二十一世紀初期後蘇聯場域的語言與文化建設（俄羅斯、烏克蘭、白俄羅斯、摩爾達維亞、亞塞拜然、中亞共和國、高加索及波羅的海地區）

(1)

科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告

期末報告

二十一世紀初期後蘇聯場域的語言與文化建設（俄羅斯、

烏克蘭、白俄羅斯、摩爾達維亞、亞塞拜然、中亞共和

國、高加索及波羅的海地區）

計畫類別：個別型計畫計畫編號： NSC 102-2410-H-004-188- 執行期間： 102 年 08 月 01 日至 103 年 07 月 31 日執行單位：國立政治大學斯拉夫語文學系計畫主持人：亞榴申娜共同主持人：賴盈銓計畫參與人員：碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：魏岑芳碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：馮筑婷報告附件：出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文處理方式： 1.公開資訊：本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2 年後可公開查詢 2.「本研究」是否已有嚴重損及公共利益之發現：否 3.「本報告」是否建議提供政府單位施政參考：是，立法院教育及文化委員會

中華民國 103 年 10 月 31 日

(2)

中文摘要：語言與文化政策為學術與新聞媒體界討論最多的議題之一，由於經濟全球化與新聞媒體自由，語言文化建設成為現代國家與民族間衝突的重要手段。本計劃為描繪多民族國家——前蘇聯（包含俄羅斯、烏克蘭、白俄羅斯、摩爾達維亞、亞塞拜然、中亞共和國和高加索及波羅的海地區）之民族語言學與社會語言學、當代國家語言及語言情況相關文學的第一階段。文學探討主要聚焦於俄羅斯聯邦內外俄語社會（文學、大眾媒體、戲劇藝術等）之文學進程。本計劃之具學術理論與實際意義，因國家語言和文化政策與國家利益密切相關。社會對於語言的關注往往起步太晚——只有在語言深陷危機之時才會注意到，例如：帝俄時期的正字委員會，直到日俄戰爭（1904-1905 年）和俄國革命（1905-1907 年）之後才成立。最近在烏克蘭發生的克里米亞事件讓我們看到，正確的語言與文化政策對於多民族或多語言社會是如此重要，我們也看到一個國家若忽略少數民族的語言和文化特色，若不了解國家意識和語言意識不能畫上等號，會帶來多嚴重的後果（例如：一個國家——烏克蘭——可以是雙語或單語國，但不論是哪一種情況，都不應被國家視為是「非法的」）。中文關鍵詞：社會語言學、跨文化分析、國家語言與文化計劃、民族與語言意識、後蘇聯國家政策

英文摘要： The problems of language and cultural policy are ones of the most discussed both in special scientific literature, and in mass media. In the conditions of economical globalization and media openness the language and cultural policy becomes an important strategic factor in counteraction to the interethnic and international conflicts.

The project represents the first stage of ethno-, sociolinguistic and literary research of the modern national language and literary situations in the multiethnic countries of the former Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, the republics of Central Asia, the Caucasus and Baltic). The literary research is presented mainly by studying of the literary processes that take place inside and outside the Russian Federation in Russian-speaking communities (literature, mass-media, dramatic art,

(3)

etc.).

The relevance of projects similar to this project is defined by a scientific-theoretical and practical importance of the state language and cultural policy from the point of view of a state interest

protection. Very often a society starts to discuss a language problem too late – only in a crisis

situation (f. ex., in the Russian empire the first Russian Orthographic Commission has started its work just before the Russian-Japanese war (1904-1905) and the first Russian revolution (1905-1907)).

The latest events in Ukraine and in the Crimea (2014) showed, how the correct language and cultural policy in multiethnic and multilingual society is important and what catastrophic consequences can happen if the state ignores the language and cultural specifics of the ethnic minorities and can＇t

understand that a national identity isn＇t equal to a language identity (e.g., one nation – Ukrainian – can be bilingual or monolingual and both situations shouldn＇t be estimate as “crimes＂ from the state point of view).

英文關鍵詞： social linguistics, cross-cultural analysis, state language and cultural planning, ethnic and language identity, post-Soviet national policy.

(4)

報告內容前言 1.Introduction

This Report is connected with the first results of the monographic Project and includes only the main points of investigation.

Two parts of the Project and their research goals are decribed briefly in the point “2. Structure of the Project and Its Purposes”. The systemized working bibliography (its list is in Appendix 1 of this Report) is devoted to the linguistic (language) and cultural planning in the multiethnic “Slavic” states – the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus. Azerbaijan as a very special and linguistically progressive country in the post-Soviet language and cultural landscape has an “individual” part in my Project. The parts devoted to the planning in the independed republics of Central Asia, Caucasus, and Baltic demonstrate that Caucasus Republics aren’t in scholars’ focus in comparing to some Asian and Baltic countries, especially to Kazakhstan, where the democratic language planning is very strong and has already brought the goog fruits. A special reseach attention is payed now to the complicated situation in Moldova and Transnistria. Recently the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov announced it as the possible “second Ukranian”, though, from the historical point of view, it couldn’t be designated as “the second”. Both Moldova and Ukraine made the same mistakes in their totalitarian national and language policies, that led these countries to the splits, actively supported from “inside” and “outside”, and the modern Ukranian language and cultural situation is very similar to the former Moldovan situation.

In this Report the Project’s research methods and data are pointed as well as the first results and approbation. The main result was the writing and translation of the monograph’s Chapter 1 “Conceptual Terms of Researches of Language and Cultural Construction”. Its Russian text was translated into Chinese and now is in editorial process. Some reseach results were presented at Revitalizing Endangered Languages Conference (RELC-2014) and in the paper “官方語言計畫與內在文化密碼（以西伯利亞小說文本為例）” (its text is in Appendix 2).

The conclusions that were made during the researching are connected with the state linguistic planning in the scientific research, codifier, mass media, official, cultural, religious, educational spheres of life. The centralized and decentralized cultural construction in the former Soviet countries was described in order to understand the modern situation in language and cultural planning that will be written in Chapter 2 in 2014-2015.

My project edition is focused on specialists in Russian language and cultural studies – sociolinguists, literary critics, specialists in the international relations, culturologists. The Report is ended with recommendations.

