Replacement of the Cyrillic Alphabet with the Latin Script in the Former Soviet Republics in the 1990s-2000s (original) (raw)

Multilingualism in the Successor States of the Soviet Union

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1997

The Soviet Union was a country with one of the most complex language situations in the world. Over one hundred nationalities were listed in its last 1989 census, ranging in size from 145 million Russians (50.8 percent of the population) to the '26 Peoples of the North' who together numbered only 184,448. For most of these nationalities, the majority claimed that their national language was their mother tongue. However, knowledge of Russian as first or second language was claimed by about 62 percent of the non-Russians. Only 4.2 percent of the Russians reported fluency in one of the national languages, though among the Russians living outside the Russian Federation, bilingualism was about 19 percent , Arutiunian, etal 1992). 1 Until Gorbachev's perestroika opened up the Communist system, the Soviet authorities claimed that the nationality problem in the Soviet Union was basically solved and a 'Friendship of Peoples' was firmly established. The language problem was supposedly solved too-all languages were equal, with Russian only 'the first among equals' :11, Khanazarov 1982). Soviet linguists also claimed that linguistic processes were unique in the Soviet Union-the largely one-sided bilingualism, for example, was not to be associated with unequal status but was rather an indication of the universal love and respect for the Russian people and their language. Also, unlike the case under capitalism, this bilingualism, which was termed 'harmonious,' was not a threat to the national languages but only 'enriched them' and helped them to 'flourish' (Desheriev 1987, Kreindler 1985b. Indeed, since the educational laws of 1958-1959, which abrogated Stalin's decree of 1938 (making Russian a compulsory subject in all schools), there were no laws in the Soviet Union giving Russian special status. Russian, though vigorously promoted by the state, was not an official language, but one 'voluntarily chosen' by all and, as originally coined by Khruschev, the 'second mother tongue' which of course could easily become the first (Kreindler 1993). 2

Russian in post-Soviet countries (2008)

2008

Аннотация В статье проводится сравнительный анализ языковой политики в отношении русского языка и языковой практики на территории четырнадцати постсоветских стран. Вначале анализируется взаимосвязь между языковой политикой, которая предопределяет статус русского языка в каждой из стран, языковой ситуацией в общественной сфере, в том числе в области образования и трудоустройства, и языковой ситуацией в частной практике, которая позволяет понять настоящее положение русского языка и предсказать тенденции его сохранения и передачи. Анализ проводится на основе данных цензусов и обзоров, а где возможно также социолингвистических и этнографических исследований. Затем, общие тенденции развития анализируются с точки зрения исторических, социополитических, социоэкономических, демографических и лингвистических факторов, взаимоотношения между которыми ведут к тому, что в географически близких странах складываются разные языковые ситуации.

Russian as a non-dominant variety in post-Soviet states: a comparison

The language situation of the Post-Soviet states is particularly interesting to the linguist and sociolinguist. Here, Russian has co-existed alongside several ethnic-historical languages, as the main language of ‘interethnic’ and / or ‘intranational’ communication, until well after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet, after initial enthusiasm for the revival of national languages, particularly active in the 1990s, a renewed awareness of the functioning of Russian can be attested. There are multiple extra-linguistic reasons for the attention paid to the current developments of Russian in the different Euro-Asian states. Nonetheless the fundamental common feature which characterize the new sociolinguistic panorama of the former CIS states is that Russian, even where it preserves an official status, is less subject to a Russian-Russian (Moscow) norm setting-centre than in the Soviet period. Such a circumstance accelerates the process of breaking-up of a ‘unitary’, well standardized Russian, thus creating the conditions for the forming of potential ‘national’ varieties of Russian-s (cf. Englishes). After an outline of convergent and divergent processes in the formation of possible non-dominant varieties of Russian, the case study will focus on the Russian of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Russian language prestige in the states of the former Soviet Union

The prestige of the Russian language has changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nicholas Ostler, a linguist and language historian, categorized four reasons why an imperial language would remain after the colonizing power leaves. He applied this theory to Russian in the states of the former Soviet Union. He found that only Belarus maintains a significant enough number of Russian speakers to fall into one of his categories. I find that the Russian language is prestigious in all fourteen former Soviet Union states because of its use regionally as a lingua franca. I begin with a review of language policy from Tsarist times through today’s Russia. I follow this with a demographic survey of the major languages in each of the 14 former Soviet states, as well as a linguistic comparison of Russian with each republic’s titular language. Next, using census data and language attitudes revealed through surveys and polls, I show how Russian is still a prestigious language in all FSU states, despite a decrease in the number of speakers, especially in younger generations. I conclude with a review of Ostler’s four categories and reasons why I call Russian a dying regional lingua franca.

