The Non-Russian Languages and the Challenge of Russian: The Eastern versus the Western Tradition

Kreindler, Isabelle

doi:10.1515/9783110864380-016

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most radical changes occurred after the October revolution when, in the 1920s, official language policy favored multilingualism, and language planning for dozens of ingenious languages was initiated. This short but intensive period was replaced by another conservative turn in the late 1930s which gave start to the strongest ever wave of Russification (Kreindler, 1984). Modern metalinguistic discourse demonstrates yet another turn in language ideology.…”

Section: Language Attitudes In Russian State Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of and Attitudes Towards ‘Other’ Languages in Modern Russia: Evidence from Metalinguistic Discourse

Hyun

Fedorova

2023

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Russian Federation, being de jure and de facto linguistically diverse multilingual country, can be described, at the same time, as being under a strong influence of monolingual language ideology, with Russian totally domineering in most public spheres. Minority languages and especially languages of migrants lack official recognition and support, and their speakers often have to face prejudices and negative stereotypes. The paper aims at revealing language ideology prevailing in modern Russia through analysis of attitudes to languages other than Russian as they are expressed in discourse about language, i.e. metadiscourse. When approaching it, it is important to distinguish state discourse (manifestation of official language policy) and public discourse (collective attitudes towards certain sublanguages and their users expressed more or less directly). The analysis shows that over the past two decades, official language ideology in Russia has shifted from guaranteeing linguistic equality and diversity to having an emphasis on unity and purity and giving support to the Russian language. This reorientation is realized through status planning, corpus planning, and acquisition planning. At the level of public discourse, analysis of collective attitudes towards the languages used by non-native speakers demonstrates that a significant part of the Russian-speaking population express negative attitudes towards non-native speakers and their poor Russian language skills, which once again confirms that there is dominant monolingualism and purism in public discourse. However, language practices in Russia are gradually becoming more diverse which can become a challenge for monolingualism and purism in future.

show abstract

Section: Language Attitudes In Russian State Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of and Attitudes Towards ‘Other’ Languages in Modern Russia: Evidence from Metalinguistic Discourse

Hyun

Fedorova

2023

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of Russian in the educational domain was further promoted during the Brezhnev period (1964–1982). According to Kreindler (1985), in this period new approaches to the teaching of Russian were developed. For example, she reports that a special course of “ethno‐cultural studies” introduced non‐Russian speakers to the uniqueness of Russian culture and helped them “see the beauty of a blue eyed, blonde maiden or elicit emotional response from the word kolokola —church bells” (p. 357).…”

Section: The Russian Language and Its Speakers: A Historical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invisibility and Ownership of Language: Problems of Representation in Russian Language Textbooks

Azimova¹,

Johnston²

2012

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the 2 theoretical lenses of representation (Barthes, 1977) and ownership of language (Higgins, 2003), this article offers a critical analysis of representations of Russian speakers in 9 widely used Russian language textbooks aimed at university‐level learners. Particular attention is paid to representations of Russian speakers other than white Orthodox Christian ethnic Russians. Findings indicate that there are virtually no representations of such “other” speakers in the materials under investigation. This absence is framed as an erasure (hooks, 1992), a violent removal that significantly misrepresents the actual diversity of speakers of Russian and restricts putative ownership of the Russian language. The authors argue that not only is this inaccurate portrayal pedagogically problematic; it is also politically so, as it coincides with a rising tide of ethnic Russian nationalism in the Russian Federation. The article ends with a call for more accurate portrayals of the actual diversity of users of Russian.

show abstract

“…(From Anderson and Silver 1989:612-3) The cultural pluralism which affected language policy can be grouped into two major forces~the centripetal, which moved persons towards adopting the Russian language and assimilating into Russian culture, and the centrifugal, which preserved native language and culture, representing mobilization towards secession. Both forces are composed of various cultural dynamics; for example, interactions su•rrounding religion, race, caste, region, cultural identity, economic status, educational opportunity, living conditions, environmental issues, modernization, political opportunity and other issues (for dynamics affecting ethnic identification, see Young 1976 andHorowitz 1985; recent studies of such dynamics within Soviet nationalities are Allworth 1980, Rockett 1981, Bruchis 1982, Connor 1984, Alexeyeva 1985, Kreindler 1985, Conquest 1986, Motyl 1987, Friedberg and Isham 1987, Sacks and Pankhurst 1988, Kozlov 1988, Ramet 1989, Hajda and Beissinger 1990, Hosking 1990, Nahaylo and Swoboda 1990, and Starr 1990. Compiled from USSR Yearbook 1990:90-149, and corrected from Anderson and Silver (1989) whenever possible; percentages have been rounded to the next highest whole number; balances less than 100% are other groups.…”

Section: Table 1 Soviet Union Republic Nationalities -1989 Censusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of language in the dissolution of the Soviet Union

Marshall¹

1992

SIL-UND Work Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The area of study 2 The Soviet Union's multilingualism 3 Centripetal and centrifugal forces 3.1 The CPSU and the national populist fronts 3.2 The imperial legacy vs. national identity 3.3 Soviet language policy vs. language preservation 3.4 Soviet education vs. nationality language preservation 3.5 Nationality cadres vs. mass politicization 3.6 Religion (or the lack thereof) vs. nationality religious traditions 3.7 The military vs. itself 3.8 Centralized economic planning vs. nationality environmentalism. 4 Sociolinguistic dynamics in USSR nationality mobilization 5 Conclusion

show abstract

The Non-Russian Languages and the Challenge of Russian: The Eastern versus the Western Tradition

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Treatment of and Attitudes Towards ‘Other’ Languages in Modern Russia: Evidence from Metalinguistic Discourse

Treatment of and Attitudes Towards ‘Other’ Languages in Modern Russia: Evidence from Metalinguistic Discourse

Invisibility and Ownership of Language: Problems of Representation in Russian Language Textbooks

The role of language in the dissolution of the Soviet Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About