Lietuvių ir rusų kalbų funkcionavimas Lietuvos TSR švietimo sferoje

Me ia Oi ER eye i T TTR RAR a a PA in secondary schools (Vilnius Electrical Engineering, Molėtai region, Alanta Agricultural Technology and Panevėžys A. Domaševičius Medical Technological School) and 4) in specialized classes (Vilnius M. K. Čiurlionis Art School music class, Šiauliai 9 secondary school class with reinforced mathematics teaching). III. According to the 1979 census, 53.59% of the population of the republic fluently spoke the second national language of the USSR: 48.09% spoke Russian, 4.79% spoke Lithuanian, 0.294% spoke Latvian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, and 0.19% spoke other languages. As in other republics, of the 130 languages of the USSR nations, the inhabitants of the Lithuanian SSR speak Russian the best. Between the 1970 and 1979 censuses in the Soviet Union, the number of Uzbeks and Lithuanians (the latter — 16.2%), who spoke Russian, increased significantly. The Lithuanians of the USSR, according to the Russian language proficiency (52,194) among the nationalities whose names the union republics are named after, rose from 6th place to 4th place (after Belarusians, Latvians and Kazakhs, behind the first only 4.99%). In terms of the ability to speak other languages of the USSR, it was ranked 14th out of 11. The urban population of the Lithuanian SSR spoke Russian, Lithuanian and other second languages of the USSR better (53.4%, 6.4% and 0.8%) than the rural population (39.9%, 2.2% and 0.5%). Men speak Russian better (52.69%) than women (44.0%) — this is due to a more active lifestyle and military service. If the percentage of persons able to speak a second language is calculated not from the total population of the republic, but only from those who do not consider that language as their mother tongue, the fluent speakers of Russian as a second language would be more — 54,094, the speakers of Lithuanian — 249%, and the speakers of other languages — 0.8%. According to the 1979 census, the number of people who adopted Russian as their mother tongue was 3.7 times higher (2.2%) and, compared to those whose mother tongue was Lithuanian (0.6%), this number increased four times faster in 1970-1979. The number of people who speak Russian as a second language among all the inhabitants of the republic increased 28.4 times over the decade (14.2 and 0.5%), and among those who do not consider this language as their mother tongue (see Table 1) — 9.6 times faster than those who speak Lithuanian (1.7%). In total, the number of people who spoke Russian as a second language was 10.4 and 2.3 times higher (47.9 and 53.99) than the number of people who spoke Lithuanian (46 and 2394). Thus, although the majority of the population in the republic speaks Lithuanian, Russian is the second most widely spoken language and it is spreading much faster. This is due to the fact that the Russian language is the means of communication of the peoples of the USSR, 0 94.29, Lithuanian SSR non-Lithuanian constitute Slavic nationalities (Russians, Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians), who mostly study in Russian schools and increasingly can speak Russian with Lithuanians. In addition, Lithuanian language lessons in schools taught in Russian are three times less than Russian language lessons in Lithuanian schools. 859% of the population can communicate freely in Lithuanian; besides lietuviy it is spoken by 55,894 Latvians, 45,5% Gypsies, 36,0% Russians, 32,59, Jews. The least Lithuanian-speaking are Polish (only 11.6%), Belarusian (12.9%), Ukrainian (15.594%). Compared to 1970, the number of Poles who speak Lithuanian increased very slightly (0.79%), while the number of Jews and minority groups decreased (1.8 and 9.99, respectively). The latter figures relate to population migration. su 155 MAAR a Tissus RITA EI RET TERE TR ra schools, iš jų 1997 (9694) — linguistically non-mixed: 1846 schools (92,4%) were, déstoma only lietuviy language, 103 (5,2%) — rusy language ir 48 (2,4%) — in Polish. Students of Lithuanian, 402.727, 52.450 ir 3.753 Russian and Polish ir nationalities studied in them, respectively, 87,89%, 11,4% ir 0,8% non-mixed school pupils and 96,294, 71,57, ir 34,694 of all students of that nationality. It has been noted that, when su comparing literature in their mother tongue, Lithuanian pupils read in Russian about two du times slower, in a o foreign language at — least three times slower. This determines the amount of literature read in ir general the desire to read, learn (Illsprac, 1978, c. 13). Because of to this, most of the literature in the republic is printed in Lithuanian. 