Suchergebnisse

By focusing on public communication, the current study aims to investigate how the concepts of solidarity and equality have influenced the norms of public communication in the West (Scandinavia) and what differences can be found in the context of Lithuania, where the late modernity did not follow the same patterns as in Western societies. This comparative study takes a diachronic approach to the use of the pronounsdu/Deandtu/Jūsand other address forms in Danish and Lithuanian. We examine these forms in view of democratization processes and the decreasing level of formality in the two societies. The question in focus is how address forms are used in Lithuanian and Danish dialogues in TV-series, which represent everyday communication between strangers in the second half of the 20thcentury and the 21stcentury. The empirical data for the research consists of two Danish series "Ka' De li' østers?" (1967) and "Bedrag" (2016-2019), as well as two Lithuanian TV-series "Petraičių šeimoje" (1964-1972) and "Giminės. Gyvenimas tęsiasi 3" (2017). The study covers almost six last decades and analyzes different forms of address that speakers use to meet the appropriate level of formality in daily conversations. The results have revealed significant differences in the development of Lithuanian and Danish societies and formal communication. The data indicates that Danish dialogues have become less formal over time, public communication emphasizes equality of interlocutors and does not mark differences in social status. Communication between Lithuanians remains formal; the results suggest that the choice of strategies in Lithuanian dialogues between strangers correspond to those used by Danes in the second half of the 20th century. However, it may be assumed that the process of informalisation in Lithuanian public communication is still in progress. ; Straipsnyje pristatomas lyginamasis dviejų bendruomenių tyrimas iš visuomenės demokratėjimo ir neformalėjimo perspektyvos. Pagrindinis tyrimo objektas – Lietuvos ir Danijos XX a. 7–8 dešimtmečio ir XXI a. 2 dešimtmečio TV serialuose nepažįstamų pašnekovų vartojami adresato įvardijimai, arba kreipiniai, reiškiami įvardžiais pagal modelįTu–Vous: lietuviųtuirJūs, danųduirDe. Siejant medijų istoriją su (post)moderniosios visuomenės raida, daroma prielaida, kad televizijoje fiksuojami kalbos pokyčiai galėtų būti interpretuojami ir kaip visuomenės pokyčiai. Tyrimas pateikiamas plačiame sociopolitiniame kontekste, kaip papildoma tyrimo medžiaga sintetinami ir aptariami įvairūs visuomenės, medijų ir viešosios kalbos raidos duomenys.

By focusing on public communication, the current study aims to investigate how the concepts of solidarity and equality have influenced the norms of public communication in the West (Scandinavia) and what differences can be found in the context of Lithuania, where the late modernity did not follow the same patterns as in Western societies. This comparative study takes a diachronic approach to the use of the pronouns du/De and tu/Jūs and other address forms in Danish and Lithuanian. We examine these forms in view of democratization processes and the decreasing level of formality in the two societies. The question in focus is how address forms are used in Lithuanian and Danish dialogues in TV-series, which represent everyday communication between strangers in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century. The empirical data for the research consists of two Danish series "Ka' De li' østers?" (1967) and "Bedrag" (2016- 2019), as well as two Lithuanian TV-series "Petraičių šeimoje" (1964-1972) and "Giminės. Gyvenimas tęsiasi 3" (2017). The study covers almost six last decades and analyzes different forms of address that speakers use to meet the appropriate level of formality in daily conversations. The results have revealed significant differences in the development of Lithuanian and Danish societies and formal communication. The data indicates that Danish dialogues have become less formal over time, public communication emphasizes equality of interlocutors and does not mark differences in social status. Communication between Lithuanians remains formal; the results suggest that the choice of strategies in Lithuanian dialogues between strangers correspond to those used by Danes in the second half of the 20th century. However, it may be assumed that the process of informalisation in Lithuanian public communication is still in progress.

