СОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ

ЛИТУВИУ КАЛБОТЫРОС КЛАУСИМАИ. XIX (1979)

Vida Juozovna Mikhalchenko

CURRENT SOCIOLINGUISTIC PROBLEMS OF THE LINGUISTIC LIFE OF THE LITHUANIAN SSR

The last decade in the development of Soviet linguistics has been characterized by a revival of interest in the relationship between language and thought, language and mental activity, and in the problem of the dependence of language development on social phenomena, the study of which, owing to linguists’ predominant attention to the internal structure of language, had largely ceased.

Modern science is characterized by two opposing processes—differentiation and integration—which in linguistics are manifested in the emergence of disciplines such as psycholinguistics, ethnolinguistics, and sociolinguistics, which integrate linguistics with other sciences and tend to become separate fields. This latter circumstance has prompted scholars to seek to establish the theoretical foundations of social linguistics, develop their own original approach to the study of language, create a conceptual framework, and devise specialized research methods (Desheriev Yu. D., 1977; Nikolsky L. B., 1976; Shveitser A. D., 1977).

Soviet sociolinguistics, revived in the 1970s in response to the extremes of internal linguistics and to meet social needs arising from the development of the linguistic life of the multinational Soviet people, faces the task of expanding sociolinguistic research into a range of issues that are vital to the contemporary linguistic life of the peoples of the USSR. These include the development of the social functions of languages in the present and in the past; the nature of this process’s influence on different levels of language structure; the patterns governing the functioning of Russian as a language of interethnic communication at different stages in the development of the Soviet country; processes in the development of different types of bilingualism, especially the most socially significant—national-Russian bilingualism; and the study of the most rational ways to create terminological systems in the languages of the peoples of the USSR, among other issues. Different authors study these problems either by examining linguistic processes characteristic of particular regions or language groups (Darbeeva A. A., 1969; Khasanov B., 1976, etc.), or by identifying patterns common to the entire country (Desheriev Yu. D., 1976). This approach is prompted by the need to identify both general patterns of language development and the specific features of their manifestation under particular ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic conditions. The aim of this article is to identify the main pressing problems in the linguistic life of Lithuania, determine possible ways to study them, and interpret the theoretical and practical significance of resolving them. This can be done only by taking into account the general trends in the development of linguistic life in the USSR.

The functioning of the languages of the peoples of the USSR during the Soviet period is determined, on the one hand, by the general patterns of Soviet society’s development and, on the other, by the specific ethnolinguistic conditions in which

^2*

19

these patterns are realized. One of the main factors determining trends in language development in our country is the formation of a new historical community—the Soviet people, who created a socialist culture unified in spirit and fundamental content, incorporating the most valuable features and traditions of the cultures of our country’s peoples. Alongside the creation of an all-Soviet culture, the distinctive features of socialist national cultures are preserved and developed.

The development of an all-Soviet culture and the further flourishing of national socialist cultures are accompanied by the unified coexistence of two trends in the linguistic development of the peoples of our country: the realization of the potential of the languages of the peoples of the USSR and the simultaneous widespread dissemination of Russian as a language of interethnic communication (Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1976, pp. 115–116). It should be borne in mind that the main features of the linguistic life of the peoples of our country can be properly described only after identifying how these patterns are realized in the specific conditions of a given republic or region. Therefore, at the present stage, in our view, sociolinguistic studies of the linguistic life of the Lithuanian SSR are highly topical and should pursue two lines of inquiry: 1) the study of the functioning and development of the Lithuanian language; 2) the study of the main trends in the functioning and spread of Russian in the republic as a language of interethnic communication.

Research into the functioning and development of the Lithuanian language encompasses a number of issues of theoretical and practical interest: the development of the Lithuanian language’s social functions in different historical periods and the influence of this process on its various levels; the relationship between the social and cultural progress of the Lithuanian people and the development of the Lithuanian language; the social conditioning of language change; the sociolinguistic basis of processes of standardizing Lithuanian; principles for creating scientific, technical, and sociopolitical terminology; speech culture as one of the constituent parts of all-Soviet culture; the nature and forms of interaction between Lithuanian and Russian and other languages functioning in the republic; and so on. Let us consider in greater detail some of the issues mentioned.

