KALBA IR VISUOMENĖ

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

THE ATTITUDES OF INTERNET COMMENTERS TOWARD THE OVERSIGHT OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

In recent years, discussions of various language issues have been more abundant than ever on the Lithuanian-language internet. The most common reason for starting or provoking them is articles or interviews published on internet portals (sometimes transferred from print or broadcast media), together with the readers’ comments that accompany them. Articles usually reflect current issues in language policy and usage, while sometimes a non-specialist in language sets out their views on language matters that concern them and on difficulties they have encountered in using language. For example, in 2009 alone, up to autumn, discussions unfolded on the most popular internet news portals about women’s surnames without suffixes, when to begin teaching English as a second language, the Samogitian language in schools in Samogitia; people debated whether the Lithuanian language was threatened with decline and discussed Lithuanian spelling in electronic space, the names emigrant Lithuanians gave their children “so that the British would understand,” and so on.

Frequent discussions of quite specific linguistic topics are also supplemented by more general reflections: the current state of the Lithuanian language, and the purpose and quality of the work of language oversight institutions and linguists, are discussed. These matters now concern most those members of society who care about language, and show how society responds to various linguistic phenomena and official steps in language policy.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 149

Although it is acknowledged that the level of online discussions, shaped by commenters’ anonymity, is often rather low, published articles and their comments nevertheless seem to be read by many, including those who do not join the discussions. It may therefore be assumed that the body of views expressed reveals the linguistic attitudes of at least some of the Lithuanian-speaking public—both in Lithuania and in the diaspora—and influences the further development of those attitudes. Thus, one can also speak of research into the linguistic attitudes expressed by the public in these discussions. Such research should help us listen more closely to language users’ opinions and investigate why the gap between the public and linguists, as well as dissatisfaction with current language policy, is pronounced and continues unabated.

The aim of this article is to examine one of the many discussions about language issues that have taken place online. It reveals not only how the internet community responds to public information about language, but also highlights shortcomings in current language policy and public education about language. Since the discussion concerned language oversight and the areas it should cover, the comments posted provided fertile ground for examining how people understand the need to consciously regulate public language and what they expect from language oversight institutions. The article does not seek to calculate precisely, using statistical methods, which areas are mentioned most often and which commenters consider most in need of control—quantitative surveys would be better suited to establishing this. Here, the aim is to reveal differences of opinion and the arguments put forward, which also show what attitudes toward the oversight of the Lithuanian language are taking shape in our society.

1. INTERNET COMMENTERS AND COMMENTS AS AN OBJECT OF RESEARCH INTO LINGUISTIC ATTITUDES

In Lithuania, interest in internet comments as a source for researching the public’s linguistic attitudes began only relatively recently (see Miliūnaitė 2006; Nevinskaitė 2008), with the understanding that using comments as a basis for scholarly research is not entirely prudent because of the low level mentioned above, which is attributable to the poor standard of public culture. The phenomenon of Lithuanian-language comments is also highlighted and discussed by more than one author of articles on those same portals (Dabašinskas 2009; Mitė 2009). For example, Stanislovas Kairys writes:

One could argue that internet commenters are a specific audience that does not really reflect society’s general moods and attitudes. Perhaps so. Or perhaps, on the contrary—

150

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

…? Perhaps the openly expressed malice on the internet is like the tip of an iceberg, beneath which lies a vast mass of universal hatred and nihilism? (Kairys 2009)

Nevertheless, linguistic discussions also contain interesting ideas that allow us to form a more concrete picture of how society understands processes taking place in the language and the language policy implemented in Lithuania. An analysis of comments is a faster research method than special surveys or interviews; however, owing to the specific nature of spontaneous written communication (as will also be evident from the quotations presented below), these data are rather haphazard and contain leaps of thought and logical contradictions, so processing and examining them requires more time and different methods than the analysis of data from quantitative and qualitative surveys deliberately designed in advance.

Only sociological research can reveal the views and moods of which strata of society are expressed by commenters on the largest internet portals. According to data presented by Laima Nevinskaitė (Nevinskaitė 2008: 246), a representative public-opinion survey commissioned by the “Electronic Democracy” project and conducted in March–April at the beginning of 2008 showed that the ages and percentage distribution of people who regularly wrote comments about social life and politics on news portals (once a week or more often) were as follows: ages 18–29 – 67.4 percent, 30–39 – 10.9 percent, 40–49 – 15.2 percent, others – 6.5 percent. Thus, we can gain some idea of whose views predominate in internet comments; these are by no means teenagers unable to take responsibility for their actions, as is sometimes inclined to be thought.

2. HOW DID THE INTERNET DISCUSSION ABOUT LANGUAGE CARE BEGIN?

The discussion under examination, about language care and its methods, arose from a slight misunderstanding or even a minor provocation. On the internet portal www. atgimimas.lt (Lašienė 2009₁), a brief interview—eleven questions and answers—by Neringa Lašienė with Irena Smetonienė, chair of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, entitled “Where Calves Drink Honey,” was published. Its journalistic introduction read as follows:

Neringa Lašienė speaks with Irena Smetonienė, chair of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, about young people wanting correct language, what language innovations are circulating on the internet, and the spelling of personal names.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros

151

Another internet portal, www.delfi.lt, republished the article (Lašienė 2009₂), but presented the emphasis quite differently. The headline announced: “Fines for Those Who Speak Incorrectly,” and the journalistic introduction was written as follows:

Linguists are asking the Seimas to pass a law requiring information appearing on the internet and, more generally, in the public sphere to be in Lithuanian and correct. Failure to comply with the rules would incur the fines provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences. A conversation with Irena Smetonienė, chair of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, about texts on the internet, the Lithuanian language supposedly hated by young people, and the spelling of the names of foreigners and national minorities.

