NIDA PODERIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2022.95.03

LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE ATTITUDES: THE CASE OF SCHOOLS WITH POLISH AS THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION

KEYWORDS: Polish, Lithuanian, language use, language attitudes.

ABSTRACT

The article presents the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among groups of students in grades 3–8 at two schools with Polish as the language of instruction. The results show which language is most commonly used at home; which language is preferred over others; students’ attitudes toward the importance and social value of knowing and learning Lithuanian and other languages; and students’ personal relationships with Lithuanian and Polish. The study sought to identify connections between language choices in students’ everyday use, the relationship between language attitudes and language preference, and how language-choice tendencies and language attitudes change across age groups. The study revealed that most students communicate in Polish at home, although for some it is not the only language most commonly used in the family. In everyday use, Polish and Russian are most often preferred. A statistically significant correlation was found between language attitudes and language preference in language-activity domains.

ABSTRACT

The article presents the results of a questionnaire-based study of the most commonly used language at home, the choice of language in relation to other languages in different communicative situations and linguistic attitudes towards Polish, Lithuanian and English languages based on the survey analyzing responses of 3rd–8th grade student groups in two schools with the Polish language of instruction. Research data in relation to the age groups was analyzed regarding aspects such as the dominant language in communication with family and the choice of language preference over other languages. Students’ language attitudes were studied in terms of language social value, learning motivation and personal relationship with the language. Research data on language dominance show that

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

25

the majority of students communicate in Polish at home, although for some of them Polish is not the only language used in the family. Polish and Russian are usually preferred in everyday use. A significant correlation was found between language preference in linguistic activities and language attitudes.

INTRODUCTION

Lithuania is one of the few European Union states in which schools with minority-language instruction operate. At schools with Polish as the language of instruction, students are educated in Polish, while Lithuanian is taught in Lithuanian-language lessons according to the Lithuanian Language and Literature General Curriculum, which is the same for all schools in Lithuania. The Education Act stipulates that all schools in Lithuania must ensure that students attain proficiency in Lithuanian; however, because substantial differences in Lithuanian achievement are evident between schools with Lithuanian as the language of instruction and schools using minority languages of instruction, concessions are made to graduates of the latter schools when assessing their performance in the Lithuanian Language and Literature school-leaving examination. Insufficient proficiency in Lithuanian limits opportunities to realize one’s potential in further studies at Lithuanian higher education institutions and to pursue professional goals.

Extensive research has been conducted in Lithuania to identify the reasons for the weaker Lithuanian-language learning outcomes of graduates from schools where instruction is provided in a minority language. A study of the quality of Lithuanian proficiency among upper-grade gymnasium students in Vilnius schools with Lithuanian, Polish, and Russian as the languages of instruction found that the grammatical competence in Lithuanian of students at minority-language schools is similar to that of students attending schools with Lithuanian as the language of instruction, but they make more errors in language use. The key difference is that students studying at schools with Polish and Russian as the languages of instruction have a more limited Lithuanian vocabulary and make lexical errors more frequently (Vilkienė 2019: 118). According to Lithuanian researchers who analyzed the relationship between language proficiency and attitudes, how gymnasium students studying in Polish-language schools learn Lithuanian depends on their learning motivation and positive attitudes toward Lithuanian, its prestige, Lithuanians, and Lithuania (Vilkienė et al. 2019: 63).

Students at schools with minority-language instruction are born and raised in Lithuania and learn Lithuanian from the time they attend a pre-school institution until they finish school, yet some of them do not achieve good proficiency in Lithuanian. In examining this issue, studies by foreign authors are relevant; these explore,

26

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

how long it takes immigrant children to learn the language of their country of residence, which is their second language. Researchers conclude that most students learning a second language need, on average, up to seven years to be able to use it fluently (Hakuta et al. 2000; Berman et al. 2011; Demie et al. 2013). It is noted that the rate at which a second language is acquired depends on age, personal characteristics, the family’s socioeconomic status, opportunities to communicate with native speakers, and proficiency in the first language.

The relationship between students’ home language and their language-learning achievement is demonstrated by the results of a secondary analysis of the 2018 international OECD PISA study, which assessed the reading skills of fifteen-year-old students (Zabulionis 2020: 17–19). It was found that the results of students who took the reading test in a language other than their home language were 30–40 points lower than those of students whose test language and home language matched. Among the fifteen-year-olds who took the OECD PISA test in Polish, the largest proportion reported that they most often used another language at home (24.2%). This may be one reason why the results of students who took the test in Polish are lower than those of students who took it in Lithuanian or Russian. A comparison of the results of students in schools with Polish and Lithuanian as the languages of instruction shows a difference of as much as 64 points (ŠBA 2020: 67).

In 2015, aspects of ethnic identity, mother tongue, language use, and language proficiency were studied among students in grades 7–8 at a Polish-language school in Šalčininkai and in grades 9–11 at two schools in Ukraine with Polish as the language of instruction (Geben, Zielińska 2016). According to the study data, Polish is the mother tongue of most students at the Šalčininkai school (72.5%); 12.5% of students reported two mother tongues (Polish and Russian, or Polish and Lithuanian), 12.5% reported Lithuanian, and only 2.5% reported Russian. The data show a considerable discrepancy between the mother tongue reported and linguistic behavior. Although the data indicate that Polish is the mother tongue of most students, when watching television programs they most often choose Russian (85%); the second most frequently chosen language is Lithuanian (45%), while only 7% choose Polish. Information on the internet is most often sought in Lithuanian (70%); 57.5% and 45% of students, respectively, search for information online in Russian and Polish (Geben, Zielińska 2016: 137–138). The study might lead one to assume that students should have a good command of Lithuanian, since they study it at school and use it in various linguistic contexts; however, the Lithuanian-language results of students studying in Polish at schools in Šalčininkai do not support this assumption.

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

27

The gap between Lithuanian-language achievement in schools where Lithuanian is the language of instruction and in schools where Polish is the language of instruction indicates that students from national minorities who study in their minority language face a difficult task: they must learn Lithuanian rapidly and study it at the same level as students who are taught in Lithuanian, while expanding their vocabulary and improving their language skills. A linguistic environment conducive to the use of Lithuanian and positive attitudes that shape linguistic behavior help learners acquire the language more quickly. Linguistic competence is acquired not only through language study, but also by using the language across all domains and contexts of language activity.

This article analyzes the domains in which lower-secondary students at schools where Polish is the language of instruction choose to use Lithuanian, alongside Polish and the Russian and English languages taught at school, as well as the language attitudes of students of different ages. The study covers primary education (grades 3–4) and basic education (grades 5–6 and 7–8), that is, the age stages at which value attitudes take shape as deep-seated beliefs that guide behavior and influence linguistic behavior. The object of the study is language use and language attitudes among students in grades 3–8 at schools where Polish is the language of instruction. The analysis draws on data from a 2021 questionnaire survey conducted at Polish-language schools. The aim of the study is to identify the domains in which one language predominates in everyday use; to investigate which language(s) students prefer in communicative situations; and to examine students’ language attitudes toward the languages they use and their learning.

To achieve this aim, the following objectives are set: 1) to analyze the home language and language preferences in everyday use among students in different age groups; 2) to examine students’ language attitudes regarding the importance of language learning, the social value of languages, and their personal relationships with Polish and Lithuanian; 3) to identify links between language preferences in different domains of language activity, language choice, and language-attitude tendencies across different age stages.

The first section of the article presents the research material and methodology, while the next two sections analyze the findings: the second section discusses data showing aspects of language predominance and choice, and the third presents data highlighting students’ language attitudes.

1. RESEARCH MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

The research material for the article consists of data from 263 questionnaires completed by students in grades 3–8 studying at two schools where Polish is the language of instruction—in the city of Vilnius and in Šalčininkai District Municipality—on language do-

28

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

of dominance and linguistic attitudes¹. The questionnaire was based on questions from a questionnaire used in 2018–2019 in schools with Lithuanian as the language of instruction to study students’ language use and linguistic attitudes; its theoretical foundation was Howard Giles’s concept of ethnolinguistic vitality (Giles et al. 1977: 306–348). H. Giles’s theory was developed by other scholars, who supplemented the parameters of ethnolinguistic vitality on the basis of empirical research, including indicators such as language dominance, prestige, language proficiency and linguistic attitudes, and variation in language use. To compare the results of the present study in terms of language learning with data from studies conducted nationally, the questionnaires used in international student reading achievement studies PIRLS and OECD PISA conducted in Lithuania were also taken into account when designing the questionnaire. The questionnaire, which had been prepared for schools with Lithuanian as the language of instruction, was adapted for students in national minority schools by omitting some questions (e.g., about the strengths of the Lithuanian language) and adding questions relevant to this study about the scope of Polish and Russian language use. The questionnaire was designed to enable a comparative analysis of patterns of Lithuanian and other language use, linguistic behaviour and attitudes, while the overlapping part of the questionnaire makes it possible to compare data from studies of Lithuanian language use and linguistic attitudes among students of the same age studying in a national minority language and in Lithuanian. The questions were worded so that they would be equally understandable to both primary school students and students completing lower secondary school.

The study was conducted at the end of 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons were held in a hybrid format—remotely and in classrooms—and lockdown restrictions made it impossible to visit schools to collect research materials. Therefore, teachers were sent instructions on how to conduct the study, questionnaires in Polish and Lithuanian (so that teachers could review them in advance), and links to an online platform where students were to answer the questions.

¹ The research material was collected in 2021 as part of a project supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, Prestige of the Lithuanian Language: Linguistic Attitudes of Students in National Minority Schools and Their Relationship with Lithuanian Language Proficiency. The project study was conducted in schools with Polish and Russian as languages of instruction; the questionnaire was prepared and the study data collected by Aurelija Tamulionienė, Sonata Vaičiakauskienė and the author of this article. Lauryna Rakickienė provided consultation in developing a questionnaire adapted for different age groups. The study was conducted as part of the Programme for Strengthening the Prestige of the Lithuanian Language, approved by Resolution No. N-5(175) of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language of 25 April 2019, On the Approval of the Programme for Strengthening the Prestige of the Lithuanian Language. The implementing institution was the Institute of the Lithuanian Language; the contract was concluded on 1 October 2021, No. K-9/2021.

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

29

The study included students whose parents had consented to their children’s participation. The instructions stated that if students completed the questionnaires in Lithuanian, it was important to ensure that they understood all the questions. Students at the school in Šalčininkai District Municipality chose to complete the questionnaire in Polish, while students at the Vilnius school chose Lithuanian. Students in all grades completed the questionnaires electronically in computer rooms. To ensure the protection of data relating to participants, personal information (surnames, addresses) was removed when processing the completed questionnaires, and the study results are discussed without identifying the school.

1.1. General characteristics of the students who participated in the study

Of the 263 students who participated in the study, 22.1 percent attend a school in Vilnius and 78 percent attend a school in Šalčininkai District Municipality. The general characteristics of the study participants by grade are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. General characteristics of the study participants

Grade

Number

Boys

Girls

Age

3–4

108 (41%)

60 (56%)

48 (44%)

8–10 yrs.