The social functions of the Lithuanian language have been discussed in general terms in a number of works (Krūpas J., 1969; Desheriev Yu. D., 1976; Mikhalchenko V. Yu., 1975), but to date no in-depth, comprehensive study of the social functions of Lithuanian exists.

As is well known, until the mid-sixteenth century Lithuanian functioned as the unwritten vernacular language of the Lithuanian people and as the language of oral folk-poetic creativity (Lietuvių literatūros istorija, 1957). Only individual Lithuanian words were used in documents written in West Russian, German, and Latin. In the mid-sixteenth century, with the advent of writing, the spheres in which Lithuanian was used expanded. The further development of Lithuanian’s social functions in different spheres of the Lithuanian people’s cultural life proceeded through the gradual displacement of other languages (German, West Russian, Polish). In its development, Lithuanian followed an exceptionally complex path—from a vernacular language and the language of oral folk-poetic creativity to the language of the Lithuanian socialist nation, serving all spheres of the people’s social and cultural life. The development of Lithuanian’s social functions was not an exclusively upward process: there were periods of relatively rapid progress and periods of some decline—

20

standing. Both depended on the historical development of the Lithuanian people and on a number of political, social, ethnic, and cultural factors, whose varying combinations in different historical periods created more or less favorable conditions for expanding the spheres in which the Lithuanian language was used. It is necessary to study how socioeconomic conditions and ethnocultural processes affected the social functions of the Lithuanian language and its use in the fields of administrative work, book publishing, higher and secondary education, and so on. To do this, it is necessary to uncover the structure and scope of language functions in a given period, demonstrate the social conditioning of these functions, determine how two or three languages coexisted in a particular sphere of the cultural life of the Lithuanian people, and identify which social factors promoted or, conversely, impeded the expansion of the functions of the Lithuanian language.

Research into the development of the social functions of the Lithuanian language is of interest because it makes it possible to shed in-depth, scholarly light on the paths by which the national self-awareness of the Lithuanian people took shape, in whose ethnic processes language occupied a very significant place, especially from the XIX century onward, in connection with the consolidation of the Lithuanian nation. A comprehensive diachronic sociolinguistic study of the development of the public functions of the Lithuanian language would help illuminate Lithuania’s linguistic life in the past and identify the role of Lithuanian and other languages in the social and cultural life of the population. Against the background of the functional development of the Lithuanian language, the main tendencies in its standardization and the paths taken by the development of its structure could be brought into sharper focus. In addition, certain general theoretical propositions could be refined. For example, it is generally held that the functional development of a language determines, to a considerable extent, changes in its individual levels (Desheriev Yu. D., 1977, p. 233). However, this correct theoretical proposition does not rule out the presence, in the varied and contradictory linguistic life of the past, of cases in which this conditioning manifested itself ambiguously and in distinctive ways. The language’s internal structural development can proceed very intensively even when its social functions expand comparatively little. Thus, in the XVII—XVIII centuries, the Lithuanian language expanded its public functions very slowly, yet its phonetic and morphological norms, vocabulary, and syntactic structure were taking shape intensively. It must be taken into account that its relatively widespread use in different spheres of the cultural and public life of the Lithuanian people during the bourgeois period did not bring about significant changes in its structure or intensive standardization. Apparently, in the XVII—XVIII centuries, a major role was played by the subjective factor—the work of language standardizers, which intensified during the formation of the Lithuanian nation. In the bourgeois period, the Lithuanian language was used in all spheres of social and cultural life, but these spheres themselves were underdeveloped (few books were published, not everyone in the relevant age groups received an education, and so on). In our view, such phenomena attest to the heterogeneity and diversity of the relations between functional and internal structural development.

During the Soviet period, the development of the public functions of the Lithuanian language proceeded along two paths: on the one hand, Lithuanian began to be used in new areas of human activity (national cinema, television); on the other, it added to its public functions by being used in the expanded traditional spheres of the cultural life of the Lithuanian people (education, book publishing, administrative work, and others). Compared with the bourgeois period, during the Soviet years the development of the public functions of the Lithuanian language

21

took place mainly not through an increase in the number of spheres in which it was used (only two new spheres of cultural life emerged: national cinema and television), but through the development of the spheres themselves, an increase in their scope, and the greater complexity of their structure. For example, bourgeois Lithuania had 6 higher education institutions, whereas Soviet Lithuania had 12; in 1964 the number of students at the republic’s higher education institutions was 10 times greater than in the 1939/40 academic year.

