ACCOMMODATING THE OTHER: Interpersonal communication in the Republic of Moldova

Submitted to the Faculty of Bryn Mawr College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts by Irina Dubinina November 8, 2006

1 Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to the American Councils of Teachers of Russian for the financial support of this research, and to Dr. Dan E. Davidson for the intellectual guidance throughout my work. I am indebted to Tatiana Petrovna Mlechko, Chair of the Department of Modern Languages and Communication at the Academy of Public Administration, and the leading sociolinguist in the Republic of Moldova for sharing her insights about language usage in Moldova and for arranging the school visits without which this research would not take place. I am also grateful to the principals of four Chisinau high schools who welcomed me in their schools and introduced me to their students: the Pushkin lyceum, the Gogol lyceum, the Princess Dadiani lyceum and the Dante Alighieri lyceum. Last by not least, I am thankful to Dr. Sharon Bain for her support and help with analyzing the data and editing the writing, and to Leonid Bailan, my Moldovan friend who translated the questionnaire into Romanian.

2

I. Introduction. In bilingual societies speakers have at their disposal two languages to accomplish the same functions that monolingual speakers perform with only one language. Members of such communities often switch languages in a conversation, depending on certain social variables, one of which can be the ethnolinguistic membership of the interlocutor. Speakers’ motivation for switching languages in multilingual settings has been investigated in social psychological and sociolinguistic studies through the framework of speech-accommodation theory (SAT). This theory suggests that during social interaction participants are motivated to either converge with or diverge from each other (Beebe and Giles 1984). Both behaviors have social meaning. Nonadjustment signals assertion of the speaker’s in-group identity vis-á-vis his out-group interlocutor or, possibly, personal dislikes for the listener (ibid.). The speakers’ motivation to adjust (or accommodate) their speech patterns to those of their interlocutors leads to convergence between participants which serves as a means to gain the interlocutor’s approval, achieve communicational efficiency or attain social harmony (ibid.). In social settings where inter-group conflicts cluster around language issues, as is the case in the modern Republic of Moldova, the ability and willingness of speakers to accommodate the ‘other’ is especially important. The history of this tiny multiethnic country, which is torn by the issue of ethnic identity of its titular majority, has produced tensions between speakers of Russian, a

3 former dominant high-prestige language, and Moldovan Romanian1, the language of the majority of the Republic’s population. These tensions are reflected in, but also caused by past and present language legislature, and are often explored by various political groups to their own ends, but are not necessarily expressed so unequivocally at the grass-roots level. The present study investigates whether national language and educational policies accurately reflect actual language attitudes. The work also examines motivation behind the reported language usage and presents a cross-sectional view of language use and language preferences reported by young Moldovans in 2006.

1

In this paper the term ‘Moldovan Romanian’ is used interchangeably with ‘Romanian’ and ‘Moldovan’ to refer to the variety of the Romanian language spoken on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The Republic’s constitution uses the term ‘Moldovan’ to refer to the same language although ‘Romanian’ is preferred in popular usage. The speakers of this language will be referred to as “Romanian speakers”, “Moldovan speakers”, “Romanian-dominant” or “Moldovan-dominant”. All four terms are used interchangeably.

4 II. Background Information on Moldovan History, and Language and Educational Policies. 2.1. A Brief History of the Republic of Moldova The Republic of Moldova is an independent country situated between Ukraine and Romania, the only two nations it borders. This landlocked country is the second smallest of the former Soviet Republics and one of the most densely populated of them (with 4,344,4282 people living on 13,000 square miles). Ethnic Moldovans make up 65.4% of the Republic’s population3. The largest ethnic minority groups are Ukrainians (13.8%) and Russians (12.8%). Additionally, Moldova is home to a great variety of ethnicities, some of which have been living in the Republic for as long (or almost as long) as the titular majority: the Bulgarians (2%) and the Gagauz (3.5%). There are also significant Byelorussian, Jewish and Roma communities in Moldova. Together ethnic minorities make up 35.5% of the country’s population (Mlechko 1999)4. For centuries the name “Moldova” or “Moldavia” (after the Moldova river) referred to a large principality encompassing Bessarabia (area east of the Prut river) and stretching from the Black Sea to Bukovina (which is now divided between Romania and Ukraine) and from the Siret River in the west to the Dniestr in the east. The principality was formed in the 1400s and for two centuries fought to keep its

2

U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2002. Here and further in the paragraph – cited in Stoianova’s report to the World Congress on Language Policies, 2002. 4 This number may be somewhat smaller in the 2004 census as it excludes the population of the unrecognized Republic of Prednestrovie (Transdniestria), the majority of whom are Russian and Ukrainian (personal communication). The 1989 census is the last census conducted in the Republic as of 2002. The Department of statistics and sociology conducted a population census in 2002; however, no results have been made public so far. 3

5 independence, but failed in these efforts by the 16th century when the Ottoman Turks, having joined forces with the Crimean Tatars, gained control of Moldova. The Ottomans dominated the area until the late 18th century when they were forced to cede some of the eastern parts of Moldova to the Russian Empire for the first time. Since then the territory changed hands back and forth between Russia and the Ottomans several times. After the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-12, the eastern part of Moldova (known as Bessarabia) between the Prut and the Dniestr Rivers was permanently ceded to Russia. After Bessarabia became part of the Russian Empire, western Moldavia (west of the Prut) continued to be controlled by the Turks until 1859 (Diller 1993). It united with Wallachia (a neighboring principality) after gaining independence, and a few years later adopted the new name of Romania. It was at this point in history that the division between the east and the west of the Romanian-speaking population began. This division had significant consequences for the years to come. After the fall of the tsarist empire, Bessarabian legislature voted in favor of unification with Romania in 1918. The Paris Peace Conference recognized this union in 1920, but the Soviet Union (which was founded in 1922) did not. To agitate Romania and to plant seeds for Bessarabia’s reunification with the USSR, a narrow strip of Ukrainian land on the left bank of the Dniestr River was declared as the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic with a capital in Tiraspol in 1924. In 1940 the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact forced Romania to cede Bessarabia to the USSR. The same year the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was established by merging the early established autonomous republic on the Ukrainian territory of the

6 Dniestr with the annexed Bessarabian portion. At the same time Ukraine was “compensated” by gaining parts of northern and southern Bessarabia (Northern Bukovina and the Black Sea costal area). Romania sought to regain Bessarabia by joining with the Nazi Germany in the 1941 attack on the Soviet Union, but at the end of World War II it had to cede the territory back to Moscow, and the present boundary between Moldova and Romania was established in 1947.

2.2. A Discussion of Language, Educational and Ethnic Policies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Moldova The post-war incorporation of Moldova into the Soviet Union brought significant changes to the Republic’s economic and social structure. Traditionally an agricultural society with underdeveloped urban economy and endemic rural poverty (Crowther 1999), Moldova became the site of an intensive industrial growth. In the interwar period, Transdniestria (with the center in Tiraspol) experienced substantial industrial activity. After WWII, Chisinau and other Moldovan cities became sites of intensive economic development. “By the end of the Soviet period, industry accounted for more than 1/3 of Gross National Product” (Crowther 1997:284). As in the case with other areas of the USSR, economic development of Moldova brought drastic demographic changes. Lack of local cadres to sustain the industrial growth caused massive in-migration of the Russian-speaking population. This, in turn, created labor division along ethnic lines: while most non-Moldovan Russian-speakers settled in the urban areas where they dominated the high-paying industry sector, ethnic Moldovans remained in the less-skilled less-paid urban jobs

7 and in the agricultural sector. “As of 1970, Moldovans made up only 35 percent of the republic’s urban total population, while 28.8 percent was comprised of Russians and another 19.6% was Ukrainian” (ibid.:286). The trauma of Moldovan incorporation into the Soviet Union fueled feelings of animosity towards Russians as the symbolic representatives of the USSR after its fall. Forced collectivization and repressions of the Moldovan intellectual elite of the late 1940s and early 1950s left a big scar in the collective memory of ethnic Moldovans5. Additionally, feelings of resentment towards the USSR and, by extension, the Russians, were caused by the Soviet cultural policies. Fearing the secession movements, the Soviet government exploited the already existing ethnic, linguistic and economic divide between western (Romanian) and eastern (Moldovan) speakers of the Romanian language, and insisted on the development of a unique Moldovan ethnolinguistic identity as separate from Romanian6. One of the measures taken to ensure cultural separation between the east (Moldova) and the west (Romania) was the use of the Cyrillic alphabet for the Moldovan language (instead of traditional Latin-based alphabet used in Romania). The language and culture of ethnic Moldovans were proclaimed to be separate from, although related to, Romanian. This cultural differentiation imposed by the outside political forces lead to today’s divide within the Moldovan society into those who want to call themselves Romanians and those who insist on a separate Moldovan identity. While there may be a substantiating historical and linguistic basis for the east-west ethnic

5

Although these events were not bigger in scope than in other places of the USSR, they are much more recent in history and feel “more real” to ethnic Moldovans. 6 For a more thorough discussion of the construction of a separate Moldovan identity, see King 1994 and 1999.

8 differentiation, the Soviet eagerness to divide the two populations became the grounds for significant popular resentment and played a big role in Moldovan nationalistic movements of the early 1990s. Finally, educational policies of the Soviet Union, which favored Russian and aimed at russification of the Republic’s population, created tensions between the Russian-speaking population and the titular majority. By the time of the declaration of independence of Moldova in 1991 the Republic had 1,532 schools and 7 universities. 989 of the schools used Moldovan as the language of instruction, 415 taught only in Russian and 128 were mixed schools7 (Mlechko 1999:74). However, in 1989 the majority of the schools where Moldovan was the medium of instruction were located in the country-side. Russian-language schools dominated in the cities where population was more ethnically mixed and where, therefore, Russian was the dominant language. This meant that Moldovan children living in the cities often had no choice, but receive their education mostly or entirely in Russian. For example, in 1989 in Chisinau, the Republic’s capital, only 11 schools taught only in Moldovan whereas 28 taught in Russian. Thirty schools used both languages for instruction, but the number of Moldovan-language classes was limited (Mlechko 1999). Higher education became the mechanism for creating national intelligentsia and professional cadres for the industry. Universities were created in the Republic which previously had no institutions of higher education, using all-Union resources and cadres. In practice, this meant that a significant proportion of higher education was available only in Russian. The university system built national cultural elite

7

These schools had both Russian and Moldovan groups of students. One group received education in Russian while the other - in Moldovan.

