Journal of Baltic Studies The language situation in

This article was downloaded by: [University of Bristol Library] On: 11 October 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773509252] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Baltic Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t759156371

The language situation in Lithuania

Gabrielle Hogan-Bruna; Meilutė Ramonienėb; Laima Grumadienėc a University of Bristol, UK b Department of Lithuanian Studies, University of Vilnius, Lithuania c Department of the Language History and Dialectology, The Lithuanian Language Institute, Lithuania

To cite this Article Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle , Ramonienė, Meilutė and Grumadienė, Laima(2005) 'The language situation in

Lithuania', Journal of Baltic Studies, 36: 3, 345 — 370 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01629770500000131 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629770500000131

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Language Situation in Lithuania

Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 14:16 11 October 2010

Gabrielle Hogan-Brun, University of Bristol, UK Meilute Ramoniene, University of Vilnius, Lithuania With an Appendix by Laima Grumadiene, The Lithuanian Language Institute, Lithuania

This article reviews language-related developments in contemporary Lithuania, contrasting these with the situation in Estonia and Latvia where appropriate. After a brief discussion of previous changing language settings, we look at the impact of state actions to regulate the implementation of Lithuanian and offer new research findings on language use and attitudes amongst mainstream and minority populations. We conclude that whilst language loyalties are complex, inclusive language and citizenship policies have helped to generate positive attitudes to linguistic and cultural diversity and social integration. Suggestions for a future research agenda on the language situation in Lithuania conclude this contribution. Abstract.

ithuanian belongs to the Baltic sub-family of the Indo-European family of languages, as does Latvian (but not Estonian). It is spoken by approximately three million people in Lithuania and by an additional half million elsewhere in the world, chiefly in the western hemisphere. The importance of Lithuanian in linguistic studies stems from its designation as the most ancient of the living Indo-European languages. It is also the language closest to Proto-Indo-European, the ancestral tongue from which all the Indo-European languages evolved. However, over the centuries, the development o f Lithuanian has been adversely affected by political and related socioeultural factors. Lengthy spells of foreign rule led to the imposition of superstrate languages -Polish, German and, twice, Russian -- and the relegation of Lithuanian to semi-public and private settings. Whilst some domains o f language use became restricted, functionality was retained in education and, albeit at times under severe curtailment, in literature. In this article we give an overview of language-related developments in Lithuania. First we provide a diachronic context through a brief sketch of changing language settings. Subsequently we discuss contemporary aspects of language practice at the levels of the state and the individual. Attention

L

JBS, VOLXXXVI, NO3 (FALL2005)

345

346

GABR1ELLEHOGAN-BRUNAND MEILUTI~RAMONIENI~


is also paid to the impact of state actions to regulate the implementation of Lithuanian whilst at the same time providing protection for the languages and cultures of national minorities. We then report on recent research findings on language use and attitudes amongst titular and non-titular populations. Finally, we propose aspects of sociolinguistic research that still need to be covered in order to provide vital data for policymakers on language use and evolving needs in Lithuania.

Past Language Settings in Lithuania: a Brief Overview

From the beginning of the thirteenth century several different written and spoken languages were used within the medieval Lithuanian state. Lithuanian was spoken only in western areas, whereas the inhabitants of the eastern regions used Slavonic languages. As elsewhere in Europe during the Middle Ages, Latin was the written language of the Church, of science, and of state govemmentJ Together with German, it was also used for purposes of international communication. In addition, a form of Slavonic served as a second official written language in the eastern regions, and the first historical works and chronicles were produced in this language. The early development of Lithuanian and its transition from a spoken vernacular to a written language proceeded in two politically divided Duchies (Lithuania Major or Did~ioji Lietuva including Vilnius, and Lithuania Minor or Ma~oji Lietuva stretching as far as K6nigsberg (Karaliaudius, now Kaliningrad). Whereas Polish became the dominant language in Lithuania Major during the years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795), Lithuanian culture and language flourished in Lithuania Minor following the Reformation. Indeed, it was here that Daniel Klein wrote the first Lithuanian grammar in 1653. Until the end of the eighteenth century, the language was used more actively and intensively in this region than it was in Lithuania Major. It declined thereafter, as Germanisation took hold around the middle of the nineteenth century (Plasseraud 2003, 69; Dini 2000, 341-343). 2 Lithuania Major became a Russian province following the Third Partition of Poland, yet the social and cultural influence of Polish persisted. In the words of Yves Plasseraud (2003, 49), "la Lithuanie sera politiquement russe mais socialement elle deviendra de plus en plus polonaise." By the second half of the nineteenth century, a sustained campaign by the Tsarist authorities had seen Lithuanian relegated to domestic settings. Its use in public administration, secondary schools and


THE LANGUAGESITUATION IN LITHUANIA 347

the courts was prohibited, and its sociolinguistic functions became restricted (Druviete 2000, 15). This brought a decline in Lithuanian cultural life and in Lithuanian as a literary language. 3 At the same time, however, Lithuanian elicited growing interest from scholars of Indo-European linguistics working in other countries, such as the German August Schleicher whose Lithuanian grammar appeared in 1856 (Zinkevi~ius 1998, 278). 4 In Lithuania Major, all publications in the Lithuanian language had to be printed in Cyrillic script during the Russification period (1864-1904). Numerous texts in the Latin alphabet were nevertheless produced abroad and smuggled across the border (Zinkevi6ius 1992; 1998, 286-287; Dini 2000, 344-347). The end of the nineteenth century saw the publication of various dictionaries, popular science books and articles in the fields of history, medicine, biology, agriculture, astronomy, geography, ethnology, hygiene, arithmetics, geometry and physics. The ~authors of these volumes and other scientists and cultural workers created new terms and other tools of expression necessary for the development of Lithuanian as a scientific language. The lifting of the Latin script ban in 1904 boosted the educational use of Lithuanian and stimulated the production of textbooks. An especially important factor in the development of Lithuanian as an academic language was the establishment of the Lithuanian Science Society (Lietuvi~ mokslo draugija) in 1907 and its publication Lietuviz~ tauta ("Lithuanian Nation") (Palionis 1995,266-268). The Lithuanian language press also blossomed during this period, when Au~ra ("Dawn", 1883-1886) and Varpas ("The Bell", 1889-1905) were published in Lithuania Minor (Zinkevi~ius 1992, 299). This development gave further impetus to the standardization of the language and the evolution of different functional styles. Many foreign elements were ousted and ineffective neologisms replaced. By the 1920s a standard version of the language had become universally accepted in Lithuania (Palionis 1995, 2 2 4 - 279; Dini 2000, 353-354; Zinkevi~ius 1992, 10-111; 1998, 286-296). The first grammars of standard Lithuanian (Lietuvi~kos kalbos gramatika (1901, 1919 and 1922); also Lietuvi~ kalbos sintakse (1911)) were written by Jonas Jablonskis. Jablonskis insisted that standard Lithuanian be developed on the basis of £moni~ kalba, "the living speech of the people" of the western High-Lithuanian dialect area, Vakar~ aukAtai~i~ (Zinkevi~ius 1998, 295; Dini 2000, 355). He also postulated that literary Lithuanian should be purged of foreign elements. With the exception of Polish-occupied Vilnius, Lithuanian underwent further advancement during the first period of independence from 1918-40. As the legislative and administrative language of the Lithuanian Republic,


