karelian under pressure from russianinternal and external russification

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 15 November 2014, At: 01:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingualand MulticulturalDevelopmentPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Karelian Under Pressurefrom RussianInternal andExternal RussificationRaija PyoliPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Raija Pyoli (1998) Karelian Under Pressure fromRussianInternal and External Russification, Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development, 19:2, 128-141, DOI: 10.1080/01434639808666347

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666347

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01434639808666347

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666347

caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

01:

31 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Karelian Under Pressure from Russian —Internal and External Russification

Raija PyöliDepartment of Russian, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu,Finland

The Karelians, an indigenous bilingual Finno-Ugrian minority, have for centuries livedin administrative, economic and cultural contact with the Russians. Today their immi-nent assimilation into the majority language and culture appears to threaten the veryexistence of the Karelian language and identity. However, some positive languagemaintenance initiatives have been taken up recently: concrete efforts have been madeto revive Karelian by creating a written language and by teaching it as a mother tongue.In the study of this process, and by combining interdisciplinary approaches — includ-ing traditional linguistics, sociolinguistics and the sociology of language — the authorhas come to several conclusions. Karelian, despite the strong Russian influence, haspreserved its basic structure and viability. The main problem in its future maintenancedepends on its active use. This is threatened by the fact that young Karelian parents oftoday lack the motivation to pass the mother tongue on to their children, mainly becauseof the high prestige of Russian which is the language of education and the only vehicleof social mobility.

Introduction1

The languages discussed in the present article are Russian and Karelian. Theybelong to different families of languages, one to Indo-European, the other toFinno-Ugrian. Most prominently, they differ from each other in their writingsystems: Russian is written with the Cyrillic alphabet, while Karelian is writtenwith the Latin. Karelian is closely related to Finnish; both of them are, in additionto Estonian, Vepsian, Livonian and Votic, members of the Baltic-Finnic languagegroup. Except for Finnish and Estonian, the other Baltic-Finnic languages are atpresent regarded as threatened, some of them close to death. For example,Livonian and Votic have practically lost their last native speakers.

The question of threatened native languages, seen in a global perspective, hasnot been recognised to the same extent as have problems of endangered species,flora and fauna. The Karelian language is not exceptional among linguisticminorities undergoing the process of language shift and, ultimately, languagedeath. Nevertheless, Karelian has a long tradition as a subject of research inFinno-Ugrian linguistics, and a more sociological approach has recently becomeappropriate in connection with radical social changes in the host-country, Russia.In the fate of the Karelians several interesting parallels can be drawn with otherlinguistic minorities, both indigenous and immigrant, which are experiencing orhave experienced language shift. Some of them are other Finno-Ugrian minoritiesliving in Russia, like the Mordvins, Udmurts, Maris and Komis (Lallukka, 1990,1995b), others well described cases in Europe and beyond — e.g. the HungarianOberwarters (Gal, 1979), Eastern Sutherland Gaels (Dorian, 1981) and AustralianAboriginals (Schmidt, 1985). Among threatened linguistic minorities of Finno-

128

0143-4632/98/02 0128-14 $10.00/0 © 1998 R. PyöliJOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 19, No. 2, 1998

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

01:

31 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ugrian origin we also find the Saami and Meänkieli (earlier referred to asTornedalen Finnish) in Scandinavia (Aikio, 1988; Winsa, 1991). Further, Finnishmigrant populations have also been studied as cases of potential language shift(Lainio, 1989; Virtaranta et al., 1993).

Interest in questions of language and ethnic identity is now spread worldwide.Paradoxically, some kind of ethnic awakening does not seem to arise among theminorities until the terminal stage of a language, when statistics already reflectthe decline of minority-language speakers. Often the members of the minorityrealise the need for linguistic prestige, and the movement toward revival isinitiated. But does this activity on behalf of reversing language shift (Fishman,1991) come too late? Perhaps it is more justifiable in certain situations to speakabout ‘terminal treatment’ instead of revitalisation?

The Karelians’ first real opportunity for ethnic awakening came in the late1980s, as a result of the more open political course proposed by MikhailGorbachev. However, before the age of perestrojka Russian-Karelian contacts hadundergone several phases in their common history. The Karelians, like otherBaltic-Finnic peoples, having their original home area in the region of LakeLadoga, were first mentioned in the Russian historical chronicles in 1143 underthe name of ‘Korela’. Karelian tribes, however, were wandering in the regionmuch earlier than this. The most careful estimates consider that they have livedthere from as early as the fifth century. Between the sixth and ninth centuries theexpansion of the Eastern Slavs, the predecessors of the present Russians, beganto move to the north, and contacts with Baltic-Finnic tribes can be said to havebegun. In the early stages the Russians were fascinated by the unspoiled Karelianenvironment, with enormous possibilities for hunting and fishing, while later —from the eighteenth century — fascination concerned the growing industry basedon the rich natural resources of the region (Ojanen, 1988; Kirkinen, 1994).

