Dvikalbystės problemų tyrimas Estijos TSR

LIETUVIU KALBOTYR- OS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989) LANGUAGE RELATIONS AND SELF-CONS- CIOUSNESS REVIEW, REVIEWS, INDEX DALIA BARAUSKAI- TE STUDY OF BILINGUAL PROBLEMS IN ESTONIAN SSR Cu en ly, he p oblems o bilingualism a e being in ensi ely i s udied and discussed Ta yby Es onia. The echoes o he i deba e eached he union p ess (plg. [Ipasaa 04.01.1988, 09.02.1988 i k ). P oblems aised by he socializa ion o economic i sphe es, speci ic Es onia TSR his o ical, cul u al (Sa isaa 1987, 50, 54) i demog aph- ic ci cums an- ces (Vaheme sa 1987, 47). Es onia TSR, unila e al be o ms o bilingualism ha ep esen Es onia The na ional mino i ies o he TSR (Uk ainians, Finns, Bela usians, La ians, Ge mans, i e c.) These a e he mos impo an o ms o mu ual — bilingualism i es y— usy usy—es u (Z . Tans 1985, 13). Fo many yea s now, he expansion o i — bilingualism in — Es onia—and mo e modes ly in Russia—as well as p ac ical measu es ha e been a pa icula ly impo an issue in na ional ela ions. Now a ce ain measu e is being implemen - ed in i Russian— o de elop bilingualism: Tallinn Pedagogical Ins i u e p epa es Es onian language and i li e a u e eache s o Russian schools, Es onian language compe i ions a e o ganized in la ge ci ies; pe iod appea ed e en 1980—1987 m. es y language ex books du (Bamme A., Vycnsiig 9., Types 9. Yae6uux ocToucko o s3bIka. TasiMH: Ban yc, 1981; Lebe ec- h H. We lo e he Es onian language ||Mp oBopHM 10-3CTOHCKH. Tallinn :Valgus, 1983), usy—es y pasikalbéjimy Zodynélis (Pe max A. K. Pyccko-scToHcKni pa3 oBopHHK. 6 h Di e. a3. Tanuuu: Ban yc, 1985). Es onian—R- ussian and i Russian—Es- onian languages a e eadily a ailable Ga dens: 1986 m. iSéjo 6 h J. Tamo es y— usy kalby Zodyn license (Emp y J. Es onian—Ru- ssian s6na aama . Tallinn: Ligh , 1986) i 4 h V. Muhelio usy—es y kalby Zodyn license (Muhel V. Russian-E- s onian sdna aama . Tallinn: Valgus, Es y 1982). ki y i espublikos gy en ojy kalby con ac esea ch Es onia TSR MA In he i Ins i u e o Linguis ics and Li e a u e, a language con ac sec o was es ablishe- i d, which published collec ions o a icles on he Li huanian language. Cu en ly, he sec o wo ke s a e comple ing he p epa a ion o a la ge-scale (pe 80000 ZodZiy) usy—es y kalby Zodyna, o up o 1990 m. in ended o be i p epa ed in he hi d es y— usy languages Zodynas. Es y— usy i usy—es y Bilingualism is discussed i by e minologis- s, who publish bilingual mul ilinguals i in la ge numbe s j ai iy sciency e miny Zodynus. Vien 1980 — 1987 m. appea ed in he o m o la in—es y— usy medical e ms Zodynas (Valdes A., Bompocs 1 comocTaBuTeMbHOTO H3YICHHA JeKCHKA H TpaMMATHKH Ha MATepHasIe I 's a li le H bi o a joke. TammmH, [Ipo6mems 1982; scToHCKO-pyccko o pyccKo-scTOHCKO O ABysagp uua (Ha ma epuane Sc ouckoi CCP). Tanmmx, 1985, i k U4. 678 201 Walle J. V. La in–Es onian–Russi- an medical dic iona y. Tallinn, 1982—1983 T. 1—2.), chemical e minology Zodynas usy i es y in o he languages (Russian—Es- onian Dic iona y o Chemis y) | Koos . J. Come on, H. Ka ik. Tallinn, 2nd 1982), loo Zodynas in angluy, es y i usy (Ole K. Russian-English-- Russian Dic iona y. Tallinn, bilingual 1981), mul ilingual li es ock Zodynas (Animal husband y e ms in Es onian, Ge man, English and Russian. ja T. 1: Pig a ming, T. 2: Physiology o a m animals. Tallinn, 1983—1984). P epa ed i by usy—es u ka inis Zodynas (Veskimigi E., E ni s H. Russian-Es - onian sdjanduse sOna aama . Tallinn: Valgus, 1986), his ology (His ology Es onian-Rus- sian-English ja explana o y e minology | Koos . J. Teh e . Tallinn, 1985) i ySiy e miny aiskinamosios p iemonés (Vene—ees i sides6na a- a | Koos . E. Wa e . Tallinn, 1984). Vis dél o These measu es, as he schola s poin ou , do no in hemsel es gua an ee a su icien le el o Russian-Es o- nian communica io- i n, which is he — mos impo an Es onian language igh in he epublic. Su g ea con usion is alking abou he ac ha Es onia In he TSR, i8 he e was no law ha explici ly o mula ed he ole o he Es onian language in he public li e o he epublic. (Hin 1987,, 49; Ruu soo 1987, 722), which gin y es y speaks as ,,na u ally i denied igh o he people“ (Hin 1987,)*. In ecen yea s, which I is only he ne beginning o a adical es uc u i- ng o he economic and social sphe es, bu i also he beginning o a quali a i ely new hinking abou socie y, a deepe look a bilingualism, i i he aising o such a p oblem, which o a long ime du ing he conjunc u e was igno ed. They a e so ened o igno ed i al oge he . Fu he impe us o discussion Es onia In he TSR p ess in i public in e iews o ganized by he newspape i Edi o ial o ices, a ious cul u al o ganiza ions, da é M. The Hin A icle ,,Z elgian j biligalbys e be oziniy akiniy“, published Zu nalo ,,Rainbow“ (,,Vai o yks é“) 1987 m. 6—7 in numbe s (Z . Hin sligh ly 1987,, abb e ia ed i "Adjus ed" a icle appea ed in usiSkame i ou sel es o Zu nalo a ian ,,Pagy a“)*. Al hough one o he opponen o he au ho did no unde s and i he mos impo an poin s aised in he a icle o in e p e ed hem di e en ly {(Z . Ca o om 1987; Muxanbyexko, [laxnaposny 1987) mos o he linguis s, philosophe s, sociologis s, psychologis s and o he schola s who i pa icipa ed in he discussion suppo ed he au ho 's posi ion wi h hei esea ch i da a, and iden i ied new aspec s o bilingualism. Cu en ly i is s a ed ha bilingualism bo h Es onia TSR, as well as o he i sqjunginése epublics né a su icien ly scien i ically y iné a (Hin 1987,, 68; Las 1987, 70). ,,.Ve y many So ie sociolinguis s, acco ding o R. Ri so's conclusions a e based on eal esea ch, ne bu specula e on abs ac schemes, which a e he basis o he pe iod o s agna ion. — The i concep o ,,uni y o uni o mi y*. Todél insu icien ly educa ed ques ions dél possible nega i e consequences o bilingualism o he indi idual, dél des abiliza ion o he mo he ongue by he second language, dél how he second, Russian, language ac ually unc ions in a bilingual en i onmen i i8 . y. (Hin 1987,, 52; 1987,, 68, 70). ® Po long wo k eading i Es onia TSR The language law was passed 1989 m. o Janua y 20 d, (a.: Tha 's igh . 1989. Janua y 24). * A icle published in a collec ion ,,Though- s abou mo he ongue“ (V., 1989). 202 As a pa icula - ly dange ous ac ion, schola s poin o he me apho i- cal use o he mos impo an sociolingui- s ic e ms and e ms (Ruu soo 1987, 723), gi ing ise o un ounded s a emen- s and conclusions (mo e on his see Tannb 1985, 10—11) and unconside- ed p ac ical measu es. The e m “second mo he ongue” is conside ed absu d (Vaheme - sa 1987, 49; Laas 1987, 70)*. I is ques iona- ble how linguis ical- ly jus i ied he di ision o language in o na i e, Russian, USSR and o eign is, because in linguis ic e ms, o eign” (Es. dd keel, “ o eign language”) is any non-na i e language (Hin 1987,, 51; 1987,, 69). When hei own a e “ ea ang- ed”, he e is an a i icial sepa a ion o Russian and o he , so-called o eign, language eaching me hods. Mo eo e , » ha he e is no poli ical bo de be ween he peoples o he USSR, does no acili a e he lea ning o hose peoples’ languages, so ha he Russian language is essen ially a o eign language o nea ly a hund ed million So ie people« (Hin 1987,, 51; see also Laas 1987, 70). The uns able and me apho- ical use o he e m “bilinguali- sm” in he So ie socioling- uis ic li e a u- e (Manns 1985, 31) wa an s c i icism. Acco ding o he 1970 and 1979 USSR popula i- on su