TITLE : THE AMBIGUITY of NATIVE (RODNOI) LANGUAGE and th e
DEGREE of RUSSIFICATION in TATARSTA N
AUTHOR : JERRY F . HOUGH . Duke University
THE NATIONAL COUNCI L
FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEA N
RESEARC H
TITLE VIII PROGRA M
1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W .
Washington, D .C . 20036
PROJECT INFORMATION : 1
CONTRACTOR :
Duke Universit y
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR :
Jerry F. Houg h
COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER :
806-2 4
DATE :
May 21 , 199 6
COPYRIGHT INFORMATIO N
Individual researchers retain the copyright on work products derived from research funded b y
Council Contract . The Council and the U.S. Government have the right to duplicate written reports
and other materials submitted under Council Contract and to distribute such copies within th e
Council and U.S. Government for their own use, and to draw upon such reports and materials for
their own studies; but the Council and U .S . Government do not have the right to distribute, o r
make such reports and materials available, outside the Council or U .S . Government without th e
written consent of the authors, except as may be required under the provisions of the Freedom o f
Information Act 5 U.S.C . 552, or other applicable law .
The work leading to this report was. supported in part by contract funds provided by the Nationa l
Council for Soviet and East European Research, made available by the U . S. Department of State under Title
VIII (the Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983, as amended) . The analysis an d
interpretations contained in the report are those of the author(s) .
THE AMBIGUITY OF NATIVE (RODNOI) LANGUAGE AN D
THE DEGREE OF RUSSIFICATION IN TATARSTA N
Jerry F . Hough
Summary
In the past the West had only census data to assess degrees of Russification among non Russian nationalities . Scholars noted that the Moslem and Buddhist peoples of Russia wer e
resisting assimilation very strongly, if we judge by the percentage - retaining the titular language
as their rodnoi (native) language . Now, however, we can ask these questions in public opinio n
polls . and a study conduced by the author and David Laitin explored language use in grea t
detail in Bashkortostan, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Tatarstan, and Ukraine . In addition . fou r
language questions were included on a 1993 election study in which 1000 respondents wer e
interviewed in each of the 16 former autonomous republics .
The results are striking . The category of rodnoi language turns out to have a very uneve n
relationship to Russification . Large numbers of people who claim the titular language as thei r
rodnoi turn out to have been raised in homes in which Russian was the first language, and the y
now speak Russian with their mother and father . Chechenia and Tuva--and, basically Dagesta n
and Kabarda--have been very slow to Russify, but this is not true of other groups . includin g
Tatars and Bashkirs .
3 .3 percent of Tatars claim Russian as rodnoi language in the census . Among thos e
Tatars in Tatarstan who claim Tatar as their rodnoi language in our survey, 15 percent spea k
Russian with their parents, 31 percent with their spouse, and 34 percent with their oldest child .
4 .6 percent of Bashkirs claim Russian as rodnoi language in the census . Among thos e
Bashkirs in Bashkortostan who claim Bashkir as their rodnoi language, 13 percent spea k
Russian with their parents, 24 percent with their spouse . and 36 percent with their oldest child .
The paper focuses on Tatarstan where 42 language questions were asked a sample o f
nearly 1500 urban Tatars . half of them under 25 in age . The paper shows that assimilation i s
strongly correlated with age, and that of Tatars 18-25 who list Tatar as their rodnoi language ,
27 percent speak Tatar better than Russian . 24 percent speak them equally, and 49 spea k
Russian better . 27 percent of young urban Tatars who claim Tatar as rodnoi language say the y
speak it with difficulty, 7 percent with great difficulty, and 2 percent not at all .
Language use ranges greatly, with high percentages speaking Tatar with grandparents . and a
minority to best friend .
The paper first demonstrates that language use must be understood in very sophisticate d
terms . Second, it suggests, as does Susan Goodrich Lehmann's work on religion using th e
same data set, that we must be very, very careful in assuming that the attitudes of Moslems o f
the local nationality in Chechenia are similar to those in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan . fo r
language use, like religion, correlates with nationalism .
The Ambiguity of Natiye (Rodnoi) Language an d
the Degree of Russification in Tatarsta n
The war in Chechenia is very small and remote and, as such, does not raise that much o f
a threat to Russia, whatever the outcome . The real question about Chechenia is whether th e
revolt within it will remain isolated . Several decades ago John Armstrong and his student .
