Bilingvizmo situacijos ir jų socialinė dinamika

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXVII (1988) LIETUVIŲ KALBA IR BILINGVIZMAS SIMAS KARALIONAS THE SITUATIONS OF BILINGUALISM AND THEIR SOCIAL DYNAMICS Bilingualism—the practice of alternating between two languages by a group of people, large or small—is a widespread phenomenon in the world. Since a society can function perfectly well with just one language, the existence of bilingualism shows that society contains two communities speaking different languages (Karaliūnas, 1983, p. 15). Bilingualism is an everyday phenomenon in so-called multinational states, where several nations coexist side by side, each with its own culture and language. But even in such cases, bilingualism involves separate groups of people who, for the purposes of communication and interaction, are compelled to learn and use the language of another nation, while most members of society live their lives and use their own language. Thus, two or more languages coexist and are used in different social situations; each language has its own domain of use, and in such cases it is better to speak of diglossia, although some researchers also regard diglossia as a form of bilingualism (New Horizons in Linguistics, 1975, p. 319). A typical diglossic situation, for example, is the coexistence of the standard spoken language and dialects, since both these varieties of the national language are used for different purposes and in different social situations. The situations of bilingualism found in such cases are, naturally, stable; they create no difficulties or obstacles for society’s communication or for society’s life itself, and can therefore exist for a long time. The situations of bilingualism currently found in many countries (e.g., Switzerland, Canada, Yugoslavia, India, etc.) show no signs of changing*. Situations of bilingualism can also arise for other reasons—not necessarily because two or more ethnic communities are present. A society may traditionally be monolingual, yet adopt and use another language in one of its fields of activity because that language is more suitable for the purpose than its own. For example, in Finland, Swedish performs the functions of a literary language alongside Finnish. In Lithuania, Latin was used in the church until our own day (and is still used in part). In India, English is the language of administration, education, and literature. The language used in the chancery of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Slavic written language based on the tradition of Church Slavonic. The role of a second language in society is very often played by a language possessing prestige and great cultural value. The pressure of English on the languages of national minorities in the United States is economic, political, and social in nature, but, for example, * The works of Soviet sociolinguists emphasize the equality of the languages of the Soviet peoples and the stability of their use (Karaliūnas, 1983). 4 For the Scandinavian languages, that pressure stems from the dominant importance of English as an international language and from its dissemination through schools, radio and television, films and magazines, as well as commercial channels (Haugen, 1972, p. 66—68). In its functional importance and value, this second language is equivalent to a normalized, standardized standard language and in fact performs the same role as the standard language. Such a prestigious and culturally valued second language serves several linguistic communities at once; it therefore functions as an interlanguage, performing the lingua franca function (see below). In Western Europe, Latin served as an interlanguage for a long time, functioning in the spheres of science, education, and religion. In some Eastern European countries (e.g., Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, etc.), Church Slavonic played the role of an interlanguage in religion for several centuries. The national language and a second language, which most often performs interlanguage functions, create a diglossic situation in society, since they are used in different domains. But some members of society—educated, learned people—are bilingual, because they use both languages alternately. Such bilingual situations, being stable, cannot significantly affect the fate of the languages used in society. Interlanguage and interdialect (see below), occupying an important place in society’s hierarchy of social values, differ only in their domains of use and their range of applicability. On the other hand, under certain historical and sociocultural conditions, bilingual situations can change. The use of two languages demands much greater psychological and intellectual effort from a person than communicating in one language, and there is therefore a natural tendency to reduce this effort as much as possible, that is, to restrict oneself to using one language, usually one’s mother tongue. In society’s communication there is a tendency to eliminate bilingual situations and make do with one language. Situations of bilingualism can be eliminated in two ways: 1) a mixed language is formed, consisting of elements and features of both languages, and 2) the language or dialect of social groups or of society is replaced. 1. The Formation of Mixed Languages From two languages used alternately by the same individuals, a third language may emerge over a longer period under certain historical, social, and cultural conditions. Since its structure contains elements of both languages, such a language is called mixed, or hybrid (mixed language, Mischsprache, langue mixte). It should be noted at once that every language has heterogeneous—that is, foreign-origin—elements, especially in its vocabulary. For clashes, interaction, and mutual penetration between languages are inevitable, just as are communication and interaction among people of different ethnic backgrounds and cultural exchange, all of which are reflected in their languages: along with the exchange of cultural values, their names enter the language. Thus loanwords are, one might say, a necessity of life, especially in the speech of the lower social strata. Besides cultural exchange, the interaction and mixing of languages bring about many other historical processes and events: the mixing of people of diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, or their living in the same territory, 5 their geographical proximity, migration, colonization, occupation, social, economic, and political ties between different countries, and the ethnic symbiosis and assimilation of people of different origins, etc. The agents and conduits of language interaction, mixing, and mutual influence are bilingual individuals. Using two (or several) languages alternately every day, they instinctively begin to identify them with one another and unconsciously bring them closer—that is, change them. Elements of one language begin to be used when speaking another. In certain cases, transformations arising in the speech of bilingual individuals may also enter the language of members of a monolingual society or social group. This is how loanwords arise. One language may have fewer of these borrowed elements from elsewhere, especially in its lexicon, and another more, depending on the energy and mobility of their users and the opportunities for interaction. For example, Jewish, or jidiš (Jiddisch), has many heterogeneous elements, especially in its vocabulary. It is the spoken and literary language of communication among Jews in Eastern Europe, including Lithuania, and Jews originating there and living on all continents. Yiddish has a Germanic grammatical structure, since the Jewish