Language and the Degree of Russification of Tatarstan

Home , Bashkirs, Tatar language, Tuva

TITLE : THE AMBIGUITY of NATIVE (RODNOI) LANGUAGE and th e DEGREE of RUSSIFICATION in TATARSTA N

AUTHOR: JERRY F. HOUGH . Duke University

THE NATIONAL COUNCI L FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEA N RESEARC H

TITLE VIII PROGRA M

1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W . Washington, D .C . 20036

PROJECT INFORMATION : 1

CONTRACTOR : Duke University

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Jerry F. Houg h

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 806-24

DATE : May 21 , 199 6

Individual researchers retain the copyright on work products derived from research funded b y Council Contract . The Council and the U.S. Government have the right to duplicate written reports and other materials submitted under Council Contract and to distribute such copies within th e Council and U.S. Government for their own use, and to draw upon such reports and materials for their own studies; but the Council and U.S. Government do not have the right to distribute, o r make such reports and materials available, outside the Council or U.S. Government without th e written consent of the authors, except as may be required under the provisions of the Freedom o f Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552, or other applicable law .

The work leading to this report was. supported in part by contract funds provided by the Nationa l Council for Soviet and East European Research, made available by the U . S. Department of State under Title VIII (the Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983, as amended) . The analysis an d interpretations contained in the report are those of the author(s) . THE AMBIGUITY OF NATIVE (RODNOI) LANGUAGE AN D THE DEGREE OF RUSSIFICATION IN TATARSTA N

Jerry F. Hough

Summary In the past the West had only census data to assess degrees of Russification among non - Russian nationalities . Scholars noted that the Moslem and Buddhist peoples of Russia wer e resisting assimilation very strongly, if we judge by the percentage - retaining the titular language as their rodnoi (native) language . Now, however, we can ask these questions in public opinio n polls . and a study conduced by the author and David Laitin explored language use in grea t detail in Bashkortostan, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Tatarstan, and Ukraine . In addition. four language questions were included on a 1993 election study in which 1000 respondents wer e interviewed in each of the 16 former autonomous republics . The results are striking . The category of rodnoi language turns out to have a very uneve n relationship to Russification . Large numbers of people who claim the titular language as their rodnoi turn out to have been raised in homes in which Russian was the first language, and the y now speak Russian with their mother and father . Chechenia and Tuva--and, basically Dagesta n and Kabarda--have been very slow to Russify, but this is not true of other groups . includin g Tatars and Bashkirs . 3 .3 percent of Tatars claim Russian as rodnoi language in the census . Among those Tatars in Tatarstan who claim Tatar as their rodnoi language in our survey, 15 percent spea k Russian with their parents, 31 percent with their spouse, and 34 percent with their oldest child . 4 .6 percent of Bashkirs claim Russian as rodnoi language in the census . Among those Bashkirs in Bashkortostan who claim Bashkir as their rodnoi language, 13 percent spea k Russian with their parents, 24 percent with their spouse . and 36 percent with their oldest child . The paper focuses on Tatarstan where 42 language questions were asked a sample o f nearly 1500 urban Tatars . half of them under 25 in age . The paper shows that assimilation i s strongly correlated with age, and that of Tatars 18-25 who list Tatar as their rodnoi language , 27 percent speak Tatar better than Russian . 24 percent speak them equally, and 49 spea k Russian better. 27 percent of young urban Tatars who claim Tatar as rodnoi language say they speak it with difficulty, 7 percent with great difficulty, and 2 percent not at all . Language use ranges greatly, with high percentages speaking Tatar with grandparents . and a minority to best friend . The paper first demonstrates that language use must be understood in very sophisticate d terms . Second, it suggests, as does Susan Goodrich Lehmann's work on religion using th e same data set, that we must be very, very careful in assuming that the attitudes of Moslems o f the local nationality in Chechenia are similar to those in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan . for language use, like religion, correlates with nationalism .