5–6

64 (24%)

32 (50%)

32 (50%)

11–12 yrs.

7–8

91 (35%)

41 (45%)

50 (55%)

13–14 yrs.

Total:

263 (100%)

133 (51%)

130 (49%)

The study is quantitative, and the research instrument is a questionnaire. SPSS software was used to analyze the data. An analytical descriptive analysis of the data was conducted using the comparative method; trends, correlations, and relationships in the research results were assessed quantitatively by calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r).

2. RESEARCH RESULTS: DOMINANCE OF LANGUAGE(S) IN STUDENTS’ EVERYDAY USE

This section analyzes the research data in terms of language dominance: a) which language predominates in communication at home; b) which language is most often preferred over other languages in different areas of language activity.

30

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

2.1. Home language

The language used at home is acquired in early childhood (Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė 2014). As the aforementioned secondary analysis of the OECD PISA study (conducted in 2018) shows, one important factor influencing learning outcomes is the language used at home. To determine which language predominates in communication at home, students were asked to select an answer to the question Which language do you most often speak at home? (□ Polish, □ Russian, □ Lithuanian, □ English, □ other (please specify)). The data obtained are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

FIG. 1. Language students most often speak at home (percent)

FIG. 2. Home language by grade (percent)

As the data show, fewer than half of the students (41.8%) reported speaking Polish at home, a quarter (26.2%) Russian, and one student identified Lithuanian as the language used most often at home. Almost one-third of the students are bilingual: they reported that they usually communicate at home in several languages. The largest share of these students (24.7%) mentioned Polish and Russian; 6.5% of respondents also speak Lithuanian at home, in addition to Polish and Russian. An analysis of the data by grade shows that students in grades 5–6 stand out. A larger proportion of this group uses Polish at home (48.4%), while the smallest proportion reported using Russian (14%). Students’ responses about the home language confirm the findings of the aforementioned secondary analysis of the OECD PISA study: for approximately a quarter of students studying in Polish, the language of instruction at school does not match the language used at home. These students need support in learning not only Lithuanian but also Polish, which is their second language.

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

31

2.2. Language choice when watching films and browsing the internet

Language preference was analyzed across domains of language use—reception, production, and interaction. Students were asked how often they watched films, searched for information online, read books, talked with friends, sent SMS messages, and communicated on social media in the following languages: Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, English, and another language. Students were asked to select one of the following responses: almost never; sometimes; almost always.

Data on the languages in which students most often watch films and browse the internet, broken down by grade, are presented in Figures 3 and 4.

FIG. 3. Most often watches films (percent)

FIG. 4. Most often browses the internet (percent)

The study found that Russian predominates in all age groups when watching films (48.4–70.3%). Polish is second, although only 10.2–17.2% of students watch films in this language, while the smallest proportion of students (2.2–6.5%) choose Lithuanian.

When searching for information online, most students, except those in grades 5–6, also most often choose Russian. In discussing language choice when searching for information online, it is important to take into account that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when schools were also providing distance learning. Consequently, searching for information online in both Polish and Lithuanian constituted a substantial part of the learning process; that is, students searched for information in Polish and Lithuanian for learning purposes as well. Analysis of the data revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between language choice when watching films and language choice when browsing the internet. Students who browse the internet in Polish are more likely to watch films in Polish as well (r = 0.484), while students who prefer Russian are also more likely to choose it for both activities (r = 0.459). The same trend is observed for the use of English (r = 0.465). The correlation between Lithuanian use in both activities is weaker (r = 0.380).

32

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

2.3. Language choice when communicating on social networks and in person

Language choice when communicating on social media, through SMS messages, and face to face reveals the students’ immediate linguistic environment. The study data, broken down by grade and showing the languages in which students most often communicate, are presented in Figures 5 and 6.

FIG. 5. Most often sends SMS messages and communicates on social media (percent)

FIG. 6. Most often communicates with friends (percent)

Polish and Russian predominate in face-to-face and online communication. Data by age group reveal similar language-choice tendencies. In the lower grades, the largest proportion of students prefer Russian when communicating on social media and face to face (38% and 62%, respectively); the second most commonly used language is Polish (25.9% and 38.9%), while fewer than one tenth communicate in Lithuanian (5.6% and 9.3%). A similar trend is observed in the grades 7–8 group. The grades 5–6 group stands out from the entire sample: most students in this group prefer Polish, while Russian is the second most commonly used language. In this group, nearly twice as many students also communicate in Lithuanian. The home language is likely to influence the choice of communication language: the largest proportion of students in this group reported that Polish was their home language, while almost half as many spoke only Russian at home.

A statistically significant positive correlation was found between language choice when communicating on social media and face to face: for Lithuanian, r = 0.486; for Polish, r = 0.481; and for Russian, r = 0.426. Unexpected data indicate a negative correlation between searching for information in Polish and communicating on social media and through SMS messages in Russian (r = −0.323).