The Russian Language in Soviet Russia in the 1920-30-s

Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2013

The present inquiry addresses the problem of functional, stylistic and other changes in the Russian language in post-revolutionary Russia. This phenomenon known as “the Soviet language” is argued to have been a specific tool in building the new Soviet state with all its political, cultural and educational institutions. The research is based on comparative analysis method. The authors analyze the aims and results of the Soviet government policies applied to the state key institutions as well as the interdependence and interaction between the Soviet ideology and the language transformation. The investigation touches upon the historic background of political, economic and cultural changes after the Russian revolution of 1917. The main channels of ideological intervention are proved to have been school education, mass (proletarian) culture, mass media, penetration into the everyday life of the Soviet people. The findings reveal that the Soviet Russian language developed into one of the ...

Soviet language policy and education in the post-WWII period

Sociolinguistic Studies, 2021

The article gives an excursus into the national and language policies of the postwar USSR, highlights the major stages, and reveals cause-effect connections. We conclude that the national and language policies of the USSR and Russia follow the pattern of dynamic fluctuations, dependent, in the first place, on the domestic political conditions and international situation-calm and prosperous times or the times of external/internal threats. These policies fluctuate from liberal laws providing for democratic self-governance of national territorial units, use of national (ethnic) languages in education and administration, institutionalization of and financing structures for the development of national media, cultures, literatures and languages to such steps as strengthening of the major national language as language of inter-ethnic communication (as well as titular languages of the autonomous republics), return to unifying patriotic ideology and education, civic consolidation, "convergence in a single nation" and etatism. In the second place, there is a dependence on the needs of modernization and technological progress, but this factor, while giving prominence to a single developed national language, also presupposes the development of minor languages based on the practices of translations from/into the H-language and borrowing/enriching terminology thereof.

Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Soviet National Languages: Their Present, past and Future

The Modern Language Journal, 1987

The importance of language in the life of a nation requires no special elaboration. The native language, particularly for the so-called "non-historical" or stateless nations of Eastern Europe, has served as a focus of national awareness. This is not to say that language alone defines nationality. Rather, for nations like the Ukrainian, whose efforts at attaining national statehood have largely been frustrated, the role and status of the native language (i.e., "the language question") has been and continues to be a paramount issue in the quest for legitimization and authentication of the nation itself. The language, to paraphrase Joshua Fishman, becomes to a large extent the message of nationalism. 1 The symbolic function of language, implicit in the foregoing, has been noted in the case of the Ukrainians. Thus, Walker Connor has written that Ukrainian unrest is popularly reported as an attempt to preserve the Ukrainian language against Russian inroads ....This propensity to perceive an ethnic division in terms of the more tangible differences between the groups is often supported by the statements and actions of those involved. In their desire to assert their uniqueness, members of a group are apt to make rallying points of their more tangible and distinguishing institutions. Thus, the Ukrainians, as a method of asserting their non-Russian identity, wage their campaign for national survival largely in terms of their right to employ the Ukrainian, rather than the Russian, tongue in all oral and written matters. But would not the Ukrainian nation (that is, a popular consciousness of being Ukrainian) be likely to persist even if the language were totally replaced by Russian, just as the Irish nation has persisted after the virtual disappearance of Gaelic, despite pre-1920 slogans that described Gaelic and Irish identity as inseparable? Is the language the essential element of the Ukrainian nation, or is it merely a minor element which has been elevated to the symbol of the nation in its struggle for continued viability? 2 One might add that this "high visibility" of the language question in the Ukrainian case has been conditioned not only by the purposefulness of the nation seeking to establish its identity, but also by the determination of