The interview itself briefly mentions quite a number of matters related to language regulation and specific linguistic phenomena. For example, it refers to the spelling of surnames of people from other nations, the teaching of some subjects in foreign languages, and the non-Lithuanian names of Lithuanian and foreign companies—the foreign-language signs being “purely a consequence of business policy.” It raises issues important to such areas of Lithuanian-language use and care as Lithuanian-language teaching in general education schools, the media and public information, and fiction and theatre as sources for learning the standard language. Internet media was discussed separately:

The problem is that the 1995 law did not yet mention internet media, and clever publishers ask: “Where is that written in the law?” For that reason, we intend to request a new version of the Language Law, which has already been registered, and hope it will be adopted by the current Seimas. It states that, in general, any information appearing anywhere in the public sphere must be in Lithuanian and correct. Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences will accompany the new version of that law.

Thus, the discussion on the www.delfi.lt portal arose essentially over how far the law may intrude into internet language and language use more generally. The phrase “information appearing on the internet and, more generally, in the public sphere” was not explained further in the interview; only an exception was made for comments. Asked how the language of comments should be regulated, I. Smetonienė replied: “You can’t regulate comments; that is a personal sphere.” Nevertheless, the comments on the interview itself show that many readers understood that their own language use on the internet (including in comments) was being “targeted.” The discussion therefore also revealed commenters’ views on what would happen if their free public language were regulated by law¹. For this reason, the discussion provides data on how the online public

¹ Dėl sąvokos laisvoji viešoji kalba žr. Miliūnaitė 2009: 38–44.

152 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

looks at an active Lithuanian language policy, in which legal measures are sought to regulate the correctness of public language.

Although the discussion sometimes veers into other topics or participants reproach one another over peripheral matters, its essence can be formulated as an attempt to answer the question: should legislation be used to ensure that the language functioning in the internet space is correct? A related question is which areas of Lithuanian language use such a law should cover, and which should be monitored by other means or not monitored at all.

3. NATURE OF THE DATA AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

To investigate internet commenters’ views on language regulation, the article sets out the following objectives:

• to identify which areas of language use subject to monitoring commenters prioritize;

• to determine how commenters understand the differences between public and private language;

• to determine whether current language policy on language monitoring, in commenters’ view, meets society’s expectations.

The internet discussion under examination took place on April 4–6, 2009. By its end, 1,288 comments had been recorded, but later, apparently by the editorial staff themselves, some were removed as offensive, leaving 1,258 comments visible to everyone. Of these, 270 comments deemed informative for the study were selected and transferred to a spreadsheet in the computer program Excelio, so that the areas of language use mentioned in each comment and commenters’ views on their monitoring could be identified separately, and the data analyzed using the program’s filters.

4. AREAS OF PUBLIC USE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND THEIR OVERSIGHT

The areas of spoken, and especially written, Lithuanian that are overseen at the state level and—let it be emphasized—used publicly are generally identified as follows (bearing in mind that the role of the standard language, and therefore its oversight, diminishes as one moves down the list; see Miliūnaitė 2009: 29–30 for more):

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros

153

state governance and administrative relations,

the education and science system (schools and educational literature, the language of science, etc.),

the media and public information,

culture (fiction, theatre, etc.),

business, entertainment, etc.

The Law on the State Language², which “establishes the use of the state language in public life in Lithuania, the protection and monitoring of the state language, and liability for violations of the Law on the State Language,” addresses both the areas in which the state language is used and overseen and certain entities as users of the state language. In essence, the Law on the State Language covers the aforementioned areas of language use subject to oversight. These areas are described in greater detail in the regulations of the State Language Inspectorate³.

5. THE CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE USE DOMAINS AND THEIR OVERSIGHT IN INTERNET COMMENTS

The interview published online mentions, if only fragmentarily, almost all areas of language oversight: the education and science system, the media (including online media), culture (fiction, theatre, etc.), and business; administrative language is also mentioned once. Some points prompt responses in the comments under study, while new ideas are raised as well. In addition, commenters defend their interests as language users, and these do not always align with the position of institutions that defend the state’s interests.

5.1. Commenters’ general attitudes toward language oversight policy

In the comments on the discussions mentioned above, as in many other online discussions about language, people express their views on the language, its state, the work of linguists, and language oversight policy. Two opposing views stand out:

² Adopted on 31 January 1995 – Žin., 1995, No. 15–344.

³ Žin., 2002, No. 17–670.

154

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

1) language development in general should not be interfered with; it should evolve naturally, and the sole criterion for a language’s suitability is that people can communicate:

An unhealthy focus on language only reflects its instability and weakness. A “strong,” healthy language exists without external influence, artificial rules, or regulation. I wonder whether there is this kind of madness about errors and rules for language use elsewhere, or whether it is purely our own invention?

Language should improve and develop on its own. But here they are trying to control it artificially and decide what to do and how to speak. It’s ridiculous.

