A few years ago, the State Language Inspectorate* also decided to change its image as a punisher: it stopped issuing fines for language mistakes, and writing numerous warnings to publishing houses and journalists (the list of major mistakes ceased to be valid in 2019). Nevertheless, even today, the consequences of the strict language policy of the nineties, which legalized penalties, are still evident – only the language control enforcers have changed.
It is interesting to observe how the representatives of language institutions who no longer have power, but the people themselves, some users of the language, seek to control others through language. They, as if taking over the baton, fill the remaining empty niche of control and shaming, I will call them shamers. In order to establish their supremacy through language, only their own linguistic associations are enough for some shamers, which they equate with universal truth (what if the particle “na” is associated with the beginning of a Russian curse word?). Others – often starting language editors or editors – cover up their ignorance by manipulating fear and can argue any of their proposals with the power of language institutions to punish (the “if we don’t fix it, there will be a fine” attitude). Still others even call upon the penal institution to help solve a (fictional) linguistic problem universally. In this case, “love for the mother tongue” looks not only retrograde, but also threatening, because the Language Inspectorate is imagined almost as a thought police.
I will expand. Here are some examples from life and from social networks.
Leaving the country
Recently, one, let’s call it a Lithuanian language teacher, or a shamer, started to moralize an influencer who used the word “character” in the translation. In a Facebook comment, she said that the word “character” cannot be feminine. According to her – and she was speaking completely seriously – the Lithuanian language only gives us the words “character” or “character”. Everything. The fighter for the correctness of the Lithuanian language, for unknown reasons, decided to ignore the construction rules, based on which we have “student” and “student”, “professor” and “professor”, “student” and “pupil”, “kindergartener” and “kindergartener”, etc.
Another funny example from the story of a radio journalist: once a person called the show, indignant that the presenters often say the particle “na”. The listener would have preferred the word “nu” (probably more common), because he associates “na” with the beginning of a Russian swear word…
It is interesting that in both of these cases subjective linguistic associations seemed almost universal to the shamers and they wanted to impose them on others, without even questioning their rightness and underestimating the conditionality of their linguistic habits (and in these cases, probably also their knowledge).
“It needs to be corrected because there will be a fine”
The original spelling of surnames has been used for many years in the media, journalism, and non-fiction literature, and this trend also extends to works of fiction. It’s completely obvious and there’s not even anything to explain.
One day I get a message from my writer friend: “Aira, help me, the title of my and my colleagues’ work contains the last name of a French philosopher, and the management team wants to transcribe it phonetically, as we say it.” You ask: why? It turns out that the language administrator of one Lithuanian city municipality is convinced that due to the original spelling of surnames, a fine can be received from the CPI. That was the argument for the correction, and the management team immediately decided that the language manager could not be wrong. (Language manager (s) – it is interesting that this is the official name of the position in the municipality.)
This event of a few months ago shows: 1) there is still some inertia left to transcribe foreign surnames phonetically and to think that it is necessary (in the Soviet era it was like that, it came from the Russian language, when everything needs to be transcribed in Cyrillic); 2) it is still a living practice to argue linguistic propositions in fear of punishment and even to cover up one’s ignorance with it. So be careful if you hear such an argument from a language handler or editor today (“you need to fix it because there will be a penalty”). Now, as far as I know, warnings for errors or non-normative language variants from CPI occur only for content for children.
By the way, I solved my friend’s problem very simply – I wrote to VLKK, and soon it was clearly confirmed to me that the original surname can indeed be written and no one is going to issue a fine for it.
“Inspection, help!”
Another language teacher-shamer wanted people to stop using “karoche” in colloquial speech because she doesn’t like it. It is said that this word is so common in our language that you can recognize a Lithuanian from its use even abroad. The outraged user of the language – although her position is perhaps somewhat justified by the tense geopolitical situation – would like to change this. And she… turns to CPI as a savior.
I am quoting a public post from Facebook: “I think it is high time to clean our spoken language, no matter where it sounds – in Lithuania or far beyond its borders, once and for all from this short foreign body!” You, Audrius Valotka, can help us do this!” Doesn’t such a position seem to have almost a totalitarian charge (albeit with the best intentions)?
