The Romanization of Belarusian: an Unnecessary Dualism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Belarusian Language: Current State and Perspectives
Twenty years after Soviet Union's dissolution, Belarus still remains one of the least known and most stereotypically-perceived countries of the post-soviet area. In fact, "the triadic relationship between the modern state, nation, and democracy remains undertheorized for long-established Western states, and therefore there has been a gap in the theoretical literature when scholars have investigated post communist states". The general perception that currently exists in Central-Eastern Europe is that language is "a much more effective basis for political power than contiguity." Language became a "legitimizing formula" for nation-building, so where there exists the decline of language, the state independence is under question (Schöpflin, 2000). Such a perception influenced significantly the image of the Belarusian language. Introduction of Russian as a second state language in 1995 and further intentions of close integration with Russia were seen as an authoritarian path based on Belarusian weak national identity, strong connections with the Russian culture and general Sovietization of Belarusian population. This article aims to show the development of Belarusian language over the last 20 years in connection with the Belarusian national identity and explain the current linguistic situation taking into account previous Soviet practices of the national policies towards Belarusians and their language.
WHO SPEAKS BELARUSIAN? THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS
Ethnologia Polona, 2017
The article presents the current situation of the Belarusian language and of its speakers. The analysis is based on empirical material collected with the use of ethnographic methods during the period from 1998 to 2005 and 2010, as well as on information found in the professional literature on this subject and on the Internet. The article explains why Belarusian is seen not only as a communication code, but also as a stigma and a manifestation of political views, and how this situation shapes the attitudes towards the language. Additionally, the article presents efforts focused on the promotion of Belarusian language and culture undertaken by informal groups, such as Spajemstvo or “Let’s Be Belarusians!” The article also shows the difference between the perceived and real use of Belarusian in everyday life. Artykuł poświęcony jest współczesnej sytuacji języka białoruskiego i jego użytkownikom. Źródłem analiz są materiały empiryczne zebrane metodą etnograficzną, podczas badań prowadzonych od 1998 do 2005 i w 2010 roku, literatura tematu oraz dane, pochodzące z Internetu. Wyjaśnia z czego wynika zróżnicowane postrzeganie języka białoruskiego − jako kodu komunikowania, stygmatu, manifestacji poglądów politycznych i jaki ma to wpływ na stosunek do tego języka. Opisane zostały także działania na rzecz białoruszczyzny i kształtowania środowiska białoruskojęzycznego, podejmowane przez nieformalne grupy, takie jak Spajemstvo (lata 90. XX wieku), czy kampanię "Bądźmy Białorusinami!" − funkcjonującą od 2008 roku w Internecie i w rzeczywistości. Ważnym wątkiem artykułu jest zwrócenie uwagi na to, komu przypisywane jest posługiwanie się językiem białoruskim, a kto rzeczywiście z niego korzysta w codziennym życiu.
Historická sociologie, 2022
The dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s sparked a wave of political and national emancipation in its republics that led to the creation of new successor states. This also applied to the former Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR), which declared its independence on 27 July 1990. Even before this, however, a project concerning a wholly new and groundbreaking law was introduced in the country for public debate. According to the law, the Belarusian language – as the national language of the majority population – would become the one and only state and official language in the republic.
“Hybrid” Linguistic Identity of Post-Soviet Belarus
The issue of Belarusian language politics can be analysed across two different dimensions: as an element of nation-building strategy in post-Soviet Belarus; and as part of a linguistic human rights discourse, which refers to legal, moral as well as emotional aspects of current Belarusian language legislation and practice. These two aspects of the Belarusian language issue have become closely inter-related and are often perceived as mutually dependent. This article explores the social and political context of Belarusian national development, which resulted in the establishment of certain linguistic formulae of Belarusian identity. The linguistic repertoire of Belarusian society can be analysed not in terms of vacillation between two languages—Russian and Belarusian—but as a component of general post-colonial reality. When viewed against the background of several co-existing concepts of Belarusian identity, the linguistic practice of Belarusians can be understood as a manifestation of Belarusian culture’s “hybridity”, which has enabled a majority of Belarusians to avoid alienation and polarity in their perception of others and their language.
2014
This short article brings together previous literature on language policy in Belarus. Having formerly been a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and now an established independent nation, the article explores the influence of Belarus' various changes in identity. It reflects broadly on the language policies of the nations it was once a part of, outlining the fluctuating journey of the Belarusian language through periods of widespread usage and acceptance to periods of oppression. A more thorough analysis is provided of the impact of language policy post-independence (and also, of the Law on Languages which slightly predates the declaration of independence), from the initial glimmer of hope provided by the establishment of Belarusian as the sole official language to the long-term decline imposed upon the Belarusian public by pro-Russian `dictator' Lukashenko. The article concludes by highlighting recent activity that could offer an optimistic outlook for the future.
As a result of Soviet policies in Belarus, based on the cultural proximity of the nation to Russia and backed by the Soviet ideologized historical canon of a common “old-Russian people concept”, a significant portion of the titular nation’s representatives were subjects of increasing adaptation of the Russian language not only as their second, but also as their first language. Independent Belarus had to adapt to the new realities of the language policies when the titular language became an element of the political debate. The mild nationalization policies that had been implemented soon after independence were aimed at expanding the titular language’s role – it was proclaimed the sole official language of the country while Russian enjoyed the status of the language of interethnic communication. As a result of a controversial 1995 referendum, Russian was granted equal status to Belarusian which de facto meant the curtailing of the nationalization policies and return to the pre-independence status quo. This paper seeks to examine the status of the titular language in Belarus arguing that it can be described as a national symbol in the shadow of politicized abnormal bilingualism dominated by the Russian language, which has been determined by the country’s Soviet past.
Polish Political Science Review
The goal of this article is to compare the Latvian and Lithuanian provisions regarding the spelling of names of the members of the national minorities. Lithuanians often state an opinion, that provisions in both countries are very similar, and Latvian Poles cannot use the original form of their names. The legal comparative methods have been used. In the paper the most important provisions of both countries were analyzed: Constitution, state language law, law on the state language commission and the special regulations on the spelling of the names. Also, the problems with the national minorities law were analyzed. This comparison led to the discovery of differences in the Lithuanian and Latvian provisions regarding the spelling of names. Another factor which had been taken into account is the standing of the international bodies on those regulations. It has been presented by showing most important cases regarding Latvia and Lithuania. Above mentioned means allowed the author to verif...