SOCIALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XIX (1979)

Yunus Desherievich Desheriyev

THE CURRENT STATE OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS IN THE USSR AND CURRENT PROBLEMS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LINGUISTIC LIFE OF SOVIET SOCIETY

Over the past two decades, sociolinguistic research has gained relatively broad scope in the Soviet Union. It is concerned above all with studying the regularities governing the functioning, development, and interaction of the languages of the peoples of the USSR; developing the problem of Russian as a language of interethnic communication and as one of the world languages; investigating the sociolinguistic problems of developing countries and the global linguistic (language) process; and attempting to create a general theory of social linguistics.

For the first time in the history of Soviet linguistics, departments of social linguistics have been established at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Sociolinguistic research is also being conducted at the Institute of the Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow State University, the A. S. Pushkin Institute, and the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Important work on the study of sociolinguistic problems is being carried out in a number of union republics. Particular note should be made of the sociolinguistic research conducted in the Ukrainian SSR under the direction of Academician I. K. Beloded.

In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to organizing sociolinguistic research in the Lithuanian SSR. At the initiative of K. P. Korsakas, Director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR and an Academician of that Academy, substantial work is being done to train a new generation of sociolinguists. Y. S. Grifonovas completed postgraduate studies at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and submitted his dissertation; trainees L. Grumadene, Y. Karalekos, and N. Myarkene are making good progress on their candidate dissertations. A sociolinguistics group has been established at the institute under the leadership of Candidate of Philological Sciences S. S. Karalyunas. This group played the most active part in preparing and successfully holding the conference “Sociolinguistics and the Lithuanian Language” (21–22 February 1978).

K. M. Ulvidas, Head of a department at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature and Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, takes an active part in scientific and organizational activities in sociolinguistics.

The Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR provides substantial assistance to V. Y. Mikhalchenko, Candidate of Philological Sciences and Academic Secretary of the Scientific Council on the comprehensive problem “Regularities in the Development of National Languages in Connection with the Development of Socialist Nations” under the Department of Literature and Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences. She is the author of the section “Development of Lithuanian-Russian Bilingualism” in the collective work “Development of National-Russian Bilingualism” (M., 1976); the section is based on specific sociolinguistic research conducted in Lithuania. V. Y. Mikhalchenko takes an active part in the study of linguistic life in the Lithuanian SSR.

7

Sociolinguistic research is also being conducted in other republics. It is worth noting the development of sociolinguistic problems in the Kazakh, Moldavian, Belorussian, Azerbaijani, and some other Union and autonomous republics and regions. Questions of social linguistics are being studied at a number of universities and pedagogical institutes (for example, at Saratov State University under the direction of Prof. L. I. Barannikova, and at the Penza Pedagogical Institute under the direction of Prof. V. D. Bondaletov), and so forth.

Given the enormous practical and theoretical importance of sociolinguistic research, greater attention must be paid to it. Such research should be organized in all the country's scientific and linguistic institutions and higher education establishments. Greater attention to the study of the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication and as one of the world languages, as well as the establishment of structural units in the philological institutions of the academies of sciences of the Union republics (branches), will contribute to the further expansion of sociolinguistic research.

The socially determined tendency toward the free functioning and development of literary languages

It is common knowledge that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always pursued and continues to put into practice Lenin’s national policy: a policy of unhindered development for nations and nationalities, their cultures, and the free functioning of their languages. Contrary to the claims of Sovietologists, falsifiers of the outstanding achievements of the land of the Soviets, regarding the assimilation of the languages and cultures of the peoples of the USSR, the literary languages of the Soviet peoples had never before attained such a high level of development as they have today. This is confirmed by irrefutable facts.

Let us consider just a few of these facts. In the 1914/15 academic year, for example, there was not even a single elementary secular school in Ukraine where instruction was in Ukrainian (“Sotsialistychna Ukraina,” p. 237). After the victory of the Great October Revolution, Ukrainian children’s education was immediately transferred to their native language. By the 50th anniversary of Soviet power—in the 1967/68 academic year—over 3,420,000 pupils were enrolled in grades 1–4 of schools in the Ukrainian SSR, including over 2,093,000 taught in Ukrainian; in grades 5–8, over 1,997,000, and in grades 9–10, more than 514,000.

