Multilingualism Baltic States

Home , Artur Adson, Constitution of Estonia, Council of Lithuania, Druskininkai, Latvian literature, Paneriai

Edited by Sanita Lazdiņa and Heiko F. Marten Multilingualism in the Baltic States Societal Discourses and Contact Phenomena Multilingualism in the Baltic States Sanita Lazdiņa · Heiko F. Marten Editors Multilingualism in the Baltic States Societal Discourses and Contact Phenomena Editors Sanita Lazdiņa Heiko F. Marten Faculty of Education, Languages DAAD Information Centre Riga and Design Riga, Latvia Rēzekne Academy of Technologies Rēzekne, Latvia and

REGI, Rēzekne Academy of Technologies Rēzekne, Latvia

ISBN 978-1-137-56913-4 ISBN 978-1-137-56914-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018948653

© Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2019 Te author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identifed as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Tis work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Te use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Te publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Te publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afliations.

Cover image: © Ion Andrei Barbu/Panther Media GmbH/Alamy Stock Photo

Tis Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Limited Te registered company address is: Te Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom Acknowledgements

Tis book would not have been published without the support of many individuals for whom multilingualism, diversity and tolerance mean so much that they have found it worthwhile to support this work. We are extremely thankful to Gabrielle Hogan-Brun for the idea of creating this book, for her continuous interest in putting the issue of languages in the Baltic states on to the agenda of an international audience, and for providing us with trust and confdence throughout the work on this book. We are extremely grateful to all the contributors to this book for accepting and supporting the idea underlying this book and ultimately allowing it to develop and be published. More generally, we also want to thank them for keeping discussions on languages in the Baltic states to the fore, for creating an inspiring academic environment in times when economic pressure and the consolidation of institutions of higher education far too often does not allow authors to think about reading and discussing intellectual topics, let alone writing articles. In particular, we want to thank all of you for your patience throughout the production process.

v vi Acknowledgements

Tanks also go to the reviewers of the chapters: Astrid Adler, Nathan Albury, Aleksej Andronov, Mikaela Björklund, Ojārs Bušs (†), Hartmut Haberland, Gabriele Iannàccaro, Birute Klaas-Lang, Petteri Laihonen, Cecilio Lapresta-Rey, Dace Markus, Máiréad Moriarty, Sebastian Muth, Nicole Nau, Tamah Sherman, Pēteris Vanags and Luk Van Mensel. We have worked with many of you for many years and have had the pleasure to get to know ‘new’ colleagues during the work on this book. Many of you are no longer ‘just’ colleagues, but have become dear friends and academic partners. A big thank-you to all of you for the lasting cooperation which makes academic life so worth living. Most of all, however, we would like to thank our families for their support, their inspiration and patience through all the stages of the production of this book, their understanding of evenings and weekends spent at the computer rather than enjoying family life and for tolerating our changing moods that academic work can bring about. Baiba, Paula and Mikus—thank you for allowing us to practise, observe and refect on various models of multilingualism with you and for all the fun we have had and the love we have for you. Contents

Multilingualism, Language Contact and Majority–Minority Relations in Contemporary Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 1 Sanita Lazdiņa and Heiko F. Marten

Part I Introduction

Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal Linguistic Change: Te Particularity of the Baltic Case 29 Uldis Ozolins

Part II Regional Varieties and Minority Languages

Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization 59 Sanita Lazdiņa

vii viii Contents

Contested Counting? What the Census and Schools Reveal About Võro in Southeastern Estonia 89 Kara D. Brown and Kadri Koreinik

Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes 123 Meilutė Ramonienė

Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian in Poland 153 Justyna B. Walkowiak and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz

Part III Te Integration of the Russian Language and Its Speakers into Baltic Societies

Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 205 Ineta Dabašinskienė and Eglė Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian-Speaking Estonians 239 Triin Vihalemm and Marianne Leppik

How Do Views of Languages Difer Between Majority and Minority? Language Regards Among Students with Latvian, Estonian and Russian as L1 269 Heiko F. Marten

Part IV English and Other Languages in the Globalized Societies of the Baltic States

Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs: Structure, Norms and Meaning 307 Anna Verschik and Helin Kask Contents ix

Russian and English as Socially Meaningful Resources for Mixed Speech Styles of Lithuanians 337 Loreta Vaicekauskienė and Inga Vyšniauskienė

Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States 369 Solvita Pošeiko

Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia: Language Practices and Attitudes 407 Kerttu Kibbermann

Te Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space 443 Josep Soler

Part V Conclusion

National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 481 Christian Giordano

Index 503 Notes on Contributors

Kara D. Brown (University of South Carolina, USA) is an Associate Professor of Educational Studies at the University of South Carolina. She conducts research primarily on language policy and the expansion of language-learning opportunities within public schools. She is currently involved in a Spencer Foundation-funded project exploring choice and support for dual-language immersion (Estonian–Russian) kindergartens across Estonia. Past research has concentrated on the role played by schools in language revitalization from focusing on teachers in basic schools to the development of language nests at the preprimary level. She recently co-edited and contributed to Language Policy Beyond the State (2017). Ineta Dabašinskienė (Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania) is a Professor at the Department of Lithuanian Language, Vytautas Magnus University. She is also Head of the Research Centre for Intercultural Communication and Multilingualism. Christian Giordano (University of Fribourg, Switzerland) is Emeritus Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Fribourg. He is Doctor Honoris Causa at the University of Timisoara and Ilya

xi xii Notes on Contributors

University of Tbilisi; Permanent Guest Professor at the Universities of Bucharest, Murcia, Bydgoszcz, Kaunas; and Honorary Guest Professor at the Universiti Sains Malaysia at Penang, School of Social Sciences. His research interests span political and economic anthropology, Southeast Europe, Mediterranean societies and Southeast Asia. Among Professor Giordano’s vast body of peer-reviewed publications are Die Betrogenen der Geschichte. Überlagerungsmentalität und Überlagerungsrationalität in mediterranen Gesellschaften (1992) and Power, Legitimacy, Historical Legacies: A Disenchanted Political Anthropology (2014). Helin Kask (Tallinn University, Estonia) is a Doctoral Student of Linguistics at Tallinn University. Her research interests are contact linguistics and multilingualism. Her thesis focuses on English–Estonian language contacts in written texts and oral speech. She investigates ongoing contact-induced language change in Estonian under the impact of English. Kerttu Kibbermann (University of Latvia and Latvian Language Agency, Riga, Latvia) is a Ph.D. student at the University of Latvia and a Researcher at the Latvian Language Agency. She is particularly interested in language policy in higher education. She holds an M.A. in English Studies from the University of Helsinki. Currently she is carrying out a Ph.D. project in which she is investigating the interplay of languages in tertiary education comparatively in Estonia and Latvia. Kadri Koreinik (University of Tartu, Estonia) holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Tartu, and is currently a Senior Researcher at its Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics. She is involved in the research project Estonian Language Ecology. Her previous research includes analyses of language maintenance and media discourse within the interdisciplinary research project European Language Diversity for All funded by the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme. She has published a number of articles on maintenance of the South Estonian semi-standardized variety of Võro. She is an author and co-editor of Language Policy Beyond the State (Springer, 2017). Notes on Contributors xiii

Eglė Krivickaitė-Leišienė (Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania) is a Researcher at the Centre for Intercultural Communication and Multilingualism, Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas. Sanita Lazdiņa (Rēzekne Academy of Technologies and National Centre for Education, Riga, Latvia) is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Rēzekne Academy of Technologies. Among her felds of research are language and educational policy, multilingualism in the Baltic states, regional and minority languages, the economic value of less used languages and folk linguistics. Her articles have been published in Sociolinguistica, Current Issues in Language Planning, Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe and others. Since 2016 she has also been a Senior Expert in the ESF project A Competence-based Approach to Learning Processes conducted by the National Centre for Education in Latvia. Marianne Leppik (University of Tartu and Ministry of Education and Science, Estonia) is a Ph.D. student in the Institute of Social Studies, University of Tartu. Her research investigates adaptation of the immigrant population in the host country and the role of mediated transnationalism in this process. She works in the Ministry of Education and Science as a Senior Analyst. Heiko F. Marten (DAAD Information Centre Riga and Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Latvia) is Director of the German Academic Exchange Service’s ofce for the Baltic states and a Senior Researcher and Lecturer in Riga and Rēzekne. He holds a Ph.D. from FU Berlin and conducts research on language policies, linguistic landscapes, discourses on multilingualism, minorities and education, and societal roles of German. Between 2009 and 2015 he worked at Tallinn University, Estonia. His publications include Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (2012, with Durk Gorter and Luk Van Mensel), Cultural and Linguistic Minorities in the Russian Federation and the European Union (2015, with Michael Rießler, Janne Saarikivi and Reetta Toivanen) and Sprach(en)politik. Eine Einführung (2016). Uldis Ozolins (University of Western Sydney, Australia) is Associate Professor at the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at xiv Notes on Contributors

University of Western Sydney. He has published widely on language policy, the politics of language and interpreting and translation. His language policy work covers specifc national issues (Australia, the Baltic states) and broader theoretical concerns (ideology in language policy, economics of language). He is Director of the Academic Programme for Languages at the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at the University of Western Sydney, and has been a long-time ofce holder in the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies. Solvita Pošeiko (University of Latvia, Riga and Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Latvia) is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Latvia and a Lecturer at Rēzekne Academy of Technologies. Her research interests focus on the comprehensive study of cityscapes (linguistic, semiotic and cultural landscapes), and on interactive possibilities to teach languages and sociolinguistic issues, using cityscape texts. In the postdoctoral project Public Texts in the City as a Multifaceted Resource in the Baltic States: Linguists’, Entrepreneurs’ and Students’ Perspectives, she works on interdisciplinary linguistic landscape theo ries, methodologies and language situations in the Baltic states, educational aids regarding language issues and recommendations for the naming of establishments. Meilutė Ramonienė (Vilnius University, Lithuania) is a Professor at Vilnius University. Her research interests and teaching include Applied Linguistics, Sociolinguistics and Onomastics. She is the author of several textbooks and teacher reference books on teaching Lithuanian as a second language. Her publications also include papers on language use and language attitudes, language and identity, bilingualism and multilingualism in Lithuania and the Lithuanian diaspora. Josep Soler (Stockholm University, Sweden) has degrees in English Studies and General Linguistics from the University of Barcelona, where he also obtained his Ph.D. in Linguistics and Communication. His main research interests cover the areas of language policy and linguistic ideologies; he has recently focused on the role of English in the internationalization of higher education, and on the study of practices and ideologies in multilingual families. His research has appeared in Language Notes on Contributors xv in Society, Current Issues in Language Planning, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism and Multilingua. Loreta Vaicekauskienė (Vilnius University, Lithuania) is Associate Professor at the Centre for Scandinavian Studies at Vilnius University, Head of the Department of Sociolinguistics at the Research Institute of the Lithuanian Language and a Board Member of the Association for Applied Linguistics of Lithuania. Research interests include language planning and standardization, language ideologies, social meanings of language variation, language contacts and global English. She is the author of a book on new borrowings in Lithuanian Naujieji lietu- vių kalbos svetimžodžiai: kalbos politika ir vartosena (2007) and editor of two volumes on language ideologies and change (Lietuvių kalbos ide- ologija: norminimo idėjų ir galios istorija, 2016 with Nerijus Šepetys, and Lietuvių kalbos idealai: kaip keitėsi geriausios kalbos idėja). Anna Verschik (Tallinn University, Estonia) is a Professor of General Linguistics at Tallinn University, Estonia. Her feld is Contact Linguistics and Multilingualism with a special focus on the Baltic region. Topics of her research include Estonian–Russian bilingualism, Yiddish in the Baltic region, Lithuanian–Yiddish bilingualism and English–Estonian language contacts. She wrote the monograph Emerging Bilingualism: From Monolingualism to Code-Copying (2008) which deals with the Estonian impact on Russian in Estonia. Her articles have been published in International Journal of Bilingualism, Applied Linguistics Review, Journal of Language Contact and International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Triin Vihalemm (University of Tartu, Estonia) is Professor of Communication Research at the University of Tartu. Her research profle is the sociology of communication with a focus on the role of communication in processes of social change. A signifcant part of her scientifc articles and book chapters deal with acculturation of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia after the collapse of the Soviet Union: changes in their language and media practices and identity. She has been Visiting Research Fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. She xvi Notes on Contributors holds trustee positions as a member of the Council of the Estonian Sociologists’ Association and the Transformations Sociology Network in the European Sociological Association. Inga Vyšniauskienė (Vilnius University, Lithuania) is a Lecturer at the Department of English Philology at Vilnius University. Her research interests include youth language and youth identities, social meanings of mixed speech, language attitudes and corpus linguistics. She has designed and compiled the frst corpus of Vilnius adolescents’ spontaneous speech (50 hours). She is currently writing a Ph.D. thesis on the social meanings of Vilnius adolescents’ mixed speech (Corpus analysis of Vilnius adolescents’ mixed speech: social meanings of Russian and English elements). Justyna B. Walkowiak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland) is an Assistant Professor specializings in Onomastics, including Socio-onomastics, and the interface of Anthroponomastics and language policy. Her recent publications include Personal Names and Language Policy: Who Plans What Names for Whom and How? Names and Naming: People, Places, Perceptions and Power (2016), Lithuanisation of Personal Names of the Polish Minority in Lithuania: Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Onomastic Sciences (2016) and Personal Name Policy: From Teory to Practice (2016). Tomasz Wicherkiewicz (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland) is a Professor of Linguistics. He specializes in the sociolinguistics of minor languages, language policies, language planning, endangered languages and their documentation and revitalization, and the sociolinguistics of writing systems. His recent publications include Integral Strategies for Language Revitalization (2016, with Justyna Olko and Robert Borges), Regionalne języki kolateralne Europy—porównawcze studia przypadku z polityki językowej (2014), Te Kashubs: Past and Present (2012, with Cezary Obracht-Prondzyński) and the web portal Poland’s Linguistic Heritage—Documentation Database for Endangered Languages (www.inne-jezyki.amu.edu.pl). List of Figures

Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization Fig. 1 School name in Baltinava in Latgalian and Latvian in 2016 67 Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes Fig. 1 Ethnographic regions of Lithuania (Source Lietuvos Etnografniai Regionai 2003) 127 Fig. 2 Frequency of dialect use by town-dwellers who can speak a dialect 131 Fig. 3 Dialect declared the most beautiful 139 Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children Fig. 1 Story length in words in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual 215 Fig. 2 Story length in communication units in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); CU, communication unit; MO, monolingual 217

xvii xviii List of Figures

Fig. 3 Te noun Lemma/Token ratio in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual 218 Fig. 4 Te mean length of communication units (in words) in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual 219 Fig. 5 Total number of errors in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual 221 Fig. 6 Total number of instances of code switching in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual 223 Fig. 7 Te mean length of communication units (in words) in the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian) 225 Fig. 8 Total number of errors in the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian) 227 Fig. 9 Total number of code-switching cases in the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian) 228 Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian-Speaking Estonians Fig. 1 Self-estimated knowledge of Estonian and self-reported ability to follow Estonian-language media content among Russian-speakers in Estonia in 2011 (Source Integration Monitoring 2011; n 802) 248 = How Do Views of Languages Difer Between Majority and Minority? Language Regards Among Students with Latvian, Estonian and Russian as L1 Fig. 1 Usefulness of languages for professional life (Estonia) 282 Fig. 2 Usefulness of languages during leisure time (Estonia) 283 Fig. 3 Perceived beauty of languages (Estonia) 283 Fig. 4 Closeness of languages to respondents’ hearts (Estonia) 284 Fig. 5 Perceived difculty of languages (Estonia) 284 Fig. 6 Perceived infuence of countries on global afairs (Estonia) 286 Fig. 7 Perceived cultural infuence by languages (Estonia) 286 Fig. 8 Usefulness of languages for professional life (Latvia) 287 Fig. 9 Usefulness of languages during leisure time (Latvia) 288 List of Figures xix

Fig. 10 Perceived beauty of languages (Latvia) 289 Fig. 11 Closeness of languages to respondents’ hearts (Latvia) 290 Fig. 12 Perceived difculty of languages (Latvia) 290 Fig. 13 Perceived infuence of countries on global afairs (Latvia) 291 Fig. 14 Perceived cultural infuence by languages (Latvia) 291 Fig. 15 Views on education and life without languages (Estonia) 294 Fig. 16 Views on education and life without languages (Latvia) 294 Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States Fig. 1 Hair salon sign in Narva 387 Fig. 2 Name sign of a nightclub in Daugavpils 395 Fig. 3 Multilingual advertisement and information outside a restaurant in Riga 396 Te Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space Fig. 1 Bilingual Estonian–English signs at UT’s historical campus 461 Fig. 2 Multilingual signs at VU’s historical campus 461 Fig. 3 Bilingual Estonian–Russian signs at UT 462 Fig. 4 Monolingual signs in the state language at UT, UL and VU 462 Fig. 5 Monolingual signs in English at UT 463 Fig. 6 Multilingual signs at UL 464 Fig. 7 Erasmus mobility in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: incoming students 2000–2014 (Source Erasmus Statistics—European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/ education/tools/statistics_en.htm) 467 Fig. 8 Erasmus mobility in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: incoming staf 2000–2014 (Source Erasmus Statistics— European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/ tools/statistics_en.htm) 467 List of Tables

Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal Linguistic Change: Te Particularity of the Baltic Case Table 1 Changing profciency in Latvian of persons whose mother tongue is not Latvian (BISS 2008: 22) 40 Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization Table 1 Respondents (age and gender distribution) 68 Table 2 Language use during the interviews correlated with age and gender 69 Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes Table 1 Percentage of inhabitants by ethnographic regions and cities of Lithuania who do not recognize dialects 130 Table 2 City-dweller/town-dweller self-reported profciency in a dialect by age group 130 Table 3 Self-reported profciency in a dialect in diferent ethnographic regions and cities 130 Table 4 Use of dialect (by gender) among those respondents who claim that they are able to speak a dialect 132

xxi xxii List of Tables

Table 5 Frequency of dialect use in ethnographic regions and largest cities among those respondents who claim to be able to speak a dialect 133 Table 6 Dialect use with diferent interlocutors and in diferent spheres in ethnographic regions among those who speak a dialect 135 Table 7 Dialect use when thinking and counting in diferent ethnographic regions (percentage of respondents who claim to speak a dialect) 137 Table 8 Dialect declared as most beautiful in diferent ethnographic regions 138 Table 9 Attitudes on dialect suitability in certain domains 140 Table 10 Evaluation of dialect from a rural/urban aspect through the statement ‘Dialect use is more suitable to rural and not urban speakers’ 142 Table 11 Opinions of respondents towards encouraging dialect use among the young. Evaluation of the statement ‘Children and young people should be encouraged to speak the dialect’ 143 Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian in Poland Table 1 Educational levels of ethnic groups in Lithuania (http://statistics.bookdesign.lt/table_062.htm?lang en); = the data refer to persons ages 10 and older 163 Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian-Speaking Estonians Table 1 Te number of people who speak Estonian as their second, third, etc. language in Estonia in 2000 and 2011 within diferent sociodemographic groups of Estonian Russian-speakers 246 Table 2 Following media in languages other than their own among Estonian- and Russian-speakers in Estonia during 2014 (‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014) 247 Table 3 Frequent use of diferent media across age groups and Estonian-language knowledge in 2014 among Russian-speakers (‘frequent’ was defned in the questionnaire as several times per week) 250 List of Tables xxiii

Table 4 Social involvement across groups of Russian-speaking Estonian residents by Estonian-language skills and Estonian-language media consumption habits. Multinomial regression analysis (***p 0.001; **p 0.01; *p 0.05) ≤ ≤ ≤ was used; empty cells represent no statistically signifcant correlation (p 0.05) occurring between the relevant ≥ variables 254 Table 5 Correlations between media-following patterns, age and language skills. Multinomial regression analysis (***p 0.001; **p 0.01; *p 0.05) was used; empty ≤ ≤ ≤ cells indicate no statistically signifcant correlation (p 0.05) between the relevant variables 257 ≥ How Do Views of Languages Difer Between Majority and Minority? Language Regards Among Students with Latvian, Estonian and Russian as L1 Table 1 Self-assigned L1s of the respondents 273 Table 2 Importance of languages for diferent purposes (means; 1 totally agree; 5 do not agree at all) 280 = = Table 3 Which languages should be learnt as foreign languages at schools in your country? 293 Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States Table 1 Te four dimensions of commercial naming (Sjöblom 2013: 10) 379 Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia: Language Practices and Attitudes Table 1 Language of instruction in HEIs in Estonia: proportion of students 411 Table 2 Language of instruction in HEIs in Latvia 411 Te Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space Table 1 Composition of the population in the Baltic states according to ethnic afliation 447 Table 2 Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at the University of Tartu (n 869) 456 = xxiv List of Tables

Table 3 Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at the University of Latvia (n 609) 457 = Table 4 Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at Vilnius University (n 762) 458 = Table 5 UT, UL and VU websites, languages used and items available per language 465 Multilingualism, Language Contact and Majority–Minority Relations in Contemporary Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

Sanita Lazdiņa and Heiko F. Marten

1 Background to the Volume: Multilingualism in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia Throughout Time

When we were asked a few years ago whether we wished to edit a book on multilingualism in the Baltic states, it did not cross our minds that the book would be published in 2018—a year which is of particularly symbolic meaning for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Tis year, the three countries are celebrating the 100th anniversaries of their formation:

S. Lazdiņa (*) · H. F. Marten Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Rēzekne, Latvia e-mail: [email protected] S. Lazdiņa National Centre for Education, Riga, Latvia H. F. Marten DAAD Information Centre Riga, Riga, Latvia e-mail: [email protected]

Lithuania and Estonia in February 2018, Latvia in November 2018. It gives us additional pleasure to provide an international audience with background information about these countries and to explain the context of the numerous political, cultural and other events which take place all year round not only in Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn and in the diferent historical, geographic and cultural regions of the Baltic states, but also in Brussels, Berlin, Stockholm and other places in Europe and the world. In this way the Baltic states are enjoying an unusual level of attention this year—just as Finland did in 2017 when it celebrated its 100th anniversary and just as all the other countries whose national movements—more or less successfully—seized the historical momentum of the disruption of the European continent at the end of World War I to establish their own nation states. In discourses on nationhood and 100-year celebrations, language plays an integral part—both relating to the national languages as important ideological foundations of statehood and to continuing debates on the roles of ethnic and/or linguistic minorities and to other languages in the Baltic states within contemporary globalized language hierarchies. In this context it is important to emphasize that academic writings have shifted their focus from mostly researching and evaluating ofcial language policies to a much broader range of topics. Te design of this book has therefore been based on the perception that there is a need for an up-to- date overview of the variety of studies and discourses on multilingualism, minorities, language ideologies and practices in the Baltic states. Troughout history the land areas constituting contemporary Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have long traditions of being multilingual. Te languages that have played important roles for centuries are, frst of all, the so-called ‘titular languages’ (i.e., Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian as the national languages of the three countries). Te two standardized national languages of Latvian and Lithuanian belong to the Baltic branch of Indo-European languages, together with a number of other contemporary regional, social and functional varieties. Te most prominent is Latgalian, a standardized regional language under the umbrella of Latvian ethnicity; the question as to whether it should be called a language, a dialect or something else continues to be ideologically loaded. Estonian as the third national language is a Finno-Ugric Multilingualism, Language Contact … 3 language; similarly to the situation of Latvian and Latgalian, Estonian is grouped alongside Võro as a related standardized variety as are other regional varieties in South Estonia. Te three titular languages are the only ofcial, or—as they are ofcially labelled and usually referred to—state languages of the Baltic states today. Historically, however, other languages enjoyed higher status. A dominant language in the area of contemporary Lithuania was Polish; Lithuania and Poland share the history of the so-called early modern Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (which, nota bene, led to Lithuania celebrating 100 years of restored statehood in contrast to Latvia and Estonia which prior to 1918 did not exist as states in the modern sense; this distinction is not to be confused with the re-establishment of independence of the Baltic states in 1991 which is based on the assumption that the three states throughout the occupations of the twentieth century de jure never ceased to exist). Latvia and Estonia as well as Lithuania Minor were for many centuries exposed to (frst Low and later mostly High) German as the language of the economic and political elites and as the main language of the town populations. German has left heavy linguistic traces in contemporary Estonian and Latvian, and its historical role can be detected everywhere in historical buildings and names. Languages which served as linguae francae for the upper strata of society also included French and Russian; Russian was an important language of administration during Tsarist times as well as a language of the religious minority of the Old Believers, even though the number of Russian speakers in total remained relatively low. Other languages of some signifcance in diferent areas of the contemporary Baltic states throughout times include Belarusian, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Swedish and Finnish. Te past 100 years of independence of the Baltic states resulted in major changes to languages, both regarding the linguistic composition of the population and the status of important languages. After 1918 the titular languages gained power and prestige, but linguistic minorities frst enjoyed widespread cultural liberties. Tis changed to difering degrees when Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia drifted into authoritarianism. Te composition of the population changed most dramatically during the three occupations of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union 4 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten

(1940–1941), Nazi Germany (1941–1944) and again the Soviet Union (since 1944) which followed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Lithuania gained the highly Polish-speaking territory around Vilnius; ethnic Germans were overwhelmingly forced to move away from their long- term areas of residence in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania Minor; Swedes who had settled on the islands of Estonia moved to Sweden. Te linguistic varieties and traditions of Jewish life were largely razed to the ground by the Shoah. Te changes that had the most enduring infuence on the current language situation of the Baltic states, however, occurred as a consequence of inner Soviet migration. Russians, like many persons of other ethnicities, moved to the Baltic states mostly in search of better working conditions and settled there—much as they would have in any other part of the Soviet Union—bringing with them Russian as the major language of the country and the main means of communication between diferent ethnic groups (see Saarikivi and Toivanen 2015 or Zamyatin 2015 for background information on language policies in the Soviet Union). Te result was what has often been labelled ‘asymmetric bilingualism’ in which there were high levels of bilingualism among ethnic Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians. When Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia regained their independence in 1991 the new states saw themselves confronted with high numbers of (often monolingual) speakers of Russian— the proportion of ethnic Latvians, the most extreme case, had drastically declined from 77% in 1935 to 52% in 1989 (Centrālās statistikas pārvaldes datubāzes). Language policies have aimed since then at re- establishing the titular languages as the main languages of Baltic societies and as ‘languages of interethnic communication’—amounting to a reversal of language shift and a normalization of language use with the explicit aim that individuals should be able to lead their entire lives using the national languages. Heavy ideological debates around these issues followed and continue until the present day, in which languages usually more or less explicitly play an important role. Among the most famous societal tensions were the ‘Bronze Soldier Riots’ in Tallinn in 2007 (cf. Brüggemann and Kasekamp 2008) and the referendum on Russian as a second state language in Latvia in 2012 (Marten and Lazdiņa 2016; Hanovs 2016; Druviete and Ozolins 2016). Educational policies Multilingualism, Language Contact … 5 regarding languages and general policies of integration continue to be ‘hot potatoes’ in society, even though knowledge of the titular languages among minorities has steadily increased. A recent example is the 2018 decision by the Saeima, the Latvian parliament, to move further away from the Soviet tradition of the dual-school system comprising Latvian and minority schools by increasing the percentage of schooling in Latvian in minority schools. Te future aim is to integrate pupils from all language backgrounds in the same schools, in order to avoid segregation of the population on ethnic or linguistic grounds in future generations and to ensure sufcient knowledge of Latvian among children who speak other languages at home. Tis will involve mother tongue education as well as classes on literature and culture, and thereby respect the right of acquiring minority languages. Remarkably, societal protests by Russian L1-speakers about the Latvian educational reform have—in contrast to, for instance, the reform of 2004—been limited and largely restricted to small groups of extremists. Tis indicates that acceptance of Latvian as the main language of society and education has grown but is subject to other languages enjoying support in other ways. Tis corresponds to fndings by Dilāns and Zepa (2015) who show that, despite previous critiques by Russian-speaking communities, educational reforms have succeeded to increase Latvian skills among Russian L1-users considerably in recent years. Today, almost 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and almost 15 years after accession of the Baltic states to the European Union (which forced the Baltic states to rediscuss some of its language policies, cf. Hogan-Brun 2008), multilingualism and minorities therefore continue to be important topics in societal debates in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Te many historical layers that shape language practices, ideologies and policies, are a common denominator characterizing the three countries. In spite of historical and contemporary diferences and separate developments, there are still many fundamentally similar issues with regard to languages in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. As the major languages of society, the national languages are today grouped with English, a relative newcomer to the region, and Russian. Both English and Russian function as linguae francae—English in globalized communication with the world and 6 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten by increasing communities of ex-pats and other recent migrants, at least in the major cities, and as a largely ‘neutral’ language; Russian both in communication with other countries of the former Soviet Union and as the L1 of the most sizeable linguistic and/or ethnic minorities. Post- Soviet societal transformation, ideologies, language practices and policies in this sense justify in many respects the continuing view of the Baltic states as a single unit, and for political and academic actors in the Baltic states there is also the advantage of being more visible in global circles when Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are not discussed separately. In light of these historical and current trajectories of languages, multilingualism and groups of speakers, the idea underlying this book is for it to serve as a coherent collection of recent case studies presenting up-to-date work on some of the most prevalent topics of linguistic diversity, societal discourses and interaction between majorities and minorities in the Baltic states. Te case studies unite some of the most recent approaches to research in the feld and thereby contribute to a methodological understanding of how to conduct research. Approaches, methods and research paradigms include folk linguistics, discourse analysis, labelling theory, narrative analyses and assessment tools, transnationalism applied to analysing media practices, code alternation, research on language beliefs and attitudes, linguistic landscapes, ethnographic observations, language-learning motivation, languages in education and language acquisition. Te chapters cover the titular languages, Russian, English, German, Polish and the regional languages of Latgalian and Võro. At the same time, the book also serves as a general introduction to issues of language and society in the Baltic states, not only from the perspectives of some of the most renowned scholars in linguistics and related disciplines in the Baltics, but also including the work of some promising scholars of the next generation. Te readers of this book will likely be a mixture of academics and students interested in multilingualism, language discourses, language policy and related felds in Northern and Eastern Europe as well as in contrastive sociolinguistic analyses. Moreover, scholars and students from such felds as history, political science, sociology or anthropology focused on the Baltic states, Northern Europe and the post-Soviet world in addition to practitioners should fnd the book a useful reference for the provision Multilingualism, Language Contact … 7 of background information. We believe that this diversity of issues of multilingualism in the Baltic states deserves to be on the agenda of an international audience and hope that this book contributes to keeping the Baltic states in the centre of attention in linguistic circles and to encouraging a balanced academic discussion of language issues in the Baltic states.

2 Multilingualism in the Baltic States: Research Paradigms and Contexts

Case studies on diferent aspects of individual languages and communities in the Baltic states have regularly been published in recent decades. Yet, with a few noticeable exceptions, studies about multilingualism in the Baltic states have mostly appeared as individual research papers. Others are parts of collections published for local audiences within Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (i.e., they are barely accessible to a readership without knowledge of the national languages in the Baltics). Journals which publish in English such as the Journal of Baltic Studies cover a much broader range of topics and only occasionally focus on issues of multilingualism, sociolinguistics or other language issues (most famously, the comprehensive 2005 Baltic Sociolinguistic Review special issue with detailed historical accounts of each country as well as comments on the contemporary situation; Hogan-Brun 2007a; Verschik 2007; Metuzāle-Kangere and Ozolins 2007; Hogan-Brun et al. 2007). In some respects our book can therefore be described as a continuity of this special issue as well as of the 10-year-old book Language Politics and Practices in the Baltic States (Hogan-Brun et al. 2008). Our book should be regarded as an addition to existing high-value titles, but broadens the scope, shifts the focus, provides an overview of current topics and, most signifcantly, allows for a more current perspective. Te book highlights the important research paradigms of the past two decades which not only have inspired it, but which the book also wishes to complement with additional perspectives. Te most important context of international publications has been to look at language- related issues in the Baltic states in light of changes in the linguistic 8 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten composition of society after more than 40 years of de facto incorporation in the Soviet Union. Te linguistic aspects of societal changes have been investigated from the perspective of post-Soviet or former Eastern Bloc countries and their societal transformation after 1990—for example, the issue dedicated to Multilingualism in Post-Soviet Countries by the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (see Pavlenko 2008 for an introduction to the issue; see also Pavlenko 2013) or more recently the 2015 Special Issue of Sociolinguistic Studies on Post-Soviet Identities (Zabrodskaja and Ehala 2015) and the book entitled Sociolinguistic Transition in Former Eastern Bloc Countries: Two Decades After the Regime Change (Sloboda et al. 2016). In contrast, there are books in which sociolinguistic issues in the Baltic states have been researched from the perspective of the current language situation in Europe—for example, Negotiating Linguistic Identity: Language and Belonging in Europe (Vihman and Praakli 2013). Addressing language, identity and language policies all over Europe, some of the chapters in that book look at the Baltic states in particular—for example, on language contacts in Estonia (Verschik 2013) or on Russian speakers in all three Baltic countries (Ehala 2013). General overviews on languages in the Baltic states from specifc historical points of view are also occasionally provided by individual articles such as Kreslins (2003) or Tarvas (2015) who reconstructs multilingualism among the intellectual elite in Tallinn in the early modern period. Language policies and underlying ideologies continue to be among the most dominant topics in publications on languages in the Baltic states (e.g., Siiner 2006; Hogan-Brun et al. 2008; Vihalemm and Hogan-Brun 2013a), and they dominate many of the language-related debates in Baltic societies today. Ozolins writes in chapter “ Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal Linguistic Change: Te Particularity of the Baltic Case” of two largely contradictory discourses which, in spite of all attempts to maintain academic neutral- ity, often overshadow publications. On the one hand, many scholars from the Baltic states (e.g., Druviete 1997; Veisbergs 2013) argue that nation-building through a single state language is legitimate; language in this understanding serves as a tool of societal integration of diferent linguistic groups as in other nation states such as Germany or France Multilingualism, Language Contact … 9 in which sufcient skills in the national language are considered a prerequisite for civic participation. In this understanding a Reversal of Language Shift has taken place during the past three decades which has enabled Baltic societies to (at least partly) reverse the consequences of Soviet dominance. Tis view stands in opposition to studies which have taken (sometimes quite radical) perspectives of minority rights, often by scholars from outside the area or with a Russian-speaking background. Among the ever-underlying ultimate questions are to which degree nation-building based on a common language and culture is still adequate in the twenty-frst century, or whether Soviet-time migrants to the Baltics should politically and morally be compared to autochthonous minorities in other parts of the world, or rather be treated in line with, say, twentieth-century Turkish- or Arabic-speaking migrants to Western Europe, which would imply, for instance, that the principles of the Council of Europe’s Charter of Regional or Minority Languages would not apply to these groups. At the same time, studies dealing with policies are not restricted to macro-perspectives of society as a whole. Between many rather polar- izing voices in language policy discourses, there are also studies which try to understand nuances, which apply individual perspectives and compromise views and try to paint sociolinguistic realities in more balanced ways, thereby aiming to do justice to the needs of diferent social groups and to contribute to social integration. Siiner et al. (2017) summarize diferent approaches to language policies in Estonia. Questions of ethnic and linguistic identity and of belonging to Baltic societies— particularly in regard to Russian (L1) speakers—have gained considerable attention in recent years, pointing to the diversity of identities of people who often see themselves as belonging to the Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian states, but not always as fully accepted members of society (e.g., Zabrodskaja 2015; Muiznieks et al. 2013). A recent overview of speakers of Lithuanian, Polish and Russian in Lithuania is also provided by Kostiučenko (2016). Berezinka (2017, 2018) analyses how local public bodies in Estonia try to fnd compromises between sticking to the ofcial regulations and accommodating the needs of the population. In recent years, family language policies have increasingly been examined, in particular from the perspectives of multilingual families 10 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten and their practices (cf. Schwartz and Verschik 2013). Te ecolinguistic situation of the Baltic states has also been investigated from numerous perspectives through linguistic landscape studies (Pošeiko 2015; Lazdiņa 2013; Marten 2010, 2012; Marten and Saagpakk 2017; Zabrodskaja 2014; Soler-Carbonell 2016). Such a research approach is taken up in chapter “ Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States” of this book by Pošeiko and chapter “Te Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space” by Soler. Studies in the felds of language policies, ideologies and identities are often interdisciplinary. Some of these authors are not linguists, but languages are at the core of their work in such felds as sociology or political sciences, often connected through discourse analysis or similar language-related approaches. Hanovs (2016) applies a postcolonial perspective to the post-Soviet situation—interestingly, authors such as Saagpakk (2015) and Ijabs (2013) similarly use postcolonial theory for examining the Baltic–German legacy in post-1918 Estonia and Latvia. Language attitudes are another important aspect of this (e.g., Hogan- Brun and Ramonienė 2008; Priedīte 2008) since policies and practices depend on attitudes to languages—a topic which is taken up in chapter “Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes” by Ramonienė on dialects in Lithuania, in chapter “How Do Views of Languages Difer Between Majority and Minority? Language Regards Among Students with Latvian, Estonian and Russian as L1” by Marten on national and international languages and in chapter “Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization” by Lazdiņa on Latgalian. From a more sociological perspective of media consumption, Vihalemm and Hogan- Brun (2013b) provide examples of media practices in Estonia and their impact on nation-building and societal integration (taken up in chapter “Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian-Speaking Estonians” by Vihalemm and Leppik). A general overview of questions about the integration of Russian-speakers in Latvia including the efect of language policies and ideologies is also provided by Ozoliņa (2016). Yet, even though politics, history and the debates on the roles of the titular languages vs. Russian very often play at least some kind of Multilingualism, Language Contact … 11 background role in many studies, language-related issues in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been portrayed from a number of very different perspectives as well. Debates on social and political roles of regional varieties have not only generated attention for both Latgalian in Eastern Latvia and Võro in Southern Estonia in particular, for which extensive writings exist, but also with regard to practices and perceptions of dialects (see chapter “Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization” by Lazdiņa on Latgalian and chapter “Contested Counting? What the Census and Schools Reveal About Võro in Southeastern Estonia” by Brown and Koreinik on Võro in this book; see also Šuplinska and Lazdiņa (2009) for languages in Eastern Latvia including Latgalian based on the large-scale Survey Latgale conducted between 2006 and 2009, as well as Lazdiņa et al. 2011; Iannàccaro and Dell’Aquila 2011; Marten 2012; Lazdiņa and Marten 2012; Marten and Lazdiņa 2016; for Võro and other South Estonian languages consult the works by the Võro Institute as well as individual publications, e.g., Koreinik et al. 2013, as part of the large- scale ELDIA project on Finno-Ugric languages; Koreinik 2016; Brown 2012, 2017). Te micro-language of Livonian and its neo-speakers have been investigated from diferent perspectives by Ernštreits (2012). Te Polish sociolinguistic situation in Latvia is, for instance, analysed in Kuņicka (2016); for the legal aspects of Polish in Lithuania see Kuzborska (2015). Te role of Polish in Lithuania is from a contrastive language policy perspective with Lithuanian in Poland taken up in chapter “Tangled Language Policies—Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian in Poland” by Walkowiak and Wicherkiewicz. In contrast, speakers of the titular languages of the Baltic states have also been investigated as heritage speakers around the world (e.g., Verschik 2014; Šalme 2008). Another important issue of multilingualism frequently discussed in the Baltic states involves the languages of education—a modernization of practices, debates on curricula, and not least the role of Russian in the continuing segregation of Russian L1-pupils from the titular languages (e.g., Hogan-Brun 2007b; Savickienė and Kalėdaitė 2008; Ramonienė 2006). Such debates continue today, for instance, with regard to current processes of curriculum modernization in Latvia (Lazdiņa 2017). Further, the Baltic states are reacting to the needs of 12 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten their globalized societies of the twenty-frst century and developing skills in international languages (i.e., mostly English). Part of the modernization of language learning takes place through content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and other methods and is met by a variety of views (Lazdiņa 2015; Karapetjana and Roziņa 2017). An important issue here is how to deal with the needs and perceptions of languages in higher education (see chapter “Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia: Language Practices and Attitudes” by Kibbermann and chapter “Te Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space” by Soler; see also Soler and Vihman 2018; Soler and Marten, forthcoming). For Lithuania the dilemma brought about by the ideology of securing sufcient skills in the national language and the needs of internationalization has been discussed by Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun (2014). At the same time, research on individual multilingualism has also been carried out from the perspective of the linguistic development of multilingual children (Dabašinskienė and Kalėdaitė 2012)—chapter “Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children” by Dabašinskienė and Krivickaitė-Leišienė is representative of this branch of research. A relatively new phenomenon in this respect involves migrants from countries that are not post-Soviet nations for whom Russian usually is not applicable as a lingua franca and for whom the Baltic states are developing educational and language acquisition policies. Moving towards a closer examination of language practices by individual people and communities, Hogan-Brun and Ramonienė (2010), for instance, discuss changes in patterns of individual multilingualism. Tese are refected in research into languages of international communication, of tourism, linguae francae (Marten et al. 2012) and globalization. Relations between language and the economy are discussed by Dabašinskienė (2011) for the economic need of languages in Lithuania and by Lazdiņa (2013) in the case of Latgalian, whereas Eidukevičienė and Johanning-Radžienė (2014) collect the linguistic aspects of German–Lithuanian business contexts. It would certainly be worthwhile to continue such analyses, possibly by adapting the ‘Linguanomics’ concept (Hogan-Brun 2017) to the Baltic Multilingualism, Language Contact … 13 situation. Te role of English and Russian is also refected in work on code-switching (see chapter “Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs: Structure, Norms and Meaning” by Verschik and Kask). Code-switching practices in diferent contexts are also part of broader studies of language contact (e.g., Verschik 2014, 2017) and contextualized as part of constructing and negotiating identities, particularly in the younger generation (see chapter “Russian and English as Socially Meaningful Resources for Mixed Speech Styles of Lithuanians” by Vaicekauskienė and Vyšniauskienė on young Lithuanians’ language practices in social media). Moreover, other languages such as German are analysed from a language ecology point of view (Marten 2017), the latter also in the context of historical multilingualism (Pasewalck et al. 2017).

3 The Chapters in This Book

In this section we briefy present the chapters of this book. Te book consists of fve parts. After the introduction, the second part focuses on regional varieties and minority languages. Te third part discusses issues surrounding Russian and its speakers in the context of other languages. Te fourth part looks at the role of international languages in Baltic societies, mostly English, but also other languages. Finally, the chapter constituting the ffth part provides some concluding remarks and future perspectives for Baltic societies in the globalized world of the twenty- frst century. Chapter “Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal Linguistic Change: Te Particularity of the Baltic Case” by Uldis Ozolins continues our introduction to the historical and political background of language issues given in this introductory chapter. It does so from a macro-political perspective on tensions over language and criticism of Baltic language policies, in particular in the context of recent political and military events in Ukraine. His overview and examples show the distinctive nature of the Baltic situation where the pressure for changes in language policy has largely come from external sources. 14 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten

In chapter “Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization”, the frst chapter of the Part II on Regional Varieties and Minority Languages, Sanita Lazdiņa discusses the current sociolinguistic situation of Latgalian. Te chapter provides insight into the small rural community of Baltinava in the northern part of Latgale, where Latgalian is used on an everyday basis by the majority of the people. It follows a folk linguistics approach, focusing on self-refections about languages, local respondents’ profciency, language use and regards (for an explanation of ‘language regard’ see Preston 2011). In this way the study adds to existing quantitative sociolinguistic surveys about Latgalian which have provided important statistical data but which lack evidence to explain local sociolinguistic processes. Chapter “Contested Counting? What the Census and Schools Reveal About Võro in Southeastern Estonia” provides insight into another regional variety in the Baltic states. Kara D. Brown and Kadri Koreinik analyse societal discourses about the Võro language in South Estonia. By drawing on qualitative interviews with Võro language teachers and a discourse analysis of pre- and post-2011 census-related newspaper texts, the authors focus on the label ‘Võro speaker’. Tey show how the twenty-frst century marks the frst time when speakers of Võro are constructed as an ofcial category with some measurable content. Tis categorization has not, however, succeeded in defning the language in the mindsets of the local population or the educational community which continues its struggle to fnd appropriate space in schools and in language surveys. Chapter “Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes” by Meilutė Ramonienė gives an overview on regional dialects in the Lithuanian urban space. It discusses self-reported use of dialects and attitudes to them, based on characteristics such as aesthetics, usefulness, habit and prestige. Te author’s research shows that the domains of traditional dialect use in everyday communication and attitudes towards dialects are beginning to change in bigger cities as well as in smaller regional towns. One of the most signifcant factors in the (non)use of dialects are age and strength of regional identity which difer noticeably in the diferent ethnographic regions of Lithuania. Multilingualism, Language Contact … 15

Chapter “Tangled Language Policies—Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian in Poland” connects to the previous chapter on multilingualism in Lithuania by discussing the role of Polish as a minority language in Lithuania, while at the same time contrasting it to the situation of Lithuanian in Poland. In their sociolinguistic analysis of the efects of minority-language policies, Justyna Walkowiak and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz concentrate on the role of minority languages in the domains of religion, education, the media, the linguistic landscape, minority legislation and personal and place names. In this context the authors discuss the prospects of language maintenance, the legal framework for it, and how issues of identity and power relations are refected in the presence of Lithuanian and Polish on both sides of the state border. Te Part III, entitled Integration of the Russian Language and Its Speakers into Baltic Societies, begins with chapter “Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children” by Ineta Dabašinskienė and Eglė Krivickaitė-Leišienė, which is based on a study of children in Lithuania for whom Lithuanian is the second language. Te chapter’s main aim is to discuss the general linguistic performance of two groups of preschool children—monolingual Lithuanian vs. a group of sequential Russian–Lithuanian bilinguals—on the grounds of a narrative production (elicitation) test. Some major diferences between the bilingual and monolingual groups could be identifed, particularly by an analysis of code-switching patterns and by error analysis. Te results show that bilingual children who live in cities where the Lithuanian language is dominant performed better on the micro-structure level than children from a more multilingual environment—which the authors discuss in the contexts of language exposure and dominance. Chapter “Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian- Speaking Estonians” by Triin Vihalemm and Marianne Leppik presents research on Russian-speakers in Estonia, based on census and survey data which explain connections between social involvement and mono- and multilingual media practices. Te data are analysed within the framework of transnationalism theory, investigating how language skills, media practices and social involvement interact. Te survey shows that Estonian and English-language skills are important factors contributing 16 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten to the formation of media-related practices. Later in the chapter the authors examine how diverse information sources and personal networks have created confusion among Russian-speaking Estonians regarding their views of the current political crisis in Ukraine. Te transnationalism approach enables the authors to refect on conditions of individuals’ inbetweenness. Te last chapter in Part III, chapter “How Do Views of Languages Difer Between Majority and Minority? Language Regards Among Students with Latvian, Estonian and Russian as L1”, by Heiko F. Marten, discusses language regards among students in Estonia and Latvia. Survey data show that languages are in general considered to be of high importance for young people in these two countries. Te motivation for language learning is overwhelmingly practical (i.e., students choose languages according to their perceived usefulness at work, for travelling, or for media consumption). Te chapter focuses on diferences between respondents who speak Estonian or Latvian as L1 and those with Russian as L1. For instance, Russian is valued to a much lesser degree by L1-speakers of Estonian than by L1-speakers of Latvian. Te author concludes that societal integration takes place in Estonia through acculturation of Russian-speakers to Estonian, whereas in Latvia there is a more equal balance between views by L1-speakers of Latvian and Russian. Anna Verschik’s and Helin Kask’s chapter “Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs: Structure, Norms and Meaning” is the frst chapter of Part IV on English and Other Languages in the Globalized Societies of the Baltic States. Te authors have studied contact-induced bilingual phenomena in young Estonians’ blogs dealing with topics highly afected by English (e.g., fashion and lifestyle). Te authors focus on code alternation between English and Estonian and argue that the presence of code alternation and insertions cannot be explained only by profciency in and attitudes towards English. Semantic categories, the genre of computer-mediated communication and text type–specifc norms are also important factors infuencing code alternation. Multilingualism, Language Contact … 17

Informal discourses are part of the research for chapter “Russian and English as Socially Meaningful Resources for Mixed Speech Styles of Lithuanians” by Loreta Vaicekauskienė and Inga Vyšniauskienė. Te authors emphasize how the status of Russian and English as the two main non-native linguistic resources for Lithuanians has changed in recent times. English has gained considerable value in the community, despite the fact that higher levels of access have been limited to speakers of relatively young ages (i.e., to those who were born during the last decade of the Soviet occupation or in independent Lithuania). Te chapter discusses adolescents’ daily interactions with their peers and adults by social networking on Facebook. Te chapter focuses on informal code mixing which includes various elements from Russian and English in an otherwise Lithuanian text. Solvita Pošeiko’s chapter “Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States” discusses some of the main fndings of the author’s linguistic landscape project conducted in nine medium-sized cities in the Baltic states—in particular, with regard to ergonyms (i.e., the names of institutions or companies). Te data show that these ergonyms carry out representative, promotional and informative language functions, most of which are connected with commercial discourse, mainly with local businesses, revealing the role of private actors in shaping the linguistic landscape. Monolingual ergonyms dominate, with the titular languages of each country used most frequently, followed by English. However, there is also a signifcant number of bilingual and multilingual ergonyms which are indicative of the multilingual and heterogeneous character of Baltic societies. Te last two chapters in this part discuss languages in higher education. Kerttu Kibbermann shows in chapter “Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia: Language Practices and Attitudes” that, although the institutions of higher education in Estonia and Latvia mainly function in Estonian and Latvian respectively, the international nature of tertiary education has brought these languages into contact with others, mainly English, but also Russian. Te chapter reveals some of the reasons why diferent languages are used in Estonian and Latvian higher education, and casts light on the language attitudes of students. 18 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten

Interviews indicate that, while the overall language situation in academia seems to be quite similar in the two countries, language practices and attitudes tend to difer, depending on the interviewees’ exposure to diferent languages in university settings. Kibbermann’s chapter is complemented by Josep Soler’s chapter “Te Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space” which explores language policies and practices in the linguistic landscapes of the University of Tartu, the University of Latvia and Vilnius University. In light of increasing internationalization of academic life, the chapter analyses the number and quality of languages in these ‘eduspaces’, their relative distribution, and discusses whether and how a balance between English and the national languages is met. In particular, the chapter focuses on how state and institutional language policies are—sometimes confictingly—met by practices on the ground. Te book concludes with Part V, which consists of chapter “National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms?”. Tis chapter takes an outside look at the important topics of multilingualism in the Baltic states. Christian Giordano contextualizes types of nationalism—focusing on the French and the German models of nationhood. He argues that either model ultimately favours monolingualism—the chapters in this book have shown, however, that the Baltic states, in spite of strong political eforts of nation-building since the re-establishment of independence, are far from being monolingual. In this sense the summarizing chapter is a strong plea for accepting and cherishing existing patterns and practices of multilingualism in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Te year 2018 marks the 100th anniversary of statehood in the Baltics—multilingualism has to diferent degrees and in various ways played its part in these 100 years. It is the aim of this book to highlight important contemporary research and thoughts on this Baltic type of multilingualism. In the spirit of the diversity of perspectives on languages which are represented in this book, it asks that the legitimate wish of safeguarding the national languages be respected after centuries in which their roles have regularly been questioned—while at the same time accommodating to the needs of a population that is increasingly diverse and uses linguistic repertoires in numerous creative ways. Multilingualism, Language Contact … 19

References

Berezkina, M. (2017). Russian in Estonia’s public sector: ‘Playing on the borderline’ between ofcial policy and real-life needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13670050.2015.1115004. Berezkina, M. (2018). Managing multilingualism on state websites: How institutional employees explain language choice. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2017.1391495. Brown, K. D. (2012). Te linguistic landscape of educational spaces: Language revitalization and schools in southeastern Estonia. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 281–298). New York: Palgrave. Brown, K. D. (2017). Shifts and stability in schoolscapes: Diachronic considerations of southeastern Estonian schools. Linguistics and Education, 44, 12–19. Brüggemann, K., & Kasekamp, A. (2008). Te politics of history and the ‘war of monuments’ in Estonia. Nationalities Papers, 36(3), 425–448. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00905990802080646. Bulajeva, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2014). Internationalisation of higher education and nation building: Resolving language policy dilemmas in Lithuania. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874431. Centrālās statistikas pārvaldes datubāzes. http://data.csb.gov.lv. Accessed 21 March 2018. Dabašinskienė, I. (2011). We are looking for a sales manager in Lithuania. In Towards a language rich Europe (pp. 73–87). Multilingual essays on language policies and practices. Berlin: British Council. Dabašinskienė, I., & Kalėdaitė, V. (Eds.). (2012). Child language acquisition research in the Baltic area. Journal of Baltic Studies, 43(2), 151–160. Dilāns, G., & Zepa, B. (2015). Bilingual and multilingual education in the former Soviet republics. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), Te handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 632–644). Malden and Oxford: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118533406.ch41. Druviete, I. (1997). Linguistic human rights in the Baltic states. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127(1), 161–185. https://doi. org/10.1515/ijsl.1997.127.161. 20 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten

Druviete, I., & Ozolins, U. (2016). Te Latvian referendum on Russian as a second state language, February 2012. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40(2), 121–145. Ehala, M. (2013). Russian-speakers in the Baltic countries: Language use and identity. In V.-A. Vihman & K. Praakli (Eds.), Negotiating linguistic identity: Language and belonging in Europe (pp. 89–110). Nationalisms across the Globe 13. Oxford: Peter Lang. Eidukevičienė, R., & Johanning-Radžienė, A. (Eds.). (2014). Interkulturelle Aspekte der deutsch-litauischen Wirtschaftskommunikation. Munich: Iudicium. Ernštreits, V. (2012). Livonian in the 21st century. Les langues fnno-ougri- ennes aujourd’hui, 44. http://journals.openedition.org/efo/675. Accessed 21 March 2018. Hanovs, D. (2016). Can postcolonial theory help explain Latvian politics of integration? Refections on contemporary Latvia as a postcolonial society. Journal of Baltic Studies, 47(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0162977 8.2015.1103513. Hogan-Brun, G. (2007a). Language in society across the Baltic republics: A comparative overview. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3), 273–282. https://doi. org/10.1080/01629770500000101. Hogan-Brun, G. (2007b). Language in education across the Baltic: Policies, practices and challenges. Comparative Education, 43(4), 553–570. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03050060701611946. Hogan-Brun, G. (2008). Te Baltic republics and language ideological debates surrounding European Union accession. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(5), 367–377. https://doi. org/10.1080/01434630508668410. Hogan-Brun, G. (2017). Linguanomics. What is the market potential of multilingualism? London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Hogan-Brun, G., & Ramonienė, M. (2008). Perspectives on language attitudes and use in Lithuania’s multilingual setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(5), 425–441. https://doi. org/10.1080/01434630508668414. Hogan-Brun, G., & Ramonienė, M. (2010). Changing levels of bilingualism across the Baltic. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050408667801. Hogan-Brun, G., Ramonienė, M., & Grumadienė, L. (2007). Te language situation in Lithuania. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3), 345–370. https://doi. org/10.1080/01629770500000131. Multilingualism, Language Contact … 21

Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramonienė, M., & Rannut, M. (2008). Language politics and practices in the Baltic states. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(4), 469–631. https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp124.0. Iannàccaro, G., & Dell’Aquila, V. (2011). Sociolinguistic distances: A geosta- tistical approach to survey Latgale. In A. Andronov, L. Leikuma, N. Nau, & I. Šuplinska (Eds.), Volūdu ekologeja Baļtejis jiurys reģionā: regionaluos volūdys globalizacejis laikūs. 3. storptautyskuo latgalistikys konference (pp. 92–113). Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Augstskola. Ijabs, I. (2013). Another Baltic postcolonialism: Young Latvians, Baltic Germans, and the emergence of Latvian national movement. Nationalities Papers, 42(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.823391. Karapetjana, I., & Roziņa, G. (2017). Implementation of content and language integrated learning at schools in Latvia. Issues and Ideas in Education, 5(2), 175–184. Koreinik, K. (2016). Multilingualism on the periphery: Valuing languages in South-Eastern Estonia. In M. Sloboda, P. Laihonen, & A. Zabrodskaja (Eds.), Sociolinguistic transition in former Eastern Bloc countries: Recent developments two decades after the regime change (pp. 317–345). Prague papers on language, society and interaction/Prager Arbeiten zur Sprache, Gesellschaft und Interaktionen 4. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Koreinik, K., Spiliopoulou Åkermark, S., Kühhirt, E., Sarhimaa, A., & Toivanen, R. (2013). Te Võro language in Estonia: ELDIA case-specifc report. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität. Kostiučenko, A. (2016). Sprachen und ihre Sprecher in Litauen. Eine soziolin- guistische Untersuchung zum sozialen Status des Litauischen, Polnischen und Russischen. Berlin: Logos. Kreslins, J. (2003). Linguistic landscapes in the Baltic. Scandinavian Journal of History, 28(3/4), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03468750310003659. Kuņicka, K. (2016). Latgales poļu valoda kā poļu valodas periferiālais dialekts: paaudžu atšķirību aspekts [Polish language in Latgale as a peripheral dialect of Polish: Generational diferences]. Doctoral thesis, University of Daugavpils. https://du.lv/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Kunicka_promocijas_ darbs_SAVE.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2018. Kuzborska, E. (2015). Te protection of Lithuania’s Polish minority: Bone of contention in bilateral Polish-Lithuanian relations. European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online, 12, 122–157. https://doi. org/10.1163/9789004306134_006. Lazdiņa, S. (2013). A transition from spontaneity to planning? Economic values and educational policies in the process of revitalizing the regional 22 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten

language of Latgalian (Latvia). Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(3/4), 382–402. Lazdiņa, S., (Ed.). (2015). CLIL jeb mācību satura un valodas integrēta apguve: izglītības paradigmas maiņa [CLIL or content language integrated learning: Change of an educational paradigm]. Riga: Latviešu valodas aģentūra. Lazdiņa, S. (2017). Vai tikai mūzikā ir polifonija: valodu izglītības plānošana glokalizācijas procesu kontekstā [Is there polyphony only in music: Planning language education in the context of glocalization]. In V. Ļubkina & S. Ušča (Eds.), Izglītības reforma vispārizglītojošajā skolā: izglītības satura pētījumi un ieviešanas problēmas (pp. 40–53). Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Tehnoloģiju akadēmija. Lazdiņa, S., & Marten, H. F. (2012). Latgalian in Latvia: A continuous struggle for political recognition. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(1), 66–87. Lazdiņa, S., Iannàccaro, G., Šuplinska, I., & Dell’Aquila, V. (2011). Language, religion and ethnic identity: A case-study from Eastern Latvia. In J. Darquennes, W. Vandenbussche, U. Ammon, & S. Wright (Eds.), Sociolinguistica. Internationales Jahrbuch für europäische Soziolinguistik 25. Language and religion (pp. 94–112). Berlin: de Gruyter. Marten, H. F. (2010). LL under strict state language policy: Reversing the Soviet legacy in a regional centre in Latvia. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 115–132). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Marten, H. F. (2012). ‘Latgalian is not a language’: Linguistic landscapes in Eastern Latvia and how they refect centralist attitudes. In D. Gorter, H. F Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 19–35). New York: Palgrave. Marten, H. F. (2017). Negotiating a place for German in Estonia: Contemporary functions, attitudes and policies. In M. Siiner, K. Koreinik, & K. D. Brown (Eds.), Language policy beyond the state (pp. 143–162). Dordrecht: Springer. Marten, H. F., & Lazdiņa, S. (2016). Latgalian in Latvia: How a minority language community gains voice during societal negotiations about the status of two major languages. In M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.), Vanishing languages in context (pp. 195–222). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Marten, H. F., & Saagpakk, M. (Eds.). (2017). Linguistic Landscapes und Spot German an der Schnittstelle von Sprachwissenschaft und Deutschdidaktik. Munich: Iudicium. Multilingualism, Language Contact … 23

Marten, H. F., Lazdiņa, S., Pošeiko, S., & Murinska, S. (2012). Between old and new killer languages? Linguistic transformation, lingua francas and languages of tourism in the Baltic states. In C. Hélot, M. Barni, R. Janssens, & C. Bagna (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism and social change: Diversité des approches (pp. 289–308). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Metuzāle-Kangere, B., & Ozolins, U. (2007). Te language situation in Latvia 1850–2004. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3), 317–344. https://doi. org/10.1080/01629770500000121. Muiznieks, N., Rozenvalds, J., & Birka, I. (2013). Ethnicity and social cohesion in the post-Soviet Baltic states. Patterns of Prejudice, 47(3), 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2013.812349. Ozoliņa, Ž. (Ed.). (2016). Societal security: Inclusion-exclusion dilemma. A por- trait of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia. Riga: Zinātne. Pasewalck, S., Bers, A., & Bender, R. (Eds.). (2017). Zum Beispiel Estland. Das eine Land und die vielen Sprachen. Göttingen: Wallstein. Pavlenko, A. (2008). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3/4), 275–314. https://doi. org/10.1080/13670050802271517. Pavlenko, A. (2013). Multilingualism in post-Soviet successor states. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(4), 262–271. Pošeiko, S. (2015). Valodas un to funkcionalitāte pilsētu publiskajā telpā: Baltijas valstu lingvistiskā ainava [Language and its functionality in the urban public space: Linguistic landscape of the Baltic states]. Doctoral thesis, University of Latvia, Riga. http://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/ handle/7/31349/298-51593-Poseiko_Solvita_sp10146.pdf?sequence 1. = Preston, D. R. (2011). Te power of language regard—Discrimination, classifcation, comprehension, and production [Special issue]. Dialectologia, II, 9–33. Priedīte, A. (2008). Surveying language attitudes and practices in Latvia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(5), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630508668413. Ramonienė, M. (2006). Teaching Lithuanian as a second/foreign language: Current practices. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics, 2, 219–230. Saagpakk, M. (2015). Sprache steht zur Debatte – Diskussionen um die Zukunft der estnischen Sprache um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. In A. Sommerlat (Ed.), Das Baltikum als gelehrtes und literarisches Konstrukt: von einer Kolonialwahrnehmung zu einem nationalen Diskurs (18.–19. Jahrhundert) (pp. 95–111). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. 24 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten

Saarikivi, J., & Toivanen, R. (2015). Change and maintenance of plurilingualism in the Russian federation and the European Union. In H. F. Marten, M. Rießler, J. Saarikivi, & R. Toivanen (Eds.), Cultural and linguistic minorities in the Russian federation and the European Union (pp. 3–29). Multilingual education 13. Cham: Springer. Šalme, A. (2008). Latviešu valodas kā svešvalodas apguve Eiropas augstskolās [Acquisition of the Latvian language as a foreign language in European universities]. Riga: Valsts valodas aģentūra. https://valoda.lv/wp-content/ uploads/docs/LV_arzemes_LatvVal_EiropAugstskolas.pdf. Savickienė, I., & Kalėdaitė, V. (2008). Cultural and linguistic diversity of the Baltic states in a New Europe. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(5), 442–452. https://doi. org/10.1080/01434630508668415. Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (Eds.). (2013). Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction. Dordrecht: Springer. Siiner, M. (2006). Planning language practice: A sociolinguistic analysis of language policy in post-communist Estonia. Language Policy, 5(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-006-9004-9. Siiner, M., Brown, K. D., & Koreinik, K. (2017). Language policy beyond the state. Cham: Springer. Sloboda, M., Laihonen, P., & Zabrodskaja, A. (Eds.). (2016). Sociolinguistic transition in former Eastern Bloc countries: Recent developments two decades after the regime change (Prague papers on language, society and interaction/ Prager Arbeiten zur Sprache, Gesellschaft und Interaktionen 4). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Soler, J., & Marten, H. F. (forthcoming). Resistance and adaptation to newspeakerness in educational contexts: Two tales from Estonia. In J. Darquennes & J. Soler (Eds.), Language policy, Special issue on language policy in new speaker contexts. Soler, J., & Vihman, V.-A. (2018). Language ideology and language planning in Estonian higher education: Nationalising and globalising discourses. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14664208.2017.1281039. Soler-Carbonell, J. (2016). Complexity perspectives on linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 2, 1–25. Šuplinska, I., & Lazdiņa, S. (Eds.). (2009). Valodas Austrumlatvijā: pētījuma dati un rezultāti [Languages in Eastern Latvia: Research data and results]. Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Augstskola. Multilingualism, Language Contact … 25

Tarvas, M. (2015). Veränderungen des Leseverhaltens der Lehrer im Tallinn (Reval) des 18. Jahrhunderts. Triangulum: Germanistisches Jahrbuch für Estland, Lettland und Litauen, 20, 69–78. Veisbergs, A. (2013). Reality and perceptions of multilingualism in the Baltic states. In V. P. Karnups (Ed.), Humanities and social sciences. Latvia, 21(1). Riga: University of Latvia. https://www.lu.lv/fleadmin/user_upload/lu_por- tal/apgads/PDF/Hum_Soc-Scienc-2013_1_.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2018. Verschik, A. (2007). Te language situation in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629770500000111. Verschik, A. (2013). Estonian–Russian code-copying in Russian-language blogs. In V.-A. Vihman & K. Praakli (Eds.), Negotiating linguistic identity: Language and belonging in Europe (pp. 35–58). Oxford: Peter Lang. Verschik, A. (2014). Introduction: Contacts of Estonian in the light of contact linguistics research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 8(3), 345–355. https://doi. org/10.1558/sols.v8i3.25494. Verschik, A. (2017). Metalinguistic comments and multilingual awareness: Estonian–Russian language contacts in blogs. Applied linguistics review (pp. 1–27). Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter. Vihalemm, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2013a). Language policies and practices across the Baltic: Processes, challenges and prospects. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0004. Vihalemm, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2013b). Dilemmas of Estonian nation building in the open media market. Sociolinguistica. Internationales Jahrbuch für Europäische Soziolinguistik, 27(1), 69–86. Vihman, V.-A., & Praakli, K. (Eds.). (2013). Negotiating linguistic identity: Language and belonging in Europe (Nationalisms across the Globe 13). Oxford: Peter Lang. Zabrodskaja, A. (2014). Tallinn: Monolingual from above and multilingual from below. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 228, 105–130. Zabrodskaja, A. (2015). ‘What is my country to me?’ Identity construction by Russian-speakers in the Baltic countries. Sociolinguistic Studies, 9(2/3), 217–241. Zabrodskaja, A., & Ehala, M. (Eds.). (2015). Post-Soviet identities: Ethnic, national, linguistic, and imperial [Special issue]. Sociolinguistic Studies, 9, 217–241. Zamyatin, K. (2015). Te evolution of language ideology in post-Soviet Russia. In H. F. Marten, M. Rießler, J. Saarikivi, & R. Toivanen (Eds.), Cultural and linguistic minorities in the Russian Federation and the European Union (Multilingual education 13) (pp. 279–313). Cham: Springer. Part I Introduction Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal Linguistic Change: The Particularity of the Baltic Case

Uldis Ozolins

1 Introduction

A discussion of language policy in the Baltic states at the present moment inevitably addresses the politics of language and macropolit- ical forces little related to language. Te aggression of Russia towards Ukraine, and threats of the same to the Baltic states, must now be taken into account in understanding language issues (Stuttaford 2015b). At the same time, language policy in the Baltics has been an issue that has been salient ever since these countries regained independence de facto in 1991, and of longer historical interest as well. While perhaps not totally unique in their pursuit of defending their national languages the Baltic states have had to negotiate external pressures of a perhaps unusual intensity, with interest in and critique of their policies coming from both East and West, as well as internally. Tis chapter looks beyond the current menacing context of tension with Russia, traces some specifc

U. Ozolins (*) University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

© Te Author(s) 2019 29 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_2 30 U. Ozolins historical factors that have determined language policy, looks at the complex and sometimes paradoxical interplay between external and internal pressures determining language policy and looks briefy at what is an already changing language situation on the ground, examined in greater detail in other contributions to this book.

2 Perspectives on Baltic Language Policy in the Shadow of Ukraine

While recent events in Ukraine are distressing and Russia’s future inten- tions difcult to predict, these events may help to see more broadly the infuence of outside politics on language policy in the Baltic states. It is noteworthy that the degree of attention paid to external political forces on language policy as opposed to focus on purely internal factors has tended to sharply diferentiate the literature on the Baltics over the past two decades. For many authors from the Baltic states themselves the starting point is the need to change Soviet-period language policy and reassert the status of the national languages, under constant pressure not so much from local Russian communities as from Moscow and its various apparati, as well as pressures exerted by the EU and other international agencies (Budryte 2005; Druviete 1997; Druviete and Ozolins 2016; Hogan-Brun et al. 2007; Racevskis 2002; Rannut 1994, 2009). By contrast, for most writers from the West the focus is squarely on language rights of local minorities, largely seen as Russian, though with Polish also being a focus in Lithuania. Te concerns here have been twofold—frst, the reinstatement of the Baltic languages as the sole state language, and its consequence for speakers of Russian (and Polish), as the previous widespread Soviet role of Russian was restricted. Tis has particularly been phrased in the discourse of human rights, and universal values of language choice and freedom (de Varennes 1995/1996; Schmid 2008; Pavlenko 2011). Crucially, this discourse has also been linked to another external pressure: conditionality requirements for the Baltic states to gain membership of desired institutions, particularly the Council of Europe, the EU and NATO. Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 31

Second, while all three Baltic states reintroduced their titular language as the sole ofcial (or ‘State’) language, Estonia and Latvia as well introduced restrictive citizenship laws, which determined that only those who were citizens of those countries in 1940 at the time of the Soviet takeover, and their descendants, gained automatic citizenship. A process of naturalization allows the large numbers of Soviet-period settlers to gain citizenship upon passing a language and history/constitution test; this restriction has also been heavily criticized (Aasland 2002; Agarin 2010) but also defended (Chinn and Truex 1996; Burgess 1999; Jubulis 2001; Johns 2003). As early as 1992, American historian Fukuyama in a dramatic article ‘Trapped in the Baltics’ drew attention to the plight of large numbers of former Soviet citizens being beached in new countries as borders receded and language policy, like every other policy, changed around them, interestingly echoing views that came and continued to come from pro-Soviet/Russian authors (Alksnis 1991; Ramishvili 1998), though these views have also been strongly challenged (Bildt 1994; Laitin 1998). For much of this literature, through the 1990s and into the new century, Baltic language policy is inherently problematic. Some have seen it as simply a reversal of the asymmetric bilingualism of the Soviet period—thus the scenario of Baltic titulars needing to know Russian to be able to function and have any career in the Soviet Union was now reversed, as in Knowles’ (1999) article ‘Ethno-linguistic relations in contemporary Latvia: mirror image of the previous dispensation?’ Some saw the Baltic situation as simple discrimination by defnition, viewing any language requirement as ethnically biased (Dobson 2001). Te concern over Baltic language policy intensifed with the attempts by the Baltic states to gain membership of the EU, and there were conditionality requirements by European bodies seeking to soften Baltic language and citizenship policies in Estonia and Latvia (Ozolins 2003; Budryte 2005). Despite these, the fundamental positions taken by these countries were maintained: only one state language, requirements for language attestation testing for particular professions for those not having a titular language education and steady increase in teaching of the 32 U. Ozolins titular languages in the still extensive Russian medium-school systems. At the social level, Russian has continued to be used widely (Schulze 2009). While Baltic authors argued for the necessity of their language policy and pointed out the still extant political pressure that was put on the Baltic states by Russia, becoming more intense in the Putin era, the move to inclusion of the Baltic states in European structures paid little attention to Russian pressure, seeking to have norms of human rights and social inclusion refected in Baltic policy (Adrey 2005, though see the discussion of Schulze 2009 below). However, one European body was concerned with external threats—the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Arising as a permanent body from the Helsinki conference of 1975 which heralded the increasing if unsteady detente between East and West, the OSCE was concerned to ensure that the region of the former Soviet Bloc did not descend into confict, particularly ethnic or national conficts, in the newly created post-Soviet and post-Yugoslav states. As stated in its Oslo Recommendation Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities (OSCE 1998) the OSCE principal ofcer looking after this sphere in the wake of the Yugoslav hostilities, the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM),

has focused primarily on those situations involving persons belonging to national/ethnic groups who constitute the numerical majority in one State but the numerical minority in another (usually neighbouring) State, thus engaging the interest of governmental authorities in each State and constituting a potential source of inter-State tension if not confict. (OSCE 1998: 1)

It was the negotiations between OSCE and the Baltic states that led to softening of some of the stricter requirements of language and citizenship laws (Zaagman 1999; Chandler 1999). Te view that allowing greater usage of the minority language in more and more public and ofcial domains would lessen tensions was a leitmotif of OSCE work. Yet the OSCE worked under considerable constraints, particularly in relation to Russia, which does not, for instance, allow the OSCE to investigate or pronounce upon any minority issue within Russia itself. By contrast, the agenda of OSCE post the Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 33

Yugoslavia war has increasingly become dominated by Russia’s com- plaints about the fate of Russians (or Russian speakers) in the neighbouring countries, particularly those which were part of the former Soviet Union (Kelley 2004; Budryte 2005). Te view that attending to internal liberalization of attitudes towards minority languages might lessen tensions has become very much a taken-for-granted premise in much of the literature for resolving what was seen as the Baltic states issue (de Varennes 1995/1996; Smith 1999; Council of Europe 2015). Yet this literature rarely took seriously actual threats or pressures from Russia, increasingly drawing links between universalistic theories of rights and tolerance, and with a gaze only on minority relations within states. Te solution to the Baltic language issue—more ofcial use of Russian (or Polish in Lithuania)—is seen as self-evident. A typical view may be cited from a thesis on Baltic language issues by Ofenberger. After detailing the restrictions on minorities and their language in the Baltic states the author poses a familiar conclusion:

Te solution proposed is a practical rethink of the dominant language ideology in all three states, focusing on concessions to ethnic minorities and their overall inclusion and integration. Tis course of action will arguably beneft society at large, remove pretexts for outside intervention, and allow the region to become part of a twenty-frst century Europe in an increasingly globalized world. (Ofenberger 2013, Abstract)

Yet, as Baltic authors point out and Ukraine has clearly demonstrated, outside intervention does not need pretexts, or rather it can choose any pretext it wants. If something can be learned from the Ukraine experience, it is that shifts in language policy do not bring the supposed benefts they envisage. In Ukraine a section of the parliament in late 2012 unexpectedly and in a clearly orchestrated way passed a law granting ofcial regional status to Russian, immediately followed by several major cities and regions in Ukraine’s southeast declaring this status (Lawmakers in Ukraine Approve Bill on Language 2012). In turn, Ukrainian dissatisfaction with this move was felt immediately, contributing to growing opposition to the Yanukovych régime for this and many other reasons, leading eventually to the drawn-out Maidan 34 U. Ozolins overthrow of the régime—and subseqent Russian responses in Crimea and southeastern Ukraine. While the complexity and specifcity of the Ukrainian situation cannot be covered here, three insights from the existing literature on Ukraine are highly resonant in understanding the Baltic states. Te frst is that the literature on Ukraine is quite equivocal on the intensity of the linguistic division in the country (Fournier 2002; A’Beckett 2011; Brubaker 2011; Pavlenko 2011; Kulyk 2011, 2013). For example, Ágústsson’s study in 2011 suggested there was little evidence of ethnic Russian mobilization and anger about Ukrainian- language policy in social surveys conducted, but that in the face of Ukrainian nationalizing policies Russian elites ‘employ a discourse intended to recruit members to their in-group and prevent defections to an ethnic Ukrainian identity’, which is a sign of ‘elite competition for maximum constituency’ (Ágústsson 2011: 80). Analysis of elite positioning is crucial also to understanding the Baltics, as Schulze (2009) will show below, and helps us understand that not all apparent conficts over language are necessarily about language per se. Second, elite competition is however not the only factor determining language outcomes. While almost all the literature focuses on questions of minorities, in the Ukrainian case a vital factor is that it was the majority that felt threatened and took action in mass terms, an action also apparent in some crucial Baltic instances. Kulyk (2011, 2013) in articles based on mass surveys and extensive focus groups is sympathetic to views that Russian needed to have a greater legal status, but the particular way it was implemented instead brought a radical reaction:

Te best solution would be to adopt compromise legislation providing for a limited upgrade of the status of Russian and then facilitate its observance by both bureaucrats and citizens. However, the new language law adopted under President Yanukovych was widely perceived as endanger- ing the use of Ukrainian and thus contributed to confrontation rather than compromise. (Kulyk 2013: 280)

Kulyk argues that Ukrainians were perfectly willing to allow Russian to be used widely, provided their own use of Ukrainian was not hindered Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 35 and the titular language retained the priority status and exclusive role in some symbolically important practices; yet:

In contrast, Russian-speakers prefer an upgrade of the status of Russian, which they present as a way to ensure the equality of speakers of the two languages but most of them actually want ofcial bilingualism to let them remain unilingual in their capacities both as citizens and as employees. (Kulyk 2013: 280)

Tere is a third issue where useful parallels between Ukraine and the Baltic can be drawn: Russian speakers wishing to remain unilingual in Russian, and hence have all services provided to them in Russian, also sits at the nub of Baltic language issues. Te Baltic states reject having two ofcial languages and argue that it is minorities in Europe that have historically been bilingual; Druviete argues that the problem is not that the Russian minority cannot fnd service staf fuent in Russian, but rather that the minority demands the right to remain monolingual:

Te demand for the right to stay monolingual is the background and essence of the linguistics human rights problem of the Russian speaking population in all the Baltic States. (Druviete 1997: 181; see also Rannut 2009)

We return to this issue of remaining monolingual below, but now turn to the interaction between external and internal pressures on language policy.

3 Balancing an Understanding of External and Internal Factors in Language Policy

A sharper theoretical focus on untangling internal and external factors in language policy is provided in Schulze’s (2009) thesis on Estonia and Latvia. Her highly nuanced study is based inter alia on interviews and Q methodology with members of the Baltic elites, both titular and Russian, most closely concerned with integration issues. Schulze tries to 36 U. Ozolins understand the apparent contradiction that the Baltic states outwardly met all European conditionality requirements for accession to the EU and NATO in relation to minority languages and citizenship requirements, yet disturbances such as the widespread opposition to education reforms in Latvia in 2004, or the riots that followed the relocation of the Bronze Soldier in Estonia in 2007, a Soviet monument which was moved from the square in front of the Estonian National Library in Tallinn to a cemetery outside the city centre, belie any conclusion that conditionality norms on minority integration have been met. She argues that two factors have been ignored in much other scholarship. First, historical legacies and diferent understandings of history, particularly related to the long occupation by the Soviet Union, have profoundly infuenced local elites in the Baltic states to have their own norms of their desired language hierarchy. Tese local, historically based norms in turn were crucial for these elites in determining whether to accept European norms of language or citizenship policies, or localize these external norms and adapt them in ways consistent with their own historical norms; the internalization of externally promoted European norms had thus not resulted from the acceptance of conditionality. Second, Schulze points to a long history of active intervention by Russia, which has seemingly wanted the same objectives as European conditionality—greater rights to local minority-language speakers and greater integration into their host societies—but yet had negative efects upon both Estonian and Latvian elites, and consequently hindered such integration:

Te explanation for why the EU accession process did not translate into common understandings of minority inclusion among elites can be found by examining how Russia’s activism afects the viewpoints of both elites and the Russian community with respect to naturalization, language and history, in ways that work at cross purposes with European minority rights norms. (Schulze 2009: 250)

First, Russian intervention had a negative efect upon these Baltic elites by reinforcing their view of Russia’s aggressive meddling, thus leading to these elites not internalizing the European norms that conditionality required: Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 37

While pressure from European institutions has moved minority policies toward greater inclusion, Russia’s activism often aggravates historical memories and strengthens previously established domestic norms regarding minority rights, in ways which work against the internalization of minority rights norms by elites in these societies. (Schulze 2009: 103)

In the long debates over citizenship and language that occurred during the late 1990s and leading up to accession to the EU and NATO in 2004, local elites stuck tenaciously to their view of the illegitimacy of extending citizenship to all residents, or adopting Russian as a second state language; and there was continual reluctance to water down other aspects of citizenship or language policy. With continued pressure from Russia, at one stage even the EU expressed concerns that ‘Russian pressure on Latvia can defeat, instead of promote, the “integration” of local Russians in Latvian society’ (Schulze 2009: 206). Beyond that, however, Russia’s actions also had a particular efect on the minority itself:

Russia’s activism has perpetuated myths in both societies which work against integration processes by creating apathy toward naturalization and language learning among substantial numbers of the Russian minority. (Schulze 2009: 37)

Among the myths was that the language regime would be overthrown by international pressure, that the same pressure would sooner rather than later grant all residents citizenship and that Russian-speakers could continue to demand all services in Russian and maintain all Russian institutions as they had been used to during the Soviet era. Yet its efect was counterproductive, as Schulze concludes:

Te ways in which Russia is able to mobilize ethnic fears in these societies is an important part of the explanation for why EU conditionality was not successful in producing an internalization of minority rights norms among substantial numbers of Estonian and Latvian elites. (Schulze 2009: 34)

Schulze’s analysis also provides an understanding of events after her thesis was written. Te mix of internal elite competition and external force 38 U. Ozolins was also apparent in the most direct recent example of language confict in the Baltic states: the Latvian referendum of 2012 to make Russian a second state language, further detailed in Druviete and Ozolins (2016). Tis was brought about when a non-citizen group with strong connections to power structures in Russia initiated a referendum, allowable under the Latvian constitution through a process of gaining sufcient signatures and monitoring by the State Electoral Commission. It initially faltered but was brought to life when Riga’s popular mayor Nil Ushakov, a naturalized L1-speaker of Russian, signed for the referendum although his party, the Harmony Centre, ofcially supported only one state language, Latvian, leading to intense debate in society and a split in the Harmony Centre. Te outcome of the eventual referendum was a massive defeat for the proponents of Russian, with 75% voting against Russian as a second state language, though there was a majority in favour for the change in the southeastern Latvian region of Latgale and in particular in Latgale’s heavily russifed southeastern parts (Lublin 2013). Te holding of the referendum thus showed a concatenation of infuences, including a clearly populist move by Ushakov to strengthen his electoral position and up his standing in elite competition. Te extent of outside infuence in promoting this referendum is a matter for further investigation, as is the case for change in Ukrainian language law. Two additions might usefully be made to Schulze’s analysis. First, as detailed, at crucial stages it is not the elites and the minority that determine policy outcomes but the majority, as demonstrated in both the Latvian referendum and Maidan (both occurring after Schulze’s 2009 analysis). While elite competition may be considered the ‘normal science’ of democratic politics, in both cases it was a mobilization of the majority that determined outcomes, with three quarters of Latvian voters rejecting Russian as a second state language in the referendum, and the pressure of street demonstrations and widespread opposition to the Yanukovych regime in Ukraine leading to eventual downfall of his government. In both cases this was pressure and solidarity from below. Second, Schulze tells us relatively little about the nature of the minorities in the Baltic, and tends to view Russian intervention as uniformly infuencing this minority, a view now belied by studies that have shown Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 39 a great diversity of practices by these minorities in relation to language policy (Romanov 2000; Dilans 2009; Agarin 2010). Another salient example was the protests against school reform in Latvia in 2004, partly fnanced and organized by Russia, which resulted in considerable press coverage and public protest, as Schulze points out. But, when the organizers of the protests urged a boycott of schools introducing this new regime, the move fzzled out, with parents overwhelmingly continuing to send their children to these schools (Hogan-Brun 2006; Bogushevitch 2013). Tis alerts us to the largely pragmatic and nuanced response of the Russian-speaking minority to language use and acceptance of the titular languages as part of their (and their children’s) repertoire, detailed further below.

4 Relative Autonomy of Baltic Language Policy

Foreign pressure on the Baltic states through Russian or European appeals to human rights and minority rights, and the activism of the local population in bringing about a referendum in Latvia, even though it ended in defeat, may seem to indicate ineradicable divisions over language. Yet, if we focus on the social experience of language, underpinning the often shrill politics of language, a somewhat diferent picture emerges. Other chapters in this book deal in far greater detail with the sociolinguistics of languages and language use in the three Baltic states, but an overview here of trends can alert us to important social factors that are bringing about a sea change in language use and strengthening of the titular languages. As a standard baseline, we can take fgures from the (last) 1989 census of the Soviet Union, which showed that in Estonia only 15% of the non-titular population (i.e., persons who claimed an ethnicity other than Estonian) reported a command of Estonian, while in Latvia the proportion of non-titulars claiming profciency in Latvian was 22%, and in Lithuania 35% (Druviete 1997: 166). Subsequent census fgures and other surveys have shown a marked rise in the proportion of 40 U. Ozolins non-titulars claiming profciency in the state languages. We take each of the countries in turn.

4.1 Change in the Language Hierarchy in Latvia

In Latvia the 2001 census showed the proportion of non-titulars claiming command in Latvian to be 53% (Latvian State Language Commission 2008: 191), more than doubling in the frst decade of independence, and this trend quickened in the next decade. Te Baltic Institute of Social Science tracked the degree of profciency in Latvian in a series of surveys; their last survey in 2008 showed a continuing growth in knowledge of Latvian among ethnic non-Latvians. Table 1 shows responses to questions about language knowledge according to three levels of profciency, levels well known in Latvia as the three levels at which language attestation tests had been run since 1992. For reasons never properly explained the 2011 census in Latvia did not ask for levels of competence in Latvian, Russian or any other language. It confned itself to asking what language was spoken at home and about use of the regional variety Latgalian. Other studies however have shown the trend to greater knowledge of Latvian has continued, with an estimated 10% only of mother-tongue Russian speakers not knowing any Latvian (Lauze and Kļava 2016). However, understanding the state language to a higher degree does not mean radical language shift, but rather an extension of the repertoires of individuals. Brubaker (2011: 1797) points out that ‘in Estonia and Latvia, policies that seek to alter non-titulars’ language repertoires and practices aim in the frst instance to redistribute the burden of bilingualism’.

Table 1 Changing profciency in Latvian of persons whose mother tongue is not Latvian (BISS 2008: 22) Level of profciency claimed Highest (%) Intermediate (%) Lowest (%) Did not know Latvian (%) June 1996 9 27 44 22 April 2008 26 31 36 7 Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 41

Echoing Brubaker, several studies have revealed that demographic factors loom large in underpinning language change. In a methodologically imaginative survey, Breggin (2014) measured language use and attitudes among city youth in Riga. Although Russophones and Lettophones make up almost equal numbers in the city and Russian has a clear social visibility and audibility, Breggin found that ‘the youngest generation of Latvia’s capital has broken away from Soviet-era language trends, communicating in Latvian more frequently and confdently than Russian’ (Breggin 2014: 169). He surveyed fnal year secondary students in both Latvian-stream and Russian-stream schools, but interestingly used a survey in English to ask questions about language use. A higher proportion of Russophones adjudged themselves as speaking Latvian fuently or fairly well than Lettophone youth claiming to speak Russian fuently or well:

Only 11% of the Lettophones claim fuency in Russian, with 31% claiming they speak it fairly well, 51% not so well, and 7% not at all. Meanwhile, 29% of the Russophones claim fuency in Latvian, with precisely half claiming that they speak it fairly well, 20% not so well, and 1% not at all. (Breggin 2014: 174)

For Breggin, this is a clear sign of the steady rise in the prestige of Latvian, but at the same time it does not in any way threaten Russian- language maintenance and the still wide social use of Russian. Other studies on the Russian minority (Romanov 2000; Dilans 2009) have pointed to the disorientation of that group without a clear view of how to respond to the language demands now extant in the Baltic states—or indeed how to respond to the post-Soviet situation of having become a minority. Te other social phenomenon that Breggin points to as constituting greater prestige of Latvian is the gender gap between the higher level of fuency in the titular language among young women as opposed to young men, again backing up other research that has identifed this gender divide (e.g., Romanov 2000), also referred to below in the Estonian case. 42 U. Ozolins

4.2 Estonia—Linguistic and Social Segmentation

Estonia has similar language and citizenship policies to those of Latvia, but in a somewhat diferent demographic context. Estonia had an even smaller proportion of non-titulars who spoke the titular language than Latvia (15% in the 1989 Soviet census). Tis percentage of ethnic non-Estonians who speak Estonian has steadily increased from this extremely low base, with the 2011 census showing that self-reported knowledge of Estonian among non-titulars had risen to 43.7%—still far below that of ethnic non-Latvians in Latvia speaking Latvian (Estonian Census 2011). Te segregation in Estonia is more marked than in Latvia, with almost the entire northeastern region around Narva being populated by Russian-speakers (more than 90%). Tere is also a large Russian population in Tallinn, but negligible numbers of Russophones in other regions (Stuttaford 2015a). Tis degree of segregation has made it difcult (e.g., in the Narva region) to create an environment where speaking Estonian is a useful attribute, as noted below. In the Estonian case the gender gap, as identifed by Breggin, is also apparent. Te 2011 census revealed a decisive gender diference in which 47.5% of non-titular females reported competence in Estonian, but only 39.1% of males. Te citizenship picture is also somewhat diferent in Estonia when compared to Latvia, with a signifcant number of ethnic Russians taking up Russian citizenship, leaving a very small percentage of the population (Soviet-era settlers) without citizenship (around 6.5%). Citizenship reveals stark diferences in knowledge of Estonian:

In 2005, 40% of respondents who were Estonian Russians and Estonian citizens claimed to be able to communicate ‘well’ in Estonian. Te corresponding fgures for those who were Russian citizens or Stateless were 0% and 5% respectively. (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research and Council of Europe 2010: 16)

In other respects, however, the language situation in Estonia has institutional similarities to Latvia and Lithuania: increasing numbers of non-titulars are sending children to Estonian-medium schools, and Russian-medium school numbers are steadily declining: Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 43

In the school year 2009/2010 as many as 5937 students whose mother tongue was not Estonian attended basic school (which constitutes almost 22% of all basic school students whose mother tongue is not Estonian and 6.5% of all Estonian-medium students). (Estonian Language Foundation 2011: 40)

As is the case in Latvia where Latvian is on the increase, the transition to increased use of Estonian as a means of instruction in Russian- medium secondary schools is continuing, based on a model where 60% of instruction is in Estonian, 40% in Russian or another minority language. However,

Estonian-language profciency reveals regional diferences and is relatively low in those areas where the Estonian-language environment is almost absent (e.g. in Narva). Also, the situation is further complicated by the fact that teachers of non-Estonian-medium schools have little motivation to study the Estonian language and that Estonian-language instruction is too politicized. (Estonian Language Foundation 2011: 46)

Providing an environment in which the use of Estonian is widespread remains elusive, at least in the northeast of the country. Tis degree of social division in Estonia is the target of select international eforts to soften Estonian-language policy, which has no ofcial (as distinct from a de facto) recognition of Russian. For example, the Council of Europe Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities released its Fourth Opinion on Estonia in March 2015 by reiterating recommendations where the Committee felt Estonia was dragging its feet—making citizenship easier to obtain, allowing Russian ofcial status in regions heavily populated by Russian speakers, relaxing Estonian-language requirements for particular professions (Council of Europe 2015). Te Baltic states are reluctant to agree to such recommendations as they see such a move as reintroducing elements of the Soviet-era language situation, where Russian speakers could remain monolingual and the titular population was forced to adopt Russian. Such attitudes are still to be found among some Russian leaders in the Baltic, but not 44 U. Ozolins broadly among the Russian-speaking population, who have in surveys since the early to mid-1990s supported the teaching of the titular languages and the necessity for all residents to have knowledge of these languages (Maley and Rose 1994; Laitin 1998, 2003). Moreover, regional authorities in Estonia, as elsewhere, do not deny service in Russian, thus making an accommodation that is accepted while maintaining the overt language policy of the titular language as the only state language. Tis brings us back to the social rather than the political aspect of languages in the Baltic. Verschik in her work on contact linguistics noted that

empirical data […] confrm that linguistic creativity, code-switching, a deliberate use of convergent forms, and compromise strategies are all gaining ground in Russian–Estonian communication. (Verschik 2005: 306)

Te important thing here is that sociolinguistic work of this kind is now fourishing, as evidenced in Breggin’s work and in seminal studies of family bilingual language use, revealing the increasing diversity of languages used within and between families in the Baltic and wider afeld (Schwartz and Verschik 2013), as discussed in other chapters in this book.

4.3 Lithuania and Its Polish and Russian Minorities

Lithuania’s very diferent demographics have had an infuence on its implementation of language policy, though the fundamental purpose—to ensure the strength of the titular language as the only state language—is identical to that of Estonia and Latvia. With far lower levels of industrialization and infux of Soviet-era settlers, Lithuanians remained the overwhelming majority (84%) of the Lithuanian Republic’s population during the Soviet era; its two largest minorities, Poles and Russians, each constituting less than 10% of the population (Andrlik 2009). Tis situation led to Lithuania deciding that the Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 45 minorities could easily be integrated and introduced an inclusive citizenship policy, granting citizenship to all permanent residents. By the time of the 1989 census, Lithuania also had a higher proportion of non-Lithuanians who spoke the titular language (35%) compared to non-Estonians in Estonia (15%) and non-Latvians in Latvia (22%). Language policy was also somewhat more restricted than in Estonia and Latvia by being concerned largely with the public sector. Minority school systems (Russian and Polish) were allowed to remain with Lithuanian slowly added as a language of instruction; yet, Lithuania has seen the same decline in numbers in the Russian (and Polish) school systems as in Estonia and Latvia (see below). Te Lithuanian situation shows minorities making great eforts to learn Lithuanian, but there is continuing widespread use of other languages, particularly Russian, by the majority of the population, and an increasing stress on the importance of English. Kalėdienė’s revealing study (2011) surveyed representative samples of 2037 residents of Lithuania’s three major urban centres: Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda. Only 1% of the sample declared no knowledge of Lithuanian at all, while 3% had no knowledge of Russian, and 42% had no knowledge of English, the latter heavily weighted by age since older respondents knew little English. In terms of language prestige, ‘English was almost unanimously indicated as the most prestigious language’ (Kalėdienė 2011: 73). An intriguing fnding was that some respondents in the most ethnically mixed city of Vilnius claimed more than one mother tongue (e.g., 12% of Poles in Vilnius claimed two or three mother tongues). While ethnic Russians exhibit strong language loyalty and use of their mother tongue, they also frequently use Lithuanian, especially when consuming Lithuanian media. A generational shift in language use is becoming evident:

Te distribution is distinct: communicating with older family members (grandparents, parents, brothers/sisters and animals) is mostly in Russian, while Lithuanian is mainly used when communicating with the younger generation (children and grandchildren). Alternation between the languages is common. (Kalėdienė 2011: 80) 46 U. Ozolins

In educational terms, there is an increasing tendency among minorities to favour Lithuanian schools, or ideally hope for Lithuanian/English schools for their children: less than half of ethnic Polish children attend Polish schools, though many attend Russian schools. While 44% of Russians in Vilnius and Klaipeda still want their children to be taught in Russian, only 4% of ethnic Russians in Kaunas desire this. Kalėdienė summarized the situation in this way:

Nationality and mother tongue are losing their signifcance, and people are becoming more pragmatic. It is hard to judge from the research whether the reluctance of Russians to send their children to Russian schools correlates with the closure of such schools or whether the closure of Russian schools is forcing them to adapt to new circumstances and change their attitudes. However, it is obvious that nationality and mother tongue are no longer priority values in education. (Kalėdienė 2011: 81)

Te developments in Lithuania do indicate a wider acceptance of linguistic diversity, not only in the education sphere but more widely societally.

