CC BY
0Volume 8 Issue 2, 2024, pp. 9-19
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
Original Research
Code switching patterns in Kazakh-Russian hybrid language practice: An empirical study
by Valeria E. Chernyavskaya and Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
Valeria E. Chernyavskaya
ORCID 0000-0002-6039-6305 h chernyavskaya_ve@spbstu.ru Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia
Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
ORCID 0000-0002-4160-6215 h zharkynbekova_shk@enu.kz Lev Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Kazakhstan
Article history Received February 21, 2024 | Revised April 29, 2024 | Accepted June 5, 2024 Conflicts of interest The authors declared no conflicts of interest
Research funding This research has been funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Grant No. AP14869030)
doi 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
For citation Chernyavskaya, V. E., & Zharkynbekova, S. K. (2024). Code switching patterns in Kazakh-Russian hybrid language practice: An empirical study. Training, Language and Culture, 8(2), 9-19.
The study investigates Kazakh-Russian and Russian-Kazakh code switching in the framework of hybrid language practice to provide insights into the sense-making process among bilinguals. The unique characteristics of the synchronic linguistic situation in Kazakhstan stem from historically rooted ethnic bi- and multilingualism. Language switching has evolved into a tool for addressing communicative partners and sustaining communication in bilingual culture, rather than being viewed as a deviant pattern. It appears to be a dynamic resource for ensuring mutual understanding and harmonised communication. The study aims to reveal the motivations behind individuals' language switching, how Kazakh and Russian speakers explain hybrid communication, and their sentiments towards it Data from two surveys conducted in January-February of 2021 and January of 2024 are presented. Each survey involved 50 respondents with higher education, ranging in age from 21 to 40, who have resided in Kazakhstan for an extended period, with many being native-born residents. We argue that switching between the Kazakh and Russian languages serves as a communicative tool utilised by Kazakh and Russian speakers to signify their belonging to a specific sociocultural community. The study posits that hybrid language practice can be viewed from two underlying perspectives: from a 'deficit' perspective, signalling limited proficiency in Russian or/and Kazakh, and from a more complex sense-making communicative perspective, assisting interaction. As part of the sense-making process and in sustaining interaction with communication partners, code switching serves an instrumental function. Importantly, hybrid language practice is not portrayed as a sign of cultural decline. There is no strong correlation between the mixing of Russian and Kazakh and social, cultural, and educational barriers. Further implications for research are prompted by the rapidly changing situation. The development of the Kazakh language as a state language is becoming a major goal and central focus in this evolving context, which inevitably raises the issues of linguistic ideology. Distinguishing between ideologically neutral analysis and critical analysis of language use as a tool of symbolic power for specific social groups would provide a more gradient picture of the dynamics in Kazakhstan's bi- and multilingual situation.
KEYWORDS: Kazakh, Russian, bilingualism, code switching, bilingual culture, hybrid language practice
This is an open access article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows its unrestricted use for non-commercial purposes, subject to attribution. The material can be shared/adapted for non-commercial purposes if you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
The study undertakes to investigate bilingual communicative practice in present-day Kazakhstan under a special angle, namely as Kazakh-Russian and Russian-Kazakh code switching. Code switching is discussed as the alternation between two or more linguistic varieties - languages or dialects, sociolects - and could involve a word, a phrase, a sentence, or several sentences. Code switching produces the shift from one language to another
1. INTRODUCTION
in the same spoken utterance or written sentence. The term 'switching' is used in the study to refer both to the inter- and in-trasententional change from one language to another). It is common for multicultural societies, in which two and more languages are used (Akynova et al., 2014; Ho & Woon, 2007; Muysken, 2000). Switching between two languages is a valuable resource for bilingual speakers to confirm interaction when speakers compensate for a lack of fluency when they are unable
© Valeria E. Chernyavskaya, Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova 2024
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Training, Language and Culture Volume 8 Issue 2, 2024, pp. 9-19
to retrieve a word they know or when the speakers access a certain word or phrase faster from one of the languages they are currently speaking. This is explained as the 'tip-of-the-tongue' switch. But this is not the only one and not the major factor facilitating the practice of code switching. Code switching may act as a special mode of language-in-use, 'where individuals act as members of specific communities, social or ethnic groups cover a broader range of the phenomena. It is speakers' choice as motivated by or organised with a reference to culturally and situation specific beliefs, values, or behavioural norms' (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005, p. 3).
In the study we refer to the Kazakh and Russian switching using the term hybrid language practice, as it was suggested by Gutierrez et. al (1999a, 1999b). As their research suggests, 'hybrid literacy practices are not simply code switching as the alternation between two language codes. They are more a systematic, strategic, affiliative, and sense-making process among those, who share the code, as they strive to achieve mutual understanding' (Gutierrez et al., 1999a, p. 88). The term was coined in the perspective of academic learning and social interaction of bilinguals in classroom practice. The scholars stressed that the notion of hy-bridity 'increases the possibility of a dialogue and, thus, the possibility of collaborating' (Gutierrez et al., 1999a, p. 89). In the study on Spanish-English code switching, Martinez (2013) uses the term hybrid language practices to 'represent bilingual language mixing as the dynamic use of linguistic resources rather than as the combination of two supposedly distinct codes' (Martinez, 2013, p. 277). In this view, hybrid language mixture can be a powerful form of 'ideological contestation' (Martinez, 2013, p. 285; Mo-lodychenko, 2022; Molodychenko & Chernyavskaya, 2022). Martinez (2013) points to hybrid language practices as a way in which students provide insight into their beliefs about language and identity. He stresses that this term 'affords an understanding of the dynamic everyday practice' (Martinez, 2013, p. 277). Furthermore, Freeman and Freeman (2015) suggested viewing hybrid language practices not just being evidence of linguistic deficit only but rather 'as a set of indispensable tactics for bridging different ways of knowing and being' (Freeman & Freeman, 2015, p. 170).
