139 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) Summer, 2012
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
139 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012 Multilingual Education in South Siberia: National Schools in the Republics of Altai and Tyva Joan F. Chevalier United States Naval Academy Abstract Subtractive bilingualism is widespread throughout Siberia, with indigenous youth often more proficient in Russian than in their non-Russian local languages. Siberia’s national schools, which are secondary schools offering instruction in local languages of Russia, provide critical institutional support for minority languages. The goal of this interdisciplinary regional study is to present an overview of national schools’ development in two neighboring southern Siberian republics, Altai and Tyva, up to the present, and to evaluate the role of national schools’ local language programs in promoting language vitality. The study examines a shift in priorities and challenges in local language education since 1991, the factors contributing to the shift, particularly federally-enacted educational reforms, and what has been done in these regions to meet these challenges. I. Introduction This interdisciplinary study traces the development of language education in the republics of Altai and Tyva since the end of the Soviet period, when major efforts, many of them based in schools, were launched to revitalize local languages in the Russian Federation (RF). The paper examines the development of these school-based local heritage language programs within the broader context of language contact to ascertain how local heritage language education is faring in south Siberia since these revitalization efforts were launched. The contiguous Siberian republics of Altai and Tyva provide rich material for a comparative analysis of local language education programs. The community languages in Tyva and Altai, Tuvan and Altaian, are typologically similar Turkic languages. Although societies in this region share common cultural roots, language contact in each area has evolved in distinct ways. Ethnic Tuvans have always comprised the majority of the population of Tyva, whereas Russians have made up over 50% of the population of Altai since the 1920s. The analysis below will show that while local language education in each republic has been influenced by that republic’s distinct set of demographic characteristics, both republics are similarly affected by recent federally enacted education reforms. This study is based on qualitative data collected in field studies conducted in the republics of Tyva and Altai in 2009 and 2010, funded in part by a National Endowment of Humanities Grant. The research for this project was conducted in two stages. First, secondary and primary literature on the establishment and history of local language education in Altai and Tyva was reviewed in order to locate current local language education issues within a historical context. Second, face- to-face interviews were conducted with local language teachers and school administrators from Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access 140 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012 rural and urban school districts. The interviews were designed to elicit teachers’ views about the status of local language education in their schools and school districts. Parts III through V below summarize the history of local language education in Altai and Tyva up through the 1990s. Part VI presents an overview of federal and local policies affecting local language school-based programs. II. Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Language Contact The notion of ethnolinguistic vitality was introduced by Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor in 1977 to account for the key factors that influence the outcomes of language contact (Harwood, Giles, & Bourhis, 1994; Giles et al., 1977). Giles et al. identified three main factors that influence the degree of linguistic assimilation in a region: 1) demographic factors, especially the size and distribution of local language communities, 2) the status of languages in relation to one another, and 3) institutional support for local languages. Language status, defined by Giles et al. as the relative prestige of a language, is affected by language attitudes. As Karan (2000) points out, language status is influenced by popular perceptions of the language’s utility. If knowledge of a particular language is generally viewed as critical for socio-economic advancement, it is more likely to enjoy high levels of intergenerational transmission. Institutional support for local languages is also a critical factor in language vitality. While the use of and support for local languages in mass media, government, and business all affect the outcome of language contact, local education arguably has a more direct effect on the future of local language vitality since it enables younger generations of local language speakers to develop biliteracy while maintaining local language skills. This paper focuses primarily on the development of local language programs in South Siberian schools, but it also seeks to place school-based revitalization efforts within the context of language contact region-wide. From the late 1980s to 1990s there was widespread support for local language education in Tyva and Altai in spite of substantial differences in demographic conditions and levels of linguistic assimilation in each republic. Since the 1990s support for local language education in Altai and Tyva has waned. The groundswell of public support for school-based language revitalization efforts has been replaced by a focus on Russian language programs. This shift has been precipitated to a large degree by federal education reforms, which are reshaping educational priorities throughout Russia. III. Heritage Language Learners in South Siberia: An Introduction This study adopts the definition of heritage speakers presented by Polinsky and Kagan: heritage speakers are “raised in a home where one language is spoken who subsequently switch to another dominant language” (2007, p. 368). As we shall see below, the term heritage speaker in the south Siberian region is most applicable to the language contact situation in the Republic of Altai, where linguistic assimilation to Russian is observed in a significant portion of the local Altaian population. The school-based language revitalization programs adopted in Altai were developed in response to ongoing language shift from bilingualism in Altaian and Russian to Russian monolingualism among younger generations of Altaians. Only 77.5% of Altaians identified Altaian as their native language in the 2002 Census (Federal’naia sluzhba gosudarstvennoi statistiki, 2004).1 Levels of linguistic assimilation from Tuvan to Russian are much lower in Tyva since Russians migrated to Tyva in comparatively modest numbers, and Tuvans have always comprised the majority of the population (see Table 1 below). The Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access 141 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012 demographic situation in Tyva continues to support the vitality of the Tuvan spoken language; moreover, there has been a concerted effort since the end of the Soviet period to support Tuvan language literacy by reforming and strengthening Tuvan language education. Local education programs in the Russian Federation, and earlier in the Soviet Union, have taught the local language in one of two ways: 1) as the language of instruction, in what were until recently referred to as “national schools,”2 or 2) as a subject of study. In both types of programs Russian language and literature are studied as subjects as established in the federal curriculum. In schools where local language courses are offered a few hours a week, Russian is used as the language of instruction across the curriculum. In each republic, the current priorities of local language education reform have been shaped by the legacy of the Soviet system of education. Tyva was one of the few regions that maintained national schools offering instruction in Tuvan across the curriculum throughout the Soviet period. Since the 1980s 80% of secondary schools in Tyva have used Tuvan as the primary language of instruction. In contrast, by the 1980s Altaian national schools had shifted entirely to a curriculum taught in Russian. It must be noted that heritage language instruction in Kazakh is available in a few schools in Altai. A number of schools in Kosh-Agach, the southern region of Altai bordering on Kazakhstan, enroll a significant number of ethnic Kazakhs, but there are no schools in Altai with a curriculum taught entirely in Kazakh. Mongolian is not offered in schools in the Erzin region of Tyva near the Mongolian border, even though trilingualism in Russian, Mongolian, and Tuva is prevalent in that region. Due to the limited scope of these language programs, they are not discussed below. IV. Altai and Tyva: An Introduction Ethnic Altaians and Tuvans were traditionally indigenous Samoyedic and Kettic speaking pastoral nomads who took on the language of their Turkic occupiers beginning in the fifth century as the Altai-Sayan region became part of the Turkic Khanate (Naumov, 2006, p. 37-43). In the 12-13th century, Mongols conquered the Yenisei basin, the territory of today’s Republic of Tyva, introducing Lamaist (Tibetan) Buddhism to the region (Mongush, 2001, p. 24). By the end of the 18th century, the first Buddhist monasteries were built in Tyva, and Buddhist monks introduced the first system of formal education.