研究目的

2. The Structure of the Project and Its Purposes

The language and cultural construction in all post-Soviet states as a whole wasn’t the subject of a special research work. I didn’t meet any monograph or a thesis from which it would be possible to get the generalized data on quantitative, qualitative and estimated signs of modern ethnolanguage situations in the post-Soviet states, though some information is found in (hereafter in chronological order): Решение

национально-языковых вопросов в современном мире / Под ред. Е.П. Челышева. СПб., 2003; Мышлявцев, Б.А. Русские и тувинцы: «образ другого». Проблема взаимодействия культур // Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры. 2005. № 15. С. 438-449; Решение национально-языковых вопросов в современном мире. Страны СНГ и Балтии / Под ред. Е.П. Челышева. М., 2010; Татаровская, И.М. Россия и СНГ: социолингвистическое измерение // Россия XXI. 2008. № 5. С. 64-97; Романенкова, Ю.В. Русская культура в поле постсоветского пространства // Известия Волгоградского государственного технического университета. 2010. Т. 7. № 7. С. 90-93; Севоян, Д.Г., Сунцов, А.П. Актуальные проблемы обеспечения субъектами Российской Федерации конституционного права народов на сохранение родного языка // Право и политика. 2013. № 11. С. 1438-1443; et al. There are no any generalizing monographs about destiny of the Russian and

(5)

Russian-speaking literature outside Russia in the Post-Soviet republics (the problems of language constructing and the Russian literature functioning are closely connected between themselves).

In this regard the urgent need ripened to collect and generalize at the monographic level all available new data on these problems.

The main project purposes are: 1) the definition of the main tendencies in language and cultural construction in the Post-Soviet countries: 2) the identification of ways and consequences of the state totalitarianism and / or democracy in national language and cultural policy of these states at the beginning of the 21th c.; 3) the revealing of those tendencies in language and cultural construction in the Post-Soviet countries, that will be useful for the language and cultural construction in R.O.C.

The structure of this project has two parts.

The first part (supported with grant NSC 102-2410-H-004-188) is devoted to theoretical and conceptual (terminological) foundations of the modern sociolinguistic research works that are necessary for analyzing the language and cultural construction. These foundations are already presented in Chapter 1 of the monograph. The information on Chapter 1 is in: 2.1. “Writing and translation of the Chapter 1 “Conceptual Terms in the Researches of Language and Cultural Construction” of this Report. The whole complex of state language policy reveals a strong tendency to sprawl. The complexity requires not just account of a wider range of factors, but also the new theoretical views on the phenomenon. I’ve collected the bibliography, studied the systems of terms and reseach methodology on this subject and summarized them (please, see point “5. Results and Approbation” of this Report).

The second part is connected with the social linguistic and cultural research material. All data collected by me in 2013-2014 will be analyzed and summarized in Chapter 2 “Democratic and totalitarian tendencies in language and cultural construction in the post-Soviet states at the beginning of the XXI century”of the monograph (the second part of this project has already received the grant support of MOST, grant MOST 103-2410-H-004-0). The bibliography on this subject is already collected and systematized by me, too (please, see point “3. The Working Bibliography” of this Report), and now the text of Chapter 2 is in the process of writing.

Chapter 2 has the following planned structure: 1. Language and cultural construction in Russia

1.1. The state and official languages in subjects of the Russian Federation: general characteristic. 1.2 . Language and cultural policy in subjects of the Russian Federation.

1.2.1. Language policy in Altai Republic. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Altai.

1.2.2. Language policy in the Republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population in Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya. "Mountain balachka" the Cossacks living in the Caucasus, and its status.

1.2.3. Language policy in the Republic of Karelia. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Karelia. Resolution of the government of the Republic of Karelia on the approval of alphabets of the Karelian and Veps languages.

1.2.4. Language policy in the Republic of Tatarstan. Problems of "the language sovereignty" in Tatarstan. "Yanalif-2" and its destiny. Laws of the Republic of Tatarstan "About languages of the people of the Republic of Tatarstan" and "About education" concerning studying of the Tatar and Russian languages in preschool, school and average special educational institutions. National, social, and age structures of the Russian-speaking population in Tatarstan. Language situation among the Siberian Tatars.

1.2.5. Language situation and policy in the Republic of Tyva.

1.2.6. Language situation and policy in the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia.

1.2.7. The centralized cultural policy of Russia in the sphere of support of literary and theatrical projects in the country and abroad. Creation of the national cultural centers (autonomies) in the large cities of Russia.

1.2.8. Language tendencies of the RuNet, TatNet, Sakha-Net (the Russian, Tatar and Yakut segments of the Internet).

2. Language and cultural construction in Ukraine

2.1. Regional fight concerning the laws on the state and official languages. The language and cultural roots of Crimean and Eastern Ukrainian crises.

2.2. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine. Russification and russophobia. Ukrainization and ukrainophobia. Polonization and polonophobia. Westernisation of

(6)

Ukrainian and Russian of languages in Ukraine. "Surzhik" (an intermediate form between the Russian and Ukrainian speech) and spheres of its distribution.

2.3. Language and cultural construction in Ukraine. From "abetsadlo", "maksimovichevka", "yaryzhka", "kulishovka", "dragomanovka", "zhelekhovka" to the modern Ukrainian alphabet. Mass media in Russian and censorship. Cultural policy of Ukraine in the sphere of support of literary and theatrical projects in the country and abroad. Russian-speaking literature in Ukraine.

2.4. Language tendencies of the Ukrainian Internet. 3. Language and cultural construction in Belarus. 3.1. Law on state languages of Belarus.

3.2. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Belarus Fight against a polonization and "compulsory belorussifikation" of language situation at the state level.

3.3. "Tarashkevitsa" as a literary form of the Belarusian language. "Trasyanka" as an intermediate form between the Belarusian, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian speech and the sphere of its distribution.

3.4. The centralized cultural policy of Belarus in the sphere of support of literary and theatrical projects in the country. Russian-speaking literature in Belarus.

3.5. Language tendencies ByNet (the Belarusian Internet).

4. Language and cultural construction in Moldova and Transnistria.

4.1. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Moldova and Transnistria. Laws on state languages of Moldova and Transnistria.

4.2. Moldovan language: from Cyrillics to Latin. Russification, Rumanisation, Ukrainization of the Moldovan language.

4.3. Cultural policy of Moldova and Transnistria in the sphere of support of literary and theatrical projects. Russian-speaking Moldovan literature.

