![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This work identifies and discusses developments in language policy and language education in Crimea since the peninsula’s incorporation into the Russian Federation in March 2014. Working on the assumption that post-Soviet reforms and changes in language and education policies cannot be understood outside their historical context, the article starts by briefly outlining some of the defining features of the historical and sociolinguistic situation of Crimea until March 2014. It then presents the changing linguistic situation of the peninsula since its accession into Russia and discusses present developments in light of the broader context of post-Soviet language ideologies, policies and practices. It suggests that the new Crimean authorities are following a double strategy: the imposition of monolingual educational and linguistic policies, accompanied by largely symbolic concessions to the demands of local ethnic communities.
RÉSUMÉ
Cet ouvrage identifie et discute des développements dans la politique linguistique et l’éducation linguistique en Crimée depuis son incorporation dans la Fédération de Russie en mars 2014. En supposant que les réformes et les changements post-soviétiques dans la politique linguistique et la politique d’enseignement ne puissent être compris en dehors de leur contexte historique, l’article commence avec un petit aperçu de quelques traits marquants de la situation historique et sociolinguistique de la Crimée jusqu’à mars 2014. Ensuite, il présente la conjoncture linguistique en mutation de la péninsule depuis son accession dans la Russie et discute des développements actuels tenant compte du contexte plus large des idéologies, des politiques et des pratiques linguistiques post-soviétiques. Il propose que les nouvelles autorités criméennes suivent une double-stratégie: l’imposition des politiques d’enseignement et linguistiques monolingues, accompagnées par des concessions largement symboliques aux demandes issues des communautés locales ethniques.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and discussion.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Hilpold, “Ukraine, Crimea.”
2. For a review of the most relevant issues and debates see Hogan-Brun and Melnyk, “Language Policy Management.”
3. Spolsky, Language Policy, 5; Spolsky, “What is Language Policy?” 5.
4. Shohamy, Language Policy, 50.
5. Tollefson, Language Policies in Education, 64.
6. Pavlenko, “Language Management,” 651.
7. The selection of media sources was based on factors including their prominence, circulation, and influence among policy-makers and the public in Crimea, and includes the Ukrainian national news agency Ukrinform (http://www.ukrinform.ua), the Russian information agency RIA Novosti (http://ria.ru), the new Crimean government official web portal Kryminform (http://www.c-inform.info), the First Crimean TV channel (http://1tvcrimea.ru), which is among the main sources of regional information for the Crimean population, and the well-established Crimean Tatar News Agency (http://qha.com.ua).
8. See Yevtukh, “The Dynamics”; see also Kappeler, The Russian Empire.
9. Ukrainians were grouped with the Russians in the 1897 census. See Pervaia vseobshchaia perepis'.
10. Magocsi, A History of Ukraine, 690.
11. Malyarenko and Galbreath, “Crimea.”
12. Sasse, The Crimea Question.
13. All-Ukrainian Population Census 2001.
14. Wilson, “The Crimean Tatars,” 419.
15. Perepis' naseleniia v Krymskom.
16. Kulyk, “Constructing Common Sense”; Kulyk, “Language Identity, Linguistic Diversity.”
17. Charnysh, “Analysis of Current Events.”
18. Pylypenko, “Realizaciia osvitnikh potreb.”
19. Izmirli, “On Revitalization.”
20. The Integration of Formerly Deported People.
21. Tyshchenko, “Krymskaia situatsia,” 2.
22. Uehling, “The First Independent,” 157.
23. Bilaniuk and Melnyk, “A Tense and Shifting Balance,” 352.
24. Permanent Delegation, “Information on the Situation.”
25. For the rise in the number of Ukrainian schools in Crimea see Kalynovs'ka, “Language Situation in Education,” 213–214.
26. Emirova, “Russko-Krymskotatarskaia interferentsiia.”
27. Wilson, “The Crimean Tatars,” 428.
28. O Kontseptsii razvitiia.
29. Zakon Ukraïny “Pro zasady.”
30. Konstitutsiia Respubliki Krym Citation2014. Although three languages are recognized as official by the 2014 Crimean Constitution, the text of the Constitution itself is only available in Russian.
31. Konstitutsiia Respubliki Krym Citation1992.
32. Taranenko, “Movna sytuatsiia.”
33. Bowring, “Language Policy in Ukraine,” 61.
34. Emirova, “Russko-Krymskotatarskaia interferentsiia,” 187.
35. Ciscel, “Reform and Relapse.”
36. “Okupanty pereshkodzhaiut'”; “Remzi Il'iasov: Gosstatus”; “Krymskii spiker vyskazalsia.”
37. Johnson, Language Policy.
38. Grenoble, Language Policy, 59.
39. Zakon Respubliki Krym. The law copies almost verbatim the main provisions of the 2012 Russian Federal Law on Education.
40. For some key passages of the parliamentary debates on the Law on Education see Savenko and Tiagniriadno, “Dobrovol'no ili prinuditel'no?”; Filipovich and Chukalov, “Bol'shaia diskussiia.”
41. “Prokuratura: obiazatel'noe izuchenie.”
42. Kulyk, “Soviet Nationalities Policies,” 211; Pavlenko, “Language Management,” 659.
43. “Kryms'kotatars'ka mova”; “V shkolakh Kryma”; “V Krymu krymskotatarkii i ukrainskii.”
44. “Krymskie tatary.”
45. “Eto kak stroit' dom.”
46. “Dlia obsuzhdeniia zakona.”
47. “V Krymu pri nabore pervoklassnikov”; “V Krymu ne otkryvaiut.” Natalia Goncharova has been Crimean Education Minister since November 2012. This suggests a certain degree of continuity with educational policies that were in place already prior to Crimea’s incorporation into Russia.
48. In an interview collected during fieldwork in summer 2015, a student who had recently completed her high school education at the school remembered how after Crimea’s incorporation into the Russian Federation all Ukrainian symbolism was quickly removed from the school and Ukrainian teachers were asked to requalify as Russian teachers. Those who refused to requalify were fired.
49. Permanent Delegation. The same data is presented in Tyshchenko and Smirnov, “Annexed” Education.
50. “Krymskoe triiazychie okazalos' pshikom.”
51. Uzundzhi, “Iazyk moi – Drug moi.”
52. Protassova, Alòs i Font, and Bulatova, “Education in Udmurt.”
53. “V Krymu tol'ko 4 tys.”
54. Emirova, “Krymskotatarskaia filologiia.”
55. See Zakon o iazykakh, Chapter 1, Article 3 (6).
56. “Transition of Crimean Tatar.”
57. “V Tavricheskom universitete likvidirovali.” As of August 2014 the Taurida Vernadsky University, which has been renamed the Taurida Academy (Tavricheskaia Akademiia), is one of the constituent institutions of the newly created Crimean Federal Vernadsky University, one of 10 such federal universities of the Russian Federation.
58. Posted on July 24, 2015. Accessed November 24, 2015. http://vk.com/leonidkyzmin.
59. “Krymskie vuzy prodolzhaiut.”
60. “V Tavricheskom universitete bol'she.”
61. Attacks on the Press, 207–208.
62. “Do iedynoi v Krymu.”
63. In June 2015 the channel resumed its broadcasting in mainland Ukraine.
64. “Aksenov: razzhiganie vrazhdy.”
65. “Krymsko-tatarskii telekanal ‘Millet’.”
66. “Sochranenie, izuchenie i razvitie.”
67. Among the reasons brought forward by the authorities to justify the denial of registration, there was the alleged absence of analogous structures in the Russian Federation. In the Russian city of Yaroslavl, however, local authorities have developed and approved a plan to open a House of Nationalities representing all nationalities living in the region. See Stepanova, “Developing Tolerance,” 292.
68. Shohamy, Language Policy.
69. Savenko and Kosov, “Vernoi dorogoi.”
70. “Na zdanie Parlamenta Kryma.”
71. Cashaback, “Assessing Asymmetrical Federal Design,” 249; Gorenburg, “Tatar Language Policies,” 8; Zamyatin, “Official Status,” 144.
72. Pavlenko, “Language Management,” 673.
73. Kulyk, “Soviet Nationalities Policies.”
74. Bocale, “Italian, Ukrainian or Russian?” 629.
75. Zdorov and Romanenko, “Dlia pol'zy obshchestva.”
76. Janmaat and Vickers, “Education and Identity Formation.”
77. Suslov, “Crimea is Ours!” On the discursive strategies sustaining Russian political and cultural dominance in Crimea see Bezverkha, “Reinstating Social Borders.”
78. Interviewees’ names have been changed to protect their anonymity.
79. Zamyatin, “From Language Revival.”
80. Hill, “The Putin Era,” 14–15.
81. Federal'nyi Zakon o Gosudarstvennom.
82. Zamyatin, “From Language Revival,” 96.
83. Federal'nyi Zakon ob Obrazovanii.
84. Protassova, Alòs i Font, and Bulatova, “Education in Udmurt.”
85. Alòs i Font, “Chuvash Language.”
86. Inglis, Multiculturalism; Inglis, Planning for Cultural Diversity.
87. Zamyatin, “The Evolution.”
88. Kuzio, Ukraine–Crimea–Russia, 107.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Paola Bocale
Paola Bocale teaches Slavic languages and linguistics at the University of Bologna, at the Roma Tre University, and at the University of Milan. Her most recent publications include a study of the dynamics of ethnolinguistic identification in a heritage community in Crimea, articles on the linguistic practices of Slavic migrant communities in Italy and the UK, and a monograph on the category of gender in the Slavic languages.