secondary education; housewives and women on maternity leave; low-income and other risk groups.
Data obtained from surveys carried out over a longer period of time allow the con- clusion that legislation regulating the use of language has not promoted either a sig- nificant increase in use of the state language in recent years or the motivation of ethnic minorities to learn the state language. This applies to both the State Language Law and to other regulatory enactments that restrict the use of other lan- guages.166A number of interviews show that the leading personal motives for learn- ing and using Latvian are employment, career and professional development. The place of employment is the main social environment in which use of the Latvian language is consistently increasing. A much more effective way for government institutions to “influence” personal motivation would be to popularize the advan- tages of language proficiency and to improve opportunities for language training instead of accenting the need to protect the Latvian language. Personnel policies aimed at a more ethnically mixed staff, especially in the public sector, could help to overcome both language and alienation problems.
The state language certification test has provided considerable stimulation to learn Latvian, but it has not significantly improved the sustainability or the practical application of Latvian language skills. Economic motivation to learn and use a lan- guage is stimulated both by individual career plans and by corporate efforts to improve competitiveness and prestige.
The wishes of adults to learn Latvian can often not be fulfilled. There are several reasons for this: limited need for use of the language, which is determined by the social environment in a number of areas where the state cannot regulate language use; financial problems; language-use customs and stereotypes on the part of both Latvians and ethnic minorities, which do not facilitate learning and use of the lan- guage. Motivation to use a language can increase along with changes in social con- nections, values and customs. One way of improving motivation is to improve Latvian language training.
Although several government institutions are involved in Latvian language training for adults,167as well as local governments and non-governmental organizations, the
166 Concrete examples are the provision of the State Language Law that regulates the use of the state language in communication with local governments, and the language restrictions imposed on the electronic media.
167 Primarily, NPLLT, the Naturalization Board, the Foundation for the Integration of Society, the National Employment Service. The Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Justice and the Secretariat of the Special Assignments Minister for Integration Affairs are also responsible for various aspects of coordination of the state language training process for adults.
demand for Latvian language training opportunities by far exceeds the supply. The main problems are connected with uncertainty about sources of financing and the relatively meager financial resources that are available for language training, as well as a lack of coordination among the responsible institutions. FIS efforts to initiate and expand Latvian language training for adults must be assessed positively.
Whether or not these efforts bring results greatly depends on whether or not there is a clear and coordinated strategy for adult language training, coordination of the functions of the institutions that are involved, and sufficient financing.
Although changes in regard to use of the Latvian language in ethnic minority schools have to some extent helped to improve the language proficiency of stu- dents, there still remains a lot to be done. The education reform has had a limited impact on society at large, and this has been predominantly negative. The language of instruction at general education schools is currently still an issue that divides society in Latvia. The education reform has not been carried out in a sufficiently public manner and has not promoted effective public participation in decision making.
The efforts of public organizations that support Latvian language training initia- tives or offer language courses and promote inter-ethnic communication have had positive results. It is therefore important to encourage the activities of these public and private organizations and increase their capacity. It must be pointed out that a number of international organizations have also had a big role in promoting Latvian language training: the European Union, UNDP, Soros Foundation – Latvia, the OSCE Mission to Latvia, and the governments of numerous countries.
However, the potential decline of foreign financing once Latvia joins the EU means that government initiative and support will be increasingly important.
An analysis of the attitudes and activities of ethnic minority organizations shows that they often tend to consider the policy implemented by government institu- tions to be contrary to the interests of the ethnic minorities. To some extent this is connected with a lack of trust in government institutions that is common for both Latvians and ethnic minorities. It is also connected with the uncertainty of the eth- nic minorities, especially the Russian minority, about the status of their language inasmuch as this has not been clearly defined. And to some extent, this tendency is also connected with insufficient cooperation between government institutions and ethnic minorities. Absence of effective communication between ethnic minorities and the state promotes the politicization of ethnic minority organizations, above all in regard to language as a key symbol of ethnic affiliation.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS