GIEDRIUS TAMAŠEVIČIUS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF LEXIS CHARACTERISTIC OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

Research into spoken language, and especially its characteristic lexis, is still a new undertaking in Lithuania. Researchers of English, German, Russian, Scandinavian, and other languages have been interested in this field for decades. Apparently, this is why Lithuanian linguistics still lacks a clearer consensus on what should be considered spoken language, slang, and jargon (cf. Miliūnaitė 2005: 47).

Evalda Jakaitienė divides Lithuanian vocabulary in Lietuvių kalbos leksikologijoje into standard-language and spoken-language vocabulary. The latter consists of dialectal vocabulary, jargon, and slang. Slang, which lies outside the standard language, together with the basic vocabulary, forms the common national lexicon (Jakaitienė 1980: 67)¹. Gintautas Akelaitis refines this classification, arguing that spoken language in the broad sense encompasses all speech. It may be: 1) public, governed by the requirements of the standard language; 2) private (dialectal or semi-dialectal); 3) jargon (Akelaitis 2002: 55).

This article presents a study in which, following G. Akelaitis’s classification, the lexis of spoken language includes standard-language words with a colloquial stylistic colouring (included in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian – hereafter DLKŽ), words of dialectal origin known to and widely used by the majority of the linguistic community, as well as jargon.

¹ Most authors agree on the definition of jargon vocabulary: “words or word combinations used in the spoken language of particular social or professional groups” (cf. Jakaitienė 1980: 76). It is difficult to draw a clear boundary between jargon and slang—the two terms are often used synonymously (Orlova 2004); however, perhaps the most striking difference is that slang words are known to the majority of the linguistic community and are widely used, whereas jargon words are not, unless they have entered the slang lexicon (cf. Jakaitienė 1980: 66; Orlova 2004).

206

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

NATURE OF THE STUDY

Few studies of spoken language have been conducted in Lithuanian linguistics. Laima Grumadienė (1996: 190–198) has written about the sociolinguistic aspect of spoken-language research in the study of dialects and their interaction. The use of fillers (Akelaitis 2002), cases (Savickienė 2000), diminutives in spoken language (Savickienė 2006), and features of children’s language (Kamandulytė 2006) have been examined. Violeta Černė has written about the description of spoken language and emotional-expressive lexis in the DLKŽ (Černiutė 2000: 160–179). Although the need to study spoken-language lexis was raised more than a decade ago (Vaicekauskienė 2002), more comprehensive research in this field is still lacking. Among the studies already conducted, one may mention a study of Kaunas teenagers’ slang, carried out in 1999 (Lėgaudaitė 2003). The emergence of new advanced technologies and the compilation of spoken-language corpora often provide an impetus for various studies of spoken language (cf. Savickienė 2000).

The shortage of spoken-language data is now identified as a significant problem for translators (Kohrs 2007: 148), compilers of bilingual dictionaries in which Lithuanian is the primary language, and non-native speakers learning Lithuanian (Melnikienė 2006: 112–113). The gap between dictionaries and actual usage patterns is often conspicuous in public written language as well, when words of the standard language are used with new meanings characteristic of spoken language but not included in the DLKŽ. Such cases are not uncommon in the press (e.g., “The reformers are starting to grybauti.” The headline of an article by Algimantas Šindeikis. Veidas, 2008 11 17), in subtitles of films shown on television (e.g., “So, you ‘pakabinote’ her in the Vatican?” From the film “A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy,” broadcast on Lithuanian television on 2008 10 01). Fashionable vulgarisms and slang are also often found in politicians’ public speeches (e.g., “So know that your partners will ‘out-durs’ you.” A quotation from MP J. Veselka’s speech at a session of the Seimas. Kauno diena, 2008 11 18) (cf. Miliūnaitė 2005: 47–48). This apparently points to the non-accidental infiltration of slang lexis into the standard language.

