О двуязычии сельского русского населения Литовской ССР

SOCIALINĖS LINGVISTIKOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XIX (1979) Мария СИВИЦКЕНЕ ON THE BILINGUALISM OF THE RURAL RUSSIAN POPULATION OF THE LITHUANIAN SSR Bilingualism is widespread in multinational Soviet Lithuania. Among the republic’s titular population, it takes the following forms: Lithuanian-Russian, Lithuanian-Latvian, Lithuanian-Belarusian, Lithuanian-Polish, Lithuanian-Karaim, Lithuanian-German, and others. (For more on this, see: Karalūnas S., Vidugiris A., 1970, and also Vidugiris A., Karalūnas S., 1972.) Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism is the most widespread. According to the 1970 census (1973, p. 273), Lithuanian-Russian bilinguals make up 34.83% of the total Lithuanian population of the republic. Half (51.10%) of the urban population and 21.02% of the rural Lithuanian population are bilinguals of this type. Since Russian serves as the language of interethnic communication in the USSR, the social significance and role of this kind of bilingualism are self-evident. The particular course of our country’s historical development led to the spread of Russian among all nations and ethnic groups. The widespread dispersion of the Russian population throughout the Soviet Union has also helped Russian to spread. (For other historical factors that established Russian as the language of interethnic communication in the USSR, see Isaev M. I., 1977.) There are 21.3 million Russians living in the union republics; under the conditions of the implementation of Lenin’s nationalities policy, this gave rise to Russian-national, and in this case Russian-Lithuanian, bilingualism. According to the 1970 census, Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism is represented as follows: 30.77% of the 267,989 Russians living in the republic speak Lithuanian. There is a marked difference between urban and rural residents: Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism is less widespread among the urban population (bilinguals make up 28.73%) and more widespread among the rural population (bilinguals constitute 42.26% of the Russian population in Lithuania’s villages). Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism in the Lithuanian SSR is therefore two-way or reciprocal, although Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism predominates. The sphere of Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism is undoubtedly enlarged to a considerable extent by the long-established rural Russian population of Lithuania, which was the subject of our study. By origin, they are descendants of Old Believers who came to this territory (and its neighboring areas) following the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church at the end of the XVII century. They came from Russia’s northwestern regions (Pskov, Novgorod, Tver) and have preserved their customs and language (dialect) to this day. The Russian population continued to arrive here during the XVIII century and later. A large number of Russians were resettled in Lithuania after the suppression of the Polish-Lithuanian uprising of 1831. Colonization intensified after the uprising of 1863 (Stankevich A., 1909). 59 The largest Russian populations live in the Zarasai, Jonava, Švenčionys, Rokiškis, and Ignalina districts of the republic. These are areas of early and long-established Russian settlement. Long-established Russian residents are also found in other districts, for example, Kaunas, Kelmė, Molėtai, Šiauliai, and Anykščiai, although their proportion there is very small (from 2 to 4 percent). Even fewer live in the Šilutė and Kėdainiai districts. Russian settlers appeared in these areas later, at the end of the XIX or beginning of the XX centuries, as a result of migration from the peripheral eastern parts of the Kovno and Vilna Governorates (the Lida, Trakai, and other counties). Russian villages are scattered in larger or smaller clusters across a number of districts of the Lithuanian SSR. Given their location within the Lithuanian-speaking territory, contact between speakers of Russian (its dialects) and Lithuanian may be defined as internal (intra-regional) contact between linguistic islands embedded in a different linguistic area. At present, the population in some districts is characterized by ethnic diversity. Several nationalities often live in one settlement: Russians, Lithuanians, Poles, and Belarusians. Homesteads belonging to Lithuanians, Poles, and Russians are interspersed among the forests and lakes of the Ignalina, Zarasai, and Molėtai districts. Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism gradually developed under these conditions. It has grown particularly over the past 30 years. In sociological terms, it may be classified as contact bilingualism of local significance (Desheriev Yu. D., 1966). It is communal and incomplete. Monolinguals are also found alongside bilinguals. The former are more numerous in areas where the Russian population is more compactly and long-establishedly settled. Bilinguals are more numerous in areas of secondary settlement (e.g., Šiauliai district), as well as in individual small settlements and homesteads situated among the Lithuanian population. A comparison, based on the 1970 census, of residents who speak Lithuanian in two Russian villages—Raistiniskes (Raistiniskes) in Zarasai district and Smilgiai (Smilgiai) in Šiauliai district (the census forms specified “speaks fluently”)—revealed the following proportions: in Raistiniskes, half the residents are bilingual; in Smilgiai, more than a third. In Amaliai (Amaliai), Šiauliai district, almost the entire population is bilingual (of 205 people, only 16 are monolingual). Russian-Polish bilingualism is widespread among long-established Russian residents. Age-related characteristics of the population also play a significant role in the manifestation of bilingualism. Monolinguals are primarily preschool children and pupils in the lower grades, as well as some older women (those born in 1911 or earlier). Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism among the Russian population of Lithuania’s villages varies in terms of the degree of command of Lithuanian, that is, the number of Lithuanian speech skills and abilities acquired. Alongside the productive type of bilingualism, the reproductive (reproducing) and receptive (comprehending) types are also widespread (Vereshchagin E. M., 1969). Many residents of Russian villages understand Lithuanian speech only, to varying degrees. Here are several statements by residents of different districts and villages. In an informal setting, they assess their knowledge of Lithuanian themselves*: * The informant’s surname is not given. Some dialectal features have been retained in the texts. 60 I understand everything in Lithuanian. I’m illiterate. Born in 1909, Ignalina District, village of Ramutšikė. But I don’t understand Lithuanian—only a little, a little, very little. Woman, about 60 years old, Ignalina District, village of Ramutšikė. But nowadays every one of us can speak Lithuanian. Woman, about 65 years old, Zarasai District, village of Snegishkė. We don’t know how to speak Lithuanian, just a little here and there. My children know how to speak it. Woman, 78 years old, Zarasai District, village of Santakai. We can all speak Lithuanian too. Woman, 65 years old, Zarasai District, village of Požeimis. Although I’m illiterate, I understand everything in Lithuanian; I understand well and speak Polish. Woman, born in 1885, Ignalina District, village of Daptiškė. We can speak Lithuanian and Polish... Knowing a language well does no harm; it doesn’t weigh on your shoulders. Woman, born in 1921, Jonava District, village of Perelozai. I can speak Polish and Lithuanian. Woman, born in 1906, Ignalina District, village of Protupenai. I do understand Lithuanian, but speaking it is difficult. Woman, born in 1898, Molėtai District, village of Spaskos. I chatter in Polish, whether in Lithuanian or Russian... I can read however I like, in Lithuanian or Russian. Man, born in 1901, Molėtai District, village of Kulinyai. I can speak Lithuanian. If I couldn’t, that would be strange... I read books; I can read Lithuanian. Russian is easier for me. Man, born in 1896, Molėtai District, village of Spaskos. We grew up here, so we speak Russian with our mother, but otherwise we speak Lithuanian, and we can read it too. Man, born in 1924, Molėtai District, village of Kevlianai. I know a little Lithuanian; I understand it, but it’s hard to respond. And my wife talks with the neighbors in Russian, Polish, and Lithuanian. Man, born in 1899, Molėtai District, village of Novasodai. We’re Russians, but we write, speak, and read a little in Lithuanian, whereas in Russian we speak but don’t write. Woman, born in 1924, Jonava District, village of Bulotai. Our family is mixed; they speak Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish. Man, born in 1902, Jonava District, village of Varniai. The statements quoted above once again attest to the presence of monolingual speakers among the rural Russian population and to the heterogeneity of its bilingualism: ranging from partial comprehension of spoken Lithuanian to fluent command of the language and the ability to read Lithuanian texts. The existing classification of bilingualism according to the number of speech abilities and skills in a second language seems too general when applied to the living process of its development and manifestation under conditions of natural, intra-regional language contact. The view that the relative degree of proficiency in two languages cannot, in general, be formulated precisely in purely linguistic terms is valid (Weinreich U., 1972). The definition of bilingualism given by U. Weinreich is the most widely accepted: “The practice of alternately using two languages is called bilingualism, and the person concerned is called a bilingual” (Weinreich U., 1968). It is also adopted as a basis by other researchers, for example E. M. Vereshchagin (1969): “…a speaker of two systems of communication (i.e., a person capable of using two linguistic systems to communicate) is called a bilingual (literally: a person who speaks two languages), while the abilities characteristic of a bilingual are called bilingualism.” Territorial-dialectal and sociolinguistic research is based on observations of an individual’s speech behavior, although research 61 begins not only with the individual, but also with an entire speech community or linguistic community (see Schweitzer A. D., 1976, on these terms). Consequently, the concept of bilingualism extends to a group or collective of people—to a set of individuals who are usually heterogeneous in this respect. The need arises for a more general definition of bilingualism. Thus, M. M. Mikhailov defines bilingualism as the ability of an individual, a people as a whole, or a part thereof to communicate (achieve mutual understanding) in two languages (Mikhailov M. M., 1969). In the words of F. P. Filin (1970, p. 202): “Bilingualism in the broad sense is relative command of a second language, the ability to use it to some extent in particular spheres of communication (scientific, industrial, everyday, etc.).” In the situation under consideration, bilingualism should be understood somewhat broadly: not all Russian long-term residents speak the second, Lithuanian language, but all have to hear it and encounter it in the sphere of work, in public life, in the course of working together (on a collective or state farm), at school, and in radio and television broadcasts. The surrounding circumstances themselves promote the development of bilingualism. All this contributes to the emergence of at least receptive bilingualism, that is, comprehension of Lithuanian speech. In intrafamily communication (in non-mixed families), the primary language system is usually used. In certain communicative situations, some of the Russian population of any settlement may switch to the secondary language system. Russians use Lithuanian when communicating with the local Lithuanian population in everyday life, in collective- or state-farm work, and in institutions; students use it at school and in higher education. The multifunctionality of Lithuanian in the republic fosters the development of Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism among the Russian population of the republic as a whole, and especially among the rural population. One might think that all the conditions are in place for the development of full productive Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism among the Russian long-term residents of Lithuanian villages. The circumstances that contribute most to this are the length of time since resettlement and the settlers’ island-like distribution among a population speaking another language. However, the period of full productive bilingualism has not yet arrived. Still less can one speak of a language shift. This is due to social factors, the importance of the function of Russian as a means of interethnic communication, and the presence of Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism. Across Lithuania as a whole, 21% of the Lithuanian rural population speaks Russian. In areas where the Russian population is concentrated (permanent residents and those who come for the summer to Lithuania’s lake district from Leningrad, Moscow, and other places)—the Švenčionys, Ignalina, and Zarasai districts—the number of Lithuanian-Russian bilinguals rises to 40% (see also Mikhalchenko V. Yu., 1976). As Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism develops, the need for the rapid emergence of full productive Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism diminishes. The linguistic island’s isolation played a certain role in the fact that a period of homogeneous productive bilingualism has not emerged for the