9 (among Moldovans and other ethnic groups living in the MSSR) and created highskill labor specialists among the local population. Documents from the period suggest that both Moldovan and Russian were available as languages of instruction at the level of post-secondary education8, but education in Russian was preferred as this was the lingua franca of the country and the language of upward social mobility (Mlechko 1999, and personal communications with Moldovan citizens). Moldova had the misfortune to become a member of the Soviet family at the time when the course of language policies in the USSR took a sharp turn from the previous years. The tendency towards russification was intensified, and the policy became official in the late 1960s and continued through the 1980s. Brezhnev declared Russian “the language of the Soviet people” and the “bearer of the Great Soviet Culture.”9 Under the new language decrees adopted by the CKKPSU, Russian had to be introduced in pre-school (even in monolingual Moldovan schools) and had to be studied as a mandatory second language from grade 1 of national schools (i.e., Moldovan-language schools). Military instruction in higher grades was taught only in Russian, teachers were asked to use Russian even for after-school activities in monolingual Moldovan schools and pre-schools, and the number of combined language schools was increased at the expense of Moldovan-only schools. While these policies certainly affected Moldova, nevertheless in 1989 64.6% of Republic’s schools still taught in Moldovan, 27% in Russian and only 8% combined the two languages of instruction (Mlechko 1999). Despite these numbers and most likely due

8

According to Mlechko (1999) in 1989 53.2% of first-year students were taught in Moldovan while 46.8% were trained in Russian. 9 From Prof. Davidson’s handout on Soviet language policies after 1953. Language planning and policy in the Russophone world, Spring semester 2005.

10 to the noticeable increase in the use of Russian in educational establishments, the perception of discrimination in educational sphere remained and even intensified among the Moldovan majority by the end of the USSR. Language demographics may be at least partially responsible for such perception. Census data (Seung-Chul Hur 1988:172) show that in 1959 95.21% of ethnic Moldovans spoke their national language natively. This number gradually declined every 10 years until 1989 when it slightly bounced back: in 1970 – 95%, in 1979 – 93.18%10 and in 1989 – 95.4%. In 1970 2.8% of ethnic Moldovans claimed Russian as their mother tongue; this number increased to 4.2% in 1979 and 4.3% in 1989. Even though learning Moldovan was mandatory for schools of all types, the number of bilinguals in the Republic increased only due to Moldovans learning Russian. Non-Moldovans (Russians or other minorities) rarely learned Moldovan well enough to claim it as their second language (Mlechko 1999). The number of bilingual Moldovans increased by about 10% every 10 years: if in 1970 37.1% of ethnic Moldovans spoke Russian as a second language, in 1979 the number grew to 48.6% and in 1989 it was 53.8% (Seung-Chul Hur 1988:67). For a graphic representation of these percentages, see Table 2.1 on the next page.

10

However, my data for 1959-1979 most likely incorporate Moldovans living outside the territory of the MSSR which would lower the percentage of native speakers of Moldovan and increase the percentage of native speakers of Russian among ethnic Moldovans. The 1989 data show only Moldovans in Moldova.

11

This language demographics shows a fast increasing rate of MoldovanRussian bilingualism, a small decline in the rate of Moldovan language maintenance and a small increase in the percentage of Moldovans claiming Russian as their mother tongue. These changes in combination with the lopsided nature of bilingualism in the Republic created the perception of a dramatic decline of the Moldovan language. Therefore, census data indicate that at the time of independence Moldovan still had a strong position as the primary language among ethnic Moldovans, but the national-Russian bilingualism was increasing at a fast pace. Besides the educational policies and socio-economic incentives, the growing number of assimilated

12 Moldovans may be attributed to the high degree of intermarriages between Russians (or Russian speakers; the ethnicity may or may not be Russian) and Moldovans (in addition to language policies and economic incentives). In 1989 thirteen million Moldovan families were interethnic; in 50% of them one of the spouses was Russian. In 1979 36% of families living in urban centers and 11.3% of rural families were ethnically “mixed” where Russian was most likely the only common language (Mlechko 1999:17). To sum up, educational, ethnic and language policies of the Soviet Union lead to increasing feelings of resentment and animosity among ethnic Moldovans toward Russians who were perceived as usurpers of the status of the Moldovan language and Moldovan/Romanian ethnicity. Democratic movements of the late1980s inspired by Gorbachev’s reforms had anti-Soviet and nationalistic (often translating into antiRussian) components. The Popular Front of Moldova was the main nationalistically oriented organization leading the anti-Soviet protests. Originally, the Front’s goals were recognition of the Romanian/Moldovan as the official language and reintroduction of the Latin alphabet. Notably, out of a myriad of political and economic problems, language issues were placed at the front of political discussions from the very beginning of the independence movement. In 1989, the Constitution of the MSSR was amended by Article 70 which introduced Moldovan as the “state language” written in the Latin alphabet (OSCE report 1994). This step was an equivalent of a declaration of cessation from the Union as by that time the Russian language was recognized by the Union as the only official state language, and no Republic within the Union had the right to challenge that. Then in 1990 Moldova

13 declared sovereignty, asserting the supremacy of the Republican legislation over the Union legislation, and in 1992 proclaimed independence. One of the first laws passed by the sovereign MSSR was “The Law on the Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldovan SSR” which gave Moldovan the official status (государственный язык) and assigned Russian the role of the language of interethnic communication. The law specifically states that “declaring Moldovan the official state language will facilitate sovereignty of the Republic and will create necessary guarantees for its realization in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life” (Закон о функционировании языков 1989). Therefore, from the very beginning, the issue of the state language was perceived by the legislators as the defining characteristic of the country’s independence and sovereignty while the de facto abolishment of Russian as the official language was viewed as a threat to their very existence by Russian speakers all over the Republic. That is why language issues, more than anything else, are at the heart of ethnic tensions in the Republic today and were at the center of conflicts in Gagauzia and Transdniestria, the two areas of the Republic where separatist movements took place in the early 1990s. In present-day Moldova, language policies continue to remain in the center of public attention and political discussions. Moldovan language policy has as its goal the assertion of the titular language as the state language de jure and de facto, which means the elevation of its prestige, and increase of its communicative and functional potential through improved language knowledge among non-titular linguistic minorities (Mlechko 1999). The change from a Union republic to an independent state inevitably produced a new balance of languages in the educational sphere to

14 reflect the changing political environment with regards to languages, but the way this process was handled by the authorities in Moldova proved to be rather painful for the society. Since independence, educational and language policies in the Republic have gone through several stages. According to Mlechko (1999), at first, democratic movements of the late 1980s declared the equality of all languages, but in reality these proclamations turned out to be an ideological preparation of the public for the establishment of an ethnocratic regime of the titular majority through language privileges and for the unionist course in international relations (i.e., unification with Romania). The next stage in language policies (1994-1997) is characterized by a relative balance of the opposing forces and, hence, their hidden confrontation. This stage was also the period of reforms in the sphere of education, which on the de jure level attempted to find compromises and create laws that would account for linguistic and educational interests of all ethnic groups. For example, the Law on Education adopted in 1995 declared that the State will ensure the realization of the right of its citizens to choose the language of instruction and upbringing on all educational levels by creating the required number of educational establishments and classes. This statement is in line with the Article 18 of the Law on the Functioning of Languages which guarantees each Moldovan citizen the right to education and upbringing in either Moldovan or Russian on all stages, and pledges to create favorable conditions for citizens of other ethnicities to receive education and upbringing in their native language (Закон о функционировании языков 1989). On the de facto level, however, the actions of the authorities were often in direct contradiction to the de jure

15 proclamations. For example, in the period between 1993 and 1996 a number of Russian language kindergartens and classes in mixed schools were closed by the authorities citing Article 19 of the Law on the Functioning of Languages which stipulated that pre-schools and schools must be established on the principle of monolingualism11. The course of actions adopted by the Ministry of Education with respect to the languages of instruction can be characterized as an immediate and maximally possible replacement of the Russian language with the Moldovan language. If in 1989 59.7% of Moldovan school students received education in Moldovan and 40.3% in Russian, by 1996 this proportion changed to 73% and 26% respectively (Mlechko 1999: 128-146). This change in proportions is explained partially by emigration of the Russian-speaking population, partially by the forced reduction of Russianlanguage classes, schools and kindergartens, and partially by the parental choice concerning the language of education. The changing political and socio-economic situation in the Republic has created more incentives to know Moldovan well. With the changes in the language of instruction in universities in favor of Moldovan (often by illegal methods)12 and talks about national language testing of public employees, many adults probably made the choice in favor of Moldovan even though the quality of education was arguably higher in many Russian-language schools. The same tendencies are seen in higher education. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, high school graduates could receive professional training in either 11

Notably, the law does not state that Moldovan is the only language covered by this principle, merely that whatever the language is, it must be the only language of instruction and upbringing. 12 Mlechko sites several examples when university authorities would declare without prior warning or legal basis for such decision that students in Russian groups would have to switch to Moldovan the following year or hold exams in Moldovan.

16 Moldovan or Russian. In 1989 53.2% of all first-year students in the Republic were instructed in Moldovan while 46.8% - in Russian (Mlechko 1999). By 1998 these numbers changed to 77.6% and 22.4% respectively (ibid.:6313). The apparent decline is not necessarily due to the students’ choice (although choice is certainly a factor), but more the result of the policies of the Ministry of Education. In the mid 1990s the Ministry established a 30% quota for Russian-speaking students in all universities, colleges and vocational schools of the Republic to reflect the 29.5% share of Russian speakers in Moldova 14. In reality, in 1998, Moldovan universities offered education in Russian to 22.3% of its students while colleges offered it to only 8%. In many cases, rectors of the universities and colleges cited directives of the Ministry of Education or ultimatums from their sponsoring industrial enterprises as the reason for such deviation from the law. According to Mlechko, in all state higher education establishments only ¼ of student places is reserved for Russian-speakers and for only 1/3 of majors offered by these establishments (notably, less prestigious or less demanded). These numbers do not reflect the real-life demand for education in Russian since almost 2/3 of private groups in universities, colleges and technical schools are Russian-speaking. Herein lies another inconsistency between the law and practice. By law the government must establish the required number of educational institutions to ensure the right of the citizens to choose the language of instruction and by virtue of the fact that these institutions are state-owned, education in them is free according to the Constitution. However, de facto those who make a choice not in favor of the titular language are forced into private groups and private universities. 13

Further on, all numbers are from Mlechko 1999. This number is smaller than the percentage given earlier in the paper because it excludes the unrecognized Transdniestria. 14

