|
After 50 years of incorporation into the USSR
the independence of the Republic of Latvia (founded in 1918) was
re-established in 1991. The foundation of the renewed Baltic State
was the principle of the legal continuity of the state. The 1922
Constitution was re-established in 1991; since 1998 it includes
the article about the Latvian language as the official state language.
In 1989 the first Language Law aimed to re-establish lost sociolinguistic
functions of Latvian was adopted (amendments in 1992). This pre-independence
language law had been drafted by special governmental commission
including linguists, governmental officials, writers, layers.
Their task was not the easiest one: nobody has experience in language
policy making. Only the main goal of this Law was clear: to promote
the use of Latvian and to develop local language skills among
the Russian-speaking population. This law de facto was supposed
to establish bilingual society, as Russian would retain the functions
of the official language.
Besides the historical heritage
(Latvia had well-developed linguistic legislation before WWII)
one of the main sources for law-making was the experience of other
countries. Contrary to the widespread opinion, the Soviet sociolinguistics
did not develop in complete isolation from the Western world;
translations of the contributions of the most prominent sociolinguists
had been published in Russian, although supplemented with compulsory
criticism of bourgeois science in prefaces and footnotes. Many
investigations about language policy in Western European, African,
Asian or Pacific countries contained deep analysis of language
situation and sociolinguistic processes and their evaluation corresponded
to the universally accepted scholarly criteria. Among the countries
whose language policy was well-known to Baltic specialists was
Canada, Quebec in particular. The Catalan experience was lesser
known until 1995 when Latvian sociolinguists visited Catalunya
for the first time. The Canadian linguistic legislation became
one of the cornerstones for Latvian linguistic legislation.
The first reason for this was
similarities in language situation. French in Quebec as well as
Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian in the former USSR were "regional
majority languages - "languages of populations who, though
a majority in their historic territory (where they may nevertheless
be experiencing some form of assimilation), are minorities at
the national level" (Maurais 1997: 135). In Quebec and Lithuania
there were about 80% of majority population; in Latvia and Estonia
about 50%. Policy-makers consider that in similar situations similar
measures could be taken for protection of languages.
The second reason was more pragmatic.
Behind the iron curtain very few pieces of linguistic legislation
were available, and the Charter of the French Language was among
them. There were two Laws adopted by Quebec's National Assembly
available in Latvia in 1988: Bill 22 and Bill 101. They were partly
translated in Latvian and studied intensively. Later, after the
independence, the other information from Quebec become available.
The goal of language policy was
similar to the one in Quebec: to prevent language shift and to
change language hierarchy in the public life. The idea of bilingual
state was completely rejected. The main sectors of intervention
were language use in State government and administrative bodies,
in meetings and office-work in particular, language use in names
and in information and language use in education. The principle
of territorial language rights was implemented. These first Laws
did not correspond to the concept of the monolingual state, as
Russian retained the functions of an official language in a number
of spheres. Though the local languages had the status of the sole
State language, the parallel use of Russian in the majority of
the sociolinguistic function was allowed. Access to services in
Russian for those who did not speak the State language were guaranteed.
The main principle was the availability of language choice for
lower-ranking persons, as a consequence of which state officials
and holders of certain jobs which included contacts with the general
publics had to be bilingual.
Changes in language hierarchy. Full implementation of the 1989
Language Law was postponed in. A special decree specifying the
implementation of the Language Law was issued. There was a three-year
transition period during which state employees lacking Latvian
language skills could acquire them. In almost all work places
Latvian classes were organised free of charge during working hours.
The implementation of the 1989 Language Laws was hampered by the
unstable political situation during the period 1989-1991. Intensified
activity in resolving issues related to the status and role of
Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian took place only after the restoration
of independence in August 1991. Nevertheless, the quite slow and
quiet three-year transition period was very important if the society
was going to adapt psychologically to the planned changes in the
language hierarchy.
On August 1991 the Republic of Latvia was proclaimed sovereign
state. The Language Law was simultaneously revised to strenghthen
the status of the state language. In 1992 additions and amendments
were made to the 1989 Language Law.
