CEU eTD Collection Language Policy andAttitudesTowardsLanguageinGeorgia Language Policy In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Central European University Supervisor: Matteo Fumagalli Supervisor: “I Am My Language”: Budapest, Hungary Sonya Kleshik Submitted to Submitted 2010 By CEU eTD Collection implications thatin can implications inform futurea democratic language setting attitudes policy. also towards languagesother while also attachment havingastrong toone’s ownlanguage has had, and some mixedopinions ofminority languages. The ability maintainto positive attitudes incompatible with highly towards theRussian language, attitudes positive which all respondents all respondents cited language as a central factor of theiridentity. This, however, was not languageless nearly wasin though attachmentyounger have totheir would part true, generation analyze a small sample of qualitative interviews with Georgians. The supposition that the to be defined by one’s own expression as opposed to observableconduct and behavior—I generation.lens according mentalist Through of to the relies onthe attitude approach—which the Georgian, attitudes towards Russian, andminority languages and whether not attitudes or vary relationshipthe between language policy and language attitudes towards in looking Georgia, at accurately.necessarily attitudes study examines language that donot policies This these reflect language policy in has However, Georgia become evidence suggests increasingly anti-Russian. Given the context of tense relations in the post-Soviet period between Russia and Georgia, Abstract i CEU eTD Collection whom whom I could pursuethem. I also thank my family, who have always been supportive of all my endeavors, and without me.views with findingme respondents; and all my of for theirrespondents time andwillingness share to their respondents and help to me find others; Giorgi Gogia and his wifeKristina for their help with Esma Merikishvili, Eka Tsereteli, and Lika Tsirekidze, who were of great assistance both as wonderful home in Tbilisi my wouldproject not have been possible. Iwould alsolike tothank their into welcome warm and advice invaluable their Without family. entire their as well I want toextentmy gratitude mydeep to andfriendscolleagues Lela andAnna Rekhviashvili, as with and mypatience, encouragement project. I wouldlike to mythank Professoradvisor, Matteo Fumagalli,for his extensive guidance, Acknowledgements ii CEU eTD Collection eeecs...... 65 References Appendix: Questionnaire...... 63 Conclusion...... 60 Chapter 4: Interview ...... 35 Analysis Chapter 3: Project ...... 29 Design and Methodology Chapter 2: Multilingualism ...... 23 in Georgia Chapter 1: Historical ...... 4 Context ...... 1 Introduction 4.4 Implications...... 58 4.3 Attitudes towards Minority Languages...... 51 4.2 Attitudes towards Russian...... 43 4.1 Attitudes towards Georgian...... 35 2.2 The Minority ...... 25 Rights Discourse 2.1 Mingrelian, ...... 24 Svan and Laz 1.5 Language Policy in Georgia...... 18 1.4 End of Soviet Rule and Independence ...... 16 1.3 Post-Stalinism and Georgian Nationalist Movement...... 12 1.2 Beginnings of Soviet Rule ...... 7 to Stalinism 1.1 Early State Formation and under the Russian Empire...... 4 4.3.3 Special status...... 56 4.3.2 Mingrelian...... 53 4.3.1 Abkhaz...... 52 4.2.3 Teaching Russian ...... 50 in Public Schools 4.2.2 Use of Russian ...... 48 in Georgia 4.2.1 Change in Attitude – Personal ...... 44 and Society 4.1.3 The Future of ...... 40 the Georgian Language 4.1.2 Protests of 1978 and ...... 38 Georgian Language Day 4.1.1 Language as Identity and Special Characteristics...... 35 1.3.1 Language ...... 15 Myths in Georgia Table of Contents of Table iii CEU eTD Collection 1972: 50-51. 4 University Press, 2003: 123-124. Oxford Theory, Political and Policy Language Theory,” Liberal for Implications Rights: Language Minority 3 Politics of Race, Ethnicity, andLanguage in National Censuses, Cambridge University Press, 2002: 92-120. 2 1 emotional associations.” or affiliation of any ethnic canbe […]Language irrespective favour. useful to from aversion can along acontinuum range Attitude to language, whetherit is regarded symbolically, oras a criterion, or as a cohesive factor Glyn Lewis out,language points “is aninstrumentfor preserving the integrity of group. the As identity. of E. reveal questions becausethey languagematter oftentimes towards Attitudes determines ina country’s identity international the sphere. and cultural ties the country will have with the outside world: in some way,language policy language importantthird in aredoubly that predominanteconomic,the they political represent conflict. language is so visible and audible, it often becomes an important political tool, and can lead to Because media. in print television, on proceedings, in legal in schools, in politics, be used must Language non-interference. or neglect,” of“benign an attitude can adopt astate where ethnicity, identity. It is a salient issue in thatit cannotbe divorced from the state, unlike religion and fornational some intrinsicone’s and as well being partof cultural an of communication audible. Language is an important marker of nationhood, some claim the most important, as it is the most Introduction but notbut “politics the oflanguage.” Lewis, E. Glyn, Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995: 111; May, Stephen. “Misconceiving The Identity: and Census looking?” forward or backward- censuses: in categories “Language Dominique, Arel, Abrahamian, Levon, “Armenian Identity in aChanging World,” Mazda Publishers 2006: 65. 1 2 Unlike ethnicity and religion, it has the specificity as being both an instrumental means instrumental an both being as specificity the has it religion, and ethnicity Unlike However, as it has been observed,much has been said about the “language of politics” Multilingualism in the Soviet Union 3 Moreover, in smaller nations, policies concerning a second or , Mouton & Co., N.C. Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands, 1 4 He further points out that language out that Hefurther points attitudes CEU eTD Collection 5 Georgia as a nation lensthe through oflanguage, with a particularfocus on Sovietthe period’s The first part of this study will contextualize the research project by reviewing the history of influence a country’s policy, as well as relations with other countries. people’s perceptions oflanguage. These attitudes also ultimately form voter preferences and can Georgia’sabout language attitudes can importantgive insights to see if language policies reflect languageof Russian attitudes towards as such not inand relation aminority to Knowinggroup. Latvia and absence Estonia,the of a large Slavic Russian-speaking community thestudy allows had one of the most dramatic shifts of policy in relation to the Russian language, and unlike in Georgiahas states former the with Soviet fear of Finally, a juxtaposed of separatism. discourse from minority for of the rights pluralism because increased external the interesting push isparticularly Therelationship Ossetia. it andhas as Abkhazia South been volatile, seen with because they are both an integral part of the diverse country as well as entities that can be the Georgian state and its linguistic minorities is vital to understanding the nation as a whole region gives an additional dimension to the linguistic study of Georgia. The relationship between language historically dominanceenjoyed in multilingual the and ethnically Caucasus diverse use of Russian as the second language of the country. In addition, the fact that the Georgian identity toitsintegral factor of prior timeundercollective Russian and the Empire subsequent offers rich grounds for such a study in that it is a nation that deeply valued its language as an the central focus of my study. Iwill take the case study of Georgia to examine this: Georgia The complexity of relationshipthe language between policies and attitudeslanguage towards is of public life. its in somany application theversatility spheres of given can beand complex even contradictory Lewis 1972:53. 5 2 CEU eTD Collection Russian language policies and improving cultural and political relations. voting canbe into attitudes whichopensreversinganti- translated the possibility preferences to incompatible with languages. perception a favorable of Andin other context, a democratic isnot identity linguistic one’s maintaining Ultimately, languages. minority or Russian younger generation,affect butthis doesnot thepossibilityhave to positive attitudestowards that language remains at the heart of Georgians’ identity for most, though slightly less so for the didcorrespond not with languageanti-Russian policies since independence. Thefindings show residents has yielded avaluable impression of linguistic in attitudes Georgia: language attitudes languages. While not intended to be a representational study, even this small sample of Tbilisi independent Georgia. The study focuses onattitudes Georgian, towards Russian minority and in was raised that rule, generation theyounger was raised and under Soviet that generation older between the Icompare attitudes of sample interviews with Georgians: a small of analysis languagelanguage policy betweenand attitudes in generations currently through Georgia between relationship the explore will I second, the In rights. minority surrounding debate languageIwill policies. independence in multilingualism then discuss and Georgia, current the language policies, the role of language in rise of the Georgian nationalistmovement and post- 3 CEU eTD Collection differentiated; that there was the presence of bilingualism in some areas, and that in insome areas,andthat Mingrelia presenceofbilingualism wasthe thatthere differentiated; intongue land. Laterhistoriansthe giveamore nuanced view thatuse of Georgian was century BC, but the king that had extendedthe Georgian languagemake to it only the spoken in usedwere several languages thereign Georgia under incentral of King third P’arnavaz the first century spoken around the BC. The11 The Caucasus was linguisticallyas from its rich very history,early hundreds with of languages 1.1 Early State Formation and under the Russian Empire in today. language Georgia interplay of attitudes consider the wecanbetter andidentity pride, periods, as well as considering the language myths that were fostered in relation to national of the people and their language attitudes. In reviewing the key trends in policies of these andperiod continuedindependence into was eliminatednot so quickly from in consciousnessthe language policies cannotbe understated. What was reversed in policy in the end of the Soviet Soviet-era theeffect of the power, loss ofSoviet eventual the and Russification widespread national self-determination of each part, following by the reversal of these policiesof and the instatement the and region the of delimitation the With configuration. linguistic its to changes marked aseriesandlong-lasting of region as awhole Caucasus underwent andthe Georgia interactioncenturies of – beginning with underGeorgia Russian the empire to Sovietthe period, Russian languages as well minority as languages. The relationship is indeeply rooted many in oflanguage nature for today Georgian the understanding the attitudes and Georgia towards Familiarity with the history of the Georgian nation and its relationship with Russia is essential Context Historical 1: Chapter th Century historian Leonti Mroveli says that there that says Mroveli Leonti historian Century 4 CEU eTD Collection 9 16. 8 widely understoodat spoken time.or that was eliminated as an official language in state business despite the fact that Russian was not Georgianovertook as the official language of administration and the Church. In 1840, Georgian Georgian territory was absorbed into Russianthe Empire in 1801 and the Russian language It wasagainst thisbackdrop of a long history of Georgian language dominancemuch that of 7 National Identities in Georgia,” in ofnation-building discourse 6 nativization. with Russification resulting into strategy accounttook cultural the complexity empire,the of andthuscombined language would function as the “single cement” of this emotional and cultural unification. The interests of the nation.” andmoral ofits of worth” carriers and national the self wereeven “validator political writings a promotion of and Russian attachment tothe language; endat the of 19 the Russian writers and poets such as Alexander Pushkin were also important vehicles of the made tomake the empire culturally unified. Celebration of the works of nationally celebrated Russian language and Russian national values was really andelevated anintensifiedwas effort as the region’s and Abkhazia only the elite had knowledge of Georgian. and Abkhaz was seen by the Georgians as the deliberate weakening of the importance of the promoting the development of writing systems of the minority languages of Svan, Mingrelian Ibid:26-27. Smith, Michael G. Suny, RonaldGrigor, Smith, Graham; Law, Vivien; Wilson, Andrew; Bohr, Annette; Allworth, Edward, “Language myths and the lingua franca , Cambridge University Press, 1998: 170. Language andPower inthe Creation of the USSR 1917-1953 The Making of the Georgian Nation 8 The idea was to instill a “common love for the fatherland” and that the that and fatherland” the for love “common a instill to was idea The was of great value andhistorical importance toGeorgians. 9 An example of this was the Russian Empire’s policy of Nation-building in thePost-Soviet Borderlands: ThePolitics of 7 Itwasin between period the 1860s-1910s the the that 5 , I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, 1989: 72. 6 Still, the role of the Georgian language , Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998: th century century Pushkin’s CEU eTD Collection 12 11 10 Georgian maintaining of importance the exemplifies policies Russification of reversal quick The writing systems of the Georgian linguistic minorities was seen by some Georgians as a threat. critical to importance survivalthe Georgian nationhood; Russians’of attemptto affect the The tension between Russification and retaining linguistic dominance over the region was of territory in February 1921, ultimately ending the country’s independence for nextthe 70 years. The pact between Georgia and the USSR was broken when the Red Army entered Georgian Georgianinto was ordered justtypewriters script independence. thedeclaration after days of University was founded as a Georgian-language institution, and the mass conversion of Russian were reversed,including naming Georgian as solethe language of territory, Tbilisi State formindependence 1918-1921 before annexation to USSR,allthe policiesthe of Russification quickly againstrebelled previousthe Russian-promotinglanguage policies– in briefthe of period andindependence border. aninternational atreaty followed.Azerbaijan signed Soviet in Georgia the Union with recognizedMay 1920that Republic’s Assembly disbanded in 1918. Georgia declared independence first, Armenia and Russia People of determination, enshrined by 1917Bolshevikthe document Bolshevik Revolution rested on the guarantees to the right toequality of all people and toself- of Azeri andMusavets, Georgian Mensheviks. TheSouth Caucasus for the support countries’ In 1917, the South Caucasus was ruled by the Armenian Dashnaks, the Muslim Democratic Part to rule. Georgian language anddividing thecountry politically itforbe toeasier for the Russian Empire Smith Ibid:112. Grenoble, Lenore A., et all 1998: 170-171. . 10 The region was originally one republic but was later dissolved when the Language Policy in the Soviet Union 11 With the newfound independence, Georgians independence, newfound the With 6 , KluwerAcademic Publishers 2003: 36. Declaration oftheRights the 12 CEU eTD Collection connected to capitalism, which would be overtaken by socialism at a more advanced state. of society aspect was atransitory identity national that concept was the All based on this of a disadvantage. Russians at posts, andplaced in would tothe for preference give government titular nationality republic the sought to reverse the legacy of imperialism by the Russian Empire, and thus instated policies that industrialization, and in society, as well raising literacy and educational levels rapidly to foster equally fast in government asofficial region the of language native the establishing republics, member the throughout its administration. Itwas aimed to promote the national self-determination of each of Language policy was central to this process, as in the formation of the Soviet Union as federalism. ethno-territorial institutionalize to first the in being kind its of one only the was 14 Review,Vol.53,No. 2,1994: 415. 