In the 1914/15 academic year, 27 higher education institutions operated in Ukraine, with 35,204 students enrolled. Ukrainian was used as the language of instruction at none of them. The situation was quite different in the Ukrainian SSR in the 1974/75 academic year: 142 higher education institutions were operating, with 818,000 students; instruction was provided in Ukrainian and Russian, according to the students’ preference.

From the very first days of the establishment of Soviet power in Lithuania, measures were taken to enhance the role of the Lithuanian language in the social, political, and cultural life of the Lithuanian people. Soviet power was proclaimed in Lithuania on December 16, 1918. As early as “March 13, 1919, a decree was issued to establish a university in the premises of Vilnius University, closed by the tsarist government in 1832” (“Narodnoe obrazovanie,” p. 430). As is well known, “the very extensive activity aimed at creating a new, Soviet system of education was interrupted by international

8

counterrevolution, which suppressed Soviet power in Lithuania in 1919” (ibid., p. 430).

In the 1939/40 academic year, that is, by the end of bourgeois rule in Lithuania, “there were only 3,500 students in all higher education institutions” (ibid., p. 431).

By contrast, in the 1974/75 academic year, 12 higher education institutions operated in the Lithuanian SSR, with 60,800 students enrolled. The republic had 3,000 general education schools, with 629,000 pupils; and 78 specialized secondary education institutions, with 67,700 students (“Ezhegodnik...,” pp. 102–103). Instruction in higher education institutions, vocational schools, and schools of various types is conducted mainly in Lithuanian. Lithuanian is also widely used in research. In the Soviet era, all this contributed to the unprecedented functional and internal structural development of the Lithuanian language.

Georgia is a republic with an ancient culture. Nevertheless, as noted in the book “Narodnoe obrazovanie,” dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, “before the establishment of Soviet power, most of the republic’s population was deprived of the opportunity to receive even an elementary secular education. Hundreds of thousands of adults were illiterate” (“Narodnoe obrazovanie,” p. 401).

In 1921, Georgia set the task of transferring instruction in elementary schools to the native languages—Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Abkhaz, and Ossetian. This task was successfully accomplished. General education in Georgia developed rapidly through national schools. By the 1965/66 academic year, the republic had a total of 2,959 Georgian, 287 Russian, 242 Armenian, 162 Azerbaijani, 39 Abkhaz, 194 Ossetian, and 372 mixed-language schools. Thus, in 3,596 schools in the Georgian SSR, Russian was not the language of instruction but was studied as a subject. Only in 287 schools did it serve as the language of instruction.

If before the revolution there was not a single general secondary school in Georgia where instruction was in Georgian, by the 50th anniversary of Soviet power the Georgian SSR had 2,959 schools with instruction in Georgian. Thus, in the 1967/68 academic year, Georgian was the language of instruction for 312,794 pupils in grades 5–10.

As the data presented show, after the victory of the Great October Revolution, fundamental changes took place in the social conditions under which languages functioned and in the development of their social functions. The spheres of use of literary languages expanded to an unprecedented extent.

The socially conditioned tendency toward the widespread use of national-Russian bilingualism

As is well known, different types of bilingualism function in the Soviet Union. The most important types of bilingualism, for example, in the Lithuanian SSR are Lithuanian-Russian and Russian-Lithuanian; in the Azerbaijan SSR—Azerbaijani-Russian, Russian-Azerbaijani, Armenian-Russian, Armenian-Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani-Armenian; in the Tajik SSR—Tajik-Russian, Russian-Tajik, Uzbek-Russian, Uzbek-Tajik, Tajik-Uzbek, etc. Thus, national-Russian bilingualism is represented in all the republics as the principal, basic type of bilingualism, through which communication among all the peoples of the USSR and cultural exchange take place. All other types of bilingualism have

9

local significance. For example, Tajik-Russian bilingualism cannot be used for broad social purposes in Lithuania, Georgia, and other republics where there are very few Tajiks and, in general, people who know Tajik. The same may be said about the possibility of using Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism for broad social purposes in Turkmenia, Dagestan, etc. (since few Lithuanians live there).

Of course, due attention should be paid to Russian-Lithuanian and other types of bilingualism. For example, it is important to help Russians and representatives of other peoples who live permanently in Lithuania to master the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism.

Taking into account the fact that national-Russian bilingualism is the principal and most important type of bilingualism in the USSR, we shall focus primarily on issues connected with its development.

