LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989)

KALBŲ RYŠIAI IR SĄVEIKOS

BILINGUALISM, LANGUAGE INTERACTION. THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

VYTAUTAS ŠERNAS

SOCIAL AND PEDAGOGICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF MULTILINGUALISM

There are 127 languages in the Soviet Union: 36 Iberian-Caucasian, 25 Turkic, 24 Indo-European, 22 Mongolic, Tungusic and Manchu, and 20 Finno-Ugric. A considerable number of countries are known (Canada, Switzerland, India, Belgium, China, Indonesia, Puerto Rico, Turkey, etc.) where different nations speak their own languages (the states are multinational, but the nations are monolingual). Regional monolingualism is also characteristic of the Soviet country. Russians make up about half of the Soviet country's population: 52.4%, that is, 137,397,000 out of 262,085,000 (1979). Among bilinguals, Russians account for 3.6% (Вестник 1980, 41, 42).

There is also multilingualism¹, when several of its forms operate within one republic, for example, Soviet Lithuania: Lithuanian–Russian, Russian–Lithuanian, Lithuanian–Polish, Polish–Lithuanian, and so on.

To study the interaction of languages in a multilingual republic, it is necessary to take into account their social and pedagogical-psychological² phenomena, regularities, and distinctive features.

Some social problems of multilingualism. They are as old as humanity itself. Much has already been achieved in the Soviet country over the past seventy years: at the Tenth Party Congress, with V. Lenin in attendance, the program for the education of the peoples of Russia was approved, creating the conditions for the cultures and languages of individual peoples and ethnic groups to grow and expanding the spheres in which these languages were used; documentation in native languages was maintained in all branches of the national economy and in factories; it was required that people appointed to positions of responsibility should know the language of the local population well and be familiar with their psychology and way of life. Literary works, popular-science literature, journalism, and periodicals began to be published in various languages. All this helped the native language to flourish. Today, however, before the law on the state status of the Lithuanian language was adopted, the situation had become quite different: the spheres in which the native language was used had been greatly restricted, managers could get by without knowing it, and so on. “Our theoretical thinking owes much to the practice of national relations. After all, it is a fact, comrades, that instead of actively studying real phenomena of national—

¹ The term “multilingualism” (Russian многоязычие, German Mehrsprachigkeit, English multilingualism, French polyglossie) refers to the practical (not theoretical) use of several languages for various purposes (listening, speaking, writing, reading, translating, or all types of language activity taken together). If necessary, multilingualism can be subdivided into trilingualism, quadrilingualism, and so on. When discussing the learning of three or four languages at school, we also use the term “multilingualism” in a qualified sense (school-based, not sociological). Many authors abroad use the term “bilingualism” regardless of the number of languages. The concept of bilingualism is probably most useful when examining the historical, genetic, and structural relations between only two languages.

² Other approaches are also possible: historical, geographical, sociological, linguistic, graphic (according to the emergence of writing), and so on.

135

In the sphere of national relations […], some specialists in our social sciences produced “celebratory” treatises for a long time, which sometimes resembled lofty toasts more than serious scientific research. It must be acknowledged that mistakes made in the sphere of national relations, and their manifestations, remained in the shadows, or it was unacceptable to speak about them” (Gorbačiovas 1987 01 27).

The shortcomings of the social sciences in studying national relations are also characteristic of sociolinguistics and the analysis of social problems of multilingualism:

1. National minorities in the Soviet country, who make up half (47.5%) of the country's entire population (1979 census data), need to know Russian in addition to their native language, while Russians, Poles, and other minorities living in Lithuania need to know the state language, Lithuanian, well. The USSR system of public education has achieved the result that Lithuanians learn Russian well. But Lithuanian is still taught very poorly in non-Lithuanian schools in Lithuania. However, what type of bilingualism are we aiming for: 1) the adequate parallel use of two languages (A and B); 2) the assimilation of languages, in which the A language gives way to the B language; 3) the mixing of languages, in which the A and B languages become a new language system? There is no common position on this issue in the country. From 1950 to 1965, a campaign was conducted—through the journal “Русский язык в национальной школе” and other channels—to promote the mixing of languages in the bilingual consciousness; however, production suffers from the mixing of the A or B languages, communication is disrupted, as is the efficient transfer of information, and especially the languages themselves.