13 of policy Soviet early The 1.2 Beginnings of Soviet Rule to Stalinism after are built on this historical foundation. the way history is taught and perceived. The interplay of these forces in the Soviet period and identitytension,by its tomodern attachmentto characterized contributes language in attitudes of the region, but also the means by which national identity was fostered and solidified. This communication of means the of indicator outward is an only not was prominence linguistic that the struggle between the two linguistic forces is to the relationship between the two nations, in andthe demonstrates as the officiallanguage.Thisperiod essential of deeply extent how rooted Grenoble 2003: 2. Slezkine, Yuri, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, of How a State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” Slavic 14 all the while promoting the cultural customs and tradition of each republic. It korenizatsiia , or nativization that followed from national delimitation 7 13 CEU eTD Collection region part of a broad regional state rather than separate republics. In 1921, Narkomnats 1921, In republics. separate than rather state regional partof a broad region make to idea the original followed the (Narkomnats) of Nationalities Commissariat Stalin’s Caucasus. in North in wascomplex,the particularly Caucasus the process The delimitation Sovietthe in Union 1939. literacy from levels rose 24percentan inestimated 1897under tsarist Russiato81.2 percentin in literacy: wasadramatic there rise of categorization, this consequences negative various inferior; thereby placing them intopositions of either dominance or submission. inclassification resulted normative judgmentthe of languages weresuperior andwhich which presence of an establishedorthography, written andterritorial unification. argues that Smith this size tothe of group, the allocating according language hierarchy aformal ABCD they created and nationalities, identifying for of wasone majorthe criteria ethnographers for Soviet Language one’s ownculture, one would also bepromotingnationhood. Soviet sliianie transitory phase on the way to internationalism, and an inevitable 18 17 Language and Powerthe Creation in of theUSSR 1917-1953 of Nations 16 15 secondary aspect of its delivery – the form, or language. form, socialist in content”illustrated. The substance of the promotion of socialism usurped the promoting nationality under this logic could still promote socialism, as the slogan “nationalistin and give way to socialism where class was the supreme defining aspect of society. Moreover, National identity,if tolerated and notsuppressed, the logic went, would naturally wither away Grenoble 2003: 46. Grenoble 2003: 46; Smith 1998: 5. Martin, Terry, “AnAffirmative Action Empire: The Soviet Union as the Highest Form of Imperialism,” in Grenoble 2003: 41. (fusion) of nations. of (fusion) , Oxford University Press, 2001: 69-70; Slezkine 1994: 421; Lewis 1972: 64; Smith, Michael G. 18 16 Thus, a policy of double assimilation was employed: in promoting 8 , Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998: 3. 15 National self-determination was then a sblizhenie (convergence) and (convergence) 17 Despite A State CEU eTD Collection 23 trust of previously anddowntrodden exploitednations. interpret it to be sincere “ethnophilia,” that the promotion of ethnic particularism would win the lines, pan-ethnic religious or of counter threat along the region’sthe organization linguistic by andethnic argued some tobeseparation, a“divide and agenda conquer” to seeking Asia,” in Asia,” Identities,” Russian Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2000: 201; Fierman, William, “The Soviet ‘Transformation’ of Central 22 21 20 19 linguisticselected patterns already of in andethnic separation place.” destinies of whole Caucasian … peoples. Rather,thesimply government topromote chose and language characters tospontaneously of questions shapethe manipulate subtle the reform, or languagesand of toresolutely Sovietgovernment the plan power the exaggerate comically subgroups of languages where they did notexist before, and that “such an interpretation would reconfiguration of regionthe is overstated. Smith that argues Sovietsthe didnot construct new changed the political and social dynamics of the region, some scholars claim that the Soviets’ language policies in delimitationthe nativization campaignand nodoubt divided andprofoundly Republics (ASSRs). Butby 1924, Gorskii wasdividedrepublic upintosix smaller oblasts. autonomousestablished republics –theGorskii two Sovietand DagestanAutonomous Socialist gained in SSRstatus 1936, when Transcaucasusthe Republic up. broke integrated andinto Azerbaijani Armenian, the Transcaucasus in were Republic The three 1922. Georgian, languages, reversed: the and ethnicities prominent somewhatthree dynamics language or territory. In the South Caucasus, the situation was in some regard simpler and the in region division the peopleslongeratomized thisplan the that under were no united by Slezkine Slezkine 1994: 414-415. Hirsch, Francine, “Toward an Empire of Nations: Border-Making and the Formationof Soviet National Smith 1998: 50. Grenoble 2003: 112. Smith 1998: 49. Soviet Central Asia: The Failed Transformation , Westview Press, 1991:17; Smith 1998: 48. 9 23 21 This selection of 20 While Soviet the 22 others 19 This CEU eTD Collection 27 26 25 24 nationalism. Thedid policies, though not officially declare total reversal,to the amounted biggest danger countryto the was notRussian chauvinism,rather but unchecked emerging diminishedfinally and In out. phased his 1934Party Congress address Stalin proclaimed that the revoked, nativization was no longer seen as the most important goal in and of itself, and was By latethe 1920s and 1930showever, nativization policies were nolonger sustainable.While not of takeover. threat without culture languageand national newly the republics, this freedom allowed period of andSoviet extensive the development official status in the 1924 Constitution of the Georgian SSR, Russian in general. in the region,including a historically very high literacy rate and resistance to the imposition of Georgia’s was an unusual situation in that it had a long history of the prominence of the language native language of republic. the meant that Russianthe public officials livingand inworking peripheriesthe learnwould the was part of the greater vision of the policy that there would also be reverse bilingualism, which publish as materials in Russian; efficiency and profitwere sacrificed for policy’sthe ideals. It and other governmentprinted materials were sometimes two to three times as expensive to The implementation of the nativization policies themselves was complex and costly. Newspapers approval from Soviet authorities in Moscow for several for several decades. inMoscow authorities from Soviet approval Georgian. The universities in wereevenGeorgia free toaward higher degreesgettingwithout education system and doctoral dissertations could be written and defended in either Russian or Smith Ibid:117. Ibid:115. Grenoble 2003: 115. et all 1998: 171. 25 Nativization policies in meantGeorgia that theGeorgian language enjoyed 24 10 26 and was promoted and throughout waspromoted the 27 For Georgia, as for most of CEU eTD Collection 33 32 31 Central Asia: The Failed Transformation 30 29 28 shutdown and Georgian introduced script for both languages in 1938. Ossetia and Abkhazia in schools language native with hold, took again once Georgianization Under Stalin and Beria, both Georgians (Beria being a Mingrelian from Abkhazia), enjoyed relativeautonomy and evenrevival.was granted status the It of a statelanguage in 1936. While Russian was being imposed in USSR the as a whole,in 1930s the Georgianthe language languageofficial legal, for and functions. administrative educational their Union Republic. The first tier was reserved for Russian only, which became the only official status, the second was made up of the titular languages that had official status in each of didlowest enjoy not any financing,official the receivedthird some financingbutdid have not customs. It was at this time another language hierarchy was developed, also with four tiers. The received robust funding and aimed toinstill an emotional bond to Russianthe language and teaching of language, Russian the instated as obligatory in all non-Russian in schools 1938, Man.” “Newthe to create Soviet identity, anewcommon toforge project: nation-building geographical greatest the Thus Friendshipreach. ofwasemployed begin metaphor itsPeople to language moreof than half of the population of the country as well as the language with the policies had not offered enough cohesion among the nation and Russian was already the interethnic communication: it was also the tool of cultural and spiritual integration. spiritual and cultural of tool the also was it communication: interethnic was for this reason that the Russian language took on a more important role than simply that of imposition of Russification and switch from Latin based script to Cyrillic. Smith Grenoble 2003: 3-4. Slezkine 1994: 443; Grenoble 2003:60. Kriendler, Isabelle, “Forging a Soviet People: Ethnolinguistics in Central Asia,” In Fierman, William; Martin 2001: 81. Grenoble 2003: 54. et all 1998: 171. , Westview Press, 1991: 221. 11 32 33 There were afew Therewere 28 Thenativization 30 The Soviet 29 31 It CEU eTD Collection 35 34 in 1938 andGeorgiancontinued be to the written language forMingrelians. attempts atstarting language Mingrelian 1935-1936, newspapers but effortthe wasabandoned movement, which aimed to reclaim Georgian nationhood, and an indispensable part of that was that of part indispensable an and nationhood, Georgian reclaim to aimed which movement, imposition of Russian gave rise to the revival and consolidation of the Georgian nationalist give way increasingto Russification, of Georgian as well as minority languages. The mounting began tobeenforced. The freedom Georgianthe language wasenjoying was suddenly cut off, to ithad Stalin escapedunder it changedwas for Russification Georgia: the was not asawhole, meant anopening from Stalin’s draconian and brutal rule. While the language course of policy marked brought The changesin Post-Stalinistwere the that period as itnearly sphere,every 1.3 Post-Stalinism and Georgian Nationalist Movement this balance,whichforceful a consequently triggered response. use while alsohaving presence the of Russian as well. period followed The that once againbroke under Stalin exemplify a period of coexistence between Georgian remaining the keylanguage of Theperiod. freedom Georgiathat enjoyedduring both the early nativization policy as well as influence and dominance was protected, a continuity that was only broken after the Stalinist use Georgianfor Abkhaz markedscript aperiod andOssetian where language Georgian was allowed tonot only continue the extensive use of Georgianthe languageexpand butalso to While nativization policies were reversed in the rest of the Soviet Union, the fact that Georgia folk state-sponsored Georgian language danceoperas, troupes, films,literature. and were andthere institutionalized was education anduniversity Primary, secondary, eradicated. largely illiteracy with in before, ever than educated Georgian were moreever than people Suny 1989: 281. Grenoble 2003: 120. 12 34 By 1950s, the 35 CEU eTD Collection mamuli, sartsmunoeba,” or “language, fatherland, faith,” revealing the core elements of the 37 36 in 1970s. the language of Georgian dominance the the toreassert increasingly determined became Georgians Resentment atSoviet-imposed Russification grew in Georgia as elsewhere in the USSR, and USSR. of the dissolution the after armed conflict into over spilled ultimately that animosities fostering to contributed policies These Armenian. Russian language and literature, for example; the same was done with Ossetian, Azeri, and alongside minority languages: courses were developed in Abkhaz language andand literature and languages, Ossetian moving away from Georgian Russianscript. was butpromoted, strengtheningthe of minority languages, and Cyrillicthe was introduced script for Abkhazthe Georgian’speriod, position the as dominantlanguage in country the was diminished in favor of population havingleastsome at knowledge of Russian, with high rates of bilingualism. In this in mostwhich of the resulted Sovietperiod, the restof for largely the in remained place though notsuppressing national languages. policy goal remained to establish Russian as the second national language of the Soviet Union While Stalin’s in death about1953 brought many in changes country,the central the language attitudes. The empirical part of this study will examine this. interesting to consider the content of these myths and see if they are reflected in today’s language used in periodthe independenceof foster more to supportfor the nationalistmovement. Itis by adopted in state the 1980s.Languagethe beliefs myths, or language,people hold about were preservation of the national language. This movement’s success is exemplified by the policies Suny 1989: 310. Grenoble 2003: 57. 37 In the Soviet period, Georgian dissidents campaigned used the slogan “ena, 36 The policy mandatory of Russian education 13 CEU eTD Collection 41 all et and Peckham, Donald, Peckham, and 40 39 http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_26.pdf (accessed March 4, 2010). European States,” EuropeanCentre forMinority Issues, March2006: 4, 38 inpercent of children languageGeorgia wereenrolled schools. in Georgian publicthe life of country,the including education, politics, printandmass media. By 1989, 94 in establishment of Georgian the 1980sthatLanguage Program reaffirmedthe in language the the to led then which movement, nationalist Georgian the consolidate helped events These similarfor protests. fearof evenlanguagelegislation; Soviets the called off same in the measures Armenia and Azerbaijan philological study, and the creation of a National Georgian Language Day, or“Day of the requiringthe courses on Georgian language andliterature for students in non-Georgian of tracks mandatory and exams introduction state of Georgian-language students for of arts technology, various ways; among them was the promotion of teaching Georgian to ethnic minorities, the forGeorgian promote enactment 1989State of Program in the theGeorgian Language aimed to crowd was estimated to be at about 5,000 people. language of republic.the Hundredsof students began inprotesting Tbilisi, others joined and the government attempted to change the portion of the constitution that made Georgian the official defended. This andwas vehemently opposed tensionsthe in escalated 1978, when Sovietthe education, aswell thelanguageas in which doctoral shoulddissertations be written and speaking out openly for promotion the of Russian as principalthe language used insecondary and others. Georgian identity coined in 19thCentury the by Georgiancelebrated Iliawriter Chavchavadze Grenoble 2003: 118. Abrahamian2006: 72; Arutuitonov, Sergei, “Linguistic Minorities in the Caucasus,” in Bratt Paulston, Christina Grenoble 2003: 118. Wheatley, Jonathan, “The Status of Minority Languages in Georgia and the Relevance of Models from Other 1998: 171; Grenoble 2003: 118; Suny 1989: 319. 38 In 1976 Eduard Shevardnadze, then the minister of education in Georgia, began Linguistic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, 40 14 39 weresuccessfulThe protests in the curbing Multilingual Matters, 1998: 103; Smith 41 Further, the CEU eTD Collection and history. for example, nodoubtplaying arole initbeing the only successful spoken-language revival in destiny, from different languages.other Thisis particularly forimportant Hebrewthe language insalient Georgia.important Another extrinsic mythis that the Georgian language has a special languagemankind,” of of one several myths concerning primordiality, ratherremarkably remains of the linguist Nikolai Marr, the myth of the “Urspache,” or that “our language is the original due to work In part the intrinsic ones. tothe role ascompared more myths play central a extrinsic purity, elegance, and superior ability expressto concepts and emotions. In the Georgian case, such as its origin or destiny, and the latter refers to features of the language itself, such as its Schematic Framework,” Language in Society, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), Cambridge University 1989),Press: Cambridge 335. University Press: 363-4; Nahir, Moshe, “Micro Language Planning and the Revival of Hebrew: A 45 44 43 whole for the time period. This text was used in the 20 titled crucial in the study languageof policy. they influencelanguage the their attitudes toward have as well own languages,as foreign are and have Thebeliefs usedaspartof nation-building peoplewere by about the project. Gamsakhurdia history, and qualities of a language,” werefostered notby linguistsby but rulingthe elite, asthey Moreover, language myths, defined by Smith 1.3.1 Language Myths in Georgia articles on the history of the language, its place in modern life and its purity. 42 Mother Tongue,” April 14. Gold, David, “A Sketch of the Linguistic Situation in Israel Today,” Ibid:173-174. Ibid:169. Smith language-intrinsic Praise and Glorification andGlorification Praise the of Georgian Language et all 45 A primary text upholding this myth is that written by Ioane Zosime in the 10 1998: 172. myths. The former are the beliefs based on external ideas about language, 42 Moreover, the program encouraged the publication of thepublication program encouraged the Moreover, of newspaper 44 Smith et all 15 et all as “widely heldbeliefs about origins,the differentiate between differentiate th Century by Gamsakhurdia to kindle , unique inits nature to Europe as a Language in Society, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., language-extrinsic 43 th Century, CEU eTD Collection different turn. different more accurate portrayal of the society’s views, which in turn can help inform policies to take a be expected. The study of language attitudes is important in this context in that they can give a the status of Russian in favor of English, the expected negative attitude is not as severe as could Russia has pointto the deteriorated of inarmed conflict 2008 and policies have demote tried to decline in attitudinal terms is not obvious. In the case of Georgia where the relationship with language.the Whileis it clear language that have policies become politicized, Russian’s absolute Russian in many countries the post-Soviet space for fear of offense taken at the sound and use of Russian towards attitudes seemed tobeubiquitousand wereadvisedvisitors using against negative anti-Russian policies, chose notall states collapse. While formed Soviet after states that the for “otherness” and independence of assertion in the role important an played has Language 1.4 End ofSoviet Rule and Independence is that Russian. there foster anintention negative towards attitudes to some have this attributed topolitical only realignmentand not ashiftin attitudes, argue others andSoviets language the policiesgrew thatout of them incontinued same the Whilecourse. solidification of an independent Georgia; the roots were planted with the resistance to the the with agenda government mainstream the into evolved success movement’s nationalist The saliencemy among [see Section respondents 4.1]. of examinetheir extent Iwasableto the language, Georgian of the and attitudes perceptions importance of these myths was part of the empirical section of this study; in asking people their people, have been oppressed, there is a messianic destiny in store for it ultimately. The nationalism in newly the independent Georgia – while the Georgian language, as well as its 16 CEU eTD Collection (accessed April 19, 2010). 48 47 46 languages. Georgia Article 8 of the 1995 constitution established Georgian and Abkhazian as official building project. The official languagesin Armenia and Azerbaijan are the languages;titular in language Russian remaineda though issueCaucasus-native speakers), insalient nation-the non- (or Russians fewer had it in that Ukraine and Estonia in Latvia, than different fairly was language tobuildnationhood on principles of civic citizenship. The situation in Caucasus the all of which had significant Russian speaking minorities and used the elevation of the titular trauma, in this case, Russian. phenomenon “political of thepsychological aphasia,” inability speak a languageto from or shock others: the trauma that the Soviet system left its on republics even at times resulted in the in than was some formerstronger this process For of the USSR, parts sphere. international visible and audible change way to political direction and redefining national identity in the countries multiethnic, andwere a inshift policy language away from Russian often was most the Socialist Republics into formation independentof countries. Mostof newlythe independent many in wakeof Union from collapseof was central of the the Soviet transition Soviet the the Azerbaijan has maintained the prominence of Russian with the continuation of Russian-language of continuation the with Russian of prominence the maintained has Azerbaijan policies toward Russianthe language havewithinemerged the three South Caucasus countries. language official the in state only 1990, a yearbefore regimethe collapsed. The Soviet government unsuccessfully tried to enact a law that for the first time made Russian of languagetaking increasing andthe advantage decentralization reintroducing titular policies. The Gorbachev era perestroika policies allowed adomino effect of Soviet Socialist Republics Constitutionof Georgia, available at http://www.parliament.ge/files/68_1944_951190_CONSTIT_27_12.06.pdf Abrahamian2006: 74. Grenoble 2003: 63. 48 Knowledge of Russian continues tobe common in Caucasus,the though different 47 This wascaseforthe Latvia, andUkraine, particularly Estonia, 17 46 Language policy in CEU eTD Collection 23, 2010). 2008: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/russian-language-enjoying-boost-postsoviet-states.aspx (accessed April 53 52 2010). of Armenia,” 18 February 2002, http://www.edu.am/ArticleIndex.php?id=425&topMenuArt=-1 (accessed May 26, 51 50 49 titular language. schools, and some of the educated elite continue to have superior command of Russian than the 1.5 Language Policy in Georgia section. following spheres. well as in as system cultural and social in the educational Armenian elevated the place was in were scarce. country Russians the Russian language, which, wasultimately Russian-speakingaimed against Armenians, ethnic Armenia andMoldova. in more positive Russianareactually Georgia, toward people’s attitudes that indicate results perhaps improved for aperiod. According Gallup to polls in conducted 2006 and 2007,the toward attitudes Russianthe languagein isstates Sovietsome former improving,or actually language.world Whether not or this initiative had success is arguable, butisthere evidence that declared 2007the “Year of Russianthe Language,” in hopes of asreviving its a status prominent However, with the decline of the use of Russian in many post-Soviet states, President Putin languagepro-Georgian policies. fierce opposition EduardShevardnadze’sto language pro-Russian stance and establishmentof Gradirovski, Sergei and Esipova, Neli, “Russian Language Enjoying a Boost inPost-Soviet States,” Arutuitonov August 1998: 102. 1, Decisionof the Armenian Government # 138, on“Establishing state program on language policy in the Republic Abrahamian2006: 73. Arutuitonov 1998: 104-105. 51 Georgia rejected the use of Russian in the public sphere, as was demonstrated by the 49 Armenia, adoptedpolicies also inthe1990s discouraged that use the of the 53 The most interesting of these is Georgia, which will be discussed in the 52 50 However, beginningin 1999 and againin 2002 Russian’s 18 CEU eTD Collection *Cluster munitions were employed by both Russian and Georgian forces. Georgian and Russian bothby employed were munitions *Cluster Ossetia,”South January 2009, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0 (accessed April 24, 2010). 55 Television,” December2007, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/19/crossing-line (accessed April 24,2010). 54 with Russia. conflict protests and freedomsin many instances, such as usethe offorce in Novemberthe 2007election eradicate corruption and buildinstitutions, democratic governmentthe has rights overstepped NATOmoving major stance,a very membership. toward Despite to efforts pro-Western maintained Revolution asa power and Rose of the to resultcame Mikheil Saakashvili elections. fraud electoral in exposed peaceful Revolution”the year’s that “Rose that parliamentary August 2008.Shevardnadze, though reelected in wasforced2000, to resign in following2003 facto left were Ossetia Abkhazia South and aspresident. wasformally elected year Shevardnadze when independentthe currency, lari, the wasintroduced. Civil war continued until 1995; that economic disarray it was – part of rublethe zoneandcoupon subsequent system until 1994, Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, replaced him. During this period, the country was in a state of Gamsakhurdia was inousted in1992 a violent andgovernment. Georgian central the local separatists between Ossetia, and South Abkhazia both in conflicts armed with war, civil into deteriorated country the Gamsakhurdia, declaringafter independence in leadership1991 under the ofnationalist-minded president be itcontext; viewedincannot was path isolation. to regaining Georgia’s tumultuous: statehood economic and political greater inthe be seen must independence since policy language Georgia’s Human Rights Watch, “Crossing the Line: Georgia’s Violent Dispersal of Protesters and Raid on Imedi on Raid and of Protesters Dispersal Violent Georgia’s Line: the “Crossing Watch, Rights Human Human Rights Watch, “Up inFlames: HumanitarianLaw Violations and CivilianVictims in the Conflict over under Russian control and theconflicts remained largely frozen until armedthe conflict of 54 and use internationallyof munitions cluster prohibited in August2008armedthe 55 * coup d’etat 19 and Eduard Shevardnadze, former de CEU eTD Collection 60 http://www.dcenter.ru/eaes/policy/200801_1.pdf (accessed 24, April 2010):1. Prognosis), ɫɨɫɬɨɹɧɢɟɢɩɟɪɫɩɟɤɬɢɜɵ 59 58 57 Education System,” Cimera, April 2005: 22. 56 fell from drastically in7.3 percent 1989 to1.7percentin 2002. in early the independence period. Numbers of Russians (orRussian-speakers) livingin Georgia ethnicity languageor zeroprinciple). spoken (the towards civic citizenship in granting all itsof residents automatic citizenship, regardless of the language orleave the country. However, unlike in Estonia and Latvia, Georgia took a step importantknowledge had andRussian-speakers of eitherbecame more learningGeorgian to start When Georgia eliminated Russian as an official language at the end of the Soviet period, use of use of Russian and showtheir programmingin Georgian. to be shown with Russian interpreting. By 2004, all major Georgian havechannels eliminated only through satellite orcable. However, during this time, much of the programming continued television replacedbroadcast was byGeorgian channelsbecame andMoscow channels available Likewise, the mass media sphere also changed correspondingly – previously available Moscow in shown a decreasein Russian proficiency Georgia. younger generation Russianstudies butis more encouraged to learn English and studies have for professional posts, and has since continued to gain much popularity and prestige. The by regarded contempt. some with government isgovernment preparing its amendments to law “On Support toNationalState Cinematography” Korth Arutuitonov 1998: 105. Ibid:13. on the Focus a with Georgia in Policy “Language Marina; Muskhelishvili, and Arnold Stepanian, Britta; Korth, Gavrilov, K., Kozievskaya, E., Yaschenko, E., « et all et ɗɤɨɧɨɦɢɱɟɫɤɨɟɨɛɨɡɪɟɧɢɟ 2005: 7. » (The Russian Language in the New Independent States: the Present situation and situation Present the States: NewIndependent the in Language Russian (The » 1/2008, 58 English new becamethe was requiredlanguage second that Ɏɨɧɞ Ɋɭɫɫɤɢɣɹɡɵɤɜɧɨɜɵɯɧɟɡɚɜɢɫɢɦɵɯɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɚɯ « 20 ɇɚɫɥɟɞɢɟȿɜɪɚɡɢɢ 56 Still, there was a massive influx of migration of influx massive a was there Still, 59 60 Most recently, the Georgian 57 » As a result of this, Russian was : ɬɟɤɭɳɟɟ CEU eTD Collection 25, 2010). April 15, 2010, Culture,” and Science onEducation, Committee of the “Sitting 2010); 24, April (accessed http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i3a5fb1561d2145a38d9aa5667e982f0b 61 Gallup polls show thethat number of people whothinkit is that for veryimportant theyounger language notnecessarily toward tonegative the population. does the among attitudes correspond While language policies in are Georgia decidedly anti-Russian, aspreviously mentioned, this higher education. use ability education, for the resources from the languagelibrariesremains important to Russian from entirely eliminated Georgian WhileEnglisheducation. is speedin gaining Georgian specialized Russian language subject libraries in universities Russian prevents from being in 2005.While the phasing out of spoken Russian has had success, the presence of extensive insufficientGeorgian languagewith theability skills earn to higherin degrees late as Russian as while aimedattransitioning an towards all-Georgian language education system, those allowed policies, These time. at this permitted still was in Russian thesis master’s a defending However, lessons. Master’s level programs were offered only in Georgian and sometimes English. conduct their bachelor’s level studies in Georgian Russian,or while taking Georgian language higherFor education, thepolicy however, liberal. moreremained late as As 2005, students could followed strictly in inTbilisi, but provincesthe Russian advertising can still be found. any non-Georgian be accompanied to script by (alsoin Georgian equivalent isthe size). This advertisingwas regulated. also Thelaw on 18.2.98advertisement (amendment requires14.3.98) presence ofmoreinternational speakingmedia printEnglish hasalsoincreased. Language use in that wouldthat require all filmsforeign beto dubbed intoGeorgian starting January 2011. Kozlov, Vladimir, “Georgia to BanFilms in the Russian Language,” April 22, 2010, THR International, http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=1292&info_id=27388 (accessed April 21 Parliament of Georgia, Parliament 61 The CEU eTD Collection 62 generationknow to Russian grewfrom 43 percent in 64percent2006 to in 2007. turn for the worse. forthe turn uncover a more up-to-date impression of the attitudes, as the political developments have taken a to equal wholly negative attitudes towards Russian. The empirical part of this study aimed to prevalence of Georgian language dominance and reversal Russification of policies didnot seem language of path precisely did not correspond policies that resulted. with The attitudes Gradirovski and Esipova 2008. 22 62 The historical CEU eTD Collection 64 International Affairs, Vol. 2(4) Autumn 2008: 11. 63 regions. Abkhaz, the official language in the breakaway region of Abkhazia, belongs to the bilingual in Georgian, and maintain at once cultural and national ties to Georgia as well as their well as the linguistic minorities of Svan, Laz, and Mingrelian that are ethnic Georgians also languageswhose belongs tothe Indo-European and Turkic language families as respectively, minorities, Azerbaijani and Armenian the i.e., minorities; ethno-linguistic both are There rights. language minority debate about aswellthecurrent in Georgia diversity linguistic the consider become acquainted with the modern debate surrounding linguistic minority rights, we must first In order considerto study the languageof minority attitudes towards languages, aswell as language is decidingthe issue. minorities has become a kind of litmus test for the West for ahealthy pluralist democracy. Often of minority regions have led to separatism and conflict, while on the other, the treatment of nationhood andidentity. Itis animportant relationship politically in on that one hand, alignments relationship is complex and is deserving of attention: it drives at the heart of the nature of minorities the same way the Soviet Union behaved with theirs. with behaved Union Soviet the way same the minorities Sovietprominentdissident Andrei Sakharov, status and perception of linguistic communities in Georgia. Famously called “alittle empire” by languages, butalso minority languagesin TheseGeorgia. attitudes are importantin gauging the This study not only focuses on the attitudes tension Georgianbetween towards and Russian in Georgia 2: Multilingualism Chapter Smith Petersen, Alexandros, “The 1992-93 Georgia-Abkhazia War: A ForgottenConflict,” Caucasian Review of et all 1998: 172. 63 Georgia has been criticized for behaving with its with behaving for criticized been has Georgia 23 64 Yet the nature ofthis nature Yetthe CEU eTD Collection 1981: 196. 65 69 68 67 66 folklore. They are alsobilingual and useGeorgian as a writtenlanguage.linguists Soviet cultural identity isbut notwritten with exception the of documenting and publishing local Mestia and Lentekh and Abkhazia. The Svan language is an important component of speakers’ estimated 80,000people living in highmountainsthe of Svanetia, as well in as regionsthe of though Mingrelian is down looked sometimes upon as a provincial language. identity from Georgians, perhaps because they had been regarded by Soviets as all Georgians; They are bilingual in Georgian and donotsee themselves as having atruly distinct cultural inlarger livenumber and in primarily western the part of Georgia andpreviously in Abkhazia. own right. The groups view themselves as havingdistinct cultural identities. Mingrelians are in their languages or Georgian of dialects are Svan and Mingrelian not or whether about debate (Zan). linguistsLaz group and Mingrelian under subgroup one Zan, oreven dialects of as onelanguage Caucasian, orthe Kartvelian group, is made up of Georgian, Svan, Laz and Mingrelian. Some South the groups: these of nature linguistic the on background some consider to helpful is It 2.1 Mingrelian, Svan and Laz inalphabet 1928 toGeorgian in 1938 toCyrillic in1954. Caucasian language family north-western hasand changestoits undergone scriptfrom Latin the community living along the Black Sea on the border with Turkey. inmodern-day speakers actually exception with Turkey, the reside of Laz-speaking one Matveeva, Anna, Matveeva, Comrie, Bernard, Arutuitonov 1998: 105-106. Ibid:120. Grenoble 2003: 115; Suny 1989: 4. 66 Linguistically, they are fairly closely related but not intelligible; there continues to be a “ The Languages of the Soviet Union The South Caucasus nationalism conflict and minorities,” Minority Rights Group, 2002: 7. , Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press 24 65 69 Svan is spoken by an 68 Most Laz 67 CEU eTD Collection of of Russification.dynamics Yet linguistic between inside groups the Republics wereequal, not policies imperialistic for resentment harboring minority, linguistic a be considered could speaker Soviet and post-Soviet space. During the Soviet era, anyone who was not anative Russian titular speakers via assimilation. The definition of who alinguistic minority is has evolved in the between the promotion minorityof linguistic rights andfair ensuring equality of opportunity as Armenia. Georgia andArmeniadifferent represent somewhat ends of spectrum the in debate the Azerbaijan, wherelinguistic minorities are more significant than in predominantly monolingual in and in Georgia particularly more Caucasus, salient arethan the issues these Nowhere ethnicity. on built nation the of concept traditional the over nationhood civic of kind a foster help linguistic autonomy, whileis another increasing integration government-sponsored to efforts cohesive nation givingwhile the most minority possible.rights One approachis grantingmore separatism, so there is reason to exercise caution. The challenge arises of how to maintain a influence. Yet approaching these issues is notsimple: there are real threats of conflict and rhetoric surrounding andpolicies issues these helpits can into acceptance this sphere of multiculturalism. westward-looking For nations likeGeorgia, becoming sensitized tothemodern in role promoting state’s the and justice of issues social exploring liberal societies of discourse Linguistic minority rights are a contemporary issue that is steadily gaining influence in the 2.2 The Minority Rights Discourse Central andCentral Eastern Europe, 70 and rich literary tradition that dates back to the 5 previously regarded all of these as dialects of Georgian, as it was the only one that has had a long Grenoble 2003: 16-17; Arutuitonov, Sergei,“Linguistic Minorities in the Caucasus,” in Multilingual Matters, 1998: 98-99. 25 th Century and the lingua franca Linguistic minorities in of the region. the of 70 CEU eTD Collection appropriate. when language in their authorities with deal to right the have should minorities linguistic that in linguistic minority regions. However the FCNM, of which Georgia is a signatory,maintains in society; mainstream for abalance of protectinglinguistic minorities encouragingwhile the participation minoritiesof Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities. National of Rights Linguistic the Regarding OSCE documents: the Copenhagen Document of Documentof documents: 1990, Copenhagen OSCE the 78 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,OSCE,,,3dde546e4,0.html (accessed 19, April 2010). of National Minorities,” 1 February 1998, 77 in 11 HUM. RTS. L. J. 232 (1990). 76 http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm (accessed April 19, 2010). 75 df (accessed April 19, 2010). http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/1_AtGlance/PDF_H%281995%29010_FCNM_ExplanReport_en.p 74 Minorities, A/RES/47/135, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r135.htm (accessed19, April 2010). 73 2200A, March 23, 1976. 72 71 (FCNM) Minorities of for theProtection National Convention [theFramework agreements Council of Europe Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, Rights, Political and Civil on Covenant International asa debate whole.in the include rights place These human morethem granted prominent the a has which rights, minority of issue the on developed been have agreements international Various of the USSR, but even before. and Russians living in the South Caucasus could feel as a minority, Ibid. Organization forSecurity Co-operationand inEurope, “Oslo Recommendations Regarding Linguisticthe Rights Document of Copenhagen the Meeting of Conferencethe on theHuman Dimension of the [O]SCE '9 30, reprinted The European Charter forRegional or Minority Languages, 1992, 1995, February Minorities,” of National Protection the for Convention Framework “The ofEurope, Council The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, Article 27, adopted through General Assembly resolution Arutuitonov 1998: 102. 74 and the European Charter for Regional or Minority for andRegional Minority Charter European Languages the or 78 they have supported method the increasedof language titularinstruction 26 72 the United Nations Declaration on the 76 77 and the Oslo Recommendations The Oslo Recommendations advocate Recommendations TheOslo 71 certainly certainly breakup the since 75 ], the two the ], 73 two CEU eTD Collection http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0609Popjanevski.pdf (accessed April 18, 2010): 40-41. Minorities in Georgia and Azerbaijan,” Central Asia-Caucasus Silk Road Studies Program, September 2006: 25, 81 80 79 these districts. these Georgian language policy, groups have other petitioned for official Armenianrecognition of in advocate theimplementation Georgian languageof instruction alongside the promotion of violation of the law and has been cited to cause legal and integration difficulties. While some centof populationthe 437,000people.or Mingrelian-speakers. The nextlarge minority in that census were the Armenians at about 8 per tobe million one 3.78millionwereestimated the approximately infactGeorgian-speakers, speakers of Kartvelianother languages are recorded as Georgian-speakers. In 1989census,the of of country. the issimple number the notmany Determining of Georgian-speakers because variety, while notaligning perfectly with ethnicity,is also acrucial element of the diverse nature Of the three South Caucasus nations, Georgia is arguably the most ethnically diverse. Linguistic Russian used communicate with to central the administration,government Armenian, and the Armenian language continues to be the de factomeans of communication and is overwhelmingly population the where Ninotsminda, and Akhalkalaki of districts Javakheti an interpreter free of charge; however, in areas of minority concentration,like in the two Georgian of knowledge without those law guarantees The Abkhazia. in Abkhazian of exception official proceedings and be carried out in Georgian in all national and local settings, with the all legal that requires policy language official The communication. interethnic of language with servingasthe Russian areconcentrated, in minorities arespoken areas where languages linked to linguistic identity in the Caucasus. Russian, Armenian, Azeri and other minority Popjanevski, Johanna, “Minorities and the State in the South Caucasus: Assessing the Protection of National Protection the Assessing Caucasus: South the in State the and “Minorities Johanna, Popjanevski, Wheatley 2006: 5-6. Smith et all 1998: 169-170. 81 In terms of integrating linguistic minorities (mostly Azerbaijani and Armenian) and Azerbaijani (mostly minorities linguistic integrating of terms In 79 As in the Soviet era as well as after, ethnicity was 27 80 though isthough this a CEU eTD Collection http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=1292&info_id=25407 (accessed April 25, 2010). 83 82 in Georgian. education their continue can they year one after that so instruction language Armenianor moreto access higherto education in Georgia, and providing them with Georgian amendments on lawthe onhigher education allowingindividuals with knowledge ofAzerbaijani November 2009, the Georgian Committee on Culture, Science and Education moved to perceived difficulty of balancing minority rights with national unity. national with rights minority balancing of difficulty perceived minority avariety reflected linguistic status opinions onthe aboveof issues, the underscoring Azerbajani and Armenian communities were notsufficient for analysis, a question on granting they are the biggest groups and elicited the most responses. While the responses on the inaddresses more detail surrounding languageattitudes the Mingrelian Abkhaz) because(and dialects)languages has (or been calledquestion. into The empirical of portion study this in educated language though state’srolethe Georgian schools, inhelping these preserve linguistic minority in debate becauseGeorgia they are bilingual in Georgian and tend tobe The Kartvelianother languages—Mingrelian, Laz andgenerally Svan—are not up inbrought the language. the of utility economic the maintains in Akhalkalaki base military Russian the However, Russian remains an important means of interethnic communication and the presence of schools. language Georgian to children their send to opt regions Kartli Kvemo and Javakheti number of Russian language schools is decreasing; most ethnic minorities outside the Samtskhe with contact Georgian the lackpopulation inand motivation learning the language.titular no to little have they often is that minorities these of integration in the to referred difficulty teaching the minorities Georgian, though the government has also taken some action. Amajor intoGeorgian society,mostly NGOs and international organizations have taken the lead on “Education, Science and Culture Committee Sitting,” Parliament of Georgia, November 5, 2009, 5, November of Georgia, Parliament Sitting,” Committee Culture and Science “Education, Korth et all et 2005: 32. 28 83 82 The In CEU eTD Collection associated with major political and security Positiveproblems. Russian attitudes towards in those even languages, other towards attitudes positive prevent not does identity of component strong feelingsfinding study the of that revealed tothelanguageof attachment asanintegral unanimous attachmentto language the andthesteps Georgiansprotect hadtaken it.to The key more had generation theolder that some true, was to extent thehypothesis was that result The did. generation parents’ their that extent same the to Russian of imposition the experience not did they because nationalistic linguistically less be would generation younger the that and I supposed languagethat attitudes wouldin fact insome waybe to connected policythe changes generation. older the than nationalistic linguistically more Georgians younger whether anddiscover betweengenerations language attitudes between notthe is or there adifference on people’s perceptions of their language. Finally, the crux of my research is to examine whether political and publiclife language Georgian the that hasbeen given since 1989has had aneffect languageexamined Georgian towards theattitudes the tosee ifimportance in theheightened severed diplomatic ties and increasingly anti-Russian language policies. Additionally, I imposition. Iaimed to find what the prevalent attitude toward the Russian language is in light of diverse nation which has been as described both victimthe languageand perpetrator of linguistically of a political the dynamics in asthey understanding are central today, Georgia that people have towards Georgian, Russian, but also the minority languages that are spoken in focuses notonly attitudes the on study The generations. between attitudes in these differences in shiftcorrespond language not to the in policies and arenotablethere Georgia or whether society in language Georgian toward not the attitudes whether or on centers project The research Methodology and Design Project 3: Chapter 29 CEU eTD Collection Approaches,”Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 12,No. 5,May, 1970: 138-139. 84 the attitude is a “hypothetical construct” is attitude the andis a“hypothetical construct” notquantifiable because ithas noobjective independent of external but factors, hasphysical been for beingcritiqued toosubjective in that his or her opinions. This is what the mentalist approach offers, as well as being of a variable expression individual’s the of validity the ignores viewpoint behavioralist the is that however, fundamental problem, tobehave agiven moreexactly someone way. The causes what determine criticized for its inability to isolate the desired effect on the subject as there is no way to isapproach praised for having analytical objectivity for analyzing only behavior,observed butis and reflection. neural whichstate,” be directlycannot butareinferredobserved, by individual’san introspection responses. Another is the mentalist approach, where an attitude is defined as “a mental and which is that an attitude is only what can be overtly observed from the individual’s behavior or is that waspreviously attitudes that of behaviorialistof the attitude, definition prevalent the theoretical I takein approach One inof terms approach defining attitudes. study the languageof Before considering the practical methodology study,of itthe is useful firstto addressthe status. minority linguistic surrounding discussion policy the affect can minorities linguistic towards attitudes between strongly linguistically nationalistic attitudes toward Georgianthe language and that interplay language policy, could which help political reestablish good andeconomic ties. Likewise, throughout periods of political strife, it is more likely to affect avote for amore Russian-friendly language (and subsequently culturethe literature andto of country)the remain positive between the countries if or when political hostility subsides. If attitudes towards the Russian because they future in of Georgia aresignificant can theplay relations a part determining Agheyisi, Rebecca and Fishman, Joshua A. “Language Attitude Studies: A Brief Survey of Methodological 84 There are advantages and limitations to both: for example, the behavioralist the for toboth: example, limitations advantages and Thereare 30 CEU eTD Collection 85 recollection of 1978proteststhe and youngerthe generation will have been up andbrought 1983-1986.I andyounger chose theseyears the group sothat olderthe have generation will of Georgians’the attitudesinto generations:two was born theolder group between 1954-1963, six were notnative to the capital. All were educated to the university level. Idivided up my study research in Tbilisi May 1-11, 2010.All of my respondents were living nearorin Tbilisi, though investigateIn order to fieldconducted language questions Iraisedthe I attitudes, surrounding schemes. measurement predetermined with questionnaires rigid overly than information valuable more much give can give that respondents the replies spontaneous andthe be can analyzed, replies measuring and quantifyingqualitative responses to interviews can be problematic, trends in quantitative moreopposed surveysto rigida with manner Whilethequestion of of replying. they were able to articulate their thoughts and emotions in a way that was natural for them, as interviewingfor technique themaximal allowed expression of becauseattitudes respondents’ individuals’ attitudes as defined bymy respondents themselves. Iused semi-structured the expressedby individual.an Therefore, Iusedinterviews asthe primary tool in touncover order quantify, Iadopt the definition of an attitude as that which is reflected upon, formulated and canbeexpresses limited by own psychological one’s andawareness isindeed difficultto andattitudes, this is approach the I employ.While one’sas attitude defined by he or shewhat data, reported isthis themost widely inaccepted andusedapproach study the languageof that gives way certainto kinds of behavior. Despite potential problems with the validity of self- approach – relies on inferring an attitude based on whatis shared by each person, a mental state by tojudgecriteria responses.which the Ibid. 85 The mentalist approach – also called the cognitive the called also – approach mentalist The 31 CEU eTD Collection 86 for in-depthfor replies would that notbe possible an without ambitious investmentof Theresources. financial and time commitment that was not possible. However, the small sample used allowed policy implications, this was out of the feasibility of this project as it would require a significant living in thataim Tbilisi. Whilestudies representative canhavemore far-reachingto societal and inpopulation, thislanguage case, what attitudes are among all Georgians,even or Georgians whole the of be representative cannot and sample the for chosen being individuals all of chance of all non-random methods of sampling is itthat is inherently biasedit as does notgive an equal samplingmethod wereavoided. The obviousother shortcoming of snowballsampling that is true and did not share their views. In this way, I think the most detrimental limitation of the snowball comefrom one group of acquaintances, andalsofor them individualsto think of did whoboth this problem by asking differentcolleagues through findwhich to my respondents sothey notdid friends who share their views and may consequently give similar replies. I attempted to mitigate they are likely haveto similar socioeconomic backgrounds and education, and can nominate drawback of using thesnowball sampling method is thatbecause know respondents one another, acquaintances of my colleagues and then their friends that fitmy study profile. One clear I used snowballthe method sampling would havemore sentiments of linguistic nationalism than youngerthe generation. that because the older group would have the experience of living under the Soviet era, that they groups, haveof course, experienced 2008armed the conflictwith Russia. Mysupposition was implementation of the 1989 laws,including the establishment of Georgian Language Day. Both with experience the andwillupwith era, havegrown indirect mostly post-Soviet educated the Bernard, Harvey Russell, Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Sage 2000: 179. 