The Karelians have for centuries been subject to administrative, economic andcultural pressures by the Russians. The question of power has often beenconnected with linguistic circumstances. For example, trade contacts betweenKarelians and Russians have been dependent on the Karelians knowing theRussian language. Their common religion since the thirteenth century, theOrthodox faith, has also demanded knowledge of Russian from the Karelians:the only language in the liturgical services was — and still is today — the ChurchSlavonic language, closely related to Russian. The priests were mainly Russians,having little or no proficiency in Karelian. Russian has always been the languageof instruction — even for Karelian children — in schools of the Republic ofKarelia. Karelian men served in the army among the Russians, and they wereobliged to seek extra work because of lean years in their main occupation,farming. Many Karelians intermarried across linguistic and ethnic boundaries.All this has continued for centuries, and the way of life in terms of Russian-Kare-lian coexistence has stabilised (Ocherki I, 1957). The assimilation of the Karelianshas seemingly been a long-standing process accelerated by many radical changesof life circumstances in the present century. We could justifiably assume that theassimilation, both linguistic and ethnic, into the surrounding majority hasincreased considerably in recent years.

Regarding assimilation, we can also justifiably use the term ‘russification’ in

Karelian Under Pressure from Russian 129D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the Karelian case. The Russian language offers two dimensions of the verb ‘torussify’: obruset’ which means ‘to become Russian’, and obrusit’ meaning ‘torussify’ (Thadén, 1981; Lallukka 1995a). The former suggests a voluntaryassimilation into Russian culture, the latter a forced one. Even though there havebeen some periods in the history of Russia when forced russification has takenplace, the voluntary one is more central: Karelians, like many other members ofnon-Russian nationalities in Russia, have adopted Russian customs, culture andlanguage. Cultural assimilation has its origins in the past, in pre-revolutionaryRussia, and even in the Middle Ages; linguistically and ethnically the speed ofthe Karelians’ russification increased markedly after the October revolution(1917) and World War II in particular (Pyöli, 1996).

There is a total of 130,000 Karelians in present-day Russia. Most of them,79,000, live in the Republic of Karelia (see Figure 1), where they comprise alinguistic minority of 10%. Table 1 reflects the demography of the Karelians livingin the Republic of Karelia in the light of six censuses between 1926 and 1989. Thenumber of Karelians has continuously declined from one census to the next overthe last 50 years. The decline has been both absolute and proportional.

Figure 1 Distribution of the Karelian language in the Republic of Karelia

130 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The downward trend can be traced, firstly, to the wars and Stalin’s terror,liquidations and deportations and, secondly, to the fact that people probablywere not willing to declare their true nationality when placed under politicalpressure. When asked about the native language in the 1989 census, just 51.5%of the Karelians considered Karelian to be their native language.

The Karelians are also a rapidly aging population: the median age is 38.6 yearsin towns and 41.1 in rural settlements. Remarkable also is the imbalance betweensexes: the decline among males is greatest in the age group 40–49 and amongthose over 65 years of age. One of the reasons for the high mortality of youngermen today is accident and disease, due to an unhealthy way of life (e.g.alcoholism), which has intensified over the past few decades. The small numberof elderly men is a consequence of the wars. On the other hand, there is also adecline in the number of younger females in Karelian villages. Young womenprefer not to stay in the countryside, because urban settlements offer easier andbetter-paid occupations, often with higher status. This means that young menhave problems finding wives of their own age, and perhaps also of their ownnationality (Pyöli, 1996); this phenomenon is well-known also elsewhere insimilar circumstances (see, e.g. Gal, 1979).

My article focuses on two critical stages of the Soviet era in the twentiethcentury: the period of glasnost’ and perestrojka, and the disintegration of the SovietUnion (1991 onwards). The primary purpose is to explore the symptoms oflanguage shift and the extralinguistic reality where Karelian is spoken today. TheRussian influence on Karelian — i.e. features of language contact (lexicalborrowing, morphosyntactic interference from Russian in the structure ofKarelian and code-switching between Karelian and Russian) — I will discusselsewhere. Of main interest here is the society in which the Karelians live, theirlinguistic attitudes and, finally, their actual language use.

