Lietuvių kalba ir visuomenė: bendrasis ir terminologinis aspektai

5 6 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society: general and terminological aspects JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS Institute of Lithuanian Language However, literature on this topic is extremely abundant, and many new ones balizaciją until 1997 in Lithuania still little written). The author of the article is (about glosuomenė (1997) might appear to require only simple deduction. also not lacking in ideas about what and how in the Lithuanian problem of this topic should be updated and what accents of the specific situation should be laid. Nevertheless, almost everything in the article, although it aims to be relevant, is presented mainly on the level of conceptuality, without any abundant empiricism and concreteness – this is also important, significant, and can be arranged, but this is a matter of another level. In this respect, the article differs greatly from Rita Miliūnaitė’s book About Language and Us (2006), although its theme is similar: “Changes in social life, marginalization and pirmiausia – išorinis ir vidinis laisvėjimas, atsivėrimas pasauliui, nepalieka language. In order to better understand what is happening in language, how we affect it and how it affects us, it seems useful to look at how we have lived with our language over the past fifteen years” (Miliūnaitė 2006: 6). I 1.The echoes of globalization’s danger and mobilization bell have been ringing in Lithuania for about 20 years. The various questions of language use, change, future and even destiny are very directly linked to globalization, the increasingly frequent (in Arnold Toynbee’s words) challenges. Of course, it is possible and necessary, this and that comes out, although the answers are not so loud, even rather unspecific. The straightforwardness is such that people often do not even care to understand what globalization is. Lithuanian linguistics is reaching the echoes of globalization with delayed, fragmentary observations. Aldonas Pupkis speaks about it more broadly, although rather concisely, but quite precisely and clearly in his book Language Culture Studies, Chapter 6, subsection Lithuanian Language in Modern Society. 6.1. International Lithuanian Language and Society:... Terminology | 2008 | 15 5 7 The context of the functioning of the Lithuanian language in section 6.1.1. Globalization (Pupkis 2005: 206–209). First, it is noted that this is a “global economic phenomenon”, but it “fundamentally changes the social relationships of people” (Pupkis 2005: 206, 207), then it comes to language: “In the consumer society, language acquires a new – the function of means. This function clearly orients the speech act towards the buyer – <…>. Language in certain cases becomes like a packaging – <…>. The consumer function is prominent in advertising” (Pupkis 2005: 207). “In a consumer society, language itself becomes a commodity, <…> (Pupkis 2005: 208). The notion that “globalization causes local backlash and strengthens local identity” (Pupkis 2005: 208) is only from the realm of difficult possibilities, and from reality there is only the movement of anti-globalization. Having assessed globalization as one of the aspects of the context of the international functioning of the Lithuanian language (and thus not as a direct factor), further – in section 6.1.2. The Lithuanian language in the European Union – Pupkis says: “Therefore, all the reasons for the dangers of the Lithuanian language are internal, they lie in our own conditions of life and attitudes. <…>. <…>. The entire policy of the European Union institutions is favourable to the Lithuanian language. There is no European Union legislation that restricts the use of Lithuanian in Lithuania. <…>. … the (national) languages of all countries are declared official languages of the European Union. The Lithuanian language is used in official European Union events, and legislation and other documents are translated into Lithuanian. This increases the authority of our language from the outside and accelerates its development” (Pupkis 2005: 210). However, in these institutions “informal communication is mainly in English”, “in many fields of science it is not only used privately but also officially” (Pupkis 2005: 211). In Lithuania itself, “English-language scientific production was financially supported, but Lithuanian scientific texts were not” (Pupkis 2005: 211). Therefore, “it is necessary to actively contribute to international initiatives to establish language equality” (Pupkis 2005: 211). The echoes of globalization have reached Lithuanian terminology through the presentations of foreign terminologists at our conferences and their articles in the Journal of Terminology. In addition to the globalist and anti-globalist approaches, a third approach is already being proposed: “the natural development of globalization and a common international material and spiritual culture can be achieved by cultivating culture at the national or at least regional level: <…>” (Leitchik 2006: 34), although the global dimensions are not forgotten – “the creation of a common world language” and “international scientific, technical, economic terminology” (Leitchik 2006: 34, 34–35). These are very abstract assessments. Much more specific language policy statements – “optimal artificial international languages 5 8 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... creation, machine international language” as well as “the possibilities of a policy of coordination of the convergent development of terminology of related languages” (Griniewicz 2006: 16). It is not clear why the problematic machine translation is being proposed, while the simple translation, known to European culture for more than 2000 years, is being forgotten. Talking about the direct impact of socio-economic globalization on terminology (Fóris 2006: 21) is quite straightforward, and the fact that the languages of small nations can use only a part of the world’s terms” (Fóris 2007: 53) is hardly directly due to globalization. Thoughts such as “Only languages with state status can be used in many ways” and “Terminology is the guarantee of language survival” are correct, but the dangers – “the strengthening of globalization” and “the practical displacement of national languages” (Пустай 2006: 41) – remain threatening and constant. Thus, when talking about the effects of such a threatening planetary phenomenon on language (and culture in general), we cannot continue to be guided only by communities – we need to know it, its genesis, history and forecast more thoroughly. Let’s look first at the encyclopedic interpretation: globalization is “the intensifying movement of goods, capital, people, information and technology between the countries of the world, affecting various spheres of life. – – – … due to the uneven effects of Δ, the differences in ec. development across the world have increased. - - - - Δ According to the critics, the strengthening of relations between the countries of the world has a negative effect on the culture of each country, promoting the disappearance of traditional differences, similarization, standardization or the establishment of the popular culture of the dominant world power - the United States - in other countries. Contrary to the claims of anti-globalists, the EU – <…> example shows that the removal of barriers to the movement of goods, services, persons and capital not only did not reduce the cultural differences of the member states, but also highlighted the successful trend of the development of national culture (the popularity of the Irish language in the early 21st century, – – – the role of Scotland in EU politics) (VLE VI 2004, Ramūnas Vilpišauskas). It is a very well-meaning and rather optimistic definition, but it is also incomplete. First, the content of the concept is revealed somewhat sketchy, and the evaluation of the causes and consequences of the phenomenon is partly improved by desired hopes and targets to be achieved; criticism is attributed only to anti-globalists. Secondly, the genesis and history of the phenomenon are not without gaps, and there is no forecast. Another encyclopedic definition puts a very different emphasis: globalization is “the intensification and expansion of human and social relations, especially economic ones, resulting in a rapid increase in interdependence, a decrease in the importance of states and their borders, and a more homogeneous world” (PolEncZ 2007). translation and the choice of one of the most commonly used languages as an Terminology | 2008 | 15 5 9 Globalization is carried out and developed by multinational corporations, the Internet, military forces capable of “detecting and destroying enemies thousands of kilometers away”, and vague “t. t.’ (PolEncŽ 2007). The positive feature of globalization is that “the ‘shrink’ of the world increases the interdependence of states and forms a new world community with many common interests”, but the negative is that “due to the uniformization of the world, diversity and vitality are lost” (PolEncZ 2007). Globalism is rightly distinguished as “the theory of international politics, which states that international politics is a coherent, global process, in which the main and decisive role is played by the dominant global economic system – capitalism”, in which some states dominate, while others are dependent (PolEncZ 2007). Global governance – “the system and continuous process of global decision-making and implementation” – the solution of war and peace, environmental protection, transportation and similar problems on a human scale (PolEncZ 2007) – is already partly in place. In the genesis of the concept of globalization, I cannot fail to recall the metaphor of the global village (global village) launched by the Canadian sociologist, literary scholar and philosopher Herbert Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980) as early as 1964: “Our specialized and fragmented civilization with a center and periphery structure suddenly experiences the instantaneous union of all its mechanized parts into an organic whole. This is the new world of the global village” (McLuhan 2003: 103). “Radium … continues to lead us backwards in the direction of implosion, or reintegration … The extreme form of this implosion, or contraction, is the image of a cosmonaut enclosed in a tiny space surrounding him from all sides. Far from expanding our world, it proclaims it shrunk to the size of a village” (McLuhan 2003: 284). McLuhan expanded this vision in 1968 in his book War and Peace in the Global Village: “The author realized, at a time when there was neither mass computing nor the Internet, that the latest means of communication were changing the distant concept of time and space” (Kopaliński 2001). In Lithuanian discourse, the global village is quite