I may get back on that later but I agree with that principal point that it might be misleading if a very specific situation that has emerged in CA over the past 15 years would be seen through the Baltic lens. Indeed, making key assumptions with regard to CA based on the correct conclusions learned from the Baltic transition experience is not convincing for those who knows the region from inside. I am not saying that this should not be done at all, actually it might be interesting to explore sort of “global” areas such as economic development for instance, but in the area of cultural ethno-linguistic studies it does not seem for me to be very productive. Assumptions and hypotheses and relevant research methods determine the final outcome after all… I would be very careful…
Best of luck!
Yuri

Interesting project. And a nice homepage - look forward to reading some of your papers. I’ve got quite a few comments, so bear with me - I’m working through your post from the top down - paragraphs are indicated for reference.

[Paras 2-4] I think you need to look more closely at what you mean by “reverse Russification” on two levels. Firstly, as a concept, how does it differ from derussification? Secondly, one needs to be very careful about conflating the experiences of the Baltic states and those of the Central Asian republics: they have very different histories and had (and still have) extremely different types of relationship with Russia in all of its incarnations. Furthermore, due to the multitude of ethnicities in Central Asia, Russian is de facto a lingua franca much as English is in Western Europe.

[Para 6] Just to be pedantic, Kyrgyzstan did not gain independence from Russia, but from the Soviet Union or (if one wants to highlight Russia in this) the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

[Para 7] Are stats really the best way to do find an answer to your researh question? If I see the word “anthropological” in something it’s usually a fair assumption that the research will be qualitative or maybe mixed methods rather than looking for measures and variables. Moreover, I’m assuming you’re using a linguistic definition for language purity - many people, myself included, would argue that purity of language does not exist per se, since all languages evolve and borrow from other languages. What if Kyrgyz takes a term from English, or a Russified English word from Russian?

[Para 10] Going back to Lagmanbek’s comment, in local terms your phrase “ethnic Kyrgyz speaker” sounds very strange. Many ethnic Kyrgyz are Russophones, especially in the north of the country. In the south of the country there are some ethnic Russian Kyrgyzophones (few, but they exist). The two issues are not contiguous and, as anon [comment 1] pointed out, “language is not an issue for most people” - excluding politicians and activists, obviously. Many people use a mix of languages on a daily basis - just as I use what could be called Ruglish most days. Furthermore, you will find far greater differences in attitudes to Kyrgyz and Russian between urban and rural populations than along solely ethnic lines: Russian is an urban language. A more contentious issue for some is the status and use of Uzbek in Kyrgyzstan - this would be worth investigating in light of the large Uzbek minority (c. 13%) and the fact that in the south Uzbek TV is available, as well as a newspaper in Uzbek, for example.

[Para 10] Kyrgyz is the ethnonym. A citizen of Kyrgyzstan is a Kyrgyzstani.

[Para 17] Kyrgyz IS the only state language. Russian has had official language status since 1991 and is often deemed to be a language of interethnic communication. As I’m sure you’re aware, there was considerable discussion in 2006 about the status of Russian in the Constitution that was widely covered in local Russian-language media (afraid I don’t speak Kyrgyz, so can’t comment). There have been increased legislative efforts at Kyrgyzifying the public sphere and business in the last couple of years - labels on food are suppose to be in Kyrgyz, for example. How this translates into practice when people are increasingly aware that knowing Russian is a virtual necessity if only to get a (slightly) better job in Russia is another matter.

[Para 21] It may be interesting to read this article (http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=1954) on the alphabet situation in Uzbekistan.

[Para 22] Your reflections for why 4 of 5 respondents did not respond to questions about stereotypes suggest two possible reasons. I would also suggest that this sort of stereotyping is exactly what the majority of young Kyrgyzstanis wish to avoid, viewing it as devisive and dangerous. If you must use this sort of questioning, then it needs to be done in a more value-neutral and culturally sensitive way.

