scholarly journals On the term of standard language

2016 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Irena Smetonienė ◽  
Antanas Smetona ◽  
Audrius Valotka
Keyword(s):  
Language Policy ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Language System ◽  
State Management ◽  
Language Variety ◽  
The Status

After we started direct communication and collaboration with foreign scholars, we immediately noticed that one of the reasons of miscommunication derives from the lack of discussion of terminological synonymy as well as the concept of a term. For example, miscommunication may occur due to such issues as the understanding and the relationship of such terms as a borrowing and a foreign word, such Lithuanian words as naujadaras, naujažodis and neologizmas which are usually all rendered in English as a neologism, language policy and language planning, etc. In addition, numerous debatable issues arise regarding the use of the term marker and its synonyms in the context of morphology and the choice of different terms to refer to the administrative style (kanceliarinis, dalykinis, administracinis stilius in Lithuanian). There is a tendency to opt for an international term since it facilitates communication with foreign scholars. This article explores terms that deal with language ‘standardness’ used in linguistic research and in written public discourse. In addition, it raises a question of whether it would not be useful to replace the term of common language with that of standard language. In our opinion, the term standard language better reflects such aspects of a given language variety as its normative nature, national status, formality, a consistent and natural acquisition of the language system as well as the application of the acquired knowledge in the processes of language standardisation and language policy. Certainly, replacing a term with a different one is not difficult, i.e. it is a matter of agreement and intention; however, in our case the question seems to be directly related not only to terminology but also to the concepts that they signify. On the one hand, international practice shows that local terms remain local and cause problems in translating them into other languages; on the other hand, it also reflects differences in the content of the terms when they are used to refer to different stages of language development.Several terms were used in Lithuanian linguistics to refer to language standardness. Jonas Jablonskis used the term written language. The scholar emphasised that he chose the term deliberately since he was not aiming at codifying spoken language and since written language was deemed as the most important in his time. The term common language created by Pranas Skardžius entered public use only in 1927. However, after 1950, the term of common language was replaced by the Russian term literary language. It was no better than other terms, it had no traditions in Lithuania but it was important as a political stance of showing how united Soviet linguistics was. Such purposeless change of terms was not accepted well by linguists working both in Lithuania and abroad. This issue was discussed on many occasions in writings by Skardžius, Jonikas and it was debated widely by Lithuanian linguists. The term common language was started to be used again in 1969.Today the status of our language is different: we have the system of established vocabulary, grammar, the whole language system is standardised, we have institutions that set and monitor language norms (State Commission of the Lithuanian Language and the State Language Inspectorate), institutions that foster Lithuanian, standardised language is used in all public domains, its status is established by a special law. As a result, contemporary situation can be defined by two clear terms: 1) Lithuanian which encompasses dialects, sociolects, idiolects and which also subsumes borrowings and jargon since it is part of our daily language which is not regulated by any laws or resolutions; 2) standard language which is understood as a language variety of the highest prestige. We do not suggest that the use of the term common language should be abandoned but we believe it should have a different place in the system of terms. As we are familiar with the way language development processes are termed in other countries the examples of which are provided in the first part of this article, we argue that common language may refer to a certain stage in the development of our language. Thus the language of a pre-standard stage used by the whole nation which has been more or less standardised can be referred to by the term common language. It would involve such language use which occurs in the initial stages of the development of a standard language, i.e. it would no longer refer to some tribal or dialectal language but rather to the general language used by the whole nation or its substantial part which first occurs in a written form and which is standardised only on the primitive or intuitive level without any language policy at the national or any other institutional level. However, this stage is over now and therefore, similarly to Latvians, we have to use the term standard language. In our opinion, standard language is a standardised language variety which is used in public discourse (state management, media, school) and in international communication.

scholarly journals Writing systems as modular objects: proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Neef
Keyword(s):  
Solution Space ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Writing System ◽  
Writing Systems ◽  
Specific Level ◽  
Language System ◽  
The Status ◽  
Pertinent Question ◽  
Typical Component ◽  
Notational System

AbstractThis paper gives an outline of the Modular Theory of Writing Systems by answering the question: what are the elements or modules that are necessary for a writing system to work? A writing system is a notational system for a natural language. Based on this characterization, it is obvious that a necessary component of a writing system is a specific language system. What eventually constitutes a writing system in addition to this language system is a device that, put simply, relates units of a language system to units of a script. This component is termed ‘graphematics’ in the present framework and is regarded as a necessary module of a writing system. Above that, another typical component of writing systems, namely ‘systematic orthography’, applies to the ‘graphematic solution space’ and restricts the spelling possibilities of specific words in accordance to their belonging to a specific level of the vocabulary of the language. Supplemented by reflections on the status of scripts as well as of IPA as a writing system, an answer is finally given to the pertinent question how spoken language and written language are related to each other. The answer is that this relation is of a considerably indirect nature.

