· Circassian language maintenance in Jordan · Cultural Adaptation · Дву-и многоязычное обучение · ImmiSoft Estonian Courses
|
Some Research Projects
|
Maintenance of the Circassian language in Jordan Research Project in 2011 at ACOR
The research project "Maintenance of the Circassian Language in Jordan” was supported by an A. W. Mellon grant in 2007 and 2011 at the American Center of Oriental Research. The aim of the study was to analyze and explain the impact of ethno-linguistic self-identification, symbolic attitudes, personal beliefs and official language ideologies on minority language practices by examining the maintenance of the Circassian language in Jordan. The main focus was on UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment Factors (UNESCO, 2003) 1 – the absolute number of minority language speakers and the proportion of speakers within the total population, 2 – language policies, attitudes and beliefs, and 3 – language practices, including intergenerational language transmission, instruction and use in new domains,e.g., National Adiga Radio and Television (NART TV).
The topic is relevant because little research has been conducted on minority language policy issues and the factors influencing the maintenance of the Circassian language in Jordan. Circassians are one of the invisible expatriate minorities living in the Middle East where the actual number of people belonging to these minorities is not known precisely, but only estimated. The absolute number of minority language speakers and the proportion of speakers within the total population are essential determinants of ethno-linguistic vitality, because a small community dispersed among a mainstream population always faces the risk of assimilation, to the point of losing its own language and identity. However, data on the total number and proportion of ethnic groups appears to be an object of frequent manipulation in Jordan, where ethnic groups are a politically sensitive issue and official data pertaining to them is not available from the Department of Statistics. The project provides useful and meaningful data which furthers our understanding of why Circassians in Jordan and other expatriate communities (e.g., in Turkey) fail to teach and maintain their language despite a positive attitude toward doing so. According to the UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment Factors, attitudes and beliefs are a key indicator for assessing linguistic vitality. Ingroup identification and positive language attitudes are important precursors of language maintenance. However, attitudes may be symbolic: they are based not on specific information or experience, but rather on important ideological values. Although symbolic attitudes seem to reflect strong convictions, they usually do not influence behavior. This helps to explain why emotional statements about the importance of maintaining the language of the minority community do not lead to actual language maintenance practices. The research is based on a longitudinal study covering multiple sources of information; primary empirical data was collected through interviews and surveys of 545 respondents. The results will be presented in "Maintenance of the Circassian Language in Jordan: Ethno-linguistic Self-identification, Attitudes, Policies and Practices as Indicators of Linguistic Vitality" and in five forthcoming articles: "Circassians in Jordan: Exposing the Reasons for Manipulating Numbers," "Ethno-Linguistic Self-Identification and Factors Affecting Intergenerational Language Transmission among Circassians in Jordan," "The Main Challenges of Circassian Language Instruction in Jordan," "The Impact of NART TV on Circassian Language Maintenance in Jordan," and "Attitudes and Beliefs as Indicators of Circassian Language Maintenance in Jordan." |
Circassian Language Maintenance in Jordan
|
Home Language Study Of Primary School Pupils in Tallinn 2006 - 2008
|
 |
Current research focuses on the home languages of pupils from Tallinn examining a variety of factors which influence the language use of pupils with different national backgrounds and the formation of their linguistic attitudes. Studied in closer detail are pupils from countries which formed part of the Soviet Union and the home languages they speak, in which the influence of Russification and the displacement of minority languages continue to be observed.
The data for the study was collected via questionnaires from 8340 pupils (aged 8 to 12) from the 2nd to the 5th grades. 34 schools with Estonian as the language of instruction (5123 pupils, 73% of the students studying in Estonian in Tallinn in this age bracket) and 19 schools with Russian as the language of instruction (3217 pupils, 79% of the students studying in Russian in Tallinn in this age bracket) took part in the study, which covered all of the districts of the city (Rannut and Rannut 2007). Also used in the study were 434 previously conducted interviews with Russian-speaking pupils and their parents from 55 different schools with Estonian and Russian as the languages of instruction (Ülle Rannut 2003, 2005).
In the context of this article home language means the language used most frequently or regularly at home by the person being interviewed at the time of the study. As such, a person’s home language does not necessarily have to be the same as the language of their community (their everyday language; the one which covers the wider communication network they form part of) or their native language (which could be the language of the country they are from or another language with which they identify themselves). Determination of the home language comes from surveys conducted in Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany (Extra and Yagmur 2004) which enable the respondent’s linguistic profile and membership of a specific language group to be ascertained. A wide range of other factors was also taken into consideration in the survey. Particular emphasis was given to different aspects of the home languages of pupils from former Soviet countries, where Russification and the loss of ethnic languages of origin are a continuing process. This has not taken place in a linguistically neutral environment, but in conditions of a powerful external influence – in this case a language policy consciously designed to achieve this result – which constitutes ‘Russification’. One of the aims of the study is therefore to describe Russification processes, which continue unabated; while another, as a counterbalance to them, is to highlight the need for and measures of a linguistic support environment and the need for a minority policy in order to ensure the preservation of language diversity and to make languages less endangered.
The data for the study was collected via questionnaires from 8340 pupils (aged 8 to 12) from the 2nd to the 5th grades. 34 schools with Estonian as the language of instruction (5123 pupils, 73% of the students studying in Estonian in Tallinn in this age bracket) and 19 schools with Russian as the language of instruction (3217 pupils, 79% of the students studying in Russian in Tallinn in this age bracket) took part in the study, which covered all of the districts of the city (Rannut and Rannut 2007). Also used in the study were 434 previously conducted interviews with Russian-speaking pupils and their parents from 55 different schools with Estonian and Russian as the languages of instruction (Ülle Rannut 2003, 2005).
In the context of this article home language means the language used most frequently or regularly at home by the person being interviewed at the time of the study. As such, a person’s home language does not necessarily have to be the same as the language of their community (their everyday language; the one which covers the wider communication network they form part of) or their native language (which could be the language of the country they are from or another language with which they identify themselves). Determination of the home language comes from surveys conducted in Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany (Extra and Yagmur 2004) which enable the respondent’s linguistic profile and membership of a specific language group to be ascertained. A wide range of other factors was also taken into consideration in the survey. Particular emphasis was given to different aspects of the home languages of pupils from former Soviet countries, where Russification and the loss of ethnic languages of origin are a continuing process. This has not taken place in a linguistically neutral environment, but in conditions of a powerful external influence – in this case a language policy consciously designed to achieve this result – which constitutes ‘Russification’. One of the aims of the study is therefore to describe Russification processes, which continue unabated; while another, as a counterbalance to them, is to highlight the need for and measures of a linguistic support environment and the need for a minority policy in order to ensure the preservation of language diversity and to make languages less endangered.
30 different homelanguages
Estonia’s pupils have 30 different home languages, comprising 28% of all of the native languages spoken in Estonia (AS Andmevara 2003). The data collected as part of this study indicates that pupils from the 2nd to the 5th grades in Estonian- and Russian-language schools in Tallinn speak 22 different languages as home languages, which represents 20% of the total number of languages spoken in Estonia according to the Statistical Office and indicates a reduction in the number of languages being spoken by younger generations. The two main languages spoken at home by pupils are Estonian and Russian. Estonian was spoken as the only home language by 55% of the pupils surveyed, with 4.9% speaking Estonian at home in addition to another language. These figures are in line with the proportion of Estonians in Tallinn (54.9%; Statistical Office 2007). 98.7% of the pupils who only speak Estonian at home were born in Estonia; of the other 1.3%, 23 were born in Finland, 14 in Sweden, 8 in the United States, 4 in Germany and the remainder in Australia, Belarus, the Czech Republic, England, Ireland, Russia, Spain and Switzerland. The majority of these pupils’ parents (98% of mothers and 96% of fathers) were also born in Estonia. Russian is spoken as the only home language by 39.6%, with a further 4.6% speaking Russian at home in addition to another language. This figure is significantly larger than the proportion of ethnic Russians in Tallinn (36.5%), indicating the Russification of other ethnic groups. 96% of the pupils who only speak Russian at home were born in Estonia; 3% were born in Russian and the remainder in Ukraine (16), Belarus (7), Latvia (7) and other former Soviet countries. 66% of the mothers and 63% of the fathers of pupils who only speak Russian at home were born in Estonia; 21% of parents are from Russia, 6% from Ukraine and the remainder from former Soviet countries. The widespread use of Russian as the only home language is a sign of extensive linguistic segregation. Only around one in every ten users of Russian as a home language is to some extent bilingual.
New immigrants' home languages in Estonia
This is made all the more drastic by the fact that only a marginal proportion of them were born outside Estonia. This means that legally they can no longer be viewed as immigrants or the family members of immigrants, even though their linguistic behaviour continues to indicate otherwise. It is therefore possible in Estonia, where Estonian is the only official language, to preserve Russian as the only home language for generations, which highlights the weakness of Estonia’s language and integration policy to date. Just 2% of pupils speak a language other than Estonian or Russian at home.
The most widely used languages in these cases are English, Azerbaijani, Ukrainian, Finnish, Armenian, Italian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Tatar, Swedish and German. Other home languages include Belarusian, Spanish, French, Romanian, Turkish, Bashkir, Georgian, Hebrew, Korean, Hungarian, Setu, Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Portuguese and a sign language.
The sizes of ethnic groups and the birth countries of pupils and their parents are not in proportion to the frequency of home languages. For example, although Azerbaijan is ranked tenth in terms of birth countries and thirteenth in terms of the size of its ethnic group, the survey of Tallinn’s pupils placed Azerbaijani third on the list of languages spoken at home. Conversely, Tatars, of whom 50% consider Tatar to be their home language according to figures from the Statistical Office (31 March 2000, updated 01.03.2002), have virtually vanished in the survey of the pupils’ home languages, represented by just four pupils.
The most widely used languages in these cases are English, Azerbaijani, Ukrainian, Finnish, Armenian, Italian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Tatar, Swedish and German. Other home languages include Belarusian, Spanish, French, Romanian, Turkish, Bashkir, Georgian, Hebrew, Korean, Hungarian, Setu, Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Portuguese and a sign language.
The sizes of ethnic groups and the birth countries of pupils and their parents are not in proportion to the frequency of home languages. For example, although Azerbaijan is ranked tenth in terms of birth countries and thirteenth in terms of the size of its ethnic group, the survey of Tallinn’s pupils placed Azerbaijani third on the list of languages spoken at home. Conversely, Tatars, of whom 50% consider Tatar to be their home language according to figures from the Statistical Office (31 March 2000, updated 01.03.2002), have virtually vanished in the survey of the pupils’ home languages, represented by just four pupils.
|
The study revealed that 39.6% of pupils from the respective cohort in Tallinn speak Russian as their only home language and 4.6% as a second language. Just 3% of them and 21% of their parents were born in a republic of the Russian Federation (in this case Chechnya, Tatarstan, Mordovia, Komi, Bashkortostan, Northern Ossetia-Alania and Adygeya) where national languages remain spoken to different extents. Interviews with 224 Russian-speaking pupils revealed that of those who considered themselves to be Russian, one-third had grandparents with a non-Russian background, incorporating very different native languages and national identity. 134 parents responded to the question regarding their ethnic origins in the study of the pupils’ parents, stating the ethnic identity of themselves and their parents.
The study showed that the group of parents who identified themselves as ethic Russians was the only one to show a growth tendency between generations: 71% of parents and 52% of grandparents were ethnic Russians. All other ethnic groups showed a declining tendency between generations. In the case of parents with Belarusian origins, 7.2% of grandparents considered themselves to be Belarusian, but just 2.9% of the pupils’ parents identified themselves in the same way. There were also several times more grandparents with Ukrainian origins (6.5%) than parents of pupils who identified themselves as Ukrainian (just 1.4%). This represents a 60% drop in Belarusians between generations and a 78% drop in Ukrainians from grandparents to parents. Tatars declined by 33%. |
|
