Функционирование родного и русского языков в школах Советской Литвы

SOCIALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XIX (1979) Juozas Korsakas FUNCTIONING OF THE NATIVE AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES IN THE SCHOOLS OF SOVIET LITHUANIA During the years of Soviet rule, universal compulsory eight-year education for the population was completed in the Lithuanian SSR, and the transition to universal secondary education is under way. During the Soviet period, the spheres in which the Lithuanian literary language was traditionally used expanded considerably, and the role of Russian as a means of interethnic communication increased. Polish is also used in some schools in Soviet Lithuania. According to the statistical yearbook “Economy and Culture of the Lithuanian SSR,” in the 1976/77 academic year, pupils in general-education day schools under the Ministry of Education of the Lithuanian SSR were distributed by language of instruction as follows: 85% of all pupils (457,000) studied in Lithuanian, 12% (65,000) in Russian, and 3% (16,000) in Polish (“Lietuvos TSR ekonomika ir kultūra”. V., 1977, p. 232). Our sociolinguistic study examined schools and higher education institutions where the language of instruction was Lithuanian only. School-age pupils were mainly from schools in the city of Kaunas and its district, as well as from the town of Kėdainiai and the rural school of Valkininkai in Varėna district. In addition, student teachers studying by correspondence at the K. Preikšas Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute submitted observations in the form of homework assignments. University-age students were from the city of Kaunas, chiefly from the Polytechnic Institute. We were interested in how the native and Russian languages functioned in schools and higher education institutions in terms of vocabulary acquisition. To determine the level of command of the native and Russian vocabularies, beginning in the fourth grade we used tests or assigned written work (essays on topics in the curriculum). Observations of the speech of primary-school pupils lead to the conclusion that Lithuanian pupils begin their schooling with a very large vocabulary in colloquial, everyday Lithuanian and, alongside this, most pupils in urban schools already know several dozen Russian words and phrases by the first grade, mainly short questions, commands, and greetings, for example: Where is Algis? Hello! Let me through! Give it to me! and so on. Their Russian vocabulary is systematically expanded from the second grade, when Lithuanian pupils begin to study the language as a school subject. Partial exposure to the language, primarily through television and cinema or contact with neighbors who speak another language, contributes to very rapid acquisition of colloquial, everyday Russian. Life outside school and children's games take place exclusively in the native language, though with the use of quite a few common Russian words and expressions, for example: come on, right on (as an expression of approval or confirmation of a friend's idea), puck! come on, hare, wait! and so on. By the fourth grade, the difference between the sizes of the native and Russian vocabularies is still very great. As an example, let us present the results of a study of the thematic reproductive vocabulary in the native and Russian languages of Lithuanian pupils. Four groups of fourth-grade pupils (50 people) 41 reproduced four times as many words in their native language as in Russian on one and the same neutral, accessible topic. This difference narrows to approximately 90 words by the eleventh grade. More will be said about this later. Let us briefly characterize the pupils' vocabulary from a social perspective. Major social and cultural changes in society are reflected in pupils' language, first and foremost in their vocabulary. For example, words that entered Lithuanian and acquired particular meanings only in the postwar period are now used very frequently even by pupils in the lower grades: pionierius, komjaunimas, kolūkis, saviveikla, priekaba, suvirintojas, socializmas, apžiūra and so on. Many of these words, as is well known, entered the active Lithuanian vocabulary through Russian or are direct translations into the native language. In the native speech of younger pupils, evidently under the influence of parents from less-educated backgrounds, untranslated Russian words are also fairly common, something highly undesirable from the standpoint of Lithuanian speech culture, for example: gruzovikas, šaiba, chokėjus, davaj, zakonac and so on. The opposite phenomena occur in the Russian speech of Lithuanian pupils—the use of Lithuanian words given Russian linguistic form: skриптум (instead of скриптум), титнаг (flint), копы (dunes), конвалия (lily of the valley), пунд (bundle), and so on. These are examples mainly of language contact among children. Since pupils in schools with Lithuanian as the language of instruction, both at school and outside it, are surrounded by a complete linguistic environment for developing their native speech, it is only natural that their Lithuanian vocabulary is much larger than their Russian vocabulary. However, no specific studies on this subject had been conducted until then. Yet vocabulary size determines the level of command of a language, which, in the conditions of Soviet reality, also indicates how languages function. Let us give an example. A Lithuanian pupil communicates in the native language at home, at school, and among friends, yet willingly and with understanding watches films or television programs in Russian, reads specialized magazines and other literature published only in Russian, answers questions from visiting guests from other republics, and also corresponds in Russian with acquaintances or friends. Thus, school pupils, especially in the upper grades, naturally come to need knowledge of Russian as a means of interethnic communication, which contributes to the development of bilingualism. Our aim was to study in depth and determine the actual, or reproductive, Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils. In particular, we were interested in what Russian vocabulary secondary-school graduates bring with them to higher education institutions, that is, what foundation should underlie further vocabulary work at the university level. Reproductive vocabulary (or reproductive lexicon) is the result of a psychological process in which pupils recall active vocabulary retained in memory. Reproductive vocabulary was identified on the basis of the written work (essays) of first-year students who had not yet begun their university studies; that is, their literacy was assessed during the first week. The essay topics were drawn up in accordance with the Russian language and literature curriculum for schools where Lithuanian was the language of instruction. They were supplemented with topics on literature and the social and political life of Lithuania. There were about 150 topics in all. Let us list some of them. A. Open topics: “Golden Autumn” (5th grade), “Let Us Adorn the Motherland with Gardens” (6th grade), “A Letter to Parents” (7th grade), “Exciting Sports Competitions” (8th grade), “Pio- 42 the school’s pioneer and Komsomol organizations” (9th grade), “What I especially like about contemporary music” (10th grade), “The Soviet Union—the bastion of peace” (11th grade); B. Russian literature (topics were announced a week before the test): “Poems about the Soviet passport” by V. V. Mayakovsky (11th grade), “A Sketch of A. M. Gorky’s ‘V. I. Lenin’” (10th grade), “A Brief Biography of A. S. Pushkin” (9th grade), etc.; C. Lithuanian literature: “Man, Earth and Bread” (based on P. Cvirka’s novel “The Earth, Our Breadwinner”), “The Image of V. I. Lenin in the Works of Writers and Poets of Soviet Lithuania,” “Themes of the Friendship of Peoples in the Work of S. Nėris,” etc. As the examples show, we wanted to identify active vocabulary not only in the subject areas that Lithuanian students had mastered at school in Russian-language classes, but also in subject areas studied by students in their native Lithuanian, yet reproduced (described) in Russian—for example, topics in Lithuanian literature. At the first practical Russian-language class, as a test of literacy, students were asked to write a short composition (2–3 pages in a school notebook). At least 12 first-year students (the minimum academic group size) wrote on each topic. Thematic word lists were compiled on the basis of 12 test compositions on the same topic. In processing the lexical material, only the main vocabulary was taken into account—verbs, adjectives, nouns, adverbs, pronouns, and numerals; we did not take into account function words (the so-called grammatical words), since they are of no interest for university-level work in the context of the institute. (Testing has shown that our students generally know the meanings of all function words.) A word—a particular sequence of letters—was taken as the unit of count. On average, 12 Lithuanian students reproduced 630–650 different words for one topic. All the thematic word lists were entered into a computer, yielding a consolidated list of Russian vocabulary recalled by the Lithuanian students. It contained about 6,000 items—that is, different words. Approximately 28% of these words were reproduced only once. These included words such as fork, to possess, supply, to lock, to push in, to spit, pie, etc. More than 14% of the words were mentioned twice, 7.5% three times, 5.6% four times, 4.2% five times, 3.1% six times, 2.7% seven times, 2.3% eight times, 1.6% nine times, 