The Avars of Contemporary Dagestan Kendra Dias 2014 Nationalism

CEU eTD Collection In requirements for of fulfillment the MastersArts. thedegree partial of of Supervisor: Andras Pap Budapest, CentralNationalism Studies, EuropeanUniversity Linguistic toethno dimensions Hungary

- national contemporary Avars identity: of the Dagestan KendraDias 2014

CEU eTD Collection well matrix as thelinguistic ofsocial the Republic helpingtopreserve relations throughout the entrenched FederationhaveRussianthe now is what in categoriesethnic and of linguistic institutionalization However, interactions. everyday of choices language the byreified continuously is whichidentity ethnic with conflation non intervie individual interviews, group focus of series a through collected been has data Thus people. real involving studies case through investigated be to needs of identity, toshowthe inorder complexities of everyday id types differentrepresent and informcanpreservation) linguistic pointedly(more languagechoice o addresses the issue of the balance of concentric identities in Dagestan by focusing special attention opposed to the assumption that language choice is a matter of cost the of knowledge our develop to continue Aspect n the function of linguistic choice and differentiation in identity formation. Specifically, how how Specifically, formation. identity in differentiation and choice linguistic of function the n - participant observations. For Avars, linguistic identity is preserved precisely because of its its of because precisely preserved is identity linguistic Avars, For observations. participant The study of perceptions, attitudes, and choices regarding one’s language and identity identity and language one’s regarding choices and attitudes, perceptions, of study The can researchers so multilingualism pervasive with regions on done be must work More

complex and complex t e rdtoa mliigaim f aetn ope wt the with coupled Dagestan of multilingualism traditional he

concentric spheres of identity that inform everyday life for Avars for life everyday inform that identity of spheres concentric

oe agae a t pa i eeya iett; as identity; everyday in play to has language role i

entity. ws, surveys, as well as substantial as well as surveys, ws, - benefit benefit analysis. Thus this thesis

a s

CEU eTD Collection generosityshowing meof the theendless and kindness Acknowledgements To Murtazali, without whom this study whomthis To Murtazali, without

would never havewould never possible; been ii

human spirit.

thank you forthank CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Appendix V Appendix IV Appendix III Appendix II Appendix Conclusion Chapter 2: Analysis Chapter 1: Multilingualism context in Introduction Table Contentsof Acknowledgements Aspect Table Contentsof Avenues for future research Is moving language shift extinction? toward Identity Multilingualism Survey data The focus groups Methodology Who are Avars?the The transition to independence Federal approaches to ethnicity and language A history brief An introduction theto case study Institutional influence: categorization and rights Everyday identity andlanguage choice Language identity: and the sociolinguistic perspective Linguistic legislation Federal restructuring Categorization and counting

......

I ......

......

...... of the case study Avars of

......

...... iii ......

......

74 73 72 71 70 69 67 65 63 59 54 50 48 44 43 39 36 32 29 26 24 23 23 14 11

iii

8 2 4 ii

CEU eTD Collection to coming of process the in them overlook to tend not than often more people, everyday that these foci are concerned with institu much of nation and Perceptions of identity have significant implications not only for minority groups but for the them. within communities the on nations of effects the questioning are nationalism to sociology worl contemporary the in but shepherd simple a to identity of importance the question would Many response. positive a for pressed when perplexed completely field the in stood Russian, a or Georgian, a not course of was he that and Avar from nationality].” A former student of Mokhtar’s, now a shepherd, knowing his languag interview partners, the after border th the of dissolution of side wrong the on themselves found who Federation Russian the of minorities of small languages groups; particularly a small linguistic group hailing from the territory kn would assumed I who people the from know, to Language is I ntroduction prosperity of It is no mistake that so much has been written about minority language rights or that so that or rights language minority about written been has much so that mistake no is It wanted I Georgia. northeastern of villages Avar three the to trip research a took I 2013 In like abridge overyou know it get river,you don’t arushing across,if if youwill -

building processes center around questions of language. The problem however, is processescenter aroundbuilding questions oflanguage. problem however, The is oit Union. Soviet e their host countries astheir well. host Mokhtar ,

proposed a seemingly simple experiment; “ask that boy who he is [by

How many speak, much languagesyou are. ishow aperson s ws evn te is vlae Chantlitskhure, village, first the leaving was I As tional processes and while claiming to speak on behalf of iv

ow best, what the linguistic situation was for was situation linguistic the what best, ow d, fields spanning from anthropology and and anthropology from spanning fields d, - Dagestani proverb - Russian proverbRussian e was different one of my my of one drown. peace

CEU eTD Collection 1, doi:10.2307/3108478. 1 groups and ethnicity on study his in suggests Brubaker as Additionally, self collection. its of purpose S the to awareness with collected data specific to reference in used term. broad uselessly a series of more clearly pointed terms touse a is best solution identitythe posits and withthe term ofBrubakeraraises issues multitude Languageand identity: the without identity and considering influences institutional andcategorization rights. of byway language of relationship the study cannot we Lastly, choice. language sociolinguisti and sociology of review below is therefore oriented into several sections; the first will explore literature in the fields The domains. national of variety a and fields scholarly myriad spans issue the that is here hurdle How between doesand literaturetheconnection existing understand language Federation Russian the like states in rights human linguistic of effects and implementation un or irrational mirco/miso these study to nothing for seem may it Indeed conclusions.

peaking to the identity of individuals in a linguistic community here is to aim at assessing the assessing at aim to is here community linguistic a in individuals of identity the to peaking Rogers Brubakerand ‘Beyond“Identity”’, Frederick Cooper, - nesadn ad oil oain f paes ihn gvn igitc community. linguistic given a within speakers of location social and understanding First we have to understand what we mean here by terms such as identity and ethnicity. and identity as such terms by here mean we what understand to have we First informed, but it is just these processes we must understand in order to assess the assess to order in understand must we processes these just is it but informed,

Throughout this thesis, categorization (institutional or otherwise) will be will otherwise) or (institutional categorization thesis, this Throughout

sociolinguistic perspective sociolinguistic

cs. Next we will look at the everyday aspects of language and and language of aspects everyday the at look will we Next cs. in order to discuss what we really mean when we employ such 2

Theory and Society Theory and -

functions, often assumed assumed often functions, , this study will regard will study this ,

identity? The main , no.1(2000):

(RF) . CEU eTD Collection Polity theOpen with Press association University, in 1992). 4 3 University 2004.,n.d.). Press, 2 gain (and use) the meanings created within its structure. Language therefore, is not the function of fact exists by a sort of contract with all the members of a community which enables individuals to linguistics, explains that language is not only the most importa any of the myriad elements of culture or group maintenance? De Saussure, in his course on general formed inresponsetoglobalization. In Hall et al’s discussion of modernity for example, we find that there are in fact multiple identities that some literature suggests that modernity may be to blame for a contemporary crisis of identity. constructivist camps of ethnicity, it would be important to note that groupness is not other. each to correspond necessarily don’t which categorization w but unreliable; ethno of categorization the warns, Brubaker as because identity of study the to important is approach This Republic. the of groups linguistic and ethnic of diagram Venn individua on placed is focus study’s everyday the categories; informed have categories imposed state which to extent the address will study my ethnicity and asserts that ethnicity is not a thing in the world but a perspective on the world. While succeeds failsinteraction. inany given or ethnicity as an event, rather than a constant entity, in order to judge exactly to what extent salience

Stuart Hall,and David Anthony G McGrew, Held, Rogers Brubaker, Ibid.

Now the question still remains; why is language so central to the study of identity and not not andidentity study the of centralto remains;so whylanguage still is question the Now th in turn cognitive the follows Brubaker cognition, as ethnicity on study his In ms as b aae f h rltosi bten ntttoa ad everyday and institutional between relationship the of aware be also must e

Ethnicity without Groups / Rogers Groups/ Ethnicity without Brubaker

ls’ self ls’ Modernity andIts Futures - understanding of how they fit into the the into fit they how of understanding

nt of all social systems but that it in

(Cambridge, Mass. :Harvard(Cambridge, 3

Following the cognitive and cognitive the Following - political practice is is practice political

(Cambridge:

only fluid but e study of of study e CEU eTD Collection 8 Discourse Studies 7 Sociology andIts Method 6 5 in that explains he when identity and language between connections the out points he Firstly, artifice. d and sameness of evaluation other.” and and self situated of “contextually configurations informed always, ideologically is identity that means This meanings. social and forms communiti that in formation identity for mechanism a languageis theythat assert sociologists, Like previously discussed identities. local to orientoften speakers as distinction important an is this Dagestan of case the In flexible. and nuanced more a not preclude it in the Identityindividual. is not simply the collection of broad social categories b approached broadly and inclusively by accepting that identity is the product of discourse and does phenomena. cultural and social achieved intersubjectively an as interaction of function a is identity that is argument main The linguistics. power individuals theauthoritycollective over through be ofthe cannot avoided. and social rules and practices which relate to how a group conceives of itself. They exercise a coercive gi socially are which facts are representations Collective be. can authority collective this important how see can we collective representations Durkheim’s to look we When the speaker but

Mary and Hall, Kira ‘Identity Bucholtz Interaction:Linguistic and ASociocultural Approach’, Émile Durkheim Steven and Lukes, Ferdinand de Saussure, Ibid.

Edwards brings forward several important points in his book on Language and Identity. and Language on book his in points important several forward brings Edwards whi by principles five surveys text Bucholtz’s

outside of the individual, a product each member of the collective must assimilate.

7, no.4

Course inGeneralCourse Linguistics

– (England: 2006). Palgrave Macmillan, 5 (10 January 585 2005):

feec bt lo f uhrt ad eeiiay o rans and realness or delegitimacy, and authority of also but ifference

The Rule 7

In this way they argue that sociolinguistics should be should sociolinguistics that argue they way this In s of Sociological Method:Selecteds of And on Texts 4

– 614, doi:10.1177/1461445605054407. es create semiotic links between linguistic linguistic between links semiotic create es

(Columbia University(Columbia Press, 2013). h dniy s nlsd n sociocultural in analysed is identity ch 8

s uh dniy s o sml the simply not is identity such As

ven and condense the the condense and ven 6

ut a 5

CEU eTD Collection 10 9 (outward) centrifugal or (inward) centripetal the through expressed are outcomes social inde those of effect the modify dis/agreement about the collective goals for the minority group (i.e. assimilation or resources. pluralism) may scarce of control majority of degree the are; the origin of the contact situation, the degree of institutional three factors which determine the relationship between the dominant and subordinate groups which which boundaries ethnic andrecognizes th language on study Paulston’s and Paulston in as complexity, mapinDagestan.the linguistic instru are descriptions linguistic related other and This that speakers of several language varieties share a common written form or by national affiliation. mutual i that, being purposes our for important most the dialects, on points important several highlights also He competences. full have they which in languages other in than level different eva higher a has language native thisreasonthe for lingua orother franca; Russian with bilingualism Dagestan compared to in languages native of function the in understood be can This attaining. of capable not are they a still is there that find maylanguage the in fluent become functions instrumental with intertwined are group where the language of daily use is also the ancestral language, ntelligibility is not a requirement for dialects; a dialect may be termed such for the simple fact simple the for such termed be may dialect a dialects; for requirement a not is ntelligibility

John Edwards, John

Christina BrattChristina Pauls The interaction of minority and majority group languages must be regarded in its its in regarded be must languages group majority and minority of interaction The at bilingualism is not stable and serves a variety of functions. The study discusses the Language AndIdentity:Introduction An

ton and G.Paulston, Rolland uto t is paes eas te ae be o omnct o a on communicate to able are they because speakers its to luation

pendent variables. Demands for assimilation, pluralism, and other other and pluralism, assimilation, for Demands variables. pendent

”

5 f h lnug s ta a “usdr wo may who “outsider” an that so language the of

Language andEthnic Boundaries 10 mental to understanding the complexity of complexity the understanding to mental

(Cambridge University oee, t s o s sml, s the as simple, so not is it However, deeper level of communication which communication of level deeper separation from the majority, and “ intangible intangible symbolic elements Press, 2009). , 1976.

CEU eTD Collection Cambridge University Press, 2006). 13 12 11 the downplay to communities linguistic different of speakers to initiate assimilation, the groups may feel a certain affinity towards each other which might cause about speaking particularly ethnicity, and language of study her in interest of also is What identities. layered and it is crucial to understand that individuals use language deliberately to construct those factor. crucial a be can others by ascription and bo group of negotiating question. region andlanguages in the depending on anddisglossia collective bilingualism In findboth we Dagestan domain of use. disglossia; to tied closely is necessity of function a as bilingualism collective that is here point important differ the discusses he Secondly, Dagestan. contemporary in polarized more ever becoming is which bilingualism Multilingualism the late Soviet period. is likely to lead to conflict; as clearly evidenced by the popular fronts and language movements of mind centrifugally or centripetal either are minority and majority the both If groups. of dispositions

Carmen Fought, Edwards, R. John Ibid. ed it most likely leads to integration; but if the groups are each oriented in a different way it it way different a in oriented each are groups the if but integration; to likelyleads most it ed Dagestan, is the relationship between minority groups. Although contact itself is not enough

Additionally Dage in situation linguistic The 12

bilingualism which resulting from the necessity for different languages b languages different for necessity the from resulting which bilingualism Edwards , Language andEthnicity , it is not only the interaction of majority of interaction the only not is it , Multilingualism the study our For bilingualism. collective and individual between ence

undaries. As Fought cites, ethnic identity is negotiated in a social context social a in negotiated is identity ethnic cites, Fought As undaries.

ae svrl motn dsicin; isl, ewe eie n folk and elite between firstly, distinctions; important several makes

(London: Routledge, 1994). tn oee, s uh oe ope. n i bo on book his In complex. more much is however, stan , Key Topics inSociolinguis , Key Topics

13 6

On the other hand, individual identity is multi is identity individual hand, other the On - minority which is at play in the the in play at is which minority

ifrne bten them. between differences tics (Cambridge, UK: ased on the on ased - CEU eTD Collection 14 langue and parole and functions on a plane all its own; spanning the past, present, and future. What Saussure’s de together puts once at which language of category third the as language of function s His Dagestan. in involved dynamics the of on myth, also Saussure’s is fromon important de linguistics, drawing work for ourunderstanding differentiation viefor ainthe ethnic to position mosaic inorder better linguistic extreme such of preservation the enable would habitus the how see can we interested su linguistic why us shows sense theoretical more a in but Dagestan in reality literal quite a is times at capital of form a is culture that assertion His (legitimacy). symbolic and (networks), social education), of structures his are Dagestan on in study multilingualism this for work Bourdieu’s of point important most The Dagestan. in life structuring of part a as understood be clearly more can multilingualism of function the hierarchies, social social structure. When we consider language as a symbolic system which establis and practice cultural between mediates power and institutions and groups, individuals, between the power relations the understanding processes at work in Dagestan concerning language maintenance. For Bourdieu, culture embodies to instrumental is Power Symbolic and Language on book His Bourdieu. of. aware remain to points important be will these republic, the of history the throughout categories ethnic and linguistic of interplay complex the and diversity linguistic compact the Considering

Pierre Bourdieu,

Lastly, it is important to always place ethnicity in its historical context. Levi wo sociolinguistics on study No rvival in the region has been so successful. Since all action, as Bourdieu sees it, is it, sees Bourdieu as action, all Since successful. so been has region the in rvival Language and Symbolic PowerLanguage which which act as the core of all social life.

uld be complete without considering the work of Pierre of work the considering without complete be uld tudy suggests that myth as a universally understood understood universally a as myth that suggests tudy 7

(Harvard University Press, 1991). University(Harvard Press, capital; economic, cultural (as for example example for (as cultural economic, capital; 14

As such culture mediates the relations

of the republic.of the hes and maintains - Strauss’ study

CEU eTD Collection 2008): 536 17 2007). 16 428, doi:10.2307/536768.no. 270(October 1955): 15 life. everyday in nation the of contextandthe content both regardsto in providedbe thatanswersmust mind in keepingpeople, whi in nation the consuming and nation, the performing fieldpositive ofactive resistance. politicize highly is out points Karner everydayness of notion the order, social of reproduction or creation the to understanding of the group. While most of the time social actors are unaware of their contribution refl become culture; actors social politicized when is such ethnicity becoming Karner, For thesis. this in presented identity of study level Everyday identity future. collective their concern which language regarding choices their in as well as today society on Dagestan in Union Soviet duties in society regarding our immediate futures. In this way, our and state present our understand to us helps whichway universal a in understood are past the is imp

Jon E. Fox and E.Fox CynthiaJon Miller Karner,Christian LeviClaude ortant is hisassertion thatmyth hasbeen by inmodern replaced society politics;

o ad Miller and Fox Literature on the study of everyday ethnicity will be an important contribution to the micro – 63. -

Strauss, ‘The StructuralStrauss, ‘The d either way; as the site of mindless reproduction of power structures or the the or structures power of reproduction mindless of site the as way; either d

and language choice Ethnicity andEverydayEthnicity Life

- dis e ot or oan; akn te ain cosn te nation, the choosing nation, the talking domains; four out set Idriss -

its accompanying linguistic imperialism accompanying linguistic its

- The most important domain for us will be talking the nation in nation the talking be will us for domain important most The 16 Idriss,Nationhood’, ‘Everyday

