Respublikos lingvosocialinės situacijos charakteristika

LANGUAGE CONTACTS QUESTIONS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE OF THE LITHUANIAN SSR XXIII (1983) SIMAS The Lithuanian language is the means of communication of the socialist Lithuanian nation, and at the present stage of the development of society it satisfies all the needs of intercommunication of people of Lithuanian nationality. In the years of Soviet rule, with the flourishing of the Lithuanian culture, the role ji of the Lithuanian language rose, its social use intensified and its spheres expanded. Another important feature of the socio-linguistic situation of the republic is that, in addition to the national language, the language of mutual communication of the Soviet nations — Russian — functions on its territory. Lithuanian and Russian languages are divided into spheres of use; in the social and economic life of the republic they complement each other. The influence of the Russian language on the Lithuanian language system is small and manifests itself mainly as indirect interference. The harmonious coexistence and functioning of the national language and the Russian language, the nature and direction of the development of national-Russian bilingualism are determined by the implementation of the principles of Lenin’s national policy, the policy of linguistic creation. The rise of Lithuanian culture, the use of the Lithuanian language and its intensification in the years of Soviet rule in the fraternal family of nations of the USSR made Soviet Lithuania's economy and culture flourish. The dominant branch of the republic's economy has become industry. In the post-war years, new branches of the industry were created in the republic: chemical, machine tool manufacturing, shipbuilding, electrical engineering and radio electronics industry, production of ir prefabricated reinforced concrete structures and components. The growth of industrial production is guaranteed by the increase in labor productivity, which is conditioned by the rapid introduction of new techniques and advanced technology, complex mechanization and automation of production processes, as well as the rise in workers’ ir qualifications and improvement of work organization. During the Soviet period, large-scale socialist mechanized agricultural production was established. The main producers of agricultural products are kolkhozes and Soviet farms. During the years of Soviet rule, great achievements were made in the field of culture. The illiteracy of the population was eliminated, ir education became accessible to young people. The state allocates large amounts of money every year for education, science and culture. In 1940, there were 69 gymnasiums and 27 pre-gymnasiums in Lithuania, where about 26,000 students studied. In the academic year 1976/77, the following graduated from the republic's schools: 4 64 Thousands of pupils (Griškevičius P., 1978, 87—88). 1940—1941 m. There were high special 1 secondary ir 24 schools in Lithuania. Now in the republic there are 13 high ir 74 technical ir schools, other special secondary schools 1978/79 where lo thousands of people studied at 138 the beginning of the school year, iš to number of 68,7 thousands — of higher education institutions. During the twenty years of bourgeois rule, more than thousands of specialists graduated from higher 4 education. O In the years of Soviet rule, higher schools produced thousands of 149 specialists (Griškevičius P., 1978, 25). In the year alone, a 1978 thousand people graduated from higher 9,9 schools and a thousand from special — 18,2 secondary schools (Lithuanian People's economy of the 1978 USSR in 8). the year, su 1940 Compared to the ir year, the number of students 11 increased times. 10 thousands of the republic's population 1,5 is once more students than in France, Italy ir In Japan, ir 2,2 once more than German Federal In the Republic ir In England (Griškevičius P., 1980, 150). 1978/79 At the beginning of the school year, thousands of people 1168 studied in various 611,9 forms: a thousand in general education 69,7 schools, a thousand in technical ir schools in other special secondary schools, a 68,7 thousand in higher education schools. In schools, a great deal of attention is paid to teaching the mother tongue, so that the young people who have graduated from school will have a good command of the common language — the means of communication, information exchange and acquaintance ir of the whole Lithuanian nation. The to whole Lithuanian nation did not have a tsarist in the Russian Empire, which V. Lenin's term was rightly called "prison of nations". In the Tsarist Russian Empire, where peoples were nationally and culturally oppressed, writing in their ar mother jų tongue was restricted and forbidden, only twenty peoples were allowed to use their national literary languages. In Lithuania, the czar's „the government did not allow the establishment of schools in the mother tongue, restricted the use of the Lithuanian language in public life in any way, carried out a coercive policy of denationalization, for forty years forbade the printing of books in Lithuanian-Latin letters. ir (1864—1904) In June 1864, a letter from the Governor-- General of Vilnius prohibited the Vilnius censorsh5 d. ip committee from printing textbooks in Latin script. Ši date is considered the beginning of the press ban. 1865 m. of September 6 d. of the Lithuanian press was formalized in a secret circular in Vilnius, Grodno, Kaunas, Minsk, Vitebsk and Mogilev Governors. “The fact that the Lithuanian language was removed iš Lithuanian schools that it was forbidden to ir print Lithuanian books other publications in Latin-Lithuanian letters, it is noted ir — ‘Lietuvos History of the TSR" (II, 204), — together with su general socio-economic oppression with all its severity oppressed the broad The deprivation of books in the — native language and the prohibition of teaching in ir the native language in schools hindered any kind of popular education, increased illiteracy and created conditions for keeping the people in complete darkness. Therefore, despite the severe reaction of the Tsarism, in the next years of the uprising, po The Lithuanian peasant movement against the ir stately exploitation su of the slaves, the growing ir struggle of the masses of the people against national oppression, jų the demands to abolish the ban on the Lithuanian press, to allow the ir printing and distribution of Lithuanian books, to allow the teaching of children in the mother tongue in schools." The Lithuanian people rejected government books printed in Russian letters, — jų neither ir bought nor read them. The attempts of the tsar’s administrators to denationalize the Lithuanian people by forcibly imposing a foreign ir alphabet failed. ją The social democratic movement of the progressive Russian intelligentsia contributed greatly to the defence of the Lithuanian language rights in public life. Russian ir Scientific The su Academy, apparently, was not informed of the secret circular, and therefore, continuing the tradition of studying the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian scripts in general, published in Latin 1865 m. letters A. Prepared by Schleicher K. Donovan- 's Letters. ; 1880 m. of April 22 d. Russian Scientific The Academy obtained the right to publish Lithuanian books for scientific purposes in Latin alphabet, so that these publications would be accessible to foreign philologists. ir Kazan University, like all universities, having the ir right to publish books without censorship, printed be 1880— 1882 m. A. Yuškas Three volumes of Lithuanian Songs, o The 1883 m. Academy has announced jo “Lietuviškas svotbines dainas” ir 1884 m. began to be published in Lithuanian —Russian —the Polish language (I dictionary 1897 volume was published in ). Scientific The Academy also released M. The Catechismą ir m. Russian scientists F. Fortunatov, G. Ulyanov, A. Shakhmatov, ir etc. contributed greatly to the study of the Lithuanian language, the Lithuanian nation’s struggle for press freedom. In the liberal Russian press, the issue of lifting the ban on the Lithuanian press was raised many times (Merkys V., 1978, 114—130). About the ban on the Lithuanian press, ethnic persecution, manifestations of the national movement once wrote ne the Leninist "Iskra". 1903 m. On February 1 d. 11, a letter condemning the ban on the Lithuanian press was printed, probably by a non-Lithuanian author. It says: “All the border prisons (in the Lithuanian district) are full of peasants — “political” criminals accused of ir transportinuž g, distributing, ir even merely using Lithuanian prayer books printed in Latin script. The font itself is persecuted, because in these prayer books nothing “suspicious” does not find even the bodies pursuing them” (Lithuanian TSR istorija, II, Iskra 296). wrote about the ir repressions against booksellers and other participants of the Lithuanian national movement. 1905 m. of October 5 d. ji published a list of political criminals wanted by the gendarmerie, the first of whom was a distributor of illegal Lithuanian press Juozas Akelaitis (Merkys V., 1978, 134—136). One of the Lithuanian National Revival In the a. second half of the 19th century, one of the reasons might have been the ir prohibition of the Lithuanian press. “Force in such cases usually causes resistance, writes the Norwegian” — linguist A. For (1974, 69). — Iš Sommerfeld, the best way to awaken a dying language is to try to suppress it." ją 1940 m. after reconstitution In Lithuania After the Soviet ir rule the Lithuanian nation į joined the family of fraternal Soviet nations, a new stage of ir the Lithuanian nation’s cultural development began. The rapid rise of the Lithuanian nation’s ir economic culture in the Soviet years was caused by socialist restructuring, the implementation of the principles of Lenin’s national policy with the fraternal help of the Soviet ir nations, especially the great Russian nation. 6 The rapid development of the economy, education and culture in general in the republic greatly intensified the social use of the Lithuanian language and expanded its spheres. “The social functions of Lithuanian, like Latvian, have grown to the maximum, its lexical-semantic, stylistic and syntactic systems have expanded unprecedentedly. During the long history of Lithuania, the Lithuanian language has not experienced such a comprehensive functional and structural development”, —the specialist on the functioning of national languages in the Soviet years J. Dešerijev (1976(b), 230) remarks. This description, of course, first of all concerns the Lithuanian common language — written (literary) and spoken. The elimination of illiteracy and the introduction of compulsory eight-year education, and in recent years also secondary education, free higher education, political, fictional, scientific and other literature published in huge circulations, widespread artistic self-organization, theatres, radio and television, various meetings and other forms of collective communication paved the way for the common Lithuanian language to the broad masses of working people, to the linguistic practice of the whole nation. A large number of young learners, qualified specialists in various scientific and technical fields, and a considerable number of scientists and artists have substantially enriched the ranks of users of the common Lithuanian language. The Lithuanian national cinema and television use the Lithuanian common spoken language. The sphere of common written language is literature and press. This is how J. Kruopas describes the functioning of the Lithuanian language in the Soviet period (1967, 19—20): “After the overthrow of the capitalist order, after the social and cultural revolution, the Lithuanian literary language began to spread extensively and intensively, enriching itself with new vocabulary and phraseology, purifying itself from words and sayings that represented old habits and ideology. Although neither the vocabulary composition nor the grammatical structure of the literary language changed fundamentally in the Soviet years, the literary language significantly expanded its functions and scope of use, enriched with many new words, meanings, proverbs and other means of expression. Along with new political, social, economic, cultural and other phenomena, a lot of new things have appeared in the life of the language, especially in its vocabulary. The expansion of the sphere of use of the Lithuanian literary language, the enrichment of the lexicon, phraseology and grammatical structure clearly shows that the Soviet period in the development of the Lithuanian literary language is particularly important and significant.” Thus, during the Soviet period, the public use of Lithuanian changed in two ways: first, Lithuanian was used in new spheres (national cinema and television) and, secondly, the spheres of use of the traditional Lithuanian language (education, book publishing, mass media, etc.) expanded. Use of Lithuanian and Russian languages Lithuanian is a national language with an old and rich tradition of writing. At present, the Lithuanian language performs the basic social functions and satisfies all the needs of mutual communication of the members of the Lithuanian socialist nation. It is the language of instruction in our primary, secondary and tertiary schools. 7 Lithuanian is the language of the republic’s press, theatre, radio, cinema and television. It publishes fiction, social-political, scientific literature. It is the language of national congresses and conferences. Other languages are also spoken in Lithuania — Russian, Polish, etc., but Lithuanian plays a predominant role in the life of the republic. For example, of the 532 thousand pupils of full-time general education schools at the beginning of the 1978/79 school year, 451 thousand were studying Lithuanian, 66 thousand Russian and 15 thousand Polish, or 85, 12 and 3 9 respectively (Lithuanian SSR National Economy 1978, 236). In 1980, 1672 books and brochures were published in 16 mil. 716 thousand copies, of which 1270 units 14 mil. 485 thousand copies in Lithuanian and 282 books and brochures 1 mil. 558,000 copies in Russian. In 2001, there were 126 newspapers and 2 million newsletters in the republic. 762,000 copies in a single run, including 94 titles 2 mil. 622,000 copies in a single run in Lithuanian and 27 magazines and newsletters in a single run of 74,000 copies in Russian (Press Statistics of the Lithuanian SSR, 22, 87). The dominant role of Lithuanian language is also evident from the data collected by means of sociolinguistic questionnaires, which were obtained by interviewing the students of the graduate courses of Kaunas Antanas Sniečkaus Polytechnic Institute (about two thousand) (Korsakas J., 1979). The answer to the question “What languages do you use during your studies- ?” was as follows: 92.8 9, graduates communicate in Lithuanian, 6.2 9, —Russian and 194 —foreign languages, 69.2 9, graduates read literature in Lithuanian, 28.6 944, —Russian and 2.2 94, —foreign languages; 90.5 9, graduates write in Lithuanian, 8.5 9%, — Russian and 1 9, —in foreign languages. First and second year students, who are still taking practical Russian and foreign language courses, answered the above question as follows: we communicate in Lithuanian (88.9%), Russian (10.5 94%), foreign languages (1.5 95%); we read in Lithuanian (81.4 9%), Russian (11.5%), foreign languages (7.1%); we write in Lithuanian (89.9%), Russian (7.9 95%), foreign languages (3.2 9%). This means that the main language of the students’ daily life, communication and learning is their native language – Lithuanian. In addition, Russian plays a certain role, primarily as a means of reading literature (textbooks are mostly in Russian), and partly as a means of communication. Being a national language with an old and rich tradition of writing, Lithuanian has a noticeable influence on the representatives of various nationalities living in the territory of the Republic. During the 1979 census, Lithuanian was written as the second language of the USSR nations that they spoke fluently: 106,954 Russians, 27,506 Poles, 7,341 Belarusians, 4,865 Ukrainians, 4,579 Jews, etc. (Becruux crarucraxn, 71). A part of the foreign-speaking people living and working in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR move towards the permanent use of Lithuanian, and Lithuanian becomes their native language. According to the last census (Bectamk crarneraxn, 71), Lithuanian is the mother tongue of 9536 people of Polish nationality, 6641 people of Russian nationality, 790 people of Belarusian nationality, 654 people of Ukrainian nationality, 619 people of Jewish nationality, etc. Therefore, Lithuanian language is the main component of the social-communicative system (for the term see Illsešnep A. JĮ., 1977, 75), which is necessary for the 8 economic, social, socio-political and cultural conditions of life. This is related to the fact that the absolute majority of the population of the republic (80 94) are Lithuanians. Their number in 9 years increased by 205.5 thousand people, or 8.2 percent. On this occasion, it is worth remembering that 138,700 Lithuanians live in other union republics, of which: in the Russian Federation — 66,800, in Kaliningrad Oblast — 19,600, in Latvia — 37,800, in Kazakhstan — 11,000, in Ukraine — 9,700, in Belarus — 7,000, in Estonia — 2,400, in Uzbekistan — 1,000, in other republics — 3,000 (inhabitants of the Lithuanian SSR, 17). It goes without saying that Lithuanians living in other union republics are bilingual or polylingual — in addition to their native Lithuanian, they speak and use Russian and, apparently, the languages of the Soviet nations on whose territory they live. Therefore, during the last census, more than half (52.94%) of Lithuanians stated that they speak Russian fluently (48.94% on a national level). On the other hand, another important factor determining the specificity of the situation in the language-- social republic is the functioning of the Russian language. The knowledge and use of the Russian language is a social necessity arising from the interests of creating communism in our country. The economy and scientific- -technical potential of the union republics are developing and rising integrated into the general economic and scientific- -technical complex of the Soviet Union. This constitutes a necessary social prerequisite for having a common means of communication, the function of which is performed in Russian. This social necessity in general depends on the whole -economic, socio-social and cultural life of the republic. ; “The Lithuanian party organization, all working people of the republic, the intelligentsia understand this well and do everything to ensure that our youth, besides the Lithuanian language, perfectly know the Russian language, which is the main means of communication of the Soviet nations, creates favorable conditions for getting acquainted with the spiritual values of the great Russian nation, all Soviet nations, with the world culture. In turn, thanks to the Russian language, the Lithuanian culture becomes the property of the fraternal nations of our country, goes beyond its borders,” —said the Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona in Vilnius on May 22-24, 1979. During the Union Scientific- -Theoretical Conference “Russian Language — Language of Friendship and Cooperation of the Peoples of the USSR” held in Tashkent, the Central Committee Secretary of the Communist Party of Lithuania L. Šepetys (1981, 153). The role of the Russian language in Lithuanian literary life is described by the prominent public figure, scientist and poet, academician K. Korsakas (1962, 77—78): “Thanks to the Russian language alone, many of our writers’ books and the most valuable works of our literary heritage have already gone beyond the borders of the republic and have become widely known not only in the Soviet Union but also far beyond its borders in a relatively short time. The Russian language serves as an effective means of introducing the values of Lithuanian literature not only to those who read in Russian, but also helps our writers’ words to be heard in many other languages. Using the Russian language, the works of our writers, their articles and statements on topical issues are increasingly translated into the languages of other nations, acquiring an international resonance.” The fact that people of 54 nationalities live and work in the territory of the Republic, the number of which exceeds 20 (inhabitants of the Lithuanian SSR, 16), cannot be ignored. According to the last census of the Union (Truth, February 1980; 9 22 Lietuvos At the beginning of 16), 1979 2000, there were 1,000,000 residents in 2 the republic. 712 thousands (80 %) of 303 Lithuanians, thousands (8,9 %) Russian, 247 thousands (7,3 %) Polish, 58 thousands (1,7 %) Belarusian, 32 thousands (0,9 %) of 15 Ukrainians, thousands (0,4 %) Jews, 25 thousands (0,8 %) of people of other nationalities. For the sociolinguistic characteristic of the linguistic life of the republic it is important that the absolute majority of the inhabitants of the republic consider their (96,9 %) native language bą ir 3,1 Percent- — age of other Languages of the USSR. The fact of the presence ir of different jų nationalities, each speaking its own language, also raises the social necessity of having a single language of communication as a means of — communication among the Soviet peoples. Therefore, be the main component of — the Lithuanian language, another important component of the social-communicative system is the Russian language. The parallel functioning of — Lithuanian language as a national means of — ir communication and Russian — language as a means of communication among Soviet peoples constitutes — the specificity of the situation ir of the language-social republic. Lithuanian and Russian languages are divided into spheres of consumption, in the economic, social, socio-political and cultural life of the republic they complement each other and coexist harmoniously. ir The ir functions performed by Lithuanian Russian languages Lietuvos In the life of the TSR quite extensively has studied comparatiir ve J. Desheriev (1976). He has written twenty-two books on the subject. Jo In his opinion, the Lithuanian-Russian languages are used side by side in the following spheres: ir republic radio television, higher education, science and technology, state institutions, correspondence, ir official correspondence, cultural educational institutions, ir scientific life, social-political life, cultural life, communication in the ir field of industrial production, technical documentation, local ir transport, communications institutions, domestic service to the population, trade, public catering. ir ir Lithuanian and Russian are considered to be the main means of communication in these areas of ir economic, social, socio-political and cultural activity. ir The three spheres in which the Russian language is used — exclusively are communication among people of Russian nationality, communication of su Lithuanians with representatiir ves of other nations, su correspondence with central institutions and other republics. The Lithuanian and ir Russian languages are used equally in one sphere, namely in technical documentation of industrial production, where — the ratio of the use of Lithuanian and ir Russian languages depends on the national composition of workers, civil ir servants, engineering and technical personnel. ir In the remaining areas of economic, social, socio-political and cultural activities of the republic, Lithuanian is used. This ir includes primary, secondary general, secondary special education for children of Lithuanian nationality, and the right periodical press. ir In addition to ir detailing the šį overall picture of the ratio of ir Lithuanian-Russian language usage, it should be emphasized that the republic has created good conditions for the functioning of Russian language usage. ir For example, in such an important area of culture as mass media, Russian occupies an important place. 1980 m. Russian language newspapers, magazines 22 newslett27 ers in the ir republic (Lithuanian TSR press statistics; 85, 87). The newspaper is published in Russian Baltic Railway, the national newspapers Vakarinės naujienos ir jo Annex "Advertising", "Soviet Lithuania- ", "Savaitės ekranas", city newspaper ‘Soviet Union Klaipėda”, Vilnius, Trakai, 10 Newspapers of Zarasai, Šalčininkai and Švenčionys districts, as well as several magazines and periodicals, such as ‘Lietuvos TSR Supreme Government ir of the Republic of su Estonia ‘Lietuvos Alphabetical-subject index of operating normative acts of the Lithuanian SSR”, “Cinema”, “Communist”, “Literary Lithuania” (since 2000), 1978 Lithuanian Mathematics Collection, Lithuanian Physics Collection, Russian Language in School (from m.), 1977 "Time events"; ir ‘Lietuvos TSR "Academy of Sciences" (in (B ir V Russian). (Slavistika)" ir kt. Vilnius has a Russian Drama Theatre. Lithuanian radio ir and television provides the opportunity to listen to programmes in Russian. Vilnius Radio every 1 day at 10:00. 