• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 1194

Part of Session 143: Language Change in Central Asia (Other abstracts in this session)

Features of contemporary discourse about the national question in Kazakhstan

Authors: Shaibakova, Damina
Submitted by: Shaibakova, Damina (Justus-Liebig University, Germany)

This report represents an analysis of verbal explications of meanings emerging in the opposition Kazakh – Russian language. The material for the analysis was extracted from newspaper and internet publications from recent years, as well as oral utterances.

The description of the actual discourse about  the national language policy is based on a system  of meanings that defines  the consciousness of  Kazakh society. The transition from a stratificational  type of  society, where social relations were more important , to the ethnic focused society, where the value of the Kazakh culture and Kazakh language  are dominant, put forward new semantics of communication.

Accordingly in the view of the Kazakh language ethnic and national meanings are dominant, while in the view of the Russian language the social and political contexts are more important. The comparison of the two strategies (with the social and ethnic component) is possible using the following parameters: quantitative, qualitative, axiological. Assessment, manifested in the word, now beginning to be studied more actively. We pay attention to assessment  because that is what the word can transform the public opinion and direct the interpretation of social phenomena.

There are several semantic models, sets of invariant meanings in the discussion about languages in Kazakhstan. If the invariant is “Kazakh language should prevail” the negative options (among others) are that you need to remove the Russian language, while positive options are that it is mandatory to help people who do not speak Kazakh. The invariant “Russian language should have equal   rights with Kazakh” has the negative option “Russians have brought the civilization and culture to Kazakhs and Kazakhstan is their ancestral land”. The positive option is that Kazakh and Russian languages can mutually enrich each other. New meanings are defines in opposition: an own – a stranger, Kazakh – Russian, shala- Kazakhs – nagyz- Kazakhs, the past – the future, russification – derussification, colonization – decolonization.

In the discourse about  the Kazakh language the requests “need, must, should, have to” are dominating. The power of such usage is low. The semantic information is not updated because the verbal forms are standard and familiar. People are accustomed to accept such statements. To write about Kazakh language means to give regular advice: what we have to do to achieve that the people start to speak Kazakh. So the people say: in the promotion of the Kazakh language there is more propaganda than practice. Everybody agrees with this assertion. The divergences    are in the assessment of one’s relation to the Kazakh language. Information about the assessment is prevailing, especially with negative connotations.

Regarding Russians,  Kazakh authors in the Russian speaking mass-media of Kazakhstan  predominately use the imperative “Russians in Kazakhstan must throw away their prejudicies, stretching  from the past”.

In general, estimated discourse about the language  question is stimulating as interactionizm. Tactics aim at reducing of the opponents credibility. The prevalence of  estimated information  provokes irradiation of the meanings and provokes of linguistic aggression.