LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989)

KALBŲ RYŠIAI IR SĄVEIKOS

PETRAS KALNIUS

QUESTIONS OF BILINGUALISM IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

Recently, bilingualism has increasingly attracted the interest of ethnographers, who have conducted extensive research on this subject in other republics. Lithuanian SSR ethnographers have also touched on these questions in some studies of the spiritual culture of the republic’s current population (examining family members’ ethnic orientations in cultural life, etc.). Information on the spread of bilingualism and the functioning of languages was collected from 2,731 residents of the republic (1,415 urban and 1,316 rural residents). A questionnaire survey of families was conducted in Elektrėnai, Vilnius, and Kaunas, as well as in the districts of Telšiai, Zarasai, Švenčionys, Varėna, Jonava, and Vilkaviškis. The collected data characterize all social strata of the republic’s population.

In 1976, in Elektrėnai, as part of a study of the everyday life and culture of employees of Lithuania’s Nuclear Power Plant, 276 workers and engineering staff answered questions about their knowledge and use of languages at home. Industrial workers and employees in Vilnius and Kaunas, as well as factory engineering staff, were surveyed by questionnaire in 1977–1978. Responses were received from 500 people of various nationalities (the questions concerned their native language, knowledge of languages, and their use at work and at home).

Language matters were explored in somewhat greater depth in 1981–1982, when families of nonindustrial employees in Vilnius and Kaunas were surveyed. The study examined knowledge of the native and other languages, asked what had helped respondents most to learn another language, and also asked about language use at home and in various spheres of public life, as well as language preferences when seeking information on the radio, on television, and in the press. In this study, 336 cultural and educational workers of various nationalities in Vilnius and 312 in Kaunas were surveyed.

In 1982, the N. Miklukho-Maklai Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, together with ethnographers from the Institute of History of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, surveyed 1,316 rural residents of various occupations, ages, and educational backgrounds in the districts of Jonava, Telšiai, Vilkaviškis, Varėna, Švenčionys, Šakiai, and Tauragė. The questionnaire’s language-related questions were similar to those used in surveying residents of Vilnius and Kaunas. In addition, other questions were included (for example, which language respondents spoke at meetings, etc.).

In Elektrėnai, a large proportion of those surveyed did not indicate how well they knew a second language of the USSR’s peoples, so this can be discussed only in very general terms. Lithuanians knew Russian considerably better than residents of other nationalities knew Lithuanian. Among Lithuanians, 95.9% knew Russian well or poorly, while 70% of those of other nationalities knew Lithuanian. The second language was known well because the absolute majority of the nuclear power plant employees living here at the time of the survey were middle-aged or younger, highly qualified, and mostly had secondary or specialized education, with many having higher education—

143

and some also had higher education (thus, they learned the second language not only at work and in their residential environment, but also at school). Moreover, most residents of nonlocal nationalities had come to Elektrėnai from other Lithuanian cities and districts. They already had some language skills when they arrived. A higher percentage of Lithuanians read newspapers and books in two languages.

Of all the factors, age was the most important in determining language proficiency. Lithuanians and people of other nationalities who knew the second language least well, or did not know it at all, were elderly. Education, by contrast, had no noticeable effect on language proficiency in this case. Even in ethnically homogeneous families, people read newspapers and, in some cases, as respondents reported, spoke two languages (Lithuanian–Polish, Lithuanian–Russian) at home. Among people of Polish nationality and some Lithuanians, Lithuanian–Polish–Russian trilingualism was clearly becoming established. The absolute majority of Polish speakers came from peasant families in the districts of Trakai and Kaišiadorys (the Polish language had previously been very widespread there).

A survey of industrial workers in Vilnius and Kaunas showed that respondents’ native language did not always correspond to their nationality. Lithuanian was identified as the native language by 97.5% of Lithuanians, Russian by 94.6% of Russians, and Polish by 83.3% of Poles. As we can see, the native language most often corresponded to nationality in the responses of Lithuanians and least often in those of Poles, a relatively large proportion of whom (9.8%) considered Russian to be their native language, while a considerably smaller proportion (1.6%)¹ considered Lithuanian their native language. In addition, 1.1% of Lithuanians identified Russian as their native language, and 0.3% identified Polish; 3% of Russians considered Lithuanian their native language, and 0.7% considered Polish.

Industrial workers in the republic’s major cities knew a second language of the USSR’s peoples fairly well. However, mass bilingualism was found only among Lithuanians. They greatly outstripped residents of all other nationalities in knowledge of a second language. Whereas 86.2% of Lithuanians in Vilnius and 52.2% in Kaunas reported knowing Russian well, only 39.4% and 42.1% of Russians, respectively, knew Lithuanian well. In this respect, Poles in Vilnius stood out because a very large proportion of them (98%) reported knowing Russian well, whereas only 40% knew Lithuanian well.

There are considerably more Lithuanians who know Russian well in Vilnius, whereas there are somewhat more Russians who know Lithuanian well in Kaunas. The influence of the ethnic environment is perhaps felt most strongly through work collectives and ethnically mixed families, since the relationship between these factors and knowledge of a second language is very close. For example, in Kaunas industrial enterprises where those surveyed worked, with rare exceptions, Russian as well as Lithuanian employees used Lithuanian at work. In Vilnius factories, by contrast, Russian was used much more often. Of all the Lithuanians surveyed here, 47% most often spoke Lithuanian at work and 53% Russian; among Russians, the corresponding figures were 4.3% and 95.7%, and among Poles, 10% and 90%.

For people of all nationalities, a mixed marriage is very important in learning a second language. For example, in Vilnius, those who had formed mixed families knew a second language two to three times more often than those married to people of their own nationality. In general, in the environment of industrial workers, both of the most widely used languages (Lithuanian and Russian)

¹Here and below, the portion of the percentage total (up to 100) that is missing indicates how many people did not answer the question.

144

The languages have a firm position not only among Lithuanians and Russians. Other nationalities also often speak them at home, including those not married to Lithuanians or Russians. For example, in Vilnius and Kaunas, Lithuanian families accounted for 51.3% of all surveyed families, while 58.4% of all surveyed families used only Lithuanian at home. Russian families accounted for 14.1%, while 23.8% of all surveyed families spoke only Russian at home. By contrast, Polish was of considerably less importance. For instance, only 58% of Polish families spoke exclusively Polish.

The language use of non-manual employees in Vilnius and Kaunas was studied in greater detail. The questionnaire survey data showed that intellectuals’ attitudes in this area resemble those of workers, although they also have certain distinctive features. It was found that intellectuals’ mother tongue coincides with their nationality even more often than it does among industrial workers. For instance, in Vilnius, 98.6% of Lithuanians, 97% of Russians, and 98% of Poles considered the language of their nationality their mother tongue; in Kaunas, the corresponding figures were 99.5%, 97.6%, and 85.8%. A considerably greater number of discrepancies between nationality and mother tongue occur among the ethnic minorities of Vilnius and Kaunas—Belarusians, Ukrainians, Jews, and others.

People of different nationalities vary in their orientation toward the language of their nationality as their mother tongue; this apparently also determines differences in their knowledge of a second language, that is, differences in the degree of bilingualism among these nationalities. A survey of non-manual employees in Vilnius and Kaunas showed that non-Lithuanians know Lithuanian considerably less well than Lithuanians know Russian. Strangely enough, in this social group of urban residents—whose members, almost without exception, had higher or specialized secondary education—relatively few spoke a second language fluently. For example, in Vilnius only 34.8% of Lithuanian intellectuals reported speaking Russian fluently, while 26.5% said they spoke it at an intermediate level; in Kaunas the corresponding figures were 32.1% and 22.1% (the others reported speaking Russian poorly or did not answer the question).

Knowledge of Lithuanian varies considerably among people of different nationalities. In Vilnius, 49% of Poles, 40% of Jews, 30% of Belarusians, 15% of Russians, and 1.3% of Ukrainians reported speaking Lithuanian fluently; in Kaunas, the corresponding figures were 42.8%, 33.3%, 25.0%, 16.8%, and 7.1%. The lower proportion of Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians who knew Lithuanian may be explained by the fact that a considerable number of people of these nationalities among the teaching staff, who were also included in the survey, worked temporarily in Lithuania, and many had lived in the republic for a relatively short time. By contrast, Poles were mostly descendants of local residents of the republic, and most of them had encountered Lithuanian from childhood. Moreover, these figures were apparently higher among cultural and education workers of Polish nationality than among workers and collective-farmers of the same nationality (cf. the 1979 census of the republic’s population).

The education of non-manual employees did not always determine their knowledge of a second language (it had a direct effect only for Lithuanians). A higher percentage of non-Lithuanians who spoke Lithuanian fluently had specialized secondary rather than higher education. Representatives of all nationalities who had lived in these cities for a longer time knew the second language better than those who had moved there recently. Even Lithuanians born and raised in Kaunas knew Russian better than those who had recently moved there from the districts.

Among Lithuanian cultural workers, 55.5% spoke Russian fluently, as did 46.0% of Lithuanian education workers; Lithuanian, in turn, was spoken by 61.3% and only

10. 678

145

27.3% of non-Lithuanians in the professions mentioned. This is also attributable to the fact that cultural workers’ teams were more often mixed, whereas teachers’ teams were more often monoethnic. In addition, teachers of non-local nationalities were more mobile migrants than cultural workers of the same nationalities. To some extent, language proficiency is also determined by the nature of the work: a teacher working in a school where instruction is in Russian or Polish can manage without Lithuanian, whereas a cultural worker in the republic cannot.

The intellectuals surveyed in Vilnius and Kaunas knew a second language less well than the republic’s population in general. For instance, according to the 1979 All-Union Population Census, 52.2% of Lithuanians living in Lithuania spoke Russian fluently, while 35.2% of Russians, 11.1% of Poles, 12.7% of Belarusians, 15.2% of Ukrainians, and 31.2% of Jews spoke Lithuanian. The higher rates of second-language proficiency among the republic’s population were due to urban residents employed in productive sectors of the national economy—industry, construction, transport, and so on (work teams in these sectors are often multiethnic, whereas teams of non-manual employees are more monoethnic). The fact that Polish intellectuals living in Vilnius and Kaunas knew Lithuanian better than Poles living in the republic as a whole was apparently due mainly to the fact that a large proportion of them lived in Vilnius, Šalčininkai, and other eastern districts of the republic, near the Belarusian border, where the percentage of people of Lithuanian nationality is low (and so, in everyday life, at work, and in public life, they more often get by without Lithuanian).

For Lithuanians and Poles, school was the most important factor in learning a second language, whereas for representatives of all other nationalities it was the workplace. The family played a lesser role. These factors had different degrees of importance in learning a second language for people of different generations. The older the respondents, the greater the proportion who had learned a second language at work, and the smaller the proportion who had learned it at school. The younger generation, by contrast, learned it mostly at school.

Children from ethnically mixed families are more likely than those from families of a single nationality to act as bilinguals in different situations, and less likely to use their parents’ mother tongues. Moreover, unlike their parents, children from mixed families more often already behave as bilinguals. Although the family in general is not of great importance in the spread of bilingualism, ethnically mixed families considered separately are a more significant factor in the spread and use of bilingualism than schools, workplaces, or mass media.

Among non-manual employees, as among industrial workers, the most widespread form of bilingualism is Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism. Other forms of bilingualism (Lithuanian–Polish, Russian–Polish) are considerably less widespread among non-manual employees than among industrial workers. Analysis of the surveyed respondents’ answers about their language preferences when listening to the radio, watching television, and reading the press revealed that members of families of a single nationality more often chose information in one language (their mother tongue), while members of mixed families chose two languages.

The 1982 survey of rural residents of the Lithuanian SSR allows a more detailed picture to be formed only for people of Lithuanian nationality, since the data on mixed families processed at the calculation center of the USSR Academy of Sciences and submitted to the Institute of History of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences have not yet been differentiated by respondents’ nationality. We therefore present data only on the language attitudes of rural Lithuanian residents. The relationship between the mother tongue of Lithuanian villagers

146

The connection between language and nationality is even closer than among city residents. In the responses of Lithuanian respondents in almost all occupations, these characteristics coincide, and only among unskilled manual workers are there one or two people of Lithuanian nationality for whom Lithuanian is not their native language. Since a considerable proportion of those surveyed belong to ethnically mixed areas, it should be assumed that these individuals are descendants of families mixed in national terms. Lithuanians living in the countryside know Russian considerably less well than city residents, and, overall, less well than all residents of the republic (5% of men and as many as 15% of women said they did not know Russian, while 11 and 25%, respectively, speak it with difficulty, 33 and 34% somewhat haltingly, 32 and 14% fairly fluently, and 19 and 11% completely fluently). As we can see, men know Russian considerably better than women. Their service in the Soviet Army undoubtedly helped them learn it better. Russian is known least well by those engaged in unskilled manual work (most often older people), and best by those engaged in skilled manual work, rather than by specialists in agriculture. Even in ethnically mixed areas, an absolute majority of Lithuanians speak Lithuanian at work. However, a small proportion also speak Russian, Polish, or two languages there—their native language and either Polish or Russian. Lithuanian women speak Russian and Polish at work less often than men. At meetings, women more often (97%) than men (95%) speak, or would speak if necessary, in Lithuanian. Thus, for Lithuanians living in the countryside, Lithuanian is the most important language of communication. Women's attachment to their native language is stronger than men's.

Thus, in the course of ethnographic research, while collecting material on the everyday life and culture of urban and rural families in the contemporary Lithuanian SSR, it was established that, in general, Lithuanians know Russian better than residents of non-indigenous nationalities know Lithuanian. This is characteristic of representatives of all social strata. However, regarding residents of non-indigenous nationalities, social affiliation has varying significance: among industrial workers, Russians know Lithuanian somewhat better than Poles, whereas among urban employees in non-production sectors, Poles know it better than Russians. In all cases, Poles surpass Lithuanians in their knowledge of Russian. More intensive migration was an important factor hindering people of other nationalities from learning Lithuanian better. School and work collectives are more important for learning a second language, while the family is less important. Considered separately, ethnically mixed families are predominantly bilingual or multilingual.

QUESTIONS OF BILINGUALISM IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

Abstract

In the course of a study of the spiritual culture of the republic's rural and urban population, conducted by ethnographers of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR in 1976–1982, and by research fellows of the N. N. Miklukho-Maklai Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences together with Lithuanian ethnographers in 1982, certain patterns in the spread of bilingualism and in the knowledge of Lithuanian and Russian among representatives of the republic's various nationalities were identified. A total of 2,731 questionnaires were completed. The survey data established that Lithuanians, overall, know Russian noticeably better than representatives of non-indigenous nationalities know Lithuanian. This is a general pattern across all social strata of the population.

10*

147

Social affiliation plays a varying role for non-indigenous nationalities. Thus, among industrial workers, people of Russian nationality know Lithuanian somewhat better than Poles, whereas among employees not engaged in production, they know it less well. In language learning, schools and work collectives play a more significant role than the family; however, considered individually, interethnic families play a primary role.