LANGUAGE QUESTION IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN MYKOLAIVSʹKA OBLASTʹ, UKRAINE, IN THE PERIOD OF 2005-2012
Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philologischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br.
vorgelegt von
Oleksandra Inglis aus Mykolaiv, Ukraine
WS 2016/2017
Erstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Juliane Besters-Dilger Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Achim Rabus
Vorsitzender des Promotionsausschusses der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Philologischen, Philosophischen und Wirtschafts- und Verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Hans-Helmuth Gander
Datum der Disputation: 13. Dezember 2016
ii Abstract (English)
After the split of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine was faced with numerous financial, political and social challenges. In the context of the newly independent and factually bilingual Ukraine, the status of the Russian language became a controversial issue. Ukrainian became the only official language in all spheres of Ukrainian life in 1991, while almost half (or arguably more) of the Ukrainian population still communicated in Russian. This linguistic tendency is opposed to Ukrainization – a policy aimed at increasing the usage of the Ukrainian language. Ukrainization was criticised by many people, yet gladly received by others. The “Orange Revolution” of 2005 took the policy of Ukrainization to another level mostly due to extreme politicization of the issue. By this time language was used as a political tool in all the elections. The presidential elections of 2010 were not an exception, when a clearly pro-Russian candidate was chosen to be the new president. This marked the beginning of De-Ukrainization and a new chapter in the language situation of Ukraine.
All of the above-mentioned changes had a significant impact on a sphere of life where language plays a crucial role in – in the field of education. My thesis aims to find out how all the recent political changes have affected the language situation in the educational sphere in a particular oblastʹ (Mykolaivsʹka), Ukraine, in the period of 2005-2012. The study examines all the layers of Ukrainian education – school pupils, parents, school and university lecturers and state officials. It suggests predictions concerning future tendencies in the language situation of the educational sphere, as well as offers recommendations for future language policies. This project may become a model for similar studies in other oblastʹs in Ukraine.
iii Abstract (German)
Nach der Auflösung der Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 war die Ukraine mit vielen finanziellen, politischen und gesellschaftlichen Herausforderungen konfrontiert. In diesem Zusammenhang ist der Status der russischen Sprache in der Ukraine eines der besonders kontroversen Themen. Dies rührt daher, dass fast die Hälfte (vielleicht sogar ein größerer Anteil) der ukrainischen Bevölkerung Russisch spricht, während das Ukrainische zur Amtssprache in allen Bereichen des öffentlichen Lebens wurde. Ersteres läuft der ‚Ukrainisierung‘ zuwider, also der Strategie, die Verwendung der ukrainischen Sprache zu fördern, einer Vorgehensweise, die sowohl Befürworter als auch Gegner in der Bevölkerung hat. Im Rahmen der ‚Orangen Revolution‘ von 2005 änderte sich die Diskussionslinie, und die Ukrainisierung geriet zum Politikum. Das Thema Sprache wurde in allen Wahlen instrumentalisiert. Die Präsidentschaftswahlen von 2010, als ein pro-russischer Kandidat zum neuen Präsidenten gewählt wurde, bildeten keine Ausnahme. Die neue Sprachpolitik förderte die De-Ukrainisierung.
Die oben erwähnten Veränderungen hatten Einfluss auf diejenigen Lebensbereiche, in denen Sprache eine wesentliche Rolle spielt. Die vorliegende Dissertation untersucht, inwieweit sich die politischen Veränderungen auf die Sprachsituation im Bildungsbereich des Oblast Mykolaivsʹka, Ukraine, während des Zeitraums von 2005-2012 auswirkten. Die Studie bezieht alle Schichten des ukrainischen Bildungswesens ein, Schulkindern, Eltern, Schul- und Universitätsdozenten und Beamte der Bildungsverwaltung. Es wird versucht, zukünftige Entwicklungen vorherzusagen und im Sinne der Sprachpolitik richtungweisend Stellung zu beziehen. Außerdem soll die vorliegende Untersuchung als Anregung für weitere Projekte in anderen Oblasts dienen.
iv Contents
Abstract (English) ...... iii
Abstract (German) ...... iv
List of Figures ...... x
List of Tables ...... xii
List of Abbreviations ...... xiv
Acknowledgements ...... xv
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Bilingualism in Ukraine ...... 2 1.2. Historical divide ...... 4 1.3. Language in various domains ...... 5 1.4. Aims, hypotheses, state of the art, methodology and structure ...... 6 1.4.1. Aims ...... 6 1.4.2. Hypotheses ...... 7 1.4.3. Methods...... 7 1.4.4. State of the art ...... 9 1.4.5. Structure of the dissertation ...... 11
2. Theoretical, historical, political and social background ...... 12 2.1. Language ideologies ...... 12 2.2. Language planning and policy ...... 15 2.3. The Soviet Union: Language policy and language situation in the Ukrainian SSR 18 2.3.1. Linguistic assimilation and Russification ...... 19 2.3.2. The Perestroika period and the UkrSSR language law ...... 23 2.4. Independent Ukraine: language policy and language situation before the Orange Revolution (1991-2005) ...... 25 2.4.1. Key historical facts and events ...... 25 2.4.2. Policy implications and resistance ...... 29 2.4.3. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages ...... 31 2.5. Yushchenko and his language policy (2005-2009)...... 32 2.5.1. Political context ...... 32
v 2.5.2. Yushchenko’s Ukrainization and European orientation ...... 32 2.5.3. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Russian language 34 2.5.4. End of Yushchenko’s presidency ...... 35 2.6. Yanukovych, the Charter and the new language law (2010-2012) ...... 35 2.6.1. The Charter ...... 36 2.6.2. The language law ...... 37 2.7. Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ: focus on the education structure and language situation 40 2.8. Language policy summary ...... 45
3. Research methods ...... 47 3.1. Aims ...... 47 3.2. Defining the target groups and research methods ...... 47 3.3. Choice of respondents and group characteristics ...... 49 3.3.1. Group 1: Pupils and students ...... 49 3.3.2. Group 2: Parents (of the pupils under 14) ...... 52 3.3.3. Group 3: Teachers ...... 52 3.3.4. Group 4: Education officials and workers ...... 53 3.4. Study design and planning ...... 54 3.4.1. The qualitative part: interviews ...... 54 3.4.2. The quantitative part: questionnaire...... 55 3.4.2.1. Structure and layout ...... 56 3.4.2.2. Key research areas ...... 56 3.4.2.3. Question types ...... 58 3.4.2.4. Questionnaire layout ...... 59 3.5. Pilot study ...... 60 3.6. Data Collection ...... 62 3.6.1. Qualitative part: interviews ...... 62 3.6.2. The quantitative part: questionnaires ...... 66 3.7. Data Analysis ...... 67 3.7.1. Questionnaire data processing ...... 67 3.7.2. Response rate and questionnaire completion ...... 68 3.7.3. Interview transcribing and coding ...... 69 3.7.4. Tools for statistical analysis ...... 70
vi 4. Results ...... 71 4.1. Quantitative results ...... 71 4.1.1. General profile of the questionnaire respondents ...... 71 4.1.1.1. Age and language preference ...... 71 4.1.1.2. Gender ...... 73 4.1.1.3. Place of residence and educational establishment ...... 75 4.1.1.4. Financial situation of the respondents ...... 78 4.1.2. Ethnic and language distribution ...... 80 4.1.3. Native language, language preference and ability ...... 82 4.1.4. Attitude towards speakers ...... 87 4.1.5. Language use in the educational establishments ...... 89 4.1.5.1. General overview ...... 89 4.1.5.2. Language use in schools vs universities and other educational establishments ...... 91 4.1.5.3. Language use during breaks ...... 94 4.1.5.4. Higher education and use of Ukrainian ...... 96 4.1.6. Language preference vs level of education ...... 98 4.1.7. Language use at home, with family and general language preference ...... 100 4.1.8. Changes and problems in education since 2005 ...... 107 4.1.9. Politicization of the language question and other external issues...... 109 4.1.10. Proposals and predictions for the future ...... 111 4.2. Qualitative results: interviews and open-ended responses...... 113 4.2.1. Interviews and interviewees ...... 114 4.2.2. Attitude towards speakers and language proficiency ...... 115 4.2.3. Changes since 2005...... 118 4.2.4. Language status ...... 120 4.2.5. Problems in education ...... 125 4.2.5.1. Lack of systematic approach in the language policy ...... 125 4.2.5.2. Language as a political instrument ...... 126 4.2.5.3. Other problems (standard of living, reading materials) ...... 126 4.2.5.4. Suggestions on improving the future language situation ...... 127 4.3. Most relevant outcomes of the quantitative and qualitative research ...... 128
5. Analysis and Discussion ...... 129 5.1. General language use and language use at home ...... 129 5.2. Language ability in the system of education...... 131 5.3. Language use in education ...... 133
vii 5.3.1. Language use in the classroom and language proficiency ...... 133 5.3.2. Language use in primary school vs. high school and university ...... 134 5.3.3. Factors affecting language choice in the classroom ...... 135 5.3.4. Different language needs in the classroom ...... 135 5.3.5. When Ukrainian language is not used as prescribed ...... 136 5.3.6. Ukrainian schools vs Russian schools ...... 138 5.3.7. Language use during the lesson/lecture breaks ...... 139 5.4. Attitudes towards language speakers ...... 140 5.5. The question of national identity and native language ...... 144 5.5.1. Ukrainian identity and Ukrainian language ...... 144 5.5.2. Native language and language of daily use ...... 146 5.6. Language policy and politics ...... 148 5.6.1. Politicization of the question ...... 148 5.6.2. Yushchenko vs Yanukovych language policy ...... 149 5.6.2.1. Yushchenko government and Ukrainization ...... 149 5.6.2.2. Yanukovych government and the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law ...... 150 5.6.2.3. Comparative evaluation of the two policies ...... 152 5.7. Language policy and other problems ...... 153 5.7.1. Top-down language policy and language status ...... 153 5.7.2. Inconsistent language policy ...... 155 5.7.3. Language proficiency in education, at home and in culture ...... 156 5.7.4. Parallel cases ...... 156 5.7.5. Education and lack of finances on personal and institutions levels ...... 158 5.7.6. Predictions and suggestions for the future ...... 159 5.7.6.1. Compromise and tolerance in language decisions ...... 159 5.7.6.2. State-funded assistance with learning Ukrainian ...... 160 5.7.6.3. Adjustment of the language law ...... 160 5.7.6.4. Language as an asset rather than a language symbol ...... 161 5.8. Research limitations, observations and avenues of further research...... 161
6. Summary and conclusion ...... 163
References (Cyrillic) ...... 169
References (English) ...... 172
Appendix 1. Number of students in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ since 1995 ...... 180
viii Appendix 2. Interview questions ...... 182
Appendix 3. Full questionnaires and coding ...... 183
Appendix 4. Interview excerpts ...... 213
Appendix 5. Additional open-ended responses ...... 227
Appendix 6. Problems in education – more detailed analysis ...... 242
ix List of Figures
Figure 1. Russification: percentage of pupils in Ukrainian schools in 4 school years ...... 24 Figure 2. Distribution of the population of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ by native language 2001 .... 40 Figure 3. Children in pre-school educational institutions in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language of instruction (percent) ...... 42 Figure 4. Pupils of day secondary educational institutions in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language of instruction (percent) ...... 43 Figure 5. Students in institutions of higher education of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language (percent) ...... 43 Figure 6. Students in institutions of higher education of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language of instruction (percent)...... 44 Figure 7. Age distribution of the pupils and students, parents and teachers ...... 71 Figure 8. Place of residence of the respondents ...... 76 Figure 9. Distribution of the Gr.1 respondents by place of study (percent) ...... 77 Figure 10. Teachers’ and lecturers’ place of work ...... 77 Figure 11. Financial situation of the respondents (percent) ...... 78 Figure 12. Financial situation and Q. “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (Pupils and students, given in percentage) ...... 79 Figure 13. Financial situation and Q. “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (Parents, given in percentage) ...... 79 Figure 14. Financial situation and Q. “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (Teachers, given in percentage) ...... 80 Figure 15. Nationality of the respondents ...... 81 Figure 16. Which language do you consider to be your native language? (percent) ...... 83 Figure 17. In general, what language do you prefer to speak? (percent) ...... 84 Figure 18. Ukrainian and Russian language ability in the educational sphere ...... 85 Figure 19. Language is a symbol of national identity (percent) ...... 86 Figure 20. A nation should only have one language (percent) ...... 87 Figure 21. Official language of the establishment (given in percentage) ...... 91 Figure 22. Language used by (most) teachers and lectures during lessons ...... 91 Figure 23. General language preference amongst older pupils and students ...... 97 Figure 24. Group 1 responses to the question “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” ...... 98
x Figure 25. In your opinion, under whose presidency was the language situation in the educational sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ better? (percent) ...... 108 Figure 26. Respondents’ view of the statement “Language question in Ukraine has become a political tool and politicians only talk about it to get electoral votes” (percent) ...... 110 Figure 27. Responses to the question “What kind of language policy in the education would you like to see more in the future?” ...... 112 Figure 28. Responses to question “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (given in percentage) ...... 113 Figure 29. Factors affecting language use in the classroom ...... 135
xi List of Tables
Table 1. Language ideologies (based on Cobarrubias, 1983, 41-85)...... 12 Table 2. Two main language ideologies in Ukraine ...... 14 Table 3. Language Planning Goals: An Integrative Framework (Hornberger 1994:78) ...... 16 Table 4. Bilingualism and language retention based on census returns 1970 and 1979 ...... 22 Table 5. Frequency of the arguments in support of resistance against Ukrainization in the newspaper articles (Fournier 2002:424) ...... 30 Table 6. The first two cycles of periodical and evaluation reports of Ukraine ...... 36 Table 7. Language of instruction in Mykolaiv schools (number of schools) ...... 45 Table 8. Language of instruction in Mykolaiv schools (number and percentage of pupils of schools) ...... 45 Table 9. Number of pupils who study Russian as a subject in schools with Ukrainian language of instruction ...... 45 Table 10. Choice of pupils-respondents based on schools grade and actual age ...... 50 Table 11. Number of students in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in 2011-2012 ...... 51 Table 12. Interviewees’ profiles ...... 54 Table 13. Interview questions (English) ...... 55 Table 14. Questionnaire structure ...... 56 Table 15. Language ability and language preferences during the interview ...... 65 Table 16. What is your age? (group) and Q. “In general, what language do you prefer to speak?” Crosstabulation (older pupils and students) ...... 72 Table 17. What is your age? (group) and Q. “What language do you prefer to use most of the time?” Crosstabulation (parents about themselves)...... 72 Table 18. What is your child's age? (group) and Q. “What language does your child prefer to use most of the time?” Crosstabulation (parents about their children) ...... 73 Table 19. What is your age? (group) and Q. “What language do you prefer to use most of the time?” Crosstabulation (teachers) ...... 73 Table 20. Gender and general language preference ...... 74 Table 21. Language attitudes overview (given in percentage) ...... 88 Table 22. In which educational establishment are you working? ‘ What language do you usually use to talk to your pupils/students during the lesson? Crosstabulation ...... 92 Table 23. What language do you usually use to talk to your pupils/students during the lesson? ‘ What is your age? (group) Crosstabulation (Group 3) ...... 93
xii Table 24. Language use in the classroom vs. lesson breaks ...... 95 Table 25. Group 2: Parents ...... 99 Table 26. Group 3: Teachers and Lecturers ...... 100 Table 27. Pupils’ and students’ language use at home vs. general language preference ...... 101 Table 28. Parents’ language use with family and general language preference ...... 102 Table 29. Pupils’ language use with parents and other members of the family ...... 102 Table 30. Pupils’ language use with parents vs. language of choice ...... 103 Table 31. Pupils’ language use with other members of the family and general language preference (Group 2, given in percentage) ...... 104 Table 32. Teachers’ language use with family vs. general language preference ...... 104 Table 33. Language use at home vs language competence amongst pupils and students (given in percentage) ...... 106 Table 34. Language use in schools and universities under different governments ...... 107 Table 35. Top three socio-economic problems in education across groups ...... 110 Table 36. Group 1 (Pupils and students) opinions on language status ...... 121 Table 37. Group 2 (Parents) opinions on language status ...... 122 Table 38. Group 3 (Teachers) opinions on language status ...... 123 Table 39. Number of schools, professional-technical establishments and establishments of higher education (I, II, III and IV levels of accreditation) ...... 180 Table 40. Number of pupils and students in schools, professional-technical establishments and establishments of higher education (I, II, III and IV levels of accreditation) (in thousands) ...... 181 Table 41. Group 1. Pupils and students questions and values (SPSS) ...... 183 Table 42. Group 2. Parents questions and values (SPSS) ...... 193 Table 43. Group 3. Teachers questions and values (SPSS) ...... 204 Table 44. Group 1. Pupils and students (additional responses to the open question #57) ..... 227 Table 45. Group 2. Parents (additional responses to the open question #61) ...... 236 Table 46. Group 3. Teachers (additional responses to the open question #49) ...... 237 Table 47. Problems in education (pupils and students) ...... 242 Table 48. Problems in education (parents) ...... 243 Table 49. Problems in education (teachers) ...... 244
xiii List of Abbreviations
ECRML The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
USSR The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
UkrSSR The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
N Number of respondents
Min Minimum
Max Maximum
Std.Dev. Standard Deviation
EIT External independent testing
ЗНО Зовнішнє незалежне оцінювання
L1 First language
L2 Second language n.d. no date given (in references and citations)
KIIS Kyiv International Institute of Sociology
I. Interviewee
R. Respondent
xiv Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the great network of academic, financial and moral support, which I was fortunate to have during my research. My biggest thanks go to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Juliane Besters-Dilger, who has carefully and patiently guided me towards completing this dissertation by providing me with thorough feedback, valuable academic advice and reassuring support over the years. I am very grateful to the Hermann Paul School of Linguistics and the country Baden- Württemberg for providing me with generous funding according to the LGFG, which made it possible for me to work on this project. Many thanks go to Prof. Dr. Achim Rabus for his valuable feedback. I am thankful to my two assistants – Olena and Oleksii Zhydkykh, who have helped immensely with the data collection and who have assisted me with my numerous queries. Thanks to all the respondents and interviewees, who took the time out of their busy schedules to respond to the questionnaires and answer my questions. Last, but not least, a huge thank you to my family, friends and childcare network for giving me the moral support and the space I needed to work on this dissertation. It was not easy, but without you – it would not have been possible. Thank you!
xv 1. Introduction For anyone living in a mostly monolingual country, the concept of “language question” may seem peculiar, since the titular language is usually spoken by the majority of the population, and the same language is also considered to be their native language. In Ukraine, however, this question refers to the de facto Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism, which emerged as a result of eastern parts of Ukraine1 falling under the rule of the Russian Empire in 1654 (1654 Pereyslav agreement, which was later reinforced by the 1667 Truce of Andrusovo), and later as a part of the Soviet Union until 1991. Although language question had never been abandoned, the events, which took place after the Orange Revolution, made this topic, and in particular the status of the Russian language, not only more relevant, but a real controversy and even a threat to the stability of the country. While many countries have struggled with the language policies throughout history, every situation has its own uniqueness due to various factors. Besters-Dilger (Бестерс-Дільґер 2010:88) outlines the following reasons which make the language situation in Ukraine rather unique: On the territory of Ukraine two languages are spoken in approximately the same amount and Russian dominated for a long time; Both languages and ethnicities are related; Ukrainians are aware of the politically and culturally strong Russia, which is always interfering via mass media and politics in order to mobilize not only Russians, but all Russian speaking population2 of Ukraine against the language policy of the state3. The topics mentioned above are discussed in more detail in subchapters on the historical background (see 1.2), bilingualism in Ukraine (1.1) and in subchapters, involving referring to the political situation (e.g. 2.6, 5.6).
1 Ukrainian historical textbooks usually use the term “Left-bank Ukraine” or Лівобережна Україна when discussing this historical period 2 Another term, commonly used to describe Russian speakers, is Russophone – “all members of society who regard Russian as their daily language of communication, privately and professionally” (Koltso 1999:23, in Fournier 2002:419). I avoid this term in this dissertation due to room for misinterpretation, because, arguably at least in the context of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, there are a lot of people who use Russian at home and only use Ukrainian for work (because they have to). 3 Бестерс-Дільґер 2010 cites: http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/04229E7BB01f013FC32571F6003F6DC0
1 1.1. Bilingualism in Ukraine When two languages are so closely related linguistically, they are going to be similar in many ways. Bilaniuk (2005:203) mentions that bilingual speakers of Russian and Ukrainian think they are completely mutually intelligible, while those, who can speak only one, find it hard to understand the other. While comprehension can be an issue if the person is not familiar with the other language at all, most people in Ukraine understand both Russian and Ukrainian at least on a passive level. As we know, not all languages are equally difficult and there are numerous factors at play which make a certain language easier or harder to learn. One of the key factors is the language learner himself, his/her motivation, language learning skills and abilities. The fact that a person can already speak Russian, should make learning Ukrainian much easier, since there is no need to learn a fundamentally different set of grammar rules, no new alphabet, and, since the language comes from the same family tree, many words are very similar. According to Perkins & Salomon (1992:3):
Transfer of learning occurs when learning in one context or with one set of materials impacts on performance in another context or with other related materials. (…) Transfer is a key concept in education and learning theory because most formal education aspires to transfer.4
Perkins & Salomon (1992:3) also point out that:
Positive transfer occurs when learning in one context improves performance in some other context. For instance, speakers of one language find it easier to learn related than unrelated second languages.
This creates an advantage for Russian speakers who want to learn Ukrainian and vice versa. Bilingualism is very rarely truly symmetrical and usually one language dominates the other. Languages often fulfil different functions in the society. In an all Ukrainian national census in 20015, 29.6% of the Ukrainian population indicated that their mother tongue is Russian and 67.5% indicated Ukrainian, however the number of Russian speakers is much closer to being half of the country’s population (and possibly even more in southern and eastern regions). There are two reasons for this, the first being that the official census did not allow for the “Both Ukrainian and Russian option”. Later studies (Besters-Dilger 2009:389), showed that 11.1% consider both Ukrainian and Russian to be their native language (55.5% consider Ukrainian to
4 “Transfer of learning occurs when learning in one context enhances (positive transfer) or undermines (negative transfer) a related performance in another context. Transfer includes near transfer (to closely related contexts and performances) and far transfer (to rather different contexts and performances).” 5 http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/
2 be their native language, 32.0% – Russian and 1.4% other). Secondly, as a result of language- based nation-building, many Ukrainians believe that Ukrainian is their native language, even if they do not speak it on a daily basis. Also, according to surveys conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 1991-94, more than half (56.1%) of all adults in Ukraine use Russian for everyday communication (Khmelko & Wilson 1998:746). According to Trub:
Ukrainian bilingualism can be characterized as an unequal diglossic bilingualism, where in most cases Russian still takes the dominant role. Because this is the language which provides the functioning of the biggest part of various and important spheres of social life. This circumstance has created such a shameful occurrence as a Ukrainian-Russian surzhyk” (Труб 2012:219)78
Both Ukrainian and Russian are used in Ukraine, but they are not used equally. Ukrainian language is used mostly in official spheres of life, especially in official paperwork, while Russian is used more in daily life and other private domains. While many people consider themselves bilingual, most of them are asymmetric bilinguals. In the study conducted in Kyiv (Соколова 2013:53), it has been reported that, on the one hand, only nearly half of the population in the capital Kyiv, who position themselves as bilingual, truly use both languages symmetrically and in various spheres of lives, and feel comfortable doing so9. In Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ many people also believe that they are bilingual, but it is fair to assume that this bilingualism is also asymmetrical, since in Mykolaiv most of the official spheres of life require use of Ukrainian, while on the streets of the city Russian is the language in use. Apart from the general preference for a certain language or domain, country region is another factor, which plays a role in what language is spoken by the person.
6 Also in Fournier 2002:419 7 http://www1.nas.gov.ua/institutes/ium/Structure/Departments/Department5/soc_staff/Documents/trub-typy- vidhylen.pdf Original: Український білінгвізм можна схарактеризувати як нерівноправну, диглосну двомовність, у якій домінантна роль у багатьох випадках поки що належить російській мові. Адже саме ця мова забезпечувала функціонування переважної частини різноманітних і важливих сфер суспільного життя. Ця обставина і спричинила виникнення такого ганебного явища, як українсько-російський суржик. Here, it is important to add that bilingualism is not simply mastery of two languages, it is also their coexistence – “Bilingualism, the peaceful and not so-peaceful coexistence of the two languages” (Nedashkivska 2010:351) 8 I would question Trub’s description of surzhyk as “shameful”, since no one should feel ashamed of the language they speak. 9 Original: З одного боку, лише близько половини тих, хто позиціонує себе як гармонійного білінгва, насправді майже рівномірно використовують обидві мови у різних сферах і почуваються при цьому комфортно. Решта надають перевагу одній з мов, зокрема розмежовуючи їх функційно.
3 1.2. Historical divide Due to Ukraine’s history, the country can be visually split into two parts – the Russian-speaking East and South, and the Ukrainian-speaking West. In the North of Ukraine Russian is still present in daily communication more than Ukrainian (see Masenko 2009:110). Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ – the focus of this dissertation – is situated in the South of Ukraine and is a mostly Russian speaking oblastʹ.
The intensive settlement of the Mykolaiv peninsula started in the last quarter of XVIII century already after the liberation of the Northern Black Sea Coast region from the Turkish conquerors, when the Russian Empire having gained its access to the Black Sea.10
Mykolaiv was founded in 1788 in the mouth of the Inhul River as a new township with a dockyard and the city grew around the ship yard. 11 For decades the city was known as a city of shipbuilders. Although the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union had different language ideologies, approaches and methods, they both followed a policy of Russification. While the Russian Empire was more forceful and open with their language policy and went as far as publicly banning the printing of Ukrainian books with the secret Ems Ukaz (Marples 2007:3, Miller 2003:181) and even denying the very existence of the Ukrainian language (Remy 2007:92), the USSR was less obvious and allowed the Ukrainians to believe that there was room for two languages in one country – Ukrainian as a titular national and Russian as an international language of communication and other spheres of social life within the USSR.12 It is now clear though that the aim was to gradually increase the use of Russian in all spheres of life. Already in 1989, when the Soviet Union was showing signs of the upcoming breakup, Ukraine passed the language law13 which would be used for the next 23 years. After the break- up of the Soviet Union the process of Ukrainization began. Ukrainian language was used as a tool of building a nation and a Ukrainian identity. Ukrainization could be evidenced in most official and public spheres of life and education was no exception. Gradually the number of Ukrainian schools and higher educational establishments increased (and Russian decreased), and the social status and the importance of Ukrainian in daily life of Ukrainians increased as
10 http://mkrada.gov.ua/en/content/istoriya-mista.html 11 http://mkrada.gov.ua/en/content/istoriya-mista.html 12 It must be noted that the brief period of renaissance in literature and art in 1920-30s was followed by harsh repressions of the Great Purge (1936-1938) under Stalin. More on this in 2.3.1 13 http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/8312-11
4 well. Russian, however, was still used as an everyday language (more on further events in 1.4.4).
1.3. Language in various domains Official domains usually require the use of Ukrainian, while every day communication is unrestricted by the mandates and many citizens still use Russian. When Ukrainian and Russian speakers meet in daily life in Ukraine, in places such as supermarkets or public transport, there are rarely any misunderstandings, and it is not uncommon for one person to address the other in Russian and receive an answer in Ukrainian or the other way around, be understood and get on with their day, probably not even remembering the bilingual dialogue at the end of the day. While such harmony exists on the streets of Mykolaiv and oblastʹ, the situation in education is more complex. Most educational establishments are now Ukrainian: according to the Statistical Yearbook for Ukraine (2013:43114), there are only 8 secondary schools with Russian language of instruction15 in 2011/2012 in Mykolaiv region and all universities have Ukrainian as a main language of instruction. This raises a question of how these policies are implemented in the Russian speaking region and how much language use of Ukrainian corresponds to its official status. The map of Ukraine below16 shows where Mykolaiv is situated – in the South of Ukraine, where Russian dominates the spoken domain. According to the national census in 2001, the majority of the Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ residents consider Ukrainian to be their native language (69.2%) and almost 29.3% consider Russian to be their native language17, it is common knowledge that at least more than half of the residents in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ speak Russian on a daily basis.
14 http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_e/publ1_e.htm 15 In comparison, in 1995/1996 the number of schools with was 44 16 https://www.google.de/maps/@49.5656144,30.7653895,6z 17 http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/Mykolaiv/
5
At the same time the majority of the schools are Ukrainian and practically all of the higher educational establishments are Ukrainian-speaking. It seems logical to maintain that the language attitudes towards the recent Ukrainization-promoting language policies here might be somewhat divisive and more pro-Russian than in other regions of Ukraine. For this reason, it is important to research the language situation in this oblastʹ and see what implications language policy has had on the processes in schools and universities.
1.4. Aims, hypotheses, state of the art, methodology and structure 1.4.1. Aims The general aim of this dissertation is to research the language situation in the system of education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. It is planned to:
1) create a detailed overview of the language polices of 2005-2012 years in the education sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ18; 2) find out what effect these policies have had on the educational establishments and learning processes in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ;
18 2012 is set as the end date of the investigation period, because this is the year that questionnaires were distributed between September and December 2012 following the pilot study in May-June 2012. The interviews took place in 2011. More on the questionnaires and interview in 1.4.3.
6 3) find out how the attitudes of pupils and their parents, students and professors towards the policy changes vary, depending on factors such as age, education, political views, economic situation, social status etc. 4) form an assessment of what implications the language attitudes, mentioned above, have for the future language policies and their execution, as well as to offer possible suggestions for the language policy makers in Ukraine.
1.4.2. Hypotheses Based on the results of the previous research studies on the language topic in Ukraine (e.g. Besters-Dilger 2009, Søvik 2007) and general common knowledge amongst the Ukrainian population, Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ is considered to be mostly Russian-speaking; therefore, it seems logical to maintain that the language attitudes towards the recent Ukrainization- promoting language policies here might be somewhat divisive and more pro-Russian than in the other regions of Ukraine.
The following hypothesis statements are to be tested in this dissertation: The language question in the system of education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ prevents the pupils and students from receiving an adequate level of education19. The language policy of 2005-2012 has had very little effect on the reality within the system of education.
Whether the outcome of the study supports the above hypotheses or discredits them, this project should provide a better insight into the language issues in the education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in Ukraine. This study could be instrumental in generating a research model for the analysis of any language situation in education in other oblastʹs of Ukraine.
1.4.3. Methods As the aims of the proposed study entail investigation of policies, language planning, and its real implementation, as well the language attitudes, the methods chosen for this study also entail a combination of (1) library and web based research in order to find the necessary information about the language policies in the educational sphere of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and
19 Level of language command, mediation and acquisition in the context of education is meant by level of education
7 (2) combination of quantitative survey and personal interviews to find out what the attitudes towards the linguistic changes in the sphere of the education are. Research to build up a timeline of the language policies in the education sphere, albeit being a time-consuming and demanding, is a rather straightforward task. The obvious challenge of the narrow specifics of the research area and a modest amount of relevant and objective information easily available online, is partially overcome by a research trip to the target research area (Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ) to collect materials in local libraries and universities, as well as to conduct expert interviews with responsible administrators in official institutions. The questionnaire, as a quantitative part of the research20, was conducted as a means of finding out what the attitudes in the educational sphere are. The following steps for this part of the research were as follows: designing the questionnaire testing of the pilot questionnaire correcting any design flaws in the questionnaire final questionnaire launch In order to achieve a number of participants that would be representative of the population in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, which totals to approximately 1.265.000 people (Население Николаевской области 1999-2000), a minimum of randomly-selected (or as close to random selection as possible) 300 participants (more if feasible) is suggested for this type of study21. Only hard copies were used during the collection in order to avoid the risk of skewed data, as is often the case with the online questionnaires. The qualitative part of the research included a research trip the Mykolaiv and several interviews with the education officials. Privacy issue, as well as other ethical guidelines of conducting research, were to taken very seriously during these interviews and other parts of the study. According to Kaplan and Baldauf (1997:105) the team designing and conducting a sociolinguistic survey should include a historian, an anthropologist, an economist, a professional planner, a data processor, a political scientist and a linguist. In view of this, several consultations with the political scientist/historian were held during the design of the questionnaire, as well as during the research and writing stages.
20 Discussion on the questionnaire design can be found in 3.4.2 21 For more on the sample size calculations see subchapter 3.3.1
8 1.4.4. State of the art When talking about the language question in Ukraine, language policy and the status of the Russian language in Ukraine are usually the key issues in question. Numerous articles and books have been written on the language topic in Ukraine since 1991 (see Besters-Dilger, Kulyk, Masenko/Масенко, Ставицька, Bilaniuk, Kuzio, Søvik, Moser, Hentschel, Pavlenko, Майборода in the bibliography22) with many of them focusing specifically on the language policy in Ukraine. Official figures, such as the last Ukrainian census of 2001 are often cited to demonstrate the numbers of Ukrainian and Russian language users, however, there is an evident lack of the official, recent, nationwide (a new census or equivalent) and readily available figures from the state on this topic. Fortunately, there have been several substantial scientific studies, which focused on the language situation in Ukraine and fill the information gap when it comes to language use and language attitudes. In 2009 Besters-Dilger presented a large-scale study on the language policy and language use in various oblastʹs and various domains (Besters-Dilger 2009), while Søvik (2007) had focused on one particular oblastʹ – Kharkiv oblastʹ. Both studies served as an example and model for this study23. Some of the key conclusions of the above mentioned studies and works, as well as personal observations include the following tendencies in the language situation in Ukraine in 2005-2012: (1) Ukrainization has been successful, but to a lesser extent than officially reported – Russian language is generally used much more than the media report24, (2) Language-based discrimination is rare and most people are neutral in their language attitudes25, (3) Surzhyk (see my definition of surzhyk in 2.4.2), on the other hand, is seen as a by-product of Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism and is seen negatively26, (4) Language question is extremely politicized27. The biggest problem in the language question in Ukraine seems to be inconsistency of the language policy. Not only are the language policy documents inconsistent with each other (the Constitution of Ukraine,
22 There are two lists of bibliographies – English and Cyrillic. Some authors, such as Masenko/Масенко, can be found in both bibliographies with publications in different languages. Parenthetical citations are indicative of which bibliography list one should refer to. 23 Further studies, which are not discussed in detail here, because they refer to a slightly later time frame (2014) but could be interesting for future researchers include the work of Hentschel & Brüggemann (2015) 24 „Although the official statistics reveals a positive dynamics of the rising numbers of the Ukrainian speaking schools and the numbers of students taught in Ukrainian, in fact the situation is much more complicated. The educational environment remains “hidden bilingual” (Kalynovs'ka 2009) 25 See Masenko (2009:118) 26 “More than half of the surzhyk speakers are ashamed to admit that their language should be qualified as surzhyk.” (Del Gaudio and Tarasenko 2009:343). Same topic in more detail in 4.1.4. 27 This issue has been mentioned in numerous publications, for instance Pifer (2009:22), mentions that “tensions over the language question will like rise in 2009 as the issue is politicized by Ukrainians politicians seeking to draw votes and by Russian rhetoric. The language question, if misplayed, has the potential to provoke a rift between ethnic Russians and their Ukrainian-speaking ethnic Ukrainian counterparts.”
9 the Charter, i.e. ECRML, and the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law), but they are also inconsistent with the reality of the language use in Ukraine. Language question in Ukraine is often tied to the question of national identity, as language is seen as a symbol of national identity. Ukrainian self-identification also usually involves language choice. Language policy is often connected to the political situation in Ukraine, i.e. eastern and southern parts traditionally preferring the pro-Russian policy and Russian language and western parts preferring the Ukrainian language. The key tendency in the language situation of Ukraine has been the policy of Ukrainization (or de-russification). The policy of Ukrainization took place since 1991, however, Russian is still widely used in education and other domains. When Yushchenko came to power in January 2005, he took the policy of increased Ukrainization along with the pro- western political route. One of the key documents, which came into power with Yushchenko’s assistance was the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, protecting 13 minority languages28, controversially including Russian (Russian being a language of minorities, but not a minority language). The Charter came into effect in Ukraine in 2006 and several years later, under Yanukovych’s government, the same Charter was used as a base for the new language law “On the principles of the state language policy” (also often referred to as Kolesnichenko-Kivalov, for more information see 2.6 ), which was heavily criticised by the European experts and widely argued to be unconstitutional, as this law practically made Russian the second official language in almost half of Ukraine’s oblastʹs (13 out of 27, including Kiev (Besters-Dilger 2013)). Mykolaivs’ka oblastʹ was one of the affected oblastʹs. With the Constitution of Ukraine, the Charter and the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law contradicting each other (the Constitution stating that there can only be one state language and yet Ukrainian and Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law promoting the use of minority languages and especially Russian at the same level) and all being working documents, it is clear that the language situation, including language use in the classroom, language attitudes was unclear. Language attitudes (even though most are usually neutral) have been used to add fuel to the political fire of the language question in Ukraine. While there has been research on the language situation in the system of education in Ukraine, most of it has not been specific to a certain area (e.g. Kalynovs'ka 2009). There is room and need for a deeper research on the language question constricted not only to a specific domain (education), but also to a specific oblastʹ, Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. This will give us valuable insight into actual language use, language attitudes in 2005-2012 in the south of
28 See Müller 2013, in Lebsanft and Wingender 2013:399
10 Ukraine. In the future, this study could be a model for similar studies (focusing on this domain or adapted to another domain) in other oblastʹs (more on this topic in chapter 5).
1.4.5. Structure of the dissertation The dissertation is split into six chapters. The Introduction chapter (chapter 1) provides a brief background to the bilingualism in Ukraine and defines aims, hypotheses, methods and state of the art. The theoretical, historical, political and social background (chapter 2) gives an in-depth overview of various factors which helped shape the current language situation, especially the historical aspects in the current linguistic map of Ukraine as well as focuses on the theory of the language policy. The research methods chapter (chapter 3) discusses the way the questionnaire is designed, data collected and analysed. It also discusses the qualitative part, i.e. the interviews. The results chapter and the analysis chapter are interconnected and often refer to each other. While the results chapter (chapter 4) presents the results of the study (further additional information, e.g. full questionnaires, transcript excerpts and open-ended responses can be found in the Appendix), a more detailed discussion of the analysis can be found in chapter 5. In the summary and conclusion chapter (chapter 6) conclusions are drawn about the language policy in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, its implications and make predictions about its future.
11 2. Theoretical, historical, political and social background 2.1. Language ideologies In order to understand why certain decisions regarding the language policy are given preference, it is important to understand that behind language planning decisions exist language beliefs and language ideology. Cummins explains what language ideology is (in Gonzalez & Melis 2000:ix):
Language ideologies represent statements of identity. They range along a continuum from coercive to collaborative in nature. In the former case, they are articulated as an expression of discursive power by dominant groups with the intent of eradicating, or at least, curtailing, manifestations of linguistic diversity. The transformation of these ideologies into language policies,…, carries material consequences for all those, who do not speak the dominant language at home. Students are denied rights to instruction through their home language, and the possibilities for children to develop bilingualism and biliteracy are one among many manifestations of cursive relations of power where power is exercised by dominant groups to the detriment of less powerful groups in the society.
As Schieffelin, Woolard & Kroskrity (1998:164) state language ideologies are about “construction and legitimation of power, the production of social relations of sameness and difference, and the creation of cultural stereotypes about types of speakers and social groups”. Within this dissertation, language ideology is going to be defined as a set of ideas and beliefs about language nature, use, status and function for the society and for individuals. Cobarrubias (1983, 41-85) defines four ideologies for policy planning, which are presented in Table 1. Language ideologies (based on and which also include Cobarrubias’ definitions of the policies and examples).
Table 1. Language ideologies (based on Cobarrubias, 1983, 41-85)
Linguistic assimilation belief that everyone, France, United States, regardless of origin, should Guam, Philippines, Greece, learn the dominant language Soviet Union of the society
Linguistic pluralism the recognition of more than Belgium, Canada, one language, which takes Singapore, South Africa, on a variety of forms and Switzerland (territorially based, individually based, complete or partial
Vernacularization restoration or elaboration of Bahasa Indonesia in an indigenous language and Indonesia; Tok Pisin in
12 its adoption as an official Papua New Guinea; Hebrew language in Israel; Tagalog (renamed Filipino) in the Philippines; and Quechua in Peru.
Internationalization adoption of a non- English in Singapore, India, indigenous language of the Philippines, and Papua wider communication either New Guinea as an official language or for such purposes as education or trade
As we can see, Soviet Union followed a policy of assimilation in the form of Russification in reality, while promoting the term pluralism (more on this discussion in 2.3.1). While Ukrainian language had been standardized and taught in several schools long before Ukraine became an independent country and there was no vernacularization (or “restoration or elaboration of an indigenous language and its adoption as an official language” as mentioned in the table above) per se; however, one could argue that there was some sense of restoration and elaboration after 1991 when it came to the role of Ukrainian language in Ukraine. In the context of Ukraine, one can argue that conflicting language ideologies are the reason for the inconsistencies and problems within the language policy. For instance, there are some ideas that are widespread in Ukraine, which are not entirely opposite, but not compatible either. For instance, Kulyk distinguished two major ideologies in Ukraine: Ukrainophone and Russophone (2005:529):
The Ukrainophones assume the priority of ethnicity in an individual’s identity and, accordingly, speak about “Ukrainians” rather than “Ukrainian-speakers”. However, Ukrainians are assumed to unanimously speak their eponymous language, or want to speak it if they happen to use mostly Russian due to the former policies of Russification. Therefore, this ideology calls for the status of Ukrainian as the sole official language and its dominance in all public fields and for a purely minority scope of the use of Russian. In contrast, the Russophone ideology considers the language of everyday use the primary determinant of ethnocultural identity and, accordingly, speaks on behalf of the “Russian-speaking population” regardless of its “nationality” or “native language”.
Following Kylyk’s division of Ukrainian language ideologies, which I am going to refer to as pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian, I would argue that while pro-Ukrainian ideologists follow the principles of vernacularization, pro-Russian counterparts advocate linguistic pluralism. below (Table 2) is a list of key ideas, which I have come across before and during the study.
29 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1122t323
13 Table 2. Two main language ideologies in Ukraine
Pro-Ukrainian Vernacularization Pro-Russian linguistic pluralism
a true nation should only have one a nation can have more than one (titular) language language
language is an important part of Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism, just national identity and Ukrainian as any bilingualism, should be language is a sign of Ukrainianess encouraged
Ukraine can only truly be Ukrainian and Russian languages, independent and free from Russia’s cultures and nations have always influence when its language, been close and these close ties Ukrainian, dominates all social should be cultivated spheres in Ukraine
Unsurprisingly, some ideas are more popular in certain parts of the country than the others. For instance, the pro-Ukrainian ideology ideas are better represented in western Ukraine, where Ukrainian is spoken by the majority of the population, (as suggested by the small scale study on ideologies in western Ukraine conducted by an undergraduate American student Petracich30). Logically, the more pro-Russian ideas are popular in the East and South of Ukraine. I would also add, that apart from the two main ideological directions in Ukraine, which Kulyk suggested, there is a third viewpoint, which is not necessarily a form of ideology – the linguistically and politically passive stance in support of the status quo. The division into two ideologies inevitably pigeonholes people into opposing camps, while there are numerous Ukrainians who consciously take middle ground and resist any type of change. These are usually those people, who are more concerned with other social and economic problems in Ukraine. Another important concept – language attitudes – plays a key role, when talking about the language policy in Ukraine. By language attitudes I mean the subjective way in which a person perceives a specific language, its use and the subjective view of its speakers, based purely on the language use. Languages attitudes (towards both Ukrainain, Russian and even Surzhyk are discussed further in this dissertation (see subchapters 4.1.4, 4.2.2 and 5.4).
30 http://linguistics.ucdavis.edu/@@search?Subject:list=Honors%20Thesis&sort_order=reverse&sort_on=Date
14 Apart from language and ethnic directions in Ukrainian language ideologies, it is important to mention that there is more than one way to look at a language in general. Gonzalez (2000, in Gonzalez & Melis 2000:xxxiv) points out, language can be seen as:
A problem, a potential source of social and political conflict (the less dominant language is supressed, and monolingualism is enforced). A right (individual’s choice of language is similar to their choice of religion or expression and deserves the same equal protection under the law) An asset or resource (a unique treasure trove of human insight and cognition)
Without doubt all three of the views are intermixed and all three exist amongst general population of Ukraine, amongst scholars and policy makers. Based on these different views, for instance pro-Ukrainian ideologist would see Russian language as a potential source of social and political conflict. If Russian was given as second official status, it could very quickly surpass Ukrainian in its usage, as it has a very strong support base in the form of Russian speakers in Ukraine and Russia itself. At the same time a pro-Russian ideologist may believe that since he/she was born in Ukraine and raised speaking Russian during the Soviet time, it is his/her right to keep on speaking it and not have to learn the state language. Both pro- Ukrainians and pro-Russians could see language as an asset, it would be unreasonable not to, however a pro-Ukrainian would likely see Ukrainian language as an asset for nation-building, while a pro-Russian ideologist would see Russian as a language of cultural ties with Russia and as a language of business with Russia being a key strategic partner. It needs to be said that it is no surprise that media seems to play a major role in cultivating, supporting and voicing the language ideologies (Kulyk 2005). Media can help us view a certain subject in a very different light and it usually does.
2.2. Language planning and policy Looking at the complexity of the language situation in Ukraine, it is clear that language planning and policy plays a major role in the language situation. As Hornberger (in Ricento 2006:5) states:
Language planning nearly always occurs in multilingual, multicultural settings in which planning for one language has repercussions on other languages and ethnolinguistic groups. Decisions about which languages will be planned and for what purposes ultimately reflect power relations among different groups and socio-political and economic interests.
15 Language planning is often described as “deliberate efforts to influence the behaviour of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, and functional allocations of their language codes” (Cooper 1989:45, as cited by Ricento 2006:292). In view of this, language policy, and, in particular, educational language policy can be seen as a subset of language planning (Paulston and Heidemann, in Ricento 2006:292). In order to understand both language planning and policy, Table 3 integrates an overview of over two decades of language planning and language policy scholarship in one framework.
Table 3. Language Planning Goals: An Integrative Framework 31 (Hornberger 1994:78)
Approaches Policy Planning Cultivation planning (on form) (on function)
Types Goals Goals Status planning Standardisation status Revival (about uses of language) Officialization Maintenance Nationalization Interlingual communication Proscription International Intranational Spread Acquisition planning Group Reacquisition (about users of language) Education/School Maintenance Literature Foreign language/second language Religion Shift Mass media Work Corpus planning Standardisation Modernization (about language) Corpus Lexical Auxiliary code Stylistic Graphization Renovation Purification Reform Stylistic simplification Terminology unification
As we can see, language planning takes various forms and has various goals. According to Table 3 above it can follow three approaches (status, acquisition or corpus planning) and can
31 The table is based on the works of Cooper (1989); Ferguson (1968); Haugen (1983); Kloss (1968); Nahir (1984); Neustupny (1974); Stewart (1968). Since its original publication, the figure has been cited numerous times and can also be found in Ricento 2006:293 or Ricento and Hornberger 1996 (401-427)
16 focus either on form (policy planning) or function (cultivation planning). The policy of independent Ukraine first focused on the status (Officialization of the Ukrainian language) in order to revive and maintain the language. Second, independent Ukraine made sure that acquisition planning was managed. Reacquisition and maintenance of Ukrainian language took place in education. As for corpus planning, the first multi-volume (11 volumes) dictionary of Ukrainian language came out in 1970-1980 under the Soviet Union. While there were numerous publications of other dictionaries after 1991, the next big academic multi-volume dictionary came out only in 2010 and it was the first volume out of 20, the second volume followed in 201232. As Fishman (2006:13) points out, the sensibility of status planning first and corpus planning later is apparent, since status rewards, goals and possibilities are “powerful motivators”, not only materially, but also culturally and socially. When dealing with language policy in a de facto bilingual region, it is necessary to keep in mind that there is more than one model of bilingual education. In fact, there are various models, types and approaches towards bilingual education, many of which depend on the context. According to Ball (for UNESCO)33
Many children speak a home language that differs from the language of instruction in education programs. Research confirms that children learn best in their mother tongue as a prelude to and complement of bilingual and multilingual education (see p.2)
Ball lists the following approaches to bilingual education: Mother tongue-based instruction (instruction in children’s L1) Bilingual education (use of two languages for instruction) Mother tongue-based bilingual education (L1 is the primary medium, L2 introduced as a subject in order to late be used as a medium for some subjects) Multilingual education (formal use of more than two languages) Transitional bi/multilingual education (the objective is two move from one language to another) Maintenance bi/multilingual education (after L2 has been introduced, both L1 and L2 are languages of instruction) Immersion (the instruction is in L2)
32 http://www.ndumka.kiev.ua/node/253 33 http://www.ecdip.org/docs/pdf/UNESCO%20Mother-tongue%20based%20EY%202010.pdf
17 Submersion (speakers of non-dominant language have no choice, but receive education in L2 (at the expense of L1)
Since at least one third of Ukraine’s population consider Russian to be their mother tongue, it seems, it would be reasonable to expect several schools with some type of bilingual education. As it is going to be discussed further, there are Ukrainian and Russian schools in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. Since all have Ukrainian language and literature as subjects, it would seem fair to say that even Russian schools represent a mother tongue based school with bilingual elements, while Ukrainian schools are usually an example of immersion. As for transitional schools, i.e. schools moving from Russian to Ukrainian language of instruction (only one or two in the city), they would arguably fall under a category of transitional education. It is clear though that unless a pupil chooses to go to a school with Russian (or other minority) language of instruction, there is no ambition for schools to be bilingual. The main goal of Ukrainian language policy in the field of education has been to pass over from Russian to Ukrainian language of instruction for most schools.
2.3. The Soviet Union: Language policy and language situation in the Ukrainian SSR Before discussing the current state of the language policy in Ukraine, it is important to have a brief overview of the language in years before independence as it gives a vital overview of the preconditions and historical factors shaping and affecting current languages attitudes and views. In the beginning of the 20th century Ukraine was still absent from the map of Europe as a united country (Yekelchyk 2007). But when Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires collapsed between 1917 and 1920, this created an opportunity for Ukraine to form several independent governments and there were some serious attempts at a long-term sovereignty; however, those attempts failed and Ukraine was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1922 (later Ukrainian territories were expanded in 1939, when the USSR occupied parts of Eastern Poland). While it was not independent as a country, it was now united as a republic. As Stalin stated34:
34 It is important to keep in mind the date of this quotation – 1913, when Stalin was responsible for nationalities questions. His politics after 1922 were starkly different from this view.
18 Nations have the right to arrange their affairs as they please; they have the right to preserve any of their national institutions, whether beneficial or pernicious - nobody can (nobody has the right to!) forcibly interfere in the life of a nation. (Sullivant 1962:12)35
According to Fournier (2002:417) “Slavic brotherhood” was at the core of Soviet internationalism and the origins of this idea date as far back as the Tsarist period36.
As ethnic nationalism intensified throughout nineteenth-century Europe, (…) the Great Russians were declared to be the real Russians, while the Ukrainians and Belorussians were viewed either as a junior branch of the Russian family or as Russians corrupted by foreign influences. (Szporluk 1997:96)
This created a sense of close relationship between the nations, while at the same time establishing the hierarchy. Even today Russia is sometimes referred to as Ukraine’s “big brother”, when attempting to revitalize closer ties with Ukraine (or to undermine Ukraine’s independent status, if one wants to be cynical).
