14.1 The Status of Russian in the Countries of the Former Soviet Bloc

The foundation of Russian as a means of intercultural communication was laid by the colonial power of the Russian Empire in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries when Russia spread its territories to Siberia, the Caucasian mountains, Crimea, the Far East, and Central Asia. In the twentieth century, Russian served as the means of ‘fraternal’ communication between the peoples of different ethnic groups, such as Armenians, Tatars, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Ukrainians, Georgians, and others who lived in the territory of the Soviet Union. Some 90% of the Soviet population spoke Russian and more than 130 nationalities, speaking a multitude of genetically and structurally different languages, used Russian as a language of intercultural and international communication. By the end of the Soviet Union era, Russian was the second language for 40% of Armenians, 32% of Azeris, 32% of Georgians, 80% of Belarusians, 72% of Ukrainians, 68% of Latvians, 38% of Lithuanians, 35% of Estonians, 62% of Kazakhs, 37% of Kyrgyz, 28% of Turkmens, 27% of Uzbeks, 31% of Tajiks, and 58% of Moldovans in fourteen Soviet republics (Lepretre Reference Lepretre2002).

The break-up of the Soviet bloc was a major blow to the status of the Russian language and the number of its speakers substantially reduced. This period began in the early 1990s when the independent states emerged and distanced themselves from Russia, and lasted until recent extraordinary attempts of the Russian government to increase the role and status of Russian in the first decade of the twenty-first century. At the end of the twentieth century, in nearly all former Soviet republics and East European countries the role of Russian shifted from the second language to a foreign language. In Western Europe, as in the West in general, interest in the Russian language also notably sagged (Nikonov Reference Nikonov2011) and Russian found itself on the brink of its own new historical condition (Kostomarov Reference Kostomarov1998). The World Report, prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in 2002, covers the Russian language situation in 140 countries. According to the data (Russian Language in the World Report 2002), over 300 million people speak Russian all over the world. Russian is the native language of 130 million citizens of Russia, nearly 25 million citizens of the former Soviet Union states, and 7 million residents of countries further abroad. According to the 2010 Census, 118.6 million people use Russian as a native language, among them 110.7 million ethnic Russians and 7.9 million people of other ethnicities (Census results 2010b); 137.5 million people use Russian as both native and non-native, among them 100.9 million belong to urban and 36.6 to rural populations (Census results 2010a). In the Russian Federation itself, the people for whom Russian is the mother tongue number between 30% and 80% of the population of the republics in Siberia, between 30% and 70% of the central and northern regions, and between 10% and 40% in the Caucasus (Lepretre Reference Lepretre2002).

A three-way categorization of Russian as a Native Language (RNL), Russian as a Second Language (RSL) and Russian as a Foreign Language (RFL) and a three-circle model of Russian in the modern world is proposed based on the analysis of Russian language usage in the world (see also Ustinova Reference Ustinova2012) and following the three-circle model of English as proposed by B. Kachru (Reference Kachru, Quirk and Widdowson1985a) (Figure 14.1).

Figure 14.1 Three-circle model of Russian in the modern world

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Russian language usage in the former Soviet republics was different. The Russian Federation is a multilingual state, made up of about 200 national groups. Some 20% of the total population of minority national communities have more than one hundred indigenous languages spoken. In various regions of Russia, twenty-seven different languages are considered to be official languages along with Russian, as the majority of autonomous republics have adopted linguistic laws that give priority to the language of the titular nationality or both the national language and Russian have official status.

Besides the Russian Federation, the Russian language has the status of official language in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. In 1995, the majority or 83% of the citizens of Belarus voted to make Russian the second state language, being equal to the Belarusian language, and in 2012, 80% of the Belarus population were speaking Russian. De facto, Russian remains the main language, including the official institutions and higher education establishments in Belarus and more than 70% of the population use Russian as the main language at home, while only 23% use Belarusian. A choice is given to parents to select a language for schooling and many opt for Russian schools. As a result, 82% of schoolchildren and more than 90% of university students use Russian as the language of instruction (Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012).

In Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian are spoken in approximately equal amounts, with a greater concentration of Russian speakers in the east, south, and metropolitan areas, and more Ukrainian speakers in central, western, and rural areas. According to the Ukrainian Census of 2001, about 30% of the country’s population use Russian as their primary language (Ukrcensus 2001). Nevertheless, in 1996 Ukrainian was proclaimed a sole state language and major efforts were made to adopt Ukrainian as the language of the government, official documents, and secondary and higher education that led to derussification in all spheres of life and to the promotion of the Ukrainian culture and language in various spheres of public life, education, publishing, government, and religion. Thus, in 2006, 78% of secondary school students attended Ukrainian-language schools, but resistance to ‘ukrainization’ was evident in some regions, especially in Crimea, where more than 75% of the people considered Russian as a native language (see the statistical data in Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2008). Language rights has been one of the hot issues that instigated war in the south-eastern region of Ukraine in May 2014.

Romanian (Moldovan with Latin script) was recognized as the state’s sole official and national language after Moldova gained independence in 1989, though nearly 70% of Moldovan inhabitants reported Russian as their native or second language (Lepretre Reference Lepretre2002; Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2008). The situation was far from being peaceful and the population of the Russian-speaking Trans-Dniester region rebelled against the language shift and the expansion of Moldovan in education and public life. In 2002, Moldova adopted a Law on Ethnic Minorities and proclaimed respect and promotion of Russian and the other languages spoken within its territory. However, in the first decade of the twenty-first century only 50% of all the Moldovan population and less than 35% of young people are proficient in Russian (Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, three Baltic countries declared Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian as the sole languages of their states. Those countries, incorporated by the Soviet Union in 1940, had always had a high level of native language loyalty, opposition to russification and pro-Western economical and political orientation. Latvia and Estonia even adopted citizenship laws that granted citizenship only to people who could trace their status to pre-war states and required non-citizens to pass the language proficiency tests. Still, Russian remains the first language for more than 40% of people in Latvia and nearly 30% of people in Estonia, though in view of the Latvian language law, Russian is one of the ‘foreign’ languages. Only when translation into Latvian is ensured can Russian be used in state and local government institutions, courts and institutions constituting the judicial system in spite of the fact that 80% of the population of Latvia are proficient in Russian (Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012). Nevertheless, de jure, the Latvian Constitution gives Russians the right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity (European Commission 2012). In Lithuania, where Russians constitute only 8% of the population, the attitude toward the Russian language is more favorable and it preserves the role of a common language in interethnic communication as more than 80% of Lithuanians use Russian on a daily basis (Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2008). However, according to the Euroasia monitor of 2006, only 21% of the adult population are really fluent in Russian and only 6% of the young generation (18 years or younger) (Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012).

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia made their titular language the sole official language of the states. In Azerbaijan, the attitude to Russian is positive; the former and current presidents, being fluent in Russian, declared full support for the Russian community and its language and 67% of the population of the country still have some competence in Russian, but only 20% are fluent in it. The republic signed the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 2001 and the parliament of Azerbaijan prepared a law that guarantees the equality of rights and freedoms for the individuals that belong to minority groups. In Armenia, 69% of the population show competence in Russian, and Russian media and literature maintain popularity with the Armenian public; however, Russian is taught only as a foreign language in schools. In Georgia, the role of Russian decreased, partly due to the political and economic tension between Georgia and Russia. In the opinion of former Georgian president Saakashvili, Georgians should study English and Turkish, not Russian, as second languages (Deneire Reference Deneire1993; Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2008; Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012).

