LTŠis skyrius parengtas remiantis tiek kiekybiniais, tiek ir kokybiniais duomenimis, sukauptais vykdant projektą „Lietuvos gyventojų kalbinės nuostatos ir kalbinis elgesys“ (2020–2021 m.). Kiekybiniai duomenys – tai monografijos autorių užsakymu 2020 m. rudenį atliktos reprezentatyvios internetinės 18–74 metų 1 003 visos Lietuvos suaugusių gyventojų apklausos dalies apie svetimąsias kalbas rezultatai. Naudota kokybinė medžiaga – 100 pusiau struktūruotų interviu su mokiniais, mokytojais ir tėvais, darytų pagal tam tikrą metodiką parinktuose šalies miestuose (Šakiuose, Gelgaudiškyje, Marijampolėje, Alytuje, Varėnoje, Utenoje, Pasvalyje, Telšiuose ir Skuode). Atlikta teminė interviu turinio analizė. Gauti radiniai, tiesa, dėl įvairių metodologinių medžiagos rinkimo bei pateikimo skirtumų – su išlygomis, lyginami su ankstesnių plataus masto lietuviškų sociolingvistinių projektų (Ramonienė 2010; 2013), Lietuvos gyventojų surašymų ir europinių apklausų statistika. [Iš straipsnio, p. 71]
ENThe results of a representative quantitative survey of the adult population of Lithuania show that Russian and English are also the first foreign languages in Lithuania in terms of their use. The other more common foreign languages (Polish, German, French, Italian, Spanish) are practically not referred to. Thus, despite being multilingual in terms of language proficiency, people in Lithuania are generally more or less active with only two foreign languages, namely English and/or Russian (sometimes also Polish). Russian is not only the most widely and best mastered language, but also the most widely applied foreign language (with the exception of some online activities). Russian is the language people mostly speak, while English is the language in which they read, which means that the latter is used mainly receptively. Compared to the data of previous studies, it can be stated that the use of Russian in Lithuania has shrunk and the English language has been used more widely over the last decade. Similarly to the results on language knowledge, statistical data on language use reveal that age is the main factor that determines the use of language. Russian is much less spoken by people aged 18-44 and much more often by people aged 45-74. Although Russian is the best and most widely spoken language among the oldest respondents, its most active users include middle-aged and older working-age people. Qualitative interview data from regional towns show that school students rarely do anything in Russian outside their language classroom. However, even middle-aged and older people with a good command of Russian do not use it very often: they mainly watch TV or videos on the internet. Adults in these areas today are more likely to be receptive bilinguals in Russian, as they do not have any real-life opportunities to speak, let alone write, in Russian, and younger people may have never actually had them.Due to the lack of occasions to use the language, the informants repeatedly stated that this language was disappearing from their lives. The use of the English language, as well as its knowledge, differs significantly by age: statistically significant differences are found in all age groups and in reference to absolutely all language activities included in the survey questionnaire. In fact, young people are the most active users of English and their results differ from those of older respondents by two or even three times. The percentage of respondents who know English drops sharply at the age of 44 to 45, while the number of Russian users decreases significantly in the group of respondents aged 34 to 35. On the basis of the results of previous studies, the use of English in society is expanding, while the use of Russian is declining. English is used by an increasing number of older people in the country, and the age limit to which more Russian is employed, in contrast, is rising; hence, it is spoken by fewer and fewer people. An analysis of the interviews revealed that many adolescents use English for entertainment on the internet particularly actively. They have access to abundant, diverse, high-quality, and extremely attractive content. Not only the receptive level of the language, but also the productive one is activated in everyday life of school students. Rich linguistic input is received and speaking and correspondence skills acquired in the interactive virtual space are sometimes applied to interacting with their Lithuanian peers. The mixed Lithuanian-English language is typical of a large number of young people, especially communicating on specific topics. It can be seen that English competes strongly with Lithuanian in the domains of leisure and the internet, so, in principle, it can be stated that in the age group of adolescents there are already signs of domain-specific bilingualism in English.According to the results of the quantitative survey, the English language practices of middle- aged respondents are similar to those of young adults aged 18 years and over, and no statistically significant differences have been found. However, the analysed qualitative material from regional towns reveals that the trends of English language use among middle-aged people are in sharp contrast to those of senior school students. Adults, differently from young people today, did not receive so much English input from the media in their time. Moreover, working people are busier, spend less time on the internet in general and specifically on the English internet. Middle-aged people rarely use English for leisure activities due to their lower proficiency and perceived language barrier. When given a choice (for example, watching movies), people in this age group prefer their stronger Russian language. Active production in English is characteristic of a large proportion of young people, while middle-aged people who are more proficient in English tend to watch, listen, and sometimes read in this language, just like in Russian. However, they have comparatively few opportunities to speak it and write in it. It is crucial to note that English is not necessary at work in the areas investigated in this study [...]. [From the publication p. 288-289]