Ethnolinguistic Vitality Perceptions and Language Revitalisation in Bashkortostan

Abstract

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Objective and Subjective Data on Altai and Kazakh Ethnolinguistic Vitality in the Russian Federation Republic of Altai

“…In order to see the group differences with respect to total Russian and Altai vitality scores, for each informant a vitality score was computed, and on the basis of these scores a total score for each group was calculated and turned into a Russian and Altai vitality scale (for details of this procedure see Yagmur & Kroon, 2003). Between these two scales a t-test was done but no variation was observed between the groups.…”

“…By Law of 8 December 1923, the southern Altai-Kishi dialect, which was spoken by the majority of the people in Altai, was chosen as the basis for developing a new standard literary Altai. As we have shown in Yagmur and Kroon (2003), this type of language-planning activity fits into the early stage of Soviet language policies in which official discourse supported indigenous minority languages and provisions for teaching these languages were made available. According to Leninist ideology all languages had equal status, but this position changed gradually under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev in favour of Russification policies aiming at the creation of a homo sovieticus without linguistic, ethnic or cultural divisions (for details see Yagmur & Kroon, 2003).…”

“…As we have shown in Yagmur and Kroon (2003), this type of language-planning activity fits into the early stage of Soviet language policies in which official discourse supported indigenous minority languages and provisions for teaching these languages were made available. According to Leninist ideology all languages had equal status, but this position changed gradually under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev in favour of Russification policies aiming at the creation of a homo sovieticus without linguistic, ethnic or cultural divisions (for details see Yagmur & Kroon, 2003). The use of native languages was confined to only a very few domains and Russian became the only accepted language for educational and socioeconomic mobility, public institutions and media.…”

“…Smolicz et al , 2001;Yagmur et al , 1999). Also in studying the language revitalisation efforts in the Russian Federation Republic of Bashkortostan, combining subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and Edwards' typology turned out to be successful (Yagmur & Kroon, 2003).…”

Language shift in second generation Albanian immigrants in Greece

“…The questionnaire measures the three main factors which contribute to a group's overall vitality (demographic strength, status and institutional support) and it also elicits subjects' perceptions on the degree of contact among ethnic groups. For EV studies, see Bourhis and Sachdev (1984), Giles and Johnson (1987), Giles, Rosenthal, and Young (1985), Kraemer and Olshtain (1989), Yagmur (2004), Yagmur and Kroon (2003) and Ytsma, Angels Viladot, and Giles (1994). For critiques of the theory, see Fishman (2001) and Husband and Saifullah Khan (1982).…”