Let people speak freely. Those linguists are so annoying. Language is a unique phenomenon that changes and deforms on its own, adapting to circumstances and the times. Somehow, there were no regulations in the Middle Ages, yet people communicated perfectly well. And now what? You didn’t say it right; that’s not a word; I told you—“vielabraukis”...

Let’s speak however suits each of us, whether in a peasant way or in the rough language of the fields and the yard—what difference does it make if we understand one another?

2) it is acknowledged that language needs to be overseen:

If nothing is done, the Lithuanian language will degenerate. Like smoke. Of course, it changes to some extent naturally, but that has nothing to do with mangling it. Look at how the French, for instance, protect their language.

It was long overdue! We’re becoming Anglicized! The Soviet era failed to make us Russian, because Lithuanian language and literature were taught in schools by exceptionally good, talented, demanding teachers. They really “got tough” with us! Young people are illiterate now. It’s sad...

Fines, of course, won’t achieve anything, just like bans. Lithuanian citizens fail to realize that by mangling their language, they reveal their level of education, social and often professional status, and harm themselves. The prestige of the language needs to be raised in general. One gets the impression that we live in a country of real foul-mouthed louts—it’s shameful...

Quite a few commenters are mistaken (the misleading title of the article probably contributes to this), believing that the law mentioned in the interview should also apply to private speech. It is therefore understandable that such “language policy” provokes indignation:

⁴ In the quoted comments, only spelling and some punctuation errors have been corrected; the rest has been left as it was online, with the exception of one entirely authentic comment (p. 157), which reveals the peculiarities of writing without Lithuanian diacritical marks.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 155

One should speak and write in Lithuanian, and correctly, but punishing someone because they do not know how or are unable to do that is simply absurd. Half of people do not know the language correctly. The funniest thing is even watching two Lithuanian-language specialists disagree over mistakes. Each is able to identify different errors in the text.

It follows from this that people who are learning Lithuanian, are foreigners, have health problems that prevent them from speaking or writing correctly in Lithuanian, or are simply less capable, had better not try to demonstrate their ability in Lithuanian.

An isolated attempt to discern contradictions in the article itself does not affect the course of the discussion:

So what is the punishment for—for incorrect spelling or for language? According to the article’s title, it is for language. But the piece is mostly about errors in written articles. And the illiterate or impatient, having read only the title, make a great fuss. The journalist is unprofessional.

Nevertheless, some commenters feel that language regulation should differ in certain cases—private–public, informal–official:

If you start punishing people for using the Lithuanian language, you will only make them hate it. Informal language will remain informal. Slang and neologisms will find their way into Lithuanian anyway, because a living language, like a person, evolves (changes).

Well, yes, next you’ll start checking every personal message—that is a restriction of my rights. The requirement to use correct Lithuanian in company names is completely absurd. Such requirements should apply only to public institutions, the media, and education, and to no one else.

I think spoken language should be left alone, because it is the basis of linguistic evolution; language does not stand still.

More understanding commenters try to explain that private language (which is understood in different ways) should not be interfered with from outside at all:

Distinguish informal communication from formal communication. After all, in informal communication neither dialects nor slang, nor even mixed speech, are prohibited. The discussion is about formal communication. It is strange that so many people among us read an article and do not even understand what it says, yet hurry to write a comment.

Language is divided into formal and informal communication. Internet language is classed as informal communication, whereas politicians’ speech on the radio and TV is formal, and they are obliged to speak standard Lithuanian.

156

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

You can talk to shopkeepers or market women however you like, but don’t speak on the radio as if you were at the market. And no one will fine you.

There are especially many comments in which it is firmly asserted that language is every person’s private matter: “I’ll speak however I want,” and that no one has the right to tell anyone how to speak, let alone punish them for mistakes:

Generally speaking, the Constitution lets me speak and write as I want as long as I’m not in public service, so shove it—I write as I want and speak as I want.

Banana republic... I write as I want and speak as I want. If everyone understands me, why should I reinvent the wheel?

My language is my business. For now, it’s just linguists messing around because they have nothing better to do—they need to justify their existence.

I was born on this planet, and I don’t care what language to speak or where to live!!!

In those comments whose authors tend to acknowledge that language supervision is necessary, its general direction is sometimes understood as a need to simplify the language system itself and its rules:

In modern times, when there is so much information, language must be simplified in order to convey information, not the beauty of language! An engineer or programmer doesn’t need literary language! It should remain voluntary! Respect to those who want to study it in depth and know it, but forcing everyone—that’s stupid!

And we happily cling to our walls, as if ą, ę, ū, ų inspire our national identity and national consciousness; no one has the courage even to mention the possibility of simplifying or eliminating this nonsense.

I think all the nasal letters and little birds should be abolished and all spelling (especially stress marking) modernized! I’ve never written with little birds and nasal letters on the internet, and no one will make me do it! The meaning is clear, period! And anyone who needs beauty and art—read Maironis!

In comments expressing opinions on language policy, the image of linguists as creators of unsuccessful neologisms is also prominent and has already become a clear stereotype shaping opinion (cf. Miliūnaitė 2006: 70–72):

It’s a pity linguists can’t come up with new words properly... What can you do? Strange people...

Linguists are a gang of people with nothing to do—I agree that some of their corrections were necessary, but how many absurdities did they churn out in their meetings? It’s laughable just to hear them—a mockery of words.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 157

When you make proper Lithuanian without words like “chip,” “display,” “RAM,” and other nonsense, then you can think about some law... But while Lithuanian is still a complete mess, think up words that nobody takes to, and sit quietly.