The 1992 Language Law was quite
similar to most language laws throughout the world. The most essential
postulates were as follows:
1) Latvian should be the only
language of government and state administration;
2) proficiency in the state language should be required for the
holders of certain jobs and there should be a system of language
proficiency certification.
3) the state language is given priority in higher education.
4) ensuring the priority of the state language in public radio
and television braodcasting.
5) ensuring the priority of the state language in the sphere of
public information.
In 1995 new Laws on State Language
were adopted in Lithuania and Estonia and in 1999 in Latvia. These
laws are much more liberal than 1989 and 1992 laws. The Baltic
states now are members of the Council of Europe; they have applied
for membership in the European Union and NATO, and legally binding
European standards (Framework Convention for Protection of National
Minorities1994; European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages1992)
have been observed. However, the implementation of some Western-European
standards was quite problematic in Latvia (Druviete 1999, 2000;
Ozolins 1999). The language laws of the Baltic states have sometimes
been criticized for deciding the role of competing languages and
for too much official intervention in language use in society.
In most Western European countries it is taken for granted that
minorities are, or at least tend to be, bilingual in their mother
tongue and the official language. It is not the case of Latvia
yet.
The 1999 Law. The Law on State Language adopted on 9 December
1999 is in force now. The purposes of the present Law are: 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.
Two intertwining processes are
taking place now in Latvia: the integration of the society in
Latvia (the linguistic integration against the background of the
Latvian language skills) and integration of Latvia into the European
Union (involving individual plurilingualism). Therefore the language
planning strategy proceeds from the following principles: 1) an
official language is both the symbol of the state and an instrument
for integration of society. Learning and usage of Latvian is one
of the main factors, which ensures the stability of a multilingual
state, 2) ensuring all inhabitants of Latvia the possibility to
study and to use the Latvian language in order to promote the
integration of the society; 3) supporting the learning and use
of the minority languages in Latvia; 4) ensuring the possibility
to study foreign languages in order to stimulate readiness for
communication in a foreign language and integration into European
structures.
Language skills and language
attitudes. The ethnodemographic composition of Latvia is as follows:
Latvians 57.6%, Russians 29,6%, Belarusans 4,1%, Ukrainians 2.7%,
Poles 2.5%, Lithuanians 1.4%, Jews 0.4%, Roma 0.3%, Germans 0.2%,
Livs (177 people, 8 persons declared Livonian as their first language)
(2000 Census). Because of the high level of linguistic assimilation
(Russification) among speakers of languages other than Latvian
and Russian the notions of national (ethnic) minority and linguistic
minority do not coincide in Latvia. For example, only 2.1% Belarusans,
3.7% Ukrainians, 9.5% Poles declared the respective languages
as their native languages (2000 Census). The population census
in 2000 shows that Latvian as native language have indicated 62%
of Latvia's inhabitants, although Latvians are only 57,6% of population.
Russian as native tongue have indicated 36,1% inhabitants of Latvia,
although Russians are 29,6% of all inhabitants of Latvia. In Latvia
representatives of minorities have more desire to identify themselves
with Russian minority (Baltaiskalna 2001).
During ten years of independence
there was a considerable progress in Latvian language skills among
minorities. During 1989 census the Latvian language skills were
declared by 18-20% of minority representatives. According to the
2000 Census 59% Russians, 55% Belarusans, 54% Ukrainians, 65%
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 (Baltic Data House,
2000). The renewal of minority languages takes place quite slowly.
E.g. there are 1095 general education schools in Latvia in the
school year 2000/2001: 66.3% with Latvian, 33.3% with Russian
as language of instruction. Only 0.4% of schools teach in any
other language. In general, the population of Latvia is bilingual
or even multilingual. In 2000 about 75% of the representatives
of Latvia's minorities declared Latvian language skills. Approximately
the same percentage of Latvians declared Russian language skills.
Thus, about 75-80% inhabitants of Latvia are at least bilingual
- in comparison to 44% in the EU Member States. Latvian is studied
in all schools, and 23.65% of Latvian pupils study Russian.
