GIEDRIUS TAMAŠEVIČIUS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

TENDENCIES TOWARD THE SIMPLIFICATION OF LANGUAGE

IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

The public sphere (German Öffentlichkeit, English public sphere) is a field of public debate, a social, political, and communicative arena. Public opinion is formed there, and political decisions in a democratic society are based on it (Pečiulis 2007: 72; Navickas 2007). The main custodians of the public sphere are politicians and journalists. Some seek the best solutions to issues of concern to society by discussing them publicly; others encourage such discussions and mediate them (Taurinskaitė 2009). Changes in the public sphere itself are often associated precisely with the decline in the quality of politicians’ and journalists’ language in Lithuania (Navickas 2007).

Theoretical literature emphasizes that prominent, socially recognized individuals—for example, authorities in politics and the media—should speak an elite language when speaking in public. From this perspective, familiar speech in the public sphere, and still more the use of slang, would constitute a serious violation of linguistic and stylistic norms (cf. Župerka 2005). Rita Miliūnaitė agrees, arguing that “the vulgarisms and slang expressions išdurti (‘to trick, deceive’), važiuoti stogui (‘to go crazy’ and so on), kabinti makaronus (‘to deceive, fool’), perspjauti (‘to outdo, surpass’), and the like, disseminated publicly by the highest-ranking people in government, indicate their lack of linguistic competence, even though there should be a fairly clear dividing line between the upper classes and prestigious standard language, on the one hand, and the lower classes and slang, on the other” (Miliūnaitė 2005: 47–48). Leonidas Donskis explains the reasons for the decline in the language of the public sphere by invoking the figure of the boor: “In public, the boor behaves as if he were talking in private with his relatives or friends, or sitting among a group of half-drunk men. His manners and vocabulary do not change...” (Donskis 2007: 115). Such linguistic behavior, once characteristic only of members of the lower-

138 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

social stratum, is now becoming commonplace among political leaders as well as other actors who have acquired power and influence in society. Their manner of speaking is spreading because it is regarded as prestigious, and is therefore heard increasingly often in public, especially on television: “It is sad when truly respected journalists allow themselves to use terms such as ‘losers’ or ‘reaching the end of one’s tether.’ This only contributes to the complete degradation of political language. It seems that the line between the talk of drunken men in a tavern and political language is gradually being erased” (Donskis 2009).

Examples supporting these claims are not hard to find. Any more expressive phrase or colloquial word used by politicians immediately makes the newspaper headlines (e.g.: Brazauskas got fooled [Veidas 2003 05 29]; Female politician tells the Council to “fuck off” [Panevėžio balsas 2009 03 30]). The journalists mentioned by Donskis also hope to attract more readers by using nonstandard vocabulary (e.g., Rimvydas Valatka’s articles: The British Queen Is No Big Deal [2008 04 07]; Will A. Kubilius Outdo B. Obama? [2008 11 27]; A. Kubilius’s Arrogance Has Slain the Government [2009 01 22] www.lrytas.lt; Algimantas Šindeikis’s commentary: Reformers Are Starting to Goof Off [Veidas 2008 11 17]; the weekly Atgimimas theme teaser: Psychological Reasons for Members of Parliament Going Off the Rails [2009 09 25]).

Changes in Lithuania’s public sphere have been discussed many times by philosophers, political scientists, and communication researchers (cf. Bielinis 2002; Nevinskaitė 2006; Donskis 2007; Pečiulis 2007; Baločkaitė 2009). However, no more comprehensive studies have yet been conducted that could explain the incursion into public life of linguistic expression characteristic of the private, informal sphere. Drawing on theoretical literature and examples from Lithuania’s public spoken discourse, this article seeks to identify the main tendencies toward the (simpli)fication of language in the public sphere, focusing primarily on the use in journalists’ and politicians’ speech of vocabulary characteristic of colloquial language.

Since the time of Aristotle, the principal aim of public speakers has been to persuade and to try to influence through language. Pathos is one of the means of persuasion identified by Aristotle. It involves knowledge and understanding of the interlocutor and audience, “their attitudes and beliefs, and knowing how to influence them, how to evoke one or another of their emotions and feelings” (Keršytė 2005: 383–384). The pursuit of influence is common to all the theoretical insights presented in this article: accommodation theory discusses adapting to an interlocutor’s manner of speaking in order to achieve communicative goals; the growing presence of colloquial-style vocabulary in the public sphere, associated with social changes, is described using the terms slangification and colloquialization.

