LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXI (1994)

KALBOS NORMALIZACIJOS KLAUSIMAI

STASYS KEINYS

THE LITHUANIAN STATE, NATION AND LANGUAGE

Though the past slew and gnawed at You with all its might,—perhaps for a hundred years You have never ceased to ring in Your own way.

A. Jakštas. Into the Lithuanian language.

1900

The existence of its own national state is of great importance to the fate of nations and their languages. Only a nation that is itself master of the land of its ancestors and parents and of its resources, that freely develops the country’s economy, science and culture at its own discretion, protects and nurtures its language, customs and beliefs, and independently maintains relations with other nations and their states on an equal footing, can feel equal to others and be a distinctive member and creator of the modern world. After all, every nation is like a wonderful, unique, distinctive flower in humanity’s garden. This garden has flourished especially in our times, when, from the ruins of the colonial system that oppressed a large part of humanity and kept it under foreign domination, many of the world’s nations have risen to independent life and restored or created their own national states. The day will come when the nations still enslaved will also be liberated.

A national state usually takes constant care of the nation’s language—normal and favorable conditions are created for its development, study and teaching, and every effort is made to cultivate it so that it can readily meet all the economic, material and spiritual needs of the society that uses it. “The higher education and spiritual ennoblement of a nation can be achieved only in its native language, for it is like a gateway through which all great and fruitful ideas reach the nation’s soul,” wrote Liudvikas Rėza in “The History of the Lithuanian Bible”¹. These beautiful and true words, written 175 years ago, are well worth remembering even in our time.

All languages are necessary to humanity; all, like their users themselves, are equal by nature. No language, as a language, is superior to others. It makes no difference whether it is used by hundreds of millions or by only hundreds of people. When a language is praised excessively, when it is set against other languages as better, more beautiful, more perfect, or the like, and when epithets such as great, mighty are attached to it, this shows that the people who do so—and sometimes at least the ruling classes of such a society—have a great

¹ Cit. from: Jovaišas A. Liudvikas Rėza. V.: Vaga, 1969. P. 170.

57

spiritual ill health. Such views are probably most often, if not always, accompanied by disparagement of other languages, and quite often by efforts to impose one’s own language on others. History shows that this is especially characteristic of multiethnic states formed from conquerors and the conquered. The languages of subjugated peoples generally lack normal, natural conditions for development and functioning; they are more or less affected, and often even deliberately pressured, by the languages of the oppressors, which occupy a dominant position.

In the modern world there are many languages that have not developed as literary languages and do not meet all the needs of society. It is generally thought that approximately nine-tenths of the world’s languages have no written form and are not literary languages. And even the approximately 300 literary languages differ greatly in their degree of development and functions. Among them are languages in which it is impossible to obtain not only higher but also secondary education, and, unfortunately, often even primary education. Most of the languages of the more than one hundred peoples of the USSR remain in this situation.

However, everyone cherishes their mother tongue. All peoples strive to preserve, cultivate, and use their language in every way, and this is the inalienable right of every people and every person.

The Lithuanian State and Language

One form of legally establishing a language, and in certain cases also of defending its rights, is declaring a people’s language to be the state language. The state language is generally the principal language of state life, used in all areas of the state’s activity. Laws are promulgated in the state language (their originals may, where necessary, also have official translations into other languages, including languages used by other residents of that state); official records are kept in this language, and it is the principal language of the courts, education, and other fields.

What role did the Lithuanian language play in the history of the Lithuanian state? There is no doubt that in the old days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (DLK), especially during its power and true greatness, spoken Lithuanian was used in the courts of both the grand dukes and many nobles, as well as in the courts of law and other institutions of the duchy. However, there is no evidence that the language was also used in written documents. Lithuanian writing appeared only in the sixteenth century, by which time the Lithuanian nobility had probably become largely Polonized, or at least influenced by Polish, and whether anything had been written in Lithuanian earlier can only be conjectured. In his collection of Lithuanian words from the old Lithuanian chancery language (which was not Lithuanian), K. Jablonskis draws on texts dating from the end of the fourteenth century (the oldest such documents known) essentially through to the fall of the DLK at the end of the eighteenth century. He says that the DLK “official documents were written mostly in non-Lithuanian [emphasis added in the quotation. — S. K.]—in Russian, later in Polish, and also in Latin and German. Those documents written in non-Lithuanian contain quite a number of Lithuanian words”².

It is very well known that DLK documents were written first and foremost in the so-called chancery language of the duchy, which was a certain East Slavic language (some call it Russian, others Old Belarusian, and still others something else). The famous statute was also issued in that language—

² Jablonskis K. Lietuviški žodžiai senosios Lietuvos raštinių kalboje: Tekstai. K., 1941. D. 1, P. VII.

58

būausieji teisiniai DLK dokumentai „Lietuvos Statutas“ (1529, 1566 ir 1588 m.), kurie, be to, buvo išversti į lotynų ir lenkų kalbas (deja, ne lietuvių). Respublikos (Žečpospolitos) laikais DLK’ valstybės gyvenime vis plačiau įsigalėjo lenkų kalba. Lietuvių kalba nebuvo dėstomoji, mokslo ir raštinės kalba nė senajame Vilniaus universitete (1579—1832), nors, be abejo, tam tikrų nuopelnų lietuvių kalbai universitetas turi, bet tai jau kita kalba. Vis dėlto tai neleidžia manyti, kad lietuvių kalba skambėjo tik kaimo trobėlėse ir dvarų bei bažnyčių laukuose. Tiek tie gausūs lietuviški žodžiai bei posakiai kitomis kalbomis parašytuose dokumentuose, tiek ir tam tikrų dokumentų likučiai rodo, kad DLK valstybės gyvenime lietuvių kalba buvo gyva iki galo.

After the partition of the Republic and Lithuania’s transfer to the Russian Empire, conditions for the Lithuanian language to be used in the life of a foreign state apparently no longer existed in any meaningful sense. A fierce policy of Russification then began and was continually expanded, including the demand that writing be Russified (during the press ban, 1864–1904).

In the first years of the independent Republic of Lithuania, Lithuanian undoubtedly served as the state language, but this was not confirmed by law—it was included neither in the “Fundamental Provisions of the Provisional Constitution of the State of Lithuania” adopted by the State Council on 2 November 1918 and 4 April 1919, nor mentioned in the “Provisional Constitution of the State of Lithuania” adopted by the Constituent Seimas on 10 June 1920.

For the first time in the history of the Lithuanian state, Lithuanian was officially declared the language of the independent national Lithuanian state—the Republic of Lithuania—in 1922. This was done by the Constituent Seimas in the “Constitution of the State of Lithuania,” adopted on 1 August that year, whose §6 proclaimed: “The state language is Lithuanian. The use of local languages shall be established by law”³.

The status of Lithuanian as the state language is also addressed in the later constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania. Point 7 of the “Constitution of the State of Lithuania” promulgated by the President of the Republic in 1928 is exactly the same as §6 of the earlier Constitution (1922) adopted by the Seimas⁴. The Fourth Seimas, in the “Constitution of Lithuania” it adopted in 1938, changed the wording concerning other languages. Here is the full text of Article 7 of that Constitution: “The state language is Lithuanian. / The law shall establish in which regions of Lithuania and in which public institutions, in addition to Lithuanian, other languages may also be used”⁵.

The 1938 “Constitution of Lithuania” remained in force until the occupation of the Republic of Lithuania and its annexation to the USSR. In the constitutions in force in Soviet-era Lithuania (1940 and 1978), Lithuanian is not considered the state language—indeed, they make no mention of a state language at all. Lithuanian is mentioned only in the article of those constitutions dealing with the language of court proceedings. More generally, the article on the right to education refers to teaching in one’s native language.

³ Lietuvos valstybės konstitucijos. V.: Mokslas, 1989. P. [7].

⁴ Ibid. P. [46].

⁵ Ibid. P. [59].

59

With the rise of a new wave of national liberation, after nearly half a century of oppression, on 18 November 1988 the Supreme Council of the Lithuanian SSR restored Lithuanian’s status as the state language. An additional Article 77 was then adopted as an amendment to the republic’s constitution (basic law), declaring: “The state language of the Lithuanian SSR is Lithuanian. / The Lithuanian SSR shall ensure the use of the Lithuanian language in the activities of state and public bodies, in educational, cultural, scientific, industrial and other institutions, enterprises and organizations; the state shall take care of the comprehensive development and teaching of the Lithuanian language. Conditions shall be created for the development of other languages used in the Lithuanian SSR, and for learning and using Russian as a means of communication among the peoples of the USSR.”⁶. This wording is excessively compromising: one of the most important language-policy issues is resolved on the basis of the bilingualism of national minorities and Russian, which was insistently imposed in the Soviet Union. Although this wording represented a small step forward and may perhaps have eased the status of Lithuanian somewhat at the time, it could not satisfy the public—and did not—because even legally, the causes that had relegated Lithuanian to the status of a second language in many areas of life, and had entirely ousted it from some, had not been eliminated.