When discussing the different periods in the development of the public functions of the Lithuanian language at the present stage of studying the processes by which languages function in Lithuania, we must limit ourselves to comparing figures and drawing speculative conclusions, since to date there are no studies showing the full range of the public functions of the Lithuanian language in different historical periods, or the significant changes that took place in its functioning during the Soviet period and the impact of these changes on its various levels.

Усиление тенденций сознательного воздействия общества на язык (Дешериев Ю. Д., 1977, с. 254) требует более пристального внимания языковедов к общим тенденциям функционирования и развития языков в стране и в республике, к проблеме соответствия темпов и тенденций нормирования языка на современном уровне развития советского общества. В частности, необходимо решить вопрос об учете социальных факторов в ходе сознательного влияния общества на литовский язык. Чтобы проиллюстрировать данное положение, остановимся на конкретных примерах.

As already noted, new spheres in which the Lithuanian language functions emerged during the Soviet period—national cinema and television. In addition, various forms of public and cultural activity (meetings, congresses, conferences, symposia, meetings with writers, and others), which also require the use of spoken language, are spreading intensively. The people’s overall cultural level has risen, and attitudes toward speech culture have changed. Therefore, in assessing the social significance of the written and spoken forms of the language, it should be noted that the social role of the spoken form has grown. In the pre-Soviet period, in keeping with social factors and the level of development of the language’s public functions, the written form played a major role in the public and cultural life of the Lithuanian people. This was reflected in school instruction, whose principal aim was to teach spelling, and in linguistics, which was directed primarily toward studying and standardizing the written form of the language. In the Soviet period, by contrast, the spoken form acquired great significance in the public and cultural life of the people; therefore, the efforts made by Lithuanian linguists to standardize spoken language should be assessed very positively (see the issues of „Kalbos kultūra“, „Mūsų kalba“). In our view, further work is needed on questions of spoken-language culture.

In their work on language standardization, Lithuanian linguists take social factors into account, that is, the social basis of changes in language norms. One example is the sociolinguistic interpretation of certain changes to Lithuanian spelling and punctuation presented in the work „Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba“. This publication provides for specific changes that do not affect the fundamentals of spelling and punctuation. For example, it proposes writing some foreign surnames in a form closer to the original language (Ibid., p. 131). Such a change first requires linguistic prerequisites, that is, a common basis for the alphabets of both languages, since the presence in the alphabets of letters with different sound values would give rise to considerable difficulties. The rule in question may apply

22

only to the proper names of those peoples whose native language uses the Latin alphabet. In our view, the linguistic grounds are insufficient for such a change in Lithuanian orthography; certain social prerequisites are also necessary: a sufficiently high level of general culture among the people, expressed concretely in the general education of the majority of the population and presupposing an appropriate degree of knowledge of foreign languages¹. Without these social prerequisites, the success of such a change is unlikely. This rule takes ethnic, cultural, and social factors into account and can be successfully adopted in Lithuanian usage. This spelling can already be seen in the periodical press (see „Literatūra ir menas“). In proposing this change, Lithuanian linguists also took into account such important sociolinguistic parameters as the social significance of the spoken form of language and stylistic differentiation, and recommended two options: in publications for the general public, the phoneticized form + the original form, for example, Dekartas (Descartes); in scholarly works, informational literature, and announcements, conversely, the original form + the phoneticized word, for example, Descartes (Dekartas). In recommending that pronunciation be indicated in parentheses in scholarly works, the authors took account of the need to preserve consistent pronunciation of foreign words among all language users, and also created conditions for successfully overcoming the psychological barrier associated with reading an unfamiliar or little-known word. Other proposals for changes to Lithuanian orthography and punctuation presented in the aforementioned book are likewise motivated by the aim of making maximum use of the cultural potential of the people who speak the language.

Taking social, ethnic, and cultural factors into account in processes of language standardization enables linguists to engage in conscious activity in the field of language development with an understanding of the social significance and social prospects of particular phenomena and changes, and helps ensure that linguistic changes are perceived against the broad backdrop of the social development of the Soviet people.