The aim of the study is to find out which words characteristic of spoken language people are more inclined to use today and to determine whether non-standard-language lexis is indeed making its way into public usage. The findings could be used to address the question of selecting spoken-language data for dictionaries currently being compiled.

A questionnaire survey was chosen as the method for this study. The questionnaire asked respondents to answer one question: Do you use the following words with the meanings given?

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas

207

Four possible answers were provided: 1. Yes, I use it with this meaning, but only when speaking privately. 2. Yes, I use it with this meaning both publicly and privately. 3. No, but I have heard it used with this meaning. 4. No, I have not heard it used with this meaning. By asking about public and private use (cf. Pupkis 2005: 18), the study seeks to establish which words respondents tend to use in public communication and which they do not. In addition to the main question about the use of spoken-language lexis, the study also seeks to determine the influence of two social variables—age and gender—on the answers.

The questionnaire included 22 examples of lexis characteristic of spoken language (also in the second row as a continuous, indented text—appropriately, without semantic changes).

The questionnaire included 22 examples of lexis characteristic of spoken language (da-

However, unlike the words in the other group in this study, which are not included in DLKŽ, these have been widely used for a longer period.

Another group of words in the questionnaire is not included in DLKŽ. Some are of dialectal origin: žiauriai “very, especially, extremely,” vėjai “nonsense,” laužytis “to compete, to feel embarrassed,” įkirsti “to understand, to grasp, to get to the bottom of,” trenktas “stupid; fool,” pasikėlęs “conceited,” likti ant ledo “to be left with nothing, to be abandoned.” They can be considered examples of dialectal colloquial vocabulary because almost all have been recorded in LKŽ with these or similar meanings (only the idiom ant ledo sėdėti “to have nothing” is included in the Dictionary of Phraseology), and examples of their use are drawn from dialects.

Another part consists of slang vocabulary. The third group comprises words that began to be used with slang meanings (new sememes). With these meanings, the words are found neither in DLKŽ nor in LKŽ: apšalti “to be extremely surprised,” lūžti “to fall asleep,” pakalęs “not caring about anything,” pakabinti “to get acquainted, to become friends,” užknisti “to annoy, to irritate,” grybauti “to miss the point, to be clueless, to talk nonsense,” klišas “inaccurate.”

An integral part of such vocabulary is calques from other languages. They constitute the fourth group of words under study: išdurti “to deceive” (cf. Russian slang проколоться “to make a mistake, to be deceived”; Grachev 2006: 487), įsipaišyti “to fit in; to fit” (cf. colloquial Russian вписаться “to hit the mark, to fit”; Kurilova 2007: 72). Also included is the meaning “wonderful, very good” of the word nerealu, borrowed from colloquial English (cf. colloquial English unreal “unbelievable, wonderful”; Oxford Dictionary of English 2006: 1932)³.

During the study, 251 residents of Vilnius were surveyed (159 women, 92 men). Respondents ranged in age from 17 to 80 (see Fig. 1). The study sought to survey people from as wide a range of social backgrounds and occupations as possible. Although no question about employment was asked, it is known that respondents included school pupils, students, manual workers, civil servants, athletes, artists, architects, medical professionals, clergy, managers, and others.

³ Not only the words in this group, but all the words selected for the study questionnaire (except klišas — “inaccurate”) can be found in Egidijus Zaikauskas’s book Kalbos paribiai ir užribiai: lietuvių žargono žodynėlis. The compiler of the glossary broadened the concept of slang somewhat arbitrarily: almost all vocabulary characteristic of colloquial language is considered slang here, from expressive words close to the standard language to vulgar vocabulary and slang in the narrow sense. In her review of the book, Inga Mataitytė gives several examples of colloquial standard-language words being unjustifiably classified as slang (Mataitytė 2007: 22–23).

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas

209

RESEARCH RESULTS

A review of the study results reveals the expected tendencies. The youngest respondents (17–25 years old) are most inclined to use the words included in the questionnaire, while the oldest (61–80 years old) more often reported that they did not use these words but had heard them used with that meaning.