1940—1985 m. Lithuanian published 74,994 book ir brochureo s, Russian — 17,894 books. 1985 m. books, newspapers, magazine bulletins 70,3% published in 78,44, the republic 73,5% in Lithuanian, ir in Russian — 17,8% books, 18,74, newspap22,3% ers, magazines (plg. Lietuvos Press statistics of the TSR 1981 —1985, p. 28—29, 75—76). In sociological research, the need for a mother tongue has been considered self-evident. On the to question, what number of individuals want to learn a second language. Iš 1375 informants | 1075 (78,294) wanted to speak, read and write in the second language, ir 82 (6%) — read to ir write, 162 (11,894) — talk to (7 lent. ). There are four trends in the need for a second language. First; the fewer people in the group who are proficient in the second language, the more people are willing to learn all forms of it. Secondly, most informants want to communicate actively (learn to speak first). Thirdly, those who know the language well try to master all its forms (speaking, writing, reading). Fourthly, the worse the second language is tą spoken, the more often it is assumed that it is enough to learn only to communicate. Among the informants with good knowledge II of Russian, there were 1,9 ir 1,5 times less (24.67) than in Parts I and III. However, the number of people willing to speak, read and write (72%) in part II of the informants was 2.9 times greater than those with good knowledge, and in parts I and III — only 1.7 times. Those wishing to master all three forms of the second language most (72 — table. The need 7 to pay the second USSR peoples’ language* (aggregate data) Informants Need for a second USSR peoples’ language; want: Answers share number pss helo, Sein read and write talk I —1019 number 824 47 101 to% 80.9 4.6 99 II 300 number 216 29 55 a 72 9,6 18,5 III 56 number 35 6 6 % 62,5 10,7 10,7 I-III 1375 number 1075 82 162 % 78,2 6,0 11,8 *93.7 9% of respondents (non-Russian nationality) considered Russian to be the second language of the USSR peoples and 6.3 94 respondents (Russians) considered Lithuanian to be the second language. 165 (1983.02.03, No. 15) ir other decisions concerning the improvement of the teaching of the humanities, By implementing decisions of higher bodies?, from 1977 m. educational bodies are paying even more attention to the teaching of Russian to Lithuanian ir Poles. The aim is that every pupil, receiving secondary education, fluently speak Russian. ir ~ sy language. Teaching Russian ir language literature 1986—1990 m. republic is planned to spread about 100 publications. 1987 m. Weekly broadcast introduced in LTSR radio programs ,,Talk". sų From 1984 m. Russian-speaking teachers are obliged to upgrade their qualifications every three years (Lithuanian-- speaking — teachers in non-Lithuanian schools every five years). The Russian Language and Literature Department and the ir Russian Language and Literature Cabinet were established in the National Teachers’ ir Development Institute, and the Faculty of Teachers’ Development was established in the VVPI. Į Faculties of Russian language and literature ir of pedagogical institutes of the be RSFSR are now sending Lithuanian po 20 graduates to study every year for a year internship — po 30 of students (see section 4.4). Cnypra, 1986, c. 1—4). In order to improve the teaching of Russian ir literature in the republic, a lot of efforts are made, in order to review and evaluate all ir this, a separate monograph would be necessary. Most respondents suggested improving Lithuanian-- Russian language teaching ir tools, raising the quality of lessons, preschool language education (opinions differed more on other methods). Especially many proposals for teaching their subject were made by Lithuanian and Russian