The Russian language not only remains that main language of international communication in CIS countries. In Kazakhstan and Belarus it has the status of a second state language and in most CIS countries it is the language of inter-ethnic communication. In some places, like Armenia, the language’s status remains undetermined, but Russian is spoken throughout the entire post-Soviet space. Everywhere the Russian language, despite the fallback of recent decades, retains a good position as a means of communication which is in high demand.
Although sociologists noted that the Russian language space is contracting not only in the CIS but also inside Russia, where from 25% to 40% of labor migrants do not have a basic command of Russian, the situation is not so straightforward. Moreover, it is changing: after decades of losing ground in the CIS the Russian language has evidently begun a new phase of advancement.
Russia’s neighbors, recently independent states, after placing an emphasis on the development of their own national languages, have come to realize that they also need the Russian language. As an instrument. As an accessible means of engaging in the global world.
It is true that the influence of the Russian language declined during the first years of independence in the new states. Then they were concerned about the emergence of a national identity, and this required raising the status of native languages. Now, as the euphoria of national self-sufficiency becomes less of a driving force, many are beginning to understand the need for the Russian-speaking space. It provides a window to the world and an opportunity to make money.
Russia is the destination of a number of labor migrant who have poor or no command of the Russian language. However, people migrate from Russia to the EU and US without always having a good command of English. This is normal, as the world is an open place.
Those who have an opportunity to make more money in another take advantage of this. This is not a language or cultural problem. This problem of post-Soviet states comes from the fact that, having gotten over the isolationist trends of the first years of independence, these countries begin to open up and discover economic and cultural interest in each other. But what language should they speak?
Even the people of the Turkish group of languages which have much in common choose to speak to each other in Russian. Moreover, Tajiks, Georgians and Armenians can only use Russian to explain themselves to peoples of Central Asia.
Scholars from these countries have on numerous occasions told me that their societies are tired of nationalistic aggression which rejects the Russian language. Now both the elites and the population at large of these countries are coming to understand that they need English, French and Russian. Without access to broad international communication a nation falls into degradation.
Worldwide an enormous volume of material is published – on physics, mathematics, natural sciences and culture. And Russia translates all this material. How is, let’s say, an Armenian or Tajik supposed to learns about world trends in science or economics? Only in Armenian or Tajik? It is not feasible to translate such a mass of information into the national languages. For one country alone it would require up to $3 billion per year. Moreover, not only is this sum unaffordable for a developing economy, there are not enough translators to do this work. And those who have no access to information on trends are doomed to fail. The country becomes lost in the past and isolated in nationalism.
The Russian language performs this informational and communicational role for the CIS. How did the republics of Central Asia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine become known to the world? Not through their national languages but rather through Russia and the Russian language. That is a fact. The educated members of the national elites of these countries say this themselves.
However, there is a problem with the fact that it is not very palatable to promote the Russian language. For far too long the national languages were championed at the expense of Russian. So it would be strange to suddenly start talking about the importance of Russian for national development. Nonetheless, this process has begun to take root, as there is a conscious demand for this. Moreover, the regional dialects of the Russian language, for example, Kazakh Russian, Moldovan Russian or Kyrgyz Russian, influence the development of the modern Russian language.
Many young languages do not have such a rich lexicon as Russian. When native speakers of these languages, for example, employ abstract or figurative lexicon, they often use Russian. The reverse is also true: in the Russian language Russians in Kazakhstan or Russians in Azerbaijan use borrowed words. Here’s a simple example: Russians and Russian speakers of these countries do not say parliament. Russians in Kazakhstan say majilis while Russians in Azerbaijan say majlis. So loan words lead to the regionalization of the Russian language.
Loan words should not all be viewed as a negative phenomenon. They are a litmus test for the development the language and life itself. If a language does not develop it turns into a dead language like Latin. There is no need to fight against loan words, because they enrich the language and appear in gaps of the lexicon.
I am sure that people in Russia will not start saying mejilis instead of Duma or parliament. But as a regional phenomenon, this is a sign of the vitality and flexibility of the Russian language and even underscores its self-sufficiency. At the same time, the use of words and phrases from the languages of CIS countries does not negate the need for grammatically proper Russian speech.
We must admit that today proper and eloquent Russian speech is not an essential component of communication culture for many people. To the contrary, simplified and telegraphic speech seems to be in demand. When such Russian language is heard by compatriots living abroad, they tend to assimilate the simplest and most aggressive. But people should know how to speak proper Russian.
This is why people need to be given the opportunity to hear classical Russian speech. More classical works of literature should be broadcast on radio and television. This requires meticulous and painstaking work. However, we should remember that this objective of cleaning up the Russian language was set back during the time of Mikhail Lomonosov. The genius of Lomonosov was in his ability to come up with new words and terminology, transforming simple Russian speech into a language of science. We should also pay attention to the loan words, including from the languages of our neighbors. Some will stick while others will fade away. The most important thing remains – the aspiration to speak proper Russian.
Sergei Bulanov, Director of the Center of Modern Educational Technologies