The republics of Central Asia are multiethnic and multilingual countries that adopted different strategies regarding the present role of Russian. In Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, Russian has the status of an official language. Kazakhstan is home for 130 nationalities including a 30% Russian minority, and in 2009, 76% of the population were proficient in Russian. The law regarding language asserts that Kazakh is the state language and Russian is labeled the official language and in certain spheres of communication Kazakh is required: state administration, legal proceedings and legislation, and all official documentation. This bilingual approach has resulted in nearly half of the population being educated in Kazakh-medium schools and half in Russian schools. In higher education, Russian is still dominant as nearly two-thirds of the population study in Russian (Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2008, Reference Pavlenko2009; Matuszkiewicz Reference Matuszkiewicz2010; Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012). In 2013, the Kazakhstan president, N. Nazarbayev, called for enhancing trilingualism in the country, including Kazakh, Russian with its deep cultural roots, and global English. In Kyrgyzstan, where the Constitution recognizes Russian as a second official language, along with Kyrgyz, the education policies are aimed at raising competence in the native language and, as a result, less than 25% of schools operate in Russian or offer bilingual instruction. Nevertheless, Russian language education is highly prestigious at both secondary and university levels. In Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, the native language is proclaimed as the sole language of the state, while Russian is considered the language of interethnic communication. Attempts were made by the governments ofthose Central Asian states to eliminate Russian from the public arena and education. As a result, Russian is actively used only by 20% of the Uzbek population, though 60% have competence in Russian; in Tajikistan, 16% actively use Russian, though 48% retain competence in it; in Turkmenistan, only native speakers of Russian, that is less than 3%, use it on a daily basis and less than 12% of the population as a second language (Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2008; Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012).

According to Arefyev, in the countries of Eastern Europe, 38 million people spoke Russian in 1990, in contrast to 13 million people knowing Russian in 2004, and only one-third of them use it actively. Thus, only 11% of the population of Eastern Europe are proficient in Russian, and the language has regional status only in three counties: Poland, Rumania, and Croatia. The number of high school and university students who study Russian as a foreign language has reduced significantly from 14 million people in 1990 to 548 thousand in 2010 (Arefyev Reference Arefyev2012).

Nevertheless, the Russian language is slowly making a comeback in Eastern Europe and many Western companies are demanding proof of competence in the Russian language as a job requirement. Russian is in demand in the tourist industry in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Poland. At the University of Poznan in Poland, there were five candidates for every place on its Russian language courses, and in the Russian Cultural Centre in Warsaw, there was a 35% increase in the number of people enrolling for Russian language classes in 2007 (Repa Reference Repa2007).

14.2 English and/or Russian as a Means of Intercultural Communication in the Former Soviet Bloc

Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union belong to the Expanding Circle of the English language-speaking countries. Russian-English contacts are rapidly developing, as the current socioeconomic environment is extremely conducive to the growth of English learners and users. English, as the most widely spread foreign language in Russia today, is used in personal, professional, commercial and recreational settings; it fulfills a range of functions, such as instrumental, creative and interpersonal. Russia has become open to the world community and presents an attractive job market for international corporations. In transnational companies such as Mars, Coca-Cola, Toyota, Levi’s, and others that conduct business in Russia, English is used as a working language (see Chapter 2). Traveling abroad has become a common way of spending leisure time for Russians and a new type of educational tourism has emerged (see Chapter 2). Russians study English in short- and long-term programs abroad and pursue higher education in universities in the United States or European countries. These factors support the emergence of a younger generation of English users who acquire English for actual communication with their peers and colleagues and as a functional linguistic tool for achieving their professional and personal goals and self-expression (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2005, Reference Ustinova2008, Reference Ustinova2011, Reference Ustinova2012; Proshina Reference Proshina and Kirkpatrick2010b; Lawrick Reference Lawrick2011).

The influence of English in the form of linguistic borrowing has occurred in many fields, from computers and finance to science and pop culture. English loans were brought about by the country’s push for rapid industrialization, technological innovation, and development of science and education, as well as by aspirations for modernity, prestige, and progress. Youth slang has been particularly receptive to English borrowings, creating a great number of new words known as ‘interjargon.’ The presence of English as code-mixing or code-switching is integrated in the Russian speech of the population (see Chapter 3) and used as a source of linguistic creativity in the language of advertising and popular culture. In Russia, the proportion of Russian TV commercials that utilize English elements is as large as 70% and 90% of bilingual TV commercials use an English-Russian mix (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2005, Reference Ustinova2006, Reference Ustinova2008; Proshina Reference Proshina and Kirkpatrick2010b).

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, in all countries of the former Union with the exception of Belarus, the Russian language has lowered its status and is either the language of international communication, as in Moldova, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, or a foreign language, as in the Baltic or Transcaucasus states (Russian Language in the World Report 2002; Morozova Reference Morozova2011; Nikonov Reference Nikonov2011). To improve the situation, unprecedented attempts were made by the Russian government to turn things around and to strengthen the position of Russian in the former Soviet Union, East-European countries and the world in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The Russian government has expressed concern about the declining prestige of the Russian language and admitted that “the situation with the Russian language is difficult in most former Soviet republics” (Kyiv Post 2009).

In 2006, the Russian Language Federal Program was launched to reinforce the prestige of Russian as the means of economic, humane, and juridical integration within the countries of the former Soviet Union. The program is also intended to support Russian language and literature scholarships throughout the world and to strengthen the position of Russian in cultural and educational spaces. Some practical steps have already been implemented; thus, 2007 was declared the Year of the Russian Language, and the Russky Mir Foundation was established to promote the Russian language as a national treasure and a part of Russian and world culture. The birthday of Alexander Pushkin on June 6 became a Russian Language Day and on that day in 2011 the Great Russian Word international festival opened in the then Ukrainian Crimea, and in Armenia, university and school students recited Russian poetry, as well as works by Armenian poets translated into Russian. The Kazakh capital hosted a ceremony to award winners of compositions ‘On Pushkin’s Best Piece’ (Morozova Reference Morozova2011; Nikonov Reference Nikonov2011). The president of Tajikistan, E. Rahmon, expressed a sincere interest in the development of the Russian language in his country because “it’s time to move from talking about the support of the Russian language in Tajikistan by Russia to developing effective specific programs for that purpose” (Russkiy Mir Foundation Information Service 2010).

Lately, the Russian language and culture have also been promoted due to the so-called ‘cross years,’ held annually between Russia and other countries. For instance, 2009 was marked as the year of the Russian language in China and 2010 as the Chinese language year in Russia; 2011 was declared the year of the Russian language and culture in Spain, and of the Spanish language and culture in Russia; 2012 was the year of cultural and humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Germany, and 2013 was declared the year of Russia in the Netherlands.

Internationally, the implementation of the Federal Target Program for the Russian Language for 2011–2015 is supported through the activity of such missions as Russian embassies and the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation, commonly known as Rossotrudnichestvo. Aiming not only at promoting the Russian language to potential foreign learners but also mainly targeting support of Russian ‘heritage’ learner programs is seen as a way of safeguarding the high international standing of the Russian language (Sergay Reference Sergay2014). Other public organizations which support the teaching of Russian language and literature and promote Russian cultural values include the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (MAPRYAL), which brings together 300 members from more than seventy-five countries of the world, the Russian Society of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (ROSPRYAL), and the Guild of Linguistic Experts on Documentary and Information Disputes (GLÉDIS).

In the former Soviet states and the countries of Eastern Europe, Russian is experiencing competition for language dominance with English in the interethnic communicative arena. Currently, English is definitely ahead in this leadership competition, as 100% of students from the Czech Republic, more than 99% from Slovakia, 96% from Rumania, 92% from Serbia, 92% from Slovenia, 90% from Croatia, 87% from Bulgaria, and 73% from Poland study English as their first foreign language. Russian is significantly less popular as a foreign language and only 37% of high school students in Bulgaria, 5% of university students in the Czech Republic, and less than 1% in Poland studied it in 2010. This rapid shift from Russian to English happened in the beginning of the 1990s, when “almost overnight … schoolchildren in both ethnic Hungarian and ethnic Slovak towns stopped learning Russian and started learning English” (Prendergast Reference Prendergast2008: 51).

Economic, political, technological, and cultural issues contribute to the dominance of any language as a lingua franca: the more economically developed the country, the higher the advantage of its language; the higher the degree of communication in the language, the more chances it has of becoming the lingua franca; the closer the cultural codes and world outlooks are of nations, the greater will be the chances of them adopting the common language (Kornienko Reference Kornienko, Abylgaziyev and Ilyin2012). In the communist era, it was English that was predominantly associated with freedom, and afterwards with money and influence (Prendergast Reference Prendergast2008: 5).