MethodThe data for my research were collected in the town of Olonets (Figure 1) and

11 of its neighbouring villages in 1990, 1992 and 1993. Different kinds of datawere needed for a twofold approach: firstly, for the study of features of languagecontact in contemporary Olonets Karelian2 and, secondly, for investigation of thelanguage use and attitudes of the Karelians.

Census Population Karelians %1926 261,000 101,000 391939 469,000 108,000 231959 651,000 85,000 131970 713,000 84,000 121979 736,000 81,000 111989 790,000 79,000 10

Note: The numbers are rounded. Source: Klement’ev, 1991.

Table 1 The Karelians in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the wholepopulation in years 1926–1989


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

For the first aim, the study of Olonets Karelian speech, 33 informants wererecorded. For the second purpose — i.e. involving the linguistic behaviour andattitudes of the informants — 54 Karelians were interviewed. Each interviewlasted from half-an-hour to one hour. Since the Karelians in general are notliterate in their mother tongue, a questionnaire was not appropriate. I could haveinterviewed them in Russian, but my ‘covert’ intention was to observe theirlinguistic proficiency in Karelian. The interviews were based on a set of questionsconcerning background data of the respondents (biography, education, work),attitudes and language use in different domains. The course of the interviews didnot strictly follow the order of the questions, drawn up in advance, since theatmosphere was informal and conversational, rather than investigative. Thetopics varied from a description of the former way of life to the problems of today.Presumably, the political climate prevailing within Russian-Karelian societytoday contributed to the fact that no shyness could be detected when discussingsensitive topics (like politics). The situation differed markedly from that of 10 or15 years ago in interviews with citizens in the former Soviet Union.

The informants fell into three different age groups: the elderly, those born inthe 1910s and 1920s (here: G1); the middle-aged (G2, born in the 1930s and 1940s);and the young (G3, born in the 1950s and 1960s). The informants were chosenrandomly (the ‘from door to door’ method). The only criteria they had to meetwas that they be of Karelian origin and that they could speak their nativelanguage well enough to be able to communicate in it.

When investigating a linguistic situation such as that of the Karelians, severaldifferent approaches must be used. The aim of my research was a comprehensiveexamination of the situation. The critical components, often found to besymptomatic of threatening language shift are changes in social functions(language use), the degree of language-contact features and, finally, extralinguis-tic factors (i.e. the circumstances in which the minority lives). The sociology oflanguage and sociolinguistics have combined qualitative and quantitativeapproaches, which also proved to be relevant in this context. Regarding thesociology of language, an application of Hyltenstam and Stroud’s (1991)methodology was used. It was originally developed for the investigation of theSaami-speaking indigenous minority in Sweden and is based on written sourcesfor evaluating the degree of language maintenance at societal and group levels.3

This methodology was used to assess factors that may have a positive or negativeinfluence on the opportunities Karelians have to maintain their mother tongue.Sociolinguistic methods were used to describe features involving languagecontact, language use and attitudes. Each of these aspects was investigated,taking into account age and education as background variables.4

Present-day Circumstances of the KareliansIn my view, the study of factors influencing language maintenance at the

societal and group levels turned out to be most relevant. By the societal level, Irefer to the Russian-Soviet majority society within which the Karelian minoritylives, and which determines the status of the minority — i.e., the relationshipbetween the minority and majority. The term group level refers to factors involvingthe ethnic or linguistic minority, in this case the Karelians, who are living in a


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

geographically limited area, and who make up a part of the whole society. Sincethe October Revolution (1917) the Russian-Soviet society has lived through aperiod of epoch-making changes; in these circumstances the outside milieu hashad a profound influence on the existence and welfare of ethnic minorities andtheir languages.

After having discussed various factors in detail, in the light of informationfound in written sources and supported — very often — by the informants, I gaveeach factor a numerical value from [1], meaning the most negative, to [4] (themost positive), in terms of increasing amount of influence on the Karelians’language-maintenance possibilities. In the original methodology of Hyltenstamand Stroud (1991) the signs [+] and [-] were used instead of numerical values.However, in order to document a wider range of possibilities in this particularsetting I preferred numerical values. As Hyltenstam and Stroud (1991) state, it isdifficult, even impossible, to assess objectively the effect of certain factors on themaintenance or shift of any language. One has to accept the fact that, perhaps,only the circumstances where language shift versus maintenance are expectedcan be identified. In the Karelian context, the changes in the surrounding societyare so radical that they cannot be excluded.

The analysis of the societal and group levels demonstrated that many of theadministrative decisions within the society have had a negative impact onKarelian language maintenance (see Table 2). The Soviet period and theconsequences of its policies proved to be particularly destructive for languagemaintenance. The traditional rural settlements were desolated as a result of thecentralisation of agricultural production: small so-called non-perspective villageshad to be abandoned and country people moved to the multiethnic lumberingcentres or townlike settlements. This policy began in the 1930s, but wasparticularly active in the 1960s and 1970s. More than 2000 villages disappearedfrom the map of Karelia over the last 50 years (Klement’ev, 1991). Consequently,the social networks which naturally promoted the transmission of language tothe next generation were also broken down. Centralisation was followed bycollectivisation (establishing kolkhozes which later became sovkhozes), and thepeople living in the countryside lost the prerequisites for their traditionallivelihood, farming. Furthermore, massive migration from outside the republic,especially from Ukraine and Belarus, and the concentration of newcomers andKarelians in towns and townlike settlements, accelerated both linguistic andethnic assimilation into the dominant Russian society. The Karelians also becamefrustrated by the oscillations of language policy, swinging from one extreme toanother — choosing Karelian, Finnish and Russian as an official language — overthe past five or six decades. At the societal level, assessed values are consequentlyvery low, [1] or [2].

The situation at the group level was somewhat more positive, except for thefactors referring to demography, where all values were low [1]. Ethnic intermar-riage proved to have a particularly strong assimilating impact. (See also thepreceding discussion of age distribution and numbers.) Demographic factors areones which the Karelians themselves are not able to influence very much. On theother hand, changes in the political climate from the late 1980s had a specialinfluence on those factors related to the creation of positive attitudes at the


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

‘grass-roots level’, such as different (cultural) institutions [4] and organisations[4] revolving around questions of language and nationality. The current effortsto use Karelian as a written medium (e.g. the creation of a literary language), theteaching of Karelian as a mother tongue in schools and universities and theincreasing production of Karelian elementary books and other materials (seestandardisation and modernisation, relation between spoken and writtenvarieties: Table 2), were some of the most significant [3] factors. The activity ofthe media in producing programmes in national languages [3] as well as

Factors at the societal level:Political-legislative circumstances [2]Ideology of the majority society [1]Legislation and language policy [2]Implementation of decisions [1]Economic factorsIndustrialisation — urbanisation — collectivisation — centralisation

[1]

Multinationalisation of economic life [1]Sociocultural norms [1]Education [2]Factors at the group level:Demography of the KareliansNumber [1]Core district [1]Migration [1]Age distribution [1]Marriage pattern [1]

Linguistic circumstancesNative language and nationality [1]Support from the linguistic mother country [1]Dialectal differences [2]Standardisation and modernisation [3]Relation between spoken and written varieties [3]Bilingualism and diglossia [2]

Heterogeneity and homogeneity [1]Sources of livelihood [1]Type of ethnicity [3]Organisation [4]Institutions [4]Media [3]Cultural manifestation [3]

Note: 1 = most negative influence; 4 = most positive.

Table 2 Assessment of language-maintenance factors in Karelia


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

developing Karelian literature [3] were also favourable for language mainte-nance.

The average of all values at the group level was [2.0] while it was as low as[1.4] at the societal level. What does this indicate? If the maintenance of Karelianhad been based only on the ‘support’ of Soviet society, a total language shiftwould already have been a fact. Some more positive results from the group levelgive the Karelians slightly more hope for progress. However, they hardly havereason for excessive optimism; the mean value [1.8] calculated on the basis of allfactors at the societal and group levels indicates a serious threat to languagemaintenance. On the whole, what the Karelians themselves could do in order tomaintain their mother tongue depends, at least to some extent, on their attitudesto and actual use of the language. These matters will be discussed on the basis ofthe empirical material, collected in interviews.