348

GABRIELLEI-IOGAN-BRUNAND MEILUTI~RAMONIENE

it was introduced into the controlling domains and was used in the army and at all levels of the educational system. A network of Lithuanianlanguage primary and secondary schools was established, s while Lithuanian became the language of instruction in each of the seven faculties of the newly created University of Kaunas as well as in other institutes of higher education. Standard Lithuanian was also promoted, both as a spoken and written (scientific) language. A scholarly association (The Institute for Lithuanian Studies or Antano Smetonos Lituanistikos institutas) and state language commissions of orthography and terminology were formed for the purposes of standardisation and codification and the creation and spread of terminology. This period also saw the publication of monographs, scientific articles, and an encyclopaedia (Palionis 1995, 266269). Within a comparatively short time, an academic variant of Lithuanian was formed with all the attributes of scientific discourse. The half-century of incorporation into the Soviet Union heralded a further phase of linguistic Russification. This was, in the words of John Edwards (1985, 82): ... reminiscent in intent, if not in approach, of Tsarist policies. The postrevolutionary tolerance of indigenous varieties was at least partly based on the assumption that they would decline with the increase in Russian competence -Russian was seen as the great linguafranca and, indeed, world language. As the public role of Russian increased, Lithuanian was relegated to a secondary "local" status (Zinkevi~ius 1992, 321), with a consequent loss of prestige. Russian was taught in schools and served as a vehicle for social advancement. Many Lithuanians spontaneously adapted to external but unregulated bilingualism with Russian, which was now the main medium of communication in the public sphere. However, evolving levels of societal bilingualism were asymmetrical, as the Soviet-era immigrant population was under no compulsion to learn Lithuanian, and tended to rely on Russian. As the number of spheres in which Lithuanian was used shrank, its functionality began to decrease.6 Where contact was intense, structure, vocabulary and pronunciation were all affected, and the number of Russian loan words increased. Representatives of the titular intelligentsia nevertheless took steps to protect the achievements of the independence era, and Lithuanian continued to be used in some spheres of public life, in the press and as a medium of instruction in education. Moreover, the language underwent further normalization and improvement, and grammars (Balkevi~ius 1963; Ulvydas 1965-1976; Ambrazas 1985),

THE LANGUAGESITUATION IN LITHUANIA

349

dictionaries, fiction and other types of literature continued to be written. It is worth noting in this connection that fourteen of the twenty volumes of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (Lietuvitt kalbos £odynas) were published during Soviet times.


Language-Related Developments in Contemporary Lithuania Lithuanian was restored as an official state language already prior to the demise of the USSR, under an amendment to the Constitution of Soviet Lithuania adopted in 1988. Article 77 of the Constitution now stipulated the use of Lithuanian in state and public sector institutions, enterprises and organizations involved in education, culture, science and production (Mikul~nien~ and Palionyt~ 1997, 3). The same constitutional article admittedly contained an additional stipulation that all residents should learn and use Russian as a means of (international) communication with inhabitants of the other Soviet Republics, but there was now at least an element of language choice, since Lithuanian had acquired equal status with Russian within the territory of Soviet Lithuania. The international recognition of Lithuania's restored independence in 1991 led to the reinstatement of Lithuanian as official state language both de jure and de facto. This status is enshrined in article 14 of the 1992 Constitution. The Lithuanian Seimas has since adopted a further series of relevant laws, acts and strategic documents, most notably the 1995 Law on the State Language which regulates the use and protection of Lithuanian in the main spheres of public life. This legislative apparatus has served as a means of securing the status of Lithuanian and radically expanding its sociolinguistic function. Several institutions oversee the planning, modernisation, regulation, administration and supervision of Lithuanian. These are: the State Lithuanian Language Commission (Valstybind lietuvitt kalbos komisija), the State Language Inspectorate (Valstybind kalbos inspekcija), and the County Language Services (Savivaldybitt kalbos tvarkytojai). Since the early 1990s, the primary concern has been to reinstil a sense of language culture amongst the population. The regulation and implementation of norms for the oral and written usage of Lithuanian have been advanced through the publication of various grammars and dictionaries. 7 Lexical means, grammatical forms and especially syntactic constructions remain the focus of attention, while clarity of expression as well as the use of neologisms inter alia are also being monitored. The Institute of Lithuanian Language and departments of the language and Lithuanian studies in all of


350

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTI~RAMONIENI~

the country's universities are involved in work on language normalization. Correction procedures for the regulation of language use are in place. The State Lithuanian Language Commission was established as a successor to the Lithuanian Language Commission, which operated intermittently from 1961-90. Its membership consists of researchers from the Lithuanian Language Institute, university professors and representatives of other institutions. Legally, the remit of the Commission is to deal with issues of codification, language norms and questions relating to the implementation of the Law on the Official Language. Initiating and financing programmes for the development of Lithuanian, it supports the teaching of the language, and the preparation and publication of bilingual and multilingual dictionaries, books for educational purposes and public use, grammars, monographs etc. It is also involved in the standardisation of place names and other proper names, and the approval of standard technical terms. The latter work deals with concept formation and the systematization and differentiation of codes, especially in the area of scientific and technological terminologies. This interdisciplinary endeavor requires collaboration between linguists, subject specialists and logicians for the generalization, categorization and classification of concepts necessary for the modernisation of the Lithuanian scientific language, which contributes to the development of appropriate registers for academic discourse. The Commission publishes resolutions on its website, s and these are compulsory for all companies, offices and organizations. Fines are imposed for the non-observance of these rules. The Commission has become increasingly involved in matters of broader language policy and planning, most notably the development of the State Language Policy Guidelines, approved by the Seimas in 2003.9 These set the following goals: (1) to ensure the functionality of Lithuanian in all spheres of public life; (2) to meet the new needs of a knowledge-based society as determined by the EU; (3) to exert a planned and creative influence on the development of Lithuanian; and (4) to promote its creative use amongst the public whilst adapting it to new functions in a rapidly changing society. The underlying objective is to strengthen public trust in the value and effectiveness of the state language. This involves the preservation of Lithuanian as a heritage language as well as its development. These language policy guidelines were scrutinized by linguists and opened to public discussion prior to their implementation (Grumadiene 2003, 7-16). Several years after the inception of the Commission, some of its decisions began to be disputed by researchers as well as by language users. One such example is its 1993-97 codification policy dealing with new


THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN LITHUANIA

35 l

(post-1991) word borrowings in Lithuanian. The influence of incoming English terminology was felt especially in computer science and other spheres of new technology, and its impact in the scientific realm and on the language more broadly became a matter of public concern (Knifik~ta 2001, 198-212). Although no quantitative or qualitative analyses were performed at that time, the Commission developed and approved a list of "unacceptable borrowings" (Nevartotinos naujosios svetimybes) and at the same time supplied replacement words. This list was prepared inconsistently and unsystematically, and the opinions of language experts often diverged as to the selection of such loans. While the decisions passed by the Commission are still valid today, these will need to be reworked according to a new codification strategy, which is currently being elaborated (see Vaicekauskiene 2004; 2000; 1998; MiliOnait6 2000). Future work in this area should recognise that the cultivation and modernization of Lithuanian requires a balanced interplay between functional and prescriptive approaches to language normalization, in order to encourage functional variation. The Prague school's conception of "centre and periphery" (Lewandowksi 1990, vol. III, 1030), whereby language should be stable but also flexible, could provide a possible model here. Where prescription is called for, descriptions of coexisting and/or competing forms, with either qualitative (right/wrong) or quantitative evaluations (often/seldom used) could offer a flexible framework for language use along pragmatic lines. However, research on the frequency and contexts of the use of Lithuanian lexical terms still needs to be carried out before such methods can be applied.