rare and somewhat unusual – it is so-called, it is mythical, e.g. : Another model is worth mentioning, <…>: Europe is not a state, because state institutions are gradually disappearing, the order of the system works by itself, and people solve the most important tasks of daily life in their small local communities.Such a Europe can emerge if the world really develops towards the so-called g l o b a l a u s k a i m o, which is quite likely NŽA 2008 6 286 (the same E. Vareikis, translator of M. B. Stegerio book Globalizacija). <…> the world will indeed become more and more like a mythical g l o b a l u j i 6 0 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... k a i m ą with their local far from rosy: “That globalization is changing the world: the mafia is gaining more power; drug smuggling is spreading; modernisation of production leads to job losses; the technological revolution undermines democracy, as many millions of people become desocialised; people are moving from the manufacturing sphere to the service sphere; trade unions are dissolving; the farm is increasingly privatised; increasing expenditure on research and development, as well as on information technology; budgetary, monetary and treasury policies are becoming increasingly international and global” (Kopaliński 2001). One area, named by a similar but separate term globalism, stood out in particular: “the Cold War phase, covering the period 1958–1990, when both superpowers, the US and the USSR, competed to become leaders of world politics […]” (Kopaliński 2001). In other words, globalism now has the meaning of “ideology and propaganda of globalization”. One of the first concepts in this field is Khrushchev’s global bomb. When Kurt Waldheim, the future Secretary-General of the United Nations (1972–1981), wrote his book Der Osterreichische Weg in 1971, he had not yet mentioned the concept of globalization, but only the phenomenal speed of scientific and technical progress and the global expansion of the industrial revolution (Вальдхайм 1976: 216), as well as the overcoming of isolation: „Сегодня мир пронизывают потоки информации. в виде образов, звуков, широких миграций товаров, людей, стилей, идей, изобретений и – в последнее время – общественного мнения“ (Waldheim 1976: 217). To Kurt Waldheim’s credit, he also saw the other side of the phenomenon: „тенденция к большему единству на нашей земле. планете сопровождается глубокой заинтересованностью в сохранении самобытности народов, культур и наций. <...>, другой чертой является стремление групп, культур, наций и языков противостоять нивелирующей тенденции, <...>. Таким образом, возникают очертания мира, в котором будет и больше единства, и больше разнообразия, больше внимания к будущему и к прошлому, больше богатства и больше забот о сохранении природы, культуры и искусств“ (Вальдхайм 1976: 220). „Мир, справедливость и прогресс на нашей планете не требуют единообразия и сокрушения ценностей, унаследованных от прошлого“ (Вальдхайм 1976: 221). The literature on globalization is huge. Starting with a book written in 2003 by Manfred B. Steger, a professor at the University of Illinois, USA, communities NŽA 2008 3 139 (E. Vareikis). The original content of globalization was Terminologija | 2008 | 15 6 1 gos Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press (Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, 2008, 208 p.). Very brief introduction difficult First step – the basic conceptual apparatus of this topic: duodasi dar labiau glaudinamas, bet kitos išeities, kaip ryžtis tai daryti, nėra. global: global market 61, 75, 84, 103 (and integrate the market 89), global markets 102 (and international markets 102), global financial markets 9, global currency markets 80, global capital markets 102; global exchanges 144, global financial exchanges 80; global investors 172; global economy 89, 102, global economic order 69, global economic development 102, global order 149; global flows of goods 66, global flows of goods and ideas 12; giant firms and their global strategies 86; global communications 43, global interdependence 24, 67; global networks 40, 101, global network of interdependence of politics 99; global infrastructure 63, global internet 164; global media player [Al Jazeera] 23; global capitalism 85, 101, global consumer capitalism 120; global expansion of priklausomybėtarpglobalausirlokalaus 27; commercial products 58; global social structures 101, global social interaction 42, global cooperation 195, global powers 173, global problems 113, global theses 148, global phenomena 21; global processes 25, global economic process 184, global actions 36, global environment 12, 142, global level 85, global scale 134, global arena 118; fast b e s i g l o b a l i z o j a n t i s world 19, g l o b a l i z o j a n t i s world 36, our whole global world 36, global South 27, global North 40; global governance 106, global governance units 105, global governance structures 177 [at the beginning of the 21st century the world was in a transitional position between the modern system of nation states and postmodern forms of global governance 106]; global governance structure is also shaped by the “global civil society” global cities 103 [“Global cities” such as Tokyo, London, New York, 105; 109; 6 2 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... new york and singapore, aim to be the perspective – a global parliament 111; an integrated global legal system capable of operating from a global level 111; a cultural possibility for the implementation of global democracy 111 and numerous pejorative terms: global economic depression 66, global economic instability 72, global economic recession 83; global speculators 80, global decline in labour protection 76, global conflict 195; global human impact on the environment 136, global environmental degradation 135 / global environmental degradation 136 // global degradation of the natural environment 175, environmental degradation 136; global warming 137, global climate warming 142, global temperature rise 138; a global terrorist network 104–105 [the Kalashnikov is their global weapon of choice 26]; globalization, e.g.: global globalization of social relations 34–35, … and globalization of organized crime 26, … The author of the book explains the difference between globalization and globality as follows: “<…>, the unconventional combination of the process itself and the conditions for its occurrence turns towards an illogical definition, which does not explain much. For example, there is a widespread opinion that globalization (the process) creates the conditions for even greater globalization (the condition) and does not allow the distinction between cause and effect (=effect). I therefore propose to use the term globality to define a social situation characterized by global economic, political, cultural and environmental interactions and trends, <…>. We should therefore not claim that globality means a state – a final point that prevents further development” (Steger 2008: 28–29). Globalization – “like other verb nouns with the suffix ‘-ization’” (Steger 2008: 30) – is a happening. The term globalization was first used in the 1960s (Steger 2008: 28), although the history of globalization began with the rapid development of global exchanges in the 1970s (Steger 2008: 44). Although the term globalization is attributed only to the present, for a long time “the world is increasingly interconnected, allowing the recognition and confirmation of a common future” (Steger 2008: 152). And more connected with each other than with many cities in their respective countries 107]; in Terminology | 2008 | 15 6 3 globalization is as old as the history of mankind itself” (Steger 2008: 45). The chronology of globalization (Steger 2008: 46) begins when people reach different parts of each continent. It is divided into four periods: prehistoric (10,000 BC–3,500 BC), pre-modern (3,500 BC–1500), early modern (1500–1750), modern (1750–1970) and present (since 1970); the period since 1960 has been described by some as a “radical deterritorialization” of policy rules and governance (Steger 2008: 95) time. say: but!.. To begin with, we can say 4 (3+1) characteristics of globalization: 1) it is a “variety of social processes” (Steger 2008: 10), 2) it is “not simply an objective phenomenon, but a multitude of opinions” (Steger 2008: 10) and “the conceptualization of globalization is in itself a continuous process, not a static” (Steger 2008: 30), 3) it is a “geographically limited and uneven process” (Steger 2008: 40), 4) it is distinguished by “an ideology that gives the concept of globalization neoliberal values and meanings” (Steger 2008: 145) – globalism. Manfred B. Steger, after first noting the “fundamental uncertainty of globality” (Steger 2008: 29), proposes the following definition: “Globalization is a multidimensional (-multidimensional) set of social processes that creates, multiplies, differentiates and intensifies social interdependence and social exchanges, and at the same time allows for a deeper understanding of the strengthening links between the local and the distant” (Steger 2008: 36). Roland Robertson, professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh, describes it very succinctly: “Globalization as a concept arises from the compaction of the world and the rise of consciousness of the world as a unit” (Steger 2008: 33). Even more closely expressed in the well-known saying: “Globalization compresses space and time” (Steger 2008: 35). Now we can take a more detailed (though most concise) structure of globalization, in which we will find the cultural and linguistic globalization that is most important to us: Economic (69) or economic (74) globalisation is often described, especially by critics, as ‘corporate globalisation’ or ‘top-down globalisation’ (84). If we called economic globalization the engine, technology the fuel, 6 4 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... finances – with oxygen, or tracks. There is nothing more to lose here, but it is worthwhile to draw attention to one striking thought: “Wilson reluctantly legitimized the radical nationalist forces that pushed the great powers into another global war” (Steger 2008: 99). Globalization is declared irreversible, but not without wars (although now – local)?.. Cultural globalization (112), in the opinion of some commentators, “constitutes the essence of modern globalization” (Steger 2008: 113), in the opinion of others – pessimistic hyperglobalists – “we are not moving towards a cultural rainbow reflecting the differences of the world’s cultures. Rather, we are observing the development of some sort of increasingly homogenized popular culture, <…>” (Steger 2008: 114). Goethe had already introduced the concept of world literature (Fridentalis 1977: 651), it spread and established itself, but its essence – originality and uniqueness, nationality and especially universality – in this sense was already used by V. Bielinskis as a world poet (Bielinskis 1948: 288–289), so the concept of global culture (113) seems a cruel contradictio in adiecto. Although the author of the book “the development of American popular culture seems to be unstoppable” (Steger 2008: 115), and the new American “Francis Fukuyama openly welcomes the spread of Anglo-American values and lifestyles, comparing the Americanization of the world to the development of democracy and free market” (Steger 2008: 118), efforts to resist “cultural imperialism” (Steger 2008: 11) – the influx of American popular culture – are unrelenting and partly fruitful, and the old American Roland Robertson claims that “cultural globalization always occurs in a local context”, “does not speak of “globalization” but of “the interaction of global and local elements” and “rejects the thesis of cultural homogenization” (Steger 2008: 120). Another thing is the cultural “hybridization, most obvious in fashion, music, dance, film, food culture and language” (Steger 2008: 120) [by the way, the New Lithuanians’ food culture is slavery, ape-like and cruelly eclectic…]. Global cultural flows (120, 122) are an undeniable fact, a global cultural space (122) is hardly possible, and global culture would be cultural poverty (at best of the worst). Media as a cultural phenomenon, if only commercial, i.e. not cultural, then only then global media (122): “the emergence of a global commercial media market promotes a global oligopoly” (Steger 2008: 123) – then TV programs become a global “market of gossip” (Steger 2008: 123), their “spread values not only ensure the undisputed cultural hegemony of popular culture, but also promote the depoliticization of social life, weaken the social and economic stability of the world” (Steger 2008: 123), their “globalization is a historically lawful world markets – with roads, political globalization (94) would be drives – wheels Terminology | 2008 | 15 7 1 (or neutralize it), <…>” (Bauman 2007: 169). They are the outcasts of globalization and the waste of globalization (171). Now, when even in Lithuania books are written about the fact that politics without values is ungodly (Jokubaitis 2008), Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Vatican Apostolic Penitentiary, speaks about the social sins associated with globalization: “Genetic manipulation, environmental pollution, social inequality, intolerable social injustice: here are the new forms of sin that have risen on the horizon of humanity, as if crowning the unstoppable process of globalization. – – – In short, repentance today is understood more in the social dimension, especially after social relations have weakened and become more complicated. And this is one of the consequences of globalization” (2008: 126). phenomenon, but an inevitable thing and its great negatives, among which are the large and sudden thinning of the ranks of the world’s languages, their classification into global, regional, official / state and narrow-function domestic languages (all of which are eternal events), although it does not affect the vocabulary or grammar of surviving languages directly, but only as a fatal context or unfavorable background. In the Lithuanian discourse, the assessments of globalization and globalism are only occasionally rationalized: “National culture will not be saved by closure, but by expansionism, by moving into the environment of modern nations and by intelligent openness to it. When it comes to the heritage of a nation today, and even more so tomorrow, the priority must be given to affirmation, not denial (Treinys 2000: 18). But this is not possible to do alone, without “goodwill exchange partners, cultural allies”, which would be “people and nations who do not want to lose their face, to become mere consumers of McDonald’s and teletabs culture” (Treinys 2000: 18). They cannot be allies of terrorist anti-globalists, who “seek to turn nationalism into a tool of revenge, terror or other aggression, yet […] act as a convenient argument for the apologets of total globalization to deny any expression of the ideology of nationalism” (Treinys 2000: 20). In the public discourse there are very few concepts of globalization and globalism, e.g.: globalizing world MokslL 2008 6 2, globalized economy NŽA 2008 11–12 480, globalization of the world financial system Vd 2008 45 13, mass globalization Vd 2008 24 53, tsunami of globalization Vd 2008 15 38, dark side of globalization NŽA 2008 11–12 501, “global government” Vd 2008 31 41, global order NŽA 2008 11–12 501, global commerce L and M 2008 44 3, 7 2 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... global culture GŽ 2008 11 pragmatic peace NŽA 2008 2008 33 15, global threats MokslL 2008 16 7, global crisis Sav su TV 2008 11 6, global crisis of capitalism NŽA 2008 11–12 501, global financial 6 286. Dabar labai aktualūs neigiami dalykai: globalinisatšilimas Sav su TV crisis Sav su TV 2008 46 16, global price rise Sav su TV 2008 11 6, global demand for food products Sav su TV 2008 11 7. This minority of concepts is a sign of poor understanding of the meaning of globalisation. Mostly anti-globalist riots and raids are written and shown. 2008: "I am a cultural antiglobalist" L and M 2008 44 3. At the very end – two very linguistic things. The main concept of globalization systematically requires the adjective global (but not global), rather than universal, e.g.: corruption pandemic, global bribery Vd 2008 51 45, and the universal bribery used next to it – as if it were not that. It is highly doubtful whether the design of its data structures in such a way that it can be easily adapted to different languages and cultures” EncKompŻ 2005 change globalization, for example: “The possibilities of applying information technology in knowledge tinka kompiuterijos terminą internacionalizacija – „programinės įrangos ir management, where the concept of localization is becoming increasingly important, are very promising <…>. <…> localization means adapting a product to a language and culture. Localization is not the same as globalization (adapting market strategies to the requirements of all regions) or internationalization (making a product, such as software, that can be adapted to the requirements of different locations)” (Crystal 2005: 148). Global name, global variable would not interfere. 2. focusing all attention only on the effects (challenges) of globalization is very wrong, not only because of its unilaterality, but also because of the silence of other important factors. There was not one of them and not the same. Behind the Iron Curtain, a series of 20th-century phenomena flourished, which could at least in part be attributed to the unfavorable irrational background for the functioning of language in general and specific languages, especially small ones: the cult of consumption and the concentration of capital – “the velvety tyranny of democracy in the 20th century. – – – Today, people express the meaning of their existence by buying. Hypermarkets are the sanctuaries of our shopping cult. … – – Capitalism at the end of the 20th century creates needs, …’; consumer society – “In a consumer society there must necessarily be two 25, global fashion L and M 2008 44 3, global security NŽA 2008 11–12 501, global 2008 | 15 7 3 their kinds of slaves: slaves of habit and slaves of jealousy". This is what Ivan Illich (b. 1926) wrote in his book Tools of Conviviality (1973).” mass society – “critically assessed modern society – backless, conformist, having neither ideals nor traditional values, looking only for material benefits, passive, alienated, sub-bureaucratic, yielding to propaganda and advertising. <…>“; single-use civilization – “uneconomical, unsaving, wasteful, reckless civilization of the 20th century, increasingly acquiring things, even not very necessary, which once used must be thrown away, <…>. – – –“; marketing – ‘<…>. It requires … to analyse the psychology of the consumer and to be able to influence it, to stimulate the needs of society …’; advertising – „ … – – Advertising in the 20th century is no longer based on reason. It rarely talks about the characteristics of the product, but more often appeals to the character of the consumer, applying to his weaknesses, dreams, desires and fears.” “<…> The 1970s saw the art of television advertising flourish, with more clever rhetoric and refined style. The methods of television advertising have also been adopted by political propaganda: for it, the television image of a politician has become more important than what he has to say. In the 1980s, the methods of television advertising had already influenced many feature films – <…>“; agitator – “The art of an agitator is to pretend to be as stupid as his listeners, so that they think they are as intelligent as he is” (Karlas Kraus (1874–1936), Austrian playwright, poet and publicist), <…>; žiniasklaida (angl. mass media) – “public information means, <…>. The theory states that the media is influential only when there are many listeners (readers, viewers) educated enough to understand and be interested in the information received. However, […] most recipients of information are not so much looking for knowledge as for the cheapest entertainment. Therefore, media operators, who live mainly on advertising, are forced to provide inferior, lower-level information, <…>. All this is likely to impoverish the intelligence and taste of less resilient consumers of information, especially children and young people’; Mass culture is a term that originated in the United States in the early 1940s, and refers to the set of intellectual, artistic, and entertainment publications that are provided to the masses by the mass media, and that are characteristic of modern urbanized societies. These publications are accused of low intellectual, aesthetic and moral standards, vulgarization and interpretation of works <…>“; 7 4 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... the culture of three average recipient of information from radio, television and the Internet, knocking him out of track; the ordinary citizen is no longer able to carefully follow one topic for more than 3 minutes. Knowing this, television hosts (…) even the most interesting, contentious commentary of a specialist is interrupted after three minutes, preventing him from getting to the essence of the matter <…>“; making stars – “<…>. The most valuable feature of a film star became not so much acting abilities and actor's talent, as her aura, the atmosphere surrounding the star, the ability to seduce the audience with personal charm, physical attractiveness, sexuality. In Hollywood, there were specialists able to model the star as an unattainable dream object with which the viewer would like to identify, as one of the