eys, he numbe o Es onians in he Es onian SSR who spoke Russian inc eased by 4.5% o e 10 yea s (in 1970, 27% o Es onians li ing in he epublic spoke Russian, and in 1979 hey accoun - ed o 23.3%), al hough he numbe o Es onian-- speaking na i e popula io- ns did no inc ease signi ica- n ly du ing ha pe iod (see Tlanae 1985, 14—16). These s a is ic- al da a do no e lec he eal le el o Es onian—- Russian bilingualis- m®, because,,- he p oblem o luen knowled- ge o any language, especially he second, is no se iously discussed anywhe - e” (IIamnp 1985, 31; i8 e in a my —D. B.). The esul s o he su ey depend essen ial- ly on he subjec i- e opinion o he in e ie- wee abou his/he language abili ies. In addi ion, he e a e many cu ious cases when people, especially olde pupils o gene al educa ion schools, who a e luen in Russian, conside hemsel - es o be non- lue- n speake s o ha language. Fo mally, hey a e en i led, because hey do no speak Russian pe ec l- y. They a e w ong, because he Russian language essen ial- ly pe o ms he mos impo a- n unc ion —being a means o communi- ca ion among he people” (Ilan 1985, 32). Unde s a- ndable and unques i- onable is he ac ha in he mode n wo ld o know a second ( hi d, ou h, e c.) language is essen ial and especially ele an o he ep esen- a i es o small na ions (Ruu soo 1987, 724). Howe e , lea ning any second language is no su icie- n only o p ac ical easons (housing, wo king condi ion- s, kinde ga- en and gene al educa ion sys em, in o ma - ion sou ces, e c.). No less impo a- n is cul u al mo i a i- on, which gi es language lea ning a genuine olun a y s imulus” (Hin 1987,, 51). Igno ing his ac o and o e es i- ma ing adminis - a i e measu es is wo ying, because,,- adminis - a i e measu es o bilinguali- sm a e expe ime- n s wi h na ions, which may ha e unin end- ed conseque- nces. E en small mis akes in his case can u n in o a agedy ha ouches e en se e al gene a i- ons” (Hin 1987,, 51). A e he publica i- on o he hesis on bilinguali- sm among he popula io- ns o he So ie Union and he So ie Union epublics, he e was a endency o aise he issue o bilinguali- sm as a one-sided phenome- non in he Es onian SSR (Vahe- * As a sociologi- cal e m i is de ended by N. Ka o om (1987). 5 In 1965 and 1973 sociologi- s s o he MA Ins i u e o His o y o he Es onian SSR in es iga- ed Es onian-- Russian and Russian-E- s onian bilinguali- sm among he popula i- on o he Es onian SSR, di e en- ia ing h ee deg ees o second language p o icien- cy, so hey ob ained di e en esul s (aap 1985, 33). 14* 203 o es 1987, 47). Du ing he las decade, many p ac ical measu es o Es onian—Ru- ssian bilingualism ha e been implemen ed in he Republic: he eaching o Russian in schools has been imp o ed, {pe mi ed Zu nalas ,,Pycckuii a3bIK B 9cTOHCKOIi mxkoue’. E en he ela i e weigh o Russian-la- nguage publica io- ns has inc eased, Russian ope as a e pe o m- ed exclusi ely in Russian. Es onian—R- ussian o bilingualism 1977 m. 2005-2006 Mokslu Es ablished by he Academy Languag- es o Russia Es onia TSR p oblems scien i ic wo k coo dina ion council. D auge Es onia No iceable na owing o es y language unc ion in TSR (Kallas 1987, Ruu soo 1987, 718). In some educa ional ins i u ions, e.g. in Na a, Sillamäe, Koh la-Jä e all special seconda y schools, Tallinn mili ia school, GeleŽinkeli anspo echnical school, Russian is augh only; es ablishmen o kinde ga ens in Li huania; less p ess in he mo he ongue, especially ansla ions o o eign au ho s, popula science li e a u e, publica ions on na ional his o y and cul u e; na owing he scope o ele ision b oadcas ing in na i e language (Ruu soo 1987, 720—721). Es onian language is pushed in o science, so i is doub ed ha i is app op ia e a o w i e disse a ions in humani ies only in Russian (Ruu soo 1987, 719—720). In social ins i u ions, wo k collec i es, especially in ci ies, Es onian language is g adually iSs umia usy language (Ruu soo 1987, 718). The e is a sligh i decline in he p es ige o he mo he ongue Es onia TSR (Sa isaa 1987, 54, Ruu soo 1987, 717). The Es onian language is sligh ly spoken by ne na i e Es onians (Acco ding 1987): o he o icial s a is ics o Vilna, he pe cen age o local Russians who speak Es onian has dec eased 10 om 2000 o 2005.) 