Language Policies of Ukraine and Armenia - Essay Example

Prologue: Language became one of the most central issues in the Commonwealth of Independent s and the Baltic s during the post-Soviet era. The language policies of these governments were considered as the key to the nation-building process. During the state-building process, language was not only a tool of communication, but also a political tool for building national identities. Thus, language became a bone of contention between various ethnic groups in the newly formed states. Dominant ethnic groups pressed their governments to introduce legislations in favour of their hitherto ignored languages. Governments of these post-Soviet republics had to decide whether to maintain the status of Russian as the official language (as a large number of Russian-speaking people still resided in these states in the post-independent era) or pass language acts in order to give official status to the languages of dominant ethnic groups. Most of these states resorted to passing several language laws; thus changing the status of many languages. A number of hitherto secondary languages were given primary status. As a result, the languages of dominant groups were given official status and the share of minority groups -- especially the Russians-- in public service was sharply reduced. In this paper, we take into account the case studies of the Ukrainian and Armenian languages. This selection is not random. The language policies of Ukraine and Armenia have been pole apart in the post-Soviet era. Armenia adopted a radical policy, completely rejecting the Russian language while Ukraine maintained the bilingual status of the country and promoted Ukrainian through a slow and gradual process. Therefore, the selection of these two specific cases aims at demonstrating how differently two these two languages were promoted in the post-Soviet period. At the end, we will compare the situation of languages in the Baltic States with the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Case of Ukraine Ukraine proclaimed independence on August 24, 1991, which was backed by a popular referendum on December 1 in the same year. Being a multiethnic society, Ukrainian and Russian are the two main languages spoken in the country while Ukrainians and Russians are the two largest ethnic groups, comprising nearly 95 per cent of the entire population. Besides, a good number of ethnic Ukrainians consider Russian as their native language due to historical connections and the influence of Tsarist Russia and Soviet Union on the Ukrainian people. During Soviet era, Russian language was the dominant language in the country. Although Ukrainians are the dominant ethnic group, their “hegemony in their own lands has never been certain, especially in the south and east” (Kuzio). Due to the assimilation of Ukrainians and the large number of Russians residing in the country, the Russian language still enjoys a respected status in Ukraine which continues to be officially a bilingual state even after gaining independence from Soviet Union. According to a survey during the 1998 parliamentary elections, Ukrainian was the main language of communication for 40 per cent of the population while 45 per cent of respondents preferred to use Russian in their everyday communication. Besides, 16 per cent considered themselves as bilingual (Stepanen). Therefore, Ukraine still strictly remains a bilingual country. However, despite the large number of Russian speakers, Ukraine’s Constitution identifies Ukrainian as the only official state language. Unlike Armenia, Ukraine has continued with the Language Act of 1989 even after independence. According to this law, Ukrainian is the only state language and Russian and other languages are identified as languages of interethnic communication. Although Russian was not given an official status, practically it had been preferred over Ukrainian during the Soviet era. The studying of Russian was compulsory in all secondary schools. Under Soviet rule, the medium of instruction in 50 per cent of schools had been Russian. However, after independence, Ukrainian was promoted as the medium of instruction. In 1991, the education ministry introduced the Plan on the State Programme of Developing Ukrainian and Other National Languages in Ukraine until 2000. The plan aimed “to establish the status of Ukrainian in the educational sphere” (Stepanen117). The plan envisaged that every citizen would have a good command of the Ukrainian language and would use it in everyday life by 2000. It was envisaged that Ukrainian would become a compulsory subject in pre-school educational institutions. The Ukrainians were granted the right to acquire education in their mother tongue. Thus, the hegemony of Russian as a medium of instruction at schools reduced to a large extent and Ukrainian gained ground against it. Eventually, the number of Ukrainian schools increased and that of the Russian-medium schools decreased. According to official statistics from the beginning of the 1998–1999 school year, the percentage of Ukrainian schools was 75.5 and that of Russian schools was 12.1 (Information Letter on Inter-ethnic Situation in Ukraine). However, the promotion of Ukrainian language was marred by the problems students faced at university level due to the fact that the pedagogical traditions of the Soviet