Language hierarchies in Georgia: an experimental approach

Abstract

How do Georgian citizens of different nationalities evaluate people when they speak in different languages? This article presents the results of three sets of “matched-guise” experiments, a method long used by sociolinguists to evaluate attitudes to different language varieties and their speakers. The results are revealing of the language hierarchies that prevail in Tbilisi and in the southern border regions of Samtskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli (where Georgia’s Armenian and Azerbaijani populations are concentrated). Our results suggest that social rewards for linguistic assimilation from one national group to another are very low in both rural and urban parts of Georgia. These findings show that with linguistic assimilation unrewarded, contemporary language hierarchies leave room for Russian to be sustained as a bridge language between communities. The results also show that native speakers of English are afforded higher social status than native speakers of Russian in Tbilisi.

Figuring Out Who’s Who: The Role of Social Categorization in the Language Attitudes Process

“…Nevertheless, Georgian fluency remains low among the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations in Georgia, and these groups primarily speak their respective heritage languages (i.e., Armenian and Azerbaijani) at home and many still receive primary schooling in these languages (Driscoll, Berglund, & Blauvelt, 2016). 2 The present study examined language attitudes among Georgia's three largest ethnolinguistic groups-Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis-toward two varieties of spoken Georgian: Tbilisi-accented Georgian and Mingrelian-accented Georgian.…”

“…Following independence from the Soviet Union, and during the past decade in particular, the Georgian government undertook efforts to increase proficiency in the state language among ethnic minorities with some success (Berglund, 2016). Nevertheless, Georgian fluency remains low among the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations in Georgia, and these groups primarily speak their respective heritage languages (i.e., Armenian and Azerbaijani) at home and many still receive primary schooling in these languages (Driscoll, Berglund, & Blauvelt, 2016). 2…”

Accepting Alien Rule? State-Building Nationalism in Georgia’s Azeri Borderland

“…Since the anticipation of sanctions from the state or one's social milieu can taint answers to direct questions posed in interviews or in polls, I administered an experiment among 483 Azeri adolescents to disclose their implicit attitudes towards the prospect of becoming Georgian co-nationals, building on an established sociolinguistic technique known as a matched-guise test (Lambert et al 1960;Romaine 1995, p. 289). Political scientists (Laitin 1998;Driscoll et al 2016) have used the technique. Because inclusion can entail different degrees of amalgamation into the titular nation, I adapted the technique and designed the experiment to measure attitudes both towards linguistic integration and cultural assimilation.…”

Weber's secret admirer in the Caucasus: Saakashvili and the nationalisation of Georgia's Armenian and Azeri borderlands

“…Unlike their predecessors in France, the Mississippdaleulni had to contend with the existence of an imperial tongue – Russian – in the national realm (Driscoll et al ). Their efforts to turn the state language into a binding element among citizens could not succeed as long as minorities and Georgians fell back on the Soviet‐era lingua franca during inter‐ethnic encounters.…”