Lithuania's Minority Language Communities The complicated ethnodemographic/linguistic situation that the Baltic states inherited as a legacy of Soviet-era immigration has necessitated the formulation of long-term language and integration policies, with constitutionally anchored legal backing. In each case, the central concerns were to create social conditions that would ultimately ease accession to the European Union, and to provide adequate facilities for the fostering of individual additional bilingual capabilities amongst representatives of minority nationalities. Following the restitution of Lithuanian independence, national legislation was put in place for the protection of minority languages and cultures, and state support provided for their development. The State Policy for Harmony in National Relations seeks to ensure that the legal rights of all inhabitants are respected, and to facilitate


352

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTI~RAMONIENI~

universal participation in the political and cultural life of the country. In contrast to Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania is home to a relatively small percentage of ethnic minorities, most of whom have an adequate command of the state language. It was therefore in a position to opt for inclusive citizenship policies via the so-called "zero option" (de Varennes 1996, 244). Constitutional provisions and subsequent legislation grant Lithuania's minority communities the freedom to establish their own educational, cultural and religious institutions. 1° Lithuania has also become party to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms lj and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and has also recognised the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights in all cases related to the interpretation and application of the Convention. ~z Bilateral political agreements concerning minorities have also been signed with Russia, Poland (de Varennes 1996, 3650, Ukraine and Belarus. These provisions met with the approval of the European Union during the early phase of accession negotiations in 1997. ~3 The challenging task of integrating ethnic minorities into the dominant societal culture, whilst also granting them space to preserve their own identity and to protect and nurture their languages and cultures, continues to be addressed. As we discuss below, however, Lithuania's inclusive approach to citizenship appears to have generated positive attitudes towards integration on the part of minority groups, and clear trends towards the consolidation of society can be observed.

Lithuanian as a Native L a n g u a g e

Lithuanian now occupies the dominant position within the state, and a majority of the resident population consider it to be their first language. Several registers of Lithuanian are used in different areas of social life, with regional variations. Standard Lithuanian has regained the level of a modem and multifunctional language, and is used in all public spheres, in education, and in the media. In informal and semi-formal contexts, regional and urban variants are also used. Dialects are divided into two groups -Highland (Aukgtaidit0 and Lowland (Samogitian; Z,emaidit O. There are considerable linguistic differences between them, and this serves to lower their mutual intelligibility. All regional dialects and sub-dialects are widely spoken by people of various ages and different social groups, particularly in rural areas and in smaller towns. They are also used in the private and


THELANGUAGESITUATIONINLITHUANIA

353

semi-public spheres, in bigger towns and by more than 10 percent of Vilnius residents, according to a 2004 survey. The last ten to fifteen years have seen marked changes at the level of language policy as regards the status of dialects in Lithuania. In the immediate aftermath of independence there was a strong emphasis on corpus planning, and on the protection and further development of standard Lithuanian. The learning and teaching of Lithuanian was pitted against dialects generally, but favoured the Vakar~ aui~taidiz~ variant, as it forms the basis of the Lithuanian standard. This dialect was reputed to be "the most correct Lithuanian dialect," a characterisation that has put native users of other varieties at a slight disadvantage. More recently, Lithuanian language policy has started to acknowledge the growing power of regional revival movements, and the prestige of all dialects is on the rise. Since the cultural and linguistic self-consciousness of the Lowlanders appears to be stronger than that of other Lithuanian dialect speakers, the notion of Z,emaidizt as a regional language is gaining ground (Grumadiene 2004). Currently, attempts are being made to produce a modern common Zemaidit~ written language. 14 Lithuanian dialects have been widely studied and are already well documented in Lithuanian linguistics. ~s This work, however, consists mainly of microlinguistic research on separate dialects, and the compilation and publication of dialect texts; there are as yet few sociolinguistic studies dealing with areas such as language use, language shift, the use of dialects and sociolects, language attitudes and code switching. Hence, recommendations for language policy are not plentiful. It may be that Lithuanian researchers display limited interest in sociolinguistics for historical reasons, since their first contact with the discipline occurred within the context of the cultural Sovietisation policies coordinated from Moscow. There is nevertheless a considerable body of sociolinguistic work on the interface between languages and dialects, as well as on borrowing. Laima Grumadiene has carried out significant research on the sociolinguistic variants of Lithuanian spoken by inhabitants of Vilnius, including their use of vocalism, and on the influence of social factors on urban language use (1983; 1993; 1996; 1988; 2001). Broad studies of contemporary dialects and contact have been carried out by a group of scholars at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the University of Vilnius ((~ekmonas and Grumadiene 1997), while Rita Urnie~iQt~ (1998) has investigated code-switching in the use of standard Lithuanian and dialect. Data on the written use of contemporary Lithuanian are also being

354

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTI~RAMONIENE

collected in the online Donelaitis Corpus at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas.16


Attitudes to Language and Integration amongst Lithuania's Main Minority Communities Lithuania's minority communities today account for 16 percent of the total population, the largest groups being Russians (6.31 percent) and Poles (6.74 percent) (Lithuanian Census 2001). Other smaller groups include Belarusians (1.5 percent), Ukrainians (1 percent), Jews, Latvians, Roma, Germans, and Tatars. The Russian minority consists of two segments: historically rooted and well integrated -- although not assimilated -communities (mainly Old Believers); and less well integrated Soviet-era settlers, who are for the most part concentrated in Visaginas (built specially to house incoming workers for the Ignalina power plant), and larger towns such as Vilnius and Klaip~da (Plasseraud, 2003, 330; Kasatkina & Leon~ikas, 2003, 37-47). Most of Lithuania's Poles are autochtonous citizens. They are either descendents of ethnic Lithuanian families who were Polonised during the long-term union with Poland (1569-1795) or later, during the inter-war period, when eastern and south-eastern Lithuania belonged to the Polish state, or else they are from Polish families who have been resident for generations. Whilst both the Russian and Polish communities are on the whole well disposed towards their own integration into Lithuanian society, the Poles tend to display different behavior. 17 The sociolinguistic situation and actual language behavior of these minority language groups still requires further investigation. The Polish community has for the most part remained faithful to the Polish tradition (Juozeli~niene 1997, 200). It has longer-standing ties to Lithuania than most of the Russian community, but two recent surveys (Rytt~ Lietuva ir valstybin~ kalba, 1997; Survey of Eastern and SouthEastern Lithuania Inhabitants, 2002) suggest that Poles are less inclined to use Lithuanian in private and public life, and tend to choose Polishmedium schools for their offspring. This stands in contrast to the situation in Soviet Lithuania, when most Polish children attended Russian schools and nearly 15 percent of Poles were Russian-speaking. Today, although Polish pupils are for the most part sufficiently conversant with the state language to continue their studies in Lithuanian high schools, their level of educational achievement actually tends to be lower. By contrast, most members of the Russian community seem to have adapted to the changed sociopolitical situation, and display a strong desire for their offspring to


THE LANGUAGE SITUATION 1N LITHUANIA

355

become part of the Lithuanian community. This is reflected in their growing tendency to choose Lithuanian-medium education for their children. The divergent behavior of the two groups can be explained by their varying historic origins. The Poles, a formerly dominant group who live predominantly in the south-eastern regions, are on the whole keen to protect their own identity and to retain their positive distinctiveness. As a marker of their group orientation, they want to pass on their language and culture to their offspring. The Russians too like to foster their own culture and language, but they tend to display less in-group cohesiveness. This may in time. reduce their potential for collective awareness. Ethnic diversity has a distinctly regional dimension in Lithuania. While most counties are over 90 percent ethnically Lithuanian, the eastern and south-eastern part of the country is significantly more multiethnic in character, with a 55 percent non-Lithuanian -- mainly Russian and Polish -population (Kaubrys 2002, 215-216). This border region has a complex history, having experienced numerous boundary changes during the course of Lithuania's history. The capital Vilnius, historically Lithuania's most multiethnic and multicultural city, forms part of this region. Forty-two percent of its population is non-Lithuanian. Visaginas, the town near the Ignalina nuclear power plant, is 85 percent non-Lithuanian. There is evidence to suggest that a growing number of residents in this highly multilingual and multi-ethnic region are adopting the state language, both in the public and semi-public spheres. A recent major survey on language attitudes and use in eastern and south-eastern Lithuania shows that although language loyalties are complex, attitudes towards Lithuanian are positive overall. TMMoreover, inclusive language policies have improved the prospects for social integration and the promotion of linguistic and cultural diversity. In this intensely multilingual setting, Russian still figures as the most widely shared language (by 90 percent of the local population), but this is now closely followed by Lithuanian (83 percent). Just over half of respondents claim that they also use (local) Polish as a means of communication, with 14 percent using Belarusian and 15 percent using local vernaculars called Tuteig~ or Po Prostu. Tuteigtt, "language of the locals" and Po Prostu, "simple language", are mainly Belarusian with a strong linguistic impact of Polish, Russian and Lithuanian; these vernaculars are sometimes treated as local Polish, with a strong linguistic influence from Belarusian dialects, Russian, and Lithuanian (Zinkevi~ius 1993, 254-255). In this plural environment, many individuals possess multiple (bilingual/trilingual) language competencies of varying degree. There is a