10 min. broadcasts its programme in Russian (from hr. 15 ligi val. 16 ir from 18 12:00 ligi val. 18 10 min. ). In the academic du year times per week po 20 min. Russian language lessons are given in Russian. 2 val. 20 min. 24 hours a day sports events, concerts, ceremonies are broadcast in Russian. Vilnius radio broadcasts in Russian language are significantly increased by retransmission iš Moscow — 3,5 val. per day. ; = A considerable part of the time in Russian works ir Lithuanian Television. Antai 1980 m. Friday, 10 October 20th iš 9 val. 43 min. TV programmes in Russian language was 2 allocated hours. 37 min. 1980 m. October, 11 Saturday, the republic's television iš worked for hours. 15 56 min. — iš to number (9 of hours 34 min. Lithuanian 4 language) h 33 min. in Russian. 1980 m. October, 12 Sunday, Lithuanian television broadcasts lasted hrs. 15 Be Programs The "Time" ir retransmissions, programmes in Russian were allocated at 10:00. 4 35 min. (Lithuanian language) 8 23 min. ). Throughout the tų month of September iš 201 Lithuanian television working hours programmes in Russian went on at., or 85 35 % all the time. Another broad sphere where Russian is used intensively is in popular education. There are a number of eight-year secondary schools in Soviet Lithuania ir where the language of instruction is Russian. Lietuvos TSR According to the Statistics Board, in the republic 3 248 eight-year secondary ir schools; whose iš schools 97 are in two languages su of instruction, among jų 43 su Lithuaniir an Russian, 42 su Russian ir Polish ir 18 schools, where the teaching languages are three Lithuanian, — Russian Polish, ir mainly in the nationally - mixed districts of southeastern Lithuania. Another large sphere where Russian is used intensively is the higher education system. The use of Russian here is only manifested in the fact ne that a large part of the textbooks are read in Russian by ir students of special literature (in the native language of various specialties textbooks are lacking), but most importantly in that Lietuvos In the higher education system of lo the USSR, Russian functions alongside Lithuanian as the language of instruction. The following figures illustrate this clearly. 1980/81 the academic year of Lithuania In the higher schools of the TSR, which are thirteen, in the respective iš departments of the 400, academic groups of the 140 ir full-time section of the 150 evening section of the part-time section, 40, 14 ir 15 Groups (one group consists on average of students), 22—25 where all subjects are lectured in Russian. Kad Lietuvos In the higher education system of the USSR, Russian plays an important role, which can be seen from the number of students. In 1980, 9,100 students were admitted to the higher education institutions of the Lithuanian SSR. Of this number, the above-mentioned su groups of students taught in Russian 1587 were composed of (or 17,4 %): an 11 average of 920 students in the full-time department, or 57.9% of 94, about 1322 students in the evening department, or 20.3%, and about 345 students in the part-time department, or 21,7 9%. This leads to the conclusion that the Communist Party of Lithuania takes into account and deals with the language and cultural needs of citizens of non-native nationalities working and living in the ir Republic. Therefore, the Russian language in the Lithuanian SSR, as in other union republics, occupies an important place in terms of the scope of social functions. As already mentioned, Russian is the main means by which Lithuanians communicate with people of other nationalities living in the republic who do not speak Lithuanian. In addition to Lithuanian, it is used in national conferences and councils. In many companies and institutions in Vilnius, Klaipeda, Sniečkaus, where the majority of employees and officials are people of non-Lithuanian nationality, writing, technical documentation and correspondence are handled in Russian. : In general, the Russian language in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR performs, firstly, the function of the language of mutual communication between Soviet nations: it is used by people of Lithuanian nationality to communicate with representatives of other Soviet nations. People of various nationalities (Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Jewish, etc.) living in the territory of the republic use it more often than Lithuanian for mutual communication. It should be noted separately that Poles living in Vilnius region often communicate with Lithuanians in Russian. Secondly, the Russian language in the territory of the Lithuanian SSR serves as a means of communication between the people of the socialist Russian nation permanently residing in the republic. Thirdly, the function of the Russian language is a means of intercommunication of rusy expatriates. This function is performed by the dialectal variant of the Russian language. - On the question of interaction of Lithuanian and Russian ir languages The interchangeable use of two languages in the conversati- — onal case of Lithuanian ir and Russian — naturally leads to the fact that the languages begin to work on each other. By observing specific situations of ir Lithuanian-- Russian language use, it is easy to see that the Russian language has a certain influence on the Lithuanian language, the o Lithuanian language has a slight influence on the Lithuanian language. Lietuvos The Russian language used in the TSR. The influence of the Russian language on the Lithuanian language t. y. production ir of sound sentences, use of linguistic means, speaking, partly passing the iš written language. ir į However, the Russian language does not have a — greater influence on the ir jų Lithuanian language — system and the interrelationships of its structural units. More organized, structured parts of the language, such as the phonological and grammatical systems, and some parts of the syntactic system, remain intact for a long time. This can be clearly seen from the Lithuanian-speaking islands of the Belarusian SSR (Zieteliai, ir Rodūniai, Gervėčiai, etc.) ir destiny: jų vocabulary, generally rather poor, crowded crowded with Slavic words, sentences kų are constructed according to the models of Slavic languages, the phoneme ta itself can be pronounced several times, but phonological oppositions are Lithuanian, nouns ir ! Data collected by sociolinguist L. Grummied. 12 quickly learn Russian. Therefore, coming to school, city children already bring a few or a dozen learned Russian words and phrases, which, of course, are very short, for example: Name Ambruc? You three! Ilycru! [ait mme! From the first grade of primary school, —Russian language has recently been taught in the older groups of kindergartens—the children begin to learn Russian systematically. Anyway, children live their lives and play using their native language, although sometimes inserting another more commonly used Russian word or phrase (azaBaii, npuser, 3110poB (greeting), 3axox (screaming), Ha xoxy, maii6y! Hey, 3asn, moromm! ). Interesting are cases of linguistic contact in children's speech. In the native discourse of primary school pupils, apparently due to the influence of parents with lower education, canbe heard in the use of Russian ma words (gruzovikas, shaiba, chokėjus, davaj, zakonas, etc.). And sometimes Lithuanian students, speaking Russian, use Lithuanian Words that have been rearranged according to the characteristics of the Russian language (for example, CKHDTYM, THTHAT, KOIbI, KOHBAJIKS, IIYH/and others instead of real Russian words pa3HHIIa, KpPeMeHb, JIIOHBI, JAHIbINI, CBEPTOK). In the Seimas, at school, children communicate with their friends in their native Lithuanian language, but they watch movies and TV shows in ir su Russian, some read fiction only in Lithuanian, but in Russian. ar ne ir Therefore, pupils, especially in the older classes, feel the need to learn Russian, so pupils from the large ir cities of the republic, after finishing secondary school, are relatively good. ją Thus, the main channels through which Lithuanian children learn the Russian language are school, television and cinema games in ir year-olds. su The Russian language learned in secondary school is further developed in higher education. It is interesting to look at the significance of the daily communicatiir on of Lithuanian Russian language students for science, ir having in mind the broader sociolinguistic context. In this case, a sociological study was carried out sociolinguistically surveyed ir contingent of students (about du thousands) who 1975 m. joined į Kaunas Polytechnic Institute (Korsakas J., The 1979). Lithuanian linguistic social profile of the interviewed ką students is characterized by the following parameters: 49,8 94 of the said contingent, children of kolkhoz workers — 18,2 94 ir children of employees — 32 94. In that year į The tą institution was 36,5 9; accepted by girls ir 63,5 94 boys. About 40 % jų parents had a primary nį education, a 2994 — secondary school dropout, 159% — seconda494 — ry, incomplete high school ir 12 % — the highest. The mother tongue of the parents was stated as Lithuanian (98 %). It turned out that iš parents of other languages (approx. 90 %) best knows the Russian language. 594 Parents ir 12 9% mothers did not speak Russian at all. But instead 33 94 Parents ir 20 94 mothers spoke Russian only ne orally, but in writing. ir 159% parents spoke Polish. Iš of foreign languages spoken predominately German, followed ir by French English. This was the socio-linguistic environment of the Lithuanian students, in which their language jų education was formed. The following data from the socio-linguistic survey ir determines the language proficiency of the students themselves: question į “How do you speak your 29 9, mother tongue?” students answered: “I speak well, I ir read well, I write satisfactorily- ”; students 71 94 noted: “I speak, read and write well”. ir Į question “How do you speak Russian?” the students answered: “I speak fluently” (28 94 respondents), “satisfactory” (56 %), ‘weakly’ » 19 (16 %); "I write well" (6 Yo), "pleasantly" (60 %), ‘poor’ (34 95). In foreign languag6 % es students read fluently, 94 9, — weakly; 5 % students read be Zodyno ir 95% — su the dictionary. Thus, the main channels of Russian language learning, and thus of Lithuanian Russian ir bilingualism — formation are: first, learning the mo language of intercommunication of Soviet nations in school, second, direct contacts with foreign-speaking people in multinational work collectives, and third, service in the military. su Soviet In the army. Iš The data collected by sociolinguistic questionnaires from the census ir show that Russian language proficiency covers a wide mass of Lithuanian population. 1979 m. during the union census 48 9, of the population of the republic indicated Russian as the second language that they speak fluently (True, 1980 m. Februar22 y). 1970m. that number was still 33,8 94. Thus, the knowledge of the Russian language is ir constantly expanding rapidly, encompassing ever larger strata of the population. These significant indicators were obtained thanks to the tireless activities of the Communist Party of the Republic of ir Lithuania government in the international education of working people. In this sense, the fact that Russian has become ir the mother tongue of a certain number of Lithuanians and people of other ir nationalities living in the republic is striking. 