LORETA VAICEKAUSKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

VAIDA ŠVEŽAITĖ

Vilnius University

LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS AND LINGUISTIC CONFIDENCE: SOCIOLINGUISTIC ATTITUDE STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

The article critically analyses several studies of linguistic attitudes conducted in Lithuania and presents a quantitative study of linguistic confidence conducted in 2009 among respondents with lower (secondary and vocational) education from Lithuania’s three largest cities and their surrounding areas: Vilnius, Kaunas, and Šiauliai. The sample comprised 200 Lithuanian respondents aged 18–60, selected using the so-called snowball, or acquaintances-of-acquaintances, method: 113 women and 87 men.

Most Lithuanian studies of linguistic confidence are based on normative attitudes; they examine how well or poorly Lithuanian speakers evaluate their language. Such studies generally assume that society does not know its native language and therefore needs to learn more. They focus on correctness as the principal element in the concept of good language. But is good language, for ordinary language users, simply correct language, and can linguistic confidence be determined solely by knowledge of language rules? To our knowledge, Lithuanian studies have not raised this question. Nor have they asked how linguistic confidence is related to language corrections.

In Lithuania, respondents in sociolinguistic studies are mostly selected from among representatives of the so-called middle class with higher education; students and school pupils are also frequently chosen. The article presents a study of people with lower educa-

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

235

… respondents’ survey stands out because very few studies of linguistic attitudes in Lithuania have been conducted with such respondents, and this particular target group provides interesting material for comparisons.¹

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF RESEARCH ON LINGUISTIC CONFIDENCE

It began to be recognized as early as the late 1960s that language users’ attitudes toward other languages, different varieties of the same language, and their own language constitute an important source of data, supplementing, among other things, research on language use and language variants. Since then, interest in language users’ attitudes has only grown, and the number of studies has increased.

The theoretical foundations of linguistic self-evaluation were laid by William Labov’s 1966 New York study, which included a study of linguistic confidence. Labov used what is known as the index of linguistic insecurity (index of linguistic insecurity, abbreviated ILI), that is, he counted instances in which an informant stated that they themselves used one variant but identified another as “good” (Labov 1991). In addition to Labov’s method of direct, unstructured interviews and testing, linguistic confidence and attitudes are also studied through structured qualitative interviews and indirect experiments.¹¹

Sociolinguistic theory tells us that, when indirect methods are used or actual language use is observed, the greatest insecurity is shown by the lower-middle class and women from all social strata—these language users are particularly prone to hypercorrection. At the same time, when questioned directly, women are more likely to declare official, “ideologically correct” attitudes. Men evaluate their spoken language (sociolect, dialect) more positively, and this is said to be reflected in their language use (phonetics, morphology, lexicon). Men conform less to the standard instilled at school (for more on accommodation by men and women, see Pedersen 1998).

Sociolinguistic studies also discuss the concept of good language. Sociolinguists are highly critical of the ideological attitudes of language guardians and language maintenance toward language norms. In the discourse of language standardizers, correctness is the central concept; from the sociolinguists’ point of view, however, language variants should not be evaluated at all as “better” or “worse,” and speakers should not be—

¹ In more recent works on sociolinguistic theory, duration of education (lower versus higher educational attainment) is recommended as a criterion for determining social status.

236

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

be classified as ¹ “good” or “bad.” According to sociolinguists, there are no instruments for measuring language quality at all; therefore, such classification should be regarded as a manifestation of the power of certain individuals or institutions over others. Studies show that language correction can even encourage society’s lack of confidence in its own language² (on normativism, see Petersen 2007; on the ideology of prescriptivism, see Vaicekauskienė 2008).

It is precisely ideological, or symbolic, power—which exists alongside manifestations of political and economic power—that is wielded by those who determine what constitutes a norm, a standard, higher culture, good taste, and aesthetic quality, and what constitutes a deviation from the norm, something vulgar or ugly. When society adopts such value judgments as self-evident norms, it is said that the ideologues have achieved their aims (see Bourdieu 1991; see also Sandøy 2004: 20–21).