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

33

2.4. Language choice when reading books

Reading is the only one of the language-use domains studied in which Polish and Lithuanian predominate across all age groups. The study results are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Language in which pupils almost always read books (percent)

Grade | Polish | Russian | Lithuanian | English | 3–4 | 53.7 | 13 | 24 | 7.4 | 5–6 | 44.4 | 9.4 | 34.4 | 3.1 | 7–8 | 31.9 | 16.5 | 18.7 | 2.2

The predominance of Polish and Lithuanian across all age groups can be explained by the teaching practices for these languages—reading books is one of the compulsory activities. As the study results by age group show, more than half (53.7%) of primary-school pupils almost always read books in Polish, but the older the pupils, the smaller the proportion who report reading in Polish (by age group: 53.7%, 44.4% and 31.9%). It is likely that, when answering the question about the language in which they read books, pupils assessed not only their language choice but also how often they read. This assumption is supported by the data showing that the older the pupils, the greater the proportion who chose the answer sometimes. For this reason, responses indicating that one language or another is read sometimes were also analyzed. The proportions of pupils who reported reading books in Polish sometimes or almost always are very similar across age groups (72.2%, 69.4% and 72.6%).

The second most frequently chosen language for reading is Lithuanian. These results are undoubtedly due to the fact that in all schools in Lithuania, pupils study Lithuanian language and literature, like other subjects, according to the same general education curriculum, which allocates time for reading practice in Lithuanian not only during lessons but also at home. As the data show, a quarter of primary-school pupils (24%) almost always read books in Lithuanian. In grades 5–6, where more time is devoted to teaching literature, a third of pupils (34.4%) almost always read books in Lithuanian, while the smallest proportion of such pupils is in grades 7–8 (18.7%). Thus, the proportion of pupils who read in Lithuanian almost always or sometimes drops considerably in grades 7–8 (by grade group: 79.6%, 95.3% and 60.5%). Asses-

34

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

sing that regular reading practice is of considerable importance for language-learning achievement, these results may be considered to affect not only text comprehension but also achievement in the use of Lithuanian in the upper grades of lower secondary school.

Compared with other domains of language use, the smallest proportion of pupils choose Russian for reading books. Almost always reading in this language are 13% of primary-school pupils, 9.4% of pupils in grades 5–6, and 16.5% of pupils in grades 7–8. The proportion of pupils in the upper grades who read in Russian almost always or sometimes does not decrease (by grade group: 51%, 40.7% and 42.2%). Thus, the choice of Russian for reading books is similar across grade groups to the choice of Polish. The study results also showed that 7.4% of primary-school pupils almost always read in English, while the proportion of pupils who read in this language regularly is smaller in the lower-secondary grades (3.1% and 2.2%, respectively). However, a much larger proportion read in English at least sometimes: this was reported by more than a quarter of primary-school pupils (23%), half of pupils in grades 5–6 (54.7%), and a fifth of pupils in grades 7–8 (25.3%). These data suggest that reading is a domain in which Polish predominates, although as pupils grow older they tend to read regularly less often. A negative correlation was found between pupils’ age and their interest in reading (r = −0.253).

Data from a study conducted in 2018–2019 in schools where Lithuanian was the language of instruction, among the same age groups, revealed that Lithuanian predominates in communication at home and in reading books, while pupils most often choose Lithuanian and English to communicate on social networks and write SMS messages; the older the pupils, the more English comes to dominate their online activity (Tamulionienė 2019: 10).

3. RESEARCH RESULTS: STUDENTS’ LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

Studies of language attitudes reveal differing views of languages and their speakers, and reflect cultural stereotypes as well as the power and prestige of languages. Attitudes influence language choices and language behavior (IVKS 2022: 347), determining the intensity of language use and the choice to use a language in various linguistic contexts. Attitudes toward language take shape in childhood (Giles et al. 1983: 141). Studies of language attitudes conducted among primary-school students in schools where Lithuanian is the language of instruction have revealed that even third-graders have firm views on the importance and use of the Lithuanian language (Poderienė,

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

35

Vaičiakauskienė 2019: 214). Su amžiumi nuostatos gali keistis, veikiamos mokinių kultūrinės aplinkos ir ugdymo mokykloje konteksto. Jos susijusios su kalbos mokymosi vertės, prasmės ir perspektyvų vertinimu.

In this study, attitudes toward Polish, Lithuanian, and English are examined in terms of the perceived importance of language proficiency, the evaluation of language learning, and personal relationships with the languages. The analysis focuses primarily on attitudes toward Lithuanian. The aim is to determine how students evaluate Lithuanian in comparison with Polish, the language of instruction, and English, and whether their attitudes toward Lithuanian change as they become more proficient in it. Students’ attitudes are examined through responses expressing their views on evaluative statements: disagree, have no opinion and agree.

3.1. The importance of proficiency in Polish, Lithuanian, and English

Students’ attitudes toward the importance of language proficiency in everyday life influence their motivation to learn a language. Empirical studies by other researchers reveal a relationship between assessments of the importance of a language and learning outcomes. For example, a study conducted among students in a Barcelona school found that students who consider English necessary do better at learning it than those who regard it as less important, although the correlation is not very strong (Gardner 2007: 14).

Students’ views on the importance of proficiency in Polish, Lithuanian, and English were analyzed by comparing their responses to the following evaluative statements: It is important to be proficient in Polish; It is important to be proficient in Lithuanian; It is important to be proficient in English. The proportions of students who agree with these statements are shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9.

Students in all age groups affirm that it is important to be proficient in Polish, Lithuanian, and English. Proficiency in Polish is valued most highly in primary grades, but the older the students are, the fewer agree with this statement: 82.4 percent in primary grades, compared with 67 percent in grades 7–8 (see Fig. 7). Two-thirds of students say that it is important to be proficient in Lithuanian (see Fig. 8). Views on the importance of Lithuanian are essentially similar across age groups: 67.6 percent of primary-grade students, 67.2 percent of students in grades 5–6, and 63.7 percent of students in grades 7–8 agree that it is important to be proficient in Lithuanian. The proportion of students who have no opinion on this question or disagree with the statement does not change with age.

