Н. Ю. Зуева (жауапты хатшы), О. Б. Алтынбекова, Г. Б. Мәдиева

46 
 
 
 
ISSN 1563-0223                        Bulletin KazNU. Filology series. № 4
 (144). 2013
 
 
 
УДК 81’23 
 
J. S. Smagulova 
 
PhD Assistant, professor of Kazakhstan Institute  
of Management, Economics and Strategic Research, Kazakhstan, Almaty 
е-mail: 
juldyz@kimep.kz
 
 
Multiplicity of language ideologies 
 
The notion of language ideology is a useful analytical concept allowing for unified analysis of processes at 
different levels of social organization as it affords linking large-scale social change (for example, socio-economic and 
demographic change, language and educational policy) with micro-level interactional processes (child parents 
interaction at dinnertime or student-teacher classroom interaction). A multidimensional analysis of ideologies shows 
that they exist in different interrelated modes of articulation and are linked to different subjectivities that become 
activated and essentialized at different moments. The paper also demonstrates how language ideologies of 
‘monolingualism’ and ‘multilingualism’ emerging in the form of formal legislative documents and public debates, 
explicit beliefs circulating in society, and implicit ideologies structuring language practices co-exist despite being 
seemingly contradicting. 
Key words: language ideology, mode of articulation, subjectivity 
 
Ж.С. Смагулова 
Многообразие языковых идеологий 
 
Понятие  языковой  идеологии  является  полезным  аналитическим  инструментом,  дающим  возможность 
связать процессы разных уровней социальной организации: процессы языковой интеракции на микроуровне 
(например,  разговор  родителя  с  ребенком  во  время  ужина  или  диалог  учителя  и  ученика  на  уроке)  с 
социальными  изменениями  на  макроуровне  (социально-экономические  и  демогрфические  изменения, 
языковая  и  образовательная  политика).  Подобный  многоуровневый  анализ  позволяет  продемонстрировать, 
что  языковые  идеологии  существуют  в  разных  формах  артикуляции  и  связаны  с  разными  типами 
субъективности, активизирующихся в разные моменты. Именно это свойство языковой идеологии позволяет 
двум  противоположным  идеологиям  «монолингвизма»  и  «мультилингвизма»,  проявляющихся  в  официаль-
ных документах и общественных прениях,  эксплицитных общественных взглядах, а также в виде имплицит-
ной идеологии, структуриующей языковую практику, сосуществовать в обществе.  
Ключевые слова: языковая идеология, способы артикуляции, субъективность 
 
Ж.С. Смагулова 
Тілдік идеологиялардың әр алуандығы 
 
Тілдік идеология ұғымы – әлеуметтік ұйымның түрлі деңгейлерінің үдерістерін (микродеңгейдегі тілдік 
қатынас  үдерістерін,  мысалы,  ата-ананың  баласымен  кешкі  аста  дастархан  басындағы  әңгімесі  немесе 
мұғалім  мен  оқушының  диалогы;  макродеңгейдегі  әлеуметтік  өзгерістер;  әлеуметтік-экономикалық  және 
демографиялық  өзгерістер,  тілдік  және  білім  беру  саласының  саясаты)  байланыстыруға  мүмкіндік  беретін 
пайдалы  аналитикалық  құрал.  Осы  тақылеттес  көпдеңгейлік  талдау  тілдік  идеологиялардың  түрлі 
артикуляцияларда  болатынын  көрсетуге  септігін  тигізеді  және  белгілі  кей  сәттерде  белсенденетін 
субъективтіліктің  түрлі  типтерімен  байланысты  болады.  Тілдік  идеологияның  дәл  осы  қасиеті  екі  қарама-
қайшы  идеологияға  «монолингвизм»  мен  ресми  құжаттар  және  қоғамдық  пікірталастарда  көрініс  табатын 
«мультилингвизмге»  эксплицитті  қоғамдық  көзқарастарда,  сонымен  қатар  тілдік    практиканы 
құрылымдайтын имплицитті идеологияның қоғамда қатар тірлік етуіне мүмкіндік береді.  
Түйін сөздер: тілдік идеология, артикуляция тәсілдері, субъективтілік.  
_____________________________________ 
 
The notion of language ideology is a useful 
analytical concept allowing for unified analysis of 
social processes at different levels of social 
organization. Using a combination of a large-scale 
survey and language socialization/interactional 
sociolinguistics research tools for studying 
language ideology, we can gain insights into: 
 
 
the circulation of explicit grand language 
ideologies across different social levels: official 
discourse of language policy, language beliefs 
among different social groups, and explicit local 
language beliefs; 
 
local implicit language ideologies structu-
ring processes of language socialization at home,  
 
