Language policy in multiethnic countries: Current trends

Full Text

1. Introduction

Language policy serves as a primary instrument for managing the inherent diversity of the modern global world. Our contemporary multilingual and multicultural world demonstrates that the diversity dominating cities and organizations is fundamentally rooted in communication between various sociocultural, ethnolinguistic and even occupational groups. These interactions, grounded in specific cultural contexts, often involve conflicting interests where linguistic choices can result in collaboration, conflict, or a complex manifestation of both. In multiethnic countries and regions, the necessity for informed policy-making spans the entire geographic and social spectrum, from metropolitan hubs to small towns and rural areas. The principles of crafting a reasonable and efficient language policy must account for the multiple identities of its actors, identities that are not merely linguistic or ethnic, but also regional, local, and shaped by mobility, migration status, and professional or educational backgrounds (Alpatov 2000, Ricento 2006). Contemporary language policy is no longer a monolithic, top-down state project of engineering national identity. Rather, it is a multi-scalar site of struggle where official ideology meets the neoliberal commodification of language and the organic, often resistant, multilingualism of urban spaces. For these reasons, issues of language policy and management remain at the epicenter of modern sociolinguistic inquiry (Alpatov 2015, Savva 2024, Spolsky 2021). 

This special issue on language policy in multilingual, multicultural, multiethnic and superdiverse contexts is organized around questions raised in the papers delivered at the Sociolinguistic sessions of The First Eurasian Congress of Linguists that took place in Moscow on 9–13 December, 2024. The aim of this volume is to bring together studies of specific linguistic situations and practices, particularly regarding the support of endangered and minority languages, with comprehensive theoretical and methodological reflections on multilingualism. Current trends in research on language policy, language management, language ecology and attitudes are represented in the papers in the present volume, along with the case studies of multilingual education, language maintenance, and construction of ethnic and linguistic identity. 

In this introductory paper we review core global theoretical paradigms with specific case studies, from the post-Soviet space and beyond. The key focus is on synthesis of structural, critical, urban, and ecological approaches to language planning and management. In Russia, research on the management of linguistic diversity is currently in its most active phase. The Decree on Foundations of National Language Policy, rooted in constitutional guarantees for the protection of languages and cultures, was recently signed by the President of the Russian Federation (Ukaz No. 474, 2025), and State Duma is working (as of May 2026) on the Federal Law on Languages of the Russian Federation (Federal Law). Thus, this issue arrives at a critical juncture.

While the state and its institutional structures remain the indisputable primary actors in policy making, the implementation of policy is most conspicuous in the school system. In the schools, teachers and administrators function as de facto policy makers, though their powers are dependent on the parents’ language ideologies. Simultaneously, an essential group of stakeholders includes the language communities themselves, whose cultural and linguistic support activities provide the “bottom-up” counterpart to state directives (Pavlenko 2008, Matras & Robertson 2015). Modern theoretical approaches to language policy and planning demand the analysis of maximally broad contexts, where relevant factors include geography, climate, resources, demography, technology, and even systemic issues such as corruption or global health crises (Spolsky 2021, Ricento 2000). This expansion effectively grows the pool of stakeholders to include complex networks of human and non-human actors.

2. The evolution of language policy research

The study of how societies manage their linguistic repertoires has evolved from a technocratic problem-solving approach to a critical inquiry into power, identity, and globalization. This section synthesizes the trajectory of the field through its foundational literature. The following narrative traces the evolution of language policy (LP) research from its early origins to contemporary critical and urban frameworks. A historical perspective allows us to catch the transition from 19th-century “one nation, one language” ideals to the complex management of minority and endangered languages in the 21st century. It is accompanied by the paradigm shift from classical language planning to language management and critical language policy.

Initially, the term language planning was introduced by Uriel Weinrich in 1957 (see Lo Bianco 2010), establishing the initial framework for language planning. Kloss (1969) introduced a fundamental distinction between corpus planning, which targets the internal structure and vocabulary of a language, and status planning, which addresses its standing and function within society. This binary remains a primary tool for analyzing the structural mechanics of language laws. Rubin and Jernudd (1971) advanced an early rationalist perspective, framing language as a strategic national resource to be managed much like any other economic asset. Their approach emphasized goal-oriented planning designed to optimize communication for national development. Fishman (1974) expanded the discipline into the sociology of language, explicitly linking linguistic planning to broader patterns of social change and communal identity. He argued that language management is deeply intertwined with how ethnic and national groups define themselves. Related is Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), which explains how individuals psychologically adjust their speech patterns in multiethnic interactions. In its early development, CAT focused on how, when and where speakers change their speech patterns to accommodate to their interlocutors (Giles 1973, Giles et al. 1973, Coupland 1984). This theory provides a micro-level understanding of the structural approach, highlighting the tension between personal practice and official status.