On the contrary, I suggest stripping the VLKK of all its privileges, direct and indirect, after carefully reviewing the current situation. Let them work knowing that they will not succeed in imposing anything on society, and that only what is adopted spontaneously—and only what is attractive because of its quality (“a good product sells itself”)—will be accepted. Perhaps only then will they start producing decent neologisms acceptable to most people?

The relationship between the state language and other languages is also discussed. The comments include observations that stricter controls should be imposed where the state language is not used in public—for example, in Vilnius and the Vilnius region.

I fully agree with the commission. Perhaps at last it will be possible to make the Slavs of the Vilnius region toe the line; they generally ignore both the Lithuanian language and Lithuania itself.

To this day, not all managers know Lithuanian, even though they have lived in Lithuania for years, even decades. Their subordinates are even less likely to speak Lithuanian. Who are they: idiots or enemies of the Lithuanian state? Visit “Lietuvos geležinkeliai,” the shops in Visaginas, “Mažeikių nafta,” and companies in Klaipėda. I respect Latvia’s State Language Inspectorate. They have really taken measures there—if you want to work, speak the state language. Why, then, do we allow our state and language to be mocked?

However, if the law on speech errors mentioned in the interview under discussion were passed, some commenters who did not distinguish public usage from private usage believed that people of other nationalities would suffer:

We would automatically forbid people of other nationalities from speaking with an accent, on the grounds that they are disfiguring our language.

Since in Lithuania dialect use has not yet disappeared from private domains, nor in some cases been completely driven out of public and even official usage⁵, the comments also discuss (with language supervision in mind) the relationship between the standard language and dialects, and express concern that people will not be able to communicate publicly in dialect:

⁵ Pavyzdžiui, 2007 m. Skuodo savivaldybės taryba nutarė, kad oficiali posėdžių kalba bus žemaičių tarmė (žr. http://www.lrytas.lt/-11831226281183066678-skuodo-savivaldyb%C4%97-pos%C4%97d%C5%BEiaus-%C5%BEemaiti%C5%A1kai.htm).

158

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

There’s nothing left to do, so now people have to be punished for their language. Someone speaks Samogitian, Aukštaitian, or Dzūkian—and gets fined a few hundred litas. Why is only the Suvalkian dialect considered correct?

Samogitian and Aukštaitian dialects may be used in spoken conversation, but standard Lithuanian is used (and must be used) in public life.

I DANCE AS I KNOW HOW, SO WHAT NOW—ARE WE GOING TO SCALP ALL THE SAMOGITIANS, DZŪKAI, AND SUVALKAI?

Oh, you idiots, what am I supposed to do if I speak only Samogitian?

I’ll hardly ever learn your language, but go ahead and try to punish me.

Thus, it can be said that quite a few commenters, while essentially supporting language supervision, see a threat that legislation may also regulate their private language. Whether the language of the comments themselves needs to be controlled is also discussed more specifically (see 5.2.2).

5.2. Areas of language use

The quantitative distribution of the areas of language use mentioned in the comments was largely determined by the interview introduction, which emphasized the need to supervise language on the internet; consequently, most of the discussion concerns internet control. In addition, the discussion addresses other areas of language use that were not mentioned in the interview.

5.2.1. The media

In general, only a few commenters mention the media as an area of language use that should be monitored, but particular aspects of it receive especially close attention. The comments note several times that language control is needed for the written media (the press, especially newspapers). Most discussion concerns the language used on radio and television, and there is near-universal agreement that this area needs to be monitored and that, at present, it is not sufficiently so:

Naturally, it is ESSENTIAL that those working in radio and appearing on TV speak correctly.

The language of our media is not bad, not bad at all. In the mornings I always listen to Šalkauskas’s press review on LTV. Excellent language, excellent pronunciation.

I agree about Šalkauskas; I listen to him too. His pronunciation is good, but it’s easy for him, since he’s reading. Things get interesting when journalists start speaking “freely.” And the real fun starts in the evenings across all the television channels. Especially all sorts of game shows hosted in “pure standard Lithuanian”:))

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros

159

The only true promoter of Lithuanian identity in Lithuania is LRT television. All the others are the worst offenders against the language. What kind of example are they setting for Lithuania’s children?

[...] two things need to be punished with very hefty fines. First, distortions of the language in television programmes—for example, the mice’s speech in “Dviračio žinios” is unforgivable. The same goes for programmes on other channels where speech is deliberately distorted. Only complete ignoramuses could behave this way, and there is no excuse for it.

Some popular programme hosts are mentioned as being unable to pronounce words correctly or place stress correctly; a female host is also mentioned who “studied abroad and therefore speaks with an accent.” Perhaps the greatest outrage among commenters was caused by the foreign host of the former television entertainment show “Kakadu,” who was only just beginning to learn Lithuanian:

What internet? Just look at how people speak not on some local TV station, but on the NATIONAL television channel LNK. BEERNYN’s “Lithuanian” — WHAT IS THAT, IF NOT MOCKERY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE? WAS THE “Kakadu” SHOW PUNISHED?

Very good; perhaps at last all sorts of global drifters (e.g., Bernin) will be forbidden from mocking our language on television programmes. It is awful to hear our native Lithuanian being transformed into “bird” language on television screens.