Language usage is also closely related to ethnic self-identification, a sensitive issue in the former Soviet republics. Unparalleled efforts were made in derussification of the post-Soviet space when two decades ago the new states were founded on the ruins of the Soviet Union and a new balance of power in ethnic relations after independence emerged. In these new states, the language policy targeted the rejection of Russian as a language of communication, strengthening the status of national languages in public domains, media, and education and the status of English as lingua franca. Some governments of new independent states even manipulate the choice of language for its citizens; thus, in 2007 billboards with the slogan ‘Kazakh, speak Kazakh with Kazakh’ were spotted in the republic of Kazakhstan (Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2009: 262). In Moldova, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, the transition was made from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet in native languages. The alarming sign is that a new generation of Ukrainians, Moldovans, Estonians, and Georgians born and grown up after perestroika have not been required to learn Russian at school and if a twenty-five-year-old Tadjik meets his peer from Armenia, it is unpredictable what language – Russian or English – they would use as their language of communication. In the Baltic republics, it is already noticeable that English, not Russian, serves as a bridge between people of diverse ethnicities. English provides a neutral medium in which Latvians and Russians and other minority groups can work to establish a new independent Latvia (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas Reference Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas1997). In Estonia, English is rapidly expanding and local people welcome English as the medium of communication with the rest of the non-Russian-speaking countries (Fonzari Reference Fonzari1999). In Ukraine, Russian-Ukraine business signs in the streets were replaced by English-Ukraine. In Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, 40% of the street signs are in the English language only (Pavlenko Reference Pavlenko2009). In the Russian Federation, the workplace, education, and business are the domains in which the use of English is rapidly increasing because English proficiency is seen as the promise of economic, cultural, and individual advantage.

New incentives to learn the Russian language can be provided if the Russian economy continues to grow and if the attempts of the Russian government to restore the status of the Russian language and encourage people to learn and use Russian are successful. The trend to strengthen the positions of Russian might lead to its gaining international prestige as a language of communication in Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union, or, instead, English will be utilized as the language of international opportunities and the free-market economy or, possibly, both languages might serve as the effective codes of cross-cultural communication in various settings.

15.1 Factors of Threat to the Russian Language

In fact, the development of the Russian language today is designated by three major factors, which are related, to a greater or lesser extent, to the position of Russian as being threatened by a more dominant language, and, consequently, implies measures needed to be taken to preserve and protect the national language. The first factor is the diminishing importance of the Russian language worldwide. Such rapid decline in the popularity of Russian is primarily caused by the dissolution of the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, about 130 million people stopped using Russian as a national language (Yudina: Reference Yudina2010: 20). The second factor is the decline in the number of Russian native speakers. It is foreseen that by 2025 the overall number of Russian speakers will be reduced by half. In 2005, for example, the Russian population decreased by 680,000 people (Pechko Reference Pechko2006). Finally, the third factor is the influx of foreign words, threatening the Russian language, culture, and identity. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was an estimated intrusion of approximately 10,000 English words (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2005: 240–241). In total, English words (predominantly Americanisms) make up 74.3% of the total number of loan words, French 8%, German about 3%, loan words from other European languages 2.4%, loan words from Asian languages 4.8%, and classical languages such as Latin and Greek 7.5% (Marinova Reference Marinova2008: 37–38).

In spite of the three abovementioned factors influencing the further development of the Russian language today, Russian still remains the most widespread Slavic language and one of the most international languages. The decline in the number of Russian speakers in the former Soviet republics is counterbalanced by the growth of the Russian-speaking community abroad, with a total of approximately 30 million people. In addition, there are about 180 million people worldwide who study Russian as their second or foreign language (Yudina Reference Yudina2010: 22).

In the light of the current situation, Russian linguistics nowadays calls for a better understanding of language ecology, also referred to as linguistic ecology, lingua-ecology or ecolinguistics (Yudina: Reference Yudina2010: 7). One of the major research problems in this area involves the elaboration of recommendations for the improvement of the current linguistic situation by identifying, capturing, and promoting positive results of the official language policy, directed at the preservation of the purity of the Russian language, its norms and standards.

15.2 Measures to Maintain the Status of Russian

Attempts to protect the Russian national and cultural identity have resulted in measures securing the dominant position of the Russian language as a means of interethnic communication. These measures include parliament and presidential decrees, laws, initiatives, and other regulations in the sphere of Russian legislation that determine the status of the Russian language and other national languages in the territory of the Russian Federation.

So, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted at the National Voting on December 12, 1993, “the Russian language shall be a state language on the whole territory of the Russian Federation” (Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993: Chapter 3, Article 68, Paragraph 1).

Although the incentives taken by the Russian authorities have never been as regularized and straightforward as, for example, in France, where the purity of the language is protected by a state-controlled regulatory authority for the language, the Académie Française, the President’s Council on the Russian language as a regulatory body for the national language in Russia was created in 1995. Its aim was to:

• provide support to the Russian language development and spread;

• increase the use of Russian as a means of interethnic and international communication;

• provide adequate training to language teaching professionals, and instigate research into the Russian language;

• promote the popularization of the Russian language through the media.

In 1997, the President’s Council was replaced by the Government Council on the Russian language, reconstituted by Regulation No. 41 of January 17, 2000 with the purpose “to facilitate the development, dissemination, and preservation of the purity of the Russian language” (Decree No. 1674, 1997). The Council ceased its activity in 2004.

In December 2002, in the amendment to the 1991 law ‘On languages of peoples of the Russian Federation,’ a Cyrillic-based alphabet was recognized as a single graphic system used for all official languages of the Russian Federation unless otherwise determined by the federal law (Federal Law No. 165, 2002: Article 1, Paragraph 6). Although the amendment was obviously aimed at the preservation of the integrity of the Russian language and culture, the “trans-alphabetical boundaries,” however, can be considered as a “minor obstacle” in the process of linguistic internationalization (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2005: 241).

In 2005, to secure the dominant position of the Russian language, the Russian parliament adopted the law ‘On the state language of the Russian Federation,’ which was approved by the Federal Council (Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 53 2005). According to this law, Russian is the only language used for official matters in the national settings. It is used in civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings, and in diplomatic correspondence. Being essential for the work of public bodies and the regions of the Russian Federation, Russian is employed during election campaigns and referendums, for publications of laws and regulations, in advertising, TV, and radio broadcasting, when writing names of geographical objects, and for road signs.

Pointing out this exclusivity, Paragraph 6 of the law runs:

Language protectionist measures on the national level can also be traced in Federal Law No. 38 of March 13, 2006 ‘On Advertising’ (Federal Law No. 38 2006).

A number of laws and regulations adopted by the Russian government specifically monitor norms of the modern Russian literary language with its use as a state language of the Russian Federation. The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 714 of November 23, 2006 assigns the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation as a regulatory body that approves a list of Russian grammars, dictionaries, and reference books, containing norms of the modern Russian literary language, as well as the rules of Russian orthography and punctuation, on the basis of recommendations of the Interagency Commission for the Russian language (created in pursuance of the Decree of the Ministry of Education and Science No. 124 of December 2, 2004 ‘On the establishment of the Interagency Commission for the Russian language’) (Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 714).Footnote ¹

The latest initiative, aimed at the protection of the Russian language, has been a legislative proposal presented by the members of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia in February 2013 in the State Duma. It proposed that unjustified use of foreignisms in speech or mass media should incur a state penalty. This proposal, however, was considered unrealistic and populist (Lingvomania.info 2013).

15.3 Promotion of the Russian Language and Culture Abroad

Recently, the language policy of the country has also been directed at the restoration of the positive image of Russia and the Russian language abroad. On December 29, 2006, Vladimir Putin, president of the Russian Federation, concerned about the preservation and promotion of the Russian language, signed a decree declaring 2007 the year of the Russian Language (Decree of the President of the RF 2006). The major aim of the presidential initiative was to draw the interest of the world community to Russian language learning, literature and culture, and promote a positive image of Russia. The year of the Russian language was celebrated in seventy-six countries.

