LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXVII (1988)

LIETUVIŲ KALBA IR BILINGVIZMAS

KAZIMIERAS GARŠVA, JAKOVAS TRIFONOVAS

THE FUNCTIONING OF THE LITHUANIAN AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES IN THE SPHERE OF EDUCATION IN THE LITHUANIAN SSR

I. Introduction

1. Leninist language policy. In the life of a nation, the native language is of very great importance; it is the foundation of the existence of a nation and national culture, and the most important means of educating people and developing their thinking. The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1977, Articles 34, 36, 45, 116, 159, pp. 17, 18, 21, etc.) guarantees equal rights “to use one’s native language and the languages of other peoples of the USSR” and “to study at school in one’s native language.” The new edition of the “Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” adopted by the 27th Congress of the CPSU (1986, pp. 38–39), states concerning the further flourishing and rapprochement of socialist nations and nationalities: “No artificial acceleration is permissible here, nor is it permissible to hinder objective developmental trends that have matured [...]. The free development of native languages and the equal right of all USSR citizens to use them will continue to be ensured. At the same time, knowledge of the Russian language, which Soviet people have voluntarily adopted as a means of communication between nations, alongside the language of one’s own nationality, makes it possible to benefit more broadly from the achievements of science and technology, and from the culture of our country and the world.”

Information is more easily and rapidly absorbed and retained for the longest time when received in one’s native language. Language, as the most important means of human communication, can be sufficiently effective only when it is familiar and fully understood by the majority of the population. For this reason, V. Lenin and other Soviet state leaders attached primary importance to education in the native language, decisively opposing a privileged “state” language and violations of the rights of national minorities, and demanding the development of their languages and literature (cf. Исаев, 1986, с. 124–128).

The opportunity to study in one’s native language and voluntarily study a second language of the peoples of the USSR was at all times established by the relevant USSR education laws as well. On the basis of the revised Fundamentals of the Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on Public Education, adopted in connection with the education reform, the Lithuanian SSR Law on Public Education of 18 July 1975 was also amended and supplemented somewhat in 1986. In its new edition, Article 26 of Chapter III is devoted to the language of instruction: “…pupils in general education schools are given the opportunity to study in their native language or in the language of another people of the USSR. Parents or their legal representatives have the right to choose voluntarily a school with the appropriate language of instruction for their children. In addition to the language of instruction, pupils may, if they so wish, study the language of another people of the USSR.”

In schools where the language of instruction is not Russian, the necessary conditions are created for studying Russian alongside the native language; this is a language that Soviet people have

150

voluntarily adopted as a means of interethnic communication¹. This ensures free command of those languages and an equal level of general education, taking into account the particular characteristics of the population of the Lithuanian SSR.

To make it possible to become more broadly acquainted with the cultures of the peoples of the world and to expand opportunities for deepening professional knowledge, foreign languages are also taught in schools” (Law on Public Education of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, 1986, p. 2).

The political report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 27th Congress of the CPSU stated: “… our achievements must not create the impression that national processes do not raise problems. Contradictions are inherent in all development; they are inevitable in this sphere as well. The most important thing is to see their continuously emerging aspects and limits, and to seek and provide in good time the right answers to the questions posed by life” (1986, p. 5). K. Chanazarov and others advocated learning in a non-native language in 1963, 1977, and 1982, although the second language often then becomes the “first” language (cf. Ханазаров, 1977, с. 137–143, 150, etc.). Such tendencies were criticized by linguists (cf. Пяль, 1968, с. 390–401; 1985, с. 10–11; Гаршва, 1982, с. 120, etc.) and writers (Ch. Aitmatov, R. Gamzatov, B. Oleinik, V. Belov). “Politically and spiritually unacceptable tendencies to displace some national languages from public life—the school and the theatre” were also condemned at the 8th USSR Writers’ Congress (Bražėnas, 1986, p. 7; Выступления участников съезда, 1986, с. 3, 10).

2. Review of sociolinguistic research. Our society is seeking effective methods for intensifying language teaching. For this reason, it is necessary to know how well the younger generation actually knows languages, what it lacks most (correct speech, reading or writing skills), and what its attitude is toward improving the teaching process. Pupils’ interest, willingness to learn, and positive attitude are of great importance. It was not without reason that V. Lenin (Collected Works, 20, p. 55) said: “…those who, because of their living and working conditions, need to know Russian will learn it without a stick.”

All-Union censuses of the USSR population provide only the most general and subjective data (as assessed by the residents themselves) on language proficiency. Questions about a second language of the peoples of the USSR are not detailed (for example, “I can speak, read, and write fluently,” “I have an average command,” “poorly,” etc.), and respondents are left with only two answers to choose from—“I speak fluently” or “I do not know it.” The concept of “speaking fluently” depends on an individual’s need to communicate; it differs considerably in areas of active and passive bilingualism (cf. also Михальченко, 1984, с. 24). It need not necessarily include linguistic culture.

Because language-proficiency criteria differed, in the 1979 census 2.3% more Lithuanians in the USSR reported speaking Russian fluently (52.1%) than Ukrainians (49.8%), whose native language differs little from Russian, so that some of it can be understood even without prior preparation. Census data also fail to reflect the number of multilingual people: only one language known in addition to the native language is recorded. Thus, for example, of the 18,313 and 28,993 “Poles” in the Lithuanian SSR who regarded a language of another nationality as their native language, not a single person recorded as knowing Polish was registered in 1970 or 1979.

¹ Geriau šį terminą versti TSRS tautų bendravimo priemonė, žr. Kalbos kultūra. 1979. Nr. 37. P. 46.

151

New data needed for this purpose are provided by sociological studies of language functioning, which were carried out in Estonia (1,400 residents of Tallinn and 2,300 other residents were surveyed; cf. Пялль, 1968, с. 396–398 et seq.), Kazakhstan (4,517 residents of five regions were surveyed, 43% urban and 57% rural; see Копыленко, Саина, 1982, с. 27), Azerbaijan, Belarus, and elsewhere. These studies gained momentum in 1977, when the linguistic institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences began investigating the topic “The Russian Language as a Means of Cooperation among the Peoples of the USSR.”

Six major sociological studies of language have already been conducted in Soviet Lithuania. In 1967, S. Šimkus published statistical data on residents of the Alytus, Kapsukas, and Kėdainiai districts. In 1978 and 1979, V. Šernas presented data on 4,000 pupils in grades IV–XI and 1,029 adults in the republic. Of these, 440 were employees in culture and the national economy, 285 were demobilized servicemen, and 304 were students in years II–IV of various specializations. J. Korsakas (1979) briefly described approximately 2,000 students at the A. Sniečkus Kaunas Polytechnic Institute (for these statistical articles, see Karaliūnas, 1983, pp. 16–20).

In 1976, the Ethnography Division of the Institute of History of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences also included questions about language use in its ethnosociological questionnaires. In a study of the role of the family in ethnic processes, in 1982–1983, 648 employees with families from 19 institutions in the republic (secondary schools, libraries, and museums) were surveyed. Of these, 336 lived in Vilnius and 312 in Kaunas. Most of the data from that survey are published in P. Kalnius’s booklet “The Contemporary Urban Family in the Lithuanian SSR” (V., 1988). The questionnaire included the following questions: the respondent’s native language; degree of proficiency in a second language of the peoples of the USSR and where it had been learned; language use in the respondent’s own family and that of their parents; choice of language at work, when communicating with neighbors and friends, and in public places; and the language of mass media.

In 1983, 2,000 residents of the republic answered similar questions (19 of them concerned languages). The responses to this survey, whose questionnaire was printed in Moscow in 1982 (“Вопросник литовской этнографической экспедиции”), were collected by six research associates from the N. Miklukho-Maklai Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Institute of History of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences (led by M. Ustinova). This is one of the most interesting sociological studies conducted in the republic to date.

In 1987, research associates of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences carried out a sociological study of the spheres of language functioning in the republic (more than 2,000 responses); its data are planned for publication in volume 4 of “Typology of Bilingualism and Multilingualism in the USSR.”

Other studies surveyed smaller numbers of residents (cf. Трифоновас, 1978; Грумадене, 1984 et seq.).

II. Methodology of the Sociological Study of Languages

Our questionnaire for the sociology of languages was finalized and reviewed in 1983. Informants were presented with four groups of questions:

152

I. How well do you know Lithuanian, Russian, and the languages of other peoples of the USSR (well, moderately, poorly, not at all);

II. How would you like to know the second (Russian, Lithuanian) language:

1. I want to speak, read, and write,

2. I want to read and write,

3. it is enough for me to be able to communicate.

III. In your opinion, what should be done to improve the teaching of Lithuanian, Russian, and the languages of other peoples of the USSR in Lithuania:

1. improve the quality of language lessons (by raising teachers’ qualifications, etc.),

2. improve language teaching materials (textbooks, etc.),

3. introduce more lessons at school,

4. provide more intensive instruction in preschool institutions,

5. teach more subjects in the language one wishes to learn,

6. organize courses in that language for adults,

7. other measures (please specify).

IV. Respondent’s year of birth, sex, nationality, native language, place of birth, place of residence, education, and occupation.

Informants were required to mark on the questionnaire the number of their chosen answer or write in an answer themselves.

According to the number and characteristics of respondents and the method of processing their answers, the study was divided into three parts. The first part included 1,019 informants, the second 300, and the third 56 (a total of 1,375 informants answered 35 questions; approximately 48,000 responses were collected).

The answers from the first part are presented in the greatest detail in the article. The following groups of informants were included in the first and third parts² (the numbers indicate the group number and the number surveyed):

1—71 teachers of Russian language and literature at secondary schools in various districts of the LTSR (courses at the Teachers’ In-Service Training Institute): 88.7% were Lithuanian, 69% were born and 80.3% live in district centers.

2—54 residents of the Radviliškis district with various occupations, working in the city of Radviliškis (34) and the village of Aukštelkai (20): Lithuanians, 55.6% born in Radviliškis, 37% in villages, etc.; ages 20–60.

3—35 second-year students, aged 20, specializing in Russian language and literature at Vilnius University.

4—53 second-year students specializing in German and English language and literature at the Vilnius Pedagogical Institute: Lithuanians, 64.2% born in district centers, 18.9% in larger cities, and 11.3% in villages.

5—77 pupils aged 15–18 in grades VIII (63) and X (14) at the Vilnius 50th Anniversary of the VLKJS secondary boarding school, which operates from grade VIII (language of instruction—Russian).

