Session Information
31 SES 08 A, Language and nation-building: Hierarchies and outcomes in education
Paper Session
Contribution
Context
Kazakhstan had a tumultuous history as part of the Soviet Union, which laid foundation to the current tension and sensitivity around the linguistic issue. During the Soviet era, use of Russian was strongly encouraged in almost all the spheres of society in the Soviet Republics. As a consequence, “a whole Russian monolingual generation” have appeared, and even if people knew Kazakh they were more likely “passive bilinguals” (Smagulova, 2016, p. 94). In addition, Kazakhstan had a high proportion of Slavic and European population before independence. Consequently, when the ‘iron curtain’ was lifted Kazakhstan experienced en masse emigration of those non-Kazakh ethnic groups, at the same time; the local government started the ‘revitalisation’ of the Kazakh language, culture and nation. The attitude and approach of the government at that time fits well into the framework of ‘nationalizing states’ concept suggested by Brubaker (1996). The main, titular nation of a country, which experienced discrimination before gaining independence and was rendered weak and vulnerable in terms of demographic, economic and social indicators, uses such a position to legitimise and justify its policies and reforms of ‘redeeming’ and ‘compensation’ on behalf of the titular nation (Brubaker, 1996).
During the socio-economic and political upheaval of the early independence days two distinct alliances were formed, so-called nationalists and cosmopolitans (Surucu, 2002, p. 389). After gaining independence, the ethnic Kazakh intellectuals were strongly suggestive of the ‘revitalisation of the Kazakh nationalism’, however they were equally strongly opposed by the Russian-speaking urban elite who were against restoring the Kazakh language and culture (Surucu, 2002, p. 389). The situation represented “a struggle between progressive, modern, secular urban-based multi-ethnic opposition and the backward, Islamic, rural Kazakh nationalists” (Surucu, 2002, p. 391).
Research problem
The interest of Kazakhs in Russian language considerably slowed down according to the growing enrolment rate in Kazakh schools and self-declared proficiency in Kazakh by the younger generation (Smagulova, 2016). However, the socio-economically powerful urban middle-class Kazakhs are rather “ambivalent to the current language policy and the Kazakhization ideology” (Smagulova, 2016, p. 103) and prefer to educate their children in Russian and English because they do not see the “competitive edge” (Reynolds et al., 1998, p. 49) in education in Kazakh. Such attitudes demonstrate that people are mainly interest in the economic aspect of linguistic skills, which is a form of human capital that enables access to wider career choices and better life chances (Smagulova, 2016).
The study of the economic returns to language skills showed that the monolingual Russian speakers reported the highest earnings, whereas the bilingual individuals, despite active political promotion of Kazakh in many spheres of life, reported lower earnings, while people speaking only Kazakh language actually experienced a negative wage premium (Aldashev & Danzer, 2014, pp. 15-16). However, this research was based on the data from 2010, so it is not clear if individuals who speak only Kazakh are still in considerable disadvantage in the local labour market. Besides, due to globalisation the importance of languages of wider communication seem to be growing for career success in Kazakhstan. Bearing all this in mind, this study intends to contribute to better understanding of the educational and economic outcomes of being monolingual versus multilingual in Kazakhstan.
This research aims to investigate using the PISA data along with the official educational statistics and online survey data if there are still educational and economic differences between attendees of Kazakh and Russian language schools after 30 years of independence. The research question that guides this investigation:
What are the educational and economic outcomes of being monolingual vs multilingual in the multi-ethnic context such as Kazakhstan?
Method
This research is based on the analysis of the quantitative data from the online survey, official educational statistics and PISA 2018. I am interested in educational background, language skills and employment status of three groups of individuals: monolinguals, bilinguals and multilinguals. Online survey is used to generate data on demographics, self-reported language levels, average monthly income, occupation sector and status, and use of languages in different contexts. Official educational statistics and PISA data are used to understand the educational differences between the Kazakh and Russian language school attendees. The correlation and regression analyses will be carried out to understand the links between the individual characteristics such as education, age, earnings and language skills.
Expected Outcomes
I expect to see a strong relationship between place of residence and proficiency in Kazakh and Russian languages. Young people will still prefer Russian and English to Kazakh when engaged with modern social media and surfing the Internet, due to the little presence of Kazakh language information on the web and dominance of Russian and Western popular culture in the country (Kuzhabekova, 2019). When there is not enough content in Kazakh across different contextual situations, people become less engaged in the target language and less motivated to learn and use it (Kuzhabekova, 2019). I also expect to see linguistic segmentation of labour market in the country, when the lingo-ethic background might influence the professional engagement of monolingual individuals. As a result, the returns to speaking the official state language Kazakh in a multilinguistic society might still be not much. Considering that after 30 years of independence, Russians make up 18.5% of total population (Stat.gov, 2021), which means that Russian-speaking minority will continue being a considerable part of the country’s population. Kazakhstan is going to remain socioeconomically involved with Russia as the chief economic and strategic partner, thus Russian language will continue to have a significant economic value in the Republic. At the same time, with increased revitalisation of Kazakh language (Smagulova, 2016) the number of people seeing more future possibilities of Kazakh language skills could also be on the rise.
References
Aldashev, A., & Danzer, A. M. (2020). Linguistic Fragmentation at the Micro-Level: Economic Returns to Speaking the Right Language(s) in a Multilinguistic Society. The Journal of Development Studies, 56(12), 2308–2326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1779927 Azam, M., Chin, A., & Prakash, N. (2013). The returns to English-language skills in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 61(2), 335-367. Di Paolo, A., & Tansel, A. (2015). Returns to foreign language skills in a developing country: The case of Turkey. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(4), 407-421. Fierman, W. (2005). Kazakh Language and Prospects for its Role in Kazakh" Groupness". Ab Imperio, 2005(2), 393-423. Fierman, W. (2006). Language and education in post-Soviet Kazakhstan: Kazakh-medium instruction in urban schools. The Russian Review, 65(1), 98-116. Gaipov, D., Yaylaci, Y., Çiğ, K., & Guvercin, S. (2013). Formation of multilingual educational system in Kazakhstan: Kazakh-Turkish high schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 416-424. Karabalina, A. A., Maydangalieva, Z. A., Kapassova, D. A., Minakina, O. V., & Gavrina, A. V. (2018). The role and position of Russian language in former USSR countries. Bulletin of the national academy of sciences of the republic of Kazakhstan, (6), 115-126. Garrouste, C. (2008). Language skills and economic returns. Policy Futures in Education, 6(2), 187-202. Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Language Use among Secondary School Students in Kazakhstan. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 3(2), 1-14. Masanov, N., & Amrekulov, N. (1994). Kazakhstan Mezhdu Proshlym i Budushchim. Almaty: Gylym, pp 34–3 Mavisakalyan, A. (2017). Returns to language skills in transition economies. IZA World of Labor. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.416 Rivers, W. P. (2005). in Kazakhstan. Hywel Coleman, Jamilya Gulyamova and Andrew Thomas, 20. Reynolds, D., Bellin, W., & Ab Ieuan, R. (1998). A competitive edge: Why Welsh medium schools perform better. Cardiff: Institute of Welsh Affairs Smagulova, J. (2016). 5. The Re-Acquisition of Kazakh in Kazakhstan: Achievements and Challenges. In Language change in central asia (pp. 89-108). De Gruyter Mouton. Surucu, C. (2002). Modernity, nationalism, resistance: identity politics in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Central Asian Survey, 21(4), 385-402. Toomet, O. (2011). Learn English, Not the Local Language! Ethnic Russians in the Baltic States. American Economic Review, 101(3), 526–531. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.3.526 Wang, H., Smyth, R., & Cheng, Z. (2017). The economic returns to proficiency in English in China. China Economic Review, 43, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.01.004 Williams, D. (2005). The economic returns to multiple language usage in Europe.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.