Respublikos lingvosocialinės situacijos charakteristika

KALBŲ KONTAKTAI LIETUVOS TSR LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXIII (1983) SIMAS KARALIŪNAS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REPUBLIC’S LINGUOSOCIAL SITUATION Introductory Remarks The Lithuanian language is the means of communication within the socialist Lithuanian nation, and at the present stage of social development it meets all the needs of people of Lithuanian nationality for communication with one another. During the years of Soviet rule, as Lithuanian national culture flourished, the role of the Lithuanian language also grew, its social use intensified, and its spheres of use expanded. Another important feature of the republic’s linguosocial situation is that, alongside the national language, the language of interethnic communication among the Soviet peoples—Russian—also functions within its territory. Lithuanian and Russian are distributed across spheres of use; in the republic’s social and economic life, they complement one another. The influence of Russian on the system of Lithuanian is slight and is manifested mainly through indirect interference. The harmonious coexistence and functioning of the national language and Russian, and the nature and direction of the development of national–Russian bilingualism, are determined by the implementation of the principles of Leninist national policy and language policy. The Growth of Lithuanian Culture, Use of the Lithuanian Language, and Its Intensification During the years of Soviet rule, the economy and culture of Soviet Lithuania flourished within the fraternal family of the peoples of the USSR. Industry became the leading sector of the republic’s national economy. In the postwar years, new branches of industry were established in the republic: chemical, machine-tool, shipbuilding, electrical engineering, and radio-electronics industries, as well as the production of prefabricated reinforced-concrete and concrete structures and components. Growth in industrial output is ensured by increased labor productivity, brought about by the rapid introduction of new equipment and advanced technology, the comprehensive mechanization and automation of production processes, as well as rising worker qualifications and improvements in work organization. During the years of Soviet rule, large-scale socialist mechanized agricultural production was established. The principal producers of agricultural output are collective farms and state farms. During the years of Soviet rule, major achievements were made in the development of culture. Illiteracy among the population was eradicated, and education became accessible to young people. Each year the state allocates substantial funds to advance public education, science, and culture. In 1940, Lithuania had 69 gymnasiums and 27 progymnasiums, attended by about 26,000 pupils. In the 1976/77 academic year, schools in the republic graduated 4 — 64 thousand pupils (Griškevičius P., 1978, 87–88). In 1940–1941, Lithuania had 7 higher education institutions and 24 specialized secondary schools. Today, the republic has 13 higher education institutions and 74 technical schools and other specialized secondary schools, where 138 thousand people were studying at the beginning of the 1978/79 academic year, of whom 68.7 thousand were in higher education institutions. During the twenty years of bourgeois rule, more than 4 thousand specialists completed higher education. In the years of Soviet rule, higher education institutions graduated 149 thousand specialists (Griškevičius P., 1978, 25). In 1978 alone, 9.9 thousand people graduated from higher education institutions and 18.2 thousand from specialized secondary schools (Lietuvos TSR liaudies ūkis 1978 metais, 8). Compared with 1940, the number of students and pupils increased elevenfold. Per 10 thousand inhabitants of the republic, there are 1.5 times more students than in France, Italy, and Japan, and 2.2 times more than in the Federal Republic of Germany and England (Griškevičius P., 1980, 150). At the beginning of the 1978/79 academic year, 1,168 thousand people were studying in various forms: 611.9 thousand in general education schools, 69.7 thousand in technical schools and other specialized secondary schools, and 68.7 thousand in higher education institutions. Schools devote considerable attention to teaching the native language so that young people completing their studies will have a good command of the standard language—the means of communication, mutual understanding, and information exchange for the entire Lithuanian nation. The Lithuanian nation had none of this in the empire of tsarist Russia, which, in V. Lenin’s apt phrase, was called a “prison of nations.” In the empire of tsarist Russia, where nations were suppressed nationally and culturally, and their writing in their native languages was restricted or banned, only twenty nations could use national literary languages. In Lithuania, the tsarist administration did not allow schools to be established in the native language, restricted the use of Lithuanian in public life in every way, pursued a policy of forced assimilation, and for forty years (1864–1904) prohibited the printing of books in Lithuanian using Latin letters. By an order of the Governor-General of Vilnius to the Vilnius Censorship Committee, textbooks in Latin type were banned on June 5, 1864. This date is considered the beginning of the press ban. On September 6, 1865, the ban on Lithuanian publications was formalized by a secret circular to the governors of Vilnius, Grodno, Kaunas, Minsk, Vitebsk, and Mogilev. “The fact that the Lithuanian language was excluded from Lithuania’s schools and that the printing of Lithuanian books and other publications in Latin-Lithuanian letters was prohibited,” notes the History of the Lithuanian SSR (II, 204), “together with the general social and economic oppression, weighed with its full force upon the broad masses of the Lithuanian people. The deprivation of books in the native language and the prevention of native-language teaching in schools hindered all popular education, increased illiteracy, and created the conditions for keeping the people in complete darkness. Therefore, despite the severe reaction under tsarism, in the years immediately following the uprising, as the Lithuanian peasants’ movement against the exploitation of landlords and kulaks developed, the masses’ struggle against national oppression became linked with and grew alongside that movement, as did their demands to abolish the ban on the Lithuanian press, to permit the printing and distribution of Lithuanian books, and to allow children to be taught in their native language at school.” 5 The Lithuanian people rejected the government books printed in Russian letters—they neither bought nor read them. The efforts of the tsarist administrators to impose a foreign alphabet on the Lithuanian nation by force and thereby assimilate it failed. The progressive Russian intelligentsia and the Social Democratic movement contributed greatly to defending the rights of the Lithuanian language in public life. The Russian Academy of Sciences, it seems, had not been informed of the aforementioned secret circular; accordingly, continuing the tradition of research into the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian writings in general, in 1865 it published, in Latin letters, the works of K. Donelaitis prepared by A. Schleicher. On April 22, 1880, the Russian Academy of Sciences secured the right to publish Lithuanian books in Latin letters for scholarly purposes, so that those publications would also be accessible to foreign philologists. Kazan University, like all universities, had the right to publish books without censorship; in 1880–1882 it printed the three volumes of A. Juška’s Lithuanian Songs, while the Academy of Sciences published his Lithuanian Wedding Songs in 1883 and began publishing a Lithuanian–Russian–Polish dictionary in 1884 (Volume I appeared in 1897). The Academy of Sciences also published M. Daukša’s catechism and postil. Russian scholars F. Fortunatov, G. Ulyanov, A. Shakhmatov, and others contributed greatly to the study of the Lithuanian language and to the Lithuanian nation’s struggle for freedom of the press. The need to abolish the ban on the Lithuanian press was raised many times in the liberal Russian press (Merkys V., 1978, 114–130). Lenin’s Iskra wrote on numerous occasions about the ban on the Lithuanian press, national persecution, and manifestations of the national movement. On February 1, 1903, it published a letter condemning the ban on the Lithuanian press, whose author was probably not Lithuanian. It stated: “All the border prisons (in the Lithuanian-populated area) are full of peasants—‘political’ offenders, accused and convicted of transporting, distributing, or even merely using Lithuanian prayer books printed in Latin type. It is the typeface itself that is persecuted, for even the agencies persecuting these prayer books find nothing ‘suspicious’ in them” (Lietuvos TSR istorija, II, 296). Iskra also wrote about repression of the book smugglers and other participants in the Lithuanian national movement. On October 5, 1905, it published a list of political offenders sought by the gendarmes; the first name on it was Juozas Akelaitis, a distributor of the illegal Lithuanian press (Merkys V., 1978, 134–136). One of the causes of the Lithuanian national revival in the second half of the nineteenth century may have been tsarism’s brutal repression and the ban on the Lithuanian press. “Force in such cases usually provokes resistance,” writes the Norwegian linguist A. Sommerfelt (1974, 69). “Indeed, the best way to awaken a dying language is to try to suppress it.” With the restoration of Soviet rule in Lithuania in 1940 and the Lithuanian nation’s joining the family of fraternal Soviet peoples, a new stage began in the development of the Lithuanian nation and its culture. The rapid growth of the Lithuanian nation’s economy and culture during the Soviet years was brought about by socialist transformations, the fraternal assistance of the Soviet peoples, especially the great Russian nation, and the implementation of the principles of Leninist national policy. 6 The rapid development of the republic’s economy, education and culture in general greatly intensified the social use of the Lithuanian language itself and expanded its domains. “The social functions of Lithuanian, like those of Latvian, have grown to the utmost, and its lexical-semantic, stylistic and syntactic systems have expanded beyond recognition. Throughout the long history of Lithuania, the Lithuanian language has never seen such comprehensive functional and structural development,” aptly observes J. Desheriyev (1976(b), 230), a specialist in the functioning of national languages during the Soviet years. This characterization, of course, primarily applies to standard Lithuanian—in its written (literary) and spoken forms. The eradication of illiteracy and the introduction of compulsory eight-year schooling—and, in recent years, secondary education—as well as free higher education, the publication of political, literary, scholarly and other works in huge print runs, the widespread practice of amateur arts, theatres, radio and television, various meetings and other forms of collective communication have opened the way for standard Lithuanian to reach broad masses of working people and enter the linguistic practice of the entire nation. The large number of young people in education, qualified specialists in various fields of science and technology, and a sizeable cohort of research and arts workers have substantially expanded the ranks of users of standard Lithuanian. The national Lithuanian film industry and television, which have been established, use standard spoken Lithuanian. Literature and the press are the domain of standard written Lithuanian. Štai kaip tarybinio periodo lietuvių kalbos funkcionavimą apibūdina J. Kruopas (1967, 19–20): „Nuvertus kapitalistinę santvarką, įvykdžius socialinę ir kultūrinę revoliuciją, plačiai ir intensyviai ėmė plisti lietuvių literatūrinė kalba, turtėdama nauja leksika ir frazeologija, apsivalydama nuo seną buitį ir ideologiją reiškiančių žodžių ir posakių. Nors tarybiniais metais iš esmės nepasikeitė nei literatūrinės kalbos žodyninė sudėtis, nei gramatinė sandara, tačiau literatūrinė kalba žymiai išplėtė savo funkcijas bei vartojimo sferą, praturtėjo daugybe naujų žodžių, reikšmių, posakių ir kitokių išraiškos priemonių. Kartu su naujais politiniais, socialiniais, ekonominiais, kultūriniais ir kitokiais reiškiniais atsirado daug nauja ir kalbos gyvenime, ypač jos leksikoje. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos vartojimo sferos išsiplėtimas, leksikos, frazeologijos ir gramatinės sandaros praturtėjimas aiškiai rodo, kad tarybinis laikotarpis lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos raidoje yra ypač svarbus ir reikšmingas“. Thus, during the Soviet period, the social use of Lithuanian changed in two ways: first, Lithuanian began to be used in new domains (national cinema and television); and, second, the traditional domains of Lithuanian use expanded (education, book publishing, mass media, etc.). The use of Lithuanian and Russian Lithuanian is a national language with an ancient and rich written tradition. At present, Lithuanian performs the principal social functions and meets all the communication needs of members of the Lithuanian socialist nation. It is the language of instruction in our primary, secondary and higher schools. Lithuanian is the language of the repub- 7 lican press, theatre, radio, cinema and television. A wealth of literary, socio-political, scientific and other works is published in it. It is the language of republican congresses and conferences. Other languages are also used in Lithuania—Russian, Polish, etc.—but Lithuanian plays the predominant role in the life of the republic. For example, of the 532,000 full-time general-education school pupils at the beginning of the 1978/79 school year, 451,000 studied in Lithuanian, 66,000 in Russian and 15,000 in Polish, or 85, 12 and 3%, respectively (Lietuvos TSR liaudies ūkis 1978 metais, 236). In 1980, 1,672 books and pamphlets were published, with a total print run of 16 million 716 thousand copies. Of these, 1,270 titles, with a print run of 14 million 485 thousand copies, were in Lithuanian, and 282 books and pamphlets, with a print run of 1 million 558 thousand copies, were in Russian. That year, 126 journals and bulletins were published in the republic, with a combined print run per issue of 2 million 762 thousand copies; among them were 94 titles in Lithuanian, with a combined print run per issue of 2 million 622 thousand copies, and 27 journals and bulletins in Russian, with a combined print run per issue of 74 thousand copies (Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 22, 87). The predominant role of Lithuanian is also evident from data gathered through sociolinguistic questionnaires administered to senior students (about two thousand) at the Kaunas Antanas Sniečkus Polytechnic Institute (Korsakas J., 1979). To the question “Which languages do you use during your studies?” the answers were as follows: 92.8% of graduates communicate in Lithuanian, 6.2% in Russian and 1% in foreign languages; 69.2% of graduates read literature in Lithuanian, 28.6% in Russian and 2.2% in foreign languages; 90.5% of graduates write in Lithuanian, 8.5% in Russian and 1% in foreign languages. First- and second-year students, who were still taking practical courses in Russian and foreign languages, answered the same question as follows: we communicate in Lithuanian (88%), Russian (10.5%), and foreign languages (1.5%); we read in Lithuanian (81.4%), Russian (11.5%), and foreign languages (7.1%); we write in Lithuanian (89.9%), Russian (7.9%), and foreign languages (3.2%). Thus, the principal language of students’ everyday life, daily communication and studies is their native language—Lithuanian. Russian also plays a certain role alongside it, primarily as a means of reading literature (textbooks are mostly in Russian), and to some extent as a means of communication. As a national language with an ancient and rich written tradition, Lithuanian exerts a noticeable influence on people of various nationalities living in the territory of the republic. In the 1979 All-Union Population Census, the following reported Lithuanian as the second language of the peoples of the USSR that they knew fluently: 106,954 Russians, 27,506 Poles, 7,341 Belarusians, 4,865 Ukrainians, 4,579 Jews, and others (Вестник статистики, 71). Some people of other language backgrounds living and working in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR are moving toward regular use of Lithuanian, and Lithuanian is becoming their native language. According to the latest All-Union Population Census (Вестник статистики, 71), 9,536 people of Polish nationality, 6,641 of Russian nationality, 790 of Belarusian nationality, 654 of Ukrainian nationality, 619 of Jewish nationality, and others consider Lithuanian their native language. Thus, Lithuanian is the principal component of the social-communicative system (for the term, cf. Швейцер А. Д., 1977, 75), which is an indispensable part of the republic’s 8 a condition for economic, social, socio-political, and cultural life. This is related to the fact that Lithuanians make up an absolute majority (80%) of the republic’s population. Their number increased by 205,500 people, or 8.2 percent, over nine years. On this occasion, it is worth recalling that 138,700 Lithuanians live in other union republics, including 66,800 in the Russian Federation, 19,600 in Kaliningrad Oblast, 37,800 in Latvia, 11,000 in Kazakhstan, 9,700 in Ukraine, 7,000 in Belarus, 2,400 in Estonia, 1,000 in Uzbekistan, and 3,000 in other republics (Lietuvos TSR gyventojai, 17). It is self-evident that Lithuanians living in other union republics are bilingual or multilingual: in addition to their native Lithuanian, they know and use Russian and, evidently, the languages of the Soviet peoples in whose territories they live. Accordingly, in the last census, at the union-wide level, more than half (52%) of Lithuanians said that they knew Russian fluently (48% at the republic-wide level). On the other hand, another important factor determining the specific character of the republic’s linguosocial situation is the functioning of the Russian language. Knowledge and use of Russian are a social necessity arising from the interests of building communism in our country. The economies and scientific and technical potential of the union republics develop and grow as parts of the integrated economic and scientific-technical complex of the Soviet Union. This creates the necessary social precondition for having a common means of communication, a function fulfilled by the Russian language. This social necessity depends, in general, on the