Abstract
In 2008, CRRC-Georgia and the American
Councils conducted a small online census among mostly
English-native, engaged expatriates who are either currently
living in Georgia, or did so in the past. The questions were
about attitudes toward and aptitude for learning Georgian or
Russian, and the importance of these languages in Georgia.
With 90 completed questionnaires the number of respondents
was small, and the findings cannot be generalized to cover
the whole expatriate community. However, they provide
insight into the incentives to language learning, and the
importance of Georgian and Russian for foreigners in
Georgia. The results show that Georgian is important for
daily life in Georgia, while Russian is more useful in a
professional context. On average, the respondents have a
better level in Russian than in Georgian. In addition,
knowing one language did not keep the respondents from
learning the other: 87 percent of the respondents with
Russian skills also know some Georgian.
Keywords: Georgia, Language,
Russian, Georgian, Expatriates, Tbilisi
Introduction: Language Learning in
Georgia
In winter 2008, CRRC together with the
American Councils conducted a small online census among
mostly English-native, engaged expatriates who are either
currently living in Georgia, or did so in the past. The
respondents were asked questions about their attitudes
toward and aptitude for learning Georgian or Russian, and
the importance of these languages in Georgia. With 90
completed questionnaires the number of respondents was quite
small. The findings can thus hardly be generalized to cover
the whole heterogeneous expatriate community in Georgia.
However, they provide interesting insights into incentives
to language learning, and the importance of Georgian and
Russian for foreigners in Georgia.
The data indicates that while Georgian is
very important for living in Georgia, Russian is more useful
in a professional context. This could explain why, on
average, the respondents – many of whom have worked in
different countries – have a better level in Russian than in
Georgian. As these languages serve in different domains,
knowing one did not keep the respondents from learning the
other: 87 percent of the respondents with Russian skills
know some Georgian as well.
Which Language to Speak in Georgia?
According to the respondents, knowledge of
Georgian or Russian is very important in all aspects of life
in Georgia. While they deem basic Georgian to be more useful
than Russian in everyday situations, they have a better
level of Russian than Georgian, on average. The gap between
Georgian and Russian skills was especially apparent in the
higher proficiency levels, as very few respondents have
advanced Georgian skills, compared with about a third of the
Russian learners. The respective language skills also seem
to correlate with the amount of time put into studying:
those who learn Russian had invested more time in their
language studies than those learning Georgian.
Communicating in Georgia
The majority of the respondents constantly or
regularly interacts (or interacted)
with people who do not speak their first language.
Therefore, knowing one of the two predominant local
languages – Georgian and Russian – is very important for
social life and work in Georgia. Moreover, many of the
respondents agree that basic proficiency in either Russian
or Georgian is very helpful for performing the tasks of
daily life in Georgia. Overall, Georgian was perceived to be
more useful than Russian in this regard, although around 20
percent think that either way, some difficulties in
communicating remain.
While the teaching of English is on the rise
throughout the Georgian educational system, Russian is still
the predominant second language in society. As of 2009, data
from the CRRC’s Data Initiative (DI) show that even in
Tbilisi – where most foreigners live – a full 60 percent of
the population has no English knowledge at all, whereas only
4 percent do not know any Russian. In the coming years,
however, these figures are likely to shift, as young
Georgians tend to know English better than the older
generation: while only 16 percent of all Georgians over the
age of 30 know at least elementary English, 54 percent of
those between 18 and 30 say the same.
Therefore, the average foreigner still has a strong need for
Russian or Georgian if he wants to communicate with the
Georgian population.
About 84 percent of the respondents have to
communicate in Russian or Georgian frequently. Forty-seven
percent of the respondents say that they “constantly”
interact with Georgians who do not speak their first
language. Another 37 percent say they do so at least
“regularly”. Fourteen percent of the respondents say that
they only “occasionally” interact with a Georgian who does
not know their first language. Only 2 percent say that they
rarely or never do.
About two-thirds of the respondents say that
knowing some Russian or Georgian is crucial in Georgia, and
it seems that it is even more important in a professional
context than for social life. Nine percent think that local
languages are essential for personal and recreational
activities, and 60 percent say that they are very important.
