 |
LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
|
|
|
V. Mikhalchenko
Research
Center on Ethnic and Language Relations
|
|
Multiethnic countries of the world usually
meet with the necessity to solve language problems, since they
have to a) provide for linguistic uniformity of the country, b)
satisfy cultural and linguistc needs of various ethnoses and ethnic
groups in their native languages. These tasks can be solved by
different means and through different types of language policy.
Language policy is part and parcel of national policy as a whole,
since general attitude to ethnoses and ethnic groups determines
a set of measures taken by the state, political parties, classes,
social groups to change or preserve the existing distribution
of languages, to introduce new or preserve existing linguistic
norms.
Language policy, along with ethnic self-consciousness, value orientations
of native speakers of a certain language, are subjective factors
of the concrete language situation, since they exert deliberate
impact of society upon the functions of the language. There are
various objective factors of the language situation: demographic
(number of native speakers, their territorial distribution, character
of sociopolitical formation); cultural and historical (similiarities
or differences in material and spiritual culture, existence or
non-existence of literary traditions; sociolinguistic (number
of languages which are media of communication, distribution of
social functions among them, character of differences between
languages and dialects). Objective factors of the language situation
are predominantly spontaneous.
Usually language policy is pursued with the account of both subjective
and objective factors. That is why in analysing the language policy
in a certain region one is to take into account: 1)objective and
subjective factors of the language situation and correlations
between them, 2) the character of the language situation as a
result of a long-term impact of determining factors, 3)measures
aimed at changing the ethnic and language situation in the region
as a concrete manifestation of the language policy principles.
A very significant role belongs to the type of state organization.
(1) If a sate is formed as a commonwealth of ethnoses, the solution
of language problems acquires certain ethnocultural features.
In this case emphasis is laid upon cultural and linguistic rights
of individual ethnic communities - indigenous ethnoses and ethnic
groups. This produces conditions for imposing a language of a
dominant ethnic community upon other ethnic communities. In most
cases it can be done by ascribing the status of national or official
to the language of one of the ethnic communities.
(2) If a state is formed as a commonwealth of citizens (a civic
society), emphasis is laid upon individual rights. In such society
an official or national language is supported by the state, while
cultural and linguistic needs of separate ethnic communities can
be freely satisfied, however without state support.
As far as the Russian Federation is concerned, the following is
to be taken into account: 1)the state has been established as
a multiethnic society whose basis is formed by the Russian ethnos
(81.5% of the whole population, according to the 1989 Census);
2) at present attempts are being made to make a transition to
civic society. It is the combination of these two features that
makes the present language situation complicated, contradictory
and fraught with potential conflicts.
For the last years there has appeared a tendency to the reorganization
of Russia. The Russian Federation has been divided into 7 Federal
districts, headed by the Representatives of the President of the
RF in these districts. To our mind it leads to the strengthening
of the role of the Center and reducing rights of the national
regions of the RF.
World experience shows that language development is most balanced
and calm in the countries which are formed according to (or predominantly
to) the territorial principle (for example, USA, Switzerland,
China, Vietnam). In the countries with administrative division
based on the ethnic principle language conflicts are usually observed.
They form a significant component of ethnic conflicts (for example,
USSR, Yugoslavia). A peculiar feature of the present-day language
situation in Russia is caused by the mixed administrative structure
of the Russian Federation which consists of national-state, national-territorial
and administrative-territorial entities ( republics within the
Russian Federation, administrative regions and oblasts). This
administrative non-uniformity of the Russian Federation gives
rise to different prerequisites for development of ethnic languages
and cultures. The Constitution of the Russian Federation declares
the equality of the subjects of the Federation.