Another tendency in bilingualism was also observed: language assimilation. As early as the beginning of the 1960s, 60–70% of the Komi, Mari, Mordvins, Udmurts, Ossetians, Chechens, Buryats, Ingush, and Kabardians surveyed were fluent in their native language and Russian (Дешериев 1973, 93).

The 1959, 1970, and 1979 census data show that fewer and fewer members of individual ethnic groups report the language of their nationality as their native language; compare (in order of census year): 54.9%—51.3%—43.1% of Evenks; 93.9%—81.6%—78.3% of Chukchi; 81.4%—58%—46.4% of Evenks; 86.3%—69.1%—55.8% of Nanai; 76.3%—49.5%—30.6% of Nivkh. However, the authorities took notice, and in 1980 the resolution “On Measures for the Further Development of the Economic and Social Life of the Northern Nationalities’ Inhabited Regions” was adopted by the CPSU Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers. The resolution also addresses the need for various measures to help develop the languages of the peoples of the North and to study their writing systems from linguistic and sociological perspectives. Thus, the Soviet government rejected assimilative bilingualism as well, because “national relations in our country are a living issue of real life. We must be extraordinarily attentive and tactful in all areas that touch on people’s national interests and national feelings” (Gorbačiovas 1987, 54). The words of Č. Aitmatovas deserve attention: “…some who are always in a hurry say that national languages are unnecessary […], urge people to merge more quickly. Such national nihilism, though concealed beneath an imitation of internationalism, is in fact even more reactionary than nationalism itself […]. The world is beautiful because it is multilingual and many-faced. Nature itself created it this way” (Известия 1987 06 20). Every nation wants to live and preserve its language. An assimilationist policy is characteristic of the capitalist world, “like a mill” that grinds down national differences (see Leninas 1959, 34). The Leninist language poli

136

cy is alien to assimilative bilingualism and an assimilationist policy. This is a great achievement of Soviet power and its Leninist language policy, a cultural treasure and a source of pride for the country. V. Lenin had already pointed out that, when considering the question of language policy, the national and the all-national must not be set in opposition; both must be reconciled (Leninas (M., 1982). T. 45. P. 240). Fostering love for one's nation and one's language is not nationalism.

The third tendency in bilingualism is acceptable: the parallel use of the A and B languages in an adequate manner, but each for its intended purpose: for example, Lithuanian as the state language in the republic, and Russian as the means of communication among the peoples of the USSR. The coordinated efforts of sociologists, educators, and psychologists are needed to shape this type of bilingualism more purposefully among the republic's residents. Educational, cultural, and production institutions, enterprises, and organizations should provide every possible assistance in implementing the concept developed by these scholars; at the same time, it is necessary to prevent the mixing of languages in people's consciousness.

2. Bilingualism can be one-sided (A residents are bilingual, while B residents are monolingual) or reciprocal, when residents of A and B are bilingual. The 1979 census data show that 48% of the population in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR are fluent in Russian as a second language; of these, 52.2% are Lithuanians, 61% Poles, 44.9% Belarusians, 46.3% Ukrainians, 29.8% Jews, 34% Latvians, 49.7% Tatars, 35% Roma, and 65.4% members of other national minorities living in the republic. In all, 85% of the population are fluent in Lithuanian as a native or second language: 55.8% of Latvians, 45.5% of Roma, 36% of Russians, and 32.5% of Jews know it well. Altogether, 28.1% of residents belonging to other nationalities are bilingual.