By focusing on public communication, the current study aims to investigate how the concepts of solidarity and equality have influenced the norms of public communication in the West (Scandinavia) and what differences can be found in the context of Lithuania, where the late modernity did not follow the same patterns as in Western societies. This comparative study takes a diachronic approach to the use of the pronouns du/De and tu/Jūs and other address forms in Danish and Lithuanian. We examine these forms in view of democratization processes and the decreasing level of formality in the two societies. The question in focus is how address forms are used in Lithuanian and Danish dialogues in TV-series, which represent everyday communication between strangers in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century. The empirical data for the research consists of two Danish series "Ka' De li' østers?" (1967) and "Bedrag" (2016- 2019), as well as two Lithuanian TV-series "Petraičių šeimoje" (1964-1972) and "Giminės. Gyvenimas tęsiasi 3" (2017). The study covers almost six last decades and analyzes different forms of address that speakers use to meet the appropriate level of formality in daily conversations. The results have revealed significant differences in the development of Lithuanian and Danish societies and formal communication. The data indicates that Danish dialogues have become less formal over time, public communication emphasizes equality of interlocutors and does not mark differences in social status. Communication between Lithuanians remains formal; the results suggest that the choice of strategies in Lithuanian dialogues between strangers correspond to those used by Danes in the second half of the 20th century. However, it may be assumed that the process of informalisation in Lithuanian public communication is still in progress.

The paper investigates a twofold attitude towards linguistic diversity in the Lithuanian-speaking community, where, on the one hand, the dialects are valorised as a national and ethnographic asset and, on the other hand, certain restrictions on their use are imposed because of association with a lower social value and negative stereotypes. Three direct attitudinal studies serve as an empirical basis for the research: a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews and an experiment with high-school students on stereotypical traits of the dialect speaker. When discussing future prospects of dialect change, the overt values of the speakers are compared with the findings of the speaker evaluation experiment that have revealed subconscious values of dialectal speech. The research has shown that compared to the Soviet times, the ideological climate regarding dialects has become more politically correct. Positive attitudes are most prominent at a declarative level and when regional identity and the speaker's affiliation with a particular community have to be emphasised. Daily personal experiences, however, with the functionality of a dialect and evaluations of social and geographic mobility of dialect speakers, show a less favourable assessment of dialectal speech in comparison to the standard (non-dialectal) varieties. It is very much due to a frequent negative stereotyping of dialect speakers. The subconscious attitudes also reveal that the dialectal variability of speech has an arguably lower social meaning compared to the non-dialectal variability. The attitudes and practices of non-professional (lay) people may be claimed to reflect a double-faced standardization ideology of the Lithuanian language, which valorises dialects as an ecologic asset and at the same time limits their functioning by putting them in the reserve of "immobile" speakers. ; Straipsnyje kalbama apie tiesioginių tyrimų (reprezentatyvių apklausų, kokybinių interviu, eksperimentų) atskleidžiamas prieštaringas nuostatas lietuvių kalbos tarmių ir tarmės kalbėtojų atžvilgiu ir parodoma, kad tarmės gali būti aukštinamos kaip nacionalinė ir etnografinė vertybė, tačiau jų vartosena tuo pat metu ribojama dėl priskiriamos žemesnės socialinės vertės ir neigiamų stereotipų. Eilinių žmonių vertinimai pateikiami oficialiosios lietuvių kalbos politikos kontekste ir diskutuojama, kokie veiksniai lemia tolesnę tarmių raidą.

The paper investigates a twofold attitude towards linguistic diversity in the Lithuanian-speaking community, where, on the one hand, the dialects are valorised as a national and ethnographic asset and, on the other hand, certain restrictions on their use are imposed because of association with a lower social value and negative stereotypes. Three direct attitudinal studies serve as an empirical basis for the research: a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews and an experiment with high-school students on stereotypical traits of the dialect speaker. When discussing future prospects of dialect change, the overt values of the speakers are compared with the findings of the speaker evaluation experiment that have revealed subconscious values of dialectal speech. The research has shown that compared to the Soviet times, the ideological climate regarding dialects has become more politically correct. Positive attitudes are most prominent at a declarative level and when regional identity and the speaker's affiliation with a particular community have to be emphasised. Daily personal experiences, however, with the functionality of a dialect and evaluations of social and geographic mobility of dialect speakers, show a less favourable assessment of dialectal speech in comparison to the standard (non-dialectal) varieties. It is very much due to a frequent negative stereotyping of dialect speakers. The subconscious attitudes also reveal that the dialectal variability of speech has an arguably lower social meaning compared to the non-dialectal variability. The attitudes and practices of non-professional (lay) people may be claimed to reflect a double-faced standardization ideology of the Lithuanian language, which valorises dialects as an ecologic asset and at the same time limits their functioning by putting them in the reserve of "immobile" speakers.