The socially conditioned tendency toward the widespread use of national-Russian bilingualism in union and autonomous republics, regions, and districts has led to the fact that the role of the Russian language in the life of the peoples of the USSR and in the formation and development of a mature socialist society has grown as never before. Thus, the national languages and Russian, as the language of interethnic communication, complement one another in the shared life and activities of Soviet people under developed socialism. All this makes the development and universal spread of national-Russian bilingualism in all union and autonomous republics, regions, and districts a vital necessity.

As is well known, of the Russian language’s diverse social functions, the following are recognized as the most important: 1) the functions of the national language of the Russian people; 2) the functions of the common language of interethnic communication among the peoples of the USSR; 3) the functions of one of the languages of international communication, one of the world languages; 4) the functions of a language serving as one of the principal sources of enrichment and development for the languages of the Soviet peoples.

The most general закономерность in the development of the linguistic life of Soviet society, reflecting the social interests and needs of paramount importance to all the peoples of our country, is the increasingly pronounced tendency for the role and functions of the Russian language to grow in the shared production and sociopolitical activities of all Soviet people. In the lives of most peoples of the USSR, Russian is used not only as the language of interethnic communication, but also as the principal language of enlightenment and learning (i.e., the language of general secondary, specialized, and higher education, and the language of science and technology), and for mastering all-Union and world culture. At the same time, it is important to note that Russian performs the functions of a language of the sociopolitical, scientific, and cultural life of Soviet society as a whole, on a countrywide scale. All this has made Russian a universally recognized language that, with each passing day, strengthens the unity and cohesion of Soviet society ever more firmly, a language of fraternal cooperation and mutual assistance among all the peoples of the USSR.

The widespread dissemination of Russian and its growing importance in the everyday communication of Soviet people are also due in no small measure to the fact that Russian is the mother tongue of Russians, who make up more than half the population of our country. In addition, according to the 1970 census, 36.3% of Ukrainians and 49% of Belarusians are fluent in Russian, while the rest of the Ukrainian and Belarusian population knows Russian to some degree as a closely related language. At the same time, it has become the mother tongue of more than 13 million representatives of all nationalities.

10

All that has been set forth does not diminish the role and importance of local languages in the lives of their speakers (Beloed I. K., 1969; Desheriev Yu. D., 1966).

The importance of the Russian language for the development of the peoples of the USSR cannot be confined to its function as a language of interethnic communication. It is difficult to overestimate the outstanding role of the Russian language in the development and enrichment of the cultures and languages of all Soviet peoples. Thanks to the Russian language, the achievements of any national culture become the common heritage of all Soviet people. As is well known, the peoples of prerevolutionary Russia stood at different levels of political, economic, and cultural development: the country was inhabited both by peoples with ancient, highly developed cultures and by ethnic communities and groups that had fallen behind in their development. Bringing their levels of socioeconomic, political, and cultural development into alignment at the higher stage attained today was an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

The small peoples of the North achieved tremendous advances in education, science, culture, literature, and the arts, chiefly through the Russian language (Uvachan V. N., 1971). Leading representatives of small peoples use Russian to create new spiritual values. For example, the Chukchi writer Yuri Rytkheu, who knows his people’s life, everyday practices, and culture deeply, created outstanding works of literature in Russian, depicting his characters in the setting of national life. Poems by the Udege poet Dzhansi Kimenko, the Mansi poet Yugan Shestalov, the Nenets poet Nikolai Vylka, the Nanai poet Andrei Passar, and other poets of the Far North, Siberia, and the Far East have been published in Russian. Many representatives of other peoples of our country—writers, scholars, journalists, and literary critics—also create their works in Russian. In this respect, the widely known works of the Kyrgyz Soviet writer Chingiz Aitmatov, written in Russian, are particularly illustrative.

The contribution of the Russian language to the process of mutual enrichment and interaction among the languages of the Soviet peoples is especially significant. Russian has generously shared its riches with other languages. Soviet linguistic scholarship has repeatedly asserted that Russian is one of the principal sources of enrichment and development for the written languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union, both recently established and long-established. It is enough to note that 70–80% of sociopolitical and scientific-technical terms in recently written languages have been borrowed from Russian or, through Russian, from other languages.

The works of Soviet scholars emphasize that, in all the literary languages of our country, a journalistic style took shape under the direct influence of Russian journalism and the works of V. I. Lenin. As the outstanding Soviet philologist L. A. Bulakhovsky wrote, this gives the Soviet style, in the verbal material of the languages of our entire Union, the monolithic quality and distinctive expressiveness that have made it the style of an era.