Three months later, at the end of February 1989, a draft of a new constitution for the Lithuanian SSR was published in the press. Although it remained only a draft, it is worth recalling for its treatment of the Lithuanian-language issue. Article 81 of the draft, after declaring Lithuanian the state language, does not list the areas in which it is to be used and makes no mention of Russian; it speaks only of guarantees for other languages: “The Lithuanian SSR guarantees the necessary conditions for the development of other languages used in the Republic.”⁷ Of course, one may ask why the state’s basic law should address the development of other languages and guarantee the conditions for it. In the constitutions of independent Lithuania of 1922, 1928 and 1938, the relationship with other languages appears to have been formulated much better, although that wording too could be refined.

On 11 March 1990, meeting in its first session, the Supreme Council of the Republic adopted the Act on the Restoration of the Independent State of Lithuania, reinstated the validity of the “Constitution of Lithuania” of 12 May 1938 throughout the territory of the restored Republic of Lithuania, immediately suspended its operation, and approved the “Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania.” Article 7 of this law concerns language: “The state language of the Republic of Lithuania is Lithuanian. / The Republic of Lithuania shall ensure the use of the Lithuanian language in the activities of state and public bodies, in educational, cultural, scientific, industrial and other institutions, enterprises and organizations; the State shall take care of the comprehensive development and teaching of the Lithuanian language. Conditions shall be created for the use and development of the languages of national communities.”⁸. In this wording, too, as in the wording of 18 November 1988 mentioned above, there is broad and rather non-

⁶ Ibid. P. [197]; Lithuanian SSR State Language: Key Documents. V.: Mintis, 1989. P. 11.

⁷ Constitutions of the Lithuanian State. P. [216].

⁸ First Session of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania (First Convocation) (10–13 March 1990, sittings I–VII) / Transcripts. V., 1990. P. 313; Collection of Documents of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania and the Presidium of the Supreme Council. V., 1991. Vol. 1. P. 34.

60

the concept of the state language was understood in a clearly defined way, that is, its functions and fields of use. This happened because the article of the Basic Law (Constitution) undertook to list the fields in which the state language is used; moreover, this was done with insufficient precision and completeness (the phrase “and in other institutions, enterprises, and organizations” was added). Such matters are generally established not in a constitution but in other state laws (there could be a separate language law or a law on the use of the state language), just as, for example, the constitution merely states what the state emblem is and what its flag looks like, while where, when, and how they are used is established by certain other laws. In addition, the article uses the term of indefinite meaning languages of national communities.

Such is the legal position of the question of the state Lithuanian language. The legal formalization of any right or status makes lawful the acts by which that right or status is exercised within the limits of the law. This is a very important precondition of legality, but it does not determine the language’s actual position in the life of society. Given suitable conditions, a language can perform the duties of a state language even without being designated as such by law. As already mentioned, the question of a state language was not raised in the provisional constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania of 1918—1922, yet Lithuanian was in fact already such a language at that time. Russian in fact performed the functions of the state language not only in the Russian SFSR but throughout the USSR, although this position was officially recognized for it only in the law “On the Languages of the Peoples of the USSR” of April 24, 1990. It is true that this law called Russian not the state language but the official language of the USSR, but this may be regarded as a terminological game, since in USSR legal practice the terms official language and state language mean the same thing⁹.

It is entirely normal and natural that in a nation-state the language of that nation is used as the state language. By granting it state-language status, the position of the standard national language in the life of the state is merely recognized in law. Under normal circumstances, people of other nationalities understand that they live in a state that is not their own nation-state and therefore do not demand that their languages be made equal in rights to the state’s principal language, much less that they be recognized as even more important. For example, Lithuanians, Chinese, or Russians living in France, Hungary, Germany, or even the USA would probably never think of demanding that Lithuanian, Chinese, or Russian be made equal in rights to French, Hungarian, German, or English in those countries, declared state languages alongside them, or even recognized as a means of communication among the diverse peoples of those countries. Yet such problems have constantly arisen and continue to be raised in “sovereign states” such as the union Soviet republics. There, Russians who live either permanently or temporarily (for example, military personnel, various employees sent for a time, etc.)—or people of other nationalities who, usually without being asked, are automatically classed with Russians as Russian-speaking people—may demand for their (Russian) language in any republic

⁹ See Юридический энциклопедический словарь. 2-е дополненное издание / Гл. ред. А. Я. Сухарев. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1987. С. 87, 303 (entries государственный язык, официальный язык); Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija. V., 1984. T. 12. P. 47 (entry valstybinė kalba).

61

the status of a state language, but in reality a privileged position—that is, that the true owners of that land should speak to them in their own (the newcomers’) language. Moreover, their rights are ardently supported by the central (in reality, Russian) government, so ardently that usually only the “injustices” and rights of Russian-speaking people are discussed, with complete disregard for the injustices and wrongs inflicted on all the other peoples of this enormous superstate. Fortunately for everyone, Armenians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, Tatars, Ukrainians, Germans, Jews, and people of many other nationalities living outside their own republics or countries are, at least for now, not making such demands for their languages. Incidentally, in Lithuania the question of the Polish language is also being raised in part of the so-called Vilnius region.

The languages of the union republics of the USSR were not recognized as state languages (neither throughout the USSR nor within those republics), on the basis of V. Lenin’s views on the matter. V. Lenin’s pronouncements also provide the theoretical foundation for the language policy pursued by the CPSU and the Soviet state. But such views were not always followed. It is now usually concealed that, at the beginning of the 1920s, dozens of languages were declared state languages within their respective union and autonomous republics. In addition, writing systems were being created for many languages (initially based on an alphabet other than the Russian one), and terminology for various fields was being compiled. However, a struggle against the “bourgeois nationalists” who dealt with language issues was soon launched. There are many blank spots in the history here too: it is not explained whose decisions or instructions abolished the state-language statuses and when, reworked alphabets on the basis of the Russian alphabet, and massively Russified the terminology of national minorities. There must therefore be many secret protocols—decisions and instructions on language issues. The impression is that this brief period of national revival was allowed in order to expose the “nationalist” enemies of the chauvinist Bolsheviks, just as the NEP (New Economic Policy), proclaimed at the same time, enabled them to expose “class” enemies. After that, the infernal machine of human destruction was set in motion.

The unquestionable aim of a language policy that prohibits elevating languages to the status of state languages is to deprive national minorities (that is, non-Russians) of a legal basis for defending their native languages and to create favorable conditions for another language (that is, Russian) to be introduced ever more widely into all spheres of state and public life. Such a policy was implemented meticulously and ruthlessly throughout the Soviet Union. After the destruction of the independent Lithuanian state in 1940, the Lithuanian language found itself in such circumstances.

The Language of an Enslaved Nation

In the Soviet Union, the use of the Russian language was systematically expanded to encompass ever-new areas of state and public life. At the same time, the languages of national minorities, including the indigenous populations of the so-called Union republics, were gradually pushed out of their respective domains of use. Such language policy follows directly from the fundamental principle of the CPSU’s national policy, which is considered to be the merging of nations (слияние наций), in other words, assimilation. This policy is followed without exception, and no expense is spared to implement it; necessary measures are pursued without regard to the means required.

For many years, the USSR pursued the overt Russification of all non-Russian nations and peoples, without exception. To this end, economic, political,

62

cultural, and demographic measures were used in a coordinated manner, and the necessary propaganda was conducted. Here is what one of the theorists of the Communist Party’s national policy wrote relatively recently: “Developed socialism is fundamentally changing the linguistic life of all nations and peoples (наций и народностей). Every year, the weight and significance of languages that are not the national languages of those nations and peoples grows. This is especially evident in the growing role of the Russian language as a means of communication among nations (средства межнационального общения). Clearly, at present there are virtually no single-nation (однонациональных) territories in our country. Every year, the republics become more multinational (многонациональность); economic interdependence (взаимозависимость) grows stronger, as does the territorial and spiritual-cultural interpenetration of nations and peoples (взаимопроникновение).