Another problem with the language of spoken media, raised by many commenters who believe it should be monitored, is profanity and vulgarisms:

WHEN WILL VULGAR WORDS DISAPPEAR FROM VARIOUS TV CHANNELS? IS THERE ANY CENSORSHIP LEFT?

There used to be prisoners’ slang, and now there’s television slang too.

TV channels are awash with Russianisms that were not even around in Soviet times—“koročė,” “otkatas,” and countless others—which are uttered with relish even by well-known actors and other famous people!

Commenters are especially angered by the incorrect construction du tūkstantis spread through various spoken-media channels:

Just teach everyone not to say “du tūkstantis,” starting with the Seimas, radio, and television.

Punishment is necessary: [...] impose a fine of at least one hundred litas on any participant in a television or radio programme who says “two thousand” while speaking.

160

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

5.2.2. The Internet

Quite a few commenters agree that the language used by internet portals (i.e. online media, essentially) needs to be monitored:

It is entirely right for linguists to ask the Seimas to pass a law requiring information published on the internet and in the public sphere generally to be in Lithuanian and correct.

The language used by internet portals absolutely needs to be monitored; it is already hard to find an article on Delfi without basic errors. Perhaps a fine or two will teach journalists to write more carefully.

Quite right. It’s high time. Why are newspapers and magazines monitored by linguists, but internet portals are not? Everyone operating in the market should do so on an equal footing. In general, portals pay no attention at all to language; they write however they can and however it turns out.

An attempt is being made to distinguish between public and private usage on the internet:

The language of electronic discourse is a distinct variety of language, characterized by elements of both written and spoken language. This is what the majority of prominent foreign linguists say. The internet is unique in terms of linguistic expression; the language of this discourse should be regulated according to the rules governing the use of this variety.

I think they are talking not about blogs⁶, but about the media. It doesn’t seem likely that anyone intends to go after everyone who writes “snd” instead of “today.” Bad language, like comments, belongs to the “private sphere.”

P.S. The internet itself may not belong to anyone, but specific websites DO, which means there is someone who can be held responsible.

People are particularly bothered by various manifestations of illiteracy on the internet, and see these as the first steps that should be taken to begin monitoring language on the internet:

Maybe they could start with Delfi, because basic spelling errors and utter disrespect for the Lithuanian language are there by the ton???

Delfi will go bankrupt... half the journalists here are illiterate; I’ve seen more than enough of “lysti” and “grįžo.” I’m ashamed on your behalf.

The media are full of basic grammatical errors, and even state-run websites are “sparkling” with grammatical errors all over them. It’s just embarrassing—don’t go on about people’s literacy. Especially when you read: kudykis, mergyna, stebŪklai, pazystamas, siūsti—enough to make you run off screaming, clutching your head.

⁶ Online diaries—blogs—are meant here.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 161

At school, they teach us to write idiotic interpretations instead of teaching us to write in Lithuanian without grammatical errors.

Some also doubt whether the language of the internet can be controlled at all:

Trying to control anything in the internet space is like tilting at windmills. Perhaps editors will now have to edit comments on Delfi too? And what about the thousands of individual websites? Who will keep an eye on all of this, and what can actually be done to someone who has made mistakes? Will the person who made a mistake be thrown in jail and forced to pay fines?

Will people now have to think about how to avoid an administrative penalty whenever they write a blog or post information on some website or publicly accessible server?

Other commenters think that any control over internet language would suppress people’s freedoms:

Well, that would really be the last straw. I’m used to writing with Lithuanian letters and placing commas correctly. But you can’t force people to know the language perfectly. If they don’t know it, should they not even try? I don’t think you could come up with anything more foolish... After all, that would violate a person’s freedoms.

THE INTERNET IS NOT anyone’s property and has no territory; it is independent of any clan or other monopoly engaged in corrupt activities, so such “laws” are against people’s freedom to communicate. These methods are an attempt to “gag” people in the electronic space—that is, on the internet.

A certain kind of slang prevails in the internet space, and it should stay that way, as it does throughout the world...

The language of comments is also discussed separately: can anyone interfere with them? Some believe that comments are an entirely personal matter, where there is no need to take other people’s interests into account or conform to general norms:

Commenting should be as free as the air, because a person should be able to sit down, relax, and write freely, with all kinds of jokes, of course, just without swear words. For many, this is associated with spending their leisure time.

Non-native speakers who write comments in Lithuanian are also remembered:

Tai dabar rusakalbiai žmonės, kurie moka lietuviškai šnekėti, bet nemoka taisyklingai rašyti, taip išeina, neturės teisės rašyti komentaro internete, idant negautų baudos už blogai išdėstytą sakinį....... Nu viršūnė... jau kvailiau negali užsimanyt......

162

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

Well, next you’ll be banning people from talking. When you have no work, you make things up. And how are the Russians in Vilnius supposed to write correctly in Lithuanian? Don’t make me laugh.

Others understand that comments belong to the public, not the private sphere:

A legitimate request, even if a belated one! It would be great if it became law. Internet spaces are constantly polluted (perhaps deliberately, too) by comments from people with poor literacy, and if, by chance, among the many commenters there is someone who writes normal Lithuanian, it takes a great deal of effort and time to keep up a discussion with them, because you lose sight of them amid mountains of empty talk from foul-mouthed distorters of the national language. The Seimas’s understanding is the only hope for supporting and preserving the Lithuanian language in online spaces!