The ideology of linguistic purity and correctness is well known in Lithuanian society, and language users apply it when evaluating their own language. As will be seen below, respondents in sociolinguistic attitude studies conducted here readily assess their linguistic abilities—whether asked directly, using a given qualitative scale, or in open-ended qualitative interviews. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that the results of Lithuanian studies conducted using direct methods may be influenced by official prescriptive attitudes. Moreover, such studies very rarely investigate what respondents mean when they say they “do not know how to speak.”

2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN LITHUANIA

In 2006, two relevant studies were conducted at the request of the Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science. Among other things, public attitudes toward language were investigated using representative, in-person structured interviews. The first study examined the attitudes of school pupils, teachers, and the public in general toward language. A total of 1,612 pupils of various ethnic backgrounds in grades 8–12 and 240 Lithuanian-language teachers from

² For example, in the Faroe Islands, where the ideology of prescriptivism is particularly pronounced and purist traditions are long-standing, people are said to believe that their command of Faroese is poor. According to the findings of a study of secondary-school students, 17 percent said they knew their mother tongue very well, 58.5 percent well, 23 percent moderately, and 1.5 percent poorly. Scholars believe that such relatively low self-assessments arise because language users judge their competence against the official conception of pure and correct language, comparing themselves with the handful of people who know this variety of the language. The real Faroese language, it is claimed, is not the language people use, but a certain idealized nugget (Petersen 2007).

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

237

teachers from 30 different schools. In addition, a representative survey was conducted among 1,110 Lithuanian residents aged 15–74. The target group of the second study consisted of students and lecturers at higher-education institutions: using a similar questionnaire, 1,200 university and college students (89 percent of whom were Lithuanian) and 414 lecturers were surveyed (see School Study 2006; Higher Education Study 2006).

The article addresses three questions from these studies that are most relevant to the problem: 1) What, in your opinion, is most important for a contemporary person who uses the Lithuanian language?; 2) How do you personally assess your knowledge and skills in Lithuanian?; 3) How important is it to you personally to speak and write Lithuanian correctly and express your thoughts [in the specified situations]?.

The answers to the first question show that both representatives of individual target groups and the public in general regard correctness as the most important characteristic of good language. This result cannot be accepted without reservations, since the answers were undoubtedly influenced by the type and wording of the question: respondents had to select only one of the four options provided, and the first option was specifically about correctness and was the only one to mention the written variety of language:

1. To speak and write correct Lithuanian;

2. To express thoughts freely and fluently in various situations and on various topics (even if not always correctly);

3. To speak in expressive and rich language;

4. Other³.

The first response option was chosen by 42 percent of students, 45 percent of Lithuanian children and the same proportion of teachers, 50 percent of lecturers, and 55 percent of Lithuanian residents. It is not surprising that girls and women emphasized correctness more. More than a third of respondents chose freedom and fluency of speech as a desirable ability.

The second question, about one’s own knowledge and skills in Lithuanian, appears to have been asked only of school pupils and students. The target group of young learners assessed their language abilities quite favorably: respondents most often selected good, and sometimes very good (see Table 1)⁴.

³ It would be worth considering what the results might have looked like if the response options had been presented in a different order and phrased differently (e.g., “to speak and write freely and fluently”; “to express thoughts in expressive and rich language in various situations,” and so on).

⁴ Interestingly, the results of this study are very similar to those of the previously mentioned study in the Faroe Islands.

238

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

TABLE 1. Students’ and school pupils’ assessment of their own language skills

Very good (percent) | Good (percent) | Average (percent) | Poor (percent) | Very poor (percent) pupils | students | pupils | students | pupils | students | pupils | students | pupils | students Reading | 30 | 51 | 49 | 39 | 19 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 Writing | 6 | 17 | 44 | 56 | 42 | 24 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 Speaking | 13 | 17 | 57 | 58 | 28 | 23 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1

Prepared by L. V. based on: School Survey 2006; Higher Education Survey 2006.

The answers show that confidence in one’s language also depends on which linguistic competence is being assessed: young people rated their reading skills particularly highly (naturally, students more highly than school pupils), their speaking somewhat less highly, and their writing least highly (especially pupils, of whom as many as 42 percent selected the answer average). These results suggest that confidence in one’s abilities should be related to the practice of correcting language: pupils’ language is monitored more than students’, and presumably their written language in particular. This is also borne out by the data from the study cited: more than a third of college students and about half of university students, mostly those not studying humanities, had received no comments from lecturers about their language and had not heard of fellow students being corrected.