17 Given that Moldova is one of the poorest countries in Europe and half of its population lives below the national level of poverty (Gil-Robles 2000), the set up may be as good as an outright prohibition of Russian as the language of instruction at the university level. It is worth mentioning that Russian-speaking minorities do not demand that Russian exist instead of Moldovan, but rather alongside the state language. The protest movements of the early 1990s pointed out that minorities are very much in favor of bilingualism, not monolingualism, be it Russian or Moldovan (Mlechko 1999). A 1993 sociological poll of the titular population showed that the support for Russian as a second language is also great among ethnic Moldovans: 75% of city dwellers and 68% of those living in rural areas believed that Moldovans should know Russian (Mlechko 1999). Such high support of the Russian language is possibly due to family structure, but also to the economic demand and educational and social possibilities available to Russian speakers. Moldova is a member of the CIS where Russian is the lingua franca. Russia is also Moldova’s biggest trade partner and supplier of oil and gas. Finally, as Mlechko points out, Russian speakers have certain advantages in education because Russian-speaking Moldovans can apply to prestigious Russian universities: «двери в страны СНГ [для молдаван] попрежнему распахнуты, тогда как на Запад едва приоткрыты...» (199:143). Yet despite the support for the Russian language even among the ethnic Moldovan population, education in Russian has been on a decline since the early 1990s. In Moldovan-language schools where the study of Russian as L2 is mandatory, students have only 2-3 hours of Russian language and literature a week, and many schools

18 experience shortages of teachers. With respect to the teaching of Moldovan in Russian schools, similar kinds of problems affect non-ethnic Moldovan students. The level of teaching Moldovan to minority students was officially recognized as unsatisfactory and the lack of qualified teachers of Moldovan as a second language as endemic in 1998 (Mlechko 1999). Balanced decisions with regard to these problems could lead to a harmonious development of ethnic relations in Moldova. However, in practice, language policies and school reforms have become just another form of political confrontation on the question of ethnicity and language. As a result, Moldovan society remains polarized. On the one hand, there are tensions between Russian and Moldovan speakers for linguistic rights. On the other, there is a deep divide among the ethnic Moldovans themselves with regard to their cultural and linguistic selfidentification. Some consider themselves Moldovans speaking Moldovan, others argue that they are Romanians speaking Romanian, and still others will define themselves as Moldovans speaking Romanian. There are inconsistencies even at the state level. The Moldovan constitution defines the state language as Moldovan while the Ministry of Education uses the term “Romanian” to refer to the language, its literature and history. The paradox is obvious: Moldovan children regardless of their native language do not study the history of their own country; instead they study the history of Romanians (which includes the Romanian-speaking population on both sides of the Dniestr and excludes other ethnic groups with long historical presence on the territory of Moldova).

19 The inadequacies of existing ethnic definitions are at the core of this paradox. In the tiny Republic of Moldova ethnicity is a complicated issue. For historical reasons, Russian and Romanian speakers comprise the two core linguistic groups in Moldova. Neither of the groups is ethnically homogenous: Russian speakers include Moldovans of Russian, Ukrainian, Jewish, Gagauz or Bulgarian ethnicity (among a few others). Romanian speakers may also include members of the same ethnic groups. Defining ethnic groups in Moldova by the language their members speak may be a solution, but the term “Russian” (русский) can also refer to the citizens of Russia and, therefore, almost automatically excludes the meaning “Russian Moldovans”, i.e., Russian speakers who are citizens of Moldova. On the other hand, “Romanian” is ambiguous because one can never know for certain whether the term refers to the citizens of Romania or the citizens of Moldova who consider themselves ethnically and linguistically Romanian. Similarly, the term ‘Moldovan’ used in reference to Romanian-speaking majority of the Republic contradicts the use of the term to denote citizenship in the Republic of Moldova, which is also the privilege of Russian, Ukranian and Gagauz speakers (among others)15. Attempts by the current president Vladimir Voronin to resolve the ambiguities at least partially by replacing the course “History of Romanians” with “History of Moldovans” and “Romanian language and literature” with “Moldovan language and literature” (as well as giving Russian the status of second official language) have been, on the one hand, widely supported by the popular opinion but, on the other, rigorously protested by the pro-Romanian forces. After years of hot political debates, 15

For a more thorough discussion of the topic of ethnic identity in Moldova, see King 1994 and 1999.

20 the consensus seems to be in favor of “Moldovan” as the term for ethnic Moldovans and “Romanian” as the name of the language spoken by these ethnic Moldovans. Meanwhile the described tensions arousing from language legislature which rests on larger political platforms (unification versus non-unification, ethnic self-identification of the titular majority, state monolingualism or bilingualism) continue to play out on the grass-roots level. People are making choices about the language of their children’s instruction at school, students choose universities based on the languages they offer and these choices are complicated by issues of linguistic and ethnic loyalties, family histories and economic considerations. Today, language use in the Republic is strictly regulated. Moldovan (as the language is named in the Constitution) is the official language of the country while Russian has the status of the language of interethnic communication. All government proceedings, regulations and official bulletins are published in Moldovan. Meetings of legislative or executive bodies are conducted only in Romanian regardless of the percentage of speakers who may not have fluency in this language. For example, meetings of principals of Chisinau schools at the Ministry of Education are conducted exclusively in Romanian16. A new language law for TV, radio and advertisement (Zatusevski) strictly regulates the use of the two languages even in street signs and advertisement, and favors Romanian: if a company wishes to make a bilingual ad, Romanian must be in larger letters and must come first. All street signs are in Romanian, and most businesses (stores, restaurants, banks, and other categories of business) display their names only in Romanian. However, in schools children must

16

In personal conversations with school principals and educational experts from the Ministry of Education.

21 learn both Russian and Moldovan (although as a school subject, the language is called Romanian)17.

2.3. Description of Primary Education in Moldova There are two types of state-funded schools in Chisinau: schools where the language of instruction is Romanian, and schools where the language of instruction is Russian. The system of primary education in Moldova consists of three levels: elementary school (grades 1 through 4), gymnasium (grades 5 through 9 -- American equivalent of middle school) and high school (grades 10 and 11) or lyceum (grades 10 through 12). By law any child must achieve at least the gymnasium level of primary education. After finishing 9th grade, young Moldovans, who are not interested in college education, may join the workforce or may enter a vocational school. If students want to continue their education at the university level, they must receive a so called “complete primary education”, or 11 grades. Lyceums also offer an additional “preparatory” grade (twelfth) which will grant the graduates the degree of Bachelor18 and allow them to begin college education already as sophomores. All lyceums specialize in either hard science or humanities (which include mainly foreign languages). All three levels of primary education are available to Chisinau children in either Russian or Moldovan. There are only a few elementary schools which use Ukrainian or Polish as the medium of instruction. Out of 1,496 primary educational 17

This information was received during interviews with the principals of participating schools and Elena Gorokhova, educational specialist in the Ministry of Education. 18 Many educational specialists are well aware of the inconsistency of their use of this term with its definition in the western education system. It is an officially recognized term and, therefore, is legitimate for Moldova.

22 establishments in Chisinau19, 273 teach in Russian. Out of this number fifty offer lyceum-level education in Russian. Students in Moldovan schools study both Russian and Romanian as two mandatory languages. Students in Russian-language schools must study Romanian for 12 years and pass state exams in Romanian at the end of the 9th and 12th grades (if they are college-track). Students in Romanian-language schools are required to study Russian only for four years of gymnasium (4th through 9th grades) and take qualifying exams in Russian only at the end of the 9th grade. Those who wish to continue studying Russian in lyceums can choose it as an elective. Both Russian and Romanian languages are taught as “integrated” courses which combine the study of the language and its literature. In the 9th grade Romanian-language schools offer Russian twice a week for one hour. Russian-language schools require students to have 4 hours of Moldovan language and literature per week. In all schools children study the history of Romanians; there is no special course on Russian history for the students of Russian-language schools.

19

This number includes specialized schools for the deaf and the blind, boarding schools and private schools. This statistics is provided by the educational specialist Gorshkova from the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately, there is no information on the number of Moldovan-language lyceums; but simple mathematical subtraction suggests a much higher number than Russian-language lyceums.

23 III. Research Methodology 3.1. Description of participants Participants in this study are 15-year-old students of 9th grades in four Chisinau schools: two Russian-language and two Romanian-language lyceums. This particular population segment was chosen for the study because this age group represents a new generation of Moldovans, educated in the post-Soviet educational system and under new language policies. By working with this population segment the author hoped to avoid recording language attitudes characteristic of the Soviet era, and to uncover how current language education policy decisions affect language preferences and attitudes of young citizens of the Republic. The choice of the 9th grade is also not coincidental. Ninth grade is the last grade of the gymnasium, and the students need to have definite plans about their future: to continue on college-track or to join the workforce. Moreover, these plans include choices about higher education and, consequently, choices about the language of education. Therefore, the participants are most likely to have already formed opinions about their language preferences.

3.2. Data collection The data used in this research consist of two parts: 107 written questionnaires and 9 semi-structured oral interviews. The interviews were conducted after the questionnaires, involved the same students, and aimed to elicit more information on reported language use. The author personally administered the questionnaires and the interviews. To respect assumed language preferences, students in Russian-language

24 lyceums were offered the questionnaires in Russian, and students in Romanianlanguage lyceums were offered the same questionnaires in Romanian20. Interviews were conducted exclusively in Russian only because the author cannot speak Romanian. Two versions of the questionnaire (one in Russian and one in Romanian), and a sample list of interview questions are included in the Appendices 1-3. The list of interview questions includes the core topics discussed with every participant, but does not contain all additional questions which were asked to clarify the information supplied by the interviewees. The questionnaires aimed to elicit self-reports on language use, language preference and language attitudes. Participants were asked to report which language(s) they used in the private (immediate and extended family members, and friends) and public (strangers on the streets, in stores, etc.) domains. The questionnaire also asked the participants to choose one language (preferred choice) for reading for pleasure, watching TV and using the internet. Language attitudes were elicited through questions about the perceived usefulness and importance of the non-mother tongue. Participants were also asked to rate their language skills in writing, listening and communicating on informal and formal levels. Thus the questionnaires present a subjective view of the participants. As with any selfreported data, there is a possibility for over-rating and/or under-rating in any of the areas questioned. On the one hand, one area where the under-rating is highly likely

20

From here on, students in Romanian-language lyceums will also be referred to as “Romanian speakers” or “Romanian-dominant”, and students in Russian-language lyceums will be referred to as “Russian speakers” or “Russian-dominant”. The author understands that these terms do not fully describe the participants in the study as Romanian speakers also speak Russian and vice versa, but will use them for simplification. The choice of these terms is possible because they emphasize the subjects’ primary language: Romanian or Russian.

