sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lithuanian language

Cities and Languages

Summary

Introduction

Throughout the history of civilisation, city life has been a crucial factor responsible for linguistic phenomena in society. Sociolinguistic change occurs mainly as an outcome of urbanisation, which has been particularly evident in the rapid urban developments in western culture over the past two centuries as well as in the accelerated urbanisation of the modern world (Fischer, 1999: 173; Giddens, 2001: 528-554; Chriost 2007). Urbanisation, together with globalisation, promotes new contacts between languages and language users and creates new power relations between the competing languages or language varieties; it strengthens the mutual influence of languages in contact, which in the long run may result in language loss. The linguistic behaviour of the urban population is an important sociolinguistic indicator that not only reflects the linguistic situation of a particular society at a particular time, but also allows for the prognostic evaluation and formulation of a specific language policy. Lithuanian cities are inhabited by 67% of the country's total population, as reported by the 2001 census. Urbanisation in , including the movement of the rural population to cities and towns, has been investigated by experts in social geography (Vaitiekūnas 2006, Krupickaitė 1996; 2002), whereas investigations into the linguistic behaviour of the Lithuanian urban population have only just begun. This monograph focuses on the issues of linguistic behaviour, linguistic attitudes and ethnic identity in three Lithuanian cities - , and Klaipėda. The data used for the research reported in the monograph were collected as part of the project "Language Use and Ethnic Identity in Lithuanian Cities" carried out in 2007-2009, which was supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies and Foundation. The aim of the study is to determine the relationship between the languages used in Lithuania's main cities and the ethnic identity of the language users, as well as to evaluate the future prospects of maintaining the language- related ethnic identity of the urban population. The investigation combines qualitative and quantitative research methods and seeks to achieve the following objectives: l.To explore the home languages of the Lithuanian cities' populations; to establish the dominant home languages as well as less commonly used languages or language varieties; to describe the linguistic priorities in communication with different interlocutors in the family (especially the mother); and to consider the status of the home languages. To reach these goals, an extensive survey of 8-10 year olds was administered using an adapted version of the "Multilingual Cities Project" questionnaire. 2.To perform a quantitative analysis of adult language use in Lithuania's cities in various everyday life situations as well as adult language attitudes in relation to their ethnic identity. To achieve this objective, a representative opinion survey of adult language users was carried out with the focus on language skills and use in the public and private spheres, the patterns of

287 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

spoken and written language use as well as language attitudes in relation to ethnic identity. З.То perform a qualitative analysis of selective respondents representing different ethnic groups, work domains, language proficiency levels, authentic use of language varieties in different social spheres and language attitudes in relation to ethnic identity including the preservation of ethnic identity in the circumstances of globalisation. The qualitative data were collected by means of a semi-structured depth interview. The monograph consists of two main parts. Part one covers the issues of bilingualism and multilingualism, linguistic proficiency, attitudes and identity. It also looks specifically at the Lithuanian language as the state language and its regional varieties, the and its users, the as the main ethnic minority language of the , and the as an important foreign language in the hierarchy of the languages of the Lithuanian cities. Part two of the monograph offers three sociolinguistic portraits of the three cities under investigation - Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda.

PART I. Languages in the main cities of Lithuania

Multilingualism in Lithuanian cities

This chapter analyses the data of the quantitative and qualitative surveys of the project "Cities and Languages" and tries to answer the following questions: • What patterns of multilingualism are characteristic of Lithuania's cities? The data is analysed along the following typological dimensions of bilingualism: early/late; simultaneous/ sequential; balanced/dominant; receptive/productive; elective/circumstantial; active/ passive (or dormant); incipient; ascendant; and recessive. [Baker 2006: 4-5; Butler, Hakuta 2006:116-117] • What is the situation of Lithuanian multilingualism in the context of European multilingualism and EU multilingual policy? The study carried out within the framework of the project "Cities and Languages" supports the hypothesis that Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda are multilingual cities in several respects. On the one hand, various ethnic groups with different mother tongues cohabitate in these cities. In other words, geographical or community multilingualism can be found here. On the other hand, various individuals show different degrees of multilingualism. This kind of individual variability is also characteristic of mother tongue use (a relatively high proportion of the respondents report having two or three languages as their mother tongue) and non-native language use (a large proportion of the respondents report proficiency in one or more non- native languages). The majority of the inhabitants of the three cities under investigation consider as their mother tongue the language indicated by their ethnicity. There arc people, however, who tend to adopt the language of a bigger ethnic group (Lithuanian, Russian, Polish) as their native language. This choice may be influenced by their life in a mixed family, various historical circumstances or successful communication in the chosen language. It could be claimed, therefore, that the urban population contains specific linguistic groups who identify themselves

288 Cities and Languages. Summary

as speakers of a few native languages and that the most distinct group consists of individuals from mixed-family backgrounds and those who for various reasons have chosen Lithuanian as their personal adoptive language. Both cases are instances of ascendant and active multilingualism. However, in the case of adoptive languages, we have circumstantial and possibly dominant bilingualism. For example, it is quite possible that a persons overall proficiency in Lithuanian is lower than their proficiency in their ethnic mother tongue, but the person may have developed specific skills in Lithuanian which indicate that their bilingualism is balanced. This is most likely characteristic of people from mixed family backgrounds. It is also quite possible that the declared second mother tongue is a basis for late bilingualism. Early bilingualism is more likely characteristic of individuals from mixed families. Whether bilingualism is simultaneous or sequential depends on the specific family situation. Lithuania is a small country and Lithuanian is one of the less widely used languages. This explains why need to learn foreign languages. Since Lithuanian is the country's state language, non-Lithuanian speakers are expected to learn it. Therefore, the non-Lithuanian inhabitants of three major cities are bilingual as they learn and use a second language. With regard ' to Lithuanian as the state language, it may be suggested that the bilingualism of non-Lithuanians is ascendant, active, circumstantial and productive. Whether it is dominant or balanced will depend on the specific individual. It is most likely that such bilingualism will be late. However, it may be possible that in certain circumstances such bilingualism will be early, for example, when Russian parents decide to send their child to a Lithuanian kindergarten. On the other hand, it can be suggested that the non-Lithuanian inhabitants of Lithuanian cities have adopted Lithuanian as their personal adoptive language. The research shows that the majority of non-Lithuanians think that they have a good command of Lithuanian. They show a positive attitude towards it and say that it is useful and appropriate in the various spheres of public life. This implies that Lithuanian is an established language in the linguistic repertoire of non-Lithuanians. With regard to other non-native languages, it may be assumed that the prevailing type of multilingualism is elective and late and that it is dominant (the native language dominates over the non-native) rather than balanced. Whether multilingualism is receptive or productive will depend on the specific communicative needs of the individual language user. Our research suggests that receptive bilingualism is more common than productive. For example, Russian and Polish are much better understood than they are spoken or written. In terms of bilingual development, it may be suggested that incipient bilingualism is characteristic of the majority of the target population. Ascendant bilingualism, however, is more visible in the case of English. In other cases, bilingual development will depend on individual needs to use a specific language. If there is no need or context to use the language, bilingualism will become recessive. A good example is Lithuanian speakers' proficiency in Russian; senior citizens no longer use Russian in their everyday lives, therefore some of their productive skills such as writing may have deteriorated. The younger generation, who developed incipient bilingualism at school but have no opportunity to practise the language after school, will also lose their Russian skills so that their incipient bilingualism will turn into recessive bilingualism. The study shows that the cities' inhabitants can speak many different foreign languages. In the context of the , Lithuania's urban population is generally characterised

289 MIESTAI IR KALBOS as using a wide range of languages. However, the choice of particular foreign languages is quite specific, the most popular foreign languages in Lithuania being English, Russian and Polish, whereas the most common foreign languages in the EU are English, French and German followed by Spanish and Russian. Such prioritising may be related, first of all, to historical circumstances as well as to the needs and opportunities of the people in Lithuania to use different languages. Because of the historical and political situation, i.e., the language policy implemented in the years, the majority of city inhabitants report having a good command of Russian as a non-native language. However, their need to maintain Russian skills is much lower than their wish to communicate in English, which is also common among city inhabitants. And although the third most common non-native language is Polish, only a very small proportion of the respondents believe in the necessity to learn it. The general tendency shown by the research is that English is the most important foreign language and therefore should be learned. This particularly applies to the younger generation, whereas the older generation are not too eager to learn foreign languages at all. The adult population are not too keen on learning the state language either. They have learned Lithuanian as a second language by way of natural acquisition without relying on special language courses at formal or informal educational institutions. To conclude, one can claim that on the one hand Lithuania is one of those EU countries where the phenomenon of multilingualism is widespread, but on the other hand it is no different from other EU countries in the general disposition towards learning languages, i.e., interest in languages and language learning in Lithuania's cities is not high. Also, although it seems that all three of the cities under investigation are characterised as multilingual, one has to admit that there is a clear tendency towards prioritising English as the most popular language of international communication. English overshadows other foreign languages, for instance, those of neighbouring countries such as Russian, Polish and Latvian (these are mentioned sporadically by very few respondents). In a situation like this, multilingualism should be promoted more vigorously.

The prospects for Lithuanian identity in the cities of Lithuania

This chapter looks at the issue of Lithuanian identity from two perspectives: historical and contemporary. The historical view focuses on the importance of Lithuanian identity for the Lithuanian state and nation at crucial moments in Lithuanian history. The contemporary view focuses on the role of identity in relation to globalisation and mobility and also touches on key issues of language policy in Lithuania. One of the most surprising results of this study of languages in Lithuania's cities is the fact that nearly half of the respondents express the wish to have bilingual schools with Lithuanian and English as languages of instruction. The status of Lithuanian is unambiguous - as many as 95% of respondents in Kaunas and 92% of respondents in Vilnius and Klaipėda would like to see Lithuanian as one of the languages of instruction in bilingual schools. Therefore, the need for instruction in English is not in opposition to Lithuanian identity. Bilingual schools are seen as a realistic means to master the English language alongside Lithuanian, not instead of Lithuanian.

290 Cities and Languages. Summary

Being the state language, Lithuanian is widely used by the vast majority of Lithuanian citizens, including non-Lithuanians who have acquired it as a second language. The prestige of English, however, as in many other countries, is seen as much higher than the prestige of Lithuanian by the majority of respondents (60% in Vilnius and Klaipėda and 50% in Kaunas). Lithuanian has lower prestige than English in the opinion of ethnic Lithuanians too (in Kaunas the results are 29% versus 47%, in Vilnius and Klaipėda 30% versus 59%, respectively). The scope of Lithuanian language use is reflected in answers about the appropriacy of Lithuanian in various public spheres. The overwhelming majority of respondents indicate that Lithuanian is the most appropriate language for business, higher education, public notices, humour and communication with friends and with strangers. The high prestige of Lithuanian is implied in answers related to the necessity to learn Lithuanian as the state language. The vast majority of the respondents point out that it is 'important' or 'very important' to have a good command of the state language. The most important reason for this is the connection between knowledge of the state language and citizenship, the second reason being its functional use - one has to use Lithuanian to be accepted by others. The majority of the respondents also support the requirement for non-Lithuanians to take an examination in the state language. This attitude could be explained by the fact that many non-Lithuanians with low proficiency in Lithuanian declare a wish to learn the state language, but they have low motivation for formal education and limit their learning activities to watching TV and the like. High tolerance for inaccurate Lithuanian is also an important factor in this respect; non-Lithuanians have no complaints about discrimination or lack of tolerance on the grounds of their inability to use Lithuanian accurately (e.g., speaking with a heavy accent), although they themselves admit that this tolerance does not motivate them to improve their Lithuanian. At this point it should be noted that Lithuanian language policy ignores the issue of improving the Lithuanian language proficiency of non-Lithuanians. A new linguistic phenomenon in Lithuania is self-identification with or the whole world rather than with one's country or city. A small percentage of the respondents, mostly young and non-Lithuanian, indicate that they are 'citizens of the world'. Ethnic Lithuanians seem to have the strongest ethnic identity. The ethnic identity of Russians or residing in Lithuania is also quite strong; three out of four respondents indicate that their ethnic identity matches their actual ethnicity. Analysis of the use of Lithuanian in various public spheres shows that the Lithuanian language enjoys a high status in the public discourse of Lithuanian cities. The majority of respondents in each of the cities say that they use Lithuanian for speaking, reading, writing, listening to the radio and watching TV. Respondents in Kaunas use Lithuanian more often than those in Vilnius or Klaipeda (e.g., the figures for speaking are 96% and 82% of the instances, respectively). The main sources of information accessed by the majority of Lithuania's inhabitants are in Lithuanian. At work, communication with colleagues and in the administrative sphere is predominantly in Lithuanian, especially in Kaunas. Three of four respondents in Vilnius and Klaipėda reads and writes "most often' in Lithuanian and 'sometimes' in Russian; in Kaunas reading and writing is done 'most often' in Lithuanian and just 'occasionally' in Russian. Lithuanian is used more often for reading than for writing.

