REGINA KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ

Vilnius University

THE FUNCTION OF COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE AND SLANG LEXIS IN THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE OF A JOURNALIST

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary media, the boundaries between public and private, and between analytical-evaluative and satirical genres, are fading. Authors of political commentary increasingly tread the line of this genre, using the non-prestigious vocabulary characteristic of colloquial speech (sometimes exceptionally coarse and vulgar) in pursuit of vividness and rhetorical impact: “[...] I tried to make the text interesting for readers, whether they agreed or were indignant. In many cases, a vivid word, phrase, or expression was more important to me than a serious political-science argument.”¹ It cannot be claimed that the political-science argument is unimportant to the author. The journalist’s main source of expression, however, is colloquial speech, including slang—“the most dynamic, constantly renewed variety of colloquial language” (Jakaitienė 2009: 198)—which genuinely helps the author avoid relying on formulas, speak vividly and colorfully, seek more intimate communication with the reader (I’m one of you²), and be original, individual, and sarcastically angry or witty.

Nevertheless, this article will not discuss the vividness of colloquial lexis; its aim is to reveal the hidden functions of such vocabulary in the public discourse of a journalist³, and to identify authentic expressions heard in the commentaries

¹ R i m v y d a s V a l a t k a. Picking at an open nerve. Vilnius: Lietuvos rytas, 2005, 4.

² Rita Miliūnaitė, a language-culture specialist, writes similarly about the language used in the youth magazine supplement Lietuvos rytas Mes: “...the intrusion of slang elements into the public media is particularly noticeable. Alongside English expressions, Russian slang makes up a considerable proportion of them. [...] Slang is used here both without any justification and with a degree of irony, to attract readers and reduce the distance between authors and addressees. [...] Slang is also assigned the function of identifying the speaker with a particular social group and of creating an image: I’m like you; my language is no different from yours.” (see Miliūnaitė 2009: 75–76).

³This article views discourse as an event taking place in a specific situation—as a social act and as a means of linguistic communication, that is, as a complex communicative phenomenon,

126

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

the voices of other characters (usually politicians seated at the top) or their imitation, to show how and why the author sometimes brings the speech of the figures described closer to the lexicon characteristic of “convicts.”

The object of the study is a collection of Rimvydas Valatka’s political commentaries Atviro nervo krapštymas (citations are marked with the abbreviation ANK and the page number), as well as this author’s Monday commentaries published in the daily Lietuvos rytas after the collection appeared, up to October 5, 2009—A. Kubilius’s “national” agreement with B. Lubys.

The research method is descriptive-analytical. Keywords: colloquial language, slang, vulgar vocabulary, jargon vocabulary, jargon phraseology, occasional phraseology, journalist’s language ethics, public discourse, political commentary.

THE COLLOQUIAL REGISTER OF STANDARD LANGUAGE AND ITS OUTER LIMITS IN PUBLIC DISCOURSES

In the journalist’s public texts under discussion, low-register colloquial vocabulary stands out clearly; it is characterized by strong emotional and expressive connotations. Among colloquial words, verbs—the most active part of speech—are used most frequently in the political commentaries. In dictionaries, they are usually marked with special functional-stylistic labels: colloq., iron., joc., derog., pejor., slang, vulg. and the like. Admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to discern clear boundaries between these labels, since what is vulgar almost always carries a derogatory, disparaging, or ironic undertone⁴. The words found in the commentaries and listed below are Lithuanian; what they have in common is that they are used figuratively (these meanings are secondary in the dictionary). Many of them, for example: apsidirbti, susidirbti, išpaišyti, perspjauti, neraukti, nukalti, numuilinti, nusigrybauti, suvynioti, are slang⁵ words. The following colloquial and jargon verbs have been used by the author more than once: apmauti meaning “to deceive”; apsidirbti—to discredit oneself; apšvarinti—to rob; blefuoti—to boast, lie, or deceive; išdrėbti—to throw out;

encompassing a broad linguistic and social context that makes it possible to characterize the participants in communication (including the addresser) and the processes involved in producing and understanding a speech act.

⁴ Evalda Jakaitienė writes: “The concept of vulgarism is considerably broader. Vulgarisms include not only words that have a strongly negative connotation toward the interlocutor, but also other words with a low stylistic register, denoting ‘ugly, coarse’ concepts that society regards as unaesthetic” (Jakaitienė 2005: 257).