The Ambiguity of Natiye (Rodnoi) Language an d the Degree of Russification in Tatarsta n

The war in Chechenia is very small and remote and, as such, does not raise that much o f a threat to Russia, whatever the outcome . The real question about Chechenia is whether th e revolt within it will remain isolated . Several decades ago John Armstrong and his student . Brian Silver, emphasized that the Moslem peoples in the Soviet Union seemed to behav e differently . Silver looked at census data to show that Moslems were not assimilating to th e Russian language nearly as rapidly as non-Russians who had converted to the Orthodo x religion . From this perspective, the situation in the large Moslem republics on the Volga , Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, look particularly dangerous . As Table 1 indicates, they have 7 . 5 million people together . Like Estonia and Latvia, they have enough Russians to worry abou t being swamped, but, unlike Estonia and Latvia, they are located in the center of Russia . and Russians would think very differently about losing them than about the Baltic states o r Chechenia . Furthermore, Table 1, drawn from the 1989 census . shows the same relationshi p between language assimilation and religion that Silver discussed in the past .

Table 1--The Ethnic Composition of the Populatio n in the Autonomous Republics of the RSFSR, 1989 , By Religion of the Titular Population (In percentages ) Auton Total Percent Percent Percent Republic Population Russian Titular Titula r Populat Populat Popula t with Rus s Nat Lang . 1) Titular Nationalities Who Traditionally Accepted Russia n Orthodox y

Chuvashia 1,338,000 26 .7% 67 .8% 15 .O % Karelia 790,000 73 .6% 10 .0% 48 .3 % Komi 1,251,000 57 .7% 23 .3% 25 .6 % Mari 749,000 47 .5% 43 .3% 11 .6 % Mordovia 964,000 60 .8% 32 .5% 11 .5 % N Osetia 632,000 29 .9% 53 .O% 1 .8 % Udmurtia 1,606,000 58 .9% 30 .9% 24 .3 % Yakutia 1,094,000 50 .4% 33 .4% 4 .9 %

2) Titular Nationalities Who Traditionally Accepted Isla m

Bashkiria 3,943,000 39 .3% 21 .9% 4 .6 % Ch-Ing 1,270,000 23 .1% 70 .7% 0 .2 % Dagestan 1,802,000 9 .2% 80 .2% 0 .8 % Kab-Balk 754,000 31 .9% 57 .6% 1 .1 % Tataria 3,642,000 43 .3% 48 .5% 3 .3%

1 3) Titular Nationalities Who Traditionally Accepted Buddhis m

Buriatia 1,038,000 69 .9% 24 .0% 10 .6 % Kalmykia 323,000 37 .7% 45 .4% 3 .9 % Tuva 309,000 32 .0% 64 .3% O .9% ------Source : Natsional'nyi sostav naseleniia SSSR : Po dannykh vsevoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1989 g . (Moscow : Finansy i statistika, 1991), pp . 34-41 . ------

A huge survey conducted at the time of the 1993 election study included not only a 4000 - respondent national sample, but 1000-respondent surveys in each of 51 oblasts and forme r autonomous republics .' One was done in each of 16 former autonomous republics of Russia . When Susan Goodrich Lehmann looked at the questions on religion in this survey, she found a pronounced difference in religious belief and practice in Chechenia (and Dagestan) compare d with the other Moslem republics . The people in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan were much mor e secularized, particularly younger people in the cities . yazykThe same survey included a number of questions on language use--not only rodno i (the key question on the census), but also the language spoken with father, mother, spouse, an d first child. When this data is analyzed . it shows that the census category "rodnoi yazyk" i s extremely unreliable and clearly is used in different ways in different republics . Table 2 would, in fact, have predicted that the Chechens were the most dangerous of th e non-Russian peoples in Russia, but in a number of other cases--including Bashkortostan an d Tatarstan--the official native language (rodnoi yazyk) figures could suggest a far greate r resistance to Russification than is actually occurring . Lehmann's work on secularization amon g the Bashkirs and Tatars point in the same direction as the language data .

1The survey was funded by the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation . the Brookings Institution, and the National Science Foundation (SBR-94-02548 and SBR-94 - 12051) .