In response to the third question, about the need for correct language, respondents—especially girls—typically stated that correct language is important in various situations (this question, too, was asked only of pupils and students). As many as 97 percent of students selected the answers very important and fairly important for “expressing one’s thoughts correctly during lectures.” 91 percent of pupils of all ethnicities (especially those with a high annual average grade in Lithuanian) said that it was very important and fairly important to express their thoughts correctly in Lithuanian lessons, while 74 percent of pupils said the same about lessons in general. In the opinion of 93 percent of students and 88 percent of pupils, speaking correctly is also important outside school, in public settings (“when interacting with employees of various institutions”).

Even when discussing private spaces shared with family and friends, young people said that it was important to speak and write correctly (the answer “at home” was selected by 58 percent of students and 48 percent of pupils (60 percent of Lithuanian pupils⁵); “with acquain-

⁵ The report does not provide separate data for Lithuanian pupils everywhere; most often, it gives only the overall percentages of responses from respondents of all ethnicities.

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

239

tances”—55 percent of students and 58 percent of pupils; “when writing SMS messages and emails”⁶—54 percent and 56 percent, respectively). The paradoxical nature of the latter answers shows how the research method can affect results: by evidently steering respondents towards a particular value judgment and giving them only one response option, the desired answers are obtained. This should be borne in mind when assessing the results of such studies (cf. a similar study on students’ motivation to speak correctly; Kruopienė 2006)⁷.

It is also worth mentioning that the studies in question examined the causes of declining literacy in society and the factors negatively affecting respondents’ Lithuanian-language skills⁸. Respondents most often chose two of the options provided (which were conventionally normative and negatively connoted): “incorrect language in the media (the press, TV, etc.)” and “incorrect language used by some Lithuanian politicians and other well-known people.” Teachers and lecturers blamed these two institutions (especially politicians) most strongly. Young people’s attitudes were considerably more neutral, but it is worth noting that “politically correct” views—that is, those closer to the official position and that of teachers—were expressed by girls and the highest-achieving pupils⁹.

One would be reluctant to agree either that media professionals’ language is so incorrect or that it can have such a major (negative) effect as the Ministry of Education’s study report suggests. Television and radio journalists themselves

⁶ It is interesting to see that for both pupils and students this question is phrased using, in parentheses, the English terms for electronic communication familiar to young people: “Writing phone messages (SMS), emails (e-mail)” (in the original, the foreign words are not italicized. – L. V.).

⁷ The language of the reports themselves, which are publicly available, also leaves an ambiguous impression: the questionnaires emphasize the necessity of correct language throughout, while the reports contain spelling and language errors.

⁸ It is worth noting that, from a sociolinguistic perspective, the wording of these questions was highly biased (and objectively unsubstantiated): respondents were asked what the causes of declining literacy in society were (thus presupposing that literacy was undoubtedly declining), why university students’ command of Lithuanian was not improving (thus presupposing that students really did have a poor command of Lithuanian), and so on.

⁹ The question of whether the media can influence respondents’ language at all remains unresolved. Although there is evidence that people themselves believe television affects their language, the traditional sociolinguistic view is that television influences attitudes and, at most, can spread vocabulary or idioms. It does not affect the language system itself, phonology, or syntax, except where viewers make a conscious effort to learn the standard language (Chambers 1998). Language influence, it is argued, occurs as people interact and unconsciously affect one another. On the other hand, recent data from the past decade, particularly concerning mobile youth communities, suggest that some linguistic features may perhaps be acquired not only from acquaintances but also from screen “stars.” There is not yet reliable data to investigate this issue more thoroughly, and so we still have no clear answer.

240 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

consider their own language to be completely incorrect. According to data from the Language Inspectorate’s survey of 100 journalists, most said that they make occasional mistakes, while only 8 respondents said that they speak correctly. In assessing the results of this study and journalists’ confidence in their own language, one must bear in mind the asymmetrical distribution of power: the questioner here was the supervisory institution that monitors respondents’ language and has the authority to punish them. In response to the question of whether they often receive comments from the Language Inspectorate, as many as 67 respondents said “quite often” (see the Journalists’ Survey)¹⁰.