Study ofMyth’, 8 , The New Routledge, (London: Sociology

cie n cl it qeto cmo sense common question into call and ective

ch we can clarify the actions of everyday everyday of actions the clarify can we ch The Journal of American FolkloreJournal ofAmerican The we can understand the legacy of the Ethnicities -

and contextualize the effects the contextualize and

8, no.4(December 15

events of

68, CEU eTD Collection dealing withthese complications. indeed are scholars rights,many consideration of inour discussed below be will etc. as However, more than th may in fact hinder them since the enabling conditions for the preservation of languages entail much it individuals; empower directly not does rights linguistic of promotion the that explains rightly impractical the to points repeatedly he importantly which as discussed above in reference to constructivist thought would cohesiveness; be analytically invalid. group’s Most particular a of preservation the as is preservation language of equation stands critique useful main His more oversimplification. gross of a is favor put, simply in This, alternatives. languages of abandonment deliberate the rather but lingocide, or e save to push the for blame to is argues, Swaan de as sentimentalism, Linguistic confronted. be must which choice momen fleeting most the even of acts discursive because important is everyday the of study The ones. experiential into interactions interethnic nominally turn can syntax or intonation, accent, as such nationhood of but Fox and Miller acts discursive everyday the understanding of components important are nation the about ethno along differences social of ordering the cause which the speakers both consumers and producers, the latter includes the ways of s former being discursive acts which at once describe social reality and are constitutive of it, making differentiat a which Several important counterarguments to this thesis are present in the literature on language language on literature the in arepresent thesis this to counterargumentsSeveralimportant thecoursets in daily of can actions be telling. e e domain of language; i.e. autonomy, cultural reconstruction, consolidation of borders, ndangered languages while in fact there is no such thing as language extinction language as thing such no is there fact in while languages ndangered ion is made between talking about the nation and talking with the nation; the nation; the with talking and nation the about talking between made is ion - Idriss point o

ut that language is also used as a cue by which markers 9

ity of calls for linguistic human rights. He He rights. human linguistic for calls of ity

- cultural lines. Both talking with and with talking Both lines. cultural eeing, eeing, doing, and being

with the the with CEU eTD Collection 2007). 19 European Review 18 repertoires their in hold must minorities ethnic certain that asserts theory choice Laitin’s balance. the maintain to anything do will community a of members where choice binary of sense a poses to the notion of culture being passed d whereby Game members of a community seek Tippingto maintain an equilibrium of culture. The premise is both contrary Shilling’s through short in demonstrated is nationality to approach 3 his and nationality to approach coordination theories about the degree of such diversity and conflict, the focus here will be his discussion of the th this language shift. on studies sociolinguistic of sphere the into brought be cannot understandings constructivist preser language that convinced is Swaan de why me to clear not simply speak is it imperialism, linguistic English of fear which his against empirically cases of number a are there that fact the and statements, these of contradiction accessible.” longer no is culture community the understood assimilating for prospects of upward mobility, de Swaan admits that, “when a language is no longer spe when hand, other the On functions. communicative for up taken be will English that likely more is it since diversity linguistic subverts actually languages of multiplicity the fact, in but diversity

David D. Laitin,David D. AbramLanguages,Linguistic De and ‘Endangered Swaan, Sociolinguistics, Sentimentalism’, aking of the dilemma language communities face in preserving their language in isolation or or isolation in language their preserving in face communities language dilemma the of aking

esis. Although in his considerations of linguistic diversity he presents several different different several presents he diversity linguistic of considerations his in Although esis. Laitin’s book on language and conflict is another argument to be considered in contrast to considered to incontrast argument be to isanother conflict language and Laitin’s bookon div linguistic that claims Swaan De

12, no. 4(October 567. 12, no. 2004): Nations, States, andViolence States, Nations,

own through generations maintaining its distinctiveness and ain s oeo piodal budd o that so bounded primordially somehow is vation ersity is not only not the sole guarantor of cultural of guarantor sole the not only not is ersity

10 ± 1 language ch language 1 ±

(Oxfo

rd ; New OxfordUniversity York: Press,

18 oice theory. oice

Notw tsadn te seeming the ithstanding

The coordination The CEU eTD Collection UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Censuses National political power 21 n.d.). inSov Studies 20 telling. is that categories induced politically within itself of assessment evolving subjectively Arel have pointed out, is that it is not the and Kertzer as study, this concerns what here but studies these of importance the dispute would censuses. Soviet the of reading the to devoted been have books entire Indeed census. throug data of collection the on notably most categorization, institutional ethno language ha why explain partially, least at can, categorization Such categorizations. those on based resources populations; either through their categorizations of groups or through the distribution and of rights and state both as understood be (to institutional Institutional and influence:categorization rights and resources wi resources. As discussed above, Bourdieu’s economy of culture shows us that the equation of rights and rights of calculation a simply insists, he as not, is language minority that assert will study of language choice by macrousing level assumptions a territory or state. I am not convinced that it is possible to assess micro level functions on the process 3

± 1 languages in order to gain access to the maximum amount of rights and resources within that Kertzer Clem, Ralph S.

- oiia eternus A at oy f ieaue a be dn o ise regarding issues on done been has literature of body vast A entrepreneurs. political t ol b ipatcl o osdr suy f dniy ihu rcgiig tt and state recognizing without identity of study a consider to impractical be would It , David I., David s, of all available cultural stuffs, so often become a battle cry for minority groups and minoritygroups for crya battle become sooften culturalavailable stuffs, all s, of iet History and Society(Ithaca, (Ithaca : N.Y.) CornellUniversity Press, c1986, ,” in th material andth material socioeconomic be mobility must reconsidered. Research Guide andSoviet tothe Russian Censuses /Edited by RalphS.Clem , New Perspectives andSocial onAnthropological Demography (Cambridge,

and Census and Identity: ofRace, L Census The Politics Ethnicity, and

Dominique Dominique

Arel. census categories themselves but the function of a group’s

“ Censuses, identityCensuses, formation, strugglefor andthe 11

non nd mathematical equations. Therefore, this - tt isiuin) nlecs n their on influences institutions) state h process such as the the as such process h anguage in

No one No 21 ,

CEU eTD Collection Varady A RightandaResource: HumanApproaches Rights, toLinguistics 23 Census andIdentity 22 indeed is region the throughout life everyday in language Russian of interplay The 1800s. the RF it. present to like may academia as recently categories. likel most are others, of expense the at done languages ethnic certain of standardization the example for factors, other since seen be will the politicization of statistical data on language. To what extent this is a relevant factor in Dagestan of territoriality, principle as The policy. language of terms in but federalism symmetric to asymmetric from the is policies, Union’s Soviet the of ethnici of territorialisation legacy the with problem cited often Another true. questionable in a globalizing world rife with language shift to what extent this statement still holds language.” one’s knows perfectly “each that, decided was it since ethnicity for question proxy a as serve to order on taken was approach This spoke. yourancestors which language that meaningapproach, looking backwarda categorization. In Russia (via the Russian Empire and Soviet Union) native language deriv such of complexities the amplify to categoriza serve only era Soviet the of aspects important Many

Phillipson, Phillipson, Robert.Languages “InternationalInternational in and HumanRights,” Arel, Dominique.

where linguistic imperialism (indeed all forms of imperialism) began as early as the dawn of of dawn the as early as began imperialism) of forms all (indeed imperialism linguistic where

Phillipson census of scholars for known well are language” “native of meaning the on debates The (Budapest: CEU Press,(Budapest: 1999). CEU tion including the Lenin’s includingthe tion

Arel note

point .

“

Language backward categories incensuses: s

s out the fact that globalization is not a phenomena that has emerged as as emerged has that phenomena a not is globalization that fact the out , is most often not unilingual but multilingual, which inherent ty. This has lasting implications not only in regards to the state’s move move state’s the to regards in only not implications lasting has This ty.

indigenization ( indigenization hl hs ehd s seen is method this While

y more telling than the data provided by state sanctioned sanctioned state by provided data the than telling more y 23

This is particularly poignant in the republi the in poignant particularly is This 12

korenisatsiia - as a nationalist’s paradise, it is it paradise, nationalist’s a as )

or forward or policies for example.policies for ed. andTibor Miklos Kontra, - looking? Language: ” in ly leads to

cs of of cs es from the

CEU eTD Collection Linguistic Rights 26 25 ImplementingLinguisticand Human Rights 24 regarding acodified parallel exists li discrepancy by professionals are and thewaythere existinspeakers’way about minds discrepancy language rules between the un point Kontra rights human linguistic of speaking when Indeed language. of context everyday the exploring by Federation Russian the in participation. of level their and state that of control the within living community the of that identity the affect policies recognize language correctly also they terms, instrumental and primordial in resource and object t example, as Bourdieu emphasises, throughout education. This process has been very much at work requir usually this Unfortunately standards. rights by human acceptable linguistic is it assimilation) (without integration as viewed is this since and uncommon not is language common a in proficiency with identity new a into communities ethnic of identity that language policy is the result of decisions made in other domains. The rearranging the linguistic policy…” language for basis fragile are rights language c and power is “the rights that, for foundation so realm enforceable legally the not action state of category nice” “being the into assimilat linguistic In language. depoliticized of expectation consensual the and complex hroughout the RF

Kontra, Miklos. LanguageRannut, Mart. “The in Common Problem,” Kontra, R Miklos, esadn truh ok igitc. hy xli ta i te ae a ta tee xss a exists there that way same the in that explain They linguistics. folk through derstanding While While Rannut ” in ; making study this interestingall themore and important. “’ obert Phillipson, Toveobert Skutnabb Phillipson, D

Language explain on't Speak Hungarian inPublic!’ on't 25 the same vein, Kontra is Kontra vein, same the

This study will seek to expand our understanding of these processes these of understanding our expand to seek will study This s

that the importance of language is i

onstant struggle is necessary to sustain language rights… rights… language sustain to necessary is struggle onstant s

," u ta i i iprat o prah n everyday an approach to important is it that out

,” in ,” in 13

Language

right in stating that most linguistic rights fall rights linguistic most that stating in right - Kangas,Varady. Tibor - A Documentation AnalysisA and ofFolk La 24

nguage especially considering the recognition the considering especially .

ts transformation into a political nguistic human rights. human nguistic .

ion may very well have have well very may ion es coercive measures for for measures coercive es "

Conceptualising 26

This is CEU eTD Collection Geraci 29 117:7 Unionand aftermath.”Soviet its 28 andCommonValuesinRussia Building 27 non hand, other the On linguistics. of field the to limited is literature the rights. While there isimportant work done onthelanguage dive Turkic languages like Tatar and Bashkir, who are notorious for standing up against Russia for their in t la on studies such of focus the Additionally, time. the of efforts institutional and elite the post the concerning cultural/linguistic regarding policies and but that hadinfact inthatexperiment. waySoviet existed tothe prior insta forstructurescorpus elite andthat extent the to those peoples of the South Caucasus (and Baltics) whose titular languages were not only developed on exactly focuses policy, language Soviet of annals the in exists what Furthermore, languages. works, historical including policy language Soviet on focusing primarily space; Russian the in policy language on An introduction tothe case study society Russian an important point to be aware of if one considers the extreme Caucasophobia prevalent throughout

Dowler,London: McGill and Empire. Wayne. Classroom Marshall, David “A politic F. Kisriev,“Republic Enver. ofDagestan: Nation he RF - 42 , RobertWindowLondon: P. onthe East. CornellUniversity 2001. Press, The trend continued on in post Speaking specifically to

center around federal laws and their effectswell on and their lawsfederal around center 27

which has gravewhich has Dagestanis. consequences for - Soviet era. Language policy of the past was/is largely seen through the lens lens the through seen largely was/is past the of policy Language era. Soviet

ey ite oue o te fet o tee oiis n indig on policies these of effects the on focuses little very

the the Russian Federation, while a substantial body of literature exists s oflanguage: of the languageas ainthe dissolution symbol International Journal ofthe Sociology ofLanguage. International Journal

- Soviet Soviet studies on language; the question of ethnic minorities

(Lanham: RowmanLittlefield & 2004). Publishers, ihs a be wdl dbtd n vrey f fields of variety a in debated widely been has rights 14 - Building Inside in Russia'sWomb,” Building

nce were mainly not an issue of impediment,of issue an mainlynot werence - - Queen’s University Press, 2001; known and widely studied cases on cases on widelyknown and studied rsityNorth ofthe Caucasus

- linguistic contempora linguistic

1996. Nation 28

but also but nguage nguage

enous (NC)

- ry ry , CEU eTD Collection World’ Voices:Vanishing ofthe TheExtinction Human Knowledge ofHumanKnowledge:Erosion World’s TheExtinction theErosion of of the Languagesand 31 30 eachactually exist, languageApproximatelybranches categorizations. 35 state past look weonce Tabasaran, Tsakhur, Russian. plus The issue o Rutul, Nogai, Lak, Lezgian, Kumyk, Dargwa, Chechen, Azerbaijani, Avar, Aghul, languages; literary republic’s the from derive mainly which languages official the to corresponding groups republic in the Russian Federation. The last census conducted in 2010 r most corner of the North Caucasus, north of Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is the most heterogeneous Turkic, and Semitic, Mongolic. Indo families; spread widely several as well as Caucasian Northeast and Caucasian Guin New Papua by majority titular republics, represents one of the most linguistically diverse in the world ri non the of comprised is which District, Caucasian North The Districts. Federal Southern Kalmykia. of Republic the and Oblast, Astrakhan and Oblast, Volgograd Oblast, Rostov provinces; three including north further Russian majority regions; Krasnodar Krai and Stavropol Krai. Administratively, the region extends Ossetia North Balkaria, Karachay Adygea, republics; ethnic seven of comprised geographically and extremism. NC the on studies

K. David Harrison, aI For Appendix regional mapsee The Republic of Dagestan, home to just under 3 million inhabitants, lies on the eastern the on lies inhabitants, million 3 under just to home Dagestan, of Republic The The NC

is the northern part of the Caucasian Isthmus between the Black and Caspian Seas,

sadly, focus mainly on aspects of religion and the sociopolitical effects of war of effects sociopolitical the and religion of aspects on mainly focussadly,

(Oxford University Press, 2007); Daniel University(Oxford Press, Nettle and 2007); SuzanneRomaine, ea.

When Languages Die 31 -

lna Igsei, hcna ad h Rpbi o Dagest of Republic the and Chechnya, Ingushetia, Alania, It is home to two of the three indigenous language families; Northwest families; language indigenous three the of two to home is It

In 2010 the region region the 2010 In

: TheExtin f Dagestani diversity becomes much more complex s Languages s 15

ction of the World’sction ofthe Languagesandthe a slt no h Nrh acsa and Caucasian North the into split was

(Oxford University Press, 2000). ecognized ecognized 13 major ethnic - Cherkessia, Kabardino Cherkessia, n n two and an - valed only European, - Russian Russian

- CEU eTD Collection 34 (October 283 1977): Languages‘Mountain ofTongues: of The 33 32 Avarcontinuum wholive within regions. dialect Dargin distant the of speakers those as well as Archins; the branch, Lezgian distant the sub Tsez/Didoyts, Tsezic/Didoic; five Tindints, Karatints, Godoberints, Chamalints, Bothlikhs, Bagulals, sub eight list; following the accept generally can Avar ethnically considered peoples diverse linguistically of categorization the on widely vary sources mentioned, As officials. government with communication and/or literature, media, standard Avar or other lang non of speakers that means This languages. ethnic official as use languages, uncodified often and smaller, of speakers which tradition literary strong a have and codified are which languages family. language (Didoic) Tsezic neighboring the of speakers for as well as family Andic the of speakers 60,000 Avar language has a reported 800,000 speakers and serves as a literary language for approximately speakersand ofcategorization thosespeakers. theethnic of number actual the about questions to region the throughout spoken languages of number the e and families into languages of categorization from ranging debates with Caucasus; the in variety linguistic about consensus little is There 2010. in reported Russians ethnic 3.6% varieties. mutually sometimes of number varying a containing

Борис Махачевич Атаев, anFor excellentand comprehensive review ofCaucasian linguistic languages see, aFor mapsee linguistic II Appendix Avars represent the ethnilargest 32

As a co a As 34

Literary language Literarylanguage hesive republic of Dagestanis however, it is the most homogeneous with only with homogeneous most the is it however, Dagestanis of republic hesive –

314.

uage varieties may use literary Avar for example in school instruction, Аваркий: письменность история, язык,

Beshtints/Kaputchin, Ghinukhts, Gunsibts, Ghinukhts, Beshtints/Kaputchin,

(also known as standard as known (also

city in Dagestan; just under a

the Caucasus’, 16

- - incomprehensible and uncodified language uncodified and incomprehensible branches from Andic; Andis, Akhvakhs, Akhvakhs, Andis, Andic; from branches 33 Annual Review of Anthropology of Annual Review

variants or dialects) or variants third

(АБМ Экспресс, 1996).

Khvarshints; one from from one Khvarshints; of the total populatio - rnhs from branches refers to those to refers J.c. Catford,J.c. stimates on stimates

6 but we but n.