language developed from late Middle High German (Spätmittelhochdeutsch) of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. In addition to its Germanic element, its lexicon contains about one quarter words of Hebrew-Aramaic origin, between one sixth and one tenth Slavic words, derived mostly from Old Polish (Birnbaum, 1923; Karaliūnas, 1977), and a considerable number of Romance words. The Jewish language cannot be called mixed, because its grammatical system, apart from an occasional Hebrew-Aramaic element, is Germanic. A language’s character and its membership in a genetic type are determined by its grammatical structure, which is almost impervious to the influence of other languages and is not borrowed. Thus, Yiddish is a Germanic language. By contrast, when a mixed language is formed, the systems of the languages used by bilingual individuals—that is, the languages in contact—are substantially modified. In many cases, the grammar of mixed languages is rudimentary, and their vocabulary quite limited and primitive. But it cannot be said that mixed languages are collections of heterogeneous facts. They nevertheless have a distinctive, specific structure. An example of a mixed language is ladino (the name derives from the Spanish term for Latin), also known as džudezmo (English Judeo-Spanish). This language derives from fifteenth-century Spanish and contains numerous loanwords of Turkish, Greek, and Hebrew origin. It is spoken by Jews (Sephardim) in the Iberian and Balkan peninsulas and in West Africa. A mixture of Italian with elements of French, Spanish, Arabic, Greek, and Turkish, spoken in the Mediterranean basin, especially its eastern part (the Levant), is lingua franca. The formation of the term and concept itself dates back to the Crusades (eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries). The participants in those campaigns came from various European countries. Priests, monks and soldiers, merchants and blacksmiths, porters and errand boys each spoke different languages, ancestors of today’s English, French, Italian, and German. Latin, to be sure, was the language of their religion and education, but not all participants in the Crusades spoke it. Nor did they all know one another’s languages. Thus, the multilingual crusaders needed a language that everyone could understand. Such a 6 The language that suited them best was Provençal – lingua franca (literally “French language”), used by merchants and seafarers from various countries along the southern Mediterranean coast, from Marseille to Genoa (Samarin, 1968, p. 661). The term lingua franca has now become a linguistic term for a language commonly used for communication by people who speak different languages (Pei, 1966, p. 148). A language of the same kind as lingua franca was russenorsk, also a mixed language. Before the First World War, it was used in northern Norway by Russian merchants and Norwegian fishermen. It took shape in the eighteenth century through interaction between Russian and Norwegian traders. Its grammar was rudimentary, composed of Russian and Norwegian elements. In addition to Norwegian and Russian, it also contained words from Low German and English. This was because the fishermen of northern Norway maintained close ties with Bergen, where Low Germans exerted considerable linguistic influence (Sommerfelt, 1971, p. 33). Thus, mixed languages do not arise in every bilingual situation. They take shape under highly specific historical and social conditions, in regions of intensive ethnic, cultural, and commercial contact and exchange. Wherever a mixed language has taken shape and exists, there has been or is a dual sociocultural tradition. Driven by the needs of communication, one social group strives to adapt the language of another social group. In this process of adaptation, the language system is heavily modified and reduced: what is absent from the native language is also absent from the language learned. In this respect, it is interesting that users of a mixed language themselves do not notice this modification and reduction of the linguistic system. Olaf Broch (1927) observed that russenorsk speakers were convinced they were speaking their interlocutors’ language: Russians thought they were speaking Norwegian, while Norwegians thought they were speaking Russian. On the other hand, not all mixed languages are characterized by a drastically modified, rudimentary grammatical structure. Some may have a complete grammatical system characteristic of a natural language and be used for writing and literary purposes. One such mixed language is, for example, the Norwegian literary language riksmål (literally “state language”). Its phonetics are Norwegian, but its phoneme distribution is Danish; its morphology contains elements of both Norwegian and Danish, while its vocabulary consists of Danish and Norwegian words. Riksmal arose in the nineteenth century, when the dialects of the Norwegian urban middle classes merged with the provincial Danish language known as høytidssproget, “the solemn language” (Sommerfelt, 1971, pp. 26–27). A distinct type of mixed language consists of pidgin (pidgin) languages (the term itself derives from a distorted form of the English word business, meaning “matter, thing; occupation, business”). English, French, and Portuguese were filtered through the indigenous languages of Africa, Oceania, and Asia and drastically modified, producing pidgin English, pidgin French, and pidgin Portuguese. They arose from the need to communicate in trade and exchange and are used between groups. Thus, they serve as a lingua franca. For example, pidgin English—or, more precisely, the pidgin language that developed from English—functions in Cameroon, China, Hawaii, Jamaica, Korea, Melanesia, and Sierra Leone. Pidgin languages are dead languages because they have no speech community that uses them and for whom they are native. They are purely contact languages. 7 But sometimes pidgin can develop into natural languages. For example, the Melanesian pidgin arose as a means of communication in trade. Later, the ruling planter caste used it to give orders and commands in its relations with its subordinates. Less than fifty years after the Melanesian pidgin began to spread, it—known as New Melanesian—was becoming the national language of New Guinea, used in administration, education, mass media, religion, and spiritual culture. Children may learn it from parents who use pidgin in trade and exchange and begin using it to communicate with one another. A community may thus form whose native language is pidgin. Such languages are then called creole languages (Spanish criollo, Portuguese criulo, “a West Indian native of European descent,” are derived from the verb criar, “to feed, raise,” which comes from Latin crēāre, “to create; give birth”). Labai dažnai kreolų kalbos yra laikomos mišriomis kalbomis (plg., pvz., Rosetti, 1972, p. 112–118). Bet nuomonė, kad kreolų kalbose afrikietiška gramatika suderinta su romanų kalbų (portugalų, prancūzų, ispanų) žodynu, nėra pakankamai pamatuota. Pastarųjų metų tyrinėjimai (Taylor, 1972, p. 453–477) rodo, jog pagrindinė kreolų kalbų ypatybė yra smarkiai supaprastinta gramatika, ypač morfologija – neturi žodžių kaitybos fleksijos. L. Hjelmslevas (1938, p. 373–4) yra pareiškęs nuomonę, kad „kreolų kalbų gramatinė sistema (pagrindinių morfemų inventorius ir konfigūracija) yra optimalinė gramatinė sistema“. Komunikacijos požiūriu tokia interpretacija yra visai suprantama, nes apskritai kontaktinėse situacijose kalba kinta optimizacijos kryptimi: išlieka tik tie elementai ir modeliai, kurie yra būtini komunikacijai. Pidgin and creole languages, as noted, arise under highly specific historical and cultural conditions. They are generally found somewhere along major sea routes, in regions of intensive commercial contact and exchange. Thus, in one way or another, they are associated with sea voyages and apparently cannot predate the sixteenth century, when regular sea voyages, trade, and communication with indigenous peoples began. Thus, first, in certain cases (though very rarely), an interlanguage, or lingua franca, that has arisen and functions through various kinds of contact can develop into a real, natural language, such as a native language generally is—that is, a language transmitted from generation to generation without the help of any other language. Second, under specific historical, social, and cultural conditions, a third language combining elements of two (or more) languages can arise. But most often, one language or dialect can be replaced by another. 