On the other hand, the language of journalists and politicians is not always, or in every case, considered a bad example. For instance, in a small study devoted to elite language, alongside writers and cultural figures regarded as linguistic models, 43 lecturers and students at Šiauliai University and secondary-school teachers mentioned the names of politicians and journalists; in addition to correctness, as a necessary feature of elite language, they also listed logicality, stylistic polish, vividness, originality, ethicality, and other requirements (Župerka 2005). As will be seen below, a survey of respondents with lower levels of education yielded similar results. In general, although studies of Lithuanian in this field often focus excessively on correctness, communicative and ethical aspects must also be considered alongside the normative aspect, especially when assessing (and justifying!) the various forms of media language (cf. Koženiauskienė 2001).

The attitudes of television and radio journalists were examined in another study of attitudes toward spoken media, which focused on standards and norms of public speech and on language policy. In 2009, using qualitative structured interviews, 24 well-known journalists and program hosts each were interviewed in Lithuania and Latvia¹¹. Although the direct survey method yields data only on official standard attitudes, qualitative interviews nevertheless make it possible to reveal the content of those attitudes. In terms of its questions and theoretical premises, this study is closest to the study of respondents with lower levels of education discussed in this article. Its data are still being analyzed, but the preliminary results are used later in the article to interpret the data obtained. It may be noted that during the interviews Lithuanian journalists listed many different features of good language

¹⁰ The study report published on the Language Inspectorate’s website does not specify the year in which the survey was conducted. It should also be noted that the figures presented in the report contain some inaccuracies.

¹¹ The project was carried out by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and was entitled Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Self-Awareness of Society in Lithuania and Latvia. It was funded by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation. The project partners were the University of Latvia and Liepāja University. The study presented in this article was used as a pilot BalSoc study.

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

241

features (vividness, richness, fluency, interest, liveliness, spontaneity, humor, clarity, logicality, euphony, ethicality, expressiveness, etc.). They mentioned correctness as one feature, but neither the main one nor the only one. Interestingly, when asked to assess their own linguistic competence, the vast majority did not apply their stated conception of good language to themselves; instead, they based their assessment solely on correctness, as if they had to give themselves a school grade for how well they had learned the rules and norms of the language (cf. Petersen 2007). Most rated their linguistic abilities as good or average. This shows that journalists, on the one hand, think about language and can express their opinions as professionals, while, on the other, they feel (and experience) considerable pressure from prescriptive Lithuanian language policy, which prevents them from having complete confidence in their linguistic abilities. From the official attitude and the way media professionals assess themselves, one can infer that their correctors—the institutions with official authority to punish, which journalists said monitored them—are guided by the so-called language-deficit, or deficient-language, ideology. Media professionals with higher education and many years of work experience rated their linguistic competence more poorly than pupils and students surveyed in the Ministry of Education study and, as will be seen below, more poorly than respondents with lower levels of education.

The study of respondents with lower levels of education presented below in the article was conducted using the traditional quantitative survey method and, of course, also reveals official attitudes. However, the respondents’ social affiliation with a less-educated stratum makes it possible to expect less standardization than in the case of the middle class, while the option of choosing several of the given response alternatives allows for greater diversity in the answers.

3. RESULTS OF THE STUDY OF RESPONDENTS WITH LOWER LEVELS OF EDUCATION

In preparing the study questionnaire, two pilot interviews were conducted: these made it possible to refine the wording of the questions and prepare response options for respondents to choose from. For example, during the pilot interviews respondents most often mentioned that their language had been corrected by teachers, parents, and friends, so these particular response options were included in the questionnaire. It became clear that respondents found it difficult to specify exactly what had been corrected in their language. This question proved to be the most difficult. For example, one respondent’s ans-

242 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

The question was as follows: I don’t know what this is called scientifically, but, say, instead of “face” I say “mug”. Therefore, it was decided to provide several response options that had emerged during the conversations (stress, vocabulary, other). The pilot interviews also showed that, when talking about their language skills, respondents distinguish between writing and speaking abilities. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to assess written and spoken language separately. The article goes on to discuss some of the research questions and summarize respondents’ answers.

