DIMINISHING INTERGROUP DISCORDANCE THROUGH CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION COURSES. Anastassia Zabrodskaja Tallinn University, Estonia

Transcription

1 JoLIE 2:1 (2009) DIMINISHING INTERGROUP DISCORDANCE THROUGH CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION COURSES Anastassia Zabrodskaja Tallinn University, Estonia Abstract Multilingual and multicultural societies are very often conflict-driven, and can be characterized by ethnolinguistic and cultural differentiations, social inequality etc. Discordance factor (D-factor) indicates dissonance, a lack of confidence, perceived inequity and animosity between two ethnic groups living together on one territory. The D-factor consists of four components: 1) the extent of legitimacy of the interethnic situation, 2) the extent of mutual lack of confidence, 3) the extent of mutual cooperativeness and 4) the extent of outgroup dehumanization. To measure these indicators, a questionnaire comprising 17 claims was created. In this paper I will discuss the findings of a pilot study carried out among Estonian and Russian-speaking students of Tallinn University. The purpose of the pilot study was to test whether statements adequately measure the factors that play a role in intergroup discordance such as legitimacy, confidence, cooperativeness and dehumanization. I will discuss how the D-factor is related to cross-cultural communication and how it could be reduced via majority and minority educational processes. I will argue that: 1) an understanding of multilingualism and multiculturalism ought to be developed that addresses the collective and individual needs of majority and minority students; 2) special courses in psychology and ethnosociology should be arranged to help majority and minority students to understand linguistic and cultural diversity. 1 Key words: Majority; Minority; Discordance; Education; Estonians, Russian-speakers. Introduction The present paper is organized as follows. The starting point for analyzing the D- factor between two ethnic groups is the contradictory historical situation in surrounding the Estonian language. That is why the paper opens with an explanation of the unique Estonian sociolinguistic situation. Secondly, the methodology of the study will be described in detail. Thirdly, bringing some theoretical considerations into the discussion, I will explain the content of two 1 The research leading to these results has received funding from the Estonian Science Fund under grant agreement no ETF I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Martin Ehala (University of Tartu, Estonia) for his lengthy comments and helpful suggestions.

2 198 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA questionnaires that aimed to find out the discordance level between Estonian and Russian-speakers and prove the reliability of the instrument. Then I will discuss how legitimacy and general intergroup distrust are perceived by Russian and Estonian-speaking students and analyze the correlations between attitudes and beliefs. After that, I will illustrate classroom strategies that could help to diminish the interethnic discordance. In the end, some general recommendations will be given on how to design a flexible educational policy that teaches tolerance towards multilingualism and multiculturalism. 1. A look at the sociolinguistic situation in Estonia during Occupied from and by the Soviet Union, Estonia is a country with a population of million people according to Statistical Office of Estonia. During the census of 2000, it was counted that more than 145 different nationalities and ethnic groups were represented in Estonia: Estonians comprise 68.6%, Russians 25.7%, Ukrainians 2.1%, Byelorussians 1.2%, Finns 0.8%, Tatars 0.2%, Latvians 0.17%, Poles 0.16%, Jews 0.15%, Lithuanians 0.15%, Germans 0.14% of the total population etc. Most non-estonians residing in Estonia are second generation immigrants and their families who came to live here after World War II during the period of the Soviet occupation as late as 1945 Estonians formed more than 97% of the population. During the Soviet occupation, the percentage of Russians was constantly on the increase and reached 30.3% according to the last Soviet census of 1989 (Statistical Office of Estonia). The proportion of Estonians was dramatically dropping, and in the northeastern county of Ida-Virumaa they in fact constituted a minority in their own homeland (about 20 % in Kohtla-Järve and only 3-4 % in Narva; see details in Rannut 1994: ). Russian supplanted Estonian in the strategically important functional domains of public administration such as police, railway, the navy, and aviation. In 1991, the existence of the Republic of Estonia was restored, with Estonian as the single official language of the state. A number of laws, legislative acts and strategic documents adopted by the Parliament of Estonia (Riigikogu) concern the status of Estonian and the other languages used in the Republic: their status, teaching and use within the educational system as well as in society at large. The position of Estonian as the state language is officially stated in Estonia s Constitution (Chapter 1, paragraph 6). Radical changes in national language policy (see Rannut 2004, 2008) and the turbulent transition from privileged majority to minority for Russian-speakers provoked psychological and linguistic difficulties. Changes in language attitudes, self-perceptions, and linguistic repertoires have occurred during the last twenty years. Nowadays, the Russian-speaking population on a whole does not form a single community; rather, it is a heterogeneous assemblage of people with different interests, political views and sociocultural profile, united only by the fact that they all are Russian-speakers (Vihalemm and Masso 2002: 185). In addition to this, the

