Dvikalbystės problemų tyrimas Estijos TSR

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989) KALBŲ RYŠIAI IR SĄVEIKOS REVIEWS, CRITIQUES, INDEX DALIA BARAUSKAITĖ A STUDY OF THE PROBLEMS OF BILINGUALISM IN THE ESTONIAN SSR At present, problems of bilingualism are being intensively studied and discussed in Soviet Estonia. Echoes of the discussions have also reached the all-Union press (cf. Правда 04.01.1988, 09.02.1988, etc.). These problems have been fostered by contradictions in the economic and social spheres, as well as by the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the Estonian SSR (Savisaar 1987, 50, 54) and its demographic circumstances (Vahemetsa 1987, 47). In the Estonian SSR, alongside forms of one-sided bilingualism representing the national minorities of the Estonian SSR (Ukrainians, Finns, Belarusians, Latvians, Germans, etc.), the following main forms of reciprocal bilingualism are distinguished: Estonian–Russian and Russian–Estonian (see Пялль 1985, 13). For many years, the development of Estonian–Russian and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Russian–Estonian bilingualism, along with practical measures to promote it, has been a particularly important issue in national relations. Measures to foster Russian–Estonian bilingualism have now also begun to be implemented: a specialization for training Estonian language and literature teachers for Russian-language schools has been established at the Tallinn Pedagogical Institute, and Estonian-language courses are being organized in major cities; during 1980–1987, as many as two Estonian-language textbooks appeared (Валмер А., Ууспылд Э., Туру Э. Учебник эстонского языка. Таллин: Валгус, 1981; Leberecht H. Räägime eesti keelt ||Мы говорим по-эстонски. Tallinn: Valgus, 1983), as well as a Russian–Estonian phrasebook (Рейцак А. К. Русско-эстонский разговорник. 6-ое испр. изд. Таллин: Валгус, 1985). Russian–Estonian and Estonian–Russian dictionaries are also being published promptly: in 1986, the 6th edition of J. Tamm’s Estonian–Russian dictionary appeared (Tamm J. Eesti—vene sõnaraamat. Tallinn: Valgus, 1986), as did the 4th edition of V. Muhel’s Russian–Estonian dictionary (Muhel V. Vene—eesti sõnaraamat. Tallinn: Valgus, 1982). To study language contacts between Estonians and speakers of other languages in the republic, a language contacts section was established at the Institute of Language and Literature of the Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences; it publishes dictionaries and collections of articles1. The section’s staff are currently completing a large Russian–Estonian dictionary (over 80,000 words), and a three-volume Estonian–Russian dictionary is also scheduled for completion by 1990. Estonian–Russian and Russian–Estonian bilingualism is also being advanced by terminologists, who publish numerous bilingual and multilingual dictionaries of terms in various fields of science. In 1980–1987 alone, a Latin–Estonian–Russian dictionary of medical terms appeared (Valdes A., 1 Questions of the Comparative Study of Lexicon and Grammar Based on Estonian and Russian. Tallinn, 1982; Problems of Estonian–Russian and Russian–Estonian Bilingualism (Based on the Material of the Estonian SSR). Tallinn, 1985, etc. 14. 678 201 Veski J. V. Latin–Estonian–Russian Medical Dictionary. Tallinn, 1982–1983, Vols. 1–2), a Russian–Estonian chemistry dictionary (Vene–eesti keemiasõnaraamat | Comp. J. Hüsse, H. Karik. Tallinn, 1982), an English–Estonian–Russian maritime dictionary (Olev K. Inglise–eesti–vene meresõnastik. Tallinn, 1981), and a two-volume multilingual animal husbandry dictionary (Loomakasvatuserminid eesti, saksa, inglise ja vene keeles. Vol. 1: Seakasvatus, Vol. 2: Põllumajandusloomade füsioloogia. Tallinn, 1983–1984). A Russian–Estonian military dictionary was also prepared (Veskimägi E., Ernits H. Vene–eesti sõjanduse sõnaraamat. Tallinn: Valgus, 1986), as well as explanatory resources for histology (Histoloogia eesti-, vene- ja ingliskeelne seletav terminoloogia | Comp. J. Tehver. Tallinn, 1985) and communications terminology (Vene–eesti sidesõnavara | Comp. E. Vatter. Tallinn, 1984). Nevertheless, as scholars point out, these resources by themselves do not guarantee an adequate level of Russian–Estonian bilingualism and, above all, the rights of the Estonian language in the republic. Great concern is expressed that no law has in fact been adopted in the Estonian SSR that clearly formulates the role of the Estonian language in the republic’s public life (Hint 1987ᵦ, 49; Ruutsoo 1987, 722), and that would protect the Estonian language as “the natural and indisputable right of the Estonian people” (Hint 1987ₐ)2. In recent years, marking not only the beginning of radical restructuring in the economic and social spheres but also a qualitatively new reflection on social existence, bilingualism too has been examined more deeply, and problems long softened or altogether ignored for reasons of political