1979 m. Russian was declared as the native language of Belarusians during 25 720 the union census, 17 447 Poles, 14 330 Ukrainian, 7 990 Jewish, 5 745 lietuviai (BeCTHHK So far, the 71). quantitative side of Russian language proficiency has been described more ir extensively. Due to the lack of more detailed research, it is difficult to say anything specific ką about the quality of payment consumption. The nature and quality to of the Russian ir speech used by Lithuanians in the collective monograph “Development of National—Russian Bilingualism” ir (M., in 1976) fairly detail has described V. Michalchenko. Ji is based on the four-degree division of Russian bilingualism of Soviet peoples — adopted in Soviet social linguistics: į I I-IV grade pupils language practice, degree II bilingualism — V — VIII grades, III degree Lithuanian Russian bilinguali- — sm consists of IX — XI grade programmes Russian language teaching requiremenir IV ts for the degree of bilingualism correspond to the knowledge of the iš Russian language of higher education students. Bet ir be Special studies have shown that the Russian language proficiency of different social groups in Lithuanian society is not the same, one social group is better, the other worse. In Lithuanian-speaking Russian, it is easy to notice — the transfer of Lithuanian language norms into Russian pronunciation, word coordination (for example, Lithuanians find it particularly difficult to learn to use Russian plurals — į ITI personal verb forms) sentence ir construction. On the other hand, the ta interference is not so great that it would make communication completely impossible. Tą most of the high school graduates: they are satisfied with the Russian language skills they have acquired there. Interference phenomena (e.g., 6ute ‘beating’: OsiTb the inability to pronounce a phoneme is t. y. a temporary thing. In general, +) Lithuanian —Russian bilingualism, it seems, should be regarded as bilateral: at the last census, almost half of Lithuanians declared that they spoke Russian fluently. However, ir most of the Russians who have lived in the territory of the republic for a long time also understand ar Lithuanian more or less, and often speak o Lithuanian. ir Lithuanian-- — Russian bilingualism is contact-based: it arises from iš daily communication between two nations. 20 Unlike local bilingualism, which exists in a part of the territory of the republic (an example can be Polish-Lithuanian bilingualism in Vilnius region), Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism is global: it is a case of national-Russian bilingualism, the main type of bilingualism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, having state, social-political significance. The main reason for changing the code, in this case from Lithuanian to Russian, is the presence of a non-Lithuanian participant in the communicative act. ; Lithuanians use the Russian language not only to communicate with representatives of other nationalities, but also to read fiction and special literature, listen to Moscow radio and watch central television programs, get acquainted with the rich culture of the Russian nation. The Lithuanian intelligentsia values and has always valued the great Russian language and its cultural significance. During the years of the rule of the bourgeoisie, whose borders were open to Russia, the progressive part of Lithuanian society, especially the youth, was increasingly interested in the life of the USSR, Soviet and classical Russian literature, and learned the Russian language, not paying attention to the unfavorable or simply hostile position of the official strata. As a beginner writer and living in a poor dormitory in Žiburėlis, Petras Cvirka studied Russian at night when everyone was asleep. Kostas Korsakas learned Russian and read Pushkin in Šiauliai prison. "I remember very well," writes A. Venclova (1958, 474), "with what enthusiasm advanced pupils, without textbooks, without dictionaries, devoted their free time to studying the Russian language [...]. I learned Russian so well without any help that after graduating from high school I read Russian classics and Soviet authors fluently [...]”. Here is how Russian language and acquaintance with Russian literature and culture influenced the formation of A. Venclova- ’s personality: “My years of study, beginning in the autumn of 1925, were the period when the unspeakable treasures of Russian literature opened up before me in full breadth; these years have developed in me a deep love of progressive Russian culture, formed my worldview; It was then that I finally found my way as a writer, distancing myself from the bourgeois order and taking the side of the Soviet Union” (Venclova, 1958, 475). a *k k Xx Due to the fundamental socialist reorganization of Soviet Lithuania, Lithuanian- -Russian bilingualism has a tendency to ir strengthen and expand. In the years of Soviet rule, it can be said, the demographic parameters of society changed fundamentally, which directly affected the composition of language users. The number of peasants decreased significantly and the number of workers increased. In 1940 there were 179 thousand workers in Lithuania, and in 1975 there were already 1 million. 325 thousand, i.e. 7.4 times more than in 1940 mi. This change in the composition of language users has a dual significance for language use. First, the working class is in most cases a user of the common form of Lithuanian. Secondly, the working class, the most dynamic and socially active group in society, tends to learn and use other languages more quickly. In the years of Soviet rule, the population of the cities grew rapidly. In 1897, 2 million. Of the 536 thousand inhabitants, the urban population was 14 94, i.e. 355 thousand, the rural population was 1 million. 21 o 2 181 thousand, or 86 %. 1939 m. population was mil. 2 880 thousands, iš jų 658 Thousands Place ir 2 thousand. 221 Thousands rural, or 22,9 %, ir 77,1 %. 1979 m. iš bendro 3 mil. 398,8 Thousands population of the city population amounted to mil. 2 61,7 thousand, or 60,7 94, o rural population 1 mil. 337,1 thousand, or 39,3 9. In socio-linguistic terms, this means that almost one third of the du total population of the republic now have a smaller or greater contact with other languages and are ar therefore potentially su bilingual. * * * A description of the situation in the Lingvosocial Republic would ir be incomplete if — we did not take into account the second side of this phenomenon, which is as important as the first, namely, the knowledge and use of Lithuanian by the people of Russian nationality living in the Republic. Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism is the other side of Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism. The development of mutual bilingualism in the present conditions helps to further strengthen the friendship of nations, their mutual trust and understanding. “Of course, proper attention should be paid to Russian-Lithuanian and other types of bilingualism. For example, it is important to help Russians and representatives of other nations, permanently living in Lithuania, to learn the Lithuanian language, to adopt Lithuanian — rusy bilingualism”, — notes J. Dešerijevas (1979, 10). People of Russian and other Soviet nations who live permanently in the republic have good conditions to learn Lithuanian. In addition to direct communication in Lithuanian on the street, in the market, in the store or in school, at work, Lithuanian is taught in secondary schools where Russian, Polish and other nationalities children study, in university and institute groups. Every year, the Society “Žinija” organizes Lithuanian language courses. The knowledge of Lithuanian language among Russians and people of other nationalities living in our republic, its extent can be judged by very general traits, because there are no descriptions and researches in this field. When describing Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism, two things should be taken into account, namely: firstly, a part of the Russian nationality living in the republic uses the literary Russian language for interpersonal communication and came to work permanently after the Great Patriotic War. Secondly, some people of Russian nationality use the spoken Russian language among themselves, one of its dialects and are old-timers. According to the census of 17 September 1923, 50,460 people of Russian nationality lived on the territory of Lithuania, or 2.5% of the total population of bourgeois Lithuania. According to the 1979 census, there were 303,000 people of Russian ethnicity in the republic, or 8.9% of the total population. Those of the first category, who have learned Lithuanian, use the common Lithuanian language, and those of the second category, who are old people of Russian nationality, are all bilingual and use Lithuanian dialects. — ir There are three periods of Russians’ arrival in Lithuania: the first period — from the first appearance of Russian inhabitants in ethnographic Lithuania until the church reform in 1667; The second period — from 1667 until the annexation of Lithuania to Russia in 1795, the third period begins in 1795 and ends with the First World War. :. 22 People of Russian nationality fled to Lithuania mainly because of religious persecution. For example, it is known that 1490 m. Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, ordered by the Grand Duke and blessed by Metropolitan Zosima, declared the heretic "O/1HHX BejIeJI XCUK Ha ĮĮyXOBCKOM IIOJIE, HHbIX TOpTOBEICe Ka3HW IIDpe/IaJIH, A HHbIX B 3aTOYEHHE IIOCJIA, a maple B JIutBy cOexamm®" (Hemuenko B., 1963, 64). The fact that Lithuania, marked by tolerance towards dissidents, has long been inhabited by people of Russian nationality, is confirmed by the existence of Orthodox churches. In Vilnius, churches built in the 14th century by Duke Algirdas have survived to this day (Piatnickio church, built in 1345, Uspenskio cathedral, built in 1346). There was also an Orthodox church in Kaunas; it was only demolished in 1620 by King Sigismund Vasa. A. Stankevičius (1909, I), the author of the “Outline of Russian settlements in Lithuania”, mentions the Kaunas Orthodox Church and Surdegio Monastery — “this impregnable fortress of Orthodoxy in the 18th century,” — as well as some Russian islands in the Wrocław district, which arose in the former Duchy of Polotsk. Most of the Russian elders are descendants of the elders (crapoo®psiamsr) who fled to Lithuania when persecution began after the church reform in 1667. From the beginning of the 17th century, perhaps a little earlier, the Sentiki, most of whom were followers of the sect of Theodosius Vasilyev, gradually began to move from Vitebsk gubernia to the neighboring lands of Livonia and Lithuania, seeking not only freedom of faith, but also free work. Their oldest settlements were Rimkai in Jonava district (PLiMxu KoseHnckoro yesma), Degučiai in Zarasai district (Įlerynsi HosBoajiekcagjipoBeroro ye3/ta), Girelė in Anykščiai district, near Kavarskas (Ilymejns BujgkoMuperoro yesma) and Mid-Belarusian SSR (Bumsst HosoajiekcaH/tpoBcroro ye3na). Favorable conditions for Russians to move to Lithuania were created in 1795 when it was Russian Empire. However, only after the 1831 uprising did the government plan for colonization mature. They are used to support the elderly and to raise new peasants in the free state lands. 158 families were then transferred and majorates were established in Jurbarkas and Tauragė. The colonization was particularly active after 1861, when its affairs began to be managed by the governor-general M. Muravyov, nicknamed the "korik" by the people because of his cruelty. In 1862, i.e. a year after M. Muravyov took office, there were already 13,000 Russians in Lithuania, scattered in 730 villages of the former Lithuania. Kaunas, Ukmergė, Zarasai and Panevėžys counties. There was not a single centurion in the districts of Telšiai, Raseiniai and Šiauliai at that time. As early as 1864, up to 653 families were resettled on the lands confiscated by the participants of the uprising — nobles and peasants. In 1867, 1,016 families were settled by means of various benefits and financial aid. 1863–1900 in the BOB. The county has a population of 2,129. Demographic surveys in 1907—1908 showed that in Kaunas county lived 6073 people of Russian nationality (1079 yards), Raseiniai — 1343 people (239 yards), Telšiai — 934 people (126 yards), Ukmergė — 5654 people (955 yards), Panevėžys — 1545 people (277 yards), Šiauliai — 4327 people (650 yards), Zarasai — 21 454 people (3449 yards). So, in all, was. In 2000, the county had a population of 41,330. 