4.4. Language tendencies of the Moldovan Internet. 5. Language and cultural construction in Azerbaijan

5.1. The law "About a State Language in the Azerbaijan Republic" and consequences of its introduction in the country and abroad.

5.2. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Azerbaijan. Language situation in polylingual Azerbaijan. Russian and other Slavic languages in modern Azerbaijan.

5.3. Language tendencies of the Azerbaijani Internet.

5.4. Cultural policy of Azerbaijan in the sphere of support of literary and theatrical projects. Russian-speaking Azerbaijani literature.

6. Language and cultural construction in the states of the Caucasus

6.1. Language and cultural construction in modern Georgia: general characteristic. Language situation in Georgia. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Georgia. Uncertainty of the status of Russian in the Republic. Specifics of education in Russian. Russian-speaking mass media in Georgia. Russian-speaking Georgian literature and theatrical culture. Georgian segment of the RuNet.

6.2. Language and cultural construction in modern Armenia: general characteristic. Language situation in Armenia. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Armenia. Favorable situation for Russian in the republic. Russian-speaking mass media in Armenia. Russian-speaking Armenian literature and theatrical culture. Armenian segment of the RuNet.

7 . Language and cultural construction in the states of Central Asia

7.1. Language and cultural construction in Kazakhstan, caused by an ethnolanguage situation and geopolitical aspirations of the country. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Kazakhstan. Official policy of three-lingualism (Kazakh, Russian and English languages). Russian-speaking literature of Kazakhstan. KazNet and RuNet.

7.2. Language and cultural construction in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan: common and distinctive features. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of these states. Destiny of Russian-speaking literature in Central Asia. National segments of the Internet.

8. Language and cultural construction in the Baltic States.

8.1. Language and cultural construction in Estonia. Language situation in modern Estonia. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Estonia. "Aliens" and problems of language construction. Estonization of Russian and Russians. Institute of Language Inspection. The results of the discussion between Language Inspection and UN Committee on fight against racial discrimination. Change

(7)

of the relation of the state politicians to Russian in Estonia: from "language of the occupational authorities" to language loyalty. Russian-speaking literature and theatrical culture in Estonia. The Russian-speaking Internet in Estonia.

8.2 . Language and cultural construction in Latvia. Language situation in modern Latvia. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia. The language legislation in Latvia. Referendum under amendments of the Constitution for giving the status state to Russian. Russian-speaking literature and theatrical culture in Latvia. The Russian-speaking Internet in Latvia.

8.3. Language and cultural construction in Lithuania. Language situation in modern Lithuania. National, social and age structures of the Russian-speaking population of Lithuania. The language legislation in Lithuania. "Framework convention on protection of ethnic minorities" and its results. Russian-speaking literature and theatrical culture in Lithuania. The Russian-Russian-speaking Internet in Lithuania.

9. Role of Russian and other Slavic languages in language and cultural construction in the Post-Soviet states.

Conclusions to Chapter 2. Conclusion

Bibliographies

1. List of sources of a material 2. List of scientific literature Index

文獻探討

3. The Working Bibliography

Despite the available American, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakhstan, Japanese, etc. bibliography on particular questions of studying the post-Soviet ethnolanguage and cultural situation at the end of 20th – the first decades of the 21st c. (please, see Appendix 1 of this Report), there is no generalizing scientific work which could allow the interested readers to receive the information on a picture as a whole. Besides, the part of information presented in a number of research works and theses, is already obsolete owing to the unstable immigration processes which are changing quickly a language and cultural situation. In certain cases the information was initially deprived of objectivity because of political prejudices of authors of works. Moreover I should assume that there are the views at the language and cultural planning problems from “inside” or “outside”: a researcher could be a representative of an ethnic community and express its opinion on a local language or cultural situation, or he could be a representative of another group with other opinions and even geopolitical interests.

Besides, in the majority of ethnolinguistic researches such important indicator of a real situation in language and cultural construction as a distribution of idioms in national segments of the Internet (A RuNet, Tatnet, Bynet, etc.) is ignored. The exceptions are: Чемеркін, С. Українська мова в Інтернеті: позамовні

та внутрішньоструктурні процеси. Київ : [б. в.], 2009; Беликова, С.Г. Отражение динамики рзвития

русского культурного пространства в грузиноязычном Интернете // Вестник Центра

международного образования Московского государственного университета. Филология. Культурология. Педагогика. Методика. 2009. Т. 2. С. 115-118.; Krivolap, A.D. Construction of Сultural

Identity in National Internet Space // Журнал Сибирского федерального университета. Серия:

Гуманитарные науки. 2011. Т. 4. № 1. С. 29-36; Memory, conflict, and new media: Web wars in post-socialist states / edited by Julie Fedor, Ellen Rutten and Vera Zvereva. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:

Routledge, 2012; Белова, К.А. Кодовое переключение в интернет-дискурсе Беларуси // Ученые

записки УО «ВГУ им. П.М. Машерова». 2012. Т. 13. С. 185-196; et al.

Fist I’ve compiled the following list of the research works devoted to the linguistic and cultural planning in the post-Soviet states.

3.1 Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning in the Russian Federation

Very often the situation in the Russian Federation is presented from “outside” point of view, e.g. in:

Cultural diversity in Russian cities: the urban landscape in the post-Soviet era / edited by Cordula Gdaniec.

(8)

post-totalitarian era: the case of Eastern Europe, Russia, and China / [ed. by] Ernest Andrews. Lanham :

Lexington Books, 2011. Some foreign research works are focused on the complex Russian “national-religious-language identities” and their connection with the sovereignty movements: Bennett, B. P. Religion

and language in post-Soviet Russia. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2011; Faller, H. M. Nation, lanuage, Islam: Tatarstan’s sovereignty movement. Budapest; New York: Central European University

Press, 2011; et al. So one of the main problems that complicate a researcher’s work in this sphere is a problem of state, regional (areal, local), ethnic and language identities.

According to sociologists and philosophers, by the end of the 20 century the collapse of the “USSR-USA” bipolar system led to a crisis of ideology in the former Soviet republics and, as a consequence, to the crisis of super-ethnic identity – the “Soviet people” (citizens of the USSR). After the “disappearance” of the Soviet people who was united with the ideas of internationalism and with the sense of civic pride (“we belong to the greatest country in the world with the most advanced ideology”) the opposition of "Ours" – "Aliens" required updates. The decades before the question “Ours or Aliens?” was answered by the majority of the USSR citizens simply: everything that was pro-Soviet, Soviet or regional, local was announced to be an “Our”, anti-Soviet was – an “Alien”. Russian was the language of supranational (pro-Soviet) and state identities.

The space of “Ours”, declared by the new national governments, became very “narrow” with the USSR collapse. The “national question” has come to play an increasingly important role in the socio-political worldview and personal relationships and partially compensated for this restriction. Although in many former Soviet republics there was no reason for a rigid determinism between the national languages and national identities, the national languages have started to be the main ideological objects of the nationalist rhetorics.

The solution of the closely related national and language “questions” has become a powerful tool in the geopolitical struggle. Ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes (i.e. stereotypes about “Ours” and “Aliens”), expressed both in the ethnic or Russian languages (though Russian was declared an “Alien”), skillfully used by politicians for ideological purposes, widely disseminated through the mass media and introduced into the mass consciousness.

New identity stereotypes in the first stage of their derivation are often the artificial concepts, serving for distributing the interests of certain political groups. The identification of nationalities with the idea of ancestral languages is still typical for independent-minded intellectuals and is not connected with the real language consciousness of other speakers. For example, even in our days it’s possible to find out the following contexts in the modern colloquial speech of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Tatars, Kazakhs, Jews, Germans, and others: “you was told clearly in Russian, don’t you understand the Russian language?” (тебе по-русски говорят, ты что, русского языка не понимаешь?), “it isn’t made in the Russian way” (по-русски так не делается), “why are you as if you were unrelated, as if you were non-Russian?” (ты что, как неродная, как нерусская), “as non-human, as non-Russian” (как нелюдь, как нерусский), etc. “Russianness” isn’t а characteristic of belonging to the Russian ethnic group, but is an auto-stereotype of “Ours” that is deeply rooted in the minds of people. “In Russian way” means a Soviet standard of correct thinking, normative behavior, etc. This fact should not be underestimated in the analysis of the modern linguistic and cultural situations in the post-Soviet states. Moreover this idea is reflected in post-Soviet mass culture (e.g. in TV movies, such as the movie “Mountains. Seaside. Keramzit” (2014), filmed by an Armenian director. It describes the life of the multinational Olympic City of Sochi, and one can hear the similar phrases from its Armenian characters).

The “inside” points of view are expressed in: Есенова, Т.С. Русский язык в Калмыкии. Элиста, 2003; Шалы, А.С. Этнокультурная направленность содержания образования в руспублике Тыва // Сибирский педагогический журнал. 2004. № 3. С. 175-180; Гамзатов, Г. Лингвистическая планета

Дагестан: этноязыковой аспект освоения. М.: Научный совет РАН по изучению и охране

культурного и природного наследия, 2005; Nizamov, I. Tatar s t s n st as Tatars a a

s t s iolingvistika. Kazan: Kazan d u l t universitety, 2006; Украинская диаспора на европейском северо-востоке: история формирования, современное состояние, перспективы развития: материалы научно-практической конференции. Сыктывкар: [б. и.], 2006; Современные языковые процессы в Республике Татарстан и Российской Федерации: законодательство о языках в действии: материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции, посвященной 15-летию принятия Закона о языках / [составители, А.Ф. Валеева ... et al.]. Казань: Татарское книжное изд-во, 2007; Этнические проблемы в современной России: международная научно-практическая конференция, апрель 2007 г.:

(9)

сборник докладов / [под общ. ред. Беловой Е. В.]. Москва: МАКС Пресс, 2007; Яхъяева, А. Чеченский язык в 90-е годы XX века: функции и структура: Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Грозный, 2007; Русский язык как язык межнационального общения в Республике Ингушетия: материалы Научно-практической конференции / М-во образования Респ. Ингушетия; [редкол.: Л. С. Измайлова (отв. ред.) и др.]. Назрань: Пилигрим, 2009; Карабулатова, И.С. и др. Ингушская диаспора Тюменской области: проблемы сохранения языка и культуры. Тюмень: Изд-во Тюменского гос. ун-та, 2010; Беженцев, Е. Функционирование тюркских и славянских языков в полиэтничном пространстве Тюменской области: этноязыковая государственная политика: на примере татарского, казахского, русского, украинского языков: Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Тобольск, 2011; Очур, Н.М. Формирование региональной образовательной политики в Республике Тыва в 1991-2008 гг. // Вестник Красноярского государственного педагогического университета им. В.П. Астафьева. 2012. № 4 (22). С. 386-391; Цыбенова, Ч.С. Современная языковая ситуация в республике Тыва: социопсихолингвистический аспект: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. Кызыл, 2013; Этнические проблемы в современной России: международная научно-практическая конференция, апрель 2007 г. :

сборник докладов / [под общ. ред. Беловой Е. В.]. Москва: МАКС Пресс, 2007; et al. These works are very valuable, because most of them were written by the representatives of indigenous peoples who are considered to be both the researchers and the subjects of the state language and cultural planning.

Some studies focus on language planning among the dialect speakers (including social dialects) and their identities, but this aspect isn’t very popular: Язык и народ. Социолингвистическая ситуация на

Северо-Западе России // Сборник статей под ред. А.С. Герда и др. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2003; Новожилов,

А.Г. Население Псково-Печорского края как этнолокальная группа // Вестник

Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 2: История. 2009. № 3. С. 94-110; Grigoreva, R.A. Territory and

Border as the Factors of Forming an Ethnic Identity (based on the expeditional materials of the Briansk Oblast border territory) // Народна творчість та етнографія. 2010. № 2. С. 30-34; Панасюк, Л.В. К истокам билингвизма в Украине: противостояние украинского села и метрополийного города в Российской Империи // Молодой ученый. 2013. № 8. С. 307-314; et al.

According to Kalinina (and I agree with her opinion in this case), the researchers usually address to one of the aspects of the state language and cultural policy: ethnological, sociolinguistic, legal, political, educational, etc. (Калинина, Е. Государственная языковая политика Российской Федерации:

технологии реализации в условиях культурного разнообразия: Дис. … канд. политич. наук. Нижний

Новгород, 2006).

