General description of the research

Moscow is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. Apart from millions of visitors that arrive in Moscow from all over the world, the city welcomes massive flows of immigrants mostly from the former Soviet republics who frequently move with their families, including children. It is often the case that the newcomers and their children are only fluent in their native language and may possess limited knowledge of the host country, its language(s), traditions, a fact which considerably hampers smooth integration and access to good quality education. It was precisely the lack of equal opportunities in primary and secondary education that forced the Moscow authorities to establish schools with an ethno-cultural component for the major ethnic minorities (Tatars, Georgians, Jews, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis among others) residing in Moscow on a long-term or permanent basis. The influx of migrant labour in Moscow started shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and continuous till present. Thus, children of different ethnic backgrounds were provided with the opportunity to attend schools where they were not only offered the opportunity to preserve their mother tongue but also learn and participate in national celebrations, dances, songs and, in this way, preserve their ethno-linguistic and cultural capital outside their homeland.  

In this paper, I am going to examine the linguistic profile as well as the socio-cultural transition of students of Georgian descent in the Moscow secondary school with a Georgian ethno-cultural component. The present study aims to investigate the ethno-cultural and ethnolinguistic factors which may influence the process of integration of students of non-Russian ethnic background into the Russian system of education and society in general. In this regard, it is important to look at the measures adopted by the school in an attempt to preserve the ethno-cultural and ethnolinguistic identity of Georgian students. More specifically, I am going to examine whether the transformational processes that are taking place within this ethnic group, have an impact on the students’ linguistic behavior with peers, teachers and parents. Furthermore, it is of high interest to examine to what extent the maintenance of the students’ ethnic language (Georgian) and culture can influence their academic performance in various school subjects taught in a non-ethnic/second-learned language (Russian).

Theoretical framework

In order to address the research question of the present study, ethnolinguistic vitality is used as the basis for the theoretical framework. The theory of ethnolinguistic vitailty was first introduced by Giles, Bourhis and Tyalor in 1977. However, the theory has been modified and refined since then and various contributions have been made broadening the theoretical value of the theory (see Bourhis et al. 1981; Ehala 2010/2011; Karan, 2011; McEntee-Atalianis, 2011). According to Giles et al. (1977) ‘ethnolinguistic vitality’ is the property “which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations”. The vitality of the group under investigation is assessed by three structural components: status, institutional support and demography. In addition to these ‘objective’ assessment of vitality, subjective perceptions of the group’s vitality were studied which could provide a better picture of the character of the integration processes taking place within a particular group. Zoumpalidis (2014) stresses the importance of the country of origin immigrants come from arguing that the group’s link to their provenance could play a role in their language/culture shift or maintenance in the host country. In the present study, the refined version of the ethnolinguistic vitality theory is employed.

Bourhis, R., Giles, H. and Rosenthal, D (1981). Notes on the construction of a ‘Subjective Vitality Questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(2): 145-155. Ehala, M. (2010). Refining the notion of Ethnolinguistic Vitality. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-16. Ehala, M. (2011). Hot and cold ethnicities: Modes of Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2): 187-200. Giles, H., Bourhis, R, and Taylor, D. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (ed). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, pp. 307-349. Karan, M. (2011). Understanding and forecasting Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2): 137-149. McEntee-Atalianis, L. (2011). The value of adopting multiple approaches and methodologies in the investigation of Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2): 151-167. Zoumpalidis, D. (2014). A sociolinguistic investigation of the processes of language shift/language maintenance: The case of Pontic Greeks in Cyprus. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cyprus.