    Integrating language planning with comprehensive social theory, Cooper (1989) moved the field beyond state-centric models. He emphasized that non-state actors and grassroots social movements are often the primary drivers of linguistic transformation. Building on this momentum, Tollefson (1991, 2013) founded Critical Language Policy (CLP), asserting that state-led planning is rarely neutral and often serves to reproduce social inequality and state power. His critical approach questions who truly benefits from language reforms, particularly in polyethnic societies. Bourdieu (1991) introduced the theory of Social Capital, which treats language as a form of symbolic power within a competitive market. This perspective is essential for understanding why speakers may prioritize globalized languages over state languages based on their perceived economic value. Fishman (1991) later introduced the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) as a framework for Reverse Language Shift (RLS). This became a cornerstone of the ecological approach, providing a roadmap for preserving endangered and minority languages against dominant linguistic forces. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) brought a human rights focus to the field by highlighting the linguistic genocide caused by exclusionary educational policies. Her work argues for the legal necessity of linguistic human rights to protect the heritage of marginalized groups. Pennycook (2001) utilized critical applied linguistics to critique the role of global English as a tool of post-colonial dominance. He argues that the spread of English is a politically charged process that often marginalizes local knowledge and indigenous codes. The Continua of Biliteracy was developed in Hornberger (2003) to analyze the diverse ecological niches where minority languages can coexist with dominant ones. This model helps researchers understand how educational policy can either restrict or empower multilingualism. Spolsky (2004, 2009) revolutionized the field with the theory of Language Management, proposing a triad of linguistic practices, beliefs (ideology), and explicit management. His framework is a primary tool for analyzing how laws correlate with, or diverge from, actual daily usage. Shohamy (2006) exposed the hidden agendas of language policy, focusing on how high-stakes testing acts as a gatekeeping mechanism. She demonstrated that standardized assessments are frequently used to enforce linguistic hierarchies and exclude specific social groups. Blommaert (2010) analyzed sociolinguistics under the pressures of globalization, shifting the focus to urban superdiversity and multiscalar communication. His work provides the foundation for the urban approach, treating the city as a dynamic site where globalization transforms traditional policy. Wright (2016) traced the historical trajectory of language policy from 19th-century nationalism to the current neoliberal era. Her work highlights the shift from ideals of “one nation, one language” toward a globalized market where language is increasingly treated as a commodity (see also Muth 2017 and the special issue of the Russian Journal of Linguistics 2017, 21(3), dedicated to the commodification of Russian).

3. Theoretical frameworks: Actors, scales and contexts

If the history of the field shows us what happened, theory explains why it continues to happen and how different variables (state power, community identity, and economic pressure) interact. The gap between a historical timeline and abstract theoretical models is bridged by some pivotal concepts (Johnson 2013). For example, in Richard Ruiz’s (1984) seminal framework of Language Orientations, he argues that how a state sees language determines its policy. The motivations behind any language policy fall into three categories, or what Ruiz calls orientations, a term that highlights how states align themselves with them to shape the direction of policy:

• Language-as-Problem: Seeing language diversity as a threat to national unity or a barrier to economic progress (e.g., the historical ‘Americanization’ schools or early Soviet ‘Russification’). 
• Language-as-Right: Focusing on legal protections for minorities to use their tongues in courts and schools (e.g., the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages).
• Language-as-Resource: Viewing multilingualism as a cultural and economic asset for the whole country (e.g., modern Singapore or Luxembourg).