6—39 Lithuanian language and literature teachers at secondary schools in various districts of the LTSR: all Lithuanians, 74.4% born in district centers, 15.4% in villages, 7.7% outside the republic, and 2.6% in a city.

² The responses were collected in 1985–1986 by K. Garšva (groups 1–3, 6–8, 26–27), R. Vensaitė (group 4), E. Romančiukas (group 5), and J. Trifonovas (groups 9–25). The questionnaires from the first part of the informants were processed at the LTSR MA computing center by E. Krukauskienė and A. Darėlaitė, staff members of the Youth Sociology Department of the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law.

153

7—33 pupils aged 16–17 in grades IX–X at Vilnius Secondary School No. 49 (language of instruction: Russian).

8—48 pupils in grade IX at Vilnius Secondary School No. 48 (language of instruction: Lithuanian); 89.6% were born in cities (of these, 12.5% in district centers).

9—62 pupils in grades X (25) and XI (37) at Šiauliai F. Žemaitis Secondary School (enhanced instruction in Russian language and literature from grade IX onward); Lithuanians, all but one born in a city.

10—46 pupils in grade XI at Šiauliai J. Janonis Secondary School. The school specializes in humanities (enhanced instruction in Lithuanian). Lithuanians; 71.7% were born in a city; aged 17–18.

11—40 pupils in grade XI at Šiauliai Secondary School No. V (enhanced instruction in English); Lithuanians, 77.5% born in a city.

12—32 pupils in grades X–XI at Kuršėnai Secondary School No. I, who had studied in the city from the beginning in Lithuanian, the language of instruction (the school also has a class with Russian as the language of instruction); 81.3% were born in Kuršėnai.

13—14 pupils in grades X–XI at Kuršėnai Secondary School No. I; Lithuanians who had studied up to grade VIII in rural eight-year schools (and were therefore subsequently classified as pupils from rural schools).

14—34 pupils in grades X (16) and XI (20) at Meškuičiai Secondary School, Šiauliai District; 36.1% were born in the countryside and 97.2% live there.

15—50 pupils in grades IX (16), X (14) and XI (20) at Paduvisio Secondary School, Šiauliai District; Lithuanians, 70% were born and 92% live in the countryside.

16—70 pupils in grade X at Šiauliai Secondary Schools Nos. III and IV and Kuršėnai Secondary School No. I; 90% non-Lithuanian; language of instruction: Russian.

17—48 pupils in the graduating classes of Šiauliai Vocational-Technical School No. 43, future clothing-industry workers (35 hairdressers and 13 seamstresses/pattern cutters); Lithuanians. 41.7% were born in the countryside (27.1% in a district center), and 16.7% had completed rural eight-year schools.

18—57 Lithuanian pupils specializing in radio equipment in the graduating classes of Šiauliai Vocational-Technical School No. 13; 65% women, 42% born in the countryside, and 42.1% graduates of rural eight-year schools.

19—36 primary-school teachers from Lithuanian schools in Radviliškis District. All are Lithuanians; 89% have higher education; 44.4% were born and live in the countryside.

20—20 Russian-language teachers from secondary schools in the city and district of Šiauliai: 55% Lithuanians, 75% women; all have higher education; 60% were born and 95% live in a city. Some originate from other republics (30%).

21—18 Russian-language instructors at ŠPI; 55.6% non-Lithuanian; 38.9% born in a city, 22.2% in the countryside, and 33.3% outside the republic.

22—10 instructors at ŠPI (specialization: Lithuanian and foreign languages); all Lithuanians; 90% women; 60% are under 50 years of age; 60% were born in the countryside.

23—26 teachers of various subjects in the city and district of Šiauliai, all Lithuanian, 85% women, all with higher education; 53.8% were born in rural areas, 88.5% live in the city.

24—37 female employees of preschool institutions in the city of Šiauliai (Lithuanian women), 78% with higher education; 37.8% were born in the city and 97.3% live there.

25—7 specialists of various fields in the city of Šiauliai (students at the Šiauliai branch of the University of Marxism-Leninism), Lithuanian, 71% women, 86% have higher education, 57% are under 30 years of age, 71% were born in the city and all live there.

26—36 fifth-year students specializing in Lithuanian language and literature at Vilnius State University: Lithuanian, 22–26 years of age.

27—20 teachers of Lithuanian language and literature at secondary schools in various districts of the LSSR, teaching non-Lithuanian students.

In the second part of the study, the sociolinguistic survey was added to the questionnaire “My Environment” (V., 1983) of the Youth Sociology Section of the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law of the LSSR Academy of Sciences. Of the 7,000 schoolchildren who had participated in the earlier survey, 300 informants who had completed the 8th grade of secondary school were selected and surveyed in 1983. The schoolchildren studied at 1) general education secondary schools (Kaunas 33, Mažeikiai 1, Merkinė and Kupiškis secondary schools), 2) vocational technical schools (Kapsukas 7, Šiauliai 43 and the Pajūris vocational technical school in Šilalė district), 3) specialized

154

secondary schools (the Vilnius Electrotechnical, Alanta Agricultural Technical School in Molėtai district, and Panevėžys A. Domaševičius Medical Technical School) and 4) specialized classes (the music class of Vilnius M. K. Čiurlionis Art School, and a class at Šiauliai Secondary School No. 9 with advanced mathematics instruction).

III. Language Proficiency and Use

According to the 1979 census, 53.5% of the republic’s population were proficient in a second language of the USSR’s peoples: 48.0% in Russian, 4.7% in Lithuanian, 0.2% each in Latvian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, and 0.1% in other languages. As in the other republics, among the languages of the 130 peoples of the USSR, the residents of the Lithuanian SSR know Russian best. Between the 1970 and 1979 censuses, the number of people in the Soviet Union who knew Russian increased particularly among Uzbeks and Lithuanians (the latter by 16.2%). Among the ethnic groups after which union republics were named, USSR Lithuanians rose from 6th to 4th place in Russian proficiency (52.1%), after Belarusians, Latvians and Kazakhs, trailing the first group by only 4.9%. In proficiency in the languages of other peoples of the USSR, they fell from 11th to 14th place.

Residents of cities in the Lithuanian SSR are more proficient in Russian, Lithuanian and other second languages of the USSR’s peoples (53.4%, 6.4% and 0.8%) than rural residents (39.9%, 2.2% and 0.5%). Men know Russian better (52.6%) than women (44.0%)—a reflection of a more active way of life and military service. National minorities (especially Ukrainians and Belarusians) and young people are also more proficient in Russian.

If the percentage of people able to speak a second language is calculated not from the entire population of the republic, but only from those who do not consider that language their mother tongue, the proportion proficient in Russian as a second language would be higher—54.0%; for Lithuanian, 24%; for other languages, 0.8%. According to the 1979 census, there are 3.7 times more people who have adopted Russian (2.2%) and, compared with those who consider Lithuanian their mother tongue (0.6%), their number grew four times faster between 1970 and 1979. Over the decade, the number of people proficient in Russian as a second language among all residents of the republic increased 28.4-fold (14.2% and 0.5%), while among those who do not consider that language their mother tongue (cf. Table 1), the increase was 9.6 times faster than for those proficient in Lithuanian (1.7%). Overall, there were respectively 10.4 and 2.3 times more people proficient in Russian as a second language (47.9% and 53.9%) than people proficient in Lithuanian (46% and 23%). Thus, although most residents of the republic speak Lithuanian, Russian is more commonly learned as a second language and is spreading much more rapidly. This is because Russian serves as the means of communication among the peoples of the USSR, while 94.2% of non-Lithuanians in the Lithuanian SSR belong to Slavic ethnic groups (Russians, Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians), who mostly study in Russian-language schools and are increasingly able to converse with Lithuanians in Russian. In addition, schools where instruction is in Russian have three times fewer Lithuanian-language lessons than Lithuanian-language schools have Russian-language lessons.

In the republic, it is possible to communicate freely in Lithuanian with 85% of the population; besides Lithuanians, 55.8% of Latvians, 45.5% of Roma, 36.0% of Russians and 32.5% of Jews know the language. The least Lithuanian is spoken by Poles (only 11.6%), Belarusians (12.9%) and Ukrainians (15.5%). Compared with 1970, the number of Poles who knew Lithuanian increased only very slightly (0.7%), while the numbers of Jews and of the smaller ethnic groups (not listed separately) decreased (by 1.8% and 9.9%). The latter figures are related to population migration.

155

156

Table 1. Residents of the Lithuanian SSR who are fluent in a second (non-native) language of the peoples of the USSR

(calculated on the basis of USSR population census data) (%)

Know a second language of the peoples of the USSR, while considering another language their native language | Nationality: Russian | Lithuanian | another language | Of those who do not consider their own nationality’s language their native language, know it as a second language | Year: 1970 | 1979 | 1970 | 1979 | 1970 | 1979 | 1970 | 1979 | Lithuanians | 34.9 | 52.3 | – | – | 0.5 | 0.3 | 35.6 | 41.2 | Russians | – | – | 31.4 | 36.0 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 66.6 | 74.6 | Poles | 57.4 | 65.7 | 10.9 | 11.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | – | – | Belarusians | 78.6 | 81.2 | 9.7 | 12.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 16.3 | 14.1 | Ukrainians | 81.8 | 84.0 | 12.3 | 15.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 23.9 | 20.8 | Jews | 57.9 | 65.3 | 34.3 | 32.5 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 3.4 | other nationalities | 47.0 | 64.6 | 33.0 | 24.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 10.5 | 9.7 | all residents | 37.6 | 53.9 | 21.3 | 23.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 18.3 | 16.3

Over the decade, the number of people in the republic who knew other languages of the peoples of the USSR declined by 0.3% (the figure remained unchanged only among Belarusians, while among Jews it increased by 0.7%). Interestingly, after Russian, the largest number of Lithuanians fluent in a language are fluent in Latvian, a language related to our own (0.27%).

In 1979, 3.1% of the republic’s residents had assimilated and considered a language other than that of their own nationality their native language: 2.2% considered Russian their native language, 0.6% Lithuanian, and 0.3% other languages. Of these, 74.6% of Russians, 41.2% of Lithuanians, 20.8% of Ukrainians, 14.1% of Belarusians, 3.4% of Jews, and 9.7% of people of other nationalities knew their own nationality’s language fluently as a second language, amounting to 16.3% of the population in total. Over the decade, the number of Russians who knew their own nationality’s language as a second language increased by 8%, Lithuanians by 5.6%, and Jews by 0.5%; it decreased by 2.1% among people of other nationalities, while the figure for Poles was not recorded at all.

In our study, six groups of respondents were more ethnically mixed; they included a total of 253 people: 45% Lithuanians, 33% Russians, and 22% of other nationalities. The greatest change in nationality occurred among those whose one parent was Lithuanian and the other Russian. Of those from such families, 8% chose Russian nationality, 5% Lithuanian nationality, and 4% other nationalities. Unlike their parents, 17% of informants living in Vilnius adopted Lithuanian nationality, 9% Russian nationality, and 8% other nationalities; in Šiauliai District, 36% adopted Russian nationality, 17% other nationalities, and only 9% Lithuanian nationality. Lithuanian nationality was chosen about three times less often in Šiauliai District than in Vilnius because the area around Šiauliai had six times more people born in other republics of the USSR. The more people who had moved in from elsewhere (groups 16 and 18), the more often Russian nationality was recorded.

In all six groups mentioned, instruction at school was in Russian. Compared with declared nationality, the proportion considering Russian their native language increased by 13% overall, while the proportion considering Lithuanian their native language declined by 4%. Depending on the number of mixed families and the length of schooling in Russian, after 9–10 years Russian was considered the native language by 34% of pupils (group 7) and 25% (group 16); 15% and 4% of pupils ceased to consider Lithuanian their native language. Of the 59 surveyed parents who had formed mixed families, 63.9% considered Russian their native language and 27.8% Lithuanian.

In the postwar years, most schoolchildren from purely Lithuanian families in Breslauja, Varenavas, and other parts of the Byelorussian SSR began to consider the language of schooling their native language (in Apso, Rūdūnia, and the Balčiškės area as well; parents and grandparents also began trying to speak to the children in the language of schooling they understood and generally forgot their native language). For later generations, nationality, no longer corresponding to the native language, loses its meaning and is usually changed, adjusted to the new (second) native language.

Compared with their parents, among 993 representatives of the larger nationalities, 0.9% fewer Lithuanians, 3% fewer Russians, 5% fewer Belarusians, 8.8% fewer Ukrainians, and 10.4% fewer Poles considered their own nationality’s language their native language (Table 3). Meanwhile, the 1959 and 1979 population censuses show that over 20 years in the republic the proportion of Russians and Lithuanians who considered their own nationality’s language their native language increased by 1.4% and 0.5%, while the proportions of Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Poles declined by 0.8%, 6.2%, and 8.5% (cf. Гапшва, 1982, с. 123).

The proportion of Poles who considered Russian their native language increased by 0.5%, Lithuanians by 0.6%, Ukrainians by 1.5%, and Belarusians by 15%. According to the 1970 and 1979 population censuses of the republic, this figure did not change for Lithuanians, decreased by 0.5% for Ukrainians, and increased by 3.3% and 4% for Poles and Belarusians, respectively.

157

158

Table 2. Characteristics of groups mixed in terms of nationality

Group | number | Informants: nationality (%) — Lithuanians, Russians, other | Nationality of informants’ parents (%) — Lithuanian, Russian, Lithuanian, Russian, other | Informants: native language (%) — Lithuanian, Russian, city, district center, village, other, republic | 3 | 35 | 54 | 9 | 37 | 49 | 6 | 11 | 34 | 51 | 17 | 26 | 37 | 6 | – | 5 | 77 | 88 | 3 | 7 | 87 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 88 | 7 | 29 | 40 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 33 | 18 | 45 | 36 | 6 | 39 | 24 | 31 | 3 | 79 | 70 | 9 | – | 21 | 16 | 70 | 10 | 61 | 29 | 1 | 41 | 41 | 17 | 6 | 86 | 36 | 6 | – | 58 | 20 | 20 | 55 | 30 | 15 | 55 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 60 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 5 | 30 | 21 | 18 | 44 | 50 | 6 | 44 | 39 | 11 | 6 | 39 | 56 | 33 | 6 | 22 | 33 | total | 45 | 33 | 22 | 40 | 25 | 16 | 18 | 41 | 46 | 37 | 21 | 7 | 25

Abbreviations: village – village, other – other nationalities, Lithuanian – Lithuanian, city – city, district center – district center, republic – republic, Russian – Russian. The number missing from 100% indicates the number of informants who did not answer that question.

Among the Russians surveyed, the proportion who considered Lithuanian their native language increased by 3%, and among Poles by 12.8%. Across the republic as a whole, their proportions were higher by only 0.2 and 0.7%.

Of the 1,375 respondents, 1,104 (80.3%) said that they knew Lithuanian well, 217 (15.8%) at an intermediate level, and 27 (2%, see Table 4) poorly. Since 90% of the informants were Lithuanian by nationality and about the same proportion considered Lithuanian their native language, 10% of those who had completed or were completing secondary school thought that they did not know their native language well. If we take into account correct pronunciation, vocabulary, syntax, and morphology in the standard language, the number of those who speak it very well would be much smaller.

As in population censuses (which are the main basis for language policy in education, mass media, and other spheres), respondents’ answers about their level of language proficiency were quite subjective. Those who said they knew Lithuanian best (100%) included not only linguistics lecturers at ŠPI, but also primary-school teachers in Radviliškis District (Table 5). These teachers apparently no longer feel much need to improve their native-language culture.

Table 3. Nationality and native language of informants and their parents

Nationality | Generation | Native language (%) | number | language of own nationality | language of another nationality | Russian | Lithuanian | Lithuanians: children 862 98.6 1.0 –; parents 842 99.5 0.4 – | Russians: children 86 95.3 – 4.6; parents 61 98.3 – 1.6 | Poles: children 21 33.3 38.0 19.0; parents 16 43.7 37.5 6.2 | Ukrainians: children 16 31.2 62.5 6.2; parents 10 40.0 60.0 – | Belarusians: children 8 25.0 75.0 –; parents 5 40.0 60.0 –

Graduating students from Kuršėnai and Šiauliai, as well as final-year pupils at the Padubysys rural school in Šiauliai District, reported that they had learned Lithuanian as well as or better (94–92%) than Lithuanian teachers of various subjects in Šiauliai District (92%); the latter, in turn, rated themselves above fifth-year Lithuanian-language students at VVU (92%) and Lithuanian language and literature teachers in various schools across the republic (90%)*. The smallest proportions who knew Lithuanian well were found among pupils from the same Kuršėnai I secondary school who had completed rural eight-year schools (64%), and among Russian language and literature teachers at secondary schools in Šiauliai District (65%) and Russian-language lecturers at ŠPI (67%). This fact can be partly understood (Lithuanians made up 55% and 44.4% of the Russian-language specialists, although 70% and 66.7% were born in Lithuania), but how, then, can uniform language education be maintained in schools? When a teacher (lecturer) speaks less well than a pupil (student), both the pupil’s language and the teacher’s authority suffer. Russian

* If we add those who said they knew the language “at an intermediate level” to those who said they knew it “well.”

159

Language and literature teachers working in various schools in the republic indicated that they knew Lithuanian well (85%) or moderately (9%).

For many respondents, Russian was not their native language but a second language learned at school. It is commonly held that 99% of people will not learn any second language as well and correctly as their native language. Even among pupils from schools in Vilnius and Šiauliai (groups 7 and 16), for whom Russian was the native language (79% and 96%) and who had studied Russian—the language of instruction at their schools—from the outset, only 81.8% and 91.4% knew the language well (the rest said that they knew it “moderately”).

Table 4. Assessment of language proficiency (aggregate data)

Respondents | Assessment of language proficiency Share | number | Response type | good: Lithuanian | Russian | moderate: Lithuanian | Russian | weak: Lithuanian | Russian I | 1019 | number | 818 | 482 | 154 | 474 | 23 | 52 | | |% | 80.3 | 47.3 | 15.1 | 46.5 | 2.3 | 5.1 II | 300 | number | 239 | 74 | 57 | 188 | 2 | 36 | | |% | 79.7 | 24.6 | 19.2 | 62.6 | 0.7 | 12.1 III | 56 | number | 47 | 21 | 6 | 26 | 2 | 5 | | |% | 83.9 | 37.5 | 10.7 | 46.4 | 3.6 | 8.9 I—III | 1375 | number | 1104 | 577 | 217 | 688 | 27 | 93 | | |% | 80.3 | 42.0 | 15.8 | 50.0 | 2.0 | 6.8

Of the 1,375 respondents, 577 believed they knew Russian well (42%), 688 (50%) moderately, and 93 (6.8%) poorly. The pupils in respondent category II were the least likely to have learned either their native or second language well (most commonly, only moderately).

Russian language and literature teachers in Šiauliai District believed they knew the subject they taught better (100%) than the Russian-language lecturers at ŠPI who trained such teachers (89%). Eighty percent of second-year Russian-language students at Vilnius University had already mastered their specialist subject. Meanwhile, other Russian-language teachers in the republic (group 1), who had attended professional development courses, reported knowing the subject they taught well (68%) or moderately (28%; a further 4% did not respond).

In accordance with directives to further improve the teaching of Russian, in 1983 a republic-level specialized military-profile boarding school marking the 50th anniversary of the VLKJS was established in Vilnius, with Russian as the language of instruction and intensified Russian-language teaching. Seventy-seven pupils in grades VIII and X at this school (89% Lithuanian) were surveyed; 43% said that they knew Russian well. Thus, among Lithuanian pupils in the six groups of urban secondary schools (respondent category I), these pupils (like the others, who assessed their knowledge subjectively) would rank fourth, behind Šiauliai graduates receiving intensified English-language instruction (73%), former tenth- and eleventh-graders in Kuršėnai (44%) and Šiauliai (43%) (the last group received intensified Russian language and literature instruction, with two additional weekly lessons in grades IX–X and one in grade XI). Even ninth-graders (40%) in a regular Vilnius school where Lithuanian was the language of instruction were not far behind them.

160

Table 5. Lithuanian and Russian proficiency (respondents’ assessment)

No. | Group | Category* | No. of respondents | Language proficiency assessment% | Lithuanian—good | Lithuanian—moderate | Russian—good | Russian—moderate | Russian—poor 1 | 5 | I | 77 | 70 | 26 | 43 | 53 | 4 2 | 8 | | 48 | 87 | 13 | 40 | 60 | — 3 | 9 | | 62 | 90 | 10 | 44 | 53 | 3 4 | 10 | | 46 | 74 | 26 | 26 | 61 | 13 5 | 11 | | 40 | 93 | 5 | 73 | 25 | 2 6 | 12 | | 32 | 94 | 3 | 50 | 44 | 3 7 | 13 | II | 14 | 64 | 36 | „„ | 50 | — 8 | 14 | | 36 | 78 | 19 | 39 | 47 | 11 9 | 15 | | 50 | 92 | 8 | 54 | 46 | — 10 | 17 | III | 48 | 85 | 14 | 40 | 48 | 12 11 | 18 | | 57 | 89 | 9 | 26 | 68 | 5 12 | 26 | IV | 36 | 92 | 5 | 36 | 53 | 11 13 | 3 | | 35 | 77 | 17 | 80 | 20 | — 14 | 4 | | 53 | 87 | 9 | 36 | 53 | 7 15 | 6 | V | 39 | 90 | 10 | 3 | 77 | 20 16 | 27 | | 20 | 70 | 20 | 45 | 35 | 5 17 | 1 | | 71 | 85 | 9 | 68 | 28 | — 18 | 20 | | 20 | 65 | 25 | 100 | — | — 19 | 23 | | 26 | 92 | 8 | 27 | 69 | 4 20 | 19 | | 36 | 100 | — | 25 | 72 | 3 21 | 22 | VI | 10 | „„ | — | 40 | 60 | — 22 | 21 | | 18 | 67 | 6 | 89 | 11 | — 23 | 24 | VII | 37 | 95 | 5 | 13 | 76 | 11 24 | 25 | | 7 | 86 | 14 | 29 | 71 | — 25 | 2 | | 54 | 81 | 19 | 26 | 52 | 17

* Explanation: Respondent categories in tables 5, 8, and 13: I — 305 pupils from urban secondary schools in Vilnius (groups 5, 8), Šiauliai (groups 9–11), and Kuršėnai (12); II — 100 pupils from rural secondary schools in Kuršėnai (13), Meškuičiai (14), and the P.Ūadubysys area of Šiauliai District (15); III — 105 pupils from vocational-technical schools in the city of Šiauliai; IV — 124 students at higher education institutions: Lithuanian-language students in year V at VVU (26), Russian-language students in year II (3), and German- and English-language students at VPI (4); V — 212 teachers from secondary schools in the republic: 59 Lithuanian-language teachers (6, 27), 91 Russian-language teachers (1, 20), 26 teachers of various subjects (23), and 36 primary-school teachers (19); VI — 28 Lithuanian-language (22) and Russian-language (21) lecturers at ŠPI; VII — 98 employees in various occupations in the city of Šiauliai and Radviliškis District: 37 nursery-school and kindergarten educators (24), 7 specialists in various fields (25), and 54 workers, etc. (2).

11. 1880

161

Meanwhile, the eleventh-graders at Šiauliai J. Janonis Secondary School, whose instruction in Lithuanian language and literature had been intensified (with Latin added), reported the poorest proficiency among the Lithuanian-language schools not only in Russian (26% spoke it well, 61% moderately, and as many as 13% poorly), but also in Lithuanian (74% well, 26% moderately). Lithuanian proficiency was even lower at the 50th Anniversary of the VLKMJS boarding school, where instruction was in Russian. Of the pupils, 54 (70%) said they knew Lithuanian well, 26 (20%) moderately, 1% poorly, and 2 (3%) did not know it at all. Thus, in this case the experiment of teaching Lithuanians in Russian apparently did not succeed, either in terms of Russian and, even more so, Lithuanian proficiency. These pupils also found it considerably harder to study all the other subjects, since most understood Russian, the language of instruction, only moderately (53%) or even poorly (3%).

The responses of Part I of the informants (1,019 people) were examined most thoroughly. Lithuanian was known best by 87.1% of Lithuanians, 61.9% of Poles, 40.6% of Russians, 37.5% of Ukrainians, and 25% of Belarusians. If those who knew it well and moderately are combined, the respective figures for these ethnic groups would be 99.1%, 95.2%, 73.1%, 75%, and 62.5%.

Russian was reported to be known well by 93.7% of Ukrainians (more than Russians), 93% of Russians, 87.5% of Belarusians, 71.4% of Poles, and 40.2% of Lithuanians. The proportions who knew it well and moderately would be 99.9% (Russians and Ukrainians), 100%, 95.2%, and 93.2%. Among the Lithuanians surveyed, Lithuanian was known best (well and moderately) by Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians, while Russian was known best by Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, and Lithuanians.

Other languages of the USSR were known well by 12.5–0.5% of representatives of various ethnic groups, and moderately by 25.0–1.5%: 37.5% of Belarusians, 25% of Ukrainians, 8.1% of Russians, 4.7% of Poles, and 2% of Lithuanians in total. Between 4.6% and 23.8% of people had poor knowledge of other languages.

Thus, the five most characteristic types of bilingualism (multilingualism) among the informants were Russian-Lithuanian-Polish, Russian-Lithuanian-Ukrainian, Russian-Lithuanian-Belarusian (a third of Belarusians spoke only Russian), Lithuanian-Russian, and Russian-Lithuanian. One fifth of Russians and Lithuanians had also acquired some knowledge of the languages of other USSR peoples.

In the first group of informants, 987 people completed the questionnaires in full: 289 men and 698 women, constituting 29% and 72%, respectively, of those respondents. As with most of the republic’s population, men knew Russian better, while women knew Lithuanian better.

Lithuanian was known well, moderately, poorly, or not at all by 71.7%, 21.7%, 2.7%, and 3.4% of men, and by 84.4%, 12.3%, 1.9%, and 0.4% of women; the corresponding figures for Russian were 48.9%, 47.5%, and 3.4% of men (none lacked knowledge of it) and 45.9%, 47%, 5.9%, and 0.4% of women. Women differed from men in their better command of Lithuanian (by 0.9%) and weaker command of Russian (by 2.5%). Men knew Russian well and moderately by 3% and 0.5% more, respectively, and Lithuanian moderately and poorly by 0.6% and 0.8% more. The proportion of men and women who knew Lithuanian well exceeded that of those who knew Russian well by 22.8% and 38.5%, respectively; the proportions who knew Russian moderately and poorly exceeded those who knew Lithuanian moderately by 25.8% and 34.7%.

A second language of the USSR was known well by 47.3% of people, moderately by 46.5% (almost as many), poorly by 5.1%, and not at all by only 0.2%. This means that the majority—93.8%—knew a second USSR language well or moderately. Most of these were Lithuanians who had acquired some knowledge of Russian.

162

Table 6. Ethnicity and assessment of language proficiency (%)

Assessment of language proficiency Ethnicity | good: Lithuanian, Russian, languages of other peoples of the USSR | intermediate: Lithuanian, Russian, languages of other peoples of the USSR | poor: Lithuanian, Russian, languages of other peoples of the USSR | does not know Lithuanian speakers | 87.1 | 40.2 | 0.5 | 12.0 | 53.0 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 5.9 | 8.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 79.3 Russians | 40.6 | 93.0 | 2.3 | 32.5 | 6.9 | 5.8 | 17.4 | – | 4.6 | 8.1 | – | 79.0 Poles | 61.9 | 71.4 | – | 33.3 | 23.8 | 4.7 | – | 4.7 | 23.8 | 4.7 | – | 42.8 Ukrainians | 37.5 | 93.7 | 12.5 | 37.5 | 6.2 | 12.5 | 18.7 | – | 18.7 | 6.2 | – | 37.5 Belarusians | 25.0 | 87.5 | ” | ” | 12.5 | 25.0 | – | – | – | 25.0 | – | 62.5

11°

163

When informants were classified by age, a larger proportion (from 100 to 57%) of those aged 48, 63, 75, 49, 52, 16–17, 30–31, 20–24, 57, 27, and 44 knew the second language well, while those aged 25, 41, 38, 57–59, 26, 34, 45–47, and 36 knew it at an intermediate level. The relationship between age and proficiency in the second language is not very apparent because the number of informants surveyed for this purpose was rather small, and Russians who knew the second language poorly were included in the same group. As a result, 73–60% of young people aged 16–17 knew it well, compared with a lower proportion among those aged 18–19, 46–33%, and 67–37% among those aged 20–24, and so on. There were cases of 17% and 11% of people aged 23 and 47, respectively, who had not learned any second language.

In our study, the number of Lithuanians and Ukrainians was somewhat higher than their share of the population of the republic, whereas the numbers of Poles, Belarusians, Russians, and Jews were lower. The percentage of those who knew Russian well differed considerably between residents of the large cities (up to 46%) and the district-center residents (Radviliškis, 15%). Among urban schoolchildren, this figure ranges from 40 to 72.5%, while at the vocational school (18 groups), whose students came from the districts, it reaches only 26.3%. Compared with the 1979 population census data, in 1986 the proportions of Poles, Ukrainians, and Belarusians who knew Lithuanian better were 50.3, 22.0, and 12.1%, respectively, and those who knew Russian better were 5.7, 9.7, and 6.3%.

Informants (except Lithuanians) chose their father's ethnicity 3.2% more often and their mother's language as their native language 16% more often (excluding Russians from military families).

IV. The need to know Lithuanian and Russian

The most important means of communication in the Lithuanian SSR is Lithuanian, the language of the majority of the local population. It has a long written tradition, performs the most important social functions in the republic most effectively, and meets all the communication needs of members of the Lithuanian socialist nation. In addition, alongside Russian, Lithuanian serves as a means of communication for a considerable number of people of various ethnicities in our republic, and thus also performs a regional communication function (cf. Karaliūnas, 1983, pp. 7–8; Михальченко, 1984, pp. 28–106, 213, 222, etc.).

The second most widespread language today, and the second in terms of its functions, Russian, in certain cases supplements Lithuanian. As the national language of the Russians, it is often used when communicating with representatives of the Lithuanian SSR, other USSR republics, and foreign countries who do not know Lithuanian. Lithuanians use Russian more passively, reading about a third of the literature (cf. Korsakas, 1979, p. 51), and so on.

Lithuanian is used in all spheres of the republic’s economic, social, and cultural life. Without knowing Lithuanian, it is impossible to communicate with some residents (especially children up to 7–9 years old, as well as some elderly people) or to understand all information disseminated throughout the republic.

Of the 103 students in grades IX–X studying at Russian-medium schools, 77 (74.7%, more precisely, 84.8% of Vilnius residents and 70% of Šiauliai residents) indicated that they wanted to learn to speak, read, and write in Lithuanian; 20.4% wanted to be able to communicate, and 4.9% wanted to read and write.