Under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, questions concerning the functioning of the languages of the peoples of the USSR in the sphere of science acquire great importance (Azimov P. A. et al., 1977). The scientific and technological revolution affects changes in the social functions of dialects and literary languages, enhances the role of the literary language, and, through mass communication media that help popularize scientific and technical terminology, contributes to the rapid spread of loanwords and terms and their transformation into elements of international vocabulary; urbanization processes and population migration affect the social and professional differentiation of languages. The social determination of these phenomena and the diversity of their forms of manifestation should become subjects of in-depth study for Soviet sociolinguists.

One important problem in the functional development of Lithuanian, associated with the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, is the formation of the language of science, in particular the development of scientific and technical terminology, which has a long tradition. Researchers date the beginnings of terminology creation to the pre-literary period, more precisely, to the time when West Russian was used as the written language in Lithuania (Keinys S., 1967). For many years, general-

¹ In this case, we distinguish our position from the practice of spelling foreign proper names in this way, established in the Lithuanian émigré press (USA), since, in our view, this practice has an entirely different social nature: it is one particular aspect of the general process of language assimilation and is the result of socially active Lithuanian-English bilingualism.

23

The political conditions were not conducive to the creation of Lithuanian terminology. The development of Lithuanian writing and the terminology associated with it began in the first half of the XVIII century and continued into the XIX century. From the very earliest stages in the development of terminology, there was a prevailing tendency to make maximum use of the resources of popular speech. At the same time, attempts were made to enrich Lithuanian terminology through borrowings from other languages—Latin, German, Russian, Polish, and others. These two principles have remained dominant in the subsequent development of Lithuanian terminology, with the aspiration to make maximum use of the language’s internal resources prevailing. During the Soviet period, both tendencies developed further; in addition, the political and economic community of the peoples of the USSR led to the greatest possible correspondence among the terminological vocabularies of the languages of the peoples of the USSR, a particular manifestation of the general principle of language interaction. In Soviet society, this principle is one of the leading factors determining the place and role of other principles in the creation of terminology (for further details, see Michalchenko V. Yu., 1977).

In the processes of interaction among the languages of the peoples of the USSR in the field of terminology, Russian occupies an important place; with varying intensity and in different forms, it influences the development of terminology, including Lithuanian terminology. The national specificity of the forms through which Russian influences a given language is determined by traditions of terminology creation as well as by the specific internal structure of the language. For example, the national specificity of Lithuanian terminology is evident in the very small number of direct borrowings from Russian: narodnikas, bolševikas, artelė, agitpunktas. Lithuanian borrows international terms through Russian; term calquing is widely used; Russian stimulates and activates certain word-formation methods, that is, it mobilizes the internal resources of Lithuanian to create terminology.

During the Soviet period, a tendency toward the increased internationalization of terminological vocabulary emerged. It is also evident in Lithuanian (Keinys S., 1973). Comparative studies are needed of the processes of internationalization in the terminological systems of the languages of the peoples of the USSR with different structures, since only such studies can reveal the general patterns of terminology development, their national specificity, and the intensity of terminology internationalization. Such studies would contribute to resolving the theoretical problem of the most rational balance between native and borrowed vocabulary at the present stage.

As is well known, scientific and organizational measures have recently been taken to intensify terminology work, since the current state of Lithuanian terminology and its pace of development do not match the pace and level of the scientific and technological revolution. Alongside practical work on creating terminology for different branches of science, we believe it is necessary to develop research on how existing terminological systems function and on issues of speech culture in professional activity. Terms coined by linguists and recorded in terminological dictionaries are often used incorrectly in the speech of members of a given profession, replaced by “everyday” terminology or semi-terms. This is especially characteristic of the sphere of production. Alongside the substantial work carried out from a sociolinguistic perspective by the publications „Kalbos kultūra“ and „Mūsų kalba“, which study language use across social and professional groups, broader sociolinguistic-

24

inguistic studies revealing the main trends and features of how a particular terminological system functions in the speech of specialists, and the relationship between terms, semi-terms, and general vocabulary in their speech. Such studies would help uncover the specific ways in which the scientific and technological revolution affects the functioning and development of language, and identify the main trends in the development of the Lithuanian language in connection with its functioning in science and production.