era are still in practice (Stepanen 126). The Case Study of Armenian Language Due to several reasons, the population of Armenians continued to grow in the country during the last century; thus, it became much easier for the Armenian government to take radical steps for the promotion of the language in the post-Soviet era. Share of Armenians in total population [per cent] 1959 1970 1979 1989 88 88.6 89.7 96.4 Source: Data from the 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989 censuses After the disintegration of Soviet Union, Armenia, among other matters, found itself faced with the question of a new language policy. Some radicals proposed to evict the Russian language from public life. They thought it was very important to unite the Ukrainian people and distinguish them from Russians. “This is a prime objective, because commonality of language in the population … is a necessary condition, which makes it possible to build common cultural, educational, scientific, informational systems and spiritual independence of the people” (Lapidus, Zaslavsky and Goldman). Thus, the radicals suggested the government to adopt strict legislation to declare and implement Armenian as the only state language. Before independence, over 50 per cent of Armenian children attended Russian schools and 20 per cent of the students in higher educational institutions were taught in Russian. The radicals argued that the majority ethnic group had been deprived to acquire education in their mother tongue. The radicals were right as far as their grievances were concerned. Most of scientific research works were required to be written and published in Russian. The Soviet authorities wanted doctoral theses to be written and presented to the Supreme Attesting Commission in Russian only. This policy eventually resulted in the deterioration of the Armenian language in the field of science. Besides, in industries too all documentations were required in Russian. As all the ministries directly reported to Russian authorities, they had also been asked to write their documents in the Russian language. Even transport tickets were used to be printed in Russian. All this nurtured a feeling of alienation among the Armenian-speaking people. However, some moderates suggested that without enough preparation, such radical moves may prove to be counterproductive. They believed that by completely rejecting the Russian language, all the scientific, historical and cultural heritage would be lost. They also advocated that the interests of over 350,000 refugees from Azerbaijan must not be ignored as they spoke Russian (Karapetyan). However, the radicals eventually won the argument and everything attributable with Soviet Union was rejected. A campaign was started to purify the Armenian language and driving out Russian from daily life. The main political group -- the All-Armenian National Movement (ANM) – came up with the slogan: one nation, one language, one culture. It was decided that the Russian language will be driven out and Armenian will be introduced into all walks of life. Legislation was the key to implement these radical policies. Therefore, in 1991, a resolution was put forward about adopting Armenian as the medium of instruction for the children of Armenian parents in all schools. Two years later, the Language Act was passed (Mirzoyan). Article I declared Armenian as the official language while Article II declared Armenian as compulsory at educational institutions. Article III required all government employees to know Armenian and to use it for official conversations, speeches and negotiations. Besides, Article IV made the government servants bound to use Armenian for every type of official work, in advertising, naming streets and institutions etc. As if such radical moves were not enough, Article V asked for creation of a separate department to implement the law. Thus The Language Inspectorate was formed and its important officials, including its head, were selected from Mashtots, a radical non-governmental organisation which had initiated a campaign to purify the Armenian language. Two councils were established within the Inspectorate. The Supreme Council on Armenian Language was supposed to ensure the purity of the language and to consolidate its scientific vocabulary. This council decided to purify the Armenian language of recently incorporated foreign terms and most of the Russian terms were driven out. Approximately 100 terms were “localised” during one year (Mirzoyan). The Council on Cultural-Linguistic Policy was supposed to implement the Language Act and take measures so that people would not violate the law. Thus, it regulated the use of language by institutions, enterprises and employees. The council even did not allow Russian translation of films and TV shows. The council prepared a programme to ensure the implementation of the language policy in its true spirit and submitted it for government approval in 1997. The programme sounded so strict that it proposed reassessing the language proficiency of state employees and schoolteachers and professors and they would lose their jobs in case of failure. Due to its strictness, the advocates of the programme could not gather much support, Rather, the head of the Inspectorate was removed. But, it shows how forcefully the Armenian language was brought to the forefront after