The Russian language makes the principal contribution to the formation of a common lexical stock in the national languages. Most of the words that have entered this stock derive from Russian or have been borrowed through it. These include, above all, international and pan-Soviet terms: international, internationalism, humanism, soviet, Marxism, Leninism, and so on. The spelling rules, and often the pronunciation norms, of many borrowed words that have augmented the common lexical stock (for example, in recently written languages) are often formed on models borrowed from Russian and, through it, from other languages: communist, cosmonaut, satellite, rocket, kulak, realism, and so on.

11

Soviet scholars have convincingly demonstrated that the borrowing not only of individual words but also of phrases, word-formation patterns, and patterns for various types of phrases, as well as the possibility of active influence by the process of mutual enrichment on the development of lexico-semantic systems, the stylistic differentiation of languages, and the creation of complex sentences, provides linguistic evidence of the further deepening of the process of rapprochement among nations, ethnic communities, and their spiritual cultures.

All this, of course, does not mean that the national languages have lost their distinctive features or are undergoing assimilation, as foreign falsifiers of the language policy pursued in the USSR claim.

Processes of interaction and mutual enrichment among languages replenish the main source of literary-language development—its internal resources. This helps further the successful resolution of one of the most important sociological tasks: enabling the non-Russian population of our country to master Russian; creating a common terminological stock that stimulates the internationalization of certain linguistic phenomena in a multinational state; and synthesizing and using, scientifically, all that is valuable and progressive in the centuries-old history of all the languages of the Soviet peoples. This serves the interests of the comprehensive development and rapprochement of nations, ethnic communities, and their cultures, as well as the aims and tasks of mutual linguistic enrichment.

As is well known, Russian also exerted a significant influence on the languages of the peoples of Russia before the Revolution. But, as Academician V. V. Vinogradov noted, “there is a profound and fundamental difference between the influence that Russian exerted on the languages of neighboring ethnic communities in the prerevolutionary past and the influence that Russian exerts on the languages of the peoples of the USSR in our time.”

Similarities and correspondences among the languages of the Soviet country, resulting from the influence of Russian, are manifested: 1) in the expanding sphere of influence of Russian expressions, especially new Soviet expressions, and in their calquing; 2) in the rapid spread of Sovietisms and their movement from one language to another; 3) in the assimilation of the core stock of international vocabulary through Russian; 4) more generally, in the strengthened tendency toward internationalization, especially linguistic internationalization (Vinogradov V. V., 1945).

Russian itself is also enriched by numerous borrowings from the other languages of the country’s peoples. Before the Revolution, it was enriched predominantly by so-called ethnographisms—words reflecting the distinctive features of the everyday life and material and spiritual cultures of Russia’s various peoples. In the Soviet period, alongside such words, Russian has borrowed various terms that emerged in connection with the development of national art, literature, science, and technology. For example, scholars in Armenia created new scientific terms: narrite, tangleron, svaneite, etc.; these entered the Russian and international terminology of the relevant field of knowledge. Russian borrows new, necessary, specialized scientific and technical terms created by scholars in Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Lithuania, and other republics.

All this shows that the Russian language, in A. S. Pushkin’s apt definition (Complete Works in 16 volumes, 1949), is “apt at borrowing and sociable in its relations with foreign languages.”

The Soviet people’s aspiration to master Russian perfectly is conditioned by the objective laws governing the development of Soviet society and meets the vital needs of all the peoples of our country. A command of Russian helps the non-Russian population successfully to

12

issues of secondary and higher education, and of the country’s social and political, economic, scientific, and cultural life. “The objective course of development of Soviet society itself has brought about the growth of bilingualism; as a rule, this means fluent command of Russian, alongside one’s native language, as the language of interethnic communication” (“Pravda,” 1971, July 16).

The principal type of bilingualism in the USSR is bilingualism in which Russian functions as the common language of the peoples of our country. The growth of bilingualism serves the interests of all the peoples of the USSR; it is one expression of the democratic nature of Soviet national policy (Bagramov E. A., 1971).

Under the conditions of mature socialist society, the Russian language plays a leading role not only in the interaction and mutual enrichment of languages and cultures, but also in the widespread dissemination of a unified Soviet socialist culture, both through the everyday mutual enrichment of the peoples of the USSR and through printed publications.

