A Comparative Study of Lithuanian and Russian Linguistic Practice and Identity Jurgina Maciulyte Master Thesis in Linguistics Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies (ILN) Faculty of Humanities University of Oslo Autumn 2011 Trolio žvakelė Trolis uţdegė ţvakelę Seno miško pakrašty. Šen, balti ţiemos vaikeliai, Balto gandro atnešti. Prie ţalių ledinių kūdrų Varvekliukų skambesy Paţiūrėti trolio burtų Susirinksime visi. Jau kankorėţis nupuolė Ir išsiskleidė delne...8 (extract with an illustration from the poem „Troll‗s Candle― of the famous Lithuanian poet Janina Degutyte (1928-1990)) Contents Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................1 1.1. Background for the choice of the theme..........................................1 1.2. Goals of the study and research questions.......................................2 1.3. State of the art……………………………………………………..3 1.4. Structure of the research..................................................................4 Chapter 2: Theoretical framework……………………………………………..….4 2.2. Constructionist approach to identity………………………………5 2.3. Language attitude as the major factor of language choice and language use………………………………………………….………..9 2.4. The family‘s effects on language variation………………………13 2.5. National identity in the context of migration…………………….15 Chapter 3: Data collection and research methodology…………………..............19 3.1. Place of data collection: Lithuanians and Russians in Norway, Oslo…………………………………………………………………..19 3.2. Mixed methods research (triangulation)…………………………23 3.2.1. Self-completion questionnaire and semi-structured interviews in focus groups…………………….….23 3.2.2. Studies of the literature and official statistics….…27 3.3. Relevant researches on the subject (Russians and Lithuanians in Norway)……………………...……………………………………....28 3.4. Validation of the data collection………………………………....33 3.5. Ethical considerations……………………………………………34 Chapter 4: Informants' background………………………………………………34 4.1. Personal background…………………………………………….…34 4.1.1. Lithuanian informants‘ personal background…………….34 4.1.1.1. Age, length of stay in Norway, age at arrival…..35 4.1.1.2. Education and job……………………………….35 4.1.1.3. Cause of immigration……………………….…..36 4.1.2. Russian informants‘ personal background……………......36 4.1.2.1. Age, length of stay in Norway, age at arrival…...36 4.1.2.2. Place of origin…………………………………...37 4.1.2.3. Education and job……………………………….37 4.1.2.3. Cause of immigration………………..………….38 4.2. Linguistic competence of the informants……………………38 4.2.1. Proficiency in Norwegian language............……….40 4.2.2. Proficiency in English language…………………..41 4.2.3. Mother tongue preservation…………………….…42 4.3. Chapter summary……………………………………………51 Chapter 5: Language policy and ideology in the informants‘ countries of origin..................................................................................................................................52 5.2.1. Russian language policy in Soviet Union….....................53 5.2.2. Construction of identity in Russian-speaking communities of post-Soviet lands………………………………………………………56 5.2.3. Cult of antiquity and purity in Lithuanian linguistic nationalism……………………………………………………………….62 5.2.4. Chapter summary………………………………………….70 Chapter 6: Relationship between the nationality and feeling of national identity…………………………………………………………………………………...72 6.1. Understanding and feeling of national identity (self-reported case)……………………………………………………………………...74 6.2. National identity, manifested through talk……………….....77 6.3. Chapter summary……………………………………….…...86 Chapter 7: Language practices (language choice and language use) of the informants ………………………………………………………………………88 7.1. Location as an important language choice faktor…………..89 7.2. Language choice and attitude toward Norwegian and language of origin…………………………………………………………………………………..92 7.3. Code-switching and borrowing in informants‘ discourse………..…95 7.3.1. Code-switching and borrowing in the adults‘ discourse….97 7.3.2. Code-switching and borrowing in the children‘s discourse………………………………………………………………………..104 7.3.3. Chapter summary…….…………………………………..107 Chapter 8: Conclusion and perspectives for future research……………………109 8.1. Summary of main findings…………………………………109 8.2. Concluding remarks and perspectives for future research…113 Notes……………………………………………………………………...…….115 Appendix………………………………………………………………………..129 Tables…………………………………………………………………...129 Discours sets………………………………………………………...….154 Questionnaires…………………………………………………….……167 Pictures for children……………………………………………….