Vuk Vukotić

Research Institute of the

Can we compare
Lithuanian Language
language ideologies?
 How
Vuk Vukotić
Research Institute of the
Can we compare
Lithuanian Language
language ideologies?
Language ideology as a research field

Micro Macro

Variationist Discourse
sociolinguistics studies
Language ideology as a research field

Micro Macro

Variationist Discourse
sociolinguistics studies
Marco-level discourse analysis
• Uncovering presuppositions about language
• Milroy 2001, Geeraerts 2003
• Focused on political / public / media discourses; Epistemes
/ Hegemonies
• Wodak 1993, 2005; van Dijk 2015; Spitzmüller 2007

• Discourse-historical approach (Reisigl & Wodak 2017)

• Language ideological debates (Blommaert 1999)
Challenges with comparative research
• Multitude of ideologies about language and in language
• …but essentially about other phenomena, such as gender, race,
nationality, economy etc.
(Meeuwis 1999, Homer 2005, Milani 2007, Blommaert 2011…)
• Multitude of historically- and locally-bound discourses on
language that occasionally seem incomparable
• Standard langauge ideology in Norway, Germany, Greece, Belgium
Single case studies (Røyneland 2013, Moschonas 2004, Bermel
2007, Ims 2014, Kristinsson 2014…)
“...language never occurred alone as a factor and argument in
conflicts, but always operated as part, initially, of a larger
democratization process and, later, as part of a power struggle due
to momentous demographic and socio-economic transformations.
Language was, in short, an emblematic argument that became
shorthand for a larger set of issues.” (Blommaert 2011: 1).
Comparative research. Issues.
• Focus on “-isms”
• Most ideologies are apparently shaped by the same forces
(grand narratives), such as nationalism or rationalism
• The research lacks reflection over the power and
institutionalisation of different discourses
• For example, Lithuanian purism is much stronger than Icelandic on
the institutional level
Project: comparison of language ideologies in
Lithuania, Norway and Serbia
Project: comparison of language ideologies in
Lithuania, Norway and Serbia

• Data:
• Online and media discourse
• The “expert voice” (articles,
interviews with language experts)
• The “vox populi” (comments)
• Major online newsportals
• 187 articles
• 989 comments from a
corpus of approx. 10 000
Approaching the data
Approaching the data
• Construct a theoretical model in order to compare ideologies, limit
ideology to certain ideological aspects.
Approaching the data
• Construct a theoretical model in order to compare ideologies, limit
ideology to certain ideological aspects.
• Method: Review of seminal publications and research dealing with
issues of language ideology on the macro level.
• Bourdieu 1991, Milroy & Milroy 1999, Cameron 1995, Milroy 2001, Bauman &
Briggs 2003
• Gorham 2000, Geeraerts 2003, Moschonas 2004, Stroud 2004, Bermel 2007,
Milani 2007, Spitzmüller 2007, Berthele 2008, Polzenhagen & Dirven 2008,
Tardy 2009, Milani 2010, Reyes 2013
 Theoretical model
Three aspects of language ideology:
(I) Representation, (II) Expertise, (III)
Function
Theoretical model:
(I) Representation, (II) Expertise, (III)
Function
• Representation, the aspect that describes the imagined
(homogenous) group behind a language or a language variety. (f. ex.
an ethnic, civic, social, age-based group etc.)
• Expertise, the aspect that defines legitimate, or ‘good’ language. It
can be internal (in the mind of the speaker), external (defined by
authorities, institutions, norm-setters etc.), autonomous (language is
its own master, divorced from speakers and authorities)
• Function, or what function of language is idealized. In most cases it is
the communicative, instrumentalist or the symbolic function.
And the language of our people (…) witnessed the opposite: we were
very sedentary for thousands of years, that is why our language keeps
lots of the archaic features, which can be found only back in proto-
Indo-European. (…) You have to agree, it is a great victory for a small
nation, because of which the great languages of the world discover the
Lithuanian language – one of the most archaic Indo-European
languages. (LT exp 01)
I can easily accept that Norwegian words get a new meaning or
spellings as development of language. But when ordinary Norwegian
words are replaced with English ones, that I call dilution. (NO vxp 01)
Ethnic representation
And the language of our people (…) witnessed the opposite: we were
very sedentary for thousands of years, that is why our language keeps
lots of the archaic features, which can be found only back in proto-
Indo-European. (…) You have to agree, it is a great victory for a small
nation, because of which the great languages of the world discover the
Lithuanian language – one of the most archaic Indo-European
languages. (LT exp 01)
I can easily accept that Norwegian words get a new meaning or
spellings as development of language. But when ordinary Norwegian
words are replaced with English ones, that I call dilution. (NO vxp 01)
Geographical representation
To listen to people who are rooted in their dialect and do not try to
speak unnaturally, it is beautiful. Pure music. (NO vxp 02)

What’s worst, even dialects (officially loved and preserved by all, but
actually left to die out) are also considered huge errors (!), and
ridiculous stereotypes are supported (as if being a dialect speaker
makes one a villager, stupid, uneducated and similar). In general, if we
want to have dialects, let’s really use them. This is going too far. One
language is the best, and everything else that somewhat does not fit
the norm, is considered a linguistic abomination. The sad truth.. (LT vxp
02)
External expertise
Even though the modern life is mostly democratized, and the border
between the allowed and the not allowed moved, we have to have
moderation when it comes to language. Slang should not penetrate
into the literary language. The danger are not single words, but
constructions that disrupt the linguistic structure. (SR exp 01)