25 to occur is the self-rated language abilities. One obvious problem is the well-known tendency of people, in general, and Slavs, in particular, to downplay their abilities and talents. On the other hand, participants may overstate their enthusiasm about the nonmother tongue because they may feel obligated to do so in order to appear polite. The researcher was fully aware of these pitfalls of self-reported data. In fact, the goal of the study was to understand precisely what young Moldovans thought about the two languages and how they perceived their own language behaviors. Questions of the oral interviews repeated some of the questionnaire questions, but also sought personal anecdotes, examples of situations where participants were forced to make a language choice, and explanations for some of the observed phenomenon. All interviewees also filled out the questionnaire; however, since the questionnaire was anonymous, the researcher never knew how the interviewees answered the written questions. Participants were asked to sign a confidentiality form which guaranteed protection of their privacy. Oral interviews were conducted one on one, and questionnaires were administered in a group with a teacher present in the classroom, but not participating in the activity. The choice of participating schools was determined by Tatiana Mlechko, a well-known sociolinguist in the Republic and the researcher’s Moldovan adviser, who has close working relations with principals of many schools in Chisinau. The main criterion for the selection was the potential openness of the principals toward an outside researcher. The principals then chose the classes to be surveyed using their own criteria. After the administration of the questionnaires, the lead teachers or the

26 principals chose students for individual interviews. The researcher had no opportunity to influence the selection, and there are no grounds to believe that the subjective teacher-initiated selection had any negative affects on the study. Most likely, the choice depended on the grades of the students: the principals and the teachers wished to show-case their school and selected academically talented students for the interviews. The project was presented to the subjects as a sociolinguistic study sponsored by an American university and, immediately attracted a lot of attention. Judging by the interest and feelings of amazement among both the students and teachers (or principals), it seems natural to conclude that participation in such foreign-led research was viewed as a high-prestige event and a chance to have an interesting encounter with a foreigner. The ethnic identity of the researcher also caused a lot of curiosity. Although the researcher stated that she was a Russian living and working in the U.S. who has close ties with Russia, the participants seemed to focus on the U.S. portion of her identity. Several interviewees even offered to answer the interview questions in English. Overall, such attitude helped to maintain a relative neutrality of the study as both Russian and Romanian-speaking participants seemed to view the researcher as a welcomed outsider rather than a pro-Russian or a pro-Romanian investigator with pre-formulated opinions and certain ethnic loyalties21.

21

The issue of ethnicity was one of the difficulties in this research. Not only the researcher had to be aware of her own ethnicity and what it meant to the participants, she was warned not to ask any explicit ethnicity-related questions. Ms. Mlechko, the researcher’s Moldovan advisor, stated in a personal communication that president Voronin issued a ban on all ethnicity-related research in the Republic fearing the escalation of political tensions centered around the questions of ethnicity and language.

27 Both types of data collection methods aim to survey opinions of Moldovan teenagers on the issue of language preference and use. The research focuses on reported language behavior rather than the actual one. The author also conducted participant observation while in Moldova. Some observations supplement the discussion of the data when appropriate and necessary. The discussion of the findings is also supplemented by unstructured interviews with a leading sociolinguist of the Republic, Tatiana Mlechko, and a Russian-language education expert from the Ministry of Education, Elena Gorshkova.

3.3. Data analysis The questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS data base for percentages and and correlations of various categories of data based on Pearson and Spearman formulas. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The transcribed interviews were then analyzed using open and axial coding techniques as described in Strauss and Corbin’s “Basics of Qualitative Research” (1998). Using these techniques, known as grounded theory, the researcher was able construct a theoretical explanatory scheme from raw data by finding systematic relationships, or patterns, in words and expressions used by the participants of an interview. The researcher used open coding to identify categories in the data and describe these categories in terms of their characteristics and dimensions. Axial coding helped find patterns in the identified categories and classify them into phenomena, conditions, results and

28 actions. The big picture presented in this research emerged in the process of such conceptual ordering of the data.

29 IV. Quantitative Data: Findings and Analysis. Out of 107 total participants 44.9% were male and 55.1% were female. The distribution of language of instruction was slightly in favor of the Romanian language: 46.3% studied in Russian-language schools and 53.7% – in Romanianlanguage schools. For both types of schools, there was a strong correlation between the language spoken with the mother and the language of instruction in school (0.555 on Pearson scale22).

4.1. Reported Language Use Participants were asked to answer which language they normally use with different family members and in various social settings outside their home. 43.9% of the respondents report using only Russian with their mothers, in comparison with 40.2 % who use only Romanian. Another 13% report using both languages. Among the 43.9% who use only Russian with their mothers, 93.8% attend a Russian-language school and 6% attend a Romanian-language lyceum. In comparison, all respondents whose mother tongue is Romanian attend a Romanian-language school. Among students who use both languages with their mothers (13% of total number), only 21.4% chose a Russian-language school while the overwhelming majority (78.6%) go to a Romanian-language lyceum. Interestingly, mothers who use both languages with their children seem to choose the language of the titular majority as the language of instruction for their kids. The percentage using Russian and Romanian with their fathers is equal: 44.9% each. Both languages are reported by 7.5% of the

22

From here on, all correlations are given on Pearson scale. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

30 respondents. Less than 1% report using some other language or Russian and some other language with both mothers and fathers. Even though this percentage is very small, it nevertheless reminds us of the presence of other languages in the Republic. Interestingly, respondents report using Romanian more frequently than Russian with their siblings: 37.4% use Russian compared to 47.3% who use Romanian. Another 12% report using both languages. Oral interviews revealed that some Russian-speaking participants use Romanian with their siblings for practice or to conceal something from their parents who do not speak Romanian as well as their children. Friendships seem to spawn across both languages with 40% of the participants reporting the use of Russian, 35.5% - of Romanian, and 23.4% - of both languages. The data from oral interviews clarifies how the two languages may be used with friends: sometimes respondents speak of a mixture of the two languages, and in other cases they report using mainly one language, but translating the content in the other language. The respondents were asked to report on language use in various social situations: during school recess, in stores, on the streets, in public transportation and in a doctor’s office. Frequent language use was defined as occurring more than 50% of the time, and participants were asked to report only the language used in 50% of the cases or more. There was a strong correlation between the language of instruction in school and the language used during school recess: 45.8% of all respondents stated the use of Russian (compared with 46.3% of all respondents who attend a Russianlanguage lyceum), and 49.5% of all respondents report using Romanian (53.7% of all participants attend a Romanian-language lyceum). Only 4.7% use both languages. In

31 a doctor’s office, 46.7% report using Russian while 40.2% use Romanian and 13% use both. In public transportation and on the streets, 44.9% report using Russian, 32.7% use Romanian (an almost 12% difference), and a significant 22.4% use both languages. Oral interviews data elicit the mechanics of the choice of language for these situations. Interestingly, many participants report a switch in language when they realize that their interlocutor does not speak the language they initially chose for the interaction well. In stores an overwhelming 50.9% of participants report using Russian in comparison to 25.5% who use Romanian; 23.6% use both languages.

Table 4.1. Use mostly Russian 45.8%

Use mostly Romanian

Use both

49.5%

4.7%

At a doctor’s office

46.7%

40.2%

13%

On public transportation/on the streets

44.9%

32.7%

22.4%

In stores

50.9%

25.5%

23.6%

At school during recess

This reported usage is supported by the data obtained through participant observation. Despite the fact that Chisinau is a linguistically and ethnically diverse city, stores cater to Romanian speakers only. All store names, price tags, names of products, manufacturer information, and even street advertisement are in Romanian. Russian speakers who do not know Romanian or do not know it well must ask a sales

32 person to explain basic information about a product. This could explain the reason for a much larger percentage of the usage of Russian in stores. In a local flea market where most people buy their clothing through bargaining (there are no price tags as the price is never fixed), Russian is heard more often than Romanian. According to the researcher’s own observations, sellers greeted their customers in either language, most likely making guesses about their ethnicity by physical appearance. The sales people would quickly switch the language when they realized that their potential buyers do not speak (or, perhaps, do not prefer) the language in which they were addressed. The researcher herself experienced this accommodation strategy. Since the researcher does not speak any Romanian, she had to rely on her Russian. In stores, banks and at the flea market people did not show any signs of irritation or inconvenience communicating with the researcher in Russian. These data show notable differences between private and public domain of language use. In the private domain, i.e., the participants’ homes, overwhelming majority of the respondents report monolingual environment: 43.9% and 44.9 % use only Russian with their mothers and fathers respectively. 40.2% and 44.9% use only Romanian with their mothers and fathers. In comparison, only 13% and 7.5% use both Russian and Romanian with their mothers and fathers respectively. In the public domain, i.e., on the streets, in stores, at school, in a doctor’s office, the percentage of the use of both languages noticeably increases: 23.6% - in stores, 13% with a doctor and 22.4% on the streets or in public transportation. In addition, the analysis of the qualitative data from the oral interviews shows that conversation participants often switch languages in the process of communication if they sense that

33 their interlocutor is not comfortable with the language choice. In fact, these numbers may reflect the language of first choice which opens the communication, and not necessarily the language of the communication itself. Thus, while the private domain seems to be more monolingual, in the private domain people rely on two languages much more often.

4.2. Reported Language Preferences Participants were asked to mark the language in which they would prefer to read for pleasure (outside school), to watch TV, or to explore the Internet. Participants were instructed to mark only one language. Before the researcher administered the questionnaire, she was warned by her Moldovan adviser, Ms. Mlechko, that forcing the respondents to choose only one language would create problems. Indeed, many of the participants stated orally that they had great difficulties choosing only one language for any of the three categories. Current educational policies make foreign language education a priority. Indeed, as the researcher had an opportunity to observe, students in the participating lyceums fluently spoke the two foreign languages they were learning, in addition to the mandatory Russian and Romanian. Most frequently one of the foreign languages is English; the second can be French or Italian or, more rarely, German. The emphasis on European languages is explained by the fact that for many Moldovans travel to a western country is a reality, and most likely, the travel will be for work purposes. Therefore, the ability to communicate in a foreign language is seen as a highly valued skill which is associated with earning good money. The Moldovan economy is still

34 struggling, and unemployment is rampant. Many people seek employment as Gastarbeiters in Russia, Italy, Greece, Germany, England or Portugal. The ability to speak a foreign language well is a tool to get a potential job in a western country. Children often stay behind while their parents settle into a new country. They need to learn the language of their parents’ host country because they often expect to join their parents and may need to continue studying in a new country. Notably, even though Russia is one of the many places where Moldovans seek employment, countries to the west appear to be more attractive because of the higher standards of living even in less affluent countries of Western Europe, such as Italy. Another factor in supporting the high status of foreign language education is the imminent membership of Moldova in the European Union. Joining the EU will open even more doors to the west, and language skills will become even more important. In oral interviews students mention the importance of knowing both Russian and Moldovan, the two high-status languages in the Republic, but also of knowing at least two foreign languages without which, they claim, it is impossible to find a good job. They also state that they have plenty of opportunities for practicing foreign languages they study at school. Local TV stations re-broadcast programs from Russia, Romania, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Great Britain. There are also local stations which broadcast in Russian and Romanian. One has a choice of watching the world news in any of these languages, and many students watch foreign films on TV in the original language without subtitles. The high interest in foreign language education supported by economic need and real opportunities for practice may explain high levels of language proficiency of the participants. Not only they

35 have the opportunity, they are able to read, watch TV and search the Internet in the original language of the source. When presented with a hypothetical situation in which only three books are available: one in Russian, one in Romanian and one in some other language, the participants made the following choices: 56% would prefer to read in Russian, 36 % - in Romanian and 7.6% in some other language (western European languages). Even greater gap between Russian and Romanian surfaced in TV language preference: 78% would watch TV only in Russian, 9.5% - in Romanian and 12.4% in some other language (western European). While it is difficult to explain the difference between Russian and Romanian as the languages of reading preference, given the amount of literature in Romanian available for sale, the gap in language preferences for TV can be explained by the fact that Moldova does not have a strong TV and movie-making industry, and simply does not produce quality entertainment in the Romanian language. Even the neighboring Romania does not compare to the TV entertainment industries of Russia, France, Italy or other European countries. Therefore, the question of preference here may not reflect language preferences per se, rather content preferences. The same holds true for internet language preference, this time the gap is favor of a non-Russian language: only 28.3% would prefer Russian while 32 % would use Romanian and 34% would use English. Six percent of the respondents stated that they would use both Russian and English or Romanian and English, or Russian and Romanian to search the Internet (2% for each group).

36 4.3. Self-rated language proficiency Participants were asked to rate their reading, writing, listening and speaking abilities in both Russian and Romanian. Scores were analyzed separately for students in Russian-language schools and Romanian-language schools. As expected, students rated themselves higher in the language which was also the language of instruction (and most likely the language of their mothers). Self-rated scores decreased with the increased level of formality of the language, e.g., participating in a friendly conversation versus leading a discussion. One hundred percent of Russian-language school students rated their ability to write an informal letter in Russian as “very good”. However, only 27% said the same about writing an informal letter in Moldovan. 70.8% rated their ability to write such a letter as “poor”. The ability to write a formal letter (e.g., a university application) was rated lower in both Russian and Romanian. 91.8% rated their ability to write formally in Russian as “very good” while only 10.6% said the same about writing in formal Moldovan. 74.5% said that they would be able to write a formal letter, but would do it “poorly”. 14.9% reported their inability to write such a letter in Moldovan. In terms of speaking skills, 100% rated their informal speaking abilities in Russian as “very good”. 46.8% said they can converse informally “very well” in Romanian; another 48.9% said they can conserve, but rated their ability as “poor”. Formal discussions, as expected, received lower scores: 93.8% said they can participate in a formal discussion in Russian “well”, and only 8.5% said the same about Romanian . 68% said they could debate in Romanian, but ranked their ability

37 as “poor”; 23.4% declared their inability to participate on such formal level in Romanian. Reading newspapers seems to be the area where students feel most comfortable in Romanian: 60.9% rated their reading abilities in Moldovan as “very good” (in comparison to 100% in Russian). 37% said that they could read newspapers in Romanian, but rated their skills as “poor”. The ability to listen radio news in Moldovan was rated as “very good” by 45.8% of the students (in comparison with 100% in Russian) while 52% rated their skills as “poor”. Two percent of the Russian-language school students would not be able to understand Moldovan news on the radio. Fifty-two percent rate their ability to watch news in Romanian as “very good”, 43.8% rate themselves as having “poor” skills in this area, and 4.2% state that they are unable to understand the news in Romanian. These self-reported scores for reading, writing, listening and conversing in Romanian by students in Russianlanguage schools are summarized in the table below.

38 Table 4.2. Self-rated language skills in Romanian of Russian-language school students Language skill

Can very well

Can, but poorly

Ability to write an informal letter Ability to write a formal letter

27%

70.8%

Unable to perform 2%

10.6%

74.5%

14.9%

Ability to converse informally 46.8%

48.9%

4.3%

Ability to participate in a debate Ability to understand radio news Ability to understand TV news Ability to read newspapers

8.5%

68%

23.4%

45.8%

52%

2%

52%

43.8%

4.2%

60.9%

37%

2.2%

In Romanian-language schools, 94.6% of students can communicate in writing with a friend “very well” in Romanian and 5.4% rank their informal writing abilities as “poor”. Fifty percent rank their writing skills in Russian as “very good”, 40.7% - as “poor” and 9.3% say they would be unable to write a letter to a friend in Russian. Writing a formal letter of application in Russian can do well 40.7% of the students (91% can do it well in Romanian); 50% can write a formal letter, but rank their skills as “poor” (9% in Romanian); and 9.3% say that they cannot write such a letter in Russian. Conversing informally in Russian seems to be much easier for Romanianlanguage school students than conversing in Romanian is for Russian speakers: 75.9% rate their skills as “very good” (96.4% can do it well in Romanian), and only 1.9% report their inability to converse. Twenty-two percent of the respondents state they can converse, but rate their skills as “poor”. The ability to participate in a formal

39 discussion in Russian is rated as “very good” by 35.2% of Romanian-speakers (85.7% can do it well in Romanian). Fifty percent say that they can debate in Russian, but do it poorly (10.7% rank their formal speaking in Romanian as “poor”), and 14.8% percent state that they would be unable to participate in a formal discussion in Russian (3.6% in Romanian). 80% of Romanian speakers rate their ability to read news in Russian as “very good”, 16.4% as “poor” and 3.6% say they cannot read Russian newspapers. The ability to listen to radio news in Russian is also rated high: 89% say they are “very good” at it, only 9% say they have poor skills and only 1.8% are unable to understand radio news in Russian. 92.6% are able to understand TV news “very well”, 5.6% can do it although “poorly”, and only 1.9 % would be unable to understand TV news in Russian. These self-reported scores for reading, writing, listening and conversing in Russian by students in Romanian-language schools are summarized in the table below: Table 4.3. Self-rated language skills in Russian of Romanian-language school students Language skill

Can very well

Can, but poorly

Ability to write an informal letter Ability to write a formal letter

50%

40.7%

Unable to perform 9.3%

40.7%

50%

9.3%

Ability to converse informally 75.9%

22.2%

1.9%

Ability to participate in a debate Ability to understand radio news Ability to understand TV news Ability to read newspapers

35.2%

50%

14.8%

89.1%

9.1%

1.8%

92.6%

5.6%

1.9%

80%

16.4%

3.6%

40 As mentioned in the methodology section, these percentages should not be treated as an objective picture of language abilities of the participants. One obvious problem is the well-known tendency of Slavic people to downplay their abilities and talents. In addition, self-rating lacks the objectivity of an expert’s assessment. Fifteen-year-old students do not possess the required skills to make language proficiency evaluations. Finally, rating such skills as the ability to participate in a formal discussion may, in fact, rate the ability to use logic and argue a point, rather than language proficiency. Indeed, the fact that 6.3% of students in Russianlanguage lyceums and 3.6% of students in Romanian-language lyceums stated that they can participate in a formal discussion in their primary languages only “poorly” does not seem to reflect these students’ levels of proficiency in Russian and Romanian respectively. Most likely, these students rated their intellectual ability to participate in a debate. However, self-rating still provides important information on participants’ opinions about their mastery of the languages, however subjective these may be. Even more importantly, self-ratings indicate the levels of comfort the participants have in using the languages they know in various situations.

The data from the

questionnaires indicate that students of Romanian-language lyceums are more comfortable with Russian, than students of Russian-language lyceums are with Romanian. On average, Romanian speakers rated their comfort level in Russian in all categories as very high 30% more frequently: e.g., 75.9% of Romanian-language lyceum students can carry out an informal conversation in Russian “very well” in comparison with 46.8% of students in Russian-language lyceums who rank their

41 conversational skills in Romanian as “very good”. Even in the categories which were rated as “very good” by the highest percentage of Russian speakers, i.e., watching TV news (52%) and reading newspapers (60.9%) in Romanian, many more Romanian speakers ranked their comfort level in the same categories in Russian as high (40% and 20% more frequently). To analyze self-rated scores even further, we can count both ratings “very good” and “poor” as a positive evaluation of one’s language abilities and as opposite of a negative evaluation “cannot communicate”. After all, “poor” connotes some ability to perform even if the performance is not of high quality. Combining the two positive ratings, we get relatively high percentages of participants who are able to perform in both Russian and Romanian regardless of their mother tongue or language of instruction. 95% of Russian-language lyceum students can communicate informally with varying success in Romanian, and 98% of Romanian speakers can converse with friends in Russian. 90% of students in Romanian-language lyceums can write a formal letter in Russian, and 85% of Russian speakers can do the same in Romanian. These figures are presented in Table 4.4 below. Table 4.4. Language skills

Students in Romanianlanguage lyceums who ranked their skills in Russian as “able to perform” 90.7%

Students in Russianlanguage lyceums who ranked their skills in Romanian as “able to perform” 98%

Ability to write a formal letter

90%

85%

Ability to converse informally

98%

95%

Ability to write an informal letter

42 Ability to participate in a debate

85%

76%

Ability to understand radio news

98%

98%

Ability to understand TV news Ability to read newspapers

99%

98%

96%

98%

4.4. Language attitudes Participants were asked to express an opinion on how important and useful their non-mother language was to them and how eager they were to study this language. The importance of the second language 71.7% of students who reported Russian as their mother tongue stated that to speak Romanian fluently is important to them while 19.6 % had no opinion, and 8.7% stated that it was not important. In comparison, 60.9% of students with Romanian as their mother tongue reported that it is important for them to speak Russian fluently; 12% did not have an opinion, and 24.9% thought it was not important. These numbers may reflect the reality of the current language policies in the Republic. As stated in the literature review, a new language law strictly regulates the use of the Russian and Romanian languages even in street signs and advertisement, and favors Romanian: if a company wishes to make a bilingual ad, Romanian must be in larger letters and must come first. All street signs are in Romanian, and most businesses (stores, restaurants, banks, etc.) display their names only in Romanian.

43 Romanian is the default language of many service providers (post offices, hotels, stores, etc.) although a switch to Russian is immediate if the customer does not seem to understand Romanian well23. Taking these factors into account, it is not surprising that 1/5 of the Romanian-speaking respondents did not think Russian had any importance and almost 3/5 of the Russian speakers reported that speaking Romanian fluently was very important. This is not to say that Romanian speakers did not value Russian at all: after all, almost 2/3 of them stated that the knowledge of Russian is important. Table 4.5. Importance of the non-mother language Important Students in Russian-language lyceums rating Romanian Students in Russian-language lyceums rating Romanian

Not important

71.7%

Indifferent/no opinion 19.6%

60.9%

12%

24.9%

8.7%

The level of enthusiasm to study the second language The participants were asked to express their agreement with the following statement: “I study Romanian (Russian) with great enthusiasm.” The possible choices included: “completely agree”, “agree in general”, “somewhat disagree” (better translated as “agree, but not completely”) and “completely disagree”24. While

23

Participant observation by the author in Chisinau in 2006. The translation of these answer options into English proved to be somewhat problematic. For the sake of clarity, the Russian option had the following possibilities: “полностью согласен», «в общем, согласен», «не совсем согласен», «вообще не согласен». 24

44 this gradation may be difficult to evaluate, it is nevertheless useful. If we assume that “somewhat disagree” (не совсем согласен) connotes at least some agreement, as does “somewhat agree”, then the combination of all three “agree” answers (i.e., completely agree, somewhat agree, and agree, but not completely/somewhat disagree) connotes the idea of general willingness to study the second language. The various grades of agreement with the statement may, in fact, have nothing to do with the desire of the respondents to learn the language, but rather with the level of their satisfaction with the teacher, the textbook or some other element of the learning process. Therefore, the only distinction important in this analysis is that between “eager to learn” (to whatever degree) and “not eager to learn”. 86.4% of participants whose mother language is Russian report that they are eager to learn Moldovan: 6.8% study it with great enthusiasm and 79.6% - with at least some enthusiasm. In comparison, 95.2% of participants whose first language is Romanian enjoy learning Russian: 9.8% do it with great enthusiasm and 85.4% with at least some enthusiasm. Table 4.6. Willingness to learn the non-mother language Eager to learn

Students in Russianlanguage lyceums studying Romanian Students in Romanian-language lyceums studying Russian

Total of those eager to learn

Total of those not eager to learn

With great enthusiasm 6.8%

With at least some enthusiasm 79.6%

86.4%

13.6%

9.8%

85.4%

95.2%

4.9%

45

Interestingly, Romanian speakers are noticeably more willing to learn Russian than Russian speakers are to learn Romanian. There is an almost 10% difference between the number of students in Russian-language lyceums eager to learn Romanian and those in Romanian-language lyceums who learn Russian. The number of Russian speakers unwilling to learn Romanian is almost twice the number of Romanian-speakers unwilling to learn Russian. Whether this statistics reflects family attitudes, natural flexibility of speakers of Romanian or some other factors remains open for discussion.

Usefulness of the second language The participants were also asked to rate the usefulness of both languages (Romanian and Russian) on a 5-point scale, 5 being the highest rank. If we convert the 5-point scale to an American college grade scale of A through F, five will be the equivalent of A, four will be the equivalent of B and 1 will be the equivalent of F. If we think of the score three (the equivalent of a grade C) as the passing grade, we can say that everything about this score and including it signifies various degrees of importance whereas everything below – those of non-importance. The data from the questionnaires show that 93.5% of respondents from both school types consider Russian useful and 93.3% consider Romanian useful. Of the former, 75.7% think that Russian is very useful (scores 4 and 5 together) and of the latter, 76.2 think that Romanian is very useful. If we break it down by school type, 85.4% of Russianlanguage lyceum students find Romanian useful (55.3% rank it as “very useful”), and

46 87.9% of Romanian-language school students find Russian useful (56.9% rank it as “very useful”). If we break the data by mother language, 88.2% of Russian speakers believe Romanian to be useful, 83.7% of Romanian speakers think Russian to be useful, and 100% of students who use both languages with their mothers (13% of the total number) find both languages to be equally useful.

Table 4.7. Usefulness of the non-mother language

All participants regardless of school or mother tongue

Russian is useful

Romanian is useful

Russian is very useful

Romanian is very useful

93.5%

93.3%

75.7%

76.2%

Students in Russianlanguage lyceums

85.4%

Students in Romanian- 87.9% language lyceums Students who report using Russian with their mothers

55.3% 56.9%

88.2%

Students who report using Romanian with their mothers

83.7%

Students who report using both languages with their mothers

100%

100%

47 There is a noticeable discrepancy between the ratings of usefulness and importance: while only 71.7% of students who reported Russian as their mother tongue stated that to speak Romanian fluently is important to them (Table 4.5), 88.2% found the language to be useful – a difference of 16%. Similarly, only 60.9% of students who speak Romanian with their mothers reported that it is important for them to speak Russian fluently (Table 4.5); yet 83.7% believed the language to be useful – a difference of 22%. One reason why participants may rate languages as useful higher than important may be their perceived need of the language for higher education. The greatest percentage of all respondents state that they plan to attend a Romanian language university in Moldova (32.7%). Russian-language universities in Russian and Romanian language universities in Romania share the second most popular choice (21.5% and 20.6% respectively). Russian language universities in Moldova occupy the third place in this ranking. Therefore, the data show that 53% of the respondents plan to continue their education in Romanian while 41% plan to continue in Russian. If we break down this data by school type, we will see that 89.8% of students from Russian-language lyceums will go to Russian-language universities in either Moldova or Russia, only 2% plan to receive higher education in Romanian in Romania, and 8.2% will attempt to go to a western university with a European language of instruction. In comparison, 96.5% of students from Romanian-language lyceums will choose Romanian-language universities in either Moldova or Romania, and only 3.4% plan on studying in a Russian-language university in Moldova.

48 Therefore, while participants may rank their second language as not so important, they recognize the usefulness of that same language if only this usefulness is measured by their plans to receive higher education in this language.

4.5. Some correlations As expected, mothers seem to have a significant influence on the child’s language attitudes and preferences. There is a strong correlation between the language used with mother and the language used for instruction in school (r = .555), which in its own turn, correlates strongly with the preferred language for higher education (r = .510) and the preferred language of reading for pleasure (r = .624). The language used with mother also correlates moderately with the perceived usefulness of that language (r = .333 for Russian and r = .300 for Moldovan). Fathers also influence language attitudes, but the correlation between the language used with the father and the perceived usefulness of that language is somewhat weaker (r = .228 for Moldovan and r = .266 for Russian). The language used with the mother tends to be the language spoken also with the father (r = .694), maternal grandparents (r = .572 and r = .523), fraternal grandparents (r = .66 and r = .491) and siblings (r = .444). The language spoken with the father tends to also be used with his parents, both mother and father (r = .659 and r = .737 respectively) while the language used with the mother is also the language used with her parents (r = .572 and r = .523). These numbers suggest a rather homogenous picture of language usage in the immediate family and the nearest extended family which includes only grandparents from both

49 sides. The date from oral interviews below will show that this homogeneity only appears to exist. In reality, language use even within families is much more complex. Statistical correlation of the categories of usefulness and importance of second languages showed that those who strongly agreed with the statement that to know the second language (either Russian or Romanian) was important, also said that it was highly useful (r = .688 for Russian-speakers about Romanian, and r = .602 for Romanian-speakers about Russian). Those, who found their second languages important and useful, also reported studying it with enthusiasm.

Table 4.8. (A). Romanian-dominant speakers’ attitudes about Russian

Importance of the second language Usefulness of the second language

Enthusiasm for the study of the second language r = .658 r = .625

Table 4.8. (B). Russian-dominant speakers’ attitudes about Romanian

Importance of the second language Usefulness of the second language

Enthusiasm for the study of the second language r = .596 r = .549

50 Those who ranked usefulness of Russian as high tended to see usefulness of Romanian as lower and vice versa (-0.438). Only those participants, who reported using both languages with their mothers, rated both Russian and Romanian as equally important and useful. Again, this negative correlation may be explained by the preferred language for higher education, language for reading (0.619 for Russian and 0.385 for Romanian) and TV preference (0.408 for Russian and 0.183 for Romanian), and the language used with mother (0.3 correlation for both languages). However, the crucial point in this correlation is that the tendency was to rank the usefulness of the second language lower, not to completely discard it.

51 V. Qualitative Data: Findings and Analysis The analysis of the data from oral interviews allows to explain some of the reported behavior and attitudes: e.g., self-assessment of language skills and language preferences. More importantly, qualitative data collected in this study allows to uncover the motivation for such attitudes and behavior.

5.1. Participants’ self-assessment of L2 skills and their view of the language relations in the Republic The data show that the participants are very well aware of the bilingual nature of their community. Almost all of the participants used the words “all” or “everybody” when describing language skills of their fellow citizens: •

“вот все знают многие языки. Ну например, русский и румынский обязательно и... разговаривать и общаться – это не очень-то сложно”

•

“у нас румынский, русский - это два языка”

•

“Ну мало таких детей, которые не понимают русский, может не разговаривают хорошо, но понимают”

•

“обязательно те, кто говорят на молдавском, слегка понимают русский и наоборот”

Interestingly, the word “bilingualism” never comes up in the discussion paralleling the absence of this term from the jargon of educational and language policy documents. Still, the participants immediately create a bilingual image of their country where “all” speak or at least understand both languages albeit to varying degrees. In comparison, when they describe their families, most interviewees

52 indicate only one language which is used on a daily basis in the home, either Romanian or Russian. This monolingual image fades away very quickly as soon as participants start talking about everything that is outside the immediate family circle: i.e., close and distant relatives (grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles; the latter may be related either by blood or marriage), friends, neighbors or strangers on the street. Out of nine participants only two stated that both languages were used at home. In one case both parents spoke both languages to the interviewee, and in the other - the participant spoke Romanian with his mother and Russian with his father (Russian was spoken when the family was together). The data, therefore, indicate that even in mostly monolingual families the second language (Russian or Romanian) has a definite presence. This data confirm the analysis in the previous section which uncovered a divide between a more monolingual private domain and a more bilingual public domain. However, this data also show that the private domain may not be as monolingual as it seems to be: i.e., beyond the immediate family second language becomes essential. Interestingly, Russian as a second language seems to play a larger role in the lives of Romanian speakers than Romanian in the lives of Russian speakers. All five participants from Romanian-language schools indicated that Russian was used not only with some neighbors and friends; but, most importantly, it was necessary for communication with family members (immediate and distant). Although Russianspeaking interviewees also reported using Romanian, their second language, with some friends, only one student reported the use of Romanian with relatives (uncles, aunts, cousins). This finding may reflect the Soviet tendency of Russian being the

53 dominant or only language in mixed families. After all, the interviewees’ parents grew up during the Soviet Union when Russian had the high-prestige status as the language of upward social mobility, and mixed families facing the necessity to choose one language to raise their children, adopted Russian as the only or the dominant language of the family.

5.2. Ethnicity and language As indicated in the review of language and ethnic policies, defining ethnic groups in Moldova is a complicated task. None of the existing labels for the two major ethnic groups (Russians, Moldovans, and Romanians) can adequately express the complexities of linguistic and cultural identities of the people living in the Republic. Yet the necessity to refer to the out-group exists on the every-day basis. The data show that participants have found a way out of the labyrinth of inadequacies of the existing uncompromising ethnic terminology. They use a variety of words and phrases to refer to the out-group members. The interviewees seem to avoid using such categorical ethnic labels as “русские” or “молдоване” or “румыны”. Even when they use these terms, they also employ some other expressions, such as “русскоговорящие”, “румыноговорящие”, “которые больше по-русски общаются”, “которые больше на румынском разговаривают”, “молдовоязычные” and “с Молдавии25”. Notably, most of these ethnic designations are based on linguistic affiliations. Two of these terms “которые больше по-русски общаются” and “которые больше на румынском

25

This last term is quite ambiguous in and of itself as in one case it was used to underline Moldovan/Romanian ethnicity and in the other - Russian ethnicity, but Moldovan citizenship.

