Re: 1988 acadmic article on Soviet (= Russian) linguistic imperialism

On May 2, 4:37 pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.oxuscom.com/Soviet_Language_Policy_in_CA.pdf

1988 Mark Dickens
SOVIET LANGUAGE POLICY IN CENTRAL ASIA

INTRODUCTION
The Russian Revolution of October 1917 resulted in a transfer of power
from the autocratic Tsar
Nicholas II to the Bolshevik Party ... Preventing the Russian Empire
from disintegrating into a host of smaller entities, as so many other
empires had done in the past, was a high priority on the agenda of the
new government.

Various strategies were employed to consolidate Bolshevik power ...
One of the most important of these was the language policy that the
Soviets adopted in dealing with the non-Russian nationalities.
Recognizing the crucial role that language plays in nationality
affairs, the new regime instituted a number of significant steps to
guide the development of the non-Russian languages in conformity with
the overall goals of the Communist Party. This paper will examine the
unfolding of the Soviet linguistic policy in that part of the USSR now
known as Central Asia.

[...]

Meanwhile, as the empires of Chingiz Khan (1167-1227) and Timur
(1336-1405) came and went, a new
force began to gain power on the edge of the Mongol-Turkic sphere of
influence. For several centuries, the
Russians had been subservient to the Tatars, a Turkic tribe which had
maintained the power of the Mongol
Golden Horde west of the Urals well into the fifteenth century. The
tiny principality of Muscovy (Moscow)
had been gradually increasing in size and power until, in 1552, Ivan
the Terrible captured the Tatar stronghold of Astrakhan. From that
time on, Russia was the power to be reckoned with as she rapidly
expanded her empire into Asia. The process of colonizing Central Asia
began in the eighteenth century and continued up to 1884, by which
time the Russians effectively controlled all of what is now Soviet
Central Asia.With the advent of Russian rule in Central Asia came
numerous changes, including some in the education system.
[...]
We have seen that one of the major reasons for spreading literacy was
in order to indoctrinate the people effectively in the path of
Communism. The question is: what else has the increase in literacy
opened the door to? An examination of Soviet linguistic policy
provides some interesting insights into the implications of literacy
in Central Asia.
[...]

Whereas Lenin had stressed the pluralist aspect of Soviet language
policy, the centrist aspect became
increasingly evident with the rise to power of Stalin, after the death
of Lenin in 1924. While there was no
official language de jure, the heavily centralized Soviet system
demanded a de facto official language for the purpose of governing the
state, and only one language could fulfill that purpose effectively
for the Soviets, namely Russian. As we will see later, this practical
need opened the door to an active policy of Russification during the
Stalin years which has continued up to the present. "One must view the
post-Lenin policies as a fundamental change from language
egalitarianism and national language promotion towards the imposition
of Russian"(Kreindler 1982:133).

[...]
THE RUSSIANIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIAN LANGUAGES
The adoption of the Cyrillic script opened the door for the Central
Asian languages to be influenced by
Russian in the lexical, phonological, morphological, and even
syntactic domains. Perhaps the most obvious
influence has been the massive influx of Russian terms into these
languages. Many languages in the young
Soviet state, including those in Central Asia, were perceived to be
deficient in the lexical domains considered to be most important in a
Communist society, namely the language of Marxism, Soviet political
structure, science and technology, and industrialization. Thus, it was
necessary to introduce into the languages terms which expressed these
concepts.
It is interesting to note, by comparison, what has happened to the
Uighur language (which is almost identical
to Uzbek) in China. The Arabic script was modified in 1947 (in much
the same way that it was initially modified in the USSR in the early
1920's) and a Latinized alphabet similar to the official Pinyin system
was devised in 1965. Both are still in use, and the former is actually
more popular than the latter. The Chinese authorities were obviously
unable to impose their writing system on the Uighurs, since the
Chinese characters cannot be used with non-Chinese languages. Had this
not been the case, one wonders whether Beijing would have attempted
what Moscow has done.

In the early days of the Soviet regime it was permissible to use loan
translations of Russian words, to
extend the meaning of Arabic, Persian, or Turkic words already in use,
or to coin neologisms from the local
languages. However, as time progressed, these methods were discouraged
in favor of incorporating
"international" words into the lexicon. Inevitably, the majority of
these "international" words were Russian, if
not in origin, at least in form. The continual appearance of Russian
terms in the government-controlled press served to emphasize this
trend. It is also interesting to note that "international" terms like
Hamlet are spelled in the Russian way Gamlet, even though the Cyrillic
alphabets used for the various Central Asian languages all have a
letter for [h] (Russian lacks this sound) (Fierman 1985:224).

In keeping with the aforementioned aim of Soviet Central Asian
language policy, Arabic and Persian
terms with Russian equivalents were often removed from these
languages. One example of the results of this policy is the fact that,
between 1923 and 1940, words of Arabic and Persian origin in Uzbek
declined from 37% to 25% of the total lexicon, while words of Russian
origin increased from 2% to 15% (Rywkin 1963:86). However, this trend
has been reversed in recent years as Central Asian language scholars
have reintroduced many classical Turkic terms as well as some of the
Arabic and Persian words which were formerly removed. Although some
Russian terms (such as kolkhoz 'collective farm') are a permanent part
of the vocabulary of these languages, others have not caught on.
With the introduction of Russian words, other aspects of the Central
Asian languages have been
affected to varying degrees also. Originally, the official policy was
that Russian loan words should conform to local pronunciation. In
addition, the suffix endings of the local languages could be used.
However, since 1952, it has been mandatory to write these loan words
as they are written in Russian, complete with Russian suffix endings.
Although these words are frequently pronounced according to the
patterns of the local languages, the emphasis on proper Russian
pronunciation in the school system has resulted in the intrusion of
Russian phonological and morphological features into these languages.
Russian has also had a limited influence on the syntax of some of
these languages in the translation of Russian literature, where
occasionally the Central Asian syntactic patterns are modified to
reflect Russian patterns.
[...]
The overall strategy behind these developments is not hard to discern:
This process, in which the Turkic languages were subjected to Russian
phonological,
morphological, syntactic and lexical semantic influences, led on the
one hand to the
undermining of their structures and systems and, on the other,
narrowed their social functions,
creating the necessary preconditions for the dominant language
eventually to supersede them

THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF BILINGUAGLISM
As noted above, Soviet language policy has had to maintain a delicate
balance between centrism and
pluralism, although the underlying Marxist concept of sliyaniye (the
eventual merger of all languages and
cultures into one) is the overall guiding principle. This was clearly
stated by proponents of the CPSU language policy in the mid 1960's:
The future development of social processes connected with the building
of Communism in the
USSR, does not lead to an increase in the number of existing languages
but to their gradual
reduction, to the steady replacement of some languages by others
(cited in Bruchis 1987:233)
As mentioned above, Russian was the obvious choice for the unofficial
"official" language of the Soviet
state. It takes little insight to see that it is also the projected
super-language which is ultimately intended to
absorb all the other languages in the Soviet Union, although Soviet
statements to that effect have hinted at this more than stating it
outright:
The Russian language is assigned a position superior to that of all
other languages spoken in the Soviet Union, and future Communist
nations of the USSR are envisioned as merging into one culture with
one common language, Russian [this Western analyst follows this
statement with a quote from Soviet sources]:
The merging of nations in the future, the withering away and the
replacement of [their] national tongues by a common language - all
this will take place as a result of the flourishing of the Communist
nations.... Russian is becoming more and more the common language for
all the socialist nations of the USSR (cited in Rywkin 1963:88).
The role of Russian in the life of Soviet peoples is increasing
daily... it is becoming the second
native language of hundreds and millions of speakers of various
languages [of the USSR]
(cited in Bruchis 1984:139-140).
The justifications for this were given by Feodot P. Filin, director of
the Russian Language Institute of
the USSR Academy of Sciences:
(1)The Russians form more than half the population; (2) Russian
contains the classics of
literature; (3) It contains the classics of Marxism-Leninism; (4) The
Russian people through
their revolutionary traditions, their wealth in science and culture,
their deeply internationalist
and unselfish aid to the other brotherly peoples, have earned the
sincere respect of all (cited in
Kreindler 1982:133-134).
Not only is Russian "the language of the Union's most developed
nation, which guided the country
through its revolutionary transformations and have [sic] won itself
the love and respect of all peoples"(Isayev 1977:299-300), it also
offers "unlimited opportunity to join the most progressive human
culture, and to gain a deep and lasting knowledge in all the fields of
science"(cited in Rakowska-Harmstone 1970:248).
The result of this underlying conviction of the CPSU has been the
policy of dva potoka 'two streams'
(Allardyce 1987:8). The national languages are developed in order to
fulfill local, cultural functions, while at
the same time, the Russian language is promoted to fulfill broader
functions having to do with the Soviet state and matters such as
industry and technology. Thus, the Soviet objective is "the attainment
of complete
bilingualism in the Soviet Union, thereby elevating Russian to the
status of the 'second native language' of the non-Russian
nations"(Solchanyk 1982b:23).
The Soviet efforts to promote bilingualism in the USSR are far from
over. In 1979, 23.3% of the overall
population was bilingual in Russian and their native tongue. However,
breaking down these figures reveals
that only 3.1% of ethnic Russians were bilingual at that time, while
the figure for non-Russians (who comprise nearly half the total
population) was 49% (Comrie 1981:28; Solchanyk 1982b:25 - please see
Tables 4a and 4b). Obviously, it is a one-sided policy and, despite
the higher figure for non-Russians, approximately one quarter of the
population still do not speak Russian fluently enough to operate in it
on a day-to-day basis.
[...]
A recent sociolinguistic study of the USSR identified the different
domains in which Russian and the
local languages are used. In Central Asia, Russian is used exclusively
in the Armed Forces and in all
government communication except oral communication at a local level.
Russian and the local languages are both used in the courts, in the
press, in TV and radio broadcasting, in written business and
professional
communication, and in official signs. The local languages are used
exclusively in indigenous film-making,
indigenous scholarly publications, and in local trade and commerce
(Robson 1984:4). The educational
situation is somewhat more complicated and will be dealt with below.

BILINGUALISM AND EDUCATION
Perhaps the primary area in which this encroachment of Russian upon
the social functions of the non-
Russian languages can be seen is the school system, the main vehicle
for promoting facility in the Russian
language among non-Russians. "At the request of the people," Russian
was instituted as a compulsory subject for all non-Russian students in
the USSR in 1938. Up until the early 1970's, there were two basic
educational options available in Central Asia, as in the rest of the
USSR. Parents could send their children either to native language
schools (where the language of instruction was the mother tongue, but
Russian was taught as a subject) or to Russian-language schools (where
all subjects were taught in Russian). Although they were free to
choose either, it was generally understood that the latter option was
the only logical choice for those who desired to see their children
advance in the Soviet system. Certainly, it was preferable for any who
intended to work in the area of science and technology.
Developments in Soviet policy since 1973, however, have resulted in an
increasing Russification of the
educational system. A decree issued in that year, On the State of and
Measures for Further Improving the
Teaching of Russian Language and Literature in the National Schools of
the Union Republics, "approved the practice of establishing mixed
schools employing both Russian and the native language as languages of
instruction"(Solchanyk 1982b:26).The First Tashkent Conference (1975),
Experience in the Study and
Teaching of the Russian Language in Schools and in Higher and
Secondary Specialized Institutions of the
Country, dealt, among other things, with the topic of preschool
education: “Naturally, the question arises:
should we not begin the study of the Russian language here as well,
with games and discussions?"(cited in
Solchanyk 1982b:27).In addition, it was proposed "that the teaching of
Russian be initiated beginning in grade 1 in all the national
republics"(Solchanyk 1982b:27- only nine republics were doing so at
the time. Increases were also called for in the number of hours of
Russian language instruction in the native-language schools, the
number of mixed schools, and the number of schools with enriched or
intensive Russian language classes. The field of higher education was
addressed by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1978,
which concluded that "the specialized disciplines, which are required
subjects in institutions of higher education in the USSR, should be
taught in Russian"(Solchanyk 1982b:30).
Many of these proposals became official law in the October 13, 1978
decree, On Measures for Further
Improving the Study and Teaching of the Russian Language in the Union
Republics. This legislation dealt
with several significant areas, including "expanding the system of
intensive study of Russian at the expense of the redistribution of
hours in the curricula; disseminating more widely the practice of
teaching specialized disciplines [in institutions of higher learning]
exclusively in Russian; [and] introducing Russian language study in
all pre-school institutions and preparatory classes" (Solchanyk 1982b:
30). The effect of this legislation in the Uzbek SSR can be seen in
the growth of both preschools with Russian language instruction and
general education schools with intensive Russian study. The former
increased from 211 in 1978 to 618 in 1979 to 1050 in 1981-82. The
total projected for 1985 was 2212 (Fierman 1985:231). The latter grew
from 400 in 1980 to 676 in 1981 to 1959 in 1982 (Fierman 1985:221).