Our approach echoes this perspective in investigating the code switching as hybrid language practice and a dynamic resource for harmonised communication. In the study we argue that switching between the Kazakh and Russian languages serves as a communicative tool employed by the Kazakh and Russian speakers to mark their belonging to a particular so-ciocultural community. These are specific means of addressing the communicative partner and sustaining communication in bilingual culture.
The study aims at revealing how Kazakh and Russian speakers explain the hybrid communication, what motivates individuals to switch, and how they feel about it. We suggest that shifting the focus to speakers' reflection on linguistic choice within ethnic bilingualism opens up evaluative stances and presuppositions hidden behind linguistic choice.
rudn.tlcjournal.org doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The paper proposes the data obtained from two surveys conducted in January-February of 2021 and January of 2024, respectively. Each survey involved 50 respondents with higher education. They were of different age ranging from 21 to 40, and lived in Kazakhstan for a long time, most of them from birth. The participation in the surveys was voluntary and the responses to the questions were anonymous. The survey was conducted online using Google Disk and emails. The results were analysed in Excel, which presented them in the form of percentage distribution of the data. The data obtained were also processed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences/SPSS 20.0 programme. To analyse the data, an electronic questionnaire was created using Microsoft forms and distributed through email and social media.
We used mixed method study based on quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The survey contained open and semi-open questions (questions with answer options and questions allowing to give people's own answers). The survey included 3 question sections. The first one was aimed at revealing respondents' social background (ethnicity, education, age, social status). The second section was focused on the level of language proficiency identification of the linguistic profile of the respondents. Based on the respondents' self-assessments, their level of proficiency in the Kazakh and Russian languages was revealed. A methodology based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages was applied to determine the language competence in Kazakh and other languages. The evaluation criteria (A - basic user; B - independent user, C - proficient user) were formulated and presented in the form of descriptors to specify language proficiency at six levels. According to the six-level scale, language competence was assessed according to the following parameters: (1) a basic user can understand but cannot speak and write (A1), can understand others' speech and use basic phrases (A2); (2) an independent user can speak and read but does not write (B1), can speak, read and write but with some difficulty (B2); (3) a proficient user can express themselves spontaneously, speak fluently (C1), can write and speak fluently on any topic, considering the nuances of the narrative and coherent presentation (C2).
To determine the objectivity of the answers, there was an additional question: How do you assess your proficiency in the Kazakh and Russian languages?
To answer this question the respondents had to choose one of the options: can speak both languages equally fluently; proficiency in both languages is insufficient; know the Kazakh language better; know the Russian language better. The responses to these questions are completely consistent with the parameters of the language competence assessment according to the parameters presented above.
Part of the questions in the second section was aimed at characterising the language experience and the language use within and outside of the family. We included the following questions:
by Valeria E. Chernyavskaya and Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
1. Who do you usually communicate with in Russian/Kazakh?
2. Which language, Russian or Kazakh, do you normally speak in your everyday life? Why?
3. Which language, Kazakh or Russian, do your friends use to talk to you? Why do you think they choose which language to use when talking to you?
The third section focused on the mixed usage of Kazakh and Russian languages in various communicative situations. The objective of the questions was to identify attitudes towards language mixing. To ensure respondents had a clear understanding of the concept of language mixing, a footnote was included offering an explanation: Do you use Kazakh words/expressions/sentences when speaking Russian? Do you use Russian words/expressions/sentences when speaking Kazakh? for the question Have you ever mixed Kazakh and Russian in oral speech? Our approach was influenced by Martinez's (2013) study on hybrid language practice concerning Spanish-English code switching among bilingual school students, and the semi-structured interview protocol used to collect data as outlined in the study (Martinez, 2013, p. 287). We included the following questions:
4. Have you ever mixed Kazakh and Russian in oral speech? Yes/no. If yes, in which situations? Why? Give the reasons. If no, why?
5. Do you usually pay attention when you mix Kazakh and Russian? Yes/no. If yes, why do you think it happens?
6. Do you notice when other people mix Kazakh and Russian in their talk? Yes/no. If yes, why do you think it happens?
7. Do you like to mix Kazakh and Russian when talking to other people? Yes/no. If no, why?
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1. Bilingualism in Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan is known for its ethnic bi- and multilingualism generated by historically rooted multinational situation of the Kazakhstan Republic. The ethnic landscape of Kazakhstan unites over 130 ethnic groups, including Kazakhs, Russians, Uzbeks, Uighurs, Tajiks, Ukrainians, Tatars, Koreans, and Germans. The modern Kazakhstan is a multinational state. The Kazakh language is a state language, whereas Russian holds a status of an official language and the language of international communication. The Russian language is understood by most of the population and is commonly used in all the communication spheres (Suleimenova, 2010, p. 256). The Kazakh-Russian and Russian-Kazakh bilingualism continues to be most widely spread. Bilingualism is a naturally formed phenomenon in Kazakhstan. It is unique in a way that a dominant non-native language for a considerable number of Kazakhs living on the territory of Kazakhstan is Russian. The multilingualism and especially the spread of the Kazakh-Russian and Russian-Kazakh bilingual-ism in Kazakhstan is neither related to the migration in the 20th century nor to the mobility in the late 20th - early 21st centuries. Interaction between the two cultures and two languages has lasted for hundreds of years with intensive mutual influence resulting from cultural, historical, social-demographic, geographical,
political, economic, and linguistic factors. A common language of international communication in the country is the Russian language spoken by most of the population. Surely, many processes influence the overall ethnolinguistic picture, leading to further functional redistribution of language proportions within the Kazakh communicative space. As Suleimenova (2007) claims, 'unique linguistic situation of Kazakhstan results from co-functioning of two demographically and communicatively strong language-partners - Kazakh and Russian in a common communicative space' (Suleimenova, 2007, p. 14). Linguistic situation remains 'clearly centred around the Kazakh and Russian languages. To speak both languages is obligatory for integration processes within the country' (Suleimenova, 2007, p. 27).
The present-day Kazakhstan unites diverse generations of Russian language speakers - monolinguals (ethnic Russians, Koreans, Ukrainians, and others) and bilinguals (representatives of various ethnic groups) with their dominant language being Russian or their ethnic language.
Today in Kazakhstan two groups of people agreeably co-exist. On the one hand, there are citizens, families who follow national Kazakh traditions, and thus these people refer the continuity of generations and the Kazakh ethnocentricity to the use of the Kazakh language. These lead to linguistic purism: maintaining the purity of the Kazakh language is regarded as a requirement for preservation of the Kazakh traditions. On the other hand, the so-called westernised families and culture are also widely spread with communication in the Russian language which has long been permitted and practiced. This is also connected with historically formed embeddedness of communication in Russian, mentioned above. These people also consider themselves as part of the Kazakh culture, traditions and customs and feel comfortable in Kazakhstan society.
To discuss ethnic bilingualism in Kazakhstan two types of bi-lingualism are to be differentiated: coordinative and subordinat-ive. A coordinative or 'pure' bilingual has equal proficiency in two languages. In this case, virtually no language interference or errors occur in language production. Terms first language (L1) and second language (L2) are used to describe bilingual's competence. L1 is a language that a bilingual is more skilled in. L1 can be referred to a language which was acquired first or which is more functionally significant. L2 is a language which a bilingual is less skilled in. A subordinative bilingual is more proficient in one language than the other. In an utterance production one can observe switching from one language to the other, language mixing resulting in language interference and errors under the influence of L1 on L2.
In Kazakhstan, subordinate bilingualism is generally prevalent. Examination of this type of bilingualism rests on the notion of 'a dominant language'. The dominant language is the primary language used across various communicative spheres, professional domains, and educational settings. Importantly, the concept of the dominant language differs from that of the native language; it may align with the native language or diverge from it. A non-native language can act as a dominant one.
Volume 8 Issue 2, 2024, pp. 9-19 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
In Kazakhstan, the Russian language is a non-native dominant language for ethnic Kazakhs living in the northern parts of Kazakhstan with most of the Russian-speaking population. In southern and western parts of the republic of Kazakhstan bilin-gualism with the Kazakh language as a dominant one is observed. A dominant language tends to be used as a language of international communication. This can be clearly seen in present-day Kazakhstan, see for review (Mongilyova, 2015).
Language policy imposed in Kazakhstan in the last 20-25 years has affected its bilingualism. It has led to the emergence of subordinate bilingualism with the Kazakh language prevalent as a state's official language. There is an increasing tendency towards learning the Kazakh language as a non-native language. As a result, individual Russian-Kazakh bilingualism tends to shift into group Russian-Kazakh bilingualism. As for the Kazakh-Russian bilingualism, it has long shaped and now is enhancing intensively. However, Russian-Kazakh bilingualism is currently in the process of formation and can be characterised as passive bi-lingualism (Tuksaitova, 2016; Zharkynbekova & Chernyavs-kaya, 2021).
3.2. Kazakh-Russian hybrid language practice
The manner in which the Kazakh and Russian languages are combined can be described both as intrasententional switching and intersententional change in languages between utterances. An intrasentential switching functions as a combination of a lexeme in one language within a sentence produced according to the grammatical structure of the other language. This very form of code switching has become widely used in the Kazakh-Russian ethnic bilingualism. This is typical for phatic communication in situations of greeting and farewell, maintaining a dialog, and responding to a partner. For instance:
Maybe kafege baramyz? (Kazakh kafege baramyz [кафеге барамыз] means go to the café.)
In general bylaj kelisejik. (Kazakh bylaj kelisejik [былай келкетк] means let's make a deal like this.)
Rakhmet for your understanding. (Kazakh rakhmet [рахмет] means thank you.)
Tysindirip berinishshi one more time. (Kazakh tysindirip ber-inishshi [myciHdipin бершшшi] means please explain.)
So, men bygin sabana bara almajmyn. (Kazakh men bygin sabaK,K,a bara almajmyn [мен бyгiн сабацца бара алмаймын] means I can't go to class today)
How is life? Everything is zhaksy and you? (Kazakh zhaksy [жаксы] means fine.)
I am telling you baimarsyn. (Kazakh baimarsyn means be quiet; a typical phrase used by parents to address their children.)
I'm telling you myn kyrik bes ret, no means no. (Myn kyrik bes ret means for the umpteenth time, literally one thousand forty-five times).
The hybridity through combining linguistic items of both Kazakh and Russian has long been investigated in the Kazakh-stani linguistics in respect with different terms and various explanatory approaches. Various social factors and reasons have
been mentioned which contribute to the choice of the language in the bilingual situation in Kazakhstan. These include culture and language traditions of the ethnic group; social differentiation of the functioning of the two languages; the aim of a communicative act; environment, time and location of a communicative act; demography (gender, age, parents' social and class settings); social status; socialising in the bilingual society; change of a social role of a language personality; upbringing in a bilingual setting, including mixed marriages; ethnic self-identity; and norms of speaking etiquette. Later sociocultural factors affecting bilingual-ism have been further distinguished and described in greater detail (Karlinsky, 2011; Saina, 2000; Suleimenova, 2007).