To understand the current state of affairs of language situations in multiethnic countries, we must analyze the correlation between legislative intent and sociolinguistic reality. This section explores the structural foundations of language policy through several key theoretical lenses, summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Theoretical Frameworks in Language Policy 

Approach	Key Question	Analytical Focus
Structural	How do laws correlate with actual practice?	The ratio between official state language status and its functional use in business/private sectors
Critical	Who benefits from language reform?	Elite bilingualism versus the linguistic isolation of rural or marginalized regions
Ecological	How can linguistic diversity be preserved?	Support mechanisms for indigenous and minority languages

3.1. Language management theory (LMT) and the Spolsky triad

At the heart of the structural approach is the interaction between three components as defined by Spolsky (2004):

• Language Practices: The actual habits of the population (e.g., code-switching in post-Soviet urban centers).
• Language Beliefs (Ideology): The values assigned to languages (e.g., the symbolic status of the state language vs. the utility of a lingua franca).
• Language Management: Explicit efforts by the state to influence the other two components through laws and education. 

The utility of these three components can be illustrated by turning to Singapore, where the linguistic situation can be presented in this frame as follows:

1. Management: The state mandates four official languages (English, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil) and runs the “Speak Mandarin Campaign.”
2. Ideology: English is the language of “bread” (the economy), while the others are languages of “heart” (culture).
3. Practice: Despite management, many citizens speak Singlish (a creole). 

The clash between management (speak Mandarin) and practice (Singlish) perfectly illustrates Spolsky’s tension (Spolsky 2009).

3.2. Theory of language dynamics and socialization

This approach models the competitive ‘survival’ of languages in polyethnic states. Language policy functions through Language Socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs 1986), a theory which focuses on both socialization through language use and socialization to use language. Educational systems and family units may reproduce or resist official language hierarchies. This happens primarily within the school system, where children are conditioned into specific linguistic hierarchies. However, the Theory of Language Dynamics, which studies languages as a complex adaptive system (De Bot et al. 2007) states that rather than existing static structures, language is a system that changes over time, which suggests that these hierarchies are unstable. When the state’s management conflicts with the social capital, the economic value of a language (Bourdieu1991), speakers often adapt their practices toward the more “valuable” code, regardless of official status. 

3.3. Speech accommodation and adaptation

The theory of Speech Adaptation (or Accommodation) provides a micro-level view of power mechanics analyzing how individuals adjust their speech in multiethnic interactions (e.g., the use of lingua franca in professional settings) (Giles 1974, 2016, Giles et al. 1973). In polyethnic states, speakers engage in convergence or divergence to signal solidarity or social distance. 

Hybrid models are used to describe situations where official policy and factual dominance coexist in a state of permanent tension. It is often seen in the urban metropole where global influences complicate state engineering (Sassen 2001, Vertovec 2007). There, official bilingualism exists alongside the dominance of one language, and adaptation becomes a survival strategy for navigating the linguistic market (Bourdieu 1991, Giles 2016). 

Centrifugal Models is a term that comes from work in political science, associated with Sartori’s (1976) seminal work on political parties. Centrifugal models are used to explain how different forces may push parties to a more extreme position, or they may drive a wedge between centralized forces. In linguistics, these models can be used to illustrate how users may move away from a standardized linguistic norm to a more local variety, or to favor one language over another. For example, active nationalization and the systematic displacement of former lingua francas can act as centrifugal forces, as in the post-Soviet space where national languages are aggressively promoted over use of Russian as a language of wider communication (Smagulova 2008, Smagulova & Madiyeva 2021). Case studies of active nationalization further include the shifting role of Russian in the Trans-Caucasus and the Baltics.

4. Critical and socio-economic perspectives: Linguistic market vs documentation and revitalization

This section points to the tension between language as a tool of state power and language as a resource for community identity. While Critical Language Policy (CLP) exposes how state structures reproduce inequality, the Neoliberal Approach analyzes how market forces dictate the so-called value of a language. In the context of endangered languages, it means that the focus shifts from mere state planning to active documentation and revitalization efforts. The Social Capital theory (Bourdieu 1991, 1986) examines language as a form of symbolic and economic capital. The Neoliberal Approach looks into how market value dictates language choice, often undermining efforts to revitalize indigenous or minority codes.

The focus shifts from language planning on the issues of power and inequality, especially in education. The main thesis of all critical approaches is that language policy is never neutral; it always serves the interests of the dominating groups and societies. The marginalization of local codes by global languages (first and foremost English, but other languages as well) is often described as linguistic imperialism. (See the articles in Tollefson & Milans 2018.) From the perspective of migration and human rights, this takes the form of institutional exclusion through the language testing as a filter to the labor market or citizenship (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). These topics are in the center of the most heated discussions in modern scholarship. 