1.8% ten times, etc. Thus, words with frequency counts from 1 to 10 constituted about 70% of the total volume of the Lithuanian students’ reproductive Russian vocabulary. Words with frequency counts from 11 to 20 accounted for about 10%, from 21 to 30 for 5%, from 31 to 40 for 2.7%, from 41 to 50 for 1.9%, from 51 to 60 for 1.4%, from 61 to 70 for 1.1%, from 71 to 80 for 0.9%, from 81 to 90 for 0.7%, from 91 to 140 for 0.4%, from 141 to 150 for 0.3%, and from 151 to 160 for 0.2%, etc. The highest frequencies, apart from certain conjunctions excluded from this list, were recorded for the pronouns this (masculine), this (feminine), this (neuter)—3,668, and the conjunction and—3,520, etc. Here are examples of words with three-digit frequencies: variety-show—172, feature—104, member—105, goal—154, good—782, well—805, to want—206, to walk—259, chemistry—279, factory—182, fascist—199, harvest—130, to study—696, to participate—152, morning—207, street—172, difficult—380, dance—213, comrade—330, now—900, son—371, fate—135, old—405, etc. In the reproductive vocabulary of Lithuanian students learning Russian, frequency cannot be taken as an absolute measure of their level of active command of Russian vocabulary. Words such as rate (1), flock (2), su- 43 coffin (2), severity (1), etc., are little known to graduates of Lithuanian schools. Most Russian words with low frequency, however, are familiar to them, for example: to grow dark—1, moan—1, steam—1, window—1, to dive—1, to spoil—2, snake—1, desirable—1, to doze—1, throat—1, grapes—1, etc. Identifying the reproductive vocabulary is a very complex task. After all, many words exist in a student’s memory as latent verbal potential, readily brought into use when a suitable opportunity, an accessible topic, or a prompt for a manageable action or line of reasoning arises. Discussion of one topic or another depends not only on knowledge of a particular vocabulary, but also on the student’s erudition, character, mood, and many other factors. These undoubtedly played a role in determining the size of the reproductive vocabulary. In our view, this reproductive Russian vocabulary should be regarded as the result of the more or less fully exhausted verbal potential of a student at a school where Lithuanian is the language of instruction; its size is characteristic of most recent school-leavers—first-year students at KPI. (More than 2,000 students are admitted each year.) Consequently, the reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students is a fairly objective indicator of an entire generation (here, the 1974 school-leaving cohort). To substantiate this conclusion, we conducted a series of additional studies, experiments, and observations. The consolidated list of reproductive vocabulary was divided into sections (averaging 150–170 words each), and the same first-year students were asked to translate the word lists into their native language. Each section was reviewed by at least 12 students. The translations were then checked against prepared standards. If a word was unknown to 25% of the student reviewers, it was excluded from the reproductive vocabulary list. After the entire reproductive vocabulary had been checked, approximately 600 words, or 7.5% of the total number of reproduced words, were found to have a low reliability rating. Of course, many students also knew these words, but statistical methods had to be used to determine what was known or unknown to the majority. For example, many students knew the words complaint, firefighter, law, meeting, to prick, skating rink, etc., but did not know bulwark, secular, concealed, languid, ham, ward; that is, these words had been recalled by strong, well-read students with a good command of Russian. Therefore, on the basis of the 600 words in the reproductive vocabulary with a low reliability rating, two tests were compiled: one for translation from Russian into Lithuanian (passive language proficiency), and the other for translation from Lithuanian into Russian (active language proficiency). The latter test was scored twice: the first time, translations expressing synonymous meanings were also accepted; the second time, only exact translations whose meanings matched the reference answers—that is, the Lithuanian test—were counted. The tests were provisionally designated by letters: R–L (translation from Russian into Lithuanian); L–Rₛ (translation from Lithuanian into Russian, allowing for synonymous meanings); L–Rₑ (translation from Lithuanian into Russian, counting only exact meanings corresponding to the Lithuanian test). Since a student could not translate 600 words in a single class, the tests were divided into three versions of 200 words each. The tests were administered to 2,000 students (Table 1; see figure on p. 45). 