[Para 27] Rather than assuming that “???!!” means “no” in Russian, it would be worth finding out what your respondents actually meant; “???!!” is quite a long way from “nyet”, even for many native Russian speakers and what “nyet” actually means is still open to question.

[para 28] If I was a Kyrgyzstani in the US asked to complete a survey, I would probably do it in Russian rather than English. I’m sure their English is excellent, but Russian is still a more familiar language for them. I’d be careful about reading too much into their choice.

What results you get from having 50 participants will depend considerably on where you conduct the surveying and is still a very small n study to be drawing conclusions from. As anon suggested, there is a strong geographical component that would be worth considering - for example, whilst in Bishkek I was told that no-one in Osh would speak Russian and that I should learn Kyrgyz. However, when in Osh I had virtually no trouble using Russian (barring one market trader and someone from a mosque) and if any other language would have been needed then it would have been Uzbek.

[Comment 4] You talk of the segregation of languages/cultures - all I can do is encourage you to rethink this dichotomous approach and focus on the ways in which the languages and cultures combine and feed off each other. One of the only ways Kyrgyz will become established is if it is seen as a language in its own right, not as a competitor against Russian or Uzbek. Kyrgyzstan needs all of them and is richer for it.

[Comment 5] AnonBai has made excellent points: I agree completely that it would be fruitful to interrogate your perspective as it does feel very Western at the moment. Similarly, if you wish to use associative questions, then knowledge of the language(s) and context is paramount; think of how uncomfortable many Westerners get having to shout “devushka” in a cafe to attract the waitress, or reactions to hearing Russians use the word “negr” to describe a black person, despite the fact that in Russian it is not perjorative. Closer to home, what a Brit means by “cute” is often quite different from what an American means.

You’ve got a really interesting topic, but I think it would be far more revealing to investigate it through interviews, maybe focus groups, and media sources. This would let you add a geographical perspective (variable, if you want to call it that) and then it would be even more interesting and much-needed. I can’t see that the stats will add to anything, other than letting you find what you want to find based on Western perspectives/theories that cannot capture the situation in Kyrgyzstan (and many other countries) - by all means, please convince me otherwise!

Having just written all that I realise you’re probably wondering who the hell I am. My name’s Claire Wilkinson, I’m a PhD candidate here in the UK and I did my fieldwork in Kyrgyzstan between Sept. 2005-Jan. 2006 (Bishkek) and March-June 2006 (Osh) investigating perceptions of identity and security using a combination of a survey, interviews, textual analysis of Russian-language print and internet media and participant observation. Would love to continue this discussion, so please post back or drop me a line - details in about the author for CXW. Best wishes, Claire.

Great suggestions but I’m trying to measure the attitude and perhaps emotional reaction not to a speaker but to an ethnic representative, that’s why I think the word “speaker” is not a good qualifier–it has to be “person” to refer to a speaker/thinker/doer of actions etc. You do bring out the very important point, though. I would say that I think I aim to measure the segregation of cultures/languages via soliciting my participants’ attitudes, even though they might be loaded with tension–in fact, that is what I’m targeting–as this may shed some light on switching to Russian and not Kyrgyz in some instances and vice versa–speaking only Kyrgyz but not Russian in the other instances. Thank you very much, Lagmanbek, for your input–it’s very helpful. Feel free to write more.

-R

Part of the cultural identity is the separation of ethnicity and language. I don’t know which you’re trying to measure, but in my humble opinion as an outsider, the questions are valid. You might wish, however to segregate “__a Kyrgyz speaker” “__a Russian speaker” and “__a Kyrgyz person” “__a Russian person”. In the local mindset, “__a Russian person” means fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair. “__a Kyrgyz person” means darker skin, dark eyes, dark hair.

There is enough cultural tension that you’ll be missing nuances that I think you’re trying to capture and measure if you don’t appreciate the segregation in the locals minds.

Thanks very much–these are great ideas–I may test these ideas–I’m still not sure where to go with the whole Russian/Kyrgyz contact. I appreciate your feedback–it’s something that hasn’t occurred to me yet.

Regina