3.1. Assessment of one’s own linguistic competence (writing and speaking abilities)

Respondents were asked to assess their language (question How do you assess your language compared with other people in Lithuania?). They were asked to assess writing and speaking abilities separately, choosing one of the options provided: excellent; good; average; poor; very poor.

The answers show that respondents have considerable confidence in their language, in both writing and, especially, speaking competence. Writing ability was rated excellent or very good by 81 percent of respondents (18 percent and 63 percent, respectively); 17 percent rated their writing as average, 2 percent as poor, and no one selected the option very poor. Speaking was rated excellent or very good by as many as 87 percent of respondents (11 percent and 76 percent, respectively); 13 percent selected the answer option average, while no one selected poor or very poor.

Answers differed very little by gender, although women rated their writing abilities somewhat more highly than men did (the responses I write excellently and well were selected by 27 percent and 58 percent of women, respectively—85 percent in total—and by 7 percent and 70 percent of men—77 percent in total). Conversely, men rated their speaking skills somewhat more highly than women did (the responses I speak excellently and well were selected by 12 percent and 72 percent of women, respectively—84 percent in total—and by 9 percent and 83 percent of men—92 percent in total). The male respondents’ answers in this spoken-language study corroborate facts familiar to sociolinguists, while women’s higher self-assessment of their writing abilities could be interpreted as a standard response, reflecting their tendency to attribute to themselves the competence that is more highly valued officially. Written Lithuanian is indeed more strongly regulated, and receives more attention at school (cf. the aforementioned studies by the Ministry of Education, in which writing competence was also rated lower, while standard-language attitudes were particularly characteristic of women, schoolgirls, and the highest-achieving pupils) (School Study 2006; Higher Education Institutions Study 2006).

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai 243

Self-assessments are also practically unrelated to respondents’ age: all age groups mostly rated both speaking and writing abilities as good or excellent. It is worth noting only that the oldest respondents expressed somewhat less confidence (see Table 2).

TABLE 2. Assessment of language skills and respondents’ age

18–25 years (percent)

26–35 years (percent)

36–45 years (percent)

46–55 years (percent)

>55 years (percent)

I write excellently/well

83

91

78

87

53

I speak excellently/well

79

91

93

84

69

A more detailed breakdown of the answers is shown below (see Figures 1 and 2). As mentioned, most respondents rated their abilities as good, and some as excellent. In this respect, survey participants aged 26–35 stood out: this group had the highest proportion of respondents who rated themselves excellent. As many as one-third of respondents aged 26–35 said that they could write excellently, and one-fifth that they could speak excellently. Compared with other age groups, the youngest respondents (aged 18–25) also more often rated their speaking abilities as excellent. As noted, the oldest respondents stood out among the age groups, more often than others choosing the response option average: nearly half of this age group rated their writing that way, and almost a third rated their speaking that way.

FIGURE 1. Assessment of speaking competence among respondents in different age groups

244

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

FIG. 2. Assessment of respondents’ writing competence across different age groups

3.2. Language correction and confidence in one’s language abilities

Respondents were also asked to answer several questions about language correction (the questions were worded as follows: Has anyone ever corrected your language? (yes or no); Name who corrected your language (teachers; parents; friends; other); What did they correct? (word stress; advised you to use another word instead of one word; other (respondents were asked to give examples for these answer options).

Most respondents (83%) said that their language had been corrected, and most often mentioned teachers, less often friends, or both, since they selected several of the answer options provided (see Fig. 3).

FIG. 3. Language correctors identified by respondents

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

245

The study data show that there is a connection between language correction and linguistic confidence. Respondents whose language had been corrected by someone had slightly less confidence in both their writing and speaking abilities than those whose language had not been corrected. Eighty percent of respondents whose language had been corrected rated their writing as excellent or good, compared with 88% of respondents whose language had never been corrected; 86% of survey participants whose language had been corrected rated their speaking as excellent or good, compared with 94% of respondents whose language had not been corrected. This connection depends even more on the “institution” of the person doing the correcting—that is, on whether they have official authority to correct and their authority must be respected (in this case, the school and teachers), or whether they rely on the practice of personal agreement (parents, friends). Admittedly, the distribution of power between the person correcting and the person being corrected is also unequal between parents and children, based on the requirement to obey, but this is of little relevance to the present study, since only a very small proportion of respondents mentioned parents as language correctors. What follows shows how respondents’ self-assessments differed when they were corrected by teachers and by non-teachers (the greater difference in assessments of writing ability is likely related to our pedagogical and, more generally, prescriptive practice of correcting written language more often) (see Figs. 4 and 5).

FIG. 4. Assessment of writing competence according to who corrected the language

FIG. 5. Assessment of speaking competence according to who corrected the language

246

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

As noted in discussing the pilot survey, respondents found it difficult to categorize language corrections. In general, they may also have found it difficult to recall exactly what had been corrected at school. Perhaps for this reason, when asked about specific language corrections, most respondents marked either one or the other—or, most often, both—of the options provided in the questionnaires. Data were also gathered from examples of errors submitted by respondents. Most often, these were deprecated old and new borrowings from the perspective of language culture (biškis “a little,” baranka “ring-shaped roll,” benzakolonke “gas station,” šniūras “rope,” papkė “folder,” sasyska “sausage,” išmiera “size,” kaldra “blanket,” grafkė “paper clip,” čipsai “crisps,” etc.), unacceptable calques (neužilgo “soon,” kaip taisyklė “usually, most often,” kas liečia “as for,” etc.). Respondents also mentioned word-formation errors (morkavas “carrot-flavoured,” batareika “battery,” davesti “to bring,” Vycka “Vitalijus,” etc.) and errors in preposition use (skubu ant autobuso “I’m hurrying onto the bus,” susižiūnošiu pas vaistininkę “I’ll check with the pharmacist,” etc.). We would argue that these standard examples of errors, cited in all language-culture textbooks, illustrate not so much the respondents’ own speech as the entrenched and flawed practice of Lithuanian-language teaching.

As can be seen, the results of this study are very similar to those of the Ministry of Education studies, in which students corrected more often rated their abilities lower than students corrected less often. They show that the pressure of prescriptive norms, together with those contexts or domains of language use where the requirement of correctness is applied directly and enforced through correction practices (in this case, school), leads to lower self-assessments and less confidence in one’s own linguistic abilities.

3.3. The concept of good language

The study assumed that, in addition to language corrections, the concept of good language should also be related to assessments of one’s own language abilities. The questionnaire posed the following question to respondents: In your opinion, what kind of language is good? (Based on the pilot interviews, the possible answers provided were: correct, error-free; fluent, free-flowing; expressive, rich; other).

Respondents could select several of the proposed answers. The largest proportion (41%) chose the statement that good language is fluent, free-flowing language (this feature of language was also mentioned as the most important by over 30% of respondents in the Ministry of Education study discussed above (School Survey 2006; Higher Education Institutions Stu-

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

247

rimas 2006). Atsakymo variantą taisyklinga, be klaidų pažymėjo 16 proc. apklausos dalyvių. 13 proc. apklaustųjų teigimu, geros kalbos požymis yra jos vaizdingumas, turtingumas. Likę respondentai įvairiai derino atsakymus. 15 proc. respondentų pažymėjo visus siūlomus variantus ir teigė, kad gera kalba turi būti ir taisyklinga, be klaidų, ir sklandi, laisva, ir vaizdinga, turtinga. Kad, be vaizdingumo ir turtingumo, gera kalba dar turi būti ir sklandi, laisva, manė 9 proc. respondentų; 3 proc. apklausos dalyvių nuomone, gera kalba yra taisyklinga, be klaidų ir vaizdinga, turtinga. Atsakymo variantą kitą pažymėjo 2 proc. respondentų, tik, deja, nė vienas nepaaiškino, kokius kalbos bruožus turi galvoje. 1 proc. respondentų gerą kalbą manė esant taisyklingą, be klaidų ir sklandžią, laisvą.