The paper investigates a twofold attitude towards linguistic diversity in the Lithuanian-speaking community, where, on the one hand, the dialects are valorised as a national and ethnographic asset and, on the other hand, certain restrictions on their use are imposed because of association with a lower social value and negative stereotypes. Three direct attitudinal studies serve as an empirical basis for the research: a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews and an experiment with high-school students on stereotypical traits of the dialect speaker. When discussing future prospects of dialect change, the overt values of the speakers are compared with the findings of the speaker evaluation experiment that have revealed subconscious values of dialectal speech. The research has shown that compared to the Soviet times, the ideological climate regarding dialects has become more politically correct. Positive attitudes are most prominent at a declarative level and when regional identity and the speaker's affiliation with a particular community have to be emphasised. Daily personal experiences, however, with the functionality of a dialect and evaluations of social and geographic mobility of dialect speakers, show a less favourable assessment of dialectal speech in comparison to the standard (non-dialectal) varieties. It is very much due to a frequent negative stereotyping of dialect speakers. The subconscious attitudes also reveal that the dialectal variability of speech has an arguably lower social meaning compared to the non-dialectal variability. The attitudes and practices of non-professional (lay) people may be claimed to reflect a double-faced standardization ideology of the Lithuanian language, which valorises dialects as an ecologic asset and at the same time limits their functioning by putting them in the reserve of "immobile" speakers.

The paper investigates a twofold attitude towards linguistic diversity in the Lithuanian-speaking community, where, on the one hand, the dialects are valorised as a national and ethnographic asset and, on the other hand, certain restrictions on their use are imposed because of association with a lower social value and negative stereotypes. Three direct attitudinal studies serve as an empirical basis for the research: a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews and an experiment with high-school students on stereotypical traits of the dialect speaker. When discussing future prospects of dialect change, the overt values of the speakers are compared with the findings of the speaker evaluation experiment that have revealed subconscious values of dialectal speech. The research has shown that compared to the Soviet times, the ideological climate regarding dialects has become more politically correct. Positive attitudes are most prominent at a declarative level and when regional identity and the speaker's affiliation with a particular community have to be emphasised. Daily personal experiences, however, with the functionality of a dialect and evaluations of social and geographic mobility of dialect speakers, show a less favourable assessment of dialectal speech in comparison to the standard (non-dialectal) varieties. It is very much due to a frequent negative stereotyping of dialect speakers. The subconscious attitudes also reveal that the dialectal variability of speech has an arguably lower social meaning compared to the non-dialectal variability. The attitudes and practices of non-professional (lay) people may be claimed to reflect a double-faced standardization ideology of the Lithuanian language, which valorises dialects as an ecologic asset and at the same time limits their functioning by putting them in the reserve of "immobile" speakers.

The paper investigates a twofold attitude towards linguistic diversity in the Lithuanian-speaking community, where, on the one hand, the dialects are valorised as a national and ethnographic asset and, on the other hand, certain restrictions on their use are imposed because of association with a lower social value and negative stereotypes. Three direct attitudinal studies serve as an empirical basis for the research: a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews and an experiment with high-school students on stereotypical traits of the dialect speaker. When discussing future prospects of dialect change, the overt values of the speakers are compared with the findings of the speaker evaluation experiment that have revealed subconscious values of dialectal speech. The research has shown that compared to the Soviet times, the ideological climate regarding dialects has become more politically correct. Positive attitudes are most prominent at a declarative level and when regional identity and the speaker's affiliation with a particular community have to be emphasised. Daily personal experiences, however, with the functionality of a dialect and evaluations of social and geographic mobility of dialect speakers, show a less favourable assessment of dialectal speech in comparison to the standard (non-dialectal) varieties. It is very much due to a frequent negative stereotyping of dialect speakers. The subconscious attitudes also reveal that the dialectal variability of speech has an arguably lower social meaning compared to the non-dialectal variability. The attitudes and practices of non-professional (lay) people may be claimed to reflect a double-faced standardization ideology of the Lithuanian language, which valorises dialects as an ecologic asset and at the same time limits their functioning by putting them in the reserve of "immobile" speakers.