44 The translation results for the different test versions accurately reflect reality: the first version included words from the receptive vocabulary with the lowest reliability score, the second those with an average score, and the third those with a very high score; that is, up to 40–45% of the students knew the words in the receptive vocabulary. Nevertheless, we included such words in the tests because a word was considered known to the majority only when its reliability reached 50%. To determine whether the number of translated words followed a normal distribution, we plotted empirical distribution curves (see figure). They show that the distributions of the numbers of correctly translated words are close to normal. Characteristically, all distributions are positively skewed. Table 1 Translation results Test version | Tests | R—L | Average number of translated words |% of total number of words in test | L—Rs | Average number of translated words |% of total number of words in test | L—Rt | Average number of translated words |% of total number of words in test | I | 61 | 30,62 | 61 | 30,34 | 28 | 14,04 | II | 75 | 37,64 | 66 | 33,01 | 29 | 14,65 | III | 86 | 43,19 | 77 | 38,58 | 44 | 22,15 | Average | 74 | 37,15 | 68 | 33,98 | 34 | 16,95 Let us calculate the margin of error when estimating the proportion of students who translated the test correctly. The margin of error Δ is calculated using the formula: Δ = t √W (1 − W) / n (1 − n / N), where t is the reliability coefficient, depending on the probability with which we wish to obtain the result; W is the proportion of students who translated the test correctly; n is the number of students surveyed; N is the number of students in the population under study (the general population). In our study, t=2 at a probability of 0.954. In other words, in 95.4% of cases, the proportion in the sample will cover the proportion in the population. As an example, let us calculate the margin of error for the R—L test. We surveyed 600 students (n=600). The population comprises over 2,000 students, that is, students in the first year of study (N=2000). 45 Then Δ = 2 √((0,37 · 0,63)/600 (1 − 600/2000)) = 0,0326, or 3,26%. In other words, we can assert with a confidence level of 0.954 that first-year students are able to translate correctly from Russian into Lithuanian, on average, 37—40% of the words presented in the R–L test. Consequently, students know the meanings of these words sufficiently well, and these words can be considered an integral part of the productive vocabulary. Using the same method, we obtained the corresponding margins of error for tests L–Rs and L–Rt: 3.18 and 2.58%, respectively. This means that, on average, all students would be able to translate 31 to 37% of the words in the L–Rs test, and 14 to 19% in the L–R test. Consequently, statistical methods made it possible to demonstrate that students know some of the words in the tests well (this is productive vocabulary), and we again included these words in the overall list of known words; other words are not sufficiently well known to them and require further study (they were excluded from the productive vocabulary). Nevertheless, the overall list of the productive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students raises doubts because it is the sum of thematic word lists. Each list is reproduced in the compositions of only 12 students. Can the productive vocabulary of 12 students be a more or less objective and representative indicator for a large population? (In our case, more than 2,000 students.) To determine the reliability of the overall productive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students, the same topic (“At the Hospital”) was assigned to 252 first-year students. (This is the minimum number of participants whose reproduced vocabulary, after statistical processing, can serve as a basis for general conclusions.) The vocabulary in all the compositions was counted on the Minsk-22 computer. The topic was chosen because it appears in the Russian-language curriculum for schools with Lithuanian as the language of instruction (in grades 4 and 8) and, it seems to us, is neutral, i.e., it does not require writers to have any specialized knowledge or provide a particular interpretation—they only had to describe some incident involving misfortune and a hospital. The official reason for assigning this topic was to test first-year students’ literacy during one of their first classes at the university, that is, before they had received any university-level instruction. We wanted to obtain results typical of the majority. Student groups were selected at random so that factors such as age, erudition (or experience), etc., would not have a major influence on the quantity and composition of the reproduced vocabulary. In a similar experiment that we conducted in 1970 in one academic group, 12 first-year students reproduced 650 words on this topic. The large-scale experiment conducted now confirmed the earlier results: in 21 academic groups (with 12 compositions in each), the average was 630—645 words. In total, 252 students reproduced approximately 3,540 different words in their compositions (without taking frequency into account). In the overall list of reproduced vocabulary, about 11% consists of foreign words with cognate-sounding roots in Russian and the students’ native Lithuanian. By parts of speech, the words are divided as follows: nouns—about 35%, adjectives—14%, verbs—36%, adverbs—9%, pronouns—1%, numerals—1%, other parts of speech—4%. 