Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T20:48:47.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing the Soviet Turkic Tongues: The Language of the Politics of Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Jonathan Pool
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Language planning often aims to fix the statuses, roles, and functions of languages, and hence the choices among languages that speakers and writers make. This has been called “language status planning.” A second object of language policy, however, is the content and structure of languages themselves: vocabularies, sound systems, word structures, sentence structures, writing systems, and stylistic repertoires. Intervention of this kind is “language corpus planning.” The Soviet distinction between the “functional development“ of a language and its “internal development” or “enrichment” is parallel. Soviet language policies deal both with status problems (for example, how long and how widely should language X be used?) and with corpus problems (for example, how should language X be developed and regulated?). The Soviet Turkic languages exhibit these issues with particular complexity because of their number, their close interrelations, their similarity to a non-socialist country's language (Turkish), their dissimilarity to Russian, their pre-Soviet Arabic (if any) alphabets, and their traditions of borrowing from Arabic and Persian, associated culturally with Islam and perceived backwardness.

Type
Symposium
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 425 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1976

References

1. Recent works in this field include Fishman, Joshua A., Ferguson, Charles A., and Das Gupta, Jyotirindra, eds., Language Problems of Developing Nations (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Rubin, Joan and Jernudd, Bjorn H., eds., Can Language Be Planned? (Honolulu, 1971)Google Scholar; and Fishman, Joshua A., ed., Advances in Language Planning (The Hague, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. See, for example, Guboglo, M. N., “Etnolingvisticheskie kontakty: Dvuiazychie,” in Arutiunian, Iu. V. et al., eds., Sotsial'noe i natsional'noe (Moscow, 1973), p. 230 Google Scholar

3. Glyn Lewis, E., Multilingualism in the Soviet Union (The Hague, 1972), pp. 51, 54, 87.Google Scholar

4. Binder, Leonard, Iran: Political Development in a Changing Society (Berkeley, 1962), p. 62.Google Scholar

5. Jeffrey W. Hahn, “The Role of Soviet Sociology in Social Policy-Making,” paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Toronto, February 26, 1976 (cited with permission).

6. Lehmann, Winfred P., ed., Language and Linguistics in the People's Republic of China (Austin, 1975), p. 130 Google Scholar; Lewis, Multilingualism, p. 284.

7. See Jespersen, Otto, Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View (Bloomington, Ind., 1964 [1st ed., 1925]), chapter 5.Google Scholar

8. See Tauli, Valter, Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning (Uppsala, 1968), p. 29–42.Google Scholar

9. T. M. Garipov, “Vystuplenie,” in V. V. Vinogradov et al., eds., Voprosy razvitiia literaturnykh iazykov narodov SSSR v sovetskuiu epokhu (hereafter cited as Vop. ras. lit.) (Alma-Ata, 1964), pp. 210-11; M. Sh. Shirălifev, “Dil mădăninati măsălălărimiz,” in M. Sh. Shirăliiev, ed., Nitg mădănvXati masalalari (hereafter cited as Nitg), vol. 1 (Baku, 1969), p. 6.Google Scholar

10. Gasymov, M. Sh., Azarbaijan dili terminologitasynyn asaslary (hereafter cited as As. dili term.) (Baku, 1973), p. 110 Google Scholar. All translations in this article are mine.

11. Jespersen, Mankind, pp. 85-86; Haugen, Einar, Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), pp. 142–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. A. A. Orujov, “Terminolozhi leksika haggynda ba'zi getdlăr,” in Nitg, p. 16.

13. Isaev, M. I. and Gobeti, O. B., “Problemy razvitiia natsional'nykh iazykov v SSSR v osveshchenii burzhuaznykh avtorov,” Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 10, p. 44 Google Scholar. For status policy, see Chernyshev, V. A., “K probleme iazyka-posrednika,” in Filin, F. P. et al., eds., Iazyk i obshchestvo (Moscow, 1968), p. 209.Google Scholar

14. Haugen, Language Conflict, pp. 288-89.

15. R. I. Khalilov, “Mahnylarda tălăffuz,” in Nitg, p. 79.

16. Shirălifev, “Dil,” p. 9.

17. Ibid., p. 11.

18. Gasymov, Az. dili term., p. 106.

19. Baskakov, N. A., Vvedenie v izuchenie tiurkskikh iazykov (Moscow, 1969), pp. 382–83 Google Scholar; Baskakov, N. A., ed., Voprosy sovershenstvovaniia alfavitov tiurkskikh iazykov SSSR (Moscow, 1972)Google Scholar. Another scholar says there are eighteen written Soviet Turkic languages: Musaev, K. M., “Voprosy razrabotki i dal'neishego sovershenstvovaniia orfografii tiurkskikh literaturnykh iazykov Sovetskogo Soiuza,” in Musaev, K. M., ed., Orfografii tiurkskikh literaturnykh iazykov SSSR (Moscow, 1973), p. 8.Google Scholar

20. Baskakov, Vvedenie, lists two branches, six groups, and twelve subgroups.

21. Lytkin, V. I., “Osnovnye protsessy v formirovanii i razvitii finno-ugorskikh i samodiiskikh iazykov v sovetskuiu epokhu,” in Baskakov, N. A., ed., Zakonomernosti razvitiia literaturnykh iazykov narodov SSSR v sovetskuiu epokhu: Osnovnye protsessy vnutristrukturnogo razvitiia tiurkskikh, finno-ugorskikh i mongol'skikh iazykov (Moscow, 1969), p. 251–53.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 251.

23. Baskakov, Vvedenie, pp. 188-89.

24. A. Afandizada, “Azărbaijan adabi tălăffuzu haggynda,” in Nitg, p. 49. Cf. Shirăliiev, “Dil,” p. 9.

25. Shiraliev, M. Sh. and Ragimov, M. Sh., “Azerbaidzhanskii iazyk,” in Desheriev, Iu. D., ed., Zakonomernosti razvxtiia literatumykh iazykov narodov SSSR v sovetskuiu epokhu: Vnutristrukturnoe razvitie staropis'mennykh iazykov (Moscow, 1973), p. 228 Google Scholar. Cf. Wexler, Paul, Purism and Language: A Study in Modem Ukrainian and Belorussian Nationalism (1840-1967) (Bloomington, Ind., 1974), pp. 182, 190, 217, 293-94.Google Scholar

26. Gasymov, As. dili term., pp. 117-18. Cf. Wexler, Purism, pp. 115-16, 239-40.

27. Baskakov, Vvedenie, p. 203.

28. E. K. Mikerov, “K voprosu o roli sotsial'nykh faktorov v razvitii blizkorodstvennykh iazykov,” in Iazyk i obshchestvo, p. 227.

29. M. I. Adilov, “Tăbliġatchynyn dili haggynda,” in Nitg, p. 112.

30. A. Bagyrov, “Azărbaijan sovet romanlarynyn dili haggynda,” in Nitg, p. 65.

31. Shirălitev, “Dil,” p. 11.

32. N. A. Baskakov et al., “O sovremennom sostoianii i putiakh dal'neishego razvitiia literaturnykh tiurkskikh iazykov,” in Vop. ras. lit., p. 157.

33. K. M. Musaev, Aljavity iasykov narodov SSSR (Moscow, 1965), p. 8.

34. Ibid., pp. 18-19. Those not cited are nos. 1, 5, 11, and 13.

35. G. G. Ismailova, “K istorii azerbaidzhanskogo alfavita,” in Voprosy sovershenstvovaniia, pp. 36-38. Cf. the complaint about the contemporary Turkmen alphabet not reflecting that language's distinction between long and short vowels: B. Charyiarov, “Iz istorii turkmenskogo alfavita,” in Voprosy sovershenstvovaniia, pp. 153-54.

36. A. Tybykova, “Ob usovershenstvovanii i unifikatsii alfavita altaiskogo iazyka,” in Voprosy sovershenstvovaniia, p. 46.

37. Shiraliev and Ragimov, “Azerbaidzhanskii iazyk,” p. 238.

38. Shirălifev, “Dil,” p. 5.

39. K. Alifev, “Hăr sozim 6z feri var … ,” in Nitg, p. 89; R. I. Khalilov, “Muasir she'r dilimizda ba'zi fonetik-grammatik nogsanlar,” in Nitg, pp. 124-33.

40. Ibid., p. 125.

41. Langacker, Ronald W., Language and its Structure: Some Fundamental Linguistic Concepts, 2nd ed. (New York, 1973), p. 1973 Google Scholar, See, however, Haugen, Language Conflict, pp. 288-89.

42. Musaev, “Voprosy razrabotki,” pp. 10, 17ff; cf. p. 20.

43. Baskakov, Vvedenie, pp. 208-9.

44. Musaev, “Voprosy razrabotki,” p. 44.

45. Garipov, “Vystuplenie,” p. 210.

46. For Azerbaidzhani, see, for example, Afăndizadă, “Azărbaijan,” pp. 50-52; Z. I. Budagova and G. G. Ismailova, “Orfografiia azerbaidzhanskogo iazyka,” in Orjografii, pp. 57-58.

47. A. G. Biishev, “O bashkirskom alfavite,” in Voprosy sovershenstvovaniia, p. 56. Musaev, “Voprosy razrabotki,” p. 44, describes this as a minority view.

48. Musaev, “Voprosy razrabotki,” p. 46. Cf. Baskakov, Vvedenie, p. 209.

49. Shiraliev and Ragimov, “Azerbaidzhanskii iazyk,” p. 238.

50. Gasymov, As. dili term., pp. 165-70; cf. David Nissman, “Is the Influence of Russian Orthography on the Wane in Azerbaidzhan?,” Radio Liberty Dispatch, February 16, 1971.

51. Desheriev, la D., Zakonomernosti rasvitiia i vzaimodeistviia iasykov v sovetskom obshchestve (Moscow, 1966), p. 131.Google Scholar

52. Baskakov, Vvedenie, p. 204. Cf. Wexler, Purism, pp. 184-85.

53. Baskakov, Vvedenie, p. 189. Cf. Wexler, Purism, p. 163.

54. Gasymov, As. dili term., p. 155. Cf. Wexler, Purism, p. 63.

55. Gasymov, As. dili term., pp. 155-56.

56. Iartseva, V. N., “Osnovnye tendentsii vozdeistviia nauchno-tekhnicheskoi revoliutsii na tipologiiu sovremennykh iazykov,” in Baskakov, A. N., Shveitser, A. D., and Nikol'skii, L. B., eds., Nauchno-tekhnichcskaia revoliutsiia i funktsionirovanie iasykov mira (Tesisi dokladov) (Moscow, 1974), p. 19.Google Scholar

57. Desheriev, Zakonomernosti, p. 187. Cf. Gasymov, As. dili term., p. 156; and Wexler, Purism, pp. 162, 248-49.

58. Khanazarov, K. and Guliamova, N., “Dal'neishee razvitie iazykov narodov SSSR na osnove ravnopraviia i vzaimoobogashcheniia,” Kommunist Usbekistana, 1970, no. 8, p. 47.Google Scholar

59. Gasymov, As. dili term., pp. 100-102, 153.

60. Adilov, M. I., “Rol’ perevodov v obogashchenii azerbaidzhanskogo iazyka frazeologizmami,” in Baskakov, N. A. et al., eds., Voprosy frazeologii i sostavleniia frazeologicheskikh slovarci (Baku, 1968), pp. 100–101 Google Scholar. Contrast this with George Orwell's statement that “Achilles’ heel” is a “lump of verbal refuse [belonging in] the dustbin … .” “Politics and the English Language,” in Max J. Skidmore, ed., Word Politics: Essays on Language and Politics (Palo Alto, 1972), p. 23 (originally published 1945).