2. Replacement of languages or dialects Observing the development of relations among the forms in which language exists (the standard spoken language, literary language, dialects, etc.) in various societies, as well as specific bilingual situations and their dynamics (e.g., the linguistic behavior of immigrants in the United States, Brazil, etc.), it is easy to see that one form of a language or one language can replace another and take its place. Standard, standardized languages have displaced traditional dialects in England, France, etc.; dialects are now being displaced in Germany, 8 Lithuania, etc. The native language of the inhabitants of Ireland in the eighteenth century was Gaelic, which belonged to the Celtic branch of languages, but in the nineteenth century almost all Irish people began to use English. The replacement of one form of a language or one language by another is a purely extralinguistic phenomenon: which form of language or which of the languages in contact relinquishes its functions to the other, or vice versa, is entirely independent of its structural features. It would be wrong to suppose that, for example, Latin displaced Gaulish because of its distinctive vocalism or its rich verb system. “The structures of Latin, Arabic, Spanish, and English in no way predisposed these languages to spread far beyond their original boundaries. Whatever in their structures contributed, at least in part, to this process reflected those traits of national character and culture that in one way or another determined the subsequent course of events,” notes the French linguist A. Martinet (Мартине, 1972, c. 81—82). Dialects are often richer than the standard language that displaces them. But the process of replacing a dialect or language involves one psycholinguistic regularity, namely: in the eyes of language users, the replacing language or language form (usually the standard language) is very often prestigious and occupies a high position on the scale of social values. The dynamics of the relationship between standard languages and dialects, and of bilingual situations in society, can vary greatly and depend directly on the linguistic behavior of the social group. Although, as noted, the prestige of standard, standardized languages is high, the inclination of different social groups toward them is not uniform. Urban residents begin using the standard language sooner than rural residents. Among the lower urban strata, the process of replacing one language with another is also faster; it is especially intensive where people of various ethnicities and language backgrounds are concentrated, where there are huge multinational workforces, and where English and Portuguese serve as means of communication. Thus, urbanization and industrialization promote the transformation of bilingual situations into monolingual ones. Meanwhile, rural residents, being more conservative and less inclined to adopt urban innovations, preserve their native language the longest. The old Gaelic language in Ireland, where English otherwise dominates everywhere, still survives in the countryside today and is a symptom of rural opposition to Anglicized cities (Zawadowski, 1961, p. 22). Lithuanian, too, was carried through the centuries of serfdom and denationalized estates into the light of national revival and national culture by Lithuanian serfs. Lithuanian aristocrats, although they considered themselves Lithuanian, spoke Polish. Thus, Lithuanian history offers a rather rare instance in which the upper classes use one language while the lower strata of society use another. Such cases still occur in societies where caste relations have prevailed for centuries. In South India, for example, the Toda, Kota, and Badaga tribes live. The Toda tribe is at the top of the social hierarchy and uses a language different from that of the Kota and Badaga, the serving tribes. Standardized, codified languages are more resilient and have a greater chance of survival than those that are only spoken and have no literary form. Especially vibrant are languages spoken by peoples with an ancient and great culture: the greater the richness and diversity of the culture a language serves, the greater its prestige. In the western provinces of the Roman Empire, Latin displaced the Celtic languages, but it could do nothing to Greek. The prestige of Greek civiliza- 9 tion was so great that Greek survived not only as a spoken language but also as the language of administration in the eastern part of the Roman Empire and in the Byzantine Empire. The relationship of the administration to a language also affects its fate, its survival or replacement. In almost all European countries, standard, standardized languages have displaced or are finishing displacing dialects, and in some places also the languages of national minorities, first and foremost where force is not used against speakers of minority languages. “Force in such cases usually provokes resistance. In fact, the best way to awaken a dying language is to try to suppress it,” notes the Norwegian linguist Alf Sommerfelt (1971, p. 69). One reason for the Lithuanian national revival in the second half of the nineteenth century may have been the brutal repressions of tsarism and the prohibition of the Lithuanian press (Karaliūnas, 1983, p. 6). One of the most important—if not the most important—factors in a language’s subsequent fate is social control. Its presence gives a language the power to survive and endure. Before the First World War, in the villages of the Klaipėda Region and Prussian Lithuania, the father determined which language he and his family would use at home, but his subjective decision had to coincide with the neighbors’ opinion, because if someone had called himself German while being known in the village as Lithuanian, the whole village would have mocked him. The strata of village laborers and artisans did not face such psychological barriers; their behavior was therefore no longer subject to social control, and Germanization overcame them first (Gerulis, 1932). When social conditions change, or for certain political reasons (separatist tendencies of an ethnic or political nature), the object of social control can change, and that control may also disappear altogether. This, in turn, can lead to one language being replaced by another. Jurgis Gerulis describes a case of drastic language replacement and, at the same time, a tragic language fate (Gerullis, 1932). In his native village of Jogaudai, 50–60% of the inhabitants were Lithuanian. There could be no question of any suppression of the Lithuanian language by the local authorities, since the authorities of the time were very favorably disposed toward Lithuanian farmers. Thus, in 1914 the prospects for Lithuanian being displaced were very slight. But by 1925 