356

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTI~ RAMONIENE

fairly fluid boundary between languages, but one language (formerly Russian, now increasingly Lithuanian) in the various settings is widely shared. The actual language behavior of members of these language communities still awaits thorough investigation using ethnolinguistic and microsociolinguistic methods that observe levels of language competence, language use and the nature of bilingualism including code-switching. Such research would complement the findings of the above-mentioned survey that investigated shared languages, general aspects of changing language preferences and attitudes to language use. If one links language use to official nationality (as optionally declared in the passport), the existence of multiple affiliations becomes evident, predominantly amongst those who are Russian-speaking but not Russian by nationality. Respondents' attitudes fall into two categories: the present and former dominant groups (those with official Lithuanian or Russian nationality) consider the language of their officially declared nationality to be their mother tongue (used here to designate the language acquired at home in early childhood) and use it as their first language; by contrast, just under two thirds of informants with official Belarusian nationality primarily use Russian as their first language. These contrasting correlations linking (official) nationality to mother tongue are historically conditioned: many of the latter group (and a number of Poles) had converted to Russian in the past, which they used in both the public and private spheres (Zinkevi~ius, 1993, 247, 254-255) and passed on to their offspring, for whom it then became the first language. In other words, this subsequent generation became linguistically Russified. Nowadays, whilst there has been a marked shift in the direction of Lithuanian, Russian still functions as the language of communication -- though not of (ethnic) identity -- in many of these communities. These data on current approaches to language use confirm that there is no direct connection between language preferences and linguistic self-identification. The nature of language loyalties remains complex here, as elsewhere in the Baltic states in the wake of repeated phases of assimilation in the past. The changed sociopolitical situation as well as the social behavior and adaptation strategies among minority representatives in Lithuania has attracted the attention of politicians as well as researchers. A considerable body of research has been carried out by sociologists and political scientists, mainly on political behavior, integration, assimilation, separation, social relationships, and ethnic identity (Kasatkina and Leonrikas 2003; JuozeliQnien~ 1996; Savukynas 2000; Ju~ka 1999). Relevant investigations exist on language behavior and attitudes to (state) language use, bilingualism and multilingualism, language and identity

THE LANGUAGESITUATION IN LITHUANIA 357

(Hogan-Brun and Ramoniene 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005, in press), and on aspects of past language use and contacts in south-eastern Lithuania (Zinkevi~ius 1993; Grumadiene 1993; Grumadiene and Stund~ia 1997).


Lithuanian as a Second Language/Bilingualism with Lithuanian

A total of 356,000 resident non-Lithuanians speak Lithuanian as a second language. When Lithuanian regained its official status at the start of the 1990s, knowledge of the state language became an important factor in the integration of ethnic minorities into a changing society. As in newly independent Estonia and Latvia, the representatives of ethnic groups who were not able to communicate in the titular language were faced with the challenge of learning it in order to adapt to the new social and political situation. Those members of the minority communities who were involved in public services had to become proficient in the state language, as it was now used for carrying out business in all state and social bodies. Students from these communities also had to acquire Lithuanian in order to be able to pursue tertiary education in state universities, which, as in Estonia and Latvia, now operate solely in the titular language. This changed situation presented the country's non-Lithuanian speakers with a significant challenge. Whereas previously they had been in a position to live and work without learning Lithuanian, they are now called upon to undergo a form of integration that involves both the acquisition of Lithuanian as a second language and the preservation of their first language and culture. As is also the case in parts of Estonia and Latvia, the Lithuanian language environment remains deficient in eastern and south-eastern Lithuania, and this complicates the learning of the language. As already noted, however, attitudes towards Lithuanian amongst national minorities have become considerably more positive since the early 1990s. A majority of young people and a sizeable portion of the middle-aged population have acquired a reasonable command of Lithuanian, a trend which is mirrored in neighbouring Estonia and Latvia. Research findings on the adaptation of ethnic groups in Lithuania (Kasatkina 2003, 271) point to the fact that many (mainly Russian) members of the minority communities consider a good command of Lithuanian as a necessary precondition for pursuing a career. According to the survey of Vilnius carried out in 2004, only 1 percent of the resident population in the capital claims to have no knowledge of Lithuanian. Moreover, the data obtained from the aforementioned survey of eastern and south-eastern Lithuania show that the absolute majority of respondents


358

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTI~ RAMONIENI~

consider a knowledge of the state language to be important or very important, in the first instance for integrative reasons. In descending order of importance, respondents claim that "a citizen of Lithuania has to know Lithuanian", and that a knowledge of Lithuanian is important "in order not to be cut off from society", "in order to be treated equally" and "in order to be accepted by society". Instrumental orientation figures in second place in this context, as evidenced by the low percentage of respondents providing answers such as "I want to live and work in Lithuania", "I want to get a job", and "for interaction at work". According to the results of this survey, the overall percentage of respondents who claim to have no proficiency at all in Lithuanian is 6 percent. Whilst just over a tenth of the respondents in this category declare that they are intent on learning the language, the remainder claim that they "do not need to learn Lithuanian", that "it is hard to learn it", that they "have no conditions for learning" or that they are "too old". The main obstacles to learning appear to be linked more to a lack of motivation than to a shortage of time. Amongst the variables that seem to reduce the motivation to study Lithuanian are: (1) age (two thirds of the respondents with no knowledge of Lithuanian are over sixty years old); (2) education (half have only primary education); and (3) gender (over two thirds are women). While the vast majority of people from Lithuania's most multiethnic region value the importance of knowing Lithuanian, A slightly smaller majority (two thirds) is also in favour of the state language examination. 19 The following reasons were provided: in the first instance to raise the level of competence in Lithuanian, to make people learn it and to unify the country; of secondary importance appear to be instrumental issues of job security and equal opportunities. We can conclude, therefore, that the state's inclusive language and citizenship policies have led to the consolidation of society, which has positively affected minority attitudes towards learning of the state language and towards integration. To satisfy this growing demand for speedy language acquisition, a comprehensive reform of the teaching of Lithuanian as a second language has been carried out in schools and adult teaching institutions since the early 1990s. As in Estonia and Latvia, new curricula, textbooks and other teaching aids, as well as language proficiency assessment systems for both schools and adult teaching institutions have been developed and introduced.2° The urgent need to enable large sections of the population to learn and use the official language quickly and effectively entailed the adoption of a communicative approach to language instruction, which represented a resolute move away from previous ways of teaching.


