Polylinguality and Transcultural Practices

This study examines the intellectual history of Olzhas Suleimenov’s book “ AZ i IA” in 1975-1976. The ideological debate surrounding this book became one of the most resonant in the 20th century, while its historiosophical framework shaped, for decades to come, the formation of historical narratives in Kazakhstan aimed at overcoming the cultural trauma of “ahistoricity” and at acquiring historical subjectivity for the post-nomadic culture of the Kazakhs. It influenced not only public consciousness, but also the axiology of the academic narrative. The study seeks to explore the sociocultural nature and ideological contradictions of the debate provoked by the book “ AZ i IA” , drawing upon archival and narrative sources, as well as the memoirs of the author and his contemporaries. Taking into account the accusations leveled against Olzhas Suleimenov - of pan-Turkism, Zionism, and skepticism - and analyzing them through such documents as the “Memorandum to the State Committee for Publishing” ( Goskomizdat ), letters of the Soviet party leadership, materials from the discussions of the book at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, critical reviews, and the course of the debate itself, we arrive at the following conclusions. First, “ AZ i IA” exposed the sociocultural nature of ideological consciousness in Soviet society. Second, it vividly demonstrated the ideological contradictions between two overlapping periods in Soviet history: post-Stalinism and the Thaw. On the one hand, the country’s ideological leadership stimulated the growth of ethnological consciousness; on the other hand, it curtailed manifestations of subjectivity that exceeded the permitted boundaries of the prescribed status of the “younger brother” and suppressed attempts to rethink the dramatic pages of such kinship. The materials of these ideological debates thus allow us to investigate how the Soviet cultural hierarchy - in the Kazakhstani case - contributed to the formation of a subjectivity that sought to overcome the traumas of post-nomadism while engaging in dialogue with world culture.

This interdisciplinary study investigates the universal archetypal principle of cyclicity, which manifests synchronously in historically and geographically unrelated systems. The research is grounded in a historical review that confirms the probable presence of Proto-Turkic groups within the polyethnic nomadic confederations of the Scythian-Siberian world in the Near East (7th-4th centuries BCE). Consequently, a hypothesis is advanced about potential channels for the transmission of deep, structural-topological models, moving beyond mere superficial lexical patterns (cf. “Өсіріс” in Kazakh - ‘cultivation’).The central focus of the analysis is the structural isomorphism of three distinct phenomena: the syntactic structure of the clitic “sw” in Late Egyptian, the mythological narrative of “death and rebirth” in the Osiris myth, and the social institution of the nomadic Turks (Kazakhs) - the clan system “Zheti Ata” (Seven Forefathers). The study analyzes these three systems as implementations of a single invariant - the principle of “reflexivity” and “closure.” This invariant is modeled using the topological figure of a torus (T²), where the topological rupture, represented as “death,” functions not as a destructive force but as a constitutive element that ensures the system’s integrity and continuity. Thus, the subject’s position in the mythological narrative, syntax, and social organization of the clan emerges not merely as a linguistic phenomenon but as a fundamental code for organizing the spatiality of being, constructing a unified complex of “topological grammar.” The methodology of “cultural topology” enables the revelation of this deep kinship, demonstrating how culture encodes universal archetypes within its multi-level texts.

The study is devoted to the historiography of the ancient history and culture of the Turkic peoples in the context of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Olzhas Suleimenov’s book “AZ i IA”. The Book of a Well-Intentioned Reader.” The purpose of the research is to study and evaluate the works of Tatar humanities scholars on this topic from the perspective of modern science achievements, and to introduce new materials into scientific circulation. Special attention is given to reconstructing the stages of the development of scientific thought and understanding the contribution of individual researchers from the pre-Soviet and Soviet periods to this field of knowledge. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, interest in the ancient layers of the culture of the Turkic peoples emerged in Tatar historical studies, largely influenced by the founder of Tatar historical thought, Sh. Mardzhani, and the educator K. Nasyri. A comparative analysis of the works of I. Khalfin, Kh.-G. Gabyashi, A.-Z. Validi, and others conducted in this article demonstrates their deep knowledge and broad perspective on the history and culture of the Turkic peoples of Russia. The authors point out that the key element of the high culture of the ancient Turks was the presence of writing, and they express their opinions about the time of its appearance, the existence of cities, crafts, trade, and agricultural production in the steppes. The style, structure, and nature of the presentation of the material are largely influenced by the fact that these publications were intended for students of madrasas, as well as for the mudarris and mugallim who taught there. These works played a key role in the introduction of the new subject “History of the Turks” in new-method Tatar schools in the 1910s, and in teaching the younger generation about their ancestors’ involvement in the ancient history of the Turkic peoples of Eurasia. In the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the history and culture of the Old Turkic period were mainly presented in G. Gubaidullin’s book “Tatar Tarihy” (“History of the Tatars,” 1922), written in the early years of Soviet rule, and in the first volume of G. Gubaidullin and G. Rakhim’s collaborative work “History of Tatar Literature” (1923). Scholars consider the Old Turkic period and the late 18th century to be part of the ancient era in the history of Tatar literature. In the following decades of Soviet rule, the study of the Old Turkic period became the prerogative of the capital’s academic research centers. However, the autochthonous concept, which recommended studying the history of the ethnic group within the borders of the national republic until the late 1980s, prevented the inclusion of the Old Turkic period in the comprehensive works “History of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.” This interrupted the tradition of considering the history of the Tatars as part of the history of the nomadic Turkic world. O. Suleimenov’s book “AZ i IA,” published in 1975, resonated with the sentiments of Tatar scholars, who, due to the suppression of research on ancient Turkic history in Tatar historiography, perceived it as a kind of breakthrough in the official ideology and its scientific institutions, which hindered the comprehensive study of the language, history, literature, and culture of the ancient Turks. This explains the relevance of this study. In the post-Soviet era, the inclusion of the ancient Turkic period in the history of the Tatars was preceded by the beginning of research on the history of the Golden Horde in the early 1990s, which revealed the Eurasian scale of the history of the Tatar people. A significant event in this process was the publication in 2002 in Kazan of the first volume of the seven-volume “History of the Tatars from Ancient Times,” the book “The Peoples of Steppe Eurasia in Antiquity.”