One-sided bilingualism is more prevalent in our republic: as many as 52.2% of Lithuanians are fluent in Russian, whereas Russians (36%), Poles (11.6%), Belarusians (12.9%), and Ukrainians (15.5%) are 1.5–3–4 times less likely to know the language of the local population. Lithuania is evidently hospitable to newcomers, as well as to their culture (Liekis 1987 12 12). These words of V. Lenin are also worth recalling: “Since the remnants of nationalism are a particular form of defense against Great Russian chauvinism, a determined struggle against Great Russian chauvinism is the surest means of overcoming nationalist remnants” (Leninas 1978, 334—335). As the materials of the all-Union conference “The Development of National Relations under Mature Socialism,” organized by the CPSU Central Committee, show, it is necessary not only to learn Russian well as a means of communication among the peoples of the USSR, but also to ensure that “Russians and representatives of other nationalities graduating from the republic’s schools know the language of the principal nationality well (and know, feel, and tolerate their psychology, way of life, and culture. — V. Š.). This will make it possible to employ them more actively in the national economy, the party and state apparatus, and the cultural sphere” (Воспитывать … 1982, 52). This is also of great importance for improving the internationalist and patriotic education of the republic’s residents in a spirit of mutual respect and tolerance. The resolution adopted by the LKP Central Committee in the spring of 1987, “On Measures to Improve National Relations in the Republic and Increase the Effectiveness of Internationalist and Patriotic Education,” also calls for fostering reciprocal bilingualism; it states, among other things: “Provide comprehensive assistance […] in learning Lithuanian to those residents of the republic who do not yet know it” (Tiesa, 1987 04 02). This idea is also enshrined in the law on Lithuanian as the state language. bos.

Reciprocal bilingualism is an acceptable approach, in which people in contact with one another know each other’s languages. To ensure that residents of other nationalities in the republic learn Lithuanian

137

it is necessary: to develop a system of demand for the Lithuanian language; to prepare and publish textbooks for learning Lithuanian as a non-native language independently, and to provide them with a corresponding audio anthology; to require publishers to supply the republic’s residents periodically with dictionaries and glossaries (Lithuanian–Russian, etc.); to increase the time devoted to teaching Lithuanian in Russian- and Polish-language secondary schools, bringing it into line with the number of hours allocated to Russian in Lithuanian-language schools; to begin training Lithuanian language and literature teachers for Russian- and Polish-language schools; to allow only Lithuanian-language specialists to teach Lithuanian in primary grades; to ensure that non-Lithuanians graduating from the republic’s basic schools can continue studying core subjects in Lithuanian in vocational-technical schools, technicums, and higher education institutions; to encourage dissertations on methods of teaching Lithuanian language and literature in Russian- and Polish-language schools; to open Russian- and Polish-language schools with intensive Lithuanian instruction. The editorial offices of “Czerwony sztandar,” “Tėvynės šviesa,” “Komjaunimo tiesos,” “Sovietskaja Litva,” “Švyturio,” and others should promote the learning of Lithuanian more actively among the republic’s Poles and Russians, help foster motives and demand for learning this language, and provide methodological recommendations.

3. According to data collected by K. Garšva and J. Trifonov in 1985–1986, of the 1,075 respondents, 78.2% said they wanted to learn to speak, read, and write Russian, 6%—to read and write, and 11.8%—simply to converse. Among Russians, 73.2% indicated a need to learn to speak, read, and write Lithuanian, 3.4%—only to read and write, 18.6%—simply to converse, and 4.6% did not answer. The data presented show that the principal goal of Russian-language teaching in the republic’s general and vocational secondary schools should be comprehensive: teaching not only spoken language, as recommended in the current Russian-language curriculum for grades V–IX in schools where instruction is in Lithuanian, but also reading and writing. The same goal should be set in Lithuanian-language curricula for schools where instruction is in Russian and Polish.

