Viešoji nuomonė ir kalbų politika

D I S C U S S I O N S LAIMA KALĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language PUBLIC OPINION AND LANGUAGE POLICY DOES LITHUANIA NEED A LANGUAGE POLICY? The results of a representative sociolinguistic survey of the public (which will be discussed below) prompted a reconsideration of Lithuania’s language policy, even though the website of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language provides guidelines only for the policy on the Lithuanian language (referred to there as the state language): On the Guidelines for the State Language Policy for 2009–20131. The use of Russian, Polish, and other languages is regulated by the Law on National Minorities of the Republic of Lithuania2, whose Articles 4 and 5 often give rise to uncertainty. In addition to the Law on the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania3, the spread of English in the public sphere is somewhat curbed by the Law on Consumer Rights Protection of the Republic of Lithuania4 and, indirectly, by the Law on the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania5. The use and teaching of languages in the education system are directly regulated, in addition to the relevant laws on education and science, by directives issued by the Minister of Education and Science and, in higher education institutions, by orders issued by the rector or dean. Thus, each language has its own department, its own laws, its own guidelines, while people often cannot get by with just one language. Is this how policy for all the languages used in Lithuania should be formulated? 1 See http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/10110 (accessed 2009 10 25). 2 Valstybės žinios, 1989, Nr. 34–485. 3 Ibid., 1995, No. 15–344; 2002, No. 68–2760. 4 Ten pat, 2007, Nr. 12–488. 5 Ten pat, 2004, Nr. 7–129. L. KALĖDIENĖ. Viešoji nuomonė ir kalbų politika 287 Jacques Leclerc of Laval University in Canada attempted to systematize and compare the language policies of the world. In 1988, he began collecting documents regulating language policy in various countries, arranged for them to be translated into French, classified them, and in 1999 published online 470 documents regulating language policy in different countries and territories6. An analysis of the language policies of those countries was conducted in 20087. Our language policy is described there as a policy of differentiated legal status: the state language has more rights than other languages that are also recognized. We are also described as proponents of a policy that supports the official language and favors it over the languages of national minorities. It is noted that Lithuanians are characterized by defensive purism, also called linguistic protectionism. Lithuania’s language policy is said to differ little from that of our neighbors and fellow peoples, the Latvians and Estonians (we are most often grouped together and described in similar terms). Unfortunately, despite a glance at this storehouse of language-policy experience, no answer was found about the quality of the language policy implemented in Lithuania—for a woodpecker may be speckled, but the world is even more so. PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT LANGUAGE USE To find out whether the language policy implemented in Lithuania meets language users’ expectations, their opinions were solicited in a sociolinguistic survey8. Using a quantitative sociological method (multistage probability sampling), 1,513 residents aged 15–74 from two Lithuanian cities—Vilnius and Klaipėda (and later Kaunas)—were surveyed9. The sample was designed so that 6 See http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/index.html (accessed 2009 10 30). 7 Address in Lithuania: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/lituanie.htm (accessed 2009 10 30). 8 A project supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation was carried out in 2007–2009: Language Use and Ethnic Identity in Lithuanian Cities (Cities and Languages) (http://projektai.vu.lt/miestaiirkalbos/, accessed 2009 10 08). The project was led by Meilutė Ramonienė; in addition to scholars from Vilnius University, scholars from Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipėda University, and the Institute of the Lithuanian Language took part. 9 A considerable number of authoritative sociologists critically assess the academic significance of public-opinion polls and are even inclined to question the existence of public opinion (Blumer 1969: 197–199). Their main argument is that social knowledge is supposedly a complex phenomenon, dependent on an individual’s position and social ties in society, and therefore cannot be mechanically quantified. Very often, respondents may lack an opinion because of their social status, or may “borrow” one from friends, neighbors, or the media. Surveys therefore tend to reflect people’s emotional and stereotypical reactions rather than a well 288 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 considered opinion. Roger Hood also notes that it is supposedly important to distinguish public approval from the views of well-informed individuals: public-opinion surveys may be misleading (1989: 150–158). One unexpected finding was that 8 percent of respondents reported having not one mother tongue, as is customary, but two; for half of them, these were Lithuanian and Russian. All these respondents came from mixed families10. Asked how well they knew their mother tongues, most respondents said they knew them well, especially Lithuanians and Russians (only 5 percent of Lithuanians and 4 percent of Russians thought they were only average at writing in their mother tongue). Seven percent of Poles said that they, too, were only average at writing, while an equal proportion said they wrote in Polish very poorly. About 10 percent of Poles thought they were not very good not only at reading but also at speaking. By contrast, as many as a third of respondents of other ethnicities said they wrote poorly in their mother tongue, a quarter said they also read poorly, and 12 percent reportedly found it difficult even to speak their mother tongue. Although it was expected that all residents of Lithuania knew Lithuanian and Russian fairly well, it had never occurred to anyone that only 1 percent of survey participants would report being unable to speak Lithuanian at all. It was expected that more than 3 percent would report not knowing Russian. However, 42 percent of respondents cannot speak English at all; very few know French, and fully three-quarters of those surveyed would be unable to make themselves understood in German. Incidentally, the complete lack of desire to learn languages was quite surprising: only one in five residents of Vilnius or Klaipėda said they wanted to learn various languages. That fifth of respondents11 were already learning, or intended to learn, English. Non-Lithuanians revealed that they most often learn Lithuanian on their own—27 percent of those surveyed learn in one way or another by reading, browsing the internet, or watching television. Most complained that they found Lithuanian difficult to learn. As their most important motivation for learning, they cited the desire to communicate with a considered opinion. Roger Hood also notes that it is important to distinguish public approval from the opinions of well-informed individuals: public opinion polls may be misleading (1989: 150–158). 