291 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

The strength of Lithuanian identity is also evidenced by an analysis of the connection between the level of proficiency in Lithuanian and relations at work. The respondents were asked whether they had any problems at work related to their linguistic ability. Every eighth respondent in Vilnius and Klaipėda said that they did; every fifth respondent said that they had difficulty getting a job because they did not know Lithuanian well enough. One of the indicators of the status of a language is the choice of that language for communication with speakers of other languages. The most common language used for inter- ethnic communication in Vilnius and Klaipėda is Lithuanian, especially in communication with Lithuanians (89%) and with Russians (67%). Only one tenth of the respondents (non-Lithuanian speakers) report that they have never used Lithuanian to communicate with Lithuanians. Regional dialects are not quite characteristic of urban language use. However, the survey found that every third respondent had 'some' knowledge of regional varieties and every fourth respondent had 'quite good' knowledge of regional varieties. This indicates the vitality of regional varieties, the prevailing positive disposition towards cultural heritage and the wish to maintain its continuity. Sociolinguistic analysis of the use of Lithuanian in the three major cities in Lithuania allows us to have an optimistic view of the prospective developments of the Lithuanian language which are inevitable in the context of globalisation. The claim that the status of the Lithuanian language is very high has been supported by the results of the survey: Lithuanian is used for all communicative functions; it is used in all spheres of communication; it is used by the majority of the population; it enjoys rather high prestige; it is being studied at schools and universities.

Regional dialects in the city: uses and attitudes

This chapter focuses on the use of regional dialects in cities - the aukštaičių (northern Lithuanian) dialect; the žemaičių (western) dialect; the dzūkų (southern) dialect; and the suvalkiečių (south-western) dialect. The analysis includes dialect-related awareness and attitudes as well as the relationship between the dialect codes and other linguistic codes used in the cities. An attempt is made to find out whether or not regional dialects are becoming endangered in the cities as a result of various cultural influences and globalisation; whether or not dialects are becoming depreciated due to the expansion of standard Lithuanian; whether or not using dialects affects the image of a modern citizen; and whether or not dialects are distinctive features of a persons identity. The research questions also include the ability of city inhabitants to distinguish between dialects and to use a dialect; the situations in which dialects are used; the prestige of dialects; and the future of dialects in the cities. The study has shown that city inhabitants have generally positive attitudes towards regional dialects. The results of the quantitative analysis can be summed up as follows: 1) City inhabitants distinguish between the regional dialect codes - over one third of the respondents would be able to identify specific dialects. 2) Over half of the respondents have good or average dialect comprehension skills. 3) Overall, the respondents have no difficulty understanding the aukštaičių dialect, but there are some differences between the cities; the aukštaičių dialect is best understood in Vilnius, the aukštaičių and the suvalkiečių dialect in Kaunas, and the žemaičių dialect in Klaipėda. 4) Over half of the respondents (60%) report that they can

292 Cities and Languages. Summary use a regional dialect. 5) There is a connection between the ability to use a dialect and the respondent's age; 70% of the senior group and only 40% of the youngest group can use a dialect. 6) There is also a correlation between the respondents' ability to use a dialect and their regional self-identification; dialects are used more commonly by those city inhabitants who identify themselves with a specific ethno-geographical region of Lithuania (77.1%) or with their birthplace in a rural area (72.4%) than by those who identify themselves with the city they live in. 7) The context for the use of dialects is quite restricted, as dialects are seen as most appropriate for informal communication whereas formal communication requires standard language use. 8) In the cities under investigation the most commonly used dialects are aukštaičių followed by dzūkų in Vilnius, aukštaičių followed by suvalkiečių in Kaunas and žemaičių in Klaipėda. 9) The question about attitudes also reveals differences between the cities; overall, just over half of city inhabitants encourage their children to use dialects, but in Klaipėda this view is slightly more common than in the other cities. Kaunas has the biggest proportion of respondents who believe that the use of a dialect is incompatible with the image of a modern person.

The Russian diaspora in Lithuania's cities

This chapter is interested in the linguistic behaviour and ethnic identity of the Russian diaspora in the cities of Lithuania. The quantitative results of the analysis reveal a number of characteristic features of the Russian population with regard to their language attitudes and use, education and communication with non-Russian speakers. These features are important for maintaining their ethnic identity and they also contribute to the overall linguistic image of Russians residing outside . Russians as an ethnic minority group of the Republic of Lithuania make up 4.9% of the population with 165,100 inhabitants (according to the 2009 data of the Department of Statistics). The Russian population is gradually decreasing. In 2001, Russians made up 6.3% of the population, whereas in 1989 they constituted 9.4% of the population. The Russian language has the status of a native language of an ethnic minority of inhabitants residing in Lithuania; it has no status of an . The results of the study suggest that ethnic Russians in Lithuanian cities have a specific affiliation with Lithuania. Two thirds of Russians (71% in Kaunas) were born in Lithuania, one fourth come from families where both parents were born in Lithuania and one fifth were born or live in a mixed family, mostly with Lithuanians. Russians in Lithuania identify themselves with their actual (Russian) ethnicity and use Russian as their mother tongue, but they also say that they would not mind being called Lithuanians. Ethnic Russians can use the Lithuanian language. They can understand it, read it, speak it and write it. Their disposition towards the use of Lithuanian is as follows: a citizen of Lithuania has to be able to use Lithuanian; Lithuanian is the most useful language; and examinations in Lithuanian as the state language are necessary because they guarantee equal opportunities for all. Russian inhabitants use Lithuanian mostly to communicate in the public sphere (work, services, health care, finance, state institutions etc.); to access information (TV, radio, newspapers, internet etc.); and to present information in writing. Russian speakers in Lithuania are fairly critical about their linguistic accuracy; they arc conscious of their accent