4. In developing a national school system, research on trilingualism must be expanded without delay. It should involve not only educators but also psychologists, physiologists, and sociologists. For scientists in the republic, the country, and the world firmly oppose teaching a second or third language until the native language has taken root in pupils’ minds, become a means of communication, and the learning of written native language has begun (see Jacikevičius 1970, 27, 51, 80, 250, 255; Русский язык в национальной школе 1987, 21; Вайнрайх 1979, 129–131, 139–142; Balčikonis 1978, 106; Daukšytė 1980, 141; Laužikas, Ulvydas, Vabalas-Gudaitis, Komenskis, Sauvugeot et al.). In my experience researching the learning of several languages, learning three languages in early childhood can cause various undesirable physiological and psychological effects, especially among pupils with weaker mental health, poorer health, slower growth, and so on: alphabets get mixed up in writing, and concepts and language systems become confused in pupils’ minds. This spontaneous multilingualism impedes the learning of Russian, the native language, and other languages. It can also cause pupils to stutter and slow the development of children’s minds and cognitive abilities, because the child must devote much energy and time to assimilating new, interfering material. And another point: how much effort will teachers and children have to expend to retain the information acquired in language lessons?! And what practical significance will it have for the formation of a child’s personality if, in primary grades, the child learns, say, 200 Russian

138

or other-language words? The only possible advantage would be that correct pronunciation of a foreign language is learned more easily. Wouldn’t an intensive foreign-language course concentrated in grades V–XII be more beneficial?..

5. In trying to teach several languages, sometimes none is properly learned—not the native language, nor Russian. Pupils not only cannot express their thoughts coherently, but also remain poorly literate. This is especially characteristic of pupils in Lithuanian-language schools where the Russian- or Polish-speaking environment is strong. For example, first-year students at one Vilnius vocational-technical school wrote a simple grade IX Lithuanian dictation, which the teacher graded as follows: 22 received a failing grade and 4 received the lowest passing grade. No one received a grade of three or four. Apparently, pupils in Lithuanian-language schools surrounded by a Russian- or Polish-speaking environment need intensified Lithuanian instruction, opportunities to attend relevant Lithuanian-language electives, and so on.

6. In 1913, V. Lenin wrote in the article “Critical Remarks on the National Question”: “To eliminate all feudal oppression, the oppression of all nations, and all privileges for one nation or one language is the unquestionable duty of the proletariat as a democratic force” (Leninas 1983. T. 24. P. 128). In the number of books published, our republic lags far behind the country’s average, the RTFSR, Estonia, and other republics (cf.: in 1985 the TSRS published 778 books per 100 inhabitants, the RTFSR—1206, the Latvian TSR—664, the Estonian TSR—1131, while the Lithuanian TSR published only 612). The Lithuanian TSR also lags in publishing periodicals, scholarly books, and brochures (see Liekis 1987 12 12). Moreover, bookstores in districts such as Alytus, Raseiniai, and others, as well as in some cities, are piled high with Russian-language books by Lithuanian writers, which few people buy; yet even if you very much wanted them, you could not obtain these authors’ works in Lithuanian. Books are published and distributed without sufficient regard for demand. If the RTFSR was to publish in 1988 sixteen foreign-language learning collections totaling 160 printer’s sheets, the Lithuanian TSR was to publish just one (once every 3—5 years), totaling 5 printer’s sheets, and even that by rotaprint. These and similar circumstances create a certain dissonance, violate V. Lenin’s injunction to the proletariat as a democratic force—to eliminate “privileges for one nation or one language”—and adversely affect the cultivation of internationalist sentiments. We must never forget “that we live in a multinational state, where all economic, social, cultural, and legal decisions always directly affect the national question as well. Let us act in the Leninist way: develop to the fullest the potential of every nation, every people of the Soviet Union” (Gorbačiovas 1987, 54).

A strong nation—a strong state!

Some pedagogical and psychological problems of multilingualism. I will draw attention to the most important issues in teaching several languages.

