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.