However , one can clearly see that even though equality of the
89 subjects of the Federation is declared, conditions for developing
languages and cultures of various ethnoses and ethnic groups are
different. In administrative-territorial entities problems of
cultures and languages of compact linguistic communities can be
solved on the basis of cultural autonomy, certainly provided such
a wish from the one side has been expressed and financial resources
from the other side are available. In the national-state entities
which have the status of republics problems of enhancing ethnic
languages and cultures are usually more acute. One of the statehood
attributes, along with the flag, the coat of arms and the constitution,
is the national language. The status of national gives to the
titular language of a particular republic more possibilities for
its functional enhancement, that is its use in various spheres
of organised communication. At the same time this language can
be used (or misused) for political purposes which may lead to
linguistic conflicts. That is why processes of language and cultural
enhancement in Russia are most complicated in the republics within
the Federation.
A mixed structure of the state which includes both territorial
entities (regions, oblasts) and national-state entities (republics
within the RF) is one of the most significant factors which determines
the language policy. Another factor of significance is ethnic
policy. For the present-day Russian Federation, which undergoes
a process of transformation, a concept of national policy has
not been elaborated. Up to now its main postulates, priorities
and prospects are not clear. That's why it is impossible to work
out the principles of language policy. Moreover, in the conditions
of uncertainty there appears a possibility for each region to
solve its cultural and language problems independently. The legal
basis for regional interests has been worked out, while the elaboration
of common federal interests is being delayed. It is vividly shown
by the fact that the federal Language Act was adopted much later
than similar acts in the Republics. The Federal Act had to take
into account the norms and standards that had been adopted by
the republics.
All these processes make it possible to assume the following two
ways of subsequent development in the Russian Federation: 1) stronger
federal principles and subsequent strengthening of the role of
the common national language - the Russian one, 2) stronger confederative
principles and subsequent weakening of the role of the common
national language with increased role of the republican national
languages. The Russian Federation is a country with long-aged
traditions in developing ethnic languages and cultures, a country
whose peoples cherish their cultural values. There are no prerequisites
for transforming the federation into a state of a single civic
society, a single national language, similar to Germany or France.
Probably, for many decades and even centuries ethnic values in
the Russian Federation will be equal to or even prevail over the
values of civic society. At the same time, adoption of language-related
legislation shows a strive towards civic society, towards use
of foreign experience.
The Russian Federation - a Commonwealth of Peoples and Languages
The Russian Federation (RF) is a multiethnic amd multilingual
state. According to the 1989 Census, the RF is inhabited by 129
peoples. There is an additional list of 54 peoples and about the
same number of languages. Within the RF there are 21 republics:
Adyghe, Altai, Bashkiria, Buryatia, Daghestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria,
Kalmykia, Karachayevo-Circassia, Karelia, Komi, Mari El, Sakha-Yakutia,
North Ossetia, Tataria, Touva, Udmurtia, Khakassia, Chechenia,
Chuvashia. The languages which function within the Federation
belong to different language families - Slavic, Turkic, Finno-Ugric,
Caucasian, Mongolic and others. The national language of the RF
- the language of national unity is one of the Slavic languages,
the mother tongue of an absolute majority of the population -
the Russian language.
Certain republics have Turkic titular languages (Altaian, Bashkirian,
Tatar, Touvinian, Karachay-Balkarian, Chuvashian, Yakutian), the
others have Finno-Ugric ones (Karelian, Komi, Mari, Mordovian,
Udmurtian), Caucasian (Adygh, Ingushian, Kabarda-Circassian, Chechenian),
Mongolic (Buryatian, Kalmykian), as well as one of the Iranian
family - the Ossetian language. Many of the titular languages
mentioned above have been proclaimed the national languages of
the respective republics: Altai, Bashkiria, Buryatia, Daghestan,
Kalmykia, Komi, Mari El, Mordovia, Tataria, Touva, Khakassia,
Udmurtia,Chuvashia, Sakha-Yakutia and others. In that way, there
appears a system of legally adopted bilingualism on the territory
of the RF.
