II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 An Official Status for Minority Languages?

In An Official Status for Minority Languages? (2014a), Konstantin Zamyatin—a researcher at the University of Helsinki who has written papers on Uralic peoples and minority issues in the past (Zamyatin, 2004; Zamyatin, 2014b), describes the situation of Uralic languages in the Russian Federation and discusses possible ways they could be saved from extinction and explores the possible outcomes of enforcing the official status of minority languages. Zamyatin elaborates on how the official statuses of Uralic languages in their titular republics differ and how official status affects the use and vivacity of Uralic languages (Zamyatin, 2014, p. 29-33). Furthermore, he also elaborates on the sociolinguistic factors that have lead to the actual decrease of the study of Mordvin languages in spite of their official status and contrasts this with developments in other Uralic-speaking republics such as Karelia, Mari El, and Komi.

Konstantin Zamyatin’s recent report, An Official Status for Minority Languages?,is about the status of endangered languages within Russia and the effects of granting them official status. Regarding education, Zamyatin elaborates on how official status leads to the implementation of the local language in education which in trun facilitates its use (Zamyatin, 2014a. p. 35, 69) and also described how the same force had been used to weaken Uralic languages such as Karelian. (Zamyatin, 2014a. p. 87) Zamyatin also notes in the conclusion of his report that granting official status to such languages is connected to identity and that in addition to increasing use of the language in education, the status gives a symbolic status to the local language(s) and thus still helps in the revival and preservation of said language(s) by giving said language(s) legitimacy as well as an explicit connection to the identity of the local population. It can be concluded that Zamyatin’s report is informative and suitable for the topic as it mentions how the education system plays a role in protecting languages and how official status in turn plays a role in the prescence of minority languages in education. Moreover, the information provided in Zamyatin’s report can be augmented by other reports and sites (Sanukov, 1993; Khromova & Mityakina, 2013) and by Uralic information sites (notably Fenno-Ugria, a non-profit organization that was established by a group of Estonian researchers, politicians, and economists in Tallinn, Estonia, in 1927 and acts as the central umbrella organization for interactions between Uralic (Finno-Ugric and Samoyed) peoples as well as a coordinating establishment for cooperation and the information exchange with all Uralic peoples) which means that the report can be relied on as a major reference.

2.2 Language Policy and Minority Language Planning in Russia: the case study of the Kalmyk language

Another report on preserving a minority language(s) of Russia that can be relied upon as a source is Language Policy and Minority Language Planning in Russia: the case study of the Kalmyk language, (2001) by Bossia Kornoussova, a senior researcher at the Institute of Catalan Sociolinguistics. This report discusses the situation of minority languages of Russia in general and what kind of legal protection they receive as well as what steps are taken to preserve local languages. Her paper has a specific focus on Kalmykia and how the local government is taking steps to protect and revive the Kalmyk language and concludes that these steps are having a positive impact. According to Kornoussova, the Kalmyk government has passed laws that call for Kalmyk to be promoted through measures including but not limited to: having the texts of laws and of other legal documents published in both Kalmyk and Russian, mandating the use of both Kalmyk and Russian by local organizations (administrative authorities, local government bodies, and local enterprises), allowing legal proceedings and record keeping in the courts and judicial authorities to be conducted in Kalmyk and Russian, and mandating that place names, inscriptions, and road signs be written in both Kalmyk and Russian (Kornoussova, 2001. p, 5~6).

Regarding education, Kornoussova mentions that the Kalmyk language is vigorously encouraged through measures including allocating salary bonuses to Kalmyk language teachers, the compulsory teaching of Kalmyk, and the availability of language classes to both adults and children (Kornoussova, 2001. p, 8). Although Kornoussova notes in the conclusion that the Kalmyk language is still in a grave situation—despite these policies slowly improving its current status—in the years since her report was written, the situation for Kalmyk has improved and many Kalmyks have seemingly become more interested in their national language (Howley, 2012).

Mordovia is in a similar situation as Kalmykia regarding its local language(s) being at risk and unlike Kalmykia, the Mordovian government does not encourage the Mordvin languages and the teaching of the languages is only implemented per parents’ request (Prokuratura Respublika Mordoviya, 2010). This consequently puts the Mordvin languages at a higher risk of extinction then Kalmyk as they are not officially supported via education. Moreover, even though the law of Mordovia gives Erzya and Moksha official status equal to that of Russian, in reality, speakers of both languages are being rapidly Russified (Fenno-Ugria, 2009). As Kornoussova’s paper provides insight on how certain measures (with education being a specific example) help to preserve languages and how these measures seem effective, the efficaciousness of these methods when applied to the Mordvin languages could also be explored.

The information contained in Kornoussova’s report can be compared and contrasted to what is mentioned in Zamyatin’s more recent report as both focus on the use of official status and how government policies can help minority languages of Russia. Ergo, both can also potentially be used to propose a solution to the linguistic situation of Mordovia and if education would be a viable method in saving Erzya and Moksha from extinction. In the light of the available research, it can be argued that education, among other official policies, can be used to save Erzya and Moksha from extinction.