 
J. S. Smagulova 

47 
 
Вестник КазНУ. Серия филологическая. № 4
 (144). 2013 
 
 
and their link to large-scale social change and 
political projects such as nation-building and 
ethnic mobilization. 
A multi-dimensional analysis of sociolinguistic 
situation in Kazakhstan [1] presents a layered 
view of ideology and provides empirical evidence 
supporting a current “sophisticated” view of 
ideologies as “complexes that operate in different 
shapes and with different modes of articulation at 
a variety of levels on a range of objects” 
expressed by Blommaert & Rampton [2, 11].  
Firstly, there is wide societal support for 
seemingly contradicting language ideologies of 
multilingualism and monolingualism, “Russifica-
tion” and “Kazakhization”. However, the quanti-
tative and qualitative analyses show that these 
ideologies are relevant at different scales of 
political organization and have different “reality” 
status. Monolingual ideology of “Kazakhization” 
is dominant because the state promotes it. This 
ideology operates in the form of the explicit 
theories of “Kazakh-ness” and “Kazakh nation-
state”. The universal belief in the primordial link 
between language and nation (unfailingly recor-
ded by national censuses and our survey) helps to 
solidify the highly symbolic status of Kazakh as a 
national language. Wide social acceptance of the 
symbolic status of Kazakh contributes to what Gal 
refers as “legitimation of political arrangements” 
[3, 324]. By accepting Kazakh as a state language, 
people demonstrate that they accept the idea of 
Kazakhstan as a new independent nation-state.  
The dominance of Russian, according to 
quantitative and qualitative results, resides in the 
realm of lived reality: “Some ideas and practices 
are “dominant” not because they are produced or 
held by dominant groups, but because their 
evaluations are recognized and accepted by, 
indeed partially substitute, the lived reality of a 
much broader range of groups” [3, 321]. Survey 
data and ethnographic observations indeed 
demonstrate that Russian is a prevailing language 
of communication in both private and public 
urban domains. The study findings also show that 
urban speakers are not aware of the fact that by 
using Russian in particular ways, they re-produce 
a social order in which Russian is a superior 
language of a more influential social group.  
Secondly, tracing historical and socio-econo-
mic roots of language ideologies shows that in 
urban Kazakhstan Kazakh and Russian have come 
to index dichotomies related to: 
 
social identities –urban vs. rural, middle-
class vs. lower class; 
 
 
group membership – social group vs. nation; 
 
aspects of personhood – independent vs. 
dependent (actor), cultured vs.  ignorant; 
 
social values – traditional vs. modern, 
parochial vs. cosmopolitan; 
 
political values – nationalism vs. linguistic 
and minority rights, superiority of one vs. equality 
of all; 
 
linguistic values – inferior language vs. 
superior, etc. 
However, these dichotomies are not absolute 
antimonies and even less so they are patterned 
worldviews attributed to different social groups. 
The quantitative data shows that the boundary 
between ideological positioning and social mem-
bership are not clear-cut. The variability of responses 
within the social groups, especially within the 
Kazakh ethnic group, points at the process of 
contestation between different language ideolo-
gies, revealing tension between pro-Russian and 
pro-Kazakh interests, group and individual rights, 
and between ethnic loyalty and social status. For 
example, the survey data and ethnographic obser-
vations suggest that Kazakh revival means dif-
ferent things to different generations. For older 
Kazakhs, their native language is an essential part 
of ethnic identity, lack of proficiency in one’s 
native language is shameful. Failure to transmit 
the Kazakh language is viewed as a personal 
failure. The middle-aged generation constructs the 
proficiency in Kazakh in more instrumental terms, 
it is another resource along with Russian and 
English that might improve one’s life chances.  
The fact that individual respondents shift and 
rework their views of languages within a single 
survey hints at the complex processes of affiliating 
and disaffiliating with a group, depending on the 
hypothetical situation described in the question-
naire. For instance, the survey data demonstrates 
considerable difference in responses about the role 
of Kazakh, depending on whether the question is 
hypothetical or has immediate relevance for the 
respondents’ everyday lives. Most urban Kazakhs 
agree that people occupying highly symbolic 
positions representing the state, such as the 
President of the country, must speak Kazakh, and 
agree that Kazakh must be studied in school. Ho-
wever, at the same time, this group is more likely 
to opt for multilingual choices when asked about 
their own language use. These fin-dings ratify the 
view that ideologies as Kroskrity [4] suggests are 
context-bound; different ideological positions are 
activated in different social contexts.   
The table below illustrates my point by showing  
 
Multiplicity of language ideologies 

48 
 
 
 
ISSN 1563-0223                        Bulletin KazNU. Filology series. № 4
 (144). 2013
some examples of various modes of ideological 
expression at different levels for two widely 
distributed ideologies of monolingualism and 
multilingualism.  
 
