Advertisement

Family Language Policy and Management in a Changed Socio-political Situation: Russians and Russian Speakers in Lithuania

  • Meilutė RamonienėEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 7)

Abstract

Based on newly collected quantitative and qualitative data from two research projects on language use and attitudes carried out in Lithuanian cities and towns, this chapter is aimed at the analysis of linguistic behaviour of Russians and Russian-speaking population residing in urban areas of Lithuania with a special focus on language use in the private (home) domain. The study discusses certain aspects of family language policy and management related to Lithuanian, which is the official state language, and Russian, as a minority language, as well as it looks into the adaptation of Russian-speaking population to the new socio-political environment and analyses social challenges faced by those people since the fall of the Soviet Union and restoration of Lithuanian independence. Data discussed in the chapter mainly represents Russians and Russian-speaking residents, living in urban areas with a special focus on the inhabitants of the most multilingual cities, namely Vilnius and Klaipėda.

The study shows that changes in the socio-political situation of the country have affected social and linguistic behavior of non-titular ethnic groups. The most conspicuous changes are related to the increased proficiency in Lithuanian and the use of the titular language both in public and private domains. Hence, the Lithuanian language is spoken at home, particularly in interaction with the younger generation, children and grandchildren. The tendency to send children to Lithuanian rather than Russian schools also indicates a move towards social and linguistic adaptation.

Over more than 20 years of Lithuanian independence, Lithuanian Russians and Russian-speaking population have also retained the Russian language which occupies the second position after Lithuanian. The fact that native speakers of Russian have retained their mother tongue and use it most often at home and sometimes in public life should be seen as a sign of successful family management. Appreciation of one’s mother tongue, willingness to teach children Russian and at the same time preserve Russian culture and identity suggests that the Russian ethnic community, which is decreasing in number in Lithuania, will continue to preserve its national character and language.