…...190 Acknowledgents I wish to express my gratitude to the people who helped me in writing my thesis. This research could not have been possible without the guidence of my thesis superviser Unn Røyneland. I am deeply grateful to her. I would also like to thank all Lithuanian and Russian families who agreed to participate in this research and who honestly answered my questions. All my thanks to the Lithuanian psychologists Jurate Sucylaite and Rita Radviliene who gave me some very valuable suggestions about Lithuanian and Russian mentality. My thanks also go to social anthropologist Darius Dauksas from Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas who kindly provided me with very useful information about Lithuanians in Norway. Finally, my deep gratitude goes to my parents who have been wonderful in their support, especially to my father Dr. Jonas Maciulis, honered bibliographer, who helped me with seeking literature in Lithuania. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Background for the choice of the theme I grew up in one of the Republics of the Soviet Union – Lithuania – and experienced all the paradoxes of this system. Luckily for me my country had a strong policy on preserving its own language, so that even if everything was Sovietized and Russification had its usual profound impact, we still had Lithuanian schools, literature, theater and books. In the former Soviet Union, because of the destructive language policy, 50% of the native languages died out (Crystal, 2005). Fortunately the Lithuanian language remained viable. It was used in schools, private life and some official spheres. Lithuanians had Lithuanian schools in which all subjects were taught in Lithuanian, while the Russian language was taught from the 5 grade. However, more serious graduate studies or documents needed to be written in Russian. Following secondary school, all boys had to join the Soviet army for two years, where only Russian was used. The best movies and TV shows were in Russian. One simply couldn‘t survive without the Russian language. And I, like most citizens of the Soviet Union who were not Russian, grew up bilingual and bicultural. On the other hand, Russians didn‘t have to learn Lithuanian. They had their own schools, and all news was available in their own language. Even after Lithuania regained its freedom in 1990, I met many Russians who had lived their whole lives in Lithuania and could not speak a word of Lithuanian. In later years when I was teaching Contemporary Lithuanian Language at Vilnius College of Higher Education, I observed that Lithuanian Russians had great difficulties with Lithuanian, even though they were born in Lithuania, grew up in Lithuania, and had parents who had also lived their whole lives in Lithuania! However, this situation is now gradually changing (Ramoniene, 2010). When I moved to Norway five years ago and started to work in a Norwegian school, I found, quite amazingly, different situation. The Russians I met had learned Norwegian very quickly, and because we were surrounded by Norwegians, when I tried to speak Russian with some of them during the break in our teachers‘ room, they refused. 2 When a child could speak a small amount of Norwegian, most of the Russian parents did not want to have ―morsmål or tospråkligopplæring‖, even though their teacher was thinking the opposite. Lithuanians, on the other hand, always took the opportunity to speak their mother tongue, and even when their children could speak perfect Norwegian and follow the usual teaching program in Norwegian schools, asked for mother-tongue teaching (morsmål or tospråkligopplæring). These observations aroused my interest. I thought that the differences between Lithuanians and Russians in language choice and use might be caused by a different feeling and understanding of national identity in a foreign environment. So I decided to examine this hypothesis. Later, when this work was almost done and I was presenting parts of it at workshops and conferences12, I was very pleased to find that this was a topic of great interest to others as well. 1.2. Goal of the study and research questions The goal of this study is contribute to a better understanding of how a sense of belonging and national identity of Russians and Lithuanians families in Oslo is constructed through the language of utterance. I am interested in finding out the relationship between the sense of belonging, national identity and linguistic practices (choice of language and language use), and how these factors affect each other in two different languages and cultures. I will investigate this by comparing the language practice of two different cultural communities in Oslo, and by looking at the formation of national identity among Russian and Lithuanian speakers from the post-Soviet diaspora. The study will try to develop a deeper understanding of the culture of each group, and the people‘s linguistic behavior within the context of that culture. The research