Table 1  
Language ideology: Levels and modes of articulation 
 
 
Modes of articulation 
Levels of social 
organization 
Monolingual ideology of  “Kazakhization”   Multilingual ideology involving mainte-
nance of Russian 
Nation-state 
level 
- Kazakh as a sole state language  
- Candidate for the President must pass the 
Kazakh language exam 
- Kazakh is a required school subject 
- Renaming street names and geographical 
places 
- Re-writing history with stress on the 
struggle for independence from Russia 
 
- Russian is an official language 
- There are no language requirements for 
government jobs (yet) 
- Russian is a required school subject 
- Road signs in three languages: Kazakh, 
Russian and English 
- Emphasizing common past and future with 
Russia, accommodating local Russians e.g. 
by granting citizenship automatically 
 
Level of social  
beliefs (ideas 
of different 
ethnic and 
other interest 
groups) 
-“Kazakhs should know Kazakh” (e.g., 
teacher talking to a Russian-speaking 
parent in Kazakh) 
- “Kazakh is a rich and beautiful language” 
- Dividing Kazakhs on real Kazakhs 
“NagyzQazaq” and half Kazakhs 
“ShalaQazaq” 
- “Kazakhs are entitled for better positions” 
- Kazakh-language schools are mono-
ethnic 
- Discrimination because of lack of Kazakh 
- Power positions are occupied by Kazakhs 
- Conducting ceremonies, e.g., weddings in 
Kazakh 
 
- “Russian is our second mother tongue” 
 
 
- “Russian is better suited for academic 
work” 
- Branding rural Kazakhs as “Mambets” 
(derogatory term) 
-“Russians are better specialists, more 
 
knowledgeable”   
- Russian-language schools are multiethnic 
- Discrimination because of lack of Russian  
- Most manual laborers are rural Kazakh  
- Publishing classified ads and announce-
ments  in Russian 
Level of 
interaction 
(caretaker-child 
interaction at 
home) 
- Enrolling children to Kazakh-medium 
school 
- Asking grandparents to speak Kazakh with 
children 
- Learning rhymes for school in Kazakh 
- Using Kazakh affectives and endearments 
- Using Kazakh kinship terminology 
- Praising a child for saying something in 
Kazakh 
- Speaking Russian at home 
- Buying books in Russian, playing com-
puter games in English 
- Teaching Kazakh through Russian 
- Disciplining in Russian 
- Labeling the world around baby in Russian 
- Stating that child’s pronunciation is Rus-
sian-like 
 
Thirdly, the distribution of ideologies reminds 
us that “different ideologies construct alternate, 
even opposing realities; they create differing 
views arising from and often constituting different 
social positions and subjectivities within a single 
social formation” [3, 320]. The quantitative data 
indeed suggested that different ideas are linked to 
different social positions and subjectivities. Kazakh 
and Russian express different yet positively valued  
 
 
 
dimensions of the self for urban Kazakhs. Kazakh 
is as a marker of Kazakh ethnic identity, and 
Russian is a sign of higher status and belonging to 
an urban group. It then explains why urban 
Kazakhs, who speak primarily in Russian; insist 
on using their “native” language during official 
ceremonies like weddings (even when the married 
couple does not understand a single word during 
the whole ceremony); use Kazakh kinship termi- 
 
 
 
