CC BY
17
УДК 373.5.016:811.161.1'367
DOI 10.30914/2072-6783-2021 -15-4-477-488
Language policy implementation in Tatarstan: multilingualism
and language education A. M. Tuktamyshova
Kazan National Research Technical University named after A.N. Tupolev-KAI, Kazan, Russian Federation
Abstract. Introduction. The article reveals language policy implementation processes, taking into account the relevance of developing multilingual skills and paying special attention to the teaching of the state (Russian language), national (Tatar language), as well as foreign (English) language. The purpose of this article is to analyze how language policy implementation impacts the education of indigenous peoples / minorities in the Republic of Tatarstan (RT). Issues related to language policy are very multifaceted and require analysis from the point of view of law, linguistics, and pedagogy, as well as the interaction of state bodies with its stakeholders. Materials and methods. The methods include a whole series of legislative acts regulating the implementation of language policy in Russia and the Republic of Tatarstan. It pays a special attention to the State Program for the preservation, study and development of the state languages of the RT and other languages in the RT (State Program). The results of the analysis and discussion describe the state of the language policy in the region, that is, its scale and size, the laws influencing the language policy in the field of education. Secondly, based on the experience of implementing language policy in other regions and countries, a comparative analysis is proposed using the example of the State Program. Using the theory of Professor B. Spolsky, the author conducts a general analysis of the language policy in the region. Also, following the guidelines for the preservation of languages of L. A. Grenoble and L. J. Whaley, this article studies the effectiveness of implementation of the State Program. In conclusion, proposals are prepared for the implementation of the language policy in the Republic of Tatarstan and other multilingual societies.
Keywords: language policy, multilingualism, sociolinguistics, language teaching, English, Tatar
The author declares no conflict of interests.
For citation: Tuktamyshova A. M. Language policy implementation in Tatarstan: multilingualism and language education. Vestnik of the Mari State University. 2021, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 477-488. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30914/2072-6783-2021-15-4-477-488
Реализация языковой политики в Республике Татарстан:
многоязычие и обучение языкам А. М. Туктамышова
Казанский национальный исследовательский технический университет имени А. Н. Туполева - КАИ,
г. Казань, Российская Федерация
Аннотация. Введение. Статья раскрывает особенности реализации языковой политики с учетом актуальности развития навыков многоязычия, уделяя особое внимание обучению государственному (русскому языку), национальному (татарскому языку), а также иностранному (английскому) языку. Целью данной работы является анализ влияния реализации языковой политики в Республике Татарстан (РТ) на образование коренных народов/меньшинств в регионе. Вопросы, связанные с языковой политикой, очень многосторонние и требуют анализа и с точки зрения нормативно-правового обеспечения, и языкознания, и педагогики, а также взаимодействия государственных органов с ее исполнителями. Материалы и методы. Методический задел включает в себя целый ряд законодательных актов, регулирующих реализацию языковой политики в России и РТ, уделяя особое внимание Государственной программе по сохранению, изучению и развитию государственных языков Республики Татарстан и других языков в Республике Татарстан (Государственная программа). Результатами анализа и обсуждения являются описание состояния языковой политики в регионе, то есть ее масштаб и размеры, приводятся законы, влияющие на языковую политику в сфере образования в Республике Татарстан. Во-вторых, опираясь на опыт реализации языковой политики в других регионах и странах, предлагается сравнительно-сопоставительный анализ на примере Государственной программы. Используя теорию профессора Б. Спольски, автор проводит общий анализ языковой политики в регионе, а также, cледуя руководству по сохранению языков Л. А. Гренобля и Л. Дж. Уэйли, описывает эффективность внедрения и исполнения Государственный программы. В заключение подготовлены предложения по реализации языковой политики в Республике Татарстан и других многоязычных обществах.
Ключевые слова: языковая политика, многоязычие, социолингвистика, обучение языкам, английский язык, татарский язык
Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Для цитирования: Туктамышова А. М. Реализация языковой политики в Республике Татарстан: многоязычие и обучение языкам // Вестник Марийского государственного университета. 2021. Т. 15. № 4. С. 477-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30914/2072-6783-2021-15-4-477-488
Introduction
Educational language policy springs from research on language-in-education within its social, political and historical context, and the role of government and other institutions that shape language use and acquisition in societies worldwide [57]. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s scholars have written about the issues of inequality, linguistic discrimination and language rights on the one hand, and the impact of powerful institutions, such as governments, interest groups, social movements on aspects related to language learning, teaching and speaking, on the other [14; 26; 47; 48; 49; 57; 62]. While research on language education policies continues to grow reflecting the impact of educational policy on language situations in various parts of the world -India [44], New Zealand [38]; Africa [30], South Africa and Bolivia [32]; Peru [65], USA [33; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 49; 54], Spain [5]; Romania [35]; Israel [53] among others - the complex processes of language policy implementation within educational contexts have not been examined in depth [42].
The few studies that examine various aspects of language policy implementation illustrate how even in cases with official policies that support multilingual education, covert "implicit, informal, unstated, de facto, grass-roots, latent" aspects of policies hinder their success [52, p. 13]. Tatarstan, which is a multilingual state within the Russian Federation, can serve as an illustration of how well-intentioned policies which were spurred in the 1990s have not transformed language patterns among the residents of the state [25]. The focus on Tatarstan is interesting because it provides an insight onto the impact of language education policies on the indigenous people, Tatars are the most populous ethnic group in Tatarstan (53 %) preceding ethnic Russians (39 %) in the state, and they are the second largest in the country (5,310,649^. Ethnologue2 documents 135 languages in Russia, whereas more
1 Federal State Statistics Service. 2010 All-Russia Population Census [in Russian].
2 Ethnologue // Этнолог URL: https://www.ethnologue.com/ country/RU (дата обращения 08.10.2020).
than 200 existed in early 20th century. According to Krauss, about 70 % of indigenous languages in Russia are moribund, which means in their last generation of speakers. The extinction of languages is another concern for studying vitality of multilingual-ism in Russia [28].