2000: Sage approaches, quantitative and qualitative methods: research Social Russell, Harvey Bernard, 86 to locate my respondents; beginning with the with beginning respondents; my locate to 32 CEU eTD Collection Georgian language, second the on Russianthe language,and thethird minority parton languages myI dividedinto parts: firstthe three toward wasconcerning attitudes the questionnaire possible andalso written took duringnotes interviews. the encouraged them to speak freely about their own opinions. Irecorded the interviews when possible. If a question was too vague ornot understood by my Irephrasedrespondent, itor neutral and soastoelicitcandidmost way open-ended possible the response complete and and wereas previously semi-structured qualitative innature.stated, Iaskedquestions in most the because they knew English better. Interviews lasted from 30 minutes to an hour and a half, and would have been willing to have the interview in Russian, and most opted for English simply myfor Even respondents. fivethe younger generation respondents Iinterviewed in English Russian. However, the use of Russian as the language of the interview was in no way a problem which I believe would have helped toeliminate some of the political undertones of the use of findprepared to if aninterpreter aninabilityI encountered an or speakunwillingness Russian, to Russian. However, Iwas aware of this as being a danger to the objectivity of my study, Iwas automatically pre-selecting both respondents had that knowledge of and touse willingness language of the interview could have been a limitation,in that there would be the danger of conducted all of the interviews with the older respondents in Russian. That I used Russian as the Of the younger respondents, I conducted five of eight in English, and the rest in Russian. I interviews in English or Russian, whichever language the respondent was more comfortable in. 16 in-depthgroup; interviewsin total. Igaveall my of the respondents option of conducting the I interviewed eight individuals from each age group, with an equal gender balance in each age more could their in accurately among assess place opinions other Georgia. findings of this study can then serve as a starting point for further research on this topic that 33 CEU eTD Collection granted special status level. a regionalgranted special on status government with languagesthe and opinions whether about or not minority the language should groups be a required In minority section languages,the subject. on Ifocused my onassociations questions asked whetherthe Russian language shouldbe taughtin schools,public and whetheritshould be protests, as well as associations with the language and practical use for it in Georgia today. Ialso had been a personal societal or shiftin feelingtoward the Russian, feelings toward 1978 the opinions on these questions. The section on the Russian language was focused on whether there givequalified to answers; ittook some explanation I was inthat factlooking for their personal they felt that I was looking for objective or scientific replies and stated that they were not importance of LanguageGeorgian Day and open questions invitinglanguage myth Often replies. in language included TheGeorgian section questionsGeorgia. identity, concerning the 34 CEU eTD Collection think it’s a necessity. Every person, every nation, should have a language. If he starts speaking indispensible, every nation is should speak their language own and think in theirlanguage. I place,” or “on the highest level.” For example, Tato, a52-year-old respondent stated that “it’s when speaking about the role of language to their national identity, as well as “it’s the first identity. Of olderthe group, many word‘objazatelno’used the or‘required’ or‘indispensible’ feelings of pride and attachment to theirlanguage, with some notmaking it aprinciple of among theolder while respondents, some of youngerthe did respondents not exhibitsuch strong understanding of the culture and essence of Georgia. Notably these replies were unanimous of uniqueness language,of their its importance for self-expression, importance the of Georgian language as amarker of national The identity. most common includedreplies a sense wasaconsensusBroadly myspeaking, there amongaboutimportance of the the respondents 4.1.1 Language as Identity and Special Characteristics others. language towards one’s andown attitudes understand of nature Finding this, the attachment wecanbetter interaction a strong to of the likecharacteristics musicality, beauty, uniqueness and – werecited by all my respondents. internal tothe mythsreferring ones intrinsic the –the mentioned byarespondent, were in Smith mentioned myths extrinsic the of one only though and myths, language partimportant of one’s national andidentity. cultural weredesigned Many questions toevoke is whichan language in to extent they important reveal the that Georgian are toward Attitudes 4.1 Attitudes towards Georgian Analysis 4: Interview Chapter 35 et all ’s work CEU eTD Collection 90 89 88 87 patriotism, understanding ofhistory,my understanding ofmyself.” nation. Languageis important because it’sjust not the language Ispeak – in itis my everything: “[f]orrepliedrespondent me, that language is theconcept of nation.the languageis Your your link between language andnation is deeply rooted in Vika,their consciousness. a26-year-old Most of the younger respondents also agreed on this subject, making clear that the notion of the language, I’ve neverthought about thismy partof identity.” and perhaps not as consciously. Levan G., a 26-year-old respondent stated that “I am my saying that languagethe is one of key the they things use when describing their country abroad, English [instead of Georgian], he is notGeorgian, he’s British.” unique…but on the it’s hand,other only million 4 people whospeakthis language andit’s not “…is my language is so there status: pride, because this reflect upon its international quick to wish. One 24-year-oldEsma, respondent, thelanguage’s acknowledged importance butwas language was not that important, emphasizing more the ability of people to self-identify as they in formation character: Georgian of its the importance the to pointed importance the further of agreed and in underscored studying literature Georgian Georgia and Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Zurab Adeishvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview with Tato Elisashvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. [dushevno] they are not. they may have the physical appearance and a Georgian last name, but spiritually the oneswho learned it in Georgian. And their cannot children be pure Georgians – none of them know who [the authors really] – are, they will never understand Russian in it like classics Georgian the learned and schools Russian to went who Those 88 36 90 Twoyounger said respondents that 87 Zurab, also 53years old, 89 Other younger respondents younger Other CEU eTD Collection 93 92 91 learn language. any other ability even the to them gives languages or in sounds other difficult normally learn Georgians helps pronunciation difficult the that claimed respondents Three pronounce sounds. difficult in is ability with the to connection theattitude interest Of particular of song.” not like anything else. We feel this, all it.of It is a wise language… it is the muse of poetry and rich. If youlisten to the poetry, the music, [the] Georgian [language] is something apart, that is “The literature, the poetry…the language is very musical – difficult, but very musical.And very old respondent, referred to the musicality of the language, and its ability to lend itself poetry:to destroying Georgian [the language] would bealoss for wholethe world.” place in world’sthe cultural Otar, a heritage. 25-year-oldsaid respondent, “Ilosing think or Georgian language and its relationship to languages,other aswell as an appreciationit for andits intoit translatingfeatures languages. toasense contribute other These of concerning the pride mentioned were that it is a musical language and that it has many synonyms, and a difficulty of also mentioned that there were three differentalphabets that changed over history. Also and that Georgian sounds are so difficult topronounce.When discussing the writing system, they Georgian language group), itthat had arich andtradition ancient with a unique writing system, ornotpart independent, of languagea largerfamily instead but the smallgroup Kartvelian (or languages, the most commonly cited answers were that it was a unique language in that it was When asked about the special characteristics of Georgian and what makes it different from other nothing.” means it weare useful country. the proud outside Of course languagebutof international our on level the Interview with Nino Tsrekidze, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview with Otar Berdzenishvili, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. Interview with Esma Merikishvili, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. 93 91 37 92 Nino T., a 49-year- CEU eTD Collection 95 94 4.1.2 Protests of 1978 and Georgian Language Day notmakedoes sensebecauseis it notapersonal achievement. Georgian. According to Misha, a 24-year-old respondent, the pride that many Georgians feel was a counter opinion as well, challenging the validity of the pride of the special features of able to counter a question that in his eyes was disparaging to Georgia and hurtful to him. There at once sincere. The ability pronounceto a word with 6 consonants was the way in which he was While no doubt Levan’s account was ironic and poking fun of his own excessive pride, but it was many Georgian letters. Levan many letters. Georgian G. recalls hisfirstexperience abroad: produce foreigners cannot in that or competition asenseof pride wasexpressed there Moreover, Interview with Mikheil Svanidze, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. short. here. To me, it’s the same to take pride in having blue or green eyes, or being tall or born here, it’s not some privilege. It’s just a coincidence or fact that you are born not your personal virtue, or something that you did or created, it’s just that you were that Georgian is not also partAnd of a cool. larger are language they think family.they Which I alphabet, find an kind having of in silly pride – it’stake Georgians Many funny. then they said wow, that’s cool,And now we mtsvrtneli? know yousay your can culture. was But today it’s alsomy counter-question then And then. electricity upset because of this question. Of course we didn’t have them, there was no light, no if we had vacuum cleaners. I was very upset. Of course I said yes, but I was very silence. It was 1999. And was then there there was one questions, guy, for Stefan asked I his when nameand was, he my country, asked me Ipresented Germany in I remember when I was younger I felt like this. When I was abroad for the first time mtsvrtneli. say can can do this. Someone went to the moon, someone createdwe the only atom cool andbomb, we It’s trainer]. [sports –mtsvrtneli row in a consonants 6 has that word being able to say. And we say only we can do this, and it’s very good. There isone There are a lot of letters that we can say that we can make fun of foreigners for not 95 94 38 CEU eTD Collection 97 96 existence. holiday’s the about know not did – generation younger the from both for her the language has a religious meaning. Both were part of the older generation. Only two – goes to church,as other the in and are held square the that meeting and activities to the goes one most had a positive association or attitude towards it,though only two actively celebrated it– 14 in TongueSquarein Mother the Tbilisi, in wasinstated 1989. When aboutasked this holiday, The holiday that emerged on the basis of these events, Georgian Language Day, celebrated April essencein the evenunderscored of protests the elitethat participated: Russian-speaking the Esma movements. nationalist Georgian the inconsolidating instrumental were events these that would ever dare to try again, this doing if Russia even over took Georgia.” country’s language from a serious threat, one even saying that theirprotected eventthat itas aheroic andimportant saw others The events. these about was this thatsaved the Georgian language. Of youngerthe respondents, only didnotknow one participated in them.All of them remember the events with a very positive attitude, saying that it personally had respondents generation older the of Five generation. younger the for as well those of the older generation who remembered – and many of whom participated in them – as for caseboth was the This mymajority of vastof the respondents. consciousness collective the Soviets’ move toreplace Georgian with Russian as the official language of Georgia were part of againstto speakoutthe streets in wenttothe language 1978whereThe protests Georgians Interview with Esma Merikishvili, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. language to be the official language. we even use Russian to Russian, communicatewe speak between Russian, know us,We but still,identity. we need the Georgiannationality, nation, with intervenes against the Russian language be to the official language. So you see how this At that time Russian was the elite language, and even the elites were protesting 97 39 she does not think that “anyone that think not does she 96 Two others stated CEU eTD Collection 102 101 100 99 98 purity the of languagethe andits being change.subject to While tworeferredwanting to to Georgian literary tradition as it used to be valued. And finally, there was a discourse surroundingthe value or read not does generation younger the that tradition; of loss the with concern a all that and secondcoming, havethe priests this. claimed recognized Orthodox One older respondent claimed a messianic future for the language - that it will be the language of forever”will “last Others were more optimistic, saying that the language will always live and flourish, even that it hopeful hopeful fate for theGeorgian language: a Eka, 25-year-oldshared respondent heron thoughts possibility:this spoke of possibilitythe of Georgianthe languageexist ceasingto if were state the to collapse. fate linked of respondents language the political fate of Interestingly, with the state. the three In speaking abouttheir perception futureof the of Georgian language,four of youngerthe TheFutureof theGeorgianLanguage4.1.3 Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Ekaterine Tsereteli, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. Interview with Papia Daredzhan, Tbilisi, May 7, 2010. Interview with Otar Berdzenishvili, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. exist. consciousness of a person. I think as long as the Georgian exists, the language will change but there are some things that are impossible to change, that exist in the tried to change things and they have haven’t people beenmany able and time to. Therea long are for some existed thingshas that Georgia happen. will Nothing Russians, or whoever,we will lose ourselves [and the language]. with the politics – if we will lose our identity and mix ourselveswith Americans or country…you have no stability. You cannot build a future. Iconnect the language world…when youhave waronce youa year, cannot connect yourself to your Sometimes when I am in a pessimistic mood, I think we will be…all over the 101 99 and “no one can touch the language.” 40 100 Otar, for example saw a more 98 102 There was also CEU eTD Collection 105 104 103 words. It would be better if we kept it the same as in the 15 language changed, better: “I the like would for it tostay pure, butthere area internationallot of Tato, on the other hand did not see the development as a positive one, arguing that the less the Similarly, Levan pointed to the use of international words as a necessity: development: Esma expressed language that is bound change to and saw its simplification a positive lower and class language. the damaging against all younger outfrom the generation—spoke influences certain thatthey be to perceive Georgian— peripheral the to referred that respondents three the influence, international the with weresomethere opinions infavor and against acceptingnatural the evolution of language the influence, and internal, peripheral Georgian influence that is perceived as ‘lower class’. While change were cited in driving the change in language:the international –mostly English— maintain the purity of the language in general terms, in other interviews two main agents of Interview with Tato Elisashvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Esma Merikishvili, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. because people will stop using them. Computers in the salons, iPod, google it. Andmany Georgian words will disappear countries do,maybe China. So if we take these things we have to take the words too. modern words if you create modern stuff, and we don’t create modern stuff. Western If we want to be a modern society, we have to use modern words. But, you have a nation. a misplaced, I don’t care about that. But what will stay is the basis for your identity as normal people to for use. There are some simplified, be peopleshould It who are upset change. aboutshould commas –it change will language that in tragedy sometimes thin, sometimes I have hair growing, sometimes I cut it. I don’t see any Language is something like a living organism…it’s like me - sometimes I am fat, 103 104 41 th century.” 105 Zaharia, a46-year-old Zaharia, CEU eTD Collection 108 107 106 stereotype. that was associated with the Mingrelian form of speech that is part of the “village man” Hethen they uncultured toaspecificare perceivedreferred as anduneducated. linguistic change which is a derogatory term for people who come from the provinces who come to Tbilisi, and of man,” thenotion a“village hadclass dwellers created urban upper the that explained Levan Vika thisview expressed andexplained where shethinksthe changecomesfrom: in dividesociety. of is a certain class Georgian symptomatic This communities. expressedgroup a fear of language Georgian from the changing peripheral Georgian from the respondents from the older generation; however, three respondents from the younger keep languagethe from changing in general terms as well as from international influence came respondent, also expressed that for him, “pure Georgian is nice to hear.” Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Zakharia Nadiradze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. different. because politicians also come from the regions. Idon’tlike it, because I was taught in my class out of 25 students, 10 use l’. Maybe in 20 years it will be normal, from Mingrelian they say l’ instead of l. We didn’t use it before, but they did. Like many people coming from the regions and bring their ownmanner ofspeech, like Tbilisi, and the capital used to generate modern Georgian culture. Now, there are of the influence from the regions. You know, half of Georgia’s population live in [I]n the future,maybe 20 years, the sound l [hard l] will switch to l’ [soft l]. Because these changes. …I am very afraid of this happening. ofthis afraid very am …I changes. these not the case. It’s that the uneducated masses in the periphery of the city that bring come from the villages from the provinces, but I have been there and saw that that is problem with the periphery and provinces. Many people think thatthese changes or so. There are a lot of new words, shortened words like in English. There is this I think that Georgian is at risk of extinction – maybe not now, but maybe in 50 years 108 42 107 106 A stronger desire to CEU eTD Collection 109 corresponded toanti-Russian language policies, theexpectedis result thatattitudes will also In the context of the increasingly tense relationship Georgia has had with Russia which have 4.2 Attitudes towards Russian section. in following is the to that discussed addition language andnational identity were tobe expected, relationshipthe they had toRussian in attached, thoughnearly stated that all they were proud of language.their The strongties totheir to language their asamarker identity, all were theiryounger of not the this of respondents nationalistic was in some way true. While all of the older respondents were very much attached provincesthe of MyhypothesisGeorgia. younger generation the that bewould linguistically less threatening to the urban literary version, perceived as ‘higher class’ than others that come from as are generally regarded that ones influences –particularly outside that felt others endure, respondents were content with the change in the language and felt confident in its basis to forits unique features is in some way translated into a desire for its purity. While some andnecessary aspect of theiridentity, aswell as many exhibiting asense of pride of language the mymost The importance of attributed to theGeorgianthat language aprimary as respondents low class I think.” Georgian. The hairdressers, for example, the Russian or Armenians, mix it completely. This is it. It’s ruining both languages. It’s better to speak clear and correct Russian or clear and correct level of education. She stated: “I think the mixing of Georgian and Russian is cheap, Idon’t like particularly Georgian and Russian, also indicating that this form of expression shows a lower Finally, Tatia, a24-year-old respondentexpressed disapproval of mixingthe of languages, Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. 109 43 CEU eTD Collection 111 110 explains Otar how separate worldsthe of andforlanguage him:politics are you are.” one knows, the richer one is,” languages “The ideathe reiterated more that Several her English. respondents she learned until education, knowledge that and of Russian hadthe literature language available madeEuropean to presence of Russian was so important that that the Russian language was essential for her know needlanguagethe frequent. weremost to the neighbor Vikaone’s stated the that the of and tradition literary rich the on Comments country. in the situation political the from separate feelingcommon language thatthey wasresponse thread very keep the the attitude and towards variation. They and cited respect admirationforall theRussianand languageandculture, a minor very with negative in the replied my respondents all time, over changed has language beingIn response to not askedaboutwhetheror their personal towards attitude Russianthe 4.2.1 Change in Attitude – Personal and Society views. more Georgia,to judgebe conducted extensive though research various should breakdown the of in remains that view is a Russian towards attitude a positive that show findings These volatile. be identity, as well as the tumultuous history of the two countries, attitudes towards Russian could isattitudes account farfrom into Takingclear. the languageGeorgian of asaindicator strong correspond. However, previous surveys and research have shown that the picture with regard to Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Nodar Yesiava, Tbilisi, May 7, 2010. 111 the language. I know that all these problems come from personalities. If their 2008 conflict began. Buteven so I never anything felt negative towards Russiansor I worked as a translator for the U.S. army, I finished my work two days before the 110 or “asmanythat languages as you know is how many people 44 CEU eTD Collection 113 112 political and economic orientation and not because of a kind of hatred or aversion to the Russian international changing country’s of the wasaresult this claimedthat Several respondents and speakeither no poor Russianor all,at even though Russian is still intaught primary schools. learningsubsequently are English Russianover now. Many youngmore people English speak and Union European the and values Western towards orientation country’s changing From the perspective of the change in society, as expected, most respondents spoke of the Russian. education does indicate a shift, however small,in the attitude for his son’s knowledge of value that the Russian literature heldfor them. However,attitude Tato’s about his son’s that they valued, and the political situation that was no doubt painful formany did not erase the them,For ability the readRussianto classics in originalthe was a precious andskillimportant of generations’ knowledge language: the Tato underscores dividethis aswell, alsoa hinting though slight at shift towards futurethe Interview with Tato Elisashvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview with Otar Berdzenishvili, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. biggest stupidity is tohate a be to blame for anything. It’s alanguage that has Gorky, Chekhov. I think the for himself. but if there is achoice, I would choose English. But I’m not adictator, he can decide I would have said yes. war, But the now,before no. Forme that my son, asked ifhad he you If can learn both, schools]? [in all the required better, be [Russian] Should attitude thetowards language over one idiot, Putin. that I love, that I enjoy reading in Russian. So I am not going to change my whole language. Because werethere geniuses of the 19th –Dostoevskii,Century Chekhov the with do to nothing has this Though life. my of rest the for maybe remain president is abastard, it’s not their fault. Moreover, Idon’t think that a [T]he events of 2008 left me with a hurt that of course that I still feel and will 113 language . 112 45 language can CEU eTD Collection 115 114 people that know that Russia is not Putin, there are people who believe everything they hear and hear they everything believe who people are there Putin, not is Russia that know that people society that are anti-Russian completely, that believe what the television shows. Then there are layers of different “…there are stated that messages. Otar government Georgian anti-Russia the My respondents were almost uniformly of the same opinion. Some expressed alarm and regret at with politically Russia. reunite know Russian and have a common pastwant to go back to the times of the Soviet Union or my respondents. Then they articulated that was a more extreme view that because Georgians the language has a rich and valuable literary tradition. This was the view held personally by all of foreign language, that itis important toknow a large and powerful neighbor’s language and that view that it should be continue to be taught in schools, primarily on a voluntary basis and as a the people who claim that they should know “the language of the enemy.” Georgians should not learn it because they are the aggressors and bombed us, and then there are people could learn two languages in the time it takes to master Russian. Others say that some claim that Russian is simply too complicated and from a practical point of view, that that society is divided – some say that Georgians should notlearn Russian anymore. Of them, Then they spoke of the social attitudes they feel exist within Georgia on the issue. They agreed languagetheir own sufficiently and beingtooaccommodatingRussian-speakers. to by well it. Tatiawithout had that described tolerating amounted this toGeorgians not respecting they knew who worked at bakeries or local enterprises who had never learned Georgian and got language, culture orpeople. Several cited Russian neighborsthat they had growing people upor Interview with Levan Shatberashvili, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. 46 115 Then there is the there Then 114 CEU eTD Collection study opinionsthe of teenagers whohave hadless of this exposure. allowedthat them counter to governmental the messageit, against while itwould be ofinterest to younger generation respondents stillhad enough positive experiences with Russianthe language 119 118 117 116 personal experience with Russia and can easier dismiss the negative attitude.” Zaharia put it this way: “The younger generation is more angry. The older generation has more governmental messages:governmental younger than my younger respondents,have their Russian attitudes towards shaped by these that so younger the yearsexpressed regret or – ten Lika, a47-year-old generation respondent judgebetter and5 2008 conflictto 10years to that areneeded. how the change has happened, and that itis too early to tell about the wider-scale effects of the many are is there This scary.” more. primitive Russian?’ There’s about 10 percent of them in that generation. But in our generation are Georgian from writers, years40-50 of startsayingage, that ‘why we needdo this stupid, anti-Russian propaganda that is really unhealthy at this point. Not only political; there are there for themselves.” people whothink are then there Interview with Zakharia Nadiradze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Lika Tsirekidze, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Otar Berdzenishvili, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. but they have their own opinion after all and they don’t like Russian. like don’t they and all after opinion own their have they but and they see how it affects us – our nerves, financially, everything. We don’t say it, I think so anyway. I think it’s on TV, they always speak so badly of the Russians, don’t like it, like [my 16-year-old son] Niko and his doesn’t generation like Russian. either –this is wrong inmy opinion. You should know the language. Butchildren Some people say thatif we don’t like weRussia, shouldn’t like the Russian language 117 Others emphasized the need tostudy the attitudes and 47 116 Vika echoed this view, saying that “[t]here is 118 119 Becausethe CEU eTD Collection 121 120 Russian. know fordubbingis allfilms,it or Georgian as well lesscritical laws subtitles to as recent requiring are moreandbooks beginning be andbetter, is to translated there more accesstoEnglish books, read them in the original or other international works translated into Russian. However, now the to much badexisted morewas preferable were andit that the translations that stated They also in wererequiredthat in textbooks departments. were Russian, specifically sociology and art the have notcouldknowledgein of atthattimeRussian because studied without university the younger statedthat Several they respondents simply generation person’s environment. career and respondents agreed that it was very useful before, but today the situation depends on each When asked if the Russian language is useful in Georgia, I received a variety of answers. Most 4.2.2 Use of Russian inGeorgia and family. cultured educated more from Russiana normally good came peoplespoke who wasasocial that there perception whole former Soviet Union, and for me this cultural space still exists.” Russian provides access to: “[there is a] cultural space between Russia and Georgia and the Soviet Union has long collapsed, that there continues to be a cultural domain that knowledge of the though that felt they that sentiment a was There films. those from come that jokes the as well as NewYear’sfilm filmslikethe classic werealsosignificant, andParom” “SLegkim others Russian literature in the original, and that this was a socially encouraged pastime. The cult connected with memories of childhood television programs, books, and also reading classic Among the younger respondents,personal associations with Russian werefor mostthe part Interview with Esma Merikishvili, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010; Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Mikheil Svanidze, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. 121 48 120 Moreover, previously, CEU eTD Collection 124 123 122 education: generation of my respondents. Knowledge of Russian for them is a kind of litmus test of general distrust or disapproval of those Georgians who were raised at the same time as the younger Finally, there is the view that national-level politicians should know Russian, and a general relationship there.” relationship “it’s not that useful,but we should know it because we are neighbors, and there will always be a Most respondents agreed that the need or use for Russian has diminished. Nino B.claimed that sometimes skewedtranslations. sometimes tobeorder able get to information the in make original the and to decisions uninfluenced by in and in general) Georgian than better simply was press Russian the that said respondent (one necessary or desired. Another is the ability to read the Russian press – both for the information Russian useful. One was career opportunities; many of them cite knowledge of Russian to be neighborly relations with Russia, there were several reasons my respondents found knowledge of Russian is indispensable for her: useful for inter-ethnic communication. Vika, as a director and writer, stated that knowledge of use. Zaharia usesRussian every day in because he lives an mixed ethnically region, andis it spiritual texts in Old Church Slavonic, which is sufficiently similar to modern Russian to be of Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Nino Berishvili, Tbilisi, May 7, 2010. really complementsmy self-expression, Ineed it. write in Georgian, and I am Georgian and I am very proud of that. But Russian understood that it’s easier for me to write literature in Russian. Of course for work I It’s essential for me – five or six years ago, I started writing in Russian and I 122 However, besides reasons of personal enrichment and inescapable 123 Papia shethat stated needs knowledge of Russian tostudy 49 124 CEU eTD Collection 125 andthat mostneighbor powerful biggest and Russia is wereagain Georgia’s reasons that learning. Others felt comfortable with it continuing to be a mandatory subjectin schools. The enough importantitexpressed, because theyconsidered for younger continuethe generation to to Russian. Some views of having it be mandatory but not on an extensive basis were also to, butalso notwantingevoke to previous generations’ coercive educational policy with regards not option the had if they it study would no one that fear the of because mandatory it make to not only second to English. However, there was some hesitation surrounding the issue of whether or be given the option about what language they wish to study. Some said it should be taught as as well. Most said that it should be taught as any other foreign language, and that students should When for asked opinions Russian about beingin taught schools,public allviewed thisfavorably 4.2.3 Teaching Russian in Public Schools but notactively seeking it out. –that motivated viewingthey – for practicefavorably tutor pay aprivate would to speaking extra invest any more effort in improving it. The rest wanted improveto it, varying from very the language. Two were satisfied with theirlevel of Russian and did not feel that they wanted to of levels near-native or native than less have who those for attitude favorable overwhelmingly With regards toward improvement of their knowledge of the Russian language, there were Interview with Levan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. never make a system that is grounded in education. in grounded is that system a make never need big politicians today who promise something for our country because they will learning Russian. They weren’tdoing anything – definitely not learning. And I don’t watch TV. Then explain to me what you were doing whileeven everyone or else wasread, didn’t you correctly, school go to didn’t you means that don’t, you they should know this language. Ifyou’re 35 today, youhave to know Russian. If politicians who don’t speak Russian. They lived in the time of the Union,Soviet If you want to be big in politics you have to speak Russian. I don’t trust today’s 50 125 CEU eTD Collection 127 126 languages: below Idescribe my respondents’ attitudes towardsAbkhaz and Mingrelian. Ialso basis of territory. Though the replies were mixed, there were positive views of these groups’ minorities grantingto apparent in views onthe specialstatus held,particularly concerning the The tension between favoring more freedoms and official rights and the fear of separatism was is in interestGeorgia’s tomaintain andpeace, positive attitudes towards languagestheir can help. it violence, to leading sometimes volatile, ishighly region inthis groups minority of alignments and is important Becausetherelations testamentGeorgian tothelong-lasting tradition. an Minority languages have always been part of the social fabric of Georgia. Their coexistence with 4.3 Attitudes towards Minority Languages society. in Georgian arerepresented views these how extent positive,more a extensive and representative studyis nodoubt necessary adequatejudgeto the differentlayers of society holding ranging various attitudes, from extremely negative to quite policies do not fully correspond with the anti-Russian policies. Many respondents spoke of some presence in Georgian society. This highly positive attitude indicates that the anti-Russian mythat foundrespondents for its use andhoped itthat would continue tobe taught andmaintain seen as while diminishing in importance on a societal level, there continued to be ample reasons Russian was overwhelmingly seen as an asset to know. Though the language and culture were absolutely teach them Russian, no way that Iwould not do that.” study Russian is very clear. She said for her own family that “when I have children I will tradition.” “[sadly,] Georgia’s fate will always be tied to Russia” and “that it would not be good to lose the Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Levan Shatberashvili, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. 126 Tatia, while promoting the view that it should be optional,felt that the need to 51 127 CEU eTD Collection mixed family not does speak Abkhaz) thatshe(but explained feels with it comfortable andis language, it should be second to Georgian if they are living in Georgia. Eka, who comes from a Lika and both shared NinoT. while views that they useandsupport the development of their as weak, dying inby and some constructed 20 the language,group’s and sharedtheirothers dispassionately. knowledge Thelanguage isdescribed preservingits linguistic while traditions, others wereskeptical of depthandthe validity of the very mixed views. Some saw their speaking Abkhaz very positively as a culture that was rhetoric did notgo further. With regards to the actual attitude toward the language, there were region.the They all viewed a return Abkhaziaof toGeorgian control very butpositively, their they were informed about the conflict intellectually, they did not have feelings of attachment to totheregion,exposure andhadhard a Abkhazia time viewing asa minority.Georgian While Abkhazia they in because had information little hadand of general so towards alienation because they tooyoung rememberwere to conflict the of 1990s.Mostthe of them had afeeling about the language. Almost all youngerthe respondentshad nothad any withcontact Abkhazia knowledge of and experience ofAbkhazia,meeting Abkhaz people and knowing something in difference wasasignificant there Abkhazlanguage, the toward attitudes In discussing 4.3.1 Abkhaz well. as groups these towards also attitudes some if groups learnthey but also Georgian; minority last indicates the section languageon status hadlanguageminority Most both apositive werepertinentthe that towards to attitudes. attitude Questions about attitudes toward Armenian and Azerbaijani communities did not yield replies evoked evenless response. this now, group fewin so Lazremaining Georgia are there because asked about Svan and Laz, but there were few replies in relation to the Svan language, but 52 th century. CEU eTD Collection 132 131 130 129 128 and they don’t have their own word for ‘sea’.” the Abkhaz language. They don’t have their own language. They live for centuries near the sea, created.” Nodar adds to this opinion:“The Abkhaz didnothave before, writing itwas artificially 4.3.2 Mingrelian favorablemore views towards languagethe andits use. Thosewhoattitudes. claimed have to less knowledge about originsthe of Abkhaz tendedtohave divide forand arepresentto in and political areevident purposes Georgia conquer negativethe Russia: of involvement the before identity had apan-Georgian Mingrelians today, to similar and Georgia of part historically Abkhaz were tradition.” nowritten have speakRussian.Then they practically the This is shown by the fact that the mass media in Abkhazia are notwriting or speaking Abkhaz – that all the words begin with ‘A’. But what I think is that the Abkhaz language is lost, it’s dying. language well.” language war,becausetheir the own they theywerecriticizedknow after that notdidtheir “they improving learning language.happy or that they that states She started theirare speaking Interview with Zurab Adeishvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview with Nodar Yesiava, Tbilisi, May 7, 2010. Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Levan Shatberashvili, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview with Ekaterine Tsereteli, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. 131 there there wouldn’t be an Abkhaz language.” It’s a mixture of its Abzhywa originswith Mingrelian. Without this construction, Georgians. And the language was created in the 1960s, a professor wrote about it. that have lost sight of their roots. It’s not true that they were different from If you lookat a map of13th Century itGeorgia, included Abkhazia –it’s a people Zurab expresses an unfavorable attitude: “I have very negative associations toward 128 Levan S. claims notknow hedoes much about Abkhazthe language, “only 132 130 53 The feelings that the language was constructed 129 Vika maintains that the that maintains Vika CEU eTD Collection 134 133 personal personal valuecultural of language: the you. Ienjoy much.” them very sweet andso beautiful, they captivate television. Nino T. expressed an affinity for Mingrelian songs: “I love Mingrelian songs, they are actively by itencouraging to be taughtin haveschools, original Mingrelian newspapers and a written tradition and some even expressed a desire to learn the language, as well as preserve it Mingrelianit said was greathaving about that they not linguisticdespite tradition preserved their even those who had unfavorable views of them. Those who had extremely positive opinions Georgians understand. whodon’t had Otherrespondents Mingrelian oracquaintances,relatives of company in the when even Mingrelian only speak to tend and rude arrogant, are they that Georgiaincluding to languages referring and of negative the to others Mingrelians, stereotypes There wereopinions expressing greatculturalthe value andimportance of minoritythe region. from the they also that were when languagesasked what they speak; Iaskedonly aboutMingrelianswhen did mention they well. my Two of respondents wereMingrelians,neither though said they that spoke Mingrelian mostthe living populous, in regionthe of Samegrelo (Mingrelia) and previously in Abkhazia as Mingrelian, Svan, and Laz, the biggest response was concerning Mingrelians, because they are minorities linguistic the but Georgian ethnically other with associations their about asked When Interview with Otar Berdzenishvili, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. Interview with Nino Tsrekidze, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. something very valuable for Georgia,diversity is beautiful. children say. For them it’s important, but for me, for example, it’s not. It’s something personal. You know, sometimesmothers write down what their young their own. It’s a treasure of for Georgia. something have It wouldthey that be goodgreat to it’s know them, Ithink but but I think it’sMingrelian, or Svan know I don’t 54 134 133 Otar spoke of the CEU eTD Collection 135 desire speak to languagetheir who even those around donot understandit: Esma states her view on the reason behind the perceived rudeness of Mingrelian Georgians’ opinion opinion of Mingrelians: steal. Zurab,he though has Mingrelian andknows relatives language,the speaks of his negative named was that elite groups of Mingrelians had formed during the war and came to the city to was that stereotype one Mingrelians, towards alsosomevery attitudes negative There were dialect of Laz. Others said Mingrelian is a dialect of Georgian. claimed that Laz and Mingrelian are essentially the same language, and that Mingrelian is a from Mingrelian Whichtoo.” language camefrom iswhat a matter,disputed one respondent though [we] have no writing system, that Georgian came from Mingrelian, and that Laz comes things.” Nodar, himself a Mingrelian, remembered: “[We] Mingrelians have a joke, that even native language is Georgian, buttheirmother istongue Mingrelian, asif they are twodifferent surrounding theirlanguage. Nino T.also recalled that “the Mingrelians have a saying - their Mingrelian sayings recalled bymy respondents seemed toindicate aspecial feeling of pride Interview with Zurab Adeishvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. is the dual characteristic of this – the Georgian hates the Mingrelian for speaking speak in my language? I know thislanguage and I will speak in this language.’ This group they are eager to fight for their language, like ‘who are you to tell me not to why should they speak this other language; they should speak Georgian. As asmall is one but. It’s there still But because others. of to Georgians attention thatpay they not started and this ‘language Mingrelian war’speak – that always will Mingrelians now they are the most dangerous. And fight. to have not would they that so Georgian not and Abkhaz were they said exempted small nationalities from fighting, like the Abkhaz. And the Mingrelians best kind of Georgian, royalty. You know in the Second World War, Stalin (Mingrelia). They are shameless - when they go to Russia they say that they are the Of all the corners of Georgia, the most shameless people are from Samegrelo 135 55 CEU eTD Collection 137 136 respondents said that Georgian should be thefirstlanguage for this reason forand Russia advantage could take of potentialthis separatism anduseit to take over Georgia. Most woulda fear of language forthe separatism, motivation give status that regions also the and was that they were against Georgian not being the primary language in those regions. There was general feeling from majoritythe my of whorespondents said they minority were against status the However, some respondents. unclear to madeit question of nature the general the because not having enoughinformation on issue.the Thequestion also could havebeen more specific, multiculturalism to debate informedSome the divided. about andsurrounding admitted werenot When whatasked their opinion was on linguisticgiving minority status, respondentsthe were 4.3.3 Special status their behavior arrogant; asrudeor though national identity both remains Georgian. suggest Mingrelians the reacttoafeeling imposition of of Georgian, andGeorgians interpret My respondents’ description of some Georgians’ andmutual Mingrelians’ seemeddislike to something that drives at the essence of the Georgian nation and its nature. Vika and the tensions minorities language perceives betweenthelinguistic majority Georgian as Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Esma Merikishvili, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. first,’ and the other, ‘no, we were.’ unhealthy chauvinism between Georgians, on both sides. One side says ‘we were interesting, but then on the other hand, because of this you can encounter an stupid pride,bit a over-the-top patriotism. On one hand slightly – the their existence is very character national Georgian our constitutes existence [Mingrelians’] live in peace. in live Just language. their imposing for Georgians hates Mingrelian the and Mingrelian 136 137 56 CEU eTD Collection 138 The last is that by giving minority status, you create an artificial separation in the society that is because inmaintaining thesupport language they without enough their of state. are active the much anyway andis not important; related to idea the that groups the don’t need status the very decide not does policy government the that was Another neglect.’ ‘benign of argument –the encourage nor forbid –neither matters in these interfere not simply should government the Onewasthat arguments. other cited several minority ideathe of status against Others speaklanguageslatter that have becausethe Azerbaijani, titular nations. respondentwas for giving theMingrelian and Svan but status regions not for Armenian and learn. Others were very much for giving all of the regions who wanted itminority status. One that but have if they more integrated, opportunities be that they are forcedthey not should to is it because for – shouldin Georgian better Armenianthem minorities learn the Azerbaijani and Some were of the opinion that the minorities who donot know Georgian – referring primarily to separated Abkhazia from from Abkhazia Georgia: separated Nodar expressed this viewand reflects on this asone of key the politicaldivisive that policies minorities using and developing theirlanguages. of the supportive were respondents the Otherwise theregions. between communication Interview with Nodar Yesiava, Tbilisi, May 7, 2010. have wanted a conflict, they would have felt a part of Georgia. part a felt have would they conflict, a wanted have been a conflict in Abkhazia because they would know and respect us, and wouldn’t official affairs should be in Georgian. If this were the case, then there wouldn’t have Special status should be given to protect the culture, in schools for example. But 57 138 CEU eTD Collection 139 language as a cornerstone of their national identity as well be accepting of other languages and languages other of beaccepting well as identity national their of cornerstone a as language maintain have them to factors allowed their of acertain that combination indicates Georgia many respondents to Russianthe language, as well as to English minority and to languagesin policies inform attitudes but also that attitudes can inform policies. The positive only attitudesthat of not is orientation: international country’s the of course the affect subsequently and follows that in a democratic setting, positive attitudes on a social level can then inform It policy strife. political of times and policies dissuasive of context in the even languages other multiple bases to a large extent its identity on language can also maintain positive attitudes towards On a broader theoretical level, the findings indicate the people of a country like Georgia that status. special minorities politics. Opinions were divided about Mingrelian and Abkhaz, as well as whether or not to grant itfor their education and professional development despite negative attitudes toward Russian knowledgepoorer of Russian as a whole,had but positive improving feelings toward it and using worked in Russia and hadRussian friends oracquaintances. The younger generation had a of Russian because theyhadwith hadmore contact in Russia most past, hadvisitedthe and/or andrespondents, older the among and perhapsmorememories generation there positive attitudes had expected. Attitudes towards Georgian and its preservation were important across all of the In sum, there was nota clear divide along generational lines in terms of language attitudes as I 4.4 Implications there is only us.” is no “Therein them, future: can tothe society the be anddamaging in that not divisive place, Interview with Tatia Shavgulidze, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. 