scholarly journals Prítomnosť češtiny na Slovensku a aspekt spisovnosti

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-30
Author(s):  
Alexandra Jarošová
Keyword(s):  
Written Language ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Previous Period ◽  
Local Language ◽  
Retrospective View ◽  
Communication Situations ◽  
The Status ◽  
Written Form

Abstract The paper aims at giving a retrospective view of the presence of Czech in Slovakia through prism of the concepts language situation, communication situations and standardness. Within the conditions of the feudal heterogeneity of the Hungarian Monarchy and without any distinct cultural and political centre of the Slovaks, in a situation of considerable dialectal variety, the Czech language fulfilled the role of a comprehensible and within the whole society (among educated Slovaks) valid and relatively unified written form of the “local language” (lingua vernacula). In the 14th and the 15th centuries this Czech got only relatively little Slovakized. During the 16th and the 17th centuries two mutually overlapping tendencies of the development of the written language of the Slovaks were being formed: 1. Slovakized Czech, or a Slovak-version Czech, and 2. Regional Variants of Cultural Slovak. Both tendencies found their place in the Catholic as well as in the Protestant environment. In the 2nd half of the 18th century, with continuation into the beginnings of the 19th century, two directions that started to be formed already in the previous period, became crystalized: 1. Under the influence of the progressing re-Catholicization, the Slovakized Czech of the Protestants undertook the direction from diglossia towards “pure” Czech (at least in the sense of an intention), and the Protestant circles unequivocally accepted it as their standard language, sometimes denoting it as reč československá (Czechoslovak language) or českoslovenčina (the Czechoslovak); 2. In the Catholic environment, the cultural Western Slovak of the southern type and called bernolákovčina (Bernolák‘s Slovak) was codified, with the status of an autonomous standard language – a development away form diglossia towards Slovak. It was a period of two standard languages to which Štúr’s codification of Slovak put an end. His codification was based on the northern Central Slovak dialects, and after its modification in the so called opravená slovenčina (“corrected Slovak”) it was accepted by the representatives of both confessions.

scholarly journals The relation between the codification and actual usage of the preposition VIRŠ

2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Sonata Vaičiakauskienė
Keyword(s):  
Written Language ◽  
Periodical Press ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Language System ◽  
Actual Usage ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Distance Property ◽  
Time Distance

The analysis of Lithuanian syntax phenomena shows that there are many inconsistencies in the actual usage of some cases and prepositions and the codified rules of grammar that apply to them.  This article concentrates on the actual usage of the Lithuanian preposition virš (‘above’) over the last decade. Thus the aim of the article is to discuss the relation between the codified rules of grammar and the current use of the preposition virš and to provide some guidelines in relation to the specification of its codified rules. The analysis of the usage of virš reveals that this preposition is used to refer to some excess in quantity, weight, time, distance, property or characteristic as well as to some overbalance, especially in periodical press. Such usage of the preposition virš is quite frequent both in spoken and written language. Currently, such usage of virš is considered by language standardisers as avoidable or even unacceptable in standard language. Such attitudes of linguists are based on the fact that the usage of virš in the sense of excess is a result of the influence of Slavic languages and dialects. The data of the analysis suggest that the usage of the preposition virš is becoming more common not only due to the above-mentioned reason but also because of the similarity or even overlap between the meanings of constructions used to refer to excess that are standardised and those that are considered to be avoidable. Systemic characteristics of the usage of the preposition virš show that its usage in the sense of excess is not necessarily in conflict with the standard language system. As a result, the pervasive use of the preposition virš in the sense of excess suggests that with regard to language users’ habits but not conflicting with language systematicity, linguists should consider the possibility of standardising the usage of virš in the sense of ‘excess’. Certainly, before anything can be put forward, more research on the usage of the preposition virš has to be carried out.

scholarly journals Standard Language Ideology and Its Influence on Lithuanian Migrants. Samogitians' Attitudes Towards Their Language Variety

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indrė Nugaraitė
Keyword(s):  
Language Policy ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Language Ideology ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Language Variety ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
People’S Attitudes ◽  
The Right ◽  
Standard Language Ideology

Summary The study tries to bridge the gap between research on how the Lithuanian language and its varieties are spoken and maintained by migrants and on how the standard language ideology affects the speakers of regional varieties in Lithuania. The paper investigates Lithuanian Samogitian migrants’ attitudes towards their regional variety, the main factors that might influence their beliefs and whether the standard language ideology is one of these factors. The in-depth analysis of 10 audio-recorded and coded interview responses has shown that in migration, similarly as in Lithuania, people’s attitudes towards Samogitian and the usage of it are governed by the three main factors, namely education, Soviet language policy and the linguistic pressure from society. Even though migrants do not feel intense pressure to speak the “right” language and feel much freer to use the variety of their choice when talking to other migrants, they still believe that it is common sense to use the standard in official gatherings, for public speeches or for official events.