Developed socialism raises the economies and cultures of the republics to a new, higher level. The exchange of personnel expands, and large contingents (контингенты) of national-economy specialists are transferred from one republic to another; every year, the cultural achievements of one another are increasingly assimilated (взаимообогащение достижениями культуры). Communication among nations and peoples intensifies many times over. These objective and historically progressive changes in society cannot but have a fundamental influence on the nature of the means of communication of a nation or people”¹⁰.

In the Soviet Union, everything is considered unified—a unified (that is, unitary) state, a unified (that is, single) economic complex, a unified Soviet culture and literature, a unified Soviet science, and finally a unified Soviet people or nation (the polysemy of the Russian word народ¹¹ makes it possible to interpret the term единый советский народ as one pleases). In this sequence of terms denoting unity—that is, singularity, indivisibility, or inseparability—one is missing: a unified Soviet language. Yet this term, too, is easily inferred and most often used, only expressed in other words—as the language of communication among nations (язык межнационального общения); and that language is, of course, “unified.” The status of Russian as the means of communication among the peoples of the USSR is generally understood in the broadest sense—it has been extended from the sphere of relations among the republics and between the central authorities and the republics to communication among people anywhere in the USSR. For many years, it was promoted in this way. And it must be said that a certain part of society (judging by all indications, a considerable one), under constant linguistic pressure and the pervasive promotion of etiquette favoring Russian in communication, had grown accustomed to this situation or even reconciled itself to it (conversations with strangers in public places—in enterprises, institutions, vehicles, etc., especially in larger cities—were often begun in Russian; Russian was generally used in the public life of ethnically mixed groups, and so on). To some extent, it seems, one of the pillars of Soviet bilingualism, J. Dešerijevas, was right when asked about “communication with people of other na-

¹⁰ Ханазаров К. Х. Решение национально-языковой проблемы в СССР. Издание 2-ое, дополн. М.: Изд-во политической лит-ры, 1982. С. 153—154.

¹¹ S. Ozhegov’s “Dictionary of the Russian Language” explains 4 meanings of the word народ: 1. the inhabitants of a state or country; 2. a nation; 3. the principal, working part of a country’s population; 4. people. (Ожегов С. И. Словарь русского языка. Издание 7-ое, стереотипное. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1968. С. 378).

63

“among its representatives in the republic and beyond its borders,” in tables listing all the union republics (except Russia), giving one answer — the Russian language¹².

After the Soviet Union occupied and destroyed its independent national state in 1940, the Lithuanian nation immediately experienced what Soviet national policy—and the language policy that flowed from it—was. The Lithuanian language ceased to be the state language, and Russian began to be used alongside it; before long, it had been completely ousted from some areas, above all the military. Gradually, it was pushed out, or even completely displaced, from many other spheres of public life as well (it was not used in military institutions or schools, party schools, or Ministry of Internal Affairs schools; it was almost completely displaced from transport, especially air, maritime, and rail transport, from many factories and even sectors of production, and from the paperwork of institutions). Russian gained ever greater dominance in the activities of the Communist Party and government institutions. It became the principal public language of life in many ethnically mixed work collectives (in visual propaganda, various publicly posted documents, and also meetings, consultations, and gatherings). Scholarly works began to be published almost exclusively in Russian, with the principal exceptions being Lithuanian philology and Lithuanian history. The Lithuanian language was pushed out of culture (the dubbing of films ceased), the public information media (most of Lithuanian television programming was in Russian throughout, Soviet television programs were also rebroadcast, the number of newspapers and journals published in Russian or in two languages grew, while the volume of Lithuanian-language publications was reduced severalfold), book publishing (an ever larger share of books was published in Russian), and so on.

The entire education system was turned into an instrument of Russification. First, Russian-language instruction was introduced in all schools, from primary to higher education. For many years, Russian had already been taught in kindergartens. Some specialties at schools operating in Lithuania were taught only in Russian; some subjects were also taught in Russian (military training everywhere, and in schools training specialists, sometimes other subjects too). Textbooks for most secondary-school subjects were translated from Russian, while students had to study most of the specialized subjects taught at higher-education institutions, technical colleges, and even vocational schools using Russian-language textbooks. Not all teaching aids for secondary schools were even prepared in Lithuanian (history and geography maps, most school atlases).

