Abstract
The article exemplifies controversial features in the linguistic development of the multiethnic population of Russia in the Volga Federal District, predominantly in the Republic of Tatarstan1; it analyzes the roles titular and official languages of the Russian Federation play in different spheres of life.The surveys held in Tatarstan over the last decade prove that enthusiasm of the ethnic ‘Renaissance’ of late 1990s has been changed by a disappointing estimation of Tatar still playing the role of a means of communication for a limited ethnic community, not viewed by the ethic population as one of the main elements of their ethnic identity. There is evidence that failure to ensure the revival and intergenerational transmission of the Tatar language (one of the most developed in the Volga Federal Region and Russia) may accelerate negative demographic shifts and further reduction of the ethnic language functions. The authors consider the present situation in Tatarstan to be caused by the lack of language policy coordination on three levels: federal, local and individual (family). It is suggested that to ensure the ethnic and language reproduction in a federal state, language regulations initiatives are to be based on the concept of the languages being ‘inherent property’ of an ethnos, the most important qualitative characteristic of a state of the ethnos, and essential grounds for its existence and development. Sustainable ethno-linguistic reproduction and native languages preservation are viewed by the authors possible due to implementation of the idea of linguistic federalism and development of ethnic linguistic identity. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1s1p540
Highlights
One of the central goals of the Soviet Union policy was forming a united single ‘Soviet narod’ which, Lenin believed, would be formed by natural coalescing of all the ethnic groups residing on the territory of the Soviet Union (Language Policy in the Soviet Union)
A leader of Buryat 2 Bolsheviks declared that communists as a revolutionary party of workers were not divided by their belonging to different ethnic groups, and an ethnos was not considered a value by Bolsheviks. (Nɚtional Movement..., 1994, p. 122). 68 years later, in 1983 the leader of the USSR, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Y.V.Andropov echoed his Communist fellow declaring: “Our goal is obvious
According to the information provided by the Ministry of Education and Science of Tatarstan (2009), 1061 Tatar and 888 Russian schools functioned in the Republic. 100% of Russian children and 48.4% of Tatar children are taught in their native language
Summary
One of the central goals of the Soviet Union policy was forming a united single ‘Soviet narod’ (people) which, Lenin believed, would be formed by natural coalescing of all the ethnic groups residing on the territory of the Soviet Union (Language Policy in the Soviet Union). 68 years later, in 1983 the leader of the USSR, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Y.V.Andropov echoed his Communist fellow declaring: “Our goal is obvious. It is, by Lenin, ‘ convergence of ethnic groups, but their merger’” Addressing the problem, the authors view linguistic federalism and development of ethnic linguistic identity as the main instruments to increase the role and significance of the indigenous languages and provide for sustainable development of an ethnos. Preservation of ethnic diversity in a multi-ethnic country becomes a reality when the shared by different communities view on the ethnic language as the most significant component of the ethnic identity and as such is favored and empowered by the federal and regional legislation on national and language issues
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
