Identity, Symbolism, and the Politics of Language in Central Asia

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

I use this term, parallel to Turkicness, to indicate the links to ‘Greater Iran’, to Iranian culture, including Iranian languages.

It is worth noting that the Central Asian Turkic cases are somewhat different than the case of language in Azerbaijan. In the earlier years after independence, Azerbaijani was referred to as ‘Turkic’ or ‘Turkish’ (türk dili). This same term was used in Azerbaijan to refer to the local language during the rule of the National Front in 1992–1993. A somewhat analogous situation exists in Tajikistan. Although not supported by the political authorities in Dushanbe, some intellectuals in Tajikistan speak about Tajik in a way that creates a very fuzzy line dividing it from Persian.

According to Grenoble (2003, p. 53), a ‘common rule’ was eventually adopted in the 1940s mandating that the spelling of loan words in non-Russian languages throughout the USSR be subordinated to the Russian version.

The sounds ‘f’ and ‘v’ occurred only in borrowed words (Razvitie 1980, p. 127).

In the early 1950s, however, there were discussions about unifying the spelling of these words with the Russian orthography (see Sauranbaev et al. 1952). For whatever reason, it appears that far fewer Uzbek than Kazakh words maintained a distinct spelling that reflected the local pronunciation.

Turkiston various issues between 5 September 1923 and 21 November 1923.

The entry for ‘revolyutsionnyi’, however, gives only the Arabic-derived equivalent inqilabiy.

In a strict sense, of course, this predates the creation of these ‘languages’, since by and large standards had not been established.

Simon (1991, p. 246) notes a 1958 reference by Bobojon Gafurov in a Kommunist article as one of the earliest demands to declare Russian the ‘second mother tongue’ (Gafurov 1958). Until he left to direct the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow in 1956, Gafurov had served for a decade as head of the Tajik Communist Party.

‘Report on the Current Status of United Nations Romanization Systems for Geographical Names’, available at: http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom2_tk.htm, accessed 7 January 2009.

The symbols (upper case) $ and (lower case) ¢ were apparently replaced at some earlier date with Ş and ş, respectively.

According to Sharifov (2007), the adoption of the Latin alphabet itself was not so much a step reflecting a desire to Westernise as a rejection of Russia and a ‘gift presented to Turkey’.

Umida Khikmatillaeva kindly provided help on these changes in Uzbek.

Among the exceptions are certain classes in Turkish or English at the International Turkmen Turkish University and certain non-Turkmen instructors who deliver lectures at other institutions in Russian to students whose education is mostly in Turkmen.