Another 31 percent of the respondents state that some
knowledge of Russian or Georgian is at least moderately
important for living in Georgia. No respondent said that it
was not very important or entirely unnecessary. For the
professional context, 25 percent say that knowing Russian or
Georgian is essential. Forty-seven percent think that
knowing one of the local languages is very important, and 27
percent deem it moderately important. Only 2 percent think
that Russian or Georgian proficiency is entirely unnecessary
to pursue a professional career in Georgia.
Most respondents thought that without basic
Russian or Georgian, performing the tasks of daily life in
Georgia is rather difficult. Knowing elementary Russian and
especially Georgian, however, makes it much easier to get
by.

Without Russian or Georgian skills, most
agree, daily life in Georgia is difficult. One respondent
thinks that it is impossible to get by without any knowledge
of these two languages. About a third deem it at least very
difficult (34 percent). Fifty-four percent think that it is
moderately difficult to perform the tasks of daily life
without any Russian or Georgian. About 11 percent of the
respondents say that it is only slightly difficult, and no
respondents said that it is not difficult at all.
According to the respondents, knowing basic
Russian is very helpful when performing the tasks of daily
life in Georgia. Eighteen percent think that basic Russian
helps to an extent that daily life in Georgia is no longer
difficult at all. Fifty-four percent say that it is only
slightly difficult. Another twenty-six percent say that with
some Russian, it is still moderately difficult to get by in
Georgia. Two percent say that it remains very difficult. No
respondent thought that performing the tasks of daily life
in Georgia is impossible for those who speak no Georgian,
but some Russian.
Basic knowledge of Georgian was perceived to
be even more helpful than Russian in daily life, and most
respondents think that only some obstacles remain once
Georgian basics are acquired. About a third (30 percent) say
that for someone who knows some Georgian, there are no more
difficulties in getting by in Georgia. Over half of the
respondents say that daily life is only slightly difficult
under these circumstances. Eighteen percent think that it is
still moderately difficult. One respondent says that
performing the tasks of daily life is very difficult, even
with some Georgian skills.
Most respondents regularly communicate in
languages other than English, and Georgian was generally
perceived to be more useful than Russian for daily life in
Georgia. Does the language learning patterns, and the
respondents’ achieved proficiencies, reflect this?
Closing the Language Gap
All of the respondents know either some
Russian or Georgian, and three quarters have skills in both.
About the same number of respondents say they have started
learning Georgian (88 percent) or Russian (84 percent), but
there are much fewer advanced Georgian than Russian speakers
among them. This correlates with the amount of time invested
in focused study of the respective language, which is on
average much higher for those studying Russian than for the
Georgian learners.
While about one third of the Russian learners
fall in each of the proficiency categories – beginner,
intermediate, advanced – only very few of the Georgian
learners have attained the highest level. All of the
respondents know either some Russian or Georgian, and 73
percent have at least a basic proficiency in both languages.
Eighty-eight percent of the respondents have some skills in
Georgian, and 84 percent know some Russian. To make
comparisons easier, the respondents were grouped into three
proficiency categories, according to their skills in each
language:
-
Beginners are those who have
achieved at least an elementary proficiency in either
spoken or read Georgian or Russian. Thirty-two percent
of the Russian learners and 53 percent of those who are
studying Georgian are on this level. Of all
participants, 47 percent are beginners of Georgian, and
27 percent are beginners of Russian.
-
Respondents qualified as intermediate
learners of a language if they have at least a
limited working proficiency in spoken or read Georgian
or Russian. This group makes up 35 percent of all
Russian learners and 42 percent of all Georgian
learners. Twenty-nine percent of all respondents fall
into the intermediate category when it comes to Russian
language skills, and 37 percent of them have an
intermediate knowledge of Georgian.
-
The advanced group comprises those
who speak or read the respective language at a superior
professional proficiency level. While 33 percent of all
Russian learners have attained this level, only 5
percent of the students of Georgian can say the same. Of
the census population, 28 percent fall into the advanced
category with regard to their Russian skills, and 4
percent master Georgian on the highest possible level.
People learning Russian have spent
considerably more time on focused study of their language
than those studying Georgian, and they are four times as
likely to have invested 1,000 hours or more in acquiring
their language skills.