2.3.1. Linguistic assimilation and Russification Many linguists and sociologists now agree that the USSR followed a masterful policy of Russification or, one could say, linguistic assimilation37, when everyone, regardless of origin, had to learn the dominant language of the society. The policy of Russification was less apparent than that of the Russian Empire, but arguably just as, or even more, effective. One of the most prominent Soviet linguists Isaev advocated the recognition of more than one language as a language policy of the Soviet republics; citing Marxism-Leninism and maintaining that multilingualism was voluntary and was under no circumstances forced (Исаев 1970). In the same scientific works though, Isaev (1970:25) mentions the socialogical groupings of the Soviet languages suggested by Desheryev (Дешериев 1996:90)38, describing them as “of interest”. The first language group consists of only one language – Russian, used “for international communication”; other national languages, including Ukrainian, are assembled into the second group of “national literature languages”. While this classification of languages
35 Sullivant refers to the article “Marxism and the National Question” written by Stalin (1913:17). Original: Нации имеют право устроиться по своему желанию, они имеют право сохранить любое свое национальное учреждение, и вредное, и полезное, – никто поможет (не имеет права!) насильственно вмешиваться в жизнь наций. (Сталин 1913:334) 36 After the incorporation of left bank Ukraine into the Muscovite state in 1654 (Fournier 2002) 37 Cobarrubias (1983) defines 4 ideologies for policy planning: linguistic assimilation, linguistic pluralism, vernacularization and internationalism. For full definitions see Table 1. Language ideologies on p.16) 38 One of the sources: Дешериев, 1966:90. For further sources see p. 25 Сто тридцать равноправных: о языках народов СССР (Исаев 1970)
19 is not language persecution as such, the singling out and promotion of the Russian language as the language of international communication, while other languages are labelled as simply “literature tongues”, is rather symbolic. This makes Russian look more prestigious and attractive, thus promoting the policy of Russification, despite of the “not forced” language policy claims made by Isaev. While Isaev seems to have a positive and optimistic view of the Soviet language policy, Solchanyk has reservations:
Spokesmen for Soviet nationalities policy argue that these are objective processes, that all languages in the USSR are equal, and that their equality is guaranteed by law. Nonetheless, few western observers of the Soviet scene would disagree that the Russian language in the USSR is rather more equal than others. (Solchanyk 1982:25)
Solchanyk also describes the Soviet approach to the national question as cautious, and that the Soviet literature on the subject attempts, and fails, to explain “inexplicable and contradictory postulates”. At the same time, he maintains that the Soviet policy makers consistently pursued the situation where Russian would be established in a predominant position. It is difficult to dispute the fact that the USSR indeed led a policy of Russification and De-Ukrainization, as Solchanyk and many other academics today believe. Masenko (Масенко, Кубайчук & Демська-Кульчицька, 2005) and Virchenko (Вірченко 200739) have collected extensive lists of events, decrees and documents, which demonstrate that De-Ukrainization and Russification were not only existent, but also rigorous40. The ways in which the USSR tried to eliminate the Ukrainian language were diverse, creative and very discreet – apart from the already customary methods of the Imperial banning and censoring of the books in Ukrainian, discrimination and persecution against Ukrainian activists, there were also decrees ordering to change the spelling and phonetics of the Ukrainian language to make it more similar to Russian (Масенко 2005:11), prohibitions of the celebrations of the Ukrainian literature milestone anniversaries, arsons of the Ukrainian libraries (Вірченко 2007). At first Russian was viewed as simply “language for international communication”, but in early 60s of the 20th century, it was already being labelled a second mother tongue for the USSR nations (Масенко 2005:19). As education is one of the spheres, which are affected by the language policy the most, it was crucial for the USSR to implement Russification policies promoting the use of Russian
39 The summary can also be found online http://www.anvsu.org.ua/index.files/Articles/Virchenko1.htm 40 For a full list see pp.5-36 in Українська мова у ХХ сторіччі: історія лінгвоциду (Масенко 2005)
20 in order to achieve, and later maintain the privileged status of Russian. Bolsheviks success in consolidating their position in the Soviet Union allowed them to focus on “industrialization, collectivization, and national planning”, thus implementing a program of centralization in 1927-1934 (Sullivant 1962:149). According to Sullivant (1962:151) “in education republic control over higher institutions was reduced by transferring supervision over technical and scientific schools from the republic commissariats of education to the appropriate functioning commissariats-agriculture, communications, and others”. Ukrainian opposition criticised this movement. According to Sullivant “Ukraine was becoming a true Russian colony” (1962:155). The Ukrainization program, which was originally implemented in the UkrSSR in 1923 (Perri 2014, 131-154), dominated Ukrainian political life in 1926 and 1927 (Sullivant 1962:129), but it “was objectionable because it failed to safeguard the rights of the Russian minority and because it stimulated the growth of a local nationalism hostile to the principles of Soviet society” (Sullivant 1962:168). At that point Ukrainization was no longer valuable to the Bolsheviks and even became dangerous. Publicly however the party maintained status quo. According to Sullivant (1962:179), in 1930, during the Sixteenth Congress of the All-Union Communist Party, the nationalist question was discussed and Stalin reasserted the following:
…the minority nationalities, such as the Belorussian and the Ukrainian, were not to be Russified but were to be “regenerated and developed as independent nations”; national differences in language, culture, and way of life were not to be ignored; there was to be no further talk about the liquidation of the republics; the Party's policy of localizing the schools, the administrative apparatus, the press, etc., was not to be undermined41.
Sullivant (1962) discusses that after 1930 however, it became clear that the previous claims made by Stalin were a prevention tactic to disarm the growing opposition. The Ukrainization went too far to a point where Russian speaking children were forced to give up speaking their native language in favour of Ukrainian and that here was refusal to prepare teacher for non- Ukrainian minorities as well as adoption of western words in a Ukrainian language as an attempt to distance it from Russian. In 1933 the Commissar of education Skrypnik, who was a supporter and leader of Ukrainization in the UkrSSR, was removed from his position and demoted to state planning. Sullivant (1962:203) discusses the weeks following Skrypnik’s suicide in 1933:
41 The quote above is Sullivant’s summary, which corresponds to the original. The full protocol of the XVI congress the All-Union Communist Party can be found in its original form here (in Russian): http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/K/KPSS/_KPSS.html#016 (see pages 54-57)
21 … direct steps were taken to remove the last of the nationalists from their posts in the Party, government agencies, and public organizations: on July 17 the Institute for the Study of Philosophy was attacked and many of its members expelled; on August 9 and December 15 the All-Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Science and the Shevchenko Institute were purged; on January 12, 1934, the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Red Professors were reorganized. Throughout the period in- numerable teachers, professors, and members of professional and scholarly societies were removed from their jobs and, in many cases, accused of subversive work and imprisoned or deported.
In the following years, Ukrainian nationalism as well as Ukrainian language were repressed and persecuted. The literary and art works, which were written and created in 1920-30s, had marked the revival of Ukrainian culture, but later these writers in artists were repressed during the Great Purge (1936-1938). The generation of artists, hundreds of whom were executed in November 1937 later received a name Executed Renaissance (Розстріляне Відродження). In 1947 a decree, ordering Ukrainian nationalism to be persecuted, was passed; a few years later Kharkiv University students, who refused to take exams in Russian were persecuted and then some were shot (Вірченко 2007).
The major outlines of the “new historical community – Soviet people”, with the Russian language as one of its chief hallmarks, clearly emerged under Khrushchev (though it was only under Brezhnev formally sanctioned as the official formula of Soviet nationality policy). (Kreindler 1990, 46-63)
One of the most point-turning decrees was passed in 1958 as it allowed parents to opt out of having their children learn their mother tongue (Вірченко 2007). Interestingly, this decree did not obligate people to stop learning their native languages – it gave people a choice, but it was a choice that in a way had already been subconsciously made for many of them. The result of the groundwork that the USSR had laid was the belief that the mother-tongues were not required for daily work and social life and that learning them was, to put it bluntly, a waste of time. It came as no surprise that many people did opt out of studying their mother-tongues, which, as Virchenko (Вірченко 2007) describes, resulted in the Russification of many schools.
Table 4. Bilingualism and language retention based on census returns 1970 and 1979 (Kirkwood 1990:74) % claiming fluent Russian as % giving language of own
second language nationality as first language 1970 1979 1970 1979 Russians 0.1 0.1 99.8 99.9 Ukrainians 36.3 49.8 85.7 82.8
22 Table 4 above shows the results of further Russification measures, which took place in the upcoming years. In 1978-1979 all the language policy procedures were formalized and systemized and Russian became the recommended language of use in the educational establishments; a new syllabus, textbooks, and educational aids for teaching Russian were developed, the number of Russian lesson hours increased, classes with intensive study of Russian were created (Solchanyk 1982, Вірченко 2007).
2.3.2. The Perestroika period and the UkrSSR language law The Perestroika period, which took place in the last years before the dissolution of the USSR, was originally designed to conduct reforms in the economic and political spheres in order to address the existing issues. As Gorbachev, who was the General Secretary of the Communist Party at the time, was preoccupied with the above-mentioned problems, many of the USSR republics saw an opportunity to develop their own language policies for the first time and to assign the state language titles to their national tongues. In 1989 The UkrSSR passed the “Law on Languages in the UkrSSR”42 № 8312-XI stating that Ukrainian was the only state language, therefore it was also the language of instruction in schools, special secondary, professional technical and higher educational establishments; in places of settlement where the majority of the citizens were of other nationalities, the language of instruction could be their mother tongue alongside Ukrainian. The citizens were given the right of choice of the language of instruction. To satisfy the needs of both Ukrainian and Russian speakers, both languages were made compulsory subjects (Janmaat 2000:59). As a response and a futile attempt to tighten the reins, in 1990 the central government of the USSR passed “The Law of the Languages of the peoples of the USSR”, declaring Russian the state language of the USSR for the first time. The government sustained this standpoint until the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (Grenoble 2003:63). Thanks to Soviet policies and propaganda, the Russification was reasonably successful. Figure 1 below shows how Soviet language policy affected the number of pupils receiving their education in Ukrainian schools.
42 The language law from 1989 was the operating language law of the independent Ukraine until 2012, when Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law came into power
23 Figure 1. Russification: percentage of pupils in Ukrainian schools in 4 school years43
% of pupils in Ukrainian schools
80 70 73.6 72.2 60 60.8 50 40 40 30 20 10 0 1951-52 1958-59 1971-72 1985-86
While Isaev and other Soviet academics maintained that the USSR led the policy of multilingualism (and arguably linguistic pluralism in the USSR), essentially it was a strong case of linguistic assimilation (Inglis 2009). People were led to believe that multilingualism was the ultimate goal, yet the conditions for learning national languages such as Ukrainian declined, Ukrainian was not considered prestigious and people were not required to know it. At the same time the number of hours for learning Russian increased and it was a language everyone needed to know, which assisted the process of assimilating Ukrainian speakers into the Russian language environment. All Ukrainian national census (All-Ukrainian population census 200144) showed that in 1989, a substantial 32.8% of the population considered Russian to be their native tongue in Ukraine, and while many Ukrainians believe that “native tongue” and the language of daily use could be two different languages, the number of actual every day speakers of Russian could have been and probably had been much higher. It needs to be noted, that as Ukraine was historically split into parts, most of which used to belong either to Russia since 1654 (or some would argue 1667)45 or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, uneven language distribution has long been characteristic throughout
43 The figure is based on data by Arel (1994, in Janmaat 2000) 44 http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/ 45 1654 – Treaty of Pereyaslav, when Hetman Khmelnytsky received protectorate for the from Russian tsar. This included the following territories: (Dnieper Ukraine) Наддніпрянщина, Left-bank Ukraine (Лівобережна Україна), right-bank Ukraine (Правобережна Україна), Severia (Сіверщина). Zaporizhia (Запорожжя) - See map on p 119 (Субтельний 1991). The 1667 The Truce of Andrusovo finalized settled territorial disputes between the Tsardom of Russia and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
24 Ukraine: the majority of the western and of the northern parts have been more Ukrainian speaking, while the East and the South (including Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ) have been russified considerably more. The USSR did not and could not change this circumstance; hence even after the split of the USSR, the regional language preferences have remained proportionally consistent despite the fluctuation in the number of the Russian and Ukrainian speakers46. As a result of masterful and shrewd language policy in the USSR, Russian language not only sustained, but also strengthened its permanent presence in the linguistic map of Ukraine.
2.4. Independent Ukraine: language policy and language situation before the Orange Revolution (1991-2005) 2.4.1. Key historical facts and events After centuries of being dependent from Russia and decades under the rule of the USSR, Ukraine finally became an independent state in 1991, when over 90% of Ukrainian population voted for its independence and Kravchuk became the first president. The first years of independence were extremely severe for the population as the standard of living plummeted, resulting in ¾ of Ukrainian population living below poverty levels (Yekelchuk 2007); consequently, De-Russification and Ukrainization47 had to take place at a difficult economical time, and for the majority of the population the language question was not the main concern. Yet the language question seemed important for the nation building, so Ukrainian started being used more, especially in those social spheres of life where it had the most impact – such as the state mass media48 and especially education. “Ukrainisation’s aim has been to put a halt to Russification and reverse it through an appropriation of the “indigenous” Ukrainian language” (Fournier 2002:420). When it came to the sphere of education, a gradual shift from Russian to Ukrainian as a language of instruction was a part of the Ukrainization program in the beginning of the 1990s. In February 1991, UkrSSR Rada had already planned measures aimed at Ukrainization (Державна програма розвитку української мови та інших національних мов в українській
46 For more detailed information on language distribution in Ukraine see http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/ 47 One can argue that the ideology of vernacularization was used in independent Ukraine, i.e. restoration or elaboration of an indigenous language and its adoption as an official language (Cobarrubias (1983 in Wardhaugh, 2002:380). Since the term Ukrainization is widely acceptable amongst the Slavic sociolinguistics, I will use the latter term. 48 All other media remained Russian-speaking (press, television, radio …)
25 РСР на період до 2000 року)49. According to this program, oblastʹs were divided into three groups. The first group included such oblastʹs as L'vivs'ka and other western oblastʹs with large percentages of Ukrainian speakers; the second group included such oblastʹs as Kyivs'ka oblastʹ and other central oblastʹs with moderate numbers of Ukrainian speakers. Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ was a part of the third group, which also consisted of Dnipropetrovs'ka oblastʹ, Donets’ka, Zaporiz'ka, Kryms'ka, Luhans'ka, Odes'ka and Khersons'ka oblastʹs as well as Sevastopol city. Based on this division, the groups received different timelines for implementation of the Ukrainization policies. The oblastʹs with the already existing large numbers of Ukrainian speakers received the earliest deadline for implementation. Meanwhile the oblastʹs such as Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and the rest of the oblastʹs in group 3 received additional years in order to accomplish the program. This way, the Ukrainization process for the more Russian-speaking oblastʹs would be more gradual. While the plans seemed apt in theory, those schools, which had to change their language of instruction from Russian to Ukrainian, faced a challenge. Almost all of the teachers, who were working in schools and universities in the 1990s, had been obviously trained in the USSR, therefore, all of the education and teacher experience had been received and done in Russian. A large number of textbooks and teaching materials was either in Russian or questionable Ukrainian. As was the case with most of the Ukrainian population, both teachers’ salaries and motivation levels were low. In order to stay in their jobs most teachers had to adapt and re- educate themselves, rewrite their lesson plans and learn new Ukrainian terminology50. Between the 1995 and 2012 the number of schools with Ukrainian as language of teaching on the whole territory of Ukraine significantly increased. According to the Statistical Yearbook for 2012 (2013), the number of secondary schools with Ukrainian language of instruction increased from 58% in 1995/1996 school year to 82% in 2012/2013 school year; the number of institutions of higher education of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation with Ukrainian language of instruction increased from 55% to 91% in the same years and the number of institutions of higher education of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation with Ukrainian language of instruction also increased from 51% to 91%.
49 See Про Державну програму розвитку української мови та інших... | від 12.02.1991 № 41 http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/41%D1%80-91-%D0%BF/page 50 While there is no objective way to measure and generalize the way someone feels about a certain matter, based on personal observations and conversations on the topic before and during the data collection, the majority of the teachers were not resentful towards adjusting to a new system, instead most of them were concerned with how new economic problems were affecting their home and work life.
26 In May of 1991, a law № 1060-XII “About education”51 was passed; article 7 of the law “Language of education” referred to the 1989 “Law on Languages in the UkrSSR” № 8312-XI. Under the UkrSSR law, pre-school, secondary and higher education of all levels was to be conducted in Ukrainian; if there was a high number of other nationalities living in the area, there could be created schools, kindergartens or separate classes and groups (within a Ukrainian school) with a national language of instruction other than Ukrainian. In higher education establishments, there could be groups where another language of instruction would complement Ukrainian:
В Українській СР навчальна і виховна робота в професійно-технічних училищах, середніх спеціальних і вищих навчальних закладах ведеться українською мовою, а у випадках, передбачених частинами другою і третьою статті 3 цього Закону, поряд з українською - і національною мовою більшості населення52.
Articles 27-28 of Part III of the UkrSSR law refer to the article 3 of the same law regarding the languages of minorities of the UkrSSR law as a precondition for creating Russian-speaking (and other minority languages) schools and classes. The article 3 is presented below in Ukrainian: Стаття 3. Мови інших національностей в Українській РСР
Українська РСР створює необхідні умови для розвитку і використання мов інших національностей в республіці.
В роботі державних, партійних, громадських органів, підприємств, установ і організацій, розташованих у місцях проживання більшості громадян інших національностей (міста, райони, сільські і селищні Ради, сільські населені пункти, їх сукупність), можуть використовуватись поряд з українською і їхні національні мови.
У разі, коли громадяни іншої національності, що становлять більшість населення зазначених адміністративно-територіальних одиниць, населених пунктів, не володіють в належному обсязі національною мовою або коли в межах цих адміністративно-територіальних одиниць, населених пунктів компактно проживає кілька національностей, жодна з яких не становить більшості населення даної місцевості, в роботі названих органів і організацій може використовуватись українська мова або мова, прийнята для всього населення53.
51 The law is still valid until today. All the versions of the law can be found here: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1060-12/ed20050101 52 Author’s translation: “In the Ukrainian SR (Soviet Republic), educational and upbringing work is conducted in Ukrainian in vocational schools, colleges, and universities in cases stipulated by parts two and three of Article 3 hereof, alongside Ukrainian - and the national language of the majority.” 53 Author’s translation: Article 3. Languages of other nationalities in the Ukrainian SSR:
27 As one can see, it was clear that Ukrainian was the main language and that, while the law allowed for a good amount of leniency and flexibility towards the speakers of other languages and representatives of national minorities, there was no way to avoid learning Ukrainian, even in Russian speaking schools and especially if one wanted to go to a higher educational establishment. Not everyone was happy with such turn of events – some of the Russian speakers were dissatisfied with the increased presence of Ukrainian and that is why they supported Kuchma, who had promised to make Russian the second official state language in the 1994 presidential elections (Bilaniuk 2005). Kuchma, however, did not make Russian second official, and, when he got re-elected in 1999, he still failed to keep his promise; Ukrainian was still the only official language. In fact, in January 2000 the Ukrainian Presidential Council on Language Policy Issues approved a government program “On Additional Measures to Expand the Use of Ukrainian as the State Language”, which came into force in a government program in June of that year (Kuzio & D'Anieri 2002:21). The program meant that all the officials were “to be checked for the Ukrainian language proficiency, for the de-Russification of the sports and cultural spheres, and for the use of taxation to regulate the import of publications” (Kuzio & D'Anieri 2002:21). Fournier (2002:422) states that there was resistance from Moscow towards this law, stating that this was directed against the preservation and development of the Russian language and culture in Ukraine (RFE/RL, Newsline, 15 February 2000, in 2002:422). One can only speculate as to whether Kuchma had intentions of making Russian the second language or whether these promises were just a part of his pre-electoral campaign. In 1996 Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada adopted the Constitution of Ukraine, formalizing and supporting the already operating language law of 1989. Article 10 in General Principles of the Constitution54 states:
The State language of Ukraine shall be the Ukrainian language.
Ukrainian SSR creates necessary conditions for the development and use of languages of other nationalities in the country. In the state, party, public bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations located in the habitats of most citizens of other nationalities (cities, districts, village and settlement councils, villages, their set) their national languages can be used alongside the Ukrainian language. In cases where citizens of other nationalities that make up the majority of these administrative units and settlements do not have the sufficient level of the national language, or, when, within these administrative units, settlements densely populated by several nationalities, none of which is the majority of the area – Ukrainian language or the language acceptable for the population can be used for work purposes of these organizations. 54 This is the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine and it can be found under: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc.
28 The State shall ensure comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine.
Free development, use, and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine shall be guaranteed in Ukraine.
The State shall promote the learning of languages of international communication.
The use of languages in Ukraine shall be guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and shall be determined by law.55
This way Ukrainian became the only official language of the state, while other languages, in particular Russian were still protected by the state.
2.4.2. Policy implications and resistance The newly gained independence signified the beginning of increased use of Ukrainian language in most public domains. Bilaniuk (2005:175) discusses nonreciprocal bilingualism, which allowed for “mixing of languages in conversation while preserving the imperative purity for any given speaker”. In this practice, each speaker chose the preferred language. Bilaniuk used newspapers and journals as examples, where two different languages were printed side by side, “co-present, but not mixed”. This practice was also popular on television, when an interviewer for instance spoke Ukrainian and an interviewee, possibly not fully confident in his Ukrainian, would respond in Russian. Some politicians also continued in Russian despite the mandate to use Ukrainian in public offices. Similar situations could be observed in daily communication, where one speaker would use Russian and the response would be in Ukrainian. Bilaniuk suggests that even though this practice “challenged a monolingual model of a nation”, it maintained the ideology of linguistic separation and purity. It can be argued that the model of co-present, but not mixed nonreciprocal bilingualism (alongside surzhyk56) still exists in every day communication, i.e. markets and public transport.
55 Original (Конституція України 1996): Стаття 10. Державною мовою в Україні є українська мова. Держава забезпечує всебічний розвиток і функціонування української мови в усіх сферах суспільного життя на всій території України. В Україні гарантується вільний розвиток, використання і захист російської, інших мов національних меншин України. Держава сприяє вивченню мов міжнародного спілкування. Застосування мов в Україні гарантується Конституцією України та визначається законом. 56 In this dissertation I term surzhyk as „mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian”, however there are other terms for mixing Russian and Ukrainain. For instance, Hentschel (2008:99) uses Ukrainian-Russian “mixed speech”.
29 There clearly has been resistance towards Ukrainization after the independence, however Fournier (2002:423) says that the extent to which the citizens of Ukraine oppose Ukrainization is not easy to determine as there seems to be a lot of indifference towards the language laws in Ukraine. The resistance however exists (especially amongst those who are affected by Ukrainization – Russian speakers) and even years before conducting the survey, during my years of living in Mykolaiv, I have heard people say that “people should not be told what to do” and “they should have a choice of language”. When new pro-Ukrainian measures came out, there was a consistent wave of anti-Ukrainization which followed. There are numerous articles online, which document the anti-Ukrainization movements57. In her research, which included letters of protest sent to the government and articles published in Ukrainian newspapers, Fournier (2002) determined several themes, or arguments, of protest (see Table 5 on p.30).
Table 5. Frequency of the arguments in support of resistance against Ukrainization in the newspaper articles (Fournier 2002:424)
1. Resistance to the 'artificial' division of 'one people' 30% 2. Resistance to the elevation of Ukrainian as a state language 25% 3. Resistance to the labelling of Russian as a 'foreign' language in Ukraine 65% 4. Resistance to the 'liquidation' of the Russian language and culture in Ukraine 50% 5. Resistance to an ethnic vs. a linguistic definition in Ukrainian state laws 60%
While resistance to the elevation of Ukrainian as a state language, labelling Russian as a “foreign language” in Ukraine and liquidation of the Russian language and culture in Ukraine (point 2, 3 and 4) seem self-explanatory, let me briefly focus on the arguments 1 and 5. According to Fournier the artificial division of people refers to the “historical fraternity” of Ukraine and Russia, while the last point is aimed at the ambiguities in terminology in the legislature, which excludes language groups. In other words, Ukrainian Constitution protects ethnic groups, but not the language groups (as it is assumed that both of these terms correspond to each other). Already in 2002 Fournier stated that “lack of acknowledgement of this kind of
57 http://www.rodgaz.ru/index.php?action=Articles&dirid=22&tek=20347&issue=272 http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2010/01/100122_medvedev_political_system.shtml http://www.segodnya.ua/ukraine/kinoteatry-podnjali-bunt-protiv-ukrainizatsii.html
30 hybridity is likely to lead to various forms of protest as nation building is consolidated” (p.431). As we now know, this resistance has not only led to protests, but also played a role in the Donbass armed conflict of 2014-2016.
2.4.3. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages In its bid to become a democratic state, Ukraine signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) on the 2nd of May 199658 during the Kuchma presidency. This document was designed to protect the “historical regional or minority languages of Europe, some of which are in danger of eventual extinction”. According to the Charter the parties undertake the responsibility to make available pre-school, primary, secondary, technical and vocational education, university and other higher education, adult and continuing education courses in the relevant regional or minority languages (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, 1992). In the context of Ukraine, it meant that Russian and other minority languages would have more rights and would be protected by the state. Since every country signing this Charter was relatively free to choose which languages to include under its protection, it has come under question why Russian was included, since it was under no threat of extinction. The explanation for this could be found in the translation of the Charter’s text and its further misinterpretation. While the goal of the Charter was to protect minority languages, Ukrainian translation instead talked about languages of minorities (Russian being one of them). In fact, according to Paulston and Heidemann (in Ricento 2006:293), there is not yet a generally accepted definition neither at international, nor at European level as to what a minority language is. While minority usually refers to quantitative differences, it seems that there is a belief among several writers (Giordan 1992, Paulston 1994, Vilfan 199359) that the superordinate-subordinate status relationship is just as important to define a language as a minority language. Since Russian dominates in certain parts of the country, it should not be considered a minority language. One of the most important principles of the Charter was that “the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them”60, meaning that speakers of Russian and any other “minority” languages still had to learn Ukrainian. This part is often conveniently forgotten by
58 19.09.2005 – Charter was ratified in Ukraine 01.01.2006 – Charter came into force in Ukraine 59 Discussed by Paulson and Heidemann, in Ricento 2006:293 60 http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm
31 the pro-Russian advocates. In the following years the Charter would become a document, which would be a loophole for the supporters of Russian language in Ukraine, in particular the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law.
2.5. Yushchenko and his language policy (2005-2009) 2.5.1. Political context Due to various political scandals and an alleged corruption, there was a number of protests against the president Kuchma in 2002-2003 (“Ukraine profile” 2013), which showed clear signs of the nation’s dissatisfaction with the government. The presidential elections in 2004 provided Ukrainian people with an opportunity to choose a new president. The choice was between two Viktors – Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych. When the election results in favour of Viktor Yanukovych were announced, the Ukrainian and international observers claimed the falsification of the results of the elections. After vast protests in Kiev and other towns in Ukraine, re-elections were ordered and Yushchenko, with Yulia Tymoshenko as his ally, came out as a clear winner later that year. These events received international repute as the “Orange Revolution” due to the symbolic colour of the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko alliance. The revolution noticeably improved Ukraine’s reputation in Europe and in the world – Ukraine took a step towards Europe (Besters-Dilger 2009b) and was starting to be seen as a democratic country.
2.5.2. Yushchenko’s Ukrainization and European orientation Yushchenko served only one presidential term from January 2005 until February 2010. Yushchenko’s victory in Orange revolution also meant that his presidential powers were significantly reduced and transferred to the parliament due to the changes made to the Constitution adopted by Verkhovna Rada in December 2004 (Kulyk 2009:24). A quick overview of Yushchenko’s language policy creates an impression of Ukrainization-oriented route, as during his presidency he passed a number of decrees, promoting the use of Ukrainian language in education, culture and mass media. Besters-Dilger (Бестерс-Дільгер 2010:91) listed the following underlining ideas of Yushchenko’s policy:
There is no nation without a language; Ukrainians constitute the biggest part of the Ukrainian population (77% according to the all national census);
32 Every country has its own language and this is its titular language; Ukrainian language was unfairly treated under tsarist and soviet rule and this unfairness needs to be corrected; Without special support, Ukrainian language will be pushed out by Russian.
In 2005 Yushchenko passed a decree № 1013/2005, which amongst numerous points aimed at improving education in Ukraine; he named monitoring the quality of education as one of them (Ющенко 200561). Many teachers reported, that, for the first time in many years, they felt the pressure to use Ukrainian at work and that the status of Ukrainian was not just a formality (and in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in particular). For some teachers, who were not fluent in Ukrainian, it also meant difficulties in career development, as, for example, state attestation needed to be done in Ukrainian. In 2007 Yushchenko endorsed the annual Ukrainian language P.Yatsyk competition as a way to support and affirm the status of the Ukrainian language (Decree No.1078/200762) and promoted the learning of the Ukrainian language in Crimea (Decree No.1122/200763). The following year he issued a decree aimed at improving the quality of education in Ukraine; one of the main points being better salaries for teachers of the Ukrainian language and literature (Decree No. 244/200864). However, as Kulyk (2009) describes it, Yushchenko’s measures were more administrative rather than legal65. The major flaws, that existed in the Kuchma’s language policy also, such as the ambiguities in the language law remained unanswered and left room for misinterpretation. Yushchenko failed to initiate a new language law, which would address these issues and, as Kulyk (2009:25) points out, “stipulate mechanisms for ensuring more comprehensive use of Ukrainian, in particular penalties for violators. At the same time, he also did not sign the decree on citizens’ right to use Russian and other minority languages in communication with authorities, where these languages are spoken (Kulyk 2009). In the first year of Yushchenko’s presidency, Ukraine joined the Bologna process as a full member in 2005. One of the main objectives of the Bologna process was the “adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees”66 as well as a more uniform educational structure in Europe. For Ukraine this meant a need to implement standardized tests for the
61 The document can be found online: http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1013/2005 62 http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1078/2007 63 http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1122/2007 64 http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/244/2008 65 For more on this see pp.25-27 in Kulyk (2009) 66 http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf
33 higher establishment entry – external independent testing (зовнішнє незалежне оцінювання). School leaving certificate and entrance exams were no longer the means for the university entry, school graduates needed to take EIT (ЗНО in Ukrainian). The transition to the external testing was gradual and there were several “test runs” (with first ones reportedly having a number of mistakes in the test). One of the essential subjects of EIT was the Ukrainian language. This meant that anyone who wanted to study in a higher educational establishment now needed a good score on Ukrainian language in EIT and the knowledge of Ukrainian became even more important. Originally it was only possible to take the test in Ukrainian, a decision criticised by the evaluation Commission of the Charter (Müller 2012:408), however, later in 2009 it became possible to take the test in other languages as well (including Russian).
2.5.3. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Russian language Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union was a priority for Yushchenko (Бестерс- Дільґер 2010:92). One of the key events in Yushchenko’s language policy was the deposition of Ukraine’s instrument of ratification of the ECRML in Strasbourg in September of 2005. With this ratification, which was intended to be a step towards democracy, the ECRML came into action the following year (2006) and so did a new set of problems. Ukraine took on the responsibility to protect more minorities than any other country – 13 (Бестерс-Дільґер 2010:92), which was clearly a considerable undertaking. While the Charter was meant to protect and promote the regional and minority languages, there were a number of questions with no answer, such as which languages needed to be protected? Additionally, which ones were minority and who decided this? When discussing the right of linguistic minorities, there are difficulties with definitions:
There are difficulties with the term “minority”. The numerical implication of the term is not always appropriate, the relationship in fact generally being superordinate or subordinate status. Some ethnic minorities can be dominant (…) and others (…) are not primarily linguistically different. (Spolsky 2004:113)
Other linguists also note that terminology is an issue when it comes to minority languages and states that definitions such has “community languages, minority languages, ethnic languages and heritage languages” are all “euphemisms intended to recognise that they are not the majority language, yet represent populations of citizens (Kaplan & Baldauf Jr. 1997) and when there is ambiguity in the rule, there is usually room for misinterpretation and ensuing disputes. In the months following the ratification of the ECRML, a number of oblastʹs proclaimed
34 Russian to be their regional language. In June of 2006 deputies of the Mykolaivsʹka City Council voted to proclaim Russian as a regional language in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ (59 out of 90 votes in support of this, with 17 voting against). City Mayor maintained however, that this decision was unconstitutional (Каландирець 200667). Ukrainian and central authorities also opposed these decisions (Søvik 2007:13).
2.5.4. End of Yushchenko’s presidency Towards the end of his presidential term, Yushchenko was deeply aware of the persisting language question in Ukraine. In his interview with Spiegel in 2009, published in English, (“Interview with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko: 'The Problems Began After the Orange Revolution',” 2009), Yushchenko states that there is a language problem, which lies in the fact that two thirds of the population will respond in Russian when spoken to; that, half of the education budget goes towards the school instruction in Russian. When asked why not make Russian a second official language, Yushchenko responded:
As the guarantor of the Constitution, I must maintain Ukrainian as the official state language. We preserve our culture thanks to our mother tongue. This significantly contributes to maintaining our independence. If a nation loses its language, it loses its memory, its history, and its identity.
During his last days of Presidency, Yushchenko issued a decree No. 161/2010 (Ющенко 2010), which criticised the current language situation, stating that the question was getting politicized, and that while 77,8% of the Ukrainian population are Ukrainians, only 67,5% consider Ukrainian to be their mother tongue. The President listed a number of notions to promote the learning, use and prestige of the Ukrainian language in 2011-2015. In 2010 his old opponent Yanukovych won the presidential elections against Tymoshenko, meaning that Yushchenko was not able to make sure that these concepts materialise.
2.6. Yanukovych, the Charter and the new language law (2010-2012)68 In 2010 Yushchenko’s old opponent Yanukovych won the presidential elections against Tymoshenko and came into power in February 2010. Yanukovych’s language policy contrasted starkly from what Yushchenko had initiated and can be viewed as a policy of De-Ukrainization
67 http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/945877.html 68 Yanukovych continued his presidency beyond 2012 (until 2014), however the dissertation only examines the language situation until 2012.
35 and Russification. Even though Yanukovych promised to lead Ukrainian legislation the European way, this promise was not materialised (Moser 2013:413, Motyl 201369). Kolesnichenko is often criticised for authoring the 2012 “unconstitutional law” “On the principles of the state language policy”, while Tabachnyk and Yanukovych are criticised for allowing this law to happen (Moser 2013).
2.6.1. The Charter Since the 2012 language law used the ECRML as its base, let us briefly look at the implementation of the Charter in Ukraine. After the Charter came into force in 2006, Ukraine submitted its first periodical report as a part of the 1st monitoring cycle70 on 02.08.2007 and the Committee of Experts’ evaluation was ready on 27.11.2008, however the committees’ recommendations were adopted only on 07.07.2010 – three years after submission of the original report (Бестерс-Дільґер 2012a:171). Besters-Dilger explains that this happens when there is no consensus regarding the recommendations.
Table 6. The first two cycles of periodical and evaluation reports of Ukraine
Committee of Monitoring Committee of Experts' State Periodical Report Ministers' Cycle evaluation report Recommendation Entry into force of Charter - 1 January 2006 1st Cycle submitted on 02/08/2007 adopted on 27/11/2008 adopted on 07/07/2010
2nd Cycle submitted on 06/01/2012 adopted on 15/11/2012 adopted on 15/1/2014
As Besters-Dilger wrote, the Committee pointed out that Russian cannot be treated as a minority lanaguge (Бестерс-Дільґер 2012a:171). Below is the abstract from the evaluation report (see point 79 of the report71):
The Committee of Experts recalls that the status of a language is a matter of internal policy and that the text of the Charter does not provide clear guidance as to whether a given language should be considered a state language or given another status. It is not up to the Committee of Experts to challenge the Ukrainian legislation, as long as the language in question receives
69 To read the full discussion of the Moser’s book, go to http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j- motyl/soviet-style-imperialism-ukrainian-language 70 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/default_en.asp 71 https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/EvaluationReports/UkraineECRML1_en.pdf
36 the necessary protection from the authorities. However, given the number of Russian speakers in Ukraine, it is clear that the Russian language must be accorded a special position.
The law project provided Russian with a special status by putting it first in the list and before the other languages. The rest of the languages were in the alphabetical order.
2.6.2. The language law In 2010 a bill «Про мови в Україні» №1015-372 was registered which would basically make Russian a second official language. Litvin, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, sent this bill to Knut Vollebæk, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities for review and Mr. Vollebæk was critical of the bill, stating that it will increase the social divisions rather than decrease them. The bill was sharpy critised by the Venice Commission for its unproportionally strong support of Russian and lack of support of Ukrainain. The law was a step back to Russificiation, as it freed the citizens of having to learn Ukrainain. (Бестерс-Дільґер 2012a:171)73. Eventually, a very similar language law bill No.9073 “On the principles of the state language policy” (“Проект Закону про засади державної мовної політики”) was registered by Kivalov and Kolesnichenko in June 2011 (Колесніченко & Ківалов 2011), which would also give Russian a considerably higher status on the territory of Ukraine74. It is ironic that this bill heavily relies on the ECRML ratified by Yushchenko, because it, in fact, goes against the philosophy of the Charter, which had been originally designed to protect the languages that are under threat of disappearing. Since Russian, being the most geographically widespread language of Ukraine and Eurasia, is under no threat of disappearing; one can understand the criticism of the law concerning its conception and wording. Also, many argue that the law was unconstitutional, because the necessary procedures of the bill becoming a law had been skipped, and it was undermining the Constitution of Ukraine, as it allowed for people “to not use the state language as the mandatory form of communication in public spheres of life”; also, it was a “populist document” (as it could not cater to all the “regional and minority languages” in Ukraine, without it costing billions or tens of billions of UAH) (“The Kivalov-
72 http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=38474 73 For more details on this go to Бестерс-Дільґер (2012) http://lnu.edu.ua/publications/collections/ms/ua/issues/03/19.pdf 74 For full text of the bill and chronology of the motions go to http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=41018
37 Kolesnichenko Language Bill Must Not Be Signed into Law!” 2012). Later Kivalov and Kolesnichenko would be awarded the Pushkin medal by the Russian president Putin “For keeping and promoting Russian language and culture abroad” (Путин 2013). In spite of all the criticism and controversy surrounding it, the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko bill № 5029-VI75 was passed by Ukrainian Rada on 3rd of July 2012, Yanukovych signed the law on the 8th of August and on 10th of August 2012 the law came into force76; corresponding changes to the 1991 law about education № 1060-XII were later made. The law no longer referred to the 1991 UkrSSR law, but to the “On the principles of the state language policy”. With the new language law in force, 13 out of 27 Ukrainian oblastʹs proclaimed Russian as a regional language, including Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. While Russian was still used as a language of instruction in Ukraine, it again had powerful administrative and legal support behind it. It again could be openly used as a language of instruction in schools and universities, studied beside Ukrainian, used in all public domains. Below is an abstract of the law in Ukrainian (Article 7, points 2 and 3):
2. У контексті Європейської хартії регіональних мов або мов меншин до регіональних мов або мов меншин України, до яких застосовуються заходи, спрямовані на використання регіональних мов або мов меншин, що передбачені у цьому Законі, віднесені мови: російська, білоруська, болгарська, вірменська, гагаузька, ідиш, кримськотатарська, молдавська, німецька, новогрецька, польська, ромська, румунська, словацька, угорська, русинська, караїмська, кримчацька.77
3. До кожної мови, визначеної у частині другій цієї статті, застосовуються заходи, спрямовані на використання регіональних мов або мов меншин, що передбачені у цьому Законі, за умови, якщо кількість осіб - носіїв регіональної мови, що проживають на території, на якій поширена ця мова, становить 10 відсотків і більше чисельності її населення78
According to the law, it took only 10 percent of the population for the language to be considered regional. Since Russian could easily reach that number in certain oblastʹs, it is clear that this law was in favour of Russian.
75 http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5029-17 76 http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=41018 77 Author’s translation: In the context of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages referring to the regional or minority languages in Ukraine, for which the measures for use of regional or minority languages are stipulated in this law, the following languages are referred to: Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Armenian, Gagauz, Yiddish, Crimean Tatar, Moldovan, German, Modern Greek, Polish, Romani, Romanian, Slovak, Hungarian, Rusyn, Karaim, Krymchatska. 78 Author’s translation: For each language specified in the second paragraph of this Article, the measures aimed at the use of regional or minority languages as stipulated in this Law apply, provided that the number of people - speakers of regional languages, residing on the territory, in which the language is spread, is 10 percent or more the size of its population.
38 Weeks before the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law was adopted, there were big boards around Mykolaiv supporting the Russian language, clearly aimed at making Russian a regional language in Mykolaiv. On 21 August 2012 Russian became a regional language in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. There were protestors as well as supporters of this decision outside the Mykolaiv city council causing chaos during this decision-making process. Despite this, the decision was reached when 60 city council deputies voted in support of this, 4 were against, and 4 abstained (Акимова 2012).
Big board in Mykolaiv in support of Russian, June 201279
Interestingly, that, when submitting the Bill No.9073, which would become the language law the following year, Kolesnichenko also registered Bill No.9059-1 “On prohibition of narrowing the spheres of use of regional languages and languages of national minorities of Ukraine”, which would support and strengthen the Bill No.9073. In article 4, the former bill prohibits the restriction of the regional language use or minority languages. Any of the restrictions for the citizens of Ukraine to use these languages is not allowed (“Проект Закону про заборону звуження сфери застосування регіональних мов або мов меншин України”). The bill was not reviewed.
79 http://comments.ua/politics/346823-nikolaeve-poyavilis-bilbordi.html
39 It might also be worth noting that the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko language bill was not the only language law proposed in the first two years of Yanukovych presidency. Amongst the rejected bills there was Bill No. 1015-3 on “On languages in Ukraine” by Jefremov, Symonenko and Grynevec'kyj (“Проект Закону про мови в Україні”), which, like the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko bill, was also aimed at promoting the use of Russian, and other regional languages and languages of minorities in the educational sphere, mass media. It also created opportunities for the language to be used in government and amongst officials both at state and local levels, in shipbuilding, economic and social work, as well as when conducting cultural events and other spheres of social life on the territory, where these languages are used. Meanwhile, the Bill No.9714-1 by Samojlyk, Kurylo, Baranov-Mohort was reminiscent of the USSR language policy, as it was aimed at changing the law for preschool education by giving the parents right to choose a language of education for their children and it encouraged the creation of more educational establishments where children could study using their national or other language (parents make the choice which language) (“Проект Закону про внесення змін до Закону України “Про дошкільну освіту” (щодо організації навчально-виховного процесу)”).
2.7. Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ: focus on the education structure and language situation Before discussing Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ let us have a look at the general language situation in in the oblastʹ and in education in particular. Figure 2 on p. 40 shows a native language distribution within Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ.
Figure 2. Distribution of the population of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ by native language 200180
Languages Number of speakers Percentage within oblastʹ Total 1 262 899 100,00 Ukrainian 873 898 69,20 Russian 369 489 29,26 Belarusian 1 677 0,13 Bulgarian 1 693 0,13 Armenian 2 453 0,19
80 http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=19A050501_02&ti=19A050501_02.%20Distrib ution%20of%20the%20population%20of%20Ukraine`s%20regions%20by%20native%20language%20(0,1)&pa th=../Database/Census/05/01/&lang=2&multilang=en
40 Gagauz 393 0,03 Crimean Tatar 2 0,00 Moldavian 7 316 0,58 German 66 0,01 Polish 99 0,01 Romani 643 0,05 Romanian 54 0,00 Slovak 3 0,00 Hungarian 60 0,00 Karaim - - Hebrew 80 0,01 Greek 27 0,00 other language 3 679 0,29 did not indicate 1 267 0,10
Table 39 on page 180 (see Appendix) is based on the official statistics from Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ statistical office and gives an overview of the educational establishments in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ over the period of 18 years. Table 40 (based on the same source as Table 39) on page 181 shows the number of pupils and students (in thousands). The number of professional technical establishments decreased by only one in these 18 years, and establishments of higher education decreased by two (combined numbers of all levels of accreditation). This however did not affect the number of students studying. In fact, the number of students in higher educational establishments tripled (thanks to the university branches from other regions, which are not included in the number of the educational establishments as well as universities accepting more students). At the same time, slightly fewer students were enrolled in professional technical establishments and level I-II educational establishments. The most drastic change though was in schools, where the number of pupils decreased by 45.6% (it went from 202.8 to 110.3 thousand pupils). This is a very drastic fall, but is not unexpected, considering that the number of births has also decreased since 1990 as well. According to the same source (Головне управління статистики у Миколаївській області) the number of live births decreased from 18411 in 1990 to 13515 in 2012 in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. The conclusion seems to be, that although the birth rate has diminished (which obviously results in fewer children attending schools), more children go on to higher
41 educational establishments81. Since most of the higher educational establishments have Ukrainian as a language of instruction, there is a higher demand for knowledge of Ukrainian and Ukrainian schools. Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ saw increases in numbers of educational establishments with the Ukrainian language of instruction in 1995-2012. While the number of secondary schools and institutions of higher education of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation with Ukrainian language of instruction did not deviate more than 5% from the mean of the whole Ukraine, the number of institutions of higher education of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation with Ukrainian language of instruction was 9% lower than the average in Ukraine (and the number of these institutions with Russian language of instruction also was higher). Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 on pages 42-44, based on the data from 2012 Statistical Yearbook of Ukraine, show in detail the change of the language if instruction between 1995/96 and 2012/2013 school years.82
Figure 3. Children in pre-school educational institutions in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language of instruction (percent)
120
96.2 95.9 95 95.8 100 90.4
80 71
60 Ukrainian Russian 40 29
20 9.6 3.8 4.1 4.9 4.1 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012
81 Full lists of higher educational establishments can be found here: http://www.niklib.com/resource/lib60.ru http://www.niklib.com/resource/lib45.ua 82 While pre-school educational institutions are not discussed in this dissertation, it was decided to include this data to illustrate the similar increase in pre-school education as well. It also needs to be noted that pre-school establishments had the highest percentage of Ukrainian language instruction.
42 Figure 4. Pupils of day secondary educational institutions in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language of instruction (percent)
100 92 92 92 90 87 80 74 70 60 56 50 44 Ukrainian 40 Russian 30 26
20 13 8 8 8 10 0 1995/96 2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Figure 5. Students in institutions of higher education of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language (percent)
120 100 100 100 100 100 95
80
60 54 Ukrainian 46 Russian 40
20 5 0 0 0 0 0 1995/96 2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
43 Figure 6. Students in institutions of higher education of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, by language of instruction (percent)
120
99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100 91
80
58 60 Ukrainian 42 Russian 40
20 9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 1995/96 2000/01 2005/06 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
According to the annual publication by the Ministry of education of Mykolaiv city council83, the number of schools with Ukrainian language of instruction in Mykolaiv city increased from 53 to 55 in the academic years of 2011-201384. The number of pupils receiving education in Ukrainian fluctuated between 81.2% and 81.5% percent85, while number of pupils receiving education in Russian 18.5% and 18.8%. The data also states that between 12853 and 13604 pupils also studied Russian as a subject at school. Comparing this data with the statistical yearbook cited earlier, one can see an almost 10 percent difference between the percentages of Russian speaking schools in Mykolaiv city and in the oblastʹ (with the percentage being higher in the city). This goes hand in hand with the idea that rural population of Ukraine speaks more Ukrainian, therefore it makes sense that the percentage of the number of Ukrainian schools in the rural areas is also higher than in the city.
83 2011:35 http://en.calameo.com/read/000817382b2e993ff9a33 2012:36 http://en.calameo.com/read/000817382fec00426ed2a 2013:30 http://en.calameo.com/read/0008173827c3233f4e8bd 84 The topic of the dissertation discussed the 2005-2012 calendar years. Since school year ends in the middle of the calendar year, it was decided to include the 2012-2013 data in the dissertation as well. Unfortunately, the 2010 publication was not available on the website and the earlier year 2009 surprisingly did not include any information on the number of schools with different languages of instruction. 85 Please note that the approx. 10% difference between Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Table 8 on the schools with Ukrainian language of instruction lies in the differentiation between Mykolaiv city and Mykolaiv oblastʹ
44 Table 7. Language of instruction in Mykolaiv schools (number of schools) Ukrainian Transitional86 Russian 2011 (2010-2011) 53 3 12 2012 (2011-2012) 54 2 12 2013 (2012-2013) 55 1 12
Table 8. Language of instruction in Mykolaiv schools (number and percentage of pupils of schools)
Ukrainian Ukrainian Russian Russian 2011 (2010-2011) 30160 81.5% 6832 18.5% 2012 (2011-2012) 30690 81.2% 7089 18.8% 2013 (2012-2013) 30454 81.5% 6912 18.5%
Table 9. Number of pupils who study Russian as a subject in schools with Ukrainian language of instruction
2011 (2010-2011) 12853 2012 (2011-2012) 13604 2013 (2012-2013) 13066
Many students and teachers will agree, that while Ukrainization was reported to go smoothly in many educational establishments, Russian was still sometimes used in the classroom.
2.8. Language policy summary Decades of the USSR policy of Russification did not eliminate the Ukrainian language in Ukraine, but left a significant mark on the language policy in Ukraine. Ukraine is a country, where one of the languages of minority, Russian, is, in fact, spoken by the majority of the population in some parts. As with all the other oblastʹs of Ukraine with a large number of Russian speakers, Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ was affected by the language policies promoting Ukrainian language. The Ukrainization period, which took place after the Orange Revolution, although far from perfect, has marked a new period for the language policies in Ukraine, one where the languages policies were implemented and monitored more strictly than previously. However, since 2010 these policies were overturned by Yanukovych, who took a course of
86 Schools in the process of moving from one language of instruction (Russian) to another (Ukrainian)
45 Russification, yet the policy implications are not reflected in the figures concerning the language of instruction. As education is one of the topics mostly affected by any language decree or law, it is important for this to be researched in order to draw further conclusions. Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and its system of education were chosen as the research area for this study. The study was designed with the above mentioned theoretical, legislative, political, historical, social and linguistic factors and influences in mind. The following chapters discuss the study in detail, report on its research methods, present the results and provide a discussion of these results.
46 3. Research methods In this Chapter, I discuss the research methods chosen for this project. In particular, I explain the decision to use questionnaires and semi-structured interviews as two main research tools and I also discuss the choice of participants, and I review the pilot study. I argue in support of the decision to conduct the questionnaires in different languages and discuss the questions, which were asked during the interviews, and, equally important – the questions not asked. Technical aspects of the methodology, such as software used for analysis as well as other research needs are also be briefly reviewed, so that any future researchers can use these or similar tools in their studies, should they find them useful.
3.1. Aims As stated in the Introduction, one of the primary goals of the project is to find how the attitudes of pupils, their parents, students and professors towards the policy changes vary depending on factors such as age, education, political views, economic situation, social status, professional occupation etc. A secondary goal has been to create a research model, which can possibly be applied to other oblastʹs in Ukraine. Consequently, in order to find what these language attitudes in the educational system of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ are, it is necessary to 1) ask questions concerning language attitudes and the language situation in the educational system of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ; 2) collect personal data of the respondents answering those questions. Obviously, it is also important to avoid any methodological errors, in order to make this study not only worthwhile, but also easily duplicable for other researchers and other parts of Ukraine.
3.2. Defining the target groups and research methods Before deciding on the methods, it is necessary to define the target groups, which represent the various parts of the education system. It is imperative to question not only pupils and students, but also parents of the younger pupils, as well as teachers and university lecturers (group 1, 2 and 3). It is also important to get a more official and professional perspective on the language situation in education from education officials, professors and other education workers (group 4). The group characteristics are offered in much more detail in the next subchapters, however these are the key groups which have been decided on and which determined the research methods:
47 Group 1: Older pupils (over 14) and students87 Group 2: Parents of pupils under 14 Group 3: School and university teachers Group 4: Education officials
After the groups were selected, it was necessary to decide on the research methods and structure of the study. There are two key research types when it comes to data collection methods: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative approach relies on collecting data from a sample of subjects, which, if done correctly, is representative of a much bigger group and can be used to make generalizations and assumptions about the latter (Hopkins 200088). Questionnaire-based survey is a good example of quantitative research. Qualitative research approach deals with beliefs, ideas or behaviours of specific individuals, rather than those of the whole group or, one can say, that it “provides information about the “human” side of an issue” (Mack & Woodsong 2005:189). While these two research approaches are very different, they are not necessarily incompatible. In fact, mixed-method approaches, where both qualitative and quantitative methods are used to explore the same issue, have become a “widely used mode of inquiry” in recent years (Terrell 2012:25590), and there is a large number of social studies where both approaches have been beneficially combined in order to produce a general picture answering the research question (Bryman 1992). Taking all of the above into account, it seemed most advantageous to conduct a mixed- method hybrid study, which would combine both qualitative and quantitative research elements. It seemed logical that the questionnaire could be designed to suit specific needs of each layer of education, thus separate, but interconnected, questionnaires had to be designed and distributed to different groups. This way the quantitative part of the research would allow us to see the general picture of the language attitudes in education of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and examine them in reference to personal factors. Meanwhile the qualitative part (interviews and open-ended responses) would give insight as to specific opinions amongst individuals. It was decided to design questionnaires, which would be distributed amongst those involved in education on all levels, apart from the education officials. The reason for excluding education
87 In this dissertation students are defined as persons studying in higher education establishments, colleges et., i.e. further educational establishments which come after graduating from secondary or high school. 88 http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html 89 http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Qualitative%20Research%20Methods%20- %20A%20Data%20Collector's%20Field%20Guide.pdf 90 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17-1/terrell.pdf
48 officials, or decision makers, from the questionnaire-based survey is that education officials are not a big group initially, so distributing a questionnaire to a sample of such a small group would not be representative – not to mention that the opinions amongst some of the decision makers could be almost opposite and, therefore, could not be generalized. Instead of supplying education officials with questionnaires, it was decided to conduct semi-structured in depth interviews with the decision makers: the qualitative approach. Semi-structured interviews create a rapport between the interviewer and interviewee, provide the interviewer with the freedom to be flexible and add additional questions during the interview, or remove questions, and give the opportunity for complex questions and issues to be discussed and clarified (“Structured Interviews” 2005)91. Semi-structured or focused interviews could be recorded (with the permission of the interviewees, of course) for transcription and reference at a later date for analysis. The interviews (group 4) were conducted before the questionnaires were designed, and, they were conducted by me personally in 2011. Later I solicited help of trusted assistants for the distribution of the questionnaires in Ukraine.
3.3. Choice of respondents and group characteristics 3.3.1. Group 1: Pupils and students Since the average age for leaving school in Ukraine is 17, all the pupils surveyed are underage; therefore, it was imperative to make sure that no ethical issues in the research were present. First, the lower age limit had to be established when surveying the pupils (no upper age limit was necessary, as students’ ages could vary). Much consideration was given to this, and since there is no law or general consensus for age appropriateness for this kind of study in Ukraine, 14 was decided as the lowest age of respondents for two reasons:
1) Full legal age in Ukraine is legally 18 years old, but there are two types of underage children, i.e. малолітній (under 14 y.o.) and неповнолітній (14 - 18 y.o.). Once a child reaches the age of 14, he/she has more legal rights, in other words he/she is seen as more mature by society and more capable in decision making (Міністерство юстиції України 2006). It should also be noted here, that according to the ministry of justice of Ukraine (Міністерство юстиції України 2006), any child is entitled to the right to freedom of expression and information, as long as it is age appropriate.
91 http://www.sociology.org.uk/methfi.pdf
49 2) According to the Table 10 in order to survey not only the high school pupils, but also the middle school pupils, it was important to have the age of the respondents as low as 14, as this would guarantee their current enrolment in the middle school grades. It was decided to only give out the questionnaires to those enrolled in the 9th grade (not the 8th grade), as this way there would also be no age inconsistencies.
Table 10. Choice of pupils-respondents based on schools grade and actual age Current school Current school Year Pupils’ Age grade grade (Start school at 6) (Start school at 7) 1998 0 1999 1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 5 2004 6 1 2005 7 2 1 2006 8 3 2 2007 9 4 3 2008 10 5 4 2009 11 6 5 2010 12 7 6 2011 13 8 7 2012 14 9 8 2013 15 10 9 2014 16 11 10 2015 17 11
When choosing pupil respondents, and later working with them, same ethical principles as those for adults were applied. In addition to this extra caution was to be taken when it came to the following points (Morrow & Richards 1996): Children’s competence is different; therefore, questions asked needed to be simple and clear; Children are potentially more vulnerable, so extra care needed to be taken when protecting their privacy. The questionnaires were only to be handed to teachers and/or parents and completed ones collected in the same manner;
In order for the sample to be representative, the number of respondents needs to be large and to correspond to the number of the individuals of the whole group that is being researched – in
50 this case – all students and pupils of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ (Hampton & Vilela 2012). While the number of students and pupils changes every year, this could only be calculated approximately. Table 11 below summarizes data found on the statistics website of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ (“Головне управління статистики у Миколаївській області” 2012). Unfortunately, the number of students graduated, and, the length of time students take to finish their studies, varies. For example, a vocational establishment may require 10 months of studies for one qualification, while another qualification will require 2.5 years; therefore, any estimate, as with many quantitative studies, is approximate.
