Dvikalbystės tyrinėjimai Latvijos TSR

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989) KALBŲ RYŠIAI IR SĄVEIKOS ANGELĖ KAULAKIENĖ BILINGUALISM RESEARCH IN THE LATVIAN SSR Bilingualism is generally determined by the historical circumstances of the peoples in contact and by the genetic and typological relationship between their languages. Therefore, the scholarly analysis of bilingualism may encompass historical, social, ethnolinguistic, linguistic, and many other aspects. Comparing and studying languages in contact from these perspectives yields sociolinguistic findings of theoretical and practical value, some of which have been published in “Russian Language Contacts with the Languages of the Baltic Peoples,” issued by the A. Upītis Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences1. This collection of articles consists of four sections: 1) contacts between Russian and Latvian; 2) Russian and Lithuanian; 3) Russian and Estonian; 4) Russian and Belarusian. At the end, the collection includes a bibliography of publications on these topics covering 1945–1981. Perhaps the largest section of this collection of articles is “Contacts between Russian and Latvian.” Discussing the main objectives for fostering Latvian–Russian bilingualism, A. Blinkena notes that all research on Latvian–Russian bilingualism covers various levels of language: phonetic, grammatical, and lexical. Such research should generally be grounded in linguistic methods, help eliminate language interference, and promote Latvian and Russian language culture. The normative assessment of interference is one of the main linguistic problems of bilingualism. Only once it has been resolved can one speak of the harmonious functioning of the two languages—Latvian and Russian. These general guidelines set out by A. Blinkena can, of course, be applied in addressing the problems of bilingualism not only among Latvians and Russians but also among other peoples. V. Skujinia and I. Edelmanė discuss the influence of language contacts on terminology. Among the many problems associated with facts of language contact, V. Skujinia investigates borrowing. She analyzes lexical, morphemic, derivational, and semantic borrowings in contemporary Latvian terminology. In her view, when assessing language contacts and preparing recommendations for language practice, each specific issue must be addressed comprehensively, taking the entire language system into account. In her article, I. Edelmanė discusses terminological and popular plant names, their relationship, similarities, and differences. She focuses primarily on the formation of names for plants in these two groups, since the introduction and acclimatization of various plant species results in many new plants for which new terms are needed. The articles by J. Baldunčiks and A. Bankavs examine the influence of an intermediary language when borrowing words from English and French. This is analyzed from a historical perspective. Russian plays the greatest role as an intermediary language. 1 Контакты русского языка с языками народов Прибалтики. Рига: Зинатне, 1984. 185 с. 207 O. Bušs discusses criteria for the normative assessment of barbarisms as foreign-language slang, T. Jakubaitė and V. Dryzulė discuss proper names in bilingual situations, S. Lagzdinia addresses the communicative meanings of the genitive and the verb nebūt, and L. Pavlovskaja discusses the minimization of Latvian students’ accents in Russian. The second section, entitled “Contacts between Russian and Lithuanian,” consists of four articles. Analyzing the influence of Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism on the pronunciation of literary Lithuanian, L. Grumadienė presents a qualitative analysis of Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism at this level. Drawing on the results of a survey of Vilnius residents, she concludes that three features of their Lithuanian pronunciation are grammatically relevant, while five are not. Discussing the concept of hybrids, their classification and formation, and hybridization in general, S. Keinys identifies three effects of hybrid terms on Lithuanian terminology. First, hybrids expand the basis of language motivation. Second, international-word affixes increase the inventory of affixal morphemes. Third, the use of elements from international terms gives rise to a new method of term formation. In addition, like international terms, hybrids help standardize terminology both at the Union level and internationally. In her article “Comparative Lexicology and the Minimum System of Language Knowledge,” S. Krinickaitė equates the concepts of comparative lexicology with those of active grammar and the rational use