Dvikalbystės tyrinėjimai Latvijos TSR

LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICAL QUESTIONS, XXVIII (1989) LINGUISTICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTION ANGELĖ KAULAKIENĖ STUDIES OF BILINGUALITY IN THE LATVIAN SSR Bilingualism is usually determined by the historical circumstances of the peoples in contact, the genetic and typological relationship of languages. Therefore, the scientific analysis of bilingualism can include historical, social, ethnolinguistic, linguistic and many other aspects. The study of these aspects of the contact languages gives valuable sociolinguistic results of theoretical and practical significance, some of which are published in the publication “Russian language contacts with the languages of the Baltic peoples” published by the A. Upytis Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR MA. This collection of articles consists of four chapters: 1) Russian and Latvian; 2) Russian and Lithuanian; 3) Russian and Estonian; 4) Russian and Belarusian language contacts. At the end of the collection there is a bibliography of publications on these topics, 1945—1981 m. Perhaps the largest section of this collection of articles is "Russian-Latviir an Language Contacts". Discussing the main tasks of Latvian and Russian bilingualism education, A. Blinkena points out that all studies of Latvian-Russian bilingualism include various language domains: phonetic, grammatical, lexical. As a ir rule, these studies should be based on linguistic methods, help eliminate language interference, raise Latvian-Russian language culture. The assessment of normative interference is one of the main linguistic problems of bilingualism. ir Only after ją solving it can be spoken about the harmonious functioning of two languages Latvian — Russian. ir — These general A. The guidelines indicated by Blinkenas can undoubtedly be used to solve the problems of bilingualism not only of Latvians and Russians, but also of other peoples. The influence of language contacts on terminology is discussed V. Skujinia ir I. Edelman. Iš of many problems related to the facts of language contacts, V. Skujinia studies borrowing. It analyses lexical, morphological, constructive and semantic borrowings of current Latvian terminology. In her opinion, when evaluating language contacts in the preparation of ir language practice recommendations, each specific issue must be solved in a complex way, taking into account the entire language system. į I. Edelman discusses in her article terminological folk names of ir plants, relationship, similarities and jų differences. The main focus is on the naming ir of these two groups of plants, because ji the introduction and acclimatization of various plant species leads to the emergence of many new plants, which require new terms to be named. J. Baldunchiko ir A. The article discusses the influence of language mediation in borrowing ka words from English and iš French. ir This is analyzed from a historical perspective. The main role of the language mediator is played by Russian. i KoHTakTbi pyccroro A3bIKaA © AIBIKAMH HapojioB Type Ganruxu. Pure: Good morning, 1984. 185 či 207 O. Bušas discusses the criteria of normative evaluation of barbarisms as foreign T. slangs, Jakubaitė ir V. Stripe real — names bilingualism is S. Lagzdinija — discusses the ir communicative meanings of the genitive verb nebeit, L Pavlovskaja — the minimization of Latvian students’ accent in Russian. The second chapter, entitled “Contacts ir of Russian-Lithuanian languages”, 4 consists of articles. L. Grumadienė, analysing the influence of ir Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism on the pronunciation of Lithuanian literary language, presents a to qualitative analysis of Lithuanian-Ruir ssian bilingualism. Based on the results of the survey of Vilnius residents, she concludes ji that three characteristics of Vilnius Lithuanian pronunciation are grammatically relevant, five characteristics are not relevant. o Discussing the concept of hybrids, jų their classificatioir n, and hybridization S. in general, Keinys points out the threefold effect of hybrid terms on Lithuanian terminology. First, hybrids expand the language's motivation base. Secondly, affixes of international words increase the inventory of affixed morphemes. Thirdly, the use of international terminological elements creates a new way of terminology. Be Therefore, hybrids, as internationir al terms, help to unify terminology on a union, international scale. ir ir S. In the article “Comparating lexicology as a minimum ir system of language knowledge”, Krinickaitė identifies the concepts of comparative lexicology