1. In a polyglot’s mind, linguistic phenomena, according to L. Shcherba, form certain systems of associations, which may relate to one another in different ways: 1) the two languages form two separate, autonomous systems of associations that have no connection with each other (autonomous domains of thought, pure bilingualism); 2) a single, unified, undifferentiated system of associations is formed. In this case, “each linguistic element has […] its own direct equivalent in the other language; translation presents no difficulty for the speaker […]

139

It might even be inaccurate to say that the people we are discussing know two languages: they know only one, but this language has two forms of expression, and one or the other is used.” (Щерба 1958, 48). This form of multilingualism causes language interference in the individual’s psyche.

Practice shows that spontaneous multilingualism is usually mixed. Under its conditions, the speech of someone who has learned a language is full of lexical, syntactic, and pronunciation foreignisms. L. Ščerba recognizes a single way of limiting mixed multilingualism—“consciously relying on the students’ mother tongue” (Щерба 1958, 57). Thus, the pedagogical formation of multilingualism is closely connected with transferring the internal regularities and rules of one language (interference and transposition) to another in the areas of pronunciation, lexis, phraseology, grammar, spelling, graphics, punctuation, and style (see Взаимодействие… 1971; Шярнас 1976, 150—189; Šernas 1979, 35—39, etc.).

Thus, language teaching and learning in the republic should help foster conscious, coordinated multilingualism and block the way to spontaneous multilingualism in the psyches of pupils and students; in reality, however, this is not currently the case. We can see this by examining the curricula and textbooks for Lithuanian, Russian, foreign, and other languages.

2. According to 87 teachers of Lithuanian, Russian, and foreign languages, the following help pupils and students learn other languages more quickly: the ability to draw on potential vocabulary, when unknown derived words are understood on the basis of the basic words of the language that have been learned (76% of the teachers surveyed think so); international vocabulary (82.7%); efficient use of a dictionary (74.8%); figurative language and the ability to develop it (50.8%); experience in analyzing sentences (74.8%); intolerance of linguistic shortcomings (77.3%); developing pupils’ memory (89.3%); assessment skills (68%); the ability to think logically (89.3%); note-taking (68%) and reviewing (65.3%) skills; reading technique and comprehension (88%); expressive reading skills (78.7%); the use of correction and self-correction (77.3%); writing skills (90%); orthographic awareness (88%); and so on.

As the responses of the aforementioned teachers of Lithuanian, Russian, and foreign languages show, practical comparison of language systems and phenomena helps combat language interference; translations from Lithuanian into other languages or from other languages into Lithuanian; situational exercises; exercises in only one language; the use of modeling; contrastive, phonetic, and stylistic exercises; and comprehensive text analysis. Drawings help overcome interference from phenomena in the internal system of a new language (for example: žámok and zamók).

3. Consideration of the following principles of language didactics and their rules, characteristic of learning one’s mother tongue, Russian, or a foreign language (for more detail, see Шярнас 1976, 100—190):

the functional-heuristic principle, which requires: a) creating a teaching system based on functional grammar and a language minimum, and making extensive use of various heuristic teaching methods, algorithms, and schemata; b) combining conscious and intuitive language learning, linking it with the subconscious sphere; c) ensuring that the language phenomena under study recur in exercises and that the exercises gradually become more difficult;

the principle of integration, which indicates that language must be taught comprehensively in accordance with specific objectives, with constant attention to the interrelationships and interdependence of different types of language activity and language levels, and to the use and development of pupils’ various cognitive abilities: thinking, imagination, emotions, will, attention, and memory

140

(visual, auditory, motor; short-term and long-term); consistently combine the deductive and inductive introduction of new language material and its systematization, and develop language skills;

the principle of forming a positive attitude, which requires establishing three levels for creating and regulating an attitude:

a) cognitive (intellectual), associated with internalized value-based goals and the meaningful attitude of a school pupil or student; b) positive emotions, affect, a major-key state (a constant positive readiness for activity); and c) activity (creative, linguistic, intellectual, educational, etc.), in which a person realizes their goals and plans with pleasure (see Šernas, Ramoškienė 1987, 168–177; Šernas 1987, 110–112);

the situational-thematic principle, which requires ensuring that educational and natural communication situations are created and used, and that language and the spiritual world of the personality are purposefully enriched in accordance with the planned topics;

consideration of the interaction of languages and cultures in teaching, based on relevant theories (Шярнас 1976, 150–188).