expediency have been brought to light. Further impetus for discussions in the Estonian SSR press and in public forums organized by newspaper and journal editors and various cultural organizations came from M. Hint’s article “Looking at Bilingualism Without Rose-Colored Glasses,” published in issues 6–7 of the journal “Vikerkaar” (“Rainbow”) in 1987 (see Hint 1987ᵦ; a somewhat abridged and “corrected” version of the article also appeared in the Russian-language edition of the same journal, “Raduga”)3. Although one or another of the author’s opponents failed to understand the essence of the article’s principal ideas or interpreted them in their own way (see Karotom 1987; Михальченко, Шахнарович 1987), most of the linguists, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, and other scholars who took part in the discussion supported the author’s position with evidence from their research and observations, and raised new aspects of bilingualism. It is now acknowledged that bilingualism, both in the Estonian SSR and in other union republics, has not been studied sufficiently from a scientific perspective (Hint 1987ᶜ, 68; Laast 1987, 70). “According to R. Ruutsoo, many Soviet sociolinguists, when drawing conclusions, rely not on actual research but speculate on the basis of abstract schemes founded on the concept of ‘unity and uniformity’ characteristic of the period of stagnation. As a result, questions concerning the possible negative consequences of bilingualism for the individual, the destabilization of the native language under the influence of a second language, and how and which second language—that is, Russian—actually functions in a bilingual environment are inadequately illuminated (Hint 1987ᵦ, 52; 1987ᶜ, 68, 70). 2 After a long period of work and deliberation, the Language Law of the Estonian SSR was adopted on January 20, 1989 (see: Tiesa. 1989. January 24). 3 Straipsnis lietuvių kalba paskelbtas rinkinyje „Mintys apie gimtąją kalbą“ (V., 1989). 202 As a particularly dangerous practice, scholars identify the metaphorical use of key sociolinguistic concepts and terms (Ruutsoo 1987, 723), which provides grounds for unfounded claims and conclusions (for more on this, see Пялль 1985, 10–11) and ill-considered practical measures. The term “second native language” is considered absurd (Vahemetsa 1987, 49; Laast 1987, 70)4. Doubts have been raised about the linguistic validity of classifying languages as native, Russian, the languages of the peoples of the USSR, and foreign, since from a linguistic point of view any non-native language is “foreign” (Estonian vöörkeel, “foreign language”) (Hint 1987b, 51; 1987c, 69). When concepts are “reorganized,” the teaching methods for Russian and other so-called foreign languages are artificially separated. Nevertheless, “the fact that there are no political borders between the peoples of the USSR does not make it easier to learn their languages, and therefore Russian is essentially a foreign language for almost one hundred million Soviet people” (Hint 1987b, 51; cf. also Laast 1987, 70). The unstable and metaphorical use of the concept “bilingualism” in Soviet sociolinguistic literature (Пялль 1985, 31) calls for a more critical view of the available statistical data as well. According to the 1970 and 1979 USSR population censuses, the number of Estonians in the Estonian SSR who knew Russian fell by 4.5% over ten years (in 1970, 27% of Estonians living in the republic knew Russian, whereas in 1979 they accounted for 23.3%), although the number of residents who considered Estonian their native language increased only slightly during that time (see Пялль 1985, 14–16). These statistics nevertheless do not reflect the actual level of Estonian–Russian bilingualism5, because “the very question of proficiency in any language, especially a second language, is nowhere seriously examined” (Пялль 1985, 31; emphasis mine – D. B.). Census results depend essentially on the respondent’s subjective opinion of their linguistic abilities. Consequently, “many curious cases occur in which people, especially senior pupils in general education schools who know Russian fairly well, consider themselves not to speak the language fluently. Formally, they may well be right, since they do not know Russian perfectly. In reality, they are mistaken, because their Russian essentially performs its most important function—that of serving as a means of communication among peoples” (Пялль 1985, 32). It is, of course, understood and not disputed that in the modern world it is necessary to know a second (third, fourth, and so on) language, and this is particularly relevant for members of small nations (Ruutsoo 1987, 724). Nevertheless, when learning any second language, practical motives alone are insufficient (everyday life, working conditions, kindergartens and the general education system, sources of information, etc.). Cultural motivation is no less important, as it “provides a genuinely voluntary stimulus for language learning” (Hint 1987b, 51). The neglect of this factor and the overestimation of administrative measures are cause for concern, because “bilingualism imposed through administrative measures amounts to experimentation on entire peoples and may have unforeseen consequences. Even minor errors in this case can turn into a tragedy affecting several generations” (Hint 1987b, 51). After the thesis of mass and necessary bilingualism among the populations of the union republics was advanced, concern began to grow over the one-sidedness of bilingualism in the Estonian SSR (Vahemetsa 4 Kaip sociologijos terminą jį gina N. Karotom (1987). 