Taking into account the native language, ethnicity, and vital needs of the population, Lithuanian is used predominantly in the republic’s secondary and higher education system. A native language helps people assimilate humanity’s long-term experience in the shortest time and with the least effort. In the 1985/86 school year, 2,070 general education

164

schools, of which 1,997 (96%) were linguistically homogeneous: instruction was in Lithuanian only in 1,846 schools (92.4%), in Russian in 103 (5.2%), and in Polish in 48 (2.4%). They were attended by 402,727, 52,450, and 3,753 pupils of Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish nationality, respectively, who made up 87.8%, 11.4%, and 0.8% of pupils in homogeneous schools, and 96.2%, 71.5%, and 34.6% of all pupils of those nationalities.

It was observed that, compared with literature in their native language, Lithuanian pupils read in Russian about twice as slowly, and in a foreign language at least three times as slowly. This affects the volume of literature read and, in general, the desire to read and study (Шярнас, 1978, c. 13). For this reason, most literature in the republic is printed in Lithuanian. In 1940–1985, 74.9% of books and brochures were published in Lithuanian, and 17.8% of books in Russian. In 1985, 70.3% of books, 78.4% of newspapers, and 73.5% of journals and bulletins were published in Lithuanian in the republic; 17.8% of books, 18.7% of newspapers, and 22.3% of journals were published in Russian (cf. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika 1981–1985, p. 28–29, 75–76).

The sociological study assumed that the need for one’s native language was self-evident. Therefore, respondents were asked how many people wanted to know a second language. Of 1,375 informants, 1,075 (78.2%) wished to speak, read, and write in a second language, 82 (6%) wished to read and write, and 162 (11.8%) wished to communicate orally (Table 7). Four trends in the need for a second language have emerged. First, the fewer people in a group who know the second language well, the more people want to learn all its forms. Second, most informants wish to communicate actively (first and foremost, to learn to speak). Third, those who know the language well strive to master all its forms (speaking, writing, reading). Fourth, the poorer one’s command of the second language, the more often one thinks it will be enough to learn only enough to communicate.

Among the informants in Group II, the number who knew Russian well was 1.9 and 1.5 times lower (24.6%) than in Groups I and III. However, the number wishing to speak, read, and write (72%) in Group II was 2.9 times higher than the number who knew it well, whereas in Groups I and III it was only 1.7 times higher. The greatest proportion wishing to master all three forms of the second language was found (72–

Table 7. Need to know a second language of the peoples of the USSR* (aggregate data)

Informant group | number Type of response Need for a second language of the peoples of the USSR; wish to: speak, read, and write | read and write | communicate orally I | 1019 | number | 824 | 47 | 101% | 80.9 | 4.6 | 9.9 II | 300 | number | 216 | 29 | 55% | 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

*Among 93.7% of respondents (representatives of non-Russian nationalities), Russian was considered the second language of the peoples of the USSR, and among 6.3% of respondents (Russians), it was Lithuanian.

165

100%) were found among pupils in rural secondary schools, urban vocational and secondary schools, and students in higher education institutions (Table 8), of whom only 26—80% knew that language well. It is quite natural that 36—62% of pupils with a poor command of the second language expect to learn it better.

The needs for a second language of older employees stand out more distinctly. Many (100—78%) of the teachers in Šiauliai district wanted to improve their knowledge in every respect (as well

Table 8. Need to know a second (Russian) language (%)

No. | Group | Category | No. of informants | Speak, read, and write | Read and write | Communicate orally | No response 1 | 5 | I | 77 | 82 | 8 | 10 | — 2 | 8 | | 48 | 73 | 17 | „ | — 3 | 9 | | 62 | 76 | 3 | 21 | — 4 | 10 | | 46 | 72 | 6 | 22 | — 5 | 11 | | 40 | 87 | 5 | 5 | 3 6 | 12 | | 32 | 94 | — | 3 | „ 7 | 13 | II | 14 | 100 | — | — | — 8 | 14 | | 36 | 94 | 3 | — | 3 9 | 15 | | 50 | 98 | 2 | — | — 10 | 17 | III | 48 | 92 | 2 | 6 | — 11 | 18 | | 57 | 88 | 7 | 5 | — 12 | 26 | | 36 | 72 | 17 | 8 | 3 13 | 3 | IV | 35 | 94 | — | 3 | „ 14 | 4 | | 53 | 89 | 6 | — | 5 15 | 6 | V | 39 | 87 | 5 | 8 | — 16 | 27 | | 20 | 45 | — | 15 | 40 17 | 1 | | 71 | 64 | — | 1 | 35 18 | 20 | | 20 | 100 | — | — | — 19 | 23 | | 26 | 92 | 8 | — | — 20 | 19 | | 36 | 81 | 5 | — | — 21 | 22 | VI | 10 | 50 | — | 30 | 20 22 | 21 | | 18 | 78 | — | 5 | 17 23 | 24 | VII | 37 | 68 | 8 | 13 | 11 24 | 25 | | 7 | 86 | — | 14 | — 25 | 2 | | 54 | 57 | 2 | 41 | —

166

Table 9. Proficiency level and need for the second (Russian) language

Proficiency level; can:

Informants

Types of need; want to (%):

speak, read, and write

read and write

communicate

well

number

407 | 12 | 36

% | 84,4 | 2,4 | 7,4

moderately

number | 386 | 31 | 45

% | 81,4 | 6,5 | 9,4

poorly

number | 31 | 4 | 17

% | 59,6 | 7,6 | 32,6

does not know

number | — | — | 3

% | — | — | 100

total

number | 824 | 47 | 101

% | 80,8 | 4,6 | 9,9

Russian-language teachers), teachers and specialists in Lithuanian language and literature and other subjects. Meanwhile, some Lithuanian language and literature teachers and lecturers (30 people, groups 27 and 22) and workers in Radviliškis district, among whom 26–45% knew a second language, felt less need to improve all forms of that language (45–57%; this figure is also lower because 27% of Lithuanian studies specialists did not respond).

Most informants (94%) preferred more active forms of communication. First and foremost, they wanted to be able to converse. Some informants in the third group (10.7%), Lithuanian studies teachers and students who had less need to communicate with non-Lithuanians, wanted to know the language somewhat better—to read and write.

Comprehensive knowledge of a second language—speaking, reading and writing—is desired by 59.6% of those with weak, 81.4% of those with intermediate, and 84.4% of those with good proficiency (Table 9). Thus, the types of need are directly proportional to language proficiency. Only 2.4%, 6.5% and 7.6% of those with good, intermediate and weak proficiency, respectively, strive to read and write, while 7.4%, 9.4% and 32.6%, respectively, seek only to converse (as do 100% of those who do not know the language). Those with better proficiency want to learn even more, while those with poorer proficiency are content with being able to converse or

Table 10. Ethnicity and need for a second language of the peoples of the USSR* (%)

Ethnicity

Speak, read and write

Read and write

Converse

No response

Lithuanians | 82.0 | 4.9 | 9.1 | 3.8

Russians | 73.2 | 3.4 | 18.6 | 4.6

Poles | 85.7 | — | 4.7 | 9.5

Ukrainians | 75.0 | — | 18.7 | 6.2

Belarusians | „ | 12.5 | — | 12.5

*For all ethnic groups except Russians, the second language in this case was Russian; for Russians, it was Lithuanian.

167

to read and write. This can be explained in part by “economy of effort” and by pragmatism. This tendency is already causing concern among educators. Only 18.5% of the pupils in Part II (55 people) wished to be able to communicate, while in groups 9, 10, and 22, 2 — 21–40% of those surveyed did.

V. Improving the Teaching of Lithuanian and Russian

In the Soviet Union, both Lithuanian and Russian (and literature) are taught in three types of schools. Lithuanian, as a native language, is taught to Lithuanians in Lithuanian-language schools in the LTSR and in several Russian-language schools in the BTSR; as a second language of the peoples of the USSR, it is taught in all other schools in the republic where instruction is in Russian and Polish. Russian, as a native language, is taught to Russians and representatives of the smallest nationalities or their groups, and as a second language—to pupils belonging to the principal nationalities of the union republics and some autonomous republics.

Of the 1,375 respondents, 15.8% knew Lithuanian only at an average level, and 2% knew it poorly. At the Šiauliai J. Janonis and Vilnius 50th Anniversary of the VLKJS secondary schools, 26% each had learned their native language “at an average level”; at the Kuršėnai I Secondary School, the figure was as high as 36%.

In an earlier sociological study, 43.8% of pupils in grades V–XI in the republic said that studying Lithuanian was difficult, 34% said the same of learning Russian, and 26.4% of learning foreign languages. If language learning were optional, 83.9% of them would study their native (Lithuanian) language (another 11.3% would do so if it were interesting), 68.3% would study Russian, and 56.3% a foreign language (Шярнас, 1976, с. 62, 74). Among those we surveyed, 82% of Lithuanians and 73.2% of Russians wanted to learn to speak, read, and write correct Lithuanian, while 85.7% of Poles, 78% of Lithuanians, and 75% of Ukrainians and Belarusians wanted to learn Russian (cf. Table 10).

From 1979 to 1986, the LTSR Ministry of Education issued two resolutions to improve the teaching of Lithuanian and seven major resolutions to improve the teaching of Russian: “On Native-Language Teaching in the Primary Grades of General Education Schools in Šilalė District” (1980.05.28, No. 58), “On Improving the Teaching of Lithuanian in General Education Schools in the Republic with Instruction in Russian and Polish” (1986.04.14, No. 42); “On Introducing the Teaching of Russian to Children in Preparatory Classes and Preschools” (1979.08.03, No. 81), “On Teaching Russian Language and Literature in Classes with Enhanced Russian-Language Instruction” (1980.05.28, No. 59), “On Additional Measures to Improve Russian-Language Teaching in General Education Schools and Preschools” (1983.09.13, No. 83), “On Implementing Russian-Language Teaching Programs in Preschools in Skuodas District” (1983.12.13, No. 88), “On Teachers’ Remuneration for Russian-Language Lessons in Preparatory Classes and Grades I–XI” (instructional letter No. 16-5288 of 1984.12.25; see also Order No. 86 of 1983.09.13, the resolution of 1985.06.25, etc. (See Collection of Resolutions, Orders, and Instructions, No. 49, pp. 16–20, 64, pp. 21–29, 72, pp. 17–21, 49, pp. 21–24, 69, pp. 18–21, 70, p. 48, 72, pp. 13–16, 74, p. 56).

The resolution “On Teaching Lithuanian Literature and Strengthening Its Impact on the Communist Education of Pupils in General Education Schools in the City of Vilnius and the Ignalina and Prienai Districts” (1984.06.06, No. 43), as well as “On Accelerating the Collection of Lithuanian-Language Material,” is also of some importance for the teaching of Lithuanian.

168

(1983.02.03, No. 15), and other resolutions concerning the improvement of humanities teaching.

In implementing decisions of higher authorities³, since 1977 the education authorities have devoted even greater attention to teaching Russian to Lithuanians and Poles. The aim is for every pupil to acquire a fluent command of Russian while completing secondary education. About 100 publications for teaching Russian language and literature are planned for publication in the republic in 1986–1990. In 1987, a weekly program, “The Russian Language,” was introduced on LTSR radio. Since 1984, teachers of Russian have been required to upgrade their qualifications every three years (Lithuanian-language teachers in non-Lithuanian schools every five years). A department of Russian language and literature and a teaching room have been established at the Republican Institute for Teacher Development; a faculty for professional development has been set up at VVPI, where primary-school teachers also study. Each year, 20 Lithuanian secondary-school graduates are now sent to the Russian language and literature faculties of pedagogical institutes in the RTFSR without entrance competition, and 30 students are sent for a year of practical training (see Спурга, 1986, с. 1–4). Great efforts are being made to improve the teaching of Russian language and literature in the republic; a separate monograph would be needed to survey and assess all of this.

Most respondents proposed improving Lithuanian and Russian teaching materials, raising the quality of lessons, and developing language skills in preschool (opinions differed more regarding other approaches). Teachers of Lithuanian and Russian in particular made many suggestions concerning the teaching of their own subjects. On the first three methods of teaching Russian, the latter expressed views similar to those of most respondents. Pupils in urban secondary and vocational-technical schools also attached the greatest importance to textbooks (see Tables 11–14).

Women were more concerned than men with the teaching of both languages and submitted 9.4% more responses (Table 15). Men attached somewhat less importance to the quality of lessons in both languages.

Few respondents wanted Lithuanian-language courses for adult Lithuanians or an increase in the number of Russian lessons. Between 1979 and 1987, the number of weekly Russian language and literature lessons in Lithuanian-medium schools had already increased from 42 to 47.

Between 2.3% and 0.1% of respondents independently suggested further ways to improve the teaching of Lithuanian, Russian, and other languages: making better use of electives, television, radio, and films; organizing meetings between pupils and peers who speak other languages, competitions, quizzes, and language clubs. They proposed publishing more curriculum-related literature, charts, collections of pictures, and so on; providing teachers with better methodological and didactic publications and visual aids; and enabling them to obtain the books needed for their work in bookshops.

The principal aim of language lessons in secondary school is to teach pupils to speak and write correctly in practice in their native and second languages. This should apply above all to Lithuanian lessons (especially for non-Lithuanians). In Russian lessons, the practical direc-

³ Cf. On further improvement of Russian language teaching in general education schools with Lithuanian (Polish) as the language of instruction (resolution of the LKP CK of 1977.01.31); On additional measures to improve the teaching of Russian in general education schools and other educational institutions of the union republics (resolution of the TSKP CK and the Council of Ministers of the TSRS of 1983.05.26): Liaudies švietimas, 1979, pp. 99–103, 207–209; Tiesa, 1983, May 28, p. 1; Шепетис, 1981, с. 151–156, 230–295, etc.; Губогло, 1984, с. 5–9, 67–71.

169

Table 11. Ways to improve the teaching of the second languages of the peoples of the USSR* (aggregate data)

Respondent group | Language | Type of response: number | Ways to improve teaching: percentage Lithuanian | I | 323 | 386 | 285 | 349 | 173 | 120 | 31.7 | 37.9 | 28.0 | 34.2 | 17.0 | 11.8 Lithuanian | II | 130 | 79 | 86 | 95 | 62 | 45 | 43.4 | 26.3 | 28.8 | 31.7 | 20.6 | 15.0 Lithuanian | III | 51 | 44 | 48 | 26 | 17 | 10 | 91.1 | 78.5 | 85.7 | 46.4 | 30.3 | 17.8 Lithuanian | I–III | 504 | 509 | 419 | 470 | 252 | 175 | 36.7 | 37.0 | 30.4 | 34.2 | 18.3 | 12.7 Russian | I | 304 | 478 | 173 | 351 | 225 | 188 | 29.8 | 46.9 | 17.0 | 34.4 | 22.1 | 18.4 Russian | II | 103 | 96 | 63 | 82 | 77 | 67 | 34.2 | 32.0 | 21.0 | 27.4 | 25.6 | 22.4 Russian | III | 19 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 33.9 | 35.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 14.3 | 16.1 Russian | I–III | 426 | 594 | 237 | 434 | 310 | 264 | 31.0 | 43.2 | 17.2 | 31.6 | 22.5 | 19.2

*In Tables 11–15, columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 correspond to the following ways of improving teaching: 1 – improve the quality of language lessons (by upgrading teachers’ qualifications, etc.); 2 – improve teaching materials (textbooks, etc.); 3 – introduce more lessons at school; 4 – provide more intensive instruction in preschool institutions; 5 – teach more subjects in the language one wishes to learn; 6 – organize courses for adults.

170

Table 12. Ways to improve the teaching of the native (Lithuanian) language (%)

No. | Group | Category | No. of respondents | Ways to improve teaching: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 1 | 5 | I | 77 | 16 | 26 | 19 | 32 | 25 | 4 2 | 8 | | 48 | 19 | 65 | 35 | 73 | 37 | 25 3 | 9 | | 62 | 26 | 37 | 43 | 31 | 26 | 2 4 | 10 | | 46 | 35 | 48 | 28 | 33 | 24 | 15 5 | 11 | | 40 | 37 | 27 | 7 | 17 | 5 | 2 6 | 12 | | 32 | 31 | 19 | 12 | 22 | 6 | 9 7 | 13 | II | 14 | 14 | 14 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 7 8 | 14 | | 36 | „ | 25 | 19 | 36 | 19 | 6 9 | 15 | | 50 | 4 | 98 | 4 | 68 | 4 | 4 10 | 17 | III | 48 | 60 | 10 | 2 | 23 | 2 | 4 11 | 18 | | 57 | 37 | 26 | 28 | 13 | 16 | 10 12 | 26 | IV | 36 | 86 | 80 | 92 | 42 | 19 | 14 13 | 3 | | 35 | 60 | 49 | 23 | 46 | 14 | 6 14 | 4 | | 53 | 58 | 45 | 45 | 43 | 32 | 13 15 | 6 | V | 39 | 91 | 78 | 86 | 46 | 30 | 18 16 | 27 | | 20 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 55 | 50 | 25 17 | 1 | | 71 | 14 | 27 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 10 18 | 20 | | 20 | 25 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 5 | „ 19 | 23 | | 26 | 54 | 54 | 65 | 31 | 31 | 19 20 | 19 | | 36 | 39 | 22 | 50 | 25 | 19 | 11 21 | 22 | VI | 10 | 50 | 40 | 70 | 30 | 20 | 20 22 | 21 | | 18 | 72 | 61 | 28 | 33 | 22 | 50 23 | 24 | VII | 37 | 59 | 43 | 16 | 30 | 13 | 27 24 | 25 | | 7 | 29 | 14 | 57 | 28 | — | — 25 | 2 | | 54 | 33 | 33 | 54 | 36 | 36 | 7 Total | | | | 32 | 38 | 28 | 34 | 17 | 12

is already beginning to diminish. In the opinion of many linguists, all native-language curricula and textbooks need to be thoroughly revised, and some outdated, contradictory items unnecessary for the ordinary language user should be removed from them (cf. Garšva, 1984, pp. 26–28). This would leave considerably more room for language culture as well.

171

Table 13. Ways to improve the teaching of Russian as the second language of the peoples of the USSR

No. | Group | Category | No. of respondents | Ways to improve teaching (%) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 61 | 5 | I | 77 | 13 | 25 | 8 | 45 | 32 | 92 | 8 | | 48 | 25 | 37 | 4 | 35 | 17 | 103 | 9 | | 62 | 14 | 35 | 16 | 29 | 21 | 114 | 10 | | 46 | 22 | 59 | 9 | 13 | 4 | 45 | 11 | | 40 | 20 | 72 | 2 | 17 | 10 | 276 | 12 | | 32 | 37 | 53 | 16 | 44 | 31 | 197 | 13 | II | 14 | 7 | 29 | 21 | 57 | 43 | 368 | 14 | | 36 | 8 | 25 | 36 | 53 | 50 | 179 | 15 | | 50 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 86 | 4 | 410 | 17 | III | 48 | 2 | 54 | 12 | 12 | 17 | 411 | 18 | | 57 | 28 | 25 | 19 | 22 | 35 | 1912 | 26 | IV | 36 | 50 | 28 | 92 | 42 | 19 | 1413 | 3 | | 35 | 51 | 63 | 31 | 40 | 20 | 2014 | 4 | | 53 | 41 | 43 | 21 | 41 | 53 | 3015 | 6 | V | 39 | 41 | 15 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 1816 | 1 | | 71 | 48 | 93 | 38 | 51 | 22 | 2717 | 20 | | 20 | 65 | 80 | 5 | 45 | 25 | 3518 | 23 | | 26 | 65 | 58 | 4 | 15 | 15 | 1919 | 19 | | 36 | 39 | 78 | 14 | 28 | 11 | 3320 | 22 | VI | 10 | 30 | 50 | — | 10 | — | —21 | 21 | | 18 | 89 | 89 | 22 | 22 | 44 | 3922 | 24 | VII | 37 | 59 | 46 | 11 | 22 | 13 | 4323 | 25 | | 7 | 43 | 57 | — | 29 | — | 1424 | 2 | | 54 | 18 | 18 | 11 | 22 | 33 | 24Total | | | | 30 | 47 | 17 | 34 | 22 | 18

Since 1977, the journal “Russian Language at School,” intended for schools where Lithuanian (Polish) is the language of instruction, has been published in the republic. A separate publication is also needed for the main subject in most schools—Lithuanian language. At present, 75 lessons per week are devoted to it (together with literature).

The foundations of language are essentially formed before school. More than 50,000 children aged 5–6 attend kindergartens in the republic. Five-year-olds receive 2 lessons of native-

172

Table 14. Methods for improving Russian-language teaching proposed by respondents in selected education-sector categories (%)

Methods of improvement | Teachers: Russian-language specialists, non-specialists | Students in Lithuanian-language schools: urban schools, rural schools, vocational technical schools | Students in Russian-language schools

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 | 12,4 | 13,6

1–6 | 46,5 | 20,2 | 22,6 | 25,2 | 21,6 | 24,0

Note: the table presents the views of 1) teachers working in the republic’s general-education secondary schools, mostly in urban areas (especially teachers of Russian language and literature); 2) students in urban and rural general-education secondary schools and urban specialized vocational technical schools, where instruction is in Lithuanian; and 3) students in urban secondary schools, where instruction is in Russian.

... and Russian-language lessons; for six-year-olds, a total of 7 lessons in the native language and 2 in Russian. To date, most Lithuanian children initially speak only a dialect and in practice learn standard Lithuanian as a second language, so it is inappropriate to devote equal time to the native and Russian languages for five-year-olds. Soviet psychologists have observed that five- and six-year-old children differ greatly in their command of their native language and may begin to confuse it with a second language.

Table 15 Relationship between proposed methods of improving language teaching and gender (%)

Methods of improvement | Lithuanian: men, women | Russian: men, women | Other languages of the peoples of the USSR: men, women

1 | 24,1 | 34,8 | 19,6 | 33,7 | 4,4 | 3,9

2 | 41,7 | 36,2 | 42,7 | 48,9 | 8,6 | 6,5

3 | 23,1 | 30,0 | 16,5 | 16,9 | 2,0 | 5,5

4 | 38,6 | 33,2 | 34,4 | 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

A child’s native-language skills finish developing in the first years of school. Many of our psychologists, educators, and linguists have stressed that teaching a second language should begin when the first (native) language has become established in the child’s mind and the child has begun to acquire literacy in the native language (Jacevičius, 1970, p. 27, 51, 80, 250, 255; Русский

173

язык в национальной школе, 1977, с. 21; Вайнрайх, 1979, с. 129—131, 139—142; Balčikonis, 1978, p. 106; Daukšytė, 1980, p. 77—78; Bendrosios psichologijos paskaitos, 1980, p. 141 ir t. t.)⁴. Mažesnių gabumų vaikams ankstyvosios dvikalbystės atvejais ikimokyklinėse įstaigose ir net pradinėse vidurinės mokyklos klasėse pastebima neigiama dvikalbystės įtaka: jų ne tik gimtoji, bet ir antroji kalba yra ne tokia gryna ir aiški, jie blogiau dėsto savo mintis, lėčiau išmoksta taisyklingai šnekėti ir rašyti, kartais sulėtėja protinis vystymasis. 732 Kauno ir Šiaulių miestų vaikų darželių dvikalbiai vaikai buvo suskirstyti taip: 647 (88%) bendrasis protinis išsivystymas normalus, 74 (10%) žemesnis ir 11 (2%) silpnas (Jacikevičius, 1970, p. 74, 77).

It is extremely important that preschool educators and primary-school teachers speak correctly. In the republic, “the time has come to speak clearly and frankly, first and foremost, about protecting kindergarten children’s language from contamination by street speech and by the language of kindergarten staff themselves, and to reorganize more quickly the linguistic education of young people at all levels of the education system” (Pupkis, 1987, p. 3).

The republic has the objective conditions needed to choose the optimal age for teaching a second language, the number of lessons, and the method of instruction, and to regulate exposure to a foreign language so that the native language is learned as well as possible. Compared with the Central Asian republics, learning a second language is easier in Lithuania, because there are fewer school-age children and Lithuanian is not genetically as different from Russian. As recently as 1979, when Russian was taught from the age of 8.5 rather than 5, only 2.1% of Lithuanians under the age of 7 knew Russian (ranked eighth among the titular nationalities of the union republics). By the time they finished secondary school (in the 16–19 age group), even then 81.5% of Lithuanians reported that they knew Russian fluently (the second language was less well known among nine nationalities, most of all among Moldovans (76.4%) and least among Estonians (26.8%)). Compared with 1970, over the decade the proportion of Lithuanians in this age group who spoke Russian fluently increased by 20.5% (the second-fastest rate in the Soviet Union, after the Uzbeks). It is therefore believed that, even before the school reform, Lithuania ranked among the leading republics in the level of Russian-language teaching (Пяль, 1985, с. 24—30).

In the 1985/86 school year, the republic also had 83 linguistically mixed schools: 30 Lithuanian–Russian schools (21,509 students), 31 Russian–Polish schools (12,136 students), 7 Lithuanian–Polish schools (1,967 students), and 15 Lithuanian–Russian–Polish schools (8,351 students). The proportions of pupils belonging to the nationalities mentioned in these schools were, respectively, 65.3 and 34.7%, 73.2 and 26.8%, 13.9 and 86.1%, and 19.4, 54.9 and 25.7%. Among the 43,963 students in mixed schools were 20,934 Russians (47.6%), 15,937 Lithuanians (36.3%), and 7,092 Poles (16.1%).

Since the 1979/80 school year, the number of pupils in general-education schools where instruction is in Lithuanian has fallen by an average of 0.27% each year; in schools where instruction is in Polish, it has fallen by 0.08%; while in schools where instruction is in Russian, it has risen by 0.35% (over the six years in total, the percentages of pupils in those schools changed by −1.6, −0.5, and +2.1%, respectively). This is explained chiefly by the fact that some children of Lithuanian and Polish origin (especially those from mixed families) begin their schooling in classes where Russian is the language of instruction.

⁴ This was also argued by Prof. J. Laužikas and K. Ulvydas.

174

It was also proposed that Lithuanian–Russian scientific terminology glossaries be added to textbooks for the upper grades in mathematics, physics, chemistry, history, and social studies used in schools where instruction is in Lithuanian, and that Russian-language terms be actively taught in all lessons. Since the aim of this approach is to teach Russian rather than mathematics and the other subjects mentioned, its terminology could be presented more precisely, methodically, and economically in Russian-language textbooks and taught during Russian lessons.

Using a second language instead of the mother tongue (teaching entirely or partly in the second language, as well as using it during kindergarten morning gatherings, meetings, in pioneer and Komsomol wall newspapers, etc.) narrows the domains of the mother tongue and promotes not harmonious bilingualism, but monolingualism. Such activity falls not under the theme “Russian as a means of cooperation among the peoples of the USSR,” but under the theme “Russian as a national (native) language.” When recommendations were considered in Estonia in 1979 to begin teaching certain subjects in Russian at schools where instruction was in Estonian (this was later abandoned because proficiency in the second language was too low), the proportion of Estonians who spoke Russian fluently was 4.5% lower overall (and 14.2% lower among young people aged 16–19) than in 1970 (Пялль, 1985, с. 27).

Bilingualism can be developed harmoniously when, alongside Russian-language specialists, teachers, and kindergarten educators, specialists in the mother tongue, psychologists, and the public also take a more active part in this work. It has been established that even at higher education institutions, Lithuanians retain 22–24.5% less information presented in a second language than in their mother tongue, and retain it less well (Яникиявичюс, 1965, с. 24).

Not counting the promoted extracurricular and out-of-school activities in the second language (Russian-language electives, themed weeks, olympiads, amateur groups, sports sections, Russian-language, tourism, and local-history clubs, school museums, international friendship clubs, correspondence with other republics, etc.), Russian language and literature and initial military training are taught in Russian at general education schools. In the survey, both teachers of Russian language and literature and the students who understood the question—and especially adults with children (in groups 6, 10, 11, 15, 19, and others)—considered it inappropriate to teach even more subjects in the second language. Schools and their Russian-language instruction groups accept everyone who wishes to enroll and provide them with good conditions. For those who wish to learn Russian even better, study Russian language and literature, or attend higher education institutions in other republics, classes with intensified Russian-language instruction were established in nine LSSR secondary schools in the 1976/77 school year. In 1982/83 there were 12 such schools in the republic, and in 1986/87 there were 29.

At the 1982 all-Union scientific-practical conference on the development of national relations, it was emphasized that, in order to teach Russian effectively as a means of communication among the peoples of the USSR, it was also necessary to ensure that “Russians and representatives of other nationalities graduating from the republic’s schools have a good command of the language of the republic’s principal nationality. Then they will be able to participate more actively in the republic’s national economy and in party, state, and cultural work” (Воспитывать убежденных патриотов-интернационалистов, 1982, с. 52). The language spoken by the majority of the republic’s population, serving as a second or third language of the peoples of the USSR for non-local nationalities, is an important means of internationalist and patriotic education; it helps strengthen friendship among peoples and even promote the Russian language, since reciprocal bilingualism assimilates neither language (Пялль,

175

1968, c. 391—398). The problems of teaching Lithuanian and the national languages of other union republics as second languages have been raised in the press on numerous occasions (for a review, see Garšva, 1984, p. 29; cf. also Костенецкая, Берзиньш, 1986, с. 2).

When teaching is not supported by the skills needed for face-to-face communication, Russian-speaking residents of the LSSR do not become bilingual (Михальченко, 1984, с. 192—193), are unable to use the second language as a means of communication, and the requirements for secondary schools with Russian or Polish as the language of instruction therefore remain unfulfilled. Students fail to distinguish, or distinguish poorly, the long and short vowels of standard Lithuanian; they mispronounce the sounds ė and o and the falling-rising pitch accent; and they fail to make parts of speech agree. Among Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians who studied in the graduating grades of the republic’s non-Lithuanian schools, 13—19% said they had learned Lithuanian poorly, while 5—8% (25) said they did not know it at all (yet were promoted to the next grade).

There is a severe shortage of good textbooks, methodological literature, and specialists for teaching Lithuanian to non-Lithuanians. Lithuanian-language specialists teaching non-Lithuanians at higher education institutions face the same problems, so one department should specialize in this field. It would then be possible to train teachers of Lithuanian language and literature for non-Lithuanian schools as well: 30% of such teachers currently reported that they did not even speak Lithuanian well, and the majority of non-specialists teaching in grades II—IV fall into this category. They make serious errors in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, spoiling their students’ language from the very outset (and Lithuanians often adopt these errors later, too).

In the lower grades, Lithuanian should be taught by Lithuanian-language specialists rather than non-specialists who lack a good command of the subject they teach. Teachers’ qualifications need to be raised (as all respondents indicated), and the pay of teachers of all the second languages of the peoples of the USSR should be equalized.