The examination of sociological problems shows what needs to be improved in order to further enhance the functioning of languages in the republic. Analysis of pedagogical and psychological problems opens up real paths toward the formation of coordinated, balanced multilingualism in the individual’s consciousness, with the aim of more rapidly overcoming the spontaneous, mixed multilingualism that is very widespread in Lithuania.

LITERATŪRA

Leninas V. Nacionalinės politikos ir proletarinio internacionalizmo klausimai. V., 1959.

Leninas V. TSKP apie proletarinį internacionalizmą. V., 1978.

M. Gorbačiovo kalba TSKP CK sausio plenume // Tiesa, 1987. Sausio 27.

Gorbačiovas M. Spalis ir persitvarkymas: revoliucija tęsiasi. V.: Mintis, 1987.

Balčikonis J. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1978. T. 1. P. 106.

Daukšytė J. Lietuvių ir rusų kalbų mokėjimo lygio, kaip ankstyvosios ir vėlyvosios dvikalbystės formavimosi rezultato, palyginimas // Mokymo ir auklėjimo klausimai. V., 1980. P. 77–78.

Jacikevičius A. Daugiakalbystės psichologija. V.: Mintis, 1970.

Liekis A. Spauda ir kultūra // Literatūra ir menas, 1987. Gruodžio 12.

Šernas V. Brolybės ir draugystės kalba // Komunistas, 1983. Nr 10. P. 25–28.

Šernas V. Kai kurie pedagoginiai ir sociologiniai kalbų mokymo aspektai daugiakalbystės sąlygomis // Socialinės lingvistikos problemos: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, XIX. V.: Mokslas, 1979. P. 35–40.

Šernas V. Teigiamos nuostatos sudarymo pedagoginiame procese principas // Harmoningai išsivysčiusios visuomeniškai aktyvios studento asmenybės ugdymas vykdant TSKP XXVII suvažiavimo nutarimus. V., 1987. P. 110–112.

Ленин В. И. Полн. собр. соч. Т. 45.

Вестник статистики. 1980. № 7. С. 41, 42.

Взаимодействие языков в процессе обучения / Под ред. В. Шярнаса. Вильнюс, 1971.

Воспитывать убежденных патриотов-интернационалистов. М., 1982.

Дешериев Ю. Развитие национальных языков и языка межнационального общения // Коммунист. М., 1973. № 1.

Русский язык в национальной школе (проблемы лингводидактики). / Под ред. Н. М. Шанского и М. З. Бакеевой. М.: Педагогика, 1977.

141

Шярнас В., Рамошкене А. Принцип создания педагогической установки как основа развития самостоятельной учебной деятельности // Науч. тр. вузов ЛитССР. Педагогика. Т. 22. 1987. С. 168–179.

Шярнас В. Очерки по лингводидактике. Вильнюс: Мокслас, 1976.

Щерба Л. В. Избранные работы по языкознанию и фонетике. Л., 1958. Т. 1.

СОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ И ПЕДАГОГИКО-ПСИХОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ МНОГОЯЗЫЧИЯ

Резюме

На основе исследования, анализа социальных явлений в республике и стране делается несколько выводов, важных для дальнейшего функционирования дву- и многоязычия среди населения республики, корректировки создавшегося состояния (конкретные цели и задачи обучения русскому, литовскому как второму; необходимость исследования раннего массового трехъязычия; необходимость корректировки издательской работы, оказавшейся в Литве на более низком уровне, чем в других республиках, и др.). В статье выдвигаются и некоторые, наиболее важные, педагогико-психологические положения, имеющие большое теоретическое и практическое значение для согласованного, координированного изучения нескольких языков (учет принципов лингводидактики, использование филологического и культурного опыта обучаемых и др.).