What do the Karelians Think about their Languages?In a bilingual community, where two languages are actively used in everyday

communication, the attitudes of the people to both of their languages are ofspecial interest — particularly in a situation like that of the Karelians, in whichone of the languages has high status and prestige, while the other lacks them, butstill reveals some covert prestige. The informants were asked whether theythought that their mother tongue would be maintained in the future, in about20–30 years. The responses were mainly optimistic: only 19% of the informantswere pessimistic in this respect. As many as 50% felt that Karelian would bemaintained, and 31% believed in its future, but with certain reservations (suchas: the language will be maintained, if we start speaking it at home ¼, if we got a writtenlanguage ¼, if they teach it more in schools). People’s belief in the power of schoolas some kind of ‘general problem solver’ (cf. Fishman, 1991) was particularlysurprising: if parents do not succeed in transmitting Karelian, the school is thereto do it. The informants had a fair number of constructive proposals concerningthe maintenance and revival of the native language. However, the gap betweentheory and practice is seemingly deep. Though attitudes towards the mothertongue are mainly positive, many do not believe that it will be passed on to thenext generation, for a variety of reasons. One of the most significant is connectedwith education, where Russian is the only way to advance. How to make Kareliana language of instruction in elementary schools is a hotly debated thema inKarelia. So far it is a school subject, no more.

When asked about the mother tongue of the children of mixed marriages thepicture was clear: they are expected to have Russian as their first language, dueto external influences. This is a particularly common view among the youngestinformants (G3).

One of the issues linked to linguistic attitudes is self-assessed languageproficiency. The informants were asked to evaluate their own ability to speakKarelian and Russian and to comment on the linguistic competence of theKarelians in general. Assessments regarding both languages (on 5-point scales,where 1= hardly at all, and 5= very well) were related to each other and arrangedon an adapted scale. Thus, K denotes monolingualism in Karelian, without anyknowledge of Russian; Kr indicates Karelian dominance and minor Russian


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

knowledge; KR indicates stable bilingualism; kR indicates dominance in the newlanguage (Russian), with minor Karelian knowledge; R denotes monolingualismin Russian. The results are depicted in Table 3.

As might be expected, the elderly informants (G1) considered themselves tobe more competent in Karelian than in Russian and the youngest (G3) claimedthe opposite. All informants rated themselves as more or less bilingual, ratherthan monolingual.5

The self-assessments correlated well with the linguistic analysis made on thebasis of the spoken material (there were 12 informants who were both interviewedconcerning their attitudes and language use and produced speech material).Some of the informants were communicatively very talented, speaking Karelianfluently, even for several hours, without any need for the interviewer prompting.The other extreme was, however, more typical among some speakers —especially the younger ones: their Karelian showed remarkable Russian influ-ence. In addition to numerous Russian loanwords (24% of the whole vocabulary),code-switching between Karelian and Russian is a characteristic of their speech.Nevertheless, the speakers seem to have very good control of their code-switch-ing strategies: they switch fluently, with hardly any hesitations, pauses and thelike, in grammatically ‘right’ places — a strategy which is considered to becharacteristic of very skilled speakers with a good command of both languages(Poplack, 1980). Also, several kinds of Russian-type grammatical constructionswere found in their speech. Many features of language contact have become anintegral part of Karelian, and the mixed state of spoken contemporary Karelianis recognised and apparently accepted by the speakers themselves. In spite of allthis, the basic structure of Karelian has been preserved well, as has its viabilityas a language of informal communication.

With regard to Russian proficiency, the findings again correlated withself-assessments, and were largely age-related. The G1 informants, especially ifthey live in the countryside, have certain difficulties in expressing themselves inRussian, and the competence of the youngest informants (G3) is at the highestlevel — presumably due to their higher level of education in general. The G2informants show the most typically stable bilingualism.

Language Use in Six Basic DomainsAt first sight one might imagine that the Karelian community is diglossic,

where Karelian (L-variety) is used in informal situations and Russian (H-variety)in more formal settings. On the basis of my results, however, the picture is far

Age-group K Kr KR kR R %G1 (N = 16) 0 75 25 0 0 100G2 (N = 15) 0 60 13 27 0 100G3 (N = 23) 0 9 17 74 0 100

Note: G1: informants born in 1910s and 1920s; G2: informants born in 1930s and 1940s; G3:informants born in 1950s and 1960s; CAPITALS = language which the informant rates himself tobe more proficient in: K = Karelian, R = Russian (Pyöli, 1996.)

Table 3 Self-assessed proficiency in Karelian and Russian, by age-group (%)


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

from being so categorical. Language use among the Karelians was analysedwithin six different domains: the home, education, work, friends and neighbours,leisure time, and formal settings.