- CEU eTD Collection UNESCO Publishing. 36 Daghestan’, 35 quantitative extentendang of cal might findings my of analysis the While “vulnerable”. as registered are languages literary two these whereas endangered” “definitely asregistered areDargin and Avar except all above listed 15 the Of used. understandi an researchers gives which language andlearning the is speaking on what generation endangered,and criticallydepending endangered severely endangered, definitely vulnerable, categories; four into Federa classified are Russian list UNESCO’s the in languages endangered of list UNESCO’s in feature languages, Dagestani other nine additional an and above, Avar ethnically as listed ethnic confusion regarding the linguistic diversity of Dagestan and indeed how that diversity fits into the and complexity the highlight to serve experiences fieldwork Such language. Avar literary to or althoug Avar, of “dialects” be to variety language their understand language literary the as Avar use who speakers find we Dagestan) of Avar side of the Avar reasons of variety a (for so do to choose or represented) not was ethnicity their (because Avar as census Repub the

Moseley,Languages (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Christopher 3rd inDanger, edn. Paris, LemercierChantal

mosaic. The linguistic situation in Dagestan is in a frightful position. All of the language groups language the of All position. frightful a in is Dagestan in situation linguistic The 35 in functioned has amalgamationethnic how exampleof prime a are Avars the means This ). Additionally, although linguistic mapping shows there are no are there shows mapping linguistic although Additionally, ). lic; many speakers of other languages often have been either forced to identify on the the on identify to forced either been have often languages other of speakers many lic; Cahiers Du Monde DuRusseCahiers et Soviétique

l their classifications into question what is important is not the qualitative but qualitative the not is important is what question into classifications their l -

- Quelqu

Andic Andic language family, through fieldwork experiences (both in and outside erment; just over 18% of the 131 ofthe 18% erment; over just ejay, ‘Problèmes Ethno

h they may be mutually be may they h 17 ng in how many domains the languages is being being is languages the domains many how in ng

, no.2(1990): 359. - Linguistiques Au Soviétique et Politique

languages on the list are Dagestani thelist languages on - incomprehensible to each other other each to incomprehensible tion.

further branches on the on branches further 36

h lnugs on languages The CEU eTD Collection g and individual of complexities the but speculate and theorize may We people. regarding one’s language and identity needs to be investigated through case studies involving real seems field the in data” “real gathering of importance the region the in done studies such of first the be will this s federal a as status its to and equivalents, contemporary their socio tribal of history diversity, ethno compact its to due case important and unique a as serves It outcomes. social Union Soviet the of th through EmpireRussian the into incorporation their From variety. language Dagestani of case the to interest adds Dagestan of history complex the death; language of trend worldwide of fields the andsociolinguistics nationalism, before late. istoo it offer to much has which region, this on light shed to importance pressing of is is agap in done on the realities of life for Dagestanis is scarce. The brief overview above shows us that there existing literature does set an important foundation in the field of linguistics, academic work being ch language in identity of importance the exploring by link missing the on focuses research My region. the in languages small of speakers regarding such as the 3+/ the North Caucasus of the contemporary Russian Federation. Furthermore, broader aimed t acrossunfortunateandhave. can theglobe effectsit trend growing the understands clearly world academic the Indeed languages. Notwithstandin Thus, existing literature has not adequately addressed the issue of indigenous languages in literature the ‘everyday’ regarding oflanguage aspects for citize - 1 theory of minority languages discussed above, can only explain part of the picture

biu. sd fo te a, h suy f ecpin, tiue, n choices and attitudes, perceptions, of study the gap, the from Aside obvious. (SU) g our brief introduction to the linguistic situation in Dagestan and the the and Dagestan in situation linguistic the to introduction brief our g and beyond, Dagestan is an anomaly in a wide range of political and and political of range wide a in anomaly an is Dagestan beyond, and

- political structure which structure political 18

ie n utlnul aetn Wie the While Dagestan. multilingual in oice

is preserved at least to some extent in in extent some to least at preserved is ubject of the RF the of ubject ns across theRF of language death death language of . Considering that Considering . roup feelings and and feelings roup - linguistic linguistic e period e heories heories

and it CEU eTD Collection the institutional and ‘everyday’, are constantly informing and reforming conceptions of identity in two These region. the in identity linguistic of understanding traditional the by informed verysociety,still is everyday place in interaction much one’s waysunderstanding is informing of (starti Republic the in groups ethnic of politicization and institutionalization the of effects entrenched the between battling is Dagestanis of identity The interactions. everyday of choices language the by continuouslyreified wi conflation its of because precisely preserved is identity linguistic Avars, for that, show will I Avars. for life everyday inform that identity of spheres concentric lin ordercomplexities of toshowthe everyday identity. in identity, of types different represent and inform can preservation) linguistic pointedly (more and differentiation in identity formation. Specifically, in my project, I look at how concentric attention onthefunction inDagestanby focusing identities choice of special linguistic ling and ethnic of categories Lastly, an analysis of case this study will show us how is multilingualism affected by institutional Dagestan. in variety language affects identity how inversely, and Dagestan in identity affects of linguistic extinction. By looking into the evidence presented we related questions. Most obviously we must start by investigating why ordinary Avars aren’t afraid nua understand, speak andof. onbehalf inasense choices cannot be understood without considerations provided by precisely those we seek to study, usi ad tnc aeois n ht s o te usa Fdrto hv etece the entrenched have Federation Russian the now is what in categories ethnic and guistic nced understanding to the roles of language in identity maintenance we have to ask several several ask to have we maintenance identity in language of roles the to understanding nced h taiinl utlnuls o Dgsa culd ih h isiuinlzto of institutionalization the with coupled Dagestan of multilingualism traditional The more a gain to and Dagestan in situation linguistic current the of sense make to order In uistic groups. Thus this thesis addresses the issue of the balance of of balance the of issue the addresses thesis this Thus groups. uistic ng from their incorporation into the Russian Empire) and while that that while and Empire) Russian the into incorporation their from ng

can can then examine how language th ethnic identity which is is which identity ethnic th

language choice

spheres; spheres; CEU eTD Collection Methodological Approaches’, 37 the Russian Federation and the Republic of Dagestan itself, one can assess ways in which language of spheres political and social concentric the within themselves identify Dagestanis how clearly notes, the case study is the rarest me cost of matter a is choice language that as assumption the to opposed identity; everyday in play to has language role the of knowledge our develop to continue IDagestanis with andwhom (Avar experien non) have present and historical both factors of difference in the experience of different ethnicgreat groups in Dagestan is which is there show, will analysis my as fact, In republic. the of whole the for data analogous republic. It would I am not claiming that my study is representative for generalizations about all ethnic groups in the language choice of Dagestanis, or any other broadly defined reference to the larger regional space, th of speak I when Furthermore, strongly. too them consider to of lack the only not consensus in the academic world, but the politicization of depart; certain categorizations makes it dubious to which from guideline simple a as serves complex, although grou Dagestani of mapping ethnic and linguistic The study. this in encountered languages the small languages. of language informsthis identity are and how effects everyday the what time, first the for measure, to work this of purpose the is It region. the

Rebecca ‘Language AgheyisiA.Fishman, ABrief and Studies: Survey Attitude Joshua of More work must be done on regions with pervasive multi pervasive with regions on done be must work More I do not intend to prove or disprove the linguistic correctness or plausibility of claims about

be contrary to the purpose of conducting a case study to speak as if it represented

Anthropological Linguistics Anthropological

thod used in sociolinguistic research. - day. When I speak of Dagestanis, I am speaking of those of speaking am I Dagestanis, of speak I When day.

construction for membersconstruction speaking ofcommunities 20

ce which supports my whichce analysis. supports

12, no.5(1 May1970): 137 e linguistic situation in Dagestan, in situation linguistic e lingualism so researchers can can researchers so lingualism - benefit analysis. benefit 37

By By understanding more

dependent on a variety

As Fishman As

– 57.

ps,

CEU eTD Collection RF str federal the into fits Dagestan how to devoted is portion substantial A languages. their and Dagestanis effect which informal, and formal both institutions, the of development the society.multilingual in choice language about more us tell will way that used being language each evaluate they how whe rather, important less are transmission of modes the sum, In below. discussed be will findings important several aspect, linguistic folk media (TV and print), schools, institutions, cultural groups, political representation, etc. As for the tr of modes typical the of most speakers, of location the to according use, and have languages literary most that know we transmission of modes available the For languages. these of modes available the th for transmission of function the both is This society. in experience everyday guides byand communities. families, individuals, daily of series a but choice single a of not comprised is which life realityof simple between variation any or language that is find we What people. ordinary for choice language of realities the articulate clearly more can languages. small of speakers for clearly articulate the complexities of language choice and the i more advocates rights’ human linguistic and researchers help can Dagestan in identity linguistic of case The maintenance. and formation identity ethnic of aspect integral an as serves choice

in the post I will begin, in the next chapter, by apresenting brief history of Dagestan in order which matrix the to significantly contribute choices linguistic of series complex These - -

independence era in order to assess whether it is it whether e language varieties in question and more personal processes of beliefs about about beliefs of processes personal more and question in varieties language e

is very rarely viewed by ordinary people as a choice; rather it is the the is it rather choice; a as people ordinary by viewed rarely very is

the preservation of one’s mother tongue, the shift to a state language, language, state a to shift the tongue, mother one’s of preservation the

When we begin to take on these types of case studies, scholars studies, case of types these on take to begin we When

n speakers use each language in their repertoire and repertoire their in language each use speakers n 21

the status of rights awarded (and not) as well as mportance of language maintenance

choices made made choices ucture of the the of ucture ansmission; ansmission;

to show to CEU eTD Collection avenues future research. for everyday identity and linguistic choice for Avars in Dagestan and offer some of state the about conclusions some draw will I Finally, above. outlined theories and literature a on based and comprehensive analys findings central the present then will I participants. and locations, research they intera ways which in are; Avars the who of description thorough a with end Iwill needs. groups’ ethnic diversity and its concerning mattersdecidingin hasrepublic the control powerand of amount the Chapter 3 will turn to the study, starting with a thorough description of the methodology, the of description thorough a with starting study, the to turn will 3 Chapter ct with and differ from other groups in Dagestan.ct andother with from differ groups in is, a discussion will follow on the implications of these results in light of the

recommendations on CEU eTD Collection 38 Unfortunately resettlement. promoted emissaries the as Empire Ottoman the to fled Caucasians North million a deportations over and occurred mass empire by the Caucasus subsumed been had 19 the of writers Russian great the of some grea a only not is Shamil Imam Dagestan. Gunib, in Russians the to surrendered Shamil however, 1859 In Cherkess. and Abkhaz the as west far as but Dagestanis and Chechens only not including region the of portion who Avar, ethnic an III, Shamil Imam by led successfully very was Caucasians 1817 from Wars Caucasian the during resistance fierce faced Islamicaforementioned empireseven south. further the from protection sought who south the to brothers Christian their to access direct for need the Great in the latter half of the 18 o reign the with starting swing full into came conquest Russian the until alliances regional Caucasus century the Safavid and Empire Russian the in incorporation their with starting depth; in more considered be Caucasus has a long and complex history, but for the purposes of this study several moments must their of aspects important few a understand first must we A b Chapter 1

For example;For rief history Russia’s Russia’s southern expansion however, had always proven a problem for the empire as they If we are to understand the atog mitiig cneto truh Islam through connection a maintaining although , : Multilingualism: context in

Hadji byLeo Murad Tolstoy.

Ottoman Empires had effectively split the southern t hero across the NC the across hero t

contemporary situation for Dage th

century. Russia

, and par and , 23 etr woe bu him. about wrote century

n conquest in the NC ticularl history. The geographic region of the the of region geographic The history. , y for Dagestanis and Avars; even even Avars; and Dagestanis for y

- were ruled by local khans and and khans local by ruled were 84 Te eitne h North the resistance The 1864. stanis in the Russian Federation

was precipitated by their

38 Caucasus but the North

fe te at f the of last the After

united a great a united . By the 17 the By f Peter Peter f th ,

CEU eTD Collection York:Oxford Clarendon Unive Press ; 40 39 betweendistinctions ofgroups rightsavailable each may types and claim. the l the through viewed be and ways several up broken be can they recognition, and rights language their minorities, for nationalizing policies for redress of the Soviet past. When speaking about linguistic and ethnic cohesive of feelings own Russians’ a address and state democratic form to need the with balance a strike now must country the groups, minority of RSFSR of composition multiethnic the only not inherited Having situation. precarious a in itself Federal and toethnicity approaches language present legacy. Soviet e the of part a as remain structures legal contemporary of much as Dagestanis, for life effect began the codifying the centralizing elites, modernizing and administration, local coopting of tactics to changed were neglect benign of policies Vorontsov Mikhail Viceroy of control better at aimed were which of many reforms; left died enandwere routemany as sold others slaves onarrival. this

Will Kymlicka,Will Frederik Coene, proved to be to proved The Russian Federation Russian The administrative sweeping made Empire Russian the 1870s and 1860s the Throughout ( Russian Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

the first instance of genoci of instance first the Multicultural Citizenship: A TheoryRights Liberal ofMinority Multicultural The Caucasus The Caucasus

languages of theNC languages of

n o mra seii dmis Terss ie ylca om important form Kymlicka like Theorists domains. specific myriad of ens

Russia’s short unsuccessful attempts at Russification and overall overall and Russification at attempts unsuccessful short Russia’s

is the largest multiethnic state in the world which currently finds finds currently which world the in state multiethnic largest the is

education in the region. the in education -

An Introduction rsity1995). Press, . Now, let us move forward, to the federal aspectswhich usmoveforward, tothe let Now, de by Russians in the region since half of those who those of half since region the in Russians by de

(Routledge, 2009). ) but also the legacy of imperial domination discrimination and their reactionary push push reactionary their and discrimination

It was during this era Russian scholars scholars Russian era this during was It the Caucasus. Under the leadership of leadership the Under Caucasus. the 39

Pap also does this

(Oxford; New

ver ver the CEU eTD Collection 1994. 43 PerepisRussian). Azerbaijanis, other and0.7%ethnicity of 42 anddefining membership minority boundaries, communities pp.1 manuscript, 41 minority has managed Dagestan qualifymeeting notto groups, thecriteria. despite ofobviously a aimed laws at looking when Furthermore, status. language of the former asymmetrical system as Tatarstan and Baskhortostan have done in their struggles for maythis theycase inDagestan. notbethe toretain Additionally, unable been have largeamounts scholars claim that struggles for recognition are a precondition for further stages of preservation, several although that example, for suggests research own my reasons; several for respect this in 10 over just homogeneomost the is ethnicallybut bothlinguisticallyand RF the of republic heterogeneous most the is interestingly it Most Caucasus. North the of republics seven the of one st As Dagestan. of Republic the affected not) have (or have measures legislative addresses the changes in contemporary laws of the RF, the focus will center on how these different betwee interaction the many havefocused their scholars workthese onone aspects, of holistically will look paper this at of recognition, rights for reproduction (in the case of language for example), and resources. While recognizeof context of and thepolitics recognition rights. inaddressing theimportant former) the than more latter (the both that is work their of point important the survey, this of approach.structuredlegalmore a within

CharlesOthers, TaylorAnd and Census results show3.6 L.András Pap:

Minority politics can be understood by looking at three int % 42

of its inhabitants areof inhabitants its of - Murphy 2010.ru. 2011 2010.ru.

n the three, since each informs or re or informs each since three, the n ’s Law Legal’s onthechoiceof identity? free difficulties in andpolitical % inDagestan ethnic living Russians as as well

- 12 Multiculturalism: ExaminingMulticulturalism: ofRecognition the Politics - 19.

non 41 .

“ While neither of these frameworks fit within fit frameworks these of neitherWhile Перепись - Dagestani origin. Dagestan is particularlyinteresting Dagestanis origin. Dagestani 25

- 2010: русских становится больше” 2010: русских становится - informs the others. While this section this While others. the informs t additional rights and resources for for resources and rights additional t erconnected aspects; the politics 3.2 % Chechens - 28 us republic in that in republic us ated, Dagestan is Dagestan ated,

the scopethe , 4.5% ,

(in 43

CEU eTD Collection state;Russian a civic markerof identity. for those 45 44 era. Soviet the of end the until categorizations census for used and updated was which Empire “scientifically” put these is to anthropologists and ethnographers of teams sent authorities Russian the period, Soviet early questions of language, since any decision to standardize one inherently must exclude others. In the benefits. for thresholds acceptable Decisions about which aboutcategories to include become political choice decision the and making category of process the is true holds still obviously identity fire under inpost of view primordial very this extent what To shift. language with methodmight this language.” one’s knows proxy perfectly “each that, decided was a it since ethnicity for asquestion served Language spoke. ancestors your which language that meaning approach, t In categorization. census of scholars for known well are language” “native of meaning the on debates The past. imperial) even (and Soviet their from over carried categorization on policy present of much that is RF the for matter R the within function processes these how understand to important is it however one, chapter in review literature the countin Categorization and counting

The meaningwords ofthe two Kertzer and Arel. While While ethnic entrepreneurs try to take advantage of this situation, it is the state who controls categorization, between g, and minority Much ofthe literature protection. topic this was surrounding mentioned in relationship the is consider to have we component first The

ethnically of Slavic/Russian decentethnically ofSlavic/Russian be seen as a nationalist’s paradise, it is questionable in a globalizing world rifeglobalizing be isquestionable asparadise, it ina seen a nationalist’s Census and Identity Census

ussian sues to rest. What resulted was the Red Book of Peoples of the Russian -

Soviet de Soviet F

ederation

for

‘ bates means of it be to what Russian he RF, native language derives from a backward looking looking backward a from derives language native RF, he

through the through

whereas whereas ’

are im 26

legacy of the Sovi the of legacy portant to distinguish; portant distinguish; to rossiskii

refers or topeople things rossis s, especially when it comes to et Union et kii . 45 russkii

. The fact of the the of fact The .

is reserved

of the 44

While CEU eTD Collection 49 48 Caucasus 47 46 unrecognized claimedcategories in the process censusof data gathering as ones. different reclassifications. NC the in factor is supported by the fact that the sim last This largergroup. a within identity affective of levels varying to opposed as registers official of efficacy the for levels different at made be can claims identity suggests, Dagestan in research morefavorable;identities seco orlesscertain that makeand due may topolicies change two factors, first, felt identity and claimed identity in indigenous peoples are not always congruent fixed with nationality, claimed nationalit documents were there though even era, Soviet the throughout RF; the in explore as Dagestanis a not identification; for example a study by Ware et al in 2001 showed that most identifiedcitizens first bureaucracy. of function a states that it is not clear to what extent combining categori he when Sovietization and Russification of processes the about observation important an makes scholars estimate those listed on the census are between a quarter and a third of the reality. some and time over diminished census the on available nationalities of number the However,

Kertzer and Arel. Clem, Zürcher,Christoph Clem, 49

Indeed the question of accuracy and reliability in census data is an important avenue to to avenue important an is data census in reliability and accuracy of question the Indeed s rl xlis te 99 ess a 18 eonzd aeois u tee ee 823 were there but categories recognized 128 had census 1989 the explains, Arel As iation where there were almost seven times more self Research theRussianandSoviet Censuses /Edited Guideby to RalphS. Clem Research theRussian andSoviet Censuses /Edited Guide by to RalphS.Clem

(New York: New York University Press, 2007). (New York New University York: Press, because of the inadequate anticipation of the kinds of responses which led to ad hoc ad to led which responses of kinds the of anticipation inadequate the of because 48

t members of their respective ethnic group. of theirethnic t members respective culy l te a t te at oit ess e id hs ye f ethnic of type this find we census Soviet last the to way the all Actually Census and Identity Census

The Post The hs fntos f aeoiig r cmlctd y oa affective local by complicated are categorizing of functions These y often changed between censuses. This may have been the cause of

Soviet Wars:Soviet .