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje

139

ACCOMMODATION

Accommodation theory in sociolinguistics describes the main linguistic and communicative strategies used to adapt to an interlocutor or audience. In such cases, one tries to pronounce words similarly, use the same vocabulary, and accommodate the interlocutor’s preferred topic of conversation and feelings. In this way, the speaker comes across as polite and expresses mutual understanding with the interlocutor (cf. Holmes 2008: 242).

An example of this might be the congratulatory speech by Minister of Education and Science Gintaras Steponavičius, delivered on the LTV programme Lietuvos tūkstantmečio vaikai [2009 06 26] (words characteristic of colloquial speech are highlighted by the article’s author. – G. T.).

I am especially pleased to see when learning and the pursuit of knowledge can become a hook in life, something that gets you going and truly encourages not only you—the best—but also your friends to reach for the heights.¹

The minister adapts to his young audience by using words commonly used in youth speech, even though they are associated with drug-users’ slang. Connotative vocabulary seems to “awaken” listeners and enhance the playfulness of the message, for example: The best students become addicted to studying, and it constantly brings them joy. This creates the image of a tolerant, liberal politician who is close to young people, expressing solidarity and empathy towards the interlocutors. The expression of solidarity seems to affirm the interlocutors’ similarity and erase social differences (cf. Tannen 1990): I am just like you, because I know you and can speak the way you do.

Some political commentators behave similarly, enriching their vocabulary with numerous colloquial interjections and thereby creating a more intimate personal connection with the addressee (cf. Koženiauskienė 2009: 13). For example, here is an excerpt from Lietuvos ryto commentator Rimvydas Valatka’s speech on the LTV program Savaitė [2009 08 23]:

Overall, today this is [...] the coalition’s problem, because Valinskas is already dead as a politician. If it is acceptable to Kubilius, Masiulis, Zuokas and the others to be in a coalition with a zombie, well, then... they will share Valinskas’s problem among themselves. Basically, everything would be fine, but ahead of the twentieth anniversary of the Baltic Way, it is clear that the Speaker of the Seimas

¹ Hook – an urge to do something; usually to take drugs or intoxicants, when once started one is unable to stop (Zaikauskas 2007: 70); to get someone going – to stimulate (of intoxicants and drugs) (Zaikauskas 2007: 174).

140 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

publicly does a deal with representatives of the doctors’ gang, well, that is a spit in the face of all those people who stood on the Baltic Way. The leaders of the ruling majority ought to understand this and stop letting the matter drag on... It seems that today’s politicians are so weak that they are willing to form a coalition even with bandits or their people, just so that nothing changes, just so they can remain in power...

In this case, slang vocabulary is used primarily to pass negative emotional judgment on politicians in power and to express verbal aggression. The commentator aligns himself with the views and speech of the mass audience, people with an average or lower level of education, thereby creating a phenomenon of shared feeling: “I, like all of you, am convinced that everyone in power is a bandit” (cf. Pečiulis 2007: 187). Communicative success in this case is almost certain.

SLANGIZATION

The tendency to use colloquial or slang words in the public speech of journalists and politicians is termed slangization by Russian authors (cf. Kostomarov 2005: 235; Krysin 2009). In seeking the causes of changed linguistic behavior in the public sphere, they point first of all to the democratization of society following liberation from a totalitarian regime. A sense of freedom prompted some members of society to “liberate” themselves from certain standards of conduct and ethics as well. One consequence of this transformation is nonstandard lexis in public usage. In undemocratic states, the choice of resources from the margins of the standard language is restricted both in public discourse and in literature; a dry, matter-of-fact or artificially elevated, pathetical style often predominates (cf. Mečkovskaja 2006: 133). With the collapse of totalitarian states and the lapse of many of their norms, society’s liberalization also became evident in the evaluation of nonstandard linguistic expression, verbal creativity, and individual style. Thus, in seeking popularity, contemporary speakers exercise their freedom of speech in public and boldly break stereotypes in order to express their individuality. Colloquial vocabulary, distinguished by its particular functional potential and its capacity to influence the addressee, is especially useful for this purpose. Expressive colloquial words are also used for joking and wordplay; when necessary, they help relieve tension (Chimik 2004).

