Russian in Latvia: an outlook for bilingualism in a post-Soviet transitional society
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract What makes people, in shifting power positions of a post-independence period, plan on disusing an already known L2 or learn a new L2? What are the reasons for such shifts and what outcomes can, therefore, be predicted for the future of societal bilingualism surviving alongside ongoing efforts at monolingual unification in a newly independent nationstate? In my paper, I examine Russian in Latvia, and also societal bilingualism in the country in terms of L1/L2 users, language-minority education, competitiveness and language policy, couched in a discussion of various theoretical perspectives on language and nationalism. The Baltic republic, which re-established its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, has retained a legacy of not only a substantial proportion of the Russian-speaking population who are now learning Latvian as their L2, but also even a slightly greater number of Russian-speaking non-Russians (i.e. Latvians and other ethnic minorities) who had an obligation to acquire and use Russian as their L2 during the Soviet era. Keywords: L1/L2language and nationalismpost-Soviet LatviaRussiansocietal bilingualism Acknowledgements I wish to thank Juliet Langman for reading and commenting on my various drafts; Shereen Bhalla, Astrid von Busekist, Francis Hult, Aneta Pavlenko, Lisbet Pals-Svendsen, Brigita Zepa, and the two anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions; plus Robert Milk and Thomas Ricento for their encouragement. All the remaining errors of either fact or interpretation are my own responsibility. Notes 1. The term non-formal/non-formal bilingualism in this paper is used as synonymous with de facto, non-official or everyday. 2. This, partly, is because English is a more important language nowadays. 3. I have to note here, though, that there are schools where curriculum is taught separately in two languages, i.e. students are physically in one building (which means they are not physically segregated), but are segregated in terms of their L1, be it Latvian or Russian. 4. Data available at the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia webpage on WWW at http://www.csb.lv (accessed 12.06). I tried to group two population segments as related to the two dominant languages (Latvian and Russian) to characterise general biliteracy. What is interesting about this is that non-Russians speaking Russian as a second language include the majority of Latvians which, in a sense, might be characterised as 'Russian speakers' (this is often overlooked in literature). Nevertheless, Russian is not their first language. It is equally interesting that there are more Latvians who claim Russian as their first language (48,242) than Russians who consider Latvian their first language (31,141). However, if we compare that to the total number of Latvians (1,370,703) and Russians (703,243), the percent of Russians (4.4) who claim Latvian to be their first language is slightly higher then the percent of Latvians (3.5) who consider Russian as their first language. 5. This was, by the way, a bilingual publication aimed at promoting bilingual education among Russian speakers of Latvia (available in Latvian also on WWW at http://atvertaskola.iac.edu.lv/gramatas/vecaku_rokasgramata/risinajumi.htm. Accessed 12.06). 6. Franklin and Widdis (Citation2004) have noted that the Russian language has two separate words to define Russian nationality: rossiiskii (refers to Russia as a marker of geopolitical, 'imperial' identity) and ruskii (refers to Russian in ethnolinguistic sense). I have noticed similar definitions of Latvian nationality coined by local Russians: latviets (referring to Latvia) and latish (referring to ethnic Latvians). Hogan-Brun (Citation2006) has given a recent account of the distinction in her article on the 2004 language-minority education reform in Latvia. 7. Public institutions are bilingual in Belgium and Canada and this is an important, but not a crucial, difference because the use of Russian is also expanding in terms of the media and multilingual commercial activities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».