• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 1031

Part of General Poster Session (Other abstracts in this session)

MEDIUM-SIZED, EASTERN EUROPEAN, POSTSOVIET URBANICITY: VILNIUS, LITHUANIA

Authors: Vaicekauskiene, Loreta; Nevinskaite, Laima
Submitted by: Vaicekauskiene, Loreta (Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Lithuania)

Due to objective reasons Lithuania doesn’t possess any superdiverse linguistic urban environment of the kind that is proto(typical) to global metropolises:

(1) it is small (3.05 million inhabitants);
(2) comparatively short time ago it was a closed Soviet state;
(3) the economy is not attractive enough for multicultural labour force.

The biggest cities of Lithuania – the capital Vilnius (0.54 million inhabitants), Kaunas (0.35) and Klaipeda (0.18) – are big cities only on the Lithuanian scale. Nevertheless, representative surveys in Lithuania (2008-2011) confirm the existence of the phenomenon urbanicity and its significance for linguistic diversity. The idea of this poster is thus to demonstrate a connection between urban environment/the size of the city and the extent of multilingualism.

The main focus of the poster is the proficiency and use of two relevant (non-native) languages – Russian and English in Vilnius compared with the remaining biggest cities. Besides, two more variables are examined: urban daily communication zone and more remote and smaller town areas (< 30 000 inhabitants).

The research shows the general tendency for Lithuania (1) to concentrate linguistic diversity primarily in Vilnius and (2) differences between the biggest cities, the urban zones and the least influenced by urban neighbourhood towns (see the maps below). This means that English is used more often and for more purposes (especially in the age groups up to 35) in the capital than in the other cities and in the cities than in their zones and least used in the rest of the country. Even Russian, which it is still known by almost all population (especially in the age groups over 25), shows statistically significant differences between the frequency and range of its use. The exceptions from the general tendency can be explained by historical demographic (concentrations of Polish and Russian populations) and economic factors. The data on attitudes and usage domains of the languages in the public sphere and work also show a clear functional distribution and different extent of usage of English and Russian, especially in Vilnius. The research shows that both languages are attributed positive “market” values and seen as having international potential. Additional data on use of Russian and English as indexical means for identity construction by Vilnius adolescents are provided.

Interesting to note, that geographic mobility from province to Vilnius doesn’t reduce dialectal diversity in the urban context: the number of respondents in Vilnius claiming to have proficience and to speak dialect is almost the same as in smaller towns. That gives a suplementary dimension of superdiversity in Lithuanian capital.

The poster also includes more data that picture the dynamics of language contacts and linguistic portrait of the capital city:
•    data from home language survey (2008) covering 11 000 school pupils from 92 Vilnius’ schools and showing increasing multicultural identity of the youngest citizens of Vilnius;
•    more maps and graphs illustrating knowledge, use and status of Lithuanian, English, Russian, Polish as foreign and native languages in Vilnius.