entire economic, social, public, and cultural life of the republic. “The Lithuanian Party organization, all the working people of the republic, and the intelligentsia understand this well and do everything to ensure that our young people, alongside Lithuanian, master Russian, which is the principal means of communication among the Soviet peoples and creates favorable conditions for becoming acquainted with the spiritual values of the great Russian people and all Soviet peoples, as well as with world culture. In turn, thanks to the Russian language, Lithuanian culture becomes the property of the fraternal peoples of our country and extends beyond its own borders,” said L. Šepetys, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania, at the union-wide scientific-theoretical conference “The Russian Language—the Language of Friendship and Cooperation among the Peoples of the USSR,” held in Tashkent on May 22–24, 1979 (1981, 153). This is how the prominent public figure, scholar, and poet Academician K. Korsakas describes the role of the Russian language in Lithuanian literary life (1962, 77–78): “Thanks only to the Russian language, many of our writers’ books and the most valuable works in their literary legacy have already gone beyond the republic’s borders and, in a relatively short time, become widely known not only in the Soviet Union but far beyond its borders. The Russian language serves as an effective means of introducing the values of Lithuanian literature not only to Russian readers, but also helps our writers’ words resound in many other languages. Through the use of Russian, our writers’ works, their articles, and their statements on the most pressing issues are increasingly translated into the languages of other peoples and acquire international resonance.” The linguistic life of the republic is also inevitably affected by the fact that people of 54 nationalities live and work in its territory, with the number of these nationalities exceeding 20 (Lietuvos TSR gyventojai, 16). According to the latest union-wide population census (Tiesa, February 22, 1980; Lietuvos TSR gyventojai, 16), 9 at the beginning of 1979, 2 million 712 thousand (80%) Lithuanians lived in the republic, as well as 303 thousand (8.9%) Russians, 247 thousand (7.3%) Poles, 58 thousand (1.7%) Belarusians, 32 thousand (0.9%) Ukrainians, 15 thousand (0.4%) Jews, and 25 thousand (0.8%) people of other nationalities. For a sociolinguistic characterization of the republic’s linguistic life, it is important that an absolute majority of its population (96.9%) consider the language of their own nationality to be their mother tongue, while 3.1 percent consider the languages of other peoples of the USSR to be theirs. The presence of people of different nationalities, each speaking its own language, also creates a social necessity for a single language of communication—a means of interaction among the Soviet peoples. Thus, alongside its principal component—the Lithuanian language—another important component of the social-communicative system is Russian. The parallel functioning of Lithuanian, the national means of communication, and Russian, the means of communication among the Soviet peoples, constitutes the specific character of the republic’s linguosocial situation. Lithuanian and Russian are distributed across spheres of use; in the republic’s economic, social, socio-political, and cultural life, they complement one another and coexist harmoniously. J. Dešerijevas (1976) has examined and compared in considerable detail the functions performed by Lithuanian and Russian in the life of the Lithuanian SSR. He distinguished twenty-two spheres of language use. In his view, Lithuanian and Russian are used side by side in the following spheres: republic radio and television, higher education, science and technology, government institutions, record-keeping and official correspondence, cultural and educational institutions, scholarly life, socio-political life, cultural life, communication in industrial production and technical documentation, local transport and communications institutions, household services for the population, trade, and public catering. Lithuanian and Russian are regarded as the principal means of communication in these spheres of economic, social, socio-political, and cultural activity. Russian alone is used in three spheres: communication among people of Russian nationality, communication between Lithuanians and representatives of other peoples, and correspondence with central institutions and other republics. Lithuanian and Russian are used equally in one sphere, namely industrial production and technical documentation, where the relative use of Lithuanian and Russian depends on the national composition of workers, office employees, and engineering and technical personnel. Lithuanian is used in the remaining spheres of the republic’s economic, social, socio-political, and cultural activity. These include primary, general secondary, and specialized secondary education for children of Lithuanian nationality, legal proceedings, and the periodical press. To supplement and elaborate on this general picture of the relationship between the use of Lithuanian and Russian, it should be emphasized that favorable conditions for the use and functioning of Russian have been established in the republic. For example, Russian occupies an important place in such a significant area of culture as the mass media. In 1980, 22 newspapers, 27 journals, and bulletins were published in Russian in the republic (Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika, 85, 87). The newspaper Pabaltijo geležinkelietis is published in Russian, as are the republican newspapers Vakarinės naujienos and its supplement Reklama, Tarybų Lietuva, Savaitės ekranas, the city newspaper Tarybinė Klaipėda, and those of Vilnius, Trakai, 10 The newspapers of the Zarasai, Šalčininkai, and Švenčionys districts, as well as several journals and periodicals, such as “News of the Supreme Council and Government of the Lithuanian SSR,” with the supplement “Alphabetical-Subject Index of Current Normative Acts of Legislation of the Lithuanian SSR,” “Cinema,” “Communist,” “Literary Lithuania” (since 1978), “Lithuanian Mathematics Collection,” “Lithuanian Physics Collection,” “Russian Language at School” (since 1977), “Time and Events,” “Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR” (Series B and V), “Linguistics (Slavistics),” etc. A Russian Drama Theatre operates in Vilnius. Lithuanian Radio and Television make it possible to listen to programs in Russian. Vilnius Radio broadcasts its programs in Russian for 1 hour and 10 minutes each day (from 15:00 to 16:00 and from 18:00 to 18:10). During the school year, Russian-language lessons are broadcast twice a week for 20 minutes. Sports events, concerts, and ceremonies are broadcast in Russian for 2 hours and 20 minutes a day. Retransmissions from Moscow substantially increase the time allotted to Russian-language broadcasts on Vilnius Radio—to 3.5 hours a day. Lithuanian Television also broadcasts in Russian for a considerable part of its schedule. For example, on Friday, October 10, 1980, of the 9 hours and 43 minutes of television broadcasts, 2 hours and 37 minutes were allotted to Russian. On Saturday, October 11, 1980, the republic’s television broadcast for a total of 15 hours and 56 minutes—of that total (9 hours and 34 minutes in Lithuanian), 4 hours and 33 minutes were in Russian. On Sunday, October 12, 1980, Lithuanian Television broadcasts lasted 15 hours. Excluding the program “Time” and retransmissions, 4 hours and 35 minutes were allotted to Russian-language broadcasts (8 hours and 23 minutes to Lithuanian-language broadcasts). Throughout September of that year, out of the 201 hours of Lithuanian Television’s broadcasting time, Russian-language programs accounted for 85 hours, or 35% of the total. Another broad sphere in which Russian is used intensively is public education. In Soviet Lithuania, there are quite a number of eight-year and secondary schools where the language of instruction is Russian. According to data from the Statistical Administration of the Lithuanian SSR, 3,248 eight-year and secondary schools operate in the republic, of which 97 are schools with two languages of instruction: 43 with Lithuanian and Russian, 42 with Russian and Polish, and 18 schools with three languages of instruction—Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish—mostly in the ethnically mixed districts of southeastern Lithuania. Another broad sphere in which Russian is used intensively is the higher education system. The use of Russian here is manifested not only in the fact that students read a large proportion of textbooks and other specialized literature in Russian (textbooks in various disciplines in their native language are lacking), but, most importantly, in the fact that Russian functions alongside Lithuanian as a language of instruction in the higher education system of the Lithuanian SSR. This is clearly demonstrated by the following figures. In the 1980/81 academic year, in the thirteen higher education institutions of the Lithuanian SSR, of the 400 academic groups in the full-time division, 140 in the evening division, and 150 in the correspondence division, 40, 14, and 15 groups, respectively, operated in the corresponding divisions (a group consists on average of 22—25 students) in which lectures in all subjects are given in Russian. The important role played by Russian in the higher education system of the Lithuanian SSR is also evident from the student population. In 1980, 9100 students were admitted to higher education institutions in the Lithuanian SSR. Of this number, the aforementioned groups with Russian as the language of instruction comprised 1587 students (or 17.4%): fu- 11 on average 920 students in the day division, or 57.9%, about 1,322 students in the evening division, or 20.3%, and about 345 students in the correspondence division, or 21.7%1. It follows that the Communist Party of Lithuania takes into account and attends to the linguistic, cultural, and everyday needs of citizens of non-local nationalities who work and live in the republic. Thus, Russian occupies an important place in the Lithuanian SSR, as in the other union republics, in terms of the scope of its social functions. As already mentioned, Russian is the principal means by which Lithuanians communicate with people of other nationalities who live in the republic and do not speak Lithuanian. Alongside Lithuanian, it is used at republican conferences and meetings. In many enterprises and institutions in Vilnius, Klaipėda, and Sniečkus, where the majority of employees and office workers are of non-Lithuanian nationality, record-keeping, technical documentation, and correspondence are conducted in Russian. In general, Russian performs the following functions in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR. First, it serves as the language of intercommunication among the Soviet peoples: people of Lithuanian nationality use it to communicate with representatives of other Soviet peoples. It is used for communication among themselves more often than Lithuanian by people of various nationalities living in the republic (Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Jews, etc.). It should be noted separately that Poles living in the Vilnius region often communicate with Lithuanians specifically in Russian. Second, Russian serves in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR as a means of communication among members of the Russian nation who live permanently in the republic. Third, Russian serves as a means of communication among long-established Russian residents. This function is performed by a dialectal variant of Russian. On the question of the interaction between the Lithuanian and Russian languages The alternating use of two languages—in the present case, Lithuanian and Russian—naturally tends to lead to the languages beginning to influence one another. Observing concrete situations in which Lithuanian and Russian are used, it is easy to see that Russian exerts a certain influence on Lithuanian, while Lithuanian has some effect on the Russian used in the Lithuanian SSR. The influence of Russian on Lithuanian is manifested in speech, that is, in the production of sounds and sentences and the use of linguistic means—in everyday terms, in speaking—and partly extends into written language as well. But Russian does not exert any substantial influence on the system of the Lithuanian language—its structural units and the relations between them. The more organized, structured levels of language, such as the phonological and grammatical systems and certain parts of the syntactic system, remain intact and untouched for a long time. This is clearly evident from the fate of Lithuanian-speaking enclaves in the Byelorussian SSR (Zietela, Rodūnia, Gervėčiai, etc.): their vocabulary, generally quite meager, teems with Slavic words; sentences are constructed according to Slavic-language models; the same phoneme may be pronounced in several different ways, yet phonological oppositions remain Lithuanian, and the inflection of nouns and 1 Data collected by sociolinguist L. Grumadienė. 12 the inflection of verbs and the systems of pronouns and numerals are entirely intact. Russian exerts a more noticeable influence on Lithuanian phonetics, and a greater one on its vocabulary, which has an open system and is generally more prone to respond sensitively to changes in social life and culture, followed by syntax. The following cases of phonetic interference in speech may be cited: pronunciation of unstressed short o as a in some words (for example, komunizmas, kampotas); pronunciation of hard l before i in some words (for example, šalibakas); pronunciation of soft l and č in some words (for example, kul’tūra, bač’ką, Sniec’kus, Radčkauskas). The reasons for such phonetic phenomena as hardening i, y, and e, ė after š, ž, or lengthening stressed short vowels in the speech of some Vilnius residents are not sufficiently clear. Both the surrounding Lithuanian dialects and the Russian or Polish spoken nearby, in which these features are characteristic, may have an influence. It should be emphasized that the features mentioned are found only in the speech of individual speakers. Lexical interference is quite pronounced in the speech of individuals or even particular social groups: he badly conducts himself (instead of behaves) — он плохо ведет себя; what have I got to do with this? (instead of what have I got to do with this?) — при чем тут я?; take oneself off work, lessons (instead of leave, slip away, run away) — сняться с работы, уроков; bad bearing (instead of attitude, view) — плохое отношение; he takes a cold attitude toward his work (instead of is indifferent to it) — холодно относится к своей работе; strange as it may be (instead of although very strange, strange as it may be) — как ни странно, and many others. Such and similar incorrect expressions sometimes pass from colloquial speech into the standard language—both written and spoken—but language-cultivation practice resolutely combats them. The influence exerted by Russian on Lithuanian would, it seems, be more aptly described as indirect interference. It manifests itself, first, in calquing Russian words and phraseological expressions and, second, in stimulating the use of Lithuanian words and expressions, as well as certain word-formation devices. Most neologisms that appeared during the Soviet years in written language were formed according to Lithuanian word-formation patterns that have equivalent counterparts in Russian. For example, adjectives with the suffix -inis increased under the influence of Russian adjectives in -енный: tėvyninis — отечественный, plėšininis — целинный, gamybinis — производственный, etc. During the Soviet years, calquing Russian words and phraseological expressions became the predominant way of forming new words, especially scientific and socio-political terms. It greatly enriches the Lithuanian lexicon. Russian word-formation elements are readily matched by Lithuanian equivalents because the grammatical structures of Lithuanian and Russian are quite similar. The resulting calques have word-formation features characteristic of Lithuanian. In addition to certain word-formation formatives, Russian also stimulates the use of Lithuanian words: for example, the use of words such as kovoti (kovą), vystytis (vystymas, -asis) or aukštas became more frequent under the influence of their Russian equivalents бороться (борьба), развивать (развитие), and высокий. Russian also stimulates the use of 13 the use of whose syntactic constructions, for example: If... then Если... то: If last year so many thousand tons of milk were produced, then this year twice as much was produced. The terminological system of the Lithuanian language is well established, and during its development the source of many terms was Western languages (German, English, French, Polish), but not Russian, as is sometimes unjustifiably assumed. This is clearly evident from the different grammatical formation of terms in Lithuanian and Russian; compare, for example, molekulė, dozė (from German die Molekül, die Dose, Dosis) and Russian молекула, доза. In recent times, admittedly, Russian has already served as an intermediary in the entry into Lithuanian of many international terms reflecting new technological discoveries and scientific achievements. The calquing of new Russian words and phrases, especially Soviet ones; the intensifying use in national languages of equivalents for words, expressions, and phraseological combinations in Russian; the spread of Sovietisms; and the growth of the international vocabulary stock through Russian mediation are characteristic features of the languages of all Soviet peoples. These processes give rise to certain similarities among the languages of the Soviet peoples and bring about semantic convergence in those languages. One or another Lithuanian word, more closely connected with the particularities of national culture and everyday life, also enters Russian literary language. Through translations of Lithuanian poetry and folk songs, daina is gradually spreading in Russian. Russian translations of K. Donelaitis’s works use Lithuanian words būpче, шюпинис, шальтишюс. Translations of Žemaitė’s writings contain the Lithuanian words auksin, бичюлис, клумпы, милас, путра. Lithuanian words канклес, сугатине, etc., are widely used in Russian folklore studies (Sabaliauskas A., 1967, 100). The considerable closeness between the structures of Lithuanian and Russian, and the fact that these languages belong to the same genetic type, naturally contribute to the fairly rapid influence of Russian on Lithuanian at its various levels. The view is spreading that Lithuanian and Russian have about two thousand words in common. For instance, V. Michalčenko (1976, 128) writes: “About two thousand words with common roots in