The primary focus of the paper is the role of language policy implementation in regards to the Tatar language maintenance and growth, the analysis of the State Program does not go in depth to address the language needs of speakers of other languages in the republic, even though the 1992 language law embraces both official languages, Tatar and Russian, and other languages spoken in Tatarstan. The concern for the vitality of other languages (besides Russian) is of great importance, but its analysis lies outside the scope of this paper.
Relevance. Policy description
A number of events, policies and other cases are cited as having a direct or indirect impact on language policy implementation in Tatarstan: Tatarstan's 1990 Declaration on state sovereignty and Tatarstan's language law of 1992, bilateral Tatarstan-Russia treaty on jurisdictional divisions and mutual delegation of authority (1994), the State Program on the Preservation, Study and Development of the Languages of the Peoples of Tatarstan (1994). However, Cashaback [4] considers that "Although the issues of Tatarstan's political and constitutional status are intimately linked to language, republican competence in this field did not result from intergovernmental bargaining or the bilateral treaty process" [4, p. 250]. The attempt to switch from Cyrillic alphabet, used for the Tatar language, also did not bring the desired outcomes. After the unanimous vote in favor of script reform at the Second All-World Tatar Congress in 1996 and support from local organizations, the Tatarstan government established the 1999 Law on the Restoration of the Tatar Alphabet on the Basis of the Latin Script. The law generated much discussion on the topic, and was taken up by the federal government who subsequently nullified it by the
2002 amendment to Russia's law on languages that forbade state languages of republics to be based on scripts other than Cyrillic1 [52, Article 3§5]. So, not only did the implementation of the language policies deferred in time, the substance of the 'Tatarstan model" in language policy was not clearly articulated. Hence, Rorlich [50] contemplates "one is only left to speculate what the replica of an asymmetric federation and bilateral treaty might be in the realm of language relations." [50, p. 392].
Policy alternatives.
So, what is it about the implementation that hampers the effectiveness of language policies in Kazan, Tatarstan? Some argue that it is the lack of local motivation, resources and political commitment on behalf of the government leaders of Tatarstan, not really the federal design: "policymakers are conscious of the deficits of their policies but identify internal factors, such as lack of motivation and insufficient financial support, as the main vectors of weakness" [5, p. 271]. Gorenburg [25] attributes the failure of Tatarstan language policies to the lack of prestige towards Tatar language, and the need to increase the status of the Tatar language vis-à-vis Russian, which has been unsuccessful. Also, he claims that the language revival efforts did not change language practices among Tatars, especially young Tatars and within the Tatar families, which is consistent with Fishman's [16; 17] argument that intergenerational transmission is the primary indicator of the vitality and maintenance of the endangered language.
In the realm of education, Zamyatin2 further contends that educational reforms on the federal level "actually discourage teaching of minority languages", and thus, might lead to further decrease in the number of individuals learning their native languages3. He posits that weakening of the institutional position is a result of deliberate action aimed at "diminishing the role in education of languages other than Russian"4. Furthermore, federal policies, by giving the freedom of choice to schools, teachers, parents and students to make their own decisions about language education,
1 RF [Rossiiskaya Federatsiya]. O yazykakh narodov Rossi-iskoi Federatsii, 2002 URL: http://iv2.garant.ru
2 Zamyatin K. The Adoption of Language Policies in the Republics of Post-Sovjet Russia: Actors, Debates, Decisions. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2020. No. 2 (2). Pp. 30-66. URL: https://cyberleninka.rU/artide/n/the-adoption-of-language-policies -in-the-republics-of-post-soviet-russia-actors-debates-decisions (дата обращения: 10.10.2021).
3 Ibid. P. 17.
4 Ibid. P. 40.
echo soviet policies, where nation building efforts take over students' right to mother tongue education and the obligation of state to support all languages. The role of language policy is also referenced in discussions about the "Tatarstan model" of negotiated federalism [1; 3], Tatar language renaissance movement [18], as discussed above.
After the Declaration of Sovereignty (1990), adoption of the 1992 Constitution, and enactment of Law on Languages of Peoples of Tatarstan (1992), the state put forward three state programs - one in place from 1994-2003, the second came into being in 2004 and it was followed by the most current program that spans from 2014 through 2020 - to revive the languages of Tatarstan, but each of which had a specific focus on the Tatar languages revitalization. The purpose of these programs is to create conditions for successful preservation, learning and growth of Tatar, Russian and other languages of Tatarstan, and support for Tatar language outside of the state.
The State Program is to be administered by the Department of Education of Tatarstan, while the main program developers are Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan (ANRT), and the Kazan Federal (Volga) University (KFU). The ANRT was created as a separate institution, apart from the Russian Academy of Science which has been the lead source of education reforms, curriculum development, and assessment. The claim to sovereignty has been one of the major rationales for creation of the ANRT. The repub-licanised academies of science have been crucial in "relocating the production of cultural and historical knowledge away from Moscow and to the republics", and those who work within them consider themselves advocates of sovereignty, of which language constitutes a major part [22, p. 614].
Materials and Methods. Theoretical Framework
To make sense of language policy Spolsky [56] offers a tripartite framework; he distinguishes among three components of the language policy of a speech community - language practices, language beliefs or ideology and language intervention, planning or management. As language policies are very complex, dynamic and correlated with so many other aspects of society, it is vital to discern these elements to unpack the effectiveness of policy implementation. Language management is present at every level of the policy onion. The managers of the language can be legislative assemblies, national legislature, state/local government body, special
interest group, law court, institution or business, or it can be a family member. Whether these stakeholders have direct or indirect impact on the language policy, are cognizant or not of their agency and exercise this agency in an explicit or overt manner, all these levels of language policy management should be taken into account in the process of policy implementation analysis.