Brian Silver, emphasized that the Moslem peoples in the Soviet Union seemed to behav e
differently . Silver looked at census data to show that Moslems were not assimilating to th e
Russian language nearly as rapidly as non-Russians who had converted to the Orthodo x
religion .
From this perspective, the situation in the large Moslem republics on the Volga ,
Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, look particularly dangerous . As Table 1 indicates, they have 7 . 5
million people together . Like Estonia and Latvia, they have enough Russians to worry abou t
being swamped, but, unlike Estonia and Latvia, they are located in the center of Russia . an d
Russians would think very differently about losing them than about the Baltic states o r
Chechenia . Furthermore, Table 1, drawn from the 1989 census . shows the same relationshi p
between language assimilation and religion that Silver discussed in the past .
Table 1--The Ethnic Composition of the Populatio n
in the Autonomous Republics of the RSFSR, 1989 ,
By Religion of the Titular Population (In percentages )
Auton
Republic
Total
Population
Percent
Russian
Populat
Percent
Titular
Populat
Percen t
Titula r
Popula t
with Rus s
Nat Lang .
1) Titular Nationalities Who Traditionally Accepted Russia n
Orthodox y
Chuvashia
Karelia
Komi
Mari
Mordovia
N Osetia
Udmurtia
Yakutia
1,338,000
790,000
1,251,000
749,000
964,000
632,000
1,606,000
1,094,000
26 .7%
73 .6%
57 .7%
47 .5%
60 .8%
29 .9%
58 .9%
50 .4%
67 .8%
10 .0%
23 .3%
43 .3%
32 .5%
53 .O%
30 .9%
33 .4%
15 .O %
48 .3 %
25 .6 %
11 .6 %
11 .5 %
1 .8 %
24 .3 %
4 .9 %
2) Titular Nationalities Who Traditionally Accepted Isla m
Bashkiria
Ch-Ing
Dagestan
Kab-Balk
Tataria
3,943,000
1,270,000
1,802,000
754,000
3,642,000
39
23
9
31
43
1
.3%
.1%
.2%
.9%
.3%
21 .9%
70 .7%
80 .2%
57 .6%
48 .5%
4 .6 %
0 .2 %
0 .8 %
1 .1 %
3 .3%
3) Titular Nationalities Who Traditionally Accepted Buddhis m
69 .9%
24 .0%
10 .6 %
Buriatia
1,038,000
37
.7%
45
.4%
3 .9 %
Kalmykia
323,000
32
.0%
64
.3%
O .9%
Tuva
309,000
---------------------------------------------------------------- Source : Natsional'nyi sostav naseleniia SSSR : Po dannyk h
vsevoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1989 g . (Moscow : Finansy i
statistika, 1991), pp . 34-41 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
A huge survey conducted at the time of the 1993 election study included not only a 4000 respondent national sample, but 1000-respondent surveys in each of 51 oblasts and forme r
autonomous republics .' One was done in each of 16 former autonomous republics of Russia .
When Susan Goodrich Lehmann looked at the questions on religion in this survey, she found a
pronounced difference in religious belief and practice in Chechenia (and Dagestan) compare d
with the other Moslem republics . The people in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan were much mor e
secularized, particularly younger people in the cities .
yazykThe same survey included a number of questions on language use--not only rodno i
(the key question on the census), but also the language spoken with father, mother, spouse, an d
first child . When this data is analyzed . it shows that the census category "rodnoi yazyk"
is
extremely unreliable and clearly is used in different ways in different republics .
Table 2 would, in fact, have predicted that the Chechens were the most dangerous of th e
non-Russian peoples in Russia, but in a number of other cases--including Bashkortostan an d
Tatarstan--the official native language (rodnoi yazyk) figures could suggest a far greate r
resistance to Russification than is actually occurring . Lehmann's work on secularization amon g
the Bashkirs and Tatars point in the same direction as the language data .
1The survey was funded by the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation . the
Brookings Institution, and the National Science Foundation (SBR-94-02548 and SBR-94 12051) .
2
Table 2--Use of Russian by Titular Nationalit y
Russian Republics, December 199 3
Percent Who Speak Russian wit h
%Titular Popula t
whose rodno i
language is Rus s
(1989 Census)
Republics
Chechenia
Dagestan
Tuva
Kabarda
North Osetia
Tatarstan
Kalmykia
Bashkortostan
Yakutia
Buriatia
Mordovia
Mary
Chuvashia
Udmurtia
Komi
Karela
Father
1%
6%
3%
6%
14%
15%
49%
14%
9%
22%
18%
22%
15%
28%
32%
36%
0 .2%
0 .8%
0 .9%
1 .1%
1 .8%
3 .3%
3 .9%
4 .6%
4 .9%
10 .6%
11 .5%
11 .6%
15 .O%
24 .3%
25 .6%
48 .3%
Mother
Spouse
Oldest
Child
1%
7%
3%
7%
18%
15%
52%
12%
10%
25%
20%
22%
14%
28%
29%
33%
2%
8%
5%
11%
23%
31%
58%
24%
11%
32%
46%
31%
22%
41%
56%
57%
2%
12 %
8%
10 %
28 %
34 %
58 %
36 %
14 %
41%
54 %
47 %
43 %
66 %
65 %
63%
-
As part of a study of language use in Bashkortostan, Estonia, Kazakhsta n,Latvi
Tatarstan . and Ukraine that I have done with David Laitin, I have explored use of the Tata r
language among Tatars in larger towns and cities .2 In the urban survey, 93 percent of thos e
who self-identified themselves as Tatars reported that their rodnoi language was Tatar . while 7
percent said it was Russian . Since our survey was limited to the larger cities, the figures ar e
quite comparable with census data . When one examines the testimony of Tatars of different
ages about their rodnoi language, the impression of resistance to assimilation created by th e
census data is strengthened .
Table 3--Percentage of Urban Tatars wit h
Tatar as their Rodnoi Language, By Ag e
98 %
93 %
97 %
92 %
90 %
90 %
Over 65
56-65
46-55
36-45
26-35
18-25
2This was financed by the National Science Foundation (SBR-92-12332).
3
Yet, when one begins to ask deeper questions about language use . a very different
picture emerges . When Tatars were directly asked the question, "What was the language o r
languages that you first learned to speak?," those who listed Tatar as their rodnoi languag e
gave a surprising set of answers .
Table 4--First language of Tatar s
with Tatar rodnoi language
Age
Over 65
56-65
46-55
36-45
26-35
18-25
Tatar
Mixed
RussTatar
95%
88%
84%
82%
79%
66%
4%
8%
9%
8%
9%
17%
Russ
2%
4%
6%
9%
12 %
17%
The question " how well do you know the Tatar language?" produced the sam e
impression .3 Again, the following table is limited only to those who claim Tatar as thei r
rodnoi language, although the second summary line at the bottom on "all Tatars" also include s
those Tatars who list another rodnoi language .
Table 5--Competency in the Tatar Language Among Thos e
Listing it as their Rodnoi Language
Age
Think
in it
Speak
Freely
Spea k
with
Diffic
Over 65
56-65
46-55
36-45
26-35
18-25
74%
52%
57%
43%
46%
29%
23%
31%
30%
37%
32%
36%
2%
12%
10%
16%
19%
27%
Spea k
with
Grea t
Diffic
Don' t
Spea k
at
Al l
0%
3%
2%
2%
2%
7%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
All Tatars , Including Those with Other Rodnoi Languages
5%
18-25
26%
33%
27%
9%
2%
Over 25
47%
32%
15%
4%
3 In Russian, the question was "Naskol'ko svobodno Vy vladeete tatarskim yazykom? "
4
Obviously self-evaluation of fluency in a language can be highly subjective . One can.
however, put the answers in a comparative perspective by asking a comparative question . In
this case the question is obvious : "Which language do you know (vladeete) best?)," giving the
options of Russian, Tatar, and Russian and Tatar equally . (Since Chuvashi in Tatarstan were i n
the sample, the option of speaking the Chuvash language was included, but virtually no Tatar s
selected it .)
Table 6--Language Known Best among Those Listin g
Tatar as their Rodnoi Language, By ag e
Age
Over 65
56-65
46-55
36-45
26-35
18-25
Tatar &
Russian
Equall y
Tatar
68%
56%
45%
36%
36%
27%
21%
19%
24%
28%
28%
24%
Russian
11 %
25 %
31 %
35 %
36 %
49 %
All Tatars, Including Those Listing Other Rodnoi Language s
53 %
18-25
25%
22%
34%
Over 25
41%
25%
In order to study assimilation and its correlates among the crucial younger group . w e
added a supplemental sample of those between the ages of 18 and 25 to the basic sample o f
2000 respondents . Thus the total 2936 respondents in the study include 1212 persons of thi s
age, 598 of them Tatars, and Table 7 is based on the latter group .