The development of national literatures and the arts in the newly written languages of the peoples of the USSR, as well as in Russian, created favorable conditions for the use of paralinguistic means (the range of voice modulation, national specificities in the expression of volume, the nature of pauses, and speech color that conveys various expressive and emotional qualities, etc.) and figures of speech that give utterances an ironic, parodic, and similar character in the process of communication.

As mature socialist society develops, processes are unfolding intensively that shape a new type of communication not only among members of one and the same people, but also across nationalities. The creation of a general synchronic and prospective model of this new type of communication, as well as of its local variants incorporating elements of local national and cultural specificity, is of great scientific and practical importance. Sociologists, philosophers, sociolinguists, psycholinguists, and representatives of the pedagogical sciences face the urgent task of creating such models of a new type of communication, suited to the goals of further developing the new historical community of people—the Soviet people. In the functioning of these models, national-Russian bilingualism is called upon to play an important role.

Addressing the study of the regularities governing the functioning, development, and interaction of languages in connection with the development and rapprochement of socialist nations, nationalities, and their cultures, we will limit ourselves to a brief characterization of the subject matter and research of Soviet sociolinguists relating to the development and rapprochement of socialist nations, nationalities, and their cultures. This refers primarily to sociolinguistic and interdisciplinary studies carried out between 1967 and 1977.

Science owes the emergence of a number of new fields and problems in linguistics to the victory of the Great October Revolution and the ideology of Marxism-Leninism: language planning, newly written languages, the enhanced role of national languages in the lives of their speakers, and the practical implementation of the idea advanced by the classics of Marxism-Leninism that, as society develops further—especially socialist society—the role of society’s conscious influence on languages increases.

In 1967, in connection with the 50th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, the following principal areas of linguistic research and achievements in these areas were noted: 1) the structural study of the languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union and abroad (the principal study being the five-volume work “Languages of the Peoples of the USSR,” in whose creation the leading role was played by

13

our Scientific Council on the Complex Problems of “The Laws Governing the Development of National Languages in Connection with the Development of Socialist Nations”); 2) general linguistics; 3) comparative-historical and typological study of languages. At that time, one could speak only of the initial stage in the revival, at a new level, of socio-linguistic research.

Mainly thanks to the work of the Scientific Council on the Complex Problems of “The Laws Governing the Development of National Languages in Connection with the Development of Socialist Nations,” in whose work philosophers, historians, ethnographers, literary scholars, and representatives of educational science actively participate, it proved possible, under rather difficult conditions, to organize research in a new field—socio-linguistics—which is directly related to the development of national relations.

In this field, the following problems were recognized as the most relevant in practical and theoretical terms:

1. The first problem is the study of the laws governing the functioning, development, and interaction of languages in Soviet society. A fundamental four-volume work, “The Laws Governing the Development of the Literary Languages of the Peoples of the USSR in the Soviet Era,” was produced on this problem. For the first time in the history of Soviet linguistics, it presented a fairly clear picture of the linguistic life of Soviet society, showing both its positive and its shadow sides. This work is among the studies that help define the tasks involved in implementing national language policy and resolving practical issues in the development of the linguistic life of Soviet society. Other works have also been produced on this problem, for example, K. Kh. Khanazarov’s book “The Solution of the National Language Problem in the USSR” (M., 1977), M. I. Isaev’s “130 Equal Languages” (on the languages of the peoples of the USSR), and so on.

2. The second problem concerns the scholarly substantiation of the role and significance of the Russian language as a means of interethnic communication in Soviet society. The aforementioned collective work devoted considerable attention to describing the functioning of Russian in the national republics and the development of national-Russian bilingualism. Works on this problem include “The Development of National-Russian Bilingualism” (M., 1976), “Problems of Bilingualism and Multilingualism,” “Russian as a Means of Interethnic Communication,” “The Russian Language: Its Role in the Development and Strengthening of Soviet Society and International Cooperation,” and others.

3. The third problem is the relationship between the development of languages and cultures, linguistic issues in the interaction and mutual enrichment of nations and nationalities and their cultures, and the development of an all-Soviet socialist culture. These issues are discussed in the books “The Development of Languages and Cultures in Their Interrelationship and Interaction,” “The Relationship between the Development of Language and Culture” (in press), “National Language and National Culture” (1978), and several other works.