⁵ What is meant here are semantic jargonisms that have crossed professional and social boundaries and entered the general colloquial vocabulary; they are called by a special term—slang.

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Šnekamosios kalbos ir žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse

127

make up – invent; fool around – do stupid things; kick out – drive out, throw out; down – drink a lot (of alcohol); not have a clue – know nothing, not understand; swipe – steal; knock down – shoot down, stab, finish off; make off with – steal, fail to return, conceal; go off the rails – talk nonsense; do something wrong; pinch – steal; outdo – surpass, outdo; spend – spend; slip in – secretly insert; foam at the mouth – be angry, rage, quarrel; scurry around – run from place to place; mess things up – completely ruin the matter; screw up – make a mistake, fail to do something; wrap around – trick (deceive); earn – make money; wear out – tire to death, wear down.

Because of the article’s limited length, only one or two typical examples, rich in colloquial and slang vocabulary, are quoted here:

That same S. S.⁶, who was in prison for having stolen, never mind what that amounted to in those days, a sum of currency. That same S. S., whom the conservatives themselves robbed and for that threw in the clink. When power begins slipping from under their feet, even an ex-thief will do as a partner. With a hunchback? He’s got a record, but he’s one of ours, so he won’t make the bosses see red. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 27)

B. that, R. ang. They’ve lost all shame, toad-faced lot, get rid of a parliament like that. They’re lurking in every corner. What’s there to hide? Why are you foaming at the mouth? Answer a simple question: which is the greater evil: the lying Member of Seimas A. B., who stole doors from a dormitory, or security chief P. M.? [...] Although A. B. cleaned out the dormitory... (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 27)

The conservatives and liberals who consider themselves right-wing haven’t a clue at all. (Lrytas.lt 2009 10 04)

There are also quite a few inflected colloquial words—derogatory, contemptuous, mocking, and even vulgar (nouns and adjectives)—most often describing politicians’ limited intelligence or behavior: blockhead – a person of limited intelligence; big overgrown kid – an immature person; a large but dim-witted person; underdeveloped – someone born at the wrong time, insufficiently developed; crook – a good-for-nothing; asshole – useless; dog-turd – no good, worthless, talking nonsense; son of a bitch – a scoundrel, good-for-nothing.

The crisis in society, it seems, will be eternal. There are no figures even remotely suited to deal with it in Lithuania’s political arena. Wherever you look, there are only wreckers, narcissists, ticks on the body politic, and off-the-rails blockheads. (Lrytas.lt 2009 10 05)

Because that’s what we’re like. Uncritical. Still suicidally forgiving toward any son of a bitch, blockhead or whatever, so long as he is “one of us.” (Lrytas.lt 2009 07 02)

⁶For ethical reasons, only the initials of first and last names have been retained here and elsewhere (words in boldface are emphasized by the author) – R. K.

128

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

At the top of the Seimas, where even wine is officially banned, perches a juvenile—a costumed reveler who has not sobered up since Shrovetide. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Let’s line them up. The Seimas won’t find a better jerk! (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Less commonly used foreignisms, e.g., jail:

In a normal country, for this alone prosecutors would at least try to acquaint the current European Commissioner, the entire Ministry of Finance, and the leaders of four governing parties with the theory and practice of prison. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Among inflected parts of speech, the more striking semantic slang terms are: a bundle—at least a thousand dollars, euros, or litas; a mushroom—a fool, a dupe, a dimwit; a roof—backing, protection, cover; greens—dollars.

The same S. S., who went to prison for stealing a considerable sum of currency by the standards of the time. bundle. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 27)

Simpletons. If you’re going to chop down a fool, use a scythe. If anyone deserves to sit at the top of a totally mushroomed-out country’s parliament, it is only a fly agaric—with a red face dotted with white spots and bloodshot eyes every morning, and a white stem marked with black dashes like a doctor’s shoes. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Such is the punishment for the fact that companies of swindlers, who had the “protection” of several Russian officials, got caught smuggling. (ANK 188)

It is possible to believe that, as the head of “Avia Baltika” said, “Helisota” gave 15 thousand dollars. (ANK 213)

The journalist’s texts contain many assimilated foreignisms—words from Russian slang⁷: krūtas—cool, self-confident (person), an expensive object; otkatas (otkatininkai)—an illegal percentage-based charge on future profits; a share of goods or another transaction paid to an intermediary for services (otkatininkui); šestiorka (Lith. šešetukas)—a petty thief; a person who carries out minor errands or unskilled or dirty work; a servant, lackey; tūpas—stupid; vsio zakonno (everything is legal), cf. vor v zakonne (thief-in-law)—denotes a repeat offender who abides by thieves’ laws.