5 Conclusion

Two interrelated dynamics are apparent in the specifc case of the Baltic states and their language policies. Te frst is that, like almost every former republic of the Soviet Union (Riegl and Vasco 2007), the countries have promoted their titular languages as the sole ofcial (state) language, with particular attention spreading the use of titular languages in all public sector work, education, the media and public spaces. Te success and limitations of these policies in the case of the Baltic states have been outlined above, but the manifest diversifcation of language practices is now well documented and a linguistics analysis of the countries cannot deal with Russian/titular issues alone. Perhaps refecting Wee’s (2007) view that monolingualism is no longer an achievable or desirable outcome for minorities, we fnd that most non-titulars have learnt a level of Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian that has now largely superseded the previous situation of asymmetric bilingualism where titulars needed Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 47 to be bilingual while Russian speakers remained monolingual (Hogan- Brun and Ramonienė 2004). Tis view refects Brown’s (2013) argument that older ‘geometric’ paradigms (particularly ‘asymmetry’, ‘navigating parallel worlds’ and ‘trajectory’) used to defne Soviet linguistic relations are giving way to newer perspectives of space and place, as exemplifed in a greater number of ethnographic and discursive studies, and studies on teacher activity; for example, Silova et al.’s (2014) study comparing school textbooks in Armenia, Latvia and Ukraine argued that these textbooks were increasingly displaying understanding of the particular places in which languages were being taught, and the link between places, peoples and cultures. Signifcantly, the thrust of Baltic language policy has been towards adding to the linguistic repertoire—not reducing it. All the research shows strong language maintenance among Russians, as is the case with the titular populations (Pavlenko 2011). Some criticisms that Baltic language policy is pushing for assimilation or monolingualism is the very opposite of what is happening, as Laitin argued:

Baltic titular nationals have historically demonstrated a permanent stable bilingualism. A successful outcome of Baltic language policy would be to have all other groups also achieve a permanent stable bilingualism. Such an outcome would illustrate the virtually total incoherence of trying to use such notions as assimilation and monolingualism in the Baltic context, and the irrelevance of assimilation and monolingualism as a critique of Baltic language policy. (Laitin 1996: 7)

Indeed, some international interventions assume that a minority’s rights are secured only when it is able to avoid becoming bilingual. Wee’s (2007) striking critique of such views argues that many expressions of language rights are based on a monolingual discourse, presuming that minority-language speakers must be self-sufcient in their language. While most conventions on language mention in passing the need to learn the ofcial language of a country, the focus largely is on ensuring self-sufciency of the minority language. Tis, argues Wee, makes integration next to impossible, places a heavy burden on states to meet such 48 U. Ozolins local specifcities and goes against wider global trends of mobility and multilingualism. Further, while the ongoing discourse in language policy has tended to see opposition between titular languages and Russian (or Polish in Lithuania), the educational sphere in particular has diversifed, with many other minority languages having their own schools. Latvia, for example, has ‘state fnanced minority education programmes in seven languages (Estonian, Hebrew, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian) and at least 60% of subjects taught in Latvian or bilingually’ (Latvian Ministry of Foreign Afairs, n.d.). Te titular/Russian duopoly is also challenged by the advent of more schools teaching a large part of their curriculum in English, or in isolated instances in French or German, with also greater focus on the acquisition of other European languages (besides English) since joining the EU in 2004. Te linguistic environment has become even more dynamic in the last few years with the emergence of stronger movements promoting regional varieties closely related to the titular language, such as Võro in Estonia (Koreinik 2007; Võro Institute, n.d.) and Latgalian in Latvia (Marten et al. 2009; Latgalistika, n.d.; Marten and Lazdiņa 2016). Tese varieties are slowly being reintroduced into school curricula from which they have long been absent, and are becoming more prominent in publishing and social media. Tis growing diversity of language issues and language perspectives is well captured in Brown’s overview of schooling policies in post-Soviet states. While she sees still signifcant variation in school policies, looking across all these states she can increasingly identify

policies attempting to transform Soviet-era institutions into new types of plurilingual schools—ones that generally promote the titular language, create space for instruction in minority languages, and educate in a foreign language (or two). (Brown 2013: 238)

Tis is backed up by other newer theoretical perspectives that speak to the Baltic situation. From the perspective of postcolonial studies we can Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 49 understand the various policies and processes that disrupt Soviet-era bilingualism. Racevskis (2002) and Dilans (2009) have specifcally used this perspective for the Baltics, while Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun use the postaccession perspective, arguing that the three Baltic states are ‘following similar trajectories of language policy development and implementation within the post EU accession period moving from the policy of ethnolingualism to a policy of plurilingualism’ (Bulajeva and Hogan- Brun 2010: 93). Te second dynamic afecting the Baltic states, however, is the continual criticism of Baltic policies by Russia, which targets the perceived discrimination of its category of Russian-speakers and has relentlessly criticized these countries, enlisting or attempting to enlist European and international organizations to back its critique (Kelley 2004; Grigas 2012). As we have shown, this international factor has been relatively downplayed by those Western authors seeking to critique Baltic language policy, either in the name of universal values of non- discrimination, integration and reducing tensions, or in the name of European values and institutional imperatives. While organizations such as the OSCE have recognized the international dimension, they have little means to combat external threats except to argue for greater internal liberalization. Yet, these external threats from Russia have not succeeded in shifting the essentials of Baltic language policy, and may go against the stated objectives of integrating the Russian-speaking minority (Schulze 2009). Somewhat ironically, the recent Russian aggression against Ukraine, the spurious reasons given for its actions there and continual confrontation with the EU and NATO may show that internal liberalization will have little bearing on the degree of external threat. Te interest of the Russian Federal Security Bureau in commissioning research on how well Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians speak Russian (Window on Eurasia 2015) indicates that Russia still hopes the Russian language can continue to be a signifcant point of leverage in its uneasy relation with the Baltic states. Nevertheless, in these three countries linguistic change at the societal level continues. 50 U. Ozolins

References

Aasland, A. (2002). Citizenship status and social exclusion in Estonia and Latvia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 33(1), 57–77. A’Beckett, L. (2011). Restoring functional domains of a formerly ‘oppressed’ language: Pitfalls in promoting Ukrainian for Ukrainians. Annual of Language and Politics and Politics of Identity, 7(1), 23–47. Adrey, J.-B. (2005). Minority language rights before and after the 2004 EU enlargement: Te Copenhagen criteria in the Baltic states. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(5), 453–468. Agarin, T. (2010). Cat’s lick: Democratisation and minority communities in the post-Soviet Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ágústsson, Á. M. (2011). Framed peoples: Te discourse of minority elites and the language question in Ukraine. Slovo, 23(2), 80–94. Alksnis, V. (1991). Sufering from self-determination. Foreign Policy, 84, 61–71. Andrlik, J. (2009). Ethnic and language policy of the Republic of Lithuania: Basis and practice. Annual of language and politics and politics of identity (ALLPI) v. III. Prague: Charles University. http://alppi.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2009/11/Andrlik.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018. Bildt, C. (1994). Te Baltic litmus test. Foreign Afairs, 73(5), 72–85. BISS (Baltic Institute of Social Sciences). (2008). Language (Report March–April 2008). http://www.biss.soc.lv/?lang en&category resurss&id 2006-2008. = = = Accessed 20 April 2016. Bogushevitch, T. (2013). Protest mobilisation of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia. In V. Poleshchuk & V. V. Stepanov (Eds.), Etnicheskaya politika v stranakh Baltii [Ethnic policy in the Baltic states ] (pp. 236–257). Moscow: Nauka. Breggin, B. (2014). Riga city youth between Latvian and Russian. Journal of Baltic Studies, 45(2), 169–186. Brown, K. D. (2013). Language policy and education: Space and place in multilingual post-Soviet states. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 238–257. Brubaker, R. (2011). Nationalizing states revisited: Projects and processes of nationalization in post-Soviet states. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(11), 1785–1814. Budryte, D. (2005). Taming nationalism? Political community building in the post-Soviet Baltic states. Aldershot: Ashgate. Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 51

Bulajeva, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2010). Introducing early foreign-language learning in the Baltic context. Comparative Education, 46, 79–97. Burgess, A. (1999). Critical refections on the return of national minority rights regulation to East/West European afairs. In K. Cordell (Ed.), Ethnicity and democratisation in the New Europe (pp. 49–60). London: Routledge. Chandler, D. (1999). Te OSCE and the internationalisation of national minority rights. In K. Cordell (Ed.), Ethnicity and democratisation in the New Europe (pp. 61–76). London: Routledge. Chinn, J., & Truex, L. A. (1996). Te question of citizenship in the Baltics. Journal of Democracy, 7(1), 133–147. Council of Europe. (2015). Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Fourth Opinion on Estonia. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM Content?documentId 090000168047d0e5. Accessed 28 April 2017. = de Varennes, F. (1995/1996). Te protection of linguistic minorities in Europe and human rights: Possible solutions to ethnic conficts? Columbia Journal of European Law, 2(1), 107–143. Dilans, G. (2009). Russian in Latvia: An outlook for bilingualism in a post- Soviet transitional society. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 1–13. Dobson, J. (2001). Ethnic discrimination in Latvia. In O’Reilly, Camille C. (Eds.), Language, ethnicity and the state, Vol. 2: Minority languages in Eastern Europe post-1989. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 155–188. Druviete, I. (1997). Linguistic human rights in the Baltic states. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127, 161–186. Druviete, I., & Ozolins, U. (2016). Te Latvian referendum on Russian as a second state language, February 2012. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40(2), 121–145. Estonian Census. (2011). Statistics. http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval.asp?ma PC0436&ti POPULATION+BY+MOTHER+TONGUE% = = 2C+COMMAND+OF+FOREIGN+LANGUAGES%2C+SEX+AND+ PLACE+OF+RESIDENCE%2C+31+DECEMBER+2011&path ../I_ = Databas/Population_census/PHC2011/01Demographic_and_ ethno_cultural_characteristics/04Ethnic_nationality_Languages_ Dialects/&lang 1. Accessed 22 June 2016. = 52 U. Ozolins

Estonian Language Foundation. (2011). Development plan of the Estonian language 2011–2017. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/fles/eestikeelearenguka- vainglise.indd_.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2016. Estonian Ministry of Education and Research and Council of Europe. (2010). Language education policy profle: Estonia. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Profle-Estonia_EN.doc. Accessed 28 April 2017. Fournier, A. (2002). Mapping identities. Russian resistance to linguistic Ukrainisation in Central and Eastern Ukraine. Europe–Asia Studies, 54(3), 415–433. Fukuyama, F. (1992). Trapped in the Baltics. New York Times, December 19, 1992. Grigas, A. (2012). Legacies, coercion and soft power: Russian infuence in the Baltic states. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/185321. Accessed 28 April 2017. Hogan-Brun, G. (2006). At the interface of language ideology and practice: Te public discourse surrounding the 2004 education reform in Latvia. Language Policy, 5(2), 313–333. Hogan-Brun, G., & Ramonienė, M. (2004). Changing levels of bilingualism across the Baltic. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 62–77. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramonienė, M., & Rannut, M. (2007). Language politics and practices in the Baltic states. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(4), 469–631. Johns, M. (2003). ‘Do as I say, not as I do’. Te European Union, Eastern Europe and minority rights. East European Politics and Society, 17(4), 682–699. Jubulis, M. A. (2001). Nationalism and democratic transition. Te politics of citizenship and language in post-Soviet Latvia. Lanham: University Press of America. Kalėdienė, L. (2011). Evaluation of language policy in Lithuania. ESUKA- JEFUL Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 2(2), 69–85. Kelley, J. G. (2004). Ethnic politics in Europe: Te power of norms and incen- tives. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Knowles, F. (1999). Ethno-linguistic relations in contemporary Latvia: Mirror image of the previous dispensation? Current Issues in Language and Society, 6(1), 48–56. Koreinik, K. (2007). Võro. Te Võro language in education in Estonia, Latvia (Mercator regional dossier series). Leeuwarden: Mercator European Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 53

Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, http://www. mercator-research.eu/fleadmin/mercator/dossiers_pdf/voro_in_estonia.pdf. Kulyk, V. (2011). Language identity, linguistic diversity and political cleavages: evidence from Ukraine. Nations and Nationalism, 17(3), 627–648. Kulyk, V. (2013). Language policy in Ukraine: What people want the state to do. East European Politics and Societies, 27(2), 280–307. Laitin, D. (1996). Language and nationalism in the post-Soviet republics. Post- Soviet Afairs, 12(1) (Latvian Commission of the Ofcial Language), 4–24. Laitin, D. (1998). Identity in formation: Te Russian speaking populations in the near abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Laitin, D. (2003). Tree models of integration and the Estonian/Russian reality. Journal of Baltic Studies, 34(2), 197–222. Latgalistika. (n.d.). Latgalistics. http://www.lu.lv/flol/latgalistica/index_ en.htm. Accessed 18 March 2018. Latvian Ministry of Foreign Afairs. (n.d.). Facts regarding society integration in Latvia. http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/society-integration/facts-regarding-society-integration-in-latvia. Accessed 18 March 2018. Latvian State Language Commission. (2008). Break-out of Latvian. A sociolinguistic study of situation, attitudes, processes, and tendencies. Riga: Zinatne. Lauze, L., & Kļava, G. (Eds.). (2016). Te language situation in Latvia: 2010– 2015. A sociolinguistic study. Riga: Latvian Language Agency. http://www. valoda.lv/en/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LSL_ENG_2017_web.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2018. Lawmakers in Ukraine Approve Bill on Language. (2012, July 4). New York Times. Lublin, D. (2013). Te 2012 Latvia language referendum. Electoral Studies, 32, 370–387. Maley, W., & Rose, R. (1994). Nationalities in the Baltic states: A survey study. Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy. Marten, H. F., & Lazdiņa, S. (2016). Latgalian in Latvia: How a minority language community gains voice during societal negotiations about the status of two major languages. In M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.), Vanishing languages in context: Ideological, attitudinal and social identity perspectives (pp. 195–222). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Marten, H. F., Šuplinska, I., & Lazdiņa, S. (2009). Latgalian. Te Latgalian language in education in Latvia (Mercator regional dossier series). Leeuwarden: Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning. http://www.mercator-research.eu/fleadmin/mercator/ 54 U. Ozolins

dossiers_pdf/090603.regional_dossier_latgalian_in_latvia.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018. Ofenberger, Z. E. (2013). Dimensions of language confict in the Baltic states: History, politics, theory, and future outlook. Dissertation, ProQuest, AAI1522490. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1341668349. Accessed 12 August 2016. OSCE. (1998). Te Oslo recommendations regarding the linguistic rights of national minorities and explanatory note. Te Hague: Foundation on Inter- ethnic Relations. http://www.osce.org/hcnm/67531?download true. = Accessed 12 August 2016. Ozolins, U. (2003). Te impact of European accession upon language policy in the Baltic states. Language Policy, 2, 217–238. Pavlenko, A. (2011). Language rights versus speakers’ rights: On the applicability of Western language rights approaches in Eastern European contexts. Language Policy, 10(1), 37–58. Racevskis, K. (2002). Towards a postcolonial perspective on the Baltic states. Journal of Baltic Studies, 33(1), 37–56. Ramishvili, T. (1998). Latvia and Estonia: Human rights violations in the center of Europe. International Afairs, 44(4), 116–127. Rannut, M. (1994). Beyond linguistic policy: Te Soviet Union versus Estonia. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 179–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rannut, M. (2009). Treats to national languages in Europe. In G. Stickel (Ed.), National and European language policies (pp. 35–51). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Riegl, M., & Vasko, T. (2007). Comparison of language policies in the post-Soviet Union countries on the European continent. Annual of Language and Politics and Politics of Identity, 1(1), 47–78. https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/be13/abc56309e68edc5984d4aa1a4ce3032243bf.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2017. Romanov, A. (2000). Te Russian diaspora in Latvia and Estonia: Predicting language outcomes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(1), 58–71. Schmid, C. (2008). Ethnicity and language tensions in Latvia. Language Policy, 7(1), 3–19. Schulze, J. (2009). Understanding the “conditionality gap” in Estonia and Latvia. Te infuence of EU conditionality and Russia’s activism on Language Policy, External Political Pressure and Internal … 55

minority inclusion. PhD thesis, George Washington University. http:// www.tiesproject.eu/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/ gid,454/Itemid,142/index.html.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018. Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (Eds.). (2013). Successful family language policy. Parents, children and educators in interaction. Dordrecht: Springer. Silova, I., Yaqub, M. M., & Palandjian, G. (2014). Pedagogies of space. (Re) Mapping national territories, borders, and identities in post-Soviet textbooks. In J. H. Williams (Ed.), Textbooks, identities, nation, and state (pp. 103–128). Rotterdam: Sense. Smith, G. (1999). Transnational politics and the politics of the Russian diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(3), 500–523. Stuttaford, A. (2015a). A ‘normal’ Narva. Te New Criterion, 33(10), 29. http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/A–normal–Narva-8182. Accessed 21 September 2017. Stuttaford, A. (2015b, July 16). After Ukraine, are the Baltics in Putin’s sights? Prospect Magazine. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/after- ukraine-are-the-baltics-in-putins-sights. Accessed 21 September 2016. Verschik, A. (2005). Research into multilingualism in Estonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(5), 378–390. Võro Institute. (n.d.). Võro language. http://wi.ee/en/voro-language/. Accessed 12 September 2017. Wee, L. (2007). Linguistic human rights and mobility. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(4), 325–338. Window on Eurasia. (2015). Ten disturbing developments in and around Russia. http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/ten-disturbing- developments-in-and.html. Accessed 21 September 2016. Zaagman, R. (1999). Confict prevention in the Baltic states: Te OSCE high commissioner on national minorities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (ECMI Monograph #1). Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues. http:// www.ecmi.de/uploads/tx_lfpubdb/monograph_1.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2018. Part II Regional Varieties and Minority Languages Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization

Sanita Lazdiņa

1 Introduction: A Decade of Intensifed Research on Latgalian

Te last decade saw a rapid increase in interest towards issues of Latgalian, a regional language spoken mostly in the region of Latgale in Eastern Latvia. Tis deeper interest among sociolinguists started in 2004, when Rēzekne University College (now Rēzekne Academy of Technologies) organized the frst international sociolinguistic conference in Latvia about regional and minority languages in Europe. Tis event also had a symbolic meaning—in the context of Latvia joining the EU in May 2004, it was the frst time that an international audience received an overview about Latgalian and, at the same time, local

S. Lazdiņa (*) Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Rēzekne, Latvia e-mail: [email protected] S. Lazdiņa National Centre for Education, Riga, Latvia

© Te Author(s) 2019 59 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_3 60 S. Lazdiņa scientists, stakeholders and the wider community were introduced to less-used languages in the European context. During the last decade, academic papers on Latgalian have not only been published in Latvian contexts, but also in publications available to the international community of linguists. Among them are a theoretical linguistic overview and descriptive grammar (Nau 2011), writings about Latgalian in the linguistic landscape revealing its increasing presence in the public space during the last decade (Marten 2010, 2012; Marten and Lazdiņa 2016a) and publications about the correlation between Latgalian, religion and ethnic identity (Lazdiņa et al. 2011). A study of the ethnolinguistic vitality of Latgalians in the context of other ethnic groups in the Baltic States (Эxaлa and 3aбpoдcкaя 2011) shows it to be low and assigns a medium level of threat to them. Latgalian has been described from language policy perspectives (Lazdiņa and Marten 2012; Marten and Lazdiņa 2016b) and regarding its role in formal and informal education (Marten et al. 2009); more data about Latgalian education correlated with its economic value is discussed in Lazdiņa (2013). Very recently the latest major sociolinguistic research overview of the situation of languages in Latvia between 2010 and 2015 includes a chapter on the situation of Latgalian (Pošeiko 2016)—a translated version of the volume is also available in English (Pošeiko 2017). Between 2006 and 2009, Rēzeknes Augstskola (Rēzekne University College) and the Centre d’Études Linguistiques pour l’Europe (CELE) conducted a large-scale sociolinguistic survey (more than 9000 questionnaires). It gave an inestimable overview of the use of Latgalian and other languages in diferent domains and the language skills of people in Latgale, which implicitly also revealed linguistic attitudes (Šuplinska and Lazdiņa 2009; Lazdiņa et al. 2011). Tis showed that Latvian as the titular language of Latvia and international languages (English, Russian) are considered more important than an increase in the societal role of Latgalian. Tis chapter looks at research on Latgalian through a diferent lens. It deals with experiences in gathering and interpreting data by using techniques that are associated with folk linguistics. Whereas ‘folk beliefs’ have traditionally been viewed as being in strict opposition to academic approaches (Wilton and Stegu 2011), the border between ‘academic’ and ‘lay’ has declined in recent years. Te results of scientifc research are today frequently also based on the analysis of public discourse. Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 61

Folk perceptions of language refect the social and political status of individual varieties. It is therefore benefcial to investigate folk perceptions of linguistic diversity in order to understand the status and functions of diferent types of language varieties. Te defnition of folk linguistics proposed by Niedzielski and Preston stipulates: ‘Folk Linguistics aims to discover and analyze beliefs about and attitudes towards language at every level of linguistic production, perception, and cognitive embedding by collecting and examining overt comment about it by non-linguists’ (Niedzielski and Preston 2009: 146). In this chapter, I investigate language regards towards Latgalian and metalinguistic knowledge of what Latgalian is. Fieldwork for this research was carried out in the district of Baltinava in northern Latgale in the northeast of Latvia in 2013. Forty-two interviews were analysed using approaches from discourse analysis, in particular with regard to metalinguistic topics (Preston 2011a). By extracting units of structure and relevance from the interviews and analysing specifc linguistic and pragmatic features (Blommaert and Jie 2010), we can look beyond what is said and uncover what is presupposed (i.e., deeply held folk beliefs). Tis chapter is organized as follows. First, I provide a short sociolinguistic profle of the current situation of Latgalian. Ten I provide the rationale for using the discourse approach in folk linguistics research and for describing my data and the data collection process. After this, examples from interviews are analysed using diferent investigative criteria. Finally, I summarize and discuss the results.

2 The Current Sociolinguistic Situation of Latgalian1

For a better understanding of the role played by Latgalian in Latvia, in general, I now provide a short overview of its sociolinguistic situation. Latgalian, as the local Baltic variety in Latgale, started to play a

1Parts of Chapter 2 on the situation and background of Latgalian were published previously in Lazdiņa (2013) and Marten and Lazdiņa (2016b). 62 S. Lazdiņa role—outside the home domain and the Catholic Church—only about 100 years ago. It bloomed in the 1920s, mostly in primary schools in Latgale, in local administration, at public events, in the media or in the Catholic Church of which it became a symbol (in contrast to Lutheranism as the dominant denomination in other parts of Latvia; see more in Lazdiņa et al. 2011). Latgalian was the language of instruction for children during the frst two grades at school. Te use of Latgalian in the public space came to an end in the middle of the 1930s and was discouraged or even forbidden during the entire Soviet era (with the exception of the Catholic Church; for more about the use of Latgalian during the twentieth century see Šuplinska and Lazdiņa 2009; Lazdiņa 2013; Marten and Lazdiņa 2016b). It was not until the ‘Latgalian awakening’ in the 1990s that Latgalian was revitalized and back on the agenda. Tis time saw an acceleration in the development of Latgalian language and culture thanks to the activities of some enthusiastic intellectuals including linguists and teachers. Te Ofcial Language Law of Latvia refers to Latgalian as the ‘Latgalian written language as a historic variant of the Latvian language’ (Ofcial Language Law, Section 3 (4)). From a linguistic point of view an important argument for perceiving Latgalian as a language in its own right is that it has a written standard and that there are diferent varieties of Latgalian such as dialects or vernaculars. However, even if Latgalian in everyday life acts like a regional language (in the sense that it is the mode of expression of speakers who live in Latgale), it does not have ofcial regional status. Most speakers of Latgalian see themselves as a sub-ethnos of Latvian ethnicity rather than as a separate ethnicity. Te Latvian census of 2011 revealed that 8.8% of the population (165,000 individuals) of Latvia use Latgalian on an everyday basis; in the region of Latgale 35.5% answered that they used Latgalian regularly (Centrālā statistikas pārvalde 2012). Today, it can be argued that Latgalian-language use in terms of its functionality in various domains has expanded. A broad scope of analyses relating to domains of Latgalian and its use is given in Lazdiņa and Marten (2012). Lazdiņa (2013) provides an updated table giving oral and written usage rates. Te domain in which Latgalian is relatively strong at this moment is the home domain. From an intergenerational language transmission Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 63 perspective using the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS), Latgalian can be classifed as developing (Simons and Fennig 2017). It plays an important local role in culture and heritage and has importance in the culture and tourism industry in attracting both local and international tourists. Tis process is observed in the naming of products, souvenirs or travel guides in Latgalian, refecting the additional market value of the language. Such tendencies are also seen in the names given in Latgalian to new cultural or educational institutions (e.g., the concert hall Gors or the youth creativity centre Zeimuļs in Rēzekne). A noteworthy increase in the formerly rare use of written Latgalian has been identifed in announcements of performances, markets, concerts and exhibitions. Additionally, the increased interest in Latgalian can also be seen in the way scientifc and popular scientifc publications on Latgale have been received by the general public as well as by ofcials. In the educational sector a pilot project introducing the subject Regional Studies has been initiated in schools in Latgale. It started as an initiative by Rēzekne University College, which has assisted schools in Rēzekne in introducing this optional subject since September 2013. Te aim of this subject is to familiarize them with the history of Latgale, the Latgalian language, culture and literature (see Marten and Lazdiņa 2016b). Although there has been a considerable increase in the use of Latgalian in recent years in the public space and various societal domains, the oral presence of Latgalian still remains much stronger than the written. Tis is particularly true of more formal domains where some oral ad hoc use of Latgalian can be seen (more about this in Sect. 5.2), but where written use of Latgalian is essentially non-existent.

3 Methodological Background: Folk Linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Language Regards and Ideologies

Data on folk linguistics have traditionally been gathered by analysing linguistic information embedded in tales, rituals or practices often summarized under the heading of folklore. Folk linguistics also looked at 64 S. Lazdiņa dialectology and later was extended to L2 acquisition and teaching. More recently, the folk linguistic approach has been applied to language policy research and to sociolinguistic issues such as language revitalisation and multilingualism (see, e.g., Albury 2016 on indigenous and non-indigenous youth in New Zealand who defne Maori language revitalisation from their own perspective). Moreover, that linguists look at the beliefs and attitudes of everyday language users is not something new. Yet, folk linguistics has only recently been developed as a new approach to the study of non-linguist (layperson, non-expert) views on language (Wilton and Stegu 2011). Views are an important concept in this approach; they are a generic expression that covers ‘all related and similar concepts such as attitudes, beliefs, opinions, subjective theories, everyday concepts and the like’ (Wilton and Stegu 2011: 3). Tis particularly relates to layperson views about languages, their roles and meanings in diferent domains, future perspectives, the necessity of learning and ways of teaching languages. Another concept used as a cover term for approaches to study layperson beliefs about and reactions to language use, structure, diversifcation, history and status is language regard (Preston 2010). ‘“Regard” is preferred here over “attitude” since some folk linguistic beliefs are not necessarily evaluative, and evaluation is taken to be a necessary component of attitude’ (Preston 2011b: 10). Terefore, Preston uses the term ‘language regard’ as a cover concept explaining that ‘regard itself, however, may be realized by primarily subconscious processes (often equated with attitudes ) or conscious ones (often equated with folk linguistics). Tese two may themselves be interconnected’ (Preston 2011b: 11). As will be shown below, this link between subconscious and conscious processes and difculties to separate them were also observed in the context of research in Baltinava. Language regards have to be distinguished from language ideologies, even though both concepts overlap and are also not always clearly distinguishable. Whereas regards refers more to individual views, language ideology is here to be understood as broader perceptions of language(s) in societal discourse which are shared by larger groups of persons: ‘Language ideology or beliefs designate a Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 65 speech community’s consensus on what value to apply to each of the language variables or named language varieties that make up its repertoire’ (Spolsky 2004: 14).

3.1 Folk Linguistics and Linguistic Ethnography

To investigate layperson views about certain linguistic topics, methodologically the best way of starting research is to get engaged in sociolinguistic feldwork. Data collection methods such as observations and the taking of feld notes are usually common to ethnographic surveys, because they give deep insights into the life of a community. To understand such a context is also an important prerequisite to understanding and analysing layperson views in folk linguistics: understanding the social life of the local community, everyday habits, cultural activities, etc. allow a deeper and more objective data interpretation in the later stages of research. In the context of such methodological contemplations I would therefore like to draw attention to another research method in linguistics, one that shares a theoretical base with classical anthropological linguistics: linguistic ethnography. Linguistic ethnography has been outlined as a tool for doing research in multilingual environments, very often in educational contexts (Creese 2010; Blackledge and Creese 2010). ‘Put simply, in linguistic ethnography interpretative assessments are built on locally or context-specifc background knowledge recorded in feldnotes or diaries’ (Creese 2010: 143). Investigating layperson views about linguistic issues from the perspective of linguistic ethnography not only means collecting data and transcribing interviews, feldnotes or observations, but also participating in the social life of the local speech community. With such a diverse amount of data the researcher may draw conclusions about diferent values, ethnic or linguistic afliations, language use and ideologies of a certain group of people and analyse how they map onto existing linguistic hierarchies of this community or possibly challenge them. 66 S. Lazdiņa

3.2 Discourse Analysis

It is not always easy to draw clear boundaries between diferent techniques of data collection and interpretation that have been associated with folk linguistics. Yet, they are frequently theoretically categorized into four groups: traditional, operational, experimental and discour- sal (for more see Preston 2011a). In the following I will concentrate on the fourth group of these techniques—discourse approaches in folk linguistics—which have been used in the research discussed here. In recent decades the study of text (written discourse) or talk (oral discourse), in general, has become widespread among linguists. Its aim is to emphasize not only the linguistic repertoire but also communication, social interaction and context. All these factors infuence speakers’ discourse (i.e., their language use). ‘Tus, discourse analysis works from a hermeneutic, interpretative or social constructionist stance, which challenges the idea that there is a single “Archimedean point” from which linguistic data can be analysed neutrally and a single, reliable interpretation reached’ (Baxter 2010: 125–126). Te discourse approach is, in this sense, a useful tool in folk linguistics because it allows for a semantic and pragmatic analysis of expressions by identifying markers which help to uncover what is said and what is meant. In addition, by identifying regular features in the data such as idioms or metaphors for describing feelings or putting emphasis on certain topics, the researcher may discover more deeply the respondents’ views about diferent language-related issues (i.e., deeply held folk beliefs). Preston summarizes the advantages of using a discourse approach in folk linguistics: ‘Work on discourse, then, from many perspectives, but surely from both formal and informal pragmatic ones, reveals not only what speakers have said or asserted (the conscious) but also what they have associated, entailed, and presupposed (the subconscious)’ (Preston 2011a: 35). Terefore, a discourse approach helps to explore the subconscious processes of speakers; such research may contribute to understanding language regards, in general (see above). Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 67

4 Design of the Research (Data and Collection Process)

For the purpose of this study I am using data I collected during a feld trip (5 days) with students in summer 2013. Te Baltinava district was chosen as the area of research. It is located in the northern part of Latgale, close to the border with Russia. Baltinava is the smallest district (in Latvian novads ) in Latvia in terms of population; it has 1155 inhabitants (2012 data, Centrālās statistikas pārvaldes datubāzes 2012). It was chosen for research because census data from 2011 show that 85.8% of the inhabitants use Latgalian as their everyday language. A similar high use of Latgalian exists only in very few other districts: in Cibla and Kārsava (slightly to the south of Baltinava) and in Vārkava (to the south of Latgale, bordering the Daugavpils district; Centrālā statistikas pār- valde 2012). Latgalian in Baltinava is also present in the public space (i.e., the linguistic landscape). Te name of the local school is in Latgalian (see Fig. 1), which is a major exception in the context of Latvia. Tere are also public signs in Latgalian directing people to the local museum, church and park—again such signs are very rarely visible in Latgalian in the public space. Oral interviews were conducted with 42 respondents during the research. Te gender balance of the respondents was almost equal

Fig. 1 School name in Baltinava in Latgalian and Latvian in 2016 68 S. Lazdiņa

Table 1 Respondents (age and gender distribution) Gender/age groups 9–12 13–17 18–29 30–44 45–59 60–70 71–85 Total Male 2 0 3 4 8 2 0 19 Female 2 4 4 5 5 1 2 23 Total 4 4 7 9 13 3 2 42

(19 males and 23 females; see Table 1 for the age and gender distribution of the respondents). Since almost 86% of the population in Baltinava district use Latgalian for everyday purposes (according to the 2011 census data), I addressed people during the research in Latgalian, unless I had heard them using another language (Latvian or Russian) in communication with other persons. Tis approach worked well, with only a few respondents switching to another code after addressing them (see Table 2 for a summary of the languages used during the interviews and a correlation between language, age and gender). Moreover, I had decided to make the language in which they responded a frst component of the research in order to gain insight into language practices and attitudes when I, as an outsider to the community, addressed them. Table 2 shows that the majority of respondents answered in Latvian (20), but a similar number responded in Latgalian (18). Tree interviews were conducted in Russian, one was bilingual (with code switching between Russian and Latgalian). Te gender and age distribution revealed that Latgalian was accepted as a code of communication to a much higher degree by male respondents (of 19 men/boys 11 com- municated with me in Latgalian, 5 in Latvian, 2 in Russian and one bilingually, whereas of 23 women/girls, 15 answered in Latvian, 7 in Latgalian and one in Russian). Te correlation between age and language preference was insignifcant among the male respondents, while among the female respondents there was a considerable change: up to the age of 18 the conversation only took place in Latvian, whereas in the age group above 60 it was only in Latgalian; female respondents between these age groups answered in one or other of the two languages (see Table 2). Te main question I asked at the beginning of the conversation was: How would you explain what Latgalian is to someone who has never been Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 69 42 13 3 2 9 7 4 4 Total Female Latgalian) 1 1 1 (Russian– Male Bilingual 1 1 Female 2 3 1 1 Male Russian 15 3 4 3 3 2 Female 20 5 1 2 1 1 Male Latvian 1 2 7 2 1 1 Female 18 2 11 5 2 2 Male Latgalian Language use during the interviews correlated with age and gender 60–70 71–85 In total 45–59 30–44 18–29 13–17 9–12 Gender/age group Language 2 Table 70 S. Lazdiņa or just arrived to Latvia? By posing this question, I wished to decon- textualize Latgalian from the Latvian perspective by triggering answers which would put Latgalian into a broader context and thereby step back from the political discourse about the status of Latgalian in Latvia (e.g., with regard to its non-acceptance as a regional ofcial language, see above). Besides answers to the main question I also hoped to get answers that would lead to the discussion of such issues as: Which metalinguistic knowledge about Latgalian do the average users of Latgalian have and how do they perceive it (e.g., as language, dialect or variety)? How does the average non-linguist perceive and describe ongoing revitalization processes of Latgalian, in particular the possible expansion of the domains in which it is used? Answers showed that it was a truly efective question in that it stimulated talk about talk: it not only triggered reactions to the issues mentioned before, but also evoked spontaneous reactions of respondents about the Latgalian language situation nowadays compared to previous times (e.g., 5–10 years ago, and also to Soviet times). Te choice of question and topic at the beginning of an interview is a major factor in creating a benefcial atmosphere for stimulating meaningful responses. Te theoretical literature of folk linguistics character- izes diferent groups of topics: ‘…topics can be unavailable (those the folk will not, perhaps cannot, comment on); available (discussed only if they are carefully described); suggestible (although seldom initiated by the folk, nevertheless commented on without elaborate description); and common (frequent public topics of folk linguistic discussion)’ (Niedzielski and Preston 2009: 147). From the reaction of the respondents in Baltinava, it can be concluded that the initial question was available or suggestible. A sizeable proportion of the respondents (17 out of 42 or 41% of all interviews) started their answers to the question with comments about the question itself; in these 17 cases the topic can be evaluated as available (i.e., something which needs additional explanation). Te largest proportion of answers (25 out of 42), however, indicated that the topic was perceived as suggestible (the respondents did not need the question to be paraphrased in order to talk about the topic). Some responses showed even very expressive reactions to the question— see example (1): Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 71

1. Yeeess [laughing strongly]. Tis really is a question! Tis is a good question (Jāaa [stipri smejas]. Vot tas ir jautājums vispār! Tas ir labs jautājums; M, 442).

As far as answer content is concerned, researchers working in the folk linguistics feld emphasize: ‘It is also the case that the folk may or may not be accurate in their discussion of linguistic phenomena (although, as in all ethnographic studies, this has no bearing on the value of the data). In addition, the detail of folk awareness of an object may be either global or specifc ’ (Niedzielski and Preston 2009: 147). Of the 42 interviews in my study only one, which was given by a 14-year-old girl, could be described as very accurate—see (2). Without additional questions from my side and after giving a defnition of Latgalian, she started to compare linguistic forms in Latvian and Latgalian, although her mother tongue was Russian. Her observations were based on signs she noticed in the public space (e.g., the name of the school in Fig. 1).

2. … Tere I looked at signs of informative plates, they are completely diferent, look: Katoļu baznīca (Catholic church), in Latvian it will be: KA-TUO-ĻU, it will be like that but in Latgalian: KA-TŪ- ŌĻU, something like that [laughing]. And it is noticeable, that in Latgalian…, Latgalian language is not friendly with garumzīmes [lengthening marks], I don’t know how it is in Russian. Some words simply are shortened, when you say: vajaga tev (you need), but [in Latgalian] simply: vāga [laughing]. (Hy тaм вoт дaжe этo caмoe я пocмoтpeлa нaдпиcи нa дoщeчкax, oни coвepшeннo paзныe, вoт: Katoļu baznīca, пo-лaтышcки этo бyдeт: KA-TUO-ĻU, тaк и бyдeт, a лaтгaльcкий: KA-TŪ-ŌĻU, кaк-тo тaк [smejas]. И вoт зaмeчeнo вoт, чтo в лaтгaльcкoм языкe кaк-тo, лaтгaльcкий язык нe дpyжит c этими garumzīmes, c garumzīmemes, нe знaю, кaк

2Here and further throughout the chapter the information given in parentheses after the examples label the gender (M or F) and the age (years) of the respondents. All answers have been translated into English but are also provided in the original version (Latvian, Latgalian or Russian). 72 S. Lazdiņa

этo пo-pyccки… Heкoтopыe cлoвa пpocтo coкpaщeны, вoт кaк гoвopишь: vajaga tev, a тyт (…) пpocтo: vāga [smejas]; F, 14).

Tis response also shows the role played by the social environment and the public space for informal learning. Te girl has never learned Latgalian, she comes from the city of Daugavpils where Latgalian is rarely spoken, it is not used in her family, but she has carefully read signs in the Baltinava district that allowed her to come up with some comparative linguistic conclusions.

5 The Folk Linguistic Approach and Its Application to the Baltinava Interviews

In this section I will analyze data from the interviews in order to provide an overview of folk perceptions regarding the current situation as well as people’s future prognoses of Latgalian. Responses to the main question (How would you explain what Latgalian is to someone who has never been or just arrived to Latvia? ) are thematically divided into three major groups: defnitions of Latgalian (laypersons’ epistemology of language); self-reports of language profciency and use; and perceptions of revitalization and of future perspectives of Latgalian. In the following subsections I will analyse the data according to these three perspectives as well as draw some main conclusions on these topics.

5.1 Defning Latgalian

Te responses to the main question implicitly show the concepts laypersons use to defne Latgalian: do they say language or dialect or Latvian language or do they use another lexical item? In this way it is possible to observe indirectly which epistemological concepts of language people have. Additionally, it is useful to classify the answers as semantically neutral or with semantic connotations. In about one third of the answers (15 of 42), there is a clear semantic connotation when describing Latgalian (see below). Of the 42 answers 25 did not show such a Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 73 strong semantic connotation; expressions were used which displayed just a clear and neutral denotation. Two answers were more of a rhetorical nature (see below). In the 25 responses in which no semantic connotation was noticed, three main concepts were used to defne Latgalian: language (valoda, 15 responses); dialect, subdialect (dialekts, izloksne, 7 responses); and Latvian language (latviešu valoda, 3 answers). Of the 15 denotations of Latgalian which used the term language, 8 contextualized Latgalian in a geographical way (topos ), thus mostly pointing to the regional nature of Latgalian. Te respondents stated, for instance, that Latgalian is:

3. A language of a particular part of Latvia (tā ir noteiktas Latvijas daļas valoda; F, 12). 4. It is the Latgalian … region, and this region has a Latgalian language (tā ir latgalīšu … nūvods, i tam nūvodam ir i latgalīšu volūda; F, 83). 5. A language that there is in Latgale, similar to the Latvian language (valoda, kas pastāv Latgalē, līdzīga latviešu valodai; F, 14). 6. Tis is a second language of Latvia (tei ir ūtruo Latvejas volūda; M, 26).

Responses in which laypersons used the term dialect/subdialect refect two tendencies. First, the knowledge people have from school where the topic of Latgalian is included in the context of Latvian dialects. Te second tendency refects societal and political discourses about the status of Latgalian and just how obscure it is to defne—see (7) and (8). Ofcially recognized as a historic variant of the Latvian language (see above), the status of Latgalian remains uncertain to laypersons. Tis includes societal discourses regarding the possible status as a regional language in recent years, but which have also not led to any ofcial changes (see Marten and Lazdiņa 2016b).

7. It is a state dialect, ofcially recognized (valsts dialekts, ofciāli atzeits; M, 25). 8. A specifc dialect, how it is said, probably, it is not a language simply, because in every part [of Latgale] people speak Latgalian 74 S. Lazdiņa

diferently (īpatnējs dialekts, kā saka, tā varbūt nav nemaz valoda vienkārši, jo latgaliešu valodā katrā pusē savādāk runā; F, 30).

Tree responses defned Latgalian as the same as the Latvian language (in the third of the following answers this can be observed implicitly):

9. Tis is the same Latvian, I mean, language, only simply with some local accent (нy, этo тoт жe caмый лaтышcкий, я дyмaю, язык, eдинcтвeннoe c кaким-тo мecтным aкцeнтoм, пpocтo; M, 52). 10. Almost the same as the Latvian language, only difers a bit [laughing] (gandrīz tas pats, kas latviešu valoda, tikai tas, ka atšķiras drusku [smejas]; M, 22). 11. It is the same, who is a Latgalian is also Latvian (tas pats, kas latgal- iets, tas i latviets; F, 52).

Defning Latgalian triggered emotions in approximately one third of all responses. In all these cases, expressive or solemn lexemes were used to describe Latgalian. Positive connotations were expressed by such phrases as: it is a mother tongue; my mother’s and father’s language. Tese expressions were, for instance, used in collocations with the verb to respect:

12. A representative of Russian ethnicity respects his own language, I respect my language, anyone respects his language, the language, in which their mother and father spoke (krīvu tauteibas puorstuovs cīnej sovu volūdu, es cīneju sovu volūdu, jebkurš cīnej sovu volūdu, tuodu volūdu, kuodā runuojuš muote i tāvs jūs; M, 50).

Personal connotations were also created by using person deixis expressed by possessive pronouns:

13. Tis is my language (tā ir mana valoda; F, 18). 14. Tis is our language (tei ir myusu volūda; F, 83).

Latgalian was also metaphorically defned as a cultural code denoting the respondents’ surroundings, values or for branding Latgale. Some examples are: Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 75

15. Tis is something like the traditions of Latvia, such as culture (tas ir tāds kā Latvijas tradīcijas, tāda kultūra; F, 34). 16. Tis is the surroundings, where, frst of all, you are born, where you have grown up (tā ir vide, kur, pirmkārt, kur tu esi piedzimis, kur tu audzis; F, 26). 17. A language which is spoken in an area, a value of which a person is aware (valoda, kādā runā kādā apgabalā, vērtība, ar ko cilvēks sevi apzinās; F, 18). 18. A language that distinguishes Latgalians from others, it is a Latgalian brand (valoda, kas atšķir latgaliešus no pārējiem, tā kā lat- galiešu zīmols; F, 14).

Of the 42 interviews two responses showed that laypersons can feel, understand and formulate the meaning of what a language is no worse than linguists. Both responses stemmed from men older than 45 years, and they were both quite philosophical in their answers:

19. But how can you explain a language? How: Russian is Russian, Latgalian – Latgalian, Latvian – Latvian [in the original the term čiuļu was used which carries ironical connotations for describing Latvians from outside Latgale and the Standard Latvian language] (A kuo tu vari izskaidruot volūdu? Nu kuo – krīvu volūda – krīvu volūda, latgalīšu – latgalīšu, čiuļu – čiuļu ). 20. How to say [what is a language], you have to hear it (Nu kuo pasceit, tys ir juodzierd ).

Summarizing the observations regarding the epistemological aspect of my data, it is possible to conclude that the perceptions of the respondents difer about whether Latgalian is a language, a dialect or just Latvian. It is impossible, however, to prove from the data that people deliberately focus on such a type of metalinguistic awareness when reacting to the question. Te responses show that many respondents contextualize Latgalian as part of Latgale (including the region as such, one’s place of birth, home, traditions or values) and compare it with other parts (and people) of Latvia. Te utterances also refect the public discourse about the status of Latgalian and the continuing uncertainty 76 S. Lazdiņa about how to defne it. Te diversity of answers thereby reveals the educational policies of Soviet times and the period since 1990 when Latgalian was neither taught at schools nor raised as a topic in education at all. On the other hand, the answers also indicate that laypersons do have linguistic awareness and an epistemological self-refection of metalinguistic issues linked to their experiences and lives.

5.2 Self-Reports of Language Profcency and Use

When responding to the main research questions the respondents reported the degree of profciency they believed they had in Latgalian. It was possible to observe two main types of reactions here: many respondents explicitly commented on this topic (e.g., ‘I speak’ or ‘I do not speak Latgalian’), others replied in Latgalian. Te most unexpected were controversial answers in which the respondents spoke of their lack of knowledge of Latgalian, but did so in Latgalian (see below). Although the majority of respondents provided their answers in Standard Latvian, 18 of the 42 participants (43%) answered in Latgalian and only one respondent explicitly pointed at her inability to speak Latgalian:

21. I, for instance, in Baltinava, I can’t speak Latgalian [laughing], honestly. My grandmother taught something, yes, but these roots were not so far simply, and in our family we speak Latvian (es, piemēram, Baltinavā, es nemāku runāt latgaliski [smejas], godīgi saku. Vecmamma kaut ko, nu, mācīja, jā, bet, nu, tās saknes nebija tik tālu vienkārši, un mēs latviski runājam ģimenē; F, 30).

Te speaker emphasizes the fact that she lives in Baltinava, where the majority of the population speak Latgalian (see above), and she perceives it as strange that she is an exception to this. Such a statement by a young woman can be interpreted as regretting the lack of intergenerational language transmission (‘in our family we speak Latvian’), one of the most important criteria of language vitality. Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 77

In a few interviews the use of Latgalian in the educational domain was mentioned. Te respondent in (22) described learning Latgalian in an ofcial educational setting at the beginning of the 1990s, when such activities were highly exceptional, based only on individual teachers’ enthusiasm and their awareness of local linguistic identities. In contrast (23) refects the individual importance of one current teacher/director. Even if ofcially there is no such subject as ‘Latgalian’ at school, local enthusiasts have taken the initiative to teach it. In this case the school administration (in particular, the school director) used it on an everyday basis:

22. When I learned [Latgalian], I even liked it (…). Within the framework of lessons in the Latvian language, we even had a few lessons in Latgalian. We read Latgalian books in Latgalian, learned the letters, but unfortunately there is now probably no more [teaching in Latgalian] (es, kad mācījos [latgaliešu valodu], man pat patika (…). Mums bija latviešu valodā, dažas stundas pat pasniedza latgaliešu valodā. Lasījām latgaļu valodas grāmatas latgaliski, burtus mācījāmies, bet tagad diemžēl laikam nav [mācības latgaliski]; F, 34). 23. Imants Slišāns [the local school director], for whom this is extremely close to his heart, and so, he cultivates very much this Latgalian language also here, in Baltinava, for young people. And training is progressing, as I understand, in the Latgalian language, they have some lessons (Imants Slišāns, kas baigi, nu, to visu ņem pie sevīm, un tā viņš, nu, izkopj to latgaļu valodu, arī šeit, Baltinavā, jau- niešiem. Un arī mācības notiek, cik es saprotu, arī latgaliešu valodā; ir arī nu kaut kādas stundas tur viņiem; F, 30).

Such situations confrm the role played by language management not only at the national but also at the local level, in this case at school, and the signifcance of individual social actors—in case (23) the importance of the school director—in creating a supportive atmosphere for Latgalian. Te role played by formal education in the acquisition of a language was stressed by those interviewees who self-evaluated their skills in Latgalian. It was interesting here to observe that laypersons did not 78 S. Lazdiņa consider speaking skills without formal education to be part of the concept language knowledge/skills (see (24)):

24. Actually I don’t know the Latgalian language, let’s say [smiling]. At that time I didn’t learn it, we didn’t need it, at that time we needed Russian (…). In the 80s, no one taught such a language [Latgalian] (Nu principā es latgaļu volūdys napuorvoldu, saceisim (smaida). Es tymā laikā jū nazamuociejūs, myusim tys nabeja vajadzeigs, man tymā laikā beja vajadzeigs krīvu volūda (…). 80. godūs nikuo navuic- ieja taidu volūdu [latgalīšu]; M, 62).

Despite the fact that the man gave his answer in Latgalian, he said: ‘I don’t know Latgalian’. He characterized the situation of Latgalian today by comparing it to Soviet times according to his own experiences. In addition, other laypersons who described their own language skills linked this time with that time. Such examples of temporal deixis (at that time, in those days, then, some day, during some time ), as seen from the context, are used to emphasize Soviet times (1970s–1980s):

25. In the family, I spoke Latgalian all the time. Latvian we spoke at school and of course we raised our children also already in Latvian, because with Latvian they could get somewhere further, let’s say, at some point (as giminī pa latgaliski asu runovs vysu laiku. Nu pa latviski to školā runuom, nu konešno mes sovus bārnus audzynovom tože jau latvīšu volūdā, deļ tuo, ka ar latvīšu volūdu var jau kur tuoļuok varieja izasistīs saceisim, vīnā ūtrā laikā; M, 62). 26. Yes, some day, no-one spoke in such a way [in Latgalian]. For example, only in the family we spoke it. When we went somewhere outside [infuriated], it was forbidden (nu jā, kuodreiz tok itai [latgaliski] narunuoj!!! Nā, vot, par pīmāram, mes gimenē tikai tuo runuojom. Kod jau kur izīmom [sašutusi], tys jau nūlīgts beja. ) Interviewer: How did you speak then? (Very quiet, in a whisper) in Latvian [laughing hard] (čiuļu volūdā; F, 75).

Te three examples (24), (25), and (26) convincingly illustrate language regards in terms of hierarchies during the Soviet period. Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 79

Tey are narratives telling us stories, refecting how people think pragmatically and take decisions about code choices. Tese regards also refect dominant language ideologies that are widespread in specifc societies (Spolsky 2004), and which regularly have a crucial impact on language practices at the individual level. For instance, they infuence speakers’ decisions regarding long-term goals (e.g., which language is useful for learning or transmitting it to the next generation), and they have an impact on everyday practices (e.g., where and when to use which code). Examples (25) and (26) show a clear correlation between codes and language domains, indicating that the situation of Latvian and Latgalian during Soviet times can be characterized as a typical diglossia with Latgalian as the home language. In addition to commenting on Latgalian in the educational and private felds, a few respondents also made statements about the use of Latgalian in their local administration (cities or rural municipalities). According to the respondents, oral communication sometimes takes place in Latgalian in the ofcial domain (this statement corresponds to my own ethnographic observations during my feldwork and also broader experiences in local municipalities in Latgale). However, situations when there is oral use of Latgalian in public bodies in Latgale are not the norm, therefore they stand out to respondents when they do take place. Hence, such specifc situations are stressed in the interviews. Example (27) is typical of a regard to Latgalian in this context:

27. Where you go, into some institutions/ofces, all of them, there, I don’t know if is he a Latgalian or not, but he speaks, speaks already in the correct [language]. Probably it is correct, maybe not, but I remain loyal to, to my mother’s language, in which I was born, in which I am (kur ni brauksi, īstuodies kuoduos, vysi jau tī, nazynu, cik is tī, jis latgalīts is ira, bet runoj, runoj jis jau pareizā [volūdā], varbyut tys pareizi, varbyut – nā, es gon pīzaturātūs pi, pi muotes volūdas, kuodā es asu dzims, kuodā es asu; M, 54).

In summary, the interviews reveal that Latgalian does not play an important role in ofcial domains such as public schools or local municipalities, except for informal communication or in some specifc 80 S. Lazdiņa individual cases. At schools, there can be individual situations when there is a very enthusiastic teacher or when someone from the school administration is enthusiastic about supporting the use of Latgalian in practice. Te responses show that Latgalian is mostly used at home in the family; this was particularly stressed recalling Soviet times when the use of Latgalian outside one’s closest home surroundings was rare. Tis was especially refected when respondents were asked about age groups who use Latgalian on an everyday basis. Tere was almost no diference among younger informants between the number of respondents who said that Latgalian was mainly spoken by older people and that they used Latgalian only in communication with their grandparents, and the number of people who stressed that all young people speak Latgalian (jaunatne vysa runoj latgaliski; M, 25). Older respondents, however, stressed the use of Latgalian only in private contexts both during Soviet times and nowadays. Teir children were raised in Latvian ‘because with Latvian they could get somewhere further’ (25). Russian was important during Soviet times for societal needs (24). Te answers of older respondents refected how people think pragmatically and adapt to dominant ideologies while taking decisions about code choices. Prescriptive ideologies towards languages can also be seen in the comments by older respondents, connecting profciency in Latgalian to the educational domain. Example (24) reveals the attitude that a user cannot be profcient in a language if the language has not been taught at school, even if the person speaks the language fuently. Tis diversity in answers shows that there are changes in the habits of using and regards of Latgalian—but that they do not necessarily apply to everybody and depend more on individual situations.

5.3 Perceptions of Revitalization and of Future Perspectives of Latgalian

Te role played by the speech community and language regards are very important criteria for anticipating the future of a less-used language. In all parts of the world, members of many ethnolinguistic minorities are abandoning their native languages in favour of socially dominant Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 81 or more prestigious languages. Tis is happening through intergenerational language transmission both at home and in formal education (UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages 2003). Language vitality also depends fundamentally on community members’ attitudes towards their traditional languages (UNESCO 2016). In the following, I summarize the regards of speakers of Latgalian towards future perspectives of Latgalian. Te dominant opinion about Latgalian was one of improvement and more frequent use than previously. Te respondents provided possible reasons for such changes: for instance, they emphasized music groups of diferent genres such as hard rock bands who sing in Latgalian. An enhanced local or regional identity and an increased awareness of local culture in which the regional language plays an important role was also mentioned as an indicator of a positive future, in particular for young people:

28. I think that now also young people are trying to emphasize more this Latgalianness, because they think that in their region they have to speak in their own language [laughing], but also not forget this literary language [laughing], yes (es domāju, ka tagad laikam arī jaunatne vairāk tomēr cenšas to latgalisko izcelt, jo tomēr nu viņi domā, ka savā novadā ir jārunā savā valodā [smejas], kaut gan arī neaizmirst to literāro valodu [smejas], jā; F, 55).

In example (28) the woman constructs an opposition between Latgalian (‘their own language’) and Latvian (‘this literary language’). By doing so, she interprets new tendencies regarding Latgalian, in particular the phenomenon that it is increasingly used by young people. On the other hand, the last part of the utterance stressing the importance of not forgetting the (Latvian) literary language refects her own attitudes. By saying ‘they think that in their region they have to speak in their own language’, she indirectly contrasts their and her own view. She graduated from school in Soviet times (she is 55), when Latgalian was neither taught in formal education nor discussed in society on a meta- level—therefore the concept of literary language for her applies only to Latvian. Probably she is not aware of the fact that Latgalian also has its own orthography, grammatical norms, etc. When she compares the 82 S. Lazdiņa opposing situation of the two varieties (‘their own language’ and ‘literary language’), she is avoiding naming them explicitly (Latgalian and Latvian), instead she uses more neutral terms which in this context could even be called euphemisms, possibly because she is aware of societal discourse on how Latgalian should be referred to. She is not convinced about relating the lexeme Latgalian to the lexeme language; in her view, this may be incorrect because of the unclear status of Latgalian and very contrasting public opinions regarding this topic. Te appeal ‘not forget this literary language’ demonstrates her doubt about expanding the usage of Latgalian; possibly she wishes to show me that she is not so enthusiastic about the increasing use of Latgalian since she does not know on which side I stand as a researcher. She is unsure about her answer and its ‘correctness’, this is particularly noticeable from extra-linguistic features such as her laughing both times she uses the word language. Uncertainty in voicing one’s own opinion about issues that are debated controversially in society can still be very strong among the generation which grew up during Soviet times. Te data also reveal that attitudes from outside Latgale are important to many speakers of Latgalian (i.e., from people of other regions of Latvia or from Riga). Te dominating language ideology and practices during Soviet times characterized above as slowly changing with regard to Latgale, Latgalians and their language can be detected in example (29):

29. I feel sorry that there is a negative attitude towards it [Latgalian] from outside, but of course, it is nice that the situation becomes better. When I go to Riga, my friends often ask: are you from Latgale? Speak a bit of Latgalian, please. And it is of course good. It is not like: aah, you are from Latgale, you don’t know anything (žēl, ka ir negatīva attieksme pret viņu [latgaliešu valodu] ārpusē, bet, protams, ir patīkami, ka tas uzlabojas. Arī, uz Rīgu aizbraucot, draugi bieži prasa: Tu no Latgales? Parunā, lūdzu, latgaliski. Un tas ir, protams, labi. Nav kā: ā, tu no Latgales, tu nekā neproti; F, 18).

During the research the laypersons interviewed also stressed the change of attitudes towards Latgalian among Latgalians themselves, particular among those who no longer live in Latgale having moved away, mostly Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 83 to Riga. Tis change of attitudes is linked to an increase in prestige of the language, which is in turn refected in changing language practices that are taking place outside Latgale as well:

30. It [Latgalian] more and more becomes stronger, also among young people. Also friends who have moved to Riga, for instance, many of them speak Latgalian. Many are sitting in those Latgalian bars which are there, and they also in their language [continue to talk] (viņa [latgaliešu valoda] vēl vairāk un vairāk pastiprinās, arī jau- niešos. Arī draugi, kuri aizbrauca uz Rīgu, piemēram, daudzi runā latgaliski. Daudzi sēž tajos latgaļu krogos, kas tur ir, nu, viņi savā valodā arī [turpina runāt]; F, 30).

Speaking Latgalian has become fashionable among young people who show their individuality in such a way, particularly so outside the region and in the public space. Tis can be observed as the biggest change in linguistic attitudes during the last decade; the interviews present evidence that it is exactly young people who are most confdent about a positive outlook into the future regarding the vitality of Latgalian:

31. I hold the view that the Latgalian language will have a good future, because all young people speak Latgalian, they respect their language, the mother tongue of their fathers and mothers. Everything is all right [smiling] (Es uzskotu, ka latgalīšu volūdai byus loba nuokūtne, jū jaunatne vysa runoj latgaliski, cīna sovu volūdu, tāva dzymtū i muotes dzymtū. Vyss ir kuortībā [smaida]; M, 25).

6 Discussion and Summary

Tis chapter has applied a folk linguistics approach to researching multilingualism in Latvia. Folk perceptions about the situation of Latgalian, including its status and domains of formal and informal language use, as an issue frequently discussed in public discourse, have been documented and analysed. In this way the chapter adds information on self-refections about languages, the respondents’ profciency, language 84 S. Lazdiņa use and regards to the existing quantitative sociolinguistic surveys about Latgalian which have provided important data and statistical overviews but which lack evidence for explanations of sociolinguistic processes. For example, the large-scale sociolinguistic survey conducted between 2006 and 2009 (see introduction) provided a lucid overview of the use of Latgalian and other languages in the region of Latgale. However, the survey did not include people’s reactions to the questions asked in the questionnaire. Te study gives insight into a small rural community where Latgalian is used on an everyday basis by the majority of the people. Qualitative data (interviews) initiated by the research question How would you explain what Latgalian is to someone who has never been or just arrived to Latvia? allow the voices of speakers themselves to be heard. In the diverse answers to the research questions given by the laypersons many opinions were covered, which needed a deeper semantic and pragmatic analysis to uncover and compare what was said and what was presupposed. By investigating the linguistic landscape, participating in local cultural activities and events, observing the meeting places of people and getting to know their discourses, this folk linguistic research should help to comprehend better the linguistic routines of local laypersons. In this sense the following are the main conclusions regarding the survey conducted in Baltinava. Te responses of the informants, in conjunction with other observations from Baltinava, refect the process of revitalization of Latgalian. Te expansion of Latgalian has been observed in diferent felds, particularly in culture, media and tourism. Te important point about understanding the changing roles of Latgalian is that laypersons are assigning increased prestige to Latgalian and its usage among young people. Tis indicates a change of attitudes from negative towards more positive, even among individuals who do not speak Latgalian. Te analysis of how respondents defne Latgalian reveals, on the one hand, societal discourse about the ofcial status of Latgalian but, on the other hand, it also refects the impact of Soviet-era educational policies. Te obscurity of how to defne Latgalian, the uncertainty of respondents about what is linguistically or politically correct, points to Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 85 a missing discourse about linguistic issues at schools. Tis applies not only to people who graduated school during the Soviet era, but also to younger generations. Remarks regarding both extra-linguistic and linguistic aspects reveal information on the respondents’ regards of Latgalian, their profciency and language practices. By defning Latgalian (as language, dialect or variety of Latvian) the laypersons not only demonstrate epistemological knowledge about it, their statements frequently also provide insight into their attitudes. From the data it is difcult to prove, however, the degree to which statements reveal conscious or subconscious attitudes. Te defnitions of Latgalian also refect it being seen as both a value in itself and a possible medium for branding Latgalians and Latgale. Moreover, many respondents also feel a lot of respect to Latgalian as their mother tongue or as the language of older generations. Te responses showed that feelings prevail over rational or constructive visions of what could be done to broaden the use of Latgalian or to improve literacy or other skills in Latgalian. Finally, the research indicates that a comparative perspective on regional or minority languages obtained using folk linguistic methods would be very welcome addition to research. More studies on the language regards of laypersons would help to place this research into a broader context and to provide new perspectives on multilingualism in the Baltic states or post-Soviet countries, in general.

References

Albury, N. J. (2016). Defning Māori language revitalisation: A project in folk linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 287–311. Baxter, J. (2010). Discourse-analytic approaches to text and talk. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 138–154). London and New York: Continuum. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism. A critical perspective. London: Continuum. Blommaert, J., & Jie, D. (2010). Ethnographic feldwork. A beginner’s guide. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 86 S. Lazdiņa

Creese, A. (2010). Linguistic ethnography. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 138–154). London and New York: Continuum. Centrālā statistikas pārvalde. (2012). Latviešu valodas paveida – latgaliešu valodas lietošana. http://www.csb.gov.lv/notikumi/latviesu-valodas-paveida-lat- galiesu-valodas-lietosana-35066.html. Accessed 16 November 2016. Centrālās statistikas pārvaldes datubāzes. (2012). Patstāvīgo iedzīvotāju skaits. Baltinavas novads. http://data.csb.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/Sociala/Sociala__ ikgad__iedz__iedzskaits/IS0010.px/table/tableViewLayout2/?rx- id 992a0682-2c7d-4148-b242-7b48f9fe0c2. Accessed 14 September = 2017. Эxaлa, M., & 3aбpoдcкaя, A. [Ehala, M., & Zabrodskaja, A.]. (2011). Этнoлингвиcтичecкaя витaльнocть этничecкиx гpyпп cтpaн Бaлтии. Диacпopы 1, 7–60. Lazdiņa, S. (2013). A transition from spontaneity to planning? Economic values and educational policies in the process of revitalizing the regional language of Latgalian (Latvia). Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(3/4), 382–402. Lazdiņa, S., & Marten, H. F. (2012). Latgalian in Latvia: A continuous struggle for political recognition. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(1), 66–87. Lazdiņa, S., Iannàccaro, G., Šuplinska, I., & Dell’Aquila, V. (2011). Language, religion and ethnic identity: A case-study from Eastern Latvia. In J. Darquennes & W. Vandenbussche (Eds.), Sociolinguistica. Internationales Jahrbuch für Europäische Soziolinguistik (25). Language and religion (pp. 94–112). Berlin: De Gruyter. Marten, H. F. (2010). LL in under strict state language policy: Reversing the Soviet legacy in a regional centre in Latvia. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 115–132). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Marten, H. F. (2012). ‘Latgalian is not a language’: Linguistic landscapes in Eastern Latvia and how they refect centralist attitudes. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 19–35). New York and Houndsmill: Palgrave. Marten, H. F., & Lazdiņa, S. (2016a). Die Analyse von Linguistic Landscapes im Kontext des Verhältnisses von Sprache und Migration. In R. Beckert, S. Ptashnyk, P. Wolf-Farré, & M. Wolny (Eds.), Gegenwärtige Sprachkontakte im Kontext der Migration (pp. 77–98). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards … 87

Marten, H. F., & Lazdiņa, S. (2016b). Latgalian in Latvia: How a minority language community gains voice during societal negotiations about the status of two major languages. In M. Pütz & N. Mundt (Eds.), Vanishing languages in context: Ideological, attitudinal and social identity perspectives (pp. 195–222). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Marten, H. F., Šuplinska, I., & Lazdiņa, S. (2009). Latgalian. Te Latgalian language in education in Latvia (Regional dossier series). Ljouwert: Mercator European Research Centre, Fryske Akademy. Nau, N. (2011). A short grammar of Latgalian (Languages of the world/materials 482). Munich: Lincom Europa. Niedzielski, N., & Preston, D. R. (2009). Folk pragmatics. In G. Senft, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Culture and language use (handbook of pragmatics highlights) (pp. 146–155). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pošeiko, S. (2016). Latgaliešu rakstu valodas attīstība. In L. Lauze & G. Kļava (Eds.), Valodas situācija Latvijā: 2010–2015. Sociolingvistisks pētījums (pp. 173–193). Riga: LVA. http://www.valoda.lv/wp-content/uploads/ docs/Petijumi/Sociolingvistika/VSL_2015_web.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2016. Pošeiko, S. (2017). Te development of the Latgalian written language. In L. Lauze & G. Kļava (Eds.), Te language situation in Latvia: 2010–2015. A sociolinguistic study (pp. 173–193). Riga: LVA. http://www.valoda.lv/ en/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LSL_ENG_2017_web.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2017. Preston, D. R. (2010). Variation in language regard. In P. Gilles, J. Scharloth, & E. Ziegler (Eds.), Variatio Delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und Teoretische Passungen Sprachlicher Variation (VarioLingua: Nonstandard—Standard— Substandard 37) (pp. 7–27). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Preston, D. R. (2011a). Methods in (applied) linguistics: Getting into the minds of the folk. In A. Wilton & M. Stegu (Eds.), Applied folk linguistics (pp. 15–39). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Preston, D. R. (2011b). Te power of language regard—Discrimination, classifcation, comprehension, and production [Special issue]. Dialectologia, II, 9–33. Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2017). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (20th ed). Dallas, TX: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue. com. Accessed 30 March 2018. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 88 S. Lazdiņa

Šuplinska, I., & Lazdiņa, S. (Eds.). (2009). Valodas Austrumlatvijā: Pētījuma dati un rezultāti [Languages in Eastern Latvia: Data and results of survey] (Via Latgalica pielikums 1). Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Augstskola. UNESCO. (2016). Endangered languages. Language vitality. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/language-vitality/. Accessed 30 March 2018. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. (2003). Language vitality and endangerment. http://www.unesco.org/new/fleadmin/ MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerment_ EN.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2016. Wilton, A., & Stegu, M. (2011). Bringing the ‘folk’ into applied linguistics: An introduction. In A. Wilton & M. Stegu (Eds.), Applied folk linguistics (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Contested Counting? What the Census and Schools Reveal About Võro in Southeastern Estonia

Kara D. Brown and Kadri Koreinik

1 Introduction

Schools and censuses play central roles in defning and constructing languages and language speakers. Tis chapter jointly considers (1) the ways two public agencies—the Census Bureau and schools—and the array of actors involved in these institutions play formative, and contested, roles in the ‘making’ and legitimizing of speakers of a historically marginalized language through their mission to defne and recognize language capacity, and (2) the response of the public, ranging from consent to resistance, to these state-defned and socioculturally embedded concepts and categories related to language. In this analysis we consider the moments of friction (Tsing 2005) in public policy connected with language, where

K. D. Brown (*) University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. Koreinik University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected]

‘heterogeneous and unequal encounters can lead to new arrangements of culture and power’ (Tsing 2005: 5). In the following pages we concentrate on two broad points of friction related to contemporary multilingualism in Estonia: the frst ever inclusion of Võro in a census, and the introduction of Võro-language education in public schools and kindergartens in the region (and the wide implications for curriculum, teacher recruitment and training, and language recognition). In exploring the public discourse in these broadly defned moments of friction, we argue that a dynamic process of language defning is carried out through rou- tine, ‘everyday administrative practices and public policies [and]…the language used in carrying out those acts’ (Yanow 2003: 5). An analysis of discourse concerning the contested role of language in the census and schools begs the initial question of why compare these two public agencies. First, both the census and schools defne and perpetuate concepts of languages (e.g., standard, dialect, etc.) and language categories (e.g., mother tongue, minority, etc.) as generally fxed and legitimate rather than socioculturally constructed, shifting and contested. Second, both agencies are fundamentally involved in the process of publicly counting and professionally measuring language ability, processes laden with historic legacy and infuenced by contemporary global pressures. Finally, both agencies help to construct or ‘make’ language speakers as a result of their day-to-day or periodic processes of counting and measuring. Trough our comparative analysis of the discourse generating and generated by this contested counting and categorization of Võro, we strive to contribute to contemporary understandings of enduring multilingualism in Estonia and the Baltic state region, in general. Labelling theory (Rist 2007 drawing particularly on Edwin Lemert 1972 and Howard S. Becker 1963) is crucial in our analysis of the contested process of language counting and making through the census and schooling. Rist, drawing on studies of social deviance, provides a framework to understand the process and (unintended) outcomes of labelling. His emphasis on the interactionist processes shifts attention away from the individual (in our case, the individual as ‘a speaker of Võro’) to the process through which a label (i.e., Võro-speaker) is applied. In this chapter we consider the census and schooling as these label-generating processes. We are likewise attentive to agents in this labelling process; Contested Counting? … 91 that is, who decides to act on or do something around a certain label? Rist (2007: 74) posits ‘Labeling theory has signifcantly enhanced our understanding of the process of becoming deviant by shifting our attention from the deviant to the judges of deviance and the forces that afect their judgment’ (emphasis not in the original). In this chapter we focus on the label ‘Võro-speaker’ rather than deviance; the judges in this process are state-related actors. Te public’s response to these forces helps to reveal the interactionist processes at work in southeastern Estonia. By using labelling theory, we posit that key concepts or norms, like language categories, are generated by a process rooted in a particular place and time. As such we recognize that categories have a dynamic aspect that shifts and is redefned over time. And, fnally, we recognize and are attentive to the unintended consequences of labelling (including the very creation of the labelled phenomenon). Te language focused on in this chapter is Võro, which is spoken in the southeastern corner of Estonia and related to, but originates from, a diferent Finnic language (South Estonian) than the modern, North Estonian–based, Standard Estonian (Sammallahti 1977; Viitso 2007; Kallio 2007). Due to various contact- and standardization-induced language change, Võro is typically profled as the most distant variety of Estonian. Te social and political integration of Estonia (i.e., modernization, steady urban growth since 1870, nation building and state building, and the introduction of general education/comprehensive school) resulted in an undefned and unwelcome status for dialectal speech. Language shift progressed to common Estonian throughout the twentieth century with its most intensive episode during the 1960s–1980s (Org et al. 1994; cf. Ehala 2006). On Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), Võro has moved from Stage 6 (‘some intergenerational use’) to Stage 7 (‘only adults beyond child-bearing age speak the language’) (Ehala 2006). Te European Language Vitality Barometer (EuLaViBar) places Võro between ‘ongoing language shift’ and ‘severely endangered’ (Koreinik et al. 2013). We open our chapter with a historic overview of language counting in various census events in Estonian history and a review of language teaching and measuring in Estonian schools with a focus on Võro. We then turn to our discussion of the methods and key concepts 92 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik used in our analysis. Our fndings are presented in two sections related to the dual-moments of friction—frst related to the census and then to schooling. We conclude with a joint discussion and analysis of our fndings and end the chapter with ideas about what our research reveals about categorizing Võro in southeastern Estonia.

2 Historic Context of Counting Languages in the Census and Schools

2.1 Census

Census events have always been mixed up with the concerns of states— from exploitation and control to welfare and planning (Coleman 2012: 334). Censuses, as with other state simplifcations, ‘represent techniques for grasping a large and complex reality’ (Scott 1998: 77; cf. Anderson 1983; Urla 1993). Being utilitarian, (written) documentary, static, aggregate and standardized, these ‘are observations of those aspects of social life that are of ofcial interest’ (Scott 1998: 80). Te census rests on the ideology of enumeration (Daley-Bailey 2012) and has a political application as ‘the pursuit of entitlement translates into a contest for achieving the “right” numbers’ (Kertzer and Arel 2002: 30). Census categories such as ‘ethnicity’ or ‘language’ often result from past- and interest-driven precensus politics (e.g., see Dave 2004; Tisliar 2013), which is well illustrated by the story below of recording/enumerating language skills in Estonia. In Estonia the precensus-era population size and composition have been estimated by combining data from church records and diferent revisions. Te church visitation reports or protocols constitute the most helpful source for estimating the literacy in the Baltic provinces for the 1600s and the 1700s (Raun 1979). Later, lists of confrmands also included notes on their reading skills, knowledge of Catechism, and the Holy Scripture. When military conscription into the Imperial Russian Empire Army started in the Baltic provinces in 1797, the lists of army-qualifed conscripts included some information on their Contested Counting? … 93 literacy. Te low levels of literacy in the rest of Imperial Russia contrasted with the almost full literacy in the Baltic provinces (Raun 1979) and literate men were of high demand in the army. While some earlier military forms required recording whether a conscript was literate and later ones his ability to read and write (and in what language(s)), there were plenty of lists where Estonian (vs. Russian and German) reading and writing skills were disregarded as literacy (Aarma 1990: 62–64). Ignoring Estonian (spoken Estonian or, in fact, any other spoken language) was probably due to purely practical reasons of the imperial army, where a non-instrumental capacity was not considered and documented as literacy.1 Nevertheless, it raises the question of whether and how (written) Estonian as a recognizable skill and measurable entity got defned and categorized ‘against’ other languages (i.e., as a language that was neither German nor Russian).2 In any case, ‘native language’ and ‘mother tongue’ were introduced to (or embedded in) the lists of conscripts with subsequent enumeration practices. In 1860, local landlords initiated the census groundwork, which concluded with provisional enumerations in several estates (man- ors) in 1864–1868; however, the census, which was to include the Estonian and Livonian governorates, was postponed due to crop failure (Tannberg and Tannberg 1989). Te 1881 census organized by the committees of statistics of the respective governorates was the frst census on the Estonian areas.3 More than 893,500 inhabitants were counted; their age, sex, marital status, declaration of faith, nationality (i.e., ethnic afliation), language spoken, literacy, occupation, the places of residence and birth, and mental and physical disabilities were also recorded (Selirand and Siilivask 1996: 250; Raag 2008: 78).4 As for

1From personal communication with Liivi Aarma. 2For the purpose of comparison, non-Estonians (i.e., Baltic Germans or those in Russia proper) for centuries called Estonian (both the language and people) as Undeutsch (literally non-German). Moreover, from the time of the Old Russian Chronicles or earlier, Chudian designated Estonian or in fact any Finnic language as neither Russian nor German. 3Except for Narva, which was included in the St Petersburg Governorate (1708) during Russian rule. 4Excluding the residents of Narva and Valga, 881,455 were counted (Tiit 2011: 18). 94 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik the language spoken, respondents were asked about Estonian, German, Russian, Latvian, Jewish5 or other. In this census, 90% of residents were counted as Estonian-speakers and approximately 5 and 3% as German and Russian speakers, respectively (Raag 2008). Estonian households were also enumerated during the frst and the only all-Russian Imperial census in 1897. Te census included a question about residents’ mother tongue (Must 2000), which 90% of more than 986,300 residents answered as ‘Estonian’ (Selirand and Siilivask 1996: 252–253; Raag 2008: 113–114). In the Republic of Estonia, the State Central Bureau of Statistics organized a population and housing census in 1922 and a population census in 1934. In 1934 questions about foreign languages were asked; that is, in addition to information on common language (Fr langue habituelle ), foreign language skills (Fr exceptée la langue habituelle ) were also recorded (Rahvastiku koostis ja korteriolud 1935). In addition to Estonian, Russian, German, Swedish, Latvian, Jewish (Yiddish), Romani, Finnish, Polish, English, Tatar, Hebrew, Danish, Lithuanian, Turkish, Czech, Italian and Dutch, it was possible to choose other common languages (Rahvastiku koostis ja korteriolud 1935: 104–109). In 1941, no questions about languages were asked during the enumeration run by the German occupational authorities (Tiit 2011). After World War II, four all-Soviet Union censuses were conducted in 1959, 1970, 1979 and 1989. During the latter three, the census asked respondents to note their language skills (i.e., comprehension and speaking ability) beyond the mother tongue, though limited response options to only the native languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union. In re-independent Estonia the frst population and housing census was conducted in 2000. For data comparability, international (UN Economic Commission for Europe, Eurostat) guidelines were followed in compiling the questionnaire.6 Te question about respondents’ mother tongue (What is your mother tongue, Mis on Teie emakeel? ) was followed by another, optional question about other languages (What

5Te language was Yiddish, but the census category was labelled as ‘juudi’/‘Jewish’. 6Isikuleht. 8. Jaanuar 2008. Eesti Statistika. Available at http://www.stat.ee/20371. Contested Counting? … 95 other languages do you comprehend, Milliseid keeli te veel oskate? ) the respondent could read, write or speak.7 Compared to the Soviet censuses the requirements for language comprehension were lower (Koreinik and Tender 2013). Similarly, questions about respondents’ mother tongue and knowledge of foreign languages were asked. Te 2011 census marked the frst time respondents were asked if they knew a local language variant, dialect or sub-dialect (Kas Te oskate mõnda kohalikku keelekuju, murret või murrakut? Palun nimetage see kohalik keelekuju, murre või murrak, mida Te oskate (kõige paremini)? ) (see Jääts 2015 for the precensus politics). When the answer was afrmative, then the respondent was asked to opt for Kihnu, Mulgi, Saare, Setu, Võru, Kodavere, Hiiu (which were considered the most well-known and widespread varieties) or to name ‘Other’. Te question about the variety of the Estonian language followed those concerning ethnicity and mother tongue (i.e., what is your mother tongue?) and included the neologism keelekuju ‘language variant’,8 defned in the online questionnaire as ‘the language used that is diferent from Standard Estonian, though not a foreign language’.9 In this respect, the e-census was slightly diferent from census interviews.10 A more detailed explanation, in addition to that above, appeared when following the e-census (hyper)link: ‘Such

7Te census guidelines explained there was only one option when it came to recording one’s mother tongue—the language acquired in early childhood as a frst language and which, as a rule, is known the best had to be chosen. It was also added that if parents had difculties determining their child’s mother tongue then the common language used in the household had to be recorded. It was possible that one’s mother tongue did not coincide with one’s ethnic category. For example: when (s)he (1) speaks fuently, but cannot write, or (2) can read foreign-language texts, but cannot speak, or (3) understands foreign-language TV or radio broadcasts, but is unable to speak or write. Additionally, ‘one’s own ethnic language’ (not to be confused with mother tongue) was marked as ‘other’. Loenduseeskiri. 10. jaanuar 2008. Eesti Statistika. Available at http://www.stat.ee/20362. 8Note that another new term ‘dialectal language’ (a compound word: Gen. murre + Nom. keel ) was adopted in the new Language Act in 2011. Meiorg (2012: 93) maintains that the Language Act equates the term ‘regional form’ of Estonian with the term ‘dialectal language’, which itself is a compromise. 9Kohaliku keelekuju või murde all mõeldakse eesti kirjakeelest erinevat koha-likku keelepruuki, mitte võõrkeeli. 10Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI) vs. Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). 96 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik language use can be called a local language, dialect or sub-dialect. A person, who understands that language and is also able to express himself in it, is counted as one comprehending the local variant or dialect’.11 Only permanent residents over three years of age with Estonian as a mother tongue were asked those questions. Ten all residents over three were asked whether they speak other languages besides their mother tongue and to ‘name other languages beside mother tongue you speak according to the level of language profciency (begin with the language with the highest level of profciency)’.12 It is worth noting the diference between these questions and the range of defned capacities. In an examination of pre- and post-census relations between the state and activist speakers, Jääts (2015) identifes the census as a political site in Estonia, where diferent actors—state and ethnic organisations, individual academics and activists—(discursively) struggle for the right to name and categorize (i.e., to construct social reality). Moreover, he concludes, the case of census politics exemplifes ‘the complexity of identity building in the contemporary world’ where census results represent a kind of compromise (Jääts 2015: 257–258):

Tanks to the census, we found out that there are 74,500 people in Estonia who claim to speak the Võro dialect/language and 12,500 who claim to speak the Seto sub-dialect/language. Tese numbers include very diferent levels of language profciency, starting with real fuency, and ending with unproven declarations, which are rather a refection of a wish to associate oneself with the corresponding ethnic community. How many people belong to each group is unknown.

2.2 Language in Schools and Teacher Training

Public schools are the second site of contested counting in Estonia. In these institutions, language, or medium of instruction (MoI), has

11Italics is ours. Niisugust kõnepruuki võidakse nimetada kohalikuks keeleks, murdeks või murrakuks. Kohaliku keele-kuju või murde oskajaks loetakse isik, kes saab sellest keelest aru ja suudab ka end väljendada. 12http://www.stat.ee/public/fles/aruandevormid/2011/30001140811.pdf. Contested Counting? … 97 served as one of the primary organizing principles; that is, students were and are organized into schools by language of instruction. While South Estonian (Võro) had been used in schools in the nineteenth century, by the early twentieth century Standard Estonian functioned as the primary language of instruction in schools serving ethnic Estonians (Verschik 2005: 286). Võro, like other small languages in Europe, such as Gaelic in Scotland (Rogers and McLeod 2006: 351) and Latgalian in Latvia (Lazdiņa and Marten 2012),13 was ignored in schools in terms of formal instruction and recognition. From the interwar period through today (2018), various governments have created separate schools, or schools within schools, based on the medium of instruction. In this post-1918 era, Võro has never served as a state-recognized medium of instruction (i.e., Võro medium-of-instruction schools did not exist), but rather has been taught as a subject since the mid-1990s. Te languages that could be used as an MoI have included the ofcial language, the languages of state-recognized cultural minorities and demographically compact communities. According to contemporary (post-1991) state law the municipal government determines the MoI for the crèche and kindergarten (serving children ages 1–6) and basic schools (grades 1–9). At the public secondary level (grades 10–12) the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act establishes Estonian as the MoI for at least 60% of the curriculum; the school chooses the MoI for the remaining 40% of the curriculum. Te primary language of schooling in Estonia has been Standard Estonian—the only ofcial state language of the interwar (1918–1940) and post-1991 Estonian state. As in many other countries the language of instruction is intended to consolidate ethnic and civic identities. During the interwar period (1918–1940) the creation of a ‘modern and autonomous Estonian culture’ (Raun 1985: 19) was to occur through Estonianization; schools played a central role in this project. Võro-language publishing, including school primers, once prominent during the nineteenth century, diminished in the face of

13Latgalian was banned in schools, public functions and from printing between 1934 and 1991 (though not in Catholic churches). 98 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik the increasing Estonianization during this frst period of independence thus limiting exposure to Võro. In ‘the era of standardization of written Estonian’ (Raun 2000: 136), primers, grammar books and dictionaries were tools to promote a single standard that would cultivate a common national language and promote ethnic solidarity; languages like Võro, which had no legal status, began to disappear from schools. While the Estonian language became a defning element of public schools, these institutions have not been exclusively Estonian; the Estonian state (and other ruling powers) has permitted and helped to fund public education in multiple languages. Monolingual, bilingual and trilingual instruction existed in the interwar period, which serves as testimony to the diversity of school systems related to language during that era (Brown 2015: 58). In this way, during the frst period of Estonian independence (1918–1940), the school system refected, in part, the linguistic diversity of the country’s population. Although Estonian was the only ofcial language (Constitution of Estonia, Chapter 1, Section 6) and had to be taught in all schools as a subject, other recognized languages could potentially be used as the medium of instruction. Two routes existed to establish a minority-language MoI school, neither of which were possible for Võro-speakers who, although largely living in a demographically compact area of the country, were neither considered a defned minority nor spoke a recognized ‘language’. First, there was the possibility of de jure cultural autonomy schools, founded in response to Estonia’s 1925 Law on Cultural Autonomy for National Minorities. Both the German and Jewish communities, after registering for cultural autonomy in the 1920s, opened kindergartens (Laurits 2006: 51) and a primary and secondary school system. Second, de facto cultural autonomy schools were possible as a result of an ethnic minority’s demographic concentration in an area (e.g., especially Russian and Swedish schools). In 1936/1937, 7.5% of the total student population studied in Russian, 0.9% in German and 0.5% Swedish with instruction also in Yiddish, Latvian, Finnish and Polish (Brown 2015: 58). With the occupation of Estonia in 1940 the Soviets collapsed the diverse educational options into a two-track educational system—one with instruction primarily in Estonian and the other in Contested Counting? … 99

Russian with a handful of schools ofering select courses in other languages like English. Tis organization endures in the post-Soviet era. Te bifurcated tracking system contributed to the Soviet- and post- Soviet-era Russifcation of non-ethnic Russian minorities in Estonia by eliminating instruction in any of the minority languages (e.g., Polish, Latvian, Yiddish or Hebrew) in Russian-language schools (Aidarov and Drechsler 2013). In 2013/2014, 20% of all basic school students in the frst grade studied in ‘another language’ than Estonian (muu keel ) with the majority of these students learning in Russian (Eesti Statistika 2014: 71). In the newly independent Estonia, the state has, for the frst time in the country’s history, ofcially accommodated and endorsed, on the basis of voluntary choice, regional-language instruction in Estonian schools. Te roots of this state support for instruction as an ‘enrich- ing’ source of Estonian language and identity have resulted in multiple initiatives to develop and protect voluntary regional-language education. Te primary government programmes that fund instruction in regional languages include the South Estonian Language and Culture Programme State Programme (2005–2009), the Old Võrumaa Cultural Programme (2010–2013 and 2014–2017) and the Development Strategy of the Estonian Language (2004–2010 and 2011–2017). For example, the 2011 development plan for the Estonian language recommends (in Section 7.1.3) ‘to continue the teaching of Estonian dialects in general education schools and other educational institutions as well as the preparation of relevant educational literature; to support the possibility to teach Estonian dialects within the framework of the national curriculum’ (Estonian Language Foundation 2011: 59). Turning to the Võro language in particular, the state government also supports Võro through the Võro Institute (VI), a research and development organization funded primarily by the Ministry of Culture. Te VI was established in 1995 to coalesce the work of a grass roots language revitalization movement that emerged late in the Soviet period. Among other activities, the Institute compiles and publishes textbooks and teaching materials, organizes in-service teacher-training seminars and academic conferences, recruits, organizes and subsidizes teachers and hosts extracurricular language competitions and camps for students. 100 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

Estonian MoI public schools in southeastern Estonia have ofered state-supported Võro-language education for over two decades (since 1994). Võro-language teachers, who have their main training in primary-level education and in Estonian language and literature and other subjects at the basic school level are largely recruited by the VI based on their knowledge of local-language speakers and on the recommendations of teachers already teaching. In 2015 the language was taught in sixteen, or about 40%, of the general schools in the area where Võro has historically been spoken. Tis voluntary class in the regional language is ofered once a week at general school (grades 1–9) and/or upper secondary level (grades 10–12). Typically, Võro-language instruction begins in third or fourth grade with basic primer instruction and can extend into the sixth and seventh grades with ‘home studies’ (kodulugu ), a regional culture and history class. Tese Võro classes are typically ofered as an ungraded elective or hobby (huviring ) class— rather than as part of the required, graded curriculum. Since 2011, preprimary regional-language instruction has existed in the form of Võro-language nests (keelepesa ) in public kindergartens serving children ages 3–6. In the language nest framework, teachers are tasked with using Võro as the primary language for an entire kindergarten day or two every week to teach the standard preprimary curriculum. In 2015, 17 kindergartens operated as language nests.

2.3 Teacher Training

In this contextual and historic overview, we must also address which languages and curricula for teacher preparation ‘counted’, or were deemed suitable, for training students to become teachers. Te languages of instruction for teacher education have included over the centuries German, Russian and Estonian. In the late nineteenth century during the period of Russifcation, the curriculum of teacher training emphasized ‘learning Russian as graduates were expected to master the oral and written language as well as methods of teaching the language’ (Tilk and Nagel 2009: 109). For most of the twentieth and twenty-frst centuries, Contested Counting? … 101 however, Estonian has dominated as the language of instruction in teacher preparation programmes for Estonian MoI schools. During the Soviet occupation, Russian MoI schools were largely stafed by teachers from outside Estonia, and only in the early 1980s was it possible for students from Estonia to be trained to work in Russian schools. With this change, Russian was used as the language of instruction for the teacher preparation programmes in Narva and Tallinn (Varik 2013: 199). In addition, programmes opened in 1982 to train Estonian-language teachers for Russian MoI schools (Varik 2013: 199). Tese programmes continue to operate in the post-1991 independence period. Te methodological content for initial teacher training has largely focused on preparing teachers to specialize in teaching either Estonian or Russian (or other major foreign languages) as a foreign language or mother tongue; the main teacher preparation programmes in Estonia have not included the possibility to specialize in instruction in Võro or other regional languages. Instead, Võro-language teacher preparation has been spearheaded by the VI in cooperation with the University of Tartu through regular, voluntary weekend training focusing on the development of language and methodology. Of additional note, initial teacher-training programmes in Estonia have only recently begun to ofer courses in immersion (i.e., the pedagogical approach where partial or full instruction during a school day takes place in the target language) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL, i.e., the teaching of certain subjects through a foreign, or additional, language), leaving older generations of teachers dependent on in-service teacher training to learn these skills. Both immersion and CLIL teacher-training programmes focus largely on additive Estonian skills for Russian- speakers in the Russian-medium school or kindergarten context.

3 Methods

Tis chapter brings together the fndings of two researchers who independently conducted their projects, but then compared and analysed the ways their data helped to enrich understandings around contested 102 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik labelling and categorization of non-dominant languages. In Koreinik’s research on the ways language capacity and census categories have been discursively constructed in pre- and post-census print media, she collected newspaper texts on the topic of enumeration of the Estonian varieties in the 2011 population and housing census from all-Estonian local papers, then qualitatively analysed these texts using critical discourse analysis (CDA). Discourse analysis has been proved useful in analysing language ideological debates and language planning and policy (LPP) issues (e.g., Blackledge 2005; Blommaert 2005; Koreinik 2011). For selecting texts, a simple online search using the search words (Võru Võro + rahvaloendus ‘census’) was applied. However, it was rather difcult to state explicitly the size of the text population as it is impossible to trace all existing texts on that matter; some municipality periodicals are published ofine and sporadically. Nevertheless, the corpus is small, incorporating one blog entry (Statistikablogi ) posted by Statistics Estonia, picked up by Baltic News Service, and fnally reproduced in several news outlets such as a local county-based paper (Sakala ), an all-Estonian daily (Postimees ), a weekly (Maaleht ) and a news portal (delf.ee ). Tere were also three extended news articles in Postimees and in weeklies (Maaleht, Lõunaleht ). Additionally, the press release issued by VI was reprinted in many municipality news outlets, on paper and online. Furthermore, there was an address/column by a member of the Estonian Parliament identifying himself as a Võro-speaker in the Võro-language newspaper (Uma Leht ) and in its online version. Tis text was also published in a community media portal Külauudised. Intertextuality is also observable elsewhere; for example, a Võro-language text from Uma Leht is referred to by both Õhtuleht and Lõunaleht. Moreover, Estonian Public Broadcasting referred to the topic in its diferent platforms, a prime time daily news programme Aktuaalne Kaamera and its online news portal. Finally, the census results were later referred to in connection with other events (e.g., a conference introducing the results from international interdisciplinary research on Finnic minority languages). In those texts, Koreinik focused on authorization and (theoretical) rationalizations, namely explanations and defnitions, presented as Contested Counting? … 103 apparent facts. Individual texts do not do more than authorize claims or provide the rationale, but when authorization and rationalization recur, it leads to the institutionalization of specifc authorities and rationalities and marginalization of others (Vaara et al. 2006). Additionally, other discursive moves represented in those texts, such as comparison, are paid attention. All those discursive practices add up to the grammar of legitimation (Van Leeuwen 1995). In Brown’s research on the categorization of Võro in schools and teaching, she draws on data from document analysis and qualitative feldwork conducted during two projects in the schools of Old Võrumaa14 and Võro teacher-training sessions in Estonia (2001–2004 and 2013–2014). Part of Brown’s research consisted of an analysis of language policy-related documents pertinent to Võro including the South Estonian Language and Culture Programme State Programme (2005–2009), the Old Võrumaa Cultural Programme (2010–2014 and 2014–2017), and the Development Strategy of the Estonian Language (2004–2010 and 2011–2017). In particular, sections addressing Võro or dialect education and teaching were coded and analysed. Also included in this analysis are data from semi-formal interviews with teachers and teacher trainers (2001–2004 and 2013–2014) and feld notes from school visits during the two feldwork projects (studies by Tobin (2014) and McCarty (2011) infuenced the comparative, diachronic design of the research). In order to incorporate some of the public representation of the place of Võro in schools, Brown reviewed the national (e.g., Postimees and Eesti Päevaleht ) and local Estonian press (2001–2015) (e.g., Uma Leht, Võrumaa Teataja and Koit ) for articles related to Võro- language education in schools. Brown’s research was conducted primarily in Estonian, although the ofcial English translations of policy documents were used when available.

14Ajalooline Võrumaa (or Old Võrumaa) refers to the administrative borders that existed from 1783 to 1920, which difer from the borders of the contemporary county borders of Võrumaa. 104 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

4 Findings

4.1 Census

Te Võro language has received considerable all-Estonian media coverage twice—in 2004 and 2011.15 In both years, the discursive construction of a legitimate (distinct) language and, as such, also a recognizable skill and a measurable entity stands out; a brief summary of the 2004 media discourse is presented here. In 2004 there were a couple of events which can also be considered as macro-topics in the public discourse: a Võro-language song was selected to represent Estonia in Eurovision, and the proposal to recognize South Estonian, including Võro, as a language was made to the Estonian government by the council of the Old Võrumaa Cultural Programme (Koreinik 2011: 244). Recognition claims evoked a public (media) debate centring around the (de)legitimation of South Estonian varieties, mainly Võro, as (a) distinct language(s) (Koreinik 2011: 244). Te topics that were debated included categorizing and positioning language practices and varieties as well as a range of issues related to language endangerment and loss of both (Standard) Estonian and Võro. Proponents of the existing classifcation, which positioned Võro as a part of Estonian, referred to the threats to national security and integrity of Estonia if Võro were to be granted the status of a language (Koreinik 2011: 39). In 2011, Võro speakers were openly encouraged by activists to report their language capacities together with local belonging / identity in the population and housing census (Population and Housing Census 2011). Precensus public relations and post-census summaries published in diferent media leave no doubt as to the meaning of enumeration of Estonian language varieties: rather than only counting and measuring language capacity, it was represented as an act of constructing and

15Media attention culminated for the third time in about 2014 (but there was discussion as early as 2009) when the smoke sauna tradition in Võrumaa was included to the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. However, language issues received minor attention at this time. Contested Counting? … 105 performing one’s local or regional identity, or perhaps even, the celebration of (local) identity. In most texts, language is indexed to ethnic or sub-ethnic allegiances (Extracts 1–3, 7) and is rarely represented as a skill in its own right. However, in Extract 2 comparison is made to other language capacities.

Extract 1: No one knows how many Mulks, Võru-people or Setos are in Estonia. Te promoters of local culture have reason yet to be excited as the census beginning on December 31 helps to bring clarity. Kui palju on Eestis mulke, võrukesi või setusid, ei tea täpselt keegi. Kohaliku kultuuri edendajatel on aga põhjust põnevil olla, sest 31. Detsembril algav rahvaloendus aitab selles osas selguse majja tuua. (Volmer 2011)

Extract 2: Within the census beginning in the end of the year, residents of Estonia can frst time mark in the census questionnaire besides their other language capacities also their capacity in Estonian dialects and local languages. It allows, according to Diana Beltadze, the project manager of the population and housing census, to estimate for example how many Võro-people, Setos and Mulks reside in Estonia. Aasta lõpul algaval rahvaloendusel saavad Eesti elanikud esimest korda märkida loendusküsimustikku peale muu keeleoskuse ka eesti murrete ja kohalike keelte oskuse. See võimaldab tänavuse rahva ja eluruumide loen- duse projektijuhi Diana Beltadze sõnul hinnata, kui palju elab Eestis näiteks võrukesi, setusid ja mulke. (Sakala, 19 April 2011)

Extract 3: For the frst time in the history of re-independent Estonia [people] were given an opportunity to defne themselves [ self-catego- = rize] also by their cherished dialectal language, Võro-people and Setos have the strongest home place identity. Esimest korda taasiseseisvunud Eesti ajaloos anti viimasel rahvaloendusel võimalus määratleda end ka südamelähedase murdekeele kaudu, tugevaim kodukohaidentiteet on võrokestel ja setodel. (Postimees 13 July 2012; Koch 2012)

Te pre- and post-census discourse also represents various defnitions of Võro: what it is and what it is not. Providing defnitions and explanations belongs to the argumentative strategies of theoretical rationaliza tion known from the analytic toolbox of CDA; in this way the idea of 106 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik why ‘people do the things they do’ is legitimated (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999). In precensus messaging the target population is given an explanation on how to behave when flling in the census questionnaire by providing a defnition of the Võro language (Extract 4) and then asked to demonstrate their collective identity along with language capacity (both in Extract 5). Te Võro language is defned as a language that is used daily, which varies locally to a certain degree (Extract 4). Moreover, the VI-issued address explains the complexity (e.g., neologism, length) of the census question; the reason is that Võro is not an ofcially recognized language. Te language capacity/skill sufcient for census purposes is also explained—it should be determined by the speaker him/herself, not by any outside authority (e.g., enumerator) (Extract 4). Tis explanation is in striking contrast with that given about the census question regarding one’s mother tongue; the representative of state organization responsible for conducting the census explains how the answer will be recoded to Estonian if a respondent chooses Võro as his/her mother tongue (Extract 6). Consequently, the Võro language cannot be legitimated as one’s mother tongue via the census, but as a secondary skill only.

Extract 4: Do not let yourselves be confused by the complex question. Te ‘language variant, dialect or sub-dialect’ named in the question is still the same Võro language what we speak here daily in old Võrumaa […] Te thing is simply that Estonian state ofcials heretofore have not agreed to name our language as a ‘language’. Do not be afraid that I [you] do not speak the ‘correct’ Võro language. Te Võro language varies by district. In Hargla [parish] they speak slightly diferently than in Põlva [parish] or Räpina [parish] […] Te decision, whether I [you] master the Võru language sufciently, is to be made by you; the enumerator will not test your language capacity. Good Võru-people, who live in old Võrumaa or also elsewhere in Estonia. Report boldly your language capacity. Let’s use this historical opportunity that has been given to us. To fnd out how many are of those people who share our unique culture and speak the Võru language. Ärge laske ennast segadusse ajada keerulisest küsimusest. See küsimuses nimetatud ‘keelekuju, murre või murrak’ on ikka seesama võru keel, mida me siin vanal Võrumaal igapäevaselt kõneleme […] Asi on lihtsalt selles, et Eesti Contested Counting? … 107

riigiametnikud ei ole senini nõus meie keelt ‘keeleks’ nimetama. Ärge kartke, et äkki ma ei kõnele ‘õiget’ võru keelt. Võru keelt varieerub piirkonniti, Harglas kõneldakse veidi teistmoodi kui Põlvas või Räpinas […] Otsuse, kas ma oskan piisavalt, teete teie ise, rahvaloendaja teie keeleoskust kontrollima ei hakka. Head võrukesed, kes te elate vanal Võrumaal või ka mujal Eestis. Pange julgelt oma keeleoskus rahvaloendusel kirja. Kasutame ära, selle ajalo- olise võimaluse, mis meile on antud. Et saaksime ükskord teada, kuipalju siis on neid inimesi, kes kannavad meie omapärast kultuuri ja kõnelevad võru keelt. (Võru Institute 2011)

Extract 5: Now it turns out that [you] did foolishly, because the state does not deeply care about that [declaring his/her sub-ethnicity]. [Te fact] that you comprehend the local “language variant” does not mean that you are from that ethnicity/nationality. Nüüd tuleb aga välja, et rumalasti tegid, sest riigil on sellest sügavasti ükskõik. See, et sa oskad kohalikku ‘keelekuju’, et [ei] tähenda, et oled sellest rahvusest. (Maaleht, 12 January 2012)

Moreover, when explaining (authorizing) the nature of linguistic and ethnic categorization in the census the ofcial refers to international requirements (Extract 6). Tis practice can be interpreted as a reference to legitimate others which is a common move in argumentative (per- petuation) strategies. Denying the category of a mother tongue to the Võro language is authorized by a reference to linguists; that is, reference to people who have institutional authority (e.g., researchers, academics) (Extract 4). Te question of whether Võro or its varieties could be mother tongue categories of their own is up to legitimatizing outsiders and likely non-speakers: language professionals (linguists) and also census administrators all over the world who defne international requirements. Another impediment in the introduction of a new language category is the supposed difculty of data processing.

Extract 6: ‘If a person answers the question about one’s mother tongue as “the Võru language” then it indeed will be coded automatically as Estonian’, admits Diana Beltadze, the project manager of the population and housing of Statistics Estonia, in one of the written communications. ‘Later it will be still possible to extract how many have marked the Võru 108 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

language as their mother tongue’. Te reason is, according to her, simple: ‘In the linguists’ opinion, in case of the Võru language, [we are] dealing with a dialect, not a language and therefore [one] cannot choose it as a language. […] In the correspondence, Diana Beltadze highlighted that ‘to add sub-dialects and ethnic groups into the classifcations would compli- cate the data processing as primarily international requirements have to be complied with’. ‘Kui isik vastab emakeele küsimusele “võru keel”, siis tõepoolest see kodeer- itakse automaatselt umber eesti keeleks’, tunnistab statistikaameti rahva- ja eluruumiloenduse projektijuht Diana Beltadze ühes kirjavahetuses. ‘Hiljem on siiski võimalik see välja võtta, kui paljud on märkinud oma emakeeleks võru keele’. Põhjus on tema sõnul järgmine: ‘Keeleteadlaste arvates on võru keele puhul tegu murdega, mitte keelga ja sellepärast ei saa seda keelena valida.’ […] Diana Beltadze tõi kirjavahetustes välja, et ‘klassifkaatori- tesse murrakute ja etniliste rühmade lisamine muudaks andmetöötluse keer- ulisemaks, kuna eelkõige tuleb täita rahvusvahelisi nõudeid’. (Maaleht, 12 January 2012)

Extract 7: In Kuuba’s [the Director of the Võru Institute] words, that such a large number [are] profcient in the Võru language is a pleasant surprise. […] But if those who do not really comprehend it marked themselves as profcient in the dialectal language, [then it] demonstrates the reputation of the language and the wish to master it. Võru keele oskajate nii suur hulk on Kuuba sõnul meeldiv üllatus. […] Kui aga murdekeele oskajaks märkisid ennast ka need, kes seda tegelikult ei oska, näitab see keele mainet ja soovi seda osata. (Lõunaleht, 6 September 2012)

Tere are a couple of opposing representations in pre- and post-census media discourse. First, as described above, there is no consensus as to what exactly is measured by the census: language capacity or local ethnic allegiance or both. Second, there is discordance between what is considered a language, whether it is ‘subjectively’ defned by practices, which may incorporate language mixing, ‘impurities’ and code-switching, or an ‘objectively’ defned discrete entity. Tird, there is no agreement over whether the census as such can measure the language capacity after all. (Interestingly, no-one has publicly challenged its potential in measuring foreign language skills.) Te polarization is also Contested Counting? … 109 explicit by negative other representation: the representatives of activists refer to the ignorance of the state and its ofcials (Extracts 4–5).

4.2 Schools and Teaching

As mentioned in the chapter’s contextual review the state has never ofcially nor systematically organized instruction through Võro; this was a privileged position reserved primarily for Estonian and Russian as recognized mother tongue languages. When the Võro-language study formally entered into the curriculum of southeastern Estonian schools in the mid-1990s, it was as an ungraded elective or hobby class (Brown 2006). By the new millennium the curricular position of Võro would be contested in a variety of ways and on multiple institutional levels with the press playing a role in presenting this. First, the issue arose in the national press in 2000 of whether Võro should be a mandatory course in the schools of Old Võrumaa. It was announced in the national press that in the ‘near future’ the national government would make Võro and Seto (a neighbouring regional language) instruction mandatory in grades 2–12 of the public schools of Old Võrumaa. Tis would be incorporated, in part, through the government’s inclusion of the course Southern Estonian Language and Literature in the state curriculum (Baltic News Service 2000a). At the time of the announcement, a conversation about this possibility had been ongoing for at least a couple of years with Võro-language advocates. Te Ministry of Education acknowledged that the news operated within a bifurcated frame of supporters and non-supporters. For example, Jüri Valge, from the Ministry of Education, remarked in March 2000 (Baltic News Service 2000a) that although there were people who did not agree with making Võro study mandatory, ‘Tere is also a very big community for it [making it mandatory] in Võrumaa and the programme is in conformity with how these small languages are engaged with in Europe. If we do not do this ourselves now, then we will be forced to do it in the European Union’ (Baltic News Service 2000a). Te referencing of a double community of supporters both within Estonia and Europe and the allusion to the potential enforcement of mandatory inclusion in schools points 110 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik to layered and powerful contestation over the language curriculum between non-supporters and ‘Europe/the European Union’. Despite the initial depiction by a Ministry ofcial that the regional language would be made mandatory eventually by powers outside the state, neither the Ministry nor teachers supported this policy shift. Consensus prevailed over contestation; within a week of the original press announcement the Ministry of Education declared that it fully supported the language being taught as an elective (valikainenena ) in the schools of Old Võrumaa (Baltic News Service 2000b). As a language that is considered neither fundamental to the mother tongue Estonian language and literature series of coursework nor a foreign language, the Võro-language course would have to have a unique place carved out of the school day (i.e., it would need to be included in the school day as a separate class). Te elective position of the regional-language class in the curriculum aligns with the Võro teachers’ general orientation about the class. Whereas a few teachers in Brown’s 2001–2004 and 2013–2014 comparative, ethnographic research supported the idea of making the course mandatory, the majority found the elective, optional format to provide pedagogical freedom and a path to generate student interest and enjoyment. As a Sidrun School teacher remarked in 2002, ‘Tat which is compulsory is bad. Tat which is optional is good’ (Brown 2006: 141). In sum, regional-language teachers do not contest the Võro class’s position as an elective or hobby class; if there is going to be debate or a push for the class to be mandatory, then it will come from outside the current teaching corps. Te introduction of regional-language instruction to the preprimary level reopened the potential to contest the role of Võro in schools. By 2011 the VI helped to launch a pilot language nest programme into the public sphere. Te language nest model, which calls for immersion instruction in order to advance language learning, was adapted both to the legal requirements to teach Estonian and to on-the-ground institutional realities, which supported a prominent role for Estonian. A reporter from the national newspaper Postimees noted that representatives from the Ministry of Education and Science expressed their qualifed support for the nest approach: ‘the teaching of a dialect language to Contested Counting? … 111 kindergarteners is defnitely a positive phenomenon if it is taught alongside standard Estonian and voluntarily’ (Mattheus 2004). Te Ministry’s position aligns with that of the kindergarten teachers on the balance between Estonian and Võro. In the course of Brown’s 2013–2014 feldwork, none of the regional-language teachers expressed a willingness to extend the Võro immersion instruction formally beyond one or two days.16 In large part the teachers were committed to teaching and emphasizing Standard Estonian in order for the children to build a strong foundation in the language, which several educators noted, ‘takes time’. Te teachers’ one- to two-day commitment to Võro instruction is strong enough for the teachers at one kindergarten to bypass their class parents’ expressed interest in a full, weeklong immersion programme. Finally, the resolutely voluntary nature of the Võro-language programme in schools means that neither the teachers’ nor their students’ regional-language abilities are tested. Given the historic marginalization of Võro both in schools and teacher preparation programmes the state does not certify or ofcially train (in a state teacher preparation programme) ‘Võro-language’ teachers. Unlike the case with Estonian- language standards established by Estonian legislation and in force for the country’s Russian teachers (Kiilo and Kutsar 2012) the Võro teachers’ skills are not regulated by the state. Instead, the teachers’ willingness to be involved in the programme and participate in regular in-service VI-organized professional development, which includes language instruction, is the guiding principle of professionalism. Although none of the regional-language teachers learned Võro in school nor were able to take initial teacher education courses in the language, this policy of accommodation, an inclusive approach to responsible language growth, has endured from the start of the basic school Võro programme through the development of language nest classes in 2011.

16At least three kindergarten teachers stated that they try to use Võro throughout the week, but these are individual decisions and not in line with the formal, institutional commitment to regional-language immersion once or twice a week. Additionally, one kindergarten ofered a fve- day-a-week Võro immersion class from 2011 to 2014. 112 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

Võro-language students are likewise not part of any testing regime; for the majority of Võro teachers grading and testing the students’ language skills are not a priority. In short, grades are not used to refect the language ability (or learning efort) of students. Instead of test results the outcomes and involvement in Võro-language-related contests, competitions and performances play a central role in showcasing language skills and serve as important springboards for building curriculum, enrolment, programme expansion and school pride. Among the entrenched annual language showcase events are the Mino Võromaa (My Võromaa) story competition, Artur Adson Poetry Day, the Ütski tark ei sata taivast (No-one is clever from the beginning) language competition, and the Puiga Drama Day. Brown’s feld notes from a spring basic school class in 2014 capture the excitement in a third-grade class when the teachers shared photos and results of the Puiga Drama Day with the local newspaper.

Te teacher opened the class by turning the local newspaper to the pages splashed with photos from the Puiga Drama Day. Te kids around me eagerly began to point out their relatives and friends in the photos. Smiles and excited voices flled the sunny room. Te teacher then pointed to a photo featuring students from their school and shared their winning results, exclaiming, ‘See what kind of talent we have in the building!’