46 The thematic reproductive vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils is distinctly characteristic of colloquial Russian. Its core consists of the most frequently used words in contemporary colloquial Russian in informal communication. When studying the reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students, the question arose as to whether the students’ academic groups (i.e., working groups) being associated with one faculty or another was a significant factor. This question was resolved by analysis of variance, comparing two variances—between groups and within groups—on the assumption that the latter variance represented random variation in the data. If the ratio of these variances F exceeds the known theoretical threshold, then the effect of the factor (i.e., the group’s affiliation with a particular faculty) should be considered demonstrated. The calculation was performed on the “Nairi-2” computer. We obtained F =1.38 with degrees of freedom l1=20 and l2=220. Checking the obtained value (by comparison with the theoretical value F0,01=1.87 according to D. B. Owen; see “Collection of Statistical Tables,” Moscow, 1966), with the same degrees of freedom showed that F < F0,01; that is, with a margin of error of 1%, it can be asserted that the affiliation of a given academic group with one faculty or another has no effect on the content or size of the students’ reproductive Russian vocabulary. Consequently, any student group, with a margin of error of 1%, will reproduce a vocabulary representing the optimal version of the aggregate—that is, the thematic reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students. Comparison of our word list with “2,380 words most frequently used in colloquial Russian” (Moscow, Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University, 1968) shows that up to 66% of the words in the thematic reproductive vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils are shared. Examples of matching words are бабушка, бегать, видеть, газета, другой, идти, and so on. Here are words absent from the list of Lithuanian pupils’ reproductive vocabulary: безобразие, буквально, господи, ишь, племянница, потратить, приступ, and so on. These examples illustrate characteristic features of the spread of colloquial Russian in Russian-speaking and non-Russian-speaking environments. Not all the nuances of a purely Russian-speaking environment (see господи, ишь, etc.) carry over into a non-Russian-speaking environment. (See “Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary Russian.” Compiled by P. I. Kharakoz. Frunze, 1971.) The reproductive Russian vocabulary of adult Lithuanian pupils coincides by 36.5% with children’s colloquial (everyday) speech. Examples of matching vocabulary are кровать, левый, лед, мир, надо, очень, постель, сердце, and so on. Words found only in P. I. Kharakoz’s dictionary—урод, дичка, ябеда, чинилка, техничка, слюда, сачок, разиня, позорник, мосол, лохматый, лапша, кулёк, and so on—show that vocabulary composition depends to some extent on the region where the pupils and the population live. However, it should not be forgotten that this reproductive word list shows the potential for reproducing vocabulary on only one topic. A large number of topics would undoubtedly diversify the vocabulary. A comparison of the thematic reproductive vocabulary produced by 252 Lithuanian pupils with the complete list of reproductive vocabulary produced by groups (of 12 pupils) on each individual topic shows that the differences depend mainly not on the number of respondents, but on the topic proposed. The core vocabulary recurs across all topics, while thematically determined vocabulary is not always the most frequent. 