On average, the respondents say they logged 1,446 hours on
either self-study or taught courses for Russian (median: 300
hours), compared with an average of 310 hours for those who
study Georgian (median: 100 hours). At the top end the
difference in investment is especially striking: forty
percent of all Russian learners have studied for 1,000 hours
or more, and only 9 percent of the Georgian learners say the
same.

Even though Georgia’s national language is
Georgian, and it is thought to be more helpful in Georgian
daily life, a majority of the respondents seem to have made
a greater effort to learn Russian. Which are the factors
that facilitate this decision?
The Role of Russian and Georgian for
Foreigners
The data indicate that differences in both
supply and demand for language skills can explain the
respondents’ lower levels of proficiency in Georgian. On the
supply side, many respondents had prior knowledge of Russian
when they came to Georgia. Furthermore, Georgian might be
harder to acquire, both in terms of language difficulty and
the availability of opportunities to learn in a structured
environment. With regard to the demand, it seems likely that
Georgian is frequently chosen to improve social and everyday
life in Georgia, whereas Russian is often seen as an asset
in professional life, and is also valuable outside Georgia.
Acquiring Languages
A majority of the respondents had prior
professional experiences in post-Soviet countries before
coming to Georgia. Therefore, it is likely that many already
had some Russian skills when they arrived, especially since
there are numerous programs abroad that teach Russian, but
relatively few that teach Georgian. Georgian also seems to
be harder to learn than Russian, as learners of Georgian
assessed their language skills on average lower than Russian
speakers with a comparable amount of prior study.
Throughout the post-Soviet space, Russian is
still widely used as a commercial and professional language,
and 69 percent of the respondents had prior experiences of
living in this region for professional reasons and for more
than two weeks. Russia had been the main destination, with
49 percent of all respondents having been there. It is
followed by Armenia and Azerbaijan (together 40 percent).
Twenty-six percent had been to Central Asia, and 21 percent
had experiences in Belarus, Moldova or Ukraine. The Baltic
countries were a prior destination for 10 percent of the
respondents.
Since demand for Russian tends to be higher
than for Georgian in the professional world, supply for
Russian courses is also much more developed. The teaching of
Russian has a long-standing tradition amongst Western
universities, even outside linguistics classes, as it is
important for a variety of disciplines. Georgian, however,
is primarily taught in the context of linguistics or
specific language courses. For example, according to the
University of Minnesota, there are currently only three US
universities (University of Chicago, Indiana University and
Columbia University) that offer Georgian courses in the
classroom.
Moreover, once someone decides to learn
Georgian and finds an appropriate learning environment, it
becomes apparent that Georgian can be a difficult language
to learn.
According to the U.S. Department of State’s
language service, it is even more difficult than Russian.
They classify both languages on the same difficulty level
(the second highest), which includes languages that require
in average 1,100 hours of class work to attain an
intermediate proficiency. Georgian, however, is additionally
marked as more difficult than the other languages of this
category. Thus, it is effectively placed between the
second-highest and the highest difficulty level, which
includes languages like Mandarin and Arabic.
Overall, respondents who learn Georgian have
less confidence in their language skills compared with those
who have studied Russian for a comparable amount of time.
While 9 percent of the Georgian learners have invested more
than 1,000 hours, none was confident enough to claim an
advanced proficiency. Instead, their responses place all of
them into the intermediate category. Of those who have
studied Russian for 1,000 hours or more, 66 percent claim an
advanced proficiency, and a further 31 percent have achieved
an intermediate level. One respondent with 1,000 hours or
more of Russian studies says he is still on a beginner’s
level. Among those who have invested between 200 and 1,000
hours into their Georgian studies, 12 percent deem to have
achieved an advanced proficiency. Again, those who have
studied Russian for a comparable amount of time seem to be
more confident in their skills, as 28 percent of them are in
the highest category.

While a high proficiency is rarely attained,
some respondents were able to pick up basic Georgian without
formal study. About 7 percent of all respondents knowing
some Georgian state that they have not invested time into
focused study. Learners of Russian arguably do not have
equal possibilities to pick up their language in Georgia,
and only 3 percent of them said the same.
Many respondents probably knew some Russian
when they came to Georgia, and Georgian is more difficult to
learn. So what are some of the incentives for studying
Georgian nonetheless?