Te identifcation and categorization of students’ Võro-language skills are tied closely with the school or village, as the feld notes above refect, and suggest the ways that regional-language capacity gets linked to the collective—in this case the school—context and showcases the strength of the school’s student body. Finally, a school’s success in the annual Võro-language competition might lead to further programme development. After a strong showing in the Ütski tark ei sata taivast competition, the Orav School director strongly supported expanding opportunities to study Võro in the building—from endorsing a kindergarten language nest to instituting one hour of Võro for every grade (Säinast 2015). Contested Counting? … 113

5 Analysis and Conclusions

First, our research shows that both schools and censuses serve as political sites in Estonia, where a network of actors interact with the state (i.e., interactionist process) to name and categorize the regional language, and then act on these categorizations. Within these two broad contexts, individual activists play a large role in assessing, reporting and acting upon their understood language capacity in the regional language and the legacy of the language in that sphere. Despite the ever presence of the state, ultimately individuals determine their ability and the position of the language in their personal and professional lives. Although the new census category of measuring Estonian varieties was introduced and carefully defned in the census questionnaire, opposing (argumentative) strategies and interpretations, which sometimes challenged those generated by the state, were voiced in the pre- and post-census discourse. Tis means that while individuals may have some freedom to determine their language capacity in the census, they will still be labelled by various other actors when the census results are represented. In schools, the state and teachers of Võro generally align to conceive of the language as having a voluntary, elective and ungraded position in the school day. In Brown’s research, teachers did not view the position of the state as constraining or inhibiting the ways they wanted to engage with the language in schools. Rather than friction and contestation between the state and teachers over the position of Võro in the school day, there is consensus. Likewise, at the kindergarten level, language nest teachers agree with state ofcials that Võro immersion eforts should be carried out in a way that retains curricular room for instruction in Standard Estonian rather than instituting a full, fve- day-a-week immersion programme. Te consensus across educational levels about the place of Võro in the curriculum suggests that the language has become embedded in schools and kindergartens in a distinctive way—it is a language with a deferential position vis-à-vis Standard Estonian that will be optional rather than a core component of learning and teaching. 114 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

Second, both the census and schools operate on the notion that people can be categorized based on demographic features like language; this belies a complicated and messy reality where people, including children, have language skills that are either recognized or made invisible, homogenized and potentially ignored in their interactions with the state. Categorizing and labelling speakers of language x or y is a complex endeavour particularly when state-generated and state-recognized categories in the census or school (e.g., mother tongue) have a limited history. It is too early to determine how the Estonian state will respond to domestic and international trends in the shaping of future censuses (by introducing register-based censuses, where language capacities are difcult to count; see Puur et al. 2016a, b) or educational options regarding Võro and other varieties with an unclear status in Estonia. While the frst-time enumeration of Estonian varieties was celebrated by activist speakers, the state-generated category of Estonian as a mother tongue with a number of possible sub-entities was nevertheless perpetuated. Te residents who chose a language categorized as an Estonian variant as their mother tongue were denied a label of non-recognized categories when the census results were publicly shared. In the post-census discourse, this denial is authorized by referring to linguists and international standards. As for enumerating Võro skills, categorization seems to be more complex. Te enumeration of Estonian as a mother tongue is hardly represented as an act of identity, at least not in the census context; the data are mostly used to determine Estonian-language practices. Te enumeration of Võro, vice versa, seems to be primarily categorized as an act of local identity and rarely as practice or skills of Võro (see also Antso et al. 2016). Linguistic heterogeneity within an Estonian-medium school includes teachers who speak Võro as a mother tongue, but use Estonian as their primary professional language, and students who might be considered ‘neo-native’ speakers of Võro (Rogers and McLeod 2006: 350), or those who learned Võro as a second language rather than through their parents or grandparents. Tis linguistic diversity has implications for where Võro can ft in the school day given the lack of alignment of these language abilities with long-existing curricular ‘slots’ for ‘mother-tongue’ and ‘foreign-language’ instruction. Furthermore, the primary role of Contested Counting? … 115 languages like Estonian and Russian likewise shapes the curricular content of teacher preparation programmes and the greater Estonian school system. An intended consequence of this design is to centralize prof- ciencies and teaching skills around these two languages (as well as other major foreign languages); an unintended consequence of this system— in that it was never a documented policy goal—is the marginalization of other languages, including Võro.17 One example of the primacy of Estonian and Russian in teacher preparation is the lack of pedagogical courses at the pre-service level to teach potential Võro instructors methods for instructing a ‘neo-native’ or ‘familiar foreign’ language like Võro, which might be spoken by students’ parents or grandparents (unlike, for example, teaching Estonian to the majority of Russian-speakers in the country). Tird, authority in determining the parameters and place of the language, in both cases, rests outside speakers. At the language community level, there is a belief in large numbers (argumentum ad numerum, the authority of the many) underpinned by the ideology of enumeration, which is the modus vivendi of the modern census and represented in the post-census discourse (see Appadurai 2006). As the state marginal- izes and minoritizes the Võro language, it is important to represent and acknowledge the opposite reality: it is a language comprehended (and perhaps spoken) by the majority of the local people. At the individual level, both authors have met in our earlier and current feldwork Võro- speakers who state that they do not (cannot) speak proper or ‘correct’ Võro. Tis statement links the authority to assess one’s Võro ability with teachers, language activists, linguists or others. In sum, self-confdence in declaring language ability is in many cases contested with direct implications for census taking and the place of the language in schools. Finally, the changes and adaptations in both the census and schools to include Võro point to the malleability of these state-afliated sites. In both cases the state responded to Võro-language advocates who persuasively negotiated space—in the 2011 census and in schools

17A one-time in-service teacher preparation course was ofered through Tartu University for Estonian literature teachers of Võro. 116 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik starting in 1994—to simultaneously refect and create sociocultural shifts in Estonian society. Tese changed sites might in turn serve as a mechanism to generate more speakers in part by providing the state-sanctioned categories of ‘Võro-speaker’ and ‘Võro-language student’ despite the indeterminate meaning of these categories. As the research in this chapter suggests the inclusion of Võro in the census and schools is delicate; no guarantees exist that future censuses (or registers replacing them) or schools will include Võro. Te availability of Võro-language schooling, like Breton and Gaelic education (Rogers and McLeod 2006: 349), varies from place to place across Old Võrumaa; without a man- dated role for the language, its availability is dependent on the willingness of teachers to volunteer, supportive school/kindergarten directors and agreeable parents. It is easy for a student to go through schooling in historic Võrumaa and not have access to regular Võro-language instruction; a dynamic itself that might shape youth conceptions of ‘knowing’ and having capacity in the language. Similarly, the existence of Võro or other Estonian varieties as a more or less recognized census category depends on interested, activist speakers who engage in pre-census politics and not the less on other willing speakers and their interaction with the state. We doubt whether the census or the school will ever be non-political sites or whether being non-political will be desirable after all. In conclusion, an analysis of research on counting and categorization in the census and schooling in Estonia reveals both the dynamic negotiation of these sites, as well as the ways people attempt to make sense of new opportunities to identify with and perpetuate the Võro language. As a language without an historically rooted institutional infrastructure to perpetuate and protect it, our research related to the Võro language helps to shed some light on the mechanics of the ways state systems interact with the population to be inclusive, and exclusive, of linguistic variety. In examining the discourse in the press and in schools regarding Võro, both researchers fnd that sociocultural and administrative boundaries between languages are co-created and contested by the state and the array of actors involved in these contexts. Te generative efect of labelling and celebrating individuals as Võro-speakers—that is, the sociocultural creation of the Võro-speaker through census and schooling processes—undoubtedly merits greater qualitative investigation. Contested Counting? … 117

Acknowledgement Te authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Institutional Research Funding project “Sustainability of Estonian in the Era of Globalisation” (PI Professor Martin Ehala), which helped to make this research possible.

References

Aarma, L. (1990). Kirjaoskus Eestis 18. sajandi lõpust 1880. aastateni. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Ajaloo Insituut. Aidarov, A., & Drechsler, W. (2013). Estonian Russifcation of non-Russian ethnic minorities in Estonia? A policy analysis. Trames, 17(67/62), 2, 103–128. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Refections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Antso, S., Koreinik, K., & Pajusalu, K. (2016). Eesti kohamurrete olukord vii- mase rahvaloenduse peeglis. Keel ja Kirjandus, LIX(3), 176–192. Appadurai, A. (2006). Fear of small numbers: An essay on the geography of anger. Durham: Duke University Press. Baltic News Service. (2000a, March 24). Riik sunnib Lõuna-Eesti lapsi võru ja setu keelt õppima. Delf. http://epl.delf.ee/news/eesti/riik-sunnib-lounaeesti-lapsi-voru-ja-setu-keelt-oppima?id 50824023. Accessed 23 August = 2017. Baltic News Service. (2000b, March 25). Haridusministeerium jätab mur- deõppe vabatahtlikuks. Delf. http://www.delf.ee/archive/haridusministeerium-jatab-murdeoppe-vabatahtlikuks?id 275380. Accessed 24 August = 2017. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press. Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. D. (2006). Learning the language: International, national & local dimension of regional-language education in Estonia. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. Brown, K. D. (2015). Access opportunities: Diferentiated access to Estonia’s kindergartens for language-minorities? In R. Depalma, D. B. Napier, & W. Dze-Ngwa (Eds.), Revitalizing minority voices: Language issues in the new millenium (pp. 51–70). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 118 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

Coleman, D. (2012). Te twilight of the census. Population and Development Review, 38(Suppl.), 334–351. Daley-Bailey, K. (2012). SORAAD book notes with the bulletin. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), Fear of small numbers: An essay of the geography of anger. Bulletin for the study of religion. http://www.equinoxpub.com/ blog/2012/05/3771/. Accessed 8 October 2015. Dave, B. (2004). Entitlement through numbers. Nationality and language categories in the frst post-Soviet census of Kazakhstan. Nations and Nationalities, 10(4), 439–459. Eesti Statistika [Statistics Estonia]. (2014). Statistical yearbook of Estonia: 2014. Tallinn. Ehala, M. (2006). Keelevahetuse pööramisvõimalusi Võru keelealal. Publications of Võro Institute, 18, 11–26. Estonian Language Foundation. (2011). Development plan of the Estonian language: 2011–2017. Tallinn: AS Pakett. Jääts, I. (2015). Count us! Ethnic activism in south-eastern Estonia, and the census of 2011. Journal of Baltic Studies, 46(2), 243–260. Kallio, P. (2007). Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoria. In J. Ylikoski & A. Aikio (Eds.), Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. Beaivve (pp. 229–249). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia/Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne. Kertzer, D. I., & Arel, D. (2002). Census and identity. Te politics of race, ethnicity, and language in national censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiilo, T., & Kutsar, D. (2012). When language becomes power: Russian- speaking teachers in the bilingual education system in Estonia. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(2), 245–262. Koch, T. (2012, July 13). Võrokesed ees, setod järel. Postimees. http://www.postimees.ee/906060/vorokesed-ees-setod-jarel. Accessed 19 September 2017. Koreinik, K. (2011). Public discourse of (de)legitimation: Te case of South Estonian language. Journal of Baltic Studies, 42(2), 239–261. Koreinik, K., & Tender, T. (2013). Eesti keeltest rahvaloendustel. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 59, 77–102. Koreinik, K., Spiliopoulou Åkermark, S., Kühhirt, E., Sarhimaa, A., & Toivanen, R. (2013). Te Võro language in Estonia: ELDIA case-specifc report. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität. Laurits, K. (2006). Saksa kultuuromavalitsuse kooliameti tegevus baltisaksa koolielu korraldamisel Eesti Vabariigis 1918/1925–1940 [Te activity of the Contested Counting? … 119

German Cultural Autonomy school ofcials in the arrangement of Baltic German School Life in the Estonian Republic, 1918/1925–1940]. Tuna, 3, 42–55. Lazdiņa, S., & Marten, H. F. (2012). Latgalian in Latvia: A continuous struggle for political recognition. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(1), 66–87. Leht, M.-A. (2012). 87,000 inimest mõist pruuki võro vai seto kilt. Lõunaleht, 6 September 2012. http://www.lounaleht.ee/?page 1&id 10487&print 1. = = = Lemert, E. M. (1972). Human deviance, social problems and social control. Englewood Clifs: Prentice Hall. Maaleht. (2012, January 2). Uma Leht: pange võru keele oskus rahvaloendusel kirja. http://maaleht.delf.ee/news/maaleht/elu/uma-leht-pange-voru-keeleoskus-rahvaloendusel-kirja?id 63719660. = Mattheus, Ü. (2004, May 14). Lõunaeesti keeleprogramm rõhub lastele. Postimees. http://www.postimees.ee/1413643/lounaeesti-keele-programm- rohub-lastele. McCarty, T. L. (2011). Ethnography and language policy. New York and London: Routledge. Meiorg, M. (2012). Legal and institutional framework analysis: Seto and Võro languages (Working Papers in European Language Diversity 19). Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität. https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/view/o:127464. Must, A. (2000). Eestlaste perekonnaloo allikad. Tartu: Kleio. Nutov, M. (2012, January 12). Haani keel ei kõlba loendusel emakeeleks. Maaleht. http://maaleht.delf.ee/news/maaleht/uudised/haani-keel-ei-kolba- loendusel-emakeeleks?id 63760930. = Org, E., Reimann, N., Uind, K., Velsker, E., & Pajusalu, K. (1994). Vastseliina Sute küla elanike murdepruugist ja keelehoiakutest. Keel ja Kirjandus, 4, 203–209. Population and Housing Census. (2011). Emakeel ja eesti emakeelega rahavs- tiku murdeoskus. Pressiteade. http://www.stat.ee/64628?parent_id 32784. = Accessed 3 November 2015. Puur, A., Rahnu, L., & Valge, J. (2016a). Eesti keel sisserändetuules (I). Demograafline tagasivaade 1989–2011 ja edasipilk. Keel ja Kirjandus, 4, 268–280. Puur, A., Rahnu, L., & Valge, J. (2016b). Eesti keel sisserändetuules (II). Demograafline tagasivaade 1989–2011 ja edasipilk. Keel ja Kirjandus, 5, 354–372. Raag, R. (2008). Talurahva keelest riigikeeleks. Tartu: Atlex. 120 K. D. Brown and K. Koreinik

Rahvastiku koostis ja korteriolud. (1935). 1934 rahvaloenduse andmed II. Tallinn: Riigi Statistika Keskbüroo. Raun, T. Ü. (1979). Te development of Estonian literacy in the 18th and 19th centuries. Journal of Baltic Studies, 10(2), 115–126. Raun, T. Ü. (1985). Language development and policy in Estonia. In I. T. Kreindler (Ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on Soviet national languages: Teir past, present and future (pp. 13–35). Contributions to Sociology of Language 40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Raun, T. Ü. (2000). Estonia and the Estonians (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rist, R. C. (2007). On understanding the processes of schooling: Te contributions of labeling theory. In A. R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (pp. 71–82). New York: Routledge. Rogers, V., & McLeod, W. (2006). Autochthonous minority languages in public-sector primary education: Bilingual policies and politics in Brittany and Scotland. Linguistics and Education, 17, 347–373. Säinast, E. (2015). Uma keele oppust man. Uma Leht, Süküskuu 1. Päiv, #345. http://www.umaleht.ee/index.php?leht 8227&keel 291. = = Sammallahti, P. (1977). Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä. Virittäjä, 81(2), 119–136. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale Agrarian Studies Series. New Haven: Yale University Press. Selirand, J., & Siilivask, K. (1996). Eesti maast ja rahvast. Muinasajast maail- masõjani. Tallinn: Olion. Statistikablogi. (2011). Kui palju on Eestis setosid, võrokesi, mulke …? Statistics Estonia. https://blog.stat.ee/2011/04/18/kui-palju-on-eestis-setosid-voroke- si-mulke/. Accessed 2 April 2018. Tannberg, T., & Tannberg, E. (1989). Rahvaloenduse algusaastatest Eestis. Kleio. Teaduslik-populaarne ajaloo almanahh, 2, 29–34. Tiit, E.-M. (2011). Eesti rahvastik. Viis põlvkonda ja kümme loendust. Tallinn: Statistikaamet. Tilk, M., & Nagel, V. (2009). Teacher training. In A. Krūze, I. Kestere, V. Sirk, & O. Tijūnėlienė (Eds.), History of education and pedagogical thought in the Baltic countries up to 1940: An overview (pp. 103–115). Riga: RaKa Publishers. Tisliar, P. (2013). Ethnicity and the population of Slovakia between 1919 and 1940. European Researcher, 42(2), 429–436. Contested Counting? … 121

Tobin, J. (2014). Comparative, diachronic, ethnographic research on education. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 16(2), 6–13. Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Urla, J. (1993). Cultural politics in an age of statistics: Numbers, nations, and the making of Basque identity. American Ethnologist, 20(4), 818–843. Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 27(6), 789–813. Van Leeuwen, T. J. (1995). Te grammar of legitimation. London: School of Printing, School of Media. Van Leeuwen, T. J., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83–118. Varik, V. (2013). Teacher education in Estonia. In I. Kestere & A. Krūze (Eds.), History of pedagogy and educational sciences in the Baltic countries from 1940 to 1990: An overview (pp. 193–201). Riga: RaKa Printing House. Verschik, A. (2005). Te language situation in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36, 283–316. Viitso, T.-R. (2007). Rise and the development of the Estonian language. In M. Erelt (Ed.), Estonian language. Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series Vol. 1. Second Edition (pp. 130–230). Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Volmer, K. (2011, November 29). Eesti mulkide arv saab lõpuks ometi selgeks. Sakala. http://www.sakala.ajaleht.ee/651540/eesti-mulkide-arv-saab- lopuks-ometi-selgeks. Võro keel Võrumaa koolides kohustuslikuks. (2000, March 22). Eesti Päevaleht. http://epl.delf.ee/news/eesti/voro-keel-vorumaa-koolides-kohustuslikuks?id 50823861. = Võru Institute. (2011, November 2). NB! Võru keele oskus rahvaloendusel kirja! Kanepi Teataja. http://www.kanepi.ee/public/ajaleht/2011_nov.pdf. Yanow, D. (2003). Constructing ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ in America: Category- making in public policy and administration. New York: Routledge. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes

Meilutė Ramonienė

1 Introduction

Urbanization has infuenced, and continues to infuence, all spheres of people’s lives, including their linguistic life. Moreover, linguistic processes and the consequences of urbanization are getting ever more complex. All dimensions of urbanization—demographic, economic and social—also have an efect on language (Nordberg 1994: 1–4). Te urban environment is a place of contact between languages, dialects and cultures, and the greatest diversity of linguistic varieties in use is found in cities; it is here that languages and their varieties change most quickly (Mac Giolla Chríost 2007; Ramonienė 2006, 2009, 2011). In addition, urbanization is often associated with linguistic change at diferent levels of a language, regarding both models of interaction as well as structural (phonological and also morphological, syntactical and lexical) changes. Te levelling of dialects and their mixing is also considered to be the

M. Ramonienė (*) Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected]

© Te Author(s) 2019 123 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_5 124 M. Ramonienė result of urbanization (i.e., the migration of people to towns and cities; Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 19). Not only does urbanization change the economic structure of life, but in towns and cities the patterns of everyday life, habits, traditions and communication also become diferent. Individuals living in an urbanized society have wider social networks that are, however, not as closely knit as in rural areas (Nordberg 1994: 4; Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 17–19). In cities and towns one has relations with a wider variety of interlocutors showing characteristics of diferent dialects and accents. Towns and cities are also an environment where one tends to abandon linguistic varieties that have signifcant regional characteristics, and where one tends to use the standard language and less the dialects (Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 20–50). For many decades Lithuanian dialects and their regional peculiarities have been analysed from a micro-linguistic perspective by specialists of traditional dialectology. Diferent phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical features of various dialects and sub-dialects have been investigated (Atkočaitytė 2002; Bacevičiūtė 1998, 2004; Bukantis 2007; Girdenis 1996, 2008; Kardelis 2009; Leskauskaitė 1997, 2003, 2008a, b; Murinienė and Girdenis 2001; Murinienė 2002; Urbanavičienė 2010; Vidugiris 2004; Zinkevičius 1966 among others); dialectal atlases (Grinaveckienė and Morkūnas 1977; Grinaveckienė et al. 1982; Morkūnas 1991) and many dialectal dictionaries have been published (Aleksandravičius 2011; Kalėdienė et al. 2005; Naktinienė et al. 1988; Pupkis 2008, 2009; Vidugiris 1998; Vilutytė 2008; Vitkauskas 1976; Vosilytė 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013). In recent years, however, a number of sociolinguistic studies have appeared where language behaviour, language attitudes towards the use of dialects and other linguistic varieties and their social value have been analysed (Aliūkaitė 2007, 2008; Kalėdienė 2013; Kliukienė 2010, 2013, 2014; Mikulėnienė and Meiliūnaitė 2014). Even though there are few studies, due to the fact that standardization ideology is dominant, a tendency has been noted for Lithuanian dialects not to have high social value in comparison to the standard language, and the use of dialects is not tolerated in some domains (Ramonienė 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013a, b, c; Vaicekauskienė and Sausverde 2012). Te aim of this chapter Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 125 is to examine the vitality of traditional dialects in Lithuanian towns and cities where about 70% of Lithuania’s population live. Te chapter analyses regional diferences in the knowledge of dialects, in using them in diferent situations with diferent interlocutors and in attitudes towards the dialects in the urban areas of diferent Lithuanian ethnographic regions.1 It seeks in this way to understand how factors such as the age or strength of a regional identity are related to (non)knowledge, (non)usage and positive or negative attitudes towards the local dialect. Te empirical basis of the chapter consists of data from two large-scale sociolinguistic research projects. Te project Language Use and Ethnic Identity in Urban Areas of Lithuania2 was carried out between 2007 and 2009 in the three largest Lithuanian cities: the capital Vilnius, the second largest city Kaunas and the port city of Klaipėda. Te second project Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: Towns and Cities3 was carried out between 2010 and 2012 in those urban areas of Lithuania inhabited by at least 3000 people having urban occupations (manufacturing industries and service). Data collection took place in 64 urban areas.

2 Lithuanian Towns and Cities, Ethnographic Regions and Dialects

For several decades now the majority of Lithuania’s inhabitants have been living in towns and cities. Urban inhabitants in Lithuania out- weighed the rural population in 1971 (Vaitekūnas 2006: 154). According to the 2011 population census, 66.7% of Lithuania’s inhabitants live in towns or cities (Statistics Lithuania 2013). Some 40.2%

1Data from Lithuania Minor is not analysed in this chapter as there is too little data and the data sample is not representative. 2Te project Language Use and Ethnic Identity in Urban Areas of Lithuania was funded by a grant from the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation. Te author of this chapter was the initiator, supervisor and principal investigator of the project. 3Te project Sociolinguistic Map of Lithuania: Towns and Cities was funded by a grant (No. LIT-2-18) from the Research Council of Lithuania. Te author of this chapter was the initiator, supervisor and principal investigator of the project. 126 M. Ramonienė of the entire population is concentrated in the fve largest Lithuanian cities (Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai and Panevėžys). Migration from rural to urban areas and from one region to another became a normal phenomenon in the second half of the twentieth century. A large number of the inhabitants of Lithuanian cities have come from other places, other towns or rural areas. In this context it is natural that most city-dwellers have brought their native dialects from regions both closer or farther away. Lithuania can be divided into historical and cultural regions, called ethnographic regions, delimited by culture, folklore, traditional lifestyle, etc. To some extent the regions correspond to the zones of Lithuanian language dialects. However, there is no well-established scheme of ethnographic regions. Te ethnographic, ethnocultural and dialectal boundaries do not match exactly on the maps of diferent authors. Tis chapter follows the division of ethnographic regions on the map approved by the Council for the Protection of Ethnic Culture which is answerable to the Seimas, the parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos etnografniai regionai 2003). Tis is refected in Fig. 1, which shows distinctions between Aukštaitija, Dzūkija, Mažoji Lietuva,4 Suvalkija (Sūduva) and Žemaitija. Dialectologists have written a great deal on Lithuanian dialects and on dialect boundaries and their changes in various periods (Zinkevičius 1966; Tarmės 2012). It is maintained that two main dialects are in use in Lithuania—Aukštaitian and Žemaitian—with many sub-dialects. Aukštaitian and Žemaitian5 are linguistically very diferent, and it is often claimed that they are mutually unintelligible (Kliukienė 2010; map No. 27 in Ramonienė 2013c; Zinkevičius 1968). Te Aukštaitian dialect has the most sub-dialects with notable diferences in diferent parts of this large region and their usage might cause misunderstandings

4Data from Mažoji Lietuva (Lithuania Minor) is not analysed as there is too little data and the data sample is not representative. 5Tere are some discussions considering whether Žemaitian might be considered a separate language rather than a dialect, see http://samogitia.mch.mii.lt/, Kalnius (2012: 296–325). Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 127

Fig. 1 Ethnographic regions of Lithuania (Source Lietuvos Etnografniai Regionai 2003) and problems in communication in other dialect areas as well as in Aukštaitija (see map No. 27 in Ramonienė 2013c).

3 Methods and Data Analysis

3.1 Methods

Both projects, whose data are analysed in this chapter, aimed at conducting large-scale studies of the sociolinguistic situation in urban Lithuania and involved quantitative surveys and qualitative in-depth interviews. Te studies aimed to assess self-reported language profciency, language/dialect use in various domains and with various interlocutors and language attitudes. Te total sample of the quantitative surveys involved 4697 respondents: 128 M. Ramonienė

1. Te survey of Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda 2008–2009: 2037 respondents6; 2. Te survey of smaller Lithuanian towns (64 towns), 2010: 2660 respondents.7

In both surveys, multistage random sampling of the participants was adopted. Both surveys covered a representative sample of respondents ages 15 and older. Quantitative data were processed using SPSS software. Te questionnaires for the two surveys were not exactly of the same size, but the data analysed in this chapter—related to dialects, their knowledge, usage in various situations with diferent interlocutors and attitudes towards dialects—were identical and the data from both surveys have been merged.8 Tis chapter also takes into account qualitative in-depth interviews9 that were conducted by the project participants during several feldwork expeditions to diferent Lithuanian ethnographic regions (Kretinga in Žemaitija, Pasvalys in Aukštaitija, Varėna and neighbouring towns in Dzūkija as well as the three cities of Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda).10

3.2 Knowledge and Profciency in a Dialect in Towns of Different Ethnographic Regions

Sociolinguistic research in Lithuanian cities and towns has shown that dialects are not foreign to the linguistic life of Lithuanian urban areas

6Carried out by TNS Gallup. 7Carried out by AB Socialinės informacijos centras. 8See the part of the questionnaire related to dialects in Appendix to this chapter. Te questionnaires relating to these surveys have been published in their entirety in Ramonienė (2013c: 256–282). 9Over 300 interviews were recorded during the projects, but the use of dialects was not discussed in all interviews. Only some excerpts from the interviews are cited in this chapter. 10Te interviews in Suvalkija were recorded when the researchers individually visited diferent towns in that region. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 129

(see also Dabašinskienė and Dagilytė 2013; Kalėdienė 2013; Kliukienė 2010, 2013; Ramonienė 2013a). Quantitative data confrm that the majority of town- and city-dwellers speak the dialects and afrm being able to distinguish them; only 12% of all the respondents in the sample living in cities/towns responded that they could not recognize Lithuanian dialects (question 1 in the questionnaire, answer No. 4). Of these 12% only 5% are of Lithuanian ethnicity and the rest (7%) are Russian, Polish and other ethnicities living in the cities/towns of Lithuania. As can be seen from Table 1, dialects are less recognized in towns/cities where the majority of ethnic non-Lithuanians live (e.g., in Visaginas, where only a little more than 15% of the population are of Lithuanian ethnicity), while as much as 60% of the population afrm they cannot recognize Lithuanian dialects at all. In multiethnic Vilnius and Klaipėda, dialects are not recognized by 20 and 19% of the inhabitants, respectively. Of the ethnographic regions, Dzūkija stands out as being an area where dialects are least recognized (here dialects are not recognized by 17% of town-dwellers). Tis includes the most ethnically mixed towns in the southeastern part of Lithuania (e.g., in Šalčininkai 77.8% of inhabitants and in Trakai 30.1% of inhabitants are Poles; Gyventojai 2013; Kalėdienė 2013; Čekmonas and Grumadienė 1993). Te regions whose towns have the lowest percentage of inhabitants who do not recognize dialects are Žemaitija (only 2%) and Aukštaitija (only 3%). About half the people living in cities and towns afrm they can speak the dialect themselves (question 5 in the questionnaire). However, profciency in a dialect is less common among the younger generation (see Table 2). Profciency in a dialect varies in the cities/towns of diferent Lithuanian regions. As can be seen in Table 3, Žemaitija stands out as the region where as much as 71% of respondents living in cities/ towns afrm to be profcient in a dialect. Klaipėda, the city closest to Žemaitija, also stands out among the three biggest cities: 44% of the respondents there afrm they can speak a dialect, whereas in Vilnius the proportion is 36% and in Kaunas 38% of the respondents. 130 M. Ramonienė

Table 1 Percentage of inhabitants by ethnographic regions and cities of Lithuania who do not recognize dialects

Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius Kaunas Klaipėda Visaginas (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 3 17 12 2 20 14 19 60

Data from Lithuania Minor is not analysed in this paper because the number of towns (only two) is too small to fall into the sample

Table 2 City-dweller/town-dweller self-reported profciency in a dialect by age group Age 15–25 (%) 26–40 (%) 41–55 (%) 56+ (%) Profciency in a dialect 42 50 50 54

Table 3 Self-reported profciency in a dialect in different ethnographic regions and cities Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius Kaunas Klaipėda (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 59 42 53 71 36 38 44

3.3 Use of Dialects in Towns of Different Ethnographic Regions

One of the cornerstones of sociolinguistics is the axiom that language use and social structure are interdependent. Linguistic behaviour is a form of social behaviour infuenced by situations, a common communicative model that forms in a diferent way in various cultures and sub-cultures. Urbanization, as the classic urbanization theory states, creates a new sub-culture in comparison to the rural way of life (Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 17). Individuals living in an urbanized society are forced frequently to switch their social and communicative roles when communicating with ofcial and non-ofcial people and organizations, and being involved in social networks of various types (Milroy 1980). Moreover, migration from rural areas to cities and towns, moving from one region to a city/town of another region or forming a family with someone from another region also infuences language/dialect choices, encourages greater adaptation to those who speak diferently and quite Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 131 frequently leads to abandoning the dialect or to trying to avoid the most peculiar dialectal characteristics when communicating with interlocutors from other dialects or other regions. Town-dwellers, far more often than rural inhabitants, have to deal with situations of formal communication (Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 19–20), where it is usual to speak the standard, or as close as possible to the standard language. Terefore dialects in cities/towns are largely consigned to the private sphere and even there inhabitants of towns/cities have far less communication with people close to them speaking the same dialect than do people living in rural areas (Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 21–22, 46–50). One of the interests of this chapter is therefore how dialects are used in Lithuanian cities and towns where at least half of the inhabitants can speak the dialect. Can they be heard in the urban space? If so, in which situations and with which interlocutors? Te survey data show that 16% of people living in cities and towns and can speak a dialect afrm they do not use it at all (see Fig. 2). However, the majority say they use the dialect often (44%), or at least sometimes (40%). When comparing the declared use of dialect between genders, it can be seen that men use the dialect slightly more than women (see Table 4). Some 47% of the male respondents who claim that they are

Fig. 2 Frequency of dialect use by town-dwellers who can speak a dialect 132 M. Ramonienė

Table 4 Use of dialect (by gender) among those respondents who claim that they are able to speak a dialect Total (%) Gender Men (%) Women (%) Often 44 47 41 Sometimes 40 38 42 Never 16 15 17 able to speak a dialect afrm they use the dialect frequently, another 38% use it sometimes and only 15% say they are profcient in a dialect but do not use it. Tere are somewhat fewer women, 41%, who speak the dialect often, 42% afrm they use the dialect sometimes and 17% do not use it at all. Although the diferences in linguistic behaviour between genders are not great, it can be said that Lithuanian data also support the statement that women are less inclined to use the vernacular than men and that women orientate more to the standard language, as previous studies from other contexts have shown (see Holmes et al. 1991; Pavlidou 2010; Romaine 2003). If we compare (see Table 5) the frequency of use of dialect in the ethnographic regions and in the big cities, we can see that Žemaitija stands out again both by frequency of usage of dialect and by profciency in a dialect. As much as 91% of people living in Žemaitija’s towns (of those who are profcient in a dialect) afrm they speak the dialect (53% use it frequently and 38% use it sometimes) and only 9% maintain they are familiar with the dialect but do not use it. Te situation of Suvalkija is somewhat controversial. Due to the fact that the dialect of that ethnographic region is the basis of the standard language,11 many respondents from Suvalkija afrmed that their dialect is the standard language or, in their opinion, these language varieties have nearly no diferences (for more on this topic see Dabašinskienė and Dagilytė 2013). Tis has to be borne in mind when analysing data on Suvalkija, and statements about speaking the dialect should be evaluated with caution. Te quantitative data analysed seem to show that the

11Morphology, phonetics and accentuation of the standard language are based on the dialect of the Suvalkija region (Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija 1999: 91; Palionis 1995: 226–230). Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 133

Table 5 Frequency of dialect use in ethnographic regions and largest cities among those respondents who claim to be able to speak a dialect

Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius Kaunas Klaipėda Total (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Often 45 20 56 53 50 21 50 44 Sometimes 38 54 33 38 31 54 40 40 Never 17 26 11 9 19 25 10 16 dialect is frequently used in the region of Suvalkija: 56% (see Table 5) of town-dwellers in Suvalkija who claim that they know how to speak the dialect afrm they use it frequently, 33% use it sometimes and only 11% do not use it at all. Te answers to the question about dialect use show the rather strong vitality of the regional dialect in the towns and cities of Aukštaitija: 45% of town/city inhabitants of this region (of those who declared profciency in the dialect) say they use the dialect frequently and 38% use it sometimes. Towns in Dzūkija stand out by showing the lowest vitality of the dialect. Only 20% of town-dwellers who claim that they would be able to speak the dialect here afrm they use the dialect frequently, 54% use it sometimes and up to one quarter of the inhabitants deny ever using it, although they do speak it. According to the survey data, dialect is spoken in all three major Lithuanian cities. Te strength of the Žemaitian dialect also infuences the city closest to the region, Klaipėda, where many people from Žemaitija have moved. Some 90% of people who speak the dialect say they use it (50% use it often, 40% use it sometimes). Dialects are also actively used in Vilnius. As much as 81% of the inhabitants of the capital city who have profciency in a dialect say this is the case—50% of them use the dialect frequently and 31% use it sometimes. Te ethnically most Lithuanian of all three cities—Kaunas12—seems to use fewer dialect codes. Only one ffth of people living there who can speak a dialect afrm they use it often, 54% use it sometimes and one quarter (25%) deny using the dialect. Tis situation can be explained by the

12According to the census of 2011, 93.6% of the inhabitants of Kaunas are ethnic Lithuanians (Gyventojai pagal tautybę, gimtąją kalbą ir tikybą 2013). 134 M. Ramonienė high prestige of Standard Lithuanian in the former capital, where the elite of Lithuanian society lived in the frst half of the twentieth century and were actively involved in the creation and fostering of the Standard Lithuanian language. Kaunas is where the formation of Lithuanian city culture took place, one of the cornerstones of which was indeed the actively nourished standard language. Moreover, many people living in Kaunas originate from the nearby Suvalkija ethnographic region whose linguistic code was taken as the basis for the standard language; speakers commonly assume they speak the standard language (Dabašinskienė and Dagilytė 2013; Dabašinskienė and Garuckaitė 2010; Kasparavičienė 1997). Vilnius and Klaipėda have always been more multicultural and multilingual cities. In the second half of the twentieth century they received many Lithuanians from all parts of Lithuania, from regions close by and from those farther away, who have preserved their dialects after moving to the cities. As stated above, the urban space is far more institutionalized, bureauc- ratized and diversifed than rural areas, which results in the socially most acceptable linguistic variety being the standard language leaving little room for dialect use. Dialects are mostly limited to private situations, people in families (see also Blom and Gumperz 1972; Malmberg and Nordberg 1994: 19; Rubino 2014: 26–34). Tis kind of environment is not favourable to dialects, as only the function of limited, intimate language can be maintained (Teleman 1979). Te survey conducted in Lithuanian cities shows that the situation in Lithuania is no exception. As shown in Table 6, respondents who claim that they use a dialect indicate they speak it most often with their closest relations, people they know best; that is, with friends (64%), with siblings (58%), with parents (53%). With people who are less close (e.g. with neighbours), dialect is used somewhat less (44%). With a spouse or a partner, dialect is used by about 40% of the respondents claiming to speak a dialect. Te decreased frequency in dialect use with partners can most probably be explained by the fact that new family members do not necessarily come from the same dialect background but may speak diferent dialects. Standard language is therefore used more often in a new family situation (i.e., not with one’s parents): in a new family context a diferent family language policy is applied; dialect is no longer used. Dialect is used even less often Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 135 Žemaitija (%) 49 48 58 66 33 25 33 60 76 41 34 28 20 Suvalkija (%) 44 47 57 58 20 17 35 58 61 48 44 41 21 Dz ū kija (%) 31 24 36 42 18 9 10 28 53 5 3 3 6 Aukštaitija (%) 46 42 50 57 21 12 18 49 62 18 12 7 5 Total (including Vilnius, Total Kaunas and Klaip ė da) (%) 40 35 53 58 31 14 21 44 64 25 19 16 16 Dialect use with different interlocutors and in different spheres in ethnographic regions among those who interlocutors and in different Dialect use with different With spouse, partner With children With parents With siblings With grandparents With grandchildren With pets/animals With neighbours With friends In cafés, shops With medical staff With offcials At work 6 Table speak a dialect 136 M. Ramonienė when communicating with younger speakers—children and grandchildren: only 35% of those who have children and use a dialect speak it with their children, and only 14% of those who speak a dialect and have grandchildren use dialect when speaking with them. Tese results show a tendency to greatly diminish dialect use in Lithuanian cities and towns and to seldom pass it on to the younger generations. Linguistic behaviour with regard to dialect use in the private domain is diferent in towns of diferent ethnographic regions. Žemaitija stands out again in using dialect far more often with all the interlocutors mentioned, with older and younger family members. With friends and neighbours dialect is also used a lot more often than in other ethnographic regions. Te fact that this dialect is more vital and has better prospects for the future is shown by the data indicating that it is used with the younger generation. In Žemaitija nearly half of the respondents (48%) with children and who speak a dialect use it when talking to their children, and one quarter of those who have grandchildren and speak a dialect use it with their grandchildren. Dzūkija is the ethnographical region where people tend not to use dialect, even in the private sphere. Diferent linguistic choices are afected not only by the interlocutors, their closeness or by how well they know each other. An important factor in choosing a linguistic variety is also the domain of communication, the type of speaking situation (see Fishman 1972, 2000). As can be seen in Table 6, in the public or semi-private sphere, where more communication of the transactional, professional type happens, dialects are less used in Lithuanian cities and towns: 25% of those people who use a dialect claimed to use it in cafés or shops, 19% when talking to medical staf, 16% when talking to government ofcials, 16% use dialect at work. Te Žemaitija region (if we exclude the controversial Suvalkija, where many respondents afrmed that their dialect is the standard language) again stands out by using more dialect than elsewhere. Dialect is least used in the public and semi-private sphere, as well as in the private sphere as analysed previously, in Dzūkija. Here only 5% of town inhabitants who can speak a dialect say they use it in cafés and shops and only 3% when talking to medical staf or government ofcials. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 137

Table 7 Dialect use when thinking and counting in different ethnographic regions (percentage of respondents who claim to speak a dialect) Total (including Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius, Kaunas and (%) (%) (%) (%) Klaipėda) (%) Thinking 29 25 13 45 43 Counting 19 15 5 33 25

Te existence of dialect in mental processes (e.g., when thinking— question 8.2 in the questionnaire—or counting—question 8.3 in the questionnaire) is also afrmed by many inhabitants of Lithuanian cities and towns (see Table 7). Some 29% of town-dwellers who speak in dialect afrm they think in dialect and 19% afrm they count in dialect. When comparing the inhabitants of diferent ethnographical regions we can again see the same peculiarities. In Suvalkija, as much as 45% of town-dwellers who can speak a dialect afrm they think in dialect and 33% that they count in dialect. However, as mentioned earlier, the Suvalkija data should be evaluated with caution. Of the other regions the greatest dialect use in these activities is registered in Žemaitija: 43% of town-dwellers of this region who speak a dialect afrm they think in dialect, 25% say they count in dialect. Te region of Aukštaitija occupies the middle position: 25% of people living in towns of this region state they think in dialect and 15% say they count in dialect. Dialect is little used in Dzūkija in mental processes or in other domains: 13% afrm they think in dialect and only 5% say they count in dialect.

3.4 Attitudes Towards Dialects

It is known that positive attitudes towards a linguistic code help to maintain its vitality and use (Garret 2010: 23–29; Ramonienė 2013a, b). Even though attitudes do not necessarily have a direct impact on linguistic behaviour, and harmony between attitude and linguistic behaviour does not necessarily exist, positive attitudes can encourage the use of a linguistic variety. Te traditional ways to discover overt linguistic attitudes are questions about the beauty, the prestige, etc. of the 138 M. Ramonienė

Table 8 Dialect declared as most beautiful in different ethnographic regions Dialect Total (including Aukštaitija Žemaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Vilnius, Kaunas (%) (%) (%) (%) and Klaipėda) (%) Aukštaitian 34 51 31 29 17 Dzūkian 13 11 9 33 17 Suvalkietian 13 16 7 7 43 Žemaitian 22 14 42 12 11 None 5 3 5 4 2 No answer 13 5 6 15 10 linguistic code. Tese kinds of questions were asked during the survey in Lithuanian cities and towns. Te quantitative data show that in general town-dwellers consider dialects to be an attractive linguistic code. As can be seen in Table 8, when responding to the question as to which dialect is the most beautiful (question 2 in the questionnaire), only 5% of the respondents said that no dialect is beautiful. Te survey data revealed that respondents’ own dialects were held in greatest regard (see also Fig. 3). In Žemaitija the Žemaitian dialect was evaluated most highly: 42% of the inhabitants of this region afrmed that the Žemaitian dialect was the most beautiful. In Aukštaitija 51% of the participants considered the dialect of their region to be the most beautiful and in Suvalkija 43% of town-dwellers thought their dialect was the most beautiful. Even in Dzūkija, where the regional dialect is used the least, the Dzūkian dialect itself was evaluated as the most beautiful by 33% of people living in the towns of this region. Te overall evaluation resulted in the Aukštaitian dialect being the most beautiful; this was the opinion of more than one third (34%) of respondents who were town inhabitants of all the regions (Table 8). Although the quantitative data show rather positive esthetic attitudes towards dialects, during qualitative interviews13 there were still variable opinions on the attractiveness of dialects. More than one respondent

13Interviews were conducted in standard Lithuanian. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 139

Fig. 3 Dialect declared the most beautiful afrmed that dialect speech is not nice and that the standard language is the most beautiful, for example:

I don’t know, to me dialects are not beautiful. No, well maybe they would be, I don’t know. But it’s just the way it is and that’s how it is going to be but for some reason I don’t admire dialects. To me the literary [i.e., standard] language is the most beautiful. (Pasvalys, Aukštaitija, librarian, W, 5014) Well it’s not like some specifc dialect is close to my heart, to me it’s not like that. (Salantai, Žemaitija, doctor, W, 44)

On the other hand, quite a few interviewees admired the expressivity, the naturalness, the authenticity, the sincerity, the originality or other positive aspects when talking about dialect speech:

14In the parentheses the town, ethnographical region, occupation, sex (W—women, M—men) and age of the respondent is indicated. 140 M. Ramonienė

No, I haven’t heard any not beautiful (dialects), well to me also to talk with a Dzūkian, I like to talk, I like Aukštaitian, I like, I like … it’s a kind of non-standard, well, exceptional … beautiful, very beautiful … (Salantai, Žemaitija, teacher, M, 58) Well, you see, in TV sometimes when there is some preview or some show… […] you see, when somebody starts speaking Dzūkian dialect or for example pure Suvalkian or Žemaitian, well, well, it just captures your soul and gets close to your heart. And so you want more, to hear more, I think: Jesus and Mary, it’s really beautiful. (Varėna, Dzūkija, music teacher in a kindergarten, W, 61) I. Mh, is Žemaitian dialect beautiful to you? R. To me it’s very beautiful. T. Why is it beautiful? R. Well it seems to me so natural, so intense … so so so full, so intense, without any winding, those ‘blabla’, so strong it seems to me, Žemaitian is very beautiful. (Kretinga, Žemaitija, former teacher, W, 77)

Language attitudes are also well refected in evaluating which domains are suitable for dialect use and which domains are not. As can be seen in Table 9, the majority of people living in towns and cities in all the ethnographic regions of Lithuania think that dialect is most suitable when communicating with people who are close, who you know; in total 82% confrm this statement. Only 12% of town-dwellers think that

Table 9 Attitudes on dialect suitability in certain domains Dialect suitability Total (including Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius, Kaunas (%) (%) (%) (%) and Klaipėda) (%) In business 5 7 4 5 7 relationships In education 7 9 5 6 9 In naming cafés, 11 13 7 9 11 shops, etc. In jokes 64 62 64 53 64 With close people, 82 83 76 79 82 acquaintances With strangers 12 13 14 11 17 In media 8 9 9 5 5 Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 141 dialect is suitable when communicating with strangers. Te Žemaitija region is again somewhat exceptional, with 17% of respondents claiming that dialect is suitable for communication with strangers. Dialect use in public domains, such as business or education, does not seem acceptable: only 7% of the respondents maintain that dialect could be suitable for educational institutions and only 5% in business relationships. Dialect is not very acceptable in media either as only 8% of respondents who are city and town inhabitants think that dialect is suitable for media. A somewhat larger percentage tends to support the use of dialect in the linguistic landscape: 11% consider dialect suitable in naming cafés, shops, etc. Tis idea is supported most in Aukštaitija, where 13% of respondents living in towns of this region viewed this idea favourably. Data from the qualitative interviews reveal details as well as reasons for such language attitudes. When talking about dialects, quite a few respondents from all over Lithuania tended to underline the superiority of the standard language and its—not the dialects’—suitability for public life.

In public, I would say, it’s difcult for me to listen, I don’t know why that is. When we talk just like that it’s ok, but when someone in a public situation, I don’t know, it’s difcult for me to listen to our dialect. To me it’s better if it’s literary [i.e., standard] language. (Pasvalys, Aukštaitija, librarian, W, 50) Tat’s how it happens. I think that, for example, you stand in front of an audience or in front of a class, in some reunion or something or in general, in some institution or some ofce, I don’t know where, I think that there should be literary [i.e., standard] language anyway, I don’t know. (Linkuva, Aukštaitija, teacher, W, 43)

It is interesting that many of the survey respondents underlined the suitability of dialect for expressing humour; dialect seems suitable to 64% of the respondents when it comes to jokes. Humour and dialect seem closely related even for the inhabitants of towns in all the regions. It is possible that this relation is encouraged by the media which have created a humoristic image of a mock dialect speaker (see also Vaicekauskienė and Sausverde 2012). On the other hand, as can be seen 142 M. Ramonienė

Table 10 Evaluation of dialect from a rural/urban aspect through the statement ‘Dialect use is more suitable to rural and not urban speakers’ Total (including Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius, Kaunas (%) (%) (%) (%) and Klaipėda) (%) Agree 34 38 34 30 26 Neither agree 21 23 18 25 21 nor disagree Do not agree 39 36 36 39 50 Diffcult to say 6 4 12 7 3 in the qualitative interviews, language users feel that a dialect is a more colourful and expressive code, which can convey subtle meanings and emotions, nuances of mood, more signifcant accents. For example, one respondent says this about a colleague who speaks Žemaitian:

She would speak and speak and then would start in Žemaitian dialect, if she wanted to stress something or say something stronger or more sincere, she would switch to Žemaitian language. She was a real Žemaitian. […] we would like that in a sense that she, well, she seemed to us original, different. (Kretinga, Žemaitija, former teacher, W, 77)

Data analysis again confrmed that the negative attitudes towards dialect often originate from the fact that dialects are associated with rusticity (see also Vaicekauskienė and Sausverde 2012; Ramonienė 2013a). Evaluation of the statement ‘Dialect use is more suitable to rural and not urban speakers’ is demonstrated in Table 10. Notice that the numbers of those who agree, who disagree and who do not have a clear opinion are quite similar: 34% agree with this statement, a little more 39% disagree and about one quarter of the respondents do not have a clear opinion. Once again Žemaitija bucks the trend where as much as 50% do not associate dialect with rusticity, and those who do are fewer than in other regions: only 26%. Some predictions about the future of dialects in Lithuanian towns and cities can be made from language attitudes that have to do with young people and the linguistic behaviour of young people. One of the statements proposed for evaluation in the survey was ‘Children and young people should be encouraged to speak the dialect’ (see Table 11). Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 143

Table 11 Opinions of respondents towards encouraging dialect use among the young. Evaluation of the statement ‘Children and young people should be encouraged to speak the dialect’ Total (including Aukštaitija Dzūkija Suvalkija Žemaitija Vilnius, Kaunas (%) (%) (%) (%) and Klaipėda) (%) Agree 54 54 48 45 64 Neither agree 23 20 18 25 18 nor disagree Do not agree 17 20 24 24 15 Diffcult to say 7 6 11 6 3

More than half of all the participants (54%) supported the idea that dialect use among young people should be encouraged. Žemaitija, which usually stands out when dialects are involved, also had the most positive attitude compared to the other ethnographic regions. More respondents living in the towns of this region than in others supported encouraging dialect use among the young: 64%; and fewer disagreed with this statement: 15%. Analysis of all the data shows the position of dialect is strongest in the Žemaitija ethnographic region (see also Ramonienė 2013a; Kliukienė 2013). Tis is not only illustrated by the linguistic behaviour and attitudes of the inhabitants of Žemaitija, but also confrmed by people from other regions. Te people of Žemaitija have a distinct eth- nical identity that is primarily expressed by the local variety, and this is admired by the inhabitants of other regions, for example:

… to me, like I say, Žemaitians is an example, it can be said, there you can always distinguish them, that dialect … whereas Dzūkians somehow almost seem to be ashamed of their speech. (Simnas, Dzūkija, employee of municipality, W, 39)

4 Concluding Remarks

Te analysis of linguistic behaviour and attitudes of Lithuanian cities and towns shows that dialects are known and recognized by respondents living in cities and towns. About half of these inhabitants afrm their 144 M. Ramonienė profciency in a dialect but about 16% of those who can speak it do not use it. People in cities and towns who speak a dialect usually only use it with the people closest to them, such as family members and friends, and a lot less frequently in public and semi-public life. Te analysis of language attitudes confrms that town-dwellers often consider dialects to be beautiful, natural, original but suitable only for private life or expressing humour—not for public and ofcial communication. Te strong standard language ideology, as was repeatedly claimed, has an efect on language attitudes and the standard language therefore seems the most suitable for education and other ofcial domains. About one third of city and town respondents associate dialects with rural—not urban—life, but others do not have a clear opinion on this or do not consider speaking a dialect to be a sign of rusticity. Terefore, speaking and using a dialect is not necessarily associated with belonging to a lower social group. More than half of the respondents who were city and town inhabitants think children and young people should be encouraged to speak dialect. Tese tendencies show that dialects are still alive and well in Lithuanian cities and towns. However, the fact that dialects are spoken and used more by older people and that far less dialect is used with younger generations, such as children and grandchildren, shows that the natural passing of the dialect code from one generation to another is starting to break down. Te survey shows that being able to speak and use dialects, as well as language attitudes towards dialects, are not the same in cities and towns of diferent Lithuanian ethnographic regions. Te strongest vitality of dialect is observed in the Žemaitija region where the characteristics of the dialect and sub-dialects difer greatly from the standard language. Te largest ethnographic region, Aukštaitija, characterized by the greatest variety of dialects, occupies the second place. Here dialect is also alive and well, rather frequently used but in many cases less than in Žemaitija. Te weakest dialect position is found in the Dzūkija ethnographic region. In Dzūkija the local dialect is less used and language attitudes are less supportive of the vitality of the dialect. Te ethnographic region of Suvalkija is somewhat controversial. Te use of dialect here is said to be frequent, but the actual local dialect is often identifed as the standard language, which has this local dialect as its base. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 145

It is evident that the linguistic behaviour declared and overt language attitudes analysed do not necessarily directly refect the linguistic reality. In order to be able to see the general situation and to evaluate not only the declared but also the real linguistic behaviour, the sociolinguistic situation should be studied using other methods as well (e.g., participant observation, focus group interviews, etc.).

Appendix

The Part of the Questionnaire Related to Dialects

1. When hearing a person speaking in dialect, would you recognize which dialect is he/she speaking? 1. Yes, I would easily recognize all dialects 2. It depends on the dialect, some dialects I distinguish easily, some with more difculty 3. I would understand that he/she speaks a dialect but I couldn’t say which dialect exactly 4. I know nothing about Lithuanian dialects 2. Which dialect to you is most…?

…Beautiful …Usual …Prestigious …Diffcult to understand 1. Aukštaitian 2. Dzūkian 3. Suvalkietian 4. Žemaitian 5. Neither 6. Don’t know

3. In which of these situations do you think it is suitable to use dialect? We have the Lithuanian context in mind. 1. In business relationships 2. In institutions of education 3. In naming shops, cafés etc. 146 M. Ramonienė

4. In joking 5. When speaking to close people, family members, friends, neighbours etc. 6. When speaking to people you don’t know on the street, talking on the phone etc. 7. In media (e.g. radio, television) 8. Other: ______

4. Tere are diferent opinions about the value/beneft in maintaining dialects. How much do you agree with the following statements?

Fully Agree Neither Do not Do not It is agree yes nor agree agree diffcult no at all to say 1. Children and young people should be encouraged to speak the dialect 2. Dialect use is more suitable to rural and not urban inhabitants

5. Can you speak any dialect? 1. I can (at least some of at least one dialect) 2. I can’t and I don’t want to be able to 3. I can’t but I would like to learn 4. It is difcult to say 6. How frequently do you speak a dialect? 1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. I don’t because I have no one to speak it to 4. I don’t because I don’t want to speak in dialect 7. In which of these situations do you use a dialect? 8. Which dialect do you use and how frequently? Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 147 Žemaitian Suvalkietian Dz ū kian Aukštaitian Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never Often/sometimes never 1. You write 1. You think 2. You count 3. You speak to wife/husband, partner 4. You speak with children 5. You speak with parents 6. You speak with siblings 7. You speak with grandparents 8. You speak with grandchildren 9. You 10. You speak with pets/animals 10. You speak with neighbours 11. You speak with friends 12. You speak at a shop, café etc. 13. You speak with medical staff 14. You speak with offcials 15. You speak at work 16. You 148 M. Ramonienė

References

Aleksandravičius, J. (2011). Kretingos tarmės žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Aliūkaitė, D. (2007). Tarminis kalbėjimas ir bendrinė kalba: objektyviųjų ir sub- jektyviųjų skirtumų kultūrinė vertė. Doctoral thesis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Aliūkaitė, D. (2008). Tarmiškai kalbančio žmogaus stereotipai: apriorinės eilinių kalbos bendruomenės narių nuostatos. Respectus Philologicus, 14(19), 23–45. Ambrazas, V., & Morkūnas, K. (Eds.). (1999). Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Atkočaitytė, D. (2002). Pietų žemaičių raseiniškių prozodija ir vokalizmas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Bacevičiūtė, R. (1998). Žemutinių prigimtinio ir padėtinio ilgumo balsių skir- tumai Lukšių šnektoje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 40, 102–112. Bacevičiūtė, R. (2004). Šakių šnektos prozodija ir vokalizmas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Blom, J.-P., & Gumperz, J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. Te ethnography of communication (pp. 407–434). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bukantis, J. (2007). Vakarų žemaičių tarminės ypatybės. Tautosakos darbai, XXXIV, 194–206. Čekmonas, V., & Grumadienė, L. (1993). Rytų Lietuvos kalbų paplitimo žemėlapis. In K. Garšva & L. Grumadienė (Eds.), Lietuvos rytai (pp. 132– 136). Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos fondas. Dabašinskienė, I., & Dagilytė, E. (2013). Suvalkiečių išskirtinumas: būdo savybės ar kalbėjimas? In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis (pp. 105–123). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Dabašinskienė, I., & Garuckaitė, R. (2010). Kalbinis Kauno praeities ir dabarties savitumas. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos (pp. 231– 249). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Fishman, J. A. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. Te ethnography of communication (pp. 435–453). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Fishman, J. A. (2000). Who speaks what language to whom and when? In L. Wei (Ed.), Te bilingualism reader (pp. 89–106). London and New York: Routledge. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 149

Garret, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Girdenis, A. (1996). Taip šneka tirkšliškiai: Šiaurės žemaičių telšiškių tarmės tekstai su komentarais. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Girdenis, A. (2008). Žemaičių dzūkai: tekstai su komentarais. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Gyventojai pagal tautybę, gimtąją kalbą ir tautybę. (2013). https://osp.stat.gov. lt/documents/10180/217110/Gyv_kalba_tikyba.pdf/1d9dac9a-3d45-4798- 93f5-941fed00503f. Accessed 5 July 2016. Grinaveckienė, E., & Morkūnas, K. (1977). Lietuvių kalbos atlasas: Leksika. Vilnius: Mokslas. Grinaveckienė, E., Jonaitytė, A., Lipskienė, J., Morkūnas, K., Vanagienė, B., & Vidugiris, A. (1982). Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. Fonetika. Vilnius: Mokslas. Holmes, J., Bell, A., & Boyce, M. (1991). Variation and change in New Zealand English: A social dialect investigation (Project Report to the Social Sciences Committee of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology). Wellington: Victoria University. Kalėdienė, L. (2013). Požiūris į tarmes ir nuostatos dėl jų vartojimo trijose Dzūkijos etnografnio regiono dalyse. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis (pp. 125–151). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kalėdienė, L., Mikulėnienė, D., Morkūnas, K., & Vidugiris, A. (2005). Dieveniškių šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Kalnius, P. (2012). Žemaičiai. XX –XXI a. Pradžia. Vilnius: Mintis. Kardelis, V. (2009). Šiaurės rytų aukštaičiai vilniškiai: ribos ir diferenciacija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kasparavičienė, V. (1997). Kalbinė diferenciacija ir tautinė savivoka. Miestiečiai. Vilniečių ir kauniečių tapatumo, savivokos bei požiūrių sociologinę analizė. Vilnius: Lietuvos flosofjos ir sociologijos institutas. Kliukienė, R. (2010). Tarmės mieste: mokėjimas, vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos (pp. 91–105). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kliukienė, R. (2013). Tarmės mokėjimas, vartojimas ir nuostatos Žemaitijos regione. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis (pp. 91–103). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kliukienė, R. (2014). Kalbėjimas su tėvais tarmiškai ir gyventojų požiūris į tarmes Žemaitijos miestuose (kiekybinė analizė). http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2014/04/kalbejimas-su-tevais-tarmiskai-ir-gyventoju-pozi- uris-i-tarmes-zemaitijos-miestuose-kiekybine-analize. Accessed 5 July 2015. Leskauskaitė, A. (1997). Priebalsių t’, d’ ir k’, g’ mišimas Druskininkų tarmėje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 38, 20–30. 150 M. Ramonienė

Leskauskaitė, A. (2003). Šalutiniai pietų aukštaičių kirčiai. Baltistica, 37(1), 87–100. Leskauskaitė, A. (2008a). Pietų aukštaičių u kamieno daiktavardžiai. In J. Niewulis-Grablunas, J. Prusinowska, & E. Stryczyńska-Hodyl (Eds.), Perspectives of Baltic philology (pp. 79–92). Poznań: Rys. Leskauskaitė, A. (2008b). Pietų aukštaičių iu kamieno daiktavardžiai. In D. Mikulėnienė & S. Ambrazas (Eds.), Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos prob- lemos 2 (pp. 524–544). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Lietuvos etnografniai regionai. (2003). Etninės kultūros globos taryba. http:// www.ekgt.lt/media/image/regionai.jpg. Accessed 1 February 2018. Mac Giolla Chríost, D. (2007). Language and the city. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Malmberg, A., & Nordberg, B. (1994). Language use in Rural and Urban settings. In B. Nordberg (Ed.), Te sociolinguistics of urbanization. Te case of the Nordic countries (pp. 16–50). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mikulėnienė, D., & Meiliūnaitė, V. (2014). XXI amžiaus pradžios lietuvių tarmės: geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai. Vilnius: Briedis. Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Language in society 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Morkūnas, K. (1991). Lietuvių kalbos atlasas: Morfologija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Murinienė, L. (2002). Akmenės šnektos balsinių fonemų klasifkacija ir jų dif- erencinių požymių hierarchija. Žmogus ir žodis: didaktinė lingvistika, 1(4), 22–29. Murinienė, L., & Girdenis, A. (2001). Kirčio atitraukimo į proklitiką savitu- mai rytinėje šiaurės žemaičių tarmėje. Baltistica, XXXVI(1), 87–102. Naktinienė, G., Paulauskienė, A., & Vitkauskas, V. (1988). Druskininkų tarmės žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Nordberg, B. (Ed.). (1994). Te sociolinguistics of urbanization. Te case of the Nordic countries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Palionis, J. (1995). Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir encik- lopedijų leidykla. Pavlidou, T.-S. (2010). Gender and interaction. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. E. Kerswill (Eds.), Te Sage handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 412–427). London: Sage. Pupkis, A. (2008). Kazlų Rūdos šnektos žodynas I: A-M. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pupkis, A. (2009). Kazlų Rūdos šnektos žodynas II: N-Ž. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space … 151

Ramonienė, M. (2006). Nuostatos dėl bendrinės kalbos ir tarmės: Joniškėlio atvejis. Kalbos kultūra, 79, 137–148. Ramonienė, M. (2009). Vilniaus gyventojų kalbinis elgesys. Prace bałtystyczne, 4, 71–81. Ramonienė, M. (2011). Kalbų vartojimas darbe didžiuosiuose Lietuvos miestuose. Lietuvių kalba, 22. www.lietuviukalba.lt; http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/ index.php?id 178. Accessed 30 November 2015. = Ramonienė, M. (2013a). Tarmės Aukštaitijos miestuose: mokėjimas, vartojimas ir kalbinės nuostatos. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis (pp. 75–90). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Ramonienė, M. (2013b). Tarmės socialinė vertė: Lietuvos miestų jaunimo kalbinės nuostatos. Taikomoji kalbotyra, 2. www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. Accessed 10 July 2015. Ramonienė, M. (Ed.). (2013c). Miestai ir kalbos II. Sociolingvistinis Lietuvos žemėlapis. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Romaine, S. (2003). Variation in language and gender. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhof (Eds.), Te handbook of language and gender (pp. 98–118). Oxford: Blackwell. Rubino, A. (2014). Trilingual talk in Sicilian–Australian migrant families. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Tarmės [Dialects ]. (2012). http://www.tarmes.lt/index_meniu.php?id 1. = Accessed 23 November 2015. Teleman, U. (1979). Språkrätt. Om skolans språknormer och samhällets. Lund: Liber Läromedel. Urbanavičienė, J. (2010). Svirkų šnektos fonologinė sistema: vokalizmas ir prozodija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vaicekauskienė, L., & Sausverde, E. (2012). Lietuvos tarmių rezervatas. Socialiniai ir geografniai tarmės mobilumo ribojimai tiesioginių tyrimų duomenimis. Taikomoji kalbotyra, 1, 1–27. www.taikomojikalbotyra.lt. Accessed 2 August 2015. Vaitekūnas, S. (2006). Lietuvos gyventojai. Per du tūkstantmečius. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vidugiris, A. (1998). Zietelos šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vidugiris, A. (2004). Zietelos lietuvių šnekta. Vilnius: Presvika. Vilutytė. A. (2008). Kaltanėnų šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. 152 M. Ramonienė

Vosilytė, K. (2007). Kupiškėnų žodynas: A-H. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vosilytė, K. (2010). Kupiškėnų žodynas: I-O. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vosilytė, K. (2012). Kupiškėnų žodynas: P-S. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vosilytė, K. (2013). Kupiškėnų žodynas: Š-Ž. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vitkauskas, V. (1976). Šiaurės rytų dūnininkų šnektų žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičiaus, Z. (1966). Lietuvių dialektologija (Lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija). Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičiaus, Z. (1968). Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Kaunas: Šviesa. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian in Poland

Justyna B. Walkowiak and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz

1 Introduction

As Törnquist-Plewa (2000: 183) states, ‘Language is supremely important for a group’s cultural identity. It delimits, identifes, and integrates. Language has an impact on the collective consciousness of the community’ and (…) ‘becomes an important prerequisite for cultural continuity’. Tat cultural continuity can be understood not only in a diachronic and transgenerational sense, but also more explicitly in territorial, and thus geopolitical reference, as a continuum of language communities divided by political borders, frequently into a majority–minority constellation. Te territorial factor has always played a crucial role in the minority-language policies resulting from political nationalisms in the countries of eastern central Europe, and the nationalisms themselves

J. B. Walkowiak (*) · T. Wicherkiewicz Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland e-mail: [email protected] T. Wicherkiewicz e-mail: [email protected]

© Te Author(s) 2019 153 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_6 154 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz have constituted the primary factor of all ethnic and sociolinguistic processes occurring in the region—in particular, on the Slavic–Baltic linguistic borderland. In the case of the Lithuanian–Polish ethnic and (ethno-)linguistic relations the impact of ‘nation-state’ principles has been irregularly strengthened by considerable diferences in both nations’ ethnopolitical history, diferent language ideologies and contrastive geopolitical contexts of the two speech communities—and their emanations onto the two respective minority-language groups. Terefore, the language policy processes and constellations discussed below can be understood better through the prism of a concept of ‘triadic relational interplay between national minorities, the newly nationalizing states in which they live, and the external national homelands to which they belong, or can be construed as belonging, by ethnocultural afnity though not by legal citizenship’ proposed by Rogers Brubaker in his (1996) work Nationalism Reframed… When adapting Brubaker’s triadic approach to language policy studies the role played by minority-language communities shows as a bargaining chip in a ‘bigger scale’ international policy, at least on a bilateral scale. Polish–Lithuanian majority–minority relations can serve as an example in that respect (as shown, for example, in the 2003 study by Żołędowski on the position of Poles in Lithuania and Belarus and Lithuanians and Belarusians in Poland, based ideologically on Brubaker’s triadic approach). Te data and fndings presented in this chapter have been acquired and compiled by its authors during their various feldwork projects, carried out in the years 2012–2015 in the form of semi- structured interviews among the members of the Polish-language minority in Lithuania’s Vilnius region and among the leading activists of the Lithuanian minority in northeastern Poland. Te authors acknowledge the kind assistance in research and patience on the part of all their informants. Worth stressing is the qualitative, and not strictly quantitative, approach to the data acquired and analysed. Te objective of the interviews was to study the attitudes of young or middle-aged adult members of both minority communities. An active insight into Poland’s minority (language) policy was also possible through participation in the role of an expert in meetings of, for example, the Joint Commission of the Government and National and Ethnic Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 155

Minorities.1 In addition, information from the media proved useful, especially in analysing (language) attitudes. As some of the opinions and attitudes presented below are based on mass-media reports, a follow-up project could focus on critical analysis of the discourses made both in Lithuania and in Poland on ‘mutual’ minority (language) policies. Tis could further broaden considerably the sociosemiotic perspective of the present contribution. Te chapter has been structured in concert with the importance of the issues considered by the authors as crucial in the reciprocal inter- relations between the Lithuanian and Polish states and their respective minorities, the key areas chosen being language policy and practice, religion, education, media, minority legislation and naming policies.

2 The Polish Minority in Lithuania in Brief

Te historical context of the contemporary Polish presence in Lithuania, which is complicated and multifaceted, is far too wide to merit space in the present chapter; the Anglophone reader is referred to such sources as Davies (1989) or Snyder (2003), to name just two. Sufce it to say that Lithuania’s thinking about language policy has long been determined by the idea of being a minorized majority, or—to put it diferently—‘the situation, rarely envisaged in hitherto language policy and rights formulations, of a national language being under threat, not the language of a minority’ (Hogan-Brun et al. 2009: 63, emphasis in the original). Te threat in question was that posed by the Russian language, which in the USSR functioned as a lingua franca, thus making Lithuania a de facto bilingual country since the end of World War II until the regaining of independence in 1991 (see Muth 2012: 208). Te dissolution of the USSR and the concomitant thaw reawakened the old feelings going back to the times of the Lithuanian national revival.

1Te Joint Commission of the Government and National and Ethnic Minorities is a consultative and advisory body of the Prime Minister of the Polish Government. It comprises representatives of ministries, of the national and ethnic minorities and of the Kashubian community (‘regional language’). 156 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Te foundations for the contemporary language policy in Lithuania, however, were laid as early as the nineteenth century:

Given the troubled history of the country, many ethnic Lithuanians still perceive their native language as endangered […] [S]tarting with the nineteenth century, when Polish- and Russian-speaking Lithuanian elites started to build the Lithuanian nation, they saw the need to ‘strengthen’ the Lithuanian language and ‘defend’ it from the infuences of the Polish and Russian languages. Tis perceived need to strengthen the Lithuanian language and ethnic identity continues to be an important variable in ethnic relations. Even the Soviet Lithuanian elites […] felt it was their ‘duty’ to ‘Lithuanize’ south-eastern Lithuania. (Budrytė and Pilinkaitė- Sotirovič 2009: 152–153)

Today the Polish minority lives in a compact area in the southeast of Lithuania. Since this minority has Poland as its kin state, under Polish law it is at the same time a national minority (as opposed to ethnic minorities, which do not have such a state).2 Te data from the two most recent censuses in the Republic of Lithuania (2001 and 2011) indicate that over the frst decade of the twenty-frst century the number of Lithuania’s citizens declaring Polish ethnicity dropped from 6.74 to 6.6% of the total population. Te number of Lithuania’s Poles, according to the 2011 census, is 200,317, which makes them the most numerous minority in contemporary Lithuania. Te highest percentages of Poles have been recorded in the district municipalities (Lith. rajono savivaldybės ) of Šalčininkai (77.8%), Vilnius (52.1%; it must be borne in mind that the Vilnius district municipality does not include the city of Vilnius itself), Trakai (30.1%) and Švenčionys (26%). In these four district municipalities, situated in southeastern Lithuania, Poles constitute jointly 49% of the population. It is evident that ‘ethnic diversity has a distinctly regional dimension in Lithuania’ (Hogan-Brun et al. 2009: 121). However,

2Te dichotomy between national and ethnic minorities was introduced by the 2005 Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and on the Regional Language (cf. Article 2 at: http://mniejszosci.narodowe.mac.gov.pl/mne/prawo/ustawa-o-mniejszosciac/tlumaczenia/6490,Tlumacze- nia-Ustawy-o-mniejszosciach-narodowych-i-etnicznych-oraz-o-jezyku-region.html). Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 157 in the Vilnius City municipality (Lith. Vilniaus miesto savivaldybė ), i.e., in the city itself, the percentage of Poles indicated in the 2011 census was somewhat lower—16.5%. By contrast, the number of Russians, in Soviet times the most numerous minority, decreased from 9.4% in 1989 to 5.8% in the 2011 census. Apart from their concentration in the Visaginas municipality (where they constitute over 50% of the population, due to the construction of the Ignalina power plant in the 1970s and 1980s, see Gobert 2011: 355), they are now living in various parts of Lithuania, chiefy in the cities of Vilnius and Klaipėda. Apart from those Russian immigrants who settled in Lithuania after it became one of the Soviet republics and remained here after the dissolution of the USSR, there is also a numerically insignifcant autochthonous community of Russian Old Believers in the east of the country (0.7% of the total population of Lithuania in the 2011 census).

2.1 Language Constellation

For Poles in Lithuania the Polish language is evidently not treated as synonymous with Polish identity. In the 2011 census, Polish as the mother tongue was declared by 77.1% of those who indicated Polish ethnicity, whereas 10.1% of Poles claimed Russian as their mother tongue, and 8.8% Lithuanian. In other words, one can consider oneself a Pole even if one’s mother tongue might not be Polish. Te 2011 census for the frst time gave the respondents the opportunity to mark two languages rather than one as mother tongues; the percentage of Poles who did so was under 2.5. While Hogan-Brun (2008: 150) noted that ‘numerous Poles […] who in Soviet times had switched to Russian as the language of power now declare Russian as their frst language’, recent research into the Polish minority in Lithuania by Kazėnas et al. (2014: 246–247) paints a slightly diferent picture. Over half of the respondents report the use of Polish as the language of communication at home, and 5.1% name in this function ‘the local language’ (Pol. w języku miejscowym/tutejszym ); 10.2% declare that they use both Polish and Lithuanian for home 158 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz communication, and 14.6% claim both Polish and Russian. Te use of Russian as a sole home language has been reported by 4.6% of the respondents. Moreover, a marked diference has been noted in the use of Polish between the Vilnius district and city municipalities—jointly with over 50%—and the Šalčininkai district municipality with no more than 30% of those declaring their ethnicity as Polish who actually reported speaking Polish at home. Nevertheless, the use of Polish ranked frst on the list of factors that according to respondents determine their Polish identity (each respondent could mark up to three choices), with 56% choosing that option, followed by self-identifcation (38%), respect for Polish traditions (34.8%) and the Catholic religion (34.5%). Regarding the command of languages other than one’s mother tongue, in the 2011 census 65.5% of Poles in Lithuania and 66.3% of Russians reported command of Lithuanian; Russian as a non-native language is spoken by 76.4% of Lithuanian Poles (among ethnic Lithuanians the percentage of those who speak Russian is somewhat lower—67.1%). Obviously this comprises all age groups (apart from children aged 0–10), including those who received education in Soviet times. As for younger generations the number of people who declare command of the titular language would certainly be higher, due to obligatory school lessons of Lithuanian after 1990. It must be noted that certain features of the language that is used by Poles in Lithuania—and even taught in Polish-minority schools— markedly difer from those of standard literary Polish. Regarding this, several factors come into play. First, to some degree it retains typical features of the so-called dialekt północnokresowy (the dialect of the northeastern Borderlands, already described in the interwar period; see Turska 1995/1982; Nitsch 1925). Second, there are more-recent-in- origin, postwar interferences from Russian, a carryover from the Soviet past. Finally, it must be remembered that due to war migrations, Soviet deportations and the postwar (1944–1946) so-called repatriation (in fact, expulsion) of Polish inhabitants from Vilnius and the surrounding area to Poland, those present inhabitants of Vilnius who declare Polish ethnicity are largely postwar migrants from what today is Belarus, or their descendants. Consequently, their speech also retains certain dialectal features typical of their area of origin. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 159

It is largely the more recent (i.e., postwar) inferences from Russian and Lithuanian that led to the emergence of a special language spoken by Pulaki z Wilni (i.e., young people of Polish descent in contemporary Vilnius; see Pecela 2013; Wołkanowska-Kołodziej 2014). Even a cursory glance at the language of the websites of Polish schools in Lithuania or at some articles in the Polish-minority press reveals evident divergences from standard Polish usage. Tey do not go unnoticed, though: some observations of a Polish journalist in Lithuania reveal interesting language attitudes:

I don’t know if one should be exactly proud of the fact that one speaks a Polish–Russian–Lithuanian language mix (incidentally, mix and dialect are two completely diferent entities: the dialect of new Vilnius is full of borrowings from Russian and Lithuanian, yet those borrowings are not mechanical but creatively reworked, Polonized). I take it as an axiom that that’s the way it is. It would certainly be ideal if Poles in Lithuania not only knew this mix but had excellent command of literary Polish too. Nevertheless, it is hard to expect that, given the vestigial presence of Polish culture in today’s Lithuania. Actually, except for the school and the church, the Polish language is absent from the public sphere. So even if by some sort of miracle Polish in our Polish schools began to be taught by specialists with a perfect command of this language, still after school a student would face the same Russian–Lithuanian reality. As long as the presence of the Polish language and culture—and I don’t mean countless folk groups or religious singers—is invisible, people will still speak here the Vilnius way. (Radczenko 2012, emphasis added)

Tese concerns, voiced by a member of the Polish minority in Lithuania, refect the traditional prescriptive approach, still present in the schools in Poland, (though to a far lesser extent among university specialists in the Polish language, see Miodunka 2016), according to which Polish is seen as a monocentric language with one literary standard that all users (should) aspire to. Te backdrop of such language attitudes is naturally the relative linguistic homogeneity of contemporary Poland, and the traditionally low prestige attributed to dialects, which for many years following World War II were considered inferior to standard language, mocked and discouraged (see, e.g., Karaś 2010). 160 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

2.2 Language and Religion

It would seem that in the case of the Polish minority vis-à-vis the titular Lithuanian majority ethnic divisions do not coincide with a con- fessional divide, since both Poles and Lithuanians are predominantly Catholic. A closer look, however, reveals a more nuanced situation. As the 2011 census data show, 82.9% of Lithuanians declare themselves Catholic, with 6.1% selecting the option of ‘not any’ religion, as opposed to, respectively, 88.6% and 1.5% of Poles in Lithuania. In other words, Poles would appear (at least declaratively) more religious. Te researchers who in the years 2007–2010 carried out a project entitled Te Catholic Church and Religious Pluralism in Lithuania and Poland: An Anthropological Study of Public and Private Meanings of Religion in Postsocialist Society seem to confrm that diference:

Despite a similar history of a dominant Catholic Church and a cultural heritage shaped by the Catholic faith, the religious felds of Lithuania and Poland have developed in diferent directions after the demise of socialism. In Poland, the Church continues to play a dominant role in politics and everyday life. Tere has even been a reinforcement of popular religiosity through the widespread veneration of Pope John Paul II. In Lithuania, an opposite tendency can be observed. While the overwhelming majority of Lithuanians are members of the Catholic Church (‘statistical Catholics’), a widespread indiference toward the Church’s teachings, the rise of religious pluralism and the proliferation of indi- vidualized constructions of religious worldviews under the infuence of esoteric and New Age ideas have been observed […]. (Te Catholic Church…, 2016)

Moreover, as Żołędowski (2003: 172) points out, a common feature of both the Polish minority in Lithuania and the Lithuanian minority in Poland is stronger commitment to religion than that of Poles in Poland and Lithuanians in Lithuania, respectively. All these observations, as well as the census data, are corroborated by data from the interviews conducted among Lithuania’s Poles by one of the present authors in Lithuania in the autumn of 2013: Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 161

R. But as for the faith, I’m Catholic […] with such very strong faith. Lithuanians don’t have that. I. Tey don’t? R. Tey do, but not on such a level. And I think that’s why [my child] will have a guardian angel and I will bestow [on the child] a Polish name. Well, since I know the Catholic faith from the Polish language, then there will be some Polish name that will be written everywhere in documents (W, 24).

From the point of view of minority-language vitality, the church is one of the traditional spheres of language maintenance. Terefore, it is important to look at the role of Polish as the language of religion in Lithuania. In contrast with the conficts over the language of church services in the years 1904–1914, 1940 or 1945–1989 (see, e.g., Buchowski 2006: 62–63, 78–79, 324, 355), nowadays the language used in church, excluding some exceptions, does not incite such strong emotions, and in many Catholic churches in Lithuania there are holy masses in Polish. In the Catholic churches situated in the compact historical centre of Vilnius, 13 masses are celebrated in Polish on weekdays and 22 on Sundays, alongside the 27 masses in Lithuanian on weekdays and 46 on Sundays, so there are roughly twice as many Catholic church services in the titular state language as in Polish. In the Greater Vilnius area (Pavilnys, Kalvarijos, Žvėrynas, Pilaitė, Lazdynai, Viršuliškės, Naujoji Vilnia), on weekdays there are 12 masses in Lithuanian and 10 in Polish, and the number of Sunday services in Lithuanian is 21 as opposed to 17 in Polish (Nabożeństwa…). Considering that Poles constitute 16.5% (vis-à-vis 63% Lithuanians) of the population of the city of Vilnius, it can be seen that the proportions of Catholic services do not refect the size of the respective ethnic groups, with more services in Polish. Tis is, however, only typical of Vilnius. In the Vilnius District Municipality 54 more churches hold Polish services, but mostly with only one mass weekly. In other parts of Lithuania, church services in Polish are rare: there are eight churches in seven locations (Gaidė, Turmantas, Visaginas, Kaunas, Vandžiogala, Druskininkai, Klaipėda), 162 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz yet each with merely one Polish-language Sunday mass per week (see Informator 2013: 20).

2.3 Language in Education

Te school system in Lithuania comprises the following stages (see Savickienė 2011):

– primary education (Lith. pradinė mokykla ) for children ages 7–11 (forms I–IV); – basic education (lower secondary, Lith. pagrindinė mokykla ) for children ages 11–17 (forms V–X); – secondary education (upper secondary, Lith. vidurinė mokykla ) for young people ages 17–19 (forms XI–XII); – intersecting the above schools are high schools (Lith. gimnazija ) for forms IX–XII, introduced by the reform of 2005, as well as schools that comprise forms I–VIII.

Poles in contemporary Lithuania, when all age groups are considered jointly, have a markedly lower level of higher and postsecondary tertiary/special secondary education than both the national average and the two other major ethnic groups, as the 2011 data illustrate in Table 1. Te frst Polish-language schools in postwar Lithuania were set up at the time when Lithuania became part of the USSR. It is estimated that by the year 1957 there had been almost 270 exclusively Polish schools, and there were also classes with Polish as the language of instruction in a further 80 schools. Similarly to today (2018), these schools were situated mostly in the city of Vilnius and in the Vilnius municipality. Tey largely contributed at the time to the reconstruction of the local Polish-language intelligentsia after the war losses, Soviet deportations and migrations of Poles from Lithuania to Poland. However, in the 1950s the second wave of migrations to Poland started. As a consequence the number of Polish-language schools dropped, so that at the end of the 1980s there were only 92 schools, including 47 Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 163 ) (%) 8.5 15.0 15.6 14.9 Primary ( pradinis ) (%) 12.5 15.7 14.7 14.7 Lower secondary ( pagrindinis ) (%) 33.1 38.3 29.5 30.6 Upper secondary ( vidurinis 20.3 15.2 16.8 16.9 Postsecondary tertiary and special secondary education (%) 24.6 13.8 21.6 21.2 Higher education (%) Educational levels of ethnic groups in Lithuania ( http://statistics.bookdesign.lt/table_062.htm?lang = en ); the Russians Poles Lithuanians All Lithuania data refer to persons ages 10 and older 1 Table 164 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz mixed-language ones (mainly Polish combined with Russian). Tere was a marked increase in the number of Polish schools after the collapse of the USSR, with a peak in 1993 when there were 130 schools and 4.23% of Lithuania’s 7-year-olds were sent to Polish schools (see Osipowicz 2001). In the school year 2014/2015 there were about 80 Polish-language schools in Lithuania. Te percentage of Lithuania’s 7-year-olds who went to Polish schools in 2014 was 3.2. Te highest ratio of children starting their primary education in Polish—approximately 80%—was found in the Vilnius municipality (Lith. Vilniaus rajono savivaldybė ), where Poles constitute over half of the inhabitants. In the city of Vilnius, by contrast, this ratio was under 50% (see Sosno 2014). In Polish schools in Lithuania subjects are generally taught in Polish. Textbooks are mostly translated into Polish from their Lithuanian coun- terparts, apart from those used to teach the Polish language, which are written by specialists in Polish from Lithuanian schools and universities (sometimes in cooperation with scholars from Poland), commissioned by the Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science. Lithuanian is taught in forms II–XII and there is an obligatory written and oral exam in the Lithuanian language for all those who want to take the matura (brandos egzaminai in Lithuanian, the fnal school-leaving exam). By contrast, an exam testing competence in the minority language is not an obligatory component of the matura in minority schools, although school boards of particular schools may introduce it. Until 2011 the obligatory exam in Lithuanian was easier for minority schools than for mainstream ones: the requirements took into account fewer lessons of Lithuanian (the diference was up to 700 hours in the complete learning cycle) and the fact that students had been using course books for non-native speakers. In 2011, however, a reform was started in Lithuania, introducing the same level of this exam in Lithuanian in all schools, minority or otherwise, with a two-year transitional period. Te geography and history of Lithuania, as well as education about the world, are now taught in Lithuanian. As had been feared by the Polish minority the reform proved detrimental to Polish schools. In 2017, in the Šalčininkai District Municipality, twice as many pupils Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 165 failed the fnal exam in Lithuanian language and literature than a year before. In general, one out of fve pupils failed this exam in minority schools, whereas in Lithuanian-language schools only one in ten did (see Pieszko 2017). Te reform met with criticism on the part of minorities. As reported by the media in 2013, four lawsuits were brought by Polish minority activists and by the parents of children attending Polish schools, who claimed that the reform was unconstitutional and violated the provisions of the Polish–Lithuanian Treaty of 1994 (Polacy na Litwie…, 2013). A respondent who directly witnessed the paths taken by the reform reported in 2013:

R. Last year we had such a scandal that after completing a Polish school one was to take the same matura in the Lithuanian language as those after [completing] a Lithuanian school. Well, how come, suddenly to say that such difcult maths like you didn’t have at school, all of a sudden two years before matura, there’s so much Lithuanian literature, various poets. So now more parents got scared and they are sending kids to a Lithuanian school (W, 19).

Another controversy in the media was aroused in the summer of 2014 by a seemingly slight modifcation in a parliamentary bill on minorities, when a provision concerning ‘the right to learn in one’s native language’ received the wording ‘the right to learn one’s native language’ (see Mickiewicz 2014). It was feared that the bill, if passed, would lead to gradual dismantling of Polish-language education in Lithuania. Lithuanian Poles who want to receive tertiary education in Polish may be admitted to universities in Poland; if they successfully undergo the procedures for admission, they receive state scholarships from the Polish government. Te frst group of students—20 Poles from Lithuania—began their studies in Poland in 1988. Nowadays several dozen secondary school graduates go to study in Poland each year. In Lithuania young Polish people have at their disposal undergraduate studies at the Department of Polish Language and Culture at Vilnius University (VU). Te principles of entry at VU attach twice as 166 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz much importance to knowledge of Lithuanian (weight 0.4) as to that of a foreign or native language (0.2), and command of Polish proven by having passed an exam in that language is not a prerequisite for entry. Undergraduate studies in Polish language and culture are also ofered at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences (Lietuvos edukologi- jos universitetas, LEU), where the language of instruction is Polish and Lithuanian and where similar entry requirements apply as at VU (with twice as many points for competence in Lithuanian than in another foreign language). At LEU the applicants do not need to have graduated from a Polish-language school. Moreover, information about these studies on the LEU website is in Lithuanian only and not in Polish, indicating that these studies are meant basically for people whose mother tongue is other than Polish. Interest in those studies is on the low side. In 2013 there were nine applicants to LEU, three of whom received state funding, while the rest had to rely on scholarships from the Polish government. In the same year, six students were admitted to VU, but without the fnancial support from Poland the specialization would have to be closed down (see Pieszko 2013). Since 2007 it has also been possible to study Economics and IT, with Polish as the medium of instruction, at the Faculty of Economics and Informatics of the University of Bialystok in Vilnius (Mickiewicz 2014; Osipowicz 2001; Pieszko 2014) at undergraduate level, and since 2014 at graduate level too. According to Dean Jarosław Wołkonowski, in 2013 the school ofered places for 120 students of Economics and 60 students of IT, whereas as many as 273 young people applied. Of these, only three applicants managed to receive Lithuanian state funding (see Pieszko 2013). Te role of Polish schools in Lithuania for language maintenance cannot be overemphasized (see Osipowicz 2001; Nowicka 2000: 103; Kabzińska 2009: 71). It seems that the choice of primary school for a child largely determines not only the language of instruction of his/ her secondary school, but also ethnic identifcation for the rest of life, largely regardless of the parents’ identifcation. Moreover, since our interviewees were of the opinion that Lithuanian parents practically never choose a minority school for their ofspring, the change seems unidirectional, from minority to majority: Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 167

R. [Tey were] both Poles, but since they agreed that their daughter would be better of if she completed a Lithuanian school, that she would have better opportunities, so we’ll send them to a Lithuanian school. And in Lithuanian schools it is so that they shape … well, such a nationalist direction, that if you graduate, then a hundred per cent Lithuanian. No matter who the parents are. He’ll never admit that his parent is Polish, that his granny is Polish, no, never, only if it perhaps suits him, some business with Poles, very often, so he’ll say: my grandma was Polish. She taught me my prayers, or what not. ’Cause it suits him, fnancially or something (W, 50).

Te interviewees also expressed the opinion that in the case of mixed marriages (not only Polish–Lithuanian, but also Polish–Russian) children are usually sent to Lithuanian schools. Consequently, the informants assume that in adult life these children will consider themselves Lithuanian. Te views of the informants might seem unduly simplistic since the situation is certainly more complex and multifaceted—after all, there is a huge body of literature in psychology and sociology devoted to the issue of multiple and conficting identities—but investigating that issue in more detail goes beyond the scope of this chapter. Still, the observations appear in line with the earlier fndings of Błaszczyk (1991: 154), who noted that 80% of the children from mixed Polish– Lithuanian marriages (which at the time of the research, early 1990s, constituted over one third of all marriages among Poles in Lithuania) choose Lithuanian nationality. Te opportunism that makes people choose what they feel will beneft them should also not be overlooked:

R. Now Poles are sending their children to Lithuanian schools, so that they might have no problems in the future. And there in schools their surnames will certainly be spelt the Lithuanian way. All depends on who’s in power. Russians were in power, so kids went to Russian schools. Now to Lithuanian ones (W, 66).

2.4 Language and the Media

While Poles in Lithuania have had several Polish-language newspapers present on the market for many years (such as Kurier Wileński since 168 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

1990, or Tygodnik Wileńszczyzny since 1994), these periodicals are rarely seen on newsstands. Tey are mostly delivered directly to subscribers or available from Polish minority institutions. Angora, a popular Polish weekly publishing chiefy reprints from other magazines and newspapers, is probably the only Polish non-minority periodical available on the streets of Vilnius, which of all Lithuanian cities and towns is the one where the demand for Polish-language press is certainly the highest. Te choice of press from Poland in the tiny Polish bookshop in the House of Polish Culture in Vilnius is very limited. Moreover, the slant is towards popular magazines, such as women’s, home and gardening, automobile magazines, etc., with quality newspapers or journals expressing political opinions almost non-existent or, at best, sold months after the subject in question is no longer topical. Tis extremely low visibility and availability in Lithuania of both the Polish minority press and of the press published in Poland is especially surprising when compared to the relative abundance of the Russian-language press in vending kiosks. Terefore, it would appear that the impact of Polish-language print media in Lithuania has the power of ‘convincing the convinced’ (who subscribe to them anyway) rather than of attracting new readership. By contrast, online journalism seems to have more potential for the Polish minority, due to its ease of distribution, the relative independence of external sources of fnancing, as well as its participatory and egalitarian character. Information portals such as Wilnoteka.lt (since 2011), pl.delf.lt (since 2012) or l24.lt/pl (since 2013), and blogs like Aleksander Radczenko’s Inna Wileńszczyzna jest możliwa (‘Vilnius region can be diferent’, rojsty.blox.pl) or Ewelina Mokrzecka’s blog Pulaki z Wilni, appeal to younger people and may in the future contribute to the shape of Polish–Lithuanian relations that would be more adequate to the changing times. An example of the potential of the new media may be the campaign jokingly and ungrammatically called Ja za żółw (literally ‘me for tortoise’), initiated in the autumn of 2014 by Polish Lithuanian journalist Tomasz Samsel. Samsel perceived the name- spelling debate (see the section below, devoted to names) as unduly charged emotionally and his aim was to ‘de-charge’ it by introducing some element of humour. Te tortoise became the logo of his Internet action since its Polish name żółw ‘tortoise’ is composed only of those Polish Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 169 letters that are not part of the Lithuanian alphabet and thus are not allowed in ofcial signage in Lithuania. Judging by the TV guide in Kurier Wileński (Telewizja 2015: 16–17), several TV channels from Poland are popular among Poles and accessible in at least some parts of Lithuania: three state channels (TVP1, TVP Kultura, TVP Polonia) and one private, Catholic church channel (TV Trwam). Interestingly, the same guide gives information about eight Lithuanian-language channels and fve Russian-language ones. Tus, there are jointly nine Polish or Russian channels, as opposed to eight Lithuanian ones. In December 2013 the diference was even bigger: fve Polish and as many as ten Russian channels vs. eight Lithuanian ones. Tese facts seem to be in line with the interviews: Lithuanian television is perceived by Poles in Lithuania as less attractive in content than Polish or Russian television. Interestingly, a similar observation about the higher attractiveness of Polish TV as compared to the Lithuanian ofer was made at the beginning of 2015 by one of the respondents from the Lithuanian minority in Poland. Some role is certainly still played by the more traditional Polish- language media in Lithuania, such as Radio Znad Wilii, broadcasting since 1992. However, to keep abreast of the times, nowadays radio stations have their own websites or portals, targeted at the younger audience, and this radio station is no exception.

2.5 Linguistic Landscape

As observed by one of this chapter’s authors, who spent a month in 2013 and another in 2016 doing research in Lithuania, Polish as a minority language is practically invisible in Vilnius. Te notices on public buildings, names of streets and squares, as well as the names of shops and all the advertisements, are exclusively in Lithuanian. Te information for tourists, apart from Lithuanian, is seldom ofered in Polish; the chief foreign languages targeted at tourists in Vilnius being English and Russian (in Klaipėda German is also used for this). Commemorative notices are mostly in Lithuanian, although there are exceptions. Tus, fve plaques commemorating poet Adam Mickiewicz, as well as one 170 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz for writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, are in Lithuanian and Polish; two tiny prewar plaques solely in Polish commemorate the houses where poets Juliusz Słowacki and Adam Mickiewicz lived; the notice at the entry to a small district of Vilnius called the ‘Republic of Užupis’ is in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Yiddish, Russian and Polish—in this order; the commemoration of writer Romain Gary on the plaque in the house where he once lived is in Lithuanian and French; the plaque marking the former border of the ghetto is in Yiddish and Lithuanian; a plaque devoted to the ‘father of the Belarusian language’ Francysk Skaryna/ Фpaнц cк Cкap нa is in Lithuanian and Belarusian; and there are several moreы similar ыinscriptions. In some restaurants in the historical city centre one of the languages on the multilingual menus is Polish (usually alongside Lithuanian, English, Russian and German or French). Tere are very few deviations from the Lithuanian-only principle followed in the naming of streets. All these are bilingual street signs with the second language corresponding to the name of the street. Tus, alongside the standard Lithuanian version there is signage in Icelandic3 in Iceland Street (Ísland Stræti ), in German in German Street (Deutsche Straße ), in Polish in Warsaw Street (ul. Warszawska ), in English (Washington Sq. ), and also in Tatar, Hebrew and Yiddish, Karaim, Latvian, Dutch, and Russian. Teir presence is quite recent and their inauguration was marked by the presence of the mayor of Vilnius, Remigijus Šimašius. Interestingly, they immediately triggered a reaction from Vilda Vaičiūnienė, government representative for Vilnius County (Vilniaus apskritis ), who demanded the removal of all bilingual street names as violating the Law on the State Language (see Ulica Tatarska…, 2016), threatening legal action in case of non-compliance. Incidentally, information about the ceremony, which included putting up an ofending street sign in English, could be found (as of March 2017) on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Afairs of the Republic of Lithuania (see Festival of American Colours…). An interesting initiative in Vilnius, introduced in the summer of 2015, is ‘talking monuments’: by scanning the QR code placed on the 15 most interesting monuments and sculptures, one can listen

3Iceland was the frst country to recognize Lithuania’s independence on 11 February 1991. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 171 to recordings made by politicians, actors or writers, who tell stories explaining the cultural background (see J. H. 2015). Te monuments ‘speak’ in several languages (Lithuanian, English, Ukrainian, French, Yiddish), though not in Polish. However, this is targeted at visitors rather than locals. Practically the only places in Vilnius where signage is bilingual (Lithuanian and Polish) are Polish minority schools and minority self-government institutions, and the only places where one can encounter Polish notices without Lithuanian translation are tombstones in some cemeteries (notably Rasos and Bernardine) and one church (Church of the Holy Spirit) traditionally and informally considered Polish. Tis confrms the results of an earlier study devoted to the linguistic landscape of this city (Muth 2012), based on data gathered in 2008. As Muth found:

Polish, [which] has been part of Vilnius’ history for many years, […] was nevertheless not visible in public. It only appeared on multilingual ban- ners in front of Catholic churches […] Our fndings in Vilnius suggest that neither Russian nor Polish are part of the city’s linguistic landscape […] On the one hand, it seems unclear why the absence of Russian also extends to most informal displays of written language such as grafti, placards or posters, as especially such displays of written language can hardly be regulated overt- or covertly […] On the other hand it was surprising that Polish was equally underrepresented, although it certainly is not laden with the same negative connotations as Russian is among many Lithuanians. (Muth 2012: 219, 222)

Te above discussion is applicable to Vilnius, the Lithuanian city with the highest percentage of Poles. In other cities of considerable size (Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai), Polish is invisible in the linguistic landscape, although German, as a historical language of Klaipėda, is making itself increasingly visible in this city (not directly as a language of communication, but indirectly, in Gothic script-styled notices and in the increasing use of the name Memel in street advertising). A memo- rial marker at the entrance to the site of the Ponary/Paneriai massacre features signs in Lithuanian, Yiddish and Russian but not Polish (which seems strange since, apart from the Jews, there were also 1500–2000 172 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Polish victims). Te entrance to the Karaim ethnographic exposition in Trakai is marked with bilingual signage (Lithuanian and Karaim).

2.6 Language and Minority Legislation

Te linguistic situation of the Polish minority in Lithuania is subject to domestic and international legislation. At the domestic level the status of Lithuanian as the (sole) state language has been defned since 1992 by Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Tis status was confrmed in 1995 by the Law on the State Language (Lith. Valstybinės kalbos įstatymas ), which safeguards the use of the titular language in the public space, including ofcial events (apart from international ones), legal proceedings (when interpreters for those who do not know Lithuanian are provided free of charge), place names and personal names, notices and signs, as well as the media, including television and flms (translation into Lithuanian or subtitling is obligatory). Command of the state language according to categories is required of employees of state institutions, such as the police and other law enforcement services, or municipal institutions. Te Law on Ethnic Minorities (Lith. Tautinių mažumų įstatymas ) was adopted in Lithuania on 23 November 1989, when Lithuania was still one of the Soviet republics. It was further amended after the regaining of independence in 1991. It guaranteed schooling for minorities in their native language, including preschool, elementary and secondary education, as well as tertiary education, which was meant ‘to train teachers and other specialists needed by ethnic minorities’.4 Minorities had the right to publish newspapers in their own language and they were also guaranteed state aid to develop their culture and education. Article 3 of the law stated that ‘in ofces and organizations located in areas serving substantial numbers of a minority with a diferent language, the language spoken by that minority shall be used in addition to the Lithuanian language’, whereas Article 5 allowed double signage (in

4http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Lithuania/Lithuania_Minorities_English.htm. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 173

Lithuanian and in a minority language) in the aforementioned areas. As Vasilevich (2013: 7) rightly pointed out:

none of the […] provisions of the Law contained a defnition of an ethnic minority. Neither did it imply that whether or not belonging to a minority was a fully-fedged matter of personal choice. Instead, it foresaw only the limited option to freely identify an individual’s ethnicity on the basis of his/her ancestry, as registered in the ofcial documents. Such practice was inherited from the Soviet times […].

While the law was in force, there were two unsuccessful attempts at its revision: in 1997 and in 2002. Interestingly, the 2002 draft emphasized the role of the aforementioned personal choice in ethnic afliation,5 which potentially might have provided in Lithuania a welcome counterpoint to the longstanding mainstream discourse about Poles in Lithuania being in fact Polonized Lithuanians and not a ‘real’ minority worthy of minority rights (see Na Litwie…, 2011). Such an idea frst emerged in Lithuania at the times of the Lithuanian national revival in the second half of the nineteenth century and remained the backdrop of Polish–Lithuanian relations in the interwar period (see Buchowski 1999: 290, 2006: 113). Te law, however, expired in 2010, and as of July 2018 no legal act pertaining specifcally to minorities has been passed. In consequence, given Article 14 of the Constitution, it has been against the law since 2010 to display bilingual signs in public places. As revealed by Polish regional television on 7 May 2014, Bolesław Daszkiewicz, the head of the local administration in the Šalčininkai district municipality, paid a fne equivalent to nearly €14,000 for failing to remove bilingual signs from names of streets on private houses (Litwa: zabraniają tablic…, 2014). All ofcial public signage, even on private buildings, must by law (according to the Constitution) be in Lithuanian. Te same applies to the names and descriptions of products on sale in shops and of services on ofer.

5Such an attitude can be traced back to the famous Renanian defnition of a nation as a ‘daily plebiscite’ (1882). 174 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Te only exception is the names of minority schools and minority organizations, where the signs may be bilingual (but signs in a minority language must not be larger than those in Lithuanian). Te 1991 Law on Education also deserves a mention. It basically continued the Soviet educational policy in Lithuania, which gave relative freedom of schooling to minorities (see Budrytė and Pilinkaitė- Sotirovič 2009: 154). Internationally, the bilateral Treaty on Friendly Relations and Good Neighborly Cooperation, signed by Lithuania and Poland in 1994, is relevant to the present discussion. Articles 14 and 15 are of importance for Polish as a minority language in Lithuania, since they ensure for Poles, among others, the free use of Polish in personal and public life, in schools, in the media, in institutions, ‘especially in those administrative-territorial units in which the national minority form a large share of the population’, as well as the right to minority personal names.6 Lithuania is party to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (henceforth FCNM), signed in 1995, ratifed and entered into force in 2000, but not of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Articles 12, 13 and 14 of FCNM are concerned with the right to minority education and the learning of minority languages. Article 11 ensures the right to use surnames and given names in the minority language and to display language signs, inscriptions and other information of a private nature to the public, as well as topographical indications in a minority-language version ‘in areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging to a national minority’, although it is not clear what numbers are considered substantial. Te provisions of the Convention are frequently softened by disclaimers, such as ‘as far as possible’, ‘according to modal- ities provided for in their legal system’, ‘taking into account their specifc conditions’ or ‘if there is sufcient demand’. More information is

6Te treaty was drawn up in two languages: Lithuanian and Polish, with unclear meaning as regards personal names. An English translation undertaken by the Polish party mentions the minority version, while another undertaken by the Lithuanian party mentions the minority sound. Tis ambiguity led to charges about breaking the provisions of the treaty on the part of Poland and to rejection of these charges on the part of Lithuania (see Walkowiak 2014). Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 175 provided by the Explanatory Report of the Convention. For instance, minority personal names may be rendered in the state language phonetically, thus diverging from the written minority form. Te right to learn a minority language ‘does not imply positive action, notably of a fnancial nature, on the part of the State’. It is also made explicit in the Report that ‘Te text deliberately refrains from defning “sufcient demand”’. However, ofcial bilingual signs as envisaged by FCNM are considered illegal by the Lithuanian state and are forcibly taken down. Tis happens especially in the vicinity of Vilnius (e.g., in Pikeliškės/ Pikieliszki, Maišiagala/Mejszagoła, Sudervė/Suderwa, Nemenčinė/ Niemenczyn, Buivydžiai/Bujwidze, Lavoriškės/Ławaryszki), where the Polish minority constitutes about 60%, and in the Šalčininkai district municipality (Šalčininkų rajono savivaldybė/rejon solecznicki ), where it reaches 80%. Te ofending signs are usually bilingual street names, and the fnes are paid by the heads of the local government.

2.7 Language and Names

Minority-language policy is also refected in the treatment by the state authorities of minority names: personal names in documents and place names on topographical signs. Both have in fact long constituted unresolved problems and therefore deserve some mention. In the Soviet era, personal names of the Polish minority and ethnic Lithuanians were morphologically Russifed in ofcial documents, such as identity cards (called ‘internal passports’), which at the time were bilingual: Russian (Cyrillic alphabet) and Lithuanian (Latin alphabet). For instance, Polish adjectival surname endings -ski/-ska, -cki/-cka typically received Russian endings -skij/-skaja, -ckij/-ckaja: Savickij, Čyževskaja, Borovskaja (Pol.: Sawicki, Czyżewska, Borowska ). Moreover, Polish given names were frequently replaced with their Russian coun- terparts. Te lack of uniformity in the transposition from Russian to Polish and vice versa led to the situation where two parts of the same family living in diferent towns might have two diferent written versions of the same surname. In Lithuanian-language publications or public notices, however, names were often Lithuanized (see Bobryk 2006: 461; Walkowiak 2012) by the addition of Lithuanian endings and 176 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Lithuanian feminine sufxes, and by replacing letters absent from the Lithuanian alphabet with their closest phonetic equivalents: Savickas, Čiževskienė, Borovskaitė. After regaining independence in 1991, it was possible to ofcially remove the Russian endings but, as some informants claimed, not everyone was aware of such a possibility. Others reportedly decided not to do so because they would have to change all their documents (diplomas, driving licences, documents connected with work, etc.), which was costly and troublesome. Teoretically, since 1991 the morphological shape of personal names has been regulated by the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania of 1 January 1991 on the writing of given names and surnames in the passport of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania.7 According to this resolution, names could be written in two diferent ways, at the request of the person concerned: with Lithuanian endings (Pavelas Savickas, Marija Čiževskienė, Borovskaitė ) or according to Polish morphology (Pavel Savicki, Maria Čiževska, Borovska ). However, the consequences of such a decision might be far-reaching—Bobryk (2013: 373) invokes an example of a Pole who after rejecting Lithuanian endings in his name had problems selling his own fat, since his ownership was contested by the authorities due to the diference between his previous and new name. Whichever option was chosen the spelling had to be Lithuanian, which means that the Polish letters, diagraphs and geminates ą, cz, ć, ę, j (before consonants), ll, ł, mm, nn, ń, ó, rz, sz, ś, tt, w, x, ż, ź must not be used, as specifed by the detailed rules approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language on 28 March 1991. Administratively, there has to be some continuity in the use of surnames so that a person can be correctly identifed. Tis is the reason many surnames have not followed the above rules since their introduction. Moreover, there are many reports of clerks in the administration taking the liberty of deciding the surname for the surname owner (see Bobryk 2006: 463).

71991 m. sausio 31 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Aukščiausiosios Tarybos nutarimas Nr. I-1031 “Dėl vardų ir pavardžių rašymo Lietuvos Respublikos piliečio pase” (Žin., 1991, Nr. 5-132). Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 177

One of the respondents put forward an argument against Lithuanizing Polish names in documents:

R. One will be forced to write his surname in Lithuanian fonts, with those added endings, and, for example, [the name] will be written the original way in Polish and then, when there’s some business, it will be shown then that these are two diferent persons. Because the name will difer. And, say, there’s some property and there will be a problem […] and the property will be taken away. Because it will be said: it’s not you, because your name is diferent. And you lose all you’ve got (M, 19).