23 The inhabitants of Kaunas district Russians claim that their ancestors lived in Vitebsk governorate; The inhabitants of Zarasai district believe that their ancestors moved from Tver gubernia, etc. The Saints, who belonged to the Theodosius sect, moved to Lithuania from the Pskov and Novgorod regions, where this sect was widespread. The analysis of the characteristics of the old Lithuanian-Russian dialects shows that these dialects are closest to the Pskov dialects. In 1959, 53 thousand people of Russian ethnicity lived in rural areas, mainly in Zarasai and Jonava districts (19 and 12.9% of the total population, respectively). Only a part of the Russians live in separate villages, otherwise they are mostly mixed with Lithuanians in the so-called Vilnius region — and with Poles and Belarusians. The majority of children of Russian expatriates attend Lithuanian schools together with Lithuanian children. However, some of them also study in Russian-language schools, which were opened in the years of Soviet rule. Lithuanian Russians are bilingual, speaking both Russian and Lithuanian. It is characteristic that the Lithuanian Russians have preserved their way of life, their national traditions, customs, their faith and language to this day. The language of intercommunication among Soviet peoples and its role The present stage of the development of the Soviet folk language, in addition to the tendency of unrestricted functioning and development of national languages, is characterized by the tendency of expansion of the language of intercommunication among Soviet peoples (s35IK MexHanHOoHajIbHOTO OOnIemHs). The Soviet people is a multinational community of people. There are approximately 130 languages spoken in the Soviet Union. So it is quite understandable that in the economic, socio-political and cultural life of Soviet society naturally arose the social necessity to have one of all ir TSR The language of ir communication between the peoples of the Union nations. This role has been given to the Russian language. Languages of Russia “increasing role in the life of Soviet society, emerging developing ir Soviet people, new historical community of people, intensifying nations, peoples ir jų cultures, is conditioned by social factors, objective laws of the construction of socialism and communism”, ir emphasizes — J. Desheriev (1976, 420), one of the most prominent researchers of the problem of the Russian language as a means of communication between Soviet nations. Russian language is a means of ta communication, through which various TSR The representatives of the peoples of the Union shall communicate with each other. Realizing the great importance of the Russian ir language in their life at work, Soviet — people of all Soviet nations, peoples, ethnographic ir groups of nationalities independently learn it — ir ją uses. The Russian language thus serves as the language of communication between the Soviet nations. Be these very important functions, the Russian language performs other ir functions, namely: the function of the national language of the Russian (in addition to English, French) iš international communication language function. The Russian language was adopted as a means of communication among the Soviet nations for the following reasons: 24 1. The Russian nation is the greatest iš of all TSR The peoples ir of the Union of nations. 1979 m. population census data, total iš mil. 262 Soviet The population of the Union of people of Russian nationality is 137.3 million. (about 53 9, of the total population). So people of Russian nationality make up more than half Soviet of the Union's population. In addition, at the time of the census 16.3 mil. people of non-Russian ethnicity spoke Russian for a time in their native language. So, mil. 153,5 people (approx. 60 9, of the country's population) Russian is the native language. 2. During the 61,3 millennium. people of non-Russian nationality indicated Russian as the second language they speak fluently (1970 m. — 41,9 thousand. patients). 3. The Russian people are widely spread throughopo ut the country. 1979 m. census data, 23, 8 thousand. people of Russian nationality lived už 10.4 million Ukrainians lived outside the RSFSR. (or 21.1 9, of the total population of the republic), Belarus TSR — 1,1 thousand. (or 11,9 94), Uzbekistan TSR — 1,6 thousand. (or 10,8 %), Kazakhstan TSR — 5,9 thousand. (or 40,8 94), Georgian TSR — 372 Thousands (or 7,4 %), Azerbaijan TSR — 475 Thousands (or 7,9 %), Lietuvos TSR — 303 Thousands (or 8,9 %), Moldova TSR — 506 Thousands (or 12,8 94), Latvian TSR — 821 Thousands (or 32,8 9), Kyrgyz TSR — 912 Thousands (or 25,9 94), Tajikistan TSR — 395 Thousands (or 10,4 %), Armenia TSR — 70 Thousands (or 2,3 94), Turkmenistan TSR — 349 Thousands (or 12,6 94) ir Estonia TSR — 409 Thousands (or 27,9 %). 4. Russian is genetically very close to Ukrainian, the other two major Soviet nations.) — (42,3 ir Belarusian (9,4 rubles) — languages. Therefore, the representatives of these nations, which together make up the 33 94 of the country's population, easily learns well ir the Russian language. This feature has been noted by ir emphasizing V. Lenin (Writing, 19, 221): „„... more than seven tenths The Russian population belongs to related Slavic tribes, which, with a free school in a free state, would easily achieve, due to the requirements of economic turnover, the possibility of be communicating no ‘state’ privileges for one iš language’. 5. The Russian language, the greatest spiritual treasure of the Russian nation, is rightly considered one of the richest languages in the world. Having studied Russian, F. Engels (1961, 18, 526) emphasized that the Russian language "in all respects worth learning as one of the ją most powerful and rich living iš languages." ir In a message V. Zasulič 1884 m. F. Engels wrote with enthusiasm: “What a beautiful Russian language! All the positives of the German language in be its terrible roughness" (Mapkc u BDurembe, Counnenus, 36, 106). Other researchers, for example, Desheriev, point to J. other social factors (1977, 34), that led to the emergence of Russian as the language of mutual communication among Soviet peoples, namely: first, it is impossible to demand that every Soviet man, in į communicating with the Russian people, should be able to communicate in Russian. iš ar su TSR All members of the family are fluent in 130 all languages. Secondly, it is unrealistic to arrange the writing in the central institutions in all languages of the nations, peoples and ir ethnic groups of our country. Thirdly, it would be very difficult to maintain effective relations between the national republics, regions and districts of the regions that form such an independent community of nations as ir the Russian Federation, without a į language for inter-ethnic communication. Soviet Union. Fourthly, the absence of a language for inter-ethnic communication would impede the successful economic, political and cultural development of a multi-ethnic country. ir 25 Under the conditions of mature ir socialism, the role of the Russian language as a means of communication ir between the Soviet nations in the further process of building communism objectively increases. The spread of the Russian language the ir intensification of its use in part are iš related ir su in that, as noted in the book “Russian language as a means of communication between nations” in the (1977) afterword, “Russian language is the Lenin’s language, the language ir of advanced ja culture and science, is the language of literature that reflects all the achievements of human thought. Life itself shows that the knowledge of the Russian language for everyone For a citizen of the USSR has become necessary (understood in full respect of the voluntary nature of its learning)’. F. Phillin in the same book (p. 8) adds in this regard: “In our country, not knowing Russian now means — depriving oneself of iš the richest source of knowledge, impoverishing oneself spiritually, limiting one’s life to local conditions. Life itself claims that all "Russian language is required for citizens of the USSR". Although in general Soviet people, representatives of various ir Soviet nations, nationalities, are relatively well versed in the Russian language, it still often happens that young people who come to serve in the į Soviet Army, speaks Russian weakly. Instead of immediately starting a military training program, such young people have to be taught Russian, which o requires a lot of time and resourceir s. Be sufficient knowledge of the Russian language is not possible productive work in the national economy. The economy and scientific-technical potential of the union republics are developing and growing in the common economic and scientific-technical complex of the Soviet Union. A good command of the Russian language is a social necessity arising from the interests of creating communism. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the Party and Soviet bodies, and the whole Soviet society, were concerned about the teaching of the Russian language and the publication of certain important documents in this regard. On October 13, 1978, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted the Decree “On measures to further improve the teaching of the Russian language in the union republics”, which proposed to divide the classes of I-III all and IV-X city schools with more than 25 pupils in half for the purpose of teaching the Russian language, and authorized the ministries of education of the union republics to redistribute the hours in the curricula and correspondingly increase the hours allocated to the teaching of the Russian language. It is recommended that new textbooks for Russian be prepared and that some subjects be taught in Russian in higher and partly in secondary schools. It is planned to prepare and introduce in pedagogical institutes from 1980 a new curriculum for the specialty of Russian language and literature in national schools, which aims to prepare teachers of this profile more fundamentally, etc. The scientific-theoretical conference “Russian language – a language of friendship and cooperation among the peoples of the USSR”, held in Tashkent in May 1979, played an important role in the activation of the teaching of Russian language in the union republics and in solving the problems of linguistic creation that arose in the period of mature socialism. The conference recommended improving the teaching of Russian language in the older groups of kindergartens (from 5 years old), creating conditions for active Russian language practice in secondary general education schools, better preparing future workers in vocational and technical education schools from spoken and written Russian language and its terminology, applying in special secondary and higher education institutions the teaching of Russian language in the older groups of kindergartens (from 5 years old). 26 The ir experience of higher schools of other union republics of — Moldova, namely some social and special disciplines, starting from the II-III years, taught in Russian, etc. ir The scientific- -theoretical conference “Russian language – the language of friendship and cooperation among the peoples of the USSR” showed that it is necessary to organically combine, on the one hand, the development and use of the native languages of the Soviet peoples, the enrichment of their social functions, and, on the other hand, the expansion of the language of communication between the nations – the Russian language. In his greeting to the participants of the conference, Brezhnev profoundly justified the national policy of the Communist Party, described the current role of national languages and the language of communication between nations: “In the early conditions of socialism, when the economy of our country became a common complex of national economy, a new historical community — the Soviet people — emerged, the role of the Russian language as the language of communication between nations objectively increases in the creation of communism, in the education of a new man. The fluent command of the Russian language, which all Soviet nations have voluntarily adopted as a common historical heritage, helps to further strengthen the political, economic and spiritual unity of the Soviet people” (Bpexnes JIeHMHCKHM KypcoM, T. 8, c. 44). Thus, under the conditions of mature socialism, the national languages and the Russian language, as the language of communication between nations, complement each other in the life and activities of Soviet people. As P. Fedoseyev, F. Filin and others have already observed, the spread of the Russian language as a means of communication between Soviet nations does not harm the national languages. On the contrary, Russian contributes to the prosperity of all national languages and, as a mediator of their relations, depending on its creative use, can enrich national languages. “The fact that it is necessary for all citizens of the USSR to speak Russian,” writes F. Filin (1977, 8—9), “is not contrary to the interests of non-Russian peoples and nationalities. The principle of voluntary learning of the languages of the peoples of the USSR remains the most important. National languages are developing and flourishing and will continue to do so, and there should be no restrictions on national interests. We are talking about something else, namely, about universal bilingualism of citizens of non-Russian nationality, where the Russian language, as a means of communication between nations, and national languages would continue to exist in harmony, without any antagonism.” Bilingualism is considered an important condition for the functioning and spread of the Russian language in the union and autonomous republics. Bilingualism, as is known, is widespread not only in the Soviet country, but also in many other countries. Only in a socialist society, as P. Fedoseyev (1980, 68) points out, the basis for bilingualism is fundamentally different: bilingualism creates a linguistic environment in which national languages develop and enrich, but at the same time the need to know Russian, the language of mutual communication of the Soviet nations, increases. P. Fedoseyev writes: “It is important to continue to explain in a targeted and consistent manner that under the conditions of bilingualism, national-Russian bilingualism, national interests are not restricted in any way, but, on the contrary, a linguistic situation is created that allows the harmonious combination of international and national origins in the culture of nations. Therefore, equal bilingualism, as one of the most important principles of linguistic creation in the Union of TSRs, is required for further development and wide application at various levels of education, especially in national secondary and higher schools.” 