In recent years, Soviet sociolinguistics has devoted considerable attention to the problem of the relationship between languages and cultures, which is of interest both theoretically and for the study of specific processes and trends in the functioning of languages in different spheres of culture (see “Development of Languages and Cultures,” 1976). At the present stage, it is highly relevant to study the functioning of the Lithuanian language in different spheres of culture (for example, science, higher education, and book publishing) during different historical periods, since “the social consequences of the development of Soviet society are most clearly manifested in a comparative analysis of the three most important periods in the development of the languages and cultures of the peoples of the USSR: a) the period of development of pre-socialist cultures and the functioning of the languages of nations, nationalities, and ethnic groups under tsarism; b) the period of the formation and development of socialist cultures and the emergence of new, socially conditioned regularities in the functioning of languages and the development of their social functions; c) the period of the formation of an all-Soviet socialist culture and the emergence of new trends in the functioning of languages in the course of the development of a new historical community—the Soviet people” (Desheriev Yu. D., 1977, p. 82).

The very emergence of a literary language is a result of cultural progress, associated with the desire of a people to express itself in literature, politics, science, public life, and other areas of human activity. The further development of the literary form of a language is likewise inseparable from a people’s culture. In its historical development, the Lithuanian people was closely connected with its neighboring Slavic peoples—the Russians, Belarusians, Poles, and Ukrainians—which had a certain influence on the formation of Lithuanian culture and on the development of the Lithuanian literary language. A number of spheres of public and cultural life of the Lithuanian people—for example, relations with other countries, administrative record-keeping, and the creation of works in various genres during different historical periods—were served by Latin, West Russian, Polish, and German. The formation of the Lithuanian literary language and the expansion of its use in different spheres of Lithuanian culture proceeded through the displacement of other languages as the people’s national consciousness grew. The relationship between the development of Lithuanian national culture and the linguistic life of the Lithuanian people was therefore highly complex and contradictory. The history of Lithuanian culture includes phenomena whose evaluation requires consideration of a range of factors—political, cultural, and ethnic—since assessing them on the basis of the linguistic factor alone may lead to an oversimplified, one-sided interpretation. Thus, a comprehensive approach is apparently needed in evaluating the work of nineteenth-century literary figures who wrote in Polish (A. Mickiewicz) or in Lithuanian and Polish (K. Bogushas, A. Klementas, D. Poshka, S. Valiunas, S. Stanevičius, and others), as well as the important and complex question of the role of Polish, Russian, and other languages in creating national literature and serving the branches of culture (on bilingual writers, see “Lietuvių literatūros istorija,” I, 1957, pp. 338–363). The study of specific

25

forms of participation by different languages in serving various spheres of Lithuanian culture makes it possible to observe interesting phenomena—the interrelationship between national language and national culture, and the adaptation of one people’s language to express the culture of another. For example, it is known that West Russian functioned as the official written language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for almost 300 years (XIV – XVI centuries). This raises the question of how adequately that language reflected Lithuanian culture. West Russian developed in accordance with the specific features of Belarusian culture and the needs of Belarusian national, economic, and cultural development. To what extent, then, did West Russian adequately reflect Lithuanian culture? Judging by studies of written monuments of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the degree to which this language adequately reflected Lithuanian culture depended directly on the typological identity or similarity of cultural phenomena: it reflected adequately those phenomena of Lithuanian culture that had corresponding or similar realities in Russian culture, whereas in representing the specific national features of Lithuanian culture, West Russian needed additional linguistic means—adaptation to express the culture of another people. In our view, one form of such adaptation is the considerable number of borrowings from Lithuanian found in written monuments of this period composed in West Russian (see Jablonskis K., 1941, 1973).

In noting the role of Latin, Russian, Polish, and German in the formation of Lithuanian culture in the pre-Soviet period, it should be borne in mind that the spheres in which these languages were used and circulated in Lithuania were limited; texts written in them served the interests of the ruling classes and were incomprehensible and inaccessible to the Lithuanian people, the creators and bearers of national culture. Although these languages were not directly connected with the emergence and development of Lithuanian-language writing, literature in Latin, Russian, Polish, and German played a major role in Lithuania’s public and cultural life and in the development of education and culture; in particular, it influenced Lithuanian writing.

One characteristic feature of the development of the Lithuanian language, associated with the formation of the Lithuanian socialist nation, is the development and enrichment of its functional styles (for more detail, see “Regularities of Development,” 1973). During the Soviet period, the stylistic differentiation of the Lithuanian language that began in the sixteenth century with the advent of writing continued. The journalistic and scientific styles developed most intensively, while the administrative style lagged somewhat behind. It is therefore relevant to study the processes by which individual styles of Lithuanian are developing and to determine whether their level of development corresponds to the people’s contemporary needs.