Assessing these data from the perspective of the restrictive tradition of Lithuanian-language teaching, one can say that, in respondents’ view, correctness—emphasized by language correctors—may be one characteristic of good language, but it is not the most essential. The majority of respondents (63%) did not select correctness at all. These results are somewhat at odds with the previously mentioned study of schools and society, according to which people with less education rate linguistic correctness fairly highly: 57% of those with less education and 49% of those with higher education selected correctness (the latter group in particular gave priority to the need to express their thoughts freely and fluently, even if not always correctly) (see School Survey 2006). This is a representative study, and its results should be reliable; however, as noted, substantial reservations are warranted because of the questionnaire’s possible influence on respondents—that is, its undue emphasis on correctness.

In this respect, the results of the previously mentioned study of journalists are quite interesting. As noted, in interviews, journalists identified a range of other characteristics of good language in addition to expressiveness, richness, and fluency; however, when assessing their own linguistic competence, they scarcely applied the concept of good language and relied solely on the concept of correct language. Compared with the rather high self-assessments of the respondents in the study under discussion, the assessments of journalists, who use language as a tool of their trade, appear paradoxically low¹².

It is worth noting that, when asked in the study presented in this article to name an example of good language, most respondents (over 70%) mentioned the media. This contradiction, compared with the aforementioned Ministry of Education study, in which

¹² Of course, there remains the possibility that respondents may tend to rate themselves somewhat lower.

248 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

The media (and politicians) were blamed for their bad influence; this once again draws attention to an important methodological problem in such studies and the dependence of results on questionnaire wording. Respondents also mentioned specific names: journalists Gražina Sviderskytė, Edmundas Jakilaitis, Gintaras Deksnys, Vilma Čereškienė, Rolandas Vilkončius, and Marius Veselis; actor Algimantas Čėkuolis; actors Andrius Žebrauskas and Saulius Balandis; and politicians Rokas Žilinskas, Arūnas Valinskas, and Inga Valinskienė¹³. LRT, LNK, and TV3 television channels, Lithuanian Radio, the newspaper and news portal Lietuvos rytas, and the magazine Žmonės were most often mentioned as examples of good language. Respondents who selected the answer option other most often mentioned Lithuanian-language teachers and linguists.

If respondents apply their stated conception of good language not only to the ideal of language but also to themselves, it may be assumed that their relatively high assessments of their own language skills are not necessarily determined by the requirement of correctness. These assessments could also be influenced by the fact that respondents are likely judging the linguistic behavior typical of their familiar surroundings, that is, private or limited-publicity speech, to which prescriptive norms do not apply.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the study sample was relatively small (200 Lithuanian residents of Lithuania’s largest cities with lower levels of education—secondary or vocational—were surveyed), its results point to certain tendencies. Respondents appear inclined to trust their linguistic abilities: as many as 87 percent (especially young men) rated their speaking skills as excellent or good, while 81 percent (especially young women) also rated their writing skills positively.

It emerged that language correction affects how respondents assess their linguistic competence. Respondents whose speech has been corrected by someone have less confidence in both their writing and speaking skills than those whose speech has not been corrected. An important factor in interpreting these and similar results is who corrected the respondent’s language. Survey participants whose language was corrected under an asymmetrical distribution of power (that is, by teachers, as representatives of an institution vested with the authority to correct) have less confidence in their abilities to speak and, especially, write in Lithuanian than those whose language was corrected by people who were not teachers. These results support the view that the teaching of the Lithuanian language

¹³ We would suggest that these politicians were mentioned more in connection with their earlier work in television.

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

249

practice is quite restrictive: rather than fostering language users’ pride in and confidence in the capabilities of their native language, it diminishes them. This conclusion is supported by comparing the study results with studies of school pupils, students and, especially, journalists working for Lithuanian television and radio. Media professionals with many years of work experience rated their linguistic competence lowest. This suggests that the pressure of prescriptive norms in areas of language use where correctness is directly required and enforced through correction practices (in schools and the media) leads to lower self-assessments and less confidence in one’s language abilities.

The respondents in the study discussed in this article—people with lower levels of education—are a specific target group. Their education did not last long, and the normative correction practices applied to them were likely limited to their school years. Moreover, unlike public speakers, for whom language is a work tool, they are far less often required to speak in formal settings. It is reasonable to assume that respondents were likely assessing the private or limited-publicity speech familiar to them, to which prescriptive norms do not apply. Respondents tend to regard fluent, free-flowing speech as good language; correctness may be expected of it, but is not essential. This suggests that the greater linguistic confidence of respondents with lower levels of education is also shaped by their own understanding of what constitutes good language.