ple process of census taking created problems Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict, and Conflict, Ethnic inthe Rebellion, Nationhood 27

es was due to real assimilation or simple

- 47 identified nationalities than official

a result of the fact that . . especially nd, as my nd, as my

Clem CEU eTD Collection 2003): 213. 52 the Caucasus’, 51 doi:10.2307/3246617. Identities’,State, Contested 50 mar mixed of children of cases in line paternal the following like norms followed sometimes decisions these although how is interesting, more Even consultation. much interesti is backward looking process census takers were instructed to use. The process of registering identity same the in holder each classified which element” “fifth the as known is what included passports docum such One identification. fixed a included documents most and identification with concerned prolifically was SU the above, mentioned which identity individual with do to little very had era Soviet the throughout identification collective to way one no was there that other contexts. Therefore the complex ascription of in translatable necessarily arenot whichetc. scientific, political, administrative, theyway own be benefits. causing were collectives these on ( collectives l the as citizens may volunteer either regional or sub

Alain Blum, ‘IdentitiesAlain History’, Blum, Soviet in RadvanylJean Muduyev, Peoples andShakhmardan of S. ‘Challenges Facing the Mountain Dominique Arel, ‘DemographyPost intheFirst and Politics remained biographic andremained relational. biographic The problem of categorization and counting does not end at the census however. As As however. census the at end not does counting and categorization of problem The

n dsrbto plce of policies distribution and 51 n vrsiain f onan populations mountain of overestimation an

ng in that, like the census, often officials made decisions on behalf of citizens, without citizens, of behalf on decisions made officials often census, the like that, in ng It is also important to note that each administrative unit developed categories in their in categories developed unit administrative each that note to important also is It

kolkhozy Eurasian Geography &Geography Economics Eurasian

)

led to more opportunities for corrupting the numbers; numbers; the corrupting for opportunities more to led

sometimes Population (English Edition, 2002 (EnglishPopulation Edition,

categorize citizens. For this reason the often arbitrary practices of of practices arbitrary often the reason this For citizens. categorize

the

still 1930 52

eodd s naiat o ter aie ilg ( village native their of inhabitants as recorded

- ethnic identities. Contemporary European History Contemporary - 1950 28 ent was the passport; from 1932 from passport; the was ent

48, no.2(March 157 2007): nationa

when

o te ae f loain f ud a funds of allocation of sake the for

l identities in the SU h pan wr alte t mountain to allotted were plains the 50 - -

Soviet Censuses: Mistrusted ) Additionally, Soviet policies such , no. 6 (2002): 801, , no.6(2002): riages; they very often often very they riages; people who reside who people

12, no.2(May resulted in the fact – 77. - 1997 all Soviet Soviet all 1997

aul nd nd d ) CEU eTD Collection forConvention of the National Protection Strasbourg, 1.II.1995 Minorities. 54 2005): 211 “nationality”Internal and the Registration Passport*’, 53 According to the constitution, the RF is made up of 89 constituent units which are all equal in their era. Soviet the of relic a also is understand, to important is it RF, the of structure federal the of minorityof rights. politics the impacton significanta having each recentralization; and Federal restructuring include to citizens th allowing by issue the “solved” officially state the until emblem, regional and language ethnic the included which passports Russian in insert an add to decided Dagestan, including republics, confusion to legitimate claims for prove special rights and reso to difficult more be add would importantly most assimilation, and demarcation, official without grounds ethnic further on discrimination to lead would it feared minorities hand, must be able to choose whether or not to identify as a member of their ethnic group. o Convention Framework Constitu 1993 the on centered global stance with official aligning The by practices. state the democratize to claims and RF the across identity of sense The federal government’s desire to recentralize was matched with their need to foster a more civic is theadministrative territory inquestion. minorities other and nationality, titular the Russians, between relations the upon contingent were

The Constitution ‘BetweenSven Simonsen, Minority Liberties: and Civil Rights Russi The sudden abolition of the fifth element created massive resistance from minority gro Post – 29, doi:10.1080/00905990500088578. - needne usa hs en eea sae o dmcaiain regionalization, democratization, of stages several seen has Russia, independence

of t eir nationality ontheir birthcertificates.

he Federation Russian 26.1); (Article n Minority Rights, ratified in 1996, which both state that individuals that state both which 1996, in ratified Rights, Minority n

Nationalities Papers Nationalities urces afforded to minority groups. Several

Council ofEurope.Council

in n te oni of Council the and tion a’s Discourse over

33, no. 2 (June 33, no.2(June (Article 3.1

Framework 54

On the other )

The basis The

Europe’s ups. ups. CEU eTD Collection December 2008): 59 IdentityLinguisticFormer Soviet Republics’, inthe 57 (May 2008): 353,doi:10.1080/09668130801947960. for Sep with the federal central government. 56 20. Pra 55 balanc the change and structure federal the regularize ( districts former assimilated which status special of territories undefined legally the including emerged have units territorial administ for categories new several Additionally, strategies. Putin’s of result a as RF the of linguistic mixed identitie or isolation political and cultural between choose must now which groups minority for situation difficult a to led has RF the of laws in shift evident The use. language to va lost have regions the result a as and well.center as the with agreements separate own its but laws and constitution own its making only not republic case by case a on donewas result a as and groups ethnic appease to desirea administrative functions. Unfortunately for the Russian state, this practice was in large part due to administ approach, this Under federalism. asymmetric of form the took which policies) Soviet late of continuation entity. national over of however, center the with relations

Dmitrii Zamiatin, ‘ThDmitrii 1992 From V. A. K.H. Kartashkinand Abashidze, ‘Autonomy A. and inthe Federation:Theory Russian

ctice’, aratism in Ethnic Republics in aratism ofthe Federation’, Russian Several stages of reorganization have occurred in the territorial and administrative structure s with Russian bilingualism supportthe s withRussian to nation International Journal on Minority & onMinority Rights International Journal Group - 2001 regional elites signed 42 bilateral treaties and about 200 related2001 regionalelites signed 42bilateral treatiesabout 200 agreements and 56 55

Since then, the RF has become increasingly recentralized under the Putin regime Putin the under recentralized increasingly become has theRF Since then,

eti’ ery needne r sw hg ices o rgoa pwr (a power regional of increase huge a saw era independence early Yeltsin’s aie ertre wr gatd agr oto oe a ait o clua and cultural of variety a over control larger granted were territories rative –

71. e TerritoryImage Geographicand Russia’s ofNostalgia Problems of

okrugs

) into larger units. The purpose of the new category was to to was category new the of purpose The units. larger into ) LoukPoppe,EdwinMinescu, Anca Hagendoorn, ‘Support rying degrees of their autonomy on aspects from elections elections from aspects on autonomy their of degrees rying

100 ethnic groups, only 53 of them have their own their have them of 53 only groups, ethnic 100 30

Russian Politics & Politics Russian Law

e of power between the center and regions; regions; and center the between power of e - state identity.

10, no.3(September 2003): 203 Europe - 57 Asia Studies

basis leading to each to leading basis 46, no.6(11

60, no.3 rative – CEU eTD Collection doi:10.1163/157181108X332596. Impact’, 59 212 Ethnic Dimension’, 58 registrati NCA of boom first the After hierarchies. formal inter of source a became above, discussed status special of withterritories like top, the to race NCAs’ the Thus projects. their for funding to access gain to means governm central the with directly more connect to possibility the understood however, representatives Ethnic regions. the with relations control to opportunity an as law the viewed th in state, the Since aims. different vastly with opportunity the approached representatives ethnic and state autonomy of concept the on clarity of lack the to Due efficacy. their in restrictions to lead that policies the certainethnic groups. self territorial Na between different variation large to leading charter own its created unit administrative new each Additionally, for legislature the in representation proper of reduction the and communities reality. a to follow the have an equal relationship to the central government. At the same time, these new units are meant de facto

Nicky Cultural‘National AutonomyI intheFederation: Russian Torode, Oksana‘TerritoriesAlexander Oracheva Osipov,of“ and tional Cultural Autonomies (NCA). The federal law allowed for the first time, a form of non of form a time, first the for allowed law federal The (NCA). Autonomies Cultural tional – 32, doi:10.1080/13523271003712534. nte oto fr oto ad gny n ioiy usin hs en h ceto of creation the been has questions minority on agency and control for option Another

de International Journal on Minority andGroup onMinority Rights International Journal 58 -

federalization federalization of the types of constituent units which according to the constitution each ht hy i achieve did they What

territorial organization of ethnicity o - determination regarding cultural issues to be enacted by public organizations for for organizations public by enacted be to issues cultural regarding determination okrugs Journal of Communist Studies & Studies Communist of Politics Journal Transition

e end, is the gatekeeper to autonomy, representation, and rights, the state state the rights, and representation, autonomy, to gatekeeper the is end, e 59

However, after the enactment of the law i ofthelaw enactment aftertheHowever,

and theircapacities. functional

a te rain f oml irrhe bten ethnic between hierarchies formal of creation the was

31 f f the RF but that dimension has

ons the central government not only only not government central the ons Special Status” in Russia: The inRussia: Status” Special

15, no.2 n 1996 there was a inn 1996therewasswiftshift – 3 (2008): 179

- 26, 2010): no.2(June tnc optto and competition ethnic mplementation and mplementation

proved proved not to be certain groups. groups. certain – 93, ent as a a as ent - CEU eTD Collection 62 Social Sciences 61 60 via a system of “international is best known for its stagnation but lesser known was his emphasis on, “rebuilding human nature” resulting in the loss of languageRussian as a marker of ethnicRussian identity. The Brezhnev era under the guise of building communism via convergence ( class a to according a of Lenin’s class leadership. in conflicts to due stable never was itself which ideology Soviet in grounded policies greater on based always implicit; were policies linguistic that in ethnicity and language regarding policies Soviet with explain Rannut past. Soviet Russia’s from remains much categorization, Linguistic legislation openedsituation inthe upthedebateRF. onthequestion national policy often worse left than minority before off groups registrationNCAs; on theof in changes the hand, one the On Autonomies. Cultural National Federal for Council Consultative associations, voluntary than useful more no became they which by NCAs, of function the restrict to began nd local languages, which gave way to Stalinist repression setting to eliminate ethnic groups groups ethnic eliminate to setting repression Stalinist to way gave which languages, local nd

Mart Rannut,‘Linguistic Policy Union’, inthe Soviet Ibid. Ibid. - based phenomenon and this is why we find such an oscillation in strategy. From the From strategy. in oscillation an such find we why is this and phenomenon based

When it comes to linguistic policy in the RF, as mentioned above in issues of of issues in above mentioned as RF, the in policy linguistic to comes it When korenizatsiia 60

hy lo blse ohr fiil om o ehi rpeetto lk the like representation ethnic of forms official other abolished also they 3, no. 3 (September 1990):(September 437. 3, no.3 -

based approach. The shift to Russian continued through the Krushchev era era Krushchev the through continued Russian to shift The approach. based

; the policy ofrooting idealscommunist through the agency of local elites 61

However, l However, education”.

anguage always had an important function since it is not anot is it since function important an had always anguage 62

Gorbachev’s 32

Innovation: Journal TheEuropean of perestroika sblisheniye

and ) and assimilation ( glasnost s the overarching issues issues overarching the s

proved to be the the other, sliyaniye outset the ) CEU eTD Collection 42 language: languageas a sym 64 Identity Republics’. inthe Former Soviet 63 language in 1995 to Russian on Council the up set Yeltsin languages. local the to status official gave constitutions status, language for calling fronts national in increase an of titular groups around the language issue. As the main i the mass mobilization reaction to a as in1990 language Russian laws begins story of the SU.The of dissolution the during up sprang that issues of resurfacing the simply is law language newest and laws beformed. must time, the spheres of use for the Russian language as well as the legal norms by which language use ha goal This language. of questions on center the and regions between conflict potential address to need the is which of least not functions, of number Russian language which was rejected by the Federal Council in 2003. The law is meant to fulfill a Russification. The authoritarian rule towhichhe refers likely most the2001draft includes of practices linguistic authoritarian their to due is image geographic contemporary Russian’s trouble for linguistic and ethni linguistic identity Russian contemporary the in ambivalence is there Additionally, SU. the of heir cultural direct self of denial continuing and simultaneous the determination for groups. national to due SU the of coffin the in nails final

Marshall, David (1996) F. Za

miatin, ‘The ofNostalgiamiatin, LinguisticImage Geographic Territory Russia’s of and Problems Notwithstanding the present shift in laws impacting minority rights and protection, and rights minority impacting laws in shift present the Notwithstanding has language Russian the shows, above outline brief very the As 63

which has led to new legislation to bolster such an identity, spelling even more deal deal with the problems around the loss of status for Russian language. In 2000

bol in the dissolution of aftermath.” theSoviet Unionandits thedissolution bol in 117:7 International Journal ofthe Sociology ofLanguage.

c minorities. As Zamiatin has noted, the continuing Soviet flavor of

s taken on the role of defining, for the first the for defining, of role the on taken s mpetus for the dissolution of the SU was 64

it is no surprise that new republics’ new that surprise no is it

a lot to speak for as the as for speak to lot a

“A of politics law on the - - CEU eTD Collection doi:10.1080/01434632.2010.536237. & Developmentof Multilingual Multicultural 68 http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000 67 Language’, 66 Theory Ed. 65 down by instituting the following requirements; a maximum population of 50,000 who of number the cut to ablewas Russia norms. international to according groups as indigenous peoples although at least an additional 100 groups technically qualify as indigenous peoples of the North, numbered small “indigenous as recognized legally are them of 41 only RF, the across groups ethnic identified 200 over Of peoples. Indigenous on 169 Convention ILO the ratified also have in 2006 Federal Target Program entitled The Russian Language to increase the state language in education the of adoption the example for including contrary; the to measures legislative of myriad find we prop any prohibits the use of Russian language in regional governments as well. In fact, Article 29 of the Constitution requiring by bounds its oversteps law the that troubling also is It language. own their for people community imagined the of force unifying a as language Russian on stress the for argument The Russian. promotion of reinterpretation impet main the Russian; of degradation the to lead which actions prohibits law the things, other among Although, law. draft the in resulted which council the reinstituted Putin

The Chevalier, F. ‘LanguageJoan PolicyFederation: as intheRussian Russian the“State” Michael Blake. IrynaLinguisti of Ulasiuk, ‘Legal Protection Con Not only has ratifiedtheCouncil Russia - 2010. stitution

66 Will andAlanPatten Kymlicka Ab Imperio

is weakened by the law’s statement of intent t intent of statement law’s the by weakened is 68

“ aganda which claims linguistic superiority of any language over another over language any of superiority linguistic claims which aganda

Lang of the Federation Russian 29.2 (Article

Siberia, and the Far East.” These are the only groups that are legally protects , no.1(January 285. 2005): uage Death and Liberaland Deathuage in Politics,”

- retd rights oriented

- 01.htm 01.htm

(Oxford : Oxford 2003.,n.d.). University Press,

32, no. 1(February 71 32, 2011): 65 c Diversity in Russia: Past and Present’,c Diversityand Past inRussia: 34

of Europe’s Framework theyof Europe’s onRights, Minority

hc nw ou o te oe tt language: state sole the on focus now which

) . For English version English version . For

o increase the respect of the Russian the of respect the increase o Language Rights Language Rights – 83,

and Political and Political recognized groups recognized s is n the in lies us compactly Journal

but

CEU eTD Collection Zurnal Numbered Russia. (English)’, Peoples of 72 24 1998,#126 OF THEPEOPLES OFTHERUSSIAN amendedby the Federal FEDERATION(as July law, 71 doi:10.1080/096681 A Consociational Approach’, 70 69 result. a as legislation the of purpose social the meet not does and discriminatory is RF the in accordance of withtheir needs. number the of irrespective protection and development to right the have languages that states which RF the of Languages on Law the of 9(2) Article to contrast stark in spec territorythe Republic the in groups recognized linguistically all peoples of InRussia. order to avoid internal ethnic conflict, they simply asubmitted list including ove the in included be to peoples, indigenous numbered ofethnicthe continued andsplitting the groupsneeds suit lumping to representatives. ofethnic ethno for incentives the Furthermore others. than indigenous more as categorized are groups some whereby competition we saw above a choosing not government has been effectively able to uphold these restrictions based on census results by simply group. ethnic distinct a as identify and life, of way traditional their maintain region, remote a inhabit

R. Sh. Garipov, Sh. R. ‘The toUseMother and Right toProtect RUSSIANLANGUAGESLAW SOVIETREPUBLICTHE FEDERATIVE SOCIALIST ON Robert BruceEnver‘Ethnicand Kisriev, Dagestan: WareParity and in Democratic Pluralism ‘AutonomyKartashkin and Abashidze,

84, no.4(July 157 2012): According to a 2000 decree, Dagestan was supposed to compile their own list of small of list own their compile to supposed was Dagestan decree, 2000 a to According sd fo te tity eie limits defined strictly the from Aside to count certain groups separately; for example the Andi, Karata, and Gunizb who as - re registered as Avars. Ф3). Article 9(2).Ф3). Article ified by the law is eligible for the additional rights or resources. This fact stands stands fact resources.This or rights additional the for eligible is law the by ified 30020016503.