5 In 1965 and 1973, sociologists at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR studied Estonian–Russian and Russian–Estonian bilingualism among the population of the Estonian SSR, distinguishing three degrees of second-language proficiency; they therefore obtained different results (Пялль 1985, 33). 14* 203 metsa 1987, 47). Per pastarąjį dešimtmetį respublikoje įgyvendinta daug estų—rusų dvikalbystės praktinių priemonių: tobulinamas rusų kalbos mokymas mokykloje, rusų kalbos mokymui pradėtas leisti žurnalas „Русский язык в эстонской школе“. Padidėjo net leidinių rusų kalba santykinis svoris, rusų operos statomos vien rusų kalba. Estų—rusų dvikalbystei plėtoti 1977 m. prie Mokslų Akademijos įsteigta Rusų kalbos Estijos TSR problemų mokslinio darbo koordinavimo taryba. Drauge Estijos TSR pastebimas estų kalbos funkcijų siaurėjimas (Kallas 1987, Ruutsoo 1987, 718). Kai kuriose mokymo įstaigose, pvz., Narvos, Silamėjos, Kohtla-Järvės visose specialiosiose vidurinėse mokyklose, Talino milicijos mokykloje, Geležinkelio transporto technikume, dėstoma vien rusiškai; steigiami mišrūs vaikų darželiai; mažėja spaudos gimtąja kalba, ypač verstinės užsienio autorių, mokslo populiarinamosios literatūros, leidinių tautos istorijos, kultūros klausimais; siaurinama televizijos laidų gimtąja kalba apimtis (Ruutsoo 1987, 720–721). The Estonian language is being displaced from science as well, raising doubts about whether it is appropriate to write dissertations in the humanities solely in Russian (Ruutsoo 1987, 719–720). In public institutions and work collectives, especially in cities, Russian is gradually displacing Estonian (Ruutsoo 1987, 718). A slight decline in the prestige of the native language in the Estonian SSR is also noted (Savisaar 1987, 54, Ruutsoo 1987, 717). Silpnai estų kalbą moka vietiniai ne estų tautybės gyventojai (Vilo 1987): oficialiosios statistikos duomenimis, vietinių rusų, mokančių estų kalbą, procentas per 10 metų sumažėjo nuo 12,8% 1970 m. iki 11,5% 1979 m., rusų tautybės gyventojų skaičius per tą laiką padidėjo. Nyksta ir ukrainiečių—estų bei latvių—estų dvikalbystė (Пялль 1985, 15). This situation arose because of a careless attitude toward Estonian as the republic’s principal language of communication. “In many Russian schools, Estonian lessons have become a formality; it is not even considered necessary to employ a teacher with special training” (Vahemetsa 1987, 48). The inadequate level of Russian–Estonian bilingualism is also attributable to migrants’ low cultural orientation and the absence of cultural motivation to encourage them to learn the language of the local population and take an interest in the republic’s culture (Hint 1987b, 49). The early start of second-language instruction—at preschool age or in the first grade—raises serious concerns among linguists, psychologists, and educators (Hint 1987c, 68–69)6. Studies of children’s language development show that a child learns the fundamentals of the grammar of their native language by the age of five or six. The study of stylistic resources of language begins only at around age ten. Skills in language style and etiquette are the most difficult to acquire (Kuresoo, 1984). “When communication in another language begins before one has become aware of the stylistic nuances of one’s native language, the native language may remain stylistically underdeveloped. In such a case, when speaking two languages, stylistic features and linguistic nuances are leveled. Many bilinguals’ second 6 As early as 1938, Professor A. Koort, rector of the University of Tartu, wrote on this subject: “The view that early bilingualism promotes a child’s intellectual and spiritual development is unfounded. Early bilingualism does not double a child’s intellectual and spiritual development; on the contrary, it reduces it by half” (Koort A. Kakskeelsus ja väikelaps. P. 36 // Akadeemia. 1938. Nr. 1 P. 33–43). See also Jacikevičius A. Daugiakalbystės psichologija. V., 1970. 