Incentives for Language Learning
According to the data, Georgian is often
chosen to facilitate the daily life in Georgia, and Russian
is more frequently seen as a professional asset. While
achieving an advanced proficiency for professional and
personal use is a goal more common among the Russian
learners, those studying Georgian are often satisfied with
mastering informal conversations, or have no specific
long-term goals at all. Family ties also play a role, as
respondents with a Georgian partner have invested more time
in their study, have higher ambitions and, overall, a
slightly higher level of proficiency. In addition,
presumably because they serve in different domains, knowing
one language did not prevent respondents from learning the
other one as well.
Many of the Georgian learners had no
long-term goals with regard to their abilities, or said that
mastering informal conversations would be sufficient,
whereas many Russian learners intended to achieve higher
levels of proficiency. Of those who are learning Georgian,
36 percent said they intend to achieve near-native or an
advanced proficiency. Sixty-one percent of the Russian
learners said the same. Developing their skills for use in
their personal life seemed to be more common among those
studying Georgian: being able to have regular informal
conversations in public and with friends, co-workers or
family was the main goal for 27 percent of the Georgian
learners and 17 percent of those studying Russian. A full 30
percent of those learning Georgian said that they have no
long-term goals with their language ability, while only 11
percent of the Russian learners said the same.
The data show that respondents with
exceptionally strong social ties to Georgia, as indicated by
the presence of a Georgian significant other, tend to be
more ambitious with regard to their Georgian-language
skills. Twenty-five percent of the respondents actually had
a Georgian significant other at the time of the study.
Thirty-eight percent of them said that they intended to gain
an advanced or near-native proficiency in Georgian, compared
with 28 percent of those without such a partner. Regular
informal conversations were the goal for 33 percent of all
those respondents with a Georgian significant other, and for
22 percent of those without one. About 29 percent of those
with a Georgian partner either have no long-term goal for
their Georgian-language ability or do not intend to engage
in more than the occasional interaction in shops and public
venues. Amongst those who do not have a Georgian significant
other, 50 percent said the same.

Those with a Georgian partner had also
invested more time in their focused language study than
other respondents. On average, they had studied Georgian for
about 374 hours, compared to 288 hours for those without a
Georgian significant other (median: 100 hours for both
groups). They were three times as likely to have invested
more than 1,000 hours in their language skills (18 percent
compared to 6 percent). About 5 percent of those with a
Georgian significant other, and 8 percent of those have not
engaged in formal study of the language.
The overall higher effort in language
learning among those with a Georgian partner compared with
the others correlates to a slightly higher proficiency in
Georgian. Regarding advanced speakers, both groups (those
with Georgian partners and those without) were about the
same, with 4 percent falling into this category. About 42
percent of those with a Georgian partner had an intermediate
proficiency, compared with 35 percent in the other group.
Respondents with at least a beginner’s level of Georgian
were also slightly more common among those with a Georgian
partner, with 50 percent compared with 47 percent of those
without one. Furthermore, only 4 percent of those with a
Georgian partner had no Georgian skills at all, whereas of
those without such a partner, 14 percent said the same.
As there seem to be different incentives for
learning Russian or Georgian, knowing either language
generally did not prevent the respondents from learning the
other one as well. The original assumption had been that
some knowledge of Russian would practically eliminate the
necessity and therefore the incentives for learning
Georgian. Contrary to these expectations, 87 percent of
those knowing some Russian had also started learning
Georgian. Thirty-five percent of those respondents with
intermediate or better Russian skills also had intermediate
or better proficiency in Georgian. Even more (49 percent) of
the respondents with intermediate or better Georgian spoke
Russian on a comparable level.

Conclusion
The data indicates that for a foreigner in
Georgia, there are distinct reasons to learn either Georgian
or Russian. The overwhelming majority of respondents agreed
that knowledge of one of these languages helps one get by in
daily life in Georgia. However, it also became apparent that
Russian skills alone are rarely perceived to be sufficient.
Apart from being more useful in everyday situations,
Georgian seems to be especially important for social and
family life. Russian, on the other hand, seems to be the
better choice for professionals. Two languages that serve in
two different domains – this could explain why 87 percent of
the respondents who know Russian still attempted to learn
Georgian.
This effort was preliminary research,
conducted at short notice as an add-on to another project.