Table 11. Number of students in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in 2011-2012 Number of academic years Student enrolment Educational Establishment multiplied by the average per academic year number of students
Secondary schools 112,900 (total) 112,900
Vocational education establishments 8,200 3 x 8.200 (Enrolled in 2011) High education establishments 2,000 (I-II level) 4 x 8,300 (Enrolled in 2011) 6,300 (III-IV level)
Based on rough calculations, which accounted for the maximum number of students (0% drop out rate) and the maximum number of years it takes to complete a qualification92 the absolute maximum of students and pupils is approximately 180 000. Based on this figure and according to the sample calculator (“Sample Size Calculator” 2012) suggested by Vaus (2002) the sample size needed was 383 based on a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval. Since no pupils from grades 1-8 were to answer the questionnaire (only their parents would be asked to fill it out) and all the calculations were done using maximum numbers, a minimum of 300 students and pupils were decided to be more than sufficient. After these preliminary calculations were made and the size of the sample was determined, the necessary current information about the number of students in higher education establishments was eventually found. According to the latest information published online (“Вища освіта” 2012), a total of 51385 students studied in universities and university type
92 Three years for vocational education and five for higher education – without taking levels of accreditation into consideration, which may reduce the number of years.
51 educational establishments in 2011-2012. This meant that once added to the number of school pupils, a total of approximately 164000 pupils and students studied in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in 2011-2012, which was close to the maximum figure of 180000 mentioned earlier in this section, thus confirming that the sample size of a minimum of 300 student and pupil respondents was appropriate.
3.3.2. Group 2: Parents (of the pupils under 14) Group 1, older pupils and students, provided a representative sample for the older secondary pupils and students. This is the most important group for the quantitative part of the study and offers general understanding of the language situation. It was also important to find out what opinions parents and teachers may have on the situation. Parents needed to represent the younger pupils between the ages of 6-14 (1-8th grades) and provide information about the education in the primary schools in the questionnaire part, as well as provide their own opinions in the open-ended question. With limited access to a random sample of parents (unlike pupils and students, parents could not be approached at the school and could only be reached using various professional and personal connections), it was decided to only survey 50 parents (the number which was based on the available resources). While this number is not representative of all the parents in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, it provides insight into certain patterns of thinking and attitudes. Also, since the goal of the whole study was not to research exclusively parents’ attitudes and opinions, but the language situation in the oblastʹ, I would argue that having the additional parent group provided additional and valuable insight.
3.3.3. Group 3: Teachers At the time of the study there are no detailed statistics available as to how many teachers there are in the universities or vocational education establishments, most probably because many teachers work freelance or work in several establishments. The only number available is that of the secondary school teachers, which is 12.300 teachers (“Головне управління статистики у Миколаївській області” 2012). While this number is quite high, it doesn’t precisely represent the picture of the number of teachers in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ – it is not clear whether all these teachers work full time or whether they work in different educational establishments etc. In view of this, a decision was made to survey at least 50 school and university teachers – a number which would provide a ratio of 1 teacher per 6 pupils/students based on the number 300 students/pupils mentioned earlier. This ratio is smaller than the real-life situations, where the ration of teachers to students could be significantly higher. The number of teachers is not
52 representative of all the teachers in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, but, same as with the previous group, it supports the findings of the 1st group and provides a different angel of the language situation in the oblastʹ.
3.3.4. Group 4: Education officials and workers As experienced by other researchers (Søvik 2007), the opinions of politicians and officials are the most difficult to obtain. Numerous attempts to reach an agreement of an appointment for an interview resulted in a fruitless and somewhat unpleasant experience. Initially, after several phone calls to the ministry, I received some conflicting information as to whether I should contact the administration of the ministry directly or their press centre in an attempt to arrange an interview with one of the deputy ministers. It was made clear that it was necessary to issue an official request to conduct an interview with the vice minister. In view of this, an official letter supporting the researcher by explaining the aims of the study, outlining the key research areas, as well as asking for an appointment within a specific time frame, was sent to the ministry of education by the University of Freiburg and the research supervisor. The letter had been sent in a timely manner, however, even by the time the scheduled research trip came there was no reply from the ministry. It was decided to go ahead with the research trip, since there were already other interviews planned, and to make contact with the ministry whilst already in Ukraine. During the stay in Ukraine, the follow-up phone call was made to the ministry. The administrative representative made it clear that there was very little interest in the ministry to give an interview. Even after I introduced myself as a researcher on the language policy in Ukraine and mentioned the official letter of support from the university, some of the responses were “On what basis should he give you an interview?” and “What are you going to do with these answers?”. Only one member of the staff seemed genuinely interested in helping to arrange an interview during preliminary phone calls. Overall the administrative team of the ministry of education in 2011 has shown itself as inconsistent and unapproachable.
53 Table 12. Interviewees’ profiles
Interview/Position93
1. University worker and an admissions officer (Pilot interview) 2. Guest lecturer at the university and editor of the oblastʹ newspaper / former Mykolaiv City Council deputy 3. Teacher trade union employee 4. University worker (Head of an educational establishment) 5. University worker employees (joint interview upon request of the interviewees) 6. University Director, PhD 7. University lecturer, PhD and PhD supervisor 8. Former head of the Ukrainian language department at the university, lecturer, PhD
Eventually, only interviews with Mykolaiv education officials, education workers and a former politician took place. While this is group 4, it was actually the first group to be interviewed. It was thought that the opinions and ideas collected during the qualitative part of the research could help form the questionnaire, which was distributed the following year. Overall 8 people were interviewed. The first interview was a pilot one, however since it went well, the data and the quotes were still included. Table 12 shows interviewees’ profiles in more detail.
3.4. Study design and planning 3.4.1. The qualitative part: interviews While contacting the group 4 respondents before the research trip took place, it was obvious that some education workers were careful about agreeing to do the interview, while others gladly seized the opportunity to share their opinions. In order to reassure those who had reservations, a list of questions was compiled so that the interviewees had the chance to look over the questions before the start of the interview. Table 13 below presents the questions. As one can see, question number 3 asking about the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov’s law principles was optional, because it was anticipated that some respondents may not be fully committed to giving their full and honest answer to this question, because it was based on a very controversial
93 The job titles were left intentionally vague in order to protect the identity of the respondents
54 law. Only those respondents, who seemed completely comfortable during the interview were asked this question.
Table 13. Interview questions (English)94
1. How has, in your opinion, the use of the Russian language in the system of education changed since 2005? (more/less Russian/nothing changed) 2. How, in your opinion, does the official status of Ukrainian correspond to its use in reality? 3. (Optional question) What do you think about giving Russian a regional language status in those regions where at least 10% of the population declare it their mother tongue? What will be the impact on education? (The first part of the question corresponds to the draft of the new language law from 26 August 2011. This would probably lead to a quite chaotic situation in the education sector.) 4. What, in your opinion, is the biggest problem in the language policy in the system of education in Ukraine? 5. What would you personally change in the current language policy of Ukraine? 6. How do you think the current language situation is going to develop? 7. In your opinion, can one compare the language situation in Ukraine with the current language situation in other countries? (For instance Canada? Can this country be an example of language policy in Ukraine)?
3.4.2. The quantitative part: questionnaire There have been a number of studies researching the language situation in different contexts and several of them were used as a reference (Besters-Dilger 2009, Søvik 2007, Janmaat 2000, Inglis 2009). 1 As it was mentioned earlier, it was decided that three separate questionnaires for the three groups (pupils/students, parents and teachers) were necessary. The questionnaires, however, needed to be interconnected and the questions needed to be similar or even the same where possible to make the results analysis more straightforward. This way, for example, it
94 See Appendix 2. Interview questions on page 179 for Ukrainian and Russian versions.
55 would be possible to see the language used at home in all three groups, rather than just the students or teachers. The main questionnaire was designed to suit the needs of the biggest group, i.e. pupils/students. After that, it was transformed to suit the needs of the other groups. All the questionnaires ran in two languages – Russian and Ukrainian (both pilot study and the final study). Since the model questionnaire had been designed in English, I also translated the final versions, which were proofread by the native speaker assistants and then distributed in Russian and Ukrainian.
3.4.2.1. Structure and layout In this study, it was necessary to design three questionnaires, which would have the same goals and very similar questions in terms of content, yet the number and the wording of the questions needed to be different to suit different research groups. It was also important to make sure that the questionnaires are designed in a way, which makes the analysis as straightforward as possible. Since the questionnaires were similar content wise, I use the original Group 1 questionnaire as a point of reference, since it was designed first and served as a starting point for the other two. All three questionnaires with full coding can be found in Appendices in the end of the dissertation (see page 183).
3.4.2.2. Key research areas First, in order to determine how many questions a questionnaire was going to have and what those questions were going to be, it was necessary to go back to the study goals and define the key areas of research. These areas would later determine the structure of the research and determine the specific questions which would need to be asked. As shown in Table 14, the main study areas included: general use of the language, general beliefs about the language, language attitudes, current language use in the system of education, changes since 2005, language preferences and future tendencies.
Table 14. Questionnaire structure
Number of questions Sections Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
I General language use 16 13 10 Загальне використання мови
56 II General beliefs about language 2 2 2 Загальні уявлення про мову
III Language attitudes 6 6 6 Відношення до мови
IV Current language use at school/university 10 10 8 Використання мови в школі/університеті зараз
V Changes since 2005 3 3 3 Зміни з 2005 року
VI Language preferences & future tendencies 6 6 6 Мовні уподобання і майбутні тенденціі
VII Personal profile 14 21 14 Особистий профіль
Total questions in questionnaire 57 61 49
Total (questionnaire + researcher’s comments) 62 69 54
As one can see in the table above, the number of questions in certain sections was the same throughout all three groups. In other sections, some questions were not necessary or relevant. For instance, parents (group 2) had a more extensive personal profile, because there were questions regarding their children and the parents themselves. Pupils and students on the other hand had the longest “Language use” section, because this is the group that arguably has the biggest number of outside influences (parents, relatives, friends, school), which affect their language use. The teachers had the shortest questionnaire. They had the least number of language use questions in both general use and language use in education. While it was important to ask the teachers all the necessary questions, it was also vital to keep the teachers’ questionnaire brief (not to discourage them) and not to ask too many personal questions (to avoid giving the impression of privacy invasion). The majority of the general questions were based on the previously mentioned studies, simply because any alterations were not necessary or even desired. Questions involving general language use and language attitudes (for instance, Besters-Dilger’s (2009) questions 13, 14 and 15 on p. 375 (“What is your general attitude towards people who speak Ukrainian (Russian, Surzhyk95) language in their everyday communication?”) were borrowed entirely. More
95 Word surzhyk replaced by a more neutral definition
57 specific questions regarding the system of education, e.g. “What language do you usually use to talk to your friends at school/university during the breaks?” (q.26 in the pupils/students questionnaire) had to be designed specifically for this study. Questions about other issues in education were a result of informal chats with some of the students and teachers in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ prior to the questionnaire design. In order to understand how the language question in education is perceived in the context of other issues, the students and teachers were asked “Can you tell me about the problems you have with your studies/work at the school/university?”. Purposefully, none of this was done formally as a part of the study, because it was merely a means of collecting ideas and getting an impression as to what other issues, apart from the language ones, students and teachers may be facing on a daily basis and how this affects the language issue. For instance, do the students actually care about the language they use? If yes, how much do they care? While it was anticipated that language would be one of the issues, it seems that the financial aspects worried the majority of the students and teachers more. Based on this, a question #42 about problems in education (Group 1) was added to the questionnaire (questions regarding problems in education). General language use and personal profile were the longest sections in the questionnaire as they provided vital context for the most important sections, such as language use in the educational establishments.
3.4.2.3. Question types Questions regarding the language use or language attitudes employed multiple choice questions as the most logical and practical option, since this type of question “can be quickly coded and quickly aggregated to give frequencies of response” (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000:251). This was the most common type of question in the questionnaire. Most questions, where the respondents needed to express the intensity of their options, such as agree-disagree or always- never questions used the Likert scale (Denscombe 2003:255), where the answer options were assigned a value to research people’s opinions. While many questions were originally modelled using the forced Likert scale (where respondents are not provided with the neutral answer – for instance strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and strongly disagree responses), in many questions the neutral and middle answer options were necessary96 and the respondents were given the non-committal answer options “Difficult to say” or “None of the provided
96 For example, questions asking about frequency of certain event. In these cases the neutral answer option “sometimes” was necessary.
58 answers”. Since often there was no middle answer, the respondents were prompted to question how they think, but had a neutral answer option in the end if they genuinely could not commit to either side of the scale. Another type of question used, was a complex multiple choice question about the problems in education, which included several Likert scales. While this question was not a straightforward multiple choice one and there were worries that it may be too complex, the pilot study showed, that, even though it was indeed the most difficult question to answer, the majority of the respondents were still able to respond. An open question was added at the end of the questionnaire which allowed the respondents to make suggestions, express opinions, share ideas, vent or simply add whatever else they wanted to say. As mentioned in Table 14, an extra section was added in the electronic database at the end of each questionnaire, which allowed the possibility to add age as a number, age group, gender (information provided by the respondents on the cover page) and the language in which the questionnaire was filled out. Overall the number of questions in three questionnaires varied: 49 (teachers), 57 (pupils and students) and 61 (parents) plus the above-mentioned comments section. These numbers of questions were slightly smaller than in previous studies which had 84 questions (Søvik 2007), 90 (Besters-Dilger 2009) and 66 (Inglis 2009). Since the study focuses only on the language policy in education, the number of the questions was sufficient for this particular study. While Likert scale is well-established in questionnaire use, it also has its limitations. As Turner 1993:738) states:
The use of Likert-scale questionnaires seems to be well established in L2 research, and reliable, valid, Likert-scale questionnaires have value when the data they yield are appropriately analyzed. However, Likert-scale questionnaires are not the only option available to a researcher measuring respondents' characteristics, attitudes, or opinions. Questionnaires or interviews based on well-planned, open-ended questions can also be considered and might be more informative.
The open-ended question allowed the respondents to add any (relevant) additional information they wanted, and a comparatively shorter questionnaire made sure that the respondents, especially pupils would not feel demotivated when completing the longer questionnaire, and they could finish filling out the questionnaire in 15 minutes or fewer.
3.4.2.4. Questionnaire layout A logical layout, divided into topic sections in all questionnaires, later allowed for easier analysis. Corresponding questions between groups were marked within the questionnaires of
59 group 2 and 3. For instance, question #8 in the parents’ questionnaire was the same as question #9 in the pupils’ and students’ questionnaire, so it was labelled as “8. (9) What language do you usually use to socialize with your friends?”. The same was done with other questions and the teachers’ questionnaire, using the questionnaire #1 (pupils and students) as the reference point (See page 183 for full questionnaires’ questions and coding). It was attempted to ease the respondents into answering more complex and thought-provoking questions in the later sections about current language use, past and future language tendencies. The layout was important since appropriate formatting can encourage respondents by reducing their apprehension regarding involvement and performance97 (Dillman 2000:92). It can also increase their trust in the purpose of the survey After the interviews with the officials, it became obvious that privacy is a concern for many respondents; therefore, a cover page was added to the questionnaire, including a disclaimer that all personal information remains private (as recommended by Dillman 2007:18). The cover page also included title of the research topic and provided short instructions (including an approximate time required to complete the questionnaire).
3.5. Pilot study It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of a pilot study before the full study is launched. According to Crano & Brewer (2002:247), “the (pilot) study is done to answer a simple question: Does the system work? Can it be used reliably, and if so, does it promise to provide useful data?” Obviously, if the data which comes back from the pilot study is unreliable, vague etc. or there are any other difficulties with collecting responses, changes would need to be made. The pilot questionnaire ran in March-May 2012. Since it was not possible for me to conduct it myself, two trusted assistants were recruited. The assistants, Olena and Oleksiy Zhydkykh, are highly qualified and trustworthy, and they both worked in the system of education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in 2012. The assistants were responsible for finding volunteer participants, giving clear instructions on how to fill out the questionnaire, answering any questions and reporting back in detail about how, where and when the pilot study (and later full study) took place. The assistants were not involved in the questionnaire design process and are not in any way responsible for the responses given in the questionnaires. The contact with
97 For instance, much consideration needed to be given to the first question and it. Second question needed to be easy. More on the layout and design of the questionnaire see Dillman 2000 (or in Fanning 2005:2)
60 the assistants was regular (almost daily), so all the data reported was recorded immediately for later reference. The study ran in May-June of 2012 in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, Ukraine. In many cases the questionnaires were handed out to either pupils or students, who the research assistants knew personally through work or other professional, as well as personal, contacts. In other cases, they arranged an agreement to hand the questionnaires to their teachers or parents. All the participants were offered a choice of either Ukrainian or Russian versions of the same questionnaire, but, for many, it didn’t seem to matter and they usually replied with “I don’t mind which one” when asked which version they would prefer. In this case the assistants still nicely asked them to make a choice anyway. As the pupils’/students’ questionnaire was the model/prototype for the questionnaires of the other groups, it was the main focus of the pilot study. A total of 10 older pupils and university students were asked to participate in the pilot survey. The pupils/students were asked to stay 15 minutes longer after the lesson on a voluntary basis to fill out the questionnaire. While some pupils may have felt that they should do it because their teacher had asked them, it was made clear to them that they were not required to do it. Some of them did comment though, that the language question was a timeworn topic that there were other problems to worry about, and that nothing was going to change. Since the questionnaires for parents and teachers did not differ considerably from the main pilot questionnaire (pupils/students group), a total of three questionnaires per group were handed out as a pilot study. According to one of the parent respondents the question about problems existing in education was not clear; however, when it was quickly clarified by the assistant, the question was answered without any difficulties. As it had been anticipated, the parents were happy to answer the questions. It seemed, as if for parents, this was finally the outlet to express their opinions and “help” the system of education, in which their children were receiving their education. The situation was completely different for the teachers though. This, after the education officials, was the most difficult group to get hold of. As with all the other respondents, they were contacted via personal connections and even in spite of this, many teachers seemed to have reservations about giving out too much information. As with education officials, one can speculate that they worried about their job security, and, should they answer the questions not the way their boss would have wanted them to (and should this information become known to their boss), their position at school/university might be jeopardized. When teachers were asked
61 whether they had any colleagues interested in answering the questionnaire, not all, but the majority of them were not interested in passing it on. The pilot study showed that while many people have very strong opinions about the language situation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, there are also many people who prefer to stay neutral when responding, or sometimes not responding at all, for privacy reasons. In order to address this issue, a cover page was added to the questionnaire. The name of the researcher, university and contacts details were also added to the last page, right after the thank you note. It seemed that adding the researcher’s name and contact information would take away some of the privacy concerns by making the questionnaire more personal. A small number of errors, misspellings and inconsistencies were found in the questionnaire after the pilot study (the participants were aware that this was a trial questionnaire and sometimes they pointed them out) and were addressed in the final version of the questionnaire. Most of the errors were a result of the questionnaires running in two languages – Russian and Ukrainian. Since the number of the respondents of the pilot study is not representative of the research group and there were errors in the design of the questionnaire, the results have not been published. However, errors and changes made to the questionnaire were discussed above.
3.6. Data Collection 3.6.1. Qualitative part: interviews As mentioned above, the interviews took place in the autumn of 201198. A total of 8 interviews were conducted. Most of the interviews were arranged beforehand and all the respondents agreed to give the interviews voluntarily. The interviews were conducted over the course of two weeks of the research trip to Ukraine and were recorded with the permission of the respondents using a small digital recorder. Before the recorder was turned on, I spent several minutes having some small talk with the respondents and giving them some general information about the research project, and I gave them the opportunity to ask questions. The interview length varied from 10 minutes to over one hour. The first interesting observation during the initial contact with some of the respondents was that some respondents assumed that the goal of the study was to simply record the already
98 The first part of the study, the interviews, took place in 2011 – before the pilot and final questionnaires were distributed. The timing of the interviews was opportune, as it was not long after the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law was proposed and before it was passed. This was a suitable time for discussion, as there was still time for speculation on whether the law would be passed. Had the interviews taken place later, it is possible that some of the interviewees may have been less vocal. The questionnaires were distributed later, in 2012, as this way the respondents had the chance to review the whole time period discussed in the dissertation.
62 existing hard facts and figures and later report them. After being informed that their opinions and observations are in fact the most interesting and relevant thing to this (qualitative) part of the study, they seemed pleasantly surprised. This was possibly the first time someone asked the interviewees about their opinions and their observations on the matter, and many welcomed the opportunity to express their thoughts on the language policy in education. This also suggests that there is an interest on the topic amongst education workers. The interviews were conducted in the offices or classrooms of the interviewees. The pilot interview took place in a shared office, where there was a respondent’s colleague present during the interview. Even though the interviewee initially insisted it was not an issue, later she became visibly aware that there was someone else in the room when answering a question about language being a political instrument. It was decided to still use the respondent’s answers in the data analysis, as they provided interesting insight into the language situation in the system of education, but a decision was made to avoid having other people in the room during subsequent interview, if at all possible, unless the interviewee insisted, or colleagues wanted to participate. The remaining 5 interviews took place one on one, and one interview was jointly between two colleagues, who insisted on answering together. The last interview took place in the staff room of the university, where there were other colleagues in the room, but as they were busy marking papers or having lunch, and the respondent knew them well, this did not seem to affect her. One of the main challenges of conducting the sociolinguistic interviews is overcoming the observer’s paradox – a situation where the mere presence of the observer influences the interviewee.
The aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain this data by systematic observation (Labov 1972:209).
In the case of these interviews, language, which the interviewer uses could potentially affect the language choice and even the responses during the interview. Labov (1972:209) suggested that one of the ways to break through the paradox is by diverting the respondents’ attention from the issue, however in this context it was rather difficult since there was no scope for compromise. The interviewer needed to be addressed either in Russian or in Ukrainian (one could argue that the only option in between was surzhyk, but considering how negatively it is viewed in the society, it was not used) and either choice would possibly affect the interviewee’s language choice, no matter how much one might attempt to divert the attention.
63 More recent studies have shown that characteristics of the interviewer (such as gender, age, experience, social background, and race), and characteristics of the interview itself (such as the relationship between interviewer and interviewee, the strategies used by the field-worker to gather data, the role of the field-worker in the interview situation, and the presence of other interlocutors), may also affect the data from sociolinguistic fieldwork. (Cukor-Avila 2000:253)
It seemed there is no real way to fully overcome the observer’s paradox – it was only possible to reduce its intensity and to account for its affects during analysis. Cukor-Avila (200099) stated that “there is a need to account for interviewer characteristics and for interview contexts in reaching conclusions based on sociolinguistic fieldwork”. Since most of the communication was done over the phone or directly in person, there was no option of using both languages, as one could, for example, when writing an email. It was decided to use Russian for initial contact, but to insist that if the respondents want to use Ukrainian they are encouraged to do so. The reasons for using Russian were pragmatic – Russian is the language, which most of the population in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ prefer to use in general (as later confirmed by the study results) and which seemed more neutral (it seemed that addressing the respondents in Ukrainian would have made a bigger statement and made a bigger impact, than using Russian, since Ukrainian is not heard as often in Mykolaiv). As a result, 6 interviews were conducted in Russian and one in Ukrainian100. During one interview, after being reassured that using Ukrainian is just as welcome, the respondent switched from Russian to Ukrainian and the rest of the interview continued in Ukrainian. Table 15 below gives a summary of the language competence of the respondents and the language used during the interview. As one can see, Interviews 1, 2, 3 and 6 were conducted with the respondents who were also fluent in Ukrainian, so one can speculate that, had they been approached to give an interview in Ukrainian, they may have given their answers in Ukrainian. Only one of the respondents (#7) said that his Ukrainian was not very good. Interviewee #4, who switched languages during the interview, pointed out that she used Russian at home and Ukrainian at work. Since her language use is compartmentalized and since the interview was being conducted at her place of work, it can be argued, that it was easier for her to give her answers in Ukrainian as she was already in her professional role.
99 http://muse.jhu.edu/article/2736 100 While my questions were asked in Russian, the respondent answered in Ukrainian from the start and seemed fully comfortable with this procedure
64 Table 15. Language ability and language preferences during the interview
Interview / Comments
1. Russian speaker, fluent in Ukrainian, interview in Russian 2. Russian speaker, fluent in Ukrainian, interview in Russian 3. Russian speaker, fluent in Ukrainian, interview in Russian 4. Bilingual speaker, uses Russian at home and Ukrainian at work. Switched from Russian to Ukrainian in the first half of the interview. 5. Joint interview (both Russian speakers). Interview in Russian. 6. Multilingual speaker, fluent in several languages including Russian and Ukrainian. Interview in Russian. 7. Russian speaker, not fluent in Ukrainian. Interview in Russian. 8. Bilingual speaker. Interview in Ukrainian.
Overall, after the initial contact was in Russian, it is not entirely unexpected that many interviewees chose Russian, but what is important is that, those who wanted to use Ukrainian, could comfortably do so and spoke animatedly and at length about their opinions in Ukrainian. One could argue that having interviews in Russian could potentially affect not only the language choice of the respondents, but also the content of their answers. In this case, while it is hard to dispute that the language choice was affected by the interviewer, I would speculate that the content of the answers remained authentic and would have been the same had they been answering in another language (Ukrainian or Russian). Had the respondents been affected by the use of Russian during the interview, there should have been a pattern of inconsistencies, but all the opinions expressed by the interviewees seemed solid and well-argued. If we take the question of Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law project101 as an example, apart from one respondent (Interviewee #7, who is not fluent in Ukrainian) the respondents consistently disliked the project based on reasons other than their language preference. For instance, interviewee #3, who spoke Russian during the interview, stated, that, while having two
101 While the interviews were recorded in 2011 and the law came into force only in 2012, some of the respondents already knew about the project. There was no way of knowing whether people knew about the project before the interviews took place, so a copy of the project was available, had the respondents wanted to know more details.
65 languages would not have been the worst thing (even if she might have wanted it), it is difficult to do so constitutionally, and that Ukrainian should probably remain the only one state language. Interviewee #4, who switched from Russian to Ukrainian, also stated that this law would make things complicated. Interview #6, who spoke Russian also thought that the law would have a negative effect and interviewee #8, who spoke Ukrainian during the interview, also spoke against the law. While the language of the interview may have partially been affected by the researcher, it is argued, that the answers were consistent with the respondents’ true beliefs and integrity.
3.6.2. The quantitative part: questionnaires Since the topic included the 2012 year, the questionnaires were distributed at the end of 2012 (between September and December). The electronic versions (pdf format) of the Ukrainian and Russian questionnaires were sent to the assistant via email. There were no electronic questionnaires, since that they could potentially make the results unpresentable. After the questionnaires were printed out, the distribution began. Olena, the first assistant, belonged to the 50-59 age group and the second assistant Oleksiy belonged to the 20-29 age group. Having two assistants from different age groups insured that their contacts were also diverse, which helped create a representative and diverse sample. The assistants approached the respondents in different ways, depending on the target group and on the personal relationship with the respondents. All the respondents were informed that completing the questionnaire was voluntary and that no one had to fill it out. Having said that, most of the respondents agreed to fill out the questionnaire, very few said that they had no time or were too busy and none refused categorically. This means that the respondents were not only those who are particularly interested in the language policy, but also those who have different levels of interest when it comes to the language situation in education. The respondents were informed that the questionnaire would not take more than 15 minutes to fill out and that there were no “wrong” answers, just their opinions. The respondents were asked in which language they wanted to fill out the questionnaire, but there were few respondents who insisted on either Ukrainian or Russian questionnaire. With the teachers’ permission, some of the pupils and students were asked to fill out their questions either during the lessons or lectures, if the time in their schedule allowed, or most often – after the lessons or lectures. The majority of the students filled out their questionnaires in their educational establishments, but some, who had no time during the school/student day took their questionnaires home and returned them the following day. The
66 parent and the teacher group were approached on an individual basis and some were also allowed to take the questionnaires home. It was deemed more useful to the survey to allow the respondents to do so, since open-ended responses required more than 15 minutes and it was important to allow all the respondents sufficient time to express their opinions.
3.7. Data Analysis 3.7.1. Questionnaire data processing Dealing with any large set of data can cause errors, so in order to minimize the risk of human error, it was decided to employ a questionnaire software SurveyMonkey as a tool for processing the data. While usually SurveyMonkey and other similar programs are used for running online questionnaires, in this case it was only used as a tool for storage, easy organization and later for downloading the data in SPSS format. Other researchers have also found it useful:
These programs offer researchers a variety of questionnaire design formats that are fairly easy to use, and they make the coding and cleaning of data nearly obsolete. Participants' responses to each questionnaire item are recorded electronically, and summary data are immediately available for review by the researcher. Collected data may be downloaded in a variety of formats, including Excel spreadsheet format, which then can be easily converted into SPSS. (Alessi & Martin 2010:122102)
While running an online questionnaire would have made the data processing much easier, in this case, the paper questionnaires needed to be added manually. Three online questionnaires for three groups were set up in English (since the paper is written in English) and only the researcher had access to the online questionnaires, so there was no possibility that someone would fill out the online questionnaire. While this step may seem redundant to some researchers, this procedure made data entry easier, since the answers did not have to be inserted into a large SPSS document, but into a well-laid out questionnaire one by one; this also provided an online backup copy, which could have been useful had there been any issues with the copy stored on the computer. After the data collection was finished and the assistants had the completed questionnaires, the data needed to be entered into the system in order to begin the data analysis. It was resolved that a return trip to Ukraine was not practicable for the sole purpose of collecting the questionnaires, but sending the questionnaires by post was not reliable enough since they could get damaged or lost. Taking all this into account, it was decided that the optimal option for dealing with the raw data was to make use of the program Skype in order to dictate the questionnaire responses from Ukraine. This way the assistant in Ukraine read out
102 http://swr.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/2/122.extract
67 the questionnaire responses one at a time and the researcher in Germany entered them into the appropriate online form. Most researchers who deal with data entry know that usually this is a long and repetitive process, therefore having a second person, in my case an assistant, was very helpful – this insured that data entry was done in timely manner (as it required two people to be present) and there was additional quality control over data entry.
3.7.2. Response rate and questionnaire completion A total of 324 pupils and students, 48 parents and 47 teachers filled out questionnaires, which were used for final data entry and analysis. Even though the research assistants were vigilant about giving clear instructions to the students and parents of pupils for filling out questionnaires and checked their completion after the data collection, unfortunately some responses still could not be used for the research purposes. This way 14 student and 2 parent questionnaires were rejected. The criteria for whether the questionnaire could be used were:
The questionnaire needed to have either age or place of study of the student (or their child for the parents group). The questionnaire could not have more than 5 unusable responses (i.e. responses, which were fully or partially left blank and responses and/or which had numerous responses to the question where only one answer was appropriate).
It was deemed much more beneficial for the research to use the partially incomplete questionnaires instead of leaving them out. The fact that “individuals with incomplete data cannot contribute to the analyses” has been labelled a myth in some publications103. It is thought that the data was missing because some of the respondents accidentally skipped several questions, which were all on one page, since they seemed to have diligently answered all the other questions, thus indicating that they most probably overlooked the page in the paper questionnaire. In other cases, some respondents may have chosen not to answer the more complex question, which required a little extra attention and concentration, such as the question asking to rate the problem in the educational system. This problem had been anticipated based on the pilot results – the assistants were there to help clarify what was a deliberately complex question. It is likely that some respondents simply lacked the additional motivation to focus on
103 See “Six: Dealing with Missing or Incomplete Data: Debunking the Myth of Emptiness" 2013 under http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/45664_6.pdf
68 the question in order to answer it fully. Fortunately, the vast majority of the respondents – 93% of them – took the time to consider this issue and responded. It seems unlikely that the respondents skipped the questions, because they did not want to give out personal information, since all of the more sensitive questions provided the neutral opt-out answer such as “Difficult to say” or “I would rather not answer this question”. Antonius (2003:36) therefore suggests, that it in this case it is more appropriate to report the valid percent (the actual percent without the missing responses) rather than percent (percentage including the skipped responses). Following this logic, the skipped responses are not included in the results and findings Chapter, unless the underlying reasons for the absence of the responses (or a number of the responses) are deemed interesting and relevant104. To ensure that data analysis was accurate, the missing values were appropriately marked in the SPPS data base (as a .) and the statistical software dealt with the rest. In order to keep the values consistent throughout the Chapter, valid percent rather than the actual number of the respondents is used as a preferred measurement.
3.7.3. Interview transcribing and coding Originally it was planned to only transcribe the sections, which would be either cited or quoted in the dissertation itself, but upon the first listening of the transcripts it became obvious that most of the interviews needed to be transcribed in much greater detail (but not fully, since there were parts of the conversation, which were completely irrelevant to the research). The reason for this was that several visible tendencies appeared within the responses, e.g. use of the Ukrainian phrase “derzhavna mova”105 by the interviewers even when the interview was in Russian. Another example was that several of the respondents pointed out that their opinions were their opinions only, almost trying to lessen the significance of their own responses out of worry they may say something “wrong”. Although these tendencies may not be significant findings, they are important, because they clearly show that phrases such as “derzhavna mova” have become set expressions and are borrowed even by the Russian speakers. They also demonstrate how evidence can be easily overlooked if the interviews are not transcribed fully.
104 By “interesting and relevant” I mean skipped responses, which reveal a tendency. For instance, if the overwhelming majority of the respondents consistently chose not to answer a question such as “My child's teachers don’t seem to be well qualified/experienced”, this would raise more questions as to why. As it is discussed further, the only question which was skipped more than the other, was the more complex question regarding problems in education. 105 Translation – state language
69 In order to make the transcribing process more efficient, an online software license was purchased106, which helped convert the recordings (done on a digital audio recorder) into playable files and provided useful options such as pause, slow down, speed up, rewind/forward 2 seconds by using an assigned key on a keyboard (instead of changing between windows had it been done the conventional way) as well as the window for the transcripts. This has eased the process of transcribing immensely. After transcribing the first half of the interviews in full and only omitting the less relevant parts; several key ideas, questions and directions of the line of conversation have emerged. In the following interviews, only the necessary parts were transcribed according to the relevant topics mentioned above. When a new interesting topic emerged, it was then added as a new category. After all the transcription was complete and several key ideas had emerged, it was necessary to go back to the beginning of all the transcripts and finish the coding of the data. Strauss & Corbin (1990:57) say that “coding represents ways by which data are broken down, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways”. After working through the rest of the transcripts, the remainder of the important issues emerged. I am not listing them all here, simply because they formed most of the subheadings in chapters 4 and 5 and can be found by looking at the contents page.
3.7.4. Tools for statistical analysis While SurveyMonkey is a good tool for collecting online questionnaires, its data processing is not as sophisticated as with R or SPSS. Originally it was planned to use the free software R (The R Project for Statistical Computing)107 as the main statistical tool. Unfortunately, after numerous attempts of working with R, it was decided to switch to SPSS as it seemed more user friendly, required no programming skills, yet fulfilled the same statistical needs as R in this case108. After downloading all the questionnaire responses in the SPSS format, they were imported into the SPSS database and the analysis could begin. I worked with three databases (pupils and students, parents and teachers) analysed them separately and afterwards compared the results.
106 https://transcribe.wreally.com/ 107 http://www.r-project.org/ 108 It is important to stress that SPSS is a personal preference and that R is becoming increasingly popular with scientists, because it is free and more flexible (additional packages can be downloaded at no cost). On the downside it requires some programming skills, which made this program too complex to use in this case.
70 4. Results
In this Chapter I report the results and findings of the study. The data collection for this study consisted of two key parts: the qualitative part – interviews with the education workers and officials, and the quantitative part – survey of pupils (over 14) and students, parents of the younger pupils (under 14) and teachers/lecturers. The research results of all the 4 groups, qualitative and quantitative, are then presented by key questions together. The discussion of these results can be found in Chapter 5.
4.1. Quantitative results 4.1.1. General profile of the questionnaire respondents 4.1.1.1. Age and language preference As Figure 7 below shows, the respondents are representatively distributed amongst all age groups. 2.3% of the students belong to the 29-39 year old group (older age of the students can be explained by the fact that some of the respondents were part-time students – заочные студенты, who tend to be older than full-time students).
Figure 7. Age distribution of the pupils and students, parents and teachers (given in percentage)
14 to 17 18 to 28 29 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
14 to 17 18 to 28 29 to 39 Pupils & students 45.7 52.1 2.3
18 to 28 29 to 39 40 to 49 Parents 4.3 71.7 23.9
18 to 28 29 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60+ Teachers 9.5 40.5 23.8 11.9 14.3
71 Table 16, Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19 show the correlation between age and language preference across the groups (parents group is split into two tables – one for parents, one for children). We can see that there is a clear preference for Russian across all groups and ages.
Table 16. What is your age? (group) and Q. “In general, what language do you prefer to speak?” Crosstabulation (older pupils and students)
In general, what language do you prefer to speak?
% within A mixed Ukrainian What is your age? (group) language of Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian 20 89 23 10 14 to 17 14.1% 62.7% 16.2% 7.0% What is your age? 27 106 15 14 18 to 28 (group) 16.7% 65.4% 9.3% 8.6% 0 4 1 2 29 to 39 0.0% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 47 199 39 26 Total (311) 15.1% 64.0% 12.5% 8.4%
Table 17. What is your age? (group) and Q. “What language do you prefer to use most of the time?” Crosstabulation (parents about themselves)
What language do you prefer to use most of the time?
% within A mixed Ukrainian What is your age? (group) language of Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian 0 2 0 0 18 to 28 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% What is your 5 24 3 1 29 to 39 age? (group) 15.2% 72.7% 9.1% 3.0% 2 9 0 0 40 to 49 18.2% 81.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7 35 3 1 Total (46) 15.2% 76.1% 6.5% 2.2%
72 Table 18. What is your child's age? (group) and Q. “What language does your child prefer to use most of the time?” Crosstabulation (parents about their children)
What language does your child prefer to use most of the time?
% within What is your A mixed Ukrainian and child's age? (group) language of Ukrainian Russian Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian 4 13 3 1 What is your 6 to 10 19.0% 61.9% 14.3% 4.8% child's age? 4 19 3 0 (group) 11 to 14 15.4% 73.1% 11.5% 0.0% 8 32 6 1 Total (47) 17.0% 68.1% 12.8% 2.1%
Table 19. What is your age? (group) and Q. “What language do you prefer to use most of the time?” Crosstabulation (teachers)
What language do you prefer to use most of the time?
% within What is your A mixed Ukrainian and age? (group) language of Ukrainian Russian Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian 0 3 1 0 18 to 28 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 4 8 3 2 29 to 39 23.5% 47.1% 17.6% 11.8% What is your 1 5 2 2 40 to 49 age? (group) 10.0% 50.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0 3 0 2 50 or 59 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60 and 0 3 0 3 above 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% Total (42) 5 22 6 9 11.9% 52.4% 14.3% 21.4%
4.1.1.2. Gender Amongst the pupils and students 27.3% are male and 72.7% are female. Gender distribution amongst the parents is similar – 76.1% female and 23.9% male. As for their children 70.2% are female and 29.8% male. Amongst the teachers 76.7% are female and 23.3% – male.
73 There seems to be unequal distribution of gender, which might be connected to several factors. First, the female portion of the population in Ukraine and Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in particular is bigger than the male (one can check this with any statistical publication, for instance All-Ukrainian Census). Second, there seems to be uneven gender distribution amongst professions in Ukraine in general109 and it can be argued that there are significantly more female teachers at the secondary level in education, and possibly more in higher education, which may affect the gender distribution in the teachers group. One could also argue that mothers are traditionally more involved in their children’s school years in Ukraine, and therefore more likely to fill out the questionnaire, which respectively affect the distribution in group 2 (parents). There does not seem to be an easily apparent explanation as to why there were more females within the first group (pupils and students) and children of parents (part of group 2). One could question whether the number of universities with more humanities’ majors, which seem to be better represented in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ (especially III-IV levels of accreditation)110, may be a factor. Bearing in mind that this is a bold generalization, it is not unusual for females to show more preference towards studies in humanities and males choosing more technical professions in Ukraine111. This could in turn suggest that there may be more females studying in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. It is not clear why there are more parents of girls in the study, since the assistants had no prior knowledge as to gender of the child and the respondents were selected randomly, therefore it is treated as coincidental. Overall it seems that women were generally more willing to participate in survey.
Table 20. Gender and general language preference Crosstabulation (all groups)
A mixed Ukrainian language of % within and Ukrainian Russian Russian Total What is your gender? Russian and equally Ukrainian Pupils and 37 145 23 21 226 Female students 16.4% 64.2% 10.2% 9.3% 100.0%
109 "В Украине по-прежнему актуальна проблема гендерного равенства," 2012 http://healthinfo.ua/articles/aktivn-otdh/2782 110 "Навчальні заклади Миколаївської області : довідник / Миколаївський обласний центр зайнятості." 2010 http://www.niklib.com/resource/lib60.ru 111 "В Украине по-прежнему актуальна проблема гендерного равенства," 2012 http://healthinfo.ua/articles/aktivn-otdh/2782
74 (total N = 311) 10 54 16 5 85 Male 11.8% 63.5% 18.8% 5.9% 100.0% 5 26 3 1 35 Female Parents about 14.3% 74.3% 8.6% 2.9% 100.0% parents (total N 2 9 0 0 11 = 46) Male 18.2% 81.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 6 21 5 1 33 Female Parents about 18.2% 63.6% 15.2% 3.0% 100.0% child 2 11 1 0 14 (Total N = 47) Male 14.3% 78.6% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0% 5 16 4 8 33 Female Teachers 15.2% 48.5% 12.1% 24.2% 100.0% (Total N = 43) 1 7 1 1 10 Male 10.0% 70.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0%
While there are deviations between groups, there does not seem to be a relationship between gender and language preference. The percentages for Russian preference in the biggest (and most representative group) of older pupils and students are comparable – 64.2% females and 63.5% males prefer Russian, 16.4% females and 11.8% males prefer Ukrainian. The rest were split between the mixed language and both languages equally.
4.1.1.3. Place of residence and educational establishment It is important to differentiate between the respondents who come from the city and those who come from the villages. According to Masenko (2009:123112):
Ukrainian language is most favoured by rural residents who, at the same time, most often speak Ukrainian in the family circle. As for the urban population, the bigger the size of the city, the smaller is the number of the residents who recognize Ukrainian as their mother tongue and still lesser it is used in the family circle.
As shown in Figure 8, just over half of the pupils and students (55.3%) come from the city of Mykolaiv, which is the oblastʹ Centre of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. The rest come from villages (rural-type settlements) – 19.1% respondents, towns (urban-type settlements) – 10.9% and
112 See pp. 101-37 in Language Policy and Language Situation in Ukraine (Besters-Dilger 2009)
75 district centres – 14.7% respondents. A larger part of parents (82.6%) come from Mykolaiv city itself, meaning that so do their children, i.e. pupils under 14. The rest of the parents either come from the villages – 2.2%, small towns – 8.7 %, or district centres – 6.5%. As for the teachers, 78.7% came from Mykolaiv city, 2.1% come from the district centre, 6.4% come from small towns and the rest of the teacher respondents – 12.8% come from villages.
Figure 8. Place of residence of the respondents
Rural-type settlement (village) Urban-type settlement (town) District centre Oblast center 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pupils & students 19.1 10.9 14.7 55.3
Parents 2.2 8.7 6.5 82.6
Teachers 12.8 6.4 2.1 78.7
As shown in Figure 9, the pupils over 14 and students (Group 1) come from different educational institutions including school pupils from secondary schools – 22.3% and students from specialized schools – 36.8% of the respondents. Other students come from technical schools with I or II level of accreditation – 8%, and other institutes or universities with III or IV level of accreditation – 32.5%. One of the respondents – 0.3% of the total number, is a post- graduate student.
76 Figure 9. Distribution of the Gr.1 respondents by place of study (percent)
0.3 22.3 32.5
8 36.8
Secondary school Specialized school Technical school (or other higher educational establishment) Institute or university (or other higher educational establishment) Post-graduate course
As for the pupils under 14, whose parents had filled out the questionnaire, 35.4% study in primary school and 64.6% study in middle school.
Figure 10. Teachers’ and lecturers’ place of work
37 41.3
2.2 19.6 Secondary school Specialized school (училище) Technical school (техникум or other higher educational establishment) Institute or university (or other higher educational establishment
As for the teachers and lecturers, as shown in Figure 10 above, 37% of the teachers and lecturers work at the secondary school, 19.6% in specialized schools, 2.2% in technical schools and 41.3% in institutes/universities.
77 4.1.1.4. Financial situation of the respondents It goes without saying that the economic situation in Ukraine is still not as good as people would like it to be and that the standard of living is not as high as in other European countries. Financial well-being of the respondents is an important aspect of daily life and could potentially affect the way their opinions on language policy and language situation are formed. For instance, the importance of the language question in the everyday life of the respondents is put into perspective when compared with their daily financial concerns. Table 11 shows that a large part of the respondents is able to afford daily necessities and some can afford larger purchases such as TVs, however it is alarming that 29.2% of parents, 16.4% of pupils and students and 12.8% of the teachers struggle to afford every day necessities.
Figure 11. Financial situation of the respondents (percent)
Parents Pupils and students Teachers
45 41.7 42.6 40 35 31.6 29.2 29.8 30 26.3 25 22.9 22.9 20 16.4 14.9 15 12.8 10 6.3 5 2.8 0 0 0 Sometimes we We can afford We can afford to We can afford I would rather not struggle to buy everyday life buy things such as anything answer this everyday life necessities, but we TV, but buying a question necessities have to save up for new apartment is big purchases such not easy as a new TV etc.
Nonetheless, Figure 12 and Figure 13 show that it seems that the financial situation of the respondents does not affect the way they feel about the language situation within the education and which language they would want to be the dominant one in the future. The pupils and students overall seem to prefer Ukrainian as the dominant language for the future, while parents and teachers hope for more equality amongst Russian and Ukrainian.
78 Figure 12. Financial situation and Q. “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (Pupils and students, given in percentage)
40 37 34 35 32 32 32
30 26 24 25 23 22 20 18 18 15 12 10 5 2 3 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 Sometimes we We can afford We can afford to We can afford I would rather not struggle to buy every day life buy things such as anything answer this every day life necessities, but we TV, but buying a question necessities have to save up for new apartment is big purchases such not easy as a new TV etc.
Ukrainian Russian Ukrainian and Russian equally None of the provided answers
Figure 13. Financial situation and Q. “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (Parents, given in percentage)
12 11
10 8 8 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 Sometimes we struggle We can afford everyday We can afford to buy I would rather not to buy everyday life life necessities, but we things such as TV, but answer this question necessities have to save up for big buying a new apartment purchases such as a new is not easy TV etc,
Ukrainian Russian Ukrainian and Russian equally
79 Figure 14. Financial situation and Q. “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (Teachers, given in percentage)
14 12 12 10 10
8 7
6
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 Sometimes we struggle We can afford everyday We can afford to buy I would rather not to buy everyday life life necessities, but we things such as TV, but answer this question necessities have to save up for big buying a new apartment purchases such as a new is not easy TV etc.
Ukrainian Russian Ukrainian and Russian equally
Further crosstabulation charts on the relationship between level of education and language preference in 4.1.6.
4.1.2. Ethnic and language distribution Unlike many western countries, post-soviet countries still have a strong differentiation between citizenship and national identity or nationality (Polese 2011:52), as supported by the results of this study. This differentiation was very obvious during the Soviet times. Back then, indication of your nationality in passport, the so-called “fifth record”, was compulsory, and while you were a citizen of the Soviet Union, you could have, for instance, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or other nationality. In other words, nationality meant ethnicity, rather than citizenship. There is no “fifth record” in Ukrainian passports today, but nationality, as another form of self- identification thrives. This way, the 2001 All-Ukrainian census (“Всеукраїнський перепис населення 2001”) differentiates between nationalities also, explaining the term “nationality” as self-reported. All the parents, pupils under 14 and all the teachers and lecturers are Ukrainian citizens and nearly all the pupils and students are Ukrainian citizens also (99.4%). While almost all the survey respondents are citizens of Ukraine, their national self-identification is rather different. As shown in
80 Figure 15, only 72.4% of the pupils and students consider themselves to be Ukrainian by nationality. The remaining group 1 respondents are divided as following: 14.9% of the consider themselves to be Ukrainian and Russian equally, 8.4% – Russian, and the last 4.3% chose “other” answer option113 when asked about their nationality. The vast majority of the group 1 respondents were born in Ukraine – 93.5%.
Figure 15. Nationality of the respondents
90 85.1
80 72.4 68.8 70
60 52.1 50
40
30 25
20 14.9 14.6 16.7 8.4 10.4 10 4.3 6.3 6.3 6.4 4.3 4.3 0 Students & Pupils Pupils under 14 Parents Teachers
Ukrainian Russian Ukrainian and Russian equally Other
In contrast to this, only about half (52.1%) of the parents consider themselves Ukrainian by nationality; a quarter (25%) consider themselves both Ukrainian and Russian equally, the rest identify themselves as Russian – 16.7% and 6.3% as other. Interestingly, more than the half of the parents – 68.8% identify their children as Ukrainian, 14.6% as both Ukrainian and Russian, 10.4% as Russian and 6.3% as other. This suggests that the parents’ generation believes that their children are more Ukrainian than they are themselves, possibly because children were born in an independent Ukraine (after 1991), or it could possibly be due to self-identification on the children’s part. All the teachers are Ukrainian citizens, yet only 85.1% considered themselves to be Ukrainian by nationality; the rest are divided amongst Russian – 6.4%, equally Ukrainian and Russian – 4.3% and 4.3% consider “other” as their nationality.
113 According to the all-Ukrainian national census from 2001 other ethnicities living on the territory of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ are Moldavians (1%), Belarussians (0.7%), Bulgarians (0.4%), Armenians (0.3%) and Jews (0.3%). Source: http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
81 4.1.3. Native language, language preference and ability Only several respondents felt strongly about filling out the questionnaire either in Russian or Ukrainian – the majority of the respondents said they “don’t mind” in which language to answer. In this way, two thirds of all the student questionnaires (66.7%) were answered in Russian and the remaining 33.3% in Ukrainian. Similarly, 62.5% of the parents answered the questionnaire in Russian, and 37.5% in Ukrainian. The choice of the language of the questionnaire was similar for the teachers and lecturers with 66% of the questionnaires being answered in Russian and 34% in Ukrainian. Russian was the chosen native language for 45.8% of the parents and for 37.5% of their children; with Ukrainian being the native language for 18.8% of the parents and for 22.9% of their children. Ukrainian was indicated as the native language by 45.8% of students and 40.4% of teachers; Russian was chosen as the native language by 35.3% of students and 31.9% of teachers. 12.7% of students, 16.7% of pupils, 22.9% of parents and 19.1% of teachers indicated that they consider both Ukrainian and Russian as their native languages equally. It seems noteworthy that, when it came to the parents and their children under 14, there are understandable parallels in their responses since parents and children come from the same family. And while parents were the ones to fill out the questionnaires on behalf of their children, it was reported that children actively helped in the process, since some questions, e.g. questions about language used at school, required input from the children themselves, thus insuring that the responses were as accurate as possible.
82 Figure 16. Which language do you consider to be your native language? (percent)
50 45.8 45.8 40.4 37.5 40 35.3 31.9 30 22.9 22.9 18.8 19.1 16.7 20 14.6 12.7 10.4 8.3 8.5 10 5.3 2.1 0.9 0 0 Students Pupils under 14 Parents Teachers
Ukrainian Russian A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian Ukrainian and Russian equally None of the provided answers
When talking about native languages and languages of everyday use, it seems that the logical situation would be that the native language would also be the one they prefer to speak, but this is not the case for many of the respondents114. Figure 17 shows that Russian is by far the most spoken everyday language across all the research groups. This illustrates the complexity of the situation as well as a big gap between the definitions of what a native language and an everyday language is. As Moser (2013:45) explains рідна мова or native language is a rather ambiguous (and therefore controversial term) due to its multiple interpretations by different people and different institutions.
114 This study demonstrates that native language and language of daily use are very different concepts. Fournier (2002:420) states that “in language surveys, for example, some Russophone Ukrainians identify Ukrainian as their “native language” even though they never speak it”
83 Figure 17. In general, what language do you prefer to speak? (percent)
90 77.1 80 68.8 70 64.2 60 55.3 50 40 30 16.7 19.1 20 14.5 12.7 12.5 14.6 12.8 12.8 8.6 6.3 10 2.1 2.1 0 Students Pupils under 14 Parents Teachers
Ukrainian Russian A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian Ukrainian and Russian equally None of the provided answers
When asked to rate their language ability (or the ability of their children in the parents’ group), as shown in Figure 18, the teachers rated themselves the highest, with just over a third of them (36.2%) assessing their Ukrainian language ability as very good; the figure is the same 36.2% for the Russian language being very good amongst teachers. Overall the teachers seem to be most confident in their language ability, which is understandable, considering some are language teachers and all work in educational establishments, where language skills are essential. When it comes to parents, about half of them (52.1%) rated their Ukrainian as “good” and approximately as many (56.3%) rated their Russian as “good”. However, when it came to “very good” language ability, twice fewer parents (12.5%) felt that their Ukrainian language ability enters into this category in comparison to the same question for Russian language ability (25%). This suggests that overall parents feel confident in their language ability, but fewer believe that their Ukrainian is as good as their Russian. When asked about their children’s ability, only 4.2% of the parents rated their child’s Ukrainian language skills as “very good” and about half (52.1%) of the parents said their child’s Ukrainian was simply “good”; a third (33.3%) of the parents said their child’s Ukrainian was “fair”. In comparison, Russian language ability seems to be more polarized for the children/pupils under 14. For instance, 16.7% of the pupils under 14 have “very good” Russian language ability, yet 10.4% have a “below average” language ability when it comes to Russian. 39.6% and 22.9% characterized their child’s
84 language ability as “good” and “fair” respectively. While answering the questions both for themselves and for their children, the parents overall rated their language ability for both Russian and Ukrainian better than that of their children. Students’ responses are somewhat parallel when it comes to Russian and Ukrainian language ability; this way, 17.6% and 22.2% of the students rated their Ukrainian and Russian as “very good” respectively, 50.8% and 43.8% as “good”, 25.4% and 26.9% rated their Ukrainian and Russian as “fair” respectively. 1.2% rated their Ukrainian as “poor” and 2.2% rated their Russian as “poor”. Figure 18 below shows the language ability across all groups, with darker shades indicating better language ability.