293 MIESTAI IR KALBOS and therefore feel uneasy among native Lithuanians. They have hardly any problems caused by their lack of competence in Lithuanian and only 10% of the respondents of the more senior age group have reported problems of this nature. Russians use Lithuanian to communicate with native-speaker Lithuanians. They teach their children Lithuanian in pre-school informal educational institutions and bilingual schools. They also communicate with their family in Lithuanian. Ethnic Russian inhabitants of Lithuanian cities are interested in Lithuanian and are not indifferent to it; they can recognise regional dialects of Lithuanian (and sometimes use them) and believe that dialects are an important part of the national heritage and cultural values. The native Russian language is highly valued by Russians. They are highly competent in Russian and believe that it is the 'most beautiful' and the 'most natural' and authentic language for them to use. They use it widely, particularly in the private sphere: to communicate with their family and friends, to read books, to pray etc. Half of the respondents send their children to Russian schools. They also use Russian to communicate with foreigners. Russians, like Lithuanians, are not too eager to learn foreign languages. Only 20% of the Russian respondents are learning a foreign language, usually English, as they think it is the most prestigious foreign language. With regard to their beliefs about ethnicity and the importance of the native language, the Russian inhabitants in the three cities under investigation have shown certain differences. The strongest and most distinct ethnic beliefs are held by Russians in Klaipėda. Their community is larger than in the other two cities and they have a stronger perception of themselves as Russians; there are fewer mixed families and there is a more-overtly expressed wish to use Russian as the language of instruction at school. In Kaunas, Russians seem to show quite a high degree of assimilation, as the majority of Russians in Kaunas were born here in Lithuania. Russians in Kaunas can use both Russian and Lithuanian (both are the 'most natural' and authentic languages to use), but Lithuanian is more commonly used than Russian. The Russians of Kaunas do not see a strong link between getting a good education and mastering their native language; they do not think it is necessary to teach their children Russian just because their parents or grandparents are Russians. In Vilnius, the Russian diaspora can be characterised as being rather globally oriented. They are not so much concerned about what ethnicity they are ascribed to, but they are quite inclined to use their native language and they appreciate it highly. Living in Vilnius provides them with an opportunity to lead an active social life in a multicultural community where they can use Russian both in their everyday life and in the public sphere. Moreover, Russian is used in Vilnius for international communication more often than in the other cities. In general, the Russian diaspora in Lithuania's cities can be characterised as being a community that has a strong social awareness and tolerance and which has maintained its ethnic identity and its mother tongue. It is a bilingual community that can use Lithuanian as the state language in the public sphere and can see the value of it.

Self-identification of the Russian and Russian-speaking population of Vilnius and Klaipėda

This chapter is devoted to the issue of the self-identification of the Russian and Russian- speaking populations of the cities of Lithuania. Two cities - Vilnius and Klaipėda - have been

294 Cities and Languages. Summary chosen for analysis as their ethnic structure is the most diverse and they have always had the biggest Russian-speaking populations. The process and result of self-identification is affected by both subjective and objective factors. To understand why individuals choose a specific identity, one should study possible combinations of these factors. First, the notions of Russians and Russian-speaking inhabitants are defined since one of the aims of the study is to analyze how the members of different non- Lithuanian ethnic groups understand the importance of their mother tongue and identity and how their linguistic behaviour defines their ethnic identity. Then, eleven sociolinguistic portraits of Russians and Russian-speaking individuals are presented. The interview data are summarized in the tables "Components of Ethnicity and Self-Identification of the Russian and Russian-Speaking Inhabitants of Vilnius and Klaipėda". Finally, the sociolinguistic data of the interviews are analyzed and conclusions are drawn. An attempt is made to determine the differences between the way the Russian and Russian-speaking inhabitants understand their identity. It has been found that the respondents tend to describe themselves in one of two ways, either by choosing specific ethnic factors and their combinations as descriptors, or by using vague descriptors. Ethno-genealogical parameters (such as ethnic origin and place of birth) are not sufficient for unambiguous self-identification; the interviews show that the most important factor in the development of the Lithuanian half of the identity of Russian and Russian-speaking respondents is whether they grew up in Lithuania, regardless of their place of birth. The respondents also believe that language is a key factor in one's identification with a certain ethnicity. High competence in ones mother tongue identifies the person with the relevant ethno-linguistic group. Most adults regard their childhood language as their mother tongue or one of their mother tongues. On the other hand, Lithuanian (the state language and the language of instruction) increasingly becomes the second mother tongue to the younger generation of Russians. In the opinion of Russian-speaking parents, their children's professional future depends on their competence in the state language and therefore their children should attend a Lithuanian school. However, there are families who believe that sending their children to Lithuanian schools does not only imply a shift in the dominant native language (from Russian to Lithuanian), but also the creation of a different identity and formation of a different cultural memory. Because they are against the general cultural loss caused by the closure of Russian schools, young parents look for means of providing their children with access to the Russian language, literature and culture. It has been noted that the respondents' level of competence in Lithuanian as the state language correlates with the degree of their self-identification with the Lithuanian (titular) nation (full, partial or zero identification). The chapter draws the conclusion that the two groups - the ethnic Russian population and the Russian-speaking population - have a different understanding of identity. Russians usually declare a double identity, claiming that they feel a strong connection with Lithuania even if they were born elsewhere. They say that their Lithuanian is good, even though their native or dominant language is Russian and that they relate to Russian culture more that to Lithuanian culture. In spite of this, they are certain that they are not 'very typical' representatives of their nation. The sociolinguistic portraits show that the respondents consider themselves to be different not only from the Russians of Russia but also from ethnic Lithuanians. They positively

295 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

assess their twofold identity as the most convenient for the individual because it allows them to use experience gained in one ethnic group in order to integrate to another group. Lithuania's Russian-speaking citizens choose a multiple identity model. They speak Lithuanian, but their native language or one of their native languages is Russian. They are critical about their poor knowledge of their own ethnic language and culture (which is necessary in order to identify oneself with a certain ethnicity), but they are sensitive about their real (non- Russian and non-Lithuanian) identity and construct it from separate fragments of their life stories. We can see from the in-depth interviews that for the Russian and Russian-speaking ethnic groups multiple identification is only convenient when it is voluntary. It does not require the refusal of their native ethnic language or their ethnic cultural values and it receives support from the Lithuanian state, which can therefore be called their motherland. The process of self- identification of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens is an important sociolinguistic aspect of contemporary Lithuania. As the liberal discourse of a persons right to choose is becoming stronger, individuals of different ethnic origin residing in Lithuania have more opportunities to create a common civic identity. Lithuania's Russian-speaking citizens are aware of the many ways of self-identification and value the right to decide who they can or want to be.

Linguistic awareness, multilingualism and identity of ethnic Poles in Vilnius

This chapter aims at describing the linguistic awareness of Poles living in Vilnius on the basis of their answers to the following questions: a) choice of the mother tongue, b) self-assessment of language proficiency, c) language attitudes. It also looks at the issues of multilingualism among Poles and the languages they use in the public and private spheres. The survey shows that 78.5% of the Polish respondents have been living in Vilnius for over 21 years and that only 21.5% have a higher education. This can be explained by the age factor: a large proportion of the Polish respondents belong to the most senior age group, the majority of whom have a secondary education. 77% were born into an ethnic Polish family (both parents are Polish). At the moment, the number of mixed families is increasing: only 46.4% live in a homogeneous Polish family, 22% in a mixed Polish-Lithuanian family, 15.5% in a mixed Polish- Russian family. This can be regarded as an important indicator of assimilation. The answers about the schools attended by the respondents' children show that only 46% of the children attend Polish schools, 33% Lithuanian and 29% Russian schools. There is a growing tendency to educate Polish children in Lithuanian as the state language. 84.5% of the respondents say that Polish is their native language (or one of their native languages) and that they have a good command of the three languages they use every day - Lithuanian, Polish and Russian. Many respondents report that they have several native languages. This may imply that a few different languages have the same status in the family and are used interchangeably, so people identify themselves with all these languages. The Polish inhabitants of Vilnius use Polish in the private sphere to communicate with their immediate family: parents, grandparents or siblings. To communicate with their spouse, 45% of the respondents use Polish, 40% Russian, and often botli languages are used interchangeably.