In explaining the phenomena of switching from Kazakh to Russian and back researchers discussed it in terms of rather fixed correlation of individuals' language behaviour with their demographic features - age, education, and social status (Alis-harieva, 2014; Saina, 2000). Also, combining linguistic items of both languages was generally considered in terms of borrowings, language interference and intercalation. This basically implies the level of language proficiency as the key factor for hybrid practice (O'Connor & Crawford, 2015). The lower the proficiency level, the more frequent the occurrence of code switching, driven by a bilingual individual's inclination to switch to the language in which they possess greater proficiency, thereby facilitating communication and overcoming language barriers (Jacobson, 1997). This explanatory approach relates an insufficient proficiency in the Kazakh language by Kazakhs to a poor language proficiency in general. Mixed language is defined mainly as interference errors in subordinate multilingualism. It was revealed that switching from one language to another and mixing them can produce interferential language errors under the influence of L1 on L2 in subordinate bilingualism generally prevalent in Kazakhstan (Mirzoyeva & Akhmetzhanova, 2019, p. 46).
Mirzoyeva and Akhmetzhanova (2019) preferred to identify the bilingual data in the mixed speech as mistakes. The researchers consider four types of errors: (i) phonetic (pronunciation) errors; (ii) wrong word usage and collocations; (iii) errors in word structure and wrong use of grammar categories; and (iv) errors in sentence structure. Similarly, the wrong use of the Russian language gender and case under the influence of the Kazakh language originating from Turkic language group are discussed in terms of code switching. Also, linear intrasententional combinability of words of the two languages is regarded in the study (Mirzoyeva & Akhmetzhanova, 2019) as an instance of interference errors. Explanatory emphasis is particularly put on the errors.
An important point to bear in mind is that there is a difference between switches made by a less and a more proficient speaker. Lower language proficiency generates switches (mixes) by the lack of lexical and grammatical knowledge while switching produced by individuals with higher bilingual proficiency may be the marker of advanced understanding of shared so-ciocultural situation and social setting (Kecskes, 2006, p. 266).
by Valeria E. Chernyavskaya and Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
Notably, language hybridity, also studied in terms of code switching and interferences, is discussed as a characteristic feature of the national variant of the Russian language in Kazakhstan. Researchers claim that the Russian language in Kazakhstan functions in special conditions and has significant specifics. This can be explained by special geopolitical factors, inter-ethnic integration, active language contacts, the scope of public functions of the Russian language, types of bilingualism and multilingual-ism. There is a longstanding tradition of researching the diversification of the Russian language in Kazakhstan and categorising it as a national variant. Suleimenova (2010) discusses the formation of the Kazakh variant of the Russian language (Kazakh Russian language). The researcher states that within the cardinal changes of the status and functional state of Kazakh and Russian languages, the fundamental changes in the character of sustainable and mass Kazakh-Russian bilingualism and quite actively started Russian-Kazakh bilingualism of young people, changes in the conceptual and mental picture of the world of Kazakh people, the Russian language imminently and organically adapts to the communicative needs of Kazakh people (Suleimenova et al., 2021, p. 17). Acknowledging the complexity of making an unequivocal and definitive statement regarding this matter, the researcher identifies criteria for recognising the existence of the Kazakh Russian language, including its close character and incomprehensibility for speakers of the Russian language living outside Kazakhstan. A representative illustration is the example of a newspaper text given by the researcher: '... renting a six-channel yurt will cost 30,000 tenge, and an eight-channel yurt will cost 40,000 tenge; ...add to that additional materials - harnesses, koshma, baskur and more kiiz, tuskiiz, tekemet, syrmak, sandyk, tosekagash, syrmak made of koshma, baskur made of woven patterned ribbon, tokyma on a koshoma base embroidered with silk threads, bostek with oyu-ornek, besik made of natural wood' (Suleimenova, 2010, p. 255). These phrases are comprehensible to most people in Kazakhstan, but they will remain hermetic for others. The example was deliberately selected by the researcher as the most representative, containing specific national-cultural information and non-equivalent vocabulary, for instance, sandyk means a large trunk, given the presence in Russian of a successfully mastered turkism trunk, a six-rope yurt is a yurt supported not by six ropes, but by six segments of the yurt base, etc.
The expression of the diversification processes and the fact in favour of the formation of the Kazakh Russian language are the numerous penetrations into the Russian language of Kazakh language units, which do not need translation and are understood by the majority. The Russian language in Kazakhstan is characterised by borrowings of Kazakh words, lexical, grammatical, stylistic features of Kazakh borrowings, grammatical design of Kazakh words in Russian speech. Zhuravleva (2007) considers the active use of regionalisms, turkisms and vocabulary constructed according to the word-formation models of the Russian language that reflects actual realities of Kazakhstan; the use of precedent names and texts that appeal to Kazakh cultural concepts and are comprehensible to Kazakh speakers of Russian to
be the features of the national variant of the Russian language (Zhuravleva, 2007). The observed linguistic specifics for a long time has been created and is being created by the efforts and creativity of the bilingual Kazakhs, and it is understood, supported, and used not only by them, but also by the representatives of other ethnic groups located in the common communicative space of Kazakhstan with the Kazakhs' (Suleimenova et al., 2021, p. 11).
4. STUDY RESULTS
4.1. 2021 survey findings and analysis
The study's dataset comprised surveys from 50 respondents with higher education, representing diverse age groups and individuals who have resided in Kazakhstan for an extended period, with many being native-born residents. Among these respondents, 28 were aged between 21 and 30, while 22 fell within the 31 to 40 age range. Half of the participants (50%) are pursuing further studies in master's or postgraduate programmes, with a significant portion possessing prior work experience. Additionally, 24% of respondents are employed in the field of education, while 25% are university personnel. Merely 1% of respondents reported being currently unemployed.