27 “A distinctive feature of bilingualism (and polylingualism) in our country, —as the editors of the publication “The Russian language as a means of communication between nations” (1977, 3) note, —is that in our country languages coexist in harmony and there is no national-linguistic antagonism, —all this depends on the fact that in the Soviet country Leninist national policy is implemented, based on the friendship of the nations of socialist society, united by the goal of great global importance — the establishment of communism. The most important task of our language policy is to help the national literary languages flourish in every way and at the same time to ensure that all citizens of the USSR know Russian.” : These principled statements are confirmed by the scientific analysis of the real socio-linguistic situation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1969—1976, the work Laws of the Development of Literary Languages of the Peoples of the USSR in the Soviet Years, prepared at the initiative of the Scientific Council, was published in many volumes on the complex problem of Laws of the Development of National Languages in Relation to the Development of Socialist Nations. The work consists of individual books of — collective monographs, which in turn consist of descriptions of individual languages. The first monograph “The main processes of the ir development of the internal structure of Iranian Iberian-Caucasian languages” is dedicated to the (1969) Tajik, Ossetian, Kurdish, Adygean, Laki, Abkhaz languages. The second monograph “The main processes ir of structural development of the Turkish, Finno-Ugric and Mongolian languages” ir describes the languages of Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Tuvans, Gagauzes, Estonians, Komi-Zyrians, (1969) Buryat Samoyeds and other Northern peoples. ir Changes in Armenian, Lithuanian, Moldovan, Azerbaijani, ir Uzbek and Georgian literary languages during the Soviet years are analyzed in the monograph “Structural Development of Old-School Languages”. (1973). The final book of the talk is J. Desheriev’s monograph “The Development of Social Functions of Literary Languages” (1976). — “The Laws of the Development of Literary Languages of the Peoples of the USSR in the Soviet Years” is a frontal study based on complex methods, which has not been found in Soviet or foreign language science. Iš on the one hand, in the chapters written by individual language specialists are examined changes in language structures, lexical, phraseological stylistic ir The enrichment of the languages of the USSR peoples in the Soviet years, the second, iš Desheriev's J. monograph examines the languages į sociologically, the functioning of the language in society is — studied, the spheres of social language use are determined ir jų change depending on the development of culture, ir economy and society. Multiple The results of the frontal study of the functioning of the national ir language structure of the Soviet country J. Desheriev (1976, 425) summarized as follows: “The emergence of any common features In the languages of the USSR peoples (phonetics, grammar) there is a rather long process. Therefore, when examining linguistic development TSR In the Union, the problem of forecasting, we cannot be guided by the concept of language convergence, fusion, linguistic union as a result of great social significance." The publication of the multi-volume work confirmed that the native, national languages ir of the Soviet peoples, functioning freely, revealing their inner potentials of development, rapidly developing, occupy a firm position in the life of the peoples, because the constituent elements of the language are essentially constant, they do not easily yield to the influence of other languages in ir a short period of time. tų iš ar ir The practice of the small Nordic countries suggests a similar ir scenario: with the rise of the Soviet nations’ 28 economy and culture, literary languages flourished, and with the increase of social integration, the ir processes of enrichment of language interaction began to play an important role. The present stage of development of multinational Soviet society is characterized by several features: a common complex of national economy based on high-level technology; the social ir homogeneity of the whole socialist society; socialist democracy; multinational culture of socialist content; Marxist-Leninist ideology, the principles of socialist internationalism. Therefore, it is quite understandable that these phenomena in a mature socialist society cause the intensification of the processes of internationalization, the processes of comprehensive ir cooperation, the strengthening of fraternal friendship among all Soviet t. y. nations, the consolidation of the social and economic union of the Soviet ir nations, and the development of the jų socialism of the Soviet Union. The most important factors determining the processes of internationalization are the common material-technical base of socialism, the unified union state, the Soviet culture of socialist content, national form and international essence, the wide spread of the language of mutual communication among the Soviet nations. ir (Vejocees II., 1980, 61). Voluntary rapprochement of nations under socialism conditions is foreseen by V. Lenin. "The goal of — socialism, he wrote, (Writing, 22, 135), — is only the ne division of humanity into small į states, the abolition of ir any separation of nations, only the convergence ne of nations, but ir jų merger’. The nation is, iš on the one hand, a permanent historical community, and, on the iš other, a form of social development formed on the basis of the community of economic life. Thus, in the Marxist definition of the nation, the į first place is given to the commonality of economic life, as well as the important features of the nation are the commonality of language and territory, culture, national consciousness psychology ir (Jlegauau3aM x HaOHOHAJIBHEIH Borpoc, 23). National peculiarities, or differences, are primarily language ir culture, national consciousneir ss psychology. They are clearly expressed in the daily life of the ethnic ar group of the nation, in traditions and customs. The ir sense of national belonging, the need for ir national interaction, national interests, feelings, ideas, national pride, the peculiarities of national traditions and ethnographic life, the perception and meaning of one’s nation, the nation’s relations with other nations, peoples, nationalities and ethnic groups, the ability to create, to make one’s contribution to the civilization of mankind – all this belongs to the national consciousness. National psychology includes national character, national feelings, national peculiarities of temperament, moods and habits, the psychological side of national traditions and customs. It would be wrong to think that as a result of the rapprochement of nations, all these national, ethnic characteristics, and especially language, will disappear. Lenin highlighted the presumption of the rapprochement and merger of nations in socialist society in three essential moments. Based the programmatic statutes of the party on the national question, Lenin (Writing, 24, 54) wrote: "The proletarian party strives to create as large a state as possible, because this is useful to the working people, it strives for the rapprochement and further amalgamation of nations, but it wants to achieve this goal not by force, but exclusively by free, fraternal union of workers and working people of all nations." Lenin (Writing, 31, 68-69) also pointed out that national differences “will persist for a very long time even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale.” So when he talks about the rapprochement and fusion of nations 3* ; 35 Under the conditions of socialism, Lenin V. meant that, first, the process of the melting of the nations is free, voluntary, secondly, it is the formation of close unity of socialist nations, a ir fraternal union, but the elimination of national differences and, thirdly, the existence of national differences, peculiarities is stable in the long term. jų ne ir Based on this, the Soviet The Programme of the Communist Party of the Union states that, the Soviet With the defeat of communism in the Union, the nations will become even closer, the economic and jų ideological ir commonality will increase, the common communist features of jų the spiritual face will expand. “But the erasure of national differences, especially linguistic differences, is a much longer — process than the erasure of class boundaries,” it emphasizes. — In the program. In the report on USSR the draft Constitution L. Brezhnev noted: "The social-political unity of the Soviet people does not mean the disappearance of national differences at all." Ir iš in fact, the new historical community of people — the Soviet people does — not eliminate existing nations and does not create some superstructures on the nations, but it is an example of the unification of people of different nationalities, where the nations and nations themselves, their distinctiveness, language and culture remain together. There have never been such wide possibilities for the development, renewal and enrichment of national attributes and factors as now (®exocees II., 1980, 63). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union implements Leninist national policy. In its Programme (1961, 93) it is stated:,,... and in the future to ensure the free development of the languages of the peoples of the USSR, complete freedom for every citizen of the USSR to speak, raise and teach their children in any language, without making any privileges and restrictions and without forcing the use of one or another language. Under the conditions of brotherly friendship and mutual trust between nations, 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 the mother tongue and to be taught in the mother tongue at school: the implementation of the rights granted to the citizens of the USSR,,... ensures the policy of comprehensive development and rapprochement of all nations and nationalities of the USSR, the education of citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, the possibility of using the mother tongue other ir "Languages of the World". The right of citizens į of the be USSR to education, among many other factors, is guaranteed by the "possibility of education in the mother tongue". * k * In this thesis some aspects of the socio-linguistic situation of the republic are reviewed. Iš reviews show that Lithuanian language plays a ir dominant role in the social and cultural life of the republic. The development and functioning of the mother ir tongue, which is ensured by the implementation of the principles of Lenin's national policy in the Soviet state, is a necessary condition for the education of a new person, successful socialization, rapid jo acquisition of spiritual values ir created by other nations, the ir formation of spiritual potential. jo The Communist Party is very concerned about this. In addition, to the Russian language, which is the main means of communication between the Soviet nations, is gaining increasing social importance. The knowledge of Russian language complements the social functions of Lithuanian language, contributes to the formation of a new person. The harmonious coexistence of Lithuanian and Russian languages is a ir prominent feature of the language-social situation in the republic. 