The most favourable conditions for functioning of titular languages
appear if the ethnos is settled compactly. According to this parameter,
the republics within the RF can be divided into three types: 1)
the titular ethnos forms a majority of the population (above 50%)
- Touva, Chuvashia, Kabardino-Balkaria), 2) the titular ethnos
forms less than a half of the population (Kalmykia, Mordovia,
Tataria, Udmurtia), 3) the titular ethnos forms a minority of
the population (Karelia, Bashkiria).
Main trends of language development in the Russian Federation
are as follows:1) increased interest to ethnic languages and cultures,
2) restoration of previous cultural and language traditions, 3)
enhancement of social functions of titular languages, 4) increased
attention to languages of smaller ethnoses.
Basic Problems of Language Enhancement in the Present-Day Russian
Federation
Problems of sociolinguistic adequacy of the language-related legislation
and language situations.
World experience shows various models of language policy and language
functioning. Certain countries, for example the USA, prefer to
avoid official proclamation of the national language in their
constitutions or other legal acts. Others, for example, Canada,
Belgium, Spain, France, prefer legal fixation of language policy
norms in the field of organized communication. However, according
to estimates, most countries of the world prefer legal solution
of language problems: of 147 countries analysed the constitutions
of 110 contain language-related articles .
There are unicomponent models of language-related legislation
(France), bi-component ones (Canada), multicomponent (Singapore).
All in all, each country chooses and works out its own concept
of language functioning according to its specific language situation,
cultural traditions, principles (democratic or non-democratic)
of state organization [Gak, 138-155]. For the Russian Federation
quite evident is the necessity to take into account foreign experience
of solving language problems.
As is known, the process of elaborating language-related legislation
in the USSR began in 1989 when a language act was adopted in the
Estonian SSR. The act was based on the following principles: 1)
the society strives towards monolingualism, 2) bilingualism is
detrimental, 3) vitality of the language is determined by its
functions, 4) the language is to fulfil all social functions,
that is a maximum set of social functions. Previously unicomponent
model of language-related legislation was adopted in all the republics
of the USSR - the titular languages were proclaimed as national
languages of the titular ethnoses. Nowadays in the Russian Federation
there are models of language legislation with different number
of components. Over a vast territory of the RF with a wide variety
of language situations, demographic, cultural and ethnic factors
predominates a bi-component model of language- legislation, there
is also three-component (Mordvinian, Mari El) and multi-component
models of language legislation (Daghestan). (See Tab.1-2).
Key to the Tab.1
"*-" means that in this republic
the Language Law is not adopted, but it exists as a draft of the
Law ·
"*14" means that in the draft of the republican Law
14 languages are represented. In the Constitution of the Republic
of Daghestan all languages of Daghestan are proclamed as state
languages. ·
- Demographic data of Mari and Mordovian languages native-speakers
are joined·
- Russian has state status on the whole territory of the RF
|
The subjects of the Russian Federation
and state languages that function in these subjects of
the RF
|
|
(1)
The subject of the RF
|
(2)
State languages, fixed in legislatively adopted Acts
of the given subject of the RF
|
(3)
Percentage of the number of native speakers of the language
to the total number of population of the given subject
of the RF (in
|
|
Adyghe
|
1) Russian
2) Adyghian
|
68,0
22,1
|
|
Altai
|
1) Russian
2) Altaic
|
60,4
31,0
|
|
Bashkortostan
|
1) Russian
2) Bashkirian
|
39,3
21,9
|
|
Buryatia
|
1) Russian
2) Buryatian
|
70,0
24,0
|
|
Daghestan
|
1) Avar
2) Dargwa
3) Kumyk
4) Lezgin
5) Russian
6) Lak
7) Tabassaran
8) Azerbaijan
9) Chechen
10) Nogay
11) Agul
12) Rutul
13) Tat
14) Tsakhurian
|
27,5
15,6
12,9
11,3
9,2
5,1
4,3
4,2
3,2
1,6
0,8
0,8
0,7
0,3
|
|
Kabardino-Balkaria
|
1) Kabardian-Chercassian
2) Russian
3) Karachay-Balkar
|
48,2
32,0
9,4
|
|
Kalmykia
|
1) Kalmyk
2) Russian
|
45,4
37,7
|
|
Karachayevo-Circassia
|
1) Russian
2) Karachay-Balkar
3) Kabardian-Chercassian
4) Abaza
5) Nogay
|
42,4
31,2
9,7
6,6
3,2
|
|
Komi
|
1) Russian
2) Komi-Zyryan
|
57,7
23,3
|
|
Mari El
|
1) Russian
2) Mari Lugovoy
3) Mari Gorny
|
47,5
43,3
|
|
Mordvinian republic
|
1) Russian
2) Mordvin Moksha
3) Mordvin Erzya
|
60,8
32,5
|
|
Sakha-Yakutia
|
1) Russian
2) Yakut
|
50,3
33,4
|
|
North Ossetia
|
1) Ossetian
2) Russian
|
53,0
29,9
|
|
Tatarstan
|
1) Tatar
2) Russian
|
48,5
43,3
|
|
Touva
|
1) Tuvin
2) Russian
|
64,3
36,2
|
|
Udmurtia
|
1) Russian
2) Udmurt
|
58,9
30,9
|
|
Khakassia
|
1) Russian
2) Khakassian
|
79,2
11,1
|
|
Chuvashia
|
1) Chuvash
2) Russian
|
67,8
26,7
|
|
Komi-Permyatski Autonomous region
|
1) Komi-Permyak
2) Russian
|
60,2
36,1
|
|
The RF (the whole territory)
|
1) Russian
|
81,5
|
Key to the Tab.2
-
Statistical data on the Chechen
and Ingush languages are not represented, since previously
(according to the po-litical devision of the RSFSR) both languages
functioned on the territory of the common Republic of Checheno-Ingushetia.
Nowadays these languages function on the territory of two
different republics (the Chechen lan-guage in Chechenia, the
Ingush language in Ingushetia). In Checheno-Ingushetian Autonomous
Republic that was within the RSFSR before the collapse of
the USSR there were 57,8% of Chechenians, 23,1% of Russians,
12,9% of Ingushians.
-
Demographic data of the Mary
and Mordvinian lan-guages native-speakers are joined
Supposed social functions
and the level of structural development of a language.
The development of structural levels of a language depends upon
a set of social and communicative functions fulfilled by it. In
the Soviet period certain ethnic languages were widely used in
various spheres of organized communication in autonomous republics
(Tatar, Yakutian, Bashkirian, Chuvashian and others). However,
a wide spread of the Russian language - the language of interethnic
communication - sometimes led to situations of language competition,
in which the functionally more developed Russian language had
the upper hand. Several scholars consider bilingualism as a set
of transitional stages of ousting one language by another and
transition to monolingualism [Silver, 574-974]. In such conditions
numerous ethnic languages in the USSR had no developed terminology,
vocabulary, functional styles. Therefore at present deliberate
efforts are to be made by a number of linguistic communities,
so that their languages may function in various communication
spheres: publication of dictionaries, phrase-books, text-books,
manuals, lists of terms and samples of business speech and so
on. Taking account of present-day economic difficulties, these
tasks are difficult to fulfil, though several republics (for example,
in Sakha-Yakutia, Tataria) succeed in coping with them.
Problem of adequacy between supposed functions and the level
of language proficiency.
In several republics there arises a very difficult problem of
correlation between supposed communicative functions of the language
and proficiency of the population in this language. In realising
their language-related acts the titular ethnoses of the republics
tend to impose their native languages, which were granted the
status of national ones, to other linguistic communities inhabiting
this national-state entity. This approach deprives a compact-settled
linguistic community of even partial cultural autonomy, creates
discomfort in using one's mother tongue in various communicative
spheres. Accelerated spread of the national language over the
whole territory inhabited by compact heterolinguistic communities
is fraught with language conflicts, since process of ousting one's
mother tongue from various communicative spheres is usually painful.