12,8 % 1970 m. o 11,5 % 1979 m., he numbe o Russians in he popula i- on a inc eas- ed o e ime. Disappea ing i Uk ainian—Es on- ian and La ian—Es oni- an bilingualism (IIammb 1985, 15). Such a si ua ion a ose om he lack o se iousness o he j posi ion as he mos impo an language o communica - ion in he epublic. ,,In many Russian schools Es onian language lessons ha e become a o mal subjec , no accep able e en o eache s wi h special educa ion* su (Vaheme sa 1987, 48). Insu icien usy—es y biling ism equally salygoja i Low cul u al o ien a ion o mig an s, lack o cul u al mo i a ion o lea n he language o he local popula ion, knowledge o he cul u e o he epublic (Hin 1987,, 49). Linguis s, psychologis s and educa o s ha e g ea doub s abou he ea ly beginning o second language eaching—p eschool, i s g ade (Hin 1987,, 68—69)®. As s udies o child language de elopmen show, he basic g amma o he mo he ongue is lea ned by he child in he i h—six h yea s o li e. Language s ylis ic means begin o be s udied only in he en h yea . Language s yle language i e ique e jg idziy achie ed he mos di icul (Ku esoo,,,.- 1984). When communica - ing in ano he language is s a ed be o e unde s andi- ng he nuances o he s yle o he na i e language, he na i e language can emain s ylis ically unSla éjusi. In his case, when speaking wo languages, he s yle ea u es and language nuances a e i le eled. Many bilingual second ® Abou i mo e 1938 m. is aSes Rec o o he Uni e si y o Ta u A. Ca ds: ,,The opinion ha ea ly bilingualism p omo es he in ellec ual and i spi i ual de elopme- n o he child is un ounded. Ea ly bilingualism does no double he child’s in ellec ual i and spi i ual de elopmen- , bu on he con a y, hal es i . — jj (Sho A. Bilingualism ja a child's play. P. 36 // Academy. 1938. No. 1 P. 33-43). Bu plg. Jacike icius A. Psychology o mul ilingualism. V., 1970. 204 he highes le el o he language (o , in he wo s case, o he na i e) cul u e is ne e eached” (Hin 1987,, 53). Scien is s d aw a en ion o he ac ha when wo languages s a o unc ion oo ea ly, he de elopme- n o speech coo dina i- on is dis u bed, he e may be mu led speech and dysg aphy. In addi ion, i is s a ed ha a child exposed o wo languages, wi hou a solid g amma base in he mo he ongue, applies he g amma ic- al mode o one language o he o he (Ku esoo 1984; Hin 1987,, 53). As he mos dange ous possible diso de s o he child's language de elopme- n psycholing- uis s poin ou insu icie- n sel - o ma- ion, abs ac sel -de ini- ion and unce ain- y o ope a ing wi h hem. Scien is s do no deny ha he Zodiac ese es o a bilingual child a e much la ge han hose o a common child, who g ew up in a monolingual en i onme- n , bu a ully o med bilingual child has less and ope a es wi h hem uns eadily. The o e all psycholing- uis ic in elligence o a bilingual child is much lowe han ha o a monolingual child (Hin 1987,, 54). Wi hou denying he posi i e aspec s o bilingualism and he ac ha in some cases child en can speak se e al languages luen ly and pe ec ly (Hin 1987,, 49), i is poin ed ou ha ,, he e ec s o nega i e bilingualism a e much mo e dange ous o child en wi h low and mode a e abili y and weak men