3 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance popular term Estonian Russians (Estonian eestivenelased, Russian эстонские русские) has been coined, and some Russian-speakers ascribe themselves to this category (Fein 2005), which fact signals that there are changes in identity (understood here the social positioning of self and other, following Bucholtz and Hall 2005: 586). Estonian Russians include any Russian-speaker who views himself or herself as different from Russia s Russians in whatever respect (language use, customs, etiquette, material culture, cuisine, etc.). Knowledge of Estonian is not a necessary characteristic of Estonian Russians. After the restoration of independence, the Estonian government introduced a linguistic normalization program to integrate the immigrant population that had moved here during the period of occupation. Immigration was put under control via the Act on Immigration (adopted in 1990) and the Law on Aliens (1993). A major issue in this context has been that Estonian citizenship was based on the principle of ius sanguinis: citizenship was not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who was a citizen of Estonia before 16 June This means that immigrants (including the Soviet period immigrants that constituted almost one third of the population in 1991) had to go through a naturalization process, which also requires a basic knowledge of Estonian at approximately the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Threshold level (B1), according to the corresponding legal acts (1993, 1995). The government also worked out long-term programs such as educational and integration programs the State Program Integration in Estonian Society and Strategy for the integration of Estonian society The new legal framework for modern language policy was created through a new Language Act, adopted in 1995, that expanded on the constitutional norms regarding the use of the Estonian language, minority languages and foreign languages in different fields. According to the 1989 Soviet census, only 15% of ethnic Russians in Estonia knew Estonian. After 1991, the proficiency of Russian-speakers in the Estonian language started to improve but less so among the elderly population who were disappointed as a result of the language requirements for citizenship issued in 1995 (see also Zabrodskaja 2009). The proficiency in Estonian has significantly increased: in 2000, 44.5 % of Estonian Russian-speakers claimed to know Estonian, according to Population and Housing Census data. Although the population census does not define proficiency and the data are anonymous and self-reported, this is nevertheless an act of identity. Among Russian-speakers, bilingualism is on the increase. Answers to the question, Is your proficiency in Estonian sufficient for living in Estonia? assure this fact (see Table 1). Table 1 Evaluations by Estonian Russians of the Adequacy of Their Proficiency in Estonian for Living in Estonia (%) (Integration of Estonian Society: Monitoring 2005: 26-27) Sufficient language proficiency (completely + generally) Insufficient language proficiency (completely + generally) Undecided Total

4 200 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA In the past decades, the language situation in the Baltic countries attracted a large number of researchers interested in language policy, societies in transition and postcommunist studies (Hogan-Brun 2005; Kolstø 1999; Laitin 1996, 1998, 2003; Pavlenko 2008; Smith 1998). However, language policy and minority rights issues continue to dominate the research agenda (Pavlenko 2006: 90 and references therein). Some Western and Russian authors who write on the topic (Kolstø 1999; Laitin 1998; Romanov 2000) imply that the language requirements and citizenship legislation in the Baltic countries discriminate against the Russian minority and that human rights are violated. However, as Ozolins (2003) argues, existing European norms and legislation have simply not been designed to deal with this kind of situation. As mentioned, the transition from privileged to ordinary status and the very notion of making an effort to master another language, albeit on the elementary level only, was hard to accept for many. It is clear that Estonian language policy and its historical context could not leave the Russian and Estonian-speaking population indifferent and have in fact caused conflicts (e.g. Ehala (2009a) on Bronze Nights events) and prejudices towards each other. 2. Structure and methodology of research In the period between March 1 and 30, 2008 there were 159 Tallinn University students questioned, 57 Russian-speakers and 102 Estonians. Taking into account the fact that Russian-speakers constitute one third of the total population, this ratio can be considered to be more or less valid. Questionnaires in the Russian and Estonian languages were distributed among students electronically. The form structure made it impossible to submit a questionnaire, leaving even one question unanswered. Thus, hundred-percent completion was insured. Questioning was held anonymously. In all, there were 17 statements that were built on the Likert scale (1932) principle, which allowed marking out the certain frequency of their appearance in the variants analysis. If necessary, the informant could add comments at the end of the questionnaire. For the study and the analysis of the linkages Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 14.0 was used. The methods of working with the results were: a calculation of an arithmetic mean, a median, a standard deviation, a Cronbach s alpha coefficient and an analysis of correlations. Standard deviation indicates how scattered a data set is: the higher the index is, the more dispersed the data are, and the lower a standard deviation is, the closer to the same value (the mean) all of the data points are. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed that the division of initial statements into four conceptual groups was correct and trustworthy. Relations between variables elucidated in the analysis of the intra-class correlation coefficient Cronbach s alpha which shows how great the correlation between different statements present within same group is. The higher the value s index is, the