The next component of language policy framework is language practices. Spolsky [56] defines language practices as "word and grammatical choices that an individual speaker makes, sometimes consciously and sometimes less consciously, that makes up the conventional unmarked pattern of a variety of a language" [56, p. 9]. Language practices include the differences in language variation or dialects, formal and informal speech, domains in which languages are spoken or avoided, speakers/interlocutors and purpose that determine the choice of language. Language beliefs reveal a set of values, norms, opinions that individuals apply to various language variables, including prestige of a language or language variety. Taken together, these three components are intricately connected yet each or all may be manifested differently depending on the range of conditions that affect language policy. Spolsky's [56] framework is useful in the analysis of multilingual language policy implementation in Tatarstan, as it provides the tools to deconstruct how policy works or does not through each of these components.
Grenoble and Whaley's [24] guide for creating a language program is used to assess the needs, commitment, resources, and goals of the State Program. Their step-by-step account of how to identify key factors and then establish an appropriate language revitalization program will serve as a procedure to systematically analyze various parts of language re-vitalization program in Tatarstan and apply it to the educational context. Alternatively, Fishman's [16] Graded Intergenerational Dislocation Scale [GIDS], a typology for assessing language shift, has been utilized to evaluate language situation in multilingual societies. In the context of Tatarstan, Wertheim1 considers it difficult to classify the Tatar language along this scale, as it does not fit only one or two of its stages, but spans across several stages, and even within a few stages it is not very stable. Tatar language use is virtually present in stages 5 through 1 on
1 Wertheim S. Linguistic Purism, Language Shift and Contact-Induced Change in Tatar. PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of California Berkeley, 2003.
GIDS, including some government activity, some mass media, work sphere (which varies across many variables) (Stages 1 and 2), higher education (a few programs offering Tatar-medium of instruction and Tatar classes as core classes, yet a failed attempt at Tatar-medium University), secondary education (Tatar medium schools are available based on parent's choice, and Tatar classes are mandatory for all school children in Tatarstan), services (dependent on various conditions) (Stages 3-5). However, most importantly, as Wertheim points out, there appears to be a disruption in intergenerational transmission as described in Stage 6: the domestic sphere of Tatar usage is not a stable one, and the language of choice for intragenera-tional interaction for the youngest generation is often code-switched Russian and Tatar, or entirely Russian speech. Therefore, Tatar is not in a situation of stable diglossia, but is rather a contracting language.
Gorenburg [25] also notes the continuing decline in Tatar language use among Tatars. After the adoption of the first State program in 1994 and until the mid-2000s the proportion of Tatars speaking the language continued to decrease, especially among youth. The statistics Gorenburg [25] cites offer the following numbers: only 20,5 % of Tatars under the age of 30 speak Tatar better than Russian, 42,9 % speak both languages equally well, and 36,6 % claim that their fluency in Russian is higher than in Tatar. So, the shrinking numbers are especially evident among younger generation.
Fishman's [16] framework provides a holistic approach to the study of multilingual language policy implementation, while the choice of Grenoble and Whaley's [24] guide is determined by the level of detail that is present at each step of their approach. Now that the Stage 6 is singled out as the key stage in the language revitalization process in Tatarstan, it is crucial that much attention is concentrated on securing the stability, strength and permanence of language development at this stage before attempting to onset initiatives on higher stages. Also, there is a need to understand the role of school in maintaining, developing or hindering the implementation of language policy in Tatarstan. The analysis of the State Program's goals and indicators reveals that this core element - the intergenerational transmission -is not targeted as a vital element in the language re-vitalization program. Thus, the next section provides the analysis of the State Program with the focus on key language managers, language practices and language beliefs [56] at each step of the Grenoble
and Whaley's [24] language program development and implementation process: vitality and variation assessment; evaluation of community resources and goals; considerations of potential obstacles and ways to overcome them; literacy and formal education; and program evaluation.
Results and Discussion. Analysis of the State Program
Vitality assessment. A careful, comprehensive and strategic assessment of the language situation is important for any language revitalization program to really target areas that need the most attention in the early stages of reversing the language shift [16; 24; 28; 29; 51]. As the number of speakers of the threatened language usually serves as one of the strong indicators of language vitality, its assessment should be rigorous and realistic. The State Program contains a brief overview of the language proficiencies of the Tatarstan residents. Among the 173 peoples leaving in the republic 53,2 % are Tatar, 39,7 % are Russian, Chuvash make up 3,1 %, and the rest are less than 1 %. Among the residents, members of all ethnic groups demonstrate the level of their Russian language proficiency above 95%, whereas the Tatar language proficiency differs substantially across different ethnic groups: Tatar, Bashkir, Udmurt, Mari, Chuvash state their knowledge of Tatar as 92,4 %, 65,7 %, 35 %, 29,8 % and 14,1 % respectively. The lowest degree of Tatar language proficiency is showed by Mordovians, Ukranians, and Russians -4,4 %, 3,6 % and 3,6 % respectively. The survey of Russian speaking school children shows that 12 % can speak, read and write in Tatar; 20 % have difficulty speaking, 23 % understand but cannot speak Tatar, and 34 % do not know the language at all.
The survey data in the State Program, while provides some preliminary information about language situation in Tatarstan, is fraught with several issues. First of all, self-report surveys have been criticized for many reasons as not being the most accurate sources of information: being a member of an ethnic group might show bias towards indication of the stronger language proficiency than is the case in reality. Grenoble [23] shows that in the Soviet Union census data varied based on whether individuals wanted to ally or distance themselves from a given ethnic group. Similarly, strong ties between ethnicity and language might add noise to the data. Second assumption is the ability of an individual to accurately evaluate their language proficiency, the knowledge of the spoken language differs from
real assessment of his/her academic language [9]. Furthermore, the survey does not break down the information by categories: the age and generational distribution, correlation between age and proficiency levels, the number and level of speaking abilities and other literacy skills, levels of fluency based on various domains, topics. There might be other important dimensions such as sex, socioeconomic class, territorial differences (urban, suburban, rural), etc. Without more substantial information about language situation it can be hard to target language revitalization activities, as they can be deemed good for all, and thus serve to improve language proficiency of none.