36 LITERATŪRA || Mapkce K., 9urejisbe G, Cou. 2-¢ u3n., T. 36. BDureme GX. DvmrpanTckas surepatypa. — B kn: Maprc K., Dureasc GO. Cou. 2-6 KL, T. 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. Bpexnes JI. U. Vuacrankam Beecoro3noit RayuHo-TeopeTHueckoil KOHĖepeHuxH ,, Pycckumii S35IK — A3BIK JIpyxObI H coTpyamumyectsa Haponos CCCP“. — B xu.: Bpexnes JI. WU. Jlenunckum KypcoMm. M., 1981, T. 8, c. 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. — Lietūvos 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. §, 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. ABpopun B. A. OnsiT H3y3eHHs1 OYHKOKOHAJIbHOTO B3AHMOJIEČHCTBHA A36IKOB Y HApOJIOB CuOxHpu. — BA, 1970, Ne 1. AkBpopum B. A. JIeHHHCKHE rpHBHnHNsI HaLHOHAJIbLHOH IOJIMTHKHM, — BA, 1970, Me 2. Aspopun B. A. Įlsys3brane H mrojia. — B KH. Ilpo6j1eM5I ĮBYs35MHA H MHOros3sraus. M., 1972. Aspopun B. A. IlpoGxeMbi H3y4eHHA OyBKIKMOHAJIbHOŽH CTOPOHBI S3bIKA. — JI., 1975. 5a3nes A. T., HcaeB M. H. SI351x x Hamza. — M., 1973. Bacraros H. A. PaseuTnue s35IKOB H NmCbMeHHOCTH HapojjoB CCCP. — BS, 1952, Ne 3. Bejnoneg H. K. Pycckuit s3bIK — S35IK MEKHAUHOHAILHOIO obmernus Hapojxjos CCCP. — Kues, 1962, | Beacnen H. K. Pa3BuTue s35IKOB COLHAJIHCTH4eCKHX gamut CCCP. — Kues, 1969. Beaonen Hi. K. Jlenuuckas TeOpHS HANHOHAIBHO-A3BIKOBOrO CTDpOHTeJIbCTBA B COLKHAJIHCTHYCCKOM obmecrse. — M., 1972. Bexnojnen WU. K., Ai351xK x uzeojioruueckas 60ps56a. — Kues, 1974. Eenonen H. K., Wxakesnq I'. II., Yepropuxckan T. K. Pycckuit s3bIK KAK HCTOYHHK oGoraniemus S35IKOB HapojjoB CCCP. — Kues, 1978. Bepaureiin B. HexoTopsie HCTOYHUKE H (DOpMEI NPOSBICHHS HHTep$jepeHIHH B IIpOlECCe H3y“4eHHS WHOS3LIYHON JIeKCHKH, — B KH.: B3aHMoneliCcTBHe S35IKOB B IIpOnecce obyuenms | Tom pen. B. Illapgaca. Bunmesaroc, 1971. B3aHMOOTHOmMERNE DA3BHTHS HAIMOHAJILHLIX S35IKOB H HANHOHANBHBIX KYJIbTyp | OTB. pen. IO. JĮ. Jemepues, 3. T. Tymanan. — M., 1980. B3anuM00THONIeHHe S35IKOB H KYJIbTYp Hapogos CCCP B ycloBHSIX pa3BHTOrO coumamuima: PedeparuBHBsIū cGopauk. — M., 1980. Becrank crarucrTarz, — M., 1980, Ne 10. Buayrupuc A., Kapamonac C. K sonpocy o Turiax npys3eidest B Jlatosckoit CCP, — B KH: ITpo6Gnemsl aBysi3eaus H MHOrossedus, M., 1972, Burorpanos B. B. Benukuii pycckmii s3eik. — M., 1945. Bunorpanos B. B. Pycckumii A35IK B COBpeMEHHOM MHEpe. — Pycckas peus, 1970, Ne 1. BHYTPHCTPYKTYPHOE Da3BHTHE CTAPONMCHMEHHBIX Si35IKOB | OTB, pei. a-p duno. H. FO. J. Hdemepues. — M., 1973. T'apmea K. K. Pa3sutne nsysssraus B Jlurosckoit CCP. — Tp. AH JIatCCP. Cepus A, 1982, r. 3(79). I'payauna JI. K., Cemenora M. O. Pycckuii s3bix B JlaTsmiickott CCP. — B xn.: Pycckuif a35IK kak | CDpeJICTBO MEXHALMOHANLHOrO oOmenus. M., 1977. T'prmkasauyc II. II. Coserckas Jura. — M., 1978. I'pumxsasuuyc II. B emaroMm crporo Haponos CCCP, — Bunsuioc, 1980. I'pocce P. O cooTHOWIEHNH A3bIKa H Hanau. — VIHOCTpaHHBIEe A3bIKH B IIKOJIE, 1970, Ne 3. HAemepues IO. JI. PasBurne MiaomuchMeHHBIX S(35IKOB Hapoaos CCCP, — M., 1958. HAemepnes IO. JĮ. O pa3BuTHH s35IKOB Haponos CCCP. — Bm: Bonpocs! CTPOHTENBCTBA KOMMYma3ma B CCCP. M., 1959. Hemepues IO. Jį. 3axoHOMepHOCTH Pa3’BHTHA H B3aUMOJCHCTBHS SA3BIKOB B COBETCKOM 0Omecree. — M., 1966. HAemepner IO. JI. K MeTononoruu TEOpHH GHIMHIBH3MA H METOANKE GHIHHIBHCTHYECKHX HCCJIEnoBamuž. — B xH.: Merojisi GHIMArBHCTHYECKHX HCCJIenoBannit. — M., 1976 (B cchutkax: a). 38 Jlewepues IO. JI. 3akoHoMepHOCTH pa3BHTHA JIMTEPATYPHBIX A3BIKOB HApOJIOB CCCP 8 coBer ckyio anoxy. Pa3BuTHe OGInecTBeHHEIX (jyHKINMNŪ JIATEpaTYypHbIX A35IKOB. — M., 1976 (B ccbur |, Kax: 6). Jlemepnen IO. JĮ. Passurue OOmecrBeHHbIX (DYHKUMI JIMTOBCKOTO H JIpyTHX JIATEpaTypHbIX A3bIKOB.B Jlutosckoit CCP. — B xx.: Įlemrepues IO. JĮ. Pa3saurne OoGOriecrTBeHHbIx OYyHKIMĖ JIHTepaTypHbIX A3bIKOB. M., 1976 (B cchuIKax: 6). Jlemepues IO. JĮ. Pa3Burue conManbHbIX (DyHKIMĖ pyCCKOTO A3bIKA Kak o6mero A3bIKA MeXHALKOHAJI5HOTO ob6menus HapojoB CCCP. — B xu.: Pycceknit A3b5IK KaK CPEACTBO MeXHAIHOHAaJIbHoro oOmenus, M., 1977. Įlemepnes IO. JĮ. 51351K0B516 IIpOOJ71eMB5I B3aHMOJIEŽHCTBHSA KYJIbTYp. — B kH.: MexHaumoHabHbIC CBS3H H B3ammoeiicTere KYJIBTYp HapojjoB CCCP. Tamms, 1978, ĮlĮemepues IO. JĮ. CospeMeHHoe cocrogHHe CONHOJIMHTBHCTHKH B CCCP xm akryaJibubie npoGieMBI Pa3BHTHS A3LIKOBON XH3BHH coBeTcKoro obmecrsa. — B xa.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979, Jlemepues IO. JĮ., Ilporsenxo H. d. HarnnonajibHbLie OTHONIeHHA B 3pejiOM CONHAJIHKCTHYECKOM oOnmiecTBe H pa3BHTHC ABYS3BIYHSA B HAIIHOHAJIbHLIX INHKOJIax, — B xu.: IlyTH pa3BHTHA HAIlIHOHAJI5bHO-DpYyCCKOTO JIBYS35IYHS B Hepycckux mkonax PCOCP, M., 1979. Jixynycos M. O HekKOTOpELIX AKTyaJbHBIX TEOPETHYCCKHX BONpOCaX HALMOHAILHOW MOJIHTHKH KIICC. — B xx.: HarepHanmoHajibHOe BOocnuTaHHe Tpyjaniuxca. Pura, 1967. Kykayckac K. K. Cosepmencrsyem oOyuemue pycckoMYy s35iKy. — Tarybinė mokykla, 1976, Nr. 4. 3akapsan M. Jlexcuxo-ceManTHYeCKas HHTep(jepeHIIHSA IPH H3y4eHHH BTOPOro s3bika. — B KH.: 3a pa3BHTHe MeTOJIHKH OOydYeHHsS pyCCKOMY S3bIKY HM JiKTepaType B JiMTOBCKOI mxone | Tion pex. B. lspraca. Kaynac, 1969. 3amanac I'. O. O cymmocTH nponecca COJIMXKECEHHA CONHAMNCTHYECKHX HanHit. — Bompocsr OHJIOcoun, 1966, Ne 7. Vicaes M. M. Pemenue HaUMOHANLHO-A3BIKOBBIX npobiemM B COBeTCKYIO anoxy. — BA, 1977 (B cchUIKax: a), Ne 6. Hcaes M. H. IlanopamMa 135IKOBOI XH3HH Hapoaos CCCP. — B rn.: Pycckuii 235IK Kak CPEACTBO MexHauHoHansHoro obmenus. M., 1977 (B ccsmmkax: 6). Hcaes M. H. O s3siKax BapojjoB CCCP. — M., 1978. Hcaes M. HM. S3sxosoe cTponuTejibCTBO B CCCP, — M., 1979. HMroru Bcecoro3noii nepermcu Hacejiemus 1970 r. — M., 1973, T. 4. Kapamonac C. Jiaroscruit s3brx. Pa3Burue Įmpys3branua, — B KH.: BHYTpHCTpyKTYpHOCS pa3BHTHC CTApONHCbMEHHEIX 35IKOB, M., 1973, Kopcakac IO. OyEKUHOHHPOBAHHE pOJIHOTO H pyCCKOTO AiI35IKOB B IIKOJIaX Coserckoif JliuTBesr. — B xx.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos, V., 1979. Kpyonac M. P., Taiinsunc K. B. Tepmunonornyeckas pa60Ta H DOATOTOBKA TEDMHHOJIOTH4CECKHX cnosapeit B JiaroBeckoit CCP. — B xu.: Bonpocs! pa3pačoTKH Hay4HO-TEXHH4EeCKONH TEDMHHOnorau. Para, 1973. I Kpyonac Ū., Cabansyckac A., Baasuxene A. x ap. Jlarosckmit x351K., — B xH.: 3axoHOMepHOCTH pa3BHTHA JHTepaTypHBIX S35IKOB Hapojios CCCP B coserckyio smoxy. BryTpuCTpyKTYpHOE Pa3BHTHE CTAPONHCHMEHHBIX s365IKOB | OTs. pea. FO. JĮ. Jemepuen. M., 1973. KpSauat HM. P. O COBPEMEHHOM COCTOSHHHM H NMyTSX JAJMbHEHIIEro pa3BHTHA JIATOBCKOTO S3bI- — B xn.: Bonpocsi PasBHTHA JHTEPATYPHBIX S35IKOB Haponos CCCP B coseTckyio 5noxy,. aA 1964. Jlenunu3M H HAUHOHANBHBIN BOMPOC B COBPEMEHHBIX YCJIOBHAX. 2-¢ u3n. — M., 1974. Mapuenko E. Hapymenue CHHTAKCHYECKHX HOPM pYCCKOTO JIHTEPaTYpHOro s3sika. — Mūsų kalba, 1974, Nr. 9 Muxamsuenko B. IO, OcoGeHHOCTH peuH YYAIIMXCH B YCIOBHAX JIHTOBCKO-PYCCKOrO ABYS3BINHSA, — B xn.: BaammoyielicTBHe s35IKOB B mponecce obydenms. Bunsmioc, 1971. | 39 Muxaasuenko B. 10. O gygkruuonupoBaHHH s3bikoB B JiuroBexoit CCP. — B xm.: CouwoJIAHTBHCTHYECKHE NpOOJIeMEI pa3BHBAIONuHXCcH1 CTpaH. M., 1975. MauxaJisuenko B. 10. O B3aHMOJIEHCTBHH JIMTOBCKOTO H DpYyCCKOTO SI3BIKOB B YCJIOBHAIX JIBYS3bIyusi, — B KH.: COngoJiuHTBHCTH4UeCKHE IIpOOJIEMbI pa3BHBAIONIHXCA CTpaH. Muxaisuenko B. HO. Veoji0oBHi pa3BHTHA JIKTOBCKO-pyCCKOTO JByK3braus, — B xu.: Pa3sutme HAIlHOHAJIbHO-pyccKOro HBys3bIanus. M., 1976. Muxajisuenrko B. IO. Tunojiorutueckae OcOOeHHoCTH JIHTOBCKOTO H pyCCKOTO S3BIKOB. — B KH.: Pa3BuTHe HAlNHOHAJILHO-DpDYCCKOTO J[BYSI3bINHA. Muxansuenko B. IO. Ilepsas cTyrieHb JHTOBCKO-PYCCKOrO ĮiByg3brius. — B kH.: PasBuTHe HariHOHAJI5HO-pYyCCKOTO JBYSI3BIYHS. Muxaumsauenro B. IO, Bropas crynenb JIMTOBCKO-PYCCKOTO HĮBys3brinus. — B xu.: PasBuTHe HAIHOBAJILHO-DYCCKOTO JIBYSI3BIYHSL. Muxajsuenro B. PO, Tpersa cTyneHnb JATOBCKO-PYCCKOTO JBygS3bruus, — B ¥H.: PasBHTHE HaumoHAJILHO-DYyCCKOTO JIBYSI3bIYHS. Muxamnsuenko B. 10. Uersepras CTYyneHb JIMTOBCKO-pyCCKOrO IByS3bYAsA. — B kH.: PasBuTHe HallHOHAJILHO-PYCCKOrO JIBYSI3LISHSI. Mauxamsuenko B. KO. GygkruxoguposBaHue pycckoro s3bIKa B Jlatoscko#t CCP x ero s3ammoJCHCTBHE C JIATOBCKHM S3bIKOM. — B KH.: PyccKHit 535IK Kak CDpeJICTBO MEXHaINHOHAaJI5LHOTO oOmenus. M., 1977. Muxajsuenro B. IO, AktyanbHble CONHOJIHHTBHCTHYUECKHE IpOOJIEMBI SBLIKOBON XH3HH JIATOBckoii CCP. — Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979, Muxas4uenro B. IO, Pa3saTHe JiKTOBCKOTO JIKTEDAaTYDpHOTO fI3bIKA B CBSI3H C Pa3sBHTHEM KYJIbTYDkI JIMTOBCKOTO Hapojna. — B KH.: B3aHMOOTHOINIEHHE pa3BHTHA HALMOHAJBLHLIX 53bIKOB H HALHOHAJILHEIX KYJIbTYp. M., 1980. Muxajis4enro B. IO. Pa3Burne JIATOBCKOTO JIKTEpaTYyDHOTO S35IKA B CBS3H C €ro OYRHKOKHOHHDOBaHHeM B cepe BbICInero OOpa3oBaHHs (B rIe4uaTMH), Mycreiiknc K. B. Hexoropbkie acnekTbi CONOCTABHTeJILHOTO HCCJIEJJOBAHHA MODĖOJIOTHH pyCCKOTO H DOJHOro A35IKOB. — B KH.: PycckKHit S35IK — S35IK MEXHAINHHOHAaJIbHOTO OOINEHHA Hapoaos CCCP. M., 1976. Mycreiikne K. B. OpuenTauus Ha NepCrnekTHBY. — B KH.: Pycckuil s35IK — S38IK JIpyxObI H COTpyjtuuuecTBa HapojjoBs CCCP. M., 1981, Mspkene H. OĖysruuokapoBanne x NPENOJABAHME PYCCKOrO SI3BIKA B CĖdepe BEICINETO 06pa30Barus Jlutosckoit CCP. — B xz.: Socialinės lingvistikos problemos. V., 1979. Mapkene H. A. Ilpo6jeMa OdOygKuKOHHpOBAHHS pyCCKOTO SI3bIKA B chepe Boicmero obpazosaHus (Ha matepuane JIutosckoit CCP): Kaun. mmc. — M., 1981. — Manratonucs. Haceaenne CCCP. — M., 1980. HanuonaisHoe H MHTEPHAUMOHA/LHOE B COBDEMEHHOM MHpė. — Kummnes, 1981. Hannonajnsasie otHomerus B CCCP Ha cOBpeMeHHOM 3Tamne. — M., 1979. Huxoascknii JI. B. SI3bikoBasi MOMATHKA Kak GOpPMa CO3HATENLHOTO BO3JIEŽICTBHA obmecrsa Ha A3BIKOBOE pa3puTHE. — B KH.: SI35IK H o6mecTBo. M., 1968. OcHoBHEIe mporeccsl BHYTPUCTPYKTYDHOTO DPA3BHTHA HPAaHCKHX H HOEepHHŪCKO-KABKA3CKHX S3bIkoB | Ors. pen. n-p Ownoji. x. H. A. Backakos. — M., 1969. OcHoBHBIe NPOIIECCH! BHYTPHCTPYKTYPHOTO DA3BHTHS TIOPKCKHX, (MHHO-YrOpCKHX H MOHTOJI5CKHX s3bIk0B | OTB. pea. a-p duno. H. H. A. Backakos. — M., 1969, IlnakxynosBa T, JIuarsucTHYeckoe 0GOCHOBAHHE oby4enus pycckoMy npomsnomenmio (M3 omsita paborei ¢ muTosuamu). — Pedagogika ir psichologija. V., 1963, t. 4. Ilnakynosa T. Heroropsie YepTHI pycckoro NpOM3HOWEeHUs B I. BujnsHIoce. — Mūsų kalba, 1974, Nr. 9, TTomkye K. Pycckuif s35IK — S3bIK MEXHALMOHAIBHOLO obmennst, — Pycckuif S35IK B HAIHOHalbHOM InKOJIe. M., 1970, Ne 6. Ilyrn pa3BHTHA HAUMOHAILHO-DYCCKOTO JBYA3BIYAS B HepyCCKHX mkonax. M., 1979, „Ilanns D. O HEKOTOPHIX BOMPOCAX pa3BHTHS HaIIniŪ H HAILKHOHAJIbH5LIX A3bIKOB CoBerckoro Coro3a. — H3B. AH BerCCP. O6bunecrBemnsie Hayku, 1968, T. 17, No 4. 40 e Maan D. H. O pa3BHTHH HAILKHOKHAJILHEIX 3bIKOB H THIMaX ABys3sidusa. — B xu.: TIpoOjeMbi nsySA3BIMUA H MHOrOS354KHA. M., 1972, Maan D. MexnaunonajibHsIit S35IK H JBys3brane. — Vi3s. AH DerCCP. O6mecTsennsie HaykKu, 1979, T. 28, \e 4. . ; Pamujos III. P. 51351K Hamero ejmncTBA H COTPYAHMYecTBa. — M., 1979, PekxomMenjjauuu Beecoro3. Hayų4.-Teoper. Kou. „PyccKHif o A3bIK — S35IK JIDYXObI H COTDYJIHHyecrBa HapojjoB CCCP“. — Pyccknii s35IK B HanHOHAJIbHOH IIKOJIe. M., 1979, Ne 5. Pamkye A. C. Ilpenojnasamue pycckoro s3bIiKa B mKoJIax JIaresl. — B xu. PycckHit A35IK — S3bIK MeXxXHAUKOHAJILHOTO obmenns HapojioB CCCP. M., 1976. Pyccknil x351K B HanHOHajIbHLIX pecnyGjmKax CoBerckoro Coosa. — M., 1980. Pycckmii x35IK Kak CpeJICTBO MeXHaIlHOHAJIbHOTrO obmenus. — M., 1977, Pycexwuii x35IK — 4535IK JIDpYxOBI H COTpyjmH4ecTBa HapojijoB CCCP: Marepuajnisr Bcecoro3, Hayt.- TeopeT. kKoH(. ,Pycckmit s35IK — S3bIK JIDYxXObI H coTpyaHmuecTBa HapojjoB CCCP“, 22—24 Mas 1979 r. Tanrkenr. — M., 1981. Pycckmii s35IK — A3bIK MeXHALKOHAJIbHOTO obmenus HapojoB CCCP: Marepmanst Beecoros. Hay4.