teachers. As for the first three methods of teaching Russian, the latter thought the same as most of the respondents. Students of the city’s secondary and vocational schools also attached the greatest importance to textbooks (see Tables 11—14). Women were more concerned about the teaching of both languages than men. ). už ir 9,49, (15 Men paid less attention to the quality of the lessons in both languages. : There was little desire in adult Lithuanian language courses for Lithuanians to increase the ir number of Russian language lessons. The number of weekly Russian language and literature lessons in Lithuanian-language schools has already increased from to 1979—1987 m. 42 47. 2,3—0,1% 20% of respondents independently suggested even more ways of improving the ir teaching of Lithuanian, Russian and other languages: better use of optional subjects, television, radio, cinema films, organizing meetings of pupils with foreign-speaking peers, competitions, quizzes, language clubs. Proposed to publish more software literature, tables, picture sets ir t. i.e., better provide teachers with methodological, didactic publications, visual tools, create conditions to acquire books needed for work in bookstores. The most important goal of language lessons in secondary school is to teach practical correct speaking and writing in the mother tongue and second language. This should mainly concern Lithuanian language lessons (especially for non-Lithuanians). In Russian language lessons practical orientation * Plg. On the further improvement of Russian language teaching in general education schools in the Lithuanian (Polish) language of instruction (Decision of the Central Committee of the LKP of 31 January 1977); On additional measures to improve the teaching of the Russian language in general education schools and other educational institutions of the union republics (decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 26 May 1983): People's Education, 1979, pp. 99—103, 207—209; Truth, 1983, May 28, p. 1; Memoirs, 1981, c. 151—156, 230—295 H T. Jį. ; TyGoriito, 1984, c. 5-9, 67-71. 169 14 Table 1. Suggested ways of improving Russian language teaching by some categories of respondents in the educational sphere (94) The school is a non-governmental school for children of mo Russian : : immigrants in the city. tech. students m-los m-los m-los 1 58,7 48,0 20,0 11 16,2 26,2 2 89,9 34,7 42,6 13 38,1 16,5 3 29,4 2,7 9,2 18 16,2 38,0 4 45,0 13,3 31,8 70 20,0 35,0 5 26,6 6,7 19,7 26 26,7 14,6 6 30,3 16,0 12,5 13 124 13,6 1-6 46,5 20,2 22,6 25,2 21,6 240 Explanation: the table shows the opinions of 1) teachers working in general secondary schools of the republic and mainly in cities (especially teachers of Russian language and literature); 2) students of urban and rural general secondary schools and urban special vocational technical schools, who are taught in Lithuanian and 3) students of urban secondary schools, who are taught in Russian. and Russian lessons, for six-year-olds — a total of 7 mother tongue and 2 Russian lessons. Until now, the majority of Lithuanian children initially speak only dialectally and learn Lithuanian common language as a second language, so allocating equal amount of time to mother tongue and Russian for five-year-olds is not appropriate. Soviet psychologists have observed that children aged 5-6 years have very different levels of knowledge of their mother tongue, which can lead to confusion with the second language. Table 15 Dependence of methods of improvement of Siilomy language teaching on gender (94) Lithuanian Russian Other languages of the USSR Methods of improvement men women Men women men women 1 24,1 34,8 19,6 33,7 44 3,9 2 41,7 36,2 42,7 48,9 8,6 6,5 3 231 ° 30,0 16,5 16,9 2,0 55 4 38,6 33,2 344 34,5 2,4 1,7 5 17,9 16,9 21,7 22,3 4,8 6,1 6 12,4 11,8 15,5 19,9 15,8 20,3 The child's native language skills end up forming in the first grades of school. Many of our psychologists, educators, linguists have emphasized that the second language should be taught when the first (native) language is established in the child’s psyche and the writing in the native language is learned (Jacikevičius, 1970, pp. 27, 51, 80, 250, 255; Pycckui 173