I agree that Lithuanian should be correct, without grammatical errors, and include all the ogoneks, dots, and “carons.” It is simply unpleasant to the eye to see Lithuanian so horribly mangled, especially in comments.

The diversity of opinions here arises mainly because it is generally difficult to define the genre of comments precisely on the private–public scale. There is no doubt that this is language used in public: the posts are visible to everyone, yet they are anonymous, and communication takes place much as it does in the street or at a market. That is why another dimension also matters here: informal–official. The space for comments can be regarded as public, informal usage, with many unspecified addressees, so there naturally arises a need to observe, to a greater or lesser extent, generally accepted norms. At the same time, everyone can retain their individuality, and the language form and manner of speaking they choose, how they adapt to their interlocutors, and whether they show respect for them or disregard all this depend solely on their own inner culture and education. Some commenters regret that “there is no such fine and necessary understanding that one should write correctly everywhere”; they believe this understanding should be fostered, but not through punishments:

In comments, it is best to write as correctly as possible, because I think communication here takes place among everyone, not just friends. And I don’t think anyone should ever be punished for such minor mistakes; perhaps the person just slipped up.

Communication online or in public should not become something like writing an exam essay, for failing which you get fined.

In the yard, among your own crowd, you can talk nonsense and swear, but in comments you need to remember that you’re not among your own.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 163

Quite a few commenters are intolerant of the mangled spelling used by the authors of some comments⁷:

I think commenters should be forbidden from writing in a non-Lithuanian script. Just block them, because it is impossible to comprehend how the Lithuanian language could be defaced even more.

Particular concern is expressed about the spread of illiteracy among young people. The portal www.one.lt, popular with young people, and its forums are often mentioned:

I’m in favor of punishing those “ounininkai” and others like them who deliberately distort the Lithuanian language. And some children no longer even know how to spell, for example, “šiaip.” Many are firmly convinced it should be “šeip.” Others write “taį” instead of “tai.” They seem like elementary words, but today’s teenagers no longer know how to write them without mistakes.

The online community itself regulates spelling norms to some extent: there is no shortage of sharp retorts (and not only in this discussion) directed at those who write without Lithuanian characters. As a way to rein in illiterate commenters, people propose creating a special computer program that would prevent incorrect posts from being published:

Create a program that would block people who write in a non-Lithuanian script. What kind of spelling is possible without ogoneks, without š and ž, without ū? These are specific features of the Lithuanian language, so let’s be kind and observe them.

Since I read a lot of them, I’ve noticed a strange change in my writing habits. The point is that young people write horribly (they would, for example, spell this word “klaikei”). And because of that, whether you like it or not, you get thrown off course. As a programmer, I would suggest running every comment through some kind of spell-checking program. This would help those who write well avoid ruining their habits, and help those who write horribly learn to write well. They need a firm hand:)

Quite a few people supported such a program, saying it “would be the first step toward correct language use on the internet.” Commenters accused of illiteracy defend themselves by citing technical limitations of computers and mobile phones (which can also be used to write online), especially abroad:

But then thousands of Lithuanians living abroad would be unable to write comments; perhaps they got in touch with their compatriots through internet cafés, where the Lithuanian language

⁷ According to the findings of a study conducted in late 2007, www.delfi.lt portal comments were written with Lithuanian characters by only 40 percent of authors, whereas in the Latvian version of the same portal, 78 percent of Latvians used all diacritical marks, and in the Estonian version, 98 percent of Estonians did so (Grigas, Pedzevičienė 2008: 15).

164

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

No one will let you choose. You could ask somewhere in Germany, France, or the like, to enable Lithuanian for you.

Texting on mobile phones greatly damages spelling. Lots of abbreviations appear, and eventually we no longer write any other way.

Information technology specialists say that there are practically no longer any technical obstacles to writing with all Lithuanian characters (see Grigas 2007: 2–8); solutions can be found even when abroad and without a keyboard with Lithuanian letters.

Incidentally, in early 2009 the administrators of the same news portal www.delfi.lt found a way to remind commenters that they should write using Lithuanian characters (see the picture). It is difficult to say, though, how much heed is paid to that notice or what effect it has, since “Lithuanian without diacritics” posts are still plentiful.

Comment box on the internet news portal www.delfi.lt

Admittedly, there is also foolish or even malicious obstinacy. Some try to explain how to evade language control:

Now all that remains is to move the pages to servers abroad, and you can give the language Gestapo a big middle finger:)))

Host your page in the US or in any of the old EU countries, and be sure that there will be no such idiotic laws there. It’s just that no one there would understand such jokes. Try banning signs in the UK from being written, for example, in several languages, and the very next day several thousand Arabs will be shouting outside Parliament.

P.S. Incidentally, guessing that it’s better not to get involved with our donkeys, I registered my company’s website in my own name, while the website itself is safely tucked away somewhere in Oklahoma City.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 165

Commenters are also outraged by the swear words in the comments:

The comments resemble graffiti on the walls of public toilets or on the streets.

Let them speak in dialect, let them speak with a lisp, but let them not swear. When they swear, it becomes frightening. It is impossible even to have a normal discussion or conversation with someone.

All swear words on the internet must absolutely be filtered!

The comments discussed show that many of their authors are dissatisfied with the current state of the Lithuanian language on the internet and understand that different genres of language function in this medium, and that various ways of monitoring them must be sought.

