1/2003 Russian Empire: Boundaries and Frontiers

Языковые идеологии и “очищение” пост-советского татарского языка

Сюзан Вертхейм

1/2003

Публикуется на английском.

SUMMARY:

Статья Сюзан Вертхайм анализирует языковые идеологии в постсоветском Татарстане. Татарский язык находился в течение длительного времени в подчиненном положении по отношению к доминирующему русскому. После провозглашения суверенитета Татарстана татарская интеллигенция прибегает к языковым идеологиям, которые позволяют перевести центр тяжести с русской идеологии татарского языка на татарскую. Важнейшим элементом такого перевода является практика “очищения” языка от русскоязычного влияния, что часто ведет к усилению персидских и арабских заимствований, в тоже время затрудняя коммуникацию, поскольку широкие слои населения не способны быстро адаптироваться к новому языку. Автор анализирует стремление к переводу татарского языка на латинский алфавит в контексте “очищения” татарского языка, понимаемого прежде всего в терминах оппозиции по отношению к русскому языку. В сочетании с реориентацией татарской постсоветской идентичности и расширением контактов прежде всего с исламским миром, языковая идеология в постсоветском Татарстане рассматривается автором как отражение стремления к сопротивлению языковой и культурной ассимиляции в русское большинство.

1.Tatar is also spoken by several million people throughout the territories of the former Soviet Union.↩

2.This fieldwork was made possible by grants from the International Research and Exchange Board and the Academy for Educational Development.↩

3.Kathryn Woolard and Bambi Schieffelin. Language ideology // Annual Review of Anthropo↩

4.ogy. 1994. No. 2. Pp. 55, 58.↩

5.Debra Spitulnik. Mediating unity and diversity: The production of language ideologies in Zambian broadcasting // B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity (eds.). Language ideologies. New York, 1998. P. 164.↩

6.J. Blommaert. The Debate is Open // J. Blommaert (ed.). Language Ideological Debates. Berlin/New York, 1999. Pp. 1-38.↩

7.Ibid. P. 10-11.↩

8.For more on the particularization of Tatar, see the work of Helen Faller, e.g., The Fallout of Soviet Nationalities Policies with Respect to Tatarstan / Presented at the annual meeting of the Central Eurasian Studies Society, Madison, Wisconsin, October 13, 2001; Repossessing Kazan: Nation-Building after Socialism in Tatarstan, Russia / Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2003 (in progress).↩

9.Blommaert. The Debate is Open. P. 31.↩

10.Jan Blommaert and Jef Verschueren. The Role of Language in European Nationalist Ideologies // B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity (eds.). Language Ideologies. New York, 1998. P. 192.↩

11.Woolard and Schieffelin. Language Ideology. P. 55-56.↩

12.Ibid. P. 61.↩

13.This is described most fully in Pierre Bourdieu. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, 1999.↩

14.Andrea Jaffe. Locating Power: Corsican Translators and Their Critics // J. Blommaert (ed.). Language Ideological Debates. Berlin/New York, 1999. P. 61.↩

15.Susan Gal. Language and Political Economy // Annual Review of Anthropology. 1989. No. 18. P. 354.↩

16.Woolard and Schieffelin. Language Ideology. P. 70.↩

17.Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London/New York, 1987. Pp. 6-7.↩

18.Ibid. P. 44.↩

19.Jaffe. Locating Power: Corsican Translators and Their Critics. P. 61.↩

20.Blommaert. The Debate is Open. P. 6.↩

21.Ibid. P. 12-13.↩

22.Rafael’ Mostafin. Öč mengenče yïlda tatar milläte saklanïrmï? // Šähri Kazan. 1999. June 18. P 3.↩

23.M. Mäjitov. Telebezne, dinebezne saklïyk! // Šähri Kazan. 1996. December 7. P. 3.↩

24.Razil Väliyev. Telebez khasta khälendä (Our language is in a sick state) // Šähri Kazan. 1992. June 20. P. 3.↩

25.Kasïym Fäsakhov. Tel saflïgï – millät pak’lege // Šähri Kazan. 1994. December 9. Pp. 3-4.↩

26.Mökhämmät Mazhar. “H” awazïna hälakät yanïy (The letter ‘h’ burns and perishes) // Šähri Kazan. 1996. June 2. P. 2.↩

27.Woolard and Schieffelin. Language Ideology. P. 64.↩

28.I should note that it is not that my Tatar is, or was at the time, anything like that of a fully competent native speaker. While my accent is good, my intonation patterns are wrong, my syntax is limited, and my speech not without grammatical errors. People’s willingness to perceive me as a native Tatar says less about my fluency, and more about both their lack of exposure to any accent in Tatar other than Russian, and about the Tatar-language (in)competence of many young Tatars.↩

29.Faller. The Fallout of Soviet Nationalities Policies with Respect to Tatarstan.↩

30.In point of fact, young people in villages do not speak only Tatar all day every day, as became immediately apparent upon my visits.↩

31.S. Gallämov. Äy tatarnïng ränjetelgän mesken “h” awazï // Šähri Kazan. 1998. February 29. P. 3.↩

32.Ä. Kärimi. Ber awaz tiräsändä // Mädäni Jomga. 1999. June 9. P. 11.↩

33.Mazhar. “H” awazïna hälakät yanïy.↩

34.Fäniyä Khujamät. Küngel küze kürmäsä… (If the soul’s eye doesn’t see…) // Mädäni Jomga. April 16, 1999. P. 18.↩

35.Šamil Äkhmätjanov. Ike tellelk, imeŠ // Šähri Kazan, March 24, 1997. P. 5.↩

36.Woolard and Schieffelin. Language Ideology. P. 65.↩

37.Mintimer Šäymiyev. Tatarstan Respublikasï Zakonï: Latin grafikasï nigezendä Tatar alfavitïn torgïzu turïnda (Law of the Republic of Tatarstan: About the construction of the Tatar alphabet based on Latin graphics). Law passed September 15, 1999: cited as printed in Mädäni Jomga 1999. November 26. P.12.↩

38.Alexei Yurchak. Privatize your Name: Symbolic Work in a post-Soviet Linguistic Market // Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2000. No. 4 (3). P. 414.↩

39.Ibid. P. 420.↩

40.Wolf Moskovich. Planned Language Change in Russian Since 1917 // M. Kirkwood (ed.). Language Planning in the Soviet Union. London, 1989.↩

41.For example, F. Ä. Ganiyev. Tatarča-Rusča uku-ukïtu süzlege (Tatar-Russian academic dictionary). Kazan, 2000.↩

42.Of course there were many Russian loanwords in Tatar before the Revolution, but these words were often adapted to the Tatar sound system, e.g., karawat < krovat’ ‘bed’.↩

43.For recommendations on the third course of action see in particular Rasima Šamsutdinova. Meditsinskaia terminologiia v Tatarskom iazyke. Kazan, 2001; Foat Väliyev. Fänni telme, ällä uram teleme? // Šähri Kazan. 2001. January 20. P. 2; Ämin Minhaj. Tatar telenä – tärräkïyat // Šähri Kazan. 1993. March 24. P. 2.
These choices – retaining loanwords, coining neologisms, or finding archaic or dialectal variants – are quite common in language reform, particularly in post-colonial situations. For parallels in Guatemalan Mayan and Anatolian Turkish, see Julia Richards. Mayan Language Planning for Bilingual Education in Guatemala // International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1989. No. 77. Pp. 93-115; Uriel Heyd. Language Reform in Modern Turkey. Jerusalem, 1954.↩

44.Uli Schamiloglu, personal communication.↩

45.In the Arabic-Persian stratum, the Persian element was approximately 10-12%. M. I. Mäkhmütov, M. I. Tatar ädäbi telenä kergän garëp-farsï elementlarï // M. I. Mäkhmütov, K. Z. Khämzin, and G. Š. Säyfullin (eds.). Garäpčä-Tatarča-Rusča Alïnmalar Süzlege. Kazan, 1993. P. 795-853.↩

46.In Monjiyä Mädriyeva. “Šura” kingeŠ digän süz (“Šura” is a word of advice) // Mädäni Jomga. September 25, 1998. P. 13.↩

47.Flyora Safiullina and El’vira Fyodorova. Khäzerge tatar ädäbi telendä garäp-farsï alïnmalarïnïng kire kaytu protsessï (The process of the return of Arabic-Persian borrowings in the present-day Tatar literary language) // Fän häm Tel. 2000. No 3.↩

48.Ibid.↩

49.Mäkhmutov. Ot sostavitelia. P. 8.↩

50.For example in Safiullina and Fyodorova. Khäzerge tatar ädäbi telendä garäp-farsï alïnmalarïnïng kire kaytu protsessï, which is itself in part about the inconsistent use of Arabic loanwords.↩

51.Nail Äsrarov. Telebez där’yasï saf bulsïn (May the river of our language be pure) // Šähri Kazan, June 29, 1999. P. 3.↩

52.Imammalik Kotlïkaläm. Bäylänček süzlärdän arïnïyk! Šähri Kazan, March 15, 1997. P. 3.↩

53.Äkhät Fazïljanov. Don Kikhot bulmïyk inde (Let’s not be Don Quixote) // Šähri Kazan, April 16, 1997. P. 3.↩

54.Ibid.↩

55.Rämzi Nogmani. Tatarča belem alïyk (Let us learn in Tatar) // Šähri Kazan, August 10, 1991. P. 3.↩

56.Ibid.↩

57.M. Khäyrullin. Tellärne gamälgä aŠïru komitetïnda (On the committee for the implementation of languages) // Mädäni Jomga. 1998. January 30. P. 11.↩

58.Mäkhmutov. Ot sostavitelia. P. 9.↩

59.Gölnar Jälälova. Bezgä nindi süz kiräk (Terminarïbïz turïnda uylaŠïyk) (Which word do we need? (Let’s think about our terminology)) // Šähri Kazan. 1996. October 30. P. 3.↩

60.Foat Väliyev. Tugan telne tugaru, yaki terminologik baŠbaŠtaklïk (The unharnessing of the native tongue, or the tyranny of terminology) // Mädäni Jomga. 1999. June 18. P. 9.↩

61.N. Iskändärova. Min Tatar tügel, akhrïsï // Watanïm Tatarstan. 2001. February 6. P. 6.↩

62.Väliyev. Tugan telne tugaru, yaki terminologik baŠbaŠtaklïk.↩

63.Ämin Minhaj. Süzne alïŠtïru –Bik jitdi yïŠ (The replacement of a word is very serious work) // Šähri Kazan. 1997. September 3. P. 2.↩

64.Geoffrey Lewis. The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success. Oxford, 1999. P. 5.↩

65.Heyd. Language Reform in Modern Turkey.↩

66.This can be seen in an anecdote found in Lewis. The Turkish Language Reform. P. 40.↩

67.Heyd. Language Reform in Modern Turkey. P. 19.↩

68.Lewis. The Turkish Language Reform. P. 42.↩

69.Heyd. Language Reform in Modern Turkey. P. 19.↩

70.Lewis. The Turkish Language Reform. P. 27; Anderson. Imagined Communities. Pp. 45-46.↩

71.Heyd. Language Reform in Modern Turkey. P. 26-27.↩

72.Ibid. P. 29.↩

73.Ibid. P. 31.↩

74.Lewis. The Turkish Language Reform. P. 118.↩

75.Ibid. Pp. 142-143.↩

76.Heyd. Language Reform in Modern Turkey. P. 43.↩

77.Ibid. P. 75.↩

78.This is clear from the subtitle of his book: “A Catastrophic Success”.↩

79.Lewis. The Turkish Language Reform. P. 144.↩

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

Языковые идеологии и “очищение” пост-советского татарского языка

Сноски

Примечания