population group under consideration. The linguistic islands being studied are isolated only from the Russian-language mainland. This is territorial separation, not linguistic separation. These islands were not isolated from the influence of the standard Russian language during the Soviet era, when it served as a language of interethnic communication, and they were not always shielded from its influence in the past. The standard form of Russian also spreads to linguistic islands within the national republics through schools, cinema, print, radio, and television. Members of Russian long-term residents’ families often graduate 62 secondary schools and higher education institutions in the cities of the republic and beyond its borders. All this supports Russian dialects “from above,” affects how long they are maintained under conditions of natural contact with the Lithuanian language, and influences the development of Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism. Rural Russian residents encounter two varieties of the Lithuanian language: 1. They hear and use the variety spoken by the local Lithuanian population, that is, the oral-dialectal variant. 2. They hear and acquire standardized Lithuanian speech through school, radio, television, and print. Since a large number of Russian-Lithuanian bilinguals can write and read in Lithuanian, there is a tendency to acquire standardized Lithuanian speech. More than once, we have heard such bilinguals make “critical” remarks about local, dialectal pronunciation. For example: Тут гъвар'ат ко́рве, а мы гъвар'им ка́рве (cow). Biržai district, Kvedoriškės village. However, many dialect features of Lithuanian are preserved not only in Lithuanian but also in the Russian speech of Russian long-established residents of Lithuania. This is particularly true of phonetics and vocabulary. The speech of bilinguals living in areas where certain dialect phenomena occur reflects these phenomena. Thus, the speech of speakers of Russian dialects in Ignalina district displays depalatalization of consonants. М'гъдал'ин у нас, л'уд'и работ'ийут в_м'гъдал'ин'е (Terasiškės village and others); the Lithuanian literary form has a soft d: medelynas (tree nursery). Cf. меделин with soft d → dz in the speech of speakers of the Russian dialect of Jonava district: полный базар щипо́в (черенков) с м'гъдал'ина н'об'азл'и (Nemchenko V. N., 1960, 391). Perhaps dialect differences should also explain the pronunciation о́ря и бо́ря (иоре — a wagon with high sideboards for hauling hay, straw, etc.), noted mainly in Molėtai district; керя́пла (kerėpla — a slow, awkward person), recorded in Ignalina district. The dialect lexemes грүпт grūptas ‘clod of dried-out earth’, крючка krička ‘swede’, лайка laškà ‘bed’, уба́йня ubagnė meaning ‘nursing home’, and several others occur in areas where they are found in Lithuanian dialects. They entered the Lithuanian speech of Russian bilinguals or Russian dialect speech from the surrounding Lithuanian dialects as a result of direct oral communication with the local Lithuanian population. Contact bilingualism among the rural Russian population and the Lithuanian linguistic environment led to interference from Lithuanian in the system of Russian dialects. Lithuanian interference manifests itself here as material and model influence, or calquing, in the revival and reinforcement of certain dialect grammatical forms and constructions, and in the form of violations or deviations in one or another subsystem—depending on the level of the dialect system at which it occurs. (Some of these issues were addressed in the following works: O. N. Shulene, 1965; M. K. Svickiene, 1974.) Lithuanian interference is most noticeable in the vocabulary. Lexical interference is understood as changes in the composition of the lexical inventory brought about by interlingual contacts, as well as changes in the functions and use of lexical-semantic units and in their semantic structure (we share the view of Zhluktenko Yu. A., 1974). In the language-contact situation under consideration, the most pronounced type of lexical interference is the transfer (movement) of Lithuanian words and expressions into Russian speech. The reasons for the transfer of Lithuanianisms vary, as do these words in their nominative function. Among them are names for local everyday realities, persons, and social phenomena, 63 characteristic of Lithuanian daily life, for example: бульбёня||бульвёня bulviėnė ‘potato soup’; вядёры vėdarai ‘dish’ (intestines stuffed with grated potato or groats); кугель kügelis ‘grated-potato casserole’; скли́н-dис skilandis ‘pork stomach stuffed with meat, smoked