The lack of active use of multiple languages among children who live in multilingual societies can be attributed to a number of reasons, and De Houwer [10; 11] focuses on the role of parental involvement in patterning of language use children. She argues that "specific parental input may, to a large extent, determine whether children who hear three languages on a regular basis actually end up speaking those three languages or nor" [11, p. 118]. Once children start school, the impact of schooling becomes tremendous [45]. The objectives that are geared towards implementing language policies to support bilingualism and mother language learning are minimal in the program, which states that one of the objectives is to retain the same percentage of Tatar students receiving education in their mother tongue in pre-schools and secondary education. No changes are envisioned in terms of Tatar language classes for non-Tatar student population despite the low Tatar language proficiency among secondary students. The lack of special provisions in the area of education for this demographic is another example of how the State Program is unable to conceive of and support multilingual learning in schools.
Assessment of attitudes, goals and resources. The next level of analysis is the evaluation of community attitudes, goals and resources. Residents' knowledge and attitudes towards their own and other languages are also important to explore. As reported elsewhere [19; 20], community members' attitude can either promote or hinder the success of language policy implementation. The State Program reports the results of the previous program, which was in place from 2004 through 2013. As a part of older program free Tatar language classes have been offered to the government employees and public at large. Research shows that more than 90 % of Tatars and about 65 % of Russian consider bilingualism as a necessary skill
among government employees and employees who work in the service industry. Similar to the assessment of language vitality, the results of this research do not provide deep understanding of the language attitudes towards bilingualism in Tatarstan. Tollefson [57], among many other scholars, points out that the study of language policy should always be accompanied with the study of the relationship between language and ideology. The following questions should be answered: what is the relative prestige of each language, how do residents perceive speakers who a monolingual in either of the languages or who a bi- or multilingual, what drives positive attitudes towards the local language in educational institutions [24].
The existing studies on Tatar language, education, nationalism, educational policies reveal a huge gap between their findings and the acknowledgement of gravity of language attitudes in the State Program. Numerous studies have depicted the marginalized status of indigenous languages in the Soviet Union, especially since language reforms of the 1960s [23; 50]. The pervasiveness of negative attitudes towards Tatars has been seen in public [Grenoble, 2003], mass media [15], education [5; 25], literature [50]. The negative attitudes have shifted in the Post-Soviet era, and the language policies of the early 1990s could account for a big part of this change [18]. However, official recognition and insti-tutionalization of bilingualism in certain domains does not guarantee a full shift in attitudes. Veinguer and Davis [60] state that due to the fact that "Tatar continues to underperform in its official position" [60, p. 199], that is, its de jure status does not match de facto language use, attitudes to learning Tatar partially reflect this asymmetry in its bureaucratic and everyday position.
Attitudes of the majority of the families and their school children tend to reflect the dominant negative trends in society. Wertheim1 notes that for many urban Tatars, as well as many Russians "modern Tatar is dismissed as merely a kitchen language". Wertheim then goes on to explain that some Russians openly express their negative attitudes towards the Tatar language. These parents consider the learning of Tatar language and literature as "'useless,' 'waste of time,' and 'taking up the time that should be used to teach 'real' things" [60, p. 32-33]. Za-
1 Wertheim S. Linguistic Purism, Language Shift and Contact-Induced Change in Tatar. PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of California Berkeley, 2003.
myatin 2 also suggests that the federal language policies leave it up to school to make decisions about language education, and these decisions are often guided by the "collective attitudes of the community at large [majority attitudes]"3. These studies suggest that analysis of parents', teachers' and students' attitudes towards bilingualism and Tatar language play an important role in the effectiveness of language policy implementation, and this aspect should be more thoroughly addressed in the State Program.
When it comes to resources, Grenoble and Whaley [24] offer to look beyond the financial resources, which constitute 1084,20 million Rubles for the State Program, but also existing language resources (grammatical descriptions and dictionaries, textbooks, pedagogical materials, written and oral literatures, and so on) and human or emotional resources. The breakdown of each of the seven goals of the State program shows that a number of efforts are dedicated to the creation and development of the language resources in the forms of scholarly investigations in the field of Tatar language philology, electronic fund of Tatar language, research on linguistic and cultural aspects of the Tatar semantics. The focus on ethno-cultural and linguistic aspects of language revitalization can be partly attributed to the kind of work that professors at the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan and Kazan Federal (Volga) University engage in, which can be enriching in some yet limiting in other regards. The human or emotional resources, which are available in the republic, including but not limited to the Tatar Congress, Tatar Youth Forum, and numerous other non-profit organizations working to promote the Tatar language and culture are not included to directly contribute to development of the program.
The lack joint efforts might be another reason for lack of success of language policy implementation. As Grumet and Stone [27] state for language revitalization projects to succeed new channels connecting groups of people, new means of communication must be worked through, as "action requires community, for the dyads of home and school, private and public, reproduction and production, self
2 Zamyatin K. The Education Reform in Russia and its Impact on Teaching of the Minority Languages: An Effect of Nation-Building? // Journal on Ethnopolitics & Minority Issues in Europe. 2012. Vol. 11. No. 1. Pp. 17-47. URL: https://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/ 2012/Zamyatin.pdf (accessed 18.03.2021).
3 Ibid. P. 38.
and language, and intentionality and reflexivity cannot be mediated only intellectually" [27, p. 196]. For language programs to succeed scholars also mention community support and participation from the beginning of the project. Many multicultural and multilingual movements arise from grassroots community activism [55], so the leadership, awareness, ethnic and linguistic consciousness and responsibility in maintaining native languages of multilingual students should also originate from the community itself [31; 39; 47].