Under the critical framework, language documentation is not a neutral scientific act but a political one. Documentation as resistance challenges the notion of linguistic genocide (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000) by validating the existence of marginalized codes. This approach is manifested as Decolonizing the Archive (Senier 2014): documentation serves to counteract the historical invisibilization of minority groups in multiethnic states (Hughes-Watkins 2018), and the Power of Recognition, when researchers codify an endangered language, provides the community with the symbolic tools necessary to claim linguistic human rights. The power of recognition in endangered language work is a multifaceted, interdisciplinary tool that operates at the intersection of linguistics, psychology, politics, technology, and social justice (Sallabank 2011). It refers to the formal or informal acknowledgement of a language's worth, legitimacy, and right to exist, which can profoundly influence its revitalization and vitality

4.1. Ecological approaches, documentation and revitalization

The term language ecology reflects the main idea of this approach: viewing languages as part of a fragile ecosystem requiring protection. This influential line of scholarship (starting with Haugen 1972) states that languages are not just tools for communication, but biological and cultural resources that store unique ecological knowledge. Mühlhäusler (1996) highlights how the spread of colonial ‘killer languages’ disrupts local environments by erasing the traditional names and management practices tied to indigenous landscapes. Thus, strategies supporting endangered languages may be compared to efforts to save endangered biological species, and both aim at maintaining diversity of the world. In this connection, Fishman (1991, 2001) introduced the concept of Reverse Language Shift (RLS) in the sense of defining strategies for supporting endangered languages. Drawing on global cases including the Circumpolar North (Grenoble 2018, 2025, Vakhtin 2005), the focus of this approach is concentrated on the role of agency, namely on the issues of how speaker communities navigate state management to reclaim linguistic identity. Language policy serves here as an instrument for healing historical traumas.

A functional divide between documentation vs. revitalization emphasizes a critical distinction between these two processes. If documentation is often an academic-led effort to preserve the linguistic data for future generations, then revitalization is more a social effort to restore intergenerational transmission and functional language use in daily life. Documentation fieldwork with the remaining speakers of endangered languages, elicitation techniques for collecting vocabulary and writing a grammar are supplemented with collecting various discourses and organizing them in the data corpora. (For more information and discussion, see Austin 2016, 2021, Bowern 2008, Chelliah & de Reuse 2011, Gippert et al. 2006, Grenoble & Whaley 2006, Himmelmann 1998, Kibrik 1977).

Revitalization of languages is a much broader and less academic approach that involves informed specialists, language activists and others who could benefit from the state, top-down involvement based on rigorous programs (King 2001, Olko & Sallabank 2021, Zuckermann 2020). Still, the first and main role is played by the language community itself. (See also Perlin 2024 and a review of his book in this volume.)

4.2. Systematic revitalization: The Russian experience

The theoretical framework of modern language policy in Russia is based on the necessity of active institutional management. The comprehensive Program for the Preservation and Revitalization of the Languages of Russia proposed by the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences (Kibrik 2021) argues that the natural course of linguistic evolution in the 21st century, driven by mass media, urbanization, and global economic integration, tends toward the loss of minority languages. The central idea of the Program is to boost intergenerational language transmission wherever feasible. Three necessary conditions for language revitalization include engaging local activists, administrative and financial support, and the scientific validity of the methodology (Kibrik 2021).

Building upon the ecological traditions of Fishman (1991) and Hornberger (2003), Kibrik (2021) emphasizes that documentation is only the first step. His approach advocates for a move from archive-centered linguistics to speaker-centered revitalization, to the programs and community-led initiatives that bypass traditional top-down management.

This approach is shared by the authors of this special issue: survival of a language depends not only on the number of speakers but on its sociolinguistic health, which requires scientifically grounded, systemic studies, monitoring and appropriate intervention based on research. The success of revitalization depends on whether these languages can move beyond being ‘museum pieces’ (documentation) and regain social capital in the modern linguistic market (Hinton et al. 2018).

Languages are rapidly becoming extinct worldwide. Russia is no exception to this trend. According to a recent assessment, there are 150 to 160 languages of Russia.The work of the Scientific Center for Language Preservation at the Institute of Linguistics (RAS) represents a significant structural response to these global trends within the Russian and post-Soviet space (2024). The Linguistic Diversity of Russia project at the Center focuses on the systematic assessment of language vitality across Russia’s polyethnic landscape. This involves sociolinguistic monitoring, identifying the specific stages of language loss according to updated disruption scales, implementing revitalization models (such as the language nest model). Much attention is paid to the propagation of the value of multilinguality among the general public.