Such a statement shows that there are people who believe the CPI very strongly and hyperbolize its power, as if it can apply its (punitive?) measures internationally and to spoken language (which is basically impossible to control, because it is a private matter). Totalitarian control of spoken language would essentially mean control of thought. In such a context, the State Language Inspectorate is imagined as some kind of fantastic thought police. What a scary dream. It seems that we are no longer talking about a real institution, but about a much more powerful force, the image of which could have matured only in a consciousness plagued by conspiracy theories.
And the reality is that certain words that came from the Russian language (including “karoče”) will not have Lithuanian equivalents in usage for a long time and will appear not only in colloquial speech, but also in freestyle texts, because this is also a phenomenon of our language, and to destroy it certainly wouldn’t be healthy to force him.
Pochui ar poxui
A colleague told about a young beginning writer who was very surprised and very happy to hear the language editor’s suggestion to simply make the spelling of “pochui” uniform in the book (there were variations of “pochui” and “poxui” throughout the book). The editor did not suggest to throw them out or to italicize them. To the author’s surprise, it shows that editors, even of fiction, are still (consciously or subconsciously?) expected to be narrow minded and repressive. In this case, the author’s bad expectations for the editor did not come true, because he was dealing with a professional in his field.
Now is the time for editors to change the way authors and the public view themselves, because apparently there have been a number of cases in the past when other members of the profession have become evil gnomes imposing power on others due to repressive language policies, and such an image has entered the collective imagination. Step by step, during each situation like this with “pochui”, both the authors’ attitude towards the editors and the readers’ attitude towards the texts in Lithuanian change little by little. I believe that the fear of editors, as well as language institutions, will eventually survive in the creation of more and more precedents that refute retrograde practices, until eventually the good experiences outweigh the bad.
For mind control chimeras, Ignore
The strict language policy of the 1990s with fines did not pass without a trace. That repulsive spirit of the VLKK and VKI of the past is still embedded in the hearts of some people like rust, like poison. It is omniscience, the desire to dictate and control, to arrogantly demonstrate one’s superiority. However, public shaming of other people for real or perceived language mistakes, as you can easily see, seems marginal and ridiculous.
The editors and institutions will probably need to maintain the current course for another decade, until the users of the Lithuanian language, the critical mass, really start to feel that they are the masters of their language and can creatively and freely play with it without fear and without making excuses, without cringing, feeling that they are consciously choosing this in the language , exactly what they need to express themselves in every situation. It will take time for people to become interested in using language intelligently, attentively, sensitively, and at the same time correctly, respectfully and experiencing aesthetic and intellectual pleasure voluntarilynot out of fear or the need to obey. It is interesting that the process is very, very slow, because the liberalization process started a long time ago, and the chimeras of limitations are still wanting. People who think they know the language and correct others often imagine it much narrower and poorer than it is. It is best if editorial corrections or linguistic advice are well-intentioned and open up more possibilities for expression, rather than reducing them.
My personal suggestion would be to ignore the fear-mongering chimeras of language (thought) control, but to pay attention to the language itself: sentence logic, vocabulary, word connections. To ask the question, which words best correspond to what we want to say now – maybe not even the ones that automatically come to mind, but completely different ones. Perhaps they still need to be created.
*The two institutions that shape and implement language policy in Lithuania are often confused: the State Lithuanian Language Commission (VLKK) and the State Language Inspectorate (VKI). The first one does not have the power to punish, it only provides recommendations, advises, and regulates. The second still has the legal power to punish. (By the way, in this text I do not comment on the views and political statements of CPI representatives.)
It was first published in the magazine “Literature and Art” (3787 / 5, 2024-03-08). The text is published as a conference REDA. Forum for Language Democracy | Part 2024.
The event “REDA. Forum for Language Democracy | 2024“ curated by writer Gabija Grušaitė, editor Aira Niauronytė, publisher and editor Ła Ambrasaitė. Friends of the forum are the publishing house LAPAS and the festival “Open Books“. REDA is part of the Open Books festival“ first day event. REDA is partially financed by the Lithuanian Council of Culture. More information about REDE can be found here here.
#Aira #Niauronytė #Inspection #language #peoples #hearts #Culture
Interview with Aira: The Language Landscape in Lithuania
Interviewer: Welcome, Aira! It’s great to have you here to discuss the recent trends in language use and regulation in Lithuania. Your insights on the interactions between language institutions and everyday language use are quite illuminating. Can you start by summarizing the main challenges faced by writers and speakers in Lithuania today?
Aira: Thank you for having me! One of the biggest challenges is the lingering fear around using non-standard or foreign language elements. Many individuals still believe that they could face penalties for not conforming to traditional language rules, which can stifle creativity and natural expression. This stems from a past strict language policy that created a culture of fear regarding language use.
Interviewer: Yes, you mentioned a specific case where a writer faced pressure to phonetically transcribe a foreign surname due to fears of fines from the language authority. How does this reflect broader societal attitudes toward language?
Aira: It shows a kind of inertia left from the Soviet era when foreign names were often transcribed in a rigid way, reflecting an anxiety about authenticity. The incident highlights how the authority figures—like the language managers in municipalities—can wield power in ways that aren’t necessarily based on current language practices or actual legal requirements. This creates a chain reaction where individuals feel compelled to follow suit out of fear, even when it’s unwarranted.
Interviewer: Fascinating. And you’ve pointed out that there is still a fear of language “shamers” who impose personal linguistic preferences on others. Can you elaborate on that?
Aira: Absolutely. Today, even without official penalties, we see individuals trying to regulate language use out of their own beliefs. These ‘shamers’ can create an environment where people feel judged for their choices, like using colloquial terms or integrating foreign words. Interestingly, some believe they can invoke the authority of language institutions to back up their claims, which can be quite misguided.
Interviewer: It sounds quite restrictive! In your opinion, how can language editors and institutions help shift the perception of language to be more inclusive and creative?
Aira: They need to foster environments where diverse expressions of language are celebrated rather than policed. By encouraging open-mindedness and flexibility in language use, they can demonstrate that language is a living, evolving entity rather than a rigid structure. Instead of enforcing punitive measures, the focus should be on enabling creative expression through language.
Interviewer: That’s a positive outlook. There seems to be a broader discussion around what constitutes “correct” language use. How do we navigate the balance between maintaining standards and embracing linguistic innovation?
Aira: It’s crucial to understand that language is not static; it evolves with its users. Encouraging linguistic innovation while also offering guidance on effective communication can create a beneficial balance. Ultimately, the goal should be to empower people to express themselves authentically without feeling constrained by outdated standards.
Interviewer: Thank you, Aira! Your insights into the linguistic landscape in Lithuania today highlight an important conversation about fear, conformity, and the creative potential of language. It’s essential that everyone feels they have the freedom to express themselves without unnecessary constraints.
Aira: Thank you! I hope this discussion encourages more people to take ownership of their language use and to embrace the richness of expression that comes with it.
Ibility in language use, editors and institutions can assert that creativity isn’t just permitted but is an essential part of linguistic evolution. This involves educating language users about the rich, dynamic nature of language and dismantling the residual fear surrounding language use. Celebrating diverse linguistic expressions will empower individuals to embrace their unique voices without the constraints of rigid norms.
Interviewer: That’s a refreshing perspective! You’ve described language as a ‘living phenomenon.’ How important is it to keep language evolving, especially in a multicultural society like Lithuania?
Aira: Keeping language alive and evolving is crucial in reflecting the realities of society. Language adapts to cultural shifts, technological advances, and diverse populations. In a multicultural environment, it’s especially important to recognize and accommodate various influences, which can enrich the language. This adaptability not only makes communication more effective but also fosters inclusivity and mutual understanding among speakers from different backgrounds. The more we embrace the evolution of language, the more authentic our communications become.
Interviewer: Lastly, what advice would you give to individuals who feel apprehensive about their language use due to past punitive measures or current societal pressures?
Aira: My advice is simple: embrace your voice, trust your instincts, and remember that language is a tool for expression, not a set of constraints. Challenge the narrative that suggests linguistic perfection is the goal. Instead of fearing judgment, explore your linguistic identity with confidence. Engaging with others through communication is what truly matters, and the richness of our languages is born from diversity and creativity, not uniformity. It’s time to reclaim that freedom.
Interviewer: Thank you, Aira! Your insights on language and its evolving role in society are truly enlightening. It’s been a pleasure talking with you today.
Aira: Thank you! It was a privilege to share this important discussion with you.