There is a rich research field here that could become a
comprehensive topic for dedicated researchers or groups,
including research students. This research would have
significant practical application, both for learners to
understand what learning Georgian entails, and for teachers,
to better target their efforts. Among questions to be
investigated is that of obstacles to learning Georgian –
given how highly it is valued, it may be that the supply of
teaching right now is not sufficiently flexible to
accommodate the demands of learners with complex schedules.
Another fruitful field of inquiry, linked to obstacles, is
at what specific point students give up actively studying
Georgian. Understanding that point better might help
learners navigate across and over it. However, these are
just some of the potential topics to be explored, since in
learning Georgian there are a range of cultural and
sociological themes as well.
ANNEX
Methodology
The population of this census was recruited
from the popular, long-running, English-language mailing
list “megobrebs” for expatriates who either lived or still
live in Georgia, mostly in Tbilisi. Most of the people on
this list have deliberately chosen to stay in Georgia, or
engaged with Georgia in one way or another, which is
reflected by their self-selection for the census. This
particular research design has some constraints, but can
also provide special insights:
-
The mailing list is in English and,
therefore, the majority of its participants are either
native English speakers or at least expatriates with a
strong command of this language. Consequently, the
sample does not represent the whole expatriate community
in Georgia but only an Anglophone selection.
-
People on the mailing list are not
necessarily still in Georgia, nor did they in each case
stay there for a prolonged time. Instead, the voluntary
membership in the list and self-selection for
participation in our research is a strong indicator of
some kind of personal relationship to the country. Most
of the participants, however, have indeed been to
Georgia for a long period of time.
-
By selecting mainly those expatriates who
deliberately chose to stay linked to Georgia, we focus
on a special group of people. They tend to have
motivation-driven attitudes toward the issue of language
learning (as opposed to short-term instrumental
attitudes of those on rotating posts), and show
different patterns with regard to factors like age and
profession.
The link to the questionnaire was sent to 224
e-mail addresses taken from the “megobrebs” mailing list.
One hundred twenty-four people, 55 percent of the 224
addressees, viewed the online questionnaire. Two reminders
were sent, and in total, 104 individuals started and 90
completed it, accounting for a response rate of 40.2 percent
for completed questionnaires. (As some e-mail accounts no
longer were active, the real response rate was a little
higher.) A log-in process requiring identification with a
valid e-mail address helped to avoid double-entries. Given
that the survey asked about attitudes to the August 2008
conflict, participation was the criterion for self-selection
into the pool of people that feel engaged on Georgian
issues.
Converting Prose into Numbers
Due to a configuration error, the
participants were able to enter text instead of numerical
values in response to the questions on how many hours of
focused study they had spent on their Russian and Georgian
skills. While some strings were easily converted into
numerical values, others had to be estimated.
The following rules have been applied when
converting strings to numbers:
-
Where a minimum was entered ("1000+"),
the value plus one-third was taken ("1333") – 11
instances
-
Where “thousands” was entered, a
numerical approximation was calculated, based on the
minimal value semantically associated with the
expression plus one-third ("thousands" becomes "2000+"
becomes "2667") – 2 instances
-
One year was calculated as 51 weeks times
6 hours – 3 instances
-
Where a range was entered ("30-50"), the
average was taken ("40") – 2 instances
-
One respondent with high proficiency in
Russian entered “many”, the same calculation as for
“thousands” was applied – 1 instance
The Census Population
The respondents are predominantly male (57
percent) and tend to be rather young: 78 percent are in
between 20 and 39 years of age. Only 21 percent are older
than 40 years. Eighty-nine percent said that English is
their first or native language. The second sizable language
group consisted of native German speakers (5 percent).
Dutch, Danish, French or Russian speakers, and people with
one of the Scandinavian languages as their native tongue,
accounted for the remaining 7 percent.
Although only about half of the respondents
gave information about their professional background, the
data shows that the respondents work in a great variety of
sectors. Apparently, the answer options were not
sufficiently exhaustive, as 44 percent of the respondents
did not indicate that they worked in one of the sectors
enumerated. Of those who did, the largest group consisted of
students, who made up 17 percent of the total number of
respondents. They were followed by those working in
international, non-governmental or non-profit organizations
(14 percent). Thirteen percent said that they are
researchers, and 9 percent identify themselves as teachers.