Baltic, Slavic, and, in part, other Indo-European languages are counted in Lithuanian.” The works of Lithuanian linguists themselves may have provided the basis for this not entirely well-founded view. A. Lyberis and K. Ulvydas (1958, 35) describe the evident lexical similarity between Lithuanian and Russian as follows: “The closeness of Lithuanian and Russian is shown by the many words with common roots. In the published etymological dictionaries alone, about two thousand roots common to the Baltic and Slavic languages are identified. The number of words with common roots in the Baltic and Slavic languages is, of course, considerably greater, since each root can usually yield not just one or two, but several or more derivatives.” J. Kruopas (1967, 28) expresses a similar view: “The Baltic and Slavic languages have had many lexical, grammatical, and phonetic features in common since time immemorial. For example, the linguist Trautman listed about two thousand words with common roots in Baltic, Slavic, and, in part, other Indo-European languages in his ‘Baltic-Slavic Dictionary,’ e.g., hand, cow, crow, iron, ice, linden, etc.” To clarify this view, it should first be said that if we are speaking of two thousand words in common, we should speak not of Lithuanian and Russian, but in general of 14 the Baltic and Slavic languages as having that number of words in common. This is an entirely different matter, since the shared vocabulary of the Baltic and Slavic languages also includes words found, for example, in Latvian and Slavic, Prussian and Slavic, or Lithuanian and South Slavic, among others. It is therefore easy to understand that the number of words shared by Lithuanian and Slavic, and still more so by Lithuanian and Russian, is considerably smaller than the number shared by the Baltic and Slavic languages in general. Reinhold Trautman’s dictionary “Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch” (Göttingen, 1923) does indeed list about two thousand words from the Baltic and Slavic languages, but it is especially important to know that it includes many Baltic words (for example, river, grow, be born, etc.) that have no cognates in the Slavic languages, as well as Slavic words for which no equivalents are found in the Baltic languages. Thus, words common to the Baltic and Slavic languages make up a much smaller proportion of R. Trautman’s dictionary. The following figures give an approximate picture of the distribution of words in this respect (Slawski, 1970, 502): of the 888 nouns found in R. Trautman’s dictionary, only 289 are innovations common to the Baltic and Slavic languages (195 basic words and 94 derivatives), representing 32.5% of all nouns in the dictionary. Meanwhile, 334 nouns have no equivalent in the other language group: 181 of these words are known only in the Baltic languages and 153 are found only in the Slavic languages. It is true that the shared vocabulary of the Baltic and Slavic languages is greatly increased by archaisms, words inherited from the Proto-Indo-European language, of which the Baltic and Slavic languages have 265 among the nouns. To this must also be added a considerable number of Slavic loanwords and various cultural terms that came through Slavic (for example, church, whip, roof tile, chimney, soap, brick, parlor, etc.). Lithuanian–Russian and Russian–Lithuanian bilingualism Bilingualism is not a linguistic phenomenon. It is a feature of language use, of its functioning. Bilingualism is a fact of communication, not of code. It belongs not to the domain of language (langue), but to that of speech (parole). Language is the property of a social group, society, or nation, whereas bilingualism is an individual’s possession. If an individual uses two languages, this means that there are two distinct linguistic communities, but it does not mean that a bilingual community exists. A bilingual community can be regarded as a group of individuals who need to speak two languages. A separate bilingual community cannot remain bilingual, since a closed community in which every member knows both languages well can manage perfectly well with just one language. It is therefore easy to understand that the existence of bilingualism presupposes the existence of two communities speaking different languages. As soon as two distinct monolingual communities find themselves side by side, they can come into contact. This contact gives rise to bilingualism (Mackey W., 1968). There is no universally accepted definition of bilingualism, since it is only in recent decades that linguists have begun to take a greater interest in the phenomenon. It is therefore unsurprising that different researchers understand it in different ways. Some consider bilingualism to mean equally good knowledge and use of two languages; others apply the concept to any possible contact with a second language and the ability to make some use of it in the native-language environment. Such an expansion of the concept must be explained by the fact that the boundary at which an individual who uses a second language alongside their native language becomes bilingual is either drawn arbitrarily, or cannot be established at all. 15 who uses a second language alongside their native language becomes bilingual is either drawn arbitrarily, or cannot be established at all. In the broadest sense, bilingualism is understood as the alternate use of two languages by the same individuals. However, such characteristics of bilingualism as the degree of language proficiency, the functions they perform (For what purpose does an individual use these languages? What role do they play in the individual’s life?), alternation (How often does an individual switch between these languages? How, and under what conditions, do they move from one language to another?) and interference (Does the individual keep the languages well separated? To what extent do they mix them up? How does one language used by the individual affect the other?) are also taken into account. Thus, bilingualism is treated here primarily from a sociolinguistic perspective: “from the sociolinguistic (social-linguistic) perspective, bilingualism is studied by identifying the extent of knowledge of both languages that enables their users to communicate with one another, to express their own thoughts and understand those of others, that is, to perform a minimum or maximum number of social functions. Accordingly, from the sociological perspective, it is necessary to define the range of social functions and domains of use of each language used by the bilingual population” (Дешериев Ю. Д., 1976(a), 7). The formation of Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism as a social phenomenon can be discussed only with regard to children living in the republic’s major cities. Children in rural Lithuania grow up and mature under monolingual conditions until the age of 5–7, that is, in a native-language environment, where Lithuanian is spoken. Today, rural children first encounter Russian in the first grade, since Russian instruction begins at that grade in school. Observations show that those who have completed an eight-year school can use a dictionary to read Russian and write a little from dictation, but they cannot yet speak or use Russian freely. Thus, the Russian proficiency of rural young people who have completed an eight-year school is very limited and passive. Russian proficiency is considerably expanded and deepened in secondary school. A second important channel for learning Russian, though one associated only with young men, is service in the Soviet Army. After spending two years continually in a Russian-speaking environment, they learn Russian well enough to use it freely when speaking on a variety of topics and in different situations after returning home. Thus, present-day rural residents of Lithuania differ in their knowledge of Russian. Men who have completed their service in the Soviet Army speak Russian fluently. Women know the least Russian, since the shaky knowledge they acquired in secondary school fades over the years. Of the total number of people who speak Russian fluently, 61.7% are men who can read and write, while 38.3% are women. Of those who do not know Russian, about 24% are men and about 76% are women. The sociological survey data confirm the general characterization of rural residents’ knowledge of Russian given here (Šimkus S., 1967, 92—106). Of the 1,443 residents of the Alytus, Kapsukas and Kėdainiai districts surveyed, 6.5% said they spoke, read and wrote Russian fluently; in addition, 12.7% of respondents spoke and wrote it, and 38.3% spoke it poorly. A total of 42.5% of rural residents do not know Russian at all. The question arises: who are these 6.5% who speak, read and write Russian fluently? They are mainly young rural residents aged 16–35 who have completed a Soviet 16 men who attended school or studied there, men who served in the Soviet Army, are most active in production and public life, and travel frequently. It is therefore natural that the largest number of Russian speakers is found in the 21–25, 26–31, and 31–35 age groups. Almost all young men and women aged 16–20 said they knew Russian, although a considerable proportion (42.4%) knew it poorly, and only two people were found who did not know it at all. In the 21–25 age group, 26% of people speak, read, and write fluently, while 35.6% speak and read. By contrast, 50% of those aged 41–45 do not know Russian, as do 62.2% of those aged 51–60. Thus, a clear pattern is readily apparent: as the population ages, the number of people who do not know Russian increases. This is because older generations in bourgeois Lithuania did not study Russian at school and are no longer active in work and public life. On the other hand, as time passes, the present younger generation grows older and another younger generation enters life; knowledge of Russian steadily expands and encompasses an ever-larger group of people. Occupation also has a certain influence on the level and extent of Russian-language proficiency. Mechanizers rank first in Russian proficiency (15.9%), followed by collective-farm administrative staff (10.6%); next are workers (8.5%), livestock breeders (5.3%), office employees (2.1%), and others. Those who do not know Russian are distributed by occupation as follows: livestock breeders—57.6%, field-crop workers—49.9%, workers—1.9%, mechanizers—1.8%, office employees—0.6%, and collective-farm administrative staff—0.2%. Thus, the greatest number of Russian speakers are among mechanizers. Together with the rural intelligentsia, they constitute the best-educated stratum of the rural population. The fewest Russian speakers are found among livestock breeders and field-crop workers. Their work, sedentary way of life, and lack of contacts are therefore reflected in their proficiency. This is the state of Russian-language proficiency among rural residents—collective farmers and workers at state farms. The linguistic situation becomes even more varied and complex when we also consider other rural social groups: employees and administrative staff of collective and state farms. These groups include people of different social backgrounds and educational attainment. It is not uncommon for an agronomist, engineer, veterinarian, or zootechnician to have completed higher education. Consequently, their Russian proficiency is quite different from that of an ordinary collective farmer—a field or livestock-farm worker. The sociolinguistic survey mentioned above showed that almost all collective-farm administrative staff know Russian, and as many as 76.9% here know it well. Their work itself also requires language proficiency. The general picture of the rural population’s educational attainment can be refined using sociological survey data (Šimkus S., 1967, 98–106). Of the 1,443 respondents, 0.1% had completed higher education; 0.4% had some higher education but had not completed it; 1% had completed secondary school; 2.1% had specialized secondary education; 11.7% had completed an eight-year school; 42.6% had completed primary school; 20.9% had incomplete primary education, and an equal proportion had never attended school. These are people of the older generation. It should be emphasized that, as might be expected, those who had completed higher or secondary school reported that some knew Russian better and others less well. A proportion of those with primary education 2. 949 17 also know Russian, albeit poorly; most of them belong to the older generation and did not attend Soviet schools. Of this category, 37.9% do not know Russian at all. This percentage rises sharply among those who never attended school. Sociolinguistic data obtained to determine the importance of schooling in learning Russian are consistent with these findings. To this end, 440 economic and cultural workers from five districts and two cities of the republic (with at least three years of work experience), 285 demobilized soldiers from the Soviet Army (representing all districts and cities of the republic), and 304 second- to fourth-year students in various fields were surveyed (Šernas V., 1979, 12–13). The survey data showed that most respondents were more or less satisfied with the reading (90.9% of respondents), writing (81.3%), and speaking (76.6%) skills they had acquired in secondary school. Partly dissatisfied with their reading skills were 6.5%, with their writing skills 16.2%, and with their speaking skills 20.8%; only 2.6% were completely dissatisfied. These data also show how important school is as a factor in learning and using Russian. The level and extent of proficiency in the language of interethnic communication among Soviet peoples (Russian) are inversely proportional to a region’s ethnic homogeneity. Where the indigenous population is concentrated in compact settlements (for example, Lithuanians make up 95.1% of the population in Alytus District, 97.6% in Kapsukas District, 92.4% in Kėdainiai District, and 96% in Šiauliai District), only 6.5% of residents speak, read, and write Russian well; 12.7% speak and read it; 38.3% speak it poorly; and 42.5% do not know Russian at all. Where the population is ethnically diverse and, consequently, the indigenous population is less concentrated, Russian proficiency is higher and encompasses more people, sometimes reaching 50% of the population; those who do not know Russian are most often pensioners and housewives. For instance, Lithuanians make up 68% of Zarasai District’s population, and 39.1% of residents there know Russian well. In Ignalina District, Lithuanians make up 79.3%, and 44.6% of residents speak Russian fluently. In Trakai District, ethnic Lithuanians account for up to 51.7% of the population, and Russian proficiency extends to 49% of residents. In Vilnius District, Lithuanians make up 16.8%, and 48.8% of residents have a good command of Russian. The greatest ethnic diversity is found in the republic’s cities, especially its largest ones (Vilnius, Klaipėda, Kaunas, and Šiauliai), where the republic’s major industries are concentrated. These industries are served by large, multiethnic workforces. For example, 4,000 Lithuanians work, among others, at the Baltija Shipyard in Klaipėda. Under such circumstances, where Russian is the main means of communication, it is easy for Lithuanians and people of other nationalities to learn Russian relatively quickly and well through daily interaction. It is therefore entirely understandable that 62% of the republic’s urban population speak Russian fluently, while nearly two-thirds of Vilnius residents are bilingual. Children living in the republic’s largest cities (Vilnius, Klaipėda, Kaunas, and Šiauliai) have much better opportunities to learn languages, especially Russian. The environment itself—neighbors’ children who speak other languages, television, and cinema—enables children to fairly 18 quickly learn some Russian. Therefore, when they start school, children in cities already bring with them several or a dozen Russian words and expressions they have learned, which, of course, are very short, for example: Где Альгис? Здравствуй! Пусти! Дай мне! From the first grade of primary school—recently, Russian has also been taught in the older kindergarten groups—children begin to study Russian systematically. For the rest, children live their lives and play using their native language, though occasionally inserting one or another more frequently used Russian word or expression (давай, привет, здоров (when greeting), закон (in agreement), на ходу, шайбу! Ну, заяц, погоди!). Cases of linguistic contact in children’s speech are interesting. In primary school pupils’ native speech, one can apparently hear Russian words being used because of the influence of parents with less education (gruzovikas, šaiba, chokėjaus, davaj, zakonas and so on.). Sometimes, conversely, Lithuanian pupils speaking Russian use Lithuanian words reshaped according to the features of Russian (for example, скирптум, титнар, копы, конвалия, пунд and so on instead of the actual Russian words разница, кремень, дюны, ландыш, сверток). At home, at school, and with friends, children communicate in their native Lithuanian, but watch films or television programs in Russian; some read fiction not only in Lithuanian but also in Russian. Thus, pupils, especially those in the upper grades, feel the need to learn Russian, and consequently pupils in the republic’s larger cities know it relatively well by the time they finish secondary school. Thus, the main channels through which Lithuanian children learn Russian are school, television and cinema, and playing with peers. The Russian learned in secondary school continues to be developed in higher education. It is interesting to examine the significance of Lithuanian and Russian for students’ everyday communication and studies, in a broader linguosocial context. To this end, a sociological study was conducted and a cohort of students (about two thousand) who enrolled at Kaunas Polytechnic Institute in 1975 was surveyed sociolinguistically (Korsakas J., 1979). The Lithuanian linguosocial environment of the students surveyed is characterized by the following parameters: children of workers made up 49.8% of the cohort in question, children of collective farmers—18.2%, and children of white-collar employees—32%. That year, 36.5% of those admitted to the Institute were women and 63.5% men. About 40% of their fathers had primary education, 29% incomplete secondary education, 15% secondary education, 4% incomplete higher education, and 12% higher education. The parents’ native language was reported to be Lithuanian (98%). It turned out that, among other languages, the parents (about 90%) knew Russian best. Five percent of fathers and 12% of mothers did not know Russian at all. However, 33% of fathers and 20% of mothers knew Russian not only orally but also in writing. Fifteen percent of fathers knew Polish. Among the foreign languages studied, German predominated, followed by French and English. Such was the Lithuanian linguosocial environment of the students mentioned above, in which their linguistic education took shape. The students’ own language proficiency and use are described by the following sociolinguistic survey data: in response to the question “How well do you know your native language?” 29% of students answered: “I speak and read well, and write satisfactorily”; 71% of students indicated: “I speak, read, and write well.” In response to the question “How well do you know Russian?” the students answered as follows: “I speak fluently” (28% of respondents), “satisfactorily” (56%), “poorly” 19 (16%); “I write well” (6%), “satisfactorily” (60%), “poorly” (34%). Six percent of students read foreign languages fluently, 94%—poorly; 5% of students read without a dictionary and 95%—with a dictionary. Thus, the main channels through which Russian is learned, and hence Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism takes shape, are: first, learning at school the language used for communication among the Soviet peoples; second, direct contacts with people speaking other languages in multinational work collectives; and third, service in the Soviet Army. Data collected through sociolinguistic questionnaires and the population census show that knowledge of Russian extends across broad masses of the Lithuanian population. During the 1979 All-Union Population Census, 48% of the republic’s residents identified Russian as a second language in which they spoke fluently (Tiesa, February 22, 1980). In 1970, that figure was still 33.8%. Thus, knowledge of Russian is steadily and rapidly expanding, encompassing ever larger sections of the population. These significant indicators were achieved thanks to the tireless efforts of the Communist Party of Lithuania and the republic’s government in educating working people in the spirit of internationalism. In this respect, the fact that Russian has become the native language for a certain proportion of Lithuanians and people of other nationalities living in the republic is also noteworthy. During the 1979 All-Union Population Census, 25,720 Belarusians, 17,447 Poles, 14,330 Ukrainians, 7,990 Jews, and 5,745 Lithuanians identified Russian as their native language (Вестник статистики, 71). So far, the quantitative aspect of knowledge and use of Russian has been described in greater detail. In the absence of more extensive research, it is difficult to say anything specific about the quality of that knowledge and use. V. Michalchenko has described the nature and quality of the Russian speech used by Lithuanians in some detail in the collective monograph “The Development of National–Russian Bilingualism” (M., 1976). She draws on the division, accepted in Soviet social linguistics, of Soviet peoples’ bilingualism with Russian into four levels: Level I bilingualism covers the language practice of pupils in grades I–IV; Level II bilingualism, grades V–VIII; Level III Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism is defined by the Russian-language teaching requirements in the curricula for grades IX–XI; and Level IV bilingualism corresponds to the Russian-language knowledge of higher-education students. But even without special research, it is clear that knowledge of Russian varies among the different social groups in Lithuanian society—one social group knows it better, another less well. In the Russian speech used by Lithuanians, it is easy to notice instances of interference—the transfer of Lithuanian norms into Russian pronunciation, word agreement (for example, Lithuanians find it especially difficult to learn to use Russian third-person plural verb forms), and sentence construction. On the other hand, this interference is not so extensive as to make communication entirely impossible. This is demonstrated by most secondary-school graduates: they are satisfied with the Russian-language skills acquired there. Interference that disrupts communication (for example, failure to distinguish быть “to beat” from быть “to be,” that is, inability to pronounce the phoneme ы) is a temporary phenomenon. In general, Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism should apparently be considered bilateral: in the most recent population census, almost half of Lithuanians said they spoke Russian fluently. But most Russians who have lived in the republic for a long time also understand Lithuanian to a greater or lesser degree, and often speak it as well. Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism is contact-based: it arises from the everyday interaction of two peoples. 20 Unlike local bilingualism, which exists in part of the republic’s territory (Polish–Lithuanian bilingualism in the Vilnius region is an example), Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism is global: it is an instance of national–Russian bilingualism, the principal type of bilingualism in the USSR, which has state and sociopolitical significance. The main reason for code-switching—in this case, switching from Lithuanian to Russian—is the presence of a participant in the communicative act who speaks another language, that is, who does not know Lithuanian. Lithuanians use Russian not only to communicate with representatives of other nationalities, but also to read fiction and specialist literature, listen to Moscow radio, watch central television broadcasts, and become acquainted with the rich culture of the Russian people. The Lithuanian intelligentsia values, and has always highly valued, the great Russian language and its cultural significance. During the years of bourgeois rule, when the border with Russia was closed, the progressive segment of Lithuanian society, especially young people, took an increasingly keen interest in life in the USSR, Soviet and classical Russian literature, and the study of Russian, despite the unfavorable or outright hostile stance of official circles. While still an aspiring writer and living in the impoverished “Žiburėlis” dormitory, Petras Cvirka studied Russian at night while everyone else slept. Kostas Korsakas studied Russian and read Pushkin in Šiauliai prison. “I remember very well,” writes A. Venclova (1958, 474), “with what enthusiasm progressive students, without textbooks or dictionaries, devoted their free time to studying Russian [...]. Without outside help, I myself learned enough Russian to read books by Russian classics and Soviet authors fluently after graduating from high school [...]”. Such was the influence of the Russian language and acquaintance with Russian literature and culture on the formation of A. Venclova’s character: “My years of study, beginning in the autumn of 1925, were the period when the immeasurable treasures of Russian literature opened up before me in all their breadth; these years fostered in me a deep love of progressive Russian culture and shaped my worldview; it was then that I finally found my path as a writer, broke with the bourgeois order, and joined the side of the Soviet Union” (Venclova, 1958, 475). * * * As a result of the fundamental socialist transformations in Soviet Lithuania, Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism has tended to grow stronger and spread. During the years of Soviet rule, one can say, society’s demographic parameters changed fundamentally, directly affecting the composition of language users. The number of peasants declined considerably, while the number of workers increased. In 1940 there were 179,000 workers in Lithuania, whereas by 1975 their number had reached 1,325,000, that is, 7.4 times the 1940 figure. This change in the composition of language users has a twofold significance for language use. First, the working class is, in many cases, a user of the standard form of Lithuanian. Second, the working class, the most dynamic and socially active group in society, tends to learn other languages and use them more quickly. During the years of Soviet rule, the urban population grew rapidly. In 1897, out of a total population of 2,536,000, urban residents accounted for 14%, that is, 355,000, 21 while the rural population numbered 2,181,000, or 86%. In 1939 the population was 2,880,000, of whom 658,000 were urban and 2,221,000 rural, or 22.9% and 77.1%, respectively. In 1979, of a total population of 3,398,800, urban residents numbered 2,061,700, or 60.7%, while the rural population was 1,337,100, or 39.3%. From a sociolinguistic point of view, this means that almost two-thirds of all the republic’s residents are now in greater or lesser contact with other languages and are therefore potential bilinguals. * * * A description of the republic’s linguistic and social situation and a characterization of Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism would be incomplete if we did not consider the other side of this phenomenon, which is just as important as the first: namely, the knowledge and use of Lithuanian by people of Russian nationality living in the republic. Russian–Lithuanian bilingualism is the other side of Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism. The development of reciprocal bilingualism under present conditions helps further strengthen the friendship, mutual trust, and understanding among peoples. “Naturally, proper attention should also be given to Russian–Lithuanian and other types of bilingualism. For example, it is important to help Russians and representatives of other peoples who reside permanently in Lithuania learn Lithuanian and acquire Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism,” notes J. Dešerijevas (1979, 10). Russians and members of other Soviet peoples who reside permanently in the republic have good opportunities to learn Lithuanian. In addition to communicating directly in Lithuanian in the street, at the market, in shops or at school and work, Lithuanian is taught in secondary schools attended by Russian, Polish, and other children, as well as in university and institute groups. The Žinija Society organizes Lithuanian-language courses every year. We can assess only in very general terms the Lithuanian proficiency of Russians and people of other nationalities living in our republic, and its extent, since there are no descriptions or studies in this field. In characterizing Russian–Lithuanian bilingualism, two points should be taken into account. First, some people of Russian nationality living in the republic use standard Russian in communication with one another and arrived for permanent employment after the Great Patriotic War. Second, some people of Russian nationality use colloquial Russian among themselves, in one of its dialects, and are long-term residents. According to the census of September 17, 1923, 50,460 people of Russian nationality lived in the territory of Lithuania, or 2.5% of the population of bourgeois Lithuania. According to the 1979 All-Union Population Census, there were 303,000 people of Russian nationality in the republic, or 8.9% of its population. Those among the first category who have learned some Lithuanian use standard Lithuanian, whereas all members of the second category—the long-established Russian residents—are bilingual and use Lithuanian dialects. Three periods are distinguished in the migration of long-established Russians to Lithuania: the first period runs from the arrival of the first Russian inhabitants in ethnographic Lithuania to the church reform of 1667; the second, from 1667 until Lithuania was annexed to Russia in 1795; the third period began in 1795 and ended with the First World War. 22 People of Russian ethnicity fled to Lithuania mainly because of religious persecution. For example, it is known that in 1490 Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, at the order of the Grand Prince and with the blessing of Metropolitan Zosimus, dealt with the heretics as follows: “some he ordered burned at the Dukhov Field, others he subjected to commercial executions, and others he sent into confinement, while still others fled to Lithuania” (Немченко В., 1963, 64). The fact that people of Russian ethnicity have lived since ancient times in Lithuania, which was distinguished by its tolerance toward religious dissenters, is confirmed by the presence of Orthodox churches. Churches built in the time of Grand Duke Algirdas in the 14th century have survived in Vilnius to this day (the Piatnitsky Church, built in 1345, and the Cathedral of the Dormition, built in 1346). There was also an Orthodox church in Kaunas; King Sigismund Vasa demolished it only in 1620. In his “Outline of the Emergence of Russian Settlements in Lithuania,” A. Stankevičius (1909, I) notes that by the end of the 16th century, the centers of Russian settlement in Kaunas Governorate were the aforementioned Orthodox church in Kaunas and the Surdegis monastery—“this impregnable stronghold of Orthodoxy in the 18th century”—as well as certain Russian enclaves in the Braslaw district, which had arisen in the former Principality of Polotsk. Most Russians who had long been settled in Lithuania are descendants of Old Believers (старообрядцы), who fled to Lithuania when persecution began after the church reform of 1667. From the beginning of the 17th century, perhaps somewhat earlier, Old Believers—most of whom were followers of the sect of Theodosius Vasiliev—gradually began moving from Vitebsk Governorate to the neighboring lands of Livonia and Lithuania, seeking not only freedom of religion but also freedom to work. Their oldest settlements were Rimkai in Jonava District (Римки Ковенского уезда), Deguciai in Zarasai District (Дегуцы Новоалександровского уезда), Girelė in Anykščiai District, near Kavarskas (Пущель Вилкомирского уезда), and Vidziai in the Byelorussian SSR (Видзы Новоалександровского уезда). Favorable conditions for Russians to move to Lithuania arose in 1795, when it was annexed to the Russian Empire. But it was only after the uprising of 1831 that a government colonization plan took shape. Measures were taken to support long-established settlers and to relocate new peasants to unoccupied state lands. At that time, 158 families were relocated and majorats were established in Jurbarkas and Tauragė. Colonization intensified particularly after 1861, when its affairs came under the administration of Governor-General M. Muravjovas, nicknamed “the executioner” because of his cruelty. In 1862, that is, one year after M. Muravjovas took office, there were already 13,000 residents of Russian ethnicity in Lithuania, scattered across 730 villages in the counties of Kaunas, Ukmergė, Zarasai, and Panevėžys. At that time, there was not yet a single Old Believer in the counties of Telšiai, Raseiniai, or Šiauliai. As early as 1864, up to 653 families were relocated to lands confiscated from participants in the uprising—landowners and peasants. By offering various benefits and financial assistance, 1,016 families were relocated in 1867. Between 1863 and 1900, 2,129 settler families were moved to the former Kaunas Governorate. Demographic surveys conducted in 1907–1908 established that 6,073 people of Russian ethnicity lived in Kaunas County (1,079 households), 1,343 in Raseiniai (239 households), 934 in Telšiai (126 households), 5,654 in Ukmergė (955 households), 1,545 in Panevėžys (277 households), 4,327 in Šiauliai (650 households), and 21,454 in Zarasai (3,449 households). Thus, there were 41,330 Russian residents in total in the former Kaunas Governorate. 23 Russian residents of Jonava District say that their ancestors lived in Vitebsk Governorate; residents of Zarasai District believe that their ancestors came from Tver Governorate, and so on. Old Believers belonging to the Theodosius sect moved to Lithuania from the Pskov and Novgorod regions, where the sect was widespread. An analysis of the features of the speech varieties of Lithuania’s long-settled Russians shows that these varieties are closest to the Pskov dialects. In 1959, 53,000 people of Russian ethnicity lived in rural areas, mainly in the districts of Zarasai and Jonava (19% and 12% of the total population, respectively). Only some of the long-settled Russians live in separate villages; otherwise, they are mostly intermingled with Lithuanians and, in the so-called Vilnius region, with Poles and Belarusians as well. A larger proportion of the children of long-settled Russians attend Lithuanian schools alongside Lithuanian children. Some, however, also study in schools with Russian as the language of instruction, which were opened during the Soviet period. Long-settled Russians in Lithuania are bilingual—they use Russian and Lithuanian. It is characteristic that long-settled Russians in Lithuania have preserved their way of life, national traditions, customs, faith, and language to this day. The language of communication among Soviet peoples and its role The current stage in the linguistic development of the Soviet people is characterized not only by the tendency toward unrestricted functioning and development of national languages, but also by the tendency toward expansion of the language of communication among the Soviet peoples (язык межнационального общения). The Soviet people constitute a multinational community. Nearly one hundred and thirty languages are widespread across the territory of the Soviet Union. It is therefore quite understandable that the economic, socio-political, and cultural life of Soviet society has naturally given rise to a social need for a single language of communication among all the nations and peoples of the USSR. This role has fallen to the Russian language. “The growing role of the Russian language in the life of Soviet society, with the emergence and development of the Soviet people as a new historical community, and the intensification of processes bringing nations, peoples, and their cultures closer together, is обусловлено social factors and the objective закономерности of building socialism and communism,” emphasizes J. Dešerijevas (1976, 420), one of the most prominent researchers of the Russian language as a means of communication among the Soviet peoples. The Russian language is the means of communication through which representatives of the various peoples of the USSR communicate with one another. Recognizing the great significance of the Russian language in their lives and work, Soviet people—representatives of all Soviet nations, peoples, ethnic groups, and ethnographic groups—learn it independently and use it. Thus, Russian performs the function of a language of communication among the Soviet peoples. In addition to this very important function, Russian also performs other functions, namely: the function of the national language of the Russian people, and the function of one of the languages of international communication (alongside English and French). The Russian language began to be used as a means of communication among the Soviet peoples for the following reasons: 24 1. The Russian nation is the largest of all the nations and peoples of the USSR. According to the 1979 census, of the total population of 262 million in the Soviet Union, 137.3 million people are Russian (about 53% of the country’s entire population). Thus, people of Russian nationality make up more than half of the population of the Soviet Union. In addition, during the census, 16.3 million people of non-Russian nationality stated that they considered Russian their native language. Consequently, Russian is the native language of 153.5 million people (about 60% of the country’s entire population). 2. During the census, 61.3 million people of non-Russian nationality identified Russian as a second language that they use fluently (in 1970 — 41.9 million people). 3. People of Russian nationality are widely dispersed throughout the country. According to the 1979 census, 23.8 million people of Russian nationality lived outside the RSFSR: Ukrainian SSR — 10.4 million (or 21.1% of the republic’s entire population), Byelorussian SSR — 1.1 million (or 11.9%), Uzbek SSR — 1.6 million (or 10.8%), Kazakh SSR — 5.9 million (or 40.8%), Georgian SSR — 372 thousand (or 7.4%), Azerbaijani SSR — 475 thousand (or 7.9%), Lithuanian SSR — 303 thousand (or 8.9%), Moldavian SSR — 506 thousand (or 12.8%), Latvian SSR — 821 thousand (or 32.8%), Kirghiz SSR — 912 thousand (or 25.9%), Tajik SSR — 395 thousand (or 10.4%), Armenian SSR — 70 thousand (or 2.3%), Turkmen SSR — 349 thousand (or 12.6%), and Estonian SSR — 409 thousand (or 27.9%). 4. Genetically, the Russian language is very close to the languages of the two other large Soviet nations—the Ukrainians (42.3 million) and the Byelorussians (9.4 million). Therefore, representatives of these nations, who together constitute 33% of the country’s entire population, learn Russian easily and know it well. V. Lenin noted and emphasized this feature (Works, 19, 221): “... more than seven tenths of the population of Russia belong to kindred Slavic tribes, which, given a free school in a free state, would easily attain, through the requirements of economic intercourse, the ability to understand one another without any ‘state’ privileges for one language.” 5. The Russian language, the greatest treasure of the Russian people’s spiritual culture, is rightly regarded as one of the richest languages in the world. Having learned Russian, F. Engels (1961, 18, 526) emphasized that the Russian language “is in every respect worthy of being learned as one of the most powerful and richest living languages.” In a letter to V. Zasulich in 1884, F. Engels wrote admiringly: “What a beautiful language Russian is! It has all the positive qualities of German without its frightful crudeness” (Маркс и Энгельс, Сочинения, 36, 106). Kiti tyrinėtojai, pavyzdžiui, J. Dešerijevas (1977, 34), nurodo dar kitokius socialinius veiksnius, lėmusius rusų kalbos iškilimą į tarybinių tautų tarpusavio bendravimo kalbą, būtent: pirma, negalima iš kiekvieno tarybinio žmogaus reikalauti, kad jis, bendraudamas ar bendradarbiaudamas su gausių TSR Sąjungos tautų atstovais, mokėtų visas 130 kalbų. Antra, nerealu tvarkyti raštvedybą centrinėse įstaigose visomis mūsų šalies nacijų, tautų, tautelių ir etninių grupių kalbomis. Trečia, būtų tikrai sunku, neturint tautų tarpusavio bendravimo kalbos, palaikyti efektyvius ryšius tarp nacionalinių respublikų, kraštų, sričių ir apygardų, kurios įeina į tokią savarankišką nacijų sandraugą, kokia yra Tarybų Sąjunga. Ketvirta, nacijų tarpusavio bendravimo kalbos nebuvimas trukdytų sėkmingai daugiatautės šalies ekonominei, politinei ir kultūrinei raidai. 25 Under the conditions of mature socialism and in the further process of building communism, the role of the Russian language as a means of communication among the Soviet peoples is objectively growing and will continue to grow. The spread of the Russian language and the increased intensity of its use are partly connected with the fact that, as noted in the preface to the book “The Russian Language as a Means of Communication Among Nations” (1977), “the Russian language is the language of the great Lenin, the language of progressive culture and science; literature reflecting all the achievements of human thought is published in it. Life itself shows that knowledge of Russian has become necessary for every citizen of the USSR (with, of course, complete adherence to the principle that its study is voluntary).” In the same book (p. 8), F. Filin adds in this regard: “In our country, not to know Russian today means depriving oneself of the richest source of knowledge, becoming spiritually impoverished, and limiting one’s life to local conditions. Life itself affirms that it is necessary for all citizens of the USSR to know Russian.” Although Soviet people in general—the representatives of various Soviet nations, peoples, and ethnic groups—know Russian relatively well, it is nevertheless still quite common for young men entering the Soviet Army to speak Russian poorly. Instead of immediately beginning the military training program, such young men must be taught Russian, which requires considerable time and resources. Productive work in the national economy is impossible without adequate knowledge of Russian. The economies and scientific and technical potential of the Union republics are developing and growing within the common economic and scientific-technical complex of the Soviet Union. A good command of Russian is a social necessity arising from the interests of building communism. The concern shown by party and Soviet bodies, and by Soviet society as a whole, over the teaching and learning of Russian, as well as the appearance of certain important documents in connection with it, is therefore entirely understandable. On October 13, 1978, the USSR Council of Ministers adopted the resolution “On Measures to Further Improve the Teaching and Learning of Russian in the Union Republics.” It proposed that in grades I–III of all schools and grades IV–X of urban schools with more than 25 pupils, half of those involved in Russian-language instruction be assigned to Russian-language teaching, and it authorized the education ministries of the Union republics to redistribute hours in their curricula and correspondingly increase the hours allocated to teaching Russian. The preparation of new Russian-language textbooks was recommended, as was teaching some subjects in Russian in higher and, in part, secondary schools. It was also planned to prepare and introduce, beginning in 1980, a new curriculum in pedagogical institutes for the specialty of Russian language and literature in national schools, intended to provide more thorough training for teachers in this field, and so on. An important role in intensifying the teaching and learning of Russian in the Union republics and, more generally, in addressing the linguistic development issues that arose during the period of mature socialism was played by the scientific-theoretical conference “The Russian Language—the Language of Friendship and Cooperation among the Peoples of the USSR,” held in Tashkent in May 1979. The conference recommended improving the teaching of Russian in the senior groups of kindergartens (from age five); creating conditions for active practice in Russian in general secondary schools; better preparing future workers in vocational-technical schools in spoken and written Russian and its terminology; and applying in specialized secondary and higher educational institutions the experience of higher educational institutions in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, 26 Moldavia, and other Union republics—namely, teaching some social science and specialized subjects in Russian starting in the second or third year, and so on. The scientific-theoretical conference “The Russian Language—the Language of Friendship and Cooperation among the Peoples of the USSR” showed that it is necessary organically to combine, on the one hand, the development and use of the native languages of the Soviet peoples and the fulfillment of their social functions and, on the other, the expansion of Russian as the language of communication among nations. In his message of greeting to the conference participants, L. Brezhnev provided a profound rationale for the Communist Party’s national policy and characterized the contemporary role of national languages and the language of communication among nations: “Under the conditions of mature socialism, when our country’s economy has become a common national economic complex, a new historical community—the Soviet people—has emerged, and the role of the Russian language as the language of communication among nations is objectively increasing in the building of communism and the education of a new person. A free command, alongside one’s native language, of Russian—which all Soviet peoples have voluntarily accepted as a common historical legacy—helps further strengthen the political, economic, and spiritual unity of the Soviet people” (Брежнев Л. И. Ленинским курсом, т. 8, с. 44). Thus, under the conditions of mature socialism, national languages and Russian as the language of communication among nations complement one another in the lives and activities of Soviet people. As P. Fedoseyev, F. Filin, and others have already noted, the spread of Russian as a means of communication among the Soviet peoples does not harm national languages. On the contrary, Russian contributes to the flourishing of all national languages and, acting as an intermediary in their relations, can enrich them, depending on how creatively it is used. “The fact that all citizens of the USSR need to know Russian,” writes F. Filin (1977, 8–9), “does not conflict with the interests of non-Russian peoples and nationalities. The principle of voluntary study of the languages of the peoples of the USSR remains paramount. National languages continue to develop and flourish, and they will continue to do so; there must be no restriction of national interests. The issue is something else, namely, universal bilingualism among citizens of non-Russian nationality, in which Russian, as a means of communication among peoples, and national languages would continue to exist harmoniously, without any antagonism.” Bilingualism is considered an important condition for the functioning and spread of Russian in the Union and autonomous republics. As is well known, bilingualism is widespread not only in the Soviet country but also in many other countries. However, as P. Fedoseyev (1980, 68) points out, the basis of bilingualism in socialist society is fundamentally different: bilingualism creates a linguistic environment in which national languages develop and flourish, while at the same time the need to know Russian, the language of communication among the Soviet peoples, also increases. P. Fedoseyev writes: “It is important to continue explaining purposefully and consistently that under bilingualism, or national-Russian bilingualism, national interests are in no way restricted; on the contrary, a linguistic situation is created that makes it possible to harmoniously combine the international and national principles in the culture of peoples. Therefore, equal bilingualism, as one of the most important principles of linguistic development in the USSR, requires further development and broad application at various levels of education, especially in national secondary and higher schools.” 27 “A characteristic feature of bilingualism (and polylingualism) in our country,” as the editors of the publication “The Russian Language as a Means of Interethnic Communication” note (1977, 3), “is that languages in our country exist harmoniously side by side, and there is no national-linguistic antagonism. All this is due to the fact that Leninist national policy, based on the friendship of the peoples of socialist society, united by the great goal of world significance—the building of communism—has been implemented in the Soviet country. The most important task of our language policy is to promote in every way the flourishing of national literary languages and, at the same time, to ensure that all citizens of the USSR know Russian.” These fundamental propositions are confirmed by scientific analysis of the actual linguosocial situation in the USSR. In 1969–1976, at the initiative of the Academic Council on the comprehensive problem “Patterns of the Development of National Languages in Connection with the Development of Socialist Nations,” a multivolume work, “Patterns of the Development of the Literary Languages of the Peoples of the USSR in the Soviet Years,” was published. The work consists of separate books—collective monographs—which, in turn, comprise descriptions of individual languages. The first monograph, “The Main Processes in the Development of the Internal Structure of Iranian and Iberian-Caucasian Languages” (1969), is devoted to Tajik, Ossetian, Kurdish, Adyghe, Lak, and Abkhaz languages. The second monograph, “The Main Processes in the Structural Development of Turkic, Finno-Ugric, and Mongolian Languages” (1969), describes the Kazakh, Bashkir, Tuvan, Gagauz, Estonian, Komi-Zyrian, Buryat, and Samoyedic languages, as well as those of other small peoples of the North. Changes in Armenian, Lithuanian, Moldavian, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, and Georgian literary languages during the Soviet years are analyzed in the monograph “The Structural Development of Languages with Ancient Written Traditions” (1973). The final book in this work is J. Desheriev’s monograph “The Development of the Social Functions of Literary Languages” (1976). “Patterns of the Development of the Literary Languages of the Peoples of the USSR in the Soviet Years” is a comprehensive study based on complex methods, unprecedented in either Soviet or foreign linguistics. On the one hand, chapters written by specialists in individual languages examine changes in language structures and the lexical, phraseological, and stylistic enrichment of the languages of the peoples of the USSR during the Soviet years; on the other, J. Desheriev’s monograph approaches the languages under consideration sociologically—it investigates the functioning of language in society and identifies the spheres of language use in society and their changes depending on cultural, economic, and social development. J. Desheriev (1976, 425) summarized the results of this comprehensive study of the structures and functioning of many national languages of the Soviet country as follows: “The emergence of any common features in the languages of the peoples of the USSR (in phonetics and grammar) is a rather lengthy process. Therefore, when examining the problem of forecasting linguistic development in the USSR, we cannot be guided by the concept of languages drawing closer together, merging, or forming a linguistic union as a process of great social significance and effectiveness.” The publication of this multivolume work confirmed that the native, national languages of the Soviet peoples, functioning freely, revealing their internal developmental potential, and developing rapidly, occupy a firm position in the lives of those peoples, since the elements composing a language are essentially stable, do not readily yield to the influence of another language or languages, and do not change in a short time. The factual situation regarding the functioning of the languages of the small peoples of the North 28 and Siberia likewise allows us to see this. For example, V. Avrorin (1975, 210–211), a specialist in the study of the functioning of the languages of the small peoples of the North and Siberia, writes: “What surprises an impartial observer is something quite different—the rapid development of the languages of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the USSR, both small and large, who have been brought back to life by Leninist national policy after centuries of self-determination. It is extremely interesting, too, that the languages of the very smallest peoples display extraordinary resilience because their equality and social value are unconditionally recognized. One can only marvel that the one-village languages of the Caucasus and even the language of the Kereks of the Chukchi Peninsula, whose speakers number only a few dozen, are still alive today. The free existence and development of all languages may be regarded as characteristic of our conditions… Therefore, it seems to me, it is inappropriate to speak uniformly of the rapid development of the languages of large peoples and the extinction of the languages of small peoples, or of the promising future of some and the lack of prospects for others.” A population survey showed that people belonging to even the smallest peoples advocate not only using their native languages in everyday life but also teaching them in primary schools. On the other hand, representatives of small peoples show a fairly clear inclination to use Russian, especially at work and at school, where people speaking other languages are present. The native languages and Russian divide the spheres of use between them and thus complement one another. Russian is used mainly in those spheres that these peoples did not previously need and that were developed by the Soviet system (Аврорин В., 1975, 241, 237). Soviet people recognize the social necessity of knowing Russian well, since it is the means of communication among the peoples of our country, and they value the important role of Russian in their lives. Soviet people’s inclination toward Russian manifests itself in two ways: first, in their daily work and social activities they use Russian alongside their native language—in other words, they become bilingual; and second, a certain proportion of Soviet people switch to using Russian permanently, and Russian becomes their native language. Admittedly, the level of proficiency in Russian and its spread across particular regions of the Soviet Union and individual Soviet republics vary considerably, as might be expected, depending on specific historical and cultural conditions. But the principal trend toward the spread and intensification of Russian use in the national republics is clear and persistent. In the 1979 all-Union population census, 61.3 million people of other (non-Russian) nationalities identified Russian as a second language that they spoke fluently. Russian is least widespread in Transcaucasia and Central Asia. According to the 1979 population census data (Население СССР, 23–24), Russian is spoken by: 38.6% of Armenians (30.1% in 1970), 29.5% of Azerbaijanis (16.6% in 1970), and 26.7% of Georgians (21.3% in 1970). Among Kazakhs, 52.3% speak Russian (41.8% in 1970); among Uzbeks, 49.3% (14.5% in 1970); Tajiks, 29.6% (15.4% in 1970); Kyrgyz, 29.4% (19.1% in 1970); and Turkmens, 25.4% (15.4% in 1970). Among the Baltic peoples, Estonians have the lowest rate of Russian speakers (24.2%; 29.0% in 1970), while Latvians have the highest (56.7%; 45.2% in 1970). Lithuanians occupy an intermediate position—52.1% (35.9% in 1970). Of the nationalities of the USSR living in the union republics and beyond their borders, the highest proportions of Russian speakers are found among Belarusians (57.0%), Latvians (56.7%), Kazakhs (52.3%), and Lithuanians (52.1%). Thus, more than half of the members of these peoples reported that they knew Russian. Ukrainians approach this proportion (49.8%), Uzbeks— 29 and Moldovans (47.4%). The rates of growth in learning Russian are as follows: compared with 1970, the number of Uzbeks who know Russian increased by 35%, Lithuanians by 17%, Tajiks by 14%, Ukrainians and Azerbaijanis by 13%, Latvians, Moldovans, and Kazakhs by 11%, Turkmens and Kyrgyz by 10%, Belarusians and Armenians by 8%, and Georgians by 5%. Estonians are among the 14 small nationalities of the USSR in which the number of Russian speakers declined (by 5%). The number of people of other (non-Russian) nationalities who regard Russian as their native language is steadily increasing: there were 6.5 million in 1926, 10 million in 1959, 13 million in 1970, and by 1979 they already numbered 16.3 million. This figure, of course, consists first of all of Belarusians (25.8%) and Ukrainians (17.2%) living outside their republics, followed by the so-called national minorities: 85.8% of Jews, 72% of Greeks, 70.9% of Poles, 69.3% of Persians, 58.9% of Romanians, 45.1% of Assyrians, 43% of Germans, 32% of Bulgarians, etc., regard Russian as their native language. There are cases in which a majority of a small ethnic group changes its language, shifting to another language (most often Russian), but such cases are few. According to the 1979 population census, of 500 Aleuts, only 17.7% (21.8% in 1970) regard Aleut as their native language. Of 1,400 Itelmens, only 24.4% (35.7% in 1970) recorded Itelmen as their native language. Only 31% of Udege (1,600 people in all) and only 30.6% of the Nivkh living on Sakhalin Island (4,400 people in all) still regard the language of their nationality as their native language (Население СССР, 25–26). On the other hand, there are cases in which the number of people who regard the language of their nationality as their native language increases. These include the Nganasans (rising from 75.4 to 90.2%), Selkups (from 51.1 to 56.6%), Dolgans (from 89.8 to 90.0%), and others. Thus, the languages of the peoples of the USSR, even small ones, are quite resilient; shifts in linguistic life are slow and complex, and it is by no means possible to say that they proceed in only one direction. The tendency to use Russian is evident and has already produced considerable results, but native languages have not lost their social significance either. V. Aušrorinas (1975, 211) emphasizes that the gradual loss of established positions by the languages of small ethnic groups is an atypical phenomenon. The fact that some small peoples of the North and Siberia are losing their languages is not a product of Soviet conditions; it is a phenomenon that began long before the October Revolution. Išanalizavęs įvairias lingvosocialines situacijas ir jų dinamiką, H. Paulis (1960, 460), vienas žymiausių XIX a. pabaigos ir XX a. pradžios kalbotyros teoretikų, priėjo prie tokių išvadų: „Ten, kur tautos maišosi ir jungiasi, bilingvizmas yra įprastas reiškinys, kartu su juo prasideda ir kalbų tarpusavio sąveika. Jei, be to, kuri nors tauta kuo nors pralenkia kitą – gyventojų skaičiumi, politine ar ekonomine galia arba dvasiniu atžvilgiu – jos kalba imama vis plačiau vartoti ir išstumia kitą kalbą; galų gale bilingvizma vėl pakeičia vienos kalbos dominavimas. Priklausomai nuo nugalimosios kalbos rodomo pasipriešinimo šis procesas gali vykti sparčiau ar lėčiau, o jos paliekami kalboje nugalėtojoje pėdsakai gali būti daugiau ar mažiau ryškūs“. Bet bilingvizmas yra pereinamoji stadija iš vienos monolingvinės situacijos į kitą tik tautų ir kalbų nelygiateisiškumo sąlygomis. Tai būdinga kapitalistinio pasaulio tikrovei, kur kalbų išplitimas (pavyzdžiui, anglų po Šiaurės Ameriką, Australiją ir Indiją) „yra šalutinis produktas karinės, politinės, religinės, kultūrinės, eko- 30 ...nomic or simply demographic expansion of the people whose means of communication that language is” (Martine A., 1972, 81–82). Under such conditions, one language’s triumph over another depends entirely not on its structure. “A language triumphs over its rivals not because of any inherent properties, but because its speakers are more warlike, more fanatical, more cultured, more energetic,” notes the French linguist A. Martine (1972, 81–82). “The structures of Latin, Arabic, Spanish, and English had nothing in them that accounted for the spread of those languages far beyond their original boundaries. Whatever in their structures contributed at all to this process reflected traits of national character and culture that, in one way or another, determined the subsequent course of events.” In the capitalist world, where larger and more powerful nations dominate economically and culturally and seek to subjugate smaller and weaker ones, certain historical and social circumstances (conquest, occupation, or forced incorporation) can threaten a nation’s existence: its culture and language may be displaced. Conscious efforts are then made to protect and preserve it. As an ethnic symbol of the nation, language occupies a high place in the scale of national values, and therefore, when a threat arises, language is the first thing defended. In defending its language, a nation also defends its nationality and its existence. The loss of language is regarded as the first stage in the loss of nationality. Leninist National Policy and the Flourishing of Soviet Peoples and Languages In the report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, CPSU Central Committee General Secretary L. Brezhnev (1981, 62) said: “Life has convinced us that the intensive economic and social development of each of our republics accelerates the process of their comprehensive rapprochement. National cultures are flourishing and enriching one another; the culture of a united Soviet people—a new social and international community—is taking shape. This process is unfolding in our country as it should under socialism: on the basis of equality, fraternal cooperation, and voluntariness. The Party strictly ensures adherence to these principles of Leninist national policy. We shall never abandon them!” These words express a profound theoretical understanding of the socio-cultural development of our country—the flourishing of socialist national cultures, their mutual enrichment, and the formation of the culture of a united Soviet people, a new social and international community. The functioning of the languages of the Soviet peoples during the period of mature socialism in the Soviet Union depends, on the one hand, on the general regularities of the development of Soviet society and, on the other, on the specific ethnolinguistic conditions under which those regularities are realized. One of the most important factors determining the trends in the linguistic development of the Soviet Union is the emergence of a new social and international community—the Soviet people—which has created a common culture with socialist content, encompassing the most valuable elements and traditions of the cultures of all Soviet peoples. At the same time, distinctive socialist national cultures continue to exist, develop, and flourish. 31 Correlating with these processes, two tendencies in the development of the languages of the Soviet peoples also coexist: first, the realization of the potential possibilities of the languages of the Soviet peoples and, second, the expansion of the functioning of the Russian language—the means of communication among the Soviet peoples. The Soviet people is a historically formed new social and international community. Its foundation is a firm alliance of the working class, the peasantry, and the intelligentsia, led by the working class; the juridical and actual equality of all the nations and peoples of the Country of Soviets; and their friendship and cooperation (Федосеев П., 1980, 60). The Soviet people is not some new nation, but a commonwealth of free and equal socialist nations. A socialist nation is a new social community that has grown out of the nation and nationality of capitalist society as a result of the abolition of capitalism and the victory of socialism. Certain primordial ethnic features have persisted within it, albeit on a qualitatively different basis, while the structure of its political, socioeconomic, and spiritual life has been transformed on socialist, internationalist foundations (Ленинизм и национальный вопрос, 222). The Soviet people is the organic and effective form through which each nation and people cultivates and develops its material and spiritual potential. Soviet socialist nations and peoples have every condition necessary for economic and cultural development and advancement. The prerequisites for national development are the growth of the economy and scientific and technological potential within the common economic and scientific-technological complex of the Soviet Union, the development of national socialist statehood and national culture, and the cultivation of the native language. One of the most important conditions for the economic and cultural growth of the Soviet peoples is the extensive use of the native language in all spheres of social and political, social, and cultural life. Here is how the Soviet philosopher P. Fedoseyev (1980, 68) describes the importance of national languages during the period of mature socialism: “At the same time, greater attention must be paid to resolving theoretical questions related to the teaching and learning of the languages of local populations in the schools of union and autonomous republics. The development of national languages is not merely evidence of their equality. Most important is that knowledge and cultural values are acquired more easily and quickly in one’s native language. In the successful development of culture and public education, and in training national cadres in the union and autonomous republics, autonomous regions, and districts of the country, the languages of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR play a major role.” In our country, languages exist harmoniously alongside one another. This is so because Leninist national policy, founded on the principles of equality and friendship among socialist nations, has been implemented in our country. V. Lenin formulated the fundamental principles of the national policy and linguistic practice of socialist society long before the October Revolution. In 1914, V. Lenin (Works, 19, 71—72), speaking about workers’ democracy, established the principle of equality for all nations and their languages: “For different nations to live together freely and peacefully, or to separate (when that is more convenient for them), forming separate states, complete democracy is necessary, and this is defended by the working class. No privileges for any nation, for any language! No oppression, no injustice whatsoever toward a national minority!—these are the principles of workers’ democracy.” 32 Analyzing the foundations of the proletarian state, V. Lenin (Works, 20, 203) noted: “A democratic state must unquestionably recognize complete freedom of all languages and reject all privileges for any one language. A democratic state will not allow any nationality to suppress or dominate another nationality in any sphere or branch of public affairs.” The implementation of the principle of equality for all nations and their languages means “the absence of a compulsory state language, while ensuring that the population has schools teaching in all local languages and incorporating into the constitution a fundamental law declaring invalid any privileges of one nation and any infringements of the rights of any national minority…” (V. Lenin. Works, 20, 53). Replying to liberal criticism, V. Lenin (Works, 20, 55) wrote in the article “Is a Compulsory State Language Necessary?”: “We know better than you do that the language of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dobrolyubov, and Chernyshevsky is great and powerful. More than you do, we want the closest possible communication and fraternal unity to develop among the oppressed classes of all the nations living in Russia, without distinction. And, of course, we are in favor of every inhabitant of Russia being able to learn the great Russian language.” There is only one thing we do not want: an element of coercion. We do not want to drive people into paradise with a stick. For […] a compulsory state language is associated with coercion and imprisonment. We believe that the great and powerful Russian language does not need anyone to learn it under compulsion. We are convinced that the development of capitalism in Russia, and the entire course of social life in general, lead to the rapprochement of all nations. Hundreds of thousands of people are transferred from one end of Russia to the other; the national composition of the population becomes mixed, and isolation and national ossification must disappear. Those who need to know Russian because of their living and working conditions will learn it without a stick.” The national policy and linguistic practice of the Communist Party and the Soviet government are founded on these principles of V. Lenin. As early as 1921, the resolutions of the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party, under V. Lenin’s direct leadership, set out the principal task of developing the cultures and languages of the peoples of the Country of Soviets. The congress resolutions state that “the task of the Party is to help the working masses of the smaller peoples catch up with advanced central Russia, and to help them: a) develop and strengthen Soviet statehood in their own lands in forms that correspond to the national and everyday conditions of these peoples; b) develop and strengthen functioning courts, administrative bodies, economic agencies, and government bodies in their native language, staffed by local people familiar with the way of life and psychology of the local population; c) establish in their own lands a press, schools, theaters, clubs, and cultural and educational institutions in their native language; d) organize and develop a broad network of both general education and vocational and technical courses and schools in the native language (first of all for the Kirghiz, Bashkirs, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Azerbaijanis, Tatars, and Dagestanis), so that local cadres of skilled workers and Soviet Party employees can be trained more quickly in all areas of administration, and above all in education” (In the Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences, and Plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU, I, 543). 3. 949 33 Guided by the principles of Leninist national policy, during the first years of Soviet power, extensive linguistic work began throughout the country: alphabets were devised for the languages of peoples without writing systems; the foundations of newly created literary languages were established; dictionaries, grammars, and other textbooks were prepared; terminology was developed; schools using native languages were organized; national cadres were trained, and so on. More than 50 peoples without writing systems (for example, the Bashkirs, Abkhazians, Avars, and many others) developed literary languages that enabled them to overcome economic and cultural backwardness. The languages of all the peoples of our country were granted equal rights and are freely used in various spheres of activity among Soviet peoples (administration, schools, literature, the press, theater, amateur arts, etc.). The flourishing of national cultures and languages in the Soviet Union is a true triumph of Leninist national policy. Languages that had only recently acquired writing systems expanded the spheres in which they were used: a) works of fiction were created in them; b) periodicals (newspapers, journals, almanacs) were published; c) instruction was provided in primary and, sometimes, secondary schools; d) national theaters and theater companies operated; e) radio and television programs were produced; f) native languages were used in economic, state, and socio-political activity; g) these languages were often used for record-keeping and personal correspondence (Дешевьев Ю. Д., 1976, 391). The peoples of the Russian Empire under the tsars belonged to different religions and cultural traditions and therefore used different alphabets. Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Georgians, and Armenians had their own writing systems, associated with centuries-old literary traditions. Six other peoples (the Mordvins, Chuvash, Udmurts, Komi, Yakuts, and Ossetians), who had adopted Orthodox Christianity, also used the Slavic alphabet to varying degrees. Estonians, Latvians (alongside Gothic script), and Lithuanians wrote in the Latin script. The Buryats and Kalmyks, who professed the Lamaist faith, wrote in a particular form of ancient Uyghur-Mongolian script. Jews and Karaites, adherents of Judaism, wrote in ancient Hebrew script. Sixteen peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus who professed Islam adapted Arabic script for their languages. These were the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Kabardians, Balkars, Karachays, Adyghe, Kumyks, Avars, Laks, Tabasarans, and Lezgins. The Uyghur-Mongolian, ancient Hebrew, and Arabic scripts used by these peoples had many shortcomings: they inadequately represented the phonetic features of those languages, had a narrow sphere of use that was primarily religious, and were therefore inaccessible to ordinary people. For these reasons, in the 1920s the Latin alphabet was introduced in place of Uyghur-Mongolian, ancient Hebrew, and Arabic scripts. This was a correct step in national policy, since internal and foreign enemies would have portrayed an immediate transition to the Russian alphabet as a remnant of the Tsarist policy of Russification. Moreover, the popular masses in the national borderlands themselves would not yet have been able to understand the processes drawing peoples and their cultures closer together. The first period of linguistic work, during which existing alphabets were Latinized and new ones created, played a positive role in the development of literary languages, national cultures, and national statehood. During the second period of linguistic work, from 1937 to 1940, the overwhelming majority of peoples in Central Asia, the Volga region, the North Caucasus, and Azerbaijan switched to the Russian alphabet (only the Georgians and Armenians retained their old scripts). This was determined by the practice of building socialism 34 : as the economies and cultures of the Soviet peoples advanced, literary languages flourished; with increased social integration, processes of interaction and enrichment among languages began to play an important role. The current stage in the development of multinational Soviet society is characterized by several features: an integrated national economic complex based on advanced technology; the social homogeneity of the entire socialist society; socialist democracy; a multinational culture with socialist content; and the predominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the principles of socialist internationalism. It is therefore entirely understandable that, in a society of developed socialism, these phenomena give rise to and intensify processes of internationalization—that is, processes of rapprochement and all-round cooperation among all Soviet peoples, and of strengthening their fraternal friendship. The principal factors determining processes of internationalization are the common material and technical foundation of socialism, a unified union state, Soviet culture with socialist content, national form, and internationalist essence, and the widespread use of a language of communication among Soviet peoples (Федосеев П., 1980, 61). Voluntary rapprochement among nations under socialism was envisaged by V. Lenin. “The aim of socialism,” he wrote (Works, 22, 135), “is not only to end humanity’s division into small states and every form of national isolation, and not only to bring nations closer together, but also to merge them.” A nation is, on the one hand, a stable historical community and, on the other, a form of social development formed on the basis of a common economic life. Thus, in the Marxist definition of a nation, the commonality of economic life is given primacy; other important features of a nation are a common language and territory, culture, national consciousness, and psychology (Ленинизм и национальный вопрос, 23). National characteristics, or differences, are above all language and culture, national consciousness, and psychology. They are clearly manifested in the everyday life, traditions, and customs of a people or ethnic group. A sense of national belonging and the need for national communication; national interests, feelings, ideas, and pride; national traditions and features of ethnographic everyday life; awareness and understanding of one’s own nation’s or people’s relations with other nations, peoples, nationalities, and ethnic groups; and the capacity to create and contribute to human civilization—all these belong to national consciousness. National psychology encompasses national character, national feelings, national temperament, and distinctive moods and habits, as well as the psychological aspect of national traditions and customs. It would be wrong to suppose that all these national characteristics, especially language, will disappear as nations draw closer together. V. Lenin underscored the prerequisites for nations’ rapprochement and merger in socialist society through three essential points. In substantiating the party’s programmatic provisions on the national question, V. Lenin (Works, 24, 54) wrote: “The proletarian party strives to create the largest possible state, because this benefits working people; it strives for the nations’ rapprochement and further merger, but it wishes to achieve this goal not by coercion, but exclusively through a free, fraternal union of the workers and working people of all nations.” V. Lenin (Works, 31, 68—69) also pointed out that national differences “will persist for a very, very long time even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a worldwide scale.” Thus, speaking of the rapprochement and merger of nations 3* 35 Under socialism, V. Lenin had in mind that, first, the process of the rapprochement and merging of nations is free and voluntary; second, it is the formation of close unity among socialist nations and their fraternal union, not the elimination of national differences; and, third, the existence of national differences and particularities is enduring and long-lasting. On this basis, the Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union states that, once communism has triumphed in the Soviet Union, the nations will draw even closer, their economic and ideological commonality will increase, and their shared communist traits will develop. “But the erasure of national differences, especially linguistic differences, is a much longer process than the erasure of class boundaries,” the Program emphasizes. In his report on the draft Constitution of the USSR, L. Brezhnev noted: “The sociopolitical unity of the Soviet people does not at all mean the disappearance of national differences.” And indeed, the new historical community of people—the Soviet people—does not eliminate existing nations or create some kind of superstructure over peoples; rather, it is an example of the unification of people of various nationalities, in which the nations and peoples themselves, their distinctiveness, language, and culture all continue to exist. Never before have there been such broad opportunities for the development of national attributes and factors, and for their renewal and enrichment, as there are now (Федосеев П., 1980, 63). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union implements Leninist national policy. Its Program (1961, 93) states: “… to continue to ensure the free development of the languages of the peoples of the USSR, and complete freedom for every citizen of the USSR to speak, raise and educate their children in any language, without granting any privileges or imposing restrictions and without compelling the use of one language or another. Under conditions of fraternal friendship and mutual trust among peoples, national languages develop on the basis of equality and mutual enrichment.” The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1977, 18, 21) guarantees the right to use one’s native language and to study at school in one’s native language: the exercise of the rights granted to citizens of the USSR “… is ensured by a policy of the comprehensive development and rapprochement of all nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the opportunity to use one’s native language and the other languages of the peoples of the USSR.” Among many other factors, the right of citizens of the USSR to education is ensured by “the opportunity to study at school in one’s native language.” * * * This paper has reviewed the linguistic-social situation in the republic from several perspectives. The review shows that the Lithuanian language plays a dominant role in the republic’s social and cultural life. The development and functioning of the native language, ensured by the implementation of the principles of Leninist national policy in the Soviet state, is a necessary condition for educating a new person, their successful socialization, the rapid assimilation of spiritual values created by their own people and other nations, and the formation of their spiritual potential. The Communist Party devotes great attention to this. Alongside this, the Russian language is acquiring ever greater social importance as the principal means of communication among the Soviet peoples. Knowledge of Russian complements the social functions performed by Lithuanian and contributes to the formation of the new person. The harmonious functioning of Lithuanian and Russian side by side is a striking feature of the republic’s linguistic-social situation. 36 LITERATŪRA I Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Соч. 2-е изд., т. 36. Энгельс Ф. Эмигрантская литература. — В кн.: Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Соч. 2-е изд., т. 18. Leninas V. Darbininkų klasė ir nacionalinis klausimas. — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 19, p. 71–72. Leninas V. Tezės nacionaliniu klausimu. — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 19, p. 219–227. Leninas V. Kritinės pastabos nacionaliniu klausimu. — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 20, p. 3–34. Leninas V. Ar reikalinga privaloma valstybinė kalba? — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 20, p. 54–56. Leninas V. Nacionalinės politikos klausimu. — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 20, p. 196–203. Leninas V. Apie nacijų apsisprendimo teisę. — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 20, p. 369–425. Leninas V. Socialistinė revoliucija ir nacijų apsisprendimo teisė. — Raštai. V., 1953, t. 22, p. 132—145. Leninas V. Proletariato uždaviniai mūsų revoliucijoje. — Raštai. V., 1954, t. 24, p. 39–68. Брежнев Л. И. Участникам Всесоюзной научно-теоретической конференции „Русский язык — язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР“. — В кн.: Брежнев Л. И. Ленинским курсом. М., 1981, т. 8, с. 44–45. Brežnevas L. TSKP Centro Komiteto ataskaitinis pranešimas Tarybų Sąjungos Komunistų partijos XXVI suvažiavimui ir eiliniai Partijos uždaviniai vidaus ir užsienio politikos srityje 1981 m. vasario 23 d. — V., 1981. TSKP XXVI suvažiavimo medžiaga. — V., 1981. Tarybų Sąjungos Komunistų partijos programa. — V., 1961. Tarybų Socialistinių Respublikų Sąjungos Konstitucija. — V., 1977. TSKP suvažiavimų, konferencijų ir CK Plenumų rezoliucijose ir nutarimuose. — V., 1955, t. 1. II Balčikonis J. Rusų mokslininkų įnašas į lietuvių kalbos mokslą. — Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos žinynas, 1952, t. 9. Baskakovas A., Trifonovas J. [Rec.:] Kalbos vaidmuo dabartinėje visuomenėje. — Komunistas, 1980, Nr. 9. Griškevičius P. Kovų ir darbo pergalių kelias. — Komunistas, 1979, Nr. 6. Karaliūnas S., Vidugiris A. Bilingvizmo tipų Lietuvos TSR klausimu. — Lietuvos TSR paminklų apsaugos ir kraštotyros draugijos respublikinės kalbos komisijos sąsiuvinis: Mūsų vardų kultūra. V., 1970, sąs. 19. Karaliūnas S. Sociolingvistiniai lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimai. — Kn.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. Kruopas J. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos vystymasis praeityje ir tarybiniais metais. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. V., 1967. Lyberis A. ir Ulvydas K. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos leksikos praturtėjimas tarybinės santvarkos metais. — Kn.: Literatūra ir kalba. V., 1958, t. 3. Lietuvos TSR ekonomika ir kultūra. — V., 1977. Lietuvos TSR ekonomika ir kultūra 1977 metais. Statistikos metraštis. — V., 1978. Lietuvos TSR gyventojai. 1979 metų sąjunginio gyventojų surašymo duomenimis. — V., 1980. Lietuvos TSR laikraščių ir žurnalų kainoraštis. 1978. — V., 1977. Lietuvos TSR liaudies ūkis 1978 metais. — V., 1979. Lietuvos TSR spaudos statistika 1977—1978—1979—1980. — V., 1981. Michalčenko V. Kelių kalbų vartojimas ir kalbos kultūra. — Kalbos kultūra. V., 1974, sąs. 27. Mironas R. Lietuvių ir rusų kalbų lyginamoji istorinė fonetika. — Tarybinė mokykla. 1952, Nr. 6. Mironas R. Lyginamoji-istorinė lietuvių ir rusų kalbų morfologija. — Tarybinė mokykla, 1954, Nr. 5, 6, 8. 37 Palionis J. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija. — V., 1979 (Skyrius „Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba tarybiniu laikotarpiu“). Rutkevičius M. Draugystės ir bendradarbiavimo kalba. — Komunistas, 1981, Nr. 12. Sabaliauskas A. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida ir jos turtėjimas tarybinės santvarkos metais. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. V., 1967. Stanaitis A., Adlys P. Lietuvos TSR gyventojai. — V., 1973. Vaitkevičius B. Tarybų Lietuva: praeities ir dabarties bruožai. — V., 1980. Аврорин В. А. Опыт изучения функционального взаимодействия языков у народов Сибири. — ВЯ, 1970, № 1. Аврорин В. А. Ленинские принципы национальной политики. — ВЯ, 1970, № 2. Аврорин В. А. Двуязычие и школа. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Аврорин В. А. Проблемы изучения функциональной стороны языка. — Л., 1975. Базиев А. Т., Исаев М. И. Язык и нация. — М., 1973. Баскаков Н. А. Развитие языков и письменности народов СССР. — ВЯ, 1952, № 3. Белодед И. К. Русский язык — язык международного общения народов СССР. — Киев, 1962. Белодед И. К. Развитие языков социалистических наций СССР. — Киев, 1969. Белодед И. К. Ленинская теория национально-языкового строительства в социалистическом обществе. — М., 1972. Белодед И. К., Язык и идеологическая борьба. — Киев, 1974. Белодед И. К., Ижакевич Г. П., Черторижская Т. К. Русский язык как источник обогащения языков народов СССР. — Киев, 1978. Бернштейн В. Некоторые источники и формы проявления интерференции в процессе изучения иноязычной лексики. — В кн.: Взаимодействие языков в процессе обучения / Под ред. В. Шярнаса. Вильнюс, 1971. Взаимоотношение развития национальных языков и национальных культур / Отв. ред. Ю. Д. Дешериев, Э. Г. Туманян. — М., 1980. Взаимоотношение языков и культур народов СССР в условиях развитого социализма: Реферативный сборник. — М., 1980. Вестник статистики. — М., 1980, № 10. Видугирас А., Каралюнас С. К вопросу о типах двуязычия в Литовской ССР. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Виноградов В. В. Великий русский язык. — М., 1945. Виноградов В. В. Русский язык в современном мире. — Русская речь, 1970, № 1. Внутриструктурное развитие старописьменных языков / Отв. ред. д-р филол. н. Ю. Д. Дешериев. — М., 1973. Гаршва К. К. Развитие двуязычия в Литовской ССР. — Тр. АН ЛитССР. Серия А, 1982, т. 3(79). Граудина Л. К., Семенова М. Ф. Русский язык в Латвийской ССР. — В кн.: Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. М., 1977. Гришкявичус П. П. Советская Литва. — М., 1978. Гришкявичус П. В едином строю народов СССР. — Вильнюс, 1980. Гроссе Р. О соотношении языка и нации. — Иностранные языки в школе, 1970, № 3. Дешериев Ю. Д. Развитие младописьменных языков народов СССР. — М., 1958. Дешериев Ю. Д. О развитии языков народов СССР. — В кн.: Вопросы строительства коммунизма в СССР. М., 1959. Дешериев Ю. Д. Закономерности развития и взаимодействия языков в советском обществе. — М., 1966. Дешериев Ю. Д. К методологии теории билингвизма и методике билингвистических исследований. — В кн.: Методы билингвистических исследований. — М., 1976 (в ссылках: а). 38 Дешериев Ю. Д. Закономерности развития литературных языков народов СССР в советскую эпоху. Развитие общественных функций литературных языков. – М., 1976 (в ссылках: б). Дешериев Ю. Д. Развитие общественных функций литовского и других литературных языков в Литовской ССР. – В кн.: Дешериев Ю. Д. Развитие общественных функций литературных языков. М., 1976 (в ссылках: в). Дешериев Ю. Д. Развитие социальных функций русского языка как общего языка межнационального общения народов СССР. – В кн.: Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. М., 1977. Дешериев Ю. Д. Языковые проблемы взаимодействия культур. – В кн.: Межнациональные связи и взаимодействие культур народов СССР. Таллин, 1978. Дешериев Ю. Д. Современное состояние социолингвистики в СССР и актуальные проблемы развития языковой жизни советского общества. – В кн.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. Дешериев Ю. Д., Протченко И. Ф. Национальные отношения в зрелом социалистическом обществе и развитие двуязычия в национальных школах. – В кн.: Пути развития национально-русского двуязычия в нерусских школах РСФСР. М., 1979. Джусусов М. О некоторых актуальных теоретических вопросах национальной политики КПСС. – В кн.: Интернациональное воспитание трудящихся. Рига, 1967. Жукаускас К. К. Совершенствуем обучение русскому языку. – Tagybinė mokykla, 1976, Nr. 4. Закарьян М. Лексико-семантическая интерференция при изучении второго языка. – В кн.: За развитие методики обучения русскому языку и литературе в литовской школе / Под ред. В. Шярнаса. Каунас, 1969. Зиманас Г. О. О сущности процесса сближения социалистических наций. – Вопросы философии, 1966, № 7. Исаев М. И. Решение национально-языковых проблем в советскую эпоху. – ВЯ, 1977 (в ссылках: а), № 6. Исаев М. И. Панорама языковой жизни народов СССР. – В кн.: Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. М., 1977 (в ссылках: б). Исаев М. И. О языках народов СССР. – М., 1978. Исаев М. И. Языковое строительство в СССР. – М., 1979. Итоги Всесоюзной переписи населения 1970 г. – М., 1973, т. 4. Каралюнас С. Литовский язык. Развитие двуязычия. – В кн.: Внутриструктурное развитие старописьменных языков. М., 1973. Корсакаѕ Ю. Функционирование родного и русского языков в школах Советской Литвы. – В кн.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. Крупас Й. Р., Гайвянис К. Б. Терминологическая работа и подготовка терминологических словарей в Литовской ССР. – В кн.: Вопросы разработки научно-технической терминологии. Рига, 1973. Крупас Й., Сабаляускас А., Валяцкене А. и др. Литовский язык. – В кн.: Закономерности развития литературных языков народов СССР в советскую эпоху. Внутриструктурное развитие старописьменных языков / Отв. ред. Ю. Д. Дешериев. М., 1973. Крупас Й. Р. О современном состоянии и путях дальнейшего развития литовского языка. – В кн.: Вопросы развития литературных языков народов СССР в советскую эпоху. Алма-Ата, 1964. Ленинизм и национальный вопрос в современных условиях. 2-е изд. – М., 1974. Марченко Е. Нарушение синтаксических норм русского литературного языка. – Mūsų kalba, 1974, Nr. 9. Михальченко В. Ю. Особенности речи учащихся в условиях литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Взаимодействие языков в процессе обучения. Вильнюс, 1971. 39 Михальченко В. Ю. О функционировании языков в Литовской ССР. – В кн.: Социолингвистические проблемы развивающихся стран. М., 1975. Михальченко В. Ю. О взаимодействии литовского и русского языков в условиях двуязычия. – В кн.: Социолингвистические проблемы развивающихся стран. Михальченко В. Ю. Условия развития литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. М., 1976. Михальченко В. Ю. Типологические особенности литовского и русского языков. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. Михальченко В. Ю. Первая ступень литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. Михальченко В. Ю. Вторая ступень литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. Михальченко В. Ю. Третья ступень литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. Михальченко В. Ю. Четвертая ступень литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. Михальченко В. Ю. Функционирование русского языка в Литовской ССР и его взаимодействие с литовским языком. – В кн.: Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. М., 1977. Михальченко В. Ю. Актуальные социолингвистические проблемы языковой жизни Литовской ССР. – Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. Михальченко В. Ю. Развитие литовского литературного языка в связи с развитием культуры литовского народа. – В кн.: Взаимоотношение развития национальных языков и национальных культур. М., 1980. Михальченко В. Ю. Развитие литовского литературного языка в связи с его функционированием в сфере высшего образования (в печати). Мустейкис К. В. Некоторые аспекты сопоставительного исследования морфологии русского и родного языков. – В кн.: Русский язык – язык межнационального общения народов СССР. М., 1976. Мустейкис К. В. Ориентация на перспективу. – В кн.: Русский язык – язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР. М., 1981. Мяркене Н. Функционирование и преподавание русского языка в сфере высшего образования Литовской ССР. – В кн.