- corruption in order to counteract state categorizations state counteract to order in corruption 71 Europe

As Garipov rightly concludes, the definition of indigenous peoples rightlytheconcludes, As Garipov definition

–

67. 69 -

Asia Studies

These regulations have provided another instance of ethnic Russian JuridicalRussian Journal/ in the Russian Federation’.in the Russian 35

f nieos rus n h R, h central the RF, the in groups indigenous of

53, no.1(January 105 2001): 70

however in the end, no language outside of outside language no end, the in however rall list of small of list rall - Tongue among Indigenous Small amongTongue

Rossijskij Juridiceskij - numbered indigenous numbered

and quotas means means quotas and

– paes u in but speakers 31, -

72 -

CEU eTD Collection Federation’, 73 consociational government headed by a 14 member State Council, each major ethnic group gaining li diversity. of degree high a such has peoples) Dagestani of collective a (as group authority to the titular nations. This is an interesting point to consider in Dagestan where the titular institut republics most SU, the of breakup the After fold. the into back republics the bring to attempt Putin’s in case the also was This Constitution. 1993 the with regions the align to desire Putin’s from sprang RF the in policy of recentralization The independence transition to structures rightssuch preservation. as meantlinguistic ensure to internationa with complying the appearanceof was giving succeeded indoing he regional rights.What approaches tominority streamline or norms legal clarify to all at little done have measures legislative his recentralize, t attempts Putin’s all for that us shows also it Yet, language. de through both state; unified a protection to promotion minority from focus in shift clear a been has there strategy, Soviet in prevalent or insignificant. which in its Stalinist roots was not a quantitative measure but qualitative the in sense of backward This could not be more accurate considering

B DonahoeB PlaceIndigeneity et and inthe al.,‘Size Construction of Russian inthe As previously mentioned, much of the rationale for changes in the federal structure an oscillation the like much that, us shows RF the in law contemporary of survey This h rpbi sle te su o rpeetto b cetn a ope ad unique and complex a creating by representation of issue the solved republic The

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY CURRENT 73

l norms while actually finding ways of limiting the effectiveness of effectiveness the limiting of ways finding actually while norms l

federalization and protection of Russian as the state the as Russian of protection and federalization 49, no. 6(December 993 2008): the etymology of the legal concept of “small people” 36

ed their own constitutions, giving significant giving constitutions, own their ed

rsrcue h fdrto and federation the restructure o – gitc n ethnic and nguistic 1020.

d the CEU eTD Collection 76 75 21, no.1(January 26 2005): 74 party the regarding met be could standards federal that way a such in structure consociational Dagestan Constitution. Russian the with inconsistencies prevent from commonsocial objectives forming. on informal networks leading reliance stronger a caused independence following region the in support of loss the Additionally groups. ethnic more thelarger powerful of more allianceswith oneor began temporary forming promoting the creation of ethnically based organizations, and hel ethno of form the in emerged re system this SU the of collapse the After large. at community the of integrity political the to confederations between neighboring villages of differing ethnic origins thus subordinating kinship These Empire. Russian the into incorporation dist and cooperation however. disturbance. any of event the in balance ethnic function positions of replacement the Additionally, regions. multinational in elected be to groups national other o from votes also but group own their run positions legislative and ministerial of votes on only not dependant are candidates that such devised is system the but proportionality for Elections rights. veto to access

Ware‘Ethnic and Dagestan’. Kisriev,Parity in Pluralism Democratic and Zürcher, Enverand Bruce Kisriev Robert Hegemony Ware, ‘Russian inDagestan’, n 03 Ptn eadd ht ah eulc okd no hi cntttos for constitutions their into looked republic each that demanded Putin 2003, In as known governance, multiethnic of system historic The

The Post The -

Soviet Wars Soviet inguished Dagestan as a coherent cultural entity long before their their before long entity cultural coherent a as Dagestan inguished –

55. to further ethnic consolidation which fragment the political elite and

parties which simultaneously reinforced ethnic affiliation, by by affiliation, ethnic reinforced simultaneously which parties .

74 37

76 This approach was no entirely alien to Dagestan to alien entirely no was approach This djamaats

s on a “packet” system which maintains the maintains which system “packet” a on s

ucind ie proto like functioned was tasked with reforming their their reforming with tasked was ped to maintain a balance as elites djamaats

, both created ethnic ethnic created both , Post - Soviet A - consociational consociational ethnic n ffairs

75 -

CEU eTD Collection no. 1/2(September 142. 1998): IdentitySivertseva,Ethnic ‘Culture and inDaghestan’, 81 80 79 3 (1999): 359 78 77 seasonal ofthe republic. outside workers face. they issues economic and social the with terms to coming of incapable is government the 1991, since resolution conflict with solely deal impoverishment. As Radvanyi has rightly noted, new initiatives and program overall and unemployment large industry, of disappearance the infrastructure, crumbling the governmen depression economic massive with plagued been containing Wahhabism, and coopting potentially opposition elites. ethno the with terms to coming post the in tasks daunting a faced ties insmaller communities. agreements. maintain a large degree of the previous proportional representation partially by relying on informal established republic the against, referendums public three After state. of head single a of lack their and laws, election system,

Sivertseva’s studys Radvanyl ‘Challengesand Muduyev, Mountain of Peoples Facing theCaucasus’. the Zürcher, Identity’,Tamara The National Quest ‘Daghestan: Sivertseva, for Ibid.

Dagestan is not only an anomaly concerning their linguistic diversity. The republic has has republic The diversity. linguistic their concerning anomaly an only not is Dagestan The t account for 80% of yearlythe republic’s budget, they are struggling still to cope with The Post The 77 –

However, some studies suggest that key positions are still based on kin and blood and kin on based still are positions key that suggest studies some However, 72, doi:10.1080/02634939995623. impoverishment -

Soviet Wars Soviet howed 40% of women and youth were 40%andhowed ofwomen seasonal workers. 78

of Dagestan has caused a large percent of inhabitants to become to inhabitants of percent large a caused has Dagestan of

. a one man presidency. Thankfully however, they were able to able were they however, Thankfully presidency. man one a

- - nation 80 independence era successfully; avoiding secessionist politics, secessionist avoiding successfully; era independence

and as we saw above, saw we as and 81 l is f agr rus rssig hce overspill, Chechen resisting groups, larger of aims al

and although federal subsidies from the central the from subsidies federal although and Journal ofInterdisciplinary Studies although the bureaucracy the although 79

Central Asian Survey Central The republic has additionally s aimed at the region Tamara

has doubled has

18, no.

10,

CEU eTD Collection 83 Caucasus Analyst 82 acting president, areWho the ethnic tensions. by marked permanently recognition. ignore been largely have communities republic abroad. kin ethnic their aid to failure their for government Russian disappointmen their expressed Azerbaijan in Avars Dagestani several are there and Lezgins, communities of up made is population Azerbaijan’s of third one Today, republic’s the of outside living were communities Dagestani many independence Kumykhs. the notably most a result of their po As republic. the in balance interethnic endanger to continue which independence and recognition Dargin Lezginand (although less so of the latter). there

Olaf Staaf, ‘Political Mob Ibid.

was

The Avars are the largest, and most politically powerful, ethnic group in Dagestan. in group ethnic powerful, politically most and largest, the are Avars The independence, of wake the in approach, consociational Dagestan’s of victory the Despite , several ethnic groups, including Nogai and Dido, have expressed discontent that their that discontent expressed have Dido, and Nogai including groups, ethnic several ,

fierce competition for political control among th among control political for competition fierce 83 Avars

(mainly Avar)

lhuh hy ee be o vroe hs ise, tnc eain hv been have relations ethnic issues, these overcome to able were they Although

Ramazan Ramazan Abdulatipov, is an ethnic Avar wer wer and prestige, many smaller groups have also attempted to rally against them;

13, no. 11 (8 June 2011):13, no.11(8 20. June ?

these events and the government and citizens alike fear a flaring up of of up flaring a fear alike citizens and government the and events these , large and small, in Turkey, Iran and the Republic of Georgia. In 2011, ilization Along Dagestan’silization Ethnic Divisions’, The situation is further further is situation The

d by the government and have called for greater greater for called have and government the by d

Furthermore, there severalwere calls for ethnic complicated

and while he declared 2014 the Year of e three strongest ethnic groups; Avar, groups; ethnic strongest three e t with both the Dagestani and and Dagestani the both with t

by the fact that at the time of of time the at that fact the by 82

diinly ihn the within Additionally Central Asia Central bo - undaries The The .

CEU eTD Collection Daghestan’. 88 87 86 Daghestan’. 85 84 husbandry animal and trade including life; of ways traditional both NC the in scholars by affected been also has multilingualism switched their lingua francatoAzerbaijani. Shamil’s Imam of language official the and Dagestan of franca lingua the both as served Arabic classical since script. languages Dagestani of development the for after only andalphabets Georgian andTurkic, languages I the beloved Rasul Gamzatov. including poets, national several with tradition literary strongest the arguably having and music of position a structures. clan simple on functioned societies whose groups socio complex with Dagestan of groups ethnic Shamil. Imam great the before even extending legacy, historic their consider we if surprise a such be not may position current Culture, Avars had also already declared their ethn

Chantal LemercierChantal aFor III. lookatthehistoryof the Avaralphabet findthetable inAppendix please Атаев, LemercierChantal Ibid. 87

Not only the lingua franca of Avars has changed over time however. This study shows that

Interestingly, the change in alphabets can tell us a lot about the political culture of Avars of culture political the about lot a us tell can alphabets in change Interestingly,the Аваркий

not onlynot over 3 centuries. 3 over government .

have noted that regional lingua franca were usually a function of altitude as altitude of function a usually were franca lingua regional that noted have - -

Quelquejay, ‘Problèmes Ethno Quelquejay, ‘Problèmes Ethno Quelquejay, historic

until Avars became a part of the greater pan greater the of part a became Avars until

but also cultural also but n factn

Lemencier 86

Tablets in Avar have been found written in modified Arabic, modified in written found been have Avar in Tablets , written Avar predates Avar , written the of codification Russian Dagestani - Quelquejay 88 hne in changes

a special commission was established in the 1930s the in established was commission special a pres a te agae rte i a modified a in written language the was 40 - political

ic group culturally autonomous in 2011 tige. - - Linguistiques Au Soviétique et Politique Linguistiques Au Soviétique et Politique identifies They are well known for their traditional their for known well are They

socio societies compared to other indigenous other to compared societies 85 -

political Indeed, t Indeed,

Avars and Kumykhs and Avars ,

depended on the traversing traversing the on depended hey have always enjoyed always have hey icmtne Linguisti circumstance. - Turkic movement and movement Turkic

are the two two the are

. Cyrillic Cyrillic 84

Their c CEU eTD Collection (2008): 131 92 Identity’, 2005. 91 376 Traditional Daghestan’, in Contact Situations Daghest in Contact Situations 90 89 commun practice of endogamy ensured that land could be claimed by the minimum membership of a given The regions. mountainous more the in scarce is land arable as play to role equal an had factors the extreme diversity linguistic inDagest others. over languages certain of power functional and demographic the evaluating distribution T unique. Dagestan va language of elements linguistic the simply not is it However, revitalization. situati findings. study’s the contextualize help will Dagestan in multilingualism at look smaller moretha by ethnic multilingual groups remain subsumed Avars languages neighboring of knowledge Avars’ out hedge Dobrushina’s study has found that knowledge of Russian language as a lingua franca Nogai. has begun to and Kumykh spoke also themselves they Avar, altitude typically became the lingua franca. For Avars this meant that while Andis and Dido spoke mountainous harsh the

Bernard Diversity Comrie, ‘Linguistic inthe Caucasus’, Lazarev Pravikova,Ludmila VladimirLanguage ‘TheNorth and Caucasus and Bilingualism InvestigatingNinato Study Dobrushina, ofthe Past: Traditional ‘How Multilingualism Ibid. – 93, doi:10.1111/josl.12041. n n h NC the in on

The above survey of Avars notwithstanding, before moving to the study a more detailed detailed more a study the to moving before notwithstanding, Avars of survey above The ity

– and attests to the increase in linguistic diversity over time over diversity linguistic in increase the to attests and and hierarchy of languages in a given territory tells us a lot about ethnic relations by relations ethnic about lot a us tells territory given a in languages of hierarchyand 43.

he linguistic situation in the region serves as a model for for model a as serves region the in situation linguistic he

contradicts the present trend of globalization in its linguistic and cultural cultural and linguistic its in globalization of trend present the contradicts climate an How to Study Multilingualism of the Past: Investigating ofthe Past:an How toStudy Multilingualism

. Thus, .

the language of those populations inhabiting the mid the inhabiting populations those of language the an istypically attributed tothe geographic terrain, social Journal of Sociolinguistics of Journal 41

although the findings also suggest that suggest also findings the although Annual Review of Anthropology Annual Review of 89

n h peet eae however, decades present the In . 92 n their neighbors

17, 2013): no.3(June As such As soc ial functions; ial , riety that make make that riety

scholars assert scholars The linguistic The 91

Although . 90

37 range range the the CEU eTD Collection 94 93 reasons necessarily such without holding a competence. of variety a for language particular a of knowledge identify simply may but competence of level competence. of level their gauge to difficult and repertoire their in s contact each many functioncommunities withseveral franca. lingua m endo to, limited not are but include, contact of length assituations well as thesocial an and type the both on highly depend and diverse also are bilingualism and a of configurations depending on where their speakers reside Communities speaking their own language centers, endogamy traditional that from away move a that patchwork patchwork pattern, linguistic enclaves,

ultilingualism. Additionally, although Russian severs as the official lingua franca of Dagestan, Dagestan, of franca lingua official the as severs Russian although Additionally, ultilingualism. Dobrushina, ofthePast’. ‘How Multilingualism toStudy Ibid. -

n exo and Lastly, we must consider that multilingualism functions based on the needs of speakers in speakers of needs the functionson based multilingualism that consider must Lastly,we Mo

would endanger the linguistic diversitythe linguistic endanger theregion. would of reover, the linguistic situation in Dagestan is not simply a matter of extreme diversity. extreme of matter asimply not is Dagestan in situation linguistic the reover, ituation; this means that first a speakers competences vary widely in each language each in widely vary competences speakers a first that means this ituation; - tnc minority ethnic

second, second,

since many are learned through personal contact it can be very very be can it contact personal through learned are many since monolingual - d political status of the linguistic communitiesd political statusofthelinguistic involved. aoiy ad asv blnuls; n niho o distant or neighbor and bilingualism; passive and majority, or or variety in the linguistic map of Dagestan divided divided linguistic groups. 94 i s

m In fact, speakers may not intentionally falsify their falsify intentionally not may speakers fact, In 42

as a result or isolation or prestige; non prestige; or isolation or result a as , towards the polyglossia in towns and regional and towns in polyglossia the towards ,

;

they may

The types of multilingualism be examplefor scattered have a variety - 93 contact,

These , in

CEU eTD Collection been have interviews group focus the of results the importantly, Most investigation. the sway t investigates, research this questions of types the in interested were participants study’s the Although power. making decision of position a holding in interest expressed or held either participant no since (in the regions) or language (in the city). I don’t find Additionally, most of the participants were involved either in fields relating to questions of culture moreov range; age same the of participants group focus gather to feasible not was simply It different. of my fieldwork however, I found that the general demographics of urban and rural locations were ordinary people of themiddle age demogr translated for me. p what or Russian in recorded I what to speak only can use language of evaluations langu Avar of knowledge working any have not do I own. my are translations I make use ofth andConsidering this theregion. questions in large cause of the existing deficit of general information and overall consensus on ethno Ca North the in research Federation, Russian the in climate of this research. Due to a number of complicating factors; not least of which is the current political Chapter 2 t is important to note that the research was conducted in Russian language throughout and the the and throughout language Russian in conducted was research the that note to important is t I originally aimed my study at the everyday aspects of language choice by studying studying by choice language of aspects everyday the at study my aimed originally I limitations the fully more consider to important is it data study’s the into looking Before er, er, the results were enriched by looking at different age groups in their respective locations. : Analysis: caseof the study ofAvars here were no ethnic activists or entrepreneurs, and no attempts to propagandize or propagandize to attempts no and entrepreneurs, or activists ethnic no were here e contacts I had inthe region andthose oftheI people theresearch metduring trip.

aphic (30 the 43

lack of time and resources andlack time of

- 50) inthe cityand During regions. the course this this to be an impediment to the study’s results

ucasus is difficult. This is no doubt a doubt no is This difficult. is ucasus

for the study for the age; therefore, my my therefore, age; articipants - linguistic , I had to Ihad to , CEU eTD Collection and 95 opportunities clock the round and inhabitants the to access maximum me allowed which stayed, I whom with there contact a had I region, the to trip second my was this As Wars. Caucasian its for known well is and district the of center cultural the as Itserves dialect. their use just often comprehensible mutually are which varieties language Avar of speakers although franca lingua the as serves Avar Literary administrative the is inhabitants) 2,500 under (just Gunib borders. Georgian and Chechen the to way the all extending Dagestan southwest of terrain mountainous Dagestan, Makhac of capital the in trip my concluded then and Megeb, and Chok, Bastada, villages; neighboring to excursions field several took and Gunib, center, regional the in I began questions. an Dagestanis of types all for like is anda even non villages, homogeneous small center, regional the to capital, mixed ethnically the from observe; linguistic of diversity the is however, excursions field my of component interesting most The life. of walks all of residents with speak to able was I trip the Throughout Methodology these ordinary people. v the to depth added and confirmed which data field other context the in placed

For aFor regional asofGunibskiire Dagestan as a mapof well map V respectively. The greater Avar region (sometimes described as Avaristan) is located in the extremely the in located is Avaristan) as described (sometimes region Avar greater The spaces. urban and rural between equally split days, full 8 spanned trip research The hkala. 95 -

titular village. This provided me with a comprehensive lookatwhatwith Thisprovided everyday me village. titular life

itrcl motne n h rssac aant h Rsin i the in Russians the against resistance the in importance historical

d enriched my understanding of the study’s primary research research primary study’s the of understanding my enriched d 44

gion please see Appendix IV seegion please Appendix center of Gunibskii District. Gunibskii of center situations I was able to able was I situations iews provided by provided iews CEU eTD Collection cultural center, field excursion I stayed overnight with another local contact, toured the village, visited the school, my During merchants. and traders many to home is village the Dagestan, southwestern of center village is geographically closer to Kumyk, the regional cent used with Avars from the region who arrive to the village for business and official matters. As the is which language Avar and Dargin of variant Megebskii the both is franca lingua the schools, i used is Dargin of variant standard the although so Dargin; linguistically and ethnically both are Megeb of residents The west. further districts surrounding other and Levashi, Akushi, in kin southwestern side of Gunibskii Dis residents. some met and locals some with village the of tour a took I There, artists. Soviet great regions the southeast of Gunib, is a well the to Chok, mayor. the with meeting town yearly the on in sat and center, medical new their While village. (usually in Moscow). Bastada, to the southeast of Gunib, is a very isolated but ordinary Dagestani labor seasonal and husbandry, animal traditional farming, subsistence on rely impoverishment, administrat in work not do who villages both District with Avar inhabitants, each speaking own their language variety Avar.of residentsFor of for the an literacy, children’s opening exhibition and at the regional newspaper office, the cultural center, school, library, attended the holiday celebration for

informal informal interviews and non My last field excursion in the region was in ItMegeb. is the outermost village on the west Batsada and Chok (sometimes spelled Chokh) are small mountainous villages in Gunibskii

I was there I took a tour of the village with some locals, attended the opening of of opening the attended locals, some with village the of tour a took I there was I and met with residents.and met - known village for its historical importance and on

- participant observations. participant Duringobservations. thereImy time ablewas to visit trict, bordering the Lak region which separates them from their

45 v o clua pstos de o slto and isolation to due positions, cultural or ive

local historical museum. er of the Lak District and historic trade ce housed many of

n - CEU eTD Collection the opening of group ended earlier than anticipated, I additionally elicited responses to two the proverbs found at focus the If conflict. potential and contact, use, of situations and languages, and peoples between p the on focused guideline interview The literature. Avar on exhibition local recent a from photos using prompt visual a with began interview Each to record two focus groups in each location; each group with an average of five active participants. collection was a series of focus group interviews conducted in Makhachkala and Gunib. I of methods Languagethe Foreign Philology and at Dagestan Departments in a hotel. Through contactsregional from Gunibskii District however, I was able to meet up with a Avar, not were city the in contacts my that fact the to due limited was locals with interactions my Makhachkala, in time second my was it Although universities. only republic’s the of location the to due areas regional from different demograph The workers. seasonal of number large a but residents fulltime to notonly city ishome languages. common The their speak chooselanguages to sometimes may pr the is Russian inhabitants. total the of 9% up make who population, Russian Dagestan’s of all nearly however, thelargest Avarsmake up proportionwith26.5%of thepopulation. The city to ishome Federal District with a population of nearly Caucasian North the in city largest the is Makhachkala coast, Caspian Dagestan’s of center the imary language of interaction in the city due to its ethnic mixing, but speakers of ethnic of speakers but mixing, ethnic its to due city the in interaction of language imary Due to the aforementi The second half of my research trip was spent in the capital city, LocatedMakhachkala. in were chosen

this thesis. thesis. this to ensure the maximum amount of usable data. The primary focus for data

oned oned lack of data in sociolinguistic research of the Caucasus, a

nd because of intensified police presence, I chose to stay stay to chose I presence, police intensified of because nd 600,000. 600,000. As expected, it is extremely ethnically diverse 46

reservation of mother tongues, relations relations tongues, mother of reservation

State University. c ae additionally are ics

was was able

variety variety CEU eTD Collection the par the of of generosity enormous Because excursions. field throughout notes field continuous took and research my to way. I was, with few exceptions, encouraged to photograph or record Ianything found interesting allowed locals to feel comfortable with speaking their local dia which linguist a as introduced was I location new each in arrival Upon locations. research the of my queries. interest to them and the situation; although all the participants were interested in answering any of of topics followed and participants, by initiated mostly conversation, casual of form the took village with residents who were keen to tell me about their opinions and experiences the around simply or homes, to visits during villages, through touring of course the in conducted w Chok in one and Batsada, in one Megeb, in three Gunib, in three Makhachkala, in two including; volunteers describe used each howthey language. comp their to according repertoire their in languages the all list to asked were self about questions and questions choic multiple of mix a were questions The context. in observations and interviews the place to help would which purpose of the survey was to gain a general demographic look at residents in the research locations partici from surveys completed 38 collected had I trip research the of end the At residents. local and partners interview informal with survey the Lastly, I was able to conduct a substantial amount of non with interviews unstructured conducted I sources, two these to addition in mentioned, As After each focus group was complete I asked all participants to fill out a survey. I also used

ih ee eodd n y il nts Tee nomtoa itriw were interviews informational These notes. field my in recorded were hich e and open ended response. The first side of the form was general demographic demographic general was form the of side first The response. ended open and e

ticipants and village residents in general, I was always invited to to invited always was I general, in residents village and ticipants - identification. The second side was a table where participants participants where table a was side second The identification.

47 pants in Makhachkala, Gunib, and Megeb. The Megeb. and Gunib, Makhachkala, in pants

lects, lects, or code switching in a natural - participant observation in all five etence as well as to as well as etence . They usually CEU eTD Collection was who participants dominant several were there speaking, from abstained eight the of onlytwo much more animated debates than the previous group. Although participation was very high, again municipal employees. As a mixed group the women were not as strong participants and the part as or musicians wer participants male the that thelanguagenever goextinct. would cu other or library the at place take or organized are which others and celebration this to references many were there interview the During stories. and poems recited and skits different performed Chil of Week the for celebration a was there location, on arrived I when interview, the before days Two opinions. offer to failed participants 8 the of 2 only group; the within participation of rate high overall an was there and no were dissenting opinions in the course of the Thediscussion. group did not There itself. library the in working mainly employees, municipal were of participants majority The group. the joined man a when interview the through way half until women, The focus groups textual materials,etc. stories/anecdotes, ambient or indirect language choice, general relations and evaluations concerning language choice, loan switching, code patterns, speech on mainly focused observations My events. special of number a attended outlined, previously as and life, village of processes daily the in participate ltural institutions in Gunib. The recurrent theme of the discussion was their adamant assertion assertion adamant their was discussion the of theme recurrent The Gunib. in institutions ltural A few days later the second focus group took place in Gunib at the cultural center. Most of participants the All library. public the at Gunib in place took group focus first The

- time teachers of the arts; the female participants were secretaries or other other or secretaries were participants female the arts; the of teachers time ivle i clua poesos ete a poesoa atss and artists professional as either professions, cultural in involved e

dren’s Books during which children from surrounding schools schools surrounding from children which during Books dren’s

have a dominant participant

re re were words, words, were were CEU eTD Collection speakerconducted firstRussian. groupwas butthe before focus in 96 other; disagreeing and reframing their arguments based on the sharing of personal stories. Like the this interview was the shortest the participants were e were from the third and yearfourth of study and were largely more active in discussion. Although previous the approximately a than dozen students and a professor, smaller but still had only six active significantly speakers. The students was group The Department. Philology the of group and was findthatit culturaldid not a major and spheres drivingforce. ec theyconnected although matters economic discuss to grouponly the was This opinion. student’s a with disagreed professor a once although opinions dissenting few very were There freely spoke students discussion, the in participation their and professors, of attendance the of spite In secretary. a and group was comprised of students from the second and third years of study as well as two professors curiosity of students who found out that an American was coming the and help to group large a assembling by hospitality show to desire head’s department the of combination a likely most was This discussion. the observed simply others the while speakers s only were there people, dozen two approximately large, very was group the Although DSU. focus group to only the also was This generation. younger the in interest of loss the lamented and life of way centered on cultural elements, especially music, but they also talked quite a bit about the traditional engaged in debate during the course of the interview. Be

Iagreed since English inadvance withthe studentsin they tospeak met never anative had The next day I returned to DSU to conduct the fourth focus group with the Avarlanguage the with groupfocus fourth the conduct to DSU to Ireturned daynext The Departmentof Language Foreign the in Makhachkala placein took group focus third The

discuss matters ofalthough they faith, specifically. discussreligion didnot

and were not controlled by the elders who sat in the back of the classroom. the of back the in sat who elders the by controlled not were and

ngaged in discussing their opinions with each cause of their backgrounds the discussion to talk to them in English.

onomic

The ix , CEU eTD Collection sh language concerning knowledge common follows This same. the claimed Makhachkala in 77% and Megeb in 86% only while language, surprisinglocation, isnot it thatthem each in participants study the of demographics the of Because region. and education, of level group, age and multilingualism between correlations for looking by began I degree. Associate’s diplom school high a primarily was education of level highest the study of years fourth and second the between students primarily were Makhachkala in participants as the to region; respondents in Megeb claimed the highest overall level of education with most claiming average age was 23. Interestingly the average level of education did not vary as expected according in 41 was age average the regions Inthe location. the to according varied participants research the of demographics the that clear is Based on our introduction to the research locations as well as the focus group summaries above, it whic locations, research the in situation linguistic general the clarify will results survey the at look brief A Megeb. of residents the from 8 and Gunib in office newspaper Survey data group one. to language the for impossible simply was it that assertion adamant the shared discuss third group, the professor sat at the back of the classroom and participated but never limited student

equivalent of an MA degree whereas participants in Gunib averaged a BA degree. Naturally, Naturally, degree. BA a averaged Gunib in participants whereas degree MA an of equivalent ion. The group discussed employment but not economic factors like the third group and group third the like factors economic not but employment discussed group The ion. In of native terms language, 100% Gunibclaimed ofparticipants in fluency intheir native the from 3 additional an and interviews group focus the from surveys 27 received I

Gunib and 48 in Megeb whereas of urban respondents the the respondents urban of whereas Megeb in 48 and Gunib ost significant variableregion. was ift, in that there is a higher rate of language shift in shift language of rate higher a is there that in ift, 50

a or the equivalent of an an of equivalent the or a

h vary significantly. significantly. vary h

go extinct like in like extinct go CEU eTD Collection IdentitySivertseva,Ethnic ‘Culture and inDaghestan’. 97 other one least at of knowledge claimed Megeb in respondents of 100% While languages. als was disparency The (2). Gunib lastly and (2.4) Makhachkala by followed (2.7) Megeb in highest is nowcompulsoryschools inDagestan from firstgrade. starting inall almost completely limited to the Foreign Language Department at DSU although English langua were knowledge any claimed who participants of number the English, for As fluency. claimed all of case; the be Dagestan. the in Islam with identity geopolitical enriched newly a to due ground gaining is Arabic that claim the is languages world consider we when interesting faile Megeb, from participant, one Only speakers. of number highest the had republic the in franca lingua the and language government the both there andinth it had about a been vote explained They it. against not were residents most instead, taught was Dargin that prefer would they said some while it, about residents asked I When language. native the as school in children literary region, Gunibskii of part as case,since interesting an is Megeb 29%. Megeb in and Avar, claimed Makhachkala in 85% only language, native their as Avar claimed Since this st variation. regional showed also that language native respondent’s a which as to identified was As language spoken. be to language minority a for occasion less is there where areas urban

Inclaims study, Sivertsevathatof Khushtada, 750inhabitantsin her 40were fluent Arabic in eiet n h lvl f rdtoa mliigaim n nweg o adtoa Dagestani additional of knowledge in multilingualism traditional of level the in evident o The surveys showed that the average number of fluently spoken languages overall was was overall languages spoken fluently of number average the that showed surveys The as Russian that obvious is it influence, of spheres for fight global the to comes it When udy is focused on Avar it is important to note that while 100% of participants in Gunib

38 surveys, only two respondents claimed knowledge of Arabic and neither neither and Arabic of knowledge claimed respondents two only surveys, 38

e end Avarwas chosen. 51

d to claim any knowledge of Russian. What is What Russian. of knowledge any claim to d

The study shows this may not may this shows study The

Avar is taught to all to taught is Avar ge . CEU eTD Collection another speaking for have speakers reasons the and occurs contact language which in situations Makhachkala. in speakers multilingual than often more highly a in function still maintained context. multilingual largely are life of ways traditional where languages franca is traditional endangers only multilingualism in urban areas where due to the high volume of interethnic contact a single lingua language Russian with bilingualism that us shows This regions. Lak was historically Dargins for language second traditional the above, discussed as however, Megeb In there. market central the to due an additional language since many people mentioned that it was once a lingua franca in the region and contact mixing interethnic of chance greater a is there where Makhachkala from were language single is a from were respondents Dargin that fact the by explained be can languages indigenous other of variety TheLezgin. for one andLak of knowledgesome claiming respondents all languageswith Tsuma one and Lezgin, one Kumykh, for three Lak, some of knowledge claiming participants four with Avars among highest was allows Avarbenefit speakersconcentric from to the region the in franca lingua a as Avar which to extent the shows This Dargin. of knowledge any have to claimed location any in respondent Avar single a not Furthermore, language. indigenous Dagestani language (Avar) only 27% of respondents in Gunib responded as knowing . paes n ee adtoal camd lec in fluency claimed additionally Megeb in Speakers On the other hand, the diversity of additional indigenous languages claimed on the surveys olated village while the majority of Avar respondents who claimed an additional Dagestani It is interesting to note that only one, of all the surveys, identif surveys, the all of one, only that note to interesting is It necessary. Isolated villages with high contact with neighboring regions of different ethnic

din; while Dargin respondents only claimed two additional two claimed only respondents Dargin while din;

since their village is geographically closer to the Lak the to closer geographically is village their since 52

levels hegemony oflinguistic inDagestan.

This makes sense considering the the considering sense makes This additional Dagestani languages far far languages Dagestani additional ied Kumykh language as as language Kumykh ied

an additional

CEU eTD Collection 98 all at holistically look will I that in approach; integrated an take will examination following The analysis. nuanced more to turn can discussion the situation, linguistic overall the and study, the family,at work. and with everywhere, useful as language native their identified exclusively, Megeb of residents the a language, common a as family, with useful as travel, everywhere, for work, and at school/with friends. Speakers of Avar identified the language language/for common a as were example for Russian for provided responses common most The appr of evaluation and speakers multilingual by created spheres the about codify, to difficult while results, These claimed. they language each used speakers type of social culture in which sharing of linguistic differentiation is not a function of social order. new a creates andnecessary is languagecommon single a of use the that extent an such to mixed multilin require which aspects retained has in particularly and Dagestan, across true is this While marriages. mixed example for including sometimes deeper; reach also communities to membe ties betweencontactvillages historic the of becauseAdditionally, languages. neighboring use must they which for employees; municipal are others and business, m extends contact language example, for Megeb as such regions, remote In friends”. “with example, for with usage for situations the identified and phrases” some “only competence of category lowest language. By and large in urban areas

Agheyi Now that we have a clear understanding of the research locations, the residents involved in situations which in highlighted which surveys the of point last the to us brings This si and ‘Language Fishman, si Studies’. Attitude uch deeper than friendly phrases. As noted, many residents of Megeb take part in trade trade in part take Megeb of residents many noted, As phrases. friendly than deeper uch

people people identified additional indigenous languages under the Makhachkala gualism. Makhachkala on the other hand, is ethnically ethnically is hand, other the on Makhachkala gualism. 53 t work, and everywhere. Dargin speakers, being speakers, Dargin everywhere. and work, t

, the culture in small villages like Megeb Megeb like villages small in culture the , opriate language use. language opriate rs with those specificthose with rs 98

are telling are

CEU eTD Collection 100 99 Oftenabouasked. we participantstalked inBatsada bea together?!” speaking man thankful to Russian language, and that it connected them. “If not for Russian language, how would langua colonizing a as Russian about asked when occasions several On language. Russian toward feelings distasteful had participant single a not Additionally, politeness. sense common was felt participants what was expressed in the focus group interviews. Overall, bycompetition, misunderstanding. conflict, large,veryoranimosity Yet discomfort and and little where thatparticular those who only speak indigenous languages, since they would only be able to get a job in the region group. This idea of limitations rem person” a limits it languages, two or one only “speaking chances, life to fundamental as seen is languages several speaking Makhachkala, in participants younger the Among life. person’s every of part interesting and important an as regarded highly Multilingual theme. this on analysis of phase next the begin will we multilingualism, on centred above results survey general of presentation the Considering extinction. and shift language about feelings and beliefs proce themes; general three on focusing data study’s the

LazarevLanguage‘The and and NorthIdentity’. Pravikova, Bilingualism Caucasus

Inof the acloser word border. used to beingboxed themeaning Russian here is into

utlnuls hs rsy akr ie oee; hr i awy te oeta for potential the always is there however; side darker risky a has Multilingualism only not is it multilingualism, to comes it When ism ism

ge, participants not only found the idea funny but said they Dagestanis were Dagestanis they said but funny idea the found only not participants ge,

language isspoken. language

100

, on the other hand, was also used in Makhachkala to speak about

conflict over linguistic choice is avoided by the sociocultural norm socioculturalthe sses of multilingualism, identity, and and identity, multilingualism, of sses arked a student from the third focus focus third the from student a arked

in Dagestan, in t the change in

but CEU eTD Collection d to necessity clear the expressed participants because firstly interaction any in choose will speakers language the to comes it when choice little is There participants. to obvious seemed always “decision” were recorded inwriting. were always a topic of conversation although as the survey results above showed they almost never us.” connects it jokes… make we and other’s each in speak to try we Sometim dialect. and accent own their has each when sometimes interesting, is it Even us]. for [difficult not “absolutely noted, enthusiastically group focus second the from man A from. come occ the used they and fun was it that me assured but with, familiar not were theydialects various friends’ their fromvocabulary the local school told me stories about how all the children were confused often as they confronted people from Gunib were able to function with such a high degree of lin non with variety own their of use the and language common a as family whose those by spoken variety language own its has others, the like itself, village The variety. language own their speaking each areas, Avar ethnically of variety a in originating residents much more is isusedRussian, butthe situation interesting inGunib. franca, lingua singular asince interethnicmixing to comes it homogenouswhenquite is situation pa any without end an to means a simply is it value, significant no has language common a of function The which?” then not if Russian, not or Russian specifically, Russian is it that not is “it indifference, with time over franca lingua the originally hails from the center; however participants described both the use of literary Avar ocrig h aporaees of appropriateness the Concerning Gunibsk of center regional the As efault to the best suited lingua franca and since each language within a person’s a within language each since and franca lingua suited best the to efault

asions to teach each other about how things are called where they where called are things how about other each teach to asions

ii region, the village is also a type of melting pot with pot melting of type a also is village the region, ii rticular connection to the people. In Makhachkala the the Makhachkala In people. the to connection rticular

agae hie n n priua stain the situation, particular any in choice language 55

- speakers. I often asked how asked often I speakers.