Keywords

Ethnic Identity Language Policy Mother Tongue Russian Language Language Ideology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baker, C. 2001. Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  2. Barron-Hauwaert, S. 2011. Bilingual siblings. Language use in families. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  3. Beresnevičiūtė, V. 2005a. Etninių grupių socialinės integracijos dimensijos šiuolaikinėje Lietuvos visuomenėje. Etniškumo studijos. Vilnius: Socialinių tyrimų institutas/Eugrimas.Google Scholar
  4. Beresnevičiūtė, V. 2005b. Etninės grupės ir socialiniai kalbos aspektai. Lietuvos etnologija 5(14): 113–126.Google Scholar
  5. Brazauskienė, J. 2010. Lietuvos miestų rusų diasporos portretas. In Miestai ir kalbos, ed. M. Ramonienė, 107–122. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
  6. Brazauskienė, J., and A. Lichačiova. 2011. Русские в современной Литве: языковые практики и самоидентификация. Диаспоры/Diasporas Moskva 1: 61–85.Google Scholar
  7. Bulajeva, T., and G. Hogan-Brun. 2008. Language and education orientations in Lithuania: A cross-Baltic perspective post-EU accession. In Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries, ed. A. Pavlenko, 122–148. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  8. Caldas, S., and S. Caron-Caldas. 2002. A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of adolescents bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics 23(4): 490–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Druviete, I. 1997. Linguistic human rights in the Baltic states. International Journal of Sociology of Language 127: 161–185.Google Scholar
  10. Ehala, M., and A. Zabrodskaja. 2011. Этнолингвистическая витальность этнических групп стран Балтии. Диаспоры / Diasporas 1: 6–60.Google Scholar
  11. EHDR – Siiner M., T. Vihalemm, S. Djackova, and M. Ramonienė. 2011 The implementation of language policy in the context of the integration of the Russian speaking population, Estonian human development report: Baltic way(s) of human development: twenty years on. 2010/2011, 122–128. Tallin: Eesti Koostöö Kogu.Google Scholar
  12. Eurobarometer. 2006. Europeans and their languages, Special Eurobarometer report, 243. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Extra, G., and K. Yağmur (eds.). 2004. Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  14. Extra, G., and K. Yağmur. 2005. Mapping immigrant minority languages in multicultural cities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175(176): 17–40.Google Scholar
  15. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  16. Geben, K. 2010. Vilniaus lenkų kalbinė savimonė, daugiakalbystė ir tapatybė. In Miestai ir kalbos, ed. M. Ramonienė, 153–173. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
  17. Gellner, E. 1993. Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Hogan-Brun, G., and M. Ramonienė. 2003. Emerging language and education policies in Lithuania. Language Policy 2: 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan-Brun, G., and M. Ramonienė. 2004. Changing levels of bilingualism across the Baltic. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7(1): 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogan-Brun, G., and M. Ramonienė. 2005a. The language situation in Lithuania. Journal of Baltic Studies 36(3): 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogan-Brun, G., and M. Ramonienė. 2005b. Perspectives on language attitudes and use in Lithuania’s multilingual setting, in language and social processes in the Baltic republics surrounding EU accession. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26(5): 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogan-Brun, G., U. Ozolins, M. Ramonienė, and M. Rannut. 2009. Language policies and practices in the Baltic states. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Juozeliūnienė, I. 1996. Individual and collective identity. In Changes of identity in modern Lithuania, Social studies, ed. M. Taljūnaitė, 194–213. Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and Sociology.Google Scholar
  24. Juška, A. 1999. Ethno-political transformation in the states of the former USSR. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(3): 524–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasatkina, N., and T. Leončikas. 2003. Lietuvos etninių grupių adaptacija: kontekstas ir eiga. Vilnius: Eugrimas.Google Scholar
  26. Leončikas, T. 2007. Etniškumo studijos 1: Asimiliacija šiuolaikinėje Lietuvos visuomenėje: švietimo sektoriaus pasirinkimas, 86–93. Vilnius: Socialinių tyrimų institutas/ Eugrimas.Google Scholar
  27. Lichačiova, A. 2010. Vilniaus ir Klaipėdos rusų ir rusakalbių tapatybės savivokos ypatumai. In Miestai ir kalbos, ed. M. Ramonienė, 125–151. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
  28. Lithuanian 2011 Population Census in Brief. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://www.stat.gov.lt/uploads/Lietuvos_gyventojai_2011.pdf
  29. Okita, T. 2002. Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Pileckas, M. 2003. Rytų Lietuvos gyventojų nacionalinės sudėties kaita atkūrus Lietuvos valstybingumą. Geografija 39(1): 40–45. Retrieved July 24, 2012, from www.e-library.lt/resursai/LMA/Geografija/G-40.pdf Google Scholar
  31. Ramonienė, M. (ed.). 2010. Miestai ir kalbos. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
  32. Ramonienė, M. 2011. Kalbų vartojimas darbe didžiuosiuose Lietuvos miestuose. Lietuvių kalba. Retrieved July 24, 2012, from www.lietuviukalba.lt
  33. Ramonienė, M., and G. Extra. 2011a. Multilingualism in Lithuanian cities: Aims and outcomes of a home language survey in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda. Kalbotyra 3: 59–77.Google Scholar
  34. Ramonienė, M., and G. Extra. 2011b. Multilingualism in Lithuanian cities. Languages at home and school in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda. Vilnius/Tilburg, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
  35. Ramonienė, M., and K. Geben. 2011. Особенности языкового поведения литовских поляков. Диаспоры / Diasporas 1: 86–120.Google Scholar
  36. Savukynas, V. 2000. Lietuvos lenkai ir rusai: dvi skirtingos laikysenos. Politologija 2(18): 67–84.Google Scholar
  37. Schöpflin, G. 2000. Nations, identity, power. London: Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, M. 2008. Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second generation Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29(5): 400–418.Google Scholar
  39. Schwartz, M. 2010. Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review 1(1): 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language policy, Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Spolsky, B. 2009. Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tannenbaum, M. 2003. The multifaceted aspects of language maintenance: A new measure for its assessment in immigrant families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6(5): 374–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tannenbaum, M. 2005. Viewing family relations through a linguistic lens: Symbolic aspects of language maintenance in immigrant families. Journal of Family Communication 5(3): 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tannenbaum, M., and M. Berkovich. 2005. Family relations and language maintenance: Implications for language education policies. Language Policy 4: 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vilkienė, L. 2010. Daugiakalbystė didžiuosiuose Lietuvos miestuose. In Miestai ir kalbos, ed. M. Ramonienė, 27–68. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Lithuanian Studies, Faculty of PhilologyVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations