Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 4 – Because of
the centrality of languages in national identity, many people believe that only
those who are members of the community that speaks that language from birth
fully understands them. But “Tatar
doesn’t belong to Tatars just as Russian doesn’t belong only to Russians,”
Alfrid Bustanov says.
To assert otherwise, to link
language to the nation in that way, paradoxically is an argument for supporting
the elimination of all languages except Russian in the Russian Federation lest
language alone become the basis for more fundamental divisions and even
“segregation,” the University of Amsterdam instructor says.
And put most bluntly, Bustanov says, “the
nationalization of a language,” the promotion of the idea that it is uniquely
linked to an ethnic community, “is a path to destruction” of both the language
and the nation. Languages may support an ethnic identity, but they shouldn’t be
limited to it (business-gazeta.ru/article/444983).
At the end of the Russian imperial period,
many Russian scholars learned and spoke Tatar extremely well; and at the same time,
“many educated Muslims to the same degree knew Russian.” What this says to people today is this,
Bustanov insists: “Tatar is not the language of the Tatars but an instrument of
communication among those who speak it,” including non-Tatars.
The same thing is true of any other
language, including Russian, he argues; and “linguistic multiplicity is the
historical norm in our country. I would like that this wealth remains with us
in the future.”
Bustanov is certain to be criticized by
those who fear that viewing language and ethnic identity separately opens the
way to the destruction of both; but his point is more fundamental: a language
that is attractive because of the community which speaks it should welcome as
many additional speakers as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment