Although certain aspects of language use may be inferred from the census data on language abilities, the census asked no direct question about language use. To obtain some estimate of the degree to which languages are used in society, recourse must be had to some rather fragmentary survey evidence, primarily the surveys conducted by Professor Rose and his associates. We begin with languages used in the household.
In interpreting this table, it should be noted that the sub-sample ‘Russian-speaking’ was selected on linguistic, and not on ethnic grounds. It appears from the published data that the group includes 55% ethnic Russians, 25% Poles, 8% Belarussian, 4% Ukrainian and 7% others. By comparison with census figures, this sub-sample, therefore, clearly underestimates the size of non-Russian minorities. (e.g. a fully representative sample of the non-Lithuanian population would include at least as many Poles as Russians)
Despite this reservation, it is clear that in 2000, non-Lithuanian languages, especially Russian and Polish, are strongly maintained in the home, either in a unilingual or bilingual fashion. The ‘mixed’ response category may include some bilingual use of Lithuanian, but it is clear that the majority of pre-school children in the homes of minority parents are socialised through the language of the ethnic group. This survey finding is broadly supported by the 2001 census figures for the native languages of pre-school groups (0-4 yrs) (see Table 8 above)
Lithuanian is almost universally the language in the homes of ethnic Lithuanian homes.
The position of languages in the workplace is more complex.
Table 19: Languages usually spoken at respondent’s place of work 2000
Lithuanian & Russian
Lithuanian & Polish
Russian & Polish
If we combine monolingual and bilingual use, then it can be seen that only 11% of Lithuanians are required to use a language other than their own in the work situation. This compares with 80% of the Russian-speaking group. Nonetheless, the fact that only 35% of non-Lithuanians work in situations where only Lithuanian is spoken, indicates that minority languages are being maintained outside of the home domain. This feature can be related to the survey finding, cited earlier, that nearly half of Russian and Polish respondents (44—45%) in the survey of Kasatkina & Leoncikas (2003) work in ethnically homogeneous environments80.
Finally, the survey conducted in 1997 by the Department of National Minorities and Lithuanians Living Abroad in South-eastern Lithuania is also of relevance here. This was a regional, or sub-national survey, conducted only in the districts of Svencionys, Salcininkai, Ignalina, Trakai and Vilnius districts and the city of Visaginas. The results cannot be generalised to the whole of Lithuania. Nonetheless, as a local study of an area where minorities are concentrated, it is useful.
This was a highly structured sample, targeting specific localities, and it must therefore be assumed that the ‘public places’ referred to in the question were understood by respondents to be those in their immediate locality. If this assumption is correct, then it would appear that both Polish and Russian are the dominant languages in the areas where their speakers are the majority, or near majority group. Both Russian and Polish speakers are more likely to use Lithuanian as the next most used language, than they are to use the language of each other. But in so far as they do so, Russian is the more frequently used. Secondly, language use patterns of ‘other’ language groups are almost identical with those reported by Russians. These would presumably include Belarussians and Ukrainians who, as shown earlier, have been largely Russified. Lastly, in areas dominated by Lithuanians, non-Lithuanian languages are spoken about 5% of the time.