Recently, as one can note, there were many researches devoted to ethnolinguistic processes in the regions of the former Soviet Union. E.g., in Guboglo’s monograph the analysis of the language conflicts in the former Soviet Union is undertaken and the inconsistent role of the intellectuals in these conflicts is shown ambiguous. The author has entered into political science a new understanding of the concept “ethnic mobilization” (Губогло, М. Языки этнической мобилизации. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1998). Ethnic mobilization is a process of transformation of ethnos into a certain political force with the requirements, program and organizations. In the transformation of ethnos into political force a huge role is playing by the requirements connected with language. In Guboglo's monograph the legal foundation for functioning of Russian in the former Soviet states is covered and the bilingualism theory is developed.

Another example of one-aspect research works is an Alpatov’s book which is devoted to the analysis of the language situation and language policy in the Russian Federation in 1917-2000 (Алпатов, В. 150

языков и политика. 1917-2000. М.: Крафт+ИВ РАН, 2000). According to Alpatov, the language situation

and language policy in each multilingual state are the results of interaction of two opposite requirements: requirements of identification and requirement of communication. The Russian idiom still possesses prestigiousness for all ethnoses and opens opportunities for adaptation in any social and professional groups, for receiving any education, for making any career. It means that the language situation didn't change in the modern Russia (in comparison with the USSR) whereas in the new independent Post-Soviet states the Russian language is gradually forced out by other languages. Therefore, - Alpatov underlines, - the language policy in the modern Russian Federation has to develop measures for protection and strengthening the Russian language in the former Soviet regions. It has been made in 2000-2014. According to our data, the Russian state significantly strengthened the positions of the Russian idiom in CIS and in the world. At the same time almost all other рost-Soviet countries insufficiently solved the problem of a local asymmetric bilingualism.

(10)

3.2 Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning in Ukraine

The language and cultural planning situation in Ukraine is reflected from “inside” and “outside”, too, in: Стоянов, И.А. Болгарский язык в Украине: проблема функционирования и развития лексики: Автореф. дис. … доктора филол. наук. Киев, 1995; Quest for models of coexistence: national and ethnic

dimensions of changes in the Slavic Eurasian world / edited by Koichi Inoue, Tomohiko Uyama. Sapporo,

Japan: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 1998; Masenko, L. Mova i polityka. Ky v: Soni a shnyk, 1999; Janmaat, J. G. Nation-building in post-Soviet Ukraine: educational policy and the response of the

Russian-speaking population. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Geographical Society; Amsterdam: Universiteit van

Amsterdam, 2000; Фомин, А. Языковый вопрос в Украине: идеология, право, политика. Луганск: СНУ им. Даля, 2003; Русский мир Украины: материалы круглого стола: «Русский мир Украины: язык,

общество, геополитические аспекты», Киев, 1 апр. 2005 г. / [редкол. А. А. Олейников и др.]. Киев,

2005; Rebounding identities: the politics of identity in Russia and Ukraine / edited by Dominique Arel and Blair A. Ruble. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006; Алексеев, В. Бегом от Европы?: Кто и как противодействует в Украине реализации

Европейской хартии региональных языков или языков меньшинств. Харьков: Факт, 2008; Мовна ситуація в Україні: між конфліктом і консенсусом: [колективна монографія] / [ред. кол.: О. М.

Майборода (голова) та ін.]; НАН України, Інститут політичних і етнонаціональних досліджень ім. І. Ф. Кураса. Київ : ІПіЕНД ім. І. Ф. Кураса НАН України, 2008; Contemporary Ukraine on the cultural

map of Europe / edited by Larissa M. L. Zaleska Onyshkevych and Maria G. Rewakowicz. Armonk, N.Y.:

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. in cooperation with the Shevchenko Scientific Society, 2009; Международная научно-практическая конференция «Равноправие ураинского и русского языков – основа консолидации народа Украины», 15-16 мая 2009 г. / Луганский областной совет, Гуманитарный украино-российский совет ; [редкол.: Е. Н. Харин и др.]. Луганск, 2009; Language policy and language situation

in Ukraine: analysis and recommendations / Juliane Besters-Dilger (ed.). Frankfurt am Main; New York:

Peter Lang, 2009; Русский язык на Харьковщине: выполняем законодательство / Сост. В. Г. Алексеев. Харьков: Факт, 2009; Русский язык в Украине / Киевский центр политических исследований и конфликтологии, Центр «Правова держава»; под ред. М. Б. Погребинского. Харьков: Харьковский частный музей гор. усадьбы, 2010; Титаренко, Е.Я. Двуязычие и билингвальное образование на Украине // Вестник центра международного образования Московского государственного университета. Филология. Культурология. Педагогика. Методика. 2010. Т. 4. С. 110-113; Функциональное пространство русского языка на Украине / [Затулин К. Ф. (науч. рук.), Гойденко В. Г. (отв. ред.) и др.]; Ин-т диаспоры и интеграции (Ин-т стран СНГ). Москва: Ин-т диаспоры и интеграции (Ин-т стран СНГ), 2011; Новик, А.А. Самосознание албанцев Украины: исторический, лингвистический и экстралингвистический контексты // Этнографическое обозрение. 2011. № 5. С. 75-90; Тетерич, О.М. Этнопсихология украинцев: языковой аспект // Гуманітарний вісник Запорізької державної інженерної академії. 2012. № 51. С. 143-149; Сорока, Д.И., Никулин, М.А. Русский язык в Украине: история существования, современное положение и перспективы развития // Актуальные проблемы современной науки: Сборник статей Международной научно-практической конференции: В 4 частях. отв. редактор А.А. Сукиасян. Г. Уфа: РБ, 2013. С. 289-294; Склярова, Н.Г., Николаева, А.В., Симонова, К.Н. Международный Крымский лингвистический конгресс «Язык и мир» (Украина, Ялта) // Известия Южного федерального университета. Филологические науки. 2013. № 2. С. 166-167; Савойская, С.В. Информационно-коммуникативная политика в зеркале языка: на примере современной Украины // PolitBook. 2013. № 4. С. 21-30; Савойская, С.В. Языковой образовательный фактор определения конструктивной и деструктивной политики в современной Украине // Путь науки. 2014. № 5 (5). С. 125-127; Озьминская, И.Д. Языковая политика и практика: противоречия в определении и реализaции // Гуманітарний вісник Запорізької державної інженерної академії. 2014. № 56 (2014). С. 197-207; et al.