Figure 18. Ukrainian and Russian language ability in the educational sphere (given in percentage)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pupils & students - Ukrainian 17.6 50.8 25.4 2.8 1.2 2.2
Pupils & students - Russian 22.2 43.8 26.9 3.4 2.2 1.5
Pupils under 14 - Ukrainian 4.2 52.1 33.3 2.1 2.1 6.3
Pupils under 14 - Russian 16.7 39.6 22.9 10.4 6.3 4.2
Parents - Ukrainian 12.5 52.1 29.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
Parents - Russian 25 56.3 8.3 6.3 4.2
Teachers - Ukrainian 36.2 40.4 17 2.1 4.3
Teachers - Russian 36.2 53.2 10.6
Very good Good Fair Below Average Poor Difficult to say
Beliefs about language and the role of language for a nation vary amongst the respondents of the survey (Figure 19). Just over half of the teachers (51.1%) strongly agree and 34% somewhat agree with the statement that language is a symbol of national identity. Only 4.3% of teachers
85 slightly disagree with the statement and 10.6% said it is difficult to say. Over a third of the pupils and students (36.8%) and only a fifth of the parents (20.8%) strongly agree that language is a symbol of national identity. Overall, it seems that teachers feel the strongest about language being a symbol of national identity; pupils and students also seem to agree on a connection. Just over half of the parents agree with the statement either strongly or partially, but are the group least certain about it.
Figure 19. Language is a symbol of national identity (percent)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pupils & students 36.8 29.4 10.2 3.4 20.1
Parents 20.8 33.3 18.8 8.3 18.8
Teachers 51.1 34 4.3 10.6
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Difficult to say
86 Figure 20. A nation should only have one language (percent)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pupils & students 33.3 15.7 19.1 19.4 12.3
Parents 13.3 11.1 33.3 33.3 8.9
Teachers 27.7 29.8 21.3 8.5 12.8
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Difficult to say
While most of the respondents agreed that language is the symbol of national identity, when it came to commenting on the statement “A nation should only have one language”, the percentage of the agreeing responses “strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” was consistently lower than with the question about language and national identity (see Figure 20). Also, the percentage of disagreeing responses was consistently higher for all the groups both for the “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses. This suggests that most of the respondents feel that language does symbolize national identity, but it does not necessarily mean that a nation should only have one language.
4.1.4. Attitude towards speakers As shown in Table 21, it appears that the language choice of other people does not affect the attitude of most of the respondents towards them. By this way 74.8% of the pupils over 14 and students, 79.5% of the parents and 66% of the teachers said that their attitude towards people does not depend on the language those choose, when asked about their attitude towards the speakers of Ukrainian. By this logic, responses to the equivalent questions regarding the daily use of Russian and the mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian, and how these language choices affect the respondents’ attitude towards the speakers, should have remained the same. This was not the case. For instance, when asked how the parents feel about people who use Russian in daily life, there was a significant increase of up to 86.4% answer in the “My attitude
87 to people doesn’t depend on the language they use” responses in comparison to the same question about Ukrainian speakers when 79.5% answered correspondingly. Similar tendencies could be observed in teachers’ responses, where the answer option “My attitude to people doesn’t depend on the language they use” was chosen by 66% when responding about the speakers of Ukrainian and 87.2% when talking about the speakers of Russian. While the students’ responses were comparable for Ukrainian and for Russian with 74.8% and 73.1% of the respondents respectively saying that language choice of a person doesn’t affect their attitude towards them, this figure drops to 64% when talking about people who use a mixed language in their everyday communication115.
Table 21. Language attitudes overview (given in percentage) My attitude I rather to people I dislike I rather I like dislike doesn’t Difficult Group Language such like such such such depend to say people people people people on the language they use
Ukrainian 4.7 3.4 74.8 2.2 13.7 1.2
Russian 3.7 1.9 73.1 4.3 13.3 3.7 students
Pupils & Mixed 9.6 9.6 64.9 4.7 4.7 6.5 language
Ukrainian 4.5 0 79.5 2.3 13.6 0
Russian 0 0 86.4 2.3 11.4 0
Parents Mixed 2.1 10.6 80.9 0 6.4 0 language
Ukrainian 2.1 0 66.0 10.6 19.1 2.1 Russian 2.1 2.1 87.2 0 6.4 2.1
Teachers Mixed 8.5 12.8 72.3 2.1 0 4.3 language
115 As mentioned in the Methods Chapter, negative attitudes towards people who use surzhyk in everyday life are common knowledge. In order to avoid any bias towards people or ideas associated with the term surzhyk, the term Mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian (Змішана мова російської та української) was chosen to represent surzhyk based on the most popular definition (32.2%) of surzhyk – The mixture of Ukrainian and Russian the respondents in 2009 survey (Besters-Dilger 2009).
88 These deviations suggest that while the respondents believe or want to believe that their attitudes are not affected by the language choice of the other person, this may not be the case and that the language does play a role in how people view the other person, even if these processes takes place subconsciously. Also, as I have already highlighted (see Inglis 2009) the respondents could be conflicted between what attitudes they have and what attitudes they believe they should have. Taking into consideration the “rather dislike” and “dislike” responses, it seems that people who use a mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian score the highest in comparison to the equivalent percentages for Ukrainian and Russian, thus suggesting that people who use a mixed language of the two are liked the least (see Table 21). Looking at the “rather like” and “like” responses, the attitude towards the speakers of a mixed language is consistently lower than that of Russian and Ukrainian; when comparing the positive attitudes towards Russian and Ukrainian the percentages are comparable in the pupils and students and parents groups. As for teachers, their responses show a slightly more positive attitude towards the speakers of Ukrainian, than the responses in other two research groups. Also, teachers demonstrate lower percentage of positive responses towards the speakers of a mixed language. Overall, despite some logical inconsistencies within the responses, it seems that there is a certain level of tolerance amongst the respondents towards the speakers of other languages; while using a mixture of the two receives the least amount of tolerance. Apart from the element of language purism, where one form of language is considered superior, and anything different, in this case a mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian, is thus inferior and should be avoided, there may be an element of competition between Russian and Ukrainian, which could cause the negative attitude amongst some respondents, even if it is a minority. Moser (2013:48) discusses this issue by suggesting that in recent years the normativists of Ukrainian language have overemphasized the role of purity of Ukrainian language and that many native speakers of Ukrainian are hesitant to speak their native language out of fear of embarrassing themselves. Moser (2013:48) also states that these speakers of Ukrainian actually believe that what they speak is surzhyk or, as termed in this dissertation, the mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian.
4.1.5. Language use in the educational establishments 4.1.5.1. General overview The questionnaire respondents indicate that the actual language use in the classroom is sometimes different from what the official language of the educational establishment is. This
89 way three quarters (75%) of parents state that most of their children’s teachers use Ukrainian during the lessons. This could be explained by the fact, that parents’ children are all under 14, thus meaning that they are in the elementary and secondary schools, where arguably more Ukrainian is used. In contrast, only 37.2% of the pupils over 14 and students stated that their teacher uses Ukrainian in the classroom, which is a contradiction to the official figures given earlier. Slightly more (37.5%) of the pupils and students said that most of their teachers use Russian during the lessons and 14.9% said that their teachers use both, 10.2% said that their teachers use a mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian. The most interesting observation, however, seems to be the fact that while 76.1% of the teachers said that Ukrainian is the official language of their educational establishment, only 41.3% said they use it in the classroom exclusively and the rest supplement it with Russian (Ukrainian and Russian equally 17.4%), 6.5% admit to using a mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian and 34.8% use either Russian exclusively. This means that almost 60% of the respondents still rely on Russian in the classroom to various extents. Obviously, this contradicts the policy of the educational establishments and reveals one of the key inconsistencies in the language policy in the educational sphere. Let us have a closer look at this situation to find out why this is happening and what is causing it. Figure 21 and Figure 22 give a general picture of the language use in the educational establishments.
90 Figure 21. Official language of the establishment (given in percentage)
90 83.3 80 76.1 68 70
60 Ukrainian 50 Russian 40 Bilingual school 30 I do not know
20 13.714.9 15.2 10.4 10 6.5 3.4 2.1 4.2 2.2 0 Pupils & students Parents Teachers
Figure 22. Language used by (most) teachers and lectures during lessons (given in percentage)
80 75
70 Ukrainian 60 Russian 50 41.3 37.2 37.5 40 34.8 A mixed language 30 Ukrainian and Russian equally 17.4 20 14.9 12.05 10.2 8.3 None of the provided 10 6.5 2.1 answers/Difficult to say 0 Pupils & students Parents Teachers
4.1.5.2. Language use in schools vs universities and other educational establishments Having looked at the general picture in education, there seems to be differences in how much Ukrainian is used depending on the educational institution with parents believing, that there is more Ukrainian language use at schools. Table 22 seems to support this, with 82.4% of school teachers using Ukrainian and the rest using either Russian or both (or a mixture). This number corresponds to the official statistics (see Table 8), which state that 81.5% of pupils receive their education in Ukrainian in the city and 92% in oblastʹ (see Figure 4 on page 43) in general. Since 75% of parents also believe that their children’s teachers use Ukrainian in class, this suggests
91 that while there is obviously still some Russian use in schools instead of Ukrainian (otherwise parents’ responses should have been between 82% and 92%) overall at least three quarters of schools’ teachers use Ukrainian as prescribed. It seems that the reason why Figure 22 shows higher use of Russian amongst teachers is that the teachers and lecturers are of the higher educational establishment (as shown in Table 22). Many more teachers of specialized schools and universities seem to use Russian than the schools’ teachers. During the study design, this was not taken into account, since according to the official statistics, language use in schools and higher educational establishments would be somewhat more comparable. This finding suggests that while overall there still is Russian use in the classrooms even though Ukrainian is prescribed, most of it falls under higher establishment use, while schools seem to follow the protocol and use Ukrainian as prescribed. As mentioned earlier, this could be related to the fact that there is more pressure on school teachers to use Ukrainian, such as official school curriculum. Also, school lessons are not as complex as university lectures, university courses and therefore the translation from Russian might be easier for those teachers whose first language is Russian.
Table 22. In which educational establishment are you working? ‘ What language do you usually use to talk to your pupils/students during the lesson? Crosstabulation116
What language do you usually use to talk to your pupils/students during the lesson? % within In which educational establishment A mixed are you language Ukrainian of and working? Ukrainian Russian Total Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian In which educational Secondary school 14 1 1 1 17 establishment 82.4% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 100.0% are you working? Specialized school 1 6 0 2 9 (училище) 11.1% 66.7% 0.0% 22.2% 100.0%
0 1 0 0 1
116 While there are five answer options to the question “What language do you usually use to talk to your pupils/students during the lesson?” (see Appendix 3. Full questionnaires and coding), none of the respondents chose the fifth answer option “None of the provided answers”. This is the reason why the fifth column was not included in the Crosstabulation. This practice is a default setting in the SPSS, which seemed logical and therefore was not changed.
92 Technical school (техникум) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% (or other higher educational establishment of I-II levels of accreditation
Institute or university (or 4 7 2 5 18 other higher educational 22.2% 38.9% 11.1% 27.8% 100.0% establishment of III-IV levels of accreditation Total 19 15 3 8 45 42.2% 33.3% 6.7% 17.8% 100.0%
After discovering that university teachers and lecturers are more likely to use Russian than the school teachers, I looked at the age group of the group 3 respondents and their language use, wondering whether there is a link between younger teachers using more Ukrainian and older teachers using more Russian (with the working assumption that that university teachers are likely to be older). Table 23 shows that there the largest proportion of those who speak Ukrainian during the lessons (50%) belong to the 29-39 age group, while the largest proportion of teachers who speak Russian (37.5%) belong to the 40-49 age group. This suggests that it might be easier for younger teachers to speak Ukrainian since they received their qualifications in Ukrainian during the time of independent Ukraine, thus suggesting that Ukrainization was at least to a certain extent successful. Meanwhile, older teachers, such as 4 teachers over the age of 60 all speak Russian during the lessons.
Table 23. What language do you usually use to talk to your pupils/students during the lesson? ‘ What is your age? (group) Crosstabulation (Group 3)
% within What language do you usually use to talk 18 to 29 to 40 to 50 or 60 and to your Total 28 39 49 59 above pupils/students during the lesson?
What language do Ukrainian 1 7 4 2 0 14 you usually use to 7.1% 50.0% 28.6% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0% talk to your pupils/students Russian 2 2 6 2 4 16 during the lesson? 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 25.0% 100.0%
93 A mixed language 0 3 0 0 0 3 of Russian and 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 1 4 0 1 2 8 Russian equally 12.5% 50.0% 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 100.0% Total 4 16 10 5 6 41 9.8% 39.0% 24.4% 12.2% 14.6% 100.0%
After discovering that there seems to be a link between universities and higher use of Russian, I also had informal inquiries with some of the current teachers and previous students (who studied during the 2005-2012) to discuss possible reasons for this, and, it seems, that the language use could be related to the subject and field of education. For instance, students in philology naturally experienced more Ukrainian language use than those in more technical fields. Unfortunately, the teachers and lecturers were not asked what subject they teach, it was thought to be too intrusive as it would make it easier to identify teachers (especially if the teacher taught a rare subject for instance). In hindsight, since the department and faculty, in which teachers are employed, may have affected their language of choice, teachers could have been asked a question on this topic. Overall, there seems to be a clear tendency in the qualitative study results, supported by the observations of former university students, that Russian is used more in universities and other higher educational establishments, mostly due to complexity of certain subjects. Also, there seems to be a slight connection between the age of the teacher and the language preference with the older favouring Russian and younger – Ukrainian. Some students mentioned that language use could also be connected to the political direction of the institution. For instance, an institution unofficially more in favour of Yushchenko was also more Ukrainian-speaking compared to other universities, which were more in support of Yanukovych. Of course, the respondents were not asked which political direction their university supports, since universities should remain politically neutral and asking about this would have been inappropriate. Still, whether there is a correlation between political prevails in the university and language use in the university is also a topic, which could be explored in further studies.
4.1.5.3. Language use during breaks As shown in Table 24, according to the older pupils and students (group 1), although some teachers/lecturers still seem to refer to Russian on occasion, even more Russian is spoken
94 between the pupils/students during the lesson breaks (parents’ and teachers’ responses showed a similar situation). By this way, out of all the respondents whose teachers use mostly Ukrainian during the lessons, only 10.8% use Ukrainian during breaks and 50.8% use Russian, 31.7% use a mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian and 6.7% use Ukrainian and Russian equally. Amongst those pupils/students, whose teachers use Russian in the classroom, only 3.3% speak Ukrainian during breaks, while the majority speak Russian (70.2%), a mixture (21.5%) and 4.1% speak Ukrainian and Russian equally. The situation is similar with those students, whose teachers either use a mixture of the two languages or Ukrainian and Russian equally – 69.7% and 68.8% respectively speak Russian during breaks, while 6.1% and 10.4% speak Ukrainian. It seems that overall, no matter what language the teacher speaks in the classroom the majority of the pupils and students in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ speak Russian during breaks, however, there seems to be a slight positive correlation between the amount of Ukrainian spoken in the class by the teacher and the amount of Ukrainian spoken during breaks.
Table 24. Language use in the classroom vs. lesson breaks (pupils and students; given in percentage)
What language do you usually use to talk to your friends at school/university during breaks? % within What language do most of A mixed Ukrainian None of your teachers usually language and the use during the lessons? Ukrainian Russian of Russian Russian provided and equally answers Ukrainian
Ukrainian 10.8 50.8 31.7 6.7 0 Russian 3.3 70.2 21.5 4.1 0.8 What A mixed language language of do most Russian 6.1 69.7 21.2 3.0 0 of your and teachers Ukrainian usually Ukrainian use during and 10.4 68.8 6.3 14.6 0 the Russian lessons? equally None of the provided 0 100.0 0 0 0 answers
95 Total 7.4 62.8 22.9 6.5 0.3
In the observation above, it is not assumed, that it is the teacher who decides what language to speak and that it is the teacher who influences the students. It is important to take into consideration a possibility that it is actually the students who influence the teachers’ choice of language. As it was commented on by some of the teachers during the research, if the majority of the students are Russian-speaking and so are their teachers, they may come to an arrangement of mostly using Russian in the class as the main language and disregard the policy of educational establishment of using Ukrainian out of practical and pedagogical reasons. While this situation seems to be a functional temporary solution to the language question in the educational sphere, this raises several serious issues – what happens to those students, who want to speak Ukrainian, but are outnumbered? What is the purpose of having Ukrainian as an official language in education if so many students and teachers speak Russian during the lessons and even more during breaks? Should the teachers, who speak Russian during the lessons be penalized for not using the official language or should they be given the right to use their language of preference? The possible answers to these questions will be discussed in the next Chapter – discussion of the results.
4.1.5.4. Higher education and use of Ukrainian In my previous small-scale study on the language situation in Ukraine (Inglis 2009), there appeared to be a correlation between the level of education and the language policy preference: a higher level of education usually translated into the preference of Ukrainian language. One possible explanation for this would be that people with higher education prefer Ukrainian, because they know that this is in line with the official policy. This also raises a question whether it is easier for speakers of Ukrainian language to receive a higher education or whether the people who receive their education in Ukrainian prefer it as the result. In order to see whether this tendency is still true and valid and what the causes are (if true), let us first examine the general language preference of the university students in comparison to the older pupils and students in the other educational establishments with the lower level of accreditation (secondary or specialized).
96 Figure 23. General language preference amongst older pupils and students117
90 80.8 80 70.8 70 62.9 58 60 50 Ukrainian 40 Russian 30 17.6 16.8 19 20 15.3 A mixed language of Russian 8.3 8.6 and Ukrainian 10 3.8 Ukrainian and Russian equally 0 Secondary Specialized Technical school Institute or school school (техникум) (or university (or (училище) other higher other higher educational educational establishment of establishment of I-II levels of III-IV levels of accreditation accreditation
Looking at Figure 23 it is clear that the vast majority of the older pupils (complete secondary education) and students in various higher educational establishments prefer speaking Russian in general. This percentage varies from 58% in specialized schools up to 80.8% in technical schools. Ukrainian is the preferred language only for 8.3% of the secondary school pupils, 17.6% of the specialized school students and 19% of the university students. None of the respondents, who attend a technical school, chose Ukrainian as their preferred language. This way, while university students in general do seem to prefer Ukrainian more than other pupils and students, this preference is marginal.
117 Data from Group 1 was used to create Figure 23 and Figure 24. Category “post-graduate” level was excluded since there was only one respondent in this category, thus making the calculated percent value skewed.
97 Figure 24. Group 1 responses to the question “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?”
Ukrainian Russian Ukrainian and Russian equally None of the provided answers 60 49 50 42.3 37.5 39 40 34.7 34.6 31.9 32.7 29.2 30 25.4 23.1 20 17.3
10 1.4 0.8 1 0 Secondary school Specialized school Technical school Institute or university (or (училище) (техникум) (or other other higher educational higher educational establishment of III-IV establishment of I-II levels of accreditation levels of accreditation
Figure 24 shows which language or languages the older pupils and students in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ want to see in the education in the future. Almost half (49%) of the university students want to see Ukrainian as the dominant language in education in the future, in spite of the fact that 62.9% prefer speaking Russian in general. 39% of the specialized school students also hope that Ukrainian will be the dominant language in education in the future. Even though Russian is the most supported language amongst older school pupils (31.9%) and technical school students (42.3%) in terms of future language policy, comparatively more pupils and students would want Ukrainian to be the dominant language in education than the number of pupils and students who prefer speaking Ukrainian in general. In other words, this tendency of supporting Ukrainian as the future dominant language in education is not limited to the university students and even though they do support it the most, many of the other pupils and students choose Ukrainian for education, even though in general they prefer speaking Russian. Why someone prefers speaking one language in general, but hopes that another becomes the dominant language in education is not only a relevant question, but also a very important one and it is going to be addressed in the next Chapter.
4.1.6. Language preference vs level of education One of the research goals was to find out whether there is a relationship between the level of education of the respondents and their preference of Ukrainian language. Table 25 and Table
98 26 show the relationship between the level of education and language preference (pupils and students were not included as it is not clear what diploma, degree etc. they would eventually obtain and no conclusions could be drawn from the current information). There does not seem to be a clear relationship between level of education.
Table 25. Group 2: Parents What language do you prefer to use most of the time? ‘ (45) What education do you already have? Crosstabulation Basic higher (Technical Complete Complete % within What school or secondary or higher language do you other higher Basic professional- (higher prefer to use educational Total secondary technical (11 educational most of the establishment grades or establishment time? of I-II level equivalent) of III-IV of accreditation) What language Ukrainian 1 2 1 3 7 do you prefer to 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9% 100.0% use most of the time? Russian 1 8 6 22 37 2.7% 21.6% 16.2% 59.5% 100.0%
A mixed 0 1 2 0 3 language of 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% Russian and Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 0 0 0 1 1 Russian equally 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total 2 11 9 26 48 4.2% 22.9% 18.8% 54.2% 100.0%
99 Table 26. Group 3: Teachers and Lecturers What language do you prefer to use most of the time? ‘ What education do you already have? Crosstabulation Basic higher (Technical Complete Complete % within What school or secondary or higher language do you other higher PhD professional- (higher prefer to use educational (Kandidat Total technical (11 educational most of the establishment Nauk) grades or establishment time? of I-II level equivalent) of III-IV of accreditation) What language Ukrainian 0 0 4 2 6 do you prefer to 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% use most of the time? Russian 0 1 17 8 26 0.0% 3.8% 65.4% 30.8% 100.0%
A mixed 1 0 5 0 6 language of 16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0% Russian and Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 0 1 6 2 9 Russian equally 0.0% 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% 100.0%
Total 1 2 32 12 47 2.1% 4.3% 68.1% 25.5% 100.0%
Looking at the tables above (Table 25 and Table 26), one can clearly see that the overall number of people preferring Ukrainian is rather small. Since this tendency seems to be consistent across groups, it highlights the gap between the official policy on language use, where the use of Ukrainian is promoted, and real life, where Russian (or a combination of Russian and Ukrainian) still dominates in general and is preferred most of the time.
4.1.7. Language use at home, with family and general language preference 4.1.7.1.1. Group 1: Older pupils and students Similar to Group 2 results, older pupils and students of Group 1 tend to generally prefer speaking the language, which they use with their family members. This way, out of all the respondents who speak Russian at home, 91.6% also choose Russian as the language they generally prefer to speak. Out of all the Group 1 respondents who speak Ukrainian at home,
100 70.6% also prefer using Ukrainian in general, while the rest use either a mixed language (14.7%), Russian (8.8%) or Ukrainian and Russian equally (5.9%).
Table 27. Pupils’ and students’ language use at home vs. general language preference (Group 1, given in percentage) In general, what language do you prefer to speak? % within What language do you usually use A mixed at home (with your parents and/or other Ukrainian language of family members)? Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian Ukrainian 70.6 8.8 14.7 5.9
Russian 3.4 91.6 1.1 3.9
What language do A mixed language of 15.1 30.1 36.6 18.3 you usually use at Russian and home (with your Ukrainian parents and/or other family members)? Ukrainian and 20.0 66.7 0 13.3 Russian equally
None of the provided 0 100.0 0 0 answers Total 14.6 64.0 12.7 8.7
4.1.7.1.2. Group 2: Parents, pupils and other family members Looking at the Table 28 below, one can see that there seems to be a strong relationship between the language that parents use with the family members and the general language preference. The highest percentage of the language used at home with the family is usually the highest for the language preference amongst parents. For instance, all of the parents (100%) who speak Ukrainian with the family, also chose Ukrainian as the language they prefer to use most of the time. Similarly, out of all the parents who chose Russian as the language they use with the family, 90% also chose Russian as their general language of preference. When it came to the mixed language, the language preferences were also predictably mixed and out of all those who speak Ukrainian and Russian equally at home, all chose Russian as their general language of preference.
101 Table 28. Parents’ language use with family and general language preference (Group 2, given in percentage) What language do you prefer to use most of the time? % within What language do you usually use A mixed Ukrainian to talk to your family now? language of Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian What language do Ukrainian 100.0 0 0 0 you usually use to talk to your family Russian 3.3 90.0 3.3 3.3 now? A mixed language of 27.3 54.5 18.2 0 Russian and Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 0 100.0 0 0 Russian equally Total 14.9 76.6 6.4 2.1
Table 29 shows the language choice tendency in the communication between pupils and their parents. When it comes to those pupils, who use Russian to speak with their parents, 91.2% of them also prefer to use Russian with the other members of the family. As for those pupils who speak Ukrainian with their parents, 62.5% prefer to speak Ukrainian all the time, 12.5% prefer to speak Russian with other members of the family, 12.5% use a mixed language and 12.5% use Ukrainian and Russian equally with other members of the family. This suggests that even when family members speak Ukrainian at home, Russian use still occurs with other family members.
Table 29. Pupils’ language use with parents and other members of the family (Group 2, given in percentage) What language does your child use to talk to the other members of the family? % within What language does your A mixed Ukrainian child usually use to talk to you? language of Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian What language does Ukrainian 62.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 your child usually use to talk to you? Russian 0 91.2 8.8 0
102 A mixed language of 0 25.0 75.0 0 Russian and Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 0 0 0 100.0 Russian equally Total 10.6 70.2 14.9 4.3
As shown in Table 30, out of all the pupils, who speak Ukrainian at home, three quarters (75%) also prefer Ukrainian as their general language of choice (the remaining 25% choose Russian). Out of all pupils who speak Russian at home, 85.3% also prefer to speak Russian in general (the remaining pupils either prefer Ukrainian (2.9%), Russian (2.9%) or a mixed language (8.8%).
Table 30. Pupils’ language use with parents vs. language of choice (Group 2, given in percentage) What language does your child prefer to use most of the time? % within What language does your A mixed Ukrainian child usually use to talk to you? language of Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian What language does Ukrainian 75.0 25.0 0 0 your child usually use to talk to you? Russian 2.9 85.3 8.8 2.9
A mixed language of 20.0 20.0 60.0 0 Russian and Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 0 100.0 0 0 Russian equally Total 16.7 68.8 12.5 2.1
Table 31 shows similar results to those in previous tables, where the language spoken with the family or parents affects the general language preference positively. While it seems that overall the language of preference is usually skewed in favour of Russian amongst those respondents who speak either Russian and Ukrainian equally or a mixture of both at home, there are pupils (42.9%) who use a mixed language with other family members, even though they prefer speaking Ukrainian. Since the question specifically asked “other family members”, this may indicate that other family members may come from rural areas, where Ukrainian and mixed
103 language are more common, while Russian is more popular in the city (i.e. Mykolaiv in this case).
Table 31. Pupils’ language use with other members of the family and general language preference (Group 2, given in percentage) What language does your child prefer to use most of the time? % within What language does your child A mixed use to talk to the other members of the Ukrainian language of family? Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian Ukrainian 100.0 0 0 0
Russian 0 90.9 6.1 3.0
What language does A mixed language of 42.9 14.3 42.9 0 your child use to talk Russian and to the other members Ukrainian of the family?
Ukrainian and 0 100.0 0 0 Russian equally
Total 17.0 70.2 10.6 2.1
4.1.7.1.3. Group 3: Teachers As with the groups 1 and 2, teachers (group 3) also seem to favour the language they use at home as their general language of choice. 92% of the teachers who speak Russian with their family, choose Russian as their language of preference. 54.5% of the respondents who speak Ukrainian at home, prefer to speak Ukrainian in general with the remaining 27.3% using Ukrainian and Russian equally and 18.2% preferring a mixed language.
Table 32. Teachers’ language use with family vs. general language preference (Group 3, given in percentage) What language do you prefer to use most of the time? % within What language do you usually A mixed Ukrainian use with your family now? language of Ukrainian Russian and Russian Russian and equally Ukrainian Ukrainian 54.5 0 18.2 27.3
104 What language do Russian 0 92.0 4.0 4.0 you usually use with your family now? A mixed language of 0 37.5 37.5 25.0 Russian and Ukrainian
Ukrainian and 0 0 0 100.0 Russian equally Total 12.8 55.3 12.8 19.1
Overall, there seems to be a strong relationship between the languages spoken at home with the family members and language preference. In other words, the language respondents speak at home is usually their general language of preference. Occasionally, the respondents speak different languages with different family members, as is the case with pupils, who generally prefer Ukrainian (42.9%), but use a mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian with the other family members (not parents) (See Table 31). Apart from these pupils, it seems when the respondents speak Russian and Ukrainian equally or a mixed language of both with their family members, their general language preference is slightly more skewed in the direction of Russian. Table 33 presents how language use at home seems to have a correlation with how high the respondents evaluate his/her language ability. The respondents who use Ukrainian at home, also were the group with the highest number of “very good” responses (26.5%) and the highest (67.6%) “good” responses and only 2.9% of those who speak Ukrainian at home said they Ukrainian is fair and 2.9 % said it is difficult to say. Out of all the older pupils and students, who speak Russian at home, only 15.3% consider their Ukrainian to be very good, 43.5% as good and 33.3% as fair, 4% said their Ukrainian is below average and 1.7% said it is poor. In reverse, those pupils and students who speak Russian at home have evaluated their level of Russian with 33.7% stating that their Russian is very good, which is the highest percentage out of all the pupil and student respondents, 41% as good and 25.3% as fair. Those who used a mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian as well as those who used the two languages equally scored relatively high on both languages. This suggests that while speaking one language, Russian or Ukrainian, may put the other language at a disadvantage, speaking both could potentially create an advantage for both. Also, it may indicate that using language at home gives the person a higher sense of confidence in the quality of the language they speak.
105 Table 33. Language use at home vs language competence amongst pupils and students (given in percentage)
How do you assess your level of competence in the % within What language do you Ukrainian language? usually use at home (with your parents and/or other family members)? Very Below Difficult to Good Fair Poor good average say
Ukrainian 26.5 67.6 2.9 0 0 2.9
Russian 15.3 43.5 33.3 4.0 1.7 2.3
What language do A mixed language 18.3 58.1 19.4 2.2 0 2.2 you usually use at of Russian and home (with your Ukrainian parents and/or other family Ukrainian and 26.7 53.3 20.0 0 0 0 members)? Russian equally
None of the 0 0 50.0 0 50.0 0 provided answers Total 17.8 50.5 25.5 2.8 1.2 2.2
How do you assess your level of competence in the % within What language do you Russian language? usually use at home (with your parents and/or other family members)? Very Below Difficult to Good Fair Poor good average say
Ukrainian 5.9 32.4 35.3 11.8 8.8 5.9
Russian 33.7 41.0 25.3 0 0 0
What language do A mixed language 8.6 47.3 30.1 7.5 4.3 2.2 you usually use at of Russian and home (with your Ukrainian parents and/or other family Ukrainian and 6.7 73.3 13.3 0 0 6.7 members)? Russian equally
None of the 50.0 50.0 0 0 0 0 provided answers Total 22.4 43.5 27.0 3.4 2.2 1.6
106
4.1.8. Changes and problems in education since 2005 As it has been widely reported, Ukrainian president in 2005-2010, Yushchenko has been widely portrayed as the pro-western and pro-Ukrainian president, while president Yanukovych (2010- 2014) as pro-eastern and pro-Russian. These two presidents have clearly had different programs regarding the use of Ukrainian and Russian in Ukraine with Yushchenko supporting the Ukrainian language more and Yanukovych – Russian. The policies and documents supporting these changes were discussed in Chapter 2. There seems to have been a slight shift in the use of the languages in the educational sphere. Looking at Table 34, one can see that 17.4% of pupils and students believe that Ukrainian was used much more under Yushchenko in comparison to 9.3% who believe that it was used much more under Yanukovych. There also seems to be a strikingly high number of “Difficult to say” responses in Table 34. There might be various explanations for this: the respondents have not paid attention to the language situation, because they were too preoccupied with other parts of their lives and for many it is a non-issue, they do not feel qualified to answer this question confidently, or they do not want to give a politically incorrect answer.
Table 34. Language use in schools and universities under different governments in 2005 – 2012 (given in percentage) Pupils and Parents Teachers
students
Yushchenko Yanukovych Yanukovych
Yushchenko Yanukovych Yushchenko Ukrainian used much more 17.4 9.3 47.9 14.6 34 0 Ukrainian used a little bit 10.6 5.6 14.6 2.1 29.8 6.4 more Nothing changed 19.6 24.9 12.5 41.7 23.4 38.3 Russian used a little bit 4 20.6 0 10.4 0 17 more Russian used much more 2.2 11.5 0 14.6 0 17
I don’t remember 29.9 0 14.6 0 4.3 0
Difficult to say 16.2 28 10.4 16.7 8.5 21.3
107
Parents (47.9%) and teachers (34%) also indicated that the amount of Ukrainian used under Yushchenko has increased and it was used much more. The same tendency can be observed in the “a little bit more” responses with Ukrainian reportedly being used more under Yushchenko. As for Russian, 11.5% and 20.6% of the pupils and students believe that it was used “much more” and “a little bit more” respectively under Yanukovych, while only 4% and 2.2% of the pupils and students believe this was the case under Yushchenko. As for parents, 10.4% and 14.6% believe that Russian was used “a little bit more” and “much more” respectively. The percentages for teachers, answering the same questions regarding the increased use of Russian were 17% and 17%, while no parents or teachers indicated that Russian was used a little or much more under Yushchenko. More respondents seem to believe that “nothing changed” when talking about Yanukovych than about Yushchenko – 24.9% of the pupils and students, 41.7% of parents and 38.3% of teachers. In comparison, the “nothing changed” responses were 19.6%, 12.5% and 23.4% respectively when talking about Yushchenko. When looking at these results, one can clearly see how Yushchenko’s name is associated with the use of Ukrainian language, especially so with the parents, while Yanukovych is associated with either status quo or the increased use of Russian.
Figure 25. In your opinion, under whose presidency was the language situation in the educational sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ better? (percent)
40 35.4 34 35 31.3 32 30
25 22 19.1 19.1 20 16.5 17.416.7 15 12.8 10.610.4 10.6 10 6.3 4.3 5 1.6 0 0 Yushchenko Yanukovych It was the same The situation It didn’t get Difficult to say under both changed for the better under administrations better under any of them, it both only got worse administrati
Pupils and students Parents Teachers
108
As Figure 25 shows, the majority of the students did not commit to saying that the language situation in Ukraine was better under a certain president and only 10.6% of the pupils and students think the situation was better under Yushchenko and 16.5% under Yanukovych. The rest of the group 1 respondents either found it difficult to say (32%), think it was the same under both presidents (17.4%) or that the situation only got worse (22%). 1.6% of the pupil and student respondents think that the situation improved under both presidents. The non-committal tendency amongst the responses continued with the two of the most popular parents’ responses being “Difficult to say” (35.4%) and “it didn’t get better under any of them, it only got worse” (31.3). 16.7% of the parents said that it was the same under both administrations. Neither Yushchenko’s nor Yanukovych’s administration received much approval from the parents (only 10.4% and 6.3% respectively), while the teachers think the language situation under Yushchenko was slightly better (19.1%) than under Yanukovych (10.6% of the teachers thought the situation is better under Yanukovych). 34% of the teachers think that the language situation was the same under both administrations and 12.8% find it difficult to say. Overall there seems to be not as much distinction amongst the attitudes of the respondents towards the language situation under different presidents, as one would expect, and a relatively high number of neutral “Difficult to say” responses. It seems that the majority of all the respondents, i.e. pupils, students, parents and teachers think that the situation either stayed the same or got worse.
4.1.9. Politicization of the language question and other external issues In order to understand the language question in the educational sphere, it seems important to put it into context and compare it with other already existing problems. Apart from the policies and laws not being consistently followed, it appears there are two other major concerns amongst those involved in the education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ – the politicization of the language question and the lack of financial support in the educational establishments. It has been said so often it has become a cliché – the language question in Ukraine has become extremely politicized, yet it is still used as an effective tool during pre-electoral campaigns. As shown in Figure 26, the vast majority of the respondents across all groups either strongly agree or somewhat agree with this statement with third most popular category being “difficult to say”.
109
Figure 26. Respondents’ view of the statement “Language question in Ukraine has become a political tool and politicians only talk about it to get electoral votes” (percent)
Difficult to say Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
4.3 0 Teachers 4.3 25.5 66 14.9 4.3 Parents 2.1 48.9 29.8 23.6 1.9 Pupils and students 5.3 27.3 41.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Apart from politicization of the question, of course, there are other problems in the educational system. The main concerns were revealed before the questionnaire design – during the research trip and during prior informal conversations with students and teachers in the oblastʹ. In order to find out how important some of these problems were, the respondents were asked to rate the urgency and importance of the language question and other socio-economic problems on a Likert scale. While the full analysis of the question rating and means can be found in Appendices B-D, the top three problems are presented in Table 35.
Table 35. Top three socio-economic problems in education across groups
Pupils and Students Parents Teachers
1 We have to financially We have to financially Pupils/students have to help with household help with household financially help with expenses for school, such expenses for school, such household expenses for as repairing the as repairing the school, such as repairing classrooms etc. classrooms etc. the classrooms etc.
2 We have to buy many We have to buy many Pupils/students have to course books with our course books with our buy many course books own money own money with our own money
110
3 We talk too much about My child's teachers don’t We don’t have the politics in our seem to be well necessary equipment in school/university qualified/experienced the classrooms, e.g. damaged blackboards, no chalk, old desks etc.
As one can see, the top two problems are the same – pupils and students have to financially help with household expenses and have to buy a lot of books with their own money, meaning that the biggest concern for most people in the education is financial. Overall it seems clear that as complicated as the language question is in Ukraine, and in particular in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, already is, there is yet another – financial, dimension that needs to be taken into consideration while issuing any new language policy. Policy makers should be aware of the fact that a large number of educational establishments are in a situation, where they need to collect money from parents and students in order to be able to support a good teaching environment and that any new language policy, which requires any additional overhead expenditures such as program preparation, translation of documentation and teaching materials, or other policy-related costs, could also possibly benefit from additional financial support from the state.
4.1.10. Proposals and predictions for the future As it has already been discussed, there is not much approval of the language policy, which took place in the recent years. When asked “What kind of language policy in the education would you like to see more in the future?” the majority of the respondents were just as critical and the majority in all groups answered “Neither” (pupils and students – 70.9%, parents – 66.7% and teachers – 65.2%) (see Figure 27). While it seems clear that most of the respondents want a change in the language policy and language situation in the future, the direction, which this language policy should take is not as clear-cut.
111
Figure 27. Responses to the question “What kind of language policy in the education would you like to see more in the future?”
80 70.9 70 66.7 65.2
60
50
40
30
18 20 14.6 15.2 12.5 10.9 8.7 10 5.6 5.6 6.3
0 Pupils and students Parents Teachers
Yushchenko Yanukovych A mixture of both Neither
Figure 28 shows the responses to the question “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” and their distribution across the categories. Ukrainian is favoured by the pupils and students the most (40.1%); 34% of the teachers and 27.1% of the parents also support Ukrainian as the main language in education in the future. Russian has less support than Ukrainian – 30.1% of the pupils and students, 22.9% of the parents and 8.5% of the teachers support Russian. “Ukrainian and Russian equally” answer option received the largest proportion of the responses from parents and teachers: 50% of the parents and 57.4% of the teachers indicated that they would like both Ukrainian and Russian to be the dominant language in the future and only 28.9% of the pupils and students, the smallest proportion of this group, chose this answer option.
112
Figure 28. Responses to question “Which language would you want to be the dominant one in the education in the future?” (given in percentage)
Pupils and students Parents Teachers 70
60 57.4 50 50 40.1 40 34 30.1 28.9 30 27.1 22.9 20 8.5 10 0.9 0 0 0 Ukrainian Russian Ukrainian and Russian None of the provided equally answers
It seems that opinions towards which language or languages should be the dominant ones in the education in the future are diverse. While Russian is still the overall preferred language amongst many pupils and students, as well as other respondents, the support for Ukrainian language is also strong and many respondents would want Ukrainian to be the dominant one in the educational sphere in the future. This might be connected to the realization of the fact that Ukrainian is the state language and getting a prestigious and well-paid job is going to be more and more difficult without knowing the Ukrainian language.
4.2. Qualitative results: interviews and open-ended responses In this section of the Chapter, I am going to discuss the qualitative results, which include interviews conducted with educational workers as well as the open-ended responses to the questionnaire of the other research groups118. I will attempt to piece together the selected opinions, ideas and quotations of the respondents in order to create a fuller picture of the language situation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and show the reader how these open-ended responses can explain the quantitative results, which were discussed in the first half of this Chapter.
118 The extended version of the original quotations and extracts of the interviews as well as the full list of the responses to the open questions can be found in the Appendices 4 (p.230) and 5 (p.246)
113
4.2.1. Interviews and interviewees As it was discussed in the methodology Chapter, educational officials were the most challenging group to set up interviews with. During the process of contacting prospective interview candidates, a number of obstacles presented themselves in form of nonresponse and bureaucracy. As reported by the office assistant of the potential interviewee, her boss declined to give an interview by saying “Do you understand what you are asking me here?” The key impression was that the higher the position the official or other educational worker occupied, the more concerned they were about giving an interview on this topic, and in spite of the supporting letter from the supervisor and my official doctoral student status, it seems that the officials were concerned about putting themselves in a compromising position by giving an interview. This clearly signals that the language question in education is strongly connected with both state and office politics and that you could jeopardize your career by over expressing your views. Fortunately, 8 current and past education officials and workers agreed to take the time out of their busy schedules and answer my questions. During the interviews several interviewees borrowed Ukrainian words and phrases such as “державна мова”, showing that some phrases connected with nation-building and identity have become set expressions, and used them in their Russian speech (see 3.6.1 for more information on language choice during the interview). Even though all the respondents were promised anonymity, most of them were quick to point out that everything they say is “just their opinion”. Several interviewees, who seemed comfortable and motivated during the interviews, were asked an additional question about the controversial Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law project. According to most of the interviewees the official status of Ukrainian is much more observed on paper than in daily life, especially in official and educational establishments, as all the documentation is done in Ukrainian. Subchapter 4.1.5 on p.89 shows that, according to the questionnaire respondents, Ukrainian is the official language in most of the educational institutions, where the pupils and students, who answered the questionnaire, study, and where teachers work. Interviews with the officials/educational workers seem to confirm this:
In written form, it (the status) corresponds. But as for the spoken language, then in the state institutions people speak Russian, even with the Ukrainian speakers, some state officials still speak Russian. This is my experience, that they speak Russian. But as for the documentation, there they use Ukrainian, without doubt. (I.8)
114
As I.8 above states, and as it was observed in other studies and other oblastʹs in Ukraine in previous studies (Søvik 2007:181), the status of the Ukrainian language is unquestionable in written form in official institutions. At the same time, it seems that Russian dominates the spoken language. Other interviewees attest to this and also point out, that this is the case, as they point out “due to historical conditions” in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, which has always been more Russophone.
We live in the South of Ukraine and we have a lot of people, who want to speak Russian, and even if I wanted to have two languages, it is difficult to do in technical terms, because we have Ukrainian as state language in our Constitution and that is why we should probably follow this path … (I.3)119
The status is official, but the fact that the assigned status of Ukrainian does not correspond to the status that its speakers give to it, it is obvious, it seems … (I.6)
This way, it seems that Ukrainian is only used in certain domains, mostly paperwork, documentation and other official capacities, while Russian gets the role of the spoken and everyday language.
4.2.2. Attitude towards speakers and language proficiency120 When speaking to the interviewees, there was no impression that any of them discriminate or would ever do so based on the language a person speaks and it was clear that they treat speakers of all languages with equal respect. This reinforces the questionnaire results, where discriminating treatment of others based on language preference was rated as the last problem in education for pupils and students group as well as for the parents. Teachers rated this problem the third last with the last two problems being the understanding of others based on the language those speak. This shows that language-based discrimination is not common, or at least, most of the respondents believe it is not common. As rare as it may be, it cannot be
119 Thanks to the use of “probably”, it seems that interviewee 3 is not entirely sure of his/her comment. This could possibly suggest that there is a gap between what the interviewee is saying and what he/she believes or practices in real life. 120 By language proficiency I mean full mastery of the language, ability to speak it fluently and accurately, a high level of language quality. By language ability I mean an ability to speak the language, level of language ability may vary from poor to very good.
115
claimed that there is no occasional tension between the speakers of different languages at all. As I.6 states:
Of course, there is a problem, I am not going to deny it. It exists in a sense that in any case scenario the relationship between Russian and Ukrainian languages leaves a sense of discomfort in the society. So in every situation one or the other part feels either a winner or defeated. (I.6)
It is also important to remind the reader that even though the majority of the questionnaire respondents indicated that they do not treat other people differently based on their language preference, people who speak a mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian did seem to be liked the least. It seems essential to ask why someone may dislike a person based on the language they choose. The answer to the above question why someone may treat someone differently because of the language preference could possibly be related to the one big common issue which was brought up by the interviewees during the interviews and written by the respondents in the questionnaires. The problem is the reported decline in the level of proficiency of both Russian and Ukrainian in recent years and mixing of both languages, which results in surzhyk. Many believe that, since Ukrainian is mostly used for official paperwork and in some official and educational capacities, and Russian is used as the language of everyday life or an alternative to Ukrainian in certain situations, the quality of both languages suffers and that many people do not know either as well as they could. Educational workers and officials commented on this topic:
Children still go outside and speak Russian, come home and speak Russian and as a result children do not know Russian as well as they used to know during the Soviet time … (I.5)
The problem in the language situation is that we are teaching our children to speak the state language, but then we come home and speak (Russian) and that is why we get this interesting surzhyk, which is in our head. (I.1)
It appears that many respondents, especially school teachers believe that surzhyk or a mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian is not a positive development in the language situation and
116
a form of language which should be avoided. It is seen as the negative result of the language policy in Ukraine during the Soviet period, when Russian was considered the high variety and the languages of the republics were considered the low varieties. As R.1.130 mentions:
… All the politicians need to improve their knowledge of the Ukrainian language. Most of them speak surzhyk. I simply do not understand how can you rule the country and not understand its language.
One of the interviewees (I.2) believes that children are sent to Ukrainian schools, even if they speak Russian at home, because in the future they will want to get higher education and that is almost always in Ukrainian. He says that “sending children to Ukrainian schools has decreased the level of education in general”, because the way the programs are designed the “child prefers to read Ukrainian, but speaks Russian and as a result he knows neither well”. Another interviewee discusses the level of language amongst the teachers, whose pronunciation of Ukrainian sounds Russian, even though the teachers work in the exclusively Ukrainian school. For some of the respondents, there is a sentimental element to the lowering of the standards of Russian language:
Children come to us, students come to us and they write in Russian badly, they do not know the Russian literature well, classic literature, that literature, which is a general philosophical achievement of all the eastern Slavdom. In my opinion, this is a shame, Russian language courses need to be kept, maybe not as much as before, but they need to be kept, because everyone in our region is bilingual and in everyday life we use Russian. So let us correct this language, so that it meets certain standards (I.8)
One of the interviewees suggests, that in order to improve the level of Russian, it should be offered as a foreign language:
… My family and my children, who speak Russian and who studied in Ukrainian schools, they have the deficit of Russian grammar. They write Russian texts in Ukrainian letters, Russian greetings for example etc., a card to the granny for example, so there are shortcomings in grammar. That is why, in my opinion, it would be better, next to English language, from the first grade to give children a choice of a
117
foreign language and Russian should be one of them, especially if this is a Ukrainian school. (I.4)
In addition to worries about the language proficiency amongst the pupils and students, several interviewees, as well as a number of questionnaire respondents, focused specifically on political and official figures, whose level of Ukrainian is not as good as it should be in view of their official position. This way, Ukrainian Prime Minister, Mr.Azarov, was singled out for reading his words in Ukrainian from a paper (I.2), while another interviewee (I.5) complained about the level of Ukrainian amongst officials in general:
Unfortunately, our state officials do not know it that well. Even though universities have taken steps to make sure officials learn it and can use it.
When answering the open-ended question “What do you think the Ukrainian government should do to enhance the language situation in education?” students’ comments paint a similar picture: They need to at least start using Ukrainian language themselves, communicate and so on (R.1.44)
(Politicians should) learn how to speak Ukrainian (R.1.280)
This suggests that there is a common level of dissatisfaction amongst the respondents and interviewees as to the level of knowledge of the Ukrainian language by the state officials. It can be argued that this in itself creates a premise for discrepancy in the educational sphere, simply because respondents and interviewees are frustrated that they are required to speak Ukrainian, yet some, or even many, state officials do not speak it well themselves.
4.2.3. Changes since 2005 The interviewees were asked to describe how the language situation changed since 2005. Some interviewees (I.3) insisted that in official terms the majority of schools were already Ukrainian speaking in 2005 and that there are fewer than 10 Russian schools in Mykolaiv, kindergartens are all Ukrainian and the majority of the schools are Ukrainian. This way, it appears, that nothing has changed officially and the last few years have been the period of stabilization with no increase or decrease in the number of Ukrainian or Russian educational establishments (I.4).
118
While not much has changed officially in terms of language policy, there seems to have been a change in the language attitudes:
If today in the country there is a specific liberalization of the Russian, then 2009 this liberalization was not there. Quite the opposite – I would say that the attitude towards Russia and Russian culture, Russian language were rather cold. And 2010 and 2011 shows liberalization of the attitude to Russian language, to Russian culture, Russian history and our entire relationships. So it all depends on politics, it is a question of opportunism (I.4).
Since the interviewee mentions the years of the Yanukovych government, this comment also reinforces the quantitative data, where Yanukovych’s name was associated with supporting Russian language. By this logic, Yushchenko is also associated with the pro-Ukrainian period. It needs to be noted, that when answering both interview and open-ended questions, most of the respondents and interviewees avoided using president names and comparing their policies. Most of the respondents and interviewees criticised the language policy in Ukraine in general, focusing on the system flaws rather than names.
The Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law121 In the weeks before the interviews took place in the autumn of 2011, Kolesnichenko and Kivalov submitted the draft law “On Principles of State Language Policy” on 26 August 2011 (Moser 2013:297)122. As discussed earlier in the paper, if passed, this law would give Russian much more official power and would potentially create a rather chaotic situation in the education sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and other oblastʹs of Ukraine, where there are more than 10% of Russian speakers. Not all the interviewees were asked about the regional language law, as some seemed to look slightly worried about saying something wrong. It was debated that asking a question, which could be seen as provocative would compromise the other responses as well. Only those respondents, who were comfortable and showed initiative during the interview were asked this question. The majority of them disapproved of the project. This way, when I.4 was asked about the regional language law, she said that “it makes the way of
121 More on the law on p.34 122 The law was approved in August 2012 under the title “Pro zasady derzhavnoji movnoji polityky”
119
doing things like business more complicated. The hierarchy of the documents etc.” (I.4). Other interviewees also disapproved of the law:
The law is manipulative. What is the European Charter of Languages? It is determined by the principles of linguistic ecology, in other words – every day a language dies, so the languages need to be protected. But the question is about the minority languages, Russian never has been a minority language, it never has been a minority language in the part of the globe. (I.6)
I think that accepting this language law would be against the Constitution. This will lead to horrible consequences (I.8)
One of the interviewees (I.7) however, who throughout the interview showed his support for Russian language and supported its status as second official, showed his support for the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law:
I was very happy when I heard this, I did not see any movements in our region, and everything is the same as it used to be.
Overall, it seems that for some Russian speakers, this law would be a welcome change, however, for the majority of the educational workers, it would create a chaotic and potentially dangerous situation.
4.2.4. Language status Language status has been the central question in the language policy in Ukraine for many years. Russian is a language of general preference for many, and, unsurprisingly, many Russian speakers would like to see Russian gain some kind of legal or official status, or at the very least see more support in the system of education. Meanwhile other citizens (both Ukrainian and Russian speakers) even find the question of Russian having a special status in itself illogical, as, in their opinion, Ukraine as many other countries should only have one official language – Ukrainian. Looking at the open-ended responses and interview transcripts, it is obvious that not only there is no consensus on the topic amongst the respondents, but also that many respondents care about other problems, such as economic more and that they realize this question is not depthless and needs a lot of thought put into it. Tables below show an overview
120
of various opinions and ideas about the languages status in all the research groups. The original version of these quotes can be found in the Appendix 5. Additional open-ended responses (see the number in brackets after each quote).
Table 36. Group 1 (Pupils and students) opinions on language status Supporting I think that only Ukrainian needs to be the only state language. If a one official Ukrainian citizen studies or speaks a different language, this is their right. language More than that, I think that it is even prestigious and I would be proud if students in our educational system could speak different languages. But all the documentation needs to be in Ukrainian. Every Ukrainian needs to know and study the Ukrainian language as well as Ukrainian history and Ukrainian laws. You cannot impose a different language on the people if Ukrainian is their national. That is why I think that first of all, there should be social research survey on this topic. (R.1.50)
I want that there is only Ukrainian language in Ukraine, since we live in Ukraine. Russia should have Russian language. (R.1.102)
Neutral views In my opinion, politicians need to not solve language problems in Ukraine, (other but focus on the solving of the social and economic problems. I think that problems are the language question does not cause problems in Ukraine, considering more that the Ukrainians have spoken both languages equally throughout many important and years and have decided for themselves which language is closer to them. people should (R.1.48) have a choice) In my opinion, there is no language problem. No one should impose anything onto anybody. Language problem is artificial and is used as a political instrument by our government during the elections. I do not want to accuse anyone and this is my opinion. (R.1.135)
Supporting I think that current language situation in Ukraine is fine. There is only one Russian as a state language in Ukraine and regions should definitely have Russian. (R.1.273)
121
regional language Leave Ukrainian as a national language, give Russian a status of the regional language. (R.1.63)
Supporting Russian language needs to become second state language. (R.1.289) two official languages Issue a law allowing Russian to be second official. Also increase the number of schools and universities, which use Russian language. (R.1.262)
It is important to remind the reader that the purpose of this table is not to give a proportionately representative view of the responses, but to show how wide the spectrum of the responses is and this is the reason why each section provides no more than two examples for each opinion. Overall though not many Group 1 respondents supported a full on official status of Russian, however many supported the regional status of the language and many respondents expressed their support for only one official language – Ukrainian. Other non-committal responses focused more on other, mostly economic, problems, in Ukraine.
Table 37. Group 2 (Parents) opinions on language status
Supporting Ukrainian nation should have one native tongue – Ukrainian and every one official citizen must know their own language and be able to communicate using it. language Russian language should not be the main state language, but Ukrainian citizens must have the right to study and use Russian language. (R.2.46)
First of all, stop politicizing this question. Give people the right to choose which language to use for communication, while leaving Ukrainian as the official language. (…) Prestige of Ukraine needs to be raised, develop the country, make everything Ukrainian more popular to promote the rebirth of the Ukrainian culture, so that the citizens of the country want to learn and speak the Ukrainian themselves, so that every citizen of the country proudly say – I am Ukrainian. (R.2.1)
122
Neutral views In my opinion, the government needs to love Ukraine and take care of the (other Ukrainian people, then the language situation will get better in Ukraine. problems are (R.2.51) more important and Language situation is not the most important thing in our country right people should now. Many other problems need to be solved first. (R.2.39) have a choice)
Looking at the open-ended responses of the parents, very few brought up the topic of language status and none of the parents explicitly supported the second official or regional status for Russian. One of the parents suggested to “allow equal development and existence of the Ukrainian and Russian languages at the same time” (R.2.30). Many of the parents insisted that people need to “decide on their own language of communication” (R.2.11) and that the speculation on this topic should stop (R.2.13). Parents often focused on the lack of Ukrainian language skills of the politicians instead of talking about status and insisted that the politicians need to focus more on other problems first.
Table 38. Group 3 (Teachers) opinions on language status123 Supporting Ukrainian language needs to be the state language. It is not difficult for one official pupils to learn it. In the 9th, 10th and 11th grades pupils already speak it language well. Even if they speak Russian at home - so what? Knowing two languages is also good. (R.3.42)
Pass the law on the only state language. Actively spread propaganda in favour of Ukrainian language amongst the population. (R.3.1)
Neutral views I think that first of all, upbringing plays an important part, which is also (other supported by a good standard of life, so that the younger generation wants problems are to use their mother tongue and not be embarrassed of being citizens of such more country as ours. They should follow the lead of the government, teachers
123 I did not edit the quotes in this table to minimize them, but rather highlighted the important parts, because the quotes provide an interesting context as well as offer some valuable insight and valid suggestions. For instance - idea of the R.3.34 respondent to implement “teach your neighbour Ukrainian language” program would require minimum funding and would create a better sense of community.
123
important and and TV hosts etc. And when young children laugh while watching prime people should minister's speech, what is there to talk about? (R.3.24) have a choice) Not stir up an artificially created problem. (R.3.5) Supporting the This painful question for the country is taken by the leaders without much language law sensitivity, who take drastic measures, without having examined the “On the situation in every region of the country. I have not heard of any survey principles of studies that were conducted in the region that would help clarify the the state situation in the area. And, especially specifically by industry, as in every language industry, including education, there are its own individualities. For policy” example, I believe that the professional subjects, especially which form working skills (turner) or shaping creative thinking (designer), should be very clear to the students not only in the information and practical level, but also, if I may say so, they need to sink deep into consciousness, to fix, to assimilate. After all, it is their future work, it is their level of professionalism and it is, above all, the safety of both the workers and the future of their patients, clients (nurse, driver, etc.) And this is possible only on the condition that the information will be conveyed in their native language. That is why, before taking any measures, this question needs to be examined with professionalism and from different angles. Having said all this, I am content with Russian being a second regional language. For me, who is a Russian speaker, it is easier to get through to the students, make them think and analyze their work in Russian. (R.3.2)
Against Support book publishing in Ukrainian. 2. When giving Ukrainian language law citizenship, demand knowledge of Ukrainian language, implement state “On the testing of the Ukrainian language. 3. Cancel regional language law. 4. principles of Demand Ukrainian language efficiency from the state workers. 5. Follow the state the law regarding advertisement and TV language. 6. Start a program language “teach your neighbour Ukrainian language”. 7. Increase the number of policy” TV and radio programs in order to promote Ukrainian language, following the culture of communication. 8. Increase the amount of hours for teaching state language in the educational establishments. (R.3.34)
124
Same as with the parent group, no teacher has expressly suggested making Russian an official second language and only one supported the regional language explicitly. The rest made a number of valid suggestions and some proposed that “Russian and Ukrainian should be used equally in the system of education.” (R.2.46). As with other groups, many teachers suggested that the language problem is artificially created and that it may result in tension between east and west (“Don’t set East against the West and vice versa!” R.3.39) and that politicians need to divert their attention to other matters instead, such as publishing good books in Ukrainian and increasing the quality of education in general, as well as promoting Ukrainian culture. Overall, the open-ended responses of the teachers were more focused on providing insightful and original suggestions regarding the language policy and less on the one-dimensional debate on the status of Russian in Ukraine.
4.2.5. Problems in education 4.2.5.1. Lack of systematic approach in the language policy Many interviewees and respondents complained that the new language laws or other policies are being issued, but not followed through, e.g. as in the case with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
When talking about the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the government needs to follow the Charter, because we have accepted it and now it is a part of our laws, so we need to modify the rest of our laws accordingly to be consistent (I.2).
Some of the interviewees pointed out that the language policy is lacking a systematic and consistent approach and that the multilingualism of the Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ (as well as other oblastʹs) is not being taken into consideration during the policy making with some believing that not teaching Russian is a loss (I.5). One interviewee said (I.8):
The biggest problem of the language policy is the fact that it does not exist. There has not been a language policy in our country for a very long time. Well let's say, the language questions are not regulated. All these questions are regulated by the forces
125
and the enthusiasm of the higher educational establishments, establishments of education, academic institutions and so on.
This suggests that there is a desire amongst the educational establishments to bring more transparency and consistency to the language situation, but little official support.
4.2.5.2. Language as a political instrument Educational workers and officials, even without being asked a question on this topic, have also said that the language question in Ukraine has become a political instrument:
I think this whole discord is being done artificially … I think it is forced by the politicians, for whom this is useful (I.1)
There is no big language problem in the system of education. No one is refusing to speak Ukrainian, all the people, all teachers know Ukrainian language and use it to teach. Same goes for kindergarten teachers, they study Ukrainian at the university and then teach it without any problem and I think it is just politically motivated adding fuel to the fire regarding the language (I.3)
Political situation should not be taken into consideration regarding this question and new system in education needs to be established as the old one has exhausted itself. People cannot figure this situation out and unfortunately the circumstances are causing chaos. Children should not live in chaos, they should have a stable logical and clear system in education. (R.1.36)
Some of the pupils’ and students’ open-ended responses were similar with respondents either suggesting that politicians learn Ukrainian themselves, ask people what people want and listen to them. Frustration and even some resentment can be sensed in these answers with respondents being tired of language question being brought up so often during pre-electoral campaigns. This reinforces the quantitative results mentioned in the first half of this Chapter, where most of the respondents have stated that language question has been exploited for political reasons.
4.2.5.3. Other problems (standard of living, reading materials) Most of the books and published materials are published in Russian.
126
In order to find a book in Ukrainian, I need to go to the big libraries and Ukrainian books are not always for sale. This is regarding the books for leisure time. It is causing me big problems that the course books for my profession are only in Russian! You can find brochures and magazines in Ukrainian, but they do not have enough information. That is why I am forced to read a lot of books in Russian. But I prefer Ukrainian! (R.1.51)
I feel positive about Russian becoming a regional language. As for education, it would be nice if more literature was published not only in Ukrainian but also in Russian. (R.1.24)
In my opinion, politicians need to not solve language problems in Ukraine, but focus on the solving of the social and economic problems. I think that the language question does not cause problems in Ukraine, considering that the Ukrainians have spoken both languages equally throughout many years and have decided for themselves which language is closer to them. (R.1.48)
They can even make Yiddish the state language, as long as they raise the standard of living to a decent level (R.1.171)
4.2.5.4. Suggestions on improving the future language situation When discussing possible solutions to the language question and what politicians can do, the respondents suggest that the politicians “focus on solving social and economic problems”. As one of the respondents said: “There are many other economic and political problems, which need to be solved first, which will improve the language situation in country in general”. While this suggestion is not directly connected to the language situation, one can see the financial question is obviously affecting the educational processes, since, as it was mentioned before, so many pupils and students have to help the education establishments financially. Many respondents continually insist that the “the government needs to learn the state language in order to improve the language situation in Ukraine” as one of the parent respondents states (R.2.25). Teacher respondents ask that the government promotes “development of the national culture” (R.3.38) and “development of democratic rightful state” (3.8). And one of the most often opinions was that policies should not be forced. As I.1
127
mentions, “if you force people to do something, they will do the opposite”. In support of this view, 6 of the student questionnaire respondents used the phrase “not impose” and 3 “right to choose” in their open-ended responses discussing what the government can do to improve the language situation.
4.3. Most relevant outcomes of the quantitative and qualitative research Key findings of the study and other data, relevant to answering the research questions in the next Chapter, have been presented and briefly commented on in this Chapter. Historical context is often cited as an important factor in the language situation in the educational sphere and other spheres in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, with Russian being the language which is used more in daily life historically. Ukrainian, even though it is the only official state language, is not always used in situations, where it is prescribed by the law. Although all the documentation and official paperwork in the education sphere is done in Ukrainian, Russian seems to dominate the spoken domain. This misbalance of Ukrainian being used more as a written and Russian as a spoken language creates concerns for many teachers and education officials regarding the quality of knowledge of both languages amongst the pupils and students. Several interviewees and teachers claim that currently the pupils and students do not know either language as well as they should. At the same time, there seems to be only a very small positive correlation between what language the teacher speaks in the classroom and what language students use during breaks; however, it is not clear whether the language of teaching affects the students and influences them to speak a certain language during breaks or whether it is the other way around and students influence the teacher. There does seem to be a positive correlation between what language pupils and students speak at home and how high they rate their language ability. The perspective new Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law is mostly viewed disapprovingly by the interviewees even though there is some support towards it from the pro-Russian interviewee. The majority of the respondents are unhappy with the language policy of both Yushchenko and Yanukovych and seem frustrated that the language question has become so politicized. There is no clear-cut answer as to which language the respondents want to see as the dominant one in the future. Many respondents believe that the politicians should postpone dealing with the language question until other social and economic problems are addressed. There is a strong agreement amongst the respondents that policies and languages should not be imposed on people and that current language regulations and laws, such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages need to be followed with consistency and that language laws need to be edited in order to correspond with each other.
128
5. Analysis and Discussion In this Chapter I am going to focus on the most important findings of the research and discuss them by subject, using the study objectives and other relevant and noteworthy findings as the structure of this Chapter. First, let me briefly remind the reader that the research objectives and questions, which were formulated in the methodology Chapter, consisted of (1) creating an overview of the language policies in 2005-2012 in the education sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and finding out what implications of these policies are; (2) finding out how pupils’, students’, parents’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the policy vary depending on various social and linguistic factors as well as (3) forming an assessment of the current language situation and its implications for the future language policies. Additionally, it was planned to research the differences between Yushchenko’s and Yanukovych’s language policy and to find out whether there is a relationship between higher education and language policy preference.
5.1. General language use and language use at home In the years after the independence, the use of Ukrainian has undoubtedly increased in education, mass media, state documentation and various public domains, while Russian still remained the spoken language in many regions of Ukraine. Situations where a speaker of Ukrainian and a Russian speaker could have a conversation, or a nonreciprocal dialogue (as discussed in section 2.2.1.1) were not uncommon in public life and in daily life of the population. Languages policies which took place since the Orange Revolution were aimed at increasing the amount of Ukrainian used in television, radio, broadcasting and the cinema since the Orange Revolution (Besters-Dilger 2009:245). Similar measures were also implemented in other domains of language use, including and especially education under the Yushchenko government. While education was the political focus already under Kuchma, these measures strengthened even more under Yushchenko. According to the study results, teachers reported that they felt more pressure to use Ukrainian in the classroom under Yushchenko administration, but this pressure eased under Yanukovych government. While there is a common generalization that everyone in eastern and southern Ukraine speaks Russian and everyone in the West – Ukrainian, the situation is more complex. The language that you use might not only indicate which part of Ukraine you are more likely to come from, but also in which context and domain you are using this language. For example, a person may speak exclusively or mostly Ukrainian at work, then come home and switch to Russian – a situation, which is common in Mykolaiv and its oblastʹ. While language policy has
129
imposed changes on official organizations and public domains, language choice of use at home and in social circles has always been the prerogative of the Mykolaiv inhabitants themselves. As Ivanova points out “use of Ukrainian has increased in domains that have undergone language planning; use of Russian has been reinforced in domains of free choice.” (Ivanova 2013) Language use at home and with family is undoubtedly one of the biggest factors, which determine which language a person prefers speaking in general. The results of the study have shown that not all the respondents always speak the same language as their family all the time and sometimes they may change the language they use to accommodate other family members (one could speculate that based on the data in the 4.1.7.1.2 (See Table 29 on p.102) that some respondents may have had to accommodate relatives who live in more rural areas of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and who are more likely to speak Ukrainian or surzhyk). In fact, one of the respondents has even reported that based on a single word, which describes a specific object, they could guess, which village or town a person came from124. Most of the time, however, the language that the family speaks is usually the language a person prefers to use in general. In this study, more than half of the respondents indicated that they prefer speaking Russian in general, a preference which seems to be directly correlated with the use of Russian at home. This means, that families in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ speak more Russian than Ukrainian at home, which obviously contributes to the preference of Russian use in general. In order to understand the language use at home across the three groups, let us look at the results of the study and compare the language preferences amongst parents, their children (younger pupils) pupils and students and teachers125 (Figure 17). According to the questionnaire results of the three groups, 77.1% of parents, 68.8% of younger pupils, 64.2% of older pupils and students and 55.3% teachers generally prefer using Russian, while 14.6% parents, 16.7% of pupils (under 14), 14.5% older pupils and students and 12.8% of teachers choose Ukrainian as the language they prefer in general. The rest of the respondents use both languages equally or use a mixture of the two. This means that more than half of the teachers
124 The word разлетайка, which describes an item of clothing, has been reported to be used more in one town in Mykolaivs’ka oblastʹ – Novyi Buh. Of course, no conclusions regarding regional language differences within Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ can be drawn based on one example, however it is also important to point out that it is not uncommon for various regions and oblastʹs in Ukraine and in other countries to have their own regional words and expressions. 125 The figure uses total N of the responses in each group, therefore the total percentage deviates slightly (max 2.1%) from the total numbers in crosstabulation tables (this is due to the sample deviation, i.e. N (number) of skipped responses during the analysis of crosstabulation is different from N of skipped responses in general)
130
prefer using Russian in daily life, even though most of them must use Ukrainian for work on a daily basis and that three quarters of parents prefer using Russian exclusively. According to the Census of 2001 (Databank of State Statistics Service of Ukraine) 126, 69.9% of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ residents consider Ukrainian to be their mother tongue and 29.9% Russian; number of residents who consider Ukrainian to be their mother is even lower according to this study’s results (see Figure 16) in favour of Russian. Even though fewer respondents in 2012 (in the system of education) seem to consider Ukrainian as their mother tongue than the general population of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in 2001, the percentage of the respondents who use Ukrainian on a daily basis is much lower than the census or the study statistics. Of course, the difference between a native language and the language of daily use was discussed earlier and the two should not be compared, nevertheless it seems to be remarkable that the gap between these understandings is so wide. One could argue that it suggests that the language policy of independent Ukraine was rather successful in making people accept and acknowledge Ukrainian as the mother tongue of the respondents, yet the effect on the actual daily use and general preference of Ukrainian was not as strong due to the high number of Russian speakers in the area. The study results also seem to support and explain the comments made by the respondents that historically Russian was spoken more in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, as the language is being passed on from generation to generation at home. This way Russian use thrives in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, in spite of Ukrainian’s status as a native language for many respondents and as a state language for the whole oblastʹ and country. Preference for Russian in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ illustrates how strongly the choice of language at home influences the population’s language preference in general and how eventually affects the success of the language policy.
5.2. Language ability in the system of education Mastery of the mother tongue is very important for education and Gonzalez (2000, in Gonzalez & Melis 2000:xxxvii) even asks “Why do we question that a child’s primary language plays a crucial role in his or her education?”. As mentioned in Chapter 4, most of the educational establishments in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ have Ukrainian as their official language, however with so many respondents choosing Russian as their language of preference, a question regarding the language ability of the respondents, both Russian and Ukrainian, arises. When it comes to
126 See http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Dialog/Saveshow.asp
131
self-reported language ability, it seems that the respondents of the survey are overall consistently, but not significantly, more proficient in Russian than Ukrainian (Figure 18). Teachers rated their language ability, both Russian and Ukrainian the highest, which is not surprising, considering that language skills are an important prerequisite for any teaching job, with Russian receiving slightly higher ratings. Parents also showed a better ability of Russian. Students’ language ability appears to be almost equal for both Russian and Ukrainian (Russian being slightly higher). When it came to pupils’ under 14 language ability, as mentioned in Chapter 4, their percentages were more polarized, but nevertheless the combined percentages for both Russian and Ukrainian language skills were comparable. Since less than 5% of the parents and less than 10% of teachers belonged to the 18 to 28 age group and the rest of the respondents in the two categories were older, it is safe to assume that the majority of them were born in the Soviet Union and at least began their studies in Russian. Taking into consideration that many of them use Russian at home, it is noteworthy that their Ukrainian skills are only slightly lower than their Russian. Similarly, students’ Ukrainian ability is only slightly lower than Russian, even though over 60% of them prefer using Russian on a daily basis. It seems that the educational policy of the modern Ukraine needs to be credited with the increased Ukrainian language ability within the system of education. Interestingly, the parents, who answered on behalf of their underage pupils indicated that 6.3% of the pupils have a poor level of Russian, which is about three times worse than the “poor” percentage for Ukrainian in the same group. This is worth mentioning, because such deviation among older pupils, parents and teachers does not exist. This may indicate, that since Ukrainian language use is being promoted within the system of education and is supported by the government, the overall Ukrainian language ability is improving, but that there are children, whose level of Russian is now much worse than Ukrainian. This finding may in fact support the common complaint amongst the interviewees and open-ended responses, that the pupils are not learning enough Russian at school and therefore can no longer speak it as well as the previous generations could. It needs to be stated though, that, according to the respondents, overall there does not seem to be a serious problem in terms of language ability in the system of education. Of course, language ability and language proficiency are two different things, which is going to be discussed further in this Chapter.
132
5.3. Language use in education More than half of the respondents use Russian in general (see Figure 17 on p.84), yet Ukrainian is the mandatory language for most of the educational establishments in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. As discussed by Kalynovs'ka (2009:239):
Although the official data indicate that Ukrainian is more dominant in education nowadays, in fact in many aspects the language development remains bilingual… the officially declared status of the Ukrainian language at schools is not fully guaranteed.
As discussed in the 2.7 (see Figure 3 - Figure 6 on pp.42-44), according to the Statistical Yearbook of Ukraine for 2012, 92% of day secondary educational institutions, 100% of institutions of higher education of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation and 99.8% of institutions of higher education of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation have Ukrainian as a language of instruction in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. While there is no denying that officially the statistics are accurate and that the majority of educational establishments do have Ukrainian as an official language of instruction, it appears that not all the respondents are aware of this. Only 68% of pupils and students, 83.3% of parents and 76.1% of teachers believe that Ukrainian is the official language of instruction in their (or their child’s, in parents’ case) educational establishment. The remaining percentages are distributed between those who believe that their institution has Russian as a language of instruction, those who think it is a bilingual school and 3.4% of pupils and students, 4.2% of parents and 2.2% of teachers, who remarkably do not even know what the official language of instruction in their establishment is. Clearly, there is a big gap between the official mandate, people’s beliefs and reality. In order to answer the question – why so many respondents do not know that Ukrainian is the official language of instruction in their educational establishment, one needs to look no further than the language use at schools and universities, as discussed below.
5.3.1. Language use in the classroom and language proficiency The study results show that more than half of the Group 3 respondents (school teachers and university lecturers) switch to Russian during the lessons and use it either exclusively or to complement their Ukrainian. The results indicate that, according to group 1 (pupils and students) only 37.2% of teachers use Ukrainian exclusively, and, according to group 3 (teachers), 41.3% of them use Ukrainian exclusively, the rest of the percentages are split between the use of Russian, Ukrainian and Russian equally and a mixture of both. Also, as it
133
was previously discussed it seems school teachers use much more Ukrainian (at least three quarters of teachers) than the university teachers. This may support the comments made by some respondents and interviewees as to why the level of Russian is falling amongst school children. While some teachers may use Russian as a language of instruction on occasion, but Russian, as a school/university subject, where pupils would learn the correct spelling, pronunciation and grammar rules is no longer a priority subject. This means that many pupils and students use Russian language (whether as a receptive or a productive skill), but do not have enough academic guidance in learning Russian. As most language teachers know, using language incorrectly, results in error fossilization, or “consistent use of recognizably erroneous forms” (Allwright & Bailey 1991:93) making it more difficult to relearn with time.
5.3.2. Language use in primary school vs. high school and university 75% of parents state that their children’s teachers use Ukrainian in class, which is significantly higher than the reports by students and teachers themselves. This was explained in 4.1.5.2, where it was discovered that while as a group (group 3) school and university teachers use more Russian than allowed by the law, this is mostly caused by the university teachers’ responses. At least three quarters of school teachers follow the rules and use Ukrainian, while the higher education teachers and lecturers use much more Russian in comparison to school teachers (and are the ones who skew the group results). It is important to remember that parents represent younger pupils under 14, who either go to primary school or secondary school (until the 9th grade). As it is common belief that learning a language is easier in younger years, introducing Ukrainian in younger grades is obviously more effective than doing so later. For this reason, one could argue, that there is more pressure on elementary grade teachers to use Ukrainian127. Also, not only is it more effective to teach Ukrainian earlier, but it is also easier to change the learning material for the elementary grades since the school program is standardised and language is less complex than, for instance, teaching and learning materials for physics or medicine at university level.
127 This applies to those children, who use Russian at home (of which there are many, as it was discussed earlier), since those who use Ukrainian at home are already proficient in this language.
134
5.3.3. Factors affecting language choice in the classroom Since Russian is the preferred language for more than half of the respondents, there is no denying that this preference affects the language use in the classroom. Figure 29 suggests a possible pattern of how different factors affect teachers’ choice of language use in the classroom based one the respondents’ answers. On the one hand, language use at home affects and often determines general language preference128, which in turn affects the language use in the classroom. Meanwhile, language policy prescribes an official language of instruction (Ukrainian), which in turn influences teachers’ language use in the classroom.
Figure 29. Factors affecting language use in the classroom
Language use General Language use Official at home and language in the language of with family preference classroom instruction
In addition to the general language preference, it is also important to remember that many teachers, who currently work in education received their education under the Soviet government, which means that most of their original professional and teaching training was in Russian. When teachers and students are supposed to speak Ukrainian at school or university, yet most or all would prefer to speak Russian, it is not unlikely that the whole educational process will take place in Russian. One could question whether this is really such a bad situation since everyone receives what they supposedly want – education in their preferred language. Unfortunately, it is not as straightforward and there are more factors to be taken into account.
5.3.4. Different language needs in the classroom First of all, when “most teachers” or “most students” are discussed, it means that there are still some students, who may want to receive education in Ukrainian for a number of personal (general language preference) and/or practical reasons (future professional life may require use of Ukrainian), but are being deprived of this possibility simply because they are outnumbered.
128 It needs to be mentioned that undoubtedly, there are times when general language preference is defined by factors other than family language use and even possibly affects language use at home instead of the other way around, thus making a family use at home and general preference a two-sided relationship. In this context, however, we are focusing on the way language use at home affects general language preference and that is why the figure only shows one side of the relationship.
135
Second, one needs to also question the quality and effectiveness of the teaching and learning processes, when language use in the classroom is conditional. The example below explains this in more detail. During the questionnaire collection one of the teacher respondents in one of the higher education establishments, offered an example of difficulties of managing multilingual classrooms. She said that since she is fluent in both Russian and Ukrainian and language choice is irrelevant to her teaching. Even though the official language of instruction in the educational establishment, where the teacher works, is Ukrainian, most students are Russian native speakers, therefore the teacher usually offers a choice of language to use in the classroom by asking the students what language they prefer to use. The response is almost always “Russian”, therefore the teacher usually prepares for the lectures in Russian. However, on one occasion, she reported, several students answered that they would like her to use Ukrainian, so the teacher translated her Russian notes to Ukrainian during the lesson. This however, resulted in the rest of the class having to translate the Ukrainian lecture back to Russian while taking notes. This way the whole lecture was translated twice within a matter of minutes – from Russian to Ukrainian by the teacher and from Ukrainian to Russian by some students. While this is only one example of one teacher, one can easily imagine that, taking into consideration the actual number of Russian speakers in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and the number of teachers who admitted to using Russian in the questionnaire results, these situations occur more often than one might think. As the results of the study have shown, the practice of using the language, which the majority of the group are most comfortable in (in this case – Russian) instead of Ukrainian is not straightforward and can be looked at from several sides. Some believe that it needs to be avoided, while others may argue that it is just a natural, and therefore, inevitable result of the multilingual context in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ.
5.3.5. When Ukrainian language is not used as prescribed On the one hand, the teacher’s choice to use Russian, when Ukrainian is prescribed by the education establishment in the example above is questionable. If Ukrainian is prescribed as a language of instruction, then the teachers should obviously use Ukrainian. One can even ask whether the teachers who use Russian instead of Ukrainian fulfil their job requirements, and
136
whether they need to be reminded to use Ukrainian or face other consequences129. Having looked through the legal documents on the website of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine130 as well as other online sources regarding the language use in education, no regulations regarding sanctions against teachers, who do not use the state language, could be revealed. Moreover, during the research for this study, including conducting of the interviews, reading open-ended responses and informal chats with the respondents and assistants, not once has it been mentioned that a teacher faced consequences for using Russian. This, of course, does not mean that it did not happen, but if it did – it was a rare occurrence. It seems that there is a gap between the legislation and law reinforcement in the system of education. The idea that the citizens should do what the law says is obvious, however most workers in education are more realistic about the fact that Russian is used much more in the education than the officials want to admit. Giving individual reminders to use Ukrainian is impractical since one needs evidence of wrongful language use. Acquiring this evidence could mean unexpected visits to the classroom by the principal or even ministry representatives; pupils and students telling on their teachers etc. – methods, which, as effective as they may be in short term, do not promote a harmonious teaching/learning environment, and, if applied consistently, would result in the resentment from the teachers regardless of the language they use. Also, reminding teachers to use Ukrainian may even be seen as hypocritical, since Russian language use in education is not limited to just teachers, but also to educational staff with higher positions. It seems that the only non-legislative solution is to give the teachers collective reminders to use Ukrainian and encourage Ukrainian language use through collegial support and further training programs as well as free Ukrainian language courses for the teachers. Also, since a large part of the oblastʹs population is Russian-speaking, accommodating this language might, in fact, be necessary and that some measure of translation will take place in the classroom for some years in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. It might also be time to address the issue of multilingual classrooms and decide what to do with the students who represent language minorities in the classroom, for instance, Russian speakers who are still not fluent in Ukrainian for whatever reason.
129 Discussing which consequences a teacher would or should face for not using Ukrainian language is problematic. As mentioned before, there is a big gap between the language policy and reality in the system education and many teachers do not use Ukrainian as prescribed. I would argue that, since there are no clear prescriptions in regards to incompliance in the policy, consequences for not using Ukrainian vary immensely from employee to employee and from institution to institution. I would also speculate that in most cases not using Ukrainian could be seen as a negative aspect of professional performance, however it would rarely be the only reason for drastic measures as dismissal. 130 http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/
137
It is highly unlikely that situations, like the example above, when a teacher or a student (or both!) need to translate their notes during the lesson promote better education, since errors and omissions can occur in such rushed translation, resulting in the decreased quality of teaching and possibly learning. It raises a question of who decides which language to use in the classroom. As Auerbach (2000, in Gonzalez & Melis, 2000:196) says that “traditionally the teacher determines what is best for students based on his or her status and expertise” and she also adds that “students must also be involved in the decision-making process”. However, since choosing a language of instruction geos against the principles of the mostly Ukrainian higher establishments in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, it does not seem that there is a platform for a dialogue between students, teachers and policy makers on what language should be used in each classroom, since the decision had already been made. Therefore, it is clear that current language policy is inconsistent with reality and that many teachers and students are now in a position where they either have to use the language, which is either not their first choice or goes against the educational institutions’ rules. Neither of these choices are good for learning, therefore more needs to be done in order to make sure that 1) students and teachers can receive education in the language they prefer or 2) Ukrainian language, as a state language, is not only used as a symbol, but also in compliance with the languages mandates in education.
5.3.6. Ukrainian schools vs Russian schools Since Russian is clearly an existing presence in the system of education, one needs to ask oneself – why do so many parents send their children to Ukrainian speaking schools if this is not their mother tongue? The reasons for this were partially discussed in 2.7. The first reason is that parents realize that if their child wants to study at a higher educational establishment, they need Ukrainian language to be accepted into the university and for this they need a good score at external independent evaluation (зовнішнє незалежне оцінювання). After being accepted into the university, students need to spend several years studying in Ukrainian and afterwards writing a dissertation in Ukrainian and passing exams in Ukrainian. At least the official part of studying is done in Ukrainian and for this the pupils and students need to know this language. Even if the children choose not to go to university or other educational establishment, they are very likely to still need Ukrainian if they want a prestigious job. Parents are probably also aware of the fact, that if a child needs help in Russian, most teachers in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ speak Russian and are able to assist. Of course, how much Russian use is simply help and how much is a different language of instruction is a question to be answered. Kuzio mentions (1998:146) “Parents in Kyiv, who themselves are often Russian-speakers, now
138
again make rational choices (as they did in the former USSR) and send their children to Ukrainian-language schools. Many former ‘Russians’ now identify themselves as ‘Ukrainians’”. The reasons for sending children to a Ukrainian school seem to be similar in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ to those in the capital. I would argue that the other, less significant reason, why many Russian-speaking children go to Ukrainian schools is that Ukrainian schools outnumber Russian ones in the city and even more so in rural areas. Consequently, even if some parents had considered bringing their child to a Russian school, there might not be one near them and sending their child to a further school would include a daily commute, which most parents would probably want to avoid. This, of course, creates a situation where children are sent to a Ukrainian school, where they are supposed to learn Ukrainian, yet some teachers still rely on Russian sometimes. Obviously, there are teachers who rely on Russian only on occasion (17.4% use both languages and 6.5% use a mixed language according to Figure 22), but there are also 34.8% who use Russian exclusively (data for both school and universities).
5.3.7. Language use during the lesson/lecture breaks Before discussing the language use during breaks, it is important to mention a decree #1033 from 2009131, signed by Yulia Tymoshenko (Тимошенко 2009), which prohibited teachers from using any other language than Ukrainian during working time, including breaks. Only those teachers, who worked in minority schools, could use a minority language during their working day. This decree was met with criticism and many educational workers said that it was simply not possible to implement. Crimean representatives argued that it was illegal since it limited the people’s freedom to choose the language that they want and therefore violated the Criminal code of Ukraine132. Oleksandr Gorobec', one of the school principals of Mykolaiv argued that 70% of the pupils and teachers are Russian-speaking and even though the lessons take place in Ukrainian, he cannot force teachers speak Ukrainian during breaks133.
131 http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1033-2009-%D0%BF 132http://qha.com.ua/ru/obschestvo/ukrainskii-yazik-uschemlyaet-russkii-predsedatel-grajdanskogo- kontrolya/56741/ 133 See "Вчителі не хочуть заради української мови "виховувати стукачів", 2009 under http://osvita.ua/school/news/5117/ Original text: "У нас в школі 70% російськомовних дітей і вчителів, звичайно, уроки ведуться на українській, але змусити їх на перервах говорити українською мовою ми не можемо"
139
As the results in Chapter 4 show, the correlation between what language the teachers use in the classroom and what language the pupils and students (Group 2) use during the lesson breaks does not seem to be substantial. Amongst all the older pupils and students, whose teachers use exclusively Ukrainian in class, only 10.8% use Ukrainian during breaks and only 10.4% of students, whose teachers use Russian and Ukrainian equally during the lessons, use Ukrainian during breaks. Amongst the respondents, whose teachers use Russian or a mixed language of Ukrainian and Russian, even fewer pupils and students use Ukrainian during breaks (3.3% and 6.1% respectively). This suggests that while the language that the teacher uses might have some effect on what language the students use during breaks, this effect is minimal. At the same time, one cannot rule out the possibility that the effect is reverse – teachers are the ones who adapt and use Ukrainian, as prescribed by the educational establishment, because they realize there are students in class who prefer to use Ukrainian in general (as discussed in the example in the subchapter above). To summarize, the language use in the educational establishments during the lessons and lectures seems to be inconsistent with the language policy and many more teachers still use Russian during the lessons than it is prescribed by policies and is reported in the official state statistics. In addition to this, a large number of all the pupils and students use Russian during the lesson breaks. All of this seems to be one of the most apparent issues in the language policy in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ – language rules and regulations were implemented, but are not being regularly reinforced. This is the result of the top-down language policy, which is going to be discussed in subchapter 5.7.1.
5.4. Attitudes towards language speakers Fournier (2002:415) says that “most scholars working on Ukraine agree that there is not blatant civic discrimination against Russian as an ethnic minority”. According to the research results, the problem of being treated differently, based on the language a person speaks, was the least important for pupils/students and parents and third from the bottom for teachers (right after two answer options of not understanding the other person based on the language they use). Additionally, the other two least important problems for pupils/students and parents were not being able to understand other pupils, peers or teachers. This suggests, that most of the questionnaire respondents seem to understand each other well and not treat each other better or worse based on the language differences. In 2009 Masenko (2009:117, in Besters-Dilger 2009), wrote that:
140
Mutual tolerance towards the speakers of another language is revealed by the answers to question No.13, “What is your general attitude towards the people who speak Ukrainian in their everyday communication?” and question No.14, “What is your attitude towards people, who speak Russian in their everyday communication?” The absolute majority of the respondents chose the neutral answer: “My attitude to people does not depend on the language they use” (58.3 percent are the answers to the question about Ukrainian-speakers and 69.8 percent are the answers to the question about Russian speakers). (Masenko 2009:117)
When comparing the research findings with the previous studies (Masenko 2009, in Besters- Dilger 2009; Inglis 2009), the slightly higher percentage of “My attitude to people doesn’t depend on the language they use” (See Table 21) responses indicates that tolerance towards speakers of other languages has increased even more or is higher amongst those within the system of education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ compared to the general population sample of the previous studies. According to Fournier (2002:415) Russian resistance “persists even in the general absence of exclusion on the basis of ethnicity”. This, however, has less to do with the question of ethnicity, but is rather directed at the Ukrainian state law, which does not recognize (empire- generated) hybridity within Ukraine. While most respondents do not think there is a problem in terms of language-based attitudes (or maybe they simply have more pressing socio-economic issues), one of the interviewees, who has worked in an institute for many years, made a thought- provoking remark, saying that the two languages create a “sense of discomfort” and that there are “winners and defeated” in every situation. This echoes the remark by Flier (1998:113), who described Ukrainian people – as a nation in which “the medium is the message”. While this may not be the most common (or maybe simply least voiced) opinion, it certainly has some merit, as it is common knowledge, that occasionally workers can be heard complaining about needing to learn new terminology for work, translating documents etc., thus expressing their discomfort at having to adjust to a different language. So, it seems that there are some negative attitudes, but they are not in the majority and are not necessarily addressed towards the speakers themselves, but rather at a situation. While it was attempted to avoid any bias by using the simplified term “A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian”134 instead of surzhyk, the speakers of surzhyk or mixed
134 I say “simplified”, because the term surzhyk is used collectively in this context and it represents several different types of surzhyk, which Bilaniuk outlined in 2005 (p.125): “(1) urbanized peasant surzhyk; (2) village- dialect surzhyk; (3) Sovietized Ukrainian surzhyk; (4) urban bilinguals’ surzhyk (habitual language mixing by bilinguals; and (5) post-independence surzhyk.”
141
language still received the least positive response (Table 21), thus echoing the results of previous studies mentioned above. Surzhyk and its speakers are viewed in a more negative light than the speakers of Ukrainian or Russian, also in the system of education. As Garrett (2010:7) writes “attitudes towards language, positive and negative, are often influenced by the process of standardisation in languages”. In fact, any kind of non-standard Ukrainian seems to be viewed negatively by the general public, as experienced by Stavyсʹka, whose dictionary “Український жарґон” (Ставицька 2005) instead of simply being acknowledged as a descriptive scientific contribution was labelled “spiritual squalor” and “degradation” and was put into the same category as slang, surzhyk and vulgar expressions (Ставицька 2008:7)135. As it was discovered in previous studies (Del Gaudio & Tarasenko 2009, in Besters- Dilger 2009; Inglis 2009) and supported by this study, there is a contradiction in the responses with “My attitude to people doesn’t depend on the language they use” with the response percentages deviating from each other. Had the responses been coherent, the numbers should have been the same for Russian, Ukrainian and surzhyk. This suggests that the respondents may have been somewhat inconsistent, perhaps due to an internal conflict as to what they believe and what they should believe. Some are possibly uncomfortable to admit that they do discriminate based on the language used, while others possibly believe that surzhyk is not an actual language, but a “simplified, defective way of communication”136 (Mасенко 2011:36),
Acccording to Hentschel, who has written extensively on the subject (e.g.Hentschel 2008), there is even evidence of surzhyk being a new independent language: “One piece of evidence that suggests the possibility of new, third languages is the fact that everyone concerned with the phenomena of trasjanka and suržyk (regardless whether they have a negative or neutral attitude toward them) encounters a significant number of speakers who only show mixed speech. If such speakers are asked or, in certain communicative contexts, attempt on their own to speak a pure form of one or the other of the two contacting languages they are usually mixing, what essentially happens is that they increase the frequency of signs and constructions of whichever language they are attempting to speak.” (Hentschel 2008:99). Hentschel also agrees that overall the view surzhyk is negative, “Literary critics and linguist-politicians tend to place these speakers in the context of cultural decline due to inadequate education” (Hentschel 2008:100). 135 Original quote: «Чому словник не викликав наукової дискусії – це тема окремої розмови. Але медійний курс про жаргон взагалі і словник зокрема виявився доволі симптоматичним з огляду на те, що виявив цивілізаційний, точніше не зовсім цивілізаційний, код нації. Цей дискурс засвідчив повний хаос у метамовній свідомості сучасного українського етносоціюму стосовно ненормативного лексикону, нездатність до адекватної рефлексії щодо мови, затятого нерозрізнення сленгу і мату, а отже опосередковано виявив відрив мови від її носія, містифікацію і дегуманізацію мови як «оселі людського буття», що само по собі стало свідченням здеформованої мовної карти світу. І «заслуга» в цьому українських лінгвістів з їхнім нехтуванням дескриптивним підходом до вивчення мови, чіпкими ярликами «духовна убогість», «деградація» стосовно поставлених в один ряд сленгу, суржику, вульгаризмів виявилась таки чималою.» 136 Original quote: «переважна кількість українських інтелектуалів трактує суржик як спрощений, ущербний різновід мовленния.»
142
as seen by many Ukrainian intellectuals, and is therefore any negative attitude towards its speakers is justified. Del Gaudio and Tarasenko, who had had similar results, stated that:
The number of people who include themselves in the category of surzhyk speakers is much smaller than those who believe that people in their community speak surzhyk. Such indicator shows the low percentage of this subcode, since obviously more than half of the surzhyk speakers are ashamed to admit that their language should be qualified as surzhyk (Del Gaudio and Tarasenko 2009:343).
Many respondents are ashamed to admit that they use surzhyk on a daily basis most probably for two reasons: (1) the respondents may not realize that they speak surzhyk or do not want to admit that even to themselves137 and (2) that people are aware of negative attitudes towards surzhyk speakers and do not want to be treated differently based on the language or mixture of languages that they speak. Some respondents and interviewees added to the negative view of surzhyk with their comments, in particular when criticizing the government’s language ability and suggesting that their use of surzhyk means lack of understanding of their own language (R.1.130). Surzhyk is seen as something that needs to be battled against and some scholars actively take part in resolving this issue. In 1994 Serbensʹka (Сербенська 1994) published book with a telling name “Антисуржик” aimed at correcting common surzhyk expressions. In 2011 a new expanded edition of this book came out (Ціхоцький 2012). Various online sources138 provide its readers with the Antisurzhyk dictionaries, some have a special section for “education”. While there are sources to battle the non-standard language forms of Ukrainian, all these measures will never be completely successful, since many people do not realize they speak surzhyk, and if they do, they do not want to admit it. In many people’s eyes, admitting that you speak surzhyk equals to criticizing your own language ability, and since surzhyk speakers are least liked, it is also not the most sensible social decision. In order to eliminate surzhyk expressions, if this is what is desired, it is important for surzhyk speakers to first realize that their language is not standard. However, in order to do so, there must be a higher level of social tolerance towards those who may speak differently.
137 Both Besters-Dilger (2009) and Inglis (2009) studies showed a deviation in the percentages between the higher number of people, who state that people in their area of living people speak surzhyk and a lower number of those, who admit they speak surzhyk on daily basis, thus showing that many of them are possibly not objective about the language they speak themselves. 138 http://www.franko.lviv.ua/lknp/mova/sur/sur-01.htm http://ukrainskamova.at.ua/publ/leksika/antisurzhik_pravilna_mova/5-1-0-244
143
5.5. The question of national identity and native language 5.5.1. Ukrainian identity and Ukrainian language While in many western countries citizenship and nationality have almost identical meanings, this is not always the case in Ukraine (as mentioned in 4.1.2). When researching the language situation in Ukraine, one of the first issues that became obvious is that the language- and nation- related definitions are rather subjective for many people. One person may strongly believe that a person needs to be of Ukrainian ethnicity (a so called “fifth record” from Soviet times) and must consistently use Ukrainian in daily life to be able to fully consider him- or herself Ukrainian. Other people may consider themselves Ukrainian even though they may be of Russian or other ethnical descent and speak Russian every day, but who were also born in Ukraine, are Ukrainian citizens and identify themselves as Ukrainian. This lack of consensus amongst the general population regarding terminology raises a legitimate question – Who is Ukrainian and what does it mean “to be Ukrainian”? To be Ukrainian could mean a number of things, of course, and very much depends on the person giving the definition. Study results, open-ended responses and interviews suggest the following key qualities and factors as a sign of “Ukrainianess”139:
citizenship, place of residence, nationality (ethnicity), native language, language use, self-identification.
While all of these characteristics tend to characterize a person as Ukrainian, they do not do it collectively and sometimes only one or two of these characteristics can be enough for a person to consider him- or herself as Ukrainian. For example, some of the respondents and interviewees speak Russian on a daily basis and have non-Ukrainian ethnical origins, but live in Ukraine and therefore consider themselves Ukrainian. In contrast, even though almost all of the respondents are citizens of Ukraine and all live on the territory of Ukraine, not all of the
139 Term „Ukrainianess” was used by other scholars, including Kulyk (2013:18). It seems to fittingly describe the combination of essential characteristics and qualities of a person or a group, who consider/s themselves Ukrainian or is/are viewed so by others.
144
respondents consider themselves Ukrainian. In fact, the number of self-identified Ukrainian parents (who all live in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ) is as low as 52.1%. This supports the idea that the place of residence and/or citizenship do not determine a person’s Ukrainianess and neither does the language. Every respondent and interviewee seem to have his/her own definition of what it means to be Ukrainian and, it appears, that living in Ukraine and being a Ukrainian citizen is not enough to be Ukrainian, yet at the same time not speaking Ukrainian language is not always seen as un-Ukrainian. It seems that self-identification is very individual. For instance, as Kulyk (2013a) discovered in KIIS study in 2012, most of the respondents defined nationality by hereditary principle (parents’ nationality); however, one in six respondents defined nationality based on civic principle, i.e. depending on your country of residence (an answer popular with ethnic Ukrainians), and most importantly ethnic Russians chose nationality according to the language they speak. This question of “Who is Ukrainian?” was addressed by Søvik (2007:264), who suggested that, when discussing language and identification related issues, one also needs to be aware of “different dimensions” of the issue – “individual versus collective, local/regional versus national/state level, and personal/private versus public”. To illustrate this – a person can have a “Russian-speaking” identity on a local, individual level and a Ukrainian identity on a (inter)national, collective level. The research results of the study seem to support the concept of multidimensional aspects of self-identification and explain that the Ukrainian nationality is a subjective matter and is adaptable depending on the person and the context. One of the interviewees described himself as “Russian-speaking Ukrainian of Jewish descent”, perfectly illustrating the complexity and multi-levelness of the Ukrainian self-identification. As Ferdinand (1998:2) points out “Russians and Russian speakers there may not always feel Ukrainian, but very few of them feel positively Russian”. This means that the Russian-speaking Ukrainians have a hybrid identity, which combines the Russian language and Ukrainian residence. Interestingly, according to the study results, parents identify their children as Ukrainian more than themselves. This suggests that with every year of independent Ukraine more children, whose parents were not Ukrainian or did not feel fully Ukrainian, become Ukrainian and that the policy of Ukrainization that took place since the breakup of the Soviet Union has been rather successful in terms of self-identification. This also means that the increased use of Ukrainian language in the educational establishments may also have played a big role. Many respondents believe that it is only logical that since “we live in Ukraine”, everyone should either speak or at least understand Ukrainian. As Figure 19 on p.86 shows, the vast majority of
145
the respondents believe that language is a symbol of national identity. This is parallel to the example provided by Aparicio (2000, in Gonzalez & Melis 2000, 268-270), who suggests that English speaking Latinos/Latinas in the USA are excluded from being considered as truly Mexican or Hispanic because of their lack of Spanish and have to construct a new “hybrid cultural identity”. Ukrainian language is definitely an important component in the national identity of a Ukrainian and one can suggest that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are also trying to construct their new hybrid identity. In fact, Fournier (2002:417) mentions hybrid identities of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and dates them back to the Soviet times, when imperial hybridity became institutionalized. Admittedly, the imperial hybridity is of a different nature to the post-Soviet hybridity of Russian speaking Ukrainians. At the same time, not nearly as many respondents think that a nation should only have one language. This suggests, that while Ukrainian is seen as a powerful symbol of Ukrainian identity, another language could also harmoniously be a part of that identity. Some people argue, that Russian culture and Russian language have existed on the territory of current Ukraine for so long, that they have also become a part of eastern and southern Ukraine on a local level and individual. This idea seems to be one of the issues which cause conflict for many Ukrainians, who have an opposite opinion, believing that since Ukrainian is the only constitutional language, it is therefore the only one, which should be used in Ukraine.
5.5.2. Native language and language of daily use For many people, who live in monolingual regions or countries, native language or mother tongue140 (“рiдна мова” in Ukrainian and “родной язык” in Russian) is the language of everyday use, but this is not always the case in Ukraine. The majority of the respondents (and interviewees) in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ (see Figure 17) speak Russian, yet almost half of all the students (45.8%) and 40% of the teachers consider Ukrainian to be their native language. This suggests that the respondents do not believe it is contradictory to use one language (e.g. Russian), the one they prefer the most, in daily life and yet consider a different language (e.g. Ukrainian) to be their native language. If this is the case, and if the language you use on a daily
140 While it can be argued that there are subtle differences between the terms native language and mother tongue depending on the context, these terms are often interchangeable and can both be used to translate рiдна мова/ родной язык. Native language is used more often in this dissertation, as it seems to be a more neutral term compared to mother tongue, however, for purposes of this dissertation it is maintained that the meaning of these terms in the context of the questionnaires and interviews is essentially the same. It is also worth noting that the term рiдна мова/родной язык comes from the word рiд/род (kin, family, clan), rather than mother.
146
basis is not your native language, then – what is a native language? And what is a native language for a Ukrainian? First, let us examine the meaning of native language and mother tongue. Davies (2003) described mother tongue as “the language of the mother and is based on the normal enough view that children’s first significant other is the mother”, while Kecskes & Papp (2000:2) state that mother tongue is
…the language our mother first exposed us to, the language we try to maintain no matter how difficult it is when living in a country where that language is not valorized, and referring to the language that is closest to our heart no matter how many other languages we can speak.
These definitions appear to unite the opinion that native language is the one your mother introduced you to, the one you learn first and the one you think in. Since the questionnaire intentionally did not provide an explicit definition of the term, it was left up to the respondents to interpret the terms “рiдна мова” and “родной язык” and what it meant for them, and provide responses based on that definition. While many respondents were consistent stating that Russian is both their preferred language of daily use and also their native language, it was remarkable that many others said they believe Ukrainian to be their native language, yet speak Russian on a daily basis. As Radchuk (Радчук 2005) points out that “having language skills and recognizing a language as that of your own kindred are two very different things”141. Many Russian-speaking respondents used the Ukrainian term “рiдна мова” to describe their native Ukrainian in their open-ended responses and in the interviews. This type of consistent code-switching may suggest that this set phrase “рiдна мова” is used in Russian speech in Ukraine as a set expression, which was borrowed from a Ukrainian context, possibly heard on TV or radio, read in a newspaper or learnt at school. It also suggests that this expression was used and heard often enough to become a set phrase, possibly as a part of the pro-Ukrainian language policy in modern Ukraine and as a side effect of the increased use of Ukrainian in schools. This conundrum can also be explained by the large percentage of the respondents who believe that Ukrainian language is a symbol of national identity, meaning that they may feel obliged to choose Ukrainian as their native language, even though they prefer using Russian, since choosing another language
141 Original full quote: “Але ж володіння мовою і визнання мови свого роду – цілком відмінні речі. По- українському говорить президент Грузії і говорив Папа Римський Іван Павло ІІ, українознавчі кафедри тепер поширюють українську фонетику навіть у Китаї та Японії, де українців негусто. Право на самоназву, право батьків записувати мову своїм крихіткам-немовлятам – не іспит з мови, щоб зайняти посаду чи вступити до університету. Можна бо різною мірою знати й кілька десятків мов, тоді як рідна мати з її колисковою піснею – одна.“ (see Радчук 2005)
147
would be unpatriotic and disloyal. Clearly, the definition of native language is rather inconsistent amongst the respondents within the educational system and that any language laws regulating language use need to be aware of this.
5.6. Language policy and politics 5.6.1. Politicization of the question Various language policy related problems and opinions were voiced and expressed during the research in completed questionnaires, in interview responses and in casual chats and conversations with the respondents during the research trip. The most key issue that most of the respondents agreed on was the politicization of the question. As discussed in Chapter 4, the vast majority of the respondents, just over two thirds of pupils and students (69.2%), 78.7% of the parents and 91.5% of teachers to a certain extent agree that language has become a political tool. Zalizniak (2010, in Бестерс-Дільґер 2012a) argues that language politics is an entire expression of general political orientation in Ukraine. There is a division between western and eastern orientation directions, which is apparent in language policy and the way the population perceives it (Бестерс-Дільґер 2012a). While there are, of course, regional and local deviations, the eastern territories and the southern parts of Ukraine, including Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ have been largely Russian-speaking due to the left-bank Ukraine joining Russia in 1654, and territories belonging to the current Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ being captured by the Russian Empire during the Russian-Turkish war (1768-1774); all these territories later were also part of the USSR. Therefore, it is not surprising that there has been a significant support for pro-Russian candidates and political directions, which favoured closer ties with Russia. At the same time, the western parts of Ukraine have a large portion of Ukrainian speakers and seem to generally support the pro-western political direction. When it comes to politics, there are always topics which attract certain groups of people – it is logical that scholarships would interest student voters, while state pensions would attract more retired people. Language, however, is one of those key issues which concern almost everyone and everywhere in Ukraine. This is what makes this question of language use in Ukraine so attractive to politicians, as it gathers attention and votes. Many respondents believe that this question needs to be left alone and people should use the language how they want, especially since the government has no say in what language citizens use in their private lives. They also believe that politicians need to focus on other, more essential problems.
148
5.6.2. Yushchenko vs Yanukovych language policy 5.6.2.1. Yushchenko government and Ukrainization It has often been claimed that Yushchenko was the notably pro-western candidate, while his opponent Yanukovych was pro-eastern and supported closer ties with Russia. As discussed in Chapter 2, these stereotypes were consistent with the language policy, which the two presidents went on to conduct, and are supported by the results of the questionnaires and interviews. There was a tendency amongst the respondents indicating that more Ukrainian was used during the Yushchenko government and more Russian during the Yanukovych government (study covers the period until 2012). Some of the interviewees as well as the respondents however believe that not much has changed in terms of language use and the status quo remained under both presidencies. One of the interviewees mentioned, that while language use has not changed, the attitudes towards language use did – attitudes towards the use of Russian in education warmed up when Yanukovych came to power. It seems that Yushchenko’s intentions with his language policy were to unite the nation using the Ukrainian language (See 2.5.2). Overall, it seems Yushchenko’s policy, which was discussed in Chapter 2, was consistent with his views. Unfortunately, probably one of the biggest drawbacks of the policy of Ukrainization was the isolation of the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine:
За правління В Ющенка посилився політичний опір проти української мови на Сході і Півдні країни, що не сприяє формуванню единої нації на основі мови (2010:92 Бестерс- Дільгер).