296 Cities and Languages. Summary

The Polish inhabitants of Vilnius use Lithuanian as the state language for communication in official contexts and general socio-cultural life. The Polish language is used first of all for speaking, thinking and praying. The most necessary language is Lithuanian (67%), followed by English (43%). 73% of the Polish respondents in Vilnius report that they have Polish identity, 6% Lithuanian, 3% Russian, 7% European and 6% 'citizens of the world'. 70% of the Polish inhabitants of Vilnius report strong geographical self-identification with the city in which they live. The results of the quantitative analysis have been compared with the results of the qualitative analysis. Four Polish respondents, born in Vilnius, were interviewed to find out their opinions on the interrelationship between ethnicity, identity and language and to offer a more accurate interpretation of the results of the survey. The life stories of four male respondents reveal specific motivations behind the various individual opinions. The interview material shows the importance of the interrelationship between ethnicity and citizenship as well as between identity and the place of residence. All the interviewees define themselves as Polish (a couple add 'from Lithuania'). All stress that they fare best living in the country where they were born. The interviewees would not wish to leave Lithuania as it is their homeland and they would feel alien in another country. They do not consider themselves Europeans because their own ethnic culture, language and traditions are important to them. The Polish culture is the closest to the interviewees, followed by Russian and then Lithuanian. The material also reflects the tendency among the Poles of Vilnius to identify themselves partly with their own ethnic culture, partly with the major culture of the country they live in (i.e., Lithuanian) and partly with Russian culture (most often because of its influence in the Soviet period). This partial overlap of various cultural orientations implies that the Polish inhabitants of Vilnius can be characterised as having 'border region' psychology. Their ethnic and cultural awareness can be seen as a combination of different cultural elements that have always been available to them in their multilingual and multicultural environment. The issue of identity is particularly complex at the intersection of languages and cultures. People link their notion of ethnicity to their place of residence and have a strong sense of affiliation to the city or town in which they live. The Poles of Vilnius are multilingual and are therefore able to understand several cultures. Their native language is the underlying factor in their self-identification, but it is not the only one. The self-identification of the Polish respondents under investigation is an ongoing process.

Global prospects of multilingualism: the role of English in the Lithuanian urban space

This chapter starts with a brief overview of research on the spread of English in the world, its causes and effects and its impact on postmodern identity. It also discusses the methodology typically used for such research, the main ideologies behind the evaluation of such research and possible directions in language planning based on research results. The main part of the chapter reports on the results of the project "Language Use and Ethnic Identity in Lithuanian Cities" focusing on the use of English in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda, including attitudes and beliefs towards English in the three cities. The data obtained through representative city population

297 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

surveys, quantitative surveys of secondary school students and a number of interviews are compared with the data of other representative surveys performed in Lithuania. The study shows that the English language occupies a very high place in the language hierarchy of Lithuania's cities. It takes second place after Lithuanian as the state language and is the top foreign language. The main function of English is clearly instrumental. It is used for international communication both in the working world and in personal life. It is also used to obtain information through different media. It is evident that English has become part of the social capital, as the respondents with a higher social status (a better paid job and a higher income) have a higher proficiency in English and use it more extensively. Many respondents also express an ambition to seek such capital' as they see a direct link between English and better prospects for themselves or their children. Undoubtedly, in the (near) future, English will be taught and learned in Lithuania more extensively and it is possible that a small part of the educational domain will become bilingual. The high prestige of English is equally recognised by respondents of different age, income and ethnicity. The most positive disposition towards English, however, and the most extensive use of English is reported by respondents aged 15-29. This suggests that in the future English will become an important part of youth identity in Lithuania as a result of their learning and using English from an early age. Also, the results of the study clearly show that the social power associated with English is distributed unevenly among the different social groups and may lead to the formation of a 'partially incapacitated' social group. In Lithuania, the most vulnerable group is low-status, low-income individuals over the age of 40 who usually have no or very limited skills in English and who cannot use the opportunities that English offers today. It is this group that is suffering most severely from the tensions created by the clash of their traditional lifestyle and the new social and cultural opportunities that come together with the English language. On the whole, the English proficiency of city inhabitants in Lithuania is not particularly high (only 38% say that their English skills are good), whereas the need for learning and using English is constantly growing. This discrepancy should also be regarded as a factor that may have a negative influence on one's identity. On the other hand, it would certainly be wrong to suggest that society is becoming globally bilingual and that English is displacing the native languages of the various ethnic groups. The study shows that the Lithuanian language as the state language has the strongest position among the languages used in Lithuania and is regarded by all respondent groups as being the most appropriate, in all respects, and the most indispensible language in Lithuania. Both this study and other studies carried out by EU institutions have shown that Lithuanian inhabitants identify themselves very strongly with the Lithuanian nation and their native country. The figures are not the highest, but they are well above the European average. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim - a claim that is common among conservative Lithuanian language planners - that because of the influence of the English language the Lithuanian language is deteriorating or fading away and its prestige decreasing. Certainly, a modern young person would never seek a homogeneous and monolingual identity as the only possible, but this does not mean that they choose English instead o/thcir mother tongue.

298 Cities and Languages. Summary

Basically, the study has not produced any evidence of multilingual domains in Lithuania. To some extent, the internet and television could be considered multilingual domains, but neither of these, although used by most respondents in English, requires from the users to choose between English and Lithuanian. The reason for using media in English is the availability of more varied information in addition to that available in Lithuanian. As reported by the respondents interviewed, English in the workplace is used in situations when the interlocutors cannot understand each other's languages and therefore in most cases there is no other choice than to use English as the lingua franca. The study shows that in present-day Lithuania, as in other countries, the linguistic identity is heterogeneous and multilingual. Language users have the freedom and opportunity to choose the language in which they feel most comfortable and which they find to be the most appropriate for a particular reason in a particular situation. In this respect, the defensive ideology of one language ecology' which lies at the basis of language planning in Lithuania, particularly the prohibitive approach, has no future. However, the study also confirms that English receives the biggest part of the social and economic investment at the expense of other foreign languages, which is connected to the processes of globalisation outside Lithuania. It is hard to predict to what extent this situation can be affected by the promotion of multilingualism and by encouraging people to learn a number of different languages, whether they are 'big' or 'small', whether they are the languages of their future business partners or those of their neighbouring countries. It is clear, however, that this kind of language policy should be supported as there can never be too much choice or too much freedom of choice.