al cons i u i- on. Wi h ega d o such child en, he he o ical ques ion aised by some schola s is qui e jus i ied: “Bilinguali- sm o semi-biling- ualism?” (Hin 1987,, 54). : Semilingual- ism, o he inabili y o a child (and an adul ) o exp ess his hough s clea ly in bo h languages, is cha ac e i- zed by 1) insu icien- ly o med ocabula y, low le el o abs ac hinking, 2) lack o pe cep ion o g amma ic- al connec io- ns and inabili y o o m egula sen ences, 3) insu icie- n coo dina i- on o speech p ocesses (Hin 1987,, 53). This is caused by oo ea ly and o ced eaching o a second language, ega dless o he child's le el o ma u i y and abili y (Ruu soo 1987, 650). Fo eign expe ience in es ablishi- ng ou child en's ga dens is especially aluable. In a kinde ga - en whe e a non-na i e language is spoken, he child may lag behind psycholing- uis ically by 1-2 yea s a he end o p eschool. In non-na i e-- language schools, he backwa dn- ess accele a - es ( esea ch has shown ha a 12-yea -old child who g ows up in such condi ions may emain a he le el o an 8- o 9-yea -old child in e ms o language skills) (see Hin 1987,, 49). Todél In mul ilingual coun ies (Sweden, Finland, Canada) he second language is augh only in g ades 2-3. Linguis s s udying linguis ic con ac s poin o he possible des abiliza- ion o he mo he ongue by he language o ano he , la ge na ion.,,.Wh- en cul u es a e di e en o equi alen , he e is no eason o ea apid assimila io- n. The e is no hing o ea om he des abiliza- ion o he language s uc u e. Fi s o all, he s ic es componen- s o language usage hemsel es become unde ined — s ylis ic ea u es, he sense o language eliabili y in one o ano he si ua ion, language e ique e. G adually, he meanings o he wo ds and hei in e ela i- onships a e con used. Then, unde he in luence o ano he language, sen ence pa e ns and equency o g amma ic- al o ms change, wo d manageme- n becomes inaccu a e, pa asi ic wo ds and ansla io- nal ph aseolog- ies o ano he language sp ead, and inally e en p onuncia - ion may change* (Hin 1987,, 55). 205 These b ie ly men ioned p oblems a e he ui o he hough o many Es onian SSR linguis s, psychologis- s, sociologis s, philosophe - s, w i e s. Fi s published mainly in publicis ic o m, hey ha e a ac ed he a en ion o schola s in a ious ields (Hin 1987,, 69). Scien i ic g ounds o bilingualism and he u h o he u h will help o a oid many has y, unconside - ed s a emen - s. Hin M. Demok aa - ia ja keel //Edasi, 29. mai, 1987,. Hin M. Views on bilingualism wi hou pink glasses //Vike kaa . 1987p. No. 6. P. 51-56; No. 7. P. 46-50. Hin M. Bilinguali- sm and bipa is- anship //Vike ka- a . 1987,. No. 9. P. 67-70. "These Complex Language Rela ion- ships" // Si p ja asa , 6. mi si, 1987; 13. mia si, 1987. "Speech, Languag- e, and Cul u e", 12 No emb- e 2001. Ku esoo U. P oblems o mo he ongue eaching and language o ganiza- ion //Langua- ge and Li e a u- e. 1984. No. 12. P. 713-725. 2nd ed. by A. B. Duckwo - h. 1987, No. 9. P. 70-71. Ruu soo R. Languag- e, Cul u e and Language Ecology // Language and Li e a u- e. 1987. No. 10. P. 587- 598; no. 11. P. 646-654; No. 12. P. 716-724. "E hnic Rela ions in Es onia: 1970—1980- ". yea s. I. //Vike ka- a . 1987. No. 9. P.50- 56. Vaheme - sa A. Kakskeel- suses nii, nagu see eaalsel ihiskon- nas cksis ee- ib //Vike kaa . 1987. No. 8. P. 47-49. "A.C. Milan: 1987/88" (in I alian). la Gazze a dello Spo , 13 Oc obe 1987. Muxaapyenxo B. 10., Wlaxaaposuy A. M . He cnenye apamaTa3mposa s // He's dying. 1987. No 11. Thiam 9. H. Paspu ue nauHoHanbHEIx a3b1KOB B CCCP m cospemennpie npoG emn spys3p ima //TpoOnems acToHcKo-pyccko o H pyccKO-39cTOHCKO O asys3biua (Ha ma epnane Sc oucx- oi CCP). Tannun, 1985. C. 5-39.