“Vsio zakonno”to the fourth power, and you can blow the prime minister a raspberry. (ANK 302)

It is even worse when a former dissident, a fighter for justice, turns into a mafioso’s “lackey.” (ANK 57)

⁷ Žr. Elistratov 2000; Mokijenko, Nikitina 2000; Dubiagina, Smirnov 2001.

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Šnekamosios kalbos ir žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse

129

The comments use slang interjections that have become widespread in Lithuania in recent years: blin—to express various emotions (a euphemism for a Russian swear word); dzin—I don’t care, it’s all the same to me, I couldn’t care less; nafik—from Russian na fig, na figa, na figiščia (from fig, figa—a fig, a vulgar gesture) — there’s no reason, what’s the point; said in disagreement, indignation, or denial.

Blin, if that’s how it is, Honorable Seimas... (ANK 220)

After all, A. B. knows that his fans couldn’t care less dzin whether he lied or told the truth. (ANK 161)

Can the Seimas of such a country be left without a leader? Do we have the right to kick A. V. nafik, leave him without limousines and bodyguards? (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Alongside colloquial words⁸, the journalist also employs slang phraseology characteristic of a particular social stratum: to pull the wool over someone’s eyes, provide protection, a roof over one’s head, or, more often, rather vulgar colloquial expressions: to thumb one’s nose at, ride to paradise on someone else’s “saviors’” horseradish, cover one’s bare backside, think with one’s backside, not a chance in hell.

“What will be left for the budget? Fat chance.“ (ANK 211);...those who are afraid of reforms like the devil fears the cross. (ANK 110)

However, it is clear enough that Prime Minister D. T. and the liberals in the Polish Sejm think with their heads, while A. K. and the conservatives or liberals in the Lithuanian Seimas—unless they are using the backsides of the Finance Ministry’s accountants—with their backsides. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 01)

The author can quite readily use folk idioms on occasion:

Well, so what if the loan taken out to set up the café accrues interest every day, while the budget receives no tax revenue: it’s not the official’s pig, so the peas aren’t his concern. (ANK 283)

Any other figure,—God save us from plague, famine, war, and A. V.’s ouster—who takes over as the Seimas speaker on Tuesday will be nothing but a broom leaf, destined to cover the naked backside of A. K.’s government. Do you really need that broom leaf here? Do you believe that the government’s impotence will disappear with the former Seimas speaker? (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Lithuania is like that greedy old woman from the fairy tale who wanted to ride to paradise on someone else’s “saviors’” horseradish,only to end up at the broken trough,—by the shattered trough. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 13)

Of the colloquial vocabulary used in the journalist’s texts, only some items were found in DLKŽ (2000); more were found in LKŽ.⁸

130

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

THE POLYPHONY OF POLITICAL COMMENTARY

As the examples quoted show, the journalist’s commentaries are strongly influenced by colloquial style. It is customary to say that using this style (partly because of slang vocabulary) helps one break away from standard expression and more easily establish a connection with a like-minded reader. “A ‘friendly,’ or informal, level of communication is characteristic of equal interlocutors who participate equally in a discussion and share much knowledge and many attitudes, so they can afford hints, ellipses, omissions, interruptions, elements of slang (emphasis mine. – R. K.) and other attributes of ordinary everyday communication” (Marcinkevičienė 2008: 36). Commentary as a genre is characterized by subtexts, implications, and expressive language and style, which greatly enhance a text’s persuasive force (ibid., 133). Expressive colloquial vocabulary comes both from the journalist himself and from the mouths of particular figures: when characters are described—in this case, politicians with differing views, people from the street, TV hosts who have become politicians, and even characters in novels—their utterances clearly stand out as quotations, paraphrases, and allusions⁹.

When a journalist wishes to express different positions while opposing the authorities, he necessarily makes use of polyphony, also known as intertextuality. In this case, the term polyphony is more appropriate: readers recognize those other voices; they have actually heard them.