10For an account of perceptions of the native language, see Ala Lichačiova. Perceptions of the native language among Russians and Russian speakers in Lithuania. – KK 82, 2009, 253–258. so that every resident of Vilnius and Klaipėda would have an equal probability of being surveyed. The interviews, conducted in respondents’ homes, included 64 questions: they explored the ethnic composition of respondents’ parents, the respondents themselves, and their families; ethnic and local identity; native and non-native languages, their use and proficiency; patterns of language use in public and private settings; languages taught and preferred by respondents and their children in school; the use and evaluation of dialects; and other matters.11 L. KALĖDIENĖ. Viešoji nuomonė ir kalbų politika 289 Lithuanians An analysis of the current state of secondary education in the education system showed that although the social need for English-language teaching had become evident earlier (in the 2006–2007 school year, 86 percent of pupils in general education schools studied English, 47 percent Russian, 18 percent German, and 3 percent French; thus, in the 2006–2007 school year, one secondary education student studied 1.6 foreign languages13), Lithuania’s education policy was not redirected in time to meet citizens’ needs. The early English-language teaching introduced in 2009 in primary schools, starting in the second grade, is unlikely to succeed, because there is a shortage of English teachers: good specialists do not take jobs in schools because of the relatively poor pay. English has a multifaceted effect on Lithuanian itself: the less proficient people are in English, the less predictable the influence and interference of that language. Official language policy in Lithuania has adopted a defensive stance and is unprepared to foster and develop Lithuanian under new circumstances: replacement, integrated instruction in two or even several languages during the same lesson, already being introduced in other countries, will soon reach Lithuania as well. The fact that language status matters for its future is also demonstrated by the fact that an absolute majority of non-Lithuanian citizens have learned Lithuanian as a non-native language. The exceptionally positive attitude toward the necessity of knowing the state language, Lithuanian, can be explained in the same way as the attitude toward knowing English. In summary, Lithuanian society is no different from the societies of other European countries, since it recognizes the importance in its own life and that of its children of the principal language of communication in present-day Europe and, to some extent, the world—that is, English. Many of those respondents who favor bilingual schools reached this decision intuitively, without even having heard of the latest trends and fashions in language teaching (cf. Ferguson 2006). CONCLUDING REMARKS Separate language policies are being developed for the languages used in Lithuania: Lithuanian-language policy is overseen by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, while Russian, Polish, another dimension: the functioning of both languages and society itself is examined in parallel. Michael Halliday is considered the pioneer of research into the ecological context of languages; in 1990 he published the article New Ways of Meaning: the Challenge to Applied Linguistics. 13 See http://www.smm.lt/svietimo_bukle/docs/apzvalgos/Svietimas_regionuose_2007.pdf (accessed 2009-09-21). L. KALĖDIENĖ. Viešoji nuomonė ir kalbų politika 291 Belarusian and other national minorities—the Department of National Minorities and Lithuanians Living Abroad under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania; responsibility for the English language falls to the Ministry of Education and Science. A comprehensive, integrated program is needed that would set out the prospects for all languages actively used in Lithuania and create a unified vision of language policy. A sociolinguistic survey of city residents helped reveal public opinion on several sensitive language policy issues. One of the more significant needs is that half of those surveyed expressed a wish to send their children to Lithuanian–English bilingual schools. It is worth noting that almost half of the respondents do not know English at all, even though they consider it the most prestigious language. What is more, many of them, especially older people, do not even intend to learn it. Another emerging and troubling tendency is a shift in decisions about national identity: one sixth of the young people surveyed chose to be not Lithuanian, but European or citizens of the world. However, one of the survey’s most encouraging results is that almost all residents of Lithuania’s major cities speak Lithuanian, although just a couple of decades ago such results would have been unimaginable. LITERATŪRA Blumer H. 1969: Public Opinion and Public Opinion Polling. – H. Blumer. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Berkley: University of California Press, 195–208. Ferguson G. 2006: Language Planning and Education, Edinburgh University Press. Halliday M. 1990: New Ways of Meaning: the Challenge to Applied Linguistics. – A. Fill, P. Mühlhäusler (eds.), 2001: The Ecolinguistics Reader, London: Continuum, 175–202. Hood R. 1989: The Death Penalty: a World – wide Perspective, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 150–158. Leclerc J. 2007: L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, TLFQ, Université Laval. – Prieiga per internetą: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/index.html (žiūrėta 2009 10 30). Liddicoat A., Baldauf R. B. 2008: Language Planning in Local Contexts: Agents, Contexts and Interactions. – A. Liddicoat, R. B. Baldauf (eds.), Language Planning in Local Contexts, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Gauta 2009 11 10 292 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 PUBLIC OPINION AND LANGUAGE POLICY Summary The paper sets out to examine if the present language policy responds to the society’s needs. A conclusion is made that presently Lithuania has no general policy of all languages used in the country; it only has a certain attitude formed towards the state Lithuanian language and legal basis established for the state Lithuanian language. Any other language can adopt some parts of the laws or decrees of the Government. As shown by the results of a representative sociolinguistic research Language Usage and National Identity in the Cities and Towns of Lithuania (Cities and Languages), the situation does not respond to the needs of the society and the changing life. Presently, issues of using and teaching English are of special importance. A search for a better job determines that the society manifests an increased need to learn English; however, there is neither adequate plan of measures to be implemented nor resources; there are no qualified specialists either. The society’s request that bilingual learning/teaching should be started at secondary schools has been rather unexpected. LAIMA KALĖDIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] L. KALĖDIENĖ. Viešoji nuomonė ir kalbų politika 293