Te question of personal names has become symbolic of Polish– Lithuanian relations, along with the controversy about bilingual topographical signs, something Lithuania still does not consent to. Putting up such signs invariably meets with their forcible removal accompanied by heavy fnes. Attempts to put Polish names back on the agenda (e.g., even when preparing a draft law on minorities) provokes ‘emotional opposition from the members of the working group representing diferent state organs’ (Vasilevich 2013: 12). Te Polish minority in Lithuania represents quite an exceptional case in the Baltic states. On the one hand, it is a sizeable minority, currently comparable in this region only to Russians. However, in contrast with most Russian minorities, Poles in Lithuania can be considered autochthonous. Tey are attached to their language, which enjoys high intragroup and international prestige and as a spoken language is used in most domains, while its public use in writing is subject to strict state control.

3 The Lithuanian Minority in Poland in Brief

As in the case of our treatment of the Polish minority in Lithuania the authors have decided not to devote much attention and space to the historical outline of the Lithuanian-language minority in the Republic of Poland. However, since there is a lack of references on this topic in English the basic facts are presented here. After both states (re)gained their political independence in 1918 and their political boundaries were settled after the armed conficts of 178 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

1919–1922, ethnic Lithuanians became a typical transborder national minority in the Republic of Poland (in Eastern and Central European contexts). Teir territory consisted of compact areas along the Polish– Lithuanian border in the then provinces (Pol. województwo ) of Wilno, Białystok and Nowogródek, and their number varied between 83,000 (1931 population census results) and an estimated 180,000–200,000 citizens. Te results and the aftermath of World War II limited Lithuanian minority territory in Poland to a compact rural area within the single county (Pol. powiat ) of Sejny located in the northeastern corner of Poland (known as Suwalszczyzna) and bordering the administrative districts (Lith. apskritis ) of Marijampolė and Alytus in Lithuania. It is worth noting that contemporarily the Polish minority territory of Lithuania does not border that of the Lithuanian minority in Poland. Administratively, the Lithuanian-speaking area belongs to the Province of Podlachia (województwo podlaskie ), which nowadays constitutes the most multiethnic (and multilingual in a sense) province of the otherwise rather homogeneous Polish state. According to the censuses of 2002 and 2011 the number of persons declaring an ethnicity other than Polish8 amounted to 49,600–55,200 (4.1–4.6% of the province’s inhab- itants9). Even though the total percentage is not very high the province ofcially emphasizes its multiethnic character and uses it for instance in tourist campaigns. Nevertheless, it is in Podlachia that most nationalist/anti-minority incidents have taken place in recent years, including deflement of Jewish cemeteries, desecration of a Tatar mosque, over- spraying Lithuanian village names on bilingual signs or overpainting (with Polish nationalistic symbols) monuments that have commemorative value for ethnic Lithuanians.10

8Te 2011 census provided an opportunity for people to declare a double identity. 9Te largest minority, however, were Belarusians (speakers of various varieties of the East- and West-Slavic linguistic continuum); other minority groups included Tatars, Russian Old Believers, Ukrainians, Roma and of course Lithuanians. 10See the report: http://www.red-network.eu/?i red-network.en.items&id 276. = = Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 179

Another aspect of Podlachian11 regional reality is worthy of mention here: the administrative borders do not correspond with ethnohistoric or regiographic ones, since Podlachia includes such non-Podlachian regions as parts of Mazovia/Mazowsze or Suwalszczyzna proper. Te latter region, located at the peripheries of the province and of the whole country, retains and keeps strengthening its distinctiveness. Te Lithuanian language is beginning to play a crucial role in the endeav- ours, although much more as a neighbourly foreign language than a local and well-rooted minority one. Suwalszczyzna as such has hardly functioned as a distinctive subject of national and provincial regional policies. Sometimes its history as an integral part of the Great Duchy of Lithuania has been revoked. Its multiethnic composition is, however, eagerly used (and frequently overused) in the cultural identifcation campaigns and image logotypes of, say, projects referring to Multicultural Podlachia. On the other hand, hardly any transborder Suvalkijan identity can be observed, the only actual link between the Polish Suwalszczyzna and Lithuanian Suvalkija being the Lithuanian minority in Poland. Lithuanians in Poland, although not numerically strong, constitute an exceptionally persistent minority in the background of an otherwise ethnically and linguistically homogeneous population of the country. No numbers concerning nationality/ethnicity issues or the mother tongue were available during the entire period of the communist rule in Poland. Te last available data were the results of the 1921 and 1931 population censuses, according to which the Republic of Poland had 24,044 citizens who declared their Lithuanian nationality (1921) and 83,311 citizens who declared Lithuanian as their mother tongue in 1931. However, the frst number is particularly unreliable as the First Population Census did not comprise data from the town and region of Wilno. Although no censuses had taken place or statistical research had been undertaken until the beginning of the 2000s, specialists in minority studies and/or minority organizations estimated the

11Exonyms of Podlachia (including Lith. Palenkė ) refer to the region as being located, literally, ‘near Poles’, thus indicating an aspect of ethnic borderland. 180 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Lithuanian minority population at 10,000–12,000 (e.g., Majewicz and Wicherkiewicz 1990, 1998). Te frst population census in postwar Poland was carried out in 2001, and its results were published in 2002. According to the census, 5846 citizens of Poland declared their Lithuanian nationality, while 5838 declared Lithuanian as their home language. Noteworthy is an almost one-to-one correspondence between the registered number of ethnic Lithuanians and speakers of Lithuanian—unprecedented among other minority communities in Poland. Te 2011 census questionnaire also included questions regarding national or ethnic identity as well as the language used at home (double declarations were possible). Contrary to 2001, the 2011 census was based on representative sampling, which considerably decreased the statistical reliability of the results, particularly in reference to small samples of the population (e.g., minority communities). Te results (obtained in that methodologically inconsistent survey) indicated 7863 citizens of Poland who stated their Lithuanian nationality, whilst 5303 declared using Lithuanian as their home language. At the micro-regional scale, Lithuanians constitute about 30% of the population in the county of Sejny, and less than 3% of the population in the rural community of Szypliszki in the county of Suwałki. Within the county of Sejny, Lithuanians comprise about 75% in the Puńsk community, 19% in the rural community of Sejny and a mere 8% in the (urban) municipality of Sejny. Te Lithuanian minority in the community of Krasnopol does not exceed 1%.

3.1 Language Constellation

Linguistically, the varieties spoken traditionally by the Lithuanian minority in Poland belong to the southern and western Aukštaitian dialectal area12 and for the most part coincide with the ethnodialec- tal region of Dzūkija/Dzukia. In terms used by Polish specialists in

12For more information (in Polish and English), see http://inne-jezyki.amu.edu.pl/Frontend/ Language/Details/26. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 181

Lithuanian dialectology the varieties used in the area under concern are litewska gwara puńska and litewska gwara sejneńska (see Hasiuk 1978; Niewulis-Grablunas 2015), which are actually derived from the names of Puńsk/Punskas and Sejny/Seinai. Both varieties can be considered endangered, although the degrees of endangerment (according to the UNESCO scale13) vary from ‘critically endangered’ in the case of Sejny to ‘unsafe’ in the case of Puńsk/Punskas. Further, the northwesternmost variety spoken (in the past) in the vicinity of Wiżajny/Vižiainis has to be considered extinct (for a historical outline of Polish–Lithuanian language contacts see Marcinkiewicz 2003). Te Dzūkian dialect spoken by the Lithuanian minority in Poland is the primary and most obvious marker of local linguistic identity, as well as being the main system of communication. Te community members label themselves as Dzūkai (Dzūks), especially when stressing their integrity and specifcity in contrast with the Lithuanian-speaking community of Lithuania. Te same label is applied in Lithuania, in a somewhat derogatory sense, as an external identifcation mark, to Poland’s Lithuanian minority. As stated by all interviewees, those young Lithuanians from Poland who decide to continue their education at universities in Lithuania are quick to rid themselves of their Dzūkian idiolects. In their opinion the Dzūks from Poland are perceived as peripheral/provincial (as are the inhabitants of the sparsely populated region of Dzūkija in Lithuania) and their peripheral/archaic lect as odd. Te language constellation of the Lithuanian minority in Poland is undergoing signifcant change as a result of the political developments of the 1990s and the 2000s. It is the Lithuanian language (without diferentiating between standard Lithuanian and the Dzūkian variety) that constitutes the essential marker of identity among the Lithuanian minority. According to Wójcikowska (2013: 2), over 90% of Polish Lithuanians consider Lithuanian their basic language of thinking and communication in the family context. Except for the regional centre of

13http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages. 182 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Suwałki, where about 120 inhabitants declared themselves as Lithuanian, there are no signifcant hubs of that minority in Poland. Tanks to an efcient and consistent education system (discussed later) and residentially staying together, Lithuanians were the most successful in preserving their language to the highest degree among all minority-language communities in postwar Poland (Wicherkiewicz 2005). Being almost entirely isolated by an impenetrable Soviet–Polish border from the then Soviet Lithuania(ns),14 today’s generation of adults developed bilingual and polyglottic communication patterns with Dzūkian as the intracommunity and everyday language, literary Lithuanian as the language of education and religious practices, and Polish as the language of external communication (the latter mostly in its typical northeastern regiolectal variety). Language contacts with and the infuence of standard Lithuanian intensifed, however, with the Republic of Lithuania regaining its independence and enormously strengthening its state language policy. Tat resulted in more direct contacts with Lithuanian-language users and mass media. In 2004 both Poland and Lithuania became members of the European Union and in 2007 of the Schengen Agreement, which further amplifed the presence of standard Lithuanian in everyday life, particularly in that of the youngest generation. Te role of Dzūkian is now limited to everyday use in family contacts. Language use domains are increasingly being flled by standard Lithuanian and/or standard Polish—the process depending considerably on the language biographies of (younger) language users. Young members of the Lithuanian minority develop their language patterns according to their education paths: those who study at Lithuania’s universities become bilingual, with standard Lithuanian as L1 and standard Polish as L2, while those who run their businesses (predominantly) in Poland develop a reverse hierarchy. Worth mentioning is also a new group of Poles who learn Lithuanian (e.g., at university) as a foreign language (also for business purposes). Te role of Lithuanian as the native language of the minority is on the decrease, especially in its

14Tere were only three border crossings people could use on the 1300-km-long state border between Poland and the USSR, none of which were located on the actual border between Poland and the Lithuanian SSR. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 183

Dzūkian variety, while its prestige as an international and transborder language is on the increase as a direct result of European/regional economic integration.

3.2 Language and Religion

Te Lithuanian minority in Poland is almost homogeneously Roman Catholic. Te ancient and very fervent disputes concerning the presence and role played by Lithuanian in local churches were judiciously settled by the Bishop of Ełk in the 1980s. Te parish churches in Puńsk, Smolany and Sejny celebrate weekly masses in Lithuanian, although in the latter case the Lithuanian- speaking congregation complain about the competence of the local priest in the language and the inconvenient time of the Sunday mass in Lithuanian. Less regularly, masses in Lithuanian are celebrated in Widugiery, Żegary and Suwałki.15 Almost all Lithuanian schoolchildren in local schools receive religious instruction in Lithuanian.

3.3 Language in Education

All studies dealing with the current sociolinguistic situation of the Lithuanian minority or Poland’s minorities in general (Barwiński 2014; Nijakowski 2013; Wicherkiewicz 2014), as well as the results of feld research (personal interviews) with Lithuanian minority activists, carried out by the authors of this chapter in northeastern Poland in February 2015, reveal a direct link between the high language maintenance rate of Lithuanian and the frmly strong position and condition of the Lithuanian-language schooling system. Te schools are not only centres of language teaching and education, but also cultural centres of community integration as well as of ethnic formation and socialization.

15Te congregation of Jehovah Witnesses in Suwałki allegedly organizes irregular meetings in the Lithuanian language (https://www.jw.org/apps/P_FsPnZGTZNCF). 184 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Education has been a central target and object of internal language policy of local Lithuanians since 1913, when frst schools were founded in the then Suwałki Guberniya. Te regional network of Lithuanian- language schools ceased to function in 1945, but Lithuanian was reintroduced in 1948, whereas the 1950s saw the establishment of a locally rooted and in the longer run very efective complex of schools providing teaching through the medium of Lithuanian,16 with the [boarding] General Secondary School in Punskas/Puńsk as the centre.17 In order to create an opportunity to continue studying Lithuanian at university level, in 1988 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań launched a major study programme: lituanistyka/flologia litewska, attended by a generation of future teachers and language activists. However, following European integration processes in and between Poland and Lithuania, graduates from the Punskas school tended to choose universities in Lithuania rather than Poznań. After all, Lithuanian universities in Kaunas and Vilnius were only about 110 and 190 km from Punskas, respectively, while the university in Poznań was located 560 km away and the only programme it had to ofer was Lithuanian Philology for non-native speakers (for a comprehensive outline of the Lithuanian- language education system in Poland, see Wicherkiewicz 2005). Te schools providing teaching in Lithuanian are nowadays located in Puńsk (primary school, middle school and the above-mentioned general secondary school), with the number of local schools in surrounding villages diminishing. In 2005, after many years of endeavour, the Lithuanian community came to establish a school complex in the county centre of Sejny. A relatively low proportion of ethnic Lithuanians living in that municipality and ferce resistance from the Polish majority administration forced the Lithuanian community to establish a non-public, foundation-based school with fnancial support from the government of the Republic of Lithuania. Te Žiburys18

16Te history of Lithuanian schools in Poland after World War II was outlined by Nijakowski (2013: 43–58) (in Polish) and after 1989 by Tarka (2014) (in English). 17At present the Punsko Kovo 11-tosios vardo bendrojo lavinimo licėjus (Lith.)/Liceum Ogólnokształcące z Litewskim Językiem Nauczania im. 11 Marca w Puńsku (Pol.)—www.licejus.eu. 18In English ‘light, torch’. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 185 complex, consisting of a primary school, middle school and a kindergarten, has flled the considerable educational gap that emerged after the closure of several primary schools in villages around Sejny. In that respect the Lithuanian schooling system in Poland has sufered dramatically recently from a decreasing birth rate and the resulting school closures, particularly in rural areas. Nevertheless, about 70% of children from the Lithuanian minority still attend the minority schools and kindergarten (altogether 637 pupils in the year 2014/2015)—which is one of the highest ratios among minority communities in Poland. Te Lithuanian-language education network in northeastern Poland is complemented by a few schools providing the teaching of Lithuanian as a subject—in Sejny and the former provincial centre of Suwałki (with altogether 15 pupils in 2014/2015). According to most teachers and language activists interviewed, however, this form does not guarantee comprehensive bilingual development of minority children, but can be a method of encouraging Polish-speaking children to learn some Lithuanian. In the opinion of all generations of Lithuanian-language activists in Poland, it is the Puńsk/Punskas schooling complex, coherently and consequently centred on a curriculum in the Lithuanian language, which frst and foremost contributed to the frm and relatively safe position of the language and the high maintenance rate within the community. Sufce it to say that all informants of the authors of this chapter, and perhaps all present activists of the Lithuanian minority, graduated from the Puńsk/Punskas school complex. In 2001 the Lithuanian minority, in collaboration with and persuaded by the Polish government administration, developed the Strategy of the Development of Lithuanian Education in Poland19—which is often quoted by the authorities as an important element of a successful state language policy supporting minority languages (e.g., Wójcikowska 2013: 3). Most of our minority informants, however, perceived the Strategy as an inefcient and little

19Available (in Polish) at http://mniejszosci.narodowe.mac.gov.pl/mne/oswiata/strategie-rozwo- ju-oswi/litewska, http://mniejszosci.narodowe.mac.gov.pl/download/86/12957/mnstrategia.pdf. 186 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz more than speculative instrument of propaganda used in the minority- centred dispute between the Polish authorities and Lithuania. According to a local middle-generation teacher of Lithuanian:

Both the Polish authorities and the Lithuanian minority organisations should have foreseen the dramatic decrease in the number of school children, resulting from the baby bust in the 1990/2000s, as well as the considerable increase of fnance charges for local governments. Under the current conditions, the Strategy is just an empty instrument of propaganda.

Another fact that the Polish government likes using when reporting its minority language policy eforts, especially in the mutually competitive debate on the position of minorities in Lithuania and Poland, is the so-called ‘minority education subvention’. Since 2004 the Polish Law on the System of Education and executory provisions have provided a subvention for teaching minority languages within block grants allot- ted annually to local governments, which constitute the founding and governing body for educational institutions.20 Te actual provisions allow for a subsidy increase of 20% per pupil for all schools providing teaching in/of a minority/regional language. In the case of smaller schools (i.e., those where a minority/regional language is taught to fewer than 84 pupils) the subsidy scales increase by 150%. Te subvention no doubt prevents closures of smaller rural minority schools and pro- = motes the introduction of minority/regional languages to school curricula in minority-populated regions. On the other hand, as most minority institutions stress, the subvention expenses are neither controlled by the central authorities nor by the minorities themselves, creating vast opportunities for huge sums of money to be defrauded in the full sanc- tion of administrative law. Where minorities have no direct infuence in/upon local government the subvention money might just as well be spent on local infrastructure.

20In the case of primary and middle schools the founding and governing body is the municipality; for secondary schools it is the district/county administration. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 187

In the 2014/2015 school year, local governments in two municipalities (Puńsk and Sejny), as well as the county of Sejny, were granted almost 2.9 million złoty extra (about €700,000) from the state budget as subvention for 652 pupils taught (in) Lithuanian in the local schools. Te total for the whole country amounted to over 326 million złoty (almost €80 million).21 Tese fgures are complacently quoted by the Polish authorities at every possible opportunity, such as periodic reports to the Council of Europe General Secretary and Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Tey are frequently repeated at (round-table) debates on the reciprocal situation of Lithuanian/Polish minorities in the opponent state. According to rough estimates made by the Joint Commission of the Government on National and Ethnic Minorities in the Kashubian-, Lithuanian- and German-minority municipalities, however, on average only some 20–25% of the allowances are actually spent on infrastructure for education. Te relatively complete and regular supply of teaching materials for Lithuanian schools is another merit the Polish educational authorities give themselves credit for. Te books are almost exclusively prepared by local teachers and edited/printed by the local publishing house Aušra, which fact positions the Lithuanian minority in an exceptionally favourable position against the background of the otherwise extremely meager support and engagement of the Polish authorities in providing up-to- date and up-to-demand teaching aids to minority schools and pupils. Most schoolbooks prepared by/for the Lithuanian minority are also available at no charge as digital versions.22

21For schools/pupils taught (in) Armenian, Belarusian, German, Hebrew and Yiddish, Kashubian, Lemko-Rusyn, Lithuanian, Slovak, Ukrainian in 2014/2015, see http://mniejszosci. narodowe.mac.gov.pl/mne/oswiata/informacje-dotyczace-o/rok-szkolny-20142015/8869,In- formacje-o-wysokosci-srodkow-przeznaczonych-dla-poszczegolnych-samorzadow-na-o.html, https://www.ore.edu.pl/materialy-do-pobrania/category/33-raporty?download 1211:eduk- = acja-mniejszoci-narodowych-i-etnicznych-oraz-spoecznoci-posugujcej-si-jzykiem-regionalnym-w-polsce-2010-2011 or Wicherkiewicz (2014). 22http://scholaris.pl/resources/zasoby/query/%22j%C4%99zyk+litewski%22. 188 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

3.4 Language and the Media

Te abovementioned publishing house Aušra provides most of the printed minority media in Lithuanian, including those subsidized by the Polish government23: the bi-weekly Aušra and the monthly Aušrelė (for children), as well as the cultural quarterly Šaltinis (published by the Lithuanian Society of St Casimir), the quarterly Suvalkietis for the Lithuanians in Suwałki, or the youth periodical Dėmesio (by the school community of Punskas Licėjus). Digital mass media in Lithuanian reach the minority community from both Poland and Lithuania. Minority-language media form part of the public system supervised and licensed by the National Broadcasting Council.24 Lithuanian-language programmes are broadcast by regional TV and radio stations—but their total length does not exceed several minutes per week (TV) or per day (radio programmes). Most Lithuanians regularly watch TV stations from Lithuania too, as claimed by all the interviewees. Our informants’ say Polish programmes for minorities are not popular, while Lithuanian TV does not cover local or regional events. Terefore, it is nationwide Polish TV that is the most commonly viewed mass medium and its infuence upon language choices and language attitudes is essential and implicit.

3.5 Linguistic Landscape

Lithuanian is visible to an extent in the linguistic landscape of the micro-region under discussion. Tere are, however, considerable differences among the four municipalities inhabited by Lithuanians. In the community of Krasnopol Lithuanian is scarcely visible, whereas the Via Baltica motorway heading for Lithuania through the community of Szypliszki makes Lithuanian visible as a transborder language

23Ministry of Internal Afairs and Administration, until 2015 Ministry of Administration and Digitalisation. 24Pol. Krajowa Rada Radiofonii i Telewizji. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 189 of business and commerce. Te town and vicinity of Sejny is homogenous, with Polish absolutely dominating the municipal landscape and Lithuanian relegated to a few commercial frontier advertisements. It is the community of Puńsk where the linguistic landscape is strongly Lithuanian. Puńsk/Punskas—frequently called the capital of Poland’s Lithuanians or of ‘Little Lithuania’25—is a village (once a former town26), with a population of about 1300, located away from the main routes, in the vicinity of the state border between Poland and Lithuania, although with no nearby border crossing, except for the little used rail- way from Trakiszki to Šeštokai.

3.6 Language and Minority Legislation

Te rural community of Puńsk, with about 4400 inhabitants, is the only one where bilingual place names in Polish and Lithuanian could have been introduced by the 2005 Law on National and Ethnic Minorities and on the Regional Language27 along with the status of an ‘auxiliary/supporting’ language for Lithuanian. Te Law introduced Lithuanian to the Polish legal system as one of the ofcially recognized languages of national minorities.28 Along with educational and cultural rights, minorities were granted the right to use

25Not to be confused with Lithuania Minor (Mažoji Lietuva ) or Prussian Lithuania—the north- ernmost part of former East Prussia. 26Between 1647 and 1852. 27Pol. Ustawa o mniejszościach narodowych i etnicznych oraz o języku regionalnym (a semi-ofcial English translation is available at http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/pliki/new_polish_legislation_regard- ing_national_ethnic_and_linguistic_minorities.pdf). 28Te Belarusians, Czechs, Lithuanians, Germans, Armenians, Russians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Jews (Article 2, para. 2), were recognized as national minorities, defned as: ‘groups of Polish citizens who jointly fulfl the following conditions: 1. are numerically smaller than the rest of the population of Poland; 2. signifcantly difer from the remaining citizens in their language, culture or tradition; 3. strive to preserve their language, culture or tradition; 4. are aware of their own historical, national community, and are oriented towards its expression and protection; 190 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz their languages as ‘auxiliary/supporting’ in those municipalities in which at least 20% of inhabitants declared afliation to a minority.29 Article 9 accordingly states:

1. With the municipal authorities, it shall be possible to use, in addition, the minority language as well as the ofcial one. 2. An additional language might be used only in these municipalities where the number of minority residents, whose language is to be used as a supporting one, is no less than 20% of the total number of the municipality residents, and who have been entered into the Ofcial Register of Municipalities (…), where an auxiliary language is used. 3. Te possibility of using an auxiliary language shall mean that persons belonging to a minority (…), shall have the right to: (1) apply to the municipal authorities in the additional language, either in a written or oral form; (2) obtain on his/her distinct request, an answer in the auxiliary language, either in written or oral form.30

Another important change in the Polish linguistic landscape was made possible by the provisions in Article 12:

1. It shall be possible to use additional, traditional place names alongside: (1) ofcial names of places and physiographical objects; (2) street names—established in the Polish language, pursuant to separate regulations.

5. their ancestors have been living on the present territory of the Republic of Poland for at least 100 years; 6. identify themselves with a nation organised in their own state’ (Article 2, para. 1). 29Tis is where the authorities made a very clear and concrete use of the national population census results, without having informed the responding citizens in advance about the legal consequences of their declarations in 2002. Terefore, most minorities actively promoted the 2011 census in order to demonstrate higher numbers and higher shares of minority populations. Te results of the 2002 census revealed 51 municipalities where more than 20% of inhabitants declared afliation to a minority nationality. 30Te decisive Article 14 states: ‘Te number of municipality residents belonging to a minority (…) shall be constructed as the number ofcially stated as a result of the latest census’. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 191

2. Additional names (…) shall be used solely on the territories of municipalities entered into the Ofcial Register of Municipalities where names are used in the respective minority language (…). Entries into the Register shall be made (…) on the request of the municipal council […] 5. Te additional names (…) shall be placed after the respective Polish name, and shall not be used separately; 6. Te establishment of an additional name in a given minority language shall take place in accordance with the spelling rules of the language concerned. 7. An additional name of a place or physiographical object in a minority language shall be established provided that: (1) the number of municipality residents belonging to a minority is no less than 20% of the total number of this municipality’s residents or, in case of an inhabited place, in consultations (…) more than a half of its residents who have taken in the consultations were in favour of the establishment of an additional place-name in the minority language; (2) the municipal council’s application gained approval of the Committee on Names of Places and Physiographical Objects (…). 8. Te relevant provisions of the Act (…) shall apply to the (…) additional street names in a minority language.31

Te issue of bilingual place names and (semi-)ofcial bilingualism in the community of Puńsk has turned into a problem of international dimensions, much more so than is the case of any other minority language.

31Article 15 defned the fnancial obligations as a result of implementing Articles 9 and 12: ‘1. Te costs involved in the introduction and the use of a supporting language on the territory of the municipality and the costs involved in the introduction of additional names (…) shall be borne by the municipal budget, (…) 2. Te costs involved in the change of information boards, resulting from the adoption of an additional name of a place or physiographical object in the minority language shall be borne by the State budget’. 192 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

In the opinion of most of our informants of all generations the micro-region under discussion has always been bilingual, with Lithuanian as the frst community language (used actively even by the original non-Lithuanian inhabitants)32 and visibly biliterate, with Lithuanian used on a ‘less-ofcial’ scale in local commerce (personal or local advertisements) or in church life. Lithuanian has also been used incessantly in the administrative context, even though before 2005 this was considered unlawful. As many community members or researchers (e.g., Majewicz and Wicherkiewicz 1990, 1998) point out, it was the Lithuanian community of the Puńsk region which—as the only minority in communist Poland—had truly preserved almost complete bilingualism in all aspects of everyday life and domains/registers of language use. Te lack of any legislative regulations concerning (the use of) minority languages had not prevented Lithuanians in Puńsk from using their native language in all domains and places, such as the commune ofce, school or church. It was only in external relations (commune records, correspondence) or legally binding situations (civil registration) that Polish had to be used. Terefore, the introduction of Lithuanian as a ‘supporting’ language has only preserved the status quo. Ever since the introduction of Lithuanian names on bilingual road signs in 2008, this move has been perceived by Lithuanian minority activists as an expression and instrument of pressure applied by the Polish authorities in order to enforce reciprocity in relation to the Polish minority of Lithuania. Tis opinion was shared by all informants during feld research in 2015, although such opinions are scarcely mentioned in current reports on the Lithuanian minority (Nijakowski 2013; Wójcikowska 2013; Barwiński 2014; Tarka 2014). According to our interviewees, Lithuanians in Poland do not need those signs as they are fully aware of the Lithuanian names of their dwelling places. Some of them even perceive the road signs as markers of ethnic/linguistic res- ervations, within which the stigmatized Lithuanian minority lives and should stay. Terefore, no further settlements (e.g., those in the communities of Sejny or Szypliszki) should in their opinion avail themselves

32In the triglottic constellation described above, with Dzūkian, standard Lithuanian and Polish. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 193 of the right to introduce bilingual signs. During the last decade, Lithuanian names have been repeatedly painted over in white and red33 by ‘unknown delinquents’, prompting the commune head in Puńsk to announce removal of the paint. It was the Ministry of Administration from Warsaw, probably backed by the Ministry of Foreign Afairs (as two minority informants stated), which strongly recommended and defrayed the costs of their renovation and reinstallation. However, the Lithuanian minority no longer perceives the visibly bilingual toponymy as an implementation of linguistic rights. Te ‘reciprocal’ dimension of Poland’s minority policies and their motivation, although inconsistent, is overtly present and signalled by various state institutions and agencies when implementing individual regulations, including language rights for Lithuanians in Poland (and demanding in return analogous implementation of rights for Poles in Lithuania), Ukrainians in Poland (vis-à-vis those for Poles in Ukraine) or Germans in Poland (vis-à-vis those for the so-called Polish Volksgruppe in Germany).

3.7 Language and Names

Another provision introduced by the 2005 Law has been the opportunity of changing and/or ofcial usage of given and family names in(to) a minority language. As Article 7 states:

1. People belonging to a minority shall have the right to use and spell their frst and last names according to the spelling rules of their respective minority language, in particular in the ofcial register and identity documents.34

33Polish national colours. 34Followed by: 2. Te frst and last names of persons belonging to a minority, written down in an alphabet other than Latin, shall be subject to transliteration. 3. Te competent minister in charge of public administration, in consultation with the competent minister in charge of religious denominations as well as national and ethnic minorities, shall defne, by way of regulation, the method of transliteration referred to in §2, taking into consideration the spelling rules of the minority language concerned. 194 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

According to the records of the Ministry of Administration, only a few dozen people took up the right to Lithuanize their names between 2005 and 2015. As pointed out by the minority activists interviewed the process itself was not facilitated by executory provisions or administrative procedures. Anyone who wants to change his/her name(s) ofcially to a minority-language version and spelling faces an oner- ous and expensive procedure. Such a decision divides families, causes inheritance and/or cadastral problems, not to mention obstacles on the part of other institutions, such as the revenue/tax service, insurance or social security, police or vehicle registry, which often ignore Lithuanian diacritics, creating multiple identities of the people concerned. Te reluctance to institutionally unify procedures has recently caused new tensions between Poland and Lithuania, even between the mass media in the two countries.35 It is noteworthy that Lithuanians in Poland have always used Lithuanian versions of their names in intracommunity communication. A frequent external marker of Lithuanian ethnicity is a Lithuanian frst name, even if spelled according to Polish rules. Following the 2005 Law on National and Ethnic Minorities and on the Regional Language, the next stage in adopting the state’s new (post-transformational) policy towards regional and minority languages was the 2009 ratifcation of the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.36 However, taking into account

35See, e.g., https://www.polskieradio.pl/5/3/Artykul/1522107,Powazne-oskarzenie-litewskiej- prasy-pod-adresem-Polski (‘serious accusation made by Lithuanian media of Poland’). 36According to the statement contained in the instrument of ratifcation deposited in Strasbourg: ‘Te Republic of Poland declares that it shall apply the Charter in accordance with the Act on national and ethnic minorities and on regional language, dated 6 January 2005. Te Republic of Poland declares, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1, of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages that, within the meaning of the Charter, minority languages in the Republic of Poland are: Belarusian, Czech, Hebrew, Yiddish, Karaim, Kashub, Lithuanian, Lemko, German, Armenian, Romani, Russian, Slovak, Tatar and Ukrainian. (…) ‘the Republic of Poland declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Charter, that the following provisions of Part III of the Charter will be applied for the languages listed above: Article 8 (Education)—paragraph 1 a (i), b (i), c (i), d (iii), e (ii), g, h, i and Paragraph 2; Article 9 (Judicial authorities)—Paragraph 2 a; Article 10 (Administrative authorities and public services)—Paragraph 2 b, g, and Paragraph 5; Article 11 (Media)—Paragraph 1 a (ii), (iii), b (ii), c (ii), d, e (i), f (ii), g; Paragraph 2 and 3; Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 195 the hasty and often pointless ratifcation and enforcement instruments, the Charter has been perceived by the state administration as a ‘harmless’ extension of the 2005 national Law, and—as frequently used by government ofcials37—intended as an international instrument of pressure on the Republic of Lithuania on the basis of enforced reciprocity.

4 Conclusions

Te diferences between the Polish minority in Lithuania and the Lithuanian minority in Poland are considerable. First and foremost, the two minorities difer numerically and in consequence also in terms of the impact on the respective states within which they function. Second, their historical development was not the same: the Lithuanian language was minoritized for many centuries and its revival dates back only to the nineteenth century, while the status of the Polish language in its development benefted for many centuries from independent Polish statehood. Tese factors have infuenced the language ideologies and language attitudes within and in relation to both minority communities, as well as language use and language prestige patterns within both communities. Moreover, diferences in the importance that the members of each minority attach to particular aspects of their existence should not be neglected. For instance, what came to be symbolic and non-negotiable for the Polish minority in Lithuania—the spelling of their personal names or bilingual place name signs—appears of marginal interest to Lithuanians in Poland. Lithuanian minority activists even claim that these issues are played by the Polish authorities as a bargaining card in bilateral relations. Although some eforts have been

Article 12 (Cultural activities and facilities)—Paragraph 1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g; Paragraph 2 and 3; Article 13 (Economic and social life)—Paragraph 1 b, c, d, and Paragraph 2 b; Article 14 (Trans-frontier exchanges)—Subparagraphs a, b’. 37Particularly, the Ministry of Foreign Afairs during meetings of the Joint Committee of Government and Minorities. 196 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz made to establish links between the Lithuanian minority in Poland and the Poles of Lithuania, they have not developed into any form of regular cooperation. Te opinion frequently expressed by Polish government ofcials is that the relatively safe condition of the Lithuanian language and its speakers’ community in Poland is to a considerable extent a result of the post-1989 pro-minority pluralist policy of the Polish state, although the actual goals of the policy are often questioned by minorities.38 Nevertheless, there are many similarities as well. Both minorities seem to have the feeling that they were wronged in the past, and continue to be so, by the states in which they exist, reportedly being treated, perhaps subjectively, as ‘hostages’ of bilateral relations between nation-states. Tese attitudes, perceivable both within the communities and from outside, are both the cause and the result of communities’ engagement in civic activities at the local, regional, national and European level. Sometimes this engagement is efected hand in hand with other minorities, as is the case with close cooperation between Polish and Russian minority organizations in Lithuania. Worth stressing again is the exceptional (on the regional scale) importance of the Lithuanian-language schooling system as the main guarantee of the subjective ( intragroup) and objective ecolinguistic welfare of Lithuanian = and its undeniable role as the main determinant of ‘Lithuanianness’. On the markedly larger scale the same also holds true for the role played by Polish-language schools for the Polish minority in Lithuania. At the same time the relationship of members of each minority with their respective kin state is rather complicated, leading to frus- tration and misunderstandings. Poles in Poland tend to treat those in Lithuania as inferior (especially since their regiolect is audibly diferent from standard literary Polish). Tis is somewhat paralleled by the way Lithuanians in Poland—Dzūks—are perceived by their compatriots in

38As in the case of the 2015 veto of the then newly elected Polish President A. Duda to the proposed amendments in the Law on National and Ethnic Minorities and on Regional Language. One of the rejected amendments was to enable the introduction of an additional minority language on a district (powiat ) level, which would signifcantly strengthen the position of Lithuanian in the entire powiat of Sejny/Seinai. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 197

Lithuania. Consequently, standard languages—Polish in Lithuania and Lithuanian in Poland, respectively—are gaining ground at the expense of minority regiolects. Despite the fact that both Lithuania and Poland are members of the European Union and parties to various international agreements, both minorities feel that their fnancial needs are not satisfed and their political demands not adequately met. Te situation is not aided by past grievances which both minorities nurse, or by the fact that both minorities are occasionally used by politicians for their own purposes. It would seem that peaceful and trouble-free coexistence in unifed Europe is still a thing of the future.

References

Barwiński, M. (2014). Mniejszość litewska w Polsce. Studium przypadku gminy Puńsk [Lithuanian minority in Poland. Te case study of Puńsk community]. Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 35, 137–153. http:// repozytorium.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/5319/ Barwi%C5%84ski_Pu%C5%84sk_2014.pdf?sequence 1. Accessed March = 2017. Błaszczyk, G. (1991). Polacy na Litwie. Zarys problematyki historycznej i współczesnej [Poles in Lithuania: An outline of issues from the historical and contemporary point of view]. Przegląd Wschodni, 1(1), 147–167. Bobryk, A. (2006). Odrodzenie narodowe Polaków w Republice Litewskiej 1987– 1997 [Polish national revival in the Republic of Lithuania 1987–1988]. Toruń: Dom Wydawniczy Duet. Bobryk, A. (2013). Społeczne znaczenie funkcjonowania polskich ugrupowań politycznych w Republice Litewskiej 1989–2013 [Te social meaning of the functioning of Polish parties in the Republic of Lithuania 1989–2013]. Siedlce: Siedleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buchowski, K. (1999). Polacy w niepodległym państwie litewskim 1918–1940 [Poles in the independent Lithuanian state 1918–1940]. Białystok: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. 198 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Buchowski, K. (2006). Litwomani i polonizatorzy. Mity, wzajemne postrzega- nie i stereotypy w stosunkach polsko-litewskich w pierwszej połowie XX wieku [Myths, mutual perception and stereotypes in Polish–Lithuanian relations in the frst half of the 20th century]. Białystok: Wyd. Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Budrytė, D., & Pilinkaitė-Sotirovič, V. (2009). Lithuania: Progressive legislation without popular support. In B. Rechel (Ed.), Minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 151–165). Abingdon: Routledge. Davies, N. (1989). Heart of Europe: A short history of Poland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Festival of American colours, music and tastes and respect for history in Washington Square, Vilnius. 25 July 2016. https://www.urm.lt/default/en/news/festival- of-american-colours-music-and-tastes-and-respect-for-history-in-washington-square-vilnius. Accessed March 2017. Gobert, S. (2011). Te backstage of a success story. Minority protection in Lithuania. In I. Horváth & M. Tonk (Eds.), Minority protection within the Europe of regions (pp. 351–366). Cluj-Napoca: Scientia Publishing House. Hasiuk, M. (1978). Fonologia litewskiej gwary sejneńskiej [Phonology of the Lithuanian dialect of Sejny]. Poznań: UAM. Hogan-Brun, G. (2008). Language constellations across the Baltic Republics: A comparative review. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 135–155). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramonienė, M., & Rannut, M. (2009). Language politics and practices in the Baltic States. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. Informator. (2013, December 14–16). Kurier Wileński, 237, 20. J. H. (2015, July 17). Wilno: Pomniki mówią, ale nie po polsku [Vilnius: monuments speak, but not in Polish]. Rzeczpospolita. Kabzińska, I. (2009). Między pragnieniem ideału a rzeczywistością: Polacy na Litwie, Białorusi i Ukrainie w okresie transformacji systemowej przełomu XX I XXI stulecia [Between the pursuit of ideal and reality: Poles in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine during the system transformation at the turn of the 21st century]. Warsaw: Letter Quality. Karaś, H. (2010). Dialekty i gwary polskie. Kompendium internetowe/3.5. Społeczna pozycja i wartość kulturowa gwar dziś [Polish dialects: Teir social position and cultural value today]. http://www.dialektologia.uw.edu. pl/index.php?l1 podstawy-dialektologii&l2 spoleczna-pozycja. Accessed = = March 2017. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 199

Kazėnas, G., Jakubauskas, A., Gaižauskaitė, I., Kacevičius, R., & Visockaitė, A. (2014). Lenkų tautinės mažumos Lietuvoje identiteto tyrimas / Badania dot. tożsamości polskiej mniejszości narodowej na Litwie [Research into the identity of the Polish minority in Lithuania]. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio Universitetas. Litwa: zabraniają tablic z polskimi napisami. Kara grzywny [Lithuania: Polish signage forbidden and punished with a fne] TVP Info 7 May 2014. http:// www.tvp.info/15100840/litwa-zabraniaja-tablic-z-polskimi-napisami-kara-grzywny. Accessed March 2017. Majewicz, A. F., & Wicherkiewicz, T. (1990). National minority languages in media and education in Poland. In D. Gorter et al. (Eds.), Fourth international conference on minority languages, Vol. II (pp. 149–174). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Majewicz, A. F., & Wicherkiewicz, T. (1998). Minority rights abuse in communist Poland and inherited issues. Acta Slavica Iaponica, 16, 54–73. Marcinkiewicz, J. (2003). Polsko-litewskie kontakty językowe na Suwalszczyźnie [Polish–Lithuanian language contacts in Suwałki region]. Poznań: UAM. Mickiewicz, R. (2014, August 16). Polskie szkoły na cenzurowanym [Polish schools open to criticism]. Rzeczpospolita, 2004. Miodunka, W. T. (2016). Polszczyzna młodzieży niepolskiego pochodzenia w Polsce na tle zmian w pojmowaniu wielokulturowości i wielojęzyczności [Te Polish language of young people of non-Polish origin in Poland against the background of changes in understanding multiculturalism and multilingualism]. Język Polski, 4(96), 32–46. Muth, S. (2012). Te linguistic landscapes of Chişinău and Vilnius. Linguistic landscape and the representation of minority languages in two post-Soviet capitals. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 204–224). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Nabożeństwa w kościołach wileńskich. http://poznajwilno.pl/turystyka/niezbed- nik-turysty/informacja-i-porady/rozklad-mszy-sw/. Accessed March 2017. Na Litwie nie ma Polaków [Tere are no Poles in Lithuania—An interview with Prof. Krzysztof Buchowski]. Jedynka, 16 February 2011. http://www. polskieradio.pl/7/158/Artykul/313550. Accessed March 2017. Niewulis-Grablunas, J. (2015). Gwara puńska. Wokaliczny system fonologiczny [Dialect of Puńsk—vocalic phonological system]. Poznań: UAM. Nijakowski, L. M. (Ed.). (2013). Litwini [Te Lithuanians]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe. 200 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Nitsch, K. (1925). Język polski w Wileńszczyźnie [Polish in the Vilnius Region]. Przegląd Współczesny, 33, 25–32. Nowicka, E. (2000). Polacy czy cudzoziemcy? Polacy za wschodnią granicą [Poles or foreigners? Poles in Belarus, Lithuania, Kazakhstan and Siberia]. Kraków: Nomos. Osipowicz, C. (2001). Szkolnictwo polskiej mniejszości narodowej na Litwie [Polish minority schools in Lithuania]. Stowarzyszenie Wspólnota Polska. http://swp4.wspolnotapolska.org.pl/imprezy/impreza/Zjazdy-Polonii-i- Polakow-z-Zagranicy,50.html. Accessed March 2017. Pecela, K. (2013). Kobyłka, toczyłka i mobilnik [Te jargon of young people in contemporary Vilnius]. Nowa Europa Wschodnia, 3(4), 109–113. Pieszko, A. (2013, August 13). Studia po polsku – tak! [Studies in Polish— Yes!]. Kurier Wileński. Pieszko, A. (2014, September 17). Na Filii UwB w Wilnie – studia magister- skie! [Graduate studies in Vilnius]. Kurier Wileński. Pieszko, A. (2017, July 8–10). Szokująco słabe wyniki matury z języka państ- wowego [Appalling matura results of the state language exam]. Kurier Wileński. Polacy na Litwie walczą w sądach o polskie szkoły [Poles in Lithuania fght in court for Polish schools]. (2013, February 27). Gazeta Wyborcza. Radczenko, A. (2012). Pokolenie Pulaków z Wilni [Te generation of “Pulaki” from “Wilnia”]. http://rojsty.blox.pl/2012/02/Pokolenie-Pulakow-z-Wilni. html. Accessed March 2017. Results of the 2011 Population and housing census of the Republic of Lithuania. http://statistics.bookdesign.lt/index.htm?lang en. Accessed March 2017. = Savickienė, Ž. (2011). Online guide to educational systems. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ges/lithuania.pdf. Accessed March 2017. Snyder, T. (2003). Te Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sosno, B. (2014, August 31). Nowy rok szkolny w polskich szkołach na Litwie [New schoolyear in Polish schools in Lithuania]. Wilnoteka. http://www. wilnoteka.lt/pl/artykul/nowy-rok-szkolny-w-polskich-szkolach-na-litwie. Accessed March 2017. Tarka, K. (2014). Lithuanians in the third Republic of Poland. Przegląd Zachodni II, pp. 77–92. http://www.iz.poznan.pl/pz/pz/45_06_Tarka.pdf. Accessed March 2017. Telewizja. (2015, December 18). Kurier Wileński, 241, 16–17. Tangled Language Policies: Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian … 201

Te Catholic church and religious pluralism in Lithuania and Poland: an anthropological study of public and private meanings of religion in postsocialist society. (2016). Head of the project: Chris Hann; responsible researchers: Ingo Schröder and Kinga Sekerdej. http://www.eth.mpg.de/3417888/vw_pro- ject_religious_pluralism. Accessed March 2017. Törnquist-Plewa, B. (2000). Contrasting ethnic nationalisms: Eastern Central Europe. In S. Barbour & C. Carmichael (Eds.), Language and nationalism in Europe (pp. 183–220). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turska, H. (1995). O powstaniu polskich obszarów językowych na Wileńszczyźnie [On the emergence of Polish-language areas in the Vilnius region]. Vilnius: Mintis. Also in Studia nad polszczyzną kresową, Wrocław, Warszawa and Kraków 1982. Ulica Tatarska w Wilnie – po tatarsku [Tatar street in Vilnius – in the Tatar language], 15 September 2016. http://zw.lt/wilno-wilenszczyzna/ulica-tatarska-w-wilnie-po-tatarsku/. Accessed March 2017. Vasilevich, H. (2013). Lithuania’s minority-related legislation: Is there a legal vac- uum? (ECMI Working Paper 70). Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues. Walkowiak, J. (2012). Pisownia nazwisk Polaków litewskich: polityka językowa, ideologia, praktyka [Te spelling of the surnames of Polish Lithuanians: Language policy, ideology, practice]. In E. Nowicka & M. Głuszkowski (Eds.), Słowiańskie wyspy językowe i kulturowe (pp. 71–85). Toruń: Eikon Studio. Walkowiak, J. (2014). One word, two languages, two interpretations: Te Polish-Lithuanian Treaty of 1994 and how it was (mis)understood. Comparative Legilinguistics, 18, 88–101. Wicherkiewicz, T. (2005). Te Lithuanian language in education in Poland (Mercator regional dossiers series). Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Mercator- Education. http://www.mercator-research.eu/fleadmin/mercator/dossiers_ pdf/lithuanian_in_poland.pdf. Accessed March 2017. Wicherkiewicz, T. (2014). Minority language education in Poland and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In M. Olpińska- Szkiełko & Bertelle Loretta (Eds.), Zweisprachigkeit und bilingualer Unterricht (pp. 151–178). Oxford: Peter Lang Verlag. Wójcikowska, K. (2013). Mniejszość litewska w Polsce [Lithuanian minority in Poland]. INFOS. Biuro Analiz Sejmowych Zagadnienia społeczno-gospodarcze, 7(144). http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/WydBAS.nsf/0/33828E831C70DBEB- C1257B3C004C4060/$fle/Infos_144.pdf. Accessed March 2017. 202 J. B. Walkowiak and T. Wicherkiewicz

Wołkanowska-Kołodziej, E. (2014, November 21). Pulaki z Wilni hulają po sieci [New Vilnius dialect on the Internet]. Gazeta Wyborcza – Magazyn Świąteczny,. Żołędowski, C. (2003). Białorusini i Litwini w Polsce, Polacy na Białorusi i Litwie [Belarusians and Lithuanians in Poland, Poles in Belarus and Lithuania]. Warsaw: Ofcyna Wydawnicza ASPRA-JR. Part III The Integration of the Russian Language and Its Speakers into Baltic Societies Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children

Ineta Dabašinskienė and Eglė Krivickaitė-Leišienė

1 Introduction

Te linguistic performance of bilingual children may reveal not only important patterns in the course of language development but may also demonstrate attitudes to languages. While studying language learning in a bilingual population, additional factors such as the context of language(s) exposure, the social status of languages and language dominance have to be taken into account (Simon-Cereijido and Gutierrez-Clellen 2009). Despite the fact that the Russian minority in Lithuania is well integrated and most of the people speak Lithuanian (Dabašinskienė and Garuckaitė 2010; Ramonienė 2010), the paths taken to learn Lithuanian as L2 and attitudes towards Lithuanian are not always clear, as the research in this area is still very scarce.

I. Dabašinskienė (*) · E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė e-mail: [email protected]

We observe the recent increase in research on bilingual literacy acquisition at the primary school; however, oral language profciency at school entry has proven to be a powerful predictor of literacy development in bilinguals well before the start of the learning-to-read process (Bialystok 2001, 2002; Siegel 2002; Silven and Lunden 2011). Our study attempts to demonstrate the linguistic abilities in the dominant societal (Lithuanian) language of Russian minority children at the preschool age, which is crucial for the acquisition of literacy and academic success. Te main aim of this study is to investigate general linguistic performance in a group of sequential preschool bilinguals (i.e., Russian– Lithuanian); to analyse potential relationships between traditional linguistic domains of words and grammar; and to fnd out whether children’s L2 acquisition patterns are similar to those for L1 acquisition. Te focal point of scholarship in bilingual acquisition is related to the rapid growth in immigration at the end of the twentieth century. However, the existing gap in the ‘heritage’ of World War II migration within the area of the former USSR still requires closer investigation, especially in language attitudes and usage by the younger generation of the ethnic minority population. Tis raises questions about language development among children belonging to language minorities, especially with respect to their educational needs and schooling. Many studies conclude that minority children have poorer skills in literacy than their monolingual peers because they have acquired less profciency in their second language (Tabors and Snow 2001; August and Shanahan 2006; Silven and Rubinov 2010). Research (mostly into English as L2) has shown that many frst- generation immigrants remain monolingual in their frst language throughout their lives. Te second generation acquires the dominant language and becomes bilingual but still uses the heritage language, while most members of the third generation have acquired the dominant language quite well. Nevertheless, many of them continue to function in two languages. Finally, by the fourth generation, most individuals become monolingual dominant-language speakers and only a few retain some competence in the heritage language (Valdés 2001; Montrul 2013a; Schmid and Köpke 2007; Seliger 1996). According to Silva-Corvalán (1994) the children of frst-generation adults are considered second-generation immigrants; the group also includes immigrant Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 207 children who come to the host country before the age of 5. Te bilingual group may difer in terms of its profle and consist of (1) simultaneous bilinguals (i.e., those exposed to the heritage and the majority language before the age of 5); (2) sequential bilinguals or child L2 learners (i.e., the ones exposed to the heritage language at home until the age of 4–5 and to the majority language once they start preschool); and (3) late child L2 learners (i.e., children monolingual in the heritage language who received some elementary schooling in their home country and immigrated around 7–11 years of age) (Montrul 2013b: 284). Such generational shifts in language use and competence as well as in language loss and acquisition are obviously related to many additional factors, the frst of which are the attitudes towards integration and the profle of immigrants. Te immigrants of economic and/or political character (mainly those who arrived in the USA, Israel, Germany and other countries in diferent periods of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) may demonstrate diferent attitudes towards integration and learning the second/majority language or maintaining the heritage language. Usually, these immigrants were learning the new language for instrumental and integrational reasons. However, so-called Soviet-era immigrants within the area of the former USSR were not learning the language of the locals, as all the diferent Soviet republics were perceived as one big country with one language for communication. After the re-establishment of independence the Baltic area exhibited the unique dynamics of changes depending not only on the specifc country’s policies, but also on the geopolitical agenda of the Russian Federation (a valuable comparative analysis of the formation, principles and processes of Baltic language policies is ofered in Hogan-Brun et al. (2009); for a general survey of social, political and economic development in the Baltic states see Vihalemm et al. 2011).

2 Minority Education in Lithuania

Te Russian-speaking population in the three Baltic countries has since the re-establishment of their independence lost its ‘guaranteed’ position; as a result, the Baltic states have been faced with the challenges 208 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė of adopting new language-planning and integration policies regarding Russian nationals (Vihalemm et al. 2011: 116). Today, the respective state languages Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian are dominant in all the Baltic states, but since the Soviet era Russian has continued to be a strong language in many domains except public bodies. Language acquisition policies have, for the Russian-speaking population, aimed at ensuring competence in the state languages. Te proportion of the ethnic majority population is highest in Lithuania and knowledge of the state language among linguistic minorities is better there than in the other Baltic states (Vihalemm et al. 2011: 117). Tis ethnic and linguistic make-up allowed the creation and implementation of Lithuania’s state language teaching system at a very early stage, in 1990. In Lithuania’s education system teaching is conducted in the Lithuanian language, but there are also schools with instruction in Russian, Polish, Hebrew and Belarusian for minorities and in English, French and German for foreign language profciency. In 2011 the Lithuanian parliament adopted the Amendment of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Education, which gave more importance to the Lithuanian language in non-Lithuanian-language schools (Heidmets et al. 2011: 100). Te main minorities in Lithuania (Russians, Poles and Belarusians), according to the Law on Education, can enrol their children in Russian, Polish or Belarusian-medium primary or secondary schools, or choose Lithuanian-medium schools. Schools of linguistic minorities follow the general curricula for general education approved by the Ministry of Education and Science, which includes such subjects as mother tongue instruction (in the same proportion of the school day as in Lithuanian mainstream schools) and Lithuanian as the state language; other subjects are taught in both languages (for more details see Ministry of Education and Science, General Education Plan 2013). Te number of pupils attending Russian-medium schools declined from 15.3 to 4% between 1990 and 2010. In order to enable children to master the state language, parents from the ethnic communities have increasingly begun to send their children to Lithuanian schools (Ramonienė 2011: 128). Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 209

Many Lithuanian researchers (Beresnevičiūtė and Leončikas 2009; Čiubrinskas 2008; Kasatkina 2003, 2007; Leončikas 2006a, b, 2007; Lichačiova 2010; Ramonienė 2010) have focused on such issues as the ethnic identity of immigrants, ethnic language loss and maintenance, ethnic minority assimilation or integration, and the profciency of the dominant language that helps or prevents (if it is not sufcient) upward social mobility. Te report on language preferences, usage at home and education of Lithuanian children was summarized by Ramonienė and Extra (2011). However, many aspects related to ethnic minority children’s language acquisition, bilingual development, language use and attitudes are still waiting for systematic research. Te most extensive study of language use by children in relation to ethnic identity was conducted by Čubajevaitė (2013). One of the fndings indicates that ethnicity does not necessarily and not always determine the use of the heritage language at home or the choice of this language with diferent interlocutors. Te relation between language and ethnic identity is diferent for schoolchildren of diferent ethnic groups. Despite the origin of children’s parents and grandparents, children identify with their living environment: language is not the main factor determining their ethnicity. Te heritage language and ethnic identity do not seem to play any important role for children of some ethnic groups (Belarusians and Ukrainians). However, there are cases that run counter to this, such as Armenian and Chechen children whose ethnic language and identity play a very important role and hence attempts are made to maintain them. Čubajevaitė also concludes that the linguistic environment forms the children’s linguistic behaviour. In Kaunas (the second largest city of Lithuania after Vilnius, the capital) schoolchildren with non-Lithuanian ethnicities tend to use the Lithuanian language in public more often than in Vilnius. Te linguistic attitudes of multicultural schoolchildren are not uniform: data have shown that ethnic minority schoolchildren tend to use and demonstrate a preference to speak several languages (Russian and Lithuanian; Russian and English; Russian, Lithuanian and English) (Čubajevaitė 2013). 210 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

3 Children’s Growth into Bilinguals

Te process of dual-language acquisition by bilingual children raises many questions: What is the role of input and amount of exposure in the development vs. maintenance of a language? What is the nature of the individual bilingual environment? What roles do age, attitude, motivation and aptitude play in these developments? Te answers are not always clear-cut. Te age of acquisition as well as the type and amount of input are relevant variables for understanding the linguistic abilities of bilinguals. It is known from maturational accounts of L2 acquisition that age predicts grammatical knowledge and general language development (DeKeyser 2000; Hawkins and Chan 1997; Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson 2009; Montrul 2008); therefore, age is one of the most critical factors in the process of language acquisition. Another important issue is related to the degree of social interaction in each language a bilingual child has; the languages used at home and outside the home environment infuence the nature of bilingualism and later literacy skills. Scholarship provides evidence that a high frequency of social interactions, shared engagements at home and educational institutions, and joint activities with peers promote bilingual development (Tabors and Snow 2001; Verhoeven 2006). Te results suggest that the balanced use of languages at home and outside, as well as involvement in joint, mainly reading-related activities, may have a long-term impact on academic achievements (Pearson 2007; Leseman and van Tuijl 2006). However, research has identifed other tendencies in the bilingual environment as well. It has been argued that due to restricted home settings in early childhood, heritage-language speakers have less access to the dominant language or L2 and, as a consequence, lag behind in morphosyntactic and lexical development compared to dominant- language speakers. Later on, if those speakers do not acquire academic skills in L2, they have fewer opportunities to develop age-appropriate language skills in that language. As a result, they demonstrate non- uniform levels of profciency and linguistic gaps appear in all domains of second-language acquisition (Kondo-Brown 2004; Montrul 2011; Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 211

Montrul et al. 2012; O’Grady 2011). Te same might happen to their frst language, as heritage-language speakers do not typically have access to formal education in their family language. Tis asymmetry obviously raises the issue of the impact of schooling on later language development, as well as whether the encroachment of the dominant language on the heritage language can shape the nature of the adult grammar of the heritage language (Benmamoun et al. 2010). It is often believed that child L2 learners, unlike adults, acquire an L2 quickly and with uniform native speaker ultimate attainment; however, research does not support these beliefs. It is also important to consider that some variations in performance between L1 and L2 children might be due to the diferent (i.e., bilingual) nature of their language competence (Paradis 2007). Unconventional performance in L2 should not be considered a defcit in language acquisition, however, but rather as a unique stage in language development. In order to establish the similarities and diferences in both populations, very often the linguistic production of bilingual children is compared to monolinguals. Keeping the complex context of minority children acquiring Lithuanian as L2 in mind, we now turn to the methodological part of our study.

4 Method and Settings of the Study

Te research method used in this study is the narrative production (elicitation) test. Narratives are usually collected in a natural environment and therefore are seen as one of the most ecologically valid methods of investigating children’s linguistic competence; additionally, narrative production data allow exploring children’s linguistic abilities the most (Botting 2002; Gagarina 2015). Studies on narrative production in the majority of cases investigate the story structure (referred to as ‘story grammar’ or ‘macro-structure’) and language (or ‘micro-structure’) of the narrative. In order to observe the actual linguistic performance the main attention in the current study was given to micro-structural features of the narrative. Research in the feld emphasizes the correlation between early narrative abilities and later literacy development 212 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

(Dickinson and McCabe 1991; McCabe and Rollins 1994; Snow and Dickinson 1991). Studies related to the assessment of narratives in bilingual populations have become widespread due to the fact that migration in Europe and around the globe is gaining momentum. After decades of research on various oral English profciency skills, knowledge of vocabulary and narrative ability, it has been found that these skills are important precursors to literacy not only for monolingual (Dickinson and Tabors 2001) but also for bilingual children (August and Shanahan 2006; Oller and Pearson 2002). Tese skills have also been identifed as an area of special vulnerability in bilingual populations (August et al. 2005; Pearson 2002). Te authors of this chapter have chosen to explore a sample of 6-year-old children, as preschool age is considered critical to the transition from oral to written communication, which appears to be crucial for the later development of literacy and academic attainment. Tus, narrative and general language skills at preschool and early school age should be examined in order to establish the standards of this age group and to identify children who need language support in the learning process for better academic achievements at school. Te main aims of this chapter have been to investigate general linguistic performance using the narrative elicitation procedure in a group of Russian–Lithuanian sequential preschool bilinguals, to explore potential relationships between traditional linguistic domains of words and grammar, and to discuss the results in the context of language exposure and dominance. Additionally, the possible impact of the language environment is discussed assuming that bilingual children living in a Lithuanian-language dominant city will perform better at the micro-structure level than children coming from a more multilingual environment.

4.1 Participants

Two groups of Lithuanian children (mean age 6 years) participated in the current study. Group 1 (n 25) comprised monolingual Lithuanian = Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 213 children from the city of Kaunas. Te members of this group attended a state kindergarten daily. Te children from Group 2 (n 25) were = sequential bilinguals (L1—Russian; L2—Lithuanian) living in Kaunas or Vilnius who had attended a state kindergarten for minority children with Russian as the main language of instruction and with 3–4 hours a week to study Lithuanian. As reported by the parents, all bilingual children used Russian as their frst language, since this language was dominant and used at home. All the children are typically developing (TD) and were selected for the study with the help of teachers; none of the children have records on language delay or impairment. We decided to include Lithuanian monolinguals for age-appropriate experiences and profciency in the dominant language of society.

4.2 Experiment and Measures

Te experiment employed a standard research methodology. During individual sessions, each subject was asked to tell a story according to Te Baby Birds picture sequence (originally developed by Hickmann 2003 and modifed by Gagarina et al. 2012) in Lithuanian. In brief, the experimenter did not start the story for the child, but encouraged him/ her to tell it on his/her own. Any names for the protagonists suggested by the child were accepted, even inappropriate words or/and their incorrect forms. During the analysis the main individual micro-structural indicators between the samples were evaluated and compared. Te following micro-structural measures were analysed following Hughes et al. (1997), Reilly et al. (2011), Shapiro (1990) and Shapiro and Hudson (1989):

1. General productivity measured using two parameters: 1.1. Total number of words or tokens (TNT). 1.2. Total number of communication units (TNCU). Communication unit (CU) is defned as an ‘independent clause with its modifers’ (Loban 1976: 9). Rules for segmenting a story into CUs are given in Gagarina et al. (2012) and Hughes et al. (1997: 53–54). 214 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

2. Lexical diversity was measured by the lemma/token ratio (LTR). Although the type/token ratio (TTR) is one of the most commonly used indicators of lexical richness, the lemma/token ratio is more useful while working with smaller corpora (Granger and Wynne 1999). A subject who uses diferent types (forms) of word (lemma) in the same text should be considered to have a less developed vocabulary than the one who uses several diferent lemmas (McCarthy 1990). 3. Syntactic complexity. Te mean length of communicative units (CU) in words (MLCUw) is described as the number of CUs divided by the TNT.

Additionally, error analysis was conducted and code switching was examined.

5 Results

Micro-structural analysis showed several diferences between the samples. We used Student’s t-test criteria.

5.1 General Productivity

Story Length in Words (Total Number of Tokens, TNT)

Te analysis of story length in words has demonstrated that bilinguals produced much shorter stories than monolinguals: in the monolingual sample the total number of tokens (TNT) averaged out at 44 words per story; in the bilingual sample the TNT was 27 words per story, showing that bilinguals perform signifcantly poorer (p 0.000).1 Detailed = analysis also pointed to the children’s diferent abilities to create a story.

1Te p value indicates whether the results are signifcantly meaningful. A signifcant value is below 0.05 (p < 0.05). If the p value is over 0.05 (p > 0.05), it means that the results do not imply a meaningful or important diference. For example, if we compare the test results of the same age for boys and girls, we see that the boys’ result is 85% and the girls’ is 80%. SPSS Student’s t-test criteria showed that the p value is 0.003 (p < 0.005). Tis means that the boys performed the test signifcantly better than the girls. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 215

Fig. 1 Story length in words in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual

In the monolingual sample the TNT varied between 18 and 75 words per story, and one child made a story of 85 words (see Fig. 1). Te median is 43; this means half the children used between 18 and 43 words per story, while the other half used between 43 and 75 words per story. We can see that some children created laconic stories (18 words used) and some children created much more informative stories (75 words used). In the bilingual sample the TNT varied between 10 and 58 words per story. It is evident that the stories of bilingual children are shorter: the lowest and highest values are much lower than in the monolingual sample. Te same tendency was noticed in the monolingual sample: some bilinguals created very short stories (10 words) and some created much longer stories (58 words). In the bilingual sample the median is 25 (i.e., it is lower than in the monolingual sample) (see Fig. 1). Tis means that half the bilingual children used between 10 and 25 words in the story and the other half between 25 and 58 words. We can see 216 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė that the range of the sample above the median is larger than the range of the sample below the median. Tis shows children’s diferent abilities to create a story: the group of children below the median created stories of similar lengths (10–25 words) while stories in the group of children above the median showed a more diverse range in length (25–58 words).

Story Length in Communication Units

Te analysis has revealed that in the monolingual sample the total number of communication units (TNCU) was 10 per story on average. In the bilingual sample the TNCU was 8 per story. Te results show that CU is signifcantly longer in the monolingual sample (p 0.010). Box plot2 = analysis has shown that the TNCU in the monolingual sample varied between 5 and 15 CUs per story with a median of 9. Half the monolingual children used between 5 and 9 CUs in the story, while the other half between 9 and 15 CUs. Te range of the sample above the median is larger than the range of the sample below the median. Tis means that the group of children below the median tended to use similar numbers of CUs per story (from 5 to 9 CUs) and the group of children above the median tended to use more varied numbers of CUs per story (from 9 to 15 CUs). In the bilingual sample the TNCU varied between 4 and 12 CUs per story; the median was 8. Half the bilingual children used 4–8 CUs in the story and the other half used 8–12 CUs. In the bilingual sample the highest value was much lower than in the monolingual sample, but the lowest value and the median were similar to those produced by the monolinguals (see Fig. 2).

2A box plot graph shows the distribution of a dataset. Te upper whisker indicates maximum data values; the lower whisker indicates minimum data values; the middle line of the box indicates the median value (the middle number in a range of numbers). Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 217

Fig. 2 Story length in communication units in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); CU, communication unit; MO, monolingual

5.2 Lexical Diversity (Noun Lemma/Token Ratio and Verb Lemma/Token Ratio )3

We have only looked at two major word categories, nouns and verbs, to analyse lexical diversity. Noun Lemma/Token Ratio (NLTR) analysis has shown that the NLTR in the monolingual sample was 0.6 while in the bilingual sample it was 0.5; the result is not signifcant. Box plot analysis displays that in the monolingual sample the NLTR varied between

3Te Lemma/Token Ratio is the relationship between the number of lemmas and the number of tokens (the number of words in a text). It is a measure of vocabulary and grammar variation in written or spoken text. Te Noun Lemma/Token Ratio is the relationship between the number of noun lemmas and the number of all nouns in a text. Te verb lemma/token ratio is the relationship between the number of verb lemmas and the number of all verbs in a text. 218 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Fig. 3 The noun Lemma/Token ratio in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual

0.3 and 0.9, and the median was 0.55. In the bilingual sample the NLTR varied between 0.2 and 0.8, and the median was 0.49. Te box plot graph demonstrates that in the bilingual sample the lowest value, the highest value and the median are a little bit lower than in the monolingual sample (see Fig. 3). Verb Lemma/Token Ratio (VLTR) analysis has shown that in the monolingual sample the VLTR is 0.8. In the bilingual sample the VLTR is 0.9 indicating that the results are not signifcant; box plot analysis has not shown any diference either.

5.3 Syntactic Complexity

Mean Length of Communication Units in Words (MLCUw) analysis has revealed that the monolingual children used more words in the CU than the bilingual children (p 0.004), which is statistically = Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 219 signifcant: monolinguals used on average 5 words in the CU, while bilinguals used 3 words. Box plot analysis has shown that in the monolingual sample the children used between 2.2 and 7 words in the CU; the median was 4.2. Tis means that half the children used between 2.2 and 4.2 words, while the other half used between 4.2 and 7 words in the CU. Te bilingual sample of children used between 1.3 and 6 words in the CU (the median was 3.3). Half the children used between 1.3 and 3.3 words and the other half between 3.3 and 6 words. In the bilingual sample the shortest CU was made of one word, while in the monolingual sample the shortest CU consisted of 2.2 words. Box plot analysis has shown that the lowest value, the highest value and the median in the bilingual sample are much lower than in the monolingual sample (see Fig. 4). Tis means that the bilinguals have used much shorter CUs than the monolinguals.

Fig. 4 The mean length of communication units (in words) in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual 220 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

5.4 Errors4

Error analysis demonstrated that the bilinguals made many more errors in the stories than the monolinguals. Te monolinguals produced 0.6, while the bilinguals 3.2 errors on average. Te result is statistically signifcant (p 0.000). Detailed analysis further demonstrated that some = monolinguals did not make any errors and some made only two errors. Two outliers were identifed: one child produced 3 errors and the other 4 errors (see Fig. 5). Te distribution of errors in the sample of bilinguals ranges from 0 to 11. Te median is 2, which indicates that half the children made between 0 and 2 errors and the other half between 2 and 11 errors when telling the story. Te range of the sample above the median is much larger than the range of the sample below the median. Tis means that the group of children below the median made a similar number of errors per story (0 to 2 errors), while the number of errors (from 2 to 11) per story in the group of children above the median shows a much wider range. Te results allow us to expect that the group of children below the median has better Lithuanian knowledge than the group of children above the median. We can see that some bilinguals and monolinguals did not make any errors, but some bilinguals made 11 errors per story. However, the largest number of errors in the monolingual sample was 2. Te box plot graph shows that the highest value in the monolingual sample and the median in the bilingual sample are the same. As mentioned above, in general the bilinguals made more errors than the monolinguals. Te errors were mainly morphological:

(1) Atėjo katinas, norėjo jų [ juos] paimti. = Came-Past.3SG cat-SG.NOM, wanted-Past.3SG their-PL.GEN [ = them-PL.ACC] to take-INF. ‘Te cat came and wanted to take them’.

4Te analysis involved all the linguistic levels except phonology—namely, lexicon, morphology, word formation, morphosyntax and syntax. An utterance which was ungrammatical or for which no overt semantic meaning could be found was counted as an error. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 221

Fig. 5 Total number of errors in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual

(2) Katinas norėjo jį [ juos] suvalgyti. = Cat-SG.NOM wanted-Past.3SG him-SG.ACC [ them-PL.ACC] to = eat-INF. ‘Te cat wanted to eat them’.

Te following are examples of morphosyntax errors: (3) Aš matau keturi [ keturis] paukštiai ( paukščius); = = I-NOM see-Pres.1SG four-NOM [ four-ACC] birds-PL.NOM = [ birds-PL.ACC] = ‘I see four birds’.

(4) Buvo trys mažiukas ( mažiukai) paukščiukų ( paukščiukai); = = Were-Past.3PL three-NOM little-DIM-SG.NOM [ little-DIM-PL. = NOM] birds-DIM-PL.GEN [ birds-DIM-PL.NOM]. = ‘(Tere) were three little birds’. 222 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

(5) Mama atėjo pas paukštis ( paukštį) = Mother-SG.NOM came-Past.3SG to bird-SG.NOM [ bird-SG.ACC] = ‘Mother came to the bird’.

5.5 Code Switching (CS)

As expected, only the bilinguals used code switching; on average, there were 0.8 code-switching cases in the story. Box plot analysis has shown that in the bilingual group the children used between 0 and 2 code-switching cases; there were two outliers with 3 and 7 cases of CS (see Fig. 6). Te following are some examples of code switching:

(6) Katinas šunis pasiėmė зa5 uodegą; ‘Dog took cat’s tail’.

(7) Katinas yпaл; ‘Cat fell down’.

(8) Šuniukas тoжe bėga. ‘Dog runs too’.

In general, the study shows that the monolinguals and bilinguals demonstrated similar linguistic abilities in their story production. However, for some variables, as expected, monolinguals were more profcient. Error analysis has revealed that bilingual children fnd it more difcult to acquire the complex grammar of Lithuanian.

5Russian items are underlined. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 223

Fig. 6 Total number of instances of code switching in the monolingual and bilingual samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian); MO, monolingual

6 The Language Environment: Lithuanian in Kaunas and Vilnius

Multilingualism in Lithuania can most intensively be observed in the three biggest cities. Among the pupils at primary school level living in cities, 37 languages have been reported as home languages (Ramonienė and Extra 2011). Te number of people not speaking Lithuanian in the ethnically most heterogeneous cities of Vilnius and Klaipėda is 1% or less (Ramonienė 2006). Lithuanian is used more frequently in Klaipėda because the number of non-Lithuanians is smaller than in Vilnius. In Kaunas, which is a very Lithuanian city ethnically, Russians speak Lithuanian more than Russian in all public and semi-public spheres (Ramonienė 2010; Dabašinskienė and Garuckaitė 2010). 224 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Vilnius and Kaunas, which are relevant to this chapter, are multilingual cities albeit to a diferent extent. Terefore, we have presumed that children from Kaunas will perform better than children from Vilnius due to Lithuanian-language dominance in the city. Tis assumption is based on previous studies into language use and attitudes in the major cities of Lithuania (Dabašinskienė 2011; Dabašinskienė and Garuckaitė 2010; Ramonienė 2010). To examine this aspect, we extracted the data from the bilingual sample and divided the children into two groups: the Kaunas (n 9) and = the Vilnius (n 16) groups. =

6.1 Results Regarding the Language Environment

Tis section will only consider the mean length of communications units in words, errors, and code switching, as these are the only variables to have shown more or less diferent results; all other measures did not display any major diferences.

Syntactic Complexity: Mean Length of Communication Units in Words

On average, the children from Vilnius used 3 words in the CU, while the children from Kaunas used 4 words. Te analysis has shown that the CU is longer in the Kaunas sample, but this result is not statistically signifcant. Box plot analysis has demonstrated that the total number of CUs in the Vilnius sample varied between 1.4 and 5 words; the median was 3.5 words. Tis means that half the children used between 1.4 and 3.5 words, while the other half used between 3.5 and 5 words in the CU (see Fig. 7). Te total number of CUs in the Kaunas sample varied between 2 and 6 words. So, the median is 4.5 words (i.e., it is higher than in the Vilnius sample). Half the children from Kaunas used between 2 and 4.5 words and the other half between 4.5 and 6 words in the CU. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 225

Fig. 7 The mean length of communication units (in words) in the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian)

Te analysis has shown that the lowest value, the highest value and the median for the children from the Kaunas sample are higher than those values in the Vilnius sample (see Fig. 7). Tese results indicate that the children from Kaunas used more words in the CU than the children from Vilnius.

Errors: Total Number of Errors

Error analysis has shown that the children from Vilnius made 3.4 errors on average, while the children from Kaunas made 2.7. As we can see, the children from Vilnius made more errors, but statistically this result is not signifcant. Box plot analysis has shown that the children from 226 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Vilnius made between 0 and 11 errors. Tis means that some children made no errors and some made 11 errors per story. Te median of the Vilnius sample is 2.5; half the children made between 0 and 2.5 errors, while the other half between 2.5 and 11 errors. Te range of the sample above the median is much larger than the range of the sample below the median. Te range in the number of errors in the stories made in the group of children above the median was from 2.5 to 11, while the group of children below the median made a similar number of errors (from 0 to 2.5). Tis result allows us to conclude that the group of children below the median uses Lithuanian according to the norms more than the group of children above the median. Te children from Kaunas made between 0 and 6 errors per story; this means that some children made no errors, while some made 6 errors per story. Box plot analysis shows that the highest result of the Kaunas group is lower than the highest result of the Vilnius group. Tis means that the children from Kaunas made fewer errors per story than the children from Vilnius. Te median for the Kaunas group is 2. Half the children made 0 to 2 errors, while the other half made between 2 and 6 errors per story. Te range of the sample above the median is larger than the range of the sample below the median. Te box plot graph shows very few similarities between the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. Some children from Vilnius and Kaunas made no errors; but the median is similar in both samples (see Fig. 8). Te main diference is the highest value; it is much higher for the children from Vilnius. Tis fact indicates that the children from Vilnius made more errors per story than the children from Kaunas.

Code Switching

In the Vilnius group 1.3 code-switching cases were found in the story on average; no code-switching cases were found in the Kaunas group. So, the mean diference between the samples is signifcant (p 0.000). = Te results of box plot analysis show 0 to 3 code-switching cases per story in the Vilnius sample. Tere is one outlier: one child used code switching especially often (see Fig. 9). Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 227

Fig. 8 Total number of errors in the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian)

7 Conclusion and Discussion

Te primary purpose of this chapter was to examine the general linguistic performance in Lithuanian using the narrative elicitation procedure in a group of Russian–Lithuanian sequential preschool bilinguals; a control group of monolingual Lithuanian preschool children was tested as well. Te study explored the micro-structural characteristics of narrative productions in order to investigate the linguistic domains of vocabulary and grammar and to discuss the results in the context of language exposure and dominance. Te profle of the diferent bilingual groups depending on the city was additionally introduced, as we assumed that the bilingual children living in a Lithuanian-language dominant city will perform better at the micro-structure level than children from a more multilingual environment. 228 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Fig. 9 Total number of code-switching cases in the Vilnius and Kaunas samples. BI, bilingual (Russian and Lithuanian)

Te micro-structure displayed statistically signifcant diferences between the bilingual and monolingual groups regarding two main parameters: general productivity and syntactic complexity. Bilinguals scored diferently for general productivity and syntactic complexity, but lexical diversity was at the same level as in the group of monolingual children. As expected, error analysis showed that bilinguals made more errors in the stories than monolinguals. Te analysis demonstrated that the children from Kaunas difered in their performance from Vilnius bilinguals: they produced longer communicative units, used more words, made fewer errors and did not use code switching. Te main diference between the bilingual and monolingual groups was in code switching and making errors, as these phenomena were observed signifcantly more often in the bilingual sample. We assume Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 229 such results were brought about by limited exposure of the sample to the target language (Lithuanian), which consequently caused diferences in performance. However, this should not be taken as an indication of language defcit (Chiat et al. 2013; Mueller Gathercole 2013; Nicoladis and Genesee 1997; Paradis et al. 2011), but as a specifc stage of L2 development. It is an established fact that monolingual and bilingual children difer in language development. Tis is mostly related to distinct social settings where their two languages are used and to cumula- tive exposure to each language. Moreover, bilingual children experience some overlap in what they are learning about each language (e.g., vocabulary) and code switching, which is common among bilinguals (De Houwer 2009; Mueller Gathercole et al. 2013). Tere are of course limitations in this research that have to be pointed out. Te frst concerns the size of the samples studied. Te number of children in both groups was relatively small and individual diferences among them were observed. Terefore, the fndings cannot provide reliable generalizations and should be interpreted with caution. We did not collect any data about the bilingual children’s families or their attitudes; such information could provide more insights when interpreting the results. Te lower profciency in the majority language of the bilingual group was expected when the above discussion is kept in mind. However, it is a slight surprise to observe quite diferent performances among the third or fourth generations.6 Some children did not know very basic words, such as a dog or a bird. An argument for the interpretation of these results might be the context of the individual family’s language policies: their linguistic choices, the language used at home and the kindergarten. Clearly, lower profciency in Lithuanian is related to limited exposure to the language both at home and the kindergarten.

6Tis study did not collect any data on the families’ backgrounds or their attitudes. However, the frst author of this chapter had a chance to discuss the profle of the families with the principal of the kindergarten, as parents had to provide written consent for their children to participate in the study. It was stated that most of the children belonged to the fourth generation. 230 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Results of the analysis of two bilingual groups underscore the need to carefully explore the efects of educational and sociolinguistic factors, especially those related to attitudes, linguistic environment, language dominance and language prestige. Te study suggests that the linguistic environment may infuence performance in a language, as the dominant status of Lithuanian in Kaunas determines the children’s higher competence in Lithuanian. Language environment criteria seem to be very important, at least when interpretating our preliminary fndings regarding the bilingual children from Vilnius and Kaunas. Our assumptions are also confrmed by the study carried out by Čubajevaitė (2013). She claims that the priorities of language choice by children depend on the linguistic environment, but what is even more important are school and the language taught there. According to Čubajevaitė’s study, 55.1% of L1-Russian schoolchildren attending Lithuanian schools said they spoke Russian at home, while 52.8% spoke Lithuanian. Some 95.1% of L1-Russian schoolchildren going to Russian schools spoke Russian at home, 7.3% spoke Lithuanian and 4.9% spoke English. Such language choice is infuenced by the family’s ethnicity and the parents’ choice to let their children attend Lithuanian schools. Tere is a statistically signifcant relationship between the language taught at school and the language children speak with their best friends (Čubajevaitė 2013). Te dominant language in children’s environments, especially outside the home, infuences their language choice, which explains the linguistic competences of the bilingual Kaunas group as compared to the children from Vilnius. Nevertheless, both groups of bilinguals in our study can be expected to have good prospects for later literacy acquisition and thus escape literacy-related difculties not only in Lithuanian but in their heritage language as well as long as adequate language support is provided. Te amount of exposure to both languages and, what is more, involvement in social interactions outside the home environment could have a major infuence even by the preschool age (see Silven and Rubinov 2010). When ethnic minorities are concentrated in a neighborhood or when there are close ethnic social networks, this is thought to hin- der their integration and, as a consequence, language acquisition. Interestingly, this was not the case with Lithuanians residing in London Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 231

(Dabašinskienė et al. 2014). A study on Lithuanian–English bilinguals (6-year-olds) demonstrated that Lithuanian families like to live in dense communities with other Lithuanians; yet, due to positive attitudes to integration and linguistic choice their children know both English and Lithuanian. Children use Lithuanian at home and learn it in Lithuanian centres several times per week. Moreover, they have a good knowledge of English as they attend English schools. English, as a global lingua franca and a language with high prestige, plays an important role. Tus, second-generation children are still highly profcient in the heritage or minority language (Lithuanian) and are becoming at the same time balanced bilinguals (Dabašinskienė et al. 2014). Tis could be explained when the type of immigration is economic. Very diferent reasons, mostly related to the ‘big brother’ ideology of Soviet-type immigration, have to be kept in mind as they might help to explain the heterogeneous profle of the Russian minority group in present-day Lithuania. Te status of Russian as an international or regional lingua franca might play a role in interpreting the results of our study; however, additional research on language and integration attitudes is necessary for a better understanding. Previous research has shown (see Ramonienė 2010) that Russian has high prestige among Russian minority members in Lithuania (this also goes for the Baltics in general; Eurobarometer 2012). Tis might explain family choices of pre- schooling in a minority language. However, the children who took part in the study are clearly about to undergo a more intense phase in learning Lithuanian, but strengthening their Lithuanian skills will depend on later choices of school. In general, multilingualism is valued in the Baltic states (Vihalemm et al. 2011). Tis is particularly so in Lithuania, as it is associated with higher economic values and career advantages; therefore families seem to be motivated to raise their children bilingually. Te nature of bilingualism (balanced or unbalanced) will depend on many factors, but the main language of instruction is crucial. If parents consider that their children have to study in the dominant language of society in order to integrate faster, it is quite likely that this dominant language will be associated with higher social values than the minority language. On the other hand, the minority language could be chosen as the main language of schooling as well, if parents see more advantages 232 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė for their children in that direction and associate Russian with a higher potential. Tese two diferent tracks should not necessarily be interpreted in terms of a ‘political’ argument as many other reasons could be valid. Taking into consideration the purely linguistic nature of the phenomenon, however, neither way guarantees that children will grow up as balanced bilinguals if they do not receive enough input and opportunities to use both languages in diferent contexts and with diferent interlocutors. Yet, the dynamics of attitudes towards the Russian language from the perspectives of minority and majority, its prestige, use, teaching and learning have been closely monitored for 25 years (Vihalemm 2011). Changes and preferences are clearly related to the geopolitical situation in the region and should always be taken into consideration when investigating language questions in the Baltics.

References

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second- language learners: Report of the national literacy panel of language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). Te critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50–57. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2010). White paper: Prolegomena to heritage linguistics. Harvard University. http://scholar.harvard. edu/files/mpolinsky/files/hl_white_paper_june_12.pdf?m 1360041886. = Accessed 4 April 2017. Beresnevičiūtė, V., & Leončikass, T. (2009). Diskriminacijos suvokimas Lietuvos visuomenėje. Filosofja. Sociologija, 4, 335–343. Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169–181. Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52, 159–199. Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Terapy, 18, 1–21. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 233

Chiat, S., Armon-Lotem, S., Marinis, T., Polišenská, K., Roy, P., & Seef- Gabriel, B. (2013). Assessment of language abilities in sequential bilingual children: Te potential of sentence imitation tasks. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (Ed.), Issues in the assessment of bilinguals (pp. 56–89). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Čiubrinskas, V. (2008). Tautinio identiteto antropologinio tyrinėjimo klausimai. In V. Čiubrinskas & J. Kuznecovienė (Eds.), Lietuviškojo identiteto tra- jektorijos (pp. 13–25). Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Čubajevaitė, L. (2013). Sociolingvistinis Kauno moksleivių paveikslas. Daktaro disertacija, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas. Dabašinskienė, I. (2011). We are looking for a sales manager in Lithuania. In M. Hope (Ed.), Towards a language rich Europe (pp. 71–78). Berlin: British Council. Dabašinskienė, I., & Garuckaitė, R. (2010). Miestai ir kalbos (pp. 231–250). Kalbinis Kauno praeities ir dabarties savitumas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Dabašinskienė, I., Balčiūnienė, I., & Kalninytė, A. (2014). Links between lexicon and grammar in narrative production: Lithuanian as L1 and L2 in bilingual children. Paper given at 13th international congress for the study of child language, Amsterdam. De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Clevedon and Bufalo: Multilingual Matters. DeKeyser, R. (2000). Te robustness of critical period efects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533. Dickinson, D., & Tabors, O. P. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Dickinson, K. D., & McCabe, A. (1991). A social interactionist account of language and literacy development. In J. Kavenaugh (Ed.), Te language Continuum: From infancy to literacy (pp. 1–40). Parkton, MD: York Press. Eurobarometer—Europeans and their languages. (2012). Report. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontofce/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf. Gagarina, N. (2015). Narratives of Russian-German preschool and primary school bilinguals: Rasskaz and Erzaehlung. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 91–122. Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I., Bohnacker, U., & Walters, J. (2012). Main: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives. ZASPil 56. Berlin: ZAS. Granger, S., & Wynne, M. (1999). Optimising measures of lexical variation in EFL learner corpora. In J. M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora Galore. Analyses and 234 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

techniques in describing English (pp. 249–257). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Hawkins, R., & Chan, Y.-H. C. (1997). Te partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: Te failed functional features hypothesis. Language Research, 13(3), 187–226. Heidmets, M., Kangro, A., Ruus, V., Matulionis, A. V., Loogma, K., Zilinskaite, V., & Autio, T. (2011). Education. Baltic way(s) of human development: Twenty years on (pp. 96–115) (Estonian human development report). Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu. Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s discourse: Person, time, and space across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramonienė, M., & Rannut, M. (2009). Language politics and practices in the baltic states. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. Hughes, L. D., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Austin: PRO-ED, Inc. Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2009). Age of onset and nativelike- ness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306. Kasatkina, N. (2003). “Istorinės” diasporos šiuolaikinėje Lietuvos visuomenėje. Filosofja. Sociologija, 2, 37–43. Kasatkina, N. (2007). Pyccкиe в coвpeмeннoй Литвe: мeньшинcтвo, диacпopa или чacть гpaждaнcкoгo oбщecтвa? [Rusai šiuolaikinėje Lietuvoje: mažuma, diaspora ar visuomenės dalis?]. Etniškumo studijos, 2, 18–42. Kondo-Brown, K. (2004). Investigating interviewer—Candidate interactions during oral interviews for child L2 learners. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 602–615. Leseman, P. M. P., & Van Tuijl, C. (2006). Cultural diversity in early literacy. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 211–228). New York: Guilford Press. Leončikas, T. (2006a). Asimiliacijos prielaidos ir mokyklos pasirinkimas: pirmokų tėvų grupių palyginimas. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas, 1, 76–98. Leončikas, T. (2006b). Romų švietimo iššūkiai. Etninis nepakantumas. Ethnicity Studies, 1, 87–120. Leončikas, T. (2007). Asimiliacija šiuolaikinėje Lietuvos visuomenėje: švietimo sektoriaus pasirinkimas. Ethnicity Studies, 1, 5–206. Lichačiova, A. (2010). Vilniaus ir Klaipėdos rusų ir rusakalbių tapatybės savivokos ypatumai. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos (pp. 125–151). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 235

Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. McCabe, A., & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Assessment of preschool narrative skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3, 45–56. McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education and Science, General Education Plan. (2013). http://www.smm. lt/web/lt/pedagogams/ugdymas/ugdymo_planai_1. Accessed 12 August 2016. Montrul, A. S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2011). Morphological errors in Spanish second language learners and heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 155–161. Montrul, S. (2013a). Bilingualism and the heritage language speaker. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), Te handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 168–189). Oxford: Blackwell. Montrul, S. (2013b). Heritage language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Te Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 283–286). London and New York: Routledge. Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–176. Mueller Gathercole, V. C. (2013). Assessment of multi-tasking wonders: Music, olympics, and language. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (Ed.), Issues in the assessment of bilinguals (pp. 1–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mueller Gathercole, V. C., Tomas, E. M., Roberts, J. E., Hughes, O. C., & Hughes, K. E. (2013). Why assessment needs to take exposure into account: Vocabulary and grammatical abilities in bilingual children. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (Ed.), Issues in the assessment of bilinguals (pp. 20–55). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (1997). Language development in preschool bilingual children. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 21(4), 258–270. O’Grady, W. (2011). Interfaces and processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 63–66. Oller, D. K., & Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Assessing the efects of bilingualism: A background. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 3–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Paradis, J. (2007). Second language acquisition in childhood. In E. Hof & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 387–405). Oxford: Blackwell. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, B. Martha. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. 236 I. Dabašinskienė and E. Krivickaitė-Leišienė

Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 135–174). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pearson, B. Z. (2007). Social factors in childhood bilingualism in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 399–410. Ramonienė, M. (2006). Teaching lithuanian as a second/Foreign language: Current practices (pp. 219–230) (Estonian papers in applied linguistics 2). Tallinn. Ramonienė, M. (Ed.). (2010). Miestai ir kalbos. Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Ramonienė, M. (2011). Adaptation to Lithuanian as the second language among minor ethno-linguistic groups. Baltic way(s) of human development: Twenty years on (pp. 122–129) (Estonian human development report). Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu. Ramonienė, M., & Extra, G. (2011). Multilingualism in Lithuanian cities. Languages at home and school in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda. Klaipėda and Tilburg: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. Reilly, J., Aksu-Koc, A., Appelbaum, M., Bleses, D., Chang, C.-J., Eriksson, M., Kapalkova, S., Kern, S., Kuvač Kraljević, J., Nicolopoulou, A., Parris, J., Perez Pereira, M., Sansavini, A., & Vollman, R. (2011). Emerging narratives: A cross-linguistic study. Paper given at 12th international congress for the study of child language, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal. Schmid, M. S., & Köpke, B. (2007). Bilingualism and attrition. In B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Teoretical perspectives (pp. 1–8). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Seliger, H. (1996). Primary language attrition in the second of bilingualism. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 605–625). New York: Academic Press. Shapiro, R. L. (1990). Developmental changes in young children’s ability to produce cohesive and coherent stories. Paper given at conference on human development, Richmond. Shapiro, R. L., & Hudson, A. J. (1989). Cohesion and coherence in preschool children’s picture-elicited narrative. Paper given at national biennial meeting of the society for research in child development, Kansas City. Siegel, S. L. (2002). Bilingualism and reading. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 287–302). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lithuanian as L2: A Case Study of Russian Minority Children 237

Silva-Corvalan, C. (1994). Language contact and language change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Silven, M., & Rubinov, E. (2010). Language and preliteracy skills in bilinguals and monolinguals at preschool age: Efects of exposure to richly infected speech from birth. Reading and Writing, 23(3), 385–414. Silven, M., & Lunden, M. (2011). Balanced communication in mid-infancy promotes early vocabulary development: Efects of play with mother and father in mono- and bilingual families. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 535–559. Simon-Cereijido, G., & Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual evaluation of the interdependence between lexical and grammatical domains. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 315–337. Snow, C. E., & Dickinson, D. K. (1991). Some skills that aren’t basic in a new conception of literacy. In A. C. Purves & E. M. Jennings (Eds.), Literate systems and individual lives: Perspectives on literacy and schooling (pp. 175–213). Albany: SUNY Press. Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of literacy research (pp. 159–178). New York: Guilford Press. Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 36–77). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics. Verhoeven, T. L. (2006). Predicting minority children’s bilingual profciency: Child, family, and institutional factors. Language Learning, 41(2), 205–233. Vihalemm, T. (Ed.). (2011). Estonian human development report. Baltic way(s) of human development: Twenty years on (pp. 116–143). Language space and human capital in the Baltic states. Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu. Vihalemm, T., Siiner, M., & Masso, A. (2011). Introduction: Language skills as a factor in human development. In T. Vihalemm (Ed.), Language space and human capital in the Baltic states (pp. 116–118) (Estonian human development report. Baltic way(s) of human development: twenty years on). Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian-Speaking Estonians

Triin Vihalemm and Marianne Leppik

1 The Language and Media Divide in Estonia

Estonia is de facto a multilingual country. Representatives of more than 192 diferent nations lived in Estonia during 2011 (Statistics Estonia 2017). Some 68% of the Estonian population speak Estonian as their mother tongue, 30% speak Russian as their mother tongue and 2% other languages. Most of the population speaking a mother tongue other than Estonian are people who migrated to Estonia when Estonia belonged to the Soviet Union, and their descendants. Although some knowledge of the Estonian language is stipulated by Estonian citizenship law and by regulations about career opportunities in the labour market and tertiary education, the spread and development of

T. Vihalemm (*) University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] M. Leppik University of Tartu and Ministry of Education and Science, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected]

Estonian-language skills has proceeded slowly among people of mother tongues other than Estonian. A signifcant part of the social structure, including mass media, is still linguistically separated between Estonian- speakers and Russian-speakers (for further details see Hogan-Brun et al. 2009; Vihalemm and Hogan-Brun 2013b). Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the local Russian-language media system was transformed by market forces and technological developments. Te importance of newspapers, which were widely read during the Soviet era and the early 1990s (Vihalemm et al. 2012), quickly declined as mainly entertainment-oriented media content emerged via various electronic channels. Te spread of personal media devices (e.g., televisions, computers and phones) along with the fragmentation and optimization of information ofered by diferent media enterprises also had a considerable impact upon audiences speaking Estonian, Russian and other languages. Recent data on media consumption show that Estonian Russian- speakers spent an average of 3.7 hours per day watching TV between February 2016 and February 2017 (calculated from data from the Kantar Emor Telemetrics survey) and approximately 1.5 hours per day on the Internet, including social media (self-reported data from the ‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 20141 survey). Estonian-speakers spend approximately the same amount of time on social media. Te general trend is that participation in the public information sphere is tempo- rally limited and fragmented. Some 36.5% of the Estonian—and 54.0% of the Russian-speaking population do not follow national and international news everyday (‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014). People’s information gathering is situational. Tey do not keep up with

1Te survey ‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ is one of the most important and thorough media surveys ever conducted in Estonia. It groups together such topics as interests, values, traditions, religion, history, belonging, identity, use of one’s time, cultural interests, environment and consumption, health, media use, work and family—in total more than 600 variables. Te survey is conducted in two languages—Estonian and Russian—and has been carried out since 2000 every three years (2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014) by the University of Tartu in cooperation with survey companies. Te sample consists of approximately 1000 ethnic Estonians and 500 speakers whose mother tongue is Russian. Te survey was fnanced by the Archimedes Foundation under grant No. IUT20-38AP14. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 241 the arguments and explanations the media often develop over longer periods of time. One third of the Estonian adult population—both Estonian- and Russian-speakers—claim that they receive most information about current afairs and daily news from social media networks (‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014). Te specifcs of the media repertoire of the minority audience, along with its fragmentation in temporal terms, entail geopolitical and linguistic heterogeneity. Ethnic Estonians mainly follow local Estonian- language media; approximately one third also follow Western media channels in foreign languages. In comparison, the media repertoire of the Russian-language audience is more varied. Most of the Estonian Russian-speaking population currently follow local Russian-language radio, Internet and press as well as television and Internet portals from Russia. More infrequently, international media and Estonian-language media are followed. Te concept of transnationalism ofers a suitable theoretical framework to interpret the geoculturally diverse media consumption of Estonian Russian-speakers and the implications that has for their social involvement and identity, including language use strategies.

2 Transnationalism in the Context of Post- Soviet Estonia

Te anthropologists Linda Basch, Nina Glick Schiller, and Christine Szanton Blanc (1994: 6) frst defned transnationalism as the ‘[…] process by which immigrants forge and sustain multistranded social relationships that link together their societies of origin and settlement […]’. Transnationalism is usually conceptualized within the framework of physical mobility: when people migrate from one country to another, they do not just assimilate into society, but maintain cross- border relationships and live in two realities at the same time, even if loyal and conscientious citizens of the receiving country (Glick Schiller et al. 1995; Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013). Tese relationships may involve many types of social actors, resources, institutions, and formal 242 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik or informal networks (e.g., family, religious, commercial, political, educational, recreational and ideological). Migrants’ expectations, norms, values and interaction practices form from two or more sociopolitical and economic systems (Levitt 2011). In the case of transnational relationships the historical motherland is perceived as an important source of rights, opportunities and obligations (Boccagni 2012, 2013). Tus, transnationalism can also apply to virtual relationships with family and friends who remain in the motherland. Tere are several aspects that justify the use of the transnationalism approach to analysing the media practices of Estonian Russian-speakers. Transnationalism implies a structurally and discursively supported condition of individuals’ ‘inbetweenness’ (Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013; Vertovec 2004; Smith and Guarnizo 1997). In their media-following practices, Russian-speaking Estonians combine content originating in Estonia with content from Russia and other foreign-language media content. Despite the fact that the Estonian-language knowledge of Russian-speaking Estonians has improved gradually, it has not been accompanied by a wider following of Estonian-language media (Leppik and Vihalemm 2017). Estonian Russian-speakers feel that their rights, duties, economic interests and future perspectives are shared with Estonian-speakers, but the language, culture, values and customs are shared with Russians in the Russian Federation (Vihalemm and Masso 2003). However, they defne their ‘Russianness’ as a negotiable, non-essential factor, unlike Russians living in the Russian Federation (Vihalemm and Kaplan 2017). We may also speak about a certain inbetweenness caused by the post-Soviet cultural transformation in general. Sztompka (2004) describes society after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a transition culture characterized by the parallel existence of new and old normal- ities. According to him, there is a ‘socially shared pool of ready-made templates for symbolizing, framing, and narrating the ongoing social praxis’ (Sztompka 2000: 450); any social change proceeds in an ‘inherited cultural environment’. A change in the political or social order interrupts this ‘cultural equilibrium’ by importing and establishing new ‘cultural templates’. However, for some time the two systems existed Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 243 in parallel, and members of society had to adapt to this ambiguity of interaction between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ cultures, which enabled people to live under culturally heterogeneous sociopolitical and economic systems. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, several economic and political factors contributed to the process of cultural diferentiation of Estonian- and Russian-speaking Estonians and a consolidation of somewhat diferent sets of ‘cultural templates’. First, the local Russian-language media production system changed drastically during the 1990s, which made Russian-speakers follow more media from the Russian Federation (Vihalemm and Hogan-Brun 2013a). Second, labour market reconfgurations favoured an ethnolinguistic segregation strategy compared to the assimilation strategy (Leppik and Vihalemm 2015). Some political parties were also interested in keeping an ethnically divided electorate, with some politicians implicitly or explicitly constructing politicized issues based on ethnicity in their public texts. Political crises, such as the Bronze Soldier confict,2 revealed sharply opposing collective memories. Similarly, the current Ukrainian crisis has elicited a similar polarization of representations between Estonian- and Russian-language media content producers. In the analysis that follows we explore and explain how diferent levels of language profciency correspond with media consumption and the development of transnational identities. We answer how personal multilingualism interacts with media use strategies during a political crisis, when diferent sources deliver ideologically conficting messages. First, we explain the theoretical and empirical frameworks of multilingualism and transnationalism studies. Ten, we explore relationships between language skills and media use habits and address the issues of managing multilingual information sources and developing trust.

2Te Bronze Soldier confict refers to street protests by parts of the Russian-speaking population following the Estonian government’s decision to relocate a World War II monument symbolizing the Soviet Union’s victory over Germany because it also celebrated the beginning of the Soviet occupation of Estonia. 244 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

3 Language and Media Use of Transnationals

Te phenomenon of personal multilingualism and media use under transnational conditions has been little researched. We agree with Duf (2015) when she states that transnationalism and linguistics are fundamentally connected with each other. Language, besides being a marker of ethnic identity, also mediates cultural fows and ideologies and helps their interpretation.3 Language is indispensable to decoding messages (Hall 1973) and thereby forms an integral part of the interpretation of journalistic production and of self-positioning in an ideological context. In today’s highly media-oriented world, people can receive the multimodal language of the media without acquiring the language of interpersonal communication or high culture. New media—such as Skype, messaging tools and social networks—help people to overcome physical and linguistic borders and create common communication spaces. Digital technology may foster hybridity and promote a sense of belonging and afnity with others in multilingual settings (Duf 2015). Tus, media consumption in multilingual settings may help develop language and sociocultural skills and increase opportunities for social participation outside the media feld. Personal multilingualism helps develop better knowledge of how to access and use diferent institutions and support systems (Roth et al. 2012; Chiswick and Miller 2002; Andersson 2011). Profciency in a (local) language and concordant media consumption increases agency, but it also increases critical attitudes towards and diminishes trust in institutions. Te acquisition of reading and understanding skills in a certain language creates an interpretation framework: the way we assess evidence and what kinds of conclusions we draw from texts (Ruiz 1984; Horner 2011). Authors who have investigated media use among transnational populations report that ideologically and culturally diverse media content may support the development of

3Duf (2015) writes that languages are inherently transnational (i.e., not limited to any one geographical region). We are aware of the danger of essentializing the language of the media as a marker of group belonging, but the most recent empirical evidence suggests that language and ideological borders coincide in the current case. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 245

‘double-consciousness’, which refers to the habit of critically comparing sources and arguments, and the striving for a new autonomous identity (Golbert 2001; Panagakos and Horst 2006; Aksoy and Robins 2002). However, double-checking the veracity of content is time-consuming and fatiguing (Panagakos and Horst 2006) and is therefore only done periodically (Vathi 2013). It may be easier to remain in one or another media space because multilingual media practices require efort and create tension, especially in times of political confict. Estonian and Latvian Russian-speakers seem to evaluate the ideal of double-consciousness as the ability to obtain and interpret information from various sources (Juzefovičs 2014; Vihalemm and Hogan- Brun 2013a). However, mass media is mentioned most often as the feld in which minority members feel they encounter ethnic conficts and discrimination (Integration Monitoring 2011) compared to face-to-face situations or in the workplace and educational institutions. Encounters with media content conficts and discrimination are reported most often by Russian-speakers who know the Estonian language and frequently follow Estonian-language media—both journalistic and user-generated content. Tus, following multilingual media may be psychologically exhausting, decrease social trust and discourage the development of new civic or hybrid cultural identities.

4 Estonian-Language Competence and Media Usage of the Estonian Russian-Speaking Population

Te Russian-speaking population of Estonia has widespread passive and moderately active knowledge of foreign languages (Population and Housing Census of Estonia 2000, 2011). According to the latest census, about 45% of Russian-speakers live in the capital city Tallinn, 32% in northeast Estonia and 23% in other parts of Estonia. Compared to the previous census in 2000 the geographical profle of residence has shifted even more towards the capital city, which has the most attractive labour market. 246 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

Table 1 The number of people who speak Estonian as their second, third, etc. language in Estonia in 2000 and 2011 within different sociodemographic groups of Estonian Russian-speakers 2000 (%) 2011 (%) Age 0–14 31 39 15–29 54 71 30–49 41 57 50–64 35 38 65+ 23 24 Citizenship Estonian 54 62 Russian 18 19 Undefned 30 31 Residence Tallinn 46 52 Northeast Estonia 22 27 Other parts of Estonia 61 65 Source Population and Housing Census of Estonia (2000, 2011)

Te number of people whose mother tongue is not Estonian but who regard themselves as able to speak Estonian has risen slightly from 38% in 2000 to 42% in 2011 (Population and Housing Census of Estonia 2000, 2011). Competence in English among residents of Estonia whose mother tongue is not Estonian increased between the two censuses, from 17% in 2000 to 26% in 2011. Te increase in personal multilingualism is connected with social diferentiation. Table 1 shows the proportion of people who can speak the Estonian language4 among Russian-speaking Estonians within diferent sociodemographic categories. Tere was a shift in the age profle among people speaking Estonian as their second, third or fourth language between 2000 and 2011. Between the two population censuses the ability to speak Estonian increased among the diferent sociodemographic groups.