A Sociology of Sanskrit Language: The Context of Women and Shudras

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Retno Wulandari Setyaningsih ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
The Status

The language of the Dalits is one of the most crucial constituents in the distinctiveness of Dalit literature. The language disturbs the posture and orderliness of the status quo. That is to say, the language of the Dalits contest the standard language, which is the language used in higher educationa. Dalits being at a lower end of the caste hierarchy have been traditionally secluded from education, and for this reason their registers differ from those used by upper castes. Dalit literature exposes the discrimination the Dalits face and the oppressions that are committed on these communities. In India, an elder person is generally addressed with respect. But if the elder person is a Dalit, he would be addressed disrespectfully. The Dalits being at the lower end of the caste hierarchy have been kept from education thus influencing their language as different to language employed by the upper castes.

Roundtable discussion: Organising cleaners in the context of Covid-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 156-163
Author(s):  
Heather Wakefield ◽  
Helen O’Connor ◽  
Marjorie Mayo ◽  
Jonathan White
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Working Class ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Step Change ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Migrant Communities ◽  
The Status ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Minority Ethnic

People working as cleaners represent a substantial part of the modern British working class. Low-paid, often part-time, disproportionately female and, more recently, from black and minority ethnic and migrant communities, this workforce has historically been seen as hard to organise. Yet the Covid-19 crisis has elevated the status of cleaning as a key part of maintaining public health. In this article, trade union organisers with experience of working with cleaners discuss the possibilities of the current conjuncture for effecting a step change in both unionisation and the reconstruction of public services.

scholarly journals Bella Abzug, queer rights, and disrupting the status quo

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor G Gates ◽  
Margery C Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Social Action ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Working Environment ◽  
Field Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Status

Workers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ)-identified have always been a part of the workplace in the United States, yet there has been a lack of awareness about how to advocate for the needs of these people. This lack of awareness was challenged by Congresswoman Bella Abzug. Abzug’s campaign for creating an equal working environment for sexual minorities initiated gradual changes in the public discourse concerning workplace and other broad equality measures for these communities. To frame these gradual transformations within a historical context, we use Lewin’s force field analysis framework to examine the change efforts of Abzug. Abzug had beginning success in thawing the status quo yet her visions for equality for LGBTQ people have yet to be realized. Using Abzug’s social action as an example, this article concludes that allies must continue to challenge societal oppression, power, and privilege and to demand civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals.

scholarly journals Polysemy of ‘Common Language’ and the Modern Japanese Nation: The Universalization of a ‘Standard Language’ to correct ‘Dialects’?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-24
Author(s):  
Saki Amano
Keyword(s):  
Ambiguous Word ◽  
National Language ◽  
Common Language ◽  
National Consciousness ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Second Period

In this paper, the term futsūgo (common language) was viewed over two periods. The first period (1880s-1894) was concerned with education but aimed to establish everyday, commonplace language and script that was familiar to the populace. However, by the 1890s, the policy of Europeanization was being reconsidered, and national consciousness was on the rise. The second period (1894-early 1900s), with the start of the Sino-Japanese War, saw an increase in the national consciousness in strengthening both literary and military arts, with a desire for the establishment of an artificially unified language with artificial rules that would unify the populace and the nation. The natural shift from the populace’s everyday commonplace language to a unified national language became possible through the linguistic logic, or mediation of terminology, seen in the single (but ambiguous) word futsūgo.

scholarly journals Legislative regulation of linguistic relationships in Ukraine

2019 ◽  
pp. 127-144
Author(s):  
Iuliya Makarets
Keyword(s):  
Language Policy ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Support ◽  
National Language ◽  
State Legislation ◽  
World Community ◽  
Linguistic Model ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
The Status ◽  
State Language

The article focuses on the issue of legislative regulation of linguistic relationships in Ukraine. The ability of a national language to function as a means of consolidation and national identification depends to a large extent on state linguistic policy, political support that the language receives. The state legislation on language is indicative in this regard while it establishes the status of languages, the linguistic model and the linguistic regime. In accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, the Ukrainian language is a state language in Ukraine. The dynamics of the Ukrainian legislation on languages illustrates the inconsistency of the implementation of this constitutional norm. The article analyzes the milestones of its formation. The content of the basic laws in the sphere of linguistic relationships (Law of the USSR ‘On Languages in the Ukrainian SSR’ (1989), the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Principles of the State Language Policy’ (2012), which is invalid now, and the new Law of Ukraine ‘On the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as a State Language’ (2019)), the socio-political tendencies, that preceded their adoption, their evaluation by tpublic and world community as well as their consequences for linguistic situation in Ukraine are described. The possibility of official bilingualism approving is studied. The article analyzes historical, cultural and political preconditions for the adoption of official bi- or multilingualism by other states, acceptability of this linguistic model for Ukraine and possibility to overcome existing linguistic contradictions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document