JoLIE 2:1 (2009)

DIMINISHING INTERGROUP DISCORDANCE THROUGH CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION COURSES

Anastassia Zabrodskaja Tallinn University, Estonia

Abstract

Multilingual and multicultural societies are very often conflict-driven, and can be characterized by ethnolinguistic and cultural differentiations, social inequality etc. Discordance factor (D-factor) indicates dissonance, a lack of confidence, perceived inequity and animosity between two ethnic groups living together on one territory. The D-factor consists of four components: 1) the extent of legitimacy of the interethnic situation, 2) the extent of mutual lack of confidence, 3) the extent of mutual cooperativeness and 4) the extent of outgroup dehumanization. To measure these indicators, a questionnaire comprising 17 claims was created. In this paper I will discuss the findings of a pilot study carried out among Estonian and Russian-speaking students of Tallinn University. The purpose of the pilot study was to test whether statements adequately measure the factors that play a role in intergroup discordance such as legitimacy, confidence, cooperativeness and dehumanization. I will discuss how the D-factor is related to cross-cultural communication and how it could be reduced via majority and minority educational processes. I will argue that: 1) an understanding of multilingualism and multiculturalism ought to be developed that addresses the collective and individual needs of majority and minority students; 2) special courses in psychology and ethnosociology should be arranged to help majority and minority students to understand linguistic and cultural diversity.1

Key words: Majority; Minority; Discordance; Education; Estonians, Russian-speakers.

Editors’ note: This article is an improved version of the author’s contribution to the Proceedings of the Exploratory Workshop Linguistic and Intercultural Education in the Process of Europeanisation of Higher Education CLIE-2009, Popescu, T & Pioariu R (Eds.). Aeternitas: Alba-Iulia, pp. 148-166 (with permission).

1 The research leading to these results has received funding from the Estonian Science Fund under grant agreement no ETF 7350. I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Martin Ehala (University of Tartu, Estonia) for his lengthy comments and helpful suggestions.

198 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA

References

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach, Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.

Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. 2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Buehl, D. (2008). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. 3rd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Danca, A. (2006). SWOT Analysis. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/swot.htm

Ehala, M. (2008). The birth of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia. Eurozine. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-09-11-ehala- en.html. (Original in Estonian: Venekeelse põlisvähemuse sünd, Vikerkaar, 4-5, 93-104)

Ehala, M. (2009a). The Bronze Soldier: Identity threat and maintenance in Estonia, Journal of Baltic Studies, 40(1), 139-158. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~ehalam/pdf/Bronze%20Soldier%20published.pdf.

Ehala, M. (2009b). Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education. In T. Popescu, & R. Pioariu, Proceedings of the Exploratory Workshop “Linguistic and Intercultural Education in the Process of Europeanisation of Higher Education”, CLIE-2009 (pp.136-147). Alba Iulia: Aeternitas.

Fein, L. (2005). Symbolic boundaries and national borders: the construction of an Estonian Russian identity. Nationalities Papers, 33(3), 333-344.

Gayen, A.K. (1951). The frequency distribution of the product moment correlation coefficient in random samples of any size draw from non-normal universes. Biometrika, 38, 219-247.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264.

Hofstede, G. (1988). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Abridged Edition. Cross-Cultural research and methodology series 5. Beverly Hills / London / New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hogan-Brun, G. (Guest Ed.) (2005). Baltic sociolinguistic review (special issue). Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3).

Integration in Estonian Society 2000–2007, Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.rahvastikuminister.ee/public/state_programme.pdf

Integration of Estonian Society: Monitoring 2005, Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.meis.ee/eng/raamatukogu/?view=view&ID=95

Diminishing Intergroup Discordance... 199

Kolstø, P. (1999). Territorializing diasporas: The case of the Russians in the former Soviet republics. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 28 (3), 607-631.

Laitin, D. (1996). Language planning in the former Soviet Union: the case of Estonia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 118, 43-61.

Laitin, D. (1998). Identity in formation: The Russian speaking populations in the near abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Laitin, D. (2003). Three Models of Integration and the Estonian/Russian Reality. Journal of Baltic Studies, 34(2), 197-223.

Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.

Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2000). Intercultural communication in contexts. Mayfield, California: Mountain View.

Ozolins, U. (2003). The impact of European accession on language policy in the Baltic States. Language Policy, 2(3), 217-238.

Pavlenko, A. (2006). Russian as ‘lingua franca’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 78-99.

Pavlenko, A. (2008). Multilingualism in post-soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(5), 275-314.

Rannut, M. (1994). Beyond linguistic policy: the Soviet Union versus Estonia. In R. Phillipson, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Rannut (Eds.), Linguistic human rights (pp.179-208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rannut, M. (2004). Language policy in Estonia. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolinguistica. Spring-Summer 2004. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm04primavera-estiu/docs/rannut.pdf.

Rannut, M. (2008). Estonianization efforts post-independence, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3&4), 423-439.

Romanov, A. (2000). The Russian diaspora in Latvia and Estonia: Predicting language outcomes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(1), 58-71.

Smith, D. (1998). Russia, Estonia and the search for a stable ethno-politics. Journal of Baltic Studies, 29(1), 3-18.

Statistical Office of Estonia [Eesti Statistikaamet], Retrieved November 9, 2009, from www.stat.ee.

Strategy for the integration of Estonian society 2008–2013, Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.rahvastikuminister.ee/public/INTEGRATION_STRATEGY_ENGLISH_VERSION.pdf.

200 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA

Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 364-373.

Vihalemm, T., & Masso, A. (2002). Patterns of self-identification among the younger generation of Estonian Russians. In M. Lauristin, & M. Heidmets (Eds.), The challenge of the Russian minority. Emerging multicultural democracy in Estonia (pp.185-198). Tartu: Tartu University Press.

Zabrodskaja, A. (2009). Language testing in the context of citizenship and asylum: The case of Estonia. Language Assessment Quarterly [Special issue “Language Assessment for Immigration, Citizenship, and Asylum”, Elana Shohamy and Tim McNamara (Guest Eds.)] 6(1), 61-70.

Zelditch, M. (2001). Process of legitimation: Recent developments and new directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(1), 4-17.

Diminishing Intergroup Discordance... 201

Appendix

Table 8. Questionnaires for Estonian and Russian-speaking students

№ 17 claims for Estonian-speakers 17 claims for Russian-speakers Suggested answers: totally agree (= 1); agree (= 2); rather agree (= 3); rather disagree (= 4); disagree (= 5); totally disagree (= 6).

I Statements that should find out the extent of legitimacy of interethnic situation 1 Vene keel peaks olema Eestis teine Русскому языку следовало бы быть в riigikeel. Эстонии вторым государственным языком. ‘Russian should be the second official language in Estonia’ 2 Eesti riigi eesmärk on tagada eesti Целью Эстонского государства rahvuse, keele ja kultuuri säilimine является обеспечить сохранность läbi aegade. эстонской нации, языка и культуры на века. ‘The aim of the Estonian Republic is to assure the maintenance of the Estonian nationality, language and culture for the future’ 3 Kõik Eesti kodanikud, rahvusest Всем гражданам Эстонии, olenemata, peaksid oskama eesti keelt. независимо от национальности, следовало бы знать эстонский язык. ‘Irrespective of ethnic affiliation, all Estonian citizens should know the Estonian language’ 4 Eesti riik ei pea tagama vene Эстонское государство не должно kogukonna keele ja kultuuri säilimist гарантировать сохранение в Eestis. Эстонии языка и культуры русской общины. ‘The Estonian Republic does not have to assure the maintenance of the Russian community’s language and culture in Estonia’ 5 Eesti kodakondsuse saamiseks ei Для получения эстонского peaks nõudma eesti keele oskust. гражданства не следовало бы требовать знание эстонского языка. ‘For the attainment of Estonian citizenship, Estonian language knowledge should not be demanded’ 6 Venekeelse kogukonna olukord Eestis Положение русскоговорящей vastab rahvusvahelistele normidele. общины в Эстонии отвечает международным нормам. ‘The situation of the Russian community in Estonia corresponds to international norms’ 7 Eesti riik järgib venekeelse В отношении к русскоязычному kogukonna suhtes Euroopa населению Эстонское государство demokraatlikke printsiipe. следует Европейским демократическим приципам. ‘Concerning the Russian community, the Estonian Republic follows European democratic principles’

202 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA

8 Eesti ja vene kogukonnal peaksid У эстонской и русской общины Eestis olema võrdsed õigused. Эстонии должны были бы быть одинаковые права. ‘Estonian and Russian communities should have equal rights in Estonia’ II Statements that should find out the extent of mutual lack of confidence 9 a. Eesti venekeelsed on kaasinimeste b. Эстонцы отзывчивы по suhtes abivalmid. отношению к единоземельцам. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers are helpful as ‘Estonians are helpful as cultural go- cultural go-betweens’ betweens’ 10 a. Eesti venekeelsed on b. Эстонцы надёжны. usaldusväärsed. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers are reliable’ ‘Estonians are reliable’ 11 a. Eesti venekeelsed suhtuvad b. Эстонцы относятся к eestlastesse hästi. русскоговорящим жителям Эстонии хорошо. ‘Estonians are regarded well by Estonian ‘Estonian Russian-speakers are Russian-speakers’ regarded well by Estonians’ III Statements that should find out the extent of mutual cooperativeness 12 a. Eesti venekeelsed soovivad teha b. Эстонцы хотят сотрудничать с koostööd eestlastega. русскоговорящими жителями Эстонии. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers wish to ‘Estonians wish to cooperate with cooperate with Estonians’ Russian-speaking dwellers of Estonia’ 13 a. Eesti venekeelsed mõistavad b. Эстонцы понимают eestlaste rahvuslikke püüdlusi. национальные стремления русскоязычных. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers understand the ‘Estonians understand the ethnocultural ethnocultural aspirations of Estonians’ aspirations of the Russian community’ IV Statements that should find out the extent of outgroup’s dehumanization 14 a. Eesti venekeelsed ei ole võimelised b. Эстонцы не способны на üllasteks tegudeks. благородные поступки. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers are not capable ‘Estonians are not capable of greatness of greatness in their actions’ in their actions’ 15 a. Eesti venekeelseid ei saa pidada b. Эстонцев нельзя считать tsiviliseeritud inimesteks. цивилизованными людьми. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers cannot be ‘Estonians cannot be described as described as civilized people’ civilized people’ 16 a. Eesti venekeelsed käituvad kõige b. Эстонцы действуют под madalamate instinktide mõjul. влиянием самых низменных инстинктов. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers behave under ‘Estonians behave under the influence the influence of their lowest instincts’ of their lowest instincts’ 17 a. Eesti venekeelsed on agressiivsed. b. Эстонцы агрессивны. ‘Estonian Russian-speakers are aggressive’ ‘Estonians are aggressive’

Soovin kommenteerida Хочу прокомментировать ‘I would like to comment’