of language. The importance of the rational use of language is especially evident in the context of language contacts and bilingualism. Therefore, students should be introduced to the basic concepts of comparative lexicology already at school. Familiarity with these concepts makes it easier to distinguish form from content, learn another language more effectively, and remember language-culture recommendations. Thus, under conditions of language contact and bilingualism, the fundamentals of comparative lexicology should become a core part of the minimum system of language knowledge. Discussing certain aspects of Lithuanian and Russian language culture, V. Būda points to the enormous influence of Russian, which extends across all spheres in which Lithuanian functions. In his view, this influence must not be haphazard and uncontrolled, since languages with their own writing systems have established, fixed, and precisely defined systems. The third section, “Contacts between Russian and Estonian,” opens with an article by the prominent Estonian terminologist R. Kull, “The Development of Estonian Terminological Vocabulary against the Background of Indo-European Languages.” Direct and indirect following of Indo-European languages (lexical borrowings, calques, and analogous formations) affects Estonian terminological vocabulary in two ways. First, Estonian terminological vocabulary becomes more diverse, expressive, and flexible. On the other hand, following Indo-European languages reduces the stability of Estonian terminological vocabulary, leading to greater variation and heterogeneity. In R. Kull’s view, the qualitative development of Estonian terminological vocabulary will depend on reliable criteria that rationally balance the possibilities of the native language with interference from Indo-European languages. H. Lemets discusses issues involved in systematizing Russian–Estonian interference and notes that recommendations on undesirable interference must be based on the results of comparative studies at all levels of Estonian and Russian. Only such recommendations can be used in language teaching. In T. Lagle’s view, the meaning and form of international words are determined by the features of three languages: the source language, the intermediary language, and the language in which the 208 national words. Therefore, the problem of discrepancies in the meanings of international words across different languages cannot be solved by translated dictionaries alone. Explanatory bilingual dictionaries usually help solve this problem in part. L. Sim notes that Russian loanwords make up a distinctive and extensive group of Estonian slang terms that tends to grow. Some Estonian slang terms derived from Russian have retained their original form. Such borrowings became established much earlier and only later acquired slang status. The section “Contacts between Russian and Belarusian” contains one article. P. Kopanev and A. Mikhnevich discuss bilingualism as the interaction of internal and external language forms. In their view, achieving balanced bilingualism in a bilingual society requires a theoretical foundation, precise definition of concepts, and the scientific formulation of practical recommendations. The bibliography lists books and the most important articles from collections and periodicals that analyze issues concerning contact between Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, and Russian. Publications are listed alphabetically, first in the national language and then in Russian. Like the collection as a whole, the bibliography is divided into sections (1 — Relations between Latvian and Russian | Compiled by D. Barbare (pp. 165—172); 2 — Relations between Lithuanian and Russian | Compiled by R. Vensaite (172—180); 3 — Relations between Estonian and Russian | Compiled by T. Lagle and R. Kulis (180—185). This bibliography is related to another bibliography on Latvian-Russian bilingualism, published in 1987 by the A. Upītis Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences2. As the authors indicate, the bibliography aims to include as many publications as possible devoted to Latvian-Russian bilingualism and discussion of its linguistic aspects. It consists of 9 sections: 1) contacts between Baltic and Slavic languages (pp. 7—16); 2) the current stage in the development of Latvian-Russian bilingualism (17—27); 3) comparative studies (27—34); 4) relations between Latvian and Russian literature, translation of fiction (35—38); 5) terminology (38—41); 6) onomastics, transcription (42—47); 7) pedagogy (teaching Russian) (47—52); 8) lexicography, dictionaries (52—54); 9) additions (55—60). The first three sections have subsections: etymology (section 1); dialects, vernaculars (section 2); a) morphology, syntax, b) phonetics, word formation, semantics, lexicon, phraseology (section 3). At the beginning of each section, the most important scholarly problems addressed in that section are discussed. Titles of publications written in Latvian or another language are also given in Russian. Publications in Russian are listed first, followed by those in Latvian or another language. Within the sections, the bibliography is arranged alphabetically, except for the list of bulletins of the Terminology Commission of the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences, which is arranged chronologically. All publications in the bibliography are numbered consecutively. In total, the bibliography covers more than 450 entries. To make it easier to use, an alphabetical list of authors appears at the end (61—68). It is regrettable that some monographs were omitted, for example: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. М., 1976. The bibliography also lacks Lithuanian 2 Drizule V. A., Gerentovich V. V. Latvian-Russian Bilingualism: A Brief Survey and Bibliographic Index. Riga: Zinatne, 1987. 69 pp. 209 some publications by linguists (S. Karaliūnas, A. Sabaliauskas, A. Vanagas, A. Vidugiris, et al.) concerning issues of Baltic and Slavic ethnogenesis. Apparently, V. Skujinia’s articles published in *Kalbos kultūra* should also have been included in the terminology section (Use of International Elements in Latvian Terminology. 1979. Issue 37. P. 57—63; The Term in Context. 1983. Issue 44. P. 19—26). The rationale for selecting publications by year is also not very clear. One section presents publications dating from the 1950s, another from the 1960s or 1970s, and so on. These points do not diminish the value of the bibliography. The bibliography of Latvian–Russian bilingualism is highly valuable and necessary. Undoubtedly, it will become a reference book not only for Latvian but also for Lithuanian linguists, since the index includes many works addressing phonetics, morphology, lexicon, and various other aspects of the Lithuanian language. On the other hand, one entire section is devoted to contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages, and contains articles and monographs on Baltic ethnogenesis, substrate, the typology and etymology of Baltic and Slavic languages, and other topics. Latviešu valodas kontaktu pētījumi/Atb. red. A. Blinkena. Rīga: „Zinātne“, 1987, 276 p. The linguists at the Andrejs Upīts Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences devote considerable attention to problems of language contact. Worth recalling are the institute’s valuable publications: „Взаимосвязи балтов и прибалтийских финнов“ (Рига, 1970; prepared jointly with the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences), „Контакты русского языка с языками народов Прибалтики“ (Рига, 1984). The latter also devotes considerable space to contacts between Russian and Lithuanian (the articles are by Lithuanian linguists). A new book on this subject, *Studies in Latvian Language Contacts*, has recently appeared. It is a collection of articles by Latvian linguists covering a fairly wide range of topics. A considerable number of these articles are directly related to Lithuanian studies. This is especially true of the first two, whose authors are graduates of both Vilnius and Riga universities and who are presumably equally interested in issues concerning both Latvian and Lithuanian. In her article “Semantic Relations of Cognate Prefixed Nouns and Verbs in Contemporary Lithuanian and Latvian” (Kopcilmes prefiksālo lietvārdu un darbības vārdu semantikas attieksmes mūsdienu lietuviešu un latviešu valodā, p. 7—38), L. Baluodė (Balode) examines 115 cognate prefixed nouns and 880 prefixed verbs in the two languages. She divides them into three groups: the first consists of derivatives that coincide in both form and semantics (Lith. apyrankė: Latv. aproce, Lith. patėvis: Latv. patēvs; Lith. apaūti: Latv. apaut); the second comprises derivatives whose forms coincide but whose meanings differ in part (Lith. įrankis: Latv. ierocis ‘weapon; figuratively, tool’, Lith. atradėjas: Latv. atradējs ‘inventor’, Lith. apgiedoti: Latv. apdziedāt ‘sing about; sing teasing songs’); and the third consists of derivatives whose forms coincide but whose meanings differ completely (Lith. nesąmonė: Latv. nesamaņa ‘loss of consciousness, fainting’, Lith. pėrvalkas: Latv. pārvalks ‘cover, covering’; Lith. apskrieti: Latv. apskriet ‘run around, make the rounds’). As might be expected, the third group is the smallest: it accounts for 21 percent of the nouns and 15 percent of the verbs examined. 210