-

The study examines Turkisms as lexical markers of a transcultural worldview in Olzhas Suleimenov’s poem “The Clay Book.” The study employs a broad understanding of Turkisms, which also includes Kazakhisms. The analysis demonstrates that the use of Turkic lexical elements allows the author to construct a multilayered poetic worldview in which the cultural codes of various traditions resonate with one another, reflecting the integration of local and global cultural experiences. In this context, transculturality is manifested through the synthesis of linguistic, historical, and cultural elements, which contributes to the formation of a universal artistic space. The poet’s transcultural artistic and aesthetic worldview enables the use of “explicit” and “recognizable” Turkisms as instruments of linguistic play, paradox, and grotesque, constructed in contrast with the languages of other ethnic traditions. A special role is played by Turkisms with sacred meanings, including proper names. The author’s transcultural approach allows the reader to comprehend the complexity of cultural interactions and to perceive the commonalities within the diversity of cultural phenomena.

This study addresses the issue of terminological pitfalls encountered by Russian bilingual scholars working in the field of linguoculturology and other humanities disciplines. The author examines the situation in which researchers proficient in at least two languages - their native tongue (the language of their ethnic culture) and Russian (the state and professional language of science) - analyze and describe linguocultural phenomena primarily in Russian. As a result, there is a risk of terminological substitution and a distortion in the understanding of cultural concepts, since the original categories are described using the resources of another language. This leads to negative linguistic interference and a loss of authenticity in the object under study. The article emphasizes that this problem is particularly relevant in Russian regions, where a significant proportion of the scientific community consists of bilinguals. The author analyzes the causes of terminological pitfalls, including the established practice of scientific communication predominantly in Russian, limited reflection on the linguistic and cognitive characteristics of bilingualism, and insufficient attention to sociocultural factors in the organization of science in regional contexts. The author also notes that such processes are observed not only in oral discussions but also in scientific publications, including articles, monographs, and dissertations. The article provides a review of scholarly literature on the problems of bilingualism, interference, and the specifics of Russian science, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach to analyzing the situation. The historical dynamics of language policy in the USSR and Russia are considered, as well as changes in the role of national languages in scientific communication. Special attention is paid to the specifics of working as a humanities scholar in national research centers and the difficulties encountered when studying and describing one’s own culture in a professional language different from one’s native tongue. The problem of terminological pitfalls extends beyond a single scientific discipline and requires an interdisciplinary approach integrating linguoculturology, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, sociology, and psychology. The article stresses the necessity of further research into the cognitive and sociocultural aspects of bilingualism in Russian science and calls for deeper reflection on the linguistic and terminological risks faced by bilingual scholars.

The study uses biographical, historical-literary, comparative and hermeneutical methods to examine some texts that form the artistic image of the Bakhchisarai Khanate in Russian literature for almost two centuries. The Palace of the Crimean Khans in Bakhchisarai, also known as Khan-Sarai, is a unique structure that is the only example of palace architecture in the Crimean Tatar style in the world. In Russia, it is recognized as an object of cultural heritage of federal significance. If in reality the Palace was built by order of the Crimean khans Gireyev, then the father of it’s image in Russian literature can be called A.S. Pushkin, the architectural ekphrasis created by him will serve as a kind of catalyst that will bring to life a number of images of the Khan’s palace in Russian literature. Many authors connected the Palace, Bakhchisarai and Pushkin, but the article emphasizes the texts of I.A. Bunin and S.I. Paradazhnov. Research material: the poem “The Fountain of Bakhchisarai” by Pushkin, the story “Crimea” by Bunin and the novel-script of the unrealized film “The Sleeping Palace” by Paradzhanov. The purpose of the article is to examine the image of the Khan Palace as a cultural artifact of world importance through the prism of architectural ekphrasis. In such an aesthetic paradigm, the listed texts and the image of the Khan Palace itself were not previously considered. In the course of research on the basis of the works of Russian literary critics, such as B.V. Tomashevsky, I.Z. Surat, S.G. Bocharov, M.P. Bilyk, E.V. Yatsenko, E.F. Shafranskaya, G.T. Garipova, identified patterns and principles determining the logic of formation of the artistic appearance of the architectural ensemble in Bakhchisarai, as well as parallels between these processes. In addition, genre models emerging under the influence of the author’s thinking style are established. The results of the research can be used in the development of lectures and seminars, where the attention of students will be focused on the phenomenon of the ethnocultural component in Russian literature. This will allow to more fully reveal the internal regularities of the literary process of the 20th century.