ALA LICHAČIOVA

Vilnius University

THE PERCEPTION OF THE CONCEPT OF NATIVE LANGUAGE AMONG RUSSIANS AND RUSSIAN SPEAKERS IN LITHUANIA

Native language is one of the most important concepts in many branches of science directly concerned with the individual and society: psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, language teaching methodology, ethnopsycholinguistics, sociology, social psychology, etc. However, in the humanities, including linguistics, there is no strict and unambiguous definition of native language^*.

This concept can be refined in accordance with the branches of science in which it is used (Залевская 1999: 292). For example, in applied linguistics the usual opposition is first language–second language; in psycholinguistics, the terms mother or naturally acquired language, learned language are familiar; ethnolinguistics draws on the concepts of national languages and, respectively, the languages of different peoples (ethnic groups); language teaching methodology refers to native and non-native, or foreign, language.

There is no direct correlation among these concepts, since an individual's first language is not necessarily the same as their native language, and a second language is not equivalent to a foreign language. For instance, in Lithuania's non-Lithuanian schools, the status of a second language is assigned not to a foreign language but to the state (Lithuanian) language. Furthermore, an individual's native language may be foreign in relation to the country in which they live. Russian and Polish are such languages, being native to Russians and Poles in Lithuania. Consequently, the relationship between native and foreign languages as school subjects has lately seemed increasingly confusing.

DEFINITIONS OF NATIVE LANGUAGE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES

The concept of native language is described differently in various languages; for example, the Oxford Dictionary (1992) gives several synonymous definitions: the concept

^* The article is based on a paper presented at the 17th Jonas Jablonskis Conference (2009 10 09), drawing on surveys of Russian speakers in Lithuania.

A.LICHAČIOVA. Lietuvos rusų ir rusakalbių sąvokos gimtoji kalba suvokimas

253

mother tongue (mother tongue) is explained as “the language of the childhood home” (language of the childhood home), or as “a language learned at one’s mother’s knee” (learned at one’s mother’s knee), or is explained by the term native language (a language that people have acquired naturally as children – “a language that a person naturally acquires as a child”). This dictionary states that first language (primary language) is a term in applied linguistics and language teaching methodology that most often means the same as mother tongue and native language. The English term native language also points to the language’s transmitted nature, since it is said not to be learned – not learned (Dictionary by Longman 1983). The Oxford dictionary calls mother tongue “the national language of all members of the nation” (national language of all members of the nation).

In Russian linguistic dictionaries, the concept родной язык is usually not defined. For example, in the most important Encyclopedic Dictionary of Linguistics (ЛЭС 1990), the concept is mentioned four times, but has no separate entry. Native language is explained through the concept материнский язык or первый язык, о первый язык—as родной язык. Thus, one concept is defined by another.

In the Lithuanian Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, native language is defined as “the language a person learns in childhood by imitating adults” (KTŽ 1990: 72). A similar definition of this term appears in the Russian Dictionary of Methodological Terms: “the language of one’s homeland, acquired in early childhood by imitating the adults around the child” (CMT 1999: 276). However, this conflates things that often do not coincide at all: a child’s language of birthplace and the language of the child’s family.

As Russian sociolinguists V. Belikov and L. Krysin state, “in every science, alongside terms with more or less strict definitions, there are undefined terms that are understood intuitively.” For example, such a fundamental but undefined concept is that of number in mathematics, and that of a word in linguistics (to this day there is no single, consistent definition of the term word). “Paradoxical as it may be, these terms often designate the fundamental concepts of particular sciences” (Беликов, Крысин 2001: 145).