We used to laugh at Roma people, because of their collective lack of

education and because there none of them is able to speak, the same
goes for people from Leskovac and that area, who would have thought
our kids would fall to that level. (SR vxp 01)
External expertise
Mano vaikas pirmokas. Rasyt mokykloj nereik. Kryziukai-nuliukai. Mas savo
laiku viska raseme. Ranka. Ir uzduotis, ir atsakymus. Zinoma,
susirasinejimas telefonais nepadejo - pripratom be lietuvisku raidziu. Todel
turbut neverta stebetis kai baige univerka nemoka laisko parasyti
taisyklingai. ATSIPRASAU IS ANKSTO - ZINUTE IS TELEFONO.(LT vxp 03)

My kid is in the first class. They do not write at school. Tic tac toe. In our
times, we wrote things. With our hand. Both question and answers. Of
course, communication through mobile phones changed it - we got used
to writing without Lithuanian letters. That is why it is probably not
surprising when [they] cannot write an email correctly after finished
university. SORRY IN ADVANCE - MESSAGE FROM TELEPHONE.
Internal expertise
What is grammar? Dry rules that the Language Council punched out for
us? No, language is a social and mental ability and we have in a way
created grammar ourselves, all of us. It is exactly therefore it is so
exciting. (NO exp 01)

When you need to promptly text a message, I can swear that no one is
thinking about language that suffers – there is no such a thing. (…) I
suggest to look at the norm in the way scholarship looks at it. Norms
come from usage, not from the head of the linguist. (LT exp 02)
Autonomous expertise
One can make rules, one can use the red pen, one can explain and
argument. But the internal powers of language are stronger than all
parents and teachers together. (…) Language lives its own life and has
its own strong will. (NO exp 02)

They forget that language is like dough, a chronically movable mass that
slowly changes form. This is, for example, the main reason Old
Norwegian is unreadable for most Norwegians. (NO vxp 03)
Function – communicative
We live in a society and time where language in all countries is in fast
development. Languages are designed for a time of letters, long time
for writing and having time to think through that you are doing. What
do we have today? Enormous amounts of opinions, conversations and
communication in general that happens instantly and constantly. To
have a language full of rules and norm that are not even intuitive is a
problem. Not the errors themselves. Languages need reforms they have
to adopt to an environment where everything is intuitive and quick.
(NO vxp 04)
Function – social (status) identification
How should we put into the heads of young people, that beautiful,
expressive, correct language is one’ business card, and language errors
and inability to communicate thoughts still will not help them in social
life. (…) Language is not only an instrument, but one of the indices of
one’s personality (LT exp 03)

Your mother tongue will always remain the one language you speak the
best, no one is an exception here. If you cannot even speak that
language and if your vocabulary suffices only for communication, then
you will forever appear uneducated. (SR vxp 02)
Potential for comparison: Qualitative
• Dividing certain aspects/notions into furhter smaller categories, such as
the ethnic representation:
Potential for comparison: Qualitative
• Dividing certain aspects/notions into furhter smaller categories, such as the ethnic
representation:
Neither Dositej nor Vuk wanted to impose Serbian language upon the non-Serbs.
Serbian language is only for the Serbs, and all the Serbs. But what Dositej and Vuk
understood as Serbs – was not always liked by the Serbs. Neither in Vuk’s times, as
today, did all the Serbs, wanted to call themselves Serbs. In a nearly two hundred
years of the history of Serbian language (since Vuk till nowadays), did parts of the
Štokavian language community proclaim themselves separate peoples. Two of them,
according to religious criteria: the Croats and the Muslims, and the latter ones gave
themselves the name – Bosniaks. The third part, even though religiously identical
with the Serbs, looking up to the Croats and the Muslims, also proclaimed
themselves – Montenegrins. And what is more interesting, all of them abolished the
Serbian name of Vuk’s language, renaming it so-called Croatian, Bosnian/Bosniak
and Montenegrin language. (SR exp 02)
Potential for comparison: Qualitative
• Dividing certain aspects/notions into furhter smaller categories, such as the ethnic
representation:
Neither Dositej nor Vuk wanted to impose Serbian language upon the non-Serbs.
Serbian language is only for the Serbs, and all the Serbs. But what Dositej and Vuk
understood as Serbs – was not always liked by the Serbs. Neither in Vuk’s times, as
today, did all the Serbs, wanted to call themselves Serbs. In a nearly two hundred
years of the history of Serbian language (…), did parts of the Štokavian language
community proclaim themselves separate peoples. Two of them, according to
religious criteria: the Croats and the Muslims, and the latter ones gave themselves
the name – Bosniaks. The third part, even though religiously identical with the Serbs,
looking up to the Croats and the Muslims, also proclaimed themselves –
Montenegrins. And what is more interesting, all of them abolished the Serbian name
of Vuk’s language, renaming it so-called Croatian, Bosnian/Bosniak and Montenegrin
language. (SR exp 02)
Potential for comparison: Quantitative
Vox populi:
• Clear dominance of ethnic representation and external expertise in
both Lithuania, Norway and Serbia
• Can be interpreted as a ‘monoglot’ linguistic ideal, the core belief “that a
society is in effect monolingual…coupled with a denial of practices that point
toward factual multilingualism and linguistic diversity” (Silverstein 1996, as
cited in Blommaert 2006: 243–44)
• Symbolic function more prominent in Lithuania and Serbia,
communicative in Norway (why?)
Potential for comparison: Quantitative
Langauge experts:
• Clear dominance of internal or autonomous expertise and
communicative function amongst Norwegian academic experts
(functioning as «myth-busters»)
• Clear dominance of ethnic representation, external expertise and
symbolic function amongst Lithuanian and Serbian academic experts
(functioning as nation-builders, langauge protectors and ‘educators’)
Pitfalls
• The model does not work well with irony and cynicism
• Less focus on historical discourses
• Researcher’s own ideology?
• Correcting others – authority or emancipation?