36

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

FIG. 7. It is important to be proficient in Polish (percent)

FIG. 8. It is important to be proficient in Lithuanian (percent)

FIG. 9. It is important to be proficient in English (percent)

FIG. 10. Speaking English with friends is fashionable (percent)

As Figure 9 shows, the importance of proficiency in English is particularly evident in grades 5–6 and 7–8: the proportions of students in these grades who believe that it is important to be proficient in English are 84.4 percent and 81.3 percent, respectively. Comparing students’ views on the importance of all three languages shows that primary-grade students value Polish most, followed by Lithuanian, and then English, to a somewhat lesser degree. Students in the upper grades give preference to English. Data on the prestige of English in peer interactions further complement students’ views on the value of this language (see Fig. 10). Compared with primary grades, the proportion of students in grades 5–6 and 7–8 who say that speaking English with friends is fashionable doubles, while the proportion who disagree with this statement declines (disagreement figures by age group: 49.1%, 23.4%, and 19.8%). It can be concluded that most students are motivated to learn all three languages and value proficiency in them, but the older the students are, the smaller the proportion who identify proficiency in Polish as important. In the upper grades, the largest proportion of students highlights the importance of proficiency in English.

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

37

3.2. The Social Value of the Lithuanian Language

Students’ attitudes toward the social value of the Lithuanian language are revealed by their agreement or disagreement with the statements It is important to speak Lithuanian well so that I can communicate everywhere and To get a good job, I need to know Lithuanian well. The aggregated data are presented in Figures 11 and 12.

FIG. 11. The importance of the Lithuanian language as a means of communication (percent)

FIG. 12. The importance of the Lithuanian language for obtaining a good job (percent)

As the data show, the Lithuanian language has high social status. Two thirds of the students regard Lithuanian as an important means of communication and agree that good command of Lithuanian is necessary to achieve professional goals. Analysis of the responses by age group shows that the largest proportion who disagree with the statement that one needs to know Lithuanian well in order to communicate are in the Grade 5–6 group (26.5%). A smaller proportion of students in this age group believe that it is important to know Lithuanian well in order to get a good job.

3.3. Attitudes toward Learning the Lithuanian Language

Students’ attitudes toward learning the Lithuanian language are revealed by their agreement or disagreement with the statements I like learning Lithuanian and I like Lithuanian lessons. The aggregated findings on these attitudes by age group are shown in Figures 13 and 14.

A comparison of students’ responses to these evaluative statements shows that they are related. This is also supported by a statistically significant strong positive correlation (r = 0.729). More than half of the primary school students like learning Lithuanian, and two thirds like Lithuanian lessons (59.3% and 66.7%, respectively). Students who do not like learning Lithuanian and the subject lessons

38

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

FIG. 13. I like learning Lithuanian (percent)

FIG. 14. I like Lithuanian lessons (percent)

only one fifth of primary school pupils dislike them (19.4% and 14.8%, respectively), while one fifth of pupils have no opinion on this question. In grades 5–6 and 7–8, positive attitudes toward learning Lithuanian and its lessons decline steadily. In the final grades of lower secondary school, only one third of pupils report positive attitudes toward learning and teaching Lithuanian, while the proportion of pupils with no opinion on this question increases (42.8% and 51.6%, respectively). The differing results across grade groups confirm general trends—primary school pupils tend to have greater motivation to learn. It is noteworthy that pupils who agree with the statements that it is important to know Lithuanian well and that they enjoy Lithuanian lessons are more likely to regard Lithuanian as important in their lives.

3.4. Perceived difficulty of Polish and Lithuanian

Attitudes toward the difficulty of Polish and Lithuanian were examined by analyzing pupils’ agreement or disagreement with the statements Polish is difficult for me and Lithuanian is difficult for me. The assessment of language difficulty in different age groups is shown in Figures 15 and 16.

When analyzing pupils’ attitudes toward the difficulty of Polish and Lithuanian, the extent to which each language is used should be taken into account. Most pupils communicate in Polish at home, although it is often not the only language spoken at home. Pupils use Polish (as well as Russian) to search for information online, communicate with friends on social media and in person, and generally choose to read books in this language first; moreover, they attended preschools where Polish was the language of instruction and are taught in Polish at school. Lithuanian is used much less widely. Of all the language-use domains examined, only reading books is an activity in which Lithuanian is chosen alongside Polish. In all other communicative situations (watching films, browsing the internet, communicating on social media-

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

39

FIG. 15. Polish is difficult (percent)

FIG. 16. Lithuanian is difficult (percent)

and in person), Lithuanian is hardly used. Thus, most pupils acquire experience using Lithuanian only in Lithuanian lessons. As the data show, assessments of the difficulty of Polish and Lithuanian differ substantially. Most pupils disagree with the statement that Polish is difficult (from two thirds to four fifths of respondents); those who agree account for only one tenth (by age group: 12%, 7.8%, and 7.7%). A more detailed analysis by age group shows that the older the pupils, the fewer are convinced that Polish is difficult; however, the proportion agreeing with this statement also decreases slightly, while the number of pupils with no opinion on the issue increases. It may be assumed that Polish is considered difficult by pupils from mixed or Russian-speaking families, since the home-language factor is strongest during the primary-school years.