For several years [...] on screen, in a mentor’s tone, he explains that [...] the Greens and Christian Democrats are thieves and salamakakinai, while journalists “cower. (ANK 279)

The journalist does not directly identify the authorship of some voices, but a certain textual context immediately suggests it to the addressee. In other cases, he says that it is another voice (putting it in quotation marks) or explicitly names the owner of the voice:

“Vsio zakonno” to the fourth degree, and you can blow the prime minister a raspberry. (ANK 302)

The author trusts his regular reader, who knows what is being discussed and which figure is meant. You certainly cannot sway such a reader with stilted language. The author’s openly sarcastic voice, mercilessly lashing politicians’ failings, intertwines with the voices of the characters being described, but does not merge completely—

⁹ Apie daugiabalsiškumą ir intertekstualumo rūšis žr. R. Marcinkevičienė (2008: 73).

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Šnekamosios kalbos ir žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse

131

Even in the very rare cases when the commentary’s author speaks in the first person, an inserted, foreign voice, imitated with bravado, is clearly distinguishable (as a one-word quotation):

Blin, if that’s the case, venerable Seimas, you can give the signatory’s pension due to me to my former professor M. B.—you couldn’t come up with anything more foolish anyway. (ANK 220)

The journalist tries to say what “seems to him, and sometimes not only to him, not as it should be, and what angers or delights” (ANK 3). In the commentaries, the author’s voice can be heard, expressing two different positions. In one instance, he speaks calmly, reflecting and communicating with readers, asking serious questions; his language is then correct, featuring expressions of literary origin and phraseology. Here is how the author makes a subtle, decorous allusion to the hero of I. Ilf and Y. Petrov, the famous swindler, all-time cheat, adventurer and schemer Ostap Bender. The allusion is highly eloquent: some politicians’ desire to profit, to seek gain for themselves rather than the state, to get rich at any cost, and their indifference to people’s concerns truly recall this character’s ambitions. Although the journalist does not mention Ostap Bender by name, the reader clearly hears his voice:

The rescue of the drowning is the responsibility of the drowning themselves? If so, then do not tell us that we must love a state that fails to perform its duties. (ANK 188)

The author’s voice expressing the first position can be called intellectual, intuitive, and well-trained in both standard language and style. An experienced journalist knows how to change the tone of his voice and is able to maintain an ongoing connection with his listeners. R. Valatka’s engaging, persuasive, and attention-grabbing voice is easy to recognize: he likes vivid vocabulary, strings of rhetorical questions, and emotionally intensifying lists. Here are several examples:

Will the Homeland Union follow the example of the Social Democrats, who had no such scruples? Will yet another Rubicon of Lithuanian anti-politics be crossed? One that, officially, still distinguished conservatives from populists.

On the one hand, de facto there is nothing left to cross. Already during the previous Seimas term, the combined forces of the Homeland Union, the Liberal Movement, and the self-proclaimed “Labourites” jointly battered the State Security Department. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 21)

The result: A. Šemeta in Brussels, Lithuania in the black hole of crisis, and the Government in the deepest depression of the entire period since the restoration of independence. (Lrytas.lt 2009 09 01)

132

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

Otherwise, the author speaks sarcastically, indignant at the conduct and actions of politicians who have lied, stolen¹⁰, disgraced themselves, and been accused of corruption. To characterize such figures, the journalist also employs appropriate colloquial vocabulary, as if we can hear the cynical voices of a prison environment (got booed off, nicked it, thrown in the slammer, fed someone a line, gone off the rails, got into trouble, drunk, a nutcase, dožati, usio zakonno, kickback-taker, female thief, and so on):

He tries to save himself as he is accustomed to, as his meager political and legal sophistication suggests, offering a serious course of action that glitters with narrow-mindedness: bribe, lie, dožati (apply pressure), or evade responsibility. (ANK 268)

No self-respect was to be found in the Seimas majority. More precisely, there was just as much of it as during A. B.’s rule, when the saying “usio zakonno” prevailed.