LITERATŪRA

Aukštųjų mokyklų tyrimas 2006 – Lietuvių kalbos vartojimas aukštosiose mokyklose. Tyrimo ataskaita Lietuvos Respublikos Švietimo ir mokslo ministerijai, Universitetinių studijų skyriui. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.smm.lt/svietimo_bukle/docs/tyrimai/ataskaita_liet_aukst.pdf (žiūrėta 2009 08 24).

B o u r d i e u P. 1991: Language and symbolic power. Ed. John B. Thompson. Polity Press.

C h a m b e r s J. K. 1998: Myth 15. TV Makes People Sound the Same. – Language Myths. L. Bauer, P. Trudgill (ed.). Penguin.

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 r u o p i e n ė I. 2006: Taisyklingos kalbos vartosena studentų akimis. – Žmogus ir žodis 1, 74–79.

L a b o v W. 1991: Sociolinguistic patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mokyklų tyrimas 2006 – Lietuvių kalbos (gimtosios ir valstybinės) ugdymo organizavimas bendrojo lavinimo mokyklose. Tyrimo ataskaita Švietimo ir mokslo

250

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

ministerijai. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.smm.lt/svietimo_bukle/docs/tyrimai/galutine_lietuviu_klb_ugdymo_org.pdf (žiūrėta 2009 08 24).

Pedersen I. L. 1998: Livsformer og sprogformer i forandringens tegn. – M. Reinhammar (red.), Nordiske dialektstudier. Föredrag vid Femte nordiska dialektologkonferencen Sigtuna 17–21 augusti 1994. Uppsala, 223–232.

Petersen P. H. 2007: Sprog og identitet på Færøerne. Et spørgsmål om ord. – Språk og identitet, 26.

Sandøy H. 2004: Språkstyring og språkendring i Noreg. Politikk eller kulturelt hegemoni? – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.sprakrad.no/upload/sandoy.pdf (žiūrėta 2009 06 02).

Vaicekauskienė L. 2008: Preskriptyvumas ir deskriptyvumas (skolinių) norminimo politikoje. – Darbai ir dienos 50, 31–41.

Župerka K. 2005: Elitinė kalba ir jos atstovai. – Parlamento studijos 4.

Žurnalistų tyrimas – Radijo ir televizijos žurnalistų apklausa. Atliko Valstybinė kalbos inspekcija. – Prieiga per internetą: http://vki.lrs.lt/doc/tv_anketa.pdf (žiūrėta 2009 07 14).

Gauta 2009 11 13

LANGUAGE ERRORS AND LINGUISTIC SELF-CONFIDENCE: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH INTO LINGUISTIC ATTITUDES

Summary

The paper introduces the results of research conducted in 2009 and based on questionnaires collected from 200 respondents of lower than higher education (secondary and specialised) in the age group of 18–60 years. The respondents were from three major cities of Lithuania and their neighbourhood: Vilnius, Kaunas and Šiauliai. The investigation was aimed at identifying how the concept of well-formed language and how correcting language errors influenced the respondents’ linguistic self-confidence. Differently from traditional studies focusing on the norm, the present investigation presupposes that for ordinary language users, well-formed language is not confined to grammatically correct language and that linguistic self-confidence should be determined by other factors not limited to the knowledge of language rules.

The results of the investigation have shown that the representatives of the above social group give a fairly high evaluation to their own language skills, especially speaking, and a well-formed language for them is fluent, free language which

L. VAICEKAUSKIENĖ, V. ŠVEŽAITĖ. Kalbos taisymai ir kalbinis pasitikėjimas: sociolingvistiniai tyrimai

251

might be grammatically acceptable but could also be ungrammatical. At the same time, it can be seen that linguistic self-confidence might be reduced by language errors which are corrected: the respondents whose language was corrected in situations with an asymmetric distribution of power (e.g. the corrections were made by teachers), expressed less positive attitudes towards their own skills. The conclusion is supported by preliminary data obtained from television and radio journalists of Lithuania.

LORETA VAICEKAUSKIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

252

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82