54 разговаривают” underscore the bilingual character of the Republic’s population, a fact which participants also emphasize by reporting that “everybody” in their Republic speaks or at least understands both languages.

5.3. Participants’ language preferences Despite the fact that Russian-Romanian (or Romanian-Russian) bilingualism characterizes the Republic of Moldova as reported by the participants themselves, both groups (interviewees from Romanian- and Russian-language schools) often do not make a distinction between a second language and a foreign language. Two out of five Romanian-school students and one out of four Russianschool students referred to their second language (Russian for the former and Romanian for the latter) as a foreign language (along with Italian and English). However, when asked to rate which of their “foreign” languages they knew better, the participants overwhelmingly referred to their second language: “Конечно, русский”, «Думаю, что русский, конечно, лучше» and “Румынский – роднее, изучаю его с садика». The fact that several participants did not make a distinction between a second and a foreign language may be explained by the communicative approach to teaching all languages in Moldovan schools. The lyceums which participated in this study specialize in foreign languages. Two of the three lyceums require intensive study of two foreign languages in addition to the mandatory study of the second language (Russian or Romanian). The ease with which students in the participating schools can converse in English (a foreign language) is comparable to that of communication in Russian or Romanian (their second languages). Therefore, in the

55 eyes of many participants foreign and second languages are equal in that neither is acquired in early childhood in the immediate family, but both can be successfully used for interpersonal communication26. When asked to elaborate on the degree of comfort the participants have speaking their second languages, several presented a very positive description: e.g., “Никакого дискомфорта не ощущаю в языках” and “Ну мы всегда понимаем, мы и по-русски, и по-молдавски...” However, some interviewees reported that they were not completely at ease speaking their second language and that there were hypothetical situations in which they would avoid using their second language. The main reasons for avoidance included lack of sufficient knowledge of the language to elaborate on complex topics (such as healthcare or politics), fear to halt the conversation, better ability to represent oneself in the first language, and unfriendliness of the interlocutor: •

Ну когда я знаю, что человек намного лучше меня знает румынский, вот именно румынский, не молдавский обычный разговорный, то приходится очень сильно напрягать память, вспоминать все слова, то мне проще будет на русском говорить. Хотя могу и по румынски, но для меня это будет сложнее. Будут такие запинки, остановки длительные. Мне комфортнее будет на русском.

•

- Бывает. Вот если про тему я не смогу разговаривать, может быть не буду знать, как хорошо выразиться. - А какие темы? (interviewer’s question)

26

Interestingly, the schools curricula make no distinction between a second language and a foreign language. In turn, the students regard all languages which are not their first or home languages as foreign. The amazing fact is that in a largely bilingual country where Moldovan (Romanian) has the status of the official language and Russian has the status of the language for interethnic communication, the term ‘bilingualism’ is absent even in educational terminology.

56 - Если точно – политические темы, ну слова, которые тяжело выразить или сказать. А так, разговаривать я свободно могу и комплексовать не буду. (Romanian speaker about Russian). •

Политика – точно не мое. Мединицинские термины есть такие, которые я бы точно не смогла объяснить (Russian speaker about Romanian).

•

Сложные вопросы, политика, медицина – я бы не могла по-румынски. Но еще смотря какого возраста люди: если моего возраста, я не буду стесняться ошибок. Если постарше, я постараюсь перевести разговор на русский. Я могу лучше выражаться по-русски.

•

Ну если я не буду им доверять и не буду чувствовать себя комфортно или ... мне эти люди просто не нравятся, я не буду просто говорить.

Notably, none of the interviewees reported their inability to communicate at all. At issue is the degree of difficulty or ease with which participants can converse in their second language, not inability versus ability. This data support the analysis in the previous section which showed that an overwhelming majority of both Romanian and Russian-dominant speakers are able to perform in their second language with some degree of comfort.

5.4. Indicators of tensions between the two language groups The data show that at least some participants are aware of the tensions between their respective language groups. One Romanian-dominant girl talked about her sister who does not seem to have any interest in reading Russian: “Мама говорит, вот у меня сестра не хочет читать. Она понимает порусски, но не может разговаривать, а ей уже 10 лет”. That same girl used the following words to describe a hypothetical situation where a stranger on the street may demand that she use her L2 (Russian) with him: “А если он человек ... станет возмущаться, если

57 он даст какие-то … как бы сказать …. знаки, что знает русский, тогда на русском”. One Russian-dominant girl talked with a certain sense of disapproval that somehow Russian speakers always have to accommodate Romanian speakers even when the former are the majority (normally, according to her, the minority must accept the language choice of the majority): “Ну не знаю, почему-то всегда, я вот обращала внимание, почему-то всегда так, под русских редко подстраиваются, не знаю... может национализм какой, не знаю.” Although these statements serve as a counterpoint to the picture of linguistic tolerance in negotiation of language choice, the discussion of which will follow, we need to keep in mind that only 2 participants made such statements, and, like the others in their cohort, these same participants expressed their willingness to accommodate their interlocutors.

5.5. Speakers’ Accommodation Strategies in a Multilingual Setting. It follows from the description above that the interviewees recognize and appreciate the bilingual environment which surrounds them. They often define the other ethnic group in terms of their linguistic affiliation instead of ethnic characteristics, and recognize that even such ethno-linguistic definition must include a reference to the bilingualism of the group’s members (e.g., those who speak more Russian). The interviewees have to know both languages to maintain kinship and friendship ties even if they may live in monolingual families. In fact, they do use both languages if not within their immediate families, then with other relatives, friends, neighbors and strangers. The degree of ease with which they communicate in their second language may vary, but communication itself is never a problem.

58 If everybody can speak or at least understand both languages (as reported by the interviewees), how then do the participants in a conversation choose a language of communication? The answer to this question can be traced throughout all nine interviews and represents the core category of this study. Negotiating language choice in interpersonal communication depends on how much previous knowledge about interlocutor’s27 linguistic affiliation one has. If the interlocutor is a total stranger, one set of strategies is used. If the interlocutor is somebody a participant knows well enough, another set of negotiation strategies is employed. The most striking feature, however, is that in both cases the negotiation is driven by the desire to accommodate the other person: «Конечно, буду разговаривать на том языке, на котором этому человеку будет удобнее. Зачем же человека мучить, если мне это легко.»

5.5.1. When language affiliation of the interlocutor is not known Eight out of nine study participants reported that if a stranger approaches them on the street and asks them a question, they will reply in the same language: “Спрашивают на русском, отвечаем на русском.... чтобы ему было легче понять” or “Ответила бы на румынском. Без проблем”. The conversation will continue in the initially proposed language unless there are indications that the stranger started out in his L2, probably making erroneous assumptions about the interlocutor’s [i.e. the participant’s] language affiliation. For example, participants reported that if they hear a heavy accent in the speech of the stranger, they will make

27

Here and further “interlocutor” is defined as a conversation partner.

59 a guess that the language the stranger initially chose is not his L1, and will attempt to switch the language of the conversation “to make it easier” for the stranger. In the situations when the participants themselves must initiate an interaction with a stranger on the street, they will reportedly use one of two strategies. Most of the interviewees (7 out of 9) stated that they will begin by using the language they consider their mother tongue, the “we-code”28. If the communication proceeds without halting and if the interlocutor looks comfortable speaking the language which initiated the interaction, the “we-code” will be preserved. If, however, the interlocutor shows signs of discomfort with the language or struggles to explain himself, the participants will switch to the other major language of the Republic to accommodate the interlocutor (the switch is for the “they-code”). Participants also reported that if they hear a strong accent in their interlocutor’s speech, they will hypothesize that for that person the language chosen by the participant (his or her “we-code”) is a second language. In this case, the participants reportedly will either switch to the hypothesized native language of their interlocutor without warning or will ask a direct question to find out whether the interlocutor would prefer to converse in his or her native language (the participants’ L2). The second strategy which only three participants reported is to attempt to guess the stranger’s language affiliation based on his/her clothes, manners or physical characteristics. A Russian-speaking girl from the Russian-language lyceum stated that she can often guess whether a person is ethnic Moldovan or Russian: 28

Here and later the terms “we-code” and “they-code” are from Gumperz, J. Discourse Strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. The definition of the term “they-code” has been modified: here it simply refers to the second language, which is emotionally closer than a foreign language, but is not a mother tongue. Both “we-code” and “they-code” refer to either majority or minority groups in the Republic, unlike Gumperz’s definition.

60 Посмотрю на внешность. Если внешность русская – тогда по-русски. Здесь еще можно отличить городских от сельских. Сейчас очень много приезжают из села. Они отличаются поведением. Может быть не такие культурные, одеты не так. Русские более аккуратные в одежде, более культурные. И еще у молдаван глаза карие и они темные. Another female participant from a Romanian-language lyceum reported different criteria for deciding the linguistic and ethnic affiliation of a stranger: •

“Русские... они по-другому или одеваются... я вот не знаю, вот я могу сравнить румынских и русских, потому что не знаю... И по внешности. Мне кажется, что наши молдаване чуть поскромнее, чем русские, не знаю, мне так кажется.”

•

“Ну... смотря на человека, на его вещи, ну образ и его вещи, зависит... можно... могу отличить вообще не знаю.... но обычно на румынском. А если что не понимает, на русском.”

All three participants stated that these criteria are not the most reliable way to determine language affiliation of a stranger and that all three have made mistakes in the past trying to use these criteria: “…на местности определить можно. Но тоже можно попасть... 50 на 50.” Nevertheless, they report the use of this strategy of using behavior and appearance clues to identify a stranger as a speaker of Russian or Romanian. Notably, these participants also state that they will accommodate the interlocutor if they realize that they have made wrong conclusions about the stranger’s native language. Finally, two participants reported that if the interlocutor appears unfriendly or refuses to speak the language of participant’s choice, even though theoretically he can do so well, they will choose not to accommodate the interlocutor and possibly will withdraw from the conversation completely.

61 To sum up, all nine participants claim they will “help” the other, by using the language this person speaks natively or more fluently. The initial language choice depends mostly on the native language of the participant: those who speak Russian as a mother tongue reportedly begin conversations with strangers in Russian and those who speak Romanian natively will prefer Romanian. Three out of nine participants will hesitate with the initial language choice and will try to assess the strangers’ physical traits in search for clues of their linguistic affiliation. The negotiation of language choice leading to a switch in languages will begin only if there are indications that the initial choice does not facilitate the conversation.