-IIpaKT. KOH(. NO COBEepIOEHCTBOBAHHIO HOperiIoJIaBaHHS PYCCKOTO S35IKA B HAIHOHAJI5HLIX HIKOJNaX, CDeJIHHX CINELKHAJILHLIX H BbICINHX Yu4eOHEIX 3aBeneHnsx, 21 —23 oxkrabps 1976 r. TamKent. — M., 1976. Cemenosa M. O. Pyccko-JiaTbimcKHe s3LIKOBBIE CB33H. — Para, 1973. i Cusnuxene M. O Gujnunrsu3Me H uaTepdepenun B OOJIacTH CHHTAKCHCa. — Mūsų kalba, 1976, Nr. 2. CosepmencrsoBaTh H3y4eHHe H NPENOAABAHAE PYCCKOTO S35IKA. — PycCKHit S3BIK B HAIIHMOHAJILHOH mmKOJIe. M., 1979, Ne 1. Cynux O. IL, Jlemepues IO. JĮ., Mycaes K. M., Tymansu 3. I'. Ilpo6GjneMa msys3siaus Haponos CCCP: Tes. JIOKJI. KoH(., HOCBSIIL, BOIPOCAM B3AHMOJIEŽŠCTBHSA H B32HMOOGOTMINEHHA A3BLIKOB Haponos CCCP. Kasans, 1964. Teoperuaeckune npobnems! conmanbuol JIKHTBHCTHKH | Ors. pen. IO. JĮ. Jlemepres. — M., 1981. Toamauesa 3. A., SIkyGaiituc T. A. O CTPYKTYPHO-THNONOrHYECKOM H3Yy4eHHH JIATHIIICKO-DYCCKHX S3BIKOBBIX KOHTakTOB. — M38. AH CCCP, 1967, Ne 5. Tpadonosac Sl. C. OyHKUHOHHPOBAHHE H B3AMMOJEHCTBHE DPYCCKOTO H JIKTOBCKOTO S3HIKOB B Jlaroscroit CCP: Kana. mac. — M., 1978. — Mamu=HONKCH. ®enocees II. H. O counanbueIX H HACHHBIX OCHOBAX COMMXEHAS HAM H HapoaHocTei, — B KH.: Hayxa Coroza CCP. M., 1972. ®enocees II. Teoperwdeckne npoGiemsl pa3BuTHs H cOmmxenws Haumit. — Kommysmer, 1980, Me 1. Quinn GD. II. Jlenuuckoe ysenne O HALHH H HeKOTODEbIC MPOGIEMEI HAUMOHANBHOIO S3bIKA. — Hse. AH CCCP. Orjejienne JmT-pesI H 33. M., 1970, Ne 2. @uaun O. II. Hcropasa obmecrsa H pa3BHTHė Npysbrius. — H3B. AH CCCP. Cep. mut-psi H x3., 1970, T. 29, Bsm. 3. Guan O. II. Cospevennoe OBIIECTBEHHOE PA3BHTHE H MPOGIEMa JBys3brina, — B ku.: ITpobaems: IBYA3BIYHA H MHOrosi3siumsa. M., 1972. GOunun G. II. Pycckuif 535IK B COBETCKHX HAIMOHANBHBIX pecnyOjrmKax. — B KH.: Pyockuil s35IK KaK CDpeJICTBO MEXHAIHOHAJILHOTO obmennsi. M., 1977. Ounuan D. II. O nanbueiimeM pa3BHTHH KHCCJIe/[JOBAHHit NO npobaemMaM (YHKIKOHHDOBAHHS H H3YYCHHS pyCCKOTO f3bIKa, NPENOAABAHKA DpYyCCKOH JIKNTEpaTYypbI B COIO3HBIX H ABTOHOMHBIX pecnybimkax, ABTOHOMHEIX 0o6nacTax u okpyrax CCCP. — Becta. AH CCCP, 1979, Ne 5. Xanasapos K. X. Mcropuyeckast HeOOXOJIHMOCTb H NMPOrPECCHBHOCTh MEXHAIHOHAJI5LHOTO S35IKA B MHOTMOHAlHLHOHAJILHOM COHHAJIHCTHYCeCKOM rocyjjaporBe. — OBumects. HaykKu B V3Gexucrane Tamxenr, 1962, Ne 8. Xana3apos K. X. CrpoHTeibcTBO KOMMYHH3MA H pa3BHTHC HAILKHOHAJI5H5IX A35IKOB (Ha npaMepe cJIoBapHOro OdoHjna). — OGmecrs. Hayku B V3Gernucrane. Tamxent, 1963, Ne 3. Xana3apos K. X. Conmxenne Haumit H HALHOHAJILHEIC S35IKH B CCCP, — Tammenr, 1963. 41 e Xaxa3apos K. X. KpurepHH JĮBYg3b1uHA H ero npHuuHBeI. — B ku.: TIpoOJieMBI JIBYs1351MHA HH MHOTO= s3514ua. M., 1972. | Xanazapos K. X. Pemekne HALKOHAJIbHO-S135IKOBOHM npo6nemsr B CCCP, — M., 1977. Xoamoropoe A. H. VHTepHAHOHATBHBIC 4epThl COBeTCKHX Haumit. — M., 1970. Xoamoropoe A. H. KOHKpETHO-CONHOJIOTHYECKHE HCCIICIOBARMS ABYA3LITHA, — B xu.: [TpoGnemsr IBYS3BIYESA H MHOTOS3bMEA. M., 1972. | Iseiinep A. JĮ. CosBpeMeHHas COLMHOIHHIBHCTHKA. — M., 1977. Mieneruc JI. K. 3a6ora IlaprnuH 0 AyXOBHOM MOTEHIMAJIC COBETCKOIO Hapo/la. — B xn.: Pycckuit SBBIK — S3BIK APYXOBI H coTpymumyecTsa Haponos CCCP. M., 1981. Mumkyc C. VHTepHAIMOKATEHOE BOCHMTAHHE TPYAsUmXCs cena. — B xi.: MATepHAUMORAILHOS BOCIMTAaHHE Tpynsumxcs. Pura, 1967. ; Yeneaure JĮ. OcCHOBHEIe THI HADpYKNIeHHA JICKCHYECKHX HODpM B pycckoit pean JmTOBIeB. — Mūsų kalba, 1978, Nr. 2. Uenejnare JĮ. K Bonpocy 0 HeKOTODEIX JIEKCHYCeCKHX TPYAHOCTSX B peuH YHALIMXCH JIHTOBUCB. — B xn.; Bonpocki npenojįaBaHHHA PYCCKOTO S3b5IKA B INKOJIC C JIATOBCKHM SI3bIKOM oGyuenus | Cocr. JI. Cynasuuene. Kayrac, 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. į 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. Kopenkaii IT. H. O packonsauxax B Koserckoii ryčepuau. — B ra.: IlaMarHas Kauxxa Kosercxoi rybepraun Ha 1863 rox. Oraen II. Maprune A. PacnpocTpaHeHue 135ika H CTPYKTYpHas JIMHTBHCTHKA. — B KH.: HoBoe B JHHIBHCTHKE., M., 1972, BEI. 6. Hemuenxo B. Pycckue crapoxwist JIaTesl H HX rosopsl. — Kalbotyra. V., 1963, t. 7. Ilayjs I'. IIpusaownsr HCTOpHH sa3sika. — M., 1960. IMuennanuxos II. Il. Pycckue B [pubanTtriickoM kpae. — Pura, 1910. Crankesnd A. OuepK BO3HHKHOBEHHA PYCCKHX nocesicHH# Ha JiurBe. — BuHjieHcKHif BpEeMEHHHK. KH. 4: Pycckue nocenenusi Kosencko# ryOepana. Bunsna, 1909, C. KAPAJIIOHAC K XAPAKTEPUCTHUKE JIMHI'BOCOLIMAJIBHOM CUTYALIMM PECITYBJIHKH Pe3iome T'niaBHbLIū KOMINOHEHT JIAHTBOCOLHAJILHOŽ cuTyaumm JiuToBcroit CCP cocrasnser TO, 4TO JIATOBCKHHA SI3LIK, STBJIASICb HALIMOHAJIBHBEIM A3BIKOM C JIpeBHeit H GoraToit rucLMeHHOH TpajinMIunel, BEINOJIHAET OCHOBHbLIC COIIHMAJILHLIC (DYHKIMM H yHOBIETBOPAET HYXJILI B3aHMHOTO OONEHHSA NpeJicTABHTeJIel JIMTOBCKOH CONHAJIHCTHYeCKON HalnnHu. OH SBIISCTCA A3LIKOM pecriyOjiuKaHcKOl IIE4ATH, paJIMO H TEJIEBHJIEHHA, HAlHOHAJILHOTO TeaTpa H KHHEeMATOrpadĖjHH, Ha HeM m3jaercsa 00IMMNHpHAS XVJIOXECCTBEHHAS, OOINECTBEHHO-IOJIKTH4eCKAS, HM HayuKAS JIATepaTypa, Bemercs OGYYCHHE B NIKOJIAX, B BbICINHX Y4eOHBIX 3ABeJIEHHAX, HM IIOJI53YIOTCA HA DpECITyOJIHMKAHCKHX Cb€3JIaX H KOH(ĖDEpEHIMSX. 42 Bejymias pojib HaLHOHAJIbHOTO A3bIKA B TaKOH BaxHOH cĖdjepe, Kak BbICINee obpazopanue, HNOATBEPKAACTCA JAHHBIME, COGpaHHLIMH IIyTEM COUMOJIHHIBHCTHYECKOrO AHKETHOrO ONpOca CTYJICHTOB cTapmux Kypcos KayHaccKOro IIOJIHTEXHH49eCKOTO HHCTHTYTA MM. Anranaca CHeuxyca: 92,8 % cryueHTOB BITYCKHOTO Kypca OOINaIOTCA Ha IATOBCKOM si3bike, 6,2 — Ha PYCCKOM H 1% — Ha MHOCTpaHHOM; 69,2 % CTY/CHTOB YHTAIOT JIATEPATYPY CBOE CIIeLIMaJIbHOCTH HA JIHTOBCKOM s3bike, 28,6 — Ha pycckoM H 2,2 — Ha MHOCTpaHHOM; 90,5 9 CTYAEHTOB NHINYT HA JIHTOBCKOM a3sike, 8,5 — Ha pycckom H 1 % — Ha HHOCTpaHHOM, CŪJIeJIOBATĖJILHO, B ob6meobpa3oBaTeNbHLIX CDEJIHHX TOIKOJIAX H BY3ax pECITyYOJIKKH OCHOBHBIM CPEACTBOM OOLUCHMS ABIACTCA JIMTOBCKHH A3IBIK, OJIHAKO HAPAIY ¢ HAM Bee Gonbinee 3HA4eHHC NPHOOPETaET PYCCKHil A3BIK Kak CPEACTBO oben, PACIIMPEHHOr0 MO3HAHMA. BylyYd OCHOBHBIM KOMIIOHEHTOM CONHAIBHO-KOMMYHHXATHBHON CHCTEMSBI, JIATOBCKHHŪ A3BIK OKa3hIBAET 3aMETHOE BIMAHWE HA JHHTBOCOLHANBHYIO CHTYALIHIO pecryOJIHKH. OBO NpOABIACTCH, B YACTHOCTH, B TOM, WTO BO BpeMS NOCJeIHEH BCECOIO3HOH IepenucH KHacCeJICHHA JIHTOBCKHH A3BIK HA3BAJIH BTODHIM S3BIKOM, KOTODELIM OHH cBOGOmHO Bnazeror, 106 954 pyccxux, 27 506 nonsxoB, 7341 Genopyc, 4865 ykpaunues, 4579 espees x ap. [lis HEKOTOPAIX M3 HHX OH AaXe CTAJI ponmsiM. Ilo nammsM nepenuck 1979 r., IATOBCKHI S35IK POMHBIM Ha3BajIH 9536 npejcTaBaTenci NONBCKONH HANMOHANBHOCTH, 6641 — pycckoif, 790 — Genopycckol, 654 — yxpamnckoid, 619 — eBpeiickoil HALHOHAaJILHOCTH H Ip. ĮlpyruM BaXHBIM KOMIIOHEHTOM JIHHIBOCOIHAILHOK CHTYALHH pecryO/MKe SBJISCTCSA OYHKIKOHAPOBaHHE DPYCCKOTO S35IKA KAK f3bIKa MEeXHAIKOHAJIbHOTO OOLICHWS COBETCKHX HApOJIOB — couManbHas HEOŠXOJIHMOCTE, OGYCJIOBJIEHHAS HHTEpEeCAMH NOCTPOCHHS KOMMYHH3Ma B Hamel cTpase. IlpuMeneHne PYCCKOro ;s35IKA OOYcCJIOBJIHBaeTCA TAKKe BCH 9KOHOMHYCCKOH, obmecrBeHHOM H KyJbTYPHOH XH3HBIO pECIryOJIMKH. JIuTOBCKMi S3BIK KaK CPEACTBO OOIIEHHS JIHTOBCKOH CONHANHCTHYECKOW HAMM H pycceknit A3LIK KAK 36K MEKHALMOHANBHOrO OOOIEHHA COBETCKHX HAPOJOB B XO3siicTBeHHOM, ofmecTsesHOM H Ky/IbTYPHOI XH3HH DECOYOJIKKH JONOJIHSIOT APYr APYra H FAPMOHHYECKH [COCYIIECTBYIOT. CooTHOIMEHHE COlNKHAJILHEIX (DyYHKIMHĖ, BEINOIHASMBIX JHTOBCKAM H PYCCKHM S3bIKAMH B XH3HH pecnyGmaxu, BechMa o6mmpro u3ywun FO. JĮ. Įlemepues (1976). V3 22 BEVIeJIEHHLIX HM cep NpuMEHEHHA S3b5IKA JIMTOBCKHH H DpYyCCKHŪĖ napajuiebHO GyHKIHOHHDPYIOT B DAIMOBENIAHHH H TĖėJIEBHJIEHHH DECITYOJIHKH, B B5ICINeM OGpa30BAHHH, B HayKC H TEXHHKE, B TOCYJAaPCTBEHHBIX Y4upexJIeHHSX, B ĮIEJIONDOH3BOJICTBE H OĖDHUKAJISLHOH NMepenHCKe, B KYJILTYDHO-IIDpOCBETHTEJIbCKHX Y4upeXxJIeHHSX, B HAYYHOM, OOIIECTBEHHO-HOOJIHTHYCCKON MH KYJILTYDHON XH3HH, B MECTHOM TDAaHCIIOPTE H Y4peXJICHHSIX CBS3H, B CĖdepe obcnyxupanus H Ap. B Tpex chepax, a HMEHHO: B ODOIeHHH MEX cO60I0 CAMHX DpYyCCKHX, B OOINEHHH JIMTOBINJCB C NNpejiCTaBHTeJIAMH JIDYTHX HApOJIOB, B IIeperiuCKe C LIEKTDAJILHLIMH Y4DEXKJIEHHAMH, A TAKKe C JIDYTHMH DECINTYOJIAKAMH, — BėĮIYNIAsi DOJIb NpHHAaJŲIeKUT PYCCKOMY S35IKy. B IpOMEINIJIEHHOM IDpOH3BOJICTBE H TEXHHYECKOH NOKYMEHTAIMH, TIC COOTHONICHHE NpHMEREHHA OJIKOTO H3 ĮIAHH5IX A35IKOB 3aBHCHT OT HAIHOHAIBHOrO COcTaBa paboHX, CJIYXANIHX H HHXCHEDHO-TEXHH4CCKHX paOOTHHKOB, JIHTOBCKHĖ H pyCCKHH S3bIKH ynoTpelJISIOTCA HapaBEe. B OCTAJIbHELIX OOJIaCTSX XO3sHCTBEHHOM, CONHANBLHOMN, OOINECTBEHHO-I1OJIHTHMECKON H KYJILTYDHOČ XH3HH DpEeCnyOJIMmKH IIpeoOjIajiaeT JIM TOBCKHIE AB3bIK. OTO HAYAJILHOE, Cpejnee oOmee H cpej/tiee cnenaJibHOe OOpa30BAHHe JŲIS ACTH JIATOBCKONH HAlLHOHAJI5HOCTH, CYJIONpOH3BOJICTBO H IIEDHOJIHYECKAS MEYaTh. Bo3MOXHOCTb CIIYIMATbL H CMOTDETb IpOTpaMMEI Ha PYCCKOM f3bike JaroT JiaroBeroe pamuo ¥ TejieBuyIeKne, BausHIOCCKOC6 pajiKo exenHeBHO | 4 10 MuH TpaHCIHPYET CBOH OnepejiauH Ha pycCKOM si3bIke, B ygeGHOM roay asa pasa B Henenio no 20 MMH nepejialOTCS YPOKH pyCCKOTO A3bIKa; 2 ų 20 MHH B CYTKH Ba PYCCKOM S3bIKe TPAHCIMPYIOTCH CIOPTHBHBIE IIDOTDAMMEI, KOHIEPTSI, pa3JIMYHBIC TOPXECTBA. BpeMs mepeay Ha PYCCKOM S35IKC BHIBHIOCCKOrO pajgHO 3HAYHTENLHO yBeJMYHBaeT perpancusmus #3 Mocksbl — 3,5 4 B CyTKH. JINTOBCKOE TEJICBH/ICHHE TAKKE 3HA4HTEJIbHYIO YaCTh CBOMX Nepenay Beier Ha pycckom sasike, Hanp., B cy66oTy, 11 oxrabps 1980 r., pecry6JIMKAHCKOCS TejieBHjIeHHe paborano seero 15 4 56 mun, B TOM YmCjIe 9 4 34 MHH — Ha JIHTOBCKOM s3sike H 4 9 33 Mur — Ha pycckoM. B ceHrTaOpe 1981 r. m3 201 1 paGorsr JIurosckoro TeJICBH/ICHHS NporpaMMEI Ha PYCCKOM si3bike 3AHHMAJIH 85 4, wma 35 % Bcero paGowero spemen. 43 HApyras o6Gmmapzras cepa HHTEHCHBHOTO IIpHMERHCHHSA PYCCKOro si3blka — JTO CHCTEMA HADpojlHoro 0o6pa30Bamus: B Coserckoii JluraBe pelicTByIioT HeMAJIO BOCbMHJIETHHX H CDpe/lHHX ILKOJ C pyCCKHM S3BIKOM OOy4eHHs. PyHKUHOHHPOBAHAE PYCCKOTO s3bIka B chepe BbICINero OOpa30BAHHSA NPOABISETCA HE TOJIBKO B TOM, 4TO yueOHHKAMH H ApPYrod CIIeELMAJIbHON JIMTepaTypoli B 3HAYMTEIBLHON Mepe CTYICHTHI IIOJI53YIOTCA HA PYCCKOM sI3bIKe, HO, CAMOE IMIaBHOE, B TOM, YTO B CHCTEME Bhicuiero obGpa3oBanus JIuropckoit CCP pycckmil s35IK HApSIy C JIMTOBCKHM NPHMEHSETCS B Ka4eCTBE 53bLIKA IpenojaBaHHsA. O06 3TOM KpacHODPEYHBO TOBODAT ciemyioiine nanusie. B 1980—1981 yu. r. B 13 By3ax Jlurosckoit CCP u3 o6mero uncna 400 akajieMuyeckux Tpyri JHEBHOro orxesexws, 140 rpymm BeuepHero otaeneHus H 150 rpynm 3a04HOro OTIeEJIEHHA cOOTBeTcTBeHHO B 40, 14 H 15 axanemuyeCKHX rpynmax 3aHsATHS ITO BCEM IpeaMeTaM BeJIMCh Ha pycckoM s3bike. B 1980 r. B By3sr JluToBckoit CCP riocrynano 9100 cryjneHTOB, B TOM HHCJIe B IPYNax ¢ PyCCKHM SI3BIKOM NPEnoiaBanns HaC4HTbIBaJIOCb 1587, unu 17,4 %, — B cpennem 920 cryjieHTOB Ha aHeBHOM oTaencHuH (58 %), 322 — Ha BeuepneM (20 %) um orojo 345 crynentos (22 %) — Ha 3a0MHOM. Bee ckasaHHOE MO3BOJIAET HENATh BEBO, YTo KommyHucTHYeckas napTus JIHTBbI ¢ GOJILINHM BHAMAHAEM OTHOCHTCS K 3ampocaM B OOJIaCTH A3BIKa, KYJIBTYDbI H ObiTa TDaXKXIIAH HEKOPEHHBIX HAalLHOHAaJIbHOCTEH, paOOTAIONIHX H IIpOXHBAIOINIHX B pecIryOJImKe. UT065I BLISCHHTL, HACKOJIbKO ĮOCTATO4HELI HABEIKH B PYCCKOM si3bIKe, MIOJIYKeHHBIe B Cpejmeit mxosie, Guin OrnpolNnenbI 440 paGoTHHKOB KYJIbTYDpbI H HAPOAHOTO xO3aiicTBA (CO craxem paGOTBI He MeHee 3 JIeT) NATH pažOHOB H IBYX TODOJIOB pecrnyGmuku, 285 Jie MOGHJIH30BAHHBEIX (IpejicTaBHTeJjielKi BceX paiioHOB H TOpO/I0B), a TaKxe 304 cry]eHTA pa3JIHMYKLIX CetMaJIbHOCTEH 2-4th Kypcos. J[aHHbIe OOcJIe/10BAHHS IIOKA35IBAIOT, HTO GOJILINHHCTBO ONPOMIEHHLIX OOJIEC HJIH MeHee YJIOBJIETBODEHELI HABbLIKAMH UTeHHS (90,9 9; onpomennsix), micsMa (81,3) u I'm not sure (76,6), what you mean. B YacTHYHO HENOBOJBLHBIX HABLIKAMH 4TEHHA GLIUM 6,5 9%, HABHIKAME IIHC5MA — 16,2 H HaBLIikaMH peut — 20,8, a MONHOCTHIO HEAOBOABHBIX OBjIjIO Jims 2,6 %. PesynbTaThl onpoca MOATBEPKIAI H TOT (ACP, WTO OYEHb BAXHLIM (DACTOPOM B OCBOCHHH JIMTOBCKHM HAPONOM S5135IKA MEXHAUMOHAILHOrO OOINeHHA SBIISCTCA mKona. BO35MEM, Hamp., JAHHLIC, NOJy4YCHHbIC COLMOJHHTBHCTHYECKHM AHKETHLIM ONPOCOM BBbIirycKHHKOB Kaymacckoro TIONHTEXHHYECKOTO HHCTHTYTa BM. AHTamaca Creukyca. Ha Bompoc: ,,Kakos subBeHb BIJAJIEHHS PYCCKHM A3bIKOM?" MOJNY4eHBI CNEAYIONIHE OTBETHI: TOBODpIO cBOGOmHO — 28 %, YAOBIETBODHTeJILHO — 56, boy — 16, mamy xopomo — 6, yAOBIETBOPHTENBHO — 60, mwioxo — 34. Ilpu 9TOM CJICAYeT HMETb B BHJIY, 4TO B KAa4CCTBE DOJHOTO 53bIKA POMHMTENCH B OCHOBHOM YKa3hIBAJICH JIMTOBCKHH A3bIK (98 %). IlpyruM BaxHkIM iakTOpoM pa3BHTHA JIKTOBCKO-pyCCKOTO JIBYSBbIuH; A-M_BAR_French (France) SBISETCS HenocpenCTBEHHBIH ACT C HHOA3BIYHBIM HACEJCHHEM B MHOROHAIMOHANBHBIX TPYAOBBIX HOJUIEKTHBAX, TperbuM (QaxTOpOM OBNANEHHS PYCCKHM SI3BIKOM, KACAIONMHMCS, OJJHAKO, TONBKO MYXYHH, cnenyer Ha3BaTb ciayxOy B CoBerckoite ApMuH. DTO O6CTOSTENBCTBO 3HAYHTENLHO yriaybnser 3HAHHUC PYCCKOTO fA3bIKa, NOJYYCHHOE B CpejiHeH IIIKOJIE, MOITOMY H ripencTaBHTEeJIiet Y MYXCKOTO HACCNCHUA OHO Yale Jiyun, 4th xenum. y Cpejiu CBOGOJIHO BJIAIIČIOINHX ESMA OpMAMH pycCKOTO s3bIKa MYKYMHBI COCTABIIIIOT 61,7 %, a xeHmuHs1 — 38,3, cpejiH He 3HAIONHX pycckoro SA3bIKa MYXKYHH OKOJIO 24 %, a JKeHIuH npuMepHo 76. MoxHo nojiaraTb, “TO 3HAHHE H AKTHBHOE MOJb30BAHHE PYCCKHM SI3bIKOM B CEJIbCKOH MecTHOCTH B 3Ha4HTeJILHONŽH MEDE 3aBHCAT OT STHHYECKONH COMIONKTHOCTH peruoxa x oGparHO rponopUKOKAJIbHO Eli. Thank you, B MECTHOCTSIX. C BbICOKOH KOMNAKTHOCTBIO HACEJIEHHAS KODpEHHOH HAIIKHOHAJIbHOCTH (Hanp., B AJMTYcCKOM paitoHe — 95,1 9% JimroBueB, Kancykckom — 97,6, Kenaitasiickom — 92,4, MlaynsiickoM — 96) 6,5 % xuTeneit price cBo6oaHO TOBOPAS, 4KHTAIOT H MHIIYT HA PYCCKOM a3biKe, 12,7 — rosopar H mamyT, 38,3 — a young man, a 42,5 — me 3HAOT difference. B paitoKax € Npe0OJ1aJjaHHeM pa3JIMMYKHOTO NO HALIKOHAJIbHOMY COCTaBy HACeJICHHA NPOLCHT HACEJIEHHSA, BJIAJIEIONITE PYCCKAM A3LIKOM, BBILIC. Tax, B 3apacaiickom paioHe, rie NpOxXHBAIOT PYCCKHE CTapoXHIIbI, A KOPEHHOE HACE/IEHHE COCTABASISET ECBro 68 %, cBOGOMHO BNANEIONMX PYCCKHM S3BIKOM 39,1 %. 44