The republic devotes considerable attention to speech culture, one of the constituent parts of all-Soviet socialist culture. Linguistic literature generally examines questions of speech culture by socio-professional groups: it analyzes current issues in the speech culture of medical professionals, musicians, mathematicians, and so on, and offers recommendations for raising its level. Such studies should be continued; however, in the Lithuanian SSR it is also relevant to develop research on speech-culture problems that arise in individual districts of the republic in connection with the distinctive ethnic composition of their populations. There are several types of district in Lithuania: those where the indigenous nationality (Lithuanians) is overwhelmingly predominant, and those with a high proportion of Russian residents (Ignalina, Švenčionys, Jonava, Trakai, and Zarasai districts).

26

or Polish (Vilnius, Eišiškės, and Trakai districts). In these areas, the close contact between languages in the everyday lives of their speakers gives rise to specific problems concerning the culture of speech in the native and second languages (see Michalčenko V., 1974, for more details). To some extent, a certain decline in the level of speech culture is attributable to school instruction, where, according to our observations, the view is widespread that pupils acquire the second language well in everyday life; the fact is not always taken into account that in areas with a mixed population there is a heightened social need for a good command of the second language, as well as the possibility that speech culture may decline because of the active use of two or more languages (see Jačikevičius A., 1970, on this).

At the present stage, research into and sociolinguistic interpretation of linguistic material that is disappearing from use are also highly relevant, since the problem arises of documenting it in a timely manner. From this perspective, studies devoted to the functioning and interaction of dialects of different languages in Lithuania are of particular interest (see the works of Sivishkene M., Shulene O., et al.). The functioning of the Lithuanian language abroad, the development of the culture of the Lithuanian émigré community, and the role of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian socialist culture in creating the culture of the Lithuanian émigré community—which takes shape through the transformation of elements of foreign cultures and the use of the values and traditions of the homeland—also require theoretical consideration and a Marxist interpretation. Alongside the very interesting existing studies (see Glyamzhene O.-A., 1973; Pazhusis A., 1971), which reveal the influence of English on the speech of Lithuanian emigrants, extensive research is needed into the functioning of Lithuanian under different social conditions, against the background of socially active Lithuanian-English and other types of bilingualism involving a foreign language.

Turning to the functioning of Russian in the republic as a language of interethnic communication, we should first note that the functional coexistence of two languages (the national language and Russian) enables each people of our country to develop its own culture, served by the national language, and at the same time to participate in Soviet-wide and world culture through the language of interethnic communication. This rational combination of the common and particular interests of the peoples of our country and of socialist society as a whole, expressed through the combination of the domains in which national languages and the language of interethnic communication are used, has been termed national-Russian bilingualism (see “The Development of National-Russian Bilingualism,” 1976). The spread of bilingualism involving the language of interethnic communication is one of the leading trends in the development of the linguistic life of the peoples of the USSR, conditioned by the importance of Russian’s social function as a language that unites and integrates the socialist nations (Khanazarov K. Kh., 1977). One of the most important sociolinguistic regularities governing the functioning of a language of interethnic communication is the voluntary, mass, and accelerated nature of its spread (Kholmogorov A. I., 1976).

The second component of national-Russian bilingualism is Russian, the language of interethnic communication; this is precisely why this type of bilingualism is the most important and socially significant in our country. As linguistic practice shows, the formation of national-Russian bilingualism in our country is linked primarily to schooling, through which knowledge of the second language, as well as skills and abilities, is deliberately developed. Ethnolinguistic conditions have a marked influence on knowledge of