guistic guistic mixing. A girl from Affective local identities identities local Affective es es CEU eTD Collection Ineveryschool dialect. Batsada to switched hall entireforwardthe complains and questions their the to report official his made mayor The dialect. Batsada and Russian languages; two in conducted also was Batsada in meeting town The sentences. few every two the between freely flowing Russian, and directing his subordinates on the next cours was Culture and Sports Youth for office the of head the Gunib in center cultural the at meeting a At time. same the at language one than more using speakers witnessed I occasions of number b speakers the by dictated always necessarily not is choice language and automatically.All children are here.” like that I when Sometimes switches. automatically she and ours in exactly speak we family our in and Kulakskii from am I language. our in speaks she daughter when but Gunibskii she whospeaksin comes home withthe family we a make notethat woma a group focus second the During categories. several into fit may language wouldfall depends into onthe location of a speaker at and the time for some a language languag foreign a as spoken be would which languages other all and village, home one’s in or family which withthe are used native languages public spaces, used in be can common languageswhich language in front of a non not a function of openness but due to the fact that they themselves would never speak an unknown was perhapsthat that explained participantsseveral although no; always responsewas immediate language choic ontheir confronted based been ever had orifsituations they repertoire has a clearly defined sphere of use. When asked if they ever encountered uncomfortable The frequency with which Avars switch codes means that language is also used very fluidly e only with those people to whom it is most likely the native language. Which category a category Which language. native likelythe most is it whom to people those with only e

inhabitants completely in Russian and when it came time for the villagers to bring to villagers the for time came it when and Russian in completely inhabitants - speaker. It

seems seems then that there is a matrix of language use in Dagestan; e of action in planning an event. He spoke both in Avar

e hm I ogt o wth u se os it does she but switch to forget I home get ut by domain. During a During domain. by ut xlie, Ihv a have “I explained, n e in an interactionthe e inan CEU eTD Collection participant came forward in their defense, “but if they didn’t switch like that then they would have non of front in Dargin speaking of habit their and identity their switch to discussio the of some Megeb of Dargins the Regarding interesting. Several participants began about theirspeaking stereotypes about other ethnic groups. most the was discussion group focus second the however, respect this In family. her with guest s to came who girl Lezgin a of story the told girl a group focus fourth the In suggestion. serious a not was this understood I that sure made or idea, the refuted politely uncomfortable, potentially others that asRussian well as commonreligious phrases inArabic. if, as num although, after, then, example for action; or language structuring for phrases or words opening ceremony of the medical centre, etc. people speaking in Avar language would use Russian off the at calls phone related work On function. official an fulfilling or organizing, managing, either was someone where situations understanding Avar language for elders into conversation Russian the of portions translate would members family younger that found I people found I place only translating their the was classroom the Interestingly, lesson. the continuing and Russian, reprimanding l students in the local dialect, a seamlessly translating their remarks times in Russian several languages switched teachers that found also I visited I erals, etc. Inhabitants also used common Soviet era phrases and common vernacular in in vernacular common and phrases era Soviet common used also Inhabitants etc. erals, In several of the interviews participants joked about the usefulness of speaking a language in transference of degree high a was there found also I observations of number a During of the conversation was necessary

own

remarks from any lang would not understand but in every case, their compatriots were either either were compatriots their case, every in but understand not would

which they explained was common in situations where a deep or detailed

ice of Youth Sports and Culture, at the newspaper office, the the office, newspaper the at Culture, and Sports Youth of ice uage uage to another. At a home in Makhachkala, however, 57 .

n became accusatory about their tendency their about accusatorybecame n

so; ntutn in instructing esson; - paes utl one until speakers, tay as a a as tay CEU eTD Collection accent at length, an with speaking of problems the discussed group focus third the in Participants effects. negative have can and variety language beyond extends ethnicity and competence linguistic of o evaluation up made is language literary the because them respect and with pleasure dialects other’s each to listen “we reverence, serious more a with but differences these o examples describe and other each at point to loved residents Gunib, in Particularly intonation. or pronunciation, different words, for endings case different vocabulary, by either apart, other each delight with discussed groupEveryfocus when failed came thenationaltoelaborate but further. upwith Avars question informed Gunib, in works frequently who partner, Megeb, when I asked about the accuracy of the things I heard about Dargins in Gunib my interview in interview informal an During acquainted. getting are people when often up comes ethnicity of person was an Avar, then it was natural that you would start to speak in Avar togeth you knowpeople;outthatgroups, anotherwas they once found explained ofgetting a matter to it l their matter no group interview participants remarked how it was always possible to speak Avar with other Avars years. their languagefor 600 over Megebskii that fact the for pride and solidarity strong felt Gunib, of residents lost their language… because here we have to survive…” With the exception of this one instance, languag their left f how the words could be different. The Avar group of the Philology Department also discussed discussed also Department Philology the of group Avar The different.be could words the how f Ethnicity however, is often implied or understood without asking about a person’s origins. focus fourth the language,during common appropriate the use to desire Avar’s of Inspite

cto. hn se hw hy ol ietf ohr ebr o ter ethnic their of members other identify would they how asked When ocation. e long ago. Even if that village hadn’t been in the mountains, they would have have would they mountains, the in been hadn’t village that if Even ago. long e “those “those that speak in

the native language they of course know Russian; those who the differences in Avar dialects and how they could tell theycouldhow anddifferences the Avardialects in 58

me that he had encountered some difficulty some encountered had he that me f these dialects.” The The dialects.” these f

people had saved had people er. The matter CEU eTD Collection the of some sociolinguists, for obvious seem may this While etc. faith, of matters literature, music, uniqueness, ties, kin and blood land, the traditions, history, elements; cultural of variety a appear language inschool classrooms. onposters was recited at every focus group interview as well as on several other occasions, and portions of it a stanza which states, my“if language Indeed, one of the most important poems village.” the nurture can it that so roots have must tree A die. would it then roots without was artist from groupexplained, the secondwithout their language people “a focus itwithout they,group, and wouldcease their Thiswas toexist. usually literally, quite meant as an meanin identity; their to tied inextricably so is language languages, small these of speakers for that is multilingualism, of tradition the from Dagestan,aside in exist to continue varietiestheir languagesand indigenous Identity students from the cityan accent. withless Russian of speak fromlanguage,was the region evaluationshared commonly because ofstudents theoverall lower stude village of assessment student’s a the with Although disagreed regions. professor the from languages indigenous of speakers about evaluations negative is there that also but Russians with problems face Dagestanis that only not us shows quote This when they speak in Russian with an accent it is even more difficult to speak in a foreign langua And majority. the in difficult very is it and accent their keep they same the all city, the to move Throughout the course of each focus group inter group focus each of course the Throughout As itmay have theresults evident, become of this study

g their understanding of what it means to be a part of their community, and community, their of part a be to means it what of understanding their g

were to tomorrow, Idie am ready to die today.” This poem written written by the great Avar poet, 59

view, participants connected language to to language connected participants view,

shows thattheother major reason t’ blt t lan foreign learn to ability nts’ Rasul Rasul Gamzatov

it’s likeait’s tree, ifit , incudes ge.” ge.” CEU eTD Collection Everyone her. to speak you how and use you words what her, to relate you how important is it believee We with mothers. relationship great a such why have we her child they are already receiving something of the language then, some understanding… That’s thus, “native language Avarin means language of the mother’s milk. When a mother takes care of participant was able to summarize the significance to Avars and the preservation of their language one below, further discussed be will which life, family to comes it When day. this to region the family and land the to connection their people, as they that lamented this was slowly This changing. discussion took on two broad topics, hands his end off branching intwo upsomewhere else [shows alphabet, for examplethey Russian inschoollearn Avar, butnot with all our extra letters, we will the learn doesn’t one if below, down are people and here up is cosmos the see, You cosmos. to connection a have we that language through is “it spirituality, to tightly quite language Avar tied group focus second the in participant a Indeed region. the in Arabic of knowledge r in language Avar of in Russian language but when it comes to religion, Avar came first. shows This us the importance acceptable villages of naming the finds government municipal The language. Arabic original the verse Each government. municipal local the by up put were which Koran the from verses are signs green the but language, Russian only feature which roads, the along destinations and villages marking signs; road state regular are signs blue The and blue some Across signs; road of types several with lined religion. are road the region, Gunibskii consider we when true particularly is This Dagestanis. for language native partic connections Much of the discussion in this group centered on the traditional way of life for mountainous ipants made can still tell researchers a lot about the evaluative extent of the the of extent evaluative the about lot a researchers tell still can made ipants eligious practices in the region which shows us why there is so little little so is there why us shows which region the in practices eligious

relations. Traditional gender roles are well maintained in maintained well are roles gender Traditional relations. 60

is written first in Avar and then below in in below then and Avar in first written is diverging paths upward].” diverging paths ven when a woman is pregnantis woman a when ven

some green. green. some

the CEU eTD Collection and car, have a son. heroes… more inpresentson. Although day a referbuild house, people buy sometimes a tothe as three things had We 101 somehow. nation special a are Avars because that… to something little a is there “No, agreed, humbly participant onealways but assertion the denied Guni in this about asked I When traditions. and language their protecting and cultural in institutions, local museums. in statues through them to paid is homage and beyond and era Soviet the during both heroes, national several to home is region The period. modern the into extend greatness Avar of discussions and village the in life everyday of part a The Russians. the to surrender and stand last Shamil’s Imam of site the was significance. historical important very has itself territory the da to day in region groups in Gunib the significance of the land was discussed, as well as throughout my travels in the seen as a strong plus, almost a necessity, and this was a constant theme in discussion. In both focus backDargins’ langua of tothesave discussion ability their Recalling other…” each help to used people Earlier home. at himself for needs everythinghe has peacefully that we than now have more noweachindependently democracy. But person and lives toget lived all we Union Soviet the before and life… of difficulties the to used got we nation, mountainous a are Avars down. lower live nations other and mountains the in live “Avars nicely, the family.” life in do must man a things three the knows

This is c This is uig n neve in interview an During Speaking theAvarsand to ommonly among a getmarried, allCaucasiancultures; house, a have build known

y conversation, not only in connection to language but also due to the fact that that fact the to due also but language to connection onlyin not yconversation,

Makhachkala

their connection tothe land,as participant summarized another

their home villages, one the walls of all schools and schools all of walls the one villages, home their 101

a young man told me that Avars are the best at at best the are Avars that me told man young a

61 but there is the most important role for women inwomen for role important most the thereis but

ge, being a mountainous people was being amountainous ge, As discussed in chapter two, Gunib Gunib two, chapter in discussed As b, participants politely participants b,

history is very much much very is history her her CEU eTD Collection significant. 102 anymore].” us by used aren’t they [because understand don’t already I nowadays which words are There one participant Avar, noted, “When I of listen to those lexicon kinds o the in change the discussing While language. the of degradation the to ourselves it save and it on work to need We songs]. “Why should we leave ours behind if others are putting attention on that [our music Dagestan singing Avar songs, even foreigners the world over have begun learning their tradit songs. traditional their play who Avars bot in Participants only longer no is it since introspection and pride play and TV, on ethnic groups; many non other by consumed is which product cultural a as described was music Avar however. Dagestan eve that knew he where difficulty of time a in place a have didn’t person a if then, happen would what and comfortable… feels person a when situations have You protected. more feels person Avar if like be would life and inspires a constant patriotism. During the second focus group interview, while imagining what life everyday imbues hardship overcome to ability their nation, Avar the of legacy historical The Historically you? to it explain I can how demographically…

Here the word in Russian usedHere for whichword theone isreserved great is orhistorically inRussian toheroic the rything would be understood?” rything wouldbe understood?” It is not only their great heroes which set the Avars apart from the ethnic groups of of groups ethnic the from apart Avars the set which heroes great their only not is It

Avar h Gunib and Makhachkala noted that not only were other ethnic groups from from groups ethnic other were only not that noted Makhachkala and Gunib h

music in their cars their in music - Avar Dagestanis play Av

were to go extinct a speaker explained, “With one’s own language a a language own one’s “With explained, speaker a extinct go to were

, taxis, and public transport public and taxis, , 62 f old songs already I don’t completely understand.

ar music at their weddings, watch their concerts .” The loss of traditional music was also tied tied also was music traditional of loss The .”

we have been a greater a been have we . This was both a source of source a both was This . and traditional 102

people.” ions, CEU eTD Collection a now but globalization of because only worse…not becoming is it that but extinct go will it that not today] concerned are “[people enlightening, was group focus third the shift language peoplethat Avar most simply language potentialtogoextinct.While had the refuted theidea that Avarreplied, and forget to begun had relatives her of one which in story a describe compatriots her of one heard she when Gunib in participant a by shared was loss language native about confusion The good.” try.” to desire the lose citythe Russia and to “If come 6: weParticipant would they at laughed are they and trying is person a If dialect. my language? I myself don’t know the literary language well and when I speak Iit mix in words from tryin are who people about that, say you can “How 3: Participant ” strange… them, at laugh would people and strange, sounds it speak to try they and language native go is students ensued: Participant 1: “…and every self for those who didn’t have full competence in their mother tongue, a heated debate between several speak not would speakers Avar that imagine not could who group focus fourth the in participant one of true particularly was This extinct. go languageto the for possiblebe would it how understand couldn’tsimply participants group focus significa any in not was language their though as felt still participants home, at language the speaking longer no were who those of talked often participants and discussed, Is l anguage ing extinct and he wouldn’t speak in ours… when someone from the city doesn’t know the know doesn’t city the from someone when ours… in speak wouldn’t he and extinct ing There was a constant play between the acknowledgement of language shift and the denial the and shift language of acknowledgement the between play constant a was There were language the of richness the and tradition of loss the over concerns Although

shift moving toward shift moving would lead to the loss of the language, the evaluation of linguistic degradation in in degradation linguistic of evaluation the language, the of loss the to lead would

“How could that be? it could is What thatsomekind ofillness?” be? “How

extinction?

their native language. In the only display of distain distain of display only the In language. native their 63 - ns laughed at us speaking Russian it wouldn’t bewouldn’tit speaking Russian us atlaughed ns respecting person wouldn’t say that our language

nt danger. Several danger. nt lot of peoples are are peoples of lot g to know their know to g it’s

CEU eTD Collection maintain. to family the of responsibility shared the is that something meaning, deep of matter converse language native The important. emotionally not but useful of financially prestige, markers as well as end an to means a are they attention, special deserve which languages th to strongly speaks This language.” foreign a is it although English not but languages all and language any know must linguist “…a and linguists, languages native importance of the student commented on were third the During Makhachkala. in strongest repertoires language of Evaluations never.” “No, 3: Participant extinct.” go never will native language is the best” Participant 1: “Yes, your own is best” Participant 2: “And our language each of lov be should own your but free… importancebe must “language 6: Participant language; the evaluating simultaneously while multilingualism enjoy and accept the find many language the peoplefrom who inseparable speak that confirmed participants between this like exchanges trip the Throughout functioning.” and moving already is language the then alive, be will person one only if “Even 2: going it is nowhere and language Avar be therewill nation Avar the alivebe will there “While 1: Participant endangerment. linguistic such acknowledging avoid easily could unk other to language allowed participants to distance instances of language shift, which was always attributed the to attached pride and identity of sense constant the hand, other the On endangered. be could associated with the mixing of nations; fear this seemed to a was there nations all with together peacefully live to wanting about spoke participants many while and Makhachkala in students among phrase popular a was mixing Ethnic mixing.” Exchanges such as this, from the first focus group show us how participants were able to to able were participants how us show group focus first the from this, as such Exchanges nown speakers, and by making it less personal and far from their communities, they communities, their from far and personal less it making by and speakers, nown cery eie rls agae hv i Dgsa; ol lnugs r not are languages world Dagestan; in have languages roles defined clearly e

focus group, with the foreign language department, a a department, language foreign the with group, focus 64 it.

be the strongest reason people felt a language extinct.” Participant Participant extinct.” ed, respected. The The respected. ed, ly is a is ly CEU eTD Collection 104 103 structure identity stratified concentricidentity within inDagestanfunction cultural spheres of andsocio and multilingualism that shows clearly This study). this in region the of center administrative villages Avar among structures social urban in increase the and hand,other the comm ethnic small these within multilingualism increases vastly This school. in tongue mother a as in my case non Charoda the in Avars of situations contact Conclusion educates.” the on depends it language… native their in speak can’t they same the all but continuation of a language], maybe family.” Participant 1: “[here in the city] they sit in the lessons fact the to thanks languages; our save we did “Why 5: Participant this.’” learn and ‘go them, to say and someone to go can’t I But it. learn will he certainly then culture and language native his love to taught is parents. The third focus group described it best; Partici on rest to conservation language of responsibility sole the identified group focus every Indeed

Sivertseva, ‘Culture and Ethnic IdentitySivertseva,Ethnic ‘Culture and inDaghestan’. Dobrushin unities. unities. vrl, s Sivertseva as Overall, of study Dobrushina’s in found conclusions same the of some to came study case This

a, ‘How to Study Multilingualism ofthePast’. a, ‘How Multilingualism toStudy It also encourages the self the encourages also It - reciprocal bilingualism has decreased significantly as a result of majority prestige majorityprestige of result a asdecreased significantlyhas bilingualism reciprocal Avars) who reside in a titular region (in both cases Avar) learn the titular language

that we have the villages and regions… only a small group can control [the [the control can group small a only regions… and villages the have we that

104

where people identify with Dagestan, with identify people where

concluded concluded - ascription of these small groups to Avar identity. Avar to groups small these of ascription

n e suy s study, her in district. Firstly, small unrecognized ethnic groups (or groups ethnic unrecognized small Firstly, district. 65

pant 3: “In the family and community if he

elf

- dniiain s oe n multi a in done is identification their respective their

priual Gnb s the as Gunib (particularly - political hegemony.

way the family the way ethnic group, ethnic 103

On -

CEU eTD Collection 106 Daghestan’. 105 language, Russian; dialects serve a special function in the matrix of identity in the republic and the state the and franca, lingua of array an languages, ethnic of variants standard of continuation the speaker a in language each for use spheresof rarely occurs. multilingualism creates society. an environment where a binary choice, between greater two competing languages, the within function to Dagestanis allow languages identities si and language both multilingualism continues to persist in the republic due to process of disglossia. As persoLazarev noted through known is which differentiation language variety literary codified personal interactions. to relegated is identity affective thus and variety language one’s and functions wide republic This further confirms the written or official identities showed, almost always default to the accepted social ethnic category writ results state census categories. survey the as However, situation. contact the to identity native their to down way the all