J. S. Smagulova 

49 
 
Вестник КазНУ. Серия филологическая. № 4(144). 2013 
 
 
nology; and use Kazakh for greetings and leave-
taking while conversing in Russian; or why the 
state changes the name of streets and other geo-
graphic places from Russian to Kazakh. Speakers 
using Kazakh for these symbolic functions, 
establish and re-affirm their ethnic and national 
identities. Meanwhile, by using Russian for work 
and entertainment, speakers reaffirm their social 
status and affiliation with urban Kazakhs.  
Likewise, interactional data also shows that 
different languages are associated with different 
subjectivities. In local family language practices, 
the caretaker role is linked to speaking Kazakh, 
while being an autonomous social actor is asso-
ciated with Russian; speaking Kazakh co-occurs 
with the caretaker’s aligning as a language tutor 
while constructing a child as a second language 
learner. 
Fourthly, the situation is further complicated 
by the fact that language ideologies interact with 
other beliefs such as ideas about personhood and 
adulthood, theories of language socialization or 
learning, and also with personal experiences of 
second language learning. Bilingualism and multi-
lingualism in urban Kazakhstan is a mass phenol-
menon; but many did not grow up bilingual, they 
became bilingual as adults. There is a whole 
generation of Kazakhs who arrived to cities as 
Kazakh-speaking adults in the 1960-1970s and 
became successful, balanced Kazakh-Russian 
bilinguals. There are younger adults who also 
effectively acquired English or Kazakh as a 
second language in their 20s. These personal 
experiences seem to have had a profound effect 
on the way people perceive failure to transmit 
Kazakh to children. It is viewed a repairable 
matter. Success stories of adults learning second 
languages feed the strong faith that children will 
be able to learn Kazakh later in life, if strongly 
motivated or forced by circumstances. However, 
the urban reality is not conducive to the acqui-
sition of Kazakh by individuals, as there are no 
real forces that might motivate Kazakh re-acquisi-
tion. This belief contributes to the maintenance of 
Russian in urban families.  
Finally, the analysis also revealed that lan-
guage practices are contingent not only on ideo-
logical positions but also on pressure of multiple 
parental jobs. Obviously, reviving language requi-
res constant attention to one’s language use as it 
presupposes changes in habitual language practi-
ces. Yet, even the caretakers most committed to 
the idea of language revival face multiple pressing 
parental tasks that need to be done in the here and 
now. Putting a child who just recovered from 
illness to bed seems to be a more urgent task than 
learning with him Kazakh rhymes for the school 
concert.  
In summary, ideologies exist in different inter- 
related modes of articulation: formal legislative 
documents and public debates, explicit beliefs 
circulating in society, and implicit ideologies 
structuring language practices. I maintain that it 
would be erroneous to present two popular 
ideologies of monolingualism and multilingualism 
as opposing; they are rather co-existing. Their 
existence reflects the linguistic reality of modern 
urban Kazakhstan where different ideologies are 
linked to different subjectivities that become 
activated and essentialized at different moments. 
Such interpretation then might explain how in the 
context of wide-ranging ideological contestation, 
people manage to live their everyday lives largely 
avoiding conflict and confrontation.   
 
Литературa 
 
1 Smagulova J. Language shift and revival in Kazakhstan: A multi-level analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. UK: King’s 
College London, 2011. 
2 Blommaert J. & Rampton B. Language and superdiversity // Diversities 13, (2): 1-22. – 
www.unesco.org/shs/ 
diversities/vol13/issue2/art1
 
3 Gal S. Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: A commentary // Language Ideologies: Practice and theory / 
B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard & P. Kroskrity (eds.). – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. – С. 317-331. 
4 Kroskrity P. Language ideologies // A companion to linguistic anthropology / A. Duranti (ed.). – Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. – С. 496-517. 
 
References 
 
1 Smagulova J. Language shift and revival in Kazakhstan: A multi-level analysis. Unpublished PhD. dissertation. UK: King’s 
College London, 2011. 
2 Blommaert J. & Rampton B. Language and superdiversity // Diversities 13, (2): 1-22. – 
www.unesco.org/shs/
 
diversities/vol13/issue2/art1 
3 Gal S. Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: A commentary // Language Ideologies: Practice and theory / B. 
Schieffelin, K. Woolard & P. Kroskrity (eds.). – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. – S. 317-331. 
4 Kroskrity P. Language ideologies // A companion to linguistic anthropology / A. Duranti (ed.). – Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. – S. 
496-517. 
Multiplicity of language ideologies 

50 
 
 
 
ISSN 1563-0223                        Bulletin KazNU. Filology series. № 4
 (144). 2013
 
 
 
ӘОЖ 81'37; 003; 81'22 
 
Ғ.Қ. Хасанов 
 
М. Өтемісов атындағы Батыс Қазақстан мемлекеттік университеті,  
ф.ғ.д., профессор,  Қазақстан, Орал қ. 
е-mail: 
hasan.gabit@mail.ru
 
 
Көркем мәтіндегі денотаттық семаларды талдау ерекшелігі 
 
Тілдік семантика ғылымында лексикалық мағынаның құрылымындағы кіші мағыналық бөліктер көптеген 
ғалымдардың зерттеу назарында жүр. Алдымен, шетелдік және Ресей тілшілері қарастырған бұл көкейкесті 
мәселе  соңғы  кезде  қазақ  тіл  білімінде  де  жүйелі  зерттелу  үстінде.  Лексикалық  семантика  ғылымында 
лексикалық мағынаның сема деп аталатын микрокомпоненттерінің өзіндік түрленімін нақты көркем мәтіннен 
талдау  мағынаның  әртүрлі  өзгерісін  көрсетеді.  Мақалада  көркем  мәтіндегі  лексикалық  мағынаның 
денотаттық семаларының ерекшеліктері  семантиканы зерттеп жүрген белгілі ғалымдардың пікірлері арқылы 
кеңінен талданады. 
Түйін  сөздер:  лексикалық  мағына,  денотаттық  мағына  бөлігі,  сигнификаттық  компонент,  денотаттық 
семалар,  архисема,  узуалды,  окказионалды  сема,  категориалды-лексикалық  сема,  жекелік,  топтық  семалар, 
мәтін, айыруышы сема, өзектену, актуалдану, көркем мәтін. 
 
G. K. Khassanov 

жүктеу/скачать 4,6 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: