Key words: Belarus, Belarusian language, Language policy, Language Attitude, Language shift, Mother tongue, Official Language, National identity, Nation state, Russification, Trasjanka, Bibliography.
Survival and
Revival: Belarusian Language and Identity
Selective Bibliography
Scope: Scholarly monographs and research papers in peer reviewed journals published since 1996.
Introduction
In the second
half of 20th and the first decade of 21st centuries,
Belarus witnessed a large-scale language shift: millions of its inhabitants
switched from Belarusian to Russian. According to 2009 estimation, only 23.4%
claim Belarusian to be their main language (the actual figures could be even
lower). Notwithstanding, some 83.7% of the country’s population sees itself as
(“ethnic”) Belarusians (2009 estimation). Is there any paradox? Is Belarusian
language endangered? Could it be revived? Those are the main questions faced by
studies included into present bibliography.
Our
bibliography includes monographs and articles dealing with two major subjects:
- Belarusian language: current state and perspectives of revival
- Belarusian national identity
Part 1. Belarusian Language: current state and perspectives of revival
2014
Sender, Natallia. (2014). Measuring language attitudes. The case of Trasianka in Belarus. Linguistik Online, 64(2), pp 43-55.
Résumé: "In contemporary Belarus there are currently two languages being predominantly used: Russian and Belarusian. Besides dialects and other varieties there is to be found a variety called Trasianka, which is widespread throughout the country. Trasianka can be considered as a variety built of elements from other varieties in Belarus, but mainly from Russian and Belarusian. Originally the term Trasianka stems from agriculture describing a 'mixed fodder of poor quality'. Language attitudes towards this variety have hardly been examined thus far. In a recent study based on the matched-guise technique, 227 Belarusian adolescents listened to and evaluated a female speaker reading the same text in Russian, Belarusian and Trasianka. When the speaker used Trasianka, she was given low ratings by test participants in matters of socio-structural issues such as profession and education. Regarding competence, the test participants assumed that the Trasianka speaker was less qualified, as shown by answers to a question on competencies in foreign languages. Finally, the test participants were more reluctant to accept the Trasianka speaker as a neighbor. With this responsiveness, they performed a bigger social distance. By these findings, there is ample reason to conclude that there are negative attitudes existing amongst today's population in Belarus regarding speakers of Trasianka."
+++
2012
Vasilevich, Hanna. (2012). Belarusian Language: Current State and Perspectives. The Annual of Language & Politics and Politics of Identity, Vol. VI./2012.
Résumé: “This article aims to show the development of Belarusian language over the last 20 years in connection with the Belarusian national identity and explain the current linguistic situation taking into account previous Soviet practices of the national policies towards Belarusians and their language.”
+++
2011
Gribov, Georgij M., Popko, Olga N. (2011). Language Problem in the Belorussian History Kalbos problema Baltarusijos istorijoje. Coactivity : Philosophy, Communication, 15(1), pp. 68.
Résumé: “The purpose of this paper is to define the role and place of the Belorussian language in the culture and art of Belarus in particular during the period of perestroika and formation of an independent state. The paper also presents a repetitive investigation which was conducted in Brest State Technical University. The results of this investigation show the interest of Belorussian students in the languages (culture) of neighboring nations.”
+++
2010
Kittel, Bernhard, Lindner, Diana, Tesch, Sviatlana, Hentschel, Gerd. (2010). Mixed language usage in Belarus: the sociostructural background of language choice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2010(206), pp. 47–71.
Résumé: “We find that a mixed Belarusian–Russian form of speech is widely used in the cities studied and that it is spoken across all educational levels. However, it seems to be predominantly utilized in informal communication, especially among friends and family members, leaving Russian and Belarusian to more formal or public venues.”
+++
2009
Liskovets, Irina. (2009). Trasjanka: A code of rural migrants in Minsk. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(3), pp. 396-412.
Résumé: “The article deals with an oral speech phenomenon widespread in the Republic of Belarus, where it is known as trasjanka. This code originated through constant contact between Russian and Belarusian, two closely related East Slavonic languages. Discussed are the main features of this code (as used in the city of Minsk), the sources of its origin, different linguistic definitions and the attitude towards this code from those who dwell in the city of Minsk. Special attention is paid to the problem of distinction between trasjanka and different forms of code switching, also widely used in the Minsk language community.”
+++
2008
Brown, N. Anthony. (2008). Language Shift or Maintenance? An Examination of Language Usage across Four Generations as Self-Reported by University Age Students in Belarus. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(1), pp. 1-15.
Résumé: “This paper examines the degree to which language shift or maintenance is obtained across four generations in Belarus. Linguistic homogeneity and heterogeneity receive particular attention as potential contributing factors to language shift or maintenance in the home, arguably the last bastion in terms of language maintenance. In an effort to elicit feedback from participants relative to language use, the survey instrument developed for this research inquired as to respondents' language use with their maternal and paternal grandparents during childhood versus their language use with their mother and father in childhood. Furthermore, this paper examines the degree to which maintenance of Belarusian receives support among respondents as evidenced by self-reported language use with spouses and children, including prospective use with children for those either married without children or single. Finally, the question of language maintenance or shift is analysed in terms of self-reported concern (or lack thereof) about the future of Belarusian and the extent to which language use with prospective children reflects that concern.”
+++
Giger, Markus ; Sloboda, Marián. (2008). Language Management and Language Problems in Belarus: Education and Beyond. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3), pp. 315-339.
Résumé: “This article provides an overview of the sociolinguistic situation in Belarus, the most russified of the post-Soviet countries. It summarizes language policy and legislation, and deals in more detail with language management and selected language problems in Belarusian education. It also contributes to the work on language planning by applying Jernudd’s and Neustupny´ ’s Language Management Theory, particularly the concept of the language management cycle, to analysis of sociolinguistic issues in Belarus.”
+++
2007
Brown, Anthony N. (2007). Status Language Planning in Belarus: An Examination of Written Discourse in Public Spaces. Language Policy, 6(2), pp. 281-301.
Résumé: “This research examines the treatment of Belarusian and Russian on signs located in the Minsk metro and on official signs affixed to government buildings, specifically the District Administration, War Commissariat, House of Marriage, Police, Security (division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), Notary Public, Public Prosecutor, Courts, and Tax Inspection. Such data provide valuable insights into status planning efforts on the part of government officials and illustrate changes prompted by past and current language policies. Preliminary findings suggest an overall increase in public display of Belarusian, albeit it more systematic within the metro than on official signage affixed to government buildings. Such an increase reflects a top-down effort to conform to a 1990 language policy that granted Belarusian “official” language status. The same policy in its 1995 amended form grants Russian “co-official” language status—a linguistic situation that understandably precipitates questions of consistent and equal representation of both languages in public spaces, both in terms of inclusion of Belarusian and Russian and their positioning on signs.”
+++
Zaprudski, Siarhiej. (2007). In the grip of replacive bilingualism: the Belarusian language in contact with Russian. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 01/2007; 2007(183), pp. 97-118.
Résumé: “The linguistic affinity of Belarusian and Russian in combination with other factors is an insurmountable obstacle for the spread of the Belarusian language. On the one hand, Russian speakers living in Belarus, as a rule, understand Belarusian but do not make the effort to acquire it as an active medium of communication. On the other hand, Belarusian speakers proficient in Russian do not have enough motivation to use Belarusian routinely, on account of the pervading presence of Russian in Belarusian society. As a result, they often lose their Belarusian language skills. There is considerable dissent as to the perspectives of Belarusian. Though it is the ‘‘titular’’ language, which determines its importance in Belarus, it is also a minority language and thus faces the corresponding challenges.”
+++
2005
Brown, N. Anthony. (2005). Language and Identity in Belarus. Language Policy, 4(3), pp.311-332
Résumé: “This research analyzes self-reported native language and mother tongue data from Belarusian university-age students and discusses the role of language in shaping individual and collective identity. Participants’ gender, language of questionnaire, and region of residence also serve as important variables in understanding identity formation in contemporary Belarus. Mother tongue and native language data analyzed in this article differ significantly, thus suggesting a separation of roles – a symbolic role performed by one’s native language (родной язык), whereas a functional role performed by one’s base language, or mother tongue. “To those who have never undergone forced cultural assimilation, the issue may seem trivial. What difference does it make what language is spoken or what it is called? To those who have had their use of language restricted, however, the matter goes beyond mere defiance. Language is the medium of the culture on which their daily lives and identities are based. To define what language can be spoken is to define the identity of not only the individual but also the country.” – Helen Fedor (1995)”
+++
2004
Smolicz, Jerzy J., Radzik, Ryszard. (2004). Belarusian as an endangered language: can the mother tongue of an independent state be made to die? International Journal of Educational Development, 24(5), pp. 511-528.
Résumé: “The present paper reports the case of Belarusian, a national and co-official language, which the great majority of the population of Belarus considers as its mother tongue, but which has become endangered due to sustained official policies discriminating against it, and the general apathy of the population. The paper places this complex and puzzling situation in the historical context of people long accustomed to changing cultural and linguistic elites, with a succession of rulers that paid little regard to the wishes or needs of the majority of the country’s inhabitants. Recent data are presented showing the rapid decline in the teaching of Belarusian language in schools and other public domains and the use of mixed dialects as the prevailing mode of communication, shifting through a Belarusian-Russian mix (trasianka) to Russian. The effort of a small national linguistic elite to sustain the use of standard Belarusian is examined against the concept of language as a core value of culture and Fishman’s framework for reversing language shift, in order to evaluate the prospects of maintaining Belarusian as an integral part of the linguistic heritage of Europe.”
+++
Part 2. Belarusian
National Identity
2016
Astapova, Anastasiya. (2016). Counter-hegemony in today's Belarus: dissident symbols and the mythological figure of Miron Vitebskii. Nationalities Papers, 18 March 2016, p.1-18.
Résumé: "Tackling the role of state symbols in negotiating national identity and political development, this research focuses on Belarus where the alternative white–red–white flag became instrumental in protests against the dominant political discourse. Since 1995, oppositional mass media have been reporting about cases of this tricolor being erected in hard-to-reach and/or politically sensitive places. These actions were mainly attributed to some “Miron,” whose identity remained concealed and served as a simulacrum of a national superhero in non-conformist discourse. The image of Miron immediately acquired multiple functions: condemning the Soviet colonial past, struggling for the European future, and creating a nation-state rather than the Russian-speaking civil-state of Belarus. Yet, first and foremost, Miron became a means for contesting the authority of the president who has been in power since 1994. Concentrating on the methods employed for the construction of the counter-hegemonic fakelore project of Miron and its aims, this article explores the vernacular response to its creation."
+++
2014
Bekus, Nelly.
(2014). Ethnic identity in post-Soviet
Belarus: ethnolinguistic survival as an argument in the political struggle.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(1), January 2014, pp.
43-58.
Résumé: "This article discusses
the Belarusian case of post-communist development and the role and status of
Belarusian ethnicity in Belarus’ nation-formation process. ‘Nationalizing nationalism’
(Brubaker), as realised by the Belarusian state through various social and
cultural practices, is aimed at the creation of a Belarusian national entity
without reference to the ethnocultural core of Belarusians. As a result of the
nationalising practices of the Belarusian state, most Belarusians identify with
their nation-state while displaying weak identification with ethnicity. At the
same time, the recent dynamic of patterns of self-perception in Belarusian
society can be interpreted as the beginning of a gradual ‘heating’ of the
ethnocultural vitality of Belarusians, which is occurring under the impact of the
agency of elites. Ethnolinguistic survival and vitality in this context can be
viewed both as an argument in the struggle between different forces on the
political arena and a factor contributing to victory in the rivalry between
them. In this context, the phenomenon of ‘ethnic temperature’ can be analysed
not only from the perspective of its impact on group vitality and survival, but
also as a phenomenon dependent on various political, cultural and historical
factors."
+++
Marples,
David. (2014). "Our Glorious
Past": Lukashenka`s Belarus and the Great Patriotic War. Hannover,
Germany: Ibidem-Verlag.
Résumé: “This book examines how the
regime of President Aliaksandr Lukashenka has used the ‘Great Patriotic War’
(1941-45) as a key element in state and identity formation in Belarus. The
campaign was discernible from 2003 and intensified after a rift with Russia
that led to a re-examination of the earlier policy of close political and
economic partnership. David R. Marples focuses in particular on the years 2009
and 2010, which commemorated two 65th anniversaries: the liberation of Minsk (3
July 1944) and the end of World War II in Europe (9 May 1945). Using a variety
of sources, this book critically examines the official interpretations of the
war from various angles: the initial invasion, occupation, the Partisans,
historic sites and monuments, films, documentaries, museums, schools, and
public occasions commemorating some of the major events.”
+++
2010
Bekus, Nelly.
(2010). Nationalism and socialism: “Phase
D” in the Belarusian nation-building. Nationalities Papers, 38(6), pp. 829-846.
Résumé: “This article presents the
history of Belarusian national development in the light of Miroslav Hroch's
theory and demonstrates how the initial process of national awakening typical
for small nations in eastern and central Europe in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century described by M. Hroch continued under Soviet rule after
the Bolshevik revolution. Changes which were brought to Belarusian society
together with socialist modernization in the Soviet state constituted “Phase D”
(a term coined by Terry Martin) in Belarusian nation-building. As the history
of Belarusian nation-formation illustrates, Hroch's scheme of three phases of
national movements within small nations ignored a specific mode of small
nations' development in a multiethnic state and within the socialist formation.
At the same time, the question about the status of the Soviet era's
achievements in Belarusian national development appears to be an important
issue for understanding the current political development in the country”
+++
Bekus, Nelly. (2010).
Struggle over identity the official and
the alternative "Belarusianness". Budapest ; New York : Central
European University Press, c2010.
Résumé: “The monograph describes how
the ethno-symbolic nation of the Belarusian nationalists, based on the cultural
capital of the Golden Age of the Belarusian past (17th century) competes with
the ǹation' institutionalized and reified by the numerous civic rituals and
social practices under the auspices of the actual post-Soviet Belarusian
state.”
+++
2009
Goujon, Alexandra. (2009). Révolutions politiques et identitaires en
Ukraine et en Biélorussie, 1988-2008. Paris : Belin.
Résumé: N/A
+++
Mamul, Natalia
(2009). Narrative Templates of
Post-Soviet Identity in Belarus. Polish sociological review, 2(166), pp.
229-249.
Résumé: Based on the analysis of 30
biographical narrative interviews with male and female residents of post-Soviet
Belarus, the following four schematic narrative templates of Belarusian
collective identity have been identified: the pro-Russian narrative, victimized
negative identity, Belarusian nationalist scheme and pro-democratic narrative
template. The focus of the article is on the interpretive frame of
'collectivization of innocence' as a foundation for the victimized negative
ethnic identity and the pro-democratic narrative template underpinning a civil
polity project. Excerpts of the interviews exhibiting the conflicting templates
have been analyzed as illustrative examples.
+++
2008
Bekus, Nelly.
(2008). European Belarus versus State
Ideology: Construction of the Nation in the Belarusian Political Discourses.
Polish sociological review, 3(163), pp. 263-283.
Résumé: "Public space of the
post-communist Belarus can be viewed as a public and cultural space, where the
"struggle over identity" between the official and the oppositional
political discourses takes place and where both discourses claim their right to
be the only voice of genuine Belarusianness. Articles presents the study of the
definitions of the political identity of major "collective actor" of
the Belarusian political sphere-"Belarusian nation." The image of
"Belarusianness," on which an appropriate political ideology is built
upon, was obtained from the official Belarusian ideology and the oppositional
political ideologies. For analytical purposes texts were selected which deal
with defining the Belarusian nation, describing the national idea, designating
Belarus' civilizational orientation."
+++
Ioffe,
Grigoriii Viktorovich. (2008). Understanding
Belarus and how Western foreign policy misses the mark. Lanham, Md. :
Rowman & Liitlefield Publishers, c2008.
Résumé: “Questions of Language. Search
for Identity. Culture Wars, Soul-searching, and Belarusian Identity. Belarusian
Economy. Belarusian Political Landscape. Alexander Lukashenka and His
Detractors. Opinion Polls and Presidential Elections.”
+++
Leshchenko,
Natalia. (2008). The National Ideology
and the Basis of the Lukashenka Regime in Belarus. Europe-Asia Studies,
60(8), pp. 1419-1433.
Résumé: “The rule of Alyaksandr
Lukashenka in Belarus has created one of the most resilient authoritarian
regimes in post-communist Europe but the sources of its stability have not been
clearly understood until now. The article suggests that President Lukashenka's
authority is sustained on the basis of a national ideology, which he uses to
drive his economic, social and foreign policies. The Belarusian transition
reveals a new type of national mobilisation in the post-communist area:
egalitarian nationalism. It is suggested that this ideology provides the
principal source of the failure of democratisation and the authoritarian
consolidation in post-Soviet states such as Belarus.”
+++
Pershai,
Alexander. (2008). Localness and Mobility
in Belarusian Nationalism: The Tactic of Tuteishasc. Nationalities Papers,
36(1), March 2008.
Résumé: "This essay aims to
explain the notions of localness and mobility in Belarusian national identity
through the concept of tuteishas´c´. More specifically, this article examines
the meaning of localness in Belarusian nationalism, as well as the conditions
and possibilities offered to the people of Belarus by the employment of this
concept from the late eighteenth century to the early decades of the twentieth.
I argue that tuteishas´c´ is a form of cultural resistance that allows for the
creation of a special component or type of national identity that views itself
as detached from the ruling political regimes and nations, and provides the
Belarusian population with a certain degree of social mobility."
+++
2007
Ioffe,
Grigory. (2007). Unfinished
Nation-Building in Belarus and the 2006 Presidential Election. Eurasian
Geography and Economics, 48(1), pp.37-58.
Résumé: N/A.
+++
Titarenko,
Larissa. (2007). Post-soviet national
identity: Belarusian approaches and paradoxes. FILOSOFIJA. SOCIOLOGIJA, 18(4),
pp. 79–90.
Résumé: "The author describes the
so-called “Belarusian paradoxes” of national identity as being based on the
opposition of “nation” and “people” and corresponding to the western model of
“creation of modern nations” within the post-colonial theory that is not
applicable to the post-soviet Belarus. All the attempts to apply this model to
contemporary Belarus have lead the scholars to several “cultural paradoxes”
that, however, can be explained within a new approach."
+++
2004
Leshchenko,
Natalia. (2004). A fine instrument: two
nation‐building strategies in post‐Soviet Belarus. Nations and Nationalism,
10(3), pp. 333-352.
Résumé: “This article pursues two aims.
On the empirical level, it challenges the view of Belarus as a
‘denationalised’, or ‘failed’ nation, and exposes the country as an area of
intensive nation‐building. The article demonstrates that, unlike most
post‐communist states, two versions of national identity have been advanced in
Belarus since 1989, with divergent results for their proponents. On the
theoretical level, such an atypical experience places qualifications on the
instrumentalist approach, that regards nation‐building as a political tool. The
analysis of identity creation in Belarus suggests that nation‐building as a
political strategy may be limited by the existing attitudes in the society in
question, the socio‐economic structures, as well as by the influence of foreign
actors.”
+++
1999
Goujon,
Alexandra. (1999). Languages,
nationalism, and populism in Belarus. Nationalities Papers, 27(4).
Résumé: “When Alyaksander Lukashenka
came to power in 1994, the gradual process of Belarusian language development
was slowly reversed in order to integrate language policy into the continuity
of Soviet practice. The promotion of the Russian language and the increase of
discrimination against Belarusian have taken place along with the establishment
of an authoritarian regime, which is based on press censorship, arrests of
political opponents, and the monopolization of social, political, economic, and
cultural activities. Faced with a direct threat to its existence, the
Belarusian language became, as was the case during the Soviet period, a
language of opposition and of counter-power.”
+++
Marples,
David. (1999). Belarus: A Denationalized
Nation. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Résumé: “In any assessment and
understanding of Belarus, the key questions to address include: Why has Belarus
apparently rejected independence under its first president, Alyaksandr
Lukashenka, and sought a union with Russia? Why has the government rejected
democracy, infringed the human rights of its citizens, and fundamentally
altered its Constitution in favor of presidential authority? Has the country
made any progress toward market reforms? How have Russia and the West responded
to the actions of Belarus? What is the future likely to hold for its ten
million citizens? The author's conclusions, which are based on a full
examination of political, economic, and social life in the new post-Soviet
Republic of Belarus, are optimistic. Belarus, he believes, will survive into
the 21st century, but as a Eurasian rather than European state.”
+++