only three Lithuanians remained in the village. How could it happen that within a decade the Lithuanian language was almost entirely displaced by German? Many Lithuanians did not return from the war. Some inhabitants of Jogaudai were deported to Russia, where the older Lithuanians died. When the Klaipėda Region was ceded to Lithuania, the same language and the same blood were no longer able to overcome the alienation that had arisen from centuries of belonging to two entirely different cultural areas—the Prussian-German and Polish-Russian. The process of Germanization was accelerated especially by the fact that, because of the considerably higher level of farming culture and material prosperity, the Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor felt superior to the Lithuanians of Lithuania: they did not want to be identified with the people in bast shoes from across the border, and began to feel ashamed of their native language and nationality. They had also previously looked down on įpulakus (from the Polish word polak, “Pole”), as they mockingly called Lithuanians from across the Nemunas. Consequently, after the Klaipėda Region was joined to Lithuania, they identified with the Germans, who were their equals in terms of material culture. The social forces that would have led a Lithuanian calling himself German to be mocked no longer existed, and the way was open for Germanization. 10 This example clearly shows that, before a language changes, the sense of national identity disappears. This conclusion is also confirmed by the process of Slavicization among Lithuanians in the Vilnius region (see below). The second, new language displaces the native language not all at once, but gradually. This process must not disrupt communication among members of society. Initially, the new language takes the place of the old one only in certain spheres of use. For example, adult members of society or a social group may use the new language in dealings with the authorities or in the army, while the younger generation may use it at school. The native language, meanwhile, continues to be used in the family and in informal communication. U. Weinreich (1968, p. 107) likewise regards the occupation of certain spheres of use as the replacement of one language by another, and calls it partial. The gradual shift of society to another language is reflected within families in the fact that grandparents speak one language, while the younger generation, usually the children, already use another. Thus, the native-language group coincides with the age group, which is a synchronic manifestation of the replacement of one language by another (Weinreich, 1968, p. 94). Parents are usually bilingual or polylingual; at home they speak two or several languages at once. Such linguistic development has been experienced, for example, by most long-settled Lithuanians in Latvia: a study of their linguistic situation showed that grandparents had often spoken Lithuanian, parents spoke two or five languages, and children spoke a single non-native language (Garšva, 1985, p. 124). It should be emphasized that family bilingualism or polylingualism is most often brought about by mixed marriages. For instance, in 1925, 1930, and 1932, only 20% of Lithuanians living in Latvia married one another; most of their marriages were with Latvians, and the rest with Poles, Russians, and Germans (Garšva, 1984, p. 85). Thus, when social, psychological, and linguistic conditions are favorable, the period of language replacement is relatively short—the third generation is already monolingual and regards the new language as its native language. 64 In the villages around Ciskodas (the most distant Lithuanian language island in Latgale, 90 km from the Lithuanian border), 300–400 Lithuanians lived in 1851. When K. Garšva visited there in 1977, he found only about ten elderly people who understood Lithuanian and could still speak a little. According to the Lithuanian speakers themselves, most of them had stopped speaking Lithuanian to one another around 1930, when, after the older people died, Latvian became dominant in mixed families (Garšva, 1984, p. 87). The replacement of Lithuanian by Polish indicates a similar period (see below). Having lost its communicative function, the retreating language is forced to acquire a special connotation and special functions, for example, an esoteric one (parents speak the old language when they want to hide something from the children), or a comic one (humorous columns in newspapers and magazines). The children of immigrants in America find a word spoken in their parents’ old language funny. Older people regard the new language used by children as a fashion. As a result, many words and expressions are borrowed from it to make speech seem youthful, modern, and elegant. These claims are well supported by the unique dynamics of sociolinguistic situations in the Vilnius region. It has been established that, from the second half of the 19th century, Polish was used within the territory of ethnographic Lithuania in three compact areas—Vilnius, Kaunas, and Smalvos (Turska, 1982, p. 21). The first area, in addition to the environs of Vilnius itself, includes the former Pabradė, Paberžė, Nemenčinė, and Maišiagala districts, as well as parts of the Joniškis, Giedraičiai, Širvintos, and Musninkai districts. The Kaunas area extends north of Kaunas around Vandžio 11 galas, between the Nemunas, Neris, and Nevėžis, while the Smálvos area lies in the northeastern corner, near Zarasai (the villages of Tūrmantas, Smálvos, Bernotiškės, Lupėnka, Šántupiai, Gaidė, and others). These areas are geographically disconnected from one another and lie far from ethnographic Poland. These Polish-language enclaves within Lithuanian-speaking territory formed relatively late (Turska, 1982, p. 21; Vidugiris, 1971). H. Turska, who studied local Polish dialects before the Second World War, says that she met local peasants aged 80–90 who still knew Lithuanian, to a greater or lesser degree (Turska, 1982, p. 44). It should be said that such local people were found more than once, and much later as well. While dialectological material was being collected for the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” in 1956–1969, a number of members of the older generation, aged 70–100, were found in the Vilnius Polish-language area; they clearly remembered how most of the region’s inhabitants spoke only Lithuanian to one another. Many younger people also said that their parents used to speak Lithuanian only among themselves or with neighbors of their own age, but tried not to speak Lithuanian at home with their children. Even more people were encountered who understood Lithuanian, knew the meanings of many place names, animal names, and other words, could say a sentence or two and count, and remembered various swear words used by elderly people of earlier times, but could no longer speak the language. Interestingly, many of them spoke Lithuanian more fluently the longer they thought about it and the harder they tried to recall it. On the basis of these dialect speakers, who knew Lithuanian better or less well, the dialects of Nemenčinė, Ažulaukė, Sužionys, Paberžė, Maišiagala, and other localities were studied in 1956–1969 and described according to the “Program for Collecting Material for the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” (Vidugiris, 1971, pp. 242–243). Grandparents aged 70–80 who remembered and spoke Lithuanian were also encountered in the environs of Kernavė (Vidugiris, 1972, p. 271). Thus, these data clearly show that the Polonization of Lithuanian peasants is not an old phenomenon. Until about the middle of the 19th century, Lithuanian was