archetypes of modern mythology, changing along with fashion and customs. – – –“ (Kopaliński 2001). The common denominator of all these phenomena is the primitivization of man and his life. Similar distortions are well complemented and highlighted by the quotes of the century: “Celebrities of today can neither be ashamed nor humiliated. What used to be called shame and humiliation is now called advertising” (from P. J. O’Rurko’s (P. J. Rourke; b. 1947) book “Gine War a Chance” (1992) (Kopaliński 2001: 79). “(What is) interesting today is more important than truth; what's strange and exciting outweighs the real thing. <…>. Indeed, in our century there is nothing cheaper than the truth. And truth, of course, obliges.” This is what the French writer René Daumal (1908–1944) said <…>” (Kopaliński 2001: 173). Philosopher Karl Popper (1902–1994) in his last work – the essay Don’t Abuse Television (published in 1995) made the diagnosis of the television plague: “<…> television is a force of evil, it could become a force of good. Unfortunately, this is an almost unbelievable thing. The reason is simple: in general, any cultural force is extremely difficult to make serve the good” (Popper 1995: 14). As long as the competition between televisions was small, the demand was small, so “in the first years of its existence, television was much more demanding on the quality of its broadcasts” (Popper 1995: 15). Today, a multitude of commercial television stations are competing to “attract as many audiences as possible, and this endeavour, of course, has no educational objectives” (Popper 1995: 14). The masses of spectators do not even need them – only circenses. The demand for culture is low… Broadcasters are concerned about profit, which is ensured by advertising given to those programs with high viewing rates. Popper is probably mistaken that broadcasters are most sincerely convinced that they should show what people want. Lookminutes is “an avalanche of short, superficial messages that overwhelms the Terminology | 2008 | 15 7 5 The television addiction of young people, especially children and adolescents, as well as pensioners, is definitely unhealthy. Paradox: production competition ensures the quality of goods, television competition degrades the quality of programmes. Not much higher is the Americanization of culture – “One of the most important cultural events of the 20th century is that the direction of transatlantic influence has changed. The American culture, which was fed by Europe until the beginning of the century, then itself flooded Europe and the whole world, along with the economic and political influence resulting from two world wars and the decline of Europe caused by them, even though the United States helped greatly to win those wars and to rebuild what was destroyed by them.” Jazz, rock, pop music, Hollywood films, westerns, TV series, thrillers, crime, cars, cheeky advertising, soap operas, fast food, jeans. “Due to the Anglo-Saxon influence, the language changes beyond recognition” (Kopaliński 2001). France tries to resist, but the result is franglais – “French with many English words and phrases. The name, composed of the French words français (French) and anglais (English), was popularized around 1965 by René Etiemble, a professor of comparative linguistics at the Sorbonne University, <…>. The professor urged the English words to be replaced by French, <…>. <…>. In today’s Poland, the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza took the initiative to overcome English terms in November 1996, with the help of its readers, but the results were not particularly happy: <…>” (Kopaliński 2001). Another result is woody language – “a language full of banalities and annoying phrases. <…>“ (Kopaliński 2001). These phenomena, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, also flowed into Lithuania, whose decayed spirit, unfortunately, thought that everything from the West was only good. True, not everything was unheard of. Some were primitively beaten by Soviet anti-American propaganda, some were known a little bit from Lithuanian more serious philosophical discourse, some – from our emigration. But serious criticism often came late. Already in 1969, in America, one of the pioneers of Lithuanian essayism and a visionary publicist poet Jonas Aistis wrote: “Advertising is a great power of our time, before which all confessions, all thrones and all sovereignties must bow” (Aistis 1991: 418). We should also add the efforts of the Lithuanian Language Institute and the Lithuanian Language Society in recent years (ReklK 2004). However, there is no shortage of apologetic assessments of advertising language in this sensitive area. 7 6 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... Fashion, the sister of it has been expressing itself strongly since much earlier. Already in Rome, the Russian writer N. Gogol, comparing the beauty of ancient art with his time, wrote: “And how inexpensive, low in comparison with this great, beautiful luxury, appeared to him now the luxury of the nineteenth century, small, vile luxury, suitable only for decorating a shop – <…>. – – – How small seemed to him this constant blissful luxury, surrounding man with things that ennoble and educate his soul, the modern petty ornaments that are broken and thrown away by uncontrollable fashion, that strange, incomprehensible result of the nineteenth century [i.e., phenomenon], before which the wisdom silently bowed, this murderer and destroyer of everything that is colossal, great, sacred” (Gogol 19541: 236). In his autobiography Sixty Years of My Literary Life, the French academic A. Maurois states that the attacks of fashion made him a consistent moralist: “At a time when fashion demanded disregard for the moral norms and laws without which no society could exist, I simply felt compelled by nature, compelled by the profession, to defend them. That's why I became a moralist. Later I wrote novels, biographies, but in me the moralist is the backbone of the novelist and biographer” (Morua 1991: 18). For another Frenchman, the author of the scientific essay Medieval Imagination, Jacques Le Goff, the defense and praise (perhaps over-praise) of fashion also does not go without devastating criticism: “After Roland Barthes, I am determined to defend fashion. It is attentive to innovation, the engine of modernity, can be a means of renewal. It is the driving force of history. Like every phenomenon, it can degenerate into snobbery – in fact, a touching perversion of men and women who try to stop the passing of time and to push the threat of death away by changing their appearance day by day in a miserable and desperate desire to always be at the top of fashion and to forget the sense of time” (Le Goff 2003: 26). This is constantly. And the exception is more theoretical: “Fashion, however, is above all a manifestation of the Zeitgeist, the spirit of time, which connects appearance with profound historical shifts” (Le Goff 2003: 26). Fashion uniformism and artistic, stamped language – language uniformism are related signs of the spirit of our time. Again, we can recall our great J. Aistis: “Culture must come out of the womb of the nation with bloody sweat. On the other hand, fashion always goes out of fashion. – – – Very fashionable things that are out of fashion are funny and silly” (Aistis 1991: 476). It was only after the fall of the Iron Curtain that we heard from the West the almost half-century-old truth about our own life in the evil empire: newspeak – “a new language created by monopolistic powers” advertising, did not fall into the 20th century myths (Kopaliński 2001), because Terminology | 2008 | 15 7 7 A language whose meaning changes with the official political views of the state. In modern language it is not only impossible to state, but also to formulate a non-Orwellian (George Orwell, 1903–1950) novel lojalių pažiūrų, nes nėra tam reikiamų žodžių. Terminas paimtas iš Džordžo “1984”; Thought police – “George Orwell’s novel 1984 depicts a party institution that follows the thoughts of outside party members. Noticing any deviation from the drawn ‘line’, he (=she – J. K.) takes care that the culprit is arrested, tortured (in the Ministry of Love) and destroyed.” Doublethink – "the perception of two opposite thoughts or opinions at the same time and the conscious belief in both. 1984 is a novel by George Orwell (1903–1950) published in 1949. he describes the influence of new language on the “enslaved mind”; „Pavergtasisprotas“ – „Česlavo Milošo (Czesław Miłosz) knyga (1953), in which the author analyzes the psychological protective mechanisms of the writers of the People’s Republic of Poland, which command them to proclaim slogans in accordance with the official propaganda and carefully hide their true thoughts and feelings, <…>” (Kopaliński 2001). The enslavement of the mind begins with emptiness (an environment without religion) and the absurdity of a meaningless life, passes through the necessity of a new life and reaches compulsory success (Miłosz 1995: 20, 22, 24, 30). However, this success is not without its sad consequences: “in the depths there are still old moral and aesthetic demands, which leads to man being divided” (Miłosz 1995: 36) – “everybody plays against everyone and everyone knows about each other that they play” (Miłosz 1995: 76); “It would be untrue to say that values no longer duplicate, but resistance is emotional and rarely can withstand the competition of rationalized reflexes” (Miłosz 1995: 244). The disastrous epoch that preceded it could be summarized in two terrible epoch sayings, value symbols – from the East: хлам (junk) – abbreviation of the words художники, литераторы, артисты, музыканты; from the West: Wenn ich Kultur höre… entsichere ich meinen Browning (by Hans Johst, reproduced by Hermann Goering). Only on 26-27 November 1988 did David Glencross say the right epoch-making thought: “It is unbelievable that any government, hearing the word ‘culture’, would grab a gun. I think she should go to the dictionary” (Kopaliński 2001: 197–198). A polarized into two antagonistic camps world with fluctuating and communist bloc countries” (Kopaliński 2001). 