As Бестерс-Дільгер (2010) points out, while Kuchma only spoke about the language situation and did not actively touch the question, under Yushchenko’s government the resistance towards Ukrainian grew in the Russian speaking parts. Kulyk (2013a:14) supports the view that Ukrainization may not go as planned:
The nationalist version seems to be effective in the west and centre of Ukraine but mostly rejected in the east and south. Rather than the gradual Ukrainianisation of the entire country, we may be witnessing its deepening division into two parts with different languages and identities, a process accelerated by the Orange Revolution and the responsive mobilisation in the south-east.
In many of the interviews and comments, the expressions such as “let people use the language they want” are self-explanatory and some interviewees even went on to say that the policies which are forced are not accepted well. And even though Ukrainian may have been used slightly more in education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ during the Yushchenko period, as reported
149
by the results, one could argue that his policies achieved the opposite effect from the original goals – divided the nation more instead of uniting it. While it seems that the majority of the people in education were accepting to use more Ukrainian (since Ukrainian had already existed in Ukrainian education for many years anyhow), there were some who resisted the pressure. This, in turn, divided the population into the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian groups more. Yushchenko’s policies were not destined for big success not only due to the existing linguistic composition of Ukraine (and Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ in particular), but also due to inconsistencies within all the language laws and documents, which had already existed in Ukraine and which were later ratified under Yushchenko government, i.e. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which came into power in 2006. The Charter, which was meant to protect the minority languages, later, as we know, became the loophole for giving Russian more power on the territory of Ukraine. As Besters-Dilger points out it is unsurprising that three former soviet Baltic states did not ratify this Charter, because they are attempting to push out Russian with their titular languages (Бестерс-Дільґер 2010:93). Some of the interviewees commented on this by saying that many documents and laws had been ratified and passed but none are implemented. Especially teachers seemed to call for more consistency within the rules and the policies.
5.6.2.2. Yanukovych government and the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law142 Yanukovych’s presidency could definitely be characterized as pro-Russian both in terms of politics and language policy, as supported by the study results. When Yanukovych came into power in February of 2010 a lot of the measures, which had been implemented to support Ukrainian language by the previous government were abolished (Бестерс-Дільгер 2012a). It has been reported that a number of local authorities “in Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, and some other cities whose local councils were controlled by his Party of Regions started promoting the reversion to the use of Russian in education and other domains where it had been more or less replaced with Ukrainian” (Kulyk 2013b:284143). Respondents reported that there was increased use of Russian during the Yanukovych’s presidency, although some stated that the change was mostly in attitudes towards the use of Russian, rather than the use itself (since Russian was used under Yushchenko and previous governments as well). According to Moser (2013:62),
142 Колесніченко & Ківалов 2011 143 Kulyk cites online newspaper as the source. See http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2011/03/21/6035225/
150
there was strong support for making Russian a second official language on the territory of Ukraine, however this support somewhat declined in the upcoming months. With the pro-Russian president in charge, new language projects had the necessary support to become language laws. Most projects aimed at giving Russian more power, specifically the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law, which eventually came into power in 2012 with 13 oblastʹs (out of 27) adopting Russian as a second official language (Sakwa 2014:59), had the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) as, what they claimed to be, their legal foundation (it needs to be said that this was not a good implementation of the ECRML as confirmed by the European institutions). Originally the Charter was designed to protect the minority languages, however, political forces managed to twist the purpose of this European document to use it for their political purposes, much to the criticism of the European community (Бестерс-Дільгер 2012a). A statement that Russian was a minority language and needs protection in Ukraine, a view that many people categorically disagree with, was the main premise for this language project. As Бестерс-Дільгер 2012b says “деконструкція української нації за допомогою европейських інструментів підтримки меншин та їхніх мов” (deconstruction of the Ukrainian nation with the help of the European instruments of support of minorities and their languages) became the new political goal in 2010. In August 2012, just days after the law was signed by Yanukovych, former president Yushchenko gave an interview discussing the new language law (“Yushchenko: Language Law Will Trigger Ukraine's De-Ukrainization” 2012):
This means not even Russification, because the 13 regions of which we are talking about are already Russified. A Russian Ukraine has already been made there. But we are talking about a reverse process, de-Ukrainization, as there are no more legal grounds to introduce the Ukrainian language in these or those circumstances there. In other words, this is exactly what is called de-Ukrainization.
The interviewees, who occupy or used to occupy positions of authority in educational establishments, echoed Yushchenko’s comments. The respondents believe that this language policy will be difficult to implement, that the consequences will be horrible and that the language law is altogether unconstitutional. At the same time, one of the interviewees was happy that this law was possibly coming out, as he preferred teaching in Russian. This means that many, but not all, were unhappy about the legitimisation of the Russian use. The interviewees’ diverse views are consistent with the respondents’ open-ended responses, which were even more diverse. The respondents’ answers ranged from “there needs to be a law so
151
that all the students and teachers speak Ukrainian language” to “Russian language needs to become second state language”.
5.6.2.3. Comparative evaluation of the two policies When asked under whose presidency the language situation was better in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, the respondents were overall rather neutral and the majority of the respondents chose non- committal answers such as “it was the same under both administrations”, “it only got worse” or “difficult to say”. Even though there was no clear winner, when looking at the support for each candidate separately (Figure 25) it seems that the teachers approved Yushchenko’s presidency the most (19.1% of teachers compared to 10.6% of pupils and students and 10.4% for parents), whereas more pupils and students supported the language situation under Yanukovych (16.5% compared to 6.3% for parents and 10.6% for teachers). However, looking at the percentages of the deviations, overall these seem insignificant and the general opinion is that not much has changed in regards to the language situation in the period of 2005-2012, and the changes that did occur were not for the better. The statistics echo the interview results and general attitudes in the population. There seems to be an overall level of dissatisfaction with the state policies, because many believe that the language question is being overly discussed and is mostly used as a political tool; people feel that the politicians need to focus on socio- economic problems instead. Persons involved in education also believe that more time needs to be devoted to implementing, financing and supporting the existing policies by tangible actions such as publishing dictionaries or with additional financial support. When evaluating the language policy of the two presidents, it can be argued that although they had virtually opposite views regarding the future of the Ukrainian and Russian languages in Ukraine, the way in which they conducted their policies had similar drawbacks:
1. The specific context of the situation is either neglected or misinterpreted. It is important to look at the examples of other countries with successful (or simply different) language policy, however when trying to apply the language planning experience of other countries in Ukraine, it is important to remember that certain ideas may have worked in another country or region, but it does not mean they will be relevant in Ukraine. The most obvious example is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Charter does not suit the context of Ukraine, because of the fact that the state language, i.e. Ukrainian language still has to “break through” in Ukraine (Бестерс- Дільгер 2010, Dunn in Бестерс-Дільгер 2010:93). Because this Charter was arguably
152
not suitable for Ukraine, it was later used for purposes completely opposite to its original ones.
2. The language policy is often one sided and intolerant (whether it is for politically motivated reasons or other). Yushchenko approached the Ukrainization program at a pace, which was too fast for many, and parts of the population ended up feeling pressured, which resulted in feelings of resentment in the eastern and southern oblastʹs. Later, Yanukovych’s government attempted to assign the status of regional language to Russian, and, apart from passing what many consider an unconstitutional law, made the pro-Ukrainian areas of Ukraine feel threatened and also resentful. Kulyk (2013b:304) stated that “rather than paving the way for a compromise, the new law has galvanized attempts of speakers of Ukrainian, Russian, and sizeable minority groups to pursue their respective group agendas”. More consistency, balance, patience and tolerance is necessary for the language policy to be successful.
5.7. Language policy and other problems 5.7.1. Top-down language policy and language status In the first 15 years of independence the status of Ukrainian and Russian was “still the object of public and political contest” (Bilaniuk 2005:173), yet the status of Ukrainian had definitely increased. The use of Ukrainian within official spheres and in education has increased as well, yet the question of giving Russian a second official or any kind of official status has not been abandoned just yet. One could imagine that in the 21 years of independence (1991-2012), the years that Ukrainian was the only state language would have been sufficient to convince the Russian-speaking population to accept and learn the Ukrainian language. It seems that the answer is not as simple. Russian language has existed in Ukraine and dominated eastern and southern regions, including Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ for centuries, so the process of Ukrainian firmly establishing itself not only as an official language, but also as a truly national one, a language, which all, or at least most, of the citizens can speak and very importantly want to speak, is going to take longer than two decades. “The presence of large numbers of people for whom native or everyday language is Russian clearly makes the consolidation of the titular language as the truly national language much more difficult.” (Train 2010:526). Many citizens simply do not understand why they need to learn another language, when they already have a mother tongue, which they have been using for years.
153
Like many other countries, independent Ukraine followed the course of top-down language planning approach, which is described as a situation when “people with power and authority who make language related decisions for groups, often with little or no consultation with the ultimate language learners and users” (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997:196). The goal of this approach is usually to alter the societal and linguistic order in a way, which is most useful for the country, according to those in power, and for the power persons themselves. Top-down approach is not as unique as many might think and has been used in other countries and nations to either build a nation (such as Baltic states after the Soviet Union collapse) or deconstruct, or at least control, a nation or a minority within a nation. As Talhouk, who is an “advocate for the Arabic language as a tool of power, pride and unity” (2012) states during her talk in 2012144, that “the only way to kill a nation is to kill its language”. While Talhouk is not a linguist and this is a bold statement, it is not untrue. The fact that language is a very powerful tool has been known for centuries, especially during the colonization times, when, for instance West African and Caribbean nations, were banned from speaking their own language and had to learn French instead. “The marginalization and suppression of native languages was a major force in the control of colonized people and a key component of French cultural assimilation. (Lewis 2006:43). The top-down approach in Ukraine was often criticised by the respondents with phrases such as “do not impose” (at least 6 pupil and student respondents used this phrase). While strict top-down approach may not be ideal for Ukraine since the population can quickly become resentful, fully allowing the population to dictate how and when the language can be used may also not be the best in the context of Ukraine, since opinions are so polarized and some regulating may be necessary. There needs to be a balance, a two-way street so to say, where a population can express their wishes and the government can hear them. This of course, might sound utopic, however there are certain steps that can lead to a better language policing. First and foremost, instead of relying solely on politicians with no language planning (or any kind of linguistic) experience on making language planning decisions for the whole country, advice from qualified and experienced Ukrainian linguistics and international representatives on topic of language making decisions needs to be solicited, and more importantly – solicited and heard.
144 The talk was an online success and was often cited and shared http://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_talhouk_don_t_kill_your_language#t-294496
154
5.7.2. Inconsistent language policy When discussing language problems in education, inconsistency is also often cited as a big issue. The interviewees have pointed out that Ukraine has accepted and ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and that it was time to adjust the official documents accordingly. The Constitution of Ukraine states that there is only one state language, the Charter demands the protection of minority languages, including Russian, and the law “On the principles of the state language policy” (the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law) gives Russian an official status in those 13 oblastʹs, which voted in its favour. All these important documents have various goals, which makes harmonious coexistence between these laws and principles highly unlikely. Even though the Charter may not have been the wisest move for the Ukrainian language policy, now, when it has already ratified, it seems it needs both modification and clarification. Besters-Dilger (2013) discussed the difference between minority languages and language of minorities, two terms, which may sound similar, but are largely different. Russian is a language of a minority group in Ukraine (ethnic Russians are a minority), but it is not a minority language since it is spoken by a very large part of state’s population. Also, since Russian is under no threat to become extinct, it does not need to be preserved in a sense that the Charter intended. This makes this Charter unnecessary in case of Russian (unnecessary for linguistic reasons, but useful for political). Also, since the Constitution states there can only be one language, Ukrainian, the use of Russian in official establishments goes against the Constitution. This way, the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law, even though it has received a good amount of support amongst Russian speakers, can be seen as both unconstitutional and unnecessary. It seems that in order for all the language documents in Ukraine to work together, there needs to be a serious conversation regarding a review of the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov and amending it in a way that does not go against the principles of the Constitution and does not exclusively promote Russian, since under the law’s requirements no other language would become regional. In 2014, after President Yanukovych was removed from his position as a president, the newly elected parliament held a vote in an attempt to annul the law by passing the repeal bill. While the parliament voted in favour of repeal, the acting president did not sign it, stating that there was a need for replacement law145. This attempt to repeal the law was seen
145 http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/turchynov_to_not_sign_parliament_decision_cancelling_language_law_318 038
155
as anti-Russian in pro-Russian regions146 and served as one of the triggers of the conflict in Ukraine, which turned into an armed conflict in Donbass in 2014.
5.7.3. Language proficiency in education, at home and in culture As discussed in previous subchapters, many of the respondents’ language abilities in both Ukrainian and Russian seem to be rather good, or at least sufficient for successful every day communication within the educational domain. While some respondents did indicate “poor” and “below average level” for language ability, overall there does not seem to be any extreme issues as far as the language ability is concerned. Language proficiency, as pointed out before, is another question. Several interviewees (some of whom were/are teachers and lecturers) reported that the level of Russian has declined, because it is not being taught as much as it used to be, and that the quality of imported Russian mass media has also decreased. At the same time Ukrainian is only taught at schools and universities and is not practiced much during everyday communication in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, which also does not allow Ukrainian to fully flourish. Code-switching and surzhyk are seen as the result of the poor language proficiency.
5.7.4. Parallel cases Unfortunately, this state of affairs with the language proficiency is not surprising. When discussing the language situation in Ukraine, it is important to mention other ex-Soviet republics and how they have dealt with the language situation in their countries. Belarus has a comparable, but different, language situation. According to the 2009 Census of Belarus, 5 058,400 consider Belarusian to be their mother tongue and 3 948,100 consider Russian to be their mother tongue. At the same time, only 2 227,200 use Belarusian at home, while 6 673,000 use Russian. This is comparable to Ukraine, where majority of the citizens believe Ukrainian to be their mother tongue, yet many of those who claim Ukrainian to be their mother tongue still use Russian at home. What is different from the language situation is the language policy course each country took. As we know, Ukraine followed the course of Ukrainization. While originally Belarus tried to have Belarusian as their sole official language in 1991, a few years
146 http%3A%2F%2Feuromaidanpress.com%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2Fukrainian-american-bar-association%2F
156
later, in 1995, it voted for having a second official language – Russian.147 It goes without saying that the level of use of Belarusian in public domains suffered as a result148. Meanwhile, as it had been mentioned in this paper before, other ex-Soviet republics – Baltic states, which include Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, did not sign the European Charter149 for a reason. They wanted to protect their own languages, which are the only state languages150.
The success of the three Baltic countries in restoring the status of the titular language is best understood in the light of their history of incorporation into the USSR. Previously part of the Russian empire, between 1920 and 1940 Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia enjoyed independent statehood with titular languages used across all domains (Pavlenko 2008:288)
Of course, the Baltic states have a unique history with Russia. The EU Accession Process was not straightforward.
Politically, the most difficult and sensitive area of the accession negotiations was the Russian minority issue. The main questions revolved around citizenship and language. Since the Baltic states were recognised legally as restored states, rather than successor states to the USSR, citizenship was not granted automatically to all residents. Instead, those who settled in the Soviet period needed to apply for naturalisation. The main criterion for citizenship was basic competence in the state language. Rather than taking the Estonian or Latvian language exam, many opted for Russian citizenship instead and a large number remained stateless. (Grigas, Kasekamp, Maslauskaite, & Zorgenfreija 2013:21)
Even though there was some pressure from the EU to sign the Charter, and the EU “candidates needed to negotiate a wide range of admissions criteria, and to deal with a variety of Admissions institutions besides the one to which acceptance was sought” (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2008:98), all of them became members of the EU in 2004. Even though the Baltic states did make some revisions to their language policy, to this day, none of the three Baltic states have signed the Charter (Minority Language Protection in Europe: Into a New Decade, 2010:83, Poleshchuk, 2010:3). When comparing the language policy in Ukraine to that in Baltic states, it is also important to point out, that the situation is different not only politically and
147 http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/languages/belarusian.shtml http://law.by/main.aspx?guid=3871&p0=V19402875e 148 According to Ioffe (2003:1041) “It appears that Belarusification (a mass switch to Belarusian) was also persistently promoted by the state but did not yield significant results. Unlike other countries long under linguistically alien influences, no critical mass of Belarusian speakers emerged that would sway the rest of the public. Blaming the 'overwhelming odds', that is, resistance of Russian and Polish-speakers, may make sense.” 149 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/statesparties/default_en.asp 150 Constitution of Latvia: http://www.saeima.lv/en/legislation/constitution Constitution of Lithuania: http://www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Constitution.htm Constitution of Estonia: https://www.president.ee/en/republic-of-estonia/the-constitution/
157
historically, but also linguistically. Russian and Ukrainian are both East Slavic languages and are partially intercomprehensible151, which makes the situation even more complex. All of the above highlights the fact that the situation in Ukraine is unique. While following the example of the Baltic states could have been an option for Ukraine (just as adopting Russian as a second language as Belarus did), it seems clear that no situation is the same and every post-Soviet country needs to find its own way.
5.7.5. Education and lack of finances on personal and institutions levels Many of the respondents appropriately pointed out that economic problems in the country need to be resolved first, before languages issues can become a priority. In 2012, the average salary in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ was 2822 UAH, which is even lower than the average salary in the whole of Ukraine (Державна служба статистики України152). In the same year, the average yearly salary in Germany was 15,254 EUR per annum, which divided by 12 equals to 1,271 EUR153 a month (Your Key to European Statistics 2015) or approximately at least four times more than the Ukrainian average154. Of course, these are average and rough figures and I do not advocate comparing them as is, since they do not take into consideration various factors such tax rates, fluctuations in exchange rates, cost of living and other important factors. However, these figures can give an idea to the reader of the massive differences between the standard of living in Ukraine and other countries in Europe (and the rest of the world). According to the way the respondents described their level of living in their household, at least one in ten teachers sometimes struggles to buy every day necessities (12.8%). This number is even higher for 16.4% of pupils and students and almost every third parent (29.2%) struggles to buy every day necessities. Apart from having personal financial concerns, sometimes parents of pupils and students are burdened with additional expenses at their educational establishment. The fact that students have to help with household expenses for school, such as repairing classrooms etc. was rated as number one problem across all three research groups. The second problem was the fact that students have to buy a lot of course books with their own money. The third
151 More on this in 1.1 152 Go to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ (under the subheading “Динаміка середньомісячної заробітної плати по регіонах у 1995-2014 роках”) 153 German salary is higher than average EU country salary, which was 12,531 in 2012 (28 EU countries taken into consideration). 154 For 2012 exchange rates go to http://www.freecurrencyrates.com/exchange-rate-history/EUR-UAH/2012. The EUR/UAH exchange rate varied from 9.7 to 10.7
158
problem, according to the teachers, was the lack of necessary equipment in the classroom. All these problems are detrimental to the smooth course of the educational process and all these problems are directly related to the lack of sufficient financial support. Additional funding is crucial for the education both on personal and institutional levels. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Gorman 2004:60), safety needs, such as the need for stability come second only after the physiological needs (such as food, sleep etc.). When the population does not have adequate regular income at home or sufficient financial support from the government at the work place, there is no sense of stability and security, which is a necessary prerequisite of being motivated to learn a new language or be concerned with language question in general. Lack of finances is also one of the reasons why the European Charter may not have been the most suitable program for Ukraine at the moment, because implementing it would need a substantial amount of financial support. This situation is similar with any other new language law or document since policy implementation requires financing (working groups, professional and learning materials, language and further education courses, translations and other paperwork and many other expenses), which does not seem to be available.
5.7.6. Predictions and suggestions for the future As the study results have shown, children of today are already more Ukrainian than their parents. They were born in Ukraine (and not Soviet Union), they learned Ukrainian from the first grade and their sense of national identity is undoubtedly more Ukrainian than that of their parents. It seems logical to conclude that the language use of Ukrainian is only going to increase in the upcoming years, when older generations are going to be replaced by the younger, for whom speaking Ukrainian does not seem forced, but is simply a part of a normal daily life.
5.7.6.1. Compromise and tolerance in language decisions When asked about the language policy preference for the future, the majority of the respondents stated they want neither Yushchenko’s nor Yanukovych’s policy in the future. This poses the question of – What do Ukrainians want? There is no denying that Russian language has a strong presence in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and half (50%) of the parents as well as 57.4% of the teachers believe that Ukrainian and Russian should be equal in the educational sphere in the future. At the same time the largest portion of pupils and students (40%) believe that Ukrainian needs to be the only dominant language. The opinions on the language policy seem to be split. When the population’s opinions and beliefs are so diverse, it seems that any decision the government
159
makes will displease a part of the population, especially if those decisions either support or supress only one group in the whole population. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an easy solution for this and the only way to continue the language policy in Ukraine is through compromise and tolerance. It is crucial to avoid making radical decisions, which would either give Russian a legal status or actively discourage its use, as it can potentially split the country into two parts (western and pro-Ukrainian vs. eastern and pro-Russian).
Unfortunately, before the writing of the dissertation was completed, the statement above has proven to be true and the tensions between eastern and western part of Ukraine have spilled into a war in Donbass the East of Ukraine (started in 2014 and still ongoing in 2016).
5.7.6.2. State-funded assistance with learning Ukrainian In regards to Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, the main problem, as with the rest of Ukraine, seems to be the gap between official statistics and classroom reality. One of the key goals of the policy should be minimizing this gap, even if it means admitting that Russian is still present in many classrooms across the oblastʹ, especially in universities. It is important that the statistics reflect the reality in order for any language related data to be taken seriously by the population. Since the official language of most of the schools and institutions in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ is already Ukrainian, it seems logical to make sure that this reflects the reality and increase the use of Ukrainian in the classrooms. This means that the teachers should try to speak more Ukrainian themselves, and by doing so set an example for the students. Since many teachers feel more confident in their Russian, free further professional development, i.e. Ukrainian language courses need to be made available for the teachers. These courses could be conducted during the work hours, so that the teachers can be fully (or at least partially) compensated for their time and do not feel resentful about receiving the required training. End of the course evaluations need to take place in order to make sure that the learning process is effective. This could be a good starting point of compromise, where Ukrainian remains the only official language, while Russian-speakers receive the necessary (and remunerative) support from the government. On par with teachers, other official and public workers could benefit from language courses as well.
5.7.6.3. Adjustment of the language law As discussed in the previous subсhapters, the inconsistencies within the key language policy documents in Ukraine need to be addressed. The Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law needs
160
amending in order to make sure it does not contradict the Constitution. Similarly, a clarification of the European Charter needs to be made in the specific context of Ukraine in order to avoid unnecessary discussion regarding protecting languages, which do not fall under the category of minority.
5.7.6.4. Language as an asset rather than a language symbol For many of the respondents, Ukrainian is not just a national language, but also a symbol of the nation, which unites the whole country together. In order for Ukraine to stay united, the population needs to be able to speak, or at the very least understand, Ukrainian. This is a belief that many respondents uphold. While these statements may be true, it seems that a lot of pressure is being put on a language in terms of nation-building, and in the recent years it has been taken to extreme. It may be necessary to promote alternative or additional ideas to support the national vision of Ukraine in order to take the pressure off the language question and to deescalate the situation. It may also be good practice to look at the already existing Russian language presence as well as other minority languages as an asset of the country, which could be exploited, as it was done by post-colonial countries, in order to build a stronger economy and better political relationships. This does not mean Russian needs to become a second official language, quite the opposite, it probably should not even be regional, as it goes against the Ukrainian Constitution. Russian is already spoken by a large number of the population, so in order to promote the linguistic harmony in Ukraine, this language, just like other languages of minorities, simply needs to be tolerated, accepted and supported.
5.8. Research limitations, observations and avenues of further research As is the case with other similar studies, the study results are only representative of one area – Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and no concrete conclusions regarding the rest of Ukraine can be made. This study gives an overview of the language situation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ from primary school levels to educational establishments of III-IV of accreditation. Only parents of the younger pupils were surveyed (under 14), as it was deemed unethical to survey young children without their parents’ permission. These permissions would have been too difficult to obtain logistically and it is likely that not all parents would want their children filling out the questionnaires, and just as importantly, not many children would have been able to answer the more complex, but important, questions. It was decided that it would be more efficient and beneficial to ask the parents to fill out the questionnaires directly themselves – both on their
161
behalf (with the more complex questions e.g. language policy under various governments) and their children’s behalf (questions about classroom language use). These questionnaires were filled out with their children’s help and the received questionnaires responses were representative and useful for the study. However, it would also have been interesting to interview the children directly (this would require recording equipment, which definitely requires parents’ permission) and find out more nuances about the specifics of the language use in the classroom. The interviews were a crucial part of the study and gave valuable understanding of the questionnaire data. They provided insight into how people may feel, which made the questionnaire statistical data more interesting and informative. If other scientists continue researching the language situation in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and other oblastʹs (or duplicating this one), interviews must be a part of their future research. Unfortunately, when interviews took place in 2011, the ministry of education in Kyiv was not as approachable as one would have desired, therefore no interviews with the politicians on state level took place. If the future researchers can manage to arrange those interviews, it would only be beneficial for their research. In addition, based on the study results, language use of Russian and Ukrainian across subjects could be an interesting topic for further research, since it seems that Russian is favoured by teachers of certain subjects, while Ukrainian – by others. This study gave insight into the real language use of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ 2005-2012 period, which contracts from the language use, reported by the official statistics. If other researchers are interested in this topic, it would be logical to duplicate this study and compare it to the language use after 2012, as well as to see similar studies conducted in other oblastʹs in Ukraine.
162
6. Summary and conclusion Language situation in Ukraine is without doubt a very complex matter and questions regarding it are difficult to answer without a thorough research and analysis. With this study I have attempted to answer several questions, which were asked in the beginning of this dissertation regarding the status, language use and attitudes in the system of education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. I aimed at creating a detailed and an in-depth overview of the language polices of 2005 – 2012 years in the education sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and finding out what effect these policies have had on the educational establishments and learning processes in the oblastʹ. I intended to find out how the attitudes of pupils, their parents, students and professors towards the policy changes vary depending on factors such as age, education, political views, economic situation, social status, professional occupation etc. and to compare the findings with the findings of other researchers in the study area; I formed an assessment of the implications the language attitudes have for the future language policies and their execution and tried to offer recommendations for the language policy makers in Ukraine. I used a mixed-method research approach, which included interviews and open-ended responses in the questionnaires as a qualitative part of the study, and three sets of questionnaires (groups: 1) pupils and students, 2) parents, 3) teachers and lecturers), which were distributed in Ukraine. The interview data is especially valuable as it was collected less than a year before the 2012 law “On the principles of the state language policy” and shows the attitudes before the language law was adopted. The negative attitude towards the law indicated that there could be negative consequences to adopting the bill already in 2011. I would argue that the choice of methodology was successful and that this type of study can be easily transferred into the context of another region/ oblastʹ (with a different time frame, of course). Future studies could, if possible, take the restrictions of the current study, such as difficulties reaching the high-positioned state officials as well as sample size limitations (more representative teacher and parent groups could provide even more valuable information), into account. One of the first things, which probably every sociolinguist researcher in Ukraine faces, is the multidimensionalism of the topic. Before viewing the language situation in Ukraine as a whole, one needs to look at different factors, which affect the language question: history (going back to the 17th century), regional differences, linguistic closeness between Ukrainian and Russian, political parties at play at a certain period of time, relationship with Russia, social and economic factors, domains of the language use, legislature, national identity and personal preferences. These are the small the pieces of the big puzzle, which is the language question in
163
Ukraine. Ukraine is a country with many Ukrainian-Russian bilingual regions. Ukrainian bilingualism is constricted to different domains with Ukrainian being used much more in official spheres, public and social life, such as documentation, education and language use in states offices and councils, while Russian is more dominant in economic life, the mass media (press, radio, television), the book market, regional administration as well as on the streets. Since 1991 Ukraine could be characterized by numerous examples nonreciprocal bilingualism (Bilaniuk 2005), when a person would be addressed either in Ukrainian and receive an answer in Russian, or vice versa. There were hardly any intelligibility problems and people did not seem to mind the situation too much. It has been argued however, that such close proximity between Russian and Ukrainian language use contributed to the “shameful occurrence as a Ukrainian-Russian surzhyk” (Труб:2012). As can been deducted from Trub’s quote, surzhyk itself, as well as speakers of surzhyk, are not seen positively. Surzhyk, as well as a decline of the quality of Russian and Ukrainian, are a concern for many linguists, teachers and even many respondents, who commented that their children’/students’ level of Russian/Ukrainian is insufficient due to languages being used only in specific domains. While there are negative consequences to Ukrainian and Russian being such similar languages, this could have made the learning Ukrainian much easier, and many people have learned Ukrainian since 1991. However, many others, even and especially the state officials still refuse to learn the language. Many respondents have mocked certain high-positioned officials for their lack of Ukrainian. Of course, when officials, who have highly prestigious jobs and are very well paid (in other words, have no worries about basic survival, as some Ukrainians do) cannot find the time, motivation etc. to learn the state language, demanding that the population learn it – seems rather hypocritical. The most important factor, which seems to affect the language choice, is unsurprisingly home and family environment. The respondents generally prefer using the language, which they also use at home or with family. Not only this, but the respondents also evaluate their language ability higher in a language, if they use this language at home. This suggests that language use at home is crucial to the language use in the society as well as the quality of that language. This, of course, also means, that in Russian-speaking Mykolaiv, it is much more difficult to implement the policy of Ukrainization, because many respondents use Russian at home. Having said this, I would argue that Ukrainization has overall been successful in
164
Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ with more than three quarters of school teachers155 confirming that they use Ukrainian in the lessons. The number of university teachers, who use Ukrainian is lower, which seems to be related, in part, to the age of the teachers (older leaning towards Russian use and younger towards Ukrainian), but mostly to the educational establishments. It seems that teachers and lecturers in the universities tend to ignore the policy of Ukrainian language of instruction more and switch to Russian during the lessons more often. This seems to be related to the complexity of the subjects and lack of very specific literature in Ukrainian (which is available in Russian). During the research I have not heard of anyone facing formal consequences for using Russian during the lessons, this, of course, does not mean it does not happen. I would argue that it is difficult to take measures against teachers, who use Russian, because most of the documentation and written work is in Ukrainian, therefore spoken use of Russian in the classroom is not easy to detect without asking the students to tell on their teachers. It is also important to point out, that many students prefer to use Russian themselves, but since almost all of the educational establishments in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ have Ukrainian as an official language of instruction, they do not have much choice. Even if there was a fully Russian establishment, they would still need to learn Ukrainian during the first years of their degree and they would still need to use Ukrainian for work. There are Russian-speaking schools in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, but since there are Ukrainian lessons throughout all the years of study in these schools as well, it is assumed that all the school graduates should be able to speak Ukrainian. It seems fair to assume that unless there are radical changes in the language policy, with every generation the Ukrainian will get used more, even now parents state they consider their children to be more Ukrainian. When talking about official language policy few of the respondents have shown approval for either of the presidents in the 2005-2012 time frame. Yushchenko’s name is associated with the increased use of Ukrainian language, especially so with the parents, while Yanukovych is associated with either status quo or the increased use of Russian. Overall, as the respondents have stated, the biggest change, which took place as a result of the Yushchenko and Yanukovych’s policy was an attitude change rather than the change in use. Under Yushchenko, the attitude was more pro-Ukrainian (and more pro-European politically), while under Yanukovych, it was more pro-Russian in all spheres. The key document, which characterized Yushchenko government was the European Charter for Regional or Minority
155 The school teachers were not asked which discipline they represent in the questionnaire. The assistants, who distributed the questionnaires, reported that the teachers represented various disciplines at the school.
165
Languages, which was later used as a foundation for the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law “On the principles of the state language policy”. The Kolesnichenko-Kivalov was widely criticised, even by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. The language went against the Constitution and the protocol procedures were not followed when passing the law. Most of the interviewees viewed this law negatively, regardless of their own language preferences. Nevertheless, the law is still the working language law in Ukraine, even in 2016. While there were attempts to abolish the law in February of 2014 after Yanukovych was made to leave the office, they did not end well and, in fact, contributed to the Donbass events (armed conflict). When analysing the language policy of the two presidents, it is difficult not to agree with Besters-Dilger (Бестерс-Дільґер 2010:93), who said that it is not surprising that Baltic states did not sign the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Unlike Ukraine, the Baltic states were fortunate to enter the Council of Europe before signing the charter was a prerequisite (in 1993 and 1995156). Ukraine, however, entered the Council of Europe after the Baltic states and had to sign the Charter (even though Ukrainian minorities had already been protected by the 1992 law on the national minorities in Ukraine157, by the 1989 language law – see Articles 27-28 of Part III of the UkrSSR, as well as article 3 of the same law158) to stay on good terms with (and stay within) the Council of Europe, which it joined in 1995159. One could still question Ukraine’s choice to protect 13 (!) minority languages, which was simply not feasible given Ukraine’s economic state. Having signed the Charter, however, Ukraine should have taken better steps at protecting this document against the misuse on a legal level by passing a new language law, as suggested by Kulyk 2009:25, who criticised Yushchenko for failing to initiate the new language law. While the 1989 language law had served its purpose since 1991 and fulfilled the purpose of protecting minorities on a basic level, there was a need for changes, especially in view of the new Charter. It was necessary to give precise and informed definitions to terms such as “minority”, “minority language” vs “language of minorities”, “regional language” in the context of Ukraine at the very least to avoid room for misinterpretation, which is exactly what happened in 2012. While one can understand the desire of the Russian-speakers to be able to use their native language (or language of general preference, since native language is not a neutral term) in official institutions and education, the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law was much more harmful
156 See Besters-Dilger (2013, pp.23-31). 157 № 2494-XII 158 See subchapter 2.4 159 http://www.coe.int/web/portal/ukraine
166
than productive. It did not protect the Russian-speakers, since Russian speakers were not discriminated against, instead it created chaos and an even further artificial social split between Ukrainian and Russian speakers and ideologists. While there was a need for a new language law, the law “On the principles of the state language policy” did not fulfil the role accordingly. If the law “On the principles of the state language policy” was so inadequate and so controversial, how and why was the law passed? It has been said so often it has become a cliché – the language question in Ukraine has become extremely politicized, yet it is still used as an effective tool during pre-electoral campaigns. When asking the respondents open-ended questions, there is an outpour of frustration and even aggression towards the politicians, because people are tired of receiving promises which are not kept, tired of being used for winning elections and tired of being told what to do and which language to use by people who cannot speak the state language themselves (not all, obviously). When asking the respondents, “What do you think Ukrainian government should do to enhance the language situation in education?” as well as the question about the problems in education, it is clear that concerns regarding financial support, equipment, books in the system of education as well as the general level of standard of living in Ukraine are the biggest worries for the respondents. It is clear that language problem is only one of many issues, which Ukraine has been dealing with. So what can be done to improve the language situation in Ukraine? At the moment, when there is an armed conflict in the East of the country (2016) and Ukrainian society is tense when it comes to this topic, passing a new language would be like adding fuel to the fire – very unwise. This is not to say that I support the current Kolesnichenko-Kivalov law, which is flawed; however, it seems that, any changes at this point would make the situation worse. The following goals should be key for the policy makers in the upcoming years.
Learning Ukrainian, especially for the state officials. Free programs aimed at learning Ukrainian would be a real sign of an independent democratic state, which supports its citizens. Making sure that there is enough financial and professional support for teachers, whose Ukrainian is lacking. Ensuring that pupils and students feel entitled to ask (and even demand) that their teachers use Ukrainian, as prescribed by the education policy. Being able to speak Ukrainian, as a state language, should be a requirement for all citizens.
167
People should speak the language that they want, including Russian, without feeling judged, discriminated or be seen as “less Ukrainian”. At the same time, action needs to be taken aimed at improving the quality of other language in education, in particular Russian, since it is spoken by many pupils and students as mother tongue. Additional, (but not compulsory!), classes and clubs focusing on Russian literature, Russian spelling etc. could be established to deal with the decreasing quality of Russian.
It is clear that language policy has had an effect on the educational system and Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ. There is a long road ahead for the residents of Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ, until it can be said that the official status of Ukrainian language truly correspondents to the reality in the oblastʹ, even in education. It will take another generation or two until Ukrainian language will be used in education fully as prescribed by the policy (apart from the schools and groups of minorities), but even now Ukrainian is being used more and more. Looking at the study results, the Ukrainization changes since 1991, even though not always consistent in all domains and not in all classrooms yet, have been substantial, and, taking into consideration economic conditions under which they took place – admirable and a credit to the motivated pupils, supporting parents and hard-working teachers. It is sincerely hoped, that whichever political party is chosen next, they will be wise enough not to pass any more drastic laws, leaving Ukrainian as the only state official, allowing the continued use of minority languages, and working towards a better-funded, better supported and a more appreciated system of education in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ and in Ukraine.
168
References (Cyrillic) 16-й съезд ВКП(б): Стенографический отчет. (1930). Москва, Ленинград: Государственное издательство. Retrieved from http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/K/KPSS/_KPSS.html#016 Акимова, Н. (2012, August 21). Русский язык получил статус регионального в Николаеве. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://novosti- n.mk.ua/news/read/43458.html Бестерс-Дільґер, Ю. (2010). Українська мовна політика з 1991 по 2009 рік: погляд ззовні. Language and Society, (1), 88-94. Бестерс-Дільґер, Ю. (2012a). Сучасна мовна політика України та її оцінка европейськими установами. Language and Society, (3), 170-179. Бестерс-Дільґер, Ю. (2012b). Мовна Політика України на Тлі Європейського Та Пострадянського Досвіду. Наукові Записки НаУКМА, 137. Білодід, І. (1970-1980). Словник української мови в 11 томах (СУМ-11). Наукова думка. doi:http://ukrlit.org/slovnyk/slovnyk_ukrainskoi_movy_v_11_tomakh В Николаеве появились билборды с агитацией за русский язык. (2012, June 27). Retrieved from http://comments.ua/politics/346823-nikolaeve-poyavilis-bilbordi.html В Украине по-прежнему актуальна проблема гендерного равенства. (2012, February 20). Retrieved July 13, 2016, from http://healthinfo.ua/articles/aktivn-otdh/2782 Вища освіта. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.upr.moippo.org.ua/ Вірченко, Н. (2007). Про заборону української мови". Освіта і Управління, 10(2), 31-40. Врезали по святому. (2006, June 02). Retrieved from http://www.rodgaz.ru/index.php?action=Articles&dirid=22&tek=20347&issue=272 Всеукраїнський перепис населення 2001 | Русская версия | Справка | Словарь переписи:. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/information/definition/#N Вчителі не хочуть заради української мови "виховувати стукачів". (2009). Retrieved from http://osvita.ua/school/news/5117/ Головне управління статистики у Миколаївській області. (2012). Дешериев, Ю Д. (1966). Закономерности развития и взаимодействия языков в советском обществе (p. 90). Москва: Наука. Динаміка середньомісячної заробітної плати по регіонах у 1995-2014 роках. Державна служба статистики України. Retrieved from www.ukrstat.gov.ua. Закон України "Про національні меншини в Україні ". (1992). Верховна Рада України. Retrieved from http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2494-12 Закон України "Про Освіту" № 1060-XII. (1991). Верховна Рада УРСР. doi:http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1060-12/ed20050101 Закон Української Радянської Соціалістичної Республіки «Про Мови В Українській РСР» № 8312-XI. (1989). Верховна Рада УРСР. doi:http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/8312-11 Исаев, М И. (1970). Сто тридцать равноправных : о языках народов СССР. Москва: Наука. Каландирець, П. (2006, June 1). Російська мова „регіональна" вже у Миколаєві... Retrieved from http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/945877.html Кинотеатры подняли бунт против украинизации. (2008, January 29). Retrieved from http://www.segodnya.ua/ukraine/kinoteatry-podnjali-bunt-protiv-ukrainizatsii.html Колесніченко, В, & Ківалов, С. (2011, August 26). Проект Закону про засади державної мовної політики. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=41018
169
Конституція України. (1996). doi:http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96- %D0%B2%D1%80 Майборода, О. М. (Ed.). (2008). Мовна ситуація в Україні: між конфліктом і консенсусом. Київ: Національна Академія Наук України. Масенко, Л, Кубайчук, В, & Демська-Кульчицька, О. (2005). Мовна політика с УРСР: історія лінгвоциду. In Л Масенко (Ed.), Українська мова у ХХ сторіччі: історія лінгвоциду (pp. 5-36). Київ: Києво-Могилянська Академія. Масенко, Л. (2011). Суржик : між мовою і язиком. Київ: Видавничий дім "Києво- Могилянська академія". Міністерство юстиції України. (2006). Цивільні права малолітніх і неповнолітніх та їх цивільно-правова відповідальність. Київ. Retrieved November. Мовний закон набув чинності. (2012, August 10). Retrieved from http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2012/08/10/6970579/ Навчальні заклади Миколаївської області : довідник / Миколаївський обласний центр зайнятості. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.niklib.com/resource/lib45.ua Навчальні заклади Миколаївської області : довідник / Миколаївський обласний центр зайнятості. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.niklib.com/resource/lib60.ru Освіта Миколаєва. (2011). Управління Освіти Миколаївської Міської Ради. doi:http://osvita-mk.org.ua/index/pro_menja/0-4 Освіта Миколаєва. (2012). Управління Освіти Миколаївської Міської Ради. doi:http://osvita-mk.org.ua/index/pro_menja/0-4 Освіта Миколаєва. (2013). Управління Освіти Миколаївської Міської Ради. doi:http://osvita-mk.org.ua/index/pro_menja/0-4 Освіта. (2015). In Головне управління статистики у Миколаївській області. doi:http://www.mk.ukrstat.gov.ua/ Про Державну програму розвитку української мови та інших... | від 12.02.1991 № 41. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/41%D1%80-91- %D0%BF/page Проект Закону про внесення змін до Закону України "Про дошкільну освіту" (щодо організації навчально-виховного процесу). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_2?id=&pf3516=9714-1&skl=7 Проект Закону про заборону звуження сфери застосування регіональних мов або мов меншин України. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=41020 Проект Закону про мови в Україні 1015-3. (2010). Retrieved from http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=38474 Проект Закону про мови в Україні. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=38474 Путин предостерегает от "украинизации" в России. (2010, January 22). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2010/01/100122_medvedev_political_system.shtm l Путин, В. (2013). Bill No.101. In Указ Президента РФ от 09.02.2013 N 101 "О Награждении Государственными Наградами Российской Федерации Иностранных Граждан". Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank Радчук, В. (2005). Параметри і взаємодія мов. Інформаційно-аналітичний журнал «Схід», 3(69). doi:www.ukrcenter.com Розстріляне Відродження. (2011). Retrieved from http://uateka.com/uk/article/culture/literature_journ/1236
170
Сербенська, О. (1994). Антисуржик. Вчимося ввічливо поводитись і правильно говорити. Львів: Світ. Словник української мови. Том 1. (2010). Наукова думка. doi:http://www.ndumka.kiev.ua/books/dictionary Словник української мови. Том 2. (2012). Наукова думка. doi:http://www.ndumka.kiev.ua/books/dictionary Соколова, С. (2013). Основні Типи Мовної Поведінки Киян (За Даними Анкетування). Українська мова, 2, 38-55. doi:http://www1.nas.gov.ua/institutes/ium/Structure/Departments/Department5/soc_staf f/Documents/Sokolova-osnovni-typy-movnoji-povedinky-kyjan.pdf Ставицька, Л. (2005). Український жарґон : словник : містить близько 4070 слів і понад 700 стійких словосполучень. Київ: Критика. Ставицька, Л. (2008). Українська мова без табу : словник нецензурної лексики та її відповідників : обсценізми, евфемізми, сексуалізми. Kиїв: Критика. Сталин, К. (1913). Национальный вопрос и марксизм ("Национальный вопрос и социал- демократия”). Просвещение. doi:http://grachev62.narod.ru/stalin/t2/t2_48.htm#p130 Степень украинизации образования на Украине. (2005). Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www.igpi.ru/info/people/malink/1111152776.html Субтельний, О. (1991). Україна: Історія. Київ: Либідь. Тимошенко, Ю. (2009). Про внесення змін до Положення про загальноосвітній навчальний заклад. Кабінет Міністрів України. Труб, В. (2012). Типи відхилень в українському мовленні, зумовлені інтерферентним впливом російської. Збірник наукових праць "Мова і суспільство", 3, 209-217. Украинский язык ущемляет русский, - председатель «Гражданского контроля». (2009, October 13). Retrieved July 16, 2016, from http://qha.com.ua/ru/obschestvo/ukrainskii- yazik-uschemlyaet-russkii-predsedatel-grajdanskogo-kontrolya/56741/ Український Центр Оцінювання Якості Освіти. (2005). Retrieved from http://testportal.gov.ua/about/ Ціхоцький, І. (2012). Антисуржик: у пошуках мовної ідентичності. Вісник Львівського університету. Серія філологічна, (57), 364-366. Ющенко, В. (2005, July 04). Указ Президента України № 1013/2005 Про невідкладні заходи щодо забезпечення функціонування та розвитку освіти в Україні. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/10486.html Ющенко, В. (2007, November 20). Указ Президента України № 1122/2007. Про деякі заходи щодо розвитку гуманітарної сфери в Автономній Республіці Крим та місті Севастополі. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/7017.html Ющенко, В. (2007, November 9). Указ Президента України № 1078/2007 Про Міжнародний конкурс з української мови імені Петра Яцика. Retrieved November 20, 2013. Ющенко, В. (2008, March 20). Указ Президента України № 244/2008. Про додаткові заходи щодо підвищення якості освіти в Україні. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/244/2008 Ющенко, В. (2010, February 15). Указ Президента України № 161/2010. Про Концепцію державної мовної політики. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/10486.html
171
References (English) Action of the Council of Europe in Ukraine. (1995, November 9). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/web/portal/ukraine Alessi, E. J., & Martin, J. I. (2010). Conducting an Internet-based Survey: Benefits, Pitfalls, and Lessons Learned. Social Work Research, 34(2), 122-128. Retrieved from http://swr.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/2/122.extract Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS (pp. 36-37). London: Sage Publications. Aparicio, F. (2000). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (pp. 248-275) (I. Melis, Ed.) (R. D. Gonzalez, Ed.). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Auerbach, E. (2000). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (pp. 177-204) (I. Melis, Ed.) (R. D. Gonzalez, Ed.). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Ball, J. (n.d.). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in early childhood and early primary school years. University of Victoria For UNESCO. doi:http://www.ecdip.org/docs/pdf/UNESCO%20Mother- tongue%20based%20EY%202010.pdf Besters-Dilger, J. (2007). The Ukrainian Language in Education and Mass Media. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 29(1/4, UKRAINIAN PHILOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY), 257-293. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/41304508?ref=no-x- route:e79c1fb9555756f859ae819fe8e82024 Besters-Dilger, J. (2009b). Ukraine on its way to Europe: Interim results of the orange revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Besters-Dilger, J. (2013). Prüfstein der europäischen Sprachenpolitik – die Ukraine. Europa Ethnica, (1/2), 23-31. Besters-Dilger, J. (Ed.). (2009). Language policy and language situation in Ukraine: Analysis and recommendations. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Bilaniuk, L. (2003). Gender, Language Attitudes, and Language Status in Ukraine. Language in Society, 32(1), 47-78. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4169240?ref=no-x- route:e0d26dc3bc7e083883a731fe904961b0 Bilaniuk, L. (2005). Contested tongues: Language politics and cultural correction in Ukraine. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. The Bologna Declaration of 19 june 1999: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education: The European higher education area. (1999). S.l.: European Ministers of Education. doi:http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf Bryman, A. (1992). Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research. In Quantity and Quality in Social Research (pp. 127-157). London: Routledge. The City of Saint Mykola (History - Nikolaev City Council). (2016). Retrieved from http://mkrada.gov.ua/en/content/istoriya-mista.html Cobarrubias, J., & Fishman, J. A. (1983). Ethical Issues in Status Planning. In Progress in language planning: International perspectives (pp. 41-85). Berlin: Mouton.
172
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge Falmer. Retrieved from Questia. Committee of Experts' evaluation report (1st Cycle) (Rep.). (2008). Strasbourg. doi:http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/EvaluationReports/UkraineEC RML1_en_corr.pdf Constitution of the Republic of Belarus of 1994 (Article 17). (2004, October 17). Retrieved from http://law.by/main.aspx?guid=3871&p0=V19402875e Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 1992, from https://www.president.ee/en/republic-of-estonia/the-constitution/ The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.saeima.lv/en/legislation/constitution The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Constitution.htm Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2002). Principles and methods of social research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cukor-Avila, P. (2000). Revisiting The Observer's Paradox. American Speech, 75(3), 253-254. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/american_speech/v0 75/75.3cukor-avila.pdf. Cummins, J. (2000). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (p. Ix) (I. Melis, Ed.) (R. D. Gonzalez, Ed.). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Databank of State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Dialog/statfile.asp?lang=1 Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Del Gaudio, S., & Tarasenko, B. (2009). Surzhyk: Topical questions and Analysis of a Concrete Case. In J. Besters-Dilger (Ed.), Language policy and language situation in Ukraine: Analysis and recommendations. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/read/119860109/the-good-research-guide-for-small-scale- social-research. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method: 2007 update with new internet, visual and mixed-mode guide. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley. Euro (EUR) and Ukrainian hryvnia (UAH) Year 2012 Exchange Rate History - Yahoo Finance. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.freecurrencyrates.com/exchange-rate-history/EUR- UAH/2012 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. (1992). Strasbourg. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=148&CL=ENG European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Reports and recommendations. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/default_en.asp Fanning, E. (2005). Formatting a Paper-based Survey Questionnaire: Best Practices. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(12). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=12 Ferdinand, P. (1998). Contemporary Ukraine: Dynamics of post-Soviet transformation (T. Kuzio, Author). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
173
Fishman, J. A. (2006). Do not leave your language alone: The hidden status agendas within corpus planning in language policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flier, M. S. (1998). Surzhyk: The Rules of Engagement. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 22(Cultures and Nations of Central and Eastern Europe), 113-136. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/41036734?ref=no-x- route:af7e85e2c17e8870212443a7a4d45e32 Fournier, A. (2002). Mapping Identities: Russian Resistance to Linguistic Ukrainisation in Central and Eastern Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies, 54(3), 415-433. doi:10.1080/09668130220129542 Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge University Press. General Principles. (1996). In Constitution of Ukraine. doi:www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc Gonzalez, R. D., & Melis, I. (2000). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Google Maps. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.google.de/maps/@49.5656144,30.7653895,6z Gorman, P. (2004). Motivation and emotion. London: Routledge. doi:https://www.questia.com/library/107433378/motivation-and-emotion Grenoble, L. A. (2003). Language policy in the Soviet Union. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Grigas, A., Kasekamp, A., Maslauskaite, K., & Zorgenfreija, L. (2013). The Baltic States in the EU: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Brussels: Notre Europe. Hampton, C., & Vilela, M. (2012). Conducting Surveys. In P. Rabinowitz, K. Nagy, & J. Schultz (Eds.), The Community Tool Box. University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1048.aspx Heidemann, K., & Paulston, C. (2006). Language Policies and the Education of Linguistic Minorities (T. Ricento, Ed.). In An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 292-310). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Hentschel, G., & Brüggemann, M. (2015). Gibt es in der Ukraine einen ukrainisch-russischen Sprachenkonflikt? In E. Bakalova, K. Shlyakhtovska, & G. Spodarets (Eds.), Ukraine. Krisen. Perspektiven. (pp. 95-118). Berlin. Hentschel, G. (2008). On the development of inflectional paradigms in Belarusian trasjanka. In G. Hentschel & S. Zaprudski (Eds.), Belarusian Trasjanka and Ukrainian Suržyk: Structural and social aspects ... of their description and categorization. (pp. 99-126). Oldenburg: Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 17. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/10085348/G._Hentschel_S._Zaprudski_eds._2008_Belarusi an_Trasjanka_and_Ukrainian_Sur%C5%BEyk_Structural_and_social_aspects_..._of_t heir_description_and_categorization._Oldenburg_Studia_Slavica_Oldenburgensia_17_ Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Quantitative Research Design. Sportscience, 4(1). Retrieved from http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html Hornberger, N. (2006). Language Policies and the Education of Linguistic Minorities (T. Ricento, Ed.). In An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 24-41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8(1-2), 75-86. Inglis, O. (2009). Language Situation in Ukraine (Unpublished MA dissertation). St. Mary’s College, University of Surrey. Inglis, O. (2011, May). PhD Proposal (unpublished). Interview with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko: 'The Problems Began After the Orange Revolution'. (2009, September 07). Retrieved November 20, 2013, from
174
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-ukrainian-president-viktor- yushchenko-the-problems-began-after-the-orange-revolution-a-647401.html Ioffe, G. (2003). Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language. Europe-Asia Studies, 55(7), 1009-1047. Retrieved July 17, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3594622?ref=search- gateway:1243e1bc9252faa2bc7f6c6eb23a8188 Ivanova, O. (2013). Bilingualism in Ukraine: Defining Attitudes to Ukrainian and Russian through Geographical and Generational Variations in Language Practices. Sociolinguistic Studies, 7(3). Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3304426051/bilingualism-in-ukraine- defining-attitudes-to-ukrainian. Janmaat, J. G. (2000). Nation-building in post-Soviet Ukraine: Educational policy and the response of the Russian-speaking population. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Geographical Society. Kalynovs'ka, O. (2009). Language Situation in Education. In J. Besters-Dilger (Ed.), Language Policy and Language Situation in Ukraine (pp. 201-241). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf Jr., R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon, [Eng.]: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning and policy in Europe. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kecskés, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kirkwood, M. (1990). Language planning in the Soviet Union. New York: St. Martin's Press. The Kivalov-Kolesnichenko Language Bill must not be signed into law! (2012, July 07). Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1341602399 Kreindler, I. T. (1990). Soviet language planning since 1953. In M. Kirkwood (Author), Language planning in the Soviet Union (pp. 46-63). New York: St. Martin's Press. Kulyk, V. (2005, September 23). Language Ideologies and the Media in Post-Soviet Ukraine. Speech presented in UCSD. Retrieved from http://naulibrary.org/dglibrary/admin/book_directory/Lingusitics/2060.pdf Kulyk, V. (2007). The Demography of Language Practices and Attitudes in Ukraine. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 29(1/4, UKRAINIAN PHILOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY), 295-326. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/41304509?ref=no-x- route:35dcd260f751d8c7acba959a525f2df5 Kulyk, V. (2009). Language Policies and Language Attitudes in Post-Orange Ukraine. In J. Besters-Dilger (Ed.), Language Policy and Language Situation in Ukraine (pp. 15-55). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Kulyk, V. (2013a). Language and I dentity in post-Soviet Ukraine: Transformation of an Unbroken Bond. Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 2013 5(2). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/5643513/Language_and_Identity_in_Post- Soviet_Ukraine_Transformation_of_an_Unbroken_Bond Kulyk, V. (2013b). Language Policy in Ukraine: What People Want the State to Do. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 27, 2nd ser. Retrieved from http://online.sagepub.com Kuzio, T., & D'Anieri, P. J. (2002). Dilemmas of state-led nation building in Ukraine. Westport, CT: Praeger.