The home has traditionally been a domain in which the mother tongue isKarelian. As many as 93% of the informants, even the youngest of them, said thatthey had only spoken Karelian with their parents during childhood. However,Russian now seems to be gaining ground even in the home: as many as 68% ofthe young parents (G3) speak only Russian with their children (9% use Karelian,23% use both languages), and only 31% of the whole sample claim to speakKarelian to their children (naturally, G1 and G2 refer to their grown up children).The change in habitual language use has happened very rapidly, over approxi-mately 20 years; the median age of the youngest of the informants is 33 years.More surprising still is that 83% of the grandparents (G1 and G2) use Russian incommunication with their grandchildren. Apparently, changes in child care havetotally altered the linguistic situation in the family domain. Earlier, grandparentswere the primary baby-sitters in Karelian homes; today their role has beenadopted by kindergartens, where the language of communication is mainlyRussian.

The degree of education correlates with age, so that elderly informants (G1) arepoorly educated. Working hard was more appreciated than going to school intheir childhood; also, the possibilities for even basic education were insignificant,partly because of World War II, which interrupted schoolwork in many Karelianvillages. Informants in G1 have usually obtained only the minimum schooling— just the first grades in elementary school and perhaps some vocational coursesof one to six months. An average middle-aged Karelian (G2) has usually attendedall of compulsory school (eight grades) plus some secondary-level schooling, (e.g.technical or medical) and the young (G3) have the highest education, some at theuniversity level. Nearly all informants reported that they did not know a wordof Russian before elementary school. One can imagine how shocking it must havebeen to realise that the only way to manage at school was to learn a foreignlanguage. Thus, it is only to be expected that parents of today want to avoid suchexperiences for their children; they have chosen another strategy — to familiarisethem with Russian at home. Some of the elderly and middle-aged informants hadreceived some instruction in the closely-related Finnish language during shortperiods in the 1920s and 1930s or at the beginning of the 1940s, but only in thelowest grades. All other instruction has really been available in Russian only.Unfortunately, there is, as yet, no trace of the new teaching of Karelian in thelanguage use of schoolchildren: the only language to be heard in schoolyards andclassrooms is Russian.

The language spoken at work is connected with education to the extent that themore demanding the tasks at work are, the more skills in Russian are required.This explains why so many (78%) informants reported that they speak Karelianor both languages at work: their working-places (sovkhozes, forest companies,general stores) do not require very extensive skills in Russian. In addition, theseworkplaces are located in the countryside where most of the fellow workers areneighbours, relatives or friends. Russian in turn is used with the superiors whotraditionally have been Russians — or highly educated Karelians.


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The milieu of the villages favours communication with friends and neighbours.Inhabitants in municipalities, too, usually gather together in the yards in theevenings, and language use in these settings resembles that of the villagers:Karelian is heard everywhere.6 Only 11% of the informants reported that theysocialise among friends and neighbours in Russian only (28% in Karelian and61% in both languages). All this tells us that there is some kind of change goingon in habitual language use among friends and neighbours: Karelian is arelatively frequently spoken language outside the home environment. This is apositive feature with respect to language maintenance.

Within the leisure domain — i.e. other settings than communication withfriends and neighbours — interests demanding both receptive and productivelinguistic skills were analysed. Very few informants read in Karelian, partly dueto the lack of published material, and hardly anyone can write in Karelian. Thisresult is particularly surprising among the youngest informants, as most of themhave learned to read and write in some foreign language (usually English) withthe Latin alphabet at school. The informants showed little interest in out-dooractivities, apparently because of lack of free time, exhausting work, etc. Inestablished networks like those of the Karelians, there is probably no need forhobbies outside home environment. One of the most common hobbies of areceptive nature is listening to radio or watching TV: everybody knew exactlywhen, and on which channel, programmes are broadcast in Karelian or Finnish.Most of the time, they spend, naturally, with programmes in Russian, due to theiravailability in Karelian homes, and since the choice is wider than that ofprogrammes in Karelian.

In formal settings Russian is generally chosen, but in such local institutions asthe general stores and the post office Karelian may also be the primary mode ofcommunication. The general stores in villages are meeting points for local people,and 40% claimed to use both Karelian and Russian (and 22% Karelian only) inthem. In the post office, and sometimes also in general stores, the language usedis closely connected to the topic; that is why the use of Russian is justified. Thisexplains a strategy, known also in other contexts: greetings and some openingphrases are exchanged in Karelian after which a shift to Russian follows(‘metaphorical shift’: see Blom & Gumperz, 1972). Town people mainly useRussian in all settings; although it is possible to some extent to manage inOlonetsian stores using Karelian, this implies that a customer and salespersonknow each other privately. On the other hand, 98% of the informants reportedthat the only language for managing in offices is Russian. Regarding the languageused in the street — e.g. when addressing a stranger, in order to ask the way —most (64%) report Russian. The strategy seems to be the following: theconversation is opened in Russian, but at the next stage the language can beshifted to Karelian, if the stranger turns out to be Karelian. In general, a verypersistent feature among the Karelians seems to be not to offend someone byusing the ‘wrong’ language.

