than a simple transfer of the private register to a public context; it helps to create a more expressive background of the current media, contributes to an informal atmosphere of certain shows, reveals the participants’ characters and is a time-saving strategy.

The choice of nonstandard forms of expression is usually governed by the type of show and its addressees as well as by the professional maturity of the journalists: presenters of shows for the younger audiences resort to informal register more often than hosts of analytical programs targeted at more mature viewers.

JURGITA GIRČIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

J. GIRČIENĖ. Laidų vedėjai apie neformalią kalbinę raišką žiniasklaidoje

321