Washing My Brain

Implementing a language policy in emerging states is an important step in the building of the nation. Wright (2004, p 42) argues that a language policy has three distinct benefits if it is implemented correctly. Firstly, the chosen language will allow the new state to function politically and economically. The language is passed on to the population through the education system and being taught through the national language will give them a sense of ownership of the language. This will hopefully persuade them to accept dialect convergence or even language shift.

Secondly, the unified language will help promote cohesion within the newly formed state, and will allow a shared culture to develop. To know and to use the national language is part of the definition of belonging to the nation; to speak the language is a badge of inclusion; to refuse to know the language is to refuse the community and is seen as schismatic and unpatriotic.

Thirdly, if the language of the state can be demonstrated as both different from the languages of its neighbours and with some measure of inner cohesion, this can be used as one of the arguments in any bid to be treated as a separate nation.

Wright argued that these are the benefits of a language policy in a new state, but what about states that are emerging from a period of colonisation? In this paper I will discuss two such states – Latvia and Lithuanian – that have emerged from a period of Russification. I will look at the comparisons and contrasts in how each state applied their own language policies in relation to their ethnic majorities and minorities.

Brief History

The Baltic region, in north-eastern Europe, is a place of many different ethnicities. From the eighteenth century until the end of the First World War most of the present-day Baltic states were partitioned by the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Habsburg Monarchy. In 1918, all of the Baltic states declared independence and were recognised as sovereign countries in 1920. During the 1920’s each produced their own constitution, laws, and policies. This independence would only last until the Second World War, when in June 1940 Russia occupied the three states and in August 1940 were annexed into the U.S.S.R. Despite being occupied by Germany between 1941 and 1944, the Baltic states would remain members of the U.S.S.R. until 1989, when independence was again sought and was officially recognised on the 6^th of September, 1991.

During this period of Russian control a number of new language policies were put in place. The aim of these policies was to create a monolingual society, with Russian as the language of business, politics, and education. To achieve this, a policy of immigration (sometimes forced) from Russia to the Baltic region was introduced. As Joseph (2007, p 11) wrote “large numbers of Russians moved to [the Baltic region] in the years of Russian control and occupied prestigious positions from which natives…were excluded.”

Latvia

According to Ethnologue the total population of Latvia is 2,302,000, and only 1,390,000 of them – about 60% – speak Latvian, the country’s national language. With only 8,000 people speaking Baltic Romani, 800 people speaking Eastern Yiddish and a mere 15 Liv speakers, this means that the rest of the population are native speakers of Russian.

Latvia is an ethnically diverse country; according to Latvian official statistics, only 59.5% of the country’s population are ethnic Latvians, the rest are ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Lithuanians, and Jews. This has created a feeling among Latvians that they are a minority in their own country, and this is true in the bigger cities of Latvia. In the capital, Riga, Latvians make up 42.5% of the population. While in Daugavpils, the country’s second largest city, only 18% of the population are ethnic Latvian (Pereltsvaig, 2011).

To reassert the primacy of Latvian’s in their own country the language has been a major weapon. Upon regaining independence the original 1922 Constitution was re-enacted, which made Latvian the official language of the state. The first Language Law was introduced in 1989 and ten years later the Law on State Language was adopted. The aim of this law was “the preservation, protection and development of the Latvian language, the integration of national minorities in the society of Latvia while observing their rights to use their mother tongue or any other language” (Leprêtre, 2002, p 28).

This law has meant a toughening on the use of other languages than Latvian for any state business. From 1992 until the introduction of the Law on State Language, officials would accept documents in Russian, German, or English and would reply in the language of application. This is no longer the case; submitting documents to all levels of government and state bodies is forbidden in any language other than Latvian.

Any employee in the public or private sector found to be using any language other than Latvian will be fined, and as of 2011 any member of the Seima (Parliament) or local council can be deprived of their mandate if they have an insufficient command of Latvian. In 2010, 429 people were fined by the Centre for the National Language for not using Latvian at work. Most of those fined were sales clerks, hairdressers and security personnel (Pereltsvaig, 2011). This has caused outrage in Russia’s Foreign Ministry, who feel that this is nothing more than an attempt to exclude ethnic Russian’s from business and politics in Latvia. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Andrei Nesterenko, said “It is obvious that such discriminatory moves violate the rights of ethnic minorities, which are generally acknowledged in present-day Europe, and aim to further displace the Russian language native for one third of the Latvian population from all fields of public and business activity” (Ria Novosti, 2009).

The Education Law, adopted in 1998, has proved to be quite controversial. This law decreed that all secondary and tertiary education must be taught through Latvian by 2004. This law would have affected mostly Russian schools – which have a long history in Latvia – and has attracted criticism and protests. These protests appeared to have worked somewhat as the law was amended to allow 40% of teaching to be done through a minority language and for orphans to continue their education through Latvian, but also in the language he or she began it in.

While primary and secondary education is still available in minority languages to a certain extent, third level education can no longer be taught through Russian. It is possible to take courses through any language of the European Union in Latvia, but teaching through Russian has been discontinued at state institutions of higher education as of 2011. Ina Druviete, who was Minister of Education and Science from 2004-2006, pointed out that private Latvian universities would still be teaching through Russian, but “allowing students of state universities to take courses in Russian would jeopardize “the state language policy”” (RT, 2011).

The Latvian Nationalist Party (Visu Latvijai!) attempted to hold a referendum in 2011 on the issue of minority languages in all levels of education. Primary education in minority languages is allowed and, as we have seen, a certain amount is also allowed in secondary level. Visu Latvijai! had proposed that all education through Latvian should be made obligatory. Over 112,000 people signed the petition calling for a referendum, but the initiative failed as it fell short by 40,624 for the required number (Pereltsvaig, 2011).

One critic of Latvia’s language policies has been James Hughes, Reader in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who has pointed out that Russian-speakers in Latvia constitute one of the largest linguistic minorities in Europe, therefore he considers Latvia’s language laws to be denying Russophones their language rights, and thus they are contrary to international practice in the field of minority rights (Hughes, 2005).

The Latvian language policies do seem to be having the desired effect, though. According to Marc Leprêtre, in the 1989 census only 18%-20% of minorities claimed to have any abilities in Latvian; by the time of the 2000 census “59% of Russians, 55% of Belarusians, 54% of Ukrainians, and 65% of Poles declared Latvian language skills. The number of minority representatives having no Latvian language skills at all is diminishing: 78-80% in 1989, 22% in 1996, 9% in 2000” (2002, p 28).

Lithuania

The situation in Lithuania is broadly similar to that of Latvia. Both of these nations got their independence at the same time, but it is interesting to contrast how Lithuania went about reasserting the status of their native language after Russification.

For Lithuanians, much like Latvians, the autochthonous language is intricately linked with national identity. The status of the language was legitimised in the original constitution in August 1922, and once independence had been regained was enshrined in the new constitution. In 1995, the Law on the Official Language of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on the Enforcement of the Official Language of the Republic of Lithuania were passed. This law recognises Lithuanian as the official language of the Republic of Lithuania; states that all records should be kept in Lithuanian; and ensures that Lithuanian will be the language of education and instruction.

The regulations on the official language are applied to public servants and teachers; to the workers of communications, transport and healthcare; policemen and shop assistances; to all those who have to deal with people. The law also provides for the correct use of the official language: the mass media and publishers must adhere to the standardised norms (Leprêtre, 2002, p 26).

The Law on the Official Language does not impact upon any ethnic minorities in Lithuania as they are protected under the Law on the Ethnic Minorities of the Republic of Lithuania. This is where contrasts start to become very apparent with Latvia. Lithuania, in a move to integrate ethnic minorities, have taken a much more liberal and progressive attitude to minority language rights.

There are many reasons why Lithuania sets itself apart from the other Baltic nations in this approach. One reason could be because the two largest minorities are equally large, and neither ethnic Russians nor ethnic Poles have any political superiority over the other. Jan Andrlik (2009, p 4) also says it could be because of the historical multi-ethnicity of Lithuania; the relatively small percentage of ethnic minorities at the time of the transition to democracy – the number of ethnic minorities at the end of the 1980’s was comparable to that of 1940; the reflection of the international status of Lithuania and the need to successfully assimilate these minorities.

Within the Lithuanian constitution, in articles 37 and 45, it is explicitly stated that ethnic minorities will be protected. It “oblige[s] the country to support ethnic communities and guarantee them the right to use their language independently and keep their own culture” (Andrlik, 2009, p 6).

Lithuanian is the language that all education is taught through, but because of an amendment to the Law on Education from July 2007 the state will guarantee and fund education for minorities where this minority forms a significant part of the community. In primary education all subjects will be taught through the minority language, with the exception of any subjects the children’s parents would prefer to be taught through Lithuanian. During secondary school, this choice of subjects to be taught through Lithuanian passes to the pupil themselves.

For minorities that do not live together in a sizeable community, the state provides another option for more informal education in the minority language in Saturday or Sunday schools. In this case, pupils will attend regular schooling in Lithuanian during the week and then attend state subsidized education at weekends. In these schools education will focus mainly on the language, history, and culture of the particular ethnic minority.

However, the one drawback to attending a school that is being taught entirely through a minority language is that these ethnic minorities do not do as well in the state exams. All exams must be taken in Lithuanian and the results of these exams apply for entry into third level education. These ethnic minorities will not be as competent in Lithuanian as their counterparts in the more conventional state education system, so it is a difficult choice that must be made.

Table of number of Primary and Secondary schools by language of education (Source: Andrlik, 2009, p 8)

Nationality	Number of Saturday/Sunday Schools
Polish	14
Tatar	5
Armenian, German, Russian	4
Belarusian, Latvian, Polish, Ukrainian	3
Karaim, Romanian, Greek, Uzbek	1

Number of Saturday and Sunday school in 2004/2005 (Source: Andrlik, 2009, p 8)

Conclusion

The contrast between Latvian and Lithuanian attitudes on ethnic minorities is stark. The Estonian analyst Pritt Jarve (2003, p 93), however, has discussed the idea of geolinguistic discourse. This is that the titular languages of these Baltic states are “minorized majority languages”, meaning majority languages that should be given the status and protection of minority languages. He contrasts these with “majorized minority languages” which are languages such as Russian, and in Lithuania also Polish, which are minorities within the state, but in the region have hegemonic power.

References

Andrlík, Jan (2009). Ethnic and Language Policy of the Republic of Lithuania: Basis and Practice. http://alppi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Andrlik.pdf

James Hughes (2005). “Discrimination against the Russophone Minority in Estonia and Latvia”. Development & Transition. London School of Economics.

Järve, P. (2003): Language Battles in the Baltic States: 1989 to 2002. In: Daftary, F., Grin, F. (eds.): Nation-Building, Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition Countries. Budapest: Open Society Institute, p. 73-105.

Joseph, John E. (2006). Language and politics. Edinburgh; Edinburgh University Press.

Leprêtre, Marc (2002). “Language Policies in the Soviet Successor States: a brief assessment on language, linguistic rights and national identity”. Papeles del Este. http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/cee/papeles/03/03.PDF

Pereltsvaig, Asya (2011). “Language situation and language policy in Latvia”. Languages of the World. http://languages-of-the-world.blogspot.com/2011/07/language-situation-and-language-policy.html

Ria Novosti. (2009). ““Russian Foreign Ministry condemns Latvia’s language policy” http://en.rian.ru/world/20090110/119409504.html

RT. (2011). “Latvia bans Russian language in universities” http://rt.com/politics/latvia-russian-language-universities/

Wright, Sue (2004). Language policy and language planning: from nationalism to globalisation. Palgrave MacMillan.

• Bluesky
• Reddit
• Mastodon
• WhatsApp
• LinkedIn
• ShareCopied to clipboard