Shifters and Maintainers — Two Representative CasesAs seen in the group-level domain analyses above, the further away from the

home environment one moves, the more dominant Russian becomes. The same


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

is also seen in the linguistic profiles calculated for each informant, indexes of theirlinguistic choices and reflections of the degree of russification. The values hereranged from 0.08 to 0.89 (where K = 1.00 and R = 0.00). The youngest generationof informants (G3) was russified to the greatest degree, while the least russifiedinformants were found in the groups G2 and G1. The average index of the wholesample was 0.51, which tells us that more than half of the speakers’ originallyKarelian domains have been russified (Pyöli, 1996).

Let us characterise concretely the profile of two extreme cases in the light oftheir language use. The informant with the lowest index (0.08) is a relativelyyoung woman — born in 1959, university educated, living in town. In herchildhood home, parents spoke Karelian to each other and to elderly relatives,but have never spoken it to their children. All her central language domains areRussian ones; the only exceptions involve the occasional reading of the Kareliannewspaper Oma mua (‘My country’) and listening to Karelian radio programmes.In addition, she claims that she can, if necessary, address old people in thecountryside in Karelian. Her command of Russian is perfect, while her Karelianis a passive code with numerous Russian elements. It is hardly to be expectedthat she will pass her native language on to her teen-age daughter. Language shifthas thus taken place in this family.

At the opposite end of the language maintenance scale (0.89), we find a retired(born in 1933), unmarried woman, who has spent all her life in the same smallvillage, living together with her sister. All their neighbours use only Karelian.She received the minimum of education, the two first grades of elementaryschool. She uses Russian only in one domain — when visiting the doctor. Becauseof her lack of education she is not able to read or write in either language, eventhough she speaks Karelian very idiomatically and fluently, and can manage inRussian, too. Though her language use is predominantly Karelian and stable, hercontribution to its future maintenance is restricted; having no children, she hasnobody to whom she will pass it on.

ConclusionThere are hardly any factors (circumstances, attitudes, language use, the

Russian-influenced minority language), analysed above, which alone couldexplain the current state of the Karelian language; together they, perhaps, give acomprehensive picture of the situation.

Indicators external to language itself can be expected to promote languageshift: demographic statistics show an inevitable decline in the Karelian-speakingpopulation. As well, factors including intermarriage, education, and bothregional and social mobility also contribute to the loss of the Karelians’ mothertongue. The discrepancy between attitudes and linguistic behaviour againindicates that the nature of the Karelian identity is changing. Regardless of theRussian influence, the Karelian language is still a viable means of communicationin networks of home environment, at least among the middle-aged and elderlyKarelians, but it is insufficient in more formal settings. The efforts to reviveKarelian (e.g. the literary development of the language), might increase itsprestige in families, particularly if it had official-language status. Until todaysuch status has been a Russian ‘monopoly’.


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Language shift, as seen in the contemporary situation of Karelian, isundoubtedly connected with changes in society. Most dramatically, theseconcern young Karelians, whose russification is based on the constraints dictatedby the majority society. Without knowledge of Russian it is impossible to managein today’s Russia. The only way to keep Karelian viable is to maintain a stable,functional bilingualism — not just a transitional stage on the way to fullrussification. If young Karelian families — in spite of the greater advantage andprestige of Russian — do not become aware of the necessity of speaking theirmother tongue at home, they will most certainly die a slow death both as alinguistic community and as a people, no matter how well-meaning theirintentions are.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Raija Pyöli, Department of Russian,

University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland ([email protected]).

Notes1. The present article is based on my PhD dissertation (Pyöli, 1996). My adviser, Dr

Muusa Savijärvi, Professor of Russian, deserves the greatest acknowledgement, forour long cooperation. I would like also express my gratitude to my supplementaryadviser, Dr Jarmo Lainio, University of Stockholm, for his guidance in sociolinguisticsand linguistic minorities in general. For his comments and assistance with this articleI would also like to thank Dr Stefan M. Pugh, University of St Andrews.

2. Olonets Karelian, spoken in the southern parts of the Karelian republic, is one of thefour main dialects of the language (see Figure 1).