THE LANGUAGESITUATION IN LITHUANIA

359

Currently, Lithuanian is taught mostly for the purposes of communication and its application in all spheres of life rather than for its intrinsic linguistic merit. This rising demand to learn Lithuanian amongst representatives of minority groups has raised a number of unexpected educational challenges. Parents from minority communities are increasingly sending their (frequently monolingual) children to Lithuanian-medium schools. In southeastern Lithuania, there are now numerous schools where non-Lithuanian speakers constitute as much as 60-70 percent of students in a class. Teachers are undergoing training in order to enable them to deal with this situation appropriately. Specially designed curricula and textbooks for a bilingual approach are being prepared, along with policies to ensure that a balance is struck between the needs of teachers and students from minority communities on the one hand and students from Lithuanian families on the other. Of particular importance is the "Bilingual Education" project launched by Lithuania's Ministry of Education and Science in 2001, which offers five models of bilingual instruction at the primary and secondary school levels. This scheme has now been implemented by more than thirty Russian schools.2~ The data from the survey on eastern and south-eastern Lithuania reveal that well over half of parents from the resident minority (mainly Russian, but also Belarusian, and, to a lesser degree Polish) communities are keen to see their children master the state language and attend mainstream education. As already mentioned, Russian parents in the region tend to display a pragmatic approach, arguing in favour of "a better choice of universities" (33 percent, as opposed to 9 percent of Poles). Lithuanians and Poles on the other hand tend to be more cognitively and affectively oriented, choosing schools that emphasize their native language. The latter findings support our earlier observations (Hogan-Brun & Ramoniene, 2003, 38), and are echoed in the results of the Lithuanian Census (2002, 21), which found that the Russian minority has the highest proportion of university graduates of any minority group in Lithuania (15.9%, as opposed to 6.3% amongst Poles). This predominantly connotative orientation suggests that Russians place a greater premium on enabling their offspring to operate successfully within the majority societal culture. It is also evident from these data that it is mainly the more educated strata of the minority population that favour Lithuanian-medium schools for their offspring. These parents clearly see their children's future as being directly linked to success in mainstream society, and thus do not want to limit their chances in this regard by offering them too much

360

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTERAMONIENI~

accommodation (i.e. education in the minority languages alone) (HoganBrun and Ramoniene 2004, 71).


Concluding Remarks Since the restitution of independence, the language situation in the three Baltic states has undergone gradual change, albeit in different ways. The creation of a constitutionally anchored legal apparatus has served to further secure the status of the titular languages following the early period of transition, and their sociolinguistic functionality has been expanded in all domains. The percentage of the total population that speaks the state language has also gradually risen, although there are no (comparative) data on actual levels of language competence amongst representatives of minority groups. Given that study of the titular languages is now compulsory in all schools, this trend looks set to continue. Divergent approaches are, however, evident as regards to the integration of Soviet-era immigrants. As a more ethnically homogeneous state, Lithuania was in a position to adopt inclusive language and citizenship policies, which have in turn impacted positively on the consolidation of society. This article cites work that illustrates how most minority representatives in contemporary Lithuania have opted for linguistic integration (by way of bilingualism or trilingualism with the state language), and espoused some of the values of majority culture whilst attempting to preserve their own. As is evident from the fellow country reviews in this volume, the situation is somewhat different in Estonia and Latvia, where the larger proportion of non-titulars within the overall population presents greater long-term challenges. There is a need -- particularly in Lithuania but also in Latvia -- for more qualitative research involving ethnographic methods on language behavior amongst titular and non-titular communities, including codeswitching strategies employed in different settings. Such work has the potential to highlight differences between actual (i.e. observed) and reported language usage amongst linguistic minorities, areas which will both require further consideration within the context of research on the complex issue of local language cross-overs (Fishman 1977, 52). In view of the growing dialect revival movement, sociolinguistic research is also needed into the use of regional variants and attitudes amongst different age groups in Lithuania's various geographic settings, as well as into the interface of dialects with standard Lithuanian. Overall, the detailed study of actual language behavior, real use of different language codes (style,


361

r e g i o n a l or social dialect, native or foreign l a n g u a g e s , particularly English) in speaking, listening, r e a d i n g and writing r e m a i n s a s h o r t c o m i n g o f L i t h u a n i a n sociolinguistics. Notes


I. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

!1.

12. 13. 14. 15.

On the use of Latin in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, see Dini 1999. In both parts of Lithuania, different fragments of the Bible began to be translated into Lithuanian from the late fourteenth century onwards. After the Reformation, both Catholic and Protestant versions were produced. Partial translations by Vilentas and Bretk•nas appeared in 1579 and 1625 respectively; publication of a subsequent translation, by S. B. Chylinskis, was stopped by a decree of the Vilnius synod in1662. The first Lithuanian New Testament was published in K6nigsberg in 1701, and the first entire Bible in Lithuanian appeared in 1735 (Zinkevi6ius 1988: 97-99; Visuotin~ lietuvitt enciklopedija ill, 2003: 144-147). For more detailed information see Plasseraud 2003: 66ff; Dini 2000: 340-341; HoganBrun and Ramonien~ 2002. For more information on the study of Lithuanian, see Sabaliauskas (1993). National minorities also had the possibility to obtain state-funded schooling in their native language during this period. Russian became the language of industry, government and administration, the army, and the police. Its role also increased in the academic domain, to the extent that during the latter years of the Soviet regime, doctoral theses were supposed to be written in Russian. See Dini 1991; 2000; Grumadien~ 1997. For a summary see Hogan-Brun and Ramoniene 2002, appendix 1 and 2; also Dini 2000: 423-426. . See ; Gimtoji kalba 2003: 49-50; Valstyb~s ~inios 2003: 15-19. Minorty rights provisions are set out in Articles 14, 29, 37, 45 and 117 of the Lithuanian Constitution, in its Preamble, and in the Law on the State Language (Valstybines kalbos istatymas; see references). There is additional legislation on National Minorities (Tautinit~ ma~umtO, on Citizenship (Pilietybes), on Education (~vietimo), on Non-Governmental Organisations (Nevyriausybinitt organizacijtO on Public Information (Viegosios informacijos), on Religious Communities (Religinitl bendrijt O, and on Political Parties and Political Organisations (Politinit~ partij~ ir politini~ organizacijt O. A further relevant regulation concerns language competency for public sector workers. Representatives of ethnic minorities who apply for such positions must undergo a language test, pitched according to the level of linguistic competence required in their work, because in all three Republics, citizens have the right to be served and receive information in the titular language. This includes the Law on Petitions under Articles 25 and 46, which recognises the competence of the European Commission on Human Rights to accept petitions from individuals or groups of persons whose rights under the Convention have been violated. See . See . See the website of the Samogitia Cultural Society ; Girdenis and Pabr~a 1998; Pabr~a 1991. It would be beyond the remit of this review to list all of these publications. Recent relevant studies are by Bacevi6iQt~ et al. 2004; Babickien~ and JasiOnait~ 1999;

362

16. 17.

18.


19.

20. 21.

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUNAND MEILUTI~RAMON1ENF, Markevi~ien4 1999; for the archive of Lithuanian dialects see the website of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (http://www.lki.lt/index.php). Available at http://donelaitis.vdu.lt. More information on other Lithuanian Corpora can be found in Marcinkevi~iene (2000). Kasatkina & LeonO,ikas 2003; Hogan-Brun and Ramonien4 2003; for earlier observations see also Savukynas 2000: 67-84; Juozeli0niene 1996: 200; Trink0niene 1996: 188. Ryt~ ir Pietry~i~ Lietuvos Gyventojt~ dpklausa; for detailed information on the remit, aims and methodology of this survey see Hogan-Brun and Ramonien¢: 2005, in press. This was centralized in 2001 and comprises different types of language activities; speakers of languages other than Lithuanian who pass such an examination are able to use Lithuanian in all Lithuanian higher educational establishments. For references to such textbooks and didactic materials in Lithuanian see Hogan-Brun and Ramonien~ 2004: 75. For a description of these models of schooling and more information on the implications of bilingual instruction in Lithuania within a Baltic-wide educational perspective see Hogan-Brun and Ramoniene 2004.