Obstacles to program implementation. The few measures that are mentioned in the State Program that are seen as potential obstacles are changes in the federal legislation. One of the major obstacles that is not considered in the program is the "mismatch between the resources available for language revitali-zation, including also a consideration of community support as a resource, and the goals for a revitaliza-tion program" [24, p. 176]. The analysis in the previous sections illustrates that the lack of identifying key managers of language policy implementation [in this case, parents, students and teachers], without assessing their language attitudes and beliefs and having a realistic sense of their language practices in diverse linguistic environments, it is hard characterize the language policy implementation process as effective [56]. Grenoble and Whaley [24] alert that "unrealistic goals can lead to demoralization and frustration and may even cause community members to abandon the program. Creating and maintaining morale are thus linked to realistic expectations of the community" [24, pp. 176-177].
The studies documenting failures of language policy implementation in Tatarstan, reveal that the lack of internal motivation and continuous sense of responsibility or language ownership on behalf of the republic's leadership might be one of the causes for unachieved goals [4]. Consistent lack of acknowledgement of problems in teaching of the Tatar language in schools also deserves more scrutiny. Gorenburg [25], Gilmetdinova [21] among others point to the sentiment among Tatarstan residents that the Tatar teaching methods, curriculum and staff are not always the most adequate for the given socio-linguistic circumstances. Many Tatar language classes are built on the classical model of language teaching, with a focus on teaching literary language and formal vocabulary. Many of these classes do not prepare students to engage in informal conversations in various functional domains. According to Gorenburg [25] the introduc-
tion of mandatory classes in Tatar in the 1990s did not improve language proficiency of the Tatars, and only slightly increased the knowledge of Tatar among Russian speaking students.
The objectives listed under the goals of the State Program only peripherally mention the development of new curricula materials, professional development of Tatar language teachers and advancements in Tatar teacher training programs. The decreasing knowledge of the Tatar language proficiency among Tatars, especially in urban environments, and the hostility of much of the Russian speaking population call for new approaches in language education. First of all, many countries have acknowledged the fact that many of their students do not come to schools with active knowledge of their own language, the term heritage language learners was developed to describe this student population; the author defines the term elsewhere [19]. Studies of heritage language education in many contexts have been prolific, especially in North America, and Tatarstan can profit from their findings: the USA [34; 36; 58; 59], Canada [8; 9; 12].
More so, over the last decade dual language programs have emerged and gained a momentum1 [7; 17; 71]; these are the programs where students from two different language backgrounds study together and both languages are used as the medium of instruction. Strong models of dual language programs (with about equal amount of instruction in both languages) are considered some of the most successful in terms of long-term students' academic performance and growth [6]. As of now, in most schools in Tatarstan, the dominant language of instruction is Russian, some schools have Tatar language groups (the nature of this division needs more research, as such segregation in and of itself might increase the stigma of being in that group), or Tatar-medium schools. Of course, the borders of language instruction are not clear cut, and the teachers, especially ethnic Tatars can translate or switch from language to language. Nevertheless, a more focused, research-based approach to bilingual language instruction and programming may be another good avenue that the State Program may explore [2].
Literacy. Three considerations are relevant in terms of attending to the literacy needs of the multilingual community in Tatarstan: literacy assessment, literacy materials and teacher training, and all should be done with clear understanding of the needs, aspirations
1 Wright W.E. Bilingual education. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie [Eds.], The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism, Oxford, UK : John Wiley & Sons. 2013. No. 2. Pp. 598-623.
and reasons for literacy use in the community. The authors remind the readers that "the number of field reports which document the failure of literacy programs due to a lack of community involvement, or a disregard for community desires, is striking" [24, p. 184]. Thus, literacy goals should be linked to needs and the goals of the community. First and foremost, determining the levels of literacy achieved by different segments of the population is helpful. For example, full fluency (spoken and written) in both languages by all community members in all domains can be on the one end of the continua, and no functional fluency with the use of language limited to set phrases, memorized texts on the other end of continua.
It is important for State Program developers to identify the desired level(s) of literacy for different strata of Tatarstan's population. Specifically, in line with the focus on intergenerational transmission it is important to detect the level of spoken and written literacy among Tatar, Russian families and children and families of other ethnicities. As the statistics in the State Program demonstrates, some of the peoples, like ethnic Bashkir and Udmurt residents of the republic demonstrate fairly high level of Tatar knowledge, whereas Russians and Ukranians are barely reaching 4 %, so literacy programs should take these differences into consideration. But most importantly, focusing on the two major ethnic groups, Tatars and Russians, "those working to revitalize a language must determine what levels of fluency they believe can be achieved, who will use the language, and in which domains" [24, p. 175]. The indicators of the State Program state that the percentage of Tatars receiving pre-school and secondary education in Tatar language will remain at 64 % and 43,65 %, yet they do not reflect the necessity for more drastic changes, given the declines in language proficiency over the last decades.
There is an immense need to discuss the places for literacies to be used, and contexts that need to be created for its use. In multiple places, the State Program mentions the creation of audio-visual information, possibilities for spoken bilingualism among employees in certain work spheres, but no concrete measures are outlined to address this need. As of now, theatre, media (several TV channels, radio, newspapers and magazines), puppet shows and some online resources are available in Tatar. The fact that the State Program does not designate special groups for the implementation of language policies weakens its effectiveness. Research can be directed to exam-
ine which literacies already exist in the families, family-school dyads, and communities and "how they shape ideas about what local literacy should look like and do" [24, p. 185].
Literacy materials should also reflect the needs of the population. The State Program has a number of objectives that partially address this need, for instance, generic description of the Tatar curricula development, equipment and technology for Tatar classrooms. The hope is that these literacy materials go in line with three important components of functional literacy: literacy, functionality, and awareness [24]. The growing number of libraries and printed resources in Tatar language, as indicated in the program, should facilitate the first component, literacy. Functionality implies that "the content of what is read should be about, or relevant to, economic and vocational development, at both a personal and a community level [24, p. 188]. Thus, cultural, ethnic, socio-political realities of the community should be integrated into the literacy materials.
The analysis of literacy materials in other multilingual societies can provide a useful illustration of the case in point. What matters to a variety of linguistically and culturally diverse populations would differ, but the awareness of the absence of a single interpretation of 'what knowledge is of most worth' and 'how schools should go about teaching it' is important. Watkins [61], for example, describes black curriculum orientations that continue to fight against the oppressiveness and separateness of U.S. society and "to develop as both a part of and separate from the larger curriculum movement [61, p. 336]". Care should be taken to identify the sources that misrepresent Tatar history, culture, ethnicity in the textbooks and other sources, and update older editions to provide a more accurate and unbiased interpretation of the information. Also, the goals of literacy materials for different ethnic groups might differ. For instance, what some indigenous peoples place as the core curriculum reveals their ties to the oral culture: "our goal was to create a text that preserved the narrative flow of the original transcribed/translated stories, keeping as much of the translated text as possible, while, at the same time, making it accessible to children"1 [63, p. 125]. In Arapaho communities, the idea of performing a story is essential in knowledge transmission and acquisition,
1 Webster, J. P., & Yanez, E. (2007). One must arrive with a story to tell: Traditional Alaska NA Yup'ik Eskimo stories in a culturally based math curriculum. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), p. 125.
and it fits the purpose of creating bilingual texts produced by most learned and traditional elders [7].
Similarly, the unique cultural elements of Tatars, such as "mong" can be integrated into the literacy materials. Faller [16] defines mong as generalized feeling of grief-sorrow, a type of melancholy song, the sorrowful melodies that animate the melancholy songs, the sentiments singers singing those songs tap into and transmit, the emotion audience members experience while listening to them, and a topic of ideological talk [16, p. 257].
The author explains that there is no one definition of mong among Tatars, because flexibility of its interpretation allows Tatars with different experiences to unite with other Tatars through a feeling of collective suffering. Singing is one of the traditional past times during various festivities among Tatars, so introducing the materials about mong can invite parents to more eagerly embrace and appreciate the language policy implementation program. It can be argued, that deep connection to the mong that Tatar parents have can encourage them to pass it on to their children, thus inculcating both the language and culture through such a literacy activity. Art and/or music classes in schools can incorporate the unique elements of Tatar mong into their curriculum and instruction. Finally, awareness materials could include guides like, Baker's1 [1] A Parents' and Teachers' Guide to Bilingualism, brochures about the benefits of multilingual-ism and the role of mother tongue transmission. Such language and culture specific objectives can further strengthen the State Program in Tatarstan.
Evaluation and more. The last step in Grenoble & Whaley [24] guide to language program creation is evaluation. The State Program has a section on the mechanism of its implementation with pre-set dates for reports and assessment of its progress. Interestingly, one of the indicators includes the presence of mass media accounts of the program's implementation (up to 150 over the course of its 6 years of implementation). This seems to be an attempt at transparency of the program realization and to increase attention and involvement of public at large in the program. Given the analysis provided in the previous sections, the honesty and realistic goals and expectation seem to be the aspects that the program can more thoughtfully integrate. Also, other elements of the program, such as developing the technology that supports language
1 Baker C. A Parents' and Teachers' Guide to Bilingualism. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol, PA : Multilingual Matters. 2007. No. 5.
use [although present is very descriptive and declarative], the role of outsiders, including, many scholars whose research directly or indirectly helps to address the problems of language policy implementation in Tatarstan, should be considered.
Conclusions
Multilingualism is a ubiquitous phenomenon with about 7,000 languages spoken around the world. However, only the few of these languages enjoy the official status within their countries or regions/states: "fewer than 4 % of the world's languages have any kind of official status in the countries they are spo-ken"2 [50, p. 449] and only a quarter of all countries recognize more than one language [13]. In cases where the policies do exist, they might take a different form, a law, a cabinet document, an administrative regulation. In the case of Tatarstan, the early 1990s created a policy window for Tatarstan to declare sovereignty (2000) and soon enact the language law (1992) that is supportive of bilingualism and that grants the rights to learn and speak (in) the native language [18]. The three State Programs that followed these legislative decisions and which were designed as tools to facilitate the implementation of the language policy have not have been as successful as envisioned. Although the programs have made a number of accomplishments, "including outreach, conferences, the publication of dictionaries, pedagogical material and studies of language policy and law in Tatarstan," the State Program in its current rendition has room for further improvement" [4, p. 259].
Based on the analysis of the literature review on the topic and studies that have examined the language policy implementation in Tatarstan, the paper identifies that one of the areas that the State Program is failing to address is intergenerational transmission of the Tatar language in the families, and the impact of school on language family language patterns. Language policy implementation can be analyzed at various levels of generalizations [56], and specifying the unit of analysis - the parents, younger generation and teachers - is an important step to direct language revitalization activities. Next, the analysis discovers that "prior ideological clarification" [16] and the realistic understanding of the residents' attitudes toward Tatar language in Tatarstan is missing. Language beliefs and attitudes
2 Romaine S. The bilingual and multilingual community. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie [Eds.], The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. Oxford, UK : John Wiley & Sons. 2013. No. 2. Pp. 445-465.
play a very important role in all steps of creating language revitalization program [24], and the lack of explicit procedures and objectives in the State Program to address this area can be interpreted as one of the reasons for program's slow rates of accomplishments.
The effectiveness of multilingual language policy implementation can be measured according to various criteria, and language use or language practices are at the heart of this process. Without the people who know the language, who are using it in a variety of functional domains [family, school, religious organization, workplace, local government and states [56], in all modes [speaking, writing, reading and listening], for different purposes and with different interlocutors any language policy and its implementation is doomed to fail. The declining rates of Tatar knowledge among residents of Tatarstan, especially Tatars is alarming, and the efforts to change language practices of the society by means of supportive language policies might have slowed down the Tatar language loss but have not yet been able to reverse the language shift. Further research
needs to be done to understand how language is used at different levels of policy management, by the state authorities, institutions and most importantly family members and teachers. Without a clear understanding of the reasons for language use and purposes it serves for the local people, it might be hard to target policy implementation initiatives.
Among other questions that should be addressed in future research are the role of global processes, such as decolonization and the spread of English. Tatar people and Tatarstan society needs to uncover hidden and covert influences of its colonial history. Language policies are not always about language per se, but more about struggle for power and economic resources [57]. Next research topics can address the matter of the struggle for power between the republic and the federal government in the matters of language policy and planning. English language has a great impact as lingua franca, and whether and how it can be used to promote multilingualism deserves further investigation.
1. Balzer M. M. Editor's Introduction. Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia, 2005, no. 43[3], pp. 3-10. (In Eng.).
2. Brisk M. E. Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. New York, NY, Routledge, 2006, 266 p. (In Eng.).
3. Bukharaev R. The Model of Tatarstan. Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia, 2005, no. 43 [3], pp. 62-96. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611959.2004.11029011
4. Cashaback D. Assessing asymmetrical federal design in the Russian federation: A case study of language policy in Tatarstan. Europe-Asia Studies, 2008, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 249-275. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130701820127
5. Cenoz J. Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2009, vol. 72. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362168810388727 (accessed 12.04.2021). (In Eng.).
6. Collier V. P. & Thomas, W. P. The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and practice, 2004, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-20. Available at: https://www.mville.edu/sites/default/files/Dept-School%20of%20Education/Collier_Thomas_-Effectiveness_of_Dual_Language.pdf (accessed 10.04.2021). (In Eng.).
7. Cowell A. Bilingual curriculum among the Northern Arapaho: oral tradition, literacy, and performance. The American Indian Quarterly, 2002, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 24-43. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4128473 (accessed 11.04.2021). (In Eng.).
8. Cummins J. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism. Toronto, 1979, no. 19, pp. 197-202. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED184334 (accessed 03.04.2021). (In Eng.).
9. Cummins J. Heritage Language Education: A Literature Review. Toronto, Ministry of Education, 1983. (In Eng.).
10. De Houwer A. Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven [Eds.]. Bilingualism and migration. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999, pp. 75-96. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807820.75
11. De Houwer A. Trilingual input and children's language use in trilingual families in Flanders. In C. Hoffman & J. Ytsma [Eds.]. Bilingual education and Bilingualism, 43: Trilingualism in Family, School and Community. Clevedon, GBR. Multilingual Matters, 2004, pp. 118-135. (In Eng.).
12. Duff P. Heritage language education in Canada. In D. Brinton [Ed.]. Heritage language education: A new field emerging. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008, pp. 71-90. (In Eng.).
13. Edwards J. R. Societal multilingualism: Reality, recognition and response. In P. Auer and L. Wei [Eds.]. Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2007, pp. 447-69. (In Eng.).
14. Fairclough N. Language and power. New York, Pearson Education, 2001. (In Eng.).
15. Faller H. M. Nation, Language, Islam: Tatarstan's Sovereignty Movement. Budapest, Central European University Press. 2011.
16. Fishman J. A. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, Multilingual matters, 1991, no. 76. (In Eng.).
А. M. Туктамышова
ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
17. Fishman J. A. Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie [Eds.]. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. Oxford, UK, John Wiley & Sons, 2013, 2nd ed., pp. 466-494. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118332382.ch19
18. Garipov Y. & Faller H. The politics of language reform and bilingualism in Tatarstan. In F. Daftary, F. & Grin, [Eds.]. Nation-building, ethnicity and language politics in transition countries. Budapest, Hungary, Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative/European Centre for Minority Issues [ECMI], 2003, pp. 165-183. (In Eng.).
19. Gilmetdinova A. Principals as gatekeepers of language policy implementation in Kazan, Russia. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 2019, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 120-137. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231772
20. Gilmetdinova A. & Burdick, J. Many Mansions: Conceptualizing Translingual Curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal, 2016, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 77-88. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1123065
21. Gilmetdinova A. & Malova, I. Language education for glocal interaction: English and Tatar. World Englishes, 2018, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 624-634. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12324
22. Graney K. E. Education reform in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: sovereignty projects in post-Soviet Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 1999, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 611-632. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09668139998813
23. Grenoble L. A. Language policy in the Soviet Union. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, vol. 3.
24. Grenoble L. A. & Whaley L. J. Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580802571947
25. Gorenburg D. Tatar language Policies in Comparative Perspective: Why some Revivals fail and some succeed. Ab Imperio. 2005, no. 1, pp. 257-284. URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/560415 (accessed 08.04.2021). (In Eng.).
26. Gorenburg D. P. Minority ethnic mobilization in the Russian Federation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550348
27. Grumet M., & Stone L. Feminism and curriculum: Getting our act together. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2000, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 183-197. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/002202700182709
28. Hale K., Krauss M., Watahomigie L. J., Yamamoto A. Y, Craig C., Jeanne L. M., & England, N. C. Endangered languages. Language, 1992, pp. 1-42. Available at: https://blogs.umass.edu/eba/files/2013/06/EndangeredLang1992.pdf (accessed 29.03.2021). (In Eng.).
29. Hinton L. Language planning. In L. Hinton & K.L. Hale [Eds.]. The green book of language revitalization in practice. San Diego & New York, Brill Academic Press, 2001, pp. 51-59. (In Eng.).