47 For example, words аптека, аспирин, глюкоза, дифтерит, донор, зонд, кровавый, etc., which would seem to be directly related to the topic “At the Hospital,” occur only once or twice in our thematic list. How well pupils have mastered the system of Russian word formation plays an important role in reproducing vocabulary. Numerous words sharing the same root occur in different frequency lists of colloquial Russian, but in some lists they are verbs of different aspects, in others nouns, and in still others adjectives, adverbs, etc. Yet they are counted as separate words, and consequently the size of the lists and the frequency of words differ considerably between publications. As for Lithuanian pupils, it can be stated with confidence that they acquire a good command of the Russian word-formation system at school, since it is in many respects similar to the word-formation system of Lithuanian. Thus, the Russian vocabulary reproduced in essays on the same topic by Lithuanian pupils is characteristic of the majority of the population under study (i.e., more than 2,000 first-year students). It follows that the complete reproductive Russian vocabulary also has a very objective basis. The size of the reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils has been determined with considerable reliability. This is confirmed by testing their language knowledge (by translating word lists into Lithuanian) in the lower grades of Lithuanian schools (up to and including grade 8) and at the forestry technical school (first year, i.e., after completing grade 8). The test showed that pupils knew more than 5,000 words, including about 2,000 non-derived words. The reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils was discussed at methodological conferences, readings, and meetings of teachers in our republic. No substantial objections were raised by practitioners. We compared the list of Lithuanian pupils’ reproductive Russian vocabulary with the draft “Unified Minimum Dictionary for the National Secondary School,” which contains 4,000 words. It turned out that only 607 words from the draft minimum dictionary were absent from the list of Lithuanian pupils’ reproductive vocabulary. From all the words listed in the draft but absent from the reproductive list, we compiled lexical tests (75–80 words each), which we asked 300 first-year students to translate into their native language (they had not yet studied Russian at university). The translation results were as follows: 124 words were translated by all respondents. These included words such as грамматический, объективный, начальный, etc. From 75 to 99% of the students correctly translated 230 words, or 37.9%. From 50 to 75% of the students correctly translated 140 words, or 23.1%. The following words were unknown to all the students: клевер, брести, борона, былина, нарицательный. Thus, it may be assumed that of the 4,000 words selected for the draft “Unified Minimum Dictionary for the National Secondary School,” only 300–400 should be considered unknown to first-year students. Taking into account the overall size of the reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils, it should evidently be agreed that Lithuanian secondary schools provide a rich lexical foundation in contemporary colloquial and everyday Russian. The complete list of the reproductive (active) Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian pupils consists mainly of colloquial Russian vocabulary. In the list of Lithuanian pupils’ reproductive Russian vocabulary, 22.5% consists of foreign words with cognate roots in their native language and in Russian (академик, актёр, багаж, футбол, эмблема, etc.), 48 Root words make up 23.7% (water, to pour, garden, to sing, etc.); the remaining words are derived, among which words formed by suffixation account for over 40%, and those formed by prefixation for over 41%. Some words are formed by the suffix-prefix method (about 5% of all derived words). This indicates that Lithuanian students in secondary school acquire the Russian word-formation system fairly well, as it is in many respects similar to the word-formation system of their native language. It should be noted that the reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students does not include word-formation types absent from Lithuanian. For example, possessive-relative adjectives with the suffixes -ин (dad’s, Petya’s), -ачий (feline, froglike), -ий (daughter’s), etc. In Lithuanian, possession in such cases is expressed by a noun in the genitive case. Among the most frequently used suffixes, we note the following: for forming nouns, -тель, -ец, -чик, -ник, -ица, -к, -ость, -оньк, -еньк, -ание, -ение; for forming verbs, -ива, -ыва, -ну; for forming adjectives, -н-, -ск-, -онн-, -енн-, -н. Lithuanian students named more than 40 prefixes in prefixal word formation; the most frequent were the following: по — 380, о(об) — 294, у — 238, с — 182, не — 176, вы — 168, на — 161, от — 151, при — 145, про — 127, со — 99, раз — 97, в — 95, под — 83, etc. A very large proportion of the words in Lithuanian students’ reproductive vocabulary consists of first names, surnames, geographical names, and the names of firms, sports teams, and the like. Overall, this part of the vocabulary accounts for 10.7% of the total volume of the reproductive vocabulary we identified. An analysis of names and titles is of interest because it provides some indication of the students’ horizons; at the same time, this vocabulary confirms that the actual Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students is much larger than the school curriculum suggests. In Russian, a person’s connection with a particular locality (where they come from, or where they live) is expressed in various ways. In the written work of Lithuanian students, the descriptive method was encountered most often: the resident was indicated, followed by the geographical name in the genitive case, for example, a resident of Moscow. This corresponds to the norms of their native language. Suffixal forms are very rare (such as Pskovites, Pskovians). Apparently, because Russian has so many suffixes, students find it difficult to work out how to form the name for inhabitants of a given place. It should be emphasized that female first names and surnames were used much less often; among Lithuanian first names and surnames, 69.4% were male and 30.6% female. We grouped surnames according to occupation or role. The most popular were the names and surnames of literary characters, athletes, and writers; the middle tier comprised the surnames of historical figures, composers, scientists, cosmonauts, singers, and artists; the lowest tier included the names and surnames of teachers, doctors, performing musicians, sculptors, and so on. Thus, literature is the principal source shaping students’ vocabulary at school; at the same time, the most important sporting, historical, cultural, and scientific events always remain within their field of attention. Of course, the shortcomings of the reproductive vocabulary are also reflected. For example, synonymy, antonymy, paronymy, and especially the phraseology of contemporary Russian are represented to a very limited extent. Only rarely could one find eloquent expressions in graduates’ essays, such as— 4. Užs. Nr. 1554 49 Table 2 Statistical profile of the reproductive Russian vocabulary of Lithuanian students Indicator | Number |% | Including: Lithuanian (number,%), from other republics (number,%), foreign (number,%) | Geographical names | 284 | 33.1 | 106 | 37.5 | 99 | 34.9 | 79 | 27.6 | Surnames | 351 | 40.8 | 171 | 48.7 | 133 | 37.9 | 47 | 13.4 | First names | 174 | 20.2 | 97 | 55.7 | 61 | 35.1 | 16 | 9.1 | Other names | 51 | 5.9 | 35 | 68.6 | 15 | 29.5 | 1 | 1.9 | Total* | 860 | 409 * 860 accounts for 10.7% of the total number of words in the students’ reproductive vocabulary; 409 accounts for 5.1%, respectively. which, as a rule, were translations and were widely known in the native language, for example: to twist the pipe of peace, to feel at home, as fast as the wind. Abstract Russian vocabulary, as well as vocabulary relating to the language of art, science, and socio-political life, is inadequately represented. Words from foreign languages that sound alike in both languages are often used with their meaning in the native language. To make a preliminary estimate of the size of the Lithuanian–Russian reproductive (actual) vocabulary of Lithuanian students, we made a projection based on a study of thematic reproductive vocabulary. Different groups (50 students each) wrote on the neutral, straightforward topic “At the Hospital,” included in the Russian-language curriculum for the lower grades, in Lithuanian and separately in Russian. The study involved Lithuanian students in grades 4–9. It emerged that, on the above-mentioned topic, fourth-grade students produced an average of 380 words in their native language, while ninth-grade students produced 730 words. In Russian, the corresponding figures ranged from 80 words in grade 4 to 640 words in grade 9. In other words, in grade 4 the difference between the vocabularies of the native and Russian languages averaged 300 words, while in grade 9 it was only 90 words; that is, by the graduating grade, the difference in everyday conversational vocabulary had decreased fourfold. Thus, the potential vocabulary available to Lithuanian students for self-expression in Russian is quite considerable. This is a great achievement of the Soviet school and of Russian-language teachers in the secondary schools of our republic. In 1945, only a portion of the population in Soviet Lithuania knew Russian to some degree. Over the intervening period, the situation changed radically: it can now be asserted that the overwhelming majority of the population, including all the young people of Soviet Lithuania, command Russian in everyday conversation. The vocabulary of Russian words cited above for Lithuanian students also confirms this point. This conclusion is also confirmed by our sociolinguistic questionnaire survey of graduates in the 1974/75 academic year, who had just enrolled— 50 They included students at the Antanas Sniečkus Kaunas Polytechnic Institute and students in the senior years. The survey was conducted in parallel with a study of the Russian-language reproductive vocabulary of secondary-school graduates. The questionnaire was designed to determine the social and linguistic environment in which applicants had grown up, their attitudes toward language learning, and the pattern of language use at institutions of higher education in Soviet Lithuania, where instruction, too, is conducted mainly in the mother tongue throughout the entire period of study. The social backgrounds of those surveyed can be characterized as follows: 49.8% were children of workers, 18.2% children of kolkhoz farmers, and 32% children of white-collar employees. Of the total cohort admitted, men accounted for 63.5% and women for 36.5%. The parents’ education was as follows: primary—approximately 40%; incomplete secondary—29%; secondary—15%; incomplete higher—4%; and higher—12%. Lithuanian was indicated as the parents’ mother tongue in most cases (98%). In addition to their mother tongue, the parents knew Russian best (about 90% of all parents). It should be noted, however, that 5% of fathers and 12% of mothers did not speak Russian. At the same time, 33% of fathers and 20% of mothers had command of both spoken and written Russian. Approximately 15% of the parents also knew Polish. Among foreign languages, German ranked first, followed by French and English. This was the social and linguistic environment of Lithuanian students in their families. The students themselves reported the following: 1. Asked, “What is your level of proficiency in your mother tongue?” respondents gave the following answers: I speak and read well, but write satisfactorily—29%; I speak, read, and write well—71%. 2. “What is your level of proficiency in Russian?” The answers were as follows: I speak fluently—28%; satisfactorily—56%; poorly—16%; I write well—6%; satisfactorily—60%; poorly—34%. 3. “What is your level of proficiency in a foreign language?” Answers: I read fluently—6%; poorly—94%; I read without a dictionary—5%; with a dictionary—95%. 4. “What is the relative use of languages in the course of study at the institution of higher education?” Final-year students answered: we communicate in Lithuanian—92.8%, in Russian—6.2%, in a foreign language—1.0%; we read in Lithuanian—69.2%, in Russian—28.6%, in a foreign language—2.2%; we write in Lithuanian—90.5%, in Russian—8.5%, in a foreign language—1%. First- and second-year students, who still take practical courses in Russian and foreign languages, answered the above question as follows: we communicate in Lithuanian—88%, in Russian—10.5%, in a foreign language—1.5%; we read in Lithuanian—81.4%, in Russian—11.5%, in a foreign language—7.1%; we write in Lithuanian—89.9%, in Russian—7.9%, in a foreign language—3.2%. Thus, it is clear that in the senior years reading in Russian as a form of self-education accounts for almost one third, alongside reading in the mother tongue and in a foreign language. This becomes entirely understandable when we consider the situation at the institute. Most textbooks for specialized subjects, especially new scientific and technical disciplines, are available only in Russian. In order to study a subject in greater depth (the subject is taught in the mother tongue), students have to turn to specialized literature published in Russian. In general-education secondary schools and institutions of higher education, the main means of communication is the mother tongue—Lithuanian. Alongside it, an increasing number 48 51 Russian acquires significance as a means of communication and of broadening and deepening knowledge, as well as a means of publicizing the achievements of the working people of the Lithuanian SSR not only in the multinational Soviet country but also beyond its borders. Department of Russian, Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute named after K. Preikšas USE OF NATIVE AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES IN SCHOOLS Summary In the schools of the Lithuanian SSR, young people are taught in their native language. Considerable attention is also devoted to teaching Russian. Consequently, students at Lithuanian-language schools speak Russian well. This paper substantiates the claim that Lithuanian students’ productive Russian vocabulary comprises approximately 8,000 words. This provides a sufficient basis for communicating freely and pursuing further studies, where specialist vocabulary and phraseology are generally taught and written Russian is studied in greater depth. According to sociolinguistic survey data, Lithuanian is used most widely in both secondary and higher education, Russian less frequently, and foreign languages very little.