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. Мяркене Н. А. Проблема функционирования русского языка в сфере высшего образования (на материале Литовской ССР): Канд. дис. – М., 1981. – Машинопись. Население СССР. – М., 1980. Национальное и международное в современном мире. – Кишинев, 1981. Национальные отношения в СССР на современном этапе. – М., 1979. Никольский Л. Б. Языковая политика как форма сознательного воздействия общества на языковое развитие. – В кн.: Язык и общество. М., 1968. Основные процессы внутристуктурного развития иранских и иберийско-кавказских языков / Отв. ред. д-р филол. н. Н. А. Баскаков. – М., 1969. Основные процессы внутристуктурного развития тюркских, финно-угорских и монгольских языков / Отв. ред. д-р филол. н. Н. А. Баскаков. – М., 1969. Плакунова Т. Лингвистическое обоснование обучения русскому произношению (Из опыта работы с литовцами). – Pedagogika ir psichologija. V., 1963, т. 4. Плакунова Т. Некоторые черты русского произношения в г. Вильнюсе. – Mūsų kalba, 1974, Nr. 9. Пошкус К. Русский язык – язык межнационального общения. – Русский язык в национальной школе. М., 1970, № 6. Пути развития национально-русского двуязычия в нерусских школах. М., 1979. Пялль Э. О некоторых вопросах развития наций и национальных языков Советского Союза. – Изв. АН ЭстССР. Общественные науки, 1968, т. 17, № 4. 40 Пялль Э. Н. О развитии национальных языков и типах двуязычия. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Пялль Э. Межнациональный язык и двуязычие. — Изв. АН ЭстССР. Общественные науки, 1979, т. 28, № 4. Рапшдов Ш. Р. Язык нашего единства и сотрудничества. — М., 1979. Рекомендации Всесоюз. науч.-теорет. конф. „Русский язык — язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР“. — Русский язык в национальной школе. М., 1979, № 5. Римкус А. С. Преподавание русского языка в школах Литвы. — В кн.: Русский язык — язык межнационального общения народов СССР. М., 1976. Русский язык в национальных республиках Советского Союза. — М., 1980. Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. — М., 1977. Русский язык — язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР: Материалы Всесоюз. науч.-теорет. конф. „Русский язык — язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР“, 22–24 мая 1979 г. Ташкент. — М., 1981. Русский язык — язык межнационального общения народов СССР: Материалы Всесоюз. науч.-практ. конф. по совершенствованию преподавания русского языка в национальных школах, средних специальных и высших учебных заведениях, 21–23 октября 1976 г. Ташкент. — М., 1976. Семенова М. Ф. Русско-латышские языковые связи. — Рига, 1973. Сивицене М. О билингвизме и интерференции в области синтаксиса. — Mūsų kalba, 1976, Nr. 2. Совершенствовать изучение и преподавание русского языка. — Русский язык в национальной школе. М., 1979, № 1. Суник О. П., Дешериев Ю. Д., Мусаев К. М., Туманян Э. Г. Проблема двуязычия народов СССР. Тез. докл. конф., посвящ. вопросам взаимодействия и взаимообогащения языков народов СССР. Казань, 1964. Теоретические проблемы социальной лингвистики / Отв. ред. Ю. Д. Дешериев. — М., 1981. Толмачева З. А., Якубайтис Т. А. О структурно-типологическом изучении латышско-русских языковых контактов. — Изв. АН СССР, 1967, № 5. Трифоновас Я. С. Функционирование и взаимодействие русского и литовского языков в Литовской ССР: Канд. дис. — М., 1978. — Машинопись. Федосеев П. Н. О социальных и идейных основах сближения наций и народностей. — В кн.: Наука Союза ССР. М., 1972. Федосеев П. Теоретические проблемы развития и сближения наций. — Коммунист, 1980, № 1. Филин Ф. П. Ленинское учение о нации и некоторые проблемы национального языка. — Изв. АН СССР. Отделение лит-ры и яз. М., 1970, № 2. Филин Ф. П. История общества и развитие двуязычия. — Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит-ры и яз., 1970, т. 29, вып. 3. Филин Ф. П. Современное общественное развитие и проблема двуязычия. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Филин Ф. П. Русский язык в советских национальных республиках. — В кн.: Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. М., 1977. Филин Ф. П. О дальнейшем развитии исследований по проблемам функционирования и изучения русского языка, преподавания русской литературы в союзных и автономных республиках, автономных областях и округах СССР. — Вестн. АН СССР, 1979, № 5. Ханазаров К. Х. Историческая необходимость и прогрессивность межнационального языка в многонациональном социалистическом государстве. — Обществ. науки в Узбекистане. Ташкент, 1962, № 8. Ханазаров К. Х. Строительство коммунизма и развитие национальных языков (На примере словарного фонда). — Обществ. науки в Узбекистане. Ташкент, 1963, № 3. Ханазаров К. Х. Сближение наций и национальные языки в СССР. — Ташкент, 1963. 41 Ханазаров К. А. Критерии двуязычия и его причины. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Ханазаров К. К. Решение национально-языковой проблемы в СССР. — М., 1977. Холмогоров А. И. Интернациональные черты советских наций. — М., 1970. Холмогоров А. И. Конкретно-социологические исследования двуязычия. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Швейцер А. Д. Современная социолингвистика. — М., 1977. Шепетис Л. К. Забота Партии о духовном потенциале советского народа. — В кн.: Русский язык — язык дружбы и сотрудничества народов СССР. М., 1981. Шимкус С. Интернациональное воспитание трудящихся села. — В кн.: Интернациональное воспитание трудящихся. Рига, 1967. Чепелите Д. Основные типы нарушения лексических норм в русской речи литовцев. — Mūsų kalba, 1978, Nr. 2. Чепелите Д. К вопросу о некоторых лексических трудностях в речи учащихся литовцев. — В кн.: Вопросы преподавания русского языка в школе с литовским языком обучения / Сост. Л. Судавичене. Каунас, 1980. III Korsakas K. Literatūrų draugystė. — V., 1962. Lietuvos gyventojai (1923 m. rugsėjo 17 d. surašymo duomenys). — K., b. m. Lietuvos TSR istorija. — V., 1963, t. 2. Mackey W. F. The Description of Bilingualism. — In: Readings in the Sociology of Language/ Ed. by J. Fishman. The Hague, 1968. Merkys V. Nelegalioji lietuvių spauda kapitalizmo laikotarpiu (ligi 1904 m.). — V., 1978. Slawski F. Lexikalische Neuerungen im Baltisch-Slavischen. — In: Donum Balticum. Stockholm, 1970. Sommerfelt A. Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. — The Hague, 1971. Venclova A. A. Puškinas ir Lietuva. — Kn.: Laikas ir rašytojai. V., 1958. Корецкий П. И. О раскольниках в Ковенской губернии. — В кн.: Памятная книжка Ковенской губернии на 1863 год. Отдел II. Мартине А. Распространение языка и структурная лингвистика. — В кн.: Новое в лингвистике. М., 1972, вып. 6. Немченко В. Русские старожилы Литвы и их говоры. — Kalbotyra. V., 1963, t. 7. Пауль Г. Принципы истории языка. — М., 1960. Пшеничников П. Г. Русские в Прибалтийском крае. — Рига, 1910. Станкевич А. Очерк возникновения русских поселений на Литве. — Виленский временник. Кн. 4: Русские поселения Ковенской губернии. Вильна, 1909. С. КАРАЛЮОНАС К ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКЕ ЛИНГВОСОЦИАЛЬНОЙ СИТУАЦИИ РЕСПУБЛИКИ Резюме Главный компонент лингвосоциальной ситуации Литовской ССР составляет то, что литовский язык, являясь национальным языком с древней и богатой письменной традицией, выполняет основные социальные функции и удовлетворяет нужды взаимного общения представителей литовской социалистической нации. Он является языком республиканской печати, радио и телевидения, национального театра и кинематографии, на нем издается обширная художественная, общественно-политическая и научная литература, ведется обучение в школах, в высших учебных заведениях, им пользуются на республиканских съездах и конференциях. 42 Ведущая роль национального языка в такой важной сфере, как высшее образование, подтверждается данными, собранными путем социолингвистического анкетного опроса студентов старших курсов Каунасского политехнического института им. Антанаса Снечкуса: 92,8% студентов выпускного курса общаются на литовском языке, 6,2 — на русском и 1% — на иностранном; 69,2% студентов читают литературу своей специальности на литовском языке, 28,6 — на русском и 2,2 — на иностранном; 90,5% студентов пишут на литовском языке, 8,5 — на русском и 1% — на иностранном. Следовательно, в общеобразовательных средних школах и вузах республики основным средством общения является литовский язык, однако наряду с ним все большее значение приобретает русский язык как средство общения, расширенного познания. Будучи основным компонентом социально-коммуникативной системы, литовский язык оказывает заметное влияние на лингвосоциальную ситуацию республики. Оно проявляется, в частности, в том, что во время последней всесоюзной переписи населения литовский язык назвали вторым языком, которым они свободно владеют, 106 954 русских, 27 506 поляков, 7341 белорус, 4865 украинцев, 4579 евреев и др. Для некоторых из них он даже стал родным. По данным переписи 1979 г., литовский язык родным назвали 9536 представителей польской национальности, 6641 — русской, 790 — белорусской, 654 — украинской, 619 — еврейской национальности и др. Другим важным компонентом лингвосоциальной ситуации республики является функционирование русского языка как языка межнационального общения советских народов — социальная необходимость, обусловленная интересами построения коммунизма в нашей стране. Применение русского языка обусловливается также всей экономической, общественной и культурной жизнью республики. Литовский язык как средство общения литовской социалистической нации и русский язык как язык межнационального общения советских народов в хозяйственной, общественной и культурной жизни республики дополняют друг друга и гармонически сосуществуют. Соотношение социальных функций, выполняемых литовским и русским языками в жизни республики, весьма обширно изучил Ю. Д. Дешериев (1976). Из 22 выделенных им сфер применения языка литовский и русский параллельно функционируют в радиовещании и телевидении республики, в высшем образовании, в науке и технике, в государственных учреждениях, в делопроизводстве и официальной переписке, в культурно-просветительских учреждениях, в научной, общественно-политической и культурной жизни, в местном транспорте и учреждениях связи, в сфере обслуживания и др. В трех сферах, а именно: в общении между собою самих русских, в общении литовцев с представителями других народов, в переписке с центральными учреждениями, а также с другими республиками, — ведущая роль принадлежит русскому языку. В промышленном производстве и технической документации, где соотношение применения одного из данных языков зависит от национального состава рабочих, служащих и инженерно-технических работников, литовский и русский языки употребляются наравне. В остальных областях хозяйственной, социальной, общественно-политической и культурной жизни республики преобладает литовский язык. Это начальное, среднее общее и среднее специальное образование для детей литовской национальности, судопроизводство и периодическая печать. Возможность слушать и смотреть программы на русском языке дают Литовское радио и телевидение. Вильнюсское радио ежедневно 1 ч 10 мин транслирует свои передачи на русском языке. В учебном году два раза в неделю по 20 мин передаются уроки русского языка; 2 ч 20 мин в сутки на русском языке транслируются спортивные программы, концерты, различные торжества. Время передач на русском языке Вильнюсского радио значительно увеличивает ретрансляция из Москвы — 3,5 ч в сутки. Литовское телевидение также значительную часть своих передач ведет на русском языке. Напр., в субботу, 11 октября 1980 г., республиканское телевидение работало всего 15 ч 56 мин, в том числе 9 ч 34 мин — на литовском языке и 4 ч 33 мин — на русском. В сентябре 1981 г. из 201 ч работы Литовского телевидения программы на русском языке занимали 85 ч, или 35% всего рабочего времени. 43 Другая обширная сфера интенсивного применения русского языка — это система народного образования. В Советской Литве действуют немало восьмилетних и средних школ с русским языком обучения. Функционирование русского языка в сфере высшего образования проявляется не только в том, что учебниками и другой специальной литературой в значительной мере студенты пользуются на русском языке, но, самое главное, в том, что в системе высшего образования Литовской ССР русский язык наряду с литовским применяется в качестве языка преподавания. Об этом красноречиво говорят следующие данные. В 1980—1981 уч. г. в 13 вузах Литовской ССР из общего числа 400 академических групп дневного отделения, 140 групп вечернего отделения и 150 групп заочного отделения соответственно в 40, 14 и 15 академических группах занятия по всем предметам велись на русском языке. В 1980 г. в вузы Литовской ССР поступило 9100 студентов, в том числе в группах с русским языком преподавания насчитывалось 1587, или 17,4%, — в среднем 920 студентов на дневном отделении (58%), 322 — на вечернем (20%) и около 345 студентов (22%) — на заочном. Все сказанное позволяет делать вывод, что Коммунистическая партия Литвы с большим вниманием относится к запросам в области языка, культуры и быта граждан некоренных национальностей, работающих и проживающих в республике. Чтобы выяснить, насколько достаточны навыки в русском языке, полученные в средней школе, были опрошены 440 работников культуры и народного хозяйства (со стажем работы не менее 3 лет) пяти районов и двух городов республики, 285 демобилизованных (представителей всех районов и городов), а также 304 студента различных специальностей 2—4-го курсов. Данные обследования показывают, что большинство опрошенных более или менее удовлетворены навыками чтения (90,9% опрошенных), письма (81,3) и речи (76,6), полученными в средней школе. Частично недовольных навыками чтения было 6,5%, навыками письма — 16,2 и навыками речи — 20,8, а полностью недовольных было лишь 2,6%. Результаты опроса подтверждают и тот факт, что очень важным фактором в освоении литовским народом языка межнационального общения является школа. Возьмем, напр., данные, полученные социолингвистическим анкетным опросом выпускников Каунасского политехнического института им. Антанаса Снечкуса. На вопрос: „Каков уровень владения русским языком?” получены следующие ответы: говорю свободно — 28%, удовлетворительно — 56, слабо — 16, пишу хорошо — 6, удовлетворительно — 60, плохо — 34. При этом следует иметь в виду, что в качестве родного языка родителей в основном указывался литовский язык (98%). Другим важным фактором развития литовско-русского двуязычия является непосредственный контакт с иноязычным населением в многонациональных трудовых коллективах. Третьим фактором овладения русским языком, касающимся, однако, только мужчин, следует назвать службу в Советской Армии. Это обстоятельство значительно углубляет знание русского языка, полученное в средней школе, и поэтому у представителей мужского населения оно чаще лучше, чем у женщин. Среди свободно владеющих всеми формами русского языка мужчины составляют 61,7%, а женщины — 38,3, среди не знающих русского языка мужчин около 24%, а женщин примерно 76. Можно полагать, что знание и активное пользование русским языком в сельской местности в значительной мере зависят от этнической компактности региона и обратно пропорциональны ей. Так, в местностях с высокой компактностью населения коренной национальности (напр., в Алитусском районе — 95,1% литовцев, Капсуком — 97,6, Кедайняйском — 92,4, Шяуляйском — 96) 6,5% жителей села свободно говорят, читают и пишут на русском языке, 12,7 — говорят и пишут, 38,3 — говорят слабо, а 42,5 — не знают его. В районах с преобладанием различного по национальному составу населения процент населения, владеющего русским языком, выше. Так, в Зарасайском районе, где проживают русские старожилы, а коренное население составляет всего 68%, свободно владеющих русским языком 39,1%. 44 Следовательно, согласно данным социолингвистических анкет, знание литовским населением русского языка, несмотря на определенное варьирование по регионам, в общем является хорошим. С этим согласуются и материалы Всесоюзной переписи населения 1979 г.: 48% жителей республики назвали русский язык вторым языком народов СССР, которым они свободно владеют. В 1970 г. эта цифра достигала только 33,8%. Следовательно, знание русского языка постоянно улучшается, а активное пользование им расширяется. Это свидетельство плодотворной деятельности Коммунистической партии Литвы и правительства Литовской ССР, направленной на интернациональное воспитание трудящихся. Литовский народ добровольно изучает русский язык и пользуется им не только для того, чтобы общаться с представителями других национальностей, но и для того, чтобы читать художественную и специальную литературу, слушать московское радио и смотреть программы Центрального телевидения, знакомиться с богатой культурой русского народа. Литовско-русский билингвизм, как нам представляется, следует считать билатеральным. Как указывалось выше, почти половина населения Литовской ССР свободно владеет русским языком, большинство представителей других национальностей, постоянно проживающих в республике, говорят или более-менее понимают литовский язык. Типичными билингвами следует назвать русских старожилов Литвы. Литовско-русский билингвизм является контактным: его появление обусловливается ежедневным общением представителей двух народов, их совместным участием в трудовых процессах. В отличие от локального билингвизма, наблюдаемого на части территории республики (напр., польско-литовский билингвизм в окрестностях г. Вильнюса), литовско-русский билингвизм глобален: это проявление национально-русского билингвизма, основного типа билингвизма в Советском Союзе, имеющего государственное, общественно-политическое значение. S. KARALIŪNAS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LINGUOSOCIAL SITUATION OF THE REPUBLIC Summary The paper consists of the following chapters: ”Progress of Lithuanian Culture, Use of the Lithuanian Language and Its Intensification“, ”Use of the Lithuanian and the Russian Languages“, ”On the Subject of Contacts of Lithuanian and Russian“, ”Lithuanian — Russian and Russian — Lithuanian Bilingualism“, ”The Language of Communication of the Soviet Peoples and Its Role“ and ”Leninist National Politics and Prosperity of the Soviet Peoples and Their Languages“. The Lithuanian language is a means of communication of the Lithuanian socialist nation and it meets all needs of intercommunication of the Lithuanian people at the present stage of development of our society. In the years of Soviet power Lithuanian culture has flourished, the role of the Lithuanian language has risen, its social usage has intensified and spheres of its functioning have widened. At the same time in the economic, social and cultural life of the republic the Russian language functions, which is the main means of the international communication of the Soviet peoples. During the general census of the population of 1979 48% of the Lithuanians have pointed out that they speak Russian fluently. In 1970 there were only 33.8% of them. The main channels of the formation of the Lithuanian — Russian bilingualism are a school, work in multinational industrial collectives and service in the Soviet Army.