The State ensures the right of
every resident to master Latvian. However, high level skills of
the State language is still a problem in Latvia although the general
attitude is mainly positive. To the question "Must the inhabitants
of Latvia know Latvian?" most of respondents gave a positive
answer: 91% citizens of Latvian, 79.6% non-citizens, 87.5% men,
91.1% women (LLI, 1999). 95,8% Russian speakers with higher education,
93,2% with secondary education and 91,8% with special secondary
education expressed a wish that their children could speak Latvian.
However, at the same time more than 70% of minority representatives
would want Russian to be proclaimed the second official language
in Latvia in a hope that the Russian-speakers could remain monolingual
(Baltic Data House 1998).
Sociolinguistic functions of
languages. The actual hierarchy of languages in multilingual society
can better be characterised by their sociolinguistic functions
rather than by their legal status. At present, there is almost
a balanced situation between Latvian and Russian. There are different
political and economic factors in favour of the use of each language.
The strongest positions Latvian has in federal and municipal governments.
Latvian instead of Russian has become the state and local government
working language and the language of office work. The change of
visual image (signs, advertisements, information) has taken place.
The positions of Russian are very strong in private enterprises,
primary and secondary education, quite strong in police, public
transport and health care, also in armed forces (because up to
20% soldiers have no Latvian language skills).
Remarkable are the answers given
by Latvians to the question: "Do you use Latvian to non-Latvians
who understand Latvian". Only 49.8% always use Latvian in
everyday situations and 55.5% - in official communication (LLI
1999). On the one hand, these figures reflect high level of linguistic
tolerance among Latvians, on the other hand, they certify some
features of still existing minority complex and linguistic indifference
which could be harmful for future prospects of Latvian. In this
transitional situation psychological factors are extremely important.
We must take into account both the psychological resistance of
Russian-speakers who, from a position of political and economic
dominance have become a minority, but also the "minority
complex" of Latvians. Readjustment in public opinion concerning
the language hierarchy in Latvia has taken place only gradually.
Since re-establishment of independence
despite of marked decrease in financial support for research and
standardisation of Latvian it is ready to fulfil the demanding
new functions of the present and of the future. The Latvian Language
Commission has been established under the auspices of the State
Language Centre, beside the Terminological Commission the Centre
for Translation and Terminology has been founded. More than 400
EU documents have already been translated into Latvian. The linguistic
quality of Latvian corresponds to the average level of most of
the European languages.
Development of language situation:
prognoses. Realistic evaluation of the history and present position
of the Latvian language would allow to make prognosis on the future
perspectives in connection with objective ethno-demographic, economic,
political processes in the country, Europe and the world. The
maintenance of Latvian is determined by the complex of interdependent
objective and subjective factors.
Among the factors positively
influencing the future prospects of Latvian the following ones
can be meant:
1) sufficient number of L1 speakers
and growing numbers of L2 speakers,
2) the use of Latvian in all the sociolinguistic functions especially
in the Parliament, ministries and municipalities, and in all levels
of education,
3) high quality of Standard Latvian (developed stylistic system
and terminology),
4) present status of the sole official State language and existing
legal mechanisms for language protection (Law on State Language
and regulations for its implementation),
5) future status of one of the official languages of the EU.
However, there are factors whose influence could
be detrimental for maintenance of Latvian, e.g.:
1) unstable economic situation and political fragmentation
in the country,
2) decrease of the total population of Latvians due to low birth-rates,
3) "minority complex" among Latvians hindering the development
of bilingualism among Russian-speaking community,
4) higher economical value of the main languages in competition
- Russian and English,
5) the presence of huge Russian language community enjoying linguistic
self-sufficiency,
6) tendencies of globalisation and linguistic imperialism, integration
of Latvia into supra-national structures as the European Union
and NATO,
7) implementation of some international minority rights standards,
ignoring post-colonial language situation in Latvia and ensuring
protection of minority languages, mainly Russian, at the expense
of Latvian,
8) lack of strategic program for research and development of the
Latvian language.
There are languages which despite of the efforts
of community leaders or governments are inevitably moribund because
of a set of unfavourable conditions, e.g. small number of speakers,
lack of language transmission among generations and non-use in
education. There are also languages whose huge number of speakers
and status of an international or regional language ensure the
maintenance of the respective language even when special protective
measures have not been taken by the state authorities. The Latvian
language cannot be classified in either group. Its future prospects
are determined by well-considered language policy and active position
of Latvian language community and Latvian government. The complicated
geopolitical and ethnodemographical situation creates a necessity
for long-term language policy which must be based on the program
of the integration of the society in Latvia and comply with the
criteria and conditions that provide the integration into the
European Union.