61. Khanazarov and Guliamova, “Dal'neishee razvitie,” p. 48.

62. Baskakov, Vvedenie, p. 191. Cf. Desheriev, Zakonomernosti, p. 131; and Wexler, Purism, pp. 47-48.

63. Baskakov et al., “O sovremennom sostoianii,” p. 168.

64. Shiraliiev, “Dil,” p. 7. For Slavic languages, extreme authenticism can take the form of choosing, from among indigenous synonyms, that which is most dissimilar to Russian; see Wexler, Purism, pp. 50-51, 213, 231.

65. Adilov, “Tăbliġatchynyn dili,” p. 111.

66. Gasymov, M. Sh., “Osnovnye sposoby obrazovaniia terminov v sovremennom azerbaidzhanskom literaturnom iazyke,” Sovetskaia tiurkologiia , 1972, no. 4, p. 23.Google Scholar

67. Gasymov, Az. dili term., p. 107. Cf. Wexler, Purism, p. 275.

68. Adilov, “Tăbliġatchynyn dili,” p. 111. On a visit, in April 1975, to Azerbaidzhan and Turkmenistan, I observed native speakers of Turkic languages, including intellectuals involved with language policy, using such Russian adverbs as imenno, srazu, uzhe, voobshche, kak raz, sovsem, naverno, tol'ko, and znachit in their Azerbaidzhani and Turkmen informal speech.

69. Orujov, “Terminolozhi leksika,” p. 17. Cf. Wexler, Purism, pp. 60 and 113.

70. Orujov, “Terminolozhi leksika,” p. 16. Cf. the almost identical passage in Gasymov, Az. dili term., pp. 116-17. Cf. also Barrett, Robert J., “Convergence and the Nationality Literature of Central Asia,” in Allworth, Edward, ed., The Nationality Question in Soviet Central Asia (New York, 1973), p. 27.Google Scholar

71. Baskakov, Vvedenie, p. 79.

72. Vladimirskii, V. A., “K voprosu o sotsiolingvisticheskikh printsipakh zaimstvovaniia obshchestvenno-politicheskikh terminov v mladopis'mennykh iazykakh narodov SSSR,” in Desheriev, Iu. D. et al., eds., Sotsiolingvisticheskie problemy razvivaiushchikhsia stran (Moscow, 1975), p. 311.Google Scholar

73. Shiraliev, M. Sh., “Osnovnye voprosy vzaimodeistviia i vzaimoobogashcheniia iazykov narodov SSSR (Na materiale azerbaidzhanskogo iazyka),” in Baskakov, N. A. et al., eds., V zaimodeistvie i vsaimoobogashchenie iazykov narodov SSSR (Moscow, 1969), p. 113 Google Scholar. Cf. Wexler, Purism, p. 290.

74. Baskakov, Vvedenic, pp. 199-201.

75. Ibid., p. 198.

76. I. Mamedov and A. Mamedov, review of Grammatika azerbaidzhanskogo iazyka in Sovetskaia tiurkologiia, 1971, no. 5, p. 123.

77 I. A. Andreev, “Vystuplenie,” in Vop. raz. lit., p. 207.

78. Baskakov et al., “O sovremennom sostoianii,” p. 168.

79. Vil’ Lipatov, “Slovo v opasnosti … ,” Literaturnaia gazeta, August 18, 1971.

80. Gasymov, As. dili term., p. 116.

81. Ibid., p. 94. Cf. Wexler, Purism, p. 318: “Enthusiasm for native resources is expressed through a variety of criteria which can be applied arbitrarily, whenever the occasion permits.”

82. Oruzbaeva, B. O., “Sovremennaia kirgizskaia terminologiia,” Sovetskaia tiurkologiia, 1972, no. 4, p. 73.Google Scholar

83. See Meg Greenfield, “The Prose of Richard M. Nixon,” in Word Politics, pp. 120-21 (originally published 1960).

84. See Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, 111., 1964)Google Scholar, chapters 3 and 7.