PART II. Sociolinguistic portraits of the three cities A sociolinguistic portrait of Vilnius

This sociolinguistic survey of Vilnius has covered the following issues: the use of native and non-native languages, proficiency levels in the different languages, the relationship between ethnicity and the mother tongue, language use in public and private spaces, attitudes to language, awareness of regional dialects and so on. A total of 902 respondents took part in the survey in Vilnius (54% Lithuanian, 18% Polish, 14% Russian, 6% Belarusian, 2% Ukrainian, 1% Jewish and 5% of other ethnic origin). The results of the survey show that the inhabitants of Vilnius, regardless of their linguistic background, consider their native language to be the 'most beautiful' language and English the 'most prestigious' language. Of the respondents, 10% (typically Polish or Russian) say that they have one native language. Only 1% admit that they know only their native language. The majority of the respondents can use three or four languages. The most common languages are Lithuanian, Russian, Polish and English. However, it is not popular among the inhabitants of Vilnius to learn languages or improve specific language skills in formal educational settings. It is likely that in the long run English will become the second most commonly used language in Vilnius after Lithuanian. The study shows that the number of young people who can speak Russian is decreasing. The Lithuanian respondents who can speak Russian note that they feel more comfortable in their social life if they can communicate with the Russian

299 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

speaking ethnic groups living in Vilnius. Their ability to use English is more often associated with studies abroad or better job opportunities. Every third non-Lithuanian respondent who speaks Lithuanian with an accent experiences certain psychological problems; they feel embarrassed about speaking Lithuanian at work and in public places such as shops or administrative institutions, as well as at social gatherings where they have to communicate with Lithuanian colleagues and friends. In conversations with speakers of languages other than their own, most respondents tend to use the language of the interlocutor, if they can speak it. Poles tend to use Lithuanian and Russian with native speakers of these languages. Russians tend to use Lithuanian with Lithuanians, whereas they prefer using Russian with Poles, because the majority of have a good command of Russian and also consider Russian to be one of their native languages. Lithuanians tend to stick to Lithuanian when they communicate with Poles. Over half of the respondents in Vilnius can use regional dialects. The most common is the aukštaičių (northern) dialect; the žemaičių (western) and dzūkų (southern) dialects are each used by a third of the dialect speakers; and the suvalkiečių (south-western) dialect is the least common. Regional dialects are used mainly for communication in the family. The inhabitants of Vilnius have supported the prevailing idea that regional dialects are only appropriate for communication in the private domain. Overall attitudes towards regional dialects, however, are rather positive. The overwhelming majority of respondents believe that dialects are valuable heritage and should therefore be maintained. Dialect users, however, are reluctant to teach their children and grandchildren to use them and this has a destructive effect on the dialects' vitality.

A sociolinguistic portrait of Kaunas: past and present

The identity of Kaunas today, including the prevailing linguistic habits and language attitudes, has been formed by its particular historical development. Although today Kaunas is often stereotypically characterised as being linguistically homogeneous and therefore uninteresting for sociolinguistic research, a closer look at the history of the city produces a slightly different impression. The political, cultural and economic development of Kaunas in recent centuries has shaped its ethnic and linguistic profile. Kaunas has always been a multicultural city with a spirit of tolerance and understanding. Although the findings of the study show that 100 per cent of the population of Kaunas speak Lithuanian, which distinguishes it from the other two cities under investigation, this does not imply that Kaunas is monolingual. It rather suggests that the representatives of various ethnic and linguistic groups have integrated fully into the city community and its social life, at the same time preserving their own ethnic language and culture. Another group of findings shows that 93% of respondents are competent in Russian. Lithuanians use Russian to communicate with their neighbours or colleagues of other ethnic groups and learn Russian for economic or other reasons. Non-Lithuanians are often bilingual and have a certain degree of competence in a third language. Many Lithuanians are also multilingual, using three languages - Lithuanian, Russian or Polish (particularly more senior respondents) and English (particularly younger respondents). Russian as the only native language is spoken mostly by respondents in the age group 30-74, whose parents are non-Lithuanian and were born outside Lithuania, whereas representatives of

300 Cities and Languages. Summary the younger generation (15-29) and persons from mixed families speak two native languages. This points to a stronger Russian ethnic identity among the older generation who have inherited their ethnic language and culture from their non-Lithuanian parents and have failed to fully integrate into the society they live in. The younger generation, on the other hand, are highly competent in Lithuanian and consider it one of their native languages because they were born in Lithuania. Their ethnic Russian identity is often weaker and their Russian skills (especially reading and writing) are poorer than those of the older generation. The young have successfully integrated into the Lithuanian community. The integration of ethnic Russians into Lithuanian culture is also reflected in their attitudes towards Lithuanian and its usage. The respondents believe that Lithuanian is most appropriate in business, higher education, public notices, humour and personal communication. This clearly shows their strong affiliation with Lithuanian culture and support of the interests of the country. The study also suggests that only a small proportion of the Russian respondents emphasize the importance of Russian ethnic identity for their children because they want them to have better opportunities in the future. It is likely that these people have at some point experienced animosity or intolerance on ethnic grounds and therefore have learned to adjust themselves to the situation, e.g., avoiding the use of Russian in public. These respondents, particularly the younger ones, are examples of cultural and linguistic assimilation and loss of Russian ethnic identity. They use Lithuanian more often than Russian and identify themselves as partly Lithuanian. The study shows that both Lithuanians and non-Lithuanians in Kaunas consider English to be an important, useful and most prestigious language, necessary for business, science and international communication. The younger respondents indicate that they use English to communicate with Russian or Polish speakers. The older respondents consider Lithuanian to be more important than English. They use it not only in public situations, but also in private communication. Senior respondents place higher emphasis on the importance of learning Lithuanian than younger respondents do. The study also shows a clear-cut distinction between the generations in ethnic minority groups in Kaunas. Younger respondents are bilingual (competent in Lithuanian and Russian) while learning a third language (English) and they use media in different languages to access information. The study concludes that Kaunas is quite homogeneous as far as ethnicity is concerned. New immigrants (e.g., Chinese, Ukrainian, American) are not numerous. However, increasing international mobility may increase immigration, so it is important to constantly observe and analyse the linguistic situation in Kaunas, particularly the ways and languages with which the inhabitants of Kaunas communicate and learn from each other, regardless of their linguistic or ethnic background.

