Constructing identity/ies in Georgia's Greek multilingual communication community
Even in ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous Georgia, the Greek multilingual communication community sticks out due to the intriguing way they fit their languages into the collective identity they construe for themselves. Contrary to most current assumptions and intuitions, Georgian Greek informants assert that the languages they speak are not a major determining factor for their group identity. Linguistically, this community may be divided into to two subgroups: Pontian Greeks speak an older Greek variety, Urum Greeks a Turkic language. Both varieties are mutually unintelligible, so that community members speak Russian or Georgian to communicate with each other. What unites this multilingual community are their origin in the Pontus region on the southern coast of the Black Sea, their belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church, the official classification as “Greeks” in the Soviet Union, mass emigration in the past 20 years (mainly to Greece and Cyprus but also to other countries) and the perception of sharing the same level of “greekness”.
The research focus lies on the role language and the larger societal context play in the construction of collective identities in multilingual communication communities. Focussing on the example of the Georgian Greek “minimal pair”, the research questions are as follows:
1. What is the role of the involved varieties (Urum, Pontian Greek, Standard Modern Greek, Russian, Georgian, Turkish) in identity constructions within this multilingual communication community?
2. How are (linguistic) borders drawn within groups (rural/urban, Urum/Pontian divides) and between groups (“Greeks” vs. Georgian societal majority, Armenian/Azeri/Acharian minorities) that informants make out as relevant for their social world?
3. What is the impact of the fairly recent and profound socio-economic changes (end of the Soviet Union, mass migration to Greece) on these processes?
4. How are “the Greeks” perceived from the perspective of self-identifying members of other groups (Georgian societal majority, Armenian, Azeri and Acharian minorities)?
The empirical data stems from some 60 semi-structured qualitative interviews in Russian and Georgian taking into account the usual variables (gender, age, education/occupation) as well as place, as a previous study on this community by the author has shown place to be important. The analysis is broadly conversation analytical and focuses on the factors made relevant for identity construction and drawing borders around and within the in-group as well as the rhetoric and linguistic strategies employed in negotiating the emerging collective identities.
Beyond the particular Georgian context, this dissertation will shed some light on the role played by language in the communicative processes of establishing and negotiating (ethnic) belonging in a society in transition. Analysing this specific example will lead to a better understanding of the political, social and economic circumstances that may lead to very strong, particularising feelings of (ethnic) belonging that may even turn violent – and to a characterisation of those constellations where such particularising processes are absent.