Essentially all civilian public signs were presented in two languages, while military signs were usually in Russian alone. Bilingualism was imposed ever more widely and stringently in every sphere of life. It was made the core of the language policy of the CPSU and the USSR authorities. The main direction of the development of language relations in the USSR was from monolingualism in the national minorities (non-Russian peoples), through bilingualism, to monolingualism in Russian. Essentially, the entire Soviet Union had entered the stage of bilingualism among national minorities, while in some places, even in union republics, it seemed that a rapid shift toward monolingualism in Russian was under way. In Lithuania, some of the larger cities and, apparently, the Polish national minority were most affected by bilingualism.

¹² Дешериев Ю. Д. Закономерности развития литературных языков народов СССР в советскую эпоху. Развитие общественных функций литературных языков. М.: Наука, 1978. С. 86, 106, 133, 161, 184, 206, 229, 253, 274, 299, 326, 352, 369, 387.

64

The large numbers of officials, other employees, specialists, and even workers sent from the USSR to Communist Party, government, and other institutions, as well as enterprises and construction sites, who neither knew nor learned Lithuanian, were meant to sustain and expand the use of Russian and to establish bilingualism. Of course, there were also those who moved there on their own initiative, seeking a better life. Thus, the colonization of the country began from the very outset, coordinated with the repression of Lithuanians and other local inhabitants, their deportation to Siberia, and, finally, repatriations and recruitment for work in other republics.

As the number of Russian-speaking people grew (the military must also be counted among them), Russian schools and other educational and cultural institutions were established, and increasing numbers of periodicals and books were published in Russian. This, in turn, was linked to the growing numbers of Russian specialists and employees in those fields.

The highest authorities and officials of the USSR and Russia, invoking the defense of human rights, seek to preserve the privileged position of Russian and other Russian-speaking colonists in the lands of national minorities, while clearly and tendentiously calling those who decide to return to their homeland refugees. The constant prioritization of the interests of Russians and other Russian-speaking people during the years of Soviet restructuring that began in 1985, and the emphasis on and elevation of this issue to the foremost place in national relations, laid bare the essence of the national policy pursued by the CPSU and the USSR government. The USSR was and remained a proponent of the national oppression and destruction of national minorities; it was intended to be transformed from a prison of peoples (as the Tsarist Russian Empire was commonly called) into a graveyard of peoples.

However, the final resolution of the national question in the Soviet Union—that is, the disappearance of national minorities, officially called their merger—is desired by no nation. Therefore, at the first opportunity, a powerful movement of national revival and liberation arose throughout the vast state. Lithuania is the first to embark on the path of restoring an independent national state. There is no doubt that all the peoples subjugated by the USSR that still retain even a measure of spiritual strength to do so will follow that path, because only in a national state can a people’s life be organized according to its will, and its language flourish without restriction.

June 1990

THE LITHUANIAN STATE, NATION AND LANGUAGE

Summary

The first part of this paper briefly surveys the usage of the Lithuanian language during the existence of the Lithuanian state. In spite of the fact that the governmental institutions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania used Lithuanian, for the writing purposes the so-called office language of the Eastern Slavs, later Polish and Latin were used. At the end of the 18th century, after Lithuania was annexed to Russia, the Lithuanian language was completely replaced by Russian. For some time even the Lithuanian spelling was Russified by force. (Lithuanian press was banned from 1864 to 1904.)

The year 1918 saw the restoration of independent Lithuania, and the Lithuanian language started to be used as a state language. In accordance with “The Constitution of the Lithuanian State“ adopted by the Constituent Diet in 1922, Lithuanian was declared the official state language. However in 1940, after the annexation of the independent Lithuanian Republic by the

^5. Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics, XXXI

65

Soviet Union, Lithuanian lost its status as a state language. It regained its status in 1988, when the Supreme Council of the then Lithuanian SSR adopted an additional article to the Constitution. This article is repeated in the New Provisional Law of the independent Republic of Lithuania adopted on March 11, 1990.

The second part of the present paper deals with the status of languages in the former Soviet Union. At the beginning of the 1940s, the language policy favoured the development of the so-called little languages. A number of languages were declared state languages within the borders of a separate union and autonomous republics. However, soon it was passed on the Great Russian Chauvinism-based assimilation of national minorities. The Russian language started to be widely used in all spheres of life of both union and autonomous republics. Exceptional conditions were created for the Russian language and Russian-speaking people. During the years of perestrojka, the influence of Russian increased considerably, supported by general Soviet policy toward non-Russians and their languages, which even allowed declaring Russian as an official language of the then USSR.