139 58 CEU eTD Collection be beneficial be peace beneficial in promote helping in region.the Georgians too far and generated a mass resistance. The further study of these conditions would to replace Georgian with Russian astheofficial language thatthis showed move pushed move Soviets’ showedthatthe protests 1978 ofthe example the of attitudes, these formation the is Whileit cultures. outside whattheconditions scopeof to examine this the contribute study to 59 CEU eTD Collection of Foreign Languages Bulletin, Vol. 39, Nos. 2 & 3, Winter-Spring 2008: 11. 140 policy. element of one’s being and necessary for self-expression, and that this must be reflected in maintains that language andinextricably – identity are connected languagethat is an integral ability. The opposing perspective, by called andDe Schutter Boyden constitutivethe view, function,instrumental view dismissing the language that canmean more its than communicative Some maintain that language policy should bebuilt exclusively on a perception languageof in its Conclusion that the difference between stark.This olderthat between the difference was not the andyounger cansuggestthat generation the Georgian language, attitudes towards Russian need not be negative – the two can coexist, and Georgian, Russian and minority languages are that however strong the feeling of attachment is to The key findings from study this of a small sample of qualitative interviews on attitudes towards unanimous. arenot of negative Russian perceptions language suggestedthat on conducted attitudes polls However, English. of favor in Russian eliminate to in aiming independence since time Stalinist period, giving rise tothe Georgian movement,nationalist buthave gonefurtherin the dominance languagein of resolutely tothe repressivereasserted Georgian the post- resistance identity for many Georgians. Consequently,language policies in have Georgia not only a sense of how reflects language of clear becomes it, picture the surrounding debate rights independence. In reviewing this history, multilingual the nature of country the and themodern this has been reflected in the history of its opposition to Russification from before Soviet rule to De Schutter, Helder and Boyden, Michael. “The Ethics of Language Planning,” The Association ofDepartments Association The Planning,” ofLanguage Ethics “The Michael. Boyden, and Helder Schutter, De 140 This study has attempted to show that for Georgia, the constitutive view prevails, and 60 CEU eTD Collection that reveal Russian that towards attitudes positive and minority islanguages verymuch possible. language in orin Georgia Tbilisi,my findings havegleaned animpression of language attitudes inWhile my forresearch noway yields results disparitiesin representative toward attitudes wouldattitudes alsobe highly valuable. language in attitudes this Moreover, context. study of conditionsthe thatprovide positive for direction would be to examine the influence of the mass media, both on television and online on positive childhood memories of Russian television, film and literature. Alsointeresting in this respondents, born 1983-1986,many whom of still havecommand agood of Russian andhave political this climate, will effect likely havea on languagegreater than for attitudes myyounger anti-Russian an with combined films and television language Russian limiting legislature with more disparate results. Theyounger generation will have evenless knowledge of Russian and studying the attitudes of eventhe younger generation, born1994 and after, wouldlikely yield research, further in For attitudes language Georgia. of study and representative comprehensive I hope my study can serve as a useful starting point for those who can conduct a more ideals.these relations, and perhaps based on such findings policies can be shaped in such a way to as foster canleadmoreintegration. cultural attitudes peacefulincreased Positive to political and cultural peaceand arealsodoomedpossible, whichcanbe attitudes tothis: positive to conducive negative attitudes can be divisive and lead to atomization of the region, but the country is not – dominance linguistic Georgian and Russian of interplay in the role important an play languages of communication and accesstooutsideattitudes opportunity. towardsminority Moreover, beneficial in that it allows the preservation of cultural identity while offering an additional means be can Russian of use and dominance language Georgian between balance right the striking 61 CEU eTD Collection as they informedare by past,they the can inform equally future. the identity formation in language. to respect Ultimately, weshouldlanguage study attitudes because knowing this, governments and citizens alike would have a better idea about the dynamics of whether policies will remain secondary to other factors that truly inform such attitudes. In identities alotplacing valueof onlanguage can be moldedshaped or by action,government or national pronounced deeply with societies in language whether to as insight valuable a gives notlanguageFinding whether or policy language changes overtime towards match attitudes 62 CEU eTD Collection II. I. 7) 6) 5) 4) 3) 2) 1) Basic information Appendix: Questionnaire Other languages spoken and proficiency Time spent abroad First/native language, language of education Profession Origin in country/region Year, date of birth Name Russian d. c. b. a. Georgian Georgian language myths: language Georgian significance does the day have for you? What do? do you what yes, If not? why or Why Day? Language Georgian celebrate you Do them? about think do you What protests? Georgian language? Did you participate? Younger Older generation why? important, If identity? your to language your is important How iii. iv. ii. i. you think they do it?) What doyou think of foreigners coming to study the Georgian language? (Why do apart from other languages? What special characteristics, if any, do you think the Georgian language has that set it etc, or linguistic evolution) Whatdo you think will happen with the Georgian language in the future? (status,use, What doyou think about the origins of yourlanguage how and it relates toothers? : what are your memoriesof the 1978 protests againsteliminating the Attitudes 63 : what do you know about the 1978 CEU eTD Collection III. b. a. languages Minority c. b. a. Should they be granted autonomy or special status by the government? Why or why not? why or Why government? the by status special or autonomy granted be they Should Georgia: What are your associations or attitudes in relation to the following minority languages in Future Present Past iii. iii. iv. ii. ii. ii. i. i. i. i. linguistic majority of neighboring countries) and ethnicity of titular members bilingual, not (communities Azerbaijani Armenian, in Georgian) bilingual are that minorities linguistic (small Svan Laz, Mingrelian, Abkhaz (de facto under Russian control, Abkhaz official language in Abkhazia) schools? public in taught be to continue Russian Should Do youwant to learn or improve your knowledge of Russian? Do you find knowledge of Russian useful in Georgia? with? Russian associate Georgians most think you do What Russian? with associations your are What Russian language since Augustthe 2008conflict? the change occur,what events? Hasthere been a change in attitude towards did using the When Russian? with relationship inits change society Georgian see you do How (What period, event, association, experience)? Has your attitude towards Russian changed over time? If so, what made it change 64 CEU eTD Collection 16. 15. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 14. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. References April 23, 2010). 2008: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/russian-language-enjoying-boost-postsoviet-states.aspx (accessed Gradirovski,Sergei and Esipova,Neli, “RussianLanguage Enjoying a Boost inPost-Soviet States,” August 1, Cambridge University Press, Sep., 1989. Gold, David, “A Sketch of the Linguistic Situation in Israel Today,” http://www.dcenter.ru/eaes/policy/200801_1.pdf (accessed 24, April 2010). Prognosis), ɫɨɫɬɨɹɧɢɟɢɩɟɪɫɩɟɤɬɢɜɵ Transformation in Asia,” of Central ‘Transformation’ Soviet “The William, Fierman, http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=1292&info_id=25407 (accessed April 25, 2010). 2009, 5, November of Georgia, Parliament Sitting,” Committee Culture and Science “Education, reprinted in 11HUM.L. RTS. J. 232 (1990). 30, '9 [O]SCE of the Dimension Human onthe Conference of the Meeting Copenhagen of the Document Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin, Vol. 39,Nos. 2 & 3, Winter-Spring 2008. of Association The Planning,” ofLanguage Ethics “The Michael. Boyden, and Helder De Schutter, (accessed May 26, 2010). Republic of Armenia,” 18 February 2002, http://www.edu.am/ArticleIndex.php?id=425&topMenuArt=-1 Decisionof Armenian the Government # 138, on “Establishing state program on language policy in the en.pdf (accessed 19, April 2010). 1995, February http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/1_AtGlance/PDF_H%281995%29010_FCNM_ExplanReport_ Minorities,” of National Protection the for Convention Framework “The of Europe, Council The 1981. Gavrilov, K., Kozievskaya, E., Yaschenko, E., « Comrie, Bernard, (accessed April 19, 2010). Constitution of Georgia, available at http://www.parliament.ge/files/68_1944_951190_CONSTIT_27_12.06.pdf 2000. Sage approaches, quantitative and qualitative methods: research Social Russell, Harvey Bernard, Donald, Peckham, and Christina Paulston, Bratt in Caucasus,” the in Minorities “Linguistic Sergei, Arutuitonov, Politics of Race, Ethnicity, andLanguage in National Censuses, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Arel, Dominique, “Language categories in censuses: backward- or forward looking?” Census and Identity: The Approaches,”Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 12,No.5,May, 1970. Methodological of Survey ABrief Studies: Attitude A.“Language Joshua Fishman, and Rebecca Agheyisi, Abrahamian, Levon, “Armenian Identity in aChanging World,” Mazda Publishers 2006. Linguistic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, ɗɤɨɧɨɦɢɱɟɫɤɨɟɨɛɨɡɪɟɧɢɟ , Westview Press, 1991. The Languages of theSoviet Union » (The Russian Language in the New Independent States: the Present situation and situation Present the States: NewIndependent the in Language Russian (The » 1/2008, Ɋɭɫɫɤɢɣɹɡɵɤɜɧɨɜɵɯɧɟɡɚɜɢɫɢɦɵɯɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɚɯ Ɏɨɧɞ 65 , Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, « ɇɚɫɥɟɞɢɟȿɜɪɚɡɢɢ MultilingualMatters, 1998. Language in Society, Vol. 18, No. 3, Soviet Central Asia: The Failed » : ɬɟɤɭɳɟɟ CEU eTD Collection 42. 41. 40. 39. 38. 37. 36. 35. 34. 33. 32. 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship, ClarendonPress, Oxford, 1995. Central Asia: The Failed Transformation Kriendler, Isabelle, “Forging a Soviet People: Ethnolinguistics in Central Asia,” In Fierman, William; (accessed April 24, 2010). http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i3a5fb1561d2145a38d9aa5667e982f0b Kozlov,Vladimir, “Georgia to Ban Films in theRussian Language,” April 22, 2010, THR International, Education System,” Cimera, April 2005. Korth, Britta; Stepanian, Arnold and Muskhelishvili, Marina; “Language Policy in Georgia with a Focus on the Interview Nodarwith Yesiava, Tbilisi,May 2010.7, Interview with Mikheil Svanidze, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. Interview with TatiaShavgulidze, Tbilisi,May 2010.6, Interview with Levan Shatberashvili, Tbilisi, May 6, 2010. Interview Ninowith Tsrekidze, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview Likawith Tsirekidze, Tbilisi,May 2010.5, Interview with Ekaterine Tsereteli, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. Interview Zakhariawith Nadiradze, Tbilisi,May 2010.6, Interview with Esma Merikishvili, Tbilisi, May 3, 2010. Interview with Vika Giorgobiani, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview withLevan Ghambashidze, Tbilisi, May 4, 2010. Interview with Tato Elisashvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. Interview Papiawith Daredzhan, Tbilisi, May 2010.7, Interview with Nino Berishvili, Tbilisi, May 7, 2010. Interview withOtar Berdzenishvili, Tbilisi, May 5, 2010. Interview withZurab Adeishvili, Tbilisi, May 10, 2010. 2200A, March 23, 1976. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,Article 27, adopted throughGeneral Assembly resolution Ossetia,”South January 2009, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0 (accessed April 24, 2010). Human Rights Watch, “Up in Flames: Humanitarian Law Violations and CivilianVictims in the Conflict over 2010). Television,” December2007, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/19/crossing-line (accessed April 24, Human Rights Watch, “Crossing the Line: Georgia’s Violent Dispersal of Protesters and Raid onImedi National Identities,” of Soviet Russian Formation Review, the and Vol. 59, No. 2, Border-Making 2000. Nations: of Empire an “Toward Francine, Hirsch, A., Lenore Grenoble, Green, Leslie, “Internal Minorities and their Rights,” The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford Press, 1995. Language Policy in the Soviet Union , Westview Press, 1991. 66 , KluwerAcademic Publishers 2003. Soviet CEU eTD Collection 45. 44. 43. 56. 55. 54. 53. 52. 51. 50. 49. 48. 47. 46. 59. 58. 57. Lewis, E. Glyn, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/europe/27russia.html (accessed April19, 2010). Levy,Clifford J.,“Russia Backs Independence of Georgian Enclaves,”New York Times, August 26, 2008, http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/cee/papeles/03/03.PDF (accessedApril 23, 2010): 17. rights and national identity,” Papeles del Este: Transiciones linguistic onlanguage, postcomunistas, assessment abrief No. 3, States: Successor Soviet the in Policies “Language Marc, Leprêtre, Smith, Michael G. National Identities in Georgia,” in ofnation-building discourse Smith, Graham; Law, Vivien; Wilson, Andrew; Bohr, Annette; Allworth, Edward, “Language myths and the http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=1292&info_id=27388 (accessed April 25, 2010). “Sitting of the Committee on Education, Science and Culture,” Parliament of Georgia, April 15, 2010, http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0609Popjanevski.pdf (accessed April 18, 2010). Minorities in Georgia and Azerbaijan,” Central Asia-Caucasus Silk Road Studies Program, September 2006: 25, ofNational Protection the Assessing Caucasus: South the in State the and “Minorities Johanna, Popjanevski, International Affairs, Vol. 2(4) Autumn 2008. of Review Caucasian Conflict,” AForgotten War: Georgia-Abkhazia 1992-93 “The Alexandros, Petersen, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,OSCE,,,3dde546e4,0.html (accessed 19, April 2010). Rights of National Minorities,” 1 February 1998, Organizationfor Security and Co-operation in Europe, “Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Society,27, Vol. No. 3 (Sep., 1998), Cambridge University Press. in Language Framework,” A Schematic of Hebrew: Revival the and Planning Language “Micro Moshe, Nahir, http://www.cimera.org/pdf/Minorities_in_Azerbaijan.pdf (accessed April 18, 2010). 2007: Cimera, Education, on Focus Particular a - with Azerbaijan “Minorities in Azerbaijan: The Sociolinguistic Situation of Lezgis, Udis, Georgians (Ingiloys) and Talyshs in Politicaland Theory,Oxford University Press,2003. Policy Language Theory,” Liberal for Implications Rights: Language Minority “Misconceiving Stephen. May, State of Nations Martin, Terry, “An Affirmative Action Empire: The Soviet Union as the Highest Form of Imperialism,” in Matveeva, Anna, “The South Caucasus nationalism conflict and minorities,” Minority Rights Group, 2002. 1972. Minorities, A/RES/47/135, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r135.htm (accessed19, April 2010). United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Suny, Ronald Grigor, Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, 1994. Slezkine, Yuri, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, of How a State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” Slavic 1998. , Oxford University Press, 2001. Multilingualism in the Soviet Union , Cambridge University Press, 1998. Language and Power inthe Creation of the USSR 1917-1953 The Making of the Georgian Nation Nation-building in thePost-Soviet Borderlands: ThePolitics of , Mouton &Co., N.C. Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands, 67 , I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, 1989. , Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, A CEU eTD Collection 60. http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_26.pdf (accessed March 4, 2010). European States,” EuropeanCentre forMinority Issues, March2006: 4, Other from ofModels Relevance the and Georgia in Languages of Minority Status “The Jonathan, Wheatley, 68