Further proposals were made at the Second Tashkent Conference (1979),
The Russian Language - the
Language of Friendship and Cooperation of the Peoples of the USSR. It
was recommended:
... that specialized disciplines in the professional and technical
schools be taught in Russian
and that Russian be used in the teaching of other subjects in the
upper classes of the general
education schools... that the social studies, general education and
specialized disciplines in
institutions of higher education be taught in Russian starting in the
second or third year, and
that the study of Russian should begin in the first or second year at
the expense of other
subjects. Moreover, students in institutions of higher and secondary
specialized education are
expected to write their course and diploma projects, as well as
reports and essays in their
major field of study, in Russian (Solchanyk 1982b:32).

Needless to say, the general response of the nationalities to these
measures was not favorable, especially
in the Baltic republics, the non-Russian Slavic republics (the Ukraine
and Belorussia), and Georgia, where
various protests and demonstrations occurred and many national
scholars spoke out against the new policies.
[...]
CONCLUSION
An examination of Soviet language policy in Central Asia clearly shows
the intent of Moscow not only
to Sovietize, but perhaps more significantly, to Russianize the
Central Asian peoples. In many ways, the
promotion of literacy opened the door to this. Subsequently, alphabet
reform, the attempt to Russianize the
local languages, and the growing fact of Russian-national bilingualism
have all been used as tools to advance the Soviet's ultimate aim of
absorbing the Central Asians into the Russian culture. Although much
effort has been expended towards that end, to a large degree the
Russians and the local people in Central Asia are still culturally
distant from each other. There is little social mixing between the two
groups unless it is required and few Russians living in the area make
the effort to learn the local languages, a fact which frequently
arouses public complaint from the locals. In addition, there seems to
be an increasing concern among the five major Central Asian
nationalities to preserve and develop their individual cultures in the
face of stepped up efforts to Russianize them.
In a situation as complex as that of the Soviet Union, it is difficult
to predict what may happen in the
future. Some Western analysts conclude that, short of "a quantitative
leap (as at the time of the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy)... the
languages of the non-Russian peoples of the USSR seem doomed to
eventual extinction"(Bruchis 1984:14). Others project that, "if the
present trend continues, the net effect of the Soviet developmental
and linguistic policies will be the economic development of the area
and the proficiency of the Central Asians in Russian and their own
mother tongue"(Shorish 1984:46). Still others maintain that
"increasing bilingualism among Soviet Muslims has very little to do
with increasing Russification. It may, in fact, eventually put Soviet
Muslims in a much stronger position to assert their prerogative to
manage their own fate as full-fledged nations"(Henze 1984:127). Given
the sheer number of Central Asians and their longstanding cultural
heritage which has remained strong in the face of numerous external
influences over the centuries, it seems unlikely that they will ever
willingly allow themselves to be completely Russified.

And this is related to SCB how?
.

Relevant Pages

  • 1988 acadmic article on Soviet (= Russian) linguistic imperialism
    ... SOVIET LANGUAGE POLICY IN CENTRAL ASIA ... Preventing the Russian Empire ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Polish statue not to be rebuilt (quite rightly)
    ... the language and citizenship laws have had positive effects... ... Russian politicians facing Tabûns et al. because they are sometimes ... Soviet mentality is the clue to all that, ... politicians think in the same way as it was common then. ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: 1988 acadmic article on Soviet (= Russian) linguistic imperialism
    ... demanded a de facto official language for the purpose of governing the ... need opened the door to an active policy of Russification during the ... in which the Turkic languages were subjected to Russian ... The field of higher education was ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Language dynamics
    ... language, and no good will come of that. ... Students without Latvian skills have a dim future. ... Russian intruders spewing "why hasn't Russia been allowed to wreck ... Lithuanian foreign or domestic policy hasn't had to be given the nihil ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Language dynamics
    ... language, and no good will come of that. ... Students without Latvian skills have a dim future. ... Russian intruders spewing "why hasn't Russia been allowed to wreck ... Lithuanian foreign or domestic policy hasn't had to be given the nihil ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)