Documentation serves as a primary effort for many endangered languages because it provides a corpus of data required for modern pedagogical materials, ensuring that minority languages can be socialized in contemporary urban and digital environments.

5. Urban linguistics and global perspectives

Urban centers represent the most volatile sites of language policy, where tension between top-down language management and bottom-up language practices is visible. While state policies often aim for homogenization, the modern metropolis functions through superdiversity (Vertovec 2007), creating linguistic realities that frequently bypass official legislation. The city is reframed not as a recipient of state policy, but as a dynamic linguistic lab where global migration, historical legacies, and local agency collide. As outlined in the Urban approach, the city is not merely a geographic location but a dynamic agent where new linguistic variants, such as New Russian or New Uzbek, emerge in response to globalization and urban hybridity. Different global metropoles — New York, Moscow, Manchester, Montreal and others — respond to the superdiverse reality be it official bilingualism or factual dominance, the emergence of new urban dialects, or code-switching practices (King & Carson 2016).

The myth that Moscow, a capital city of a highly centralized country, is a monolingual center is challenged in Bergelson and Zoumpalidis (2024) revealing a complex “hidden” diversity driven by migration from Central Asia and the Caucasus. The city acts as a site of speech accommodation where migrant languages persist in private and semi-public spheres despite an official Russian-only policy environment. In the city, the titular language often loses its traditional markers and becomes a metropolitan version, hybridized and modernized.

Different aspects of urban multilingualism are illustrated in a variety of cities (see Hussain et al. 2025, Leontovich & Kotelnikokva 2022, Pavlenko 2017, Pütz 2020, Zoumpalidis & Şimşek 2025, and others). New York represents the global peak of linguistic diversity (Perlin 2024). The city’s social networks allow speakers to maintain mother tongues that lack official support in their countries of origin. Regulated vs. Organic Multilingualism can be illustrated by the Montreal and Manchester cases. Montreal represents the top-down interventionist model. Quebec’s linguistic laws attempt to strictly manage the linguistic landscape to ensure the dominance of French (Heller 2003, Levine 1990). However, the everyday urban dynamics of Montreal remains stubbornly bilingual, illustrating the limits of state management when faced with the economic capital of English. Manchester presents an organic model of multilingualism (Matras 2024, Matras & Roberston 2015). Its diversity is not a problem to be managed, but a functional system where community languages are integrated into public services and local identity, creating a resilient social capital for immigrant communities. The city fosters a hybrid linguistic environment where the organic use of multiple codes in the urban landscape naturally resists state-mandated monolingual ideals. 

Superdiversity and global patterns, language commodification and public signage can be further demonstrated in the cases of Melbourne, Hamburg (Clyne 2006, Duarte & Gogolin 2013), Tashkent and Almaty (Smagulova 2008). In the first two metropolitan cities, the sheer number of linguistic variables makes traditional minority rights frameworks obsolete. Cities like Tashkent and Almaty occupy a unique middle ground. They experience centrifugal nationalization (the push for Uzbek or Kazakh) while simultaneously acting as hubs for global English and the lingering functional dominance of Russian as an urban lingua franca. Smagulova (2008) calls this “elite bilingualism,” when the metropolitan identity is marked by the ability to navigate between Russian (the old lingua franca), Kazakh (the state symbol), and English (the global neoliberal commodity). This new multilingualism is not about ethnic roots, but about urban mobility.

The common thread across these metropolises is their diverse linguistic landscapes that allows for reading the city as a text through signage, advertisements, and digital presence. Ultimately, the city transforms the core question of language policy from a search for legal correlation to an analysis of how urban dynamics redefine the value and utility of languages in a globalized market. Another common feature is the emergence of “new” language variants forged in the globalization context (see Shaibakova et al. 2023, Proshina 2026).

