Belorusskij jazyk: Sociolingvističeskie očerki (review)

This book represents a compilation of previously published articles by the author that span the decade of 1992–2002. Mečkovskaja has three stated objectives: (i) to analyze ethnolinguistic tendencies of the past decade; (ii) to provide a series of historical excurses; and (iii) to evaluate the prospects for the development of Belarusian. Given the socially and politically charged nature of language in Belarus, such an undertaking could quickly degenerate into a sociopolitical diatribe reflecting the views of stalwart Belarusian language advocates rather than providing a broad analysis of historical and linguistic forces that have contributed to the current situation in Belarus. In her introductory remarks, Mečkovskaja claims to take an “observer” rather than a “participant” position—a role in which she succeeds to a large degree. However, this is not to the detriment of abandoning an editorial voice.

Chapter 1 provides a concise historical overview of the status and function of Russian on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union (1989–90), with particular emphasis given to eleven of the fifteen Union Republics. In an effort to place the original article (1992) from which Chapter 1 stems in a post-Soviet context, Mečkovskaja includes a postscript that addresses linguistic ambiguity found in the current Belarusian constitution and possible reasons for lawmakers retaining such legal/linguistic ambiguity. Chapters 2–3 detail ethical and orthographic conflicts between Belarusian and languages of neighboring states, in particular, Russia and Poland. Mečkovskaja discusses future considerations of a dual language policy in Belarus that could potentially facilitate the creation of a “functionally differentiated system” that expands rather than limits users’ capabilities. In addition, she discusses political and religious implications of using Latin characters when publishing Belarusian periodicals and books. Chapter 4 compares and contrasts language revivals that have taken place in Belarus and Ukraine and postulates why Ukrainian historically has fared better than Belarusian. Chapter 5 presents a number of compelling arguments for why the Polish-Belarusian writer Dunin-Marcinkievič (1807–84) could not have been the author of the comedy “Pinskaja šljaxta” (Pinsk Gentryfolk); however, the subject matter in the chapter deviates from the overall discourse of the volume and seems more fitting for a work addressing prominent Belarusian writers or, perhaps, specifically the writings of Dunin-Marcinkievič. Chapter 6 seeks to define “Belarusianess” by contrasting cultural and linguistic characteristics native to Belarus with those of Russia in particular, and Poland to a lesser extent. The latter part of Chapter 6 addresses issues of biculturalism, influenced heavily by linguistic similarities between Belarusian and Russian, and assimilation tendencies to which such linguistic similarities give rise. Chapter 7 represents the most recent scholarly contribution to the volume. Mečkovskaja examines contemporary challenges facing the Belarusian language, in particular governmental indifference toward Belarusian nationalism, which is often expressed through the use of the Belarusian literary language. Concurrent with a rise in nationalist opposition, Mečkovskaja cites a rise both in pro-western and state nationalism, all of which mirror one another in their increased use of Russian. Ironically, as Mečkovskaja points out, Russian has become the vehicle by which the government seeks to defend national sovereignty. Also in Chapter 7, Mečkovskaja revisits issues raised in Chapter 2, namely the defining role of language in establishing ethnolinguistic identity, in particular the implications for maintaining Belarusian ethnolinguistic identity in the face of declining usage of the national language. Post-2002 language developments mentioned by Mečkovskaja include a resurgence of the pre-1933 Belarusian literary standard norms in unofficial media; conversely, Mečkovskaja sites evidence of a resistance to pro-independence movements by an emerging Russophone opposition.

To complement the desired synthesis of individual chapters into one whole, this review will take a topical approach based on the three aforementioned objectives outlined by the author.

Ethnolinguistic Tendencies of the Past Decade

One finds in Belarus a curious tendency towards self-reporting Belarusian as one’s native language in official census data yet speaking Russian in ordinary conversation. Historically, ethnicity and language...