Ethnically, most respondents (86%) identified as Kazakh, followed by 10% who identified as Russian, and 2% each as Korean and Tatar.
Upon examination of the data, two distinct groups of respondents were identified based on their proficiency in Kazakh and Russian languages. The first group, denoted as R1, comprised 21 individuals whose native and dominant language was Kazakh, as per the provided definitions. Their proficiency in Russian ranged from B2 to C1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The second group, R2, consisted of 23 individuals with higher education, whose native and dominant language was Russian, regardless of nationality, including ethnic Kazakhs. Their proficiency in Kazakh ranged from B1 to B2. Additionally, 5 respondents reported possessing a high proficiency level (C1) in both Kazakh and Russian.
The respondents in R1 indicated in response to the question 'With whom do you primarily communicate in Kazakh?' that they predominantly communicated in Kazakh with their family (at home) and friends (68%). A minority of responses (24%) favoured using the Kazakh language with colleagues and service workers (at banks, shops, post offices, etc.). Typical responses included:
When I talk to people who can speak both Kazakh and Russian.
Russian and Kazakh have been mixed in everyday life, so it's hard to communicate in Kazakh only.
When speaking solely in Kazakh, it appears that people do not fully understand you.
Kazakh-speaking colleagues and students often switch to Russian when conversing with me, assuming I am of Tatar nationality. There have been occasions when they spoke in Kazakh behind my back, believing I couldn't understand them.
Volume 8 Issue 2, 2024, pp. 9-19 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
Thirteen R1 respondents (61%) reported that their friends primarily used Kazakh when communicating with them, attributing this to shared ethnicity (they are Kazakh, like myself) and Kazakh being their native language. Seven respondents (33%) mentioned using both Kazakh and Russian languages. In contrast, R2 respondents (78% of them) reported using Russian to communicate with friends, colleagues, and in public settings. However, when conversing with their family, they predominantly used Kazakh:
I speak Russian with nearly everyone, except for my family.
Speaking Russian is much easier for me, and I find that people, even Kazakhs, often communicate with me in Russian.
Russian is the language used in all aspects of my life - family, education, and friendships. But my son often talks to me in Kazakh because he wants me to improve my Kazakh skills, and so he creates the language setting.
In R2, fourteen individuals (63% of the respondents) indicated the Russian language, four individuals (16%) mentioned Kazakh, and five individuals (21%) reported using both Kazakh and Russian languages.
Responses to the question 'Why do your friends speak Russian with you?' in R2 were associated with the language environment (48%):
It's because of my social circle.
Because they speak Russian like me.
My friends speak Russian with me as they grew up in a Russian-speaking environment like me.
I'm Russian-minded.
Some of the respondents (37%) in R2 describing themselves as Russian speakers explained their use of Russian from a functional perspective, this being convenient, habitual, easy, simple,
Table 1
2021 survey: Reasons for Kazakh-Russian code switching
or commonplace. Another part (10%) of the participants admitted that the use of the Russian language contributed to the success of communication: They talk to me in Russian to understand each other better.
As indicated by the results, several interconnected social and sociocultural factors influence the usage of both languages in various communication scenarios, the selection of a language in specific communicative contexts, and the frequent switching between languages.
The question 'Have you ever mixed Kazakh and Russian in oral speech?' received an affirmative response from most respondents in both groups (81% in R1 and 74% in R2, respectively). Their explanations regarding the situations and motives for language mixing varied considerably. Approximately one-third of respondents (31% in R1 and 30% in R2) attributed language mixing to lexical items and a lack of familiarity with certain words. They cited their limited vocabulary as a reason for code switching during oral communication:
I tend to mix the languages when I feel I don't know how to put it in Kazakh. I should read more but I'm too lazy to do that especially after a tiring working day.
In cases when I can't find the right words to express my thoughts in either Russian or Kazakh.
When I can't recall a certain word, I start mixing Russian with Kazakh.
When I forget certain words in either Kazakh or Russian.
These explanations align with earlier observations and assertions that language switching may be attributed to a lack of fluency and difficulties in word retrieval. Of particular significance are the responses that showcase motivations for code switching, as illustrated in Table 1.
REASONS FOR KAZAKH-RUSSIAN CODE SWITCHING R1 R2
Deficit reason (for filling in gaps in vocabulary) 31% 30%
'Habit and convenience' reason 32% 29%
Sustaining interaction reason (by recognising lack of fluency by partner) Sustaining meaning-making process
A portion of R1 (32%) and R2 respondents (29%) indicated that they engaged in language mixing due to convenience and habitual tendencies:
Nearly always because it's convenient. It's more convenient and much easier to understand. I often mix languages when I chat with my friends. It's kind of a habit, I've been doing it since I was a child.
9% of respondents from both groups acknowledged that they intentionally engaged in language mixing, not as a mechanical habit, but rather to ensure understanding in communication: I mix languages occasionally to express thoughts more clearly.
13% 13%
9% 9%
I do that to explain my thoughts.
Sometimes I just do not know which language to use to express my thoughts better and so I start mixing.
At times, I intentionally mix the languages if a word or phrase in the other language appears to better convey my thoughts.
I may do that to confirm or further explain what I have said.
I do this sometimes to ensure better mutual understanding.
An additional subset of participants in both groups (13%) attributed their language mixing to their orientation towards the communicative partner, recognising their partner's limited proficiency in either Kazakh or Russian:
by Valeria E. Chernyavskaya and Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
I mix languages when speaking with Russian-speaking Kazakhs during casual conversations, particularly if they do not understand when I speak in Kazakh.
I mix languages when my interlocutor appears to have a limited understanding of Kazakh.
I mix languages to create a closer connection with the people I'm speaking to.
I do it when Russian-speaking people ask me for something.
When conversing with my friends, I occasionally incorporate Kazakh words or phrases to build a sense of closeness. This allows me to demonstrate respect and interest in their culture.
Therefore, code switching acts as a tool to monitor and direct communication.
Most respondents from both groups acknowledged their tendency to mix Kazakh and Russian languages (77% and 75%, respectively). A significant portion of respondents (54% in R1 and 67% in R2) noted their awareness of others engaging in language mixing as well. However, some survey respondents who
Speakers deliberately produce code switching
Speakers recognise and mark code switching by others Speakers are willing to mix languages Speakers are not willing to mix languages Speakers frame mixed speech as deficient
4.2. 2024 survey findings and analysis
The survey comprised 50 respondents with higher education, including 27 individuals aged between 21 and 30 years old, and 23 individuals aged between 31 and 40 years old. Among the respondents, 24% were enrolled as students in higher education institutions, while 30% were pursuing master's or postgraduate programmes, with many possessing work experience. Additionally, 10% were employed in the education sector, 30% were university staff, and 4% were involved in private business; 2% were currently unemployed. Ethnically, the respondents consisted of 42 individuals (84%) identifying as Kazakh, 4 individuals (8%) as Russian, and 1 individual (2%) each as Korean, Uzbek, and Chechen.
The proficiency levels in Kazakh and Russian were assessed, leading to the identification of two main respondent groups. The first group, R1 comprised 24 individuals for whom Kazakh was their native and dominant language. According to the provided definitions, their proficiency level in Russian ranged from B2 to C1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The second group, R2, consisted of
admitted to language mixing expressed reservations about its appropriateness. Among these respondents (20% in R1 and 28% in R2), there were references made to a monolingual purist norm, which associates speaking pure Kazakh with 'normal' and proper speech, linking it to ethnic identity. Key comments included:
This might be wrong. I should try to speak Kazakh.
It does not sound nice.
I do that deliberately although I think that's not right.
I need to work on myself and refrain from mixing languages.
A considerable proportion of respondents expressed a willingness to mix both languages during their conversations with others: 41% of R1 participants and 43% of R2 respondents provided affirmative responses. On the other hand, a small number of respondents expressed reluctance to mix Kazakh and Russian in oral speech, with 4 (19%) and 6 (26%) respondents from R1 and R2, respectively. The primary reasons cited included equal fluency in both languages and deliberate opposition to language mixing. Table 2 offers a summary of the data obtained.
R1 R2
77% 75%
54% 67%
41% 43%
19% 26%
20% 28%
17 individuals who claimed Russian as their dominant language, regardless of their nationality. Their proficiency level in Kazakh ranged from B1 to B2. Additionally, eight respondents reported possessing a high proficiency level (C1) in both Kazakh and Russian languages.
In R1, 60.8% of respondents answered the question 'Who do you usually communicate with in Kazakh?' by stating that they communicated in Kazakh with their family (at home), friends, colleagues, and service workers (at the bank, shop, post office, etc.). On the other hand, 29.2% of them mentioned using the Kazakh language exclusively at home, with relatives or friends:
Speaking the native language within the family feels more comfortable since everyone is fluent in it (language immersion).
We speak Kazakh at home, but we switch to Russian when outside.
Among the R2 respondents, 78% communicate in Russian with their friends, colleagues, and service workers. They provided explanations such as:
It is easier for me to express my thoughts in Russian. I think in Russian (Kazakh woman).
Table 2
2021 survey: Speakers' awareness of producing a switch between languages
SPEAKERS' AWARENESS OF PRODUCING A SWITCH BETWEEN LANGUAGES
Volume 8 Issue 2, 2024, pp. 9-19
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
I communicate in Russian because I got the education in Russian (Kazakh woman) .
Many people around me speak Russian, so it is easier for me to speak Russian (Kazakh man).
Fifteen R1 respondents (62.5%) indicated that their friends primarily used the Kazakh language when communicating with them, attributing this mainly to their shared ethnicity (because we are Kazakhs; most of my friends are Kazakhs, so we speak Kazakh) and the fact that Kazakh is their native language. Nine individuals (37.5%) stated that they used both Kazakh and Russian languages. In R2, eleven respondents (64.7%) indicated Russian, three (17.65%) mentioned Kazakh, and three (17.65%) reported using both Kazakh and Russian.
Regarding the question 'Why do their friends use Russian when communicating with them?' in R2, 29.4% of responses were related to their language environment. They stated:
They are aware that this is the language in which I am fluent.
A significant portion of the population speaks Russian.
It is more comfortable to speak the language that everyone understands.
They know that it is more convenient for me to speak Russian.
In both groups, there are responses referring to the language situation characteristic of certain regions of Kazakhstan. Kazakh is the dominant language in the South and West of Kazakhstan, while Russian prevails in the North, East, and Central parts of the country. The respondents mentioned:
Because I'm from the South. And here in the South, the Kazakh language is widely spoken.
In Russian. In Pavlodar, almost everyone speaks Russian.
For some respondents (22%), their language choice was attributed to their habit:
Because it is easy to communicate in this language.
Because it is convenient.
It is easier to express your thoughts.
Because everyone is used to speaking this language.
Because I use this language almost exclusively.
Everyone communicates with each other in this language.
To the question 'Have you ever mixed Kazakh and Russian in oral speech?' most respondents in both groups responded positively (62.5% in R1 and 64.7% in R2). The responses regarding the reasons for language hybrid practice can be conventionally divided into four groups, as summarised in Table 3.