The studying of this bibliography (both Ukranian and Russian) permits to come to the conclusion that if the Ukranian authrities took in their minds the recommendations of professional Ukranian and other sociolinguists, it would be possible to keep the peace in the country.

(11)

The situation in Belarus – the third Slavic republic – was researched in: Типология двуязычия и

многоязычия в Беларуси / Под ред. А.Н. Булыко и Л.П. Крысина. Минск: Беларуская навука, 1999;

Belaruskai a mova, int rn t i kamp’i u t r: mat ryi a ly Kruhlaha stala Miz h narodnaha simpoziuma Raznasta nasts mo i kul tur u kant kstse hlabalizatsyi , Minsk, 2 mai a 2 2 h. [skladal nik Si a rhe Kruchko ]. Minsk: Belaruski satsyi a l na- kalahichny sai u z “Charnobyl ”, 2002; Коряков, Ю. Языковая

ситуация в Беларуссии и типология языковых ситуаций: Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Москва, 2002; Палиева, Т.В. Развитие билингвального образования дошкольников в Беларуси во второй половине 20 в. // Вестник Тюменского государственного университета. 2006. № 8. С. 48-52; Палиева, Т.В., Филонова, О.Ю. Поликультурное воспитание в процессе обучения иностранному языку в школе (на примере Беларуси) // Вестник Сургутского государственного педагогического университета. 2010. № 2. С. 110-117; Русскоязычная литература Беларуси. Минск, 2010; Тулинов, В. Язык мой – друг мой: Беларусь. Двуязычие. За и против. Минск: Мэджик, 2011; Науменко, Л.И. Белорусский язык в зеркале мнений жителей современной Беларуси // Социологический альманах. 2011. № 2. С. 285-289; Старичёнок, В.Д. Русский язык в Беларуси: состояние, перспективы // Слово.ру: балтийский акцент. 2012. № 2. С. 76-80; Шимов В.В. Белорусы и проблемы «родного языка» // Современная Европа. 2012. № 1. С. 97-107; Чарота, И.А. О реально значимом и оптимальном статусе русского языка вне России (на основе опыта Беларуси) // Слово.ру: балтийский акцент. 2012. № 2. С. 49-55; Таяновская, И.В. Пути развития у учащихся речевых умений проблемноисследовательской направленности в процессе обучения русскому языку в Беларуси // Мир науки, культуры, образования. 2012. № 2. С. 161-164; Лянкевіч, А. Стаўленне да беларускай мовы студентаў ВНУ па шкале Лікерта (на матэрыяле анкетовання) // Веснік БДУ. Серыя 4, Філалогія. Журналістыка. Педагогіка. 2012. № 3. С. 29-33; Норманн, Б.Ю. О языковой ситуации в современной Республике Беларусь // Славянские чтения: материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции / Под ред. Т.П. Рогожниковой. Омск, 2013. С. 66-77; et al.

3.4. Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning in Azerbaijan

The situation in Azerbaijan is reflected in: Kellner-Heinkele, B., Landau, J. M. Politics of language

in the ex-Soviet Muslim states: Azerbayjan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan.

London: Hurst, 2001; Оганесян, С.С. Роль и значение русского языка для стран Прикаспийского региона // Электронное научное издание «Альманах Пространство и Время». 2014. Т. 5. № 1-2. С. 11; et al.

The Azerbajan scientists focus on educational and other problems: Шахбазова, А.Э.К. Развитие

методической мысли в области преподавания русского языка в Азербайджане (1960-1990): Автореф.

т дисс. доктора пед. наук. Баку, 1995; Мехдиева, У.М. Инструменты поддержания и укрепления русско-язычного пространства в странах СНГ (на примере Азербайджана) // Исторические,

философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2014. № 7-1 (45). С. 110-113; et al.

3.5. Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning in the Republics of Central Asia

The situation in republics of Central Asia is reflected in: Kellner-Heinkele, B., Landau, J. M.

Politics of language in the ex-Soviet Muslim states: Azerbayjan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan. London: Hurst, 2001; Korth, B. Language attitudes towards Kyrgyz and Russian: discourse, education and policy in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. Bern ; New York: P. Lang, 2005; Dave, B. Kazakhstan: ethnicity, language and power. London; New York: Routledge, 2007; et al.

The high level of the research work is demonstrated in the theses, monographs and papers of the local reseachers; Жабелова, Т. Языковая политика в Казахстане и ее влияние на межэтнические отношения: Автореф. дис. ... канд. политолог. наук. Алматы, 2004; Языковая ситуация и языковое планирование в Казахстане / Под ред. Е.Д. Сулейменовой и др. Алматы: Казак университети, 2005; Алтынбекова, О.Б. Этноязыковые процессы в Казахстане. Алматы: Экономика, 2006; Султанов, Ш. Республика Таджикистан: Многовекторная политика // Азия и Африка сегодня. 2006. № 9. С. 34-39; Шамбезода, Х.Д., Гусейнова, Т.В. Русский язык в образовательной системе Таджикистана // Наука и школа. 2007. № 4. С. 76-80; Шамбезода, Х.Д. Функционирование русского языка в Республике

(12)

Таджикистан: прошлое, настоящее, будущее // Русский язык за рубежом. 2007. № 3. С. 102-106; Орусбаев, А.О., Акматалиева, Э.Б. Факторы развития дву- и многоязычия в Киргизстане // Вестник Кыргызско-Российского славянского университета. 2007. Т. 7. № 7. С. 60-65; Русский язык и литература в Узбекистане: современное состояние и перспективы развития: Материалы научно-практической конференции, 2008 год. Ташкент, 2008; Подпоренко, Ю. Русский язык в Узбекистане // Россия и мусульманский мир. 2008. № 8. С. 76-78; Назаров, Р., Алиева В., Юнусова, Ж. Русский язык в современном Узбекистане // Россия и мусульманский мир. 2008. № 9. С. 84-91; Усмонов, Р.А. Грамматические связи в текстах публичных выступлений на русском языке должностных лиц Таджикистана // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Сер.: Русские и иностранные языки и методика их преподавания. 2009. № 4. С. 17-23; Нозимов, А.А. Языковая ситуация в Таджикистане: оценка эффективности языкового планирования // Вестник Пятигорского