175
Kuzio, T. (1998). Ukraine: State and nation building. London: Routledge. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolingustic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Languages across Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/languages/belarusian.shtml Lewis, S. K. (2006). Race, culture, and identity: Francophone West African and Caribbean literature and theory from né gritude to cré olité . Lanham: Lexington Books. Mack, N., & Woodsong, C. (2005). Module 1. In Qualitative research methods a data collector's field guide. Retrieved from http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Qualitative%20Research%2 0Methods%20-%20A%20Data%20Collector's%20Field%20Guide.pdf Marples, D. R. (2007). Heroes and villains: Creating national history in contemporary Ukraine. Budapest: Central European University Press. doi:https://www.questia.com/read/118779544/heroes-and-villains-creating-national- history-in Masenko, L. (2009). Language Situation in Ukraine: Sociolinguistic Analysis. In J. Besters- Dilger (Ed.), Language policy and language situation in Ukraine: Analysis and recommendations (pp. 101-137). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Miller, A. I. (2003). The Ukrainian question: The Russian Empire and nationalism in the nineteenth century. Budapest: Central European University Press. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/read/118317147/the-ukrainian-question-the-russian-empire- and-nationalism. Minority language protection in Europe: Into a new decade. (2010). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Müller, D. (2012). Ukraine (Україна). In F. Lebsanft & M. Wingender (Eds.), Europäische Charta der Regional- oder Minderheitensprachen: Ein Handbuch zur Sprachpolitik des Europarats. Berlin: De Gruyter. Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An Overview. Children & Society, 10(2), 90-105. Moser, M. (2013). Language policy and the discourse on languages in Ukraine under president Viktor Yanukovych (25 February 2010-28 October 2012). Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag. Motyl, A. J. (2013, February 11). Ukraine's Orange Blues. doi:http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/soviet-style- imperialism-ukrainian-language Nedashkivska, A. (2010). Symbolic Bilingualism in Contemporary Ukrainian Media. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, 52(3/4), 351-372. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25822223?ref=no-x- route:b2a41bdfd8a7cb034887fd22b802da9c Pavlenko, A. (2008). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries. Retrieved from http://astro.temple.edu/~apavlenk/pdf/Pavlenko_IJBEB_2008.pdf Pavlenko, A. (2008). Russian in post-Soviet countries. Russian Linguistics, 32(1), 59-80. Retrieved from http://astro.temple.edu/~apavlenk/pdf/Russian_Linguistics_2008.pdf Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of Learning. In Contribution to the International Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. doi:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.24.369&rep=rep1&type= pdf Perri, G. A. (2014). Korenizacija : An Ambiguous and Temporary Strategy of Legitimization of Soviet Power in Ukraine (1923-1933) and its Legacy. HISTORY OF COMMUNISM IN EUROPE, 5, 131-154. Retrieved from http://ulb.academia.edu/PinoPerri/Papers
176
Petracich, J. (2015). Language Ideologies of Young People in Western Ukraine (Unpublished master's thesis). University of California, Davis. doi:http://linguistics.ucdavis.edu/language-ideologies-of-young-people-in-western- ukraine Pifer, S. (2009). Averting crisis in Ukraine. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, Center for Preventive Action. Polese, A. (2010). The formal and the informal: Exploring ‘Ukrainian’ education in Ukraine, scenes from Odessa. Comparative Education, 46(1), 47-62. doi:10.1080/03050060903538673 Polese, A. (2011). Dichotomies between citizenship and nationality: Reflections from the Ukrainian nation-building Experience. Politické Vedy, 48-63. doi:https://www.academia.edu/1068890/DICHOTOMIES_BETWEEN_CITIZENSHIP _AND_NATIONALITY_REFLECTIONS_FROM_THE_UKRAINIAN_NATION- BUILDING_EXPERIENCE Poleshchuk, V. (2010). Estonia, Latvia and the European Commission: Changes in Language Regulation in 1999-2001, Open Society Institute. Retrieved from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/estonia-latvia-languages- 20020117.pdf Population classified by knowledge of the Belarusian and Russian languages by region and Minsk Cit. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.belstat.gov.by/en/perepis- naseleniya/perepis-naseleniya-2009-goda/main-demographic-and-social-characteristics- of-population-of-the-republic-of-belarus/population-classified-by-knowledge-of-the- belarusian-and-russian-languages-by-region-and-minsk-city/ The R Project for Statistical Computing. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ Remy, J. (2007). The Valuev Circular and Censorship of Ukrainian Publications in the Russian Empire (1863-1876): Intention and Practice. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, 49(1/2), 87-110. Retrieved June 09, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/40871165?ref=no-x- route:3b6138cff1afcd8f63fc783a4ae93ed6 Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2006). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3, Language Planning and Policy), 401-427. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3587691?ref=search- gateway:7ccab190a19e7a0ebb0b1fc742c94302 Sakwa, R. (2014). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. I.B.Tauris. Sample Size Calculator. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. V. (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Six: Dealing with Missing or Incomplete Data: Debunking the Myth of Emptiness. (2013). Best Practices in Data Cleaning: A Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Do Before and After Collecting Your Data, 105-138. doi:10.4135/9781452269948.n6 Solchanyk, R. (1982). Russian language and Soviet politics∗. Soviet Studies, 34(1), 23-42. doi:10.1080/09668138208411394 Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. State Periodical Report (1st Cycle) (Rep.). (2007). Strasbourg. doi:http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/PeriodicalReports/UkrainePR1 _en.pdf
177
States Parties to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/statesparties/default_en.asp Statistical Yearbook of Ukraine for 2012. (2013). Kyiv: State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_e/publ1_e.htm Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Structured Interviews. (2005). Psychological Assessment in the Workplace, 205-211. doi:10.1002/9780470713105.ch10 Sullivant, R. S. (1962). Soviet politics and the Ukraine, 1917-1957. New York: Columbia University Press. Søvik, M. B. (2007). Support, resistance and pragmatism: An examination of motivation in language policy in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Stockholm: Stockholm University. doi:http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197056/FULLTEXT01.pdf Szporluk, R. (1997). Ukraine: From an Imperial Periphery to a Sovereign State. Daedalus, 126(3, A New Europe for the Old?), 85-119. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20027443?ref=search- gateway:95252fb87816bb10717521938fbc46d4 Table: 19A050501_02. Distribution of the population of Ukraine`s regions by native language (0,1). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=19A050501_02&ti=19 A050501_02.+Distribution+of+the+population+of+Ukraine%60s+regions+by+native+l anguage+%280%2C1%29&path=..%2FDatabase%2FCensus%2F05%2F01%2F&lang= 2&multilang=en Talhouk, S. (2012, December). Don't kill your language. Speech presented at TED, Beirut. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_talhouk_don_t_kill_your_language#t-294496 Terrell, S. R. (2012). Mixed-Methods Research Methodologies. The Qualitative Report, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17-1/terrell.pdf Train, R. (2010). [Review of Children's Language and Multilingualism: Indigenous Language Use at Home and School by J. Simpson & G. Wigglesworth]. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 526-528. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40856204 Turchynov to not sign parliament decision cancelling language law. (2014, March 4). Retrieved from http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/turchynov_to_not_sign_parliament_decision_cance lling_language_law_318038 Turner, J. (1993). Using Likert Scales in L2 Research. Another Researcher Comments. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 736-739. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3587409.pdf Ukraine profile. (2013, October 22). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- europe-18010123 Ukraine, State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. (2001). All-Ukrainian population census 2001. Retrieved from http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/ Ukrainian American Bar Association: Russia’s Disinformation Campaign Regarding Ukrainian Language Policy. (2014, March 5). Retrieved from http%3A%2F%2Feuromaidanpress.com%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2Fukrainian- american-bar-association%2F Vaus, D. D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research (5th ed., p. 83). Allen & Unwin. Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
178
Wilson, A., & Khmelko, V. (1998). Regionalism and Ethnic and Linguistic Cleavages in Ukraine (T. Kuzio, Ed.). In Contemporary Ukraine: Dynamics of post-Soviet transformation (p. 74). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Yekelchyk, S. (2007). Ukraine: Birth of a modern nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Your key to European statistics (Annual net earnings). (2015). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/labour-market/earnings/database Yushchenko: Language law will trigger Ukraine's de-Ukrainization. (2012, August 15). Retrieved from http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/yushchenko-language-law- will-trigger-ukraines-de-ukrainization-311552.html
179
Appendix 1. Number of students in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ since 1995 Table 39. Number of schools, professional-technical establishments and establishments of higher education (I, II, III and IV levels of accreditation)160
Professional Establishments of higher education Schools technical Вищі навчальні заклади (Загальноосвітні establishments (beginning of school year data)161 навчальні заклади) (Професійно- (beginning of school технічні навчальні III-IV level year data) заклади) I-II level of of (end of year data) accreditation accreditation
1995/96 684 1995 33 1995/96 16 3
1996/97 677 1996 33 1996/97 17 3
1997/98 667 1997 29 1997/98 17 3
1998/99 670 1998 29 1998/99 16 3
1999/00 670 1999 29 1999/00 16 3
2000/01 672 2000 28 2000/01 17 3
2001/02 672 2001 27 2001/02 17 3
2002/03 669 2002 28 2002/03 17 4
2003/04 667 2003 28 2003/04 17 4
2004/05 660 2004 30 2004/05 12 5 2005/06 651 2005 32 2005/06 12 5 2006/07 642 2006 32 2006/07 12 5 2007/08 634 2007 32 2007/08 12 5 2008/09 623 2008 32 2008/09 11 5 2009/10 600 2009 32 2009/10 11 5 2010/11 592 2010 32 2010/11 11 5 2011/12 581 2011 32 2011/12 10 5 2012/13 572 2012 32 2012/13 12 5
160 The table is based on official data from Головне управління статистики у Миколаївській області.(go to http://www.mk.ukrstat.gov.ua) 161 The data only includes independent educational establishments (without the branches of universities from other regions of Ukraine)
180
Table 40. Number of pupils and students in schools, professional-technical establishments and establishments of higher education (I, II, III and IV levels of accreditation) (in thousands)
Professional Establishments of higher education Schools technical Вищі навчальні заклади (Загальноосвітні establishments (beginning of school year data)162 навчальні заклади) (Професійно- (beginning of school технічні навчальні III-IV level I-II level of year data) заклади) of accreditation (end of year data) accreditation
1995/96 202,8 1995 15,5 1995/96 13,9 13,2 1996/97 200,7 1996 16,8 1996/97 13,4 13,6 1997/98 196,2 1997 15,9 1997/98 12,9 14,7 1998/99 193,2 1998 15,8 1998/99 12,0 17,5 1999/00 188,5 1999 15,9 1999/00 12,1 19,5 2000/01 186,5 2000 15,3 2000/01 13,1 21,7 2001/02 181,3 2001 15,4 2001/02 13,6 25,7 2002/03 174,0 2002 15,3 2002/03 13,6 28,5 2003/04 165,7 2003 15,4 2003/04 14,4 30,7 2004/05 156,7 2004 15,7 2004/05 10,4 46,7 2005/06 147,4 2005 15,4 2005/06 10,6 46,6 2006/07 139,4 2006 15,1 2006/07 10,3 49,7 2007/08 131,5 2007 14,9 2007/08 10,1 50,8 2008/09 124,3 2008 14,1 2008/09 8,6 49,6 2009/10 120,0 2009 13,9 2009/10 7,8 48,0 2010/11 114,5 2010 14,5 2010/11 7,7 47,4 2011/12 112,9 2011 14,0 2011/12 7,2 42,5 2012/13 110,3 2012 14,0 2012/13 7,4 40,3
162 The data includes independent educational establishments as well as the branches of universities from other regions of Ukraine (З урахуванням відокремлених підрозділів вищих навчальних закладів інших регіонів України)
181
Appendix 2. Interview questions Ukrainian version 1) Як, на Вашу думку, змінилося використання російської мови в системі освіти з 2005 року? (Більше / менше російської мови / не змінилося) 2) Наскільки, на Вашу думку, відповідає офіційний статус української мови її використанню в реальності? 3) (Optional question) Що Ви думаєте про призначення російської мови регіональною в тих областях, де як мінімум 10 відсотків населення вважають цю мову рідною? Як це вплине на ситуацію в освіті? 4) Що, на Вашу думку, є найбільшою проблемою в мовній політиці системи освіти України? 5) Що б Ви особисто змінили в теперішній мовній політиці України? 6) Як, на Вашу думку, мовна ситуація в Україні буде розвиватися в майбутньому? 7) Чи можна, на Вашу думку, порівняти мовну ситуацію в Україні з тією ситуацією, яка існує в інших країнах? (Наприклад, Канада? - Чи може ця країна бути прикладом для мовної політики в Україні?)
Russian version 1) Как, по Вашему мнению, изменилось использование русского языка в системе образования с 2005 года? (Больше/меньше русского/не изменилось) 2) Насколько, по Вашему мнению, соответствует официальный статус украинского языка его использованию в реальности? 3) (Optional question) Что Вы думаете о назначении русского языка региональным, в тех областях где как минимум 10 процентов населения считают этот язык родным? Как это повлияет на ситуацию в образовании? 4) Что, по Вашему мнению, является самой большой проблемой в языковой политике системы образования Украины? 5) Что бы Вы лично изменили в теперешней языковой политике Украины? 6) Как, по Вашему мнению, языковая ситуация в Украине будет развиваться в будущем? 7) Можно ли, по Вашему мнению, сравнить языковую ситуацию в Украине с существующей ситуацией в других странах? (Например, Канада? - может ли эта страна быть примером для языковой политики в Украине?)
182
Appendix 3. Full questionnaires and coding Group 1 questionnaire coding and questions Table 41. Group 1. Pupils and students questions and values (SPSS) q0001 1 Ukrainian What language do your parents usually 2 Russian use to talk to each other? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0002 1 Ukrainian What language do your parents usually 2 Russian use to talk to you? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0003 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your parents? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0004 1 Ukrainian What language do your grandparents 2 Russian usually use to talk to each other? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0005 1 Ukrainian What language do your grandparents 2 Russian usually use to talk to their children? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0006 1 Ukrainian What language do your grandparents 2 Russian usually use to talk to you? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0007 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your grandparents? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian
183
4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0008 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use at 2 Russian home (with your parents and/or other 3 A mixed language of Russian and family members)? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0009 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to 2 Russian socialize with friends outside 3 A mixed language of Russian and school/university? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0010 1 Ukrainian In which language do you usually watch 2 Russian TV programs? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0011 1 Ukrainian In which language do you usually read 2 Russian books and/or magazines in your leisure 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally time (not for your school)? 4 None of the provided answers q0012 1 Ukrainian In general, what language do you prefer 2 Russian to speak? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0013 1 Ukrainian In what language do you think? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0014 1 Ukrainian In what language do you dream? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 I don’t remember 6 None of the provided answers q0015 1 Ukrainian
184
In what language do you count? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0016 1 Ukrainian In what language do you swear? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 I don’t swear 6 None of the provided answers q0017 1 Strongly agree Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement? 3 Somewhat disagree Language is a symbol of national identity 4 Strongly disagree 5 Difficult to say q0018 1 Strongly agree Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement? 3 Somewhat disagree A nation should only have one language 4 Strongly disagree 5 Difficult to say q0019 1 speak and understand Ukrainian fluently In your opinion, what is the best way to 2 understand Ukrainian fluently, but finish the following sentence: speaking is not that importantant 3 understand a little bit of Ukrainian – for when necessary 4 speak and understand both Russian and Every Ukrainian citizen must be able to Ukrainian fluently … 5 understand a little bit of Russian – for when necessary 6 understand Russian fluently, but speaking is not that importantant 7 speak and understand Russian fluently q0020 1 I dislike such people What is your general attitude towards 2 I rather dislike such people people who speak Ukrainian in their 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on everyday communication? the language they us 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0021 1 I dislike such people What is your general attitude towards 2 I rather dislike such people people who speak Russian in their 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on everyday communication? the language they us
185
4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0022 1 I dislike such people What is your general attitude towards 2 I rather dislike such people people who speak a mixed language of 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on Russian and Ukrainian in their everyday the language they us communication? 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0023 1 There is a language problem in Ukraine Which statement about language and it should be the government’s situation in Ukraine do you agree with priority to sort it out as soon as possible the most: 2 There is a language problem in Ukraine, but it is secondary 3 There is a language problem in Ukraine, but it is not important 4 There is no language problem in Ukraine 5 None of the provided answers q0024 1 Strongly agree Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement: 3 Somewhat disagree Language question in Ukraine has 4 Strongly disagree become a political tool and politicians 5 Difficult to say only talk about it to get electoral votes q0025 1 Ukrainian What is the official language of your 2 Russian school/university? 3 It is a bilingual school (Ukrainian & Russian) 4 I don’t know q0026 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your friends at school/university 3 A mixed language of Russian and during breaks? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0027 1 Ukrainian What language do your teachers usually 2 Russian use to address you during the lesson 3 A mixed language of Russian and breaks? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0028 1 Ukrainian
186
What language do most of your teachers 2 Russian usually use during the lessons? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0029 1 Only Ukrainian What language does you teacher of 2 Mostly Ukrainian Ukrainian use during their lessons? 3 Both Ukrainian and Russian 4 None of the provided answers q0030 1 Only Russian What language does your teacher of 2 Mostly Russian Russian use during their lessons? 3 Both Ukrainian and Russian 4 Russian is not taught in our school/university 5 None of the provided answers q0031 1 Only Russian What language does you teacher of 2 Mostly Russian Ukrainian use during breaks? 3 Both Ukrainian and Russian 4 Only Ukrainian 5 None of the provided answers q0032 1 Only Russian What language does you teacher of 2 Mostly Russian Russian use during breaks? 3 Both Ukrainian and Russian 4 Only Ukrainian 5 Russian is not taught in our school/university 6 None of the provided answers q0033 1 Most teachers speak and understand In your opinion, what is the best way to Ukrainian very well describe the teachers’ level of Ukrainian 2 Most teachers speak and understand language at your school/university? Ukrainian, but they also 3 Most teachers don’t speak Ukrainian, but understand it 4 Most teachers don’t speak or understand Ukrainian 5 None of the provided answers q0034 1 Ukrainian What language are most of your course 2 Russian books in? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0035 1 Ukrainian language was used much more in schools and/or universities
187
Which statement do you think best 2 Ukrainian language was used a little bit describes the language situation in more in schools and education during V. Yushchenko’s 3 Nothing changed presidency? 4 Russian language was used a little bit more in schools and/or universities 5 Russian language was used much more in schools and/or universities 6 I don’t remember 7 Difficult to say q0036 1 Ukrainian language was used much Which statement do you think best more in schools and/or universities describes the language situation in 2 Ukrainian language was used a little bit education during V. Yanukovych’s more in schools and presidency? 3 Nothing changed 4 Russian language was used a little bit more in schools and/or universities 5 Russian language was used much more in schools and/or universities 6 Difficult to say q0037 1 Yushchenko In your opinion, under whose presidency 2 Yanukovych was the language situation in the 3 It was the same under both educational sphere in Mykolaivsʹka administrations oblastʹ better? 4 The situation changed for the better under both administrations 5 It didn’t get better under any of them, it only got worse 6 Difficult to say q0038 1 Ukrainian What language would you like your 2 Russian teacher to use during the 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally lessons/lectures? 4 None of the provided answers q0039 1 Ukrainian What language would you like your 2 Russian course books to be in? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0040 1 Ukrainian Which language do you think will be the 2 Russian dominant one in the education in the 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally future? 4 None of the provided answers q0041 1 Ukrainian 2 Russian 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally
188
Which language would you want to be 4 None of the provided answers the dominant one in the education in the future? q0042_0001 1 always We have to buy many course books with 2 often our own money 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never q0042_0002 1 always We have to financially help with 2 often household expenses for school, such as 3 sometimes repairing the classrooms etc. 4 rarely 5 never q0042_0003 1 always We don’t have the necessary equipment 2 often in the classrooms, e.g. damaged 3 sometimes blackboards, no chalk, old desks etc. 4 rarely 5 never q0042_0004 1 always Our teachers don’t seem to be well 2 often qualified/experienced 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never q0042_0005 1 always We talk too much about politics in our 2 often school/university 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never q0042_0006 1 always It is sometimes difficult to understand 2 often what other pupils/students are saying 3 sometimes because of the language they speak 4 rarely (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both) 5 never q0042_0007 1 always It is sometimes difficult to understand 2 often what teachers are saying because of the 3 sometimes language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian 4 rarely or a mixture of both) 5 never q0042_0008 1 always In our class/group some people treat their 2 often peers better or worse because of the 3 sometimes 4 rarely
189
language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian 5 never or a mixture of both) q0043 1 Yushchenko What kind of language policy in the 2 Yanukovych education would you like to see more in 3 A mixture of both the future? 4 Neither q0044 1 Secondary school In which educational establishment are 2 Specialized school (училище) you studying? 3 Technical school (техникум) (or other higher educational establishment 4 Institute or university (or other higher educational establishment 5 Post-graduate course q0045 1 Primary school What education do you already have? 2 Basic secondary 3 Complete secondary or professional- technical (11 grades or equivalent) 4 Basic higher (Technical school or other higher educational establishment of I-II level of accreditation) 5 Complete higher (higher educational establishment of III-IV q0046 1 Ukrainian Which language do you consider to be 2 Russian your native language? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0047 1 Very good How do you assess your level of 2 Good competence in the Ukrainian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0048 1 Very good How do you assess your level of 2 Good competence in the Russian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0049 1 Rural-type settlement (village) Where do you live? 2 Urban-type settlement (town) 3 District centre
190
4 oblastʹ centre q0050 1 Communist What ideological and political direction 2 Socialist most appeals to you? 3 Social-democratic 4 Liberal 5 National-democratic 6 National-radical 7 Ecological 8 Other 9 Neither 10 I am not good at differentiating political movements 11 Difficult to say q0051 1 Sometimes we struggle to buy everyday How would you describe the standard of life necessities living in your household? 2 We can afford everyday life necessities, but we have to save up for big purchases such as a new TV etc. 3 We can afford to buy things such as TV, but buying a new apartment is not easy 4 We can afford anything 5 I would rather not answer this question q0052 1 For proclaiming the Act If you were to vote for the Ukrainian Act 2 Against proclaiming the Act of Independence today (as in 1991), how 3 Difficult to say would you vote? 4 Would not vote 5 I do not know what happened in 1991 q0053 1 Ukraine On the territory of which country were 2 Russia you born? 3 Other country of the former USSR 4 A country in Europe 5 Other country of the world q0054 1 1-5 years How long have you lived in Ukraine? 2 6-10 years 3 11-20 years 4 All my life q0055 1 Ukrainian Citizenship 2 Other q0056 1 Ukrainian What nationality do you consider 2 Russian yourself to be? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 Other
191
Q0057 What do you think Ukrainian - - government should do to enhance the language situation in education? Q0058 - - What is your age? (number) q0059 1 14 to 17 What is your age? (group) 2 18 to 28 3 29 to 39 4 40 and above q0060 1 Female What is your gender? 2 Male q0061 1 Russian Questionnaire answered in: 2 Ukrainian
Q0062 - - Response Number:
192
Group 2 questionnaire coding and questions Table 42. Group 2. Parents questions and values (SPSS) q0001 1 Ukrainian What language did you usually use to 2 Russian talk to your family when you were a 3 A mixed language of Russian and child? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0002 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your family now? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0003 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to the mother/father of your child? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 We do not communicate 6 None of the provided answers q0004 1 Ukrainian What language does your child use to 2 Russian talk to his/her mother/father (not you)? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 They do not communicate 6 None of the provided answers q0005 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your child? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0006 1 Ukrainian What language does your child usually 2 Russian use to talk to you? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0007 1 Ukrainian What language does your child use to 2 Russian talk to the other members of the family? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian
193
4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0008 1 Ukrainian (9) What language do you usually use to 2 Russian socialize with your friends? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0009 1 Ukrainian What language does your child usually 2 Russian use to socialize with his/her friends 3 A mixed language of Russian and outside of school? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0010 1 Ukrainian (10) In which language does your family 2 Russian usually watch TV programs at home? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0011 1 Ukrainian In which language does your child 2 Russian usually read books and/or magazines in 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally his/her leisure time? 4 None of the provided answers q0012 1 Ukrainian What language do you prefer to use most 2 Russian of the time? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0013 1 Ukrainian What language does your child prefer to 2 Russian use most of the time? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0014 1 Strongly agree (17) Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement? 3 Somewhat disagree Language is a symbol of national identity 4 Strongly disagree 5 Difficult to say q0015 1 Strongly agree
194
Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement? 3 Somewhat disagree A nation should only have one language 4 Strongly disagree 5 Difficult to say q0016 1 speak and understand Ukrainian fluently (19) In your opinion, what is the best 2 understand Ukrainian fluently, but way to finish the following sentence: speaking is not that importantant Every Ukrainian citizen must be able to 3 understand a little bit of Ukrainian – for … when necessary 4 speak and understand both Russian and Ukrainian fluently 5 understand a little bit of Russian – for when necessary 6 understand Russian fluently, but speaking is not that importantant 7 speak and understand Russian fluently q0017 1 I dislike such people (20) What is your general attitude 2 I rather dislike such people towards people who speak Ukrainian in 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on their everyday communication? the language they us 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0018 1 I dislike such people (21) What is your general attitude 2 I rather dislike such people towards people who speak Russian in 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on their everyday communication? the language they us 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0019 1 I dislike such people (22) What is your general attitude 2 I rather dislike such people towards people who speak a mixed 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on language of Russian and Ukrainian in the language they us their every day communication? 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0020 1 There is a language problem in Ukraine (23) Which statement about language and it should be the government’s situation in Ukraine do you agree with priority to sort it out as soon as possible the most: 2 There is a language problem in Ukraine, but it is secondary 3 There is a language problem in Ukraine, but it is not important 4 There is no language problem in Ukraine
195
5 None of the provided answers q0021 1 Strongly agree (24) Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement: 3 Somewhat disagree Language question in Ukraine has 4 Strongly disagree become a political tool and politicians 5 Difficult to say only talk about it to get electoral votes q0022 1 Ukrainian What is the official language of your 2 Russian child's school? 3 It is a bilingual school (Ukrainian & Russian) 4 I don’t know q0023 1 Ukrainian What language does your child usually 2 Russian use to talk to his/her friends at school 3 A mixed language of Russian and during breaks? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0024 1 Ukrainian What language do your child's teachers 2 Russian usually use to talk to him/her during 3 A mixed language of Russian and breaks? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0025 1 Ukrainian What language do most of your child's 2 Russian teachers usually use during the lessons? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0026 1 Only Ukrainian What language does your child's teacher 2 Mostly Ukrainian of Ukrainian usually use during the 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally lessons? 4 Difficult to say 5 None of the provided answers q0027 1 Only Russian What language does your child's teacher 2 Mostly Russian of Russian usually use during the 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally lessons? 4 Russian is not taught in our school 5 Difficult to say
196
6 None of the provided answers q0028 1 Only Russian What language does your child's teacher 2 Mostly Russian of Ukrainian usually use during breaks? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 Only Ukrainian 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0029 1 Only Russian What language does your child's teacher 2 Mostly Russian of Russian usually use during breaks? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 Only Ukrainian 5 Russian is not taught in our school 6 Difficult to say 7 None of the provided answers q0030 1 Most teachers speak and understand In your opinion, what is the best way to Ukrainian very well describe the teachers’ level of Ukrainian 2 Most teachers speak and understand language at your child's school? Ukrainian, but they also 3 Most teachers don’t speak Ukrainian, but understand it 4 Most teachers don’t speak or understand Ukrainian 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0031 1 Ukrainian In what language are most of the 2 Russian coursebooks, which your child uses for 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally school, published? 4 None of the provided answers q0032 1 Ukrainian language was used much more (35) Which statement do you think best in schools describes the language situation in 2 Ukrainian language was used a little bit education during V. Yushchenko’s more in schools presidency? 3 Nothing changed 4 Russian language was used a little bit more in schools 5 Russian language was used much more in schools 6 I don’t remember 7 Difficult to say q0033 1 Ukrainian language was used much more (36) Which statement do you think best in schools describes the language situation in 2 Ukrainian language was used a little bit education during V. Yanukovych’s more in schools presidency? 3 Nothing changed
197
4 Russian language was used a little bit more in schools 5 Russian language was used much more in schools 6 Difficult to say q0034 1 Yushchenko (37) In your opinion, under whose 2 Yanukovych presidency was the language situation in 3 It was the same under both the educational sphere in Mykolaivsʹka administrations oblastʹ better? 4 The situation changed for the better under both administrations 5 It didn’t get better under any of them, it only got worse 6 Difficult to say q0035 1 Ukrainian In what language would you want your 2 Russian child's lessons to be taught? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0036 1 Ukrainian In what language would you want most 2 Russian of the course books, which your child 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally uses for school, to be published? 4 None of the provided answers q0037 1 Ukrainian (40) Which language do you think will 2 Russian be the dominant one in the education in 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally the future? 4 None of the provided answers q0038 1 Ukrainian (41) Which language would you want to 2 Russian be the dominant one in the education in 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally the future? 4 None of the provided answers q0039_0001 1 always We have to buy many course books with 2 often our own money 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never 6 difficult to say q0039_0002 1 always We have to financially help with 2 often household expenses for school, such as 3 sometimes repairing the classrooms etc. 4 rarely 5 never 6 difficult to say
198
q0039_0003 1 always Our children don’t have the necessary 2 often equipment in the classrooms, 3 sometimes e.g.damaged blackboards, no chalk, old 4 rarely desks etc. 5 never 6 difficult to say q0039_0004 1 always My child's teachers don’t seem to be well 2 often qualified/experienced 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never 6 difficult to say q0039_0005 1 always Our children talk too much about politics 2 often in their school 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never 6 difficult to say q0039_0006 1 always It is sometimes difficult for my child to 2 often understand what other pupils are saying 3 sometimes because of the language the latter speak 4 rarely (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both) 5 never 6 difficult to say q0039_0007 1 always It is sometimes difficult for my child to 2 often understand what the teachers are saying 3 sometimes because of the language the latter speak 4 rarely (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both) 5 never 6 difficult to say q0039_0008 1 always In my child's class some people treat 2 often their peers better or worse because of the 3 sometimes language the latter speak (Russian, 4 rarely Ukrainian or a mixture of both) 5 never 6 difficult to say q0040 1 Yushchenko (43) What kind of language policy in the 2 Yanukovych education would you like to see more in 3 A mixture of both the future? 4 Neither q0041 1 Primary school Where does your child study? 2 Middle school
199
q0042 1 Primary school (45) What education do you already 2 Basic secondary have? 3 Complete secondary (11 grades) or specialized school (училище) 4 Basic higher (Technical school or other higher educational establishment of I-II level of accreditation) 5 Complete higher (higher educational establishment of III-IV level of accreditation) q0043 1 Ukrainian (46) Which language do you consider to 2 Russian be your native language? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0044 1 Ukrainian Which language does your child consider 2 Russian to be his/her native language? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 Difficult to say 6 None of the provided answers q0045 1 Very good (47) How do you assess your level of 2 Good competence in the Ukrainian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0046 1 Very good How do you assess your child's level of 2 Good competence in the Ukrainian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0047 1 Very good (48) How do you assess your level of 2 Good competence in the Russian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0048 1 Very good How do you assess your child's level of 2 Good competence in the Russian language? 3 Fair
200
4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0049 1 Rural-type settlement (village) (49) Where do you live? 2 Urban-type settlement (town) 3 District centre 4 oblastʹ centre q0050 1 Communist (50) What ideological and political 2 Socialist direction most appeals to you? 3 Social-democratic 4 Liberal 5 National-democratic 6 National-radical 7 Ecological 8 Other 9 Neither 10 I am not good at differentiating political movements 11 Difficult to say q0051 1 Sometimes we struggle to buy everyday (51) How would you describe the life necessities standard of living in your household? 2 We can afford everyday life necessities, but we have to save up for big purchases such as a new TV etc. 3 We can afford to buy things such as TV, but buying a new apartment is not easy 4 We can afford anything 5 I would rather not answer this question q0052 1 For proclaiming the Act (52) If you were to vote for the Ukrainian 2 Against proclaiming the Act Act of Independence today (as in 1991), 3 Difficult to say how would you vote? 4 Would not vote 5 I do not know what happened in 1991 q0053 1 Ukraine (53) On the territory of which country 2 Russia were you born? 3 Other country of the former USSR 4 A country in Europe 5 Other country of the world q0054 1 Ukraine On the territory of which country was 2 Russia your child you born? 3 Other country of the former USSR 4 A country in Europe 5 Other country of the world
201
q0055 1 1-5 years (54) How long have you lived in 2 6-10 years Ukraine? 3 11-20 years 4 All my life q0056 1 1-5 years How long has your child lived in 2 6-10 years Ukraine? 3 11-15 years 4 All his/her life q0057 1 Ukrainian (55) Your citizenship 2 Other q0058 1 Ukrainian Your child's citizenship 2 Other q0059 1 Ukrainian (56) What nationality do you consider 2 Russian yourself to be? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 Other q0060 1 Ukrainian What nationality do you consider your 2 Russian child to be? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 Other q0061 (57) What do you think Ukrainian - - government should do to enhance the language situation in education? q0062 - - What is your age? (number) q0063 1 18 to 28 What is your age? (group) 2 29 to 39 3 40 to 49 4 50 to 59 5 60 and more q0064 - - What is your child's age? (number) q0065 1 6 to 10 What is your child's age? (group) 2 11 to 14 q0066 1 Female What is your gender? 2 Male q0067 1 Female What is your child's gender? 2 Male q0068 1 Russian
202
Questionnaire answered in: 2 Ukrainian q0062 - - Response Number:
203
Group 3 questionnaire coding and questions Table 43. Group 3. Teachers questions and values (SPSS) q0001 1 Ukrainian What language did you usually use with 2 Russian your family when you were a child? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0002 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use with 2 Russian your family now? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0003 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use with 2 Russian your colleagues, when you are not in 3 A mixed language of Russian and school/university? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 I don’t communicate with my colleagues outside of work 6 None of the provided answers q0004 1 Ukrainian In what language do you usually watch 2 Russian TV programs? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0005 1 Ukrainian In what language do you usually read 2 Russian books and/or magazines in your free time 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally (not work related)? 4 None of the provided answers q0006 1 Ukrainian What language do you prefer to use most 2 Russian of the time? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0007 1 Ukrainian In what language do you think? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers
204
q0008 1 Ukrainian In what language do you see your 2 Russian dreams? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 I don’t remember 6 None of the provided answers q0009 1 Ukrainian In what language do you count? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0010 1 Ukrainian In what language do you swear? 2 Russian 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 I don’t swear 6 None of the provided answers q0011 1 Strongly agree Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement? 3 Somewhat disagree Language is a symbol of national identity 4 Strongly disagree 5 Difficult to say q0012 1 Strongly agree Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement? 3 Somewhat disagree A nation should only have one language 4 Strongly disagree 5 Difficult to say q0013 1 speak and understand Ukrainian fluently In your opinion, what is the best way to 2 understand Ukrainian fluently, but finish the following sentence: speaking is not that impo Every Ukrainian citizen must be able to 3 understand a little bit of Ukrainian – for … when necessary 4 speak and understand both Russian and Ukrainian fluently 5 understand a little bit of Russian – for when necessary 6 understand Russian fluently, but speaking is not that important 7 speak and understand Russian fluently q0014 1 I dislike such people 2 I rather dislike such people
205
What is your general attitude towards 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on people who speak Ukrainian in their the language they us everyday communication? 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0015 1 I dislike such people What is your general attitude towards 2 I rather dislike such people people who speak Russian in their 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on everyday communication? the language they us 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0016 1 I dislike such people What is your general attitude towards 2 I rather dislike such people people who speak a mixed language of 3 My attitude to people doesn’t depend on Russian and Ukrainian in their everyday the language they us communication? 4 I rather like such people 5 I like such people 6 Difficult to say q0017 1 There is a language problem in Ukraine Which statement about language situation and it should be the government’s priority in Ukraine do you agree with the most: to sort it out as soon as possible 2 There is a language problem in Ukraine, but it is secondary 3 There is a language problem in Ukraine, but it is not import 4 There is no language problem in Ukraine 5 None of the provided answers q0018 1 Strongly agree Do you agree with the following 2 Somewhat agree statement: 3 Somewhat disagree Language question in Ukraine has become 4 Strongly disagree a political tool and politicians only talk 5 Difficult to say about it to get electoral votes q0019 1 Ukrainian What is the official language of your 2 Russian school/university? 3 It is a bilingual school (Ukrainian & Russian) 4 I don’t know q0020 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your colleagues at school/university 3 A mixed language of Russian and during breaks? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally
206
5 None of the provided answers q0021 1 Ukrainian What language do your pupils/students 2 Russian usually use to talk to you during breaks? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0022 1 Ukrainian What language do most of your 2 Russian colleagues usually use during the lessons? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0023 1 Ukrainian What language do you usually use to talk 2 Russian to your pupils/students during the lesson? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0024 1 Ukrainian What language do most of your 2 Russian pupils/students usually use to address you 3 A mixed language of Russian and during the lessons? Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0025 1 Most teachers speak and understand In your opinion, what is the best way to Ukrainian very well describe the teachers’ level of Ukrainian 2 Most teachers speak and understand language at your school/university? Ukrainian, but they also 3 Most teachers don’t speak Ukrainian, but understand it 4 Most teachers don’t speak or understand Ukrainian 5 None of the provided answers q0026 1 Ukrainian What language are most of your course 2 Russian books in? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0027 1 Ukrainian language was used much more Which statement do you think best in schools and/or universities describes the language situation in 2 Ukrainian language was used a little bit education during V. Yushchenko’s more in schools and presidency? 3 Nothing changed
207
4 Russian language was used a little bit more in schools and/or universities 5 Russian language was used much more in schools and/or universities 6 I don’t remember 7 Difficult to say q0028 1 Ukrainian language was used much more Which statement do you think best in schools and/or universities describes the language situation in 2 Ukrainian language was used a little bit education during V. Yanukovych’s more in schools and presidency? 3 Nothing changed 4 Russian language was used a little bit more in schools and/or universities 5 Russian language was used much more in schools and/or universities 6 I don’t remember 7 Difficult to say q0029 1 Yushchenko In your opinion, under whose presidency 2 Yanukovych was the language situation in the 3 It was the same under both educational sphere in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ administrations better? 4 The situation changed for the better under both administrations 5 It didn’t get better under any of them, it only got worse 6 Difficult to say q0030 1 Ukrainian What language would you like to use 2 Russian during the lessons/lectures? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 None of the provided answers q0031 1 Ukrainian In what language would you like the 2 Russian course books you use in your lessons to 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally be? 4 None of the provided answers q0032 1 Ukrainian Which language do you think will be the 2 Russian dominant one in the education in the 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally future? 4 None of the provided answers q0033 1 Ukrainian Which language would you want to be the 2 Russian dominant one in the education in the 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally future? 4 None of the provided answers q0034_0001 1 always
208
Pupils/students have to buy many course 2 often books with our own money 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never q0034_0002 1 always Pupils/students have to financially help 2 often with household expenses for school, such 3 sometimes as repairing the classrooms etc. 4 rarely 5 never q0034_0003 1 always We don’t have the necessary equipment in 2 often the classrooms, e.g. damaged blackboards, 3 sometimes no chalk, old desks etc. 4 rarely 5 never q0034_0004 1 always My colleagues don’t seem to be well 2 often qualified/experienced 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never q0034_0005 1 always We talk too much about politics in our 2 often school/university 3 sometimes 4 rarely 5 never q0034_0006 1 always It is sometimes difficult to understand 2 often what pupils/students are saying because of 3 sometimes the language they speak (Russian, 4 rarely Ukrainian or a mixture of both) 5 never q0034_0007 1 always It is sometimes difficult to understand 2 often what my colleagues are saying because of 3 sometimes the language they speak (Russian, 4 rarely Ukrainian or a mixture of both) 5 never q0034_0008 1 always Some pupils/students treat their peers 2 often better or worse because of the language 3 sometimes they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a 4 rarely mixture of both) in the classes/groups 5 never where I have taught/teach q0035 1 Yushchenko 2 Yanukovych 3 A mixture of both
209
What kind of language policy in the 4 Neither education would you like to see more in the future? q0036 1 Secondary school In which educational establishment are 2 Specialized school (училище) you working? 3 Technical school (техникум) (or other higher educational establishment of I-II level of accreditation) 4 Institute or university (or other higher educational establishment of III-IV level of accreditation) 5 Post-graduate course q0037 1 Complete secondary or professional- What education do you already have? technical (11 grades or equivalent) 2 Basic higher (Technical school or other higher educational establishment of I-II levels of accredition 3 Complete higher (higher educational establishment of III-IV levels of accredition 4 PhD (Kandidat Nauk) 5 Post-Doctoral Degree (Doktor Nauk) q0038 1 Ukrainian Which language do you consider to be 2 Russian your native language? 3 A mixed language of Russian and Ukrainian 4 Ukrainian and Russian equally 5 None of the provided answers q0039 1 Very good How do you assess your level of 2 Good competence in the Ukrainian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0040 1 Very good How do you assess your level of 2 Good competence in the Russian language? 3 Fair 4 Below average 5 Poor 6 Difficult to say q0041 1 Rural-type settlement (village) Where do you live? 2 Urban-type settlement (town) 3 District centre 4 oblastʹ centre q0042 1 Communist
210
What ideological and political direction 2 Socialist most appeals to you? 3 Social-democratic 4 Liberal 5 National-democratic 6 National-radical 7 Ecological 8 Other 9 Neither 10 I am not good at differentiating political movements 11 Difficult to say q0043 1 Sometimes we struggle to buy everyday How would you describe the standard of life necessities living in your household? 2 We can afford everyday life necessities, but we have to save up for big purchases such as a new TV etc. 3 We can afford to buy things such as TV, but buying a new apartment is not easy 4 We can afford anything 5 I would rather not answer this question q0044 1 For proclaiming the Act If you were to vote for the Ukrainian Act 2 Against proclaiming the Act of Independence today (as in 1991), how 3 Difficult to say would you vote? 4 Would not vote 5 I do not know what happened in 1991 q0045 1 Ukraine On the territory of which country were 2 Russia you born? 3 Other country of the former USSR 4 A country in Europe 5 Other country of the world q0046 1 1-5 years How long have you lived in Ukraine? 2 6-10 years 3 11-20 years 4 All my life q0047 1 Ukrainian Citizenship 2 Other q0048 1 Ukrainian What nationality do you consider yourself 2 Russian to be? 3 Ukrainian and Russian equally 4 Other q0049 What do you think Ukrainian government - - should do to enhance the language situation in education?
211
Q0050 - - What is your age? (number) q0051 1 14 to 17 What is your age? (group) 2 18 to 28 3 29 to 39 4 40 to 49 5 50 or 59 6 60 and above q0052 1 Female What is your gender? 2 Male q0053 1 Russian Questionnaire answered in: 2 Ukrainian
212
Appendix 4. Interview excerpts Interview 1 (pilot interview) Discussing whether the official status of Ukraine corresponds to reality…
…Официальный статус не подтвержден, то есть вот на деле не подтверждён. Почему? Потому что у нас просто такие исторические условия сложились, что пока вот то старшее взрослое поколение, как говорится, естественным путем не отойдет в лучший мир, то до тех пор не будет широко использоваться украинский язык. … Дети в официальных учреждениях, с детского сада начиная, - они разговаривают и общаются, стараются между собой разговаривать на украинском языке, какие-то программы, какие-то детские утренники, книжки и так далее – они на украинском языке получают всю эту информацию, но, придя домой, мало кто общается на украинском языке, очень мало, а все-таки это большое влияние оказывает на статус, на использование, бытовое использование, если ребенок слышит с детства одну речь дома, а вторую речь… он ни той не знает, ни той.
Discussing the language problem in Ukraine:
Детей мы пытаемся учить на «державній мові», а домой приходишь и разговариваешь… И отсюда получается вот этот суржик интересный, который уже в уме. … Нет той среды, которая способствовала бы развитию общения на родном языке.
Discussing the current laws and how things will develop if the law stays the same:
Изначально, может быть, не знаю, менталитет - не менталитет, но вот определенная черта характера славянина: не надо насаждать. … Не заставляй его – он будет делать наоборот. А такие крайности, как там, например, переход в кинотеатрах на украинский язык, ну надо все-таки как-то сбалансированно к этому относиться. Дайте хорошее время украинским фильмам в 7 часов. В 21 пустите на русском языке фильмы, посмотрите… Все должно познавать в сравнении, а не обязательно так что лучшее эфирное время отдать
213
украинскому, допустим, языку, худшее – русскому. Все то, что насаждается, все вызывает отторжение у индивидуума.
Discussing the role of the politicians in creating opposition of Ukrainian and Russian speakers:
Мне кажется, что это искусственно насаждается политиками, которым это выгодно. Ну может быть, это – уже избитое клише, но тем не менее я с этим совершенно согласна, что это действительно искусственно насаждается теми, кому это выгодно. Кому выгодно противопоставить: вы такие плохие, вот вы «западеньці», а вы такие плохие, а вот вы там, я не знаю, еще откуда-то (...). Мне кажется, это выгодно политикам, тем, кто рвется к власти, тем, кто был у власти, то есть вот так вот. Потому что смотришь иногда так: передача закончилась, эфир прошел, и те, и другие нормально общаются на русском языке все. О чем разговор, ребята ...?
Interview 2 Discussing education in Ukrainian:
Отдавая детей в украинские школы, они ухудшили уровень образования вообще. В виду того, что будешь поступать в университет – там экзамены сдавать по- украински, там будут читать тебе лекции по-украински, учи украинский, да. Он учит украинский, русского он просто не знает… Так составлены программы. То есть, разговаривая по-русски, он предпочитает читать по-украински уже, ну ребенок, да, а разговаривает – на русском.
Примерно 70% школ украинских в городе Николаеве. 30% - русских. Родители отдают детей в украинские классы, которые намереваются учиться в высших учебных заведениях. Русские школы превращаются поэтому в школы как бы второго сорта. По законодательству школы нового типа – гимназии, лицеи, коллегиумы могут быть только украинскими. Там лучше финансирование учителей, там лучше содержится школьное здание, туда более тщательно стараются отбирать самых способных учеников. В результате русские школы, как бы превращаются в школы второго сорта. Это получается не потому, что существует дискриминация по этническому или национальному признаку, это
214
потому, что ну складывается естественным образом, а доктринеры не подумали об отдаленных последствиях – обучение детей на не родном языке. Тут грянула хартия европейская местных и региональных языков. Значит, доктринерские словоблуды, пытающиеся упорно строить национальное государство в совершенно других условиях... Сейчас же не утрехтский мир как бы вчера произошел и национальное государство...
Тогда, когда многие выпускники многих университетов, получившие ненужное образование, вернее, нужное не стране и не себе, а педагогам, которые использовали конъюнктуру, они переучиваются сейчас, работают не по специальности. Это вообще трагедия страны, которая потеряла свои позиции в технологической сфере. Это уже серьезно... Но люди переносят на язык. Этим пользуются политики, которые в своих политических программах предусматривают или предоставление русскому языку статуса второго государственного, что не нужно, или уничтожение русского языка как такого вместе с русской культурой и вместе с его носителями. Да есть такие же у нас тоже – неонацисты.
Discussing Azarov:
Еще раз приведу пример – язык государственный украинский. Премьер-министр ни слова на нем не знает… но это же тоже ненормально! Нормально – это как я, позвонят сейчас, заговорят со мной по-украински. Я им по-украински и отвечу. Принесут мне материал – я не только его поставлю, но я и прочитаю его и уберу ошибки грамматические, которые украиноязычный патриот-грамотей наделает.
Discussing the Charter:
Украина напринимала много законов, а Хартия, ратифицированная парламентом, стала частью национального законодательства. Теперь нужно просто имплементировать ее, то есть все остальные законодательные акты привести в соответствие, чтобы они не противоречили друг другу. Но это задача неподъемная для наших идиотов, но тут еще одна беда есть… НЕ все же
215
идиоты... Но они косят под идиотов, чтобы не отличаться от той среды, которая пышная, и именует сама себя национальной элитой.
Interview 3 Discussing whether the official status of Ukrainian corresponds to reality:
Дело в том, что мы живем на такой территории, которая значит юг Украины где очень много людей, которые разговаривают уже с давних времен на русском языке, поэтому заставить людей разговаривать в обиходе на «украинской мове» никто не может. Официальный статус понятно поддерживается во всех организациях, в государственных органах, все разговаривают и пишут документацию, все составляют на украинском языке, но в реальности, дома, в быту люди разговаривают на разных языках, на которых им удобно, которые они с рождения знают, поэтому я думаю, что очень много людей, ну, наверно, больше 60 процентов в Николаеве разговаривают на русском языке.
Discussing future language policy:
Понимаете, мы живем на юге, поэтому у нас очень много людей, которые хотят разговаривать на русском, но дело в том, что это будет, ну как бы, даже если бы мне хотелось бы, чтобы было два языка, но это сложно технически осуществить. Раз уже все направлено, на то, что украинский язык и в Конституции у нас написано – единственный государственный язык, поэтому, наверное, нужно по этому пути и идти, что он должен быть единственным государственным языком – украинский. И все граждане Украины должны владеть этим языком, вот и ну вся государственная политика должна строиться на том, что украинский был единственным государственным.
Discussing changes since 2005:
Cчитаю, что с 2005 года у нас в городе Николаеве как существовали украинские школы, их, конечно, было большинство, так они по сей день и существуют. Несколько школ, буквально меньше 10 даже, у нас русскоязычных школ. В детских садах, конечно, используется образование только на украинской «мове»
216
и в основном во всех школах тоже на украинской «мове». Я не считаю их увеличилось украинских школ – так и было.
Discussing the “language problem” in Ukraine:
Я, например, считаю, что такой большой проблемы языковой политики у нас в системе образования нет. Никто не отказывается разговаривать и преподавать на украинском языке. Все люди, все преподаватели знают украинский язык, (...) украинской мовой преподают все учителя и все владеют этой мовой и все воспитатели детских садов тоже, они учат в институте, потом обучают без проблем, и, по-моему, это только политические нагнетания страстей по поводу мови.
Discussing what would personally change in the language policy:
Ну считаю ничего не было страшного если бы было два государственных языка, русский и украинский. Вот, например, в других странах это есть и процветают, живут нормально. Это не предмет самой первой необходимости в политике, есть другие проблемы, которые более нужно в скором времени решить.
Discussing future language situation:
Я думаю, что в конце концов все-таки будет преобладать украинский язык и все преподавание будет только на украинском, (…) потому что в будущем дети поступают в университеты, тоже где преподавание осуществляется на украинском языке и дальше в работе, всю им будет нужно документацию вести украинскою мовою, поэтому конечно украинска мова будет преобладать.
Interview 4 Discussing language question in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ:
Я вважаю, що проблеми мовної ситуації в Миколаївській області менше всього існує, тому що в нас якось розподіленні зони. В Миколаєві більшість, чи можливо це моя суб’єктивна точка зору, багато людей розмовляє на російській мові, тому в побутовому характері, люди самі встановлюють ту мову спілкування яка їм
217
легша. Наприклад, я особисто в сім’ї – в мені усі розмовляють на російській мові. Тому і я також обрала собі мову спілкування дома – російську мову. Це мені легше і це мені якось певніше, гарніше и сни як то кажуть я отримаю на російській мові, інформація підсвідома в мене йде на російській мові. Хоча я абсолютно розумію те, що якщо я живу і працюю в державі Україна, офіційною мовою якою абсолютно правильно біло визнано українську мову, я маю гарно володіти українською мовою, щоб представляти її інтереси за кордоном і вести політику мовну в межах цієї країни.
Discussing decreasing level of quality of Russian language in Mykolaivsʹka oblastʹ:
Я відчуваю наприклад по своїй сім’ї, по своїм дітям, які розмовляють на російській мові, але навчались в україномовних школах – у них відчувається брак граматики російської, тобто вони пишуть українськими буквами російські тексти, російські вітання, наприклад, там якісь вітання якщо один одному, якщо бабусі висилають там якесь вітання, тобто оце відчуваєтеся брак грамотності. На мій погляд, було б непогано поруч з англійською мовою там чи з якимись іншими давати альтернативу дітям з першого класу вибирати іноземну мову и російська мова має також бути у цьому переліку як іноземна мова представлена. Навіть, не навіть, а якщо це школа саме українськомовного середовища навчання...
Discussing the changing situation:
Если сегодня есть в стране чувствуется определенная либерализация русского языка, то 2009 этой либерализации не было абсолютно. Наоборот, я бы сказала, что отношение к России, русской культуре, русскому языку достаточно были прохладными. А 2010-2011 год показывает, как раз либерализацию вот отношений к русскому языку, к русской культуре, к истории России и общим нашим отношениям. Поэтому все зависит от политики, это весьма вопрос конъюнктурный.
Brief comment on the project of the new language law (Kolesnichenko-Kivalov):
218
Я считаю, что это утяжеляет процесс делопроизводства. Надо выбирать или то или другое и там идет вертикаль документов, поэтому мне кажется, что это дополнительная сложность.