7 8 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... transformation into a convergence and fusion of languages was already openly projected and proclaimed in Brezhnev’s days, restoration of Lithuanian independence and nationalization of the Lithuanian language (proclamation as a state language and granting state protection to it, programs and projects for its use and education), national revival, democratization of society and the creation of a civil society, European and transatlantic integration of Lithuania and excessive anglicization, as well as computerization and internetization – much more specific factors; their significance for national identity and self-knowledge, culture and language, science and linguistics, language culture and terminology has been decisive and epic for 20 years and will remain so for a long time to come. I I 3. The material world is one. Although the differences in landscape, flora and fauna, climate and related lifestyle are considerable and large, but, on the one hand, people reduce them (and also a certain globalization), on the other hand, human objective reality is already very wide and not so different. Logic is one in the whole intelligent world, although in some places it is more, in others less. The third form of world being – language (Лукшите 1981: 166) – is a huge plural, not exactly countable (or 3000, or 7000). Every living language is an ethnic or national language – a mother tongue. The way, spirit, customs, way of life of the nation are also native. It is only necessary to be able to feel it and understand the reasons. Here is one very successful insight: “Differences in customs were evident in every action and step. People’s moves reflected geographical zones, parallels, meridians, they represented the lives of shepherds, farmers, merchants, sailors; The baking skewer in the hands of the Spartan moved like a battle spear, the Argetian sat on the bench like on a horse, the inhabitant of the groves could be recognized by his tidy gait” (Parandovskis 1984: 118). 2 The term “Third World” (French: Tiers monde) was coined around 1950 by the French sociologist and demographer Alfred Sovi (Sauvy), to refer to over 130 post-colonial countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, in order to distinguish them from the developed market economies and the then (until 1990) developed world. By the way, a completely different third world appeared later: “According to K. Popper [Popper K. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford, 1972], the ‘third world’ is the world of ideas in general, which are linked by the rules of logic. It encompasses all the theories and concepts that have been created in the history of mankind and those that will be created, as well as all the hypotheses, all the problems and equations – solved, solved and solvable” (Joninas 1987: 69). The third being is still different: "А. F. Losev says that „язы ко вое и словесное бытие есть третий вид бытия, наряду с чисто логическим и чисто вещественor material” [Losev 1976, p. 399] (Lukshit 1981: 166). In 1959, Charles P. Snow formulated the conflict between two cultures – humanists and scientists – and in 1995, John Brockman wrote in The Third Culture about inheriting “the mission of the intellectual elite to seek answers to the questions that have long troubled humanity: what is life, who we are, where we are going (…) <…>” (Kopaliński 2001). vegetating third world2, disintegration of the Stalinist empire, in which the Terminology | 2008 | 15 7 9 The mother tongue and other native things preserve the identity. However, it cannot guarantee complete purity, because all around it are foreign languages and all sorts of foreignness: “And yet, despite these diversities, mother Greece seemed almost homogeneous among the fantastic natures of the colonies: Africa, Iberia, Gaul, Illyria, Scythia, Sarmatia, Syria, Egypt from the mysterious depths of history and civilization breathed its fragrance into hundreds of Greek cities, <…>. Every day, in daily communication with barbarians, on caravan journeys, in the noise of ports, foreign thoughts, prejudices, vices climbed to man, like street dust that crawls into the pores of the skin” (Parandovskis 1984: 118–119). “The language, divided into countless dialects and dialects, overgrown with foreign weeds in the colonies, caused crazy misunderstandings” (Parandovskis 1984: 119). Our native language – Lithuanian – under the conditions of continuous subordinate bilingualism had a lot of contact with Polish, it was simply flooded with it in such a way that only the angular islands, not overshadowed by churches and manors, remained less touched. Therefore, it received many foreign names and lost considerable areas of its native language, a large number of speakers – not only nobles, barons, but also the people. Only part of the consequences was eliminated, the majority – irreversible losses. After the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the same thing began with the Russian language (borrowings from it were already abundant by then) and continued for two centuries only with brief recessions (but not complete interruptions) during the First and Second Republics. Now, after regaining independence, the era of contact with the English language has begun. Therefore, it is useful to get to know these languages from the inside – how they are understood and valued by Russian and English speakers themselves. The (self-)critical aspect is the most important. The Russian-French bilingualism is well-known, more precisely the French-speaking of the Russian aristocracy. Closely related to this is the separation of the common Russian language from the phenomenon called просторечие – „слова, выражения, обороты, формы словоизменения, не входящие в норму литературной речи; часто допускаются в литературных произведениях и разговорной речи for the creation of a certain color“ – angl. popular language, vok. Folk language (Ahmanova 1966); latv. vienkāršruna (ValTV 1963) – though разговорная речь, обиходно-разговорная речь – sarunvaloda (ValTV 1963), but vienkāršruna – runākamoji valoda (LaLieŽ 1977). A doubtful match. Volkssprache. It is a very commonly used term in the English language, but it is not the same as the English term "literature" or "literature" in the sense of "a collection of literary works, or a collection of literary works". Lexical, grammatical and phonetic differences in this speech arise due to dialectal 8 0 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... and literary language languages“. "Slang - non-standard speech, popular language" (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990). 2000: 40, folk, spoken language RLKŽ II 1967. It is not separated from the P. pp. ruficollis. – Prastioki, prastuomenė RLKŽ II 1967, prastuomenė RLKŽ III 1984, prostyljudin psn. – stupid, stupid, a person of a disadvantaged class RLKŽ III 1984, простонародный psn. – prastalkiškas, prastuoliškas, prastuomeniškas, prastuomenės: простонародная речь – prastalkiškas [prastuomenės] kalba RLKŽ III 1984, hence и просторечие – prastalakbė, prasta [prastuolių] kalba (ne knyginė, literatūrinė) RLKŽ III 1984 (trans. – prastalakbės žodis, posakis – просторечное RLKŽ I 1982: 15), prastalakbė – просторечие LRKŽ 1988. It should be remembered that prastalovba is a Russian term that applies only to the Russian language. Since the Russian space is allowed in literary works, Russian writers have fought very hard for the popularity of the language – Russianness. In Literary Dreams (1834), V. Bielinskis understood the reason very well: “So, the nation, or rather, the people, and society went to us as they were. The first left, living in her primitive, harsh and half-wild life, and singing her sad songs, with which her soul poured out of sorrow and joy; the second, apparently, changed, if not improved, forgot everything Russian, forgot even to speak Russian; <…>“ (Bielinskis 1948: 71). “<…> the upper class had reason to despise the native language, because the written language was mixed with the spoken language” (Bielinskis 1948: 95). Bielinskis saw the diversity of Russian purism and assessed it differentially, and purism itself in general – moderately: “The word ‘progress’ naturally had to be met with particularly unfavorable attitudes by Russian language purists, who were outraged by any foreign word, considering it a heresy or a deviation from the orthodoxy of the native language. Such purism has its legitimate and serious basis; and yet it is a one-sidedness that has gone to the extreme” (Bielinskis 1948: 530). “There is no doubt that the desire to mark the Russian language with foreign words without any need, without sufficient grounds, is contrary to common sense and healthy taste; <…>. But the opposite extreme, i.e. unlimited purism, produces the same consequences, because the extremes coincide” (Bielinskis 1948: 532). Gogol also criticized the French-speaking Russian nobility: "The ladies of the city of N were distinguished, <…>, by extraordinary caution and decency in words and sayings. <…>. In no way could it have been paelements, as well as often due to the noticeably greater influence of other Terminology | 2008 | 15 8 7 has a dead sister – Prussian. The area of the Lithuanian language itself, which has been reduced from the west and especially from the southeast, and the islands that remain on the edge, is still a living Troy for linguists, but its life is weak. After many centuries of disappearance or extinction of an unknown number of languages, at the end of the 20th century, before even the exact number of living languages in the world (3000, 6000 or 6900-7000) was calculated, the threat of an ecological language catastrophe (only one in ten remaining) was declared, and in 1996 the Barcelona Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights was promulgated (Crystal 2005: 97). Languages do not die because they become ill or old, they rarely die because all or most of their speakers disappear or die, but because of cultural assimilation. The mechanism is simple, sometimes it works quite quickly: “There are three big stages. The first is characterized by great pressure on people to speak the dominant language. <…>. It can be “top-down”, <…>; or ‘bottom-up’, – – – (Crystal 2005: 84). By the way, pressure from above can encourage resistance, and pressure from below – material wealth or cultural advantage can assimilate even easier. The second stage is bilingualism, eventually: “In one generation, and sometimes in just a decade, the flourishing bilingualism imperceptibly transitions into self-conscious semilingualism, and then into monolingualism” (Crystal 2005: 85). Of course, in this mechanism, only the speakers of the assimilated language are bilingual: “Over the long centuries of their cultural dominance, their [monolinguals’] minds have developed the view that others must learn their language and they do not need other languages. It has been observed that peoples who once had many colonies and carried out religious expansion are monolingual and maintain a monolingual attitude” (Crystal 2005: 51). “Simply monolingualism, as part of a long colonial tradition, has become a common way of life” (Crystal 2005: 85). That is why Crystal says: “<…> the concept of domination must disappear” (Crystal 2005: 86). The world is inherently multilingual as the wire of its success: “we have inhabited the planet precisely because of the ability to create different cultures adapting to different environments” (Crystal 2005: 40). “The loss of diversity in the linguistic world is probably a greater loss than the loss of diversity in the biological world, because the structure of language testifies to human intellectual abilities (Committee on Endangered Languages and their Preservation 1984: 5)” (Crystal 2005: 41). Most importantly, a part of mankind’s linguistic wealth is lost: “No single language contains all the wisdom of mankind, and no single language can convey all the knowledge of mankind” (Crystal 2005: 58). A dying language is erased from the past, people lose their personal history, a nation loses its heart (Crystal 2005: 48, 41, 43). 