5 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance stronger the questions are related one to another, forming a single whole, and to which a general name (a category) can be given. A general rule is the following: The questions relate one to another if the index of Cronbach s alpha is equal or larger than value 0.7 (Cronbach 1951). For the characteristics of the ties between the numerical indices and variables, Pearson s correlation coefficient r was used. It shows how strong the ties between variables are. Correlation coefficient r can fluctuate from -1 to 1. The closer the value is to 1, the stronger the positive correlation is. The closer the value is to -1, the stronger the inverse correlation is. It is considered that the values from 0.1 to 0.3 show very small correlation, values from 0.3 to 0.5 medium correlation, and the coefficient r values larger than 0.5 indicate to the quite strong dependence (Gayen 1951). 3. Intergroup discordance: Theoretical considerations and operationalization of the instrument According to Ehala (2009b), intergroup discordance, or D-factor, expresses the perceived illegitimacy of intergroup power relations as well as the dehumanization of the outgroup. Although legitimacy and stigmatization are clearly distinct concepts, they are interrelated. It is hypothesized that D-factor plays an important role in structuring attitudes towards the outgroup. To measure intergroup discordance, a questionnaire comprising of 17 statements was created (see Table 2 in Appendix) that grouped conceptually into four types: (I) legitimacy of the interethnic situation, (II) mutual lack of confidence, (III) mutual cooperativeness and (IV) outgroup s dehumanization. The first group represents the perceived legitimacy of the prevailing interethnic power relations is it fair or unfair in the opinion of a respondent? The types (II) (IV) form one conceptual category that expresses the level of general intergroup distrust To avoid response bias, statements provocative of positive as well as negative emotions were constructed. According to Zelditch (2001: 9), legitimation brings the unaccepted norms, values, beliefs, practices and procedures into accord with accepted ones. To measure the state of legitimacy in Estonia, its specific sociohistorical context needs to be taken into account in designing the questions because in many respects in virtue of the modern history, legitimately accepted and unaccepted processes meet here nowadays. If we look at the legitimacy of the interethnic situation between the Estonian and Russian-speaking communities, then the number of disputable areas should be outlined. First, although Russians constituted 25.7% of the total population in Estonia in 2000, Estonian has been the single official language since

6 202 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA the restoration of independence, while Russian does not even have the status of a national minority language. Russian is not recognized as a national autochthonous minority language. Thus, Russian is not protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Being a part of the EU, Estonia needs to adopt the European legal standards and the EU Directives. But still there are no bilateral agreements concerning regional or minority languages. Expectedly, language policy is one of the areas of tension. That is why among the statements that should find out the extent of the legitimacy of the interethnic situation the following were suggested: 1. Russian should be the second official language in Estonia. 2. The aim of the Estonian Republic is to assure the maintenance of the Estonian nationality, language and culture for the future. 3. Irrespective of ethnic affiliation, all Estonian citizens should know the Estonian language. 4. The Estonian Republic does not have to assure the maintenance of the Russian community s language and culture in Estonia. 5. For the attainment of Estonian citizenship, Estonian language knowledge should not be demanded. 6. The situation of the Russian community in Estonia corresponds to international norms. 7. Concerning the Russian community, the Estonian Republic follows European democratic principles. 8. Estonian and Russian communities should have equal rights in Estonia. It should be noted that statements 1 8 were exactly the same provided to both Russian- and Estonian-speaking students (see statements 1 8 in Table 8 in Appendix). In order to interact with each other, ingroups and outgroups living together must trust each other. Among others, statements that should find out the extent of mutual distrust were incorporated. They have to focus on whether outgroup representatives are helpful as cultural go-betweens, reliable and how they treat ingroup members (see statements (9a,b) (11a,b) in Table 8 in Appendix). Groups must also cooperate in everyday life. Statements that should uncover the extent of mutual cooperativeness were phrased as follows: Outgroup wishes to cooperate with the ingroup and understands its ethnocultural aspirations (see statements (12a,b)-(13a,b) in Table 8 in Appendix). As Haslam (2006: 252) points out, the concept of dehumanization has rarely received systematic theoretical treatment: e.g. in social psychology, it has attracted only scattered attention. Struch and Schwartz (1989: 365) postulate that the stronger the conflict is and hence the motivation to harm, the more the groups tend to dehumanize each other. Here, dehumanization includes four phenomena as whether the outgroup is considered to be capable of greatness in their actions, can be described as civilized people, behave under the influence of their lowest instincts

7 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance and its aggressiveness perceived by ingroup (see statements (14a,b) (17a,b) in Table 8 in Appendix). With the help of Table 2, it can be stated that the trustworthiness of the results is provided with high indexes of intra-class correlation (Cronbach s alpha coefficient). Table 2 The internal consistency reliability of the intra-group statements constituent of D- factor Informants Cronbach s Alpha N of Items I legitimacy of Estonian-speaking interethnic situation Russian-speaking II mutual lack of Estonian-speaking confidence Russian-speaking III mutual Estonian-speaking cooperativeness Russian-speaking I outgroup s Estonian-speaking V dehumanization Russian-speaking Looking at the Cronbach s alpha coefficients the reader might notice that the lowest one is for Estonian-speakers in the first row and it allows me to conclude that for the Estonian informants the statements 1 8 are not as cohered as for Russianspeakers. I made the re-analysis with regards to the reliability of the statistics, and item-total statistics shows that Cronbach s alpha coefficient equals if one deletes statement 8 (= Estonian and Russian communities should have equal rights in Estonia ). Hence, this statement should be paraphrased or even deleted in the future with the aim of composing another one that would allow more tightly correlating statements. Still, I can argue that the analysis below on perceived legitimacy is trustful because is quite close to Intergroup discordance perceived by Estonian and Russian-speaking students In this section, beliefs of both groups are measured through a calculation of the cumulative per cent, which sums up three answer variants (totally agree, agree and rather agree or rather disagree, disagree, totally disagree) together. Correlations between statements belonging to different subfactors are also found, shedding light on general tendencies in attitudes between majority and minority population sets. The analysis presented in tables sheds light on the frequencies and tendencies of answers given on statements that constitute different subfactors such as the perceived extent of the legitimacy of the interethnic situation (I), mutual lack of confidence (II), cooperativeness (III), and outgroup s dehumanization (IV).

8 204 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA 4.1 The extent of legitimacy of interethnic situation Evaluating the legitimacy of the current interethnic situation in Estonia, Russian and Estonian speaking respondents show some similarities in opinions (see medians of the statements 2, 3, and 4) as well as differences (see medians of the statements 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8). One finding can be treated as quite surprising because on the one hand, 70.2% of Russian-speaking students agree that Russian should be the second official language in Estonia [please compare it with 95.1% of Estonians not agreeing to it A.Z.] but on the other hand, 84.2% believe that irrespective of ethnic affiliation, all Estonian citizens should know the Estonian language. If we look at the standard deviation of statement 1, then we see that it is the highest number in the whole column at This means that the points of view are dispersed between intergroups. Among Russian-speakers, there are also sparse opinions about the demand of Estonian language knowledge for the attainment of Estonian citizenship (standard deviation is 1.399, whereas mean is 4.16). If we take into account the means for the first statement (5.45 for Estonianspeakers and 2.51 for Russian-speakers), then it becomes quite clear that the principles of Citizenship and Language Acts are those that cause tension in contemporary Estonia (see Table 3). This is also assured by the medians of statements 5 8 that reflect each other like in a distorting mirror. Zelditch (2001) states that consensus is a necessary condition of legitimacy. As a reader can see from Table 3, Estonian-speakers are not ready for any compromises that concern contemporary Estonian language policy. Table 3 Perceived legitimacy Statement Mean Median Std. Deviation N 1 Russian should be the second official language in Estonia Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers The aim of the Estonian Republic is to assure the maintenance of the Estonian nationality, language and culture for the future Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers Irrespective of ethnic affiliation, all Estonian citizens should know the Estonian language Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers The Estonian Republic does not have to assure the maintenance of the Russian community s language and culture in Estonia Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers For the attainment of Estonian citizenship, Estonian language knowledge should not be demanded Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers The situation of the Russian community in Estonia corresponds to international norms Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers

9 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance Concerning the Russian community, the Estonian Republic follows European democratic principles Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers Estonian and Russian communities should have equal rights in Estonia Estonian-speakers Russian-speakers Still, there is some agreement between two groups of informants too. Both agree that the aim of the Estonian Republic is to assure the maintenance of the Estonian nationality, language and culture for the future (the median among Russianspeakers equals 2.00, among Estonian-speakers 1.00). There is also some agreement on the point whether Estonia must maintain the Russian nationality, language and culture for the future. If we look at the results of answers given to a statement 4, then the median among Russian-speakers equals 5.00, among Estonian-speakers I could suggest that although a standard deviation of Estonian results equals and shows some dispersion in the responses, Estonians do tend to think that the Russian language, culture and nation should be somehow maintained here. It is also noteworthy that both communities think that irrespective of ethnic affiliation, all Estonian citizens should know the Estonian language (medians for Estonian- and Russian-speakers are 1.00 and 2.00 respectively). In spite of the agreement found at this point, their understanding of how this claim should be externalized is very different. For Russian-speakers, descendants of Soviet time newcomers, it is natural that all Estonian citizens should know Estonian but it is obviously unacceptable for them that they themselves cannot apply for the Estonian citizenship without passing the Estonian language exam. 4.2 The extent of mutual lack of confidence It is interesting that Estonians have more positive perception of Russian-speakers: 80.4% suggests that Estonian Russian-speakers are helpful as cultural go-betweens, 69.6% that Estonian Russian-speakers are reliable and more than half (59.8%) that Estonians are regarded well by Estonian Russian-speakers. The same view is supported by Table 4 that shows how all three statements were evaluated by Estonians in a more positive way: if their medians are equaled to 3.00 (= rather agree), then Russian ones to 4.00 (= rather disagree). Table 4 Perceived distrust Statement Mean Median Std. N Deviation 9a Estonian Russian-speakers are helpful as cultural go-betweens 9b Estonians are helpful as cultural go-betweens a Estonian Russian-speakers are reliable

10 206 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA 10b Estonians are reliable a Estonians are regarded well by Estonian Russian-speakers 11b Estonian Russian-speakers are regarded well by Estonians A standard deviation of statement 10b is the highest one in the column (1.206). This means that in the Russian intragroup there is somehow medium agreement on the reliability level of cultural go-betweens. 4.3 The extent of mutual cooperativeness Analyzing the perceived extent of mutual cooperativeness, it was discovered that if more than one third (36.8%) of Russian-speaking students have the opinion that Estonians wish to cooperate with Russian-speaking dwellers of Estonia, then only one fifth (19.3%) confirm the fact that Estonians understand the ethnocultural aspirations of the Russian community of Russian-speakers. Estonian conceptions are again given in a more positive way: 70.6% of Estonian respondents agree that Estonian Russianspeakers wish to cooperate with Estonians and 31.4% that Estonian Russian-speakers understand ethnocultural aspirations of Estonians. Table 5 Perceived cooperativeness Statement Mean Median Std. N Deviation 12a Estonian Russian-speakers wish to cooperate with Estonians 12b Estonians wish to cooperate with Russianspeaking dwellers of Estonia 13a Estonian Russian-speakers understand the ethnocultural aspirations of Estonians 13b Estonians understand the ethnocultural aspirations of the Russian community If we look at the medians provided in Table 5, then we will become certain of negatively disposed Russian-speakers who somewhat disagree (mean = 3.95) that Estonians wish to cooperate with them and even disagree (mean = 4.49) that Estonians understand their ethnocultural aspirations. At the same time Estonian and Russian ethnic groups have a higher opinion of the cooperativeness capacity with each other (medians are 3.00 and 4.00 respectively) than of a mutual understanding of the ethnocultural aspirations (medians are 4.00 and 5.00 respectively). I would like also to mention a standard deviation of answers with regard to statement 12b is This means that Russian-speakers are quite scattered in their opinions about the wish of Estonians to cooperate with them.

11 4.4 The extent of outgroup s dehumanization Diminishing Intergroup Discordance Looking at the extent of outgroup s dehumanization, it should be mentioned that, according to very few informants, Estonians cannot be described as civilized people (8.8%), but still there were informants for whom Estonians are not capable of greatness in their actions (17.5%), Estonians behave under the influence of their lowest instincts (14%) and Estonians are aggressive (10.5%). At this part of the questionnaire, a significantly low per cent of those Estonians who consider Estonian Russian-speakers to be incapable of greatness in their actions (5.9%) was found. Very few Estonians assume that Estonian Russian-speakers cannot be described as civilized people (2%) and Estonian Russian-speakers behave under the influence of their lowest instincts (3.9%). Nevertheless, a quite noticeable number of Estonian students, slightly more than one fifth (22.5%), think of Estonian Russianspeakers as aggressive people. Table 6 Perceived dehumanization Statement Mean Median Std. Deviation N 14a Estonian Russianspeakers are not capable of greatness in their actions 14b Estonians are not capable of greatness in their actions 15a Estonian Russianspeakers cannot be described as civilized people 15b Estonians cannot be described as civilized people 16a Estonian Russianspeakers behave under the influence of their lowest instincts 16b Estonians behave under the influence of their lowest instincts 17a Estonian Russianspeakers are aggressive 17b Estonians are aggressive Although all the results are quite modest here and in general I can suggest that both groups do not dehumanize each other because the medians are not bigger than 5.00 or 6.00, I would like to pay attention to a standard deviation of statement (14b) that

12 208 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA is the highest one in the column with the mean of This shows that the opinions of Russian-speaking informants are somewhat scattered. 4.5 Conclusion Aiming to get a general overview of perceived discordances, I calculated five means (see Table 7). To understand the first category, the following rule should be kept in mind: The higher the number is, the more legitimate the interethnic situation seems to informants. The lower the index is, the more illegitimate. With the sets (II), (III) and (IV) the analysis should be done vice versa: The lower the number is, the more confident towards the outgroup informants are, and the higher level of cooperativeness is perceived, the more the outgroup is humanized. In order to get a picture of general intergroup distrust, the mean for (II IV) was also found: the lower its number is, the more the out-group is trusted. Table 7 Calculated mean for each group of statements Subfactor Estonian mean Russian mean I legitimacy of interethnic situation II mutual no confidence III mutual cooperativeness IV outgroup s dehumanization II IV general intergroup distrust Based on the means, I can sum up that as Russian-speakers are more dissatisfied with the current interethnic situation in Estonia, they do not tend to trust Estonians nor believe that Estonians wish to cooperate with them and somehow dehumanize the outgroup. It should be noted that these findings are also supported by correlations between different statement groups that constitute the D-factor. On the one hand, those Russian-speaking students who think that Russian should be the second official language in Estonia also see Estonians as behaving under the influence of their lowest instincts (r = 0.447), and as being aggressive persons (r = 0.499). On the other hand, Russian-speakers who think that the situation of the Russian community in Estonia corresponds to international norms find that Estonians understand the ethnocultural aspirations of Russian-speakers (r = 0.475), wish to cooperate with Russian-speaking dwellers of Estonia (r = 0.457) and are helpful as cultural go-betweens (r = 0.408). In addition, those Russian-speaking students who propose that concerning the Russian community, Estonia follows European democratic principles, quite firmly assume that Estonians understand the ethnocultural aspirations of the Russian community of Russian-speakers (r = 0.638), wish to cooperate with Russian-speaking dwellers of Estonia (r = 0.588) and that Estonian Russian-speakers are regarded well by Estonians (r = 0.558); yet they less firmly consider Estonians to be helpful cultural go-betweens (r = 0.479).