An important step made for the support of the Russian language was the creation of the Russkiy Mir FoundationFootnote ² in June 2007, for the purpose of “promoting the Russian language, as Russia’s national heritage and a significant aspect of Russian and world culture, and supporting Russian language teaching programs abroad.” One of the major missions of the foundation is to “reconnect the Russian community abroad with their homeland, forging new and stronger links through cultural and social programs, exchanges and assistance in relocation” (Decree of the President of the RF No. 796 2007).

In June 2008, as part of a Kremlin drive to promote Russian as a global language, the ex-president and the now prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev, called for the country to be assigned an Internet domain name in the Cyrillic script. The Russian national Cyrillic domain .рф (.rf) was officially registered on May 12, 2010 (see Chapter 9). Medvedev emphasized that 300 million people worldwide used Russian media, and that a Cyrillic domain name would be a key part of raising the importance of the language. “We must do everything we can to make sure that we achieve in the future a Cyrillic Internet domain name – it is a pretty serious thing. It is a symbol of the importance of the Russian language and Cyrillic […] And I think we have a rather high chance of achieving such a decision” (St. Petersburg Times 2008).

15.4 Flood of English Loan Words

As has been already observed, any incentive taken on the governmental level to protect the official national language by law most frequently arises in response to the influence of a more dominant language. The position of English as a global language a priori establishes it as the major source of danger, threatening the status of national languages. Many linguists and public figures actively seek to influence the language situation. The apprehension is voiced that Russian can be inundated with unjustified use of loan words, menacing the integrity of the national language and cultural identity (Romanov Reference Romanov2000). These fears are especially connected with the use of equivalent lexis (Marinova Reference Marinova2008: 12), which involves the choice of a loan word instead of its Russian equivalent; for example, геймер ‘geĭmer’ (‘gamer’) for игрок ‘igrok,’ имидж ‘imidzh’ (‘image’) for образ ‘obraz,’ менеджмент ‘menedzhment’ (‘management’) for управление ‘upravlenie’, перформанс ‘performans’ (‘performance’) for показ ‘pokaz,’ спич ‘spich’ (‘speech’) for речь ‘rech,’ уикенд ‘uikend’ (‘weekend’) for конец недели ‘konets nedeli.’ There is also a connection with coining new terms, especially in youth subcultures; for example, stritets (from street + Russian suffix –ets), a bikers’ subculture (Gritsenko Reference Gritsenko2012) and so on.

Russian linguist Ilya Radchenko argues that the overuse of loan words in speech is the result of people’s idleness as they find it easier to use an English word instead of looking for an equivalent in their native language:

The same feelings toward the use of loan words were expressed in the nineteenth century by the greatest Russian writer of political essays, namely, critic and philosopher V. G. Belinskiy: “To use a foreign word when there is an equal Russian word is to insult common sense and common taste” (Aphorisms, quotations, sayings, and proverbs 2012).

Valentin Nepomnyashchiy, a well-known Russian scholar, conveys his concern about the ongoing Anglicization of the language in the following way:

However, the excessive use of loan words is most frequently seen as a scourge of the younger generation. “To the horror of their parents, Russia’s ‘Koka-Kola’ generation has developed a vocabulary that has more to do with MTV than Pushkin” (Blomfield Reference Blomfield2007) (see also Chapter 11). Young people often use English as a new channel that allows them to express their national identity through a language other than their native tongue. Olga Sichyova (Reference Sichyova2005: 491) refers to the case when her students used a Russian word otdykh, meaning ‘rest, relaxation,’ with the English suffix -ation. Used like this, the word otdykhation maintains group identity, and, at the same time, reveals the students’ desire to participate in cross-cultural communication and pertain to the growing cosmopolitan community.

Nonetheless, the tendency of the younger generation to use English words in their speech (Yelenevskaya Reference Yelenevskaya, Rosenhouse and Kowner2008) should not be considered as a long-standing trend as young people easily adopt new ways of communication. Yuriy Prokhorov, the former head of the Pushkin State Institute of the Russian Language, thinks the fear of English in the speech of teenagers is misplaced and exaggerated: “Young people always develop fashionable ways of communicating … It is Russian words used incorrectly that damages the purity of the language not the introduction of foreign words” (cited from Blomfield Reference Blomfield2007). Vitaliy Kostomarov also defines such use of English by the word “fashion” – now that English has become the major supplier of fashion trends. In his opinion, “fashion is an extreme manifestation of taste, more individual, transient, striking and usually causing irritation of the older and conservative part of society” (Kostomarov Reference Kostomarov1999: 34). It is still important to note that most Russian linguists and public figures do not come out against the use of loan words in speech; they come out against an incorrect and inexact usage. More than that, borrowings still remain one of the major sources of language enrichment, contributing to the dialogue between different languages and world cultures. They are indispensable in such fields as science and technology.

Besides, as can be observed, the impact of English on Russian language and culture is diminishing and stabilizing (see Chapter 3). The majority of English borrowings become russified and nativized; the rest drop out of general use. It can therefore be concluded that the Russian language merely finds itself at one of the stages of its natural development, hence trying to meet the requirements of modern society (Yudina Reference Yudina2010: 7).

A recently (2010) conducted survey of three generations of Russian users of English (Lazaretnaya Reference Lazaretnaya2012), coming from Moscow and the Moscow region, makes it clear that, unlike the governmental and public reactions, on a micro-scale the majority of Russians positively embrace the presence of English in Russia. Thus, when asked to express their opinion about English use in speech (see Table 15.1 and Figure 15.1) (Lazaretnaya Reference Lazaretnaya2012: 171–172), only 21.5% of the total number of respondents admit they use English words because they make their speech sound more prestigious and advanced (a), whereas 76.9% say it is false. The majority claim they only use English words if there is no equivalent in Russian (b) – 71.5%; and 83.8% state that they use English words and do not disapprove when somebody else uses them (c).

Figure 15.1 Respondents’ opinions about the use of English in their speech

Source: Lazaretnaya Reference Lazaretnaya2012: 172

15.5 Attitudes

When the respondents’ opinions about the presence of English (in daily life) are analyzed, the results, however, show that the respondents from the older age groups demonstrate more resistance to English in their speech and try not to abuse using English words unless there is no exact equivalent in the Russian language (see Table 15.2 and Figure 15.2). Hence, the excessive use of English in speech may be considered as neglect of one’s own national and cultural roots. As such, English words are frequently perceived as more prestigious and proper under certain circumstances, but, by no means, as substitutes of Russian words expressing the same meaning.

Figure 15.2 Respondents’ opinions about the presence of English in daily life

Source: Lazaretnaya Reference Lazaretnaya2012: 173

Predominately positive attitudes were registered in the items in which respondents had to express their attitude toward the presence of English in Russian society (Lazaretnaya Reference Lazaretnaya2012: 173–175).

The respondents’ answers (see Figure 15.2, Table 15.2) show that English is not seen as a threat to the Russian language (a) – 76.2%; and culture (b) – 74.6%. Most subjects also find the presence of English in everyday life useful because it improves their language skills (d) – 86.9%; and broadens cultural horizons (e) – 83.1%. Even in statements (f) and (g), no resistance toward the use of English is expressed.

Nonetheless, in statement (c), 51.5% of respondents consider that the use of English is a serious trend. In (f), 18.5% admit they are worried about the effects of English on their mother tongue. Still nobody reports he/she dislikes the English language and resents the fact he/she uses it (g).

Moreover, if we compare the results of this survey to the study of Danish population done by Preisler (Reference Preisler, Bex and Watts1999: 247) and Erling’s survey (Reference Erling2004: 156) of German students at the Freie Universität Berlin (FU), the findings demonstrate that the Russian population is less biased against English use than Danish and German societies (Table 15.3). This fact can be explained by a greater influence of English in Europe. In Russia, which is not as exposed to Anglo-American culture as the majority of European countries, English is not perceived as a serious menace but more as a trend, threatening neither national and cultural unity nor the national language.

