Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR.
Saved in:
| Title: | Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Sebba, Mark1 M.Sebba@lancaster.ac.uk |
| Source: | Language Problems & Language Planning. Summer2006, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p99-125. 27p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Orthography & spelling, *Language policy, *Alphabet, *Legislation, Turkic languages, Russian language, Cyrillic alphabet |
| Geographic Terms: | Soviet Union, Tatarstan (Russia) |
| Abstract: | In 2002 the Russian parliament passed a law requiring all official languages within the Russian Federation to use the Cyrillic alphabet. The legislation caused great controversy and anger in some quarters, especially in Tatarstan, the Russian republic whose attempt to romanise the script for the Tatar language provoked the new law. This paper examines the background to these recent events in the former Soviet Union, showing how they provide a contemporary illustration of the ways that linguistic (in this case, orthographic) issues can interact with ideologies and discourses at the political and social levels. The paper takes an approach which treats orthography and script selection as social practices which are amenable to sociolinguistic analysis, even though they are more commonly modelled as autonomous systems (or "neutral technologies") which can be detached from their social context (cf. Street's "ideological" and "autonomous" models of literacy). The article begins with a very brief overview of the early twentieth-century changes of script from Arabic to Roman and then to Cyrillic, which affected most of the Turkic languages, including Tatar, and an account of the trend to return to the Roman alphabet in the immediate post-Soviet period. It goes on to describe the circumstances of the decision by Tatarstan to introduce the script change, and the resulting backlash from the government of the Russian Federation, in the form of a new language law. It then goes on to analyse the discourses which underlie this story of rebellion and reaction. In particular, the following discourses are identified and discussed: unity and membership (the discourse of belonging), technology and globalisation, cultural heritage (change and permanence), Cyrillic as "defective"/Cyrillic as a conduit for Russian lexis, romanisation as a threat to the integrity of Russia and its language. It is noted that many of the discourses present in the Tatarstan case are also found in other debates over orthographies elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Language Problems & Language Planning is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 22600736 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sebba%2C+Mark%22">Sebba, Mark</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> M.Sebba@lancaster.ac.uk</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Language+Problems+%26+Language+Planning%22">Language Problems & Language Planning</searchLink>. Summer2006, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p99-125. 27p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Orthography+%26+spelling%22">Orthography & spelling</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+policy%22">Language policy</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alphabet%22">Alphabet</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Legislation%22">Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkic+languages%22">Turkic languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Russian+language%22">Russian language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cyrillic+alphabet%22">Cyrillic alphabet</searchLink> – Name: SubjectGeographic Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Soviet+Union%22">Soviet Union</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tatarstan+%28Russia%29%22">Tatarstan (Russia)</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: In 2002 the Russian parliament passed a law requiring all official languages within the Russian Federation to use the Cyrillic alphabet. The legislation caused great controversy and anger in some quarters, especially in Tatarstan, the Russian republic whose attempt to romanise the script for the Tatar language provoked the new law. This paper examines the background to these recent events in the former Soviet Union, showing how they provide a contemporary illustration of the ways that linguistic (in this case, orthographic) issues can interact with ideologies and discourses at the political and social levels. The paper takes an approach which treats orthography and script selection as social practices which are amenable to sociolinguistic analysis, even though they are more commonly modelled as autonomous systems (or "neutral technologies") which can be detached from their social context (cf. Street's "ideological" and "autonomous" models of literacy). The article begins with a very brief overview of the early twentieth-century changes of script from Arabic to Roman and then to Cyrillic, which affected most of the Turkic languages, including Tatar, and an account of the trend to return to the Roman alphabet in the immediate post-Soviet period. It goes on to describe the circumstances of the decision by Tatarstan to introduce the script change, and the resulting backlash from the government of the Russian Federation, in the form of a new language law. It then goes on to analyse the discourses which underlie this story of rebellion and reaction. In particular, the following discourses are identified and discussed: unity and membership (the discourse of belonging), technology and globalisation, cultural heritage (change and permanence), Cyrillic as "defective"/Cyrillic as a conduit for Russian lexis, romanisation as a threat to the integrity of Russia and its language. It is noted that many of the discourses present in the Tatarstan case are also found in other debates over orthographies elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Language Problems & Language Planning is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=22600736 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1075/lplp.30.2.02seb Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 27 StartPage: 99 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Orthography & spelling Type: general – SubjectFull: Language policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Alphabet Type: general – SubjectFull: Legislation Type: general – SubjectFull: Turkic languages Type: general – SubjectFull: Russian language Type: general – SubjectFull: Cyrillic alphabet Type: general – SubjectFull: Soviet Union Type: general – SubjectFull: Tatarstan (Russia) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sebba, Mark IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Text: Summer2006 Type: published Y: 2006 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 02722690 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 30 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Language Problems & Language Planning Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