4. The fourth problem is the development of linguistic life in the socialist countries and language issues in intergovernmental cooperation among the socialist countries as the process of socialist integration deepens further. A number of articles have been published on this problem, and work is underway to prepare a long-term program of joint research under the targeted project “National Languages in the Conditions of Developed Socialist Society.”

5. The fifth problem is the global linguistic process and the trends in its development. Marxist-Leninist ideology and the role of the Soviet Union in global development oblige us to pay considerable attention to this

14

problem. Important studies have been published: “The Scientific and Technological Revolution and the Functioning of the Languages of the World,” “Sociolinguistic Problems of Developing Countries,” “The Russian Language in the Modern World,” and others.

Work is currently under way on such important problems as “Language in a Developed Socialist Society” (meaning Soviet society) and “National Languages under the Conditions of a Developed Socialist Society,” which are connected with carrying out the principal task—building communism. Considerable coordination and scientific-organizational and research work has been and is being carried out. Unfortunately, not all the opportunities available are being used in this work. We are striving to eliminate shortcomings and to combine research and scientific-organizational activities with the preparation of scientific and practical recommendations.

We would like to express our profound gratitude to all the comrades who cooperate with us and provide assistance, involve us in developing comprehensive problems, and support our research and scientific positions in their work.

L. I. Brezhnev’s report on the 60th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, the materials of the joint jubilee session of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, and other materials connected with summing up the development of Soviet society over 60 years and defining the principal tasks for the further development of a mature socialist society will serve as a new stimulus and compass for us in successfully expanding scientific research—our modest contribution to the cause of building communism.

One of the important tasks facing sociolinguists is developing a general theory of social linguistics. (As is well known, the classics of Marxism-Leninism scientifically formulated, substantiated, and resolved, from the standpoint of dialectical and historical materialism, the problem of the social conditioning of language and the laws governing its historical development.

Soviet linguists began to show considerable interest in sociolinguistic problems as early as the 1920s and 1930s (N. A. Marr, I. I. Meshchaninov, V. V. Vinogradov, V. M. Zhirmunsky, E. D. Polivanov, R. O. Shor, N. F. Yakovlev, E. D. Yakubinsky, and others).

At that time, significant results were achieved in resolving individual issues, particularly those connected with language planning. In the 1940s and 1950s, O. S. Akhmanova, I. K. Beloded, R. A. Budagov, V. V. Vinogradov, V. M. Zhirmunsky, F. P. Filin, A. S. Chikobava, and others took part in developing sociolinguistic problems. However, at that time not a single coherent theoretical conception of social linguistics was created.

In the second half of the 1950s, interest in sociolinguistic problems and in questions of planning and forecasting language development in the Soviet Union increased (“The Development of Newly Written Languages,” 1958; “Newly Written Languages,” 1959, and others).

In the early 1960s, measures were taken in the United States to organize sociolinguistic research. Interest in these problems also revived in France, England, Italy, and Japan.

Sociolinguistic research was being pursued in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe (the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and Yugoslavia). Interest in these problems also arose in developing countries.

However, a general theory of social linguistics had not yet been created.

15

Soviet sociolinguists are engaged in extensive work to develop a general theory of social linguistics. Monographs devoted to this problem include Yu. D. Desheriyev’s “Social Linguistics: Toward the Foundations of a General Theory” (Moscow, 1977), L. B. Nikolsky’s “Synchronous Sociolinguistics” (Moscow, 1976), and A. D. Schweizer’s “Modern Sociolinguistics: Theory, Problems, Methods” (Moscow, 1976). This work must be deepened and continued.

Linguists in our country are also developing other sociolinguistic problems: the works of I. K. Beloded, F. P. Filin, R. I. Budagov, G. V. Stepanov, I. F. Protchenko, O. S. Akhmanova, V. G. Kostomarov, and others, devoted to the linguistic life of the peoples of the USSR and foreign countries.

Thus, in our country, sociolinguistic problems are being investigated using the languages of the peoples of the USSR and foreign countries, from general theoretical, synchronic, retrospective, prospective, and applied perspectives, as well as with regard to the study of interlinguistic issues.

The experience of holding a special conference devoted to sociolinguistic problems in the development of linguistic life in the Lithuanian SSR yields important theoretical, practical, and scholarly-organizational conclusions.

1. The conference was presented with an agenda of current issues important both theoretically and practically, reflecting the vital needs of a developed socialist society.