the predominant language in almost the entire Vilnius district as it then existed (Vidugiris, 1971, p. 236). This is clearly confirmed by the historians M. Balinskis and T. Lipinskis, who knew the region well: “The Vilnius district is inhabited by Lithuanians themselves. However, Lithuanian is predominant throughout only on the northern side, or on the right bank of the Neris; on the southern side, close to Vilnius itself, it has yielded its place to Polish; farther on, Lithuanian-speaking villages alternate with villages where Polish-Russian [i.e., Belarusian. — S. K.] is used. Nevertheless, among the rural population of this district, Lithuanian outweighs both of the latter languages,” they wrote in 1846 in their book “Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, geograficznym i statystycznym” (vol. 3, p. 122). Thus, in the first half of the 19th century, the left bank of the Neris, or the southeastern part of the Vilnius district, as far as Vilnius itself, was still entirely Lithuanian-speaking. This is also shown by P. Köppen’s ethnographic map of the European part of Russia, based on language use and drawing on census data from the first half of the 19th century (1834?). The ethnographic material collected by P. Köppen through Catholic clergy in 1857 shows that people spoke both Lithuanian and Polish in the environs of Verkiai, Riešė, Karvys, and partly in the environs of Maišiagala, Kernavė, and Dubingiai. In the environs of Nemenčinė, Poles lived only in the town and the parish house (Vilnius ir Vilniaus kraštas, pp. 75–76). 12 Even in the city of Vilnius and its suburbs, where favorable conditions for the spread of the Polish language had long existed, Lithuanian was still spoken quite widely. According to P. Kėpenas’s data from 1857, the parishes of St. John, the Holy Spirit, St. James, St. Raphael, the Bernardines, and Antakalnis were mixed (he writes “Lithuanians and Poles”) (Vilnius and the Vilnius Region, p. 74). M. Balinskis (1835, p. 61), author of the first history of the city of Vilnius, wrote: “The inhabitants of the city of Vilnius, by origin, are Lithuanians, Russians, Germans, and Jews.” The Slavic enclaves that had earlier existed within the Lithuanian-speaking area also began to expand rapidly in the second half of the nineteenth century, merging with one another and, like waves, occupying ever new Lithuanian villages. But alongside the Slavic languages—Belarusian, Russian, and Polish—Lithuanian also remained in use, surviving in some places in the Vilnius Region until the beginning of the twentieth century. Drawing on archival documents (e.g., an 1872 economic questionnaire answered by local officials and teachers), A. Vidugiris (1971, p. 241) established that in the 1870s of the previous century, people in the areas around Nemenčinė, Paberžė, and Riešė were bilingual or multilingual. For example, in many families in Nemenčinė rural district people spoke Polish and, in part, Belarusian, while “at gatherings or meetings they spoke Lithuanian and, in part, Russian.” In Paberžė rural district they spoke Polish and Lithuanian; around Riešė, “mostly Polish-Samogitian and occasionally Russian-Lithuanian”; and around Maišiagala, Lithuanian, Polish, and Belarusian. Data gathered by A. Plater in 1890 show that the wave of Slavicization had reached Lithuanian villages even farther north of Vilnius, although Lithuanian was still spoken by quite a number of people: for example, in Maišiagala rural district, 2,207 of the 7,864 inhabitants spoke Lithuanian; in Širvintos rural district, 8,491 of 13,146 people were Lithuanian; and in Mūsninkai rural district, 6,199 of 6,423 inhabitants used the Lithuanian language, and so on. After the restoration of the press in Latin script, we learn mainly from reports in unofficial newspapers that at the beginning of the twentieth century Lithuanian speakers could still be found around Dubingiai—half the population; around Joniškis—half the population; around Nemenčinė—one third of the population; around Paberžė—one third of the population; around Maišiagala—one third of the population (according to other data, two thirds); and around Karvys—in three villages (according to other data, one third of the population) (Vidugiris, 1971). The material collected for the “Atlas of the Lithuanian Language” shows that here and there around Nemenčinė and Riešė, where the local Polish dialect now predominates, Lithuanians shifted to Polish via Belarusian (Vidugiris, 1971, p. 245). In most cases, however, Lithuanian peasants moved directly from their own language, Lithuanian, to Polish, without Belarusian serving as an intermediary. It is striking that the area of Polish extends along the historically earlier Lithuanian-Belarusian ethnographic boundary: Polish spread in those regions where the incursion of the Belarusian element into the Lithuanian-speaking area, the advance of the Belarusian language, and the retreat of Lithuanian were greatest (Turska, 1982, p. 26, 29, 58). Where the Lithuanian-Belarusian ethnographic boundary was more stable, for example around Švenčionys, the process of Lithuanian assimilation was much slower; in some places, Lithuanians became Belarusian while this was described as Polonization. This shows that Polish spread and took root mainly where the linguistic tradition had weakened and fallen apart. These facts once again confirm that the loss of national consciousness and the disappearance of social control precede the adoption of another language. 13 Of the languages in use—Lithuanian, Belarusian, Russian, and Polish—Polish prevailed, coming from the church, the estate, and the city (Vilnius and Daugpilis), although only a small number of people spoke it. The shared Catholic religion also played an important role, while a religious barrier existed between Orthodox Belarusians and Catholic Poles, contributing considerably to the preservation of their languages. Moreover, adherence to the Catholic faith often came to be equated with belonging to the Polish nation. Consequently, most inhabitants, regardless of their origin or mother tongue, began to consider themselves Polish on the basis of their religion (Vidugiris, 1983, p. 53). Thus, in the Lithuanian countryside, Polish spread primarily as the language of the upper classes (nobles, priests, and townspeople) and of religion, as well as the language of the state, education, and culture—which made it a language of prestige in the eyes of Lithuanian peasants. The Polish-speaking area around Kaunas emerged when, in the nineteenth century, local peasants adopted Polish through their regular contacts with the numerous szlachta homesteads (“okolice”) in the area. The shift from Lithuanian to Polish proceeded through an intermediate stage of bilingualism. Lithuanian-Polish bilingualism in many parishes of the Vilnius Region was brief—the third generation no longer understood Lithuanian and spoke only Polish. According to H. Turska (1982, p. 54), mixed marriages, especially women, played a decisive role in this process, in the “catastrophic decline in the number of Lithuanians in Vilnius County.” It is generally well known that women play a conservative role in language development: they pass their mother tongue on to their children and thereby preserve the linguistic tradition. In the case under discussion, however, the opposite was true: women played the dominant role in the process of Polonization. From elderly people, H. Turska (1982, p. 45) learned that Lithuanian was used longest while working somewhere away from home, in the fields or in the forest; at home, within the family, it was a despised language—not used for fear that the children might learn it (“Although father was