4According to the census methodology, people whose Estonian-language competence enables them to speak, read, listen or write in Estonian and people who reported being able to use Estonian in familiar language use situations are categorized as Estonian-speakers or people who know Estonian. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 247

Te number of people speaking Estonian has increased signifcantly in the age group 15–29 years and among people with Estonian citizenship. Estonian-language knowledge is strongly correlated with profciency in other foreign languages (Population and Housing Census of Estonia 2000, 2011). In 2000, 30% of Russian-speakers who knew Estonian could also speak English. Only 6% of Russian-speakers who did not know Estonian reported being able to speak English. In general, the number of people who are able to speak at least one language other than their mother tongue is lower among Russian-speakers (50% in 2011) than Estonian-speakers (72%). Moreover, people with passive knowledge (i.e., being able to understand the written or spoken text but not to speak it) of language can read, listen and watch media. According to the 2011 census, three quarters of Russian-speakers and speakers of other languages (i.e., people whose mother tongue was not Estonian) reported being able to follow media content in languages other than their mother tongue. Table 2 shows the self-reported frequencies of following media channels in other languages among Estonian- and Russian-speakers. Russian-speakers in general report that they follow media channels in foreign languages more often compared to Estonian-speakers, even if their language skills are modest. Table 2 shows that the frequencies of media consumption in English or other foreign languages are almost the same.

Table 2 Following media in languages other than their own among Estonian- and Russian-speakers in Estonia during 2014 (‘Me. The World. The Media’ 2014) Aggregated variables calculated from self- Estonian- Russian- reported usage frequencies of various media speakers (%) speakers (%) channels (n 1028) (n 475) = = Media channels in Russian Not at all 66 37 among Estonian- Irregularly, seldom 17 37 speakers/Media chan- (Rather) frequently 17 26 nels in Estonian among Russian-speakers Media channels in English, Not at all 24 20 German, French or other Irregularly, seldom 42 50 languages (Rather) frequently 34 30 248 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

Fig. 1 Self-estimated knowledge of Estonian and self-reported ability to follow Estonian-language media content among Russian-speakers in Estonia in 2011 (Source Integration Monitoring 2011; n 802) = Figure 1 divides Russian-speakers up into seven groups according to their profciency in Estonian and self-estimated ability to follow Estonian-language media content. Much of the Russian-speaking population reported being able to understand Estonian-language media content based on passive language knowledge (Fig. 1). Tus, media use may have been an important factor in their language acquisition process via the introduction of new words and expressions. However, insufcient language knowledge may lead to misinterpretations of media content— as we have experienced in focus groups when questions about receiving texts is discussed—and psychological confusion and discomfort due to a sense of ethnic confict and discrimination. Among Russian-speakers who spoke Estonian well, 53% followed one or more Estonian-language media channels (web news portals, television or radio broadcasts, or newspapers) regularly, and of those whose knowledge of Estonian was mainly passive, 21% followed at least one Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 249

Estonian-language channel often or sometimes (‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014). An analysis of the use of media of diferent types (TV, radio, etc.) and origins (Russian Federation, Estonian) according to groups who can speak Estonian and according to age is shown in Table 3. Frequent use of Estonian-language media channels among those reported not to know Estonian was practically non-existent, except for television viewing among the older age groups. Frequent use of Estonian-language media varied among people whose Estonian-language skills were good. Since people who can speak Estonian usually have acquaintances among Estonian-speakers, and because people often talk about the media (Vihalemm 2002), conversations with Estonian acquaintances may also have inspired Russian-speakers to follow Estonian-language media. According to the ‘Me. Te World. Media’ 2014 survey, people do follow the links to and other people’s suggestions of media content posted on social networks. Te ‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014 survey showed generational diferences in the usage patterns of ‘traditional’ media channels—newspapers, radio and television—which were followed more by the older generations. Te Internet, including social media, was followed more by the younger generations, but the use of Internet news portals in the Estonian language was also relatively high among the oldest age group (Table 3). Te frequent listening to radio channels by younger people may have something to do with listening to radio when driving or working. Listening to Russian-language broadcasts on state-funded Radio 4 was widespread among older and middle-age groups; younger people preferred those Russian-language radio stations that aired entertainment and music. Reading newspapers was less frequent among younger age groups, who use the Internet to access news regardless of language profciency. Of the Estonian Russian-language newspapers, Postimees was the main source of local information; other newspapers have practically disappeared from the media scene due to declines in the number of readers (for more details see Vihalemm and Hogan-Brun 2013a). 250 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik All (%) 13 29 33 34 25 51 61 35 19 85 57 48 65+ (%) 20 32 45 63 42 40 45 33 15 90 60 5 45–64 (%) 16 20 38 30 39 41 65 33 11 88 44 28 25–44 (%) 11 30 28 30 23 60 70 42 26 84 63 58 Active knowledge of Estonian 15–24 (%) 9 38 28 28 0 56 47 28 19 78 59 82 All (%) 1 6 6 16 24 38 54 31 18 92 45 23 65+ (%) 0 4 5 25 26 21 49 28 15 96 38 3 45–64 (%) 1 6 7 18 29 41 53 34 18 95 50 20 25–44 (%) 2 9 5 3 14 55 62 31 21 83 44 40 Does not speak Estonian 15–24 (%) 0 0 5 0 15 25 50 25 15 70 35 65 Frequent use of different media across age groups and Estonian-language knowledge in 2014 among Russian- Frequent use of different Estonian-language media Newspapers Internet news portals Radio channels TV channels Estonian Russian-language media Newspapers Internet news portals Radio channels TV channels Russian Federation media Internet news portals TV channels International media TV channels Social media 3 Table speakers (‘frequent’ was defned in the questionnaire as several times per week) The Media’ 2014 survey Source ‘Me. The World. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 251

Television channels transmitted from the Russian Federation were consistently followed among all age and language groups of Russian- speakers. Considering that average TV watching among Estonian Russian-speakers was more than three hours per day and that the material broadcast was from Russia-based production companies, the role of television in producing transnationalism is clear. Audiovisual media are multimodal and therefore easily accessible and understandable to different social groups. Te number of readers of newspapers from Russia was, in contrast, very small. Internet portals from Russia were used less widely than Estonia-based web portals in Russian. In general, the media repertoire of people who did not speak Estonian consisted mainly of Estonian Russian-language media and television from the Russian Federation (Table 3). Tose with an active command of Estonian also followed international media channels more often than the group who could not speak Estonian. Tus, the media usage practices of those fuent in Estonian were mostly multilingual—not bilingual. In addition, those who spoke Estonian used social media more often. In general, Russian-speakers fuent in Estonian had more diverse media consumption patterns, both linguistically and in terms of the country of origin of the content.

5 Multilingual Media Practices and Social Involvement

Previous research has shown that ethnic segregation strategies may be more fnancially rewarding than assimilative strategies at times when the labour market is being restructured (Leppik and Vihalemm 2015). In Estonia, restructuring the labour market coincided with establishing the national language policy: during the 1990s many jobs in the industrial sector and agriculture disappeared, and the number of jobs that required Estonian-language skills—in sectors such as trade, services and banking—increased. Highly educated Russian-speakers with the relevant professional skills had to compete with Estonian-speakers, 252 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik but experienced more difculties in fnding work than fellow Russian- speakers who continued to work in employment sectors with lower language requirements or who had obtained jobs in linguistic enclaves (Leppik and Vihalemm 2015). Tus, it is crucial to explore how the involvement of Russian-speakers in political, economic, and cultural spheres is related to their language profciency and their media and information consumption practices. To this end we further analysed data from the ‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014 survey. We divided the sample (n 475) into four groups according to their self-reported = patterns of following Estonian-language media and profciency in Estonian: (1) people who spoke Estonian and followed Estonian media (15%); (2) people who did not follow Estonian-language media despite speaking the language well (17%); (3) people who followed Estonian- language media without speaking Estonian well (14%); and (4) people who did not speak Estonian well and did not follow Estonian-language media (54%). To determine how Estonian-language profciency and Estonian- language media usage correlated with social involvement, comparative regression analysis was used across the index variables aggregated. Regression analysis makes it possible to reveal correlations between two variables while controlling the mediation efect of a third variable. In order to measure diferent dimensions of social involvement, fve different aggregated variables were created. For example, the index titled ‘Participation in NGOs’ consisted of four variables: (1) Do you trust NGOs? (2) Are you a member of one or more NGOs? (3) Have you been elected to a representative body? and (4) Do you participate in volunteer work? Te index summarized the answers to all these questions and, according to the scores, we were able to diferentiate weak or missing, moderate and strong index values. Te same methodology was used to create the other indexes. ‘Ethnocultural identity’ was a combination of answers to the questions: (1) Are you a member of an ethnocultural association? (2) Do you celebrate ethnonational or folk holidays, or other days of similar importance? (3) Are you religious? and (4) Do you self-identify with an ethnic group (‘I feel I belong to …’)? Te index titled ‘Economic involvement’ was a combination of answers Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 253 to the questions: (1) Are you an entrepreneur (owner, member of the board or shareholder)? (2) Do you participate in business projects? (3) Have you participated in training or courses? (4) Have you participated in EU-funded projects? (5) Do you own real estate? and (6) Do you have sufcient money for various purposes? Te index entitled ‘Trust in institutions’ consisted of the questions: How much do you trust (1) the State? (2) Parliament? (3) the President? (4) the Government? (5) the mass media? (6) religious groups? (7) the Courts? (8) the Police? (9) the educational system? (10) banks? and (11) the health care system? Te index entitled ‘Political involvement as a citizen’ related to: (1) Estonian citizenship; (2) participation in elections; and (3) the feeling of solidarity with other citizens. Multinomial regression analysis was used to assess the infuence of age, citizenship, knowledge of the Estonian language and education on social involvement. ‘Strong involvement’ of the index variable was used as the dependent variable and compared to the reference variable ‘weak involvement’. Te results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. Te values represent odds ratios (exp β ), which show the likelihood of belonging to a certain category. If the number is higher than 1.0 the chances of belonging to a certain category are greater than among the reference group (strong involvement). If the number is lower than 1.0 the chances of belonging to a certain category are lower than the reference group (weak involvement). Asterisks show the statistical signifcance of the regression. For example, when assessing participation in NGOs relative to age the odds ratio in the case of 45–64-year-olds is 1.7, which means the likelihood of participation in NGOs among this age group was 1.7 times higher than those aged 65+. Te likelihood of participation in NGOs was 0.6 times lower for people who received secondary education compared to the reference group with higher education. Both results were statistically signifcant. Te data show that age is connected with social involvement in many dimensions. All age groups are more involved in the economy than the oldest group (65+). 15–24-year-olds had a lower level of ethnolinguistic self-identity than 65+-year-olds. Te middle-aged group, 45–64-year- olds, had less trust in institutions, but participated more in NGOs, 254 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik ≤ 0.05) was 0.1*** Political involve - ment as a citizen 0.4*** 0.1*** 1.7* 0.2*** ≤ 0.01; * p Ethnocultural identity 0.3*** ≤ 0.001; ** p 0.4*** Economic involve - ment 0.5*** 0.4*** 0.3*** 13.6*** 6.5*** 9.7*** 0.05) occurring between the relevant variables ≥ 0.5*** Trust in Trust institutions 0.5** 0.6* 0.5** 0.6* Participation in NGOs 0.6*** 1.7** Social involvement across groups of Russian-speaking Estonian residents by Estonian-language skills and but understands the language gory: speaks Estonian and follows Estonian- language media) media-following habits speaking the language well Does not follow Estonian-language media, Media consumption habits (reference cate - No Estonian-language skills or Estonian Follows Estonian-language media despite not Secondary education Education (reference category: higher) Primary education 25–44-year-olds 45–64-year-olds Age group (reference category: 65 and older) 15–24-year-olds ‘Me. The World. The Media’ 2014 survey Source ‘Me. The World. used; empty cells represent no statistically signifcant correlation ( p Estonian-language media consumption habits. Multinomial regression analysis (*** p 4 Table Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 255 politics and economics than those aged 65+. Tis result indicates that the middle-aged group, who had to adapt to post-Soviet transformations, trusts the institutional order less than the older and younger generations. Table 3 also shows that education played an important role in predicting political and economic involvement. People who received higher education were more likely to be socially involved than those who received secondary or primary education. Similarly, personal multilingualism in terms of media consumption was connected with stronger involvement in Estonian society.5 Regression analysis revealed that compared to the reference group—Russian-speakers who knew Estonian and followed Estonian-language media (i.e., had multilingual media practices)—other people were two to ten times less likely to participate in NGOs, to trust institutions or to be politically or economically involved. Ethnolinguistic identity did not signifcantly correlate with media consumption habits. Strong multilingualism in terms of media consumption was an infuential factor in increasing the likelihood of social involvement. Te groups with modest abilities to speak or follow Estonian-language media content did not show higher involvement politically or economically than the Russian monolingual group (no Estonian language skills or Estonian media-following habits). An interpretation may be that these people lack the assistance that can be obtained from Estonian-language mass media to foster participation in society. Tey may also lack ‘tacit’ knowledge to interpret Estonian- language media content because of their lower embeddedness in Estonian societal structures. Tus, limited knowledge of the Estonian language does not foster multilingual media use and, vice versa, the following of multilingual media sources does not support further language learning. Te further development of language skills via media use seems to occur only when good language knowledge has already been achieved.

5Te disproportionality of the data should be noted: the survey only measured civic and economic involvement in Estonian society—not in the relevant social structures in Russia or elsewhere. 256 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

6 Interpretation of Multilingual and Ideologically Conficting Media Content

As mentioned above, the Estonian Russian-speaking audience generally makes sense of the diverse media available to them and at times of extraordinary events they may also use Estonian-language media channels to fully avail themselves of the facts. However, it is complicated to compare facts coming from diferent sources and decide about their correctness—this requires ‘tacit’ knowledge of the topic as well about the institutions who produce the information. Tus, the question arises as to how people who use multifarious and multilingual media sources manage to draw conclusions about the issues covered by diferent media channels. Tis question will be explored later in this section on media coverage of events connected with the political confict in Ukraine. Empirical evidence comes from qualitative and quantitative research. Te source of the quantitative data was the Topical Events and Diferent Information Sources survey commissioned by the Open Estonian Fund and carried out by Saar Poll in August 2014 shortly after a Malaysian aeroplane was shot down over Eastern Ukraine with the death of all 298 people on board. Tis provided a suitable situational background against which to test the interpretation of contradictory information delivered by media of diferent geopolitical origins. Te participants in this survey were asked about recent events reported in the media and the channels from which they got this information. Tose who mentioned the aeroplane incident were also asked who, in their opinion, was responsible for shooting down the plane. Based on their answers, we sorted Russian-speaking respondents (n 451) across two catego- = ries. First, we diferentiated respondents who identifed responsible actor(s), regardless of whom, from those who did not identify an actor. Second, we diferentiated those who used only one or two information channels to follow news of the event from those who used three information channels and from those who used four or more diferent information channels. Te diferent types of news channels considered Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 257 were Estonian language, local Russian language, Russian, Western and Ukrainian. Four groups were formed by the overlap of these two categories: (1) people who used multiple (e.g., Russian, Estonian, Western and Ukrainian) and multilingual (e.g., Russian, Estonian, English and German) information sources and who identifed responsible actors shortly after the plane was shot down; (2) those who had not formed an opinion about who was responsible for the plane being shot down because or despite the fact that they obtained information from geographically and linguistically diferent sources; (3) those who used relatively few information sources and who identifed responsible actors for the plane being shot down; and (4) those who used few information sources and who had not (yet) formed an opinion about who shot the plane down. To understand how language knowledge corresponded to media use and reception, we turned once again to regression analysis (Table 5).

Table 5 Correlations between media-following patterns, age and language skills. Multinomial regression analysis (***p 0.001; **p 0.01; *p 0.05) ≤ ≤ ≤ was used; empty cells indicate no statistically signifcant correlation (p 0.05) ≥ between the relevant variables Multiple chan- Multiple chan- Few chan- Few channels, certain nels, uncertain nels, certain nels, uncer- opinion opinion opinion tain opinion Knowledge of Estonian (ref: does not speak Estonian) Good command of 2.5*** 0.4*** Estonian Partial command 2.1*** 0.5*** of Estonian Age (ref: 65+) 15–24 2.7** 25–44 0.5** 1.8* 45–64

Source Current Affairs and Different Information Channels, a survey by the Open Estonia Foundation and Saar Poll, 2014 258 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

People with some knowledge of Estonian were more likely to belong to groups who used multiple information channels and less likely to belong to the group who used few information channels and had an opinion as to who shot down the plane. Te group who used few information channels and who had quickly formed an opinion about the incident were characterized by being older (15–44 year olds were half as likely to belong to this group). Tose aged 45–65 years mostly followed local Russian-language media and Russian television, which seemed to lead to people forming opinions quickly. People who used multifarious information sources were distinct in having better knowledge of the Estonian language. Tose who had a limited knowledge of Estonian were twice as likely to have formed an opinion about the incident. People who spoke Estonian well were twice as likely to belong to the group who had not formed an opinion about the incident. Tus, it appears that being able to speak Estonian well was connected with greater uncertainty (i.e., a slower, more complicated decision-making process than those whose language knowledge was more limited). In this context the qualitative study ofers some explanation for the media use and reception strategies of Estonian Russian-speakers. Five focus group discussions with members of the Russian-speaking community were carried out between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015. Tis was the time when the Russian–Ukrainian crisis featured prominently in the agenda of national, Russian, Ukrainian and Western news media. Te ways in which Russian-speakers perceived news media institutions and their messages, and how they positioned themselves as media users, were the focus of a study (Vihalemm et al., forthcoming). Te qualitative typology was constructed separately; data analysis was performed to determine whether there were signifcant connections between the quantitative and qualitative data. Te strategy of using multiple geopolitical and linguistic information channels— mainly Russian television broadcasts, but also local Russian-language newspapers, Internet portals, radio and some Estonian-language media outlets—appeared to be connected to a general understanding of news media as partisan journalism, as actors in a propaganda war that serve the interests of their owners/respective governments. Tis may end up Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 259 leaving people in a confused, inbetween state as represented by the following quotation from one of the focus groups:

… it is not known what’s really going on [in Ukraine]; it is not clear what is truth and what a lie. Tere is not much to talk about, the topic is too controversial … everyone will defend his point of view, and we, ordinary readers, who are not in the Donbass, we cannot check if Russian troops are there … If you replace Russia with the West, and the West with Russia, in fact, nothing will change … I’m not pro-Russian or pro-West- ern, it seems to me that … it is all a game. (Alexei, 25, Tallinn)

Tis quotation implicitly expresses unfulflled ideals about the media as a detached, unbiased mediator, a watchdog of those in power. Tis perception leads to a somewhat passive and helpless self-positioning of the media consumer quoted. Scepticism towards the media went beyond the specifc Russia–Ukraine confict to overall ideas about the way media operate and the capacity of ordinary people to decode potentially manipulative texts. People who considered the particularistic nature of the whole media system as ‘normal’ wished to maintain self-esteem by seeking information from diferent media institutions. Tey expressed hope of getting an adequate picture by combining—in their view—the ideologically orchestrated representations of reality. For example, 67-year-old Tatyana from Tallinn, who spoke little Estonian, used Russian, local Russian- language, and Ukrainian news sources, explaining her strategy as follows:

When I’m at work, often I listen to the radio or Radio 4 [a local Russian- language public broadcast channel]. I do follow NTV [a Russian state-controlled television channel] … there are very good talk shows ‘People’s Voice’ or ‘Special Correspondent’ … a very wide spectrum of opinions, opposing views, people arguing with each other. Sometimes I want to listen to Ukrainian news from ‘Ukraine 24’ … how they represent all of this, because I have relatives and friends in Ukraine. I am interested in how they respond to these events, how their media covers them … what kind of propaganda … 260 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

For Tatyana the use of multiple information sources (Russian TV channels, Estonian Russian-language broadcasting, Ukrainian media and personal contacts in Ukraine) is rationalized by the wish to gain ‘authentic’ knowledge of the events and to experience the whole ‘spectrum’ of opinions in order to participate mentally in the process of argumentation. Te search for diversity based on the general view that media institutions subject their audiences to propaganda can quiet civic criticism and foster a hedonistic–consumerist admiration of the (manufactured) plurality of opinions represented by certain journalistic formats. Tis can be seen in the following quotation from a man who consumed multilingual and geographically heterogeneous media:

I read the Russian news. I have many friends and I understand a little bit inside the country … on the one hand, it is not free to write about many things. For example, certain types of business …. Tere are certain topics, no one writes about it, no newspaper, no Internet edition …. But on the other hand, I like how the Russian media presents information, they always give the facts, which show the other side of the situation and opinions. (Nikolai, 45, Tallinn)

Te evidence collected during focus group discussions provides hints at how media consumers can remain rational when they hold the general view that the media are partisan. Tis interacts with personal multilingualism. When someone’s language knowledge is limited, it is understandable for him/her to seek L2 or foreign language media to get at the facts. One way to do this is to follow alternative ‘authentic’ media outlets, but this does not happen often. L2/foreign-language media outlets are assumed to carry propaganda and partisan discourse that needs to be ‘decoded’ in order to be a smart media consumer, but people whose language knowledge is limited fear that their linguistic skills do not enable them to make the necessary ‘quality check’. People with a good command of Estonian connected their interpretation strategies with their language skills by comparing the style of representation of similar issues in Russian and Estonian. Comparing diferent sources led to stylistic Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 261 discomfture and estrangement, which was tiring. Tis was one reason why some people with a good command of Estonian reported not following Estonian-language media or only following it infrequently. As Table 3 has shown, limited linguistic competence goes hand in hand with limited civic and economic involvement. People with poor L2 knowledge likely lack the necessary ‘reference networks’ to check the quality of mass-media information. In a crisis situation, members of the Estonian Russian-language audience preferred to use networking strategies to understand the media’s message (Vihalemm et al. 2012). Tose whose knowledge of the Estonian language was limited had less frequent personal contact with Estonian-speakers or foreign language-speakers, in contrast to Russian-speakers whose command of Estonian was good (indicator about the connection between the two variables, Cramer’s V is 0:30 at the level p 000 (strong statistical signifcance). Raw data = source Integration Monitoring 2011, number of respondents 802). When diferent media outlets gave contradictory information about the Ukraine crisis, respondents reported discussing the events with acquaintances in Ukraine, Estonia and elsewhere. More diverse personal networks may have made them more confused about the events or caused them to take situational positions depending on a discussion with a family member/friend. For example, a man from Kohtla-Järve expressed his opinion about a pro-Russia article which had passionately been defended by one participant of the discussion:

I may agree with [the other participant’s pro-Russia statement about the article], because I do not have my own [opinion]… I am speaking simply as a man who has read this article. I am a mechanic, I’m not a politician. Perhaps he’s right! With regard to Ukraine, I watch PBK [a pan-Baltic channel owned by a Russian state company] from time to time …. I understand Ukrainian and follow ‘Kiev 24’ … and ‘Youtube’. To compare these three sources, there are three diferent pictures. ‘PBK’ speaks about peace-making, humanitarian aid … everything is OK. Kiev tells that there is diversion after diversion, that the militias are destroy- ing everything, and on Youtube guys from Donetsk are neither here nor there. Tey have to survive somehow. Tereby I am very disappointed with the mass media. (Oleg, 31, Kohtla-Järve) 262 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

Being aware of diferent agents and the complex system of diferent interests is well refected in stressing the position that ‘I am speaking simply as a man who has read this article’; that is, the informant has encountered the media product, but has no tacit knowledge (‘I am not a politician’). Te respondent stresses the shallow, negotiable character of his agreement: ‘I agree with his opinion, because I do not have my own’. Te diverse personal networks and media menus may also explain the results of the survey which indicated that Russian-speakers with a very good command of Estonian who followed diferent sources (Estonian- language, Russian and international) tended not to have formed an opinion about the incident—they more frequently encountered opposing views than people with limited L2 knowledge, who also had more ethnolinguistically homogeneous personal networks. Whether people have enough time and energy resources to do this on a daily basis is crucial. In our qualitative study, people admitted that they were tired of news about the war and tried to avoid the topic in the media.

7 Discussion

Media content today is personally mediated and more than ever dis- persed in time and space. New technologies have brought media ‘home’, which makes it possible to keep an eye on diferent sources anywhere and anytime. Te studies reported in this chapter examined the phenomenon of media-related transnationalism as a legacy of the post-Soviet transition culture among the Estonian Russian-speaking population. Transnationalism was approached in the study as a mediated social condition, a constant individual confguration of actions within a normalizing framework of two (or more) political, economic and cultural systems. Specifcally, we investigated how language skills and personal multilingual media practices were related and discussed how they may contribute to social involvement in the host society as well as how multilingual media practices perform in the context of a political crisis (between Russia and the USA/EU) when linguistic borders closely coincide with ideological borders. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 263

Te census and survey data revealed that, despite their rather modest active Estonian-language skills, a considerable number of the Estonian Russian-speaking population follow Estonian-language media using their passive language skills, supported by the multimodality of modern media (i.e., copious written, visual and audiovisual information). Every second member of the Russian-speaking audience of Estonian-language content distributed over the Estonian media channels had passive and/ or limited Estonian-language knowledge (according to their own evaluation). Interpretation of media content is difcult in the case of limited language knowledge or personal contacts with acquaintances who may help contextualize and interpret the information. Under conditions of political confict between their current state of residence and the homeland of their ancestors, including conficting discourses by media, it may create discomfort, confusion or even civic disintegration by following geopolitically and linguistically heterogeneous media channels. Although the Estonian Russian-speaking audience generally say they are able to follow multilingual media, their everyday habit is to follow Russian-language media and follow media in languages other than Russian infrequently and irregularly. Our empirical analysis revealed that personal multilingualism and transnational media practices supported the social integration of Russophone minority members, but also increased their criticism of journalistic and political discourses and dis- trust in media and political institutions. In our study, we found a tendency similar to what other authors (Faist 2007; Golbert 2001; Aksoy and Robins 2002) had stressed earlier: an emancipatory and refexive relationship with the surrounding social structures and the media content they produce. However, we also found, as other authors (Panagakos and Horst 2006; Vathi 2013) did, that this hybridity and refexivity also became tiresome and resulted in a certain social alienation. It requires many personal linguistic resources and social capital to strive towards the ideal of an autonomous media user who is able to manage diferent sources, to compare and evaluate the quality of information and decode messages both linguistically and discursively. Te feeling of lim- its in being able to interpret resources was amplifed by a general understanding of the mass media as particularistic. When seeking autonomy and dignity as media consumers while at the same time perceiving 264 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik journalists as frequently partisan, people may experience disappoint- ment as citizens. People who consider media partisanship as ‘normal’ are willing to search for diverse news sources and use multilingual media channels in order to get an overview of a situation. Te people who believe that journalism should be a neutral mediator of the news are more upset in times of crisis in fnding the news to be manipulative and may limit or quit their news-following habits. Even if the media content from diferent sources is easily accessible and personal multilingualism enables someone to follow multilingual media, these people are not motivated to develop multilingual media-following practices. Tus, their civic involvement in society at a time of political conficts may weaken too. Te complex interactions between linguistic skills, personal networks and media repertoires certainly deserve further scholarly attention in other social contexts.

Acknowledgements Tis work was supported by personal research funding PUT1624 from the Estonian Research Council. Te ‘Me. Te World. Te Media’ 2014 survey, which is cited in the chapter was supported via Institutional Research Grant (20–38) from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. Our gratitude goes to the Open Estonia Foundation for permission to use data from the Topical Events and Diferent Information Channels survey.

References

Aksoy, A., & Robins, K. (2002). Banal transnationalism: Te diference that television makes. Oxford: University of Oxford, Transnational Communities Programme. Andersson, R. (2011). Exploring social and geographical trajectories of Latin Americans in Sweden. International Migration, 53, 176–203. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00679.x. Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation- states. London and New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis. Boccagni, P. (2012). Rethinking transnational studies: Transnational ties and the transnationalism of everyday life. European Journal of Social Teory, 15(1), 117–132. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 265

Boccagni, P. (2013). ‘Whom should we help frst?’ Transnational helping practices in Ecuadorian migration. International Migration, 51(2), 191–208. Chiswick, B., & Miller, P. (2002). Immigrant earnings: Language skills, linguistic concentrations and the business cycle. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 31–57. Duf, P. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 57–80. Faist, T. (2007). Transnationalisation and development(s). Towards a North– South perspective. (COMCAD Arbeitspapiere Working Paper 16). Bielefeld: COMCAD—Center on Migration, Citizenship and Development. Golbert, R. (2001). Transnational orientations from home: Constructions of Israel and transnational space among Ukrainian Jewish youth. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 27(4), 713–731. Glick Schiller, N., & Salazar, N. (2013). Regimes of mobility across the globe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(2), 183–200. Glick Schiller, N., Linda, B., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1995). From immigrant to transmigrant: Teorizing transnational migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1), 48–63. Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramoniene, M., & Rannut, M. (2009). Language politics and practices in the Baltic States. Tallinn University Press. Horner, K. (2011). Media representations of multilingual Luxembourg: Constructing language as resource, problem, right and duty. Journal of Language and Politics, 10(4), 491–510. Integration Monitoring. (2011). Compiled by AS Emor, Praxis Center for Policy Studies, Te University of Tartu. Contracting entity Ministry of Culture. A short version (in English) is available at: https://www.kul.ee/.../ integratsiooni_monitooring_2011_eng_lyhiversioon.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2018. Juzefovičs, J. (2014). Defning the nation, defning public television: Discourses of publics on public service television in post-communist Latvia. PhD thesis, University of Westminster, London. Leppik, M., & Vihalemm, T. (2015). Te paradox of national language acquisition: Russian-speakers’ labour market positions in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 46(4), 471–496. Leppik, M., & Vihalemm, T. (2017). Venekeelse elanikkonna hargmaine meediakasutus [Transnational media use of Russian-speaking population]. In P. Vihalemm, M. Lauristin, T. Vihalemm, & V. Kalmus (Eds.), Eesti 266 T. Vihalemm and M. Leppik

ühiskond kiirenevas ajas: Eesti elaviku muutumine 2002–2014 uuringu Mina. Maailm. Meedia tulemuste põhjal [Estonian society in an accelerating time. Te change of the lifeworld 2002–2014 on the basis of the survey ‘Me. Te World. Te Media’] (pp. 591–619). Tartu: Tartu University Press. Levitt, P. (2011). A transnational gaze. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(1), 9–44. Panagakos, A. N., & Horst, H. A. (2006). Return to Cyberia: Technology and the social worlds of transnational migrants. Global Networks, 6(2), 109–124. Population and Housing Census of Estonia. (2000). Data tables published by Statistics Estonia. https://www.stat.ee/59880. Population and Housing Census of Estonia. (2011). Data tables published by Statistics Estonia. https://www.stat.ee/phc2011. Roth, W., Seidel, M.-D., Ma, D., & Lo, E. (2012). In and out of the ethnic economy: A longitudinal analysis of ethnic networks and pathways to economic success across immigrant categories. International Migration Review, 46(2), 310–361. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. Smith, M., & Guarnizo, L. (Eds.). (1997). Transnationalism from below. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Statistics Estonia. (2017). Kui palju räägitakse Eestis eesti keelt? [How much Estonian is spoken?]. Press release of Statistics Estonia. https://statistikaamet.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/kui-palju-raagitakse-eestis-eesti-keelt. Accessed 10 April 2017. Sztompka, P. (2000). Cultural trauma: Te other face of social change. European Journal of Social Teory, 3(4), 449–466. Sztompka, P. (2004). Te trauma of social change: A case of postcommu- nist societies. In J. C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N. J. Smelser, & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Cultural trauma and collective identity (pp. 155–195). Berkeley: University of California Press. Vathi, Z. (2013). Transnational orientation, cosmopolitanism and integration among Albanian-origin teenagers in Tuscany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6), 903–919. Vertovec, S. (2004). Migrant transnationalism and modes of transformation. International Migration Review, 38(3), 970–1001. Vihalemm, T. (2002). Identity formation in the open media space. In M. Lauristin & M. Heidmets (Eds.), Te challenge of Russian minority (pp. 279–294). Tartu: Tartu University Press. Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices … 267

Vihalemm, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2013a). Dilemmas of Estonian nation building in the open media market. Sociolinguistica. Internationales Jahrbuch für Europäische Soziolinguistik, 27(1), 69–86. Vihalemm, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2013b). Language policies and practices across the Baltic: Processes, challenges and prospects. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–28. Vihalemm, T., & Kaplan, C. (2017). Russian ethnic identity: Subjective meanings from Estonia, Russia and Kazakhstan. In A. Kannike, M. Tasa, & E.-H. Västrik (Eds.), Body, personhood and privacy: Perspectives on cultural other and human experience (Approaches to culture theory 7) (pp. 179–212). Tartu: Tartu University Press. Vihalemm, T., & Masso, A. (2003). Identity dynamics of Russian-speakers in Estonia in the transition period. Journal of Baltic Studies, 34(1), 92–116. Vihalemm, T., Juzefovics, J., & Leppik, M. (forthcoming). Media-related strategies among Estonian and Latvian Russian-speaking audience during the Ukrainian confict [Special issue]. Europe-Asia Studies. Vihalemm, T., Kiisel, M., & Harro-Loit, H. (2012). Citizens’ response patterns to warning messages. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20(1), 13–25. How Do Views of Languages Differ Between Majority and Minority? Language Regards Among Students with Latvian, Estonian and Russian as L1

Heiko F. Marten

1 Introduction

Tis chapter investigates the regards of important languages among majority and minority groups in Latvia and Estonia. Te chapter is based on a survey mostly conducted among high school and university students. After a short overview of the survey’s background and the theoretical framework, the chapter focuses on the regards of Estonian and Latvian, of Russian as L1 of the most sizeable ethnic and linguistic minority, of other languages of international relevance (English, German, French) and of languages of regions neighbouring the Baltic states. Factors presented include the relevance of diferent languages for leisure activities, in media consumption, at the workplace, their perceived global importance and the emotional afliation to languages.

H. F. Marten (*) DAAD Information Centre Riga, Riga, Latvia e-mail: [email protected] H. F. Marten Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Rēzekne, Latvia

In addition, the chapter investigates opinions about which languages should be ofered in education. Te frst major aim of the chapter is to understand general language regards among the young generation in Estonia and Latvia. A second focus of the chapter concerns the question of how members of the major linguistic minority in the Baltic states—L1-speakers of Russian— difer in their regards from L1-speakers of the respective majority languages (i.e., Estonian and Latvian; henceforth L1-RUS, L1-EST and L1-LV). In addition, a comparison will be made between Estonia and Latvia regarding the importance assigned to the state languages as well as to Russian and major international languages. Te chapter’s underlying questions are thus: How important is language learning for young people in Latvia and Estonia? What are the cognitive perceptions of and emotional links to the state languages, to Russian and major foreign languages among the majority and minority populations? Which functions of the various languages are considered the most useful by the majority and minority populations? And what implications may these regards have for the societal roles of languages in Estonia and Latvia, for languages in the educational system and for the acculturation of L1-RUS towards the state languages, but also for acceptance of L1-EST and L1-LV of Russian?

2 Background of the Survey and Theoretical Foundations

2.1 Investigating Regards and Language-Learning Motivation in the Baltic States

Individual multilingualism in the Baltic states is among the highest in the EU—most people have considerable knowledge of at least one language other than their mother tongue, and the number of people who can speak more than two languages is high.1 For the older generation,

1According to 2011 EU data, only 2.7% of Lithuanians aged 25–64 claimed they could not speak any foreign language; this compares to 5.1% of Latvians and 14.5% of Estonians, the EU average being 34.3%. Te ability to speak two or more foreign languages was claimed by 56.6% of Lithuanians, 59.2% of Latvians and 61.4% of Estonians (EU average 29.9%; see Eurostat. Statistics Explained). How Do Views of Languages Differ … 271 this is grounded in the role played by Russian as the dominant language of the Soviet Union; among younger people, multilingualism is based on the de facto multilingual character of Baltic societies and on the needs of members of small nation-states to accommodate internationally to more widespread languages. Contemporary educational policies focus on English; for members of the linguistic or ethnic minorities for whom the state language is not the L1, the educational systems also try to ensure sufcient knowledge in the respective state language. Te second most widespread language in education is Russian (both in schools with Russian as the main language of instruction and as the second foreign language in schools which operate in the state languages; the latter schools are occasionally also chosen by children who speak Russian as one of their home languages). German and French play certain, but much smaller roles, whereas all other languages are taught only as exceptions.2 Te survey on which this chapter is based has to be seen in the light of these patterns of multilingualism. It was conducted between 2010 and 2014 by lecturers of German at six universities in the Baltic states (Tallinn, Tartu, Riga, Daugavpils, Kaunas and Vilnius). It focused on the role of German in contemporary Baltic societies, but the data also provide signifcant information on other languages. Te participants were chosen according to the ‘purposeful sampling’ method (see Palviainen and Huhta 2015: 198); in this case the selection focused on high school and university students of all disciplines at diferent educational institutions in order to understand the views of the younger generation. As such, the data are not representative of the entire population; yet, they provide valuable insight into those regards that contribute to shaping future language practices in the Baltic states. In this sense the results presented are to be understood as tendencies limited by the scope of the survey.

2In Estonia, 121,142 school pupils in 2017/2018 were enrolled in English classes, 51,768 in Russian, 11,923 in German, 4012 in French, 3516 in other languages and 30,673 in classes of Estonian as second language (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium). In Latvia, 91.2% of school pupils in 2014/2015 learnt English, 32.3% Russian, 10.9% German, 2.2% French and 1.1% other languages (Kibbermann and Kļava 2017: 86). 272 H. F. Marten

In each of the countries between about 750 and 1000 respondents participated; the survey was conducted in the national capitals, other major cities and smaller municipalities. For the main purposes of the survey (i.e., understanding motivations to learn German) the respondents were put into three groups according to their experience of studying German—current learners (Estonia 542; Latvia 323), previous learners who abandoned their eforts to learn German at some point (Estonia 291; Latvia 177) and respondents who had never learnt German (Estonia 176; Latvia 266). However, as far as this chapter is concerned, this diference is only of marginal importance; it will therefore only occasionally be addressed. Te questionnaires were designed to follow widespread language-learning motivation methodologies (e.g., Gardner and Lambert 1972; Gardner 1985; Dörnyei 1994, 2001, 2003, 2012). Questions were mostly asked as Likert-scale questions; they included general sections on language-learning motivation, questions relating to the regards of German and other languages as well as to experiences and expectations of language classes. Some questions included space for qualitative answers. After conducting pilot studies in all three countries the questions were adjusted to local needs. Te survey itself was conducted both online and on paper; the questionnaires were available in Estonian, Latvian, Latgalian, Lithuanian and Russian (see Breckle and Johanning-Radžienė 2013; Johanning-Radžienė and Breckle 2014 for a detailed description of the background and methodology of the survey, the German and Lithuanian versions of the questionnaire and the Lithuanian data of the survey which are not discussed in this chapter). Te data collection method involved spreading questionnaires freely among mostly high-school and university students; hence, the number of respondents with Latvian or Estonian as L1 was considerably higher than that of L1-speakers of Russian. For the purposes of this chapter, L1-speakers of the regional language of Latgalian in Eastern Latvia as well as respondents who claim both Latvian and Latgalian as L1s have been classifed as part of the group of Latvian L1-speakers (for more on Latgalian see chapter “Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization” by Lazdiņa in this book). Table 1 summarizes the self-assigned L1s of the respondents. How Do Views of Languages Differ … 273

Table 1 Self-assigned L1s of the respondents Estonia Latvia Estonian 818 – Latvian/Latgalian – 581 Russian 128 191 Estonian + Russian 26 – Latvian/Latgalian + Russian – 31 Others 15 7

2.2 Languages, Emotions and Societal Integration

Both emotional and rational views of languages are highly relevant to this chapter. Emotional aspects of language practices, choices and learning motivation have received considerable attention in recent years (see Pavlenko 2005, 2013). She argues in favour of an integrated approach to languages and emotions, the ways in which emotions infuence repertoires and learning experiences and how these relate to diferent identities and experiences of self. At the same time, emotions are rooted in socialization and contribute to shaping realities by the extent to which they infuence linguistic practices. Dewaele (2016) shows how emotions change in relation to the language a person uses. In this sense, there is a highly relevant relation between a language and the emotional afliation assigned to it by a person. Moreover, those respondents who reported that emotions did not depend on which variety of their repertoires they use were very confdent in their emotional reactions to languages (Dewaele 2016; see also Hammer 2016). Often, strong emotions are assigned to both people’s L1 and other languages, and these frequently change over time. Emotions are related to perceptions, views, attitudes or stereotypes which people hold about certain language varieties and their speakers and thereby also have implications for societal integration of individuals with diferent linguistic repertoires. In the case of people who live in an environment dominated by a language other than their L1, this may imply that ‘processes of sociocultural and psychological integration begin to unfold, at which point the sense of self in the new context begins to be negotiated’ (Hammer 2016: 255). In this context, 274 H. F. Marten the concept of ‘emotional acculturation’ denotes the ‘process by which immigrants come to share the host culture’s most prevalent patterns of emotional experiences’ (de Leersnyder et al. 2013: 127). Tis statement may meaningfully be extended to any relationship between speakers of minority and majority languages (e.g., those L1-speakers of Russian who came to the Baltic states during Soviet times and their descendants); particularly in light of views which see acculturation not as a unidirectional, but as a bidirectional or ‘additive’ process in which both majority and minority infuence each other (see, e.g., Gibson 1995). De Leersnyder et al. (2013) thereby follow Schumann’s famous acculturation model in second-language acquisition (Schumann 1986) which stipulates that acculturation to a dominant culture and profciency in a (dominant) target language are highly interrelated, with both social and afective factors being of importance, including language-learning motivation and attitudes towards a language and the culture it represents. Similarly, the interactive acculturation model (Bourhis et al. 1997) postulates that positive relations between diferent groups in society are more likely to develop when majority and minority attitudes are similar, whereas highly difering emotions may result in intercultural and interethnic conficts. At the same time, the prestige of the language of a minority is an important status variable (Bourhis et al. 1997: 382); arguably, this also applies to national majority languages and cultures such as Estonian or Latvian in cases where the minority language is internationally far more sizeable and widespread, as in the case of Russian in the Baltic states. In the sense of the interactive acculturation model, it is therefore relevant to analyse and compare the emotions regarding languages of majority and minority populations because they may indicate emotional afliation to a state, to a society and may point to future developments in a shared political and cultural space.

2.3 Language Attitudes, Regards and Ideologies

In light of the role played by emotions in language practices, acculturation and societal integration, the concepts of language regards, language attitudes and language ideologies are at the core of this chapter. How Do Views of Languages Differ … 275

It is frequently mentioned that attitudes are a complex concept which involve afective and behavioural aspects; a broad defnition is Sarnof’s ‘disposition to react favourably or unfavourably to a class of objects’ (see Garrett 2007: 116). Giles and Rakić (2014: 20) argue that attitudes are ‘integral elements in how individuals make sense of and manage information about the situations in which they fnd themselves, as well as assist in constructing narratives, arguments, and explanations about the character and behavior of members of certain social categories’. A lot of research has been conducted on attitudes towards variation within one language (e.g., accents, dialects), but many of the common postulates may equally be applied to the evaluation of standard languages and their speakers in a multilingual society. Tis includes practices in specifc contexts as well as attitudes to the learning or teaching of languages and to educational and other language policies. Moreover, Giles and Rakić’s (2014: 17) summary stresses that ‘language attitudes can be a discursive ongoing event in social life’ (i.e., they are constantly negotiated and infuenced by individuals who use one or the other language variety in specifc situations). However, not least because of the complex nature of the term ‘language attitudes’, Preston (2010, 2011) coined the term ‘language regard’. A ‘language regard’ is understood by Preston as ‘a cover term for all approaches to the study of nonspecialist belief about and reaction to language use, structure, diversifcation, history, and status’ and ‘preferred here over “attitude” since some folk linguistic beliefs are not necessarily evaluative, and evaluation is taken to be a necessary component of attitude’ (Preston 2011: 10; see also chapter “Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization” by Lazdiņa in this book). Whereas attitudes are ‘rarely the product of rational considerations of facts, but rather they are evaluative and subjective responses’ (Palviainen and Huhta 2015: 193), a language regard (or, as seems to be more appropriate in many situations, ‘language regards’ in the plural) may or may not be evaluative, since it can also depend on epistemological information on a variety, certain variants, groups of speakers and their practices or other factors connected to a language. Yet, it is often not possible to draw clear boundaries between the emotional and evaluative sides of regarding varieties and neutral, strictly 276 H. F. Marten cognitive views. Tis chapter uses, in this understanding, ‘attitudes’ wherever the emotional and evaluative side is in focus and ‘regards’ for a broader perception which includes both emotional and cognitive or rational aspects. Closely related to attitudes and regards are ‘language ideologies’ (see Spolsky 2004); this term denotes common views shared by larger groups of society which are shaped by discourses. What these terms (attitudes, regards, ideologies) have in common is their denotation of aspects which refect a certain level of subjectivity (Kristiansen 2014). Tis subjectivity may be overt or covert, conscious or sub-conscious, but in any case it contextualizes the relationship between language, social structure and speech through subjective stances on which values to assign to which varieties and speakers. Preston (2013) explains in his folk linguistic approach how laypersons in this way create clear evaluative connections between languages and their speakers to whom they assign specifc characteristics. Giles and Edwards (2010: 38) summarize that ‘the most likely basis of attitudinal judgement’ is how ‘the variant evaluations found in the social laboratory and on the street refect, above all, listeners’ perceptions of the speakers of given varieties. Te variety itself is a trigger or stimulus that evokes attitudes (or prejudices, or stereotypes) about the community to which the speaker is thought to belong’ (emphasis in the original). Tis in turn afects people’s wishes to be seen as belonging to certain linguistic communities—or at least to consider them as points of orientation— and thereby supports desires to learn or not learn a certain language variety. In this way, regards, attitudes, stereotypes, ideologies and prestige infuence language choices and, in individual processes of language acquisition, the development of repertoires. In minority language contexts, positive attitudes towards the minority language among both majority and minority populations are considered to be one of the key elements of successful language maintenance because they lead to acknowledging the existence of a minority language and are elementary to allowing its regular use (even though positive attitudes are certainly not sufcient for maintenance if other factors are less supportive or if the majority considers a minority language to be beautiful only for folkloristic purposes instead of providing sufcient usage and acquisition opportunities; see Marten 2016: 71–72). Te regards of How Do Views of Languages Differ … 277 a minority towards the majority and its varieties indicate the minority’s loyalty towards mainstream society and its level of integration; in turn, the regards of the majority towards the minority and its varieties have a strong impact on the willingness to integrate the minority. In the context of small nation-states, such as Latvia and Estonia, it can be added that language regards also point to the role that major international languages play: an investigation into the regards of competing international languages serves not only as an indicator of preferences of one or another language, but also of competing societal models linked to these languages and international political orientation, particularly relating to integration into the West or an afliation towards Russia and the post-Soviet realm.

2.4 Language Regards and Language-Learning Motivation

As argued above, positive language regards infuence patterns of language acquisition. Te extensive research carried out on language-learning motivation since the 1960s assumes that there are close links between both emotional and rational perceptions of languages and language acquisition. Gardner’s classic notion of instrumental and integrative motivation was also at the core of the questionnaire on which this chapter is based. Even though Gardner’s model has been extensively discussed and extended (see, e.g., Dörnyei 1994; for a critique see also the comprehensive overview by Schmidt 2011), the dichotomy of instrumental vs. integrative is still at the core of many recent studies. Broadly speaking, instrumental motivation supports language acquisition because the learner sees practical value in the target language; integrative motivation is based on emotional afliation. Tese criteria are seen as a dynamic continuum with a number of sub-motivations which may change over time. In addition to the (non-)existence of instrumental and integrative motivations regarding the acquisition of specifc varieties, it can be an instrumental aim per se to become a multilingual individual, without always having the exact needs of a specifc language in mind. Tis may arguably be particularly salient in the Baltic states with 278 H. F. Marten their high levels of individual multilingualism among the population, where a solid command of the titular language, English and Russian is considered necessary for individual career advancement, particularly in private businesses. Within this theoretical framework, this chapter investigates connections between language regards, learning motivation, acculturation and, thereby, societal integration in Latvia and Estonia. Regards that refect instrumental motivations to either language learning, in general, or to the acquisition of specifc languages for, say, work purposes are seen as indicators of the wish to become successful members of future Baltic societies. Integrative motivations, on the other hand, indicate the desire to belong to certain groups of speakers or countries—particularly in this case regarding the emotional afliation to Estonia or Latvia, but also to Russia, the English-speaking globalized world or other countries. In this sense the data discussed in this chapter aim to contribute to understanding diferences between speakers with diferent frst languages in terms of linguistic integration and respect for each other. Tis comes at a time when research indicates that Russophones in the Baltic states mostly not only have an identity that is clearly distinct from the identity of persons with Estonian or Latvian as frst language, but also from Russian speakers in Russia (see also chapter “Multilingualism and Media-Related Practices of Russian-Speaking Estonians” by Vihalemm and Leppik in this book). Laizāne et al. (2015: 2) found that high- school students in Latvia at schools with a language of instruction other than Latvian overwhelmingly see themselves as ‘belonging to Latvia’ and as ‘Russian-speaking’ rather than ‘Russian’, but at the same time see Latvianness as a category acquired only by birth. Laizāne et al. (2015: 4) also indicate that language skills and learning are considered important, including profciency in Latvian. Moreover, it is highly relevant here how members of the younger generation with diferent L1s difer in their language regards towards Latvian, Russian and other languages. For Estonia, Ehala and Zabrodskaja (2014) stress that Russophones in Estonia are very heterogeneous in their attitudes and their orientations towards Estonia and Russia and in their practices of acculturation. How Do Views of Languages Differ … 279

3 Regards of Languages in Estonia and Latvia

In the following we will look both at the data that refect the emotional afliation towards diferent languages (i.e., attitudes in the evaluative sense) and at regards (i.e., views also based on epistemological processes, often relating to instrumental perceptions of languages).

3.1 General Regards of Languages

Te frst set of questions in the survey that is relevant to this chapter related to conscious, more epistemological views of languages and to reasons for language learning, in general. Question 13 of the survey asked the respondents to express their opinion of specifc statements on languages on a fve-item Likert-scale question ranging from 1 (totally agree) to 5 (don’t agree at all). Table 2 shows the means of the answers according to the self-assigned L1 of the speakers (Estonian respectively Latvian/Latgalian vs. Russian). Te number of respondents slightly varied between the questions, but approximately amounted to 780 for Estonian, 530 for Latvian, 120 for Russian L1-speakers in Estonia and 170 for L1-RUS in Latvia. Generally, the respondents answered most questions positively—all values between 1.00 and 2.99 indicate an average bending towards the ‘agree’ side, whereas values between 3.01 and 5.00 indicate more dis- agreement than agreement. Te statements displaying an instrumental approach to languages received particularly afrmative responses; that is, languages are mostly seen as (potentially) useful for travelling, for studying or work, for media consumption (with books being of less relevance than flms and the Internet) or as a means of communication with people with other language backgrounds. Philological interests, playing with languages or language use in society were considered less important. Accordingly, the respondents overwhelmingly denied that they were not interested in languages. In the following we will look at those answers where the means between L1-RUS in Estonia and L1-EST or L1-RUS in Latvia and 280 H. F. Marten

Table 2 Importance of languages for different purposes (means; 1 totally = agree; 5 do not agree at all) = EST EST LV LV EST RUS LV RUS I am generally interested in languages, because … 1.50 1.40 1.52 1.68 language skills are useful when travelling … I can talk to native speakers of a language and 1.73 1.74 1.67 1.83 get to know something about their culture … I have better opportunities on the labour 1.81 1.58 1.75 1.80 market … I can watch flms in their original versions 1.95 1.68 1.76 1.94 … I can talk to people whose mother tongue I 1.84 1.92 2.05 2.04 don’t speak (a language used as a lingua franca) … I can use the internet in a better way 2.01 1.98 1.96 2.22 … I can study in a better way 2.03 1.89 1.89 2.11 … I can read more books 2.16 2.14 2.28 2.35 … I am interested in languages as such or because 2.77 2.60 2.95 2.79 of philological reasons I enjoy playing with language(s) (puns or similar) 2.72 2.80 2.79 2.69 I often think about language use in society 2.89 2.68 2.67 2.51 I am not interested in languages 4.56 4.35 4.15 4.18

L1-LV difered by at least 0.20; these scores are highlighted in Table 2. In Estonia, L1-EST claim on average to think less often about language use in society than L1-RUS (2.89 vs. 2.68), even though on average they deny more strongly than L1-RUS that they are not interested in languages (4.56 vs. 4.35). Languages are more important for L1-RUS than for L1-EST on the labour market (1.58 vs. 1.81) and for watching flms (1.68 vs. 1.95). In Latvia, L1-LV claim that knowledge of languages is more important for studying (1.89 vs. 2.11) and using the Internet (1.96 vs. 2.22) than L1-RUS. What is remarkable is that in Latvia, L1-RUS display less instrumental motivation than L1-LV (i.e., the minority considers language skills on average to be less important for practical purposes than the majority), whereas in Estonia the opposite is the case with instrumental reasons for language learning being considered more important by L1-RUS than by L1-EST. Regardless of L1, however, respondents from Estonia and Latvia do not difer much, although respondents from Latvia claim to think slightly more about languages in society than respondents from Estonia, and at the same time claim to be less interested in languages, in general. Respondents How Do Views of Languages Differ … 281 from Latvia in total fnd languages less relevant to reading books, as a lingua franca and for philological reasons than respondents from Estonia.

3.2 Relevance of Specifc Languages to the Lives of Respondents

In the second set of questions which related to language regards the respondents were asked to assign points to the relevance of diferent languages in specifc aspects of their lives. Points were given on a scale from 0 (no relevance at all) to 5 (very high relevance). Since personal experience of learning German could infuence the scores (mainly of German but not just), data analysis was conducted according to the three major groups of the survey with regard to knowledge of German (current learners, former learners, respondents without experience). For the purposes of this chapter, only exemplary data will be presented; diferences between the groups of German learners were generally not very great and will only be mentioned here where they are of particular relevance.

Estonia

In Estonia, all groups consider English on average to be the most important language for their professional lives (Fig. 1), even eclipsing their respective L1s. Estonian is by far more important for L1-EST speakers than for L1-RUS, whereas the relation is reversed for Russian. Other languages of some relevance to the professional lives of the respondents are German, French, Finnish, Spanish and the Scandinavian languages. Tese languages are in total considered more important by L1-RUS than by L1-EST, but there are some exceptions such as Finnish (arguably because of the linguistic proximity to Estonian). Te importance of German—not surprisingly—correlates with being a (former) learner or not. Other languages including the Baltic neighbour languages are generally considered of little importance. 282 H. F. Marten

Which languages could be useful for my professional life? Estonia. Respondents who currently learn German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 83 70 70 52 4. 15 4. 4. 4. 84 4. 49 46 3. 3. 3. 71 32 16 2. 05 82 2. 75 70 2. 2. 40 38 1. 1. 1. 07 95 94 90 1. 1. 74 72 65 62 62 60 58 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. N H N N C H N N GS IA AN IA L NISH

AV L OLIS RABI AN RENC INNISH HINESE NGLISH USSIA PA ERMA ATVI P IN A F F STONIA C E L S R G E ND ITHU L CA EGIONA S R

Fig. 1 Usefulness of languages for professional life (Estonia)

Regarding the importance of languages for leisure activities (Fig. 2) the respondents on average named their L1s as most relevant. Estonian is by far more relevant for L1-RUS than Russian is for L1-EST. English is highly important, but less relevant than the L1s for all groups and in total notably less relevant for L1-RUS than for L1-EST. German is generally considered to be of medium relevance, but more important for L1-RUS than for L1-EST; all other languages only play a marginal role in leisure activities—including those languages which had at least average scores in the question on importance for work. Te next questions in the questionnaire investigated emotional and therefore highly evaluative aspects of language—attitudes towards the perceived beauty (Fig. 3), closeness to people’s heart (Fig. 4) and the perception of how difcult a language is (Fig. 5). Estonian, English, French and Spanish are generally considered beautiful. German, Russian, Finnish and Scandinavian languages receive medium scores. Other languages are considered less beautiful. Notably, L1-EST consider Estonian, Finnish and the genetically non-related Scandinavian languages to be more beautiful than L1-RUS do, whereas L1-RUS mostly claim the other languages are more beautiful. Estonian is How Do Views of Languages Differ … 283

Which languages are useful in my leisure time? Estonia. Respondents who never learnt German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 93 51 44 4. 11 4. 4. 4. 56 3. 57 38 2. 89 2. 75 36 1. 25 1. 13 00 90 90 1. 78 78 1. 63 63 61 1. 50 1. 38 0. 0. 32 0. 0. 22 22 21 16 14 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. N H N C H N N IA AN GS IA NISH L AV OLIS RABI AN RENC INNISH HINESE NGLISH USSIAN PA ERMA ATVI IN P A F F STONIA C E L S R G E ND ITHU L CA EGIONAL S R

Fig. 2 Usefulness of languages during leisure time (Estonia)

Which languages are / sound beautiful? Estonia. Respondents who currently learn German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 64 40 26 4. 09 08 01 4. 89 4. 68 4. 4. 4. 3. 34 26 26 3. 3. 3. 3. 35 35 17 10 2. 2. 87 73 2. 2. 61 50 45 43 41 1. 34 1. 23 15 1. 09 06 1. 1. 99 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. N H N N C H N N GS IA AN IA L NISH AV OLIS RABI AN RENC INNISH HINESE NGLISH USSIA PA ERMA ATVI IN P A F F STONIA C E L S R G E ND ITHU L CA EGIONAL S R

Fig. 3 Perceived beauty of languages (Estonia) 284 H. F. Marten

Which languages are close to my heart? Estonia. Respondents who previously learnt German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 92 70 4. 4. 93 72 47 3. 3. 11 11 3. 75 3. 3. 20 2. 05 99 98 93 76 71 2. 2. 1. 1. 1. 33 1. 1. 91 1. 70 67 64 60 55 54 50 41 39 0. 27 0. 0. 0. 0. 00 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. N H N C H N N GS IA AN IA L NISH AV OLIS RABI AN RENC INNISH HINESE NGLISH USSIAN PA ERMA ATVI IN P A F F STONIA C E L S R G E ND ITHU L CA EGIONAL S R

Fig. 4 Closeness of languages to respondents’ hearts (Estonia)

Which languages are difficult? Estonia. Respondents who currently learn German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 86 71 57 47 4. 23 18 4. 96 94 4. 4. 83 78 64 4. 4. 53 50 48 3. 33 3. 27 21 3. 16 3. 15 13 02 02 3. 96 92 3. 3. 3. 83 3. 3. 64 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 2. 2. 2. 02 2. 77 2. 1. N H N C H N N IA AN GS IA L NISH

AV OLIS RABI AN L RENC INNISH HINESE NGLISH USSIAN PA ERMA ATVI IN P A F F STONIA C E L S R G E ND ITHU L CA EGIONA S R

Fig. 5 Perceived diffculty of languages (Estonia) How Do Views of Languages Differ … 285 considered to be much more beautiful by L1-RUS than Russian by L1-EST. As far as German is concerned the experience of learning the language contributes considerably to whether it is perceived as beautiful. Results on the emotional closeness to most languages were similar to the question on beauty: L1-RUS generally feel a stronger emotional closeness to languages than do L1-EST, with the exception of Estonian, Finnish and Scandinavian languages. Russian scores much worse among L1-EST than Estonian among L1-RUS, pointing to the historical burden perceived by many Estonians assigned to Russian, whereas L1-RUS seem to have adapted better emotionally to Estonia in this respect. English generally receives high values, whereas German is once again constrained by the learning experience, which has a considerable impact on how the respondents view it. Regarding the perceived difculty of languages, there are considerable diferences which partly correlate with the genetic relationship to the L1s of the respondents: L1-RUS consider Russian, Polish and the Baltic languages Latvian and Lithuanian to be easier than L1-EST. As far as Estonian, Finnish, English and German are concerned the relation is reversed; French is generally considered to be very difcult. Major differences in perceptions of the difculty of English between L1-RUS and L1-EST are particularly remarkable, since this cannot be explained by genetic similarity. A possible explanation is that L1-EST in total bend more towards the English-speaking world in terms of media consumption, political afliation and attitudes in general (see below), whereas L1-RUS have lesser needs for English because of opportunities ofered by the Russian language. Two questions wanted to know how the relationships between countries, cultures (Fig. 6) and languages (Fig. 7) and their importance in the world were perceived. Tese were again fve-point Likert-scale questions ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). English not surprisingly scores highest in both questions, even though slightly lower among L1-Russian speakers than among L1-Estonian speakers. German and Russian-language cultures and countries score similarly and are considered more infuential among L1-Russian speakers than among 286 H. F. Marten

To which degree do the countries in which the following languages are spoken influence global affairs (Estonia) (means; 1=not at all; 5=very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 4.72 4.53 4.22 4.15 4.05 3.91 3.52 3.45 3.23 3.06 9 2.05 2.02 1.91 1. 1.86 1.85

Fig. 6 Perceived infuence of countries on global affairs (Estonia)

To which degree do the following languages culturally influence the world (Estonia)? (means; 1=not at all; 5=very much)

L1 EST L1 RUS 4.66 4.63 2 4.28 4. 3.86 3.78 3.78 3.72 3.55 3.49 2.15 2.05 1.98 1.97 1.95 1.94

Fig. 7 Perceived cultural infuence by languages (Estonia) How Do Views of Languages Differ … 287

Which languages could be useful for my professional life? Latvia. Respondents who never learnt German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.87 4.81 4.70 4.61 4.27 3.59 3.02 2.70 2.52 2.24 2.23 2.15 1.80 1.71 1.48 1.41 1.39 1.27 1.23 1.15 1.15 1.08 1.07 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.78 0.75 N GS L OLISH RABIC INNISH RENCH ERMAN ATVIAN NGLISH USSIAN PANISH HINESE P A F L F E S G R C ESTONIA ITHUANIAN L CANDINAVIAN EGIONAL S R

Fig. 8 Usefulness of languages for professional life (Latvia)

L1-Estonian speakers. French and Spanish follow some way behind. Tere are no considerable diferences between the scores for Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, with Estonia being considered slightly more infuential than Latvia and Lithuania, particularly among L1-EST.

Latvia

In Latvia, as in Estonia, English is considered the most important language for professional purposes (Fig. 8). Te perceptions of Latvian and Russian are reversed between L1-LV and L1-RUS. In contrast to the perception of Estonian in Estonia, however, Russian is in general considered to be of more importance than Latvian—L1-LV consider it to be more important to speak Russian than L1-RUS to speak Latvian. Tis points to diferent perceptions by L1-RUS of how important it is to adapt to the national language for practical reasons. As in Estonia, other languages are considered to be slightly more important by L1-RUS than by L1-LV. Regarding language use in leisure time (Fig. 9), there are similarly high scores for Latvian among L1-LV as for Russian among L1-RUS. 288 H. F. Marten

Which languages are useful in my leisure time? Latvia. Respondents who currently learn German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.86 4.78 4.32 4.00 3.57 3.52 3.11 3.04 1.38 0.99 0.90 0.87 0.84 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.23 N GS L OLISH RABIC INNISH RENCH ERMAN ATVIAN USSIAN PANISH HINESE NGLISH P A F L F E S G R C ESTONIA ITHUANIAN L CANDINAVIAN EGIONAL S R

Fig. 9 Usefulness of languages during leisure time (Latvia)

Te second most important language for both groups is English, with slightly higher scores among L1-LV than among L1-RUS, pointing—as in Estonia—to the lower need of L1-RUS to use languages other than their L1 for entertainment and hobbies. English is more important for leisure purposes than Latvian for L1-RUS and Russian for L1-LV, which both receive medium scores. German too is of medium importance, whereas all other languages only play a marginal role. Also when it comes to the beauty of languages (Fig. 10) the results from Latvia are generally similar to those from Estonia. All participants on average consider their L1s to be very beautiful. Tere is a dislike of Russian among L1-LV (although this is weaker than among L1-EST in Estonia), whereas Latvian receives moderately more positive scores by L1-RUS in Latvia than Estonian by L1-RUS in Estonia. English, French and Spanish are considered rather beautiful, whereas German is less so, the latter again depending on respondents’ experience with learning the language. All other languages are considered less beautiful—and in contrast with the case in Estonia—even neighbouring and genetically related languages, i.e. Lithuanian and Polish. How Do Views of Languages Differ … 289

Which languages are / sound beautiful? Latvia. Respondents who previously learnt German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.34 4.33 4.28 4.19 4.07 3.99 3.83 3.80 3.66 3.25 3.18 2.83 2.74 2.53 2.25 2.21 2.05 2.02 2.00 1.85 1.83 1.73 1.64 1.64 1.58 1.57 1.50 1.36 N GS L OLISH RABIC INNISH RENCH ERMAN ATVIAN NGLISH USSIAN HINESE PANISH P A F L F E S G R C ESTONIA ITHUANIAN L CANDINAVIAN EGIONAL S R

Fig. 10 Perceived beauty of languages (Latvia)

As is the case in Estonia, Latvian data on languages that are close to people’s heart (Fig. 11) are similar to the data for beauty. Remarkably, Russian receives higher values than Latvian both when comparing attitudes among L1-RUS towards Russian to the attitudes of L1-LV towards Latvian, and when comparing the attitudes of L1-LV towards Russian to the attitudes of L1-RUS towards Latvian. English scores similarly high as the L1s. German, Spanish, French and Scandinavian languages receive surprisingly high values when considering how little the population speaks these languages, whereas all other languages display low emotional afliation. When it comes to difculty, French, Chinese and Arabic top the list (Fig. 12). English, German, Spanish, Finnish, Estonian and even Russian are considered to be of medium difculty, whereas Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish are considered to be rather easy. Tis is interesting since even L1-RUS consider Latvian and Lithuanian to be easier than Russian. As is the case in Estonia, L1-RUS agree with those of their compatriots whose L1 is the state language that English-speaking countries and the English language have the greatest infuence in the world (Fig. 13). 290 H. F. Marten

Which languages are close to my heart? Latvia. Respondents who currently learn German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.72 4.69 4.62 4.45 4.19 4.11 3.54 3.33 3.24 3.05 2.96 2.58 2.03 2.01 1.82 1.66 1.54 1.52 1.32 1.30 1.27 1.23 1.06 1.04 0.97 0.88 0.81 0.78 N GS L OLISH L RABIC INNIS H RENCH ERMAN ATVIAN NGLISH USSIA N HINESE PANISH P A F L F E S G R C ESTONIA ITHUANIAN L CANDINAVIAN EGIONA S R

Fig. 11 Closeness of languages to respondents’ hearts (Latvia)

Which languages are difficult? Latvia. Respondents who currently learn German (means; 0 = not at all, 5 = very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.81 4.74 4.59 4.58 4.56 4.24 4.03 3.95 3.87 3.85 3.84 3.68 3.61 3.60 3.48 3.42 3.39 3.23 3.13 3.13 3.03 2.98 2.85 2.85 2.79 2.64 2.51 2.51 N GS L OLISH L RABIC INNIS H RENCH ERMAN ATVIAN USSIA N PANISH HINESE NGLISH P A F L F S E G R C ESTONIA ITHUANIAN L CANDINAVIAN EGIONA S R

Fig. 12 Perceived diffculty of languages (Latvia)

Russian culture and countries are considered more important than German, followed by French and Spanish. L1-RUS assign more importance to Russian than L1-LV, whereas all other cultures and states receive higher scores among L1-LV than among L1-RUS (Fig. 14). How Do Views of Languages Differ … 291

To which degree do the countries in which the following languages are spoken influence global affairs (Latvia)? (Means; 1=not at all; 5=very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.67 4.61 4.35 4.22 3.96 3.89 3.62 3.58 3.26 2.99 2.16 2.09 2.05 1.93 1.90 1.87

Fig. 13 Perceived infuence of countries on global affairs (Latvia)

To which degree do the following languages culturally influence the world (Latvia)? (means; 1=not at all; 5=very much)

L1 LV L1 RUS 4.55 4.49 4.36 4.09 4.07 4.05 3.92 3.76 3.54 3.27 2.43 2.35 2.33 2.17 2.10 2.10

Fig. 14 Perceived cultural infuence by languages (Latvia) 292 H. F. Marten

4 Languages in Education

Tis section analyses answers to questions explicitly asked about languages in education. Te frst question asked which languages should be learnt as foreign languages at school. Tree options were given for the order in which classes in the languages should be provided. Respondents could also opt for fewer than three foreign languages or mention more than one language as a second or third foreign language. As Table 3 indicates, respondents in both Latvia and Estonia overwhelmingly agree with common practices that English should be the frst foreign language. Tere are, however, sizeable minorities who favour a diferent frst foreign language (mostly Russian or German) followed by English as a second foreign language. In the case of Estonia, Russian is clearly ahead of German as the preferred second foreign language among L1-EST, whereas L1-RUS consider German to be more important (arguably because these respondents, from their own perspectives, do not consider Russian to be a language that needs to be learnt as a foreign language). In the case of Latvia, in contrast, German is ahead of Russian as the preferred second foreign language. In the case of Estonia, Finnish is ahead of French as a language of fourth importance among L1-EST, whereas L1-RUS prefer French. Spanish and other languages are occasionally mentioned. In the case of Latvia, French and Spanish are clearly assigned the fourth and ffth places in the hierarchy. Two questions (Figs. 15 and 16) related to general attitudes about (learning) languages and individual multilingualism; they had to be answered on a fve-point scale ranging from 1 (would like very much) to 5 (would not like at all). As demonstrated in Sect. 3.1, which dealt with general regards of languages, this question also reveals that languages and language learning are considered to be important parts of life and of education (in Latvia less so than in Estonia, but in both countries the scores are high). L1-RUS respondents were slightly less convinced about the importance of multilingualism than L1-EST (4.48 vs. 4.30 and 4.45 vs. 4.32, respectively, on the scale given in Fig. 15) and L1-LV (4.17 vs. 4.10 and 4.07 vs. 4.05, respectively, on the scale given in Fig. 16). How Do Views of Languages Differ … 293 (2.8) each (3.4) each (14.8) each Italian 3 (2.1) Others 3 (2.1) 143 Latvian, Swedish 4 English 8 (5.6) Russian 9 (6.3) Spanish 15 (10.5) French 48 (33.6) German 49 (34.3) 3rd (%) 88 Others 6 (6.9) Chinese, Spanish 3 Estonian 6 (6.9) English 8 (9.1) Finnish 10 (11.4) French, Russian 13 German 39 (44.3) 3rd (%) each Others 2 (1.2) 169 Spanish, Swedish 2 (1.2) Latvian 5 (3.0) French 19 (11.2) English 29 (17.2) Russian 35 (20.7) German 75 (44.4) 2nd (%) 119 Others 3 (2.5) Finnish 3 (2.5) French 5 (4.2) Estonian 9 (7.6) Russian 28 (23.5) English 33 (27.7) German 38 (31.9) 2nd (%) 173 Others 2 (1.2) French 5 (2.9) Latvian 8 (4.6) German 11 (6.4) Russian 18 (10.4) English 129 (74.6) 1st (%) LV: L1-RUS LV: 121 Others 3 (2.5) German 9 (7.4) Russian 15 (12.4) Estonian 29 (24.0) English 65 (53.8) 1st (%) EST: L1-RUS EST: each Scandinavian 7 (1.4) Lithuanian 6 (1.2) Polish 5 (1.0) Norwegian 4 (0.8) Others 9 (1.8) 494 Swedish, Chinese 8 (1.6) English 17 (3.4) Spanish 37 (7.5) French 97 (19.6) Russian 114 (23.1) German 182 (36.8) 3rd (%) Chinese 12 (1.7) Free choice 6 (0.9) Latvian 3 (0.4) Others 8 (1.2) 692 Swedish 15 (2.2) Spanish 22 (3.2) English 28 (4.0) French 67 (9.7) Finnish 110 (15.9) Russian 121 (17.5) German 300 (43.4) 3rd (%) Others 10 (2.0) 511 Chinese 3 (0.6) Spanish 9 (1.8) French 37 (7.2) English 62 (12.1) Russian 192 (37.6) German 198 (38.8) 2nd (%) Others 9 (1.2) 752 Spanish 5 (0.7) Chinese 6 (0.8) French 19 (2.5) Finnish 32 (4.3) English 86 (11.1) German 164 (21.2) Russian 431 (57.2) 2nd (%) Which languages should be learnt as foreign at schools in your country? each = 517 = 766 n Others 8 (1.5) French 4 (0.8) Latvian 6 (1.2) German 28 (5.4) Russian 49 (9.5) English 424 (82.0) LV: L1-LV LV: 1st (%) Others 3 (0.4) n French 3 (0.4) Swedish, Spanish 6 (0.8) Finnish 9 (1.2) Estonian 16 (2.1) German 36 (4.7) Russian 88 (11.4) English 605 (78.4) 1st (%) EST: L1-EST EST: 3 Table 294 H. F. Marten

Education and Life without Languages (Estonia)? (means: 1 = would like very much; 5 = would not like at all)

5 4.48 4.30 4.45 4.32 4 3 2 1 School or university without learning languages - what Living only with one's mother tongue - how would most would most people say? people like that?

L1 EST L1 RUS

Fig. 15 Views on education and life without languages (Estonia)

Education and Life without Languages (Latvia)? (means: 1 = would like very much; 5 = would not like at all) 5 4.17 4.10 4.07 4.05 4 3 2 1 School or university without learning languages - what Living only with one's mother tongue - how would most would most people say? people like that?

L1 LV L1 RUS

Fig. 16 Views on education and life without languages (Latvia)

5 Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 General Views on Languages

Tis chapter has presented data on the subjective views of respondents towards languages in Estonia and Latvia, both conscious and subconscious. Te aim has been to contribute to understanding relationships between languages and social structures by analysing acculturation processes and emotional afliations—between speakers of the national languages (Latvian and Estonian) and Russian—to each other’s languages, to majority and minority groups in society and to Estonia and Latvia as a whole. Te general regards of languages indicate that languages as such are important to the respondents; therefore, it seems reasonable to argue along the lines of emotional and practical views of languages to understand the regards of speakers and society as well. Among all four groups investigated (L1-EST, L1-LV, L1-RUS in Latvia and L1-RUS in Estonia), language skills are perceived as How Do Views of Languages Differ … 295 important—thereby conforming with the conclusions of Laizāne et al. (2015) on the views of language (learning; see above) held by the younger generation in Latvia. Such importance is predominantly motivated by instrumental purposes: language skills while travelling scoring highest, followed by accessibility to other cultures, better opportunities at work and media consumption. Philological purposes are less relevant as language issues in society, but these factors still receive average scores. L1-EST are more convinced their compatriots consider language issues to be important than do L1-RUS in Estonia, whereas L1-LV and L1-RUS in Latvia score slightly lower in this feld. Overall, though, the four groups are united in their perception that monolingual life and a lack of language education would be rejected by their compatriots.

5.2 Regards of Specifc Languages

When it comes to the regards of specifc languages a more diverse picture emerges. Tere is no question that the titular languages Estonian and Latvian are regarded as highly important, both by the majority and minority populations. Tis applies in particular to their instrumental value (i.e., their use for professional purposes). L1-RUS perceive the titular languages to be of less importance for leisure activities and more emotional categories, but these categories still receive scores above medium. In the case of Latvia the corresponding values are slightly lower than in the case of Estonia; for example, the beauty of Latvian is considered lower by L1-LV than the beauty of Estonian by L1-EST. Te only major diference in the regards of the titular languages is the perception of their difculty: whereas Estonian is perceived as considerably less difcult by L1-EST than by L1-RUS the opposite is the case for Latvian which L1-RUS consider to be easier than L1-LV. Moreover, Russian is regarded as being very important professionally by all groups of respondents, refecting its continuing importance in contemporary Baltic societies. It is noteworthy that respondents from Estonia assign lesser value to Russian than to Estonian, whereas in the case of Latvia, Russian is considered to be more important by L1-RUS than both Russian and Latvian by L1-LV, pointing to the strong role 296 H. F. Marten that Russian plays for L1-RUS in Latvia. When it comes to leisure purposes, Russian is assigned very high scores by L1-RUS in both countries, and much higher by L1-LV than by L1-EST. Russian is also much less important for leisure purposes for L1-EST than Estonian for L1-RUS, whereas it receives similar scores to Latvian by both L1-LV and L1-RUS in the case of Latvia. Similarly, there are big diferences among L1-EST and L1-RUS in the case of Estonia regarding the perceived beauty of Russian and the closeness it has to people’s hearts, whereas these diferences are much smaller in the case of Latvia, with L1-LV assigning high values to Russian in these categories. According to all groups English has an unquestionably high instrumental value; it is regarded as highly relevant for both professional and leisure purposes and—in the case of Latvia—is deemed very beautiful and close to people’s hearts. Te only major diference between the groups in the language regards of English relates to its perception as being difcult: whereas L1-EST consider English on average to be easy, L1-RUS in Estonia and L1-LV display medium scores, and L1-RUS in Latvia view English as quite difcult. Moreover, when it comes to other languages their regards in Latvia and Estonia are similar, with the exception of Finnish. German, Finnish (in the case of Estonia only), to a lesser degree French and to an even lesser degree Spanish and Scandinavian languages are considered of medium importance for professional purposes. When it comes to leisure purposes none of these languages is regarded as relevant, with the possible exception of German. Te languages of neighbouring countries are not perceived as important in any respect. Notably, L1-RUS assign in total slightly higher values to languages other than the main languages of the Baltic states than L1-LV and L1-EST. As far as German is concerned these data confrm its role as an ‘additional language’ in the Baltic states (i.e., the language next in line in the hierarchy), behind the titular languages, English and Russian (see Marten 2017). What is remarkable here is that this tendency may also be observed among respondents who never learnt any German. With regard to the more emotional and integrative aspects of languages and language learning (beauty and closeness to people’s hearts), the Romance languages Spanish and French receive high scores on beauty, whereas for German the result strongly depends on How Do Views of Languages Differ … 297 the respondents’ experience with this language. In the case of Estonia, Finnish and Scandinavian languages are viewed as being of medium beauty, whereas all other languages are viewed as carrying little emotional afection. French, Chinese and Arabic are considered to be difcult; for other languages there is a correlation with the genetic relation to the respondents’ L1, such as Polish among L1-RUS. As far as Estonia—but not Latvia—is concerned other languages are considered much more difcult by L1-RUS than by L1-speakers of the state language. Preston (2013) posits that people, by assigning subjective stances to language varieties, also create clear evaluative connections to these varieties’ speakers, implying there are higher positive emotional evaluations and connections to national languages and Romance languages. English and to some degree German and Russian are more connected with economic success and fun in life.

5.3 Languages in Education

As outlined above the respondents generally view languages and language learning as highly relevant. Perceptions as to which languages should be learnt in formal education mostly confrm the respondents’ general regards of languages: English is overwhelmingly perceived as the most important foreign language to be learnt at school, even though there are some respondents who support the idea that English should not be the children’s frst foreign language. Russian is clearly viewed as the second non-native language in education in Estonia, followed by German in third place, whereas the ranking of German and Russian is less evident in Latvia. French and (in Estonia) Finnish (with Finnish being preferred to French by L1-EST and vice versa by L1-RUS) receive some support, and a handful of other languages are mentioned by some respondents, but in total all other languages are regarded as far less important. Moreover, almost no importance is assigned here to neighbouring languages in the Baltic states (i.e., Lithuanian and Latvian in Estonia and Estonian and Lithuanian in Latvia) or to Polish. When it comes to educational policies, this implies that the existing practices are largely accepted, with English being unquestionably the 298 H. F. Marten dominant language in foreign language education. However, the results also show that other languages and the development of individual multilingualism beyond English and people’s L1 are regarded as important; the values assigned in particular to German indicate that the respondents believe that foreign language teaching should not be confned to English only.

5.4 Differences Between Majority and Minority Populations

Following the argumentation that language regards are a useful indicator of perceptions not only of a language variety, but also of its speakers and the cultural and political relations assigned to them, the diferences between the four major groups (L1-EST, L1-LV, L1-RUS in Latvia and L1-RUS in Estonia) have been central to this chapter. To what extent do the results of the survey indicate (mono- and bidirectional) emotional and linguistic acculturation and acceptance of linguistic diferences (i.e., not only of L1-RUS towards Latvia and Estonia, but also reciprocal acceptance by L1-LV and L1-EST of Russian as a major language of Baltic societies)? What does this imply for acculturation patterns of majority and minority groups in Baltic societies? As the data show, language regards concerning the value of languages as such are shared by all four groups, particularly the titular languages and English for professional purposes. Yet, there are also some interesting diferences: in the case of Estonia, L1-RUS claim to be generally more interested in languages than L1-EST, with the greatest diferences in the questions on job opportunities and watching flms. On the other hand, among L1-RUS more respondents believe that people would be satisfed to live without language learning than among L1-EST in the case of Estonia. By contrast, in the case of Latvia L1-LV fnd languages generally to be of greater importance than do L1-RUS, particularly when it comes to studying, Internet use, travelling and flms. In both countries L1-RUS claim to be thinking more often about language use in society than the majority populations—which may refect the group’s societal status as a linguistic minority. At the same time, L1-speakers of How Do Views of Languages Differ … 299 all languages score high regarding both the more emotional and more rational views of language—thereby indicating that the use of Latvian, Estonian and Russian is stable and that their long-term vitality will probably see few changes. When it comes to more private and emotional issues, in addition to regarding the values assigned to languages for leisure purposes, the data to some degree indicate a societal divide between L1-RUS and L1-EST and L1-LV. Tis applies not only to the highly positive perception of people’s L1 in all groups, but also to the language regards of Russian among the majority populations and those of the titular languages by L1-RUS. In this respect there is a much bigger diference between the views on Russian and Estonian in Estonia than on Russian and Latvian in Latvia. In the case of Estonia, L1-EST assign much less value to Russian, whereas L1-RUS generally have positive views of Estonian. By contrast, in the case of Latvia L1-RUS assign less positive values to the state language than in Estonia, whereas L1-LV are more positive towards Russian. Tis leads to the conclusion that—as far as language regards are concerned—the acceptance of the dominant language of society is more salient in Estonia than in Latvia. Based on the assumption by Preston and other authors that the positive regards of a language afect people’s wishes to be seen as belonging to a certain linguistic community—or at least to consider them as points of orientation—this points to an increased acculturative function of the state language in Estonia. Tis suggests that the orientation of L1-RUS towards the majority language is stronger in Estonia than in Latvia, indicating that monodirectional acculturation towards Estonian is taking place at a higher level than is the case towards Latvian in Latvia. By contrast, the recognition of Russian by the majority tends to be lower among young Estonians than among young Latvians. Following the model by Bourhis et al. (1997), the data suggest a greater similarity of attitudes in Latvia than in Estonia between L1-RUS and L1-speakers of the national language. Instead of a strong monodirectional linguistic and emotional acculturation of L1-RUS towards L1-LV, in Latvia a higher level of bidirectional acculturation takes place. 300 H. F. Marten

According to the argumentation by Giles and Edwards (2010), this implies that L1-RUS in Latvia show a greater orientation to L1-LV; at the same time, L1-LV show stronger signs of emotional acculturation towards L1-RUS than L1-EST do. Te linguistic segregation of society is therefore lower in Latvia than in Estonia in that there is less distance among L1-LV towards Russian; at the same time, segregation is greater in Latvia regarding acceptance of the state language as the main point of orientation for both emotional, integrative and more cognitive, instrumental purposes by the minority. Russian as a language in society therefore seems to be more important in Latvia than in Estonia and will likely remain more relevant in Latvia than in Estonia into the future (as suggested in chapter “Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia: Language Practices and Attitudes” by Kibbermann in this book). Tis implies that interethnic conficts are less likely in Latvia than Estonia because there is a closer emotional understanding of each other. In spite of these diferences, however, L1-RUS in both countries generally recognize the instrumental need to acquire Latvian or Estonian, thereby conforming with Laizāne et al. (2015). Tere is a certain divide between the minority and majority populations refected in the regards of other languages and in the role assigned to languages and countries in the world. Russian and Russia are, even if the diferences are small, considered to be of higher global importance by L1-RUS than by the majority populations. Te global role of all other languages and cultures is considered slightly lower among L1-RUS than among L1-LV and L1-EST who assign more importance to Estonian and Latvian, respectively, and lean more to Western European cultures. Overall, however, even L1-RUS see the importance of English and other languages, some even feeling an emotional afliation to them. We can sum up by stating that the data presented provide a very diverse picture of language regards among the younger generations in Latvia and Estonia. Some diferences in the language regards between majority and minority populations in Latvia and Estonia discussed in this chapter—if they are widespread within a group of speakers—may turn into language ideologies. As part of the ideological stance by How Do Views of Languages Differ … 301 majority and minority, these language regards may help to explain some aspects of the linguistic divides in Estonian and Latvian societies. At the same time, the data show that there are not only diferences, but also considerable similarities between the four groups and the two countries. In total, language regards seem not to be so far apart that linguistic integration could not succeed. Tis may be said about the relatively positive evaluations of the titular languages by L1-RUS, in particular in Estonia where emotional acculturation towards the majority seems to take place at a higher level than in Latvia, and there are largely common attitudes towards English. Societal integration seems successful through mastering the titular language; English may serve as a neutral territory unanimously accepted as important by all members of Baltic societies. Nevertheless, the language regards of Russian and its continuing de facto recognition by larger parts of society point at the complexity of language regards and the societal processes they refect. Tese positive regards of Russian—which may indicate a diferent path of bidirectional emotional acculturation and thereby of linguistic integration of society— could be detected more in the case of Latvia than in Estonia. Te respondents’ focus on instrumental values when regarding languages also indicates that usage opportunities for languages need to be created—people learn the languages that they need for personal success and pleasure. As far as the educational policies in Latvia and Estonia are concerned this implies that curricula and teaching practices for language learning should be organized around practical usage values (as is in fact currently done as part of the restructuring of the national curricula of Latvia, which further emphasizes that similarities between diferent languages in the classroom’s repertoires should be used during language teaching; see Lazdiņa 2017). At the same time, when usage opportunities are highlighted in discourses on language education and a less strict separation of languages (and thereby their speakers) is refected in teaching, this may trigger not only (even) more positive attitudes towards the titular language among the minority, but also towards the minority languages among the majority. As the data clearly show, individual multilingualism is viewed as positive and necessary among the L1-users of Estonian, Latvian and Russian in Latvia and Estonia alike. 302 H. F. Marten

References

Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Breckle, M., & Johanning-Radžienė, A. (2013). Deutsch in Litauen. Quantitative Auswertung einer Studie zur Sprachlernmotivation. Vaasa: University of Vaasa. De Leersnyder, J., Mesquita, B., & Kim, H. (2013). Emotional acculturation. In D. Hermans, B. Rimé, & B. Mesquita (Eds.), Changing emotions (pp. 127–133). New York: Psychology Press. Dewaele, J.-M. (2016). Why do so many bi- and multilinguals feel diferent when switching languages? International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 92–105. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Te Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientation, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53, 3–32. Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ehala, M., & Zabrodskaja, A. (2014). Ethnolinguistic vitality and acculturation orientations of Russian-speakers in Estonia. In L. Ryazanova-Clarke (Ed.), Te Russian language outside the nation: Speakers and identities (pp. 166–188). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Eurostat. Statistics Explained. Foreign language skill statistics. http://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_skills_statis- tics. Accessed 28 February 2018. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language acquisition. Te role of attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley: Newbury House. Garrett, P. (2007). Language attitudes. In C. Llamas, L. Mullany, & P. Stockwell (Eds.), Te Routledge companion to sociolinguistics (pp. 116– 121). London and New York: Routledge. Gibson, M. A. (1995). Additive acculturation as a strategy for school. In R. G. Rumbaut & W. A. Cornelius (Eds.), California’s immigrant children (pp. 77–105). San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. How Do Views of Languages Differ … 303

Giles, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2010). Attitudes to language: Past, present, and future. In K. Malmkjaer (Ed.), Te Routledge linguistics encyclopedia (3rd ed., pp. 35–40). London: Routledge. Giles, H., & Rakić, T. (2014). Language attitudes: Social determinants and consequences of language variation. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), Te Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 11–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hammer, K. (2016). Bilingual bonds: Acculturation, attachment, and being yourself in a new language. International Journal of Language and Culture, 3(2), 253–279. Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. Võõrkeelte õppimine. http://www.haridussilm. ee/?leht alus_yld_6. Accessed 28 February 2018. = Johanning-Radžienė, A., & Breckle, M. (2014). ‘Deutschland ist in der EU Wirtschaft Nr. 1’. Berufschancen als Motivationsfaktor des Deutschlernens in Litauen. In R. Eidukevičienė & A. Johanning-Radžienė (Eds.), Interkulturelle Aspekte der deutsch-litauischen Wirtschaftskommunikation (pp. 109–132). Munich: Iudicium. Kibbermann, K., & Kļava, G. (2017). Languages in Latvia: Latvian as the state language, language profciency, language in education. In L. Lauze (Ed.), Te language situation in Latvia 2010–2015. A sociolinguistic study (pp. 35–90). Riga: Latvian Language Agency. Kristiansen, T. (2014). Knowing the driving force in language change: Density or subjectivity? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18, 233–241. Laizāne, M., Putniņa, A., & Mileiko, I. (2015). Mazākumtautību skolu skolēnu identitāte un piederība Latvijai. Riga: Biedrība Ascendum. Lazdiņa, S. (2017). Vai tikai mūzikā ir polifonijā: Valodu izglītības plānošana glokalizacijas procesu kontekstā. In Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Faculty of Education, Languages and Design, Research Institute for Regional Studies (Ed.), Izglītības reforma vispārizglītojošajā skolā: Izglītības satura pētījumi un ieviešanas problēmas (pp. 40–53) Rēzekne: Rēzekne Academy of Technologies. Marten, H. F. (2016). Sprach(en)politik. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. Marten, H. F. (2017). Negotiating a place for German in Estonia: Contemporary functions, attitudes and policies. In M. Siiner, K. Koreinik, & K. D. Brown (Eds.), Language policy beyond the state (pp. 143–162). Cham: Springer. Palviainen, Å., & Huhta, A. (2015). Investigating relationships between language attitudes and policy issues. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 193– 204). Malden: Wiley. 304 H. F. Marten

Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavlenko, A. (2013). Te afective turn in SLA. In D. Gabrys-Barker & J. Bielska (Eds.), Te afective dimension in second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Preston, D. R. (2010). Variation in language regard. Variatio delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation (pp. 7–27). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Preston, D. R. (2011). Te power of language regard—Discrimination, classifcation, comprehension, and production. Dialectología, 2, 9–33. Preston, D. R. (2013). Language with an attitude. In J. K. Chambers & N. Schilling (Eds.), Te handbook of language variation and change (2nd ed.) (pp. 157–182). Malden: Wiley. Schmidt, G. (2011). Motives for studying German in Australia. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Schumann, J. (1986). An acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379–392. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sprachlernmotivationen im Baltikum. http://www.daad.lv/index.php/de/ germanistikprojekte/sprachlernmotivationen-im-baltikum. Accessed 28 February 2018. Part IV English and Other Languages in the Globalized Societies of the Baltic States Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs: Structure, Norms and Meaning

Anna Verschik and Helin Kask

1 Introduction

Estonia is a small post-Soviet country with a population of 1.3 million, 67% of whom speak Estonian as L1. It is also a country where most of the population is fuent at least in one but often in several languages in addition to their frst language: according to the Eurobarometer survey, 52% of Estonians aged 25–64 claimed in 2011 they could speak at least two languages in addition to their mother tongue, which is twice the EU average (Eurostat 2015). Te restoration of independence in 1991 and subsequent changes in language policy and sociolinguistic status of languages (Estonian as the ofcial language of the country), the discourse of ‘return to the West’ and the opening of borders and new mobility opportunities coincided with the spread of the Internet and virtual communication and the rise of what is called ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec 2007). Te number of residents profcient in English is

A. Verschik (*) · H. Kask Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected]

© Te Author(s) 2019 307 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_10 308 A. Verschik and H. Kask in Estonia the highest in the Baltic countries; it is slightly higher among ethnic Estonians than among ethnic Russians (Ehala 2015: 197, based on MeeMa 2014) but the diferences are less signifcant in the younger generation. Some 64% of all secondary-school students (both ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians) claim an ability to speak English fuently or excellently in 2014 (Ehala 2015: 196). So far studies on the use of English in Estonia have concentrated on collecting and analysing self-reported data (Ehala and Niglas 2004; Liiv and Laasi 2006; Tammemägi and Ehala 2012), English in higher education and attitudes towards it (Soler-Carbonell 2014; Soler-Carbonell et al. 2016), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in Estonian–Russian communication (Soler-Carbonell 2015) or on English and Estonian in multilingual households from the point of view of family language policy (Doyle 2013). To the best of our knowledge the impact of English on Estonian and English–Estonian language contacts have been investigated in studies on conventionalized lexical borrowings in Standard Estonian (Leemets 2003) and a handful of MA theses written within one or another contact-linguistic theoretical framework and exploring the impact of English in Internet communication (Igav 2013; Roosileht 2013; Vaba 2010). Te current chapter focuses on a certain phenomenon of English– Estonian language contacts in fashion blogs—namely, on code alternation (henceforth CA). Te objective is to discuss structural and sociolinguistic factors favouring or preventing CA. From the existing literature on code switching (CS), it is apparent that in some communities there is a preference for CA as opposed to one-word other language items (insertions) and in others vice versa (Muysken 2000: chapter 8). We fnd Muysken’s typology useful but, probably, predictions concerning preference of a certain type of CS do not hold true. We are going to test the applicability of Muysken’s generalizations about CS in conversation to CA in blogs and show that although there are more cases of insertion than of CA in our data, they cannot be explained by social or typological factors entirely. We also suggest that the template of the genre (blog or, more precisely, fashion blog) and type of meaning matter a lot. A prototypical CA is a stretch in a diferent language that is more or less syntactically independent (a sentence, a clause, a longer stretch), Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 309 as opposed to one-word other language items or insertions (Muysken 1995). In CA stretches in both languages appear side by side. An example of CA is presented in (1). Te original spelling is preserved here and throughout the paper, English is rendered in bold.

(1) Ja siis ma sain aru, et ma olen olnud kodus KÕIK LAUPÄEVAD VIIMASED KÜMME NÄDALAT. Someone needs a life. Aga siiski … Peab olema ju häid asju elus? ‘And then I realise I’ve been at home on ALL SATURDAYS DURING THE PAST TEN WEEKS. Someone needs a life. But still… Tere should be some good things in one’s life?’

CA has been discussed to some extent in pragmatically oriented literature but not so much in language contact studies (see the seminal study by Muysken 2000; attempts to combine pragmatic and social factors were undertaken by Auer 1999). As Auer (2000: 139) shows in an analysis of an example similar to (1), language choice is functional at the discourse level, marking a transition from information giving to evaluation. However, it is not entirely clear how and whether models of conversational CS can be applied to blogs whose nature is monologic and asynchronous. We will analyse Muysken’s (2000) suggestions of possible structural, societal and attitudinal factors that enable CA as opposed to other types of CS in his model (frst and foremost insertional CS). We are aware that our data can be analysed from a variety of angles: the spread of English (‘English on top’, see Androutsopoulos 2012), global popular culture and subcultures (e.g., Leppänen 2007: 150), private language policy (i.e., decision on language use made by bloggers), Internet linguistics (Crystal 2007; see the discussion in Verschik 2014), multilingual Internet ethnography and data collection aspects (Androutsopoulos 2013a) to name just few. Androutsopoulos (2013b) discusses CS on the net rather from the point of view of pragmatics and does not go into structural issues. In the current chapter we deliberately limit our scope to English CA and seek to combine structural and a more sociolinguistic approach (similar to Stell 2015 who points out explicitly that these approaches should not be contrasted). 310 A. Verschik and H. Kask

It has been suggested in the literature that from a structural point of view CA is a preferred strategy between typologically diferent languages (Muysken 2000: 247–249) and, from a functional point of view, requires more profciency in both languages and is rather characteristic of second-generation immigrant communities. As Stell (2015) shows, an interplay between language prestige and other macro-sociolinguistic factors may be rather complex. We are going to describe what happens in a diferent setting where a local majority language is in contact with a prestigious supra-regional lingua franca, while the two languages are not related and are typologically diferent. Te chapter is organized as follows. First, we discuss CA in general terms, then we turn to specifcs of language contact phenomena on the net. After that data and informants are described. Tis is followed by an analysis of our data against social and structural criteria as proposed by Muysken (2000) and by conclusions.

2 Approaches to CA

Tere are two types of approaches to CA that can roughly be summarized as structural (as represented by Muysken 1995, 2000) and pragmatic/functional (Auer 1998). Tese approaches are not antagonistic but rather focus on diferent aspects. Albeit example (1) gives a clear picture of what a prototypical CA is, there is a degree of terminological confusion. Some researchers distinguish between code mixing, on the one hand, referring to intraclausal use of diferent varieties, and CS, on the other hand, that is inter- clausal. Yet some authors continue using the term ‘CS’ as an umbrella term (Verschik 2004). Auer (1999: 328) distinguishes between alternational CS (one language at a time, alternation is functional, involves a renegotiation of language of interaction, is used as a rhetorical device, usually at a clause boundary) and alternational mixing, which is considered to be characteristic of group style, subject to grammatical constraints and without preference for one language at time. Tis distinction is upheld by Leppänen (2007) in her analyses of various sites of English–Finnish contacts (including blogs where the main language is Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 311

English). Auer (1999) maintains that code mixing is habitualized and it is not novel. We do not believe, however, that diferentiating between language alternation and alternational mixing is helpful. One-word switches (prototypical insertions) can also signal identity, attitudes, emotions or serve discourse organization purposes and not be merely semantically specifc items (terms referring to certain domains, occupations, etc.; see Backus 2001). For instance, in (2) English terrifed is used to emphasize the blogger’s strong emotions:

(2) Ja kui aus olla, siis olen ma täiesti terrifed. ‘To be frank, I am completely terrifed’.

Instead, we consider CA as a sub-type of CS and prefer Muysken’s defnition of CA where languages A and B alternate without encroach- ing upon their respective morphosyntactic frames (Stell and Yakpo 2015: 4). Of course, there may be more difcult cases like ‘multilingual speech in monolingual disguise’ where a seemingly A-language utterance copies morphosyntax, collocations and meaning from B, but here a diferent model, the code-copying framework (Johanson 1999), comes to help. To discuss the framework itself would remain outside of the scope of the present chapter, but some defnitions are useful. In Johanson’s view, code interaction (i.e., contact between varieties) is subdivided into two types: (1) code copying, meaning that properties (shape, meaning, combinational properties, etc.) of an item in the model code are copied (e.g., terrifed in example (2) is a case of global copying). In conventional terms, copying corresponds to insertional CS/borrowing, loan translation, structural borrowing, etc., depending on what properties are copied; (2) CA, which refers to a stretch entirely in another code—see example (1). So code copying is, quite logically, copying of a unit, whereas in CA elements from diferent codes are juxtaposed. In the case of CA, no copying occurs and there is a distinguishable stretch of another code (Johanson 1999: 39). Given the nature of our data, it has to be asked how computer- mediated communication (CMC) and blogging in particular can afect language contact phenomena, including CA. 312 A. Verschik and H. Kask

3 Language Contacts on the Internet

Multilingual communication on the Internet is of interest to a wide range of scholars, for instance, to specialists in social and behavioural sciences, or to researchers on virtual communities and innovative language use (Androutsopoulos 2015; Danet and Herring 2007; Hinrichs 2006; Jaworska 2014 and many others). Tere are still few studies that focus on language contact on the Internet: Dorleijn and Nortier (2009) is one of the frst. Tere are several works on structural aspects of language contacts in CMC where Estonian is one of the languages (Igav 2013; Paljasma 2012; Roosileht 2013; Vaba 2010; Verschik 2010, 2014). Given the diversity of topics that multilingual CMC ofers, we need to use an eclectic approach for our chapter (i.e., keeping in mind various aspects of CMC such as genre-specifc features; see Puschmann 2013 on a typology of blogs, including thematic blogs like those in our sample), the sociolinguistics of orthography (Sebba et al. 2012), the multilingual Internet as such and in general the line of research pursued by Androutsopoulos (2013b) as well as various models and theories in contact linguistics (see more in Dorleijn and Verschik 2016) and others. We are concentrating on blogs for several reasons. According to Crystal (2007: 15–16) the language of blogs displays the process of writing in its ‘naked’, unedited form. Te Internet is fuid, people are creative, exploring diferent expressions and using fresh combinations of elements. When analysing blogs it is possible to explore multilingual language use and contact phenomena that do not appear in oral use (e.g., orthography and the use of new constituent order patterns or phrase structures). As blogs are easy to access and they show more infection, blogs are a good way to study language use (see also Igav 2013; Roosileht 2013; Vaba 2010). According to a recent blog barometer carried out by IPREX on http://www.blog-barometer.com/ (reported in one of the main Estonian dailies Postimees, see Kulper 2015), fashion is one of the main topics in Estonian blogs. Recent studies have demonstrated that blogs can successfully be used for language contact research in Estonia; the data are Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 313 easily accessible and saveable; they refect the multilingual language practices of young Estonians; thus, their blogs can be useful for the present study. Tere are several dozen fashion blogs in Estonian with a vast readership; Estonian fashion bloggers write in Estonian (albeit with English CA or insertions) or arrange their writing as parallel texts in Estonian and in English.

4 Data and Informants

Te data comprise blog entries from 26 fashion, beauty and lifestyle blogs from early 2012 to September 2015. Every blog entry was saved as a separate fle in the Notepad++ program, and instances of insertions and CA were annotated. Tese data form a corpus that consists of 367 fles and 134,041 words (tokens) in total. Te frequency of post- ing varies: some bloggers write every day, some once or twice a week. On average, there are 365 words per blog post, although this varies as well: some posts consist of just a few sentences and some of up to 1000 words. According to the personal information in the blogs all bloggers live in Estonia, most of them in the capital city Tallinn, while a small minority lives in Tartu, Pärnu, Kuressaare and other towns. All bloggers are female except two, who keep one blog together. Te bloggers are 20–31 years old. Some blogs have many or all entries in two languages (i.e., in Estonian and English); in these cases there are parallel texts that present more or less the same information but the text that appears second is never a precise translation of the frst. A very frequent template for blog entry is an English heading while the basic language of the text is clearly Estonian. Since all bloggers are ethnic Estonians and their frst language is Estonian as they grew up here, such language choice appears as marked in the sense that this is ‘unexpected’. It is a question of interpretation whether English-language titles can be analysed as CA, in our data it is marked as CA. Clearly, this is something characteristic of blogging and absent in oral communication (see references in Verschik 2016). 314 A. Verschik and H. Kask

In the current chapter we do not analyse monolingual stretches in English whose contents are reproduced in Estonian (or vice versa, when the Estonian text is primary and the English one is secondary) in bilingual blogs. All in all, there are 564 cases of CA in the corpus and a typical CA consists just of one or two sentences. To compare, there are 1649 English insertions in blogs, so the ratio of CA against insertions is roughly 1:3.

5 Data Analysis

5.1 CS Templates

In his study, Muysken (2000: chapter 8) summarizes types of CS analysed in previous research on geographically, typologically and socioculturally diverse language pairs (Dutch and French in Brussels, Turkish and Dutch in the Netherlands, Puerto Rican Spanish and US English in the USA and many others). He seeks for a probabilistic model (Muysken 2000: 249), which appears reasonable because one can speak about tendencies and strategies rather than a set of strict rules. Of course, one may ask whether and how such diferent situations are comparable because studies overviewed in Muysken (2000) difer also in their research questions and objectives. In this section we are going to turn to factors that favour one or another type of CS as proposed by Muysken (2000) and to compare these factors to our data. Te factors are: structural (typological similarity of languages), dominance in use (more and less frequently used language), profciency of the speakers, attitudes and norms, the generation of speakers, and the type of community (immigrant, minority, post-colonial, etc.). Before we turn to the analysis of the factors, we present in (3) distinctive CS styles based on our data, understood here as a distribution of languages and CS types in blog posts (insertions and CA; congruent lexicalization proposed by Muysken is not discussed here because its presence in our data is minor and also because of theoretical problems of distinctive features of this type). Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 315

(3) CS templates

1. Estonian dominant (a) English discourse markers amidst Estonian text (b) English insertions (content words, mostly nouns but also some adjectives, phrasal verbs) (c) Estonian dominant, English CA: – English in the main clause/relative clause – English sentences, also English titles – Longer stretches of English (2-3 sentences one after another; infrequent quotations from flms or songs). 2. Estonian and English balanced (bilingual entries, no dominance of either language; a specifc type of CA) (d) Estonian frst, English translation/digest follows (e) English frst, Estonian translation/digest follows.