Table 2--Use of Russian by Titular Nationalit y Russian Republics, December 199 3

%Titular Popula t Percent Who Speak Russian wit h Republics whose rodno i language is Rus s Father Mother Spouse Oldest (1989 Census) Child

Chechenia 0 .2% 1% 1% 2% 2 % Dagestan 0 .8% 6% - 7% 8% 12 % Tuva 0 .9% 3% 3% 5% 8 % Kabarda 1 .1% 6% 7% 11% 10 % North Osetia 1 .8% 14% 18% 23% 28 % Tatarstan 3 .3% 15% 15% 31% 34 % Kalmykia 3 .9% 49% 52% 58% 58 % Bashkortostan 4 .6% 14% 12% 24% 36 % Yakutia 4 .9% 9% 10% 11% 14 % Buriatia 10 .6% 22% 25% 32% 41% Mordovia 11 .5% 18% 20% 46% 54 % Mary 11 .6% 22% 22% 31% 47 % Chuvashia 15 .O% 15% 14% 22% 43 % Udmurtia 24 .3% 28% 28% 41% 66 % Komi 25 .6% 32% 29% 56% 65 % Karela 48 .3% 36% 33% 57% 63%

As part of a study of language use in Bashkortostan, Estonia, Kazakhsta n, Latvia, Tatarstan . and Ukraine that I have done with David Laitin, I have explored use of the Tata r language among Tatars in larger towns and cities.2 In the urban survey, 93 percent of thos e who self-identified themselves as Tatars reported that their rodnoi language was Tatar . while 7 percent said it was Russian . Since our survey was limited to the larger cities, the figures ar e quite comparable with census data . When one examines the testimony of Tatars of differen t ages about their rodnoi language, the impression of resistance to assimilation created by th e census data is strengthened .

Table 3--Percentage of Urban Tatars wit h Tatar as their Rodnoi Language, By Ag e Over 65 98 % 56-65 93 % 46-55 97 % 36-45 92 % 26-35 90 % 18-25 90 %

2This was financed by the National Science Foundation (SBR-92-12332).

Yet, when one begins to ask deeper questions about language use . a very different picture emerges . When Tatars were directly asked the question, "What was the language o r languages that you first learned to speak?," those who listed Tatar as their rodnoi languag e gave a surprising set of answers .

Table 4--First language of Tatar s with Tatar rodnoi language Mixed Age Tatar Russ- Russ Tatar Over 65 95% 4% 2 % 56-65 88% 8% 4 % 46-55 84% 9% 6 % 36-45 82% 8% 9 % 26-35 79% 9% 12 % 18-25 66% 17% 17%

The question " how well do you know the Tatar language?" produced the sam e impression .3 Again, the following table is limited only to those who claim Tatar as thei r rodnoi language, although the second summary line at the bottom on "all Tatars" also include s those Tatars who list another rodnoi language .

Table 5--Competency in the Tatar Language Among Thos e Listing it as their Rodnoi Language Spea k Spea k Don' t Age Think Speak with with Speak in it Freely Diffic Grea t a t Diffic Al l

Over 65 74% 23% 2% 0% 2 % 56-65 52% 31% 12% 3% 2 % 46-55 57% 30% 10% 2% 1 % 36-45 43% 37% 16% 2% 2 % 26-35 46% 32% 19% 2% 1 % 18-25 29% 36% 27% 7% 2 %

All Tatars , Including Those with Other Rodnoi Languages 18-25 26% 33% 27% 9 % 5 % Over 25 47% 32% 15% 4% 2 %

3 In Russian, the question was "Naskol'ko svobodno Vy vladeete tatarskim yazykom? "

4 Obviously self-evaluation of fluency in a language can be highly subjective . One can . however, put the answers in a comparative perspective by asking a comparative question. In this case the question is obvious : "Which language do you know (vladeete) best?)," giving the options of Russian, Tatar, and Russian and Tatar equally . (Since Chuvashi in Tatarstan were i n the sample, the option of speaking the Chuvash language was included, but virtually no Tatar s selected it .)