with su those of active grammar and rational use of language. The importance of rational language use is particularly evident in the context of language contact and bilingualism. Therefore, the basic concepts of comparative lexicology should be introduced already in schools. Having become su familiar with them, it is possible to distinguish more accurately between form and content, to learn another language better and to remember language culture recommendations. Thus, under the conditions of language contact and bilingualism, the basics of comparative lexicology should become a basic part of the minimum system of language knowledge. V. Būda, discussing some aspects of Lithuanian and Russian language culture, points to the great influence of Russian language, which encompasses all spheres of Lithuanian language functioning. In his view, this influence should not be natural and uncontrolled, because languages with their own script have established, fixed and precisely defined systems. The third chapter “Contacts between Russian and Estonian languages” begins with the article “Development of Estonian terminological vocabulary against the background of Indo-European languages” by the famous Estonian terminologist R. Kulis. The direct and indirect influence of Indo-European languages (lexical borrowings, values, analogous derivatives) has a double effect on the Estonian terminological vocabulary. First, the Estonian terminological vocabulary becomes multifaceted, expressive and plastic. On the other hand, following the Indo-European languages reduces the stability of the Estonian terminological vocabulary, there is more variability, heterogeneity. According to R. Kulis, the qualitative development of the Estonian terminological lexicon will depend on reliable criteria that rationally combine the possibilities of the language with the interference of Indo-European languages. H. Lemets discusses issues of systematizing Russian and Estonian interference and points out that recommendations on undesirable interference should be based on the results of comparative studies of all consonants of Estonian and Russian. Only such recommendations can be used when learning languages. T. In Lagle's view, the meaning and form of international ir words are determined by the characteristics of three languages: the source language, the intermediate ir language, and the language in which the international 208 words function. Therefore, the problem of international words having different meanings in different languages cannot be solved by translation dictionaries alone. Usually, this problem is solved in iš part by interpretive translation dictionaries. L. Sim points out that Russian borrowings form a distinct, abundant group of Estonian slangs, with a tendency to increase. Some of the Estonian slang, iš derived from the Russian language, has retained its original form. Such debts took hold much earlier ir only later acquired the status of slang. The ir section "Russian-- Belarusian language contacts" contains one article. P. Kopanevas ir A. Michnevič discusses bilingualism as the interaction ir of internal and external language forms. Jų In his opinion, to achieve equal bilingualism in a bilingual society, it is necessary to have theoretical justification, precise definition of concepts, scientific formulation of practical recommendations. The bibliography index presents books, the most important articles of ir periodical publications of the collections, which analyze the issues of Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Russian ir language contacts. The index lists publications in alphabetical iš order, starting with national, 0 po to in Russian. Bibliographic index, as a whole ir collection, divided into chapters (1 — Latvian-- ir Russian language relations | Compiled by D. Barbara (p. 165—172); 2 — Lithuaniir an-Russian Language Relations | Compiled by R. Vensaitė (172—180); 3 — Estonianir -Russian Language Relations | Compiled by T. Lagle and R. Kulis (180—185). Ši arrow linked to su another Latvian TSR MA A. Institute of Upytis ir Language and Literature 1987 m. published Latvian-Rusir sian bilingualism bibliographical index?. According to the authors, the aim of the index is to present as — many publications as possible on Latvian-Russian bilingualism and its ir linguistic aspects. The index consists 9 of I) sections: ir Baltic Slavic contacts (p. 7—16); 2) the current ir stage of Latvian-Russian bilingualism (17—27); 3) comparative studies (27—34); 4) Latvian-Ruir ssian literature relations, translation of fiction (35—38); 5) terminology (38—41); 6) onomastics, transcription (42—47); 7) pedagogy (Russian