8 8 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... D. Crystal asserts that obligatory feature of nationality” and “an optional feature of nationality” (Crystal 2005: 46). It is more than obvious that the second concept is based on (Crystal 2005: 125, 126). Dėl to ginčijasi ir neprivalomukai: „<…>, Velse very few examples, if not exceptions – unfortunate, only sometimes hateful. It is tragically obvious that with the disappearance of the Prussian language there was no Prussian nation, that with the massive adoption of the Polish language by Lithuanian nobles and barons, this class was no longer present in the Lithuanian nation, but only in small numbers, so that in the 20th century Lithuania was restored and the modern Lithuanian nation was created by expatriates from the people. I doubt that it is the job of linguists to decide which languages should die. One thing, nobody knows exactly (maybe the big ones will die and the small ones will remain in some rugged jungle), another, isn’t it better to talk about how languages can survive. The Lithuanian Literary Society (Litauische literarische Gesellschaft), which met in Tilžė in 1879, was nicknamed the Digger’s Society pasiskelbusi tikslą – kaupti išmirštančios tautos kalbos ir kultūros palikimą, (Zemlickas, Kaunas 2008: 3 9). Perhaps it would be enough for linguists to say one thing: languages with the status of state or official language develop all possible functions and styles, have a script, literature, school, have a future, but function weaker and more narrowly, while languages without a script or literature and school remain at the level of spoken language, although their future may be long. A world without the dominance of national languages is still, although different, but also bilingual: “A world in which people speak at least two languages – their own nation’s and the international lingua franca – is entirely possible and (…) desirable. Two languages – two different goals. One is to maintain identity, the other is to be understood. These objectives do not contradict each other’ (Crystal 2005: 37). However, the reality is far from the possibilities and needs. And subordinate bilingualism still exists. While “half of the world’s people speak at least two languages” (Crystal 2005: 51), “in the EU as a whole, 47.3% of people do not speak any foreign language” and “two thirds of British people do not speak any foreign language”, while “in Luxembourg, this figure is only 2.2% and in Denmark 12.3%.” (TautGyvY 2008: 49 29). The ideal of the European Union – the knowledge of two foreign languages – lies in the fog of declarations, if not a mirage at all. Assessment of interlingual communication by Eduardo Glissan, editor-in-chief of UNESCO Courier – “To, что человек говорит на своем языке, не исключает его способности понимать других людей and appreciate their cultures...“ ir formulė „I speak to you in your language, there are two perceptions of language as part of culture: “language is an Terminology | 2008 | 15 8 9 но понимаю тебя на своем” (Glissan 1983: 8 9) could be improved in some cases – I speak to you in your own language, I listen to you in your own language: “Multilingual Europe is <…> a continent where people can meet and talk each in their own language and understand each other’s language” (Eco 2001: 320). This would be complete equality of communication. 4.The changes in Lithuanian language use, functions, and the system itself are discussed a lot, and in many places (not only in linguistics). The theory of Lithuanian linguistics clearly states that “language is a polyfunctional phenomenon” (Karaliūnas 1997: 119) and “a tradition, a cultural phenomenon” (Karaliūnas 1997: 48). It explains a long-standing, but also a well-established deviation: “The understanding that language is the main means of communication was established in the European linguistic tradition around 1930. <…>. The study of language functions then moved from psychology to the competence of linguistics. After acknowledging that language is a means of communication, it was thrown to the other extreme – the communicative role of language is exaggerated and absoluted, the only function of language is considered communicative” (Karaliūnas 1997: 109). Some even believe that “language is a monofunctional phenomenon and all other uses of language are a manifestation of the communicative function” (Karaliūnas 1997: 109). However, “the communicative function of language itself seems to depend on other functions performed by language, for example, the marking, the representational. In order to tell something to another, to communicate, you first have to mark, name it” (Karaliūnas 1997: 110). These two functions are related: "<…> Darstellungsfunktion can be understood both as a communicative and as a representative (R. Jakobson's referential) function. <…>. In the scientific literature on the subject, the communicative and representative functions of language are very often not strictly distinguished and collectively referred to as the symbolic function of language” (Karaliūnas 1997: 134). The fact that “representation is an essential feature of human language” is also demonstrated by the fact that “in animal communication there is expression and appeal, but no representation” (Karaliūnas 1997: 190). S. Karaliūnas also distinguishes the ethnic function of language (Karaliūnas 1997: 159) – the identification-unifying function, the function of national separation, national individuality, language’s national belonging (Karaliūnas 1997: 163, 164). Although “the common language of the nation and language as an expression of ethnic belonging are different things”, only in relatively rare cases “the spoken language and the language as an expression of ethnos do not coincide” (Karaliūnas 1997: 164) and the latter’s “loss is considered the first stage of the loss of nationality” (Karaliūnas 1997: 168). 9 0 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... The duality of the managers, but society that determines the success of the implementation of language management, although without the former there would be no planned management itself, only the natural development of language” (Grumadienė 1996: 13). But here it is not a dual, but simply an ambiguous understanding of society itself: “At present, many language managers are traditionally still oriented towards the abstract user of common language, and society is not homogeneous” (Grumadienė 1996: 13). However, the common language is not used by the whole heterogeneous society, but only by a part of it – the enlightenment, although this is not homogeneous, and moreover, the large part of society that does not use the common language is usually an unfavorable, sometimes even contradictory factor for the common language. It is not without reason that it is stated: “the general attitude of society and the lack of language proficiency” – “a factor that raises the goal of developing the language awareness of society” (Miliūnaitė 2006: 63). Already in 1994 Pranas Kniūkšta stated the deteriorating situation of the language in society: “The undermined foundations of bilingualism, the broken discipline and the conjunctural pollution of the language have disrupted and deteriorated the current usage” (Kniūkšta 20012: 199). “So far, the language culture of society is not improving much” (Mikulėnienė 1998: 8). Spreading the myth of the natural development of language, which some journalists and cultural scientists are giving to the public and even to some linguists, Rita Miliūnaitė says: “Having in mind the common language of the last decade, we could not say that it changes naturally: there is a very strong influence of other languages” (Miliūnaitė 2006: 166). In a more differentiated way, it can be said that the influence of the Russian language has changed – it is no longer external, but internal, having an inertial nature, while the influence of the English language is more from itself – from Lithuanian English-speaking, and also not from above, but from below – from the poor, often not the English language itself. Certainly not to the abstract user of the common language, but to the very specific non-users or spoilers, asking: Will the state protect the state language? Albertas Rosinas points out: “The advocates of illiteracy and half-speaking are not only officials of all levels, a considerable number of journalists, scientists, lecturers, but also a part of the managers of new publishing houses, who irresponsibly publish old, poorly written, and new, unedited publications, <…>” (Rosinas 1992: 2 28). Here we can once again recall that the state is language: “If the state does not defend its state language from the arbitrariness of the minors and half-languages, it will not be worthy of the name of state” (Rosinas 1992: 2 8). After the restoration of independence, the legal protection of the State language in 1918–1940 was recalled: “The State relationship between language and society is obvious: “It is not the language Terminology | 2008 | 15 9 1 press workers to protect the uniqueness of the Lithuanian language, to take care of its vitality and correctness” (Rosinas 1998: 10). Care is taken to confirm and expand the theoretical basis of language management – first of all “to constructively develop the general theory of language education taking into account the conditions of the Lithuanian common language and the needs of society and renouncing defensive tactics (…)” (Rosinas 1996: 6). Of course, the defence of the language is not abandoned at all – the State Lithuanian Language Commission (VLKK) reacts administratively to violations of the rights of the Lithuanian language, and the main function of the Language Inspection is defensive, protective. The theoretical basis could be expanded by the post-war popularization in Western Europe of the twofold criticism of language – both philosophical and of style or text – and of norms and lacking usage (Rosinas 1996: 4–5), but in Lithuania it is not present, at least not under that name, not even the theoretician A. Pupkis (2005) mentions it, and the level of constructive criticism in Lithuania is generally low. Although the VLKK was entrusted with “the fields of state language management: scientific (normative), administrative and