государственного лингвистического университета. 2009. № 3. С. 250-252 (and other works written by

this researcer); Жикеева, А. Языковая ситуация Костанайской области Республики Казахстан: билингвистический аспект: Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Челябинск, 2011; Сулейманова, Э. Макросоциолингвистика. Алматы: Қазақ унив., 2011; Шамбезода, Х.Д. Мотивация изучения основных языков СНГ и ШОС в Республике Таджикистан // Вестник университета. 2011. Т. 1. № 4-35. С. 159-170; Худоеров, М.М. Проблема развития и сохранения памирских языков в современном Таджикистане // Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2011. № 7-1. С. 191-196; Усмонов, Р.А. Русский язык в культуре и политике Таджикистана // Язык. Словесность. Культура. 2011. № 2. С. 8-21; Таштемирова, З.С., Давлятова, Г.Н. Процессы глобализации и функционирование языков в Республике Узбекистан // Вопросы филологических наук. 2011. № 2. С. 61-63; Махмадов, А.Н., Ходжиматова, Г.М. Таджикско-русский билингвизм как характерная черта языковой ситуации в современном Таджикистане // Вестник Центра международного образования Московского государственного университета. Филология. Культурология. Педагогика. Методика. 2012. № 4. С. 124-126; Хоперская, Л. Россия и Киргизия в учебниках Киргизской Республики // Россия и мусульманский мир. 2012. № 8. С. 97-108; Салимов, Р.Д. Проблемы языковой политики и развития языков в многоязычном Таджикистане // Слово.ру: балтийский акцент. 2012. № 2. С. 56-60; Нематов, А.Р. Формирование юридической конструкции «государственный язык» и специфика её применения в процессе правотворчества Таджикистана // Юридическая техника. 2013. № 7-2. С. 523-527; Султонов, М.Б. Проблема языка науки в Таджикистане // Международный журнал прикладных и фундаментальных исследований. 2014. № 6. С. 52-54; et al.

3.6. Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning in the Republics of Caucasus

The very complicated multi-component ethic and language situation in the republics of Caucasus was researched by local scolars in: Даниелян, М. Состояние общественных функций русского языка в

современной Республике Армения: Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук: М., 2005; Григорян, Э. Русский язык в Республике Армения: общественные функции. М.: Азбуковник; Словари. ру, 2006; Кетцян, Г. Этноязыковая политика как институциональный фактор развития межнациональных отношений на постсоветском пространстве: на примере России, Армении и Украины: Автореф. дис. ... канд. полит. наук. М., 2011; Церцвадзе, М.Г. Об изучении русского языка и культуры в Грузии // Вестник Центра международного образования Московского государственного университета. Филология. Культурология. Педагогика. Методика. 2010. Т. 2. С. 2- 3; et al. Some very interesting information

is in: Cultural, linguistic, and ethnological interrelations in and around Armenia edited by asmine ragut and Uwe Bl sing. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011; et al.

3.7. Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning inthe Baltic Republics

rom “inside” position the situation in the Baltic republics is presented in: Rai a ngu, V. Проблемы

образования неэстонцев в Эстонии. Таллинн, 1993; Jubulis, M. A. Nationalism and democratic transition: the politics of citizenship and language in post-Soviet Latvia. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America, 2001; О русских топонимах, Ништадтском мире, Дне русской культуры в Латвии и

«сокольском» духе: сборник статей и материалов / Авт. и сост. Сергей Журавлев. Рига: Улей, 2 ;

(13)

ситуация и языковое законодательство в Латвийской Республике. М.: РИИС ФИАН, 2005; Нымм,

Е.Ю. Этностереотипы русских и эстонцев в анекдотах // Псковский регионологический журнал. 2006. № 3. С. 180-184; Руссита, Т.Э. особенности этнической идентичности русскоязычных подростков и молодежи в Латвийской Республике // Психологическая наука и образование. 2007. № 5. С. 279-288; Apinis, R. et alt. Break-out of Latvian: a sociolinguistic study of situation, attitudes, processes, and

tendencies. State Language Commission. R ga: in tne, 2008; Usage of language in diaspora: evaluation of policy of Latvia and experience of other countries [responsible for publications and research managers,

Gunta K ava and Krist ne Motiv ne]. R ga: atvie u valodas a ent ra, 2009; The Russian secon n rat n

n Ta nn an t a- r : the TIES study in Estonia edited by Raivo etik and elena elem e.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011.

The problems of language contacts are solved in “outside” works: Розенберг, Л.И. Российский фактор в Прибалтийском крае (19 – начало 20 в.) // Россия и современный мир. 2007. № 1. С. 140-160; Ризванова, Л.З. Политика государств Прибалтики в отношении русскоязычного населения // Ученые

записки Казанского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2008. Т. 150. № 7. С. 140-149;

Шаншиева, Л.Н. Образ России в учебниках истории стран Балтии // Россия и современный мир. 2009. № 2. С. 90-100; Blokland, R. The Russian loanwords in literary Estonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009; Шибаева, Е.И. Русский язык в Латвии // Россия и современный мир. 2012. № 1. С. 228-236; Манаев, А.С. Русский язык и законодательство стран Балтии // Научно-аналитический журнал

«Обозреватель – Observer». 2012. Т. 272. № 9. С. 52-60; Мамыкин, А. Бизнес на кириллице: к

истории формирования и становления постсоветской прессы в Латвии на русском языке // Слово.ру:

балтийский акцент. 2012. № 1. С. 25-31.

3.8. Research Works Devoted to the Linguistic and Cultural Planning inMoldova and Transnistria

The ethnic, language and cultural situation in Moldova is presented in: Погорелая, Е.А. Языковая

ситуация и языковая политика (Русский язык в Приднестровье): Дисс. доктора … филол. наук.

Москва, 2003; Ciscel, Matthew H. The language of the Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and identity in an

ex-Soviet republic. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007; Олейников, С.В. Полилингвальность Приднестровья:

информационный аспект // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 9: Филология.

Востоковедение. Журналистика. 2010. № 3. С. 269-273. A detailed analysis of this situation was made

by Tolkachova, Melnikov, and Suljak.