References

Primary sources Ryttl ir Pietryditt Lietuvos Gyventojtt Apklausa (Survey of Eastern and South-Eastern Lithuania Inhabitants), 2002.

2000 Round of Population and Housing Censuses in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Vilnius: Statistics Lithuania, 2003.

Vilniaus miesto gyventojtt kalbtl vartosenos iprodiai (Survey of the Inhabitants of Vilnius), 2004.

Gyventojai pagal i~silavinimq, gimtqjq kalbq ir kalbtt mokejimq (Population by Education, Mother Tongue and Command of Other Languages). Vilnius: Departementas, 2002. [Here referred to as: Lithuanian Census 2002]

Statistikos

Secondary sources Ambrazas, Vytautas, ed., Fpa.~amuKa aumoactcoeo e,3~ca, Bn~b.toc: MoKcaac, 1985. Babickien~, Zofija and Jasifinait~, Birut~, eds., Lietuvitt dialektologijos skaitiniai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 1999. Bacevi~ifit~, Rima, Audra lvanauskien~, Asta Leskauskait~, and Edmundas Trumpa, eds., Lietuvitt kalbos tarmitt chrestomatija, Vilnius: Lietuvi4 kalbos indstituto leidykla, 2004. Balkevi~ius, Jonas. Dabartines lietuvitt kalbos sintakse, Vilnius: Valstybin~ politin~s ir mokslines literat0ros leidykla, 1963. (~ekmonas, Valerijus and Laima Grumadien~. Sociolingvistika. Lietuvitl kalbos tarmi~ ir j~ sqveikos tyrimoprograma. Vilnius: Lietuviq kalbos institutas, 1997. Dini, Pietro, Umberto. Balt~ kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijq leidybos institutas, 2000b.


THE LANGUAGESITUATIONIN LITHUANIA 363 Dini, Pietro. L 'anello Baltico. Profilo delle nazioni Baltiche Lituania, Lettonia, Estonia (The Baltic Ring: Profile of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian Nations). Genova: Marietti, 1991. ---. "The Dispute among Vilnius Humanists Regarding Latin, Lithuanian and Ruthenian." Historiographia Linguistica XXVI: 1/2 (1999): 23-36. Druviete, lna. Sociolinguistic Situation and Language Policy in the Baltic States. Riga: "M~ciubu apg~ds," 2000. Edwards, John. Multilingualism. London: Routledge, 1994. Fishman, Josuah A. "Language and Ethnicity." in A. Giles, ed., Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Networks. London: Academic Press, 1977. Pp. 15-56. Girdenis, Aleksas and Pabr~2a, Juozas. ~emaidi~ ragyba, Vilnius-S, iauliai: Zemai~iq kultfiros draugijos redakcija, 1998. Grumadien~, Laima. "The Sociolinguistic Situation of the Samogitians -- Language Policy and Sociolinguistics." Proceedings of the Conference on Regional Languages in the New Europe. International Scientific Conference 20-23 May 2004, Rezekne. Vol. 1. 104-10. ---. "Kaip igyvendinsime kalbos politika~?" Kalbos kultara 76 (2003): 7-16. ---. "Kod~l vis da~niau girdime pusiau tarmin~ kalb~,?" Kalbos kultara 74 (2001): 81-86. ---. "Sociolingvistinis dabartin~s ~,nekamosios lietuvi4 kalbos tyrimo aspektas." Lietuvi~ katbotyros klausimai 36 (1996): 190-98. ---. "Kokios sociolingvistines pietry~it/ Lietuvos perspektyvos?" in Vacys Milius ed., Pietryditl Lietuva. Vilnius, 1993. Pp. 147-53. ---. "Sociolingvistinis vilnie~itt lietuviq kalbos tyrimas: konsonantizmas ir akcentuacija." Lietuvitl kalbotyros klausimai 27 ( 1988): 132-49. ---. "CottHO.UHHI'BHCTVI'4eC~:OeHcc.qeaoBaHue .rlHTOBCKO~ pe,~ KopeHHblX Sl,lhbntocttes (MeTO,abl n neKoTopble pe3ym,TaTb0." Lietuvit~ kalbotyros klausimai 23 (1988): 62101. ---. "Socialiniai faktoriai .~nekamosios kalbos raidoje," in eds., Grumadiene, Laima, Krasnovas, Aleksandras, Krinickaite, Stase, Zukas, Saulius, red., Jaunujz~ filolog~ darbai 1. Vilnius: Lietuviq kalbos ir literat0ros institutas, 1984. 47-9. Grumadiene, Laima and Stund2ia, Bonifacas. "Language contacts in Lithuania," in Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary, and Wolfgang W61ck eds., Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Pp. 1912-1919. Harrison, E. J. Lithuania Past and Present. London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., The Gresham Press, 1922. Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle and Ramoniene, Meilute. "Perspectives on Language Attitudes and Use in Lithuania's Multilingual Setting." G. Hogan-Brun, guest ed., special issue of Journal of Muhilingual and Multicultural Development 2005, in press. ---. "Changing Levels of Bilingualism across the Baltic." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7.1 (2004): 62-77. ---. "Emerging Language and Education Policies in Lithuania." Language Policy 2 (2003): 27-45. ---. "Locating Lithuanian in the (Re-) intellectualization Debate." Current Issues in Language Planning 3.1 (2002): 62-75. Jablonskis, Jonas. Lietuvigkos kalbos gramatika. Til2e, 1901. ---.Lietuvit~ kalbos sintakse. Seinai, 1911. ---.Lietuvi~ kalbos gramatika. Vilnius, 1919; 2"d ed., 1922. JuozeliQniene, lrena. "Individual and Collective Identity," in Meilute TaljQnaite, ed., Changes of Identity in Modern Lithuania. Social Studies. Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, 1996. Pp. 194-213.