independence. Baltic States The language policy in the Baltic States –which was formed in reaction to the hegemony of the Russian language during the Soviet-era -- has been almost similar to those of Commonwealth of Independent States. During the Soviet era, the Russian language was given the most important status in the Baltic States as most of the educational institutions, cultural organisations and media houses were operated in Russian to serve the needs of Russian-speaking immigrants and streamline the Baltics. Gradually, Russian became the language of politics and economy. Ethnic Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians were taught Russian at school as a second language, while the native languages were ignored as medium of instructions. After the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, a totally new situation emerged in the newly formed independent Baltic States. “In 1989 and 1991 the Russian-speaking populations of the Union republics were struck by a double cataclysm that turned their world upside-down. The first blow was the passage of the republican language laws in 1989 … The second punch was the collapse of the Soviet Union itself … The Russian-speakers of the ‘near abroad’ suddenly found their citizenship, their homeland, and their very identity in question” (Laitin). The Russian had first felt the heat in 1989 when the first language law was passed in Baltic countries, giving the native languages official status. However, after the disintegration of Soviet Union the Baltic nations suddenly found themselves in charge of their countries. However, to avoid inaccuracy, the so-called Russophobia was not the only concern for Baltic policy makers. As they were striving to join the EU and NATO, the Baltic titular languages found themselves in competition with English too. The Baltics “found themselves between the hammer and the anvil— between Russian and European hegemony” (Ozolins). Therefore, after independence, the Baltic States adopted a number of legislations to promote their native languages. Therefore, like Armenia, a number of strict laws were imposed, requiring the knowledge and use of state languages not only in state administration but also in business and trade. Such language-related legislation in the Baltic countries created various controversies and attracted criticism from the international community. As the EU and NATO and EU warned that such strict legislation could impede the membership of the Baltic States in these associations, the national government relaxed some of these laws and withdrew others. During its schools reforms, Estonia made it obligatory for all minority secondary schools to implement the Estonian language as the medium of instruction. Latvia also adopted similar school reforms despite criticism from Russian in 2004. However, the Lithuanian language policy was comparatively more liberal was only limited to regulations inside the state administration sector. They have not reformed the minority school system like other Baltic States, but still many minority parents send their children to Lithuanian schools for better career prospects. “The Russian language and the other main competitor, English, possess two crucial features: they are very widely spoken and function as languages of international communication. The Latvian language has no such‘carrots’ to offer. Under the conditions of the market economy the only compensatory mechanisms for Latvian can be of a legal nature” (Druviete). Besides their own national languages, English has also gain immense importance in the Baltic States in post-independent period due to the membership of these countries in the EU and NATO. During Soviet era, there had been no room for the English language in these countries due to the dynamics of Cold War politics. Soviet authorities believed that English represented the capitalist system. However, as the economies of the Baltic States liberalised after independence, English gained more popularity. Now, it’s believed, English is one of the most popular languages among the Baltics. According to Latvian statistics, in 1996–1997, 57.6 per cent of all school children in Latvia were studying English as a foreign language (Karklins). Bibliography Druviete, Ina. Language: A Right and a Resource. Ed. Miklós Kontra and Robert Phillipson. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. Information Letter on Inter-ethnic Situation in Ukraine. Kyiv: State Committee of Ukraine on Nationalities and Migration, 1998. Karapetyan, Rouben. Problems of Social-Legal and Cultural Welfare of Refugees in Armenia. IOM. Geneva: UNCR, 1999. Karklins, Rasma. "Ethnic Integration and School Policies in Latvia." Nationalities Papers 2.26 (1998): 292. Kuzio, Taras. Ukraine. The Unfinished Revolution. London: Alliance Publishers, 1992. Laitin, David D. Identity in Formation. Th e Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998. Mirzoyan, Valeriy Armenaki. "Language and Language Policy." Beirut: Hratarakchutyun, 1996. Ozolins, Uldis. Language Policy and Language Issues in the Successor States of the Former USSR. Ed. Sue Wright. Toronto: Multilingual, 1999. Stepanen, Victor. Nation-Building, Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition Countries. Ed. FARIMAH DAFTARY and FRANÇOIS GRIN. Budapest: OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, 2003. Read More