Popular conceptions of the world show that different peoples choose different mental foundations for naming native language, reflecting the ethnocultural conditioning of this concept. For example, in German, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Romanian, Serbian, Croatian, Finnish, Hindi, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, Turkic, and Scandinavian languages, it is “mother tongue.” English names for one’s place of birth, one’s mother country, motherland (“mother country”), and the Russian elevated-style expression родина-мать (“motherland”) confirm the inseparability of “homeland”

254

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

and “mother.” In Hebrew, Greek, Finnish, and many Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages, the homeland is also associated with the father, and the opposition between the concepts of “mother tongue” and “fatherland” is clear. In Esperanto, patrina linguo also means mother tongue (patrino means “mother”), while the words tėvynė, gimtinė are formed from the stem of the noun patro (“father”): patrujo, patrio.

In the linguistic consciousness of other peoples, native language is associated with blood kinship and native land, one’s place of birth. For example, as noted, English has two terms: mother tongue and native language; the Lithuanian term gimtoji kalba is etymologically connected with gimtine (homeland) and gimine (kinship); Polish język ojczysty is connected with ojczyzna (homeland) and ojciec (father); Russian родной язык is connected with родина (homeland) and родитель, родня (parent, kin). One of the meanings of the Russian word родной is “close, one’s own in spirit” (свой по духу), so it is natural that this axiological connotation is also transferred to the concept родной язык. A similar evaluative seme can be found in the everyday terms for native language used by some peoples: “one’s own language” (Finnish), “our language” (Serbian, Croatian), and “my language” (Turkish). These types of names reveal the sense of closeness more clearly than the other terms mentioned, but in any case native language falls within the axiological opposition “one’s own–foreign” in the consciousness of all peoples.

ATTITUDES OF RUSSIANS AND RUSSIAN SPEAKERS IN LITHUANIA TOWARD NATIVE LANGUAGE

Which of the languages they use do Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania prefer? What factors, besides emotional ones, determine a person’s decision about which language they call their native language? To answer these questions, the views of 57 Russian and Russian-speaking respondents in Lithuania on their native language were analyzed (46 questionnaires and 11 interviews). The questionnaires were designed in accordance with the 2002–2006 syllabus for the Vilnius University Slavic Philology master’s course “Problems of Bilingualism.” The qualitative interviews formed part of the “Cities and Languages” project, carried out in 2007–2009. It should be emphasized that the study specifically selected respondents whose native language was presumed to be Russian.

Thus, the following may be regarded as the main factors influencing responses about native language:

1) the language that was the language of the family and home in childhood continues to be the native language or one of the native languages;

A. LICHAČIOVA. Lietuvos rusų ir rusakalbių sąvokos gimtoji kalba suvokimas

255

2) most respondents do not directly equate the concepts of native language and the language of my ethnicity;

3) respondents do not directly associate their parents’ ethnicity with their own native language;

4) many respondents from mixed families, if neither spouse is Lithuanian, consider Russian their family language;

5) younger respondents most often mention two native languages: the first is the family language (Russian, Polish, Jewish, or another ethnic language), and the second is the language of schooling (Lithuanian or Russian).

In summary, it can be said that the naïve understanding of native language among Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania is associated with the language of home and family, while the language of schooling acquires the status of a second native language if it differs from the language spoken at home.

In the view of respondents who chose only one language (in this case, Russian) as their native language, it is a language that feels native; the most important language to a person; the language one most enjoys using; the language of one’s parents; the language of the school one attends; when speaking that language, one can convey every nuance; it is the language that offers the greatest opportunities to express one’s thoughts; the language of the culture one is brought up in at home; the language through which one understands the phenomena of different cultures; it is the language of a person’s faith; the language on the basis of which one learns other languages too; the language to which one feels emotionally closest; the language one starts speaking when one wants to express oneself at greater length, more beautifully, precisely, or interestingly; the most pleasant language for communication; when speaking that language, one does not feel as if one is working; in that language one can relax; it is a language that enables one to understand everything; the language of a culture in which it is clear what everything is, how it is, and why; a language that allows a person to express themselves as no other language can; and, finally, the only language suitable for direct, intimate communication with God.