legal”, although “language administration includes both language var tosen and language (languages) var tosen” (Mikulėnienė 1996: 18), “not everything has been done in implementing the language status de facto”, therefore the Government was asked to create the conditions for the implementation of the provision set out in the Law on Science and Studies – “The State always recognizes the priority of fundamental research on the Lithuanian language” (Resolution 1996: 242 3). The commission itself is perhaps more concerned with language management (in Bronis Savukyn’s term, language management), its goals, strategy, theoretical bases (Kniūkšta 1995: 3–5), although they are not entirely new: “Systemicity allows language phenomena to be assessed as if from within, from a purely linguistic point of view, purposefulness – from the outside, from a social point of view” (Kniūkšta 1996: 15). The newer thing is the institutionalized – administrative language order, but it also has the opposite side: “The activity of the Commission is not the opposite of the ordinary order, […]. However, on the other hand, language management is pressed into frameworks and bureaucracy, not only society but also a considerable part of linguists are pushed away from it” (Kniūkšta 20011: 7). A good basic subject was administered: “Since 1996, a compulsory language culture and specialty language course has been introduced in all higher, higher and vocational schools (…)” (Mikulėnienė 1998: 8). Now they want to correct, confirm, and more: “A basic course in terminology taught according to a separate program would be suitable for the master’s degree, <…>” (Akelaitis 2008: 12 5). Good goals are set for secondary school – “1) to introduce the concept of language as a value of the nation, 2) to explain to students the purpose and functions of common language, 9 2 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... 3) to promote the of pupils in the mother tongue and its creative powers“ (Miliūnaitė 2006: 63). But how to do this if “the Lithuanian language course in general education schools no longer systematically teaches language culture” (Akelaitis 2008: 12 4)? The overall picture of the new understanding of new language phenomena, as well as of non-new things, is so far rather superficial, scattered and lacunar. However, the summary conclusions drawn at different times by three famous linguists are very clear, very close and very sad: “the trunk of our native language is gnawing painfully and threateningly” (Ambrazas 1990: 2 6). “The state language barely breathes” (Vitkauskas 2008: 17 7). For the third, “direct preaching” and “appealing to the speaker’s or writer’s sense of shame” seem completely ineffective, leaving only irony (Rosinas 2005: 3). In the absence of clearer connections between language changes and more specific factors and causes, it is hardly possible to find more definite recommendations on how to properly regulate changes, especially those that are undesirable (which violate the system, etc.). The imperative prevails – must, and not the guidelines for action – how. It is better to see (and easier to show) the broad projects of language use and education, although they are often quite ordinary. It can be said that the Lithuanian language is polarizing – a still wide, but thin layer of perfect common language remains (but hardly strengthens), while a rather aggressive layer of jargons and the jargonization of the common language itself is expanding. To evaluate the poor vocabulary of poor jargon (Zaikauskas 2007), the excited reviewer did not have enough general language powers – she boldly resorted to men’s jargon (Mataitytė 2007: 28), which is not allowed for a mixed company. Whatever you want – the love of jargon is old: “In her memoirs, Marija Mašiotaitė-Urbšienė illustratively explains that speaking in mixed Russian-Lithuanian language jargon was fashionable in interwar Kaunas – and all this not in the common people, but in the environment of the highest layer of power!” (Sakalavičiūtė 2007: 8–9 398). The Lithuanian language is certainly deteriorating, vulgarizing: “the most vulnerable are the complex, subtle and expressive phenomena of language. First of all, they <…> do not withstand the competition of more primitive constructions and more crude phenomena” (Piročkinas 20041: 8 4). The principle of state protection of the Lithuanian language is implemented, but not quite consistently. An alternative “theory” of language is also trying to emerge, based on the pseudo-principle that a lot can be corrected, but… So, let’s correct as much as it allows, as much as it does not resist. There is a great lack of systematic standardization and a lot of ad hoc decisions. You are surprised – pleasantly, but also with mistrust, at the new culture minister Remigijus Vilkaitis’s statement: “The correct Lithuanian language must motivation for learning the general language, 4) to strengthen the confidence Terminology | 2008 | 15 9 3 to dominate the public space, state institutions, schools” (Vd 2008 48 20). Will it be legal? Visuomenės santykiai su kalba – labai plati tema. Pradėti būtų galima from one generalization: “This creates a kind of scissors: linguists write more and more about language culture, give more and more advice, and society uses less and less of that advice” (Piročkinas 2004²: 9 7). This community needs considerable clarification – it is layered and not as it should be. Some linguists write only theories (somewhat compilative), without any advice, they work only with white gloves, they do not apply any specific corrections. The wider public does not take advice directly – from articles of linguists in Language Culture, Terminology, Mother Tongue, Mother Word, but through intermediaries – dictionaries, guides, language advice books, booklets. The mediators – the language managers of municipalities, books, media, ministries and the public administration – would also be very important here. And without this important intermediary link, to move the “indifferent majority” of kt. redaktoriai. Tačiau su siaubu reikia konstatuoti ir jų nepakankamumą, ir society (Piročkinas 2004²: 9 7) is only a dream with open eyes… Certain intermediaries are also Lithuanian language workers in Brussels. The Seimas Chancellery has organized a conference on Lithuanian in the European Union (Urnėžiūtė 2008: 12 20–24). However, the voices from that side, that in this way the Lithuanian language “acquires possibilities and opens up to change” (Morkus 2008: 7–8 347), because they change the language and the terminology system f o r m u o j a (Morkus 2008: 10–11 347) 7–8 348, 349), is also somewhat worrying. The linguistic awareness of the public, more precisely of the users of the common language, or those who should be, and the activity based on it is insufficient. And a lot of bad activity and even aggression. But first we should remember the unforgettable words of Jon Basanavičius’s 1883 poem Aušra: “<…>: Lithuania is slowly dying, because its language is dying” (Basanavičius 1970: 695). And we wouldn’t say that it’s not disappearing anymore. And we should not forget Jon Aistis. He inventively defended his nickname Kossu, but brutally attacked and insulted all linguists, confessed in his years of maturity: “I don’t know my language well” (Aistis 1991: 310), and finally said the great, but terrible truth: “A Lithuanian does not worry about two things: his mother tongue and the history of his nation” (Aistis 1991: 457). And as soon as it starts to spin, not one writes terrible nonsense. This is most easily done when behind the back are those who have 9 4 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... to be just smart West language of Papua Guinea, better known as Pidgin English (simplified English, slang). It mixes elements of English, German and Portuguese with the 720 completely different languages spoken by the island’s native population. Based on the free evolution of this language, unregulated by academic grammar rules, <…>" (Tok pisin 2003: 37 52). The praise of the free pidžin is like a reproach to the Lithuanian language, which is restricted by linguists – ignorance of good will, according to V. Bielinskis. What, that the learner looks deeper: "<…> the book is again shrinking, the language is impoverishing. Even the traditional British complain that their press language is becoming poorer and poorer. And the largest tabloid newspaper, The Sun, has even introduced a special computer program that ensures that the text does not contain too long words with eight letters. If there are too many and too few four-letter words, the computer automatically returns the text to the author” (Gadeikis 2005: 6 4). Sometimes they manage to recover from the bitter experience themselves: “We talk very well with the Spaniards about work,” the men explain. The cinema jargon is international, one word, another word… But when <…> we try to <…> talk about life – stop, nothing works. <…>’ (see 2005 3 57). I have long described the youngest provincial Lithuanians of the time as their unspoken, but from all their grandeur as if diffusing words before us was a flood, well, unless some Greimas, but not Jablonskis. Multilingualism in the EU: an opportunity or an obstacle? was the main topic of the essay competition for young journalists organised by the European Parliament Information Office. (See 2008 48 46). The alternative wording does not leave any third possibility. But who needs a quality magazine to publish childish ignorance of good will, e.g.: „<…> it is worth understanding that the assimilation of words borrowed and domesticated from other languages is useful for our nation. It is desperate to try to replace them with Lithuanian novelties, which often sound simply absurd” (Vd 2008 48 47). However, the same journal correctly states that even the most talented and even polyglots “had difficulties with the Lithuanian language” and specifically with the unsuccessful use of international words (Laurinėnaitė 2008: 15 49, 50). Is it not because the prestige of the Lithuanian language is low and – along with nationality and patriotism – is being denigrated? Linguists are sometimes talked about. Here journalist Renata Baltrušaitytė enjoyingly recounts how Vytautas Petkevičius “explained his kodėlčiukas to adverb specialists” and how “the priests of Lithuanian morphology” failed (Vd 2008 51 52). D. Crystallo – then you don’t have to think about anything, e.g.: “Tok pisin – the official Terminology | 2008 | 15 9 5 Dalia Zabielaitė does not associate the translation of the book The Death of Language with the decline or destruction of the Lithuanian language, but only with an angry opposition: “she will see a wider field of language problems than that which is closed to the narrow purism of linguistic education” (NŽA 2005 10 502). The criticism of linguistics of the new focus-Aidai is