204 culture of language (in more serious cases, of the native language as well) at the highest level” (Hint 1987, 53). Researchers also point out that when two languages begin to operate too early, the development of coordination of the speech organs is disrupted, and stuttering or dysgraphia may occur. Furthermore, it is noted that a child exposed to two languages who lacks a firm foundation in the grammar of their native language applies the grammatical model of one language to the other (Kuresoo 1984; Hint 1987b, 53). Psycholinguists identify insufficient concept formation, vagueness in abstract concepts, and an inability to use them confidently as the most dangerous among the possible disruptions to a child’s language development. Researchers do not deny that a bilingual child’s vocabulary is much larger than that of a peer raised in a monolingual environment; however, the bilingual child has fewer fully formed concepts and uses them with less confidence. The bilingual child’s overall psycholinguistic proficiency is much lower than that of a monolingual child (Hint 1987b, 54). While acknowledging the positive aspects of bilingualism and the fact that, in certain cases, children can speak several languages fluently and perfectly (Hint 1987b, 49), it is nevertheless noted that “the negative effects of bilingualism are far more dangerous for children of low or average ability and with a weak mental constitution. With such children in mind, the rhetorical question posed by some researchers is entirely justified: bilingualism or semilingualism?” (Hint 1987b, 54). The signs of semilingualism—that is, the inability of a child (or adult) exposed to two languages to express thoughts clearly in either language—are: 1) inadequately formed concepts and a low level of abstract thinking; 2) failure to understand grammatical relationships and inability to form correct sentences; 3) inadequate coordination of the speech organs (Hint 1987b, 53). This phenomenon is caused by teaching a second language too early and coercively, without regard for the child’s level of maturity and abilities (Ruutsoo 1987, 650). Experience abroad with the establishment of mixed-language kindergartens is particularly cautionary. In a kindergarten where the language spoken is not the child’s native language, by the end of preschool a child may be psycholinguistically delayed by as much as 1–2 years. The delay accelerates in schools where instruction is in a non-native language (according to research, a 12-year-old raised under such conditions may remain at the language-proficiency level of an 8- or 9-year-old) (see Hint 1987b, 49). Therefore, in countries where several languages are spoken (Sweden, Finland, and Canada), second-language instruction begins only in grades 2–3. Linguists studying language contact point to the possible destabilization of the native language under the influence of the language of another, larger nation. “When cultures differ or are equal, there is no reason to fear rapid assimilation. There is, however, reason to fear the destabilization of language structure. First, the highest levels of language use become uncertain—stylistic features, a sense of which language is appropriate to a given situation, and language etiquette. Gradually, the meanings of words and the relationships between words begin to be confused. Then, under the influence of another language, sentence patterns and the frequency of grammatical forms change; the use of words becomes imprecise; parasitic words and calques from the other language creep in; and, finally, even pronunciation may change” (Hint 1987b, 55). 205 These briefly outlined problems are the fruit of the thought of many linguists, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, and writers in the Estonian SSR. First raised mainly in a journalistic form, they should attract the attention of scholars in various fields (Hint 1987, 69). Scientific foundations for bilingualism and fidelity to the truth would help prevent many hasty, poorly considered steps. LITERATŪRA Hint M. Demokraatia ja keel // Edasi, 29. mai, 1987. Hint M. Vaateid kakskeelsusele roosade prillideta // Vikerkaar. 1987. Nr. 6. P. 51—56; Nr. 7. P. 46—50. Hint M. Kakskeelsus ja kaksmeelsus // Vikerkaar. 1987. Nr. 9. P. 67—70. Kallas T. Need keerulised keelevahekorrad // Sirp ja vasar, 6. märtsi, 1987; 13. märtsi, 1987. Karotom N. Keelest, kakskeelsusest ja rahvussuhetest // Õhtuleht, 12. novembri, 1987. Kuresoo U. Emakeeleõpetuse mureprobleemid ja keelekorraldus // Keel ja kirjandus. 1984. Nr. 12. P. 713—725. Laast A. Veel kakskeelsusest // Vikerkaar. 1987. Nr. 9. P. 70—71. Ruutsoo R. Keelest, kultuurist ja keeleökoloogiast // Keel ja kirjandus. 1987. Nr. 10. P. 587—598; Nr. 11. P. 646—654; Nr. 12. P. 716—724. Savisaar E. Rahvussuhetest Eestis: 1970.—1980. aastad. I. // Vikerkaar. 1987. Nr. 9. P. 50—56. Vahemetsa A. Kakskeelsusest nii, nagu see reaalselt ühiskonnas eksisteerib // Vikerkaar. 1987. Nr. 8. P. 47—49. Vilo A. Kas me ikka oleme täisväärtuslikud // Edasi, 13. oktoobri, 1987. Михальченко В. Ю., Шахнарович А. М. Не следует драматизировать // Радуга. 1987. № 11. Пялль Э. Н. Развитие национальных языков в СССР и современные проблемы двуязычия // Проблемы эстонско-русского и русско-эстонского двуязычия (На материале Эстонской ССР). Таллин, 1985. С. 5—39.