REVIEWS 73I seemto illustrate in facta strong case forbilingualism in Moldova - buta sortof sectoralbilingualism, in whichcertainlanguagestakeprevalencein particular settings. It should,however, be notedthatthe detailedethnographic and survey observations are often farmoreusefulthantheauthor'sreferences to game theory and languagecascades(pp. 31,50-52).The individual choicepremise forthesemodels runs counterto the explicitrelationalcharacterof the languagesas used in practice.Rather,individuals are continually confronted withstructures in languageuse,suchas setting-based normsofappropriatenessand network constraints. At thesame time,Ciscel does quiteconvincingly outlinehowindividuals manageto operateas widelyas possiblewithin theconstraints ofthiscomplexstructural environment (pp. 142-43). One of Ciscel's clearestexamplesof some individual agencyin resisting constraints appearsinthefactthateveryday languagepractice differs substantially fromofficial politicsand policy.Those ofall mother tongueslivingin Moldova tendto be quiteawareofthe'championship ofofficial patriotism' thatsurrounds theminthewordsofpoliticians, and tendtobe morepractical thanpurist in theireveryday languageuse. Whileofficial languagepolitics is strongly tied to power struggles in Moldova (pp. 53-57), Ciscel's surveys illustrate thatindividuallanguageuse and politicalstancesare less closely related thanonemight expect, and thata sortoflinguistic 'muddling through' is morethenormin everyday life.These insights on theactualpracticeof languageuse in mixedregions, alongwiththeimportance ofnetworks and context and thepersistence oflanguagehierarchies, providefruitful foundationsforfurther research. Those interested in thesesociolinguistic dynamics and prospects forpeacefullocal coexistence can learnmuchfrom thisbook. UCL Sherrill Strosghein Pöppel, Ludmila. TheRhetoric ofPravdaEditorials: A Diachronie Study ofa Political Genre. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Slavic Studies,33. Department ofSlavicLanguagesand Literatures, Stockholm,2007. 306 pp. Tables. Notes. Bi Biographical notes.Index.SEK 310.00(paperbac ,Stockholm University, bliography.Appendix. :k). lHE languageoí bovietjournalismchangedconsiderably Irom 1917 until thecollapseoftheSovietUnion in 1991.Based on no existing modelother thanthepre-Revolutionary oppositional and often underground press,Soviet journalism was largely starting from scratch. Moreover, thenewrepublic had to contendwithenormousunheavalsin thenost-Revolutionarv neriodthat 1 1 j 1 threatened itsveryexistence. Againstthisbackdrop,it is hardlysurprising thatthenewly forged journalistic style, catering toreaders manyofwhomhad onlyrecently becomeliterate, shouldbe fresh, innovative, stylistically all over theplace and above all unstable.Once things settled down,so too did the languageof the press.That thisstabilizing of the situation in the country coincided withtheriseofStalinresulted ina stylistically fixed languageofthe 732 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 2OOg presswhosemainaimswereto glorify Stalin,denigrate hisperceivedopponentsand either grossly distort orhidefrom readersthebrutalrealities ofhis government. That theclimate offearinthecountry, toputitat itsmildest, discouraged stylistic innovationamongjournalistsis certainly the case, and this too contributed to the forging of a particular rigidity in style,thoughstylistic inflexibility is commonplaceand to a degreeessential fornewspapers anywherein anyculture ifjournalism is to 'work'.Without thebenefit ofstylistic shorthand - in effect journalistic clichés- readerswouldhavetofacetheir dailynewspaper as theymight a novel.Readerssimply do nothave timeto analysetheveracity orotherwise ofeach set-phrase theycomeacross,so that a Soviet cliché such as 'moguchaiasplochennost'[.. .] vokrugKommunisticheskoi partii'('themighty cohesion[.. .] surrounding the Communist party')(p. 152)is as trueor falseas thephrase'theWar on terror'. Readers mayormaynotagreewiththeassumptions embeddedin a givencliché,but theyknowmoreor lesswhatthenewspaperis referring to. Whethersuch clichés actually contribute tobrain-washing thereadership intobelieving what thesesetphrasessayis anotherquestion.Probably, somereadersdo, others do not.These questionslie at the heartof LudmilaPöppel's studyof the rhetoric ofPravda editorials from the1920sthrough the1950s. Pöppel's claim is thatover thisperiod 'the languageof revolution was gradually transformed intototalitarian language'(p. 255).While the actual substance ofthebookis a comprehensive, incisive, rigorously carriedoutand extremely useful study ofthecompendium ofrhetorical devicesemployed in Pravda editorials overtheperiod,theassertion thattheseriesofstylistic shifts constituted a transformation into'totalitarian' languageis perhapsopen to question.That theearlyrhetoric reflected thepost-Revolutionary conditions pertaining in thecountry is undoubtedly true.It is similarly uncontroversial to statethatthelanguageofthepressunderStalinreflected his dictatorial style.But to call thislatterstyle'totalitarian' is problematic. Surely,ifone wantedto givethislanguagea name,it wouldbe moreaccurateto call it something like'Stalinist' todistinguish itfrom thepresslanguagebothbefore and after Stalin. Since itsinitialuse in the 1950s,theterm'totalitarian' has fallenin and outoffashion among,chiefly, politicalscientists, who continue to disputeits meaning.Since the 1990sthewordhas enjoyedsomething of a revivalin particular amonghistorians and polemicists from theformer Sovietrepublics and Eastern bloccountries. In thislatest usage,thewordisoften employed in an undiscriminating sensetodescribe theentire Sovietperiod.Hereinliesthe mainproblem withtheword:itmeansdifferent things to different people. The difficulty withtheterm'totalitarian' as appliedtolanguageisthatitis liketheclichésPöppelso clinically dissects and classifies: itisnotan objective truth. Justas 'velichaishii triumf vsepobezhdaiushchego ucheniiamarksizmaleninizma '('the magnificent triumphof the all-conquering teachingsof Marxism-Leninism') (p. 49) is a boastfulassertion ratherthan a verifiable truth, so terms suchas 'totalitarian language'and,elsewhere, 'languede bois, totalitäre Sprache,thelanguageofdictatorship, nowamowa,novoiaz,Betonstil ,Lingua Sovietica'(p. 49) are political judgmentsratherthanlinguistic reviews 733 factsand belongmore properly to the genreofpublitsistika, perhapseven zhurnalisitika, thanstylistics, rhetoric or linguistics. Thisperhapsill-advised theoretical packaging shouldnot...
Read full abstract