Table 3
2024 survey: Reasons for Kazakh-Russian codeswitching
REASONS FOR KAZAKH-RUSSIAN CODE SWITCHING R1 R2
Deficit reason (for filling in gaps in vocabulary) 30% 30%
'Habit and convenience' reason 30% 28%
Sustaining interaction reason (by recognising lack of fluency by partner) 13°% 13%
Sustaining meaning-making process 9% 10%
For approximately one third of respondents (30%) in both groups, the reason for mixing Kazakh and Russian in oral speech is the limited vocabulary they possess:
When there's a lack of vocabulary.
When there aren't enough Kazakh words to describe something, or when it's difficult to explain.
When I can't convey certain words in neither Russian nor Kazakh.
30% of the R1 respondents, and 28% of the R2 respondents attribute language switching to the fact that it is more convenient and customary for them to speak in this manner. Besides, the respondents' answers suggest that language switching is deliberate and intentional in nature:
It's convenient.
It's easier for me.
When speaking to friends we do this, it's a usual way to speak.
Since my friends speak only Kazakh and I speak only Russian, we are compelled to mix the two languages.
Since I live in Kazakhstan and try to get on good terms with people there.
It's due to societal factors.
Because both languages are used in spoken communication.
Many people here are multilingual, which facilitates quicker mutual understanding.
Sometimes I try to speak the language my friends use.
Because I often find myself in situations where everyone around me speaks Kazakh.
You can ask questions in both Kazakh and Russian simultaneously to expedite understanding.
I often mix languages when telling jokes to amplify emotions.
It's more interesting.
It sounds cool.
by Valeria E. Chernyavskaya and Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
A portion of respondents (9%) attribute language mixing to the necessity of ensuring successful communication:
Sometimes, when I need to express my thoughts more precisely, I use the Russian language.
When I can't convey my thoughts in one language.
There have been occasions where I struggled to express my ideas in Kazakh, primarily because I think in Russian.
I've observed that I tend to use Kazakh for proverbs and sayings, particularly those passed down from my grandmother. I believe they convey my thoughts more accurately.
Several respondents (R1 - 9%, R2 - 10%) associate language mixing with recognising their partners' low proficiency in the Kazakh language:
So that they could understand me.
When I spoke to my friends and noticed they didn't understand what I meant, I switched to Kazakh.
In the city of Kokshetau, half of the population doesn't understand Kazakh, so we often mix Kazakh and Russian, especially when buying groceries in shops.
Most respondents in both groups acknowledge that they mix the Kazakh and Russian languages (70.8% and 58.8% of them, respectively, in the groups). Almost half of the respondents (54.1% in R1 and 58.8% in R2) stated that they notice when others mix languages.
The survey results revealed that most respondents enjoy mixing the Kazakh and Russian languages when communicating with others (54.1% in R1 and 47% in R2). Some respondents believe that this tendency is related to the language situation in Kazakhstan:
Speakers deliberately produce code switching Speakers recognise and mark code switching by others
Speakers are willing to mix languages
Speakers are not willing to mix languages
Speakers frame mixed speech as deficient
Surveys conducted in 2021 and 2024 reveal statistically comparable results. We propose that the hybrid use of linguistic elements can be interpreted from two underlying perspectives: (1) a 'deficit' perspective, indicating limited proficiency in Russian or/and Kazakh, and (2) a complex sense-making communicative perspective, facilitating interaction. As part of the sense-making process and supporting interaction with communication partners, code switching serves an instrumental function. Our
Because the society I live in speaks two languages.
Since Russian is as popular as Kazakh.
Almost all our people are bilinguals.
Firstly, Kazakhstan's population is multinational, and language mixing creates a sense of unity among its people. Additionally, not all Kazakhs are proficient in Kazakh, so they find it easier to substitute unfamiliar words with Russian equivalents.
We live in a multinational country.
I live in a democratic country and can choose any language.
However, the metalinguistic perspectives of the speakers indicate that respondents who gave a positive answer believe this to be incorrect. In R1, 20% of the respondents share this view, while in R2, the figure rises to 28%:
I'd like to speak Kazakh well.
We should speak only Kazakh.
We should respect our native language.
Each language has its own unique characteristics, and we should respect them.
Because we can't mix two languages.
It's convenient but wrong.
I realise that mixing languages is wrong, but it has become a common practice for everyone.
I don't like it when the languages are mixed. We should stick to one language, that's why I notice it in both others and myself.
Four R1 respondents (16.6%) and five R2 respondents (29.4%) expressed their reluctance to mix Kazakh and Russian in their oral speech. The main reasons cited for this are low proficiency in one of the languages, fluency in both languages, and deliberate unwillingness to mix the languages (Table 4).
R1 R2
70.8% 58.8%
54.1% 58.8%
54.1% 47%
16.6% 29.4%
20% 28%
study supports the notion of non-conflicting hybrid communication between Kazakh and Russian speakers, which was the thesis introduced in our article. Code switching is not inherently viewed in a negatively evaluative context as a deviant practice. One significant finding of the study is the emerging trend towards people's readiness and ability to explain their feelings about hybrid language mixing. When explaining mixed usage of Kazakh and Russian words, respondents often attribute it to a
Table 4
2024 survey: Speakers' awareness of producing a switch between languages
SPEAKERS' AWARENESS OF PRODUCING A SWITCH BETWEEN LANGUAGES
Volume 8 Issue 2, 2024, pp. 9-19 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-2-9-19
limited vocabulary, the lack of certain words. Switching to the other language enhances effective communication and understanding. The metacommunicative comments provided by the respondents indicate their focus on communication and language usage. Some respondents evaluate their choice by referencing a monolingual purist norm (this might be wrong), associating Kazakh with 'normal', proper speech, and linking speaking pure Kazakh to ethnic identity. In our study, most participants view code switching as a way to express their linguistic and interactional competence. Thus, the instrumental function of mixed language usage is emphasised, serving as a means for bicultural and bilingual individuals to distinguish themselves in the common cultural space shared with others.