To compare, a survey of the population of the Vladimir region (Russia) showed that the majority of the surveyed population were not indifferent to the destiny of their native language. When asked to express their opinion about the current changes taking place in the Russian language, 97% admitted they felt anxious about the language development (Yudina Reference Yudina2010: 250).

As demonstrated in this section, the presence of English arouses both negative and positive reactions in the national settings. The positive reactions toward the use of English in Russia are primarily associated with social advantages that the knowledge of this language may eventually bring. English use is hence considered as offering an alternate way of expressing national identity and building links to the international community. Moreover, it is contemplated more as a source of enrichment and improvement of one’s language proficiency and knowledge of foreign culture, a temporary phenomenon, and a modern trend, rather than a menace to the national language. The negative reactions to English are connected with the problem of language protectionism and the incentives taken to protect the Russian language and culture in governmental and public domains.

Nonetheless, the fear of deterioration of the Russian language in the local context is, so far, unfounded. The Russian language in Russia remains a symbol of national unity, and there is a strong link between the notions of nation, language, and culture. That is why for the majority of Russians, the abuse of English words in their speech is associated with the loss of national belonging, and is opposed by individuals who take pride in their national language. Moreover, feeling itself as part of a great cultural legacy, Russian society still strongly depends on cultural values, transmitted through and by means of the Russian language and literature (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2011: 69).

16.1 Awareness of the WE Paradigm: Studies of the Inner Circle Englishes

Traditionally, English language teaching and learning was oriented toward British and, later, American models of education. Therefore, most users of English in Russia still believe that they speak ‘British’ or ‘American English.’ The World Englishes paradigm that became known in the country in the 1990s has received a very limited reception among Russian language professionals so far. However, interest in other varieties has been acute among linguists, which is proved by a number of researches.

The primary scholarly and academic focus is on the Inner Circle Englishes as native, prototypic, and providing ‘authentic’ materials for teaching. Besides British and American Englishes, whose diversity on the territorial and social bases raises no doubts (Shveitser Reference Shveitser1963, Reference Shveitser1983; Makovsky Reference Makovsky1980; Brodovich Reference 270Brodovich1991; Zagrayevskaya Reference Zagrayevskaya2013), Russian and Ukrainian scholarsFootnote ¹ addressed issues of Canadian English (Zhluktenko Reference Zhluktenko1975; Popova Reference Popova1978; Bykhovets Reference Bykhovets1988) and Australian English (Orlov Reference Orlov1978). Later on, works on New Zealand (Oschepkova and Petrikovskaya Reference Oschepkova and Petrikovskaya1998; Nikolayeva O. Reference Nikolayeva2010) and Irish Englishes (Kurenya Reference 282Kurenya2009) appeared. Many of these works researched into lexical features of the described varieties (Orlov Reference Orlov1978; Popova Reference Popova1978; Bykhovets Reference Bykhovets1988; Tomakhin Reference Tomakhin1988; Kazak Reference Kazak1989; Oschepkova Reference Oschepkova1989; Oschepkova and Petrikovskaya Reference Oschepkova and Petrikovskaya1998; Pryadko Reference Pryadko1999; Yevtushenko Reference 302Yevtushenko2013) or their phonetic characteristics (Shakhbagova Reference Shakhbagova1980, Reference Shakhbagova1982, Reference Shakhbagova1992; Antonova Reference Antonova1994; Abyzov Reference Abyzov2005); the latest works deal with the cultural grounds of the varieties (Oschepkova Reference Oschepkova2006; Nikolayeva O. Reference Nikolayeva2010), highlighting the interconnection of language and culture.

16.2 Studies of Other Englishes

The idea of new, transplanted Englishes was first elaborated in Russia in 1962 by the then Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) scholars T. Belyayeva and I. Potapova, whose book English Beyond England (Reference Belyayeva and Potapova1962) opened the eyes of many Russian scholars though was encountered rather skeptically by practicing teachers, as new Englishes described in the book were believed to be stigmatized hybrids not interesting from a pedagogical angle. However, the emphasis on intercultural communicationFootnote ² that has been made in the post-perestroika curricula and the ideas of intercultural communication through English as a Lingua Franca with non-native speakers of English, outnumbering native speakers, has become evident. The 1990s witnessed new consideration of the role of English in the world – ideas very close to those of the WE paradigm were elaborated in a collection of articles, a festschrift for Olga S. Akhmanova, the founder of the English department at Lomonosov State University of Moscow. The book supported by D. Crystal was titled World Englishes and published in 1998 (Alexandrova and Konurbayev Reference Alexandrova and Konurbayev1998). These two books – English Beyond England (1962) and World Englishes: A Festschrift (1998) representing St. Petersburg and Moscow linguistic schools – became important milestones in Russian scholarship.

The varieties of two regions in the Outer and Expanding Circles have attracted special attention of the researchers. One of them is Africa, whose developing Englishes became an object of study for Ukrainian linguists (Zhluktenko Reference 303Zhluktenko1981; Semenets Reference Semenets1985a, Reference Semenets1985b; Bugulov Reference Bugulov1987; Knurov Reference Knurov1990) and continued to be studied in Moscow (Andreyeva Reference Andreyeva1980; Balabai Reference 267Balabai2007; Khokhlova Reference Khokhlova2008), St.Petersburg (Siaka Reference Siaka2004), and Piatigorsk (Krainiuchenko Reference Krainiuchenko2002) linguistic schools. The other direction of research concerns Asian varieties of English and is done at the Far Eastern National (now Federal) University (Vladivostok). This scholarly interest in World Englishes functioning in the Pacific Rim context has been enhanced by real communicative needs – nowadays Russians communicate with their Asian neighbors mostly in English. An outstanding expert in the Far Eastern arts, Valery Markov, mentioned in the preface to his book on Korean culture (Markov Reference Markov1999: 8) that it was a great challenge for him to read books on Korean arts written in English, for, though he knew English like many other Russian scholars, he was absolutely unprepared to encounter specific romanized Korean culture-loaded words in English texts. The linguistic research was concentrated on transference of Asian languages to English and Asian Englishes accents (Zavialova Reference Zavialova2001, Reference Zavialova2011; Uyutova Reference Uyutova2004; Pivovarova Reference Pivovarova2005; Belonozhko Reference Belonozhko2007; Bondarenko Reference Bondarenko2007; Ivankova Reference Ivankova2007, Reference Ivankova2009; Kiritova Reference Kiritova2010), contribution of Asian languages to Global English (Proshina Reference Proshina2001, Reference Proshina2009; Ivankova Reference Ivankova2007; Titova Reference 298Titova2010), functions of English in the Far East (Krykova Reference Krykova2004; Ilyina Reference Ilyina2005, Reference Ilyina2007; Lupachova Reference Lupachova2005; Revenko Reference Revenko2006), history and results of English-Asian contacts (Proshina Reference Proshina2001, Reference Proshina and Proshina2004a, Reference 290Proshina2004b; Bogachenko Reference Bogachenko2003), their after-effects in Russian, and intermediary translation from English into Russian when speaking about Asian cultures (Proshina Reference Proshina2001, Reference 290Proshina2004b, Reference Proshina2005a, Reference Proshina2005b).

16.3 Awareness of Russian English

Russian English as a variety has not been recognized within the country for very long, though works of Russian scholars abroad have enriched the results of sociolinguistics at large and the WE paradigm in particular. The first PhD dissertation on English in Russian advertising was completed by Irina Ustinova in 2002 at Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY, USA). In 2007, at Wayne State University (Michigan, USA), Anna Eddy explored English in the Russian macrosociolinguistic context. In 2011 at Purdue University (West Lafayette, Indiana, USA), Elena Lawrick (Zhdankina) completed her PhD dissertation on English in Russian Academe. In 2012, at the University of Lisbon, Olesya Lazaretnaya was awarded a PhD degree for her dissertation ‘English as a Lingua Franca in Russia: A sociolinguistic profile of three generations of English users.’ An MA thesis was written by Inessa Alexeeva (Reference Alexeeva2010) at the University of Portsmouth (Great Britain) on the observation of the English language functioning in the city of Tver, located less than 200 km from Moscow. None of the dissertations describing English in Russia is titled ‘Russian English,’ as the existence of Expanding Circle varieties per se has been a very controversial issue, though all the researchers had in mind English in Russia as a variety different from other varieties in a range of features, in performance of certain functions, and, mainly, in being a vehicle of Russian culture and way of life. The first mentioning of the term Russian English appeared in the doctoral dissertation of Irina Ustinova in 2002 (Ustinova Reference 299Ustinova2002: 36–38) and then was introduced in her article ‘English in Russia,’ published in May 2005. However, Ustinova uses the terms Russianized English and Russian English interchangeably and defines them as a performance variety of English taught and used in Russia that has “distinct peculiarities in pronunciation, use of idioms, clichés, and some syntactic structures” (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2005: 241). The term Russian Englishes and its extended definition appeared in November 2005, in the title and articles of the special issue of the journal World Englishes (Proshina Reference Proshina2005b).

Russian sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, and contrastive linguistics, as well as education theory and practice provide a good background to elaborate the concept of Russian English as a variety. Many features of learner English have been described as typical mistakes and have become the object of study in educational linguistics (Monk and Burak Reference Monk, Burak, Swan and Smith2001). Erratology (Shevnin Reference 295Shevnin2003, Reference Shevnin2004), deviatology (Debrenn Reference 272Debrenn2006) or study of mistakes (Visson Reference Visson2003; Grigoryeva Reference Grigoryeva2004) is a new branch of educational linguistics that is closest to describing features of the variety. However, erratology can be regarded as the first phase of study of the Russian English learner features revealed on the basilectal and mesolectal levels. As was stated in Chapter 2, learner English is close to but not the same as a variety – the concepts are related to each other, as are the individual and the social. Typical representations of learner English might only index mesolectal or basilectal parts of a variety while an acrolectal part of a variety is excluded from learner English as it is not expected to be a fossilized interlanguage. Therefore, it is not true to equate Russian English with learner English, nor is it appropriate to equate Russian English and Ruslish, a hybridized basilectal part of a variety.

Nevertheless, this equation is not infrequent among Russians. For example, the website of Samara State University contains the call, “It’s high time we transferred from Russian English to English English!” addressed to students and teachers of English (www.edc.samara.ru/~class/2003/kurovskaya/main.htm). This call testifies to the understanding of Russian English as a deficient learners’ English rather than a variety that serves as a vehicle of Russian culture and mentality as was described earlier in this book (see Chapter 2).

16.4 Attitude Dynamics

To monitor the dynamics of attitude toward the concept of Russian English, three sociolinguistic surveys were conducted in 2005, 2009, and 2013. The first survey was done at the Far Eastern universities and involved about 300 students and instructors. A full description of this survey can be found in (Proshina Reference Proshina2006). The second survey was undertaken in the European part of Russia and involved 140 participants (language instructors, students, and professionals). The results of the survey are explicated in (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2011). The third survey was carried out in both the European and the Asian parts of Russia and included over 300 respondents (students, instructors, and professionals). These results are described in (Proshina Reference Proshina2014). One of the main questions the respondents were to answer was about the identification of the variety of English they used.

As can be seen in Table 16.1, the progress of self-awareness of and, simultaneously, the gradual increase in the positive attitude toward Russian English is evident. The percentage of those who recognized their English as Russian and were not embarrassed to claim this increased almost four to five times within twelve years, from 5% and 6% in 2005 to 24% in 2013, making up almost a quarter of the respondents in the third survey. Those who argue that they speak mixed English imply that they use the British and American models with some features transferred from their native language. However, these respondents did not dare to name their performance variety Russian English, since this concept is associated with a low basilectal level of English command. So this category of responses includes shameful recognition of Russian English. The last two columns of Table 16.1 demonstrate the confusion of the concepts of a real-life variety and an ideal model of learning. As was mentioned in Chapter 2, Russian English is an exonormative variety oriented originally toward the British English model and since recent times it has been geared to the American-English standard, which is mostly preferred by a younger generation. So far, many Russian speakers of English have flattered themselves with the hope that they speak a “franchised copy of ENL” (English as a Native Language) (Seidlhofer Reference Seidlhofer2011: 19), which is accommodated with the EFL model traditionally followed in Russian education.

To conclude, with the increase in the transcultural role of English, the community of Russian users of English are gradually turning to recognizing the conception of World Englishes and their diversity. English in Russia undoubtedly belongs to the family of world Englishes; however, even among the scholars who pioneered the studies of this variety, a complete consensus is lacking on whether Russian English is a legitimate term in the present. The criteria usually assigned to test the independent variety include the functions of English in the community, linguistic form of the variety, and the attitude of speakers (Mollin Reference Mollin2006: 1–3). Irina Ustinova assumes that though English has made significant inroads in Russia and possesses instrumental, interpersonal, and creative functions, among others (Ustinova Reference Ustinova2005), overall, English today is still not the language of instruction, media, internal business, and everyday communication in Russia. Nativization can be described as the presence of characteristic systematic features typical to all speakers of English in Russia. Some features exist, such as the use of temporal and aspectal markers, and limited repertoire of tenses as well as an authentic lexical mosaic (Salakhyan Reference Salakhyan2012), but future research is needed to separate features typical to all proficient speakers of English and mistakes typical for individuals only. As for the attitudinal aspect, the research shows that 75% of respondents still tend to aim for a native variety of English, though accept some deviations. Thus, institutionalization, as the lack of gap between the norm that Russian speakers endorse and their linguistic behavior, has not yet occurred. English in Russia has not fully developed its own endo-normative variety, distinct and independent from native speaker norms; thus, it is better to refer to the emergence, but not existence of Russian English today.

Other scholars assume that Russian English relies on the exonormative models but may (to various degrees) have various features transferred from the Russian language (and sometimes both Russian and a minority language native to a bilingual user – see Chapter 4) and conveys the indigenous culture (cultures) of its user. This point of view does not contradict the one formulated by Ustinova and continues into the reasons that make Russian English identified as such, as distinct from and still close to, other Englishes. And though Russian English has not yet been unanimously accepted, the dynamics of its recognition is most positive and some scholars even refer to Eastern European English as a legitimate regional variety (Salakhyan Reference Salakhyan2012).

17.1 The Choice of Tuva for the Research

Russia is a multicultural and multiethnic country where, according to various statistic sources, there are from forty to sixty ethnic groups; their total population is about 250 thousand people (Stepanov Reference Stepanov2004). Scholarly communities all over the world are greatly concerned with the indigenous cultures and languages, which are threatened with extinction. The danger comes from the rejection of using native languages because older generations do not pass their indigenous languages to the next generation in many cases. Regardless of the rather large number of people speaking Tuvan, according to Federal Service оf State Statistics (2010), the Tuvan population comprises 307,930 people in total. Compared against the background of other threatened languages with 10 and even fewer speakers (sometimes only one person speaking the native language), the Tuvan language also refers to the perishing languages that might be absorbed by Russian (Dictionary.com 2012).

The Tuvan People’s Republic, or Tuva, has been selected for research due to several factors:

The problem of indigenous languages and cultures is connected with diverse identities. The language may serve as the marker of ethnic identities, as is the case with the threatened Tuvan language, which is abundant in unique words reflecting Tuvans’ cultural practices, the loss of which would have brought disaster to the nation and especially to their identity. That is why the problem of unique vocabulary retention is especially acute. Positioned between the impact of the two cultures expressed in Tuva-culture-oriented English and Russian-culture-oriented English, Tuvans have acquired awareness of the English language and culture as a secondary means for self–identity. To study the relations between the ethnic English, which is being developed among the historically cattle-herding nomadic people belonging to the Turkic ethnic group with its rich Tuvan language and culture, and regional Russian English in the framework of World Englishes is the goal of this chapter. To achieve this goal, we have to discuss the issue of an English user’s identity, its stability or change in acquiring or learning an additional language.