6. The problem of “native language” and “native speaker”

Since the beginning of the 20th century and even earlier, the ultimate goal of studying foreign languages has been to achieve a level of language proficiency that matches that of a native speaker. The concept of native speakers was once a solid and unquestionable category. However, in today’s globalized world, this approach, known in English as native-speakerism, is quickly becoming outdated as it “suppresses the freedom of thought and expression as fundamental human rights” (Hino 2021: 528) and does not allow one to express one’s self. Things changed when urbanization and mass migrations of the 20th and 21st centuries led to creation of the new diasporas and emergence of the next generations (2nd and 3rd) of the migrants. The category of native speaker lost its ‘purity’ and homogeneity as the very term native language could be redefined as mother tongue (=the first language a person acquired in childhood), the language one speaks at the highest proficiency level, the language used in the majority of context and practices, and the language of the group a person identifies with. These four basic criteria defining the native language (origin, competence, function, identification) are often not harmonized and conflict with each other. So, sociolinguistics could no longer use this term as a prototypical category, relying instead on models based on one criteria only (Guermanova 2024).

Scholars working within the Critical language policy (CLP) approach have long questioned how the native speaker ideal is used to reinforce social hierarchies. Tollefson (1991) founded the CLP framework, arguing that language planning, including the promotion of specific “native standards,” reproduces social inequality and state power. The same kind of critique targeted the concepts of mother tongue and native language, arguing that these terms are often ideologically loaded constructs rather than neutral descriptions of linguistic reality. This view was expanded by Blommaert (2010). Analyzing sociolinguistics under globalization, he critiqued traditional views of the native speaker by highlighting how individuals navigate complex urban environments using diverse linguistic repertoires that do not fit neatly into single-language categories. Wright (2016) traced the historical shift from 19th-century nationalism, which relied heavily on leveraging the concept of a mother tongue as a symbol of the nation-state, to a neoliberal era where language is increasingly treated as a marketable commodity. Pennycook (2001) analyzed the role of global English within the critical applied linguistics framework, arguing that Western academic traditions have used the concept of native language to maintain post-colonial dominance over local and indigenous codes. 

6.1. Decolonial and epistemological critiques

The recent volume Insecurities in Language Policy and Planning (Makoni et al. 2026) offers a sustained critique of the taken-for-granted categories that have long structured the field, such as the term “(native) speaker.” In this view, language policy and planning are entangled with colonial histories of standardization that have contributed to processes of control and exclusion. Gafaranga (2026) suggests that researchers should consider suspending use of the term language as a fixed analytic category altogether, using it only when it is explicitly invoked by the speakers themselves. Karlander and Salö (2026) trace the origins of semilingualism, a concept often used to pathologize those whose linguistic practices do not align with idealized “native” norms, exposing its ideological roots as a deficit model. 

Still, if we deconstruct the native speaker or the named language too far, we might inadvertently support a market-style linguistic chaos where only the most powerful languages (English or Russian) survive. Critics of the neoliberal/anticolonial turn in sociolinguistics often argue that terms like translanguaging or the deconstruction of named languages can act as a neoliberal trap: by claiming that boundaries between languages do not exist, we risk stripping minority groups of the very tools (standardized, “pure” languages) they need to claim legal rights and state protection.

7. Mapping the special issue: From global scapes to local practices

The ten articles in this issue form a scholarly mosaic, sequenced to seamless transition from overarching theoretical and ideological frameworks to granular empirical analyses of sociolinguistic cases. The articles directly address the preceding theoretical issues, bridging the gap between historical legacies and current trends.

The volume opens with Camiel Hamans, who explores the social feasibility of accommodating minority languages within national structures. By analyzing the historical emergence of national standards — from the linguistic ideologies of the French Revolution to German Romanticism — Hamans warns against “linguistic essentialism.” He argues that the violent disputes seen in places like Spain and Belgium can only be mitigated through an anti-essentialist approach characterized by diversity and tolerance.

Complementing this, Konstantin Zamyatin provides a critical analysis of the current efforts to conceptualize linguistic diversity within the Russian legislative framework. Drawing on participant observation and discourse analysis of official drafting processes, Zamyatin reveals the inherent difficulties in operationalizing “preservation” when official definitions remain broad. His work highlights the tension between the symbolic inclusion of diversity in policy goals and the practical needs of language activists on the ground.

The critical importance of methodology and institutional data is addressed by Gulnara Gabdrakhmanova and Nikolai В. Vakhtin. They offer a rigorous critique of the 2020–2021 Russian Census, using Haugen’s ecology of language framework to demonstrate how technical and terminological shortcomings can distort our understanding of language endangerment. Their analysis of ten indigenous languages in Yakutia shows that census data can produce ‘ghost’ increases or decreases that do not reflect the actual sociolinguistic health of these communities.