Lithuanians quickly forgot that this figure, together with the entire gang of four¹¹ in government, solemnly promised in December that the increase in VAT from 18 to 19 percent would be only temporary. Well, indeed temporary. Just not in the right direction. (Lrytas.lt 2009 07 02)

Politicians’ egoism and weakness seem obvious. Their selfishness harms the public interest, so the journalist’s desire to expose politicians’ sins to the public is understandable. Nevertheless, at times the author’s voice becomes exceptionally spiteful; one cannot help noticing that he takes considerable pleasure in drawing on his substantial store of vivid vocabulary. The journalist often evaluates politicians’ conduct and actions hyperbolically, sparing no low-level vocabulary or phraseology:

K. would deny having said these words three times over today, just as Simon denied Christ on the day of the Crucifixion. In short, A. K. has already made a mess of things with his tax policy, like a baby left unattended all day—up to his ears. (Lrytas.lt 2009 10 05)

¹⁰ “The experience of elections over the past 12 years would generally lead one to conclude that, when voting, Lithuanians prefer thieves and liars,” the author states uncompromisingly (ANK 283). “Others argue that voters themselves are to blame for the ills of our democracy and deserve precisely the government they elect. But it is wrong to blame people for making the wrong choice when, in reality, there is no choice at all. How many people choose representatives of the nation according to a rational criterion of political good? Not many. Most of those who go to vote and give at least some thought to their selection criteria choose not the good, but the lesser evil. If citizens are forced to choose only between ‘lesser evils,’ then only evil—and nothing else—is elected to power: the degree of badness of individual factions or politicians has no decisive effect on the overall picture” (see V. L a u č i u s. What is lacking is not political will but political brains. – www.DELFI.lt 2009 09 03).

¹¹ It is difficult to say whether the author uses the word banda in a somewhat milder sense, as a noun of accentuation pattern 4 (group, herd), or in the sense of accentuation pattern 1 (gang; a group of scoundrels, robbers, cutthroats). This instance would point to a Russian slang word.

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Šnekamosios kalbos ir žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse

133

When we have something with which to compare T. Wolfe⁶, J. London, E. Hemingway, [...] then perhaps we will also have the moral right to dismiss¹² American culture. (ANK 172)

It is understandable that the polyphonic vocabulary of journalistic discourse is shaped by a communicative aim—to highlight politicians’ shortcomings and warn of the consequences of such failings. The expression of the journalist’s opinion depends on the purpose, motives, and circumstances of the criticism. However, even recognizing that journalists have the right to express subjective opinions, criticize, provoke, and exaggerate facts, and knowing that the role of the media is that of a public watchdog (English: public-watchdog) (see Meškauskaitė 2004: 90), and that “under the rules formulated by the European Court of Human Rights, the limits of criticism of politicians and official representatives of state authorities are the broadest, compared with criticism of other public servants” (ibid., 92), vulgar expression in journalists’ public-facing texts is not always justifiable. This is especially true when politicians are branded with blatantly demeaning¹³, obscene epithets, or other emotionally overblown words or expressions: mushroom, toadstool, political graphomaniac, untimely one, fool, son of a bitch, off-the-rails idiot, immature person, pathological liar, incurable patient; when vocabulary unsuitable for public discourse is used: to screw up, to have no clue, to dismiss, to go off the rails, to outdo, and so on.

Opinion, as is known, “is not subject to the criteria of truth and accuracy, but must be expressed h o n e s t l y a n d e t h i c a l l y (emphasis mine. – R. K.), without deliberately concealing or distorting facts and data”¹⁴. The journalist cannot be accused of dishonesty; he relies on examples visible to everyone. Yet it must be acknowledged that hyperbolic vulgar vocabulary sometimes oversteps the boundaries of political commentary as a genre, and conflicts with the linguistic ethics of a person representing the cultural elite (cf. Koženiauskienė 2001: 79). Because of his coarse, direct, “colorful” language (as the author himself boldly admits in the collection of commentaries!), he has received the most terrible epithets, curses, and even threats from readers: “I don’t even know how to address

¹²to dismiss (someone/something)—a metonymically shortened form of an extremely vulgar idiom meaning: not to care, pay no heed, give no attention whatsoever, ignore.

¹³Words such as criminal, swindler, thief, worthless person, profiteer, prostitute, liar, scoundrel and the like are understood unambiguously, and disseminating such claims gives rise to a negative opinion; therefore, there is no need even to prove that they damage a person’s reputation (see Meškauskaitė 2004: 262). Figurative expressions such as pathological liar, off-the-rails idiot, toadstool, blockhead, although they likewise undermine politicians’ authority, are polysemous, making it harder to determine the extent to which the boundaries of journalistic ethics have been crossed.

¹⁴If you are slandered, you can defend yourself: www.blogas.lt/innodea/ – 24k – Google copy.