17.2 Linguacultural Situation in Tuva

Historically, the linguacultural situation in Tuva is characterized by various social and cultural contacts that have influenced their present lexicon. The Tuvan language belongs to the Turkic linguistic family including Siberian Turkic, South Siberian Turkic, and Sayan Turkic, where Tuvan is classified as a Northern (Siberian) Turkic language. Tuvans comprise the Altay-Sayan ethnic subgroup heavily influenced by Mongolian, but their bilingualism was unilateral because Mongols did not speak other contacting languages. Earlier, Tuvans were bilingual and spoke Tuvan and Mongolian (Khabtagaeva Reference Khabtagaeva2006).

The intensity of the Mongolian influence on the Tuva language was the most extensive in the history of Tuva, but it was not the only one. The second extensive impact on Tuva was the Russian language, the Cyrillic alphabet of which had been adopted by the Tuvan language in 1943 (Omniglot 2015).

17.3 Conceptualization of Ethnic Identity

Different sources and various methodologies have introduced diverse conceptualizations to the notion of identity. There is a great variety of identity types: language/linguistic identity, culture(al) identity, social identity, sociocultural identity, bicultural/multicultural identity, religious identity, national identity, hybrid identity, racial identity, ethnic identity, and others. The enumeration could be continued; however, the most important types for this research are ethnic/national identities that play the greatest role for all the people. They may serve as a tool for referring a person to this or that category or indicate if two interlocutors belong to the same culture, co-culture, subculture, and idioculture, or if interlocutors share the same values, interests, customs, beliefs, etc. The other types of identity are no less important for participants of communication, taking into consideration the role of culture and the way people acquire it and most often do not think of the influence of culture in intercultural communication. The conceptualization of ethnic identity challenges multiple facets in both language and culture. The reason is that the phenomenon of identity is critically important for individuals, groups, and nations; it is multifaceted, highly sensitive for most people, which leads to differences in conceptions of identity. Identity is conceptualized in multiple ways and often is highly complex, incomplete, inconsistent, and difficult to explain, regardless of an avalanche of definitions. That is why understanding ethnic identity is highly crucial. W. Baker (Reference Baker2009) argues that English as a language of communication in Asia articulates and enacts cultures and identities. There are voices of scholars who lay emphasis on the worldview, self-identity, mentality, and physical feelings that can change from one culture to another. The views of ethnic identity and self-identity (as part of it) are contradictory in various studies. The research question here accents ethnic identity changes or vice versa – ethnic identity without changes due to various factors. Some scholars claim that ethnic identity and self-identity as well as other types of identities, including hybrid identity, may considerably change depending on the motivating factors, while other scholars assert the opposite. Most authors argue in favor of bilingual identity change while others do not acknowledge this view.

The authors postulating changes of ethnic identity, which is the case of Tuvans in this research. In Tajfel’s view (Reference Tajfel1981), ethnic identity is conceptualized as part of a self-concept that has gradually developed in a cultural group. Ting-Toomey (Reference Ting-Toomey1999) argues in favor of “the newcomer’s identity change” and focuses on the metaphor “identity being – identity becoming” that is closely connected with the intercultural adaptation process (Ting-Toomey Reference Ting-Toomey1999: 39). For other scholars, ethnic identity might construct a concept of self. Studying the role of English in Singapore, Honna emphasized: “At an early stage, it was perceived that the use of English for interethnic communication might hinder the development of national identity Singaporeans” (Honna Reference Honna2008: 21). The rationale for making English the primary language was “the absence of a common language” in Singapore, which “would have constituted the imminent failure to promote interethnic, intranational communication, which was required to speed up the development of national identity and integrity” (Honna Reference Honna2008: 22). One more example of ethnic identity change came from the work of Wong (1999) whose research found that people in Hong Kong (HK) had their perceptions altered toward their HK identity when there was contextual change in society. Wong, who reviewed similar research works from other contexts, concluded that the main reason for national identity change is social factors and education.

The authors rejecting changes: Cakir (Reference Cakir2006) does not believe that English can change one’s identity; learners continue to retain and cherish their traditional beliefs and family values. Though learners try to acquire and speak good English, however, they do not do anything to change their identity. Kramsch (Reference Kramsch2013) noticed that learners of a foreign language “feel threatened in their L1 identity by too much emphasis on [foreign] culture” (Kramsch Reference Kramsch2013: 59). The question of whether one’s identity changes or not was raised by Golubović (Reference Golubović2011), who claimed that changes depending on the type of identity based on cultural pattern may be reconceptualized, while national/ethnic identity has only its collective expression. The author highlighted the problem of identity as “not a neutral category, nor inborn (congenital) trait” (Golubović Reference Golubović2011: 29). Regardless of the previous conclusion on potential identity changes, Golubović (Reference Golubović2011) argues specifically in favor of an unchangeable entity and insists that “naturally given and belonging to the ethnic category,” ethnic identity “is tied with a nation-state and ethnicity” and “is resistant to change” (Golubović Reference Golubović2011: 26). Referring to Duelund’s speech at a conference, Golubović cites the “New Global World” conception. The model of globalization has promoted the revival of nationalism “as a defense against a possible loss of identity” (Golubović Reference Golubović2011: 37).

17.4 Surveys of Identities

The two approaches to the ethnic identity changes investigated above were compared with two contrasting researches. The first one belongs to Kumaki (Reference Kumaki2014) who examined the impact of learning English on Japanese groups with the purpose of finding out if respondents changed their ethnic/national identity or not. One focus group comprised native Japanese speakers who speak English as a second language, while the other group included native English speakers who speak Japanese as a second language. The research brought the author to conclude that 90% of the Japanese changed their identity unconsciously while learning English as a second language. The author’s survey also confirmed that 44% of the other group consisting of English speakers who speak Japanese also changed their identity. The focus group comprising Japanese native speakers studying English had a greater percent of changes compared to the focus group consisting of English speakers who speak Japanese as a second language. The researcher’s conclusion was the following: one individual–two identities, that is, individuals and groups keep two identities while speaking different languages (Kumaki Reference Kumaki2014: 39). Similar results were obtained by Pavlenko (Reference Pavlovskaya2014) who studied self-perception and self-narration of bilinguals and questioned if they felt like a different person when they used their different languages. Her research (together with Dewaele) clearly shows the changes of self-perception by bilinguals (65% of positive responses) (Pavlenko Reference Pavlovskaya2014: 198).

The other short survey was conducted by Lebedko (Reference Lebedko2014) with thirty-five students from Tuva, ranging in age from 16/17, 18, 19 to 20/21, going to a large university in the Russian Far East. They expressed informed consent to participate in the survey focusing on identity behaviour. There were eleven males and twenty-four females majoring in various disciplines: English, Russian, International Relations, Political Sciences, Economics and Management, Engineering, and Humanity Studies. The participants were asked to share their experience of identity changes: had they acquired a new identity when learning Russian and English or had they not. The data collection was exclusively students’ responses to the short questionnaire that included two research questions: 1) What is your identity? Tuvan? Russian? English? 2) Has your identity changed after studying the Russian language and culture? The English language and culture? All answers were in Russian, as the students preferred.

Answering the first question, all thirty-five students confirmed their identity status as Tuvan. The findings of the second question data revealed that only four respondents shared their identity with other languages and cultures:

1. 1. A female shared both Tuvan and Russian identity (shared identity: one person vs two identities).

2. 2. A male student answered ‘yes’ to both English and Russian explaining this situation: “Russian is my second mother-tongue. I think that achievement of personhood at the crossroad of two cultures was beneficial” (shared identity: one person vs two or three identities).

3. 3. A female described her attitude to English as a more attractive landmark intrinsic to the contemporary world: “My experience of communication with Americans let me change my inner consciousness, but my identity did not change.” In my view, she actually changed her identity; her phrase that communication with Americans changed her inner consciousness means it was constructed as a hybrid identity; however, at the same time she hesitated between two (possibly three) identities; she asserted that her identity did not change.