Lenore Grenoble further expands the theoretical horizon by applying Appadurai’s (1996) Scape theory to a comparative study of Greenland and Yakutia. By examining the interplay of ethnoscapes, technoscapes, and mediascapes, Grenoble demonstrates that language policy cannot be successful if it ignores global flows of people and technology. Her research emphasizes that indigenous languages must find a ‘digital niche’ to survive in an era where 98% of the population is interconnected via the internet.

The volume then transitions into the complex world of identity negotiation. Dionysios Zoumpalidis and Mira В. Bergelson provide an in-depth life-history analysis of Sakhalin Koreans across four generations. Their work shows that language shift is not a simple linear process toward Russian. Instead, families develop strategic repertoires involving “kitchen Korean” and symbolic ties to popular culture to navigate a century of the Japanese colonial displacement and adaptation to the political and social demands of the Soviet era.

The role of the educational system, which is a key site of policy implementation, is examined by Dick Smakman in the context of the Netherlands. Smakman highlights the disconnect between the inclusive rhetoric of international bodies (UNESCO, EU) and the “language-as-problem” orientation found in Dutch classrooms. His study illustrates how the exclusion of heritage languages (Turkish, Arabic, Polish) from the curriculum reinforces educational inequities.

The next two papers address specific cases of language contact and hybridity. Mariya Yu. Nekrasova examines the persistence of Ukrainian lexical elements in Sevastopol. Her functional analysis shows that despite shifting political boundaries, Ukrainian remains a pragmatic and emotional resource in everyday speech, used for everything from sarcastic interjections to self-identification of the locals vs. newcomers. Finally, Víctor Lara Bermejo challenges the status of Llanito in Gibraltar. Based on extensive fieldwork, he argues that Llanito is not a distinct variety or language, but rather a manifestation of code-switching in a society rapidly moving toward English monolingualism, illustrating the final stages of language shift.

This special issue concludes with a final paper on multilingualism in Yakutia by Igor A. Danilov, who investigates the “symbolic power” of Northern minority languages. Danilov identifies a paradoxical trend: as the communicative functionality of languages like Yukaghir or Even declines, their symbolic value as markers of ethnic identity increases. This “symbolic revitalization” poses a challenge for policy-makers who must decide whether to support language as a tool for communication or as a vessel for heritage

8. Conclusion: Toward a multi-scalar model where multilingualism is the norm

Collectively, these papers demonstrate that language policy in the post-Soviet space and elsewhere reveals a fundamental tension that mirrors global shifts: the conflict between state efforts to manage national identity and the organic reality of human communication. While regional nationalization efforts often demonstrate global patterns of securitization, the actual practices of speakers tell a different story.

Language policy involves continuous interaction and compromises between different processes. In reality, multilingualism is not an ‘insecurity’ to be solved, but the normal state of affairs for both individuals and the societies that unite them. As demonstrated through the theory of social capital and speech accommodation theory, individuals naturally navigate multiple discourse communities, shifting between codes to build solidarity and access economic opportunities. Whether in the hidden multilingualism of Moscow or flourishing of the many languages of New York, linguistic practices are governed by a multi-scalar logic that transcends top-down engineering.

By integrating the critical, structural, urban, and ecological approaches, we move away from deficit models like semilingualism. Instead, we recognize that society is held together not by a single standardized code, but by the dynamic interplay of diverse linguistic repertoires. The modern multiethnic countries, with their centrifugal models of nationalization and their complex urban hybrids, provide essential data for a world increasingly defined by superdiversity and neoliberal commodification of language. The studies presented here serve both as a record of our current multilingual reality and a roadmap for managing the complex ethnic and linguistic landscapes of the 21^st century.

About the authors

Mira B. Bergelson

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Author for correspondence.
Email: mbergelson@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7617-9356

Professor at the School of Philological Studies, HSE University and Director of the Center for Sociocultural and Ethnolinguistic Studies at the Faculty of Humanities, HSE

Moscow, Russian Federation

Lenore A. Grenoble

The University of Chicago; M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University

Email: grenoble@uchicago.edu
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8810-7395

PhD (Advanced Doctorate), is the John Matthews Manly Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Chicago, USA, and the Director of the Arctic Linguistic Ecology Laboratory at the M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk

Chicago, United States of America; Yakutsk, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files