Table 6--Language Known Best among Those Listin g Tatar as their Rodnoi Language, By ag e Tatar & Age Tatar Russian Russian Equall y Over 65 68% 21% 11 % 56-65 56% 19% 25 % 46-55 45% 24% 31 % 36-45 36% 28% 35 % 26-35 36% 28% 36 % 18-25 27% 24% 49 % All Tatars, Including Those Listing Other Rodnoi Language s 18-25 25% 22% 53 % Over 25 41% 25% 34%

In order to study assimilation and its correlates among the crucial younger group . we added a supplemental sample of those between the ages of 18 and 25 to the basic sample o f 2000 respondents . Thus the total 2936 respondents in the study include 1212 persons of thi s age, 598 of them Tatars, and Table 7 is based on the latter group . Most of the results in Table 7 are quite consistent . A higher percentage of the younge r generation report speaking Tatar with their parents than members of the older generation repor t speaking it with their oldest child . This almost surely reflects the fact that all the olde r generation live in the city and talk with urban children, while some of the younger generatio n must have parents who still live in the countryside and who have not assimilated as much t o Russian .

Table 7--Response to the question, "In which language o r languages do you usually converse with the following person s (or spoke with them in the past if they are now dead)?, Al l Tatars aged 18-25 and 40-6 0

Aged 40-60 Aged 18-2 5 Tat Mix Russ Tat Mix Rus s Tat Tat Russ Rus s

PaternalGrandmother 93% 4% 4% 74% 15% 11 % Maternal Grandmother 91% 5% 4% 72% 17% 11 % Father 79% 14% 7% 44% 31% 24 % Mother 78% 16% 7% 43% 35% 22 % Spouse 53% 27% 20% 41% 27% 32 % Oldest child when pre-school 40% 36% 24% 36% 44% 20 % Oldest child now 29% 40% 31% 31% 53% 16 % Best friend 41% 31% 28% 22% 23% 55 % Colleagues at work 14% 49% 37% 11% 32% 57 % Direct boss 15% 22% 63% 16% 15% 69 % At bazaar 14% 65% 22% 10% 38% 52 %

Language of last lette r written 47% 8% 44% 24% 5% 70 % Language of newspapers read 7% 47% 31% 4% 45% 51 % Language of televisio n watched 2% 86% 11% 2% 70% 28 % Language of literature read 5% 51% 44% 4% 32% 64% Language of instruction in oldest child's ... Tatar Russian Tatar Russia n Kindergarten 12% 88% 31% 69 % Elementary School 10% 90 % Secondary School 7% 93 % Technicum or College 6% 94 %

The one truly anomalous set of results is the unexpectedly high percentage of younger respondents who speak Tatar with their spouse and oldest child and send the latter to a Tatar - language kindergarten . This could mark a very important development as parents prepare thei r children for a bilingual republic . (In Soviet Armenia, in which even college education was in Armenian, many educated parents sent their children to Russian-language kindergartens t o make them truly bilingual and ready for Russian language instruction in school . )

However, the statistics on language use between younger respondents and their spouse s and children are likely, at least in large part . to result from the timing of the survey rathe r than a sea-change in the cohort born from 1968 to 1975 . The cohort was questioned just as i t was beginning to marry and have children . As indicated above, most of the answers in Table 7 are based on a sample of nearly 600 respondents . However, only 195 respondents answered th e question about their spouse, only 138 about their oldest child, and only 90 about th e kindergarten of their oldest child . Most of those in our sample have not married, fewer hav e children, and still fewer have children old enough to send to kindergarten . Young people with lower socioeconomic status tend to marry and have children earlier , and such young people are less likely to have assimilated to Russian and/or are more likely to have married someone of the other nationality who has not assimilated . As Table 8 indicates . those between the ages of 18 to 25 with children have a very different pattern of language us e than those without children .

Table 8--Language Use Among Tatars Aged 18 to 2 5 With and Without Childre n With Children Without Childre n Tat Mix Russ Tat Mi x Russ Tat Tat Russ Rus s

Language Spoken 71% 18% 11% 36% 35% 28 % with fathe r

Language Spoken 36% 31% 33% 17% 21 % with best frien d 62%

Language of last 42% 5% 53% 19% 5% 76 % letter written

This is not the place to try to determine whether language spoken with others or the languag e of one's spouse totally explain the lower than expected level of Russian communication betwee n younger parents and their children . The anomaly is large enough to suggest that the tendency in th e direction of single-language Russification may not well not be a permanent one . Clearly this is a subject to which the scholar needs to return in the future .