The reform of the graphics in the Soviet Union in 1920-1930s as a factor in the formation of ethnic identity of Turkic-speaking ethnic groups of the Sayan-Altai

In the 1920-1930s the writing system changed twice in the Soviet Union: in 1925 the writing of most non-Russian ethnic groups was converted to the Latin alphabet and a decade later - to the Cyrillic one. Initiated by the Bolsheviks, the graphics reform was mainly based on the considerably "sovietized" ideas of the Turkic reformers of the second half of the 19th century. The purpose of the study of the language reform of the 1920-1930s is a comprehensive analysis of ethno-cultural processes that accompanied the language reform and / or were caused by it. The analysis is performed on the materials of the ethnic groups resulted from Bolsheviks' ethnos and nation building activity. In terms of the language reform implementation the ethnoses enjoying high ethnic consolidation and consciousness development have much in common with those weakly consolidated that did not form ethnic self-consciousness, but both the initial promises of the reform and the results were different. The graphics reform became one of the ethnic consciousness formative factors for new Soviet ethnoses. The elaboration materials on the Khakass, Altai and Shor writing were analyzed on the Latin graphics basis to show that as the language reform was discussed, the national intellectuals of the Shor ethnic group as one of the most artificial Turkic-speaking Sayan-Altai ethnoses insisted on uniting with the Khakasses as another artificially formed Soviet ethnic group. Thus, the national intellectuals tried to correct errors made by the Bolsheviks when differentiating Sayan-Altai ethnic groups. The Shorians suggested developing a unified literary language for both Shoria and Khakassia, but found no support. The refusal to develop such a language for closely-related clans of Kuznetsk and Minusinsk Tatars defined the linguistic identity of the Shor and Khakass ethnic groups as well as consolidated ethnic boundaries between them. Both the graphics reform and the resulted processes can neither be estimated unequivocally, nor be considered as a random episode in the language and culture development. On the one hand, alphabet romanization contributed to the formation of national cultures; on the other hand, the national literary languages were the bedrock of the national cultures further development that favored both the attaching of new ethnonyms to the constructed ethnic groups and their self-identification as new ethnoses. At the same time, the more artificial a new ethnic group was, the greater the reform contributed to the ethnic self-consciousness formation. The implementation of national interests of the new Soviet ethnic groups being part of the ethnic identity was reflected in the growth of ethnic nationalism with a strong anti-Russian orientation, which accompanied the linguistic reform. The linguistic reform was accompanied with a growth of anti-Russian ethnic nationalism as the new Soviet ethnoses realized their national interests as a part of ethnic self-consciousness process.

Keywords

Authors

References