Lithuanian, mother was Polish, so we spoke Polish”). On closer examination, it turned out that this “Polish mother” came from the same or a neighboring village, and that her parents, like the father’s parents, had spoken only Lithuanian until they died. This woman’s negative attitude toward Lithuanian (“Mother would get angry when the grandparents spoke Lithuanian to the children; once she even drove Grandfather out of the house”) apparently stemmed from her practical outlook, from a desire for her children to secure a better place and higher status in society, and perhaps from a certain vanity on her part (“Using a nobler language makes me nobler, and so on”). A. Vidugiris’s observations (1972, p. 271) also confirm this role of women in the abandonment of Lithuanian: in the Kernavė area, the family of S. Ručinskas, a strong representative of the Lithuanian language, hindered his dialect research in every way—especially his wife and daughters, who disliked Lithuanian. Thus, the fact that her children did not know, or scarcely knew, the Lithuanian language used by her parents and still spoken by her herself in childhood—in other words, that the period of bilingualism was so short—was largely determined by the woman. It has been established that in many parts of the Vilnius Region, Lithuanian-Belarusian bilingualism and the shift of Lithuanians to Belarusian historically preceded these developments (Vidugiris, 1971, p. 245–246; 1983, p. 53–58). Although the Polish element in Lithuania grew stronger in the first half of the nineteenth century, contributing to the spread and improvement of Polish-language proficiency, it did not bring about mass Polonization. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the specific causes that would have brought about mass Polonization did not yet exist. 14 The rapid abandonment of the Lithuanian language and the mass transition of Lithuanian peasants to Polish coincided with the abolition of serfdom (1861) and the uprising of 1863–1864; in other words, they coincided essentially with the establishment of capitalist relations of production in the countryside and with the intensification of the struggle for influence over Lithuanian peasants between the landowning and clerical classes aligned with Poland and the tsarist officials (Vidugiris, 1983, pp. 54–55). It may therefore be assumed that the principal cause of the mass Polonization of the Lithuanian countryside was fundamental socioeconomic change in peasant life—their release from serfdom and their growing prosperity. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the linguistic difference between the upper and lower strata of society was also linked to class difference. Polish first entered the everyday lives of well-to-do peasants and those holding certain positions (village elders, foresters, etc.) (Turska, 1982, p. 56). Lithuanians called everyone who spoke Polish a szlachta, and to be a szlachta meant belonging to the upper stratum. Having described and analyzed the present-day sociolinguistic situation in the Kernavė area, A. Vidugiris (1972, p. 272) concluded that assimilation first affected the town of Kernavė and the nearby estates (e.g., Kriveikiškis, Kernavėlė, etc.), as well as villages with some kind of privilege, such as exemption from serfdom (for example, Semeniškiai, Ramonėškiai, etc.). Thus, the social motive was apparently one of the most important reasons why Lithuanian peasants began speaking Polish. Socioeconomic changes and democratizing tendencies gave rise to two entirely different sociocultural phenomena in ethnographic Lithuania. First, in the second half of the 19th century, an increasingly numerous national intelligentsia emerged in the Lithuanian interior from among people seeking education and scholarship, steering the Lithuanian national revival in a completely different direction. Second, in the ethnographic Lithuanian–Belarusian borderland, where Lithuanian national consciousness had considerably faded, a widespread tendency took shape among Lithuanian peasants to use Polish as the language of culture, education, and religion. H. Turska (1982, p. 29) teigia, kad lietuvių valstiečių perėjimas į lenkų kalbą buvęs gaivališkas, stichiškas. Žymesnio vaidmens negalėjęs suvaidinti nė lenkiško elemento sustiprėjimas Lietuvoje XIX a. pirmoje pusėje, Vilniaus universiteto klestėjimo metu. Daugeliu atvejų iš tikrųjų taip galėjo būti. Bet tai buvo keletą šimtmečių trukusios sąmoningos ir organizuotos polonizacijos politikos, varytos per bažnyčią ir dvarus, padarinys. Tiesa, ligi Žečpospolitos padalijimų (1772, 1775 ir 1795 m.) Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje nebuvo kompaktiškų lenkų kalbos arealų, nes lenkiškas elementas neturėjo Lietuvoje palankių sąlygų tarpti ir plėtotis. According to the 1897 census, 3,151 people in the then Vilna Governorate had come from the ethnographic regions of Poland; 1,702 of them lived in Vilnius itself. This figure includes not only Poles but also Polish Jews, most of whom may likewise have come from Poland. Before the Vilnius region was occupied in 1919 by General Żeligowski’s legions, Poles may have constituted 1–1.5% of its population. Their proportion may have been higher only in the counties of Grodno and Augustów (Vilnius and the Vilnius Region, pp. 108–109). The Lithuanian Statute prohibited Poles from owning estates or other land in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The right to acquire towns, districts, and estates, as well as to lease or 15 manage immovable property belonged exclusively to Lithuanians, Samogitians, and Belarusians born in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and long settled there. The official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the Slavic chancery language. “А писарь земский имеет по руски литерами и словы рускими все листы и позвы писати”, states the 1566 Lithuanian Statute (Chapter IV, Article 1). Polish gradually spread alongside it. In the 16th century, and especially the 17th, the use of the Slavic chancery language and Polish led to an interesting compromise: the legal formulas at the beginning and end of an act were written in the language required by law—the Slavic chancery language—but the body of the act itself was in Polish. This situation continued until 1697. At that point, the de facto predominance of Polish was recognized, and it was elevated to the status of the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The first centers of Polish language and culture in Lithuania arose in magnate estates, churches, and larger towns. The principal users of Polish were the upper and middle strata of Lithuanian society—magnates, Catholic clergy, wealthy townspeople, and the lesser szlachta. Through them, Polish spread to other strata as well. From the very introduction of Christianity in Lithuania, priests were Polish, since there were no Lithuanian ones. It was only at the very end of the 16th century that Lithuanian priests began to be trained at the Vilnius seminary and scholarships were established for them. The church was the chief center for the spread of Polish: sermons were delivered in Polish, Lithuanian parishioners were required to know their prayers in Polish, and Lithuanian was regarded as pagan and therefore unsuitable for the church (Stosunki litewsko-polskie w diecezji Wileńskiej, 1913). It is therefore unsurprising that the ascendancy of Polish and the denigration and rejection of Lithuanian had advanced so far already in the 16th century that the more enlightened minds of the time, such as M. Daukša, felt it necessary to defend their native language and its use: “Although, to tell the truth, few among us, especially those of higher standing, do not know Polish and cannot read sermons written in Polish, yet, in my opinion, there are many who do not understand Polish or know very little of it. I know how all nations value, love, and cherish works written in their native language (which is why, I believe, all nations have hastened to translate books from other languages into their own); only our Lithuanian nation [i.e., the nobility.