13 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance Estonian informants who suggest that Estonian and Russian communities should have equal rights in Estonia, think of Estonian Russian-speakers as reliable (r = 0.444) and helpful cultural go-betweens (r = 0.439). To conclude, I would like to stress that the nature of findings presented here is quite subjective: the groups under research were homogeneous, consisting only of students, who receive higher education together, and have quite strong connections with each other at work and in their private life. These young people are progressive and tolerant. Under any circumstances the received level of the perceived intergroup discordance can not be projected on the general Estonian and Russian-speaking population. 5. Teaching strategies for use during Cross-Cultural Communication courses In order to reach social and communicative goals, mutual respect and the valuing of another group s culture is required. Bringing areas of mutual conflicts into discussion, it is important to provide exhaustively described points of view from each side and think together over possible recommendations and ways out. In this chapter, I will provide six strategies that can be used with minority and majority students learning together in one classroom. I am not the author of these classroom strategies. They are all modified from Buehl (2001, 2008). Each coin has its positive and negative side, likewise with the discussion strategies. I tried to point positive (P) and negative (N) features on the basis of my own teaching experience and students feedback on the effectiveness of the methods used. 5.1 SWOT analysis (Danca 2006) It assesses strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the statement, giving the exhaustive overview and also reflects the respondent s personal position and general knowledge. P: A respondent can provide solutions. N: It demands prior knowledge. Its absence makes the analysis difficult. For example, students make a SWOT analysis of the statement For the attainment of Estonian citizenship, Estonian language knowledge should not be demanded. Strengths The number of Estonian citizens will grow etc Opportunities It will certainly motivate Russian-speakers to become more tolerant towards Estonian language policy etc Weaknesses Russian-speakers can give up studying Estonian etc Threats The attainment of Estonian citizenship will be too easily accessed for people potentially not loyal towards Estonia etc

14 210 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA 5.2 Point-of-view study guide (based on Buehl 2001: 91-92) It brings out different points of view and gives them in a very compact way. P: a good possibility to compare two different approaches. N: it can happen that the problem is too complicated and there are no relevant answers at all. Statement (e.g. Russian should be the second official language in Estonia ) most important points of views conflict areas differences similarities Russian-speakers approx. 1/3 of population are Russian-speakers etc Russian-speakers are not even immigrants in Estonia because they came here during Soviet period when Estonia was a part of a big country etc Estonia has to protect and maintain local Russian etc Estonians only status of Estonian as a single official language can give Russian-speakers the incentive to acquire it etc Russian-speakers are occupiers. Their language is the language of Soviet occupation etc Estonia has to protect and maintain Estonian. It is Russia who should take care of the Russian language maintenance etc knowledge of both languages provides better career opportunities for a person Conclusion Current Estonian laws and policies do not aid in the maintenance and transmission of the Russian language. Existing language, citizenship, and education laws regulate only the knowledge and use of the Estonian language. But the situation of Estonia s Russian-speakers is not comparable with a situation of Turkey immigrants in Holland, Germany etc. The linguistic rights of local Russian-speakers are the challenge currently faced by Estonia in balancing the needs of the majority and minority populations. They are descendants of Soviet-time newcomers in Estonia who considered this country as their own territory. As Western approaches to linguistic minority rights cannot be applied wholesale to post-soviet Estonia, special adaptations are needed to current theories of minority rights. A possible solution could be an adaptation of a term transitional minority (see Ehala 2008: 7) a notion of conditional rights which means that the more Russian-speakers integrate into Estonian society, the more rights they will get (including status of an official language for Russian in the future). 5.3 RAFT (Buehl 2001: ; 2008: ) RAFT is the abbreviation made from Role/Audience/Format/Topic. A student can him- /herself choose who (s)he is, in what format (s)he writes, concretize to whom and delimit the topic. P: very creative written assignment that allows minority students to choose the role of majority student and present his point of view and vice versa. N: takes too much time during the seminar.