Most of the results in Table 7 are quite consistent . A higher percentage of the younge r
generation report speaking Tatar with their parents than members of the older generation repor t
speaking it with their oldest child . This almost surely reflects the fact that all the olde r
generation live in the city and talk with urban children, while some of the younger generatio n
must have parents who still live in the countryside and who have not assimilated as much t o
Russian .
5
Table 7--Response to the question, "In which language o r
languages do you usually converse with the following person s
(or spoke with them in the past if they are now dead)?, Al l
Tatars aged 18-25 and 40-6 0
Aged 40-60
Tat
Mix
Russ
Aged 18-2 5
Tat
Tat
Russ
PaternalGrandmother
Maternal Grandmother
Father
Mother
Spouse
Oldest child when pre-school
Oldest child now
Best friend
Colleagues at work
Direct boss
At bazaar
Language of
written
Language of
Language of
watched
Language of
Mix
Tat
Rus s
Rus s
93%
91%
79%
78%
53%
40%
29%
41%
14%
15%
14%
4%
5%
14%
16%
27%
36%
40%
31%
49%
22%
65%
4%
4%
7%
7%
20%
24%
31%
28%
37%
63%
22%
74%
72%
44%
43%
41%
36%
31%
22%
11%
16%
10%
15%
17%
31%
35%
27%
44%
53%
23%
32%
15%
38%
11 %
11 %
24 %
22 %
32 %
20 %
16 %
55 %
57 %
69 %
52 %
47%
7%
8%
47%
44%
31%
24%
4%
5%
45%
70 %
51 %
2%
5%
86%
51%
11%
44%
2%
4%
70%
32%
28 %
64%
last lette r
newspapers read
televisio n
literature read
Language of instruction in oldest child's . . .
Tatar Russian
Tatar Russia n
Kindergarten
12%
88%
31%
69 %
Elementary School
10%
90 %
Secondary School
7%
93 %
Technicum or College
6%
94 %
The one truly anomalous set of results is the unexpectedly high percentage of younge r
respondents who speak Tatar with their spouse and oldest child and send the latter to a Tatar language kindergarten . This could mark a very important development as parents prepare thei r
children for a bilingual republic . (In Soviet Armenia, in which even college education was i n
Armenian, many educated parents sent their children to Russian-language kindergartens t o
make them truly bilingual and ready for Russian language instruction in school . )
6
However, the statistics on language use between younger respondents and their spouse s
and children are likely, at least in large part . to result from the timing of the survey rathe r
than a sea-change in the cohort born from 1968 to 1975 . The cohort was questioned just as i t
was beginning to marry and have children . As indicated above, most of the answers in Table 7
are based on a sample of nearly 600 respondents . However, only 195 respondents answered th e
question about their spouse, only 138 about their oldest child, and only 90 about th e
kindergarten of their oldest child . Most of those in our sample have not married, fewer hav e
children, and still fewer have children old enough to send to kindergarten .
Young people with lower socioeconomic status tend to marry and have children earlier ,
and such young people are less likely to have assimilated to Russian and/or are more likely to
have married someone of the other nationality who has not assimilated . As Table 8 indicates .
those between the ages of 18 to 25 with children have a very different pattern of language us e
than those without children .
Table 8--Language Use Among Tatars Aged 18 to 2 5
With and Without Childre n
With Children
Tat Mix
Russ
Tat
Russ
Without Childre n
Tat
Mi x
Russ
Tat
Rus s
Language Spoken
with fathe r
71%
18%
11%
36%
35%
Language Spoken
with best frien d
36%
31%
33%
17%
21 %
Language of last
letter written
42%
5%
53%
19%
5%
28 %
62%
76 %
This is not the place to try to determine whether language spoken with others or the languag e
of one's spouse totally explain the lower than expected level of Russian communication betwee n
younger parents and their children . The anomaly is large enough to suggest that the tendency in th e
direction of single-language Russification may not well not be a permanent one . Clearly this is a
subject to which the scholar needs to return in the future .
7