5.5.2. When language affiliation of the interlocutor is known The data show that participants use a variety of social factors to negotiate a choice of a language for interpersonal conversation with friends and relatives whose language affiliations are obviously known. Notably, just as in the case with strangers, the guiding principle of language negotiation is the desire to accommodate the other. Participants indicate the following factors influencing the choice of a language: 1) Number of speakers of each language participating in the conversation. Often this number depends on the location of the participants. The most significant factor in this respect is city versus village divide. As stated in the previous section of this paper, cities in Moldova are ethnically mixed. The majority of Russian speakers live in the cities since the Soviet times whereas Moldovan speakers typically remain in rural agricultural areas. Two participants from Russian-language schools reported that they used Romanian with their friends

62 in the villages where their relatives live. However, the city-village divide is not the only factor influencing the number of speakers. Participants report that many friendships are based on attending a common school. Therefore, students of Romanian-language schools will have mostly Romanian-speaking friends attending the same Romanian-language school and vice versa. The city neighborhoods, however, are not ethnically segregated, and many participants report having friends from their neighborhood who may or may not have the same first language. 2) When ethnically mixed companies get together, personal beliefs about language etiquette play a big role in choosing a language of conversation. Some participants state that a minority must accommodate the majority and try to participate in a conversation in the language of the majority: for example, “должны подстроится те, кого меньше, под тех, кого больше, но обычно получается наоборот”. Others believe that the majority has a duty to include the minority in the conversation and this often involves switching to the language of the minority: for example, “если меньше людей знают русский, мы подстраиваемся под них, если они плохо знают”or “вообще по этикету положено, когда человек не знает какого-то языка, один из всей группы, то надо разговаривать на языке, который понимает этот человек”. 3) In mixed companies one group will invariably have to speak their L2. The level of L2 knowledge may vary from speaker to speaker, and for some the non-mother language will be rather difficult. Many participants from

63 Romanian-language schools report that their Russian-speaking relatives who understand and speak Romanian as L2 have difficulties maintaining a fluent natural conversation in this language. Such difficulties in using L2 will play a role in negotiating a language of the conversation. These factors cause the participants to choose a language of communication if they want the conversation to continue and the friendship and kinship ties to develop. All participants report that their choice is guided by the desire to help the other person: "Наверное все-таки помогу этому человеку и отвечу на молдавском, если я могу с легкостью, а ему трудно” or кому легче на русском, то я с ними на русском буду разговаривать, потому что я понимаю, что им тяжело... русским тяжело усваивать наш язык, поэтому... мне не было так тяжело, поэтому я думаю, чтоб легчe. Such desire to help, to make it easier, to accommodate is not surprising, considering that friends and relatives have a great social significance in our lives29. Accommodating linguistic needs of others allows the interviewees to preserve kinship and friendship ties and, therefore, can be viewed as a strategy for developing and maintaining social networks. On the level of implementation this accommodation strategy can be carried out in several ways: 1) Participants often report using both languages in mixed companies. Sometimes two languages are spoken simultaneously: different languages are used for different people – “с теми будем говорить так, а с этими.... Каждый что понимает и что знает”. At other times conversation participants will speak in their L1, but listen in their L2: “мы и по русски и

29

However, willingness to help also extends to strangers. The quotes above refer to friends and relatives as well as strangers on the street.

64 по молдавски. Например, я говорю по молдавски, они меня понимают, а по молдавски они не могут [разговаривать]. И вот так.” 2) Most interviewees reported that they may most likely use their native language in mixed companies, especially if they are a majority, but will always translate (or “explain”) for the other group to make sure that everybody understands the conversation: “Постараемся разговаривать на русском и объяснять им или на молдавском и объяснять на русском” or “Я думаю впревые мы будем разговаривать по-молдавски. Если они нас поймут, то это хорошо. Но если нет, тогда мы переведем по-русски”. 3) As should be expected in bilingual settings, sometimes a mixed company means mixed languages, i.e., elements of both languages are combined in one utterance creating sentences which are unintelligible to monolingual speakers of either language, but amazingly sufficient for bilinguals. Three participants reported mixing languages: “одно слово так, другое так”. 4) One extreme strategy to deal with the negotiation of language choice is to avoid mixed companies all together: “…чтобы не обидеть друга, я не буду звать друга, который говорит на румынский на встречу с другом, который говорит на русском. Просто не хочу так подставлять друзей”. This strategy was reported by one interviewee30.

30

Given the small sample size, it is difficult to make any conclusions about the real scale of such avoidance behavior. Present research will simply acknowledge its existence, although possibly only minimal, in the absence of any other data supporting or refuting this statement.

65 It follows from the above description that in mixed companies of friends and relatives when “everybody” speaks or at least understands two languages (albeit to varying degrees), any conversation involves the negotiation of a language choice. Many factors play a role in what language is chosen. However, the choice is not rigid. As participants report, most strategies for negotiating a language choice make use of both languages. The picture presented by the participants points to the fact that language choice in interpersonal communications in bilingual Moldova is a fluid ongoing process, and can quickly change and adapt to the social characteristics of the conversation participants. The guiding principle in the negotiation of language choice is the desire to help the others to participate in the conversation. With strangers such desire seems to be completely altruistic: the study participants report that they will try to help the person to the best of their ability which often means switching a language to accommodate the linguistic needs of the interlocutor. Friends and relatives have a greater social significance in the lives of the participants, and so accommodating their linguistic needs is mandatory for maintaining valuable social networks of friendship and kinship. Therefore, the willingness to accommodate others is more pressing than the natural desire to use one’s own L1. This conclusion, however, does not claim that participants in the study do not exhibit language loyalties. On the contrary, most of the participants (7 out of 9) referred to only one language as their mother tongue. As I reported earlier, several participants did not even make a distinction between their second language and their foreign languages. Many participants live in families where only one language is spoken on a daily basis and use the same language with the majority of their friends.

66 Most participants reported that they would first use their mother tongue if they have to ask a stranger on the street for directions. The switch in the initial language choice would take place only if there were an indication that the stranger would prefer a different language, especially because the switch would make it easier for him/her to converse.

67 VI. Conclusion. It follows from the discussion above that despite the official language policies, which seem to run on a Romanian–only course, and despite the claims some politicians make with regard to the alleged desire of the titular majority to have a Romanian-only country, the data of this study show that both the Romanian and Russian languages are indispensable for the citizens of the Republic, as they allow people to maintain valuable social networks of friendship and kinship. The data also show that, notwithstanding some indicators of tensions between Russian and Romanian speakers, both linguistic groups have an intuitive desire to accommodate linguistic needs of their conversational partners even when they are strangers by switching the language of the interaction. By doing so, participants in a conversation strive to achieve social harmony and make communication more effective. Notably, none of the participants reported that they would insist on using only their native language in a conversation with a person who would be more comfortable speaking a different language. They would not oppose a language choice made for them by a stranger on the street whose L1 is different from the participants’ L1, and overwhelming majority of the interviewees (8 out of 9) would continue the conversation in the language chosen by the stranger. Finally, the participants view Moldova as a bilingual country where two languages, Romanian and Russian, have a clear presence. They talk about bilingualism of “everybody” in the Republic as a permanent state of being and almost as an inherent characteristic of a Moldovan citizen (as opposed to Romanian monolingualism in Romania and Russian monolingualism in Russia).

68 To conclude, this study shows that there is an apparent disconnect between the official language policies and the grassroots language attitudes. Nationalistic proRomanian groups appear to manipulate the situation to serve their own political agenda, and often claim that they represent the opinion of the titular majority. The peoples’ opinion seem to differ from those of authorities: Moldovans in this study, whether they are primarily Russian or Romanian speakers, are concerned with developing relationships, a process for which both languages are needed. Accommodating others (even when they are strangers and especially when they are friends or relatives) seems to be the practice and the norm in both private and public domains. The present study shows that even when legislative policies demand the opposite, societal pressures will promote bilingualism because the usage of both languages maintains social harmony and makes communication more effective. Despite language policies that favor Romanian monolingualism, the country lives in a bilingual mode, and this is not likely to change as people will continue to want to maintain social networks for which both languages are necessary. Whether the authorities in charge of language and educational policies recognize this fact remains a question.

69 WORKS CITED AND REFERENCED

1. Beebe, L. and Howard Giles. (1984). “Speech-accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second-language acquisition”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5-32.

2. Diller, D., ed. (1993). Russia and the Independent States. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

3. Crowther, W. (1999). “The politics of democratization in post-communist Moldova.” In Dawisha, K. and Bruce Parrott, eds., Democratic changes and authoritarian reactions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. New York: Cambridge University Press.

4. Gil-Robles, A. (2000). Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to Moldova 16-20 October 2000. http://www.coe.int/T/E/Commissioner_H.R/Communication_Unit/Documents /CommDH(2000) Last accessed on 11/08/2006.

5.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

70 6. King, Ch. (1994). “Moldovan Identity and the politics of Pan-Romanianism”. In Slavic Review, 53, (2), 345-368.

7. King, Ch. (1999). “The Ambivalence of Authenticity, or How The Moldovan Language Was Made”. In Slavic Review, 58 (1), 117-142.

8. Млечко, Т.П. (1999). Быть или не быть: Русский язык в системе образования Республики Молдова 1989-1999. Кишинев: «Инесса».

9. Seung-Chul Hur. (1988). Language Shift and Bilingualism in the Soviet Union. Language Aspects of Ethnic Relations. Dissertation, Brown University.

10. Stoianova, A. (2002). National Minorities Education in Moldova: the Legal Framework and Practice. Paper, World Congress on Language Policies, Barcelona, 16-20 April 2002. http://www.linguapax.org/congres/taller/taller3/article23_ang.html Last accessed on 11/08/2006.

11. Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

71 12. U.S. Department of State. (03/13/2003). Moldova. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2002. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18381.htm Last accessed on 11/8/2006.

13. Zatusevski, Ecaterina. “Mass Media and Political Linguistics in the Period of Democratization of Society: Moldovan Lessons.” www.ksg.harvard.edu/kokkalis/GSW3/Ecaterini_Zatusevski.pdf Last accessed on 11/08/2006.

14. Галущенко, О. (2006). «Молдаване: мифы и реальность (поиски постсоветской идентичности в Республике Молдова)». Journal of Eurasian Research, 4(7). http://www.actr.org/JER/issue4/7.htm Last accessed on 11/08/2006.

15. Закон Республики Молдова «О функционировании языков на территории Молдавской ССР». № 3465-XI от 01.09.89. www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Moldova/Moldova_Language_Russian. htm Last accessed on 11/08/2006.

16. Земба, Т. (2006). «Открывая Молдову». Journal of Eurasian Research, 6(2). http:///www.actr.org/JER/issue6/2.htm Last accessed on 11/08/2006.

72