FIG. 1. Distribution of respondents by age group

The usage tendencies that emerged for the four vocabulary groups included in the study are presented below. Susimauti and nuskilti are the most frequent words in the DLKŽ group (see Fig. 2). As many as 83 percent of respondents in the youngest age group answered yes when asked whether they used these words. These words are also popular among respondents aged 36–45 and 46–60 (nearly 80 percent affirmative responses). The word užkalti received the fewest affirmative responses. As many as 60 percent of all respondents do not use it; it is used more often only by men aged 17–25 and 46–60.

FIG. 2. Tendency to use words included in DLKŽ

210

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

FIG. 3. Use of the verb šakotis by age group

The verb šakotis is more common among older users (see Fig. 3). Nearly half (40%) of respondents aged 17–35 said that they did not use this word, whereas among respondents aged 36–80 there were only slightly more than one tenth (13%) who did not. This is the only word in this study that older respondents tend to use more than younger ones. This tendency would suggest that the word šakotis may in future cease to be among the more widespread spoken-language words in this sense. Within the group of words of dialectal origin, the words žiauriai and trenk tas stand out (see Fig. 4). They are used by the vast majority of respondents in all age groups (more than—

FIG. 4. Tendency to use words of dialectal origin

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas

211

FIG. 5. Tendency to use the latest slang sememes

80%). Several respondents in the youngest age group added a note next to the word trenk­tas, saying that they use it to mean “cool.” The word vėjai, which often occurs in phraseological expressions, received the fewest affirmative responses. The verb įkirsti also proved not very popular. Some respondents indicated in their questionnaires that they were more inclined to use its reflexive form, įsikirsti, with the same meaning. The words pasikėlęs, laužytis and the idiom likti ant ledo are used by many (more than 60% affirmative responses), but older people use the word pasikėlęs and the idiom likti ant ledo much less often (they are used by only about 50% of respondents aged 46–60 and 44% of those aged 61–80).

Of all the slang words included in the questionnaire, pakalęs is used least often (only 28% affirmative responses). Respondents aged 17–25 and 26–35 are more inclined to use the words pakabinti and klišas. The words grybauti, lūžti, užknisti are among those in this study that received the most affirmative responses (see Fig. 5). Respondents in all age groups except 61–80 are accustomed to using them.

Pakabinti is one of the words commonly used by younger respondents, but is less relevant to older people (see Fig. 6). Affirmative responses regarding its use were given by 83% of respondents aged 17–25, 66% of those aged 26–35, and only 39% of those aged 46–60.

Įs įpaišyti is not popular in any age group (only 39% affirmative responses) (see Fig. 7). Even among members of the youngest age group—

212

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

FIG. 6. Use of the verb pakabinti by age groups

FIG. 7. Tendency to use words that have emerged under the influence of other languages

Half of the respondents use it only. The most common of the words studied are išdurti and nerealus. Older respondents also use them in this sense. As many as 27% of respondents aged 46–60 and 22% of those aged 61–80 reported using the word nerealus both publicly and privately. Of course, one could speak here of this word’s particular trendiness, but it seems that some respondents selected this answer without considering the different meaning given in the questionnaire, distinct from its usual meaning in standard language, of the word nerealus: “wonderful, very good.”

Regarding respondents’ answers to the question about public and private use, only men aged 17–25 stood out. They tend to use some of the words included in the questionnaire both publicly and privately

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas

213

(klišas, grybauti, nerealus, žiauriai, užknisti, nuskilti, trenktas). Girls in the same age group also do not avoid using such words both publicly and privately (užknisti, žiauriai, nerealus). The results show that people in this age group have apparently retained, since adolescence, a desire to stand out from the linguistic community and express their generational identity through different language. Incidentally, vocabulary characteristic of schoolchildren’s and students’ speech is considered one of the main varieties of social jargon (Zaikauskas 2004). A sharp change is evident in the data for respondents aged 26–35: virtually no positive responses remain regarding public and private use, and most report using words characteristic of colloquial speech only when communicating privately. This can be explained by social circumstances associated with this stage of life: people of this age have generally completed their studies and begun working. Sociolinguistic theory holds that people pursuing careers are especially inclined to use forms characteristic of standard language (Holmes 1994: 171). By striving to speak a prestigious variety (avoiding not only slang but also colloquial vocabulary), they seek to emphasize their professionalism and status in society. Career concerns are no less relevant in the 36–45 age group, and the same tendencies therefore persist. Only older respondents tend to use colloquial vocabulary more often in public as well.

Perhaps the only more pronounced difference between men’s and women’s speech in the context of this study is the aforementioned issue of public and private use. Women aged 17–25 gave far fewer affirmative answers to this question than their male peers. Sociolinguistic theory explains these results by the necessity imposed by women’s traditional role in society—to use standard language more in public—while men may be encouraged to use nonstandard forms by a desire to express their masculinity in this way (Holmes 1994: 171).

Clearer differences between men’s and women’s speech with respect to vocabulary would, it seems, be revealed by data on the interactional context itself: the interlocutors’ gender, age difference, and their social standing in relation to one another⁴. One can speculate that men’s and women’s answers to the question about how often they use colloquial vocabulary would differ. Men would be expected to use such vocabulary more often when communicating—

⁴ A study of swearing conducted in Denmark showed that young people use more swear words, and different ones, than older generations. Swear words and slang vocabulary are also connected in part by the fact that they convey information about the individual and express identity. The study showed that young people swore most when speaking with older people, including after they had begun climbing the career ladder (Rathje 2005).

214

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

…with one another because of the aforementioned desire to express masculinity and show solidarity with the interlocutor (Holmes 1994: 171).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Although the vocabulary under study was selected at random, based largely on superficial observation of usage and an intuition that these words should be quite widely used in colloquial speech, more than 50 percent of respondents answered affirmatively when asked about their use of sixteen of the 22 words studied. Nearly 98 percent of respondents did not name a single word they had never heard used with a meaning characteristic of colloquial speech. Even the words that received the fewest affirmative responses are used by more than a third of respondents. The study showed that the number of respondents who use colloquial words included in the DLKŽ and those who use colloquial words not included there is similar. It can also be said that respondents are more inclined to use such vocabulary in private communication.

The results of this small-scale study support the claim that dictionaries can no longer keep pace with changes taking place in language (Mataitytė 2008: 13). Data from a future corpus of spoken language and new, more detailed studies of spoken-language vocabulary and its use should not only supplement the results presented in this article, but also encourage lexicographers to consider how much vocabulary characteristic of spoken language should be represented in the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian and how to fill the gap in Lithuanian lexicography regarding dictionaries of actual usage.

LITERATŪRA

A k e l a i t i s G. 2002: Pertarai ir šnekamosios kalbos normos. – Bendrinės kal-bos ribos [2001 m. J. Jablonskio konferencijos tezės], 55–56.

Č e r n i u t ė V. 2000: Šnekamosios kalbos ir emocinės-ekspresinės leksikos apibūdinimo problemos. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 42, 160–179.

DLKŽ 1954: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

DLKŽ 1972: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas. 2-as leid., Vilnius: Mintis.

DLKŽ 1993: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys. 3-ias leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

DLKŽ 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys. 3-ias elektroninis leid., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

G r a č e v M. A. 2006: М. А. Грачев. Толковый словарь русского жаргона: Русский язык от А до Я, Москва.

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas

215

Grუმadienė L. 1996: Sociolingvistinis dabartinės šnekamosios lietuvių kalbos tyrimo aspektas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 36, 190–198.

Holmes J. 1994: An Introduction To Sociolinguistics, London–New York.

Kamandulytė L. 2006: Vaikiškosios kalbos ypatybės. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 264–272.

Kohrs J. 2007: Äquivalenz oder ethische Zensur? – Kalbotyra 57 (3), 140–148.

Kurilova A. D. 2007: А. Д. Курилова. Толковый словарь разговорного русского языка, Москва.

Jakaitienė E. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos leksikologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

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

Lėgaudaitė J. 2003: Slang in the Corpus of Kaunas Teenagers. – Baltu Filologija 12 (2), 21–49.

LKŽ 2005: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 1-as elektroninis leid., www.lkz.lt

Mataitytė I. 2007: Egidijus Zaikauskas. Kalbos paribiai ir užribiai: lietuvių žargono žodynėlis. [Recenzija.] – Gimtoji kalba 10, 22–28.

Mataitytė I. 2008: Žodžių reikšmės žodynuose ir kalboje. – Gimtoji kalba 6, 8–13.

Melnikienė D. 2006: Žodyno antraštynas ir nenorminė leksika. – Kalbotyra 56 (3), 108–113.

Miliūnaitė R. 2005: Kalba kaip žmogaus įvaizdžio dalis. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 32–55.

Orlova N. O. 2004: Н. О. Орлова. Сленг vs жаргон: проблема дефиниции. – Ярославский Педагогический Вестник 3 (40), http://www.yspu.yar.ru/vestnik/novye_Issledovaniy/24_6/

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2006: Oxford–New York.

Pupkis A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtasisis žodis.

Rathje M., Andersen M. A. 2005: Bandeord og andre kraftudtryk i tre generationer. – Nyt fra Sprognævnet 2, www.dsn.dk/nfs/2005-2.htm

Savickienė I. 2000: Linksniai šnekamojoje kalboje. – Darbai ir dienos 24, 89–98.

Savickienė I. 2006: Komunikacinė pragmatika ir kalbėjimo situacijos tikslas: diminutyvų vartojimo atvejis. – Kalbos kultūra 79, 256–263.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2002: Šnekamoji kalba tebelaukia savo eilės. – Bendrinės kalbos ribos [1997 m.]. Jablonskio konferencijos tezės], 62–64.

Zaikauskas E. 2004: Bausti negalima pasigailėti, http://www.flf.vu.lt/lkk/Apie%20zargona.htm

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

Gauta 2008 11 11

216

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

SOCIOLINGUISTIC INVESTIGATION INTO THE LEXIS CHARACTERISTIC OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE

S u m m a r y

A shortage of data of spoken language in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas) currently poses a serious problem for translators and compilers of bilingual dictionaries where Lithuanian is the main language of explanation; it equally poses a problem for Lithuanian language learners. The paper introduces an investigation into the lexis characteristic of spoken language aimed at identifying words which are most frequent in contemporary spoken Lithuanian and proving or disproving the hypothesis that non-standard language tends to penetrate into public use. The results of the above investigation could be used in selecting spoken language data for the inclusion into currently compiled dictionaries.

The above investigation was based on the method of questionnaires. In addition to the main question about the use of the lexis of spoken Lithuanian, there were two other questions included. They focused on the impact of age and gender, two social variables, on the responses. The questionnaires also included words of standard Lithuanian marked as spoken and included into the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas) as well as dialectal and jargon words known and widely used by the majority of the Lithuanian language community.

The results of the above pilot investigation have shown that the majority of the researched words are used in private discourse by over half of the respondents. The same words in public are mainly used by men in the youngest age group. An absolute majority of the respondents (almost 98 per cent) failed to identify a single word which is not used in the meaning characteristic of spoken language.

Similar research should prompt lexicographers that they should consider the amount of spoken lexis to be included in the future Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas) and how to fill in the gap of actual use in Lithuanian lexicography.

GIEDRIUS TAMAŠEVIČIUS

Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected]

G. TAMAŠEVIČIUS. Sociolingvistinis šnekamajai kalbai būdingos leksikos tyrimas

217