Interview 5 Respondent 1. Discussing changes in the language situation since 2005:
Если говорить с 2005 года, то ухудшилась, а и вот только последние пару лет – начала возрождаться. Как было 13 школ русскоязычных школ в городе и 3 в области так они и остались, но одна из них … (имя школы) уже начала переходить с начальных классов на украинский язык. То есть особых изменений я не вижу. Хотя принята в Николаевской области программа, областная программа содействия развитию русского языка, но это все на любительском уровне, не на уровне закона, не на уровне решения какого-то властного. То есть, русский язык долго выводили из школ, теперь директора многие просто боятся возвращаться к тому, что было, потому что думают может, что это ненадолго. Хотя с этим, конечно, утрачен очень большой пласт культуры и литературы. Что касается нас, то следующий год мы объявили годом русского языка в соответствии с этой программой, будет открыт центр русской культуры в школе (Имя, номер школы). Это – русскоязычная школа, очень сильные учителя и у нас составлен план, он привязан к юбилеям русских писателей, поэтов…
Discussing how the official status of Ukrainian language corresponds to reality.
По моему мнению, что он соответствует процентов на 90. К сожалению просто наши чиновники, которые занимаются украинским языком не настолько хорошо его знают, хотя вот на моей памяти институтом были предприняты шаги в сторону того, чтобы люди, которые занимаются бумагами, встречаются с людьми, то есть находятся на чиновничьих должностях, скажем так, выучили этот язык и могли его использовать в полной мере… Ну, к сожалению, у нас не досконально изучен украинский язык.
219
Problem in education:
Самая большая проблема это бессистемность, это должна быть продуманная системная работа, со своей программой, с учетом хартии яз. национальных меньшинств, с учетом поликультурности нашего региона и того, что у нас существует проблема двуязычия, то есть если прекратили преподавание украинского языка, оставили только украинский, это только проиграли, потому что дети все равно выходят в коридор, говорят на русском, приходят домой – говорят на русском, в результате дети не знают русского языка в такой мере, как знали в советской школе, когда, да, больше были русскоязычных школ, но дети прекрасно знали украинский язык.
Discussing what would personally change in the language policy of Ukraine:
В этом году впервые за много лет прошла олимпиада по русскому языку и литературе, и я хочу сказать, что представители России отнеслись очень серьезно к этому, потому что, во-первых, были очень хорошие ценные подарки: первое место – ноутбуки, второе место – электронная книжка, третье место – ноутбук, но даже дело не в этом. Победителям олимпиады выдали гранты на учебу в России, в любом ВУЗе, а это очень важно…
Пересмотреть программы и планы учебные школ, чтобы русский язык стал не предметом вариативной части, хочу учу – хочу не учу, факультативно, не хожу вообще, потому что оценок не стоит, а просто стал таким же полноценным предметом, как и все другие – математика, украинский язык и тогда отношение изменится. А если оценка не стоит в аттестате… Хотя бы поставить в такие рамки как украинский язык – 2 часа в неделю языка, 2 часа литературы – это уже что-то, а так как у нас все это идет на нулевых уроках или внеклассных мероприятиях, то это надо найти ребенка-любителя, который этим бы занимался.
Я считаю, что государственный язык должен быть один. Это безусловно.
220
Respondent 2. Discussing recent language policy:
2004 по 2010 роки була затверджена програма розвитку і функціонування української мови .... проводились курси вивчення українського. Мови державними службовцями, тобто ти люди, або нефахівцями-предметниками. От наприклад Ви читаєте географію, але не володієте українською мовою ... для військовиків, пожежники також вивчали, тобто для тих людей які мають справу з документацією – на державній службі, короче кажучи.
Discussing language attitudes and language use:
Стосовно того, як діти відносяться... ну звичайно, на уроках української мови, на інших предметах, якщо це україномовна школа, то вони говорять, читають и пишуть українською мову, при чому літературною мову, тому що вони собі в голові там перекладають літературною мовою. На селі, звичайно гірше, тому що там іде діалектизмі більше, ну а в місті це суржик, а на перерві звичайно більшість розмовляє російською мовою…
Якщо дитина з села, то зараз не стісняються говорить українською мовою. Раніше, то тільки переступив поріг міста, приїхав з далекої глубінки і вже говорить російською мовою, тому що треба було якось же ж виживати у місті.
Interview 6 Discussing the changes since 2005 Если говорить о формальных показателях, т.е. количестве закрытых- открытых школ, изменения процента каких-то, например, средств массовой информации или использования русского языка как второго государственного, ничего с 2005 года вот в этом смысле не произошло. … Можем говорить о некотором изменении климата, на мой взгляд, это трудноизмеримая категория, но вот фактов закрытия украинских школ в Николаевской области, эти факты мне неизвестны…
221
Атмосфера общая, мне кажется, тоже может быть она сильно не поменялась… В Николаеве ничего особенного такого в плане языковых политик не происходит. Украинская культура здесь как представлена была в маргинальных формах, так она и представлена в маргинальных формах. Что касается русского языка и русской литературы, то есть как это все было представлено в эрзац, продукцией какой-то совершенно трестостепенного, минусового абсолютно, гнусного качества, так это и осталось. Это все льется на головы бедных людей, они это называют русской культурой, мы это называем русской попсой и вот ну что ли может быть пропасть в этом смысле эмоционального ощущения, она несколько увеличивается, потому что Николаев абсолютно маргинализованный город с точки зрения украинской культуры. Здесь нет украинских нормальных книг. Когда ты живешь в городе Николаеве, ты думаешь, что нет украинского кино, когда вообще нет ничего украинского, потому что все ну… Но в то же время существует некая подпольная жизнь, некая параллельная жизнь, в которой тоже люди получают какую-то информацию. Вот так если с точки формальной, законной придраться тут не к чему. А с точки зрения эмоциональной, ну это мое субъективное ощущение.
Discussing the status of Ukrainian:
Если сравнивать Николаев и область, то в Николаеве доминирует русский язык и функционирование украинского языка ограничено в целом несколькими сферами (…) Что касается области, тот тут ситуация несколько иная, потому что опять же нужно брать по отдельным регионам, по отдельным городам, потому что в Южноукраинске ситуация будет одна, но в Вознесенске будет другая, в Березниговатом будет совершенно третья, в Радиевке будет совсем какой- нибудь другой. Сельское население традиционно говорит на языке, который больше похож на украинский. Скорее всего, это конечно суржик, но там укр. язык, укр. сознание, укр. формы, укр. жизни они гараздо более живучие чем в городе Николаеве, поэтому какой статус… Официально статус закреплен. А вот то что этот статус, законодательно закрепленный, не до конца совпадает с тем статусом, который ему придают конкретно носители языка, это мне уже кажется очевидная вещь, хотя вот тут нужны специальные социолингвистические исследования…
222
Discussing the problem of the language situation:
Проблема безусловно существует, я не буду ее отрицать. Она существует в том смысле, что в любом варианте, соотношения между украинским и русским языком оставляет в обществе чувство дискомфорта. То есть, в какой-то ситуации, или одна или другая часть все время чувствует себя или победителем, или побежденным. На мой взгляд, главной причиной этой ситуации, значит нужно эту причину искать в абсолютно безграмотной, абсолютно глупой политике, во-первых, украинского государства, во-вторых украинских интеллектуальных элит, то есть таких, например, людей как я, например, считаю, что вот тоже имею отношение к формированию языковых политик... Никогда в Николаеве русский язык не притесняли. Никогда этого не было. Была ситуация, что каким-то образом навязывали украинский язык, но и то это, знаете, на фоне мировых практик это такие слабые, такие маразматические движения, что никого ни напугать, ни переделать не могут. Но каждый раз, когда возникает какая-то ситуация, государство тут со своим эти вопросом, понимаете. С другой стороны, существует, на мой взгляд, группа украинских интеллектуалов, которые настолько по-старому трактуют проблему украинской национальной идентичности, я имею ввиду, что для них, например, быть украинцем и не говорить по-украински... Значит если ты не говоришь по- украински, значит ты – не украинец. Ну так тоже нельзя...
…Эта ситуация очень выгодна правителям. Потому что это необразованная или полуобразованная масса, она очень легко поддается разным слухам, разным манипуляциям, движению и каждый раз, когда у нас возникают выборы эта ситуация возникает…
Discussing how the new language law (KK-law) would affect the system of education:
Отрицательно, потому что этот закон принципиально манипулятивный. Что такое европейская хартия языков? Европейская хартия языков руководствуется принципами лингвистической экологии. То есть, каждый день в нашей жизни один язык умирает, значит для того, чтобы сохранить языки
223
нужно защ… речь идет о миноритарных языках. Русский язык никогда не был миноритарным языком … в этой части земного шара.
Interview 7 Discussing the status of Ukrainian language:
Украинского языка наши преподаватели в основном не знают. Это тот язык, на котором бы хотелось, чтобы во всяком случае хотя бы им они владели, если они преподают на этом языке. Ни студенты, ни преподаватели на хорошем литературном языке не говорят. … Приходится в Николаеве слушать такую украинскую речь, становится стыдно за язык, который, конечно же, не виноват.
То есть не соответствует. Очень редко, когда я слышу хороший украинский язык.
Discussing what would personally change:
Я бы настаивал на том, чтобы русский язык получил статус второго государственного, потому что он этого заслуживает. Я себе не представляю развитие украинской литературы без русской литературы.
Discussing the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language project:
Конечно же я за этим слежу и очень обрадовался, когда это услышал, но каких- то подвижек, что-то такого в нашем регионе я не увидел, не услышал. Как было, так и есть.
Interview 8 Discussing changes since 2005:
Природно російської мови стало менше. В нас набагато зменшилась кількість російських слів, у нас зменшилась кількість годин у навчальних планах шкіл і все це призвело до того що на сьогодні діти приходять до нас, студенти приходять до нас на перший курс які погано вміють писати російською мовою, погано
224
знають російську літературу, класичну літературу, ту літературу, яка є загально таким філософським надбанням, ну... усього східного слов’янства. Я так вважаю... На мій погляд це дуже прикро, дуже прикро.... курси російської мови принаймні мають у навчальних планах шкіл зберігатися, нехай не в такому обсязі як вони були раніше, але мають зберігатися, тому що ми всі в нашому регіоні білінгви і все одно в розмовному мовленні ми користуємося російською мовою. То краще цю російську мову корегувати, якби вона відповідала відповідним нормам.
Discussing the status of Ukrainian and whether its official status corresponds to reality:
У письмовій формі, відповідає. А якщо говорити про усну форму, то в закладах, державним закладах спілкуються російською мовою, спілкуються навіть с україномовними російською, чиновники усі спілкуються російською, це власно мій досвід спілкування ... а от документація в офіційно-діловому стилі, там іде українська мова, безперечно.
Discussing the language policy in Ukraine:
Найбільшою проблемою мовної політики є те, що такої політики зовсім не має. Мовної політики в Україні не має вже давним давно... Скажімо так, мовні питання ніяк не регулюються. Всі ці питання регулюються силами і ентузіазмом вищих навчальних закладів, закладів освіти, академічних закладів і таке інше. Це і словникова робота, це і підручникова робота і т.і. і т.і.
Я не думаю, що ми маємо право на користування цим законом, тому що ми не підпадаємо під ті положення, які передбачені Хартією регіональних мов. Цей закон стосується тих регіонів, у яких іде територіальне розходження мови з її літературним варіантом, загальноприйнятим, над діалектним варіантом має дуже велике розходження (...) Я вважаю, що це було б грубим порушенням конституції, прийняття такого закону... це призведе до страшних речей, оскільки українська мова дуже довго не працювала на всіх соціальних рівнях статусу державної мови (...) І ось з 90х років їй дали можливість попрацювати, ми побачили такий прогрес – мова працює у науковому, художньому,
225
публіцистичному, офіційно-діловому стиль... Вона працює, вона розвивається, вона вдосконалюється, вона адаптується до потреб спілкування. Якщо буде надано статус державної і російській мові, то 20 років це такий маленький період, що оскільки в побуті, у мегаполісах ми користуємося російською мовою переважно, так складається традиція, то тут же російська мова набуде верх і українська мова знову буде в загоні і перспективи у неї дуже сумні, я так вважаю.
226
Appendix 5. Additional open-ended responses
For authenticity purposes, the responses were copied from hard copy questionnaires, including grammatical and spelling errors and “sic erat scriptum” should be assumed for all of the comments below. Several parts, which were problematic to read due to handwriting were omitted and marked (…).
Table 44. Group 1. Pupils and students (additional responses to the open question #57) Code Response 1.4 Не заставлять ни кого специально говорить на украинском языке. 1.6 Предоставить выбор ученикам, на каком языке они хотели бы получать информацию и учиться, и сделать русский вторым языком. 1.10 Я не считаю, что проблема с языком не единственная в нашей стране!!! Следует сначала решать более важные проблемы!!! 1.11 Оставить выбор родного языка, самим людям и не уделять этому бесполезному вопросу столько внимания. 1.12 Залишити державною мовою Українську. 1.14 Русский и украинский языки были в равной степени, как в общении так и в документации. Каждый из нас в праве выбирать на каком языке общаться, учиться! И не насаждали тот или иной принудительно. Иначе рано или поздно произойдет раскол страны. 1.15 Я считаю, что для начала правительство должно являться примером для общества. Если депутаты хотят принять какой либо закон, либо же улучить положение украинского языка в стране, им не обходимо начать с себя. Тоесть выучить и применять украинский язык, ведь они представляют Украину, а не Россию либо другие страны, политики должны знать иностранные языки, не ставит на них акцент. Важным, так же является забота об образовании и возможности доступно его обрести. Многие не могут получать достойное образования даже при желании. Многие из образованных преподавателей не видять резона работать на Украине… 1.16 Національна мова повина бути одна і це Українська мова, так як ми живимо в Україні. 1.17 Просто сменить всех тех, кто сидит в Верховной раде. Их слишком много, толку нет, небыло и не будет. Обидно за нашу страну. А за правительство просто стыдно. 1.18 Я бы предпочла не отвечать на этот вопрос. Спасибо. 1.21 С самого детства, всегда разговаривали со мной на русском языке, моя семья. Я в 16 лет была против украинского языка, но не смотря на это я любила Украинскую литературу. (в этом и есть большой парадокс), возможно внутр. Меня живет, что-то патриотическое и проявлялось оно в любви к укр. литературе). Сейчас мне 21 и я все равно говорю на русском языке, но я только «за» украинский язык И мое мнение такое: люди сами выбирают на котором языке должен быть указан украинский.
227
1.22 Нужно решить эту проблему, люди могут говорить на любом языке, но национальный должен быть один. 1.23 Научиться правильно разговаривать на украинском языке. Я считаю, что абсолютно нормально, чтоб именно в нашем регионе ввели русский язык. Я считаю, что каждый человек имеет право разговаривать и обучаться на языке который удобен. Там где живу я преобладает русский язик, но я не имею ничего против украинского и спокойно понимаю его. И считаю, и хотелось чтоб каждый человек имел право выбора. Но ни в коем случае нельзя заменить украинский, а как дополнение русский язык абсолютно уместен. Хотя есть регионы где люди общаются только на укр. и не хотелось бы принуждать их и вводить в образование русский язык, так как это для них будет очень тяжело. 1.24 Я позитивно отношусь к тому, что русский язык стал региональным. Что касается образования, хотелось бы чтоб больше издавалось литературы не только на укр. языке но и на русском. 1.30 Украинские политики слишком зациклены на языковой ситуции. Они в большинстве случав не решают эту проблему, которую же они сами и создали, а проводять пиар компании своих политических партий. Нужно больше уделять времени другим, более важным проблемам в стране. Я считаю, что не нужно навязывать свои политические суждения. 1.32 Я считаю, что в каждой стране свой язык и на мое мнение, Украина должна говорить на украинском языке. 1.33 Я считаю правильность принятия закона о региональных языках, такие языки имеют место быть в Украине, т.к. Украина является многонациональной страной, но основной язык должен оставаться украинский. 1.34 Мы живем в украине и я считаю, что родной язык украинский. 1.35 Дать возможность сохранить то, что годами накапливалось и розвивалось. Молодое поколение уже в достаточной степени освоило украинский язик и на данный момент внедрение русского языка приведет к смешиванию всех накопленних знаний и еще большей безграмотности. Мои дети мыслят и говорят на украинском, я считаю что вопрос про языковую ситуацию так остро …. только с политических соображений и является всегда лиш необходимым инструментом в руках известного политика. 1.36 Не следует учитывать политическую ситуацию по данному вопросу , а применить новую систему в образовании т.к. старая себя исчерпала. Люди не могут разобраться в ситуации, а последствия, к сожалению, выливаются для всех хаосом в системе образования. Дети не должны жить в хаосе, а должны иметь стабильную логическую, понятую, продуманную систему образования. 1.42 Для меня вся эта ситуация с языком не уместна. Я понимаю как на украинском так и на русском языке, так же и говорю. Мое мнение таково, что в школах и в вузах нужно штудировать оба языка, чтобы наша молодежь понимала тех., кто говорять на русском так и на украинском языках. 1.43 Чтобы русский и украинский язык изучался в равной мере, что бы дети знали оба языка одинаково хорошо. 1.44 Что бы было два языка украинский и русский. Я уже привыкла и легко ориентируюсь на обеих языках. 1.45 Пополнить запас учебников в школах.
228
Не внушать язык. Ввести 2 языка и не доводить русскоязычные регионы с украиноязычные до конфликтов. 1.48 На мою думку політикам потрібно вирішувати не мовні проблеми в країні, а краще зайнятися вирішенням соціальних та економічних проблем. Я вважаю, що мовне питання не складає проблеми в країні, враховуючи те, що на протязі багатьох років українці спілкувалися двома мовами в рівних частинах, та вирішили для себе яка мова для них ближче. 1.49 Для початку щоб вони навчилися розмовляти українською мовою. 1.50 Я вважаю, що державною мовою повинна бути тільки українська. Якщо громадяни України вивчають або спілкуються будь якою іншою мовою, це їх громадянське право. Більш того, я ввіжаю, це навіть престижним і я буду гордитися, тим якщо в нашій системі освіти студентів будуть розуміти на різних мовах. Але всі офіційні документи повинні вестися українською мовою. Кожен Українець повинен знати, вивчати українську мову так само як і історію України, українські закони. Неможливо нав’язати народу чужу мову, якщо українська для нього рідна. тому я вважаю, що перш за все треба проводити соціологічне опитування. 1.51 -Доповнення питання № 10. Нажаль більшість, значна більшість телепередач (цікавих мені) виходить в ефір не на українській мові, тож я не маю вибору і мушу дивитися рос. мовні програми, але надаю перевагу Укр. мові. -Доповнення до питання № 11.34. Переважну більшість книг і друкованих видань, видають на російській мові, для того , щоб отримати книгу укр.. мовою, я мушу відвідати великі книгарні, і не завжди україномовні книги є в продажі. Це стосується книг для дозвілля. Надзвичайно великою проблемою для мене є те, що книги для отримання знань з своєї спеціальності тільки на російській мові!!! На укр. мові можна знайти тільки брошури та журнали, які є мало інформаційними. тож я мушу читати переважну більшість книг на рос. мові!!! Але надаю перевагу УКР.МОВІ! №57. Для поліпшення мовн. Ситуації в країні - необхідно повернути все так як було до мовного закону. Проблема про мови зникне сама собою, через 10- 15 років. Виростуть діти та студенти які навчалися в укр. мовних школах, університетах, і стануть значним відсотком україномовних громадян. На даний момент ми маємо цю проблему із-за історичних обставин. Значна частина населення отримала освіту ще в СССР і їм звично продовжувати розмовляти рос. мові і надалі. 1.55 Сделать 2 языка государственными-русский и украинский, или оставить украинский главным, так как мы живем в Украине, но не запрещать русский. И не переводить все на украинский язык: телевидение, кино, театр, средства массовой информации. 1.56 Официальным языком оставить украинский, а русскому языку дать статус регіонального. 1.57 Официйною мовою залишити українську, а російській мові дати статус регіональної. 1.58 Не страдать ерундой!!! 1.59 Нашему правительству пора бы начать хоть что-то делать для людей , а не просто разлагольствовать о проблемах в целом!!! 1.60 Сделать русский вторым региональным
229
1.61 Оставить официальным Укр.яз., а русскому дать статус регионального 1.63 Залишити національною мову Українську, а дати статус регіональною. 1.64 Пусть официальным остается украинский язык, а региональным будет русский. 1.65 Оставить украинский язык государственным, а русский –региональным. 1.66 Украинский язык оставить национальным, а русскому дать статус регионального 1.67 Украинский пусть будет национальным, а русский региональным. 1.73 Змінити уряд на розумних, чесних людей, які будуть розуміти свій народ та цінити їхні потреби, а не свої! УКРАЇНСЬКУ – ЗАЛИШИТИ! ОДНА ЄДИНА МОВА! Російську зробити для вільного користування. 1.74 Крепкого здоров’я !!!:)) А взагалі, звільнити кілька сотен депутатів, взяти на їх місце справжніх українських патріотів, щоб у Верховній Раді України був порядок і свідомий глузд, а не бійки і сварки, що аж соромно дивитись телебачення, особливо національний канал України. Я патріот своєї держави і я хочу щоб Україна була справжньою Україною, мабудь не доречно висловлюю свою думку, але хочу щоб ми українці були патріотами своєї держави незалежно в якому регіоні проживаємо, це НАША Україна!!! ДЯКУЮ!!! Підпис. 1.83 Установить свободу языка, так как это демократическая страна. 1.102 Я хочу чтобы в Украине был только язык «УКРАИНСКИЙ» для того мы и живем в Украине чтоб был только украинский язык, Россия должна иметь русский язык. 1.103 Нужно, чтоб вышел закон по всей Украине, а не отдельно по районам за державную мову но українську. А люди, які звикли розмовляти російською або українською мали вибір особисто для себе так спілкуватися. 1.104 Проводить разные конкурсы (хроводить разые конурсы) 1.105 Видавати більше книг на український мові , російську мову не робити основною. 1.106 Двойное гражданство Украина-Россия так и два гос. языка. 1.107 На мою думку потрібно по перше навчання в школах, навчальних закладах щоб було на український мові, адже від навчання йде подальший рабаток, Телебачення на український мові, по друге щоб в уряді спілкувалися на український мові. 1.108 Мне кажется, что стоит позволить самому человеку решать на каком языке ему удобно общаться. Должен быть выбор. Тем болем большая часть нашого правительства общаються на русском языке, а нам внушают что- то про украинский. Я не против его, я достаточно хорошо его понимаю и владею им, но все же хочу сама решать на каком языке мне общаться. 1.109 По моему мнению в Украине государственным должен быть Украинский язык, и наше правительство не должно русский язык делать государственным так как это наш родной язык. 1.110 Для того щоб покращити мову необхідно нею більше розмовляти. 1.111 Нужно прислушиваться к мнению граждан 1.112 Кожен обирає своє!!! 1.113 Необходимо перестать «мусолить» эту тему.
230
1.114 Не спекулировать данной темой. 1.130 Я вважаю. що в першу чергу політики повинні вдосконалити свої знання украинськои мови! Більшість з них розмовляє суржиком. Я взагалі не розумію, як можно керувати державою и не знати української мови, наприклад, як прим’ер міністр Азаров. 1.131 Менше турбуватися про власну сраку і подумати нарешті про населення! 1.132 Я думаю, что граждане Украины сами должны понять, что язык который они должны знать-украинский, а разговаривать друг с другом они могут на любом языке. 1.133 Не создавать проблему на ровном месте. Не разделять народ на 2 части. Ввести предмет русский язык, что бы люди грамотно писали и говорили без ошибок. Не манипулировать людьми и не настраивать друг против друга. 1.134 Не заставлять говорить на одном языке, а оставить выбор за людьми. 1.135 На мою думку у нас немає мовної проблеми. Не потрібно нав’язувати нікому нічого. Мовна проблема штучно створена и використовується, як інструмент нашої влади на виборах… Я не хочу нікого звинувачувати це власна моя думка. 1.144 Не сидіти склавши руки, а хоть щось для цього зробити. Не тільки говорити про це, а ще й приймати певні міри стосовно мовної ситуації. 1.145 Вибрати одну державну мову 1.146 Припинити думати лише про себе та почати нарешті думати про стан своєї держави та народ! 1.147 Зробити тільки одну мову національной. 1.148 Залишити одну державну мову українську. 1.149 Давать людям право самим выбирать на каком языке они хотят учиться и что би било больше русских садиков и школ. 1.150 Забыть языковую ситуацию и поднимать экономику страны! 1.151 ЗАСТРЕЛИТСЯ! Я БЫ ВСЕХ ИХ ОТПРАВИЛА НА СМЕРТНУЮ КАЗНЬ!!! Молодеж не живет, а выживает! Не может молодая семья себя прокормить, одеть ребенка. Государство просто нас травит! И как мне не ехать в другую страну на заработки если в нашей стране нет порядка и нормальной жизни. 1.155 Как минимум им самим стоит начать употреблять Украинский язык, общаться и т.п. 1.156 Прислухатись до народу, а не бігати за голосами виборців. 1.157 Сделать украинский язык популярным, молодежь захочет говорить на нем больше. 1.158 Провести політику украинізации як за радянських часів. Потрібно рятувати нашу рідну мову, з такими тенденциями як сьогодні вид неї нічого не залишиться 1.159 Реально вернуть русский язык в сферу образования в русскоязычных регионах страны. Из-за того, что дети в школе учаться на укр. языке, а дома и «в людях» говорят на русском, они в итоге не владеют ни русским, ни украинским. В моей школе русский и украинский преподавались в равной степени, я одинаково свободно и грамотно владею ими обоими. 1.160 Я за единый украинский язык! Я за едину украинську мову! 1.161 Я не компетентна в этом вопросе
231
1.166 Должен быть один язык для всех украинский так, как мы живем в Украине. 1.167 Я считаю, что в стране должен быть один государственный язык. И правительство должно бороться за это. 1.168 Для начала самим правителям нужно выучить украинский язык. 1.170 Не писать эти тесты на Русском. OLOLOLH ХОЧУ В АМЕРИКУ Згідно з К.У. ст. 63 я маю право не давати показання проти себе!!!!!!!!!! Да, я знаю К.У. Да, я умний Ми цапи народ простий. 1.169 Країні потрібні реформи 1.171 Пусть хоть идиш сделают государственным, только поднимут на достойный уровень жизнь в государстве. 1.172 Выпускать больше книг на украинском языке; Развивать украинский язык во всех городах Украины; Распространять больше украинских сайтов; Показать людям, что они настоящие украинцы; Не провозглашать русский язык вторым государственным; Вести украинские телеканалы только на украинском. 1.181 Все!!! 1.182 Працювати над мовною проблемою в Україні, не валяти дурня на всю країну та влаштовувати показові бійки. Народ голосуватиме за працюючих депутатів, а не за тих, хто тільки користується депутатською недоторканістю, автомобілями та коштами, які держава виділяє на їх утримання, і які платяться із кишені простих робочих. Для поліпшення роботи Ради потрібно значно скоротити кількість депутатів. P.S. Я надеюсь, мое мнение поможет улучшить ситуацию в стране, и ко мне прислушаються. 1.183 Не створювати з цього проблему! 1.184 Принимать и подтверждать тот язык, который по результатам набрал больше голосов. 1.185 Я считаю, что не нужно ничего решать! Каждый человек сам выбирает на каком языке говорить!!! 1.186 Державна мова повинна бути захищеною від посягань та від впливу з боку політичних партій при владі. Для того щоб покращити мовну ситуацію, потрібно: відмінити ЗУ «Про засади державної і мовної політики» всі ВНЗ та державні установи повинні обрати українську базовою мовою викладання. поширювати літературу на українській мові, як наукову , так і художню всім засобам пропагандувати красу та неповторність української мови. 1.189 Я не могу сказать. 1.194 Убрать украинский язык и оставить русский!!! И избрать русский язык медународным. 1.195 Убрать русский язык и оставить украинский 1.196 Мне все равно. Меня устраивает все. 1.197 Я думаю, що треба зібрати всіх політиків та вибрати ту мову яка потрібна.
232
1.198 Я вважаю, що українському уряду треба зробити так, щоб в України було дві мови українська та російська. 1.199 На мою думку уряд зробив помилку коли дозволив прийняти російську мову як державну в деяких областях України. У нас е своя державна мова на ний и потрібно говорити. 1.200 Ну я ду…я не знаю 1.201 Не в курсе дела 1.202 Надо их вообще выгнать нафик и поставить других с нормальними мозгами 1.203 Мені важко сказати 1.204 Я считаю, что в Украине должно быть два языка украинский и русский потому как большинство стран разговаривают (или хотябы понимают) на русском языке. А украинский некоторые представители стран не (понимают) разговаривают.А многие приезжие из других стран больше знают русский язык. Я за равноправие между украинским и русским языками. 1.205 Меня не устраивает что мы не можем определиться на каком языке нам говорить.Я считаю, что мы живем в Украине и говорим на непонятном языке.Я считаю что Украина должна говорить на украинском. 1.206 Мне кажется, что надо сделать 2 государственных языка, но не сейчас. В Украине очень много других политических проблем, гораздо важнее языковых. Мне кажется, что таким образом политики построили свою агитационную программу и решили отвлеч народ от глобальних проблем. 1.207 Ничего. Все и так уже сделано. Но мне бы не хотелось чтобы украинский язык был полностью уничтожен. 1.208 Я считаю что, в Украине не обходимо ввести русский язык как второй государственный язык, так было бы легче, каждый говорил бы так как ему удобно. 1.209 Сделать двуязычие (Украинский и Русский), печатать ученики в равной мере как на Русском так и на Украинском. 1.210 Перестать заниматься дуристикой! 1.212 Сделать книжки на русском языке больше чем на украинском. 1.213 Ми живемо в України и тому повинні спілкуватися українською мовою. Байдуже де на навчанні, з друзями, бытьками. 1.215 Разрешить Русский язык и тогда проблема разрешиться бо большинство людей которые находяться на Україні они разговаривают на русском. и здесь большинство других національностей. МОЯ ПРОСЬБА. Разрешите Русский язык. 1.216 На мою думку це все марно, тому що люди всі звикли розмовляти на (українській) руском язике. Не треба нічого змінювати, якщо люди всі звикли розмовляти на тій мові яку вони розуміють Але спілкуватися можна на любій мові и це все не важливо. Але щоб в школах або в якомусь училище треба розмовляти на український мові. Рішення за людьми. 1.217 В первую очередь, им нужно сделать так, чтоб уровень людей улучшился, и добиться хорошого отношения к себе, как к главе страны.Только после того люди смогут прислушиваться к правительству и принимать их решения. 1.218 Я вважаю, що друга державна мова тільки погіршить мовну ситуацію в Україні. Не буде окремо української мова і російської, виникне змішана мова, що найгірше вплине на розвиток та стан укр. мови.
233
Президент обов’язково має володіти укр. мовою, а не робити ще одну мову державною, щоб самому ж було зручніше розмовляти. В Україні повинна бути одна мова українська!!! 1.219 Залишити державною мовою тільки українську. 1.220 По-перше наш президент повинен показати приклад знання української мови, а не свій російсько-український сленг. Також наші міністри майже всі росіяни-це ж Україна!!! Чому наші міністри росіяни? Україна може мати тільки одну державну мову, і більше ніякої- регіональної!!! Це все для того аби відвернути увагу українського народу від більш серйозних проблем, які наш уряд не вирішує, це прикриття, щоб показати нам, що вони щось роблять для України. ТО Є БРЕХНЯ!!! 1.224 Залишити все як є. При президенті Кучми було гараздо краще. 1.225 Сделать везде русский язык 1.226 Есть много экономических и политических проблем в стране, которые нужно решать в первую очередь, что и улучшит языковую и ситуацию вцелом в стране. Языковая проблема это всего лишь предвыборная компания. 1.227 По-перше, випускати більше підручники українською мовою, вводити хоч 3- 4 раз в неділю уроки російської мови, транслювати фільми, реклами на укр.мові. Намагатися, як найбільше та частіше розмовляти, спілкуватися укр.мовою за межами школи, чи то будь якого учбового закладу. По-друге, уроки, лекції, документи – лише українською мовою, але не забороняти спілкуватися російською іншим меншинам. 1.228 Я вважаю, що необхідно підтримувати державну мову, а тобто українську, проте потрібно паралельно заохочувати вивчення іноземних мов. 1.238 Не зациклюватися так занадто на цій проблемі. В кожній державі повинна існувати лише одна офіційна мова. В Росії – російська, в Україні – українська. Але не треба забороняти розмовляти людині на тій мові, на якій їй розмовляти зручніше… 1.239 Всюди ввести Державну українську мову. 1.240 Зменшить ціни на товари. Збільшить зарплатню і стипендію і люди стануть розмовляти укр. мовою. Мої батьки і родичі їздять за границю на заробіток і там починають розмовляти на іншій мові. Прімер як ми будемо розм.. на укр. мові якщо ми не живемо постійно в Україні бо наші фінанси нам не дозволяють. 1.241 Я вважаю що повністю ситуація не змінитця, а буде лише гірше!!! 1.242 Ничего не поможет 1.243 Не навязывать языковую систему и вернуть безплатное обучение 1.244 На мою думку треба прислухатися до народу. Та й взагалі без Укр.мови не буде того згрупованого обєднання як цілісна держава. Треба обирати правильну владу, бояка влада така й країна! Уряду потрібно заохочувати людей до рідної мови, робити якісь цікаві дискусії по телебаченню та в різних засобах інформації. Озвучувати фільми на українській мові, що б вухо звикало до мови. 1.253 Было бы лучше если бы они не устраивали эти штучно-наиграные ссоры на счет языков. 1.254 Українському уряду не потрібно розпилюватися на мовну проблему, а затвердити лише українську мову в Україні,оскільки держава, яка поважає
234
свої традиції, мову і символи не може мати декілька мов. Повинна бути лише українська, оскільки це наша особливість. 1.255 На мое мнение следует оставить два языка русский и украинский 1.256 Не можу відповісти на це питання, оскільки я не знаю всіх тонкощів. 1.257 Меня не интересует языковая проблема, я считаю что есть проблемы намного важней. 1.260 Треба створити власну мову 1.261 Не знаю, я не политик! 1.262 Принять закон о провозглашении русского языка, как второго государственного. И также увеличить количество школ и ВУЗов на русском языке. 1.263 Не прймати закони пов’язані з другою мовою в країні. Має бути одна державна мова, у нас це українська більше нам не треба. 1.272 Зробити доступ до української літератури(учбової) та художньої 1.273 Я считаю, что нынешняя языковая ситуация в Украине является благополучной. В Украине 1 государственный язык, а в региональных обязательно должен быть русский 1.283 Перш за все потрібно видати закон щоб всі вчителя та учні розмовляли на укр. мові, тоді і люди почнуть інші так розмовляти!!! 1.284 Принять двуязычие 1.289 Cледуют принять русский язык вторым государственным языком. 1.306 Не вводить второй государственный язык – русский, а самим подучить язык государства, которым управляют. Так как введение 2 гос.языка привело бы к еще большему конфликту частей Украины (западной, восточной) 1.307 Нужно принять 2 государственных языка: русский и украинский 1.309 Ничего, пусть будет так как есть! 1.310 Нужно принять русский язык вторым государственным 1.311 Принять русский язык вторым государственным 1.321 Дать детям полностью бесплатное образование, потому что у многих нет таких доходов для оплат в высших заведениях. 1.322 Не навязывать людям языковой барьер 1.323 Заботиться о народе, а не о себе. 1.324 Я вважаю, що українському уряду, щоб поліпшити мовну ситуацію в країні, треба поліпшити вивчення рідної мови, тобто української, але я думаю якби ввели у школах обов’язкову російську мову, це було б не погано. Ще треба щоб кожна школа села, районного центру, міста була забезпечена підручниками по вивченню української мови. А взагалі мовна ситуація в нашій країні я вважаю достатньо нормальна, але хочеться бажати ліпшого. Як я чула що в Америці хочуть позбутися письменності, адже це невід’ємна сполука розвитку насамперед інтелектуального. І в нашій країні українська мова є саме символом як духовного так і морального розвитку кожної людини!!! 1.325 На мою думку вони забагато уваги приділяють мові. Нехай вони краще турбуються про ціни на всякі товари! 1.326 Перш за все політикам потрібно запитати людей якою мовою вони хочуть говорити, лише тоді робити висновки. 1.334 Політикам потрібно навчитися розмовляти укр.мовою та поважати її! 1.338 Прислушиваться к народу и его мнению
235
Table 45. Group 2. Parents (additional responses to the open question #61) Code Response 2.1 Прежде всего, перестать политизировать этот вопрос. Дать людям самим выбирать, на каком языке общаться, при этом официальным и государственным должен быть украинский язык. А для того, чтобы люди хотели разговаривать на украинском, нужны идеологические программы на подобии идейности СССР. Нужно поднять авторитет Украины, достигать вершин в развитии страны, также популяризовывать все украинское возраждать народную культуру, чтобы гражданин Украины сам хотел изучать и говорить по украински, чтобы каждый человек страны мог с гордостью сказать – «Я Українец!» 2.11 Мне кажется, очень много шума из-за этого вопроса. Каждый должен выбирать сам себе язык общения. 2.12 В Украине не существует языковой проблемы. Что улучшать. 2.13 Перестать спекулировать этим понятием 2.14 Дать народу право выбора! 2.17 Прежде всего развивать культуру, любить историю 2.18 Повысить уровень культуры, ввести одноязычное образование перевод компьютерных программ на украинский язык. Научить президента говорить на укр. языке, чтобы он подвал остальным пример. 2.2 Я считаю, что было бы очень хорошо если иметь («по закону») не один язык (только русский или украинский). В цивилизованных странах есть один язык, по которому можно определить человека как гражданина государства. Но так же есть и язык с наречием или смешанный. Было бы вполне неплохо признать государственным языком-украинский, но не «гнобить» ни в коем случае русский (учитывая факт соседства и сотрудничества с Россией, а также что Украина есть выходцем из СССР). Вполне нормально , если в равной мере владеть и общаться двумя языками. 2.20 Затрудняюсь ответить 2.20 Затрудняюсь ответить 2.21 Я не знаю 2.22 Нужно определиться с языками.Или на русском или на украинском языках. 2.23 Затрудняюсь ответить 2.25 На мою думку, уряду потрібно спочатку навчитися говорити державною мовою, для того щоб поліпшити мовну ситуацію в країні. Я вважаю, що знання інших мов потрібне людям, адже є така приказка: «скільки мов ти знаєш-стільки разів ти людина» 2.3 Уже все сделали 2.30 Дозволити рівноцінний розвиток та існування української мови та російської мови одночасно. Український уряд повинен сам вільно та правильно розмовляти на українській мові, а не лише використовувати мовне питання в рекламних цілях під час виборчих перегонів. А саме головне – уряду необхідно вирішити економічні, соціальні, виробничі питання, а лише потім, коли всі проблеми в країні будут вирішені, займатися мовними питаннями. Потрібно працювати для розвитку держави, а не лише розмовляти про це та давати нездійсненні обіцянки. 2.31 Не делать из языкового вопроса шоу.
236
2.32 В школах ввести изучение русского языка и русской литературы (в обязательном порядке, а не факультативном). 2.33 Дозволити розмовляти громадянам нашої країни на мові, яка їм рідніша, але державну мову треба знати. 2.34 Направляти більше коштів на вирішення цього питання! 2.38 1. Для начала правительство должно само говорить и знать государственный язык 2. Не создавать лишние и ненужные конфликтные ситуации по поводу русского языка в Украине. 2.39 Языковая ситуация сейчас не главное в нашей стране, нужно решать много других проблем. 2.40 Не может народ, который говорил много лет на русском, суржике, отказаться от этого языка. И никто это не остановит. То что в крови, ну никак не убрать. Пусть политики оставят и русский и украинский. И решают более глобальные проблемы страны! 2.41 Это не так важно; надо решать более глобальные вопросы и проблемы. 2.43 Я затрудняюсь ответить. 2.45 Я затрудняюсь ответить на этот вопрос. 2.46 Українська нація повинна мати одну рідну мову – українську і кожен громадянин повинен знати свою мову і вміти спілкуватися нею. Російська мова не повинна бути головною мовою держави, але громадяни України повинні мати право на вивченння і спілкування російської мови. 2.48 Для начала, правительству выучить украинский язык. 2.50 Для начала, представителям украинского правительства необходимо самим изучать украинский язык. Финансировать выпуск периодических изданий на украинском языке. 2.51 На мою думку уряд повинен любити Україну, та дбати про Український народ, тоді й поліпшиться мовна проблема в Україні. 2.6 Повышать уровень образования
Table 46. Group 3. Teachers (additional responses to the open question #49) Code Response 3.1 Пересмотреть систему образования в области изучения украинского и русского языков регионально, согласно принятых поправок в основном вопросе о языках на областном и местном уровне. 3.2 Такой наболевший вопрос д
я страны принимается верхушкой грубо, режа «по живому», совершенно не изучив в полной мере ситуацию в каждом регионе страны. Я не слышала ни об одном опросе, исследовании, которые бы проводились в нашем регионе и помогли прояснить ситуацию на местах. Причем, отдельно по отраслям, ведь в каждой отрасли, в том числе и образовании, есть свои особенности. Так, например, я считаю, что предметы профильные, особенно формирующие рабочие навыки (токарь) или формирующие творческое мышление (дизайнер), должны быть максимально понятны учащимся не только на информационном и практическом уровне, но и, если так можно сказать, глубоко проникли в сознание, зафиксировались, усвоились. Ведь это их будущая работа, это их уровень профессионализма, это и, прежде всего, безопасность как самого будущего рабочего так и его пациентов, клиентов
237
(медсестра, шофер и т.д.) А это возможно только при условии, если информация будет поступать на родном языке. Следовательно, прежде чем принимать любые решения о языках, необходимо профессионально, скрупулезно, профильно, дифференцированно изучать вопрос. Но, не смотря, на все вышесказанное, меня, лично устраивает, что русский будет региональным в Николаевской области. Мне, русскоязычной, легче достучаться до сознания студентов, научить их думать, глубоко проводить анализ работ на русском языке. 3.3 Воспитывать повагу до державних символів та патриотизму 3.4 Больше думать о людях, а не о себе и своих родных. Развивать социальные программы. В Украине всегда было два основных языка- украинский и русский. Кроме того, на территории Украины проживает много других национальностей. Главное чтобы у людей все было хорошо в семье, на работе и проч. Их мало волнуют подобные проблемы. Да и волнуют ли?. Разве плохо когда человек знает несколько языков: укр., рус., англ.,немецкий и пр.?! На мой взгляд этой проблемы нет. Ее придумали.! 3.5 Не разжигать искусственно созданную проблему. 3.7 Соблюдать Конституцию Организовать больше тиражи словарей, справочников, энциклопедий по терминологии во всех отраслях народного хозяйства, промышленности, культуры. Активизировать издание информации в переводах со всех языков мира на украинский, особенно учебников и пособий для высшей школы, научной литературы: статей и монографий. Активно поддерживать научно- педагогических работников в издании ими написанных учебников и учебных пособий. Поощрять и стимулировать такой труд. На телеканалах больше показывать передач по истории и культуре Украины, больше концертов и музыки украинских авторов, которые исполняются украинским языком. Создание теле-радиопередач познавательного и развивающего характера украинским языком для детей. Для молодежи интересные программы, обучения и развлечения в Сети. 3.8 Вдосконалити систему освіти в країні, налагодити науково-видавничу діяльність, сприяти розвитку демократичної правової держави. Більше популяризувати науково пізнавальні програми в українських засобах масової інформації тощо. 3.10 Принять ЗУ про единый государственный язык. Приняти ЗУ щодо единої деожавної мови. Здійснювати активну пропаганду української мови серед населення. 3.11 Спочатку потрібно навести порядок в освітній галузі, а потім говорити щось про мову. 3.12 Я не знаю 3.13 Треба розвивати українську мову, дати їй волю. Навчати дітей українській мові вже з дитячого садка і далі в школі і вищих учбових закладах. Збільшити видання газет, журналів та книг українською мовою. Збільшити кількість хороших телепередач на українській мові. В концертах і по телебаченню хочеться бачити більше українських артистів, чути українські пісні.
238
А українському уряду-наполегливо вивчати українську мову, і тому хто її не знає чи не хоче знати, не повинно бути місця в уряді і керувати державою Україною. 3.14 Вважаю, що слід розвивати україномовність. На телебаченні, в прессі, в дитячих садках і школах, на радіо більше використовувати українську мову, але все ж хотілося б, щоб кінофільми (російські) все ж залишилися на російській мові. Хотілося б побільше дитячих казок на українській мові, та загалом дитячої літератури, щоб з дитинства діти навчалися говорити українською. На мою думку українському уряду аби поліпшити мовну ситуацію в країні потрібно навчитися говорити українською мовою, а не змінювати мовний закон. 3.22 Оставить государственный язык украинский но дать возможность в системе образования изучать русский язык. 3.23 Що стосується рівня освітньої програми у середньо освітніх закладах, на мою думку необхідно збільшити кількість годин вивчення української мови, проводити різноманітні заходи, які б прославляли українську культуру та мову. Доречно також поглибити вивчення іноземних мов, в тому числі й російської мови. 3.24 Я считаю, что в первую очередь, большую роль играет воспитание, которое должно в свою очередь, поддерживаться хорошим уровнем жизни. Чтобы подрастающему поколению хотелось общаться на родном языке, а не стыдиться что он есть гражданином такой страны как наша. А пример должны брать дети с правительства, с преподавателей, с телеведущих и т.д. А когда даже маленькие дети смотрят выступление премьер-министра смеются, то о чем можно говорить вообще…? 3.25 Чтобы улучшить ситуацию в стране и популяризировать укр. язык, необходимо выпускать больше книг на укр.языке и с качественным переводом, делать какие-нибудь интересные проекты, проводить конкурсы поэзии и прозы и т.п. 3.26 Повышать уровень и качество образования 3.27 Перед тим, як приймати будь-який закон, ретельно відпрацьовувати всі можливі суперечки. Враховувати як фактори регіонального так і історичного напрямку. Більше уваги приділяти вивченні мовної ситуації в регіонах. Державна мова повинна бути одна і розуміти її повинен кожен,не залежно від мови спілкування в побуті (сім*я, друзі, колеги) 3.31 Змінити президента на боксера-президента! 3.32 Не заставлять людей использовать тот или иной язык. Постоянно надо избавляться от комплекса «меншовартості» (зачем на популярные украинские передачи приглашать российских ведущих?) Люди не знают и не читают хорошую художественную литературу на укр. языке. Не надо переводить с русского на украинский язык книги написанные людьми, которые думают на русском языке - большинство населения страны прекрасно знает и понимает рус. Язык. Надо «раскручивать» украинопишущих писателей, поэтов. 3.34 1.підтримка книгодрукування українською мовою 2.Надаючи громадянство-вимагати знання української мови, ввівши державний іспит з української мови.
239
Відмінити закон щодо регіональних мов. Вимагати обов*язкового володіння української мови державними службовцями. Вимагати дотримання закону про рекламу та мову телебачення Запровадити акцію «Навчи свого сусіда розмовляти українською мовою» Збільшити кількість теле- та радіопрограм щодо популяризації української мови, дотримання культури спілкування. Збільшити кількість годин у навчальних закладах на вивчення державної мови.
3.37 Думаю, що перш за все не треба «зацікавлюватися» на одній мові. Більшість українців розмовляють російською мовою(погано це чи ні, не знаю).Мені , наприклад, простіше спілкуватися російською, цією мовою користуються більшість знайомих, родичів, друзів. Але оскільки працюю в українській школі, то звичайно і розмовляю теж українською. Уряду треба надати перевагу, де можна використовувати одну мову, а де іншу. Російська мова так само важлива , як і українська. Вираз. Думай по-українські-безглуздий! Вважаю, що якщо обидві мови будуть державними в рівній мірі, зроблять більше російських шкіл, люди зможуть обирати і тоді не буде конфліктів, і уряду буде простіше. 3.38 Провести реформу української мови, сприяти розвитку національної культури, відроджувати історію. Ростити майбутнє покоління у українському дусі. 3.39 Не натравляти Захід на Схід і навпаки!!! 3.41 1. Не вмешиваться 2. Утвердить правописание на укр. языке (ликвидировать галицкий акцент) 3.Избавиться в средствах массовой информации от жаргонных слов, местных диалектов. 4.выпустить словарь официального диалекта (Полтавский) 3.42 Українська мова повинна бути державною. Учням не важко її вчити. Уже в 9,10,11 класах всі прекрасно розмовляють українською. Якщо вони навіть розмовляють в домаш. умовах російською, то що - дві мови знати теж добре. 3.43 Вибачте, але я б не хотіла коментувати дану проблему 3.45 Я вважаю, що нашому урядові слід все ж таки більшу увагу приділяти положенню мови в країні. Безумовно, радує те, що Президент країни націлює народ на серйозне відношення до рідної мови, справа не в тому. Саме менталітет нашого народу засвічує несерйозне відношення до своєї мови, наших традицій. І винні в цьому ми, народ, а не уряд. Уряд, як раз створює все для розвитку національних традицій, мови, алне на місцях конкретно не все виконується. Із самого початку існування нашої землі, рідні нападники знущались над народом, забороняли говорити рідною мовою. От звідки це йде. І ще пройде немало часу, щоб наші люди почали розуміти значимість своєї мови. А щодо 3.46 Необходимо в сфере образования использовать в равной мере украинский и русский языки. 3.47 На мою думку зараз проживаеється втрата інтелектуальності. Дуже рано людина приймає матеріальні стереотипи і вони стають домінуючими у її житті. Тому основна частина людей не усвядомляє ні значимості, ні цінності мовленевого етикету, лексочного збагачення. Вибір мови
240
здійснюється за принципом – наслідування (молодь), національні стереотипи (старше покоління), вибір простого та (...) висловлювання тощо. В цій ситуації досіть значимим може бути всестороння неправільність вищих органів (на різниз рівнях і галузях) на чищення мови, прийняття усвідобленого вибору мови яз візитної карточки своєЇ країни. (...) уряду слід би було приймати рішення щодо державної мови як домінуючої у всьому. (…)
241
Appendix 6. Problems in education – more detailed analysis Number of respondents in parents’ group varies from 42 to 44 due to the omission of neutral responses. Parents were the only group who were given the answer option “Difficult to say” for this question – since they are the only group not directly in the classroom and this answer option seemed necessary in order to avoid forced responses (especially for those cases when the child is not be able to help with this question due to its complexity). The values corresponding to the “Difficult to say” were omitted and replaced by “-” during the process of reverse coding. This preserved the integrity of the scale and made it possible to calculate the mean value. As with the parents’ table, there are several responses missing from the teachers’ responses to this question. In contrast from the parents’ table, this was not intentional on my behalf, but due to the fact that some teachers opted out of answering certain questions. The highest number of missing responses were associated with the answer options “difficult to understand what my colleagues are saying because of the language they speak” and “pupils/students treat their peers better or worse because of the language they speak. One can argue that teachers chose not to answer this particular part of the question due to the sensitivity of the information. The complete parts of the questions were included, as it seemed more beneficial for the research to do so.
Table 47. Problems in education (pupils and students)
N Min Max Mean Std.Dev.
We have to financially help with household 300 1.00 5.00 3.7433 1.29475 expenses for school, such as repairing the classrooms etc.
We have to buy many course books with our 300 1.00 5.00 2.8433 1.16762 own money.
We talk too much about politics in our 300 1.00 5.00 2.1767 .97397 school/university
We don’t have the necessary equipment in the 300 1.00 5.00 2.1300 1.14782 classrooms, e.g. damaged blackboards, no chalk, old desks etc.
242
Our teachers don’t seem to be well 300 1.00 5.00 1.9400 1.03277 qualified/experienced
It is sometimes difficult to understand what 300 1.00 5.00 1.6833 .94836 teachers are saying because of the language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
It is sometimes difficult to understand what 300 1.00 5.00 1.6767 1.00106 other pupils/students are saying because of the language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
In our class/group some people treat their 300 1.00 5.00 1.5667 .92470 peers better or worse because of the language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
Valid N (listwise) 300
Table 48. Problems in education (parents)
N Min Max Mean Std.Dev.
We have to financially help with household 44 2.00 5.00 4.6591 .60782 expenses for school, such as repairing the classrooms etc.
We have to buy many course books with our 44 1.00 5.00 2.6364 1.18304 own money
My child's teachers don’t seem to be well 42 1.00 5.00 2.5476 .91605 qualified/experienced
Our children don’t have the necessary 44 1.00 5.00 2.4773 1.15111 equipment in the classrooms, e.g. damaged blackboards, no chalk, old desks etc.
Our children talk too much about politics in 43 1.00 4.00 1.8140 .85233 their school
243
It is sometimes difficult for my child to 44 1.00 3.00 1.6136 .78402 understand what the teachers are saying because of the language the latter speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
It is sometimes difficult for my child to 44 1.00 3.00 1.4318 .66114 understand what other pupils are saying because of the language the latter speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
In my child's class some people treat their 43 1.00 3.00 1.1860 .45018 peers better or worse because of the language the latter speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
Valid N (listwise) 40
Table 49. Problems in education (teachers)
N Min Max Mean Std.Dev.
Pupils/students have to financially help with 43 1.00 5.00 3.5581 1.46876 household expenses for school, such as repairing the classrooms etc.
Pupils/students have to buy many course 45 1.00 5.00 3.1778 1.19257 books with our own money
We don’t have the necessary equipment in 44 1.00 5.00 2.8182 1.22518 the classrooms, e.g. damaged blackboards, no chalk, old desks etc.
We talk too much about politics in our 43 1.00 5.00 2.6047 1.04971 school/university.
My colleagues don’t seem to be well 43 1.00 5.00 2.4186 1.02893 qualified/experienced.
Some pupils/students treat their peers better 42 1.00 5.00 1.5238 .91700 or worse because of the language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both) in the classes/groups where I have taught/teach
244
It is sometimes difficult to understand what 43 1.00 5.00 1.4884 .79798 pupils/students are saying because of the language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
It is sometimes difficult to understand what 41 1.00 5.00 1.3659 .79863 my colleagues are saying because of the language they speak (Russian, Ukrainian or a mixture of both)
Valid N (listwise) 40
245