Whether discourse markers are instances of insertion or of CA is a matter of interpretation. Muysken (2000: 97–98) notes that content words are likely to be insertions and adverbs and discourse words are rather CA because the latter are more autonomous and syntactically unintegrated. However, while prototypical CA is indeed syntactically autonomous, not every content word insertion is necessarily syntactically fully integrated (even in languages with highly developed infec- tional morphology; see, e.g., Zabrodskaja and Verschik 2014 on the morphosyntactic integration of Estonian nouns into Russian in oral communication and CMC). Although discourse markers appear to be autonomous, there are cases where they afect the morphosyntax of the basic code (Wertheim 2003 on Russian discourse markers and their impact on Tatar relative clause morphosyntax). In our data, English discourse markers may be inserted into Estonian clauses according to word order rules of English rather than Estonian. For instance, the position of the English discourse marker though is in the end of the utterance, which is at odds with Estonian word order patterns. In Estonian the corresponding discourse marker kuid ‘though’ does not take the fnal position. Consider (4): 316 A. Verschik and H. Kask

(4) Ma katsun mitte muretseda, though. ‘I try not to worry, though’. Cf. Estonian Kuid ma katsun mitte muretseda, literally ‘though I try not to worry’.

Tus, the question whether discourse markers are completely autonomous and, therefore, classifable as CA rather than insertions, is unresolved; therefore, we distinguish English discourse markers amidst Estonian-dominant blog entries as a separate category—see type 1(a) in (3). As mentioned in the previous section, some blogs are systematically bilingual (i.e., oriented towards an international audience by design). Some are, so to say, occasionally bilingual (i.e., certain entries but not all contain roughly the same information in both languages). Note, however, that the Estonian version that follows the English one may contain English CA that are not present in the preceding English chunk, as It was so good! in (5):

(5) How have you been? In the end of this week I am going to have supeeer nice photoshoot with Silver! Can’t wait! We have some special plans for it so stay tuned. Today I fnally went to the cinema to see Fast and Furious 7! Got some goosebumps like zillion times I think! Kuidas teil läheb?:) Selle nädala lõpus on mul koos Silveriga plaanis üks vägaa tuus photoshoot! Ei jõua ära oodata! Tseki kindlasti pühapäeval blo- gisse! Täna sai lõpuks Kiired ja vihased 7 ära vaadatud. It was so good! Kananahk tuli vist miljon korda kehale. ‘How have you been? Tis weekend I am going to have a supeeer cool photoshoot with Silver! Can’t wait! Be sure to check out my blog on Sunday! Today I fnally got to see Fast and Furious 7. It was so good! Got goosebumps all over my body like million times!’

According to Muysken (2000: 249), typological distance, strong norms (e.g., a negative attitude towards ‘mixing’) and competition between the languages favours CA. On the other hand, when one of the languages has a complex agglutinating morphology as Estonian does, this would favour insertions: Muysken (2000: 247) believes that morphological Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 317 encapsulation provides stability of insertional patterns. Insertion tends to appear in recent and closed migrant groups (Muysken 2000: 245) and also in former colonial settings (Stell 2015). On the other hand, there is evidence that in the following generations there may be a shift to CA (Backus 1996, 2001 for Turkish–Dutch CS). In this study we do not investigate minorities as Estonians are the majority in the country and this is not a situation of minority–majority language contacts. One may call this English–national bilingualism where English is a widely known prestigious language, a supra-regional lingua franca. In what follows, we discuss one by one the factors proposed by Muysken (2000).

5.2 Structural Factors

As mentioned, in a pair of typologically distant languages, CA is often preferred instead of insertion (Muysken 2000: 249). Tis could be the case here because Estonian and English are typologically diferent (although Estonian has a growing tendency towards isolation; see Metslang 1994). However, numerically, there are more insertions than CA cases in our data (about three quarters of all CS cases). Our data suggest that CA is probably not always used as a way of avoiding structural confict. CA occurs even where there is linear equivalence between the languages. In (6) But it’s the thought that counts is used, although there is an Estonian word for word equivalent for it: mõte on see, mis loeb ‘the thought is that counts’.

(6) Nojah, ma siiski OLEN õmmelnud kunagi pükstest seeliku ja seelik- ust püksid … Mõlemad olid ÜSNA kohutavad, olgem ausad. But it’s the thought that counts. ‘Well, I DID sew a skirt out of pants and pants out of skirt … Both were QUITE awful, to be honest. But it’s the thought that counts’.

Like in English, the expression is used to show one’s good intention to do something, albeit it did not turn out as planned. Teoretically, it is quite possible that a switch could occur within the sentence, this would not have caused a structural confict. Terefore, CA in (6) is not 318 A. Verschik and H. Kask an avoidance of a possible structural confict. It seems that the English sentence draws attention to the blogger’s strong emotions. Moreover, the fact that it is a fxed expression, a kind of prepacked unit, may be a factor favouring CA. We will return to this later. At the same time, a discrepancy between the morphosyntax of two languages does not prevent insertion; insertions are not necessarily morphosyntactically integrated (Zabrodskaja and Verschik 2014) and English insertions may afect the morphosyntax as in example (4). Tis occurs mainly when English adjectives are used (see also Auer and Muhamedova 2005). English largely lacks grammatical cases, while Estonian noun morphology is quite complex (14 cases) and adjectives agree with nouns in number and case (e.g., suur laud ‘big table’; suured lauad ‘big tables’; suurtes laudades ‘in big tables’, etc.). Tus, the adjective oosõm (English awesome adapted for Estonian spelling) in (7) should theoretically be in partitive case (nominative oosõm auto: partitive oosõmit autot ); yet, in (7) oosõm appears in the nominative, thereby showing that insertions may not be adapted to the morphosyntactic structure of the target language.

(7) kui keegi oosõm autot oosõm hinnaga müüb ‘if someone is selling an awesome car with an awesome price’ (in Estonian awesome-PART car-PART, here awesome-NOM car-PART)

Indeed, Estonian has a small and unproductive group of indeclinable adjectives, but some English adjectives do receive Estonian case marking: cool becomes coolis kesklinna korteris ‘in a cool fat in the centre’. We do not know the structural and cognitive reasons for this.

5.3 Dominance in Use

According to Muysken (2000: 247 and references to case studies therein), in a process of language shift (e.g., in migrant communities), a development of insertions into CA and then into congruent lexicalization (depending on structural factors) would take place. Clearly, our bloggers are not members of a migrant community but of a local Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 319 majority. Tere is no evidence of language shift, although some young people prefer English to other languages (see Sect. 5.5 on attitudes). Contacts with English are both extensive (i.e., English appears in different types of text and oral communication, many Estonians are profcient in English) and intensive (i.e., the urban youth especially are likely to use English regularly). Ehala (2015: 196) refers to the MeeMa survey of 2014 and mentions that over 35% of native Estonian speakers use English on a daily basis. We assume that the bloggers read and hear English on a daily basis. As the main fashion magazines and the description of silhouettes, styles, etc. are in English, English has become the lingua franca of fashion. Te bloggers probably use English to be informed of latest styles and to read other fashion blogs. But we do not have information on how much the bloggers actively use English (i.e., speak or write it) in real life. Some bloggers write their posts both in Estonian and in English, but we cannot assume that bloggers who write mainly Estonian don’t use English on a regular basis. Probably, this can be explained both with implicit norms in this type of communication and with everyday multilingual practices (see Sect. 5.6 on norms). In some situations it is hard to determine which language is used more; in some cases neither of the languages is dominating. Tis means that the factor ‘dominance in use’ cannot always be taken into account.

5.4 Profciency

It is assumed by previous research on CA that alternational and small insertional patterns are used by less profcient speakers of both languages and complex insertion and CL (changes in the morphosyntactic frame) by more profcient language users. Backus (2001) shows that the second generation of migrant speakers in the Netherlands has more CA because it is more profcient in the mainstream language of the country, while the frst generation is likely to produce one-word insertions rather than longer stretches of the main language of society in their L1. In our case, we do not think that profciency defnes preference for a certain type. According to Ehala (2015: 195), almost 64% of all 320 A. Verschik and H. Kask secondary-school students (both ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians) claim high fuency in English. In the age group 15–19 about 80% of ethnic Estonians are fuent in English, while in the age group 20–29 this fgure is between 70 and 80% (Ehala 2015: 197; the bloggers studied here belong to this age group). It is clear that less profcient speakers of a language variety have fewer choices to express themselves in that variety. In such cases, one-word insertions are more frequent as they are easier to handle; complex patterns are used less frequently. However, it is not necessarily right that a greater share of insertions instead of CA implies lower profciency: insertions might appear due to semantic specifcity (Backus 2001; Backus and Verschik 2012). For example, when a blogger describes something specifc to a certain culture or domain (i.e., fashion-related terms or blogging in English), a suitable Estonian equivalent may be lacking. Example (8) illustrates cases where bloggers who are fuent in English have more resources to express themselves. Te blogger expresses the idea that sometimes people have to learn to say no and wait for better times. Te blogger uses English for that and also comments on the use of English by saying that the point sounds more convincing and powerful in English.

(8) See rüütel valgel obesel tuleb, ma nii tean. Seni ei lõbusta ma end suh- tumiselt etturitega. Te power of saying ‘no’ (see kõlab inglise keeles löö- vamana ja toob mõtte rohkem esile). ‘My knight in shining armor will come, I know. Until then I will not amuse myself with pawns. Te power of saying ‘no’ (it sounds better in English and brings out the idea more)’.

Tus, we cannot say a preference of insertions rather than CA means lower profciency. For example, both CA and an insertion occur in example (9). However, as indicated in the previous examples, bloggers show a highly idiomatic use of English, they can employ complex patterns which implies that they are rather profcient in English. Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 321

(9) Igatahes, enough about that ja liigume outfti juurde. ‘Anyway, enough about that and let’s move on to the outft’.

Examples like (9) are not exceptional; instead of a strict labour division between insertions and CA one can observe a fexible usage of both types. Tis means that high profciency does not determine preference for a certain CS type, as both insertions and CA are used. To put it diferently, although bloggers are profcient in English they still use insertions.

5.5 Attitudes

According to Muysken’s (2000: 247–249) assumptions, insertion (and a congruent lexicalization that involves changes in the morphosyntactic frame) occurs in communities with intensive language contact and no negative attitudes towards mixing. CA, on the other hand, is likely to occur where mixing is stigmatized. Indeed, among laypeople CA may not be perceived as a ‘mixture’ of languages because there are more or less clear boundaries between stretches in diferent languages and because there is no overlap of morphosyntactic patterns. However, we believe that stigmatization is not always the case when CA is preferred to insertions. First, even if there is a purist discourse in a given community, this does not exclude insertions, as Wertheim (2006) convincingly demonstrates in the case of Russian discourse words in Tatar. Overtly expressed attitudes and real linguistic behaviour may difer. We do not think that the bloggers have negative feelings towards mixing (albeit some Estonians want their language to be free of foreign infuences). Tis is because blogging is a monologic and asynchronous genre: one does not have to react immediately to one’s partner’s utterances and there is time and opportunity to edit the text, so in theory one could avoid any non-Estonian elements or to purge them out in the process of editing. Tis does not happen, however. 322 A. Verschik and H. Kask

Second, in our case we see both insertions and CA, albeit insertions prevail. If there were a simple correlation between attitudes and types of CS the proportion of CA would not be as high since this would imply, according to Muysken, that English is stigmatized. It has, however, been claimed (Tammemägi and Ehala 2012) that English enjoys high prestige among young Estonians and that, in fact, many young Estonians actually prefer English to Estonian. Te quoted study is a survey and not a study on actual linguistic behaviour; nevertheless, English insertions in informal communication seem to be quite common among people below 40, at least in the capital. We have also witnessed occa- sional Estonian-to-Estonian adolescent communication where switches comprise chunks or longer stretches and go in both directions, but there are no studies about this topic yet. In the view that both insertions and CA appear in the data, it would be safer to claim that negative attitudes towards mixing may favour CA, but that the presence of CA does not imply negative attitudes towards mixing. According to Muysken (2000: 249), CA implies a greater separateness of two languages, yet it is not clear whether separateness refers to a certain cognitive state where two languages take diferent places in the speaker’s mind because they are used for diferent purposes and the domains of use seldom overlap, or whether separateness refers to norms. Te appearance of both insertions and CA indeed may be related to implicit norms, which brings us to the next point in Muysken’s discussion.

5.6 Implicit Communicative Norms

Muysken (2000: 247–248) assumes that ‘transplanted varieties with weak links to matrix communities will show stronger patterns of adaptation’. Tis appears to be too broad an assumption because adaptation patterns appear also in varieties used by minorities in situations of long- time language contacts where members of the minority (and sometimes of the majority as well) are profcient bilinguals (e.g., adaptations of both lexical and structural Slavicisms in Yiddish or Russianisms in Karelian; see Sarhimaa 1999). It is not clear whether Estonian fashion Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 323 bloggers can be considered a clearly defnable community. Te current situation is diferent from immigrant or indigenous minority communities discussed by Muysken (2000). Terefore, it is a diferent kind of norms we are talking about. Moreover, a community is never homogenous socially or from the point of view of individual networks, attitudes, opportunities to use another variety, etc. Finally, last but not least, linguistic behaviour may vary in the same individuals. We do not know for sure whether and how the bloggers use English in everyday oral communication (with their peers or with members of older generations who are not necessarily profcient in English) or even in other genres of CMC. Blogging is a specifc genre, diferent both from many other CMC genres and from oral speech. In the present case, we are talking about a small virtual network of Estonian fashion bloggers. Given that the blogs do not difer very much in their language choice (i.e., all contain both insertions and CA, all have a more or less similar range of topics), we can assume that there are some unwritten norms of fashion and beauty blogging. We do not know how these norms have emerged: maybe it is just how things have ‘turned out’ or maybe imitation of some more prominent bloggers’ manner has infuenced existing norms; it is also probable that at least some bloggers know each other personally, given that Estonia is a country with a fairly small population.

5.7 Conventionalization

Muysken (2000: 249) mentions conventionalization as a separate factor but does not elaborate on it. It is understood as diferent transfer or incorporation strategies that may be conventionalized as a part of a lexical rule similar to a word formation rule. It is also not clear what the connection between conventionalization and norms is. We believe that there is more to be said about conventionalization. For instance, Backus (2015: 22) has proposed a concept of entrenchment: the more a new unit or pattern is used, the more it becomes entrenched in the cognition of users. If an innovation catches on, it may become conventionalized at a societal/community level. At this point, not a lot can be said about the 324 A. Verschik and H. Kask matter because English–Estonian language contacts are a relatively new phenomenon. To sum up Muysken’s categories which determine CA choices, it appears that the typology does not override other factors. Dominance in use and profciency increase linguistic resources and, therefore, potential choice but do not predetermine the choice between insertions and CA. Attitudes and norms are certainly relevant but CA is not a sign of negative attitudes towards more obvious ‘mixing’. In addition to the factors discussed in line with Muysken’s theory, based on the analysis of our data we suggest that there are additional factors, often overlooked in the CS literature. Tese are (1) meaning (specifcity and idiomaticity); (2) prominence at the discourse level (linguistic items that express speakers’ attitudes and their emotions); (3) norms of the genre (including a particular genre of CMC) as opposed to community society norms. We will consider them in the next section.

6 Additional Important Factors Which Infuence CA

6.1 Meaning: Specifcity and Idiomaticity

Both insertions and CA may have social meaning but may also lack it, as Backus (2015: 32–33) indicates. He also mentions that the function of insertions is very seldom analysed (Backus 2015: 24). Te kind of meaning we refer to here is specifc. Backus (2001) has argued that specifc meaning (terms, content words describing a certain domain, etc.) are primary candidates for insertions. Tis observation has also been confrmed for English–Estonian language contact data in the mentioned studies by Igav (2013), Roosileht (2013) and Vaba (2010). Consider (10) with the English insertion hoodie, morphosyntactically integrated by addition of the partitive case marker -t:

(10) Seega tegime paar katset näitamaks, et lihtsalt hoodie’t saab vabalt näiteks seeliku ja kontsadega kanda. Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 325

‘Tus, we made a couple of attempts in order to show that it is completely possible just to wear a hoodie with a skirt and high heels, for example’.

Typical insertions are one- or two-word insertions (names of specifc products, concepts, exact terms) rather than clauses. So it is likely that insertions are semantically specifc and can even be predicted to an extent in thematic blogs. Moreover, a certain type of meaning can also facilitate CA. Idioms and fxed expressions are unique multi-word items because meaning is more or less fgurative and is not a sum of meanings of the components. What counts as a multi-word item is not always straightforward and there would probably be borderline cases (and also what counts as insertion and what counts as CA). Such an expression would most likely be a clause or an independent sentence, which looks more like a prototypical CA. In (11) suck it up is used in the meaning ‘to cope with something unpleasant without complaining, usually because there isn’t any other choice’.

(11) Ma tean, et see on ajukeemia ja ma tean, et antidepressandid aitaks, aga ma olen NII TÜDINUD sellest, et mu aju töötab normaalselt ainult siis, kui teda kuskilt otsast mõjutada. Ja kui ma ei või teda veiniga mõjutada, siis, palun väga, hakaku omal jõul nüüd tööle palun. Suck it up, brain. ‘I know it’s brain chemistry and I know that anti-depressants would help, but I’m SO TIRED of my brain working normally only then, when it is afected. And if I can’t afect it with wine, so [brain] please go ahead and start working on your own. Suck it up, brain’.

If users are profcient in a certain language, they can detect and appreciate fgurative meaning; this meaning may appear more innovative and communicatively efective, especially if they cannot fnd an equivalent in their L1. Terefore, this is more likely to be used in CA than in insertions because fgurative meaning is better conveyed by expressions (i.e., longer stretches) than by one-word items. 326 A. Verschik and H. Kask

6.2 Prominence at Discourse Level: Emotions, Attitudes, Expressiveness

In an earlier paper, Backus and Verschik (2012) pointed at pragmatic prominence as a factor in language contacts. Tere is an extensive body of literature on switching/borrowing/copying of discourse markers in a great variety of contact situations (some seminal works are Salmons 1990; Maschler 2000; Matras 1998). Te reasons for an insertion of discourse markers can be of sociopragmatic nature (indexing identity, expressing politeness in communication across ethnolinguistic boundaries, etc.) and also of cognitive–functional nature (the approach favoured by Matras 1998). English discourse markers in Estonian (also in CMC) is a separate topic that remains outside the scope of the current chapter (to some extent Igav 2013 has explored it). For the present discussion it is relevant that discourse markers are of metalinguistic nature: they do not alter the meaning of a proposition but render speakers’ attitudes and emotions (great, cool, whatever, etc.) and/or help to organize discourse (well, all in all and the likes). At the beginning of Sect. 5 we discussed the status of discourse markers from the point of view of the insertion/CA dichotomy. Some discourse markers are clear insertions and some are technically multi-word items but act as a lexicalized phrase (Maschler and Schifrin 2015). But if we look at the function, we can see that CA may also render speakers’ attitudes and emotions, as in (12).

(12) Muideks, kahe nädala pärast alustan juba uut eluetappi Londonis. Excited or scared? How about both!!! ‘By the way, in two weeks I will start a new stage of life in London. Excited or scared? How about both!!!’

Te blogger uses English to refect her emotions about moving to London, both adjectives have strong expressive connotations. Here the use of English might emphasize the emotions more. Te blogger’s strong emotions are also marked by the use of three exclamation marks. Te same occurs in example (13). Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 327

(13) Ma olen nii palju lugusid kirjutanud, ma olen nii palju reisinud mööda Eestit! Ma töötan seitse päeva nädalas ja… I love it! ‘I have written so many stories, I have travelled in Estonia a lot! I work seven days a week and … I love it!’.

Te Estonian equivalent of I love it is of course technically possible: (ma) armastan seda but pragmatically unlikely. In Estonian the verb armastama ‘to love’ is used sparingly and reserved for serious occasions. Te English expression appears as a pragmatically appropriate choice and conveys the blogger’s strong emotions. We believe that importance at discourse level favours CS, be it insertions (one-word discourse markers that may or may not infuence morphosyntax) or longer stretches as CA. Interestingly, CA in our data is quite unlike CA in Russian-language blogs (Verschik 2010, 2014) where CA are quotations either of some complex texts (Estonian- language legal texts, regulations, etc. that are in fact copy/paste chunks; see Androutsopoulos 2015: 188 on copy/paste language, albeit he describes its functions slightly diferently as a form of appropriation of lyrics, aphorisms, etc.) or renditions of Estonian direct speech in real life communication. Tis diference may be explained by diferences in social circumstances: Russian-language bloggers live in an Estonian environment, they are members of Estonian society and frequently hear Estonian, whereas Estonian fashion bloggers who use English do not necessarily hear a lot of English. Given this, symbolic functions of Estonian in the former and of English in the latter case difer as well.

6.3 Multilingual Blogs as a Specifc Genre

Not only community norms or sub-culture norms (urban youth language use and the like) may be relevant, but also CMC genre-specifc features. For instance, Androutsopoulos (2015) speaks about networked multilingualism and shows that even within the same environment (Facebook), there are diferences in language choice depending on whether it is a new entry (in such cases, the choices are closer to those of interpersonal exchange) or embedded media taglines. English is more often used in 328 A. Verschik and H. Kask the latter: ‘English is favoured by genres detached from the immediate demands of interpersonal interaction’ (Androutsopoulos 2015: 201). Blogs and blogging have been subject to a growing body of research (many points are efectively summarized in Puschmann 2013). Blogs are author-centred, motivated by self-expression and personal satisfaction (Puschmann 2013). It is important that there is no space limit, so if one wants to write a bilingual post, this is entirely possible. Moreover, a blog entry can be titled (in our data, almost all blog entries have a title). We mentioned earlier that we are inclined to analyse English-language titles as CA because often the whole text of a post is in Estonian. Apparently, certain types of posts favour English titles, such as outft posts where a blogger demonstrates her outft and describes clothing items, style, etc. Such titles have often an acronym such as OOTD (outft of the day ) and the date, as in (14). Another acronym often used in titles is DIY (do it yourself ), as in (15). In such posts bloggers instruct how to do something at home.

(14) OOTD – 21072012 (15) DIY – transparent clutch

It is also common to write a post every month about beauty and fashion products the blogger would want to buy or what the blogger is dream- ing of (16). Such lists are not necessarily compiled every month but depend on the season or holidays (17).

(16) September wishlist (17) Tings you can’t live without (summer edition)

Tis type of blog post can be found in fashion blogs all over the world. Te main fashion blogs are written in English and we can assume that Estonian fashion bloggers often read these blogs, sometimes maybe even following their lead. Tis has led to the development of a multilingual blog genre, where concepts and terms peculiar to fashion are described in English. Due to this it can be expected that CA occurs in blog titles such as in examples (14)–(17). Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 329

7 Conclusions

Based on our analysis, we believe that the factors behind the choice of insertions and CA proposed by Muysken (2000) cannot always provide a comprehensive explanation for the presence of insertions and CA. Tere are more insertions (single-word items) than CA in our data but this may be explained with semantic specifcities of the fashion blogs which we have analysed. Profciency in and attitudes towards English count, but not in the sense of preference of a certain CS type: rather, positive attitudes enable a greater exposure to English, while profciency gives more choice. It is true that CA requires a higher profciency but higher profciency does imply preference for CA. Norms are a wide concept and should be operationalized in each particular case. We hold that there are implicit fashion blogging norms (and maybe even Estonian fashion blogging norms). Moreover, this specifc genre as part of CMC may favour CA in certain situations. We support the view expressed by Backus (2001, 2015) that the study of language contacts and multilingualism should turn to meaning. We found that meaning may be responsible for explaining the type of CS. Specifc terms are typically content words and a highly specifc topic such as style and fashion would thus call for certain terms and labels. We assume that high pragmatic prominence (expressiveness, speakers’ attitudes, etc.) favour CS as such. If these are discourse markers, then we get insertions, if these are idioms, metaphors or longer stretches that are expressive and convey emotions, we get CA. Te status of discourse markers as either insertions or CA is not always very clear. At this point, we are unable to discuss conventionalization, although some insertions have become conventionalized either in fashion blogging or in colloquial usage (this especially concerns discourse markers like no way, anyway, sorry, etc. and expressive content words such as cool, chill, amazing ). More time and data are needed in order to look into the spread of innovations and possible structural change. Our data show that Estonian–English bilingual blogging is rather a convention than an exception. Te bloggers construct themselves as 330 A. Verschik and H. Kask urban sophisticated cosmopolitan young people with a good knowledge of the fashion and beauty industry. It may be implied that English gives a cosmopolitan touch to their texts. Furthermore, although no research on English impact on oral speech has been done, we assume, based on our everyday experience, that English–Estonian bilingual speech is rather common. Lastly, a comparative perspective would be highly welcome. A study on the impact of English in fashion blogs or any other thematic blogs in other Baltic (and in general post-Soviet) countries would help to place our research into a broader context and to provide new perspectives.

References

Androutsopoulos, J. (2012). ‘English on top’: Discourse functions of English resources in the German mediascape. Sociolinguistic Studies, 6(2), 209–238. Androutsopoulos, J. (2013a). Online data collection. In C. Mallinson, B. Childs, & G. Van Herk (Eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications (pp. 236–250). London: Routledge. Androutsopoulos, J. (2013b). Code-switching in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 667–694). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205. Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation. London: Routledge. Auer, P. (1999). From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3(4), 309–332. Auer, P. (2000). Why should we and how can we determine the ‘base language’ of a bilingual conversation? Estudios de Sociolingüística, 1(1), 129–144. Auer, P., & Muhamedova, R. (2005). ‘Embedded language’ and ‘matrix language’ in insertional language mixing: Some problematic cases. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 17(1), 35–54. Backus, A. (1996). Two in one. Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 331

Backus, A. (2001). Te role of semantic specifcity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch Turkish. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide II (pp. 125–154). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Backus, A. (2015). A usage-based approach to codeswitching: Te need for reconciling structure and function. In G. Stell & K. Yakpo (Eds.), Code- switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 19–37). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Backus, A., & Verschik, A. (2012). Copyability of (bound) morphology. In L. Johanson & M. Robbeets (Eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology (pp. 123–149). Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 2. Leiden: Brill. Crystal, D. (2007). Language and the internet. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Danet, B., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Te multilingual internet: Language, culture, and communication online. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dorleijn, M., & Nortier, J. (2009). Code-switching and the internet. In B. E. Bullock & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 127–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorleijn, M., & Verschik, A. (Eds.). (2016). Using multilingual written internet data in language contact studies [Special issue]. Journal of Language Contact, 9, 5–22. Doyle, C. J. (2013). To make the root stronger: Language policies and experiences of successful multilingual intermarried families with adolescent children in Tallinn. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 145–175). Dordrecht: Springer. Ehala, M. (2015). Sustainability of Estonian language. In R. Vetik (Ed.), Estonian human development report 2014/2015 (pp. 191–198). Tallinn: SA Eesti Kööstöökoda. Ehala, M., & Niglas, K. (2004). Eesti koolinoorte keelehoiakud [Language attitudes among Estonian schoolchildren]. Akadeemia, 10, 2115–2142. Eurostat. (2015). Foreign language skills statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_skills_statistics#Further_ Eurostat_information. Accessed 2 August 2018. Hinrichs, L. (2006). Codeswitching on the web: English and Jamaican Creole in e-mail communication. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 332 A. Verschik and H. Kask

Igav, R. (2013). Inglise-eesti koodikopeerimine Facebooki vestlustes [English– Estonian code-copying in Facebook conversations]. MA thesis, Institute of Estonian Language and Culture, Tallinn University. Jaworska, S. (2014). Playful language alternation in an online discussion forum: Te example of digital code plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 56–68. Johanson, L. (1999). Te dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In B. Brendemoen, E. Lanza, & E. Ryen (Eds.), Language encounters across time and space (pp. 37–62). Oslo: Novus. Kulper, K. (2015, April 13). Eesti keskmine blogija: 29-aastane naine, kes kirju- tab toidust, moest ja ilust [Average Estonian blogger: 29-year-old female who writes about food, fashion and beauty]. Postimees, Arter. Leemets, T. (2003). Inglise laenud sajandivahetuse eesti keeles [English borrowings in Estonian at the turn of century]. Keel ja Kirjandus, 8, 571–584. Leppänen, S. (2007). Youth language in media contexts: Insights into the functions of English in Finland. World Englishes, 26(2), 149–169. Liiv, S., & Laasi, B. (2006). Attitudes towards the English language infuence on Estonian. Journal of Baltic Studies, 37(4), 482–487. Maschler, Y. (2000). What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers?: Introduction. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 437–445. Maschler, Y., & Shifrin, D. (2015). Discourse markers. Language, meaning, and context. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schifrin (Eds.), Te handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 189–221). Chichester: Wiley. Matras, Y. (1998). Utterance modifers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36(2), 281–331. MeeMa. (2014). Keeleoskus ja võõrkeelte kasutamine Eestis eestlaste ja mitte-eestlaste seas. Mina. Maailm. Meedia (TÜ Ühiskonnateaduste Instituudi sotsioloogiline uuring). Tartu: Saar Poll. Metslang, H. (1994). Kielet ja kontrastit [Languages and contrasts]. Virittäjä, 98(2), 203–226. Muysken, P. (1995). Code-switching and grammatical theory. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages (pp. 177–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paljasma, V. (2012). Prantsuse-eesti koodikopeerimine blogides [French–Estonian code-copying in blogs]. MA thesis, Institute of Estonian Language and Culture, Tallinn University. Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 333

Puschmann, C. (2013). Blogging. In S. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 83–108). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Roosileht, H. (2013). Inglise-eesti koodikopeerimine blogides [English–Estonian code-copying in blogs]. MA thesis, Institute of Estonian Language and Culture, Tallinn University. Salmons, J. (1990). Bilingual discourse marking: Code switching, borrowing and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics, 28, 453–480. Sarhimaa, A. (1999). Syntactic transfer, contact-induced change, and the evolution of bilingual mixed codes: Focus on Karelian–Russian language alternation. Studia Fennica Linguistica 9. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Sebba, M., Mahootian, S., & Jonsson, C. (Eds.). (2012). Language mixing and code-switching in writing: Approaches to mixed-language written discourse. London: Routledge. Soler-Carbonell, J. (2014). University language policy and language choice among PhD graduates in Estonia: Te (unbalanced) interplay between English and Estonian. Multilingua, 33(3/4), 413–436. Soler-Carbonell, J. (2015). Tallinn, a multilingual city in the era of globalisation: Te challenges facing Estonian as a medium-sized language. In E. Boix-Fuster (Ed.), Urban diversities and language policies in medium-sized linguistic communities (pp. 85–111). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Soler-Carbonell, J., Saarinen, T., & Kibbermann, K. (2016). Multilayered perspectives on language policy in higher education: Finland, Estonia and Latvia in comparison. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(4), 301–314. Stell, G. (2015). Towards an integrated approach to structural and conversational code-switching through macrosociolinguistic factors. In G. Stell & K. Yakpo (Eds.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 117–138). Berlin, Munich and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Stell, G., & Yakpo, K. (2015). Elusive or self-evident? Looking for common ground in approaches to code-switching. In G. Stell & K. Yakpo (Eds.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 1–16). Berlin, Munich and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Tammemägi, A., & Ehala, M. (2012). Koolinoorte keelehoiaud 2011. aastal. Keel ja Kirjandus, 4, 241–260. Vaba, M. (2010). Inglise-eesti koodikopeerimisest Tallinna Skype’i kontori kahe vestlusgrupi näitel [English–Estonian code-copying on the example of two chat groups at Skype Tallinn ofce]. MA thesis, Institute of Estonian Language and Culture, Tallinn University. 334 A. Verschik and H. Kask

Verschik, A. (2004). Aspects of Russian-Estonian code-switching: Research perspectives. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(4), 427–448. Verschik, A. (2010). Estonian-Russian code-copying in blogs: A preliminary overview. Slavica Helsingiensia, 40, 355–365. Verschik, A. (2014). Estonian-Russian code-copying in Russian-language blogs: Language change and a new kind of linguistic awareness. In V.-A. Vihman & K. Praakli (Eds.), Negotiating linguistic identity (pp. 59–87). Oxford: Peter Lang. Verschik, A. (2016). Mixed copying in blogs: Evidence from Estonian-Russian Language contacts. Journal of Language Contact, 9, 186–209. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(6), 1024–1054. Wertheim, S. (2003). Discourse pragmatics as a means of contact-induced change. Selected Proceedings of the CLIC-LISO Ninth Annual Conference on Language, Interaction and Culture, 1–18. Wertheim, S. (2006). Cleaning up for company: Using participant roles to understand feldworker efect. Language in Society, 35, 707–727. Zabrodskaja, A., & Verschik, A. (2014). Morphology of Estonian items at the interface of Russian-Estonian language contact data. Sociolinguistic Studies, 8(3), 449–474.

Blogs (Retrieved in autumn 2015) http://www.annaelisabeth.net/ http://annikavokksepp.blogspot.com.ee/ http://autent.ee http://blogbyhanna.blogspot.com/ http://costany.blogspot.com/ http://ciassico.blogspot.com http://daki.tahvel.info/ http://www.estonianbloggers.com/ http://www.getri.eu/ http://www.gretelink.com/ http://gretsiblogi.blogspot.com.ee/ http://ingelkutsar.blogspot.com/ http://www.itijblog.com/ http://katlinplanken.weebly.com/blog Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs … 335 http://keeruta.blogspot.com/ http://lauriita.eu/ http://www.letherspeak.net http://lifeofsvea.wordpress.com http://meaningofifetome.blogspot.com http://misssssellie.blogspot.com.ee/ http://my-beauty-paradiseee.blogspot.com https://seksomnia.wordpress.com/ http://suhkurjapipar.blogspot.com.ee/ http://susankirjutab.ee/ http://www.suvimariliis.ee/ http://teeeele.blogspot.com/ Russian and English as Socially Meaningful Resources for Mixed Speech Styles of Lithuanians

Loreta Vaicekauskienė and Inga Vyšniauskienė

1 Introduction

As a result of the country’s geopolitical history, English and Russian have become the two principal non-native linguistic resources in present-day Lithuania. Tey are exploited by the Lithuanian speech community in a variety of communicative domains, yet with a certain sociodemographic distribution. According to self-reported data from representative large-scale surveys in 2008–2011, access to English is signifcantly higher among well-educated, socially and economically better established speakers up to their late thirties. Russian is much more accessible to people older than thirty; the command and use of Russian does not indicate social or economic correlation (Vaicekauskienė 2010).

L. Vaicekauskienė (*) · I. Vyšniauskienė Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] I. Vyšniauskienė e-mail: [email protected]

Te demand to learn English is still high in the community and is understandable from the pragmatic and symbolic value of linguistic resources. Te issue often arises in the public sociopolitical and cultural debate when discussing the country’s prospective orientation away from the Eastern (Soviet, Russian) zone of infuence (see Ruzaitė 2017). Yet, mastering a foreign language is not always necessary for social identifcation. Alongside the recognized instrumental value of both languages for the purposes of international communication, Lithuanians have developed a symbolic association of English with progressive Western (and global) culture and life style. Te indices of English as the language of younger and prosperous people, Western and global culture, etc. are even more enhanced when setting them against the link Russian has to local older generations who share the sociocultural commonalities of the Soviet era and the post-Soviet bloc. All these associations create a signifcant source for the local con- textualization of social meanings of the two linguistic resources in informal daily interactions among Lithuanians. When speaking in Lithuanian one may include various single elements from both English and Russian, and research has shown that such language usage is often socially motivated. For instance, adults’ mixed workplace discourse con- taining Russian insertions, slang and swearwords may serve as an index of belonging to a specifc community of practice, whereas English elements contribute to the construction of modern professional style and expert identity (Pinkevičienė 2017). Speech mixing also happens independently of command of a language. For instance, certain Russian elements are taken over in the speech of young people who do not know Russian at all due to their indexical charge (association with masculinity, informal style, etc.; Čekuolytė 2017). Tis chapter is thus based on the idea that multilingual resources have a rich potential for identity construction, regardless of whether social meanings are attributed to single varieties or to speech mixing that includes diverse elements from these varieties. We aim to explore the social and stylistic indices of what we call ‘mixed speech Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 339 style’ (i.e., situated speaking and writing that draw on various items of English and Russian origin inserted in an otherwise Lithuanian text). In addition to this term the mixing of linguistic resources from diferent languages in other studies may be referred to as ‘mixed code’, ‘mixed speech’, ‘mixed speech discourse’ and in other ways (see, e.g., Leppänen 2007, 2012; Androutsopoulos 2015; see also chapter “Estonian–English Code Alternation in Fashion Blogs: Structure, Norms and Meaning” by Verschik and Kask in this book). Hence, the focus of this conceptual framework is not on the functions of diferent language codes or structural characteristics of multilingual speech, but on the social and stylistic meanings cued in the practice of mixing various types of linguistic resources and on the construction of a mixed discourse as a socially meaningful local speech norm. Empirically, we cover two social and stylistic contexts of in-group communication among Lithuanians and two age groups whose access to Russian and English difers: spoken leisure time interactions among adolescents (Sect. 3) and informal written networking by adults on Facebook, the most popular social site in Lithuania (Sect. 4). Such a contrastive approach allows us to unfold a rich feld of indices of the mixed speech style of Lithuanians, in general, and of English and Russian resources, in particular (henceforth we use EN and RU for reference to both the mixed style and to Russian and English constituents of it). Examination of the social meanings of linguistic diversity in situated everyday usages will include the conventionalized social associations of linguistic variants attested in general metalinguistic awareness of the community in order to broaden the interpretative frame for the fndings.

2 Theoretical Framework

Te construction and use of social associations of linguistic resources, even multilingual ones, is as an integral part of everyday communication. Te so-called indexicality principle (Ochs 1993; Silverstein 340 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

2003; Eckert 2008) posits the primacy of local identity work by a community of speakers through which linguistic resources are associated with indexical meanings and thereby with social identities. In daily interactions these associations can be both activated and transformed (see, among others, Moore and Podesva 2009; Pharao et al. 2014). We explore the social meanings of RU and EN in a single ideological plane—the indexical feld (Eckert 2008), theorized as a fuid constellation of ideologically related social and stylistic meanings. It is a collective construct that captures both more general and also contextually dependent local meanings of linguistic variables. An indexical feld is thus both the basis for and the outcome of interactional identifcations since speakers exploit speech variation not just to reassert social values but also to make ideological moves. In this chapter we focus on how social meanings at the interactional level via stance taking, performance, stylization or voicing of various personae relate to more enduring social types, which may accumulate as social meanings emblematic of the group or the group’s style. We study creative uses of EN and RU by which users (re)interpret and establish alignment with the social meanings stereotypically indexed by such forms for their own interactional purposes. Although we primarily analyse the indexical meanings of EN and RU as interaction-based, we also explore these meanings when they become a subject of ideologically charged metalinguistic discourse.

3 Social and Stylistic Meanings of EN and RU in the Speech of Lithuanian Adolescents

Previous corpus analysis of the speech of Vilnius adolescents (50 hours of informal conversations of 10–16-year-old adolescents with peers collected in 2012–2014) has shown that the recurrent insertion of RU and EN is an integral part of adolescents’ speech (Vyšniauskienė 2014). Interactionally, a number of single instances of RU and EN have Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 341 appeared occurring either as discourse management devices (topic shift, emphasis) or non-emphatic elements1:

(1) B1: nu gerai pochui jai niekaip B1: well okay it doesn’t matter [RU swear- nedašuto nu aš jai ne tiesiai word] she didn’t realize I didn’t tell her šviesiai pasakiau nu bet jai ta straightforwardly but I mean she didn’t prasme visiškai nedašuto ką aš get it what I was saying yeah she’s a sakiau jo nu jin tokia čysta aš real [RU slang] I chatted with her and I taip pačiatinau ir pagalvojau thought a real [RU slang] blonde [insult- čysta blondinė visiškai nepa- ing term for a girl who is assumed not to gavo tai jinai čiūju dar iki šiol be very smart] she didn’t really get what galvoja kad ten ne aš nežinau I meant so I guess [RU slang] she’s still ne man tai taip juokinga pyzda thinking that it wasn’t me I don’t know no it’s so fucking [RU swearword] funny

Regardless of whether separate RU and EN can be ascribed any ana- lytically defensible function, it is the recurrent use of such elements that constructs mixed speech style—an in-group norm of adolescents’ everyday communication—which is socially meaningful as an index of ‘youth speech style’. In addition to this generic index of adolescents’ everyday speech, mixed speech may be performatively used in interaction and be associated with the index of playfulness, which, on the one hand, relates to show-ofsh toughness and masculinity (Sect. 3.1) and, on the other hand, smartness, creativity and fun (Sect. 3.2).

3.1 EN and RU as Indices of Playfully Framed Toughness, Expertise and Boys’ in-Group Style

Toughness and masculinity may be evoked by playful, show-ofsh use of RU or EN swearwords and RU slang expressions as well as stylized performance of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) also referred

1Here and further on in the chapter the original excerpt is given on the left, the translation is provided in italics on the right and the explanatory notes are given in square brackets. Highlights in bold indicate EN or RU. Morphologically non-integrated EN elements are transcribed according to the English spelling. In Sect. 3 the participants are referred to by symbols—G for a girl, B for a boy, and numbered occasionally. 342 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė to as ‘hip-hop slang’ due to its cultural associations (more on hip-hop slang as an important resource in youth subcultures in Androutsopoulos 2004). Such mixed style may occur at the level of single interactional turns, as in (2) and (4), or as a conversational sequence, as in (3):

(2) B2: suka ateini čia pas jį karočia B2: bitch [RU swearword] come here čia kažkur laksto nesuprantu kur to him ok [RU slang] he’s somewhere nu davai bėk tiesiai ir tau pyzda nearby I don’t know where common miręs esi dabar jau miręs sakau [RU slang] just run straight and you’re miręs keturi haš py trys blet įkri- fucking [RU swearword] dead now tom abudu į vandenį nu tu kurva you’re dead I’m saying you’re dead stovėk pabėgs eik tu nachui kurva four hp [‘health points’] three fuck suka tu [RU swearword] we’ve both fallen into B3: blet joptvaimat nafk what a water you cunt [RU swearword] stand fuck blet still or he’ll run away fuck cunt you bitch [RU swearwords] B3: fuck motherfucker fuck [RU swearwords] what a fuck fuck [RU swearword] [The extract is from a conversation when playing a computer game] (3) B4: o nachui tau mikrafas B4: why the fuck [RU swearword] do you B5: tai tam nachui eik nachui need the mike B6: aš negavau B5: for the fuck [RU swearword] [imitates B5: fuck you bitch laughing] fuck you [RU swearword] B4: ir dėl ko negavai B6: I didn’t get one B6: ką tu pasakei B5: fuck you bitch B5: I sorry to you B4: why didn’t you get one B6: what did you say B5: I sorry to you (4) B8: jo jo dabar jaučiu iki atsistos B8: yeah yeah now he’ll bye [farewell to ant rankų ant kojų ant rankų somebody leaving] stand on his arms B9: ant rankų į šitą yeah mother legs arms [reference to a video, which fucker you can do this the boys possibly watch on the smart phone] B9: on his arms to this one yeah mother fucker you can do this [hip-hop like intonation] Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 343

Toughness is playfully constructed by marked use of multiple swearwords: for instance, when engaged in a computer game (example (2)), through enhanced focus on EN in a hip-hop intonation (example (4)) or by playfully exchanging swearwords. In example (3), B4 notices the microphone (attached to the recorder) and asks about it using a RU swearword. B5 does not mitigate his reply (hence does not accommodate the recorder), but continues with the performance by repeating the swearword. B5 directs a swearword to a friend, who does not react, and attempts to outperform himself by swearing in English. Te insult is reacted to and B5 mitigates the insult by apologizing, which seems more of an imitation than a true apology, as evidenced by locally constructed EN. Te boys overtly show that they are not concerned about the adult scholar who will listen to the recordings and they engage in an explicit demonstration of RU and EN swearwords, thus exploiting the potential rudeness of swearwords for fun and playing around with masculinity. Such insults are not perceived as serious, no speaker leaves the interaction. Te knowledge and following of peer group norms when using multiple swearwords is what ties adolescents within a group and indexes masculine peer group member’s status. As evidenced by the corpus data, performative invocations of AAVE, diferently from playfully used RU and EN swearwords, do not trigger follow-up by other speakers; hence, adolescents and their peers do not indulge in complex identity construction but explore the indexical potential of AAVE for the construction of a tough urban adolescent style. Te use of AAVE has been illustrated among other communities of practice of European adolescents (e.g., Cutler and Røyneland 2015 show that young Norwegians index their relationship to American hip-hop and the associated social meanings via code switching into AAVE). A more specifc type of mixed speech during gaming sessions among boys constructs an experienced gamer’s identity. EN gaming slang sig- nals engagement and expertise in the game, whereas RU swearwords evoke the attribute of toughness (see also (2)): 344 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

(5) B10: jo jis užklaimino mus ir spavner- B10: yeah he has climbed and spawn- ius nu palikot biški aš tai su iksrėjum ers well you have left a bit I have užsibaninau dabar turiu pem banned myself with x-ray and now I have ffty (6) B11: taip kur tas tavo timeris taip start- B11: yes where’s your timer yes starter eris va timing belt here’s the timing belt B12: I am fying B12: I am fying (7) B13: what a fuck kaip man čia užlipt B13: what a fuck how will I climb here kad čia visur ištaškyta as they [game characters] are lying B14: ką aš žinau tavo problema all over here B13: blet žiūriu rimtai nenori su manim B14: I don’t care it’s your problem draugaut B13: fuck [RU swearword] I see you B14: taigi noriu nu nebijok o kaip man don’t really wanna be my friend nulipt a B14: I do don’t worry how am I going B13: o man pochui tavo problema to climb down B14: nu žiūriu tu su manim nenori B13: I don’t care [RU swearword] draugaut about your problem B13: noriu draugaut jo noriu B14: well I see that you don’t wanna B14: what a fuck nesvarbu stebėk ir be my friend mokykis vaikeli blemba B13: I do yeah wanna B13: eik nachui B14: what a fuck never mind watch and learn kid fuck [RU swearword] B13: fuck you [RU swearword]

EN are functional at the interactional level in signalling the role of a player who is monitoring the actions of a game character ((5) and (6)), for describing the words of a game character (I am fying ) and thereby afliating with the character’s voice. Active participation in and control of the game is signalled by EN also allowing the boys to create alignment with respect to each other as players and gamers. Successful performance in computer games is a valued resource among boys and RU swearwords add an attribute of toughness in relation to one’s role as a player, as shown by non-serious other directed insults in (7). Due to diferent lexico-functional types, RU and EN appear to have diferent indexical potential (‘toughness’ of swearwords and ‘knowledge of the game’ of EN computer games slang). Te co-occurrence of the elements evokes a tough experienced player identity. Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 345

Linguistic performances resorting to RU and EN swearwords appear to be relatively uncommon among girls. Te data have revealed very few instances of performative swearing among girls. In a number of cases such performative invocations are mitigated either by metalinguistic comments, such as ‘do not swear, otherwise will not like you’, or an explicit apology (e.g., ‘sorry sorry sorry for swearing’). Performatively constructed mixed speech using swearwords appears to be perceived as a marked linguistic practice among girls that may index ‘non-femininity’. However, playing around with toughness among boys amounts to a more general index of mixed speech as an ‘in-group norm’, an index of male solidarity.

3.2 EN as Indices of Smartness and Playfulness

Te indices of ‘smart’, ‘knowledgeable’ stance, ‘fun’ and ‘entertainment’ are interactionally constructed by using EN elements. Tese social meanings ideologically relate to the symbolic associations of English with modernity and prestige (Vaicekauskienė 2010), the latter evidenced by adolescents’ metalinguistic comments on competence and bragging episodes (see (8)):

(8) G1: aš lūžau iš jų man gaila buvo ir G1: I just fell about [laughing] when I dar viena pana dainavo anglišką heard them I felt sorry for them and dainą jinai nemokėjo normaliai tart one more girl sang an English song angliškai and she couldn’t pronounce properly. G2: man tai taip juokinga kai taria ką G2: it was so funny when she was pro- girdi nouncing exactly as she heard G1: butterfy butterfy jinai taria G1: butterfy butterfy she pronounces buterfai fai fai juvai tokia aš taip like buterfai buterfai fai fai juvai lūžau [imitates incorrect pronunciation] I just couldn’t stop laughing

EN also occur as utterance-framing devices—as concluding remarks, highlighting interactional points similarly to EN on Facebook (see (9)– (12)). In (13) an EN gaming-related phrase is used outside the gaming 346 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė context in a highly dynamic interaction as an attention-seeking device for a show-ofsh, witty demonstration.

(9) G3: bet tai koks tolkas tipo negi jisai G3: but what for [RU slang] like [RU galvoja slang] does he really think that kad jisai sukels jom pavydą būdamas he will make them jealous being su nu tipo aš with like [RU slang] I nesuprantu […] visiškai nesuprantu don’t get it <…> I don’t absolutely no logic get it no logic (10) G4: pala o jeigu aš užsidėsiu savo siūtą G4: wait what if I put on the skirt I’ve sijoną made myself it’s long but still looks jis ilgas visiškai bet still looks better better that’s really not the same tikrai ne identiška medžiaga fabric [compares two skirts] (11) B15: o man tai čia va bet kas geriau- B15: for me what’s best is that we sia we not doing matiekos kontras not doing maths [youth slang] tomorrow test tomorrow [sing-song intonation] (12) B16: davai tu imk gėrimą arba aš B16: look [RU slang] you buy the drink gėrimą o kas čia or I’ll buy it what’s this [reference to B17: nu niplocha fuuu cheap quality a drink] B17: well not bad [RU] yuck cheap quality (13) B18: savižudybės kamikadzė move I’m B18: suicide kamikaze move I’m gonna gonna die die B19: kai griovys žiūrėk B19: look what a ditch B18: pyzda B18: fuck [RU swearword] B19: pyzda aš miriau B19: fuck [RU swearword] I’ve died B18: you have one life left B18: you have one life left

EN phrases that have evaluative and summarizing functions reinforce the utterance and, via the wider symbolic associations of English, signal an authoritative footing for comments and remarks, which contributes to the interactional stance of smartness. Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 347

Te use of EN in the mixed speech of Vilnius adolescents is a creative process in which EN is playfully performed for fun and entertainment:

(14) 1. B19: vegetariškas kebabas šeši 1. B19: vegetarian kebab six litas what a litai what a fuck fuck 2. B20: damn 2. B20: damn 3. B19: damn vegans you gonna 3. B19: damn vegans you gonna die in die in apocalypse apocalypse 4. B20: jo jo bet vegetariškas 4. B20: yeah yeah a vegetarian kebab costs daugiau negu paprastas more 5. su mėsa 5. than the traditional with meat 6. B19: damn vegans you so lame 6. B19: damn vegans you so lame 7. B20: vegetariškas kokie con- 7. B20: vegetarian what confetti with toxins fetti with toxins koks 8. [singing intonation] what eee 8. eee 9. B19: its fake snow 9. B19: its fake snow 10. B20: snow fake snow with toxins each 10. B20: snow fake snow with of them toxins each of them 11. toxins kids 11. toxins kids 12. B19: have nowhere to put 12. B19: neturi kur dėt kad valyt 13. B20: kids each of them toxins what a 13. B20: kids each of them toxins fuck what a fuck 14. [shifts to thinner voice] I am loving it 14. I am loving it 15. B19: but it’s so annoying when there is 15. B19: bet užknisa kaip nėra nothing ką veikt to do 16. B20: best place to parkour 16. B20: best place to parkour eee in vilnius eee vilniaus

Extract (14) illustrates that linguistically mixed speech is a means of bonding, it engages and entertains in-group members as a way of spending time together (see line 15). Tere is also an attribute of smartness in being able to use English resources. Multiple elements are employed in the construction of mixed speech—that is, swearwords, the famous slogan from McDonalds’ advertisement in line 14, the quotation you’re gonna die in apocalypse and novel, creatively constructed longer structures (lines 3, 6, 10, 13, 16). Te speakers thus engage in an exchange of EN phrases referentially not related, showing appreciation of each 348 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė otherʼs utterance (line 10 as a follow-up to line 9), but recreating the phrases at the same time. In addition, the dominant position of English in pop and media culture is exploited locally in adolescents’ speech to show of. EN song quotations emerge during interactional pauses as silence-mitigating devices or in moments of high-interactional involvement, not directed to anyone and without an expectation of reply as attention-seeking devices in noisy, highly intense interaction:

(15) B21: ė pasisveikink toks ė I B21: hey say hello [a believe it now pause] I believe it now [sing-song B22: žiūrėkit tegul jis bando tegul jis intonation] bando perkirst žiūrėk B22: just watch let him let him try and cut watch [followed by mock fghting] (16) G5: žinau high fve or rather self fve G5: I know high fve or rather self fve G6: self fve you in the face [hip-hop like intonation] G5: self fve you in the face with a G6: self fve you in the face chair by hulk G5: self fve you in the face with a chair by hulk (17) G7: gilu buvo ane so deep G7: it was deep wasn’t it so deep G8: so deep I cannot even see G8: so deep I cannot even see G7: so deep I cannot even sleep G7: so deep I cannot even sleep G8: ką G8: what G7: it’s so deep I cannot even sleep G7: it’s so deep I cannot even sleep G8: kame logika G8: what’s the logic G7: live in the sunshine swim the sea G7: live in the sunshine swim the sea drink the wild air vau drink the wild air wow G8: taip pat gili mintis G8: that’s also a deep thought

Te quotation in (15) occurs during an interactionally loose moment (much moving around, much noise and mock physical as well as verbal fghting). Such an engagement in short moments of fun and entertainment may also turn into a collective pleasurable quoting game (more in Sharp 2007: 232); that is, quotes from media that stimulate the other interlocutor to acknowledge the quote and continue with it. Example Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 349

(16) demonstrates collaborative production marked by a hip-hop intonation that serves to enrich conversational activity. Quoting does not extend into a longer episode. Tis is diferent from (17) where an EN quotation (line 2) occurs as a reference to something being very deep. G8 asks about logic, but it is not a logical phrase that G7 alludes to but an overt, show-ofsh demonstration of English. Diferently from RU slang and swearwords which Lithuanian adolescents most likely adopt from their older peers, EN belong to the transnational space, particularly those elements linked to popular culture. Te use of EN should not be viewed as a one-directional process of appropriation and repetition, but rather as a creative process in which EN are used, mimicked, and playfully performed in the presence of evaluating peers for fun and entertainment.

4 Social and Stylistic Meanings of EN and RU on Lithuanian Facebook

We continue exploring construction of the style of mixed speech used on Facebook (FB). Tis part of our investigation is based on interactions among adults who also draw on RU or EN while engaging with opportunities provided by the new space of communication. Interactions on FB are hybrid and multimodal by nature. Short written exchanges on personal FB accounts are typically structured around initial posts, ‘status updates’, by the owner of the account who addresses the network, his or her so-called FB friends. Te participants get involved in the conversation with the poster or with each other by contributing a short comment. Although a dialogue dominates the discourse, monologue performances may be included, particularly in an initial post, yet they are restricted in length. Te participants tend to choose an informal speech register, which is characteristic of online interaction, but they are aware of the semi-public nature of FB on which exchanges are seen by all members in the network and can reach other networks (friends’ friends). 350 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

Such qualities allow FB to ofer multiple possibilities of linguistic expression characteristic of diferent language genres, styles and modes. FB participants explore linguistic materials for aesthetic and intellectual pleasure, playfully manipulate them for fun, for personal entertainment and in other ways that ‘both replicate and transcend ordinary conversational practices’ (Androutsopoulos 2015: 191; cf. Varis and Wang 2011; Deumert 2014). In addition to variants from social styles and dialects of one language a combination of multilingual resources is employed as a medium-driven norm of interaction. Digital media researchers refer to such a speech style as heteroglossic—a notion inspired by the works of Mikhail Bakhtin (Leppänen 2012). Te FB network studied consisted primarily of well-educated, relatively wealthy, socially and politically engaged, liberal and right-wing oriented urban Lithuanian participants in their late thirties and for- ties—in total, about 300 FB friends of one of the authors of this chapter and their friends. Te data were randomly sampled during a more than 3-year period of observation of the network (2013–2016). Activities were observed several times a week whereupon excerpts of discourse including mixed speech were collected. Similarly to the research on adolescents reported in Sect. 3 the focus was specifcally on speech mixing. Terefore, single instances of borrowing or swearing inserted into a Lithuanian text were excluded from the sample as was code switching when participants addressed their non-Lithuanian friends. Notes were taken on the discursive context of the exchanges, including both broader societal and local contextualizations. Te investigation did not involve interviewing the participants, but discourse analysis rested heavily on observation of the sociocultural and political views of the participants as well as their overall linguistic behaviour within and outside the network. In a number of cases, interpretations were facilitated by the fact that the majority of the participants were the researcherʼs friends or acquaintances outside the network. Te data set can be regarded as representative of a variety of constructions of multilingual heteroglossia on the site. Given the external factors (age, education, higher political awareness of the informants) the network’s profle was considered to be particularly appropriate for a contrastive study of the indexical potential of EN and RU. Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 351

Te following sections will discuss the established formal patterns of mixed in-group style construction across the data set and explore the two dominating general stances of ‘being playful’ and ‘being politically motivated’ including a variety of related social meanings of such style. It has been repeatedly shown by studies of online linguistic practices that resources from global English constitute a signifcant part of ludic interaction which embed EN in a text in a local language for the construction of a playful style, an in-group code (or anti-authoritarian, counter-culture stance) and performance of a fun, creative and smart persona (see Androutsopoulos 2011; Leppänen 2012; Seargeant et al. 2012; Zhang 2012; Deumert 2014). Yet mixed digital styles also draw on locally relevant linguistic signs and forms. We shall see that Lithuanian onliners exploit the universal social meaning potential of EN, but at the same time their networked EN is supplemented with and juxtaposed with RU. Hence, our study witnesses the linguistic construction of a stylistic and personal identity that rests on globally and locally inspired indices of EN and RU supposedly specifc to Eastern Europeans.

4.1 EN and RU as Indices of Playful, Creative and Anti- Standard in-Group Style

Playfulness has been noted as one of the most characteristic features of online communication since its very beginning (see, among others, Deumert 2014). Even serious matters are presented in a funny or ironic way on the network studied.2 Lithuanians fnd EN highly applicable for playful identity work and heteroglossic creativity on FB. EN clearly dominates both RU and other varieties as well as non-standard variants of domestic and foreign origin.

2Such remarks as ‘I am serious’, ‘seriously’ and similar included in published status updates have been noticed in our data. Overtly metacommunicating the intention to be taken seriously by the audience, they are a good indicator of the default playfulness of the discourse. 352 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

Examples (18)–(26) illustrate mixed speech in FB posts and comments3:

(18) J.K. Keturios minutės pėškom nuo Four minutes’ walk from home they namų, su awesomeiausia lauko have the most awesome outdoor court danga ever ir žaidėjais, kurie stato ever and skilful players who make zone užtvaras į stiprią gynybos pusę. defence. The whole town is full of peo- Visam mieste ant turnikų pilna ple hanging on rod. Good. [The poster žmonių. Good. shares satisfaction with the development in his home town] (19) g.g. Kodėl lietuviams svarbu, kad jų Why do Lithuanians think it is impor- vaikams mokykloje būtų dėstoma tant to teach their children Lithuanian lietuvių literatūra? (Patarimai literature at school? (References to paskaityti gerą galimai akadem- good, as well academic, paper contain- inį tekstą su prasmingu ir aiškiu ing a meaningful and clear defnition tautinės /kultūrinės tapatybės of national/cultural identity, especially apibrėžimu, ypač jei jis susiejamas if related to literature, national or oth- su literatūra, tautine or otherwise, erwise, also are more than welcome.) taip pat more than welcome.) [The poster works on her PhD project and needs advice from her FB friends] (20) R.A. Wish I was there my friends. Wish I was there my friends. It’s a damn Gaila, velnias. Nu nieko, reikės shame. Well, we have to meet more dažniau susibėgti. frequently. [The commenter regrets not being able to meet his friends for his birthday celebration] (21) v.a. RIP virtualusis N.C. Ha ha, but I RIP virtual N.C. Ha ha, but I still have you still have you on Skype (O šiaip tai on Skype (Anyway, huge respect. It is žiaurus respekts. Heвepoятнoe, нo unbelievable, but obvious.) [inexactly oчeвиднoe.) rendered RU idiom] [N.C. decides to close his FB account and stop using FB. The commenter expresses admiration for this decision]

3Te original post or comment is quoted in full (unless indicated by […]). To ensure the privacy of the participants all personal names of the authors and people referred to are replaced with fctional initials (upper case for males, lower case for females); numbered quotations are extracted from diferent discourses and unrelated to each other. Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 353

(22) S.P. “pedagogika – sunkus ir atsakin- ‘Teaching is a diffcult and responsible gas darbas, visur turi dirbti profe- job, it must be performed by profes- sionalai” – ano i vidno sionals’ – right on [RU idiom, ironic] [The poster expresses an ironic attitude towards the quoted statement by the Education Minister who is considered very unprofessional herself] (23) K.A. Taip, būtent, naudojamos hai Aha, exactly, he uses high voice changing vois čeindžing technolodžys. technologies. [The commenter engages in a mocking exchange directed at one public person who ostensibly makes anonymous calls but would not be able to use any technology due to his poor technological skills] (24) V.J. Гэpaй Good [LT Gerai in Cyrillic] [The commenter expresses satisfaction and approval of a publication by his FB friend] (25) G.A. инкpeдибл !!! Incredible [in Cyrillic] [The commenter spells English in Cyrillic echoing a funny post that spells the Lithuanian phrase ‘I am switching to Russian’ in Cyrillic] (26) P.K. […] nesu ir politologijos ar soci- […] I am not an expert in political ologijos specialistas, tad visa tai yra science or sociology, so all this is just mano labai hambl apinijon. my very humble opinion [The poster reviews programmes of political parties in connection with the elections]

Heteroglossic practices on FB show that mixed speech style is a deliberate construction and does not depend on the subject of the discourse, be it an observation of the surroundings (as in (18)), critical refection on various professional or public issues ((19), (22), (23), (26)) or socialization between friends ((20), (21), (24), (25)). Tis style contains vary- ing numbers of EN (less often RU) of diferent length (from a word to a 354 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė longer lexical unit) and form (original and respelled orthography, gram- matically integrated or not) which are inserted into a Lithuanian text in order to achieve the efect of a new, multilingual in-group style, to indicate playfulness and irony, to mitigate the degree of intimacy. Likewise in the oral interactions among adolescents, speech mixing occurs both intra-individually (in a structural fragment—post or comment—by one participant) and at the conversational level (i.e., a post in Lithuanian by one participant might be responded to with a comment in EN or RU or vice versa). Apart from the Romanization of Cyrillic (as in (22)) for technical reasons since it is not available on a standard keyboard in Lithuania, the informants creatively explore means of graphic expression. Orthographic respellings of EN according to Lithuanian orthography or the use of the Cyrillic script when writing in Lithuanian or in English must be an obvious additional cognitive operation, since the participants are well aware of the authorized norm. In fact, even contributing a funny single respelling in Cyrillic means investing some time to fx the typescript (most likely involving searching for an online Russian keyboard). Hence, the informants deliberately transgress the normative standards of writing (cf. a metalinguistic observation in the data: ‘Now it’s trendy to use Cyrillic—Slavic (Russian)—letters when writing in Lithuanian’). Te speech composed of multilingual elements is eye-catching in its anti-standardness, in the purist, ethnolinguistic climate of Lithuania it might even be associated with an anti-authoritarian position. Manipulating the orthographic shapes of linguistic signs contributes to further emphasis on the discursive distinctiveness of the new in-group code. In addition to the general indication of ‘fun’, ‘creative’ and ‘smart’ persona ((24), (25)), such manipulations seem to be particularly indicative of a ‘Do not take me very seriously’, ‘I am joking’, ‘I am ironic’ stance ((23), (26)). It is diffcult to know how such manipulations evolve, but they seem to confrm a universal approach to script as a source of joy and play. We have documented written exchanges by Lithuanian school pupils or emails of adults that creatively cross the monolingual boundaries of scripts Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 355 and orthographies. Androutsopoulos (2015: 188–189) describes the practices of trans-scripting, documented in other online communities, where networked jokes include writing one language in the script of another. In the FB data we also noticed recurrent expressions of emotions by means of EN discourse markers both in an original and often a respelled shape: Jesus/džysas, oh my God/oumaigad, nice/nais, cool/kūl, awesome/ osom, to mention just a few. Lithuanian respelling in particular might enhance the general index of joviality and playfulness of the new in-group style. When EN or RU are tagged at the beginning or particularly at the end of an utterance (as in (18), (20)–(22), (27)), they seem to serve an additional pragmatic function of strategic discourse framing— emphasizing the point of an utterance or engaging in a dialogue. Tis distinctive formal pattern is very common in the otherwise monolingual FB exchanges—for instance, a comment or a status update in Lithuanian might be ended with an English expression such as No ofence, Simple as that, Trust me on this, Old habits die hard, No guts no glory, Prove me wrong, Please advise, No victory without fghting, From zero to hero and others (see also (27)). Being worded in a language other than Lithuanian, such phrasal elements may facilitate a request for attention, a function of written mixed speech styles noted by other researchers as well (see studies of Russian in Rivlina 2015: 449).

(27) V.D. Ne, šitoksai nepasigydo. Block and You will never cure someone like him. forget Block and forget [The commenter advises to terminate discussions with one user]

Given the general high status of English and still insufcient command of it in the Lithuanian community, invocation of English idiomatic expression may bring along an index of being ‘smart’. Russian phrases are few and far between and might, in turn, have a socializing 356 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė efect of ‘in-groupness’ originating in the ‘pop-cultural’ inheritance established in people’s speech from the Soviet era. FB participants invoke quotations from popular movies, TV programmes or widespread jokes from the Soviet era such as Srok idiot, robota stoit ‘it does not pay to work hard’, Plavaly-znajem ‘I know the matter for sure’ and others (see also (21)). Tey clearly enhance the general playfulness of networked multilingualism. Dominating types of RU on FB include slang items and swearwords, commonly associated with tough working-class masculinity and rough, ‘uncultivated’ register (see the stylistic practices of adolescents in Sect. 3). FB participants are well aware of the network’s boundedness in private in-group communication. When transferred to a more public network it is re-contextualized as an index of an assertive authoritative stance and a performance of strong emotion, as seen from the metalinguistic comment in (28):

(28) K.L. […] neturiu nieko pries rusija ir […] I have nothing against Russia nieko uz ja tiesiog rusiski issireiskimai and nothing for it, it’s just because skamba tvirciau ir agresyviau. […] Russian expressions sound stronger and more aggressive […] [The commenter explains why he has included RU in his comment]

Stylizing of masculine toughness is clearly nothing more than a part of the general playful identity work on FB. It also exploits other multilingual devices and literacy repertoires, such as mixing features from diferent scripts and grammars (see (29)–(30)):

(29) U.A. Geriausias dalykas – K.M. The best performance – K.M. from Panevėžys iš Panevežë, kiekvienas [Cyrillic ë is a phonetic rendition of original segmentas. Quality. Krč still Lith. genitive -io ], every piece of it. Quality. didžiausias metų muzikos In short [abbreviation of RU slang koroče ] eventas on telly. still the biggest annual music event on telly. [The commenter reviews a TV broadcast] Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 357

(30) R.G. ot tai blet pažanga, ot tai See this fucking [RU swearword] progress, see 21 amžius. Sugalvoji įrašyt this 21st century. You just want to record an bukvalų balsą į tą **baną PC ordinary voice on this fucking [RU symbol mašiną – koks programos swearing] PC machine – and what is the title vardas – sndrec? soundrec? of the software – sndrec? soundrec? rec? rec? recorder? šauk tyruose, recorder? You can scream the place down gal atspėsi. #‎DOSatitsbest trying to guess. #‎DOSatitsbest [The poster criticizes Microsoft’s operating system]

Te data show that Lithuanian facebookers perceive the social network as a space for multilingual expression that allows breaking with the traditional representations of cultural standards of communication in public. Linguistic construction of an FB persona follows its own, anti-mainstream normativity based on a playful and creative approach to language as a tool for social identifcation. Driven by the need for recognition, this complex identity work involves a signifcant degree of performative stance taking for the audience and an expectation of approval of its entertainment value. Mixed speech style gains in value as a new norm. Its quality rests on sociolinguistic competences of speech gamers—namely, an ability to acquire and develop particular patterns of mixing Lithuanian with EN and RU as well as to code the mixed speech with social meaning (and decode it). Similar to any natural acquisition of linguistic behaviour, this competence is developed by observing and practising—not by overt instruction. Failure to recognize the indexicality behind heteroglossic practices may trigger irritated evaluations (see (31)–(33)):

(31) D.H. Įdomu - aš, būdamas lietu- Interestingly – will I, being a Lithuanian, vis, […] turėsiu kada nors tokią […] ever have this privilege of reading in privilegiją - skaityti lietuviškai? Lithuanian? Without all these foreignisms Be tų visų “jaunimo subkultūros” of “youth subculture” […]? I understand, svetimybių […]? Suprantu, norisi you want to show off that you know for- pademonstruot, kad žinome eign words. […] Why not switching then užsieninių žodžių ir panašiai. to a cool text and using numbers instead […] Tai gal galima iš vis pereit of letters? It would be a cool way of prie cool texto ir vietoj raidžių, writing as well.] [The commenter stylizes p3r31t1 pr13 sk41č1ų? Čia gi irgi mixed speech inserting various EN forms cool way, pawrotinti kitaip. and numbers instead of letters] 358 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

(32) L.O. kas čia per kalbos darkymas, what a distortion of the language with šitais angiškų žodžių iterpiniais? all these inserted English words? Is it a Nauja mada? Šlykšti mada. […] new trend? Disgusting trend. […] Does Skamba kiėčiau? Gal tik tiems it sound cooler? Maybe just for the ones kurie taip rašo:)) who write this way:)). (33) P.M. Cia dabar mada Lietuvoj Is it so trendy now to write comments in komentarus lietuviu + anglu Lithuanian + English? kalba rasyt? These are the smart hipsters, you know. A.A.to P.M. Gi kieti hipsteriai. Fucking twats Fucking twats.

Metalinguistic comments make it clear that in-group speech is approached from the normative framework of the protectionist standard language ideology dominating the ofcial language policies in Lithuania and echoed in public discourses of Internet commentators (see Ruzaitė 2017); the practice therefore is considered illegitimate. As a rule, those who criticize do not really belong to the networking group. Tey have an outside ‘follower’ rather than a ‘friend’ status in some participants’ networks. Yet, the insiders do not make room for concession. Claims for external regulation are rejected and the observers are reminded that linguistically mixed practices are not intended for those who cannot grasp their social meaning. Such angry ‘righteous’ comments unintentionally highlight and confrm the social and stylistic value of the FB style developed—its autonomy and performativity, ‘in-groupness’, ‘diferentness’ and ‘anti-standardness’, a degree of ‘smartness’ by being profcient in English, linguistic ‘creativity’, ‘coolness’, ‘trendiness’ and young, cosmopolitan favour. Interestingly, the metalinguistic awareness and outright criticism of mixing linguistic resources is mainly directed at EN. Tis may result not only from the actual predominance of EN for identity construction on FB (revealed by investigations of other Lithuanian networks as well; see Jakelienė 2018), but also to the infuence of the nationalist metalinguistic discourse in the public media, which has approached EN as a new threat to the Lithuanian identity since the early 1990s (Vaicekauskienė and Šepetys 2018). Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 359

4.2 EN and RU as Indices of Sociopolitical Stance

Contrary to the less frequent exploitation of RU when indexing a playful speech style and a number of related social meanings, RU seems to play a predominant role as a linguistic index of the sociopolitical stance of informants. Engagement with sociopolitical issues is very common in the data. Tis may be due, on the one hand, to the profle of participants (who are educated and socially active people) and, on the other hand, to the historical geopolitical sensitivity of Eastern Europeans. Tere is no doubt that growing exposure of the region to Russia’s information war and Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, which coincided with the period of data collection, have become an important stimulator of sociopolitical discussions on the network. Discursive construction of the sociopolitical indices of RU, albeit not dismissing the generic element of playfulness, are formed particularly in this context. Contrary to performances of ‘ludic self’ (de Mul, 2005 in Deumert 2014: 23) that are not content sensitive (Sect. 4.1 shows a playful style of mixing can be found in discourses that discuss diferent matters), linguistic construction of the political stance of RU and EN is inseparable from political refection and seems particularly to favor critical intellectual performance. Tis is obvious in the overtly negative assessments of Russia’s imperialist ideology. FB participants insert RU rhetorically when addressing the Russian government and its supporters in Russia (as in (34) and (35)) as well as stylizing Russian propaganda (as in (36)):

(34) u.r. Vabalai nerimauja. Žinokite, The bugs [LT slang ‘pro-Putin Russians’] are gerbiami kaimynai iš Rytų, man worried. You know, dear Eastern neigh- tikrai šita truba privlekatelnėjė bours, I fnd this tube more attractive [RU už balvonus. phrase] than your idol sculptures [The poster reacts to Russian press that accuses Lithuanians for taking down Soviet sculptures from a bridge in Vilnius but leaving a new industrial sculpture of a tube (debated as ugly art)] 360 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

(35) P.R. skatertju doroga:((( The doors are widely open for you to leave [RU idiom]:((([The commenter ironically farewells Putin who leaves the European summit after receiving critique for the war in Ukraine] (36) B.V. “Dobryj, večer, rosijane! “Good afternoon, Russian citizens! We have Vsio otdali, sssr, kolxozy, given away everything, USSR, collective no mavzolei, Lansbergisam farming, but we will not surrender the neotdadim… zakryty: aer- mausoleum to the Lansbergis family… oprty, ž.vokzaly, metro… Airports, central stations and subway are Lansbergis-no pasaran!” closed. [RU utterance] Lansbergis - no pasaran!” [The poster stylizes Russian news that ostensibly report on security measures taken to prevent the invasion of Kremlin. Reference is made to EU parliamentarian Landsbergis (the name is spelt incorrectly), grandson of the frst President of post- 1990 Lithuania, who was denied entrance to Russia due to his support of Ukraine]

A direct link between RU and Russia’s expansionist politics is established in such critical political discourse, and RU is used as an index of an ‘anti-President Putin/Russia’ stance. Obviously, a degree of playful linguistic creativity characteristic of FB discourse might be present even in these politically charged exchanges. For instance, in (36) not only does the entextualization of the Spanish historical slogan no pasaran ‘they shall not pass’ add a humorous association to outright war propaganda determined to stop the attacking enemy, but it also makes a link to the reinterpretation of the communist–fascist/ Nazi/nationalist opposition which is developed in other exchanges. As seen in (37) the denomination ‘fascist’ stylizes a hostile attitude toward Lithuanian people. Together with the label ‘nationalists/Nazis’, it was employed by the communist regime after the occupation of Lithuania to refer to resisting Lithuanians. Te transliteration of Lithuanian into Cyrillic (as in (37) and (38)) reinforces the playful tone of the practice of mixing multilingual resources but it simultaneously exploits the additional value of orthographies as cultural representations. In (37) Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 361 the voicing of a Russian-speaking person is enhanced by reproducing Russian pronunciation in the transliteration of Lithuanian ‘fascist’. In (38) a similar voicing is used indirectly in an ironic invocation of derogatory labels. By coining the playful composite word žydalitofcanacistas ‘Jewish–Lithuanian–Nazi’, in which Lithuanian is made from RU litovcy ‘Lithuanians’, the poster stylizes a Russian-speaking voice:

(37) R.A. […] Tiems kas zirzia kad nenori […] Those who cry that they do not tarnauti mūsų Kariuomenėj, tegul want to do military service in our Army, pagalvoja kaip jiems ir jų vaikams let them think how nice it will be for bus šaunu tarnauti pas vatnikus, them and their children to serve as kur juos vadins фaшыcтaйc. vatniks [RU slang ‘pro-Putin Russians’], who will call them fascists [LT fašistais in Cyrillic] [The poster argues for the need to re-establish a conscript army in Lithuania] (38) […] l.v. O pycишкaй тaй типo […] So speaking Russian isn’t trendy? нeмaдингa? [Except for ‘So’ the Lithuanian utter- L.D. to l.v. Na kodėl tu taip l.v. ance is spelt in Cyrillic. l.v. refers to a Tiesiog esu žydalitofcanacistas. Tai previous exchange by L.D. in which he todėl. jokes that he does not speak Russian] But why do you say so l.v. I am just a Jewish–Lithuanian–Nazi. [litofca phonetic rendition of RU litovcy ‘Lithuanians’] That’s why

Te data show that RU is also employed to deride or refer to Lithuanians who are supposedly infuenced by Russian propaganda and thought to (consciously or subconsciously) impede Westernization of the Lithuanian state (see (39)):

(39) P.L. Heдoпycтим пpoдaжи нaшeй We will not allow to sell our land [in зeмли. Verkia tikro litovco dūšia. RU]. The soul of true litovcas [from RU litovec ‘Lithuanian’] is crying. [The poster voices protesters against the legislation of sale of Lithuanian land to EU citizens] 362 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

Te iconic link between Cyrillic and Russianness is distinct in instances of Lithuanian in Cyrillic where the discourse itself does not directly discuss politics. For instance, in one exchange a politician suspected of pro-Russian activities is rhetorically addressed in Cyrillic; reference is made to his publication and the script alone hints at the critical political stance of the FB poster. Even in non-political exchanges, playful insertion of Russian (especially in Cyrillic) may evoke an association with Russia and stimulate a comment (see (28)). Te stigma attached to the Russian language and Cyrillic as the expansionist legacy of Soviet socialism during the Soviet and post-Soviet eras has been documented in other studies (see Mustajoki 2010: 48; Sebba 2012: 4). Of course, assigning indexical meaning to certain scripts ‘can only be identifed within a framework that adequately considers visible language’ (Androutsopoulos 2015: 189). English is clearly opposed to Russian where sociopolitical stances are concerned, but the opposition is mainly established through a metalinguistic construction of the indices of EN and RU. For instance, speech that incorporates English elements is assigned an index of Westernization of Lithuanian society (see (40) and (41)):

(40) T.K. Šiandien kalbėjau su aukštu Today I spoke to a high state offcial valstybės tarnautoju, kuris vartojo and in his speech he used words žodžius okey, hub’as, port’as, svičas, okey, hub, port, switch, router, routeris, spydas ir bulšitas. Ar yra speed and bullshit. Can you imagine geresnis šalies progreso rodiklis? a better indication for the states’ progress? (41) P.D. […] Smarkiai keičiasi Lietuvos […] The Lithuanian justice system is teisėsauga. Savo darbe nuolat matau, markedly developing. In my daily kaip į kriminalinę žvalgybą ateina work I meet new young profession- jauni žmonės, kurie savo darbe nau- als in criminal intelligence, who use doja anglišką žargoną, ne rusišką. professional slang from English, not from Russian.

Te data show that mixed (professional) speech is taken as evidence of mastering English and having a connection to the English-speaking world, which establishes a symbolic link to Western democratic Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 363 values and socioeconomic welfare (see also Ruzaitė 2017 on public discourses of lay-Lithuanians). Playful distancing from Russian (see also (38)), in turn, reveals the associative stigma of Russian to the Soviet past, which is exploited in the sociopolitical discourse of the network studied. Te data also include comments depicting the qualities and symbols of the Western life style and making various references to the English language.

5 Conclusions

Constituting an integral part of the mixed speech styles of Lithuanians, English and Russian resources appear to be a valuable source to construct social meaning. First and foremost, such mixed speech embeds the universal indexicality of ‘informality’ and ‘in-group identity’, both among adolescents and young and middle-aged adults. For adolescents, in particular, speech mixing that includes repetitive non-emphatic RU slang carries an index of ‘youth speech style’, whereas adults on FB draw on EN insertions to distance themselves from ordinary spoken and written linguistic practices. Te general association of English resources with young urban style means, even in the in-group style of networking, that adults may receive the social attribution ‘youthful’, which is echoed in metalinguistic references to mixing with EN as a ‘trendy hipster style’ (a similar index of EN has been noticed in experimental assessments of the speech of adults that incorporates EN elements; see Čekuolytė 2010). Te fndings from both empirical settings show that construction of in-group membership also involves linking the mixed speech style to the index of ‘anti-normativity’ or ‘anti-standardness’, a playful opposition to the dominant ofcial ideology of language purity and monolingualism. Te index emerges either as self-refection oriented towards an outsider (a scholar collecting data from pupils) or from metalinguistic critique of the ‘new speech trend’ on FB. Deliberately breaking language rules and norms to construct an innovative, new speech style relates to the intertwined generic indices of ‘creativity’ and ‘playfulness’—the most signifcant and universal ideological constructs that frame the speech-mixing practices of both 364 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė settings studied. A number of connected social meanings such as ‘cool’, ‘trendy’, ‘entertaining’, ‘fun’, ‘ironic’ derive from them. Multilingual manipulations of language forms and performances of these stances and styles may invoke an additional index of ‘smartness’, primarily connected to the possession of sufcient cultural background and linguistic skills to master the style. Tis is evident in metalinguistic discussions by pupils and adults on the use of English and allows us to draw a link from the local construction of a playful discourse to the universal assignment of prestige and high social value to the English language. It has been noted elsewhere that playing on ‘foreign-languageness’, English in particular, is one of the most signifcant trends in current multilingual linguistic creativity (see Rivlina 2015). Interestingly, the only option for RU to be assigned the social meanings ‘trendy’ and ‘smart’ involves transliterating Lithuanian or English into Cyrillic script, something played on in the written discourse of FB. Tis is very likely due to a sharp reduction in the use of Russian in the Lithuanian sociolinguistic landscape since 1990, which makes rediscovery of the Russian script for the purpose of entertainment appear cool and trendy. Te data show that the more autonomous and dominating position of RU slang and swearwords at both the metalinguistic and micro- interactional level relates to a playful performance of ‘toughness’ and ‘masculinity’. Urban American slang may also carry this social meaning for Lithuanian adolescents, but it is much less used than RU, which— contrary to the mediated origin of EN—is a locally rooted resource, frmly established in all current generations. Lithuanians also make creative use of the indexical potential of English and Russian in the discursive construction of sociopolitical stances. Naturally, according to our data this was mainly undertaken by adults through the metalinguistic afliation of EN with an index of ‘progressive Westernness’ as opposed to stylized voicing of ‘regressive and aggressive Russianness’ by means of RU resources. Although the interactions among adolescents in our study did not provide data about the sociopolitical ideologies of young people, their identity work using EN—as experienced participants of the global community of computer gamers or consumers of popular culture—entrench the sociocultural status of English as a mediator of the global life style. Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 365

Tis chapter shows that locally situated social meaning making is inseparable from global ideological processes and geopolitical identifcations. Lithuanians’ mixed speech styles with EN and RU are embedded in a larger indexical feld of related meanings which is, in turn, rooted in the social, cultural and political history of these two linguistic resources in Lithuania. We hope that our fndings can ofer a comparative perspective for further studies of the local indexical felds of English and Russian in other Eastern European communities.

References

Androutsopoulos, J. (2004). Non-native English and sub-cultural identities in media discourse. In H. Sandøy (Ed.), Den feirspråklege utfordringa [Te multilingual challenge] (pp. 83–98). Oslo: Novus. Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse. In C. Turlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 277–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205. Čekuolytė, A. (2010). Jaunimo požiūris į angliškus žodžius suaugusiųjų kal- boje. Kalbos kultūra, 83, 322–341. Čekuolytė, A. (2017). Vilnius adolescents’ social order: An outsider’s look inside. An ethnographic and sociolinguistic study of social categories and stylistic practices among Vilnius adolescents. PhD dissertation, Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius. Cutler, C., & Røyneland, U. (2015). Where the fuck am I from? Hip-hop youth and the (re)negotiation of language and identity in Norway and the US. In J. Nortier, & B. A. Svendsen (Eds.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century. Linguistic practices across urban spaces (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deumert, A. (2014). Te performance of a ludic self on social network(ing) sites. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), Te language of social media: Identity and community on the internet (pp. 23–45). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 366 L. Vaicekauskienė and I. Vyšniauskienė

Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical feld. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476. Jakelienė, E. (2018). Code-switching on Facebook in Denmark and Lithuania. Taikomoji kalbotyra, 10, 1–25. Leppänen, S. (2007). Youth language in media contexts: Insights into the functions of English in Finland. World Englishes, 26(2), 149–169. Leppänen, S. (2012). Linguistic and generic hybridity in web writing. Te case of fan fction. In M. Sebba, S. Mahootian, & C. Jonsson (Eds.), Language mixing and code-switching in writing: Approaches to mixed-language written discourse (pp. 233–254). New York and London: Routledge. Moore, E., & Podesva, R. (2009). Style, indexicality and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society, 38, 447–485. Mustajoki, A. (2010). Types of non-standard communication encounters with special reference to Russian. In M. Lähteenmäki, & M. Vanhala-Aniszewski (Eds.), Language ideologies in transition. Multilingualism in Russia and Finland (pp. 35–55). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ochs, E. (1993). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pharao, N., Maegaard, M., Møller, J. S., & Kristiansen, T. (2014). Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in diferent prosodic context. Language in Society, 43, 1–31. Pinkevičienė, D. (2017). Mišri kalba darbo aplinkoje: atvejo tyrimas. Taikomoji kalbotyra, 9, 73–108. Rivlina, A. (2015). Bilingual creativity in Russia: English-Russian language play. World Englishes, 34(3), 436–455. Ruzaitė, J. (2017). Diversity of attitudes to English in non-professional public discourse: A focus on Lithuania. English Today, 33(3), 15–24. Sharp, H. (2007). Swedish–English language mixing. World Englishes, 26(2), 220–240. Sebba, M. (2012). Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity and power. In A. Jafe, J. Androutsopoulos, M. Sebba, & S. Johnson (Eds.), Language as social processes [LSP]: Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity and power (pp. 1–20). Berlin: de Gruyter. Seargeant, P., Tagg, C., & Ngampramuanc, W. (2012). Language choice and addressivity strategies in Tai-English social network interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(4), 510–531. Russian and English as Socially Meaningful … 367

Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23, 193–229. Vaicekauskienė, L. (2010). Globalioji daugiakalbystės perspektyva: anglų kalbos vieta ir vaidmuo Lietuvos miestų erdvėje. In M. Ramonienė (Ed.), Miestai ir kalbos (pp. 175–203). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Vaicekauskienė, L., & Šepetys, N. (2018). Lithuanian language planning: A battle for language and power. In E. Andrews (Ed.), Language planning in the post-communist era: Te struggles for language control in the new order in Eastern Europe (pp. 193–218). Eurasia and China: Palgrave Macmillan. Varis, P., & Wang, X. (2011). Superdiversity on the internet. A Case from China. Diversities, 13(2), 71–83. Vyšniauskienė, Inga. (2014). Corpus analysis of Russian and English resources in Vilnius adolescents’ speech. Taikomoji kalbotyra 6. https://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/46. Accessed 30 March 2018. Zhang, W. (2012). Chinese-English code-mixing among China’s netizens. English Today, 28, 40–52. Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States

Solvita Pošeiko

1 Introduction

Outside advertising information (i.e., visual and textual information on and around the building of an establishment, visible from the street) is the frst statement that can be observed about a business in the city, and comprises a part of the linguistic landscape (LL). Te commercial name is one of the primary identifers of a specifc business, providing readers with information about the business and its owner, region or state; the local language policy and written language traditions; and economic trends. After the restoration of independence at the conclusion of the twentieth century, language policy, economics and public life in the Baltic states underwent signifcant changes. Each of the three states passed state language laws and other normative documents regulating language use, education and development, in order to mandate the use of the

S. Pošeiko (*) Rēzekne Academy of Technologies, Rēzekne, Latvia S. Pošeiko University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia

© Te Author(s) 2019 369 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_12 370 S. Pošeiko state language in most sociolinguistic domains and support its status, while at the same time reducing the social value of the Russian language in local society (see Hogan-Brun et al. 2007; Hogan-Brun and Melnyk 2012). Similarly, cultural and economic proximity to other Western countries (and accession to the EU) have reinforced the use and sociopragmatic value of Western languages (especially English) in business and international communication (Latvian Language Agency 2011). Tese factors also infuence the choice of language and language tools used for outside advertising information. Making an optimal, linguistically and economically sound decision is a serious challenge for entrepreneurs. Tere are four questions which refect the direction of specifc language situations: (1) Is outside advertising information made only in the titular language, strictly adhering to language laws? (2) Is public information also ofered in other locally used languages (e.g., Russian, Polish, Belarusian), in accordance with their presence in the city? (3) Is information oriented to a foreign market or clients, using text or text fragments in languages familiar to them in order to draw their attention? (4) Is it economically benefcial to publish information in foreign languages, in order to create a perception among the target audience (locals) that a business is modern, internationally oriented and successful? Te answers to each of these questions are motivated in diferent ways, and each promotes a diferent linguistic image (identity) for a business. Tis chapter pays attention to the LL of the Baltic states in order to analyse and interpret commercial names in terms of glocalization. International infuence and language practices are discussed in both commercial names and in the LL as a whole. Te main research questions are: How can the co-existence and interaction of local and global elements in commercial names be analysed, defned and interpreted? What can glocal practices tell us about business and society in the Baltic states? Te chapter is divided into fve sections. After this introduction, Sect. 2 begins with a short description of the main principles of LL research and a review of relevant research directions in the Baltic states. It then continues with a discussion of the methodology used for interdisciplinary research into commercial names—as well as the three main criteria for their characterization—and includes theoretical defnitions Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 371 of terms related to glocalization, a term itself coined as a portmanteau of the terms globalization and localization from the social sciences. Finally, a model for combining commercial name analysis criteria with the concept of glocalization is ofered. Section 3 is an overview of the methods, data and conclusions of previous LL research in the Baltic states, providing insight about language use and highlighting the most signifcant features of commercial name signs. Section 4 is a linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis of commercial name signs according to theoretical concepts of glocalization, further expanding the interpretation of individual examples. At the end of the chapter, conclusions are drawn from the issues raised in order to answer the main research question.

2 Theoretical and Methodological Framework

2.1 The Linguistic Landscape Approach in the Context of the Baltic States

Commercial name signs are only one part of the set of diverse language signs in the public space. Te LL consists of all written language signs, these include various text genres (e.g., posters, advertisements, directional signs, security information, grafti), sociolinguistic domains (e.g., municipal, educational, trade, industry, social life) and public spheres (ofcial, commercial, private; see Landry and Bourhis 1997; Gorter 2006; Shohamy and Gorter 2009). Its main functions are informative and symbolic. Te LL directly provides the reader with information, prohibitions, invitations or instructions, and demonstrates particular uses of written language; however, it also indirectly indicates ownership and the social value of language (language status and prestige; see Landry and Bourhis 1997). Studies of the LL were frst developed in the feld of urban sociolinguistics, adding to previous paradigms of data acquisition (photography of language signs, interviews), analysis and interpretation that enable the description and analysis of languages and their geographical distribution in public space. Te further development of the LL approach 372 S. Pošeiko expanded its understanding by creating links with other disciplines (e.g., semiotics, sociology, economics, pedagogy), methodological tools and theoretical knowledge. At the same time, many studies also demonstrate a specifc, deep focus on the analysis of one type of sign (e.g., ads, posters, prohibition signs, grafti; see more in Gorter 2006; Shohamy and Gorter 2009; Shohamy et al. 2010; Gorter et al. 2012; Hélot et al. 2012; Blackwood and Tuf 2016). In the Baltic states, LL studies have included capital and regional cities which have been subject to analysis from various theoretical angles, focusing on minority and regional languages (mostly Russian and Latgalian) and language policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union in comparison to real-life language practice (e.g., Pavlenko 2008, 2009; Marten 2012; Lazdiņa 2012; Muth 2012; Zabrodskaja and Verschik 2010, 2013; Zabrodskaja 2014). Some medium-size cities with stable traditions of tourism are also being explored in detail with regard to languages of tourism and to the roles of English and Russian as linguae francae (Marten et al. 2012; Ruzaitė 2017). Te largest LL study to date in the Baltic states—on which this chapter is based—began in 20081 (see more in Lazdiņa et al. 2013). Research was carried out in nine regional cities: Daugavpils, Valmiera and Ventspils in Latvia; Alytus, Druskininkai and Visaginas in Lithuania; and Narva, Pärnu and Viljandi in Estonia. Cities were selected according to factors such as their ethnolinguistic situations and functional profles. First, one ethnically, linguistically and culturally homogenous city was chosen from each country: Valmiera, in which 83.4% of all inhabitants are Latvian, Viljandi (94% Estonian) and Alytus (97% Lithuanian) (data according to the foreign afairs departments of city councils and population censuses from 2011 to 2015). In turn, three other cities (Daugavpils, Narva and Visaginas) were

1Research into the LL was carried out by students and researchers of the Rēzekne Academy of Technologies or RTA (including the author of the chapter) within the scope of the project Research of Linguistic Landscape of Rēzekne City and Its Comparison to Other Baltic Cities (supervisors S. Lazdiņa, H. F. Marten) and the European Social Fund project Linguo-cultural and Socioeconomic Aspects of Territorial Identity in the Development of Latgale Region (supervisor S. Lazdiņa). Te author of the chapter individually carried out LL research in Valmiera in 2012, Daugavpils in 2015, Visaginas in 2013 and Viljandi in 2014. Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 373 chosen because of their Russian-speaking majority populations. Russian ethnicity is claimed by 83% of the total population of Narva, with Belarusians and Ukrainians comprising 2% each. Visaginas is comprised of 51.3% Russians, 9.7% Belarusians and 9.2% Poles. In Daugavpils, 50% of the residents claim that they are ethnic Russians, followed by Poles (13.9%), Belarusians (7.8%) and Ukrainians (2%) (data according to respective national population censuses). Tree cities with longstanding and stable traditions of tourism—Ventspils, Pärnu and Druskininkai—were also selected for contrast. In all these cities, central streets were selected for data collection. Numerous and diverse establishments and businesses could be found on these streets, as well as concentrations of social life (government, trade, culture, entertainment, etc.) Tis facilitated the collection of language signs of difering sociolinguistic domains. In Sect. 2.2 attention is drawn to name signs from the perspectives of two scientifc disciplines—sociolinguistics and socio-onomastics— demonstrating that it is possible to meaningfully combine two linguistic research methodologies in name sign analysis.

2.2 Commercial Names and Related Research

Te names of institutions and businesses in the cityscape are research objects in the felds of sociolinguistics and socio-onomastics. If name signs are one type of language sign in the context of the LL, in socio- onomastics they are a type of onym, which together form the onomastic landscape (or more precisely, the namescape). In the Russian scientifc tradition, the names of institutions and businesses are commonly referred to as ergonyms (Podolyskaja 1988; Jemelyanova 2007).

Onomastic Research of Commercial Names

In onomastics, ergonyms are primarily analysed based on two principles: (1) structure (morphological and syntactic relations of onyms, nomenclature words and their appellative relations as well as the derivation and construction of words) and (2) motivation and 374 S. Pošeiko semantics (i.e., sources for choices and meanings of words including transonimization—the conversion from one category of noun into another—and lexical semantic groups; Laugale and Šulce 2012; Bušs 2013). Here, ergonyms are usually treated as nouns with mostly identifying functions, followed by their roles for informing and advertising (Bergien 2009; Amirova [Aмиpoвa] 2011). Te relationships between nomenclature words and common words used in ergonyms can be structurally classifed in various ways, taking into account connections between a business’s name and its type. For example, a name can be a direct or real name only if nomenclature words (primarily of businesses, specifc products or services) are used. Examples taken from the data set of Baltic cities include Aptieka ‘Pharmacy’ in Latvia, AVALYNĖ ‘Shoes’ in Lithuania, and Jalatsite parandus Peмoнт oбyви ‘Shoe repair’ (in Estonian and Russian) in Narva. A name can only be classifed as an indirect or symbolic name if the chosen common word(s) metaphorically name the business (e.g., the sports centre Kalev ‘Hero’ in Pärnu or the bar tinte ‘Ink’ in Valmiera). However, they do not necessarily have direct semantic connections to the business sphere. A name is mixed if it consists of both a direct and an indirect name (e.g., in Constant kavinė ‘in Constant café’ in Alytus, Autokool Rool ‘Driving school Steering wheel’ in Viljandi). Abbreviated names are also occasionally used (BIG, from Balti Investeeringute Grupp ‘Baltic Investor Group’ in Pärnu; see also Laugale and Šulce 2012: 31–34). As names also consist of onyms (toponyms, personal names), transonimized names could be additionally considered as a subordinate group of symbolic or mixed names (e.g., the store Monika [female name] in Visaginas, Dāvanu salons Kurzemīte ‘Gift salon Little Courland [one of the historical and cultural regions in Western Latvia]’ in Ventspils). Regarding motivation and semantics, often the lexical potential of various precedent groups (i.e., categories of semantically related words) can function as motivation (conceptual resource) for commercial names (e.g., cuisine, literature, folklore, history, geography or music; Bušs 2013: 51). Tese sources can be structured in various ways. For instance, Kurbanova has developed a model with 10 semantic groups: (1) anthroponyms (including historical fgures, celebrities), Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 375

(2) mithonyms (including references to national myths, ancient Greek and Roman myths), (3) names of stars and planets, (4) toponyms, (5) names which denote the type of establishment or which have references to functional profles and activities, (6) names characterizing people, (7) names with reference to high quality, belonging to upper social classes, (8) names of famous brands, (9) names of works of literature, music, flm or art or of famous characters from them (including references to or quotations from songs, plays, poems, novels, public speeches, etc.) and (10) names based on animals or plants (Kurbanova 2012: 31–32). Tese groups allow us to understand what is chosen to be highlighted in names. Both in direct names and in symbolic names can one see the repetition or glaringly frequent use of some individual words, which allows them to be viewed as automatic signs (emblems) and ‘sociopragmatic rules’. According to Alserhan and Alserhan, ‘the most often used lexemes (e.g., new, company, manage (also -ment, -gers, -ging ), international, shop, general ) might be characterized as “wannabes” or catch words that have been used so much throughout business history that they have become almost an insult. Tese words should not be used at all in any name that seeks to be diferent; they are simply indistinguishable words’ (Alserhan and Alserhan 2012: 338). If ‘wannabe’ nomenclature words function as the only company identifers (in the case of direct names), the reader becomes aware of the existence of a company but knows nothing that could distinguish the company amongst its competitors. Due to the ease with which they are perceived and interpreted in a particular context, names are both globally and locally efective.

Sociolinguistic Contexts of Commercial Names

In sociolinguistic contexts the LL approach as a method of data collection and analysis has been used for ergonym research for the past decade (e.g., Ruzaitė 2006; Backhaus 2007; Edelman 2009; Pošeiko 2014; Syrjälä 2015). However, names also continue to be excerpted from business registries, phone books or electronic databases in a number of socio-onomastic studies, disregarding the physical placement of 376 S. Pošeiko signs in public space (e.g., Jemelyanova 2007; Stoichițoiu-Ichim 2013; Balode and Bušs 2014; Roze 2016). Yet, important economic processes and market trends (e.g., the economic value of language) should not be emphasized in commercial name sign analysis to the exclusion of textual contexts, including the placement and visual confguration (e.g., stylization of individual letters, underlines or font changes). Textual minimalism, nomination and the unifed usage of diferent linguistic tools, signs and symbols are also analysed as typical features of commercial names (Sjöblom 2010; Bergien et al. 2008). Te sociolinguistic perspective provides an additional criterion to the onomastic analysis of commercial names—language use or language choice (i.e., the number of languages, language contacts and patterns of translation). In LL studies, language choice is frequently considered to be based on four conditions: (1) political (languages’ relative strengths, language policy), (2) psychological (self-presentation, collective identity), (3) linguistic (languages known by the authors and/or readers of the names) and (4) economic (the projected numbers of users, exoti- cism or language prestige; cf. Spolsky 2009; Shohamy and Gorter 2009; Ben-Rafael 2009). Language on name signs can be related to one or several of these specifc conditions. Similarly, Edelman states that ‘adver- tisers may use particular languages for two reasons: frst, to make the contents understood, i.e., the denotation of the message; and second, to appeal to emotion through the connotation of languages’ (Edelman 2009: 143). In the frst case, communicative need is the central criterion for the language choice; in the second case, language perception (including its prestige) is taken into account. At the same time, it is not always clear which language(s) exactly are used on specifc signs: whereas it is relatively easy in some cases to identify familiar languages, difculties arise when one attempts to determine the etymology of internationalisms or transliterated personal names, identical words in several languages, or the relationship between script and language. Edelman, discussing boundaries between languages in proper names, states that ‘[l]anguages have no clear-cut borders: due to genetic relat- edness and language contact, many names “belong” to more than one language. Proper names seem to be more readily borrowed or adopted from another language than common nouns […] [p]roper names Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 377 can be part of any language, depending on the context in which they occur’ (Edelman 2009: 145–146). Te use of certain letters or words may violate the boundaries of a single language or group of languages and function successfully in multiple language communities. Tis may, in fact, cause difculties in the determination of languages during the analysis of signs—but it is highly interesting from a perspective of processes of translanguaging, of playful use of languages and of the motivations behind language choices by the authors of names. In this context, it is interesting to look at how Sjöblom groups languages by audience: ‘Names of business entities that are aimed at a global market may be in English (as the lingua franca of globalization), Latin or Greek (as universal languages), or quasi-words and internationalisms (words that can easily be understood in several languages). Contrariwise, locally-oriented names are meant to be decoded only by a specifc language group, which is why they may be based on dialectal language items. Consequently, glocal trade names meet both prerequisites: are locally meaningful and – globally functional’ (Sjöblom 2013: 9). Tis perspective leads to the discussion about local and global attitudes and functions which can be detected in commercial names. Terefore, the theory of glocalism will be discussed in Sect. 2.3.

2.3 Glocalization as a Compromised Bridge Between Globalization and Localization

At the core of the data analysis in this chapter is glocalization, a term which has been coined in order to connect two processes: globalization and localization. Tese are related to conceptual directions of business markets, in which the global cannot stand independently of local context, and the local cannot distance itself from the global; the coexistence of the global and local is unavoidable: ‘Globalization always takes place in some locality, while the local is (re)produced in the global circulation of products, discourses and imaginaries’ (Salazar 2010: 190). In the contemporary world, globalization as a framework of macro-sociological issues is one of the most often used and discussed terms in connection with other concepts (e.g., cosmopolitanism, 378 S. Pošeiko translocalization), from various angles in social sciences and cultural studies, but also in other scientifc felds including linguistics. Te term is attributed to two notions: frst, to ‘Westernization’, ‘Americanization’ or ‘McDonaldization’ and a homogenized world, dominated by a single culture that erases diferences of local cultures. Second, to hybridization or synthesis, created by diverse exchanges, difusion, borrowing and adjusting (Robertson 1992, 1995; Nederveen 2004; Sucháček 2011). Robertson conceptualizes globalization as ‘the interpenetration of the universalization of particularization and the particularization of universalism’ (Robertson 1992: 100), and the defnition in fact accentuates the relationship between the global and the local. ‘While localization refers to human beings, individual subjects, organizations, communities or localities, globalization embraces the planetary processes. Glocalization is often interpreted as “think globally and act locally”, which is perceived as possibly a proper strategy for the future sustain- able development of the whole planet. Te term expresses the human capability to overcome (at least mentally) the various territorial scales’ (Sucháček 2011: 322–323). In other words, localization places emphasis on domestic culture, consumption and identity (the particular), but globalization on the networking of the macro-processes of economics, culture, and science, global human identity and a worldview (the universal). Glocalization can be described as the blending, mixing and adapting of processes of intercultural contact (including forming multiple identities) and the heterogeneity that arises as their result. Tinking economically from a business perspective, ‘glocalization involves the construction of increasingly diferentiated consumers, the “invention” of “consumer traditions”’ (Robertson 1995: 29). According to social and cultural theories, glocalization consists of two separate but related processes: demonstration of the local with global tools and techniques (local to global) and adaptation of the global in the local environment (global to local); there are many diferent modes of practical glocalization (Salazar 2010; Bauman 2013; Roudometof 2015). For commercial names, this implies that identity issues and public images determine businesses’ ‘local and global goals for naming’. In this, they ‘combine Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 379

Table 1 The four dimensions of commercial naming (Sjöblom 2013: 10) Identity Image For local people Collective identity Good reason For global markets Presentation of self Power relation two important functions of commercials names: bearing individual and social identity, on the one hand, and making a good image, on the other’ (Sjöblom 2013; see Table 1). Table 1 depicts the dual nature of commercial names. On the one hand, they foster feelings of identifcation with easily comprehensible information for the local target audience (‘we all are our own people’), for whom it is important to create a sense of belonging. Te name is mutually understandable, even if it has a potential wealth of associations, references or cultural symbols. On the other hand, business names attract the attention of foreign guests and international partners with unique elements through the functional and symbolic value of the text and the highlighting of a particular business identity (‘we are competitive in the global market’); this, in turn, is an essential moment of recognition and a demonstration of equivalence (economic, quality, ideas). Te expression of identities in commercial names and other signage highly depends on the individual businesses’ aims. However, since the use of language in the LL of the Baltic states is regulated by laws, companies are not entirely free in their choices. Section 2.4 therefore highlights the most important conditions that entrepreneurs must take into account in commercial naming.

2.4 Normative Documents for Language Use in the Linguistic Landscape and Name Signs

Te fnal theoretical issue on which this chapter is based is normative documents in the Baltic states (state language laws and associated binding cabinet regulations). Generally speaking, the following rules apply in all three countries. Language laws require the use of the respective state language and the Latin alphabet, as well as the observance of linguistic norms. In cases where other languages are used, information in 380 S. Pošeiko the state language must be placed in a central location, and it must not be noticeably less prominent due to smaller letters or a diferent font.2 Te use of language in commercial names in the Baltic countries is also governed by commerce laws, which state that: (1) acronyms which indicate company status may be included at the beginning or the end of the name of the company (e.g., IK ‘Individual merchant’, SIA ‘Limited liability company’, AS ‘Stock company’ in Latvia; TÜ ‘General partnership’, UÜ ‘Limited partnership’, OÜ ‘Private limited company’, AS ‘Public limited company’ in Estonia; AB ‘Public limited liability company’, UAB ‘Private limited liability company’ in Lithuania); (2) names cannot be in confict with good morals; (3) the name cannot use the name of the country, or that of any ofcial or government institution or agency; (4) words such as state, city, municipality, etc., may either only be used in instances in which the associated governmental entity has more than 50% ownership of the enterprise or may not be used at all (such as in Latvia); (5) names must be written in the Latin alphabet.3 Te system of writing to be used in commercial names (the Latin script) is clearly legally defned; however, there is no mandatory use or a prohibition of any particular language. Normative documents, however, do indirectly limit the use of, say, the Russian language by assigning unequal status to foreign languages (according to the language laws of the Baltic states, Russian is a foreign language). Names in languages in Latin script (e.g., English or Italian) are acceptable, whereas those in Cyrillic (Russian or Belarusian) are not. In this way the language policies of the Baltic states ensure that the undesirable sociolinguistic situation of the Soviet era—in which the Russian language maintained a dominant position—will not be repeated in the future. Commerce

2Latvian Ofcial Language Law: www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/…/Ofcial_Language_ Law.doc, accessed 6 March 2018; Estonian Language Act: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/ eli/506112013016/, 6 March 2018; Lithuanian Law on the State Language: https://www.uta. edu/cpsees/lithlang.htm, 6 March 2018. 3Latvian Commerce Law (in Latvian): http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id 5490, accessed 12 February = 2018; Estonian Commerce Law: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/504042014002/consolide, 12 February 2018; Lithuanian Commerce Law: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.show- doc_l?p_id 302415, 12 February 2018. = Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 381 laws have similarly limited use of the names of countries and other geographical units. Summarizing the theoretical and methodological contexts discussed so far, several conclusions on analysing commercial names in the Baltic states can be drawn. Tere are several approaches to analysing commercial names, including categories such as direct names (business types, product or service names), symbolic names or mixed names. Ergonyms may use local or other languages but be understood by users of diferent languages. Non-local lexical items can be international words, borrowings, quasi-words, phonetically similar words or foreign words, tailored to local writing traditions. An important element in the linguistic formation of commercial names may be to consider aspects of glocalization which may be detected in the choices of languages and the semantics of the commercial names. Tey may refer to the local and/or global environments, or to interaction between local and global units. Tendencies of glocalization may, for instance, be identifed when words or word combinations in names are multilingual elements, or are transliterated from one written tradition to another. At the same time, ergonyms in the Baltic states have to consider existing legal norms. With this background in mind, Sect. 3 provides a general description of the LL and the commercial namescape of the Baltic states.

3 Linguistic Landscape in the Baltic States: General Description

3.1 General Characteristics of the Linguistic Landscape in the Baltic States

In the nine cities of the Baltic states in which research on which this chapter is based was conducted, 7347 language signs of various textual genres (e.g., advertisements, street name signs, posters and grafti) were recorded and analysed according to 24 sociolinguistic criteria attributable to three groups: location, type of sign and language use. Te signs (including commercial name signs) were 382 S. Pošeiko described by criteria such as the area in the city where they were located, the exact placement of the sign, its genre, the presence of proper nouns, the number of languages, the frst/second/third language by appearance, language contact or the amount of information in multilingual signs. As discussed above, it is not always easy to determine which language is used in a sign. However, using researchers’ linguistic knowledge, dictionaries and business websites, 26 languages were identifed in the LL of Baltic cities, including the titular language of each country (Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian), regional and minority languages, and foreign languages. Only fve of these languages—the titular languages, English and Russian—were observed in more than 10% of the signs. Some 6174 signs (84% of all signs) displayed the titular languages, 1781 (24%) English and 863 (12%) Russian. It is important to point out that 1910 signs (26%) consisted of more than one language. Te language combination used most often in bilingual signs is the titular language and English (except for Narva, where it was Estonian and Russian). Te research data reveal that English is used twice as often as Russian in the LL of the Baltic states. However, texts written in English are very often short messages (e.g., slogans in advertisements, nomenclature words in name signs, information about security in an establishment, door opening, free Wi-Fi, etc.) or static general information about a city’s infrastructure (e.g., direction signs, city maps) or cultural history (e.g., monument inscriptions, various plaques). Due to the informative nature of texts the importance of English in tourism cannot be denied (for more details see Marten et al. 2012; Ruzaitė 2017). Although Russian is also used in tourism (especially in oral communication), texts in Russian are more targeted towards the local Russian population and related to social life in individual local environments. Tey are mostly temporary signs such as announcements attached to doors or windows giving information about changed working hours, discounts or sales and messages on notice boards (especially in Visaginas), on the doors of multistorey apartment houses, warning signs and grafti (for more about Russian on temporary signs in post-Soviet countries see Pavlenko 2012). Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 383

Te LL refects that the language laws are generally respected (sometimes even to a higher degree than necessary; for more details see Pavlenko 2009; Marten 2010; Muth 2012; Lazdiņa and Marten 2012; Pošeiko 2015b). However, there are also monolingual signs in English (8% of all 7347 language signs) and Russian (4%) which, according to the laws, should not exist. Interviews with business owners, employees and random passers-by indicate that according to the opinions of respondents the main factors determining the choice of language use in language signs are political conditions (language laws and other normative acts about language use in public space, ideas about the content of legal documents), followed by economic reasons, such as the development of a company or an establishment, international relations and tourism (Pošeiko 2015a).

3.2 Characteristics of the Commercial Name Signs

During quantitative analysis of language signs, 2242 name signs— operationally defned as any signs functioning to name or identify an establishment—were identifed. Name signs (as opposed to posters, advertisements, direction signs, etc.) are the largest category of signs, comprising 31% of the signs in total. Te prevalence of name signs highlights their role in forming the LL, as well as the signifcance of names for businesses and advertising. In addition to data from the main research, this chapter is supplemented with additional examples from the Latvian capital Riga, but they are not counted in the numeric or proportional display of the data set. In city centres there is much commercial signage—signs displayed by commercial enterprises (e.g., signs in shops, restaurants, various services, banks and insurance companies, or signs relating to private reaching or legal consultation). In total, there are 2039 commercial name signs in the LL of the Baltic cities under investigation, which means that there are considerably more commercial (91%) than other name signs (9%). Te remaining 9% are the names of public institutions and non-governmental organizations (e.g., names of public schools, municipal authorities, churches, ethnic culture societies, etc.). 384 S. Pošeiko

With regard to the range of activity of the businesses, 1203 business names, or 59% of 2039 commercial name signs are attributable to local businesses. Tese signs exist only in the local environment, pointing to the uniqueness of individual businesses in the context of each city and region. Fewer (489 name signs or 24% of all commercial name signs) are name signs of state-wide companies (e.g., LaTS, an abbreviation of ‘Latvian Trade Society’ in Latvia; Lietuvos spauda ‘Lithuanian Press’ in Lithuania; Säästuoptika ‘Discount Optics’ in Estonia). Some 347 or 17% of the cases are name signs of international chains (e.g., branches of Swedbank, or the gas station Statoil ), which shows the impact of external economics on the local environment. In total, the data reveal that about one third of all recorded signs are name signs, almost all of which are commercial names. Te number of individual business and state-level chain companies refects that these cities are characterized by domestic businesses.

Structural Characteristics of the Commercial Names

Structural analysis of the name signs indicates that businesses are happy to directly indicate the type of business, their functional profle and/or oferings in commercial names. Mixed names and direct names dominate in the Baltic states. In total, there are 1690 mixed names (40% of all commercial names; e.g., Laterna Baar ‘Lantern Bar’ in Pärnu) and 1647 direct names (39% of all business names; e.g., Foto-ataljee ‘Photo atelier’ in Pärnu; Durys ir langai ‘Doors and Windows’ in Visaginas). Tey denote the company type (e.g., by using the lexemes ‘shop’, ‘pawn shop’, ‘pharmacy’, ‘antique shop’, frequently in the titular languages), goods or services (e.g., ‘clothing and shoes’, ‘groceries’, ‘furniture’, ‘cur- rency exchange’, ‘shoe repairs’). Tese nomenclature words can function as proper nouns themselves or be paired with proper nouns on signs which have been produced for recognizing the business. Symbolic names, on the other hand, were identifed in 768 name signs in total (e.g., the store Pelėda ‘Owl’ in Druskininkai or the hair salon Rets ‘Rare’ in Ventspils). Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 385

Tese data indicate the trend to choose nomenclature words and appellatives (goods, services) as productive and pragmatically benefcial lexical tools for business naming. Tese names are not unique; they do not provide additional information about the management, business or location and are as such comparatively depersonalized. It could be assumed that these names might be common in small villages and towns where there could not be a confusion of shops (e.g., when there is only one grocery store in a village); however, the data suggest that they are also common in bigger cities. For example, in Narva (58,375 inhabitants), 15% of all documented name signs were appellatives; in Daugavpils (89,184), 9% were such signs; but also in the considerably smaller city of Valmiera (25,093) 15% of the signs were of this type. Arguably, this principle of name formation has been preserved from the Soviet era, when the number of stores was smaller and there was no need to diferentiate between them. However, this choice might also be deliberate, out of a desire to diferentiate one’s business from functionally similar businesses with symbolic names and from national and international chains. For instance, the owner of the store Sena Bode ‘Ancient small shop’ in Riga is convinced that ‘the business name is associated with an ancient shopping tradition—a cosy and personal process in which customers receive only Latvian products’ (interview in Riga on 16 December 2017).

Lexical Semantics Groups of the Commercial Names

According to the structural features of name signs (see above) and Kurbanova’s lexical semantics groups, names with a reference to an establishment’s functional profle or activities (Kurbanova’s ffth lexical semantics group) are the most productive source for commercial naming. However, separate analysis of the symbolic names reveals that the largest group consists of ergonyms with geographical names (toponyms or Kurbanova’s fourth lexical semantics group). Most frequently, these names directly reveal the connection between the company and its location. For instance, the cosmetics store Laisvės 9 ‘9 Freedom St.’ is 386 S. Pošeiko located in Freedom Street 9 in Druskininkai; the shopping centre R32 in Valmiera, a contraction of Rīgas iela 32 ‘32 Riga St.’, is at Riga Street 32. Other names highlight a specifc region or a country as a whole. Examples are the hotel Latgola ‘Latgale’ (in Latgalian) in Daugavpils, Aukštaitija Restoranas which refers to the Aukštaitija cultural–historical region in Lithuania in Visaginas and the hotel Lithuania in Druskininkai. However, the most widely used geographical terms in the business names of the Baltic LL are names of cities, or astionyms, either as autonomous symbolic names or as one component of mixed commercial names. Businesses named after the city are present in the LL of every city. For example, Narva is used in the names of a supermarket, a motor- cycle shop, a tourism agency and a hotel; Viljandi in hotels, a supermarket, a children’s theatre, a dentist ofce, a museum and two cafés; Druskininkai in several hotel names; Pärnu in the name of a restaurant and a grocery store; Alytus in a puppet theatre, a household goods fac- tory, an agricultural service, a theatre and a market. Tese results show that in the Baltic states the concepts of space are essential for the creation and presentation of identities, such as those of businesses.

Te Presence of Diferent Languages in Commercial Names

Te name signs under investigation show greater language diversity than other types of language signs (e.g., posters, advertisements and direction signs). One of the reasons is that separate text units—proper names, nomenclature words, additional text (contact information, product ofer, slogans)—are often connected in signs, and not all of these units are in the same language. In total, 19 languages have been identifed in the name signs in the data set: the three titular languages (on 1617 or 79.3% of all name signs), English (405 or 19.8%) and Russian (39 or 1.9%), but also French (31 or 1.5%) and Latin (24 or 1.2%). Less than 1% of the name signs are in German (18 or 0.8%), Italian (17 or 0.7%), Swedish (9 or 0.4%), Spanish (7 or 0.3%), Finnish (6 or 0.2%), Latgalian (4 or 0.1%) and Chinese (4 or 0.1%). Tere are name signs in Ukrainian, Korean, Norwegian, Czech and Armenian (one sign each), in addition to unknown or unidentifable languages. Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 387

In the cities in which Russian is the local majority language, it is used in name signs only in Narva. Here, more than a third of the observed name signs are bilingual; 32% of these bilingual name signs are in Estonian and Russian. Te name signs which include Russian are often characterized by the simplicity of their visual design (without visual images and variations). For instance, in Fig. 1 the bilingual direct name (in Russian and Estonian) with Russian as the frst language (according to placement and font size) is visible. Here an indication of the audience (i.e., men) functions as the only identifying mark of the hair salon in Narva; the type of business is not even written. Te text is simply handwriting without any graphic or visual elements. In Daugavpils four name signs are in Russian; another four name signs are in Chinese and four more in Spanish; Italian is seen in eight name signs. Te commercial names of Visaginas exhibit a similar situation; there is only one name sign in Russian, as is the case in the more tourist-oriented cities of Druskininkai and Pärnu. Tis is not the case in Viljandi, which is characterized by its Estonian linguistic and cultural homogeneity. Tese data may be interpreted as a result of

Fig. 1 Hair salon sign in Narva 388 S. Pošeiko hypercorrectness in the treatment of the Russian language. An aversion to Russian is evident in commercial naming (even as a part of a mixed name in the state language) in contrast to the relative acceptance of ‘new’ foreign languages (e.g., Chinese or Italian) that are not so motivated by the ethnic composition of the city, local linguistic habits and communicative needs (for more details see Marten 2010, 2012; Muth 2012; Pavlenko 2012; Zabrodskaja 2014).

4 Glocal Practices in the Commercial Namescape

Tis chapter discusses individual examples in the LL of the Baltic states which are structurally, semantically and sociolinguistically related to glocalization. Tese are, frst, direct names, which, due to their international nature, are easily perceived by speakers of the local communities. Second, they are symbolic names that, in Kurbanova’s classifcation, are primarily works of literature, music, flm and art or characters of literature, flms and art (including references to or quotations from songs, plays, poems, novels, public speeches, etc.) or refer to high-quality, high social status or to mithonyms (including references to national, ancient Greek and Roman myths). Tird, they are commercial names that contain examples of language contacts or of transliteration.

4.1 Intelligibility of Direct and Mixed Commercial Names

As mentioned above, the most common type of direct names are lexemes which denote types of businesses. Te most frequently used nomenclature words in the ergonyms of the Baltic states are ‘store’ (veikals in Latvia, parduotuvė in Lithuania and kauplus in Estonia), ‘pawn shop’ (lombards in Latvia, lombardas in Lithuania and lombard in Estonia), ‘pharmacy’ (aptieka in Latvia, vaistinė in Lithuania, apteek in Estonia) and ‘hair salon’ (frizētava in Latvia, kirpykla in Lithuania, rarely juuksor/juuksurisalong in Estonia). According to Alserhan and Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 389

Alserhan, these direct names are locally functioning ‘wannabes’. However, some of them function not only at local and state levels, but also in the broader linguistic area. For instance, the nomenclature word for ‘pawn shop’ is similar in all Baltic and many Slavic languages (лoмбapд in Russian and Ukrainian, лaмбapд in Belarusian, lombard in Polish). Terefore, these direct names could be characterized as translo- cal names in Central and Eastern Europe. Direct names of second-hand stores in English are relatively typical instead of names in the titular languages (lietoto apģērbu veikals in Latvia, dėvėtų drabužių parduotuvė in Lithuania and kasutatud riidepood in Estonia). Examples are the store Second Hand in Daugavpils or the bilingual sign Kauplus Second Hand ‘Store Second Hand’ in Estonian and English in Narva, suggesting that these appellatives are entrenched in the Baltic linguistic repertoire. Te last example is typical of language contacts in name signs; readers are informed about the type of company in the titular language, but more details are provided in English. Te glocal name of the store Eiropas Sekond ‘European Second [hand]’ in Daugavpils shows a transliteration of an English word into Latvian. Te examples suggest that English is used as an indication of higher quality to readers (i.e., potential customers). It is, however, also possible that such names in English function as euphemisms, in order to avoid stating in the local language that the products which are for sale are not new. In the latter example, additional information is provided on the origin of the goods; they are imported from other parts of Europe (hence potentially better), implying that they could be better than clothes from Latvia or other Baltic countries. In particular, Latvian businesses often indicate the locations of their origin or the source of their goods in their names, showing not only the business’s relation to a particular place, but also a specifc perception of the local economic situation (and industry trends). For example, the name of the second-hand store Apģērbi no Itālijas. Oдeждa из Итaлии ‘Clothes from Italy’ (in Latvian and Russian) in Daugavpils does not mention that the clothes are used; only the major origin of the products has been indicated. Italy, as one of the leading countries of fashion in Europe, is supposed to attract the attention of both Latvian and Russian readers. Consequently, (even used) goods may be perceived as 390 S. Pošeiko modern and stylish. Further examples include the clothing store Apģērbi no Somijas ‘Clothes from Finland’ in Daugavpils and the cosmetics stores Kosmētika no ASV ‘Cosmetics from USA’ and Baltkrievijas apavi ‘Belarusian shoes’ in Riga. Tese names are illustrative of two trends: on the one hand, they show commercial relationships with foreign countries; on the other hand, these names highlight specifc imported products, implied to be superior to local goods, in order to attract customers. Evoking associations with other countries is hence one of the ways to difer from similar establishments in the same city. A specifc case involves exotic territorial units with which the businesses choose to associate their work or their products. Tese are mostly related to glocal mixed names, in which foreign toponyms are used to emphasize places perceived as interesting and attractive. Te name sign Kohvik Niagara Baar ‘Café Niagara Bar’ in Narva uses the name of an American river, the restaurant Arizona connects to the US state (with fajitas, a Mexican traditional dish, as the restaurant’s specialty) and the night club Holivuda ‘Hollywood’ in Daugavpils evokes associations with glitz and glamour. Tese examples use territorial markers of the US—a sign of Americanization, though their adaptation shows a mix of languages and cultures with the local environment. Moreover, common internationalisms in the titular languages are used in many commercial names. Examples are the music store Muzika plius ‘Music Plus’ and the clothing store Džinsų stilius ‘Jeans’ Style’ in Alytus, the clothing stores Leedi ‘Lady’ and Stiil ‘Style’, the curtain store Dekor ‘Decor’ and the liquor store with the bilingual (Estonian, Russian) direct name Alkohol Aлкoгoль ‘Alcohol’ in Narva, and the furniture store Eurostils ‘Euro Style’ in Daugavpils. Knowledge of the titular Baltic languages is not necessary in these cases to determine the type of company or its products. Such examples abound in all Baltic cities, unconsciously contributing to the glocal nature of the LL. Likewise, some nomenclature words, types of businesses and particular goods have phonetically similar variants in many languages (e.g., restaurant, café, bar, bank, casino, bar or the fowers lily, rose or amaryllis). Tese names, with local variants of international words, are locally functional and globally recognizable, thereby usable for sociopragmatic purposes Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 391

(i.e., helping readers to fnd a specifc type of business or receive certain goods or services).

4.2 Lexical Meanings of Words as Indication of Glocalization

Sometimes it is exactly the lexical meaning of a name that distinguishes a local from a global context. Two examples from Kurbanova’s ninth group (titles of or famous characters from works of literature, music, flm or art) illustrate how the same semantic category—here: original literature and adaptations of literature to flm—can take two diferent conceptual directions: Latvian literature and cinema (local focus) and internationally known literature and cinema (global focus). Te restaurant Ērmanītis in Ventspils is named after a gluttonous character in the Latvian writer Rutku Tēvs’ book Trīs vella kalpi ‘Te Tree Devil’s Servants’ (1935), who is also depicted in the later flm adaptation Vella kalpi ‘Devil’s Servant’ (1970) by director Aleksandrs Leimanis. Te character Ērmanītis is a corpulent man who eats a lot, even able to eat a pig in one sitting. In this case the motivation for the business name is Latvian literature, unknown to many (especially foreigners); for them, the connection between the specifc name, the restaurant and eating habits is incomprehensible. Someone who has seen the flm will understand the idea of the character, without having read the book. Tis name provides locally meaningful information with local linguistic tools to locals. In contrast, the honey store Vinnijs Pūks ‘Winnie the Pooh’ in Valmiera—whose name is a reference to both A. A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh (1926) and the Disney cartoons inspired by it—may be easily decoded. Te Latvian writer Vizma Belševica translated the book (and transliterated the name of the character) into Latvian in 1967. Te store name follows a trend to use the character in marketing and links the character to Latvian apiculture and honey. Tis shows that the globally known name of the character in Latvian functions well in the local environment, explicitly pointing to the functional profle of the business. At the same time, it is understandable to foreigners, even with minimal or no knowledge of Latvian. Tus, the name provides globally perceptible 392 S. Pošeiko information with local linguistic tools to both locals and foreigners, and may be considered to be a glocal name. Generally speaking, however, world-famous mythological fgures or globally known literary characters are not a typical feature of commercial names in Baltic cities. Tree commercial names with mythological fgures can be mentioned as exceptions: the erotic store Afrodīzijs ‘Aphrodisiac’ in Valmiera, referencing sexual excitement; the name of the clothing store Kleopatra ‘Cleopatra’ in Daugavpils, implicitly suggesting that attractiveness, wisdom, and refnement can be received by wearing clothes from this shop; and the café and wine bar Amrita (from Sanskrit, the nectar of eternal life) in Viljandi. According to an employee the latter name was chosen because Amrita is the guardian of wine, emphasizing that anyone could come and enjoy wine, and implying good selection and high quality (interview in Viljandi on 15 August 2014). Tus, the wish to stress quality and metaphorically show the business’s functional sphere are a real motivation for business naming in this case. However, the fact that these global concepts are written in the titular languages (in these cases Latvian and Estonian) indicates again a glocal adaptation of global cultural features. Retailers and businesses in the entertainment sphere are especially likely to use English or other foreign languages in their names, refecting the desire by the owners to portray their businesses as modern and international. For example, the mixed name SPA Day Beauty Salon Mona Lisa in Druskininkai implicitly recommends spending a day in the beauty salon (if it is possible that the business has spa procedures for a whole day or for daytime), and ofers the opportunity to get the same beauty and aesthetics as Mona Lisa, the mysterious woman and beauty icon of Leonardo da Vinci’s sixteenth-century painting La Gioconda. A beauty salon in Pärnu named after the same character Mona Lisa refects the same idea and perception of a woman’s beauty that is not limited to a specifc space. Te usage of this name invokes associations with worldwide artwork interpretations of ideal beauty in a modern context in local societies. Te examples above have shown that the use of internationally known words, concepts or characters in commercial names are recontex- tualised for local perceptions and interpretations of these concepts. It is Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 393 not always certain that all people, whether local or foreign, recognize or attach similar associations or perceptions to names. Nonetheless, the use of these names indicates that they are considered meaningful in a recon- textualized, glocalized way.

4.3 High Quality and Status as Key to Glocal Success

Kurbanova’s semantic group of names with a reference to high quality or to high social classes gives a company a universal notion of the high-class standards of its products and services. A few examples are the clothing store Trend Line and the second-hand store Best in Viljandi, the clothing and shoe store Glamour in Narva and the local sporting goods store X-power in Visaginas, which lexically claim superiority over other companies. Yet, it is interesting that the name of the shoe store Glamour elicited among pedestrians not only associations with extravagance and style, but also with the contradictory notion of cheap, inferior goods being passed as high quality. All of the examples mentioned above (and many other names in this group) are in English, supposedly asserting that words that represent quality, attractiveness, higher status or ability, etc. need to be mentioned in an economically prestigious language. Te fact that English is applied more to symbolic business names for the emphasis of high quality infuences the perception of the language; the English language may come to be perceived as a prestigious and successful language with high economic value for business activities and further development. A second technique for emphasizing quality is the use of Latin prefxes in compounds. On Brīvības iela, the central street in Riga, there are multiple businesses that use the Latin root lux- as well as luks-, the corresponding Latvian version (e.g., the optician’s store Luxury and the clothing store Luxury multibrand store, which demonstrates a double lexical emphasis on top-quality goods sold in the shop). Paradoxically, few of these stores visually invoke any association with luxury or high quality. For instance, the photo studio Fotolukss ‘Photo light/world/ life’ (from the Latin noun lux ) is, judging from its outside appearance, possibly defunct, and the shoe repair shop Apavu luksa remonts ‘Deluxe 394 S. Pošeiko

Shoe Repair’ is located in the basement of a building. Tese names again make claims of high quality, even if this is incongruous with the outside appearance. Te use of foreign-language words or parts of words in name signs could frequently be observed. Examples are Latin (mini-, maxi-) and Greek (mega-) prefxes and word parts in commercial names: mini- in the name of the café minikohvik ‘minicafé’ in Viljandi, max- in the gam- bling hall name Igromax ‘Games max’ (in Russian and Latin) in Narva and mega- in such names as Mega Market in Visaginas or the electronics store Mega bits in Ventspils. Te use of these prefxes or sufxes, in a sense, has almost become automated. Many entrepreneurs and readers may not even consider their linguistic origins and perceive them either as elements of their languages or as Anglicisms. For example, the name Igromax in Narva uses both a Russian word and a Latin sufx, which is partially transliterated to ft Estonian script. However, the readers of this name might arguably perceive it semantically as a Russian text.

4.4 Semantic Wordplay in Three Languages and Script Changes

Te following example demonstrates in more detail how one glocal business name can be read conceptually in many layers. In Fig. 2 bilingual name signs in Latvian and English are visible—the abbreviation KGB and its proposed explanation Klubs Golden bonus ‘Club Golden Bonus’, with a semiotically highlighted symbolic business name in English. However, many readers (especially middle-aged and older people) strongly associate this abbreviation with the transliteration of the Russian КГБ (Кoмитeт гocyдapcтвeннoй бeзoпacнocти ‘State Security Committee’, the Soviet secret police founded in 1954 and responsible for intelligence and internal security) and its politically repressive activities during the Soviet occupation. On the one hand, the name sign shows a creative semantic wordplay with the lexical units of three languages. It has attained a new and contemporary meaning, rewriting the historical allusion with a negative connotation from Russian into a Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 395

Fig. 2 Name sign of a nightclub in Daugavpils

name with a more positive connotation in Latvian and English, inserting it into the contemporary situation—from strict control, fear and insecurity to pleasure, illegal intoxication (drugs) and permissiveness.4 On the other hand, this name sign indirectly reminds its readers of the collectively shared uncomfortable experiences of treason and the play acting of people and institutions. Te internationalism klubs and the use of the English language slightly obfuscates these negative memories in the local environment. Tis relatively short text is semantically efective and two-layered, bringing together the past and today’s facts while representing two political and economic systems: socialism and capitalism. Transliterated texts in the name signs are usually related to rewriting a text from Russian and Cyrillic into the titular languages and Latin script. Such commercial names are rare, however, and are concentrated in cities with a substantial proportion of Russian-speaking residents (Narva, Daugavpils, Visaginas, Riga). Some examples are the beauty salon Metšta ‘Dream’, computer store Knopka ‘Bottom’ and the fabric

4In 2007 a police report indicated that some visitors to KGB Golden Bonus had been using drugs. Allegedly, barmen secretly put illegal drugs into the alcoholic drinks of visitors (http:// news.frut.lv/lv/horror/crime/12024, accessed 25 November 2017). 396 S. Pošeiko shop Ujut ‘Coziness’ in Narva; the clothing store Zima Leto ‘Winter Summer’ in Visaginas; and the café Šokoladņa ‘Chocolate’s place’, the dumpling restaurant Pelmennaja ‘Dumplings’ place’ and the night club Moskva ‘Moscow’ in Daugavpils. Tese commercial names are solutions to language practice under the conditions of ofcial language policies— the use of Cyrillic is forbidden according to language laws in the Baltic states. Tese, on the one hand, can be considered locally oriented commercial names, because they use words from Russian as a frequently used local language. On the other hand, this change of script indicates the existence of two information codes (Latin letters and Russian words), which allow symbolic names to be read by foreign guests without the ability to read Cyrillic. Figure 3 shows a multilingual restaurant sign in which the wider text is in Latvian, displaying a visually emphasized symbolical name (Slāvu ‘Slavic’) and information about the type of business (restorāns ‘restaurant’) and the cuisine (krievu virtuve ‘Russian cuisine’). In addition, there are given nomenclature words and appellatives in English demonstrating the business’s functional profle. Te text in Russian, however, the transliterated symbolic name Slavjanskij (Cлaвянcкий ) ‘Slavic’ is placed under the text in Latvian,

Fig. 3 Multilingual advertisement and information outside a restaurant in Riga Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 397 directly indicating the language management of the business in relation to state language policies. In this case, as in the previous examples, transliteration allows the ofcial publication of a commercial name in Russian and thus communication with Russian speakers. Te examples discussed in this section demonstrated that ‘catch parts of words’ (lux-, max-, mega-, according to Alserhan and Alserhan 2012) are used in commercial names whose aim is to show the presumed uniqueness of a company (even if there is a lack of it) and to attract customer attention. Te use of internationalisms, well-known characters and Russian words transliterated into the titular languages allows, on the one hand, various cultural and linguistic units to be represented and, on the other hand, extends the range of local and foreign readers (including Russians as the largest minority).

5 Conclusion

Te Baltic states are ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous countries. Alike, the LL and written public texts are generally linguistically heterogeneous and linguistic diversity in the LL is high (26 languages). Yet, the use of titular languages is pronounced both in name signs and in the LL in general (respectively, 79.3% and 84% of the cases in the databases). However, it has to be kept in mind that the LL provides just one perspective on the overall language situation, and that the LL only partially refects sociolinguistic habits of locals (generally meaning the use of the titular languages and Russian), especially in cities with a high percentage of Poles, Belarusians and Russians (Russian-speaking population). One reason for this is the strong observance of ofcial language policies (Spolsky, 2009; Shohamy and Gorter 2009) which support attempts to diminish the role of Russian in public space. Among other languages in the LL, English dominates, while many other languages are only identifed in some particular types of language signs (e.g., Italian is most frequently featured in name signs of clothing and shoe stores, children shops and cafés) or only rarely at all. Tis is indirectly related to the perception of some languages: linguistic biases and stereotypes based on language knowledge or a lack of knowledge, 398 S. Pošeiko attitudes toward a particular language, as well as individual or common experiences which could be called collective sociolinguistic memories. Te Russian language has been perceived by many as a linguistic code to be excluded from many sociolinguistic domains (especially in public services and education) because of the long-term Russifcation eforts during the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, sensitive political relations between the Baltic states and Russia, and emotionally charged, strained relations between strong Baltic nationalists and Russian-speaking people (for more details see Pavlenko 2009, 2012; Zabrodskaja 2014; Pošeiko 2015b). Since the re-establishment of independence of the Baltic states the language situation is purposefully dictated by strict language policies and ‘one nation–one language’ ideologies, in which the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian languages have integrating functions in Baltic societies. However, there is a relatively high presence of English in the LL (24% of all language signs), which is often chosen in monolingual and multilingual signs as a language with neutral connotations. English as the lingua franca for international communication in various sociolinguistic domains enjoys special status in the LL; its use is accepted in public texts (including commercial names) by locals more than other foreign or minority languages and it is associated with high-quality businesses, goods or services (even second hand). In the LL of the Baltic states, commercial name signs are statistically the most common category of signs, and thus the dominant type of language signs in Baltic cities. Commercial discourse is very important, having most impact on the use of language in public information. Te business environment in the Baltic states is characterized by localism: local companies dominate (mainly individual shops, restaurants, hair- dressers, etc.), and the result of their language management is visible in the LL. In turn, foreign companies have less infuence on the formation of the language environment. Tough many commercial names are multilingual (19 languages were identifed), only two/three languages are usually functionally and socio- pragmatically motivated in each country (e.g., Estonian and Russian in Narva; Latvian, Russian and Latgalian in Daugavpils). Te use of other languages is most often associated with the symbolic value of a Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 399 language, representing a particular culture or image of this culture. Such motivation is, for example, behind the use of Mandarin or Italian in restaurant name signs, or French appearing in the names of cosmetics stores. Te mixing of languages or of linguistic tools is more often seen at the micro level of commercial names, in particular in nomenclature words or afxes of words indicating glocal syntactic and morphological constructions. Examples discussed in the chapter showed that they are primarily prefxes or sufxes from classical languages, or widely used nomenclature words indicating the type of business (e.g., hotel, restaurant, bar, casino) in English. Te transliteration of Russian names is a frequent practice in cities where Russian speakers are the local majority, but where Cyrillic is rejected by ofcial policies. Such a transliteration can be characterized as one of the typical features of glocal names (Sjöblom 2013)—in the case of Russian because it is not only the language used in these particular cities, but also has international signifcance, at least in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Te results of content analysis of commercial names and the discussion of selected examples suggest two trends. Te frst trend characterizing local commercial names in the Baltic states is the direct naming or use of nomenclature words and appellatives indicating types of businesses, goods and services as proper names. Some of them are catch words, clichés or ‘wannabes’ (e.g., store, pharmacy, clothes, shoes, club and restaurant) without any extra meanings and connotations. Tis demonstrates the emphasis placed upon the pragmatic function of language and businesses’ functional profles and activities. Such names mostly consist of internationalisms common in the titular languages, so that they are also easily understandable by foreigners. Tis naming trend shows that the informative and pragmatic functions of a name which directly depict the work of the business and specifcs of its ofers are often considered to be sufciently meaningful—and often more important than symbolic functions of names. Local people and city guests with local language knowledge can understand these direct names in local languages, but in some cases phonetic similarities allow also non-locals to determine the words’ meanings and the type of business. Tis is a very direct and open form of self-promotion—‘I’m here and I’m ofering this here’—without any particular story or fanfare. Such 400 S. Pošeiko laconic and directly perceptible texts do not require readers (potential and existing customers) to think about a name, to interact with its content or to understand a specifc idea. Second, toponyms are very productive lexical tools for business naming, demonstrated by the high number of repetitions of defnite place names in many commercial names. Te use of toponyms (especially city names) in name signs show that local businesses tend to highlight their afliation with a specifc place. Tey are not translated into other languages, but they are nonetheless clear to any foreigner, having a glocal function. Te use of toponyms immediately gives visitors a sense that the business is unique in the city. For example, the Narva hotel in Narva suggests that the hotel is representative of the city, the number one on the accommodation list. Names using toponyms (especially in the case of astionyms) form a collective identity and give some indication of the city or region’s local uniqueness (e.g., in the case of historical names). At the same time, these names give foreign visitors a defnite impression of a city or region and its social and cultural life (economic development, functional profle). Tese names function as advertisements for the local place and tell the business’s unique story. Te examples discussed suggest that glocal tendencies of the Baltic LL include, frst, the use of global languages (mainly English, but also classical languages, less commonly French, German, Italian and Spanish) in symbolic or mixed names as one of two, or less commonly three, used languages. Second, patterns of glocalization can be found in the localization of common internationalisms and concepts (literary, artistic, mythological), or through the creation and use of local variations. Glocal practices in the Baltic LL in this sense display an adaptation of the principle of global to local. It seems, however, that the opposite is rarely the case—the principle of local to global is not followed, at least in commercial name signs. Tis suggests that the Baltic states have more or less ‘absorbed’ global cultures, traditions and habits, accepting them and adapting them to their typical daily experiences. Fewer commercial names could be found that are related to the companies as such (ideas, concepts of operation, ideals) or to the uniqueness of the environment (cultural history, geography, literature, cinema, art, etc.) in foreign languages. Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 401

References

Alserhan, B. A., & Alserhan, Z. A. (2012). Naming businesses: Names as driv- ers of brand value. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 22(4), 329–342. Amirova, R. (2011). Ta тapcкaя эpгoнимия гopoдa Кaзaни. Диccepтaция. http://www.dissercat.com/content/tatarskaya-ergonimiya-goroda-kazani. Accessed 14 March 2016. Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Balode, L., & Bušs, O. (2014). Two sketches on Latvian names in the economy. Onomastica. http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/site_ro/2014/Onomastica/ Laimute%20BALODE,%20OjArs%20BUSS.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016. Bauman, Z. (2013). Glocalization and hybridity. Glocalism. Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation. www.glocaljornal.net. Accessed 30 March 2017. Ben-Rafael, E. (2009). A sociological approach to the study of linguistic landscapes. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 40–54). New York: Routledge. Bergien, A. (2009). Cultural and regional connotation of company names in the local contexts. Names in the Economy II. Names as Language and Capital. International Symposium Amsterdam 11–13 June, 2009. Abstracts of the Oral Presentation. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/nite/images/pdf/program%20 and%20abstracts.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2018. Bergien, A., Kremer, L., & Zilg, A. (2008). Commercial names as indicators of innovation and change. New refections and challenges. Onoma. Commercial Names, 43, 7–23. Blackwood, R., & Tuf, S. (2016). Te linguistic landscape of the Mediterranean. French and Italian coastal cities. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Bušs, O. (2013). Īpašvārdi ekonomikā: dažas izpētes iespējas pasaulē un Latvijā. Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti, 17(1) (pp. 50–55). Liepāja: LiePA. Edelman, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Classifcation of proper names by language. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 141–154). New York: Routledge. Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gorter, D., Marten, H. F., & Van Mensel, L. (Eds.). (2012). Minority languages in the linguistic landscape. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 402 S. Pošeiko

Hélot, C., Barni, M., Janssens, R., & Bagna, C. (Eds.). (2012). Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism and social change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Hogan-Brun, G., & Melnyk, S. (2012). Language policy management in the former Soviet sphere. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Te Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 592–616). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramonienė, M., & Rannut, M. (2007). Language politics and practice in the Baltic states. In R. B. Kaplan & R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Europe: Vol. 3, Te Baltic states, Ireland and Italy (pp. 31–192). Clevedon, Bufalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Jemelyanova, A. M. (2007). Эpгoнимы в лингвиcтичecкoм лaндшaфтe пoлиэтничecкoгo гopoдa (нa пpимepe нaзвaний дeлoвыx, кoммepчecкиx, кyльтypныx, cпopтивныx oбъeктoв г. Уфы). Aвтopeфepaт диccepтaции пo филoлoгии, cпeциaльнocть BAК PФ. Уфa. http://cheloveknauka.com/ ergonimy-v-lingvisticheskom-landshafte-polietnicheskogo-goroda#ixzz39X- U5X4dM. Accessed 17 December 2016. Kurbanova, M. G. (2012). Эpгoнимы coвpeмeннoгo pyccкoгo языкa в кoммyникaтивнo-пpaгмaтичecкoм acпeктe. Языки. Кoммyникaции. http:// www.aspu.ru/images/File/Izdatelstvo/GI%201%2841%29%202012/29-36. pdf. Accessed 26 September 2016. Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. Latvian Language Agency. (2011). Latvian language situation 2004–2010 (Research summary). Riga: LVA. Laugale, V., & Šulce, D. (2012). Galvenie problēmjautājumi nosaukumu veidošanā un rakstībā. Lielo burtu lietojums latviešu valodā: ieskats vēsturis- kajā izpētē, problēmas un risinājumi (pp. 29–36). Riga: LVA. Lazdiņa, S. (2012). Latgaliešu valoda kā instruments Latgales reģiona attīstībā: lingvistiskās ainavas dati tūrisma industrijas kontekstā. Via Latgalica (Latgalistikys kongresu materiali), IV, 75–86. Lazdiņa, S., & Marten, H. F. (2012). Latgalian in Latvia: A continuous struggle for political recognition. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(1), 66–87. Lazdiņa, S., Pošeiko, S., & Marten, H. F. (2013). Baltijas valstu lingvistiskā ainava: dati, rezultāti, nākotnes pētījumu perspektīvas. Via Latgalica, V, 37–49. Marten, H. F. (2010). Linguistic Landscape under strict state language policy: Reversing the Soviet legacy in a regional centre in Latvia. In E. Shohamy, Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 403

E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 115– 132). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Marten, H. F. (2012). ‘Latgalian is not a language’: Linguistic landscapes in Eastern Latvia and how they refect centralist attitudes. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 19–35). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Marten, H. F., Lazdiņa, S., Pošeiko, S., & Murinska, S. (2012). Between old and new killer languages? Linguistic transformation, lingua francas and languages of tourism in the Baltic states. In C. Hélot, M. Barni, R. Janssens, & C. Bagna (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism and social change: Diversité des approches (pp. 289–308). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Muth, S. (2012). Language, power and representation in contested urban spaces: Te linguistic landscapes of Chisinau and Vilnius. Dissertation. http://ub-ed. ub.uni-greifswald.de/opus/volltexte/2013/1374/. Accessed 25 March 2017. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2004). Globalization and culture. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefeld. Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2008). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A. (2009). Language confict in post-Soviet linguistic landscape. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 17(12), 247–274. Pavlenko, A. (2012). Transgression as the norm: Russian in the linguistic landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 36–56). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Podolyskaja, N. V. (1988). Cлoвapь pyccкoй oнoмacтичecкoй тepминoлoгии. 2-e изд. Moscow: Hayкa. Pošeiko, S. (2014). Komerciālie ergonīmi Baltijas valstu lingvistiskajā ainavā. Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti, 18(2), 178–193. Pošeiko, S. (2015a). Valodas un to funkcionalitāte pilsētu publiskajā telpā: Baltijas valstu lingvistiskā ainava/Language and its functionality in the urban public space: Linguistic landscape of the Baltic states. Doctoral thesis, University of Latvia, Riga. http://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/ handle/7/31349/298-51593-Poseiko_Solvita_sp10146.pdf?sequence 1. = Accessed 23 May 2017. Pošeiko, S. (2015b). Te Latvian language in the linguistic landscape of Daugavpils (Te middle of the 19th century–nowadays). Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 2, 320–336. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage. 404 S. Pošeiko

Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In S. Lash & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–44). London: Sage. Roudometof, V. (2015). Teorizing glocalization: Tree interpretations. European Journal of Social Teory, 1(18), 391–408. Roze, A. (2016). Pārdomas par zobārstniecības uzņēmumu nosaukumiem Latvijā. Paredzamais un negaidītais. Linguistica Lettica, 24, 234–243. Ruzaitė, J. (2006). Lithuanian shop signs: National or international? International Journal of Area Studies, 2, 213–226. https://eltalpykla.vdu. lt/1/32552. Accessed 22 March 2016. Ruzaitė, J. (2017). Te linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts. Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri, 8(1), 197–220. Salazar, N. B. (2010). From local to global (and back): Towards glocal eth- nographies of cultural tourism. In G. Richards & W. Munsters (Eds.), Cultural tourism research methods (pp. 188–198). Wallingford: CABI. Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E., Ben-Rafael, E., & Barni, M. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistic landscape in the city. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sjöblom, P. (2010). Multimodality of company names. Onoma, 42, 351–380. Sjöblom, P. (2013). Lumia by Nokia, iPhone by Apple: Global or local features in commercial names? In P. Sjöblom, T. Ainiala, & U. Hakala (Eds.), Names in the economy: Cultural prospects (pp. 2–14). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stoichițoiu-Ichim, A. (2013). Restaurant names in the city of Bucharest: Cross-cultural and sociolinguistic perspectives. In P. Sjöblom, T. Ainiala, & U. Hakala (Eds.), Names in the economy: Cultural prospects (pp. 89–105). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sucháček, J. (2011). Globalization and glocalization. Te scale of globalization. Tink globally, act locally. Change individually in the 21st century. Ostrava: University of Ostrava. http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/ publ2011/319-324_Suchacek.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2017. Syrjälä, V. (2015). Local languages side by side—Or something foreign: Strategies for naming businesses as seen in bilingual Finnish cityscapes. Glocal Commercial Names in the Linguistic Landscape … 405

NITE V—Book of abstracts. http://www.linguisticslab.org/nite_vr/Nite5_ bookAbstracts_2.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2017. Zabrodskaja, A. (2014). Tallinn: Monolingual from above and multilingual from below. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 228, 105–130. Zabrodskaja, A., & Verschik, A. (2010). Linguistic landscapes of Tallinn and Vilnius: A comparative overview. Paper given at 2nd international conference of applied linguistics. Languages and people: Dialogues and contacts, Vilnius University Publishing House, Vilnius, pp. 52–53. Zabrodskaja, A., & Verschik, A. (2013). Ideologies and contacts of English in the Baltic states. Paper given at 9th international symposium on Bilingualism (ISB9) (Abstracts), Research Publishing Services, Singapore, pp. 385–390. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia: Language Practices and Attitudes

Kerttu Kibbermann

1 Introduction

Since the end of the twentieth century, language matters in higher education have gained ground in public and private, political and scientifc discussions in Estonia, Latvia and elsewhere (e.g., in the Nordic countries). Higher education is part of national education systems, thus universities and other higher education institutions (HEIs), as long as they are fnanced by the state, are seen as settings in which the national/ofcial language of the country is used. However, today’s higher education not only serves local interests but has become international in nature. Universities all over the world are now engaging in processes of internationalization, which language-wise is manifested in the increasing use of English in teaching, research and communication in settings where it has never been used so extensively before.

K. Kibbermann (*) University of Latvia and Latvian Language Agency, Riga, Latvia e-mail: [email protected]

Tis chapter contributes to the discussion by examining language practices and attitudes in higher education comparatively in Estonia and Latvia. Teoretically, the chapter builds on the approach to language policy suggested by Spolsky (2004, 2009). He diferentiates between three levels of language policy: (1) language management (i.e., eforts by those in power to prescribe and modify language choice and use); (2) beliefs held by language users about the status, prestige and use of languages (i.e., attitudes and ideologies); and (3) linguistic practices (i.e., actual language use). Te chapter focuses on practices and attitudes, while language management eforts are only touched upon; the latter topic has been thoroughly covered elsewhere (e.g., Kibbermann 2017; Soler-Carbonell et al. 2017). According to Spolsky (2004: 14), language users in a speech community share beliefs about language that afect their linguistic practices. At times, these beliefs may be organized into language ideologies. Spolsky (2004: 14) stresses that language ideology is language policy without a specifc manager, and as such it is present in any society. In addition, language ideologies tend to be inconsistent because they are greatly afected by what is happening around us (2004: 96). Tis piece of research uses the concept of attitude rather than ideology due to the rather small number of interviewees who participated in the study. Moreover, Spolsky (2004) argues that in its most real sense language policy is carried out in linguistic practices. He stresses that certain reg- ularities in otherwise irregular language use appear in any social group because people are not free in making their choices, they depend on social norms (2004: 39). In addition, Grin (2003: 43–44) has developed a model to describe three factors that afect language use: capacity, practical opportunities and desire to use a language. Although his model was developed in the context of minority languages, the three factors are relevant also in general when discussing language choice. Furthermore, Haberland (2011) has added a fourth factor (i.e., need). In the context of education the need to use a language is apparent—if lectures are held in a language, students need to use the language, they cannot change it directly. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 409

In university settings, multilingualism tends to be a common practice, especially now that universities are becoming increasingly international. Haberland and Preisler (2015) raise the question about how many languages are needed in academia for communities of practice to work. Tey disagree with Aracil and Crystal who claim that two languages are enough: a common language for everyone that assures the efectiveness of communication, and one’s own language to express one’s identity. Haberland and Preisler (2015) argue that this is impossible to achieve as there is no one language that would be shared by everyone. Additionally, Lønsmann and Haberland (2013) point out that language competences play a huge role in language choice at university as speakers have diverse language competences, and the eventual language choice depends on the availability of common languages. Structurally, the chapter frst outlines the language situation in Estonian and Latvian higher education as depicted in statistics kept by the ministries of education. Ten, data and method used in the chapter are discussed. Tis is followed by a detailed examination of the data on language practices and attitudes collected with semi-structured interviews with Estonian and Latvian students. Te similarities and diferences between the two research settings are discussed in the fnal section of the chapter. Te main aim of the empirical study is to outline the purposes for which diferent languages are used in Estonian and Latvian academia, and cast light on some language attitudes students elicit towards the use of various languages.

2 The Present Language Situation at Estonian and Latvian Universities

Te higher education systems of Estonia and Latvia mainly function in the ofcial languages of the countries, Estonian and Latvian. In addition, English and Russian are used, while the use of other languages is rather sporadic. Whereas English has entered the scene due to internationalization, Russian, the language of the eastern neighbour, former 410 K. Kibbermann occupational regime and the frst language of sizeable minorities1 in both countries, has been used in higher education in Estonia and Latvia at least for a century.2 Both countries are currently searching for a balance between local and global, national and international in higher education. In 2015/2016 there were 24 HEIs in Estonia (16 state-fnanced), and 56 in Latvia (34 state-fnanced). Both countries are experiencing a decrease in population, and the number of students is falling rapidly as well. In Estonia the number of students has decreased by 26% since its peak in 2010 (Statistics Estonia 2016a). Changes in the number of students have infuenced the number of HEIs: in 2002 there were 49 HEIs in Estonia. Although the number of students has decreased even more in Latvia (by 36% since 2005) the number of HEIs has not changed. Te proportion of foreign students in Estonia and Latvia is roughly the same: in 2015/2016 almost 7% of students in Estonia and 8% in Latvia were from abroad (Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia 2016; Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia 2002– 2016). Te share of foreign students resembles that in many places elsewhere (e.g., foreign students constitute 8% of the total number of students in Sweden, 9% in Norway and 10% in Finland; Institute of International Education, n.d.). In 2015/2016 foreign students came to Estonia mostly from Finland, Russia, Nigeria, Ukraine and Georgia (Statistics Estonia 2017), and to Latvia mostly from Germany, Uzbekistan, Russia, India and Sweden (Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia 1999–2017). In both countries, foreign students can learn the ofcial language but they are not expected to study in that language (Kibbermann 2017: 110).

1In 2016 the Russian-speaking minorities constitute approximately 28% of the population in Estonia (Statistics Estonia 2016b), and 35% of the population in Latvia (Latvian Language Agency 2016: 47). 2Te oldest university in the area, the University of Tartu, frst underwent Russifcation in the 1890s when Russian replaced German as the medium of instruction. During the Soviet era, academia were less afected by the reinforcement of Russian than some other felds of life; however, Russian-medium curricula were developed, academic staf had to lecture also in Russian and from 1978 onwards academic theses had to be written in Russian. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 411

Table 1 Language of instruction in HEIs in Estonia: proportion of students Language/ 1995/1996 2000/2001 2005/2006 2010/2011 2015/2016 year (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Estonian 83.6 86.3 88.4 90.2 87.1 English 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.9 9.0 Russian 14.3 11.6 10.1 7.9 2.2 Estonian and 1.7 English (PhD)

Data Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia (2016)

Table 2 Language of instruction in HEIs in Latvia Language/year 2001/2002 (%) 2005/2006 (%) 2010/2011 (%) 2015/2016 (%) Latvian 88 88.6 85.2 80.4 English 2.8 1.3 4.2 9.5 Russian 9.2 10.1 7.7 6.8 Data Ministry of Education and Research of Latvia (2002–2016)

Table 1 shows the percentage of students enrolled in programmes in Estonia in which the principal language of instruction is either Estonian, English or Russian3; both public and private HEIs are included. Te table gives an overview of the change in the media of instruction over the past 20 years. It shows that Estonian is the most common language of instruction at Estonian HEIs, roughly 90% of students are enrolled in Estonian-medium programmes. Estonian-medium instruction has gained ground at the expense of Russian-taught programmes during the last two decades, but the percentage of students studying in Estonian has not diminished due to the growth in the importance of English-medium studies. Te proportion of students studying in English has started to grow rapidly only recently. Only in 2013/2014 did English-medium studies grow more popular than Russian-medium studies. Te use of Russian has been constantly decreasing since the early 1990s. In Estonia there are only few programmes at public universities that ofer the entire curriculum in Russian. Te proportion of students enrolled in study programmes in Latvian, English and Russian in Latvia during the past 15 years are presented

3Te principal language of instruction in foreign philology programmes is Estonian. 412 K. Kibbermann in Table 2. Latvian is the most common language of instruction in Latvian HEIs; in addition, English and Russian are used. Russian- medium instruction is forbidden from the state-funded higher education (except for the Slavic language and culture studies).4 Te popularity of Russian-medium instruction has neither signifcantly increased nor decreased during the last years. By contrast, the importance of English has grown tremendously in recent years; in 2014/2015 English became more popular as the language of instruction than Russian. As the proportion of students enrolled in Russian-taught programmes (in private education) has not changed dramatically in recent years, English-medium instruction is spreading at the expense of Latvian-medium instruction. Interestingly, the data show that English and Russian, in particular, are more widespread where higher education is an industry—not a national service. Te share of English- and Russian-medium instruction is greater in private HEIs than in state-funded education. Tis applies particularly to Russian-medium studies—in 2015/2016 approximately 19% of students studying in private HEIs in Estonia and 27% in Latvia were enrolled in Russian-medium programmes whereas only 0.5% of students in state-fnanced HEIs in Estonia and 0.3% in Latvia were enrolled in Russian-medium programmes (Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia 2016; Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia 2002–2016). Soler and Vihman (2017: 4) write that ‘universities are playing a more active role in neo-liberal economies, increasingly becoming assets that states can make use of’. Even though private HEIs also participate in the neo-liberal economy, Estonia and Latvia seem to pay very little attention to them at the state level. Legally, private HEIs are viewed as private businesses. A look at principal higher education policy-planning

4According to the Law on Institutions of Higher Education (1999) the main medium of instruction in state-funded HEIs is Latvian. Any programme may teach up to 20% of courses in other ofcial languages of the EU. In addition, the ofcial languages of the EU can be used in programmes in which foreign students study and in programmes which are implemented within international cooperation. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 413 documents shows that in the Latvian case private HEIs are not mentioned; in Estonia the only reference is made in the context of quality of education (Higher Education Strategy for 2006–2015) (i.e., the state is concerned with the quality of education in the private sphere and considers it important to take measures to guarantee the quality as it afects the overall situation in Estonian higher education).

3 Data and Methodology

Te chapter analyses language practices and attitudes of students at universities in Estonia and Latvia. Previously, language practices were viewed statistically as presented in accreditation documents. However, as shown by Söderlundh (2013) and Ljosland (2014), grass roots practices often do not correspond to the statistical information that only takes into account the nominal language of instruction. Although a university, a programme or a course may be ofcially monolingual, in reality students and faculty may use of a variety of their linguistic resources. Tus, this chapter also presents a second perspective on language practices that takes into account language users and focuses on the languages they claim to use in their everyday life at university. Te following research questions have been formulated to reach the goals of the paper: What languages and to what extent are used in higher education in Estonia and Latvia? For which purposes are diferent languages used and what are the attitudes of students towards the use of diferent languages in Estonian and Latvian higher education? Te data were collected by the author (a native Estonian living in Latvia, profcient both in Estonian and Latvian) through semi-structured interviews carried out with students who were enrolled at universities in Estonia and Latvia in the academic year 2015/2016. Te interview data were gathered in spring and summer 2016. Semi- structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 students (8 in each research setting); the language of the interview was determined by the interviewees, either Estonian or Latvian was used. Excerpts from interviews are translated into English for the purposes of this chapter. Te selection of interviewees was aimed at variation in the range 414 K. Kibbermann of disciplines and levels of study. All of the interviewees are enrolled at public universities: University of Tartu (6 interviewees), Tallinn University (2 interviewees), University of Latvia (5 interviewees), Riga Stradiņš University (2 interviewees), and Latvia University of Agriculture (1 interviewee). Te interviews lasted on average for 41.01 minutes. Te mean age of the respondents is 24.7. During the interviews the respondents were asked to comment on their language skills as well as on current and previous studies in HEIs. Ten they were asked to elaborate on their experience with using diferent languages in academia in order to map their language practices and gain an insight into their attitudes towards languages. Finally, a discussion on what languages and how they should be used in academia was initiated in order to prompt the interviewees to discuss their attitudes in greater detail. Te data are generated by self-report, thus the respondents’ answers might project their beliefs about their language practices rather than ‘the true reality of their experiences’ (Bolton and Kuteeva 2012: 434). Such ideology-based reports can be viewed as an additional level of Spolsky’s language policy model discussed above, as what people think they do difers from what they actually do. Tus, this chapter maps the respondents’ beliefs about language practices rather than describing the actual language practices, for which an ethnographic study at the grass-roots level would be necessary. Transcripts of interviews were analysed by means of qualitative content analysis. Qualitative data analysis is considered a valid method for the purposes of the chapter as is it a fexible, yet a systematic and rule- guided approach to text analysis that can be applied to a wide variety of texts in order to infer both explicit and implicit meanings (Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Mayring 2000; Saldana 2009). Qualitative content analysis is helpful to code copious amounts of textual data, as in the present case, and systematically classify them into an efcient number of meaningful categories and themes that can be easily interpreted. In the application of qualitative content analysis conventional content analysis is used: the codes were developed from scratch after line-by-line reading of the data; they were then clustered into categories based on their similarity and regularity. Finally, these categories were compared and Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 415 contrasted to generate broader themes that constitute the foundation for interpretation presented below (Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Saldana 2009). All of the interviewees are multilingual, they have learnt a variety of languages and take interest in diferent languages. Nevertheless, the interview material reveals some general tendencies that describe the language practices and attitudes of university students. It should, of course, be taken into account that the number of interviews conducted for the purposes of the following analysis is not enough to make generalizations about the entire student body in Estonia and Latvia; however, it is considered to be sufcient to sketch some main tendencies in students’ experiences of and attitudes towards language use in higher education.

4 Language Practices and Attitudes: Two Cases

After analysis of the interviews the following recurring themes were identifed in the Estonian data set: (a) complementary use of Estonian and English5; (b) attitudes towards Estonian, English and their complementary use in higher education; and (c) use of and attitudes towards other languages (Russian, etc.) in higher education. By contrast, the following recurring themes were found in the Latvian material: (a) multilingual practices at university and (b) attitudes towards the use of diferent languages (Latvian, English, Russian, etc.) in higher education.

4.1 Case 1: Estonia

Six interviewees indicate Estonian as their mother tongue, one interviewee speaks Latvian and one speaks Lithuanian as mother tongue. Tey have come to study in Estonia from Latvia and Lithuania; however, they are fuent also in Estonian. All of the interviewees have learnt a variety of languages (e.g., English, German, Russian, Finnish). Mostly,

5Te concept and use of ‘complementary languages’ is explained in section “Teme 1: Complementary Use of Estonian and English”. 416 K. Kibbermann they have learnt English, German, and Russian at school, some of them have taken extra German and/or Russian classes at university. Tose who claim to know some Finnish have learnt it at university. Seven of the respondents are enrolled in an Estonian-taught programme, and one interviewee is currently studying in an English-taught programme (International Relations). Te best known foreign language is English; everyone claims to speak English very well. All of the respondents have learnt English at school; they have not taken English classes at university but everyone says that they extensively use English in their studies. Moreover, one of the respondents has spent her childhood in Germany and claims to speak the language very well. Tree interviewees originally from Estonia report good German skills. Although all of them have learnt the language at school, they now hesitate about their current language level as they do not need to use the language. Only the interviewees from Latvia and Lithuania mention good Russian skills; the former says that she sometimes communicates in Russian with her course mates. All of the respondents originally from Estonia note that they have learnt some Russian at school but they only know it at the beginner’s level. Although they do not mention the need to use Russian at university, they stress its importance at work. Due to the importance of Russian in the labour market, all interviewees state that they would like to speak Russian better. In addition, fve respondents claim to know Finnish to some extent; three of them note that their Finnish is good, and the other two say that they only know Finnish at the beginner’s level. Te students who claim to speak Finnish well say that they have previously needed the language either for their studies or for their work in Estonia or in Finland. Both of them say that they no longer need the language, thus they have forgotten some of it.

Teme 1: Complementary Use of Estonian and English

Analysis reveals that the self-reported language practices of the interviewed students are mostly bilingual. Although the interviewees are open towards using diferent languages at university, their interest in a Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 417 variety of languages is narrowed down to using Estonian and English in practice. All of the interviewees note that the main (and often only) foreign language they have used in their studies is English. Using other foreign languages for the purposes of higher education is a rare exception rather than a rule for all students interviewed. To begin with, the data indicate that Estonian is the most dominant language in Estonian higher education. It is the main language of instruction during bachelor’s and master’s studies, and one of the media of instruction during doctoral studies (together with English). Estonian is the main language of communication with course mates and university administration. Even the interviewee who comes from Latvia and studies in English notes that she always uses Estonian to communicate with university administration. In addition, Estonian is the main language for writing bachelor’s and master’s theses, and one of the languages of study materials and literature during bachelor’s and master’s studies (together with English). Whereas Estonian is used for all purposes at university, English is used in more specifc situations. First, English is one of the languages of study materials and literature. All students note that English has been the main or additional language of study materials and literature during their studies. Te extent to which English is used as the language of literature depends on the level of study as well as on the feld of study. Te lower the level of study, the more Estonian materials are used; the higher the level of study, the more the students have to read in English.6 In some disciplines, there are more materials available in Estonian (e.g., humanities), whereas other disciplines are more dependent on the newest research literature in English (e.g., exact sciences). Even in the latter felds of study, however, lecturers tend to distribute Estonian materials. Interestingly, one of the students mentions that even in an English- taught class in which she had to do her readings in English, Estonian- speaking students were distributed extra materials in Estonian for them to acquire the subject matter more easily.

6In Estonia there is a state-level programme that aims at developing Scientifc Estonian by supporting the publishing of textbooks in Estonian and translating them to Estonian. 418 K. Kibbermann

Second, English is the additional language of instruction. In addition to being the main language of instruction during guest lectures and studies abroad, several students note that they have taken English- taught courses during their studies at their home university. Although Estonian is the ofcial and main language of instruction in their study programmes, English is used sometimes for regular courses. Courses are held in English when they are oriented not only to local students but ofered also to foreign students or held by lecturers who are not fuent in Estonian. Te data show that students mostly have to listen to English in guest lectures, but in regular English-taught courses they are also assigned writing and speaking assignments. Tird, the interview data show that English is the language of communication with foreigners, either with co-students, colleagues and faculty at home university or abroad. Interestingly, the data indicate that English is used for communicating with foreigners only when there are no other shared languages, not even Estonian. For example, one of the interviewees mentions that she always speaks English abroad but when describing her language practices at her home university she says that she has never had the need to communicate in English with her foreign course mates—all foreign medical students have to take intensive Estonian classes at her university because the last three years of their studies are conducted in Estonian only. Similarly, the student who is studying in an English-taught programme notes that she usually speaks English to her course mates who are from all over the world, but she says that she always speaks Estonian to Estonian students. Tis gives support to Preisler’s (2009) claims that English functions as a complementary language at university.7 According to him, it tends to be used as a language of communication when there are no other common languages available. While discussing their experience with foreign languages in higher education, all interviewees point to some difculties with English that they have encountered during their studies. In general, the more the

7Preisler (2009) suggests using the term complementary languages instead of parallel languages which is common in Nordic policy and language policy research discourse. He considers parallel language use to be ‘unrealistic as well as undesirable as a consistent principle’ (Preisler 2009: 10). Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 419 students have been in contact with English during their studies, the more they discuss linguistic difculties that they have run into at university. Almost all interviewees mention that they sometimes have difculties in understanding some English accents (e.g., English spoken by Indians, or even by Estonians). Furthermore, one interviewee mentions that even though she has always understood her lecturers’ English, it is the plethora of accents that tends to bother her. In addition, some interviewees add that it tends to be difcult for them to understand written English due to unknown terminology, unfamiliar syntactic constructions or unusual writing styles. Furthermore, the students point to communicative problems when having the need to study in English. Moreover, communicating in English is sometimes described as bizarre. For instance, the student originally from Latvia mentions that it is much more difcult for her to make presentations in English than in Estonian, although both are foreign languages for her. She explains that she always feels insecure about her English skills, and is afraid of what others think of her English as she is convinced that her course mates speak better English than she does. Similarly, another interviewee claims that, although she has felt no difculties in listening to a class in English, she feels weird when she has to present her paper in English to her course mates as she usually talks to them in Estonian.

Teme 2: Attitudes Towards Estonian, English and Teir Complementary Use in Higher Education

Te data show that the use of Estonian in academia is considered to be self-evident. Using Estonian at an Estonian university is considered

In order to describe the real language situation more adequately, he focuses on communicative situations in which Danish and/or English are used, and concludes that English is used when not all interlocutors speak Danish (well enough), and Danish is used when everyone is fuent in Danish. By speaking about complementary languages, Preisler highlights the fact that both English and the national language are used in higher education, depending on the communicative needs. 420 K. Kibbermann normal and obvious. Some respondents refer to it explicitly, whereas others show covert attitudes that express it. For example, one interviewee says that the language of instruction at her university has obviously been Estonian. When asked about the language of her master’s thesis she also says that it is logical to write the thesis in Estonian because she is studying in Estonia. By contrast, some interviewees do not mention using Estonian at all during their studies when asked about what languages they have used at university. However, when asked about the language of instruction of the courses that they have taken, they note that almost all courses have taken place in Estonian. Estonian is the most dominant language in Estonia’s academia, it is used daily and its use is so self-evident for the interviewees that they sometimes do not even think about Estonian when asked to comment on their language practices and preferences at university.

I. What languages have you used during your studies? S (PhD, science). I think that it is English, English for sure because all research papers and all textbooks have been mostly in English I. But what languages were used as media of instruction? S. Medium of instruction was Estonian

Te data also show that the interviewees consider Estonian to be necessary in higher education. Estonian is thought to be useful and valuable for students, universities and development of the Estonian language. First, studying in Estonian is considered necessary for students because the interviewees stress that it is easier to study in their mother tongue than in a foreign language. Almost all of the interviewees mention this as a factor why Estonian-medium instruction should be preserved. Several interviewees specifcally stress that studying in Estonian is particularly important at the beginning of studies (i.e., at the bachelor’s degree level). None of the respondents expresses their wish to study entirely in English (or any other foreign language). Even the interviewee who is currently studying in an English-medium programme says that she would choose to study in Estonian, if the curriculum of her interest was available in Estonian. Reasons for choosing to study in Estonian rather Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 421 than in English difer but the interviewees mostly refer to the difculties they have encountered in taking courses or reading in English. Furthermore, some interviewees note that studying in Estonian is important in order to preserve and develop the language. As discussed above, English is used quite often in Estonian higher education, and the data show that the use of English is considered frst and foremost to be a norm. English is not overtly praised by the interviewees, they rather take the use of English as a normal practice that belongs to the university setting. For example, two interviewees note that they can compile their own curricula and choose what courses in which languages they take. Even though the language of instruction has been written down in the study information system through which students register to courses they say that they have never paid attention to the course description to fnd out its medium of instruction as they do not mind studying in English. Even the student who generally expresses rather negative attitudes towards English (e.g., by saying that she does not like English very much and whenever possible chooses to communicate in other languages) has chosen to take English-taught courses. She comments that using English at university is not a problem for her. Tus, for her too English is a normal and common language of higher education.

S (MA, humanities). I don’t like English very much, I prefer other languages if possible […] I chose the course in English because it sounded interesting […] I’d like to use other languages around me but if I need it [ English] at university it’s not a problem. = Moreover, English is considered to be necessary in Estonian higher education. English is valued mostly because it is the language of study materials as well as the language of communication with foreigners. For example, the necessity of knowing English is expressed by a medical student who maintains that it is not possible to study medicine without knowing English as all research literature is in English. She says that she would not have reached valuable information without English; other languages do not help as all the necessary research information is available in English, and in order to fnd it you need to search for it in English. 422 K. Kibbermann

Te data indicate that studies conducted in English are linked to the presence of foreign students and faculty. One of the interviewees says that the language of instruction in her bachelor’s and master’s classes was Estonian because there were no foreign students present. By contrast, her PhD classes have been held both in Estonian and in English, depending on the presence of foreign doctoral students in the audito- rium. Similarly, other interviewees say that the English-taught classes they have taken were held in English either because the lecturer was from abroad and was not fuent in Estonian, or the course was intended also for foreign students. Even the interviewee who is rather critical towards using English as a language of communication with her course mates and friends holds that the presence of foreign lecturers students is a good enough reason for teaching and learning in English. As can be seen, using both Estonian and English is considered normal (self-evident) and necessary. All of the interviewees support the complementary use of Estonian and English. Te interviewees who are enrolled at Estonian-taught programmes are satisfed with the propor tions of languages used during their studies: Estonian is the main language but they also need and have opportunities to use English. For example, one student says that she would not have been ready to study in English at the bachelor’s degree level. Her bachelor’s studies took place in Estonian; English was then gradually added at the master’s degree level, and now at the PhD level she mostly uses English. She says that language-wise she would not choose to do anything diferently. Te interviewees who have had neither the need nor the possibility to take English-taught classes claim that they would like to use English more during their studies. For example, a chemistry student who has been neither obliged nor ofered to take courses in English says that there should be such an opportunity to take some English-taught courses in her programme. She stresses that it would be important to let students get used to the English-speaking environment that dominates the world of research and science. However, she maintains that Estonian students should not be forced to study entirely in English at the bachelor’s degree level as it would be too difcult for them, and it is very important to preserve Estonian-taught programmes. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 423

Te support for the parallel use of Estonian and English also becomes visible in the understanding of the interviewees, who are originally from Estonia, that there is no need to protect Estonian from the infuences of foreign languages, in general, and English, in particular. For example, one student maintains that Estonian is a small language, and Estonia is a small country, thus contacts with other languages are inevitable. According to the interviewee, being under the infuence of foreign languages is considered normal for such a small language, and as English is the language of science and higher education, it is inevitable that it afects Estonian.

Teme 3: Use of and Attitudes Towards Other Languages in Higher Education

When discussing their language practices at university the respondents mostly speak about using Estonian and English. Sometimes other languages are mentioned; however, the interviewees stress that the cases in which they use other languages are rare, and they ordinarily do not use languages other than Estonian and English for their studies. If other languages are used, they are mostly used for fnding and/or reading extra materials and literature. Five respondents mention that they have searched for or read materials in other languages. Te interviewee who has done it the most describes using Finnish and German for reading medical literature. Doing extra reading in Finnish was important for her before going to work in Finland, and she values German because of Germany’s organized medical system. All in all, the interviewees are convinced that it is the task of the university to ofer its students and faculty a chance to learn foreign languages. For instance, one interviewee stresses that language is a substantial part of education, and every university graduate should speak at least two foreign languages. First and foremost, the interviewees tie the importance of foreign languages to travelling and communication but they also maintain that foreign languages should be taught at university for the purposes of academic collaboration (for students and staf), and the needs of the local labour market (for students). 424 K. Kibbermann

When asked about the importance of languages for people who either study or work at university in Estonia, all of the interviewees hold that English and Russian are the most important foreign languages. Whereas English is mostly stressed because of its role as a widespread language of communication and science, Russian is mostly seen as a language of local importance. Estonian, English and Russian are also the languages that the interviewees consider to be most important for the Estonian labour market. In addition, some mention that Finnish is useful in the labour market. For example, a medical student explains that she needs English and Russian at work in hospital. English is important for young doctors to read current research literature as university education guarantees only basic knowledge which is not enough in everyday work. Russian is needed to communicate with patients: the interviewee describes her work as a doctor in a hospital in Tallinn where she has to communicate in Russian with Russian-speaking patients as there are patients who do not understand any Estonian. She adds that sometimes she has to read medical histories in Russian, mostly when patients come from the Russian-speaking northeast of Estonia. As a result, she holds that elementary medical Russian should be an obligatory part of the curriculum for medical students in Estonia.

S (PhD, science). We weren’t told that you’ll need Russian and please take these classes […] but such things that are essential at work and should be part of obligatory curriculum I think.

In conclusion, the data indicate that students enrolled at Estonian universities use mostly two languages in their studies (i.e., Estonian and English). Estonian is the most dominant language, however, and is used side by side with English. Te further students proceed in their studies, the more important English becomes for them. Whereas Estonian is used constantly in almost all aspects of higher education, the data indicate that English is used for specifc purposes and in certain contexts. Estonian and English are used in a complementary way: when choosing between languages, Estonian is preferred whenever possible (i.e., when everyone present speaks Estonian well enough, or when it is possible to distribute study materials in Estonian). English, however, is chosen Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 425 when Estonian is not an option (i.e., there are foreign students or faculty present who are not fuent in Estonian, or when the relevant literature is available only in English). Estonian and English are used side by side, and the interviewees express rather similar attitudes towards them as far as their use in higher education is concerned. Both of the languages are considered to be normal/self-evident (obvious, logical) and necessary/useful in Estonian academia. Te Estonian interviewees do not think about the need to protect Estonian from the infuence of English in higher education and science because the role and use of both languages are seen in rather stable terms in Estonian higher education. Soler and Vihman (2017) come to a similar conclusion in their work about ideologies in a university setting in Estonia—staf and students are not particularly concerned with the role of language at the university, they do not consider it to be a signifcant issue. Moreover, they show that other actors (university ofcials and members of society outside the university) put more emphasis on the language issues, including on maintenance of Estonian in the context of internationalization of higher education. Te concern for the sustainability of the Estonian language among members of society is also outlined by Ehala (2014). In addition, the data show that both Estonian and English carry prestige as languages of higher education. Furthermore, the interviewees express rather positive attitudes towards the use of Russian in the university setting. Almost all interviewees mention that Russian should have a place in Estonian higher education, mostly as the language of in-job communication.

4.2 Case 2: Latvia

Six of the interviewees indicate that Latvian is their only mother tongue; one respondent indicates that both Latvian and Russian are his mother tongues, and one respondent indicates that Russian is her only mother tongue. All of the interviewees have learnt and claim to speak a variety of languages. Te languages that the interviewees claim to speak the best are English, Russian and German. Te interviewees are currently enrolled in Latvian-medium curricula. 426 K. Kibbermann

English is the best-known foreign language of the respondents—six interviewees claim to have very good English skills and two say that they speak English well. All of the students have learnt English at school but some of them indicate alternative means that have helped them to acquire English (i.e., mass culture). In addition, all of the interviewees have had to study English at university. Tey value the opportunity to learn English for specifc purposes at their university, especially due to the close connection of the language classes with their curriculum. Tree of the respondents indicate that they have good Russian skills and three say that their Russian is at the beginner’s level. Tey mostly indicate that they have picked up Russian just by living in Latvia. Although they have mostly had some Russian classes at school, they do not accredit their skills to language classes, claiming that Russian classes were useless for picking up the language in comparison to speaking it outside the classroom. Almost all of the interviewees for whom Russian is not a mother tongue say that they would like to know the language better. Interestingly, although the interviewees are interested in improv- ing their Russian skills, none of them claims to have considered taking additional language classes. All of the students interviewed indicate that they have learnt German at school. Two respondents say that their German is good and four respondents claim to know German at the beginner’s level; the two remaining respondents do not list German as a language they would know at any level. Although the interviewees indicate that they have very little, if any, opportunities to use German, three of the respondents mention that they have taken or are going to take a German class at the university. As in the case of the Estonian data set, all of the interviewees from Latvia show positive attitudes towards foreign languages, saying that they are currently learning, plan or wish to learn another foreign language. Reasons for acquiring new foreign languages vary but, in general, foreign languages are learnt for the purposes of travelling and communication. Higher education and opportunities connected to it are mostly not emphasized when speaking about the motivation underlying foreign language learning. Only the students whose main object of study is or has been foreign languages note the link. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 427

Teme 1: Multilingual Practices at University

As in the Estonian data set, all of the interviewees are open towards linguistic diversity in higher education. However, when describing their experience with languages in higher education, it appears that linguistic diversity in university settings mostly means three languages for the students interviewed: Latvian, English and Russian. Tese are the languages the interviewees claim to have used the most during their studies. Languages other than Latvian, English and Russian are rarely discussed (if at all) as languages used at university. Te interview material indicates that Latvian is by far the most dominant language in Latvian academia. All students describe their experience with the Latvian language in higher education in a similar vein. Tey indicate that Latvian is the main language of instruction in their study programme; they describe Latvian as the only language of communication with university administration, and the main language of communication with course mates. Moreover, most of them indicate that Latvian is the main language of study materials and literature as well as the language in which they have written or intend to write their bachelor’s and/or master’s theses. Similarly to the Estonian data set the ofcial language of the state is the most used language for a wide variety of purposes in academia but English is used only for specifc purposes. It should be noted that the role of English in students’ life is quite varied, depending on the respondents and their interests. Te main factors that afect the extent to which English is being used in studies are the students’ feld of study and participation in exchange programmes. First, all respondents indicate that English is the additional language of study materials and literature. Most often English is indicated as one of the languages of study literature that is often not compulsory but available for those who are interested in doing some extra reading.

S (MA, science). All materials approximately 90% what we are given are in Latvian but I usually read in English as well […] we are said that we should read some things in English too but in order to take exams you have to read everything in Latvian as exam questions are based on Latvian 428 K. Kibbermann

material and then you have to read in Latvian anyway […] actually you can do without English.

Second, English functions as a language of communication with foreigners. Te data show that the interviewees do not need English daily as a language of communication but in certain contexts—when taking courses at a foreign university or participating in guest lectures at their home university, when communicating with foreign universities and when contacting foreign students both abroad and at home. Contacts with foreign students and/or colleagues at their home university are, however, rather rare (if mentioned at all). Tird, the interviewees mention English as an additional language of instruction. Most of the interviewees have participated in some guest lectures held in English at their university, and those who have been abroad have taken English-taught courses at a foreign university. None of the interviewees claims to have had an opportunity or an obligation to take classes in English, except for English-language classes. Russian tends to function as the additional language of communication for the respondents who are able to speak the language. Tey indicate they use Russian at university with people who do not speak other languages (well) or who prefer to communicate in Russian. Two respondents do not mention having used Russian during their studies as their self-reported Russian skills are not sufcient to hold a conversation in that language. Tose interviewees who are able to speak Russian have used Russian as a language of communication both at their home university and abroad. Additionally, two students mention that they sometimes speak Russian to their Russian-speaking course mates as it gives them a good opportunity to improve their language skills. Furthermore, the two respondents whose mother tongue is Russian indicated that they sometimes use Russian as an additional language to search for study materials and literature; however, both of them say that they frst look for information either in Latvian or English, and then turn to Russian for extra sources. One of them claims that she has used Russian sources a lot during her studies because her feld of interest has materials in Russian that are not available in Latvian and English. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 429

However, whenever possible she always searches for sources in Latvian, especially when she has to submit papers in Latvian. Interestingly, the interviewees rarely refer to problems that they have encountered during their studies with languages. Most of them do not mention any problems, and when specifcally asked about language- related problems they stress that they have not had any problems. In rare cases, some difculties with understanding specifc lexis while reading or listening to guest lectures in English is mentioned; however, the interviewees always emphasize that they do not consider it to be a problem. Furthermore, one of the students for whom Russian is her mother tongue highlights some issues that she has had with Latvian during her studies (e.g., difculties in understanding the subject matter, and getting accustomed to studies in Latvian).

Teme 2: Attitudes Towards Languages in Higher Education

First, knowledge of Latvian is considered to be obligatory and necessary for everyone connected to higher education (students, faculty and administering staf). Some (not all) stress that using Latvian as a language of instruction at university is also necessary to avoid communication problems between universities and society. For example, one of the interviewees explains that universities and the state should ensure, at least at the bachelor’s degree level, that all programmes are available in the state language as it guarantees wide access to higher education among local students. Similarly, some students hold that not everyone would be ready to study in English; thus, it is important to maintain the possibility to study in Latvian. Second, analysis of the material shows that Latvian higher education is considered to be inevitably in Latvian. Te use of Latvian as the main language of higher education is considered a natural, unavoidable state of afairs, as there are no other languages that could possibly take over its role as the principal language of higher education. In several cases it appears that the use of Latvian in higher education is so self-evident that the interviewees do not even think about it when discussing their 430 K. Kibbermann language practices at university. When asked about such practices, foreign languages tend to be mentioned frst. All respondents express their positive attitudes towards English and its use in higher education. English is seen as a necessary and valuable language. Te knowledge and use of English are considered important because of its dominant role in the world as the most common language for international (scientifc) communication. All in all, English carries high prestige among all the interviewees. For example, when asked about what languages in which situations a student has used in her studies, she frst mentions English and, after realizing that she has used a lot of Latvian during her studies, she claims that if she had to choose one language that was particularly important to her during her studies it would defnitely be English. One of the greatest values that the interviewees attribute to English is that great amounts of information are easily available in this language. Te availability of research literature in English confers prestige upon the language among the interviewees. For example, a medical student considers literature in English to be more trustworthy than materials in Latvian because the newest research results are almost always frst published in English. To her mind, study materials in Latvian have two disadvantages: frst, they are often too old and thus include mistaken understandings and, second, they are translated and thus not the original source of information. Terefore, she holds that the obligation to read Latvian materials for examinations is rather tiresome and, all in all, unnecessary.

S (MA, science). [Materials in English] somehow seem more trustworthy, books that are in Latvian are often too old, we’re told about mistakes in them and so but I think that it’s better to read foreign literature […] then you can have the information directly, no one has translated anything and everything is more fresh […] reading in Latvian is an extra task when actually you get the information in English too but in Latvian some things are missing […] actually everything can be done without English as well because we’re helping one another if someone doesn’t understand something. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 431

English carries such prestige among the interviewees that they all express positive attitudes towards English-medium instruction, and seven of them express their (theoretical) willingness to study in an English-only programme in future. While these interviewees agree that not everyone should or could study in English in Latvia, they perceive themselves capable of and interested in English-medium studies. One of the most common reasons for (theoretically) choosing to study only in English mentioned by the interviewees is the accompanying opportunity to improve their English skills. It is a widespread opinion that students who study in a foreign language get something extra (i.e., they not only study the subject but also improve their language skills). Almost all of the interviewees stress this. Other commonly mentioned advantages of English-medium studies include easiness as there is no need to learn in several languages in parallel, and getting the international ( English-medium) experience needed to meet the demands of = the global labour market. Te analysis above suggests that the interviewees personally perceive the medium of instruction at higher education as a pragmatic issue. Although they generally think that Latvian-medium studies should be preserved for the reasons outlined above, their personal (theoretical) willingness to study in English shows that they see language skills as a by-product, something that comes along naturally when you study in the language. Te pragmatic nature of the medium of instruction for the interviewees is also expressed in their claims that lecturers who give lectures in English do not have to be excellent at the language, more important is that they orient their subject matter well. Several interviewees even stress that they would prefer lectures given by non-native speakers of English as these would be easier to understand than classes held by native speakers. All in all, the one interviewee whose contact with the English language at university seems to be the weakest expresses the most positive attitudes towards studies in English. He has neither had lectures (even guest lectures) in English, nor has he had to read anything in English for his studies. He feels that it is unfortunate that teaching at his university takes place in Latvian as he would prefer to study in English. According 432 K. Kibbermann to him, studying in Latvian does not ofer any advantages as he already speaks Latvian. However, he maintains that it is difcult to acquire professional English at a level where it could be used freely in education and work-related communication without studying in English.

I. Which languages are used as media of instruction in your study programme? S (BA, agriculture). Unfortunately studies take place in Latvian I’d like to study in English better […] I think that studies in Latvian give you no advantages, even if you don’t understand everything in a foreign language you can always ask, maybe it would take more time and it would surely be more expensive as other specialists would be needed then but I think that the studies would be more efective […] if higher education studies took place in that language [ English] there would be so much more = opportunities to get information […] after all I can already speak Latvian, studies in English wouldn’t be a problem.

Te last example shows the slightly broader understanding of the interviewees: they generally do not feel the need to learn (in) Latvian and/or Russian (see below) as they consider their necessary Latvian and Russian skills to be there anyway. Tus, there is no need to improve these skills in formal classroom settings at university. However, English, particularly professional English, is something that students in Latvia cannot pick up so simply, thus they stress that they would like to study in English. A similar understanding is put forward by other interviewees too when they claim that there is no need for them to study in Latvian at university because they already speak Latvian. Language is seen as an entity that can be acquired so that you do not have to learn it ever again. Tis mostly applies to mother tongues as they are the languages the respondents feel are easiest to express themselves. Data analysis shows that Russian is used to some extent in the university setting, and its knowledge is considered necessary to meet the demands of the local labour market. Even though all interviewees for whom Russian is a foreign language express their wish to improve their Russian skills, none of them values Russian as a language of importance in higher education. Te interviewees either say that they do not need Russian in the university setting or if they need the language they can Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 433 acquire it by using it. Even the interviewee who speaks Russian as her mother tongue says that she could do without any Russian at university. Whereas all of the respondents hold that those connected to higher education in Latvia (students, faculty, and administration) should know Latvian and English, only some mention that Russian should be known as well. By contrast, Russian is seen as a valuable (and almost obligatory) asset in the Latvian labour market. Almost all interviewees indicate that the Latvian labour market needs frst and foremost three languages: Latvian, English and Russian. According to the data, Latvian and Russian are needed locally, mostly for internal communication by the state, and English is useful globally, for education, information and communication with foreigners and abroad. Even though higher education is interchangeably connected to the labour market and its needs, the interview material shows that none of the interviewees is interested in taking Russian classes at university. Although many of them note that their Russian could be better for labour market needs, they do not link Russian to their university education. For example, an interviewee who acquired Russian in his childhood while playing in the backyard with neighbours and considers himself to be fuent in spoken Russian says that although he sometimes misses knowledge about grammar and writing, he would not be ready to study Russian at university. All he needs is spoken Russian for his job and traineeships, and he already has that skill. In addition, three of the students explicitly explain their disinterest in learning Russian in a formal setting due to the political connotations of the language. To conclude, the data indicate that Latvian and Russian are used for rather stable purposes in Latvian academia—Latvian is the dominant language used in all aspects of studying and communicating, and Russian is the language used additionally for informal communication when possible and necessary. By contrast, the role played by English in students’ lives is more varied. In general, the interviewees have not used English much at their home university. It mostly functions as an additional language of study materials and literature but there is often no obligation to read in English. Te interviewees did not mention whether they have had to write or present something in English 434 K. Kibbermann

(outside English-language classes). Nor have they had to communicate in English at their home university. Tus, English is used mostly for reading in free time. Using English is mostly associated with exchange studies abroad, during which the students have come into regular contact with foreigners and taken classes together with other international students. All in all, it could be argued that the interviewees’ experience with English (and other foreign languages) is so little that it could be considered the reason they cannot point out any difculties linked to using it at university. Although the interviewees have not had very much experience in using English in higher education the language carries high prestige among them. Te language of instruction is seen as a pragmatic issue that does not afect the status, corpus and acquisition of the Latvian language, and the dominant view is that Latvian is and will be used anyway. Attitudes towards other languages are expressed rarely. Languages other than Latvian, English and Russian are mentioned mainly by students who have learnt a great deal of foreign languages in their lives, some at university. For example, the interviewees who speak a wide variety of languages well or very well, and have experiences with diferent languages in the labour market, note that the Latvian labour market needs other languages as well, such as the languages spoken in the Baltic and Nordic countries. Tey hold that knowledge of Latvian, English and Russian is so common in Latvia that such knowledge does not give them any advantages in the local labour market, and more languages need to be known to get a competitive edge such as German. Two interviewees mention German as a language that could be learnt at university in light of the political and economic power of German-speaking countries in Europe as well as the good reputation of their higher education.

5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Te use of multiple languages in higher education in Estonia and Latvia that is outlined, for example, in ofcial statistics on the nominal media of instruction indicate that Estonian and Latvian are the most Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 435 widely used languages in higher education; as languages of instruction they are mostly accompanied by English and Russian. Instruction in languages other than Estonian and Latvian is growing in importance as the number of local students is constantly decreasing and HEIs are increasingly dependent on foreign students. Te need to attract foreign students is also outlined as one of the factors for creating English- medium programmes both in Estonia’s and Latvia’s governmental policy-planning documents; thus, English-medium instruction serves the economic interests of the countries and universities (Kibbermann 2017: 109–110). Te statistics reveal some diferences in use and possibly in value placed on English and Russian as academic languages. First, whereas English-medium instruction is spreading both in Estonian and Latvian academia, the importance of Russian-medium instruction is either losing ground (in Estonia) or not undergoing signifcant changes (in Latvia). Second, Russian is used mostly in private higher education, but English is spreading both in private and state-funded higher education; the number of students enrolled in English-medium programmes has grown particularly in state-fnanced HEIs during the last years. Moreover, the statistics indicate that the share of studies that takes place in English and Russian is larger in private higher education than in state-funded higher education. Terefore, it can be argued that both English- and Russian-medium instruction tends to be ofered for economic reasons where higher education is a business and not so much a public service. Tis applies particularly to Russian—teaching in Russian seems to be a good business decision if private HEIs employ it. In a context in which public universities are actors in neo-liberal economies (Soler and Vihman 2017: 4) and (partly) responsible for their fnancial afairs, denying income from Russian-medium instruction is an ideological decision. Furthermore, Kibbermann (2017) shows that Russian is totally invisible in state higher education policy-planning documents in both countries. Te fact that Russian is neither used in public tertiary education, nor discussed in governmental strategies can be interpreted as ideological erasure. Te qualitative data presented in this chapter ofer a divergent view on the motivation behind using diferent languages in Estonian and 436 K. Kibbermann

Latvian academia. In addition to using languages as media of instruction in higher education, they are used for the purposes of communication, doing research and reading, writing papers and theses, etc. All of the students interviewed spend their academic lives in settings in which more than one language is being used. Te data suggest that the use of languages difers to some extent in the respondent groups in Estonia and Latvia, especially with respect to English but to a lesser extent also with respect to Estonian/Latvian and Russian. Estonian and Latvian are indeed the most dominant languages in today’s higher education in Estonia and Latvia. For the students interviewed the ofcial language of the country is the main language of instruction at bachelor’s and master’s levels (Estonia), the only language of instruction (Latvia), the main language of communication with course mates, faculty and university administrations and the language of bachelor’s and master’s theses. English is the best-known foreign language among both Estonian and Latvian respondents; it is also the most widely used foreign language in academic settings. Interview data with Estonian respondents show that, whereas the use of Estonian is widespread for various purposes, English is used in more specifc settings in academia: as an additional medium of instruction for regular courses, a language of study materials and literature (together with Estonian), a language of communication with foreigners and a language of PhD theses. As far as complementary language use is concerned, students in Estonia tend to use Estonian whenever possible and switch to English only when there are no options to use Estonian. Interestingly, the students interviewed in Latvia come into contact with English more rarely at their home university: almost all of them relate English in university settings to the compulsory English-language classes that are designed for acquiring specifc terminology. In addition, they also report to have had one-time guest lectures in English but none of them claims to have had an opportunity to take regular courses in English; they all value English for the vast amount of materials available in it but claim that reading in English is not an obligation in their studies. As a result of bilingual language practices at university the students interviewed in Estonia can point to a wide variety of difculties that accompany studying in a foreign language. By contrast, the Latvian respondents tend to idealize studies in Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 437

English so much so that they overlook the downside of studying in a foreign language. Russian is known better and used slightly more among the Latvian respondents as a language of informal communication in academic settings than among the Estonian respondents who rarely mention using Russian at university at all (mostly when discussing Russian-language classes that they have taken). Russian has been learnt at school by all respondents in Estonia and Latvia and they all value the language as a necessary asset for the labour market (but not for higher education). In both settings, Russian carries overt prestige among the interviewees as they mostly express their wish to improve their Russian skills for the needs of the labour market. However, the means by which the students interviewed wish to improve their Russian skills difer in the two respondent groups. Whereas several students interviewed in Estonia have taken extra Russian classes at university in order to improve their knowledge (and express their positive attitudes towards them), the students interviewed in Latvia regard the idea of language classes as pointless and prefer to practise Russian in everyday communicative situations that they consider to be sufciently available around them for acquiring the language better. Languages other than Estonian/Latvian, English and Russian do not show up in the ofcial statistics on media of instruction and are rarely (if at all) mentioned by the interviewees as languages used at university. Although all respondents express their interest in learning various languages, this is done mostly for other-than-academic purposes. For example, German, which is one of the most common languages taught at Estonian and Latvian schools, has indeed been learnt by many interviewees at school but it is not used in higher education, even if the self-perceived language skills of some interviewees would enable them to use German in academia. Te study shows that the two respondent groups also hold slightly diferent attitudes towards the use of language in academia. Higher education in Estonian and Latvian is considered to be obligatory and necessary in both groups of interviewees. Te value of Estonian-medium and Latvian-medium instruction is valued particularly for students taking bachelor’s degrees. Te fact that higher education mostly takes 438 K. Kibbermann place in Estonian/Latvian is considered to be self-evident but the slight diference tends to be that, whereas the students interviewed in Estonia perceive such a situation as fully acceptable, the students interviewed in Latvia express their willingness to have more English in their academic lives. However, they do not believe that this would be possible; in their views there is no other language in which Latvian higher education could function. English is highly valued as an academic language by all students interviewed in Estonia and Latvia. It carries high and overt prestige both among the students interviewed in Estonia and Latvia. It is the language linked to great amounts of knowledge that are easily available, the language of international communication and the language that grants socioeconomic advantages to its speakers in the Estonian and Latvian labour market. It is no surprise that English carries high prestige among students in Estonia and Latvia as its status as the language of international higher education and science is highly praised not only at the grass-roots level but also by top-down governmental and institutional policies (Soler-Carbonell et al. 2017), and widely considered to be useful in the Estonian and Latvian labour markets. Of course, the aforementioned diferences apply frst and foremost to the data sets of this chapter, but some generalizations can be made. On the one hand, students (in this case at Estonian universities) who have had a possibility or an obligation to take courses in English at their home university are more aware of what it means to study in a foreign language. Tus, they have experienced that studying in a foreign language can be more difcult than studying in your mother tongue. Tey perceive using both Estonian and English in higher education to be natural and normal, but if they had to make a choice they would opt for studying mainly in their mother tongue (with additional classes in English), especially at the bachelor’s degree level. On the other hand, students (in this case at Latvian universities) who have not had a chance to take courses in English at their home university tend to feel that they are missing out on international tendencies; they are cut of from opportunities. As they have not had so much experience with studying in English, they cannot rely on their personal experience but only on their attitudes that are overtly positive towards Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 439

English and studying in English. English is believed to be necessary; they feel that English should be taught and used considerably more in higher education. Te spread of English in academia elicits only positive connotations as far as the Latvian interviewees are concerned. As a result, almost all of them claim that they would like to (continue to) study rather in English than in Latvian. Using both Latvian and English side by side as media of instruction is not discussed as they have not experienced this; rather, they regard the idea of studying in two languages as too difcult. Here, the ideology of separate multilingualism (Lønsmann and Haberland 2013) can be detected: at the attitudinal/ ideological level, people have a tendency to see that one sociolinguistic function can only be flled by one language. Instead of opting for multilingual solutions, the interviewees see English-only as the answer to their situation. Even though language practices in higher education are multilingual, the interviewees tend to see languages as separate and bordered entities whose simultaneous use is neither acceptable nor necessary. Tis was also noted, for example, by Woolard (1998) and discussed by Li Wei (2011) as the ideology of One Language Only or One Language at a Time. Te Latvian data show that in some cases regular English-taught programmes appear to be targeted, frst and foremost, at foreign students; sometimes local students have an opportunity to take such courses but sometimes they are not even aware of the opportunity to study in English at their university. By contrast, it seems that Estonian universities orient their English-medium courses more towards local students as well. In any case, what often initiates English-medium instruction is a foreign person present in the classroom, either faculty or students. Here, Saarinen’s (2012) paradox of internationalization applies: the more international students with their own unique linguistic backgrounds there are, the more linguistically homogeneous the academic environment becomes. In other words, the greater the number of international students from diferent countries, the more English is used. To conclude, Estonian/Latvian and English fulfl all the criteria to be used in academia, as outlined by Grin (2003). Te students interviewed are capable of speaking these languages; they want to use these languages at university and need the opportunities to do so. In addition, 440 K. Kibbermann the students interviewed in Latvia could be capable of using Russian in higher education; however, there are not enough opportunities or the necessity to use the language in academia as well as no desire to do so. Te students interviewed in Estonia are more positively minded towards Russian in higher education (they express their desire to learn and use the language in academia); however, they lack opportunities and the capacity to do it. As for other languages (e.g., German), capacity alone does not create opportunities and the desire to use the language in academic settings. Although the study shows that the students believe Estonian, Latvian and English to be the only languages important for them at university, they repeatedly stress the signifcance of Russian as a language they will need in the labour market. However, higher education and the labour market are linked; this also appears in the language practices of the students interviewed—they use Russian informally in academic settings or take Russian-language courses in order to be competitive in the labour market. Nonetheless, in the views of the students Russian has been erased from higher education. Similarly, Russian has not only been erased from higher education but also from state ideology in both countries, as argued above. According to Irvine and Gal (2000: 38–39), ideological erasure is the process in which ideology makes the undesirable disappear or simply explains it away. In order words, the unwanted—in this case, Russian in higher education—is ideologically denied but as this study shows it has not totally vanished from practices.

References

Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(5), 429–447. Ehala, M. (2014). Sustainability of the Estonian language. Estonian Human Development Report 2014/2015. Escaping the Traps (pp. 191–198). Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu. Grin, F. (2003). Language policy evaluation and the European Charter for regional or minority languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Languages in Higher Education in Estonia and Latvia … 441

Haberland, H. (2011). Local languages as the languages of internationalization: Internationalization and language choice. Intercultural Communication Review (Tokyo), 9, 37–47. Haberland, H., & Preisler, B. (2015). Te position of Danish, English and other languages at Danish universities in the context of Danish society. In X. F. Vila & V. Bretxa (Eds.), Language policy in higher education: Te case of medium-sized languages (pp. 15–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Tree approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Institute of International Education. (n.d.). Project Atlas. https://www.iie.org/ Research-and-Insights/Project-Atlas. Accessed 26 October 2017. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic diferentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Kibbermann, K. (2017). Responses to the internationalization of higher education in language policies of Estonia and Latvia. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 8(1), 97–113. Latvian Language Agency. (2016). Valodas situācija Latvijā 2010–2015. Riga: Latvian Language Agency. Ljosland, R. (2014). Language planning confronted by everyday communication in the international university: Te Norwegian case. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 392–405. Lønsmann, D., & Haberland, H. (2013). Hybridity and complexity: Language choice and language ideologies. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language alternation, language choice & language encounter in international tertiary education (pp. xiii–xxiv). Dordrecht and New York: Springer. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20. Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia. (2016). Eesti hariduse infosüs- teem. www.haridussilm.ee. Accessed 7 September 2016. Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia. (1999–2017). Pārskati par Latvijas augstāko izglītību. Galvenie statistikas dati. http://www.izm.gov. lv/lv/publikacijas-un-statistika/statistika-par-izglitibu/statistika-par-aug- stako-izglitibu. Accessed 26 October 2017. Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia. (2002–2016). Pārskati par Latvijas augstāko izglītību. Galvenie statistikas dati. http://www.izm.gov. lv/lv/publikacijas-un-statistika/statistika-par-izglitibu/statistika-par-aug- stakoizglitibu. Accessed 26 October 2017. 442 K. Kibbermann

Preisler, B. (2009). Complementary languages: Te national language and English as working languages in European universities. In P. Harder (Ed.), English in Denmark: Language policy, internationalization and university teaching (pp. 10–28). Special Edition of Angles on the English-speaking World 9. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Saarinen, T. (2012). Internationalization of Finnish higher education—Is language an issue? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 157–173. Saldana, J. (2009). Te coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage. Söderlundh, H. (2013). Language choice and linguistic variation in classes nominally taught in English. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language alternation, language choice & language encounter in international tertiary education (pp. 85–102). Dordrecht and New York: Springer. Soler, J., & Vihman, V.-A. (2017). Language ideology and language planning in Estonian higher education: Nationalising and globalising discourses. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(1), 22–41. Soler-Carbonell, J., Saarinen, T., & Kibbermann, K. (2017). Multilayered perspectives on language policy in higher education: Finland, Estonia and Latvia in comparison. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(4), 301–314. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. New York: Cambridge University Press. Statistics Estonia. (2016a). ES275: Acquisition of higher education by indicator, level of study, type of study and year. http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/ Saveshow.asp. Accessed 7 September 2016. Statistics Estonia. (2016b). RO0222: Population by sex, ethnic nationality and county, 1 January. http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval. asp?ma PO0222&lang 1. Accessed 7 September 2016. = = Statistics Estonia. (2017). HT309: Eestis õppivad tudengid elukohariigi ja kod- akondsuse järgi. http://andmebaas.stat.ee/Index.aspx?lang et&DataSet- = Code HT309. Accessed 31 October 2017. = Wei, L. (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Codeswitching and modeswitching in minority ethnic children in complementary schools. Te Modern Language Journal, 95(iii), 1–15. Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a feld of inquiry. In B. B. Schiefelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education in the Baltic States: Exploring Language Policies and Practices in the University Space

Josep Soler

1 Introduction

In recent years, there has been increasing debate about the role and status of diferent languages in the domain of higher education, with an emphasis on how a multilingual balance can be reached at that level (e.g., Haberland and Mortensen 2012; Hultgren et al. 2014). Although later than in other nearby countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland or Sweden), the Baltic states have not remained untouched by this debate and, given the growing trend towards the internationalization of their universities, the discussion about whether and how a balance between English and the national languages can be met is increasingly drawing the attention of many (see Klaas-Lang 2012; Vihman and Tensing 2014). Te growing attention on language-related matters at the university level in the region is understandable given the increased presence of English in, for example, English-taught programmes (ETPs) and of foreign exchange students

J. Soler (*) Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

(more on this below). In their report, Wächter and Maiworm (2014) note that the Baltic states have decidedly joined the ETP ‘power houses’ in Europe, which until recently had traditionally been concentrated in the Nordic countries and Central-Western Europe. Language and education issues in the Baltic states have been controversial topics for quite some time. Tension around the language of instruction at schools has drawn the attention of many especially since re-independence (see Hogan-Brun 2007), and together with citizenship laws, language teaching and testing have been closely monitored by international organizations with an interest in minority rights (Holt and Packer 2001). Tis has been particularly the case in Estonia and in Latvia, where attempts to reform the dual-language school system (in the titular language and in Russian) have been met by scepticism from minorities (Skerrett 2014). Nevertheless, to date not much attention has been paid to analysing the sociolinguistic situation at universities (but see Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun 2014; Klaas-Lang 2016; Metslang and Šmõreitšik 2013; Soler-Carbonell et al. 2017). As further explained below, universities remain fertile ground to explore issues of interest from a sociolinguistic and language policy angle. Te chapter, therefore, aims at widening the spectrum of the analysis of multilingualism in the Baltic states with a contribution that focuses on these areas. Te focus of analysis here will be on three universities in the Baltic states (the University of Tartu (UT), the University of Latvia (UL) in Riga and Vilnius University (VU)) and on how these three institutions manage the linguistic tensions and ambiguities of their internationalization processes (see also Klaas-Lang 2016). Te questions tackled in this chapter are: How multilingual are universities in the Baltic states? In view of their internationalization processes, what policies and what discourses are in place in the three universities regarding language? I shall elaborate more on the type of data and methodological lenses that I adopt further below; for now, sufce it to say that I will be adopting a discourse approach to language policy analysis (e.g., Hult 2015), drawing inspiration on ‘nexus analysis’ and ethnographic perspectives (Scollon and Scollon 2004). The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 445

Indeed, becoming more international usually entails greater use of foreign languages, most frequently English; at the same time, universities are still commonly seen by many (state authorities and citizens alike) as the fagship institutions to preserve and develop their national languages in all felds of academia. In this context, claims regarding the need to protect the national languages in the domain of higher education can also be interpreted as a protectionist stance towards preserving the local culture and the national identity (e.g., Cots et al. 2012). Indeed, in the Baltic states the nation-state building processes have historically gone hand in hand with the protection and development of the respective national languages (e.g., Hogan-Brun et al. 2007). In the process of becoming ‘post-national’ (Haberland and Mortensen 2012), universities provide interesting sites to explore relevant issues of sociolinguistic and glottopolitical tension. Te chapter is organized as follows: Sect. 2 provides a brief overview of the language political background in the Baltic states from an historical perspective. In Sect. 3 the theoretical and methodological approach used to analyse the data that inform the chapter is presented; the results are then outlined in Sect. 4 and discussed in the fnal and concluding section of the chapter (Sect. 5).