or raw’; скры́ли skrỹliai ‘dish made from flour dough rolled out and cut into squares or diamond shapes’; шалтано́сый šaltanósiai ‘a kind of dumpling’; клу́мпы || клу́мпи || клу́мбы klùmpės ‘wooden clogs’; на́гини || но́гини nãginės ‘leather footwear with frills, bast shoes’; ка́ры Lithuanian dialect kãrai, karai ‘wagon with high sideboards for hauling hay, straw’; ню́вадас niuovadas ‘local police chief’; сяню́нас seniūnas ‘village headman’; кумети́н kumetỹnas ‘house where farmhands lived’; трабе́льник trobėlinkas ‘landless or smallholding peasant in the past’; кри́зю ма́тай krizių metai ‘years of famine’ and others. However, most lexical Lithuanianisms are used in the speech of the rural Russian population as secondary names for various phenomena of everyday life, objects, persons, actions, and characteristics. Lithuanianisms do not enter an empty slot in the dialect’s lexical-semantic system, but come in as “intrusions” (in the terminology of Martynov V. V., 1963), forming a synonymic or doublet pair with an autochthonous word; they have no semantic autonomy. We will cite just a few such Lithuanianisms: а́мар ámaras ‘aphid’; балнова́ть balnóti ‘to saddle a horse’; вага́ vagà ‘furrow’; вапсва́ vapsvà ‘wasp’; га́ндрас gãndras ‘stork’; ду́мбла dùmblas ‘mud’; ли-го́тый ligótas ‘sickly, ill’; ли́сва lýsvė ‘garden bed, ridge’; люн liūnas ‘boggy place, quagmire’; намо́вый naminis ‘homemade’; по́данга padangà ‘cover, tire’; парда́вёя pardavėja ‘saleswoman’; пле́йтас pleĩtas ‘highway’; раве́я ravėtoja ‘weeder’; тра́ны мн. ч. trãnas ‘drone bees’; ше́шур šẽšuras ‘husband’s father’; шлю́ры šliùrės ‘house shoes, slippers’. A group of words denoting concepts and phenomena of social life, names of institutions, people by occupation, concepts related to school education, the everyday life of schoolchildren, and so forth, is readily identifiable, for example: по́седис pósėdis ‘meeting’; вальду́ба valdyba ‘board’ (of a collective or state farm); дарба́денъ darbãdienis ‘workday’; склин sklỹpas ‘household plot’; ато́стоен astotogos ‘leave, school holidays’; гирини́нк || гирни́к girininkas ‘forester, head of a forestry unit’; у́кведис ikvedỹs ‘supply manager’; гегужи́ня gedùžinė here ‘outdoor gathering’; па́тайса, па́тайсы pataisà, -os ‘resit examination at the end of the summer holidays’; спа́лвы spalvos ‘colored pencils’; тринту́к trintùkas ‘eraser’, etc. (see also Nemchenko V. N., 1968). The words cited differ in frequency of use and in the degree to which they have been assimilated into the dialect vocabulary. Some are recorded only sporadically and not everywhere. This indicates the relative functional weakness of the corresponding Russian lexemes. The frequency of use of other Russian lexemes has decreased considerably; Lithuanian lexemes are used in their place or alongside them, e.g., вага, думбла, люн, склин, etc., which, through their frequency of use and assimilation, become borrowings, or integrated items. The use of Lithuanianisms is connected with the degree of bilingualism of an individual or of a settlement as a whole. Speakers themselves explain their use by how easily they can be produced: “Our way of speaking is mixed; there are many Lithuanian words, and it’s easier to speak this way” (Šiauliai district, Smilgiai village, 75 years old). The speech situation and topic also matter. In conversation about everyday life and current affairs, the Lithuanian word is used more often; in conversation about the past, when events are situated in a different time frame, the Russian word is usually used, 64 as in those cases when the speaker wants to recall how people used to speak “in Russian”. In addition to the foreign-language words discussed above and characterized as borrowings and intrusions, Lithuanian words and expressions used in specific instances occur in the speech of the rural Russian population. Speakers are fully aware that these are foreign, foreign-language insertions; they are occasionalisms, or lexemes used on an ad hoc basis (Vereshchagin E. M., 1968). Their introduction into speech is even more closely connected with the bilingualism of the individual speaker. Such foreign-language words and combinations are not usually associated with the grammatical classes and categories of the borrowing language. The word used is generally found in only one or two Russian forms, but may also occur in its original Lithuanian form, regardless of the requirements of the sentence. Let us give some examples: Рабо́йшо нълам’ин’и й этъм л’ес ср’азъйут (Аникщяйский р-н, д. Пранчишки); pnuolatinei ‘постоянные’. У ко́лы мн’е да́йит, г’апра́шу г’эл’бум (там же, д. Паэжеряй); pėrtrauka ‘перерыв’. Иста́т’иму в’адут такúй… (Зарасайский р-н, д. Валентинишке); įstatymas ‘закон’ А г’е бы там нъ кварт’иры, в’ежбут’ис ил’и абичайн’иш? (Биржайский р-н, д. Кведоришкис); viešbutis ‘гостиница’; А пато́м пашо́й йа нъ стат’иба, дл’о л’йу’ах дама́ стро́или (Зарасайский р-н, д. Дягучяй); statýba ‘строительство’. Lithuanian terminological combinations and insertions in the form of quotations are also possible in Russian text. The latter are usually observed when reporting a conversation—a dialogue in Lithuanian. For example: Pól’ku s_ragám su ragúčiais būdȳm t’цñavám (Аникщяйский р-н, д. Вешинтос). Ан’ц мн’е г’гвар’ат — ф kario ligoninėj néd’о (‘госпиталь’; Йонавский р-н, д. Киселишкес); фч’ара́ ваз’ил’и по́шър, kultūrinė žolė ваз’ил’и (kultūrinė žolė; Молетский р-н, д. Кевеляй). Нъ гла́зу б’ал’мо ста́ла, врач’и rizikuosim skazáл’и ‘рисковать’ (Йонавский р-н, д. Ужусаляй)....А нас апнут’и дама́й: aikit namo (eikit namo ‘идите домой’; Зарасайский р-н, д. Дягучяй). The insertion of foreign-language words and expressions of this kind requires a productive or at least reproductive (reproducing) type of Russian-Lithuanian bilingualism. The briefly discussed features of Lithuanian lexical interference in the speech of Lithuania’s rural Russian population are the result of prolonged, natural contact between linguistic islands in a foreign-language environment and of widespread bilingualism. Литература Karaliūnas S., Vidugiris A. Bilingvizmo tipų Lietuvos TSR klausimu. — Mūsų vardų kultūra. V., 1970, sąs. 19. Weinreich U. Languages in Contact. Mouton, 1968. Вайнрайх У. Одноязычие и многоязычие. — В кн.: Новое в лингвистике. М., 1972. Вып. VI. Верещагин Е. М. Психологическая и методическая характеристика двуязычия (билингвизма), МГУ, 1969. Верещагин Е. М. О проблеме заимствования фонем. — В кн.: Язык и общество. М., 1968. Видугирис А., Каралюнас С. К вопросу о типах двуязычия в Литовской ССР. — В кн.: Проблемы двуязычия и многоязычия. М., 1972. Дешериев Ю. Д. Закономерности развития и взаимодействия языков в советском обществе. — М., 1966. Жлуктенко А. Ю. Лингвистические аспекты двуязычия. — Киев, 1974. Исаев М. И. Решение национально-языковых проблем в советскую эпоху. — ВЯ, 1977, № 6. Итоги всесоюзной переписи населения 1970 г. — В кн.: Национальный состав населения СССР. М., 1973. Т. 4. 5. Užs. Nr. 1554 65 Мартынов В. В. Славяно-германское лексическое взаимодействие древнейшей поры. – Минск, 1963. Михайлов М. М. Двуязычие. (Принципы и проблемы.) – Чебоксары, 1969. Михальченко В. Ю. Четвертая ступень литовско-русского двуязычия. – В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. М., 1976. Немченко В. Н. Говор русских старожилов Ионавского р-на Литовской ССР. Канд. дис. Машинопись. Вильнюсский гос. университет, 1960. Немченко В. Н. Диалектная лексика в русских старожильческих говорах Литвы, общая с лексикой литовского языка. – Учен. записки Латвийского гос. университета. Рига, 1968, т. 92. Сивицене М. К. Об одном случае морфологической интерференции. (На материале русско-литовского диалектного контактирования.) – Филологические науки, 1974, № 6. Станкевич А. Очерк возникновения русских поселений на Литве. – Виленский временник. Кн. IV. Русские поселения Ковенской губернии. – Вильна, 1909. Филин Ф. П. История общества и развитие двуязычия. – Изв. АН СССР. Сер. литературы и языка, 1970, т. 29, вып. 3. Швейцер А. Д. К разработке понятийного аппарата социолингвистики. – В кн.: Социально-лингвистические исследования. М., 1976. Шулене О. Н. Синтаксис русского говора Зарасайского района ЛитССР. (Простое предложение.) Канд. дис. Машинопись. Вильнюсский гос. университет, 1965. Кафедра русского языка Вильнюсский госунверситет им. В. Капсукаса DĖL LIETUVOS TSR KAIMO RUSŲ GYVENTOJŲ BILINGVIZMO Reziumė Straipsnyje apžvelgiami Lietuvos kaimo rusų gyventojų dvikalbystės klausimai. 1970 m. gyventojų surašymo duomenimis, rusų–lietuvių dvikalbiai sudaro 42,26% kaimo visų rusų gyventojų skaičiaus. Daug rusų nuo seno gyvena Zarasų, Ignalinos, Švenčionių, Rokiškio, Jonavos rajonuose. Tai palikuonys sentikių, kurie ėmė keltis į Lietuvą XVII a. pabaigoje. Gyvendami tarp lietuvių ir bendraudami su jais, susidurdami su lietuvių kalba visose sferose (buity, vidurinė ir aukštoji mokykla, gamyba, spauda, radijas, televizija ir t. t.), daugelis vietinių rusų tapo dvikalbiais (įvairaus laipsnio). Jie daugiau ar mažiau kalba ar supranta lietuviškai. Dvikalbystės rezultatas yra lietuvių kalbos interferencija vietinėje rusų kalboje. Labiausiai ji pasireiškia leksikoje. Kalbėdami savo gimtąja kalba, rusai vartoja daug lietuviškų skolinių, okazionalizmų, įterpia ištisus lietuviškus sakinius ar žodžių junginius.