Moldova with separated Transnistria is one of the most difficult phenomena for studing the state language and cultural policy, so I will comment on it in detail. Before 1940 the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was a part of the Ukrainian SSR. The present borders of Ukraine and Moldova have existed since the middle of the 20 c. With the efforts of the Soviet center they were finally formed as protostates – the Soviet Republics with that portion of the symbolic powers that allowed them to achieve independence during the crisis center in 1989-1990s. Tolkachyova writes, that the history of both territories includes the periods of dominance in their various parts of the Habsburg, Ottoman and Russian empires, whereby the number of their regions was included or excluded from the Ukraine and Moldova. A particularly important role there was played by the regional identities. Now there are three main regions in Moldova: Budzhak (it was was under the Ottoman rule long time and is populated now mostly Gagauz and Bulgarians); Bessarabia (now it constitutes a large part of present-day Moldova and part of the Austro-Hungarian and the Romanian lands); Transnistria, which was never a part of Moldova before the middle of the 20 c. In the early 1990s Transnistria declared itself an independent state (number of post-Soviet state entities – Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. – don’t have the status of generally recognized by the international community, so it imposes on all the specifics of their socio-economic and political activities).

Melnikov said that one of the most important consequences of Moldova’s sovereignty was an increase in the official status of the titular ethnic idiom and consequently decrease, both at the official level and in public practice, the status of the Russian language and the Russian culture in general. According to the 1989 census, 1.5 million inhabitants of Moldova were not Moldovans: Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Gagauz and others. Their part in the population of Moldova at the time exceeded 35% (Ukrainians – 13.8%, Russians – 13%, Gagauz – 3.5%, Bulgarians – 2.0%, Jews – 1.5%, other – 1 7%). Only 12.1% of the Russian population spoke fluently the Moldovan language, while bilingual Moldovans were more than a half of population (57.6%). This asymmetrical bilingualism was even more obvious in the cities, where more than 80% of Moldovans have considered the Russian idiom to be their native language or spoke it fluently.

(14)

In Chisinau, at the end of the 1980s only 1.8% of Russians knew Moldovan and 85% of Moldovans knew Russian.

The results of the last Moldovan census in 2004 showed great changes. 3383332 people live in the country (excluding the Transnistrian region), 1305655 of them were the residents of cities. The statically dominant nationality was Moldovan. Its part in the total population was 75.8%, and it increased in comparing with 1989 by 5.9%. Besides Moldovans other peoples are still living in the country, but their part decreased: Ukrainians – 8.4%, Russians – 5.9%, Gagauz – 4.4%, Romanians – 2.2%, Bulgarians – 1.9 % and other nationalities – 1.0%. 58.8% of the total population are usually speaking the Moldovan language, 16.4% – Romanian, 16.0% – Russian, 3.8% – Ukrainian, 3.1% – Gagauz and 1.1 % – Bulgarian. Every second Ukrainian, Bulgarian and most part of Gagauz prefer to communicate in Russian. Moldovans, who usually speak Russian, now constitute 5.0% of the total. Among ethnic minorities only 6.2% of Ukrainians, 4.4% of Russians, 1.9% of Gagauz, 2.2% of Romanians and 7.1% of Bulgarians speak the Moldovan language in their everyday life.

As Tolkacheva (who investigated in detail the international problems in this region) pointed rightly, during the Soviet period the government of the USSR and Moldova argued strenuously that Moldovans are not Romanians, that they are a distinct ethnic group. The central and Moldovan authorities have made all sorts of steps to approve it: the Latin alphabet was replaced with the Cyrillic alphabet, the history was rewritten, etc. (Толкачева, А.Н. Приднестровское урегулирование: внешнеполитические коллизии России // Политическая наука. 2006. № 2. С. 70-94). The consequences of such actions became apparent after the USSR collapse, when the new countries have been forced to deal with questions of their own state- and nation-building. Moldovans (as well as Ukrainians) after the disintegration of the USSR had to answer the question, whether they constitute a “nation” and what is the “content” of this nation. The Ukrainian identity has been formed in the process of oscillation between Russia and Poland. The supporters of the Moldovan identity sought to establish itself as a nation distinct from Romanians, despite the language and cultural similarities with these peoples. It was difficult to form the local, areal, regional identities. The most problematic areas of Ukraine and Moldova have been their last territorial “additions” – Crimea and Transnistria, whose population in the Soviet period has increased significantly due to the migration from other regions of the Soviet Union, mostly from Russia, Belarus, and the Eastern Ukraine, which was connected with the intense urbanization and industrialization processes of these areas. Multi-ethnic composition of the population was formed in both territories. The associated complex structure of identities and loyalties prevented the creation of the exclusive ethnic identities, but contributed to the erosion of strict identities. The result was the dominance of the “Soviet” identity in its russified version. This identity has been one of the factors that increased the differences between the newly formed governments and the population of regions, who identified themselves more with the Soviet Union than with Moldova or Ukraine. The loss of the foundations for the “Soviet” identity has contributed to the rapid construction of regional identities – Transnistrian and Crimean. In addition, the ethnic stratification in the Ukraine during the Soviet period had almost no any competitive character. The integration of ethnic Ukrainians in the Soviet authorities has been greatly facilitated by the linguistic and cultural proximity of the Slavic peoples. At a individual level, any discrimination against ethnic Slavs was practically absent. Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians have held high positions in many All-Union military, government and party bureaucracies, they worked in science, art and education spheres. Ethnic boundaries between Ukrainians and Russians have become quite blurred. In Ukraine the Russians and Ukrainians controlled the main political and ideological institutions. The exceptions were the representatives of the Western Ukrainian elite because of the old political “unreliability” of the Western region. They were forced to work within the region without rising at the all-Ukrainian and all-Union levels. This factor has created the conditions for intra-elite crisis in Ukraine that took place in the 21 c. Crimea, like Dnepropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kharkiv, held a leading position in the attitude to “Sovietisation” and loyalty to Moscow, primarily – because of its significant advantage of Russian-speaking population. The Khrushchev’s transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine didn’t have a negative effect on the political possibilities of the peninsula’s elite: it continued to hold the top positions in the Ukrainian SSR or in the Soviet Union as a whole. The situation in Moldova was different. The ethnic stratification in Moldova can be characterized, in contrast to Ukraine, as bipolar and competitive. Historically, since the days of the Tsarist Empire, the territory of Transnistria was inhabited by Slavs, while Bessarabia was inhabited mostly by Moldovans. Professional and managerial staffs of Moldova, as a rule, were Russians or Ukrainians from Moldova or from Russia (for example, for two years Moldova was headed by Brezhnev, who was sent there from Moscow). Bipolar ethnic structure (Slavs and Moldovans)