—S. K.], in learning and using Polish, has so scorned, neglected, and almost renounced its own language that everyone sees this clearly, yet scarcely anyone is likely to praise it for doing so,” wrote M. Daukša in the “Preface to the Gentle Reader” of the Postil, published in Vilnius in 1599 (Lietuvių literatūros istorijos chrestomatija, p. 65). The process of Polish spreading and gaining dominance steadily intensified. From 1737 onward, sermons in Vilnius churches were no longer delivered in Lithuanian. At Vilnius University, lectures were given in Latin until 1812, but Polish gradually took hold, and by the time the university was closed most of its professors were Polish. Throughout its existence, Vilnius University published only one Lithuanian book—K. Nezabitauskis’s “Bites” (1823). A deliberate, organized policy of Polonization, carried out primarily through the church, had its effect: Lithuanians in the towns, and partly in the countryside too—especially where national traditions had greatly weakened—gradually became accustomed to the idea that Lithuanian was an inferior, rustic language, unsuitable for use in church or other public places. The role of the church in the process of Polonization is also evident in the fate of Lithuanians in Latvia, where, from the 19th century 16 In the southern part of central Latvia and in the towns, local Lithuanians did not become Latvianized, Belarusianized, or Russified, but mostly Polishized. For example, in Iłūkšta District, 5,023 Lithuanians and 3,828 Poles were recorded in 1860, whereas in 1897 there were 6,986 Lithuanians and already 11,380 Poles. The numbers of Lithuanians and Poles increased disproportionately not because of unequal natural growth, but because some Lithuanians became Polishized, since Latvians had only begun to move into the district after 1850 and belonged to a different denomination. In the Laukesa area of Iłūkšta District (6 km south of Daugavpils), the number of Lithuanians also declined: in 1904, Lithuanians made up about 87% (3,500 out of 4,000); in 1914, 25%; in 1930, 14.1%; in 1935, 6.8%; and in 1969, 1%. The church managed to instill such deeply rooted traditions of Polishization: the area in question had ceased to belong to the Polish–Lithuanian state in 1772, and serfdom was abolished around 1817 (Garšva, 1985, p. 124). It has been established (Nitsch, 1925; Turska, 1982, p. 64) that the Polish language used by the upper and middle strata of Lithuanian society (polszczyzna litewska), viewed historically, is a local variant of standard Polish (koiné), formed on the basis of a foreign language. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that practically all Polishisms in Lithuanian have equivalents in literary Polish, but not in its dialects. Thus, they must have come from the standard Polish variant used in Lithuania and Belarus (polszczyzna kresowa). For the same reason, Lithuanian and Belarusian share a considerable number of Polishisms; compare, for example, Lithuanian ambaras ‘trouble, difficulty’ — Belarusian амбарас (< Polish ambaras); arpavóti ‘to clean grain with a winnowing sieve’ — арфоваць (< Polish arfować); bėdà ‘a type of two-wheeled cart’ — бяда (< Polish bieda, bida), etc. Polishisms in Samogitian dialects (e.g., čiōnglis, koñpėlius, krėderas, lañpartas, etc.) seem to have been borrowed directly from the Polish used in manor houses (but not from the southern Lithuanian dialects). Most regional Polishisms are used alongside Lithuanian words of equivalent meaning. This would suggest that Polish “manor-house” words were intended to adorn and ennoble Lithuanian, as happens today in Belarusian-Polish bilingual situations when speaking Belarusian (Адамовичуте, 1982). As is well known, Polish is also used quite widely in Belarus, especially in its western part, but as a second language it is used primarily by Belarusian Catholics. For example, Orthodox rural residents of the Hrodna District do not even know it (Чекман, 1982, с. 126). An exception is the very northwestern corner of Belarus, around Sopotskin and Trakininkai (Трокеники), where the local residents speak only Polish, although this territory was Lithuanian until quite recently. It seems that its residents switched to Polish directly from Lithuanian (Гринблат, 1968, с. 148–160). Thus, the use of Polish in Belarus does not form a continuous area; Polish is used here alongside native Belarusian as a second language. In Belarus, therefore, Polish functions as a kind of interdialect, whose essence lies in its adstratal character (Чекман, 1982, с. 124–128). The Polish variant (polszczyzna litewska) used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and later by the upper and upper-middle strata of Lithuanian society after Lithuania was incorporated into the Russian Empire (1795), also performed the function of an interdialect. Thus, the use of Polish in Belarus differs fundamentally from its use in Lithuania, where Polish has become the native language for a certain part of the population and 2. 1880 2793 17 where it functions as a linguogeographical dialect. Viewed historically, the two forms of Polish used on the fringes of the Polish ethnographic area (polszczyzna kresowa)—the vernacular, linguogeographical dialect and the interdialect—are two sociolinguistic stages in the development of the same phenomenon: the standard spoken Polish language (koiné) became an interdialect, formerly used by the szlachta, clergy, and townspeople, from which the vernacular, linguogeographical Polish dialect developed (the Vilnius, Kaunas, and Smalvos Polish-language areas). An examination of the social dynamics of bilingual situations allows the following conclusions to be drawn. 1. The status quo of bilingual situations can persist for a long time. However, given certain sociohistorical conditions, bilingual situations can be transformed. Bilingual situations can be eliminated in two ways: a) the language of a community is replaced, and another language takes its place; b) a mixed language develops, consisting of elements and features of both languages. This, however, occurs only in exceptional cases, under highly specific historical and social conditions, namely in regions of intensive ethnic, cultural, and commercial contact and exchange. Wherever a mixed language has developed and exists, there has also been, or is, a dual sociocultural tradition. 2. The replacement of one language by another always passes through a bilingual stage. The new, second language gradually takes the place of the old one. At first, it is used only in certain spheres (administration, education, and the church) and by certain social groups—the upper and middle strata of society (town dwellers, clergy, and nobility). 3. The new, second language, in its initial stage functions in many cases as a regional means of communication—an interdialect, an interlanguage, or lingua franca. Only later does it become a linguogeographic dialect (language). From a historical perspective, an interdialect, lingua franca, and a linguogeographic dialect (language) are two sociolinguistic stages in the development of the same phenomenon. 