On the other hand, in post-Soviet countries, people from the lowest social strata and of low cultural standing, having gained power and influence, are making their way into the social and political elite. Along with them, their slang also gains “civil rights” in public discourse (Mečkovskaja 2006; Krysin 2009). It is precisely this development in Lithuania that the already

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje

141

cited Leonidas Donskis analyzes, speaking about the ascendancy of boors and the degradation of political language (Donskis 2007: 115; 2009).

The other social factors of slangization identified by Russian authors are apparently common to both Eastern and Western European countries. Migration is worth mentioning among them: provincial residents move to large cities, increasing their distance from dialects (the colloquial language of the city is used in everyday communication); representatives of different social groups interact intensively in cities, adopt certain linguistic features from one another, and accelerate the spread of innovations (Krysin 2009). Yet this factor can hardly be compared with the influence of mass popular culture. The model for language becomes the public spoken language of the media—a multifunctional, dynamic, usually dialogic, spontaneous, unregulated, and almost always expressive living language, in which, alongside words and expressions customary in journalistic writing, expressive colloquial expressions, slang, new English borrowings, and even vulgarisms are actively used (cf. Chimik 2004). Such vocabulary is disseminated most widely in general usage by the role models created by the media—television “stars” and popular politicians. Then “a word or expression that previously did not quite meet the approval of language prescriptivists, but is used by a well-known, authoritative figure, acquires civil rights and can become the norm” (Koženiauskienė 2001: 78). According to the Belarusian linguist Nina Mečkovskaja, this is a process “from top to bottom”—the language of public life loses its elite character and acquires more and more features characteristic of colloquial speech. On the other hand, studies conducted in various European countries also show the opposite phenomenon, “from bottom to top.” It is argued that, owing to the same influence of telecommunications and mass culture, the lower social strata increasingly model themselves on the upper strata, and the previously marked difference between them is diminishing (Mečkovskaja 2006: 34).

For many years, Lithuanian politics has been known for the “folksy” eloquence of Member of the Seimas Julius Veselka. Here is how he spoke in the Seimas, addressing Arūnas Valinskas (a candidate for Speaker of the Seimas):

Dear candidate, when answering economic questions, you do a very good job of putting things off, putting them off, but I can say that when you took part in the negotiations, you probably didn’t really understand what was being discussed, so I can tell you that they’ll really “rip you off” <...> When the honorable Arūnas Valinskas gave his first speech, I thought, well, Arūnas is clever. Being a left-winger himself, he’ll outmaneuver the right-wingers. Then I look—and the right-wingers “rip him off”, honorable Arūnas. So I want to say, all the same, your arms are being twisted, because Stalin also used to work nights, after which decisions would be adopted unanimously; so I want to ask you not to let them twist your arm, and remember that your anti-crisis program is a program for deepening and worsening the crisis. (From the transcript of the Seimas session of 2008 11 17)

142

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

The speaker creates the image of someone well versed in the behind-the-scenes political games of the Seimas. He “paternally” warns a political newcomer—a candidate for Speaker of the Seimas—that he is threatened not merely with being cheated, but with being “conned.” This word, borrowed from criminal slang, is applied to right-wing politicians: it is better not to get involved with them, because they are no less cunning than criminals. At the end of the speech, the “paternalism” is reinforced by the familiar singular second-person forms (“don’t let them get you,” “remember”). This creates the image of an experienced, one-of-us politician who warns of dangers plainly and without beating around the bush.

Youth speech is identified as another important factor in the slangification of contemporary society. The influence of youth culture on society today is often linked to the fact that representatives of the socially and professionally active segment of society are getting younger and confidently use in public the expressive expressions familiar to them (Chimik 2004). According to the Danish linguist Bent Preisler, “the speech style and vocabulary of young people affect the language of society as a whole—especially that of the media and advertising” (Preisler 1999b: 50). On the other hand, it is precisely advertising and the media that contribute most to creating a model of the cult of youth, presented as an ideal to which society as a whole should aspire—“be, or at least look, as young as possible, because only young people are worth anything” (cf. Vasiliauskaitė 2007). Consequently, contemporary society is more youth-oriented than ever before: not only clothing styles and ways of life typical of today’s youth cross social age boundaries, but linguistic elements do as well (cf. Chun 2007: 3–4)². Youth speech is regarded as the principal source of renewal for slang vocabulary in widespread use and as a possible factor in changes to the standard language (cf. Gordienko 2006; Chun 2007: 4–5).

COLLOQUIALISATION

Authors discussing sources of jargonization primarily attribute it to the historical social rupture that took place in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. More than four decades ago, the German philosopher Jurgenas Habermasas described the social changes common to the entire Western world. These are the fading boundaries between public and private space. This process continues to this day, and it is decisively influenced by the effects of new communication technologies and the conditions dictated by the market-

² A sociolinguistic study of vocabulary characteristic of spoken language, conducted in Vilnius a year ago, confirmed that the vocabulary of young people is familiar to, and sometimes used by, people of various age groups (see Tamaševičius 2008).

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje

143

influenced by the media. This is especially evident in the most prominent manifestation of the public sphere—television—which abandons the instructive, paternalistic mode of speaking and gives way to informal communication characteristic of the private sphere (English conversationalisation) (Fairclough 1992: 204). Today’s viewers expect entertainment from television (the entertainer–consumer model) (cf. Marcinkevičienė 2008: 61, 2009a); accordingly, preference is given not to programmes that encourage civic debate, but to entertainment shows—reality shows that cross all boundaries of privacy, lifestyle magazines that explore the personalities and secrets of public figures, talent shows, and so on (Pečiulis 2007: 198). The language of such programmes is characterised by colloquialisation (English colloquialisation)—an abundance of spoken-language features: vocabulary and sentence structures typical of colloquial style, quotations from spoken language, retellings, and so forth (Marcinkevičienė 2009a, 2009b: 96). Pressure from market forces compels media outlets to seek the largest possible audience; they must strengthen their ties with viewers, that is, do what is popular. It is likely that in the future the media will speak even more often in “ordinary people’s language” (cf. Schrøder, Philips 1999: 67).

At first glance, this would suggest the democratisation of the public sphere and the transfer of power into the hands of ordinary people. However, Normann Fairclough, who has studied media discourse extensively, questions whether public discourse that increasingly resembles spoken language reflects a real shift in power relations in favour of ordinary people. He asks whether this is merely part of a power strategy aimed at manipulating society both socially and politically, and attracting the largest possible audience (Fairclough 1995: 13). Answers are usually sought by examining politicians’ behaviour in the public sphere, and especially in the media—the principal arena in which they communicate with the public.

Until relatively recently, in political discourse only populists resorted to colloquial, everyday style³. The first changes appeared at the very end of the twentieth century, when new leaders came to power in the United States and Great Britain. Particularly notable in this respect is the model created by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Having examined the language of New Labour politics, Fairclough argues, drawing on Blair’s own words, that the basis of this politician’s image is to appear to be a “normal person” (English normal person) (Talbot, Atkinson, Atkinson 2008: 63). It is therefore natural that he, although to many people’s surprise, began speaking in ordinary people’s language. In the opinion of many researchers, Di

³ In Denmark, the electoral success of populist parties had already been linked several decades ago to their desire to “be closer to the people,” including through the use of everyday spoken language (cf. Orla Vigsø 1996).

144

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

The proximity of the head of Great Britain’s political rhetoric to colloquial speech largely determined his political success (cf. Tolson 2005: 82). To strengthen their own image as leaders close to ordinary people, leaders of other countries today also avoid no form of speech characteristic of ordinary citizens: Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In this way, they show that they are open and capable of communicating informally (cf. Repečkaitė 2006).

Politicians are driven to adopt such image-making strategies above all by the conditions dictated by contemporary media themselves, and television in particular. In the struggle for voters’ attention, “a politician is forced to mediatize” (Pečiulis 2007: 206), and to become attractive to media competing for high ratings. As a result, people are increasingly addressed first and foremost as media consumers rather than as citizens (Fairclough 1995: 13). For the same reason, manifestations of the colloquialization characteristic of the media are becoming more common in political discourse. After all, a politician who speaks in words typical of everyday, informal communication, or behaves unusually in public, can be almost certain not to go unnoticed by the media: their surname will appear in newspaper headlines and be heard on television news programmes.

One such example is a quip by former Speaker of the Seimas Arūnas Valinskas from the Seimas rostrum, as he congratulated the newly confirmed head of government:

Wishing you success in your work, I would first like to address the words of the honourable member of the Seimas Ingrida Valinskienė. Darling, by supporting the prime minister like that, you may well save the state, but you could destroy your family. (From the transcript of the Seimas sitting of 2009 07 16)

In the first sentence, the speaker emphasizes that he addresses Ingrida Valinskienė formally, as the Speaker of the Seimas addressing a member of the Seimas. The formality is reinforced both by the designation “honourable member of the Seimas [...]” and by the name Ingrida, recorded in official documents, rather than Inga, the name she usually gives when introducing herself. The second sentence marks a leap into a private conversation between husband and wife: the intimate form of address “darling” and the familiar singular form “you will save” signal a shift from the relationship Speaker of the Seimas—member of the Seimas to the relationship husband—wife. With this insertion of private discourse, Valinskas ensured that, while the prime minister’s candidacy was being debated, the press and television programmes alike did not forget to speak favourably of the Speaker himself. The colloquial little word “atia” (“bye”) also attracted similar attention; it was used in Arūnas Valinskas’s final official address to the people of Lithuania as Speaker of the Seimas.

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje

145

SUMMARY

In today’s public sphere, language is becoming simpler and acquiring more features of colloquial everyday style, not so much because speakers are ignorant of language norms or have low cultural standards, but in pursuit of persuasiveness and impact (accommodation).

Such linguistic behaviour is influenced not only by the liberalization of society itself (slangification), but even more by the media. Once private matters began to be made public and public matters “privatized,” television was the first to adopt everyday colloquial speech (colloquialization). Politicians, too, adopted this way of speaking because they depend directly on the media’s power to reach and influence society.

Public language in Lithuania has been little studied, so more extensive research is needed into the public spoken language of journalists and politicians.

LITERATŪRA

B a l o č k a i t ė R. 2009: Politikos pornografizacija: ar viešumo gali būti per daug? – Kultūros barai 9, 14–19.

B i e l i n i s L. 2002: Šou principų dėsningumai Lietuvos politiniame gyvenime. – Politologija 1 (25), 21–39.

C h i m i k V. 2004: В. В. Химик. Большой словарь русской разговорной речи. – Prieiga per internetą: www.philology.ru/linguistics2/khimik-04.htm

C h u n M. 2007: Jugendsprache in den Medien. [Disertacija]. Universität Duisburg-Essen. – Prieiga per internetą: www.deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=984967419&dok

D o n s k i s L. 2007: Taip, bet... Vilnius: Versus aureus.

D o n s k i s L. 2009: Apie „ketvirtąją“ valdžią. – Prieiga per internetą: www.bernardinai.lt

F a i r c l o u g h N. 1992: Discourse and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press.

F a i r c l o u g h N. 1995: Media discourse, London: Edward Arnold.

F a i r c l o u g h N. 2000: New labour, new language? London: Routledge.

G o r d i e n k o V. 2006: В. А. Гордиенко. Формирование общего сленга в современном русском языке. [Daktaro disertacijos santrauka]. – Prieiga per internetą: www.lib.ua-ru.net/diss/cont/266603.html

H o l m e s J. 2008: An Introduction To Sociolinguistics, Harlow: Pearson Education.

K e r š y t ė N. 2005: Rektorių retorika. – Naujasis židinys 9, 363–391.

K o s t o m a r o v V. 2005: В. Г. Костомаров. Наш язык в действии: Очерки современной русской стилистики, Москва.

146

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

K o ž e n i a u s k i e n ė R. 2001: Žiniasklaidos retorika ir elitinė kalba. – Kalbos kultūra 74, 74–81.

K o ž e n i a u s k i e n ė R. 2009: Žargoninės leksikos paskirtis viešajame žurnalisto diskurse. Jono Jablonskio konferencijos tezės. – Prieiga per internetą: www.lki.lt

K r y s i n L. 2009: Л. П. Крысин. Надежда на самоочищение. – Prieiga per internetą: www.russkiymir.ru

M a r c i n k e v i č i e n ė R. 2008: Žanro ribos ir paribiai. Spaudos patirtys, Vilnius: Versus aureus.