A sociolinguistic portrait of Klaipėda: language competence and use

The study of language use in Klaipeda gives us an insight into the history of the city as well as the current geopolitical orientations and globalisation trends in Lithuania. Analysis also allows us to assess the relationship between the various ethnic groups residing in Klaipeda and their

301 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

integration into the city community. The findings of the study are interpreted in terms of socio- demographic characteristics, including ethnicity, family composition and age. The chapter on Klaipėda first looks at the history of Klaipėda in terms of its ethnic composition, followed by a linguistic description of the current population of the city, including their skills in ethnic minority languages and foreign languages, language use in the private and public spheres, the workplace and schools and, finally, the ability to recognise regional dialects and their use are touched upon. The sociolinguistic picture of Klaipėda is not uniform. Klaipėda is a multicultural city with a large proportion of ethnic Russians and other ethnicities. Of the respondents in Klaipėda, 29% said that Russian is their native language and 4.2% said that they have more than one native language. The Russian speaking inhabitants fall mostly into the age group between 40 and 60, which shows that the city is becoming increasingly Lithuanian. Although Klaipėda is a multiethnic city with one third of its population speaking non- Lithuanian as their mother tongue, the various ethnic and linguistic groups have no difficulty communicating with each other as they can speak each other's languages: 99% of the Russians understand Lithuanian and 96% of the Lithuanians understand Russian (though their speaking, reading and writing skills are less developed than their listening skills). Russian is the best known and most widely used language in Klaipėda after Lithuanian. It should be admitted, however, that the proportion of Russians who can speak Lithuanian is bigger than the proportion of Lithuanians who can speak Russian. About one fifth of Russian families send their children to Lithuanian schools. Thus it can be claimed that the Russian ethnic minority have adopted Lithuanian as the state language and are seeking linguistic integration. Many Lithuanians can communicate with ethnic Russians in Russian as they learned Russian as a compulsory at school in the Soviet period. The younger generation (under 30) have lower competence in Russian than the older generation of Lithuanians. The integration of ethnic groups is also evident in their choice of language in different social contexts. Although in the private sphere most Russians use Russian, there are a number of Russian families where Lithuanian is used alongside Russian. Russians more often than Lithuanians switch to the language of their different language speaking neighbours or friends. At work, Russians use both Russian and Lithuanian. In formal public situations, such as medical or administrative institutions, about half of Russians use Lithuanian only. Lithuanians do use Russian to communicate with their neighbours and hear it on the radio and TV, but in general they switch to Russian less often than Russians switch to Lithuanian. Meanwhile, the global need to learn and use English has equally affected all ethnic groups in Klaipėda. While 56% of the respondents say that they can understand English, a slightly smaller number can speak, read and write in English. The main factors determining the learner s level of competence in English are age and occupation. More of younger respondents have a higher competence in English than older respondents do. The majority of the respondents, who currently learn or are about to learn a language, say it is English. This implies that the importance of English will become stronger in the future. At the moment, however, Russian is used more extensively and with a higher degree of competence than English in the occupational sphere as well as in other areas of public life.

302 Cities and Languages. Summary

Regional dialects are recognised and used by over half of the Lithuanian respondents in Klaipėda. The žemaičių (western) regional dialect is certainly predominant here. Dialects are most commonly used in the personal domain and sometimes at work. The findings of the study indicate, however, that dialect use is decreasing; younger respondents use dialects less frequently and can recognise fewer of them than the older respondents can.

Language competence and use: comparative analysis of the three cities

A language user's linguistic competence and language use can be affected not only by personal factors but also by urban factors, such as the number of languages spoken by the city inhabitants or the economic characteristics of the city. The influence of these factors can be demonstrated by comparative analysis of data on language competence and use in different cities, which is presented in this chapter. The chapter provides data on the ratio of the Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian populations in the cities followed by analysis of the use of ethnic languages by various ethnic groups, their competence in Lithuanian, Russian and English and the use of these languages in various spheres. The aim of analysis is to assess the role of the linguistic environment (the number of non-Lithuanian speakers and an opportunity to use different languages in communication with local residents of other ethnicities) and the economic profile of the city (the opportunity to use foreign languages in communication with foreign visitors) on language competence and use. Vilnius has the largest number of non-Lithuanians (42.5%), followed by Klaipėda (28.7%), while Kaunas (7.1%) is the most Lithuanian city of all. Data analysis confirmed that Vilnius is the most multilingual of the three cities under investigation. The Lithuanian inhabitants of Vilnius have more opportunities to use Russian in both the private and public spheres than Lithuanians in the other two cities. Kaunas is characterised by the predominant use of Lithuanian, particularly in the public domain, since its Russian inhabitants switch to Lithuanian more often than in the other cities. Klaipėda is more similar to Vilnius in this respect, but in certain other respects it is between Vilnius and Kaunas. With regard to the economic profile of the cities under investigation, it is noted that Vilnius has more business contacts with foreign partners than Kaunas or Klaipėda, and also has all of the offices and institutions of the central administration as well as numerous cultural sites. It therefore attracts more foreign visitors. These factors should create opportunities for the inhabitants of Vilnius to use languages other than their native language quite extensively. Analysis has confirmed a certain impact of economic factors on language use and has revealed certain differences not only between cities but also between various ethnic groups. The respondents in all of the cities report a similar degree of competence in English, but in Vilnius and Kaunas the proportion of Lithuanian respondents who can speak English is higher than the proportion of Russian respondents who can speak English. In Klaipėda, however, the proportion of Lithuanians and Russians who are competent in English is the same. A possible reason is that many Russians in Klaipėda are employed in joint enterprises with western partners (e.g., shipping companies) and use English at work.

303 MIESTAI IR KALBOS

In occupational settings, English is used most extensively in Vilnius and somewhat more often in Klaipėda, than it is in Kaunas. The analysis concludes that English is an important prerequisite of the urban environment and its occupational settings in modern Lithuania.