27

Russian only in several large cities and districts of the Lithuanian SSR. The mass media also play an important role, exerting a considerable influence on knowledge of Russian. Nevertheless, the school remains the principal source of the spread of national-Russian bilingualism, since one of its main tasks is to teach pupils to use their native language and Russian fluently, so that they can apply them in the sociopolitical, scientific, and cultural spheres of life. At the present stage of developed socialist society, in connection with the formation of a new historical community—the Soviet people—the role of Russian as the language of interethnic communication is increasing, as is the role of Russian linguodidactics, which is important in teaching Russian not only as a native language but also as a second language. The aim of teaching Russian in a national school is to develop coordinate bilingualism and eliminate interference from the native language. As observations of the results of school instruction in Russian in the Lithuanian SSR show (see Mikhalchenko V. Yu., 1977, for more details), even under conditions of socially active bilingualism, pupils acquire only 56% of the prescribed vocabulary at the first stage of instruction, about 70% at the second, and the same amount at the third. In areas where the population is ethnically homogeneous and spoken Russian is not actively used, this percentage is even lower. The problem of improving the level of school instruction can be resolved only through the coordinated efforts of teachers, psychologists, and linguists. Psychologists must address the question of whether and how the two languages—the native and the second—should be compared, and theoretically substantiate and experimentally establish at what age comparison of linguistic facts and rules is appropriate (see “The Interaction of Languages in the Learning Process,” 1971, pp. 67–69). The main linguistic characteristics of the subject being studied are defined by the scholarly grammar of Russian; alongside it, an important component of the scholarly linguistic basis for teaching a second language is a contrastive (comparative) grammar of the two components of bilingualism. While the first grammar reveals the nature of the object being studied, the second identifies how the native language affects bilingual speakers’ speech in the second language and makes it possible to take the specific features of the native language into account in the teaching process. Only such a grammar enables the methodologist to draw on the native language, take account of the possibility of positive transfer, and neutralize interference. A comparison of the morphology of Lithuanian and Russian has now been carried out (Musgeiks K., 1972). It is of great scholarly importance, since a thorough, well-supported description of the similarities and differences between the Baltic languages and Russian has always interested linguists of various specializations. However, in addition to such grammars, works oriented toward a particular sphere of activity are needed—that is, applied works—for example, contrastive studies of two languages for translators, comparing the expressive resources at different levels of language, and contrastive comparisons of two languages for school instruction in a second language (Russian or Lithuanian). In our view, contrastive grammars intended for schools should, where possible, be supplemented with data on the frequency of particular errors in speech in the second language, so that the manifestation and relevance of particular instances of interference can be seen.

If the aim of science is prediction—scientific forecasting based on knowledge of the present and the past—then contrastive grammar offers linguistics an excellent means of making such predictions. Of course, at the present stage in the development of linguistics, a complete

28

A contrastive grammar of Lithuanian and Russian designed for school instruction is hardly feasible; however, surveys of major grammatical topics that present the full range of similarities and differences between Lithuanian and Russian are entirely practicable. These, in turn, would help methodologists develop a system of methods and techniques for teaching the subject while taking into account the specific features of the native language.

Studies of the processes of interaction between Lithuanian and Russian, Lithuanian and Polish, as well as other languages spoken within the republic, are important. It should be noted that the role of these languages in public and cultural life differed across historical periods; accordingly, the nature and forms of their influence on Lithuanian, as well as the influence of Lithuanian on them, also differed. In studying language interaction, it is necessary to take into account the influence of one language on the speech of individual speakers of another language, the incorporation of a particular phenomenon into the norm of another language, the borrowing of individual words, and the concealed processes—difficult to define—that affect the intensity with which a given grammatical form functions, and so on. Only this approach makes possible fruitful studies that reveal the full diversity of language contact and its results at different levels of language, which depend on the nature of the contact between the languages and the degree to which one language influences another.

I would also like to draw attention to the need, from the very outset of sociolinguistic research based on the linguistic life of the Lithuanian SSR, to develop a rigorous, scientifically grounded sociolinguistic terminology in Lithuanian.

Thus, the relevance of sociolinguistic issues is determined by the extent to which they contribute to the study of the fundamental regularities and leading trends in language development at the present stage, to a correct Marxist assessment of the processes through which languages function and develop in the past, and to the forecasting of linguistic life. In addressing any particular problem, it is necessary to remember its place in resolving the urgent and most important questions concerning the development and functioning of languages at the present stage.

Литература

Grinaveckienė E. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos ir tarmių sąveika. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. V., 1969.

Jablonskis K. Lietuviški žodžiai senosios Lietuvos raštinių kalboje. K., 1941, t. 1.

Jablonskis K. Lietuvių kultūra ir jos veikėjai. V., 1973.

Jackevičius A. Daugiakalbystės psichologija. V., 1970.

Keinys S. Lietuvių terminologijos kūrimo apžvalga (iki 1940 m.). — Kalbotyra. V., 1967, t. 18.