2. The high professional standard of the papers indicates that sociolinguistic problems in Lithuania will be investigated at an appropriate methodological and theoretical level.

3. Concrete sociolinguistic studies are planned in accordance with the practical needs of linguistic life in the Lithuanian SSR.

4. Particular attention should be paid to the successful combination of formulating and providing scholarly analysis of problems concerning the functioning and spread of Lithuanian-Russian and Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism, as well as the functioning of Russian in the Lithuanian SSR as a means of interethnic communication. This takes into account the primary importance of developing Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism, since national-Russian bilingualism in the USSR is the principal type of bilingualism and is of enormous social and practical significance.

5. The papers, presentations, and speeches clearly expressed a desire to investigate social-linguistic problems that would make it possible to prepare scholarly and practical recommendations, especially important for the republic’s schools and higher education institutions.

6. The start of coordinating the republic’s linguists’ research in sociolinguistics and on Russian as a language of interethnic communication appears useful and promising.

7. Young scholars—young candidates of sciences, postgraduate students, and interns—were invited to participate actively in the conference.

All this gives reason to hope that sociolinguistic research, including studies of Russian as a language of interethnic communication, will expand in the Lithuanian SSR in accordance with the real needs of a developed socialist society.

16

Литература

Баграмов Э. А. Развитие и сближение социалистических наций. — Правда, 1971, 16 июля.

Белодед И. К. Развитие языков социалистических наций СССР. — Киев, 1969.

Виноградов В. В. Великий русский язык. — М., 1945.

Дешериев Ю. Д. Закономерности развития и взаимодействие языков в советском обществе. — М., 1966.

Ежегодник БСЭ. — М., 1975.

Народное образование в СССР. 1917—1967. — М., 1967.

Пушкин А. С. Полное собрание сочинений в 16-ти томах. — М., 1949.

Соціалістична Україна. — Київ, 1937.

Увачан В. Н. Путь многих народов Севера к социализму. — М., 1971.

Институт языкознания АН СССР

DABARTINĖ SOCIOLINGVISTIKOS PADĖTIS TSR SĄJUNGOJE IR TARYBINĖS VISUOMENĖS KALBINIO GYVENIMO RAIDOS AKTUALIOS PROBLEMOS

Reziumė

Straipsnyje analizuojamos svarbiausios TSR Sąjungos kalbinio gyvenimo raidos tendencijos. Pateikiama daug neginčijamų faktų, rodančių, kad tarybinių tautų literatūrinės kalbos turi tendenciją laisvai funkcionuoti ir plėtotis, kad po Spalio revoliucijos jų visuomeninis vartojimas iš esmės pakito ir kad jos savo visuomenines funkcijas negreitai išplėtė. Antroji raidos tendencija yra formavimasis ir plitimas nacionalinio-rusų bilingvizmo, kuris yra būtina socialinė įvairiakabės, daugnacionalinės tarybinės visuomenės gyvenimo prielaida. Brandžiojo socializmo visuomenėje nacionalinės kalbos ir rusų kalba, kaip tautų bendravimo priemonė, papildo viena kitą. Rusų kalbos vaidmens didėjimas tarybinės visuomenės — naujos istorinės žmonių bendrijos — gyvenime priklauso nuo objektyvių socialinių priežasčių. Rusų kalbos dėka vienos nacionalinės kultūros laimėjimai pasidaro prieinami visiems tarybiniams žmonėms. Rusų kalba padeda turinti ir plėtoti nacionalinių kalbų leksinę-terminologinę ir stilistinę sistemas, jas internacionalizuoja. Keliamos ir svarstomos pagrindinės tarybinės socialinės lingvistikos problemos: kalbų funkcionavimas, raida ir tarpusavio sąveika socialistinėje visuomenėje; rusų kalbos, kaip tarptautinio bendravimo priemonės, vaidmens ir reikšmės didėjimas tarybinės visuomenės gyvenime; kalbų ir kultūrų, tautų ir jų kultūrų savitarpio sąveika ir turtėjimas; bendrosios socialinės teorijos kūrimas ir kt. Pabrėžiama reikšmė ir perspektyvumas sociolingvistinių tyrinėjimų, ypač klausimų, kurie liečia lietuvių-rusų bilingvizmą ir rusų kalbos, kaip nacijų bendravimo priemonės, plėtimąsi mūsų respublikoje.

2. Užs. Nr. 1554