3. In their methodology Hyltenstam and Stroud (1991) also had a third, individual, level,discussed very briefly. I have chosen to deal with this level on the basis of my interviewmaterial.

4. Social-class groups, typical background variables in Anglo-American research, are notrelevant in the Russian-Karelian context, since in contemporary social circumstancesthe achieved occupational education does not correlate (for example) with the type ofwork of the respondent. The poorly-educated as well as those educated at university,can have the same duties — e.g. in business.

5. The extreme alternatives K and R were missing altogether. The explanation is notcomplicated: there is no Karelian, who as a speaker considers her/himself monolingual;if asked about proficiency in literary skills, there would have been only a few whocould read and write in Karelian. Similarly, some very old people do not write inRussian at all — they are monolingual in this respect.

6. The only town in the Olonets region, Olonets, has about 12,000 inhabitants, 56% ofwhom are Karelians. Olonets has a mixed urban and rural atmosphere, old woodenhouses in harmony with high brick buildings; compared to Petrozavodsk, the capitalof Karelia, it is a typical country town.

ReferencesAikio, M. (1988) Saamelaiset kielenvaihdon kierteessä: Kielisosiologinen tutkimus viiden

saamelaiskylän kielenvaihdosta 1910–1980. Helsinki: SKS.Blom, J.P. and Gumperz, J.J. (1972) Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching

in Norway. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: TheEthnography of Communication (pp. 407–34). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Dorian, N.C. (1981) Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia:Pennsylvania University Press.

Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations ofAssistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gal, S. (1979) Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria.Language, Thought and Culture. New York, San Francisco and London: Academic Press.

Hyltenstam, K. and Stroud, C. (1991) Språkbyte och språkbevarande: Om samiskan och andraminoritetsspråk. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Kirkinen, H. (1994) Karjalan historia juurista Uudenkaupungin rauhaan. In H. Kirkinen,P. Nevalainen and H. Sihvo (eds) Karjalan kansan historia (pp. 13–171). Helsinki: WSOY.

Klement’ev, E.I. (1991) Karely. Karjalazhet. Etnograficheskii ocherk. Petrozavodsk: Karelia.Lainio, J. (1989) Spoken Finnish in Urban Sweden. Uppsala Multiethnic Papers 15. Uppsala:

Centre for Multiethnic Research.Lallukka, S. (1990) The East Finnic Minorities in the Soviet Union. Suomalaisen

Tiedeakatemian toimituksia B:252. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Lallukka, S. (1995a) Assimilation and its measurements: Finno-Ugrian peoples of Russia.

Orationes Plenariae et Conspectus Quinquennales. Pars I, 83-96. Congressus OctavusInternationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 10.-15.8.1995, Jyväskylä.

Lallukka, S. (1995b) Komipermjakit — perämaan kansa: Syrjäytyminen, sulautuminen japostkommunistinen murros. Helsinki: Venäjän ja Itä-Euroopan instituutti.

Ocherki I = Ocherki istorii Karelii I (1957) Petrozavodsk: Gosizdat KASSR.Ojanen, M. (1988) Suomalais-karjalais-venäläisistä kontakteista. In M. Ojanen and I.

Savijärvi (eds) Kielikontakteja I: Tutkimuksia venäjän ja itämerensuomalaisten kielten alalta11–32. Kielitieteellisiä tutkimuksia 13. Joensuu: Joensuun yliopiston humanistinentiedekunta.

Poplack. S. (1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL:Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 581–618.

Pyöli, R. (1996) Venäläistyvä aunuksenkarjala. Kielenulkoiset ja -sisäiset indikaattoritkielenvaihtotilanteessa. PhD dissertation. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications inthe Humanities no. 18.

Schmidt, A. (1985) Young People’s Dyirbal: An Example of Language Death from Australia.Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thadén, E.C. (1981) Introduction. In E.C. Thadén (ed.) Russification in the Baltic Provincesand Finland, 1855–1914 (pp. 8–9). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Winsa, B. (1991) Östligt eller västligt? Det äldsta ordförrådet i gällivarefinskan ochtornedalsfinskan. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia Fennica Stockholmiensia2. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Virtaranta, P., Jönsson-Korhola, H., Martin, M. and Kainulainen, M. (1993) Amerikansuomi.Tietolipas 125. Helsinki: SKS.


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Tas

man

ia]

at 0

1:31

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

karelian under pressure from russianinternal and external russification

Documents