5. CONCLUSION
We acknowledge that the research conducted may not fully capture the range of abilities Russian and Kazakh speakers possess in hybrid language use. The study inherently has limitations in scope. Conducted within an academic university environment, the survey results are speciñc to this social group of respondents and reflect introspective self-monitoring regarding language switching. In contemporary Kazakhstan, the language situation is complex and cannot be attributed to a single reason or explanatory approach alone. The study's ñndings empirically support the notion that code switching between Kazakh and Russian is a valid communicative resource in bilingual
References
Akynova, D., Zharkynbekova, S., Agmanova, A., Kakzhanova, S., & Kuz-ar, Z. (2014). Conversational aspect of code-switching: Using repair in EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Literature, 5(3), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.7813/jll.2014/5-3/36 Alisharieva, A. (2014). Bilingualism among young people in Kazakhstan. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 1139-1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.567 Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (Eds.). (2015). Research on preparing inservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals. Emerald Group Publishing. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P, Alvarez, H. H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999a). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87-93. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P, & Tejeda, C. (1999b). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture and Activity 6(4), 286-303. Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicative practice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.1 Ho, J., & Woon, Y. (2007). Code-mixing: Linguistic from and socio-cultural meaning. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 21, 1 -8. Jacobson, R. (1997). Code switching worldwide. Mouton de Gruyter. Karlinsky, A. (2011). Interaction of Languages: bilingualism and language contacts. KazUMOiMYA. Kecskes, I. (2006). The dual language model to explain code-switching: A cognitive-pragmatic approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 257-283. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP2006.017
Kazakhstan. There appears to be no strong correlation between mixing Russian and Kazakh and social, cultural, and educational barriers. Hybrid language practice is not depicted as a sign of deterioration or cultural decline. Instead, switching between languages emerges as a dynamic resource facilitating mutual understanding and harmonised communication in ethnic bilingualism. We argue that hybridity signifies a sense of unity and mutual support among communicants, based on their shared bicultural practice. In the sociocultural environment of contemporary Kazakhstan, it has evolved into a specific tool rather than a deviant pattern or speech error.
The rapidly changing situation presents further implications for research. The government in Kazakhstan is implementing a balanced, well-designed, and cautious language policy. Concurrently, the development of the Kazakh language as a state language is becoming the primary objective and central focus in this rapidly changing situation, inevitably raising issues of linguistic ideology. From this perspective, it would be highly interesting to observe how the distinction between ideologically neutral analysis, which focuses on culturally shared practices, and critical analysis of language use as a tool of symbolic power for specific social groups, evolves and becomes more gradient. Indeed, we view the proposed research as the beginning of a discussion in this regard. Further empirically based research, along with more extensive surveys and interviews, would enhance the investigation of dynamics in Kazakhstani bi- and multilingual practices.
Martinez, R. A. (2013). Reading the world in Spanglish: Hybrid language practices and ideological contestation in a sixth-grade English language arts classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.007 Mirzoyeva, L., & Akhmetzhanova, Z. (2019). Interference errors in the frame of subordinate multilingualism. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 60, 45-65. https://dx.doi.org/10.17223/199 86645/60/4
Muysken, R (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge University Press. Molodychenko, E. N. (2022). Identity, style, and styling: A sociolinguist-ic perspective. Terra Linguistica, 13(2), 11-29. https://doi.org/ 10.18721/JHSS.13202 Molodychenko, E. N., & Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2022). Representing the social through language: Theory and practice of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. Vestnik of St. Petersburg University Language and Literature, 19(1), 103-124. https://doi.org/10.21638/ spbu09.2022.106
Mongilyova, N. (2015). Research into functioning of the state language in the situation of mass bilingualism of North Kazakhstan using the differential technique. SAGE Open, 5(3). https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/2158244015593120 O'Connor, B., & Crawford, L. (2015). An art of being in between: The promise of hybrid language practices. In Y. S. Freeman & D. E. Freeman (Eds.), Research on preparing inservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals (pp. 149-173). Emerald Group Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3687201 50000024008
by Valeria E. Chernyavskaya and Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
Saina, S. T. (2000). Bi-and multilinguism in everyday life. In L. P. Krysin (Ed.), Speech practices in multilinguisms (pp. 60-75). Editorial URSS.
Suleimenova, E. (2010). Towards interpreting Russian language in Kazakhstan. Slavica Helsingiensia, 40, 268-282.
Suleimenova, E., Akanova, D., & Aimagambetova, M. (2021). Biz birgemiz, or revisiting the diversification of Russian language in Kazakhstan. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 12(1), 7-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-229 9-2021-12-1-7-22
Suleimenova, E., Shaimerdenova, N., & Akanova, D. (2007). Languages in Kazakhstan: A socio-linguistic reader. Arman-PV
Tuksaitova, R. (2016). The Russian language in the multicultural space of Kazakhstan: State policy and public mood. Quaestio Rossica, 4(4), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2016.4193 Zharkynbekova, Sh. K., & Chernyavskaya, V E. (2021). Scientific discourse and linguistic strategies in Kazakhstan: New priorities and challenges in the international framework. Terra Lingüistica, 12(3), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.18721/JHSS.12305 Zhuravleva, E. A. (2007). Variation of the lexical system: Russian as a multinational language [Doctoral dissertation, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University]. National Electronic Library https://rus-neb.ru/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_bibl_1115681/? ysclid=lvrxhla0o728124376
Valeria E. Chernyavskaya
ORCID 0000-0002-6039-6305 h chernyavskaya_ve@spbstu.ru Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia
Sholpan K. Zharkynbekova
ORCID 0000-0002-4160-6215 h zharkynbekova_shk@enu.kz Lev Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Kazakhstan