Although pupils at schools where instruction is in Polish use Lithuanian very little in their daily lives, fewer than half consider it a difficult language (by age group: 44.4%, 39%, and 38.5%). Compared with assessments of Polish, which is used in everyday life and at school in lessons across all subjects, a considerably larger proportion of pupils in every age group consider Lithuanian difficult. These results are unsurprising: pupils develop their Lithuanian skills essentially only through studying Lithuanian language and literature. As with assessments of the difficulty of Polish, with increasing age the proportions both agreeing and disagreeing that Lithuanian is difficult decline somewhat. A negative correlation was found between the response Lithuanian is difficult for me and the response I like learning Lithuanian (r = −0.355), as well as between the response Lithuanian is difficult for me and the response I like Lithuanian lessons (r = −0.295). These results confirm that positive emotions in learning Lithuanian are highly significant. It should be noted that a negative correlation was found between Lithuanian as

40

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

difficult to assess and its use in everyday life, i.e. communicating in Lithuanian on social media (r = −0.279), speaking Lithuanian with friends (r = −0.166), and reading books in Lithuanian (r = −0.164). It can be concluded that attitudes to the difficulty of Lithuanian are influenced not only by the emotional evaluation of learning Lithuanian and its lessons, but also by experience of using Lithuanian in everyday life.

3.5. Personal relationship with Polish and Lithuanian

A relationship with a language develops through its use and through acquiring, via the language, the cultural characteristics of the linguistic community. Scholars note several important aspects of a person’s relationship with a language: openness to cultural identity and/or affinity with a cultural community (Gardner 2007: 16), and social and personal aspirations (Kmiotek, Boski 2017: 13). Students’ personal relationship with Polish and Lithuanian is conveyed by their agreement or disagreement with the evaluative statements Polish is my language and Lithuanian is my language. The results of the study of this relationship are shown in Figures 17 and 18.

Analysis of the results shows that most students report an emotional, identity-based connection with Polish, and the largest proportion of such students is in the 5th–6th grade age group (92.2%). This group includes the largest number of students who communicate in Polish with family and friends and on social media. Although Polish is not every student’s home language, and a substantial proportion use several languages at home or only Russian, awareness of Polish as part of their identity is strong across all age groups. Only a few percent of respondents disagree with this statement (by age group: 6.5%, 7.8%, and 3.3%).

A personal connection with Lithuanian is reported by fewer than half of primary school students (40.7%) and about one-third of students in grades 5–6 and 7–8. That Lithuanian

FIG. 17. Personal relationship with Polish (percent)

FIG. 18. Personal relationship with Lithuanian (percent)

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

41

is not their own language is believed by one-third of primary school students, one-fifth of students in grades 5–6, and almost one-third of students in grades 7–8. A large proportion of students reported having no opinion as to whether Lithuanian is their own language (by age group: 25.9%, 46.9%, 41.7%). Although Lithuanian, like Lithuania, where the students were born and are growing up, is theirs, most students do not identify with the Lithuanian language. These results are not unexpected, since Lithuanian, like a foreign language, is most often used only during Lithuanian lessons and when reading books. Analysis of students’ attitudes towards Lithuanian reveals a statistically significant relationship between their views of Lithuanian, their evaluation of its teaching and learning, and its use in everyday life.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The research data revealed that pupils studying at Polish-medium schools do not constitute a linguistically homogeneous community. Most communicate in Polish at home, but for some pupils Polish is not the only language most frequently used at home. Fewer than half (42%) of the pupils who participated in the study reported speaking Polish at home; a quarter of the pupils (26%) speak Russian at home; more than a third communicate in several languages almost all the time, most commonly (25%) in Polish and Russian. Fewer than one tenth of the pupils, in addition to Polish and Russian, also frequently use Lithuanian at home. Pupils whose home and school languages differ, as well as bilingual pupils growing up in mixed families, need support in learning both Lithuanian and Polish.

2. Two languages predominate in pupils’ everyday use: Polish and Russian. Russian is particularly often given priority when searching for information on the internet and watching films. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between language choice for watching films and searching for information on the internet, and between language choice for communicating on social media and in person. Reading is the domain in which Polish and Lithuanian are chosen. The domain of Lithuanian use is extremely narrow: most pupils acquire linguistic experience in Lithuanian only during Lithuanian-language classes. It may be assumed that the choice to read books in Lithuanian is also dictated by the requirements of the Lithuanian language and literature curriculum. Most pupils do not communicate, watch films, or search for information on the internet in Lithuanian. It can be concluded that the extremely limited use of Lithuanian in everyday activities and at school is one of the main reasons why

42

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

40% of pupils across all age groups consider Lithuanian a difficult language, and the gap in Lithuanian-language learning achievement between pupils attending Lithuanian-medium schools and those studying in Polish-medium schools is not narrowing.

3. The research data confirm a trend characteristic of Lithuanian-medium schools: the older the pupils, the larger the proportion who consider English a prestigious language. The results indicate the highest motivation to learn it.

4. Analysis of language attitudes revealed the high social prestige of Lithuanian: most pupils studying in Polish across all age groups believe that proficiency in Lithuanian is important for achieving career goals. A strong relationship was found between positive attitudes toward learning Lithuanian and evaluations of Lithuanian-language classes: the more pupils enjoy these classes, the greater their motivation to learn, and vice versa. A statistically significant positive correlation was also found between attitudes toward Lithuanian and positive evaluations of Lithuanian language teaching and learning, as well as language use—reading and communicating in Lithuanian on social media and in person.

5. The vast majority of pupils report a connection with Polish as part of their identity. One third of pupils regard Lithuanian as their own language; about the same proportion have no opinion on this matter or disagree with the statement that it is their own. It can be argued that an emotional, personal connection with a language is shaped by experience of using it and by attitudes toward it.