Chantal LemercierChantal LazarevLanguage‘The and and NorthIdentity’. Pravikova, Bilingualism Caucasus

ethno Furthermore, linguistic preservation is strengthened as a result of the clearly defined defined clearly the of result a as strengthened is preservation linguistic Furthermore, Lemencier shift, language of terms In . . 105 106 - cultural and social and cultural

hs pas o h fc ta i ad out and in that fact the to speaks This h ntv lnug flil te ucin f dniy aneac wie other while maintenance identity of function the fulfills language native The

nce nce hs vle my o cicd i cn ed o smerc obe language double asymmetric to lead can it coincide not may values these

Quelquejay, ‘Problèmes Ethno Quelquejay, ,

distancing of language domains where officially codified language serve speakers

(both socio (both village

r sil on t b te ot oa t te a ter native their as them to loyal most the be to found still are

(and language variety) language (and - economic and socio and economic ’ - s Quelquejay noted that, eve that, noted Quelquejay 66 repertoire.

a cnat ewe speakers. between contact nal - Linguistiques Au Soviétique et Politique - ru acito i bsd n dialectic on based is ascription group

While the state may be relied upon for for upon relied be may state the While

depending on the relevance of the the of relevance the on depending - political) utemr, tradition Furthermore, n if a language a if n

values are attached to attached are Additionally, Additionally,

not al a , CEU eTD Collection the ofattitudes component active/cognitive or measurethe commitment tostudy methods suchas would linguistics folk and attitudes language of study transference and borrowing, languageand understanding of death ofthelanguage shift processes switching, code as such processes into with linguists for use great us give would which studies such conduct languagesto indigenous of knowledge of be would it Additionally region. the across relations ethnic an accurate m create only not could researcher groups prestigious less smaller, with research this continuingBy Republic of Dagestan; for starters, studies such as this must be conducted with other ethnic groups. Avenues futureresearch for regional villages much retain oftheir traditional multilingualism. factors, social of variety a to due time over shift may community particular a of repertoires the Indeed speakers. of community entire the but dialects ethnic of survival the with tasked is which family the only not is it reason this For Dagestan. of areas urban the in true also is this respective dialect. their in speak to continue not would people which in world a fathom cannot varieties language borrowing, of forms various and switching, code transference, of degrees language.otherany in bilingualism speaker’sa than fardeeper is languages ex etto o sekr i ta te tesle ae epnil fr t cniuto. s these As continuation. its for responsible are themselves they that is speakers of pectation It is important that work in the fields of socio of fields the in work that important is It

are both native and ancestral the depth of communicative of depth the ancestral and native both are ap ap of the current linguistic matrix in Dagestan but by so doing understand more fully On the other

hand language shift is an undeniable fact throughout the world and 67

prove fruitful in Dagestan; either by using using by either Dagestan; in fruitful prove linguistic and nationalism continue in the in continue nationalism and linguistic

For this reason this For . Furthermore a more. Furthermore pointed functions

most speakers of small of speakers most

leading to a fuller fuller a to leading

in these languages languages these in , despite varying varying despite ,

greater insights insights greater

although CEU eTD Collection 107 congruity or incong mirror image technique to more

Agheyisiand ‘Language Fishman, Attitu ruity of a language in any given situation in a bilingual settings

accurately judge evaluations of languages based on their perceived de Studies’. 68

for instance. 107

CEU eTD Collection 108 Regional mapof Appendix I

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus

Caucasian IsthmusCaucasian

. 108

- political_en.svg

CEU eTD Collection theCaucasus"Languages of 109 Northeast language Caucasian map. Appendix II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northeast_Caucasian_Splits.png

109

each other than Chechen and Ingush Therefore families language of grouping and branching not * 70 Inspired (2009) Schulze in by theinformation

reflect relative dating. It only only It dating. relative reflect Please note that this linguistic map does does map linguistic this that note Please , Lak and Dargi may not be closer to closer be not may Dargi and Lak ,

; Schulze , Wolfgang

for example shows the the shows .

"The .

. . CEU eTD Collection 110 modified Cyrillic. IIcolumn IIIIV Turkic and (Azeri),column modified modifiedcolumn V Georgian, and Appendix III

Атаев, The Аваркий development of the Avardevelopment alphabet. of the

110 71

Column I isamodifiedColumn Arabicalphabet,

CEU eTD Collection 112 ethnicities.svg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_ethn 111 Ethnic mapof Dagestan (top). Appendix IV

http://www.geocurrents.info/wp Peter FitzgeraldJeroen,

English: EthnicEnglish: Map ofDagestan

111

LinguisticDagestan mapof (below). - content/uploads/2012/01/dagestan_Language_map.jpg

72 tnc mlaain n hogot the throughout in republic. amalgamation ethnic differentiation linguistic of complexities geographic same location in the second the map. This highlights the to compared Avar region) (the map first the in areas green light

Please note the difference between the the between difference the note Please

, 12March File:Dagestan 2013,

112 icities.png.

and CEU eTD Collection displayedwith importantAvarin the regional figures andGunib. heroes library in 113 inh areamountainous and thepopulation of each chosen as other isno there islocated mapavailable given forthatit region ina the highly Appendix V

This photo was The thefieldworkThis photo mapwas taken conductedfor during thesis. research this abitants. Map of Gunibskii 113

region. Please language. Russian region. notethismapisin Thismap was

aul 73

rangesa under thousand tounder from 3,000

CEU eTD Collection Dobrushina DeLanguages,Linguistic Swaan, and Abram.‘Endangered Sociolinguistics, Sentimentalism’. De Saussure, Ferdinand. ofEurope.Council Comrie, Bernard. Diversity ‘Linguistic inthe Caucasus’. College, K.David Harrison. Coene, Frederik. RalphClem, S. Chevalier, ‘Language F. Joan PolicyFederation: intheRu Russian LemercierChantal Catford, ‘MountainLanguages ofTongues: J.c. ofthe The Caucasus’. Mary,Bucholtz, an Brubaker, and ‘Beyond“Identity”’. Rogers, Frederick Cooper. Brubaker, Rogers. Bourdieu, Pierre. Alain. ‘IdentitiesBlum, History’. Soviet in Blake, Michael.Liberaland Death “Language in Politics,” -- Arel, ‘Demography Dominique. Post intheFirst and Politics Agheyisi, ‘Language A.Fishman. ABrief Rebecca,and Studies: Survey Attitude Joshua of Bibliography

-- . “Languagecategories incensuses: backward 1.II. Situations in Daghestan How to Study Multilingualism of the Past: Investigating Daghestan in Situations How ofthePast: toStudy Multilingualism European Review (2008): 131 o Erosion World’sand theErosionofHumanKnowledge: ofthe TheExtinction Languages andthe c198 History inSoviet Studies and SocietyIthaca :(Ithaca, N.Y.). CornellUniversity Press, Language’. Daghestan’. Anthro doi:10.1177/1461445605054407. Discourse Studies 1. doi:10.2307/3108478. University 2004.,n.d. Press, 2003): 213. 2003., n.d. WillTheory by /Edited K Identity doi:10.2307/3246617. Identities’.Contested 57. Methodological Approaches’.

1995 , Nina. ‘How to Study Multilingualism of the Past: Investigatingto Study ofthePast: , Nina. Traditional ‘How Multilingualism Contact 6, n.d. pology .

Research Guide andSoviet tothe Russian Censuses /Edited by RalphS.Clem

f HumanKnowledge The Caucasus The Caucasus Language andSymbolic PowerLanguage

- Ethnicity without Groups / Rogers Groups/ Ethnicity without Brubaker

– d Kira Hall. ‘Identity and Interaction: Hall.d Kira ‘IdentityApproach’.Linguistic ASociocultural and Ab Imperio Quelquejay. ‘Problèmes Ethno Quelquejay. Framework Protection Strasbourg, for Convention Minorities. of the National Cahiers Du Monde DuRusseCahiers et Soviétique 43.

6 (October 1977): 283

Course inGeneralCourse Linguistics

12, no. 4(October 567. 12, no. 2004): 7, no.4 WhenWorld’s The Languages Extinction Languages Die : ofthe Population (English 2002 Edition, Population

, no.1(January 285. 2005):

ymlicka andAlanPatten An Introduction – 5 (10 January 585 2005):

. Oxford University Press, 2007. University . Oxford Anthropological Linguistics Anthropological

Contemporary European History Contemporary – 314. 74 . . Routledge, 2009. .

- Harvard 1991. University Press, Linguistiques Au Soviétique et Politique -

or forwor . Columbia University. Columbia Press, 2013.

Annual Review of Anthropology Annual Review of . Oxford : OxfordUniversity Press,

, no.2(1990): 359. Language Rights and Political andPolitical Language Rights – - ard 614. Soviet Censuses: State, Mistrusted . Cambridge, Mass. :Harvard. Cambridge, Theory and Society Theory and - - ) looking?” in looking?” , no. 6 (2002): 801. , no.6(2002): 801.

12, no.5(1 May1970): 137 ssian as the“State”

Annual Review of Annual

12, no.2(May Census and

, no.1(2000):

. – CEU eTD Collection Kisriev, Bruceand Enver,‘Russian Robert Hegemony Ware. inDagestan’. Kisriev,“Republic Enver. ofDagestan: Nation Kertzer, Arel.I. Davidand identity Dominique “Censuses, formation, strugglefor andthe Kartashkin, K.H.and Abashidze. ‘Autonomy A. V.A., Karner, Christian. Jeroen, Peter Fitzgerald. http://www.geocurrents.info/wp http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northeast_Caucasian_Splits.png; Schulze http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus Hall, and Stuart, David AnthonyG McGrew. Held, Hagendoorn,LoukPoppe, EdwinMinescu, for Separatism Anca. ‘Support Ethnic Republics in of Geraci, WindowLondon: RobertP. onthe East. CornellUniversity 2001. Press, Garipov, ‘The toUseMother R.Sh. and Right toProtect E.,and Cynthia Jon Fox, Miller Carmen.Fought, -- Edwards, John. Durkheim, Émile, Steven and Lukes. Dowler, andEmp Wayne. Classroom Habeck,Donahoe,IA Halemba, andand Jo ‘Size Place B, Santha. inthe Constructionof

-- . Language Dagestan mapof theCaucasus"; Languages of Caucasus Multilingualism 21, no.1(January 26 2005): RowmanLittlefield & 2004. Publishers, andCommonValuesinRussia Building (Cambridge, University UK: Cambridge 2002). Press, Censuses National political power,” in 203 Practice’. ethnicities.svg. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_ethnicities.png. Polity theOpen with Press association University, in 1992. doi:10.1080/09668130801947960. the RussianFederation’. Juridiceskij Zurnal Numbered Russia. (English)’. Peoples of 2008): 536 Cambridge University Press, 2006. Sociology andIts Method (December 2008): 993 Indigeneity Federation’. inthe Russian 2 Traditional Daghestan’. in Contact Situations 013): 376 – 20.

Language AndIdentity:Introduct An

Language andEthnicity International Journal on Minority & onMinority Rights International Journal Group – – Ethnicity andEveryday Life 63. 93. doi:10.1111/josl.12041.

. London: Routledge, 1994. English: EthnicEnglish: Map ofDagestan , New Perspectives andSocial onAnthropological Demography

84, no Census andIdentit Census –

1020. - - Europe Idriss. ‘Eve content/uploads/2012/01/dagestan_Language_map.jpg; . England:Palgrave 2006. Macmillan, . 4(July 2012): 157

–

55 Northeast language Caucasian continua The Rules Sociological Method:Selected of And on Texts ire. London: McGill ire. . -

- Asia Studies 01.htm; The Constitution of theRussian The01.htm; Constitution Federation . Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. inSociolinguistics. . KeyCambridge, Topics UK:

rydayNationhood’. y: ThePoliticsRace, of Language in Ethnicity, and . TheLondon: Routledge, 2007. New Sociology. - CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY CURRENT

. Kolstø, . Kolstø, Lanham:Pal andHelge Blakkisrud. Building Inside Russia'sWo Building 75

Russian JuridicalRussian Rossijskij Journal/

political_en.svg; Modernity andIts Futures

ion – Journal of Sociolinguistics of Journal 60, no.3(May 2 67.

. Cambridge University Press, 2009. in the Russian Federation: Theory andin theFederation:Theory Russian -

Tongue among Indigenous Small amongTongue , -

Queen’s University 2001 Press, 12 March 2013.

Ethnicities

Geopolitical mapGeopolitical ofthe 10, no.3(September 2003): 008): 353.

, Wolfgang. 8, no.4(December Post mb,” in File:Dagestan

. Cambridge:

49, no.6 -

17, no.3(June Soviet Affairs

Nation

"The "The

- -

CEU eTD Collection Torode, Cultural‘National Autonomy Nicky.Implementation intheFederation: Russian and Taylor, Others. Charles,And and Along Dagestan’sStaaf, Olaf. Ethnic Divisions’. ‘Political Mobilization ——— Sivertseva,Identity andDaghestan’. Tamara. Ethnic ‘Culture in Sven. ‘BetweenSimonsen, Minority Liberties: and Civil Rights Discourse Russia’s RUSSIANLANGUAGESLAW SOVIETREPUBLIC FEDERATIVESOCIALIST ON THE -- Rannut, Mart. ‘Linguistic Policy Union’. inthe Soviet Radvanyl, and M Jean, Shakhmardan S. Phillipson, Robert.Languages “InternationalInternational in and HumanRights,” Christina Paulston, Oracheva,Alexander The of“Special inRussia: Ethnic Oksana,andOsipov. ‘Territories Status” Nettle, Daniel, Romaine. and Suzanne Marshall, oflanguage: David “A politics F. l Levi Pra Ludmila Lazarev, Vladimir, and Laitin, David D. Kymlicka, Will. Kontra,Speak “’Don't Hungarian Miklos. inPublic!’ Kontra, Phi Robert Miklos,

-- - Strauss, Claude. Structural ‘The Study ofMyth’. . “The Common Language . “TheCommon Problem,” in July 241998,#126 OF THEPEOPLES OFTHERUSSIAN amendedby theFederal FEDERATION(as law, 93. doi:10.1163/157181108X332596. Impact’. Analyst 359 Identity’. Quest. ‘Daghestan: for National The Studies 2005):(June 211 “nationality”Internal and the Registration Passport*’. Social Sciences Caucasus’. Tibor Varady andaResource:Right Approaches toLinguistics Human Rights, 212 Dimension’. Languages 117:7 Union and aftermath.” its doi:10.2307/536768. 270 (October 428. 1955): Identity’, 2005. 2007. York:Oxford Clarendon University1995. Press ; Press, Linguistic in Rights” ImplementingHumanLinguistic Rights," ,” in – – 72. doi:10.1080/02634939995623. 32. doi:10.1080/13523271003712534.

- 42

10, no.1/2 13, International Journal on Minority onMinority International Journal

Multicu Nations, States, andViolence Nations, . Oxford Univers

Eurasian Geography & Geography Eurasian Economics

no. 11(8 June 2011): 20. Bratt, and G.Paulston. Rolland Journal of Communist Studies & Studies Politics Journal ofCommunist Transition

(Budapest: CEU Press, 1999). (Budapest:

3, no. 3 (September (September 3, no.3 – ltural Citizenship: Altural TheoryRights Liberal ofMinority 29. doi:10.1080/00905990500088578.

(September 1998): 142. - llipson, Tovellipson, Skutnabb Ф3). Language

International Journal ofthe Sociology ofLanguage. Multiculturalism: ExaminingMulticulturalism: ofRecognition the Politics ity Press, 2000. vikova. ‘The North Caucasus Bilingualism and Languagevikova. ‘TheNorth and Caucasus Bilingualism Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Voices: the Vanishing TheExtinction of .

uduyev. Peoples of ‘Challenges Facingthe the Mountain 1990): 437.

anguage ofthe as Soviet ainthe dissolution symbol

. Oxford ; New York: OxfordUniversity New. Oxford ; York: Press, La

76 nguage

and GroupRights Kangas, and Varady."Conceptualising Tibor Language andEthnic Boundaries

- A Documentation AnalysisA and ofFolk

Language The Journal of American FolkloreJournal ofAmerican The Innovation: Journal TheEuropean of 48, no.2(March 157 48, 2007): Central AsianSurvey Central

Nationalities Papers Nationalities

Journal ofInterdisciplinary .

15, no.2

Central Asia Central ed. and Miklos Kontra, 26, no. 2010):2 (June

18, no.3(1999): – . Oxford; New 3 (2008): 179 Language: A

– 33, no.2 over 77. , 1976. - 1996. Caucasus

68, no. , 1994.

–

CEU eTD Collection Атаев, Борис Махачевич. Zürcher, Christoph. Zamiatin, ‘The Dmitrii. Ware,Enver Robert‘Ethnic Bruce,andKisriev. Dagestan: Parity and in Democratic A Pluralism Iryna.Ulasiuk,Linguistic of Present’. ‘Legal Protection Diversityand Past inRussia: “Перепись Caucasus December 2008): 59 IdentityLinguisticFormer Soviet Republics’. inthe doi:10.1080/09668130020016503. Consociational Approach’. doi:10. & Multilingual Development Multicultural - 2010: русских становится больше” становится ( 2010: русских 1080/01434632.2010.536237. . New 2007. York: York New University Press, The Post The TerritoryImage Geographicand Russia’s ofNostalgia Problems of Аваркий: история, язык, письменность язык, Аваркий: история, – - 71. Soviet Wars:Soviet and Conflict, Ethnic Rebellion, Nati

Europe

- Asia Studies

32, no.1(February 71 2011): in

Russian

53, no.1(January 105 53, 2001): Russian Politics & Politics Russian Law ). Perepis

. АБМ Экспресс, 1996. - 2010. ru onhood inthe . 2011 – 83.

46, no.6(11 – - Journal of 12 31. - 19.