Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T20:02:18.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language policy and post-Soviet identities in Tatarstan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Teresa Wigglesworth-Baker
Teresa Wigglesworth-Baker*
Affiliation:
Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies, The University of Sheffield, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover Way, Sheffield, S3 7RA, UK
*
∗ Email: rup07tjw@sheffield.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper examines language policy and language use as identity technologies in the Republic of Tatarstan approximately 23 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although Tatarstan is an autonomous republic politically situated within the Russian Federation, it has its own language policy which was implemented in 1992 and which declares Russian and Tatar as the official state languages having equal status in all spheres of language use. Additionally, as a result of an education policy implemented in 1997, Tatar language learning was made a compulsory subject in schools for all nationalities. This research examines how these policies have legitimized the Tatar identity alongside Russian from the top-down perspective, but how these legitimacies are not reflected from the bottom-up perspective [Graney 1999. “Education Reform in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: Sovereignty Projects in Post-Soviet Russia.” Europe-Asia Studies 51 (4): 611-632; Yemelianova 2000. “Shaimiev's ‘Khanate’ on the Volga and its Russian Subjects.” Asian Ethnicity 1 (1)]. The focus of this research was to find out how effective these language and education policies as top-down identity technologies have been in post-Soviet Tatar society. An empirical research was carried out in Kazan in 2013 and revealed that asymmetrical bilingualism still prevails in contemporary Tatar society: Russian is used for everyday purposes by all nationalities, whereas Tatar is used as an in-group marker among Tatars within informal settings.

Keywords

language policypost-Soviet identitiesTatarRussianTatarstanquantitative research

Information

Type
Special Section: Tatarstan: adjusting to life in Putin's Russia
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2016, pp. 20 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

References

Alvarez Veinguer, Aurora, and Davis, Howard. 2007. “Building a Tatar Elite: Language and National Schooling in Kazan.” Ethnicities 7 (2): 186–208.Google Scholar
Brown, Keith, ed. 2006. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 12, Spe‡Top. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rodgers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Garipov, Iagfar, and Faller, Helen. 2003. “The Politics of Language Reform and Bilingualism in Tatarstan.” In Nation Building, Ethnicity and Language Politics on Transition Countries, edited by Daftary, F., and Grin, F., 163–184. Budapest: LGI/ECMI.Google Scholar
Garipov, Iagfar Z., Zinnurova, Raushaniia I., Minnullin, Kim, Musina, Rozalinda N., Mukhametshin, Rafik M., and Sagitova, Lilia V., eds. 2008. Sovremennye Etnokul'turnye Protsessy v Molodezhnoi Srede Tatarstana: Iazyk, Religiia, Etnichnost'. Kazan: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Graney, Katherine. 1999. “Education Reform in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: Sovereignty Projects in Post-Soviet Russia.” Europe-Asia Studies 51 (4): 611–632.Google Scholar
Graney, Katherine. 2009. Of Khans and Kremlins: Tatarstan and the Future of Ethno-Federalism in Russia. Plymouth: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore. 2003. Language Policy in the Soviet Union. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Iskhakova, Zaituna. A. 2001. Dvuiazychie v gorodakh Tatarstana (1980-90-e gody). Kazan: Fiker.Google Scholar
Iskhakova, Zaituna A., Minnullin, Kim M., and Musina, Rosalinda. N., eds. 2002. Iazyk i Etnos na Rubezhe Vekov: Etnosotsioloicheskie Ocherki o Iazyovoi Situatsii v Respublike Tatarstan. Kazan: Magarif.Google Scholar
Khabenskaia, Elena. O. 2002. Tatary o Tatarskom. Moscow: Natalis.Google Scholar
Kuzio, Taras. 2001. ‘“Nationalizing States’ or ‘Nation-Building?’ A Critical Review of the Theoretical Literature and Empirical Evidence.” Nations and Nationalism 7 (2): 135–154.Google Scholar
Minzaripov, Riaz. G., ed. 2013. Ethnichnost', Religioznost’ i Migratsii v Sovremennom Tatarstane. Kazan: Kazan University.Google Scholar
Polese, Abel. 2011. “Language and Identity in Ukraine: Was it Really Nation-Building?” Studies of Transitional States and Societies 4 (1): 36–51.Google Scholar
Polese, Abel, and Wylegala, Anna. 2008. “Odessa and Lvov or Odesa and Lviv: How Important is a Letter? Reflections on the ‘Other’ in Two Ukrainian Cities.” Nationalities Papers 36 (5): 787–814.Google Scholar
Poppe, Edwin, and Hagendoorn, Louk. 2001. “Types of Identification among Russians in the ‘Near Abroad.'” Europe-Asia Studies 53 (1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Poppe, Edwin, and Hagendoorn, Louk. 2003. “Titular Identification of Russians in Former Soviet Republics.” Europe-Asia Studies 55 (5): 771–787.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Peter. 2007. “Compliance or Contradiction? Teaching ‘History’ in the ‘New’ Ukraine. A View from Ukraine's Eastern Borderlands.” Europe-Asia Studies 59 (3): 503–519.Google Scholar
Shevel, Oxana. 2002. “Nationality in Ukraine: Some Rules of Engagement.” East European Politics and Societies 16 (2): 386–413.Google Scholar
Tolz, Vera. 1998. “Forging the Nation: National Identity and Nation Building in Post-Communist Russia.” Europe-Asia Studies 50 (6): 993–1022.Google Scholar
Yemelianova, Galina. M. 2000. “Shaimiev's ‘Khanate’ on the Volga and its Russian Subjects.” Asian Ethnicity 1 (1): 37–52.Google Scholar