5.2.3. The language of politicians and other government representatives

Quite a few commenters mention the public language of politicians, which is far from exemplary and ought to be monitored more closely, since politicians are highly visible in society and their language has an impact. Some commenters took issue with the language of the then President of the Republic of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus; it is suggested that language control should begin with the presidential institution, and it is also thought that members of the Seimas and other government representatives would benefit from language lessons:

We should start with the highest-ranking state officials, too! As long as they mangle the language while babbling in Russian or English, laws of a similar ilk would be worthless!

One criterion for our politicians should be an examination in language culture. After all, all teachers now take such an exam when earning a qualification. There is no greater embarrassment nowadays than listening to our politicians—so-called politicians; “politicians” in quotation marks would be more apt—speak. You would have to search hard to find such illiterates in other circles.

Moreover, the standard of official administrative language must not be overlooked:

Office correspondence and correct speech are essential in communications between institutions and in maintaining relations with other countries.

5.2.4. School

Commenters emphasize the importance of teaching the Lithuanian language—the future vitality of Lithuanian depends on what children learn at school. It is therefore suggested that the first priority should be fostering a need for cultured language and the skills to use language correctly:

166

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

It is high time to strengthen Lithuanian in schools, before it is too late, because otherwise spelling will be in a sorry state.

[...] the future of Lithuanian identity will depend only on our children’s education system, not on a stupid article that will never even be put into practice.

Go to schools and kindergartens and teach young people so that our future generations speak beautifully and correctly, but instead, in your kindergartens, children have started being taught by some minority group.

5.2.5. Fiction, culture

A few commenters suggest more closely monitoring the language of books, especially translated works of fiction:

The commission would do better to check the work of book translators. It’s no longer possible to read fiction properly. Sometimes it’s full of scraps of Lithuanian.

There is a view that educated people who speak in public should naturally speak correctly:

But even educated people make mistakes. Sometimes when you listen to members of parliament or representatives of the arts, your hair stands on end: they simply don’t know Lithuanian; they use only Lithuanian words, yet pay no heed to cases or style, simply not knowing how these are combined. For example, I once heard a dancer, A. K., speaking. He said: “As far as dance is concerned, the steps should be worked out.” Was that said in Lithuanian? I don’t think so... Requirements concerning the Lithuanian language must be tightened.

Attention is also drawn to an area that is monitored too little by language supervision specialists—Lithuanian song lyrics:

Let them correct song lyrics; then hundreds of people learn incorrect forms... As in Riaubiškytė’s song, where the line was “to confess one’s love”; it was corrected later, but you can’t erase it from the albums. Every other text has serious language errors.

5.2.6. Other areas

Commenters also take issue with the language used in various public service sectors, since “those who communicate with people must be able to speak and write correctly”:

Just look at how many mistakes doctors make; some are simply illiterate. Schools need to teach handwriting as well.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros

167

First pass a law requiring state-owned enterprises to provide services in the national language, not a foreign one. Especially if you call an ambulance and the medical aide cannot even say “hello” in Lithuanian.

The Language Inspectorate should instead look into the names of companies being registered, where foreign words can tie even the devil’s tongue in knots, and find out what product names are used on invoices.

Indeed, considerable dissatisfaction is expressed over non-Lithuanian public signs and company names:

When a company is established, its name should be approved by the Lithuanian Language Commission. This would also be one way of contributing to the preservation of the purity of the Lithuanian language.

Non-linguists may not be able to FORMULATE THIS PRECISELY, but their desire is clear—that all public signs should make it clear whose land this is and what country you are in. That a HOST OF THE COUNTRY who does not speak a foreign language should be able to understand from a sign where to go and where not to. IT IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to receive information in the STATE language!

That’s right, A TRADEMARK IS INVIOLABLE, but it can appear as an ADDITIONAL sign, as information for those who care about it.

It is up to the business owners to come up with what they should put on the main—LITHUANIAN—sign. After all, this is ELEMENTARY COURTESY, and they cannot behave like OCCUPIERS.

These names annoy me: “MaXima,” “Super neto,” and many others... Why did the Language Commission “let them in”? After all, in Lithuania we should speak Lithuanian! Well, say we can’t change “Adidas,” but who allowed a Lithuanian retail chain to have a name like “MaXima”?

As for signs, it’s all very simple—if you like the LITAI paid by LITHUANIANS, then let those Lithuanians like putting up Lithuanian signs. And if that’s too much of a sacrifice for you, or you can’t afford a translator to translate it for you, what kind of businessperson are you? And if it’s so important to boast that you’re perhaps some kind of “big shot,” then stick that sign somewhere too—it doesn’t bother me, as long as you write in big letters in Lithuanian what this place is: a pub, a sauna, a gun shop or a beet shop. Otherwise I’ll take my litai elsewhere, and leave them with those who make it clear to me what lies behind the sign.

And why will a neighborhood called Riversaidas appear in Klaipėda? After all, it’s a non-Lithuanian name:((((

A review of the opinions expressed in online discussions about the supervision of the Lithuanian language shows that commenters raise many language-planning issues and point out shortcomings. Most are not indifferent to the processes currently taking place in the language or to the language policy being implemented, and expect considerably greater activity from language-supervision institutions.

168 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

CONCLUSIONS

1. Comments in the linguistic discussion under consideration show that people have differing views on the importance of language supervision and its application to various domains of language use. For some, any interference in the development of language is entirely unacceptable; others acknowledge that certain domains of language use should be controlled by the state.

2. The internet comments examined identify the following domains of public (official and informal) Lithuanian-language use as requiring language supervision and control (in approximate order of importance):

1) the media (television and radio presenters, TV films, internet news portals, the press),

2) the public sphere of politics (the language of politicians and other government representatives),

3) public information and the provision of services to the public (public signs, company names, company websites),

4) education (kindergartens, schools),

5) belles-lettres (especially translations),

6) personal websites (e.g., blogs) and internet comments.

Thus, society’s expectations regarding correct language are most closely associated with the media—in spoken, print, and online forms. It is also considered that public information and politicians’ language should be subject to greater control to ensure adherence to general cultural and language standards.

3. The language of the public internet sphere, which was not mentioned in the 1995 State Language Law, raises many concerns because of the processes taking place there. The discussion showed that people assess differently the information they themselves provide and that which is provided officially (e.g., by news portals and institutional websites). Many agree that the language used by internet news portals needs greater supervision.

There is considerable uncertainty about the language used in public comments—whether it should be controlled externally (primarily with regard to spelling and obscene vocabulary). Most people are generally intolerant of swearing and vulgarity in the public internet sphere, as they are in spoken media. On the other hand, they react sensitively when their own interests are touched upon. Thus, dissatisfaction arises naturally, even if based on the mistaken understanding that private language will be controlled. Some commenters acknowledge that comments are public language, but argue that this is the language of private individuals who post anonymously. It can be regulated only through the joint efforts of internet portals themselves and public opinion—in other words, by creating an environment in which the principles are clear: lively, undistorted, informal-style language is a value and an aspiration.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentuotojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros

169

4. Both official and media-provided linguistic information intended for the public should be presented more clearly and accurately in order to avoid fruitless discussions, at least some misunderstandings, and unnecessary tension between the public and linguists. The arguments and diversity of views expressed in similar linguistic discussions must be taken into account when undertaking language policy measures and explaining them publicly.

ŠALTINIAI

Lašienė N. 2009₁: Kur geria veršiai medų. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.atgimimas.lt/articles.php?id=1238061176, kovo 27.

Lašienė N. 2009₂: Kalbantiems netaisyklingai – baudos. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/article.php?id=21323801, balandžio 4.

LITERATŪRA

Dabašinskas G. 2009: Bevardis chamas prie klaviatūros vairo. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.bernardinai.lt/index.php?url=articles/93520, balandžio 6.

Grigas G. 2007: Lietuviški rašmenys kompiuteryje. – Gimtasis žodis 3, 2–8.

Grigas G., Pedzevičienė S. 2008: Internetiniai komentarai. Ar mokame juos rašyti? – Kompiuterija 1, 15.

Kairys S. 2009: Savaitė bus šilta. Kaip šlykštu! – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.atgimimas.lt/ssi.php?id=1248938441&which=1&f_text=, liepos 31.

Miliūnaitė R. 2006: Internetinė visuomenė ir kalbininkai: pokalbis įmanomas? – Bendrinės kalbos norminimas ir vartojimas [mokslo straipsnių rink.], Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 62–81.

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

Mitė V. 2009: Internetiniai komentarai ir „komentarai“. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/article.php?id=21260225, kovo 31; 771 šio straipsnio komentaras.

Nevinskaitė L. 2008: Kalbos politikos vertinimas interneto komentaruose. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 245–265.

Gauta 2009 10 19

170

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

ATTITUDES OF INTERNET COMMENTATORS TOWARDS THE SUPERVISION OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

Summary

The paper deals with the attitudes of internet commentators towards the supervision of the Lithuanian language. Reference is made to a discussion launched on the internet in April 2009 on the initiative of the Commission of the State Lithuanian Language that the new draft law on the state Lithuanian language should include a provision that the language of the information placed on the internet and in public space in general should be in accordance with the requirements of standard Lithuanian.

The researched commentaries have shown that people differ in their attitudes towards the importance of language supervision and control of different areas of language usage. Some claim that any intrusion into language is unacceptable; others admit that some areas of language usage should be controlled on a national level. The majority of commentary writers are not indifferent towards the processes going on in contemporary Lithuanian and current language policy; they also raise various issues on language supervision and expect that language supervision institutions should be more actively involved in the process.

The commentaries usually refer to the following areas of language usage (official and free) which require supervision and control (given in the order of importance):

1) mass media (television and radio programmes, TV films, news portals on the web and the press);

2) public discourse of politicians (language of politicians and other representatives of public institutions);

3) public information and services (public notices, names of companies, company websites);

4) education (kindergartens and schools);

5) literature (especially translations);

6) private websites (e.g. blogs) and internet commentaries.

The society most often relates its expectations of a well-formed and grammatically correct language with spoken, printed and internet mass media. Public information (public notices, names of companies) and the language of politicians are treated as requiring most control.

The supervision of public speeches on the internet, not included in the Law on State Lithuanian Language of 1995, is treated in different ways. Many people approve of the idea that the language of news portals should be more strictly supervised. However, opinions differ as to the supervision of commentaries and particularly their regulation by fines. Some agree that stricter control should be imposed

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Interneto komentautojų nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos priežiūros 171

on the language of commentaries, especially on spelling and swear words; some authors treat such measures as an attack on human rights.

Before taking measures of language policy and discussing them in public, it would be important to consider the variety of approaches and their arguments. This would help avoid misunderstandings and the tension arising between linguists and the society at large.

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

172

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82