134

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

you. Comrade R. V., you son of a bitch, foul-mouthed brute, or what? [...] You are an idiot, possessed by the devil. [...] Be damned, you bastard son of Laurencijus Berija” (ANK 307, 309). Words expressing “overheated” emotions and utter lack of restraint “should be replaced in the speech of cultured people with euphemisms, that is, milder words that do not offend a decent ear [...]. A certain scale of taboos exists in society, which determines which things, or the words used to name them, lie beyond the bounds of decency” (Jakaitienė 2005: 257).

CONCLUSIONS

1. In seeking to interest and attract the addressee, the author of political commentaries uses colloquial vocabulary (and especially vulgar slang) to tread the boundary of the political-commentary genre, at times approaching the style of a feuilleton or a lampoon.

2. The author does not breach journalistic ethics when, through polyphony, he manages to distance himself from such vocabulary by speaking in the third person, as if from the outside, and incorporating, by means of reported speech, expressions of this kind that he has heard from the politicians themselves.

3. The journalist’s use of slang clearly reveals his position: he considers the conduct and actions of the politicians under discussion immoral, and therefore associates them with the language characteristic of certain groups of people.

4. In expressing his subjective opinion quite freely, the author sometimes ventures too far beyond the bounds of standard language. The increasingly coarse epithets applied to politicians demoralize society and lead readers to see everything in black. Readers’ online comments and obscene curses directed at politicians and boomeranging back at the author himself (if a journalist of this calibre permits himself to speak improperly, anonymous individuals have no restraints left) also reflect the same public mood.

LITERATŪRA

DLKŽ 2000: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. redaktorius S. Keinys, 4 leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Dubiagina O., Smirnov G. 2001: О. П. Дубягина, Г. Ф. Смирнов. Современный русский жаргон уголовного мира, Москва: Юриспруденция.

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Šnekamosios kalbos ir žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse

135

Elistratov V. 2000: B. C. Елистратов. Словарь русского арго, Москва: Русские словари.

Jakaitienė E. 2005: Leksikografija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Jakaitienė E. 2009: Leksikologija. Studijų knyga, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Koženiauskienė R. 2001: Žiniasklaidos retorika ir elitinė kalba. – Kalbos kultūra 74, 74–81.

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20.

Marcinkevičienė R. 2008: Žanro ribos ir paribiai. Spaudos patirtys, Vilnius: Versus aureus.

Meškauskaitė L. 2004: Žiniasklaidos teisė, Vilnius: Teisinio informavimo centras.

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

Mokijenko V., Nikitina T. 2000: В. М. Мокиенко, Т. Г. Никитина. Большой словарь русского жаргона, Санкт-Петербург: Норинт.

Gauta 2009 10 26

THE ROLE OF COLLOQUIAL AND JARGON WORDS IN PUBLIC JOURNALISTIC DISCOURSE

Summary

The paper discusses colloquial and jargon words used by a famous journalist in political commentaries. It also attempts to identify functions of dispreferred words in public discourse and whether and to what extent they are compatible with standard Lithuanian usage and the ethics of journalists.

The author is usually able to distance himself from colloquial and jargon words; he speaks like a stranger, from aside, and gives references to well-known political figures by using elements of their speech (e. g. blin, dzin, išdūrė, tūpas, usio zakonno). He also adds some such words and expressions of his own accord, e. g. otkatininkai, krūtas, mafiozų šestiorka, keturių banda, apmauti, susimauti, perspja(u)ti, užkalti, vagilka and some other pejorative words and phrases referring to limited intellectual ability of politicians, e.g. svačioti, vapėti, nuo bėgių nušokęs plumprotis, nebrendyla, debiliškai, kietakaktiškai. The journalist’s lexicon also contains some vivid idioms, like dėti skersą, kabinti makaronus, duoti stogą or colloquial expressions: į čypę įkišti, aplink pirštą apvynioti, špyga taukuota.

136

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

The journalist admits that in many cases a vivid word or expression is more relevant than a serious political argument. However, the paper focuses on the evaluation of the behaviour and individual actions of politicians expressed by colloquial and jargon words and phrases rather than their vividness or stylistic function. The paper expresses doubts as to the ethical aspects of such vocabulary and its morally negative impact on the society.

REGINA KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ

Vilniaus universitetas

Universiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius

[email protected]

R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Šnekamosios kalbos ir žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse

137