k. teaching) (47—52); 8) lexicography, dictionaries (52—54); 9) supplements (55 —60). The first three chapters have subsections: etymology (1 cf.); dialects, schnekts sk.); (2 morphology, a) syntax, phonetics, b) construction, semantics, lexis, phraseology sk. ). (3 Each chapter begins with a discussion of the most to important scientific problems of the chapter. The titles of ar publications written in Latvian are accompanied by the titles in Russian. First presentation of publications in Russian, o po to — Latvian in ar another language. The bibliography is listed in alphabetical order, except for Latvian TSR MA The list of the Terminology Commission bulletins, 'which is presented in chronological order. All index publications are numbered rows. iš Iš the total bibliography index covers over positions. 450 For ease of use, the index ja ends with an alphabetical list of authors (61-68). It is regrettable that į ją one other monograph, e.g. : Pasaurne HanMOHAaJIbHO-pycCKOTO Asysseraus. M., 1976. Lithuanian is missing in ir the index ‘that Ipuayne B. ‘A., Tepenronių B. B. ‘Jlarbuuoko-pycexoe nBysasramMe: KParquit 0630p Hu GuGmorpaduseckuit axxasarens. Pure: 3underneath, 1987. 69 c. 209 some publications of linguists (S. Karaliūnas, A. Sabaliauskas, A. Vanagas, A. Vidugiris and others) concerning the ethnogenesis of the Balts and Slavs. Apparently, it was necessary to include in the terminology section also the articles of V. Skujienė published in “Language Culture” (Usage of International Elements in Latvian Terminology, 1979, p. 37, pp. 57—63; Term in Context, 1983, p. 44, pp. 19—26). The reason for the selection of publications by year is also unclear. One section contains publications from the 1950s, another from the 1960s or 1970s, etc. These things do not detract from the value of the bibliography. The bibliography of Latvian and Russian bilingualism is very valuable and necessary. Undoubtedly, it will become a favorite book not only of Latvian, but also of Lithuanian linguists, because the index contains a number of works dealing with phonetics, morphology, lexis and other various subjects of the Lithuanian language. On the other hand, even one section is devoted to Baltic and Slavic language contacts, where we find articles and monographs on Baltic ethnogenesis, substrate, typology of Baltic and Slavic languages, etymology and other issues. Latvian language contact research/Atb. red. A. Blinken. Riga: „,Zinštne“, 1987, 276 p. The linguists of the Andris Upytis Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian SSR MA pay considerable attention to the problems of language contact. It is possible to recall valuable publications of the Institute:,- ,B3aumocss3u GajITOB H IpHuOajITHŪCKHX OuxHoB“ (Pura, 1970; prepared together with the MA History Institute), „KoHTakKTbI pycckoro S3bIKA C S3bIKAMH HapojjoB [Mpubantuku® (Pura, 1984. The latter also devotes considerable space to Russian-Lithuanian language contacts (the authors of the articles are Lithuanian linguists). Recently, a new book on this issue has been published: “Latvian language contact studies”. It is a collection of articles by Latvian linguists on a wide range of topics. Many of these articles are directly related to Lithuanian studies. First of all, this can be said about the first two, whose authors are students of both Vilnius and Riga universities and who are probably equally concerned with the problems of both Latvian and Lithuanian languages. L. Baluodė (Balode) in her article “Semantic relations of prepositional nouns and verbs of common origin in the contemporary Lithuanian and Latvian language” (Kopcilmes prefiksalo lietvirdu un darbibas vardu semantiskie attiesmes mūsdienu lietuviešu un latviešu valoda, p. 7—38) examines 115 prepositional nouns and 880 prepositional verbs of the same origin in both languages. They are divided into three groups: to the first are assigned derivatives, overlapping form, semantics į ir ir (lit. bracelet: lat. aproce, lit. stepfather: lat. paternal; let. apaiti: lat. apaut), the — second derivatives, whose form coincides, but the iš semantics of the part differs (lit. tool lat. : weapon "a weapon; prk. 'tool', lit. discover- : er lat. discoverer ‘radéjas’, liet. apgieddti :year. apdziedat "to sing; sing talalines (songs)’, the third — derivatives, whose form coincides, but the semantics are completely different (lit. nesgmoné : lat. nesamana "loss of consciousness, fainting’, lit. pėrvalkas : lat. parvalks 'cover, covering'; let. circle lat. : skriet "'run around, beat'). As one ir might expect, the third group is the smallest: it accounts for a 21 percentage of the examined nouns ir 15 percent of verbs. 210