15 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance For example, a Russian-speaking student takes the Role of a Russian-speaker who was born in Estonia in 1946 and living there ever since and who writes an essay (Format) aiming to introduce to the Estonian readers (Audience) the weaknesses of the current language laws (Topic), specifically showing why (s)he is not an Estonian citizen according to them and presenting her personal considerations on how language policy could have been changed and why. Such anonymously written essays can be then analyzed together with a whole group. 5.4 Problem/solution-frame P: a student deepens into the problem in order to provide a better possible resolution to it. N: some problem may be so difficult that a solution will not reveal itself at all. A teacher might suggest discussing possible solutions to the problematic statement like Estonian and Russian communities should have equal rights in Estonia. A discussion uncovers all the problems/critical points connected to it and students have to think over them, looking for more appropriate solutions. 5.5 Comparing/contradistinction-frame P: different groups viewpoints may be analyzed and compromised, which helps to bring the important arguments out and contrast them. N: it can happen that comparables are too intertwined and it is difficult to get clear dissimilarities in arguments. Estonian-speaking students received cards with statements: Estonian Russian-speakers wish to cooperate with Estonians, Estonian Russian-speakers understand the ethnocultural aspirations of Estonians etc; Russian-speakers Estonians wish to cooperate with Russian-speaking dwellers of Estonia, Estonians understand the ethnocultural aspirations of the Russian community etc. In monoethnic groups they discuss them and then present the results of a discussion to the class. A teacher puts two tables together: the first one that compares the points of view and the second that compares minority and majority students answers against each other. 5.6 Magnet Summaries (Buehl 2001: 80 82; 2008: ) P: helps to accentuate the most important key words of the topic and discuss associations/ information/etc connected to it. N: associations can occur to be too personal and omit important details needed to be discussed.

16 212 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA Magnet word Estonian Estonians information belonging to it Single official language in Estonia? 6. Pedagogical Implications It is impossible to give an exhaustive answer on the question: How intergroup discordance could be diminished through Cross-Cultural Communication courses? Thus, the paper concludes with some practical suggestions for ways in which minority and majority students could be attracted into a collective discussion: 1. A view of multilingualism and multiculturalism ought to be developed that addresses the collective and individual needs of minority and majority students. 2. Specific pedagogies should be introduced to university teachers and developed. It is important to determine what kinds of factors promote discordance between minority and majority students. 3. Special psychological and sociological courses have to be arranged to help teachers and minority and majority students in the understanding of linguistic and cultural diversity. 4. Every teacher should be able to answer questions regarding teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms, such as the following: (a) What beliefs do minority and majority students have about each other / current language policy / legitimacy of current interethnic situation / etc? (b) What are minority and majority students attitudes towards the use / status of their mother tongues in formal context? (c) What areas evoke tensions between minority and majority students beliefs / understandings? (d) What are minority and majority students attitudes towards the mutual conflict areas? 7. Conclusions From the very beginning studies on culture and communication were multidisciplinary (Martin, Nakayama 2000: 28). The central disciplines have been cultural anthropology, psychology and linguistics. Later communicative studies supplemented the theoretical bias of Cross-Cultural Communication research. According to Hofstede (1988: 26) cross-cultural studies presuppose a systems approach, in which the disciplines of psychology (particularly cross-

17 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance cultural psychology), sociology (organization sociology in particular), anthropology, political sciences, economics, geography, history, comparative law and medicine, international market research should be involved. I would add to this list sociolinguistics (and especially the study of sociolinguistic situation in a certain country). To conclude, I am convinced that Cross-Cultural Communication must be taught from different angles using approaches, and addressing different aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication from sociolinguistics to psychology, from anthropology to sociology, and naturally taking historical background of relations between the groups into account. Editors note: This article is an improved version of the author s contribution to the Proceedings of the Exploratory Workshop Linguistic and Intercultural Education in the Process of Europeanisation of Higher Education CLIE-2009, Popescu, T & Pioariu R (Eds.). Aeternitas: Alba-Iulia, pp (with permission). References Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach, Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. 2 nd International Reading Association. Buehl, D. (2008). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. 3 rd International Reading Association. ed. Newark, DE: ed. Newark, DE: Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, Danca, A. (2006). SWOT Analysis. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Ehala, M. (2008). The birth of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia. Eurozine. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from (Original in Estonian: Venekeelse põlisvähemuse sünd, Vikerkaar, 4-5, ) Ehala, M. (2009a). The Bronze Soldier: Identity threat and maintenance in Estonia, Journal of Baltic Studies, 40(1), Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Ehala, M. (2009b). Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education. In T. Popescu, & R. Pioariu, Proceedings of the Exploratory Workshop Linguistic and Intercultural Education in the Process of Europeanisation of Higher Education, CLIE-2009 (pp ). Alba Iulia: Aeternitas.

18 214 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA Fein, L. (2005). Symbolic boundaries and national borders: the construction of an Estonian Russian identity. Nationalities Papers, 33(3), Gayen, A.K. (1951). The frequency distribution of the product moment correlation coefficient in random samples of any size draw from non-normal universes. Biometrika, 38, Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), Hofstede, G. (1988). Culture s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Abridged Edition. Cross-Cultural research and methodology series 5. Beverly Hills / London / New Delhi: Sage Publications. Hogan-Brun, G. (Guest Ed.) (2005). Baltic sociolinguistic review (special issue). Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3). Integration in Estonian Society , Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Integration of Estonian Society: Monitoring 2005, Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Kolstø, P. (1999). Territorializing diasporas: The case of the Russians in the former Soviet republics. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 28 (3), Laitin, D. (1996). Language planning in the former Soviet Union: the case of Estonia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 118, Laitin, D. (1998). Identity in formation: The Russian speaking populations in the near abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Laitin, D. (2003). Three Models of Integration and the Estonian/Russian Reality. Journal of Baltic Studies, 34(2), Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2000). Intercultural communication in contexts. Mayfield, California: Mountain View. Ozolins, U. (2003). The impact of European accession on language policy in the Baltic States. Language Policy, 2(3), Pavlenko, A. (2006). Russian as lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, Pavlenko, A. (2008). Multilingualism in post-soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(5),

19 Diminishing Intergroup Discordance Rannut, M. (1994). Beyond linguistic policy: the Soviet Union versus Estonia. In R. Phillipson, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Rannut (Eds.), Linguistic human rights (pp ). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rannut, M. (2004). Language policy in Estonia. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolinguistica. Spring-Summer Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Rannut, M. (2008). Estonianization efforts post-independence, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3&4), Romanov, A. (2000). The Russian diaspora in Latvia and Estonia: Predicting language outcomes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(1), Smith, D. (1998). Russia, Estonia and the search for a stable ethno-politics. Journal of Baltic Studies, 29(1), Statistical Office of Estonia [Eesti Statistikaamet], Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Strategy for the integration of Estonian society , Retrieved November 9, 2009, from Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), Vihalemm, T., & Masso, A. (2002). Patterns of self-identification among the younger generation of Estonian Russians. In M. Lauristin, & M. Heidmets (Eds.), The challenge of the Russian minority. Emerging multicultural democracy in Estonia (pp ). Tartu: Tartu University Press. Zabrodskaja, A. (2009). Language testing in the context of citizenship and asylum: The case of Estonia. Language Assessment Quarterly [Special issue Language Assessment for Immigration, Citizenship, and Asylum, Elana Shohamy and Tim McNamara (Guest Eds.)] 6(1), Zelditch, M. (2001). Process of legitimation: Recent developments and new directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(1), 4-17.

20 216 Anastassia ZABRODSKAJA Appendix Table 8. Questionnaires for Estonian and Russian-speaking students 17 claims for Estonian-speakers 17 claims for Russian-speakers Suggested answers: totally agree (= 1); agree (= 2); rather agree (= 3); rather disagree (= 4); disagree (= 5); totally disagree (= 6). I Statements that should find out the extent of legitimacy of interethnic situation 1 Vene keel peaks olema Eestis teine riigikeel. Русскому языку следовало бы быть в Эстонии вторым государственным языком. Russian should be the second official language in Estonia 2 Eesti riigi eesmärk on tagada eesti rahvuse, keele ja kultuuri säilimine läbi aegade. Целью Эстонского государства является обеспечить сохранность эстонской нации, языка и культуры на века. The aim of the Estonian Republic is to assure the maintenance of the Estonian nationality, language and culture for the future 3 Kõik Eesti kodanikud, rahvusest olenemata, peaksid oskama eesti keelt. Всем гражданам Эстонии, независимо от национальности, следовало бы знать эстонский язык. Irrespective of ethnic affiliation, all Estonian citizens should know the Estonian language 4 Eesti riik ei pea tagama vene kogukonna keele ja kultuuri säilimist Eestis. Эстонское государство не должно гарантировать сохранение в Эстонии языка и культуры русской общины. The Estonian Republic does not have to assure the maintenance of the Russian community s language and culture in Estonia 5 Eesti kodakondsuse saamiseks ei Для получения эстонского peaks nõudma eesti keele oskust. гражданства не следовало бы требовать знание эстонского языка. For the attainment of Estonian citizenship, Estonian language knowledge should not be demanded 6 Venekeelse kogukonna olukord Eestis vastab rahvusvahelistele normidele. Положение русскоговорящей общины в Эстонии отвечает международным нормам. The situation of the Russian community in Estonia corresponds to international norms 7 Eesti riik järgib venekeelse В отношении к русскоязычному kogukonna suhtes Euroopa населению Эстонское государство demokraatlikke printsiipe. следует Европейским демократическим приципам. Concerning the Russian community, the Estonian Republic follows European democratic principles