Conclusions

This monograph is the first major study of the linguistic situation in Lithuania's three main cities, Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda. The research was carried out using several dimensions: the use of different languages in the cities at the end of the first decade of the 21st century; the relationship between linguistic codes and the level of urbanisation; linguistic development during the 20 years of Lithuanian independence since 1990; and the link between linguistic and ethnic identity. The conclusions emphasize those issues which are most relevant for current language policy and which should be further investigated in order to record the developments in the three cities as well as compare the sociolinguistic situation in the three cities with the current situation in other regions inside or outside Lithuania. The study shows that all three cities under investigation, regardless of their different ethnic composition and historical development, are multilingual and that multilingualism in Lithuanian cities is the norm rather than the exception. Nearly all of the inhabitants of the three cities are competent in two or more languages and use them in various spheres. The ratio of those who know just one language is 0.6%. City inhabitants use more than one language in both the public and private spheres - in professional fields, services, education, community life and with neighbours and family. As reported by primary school pupils, as many as 37 languages are used as home languages in the cities of Lithuania. This figure may not seem so impressive if we compare it with the number of home languages in Western European cities, where it varies between 50 and 90. However, with increasing mobility and globalisation the situation is likely to change in Lithuania too, therefore language policy and planning guidelines must cover not only issues concerning the protection of the state language but also issues related to other languages and linguistic varieties, such as language status, language education, multilingualism, linguistic awareness and tolerance and so on. These issues may present a real challenge for Lithuanian language policy, which is largely oriented towards a monolingual rather than multilingual society. The multilingualism of Lithuania's cities revealed by the study should be further investigated in greater detail, including issues such as the linguistic behaviour of multilingual communities and individuals; language contacts; code-switching, code-mixing and code-copying; language acquisition by different age groups; the maintenance of bilingualism and multilingualism at senior ages; competition between languages; language power and status in society and so on. Analysis of the most commonly used languages in the cities shows that Lithuanian is undoubtedly the dominant language. Nearly all of the Lithuanian cities' inhabitants are proficient in Lithuanian. The number of city inhabitants who cannot speak Lithuanian has decreased significantly during the 20 years of independence, so that 1% of the respondents in Vilnius and 0.2% of those in Klaipėda report having no knowledge of Lithuanian. In Kaunas, all of the respondents say that they are competent in Lithuanian. Non-Lithuanian inhabitants consider Lithuanian as the state language to be their second language after their mother

304 Cities and Languages. Summary tongue. The distinction between those respondents who can and who cannot speak Lithuanian is clearly age-related; the majority of respondents who cannot speak Lithuanian belong to the senior group (50-74 years of age); a tiny fraction (under 0.5%) belong to the younger group (30-49 years of age); and the youngest group (15-29 years of age) say that they can all speak Lithuanian. One can also notice a slight correlation between the (in)ability to use Lithuanian and (un)employment, since in the group of respondents who cannot speak Lithuanian the unemployed make up a slight majority. The difference between male and female respondents is not large; the group of respondents who cannot speak Lithuanian contains slightly more men than women. As the state language, Lithuanian is undoubtedly used to perform the key sociolinguistic functions in Lithuania's cities. It is used by Lithuanians and non-Lithuanians alike and its importance and usefulness is commonly recognised. The official domain is becoming increasingly Lithuanian; most non-Lithuanians use Lithuanian at work, in state institutions, in the use of services, in healthcare and so on. The media used by the majority of respondents in the three cities is also in Lithuanian. In Kaunas, Russian inhabitants use Lithuanian more often than Russian to read printed media, listen to the radio or search the internet. Lithuanian is often chosen by Russians to communicate not only with Lithuanians but also with other ethnic Russians in Lithuania. Lithuanian is also used by non-Lithuanians in their private family life, particularly to communicate with the youngest family members, such as children or grandchildren. The analysis shows that the language situation in mixed families is changing. Lithuanian tends to be included in their repertoire of home languages and increasing numbers of children from mixed families are sent to Lithuanian schools. After Lithuanian, the second best known language in the cities is Russian. Nearly all of the respondents report having knowledge of Russian. A large proportion of ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians and other non-Russian respondents claim that their native language is Russian rather than their ethnic language. Overall, the popularity of Russian is similar in all three cities, but in Kaunas (which is the most Lithuanian city) the proportion of those who can speak Russian is smaller than in Vilnius or Klaipėda. The level of competence in Russian is clearly related to the age factor; senior respondents have the highest proficiency in Russian and younger respondents the lowest. Russian is also the second most commonly used language, mainly for personal communication and access to information, both by Russian and non- Russian inhabitants, including Lithuanians, particularly in Vilnius. The third most common language in Lithuania's cities is English. The increasing use of English as a lingua franca in Europe and around the world has also affected the linguistic space of Lithuania. The inhabitants of the three cities emphasize the importance of English in the modern world and the high prestige that it has. Competence in English, however, and its use for communication can hardly be compared with competence in and the use of Russian; the inhabitants of Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda are less competent in English than they are in Russian and use it less often. The quantitative survey shows that just over half (58%) of city inhabitants can speak English and that English is used more often in Vilnius and Kaunas than it is in Klaipėda. Certain differences between the cities can be observed in different spheres of language use, e.g., English is used in work situations more often in Vilnius and Klaipeda than it is in Kaunas. The inhabitants of Vilnius in particular do a lot of reading and writing for

305 MIESTAI IR KALBOS professional purposes. The knowledge and use of English is clearly related to the social status and age of the inhabitants. The younger inhabitants with a higher education, income and social status have higher competence in English and use it more often. Nevertheless, Russian competes with English among these language users too. As the study shows, the majority of the population of Lithuanian cities are, due to their linguistic skills, more influenced by the eastern (Russian- speaking) informational environment than by the western environment. The current linguistic developments in Lithuania indicate that for the time being the discrepancy between knowledge of English and knowledge of Russian is likely to remain the largest, as compared to and , which affects the general geo-cultural and geopolitical attitudes in Lithuania. On the other hand, the fact that the linguistic competence of the younger generation is different to that of the older generation suggests that future developments may take a different direction. The study supports the idea that language lies at the core of a persons ethnic identity. Ethnic Lithuanians show the strongest connection between their native language and their ethnic identity. Ethnic Russian and Polish inhabitants explicitly state the importance of their native language in their self-identification with a specific ethnic group. Just over half of city inhabitants identify themselves with the city they live in, since a large part of the city inhabitants were born in places other than their city of residence, inside or outside Lithuania. Lithuanians show a strong correlation between their place of birth and their awareness and use of regional dialects. Self-identification with a specific ethno-geographical area and the regional dialect is still an important component of the identity of a modern citizen in Lithuania. However, regional dialects are used mostly for communication with the older generation and only a small majority of the respondents believe that dialects should be taught to the younger generation. These facts imply that prospects for the survival of regional dialects in cities are not that bright. The analysis of the language competence, language use and language attitudes of the inhabitants of Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda has shown that the linguistic situation in Lithuanian cities is quite dynamic and that the various sociolinguistic models characteristic of the different cities are affected mostly by social, political and economic factors. The study reveals a number of trends in the development of the linguistic environment of the cities and the construction of the identity of the cities' inhabitants. These findings could be used as a basis for the formulation of Lithuanian language policy and the goals of language planning as well as language education.

Translated by Nida Burneikaitė Edited by Howard Jarvis

306