4. 4. One female hesitating between identities claimed: “My identity is Tuvan, sometimes Russian. When I change identity, I am part of the Russian culture.” This perception of identity and hesitation “sometimes Russian” may be considered as a hybrid identity that the participant constructed unconsciously.

To sum up, only four of the respondents out of thirty-five Tuvans accepted the change and only two types of identity change could be elicited. Contrary to Kumaki’s research with 90% identity change, Lebedko’s research identified only 1.15% (a very low percent). However, the next study found that there are still changes of identities among the Tuvan students.

17.5 Awareness and Self-identity

Central to all people is the notion of self-concept, also known as self-identity, self-construction, self-image, and similar. Well-known dictionaries vary insignificantly, underlining consciousness or awareness of a person’s individuality. Self-identity is considered as “the consciousness of one’s own identity or individuality” (Random House Dictionary 1997). In psychology, self-identity is regarded as “[t]he conscious recognition of the self as having a unique identity” (Collins English Dictionary 2003). Other dictionaries place emphasis on the connection between self-identity and its awareness, focusing on awareness as a tool for distinguishing a unique self-identity. There are several types of awareness: language awareness, culture awareness, intercultural awareness, global awareness, etc. These types intertwine, which together with self-identity form a fanciful structure in the Tuvan language, Russian English, and World Englishes. The interaction of self-identity, self-awareness, and global awareness plays a great role in languages and cultures.

17.6 The project: Dictionary of Tuvan Culture

The awareness of cultural-identity together with cultural awareness gave rise to understanding the promotion of the rich Tuvan culture based on ethnicity. The first attempt to find the customs and traditions of Tuva and create a dictionary was implemented in the 1900s. Foreign scholars and travelers going on a journey described the way of life in Tuva (former Uriankhai, meaning ‘distant forest people’). In 1987, the American-Russian-Tuvinian expedition explored the Tuvan language and culture. The first dictionary, compiled by Anderson and Harrison in 1997–2006, was published in Germany in 1999 (Anderson and Harrison Reference Anderson and Harrison1999). This dictionary and the following ones promoted Tuvan culture and facilitated its spread in the world. The second version was published in Tuva in 2002 (Anderson and Harrison Reference Anderson and Harrison2002). Later the same authors compiled the free online Tuvan Talking Dictionary (Anderson and Harrison Reference Anderson and Harrison2012). Nowadays, the situation of the vanishing Tuva culture, which is or rather was on the verge of extinction, is rapidly changing thanks to the creation of several Tuvan dictionaries. Some examples from Tuvan Talking Dictionary are as follows: ög n. yurt; ög, aal n. yurt (nomads tent); and some parts of the yurt – khana n. wall (of yurt), dündük n. round frame at top of yurt, khoolaj n. chimney (stovepipe) in yurt, öön tip v. (stem) set up/pitch/construct a yurt. This is for the young generation so that they do not forget how to construct a yurt and for all people interested in the Tuvan culture to learn about Tuvan values, way of life, and traditions, and to spread them all over the world.

One more English dictionary of the Tuvan culture was thoroughly elaborated by Kuznetsova (Reference Kuznetsova2008) who found it necessary to save the vanishing Tuva culture. It is salient that English as the global language was used as a means of preserving the Tuvan minority culture in Russia. The goal of the project was to formulate and embody the unique culture that might go extinct but is abundant in rich cultural artifacts. The choice of English as “a secondary way of cultural self-expression” (Kabakchi Reference Kabakchi1998) was not random; it was thoroughly refined as other World Englishes dictionaries had been developed previously. Tuvans were inspired and stimulated by self-identity (the most significant among other types of identities), awareness of which helped them to promote and expand their culture in the world. In the case of Tuva, the self-identity has taken an interesting turn: Tuvans expanded their self-identity through English using self-identity as a tool to reach the goal of saving and promoting the Tuvan culture. Kuznetsova, the author of the Dictionary of Tuvan Culture (Reference Kuzmenkova2008), selected cultural terms based on the principles of significance and uniqueness for her Tuvan culture. Being located in the center of the Asian continent, Tuva has acquired distinctive unique features during its evolution; for example, the exotic ancient culture of shamanism. It is true that shamanism does not belong exclusively to Tuva, however, travelers crossing Siberia and visiting Tuva in the nineteenth century reported a mixture of shamanism and Buddhism and found a blend that had adopted “each other’s rituals, sacred instruments,” etc. (Thubron Reference Thubron2001: 103). There are original distinctive traits in Tuvans’ practices. One of the examples found in the blog (Dictionary.com 2012) illustrates the unique collocation ‘Khoj özeeri’ that “is conceptualized as a specific way of slaughtering a sheep: Tuvans gently cut its central arteries with fingers to spare the animal, to make its death less painful. This collocation discloses the Tuvans’ character: kindness and humane attitude toward animals, which serves as a measure of one’s character, which brightly reveals their way of life.”

Working on the Dictionary of Tuvan Culture, Kuznetsova (Reference Kuzmenkova2008) examined Anglo-Tuvan linguacultural contacts with the aim of discovering whether they are direct or indirect. Various scholars or travelers from diverse countries (USA, Germany, Sweden, Italy, France, Japan, etc.) interacted with Tuvans in English; a number of researchers described what they saw, recorded their findings and published manuals, textbooks, stories, and narratives in English, as for example, Krueger (Reference Krueger1977) in his Tuvan Language Manual.

In Kuznetsova’s study, semantization of words varies from description (Ovaa. Sacred site) to analogies (Arat. Peasant, nomadic herder; Tuvan national, proletariat); to generic naming (Tarak. Dairy product); paraphrase (Khoomeizhi, one who sings khoome, throat singing) to a mixture of semantization means (Alazhy. Teepee made of wooden poles with bark covering. Naadym n. Tuvan national holiday, observed in August) (Kuznetsova Reference Kuznetsova2008). The Dictionary of Tuvan Culture includes words borrowed from a variety of languages and cultures due to Tuvans’ contacts. Since the Mongol and Tuvan interaction endured for a rather long period, the Tuvans’ Turkic language obtained many Mongolian loan words as we can see in other linguistic sources; for example, Mongolian “Čaġan (‘white; light of color’), the white color of an egg or of the eye” entered the Tuvan language in two different forms: šagā and sagā (n.) (Khabtagaeva Reference Khabtagaeva2006). The Russian language impact on the Tuvan language and culture was also intensive. There are multiple loan words from Russian that have served as mediators for borrowing words from other languages. Ample Tuvan vocabulary reflects Tuvans’ practices, their life close to the land and nature, as well as human environment: kapka n. trap; быштак byštak n. cheese curd (wet); арага araga n. alcohol(ic) drink, fermented milk alcohol; deerbedeer v. grind grain with millstone; igil n. horsehead fiddle. These examples vividly show the daily life of the Tuvans.

The bilingual population of the small republic of Tuva forms an ethnic minority in multinational Russia. Like many other minorities, they are characterized by a distinct traditional culture which they take pride in and by the general national culture of Russia (Russian in the broad sense of the word). Their bilingualism is represented by their indigenous Tuvan language and Russian, which most Tuvans are fluent in. This bilingualism, thus, is underpinned by biculturalism. English learnt at school and university turns their bilingualism into multilingualism. It becomes an additional means to express their self- and ethnic identity, and in this case it can definitely be termed Tuvan English, which forms a part of regional Russian English (Russian, in the broad sense of the word, embracing the name of the country – see Chapter 1), or a Russian English, one of the family of world Englishes. Russian English, therefore, is a multicultural (multi-ethnic) phenomenon, characteristic of diverse ethnicities of Russia. As a term embracing a big region, it can also be pluralized – Russian Englishes. It serves both locally and globally, expressing a local minority culture and making it known globally. Most probably, the research into the role of the English language in its secondary expression of self-identity of the Tuvan people might be extrapolated to other minority ethnic groups. However, the extrapolation in this research is limited; it requires deeper research into various ethnic groups in Russia, their endangered languages and cultures. This will be the next research in the future.