M a r c i n k e v i č i e n ė R. 2009a: Nuo Habermaso iki Valinsko. Viešosios erdvės privatėjimas. – Akiračiai 3. – Prieiga per internetą: www.akiraciai.lt/Akiraciai/Tema/Nuo-Habermaso-iki-Valinsko.-Viesosios-erdves-privatejimas

M a r c i n k e v i č i e n ė R. 2009b: Colloquialization of the Public Sphere. – The Baltics as an Intersection of Civilizational Identities [8th Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe]. Kaunas, 96.

M e č k o v s k a j a N. 2006: Н. Б. Мечковская. Демократизация языков: факторы, коллизии и альтернативы. – Acta Neophilologica 8, 129–138.

M i l i ū n a i t ė R. 2005: Kalba kaip žmogaus įvaizdžio dalis. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 32–55.

N a v i c k a s A. 2007: Viešosios erdvės pasisavinimas Lietuvoje. – Prieiga per internetą: www.bernardinai.lt

N e v i n s k a i t ė L. 2006: Viešosios erdvės transformacija Lietuvoje 1988–2000 m.: laikraščių atvejis. [Daktaro disertacijos santrauka]. Vilnius.

P e č i u l i s Ž. 2007: Iki ir po televizijos, Vilnius: Versus aureus.

P r e i s l e r B. 1999: Engelsk ovenfra og nedenfra: sprogf orandring og kulturel identitet. Engelsk eller ikke engelsk? Thats the question (Dansk Sprognævns skrifter 28), København-Gyldendal, 39–64.

R e p e č k a i t ė D. 2006: „Aštrus“ tautos tėvo įvaizdis. – Atgimimas, lapkričio 3.

S c h r ø d e r K., P h i l i p s L. 1999: Mediatised Politics: Political Discourses and the Media in Contemporary Danish Democracy. – Prieiga per internetą: www. nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/37_schroder.pdf

T a l b o t M., A t k i n s o n K., A t k i n s o n D. 2008: Language and Power in the Modern World, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

T a m a š e v i č i u s G. 2008: Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 206–217.

T a n n e n D. 1990: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance. – Prieiga per internetą: https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannen/pdfs/rethinking_power_and_dominance.pdf

T a u r i n s k a i t ė A. 2009: Viešoji erdvė internete? – Prieiga: www.miestoiq.lt

T o l s o n A. 2005: Media talk – spoken discourse on TV and radio, Edinburgh.

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Kalbos paprastėjimo polinkiai viešojoje erdvėje

147

Vasiliauskaitė N. 2007: Laida „Jeigu“: apie vyrus, moteris ir jaunystės kultūrą. – Prieiga per internetą: www.gap.lt/get.php?f.3819

Zaikauskas E. 2007: Kalbos paribiai ir užribiai: lietuvių žargono žodynėlis, Vilnius: Alma littera.

Župerka K. 2005: Elitinė kalba ir jos atstovai. – Parlamento studijos 4. – Prieiga per internetą: www.parlamentostudijos.lt/Nr4/4_kalba_Zuperka.htm

Gauta 2009 11 05

LANGUAGE SIMPLIFICATION TENDENCIES IN PUBLIC SPACE

Summary

During the last years on numerous occasions it has been claimed that language used in public space in Lithuania undergoes simplification. Journalists and politicians make numerous language and style errors, since they lack language competence and understanding of language norms. However, so far language specialists have failed to discuss reasons, why politicians and political analysts, who generally have a good command of the Lithuanian language, suddenly turn to spoken and colloquial style whenever exposed to public view. In linguistic literature this is explained by the theory of sociolinguistic accommodation, investigating ways of adjusting to the audience, and the term of jargonisation, defining the impact of social transformation on the language. The privatisation of public space exerts influence on the language of mass-media and politicians; a tendency towards colloquialisation has been noticed.

The language of public life has been very little researched so far; thus the above claims could only be proved or disproved after a thorough investigation into the public spoken language of journalists and politicians.

GIEDRIUS TAMAŠEVIČIUS

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

148

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82