364

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUNANDMEILUTERAMONIENE

Jugka, A. "Ethno-Political Transformation in the States of the Former USSR" Ethnic and Racial Studies 22.3(1999): 524-53. Kasatkina, Natalija and Tadas Leoneikas. Lietuvos etnini~t grupit t adaptacija: kontekstas ir eiga. Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2003. Kaubrys, Saulius. National Minorities in Lithuania. Vilnius: Vaga, 2002. Klein, Daniel. Grammatiea Litvanica. K6nigsberg, 1653. Lewandowski, Theodor. Linguistisches W6rterbuch. Vols 1-111. Heidelberg & Wiesbaden: Quelle Meyer, 1990. Lietuvi~t kalbos ~odynas. Vol. 1-2; 7-9 Kruopas, Jonas, ed., Vilnius: Mintis, 1968-1969; 1966-1973; Vol. 3-5, Ulvydas, Kazys, ed.; Vol. 6, Kruopas, Jonas, ed., Vilnius: Valstybine politines ir mokslines literat0ros leidykla, 1956-1959; Vol. 10, Kruopas, Jonas, ed.; Vol. 11-16, Ulvydas, Kazys, ed., Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976-1995; Vol. 17-20, Vitkauskas, Vytautas, ed., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidykla, Lietuvitt kalbos instituto leidykla, 1996-2002. Marcinkevieiene, Rata. Teks'tynR lingvistika. Kaunas: Vytauto Did~iojo universiteto leidykla, 2000. Markevieiene, Zaneta. Auk~taidiR tarmiR tekstai. Vol. 1 Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 1999. Mikuleniene, Danguole and Palionyte, JQrate, eds., Lietuvos Respublikos valstybine kalba. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidybos institutas, 1997. Milifinaite, Rita. "Nauji kalbos rei?,kiniai: natQralioji ir dirbtine atranka." Acta linguistica Lithuanica. LietuviR kalbotyros klausimai XLII (2000): 3-12. Ozolins, Uldis. "Post Imperialist Language Situations: The Baltic Republics." World Congress on Language Policies, Barcelona. 24 June 2002. . Pabr~2~a, Juozas. ~,emaidiff radybos patarimai. Siauliai: Titnagas, 1991. Palionis, Jonas. Lietuvitl ragomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidykla, 1995. Plasseraud, Yves. Les Etats baltiques. Les Soci~t& Gigognes. La dialeetique minoritiesmajorit&. Crozon: Editions Arm61ine, 2003. Sabaliauskas, Algirdas. We, the Balts. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidybos institutas, 1993. Savukynas, Virginijus. "Lietuvos lenkai ir rusai: dvi skirtingos laikysenos." Politologoa 2.18 (2000): 67-84. Schleicher, August. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. 2 Vols. Weimar: H. Boehlau, 1856/57. TrinkQniene, Inija. "Ethnic relations and stereotypes," in TaljQnaite, Meilute, ed., Changes of Identity in Modern Lithuania. Social studies. Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, 1996. Pp. 183-93. Ulvydas, Kazys, ed., Lietuvi~ kalbos gramatika, t. I-3, Vilnius: Mintis. 1965-1976. Urne2~i0te Rita. "Kodtt kaita joni?,kieeitt gnekamojoje kalboje." Kalbotyra 47 (I) (1998): 131-140. Vaicekauskiene, Loreta. Codification Theol. and Practice of New Borrowings in Lithuania, Summary of doctoral dissertation. Vilnius: Vilnius University, 2004. ---. "Svetimybi4 vertinimas Lietuvoje: sociolingvistine kalbos vartotoj4 po~i0rio analize." Kalbotyra 47. l ( 1998): 143-152. ---. "Lietuviq kalbos leksikos gryninimo tradicija ir dabarties tendencijos." Lietuvi~ katbotyros klausimai XLII, (2000): 200-208. Valstybes ~inios. 57 (document 57-2537), 2003 15-19. de Varennes, Ferdinand. Minorities and Human Rights. International Studies in Human Rights. Vol 45. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996.

THE LANGUAGESITUATIONIN LITHUANIA 365 Visuotine tietuvit~ enciktopedija. Vol 11I. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidybos institutas, 2003. Zinkevi(ius, Zigmas. Lietuvivt kalbos istorija. Senudt~ ra~t~ kalba. Vol. 3. Vilnius: Mokslas. 1988. ---. Lietuvitt kalbos istoro'a V, Bendrines kalbos igkilimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidykla, 1992. ---. The History of the Lithuanian Language. Trans. Ramut~ Plioplys. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidybos institutas, 1998. ---. Lietuvit~ tautos kilme, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedij4 leidykla, 2005.


Websites Constitution of Lithuania. 5 April 2004. . Samigotia language homepage. 24 February 2004 . Donelaitis Corpus. 25 June 2005. . Institute of the Lithuanian Language. 10 January 2005. . Lithuanian Commission 12 February 2005. . Samogitia Cultural Society. 4 March 2005. . The State Language Policy Guidelines. 5 March 2004. .

366

QABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILIJTI~ RAMONIENE

Appendix


Contact Linguistics Research in Lithuania

Laima Grumadiene, The Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania

he focus of the first and most prevalent type of study is on past Baltic-Slavonic contacts (Zinkevi~ius 1993, 9-29; 1989, 4-38; Vidugiris 1983, 46-61, Kardelis 2004). The vanishing Lithuanian dialects of Belarus have been captured in dialectological dictionaries, and transcribed texts published (Vidugiris 1985; Vidugiris 1998; Mikuleniene, Morkanas 1997). There are also a number of investigations of multilingual south-eastern Lithuania (Tuomiene 2001, 103-114; (2ekmonas 1988, 37-54; Gar~va 1996, 25-33; Cekmonas and Grumadiene 1997), which have established that the boundaries of the Polish-speaking rural territories have not changed appreciably during the last hundred years (Turska 1993; Cekmonas; Grumadiene 1993). Baltic-Slavonic (both Polish and Belarusian) contacts have, over the years, resulted in considerable mutual interaction at all levels of language, including Lithuanian dialects (Vidugiris 1993, 115; 191; Adomavi~i0te 1994, 121-127; Krupowies 1999, 40-53). Since the Polish language emerged in Lithuania on a Lithuanian (occasionally Belarusian) base (substratic), its articulatory basis resembles Lithuanian more than Polish. It also contains a number of Lithuanian morphological and syntactic features (participial constructions, inflections of the third person, etc.), grammatically adapted vocabulary (Cekmonas and Smitien~ 1998) and proper nouns (Karag 2001, 82-227). Almost the same features are characteristic of local Belarusian (Straczuk 1999, 29), although this is usually considered to be a superstratic (newcomers') language, whereas Polish is adstratic, i.e. it tends to be used in some spheres of life as a more prestigious language. There are numerous lexical borrowings from Russian in all dialects. Standard Lithuanian still awaits thorough investigation from the point of view of contact linguistics. Work has been carried out on the past impact

T



367

of Russian on Lithuanian, but the current focus is more on the lexical influence of English. Short prescriptive articles are regularly published in the journals Kalbos kultara (Language Culture), and Gimtoji kalba (Mother Tongue), and programmes broadcast. These mainly suggest replacements for borrowings from Russian (KniQk~ta 1998) and English (Rudaitiene and Vitkauskas 1998). Overall, though, it has been observed that traditional approaches to language standardisation and purism are giving way to a more rational and liberal language policy (Vaicekauskiene 2004, 19-21). Changes to the usage of standard Lithuanian are mainly caused by internal factors (i.e. the language itself is continually developing). One of the most significant alterations at the phonetic and phonological level is the progressive neutralisation of the short/long vowel opposition, especially in inflections (Grumadiene, Stund~ia 1997, 1917-1918). Changes at the morphological and morphosyntactic levels mainly concern the verb system. Verbal constructions are receding to the overlapping of noun or pronoun constructions. The compound tenses are being simplified, as well as the declension system, where some case endings of less productive stems are now replaced by one of the more productive types. The level of syntax is influenced more by contemporary language contacts than are the phonetic or morphological levels. Sometimes Russian-type verb government can be noted in Lithuanian sentences. Vocabulary and semantics show influence from Russian and English, mostly through word-formation patterns and caiques (MiliOnaite 2000, 3-12). Other (sociological and descriptive linguistic) studies have focused on the languages of the smaller national minorities. Whilst the number of German residents was drastically reduced prior to and following the Soviet takeover, this community has grown again through the arrival of newcomers to about 0.1 percent of the total population (approximately 3400 people). German cultural and linguistic life in the Klaipeda region has been restored, and there is a secondary school with German as the medium of instruction. A few recent studies of German-Lithuanian language contacts (Janaviriene 1992; Kaukiene 1997) have focused on lexical borrowings and contact features in the grammar (especially syntax) of western Lithuanian dialects. Over 90 percent of Lithuania's Jewish population was killed during World War Two. In the Soviet period, Russian-speaking Jews from Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and other republics of the USSR came to Lithuania, though many subsequently immigrated to Israel at the start of the 1970s. Lithuania's remaining 5,000 Jews now live primarily in Vilnius and Kaunas. Since the restoration of independence, attempts have been made to restore the litvak culture (Greenbaum 1995). I A study by