The smallest groups were people affiliated with government
or diplomatic service (5 percent) and businessmen (4
percent). Consultancy, journalism, medical and legal
services were other sectors mentioned by the respondents.
Forty-four percent gave no information about their
professional background.
Those respondents who identify themselves as
students are more proficient and more ambitious than the
rest with regard to language learning in Georgia. Students
generally have a much higher proficiency in Georgian, and a
slightly lower Russian proficiency (see Figure 5: Student
hours of focused language study). They have invested more
time both in their Russian and Georgian language studies
(see Figure 5). Sixty-five percent of the students aim for
advanced or near-native proficiency in Georgian, while only
24 percent of those who are not students say the same. For
Russian, the difference is lower: 63 percent of the students
want to master this language at advanced or near-native
levels, compared with 49 percent of the rest.
Figure 1: Student overall
language abilities

Figure 2: Student hours of
focused language study

While in Georgia, the respondents’ engaged in
a variety of full-time activities, with the most mentioned
being NGO work, research and education were the most
mentioned. Forty-three percent said that they worked in a
non-profit, international or non-governmental organization,
while 31 percent were engaged in research. Education was
also a major field of activity, with 19 percent of the
respondents teaching in Georgia and 13 percent studying
there. The smallest groups were journalists (11 percent),
those engaged in diplomatic or government missions (9
percent), doing business (4 percent), or tourism and sport
(4 percent). Personal affairs and volunteering were
mentioned by less than 2 percent of the respondents. Five
percent did not answer the question on their full-time
activity while being in Georgia.
At the time of the census, around 43 percent
of the respondents were living in Georgia. Thirty-seven
percent had moved to North America, and 15 percent were
living in the European Union. Four percent of the replies
came from non-EU Eastern Europe or CIS countries (without
Georgia), and two percent of the respondents were living in
other countries.
Many respondents had spent a longer time in
Georgia, as two-thirds of them had an experience of more
than one year there. Almost a third (32 percent) had lived
in Georgia for more than three years. Another 36 percent had
been there between one and three years. Respondents who had
stayed in Georgia between seven and twelve months accounted
for 17 percent of the responses, and those who only visited
Georgia for up to six months made up another 17 percent.
Experimental Question and Further
Research
<(pp. 169-183)
In an experimental question, the respondents
were asked for how much money they would be ready to sell
their language abilities. This “economic value” attached to
the respective language skills varied greatly across and
within proficiency groups, but those who had achieved an
advanced level of Georgian valued their skill overall much
higher than their peers with an equivalent proficiency in
Russian. The mean for respondents with advanced Georgian
skills was 1,836,667 USD (median: 500,000 USD). In the
Russian advanced group, it was considerably lower (231,619
USD, median: 70,000 USD). On the intermediate level, the
difference was less pronounced, with Georgian scholars
averaging at about 176,935 USD (median: 10,000), and Russian
learners at 257,394 USD (median: 2,750 USD). In the beginner
group, language skills in Georgian were once again higher
valued, with the mean at 1.857 USD (median: 100 USD)
compared to 827 USD (median: 100 USD) for Russian. A total
of 7 Georgian learners said that they would not exchange
their language abilities for money, and 5 Russian learners
said the same.
Please note that the data on this question
was at times inconsistent, and many respondents chose to
enter extremely low or extremely high numbers. In order to
calculate meaningful means, it was decided to cut two
outliers: a Georgian intermediate speaker who valued his
language skills at 10 million USD, and one Russian
intermediate speaker, who said he would sell his abilities
at 1 billion USD.
Possible hypotheses:
-
The higher averages among the Georgian
speakers indicate a higher emotional attachment to the
language skills, which is very difficult to measure in
monetary terms.
-
The higher averages among the Georgian
speakers indicate a higher economic value of the
language skills, presumably because there are so few
others who can field such skills.
-
The categories of Georgian language
ability represent real-life proficiencies that differ
from the Russian ones: the Georgian speakers are
generally more advanced than their Russian peers in the
same group. This could be due to extensive everyday
training as opposed to the effort of focused, formal
studies. Furthermore, the ubiquitous comparison to
native speakers in Georgia might lead to an
underestimation of language proficiency, compared to
Russian speakers who often compare their abilities with
other non-native speakers.