[lg policy] Kazakhstan: The ABCs of the Alphabet Debate

Harold Schiffman hfsclpp at GMAIL.COM
Fri Apr 5 14:41:50 UTC 2013

Published on *EurasiaNet.org* (http://www.eurasianet.org)

Home <http://www.eurasianet.org/> > Kazakhstan: The ABCs of the Alphabet
Kazakhstan: The ABCs of the Alphabet Debate
 April 3, 2013 - 11:49am, by Joanna

   - Kazakhstan <http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/kazakhstan> [2]
   - EurasiaNet's Weekly Digest<http://www.eurasianet.org/taxonomy/term/3279>
   - Kazakh Politics <http://www.eurasianet.org/taxonomy/term/3234> [4]
   - Language Politics <http://www.eurasianet.org/taxonomy/term/4074> [5]

 Copyright show:
   April 3, 2013 - 11:45am

News that Kazakhstan is proceeding with plans to switch the alphabet used
for the Kazakh language from Cyrillic to Latin is stoking a furious public

The battle lines cross the linguistic divide and reveal divisions lurking
beneath the surface of society. The discussion goes beyond linguistic
questions into thorny territory such as Kazakhstan’s multiethnic,
multicultural society; its geopolitical priorities; and the colonial legacy.

Kazakhstan has been mulling the alphabet change since the 1990s, and
pursuing stop-start plans to switch since 2006. Last December President
Nursultan Nazarbayev broached the sensitive topic again, announcing that
written Kazakh will switch to Latin letters – but not until 2025. The
change, he argued, would provide “an impulse for the modernization of the
Kazakh language” and promote “our global integration.”

While many Kazakh speakers welcome the news, others express outrage.

One group of 66 prominent intellectuals – including writers, academics and
journalists known for their vigorous promotion of Kazakh-language interests
– have penned an open letter to Nazarbayev against the planned change.

“Won’t damage thus be done to the unity and integrity of the people?”
the Kazakh-language
letter <http://abai.kz/content/latyn-elipbiine-koshuge-karsymyz> [6],
published on the Abai.kz website on February 13, speculated.

These intellectuals argue that the switch would strengthen the linguistic
divide in Kazakhstan, where, for historical reasons, Kazakh is – to the
chagrin of many Kazakh speakers – not spoken by everyone, including some
ethnic Kazakhs <http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62424> [7] whose first
language is Russian. Kazakhs make up roughly two-thirds of the population,
Russians around a quarter.

“We are surprised that many people do not understand that a language that
is in a difficult position gets weaker every time with a change of
alphabet,” the intellectuals fretted.

They suggested the switch would turn Russian speakers off from learning
Kazakh, further dividing Kazakh and Russian speakers in a country where
language disputes are increasingly common.

Kazakh has the legal status of state language; Russian is the de facto
lingua franca and enjoys a constitutional status allowing its use in state
bodies. Kazakh speakers are particularly resentful that – over two decades
after independence – Russian remains overwhelmingly the language of

“Openly dividing Kazakhs in two on the basis of alphabet is tantamount to a
criminal act,” the intellectuals concluded dramatically. They expressed
concern that a huge body of Kazakh-language literature in Cyrillic would be
lost to young people, leaving them “detached from their ancestors’ history.”

In fact, many in Kazakhstan already use both alphabets. Switching Kazakh to
Latin will not erase knowledge of Cyrillic when it is government policy to
retain excellent knowledge of Russian, while improving the public’s command
of Kazakh.

Reliable figures on linguistic capability are hard to come by, but
according to the last census in 2009, only two-thirds of citizens claimed a
decent command of Kazakh, while 94 percent understood Russian. Astana aims
to get 95 percent of citizens speaking Kazakh by 2025, preserving fluency
in Russian at around 90 percent. This would distinguish Kazakhstan from
other Central Asian states, where knowledge of Russian has declined since

On both sides of this polarized debate, the arguments are hyperbolic.
Keeping Kazakh in Cyrillic would “be dangerous for the language itself,”
Anar Fazylzhanova, deputy director of the Akhmet Bayturnsynuly Linguistics
Institute, argued to
[8] in January. She is among linguists suggesting that Kazakh needs to be
distanced from Russian because of Russian’s semantic and syntactic
influence on a language that sometimes struggles to make itself heard in
its home country. Although Russian is a Slavic tongue and Kazakh is Turkic,
“Kazakh sentences are often constructed according to the rules of Russian
syntax,” a feature article in the Russian-language Alau magazine said in

Another popular argument in favor of Latin is that it is more convenient in
a hi-tech world – one of “many advantages” of switching, Layla
Yermenbayeva, a Kazakh-language lecturer at Almaty’s KIMEP University, told

Linguists are divided on whether Latin or Cyrillic more easily transmits
the sounds of Kazakh, and on which form of Latin to adopt (Turkic states
using Latin such as Turkey, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan use a
variety of scripts). There is even a movement afoot lobbying to abandon
Cyrillic in favor of the runic script used for Kazakh in ancient times.

Latin replaced the Arabic script for Kazakh in Soviet Kazakhstan in 1929;
then in 1940, Cyrillic was introduced as a common alphabet for all

A commission is to be set up by September 1 to explore moving to Latin –
not for the first time. One commission
[9]created in 2006 reported
[10] in 2007 with suggestions for alphabet change phased over 12-15 years,
costing $300 million.

That strategy ended up on the backburner for unexplained reasons: the
global financial crisis may have been one, but geopolitics could also have
been at play.

In remarks guaranteed to raise eyebrows in Moscow, that 2007 report
[11]argued that alphabet change “means for Kazakhs changing the Soviet
(colonial) identity, which still largely dominates the national
consciousness, to a sovereign (Kazakh) identity.”

Nazarbayev – a staunch Russian ally – said this January that alphabet
change was unrelated to “geopolitical preferences” – yet many in Kazakhstan
see it in those terms.

Support for Cyrillic is tantamount to “opposition to our national
interests” by people unwilling to reject “colonization,” argued an
anonymous commentator in an online debate
<http://abai.kz/content/latyn-elipbiine-koshuge-karsymyz> [6]conducted in
Kazakh and sparked by the intelligentsia’s letter. A supporter of Cyrillic,
also anonymous, countered with an appropriate analogy in a country where
the horse is a national symbol: “The alphabet is not a horse that tires or
dies of old age. The alphabet builds written culture for centuries. Written
culture builds a nation.”

A third unnamed commentator offered an equally equine riposte: Cyrillic
supporters should “be given unsaddled horses to gallop… backward to the
20th century.”


N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20130405/4810cfaa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

More information about the Lgpolicy-list mailing list