theorized in an indescribably strange way in the defunct articles of Tomas Daugirdas. He begins as if humanely: “What is Lithuanian language for us today: a component of Lithuanian identity, one of the instruments for exchanging ideas and information [,] or a way of controlling thought and expression?” (Daugirdas 2004: 11 535). Furthermore, he does not say a word about identity, he talks a lot about “a means of human relationship with the world and another person”, “an instrument for providing and receiving information” (Daugirdas 2004: 11 535, 536). And the whole pathos of the article is against the unknown attempt to create an idol of the Lithuanian language; against the language supposedly created by linguists “as the abode of truth and the expression of the essence of the world”, although “the world is diverse, meaningful or meaningless in various ways”; against the “purity and authenticity of the Lithuanian language, which is only in the minds of linguists”, against “all kinds of invented norms”, against linguists who “pretend to become guardians of the language prison, in which modern Lithuanian society will be imprisoned”, because after the Soviet era “all external threats” to the language “disappeared”, and now… from linguists “the Lithuanian language is threatened with further degeneration, and Lithuanians – with a fate “without a word” (Daugirdas 2004: 11 535–536). It seems that you are reading some kind of odd, but irresponsible plurpal, not a “monthly magazine of religion, culture and social life” – neither of elementary culture, nor of Christian neighborly love… The most ugly thing is when Lithuanian linguists are maliciously forced to do things that are already quite concrete and not existing, for example: “tried to ban trademarks of foreign firms” (Daugirdas 2004: 11 536). The author reproaches the equivalents and values supposedly created by linguists (?!), but the example is anecdotally insulting: “Somehow, even today we do not call the pedagogue with such an accurate and beautiful [?! – J. K.] proposed Lithuanian equivalent ‘kiikžiedys’, though somewhat reminiscent of ‘kiikžudis’ (Daugirdas 2004: 11 535). Who proposed and is every proposer already a linguist? ! Jonas Varnauskas asked directly – Is there a shock from the mother tongue? (NŽA 2005: 3–4 140–141) and whether this is a correction of the “bromists’ path” (Varnauskas 2005: 3–4 140) – without “control”, without “prison”, only leading to despair. However, Tomas Daugirdas does not calm down – he writes again about what to do so that “language is a suitable and convenient tool” (Daugirdas 2008: 1–2 8). The author slightly thinks about a computer “mouse”, which does not break the wires, but externally resembles 9 6 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... real, instead of broom). Here he recalls the substitutes for the mouse proposed by somebody else – pointer and scrollbar, and the scrollbar proposed by somebody else instead of the laptop, and that “the ‘wiredraw’ proposed by the linguists [whose?! – J. K.] would say much more <…> than ‘trolleybus’” (Daugirdas 2008: 1–2 8). He wrote and wrote out, now he writes from a hat… And idols are still haunting – this is speech, this is patriotism (2005, pp. 121–122). He writes, writes, and writes – he makes a linguist a bastard. Then the journalist R. Baltrušaitytė takes on the role of mediator – she writes down stereotypes – 1) the threat to the Lithuanian language is greater now than in the Soviet era, 2) the language is mostly used by young people, by jargon, 3) the linguist is a bastard (Baltrušaitytė 2004: 7 46), she places a cultural scientist (and a journalist), a writer (and a lawyer), and in front of them two female linguists, so that these stereotypes are refuted, so that the former accuse all the linguists, and the latter – not defend them, but just apologize themselves – no, not us, maybe some time ago one former black “pupkininė”, but both “destroyed the myth of language norm-setters who do not allow us to choose the weapon” (Baltrušaitytė 2004: 7 46). A sad picture of all: for one, irregularity is nothing, only visuality is needed – from towns and jargon, for him marketing, not marketing, for her marketing – he would use… grammatical errors (Savukynas 2004: 7 46, 47, 48), for another, reading the Russian press, it still seems to some great specialist that “they are much less afraid of all kinds of foreign words”, from which “tragedy is not blown up, much is legalized with a light hand” – “there it is understood that language is above all a means of communication” and that “beautiful Lithuanian proverbs are born in slang” (Puklevičius 2004: 7 46), for one linguist the Soviet linguists are to blame, “a couple of times repulsing the desire to speak Lithuanian” [?!! – J. K.], and “jargon is not bad, just let it be created”, blamed – “completely acceptable to the context [to the prime minister!] word” [Savukynas praises: “the top of linguists [i.e. linguist officials] are already tolerant” 47], bambalis, “heard in Ž emaitija three years ago” – already “a unit of the general language” (Smetonienė 2004: 7 47, 48), only Savukynas does not find it “after turning over the dictionaries”, although both do not refer to the LKŽ, where the northern Žemaičių bambalis has long been – 1. ‘milk container, <…>, canister’, 2. ‘petroleum container’. And only one linguist adds: “The public is not interested in the process of language creation”, “language is non-toxic also because young people do not read”, “I will always contradict those who say that Lithuanian language is not adapted to the modern world, it can no longer be spoken”, “we can silence our language only ourselves – and no one else” (Vaišnienė 2004: 7 46, 48). So she is maybe a baubelis?.. remembering how agile, nimble it is (that little mouse is running under the Terminologija | 2008 | 15 103 balization is wrong not only because of its one-sidedness, but also because other more important and specific factors are forgotten or hushed up and they are and were abundant. On the other side of the iron curtain the ugly phenomena of the 20th century were flourishing, directly impacting upon as well as causing a negative background for the functioning of language in general and small languages in particular. Such phenomena include consumer and mass society, disposable civilization, marketing, advertising, agitation, mass media and especially commercialisation of television, mass culture, three minute culture, fashion, creation of stars, Americanization of culture (pop music, Hollywood films, westerns, TV serials, soap operas, ...). In general terms a common denominator of these phenomena is their tendency to make a man and a life primitive, specifically the creation of a wooden language. These phenomena, strongly attacked by soviet anti-American propaganda and to some extent evaluated in Lithuanian philosophical discourse after the fall of the iron curtain swept into Lithuania, to the weary spirit of which everything coming from the West seemed to be good. At the same time fifty year old truths about our own life in the evil empire – new language, thought police, double think, enslavement of the mind - reached us from the West as well. These truths reached us, but did not have the right impact on us. Together with such things as the disintegration of the evil empire, restoration of the independence of Lithuania, status of the Lithuanian language as a state language, national rebirth, democratisation of the society and the creation of a civil society, European and transatlantic integration of Lithuania, came unofficial Anglization, computerization and internetization which are now very specific factors, the importance of which to national identity and selfawareness, culture and language has been considerable for twenty years and will remain crucial and epochal for a long time. Every language is ethnic or national – native. Our native language – Lithuanian – for a few centuries under the conditions of continuous subordinate bilingualism had very many contacts with the Polish language – the whole area of the Lithuanian language was flooded with it. Only a few consequences have been eliminated, and although contacts with Polish have for some time been almost broken, the majority of losses are, like loss of national territory, irreversible. For two centuries a similar destructive work in the Lithuanian language area was done by the Russian language. Now a new era of contacts with the English language has arrived – territory is not being lost, but a part of the Lithuanian language speakers are. Therefore it is useful to get acquainted with these imperial, colonial as well as international languages (and linguaefrancae) from inside – how they are perceived and judged by Russians and English themselves. It is important to remember that the essence of linguaefrancae is only the performance of the communicative function. This is not enough for the national language to live and survive – it could cause death. The Lithuanian language has a dead sister, the Prussian language. The area of the Lithuanian language has crumbled away in the west and in the southeast and it is not even continuous within the state borders. Speakers of a big language can have a theoretical discussion if the language is or is not an obligatory element of nationality and statehood. A Lithuanian can speak here only about lucky or unlucky (for himself!) exceptions. Only the old nearly universal order provides guarantees: only a national state language is safe or: a state is its own language. Although the world is 104 Jonas Klimavičius | Lithuanian language and society:... bilingual (mostly in that and it implies subordination, thus some dangers. to be neither the only, nor the main one. Similarly, the ethnicity of the king is also a subject of controversy. Various journalists, In the theory of Lithuanian linguistics, the communicative function is considered specialists of culture and other provincials of the time (avantnous,leDéluge) are talking only about the means of communication, demanding unrestricted development of the language, declaring anticodification attitudes, rights and validity of jargon and similar good willed ignorance and demonising linguists. They defeat some linguists because of the lack of solidarity and culture of the latter. Lithuanian linguists dare to challenge anti-cultural globalization and sometimes win. The force of terminologists is small, but they publish the scientific (international from the 13th issue) magazine Terminologija (Terminology). The principle of state protection of the Lithuanian language is being implemented although not consistently. Retrieved 2008-12-15. Jonas Klimavičius Institute of Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: terminolo[email protected] communicative function), bilingualism is a characteristic not of big, but of small languages