2 Language Policies in the Baltic States: An Historical Context

Te Baltic states have traditionally been considered an interesting laboratory to explore sociolinguistic and language policy issues. Hogan- Brun et al. (2007: 471–472) justify this and highlight at least eight relevant ways in which language policy matters in the Baltic states can resonate in other countries and contexts in the world. In particular, the defence of national languages and the recovery of their status in their home societies after a period of minorization and domination are of central importance for the purposes of the present chapter. Moreover, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all experienced important shifts and changes in their language regimes over their history. Six such changes 446 J. Soler can be observed in the twentieth century alone, from Russifcation policies of Tsarist times in the early part of the century to the recovery of full sovereignty and exclusive ofciality of the titular languages at the end of the century (Hogan-Brun et al. 2007: 470). In between, diferent periods of more or less intense domination by authoritarian regimes were experienced. Most importantly, the interwar period indelibly marked the language political history of the three republics. During that period the three titular languages reasserted their position as the national language in their respective countries. At the same time, cultural policies towards minority groups gained prominence during that time. In Estonia, for instance, the principle of cultural autonomy was established; this allowed national minorities to operate autonomously in their respective languages in the education system and in other cultural realms. Such was the case for German and Jewish communities, as well as for Swedish and Russian (Alenius 2004). Although such a policy had its positive efects (e.g., preventing open ethnic conficts internally), and despite being based on liberal grounds, it also had some negative outcomes. Some minorities (e.g., Germans) seemed to use it for the sake of living exclusively in German in a sort of a parallel state (Hogan- Brun et al. 2007). Additionally, dominating external powers would be able to exert their infuence on these weaker states by controlling their national minorities and infuencing state policies, as in the case of policies directed at the German minority in the Baltic states. Te following period witnessed the Soviet occupation, which came with policies aimed at fostering the spread of the Russian language and promoting asymmetric bilingualism, whereby the Russian-speaking population would be able to function monolingually across the Soviet Union (Rannut 2004). Although Article 36 of the Soviet Constitution provided an ofcial declaration of respect for and promotion of the languages and cultures of other nationalities within the Union, this was more of a symbolic nature for it had few practical consequences. Certainly, the fact that nationalities with languages other than Russian were able to keep important domains for their languages (e.g., education) helped them resist Russifcation attempts, although by the end of the Soviet era, even in the more resistant communities such as those The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 447

Table 1 Composition of the population in the Baltic states according to ethnic affliation 2000 (%) 2011 (%) Estonia Estonians 67.9 68.7 Russians 25.6 24.8 Others 6.5 6.5 Latvia Latvians 57.7 62.1 Russians 29.6 26.9 Others 12.7 11.0 Lithuania Lithuanians 83.5 84.2 Russians 6.3 5.8 Poles 6.7 6.6 Others 3.5 3.4

Sources Estonian Census, 2000 and 2011; Latvian Census, 2000 and 2011; and Lithuanian Census, 2000 and 2011 in the Baltic, the situation was one of minoritized languages in need of political and legal support (Rannut 2008). Te legacy of the Soviet occupation was strongly felt demographically, sociolinguistically and in many other respects. In Estonia and Latvia the proportion of Estonians and Latvians dropped from 92.4 and 73.4% in the 1920s and 1930s to 61.5 and 52%, respectively, in 1989. In the case of Lithuania the decline in the percentage of Lithuanians was not so sharp (from 84.2 to 79.6%; Gerner and Hedlund 1993: 74). It was in Lithuania that Poles constituted a minority similar in size to that of Russians. At present, the situation is stable in terms of the relative weight of the diferent main groups: titular nationals, Russians (and Poles in Lithuania) and other groups. We observe, however, a decline in the percentage of Russians in Latvia and a corresponding increase in Latvians. Table 1 summarizes the composition of the population in the three republics, with data from the last two censuses (2000 and 2011). In sociolinguistic terms the three Baltic states saw re-independence as a chance (or even a necessity) to reverse the trend towards language shift in all three cases. Laws were passed in all three republics which declared the national languages as the single state (ofcial) language in 448 J. Soler each country (1995 in Estonia and Lithuania, 1999 in Latvia), a declaration that is also enshrined in each country’s constitution, respectively. A major challenge facing the re-established independent states during the 1990s was to provide those who had arrived in previous decades with language skills in the respective titular languages. Tis was an objective that has by and large been successfully achieved (Vetik et al. 2015), although in certain regions where minority populations form a larger proportion (e.g., Ida-Viru county in northeastern Estonia) knowledge of the titular language is not always optimal. In addition, over the past two decades the language issue has been closely intertwined with citizenship and education laws. Tis has generated intense scholarly and legal debates, but generally the response from local minority populations has been one of adaptation to the changing legal and political frameworks (Rannut 2008). It is also important to keep in mind that linguistically Russian-dominant minorities in the Baltic states are not a homogeneous whole. Tere are important diferences within this group, not only because some of them are actually from diferent ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Belarusians or Ukrainians), but also because some feel more emotionally attached to their group than others (see Ehala and Zabrodskaja 2014). At the present moment, besides some sporadic events of ethnic tension (e.g., the Bronze Soldier events in 2007; Ehala 2009) the situation is relatively calm and stable. Nevertheless, Russia’s role in the confict with Ukraine more recently has driven other countries with sizeable Russian or Russophone minorities bordering the Russian Federation to be more alert, particularly given the past experience of Russia using Russian-speaking minorities abroad for political reasons (Hogan-Brun et al. 2007; see also the chapter by Ozolins in this book). Some argue that it is precisely in this context of security threat that members of the majority groups may feel the need to integrate Russian minorities to a larger extent and to reduce their sense of deprivation; language policies may play an important role in that sense (e.g., Ehala 2014). It is still too early to see whether a signifcant change in the political mindset of the majorities is taking place, but at least in the case of Estonia there is the view that the Ukrainian lesson is an opportunity for the country to improve its internal interethnic relations (Ehala 2014). The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 449

Needless to say, the three universities that are the focus of analysis in this chapter have experienced and lived through these changing linguistic regimes throughout their history. Of the three only the UL in Riga was founded in the twentieth century (in 1919). Te UT and VU were established centuries earlier (in 1632 and 1579, respectively). Te objective of getting Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian to achieve the status of academic languages, which began in the 1920s, was seen as important in terms of the national languages gaining a prestigious domain. In the case of Estonian, for example, this would happen during the frst period of independence (Verschik 2005), although of course at that time other languages played a relevant role in the higher education contexts of the three republics, including German, Russian, French and English (the latter two to a lesser extent, though). Nevertheless, Hogan-Brun et al. (2007: 497) explain that the national languages were strengthened during that period thanks to continuing linguistic work by prominent philologists and linguists, who helped complete the standardization processes of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian. Additionally, universities continued to operate in the national language to a signifcant extent (at least in the Estonian case) for a good part of the Soviet era, judging by the fact that many PhD dissertations in the 1950s and 1960s were written in Estonian (Soler-Carbonell 2014). At present, the dilemmas experienced by universities and higher education systems across the Baltic seem more noticeable, as noted above. It is important to add here that, although the focus of analysis in the chapter are three public universities, public and private institutions may have diferent approaches to language issues, with private ones making more active use of both Russian and English. At any rate, analysing the Lithuanian case, Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun (2014: 328) suggest that in the recent past Lithuanian universities have had to reconcile their ethnocentric approach to language educational policies with the Eurocentric demands implied by European Union (EU) accession and the signing of relevant treaties like the Bologna Declaration. Te following sections delve deeper into these tensions by analysing the sociolinguistic situation in three higher education institutions in the Baltic states: the UT, the UL in Riga and VU. 450 J. Soler

3 Theoretical and Methodological Approach

Te role played by language in internationalizing institutions such as universities, although not always explicitly acknowledged as such (Saarinen 2012), is of crucial importance. Te conceptual framework used to analyse the diferent role and status of languages at university developed by Dafouz and Smit (2016) is particularly ftting to the aims of this chapter. Although their model is thought to tackle the position of English within internationalizing universities, it can also be fruitfully adapted to analyse the same context from a multilingual perspective. Indeed, their model departs from recent theoretical developments in sociolinguistic research by considering language as a set of resources and a collection of repertoires that speakers mobilize with diferent efects in diferent contexts (Blommaert 2010; Blommaert and Backus 2011). From a language-ecological perspective (Haugen 1972), Dafouz and Smit outline a model to see how the diferent dimensions of language policy-making and language practices intersect and interact amongst themselves at an international university. Tey pay particular attention to the holistic nature of the language question by emphasizing the intersectionality and interdependence between the diferent components that are at play: the diferent roles that English plays at university, the dis- ciplinary diferences in academia, the infuence of diferent actors and stakeholders in connection to policymaking, etc. Dafouz and Smit’s model fts the purposes of the present chapter well because it allows us to see that diferent languages, with diferent registers and genres, fulfl diferent functions within the university space, and this is an important insight that will be taken up again in the discussion of the data presented here. When it comes to intersectionality and the analysis of language policy issues, ‘nexus analysis’ (Scollon and Scollon 2004) provides a relevant and useful framework to pinpoint how and what kinds of discourses circulate in a given social space. In that sense Hult’s (2015) proposal will be followed in this chapter (see also Hult 2010) as a practical guide to the use of nexus analysis in the study of discourse and language policy within the context of internationalizing universities. Briefy put, The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 451 nexus analysis consists of three main components: (1) the historical body; (2) the discourses in place; and (3) the interactional order. Te historical body looks at the individual and his or her biography or life trajectory. Tis is seen in nexus analysis as an essential aspect that may crucially shape and delimit speakers’ ideologies and attitudes toward any social fact, in our case language and language use. People’s educational and professional backgrounds and their past experiences are included in this component. When it comes to discourses in place, this refers to both the physical and the conceptual make-up of a given setting, the types of linguistic ideologies that prevail in a particular context and how they are physically and conceptually represented. Finally, the interaction order looks more specifcally at actual face-to-face interactions between speakers in a social setting; analysis here is concerned with paying attention to whose opinions and voices are manifested and made more prominent, how and through which interactional devices (Hult 2015: 223–225). Te analysis presented in this chapter is mostly focused on the second component of nexus analysis: the discourses in place. Te reason for this is that most of the data presented and discussed allow for an analysis of this component rather than the ‘interactional order’ or the ‘historical body’. More precisely, the data that furnish the bulk of the paper are:

• state policy documents; • linguistic landscape (LL) data of the three institutions; • the three institutions’ websites (in their English versions).

Analysis of these three data sets allows us to see which languages feature more prominently in the university space, on the one hand, and also gives us a sense of the discursive constructions underpinning the presence or absence of certain languages in that space, on the other hand. In addition to the discourses in place, part of the data explored in the chapter falls into the category of ‘historical body’. Statistical numbers available from the European Commission on incoming Erasmus students and staf will here be combined with analysis of in-depth interviews conducted with transnational scholars in Estonia, looking in more 452 J. Soler detail into the Estonian case at that point. Tis should allow us to see whether the population transiting the university spaces in the Baltic states is becoming more heterogeneous or not and to see how people at a more individual level experience the language policy dilemmas and challenges of their internationalizing institutions. Estonia is taken as representative of the Baltic states and of the internationalization processes of their higher education systems. However, more research of a qualitative nature along the lines of that presented here from Latvia and Lithuania will certainly contribute to a fuller view of the situation in all three countries.

4 Results

Tis section presents the results obtained from the three main sources of information outlined above: (1) ofcial language policies; (2) data on the universities’ LLs and their websites; and (3) statistics on incoming Erasmus students and staf and interview data. Each of these areas are discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Offcial Language Policies

To discover the discourses in place that prevail in a given context, a useful starting point is to look at the regulatory documents that delineate the status of the diferent languages in that setting. Tis can be done by concentrating on the policies that are in place in the areas where the three higher education institutions under analysis are located. Some universities have published their own language policy documents (e.g., the Language Principles of the UT 2009–2015). However, others do not have such documents; so to maintain parallelism between the three universities the ofcial language laws of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are considered instead. While it is the Constitution that regulates language matters in all three countries at the highest level (Klaas-Lang 2016) the language laws target language regulations more specifcally. Tere are other important policy documents (e.g., language The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 453 development plans or higher education strategy documents) in the three countries, but these are not considered in this analysis because it is not always easy to fnd a parallel that is appropriate to all three (see also Soler-Carbonell 2015, for an analysis of state and university language policies in Estonian higher education). Qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2000) was conducted on the following documents:

• Lithuanian Law on the State Language (Republic of Lithuania, 1995)1; • Latvian State Language Law (Republic of Latvia, 1999)2; • Estonian Language Act (Republic of Estonia, 2011).3

All three ofcial language laws declare the national (state) language as the ofcial language of the republics, respectively. Article 2 of the Lithuanian Law on the State Language states that ‘the Lithuanian language is the state language of the Republic of Lithuania’; Article 3 of the Latvian State Language Law states that ‘in the Republic of Latvia, the state language shall be Latvian’; in Estonia, the Language Act also enshrines Estonian as the ofcial language of the republic, together with Estonian sign language (Article 3 of the Estonian Language Act). Te diferent ofcial language laws are aimed at regulating the status of their respective state languages and protecting their speakers’ rights to use them in all possible social and geographical contexts in each of the three countries, respectively. Interestingly, the word ‘protection’ appears a couple of times in the Lithuanian Language Act, fve times in the Estonian and eight in the Latvian. Mention is also made of the right of national minorities to use their languages in governmental and other ofcial settings. Te Estonian Act is the more elaborate of the three here because it provides a clear defnition of national minorities and their languages (i.e., Estonian citizens with long-term residence in

1http://www3.lrs.lt/docs2/NCYNKNNN.PDF. 2http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_Language_English.htm. 3https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/506112013016/. 454 J. Soler the country with lasting ties with Estonia and who speak a language other than Estonian). In Latvia the Language Law designates Livonian as the language of an indigenous (autochthonous) population and the Latgalian written language as a historic variant of the Latvian language; they are both deemed in need of protection, development and promotion. When it comes to education, the Lithuanian Law on the State Language establishes that all citizens in Lithuania have the right to education in the state language at all levels of education, including higher education (Articles 11, 12 and 13). Te same is stated by the Latvian State Language Law (Article 14) relating to Latvian. In Estonia, language and education matters are covered by the Education Act (passed in 1992); the law states that all public institutions shall teach the Estonian language, including those where instruction is in a diferent language. At the university level the languages are regulated by the Universities Act (1995), which states that the language of instruction at universities is Estonian, but that university councils have the autonomy to decide on the use of other languages. All in all, the main goal of the language laws in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is the protection of their respective state languages, securing their status as the single ofcial language in the country. No signifcant changes have taken place since the laws were drafted and passed shortly after re-independence, not even in the case of the Estonian Language Act, which was originally passed in 1995 and subsequently renewed in 2011.

4.2 Physical and Online Spaces of the Universities: Linguistic Landscapes and University Websites

Other relevant sources where data on the types of discourses in place in a given setting can be sought and mapped are the physical and virtual spaces of the setting. Tis can be done by taking a look at the LL and the websites of the three universities explored. Data on the LL of the universities came from feldwork conducted in May and June of 2014, with short visits to all the faculties at these universities when The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 455 photographs were taken in order to analyse the number and quality of languages in their public space. Much has been written in recent years about the LL as a method and tool to investigate issues of interest in bi- and multilingual settings (e.g., Gorter 2006; Shohamy et al. 2010; Shohamy and Gorter 2009). Critical voices have also been raised with regard to the ‘traditional’ approach to the study of LL; Blommaert (2013), for instance, sees the quantitative side of LL research as too superfcial, erasing the history and trajectories of the signs in place. One possible way to remedy this shortcoming is to look at specifc signs in more detail and try to fnd out more about their indexical values: What do the signs point to and what underlying meanings and messages can we read from them? Scollon and Scollon’s (2003) ‘emplacement’ (where signs are actually situated in space) and ‘dialogicality’ (their connection and relationship to other signs in a given setting) provide useful starting points to read beyond the textual and graphic layers of a given sign. In other words, the realization that signs point to diferent directions should be an important part of the analysis (Blommaert 2013); signs point to the past, to their authors, to the present, to other signs they connect with, and to the future or their intended readers. Looking at these diferent layers in specifc signs might grant us access to the social and cultural layers of meaning of the sign and retrieve richer nuances from them. First of all I take quantitative LL data as a way of providing a general overview and as complementary to the other sources of information, with the fnal goal of mapping the distribution of diferent languages in the public space of the three universities investigated. I then ofer an in-depth analysis of a selection of signs that, in my reading of them, are indicative of interesting and relevant sociolinguistic meanings. Starting with a general overview, signs are categorized in terms of (a) type of sign (mono-, bi- and multilingual) and (b) authorship. Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the results of the LL feldwork conducted at the UT (Table 2), the UL (Table 3) and VU (Table 4), respectively. In the data processing from all three universities, I categorized the signs as being monolingual (in the state language, in English or in another language), bilingual (in the state language and English, in the state language and Russian, and other types of bilingual signs, such as Spanish-language courses advertised in Estonian and Spanish) or multilingual (with 456 J. Soler 1.15 10 0 2 8 Multiple combinations Multilingual signs Other 0.80 7 0 0 7 Estonian– Russian 1.26 11 0 10 1 = 869) Estonian– English Bilingual signs 5.75 50 1 8 41 Other 1.26 11 3 3 5 English 11.39 99 41 35 23 Estonian Monolingual signs 78.36 681 23 362 296 Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at the University of Tartu ( n Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at the University of Tartu Author % Total Individuals Outside companies University of Tartu 2 Table The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 457 Multiple combinations Multilingual signs 1 9 4 14 2.30 Other 2 7 0 9 1.47 Latvian– Russian 0 2 0 2 0.32 = 609) Latvian– English Bilingual signs 3 16 0 19 3.11 Other 6 11 1 18 2.95 English 5 42 11 58 9.50 Latvian Monolingual signs 264 181 44 489 80.30 Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at the University of Latvia ( n Author University of Latvia Outside companies Individuals Total % 3 Table 458 J. Soler 0.13 1 0 0 1 Multiple combinations Multilingual signs 0.52 4 0 0 4 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Lithuanian– Russian = 762) 7.48 57 1 4 52 Lithuanian– English Bilingual signs 0.65 5 0 1 4 Other 16.14 123 65 45 13 English 75.02 572 18 140 252 Monolingual signs Lithuanian Mono-, bi- and multilingual signs at Vilnius University ( n % Total Individuals Outside companies Vilnius University Author 4 Table The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 459 multiple options being possible, such as handwritten signs by students in several diferent languages). I also distinguished the diferent sources of authorship and categorized the signs as being produced by the respective university, by outside private companies or organizations, or by individuals (students or staf). Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide a general overview of the main features of the LL in the three universities. Tis frst overview tells us that the university space in these settings is prototypically monolingual, with signs being mostly monolingual in Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian, respectively. It can also be seen that these types of signs in the state language are typically produced by either the institution itself or by outside private companies—particularly in the cases of the UL and VL. By contrast, signs authored by single individuals are more likely to be monolingual in English, not the state language, especially in the cases of the UT and VU. Common examples of these types of signs were conference posters displayed in the corridors of some departments (more on this below). An important insight from this frst point is that agents at the macro and meso layers (e.g., institutions and private companies) may tend to reinforce state monolingualism, whereas agents at the micro level (e.g., individual researchers) may be more ready to engage with languages other than the state ofcial one (particularly English). Tere are, however, more nuances that need to be presented in this kind of analysis, and we can only reach these fne-grained details by taking a closer look at specifc individual signs. What is noticeable in this detailed analysis is that signs in the LL of the three universities index diferent kinds of meanings drawing on a variety of linguistic and semiotic resources. As noted above, one way to start looking at the indexical values that signs point to in the settings surveyed here is to analyse them from the perspective of their actual physical position (emplacement) and their connection to other signs and objects around them (dialogicality). In this meaning-making process the interaction (real-time or imagined) between actors arranged in diferent positions, with a set of resources and afordances, will determine the type and shape of sign that is observable. To begin with, signs authored by the university will tend to be prototypically monolingual in the respective state language, as already 460 J. Soler mentioned. However, in the cases of UT and VU the two universities are seen as part of the cultural and historical heritage of their countries and of the two cities, Tartu and Vilnius, respectively. So, much like what happens in other tourist sites elsewhere (see Heller et al. 2014), here too language is employed strategically for both practical and symbolic purposes, and bilingual signs are used in order to make sure that larger audiences can be reached; in this way, not just international students and scholars, but also all kinds of visitors, can connect to the place and have a closer experience of it. Tese types of bilingual signs are prototypically found in the historical centres of the universities, seamlessly merging their campuses with the bilingual sites from the town centre (Fig. 1). Tus, the historical campuses of UT and VU become yet another attraction that Tartu and Vilnius can ofer: sites for tourists to visit, enjoy and consume. In both cases UT and VU construct their city centre campuses as relevant sites of cultural importance and make them available as tourist attractions. In the case of VU, multilingualism is more prominently used; the photo on the left in Fig. 2 features 7 languages in total: Lithuanian, English, German, French, Italian, Polish and Russian. Te one on the right features two parallel monolingual signs with the same information in Lithuanian and English, and a monolingual sign in Lithuanian authored by the EU. Tis kind of sign, with slight variations in the text inserted in the blue box at its top, was found repeatedly in several campuses of the university. Te fact that it is authored by the EU and it is monolingual in Lithuanian is relevant and will be discussed in more detail below. Bi- and multilingual signs in other campuses of the two universities were less frequent (and rare in general in the case of UL). A case in point is the absence of bilingual signs in the state language and Russian, which seems motivated by conscious erasure (Irvine and Gal 2000) of the language by policy and sign makers. Only at UT are there signs promoting a driving school composed bilingually in Estonian and Russian (see Fig. 3), which might indicate that the company wishes to attract Russian-speaking clients. Another sign at UT was in Estonian and Russian which, given its font and general makeup, gives the impression of being a sign from the past that has not been removed given The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 461

Fig. 1 Bilingual Estonian–English signs at UT’s historical campus

Fig. 2 Multilingual signs at VU’s historical campus 462 J. Soler

Fig. 3 Bilingual Estonian–Russian signs at UT

Fig. 4 Monolingual signs in the state language at UT, UL and VU the marginal position it occupies in the campus where it was found. Present-day signs with safety instructions, such as evacuation plans or instructions in emergency situations, are monolingual in the state language. Tis was observed in all three universities (see Fig. 4). The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 463

Fig. 5 Monolingual signs in English at UT

Monolingual signs in languages other than the state language (particularly English) were also found in all three universities. Tis was especially (but not exclusively) the case when the authors of the signs were outside companies or individual agents (e.g., universities from abroad ofering study programmes at their institutions, or scholars showcasing their research in posters presented at international conferences). Sometimes, the university itself produces signs monolingually in English when advertising ETPs newly ofered in some of its departments. Tese types of signs are represented in Fig. 5, in this case at UT, but similar instances were recorded at UL and VU. Finally, multilingual signs with multiple combinations of languages were rare in all three universities. At both UT and UL, signs of this kind were found at the Faculty of Humanities in the cases where foreign language courses were advertised. Te only diference was that at UT these signs were authored by the institution, whereas at UL they had been authored by outside companies (see, e.g., the photo on the left in Fig. 6, an Italian–English bilingual sign). At UL a multilingual sign was found at the Faculty of Humanities written by what would seem to be exchange students; this type of more organically produced sign, with more temporary scribbling, co-exists interestingly next to a sign in the ofcial language Latvian, produced in a more stable and durable kind of material, a sign with information for emergency situations, which is typically produced in the state ofcial language, as we saw above. 464 J. Soler

Fig. 6 Multilingual signs at UL

Turning now from the physical to the online space of the universities, the websites of the three institutions are yet another rich source of information about the discourses in place and the spread and distribution of the diferent languages at play in a given setting. Although there may certainly be important qualitative diferences in terms of how information is presented in one language or another, without translations being fully representative of the original content (Greenall 2012), a quantitative look at the number of items available per language might give us an insight into the relative importance of each language in each respective institution (see also Soler-Carbonell and Gallego-Balsà 2016). Here, the site maps shown on each university’s website were explored in order to count the items available in each of the languages: Estonian, English and Russian at UT; Latvian, English and Russian at UL; and Lithuanian and English at VU (the latter does not have a Russian-language version of its webpage). Table 5 summarizes the results of this exploration. Looking at the online spaces of the three universities, as represented by their websites, we see a more markedly bilingual picture, although again with diferent degrees of variance between them. Interestingly, while VU presented a higher number of bilingual signs in Lithuanian and English in its physical space as well as more monolingual signs in English too, we see here that the website of the university looks more monolingual The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 465 313 970 935 Total 0 15 (2%) 53 (6%) Russian 86 (27%) 300 (31%) 387 (41%) English 227 (73%) 655 (67%) 495 (53%) Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian UT, UL and VU websites, languages used items available per language UT, Vilnius University University of Latvia University of Tartu 5 Table 466 J. Soler

(in Lithuanian) than the websites of the other two universities. UT and UL, on the other hand, have a more bilingual outlook, with UT in this case more balanced in Estonian and English. Tese results may indicate that when it comes to the virtual space, the three institutions seem to fnd it easier to incorporate a greater use of other languages, particularly English, which is not surprising given the relatively easier eforts and means that are required to do so, as opposed to the use of languages in the physical space. Finally, once again it is clear here that institutional use of the Russian language is very marginal, with very low percentages at both UT and UL, and not ofered at all as an option at VU.

4.3 Transnational Students and Staff

Te data presented so far have enabled us to explore the discourses in place in the three institutions and ofered us an overview of the regimes of language present in them. Let us now turn in this fnal section of the results to some data that might allow us to explore a diferent component of nexus analysis: the historical body. Let us begin by turning to the statistics regarding students and staf mobility in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We can see that in all three countries the trend is to receive more exchange students and staf year after year (see Figs. 7 and 8). Tis is particularly the case in Lithuania; but the turning point in all three states was 2004 which coincides with the year these countries acceded to the EU. Tere is a clear growing trend in the numbers of incoming students and staf. Undeniably, this represents a growing heterogeneity of speaker profles to which institutions may need to adapt themselves. One way to do so is by increasingly ofering more ETPs, where foreign students and staf can be more easily integrated. Te growth in the number of ETPs over the past few years has been clearly identifed in all three countries (Wächter and Maiworm 2014); whether this helps better integrate foreign students and staf can be usefully explored by means of in-depth interviews. An account of opinions from transnational scholars interviewed to discover the experiences they had with diferent languages within and outside the university space is now given. Te focus here will The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 467

Fig. 7 Erasmus mobility in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: incoming students 2000–2014 (Source Erasmus Statistics—European Commission. http://ec.europa. eu/education/tools/statistics_en.htm)

Fig. 8 Erasmus mobility in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: incoming staff 2000–2014 (Source Erasmus Statistics—European Commission. http://ec.europa. eu/education/tools/statistics_en.htm) 468 J. Soler be the Estonian context, given that the feldwork yielding these data was conducted at the UT in the academic year 2013–2014 (for more details on the study see Soler-Carbonell and Jürna 2017). Tis will allow us to dig a bit deeper into the linguistic ideologies and the personal opinions held by these groups of people, which are growing in numbers, as we have seen. Several key ideas emerged from this group of speakers, the frst being that although they may all initially have a good predisposition to learn Estonian, at the same time they are aware of the availability of the English language in almost every context of their daily lives. Tis was particularly expressed by those who had spent less time in the country at the time of the interview, such as the case with Nolan (a postdoctoral researcher in computer science of Pakistani origin) in the following extract:

Extract 1: ‘Everyone speaks English’ Nolan: and I’m trying to learn slowly but you know I almost never had to ah how to say it like English is always you can use it pretty much everywhere here so it has been very smooth Josep: mhm mhm yea so you don’t fnd the need to actually push yourself more to learn Estonian Nolan: yea exactly even if I’m taking some courses this push is not there you know so that’s also on one hand it’s very ah it’s good because you can survive without it on the other hand it doesn’t force you to learn Estonian if people wouldn’t speak English here I would have put more efort to learn Estonian and I would get more opportunities to practise

Marcus, an international professor in the feld of IT, provided an additional opinion stating that the language policy matters that may be of concern to some ofcials in the university administration were not really an issue for them. He presented it thus:

Extract 2: ‘We are pragmatists’ Marcus: I think, in our feld, we are pragmatists. If we were not pragmatists, we wouldn’t be here [laughs] so all these discussions you’re having sound to me like people are having in that other building there [refers to the university’s The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 469

main building] [laughs] but we do not have that kind of discussions, we haven’t even asked it ourselves

When it comes to Estonian, it is interesting to fnd out how or when it enters speakers’ linguistic repertoires and the time it takes for it to be spoken more efectively. Martin, a Spanish postdoc in the biology sciences, had been staying in the country for approximately seven years at the time of interview. When asked about how and when he managed to learn Estonian, he highlighted several factors (living in a more Estonian-speaking neighbourhood and having children) which had more to do with life, in general, than with his professional dedication to the university:

Extract 3: ‘Te route towards Estonian’ Martin: and it also helped the fact that we live here in this place Josep: sure Martin: because in the city centre it was, I don’t know, everything was more impersonal Josep: yea Martin: and here we do have more a kind of neighbourhood life Josep: yes Martin: so the neighbours ask you things and you talk to them and so on Josep: yea yea Martin: also the fact that we’ve had a son puts you in touch with people from the place Josep: sure Martin: so you start speaking it [Estonian] and then there’s a moment of shift, right? In your knowledge of it, you start listening to people’s phrases and how they use the language and you start saying ‘ah, this goes like this’

Before moving on to the discussion and conclusions section (Sect. 5), let us summarize what we have learnt so far. Students circulating the university spaces in all three countries are slowly but steadily increasingly heterogeneous, with higher numbers of incoming Erasmus students and staf year after year. At the same time, when it comes to transnational scholars (in the Estonian case at least), we see that initially they manage fairly well without speaking Estonian. In fact, it is only 470 J. Soler when they have lived longer in the country, and frequently for reasons that are not work-related, that they feel the need to get a better grip on the language. With these issues in mind, Sect. 5 looks at the implications of the results presented here, summarizing the main points in light of the questions posed in the chapter.

5 Conclusions

Attempts are made in this chapter to address the following questions: How multilingual are universities in the Baltic states? And what policies and discourses are in place in the three universities regarding language in view of their internationalization processes? Nexus analysis (Hult 2015; Scollon and Scollon 2004) was the methodological framework chosen to tackle these questions, specifcally focusing on two components of such analysis: discourses in place and the historical body. From the information given in Sect. 4 it seems reasonable to conclude that multilingualism is not (yet) a widespread phenomenon in universities in the Baltic states (at least in the three cases examined here), but is one that is increasingly more common. As they are state public institutions it is not surprising that they refect/reinforce state ofcial monolingualism, which is still the prevalent linguistic ideology (or discourse in place). Tis is clearly shown from analysis of ofcial language policy documents. However, if we dig deeper than this frst superfcial layer, we start noticing more interesting nuances in terms of the language question at universities. Indeed, looking back to Dafouz and Smit’s (2016) model on the role played by (English) language at international universities, we see some indicators of the reasons diferent languages are used in diferent situations and spaces and for diferent purposes. Looking, frst, at the actual physical space of the universities—their LL—we see a strong correspondence with the state’s dominant monolingual type of language ideology. Tere certainly is a sense that the universities (UT, UL and VU) operate as a general rule in the state ofcial language. Information of all sorts—whether it is about courses and programmes for students, signs showing the layout of a building or information in case of emergency situations—is given by default in the The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 471 state ofcial language. However, also English is used in signs authored by the institutions, mostly in the bilingual signs of historical campuses, as many of those sites are tourist-oriented. English is also used in campuses outside the historical centre, but when it does, frequently in signs authored by outside companies (e.g., foreign universities advertising their ETPs) or by individual members of the university community (e.g., researchers putting up conference posters in English in their department corridors). Russian, on the other hand, has clearly been erased from institutional signs. Just a few bilingual signs from the past that have managed to escape removal feature Russian; it also appears in some very specifc signs by outside companies. In light of this, it could be argued that institutions operate within a national framework, at least in their physical space, whereas individual members do so within an international framework. Interestingly, what we see here is that, by recontextualizing particular signs (e.g., posters for academic conferences), researchers are in efect creating new meanings with new implications for those signs. Signs originally created to be exhibited at a conference by members of a particular discourse community are reframed in a new context with a new set of rules. What was originally a sign for colleagues from diferent institutions outside their own university is now a sign for colleagues and other members in their home university, with diferent indexical values. Efectively, this changes the university space from a national orientation to a more international one. Despite there being only ad hoc instances, it could be argued that internationalization, much as it happens at the departmental level, is more organically than institutionally driven (Vihman and Tensing 2014). Te overwhelmingly monolingual signs found in the LLs in this chapter are also in line with Marten’s (2010) study of the LL of Rēzekne in Eastern Latvia. Marten fnds that signs at the site surveyed in his research show what he calls ‘legal hypercorrection’, meaning that signs could potentially include more linguistic heterogeneity than they actually do. A similar argument might be proposed for the universities examined in the present study as well, particularly when it comes to signs authored by the universities. Tis is despite the fact that in all three countries we see a growing presence of foreign students and staf, accompanied by an increasing number of programmes taught in 472 J. Soler

English (Wächter and Maiworm 2014). Indeed, actual physical signs may take longer to refect the changing population moving around the university space. Tese more transient communities (Mortensen and Fabricius 2014) may well leave their imprint in the physical LL of the university, even if only sporadically, as can be seen in one of the signs at UL. Naturally, however, theirs is an imprint of a more volatile nature, which co-occurs with the more fxed and stable nature of institutionally authored signs. When we move from the physical to the online space of the universities, we see a slightly diferent picture. Teir websites seem to have more fexibility and greater capability to embrace a wider use of languages, particularly English, besides the state ofcial language. Tis type of fexibility may be particularly useful in the virtual space when it comes to attracting possible transnational students, scholars and staf. Indeed, it seems that transnational scholars, at least those in the initial stages of their stay, appreciate the fact that they can make use of English most of the time. Te interview data presented above, which have allowed us to focus more specifcally on the Estonian case, not only point at this but also highlight another relevant aspect of the language dilemmas faced by internationalizing universities: the fact that transnational scholars only get to engage with the national language after they have lived in the country for quite some time and do so for non-work related reasons or purposes. In light of the preoccupation shared by many state-level ofcials and policy-makers of the need to protect, promote and develop the state language at the academic level (Soler-Carbonell et al. 2017), it seems that a more thorough refection will be needed to address the potential language needs of these key groups of people to meet the internationalization aims of the universities. To conclude, in agreement with Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun’s (2014) analysis of Lithuanian higher education internationalization trends, the Baltic states and their universities fnd themselves at a crossroads. Since re-independence, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have mostly approached language and education issues from an ethnocentric angle, with the aim of preserving and promoting their respective state languages. However, their access to the EU and the compromises they have adopted since then, like the signing of the Bologna Process, have pushed them to The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 473 reconcile such an approach with other Eurocentric and global perspectives, which involves incorporating multilingual policies in a more decisive way (Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun 2014: 328). Interestingly, though, the EU-authored signs at VU were produced monolingually in Lithuanian, and signs of a similar type were also found at UT and UL. Tis might indicate that EU ofcials view multilingualism as a combination of multiple (state, ofcial) monolingualisms, an idea at odds with the more complex realities of institutions and speakers in these transnational spaces. As the historical review presented in the chapter demonstrates, the higher education systems in the Baltic states have gone through many intense changes across time, much as have their societies in general; at present, it could be argued that the challenges facing universities in the Baltic states are just as intense. Te analysis presented in this chapter has tried to unpack some of the dilemmas felt by three internationalizing institutions in the Baltic states. Undoubtedly, more research will be needed to unravel how speakers resolve issues surrounding language practices against the background of such linguistic and identity predicaments.

Acknowledgements Te data on which this chapter is based were gathered while the author was a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Tartu. Te author was supported by the EU through the European Social Fund (Mobilitas Grant No. GFLEE322 MJ). Additional fnancial support was received from the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (Early Career Research Grant No. 2014), support that is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are owed to Heiko F. Marten and Sanita Lazdiņa for very helpful and thorough comments on earlier versions of the chapter. Any shortcomings and limitations are, of course, my own.

References

Alenius, K. (2004). Under the conficting pressures of the ideals of the era and the burdens of history: Ethnic relations in Estonia 1918–1925. Journal of Baltic Studies, 35(1), 32–49. 474 J. Soler

Blommaert, J. (2010). Te sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes. Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011). Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity (Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies No. 67). https://www.academia.edu/6365319/WP67_Blommaert_and_ Backus_2011._Repertoires_revisited_Knowing_language_in_superdiversity. Accessed 30 March 2018. Bulajeva, T., & Hogan-Brun, G. (2014). Internationalisation of higher education and nation building: Resolving language policy dilemmas in Lithuania. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 318–331. Cots, J. M., Lasagabaster, D., & Garrett, P. (2012). Multilingual policies and practices of universities in three bilingual regions in Europe. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 7–32. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. Ehala, M. (2009). Te Bronze soldier: Identity threat and maintenance in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 40(1), 139–158. Ehala, M. (2014). Russian minority in Estonia after Crimea. Aspen Review, 2, 45–49. Ehala, M., & Zabrodskaja, A. (2014). Hot and cold ethnicities in the Baltic states. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(1), 76–95. Gerner, K., & Hedlund, S. (1993). Te Baltic states at the end of the Soviet empire. London: Routledge. Gorter, D. (Ed.). (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Greenall, A. (2012). Attracting international students by means of the web: Transadaptation, domestication and cultural suppression. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 75–85. Haberland, H., & Mortensen, J. (Eds.). (2012). Language and the international university [Special issue]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 1–197. Haugen, E. (1972). Te ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Heller, M., Jaworski, A., & Turlow, C. (2014). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and tourism—Mobilities, markets, multilingualism. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(4), 425–458. The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 475

Hogan-Brun, G. (2007). Education in the Baltic states: Contexts, practices and challenges. Comparative Education, 43(4), 553–570. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramoniene, M., & Rannut, M. (2007). Language politics and practices in the Baltic states. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(4), 469–631. Holt, S., & Packer, J. (2001). OSCE developments and linguistic minorities. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 3(2), 99–126. Hult, F. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7–24. Hult, F. (2015). Making policy connections across scales using nexus analysis. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 217–231). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F., & Tøgersen, J. (Eds.). (2014). English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic diferentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Klaas-Lang, B. (2012). Eesti keel kõrgkoolis. Keel ja Kirjandus, 3, 229–231. Klaas-Lang, B. (2016). State policies and institutional language choice— Te vitality of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian in higher education. In M. Sloboda, P. Laihonen, & A. Zabrodskaja (Eds.), Sociolinguistic transition in former Eastern Bloc countries. Two decades after the regime change (pp. 235–263). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Marten, H. F. (2010). Linguistic landscape under strict state language policy: Reversing the Soviet legacy in a regional centre in Latvia. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 115–132). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/ fqs/article/view/1089/2385. Accessed 30 November 2015. Metslang, H., & Šmõreitšik, A. (2013). How non-native speaker students cope in higher education: A case study of ethnic minority students in Estonia. In E. Saar & R. Mõttus (Eds.), Higher education at a crossroad: Te case of Estonia (pp. 165–195). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Mortensen, J., & Fabricius, A. (2014). Language ideologies in Danish higher education: Exploring student perspectives. In A. K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen., & J. Tøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 193–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 476 J. Soler

Rannut, M. (2004). Language policy in Estonia. Noves SL.: Revista de Sociolingüística (Spring/Summer), 1–17. http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/ noves/hm04primavera-estiu/rannut1_6.htm. Accessed 28 April 2017. Rannut, M. (2008). Estonianization eforts post-independence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3/4), 423–439. Saarinen, T. (2012). Internationalisation of Finnish higher education—Is language an issue? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 157–173. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in place. Language and the material world. London and New York: Routledge. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging Internet. London: Routledge. Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E., Ben Rafael, E., & Barni, M. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistic landscape in the city. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Skerrett, D. (2014). Te 2011 Estonian high school language reform in the context of critical language policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(2), 174–200. Soler-Carbonell, J. (2014). University language policies and language choice among PhD graduates in Estonia: Te (unbalanced) interplay between English and Estonian. Multilingua, 33(3/4), 413–436. Soler-Carbonell, J. (2015). Language policy in Estonian higher education: Internationalisation and the tension over English. In S. Dimova., A. K. Hultgren., & C. Jensen (Eds.), Te English language in teaching in European higher education (pp. 247–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Soler-Carbonell, J., & Gallego-Balsà, L. (2016). Te internationalisation of higher education in two diferent contexts: Catalan and Estonian sociolinguistic perspectives. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(1), 40–55. Soler-Carbonell, J., & Jürna, M. (2017). Doing language policy: Teasing out the tensions for transnational scholars in Estonian and Danish higher education. In M. Siiner, K. Koreinik, & K. D. Brown (Eds.), Language policy beyond the state (pp. 45–60). Cham: Springer. Soler-Carbonell, J., Saarinen, T., & Kibbermann, K. (2017). Multilayered perspectives on language policy in higher education: Finland, Estonia, and Latvia in comparison. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(4), 301–314. Verschik, A. (2005). Te language situation in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3), 283–316. The Multilingual Landscape of Higher Education … 477

Vetik, R., Kallas, K., Kruusvall, J., Saar, E., Helemäe, J., Leppik, C., et al. (2015). Estonian society monitoring 2015. http://www.kul.ee/en/results-integration-monitoring-estonian-society. Accessed 30 May 2017. Vihman, V., & Tensing, Ü. (2014). English-medium studies in the Estonian national university: Globalisation and organic change. In L. Lepik (Ed.), Keelevahetus ülikoolis – probleem või võimalus? Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo küsimusi XLII. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Ajaloo Muuseum. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education. Te state of play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens. Part V Conclusion National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms?

Christian Giordano

1 Introduction: Why Is This Book Important?

In the frst place, I would like to stress that I have greatly appreciated the general tenor of this book on the question of language or, better yet, languages in the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In fact, when viewed from afar through the lens of sketchy and often superfcial information, these three small countries could be mistaken for those classic national states that emerged from the disintegration of the Soviet Union that have no space for cultural diversity. Instead, as the greater part of these chapters shows beyond political ideological conceptions, the three Baltic states have a noteworthy linguistic diversity. In fact, as shown foremost in the chapters by Ineta Dabašinkienė and Eglė Krivickaitė, by Triin Vihalemm and Marianne Leppik, and by Heiko F. Marten, we need to bear in mind that all three Baltic states

C. Giordano (*) University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

© Te Author(s) 2019 481 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1_15 482 C. Giordano re-established after the collapse of the Soviet Union have several cultural and linguistic Russian minorities. A legacy of the past regime, these are the result of massive migrations of Russian-speaking populations (to Estonia and Latvia especially) organized by Moscow to render these countries less foreign and more compliant and loyal to the new political order that took shape after the October Revolution and then expanded territorially to Eastern Europe after World War II. Yet, viewing the actual practice of multilingualism in the Baltic States as a phenomenon characterized by the dualism between Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian, on the one hand, and Russian, on the other, would be reductive. As the chapters by Sanita Lazdiņa (chapter “Latgalian in Latvia: Layperson Regards to Status and Processes of Revitalization”), Kara D. Brown and Kadri Koreinik (chapter “Contested Counting? What the Census and Schools Reveal About Võro in Southeastern Estonia”), Meilutė Ramonienė (chapter “Regional Dialects in the Lithuanian Urban Space: Skills, Practices and Attitudes”) and Justyna Walkowiak and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz (chapter “Tangled Language Policies—Polish in Lithuania vs. Lithuanian in Poland”) illustrate, besides the three national languages and Russian there are several important regional languages and dialects such as Latgalian in Latvia and Võro in Estonia as well as Polish in Lithuania, although we ought to remember that Lithuanian is also present in Poland. As aptly highlighted in the chapters by Anna Verschik and Helin Kask, Loreta Vaicekauskienė and Inga Vyšniauskienė, as well as those by Solvita Pošeiko, Kerttu Kibbermann and Josep Soler in Part IV of this book, we ought to bear in mind that, along with the national languages, other languages such as English in academic circles or forms of linguistic hybridization primarily in the informal sector are also practised in the by now globalized Baltic societies. Tis book’s tenor may indeed unsettle the ideology and political rationale of national states, not only the Baltic states reborn in the 1990s. Tis is precisely why I consider this book, aside from its monograph nature, to be crucially relevant also beyond the regional context. National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 483

In this epilogue I intend to illustrate the underlying reasons of the discontent of those who still dream of monolingualism or of linguistic purism, as in certain obsolete yet paradoxically contemporary political circles that are ideologically nationalist or populist and that by now are present not only in the Baltic states but also across Europe.

2 Language as an Identity Factor in National States

In the nations’ social production and in their political construction in the shape of national states as imagined communities (Anderson 1983), the use of specifc characteristics defning both the feeling of belonging and the positive or negative recognition by those identifed as foreigners can be observed. Tese criteria, therefore, form the basis of credence in one’s own commonality and cultural uniformity (i.e., in what Max Weber very appropriately termed Gemeinsamkeitsglauben (‘common faith’), Weber 1956: 234–244). However, Frederik Barth pointed out that the latter also defnes the boundaries between social groups (Barth 1969: 9–38). As a rule, however, these social aggregations are also artfully created by the hegemonic classes of a society or country. In actual life an array of specifc socially constructed qualities or peculiarities, which members of a society regard as prerogatives if not indeed virtues exclusive to their own group, may be observed. Tese social representations are often regarded as so innate as to be considered indisputable, thus acquiring a quasi-dogma status. Despite the social production of an almost unlimited number of these social representations, they all have a specifc combination of the following elements, especially in modern Europe: language, religion, shared history, cultural traditions and territoriality. For members of these societies, these characteristics form the foundation of unalterable and unassailable collective identities. Aside from specifc exceptions such as Switzerland, Belgium and to some extent Finland and Spain (though questionably, given the central 484 C. Giordano government’s stance regarding Catalonia), language is the paramount criterion in the defnition of ethnic, cultural and national collective identities. Te notion that a shared language is the quality par excellence by which an ethnic group, a people or a national community is defned and recognized as such has been a longstanding tradition in Europe for over 300 years. Johann Gottfried Herder famously highlighted and popularized the importance of linguistic specifcity to characterize peoples (Conte et al. 2002). Herder, however, had a distinguished precursor, none other than the Académie française, which defned the nation as

tous les habitants d’un même Etat, d’un même pays, qui vivent sous les mêmes lois et usent de la même langue. (Cited by Lochak 1988: 77)

Both the reference to Herder and the quote indicate that language is the overriding cultural characteristic defning a nation. Yet, there are signifcant diferences between the German and the French conception of nation that need to be underscored in this context even though they are not that central to the question of language.

3 The Monoethnic State Ideal: One Nation, One Territory, One Culture, One Language

Europe’s current political layout is still based in the main on national states being fercely protective of their sovereignty, although it has been slightly limited lately by regionalist and autonomy demands. Tis political layout is the outcome of the proliferation of such states at the end of the 18th century and thereafter, and of the project to establish a Europe of nations as theorized and solicited by the then president of the United States, Tomas Woodrow Wilson, in the aftermath of World War I. National states, which we must keep in mind still determine Europe’s political order, were established mainly by means of two models frst conceived in France and in Germany (Brubaker 1992). Clearly enough, in this chapter these models are taken into consideration as Weberian ideal types. National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 485

3.1 The French Model

It has often been remarked that the French model of national state is based on the idea of a political nation. According to this widespread opinion, the national state would be the outcome of a political agreement or, better yet, of a pact (i.e., a contract between its citizens). On the subject, Jules Renan has spoken somewhat rhetorically about the nation and called its political organization un plebiscite de tous les jours. Tis well-known formula highlights that the political nation of French derivation is an elective community, implying the existence of a patrie ouverte (‘open country’) in which religious and/or ethnic-related diferences are irrelevant (Dumont 1991: 25). Under this aspect, the national state represents the outcome of a declaredly voluntary act of each citizen which mirrors the viewpoint expressed by Baron Charles de Montesquieu in his pensées (‘thoughts’): Je suis nécessairement homme… et je ne suis français que par hazard (Montesquieu 1949: 10). Nowadays we are aware that the non-ethnic concept of nation which stemmed from the French Revolution was markedly modifed and rela- tivized rather soon, since it was merged with ideas that were not utterly devoid of ethnicizing tendencies. French experts who have delved into this matter point out that, according to the 1791 and 1793 constitu- tions, any foreigner living in France could be granted citizenship without having to prove that he had acquired a French identity. In other words, this meant that obtaining citizenship came before obtaining nationality (i.e., before acquiring that sum of cultural stances and social rules regarded as typically French; Weil 1988: 192; Lochak 1988: 78; Weil 2002; Weil and Hansen 1999). Te sequence citizenship– nationality was all but reversed in the course of the nineteenth century. Tis fundamental shift occurred together with, and was justifed by, the introduction of further ethnicizing concepts by which the prerequisites to belong to the elective nation and its state were increasingly defned by ethnocultural criteria, such as knowledge of the French language and acquisition of the way of life specifc to the country. Tough weakened, the original idea of citoyenneté (‘citizenship’) was never totally set aside. In particular, the subjective, thus individualistic vision of the nation (Sundhaussen 1997: 79), by which any foreigner 486 C. Giordano living in France can take advantage of the apparently trouble-free mechanism of assimilation to become a citizen, remained unchanged. According to this scenario, any ethnocultural diferences, identities and boundaries are never inescapable and insurmountable. Each human being, if he deems it worthwhile, is intrinsically able to adapt and consequently become a full-fedged member of the cité (‘city’) wherein all relationships between individuals, as well as all relations between people and public institutions, are regulated by a social contract, which, in theory at least, has no room for ethnicity and culture. Whether ethnic, cultural or national, for the French model any type of belonging is never defnitively set; on the contrary, it can be modifed through acculturation processes that lead to integration via the assimilation of those who are not regarded as foreigners. Te assimilation process, which clearly entails signifcant changes in the individual’s cultural identity, legitimizes welcoming the xenos (‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’) to the bosom of the community and the national state. Tis brief presentation already highlights that the French type of national state is associated with the concept of a more open society than other models of political–administrative organization. Tis fact is further substantiated by the actual, albeit incomplete, application of the jus soli in the French juridical system. On the other hand, we ought to bear in mind that the signifcant openness in welcoming foreigners is counterbalanced by the surprisingly weak appreciation for ethnocultural diferences within its own national territory. Eugene Weber (1976) aptly shows how the French national state’s various governments between the end of the revolution and World War I set up an extensive assimilationist apparatus aimed at reducing ethnocultural diferences between its various regions as much as possible (yet was unable to do so completely). As expressed in the original title of Weber’s work, peasants with their local characteristics would have been transformed (and to some extent they were) into more or less standard French citizens. Minorities in France (i.e., groups within the country that on the strength of real or purported ethnocultural criteria demand the recognition of their diversity and may voice claims to territorial autonomy; see, e.g., Corsica and National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 487

Brittany) are ignored or kept out of sight to this day. At best, they represent an awkward though perforce acknowledged reality. Moreover, the law known as Loi Pasqua, which reformed the renowned code de la nationalité (‘nationality code’), one of republi- can France’s juridical institutions, came into force on 1 January 1993. Without delving into its legal technicalities, this law makes obtaining nationality more difcult, especially for immigrants. Consequently, there is a creeping ethnicization that allows present-day France increasingly to be contrasted with the revolutionary ideal of patrie ouverte, thus also with that of political nation. We can rightfully wonder whether France is undergoing Germanization.

3.2 The German Model

Te national state based on the German model is often described as ethnic, in this context mainly with a negative connotation. Te use of this adjective expresses, rightly or not, the fact that the German model of national state is based on genealogy (i.e., on the shared origin of its citizens). Arguably, linking the German model with the notion of Volk (‘people’), which not always has an ethnicizing overtone, would be more appropriate from an historical viewpoint. It is common knowledge that Gottfried Herder, together with the Grimm brothers, popularized the idea of Volk and its derivatives such as Volksgeist, Volksseele (‘people soul’), etc. Terefore, viewing Herder as the frst zealous advocate of the ethnic variant of the concept of Volk, thus stigmatizing him as the inventor of the most dangerous explosive of modern times (Talmon 1967: 22; Finkielkraut 1987: 56f.), would be both misleading and somewhat incorrect. In fact, Herder believed that the genuine expressions of Volksgeist, thus also of the Volk, were principally the language and its literary evidence, such as fairy tales, poems, proverbs, phraseology, etc. Tis author was rather a representative of Germanic cultural patriotism and one of the creators of the concept of Kulturnation (‘nation with a great cultural history’, Pierré-Caps 1995: 79f.). 488 C. Giordano

Undeniably, however, during the nineteenth century several intellectuals, including renowned politicians, artists, jurists, philosophers, historians and, last but not least, folklorists (Volkskundler ), increasingly defned the cultur- alistic notion of Volk in ethnicizing terms. Descent and origin, no longer regarded symbolically but strictly physiologically, became the inherent characteristics of the Volk, by then understood to be ‘my people’ (the German one, clearly). Yet, for a long time this ethnicization of the idea of people and nation in Germany would circulate solely in intellectual circles and would not have juridical consequences on the right to citizenship. As pointed out by historian Rudolf von Tadden, a defnitive shift towards the institutional birth of a German ethnic nation only took place in 1913 with the introduction of a restrictive variant of the jus sanguinis principle in the Reich ’s juridical system (Pierré-Caps 1995: 112; Gosewinkel 2001). Accordingly, what became known as the German model of the national state, determined by the formula the people as an ethnic entity is the essence of fully entitled citizens, became a reality only at this time (Grawert 1973: 166). Tus, descent and origin become the two fundamental criteria to defne who belonged to the nation and who was excluded. Te escalation of nationalism over the next years led to a gradual ethnicization of the German model, which, via National Socialism and its infamous Nuremberg Laws, inevitably led to the racialization of the notion of Volk and of the national state. After the abominable aberra- tions of the Nazi period, post-war Germany, though never a strictly ethnic state, renewed its links with the previous model of national state in which ethnicity overrides culture. To corroborate this last statement, we need only mention the notion of citizenship in the Federal Republic at the time of the two Germanys (1949–1990). As constitutional- ist Böckenförde (1968: 424) aptly noted, the Federal Republic recognized one citizenship only (i.e., the German one), regardless of all the changes that occurred after 1945 with the division of Germany into two separate states. Terefore, before reunifcation, neither a specifc citi zenship of the Federal Republic of Germany nor one of the German Democratic Republic were recognized. Instead, only one German citizenship was juridically regarded as such (i.e., the expression of both National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 489 the unchangeable ethnic unity of the Volk and of the continuity of the national state born in 1866). Te power of ethnicity in the German model was noticeable also after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the country’s subsequent reunifcation, especially by comparing the situation of the Aussiedler, re-immigrants of German origin who wished to settle permanently in Germany, to that of immigrants mainly from southern Europe, Turkey, African and Asian countries. In fact, by virtue of the ethnic notion of Volk and of the jus sanguinis principle the Aussiedler could acquire German citizenship nearly automatically (i.e., by proving to have had remote ancestors from Germany in the past centuries). Until the red–green coalition headed by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder passed new laws, nationality was granted solely on the grounds of descent, regardless of potential links to German culture. Other immigrants, despite their lengthy residency and even their birth in Germany including their acculturation and integration process in German society, still had to go through complex naturalization procedures to be granted nationality. To remedy this paradox, the German parliament led by a red–green majority ratifed a new law on nationality on 23 June 1999 which in essence sought to partially de-ethnicize the German model. Te reaction of the opposition center–right parties (CDU, CSU and FDP) and large parts of the population was very negative. Yet, despite their initial opposition, the center–right governments that replaced the red–green coalition did not repeal the law. German citizenship is currently based on the idea of belonging to a cultural collectivity and not a genealogical one. Under this aspect, the German model has been somewhat Gallicized.

3.3 French Model vs. German Model—Differences and Similarities

European national states have far too often been regarded as sheer geographical expressions. Tough not completely of the mark, this approach is exceedingly reductive since it overlooks the fact that a nation’s political–institutional architecture is also and foremost a social organization. In particular, as Rogers Brubaker aptly remarks, it 490 C. Giordano disregards the fact that in the frst place the national state is a political association of citizens to which the latter belong owing to specifc attributed or acquired shared (mainly cultural) prerequisites (Brubaker 1992). Accordingly, not everyone can be fully entitled to belong to a given national state. Drawing on a well-known formula by Max Weber (1956: 26) we could say that as a rule a nation’s political organization is an association partially open to the outside. Clearly enough, this limited openness towards the outside, namely towards the foreigner (i.e., most often the culturally other ), implies creating institutional mechanisms of social selection to regulate belonging and foreignness. Citizenship and/ or nationality are the fundamental instruments to indisputably determine who is fully entitled to belong to a national state and who is not. Terefore, citizenship and/or nationality are closely linked to practices of inclusion and exclusion. If we focus on the practices of inclusion and exclusion towards the culturally diferent, we can observe an essential analogy, despite obvious dissimilarities, between the French and the German model with reference to the recognition of ethnocultural diversity. Trough the subjective and individualistic vision of belonging, but- tressed by the jus soli principle, the French version of the national state is grounded in the principle that a person’s otherness may and ultimately should be wiped out. Once assimilation has occurred and has been substantiated, the former alien is granted political citizenship, thus is welcomed into the national community. Te German version of the national state, with its objective, naturalizing and collective concept of diference strengthened by the jus sanguinis doctrine, inevitably and unchangeably determines the alien’s belonging to an ethnonational group that is clearly dissimilar to that of the Volk. Te alien is in principle denied the chance to obtain nationality, thus to become a full- fedged member of the German political community. Yet, these apparently very dissimilar terms of exclusion and inclusion actually pursue the same goal (i.e., establishing, maintaining or at best restoring cultural and ethnic homogeneity within the entire national territory). In fact, a national state’s territory which is not monocultural or monoethnic is perceived as an anomaly that needs to be modifed somehow, if not indeed eradicated. For this reason, ever since their National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 491 advent both the French and the German model have revealed considerable incompatibility with pluriethnicity and multiculturalism, along with serious troubles in managing either one. Tis emerges very clearly in the problematic stance towards minorities and immigrants to whom the national state ofers the alternative between assimilation and the supposed resulting passage from one identity to another (as in the French model), or the more or less permanent marginalization from the civic and political community (as in the German model). Te propensity for territorial homogeneity common to both in their own national state stems from the fact that the prime movers of both models drew on the Staatsnation (‘national state’) doctrine, a term much in use in the Germanic area, which, strangely enough, is of French origin (Pierré-Caps 1995). In this context, we need to highlight that this principle is based on the incisive formula one nation, one state, one territory (Altermatt 2002) (i.e., on the nearly untouchable and indisputable axiom by which the area occupied by a nation must coincide with the state’s territory). If the two models of national state just described adhere to the abovementioned postulate, then clearly the logical corol- lary is the achievement of ethnocultural homogeneity in their territory. Yet, we need to stress that the French or the German models ref- erenced in this chapter were a crucial source of inspiration for most state-building activities in Europe. However, such models are Weberian ideal types and do not exist in a pure form. Tis is especially true nowadays, since the recognition politics of ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity have become, at least in theory, widespread throughout Europe, albeit not always voluntarily but rather under the pressure of international bodies such as the EU. We need only mention post-Fran- coist Spain, Italy’s law on linguistic minorities, Finland’s bilingualism and to some extent post-socialist Romania. Ever since their establishment, these four national states drew inspiration from both the German and the French model. By now, however, they have enacted rather efcient legislative measures concerning the recognition of cultural diversity as well as decentralization and devolution, thus softening their initial maximalism and centralism to some extent. It is no coincidence therefore that Spain now defnes itself as a supranaciόn (‘a nation of nations’), much more akin to a consociation than to a classic national 492 C. Giordano state. We should also mention the case of the recognition of cultural and linguistic diversity in the United Kingdom, which historically however has more characteristics of a consociation than of a politically and culturally uniform national state. Still, these examples may be considered rather exceptional since there are paradigmatic cases of national states, especially in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Macedonia, just to mention seven of them), where laws regulating the recognition of minorities, chiefy introduced under pressure from the EU, have been enacted but are hardly, if not indeed arbitrarily, enforced. Te ideal of a culturally homogeneous national state, as in the French and the German model, currently appears to have regained popularity through the new populisms. Tis comes after the disappointments caused by globalization and its proposals to overcome the localist logic inherent to the principle of a single state for a single nation, as well as by the massive infux of immigrants and refugees.

4 Language: A Symbol of Identity and National Unity

In Europe’s national states, both in the long-established ones but especially in the ones that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the national language has become a symbol of identity, cohesion and ultimately national unity. In these cases, religion remains undoubtedly relevant in terms of identity and national building, but is still secondary to language. We ought to bear in mind that the concept of ‘nation’ is a product of 18th century enlightenment, thus it always has a more or less secu- lar connotation. Tis is especially true of Euro-American national states rather than those in other continents where the infuence of Western secularization processes was slighter or nil. We need only mention the classic case of Tailand where language and Buddhism are equally important pillars in the national community’s collective imagination (Kosonen and Person 2014: 200–231). National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 493

Consequently, it stands to logic that the national language as a symbol of the country and society’s unity is crucially important in most of today’s national states. In national education policies, teaching in the language of the community which is regarded as the titular nation’s language becomes central. Knowledge of the national language also becomes a means to appropriate national culture because it is the foundation of social cohesion within a given national state. Yet, as mentioned above, national states, with possibly few exceptions such as—at least to a certain degree—Portugal and Iceland, were not and to this day are not culturally homogeneous political entities. Indeed, cultural as well as ethnic homogeneity is more of an abstraction, an ideal, a goal to be achieved, rather than a sociological reality. Te nearly generalized presence of linguistic plurality within a state entity that views itself as homogeneous generates awkwardness and frus- tration, as mentioned above. If not through attempts or actual processes aimed at eliminating cultural and linguistic diversity via drastic measures, such as a ban on teaching or using a minority idiom, at the very least a hierarchical system between the titular nation’s language and the languages of minorities will be established. Tis hierarchical order is already noticeable after World War I in the frst policies of recognition of linguistic diversity within Europe’s national states with the emergence of the question of the protection of minorities implemented via the failed Minderheitenschutz (‘protection of minorities’) policy under the aegis of the League of Nations (Horak 1985: 7f.). Yet, the need for protection implies a danger. At the time, in fact, especially in the new national states born of the ashes of multinational empires and echoing the French or German model, linguistic discrimination was systematic and could even reach the point of prohib- iting the use of any other language except the titular language. Te predominant stance at the time was what Hungarian historian Istvan Bibό (Bibó 1993: 172) aptly calls the right of supremacy of the titular nation. Circumstances are rather diferent nowadays; most national states, at least in Europe, slackened their strings several years ago and the recognition of linguistic diversity is no longer unthinkable, though in France and Germany (i.e., the two national states par excellence ) linguistic plurality remains questionable or at the least hardly fashionable. 494 C. Giordano

To this day, however, minority languages are tolerated in national states but nearly never are on a par with the titular nation’s language. Tis gives rise to a hierarchical situation in which the titular nation’s language takes on a hegemonic role, whereas minority idioms end up being subordinate. Tis occurs even in Italy, which probably has one of the world’s most progressive statutes in terms of the recognition of linguistic minorities. However, Italy’s rather unique situation, which concerns all of the country’s linguistic minorities (Germans in Alto Adige/ South Tyrol, French in Aosta Valley, Slovenes in Friuli–Venezia Giulia, Arbëreshë/Albanians in Sicily and Calabria, Sardinians in Sardinia, Croatians in Marche and Abruzzi, Greeks in Apulia, etc.), is chiefy the upshot of the international agreement with Austria on the recognition of German in Alto Adige/South Tyrol, rather than a heartfelt belief in the added value of a rich linguistic diversity. Finally, we need to emphasize that current territorial disputes, such as the one regarding Transylvania that is souring relations between Hungary and Romania, often involve the failed recognition of a minority language. To this day, nearly all the national states born of the ashes of multinational empires, renowned for their rather lax thus scarcely regulated multilingualism, coerce minority groups, even by resorting to structural and often also physical forms of ethnic violence, to learn and use the language of the new titular nation that has recently taken control of the territory by military action or thanks to international treaties. Tus, language and its enforcement by the state becomes the paramount symbol of power.

5 The Two Types of National Monolingualism: Romantic Monolingualism and Utilitarian Monolingualism

5.1 The Myth of Romantic Monolingualism

Romantic monolingualism is characterized by the idea that the nation is by nature culturally homogeneous, thus language is the natural symbol National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 495 of the quasi-biological unity of this type of social group. In line with this imagined logic, Romantic monolingualism has legitimized instruments designed to privilege or discriminate the various groups that make up the national state, especially the more ethnocratic ones. In the various assimilation processes that have characterized the national states in particular, teaching and learning in the language of the dominant group (i.e., of the majority) was nearly always compulsory. On the other hand, forms of discrimination if not indeed vetoes on the use of the minority languages could be observed. Eastern Europe especially has undergone nearly systematic Polonizations, Romanianizations, Magyarizations, Bulgarizations, Hellenizations, Russifcations, etc. Another interesting case occurred in post-World War II Italy where, despite this country’s recognition of its linguistic plurality, German-speaking recruits from Alto Adige/South Tyrol would typically be garrisoned in remote areas in the country’s south where supposedly they would learn Italian thanks to cultural isolation.

5.2 The Alleged Functionality of Utilitarian Monolingualism

Tere is also a less Romantic and more utilitarian stance in favour of monolingualism in national states by which linguistic homogenization is important from a pragmatic point of view. Te gist of this utilitarian conception is that linguistic homogenization and monolingualism facilitate relations among a national community’s members. In this regard, in his excellent book Peasants into Frenchmen (Weber 1976) Eugene Weber shows that school, military service and the media were useful institutions to not only achieve the process of linguistic assimilation, indeed by bulldozing it, but also mutual comprehension especially among the younger generations, as occurred in 19th-century France. Tis case perfectly illustrates the advantages of linguistic homogenization and ultimately also of monolingualism. Rather recently, Ernest Geller in particular implicitly resumed this utilitarian approach with his modernist argumentations concerning the birth of nations, national states and nationalisms (Gellner 1983). 496 C. Giordano

According to this author the birth of nations, their political expression, is ultimately ascribable to the economic needs of entire societies which over the centuries became increasingly complex. Te monolingualism of national societies, according to Gellner, is linked to the new complexity of the division of labor in modern societies that require functional communication structures. From this point of view the actual existence of national states is practically dependent on cultural homogenization and on the imposition of a single language that all citizens must learn, speak, and write so that the economy may function. From a Marxist viewpoint, drawing on Antonio Gramsci (1948– 1951), we could add that actually the national bourgeoisies themselves pushed for cultural and linguistic homogenization in order to expand their own markets after the various national unifcations. In Italy’s case, it was primarily the country’s northern bourgeoisie that would promote these processes in order to achieve its own hegemony in the country’s economically weaker south. To this economic utilitarianism we can add a political or, better yet, a civic one drawing on John Stuart Mill who wrote verbatim:

Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of diferent nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak diferent languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. (Stuart Mill 1958: 230)

To bolster this last point, we can mention Niklas Luhmann’s arguments by which monolingualism creates systemic and depersonalized spaces of trust that reduce complexity in the public and political spheres (Luhmann 1968).

6 Which Is the Right Answer?

Tis is probably a moot point since empirical reality shows us that neither the Romantic nor the utilitarian conceptions have ever been fully implemented. Although multilingualism is often regarded as a serious National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 497 threat to a nation’s stability, realizing monolingual states has proven to be extremely difcult if not indeed impossible. Perhaps the fear of linguistic diversity within a political sovereign entity was and is linked to a fake problem. In Europe, and all over the world as well, monocultural and monolingual states are actually an absolute exception. Tere is an old myth, no longer reasonably plausible nowadays, that Europe included only two monolingual national states, namely Portugal and Iceland (i.e., two clearly peripheral and isolated states on the old continent’s westernmost reaches), but this notion is obsolete now. Portugal turned into a multilingual reality for the most part after the so-called Carnation Revolution (1974), and the consequent collapse of its colonial empire, with the arrival of many immigrants and refugees from its former colonies (i.e., Guinea Bissau, Angola, Mozambique and East Timor amongst others), who for reasons of expediency obtained Portuguese citizenship. In fact, for the most part these populations’ mother tongue was not Portuguese. Iceland is also experiencing immigration from East European societies nowadays due to job opportunities chiefy in the fsheries sector. I would further point out that the other European nations, as the chapters in this book on the Baltic states show as well, are not monolingual, thus are neither monocultural nor monoethnic. All these societies have more or less substantial historical linguistic minorities and immigrant or refugee groups which from a statistical point of view will probably increase even more in the future.

7 Conclusion: Obsolescence and Modernity of the National State

As we have seen, national states had set out to achieve societies that would be ethnically, culturally and linguistically homogeneous: a project practically doomed from the start. With the advent of globalization, plans to realize the two types of ethnically pure and culturally and linguistically homogeneous national 498 C. Giordano states have become even more impracticable. Te globalized world system as evoked with quasi-prophetic zeal by Francis Fukuyama (1992) has turned out to be a chimera. In fact, on the one hand, globalization has facilitated migratory waves towards European national states over these past years whereas, on the other hand, a taste for ethnoregionalism came to the surface. In this case the rather massive arrival of new immigrants and chiefy of refugees has undoubtedly changed the ethnocultural and linguistic landscape of European societies, giving rise to rejectionist movements, including rather radical racist ones. Ten again, ethnoregionalistic movements bent on realizing ethnolinguistically pure state entities have emerged. Teir aim is to create small homelands with a greater cultural intimacy (Herzfeld 1997), thus realizing those Gemeinschaften (‘communities’) defned by Ferdinand Tönnies (1912). In this case, examples are Scotland in Great Britain, Catalonia in Spain and Padania in northern Italy. Te question here is whether these current secessionist tendencies represent an innovation compared to the old national states. Would this new confguration be truly less confictual than the current one? For rather obvious reasons, I don’t think so. In fact, these new national states in miniature would once again be based more on the principle of ethnos than of demos, just like the existing national states established during the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth century. Te new political elites, perhaps even more nationalist than the existing ones, would not be able to achieve their ideal (i.e., monoethnic and monolinguistic societies founded on the consonance between state, nation, culture, language and territoriality ), due primarily to pre-existent ethnic, linguistic and religious diversities in those territories as well as diversities introduced through immigrations. Te hypothetical new independent states (such as Catalonia, Scotland and Padania) would not be able to become monoethnic since they would be dealing with a legacy of ethnic diversity from the past and with the presence of new minorities consisting of immigrants and refugees that arrived both long ago and very recently. Ultimately, these new regionalistic secessionisms and independence claims are somewhat of a déjà vu of the old national states on a smaller National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 499 scale, thus they would also be replicating the thorny problems linked to the recognition of diversity. Te new national states resulting from secessions would face the same problems of the preceding ones. For Europe this would paradoxically entail going back to the drawing board and probably a new failure. In any case, present-day national states are more or less grudgingly forced to accept their domestic cultural diversity, as also shown in this book, even though intercultural tensions remain and will continue to remain a constant. It is also thanks to this book that I have come to think that the national state is steadily becoming an ever more obsolete political order.

References

Altermatt, U. (2002). Sprachenmodelle in Europa. In C. Giordano & J.-L. Patry (Eds.), Multikulturalismus und Multilinguismus. Ein Symposium (pp. 71–96). Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Refections on the origins and spreads of nationalism. New York: Verso. Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: Te social organization of culture diference. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. Bibó, I. (1993). Misère des petits Etats d’Europe de l’Est [Misery of the small east European states]. Paris: Albin Michel. Böckenförde, E.-W. (1968). Die Teilung Deutschlands und die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit. In H. Barion, E.-W. Böckenförde, E. Forsthof, & W. Weber (Eds.), Epirrhosis. Festgabe für Carl Schmitt (pp. 423–463). Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Conte, E., Giordano, C., & Hertz, E. (2002). La globalisation ambiguë [Ambiguous globalization]. Etudes Rurales, 163–164, 9–24. Dumont, L. (1991). L’idéologie allemande. France-Allemagne et retour [Te German ideology: France to German Baltic and back again]. Paris: Gallimard. Finkielkraut, A. (1987). La défaite de la pensée [Te defeat of the mind]. Paris: Gallimard. 500 C. Giordano

Fukuyama, F. (1992). Te end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gosewinkel, D. (2001). Einbürgern und Ausschließen. Die Nationalisierung der Staatsangehörigkeit vom Deutschen Bund bis zur Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gramsci, A. (1948–1951). Quaderni dal carcere [Notebooks from Prison]. Turin: Einaudi. Grawert, R. (1973). Staat und Staatsangehörigkeit. Verfassungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Staatsangehörigkeit. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. Herzfeld, M. (1997). Cultural intimacy: Social poetics in the nation-state. New York and London: Routledge. Horak, S. M. (Ed.). (1985). Eastern European national minorities 1919–1980: A handbook. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited. Kosonen, K., & Person, K. R. (2014). Languages, identities and education in Tailand. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast Asia (pp. 200–231). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lochac, D. (1988). Etrangers et citoyens au regard du droit [Strangers and citizens regarding rights]. In C. Withol de Wenden (Ed.), La citoyenneté [Citizenship] (pp. 73–85). Paris: Edilig-Fondation Diderot. Luhmann, N. (1968). Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu (1949). Mes pensées [My thoughts]. In Oeuvres completes [Complete works], Vol. 1 (pp. 975–1574). Paris: Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Pierré-Caps, S. (1995). La multination. L’avenir des minorités en Europe centrale et orientale [Multination: Te future of central–east European minorities]. Paris: Odile Jacob. Stuart Mill, J. (1958). Considerations on representative government. New York: Liberal Arts Press. Sundhaussen, H. (1997). Nation und Nationalstaat auf dem Balkan. Konzepte, Konsequenzen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. In J. Elvert (Ed.), Der Balkan. Eine Krisenregion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (pp. 77–90). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Talmon, J. L. (1967). Destin d’Israël [Israel’s destiny]. Paris: Calman-Lévi. Tönnies, F. (1912). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundbegrife der reinen Soziologie. Leipzig: Fuess Verlag. National State and Multilingualism: Contradiction in Terms? 501

Weber, E. (1976). Peasants into Frenchmen: Te modernization of rural France, 1800–1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Weber, M. (1956). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Economy and society]. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck. Weil, P. (1988). La politique française d’immigration (entre 1974 et 1986) et la citoyenneté. In C. Withol de Wenden (Ed.), La citoyenneté [Citizenship] (pp. 187–200). Paris: Edilig-Fondation Diderot. Weil, P. (2002). Qu’est-ce qu’un français? Histoire de la nationalité française depuis la Révolution [What is a Frenchman? History of the French nation since the revolution]. Paris: Grasset. Weil, P., & Hansen, R. (Eds.). (1999). Nationalité et citoyenneté en Europe [Nationality and citizenship in Europe]. Paris: La Découverte. Index

A authoritarianism 3 absorbed 400 autonomous 97, 245, 263, 315, 316, acculturation 16, 270, 274, 278, 294, 364, 386 298–301, 486, 489 autonomy 39, 263, 358, 454, 484, activist 96, 114, 116 486 additional language 190, 296, 417, 418, 426–428, 433 Alytus 178, 372, 374, 386, 390 B Americanization 378, 390 Baltic German 271, 296, 446 animal 45, 135, 147, 375 Baltic states 1–8, 10–12, 14, 16–18, anthroponym 6, 65, 160, 241, 374 29–36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 49, applied linguistics 6, 64, 83 60, 85, 177, 207, 208, 231, Armenian 187, 194, 209, 386 269–271, 274, 277, 278, 296, assimilation 47, 209, 243, 486, 490, 297, 369–372, 379–382, 384, 491, 495 386, 388, 396–400, 443–449, asymmetric bilingualism 31, 46, 446 452, 470, 472, 473, 481–483, attitude 64, 80, 82, 137, 143, 173, 497 210, 275, 316, 353, 360, 408 Baltic universities 271, 443–445, Aukštaitija 126–130, 133, 135, 449, 452, 470, 472, 473 137–144, 386

© Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2019 S. Lazdiņa and H. F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56914-1 503 504 Index

Belarusian 3, 48, 170, 187, 194, code alternation 6, 16, 308 208, 370, 380, 389, 390 code mixing 17, 310, 311 Belgium 483 code switching 68, 214, 222–224, bilingualism 4, 8, 35, 40, 47, 49, 226, 228, 229, 308, 309, 343, 191, 192, 210, 231, 317, 491 350 blog 102, 168, 308, 312–314, 316, commercial 17, 189, 242, 369, 371, 328 376, 379, 381, 383–385, 388, brand 75 390, 397, 398, 400 Bronze Soldier 4, 36, 243, 448 commercial names 370, 373–381, Bulgaria 492 384–388, 390, 392, 394–400 business 12, 140, 141, 145, 167, complementary language 418, 436 177, 182, 189, 253, 260, 369, computer-based communication 16, 370, 374, 375, 377–379, 311 381–387, 389, 391–394, computer-mediated communication 396–400, 435 16, 311 constitution 31, 38, 98, 172, 173, 446, 448, 452 C Content and Language Integrated Catalonia 484, 498 Learning (CLIL) 12, 101 categorization 14, 90, 102, 103, 107, conventionalization 323, 329 112, 114, 116 cosmopolitan 330, 358 Catholic 62, 71, 97, 158, 160, 161, Council of Europe 9, 30, 33, 42, 43, 169, 171, 183 187, 194 census 14, 15, 39, 40, 42, 45, 62, critical discourse analysis 102 67, 68, 89–96, 102, 104–108, cultural autonomy 98, 446 113–116, 125, 133, 156–158, cultural uniformity 483 160, 178–180, 190, 245–247, culture 5, 9, 62, 63, 75, 81, 84, 90, 263, 447 97, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, Charter of Regional or Minority 126, 130, 134, 159, 165, 166, Languages 9 168, 172, 189, 242, 244, 262, Chinese 289, 293, 297, 386–388 274, 280, 290, 309, 320, 327, church 62, 67, 71, 92, 159–161, 338, 348, 349, 351, 364, 373, 169, 171, 192 378, 383, 399, 412, 426, 445, citizenship 31, 32, 36, 37, 42, 43, 484, 486, 488, 489, 493, 498 45, 154, 239, 246, 247, 253, Cyrillic 175, 353, 354, 356, 360– 444, 448, 485, 488–490, 362, 364, 380, 395, 396, 399 497 Czech 94, 194, 386 Index 505

D educational language 4, 12, 275, Danish 94, 419 449, 451 Daugavpils 67, 72, 271, 372, 373, eduspaces 18 385–387, 389, 390, 392, 395, emotions 74, 142, 161, 273, 274, 396, 398 311, 318, 324, 326, 327, 329, dialect 2, 14, 70, 72, 73, 75, 85, 90, 355 95, 96, 103, 106, 108, 110, English 5–7, 12, 13, 15–18, 41, 45, 125–146, 158, 159, 181 46, 48, 60, 71, 94, 99, 103, discourse 169–171, 174, 177, 180, 184, analysis 6, 10, 14, 61, 63, 66, 189, 206, 208, 209, 212, 230, 102, 350 231, 246, 247, 257, 269, 271, markers 315, 316, 326, 327, 329, 278, 281, 282, 285, 287–289, 355 292, 293, 296–298, 300, 301, discrimination 31, 49, 245, 248, 307–311, 313–324, 326–330, 493, 495 337–339, 341, 343, 345–349, domain 62, 77, 79, 80, 136, 320, 351, 353–355, 358, 362–365, 324, 443, 445, 449 370, 372, 377, 380, 382, 383, Druskininkai 161, 372, 373, 384, 386, 389, 392–400, 407, 409, 386, 387, 392 411–413, 415–440, 443, 445, dual-school system 5 449–451, 455–461, 463–466, Dzūkija 126, 128–130, 133, 135– 468, 470–472, 482 138, 140, 142–144, 180, 181 English-medium 411, 412, 420, 431, 435, 439 epistemology 72 E Erasmus 451, 452, 467, 469 economics 166, 255, 369, 372, 378, ergonym 375 384 error analysis 15, 214, 220, 222, education 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 31, 225, 228 36, 46, 48, 60, 76–78, 81, Estonia 1–11, 14–18, 31, 35, 36, 90, 91, 98–100, 103, 111, 39, 40, 42–45, 48, 90–92, 94, 116, 140, 141, 144, 145, 96–107, 109, 113, 114, 116, 155, 158, 162–165, 172, 239–243, 245–248, 251, 257, 174, 181–187, 194, 207– 261, 264, 269–273, 277–289, 209, 211, 239, 253–255, 292, 294–301, 307, 308, 312, 270, 271, 292, 295, 297, 313, 323, 327, 372, 380, 384, 298, 301, 350, 353, 369, 388, 389, 407–413, 415–417, 398, 407–410, 412, 413, 420, 423–425, 434–438, 440, 423, 424, 432, 433, 435, 444–448, 451–454, 466, 467, 444, 446, 448, 454, 472, 493 472, 481, 482 506 Index

Estonian 2, 3, 9, 11, 15–17, 36, 37, Finnish 3, 94, 98, 281, 282, 285, 39, 41–44, 46, 48, 91, 93– 289, 292, 293, 296, 297, 310, 107, 109–111, 113–116, 208, 386, 415, 416, 423, 424 239–243, 245–264, 269–274, folk linguistics 6, 14, 60, 61, 63–66, 278, 279, 281, 282, 285, 287, 70, 71, 83 289, 293–297, 299–301, 307, Framework Convention for the 308, 312–324, 326–330, 372, Protection of National 374, 380, 382, 387, 389, 390, Minorities (FCNM) 43, 174, 392, 394, 398, 409, 411, 413, 175 415–427, 434–440, 447, 449, France 8, 484–487, 493, 495 452–456, 459–462, 464–466, French 3, 18, 48, 170, 171, 208, 468, 469, 472, 482 247, 269, 271, 281, 282, 285, ethnic confict 248 287–290, 292, 293, 296, 297, ethnicity 2, 39, 62, 74, 92, 95, 107, 314, 386, 399, 400, 449, 460, 129, 156–158, 173, 178, 179, 484–486, 489–494 194, 209, 230, 243, 373, 486, friction 89, 90, 92, 113 488, 489 ethnographic region 132, 134, 143, 144 G ethnolingualism 49 gender 41, 42, 67–69, 71, 132 Europe 2, 6, 8, 9, 32, 33, 35, 59, general productivity 213, 214, 228 60, 94, 97, 109, 110, 153, German 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 48, 93, 197, 212, 389, 399, 434, 444, 94, 98, 100, 169–171, 187, 482–484, 489, 491–493, 495, 194, 208, 247, 257, 269, 271, 497, 499 272, 281, 282, 285, 288–290, European Union (EU) 5, 30, 31, 36, 292, 293, 296–298, 386, 400, 37, 48, 49, 59, 109, 110, 182, 410, 415, 416, 423, 425, 426, 197, 253, 262, 270, 307, 360, 434, 437, 440, 446, 449, 460, 361, 370, 449, 460, 466, 472, 484, 487–495 473, 491, 492 Germany 8, 193, 207, 243, 410, 416, 423, 484, 488, 489, 493 global 6, 48, 71, 90, 231, 269, 300, F 309, 311, 338, 351, 364, 365, Facebook 17, 327, 339, 345, 370, 377–379, 381, 391, 392, 349 400, 410, 431, 473 family language policy 134, 308 glocal 370, 377, 388–390, 392–394, flm 375, 388, 391 399, 400 Finland 2, 390, 410, 416, 423, 443, glocalization 370, 371, 377, 378, 483, 491 381, 388, 391, 400 Index 507

Graded Intergenerational Disruption in-group 34, 339, 341, 345, 347, Scale (GIDS) 63, 91 351, 354–356, 358, 363 Greece 492 insecurity 395 insertions 16, 308, 309, 311, 313–327, 329, 338, 363 H integration 5, 8–10, 15, 16, 33, heteroglossic 350, 351, 353, 357 35–37, 47, 49, 91, 183, 184, higher education 12, 17, 163, 253, 207–209, 230, 231, 245, 248, 255, 308, 407–410, 412, 263, 273, 274, 277, 278, 301, 413, 415, 417–421, 423–427, 315, 486, 489 429–440, 443, 445, 449, intergenerational language transmis- 452–454, 472, 473 sion 62, 76, 81 homogeneity 159, 387, 490, 491, internationalism 395, 400 493 internationalization 12, 18, 407, human rights 30, 32, 35, 39 409, 425, 439, 443, 444, 452, Hungary 492, 494 470–472 international language 10, 12, 13, 60, 270, 277 I Internet 168, 240, 241, 249–251, Iceland 170, 493, 497 258, 260, 279, 280, 298, identity 8, 9, 15, 34, 60, 96, 99, 307–309, 312, 358 104–106, 114, 125, 143, interview 70, 385, 392, 413, 415, 153, 156–158, 175, 178– 418, 427, 433, 436, 452, 468, 181, 193, 209, 240, 241, 469, 472 244, 245, 252–255, 278, Italian 94, 293, 380, 386–388, 397, 311, 326, 338, 340, 343, 399, 400, 460, 463, 495 344, 351, 352, 356–358, Italy 389, 491, 494–496, 498 363, 364, 370, 372, 376, 378, 379, 400, 409, 445, 473, 483, 485, 486, 491, 492 K ideology 12, 33, 64, 82, 92, 115, Karaim 172, 194 124, 144, 231, 358, 359, 363, Kaunas 45, 46, 125, 126, 128–130, 408, 414, 439, 440, 470, 482 133–135, 137, 138, 140, 142, imagined communities 483 143, 161, 171, 184, 209, 213, immigrant 206, 310, 314, 323, 497 223–228, 230, 271 independence 3, 4, 29, 40, 98, 101, kindergarten 97, 100, 101, 111–113, 155, 168, 170, 172, 176, 177, 116, 140, 185, 213, 229 182, 207, 307, 369, 444, 447, Klaipeda 45, 46 449, 454, 472, 498 Korean 386 508 Index

L shift 40, 91, 318, 447 labeling theory 91 skills 15, 60, 78, 92, 94, 108, language 112, 114, 210, 212, 240, 243, acquisition 6, 12, 208–211, 230, 247, 249, 251, 254, 255, 257, 248, 274, 276, 277 260, 262, 278, 280, 294, 414, attitudes 10, 17, 124, 127, 428, 431, 437, 448 140–142, 144, 159, 188, 195, status 371 206, 274, 275, 409 use 4, 14, 39, 41, 44, 45, 62, contact 8, 13, 181, 182, 308–312, 64–66, 69, 83, 96, 125, 130, 317, 321, 322, 324, 326, 329, 182, 192, 195, 207, 209, 224, 376, 382, 388, 389 241, 275, 279, 280, 287, 298, dominance 15, 205, 212, 224, 309, 312, 327, 369, 371, 376, 227, 230 379, 381, 383, 408, 415, 451 exposure 15, 212, 227 Latgale 11, 14, 38, 59–63, 67, hierarchy 36, 40 73–75, 79, 82–85, 372, 386 ideology 33, 64, 82, 408, 470 Latgalian 2, 3, 6, 10–12, 14, 40, 48, law 34, 38, 62, 370, 379, 380, 59–63, 67–85, 97, 272, 273, 383, 396, 452–454 279, 372, 386, 398, 454, 482 -learning motivation 6, 272–274, Latin 175, 193, 377, 379, 380, 386, 277, 278 393–396 maintenance 15, 41, 47, 161, Latvia 1–7, 10, 11, 16–18, 31, 166, 183, 276 35–37, 39–45, 47, 48, 59–62, management 77, 397, 398, 408 67, 70, 72, 73, 75, 82–84, 97, policy 2, 4–6, 8–11, 13, 15, 18, 269–273, 277–281, 287–292, 29–35, 37, 39, 43–49, 60, 294–301, 372, 374, 380, 384, 64, 103, 153–156, 175, 184, 388, 389, 407–417, 419, 425, 186, 207, 229, 251, 275, 307, 426, 431–438, 440, 444, 445, 309, 358, 369, 372, 376, 380, 447–449, 452–455, 457, 459, 396–398, 408, 414, 444, 445, 465–467, 471, 472, 481, 482, 448, 450, 452, 453, 468, 470 492 practices 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 46, Latvian 2, 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 36–43, 68, 79, 83, 85, 104, 114, 271, 46, 48, 60, 62, 67–82, 85, 273, 274, 313, 370, 372, 396, 94, 98, 99, 208, 245, 269, 408, 409, 413–416, 418, 420, 270, 272–274, 278, 279, 285, 423, 430, 436, 439, 440, 450, 287–289, 293–297, 299–301, 473 370, 372, 380, 382–385, 389, regards 14, 16, 61, 63, 64, 66, 78, 391–396, 398, 409–413, 415, 80, 85, 270, 274, 275, 277, 425, 427–440, 447, 449, 453, 278, 281, 296, 298–301 454, 457, 459, 463–465, 482 Index 509

Law on Ethnic Minorities 172 Lithuania Minor 3, 4, 125, 126, laypersons 72, 73, 75–78, 82, 84, 130, 189 85, 276 Lithuanian 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, legal hypercorrection 471 17, 44–46, 48, 94, 124–126, legislation 34, 111, 172, 361 128, 129, 131–134, 136–138, lexical diversity 214, 217, 228 142–145, 154–161, 164–189, lexicalization 314, 318, 321 192–197, 205, 206, 208, 209, lifestyle 16, 126, 313 211–213, 215, 217–231, 272, lingua franca 12, 155, 231, 280, 285, 289, 293, 297, 337–340, 281, 308, 310, 317, 319, 349–355, 357, 358, 360–362, 377, 398 364, 372, 380, 382, 384, 398, Linguanomics 12 415, 447, 449, 453, 454, linguistic change 49, 123 458–460, 464–466, 472, 473, linguistic diversity 6, 46, 61, 98, 482 114, 339, 397, 427, 481, Livonian 11, 93, 454 491–494, 497 local 7, 9, 14, 17, 30, 36, 37, 39, linguistic ethnography 65 48, 59, 61–63, 65, 67, 74, linguistic landscape 10, 15, 17, 77, 79, 81, 84, 93, 95, 96, 60, 67, 84, 141, 169, 171, 100, 102–105, 107, 108, 188–190, 369, 371, 372, 379, 112, 114, 115, 125, 143, 381, 451, 498 144, 157, 162, 173, 175, linguistic performance 15, 205, 206, 179, 181, 183, 184, 186–188, 211, 212, 227 192, 196, 240, 241, 243, Lithuania 1–7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17, 244, 249, 257–259, 272, 18, 30, 33, 39, 42, 44–46, 310, 318, 338–340, 350, 48, 125–127, 129, 130, 134, 351, 364, 365, 369, 370, 140, 141, 154–170, 172–174, 377–379, 381, 382, 384, 176–179, 181, 182, 184, 186, 387–393, 395–400, 407, 410, 188, 189, 192–197, 205, 418, 423, 424, 429, 432, 207–209, 223, 224, 231, 287, 434, 435, 439, 445, 448, 486 337, 339, 354, 358, 360, 361, 365, 372, 374, 380, 384, 386, 388, 389, 415, 416, 445, 447, M 448, 452–454, 466, 467, 472, Macedonia 492 481, 482 macro 9, 13, 104, 310, 377, 378, 459 510 Index macro-structure level 211 minoritized language 447 majority 14, 32, 34, 38, 44, 45, 68, minority 3, 5, 9, 13–15, 32, 33, 76, 84, 99, 110, 112, 115, 35–39, 41, 43, 45, 47–49, 59, 125, 129, 131, 140, 153–155, 85, 90, 98, 99, 102, 153–161, 160, 166, 184, 207, 208, 211, 164–166, 168, 169, 171–175, 229, 232, 269, 270, 274, 276, 177–183, 185–188, 190–197, 277, 280, 294, 295, 298–301, 205–207, 209, 211, 213, 231, 310, 317, 319, 322, 350, 373, 232, 241, 245, 263, 269, 270, 387, 399, 448, 489, 495 274, 276, 277, 280, 294, 295, market 63, 167, 239, 240, 243, 298, 300, 301, 313, 314, 317, 245, 251, 280, 370, 376, 377, 322, 323, 372, 382, 397, 398, 379, 386, 394, 416, 423, 424, 408, 444, 446–448, 493–495 431–434, 437, 438, 440 minority legislation 15, 155, 172, masculinity 338, 341, 343, 356, 364 189 media mithonym 375, 388 audiences 240, 241, 256, 260, mixed speech 338, 339, 341, 343, 261, 263 345, 347, 349, 350, 352, 353, practices 6, 10, 15, 242, 245, 355, 357, 363, 365 251, 255, 262, 263 monolingualism 18, 46, 47, 363, -related practices 16, 239 459, 470, 483, 494–496 use 243, 244, 248, 255, 257, 258 morphology 132, 176, 220, 315, medium of instruction 96–98, 166, 316, 318 410, 412, 420, 421, 431, 436 morphosyntax 220, 221, 311, 315, meso 459 318, 327 metalinguistic 61, 70, 75, 76, 326, multilingualism 1, 2, 5–8, 11–13, 339, 340, 345, 354, 356, 358, 15, 18, 48, 64, 83, 85, 90, 362–364 223, 231, 243, 244, 246, 255, methodology 35, 101, 213, 246, 260, 263, 264, 270, 271, 278, 252, 272, 370, 413 292, 298, 301, 327, 329, 356, micro 11, 124, 180, 188, 192, 211, 409, 439, 444, 460, 470, 473, 213, 214, 227, 228, 364, 399, 482, 494, 496 459 music 81, 140, 249, 356, 374, 375, micro-structure level 15, 212, 227 388, 390, 391 migrant 317–319 migration 4, 124, 126, 130, 206, 212 N minimalism 376 name signs 195, 371, 373, 376, Ministry of Education 42, 109, 110, 379, 381–387, 389, 394, 395, 164, 208, 264, 410–412 397–400 Index 511 naming 63, 82, 140, 141, 145, 155, performance 211, 228–230, 340, 170, 378, 379, 385, 388, 392, 341, 343, 344, 351, 356, 359, 399, 400 364 narrative 6, 15, 211, 212, 227 performativity 358 Narva 42, 43, 93, 101, 372–374, personal names 172, 174–177, 195, 382, 385–387, 389, 390, 352, 374, 376 393–396, 398, 400 place names 15, 172, 175, 189–191, nation 2, 8–10, 18, 91, 156, 173, 400 190, 196, 271, 277, 398, 484, Podlachia 178, 179 485, 487–494, 497, 498 Poland 3, 11, 15, 154–156, 158– nationalism 18, 154, 488 160, 162, 164–166, 168, 169, nationalist 167, 178, 358, 360, 483, 174, 177–186, 188–190, 498 192–197, 482, 492 national minority 156, 174, 178 Polish 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 30, 33, national state 154, 445, 485–493, 44–46, 48, 94, 98, 99, 129, 495, 497, 499 154–162, 164–182, 184–197, nationhood 2, 18 208, 285, 289, 293, 297, 370, NATO 30, 36, 37, 49 389, 460, 482 Nazi Germany 4 political crisis 16, 243, 262 neo-native 114, 115 Portugal 493, 497 nexus analysis 444, 450, 451, 466, 470 postcolonial 10, 48, 314 Nordic 407, 418, 434, 444 post-Soviet 6, 8, 10, 12, 32, 41, normalization 4 48, 85, 99, 241, 242, 255, normativity 357, 363 262, 277, 307, 330, 338, Norwegian 293, 386 362, 382 power 3, 15, 38, 90, 157, 167, 168, 259, 320, 379, 393, 408, 434, O 444, 489, 494 One Language at a Time 310, 439 prefx 393, 394, 399 onomastics 373 preschool 15, 172, 206, 207, 212, Organization for Security and 227, 230 Co-operation in Europe prescriptive 80, 159 (OSCE) 32, 49 prestige 3, 14, 41, 45, 83, 84, 133, 138, 159, 177, 183, 195, 230–232, 274, 276, 310, 322, P 345, 364, 371, 376, 408, 425, Padania 498 430, 431, 434, 437, 438 Pärnu 313, 372–374, 384, 386, 387, 392 512 Index profciency 14, 16, 39, 40, 43, 72, reversal of language shift 447 76, 80, 83, 85, 96, 127–130, revitalization 70, 72, 80, 84, 99 132, 133, 144, 206, 208–210, Rēzekne 59, 60, 63, 372, 471 212, 213, 229, 243, 244, Riga 2, 38, 41, 82, 83, 271, 383, 247–249, 252, 274, 278, 310, 385, 386, 390, 393, 395, 396, 314, 319–321, 324, 329 444, 449 protection 126, 189, 445, 453, 454, Romania 491, 494 493 Russia 29, 30, 32, 33, 36–39, 49, 67, psychological 248, 273, 376 93, 241, 242, 251, 255, 259, Puńsk/Punskas 180, 181, 183–185, 261, 262, 277, 278, 300, 356, 187–189, 191–193 359, 360, 362, 398, 410, 448 Russian-medium 42, 43, 101, 208, 410–412, 435 Q Russian(s) 3–6, 8–13, 15–17, questionnaire 84, 94, 95, 105, 106, 30–49, 60, 68, 69, 71, 74, 113, 128, 129, 137, 138, 145, 75, 78, 80, 92–94, 98–101, 180, 250, 272, 277, 282 109, 111, 115, 129, 155–159, 163, 164, 167–171, 175–177, 196, 205–209, 212, 213, R 215, 217–219, 221, 223, 225, radio 146, 169, 188, 241, 248–250, 227, 228, 230–232, 239–243, 258, 259 245–251, 254–256, 258–263, re-establishment of independence 3, 269–274, 278, 279, 281, 282, 18, 207, 398 285, 287–290, 292–301, 308, regard 5, 9, 11, 14, 17, 61, 64, 70, 315, 320, 321, 327, 337–339, 79, 82, 136, 138, 246, 261, 353–355, 359, 361–365, 370, 275, 281, 296, 372, 384, 437, 372–374, 380, 382, 383, 386– 439, 455, 483, 495 390, 394–399, 409, 411, 412, region 5, 32, 33, 38, 42, 59, 62, 415, 416, 424–429, 432–435, 73, 75, 81, 83, 84, 90, 126, 437, 440, 444, 446–449, 455, 128–130, 132, 133, 136–139, 457, 458, 460, 462, 464–466, 141, 143, 144, 154, 168, 177, 471, 482 179–181, 188, 192, 232, 244, Russifcation 99, 100, 398, 410, 446 359, 369, 372, 384, 386, 400, 443 regional identity 14, 81, 105, 125 S regional languages 6, 99, 101, 186, Scandinavian 281, 282, 285, 289, 372, 482 293, 296, 297 Index 513 school 32, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 62, standard language 124, 131, 132, 67, 71, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 144, 91, 97–101, 103, 110–116, 159, 358 158, 159, 162, 164–167, state language 4, 8, 30, 31, 37, 38, 184–188, 192, 206, 208, 212, 40, 44, 97, 161, 170, 172, 223, 230, 231, 269, 271, 272, 175, 182, 185, 208, 271, 289, 278, 292, 297, 308, 320, 352, 297, 299, 300, 369, 370, 379, 354, 374, 416, 426, 437, 444, 380, 388, 397, 429, 453–455, 460, 495 459, 460, 462, 463, 472 school subject 63, 77, 98, 100, 164, stereotypes 273, 276, 397 208 stigmatization 321 Scotland 97, 498 student 98, 110, 112, 116, 159, 214, secondary school 98, 165, 166, 184 415, 418, 419, 421–424, 430 second language 15, 73, 114, 170, style 260, 310, 328, 329, 338–343, 206, 271 349–351, 353–355, 357–359, secularization 492 363, 364, 390, 393 self-report 414 stylization 340, 376 semiotic 459 sufx 394 sequential bilingual 15, 206, 207, survey 11, 15, 16, 40, 41, 60, 84, 212, 213, 227 128, 131, 133, 134, 138, 141, social meaning 324, 351, 357, 358, 142, 144, 180, 207, 240, 249, 363–365 250, 252, 254–257, 262–264, social media 13, 48, 240, 241, 269–272, 279, 281, 298, 307, 249–251 319, 322 social networking 17 Suvalkija 126, 128, 130, 132–138, societal discourse 64, 82, 84 140, 142–144, 179 Soviet Union 3–6, 8, 31, 33, 36, 39, swearwords 338, 341–345, 347, 349, 46, 94, 239, 240, 242, 243, 356, 364 271, 372, 398, 446, 481, 482, Swedish 3, 94, 98, 293, 386, 446 492 Switzerland 483 Spain 483, 491, 498 symbolic 1, 59, 177, 195, 327, Spanish 281, 282, 287–290, 292, 338, 345, 346, 362, 371, 293, 296, 314, 360, 386, 387, 374, 375, 379, 381, 384– 400, 455, 469 386, 388, 393, 394, 396, standard 39, 62, 75, 76, 90, 91, 95, 398–400, 446, 460 97, 98, 100, 104, 111, 113, symbolic name 374, 396 131, 132, 134, 138–141, 158, syntactic complexity 214, 218, 224, 159, 170, 182, 196, 197, 213, 228 275, 308, 351, 354, 486 514 Index

T Organization (UNESCO) 81, Tallinn 2, 4, 8, 36, 42, 101, 245, 104, 181 246, 259, 260, 271, 313, 414, universalism 378 424 University 18, 59, 60, 63, 101, 115, Tartu 18, 101, 115, 240, 271, 313, 159, 165, 166, 182, 184, 240, 410, 414, 444, 449, 452, 455, 269, 271, 272, 409, 410, 456, 459, 460, 465, 468, 473 413–421, 423–434, 436–440, teacher 47, 77, 80, 90, 96, 99–101, 443, 444, 449–460, 463–466, 103, 110–112, 115, 140–142, 468, 469, 471–473 186 urbanization 123, 124, 130 television 146, 169, 172, 173, 241, urban space 14, 131, 134 248, 249, 251, 258, 259 titular language 31, 35, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 60, 158, 172, 278, V 301, 370, 382, 389, 397, 444, variation 48, 217, 275, 340, 413 448, 493 variety 2, 3, 12, 14, 40, 70, 85, 91, toponymy 193, 374, 375, 385, 390, 95, 109, 116, 124, 134, 136, 400 137, 143, 144, 181, 182, 273, toughness 341, 343–345, 356, 364 275, 276, 298, 309, 320, 323, transliteration 193, 360, 361, 388, 326, 337, 350, 351, 413–415, 389, 394, 397, 399 417, 425, 427, 434, 436, 459 transnationalism 6, 15, 241–243, Ventspils 372–374, 384, 391, 394 251, 262 Viljandi 372, 374, 386, 387, Tsarist 3, 446 392–394 Vilnius 2, 4, 18, 45, 46, 125, 126, 128–130, 133–135, 137, 138, U 140, 142, 143, 154, 156–159, Ukraine 13, 16, 29, 30, 33–35, 38, 161, 162, 164–166, 168–171, 47, 49, 193, 256, 259–261, 175, 184, 209, 213, 223–228, 359, 360, 410, 448 230, 271, 340, 347, 359, 444, Ukrainian 3, 33, 34, 38, 48, 49, 171, 449, 455, 458–460, 465 193, 209, 243, 257–261, 373, Visaginas 129, 130, 157, 161, 386, 389, 448 372–374, 382, 384, 386, 387, United Kingdom 492 393–396 United Nations Educational, voicing 82, 340, 361, 364 Scientifc and Cultural Võro 3, 6, 11, 14, 48, 90–92, 96–107, 109–116, 482 Index 515

W youth 41, 63, 64, 116, 188, 319, website 166, 170, 464 327, 341, 342, 346, 357, 363 Western 9, 49, 180, 241, 257–259, Yugoslavia 33, 492 300, 338, 362, 363, 370, 374, 444, 492 Westernization 361, 362, 378 Z World War I 2, 484, 486, 493 Žemaitian 126, 133, 138, 140, 142, World War II 94, 155, 159, 178, 145, 147 184, 206, 243, 482, 495 Žemaitija 126, 128–130, 132, 133, 135–144

Y Yiddish 3, 94, 98, 99, 170, 171, 187, 194, 322