Literature
Baltaiskalna D. (2001). Language Attitudes of
the Inhabitants of Latvia. Summary of the Doctoral Thesis.
Riga: LLI.
Blinkena A. (1994/95). The Latvian Language: Some Problems of
its Development and Existence. - ALFA 1994/95, Vol. 7/8, Actes
de language française et de linguistique Universitas
Dalhausiana, Halifax, Canada, 463-469.
Blinkena A. (1998). La standartisation de la langue lettone: resultats,
problémes et perspectives d'avenir. - Les politiques linguistiques
des pays baltes. Terminogramme. Juillet 1998. Québec:
Office de la langue française, 151-169.
Druviete I. (1997). Language Contacts in Balticum: Latvia. - Contact
Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research.
Ed. by H.Goebl et al. Vol.2., Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1997, 1906-1912.
Druviete I. (1997). Change of language hierarchy in Latvia: Language
skills and attitudes to language policy. - Recent Studies in Contact
Linguistics, Plurilingua XVIII. Bonn: Duemmler, 84-91.
Druviete I. (1997). Linguistic human rights in the Baltic States.
- International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Vol.
127. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 161-185.
Druviete I. (1998). Republic of Latvia. - Linguistic Minorities
in Central and Eastern Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
1998, 160-183.
Druviete I. (1998). La situation sociolinguistique de la langue
lettone. - Terminogramme. Juillet 1998. Les politiques
linguistiques des pays baltes. Québec: Office de la language
française, 1998, 105-149.
Druviete I. (1999) Language policy in a changing society: problematic
issues of inmplementation of universal linguistic human rights
standards. - Approaching Linguistic Human Rights. Ed. by
M.Kontra, R.Phillipson, T.Skutnabb-Kangas, T.Varady. Budapest:
Central European University Press, 263-276.
Druviete I. (2000). Sociolinguistic Situation and Language
Policy in the Baltic States. Riga: Macibu apgads.
Hirša, Dz. (1998) La politiques linguistique de la Lettonie
aprés le retour de l'indépendance. - Les politiques
linguistiques des pays baltes. Terminogramme. Juillet 1998.
Quebec: Office de la langue française, 91-103.
LLI (1999). Valodas situacijas dinamika.
Riga: LLI.
Maurais J. (1997). Regional majority languages, language planning,
and linguistic rights. - International Journal of the Sociology
of Language. Vol. 127, 1997, 135-160.
Maurais J. (1994). L'aménagement linguistique au Québec
et dans les pays de l'ancien empire soviétique: contrastes
et similitudes. - Langues et sociétés en contact.
Mélanges offerts à Jean-Claude Corbeil /publ. par
Pierre Martel et Jacques Maurais. Tuebingen: Niemeyer, 1994, 81-93.
Ozolins U. (1994). Upwardly mobile languages: The politics of
language in the Baltic States. - Journal of Multilingual &
Multicultural Development. Vol. 15, Nos 2&3, 161-169.
Ozolins U. (1996). Language policy and political reality. - International
Journal of the Sociology of Language. Vol. 118, 1996, 181-200.
Ozolins U. (1999). Between Russian and European Hegemony: Current
Language Policy in the Baltic States. - Current Issues in Language
& Society. 1999, Vol. 6, No.1, 1999, 6-47.
Rannut, M. (1994). Beyond linguistic policy: the Soviet Union
versus Estonia. -Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic
Discrimination. Ed. by T.Skutnabb-Kangas and R.Phillipson
in collaboration with M. Rannut. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Valdmanis J. (1997). Processes Determining the Future of the Latvian
Language. - Proceedings of the European Conference on Language
Planning. Barcelona, 1997, 45-49.
Veisbergs A. (1998). Latvian in the Post-Soviet Republic. - Paralle'les.
Cahiers de l'Ecole de Traduction et d'Interpretation. Universite
de Genève. 17, 87-97.
|
