Grėsmės kalbai ir kalbos priežiūra: žurnalistų požiūris
Threats to language and language supervision: a journalistic approach

Summary/Abstract: The paper analyses the attitude of journalists as a group of language users towards threats to language and a need to supervise it. The object of investigation has been chosen due to the fact that threats to language are often given as grounds for language policy. The analysis of the guidelines of the state language policy in Lithuania has shown that insecurity about the preservation of language and identity is given as an important aspect of the situation in language policy.Within the project Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Awareness and Orientation in Lithuania and Latvia (Institute of the Lithuanian Language, supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation) there were 23 interviews with journalists collected. Most journalists are of an opinion that language is not exposed to any threats since the present situation has resulted from the natural language development, any evils are a matter of fashion and tend to pass, the preservation of language is more related to the preservation of the nation rather than language change; some consider tough language regulation as a major threat.Some journalists tend to partially support language supervision; however, the majority of them are in favour of a different approach to it. Current language policy is mostly criticised for inappropriate measures: the respondents would prefer an educational approach, more attractive forms to the existing control. The language policy, according to them, should be more flexible and more usageoriented.Summarising the approaches of the respondents to the above issues, there has been a remarkable consistency noticed: those who see threats to language also, at least partially, approve of its supervision; those who disprove of its supervision do not see any threats. A large group of the respondents in favour of the language supervision have pointed out that they do not see threats. Therefore, the awareness of language threats works as a factor for language supervision; on the other hand, the approval of language supervision is not necessarily based solely on the threats. Such conclusions might be relevant for discussing language policy in target groups. The conclusions are indicative that to encourage language users to support thecurrently implemented language policy, the (sole) factor of threats and language security is insufficient.

• Details
• Contents