30. Hlongwa N., Balfour R. J., Mkhize N. & Engelbrecht C. Progress and challenges for language policy implementation at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Language Learning Journal, 2010, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 347-357. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.511788
31. Holmes J., Roberts M. & Verivaki M. Language maintenance and shift in three New Zealand speech communities. Applied linguistics, 1993, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-24. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.1.1
32. Hornberger N. H. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy. 2002, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27-51. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A1014548611951 (accessed 26.03.2021). (In Eng.).
33. Hornberger N. H., & Johnson D. C. Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TesolQuarterly, 2007, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 509-532. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00083.x
34. Hornberger N. H. & Wang S. C. Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In D. Brinton [Ed.]. Heritage language education: A new field emerging. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008, pp. 3-35. (In Eng.).
35. Kiss Z. E. Language policy and language ideologies in Szekler Land [Rumania]: A promotion of bilingualism? Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 2011, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 221-264. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2011.010
36. King K. A. Language ideologies and heritage language education. International Journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 2000, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 167-184. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050008667705
37. Malone D. L. Developing curriculum materials for endangered language education: Lessons from the field. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2003, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 332-348. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050308667790
38. May S. Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. London and New York. Routledge. 2008. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832547
39. McCarty T. L. Revitalising indigenous languages in homogenising times. Comparative education, 2003, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 147-163. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060302556
40. Menken K. From policy to practice in the Multilingual Apple: bilingual education in New York Cit. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2011, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 121-131. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.544117
41. Menken K. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters, 2008, vol. 65. Available at: https://katemenken.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ell-left-behind-ch1-only.pdf (accessed 19.03.2021). (In Eng.).
42. Menken K., & Garcia O. [Eds.]. Negotiating Language Education Policies: Educators as Policymakers. New York. Routledge, 2010. (In Eng.).
43. Menken K., & Solorza C. No Child Left Bilingual Accountability and the Elimination of Bilingual Education Programs in New York City Schools. Educational Policy, 2014, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 96-125. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904812468228
44. Mohanty A. K. Multilingualism of the Unequals and Predicaments of Education in India: Mother tongue or other tongue? / Eds. O. Garcia, T. Skutnabb-Kangas & M. E. Torres-Guzman. Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocali-zation. Clevedon, UK. Multilingual Matters, 2006, pp. 262-279. (In Eng.).
45. Montrul S. Bilingualism and the heritage language speaker. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie [Eds.]. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. Oxford, UK. John Wiley & Sons, 2013, no. 2, pp. 168-189. (In Eng.).
46. Oviedo A. & Wildemeersch, D. Intercultural education and curricular diversification: the case of the Ecuadorian Intercultural Bilingual Education Model [MOSEIB]. Compare, 2008, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 455-470. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701860137
47. Phillipson R. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford [England]. New York. Oxford University Pres. 1992. (In Eng.).
48. Phillipson R. & Skutnabb-Kangas T. Linguistic imperialism and endangered languages. In T.K.Bhatia & W.C.Ritchie [Eds.], The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. Oxford, UK. John Wiley & Sons, 2013, no. 2, pp. 495-516. (In Eng.).
49. Ricento T. K. & Wright W. E. Language policy and education in the United States. In Encyclopedia of language and education. Springer US, 2008. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3
50. Rorlich A. A. History, collective memory and identity: the Tatars of sovereign Tatarstan. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 1999, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 379-396. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-067X(99)00020-3
51. Sallabank J. Attitudes to Endangered Languages: Identities and Policies. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 271 p. (In Eng.).
52. Schiffman H. F. Linguistic culture and language policy. London, Routledge Publ., 1996, 364 p. (In Eng.).
53. Shohamy E. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London and New York, Routledge, 2006, 185 p. (In Eng.).
54. Simich C. & Boals T. Language and education policy in the state of Indiana. Implications for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly. 1996, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 537-555. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587697
55. Sleeter C. E. Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York, Teachers College Press, 2005. (In Eng.).
56. Spolsky B. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245
57. Tollefson J. W. [Ed.]. Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002, 350 p. (In Eng.).
58. Tse L. Resisting and reversing language shift: Heritage-language resilience among US native biliterates. Harvard Educational Review, 2001, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 676-709. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.71.4.ku752mj536413336
59. Valdes G. Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal, 2005, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 410-426. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00314.x
60. Veinguer A. A., Davis H. H. Building a Tatar elite Language and national schooling in Kazan. Ethnicities, 2007, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 186-207. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796807076840
61. Watkins W. H. Black curriculum orientations: A preliminary inquiry. Harvard Educational Review, 1993, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 321-338. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.63.3.26k2433r77v631k2
62. Wiley T. G., Wright W. E. Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the "age of accountability", Educational Policy, 2004, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 142-168. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904803260030
63. Zavala V. Tactics of intersubjectivity and boundary construction in language policy: An Andean case. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2020, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 95-110. (In Eng.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1649982
Статья поступила в редакцию 15.06.2021 г.; одобрена после рецензирования 18.09.2021 г.; принята к публикации 27.09.2021 г.
The article was submitted 15.06.2021; approved after reviewing 18.09.2021; accepted for publication 27.09.2021.
Об авторе
Туктамышова Алсу Махмутовна
кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, Казанский национальный исследовательский технический университет имени А. Н. Туполева - КАИ (420111, Российская Федерация, г. Казань, ул. Карла Маркса, д.
10), Alsu. Tuktamyshova@kai.ru
Автор прочитал и одобрил окончательный вариант рукописи.
About the author Alsu M. Tuktamyshova
Ph. D. (Pedagogy), Associate Professor, Kazan National Research Technical University named after A. N. Tupolev - KAI (10 Karl Marx St., Kazan 420111, Russian Federation), Alsu.Tuktamyshova@kai.ru
The author has read and approved the final manuscript.