6. The study covers two schools and does not allow general conclusions to be drawn about the population of Polish-medium schools as a whole. However, it highlights general trends that reveal links between language choices across different areas of everyday use, the relationship between language choices and language attitudes, and linguistic behaviour patterns among pupils of different ages.

LITERATŪRA

Berman Robert, Lefever Samuel, Wóźniczka Anna K. 2011: Attitudes towards Languages and Cultures of Young Polish Adolescents in Iceland. Prieiga internete: https://www.academia.edu/15725741/Berman_R_Lefever_S_and_Wozniczka_A_K_2011_Attitudes_towards_languages_and_cultures_of_young_Polish_adolescents_in_Iceland.

Demie Feyisa, Andy Hau 2013: The Achievement of Pupils with English as an Additional Language: An Empirical Study, London: Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit Schools and Educational Improvement Service International House.

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąją kalba atvejis

43

Gardner Robert C. 2007: Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. – Porta Linguarum 8, 9–20.

Geben Kinga, Zielińska Maria 2016: Porównanie sytuacji socjolingwistycznej uczniów szkół polskich z Mościsk, Gródka (Ukraina) oraz Solecznik (Litwa). – Slavistica Vilnensis 61, 131–141.

Giles Howard, Bourhis Richard Y., Taylor Donald M. 1977: Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations. – Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, ed. H. Giles, London: Academic Press, 307–348.

Giles Howard, Harrison Chris, Creber Clare, Smith, Philip M., Freeman Norma H. 1983: Developmental and Contextual Aspects of Children’s Language Attitudes. – Language and Communication 3(2), 141.

Hakuta Kenji, Butler Yuko G., Witt Daria 2000: How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency? Prieiga internete: https://web.stanford.edu.

IVKS 2022: Ilgalaikės valstybinės kalbos politikos galimybių studija, parengė L. Kalėdienė, O. Aleknavičienė, M. Ramonienė. Prieiga internete: https://www.kulturostyrimai.lt/visos-temos/kulturos-politika/ilgalaikes-valstybines-kalbos-politikos-galimybiu-studija.

Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė Laura 2014: Būdvardžių semantikos įsisavinimas ankstyvojoje vaikystėje. – Language in Different Contexts. Research Papers 6(1), 208–217.

Kmiotek Łukasz K., Boski Paweł 2017: Language Proficiency and Cultural Identity as Two Facets of the Acculturation Process. – Psychology of Language and Communication 21(1), 192–214.

Poderienė Nida, Vaičiakauskienė Sonata 2019: Lietuvių kalbos prestižas: mokinių nuostatos dėl lietuvių kalbos švietimo politikos kontekste. – Lituanistica 3, 199–219.

Tamulionienė Aurelija 2019: Mokinių požiūris į lietuvių kalbą: ryšys tarp kalbos vartojimo, mokėjimo ir mokymosi. – Bendrinė kalba 92, 1–20. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt.

Vilkienė Loreta 2019: Gimtakalbių ir negimtakalbių mokinių lietuvių kalbos kokybė. – Pedagogika 135(3), 102–121.

Vilkienė Loreta, Vilkaitė-Lozdienė Laura, Bružaitė-Liseckienė Justina 2019: Lietuvių kalba Vilniaus lietuviškose, lenkiškose ir rusiškose gimnazijose: mokėjimo kokybė, kalbinės nuostatos ir motyvacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

ŠBA 2022: Lietuvos tautinių mažumų švietimo būklės analizė. 2021, parengė J. Jevsejevienė, D. Survutaitė, B. Šeškus, R. Zablackė. Prieiga internete: https://smsm.lrv.lt.

44

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

Zabulionis Algirdas 2020: Tarptautinio švietimo tyrimo OECD PISA Lietuvos ir kaimyninių šalių duomenų tikslinė antrinė analizė, Vilnius: Nacionalinė švietimo agentūra. Prieiga internete: https://www.nsa.smm.lt/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Tarptautinio-svietimo-tyrimo-OECD-PISA-2018-m.-Lietuvos-ir-kaimyniniu-saliu-duomenu-tiksline-antrine-analize.pdf.

Gauta 2022 11 09 Priimta 2022 12 08

NIDA PODERIENĖ

LANGUAGE USE AND LINGUISTIC ATTITUDES: THE CASE STUDY OF SCHOOLS WITH THE POLISH LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION

Summary

The article presents the results of a questionnaire-based study of the most commonly used home language, the choice of language in relation to other languages in different communicative situations and linguistic attitudes towards Polish, Lithuanian and English languages based on the survey analyzing responses of student groups of grades 3–8 in two schools with the Polish language of instruction. Research data in relation to the age groups was analyzed regarding aspects such as the dominant language in communication with family and friends, the choice of language preference over other languages, i.e. in which language students choose to watch movies, search for information on the Internet, read books, write SMS and communicate on social networks. Students’ language attitudes were studied in terms of language learning motivation, social value and personal relationship with the language. In some aspects, the research results were compared with the data of the study of students’ linguistic attitudes and language dominance in everyday use conducted a few years ago in schools with the Lithuanian language of instruction focused on the same age groups.

