The article analyses the strategies of employing intertexts –primarily, allusions – in contemporary Lithuanian media. The study relies on the idea that recognition of an allusion in text and its appropriate interpretation shows that both the author and the reader belong to the same cultural circle which can be identified on the basis of age, education, field of interests and other factors. In order to reach her/his audience, a publicist has to write in the language that the audience understands best. Therefore, if a reader fails to recognise allusions or s/he interprets them differently than intended, s/he is not part of the cultural circle.   The selected method of the study was testing respondents in order to determine how effectively allusions are recognised and interpreted by a small yet significant segment of the readership, namely, students aged 18 to 20. The respondents had to identify and interpret allusions in fifty sentences collected from articles by Rimvydas Valatka, a distinguished Lithuanian publicist, whose writings are characteristic of rich rhetorical expression. The results demonstrate that only about one fourth of respondents interpret publicistic allusions adequately: Adequate interpretation – 27%, unreasonable interpretation – 25%, no interpretation – 48%. The statistics of the recognition and interpretation of allusions used in the texts fluctuates considerably in different areas of precedent texts: Biblical allusions – 37%, folklore allusions – 32%, historical allusions – 12%, cinematographic allusions – 49%, cultural allusions – 25%, literary allusions – 25%. It is possible to conclude that numerous intertexts used by Rimvydas Valatka are not targeted at the student-age audience, except for the obvious shift from the Soviet- and Russian-specific items (only 11% of precedent texts that belong to this category were identified by respondents) and that this segment of the readership remains in the periphery of Rimvydas Valatka’s cultural circle.

Straipsnyje aptariami terminai kalbos politika ir kalbos planavimas. Apžvelgiama šių terminų vartojimo istorija, konstatuojama pastaruosius keliasdešimt metų trunkanti jų painiava tiek užsienio mokslinėje literatūroje (daugiausia anglų kalba), tiek ir Lietuvoje. Aptariami dabartinės vartosenos trūkumai, pateikiami argumentai, kaip abu terminus atskirti ir vartoti.

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.

The article interrogates the conventional conception prevalent in contemporary scientific discourse that the author is the only creator of an allusion, whereas the addressee can only understand the author’s idea / intention “correctly” or “incorrectly”. Based on the new perspective, this study discusses the communicative structure of allusions, investigates the mechanism of interpreting allusions and considers the issue of “arbitration” of meaning-making in interpreting allusions. The key insights offered in the study are as follows:a) Allusion is an open structure which the addressee can interpret in their own way. An adequate / correct understanding of the author’s idea is not a mandatory feature of an allusion.b) The role of the addressee in the process of understanding / interpreting allusions is as crucial as is the role of the creator of the allusion.c) The addressee interprets an allusion rather than trying to guess the author’s idea / intention behind it.d) Understanding of an allusion in a different way than intended by the author does not mean that the process of allusion interpretation is over.e) An allusion which is interpreted differently than intended by the author does not lose its characteristic features.f) The “correctness” of interpreting an allusion may be determined by a person whose background knowledge encompasses both the background knowledge of the author and that of the addressee.On the basis of these theoretical premises, this study continues a previous analysis based on the empirical linguistic data reported in the article Perception of intertexts and identification of the cultural circle in publicistic texts by Rimvydas Valatka (published in the research journal Lietuvių kalba (‘The Lithuanian Language’), Issue 10 (2016)), www.lietuviukalba.lt. Applying the method of respondent testing, the previous study looked at the way contemporary youth perceive unmarked intertexts (primarily allusions) encountered in Lithuanian mass media. The results of the study revealed that Vilnius University students between 18 and 20 years of age are able to recognise and adequately interpret only one fourth of precedent texts alluded to in publicistic texts by Rimvydas Valatka. Respondents showed the highest results in the recognition of cinematographic (49%) and biblical (37%) precedent texts and the lowest results in the identification of historical (12%) precedent texts. The results of the empirical research have demonstrated that precedent texts “migrate” between different areas which correspond to relevant background knowledge of the addressees.