Until 1985, schools with Russian as the language of instruction had 17 weekly lessons in Lithuanian language and literature, while Polish-language schools had 23 lessons. The LKP CK journal „Komunistas“ proposed increasing the number of these lessons (Šermas, 1983, p. 28). In the 1985/86 school year, Polish-language schools lost one weekly Lithuanian language and literature lesson (in grade IX); in 1986/87, they lost another two lessons (Lithuanian instruction in grade II was discontinued, while grade III was left with one lesson). The new lesson-allocation system is flawed: Lithuanian should also be taught from grade I. If this is not done, the three lessons remaining in grades III—IV should, for now, preferably be shifted to the higher grades, where they can be taught by a specialist.

Compared with schools in the republic where the language of instruction is Russian, Polish-language schools have 3—1 more lessons in eight subjects (music, foreign languages, geography, physical education, and other subjects). LSSR schools with Polish as the language of instruction currently have 44 weekly Russian lessons and 20 Lithuanian lessons, even though Lithuanian is genetically more distant from Polish and therefore considerably more difficult for Poles. In the school reform, one to half a lesson was added to each of seven subjects in Polish-language schools; consequently, reducing lessons in Lithuanian language and literature is wholly unjustified.

Classes with more than 25 students are divided into groups for Russian and foreign-language lessons, practical work, and physical education. The same arrangement is proposed for teaching Lithuanian to both Lithuanians and non-Lithuanians. Many non-Lithuanian general education schools have only shared Polish–Lithuanian and Russian–Lithuanian language classrooms. It would be necessary to

176

to equip separate classrooms of this kind and provide them with specialist literature and technical teaching aids.

The benefits of studying the language used for interregional communication in the republic should be explained. Language skills could be developed through optional Lithuanian classes, clubs, olympiads, and so on—much can be learned from improvements in the teaching of Russian, as well as from other republics. In Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the language of the titular nationality is taught on television; in Latvia, since 1980, olympiads in Latvian for pupils from Russian-language schools have been held successfully each year, and in 1985 Latvian began to be taught experimentally in Russian-language kindergartens (see Костенецкая, Берзиньш, 1986, с. 2). If preschool instruction in a second language is considered beneficial, and Russian is taught in Lithuanian- and Polish-language kindergartens, why is the more difficult-to-learn Lithuanian not taught in Russian-language preschool institutions in the republic?

In the union republics (Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan), schools operate in as many as seven to four languages: in addition to the language of the titular nationality and Russian, other local languages are also taught (most people of these nationalities usually live in neighboring republics). In 1980, the CPSU Central Committee and Council of Ministers adopted a resolution on the economic and social development of areas inhabited by northern peoples, providing for the publication of programs, textbooks, and other teaching materials in their languages for schools and preschool institutions. Some representatives of the small peoples of Siberia, the North, and the Far East wished for their native language to be used for instruction in the elementary grades, or for it to be taught as a subject in Russian-language schools (see Губогло, 1984, с. 137, 139—142, 153).

In neighboring Belarus, of the eight border-area schools where Lithuanian began to be taught as a subject twice a week in 1957 (after the war, Lithuanian was still spoken predominantly in those areas), three remain to this day: the secondary school in the village of Gervėčiai, Astravyets District; the eight-year school in Girių; and the eight-year school in Pelesa, Voranava District. These schools are seriously short of Lithuanian-language teachers, support, pedagogical and literary works in Lithuanian, and so on.

In Russian-language schools in the Lithuanian SSR, where about half of the pupils are of Polish, Belarusian, or Ukrainian nationality (cf. Gaučas, Karalienė, 1981, p. 14), the culture of the native language also needs to be improved, since local varieties of Russian are taking shape (cf. Трифоновас, 1978; Гаршва, 1986).

К. ГАРШВА, Я. ТРИФОНОВАС

FUNCTIONING OF THE LITHUANIAN AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM OF THE LITHUANIAN SSR

Summary

In 1983 and 1985–1986, 1,375 residents of the Lithuanian SSR were surveyed (90% were Lithuanians). They included senior students from urban and rural general-education schools and urban vocational-technical schools, university students, schoolteachers, instructors, as well as workers and employees. A questionnaire was used to study their levels of proficiency in and need for Lithuanian, Russian, and other languages of the peoples of the USSR, ways to improve the teaching of these languages, and so on (35 questions in all).

12. 1880

177

Lithuanian and Russian were known well by 80.3% and 42% of respondents, respectively; satisfactorily by 15.8% and 50%; and poorly by 2% and 6.8%. Of the informants, 78.2% wished to speak, read, and write in the second language (mostly those with a good command of it), 11.8% wished only to speak, and 6% to read and write. Respondents proposed improving teaching resources (textbooks, etc.) for Lithuanian and Russian, raising the quality of lessons, and improving work in preschool institutions, etc. Most pupils and teachers considered it inadvisable to further increase the number of Russian-language lessons or to switch some additional subjects to the second language of instruction.

K. GARŠVA, J. TRIFONOVAS

FUNCTIONING OF THE LITHUANIAN AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF THE LITHUANIAN SSR

Summary

In 1983 and 1985—1986 were tested 1375 pupils, students, teachers etc., living in the Lithuanian SSR (90% of them were Lithuanians). Lithuanian and Russian languages were known well accordingly by 80.3% and 42% of them, satisfactorily by 15.8% and 50%, poorly — by 2% and 6.8%. 78.2% of informants wanted to speak, read and write in the second language, 11.8% only to speak, 6% to read and write. A great number of informants suggested to advance textbooks, the quality of lessons, pre-school teaching, etc.

LITERATŪRA

I

Leninas V. Ar reikalinga privaloma valstybinė kalba? // Raštai. V., 1953. T. 20. P. 54—56.

Gorbačiovas M. TSKP Centro Komiteto Politinis pranešimas Tarybų Sąjungos Komunistų partijos XXVII suvažiavimui // Tiesa. 1986. Vasario 26. P. 2—8.

Tarybų Sąjungos Komunistų partijos Programa. V., 1986.

Tarybų Socialistinių Respublikų Sąjungos Konstitucija (Pagrindinis Įstatymas). V., 1977.

II

Adlys P. Antroji kalba // Mokslas ir gyvenimas. 1983. Nr. 4. P. 32—33.

Balčikonis J. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1978. T. 1.

Bendrosios psichologijos paskaitos. V., 1980.

Bražėnas P. Penkios dienos — penkeriems metams // Pergalė. 1986. Nr. 9.

Daukšytė J. Lietuvių ir rusų kalbų mokėjimo lygio, kaip ankstyvosios ir vėlyvosios dvikalbystės formavimosi rezultato, palyginimas // Mokymo ir auklėjimo klausimai. V., 1980. P. 77—78.

Garšva K. Antrosios kalbos funkcionavimas ir mokymas // Mūsų kalba. 1982. Nr. 5. P. 10—14.

Garšva K. Tobulinkime kalbų mokymą // Mūsų kalba. 1984. Nr. 4. P. 25—29.

Jacikevičius A. Daugiakalbystės psichologija. V., 1970.

Karaliūnas S. Respublikos lingvosocialinės situacijos charakteristika // Kalbų kontaktai Lietuvos TSR. V., 1983. P. 4—45.

Liaudies švietimas. K., 1979.

Lietuvos Tarybų Socialistinės Respublikos liaudies švietimo įstatymas // Tiesa, 1986. Liepos 16.

Nut arimų, įsakymų ir instrukcijų rinkinys / LTSR švietimo ministerija. V., 1979—1986. Nr. 49—74.

Pupkis A. Ir kalboje reikia persitvarkyti // Vakarinės naujienos. 1987. Sausio 12. P. 3.

Šernas V. Kai kurie pedagoginiai ir sociologiniai kalbų mokymo aspektai daugiakalbystės sąlygomis // Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. P. 35—40.

Šernas V. Brolybės ir draugystės kalba // Komunistas. 1983. Nr. 10. P. 25—28.

178

Вайнрайх У. Языковые контакты. Киев, 1979.

Выступления участников съезда писателей // Литературная газета. 1986. 21 июля.

Исаев М. И. Марксистско-ленинские принципы национально-языковой политики КПСС// Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит-ры и яз. 1986. Т. 45. № 2. С. 120–129.

Гаршва К. К. Развитие двуязычия в Литовской ССР // Тр. АН ЛитССР. Сер. А. 1982. Т. 3(80). С. 120–130.

Гаршва К. К. Акустические особенности вокализма русского языка в сопоставлении с литовским языком//Тр. АН ЛитССР. Сер. А. 1986. Т. 1(94). С. 111–116.

Грумадене Л. Социолингвистическое исследование литовской речи коренных вильнюсцев // Kalbu kontaktai Lietuvos TSR. V., 1983. P. 62–101.

Губогло М. Н. Современные этноязыковые процессы в СССР. М., 1984.

Копыленко М. М., Саина С. Т. Функционирование русского языка в различных слоях казахского населения. Алма-Ата, 1982.

Корсакас Ю. Функционирование родного и русского языков в школах Советской Литвы// Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. P. 41–56.

Костенецкая М., Берзиньш У. Язык есть исповедь народа… // Лит. газ. 1986. 26 ноября. С. 2.

Михальченко В. Ю. Проблемы функционирования и взаимодействия литовского и русского языков. Вильнюс, 1984.

Пялль Э. О некоторых вопросах развития наций и национальных языков Советского Союза // Изв. АН ЭстССР. Общественные науки, 1968. Т. 17. № 4. С. 386–401.

Пялль Э. Н. Развитие национальных языков в СССР и современные проблемы двуязычия // Проблемы эстонско-русского и русско-эстонского двуязычия. Таллин, 1985. С. 5–39.

Русский язык в национальной школе. М., 1977.

Спурга В. На качественно высшем уровне // Русский язык в школе. 1986. № 4. С. 1–4.

Трифонас Я. С. Функционирование и взаимодействие русского и литовского языков в Литовской ССР: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. М., 1978. Машинопись.

Ханазаров К. Х. Решение национально-языковой проблемы в СССР. М., 1977.

Шепетис Л. К. Забота партии о духовном потенциале советского народа // Русский язык – язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР. М., 1981.

Шимкус С. Интернациональное воспитание трудящихся села // Интернациональное воспитание трудящихся. Рига, 1967.

Шярнас В. Очерки по лингвистике. Вильнюс, 1976.

Шярнас В. И. Теоретические основы обучения нескольким языкам в школе (на материале Литовской ССР): Автореф. дис. … д-ра пед. наук. М., 1978.

Яцкявичюс А. О продуктивности вербальной памяти в системе двух языков // Науч. тр. вузов ЛитССР. Педагогика и психология. Вильнюс. 1965. Т. 7.

12⁶