Research data on language dominance show that the majority of students communicate in Polish at home, although for some of them Polish is not the only language used in the family. Out of all the students who participated in the study, 42% indicated that they speak Polish at home, more than a third of students specified that they usually communicate in several languages in the family, out of which the largest part (25%) speak in Polish and Russian and 26% of students indicated that they communicate in Russian at home. Less than a tenth of students, in addition to Polish and Russian, noted that they often use Lithuanian in their home environment. Research data on the choice of language in relation to other languages in different communicative situations revealed that

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

45

two languages – Polish and Russian – predominate, and Russian is especially strongly used when searching for information on the Internet and watching movies. Reading is the type of activity where Polish and Lithuanian languages prevail. The results of the research demonstrate the high status of the Lithuanian language’s social value, as students believe that it is important to know the Lithuanian language in order to achieve both social and professional life objectives. The results of the study show a statistically significant positive correlation between motivation to learn the Lithuanian language and liking Lithuanian lessons (Pearson coefficient 0,729). English is considered a prestigious language and the results show the highest motivation to learn it, in comparison to Polish and Lithuanian languages. The results of the study revealed that students feel a strong connection with the Polish language of instruction as part of their identity. A third of the students consider Lithuanian their own language and approximately the same number do not have an opinion or disagree. The conducted exploratory research covers several municipal schools and, therefore, does not make general conclusions about the linguistic preferences and language dominance of students in the majority of schools with the Polish language of instruction. The study shows trends regarding language choice, valuation of Polish, Lithuanian and English languages and learning motivation.

KEYWORDS: Polish language, Lithuanian language, language use, linguistic attitudes.

NIDA PODERIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

NIDA PODERIENĖ

KALBŲ VARTOJIMAS IR KALBINĖS NUOSTATOS: MOKYKLŲ LENKŲ MOKOMĄJA KALBA ATVEJIS

Santrauka

Straipsnyje pristatomi dviejų mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba 3–8 klasių mokinių grupėse anketavimo būdu atlikto tyrimo rezultatai apie namų kalbą, kalbai teikiamą pirmumą kitų kalbų atžvilgiu ir kalbines nuostatas. Tyrimo duomenys pagal amžiaus grupes analizuojami tokiais aspektais kaip vyraujanti kalba bendraujant su šeima ir draugais, kalba, kuria mokiniai dažniausiai žiūri filmus, ieško informacijos internete, skaito knygas, rašo SMS žinutes ir bendrauja socialiniuose tinkluose. Mokinių požiūris į kalbą tiriamas kalbos socialinės vertės, mokymosi motyvacijos, asmeninio santykio su kalba aspektais. Tyrimu siekta nustatyti kalbų pasirinkimo kasdienėje mokinių vartosenoje sąsajas, kaip keičiasi kalbos

46

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 95

pasirinkimo polinkiai ir kalbinės nuostatos skirtingais amžiaus tarpsniais. Kai kuriais aspektais tyrimo rezultatai lyginami su prieš kelerius metus mokyklose lietuvių mokomąją kalbą to paties amžiaus mokinių grupėse atlikto mokinių kalbinių nuostatų ir kalbos dominavimo kasdienėje vartosenoje tyrimo duomenimis.

Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, kad dauguma mokinių namuose bendrauja lenkų kalba, nors daliai jų ši kalba nėra vienintelė dažniausiai šeimoje vartojama kalba. Mažiau nei pusė mokinių (42%) nurodė namuose kalbantys lenkiškai, daugiau kaip trečdalis dažniausiai bendrauja keliomis kalbomis – didžiausia dalis (25%) lenkiškai ir rusiškai, 26 proc. mokinių šeimoje kalba rusų kalba. Mažiau kaip dešimtadalis mokinių namuose dažnai kalba ir lietuviškai. Pasirenkant kalbą kasdienėje vartosenoje, dažniausiai pirmenybė teikiama lenkų ir rusų kalboms, ypač rusų kalba vyrauja ieškant informacijos internete ir žiūrint filmus. Lenkų ir lietuvių kalbomis visų amžiaus tarpsnių mokiniai skaito knygas. Nustatyta statistiškai reikšminga koreliacija tarp kalbos pasirinkimo pirmumo kasdienės vartosenos srityse.

Kalbinių nuostatų tyrimo duomenys rodo aukštą lietuvių kalbos socialinę vertę. Mokiniai mano, kad lietuvių kalbą svarbu mokėti siekiant tiek socialinio, tiek profesinio gyvenimo tikslų. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė statistiškai reikšmingą teigiamą ryšį tarp motyvacijos mokytis lietuvių kalbos ir lietuvių kalbos pamokų mėgimo (Pirsono koeficientas 0,729). Visų amžiaus tarpsnių mokiniai nurodo lenkų, lietuvių ir anglų kalbų mokėjimo svarbą, vyresnėse klasėse pirmenybė teikiama anglų kalbai. Didžioji dalis mokinių patvirtina stiprų ryšį su lenkų kalba kaip savo tapatybės dalimi. Lietuvių kalbą sava kalba laiko trečdalis mokinių, maždaug tiek pat tyrime dalyvavusių mokinių šiuo klausimu neturi nuomonės arba nesutinka, kad lietuvių kalba yra sava. Analizuojant tyrimo rezultatus nustatyta statistiškai reikšminga koreliacija tarp kalbinių nuostatų ir kalbos pasirinkimo. Atliktas tyrimas apima dviejų savivaldybių mokyklas, todėl neleidžia daryti apibendrinamųjų išvadų apie daugumą mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba, tačiau ryškina bendras tendencijas, rodančias kalbų pasirinkimo ir kalbinių nuostatų ryšį, lenkų, lietuvių ir anglų kalbų vertinimą ir mokymosi motyvaciją.

ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: lenkų kalba, lietuvių kalba, kalbų vartojimas, kalbinės nuostatos.

NIDA PODERIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

NIDA PODERIENĖ. Kalbų vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos: mokyklų lenkų mokomąja kalba atvejis

47