368

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUN AND MEILUTI~RAMONIENt~

Chackelis Lemchenas (1970) has investigated contact features of Lithuanian in Lithuanian Yiddish. Lithuania is also home to approximately 4,000 Tatars, who are settled in the surroundings of Vilnius and Alytus. Muslims living in the former territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were not converted to Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the Tatars of Lithuania (and of neighbouring Polish and Belarusian areas) had lost their native Turkic vernacular by the eighteenth century. Most of their religious and reading instruction booklets were (and still are) in Belarusian or Polish (but written in the Arabic script), or with Belarusian or Polish inscriptions alongside so-called Chamails, Tagevids, Kitabs, and Tefsirs (MigkinienO 2001). Historically, Lithuanian Tatars cannot be distinguished from their Polish and Belarusian brethren, as they all used to live in the Polish-Lithuanian state, and were only later divided by the imposition of new borders (Harviainen, http://www.helsinki.fi/lehdet/uh/198j.html). The separation of Lithuanian Tatars from their Polish and Belarusian kin led to profound changes in their linguistic preferences and national character. While Polish Tatars often consider themselves as Poles of Tatar origin (and Islamic religion), Lithuanian Tatars would not regard themselves as Lithuanians, even if they are loyal citizens of the country and speak Lithuanian. 2 In contrast to the Tatars, the Lithuanian Karaim have preserved their language. According to the State Department of Statistics, there were 257 Karaim living in Lithuania in 1997. 3 Karaim is taught at Sunday schools and supported by the Cultural Society of the Karaim in Lithuania (founded in 1988) and the Religious Society of the Karaim. It is, however, an endangered language, as only about fifty people in Lithuania can still understand and use it in everyday conversation. In 1998-2001 a Spoken Karaim CD Project (www.dnathan.corn/language/karaim/kcdproject.htm) gathered sound recordings from community members, and a variety of cultural artefacts including images and songs. A few ancient Karaim books have been preserved, and poems in the language are still being produced. There is also a study of contact features of Lithuanian in Karaim (Firkovi6ius 1996, 15-25). There are as yet no studies of the use of Romani in Lithuania. According to one recent popular work (Toleikis 2001, 39-42), there are around 3,000 Roma, mainly in the Vilnius region. They tend to be RomaRussian bilinguals and have been observed to use Lithuanian insertions in code-switching.

THE LANGUAGESITUATION 1N LITHUANIA 369

Notes 1.

2.


3.

A state Jewish school, named after the Yiddish language author Sholom Aleichem, was established ten years ago in Vilnius. In addition to the general curriculum, which is taught in Russian and Lithuanian, Judaic subjects are offered, on the Torah, on Jewish history and traditions, as well as Hebrew. Lederer 1995, 438-439. For more information on the Lithuanian Tatars see . Centre for Cultural Communities, University of Vilnius; website .

References Adomavi~ifit~, lrena. 0 a3b~K , HaUHOHaJIbHOMCaMOCOBHaHHH~eMa~TCKOfi tll~flXThl. Studia nad polszczyzna, kresow~, 7, 1994. Pp. 121 - 127. t~ekmonas, Valerijus. OyHKUHOHHpOBaHHe a3b[KOa , 6~t~.Hra,3M (Ha MaTepHa.qe paMamKaHcK,x roaopoa). Lietuvi~ kalbotyros klausimai 27, 1988. Pp. 37-54. (~ekmonas, Valerijus and Genovait~ Smitiene, eds., Tautiniq ma~umtt tautosaka: Vilniaus kra~to dainos baltarusiq ir lenkq kalbomis. Tautosakos darbai 8 (I 5). Vilnius: Lietuvit~ literatfiros ir tautosakos institutas. 1998. Firkovi~ius, Mykolas. Karaimzt kalba. Vilnius: Daniela, 1996. Gar~va, Kazimieras. "Breslaujos-Apso apylinki4 .~nekta." Lituanistica 4 (28): 1996. Pp. 8394. Greenbaum, Masha. The Jews of Lithuania. Jerusalem: Gefen, 1995. Grumadien~ Laima. "Kokios sociolingvistin~s pietry6itt Lietuvos perspektyvos?" in Vacys Milius, ed., Pietrydi~ Lietuva. Vilnius, 1993. Pp. 147-153. Grumadien~, Laima and Bonifacas Stund~ia. "Language Contacts in Lithuania," in Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary, and Wolfgang W61ck, eds., Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Pp. 1912-1919. Janavi~ien~, Janina. ~emaidit~ Naumiesdio lietuvninkai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedij4 leidykla, 1992. Karat, Halina, ed., dfzyk polski na Kowietlszczy~nie. Historia. Sytuacja socjolingwistyczna. Cechyjczykowe. Teksty. Warszawa-Wilno: Elipsa. 2001. Kaukien~, Audrone. Klaipedos kragto vakartt aukgtaiditt tarme. Klaip~da: Klaip~dos universiteto leidykla, 1997. Knifik~ta, Pranas, ed., Kanceliarines kalbos patarimai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidybos institutes, 1998. Krupowies, Marya. "Repertuar wokalny a identyfikacja etniczna i kulturowa ludnogci polskojqzycznych terefiow Litwy. Porayski-Pomsta, Jerzy (red.). Sytuacjajczykowa na Wilehszczy]nie. Warszawa: Elipsa, 1999. Pp. 40-53. Lederer, Gyorgy. "Islam in Lithuania." Central Asian Survey, 14.3 (1995): 425-448. Lemchenas, Chackelis. Lietuvit~ kalbos itaka ~ydtt tarmei. Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. Mikul~nien~, Danguol~ and Morkfinas, Kazys. Dievenigkitt gnektos tekstai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijq leidybos institutas, 1997. Mi~kinien~, Galina. Seniausieji Lietuvos totoritt rankragFiai, grafika, transliteracij'a. Vertimas. Teksttt strukt~ra ir turinys. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2001. Rudaitien~, Vida and Vytautas Vitkauskas. Vaka~ kalbtt naujieji skoliniai. Vilnius: Enciklopedija, 1998.


370

GABRIELLEHOGAN-BRUNAND ME1LUTERAMONIENE

Straczuk, Jerzy. J¢zyk a to~samohk cztowieka w warunkach spolecznej wielojczycznohci. Pograniczepolsko-litewsko-bialoruskie. Warszawa: Elipsa. 1999. Toleikis, Vytautas, ed.,. Lietuvos digonai. Tarp praeities ir dabarties. Vilnius: Garnelis, 2001. Tuomien~, Nijol~. "Rama~koniq ~nektos 6 ir (i)i6 kamienq daiktavard~it/ kir~iavimo ypatyb~s." Baltistica 36.1 (200t): 103-114. Turska, Halina. O powstaniu polskich obszar6w jczykowych na Wilehszczy~nie. Vilnius: Mintis, 1995. Vareikis, Vygantas. "Memellander/Klaip~di~kiai. Identity and German-Lithuanian relations in Lithuania Minor in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries." Sociologija 1-2 (2001): 54-75. Vidugiris, Aloyzas. "D~I kalbq kontaktavimo pietry~iq Lietuvoje." Lietuvitt kalbotyros klausimai 23 (1983): 46-61. ---. "Etnolingvistin~ Pietry~,itt Lietuvos pad~tis XX a. pirmojoje pus~je," in K. Gar~va and L. Grumadien~, eds., Lietuvos rytai. Vilnius: Spauda, 1993. Pp. 115-131. ---. Lazan~ tarmes ~odynas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. ---. Zietelos tarmes ~odynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijtt leidybos institutas, 1998. Zinkevi~ius, Zigmas. Seniausi lietuvitt kontaktai su slavais. Lietuvitt kalbotyros klausimai 28, 1989, Pp. 4-38. Harviainen, Tapani. Karaims and Tatars -- 600years in Lithuania.

Websites Karaims and Tatars in Lithuania. 20 March 2005.

. Lithuanian Tatars. . Jews in Lithuania. 4 April 2005. ;

; . Statistical Department o f Lithuania. 12 April 2005. . The Spoken Karaim CD Project 1998-2001.25 April 2005. .