4. Language shift is usually preceded by a fading of national consciousness. The presence of national consciousness in situations of bilingualism and language contact is expressed as linguistic patriotism and social control. Language choice in situations where two or more languages are used is an object of social control. С. КАРАЛЮНАС BILINGUAL SITUATIONS AND THEIR SOCIAL DYNAMICS Summary In cases where two languages functioning in a society are used in different domains and for different purposes, bilingual situations are stable and usually persist for a long time. Under certain sociohistorical and cultural conditions, however, bilingual situations develop toward their elimination. Mixed languages (such as pidgins, lingua francas, or creole languages) arise under specific sociohistorical conditions in regions with maritime routes, intensive ethnic and cultural contacts, and trade. 18 The replacement of a dialect or language is a long-term sociolinguistic process. The replacing form of language use (primarily the literary colloquial language) and the second language generally occupy a high position in society’s system of values and enjoy greater prestige among speakers of the dialect or language. In the initial stages of bilingualism, the replacing form of language and the second language in many cases function as an interdialect and an interlanguage (lingua franca). In later phases of development, they become, respectively, a linguogeographical dialect and a national language. The interdialect and interlanguage, on the one hand, and the linguogeographical dialect and national language, on the other, are two sociolinguistic forms of one and the same phenomenon. Theoretical propositions are illustrated with examples of the development of different languages around the world and, above all, with facts from the history of the Lithuanian language and its dialects in the periphery—in the Lithuanian-Belarusian border zone, in Latvia, and in the former Klaipėda Region, where intensive Lithuanian-German language contacts persisted for a long time. S. KARALIUNAS BILINGUAL SITUATIONS AND THEIR SOCIAL DYNAMIC Summary When two (or more) languages are used in a society in different domains (e. g., everyday life vs. administration) and for different purposes, bilingual situations are stable and they may endure for a long time. In certain social and cultural circumstances, however, bilingual situations tend to be eliminated. Mixed languages (e. g., pidgin, lingua francas and creole languages) develop under specific historical-social circumstances, in the areas of sea-trade and voyage routes and intense ethnic and cultural contacts. Replacement of a dialect or a language is a long sociolinguistic process. The existent form of a language (usually a standard language) and the second language, which replace a native dialect or a language, enjoy high value and prestige in a society. At the initial stages of bilingualism the existent form of a language and the second language quite often function as an interdialect or an interlanguage (lingua francas). In the subsequent stages of development they become a linguogeographic dialect and a national language, respectively. An interdialect and an interlanguage, on the one hand, a linguogeographic dialect and a national language, on the other hand, represent two sociolinguistic forms of the same phenomenon. Theoretical propositions in the article are illustrated by examples taken from many languages of the world and mainly by the facts from the history of the Lithuanian language and its dialects in periphery — in the Lithuanian — Byelorussian ethnographic borderland, in Latvia as well as in the former Klaipėda region, where there were intense Lithuanian — German linguistic contacts LITERATŪRA Baliński M. Opisanie statystyczne miasta Wilna. Wilno, 1835. Baliński M., Lipiński T. Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, geograficznym i statystycznym. Warszawa, 1843–1846. T. 1–3. Birnbaum S. Die jiddische Sprache // Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift. 1923. T. 11. P. 149–155. Broch O. Russenorsk // Archiv für slavische Philologie. 1927. T. 41. P. 209–262. Garšva K. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės ir jų kontaktai Latvijoje (1. Lietuvių kalbos tarmių Latvijoje istorija) // Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija. V., 1984. T. 2(87). P. 83–90. 2* 19 Garšva K. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės ir jų kontaktai Latvijoje (2. Lietuvių gyvenamosios vietos ir kalbų funkcionavimas) // Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija. V., 1985. T. 1(90). P. 118–126. Gerullis G. Muttersprache und Zweisprachigkeit in einem preussisch-litauischen Dorf. – Studi Baltici, 1932, t. 2, p. 59–67. Haugen E. The Ecology of Language // Stanford, 1972. Hjelmslev L. Caractères grammaticaux des langues créoles // Compte-rendu du 2ᵉ Congrès International des sciences anthropologique et ethnologique. Copenhague, 1938. Karaliūnas S. Žydų kalba // Mokslas ir gyvenimas. 1977. Nr. 1. P. 35–36. Karaliūnas S. Respublikos lingvosocialinės situacijos charakteristika // Kalbų kontaktai Lietuvos TSR: LKK, t. 23. V., 1983. P. 4–42. Lietuvių literatūros istorijos chrestomatija. V., 1957. Mackey W. F. The Description of Bilingualism // Readings in the Sociology of Language / Ed. by J. Fishman. The Hague; Paris, 1968. P. 554–584. New Horizons in Linguistics / Ed. by J. Lyons. Aylesburg, 1975. Nitsch K. Język polski na Wileńszczyźnie // Przegląd Współczesny. 1925. Nr. 33. Pei M. Glossary of Linguistic Terminology // New York, 1966. Rosetti A. Langue mixte et mélange des langues. – Acta Linguistica, 1945–1949, t. 5. P. 73–78 (rus. vert.: Новое в лингвистике. – М., 1972, вып. 6, с. 112–118). Samarin W. J. Lingua Francas of the World // Readings in the Sociology of Language / Ed. by J. Fishman. The Hague; Paris, 1968. P. 660–671. Sommerfelt A. Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. The Hague, 1971. Stosunki litewsko-polskie w diecezji Wileńskiej. W Wilnie, 1913. Ščerba L. V. Sur la notion de mélange des langues. – In: Яфетический сборник. Л., 1925, т. 4, с. 1–19. Taylor D. Structural Outline of Caribbean Creole // Word. 1951, N 7. P. 43–59 (Rus. vertimas: Новое в лингвистике. – М. 1972, вып. 6, с. 452–477). Turska H. O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie // Studia nad polszczyzną kresową. Wrocław–Warszawa…, 1982. T. 1. P. 19–119. Urbańczyk S. Początki polskiego dialektu na Wileńszczyźnie // Slavia Orientalis. 1968. T. 17. P. 433–436. Vidugiris A. Kalbų sąveikos klausimu // Dubbingiai. V., 1971. P. 235–253. Vidugiris A. Kalbinės situacijos charakteristika // Kernavė. V., 1972. P. 265–277. Vidugiris A. Dėl kalbų kontaktavimo pietryčių Lietuvoje //Kalbų kontaktai Lietuvos TSR: LKK, t. 23. V., 1983. P. 46–60. Vilnius ir Vilniaus kraštas: Krašto pažinimo pradai. – K., 1932. Weinreich U. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. 6th Printing. The Hague; Paris, 1968. Zawadowski L. Fundamental Relations in Language Contact // Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa językoznawczego. 1961. T. 20. P. 1–26. Адамовичте И. -Э. Проблемы изучения польских заимствований в литовских говорах // Studia nad polszczyzną kresową. Wrocław; Warszawa…, 1982. T. 1. P. 151–176. Вайнарах У. Языковые контакты / Пер. и коммент. Ю. А. Жлуктенко. Киев, 1979. Гавранек Б. К проблематике смешения языков // Новое в лингвистике. М., 1972. Вып. 6. С. 94–107. Гринблат М. Я. Белорусы. Минск, 1968. Мартыне А. Распространение языка и структурная лингвистика // Новое в лингвистике. М., 1972. Вып. 6. С. 81–93. Чекман В. Н. К социолингвистической характеристике польских говоров белорусско-литовского пограничья // Studia nad polszczyzną kresową. Wrocław; Warszawa…, 1982. T. 1. P. 123–138. Щерба Л. В. О понятии смешения языков // Щерба Л. В. Языковая система и речевая деятельность. Л., 1974. С. 60–74. 20