Many respondents perceive native language as the foundation of their identity: if you do not know the language, you cannot identify yourself with that ethnicity; native language is the foundation of a person’s culture and self-awareness; it is the language of a person’s mentality. A 32-year-old respondent in the “Cities and Languages” project expressed this idea very precisely: If my parents had not taught me Russian, I would probably also lose the sense that I am Russian.

Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania describe themselves as follows: when you have lived in Lithuania for so many years, you are already half Lithuanian; within me, the halves of two nations live together; I am a Russian-speaking Lithuanian woman growing up in a Russian family; a Russian from Lithuania; a Russian Lithuanian; a Lithuanian Russian.

256

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82

Interestingly, until the question is asked whether one can have two native languages, a person does not even think about it. And when they answer that they have two native languages, they explain that these languages are the most appealing, the most beautiful, and best suited for communication. Respondents identify these languages as the languages of school and life outside school; the languages of their own people; the languages of the nearest cultures. Here we can see the semantic aspect of the concept of one’s own language being brought to the fore; moreover, it is clear that the opposition “one’s own – foreign,” characteristic of a monolingual society, often comprises two equally valid one’s-own sides in the consciousness of Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania.

Thus, respondents’ answers reveal that, for the younger generation of Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania, Lithuanian is becoming a potential native language because, alongside one native language (of the early, preschool stage of life), another language emerges—a different language from the one used at home, the language of education, also associated with an intensive process of learning about the world. A person perceives such a language as a second native language. What matters here is that it is precisely the language of education, through which a young person acquires new knowledge, that attains the status of a second native language. In such cases, a high level of linguistic competence develops, along with fluent use of two languages and the ability to speak both as one would speak one’s native language (Karaliūnas 1997: 326).

The changing geopolitical and sociolinguistic situation, not only in Lithuania but also in other countries, refines the definition of the concept of native language in view of the growing prevalence of the binary nature of this category. However, a more detailed analysis shows that the native languages of bilingual individuals do not add up to a simple arithmetic equation, and this should become the subject of separate studies.

L I T E R A T U R E

Active study dictionary of English, London: Longman group limited, 1983.

G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s S. 1990: Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa.

K a r a l i ū n a s S. 1997: Kalba ir visuomenė. Psichosociologiniai ir komunikaciniai kalbos vartojimo bruožai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Tom McArthur, Oxford University Press, 1992.

Б е л и к о в В., К р ы с и н Л. 2001: Социолингвистика, Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет.

З а л е в с к а я А. 1999: Введение в психолингвистику, Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет.

ЛЭС 1990: Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. Гл. ред. В. Н. Ярцева, Москва: Советская энциклопедия.

A. LICHAČIOVA. Lietuvos rusų ir rusakalbių sąvokos gimtoji kalba suvokimas

257

CMT 1999: Э. Азимов, А. Щукин. Словарь методических терминов (теория и практика преподавания языков), Санкт-Петербург: «Златоуст».

Received 2009 10 19

THE CONCEPT OF NATIVE LANGUAGE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF RUSSIANS OF LITHUANIA AND NATIVE SPEAKERS OF RUSSIAN

Summary

The paper discusses definitions of the concept native language and different national concepts of the notion concerned with one’s mother tongue as well as its ambiguity arising in different research areas. The paper also includes some responses and reflections on a native language provided by Russian language speakers of Lithuania; the data has been extracted from the survey recently conducted in Lithuania. These reflections could be treated as naïve definitions of the above notion. Further in the paper, the key factors determining the respondents’ definitions of the native language are given. The spreading binary character of the category is also taken into consideration: more frequently, alongside one native language (of an early, pre-school period of life), there emerges another language (other than the one spoken at home, language of instruction), which is closely related to human cognition. The latter language becomes an individual’s second native language. The results of the survey have shown that the opposition between ‘own’ and ‘other’ language often characteristic of a homogenous monolingual society in the understanding of Russian speakers of Lithuania is replaced by two equally important ‘own’ halves.

ALA LICHAČIOVA

Vilnius University

Universiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius

[email protected]

258

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82