Kruopas J. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos vystymasis praeityje ir tarybiniais metais. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. V., 1969.

Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba. V., 1976.

Lietuvių literatūros istorija. V., 1967, t. 1.

Michalčenko V. Kelių kalbų vartojimas ir kalbos kultūra. — Kalbos kultūra. V., 1974, sąs. 27.

Программа Коммунистической партии Советского Союза. — М., 1976.

Азимов П. А., Дешериев Ю. Д., Никольский Л. Б. и др. Современное общественное развитие, научно-техническая революция и язык. — В кн.: Научно-техническая революция и функционирование языков мира. М., 1977.

Взаимодействие языков в процессе обучения. — Вильнюс, 1971.

Глямжене О.-А. Интерференция английского языка в лексике литовцев США. Автореф. канд. дис. — Киев, 1973.

Дарбеева А. А. Развитие общественных функций монгольских языков в советскую эпоху. — М., 1969.

29

Дешериев Ю. Д. Закономерности развития литературных языков народов СССР в советскую эпоху. Развитие общественных функций литературных языков. — М., 1976.

Дешериев Ю. Д. Социальная лингвистика. — М., 1977.

Закономерности развития литературных языков народов СССР в советскую эпоху. Внутристрочное развитие старописменных языков. — М., 1973.

Кейнис С. Интернациональные элементы в литовской терминологии. — В кн.: Вопросы разработки научно-технической терминологии. Рига, 1973.

Михальченко В. Ю. Тенденции развития научно-технической терминологии в балтийских языках. — В кн.: Научно-техническая революция и функционирование языков мира. М., 1977.

Михальченко В. Ю. Функционирование русского языка в Литовской ССР и его взаимодействие с литовским языком. — В кн.: Русский язык как средство межнационального общения. М., 1977.

Мустьейкис К. Сопоставительная морфология русского и литовского языков. — Вильнюс, 1972.

Никольский Л. Б. Синхронная социолингвистика. М., — 1976.

Пажжус А. Фонетическая и морфологическая интеграция английских заимствований в литовском языке Северной Америки. Автореф. канд. дис. — Вильнюс, 1971.

Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. — М., 1976.

Развитие языков и культур народов СССР в их взаимосвязи и взаимодействии. — Уфа, 1976.

Социолингвистические проблемы развивающихся стран. — М., 1975.

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

Хасанов Б. Языки народов Казахстана и их взаимодействие. — Алма-Ата, 1976.

Холмогоров А. И. Социолингвистические закономерности развития двуязычия. — В кн.: Развитие языков и культур народов СССР в их взаимосвязи и взаимодействии. Уфа, 1976.

Швейцер А. Д. Современная социолингвистика. Теория, проблемы, методы. — М., 1977.

Институт языкознания АН СССР

LIETUVOS TSR KALBINIO GYVENIMO

AKTUALIOS SOCIOLINGVISTINĖS PROBLEMOS

Reziumė

Straipsnyje apibūdinamos svarbiausios mūsų šalies kalbinės raidos tendencijos: TSRS tautų nacionalinių kalbų potencialių galimybių realizacija ir intensyvus plėtimas rusų kalbos, kaip nacijų bendravimo priemonės. Ryšium su tuo laikomos aktualiomis tokios Lietuvos TSR kalbinio gyvenimo sociolingvistinio tyrimo kryptys: pirma, lietuvių kalbos funkcionavimo ir raidos klausimų sprendimas ir, antra, rusų kalbos, kaip nacijų bendravimo priemonės, funkcionavimo ypatybių ir plitimo respublikoje pagrindinių tendencijų tyrimas. Smulkiau apsistojama ties atskirais lietuvių kalbos funkcionavimo seniau ir dabar klausimais.

Čia svarstoma ir kelių kalbų vartojimas visuomenėje, kultūros ir ją aptarnaujančios kalbos adekvatumas. Pabrėžiama, jog šnekamosios lietuvių kalbos kultūrą reikia kelti ypač tuose respublikos rajonuose, kuriuose gyventojų nacionalinė sudėtis yra mišri. Svarbu tirti funkcinę-stilistinę lietuvių kalbos diferenciaciją, nustatyti terminologinės sistemos kitimo, pasipildymo ir funkcionavimo dėsningumus ryšium su moksline-technine revoliucija ir TSRS tautų bei kultūrų tarpusavio sąveika.