It is in such cases that national state bilingualism is quite
pertinent as a way of compromise, that is the adoption of two
national languages in accordance with federal and republican legislation.
In this case certain republics within the RF become territories
of national state bilingualism, in fact three-component multilingualism,
since foreign languages are studied and partially used everywhere.
Regions of compact residence of heterolinguistic communities in
the republics within the RF are areas of such multilingualism:
the national language of the Federation + the national language
of the republic + a foreign language + a mother tongue. Probably,
an assumption that monolingualism is the most comfortable mode
of existence is not always applicable to multiethnic regions.
Rather, it is multilingualism that creates linguistic comfort
and helps avoid language conflicts.
'Linguistic nihilism' and 'linguistic
expansion'.
A certain part of the population in certain
republics within the RF does not know and sometimes does not want
to know their native language, that is the titular language, which
has the national (state) status, due to its 'low social prestige'
and 'non-perspectiveness'. For example, according to the 1989
Census, 50% of Karelians; 30% of Bashkirs, Komis, Mordovians,
Udmurtians; 20-25% of Tatars, Maris, Chuvashes do not consider
their ethnic languages as native. For the period of 1970-1989
the number of Buryats, Komis, Maris, Tatars, Udmurtians, Chuvashes,
Yakuts who do not know their ethnic languages has doubled; the
number of Mordovians and Karelians has increased 1.5 times. Under
the circumstances, the first step in language policy is to spread
one's own national language over the members of the given titular
community. The second step in this direction is to gradually spread
this national language over other linguistic communities of the
republic. Speeding up of this process over linguistic communities,
which sometimes numerically exceed the titular one may be considered
by them as 'linguistic expansion'.
'Linguistic expansion' can occur not only in functional spheres.
There are attempts to influence the structure of a language in
contact. A most vivid example of 'structural expansion' is manifested
in instructions how to spell toponyms in languages of interethnic
and international communication: Estonia' s insistence to spell
the name of its capital Tallinn with doubled 'n' in Russian instead
of traditional spelling with one, Kirghisia's insistence to be
called 'Kyrghysstan' in Russian which is contrary to Russian linguistic
traditions. The Supreme Council of Turkmenia has adopted a special
decree on rules of transliteration of Turkmenian toponyms in Russian,
for example 'Ashgabat' instead of traditional 'Ashkhabad'. Such
examples are in abundance: Moldova instead of traditional Moldavia,
Belarus instead of Belorussia, Bashkortostan instead of Bashkiria,
Tatarstan instead of Tataria and so on. In most cases these 'innovations'
lead to serious violations of Russian literary spelling and orthoepic
norms. Such phonemic combinations as 'ky', 'ghy' are alien to
Russian norms, the use of conjunctive vowel 'a' instead of 'o'
in Belarus also contradicts Russian linguistic norms. No doubt,
such 'structural expansion' can be explained by philological incompetence
of local legislators, by their ignoring immanent language laws.
'Linguistic expansion' is based upon overestimation of possibilities
to exert subjective social impact upon language, especially upon
the language of another linguistic community.
Elaboration of writing systems for unwritten languages, restoration
of earlier existed systems.
For the last decade of the XX century attempts have been made
to elaborate or restore writing systems elaborated in the 1920-30-ies
for Aleutian, Nganasan, Oroki, Orochi, Izeri, Karaimic, Krymchaki,
Udinian, Gipsy, Shorian, Enets, Tsakhurian, Okulian, Ruthulian,
Saami, Vepsian, Karelian, Tsezian languages. Attempts are also
made to introduce these languages in education in the first and
second years of the primary level, text-books and manuals in these
languages are being published.
Several problems arise in this connection: 1) which dialect of
an unwritten language is to be chosen as the basic one, 2) what
alphabetic system is to be chosen, 3)what set of communicative
functions is to be fulfilled by the given language.
As a rule, the basic dialect is chosen according to two principles:
the number of native speakers and its social status. Therefore
a dialect with either a larger amount of native speakers or with
a higher social prestige is usually chosen as the basis for a
literary language. Social prestige of a dialect can be determined
with the account of various factors. More often this is a territorial
dialect of a more developed industrial region or a dialect of
well-known literary works. However, in elaborating a writing system
for an unwritten language one is to take into account an objective
problem of unity of the given ethnos, of the character of its
settlement. The point is that a usual medium of communication
between a small lingistic community and surrounding communities
is a language of a more numerous ethnos. The language of a small
community may become a full-fledged medium of communication within
this community only under the conditions of compact settlement
. Thus a question arises what social perspectives may be available
to and what social functions be fulfilled by a newer-literate
language, what set of social functions will be ascribed to it,
in what way it will be able to compete with the language of a
larger ethnos. All these questions are to be solved to determine
social and functional expediency to elaborate a writing system
for an unwritten language.
In our view, one of the most significant problems is to what extent
a small ethnos is prepared to cultivate its written language,
in other words the problem of sociolinguistic forecasts. This
problem can be solved by sociolinguistic research (questionnaires,
interviewing) which shows value orientations of the ethnos. However,
as far as we know, in several cases it has not been done. As a
result, published textbooks in such languages cannot find their
readers.
Elaboration of terminology and sociolinguistic
methods.
At present problems of language policy and
language-related legislation attract attention of journalists,
politicians, ethnographers, sociologists, lawyers, philosophers.
As a result, sociolinguistic terms are interpreted in different
ways, everyday and scientific notions are mixed. Probably, in
these conditions concerted efforts of professional sociolinguists
are required to use strict sociolinguistic methods, to compile
dictionaries of sociolinguistic terms. A new stage of language
engineering is to facilitate both solution of practical problems
and development of sociolinguistics.
Thus, similar to the 1920-30-ies, progress in sociolinguistic
theory is closely connected with solution of concrete tasks of
a changing sociolinguistic reality in the multiethnic Russian
Federation. Theoretical socioloinguistics is to answer the following
questions: 1) what models of language policy and language-related
legislation are preferable to a certain republic within the RF,
2) to what parameters of the language situation they are to correspond,
3) what are the ways of satisfying cultural and linguistic demands
of various linguistic communities, 4) what are social and functional
perspectives for written, newly-literate and newest-literate languages.
As is clear, these questions can be answered by means of theoretical
analysis of concrete sociolinguistic data on various linguistic
communities which live in different regions and republic of the
Russian Federation. It is very significant to determine what concrete
foreign experience can be used in the process of reformation of
linguistic life in Russia. Abundant sociolinguistic data obtained
from various multiethnic regions of the world can be used to cteate
sociolinguistic typologies of language situations and language
policies, to produce complete descriptions and classifications
of present-day language conflicts. In their turn, such descriptions
and classifications will be able to further elaboration of such
fundamental components of sociolinguistics as its theory, methods,
and terminology .
References
Gak, V. (1990) Aspecty jazykovovo regulirovanija,
in: Nacionalno-jazykovyje problemy: SSSR i zarubeznyje strany,
Moskva, 138-155;
Gak, V. (1990) Aspects of Language Regulation, in: Ethnic and
Linguistic Problems: USSR and Foreign Countries. Moscow, 138-155;
Silver, B. (1975), Methods of Deriving Data on Bilingualism From
the 1970 Soviet Census, in: Soviet Studies, 27/4 , 574-974;
Solntsev, V.; Mikhalchenko, V. (1994) Language Situation and Language
Policy in the Russian Federation: Present State and Prospects,
in: Language Problems of the Russian Federation and Foreign
States. Moscow, 135-146;
Mikhalchenko, V (1994). Koncepcyi zakonov o jazykach v respublikach
Rosijskoj Federaciji: problema socialno-lingvisticheskoj adaptaciji,
In.: Jazykovyje problemy Rosijskoj Federaciji: zacony o jazykach
Moskva, 147-150.
|
|
 |
