vladislava.reznik@strath.ac.uk

Language policies often, if not always, have important political meanings, as they are directly related to the complex issues of nationalities policy.

Well before the Revolution the question of nationalities and language policy had been recurrent in discussions and publications of the Bolshevik leaders. Immediately after the October Revolution and the establishment of Soviet power in ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous provinces of the former Russian Empire, the formation of language policy and its urgent implementation became central in the Party’s political and cultural agenda.

Having declared the principle of the complete equality of all peoples and their languages, the Bolshevik government to a great extent identified the nationalities’ demand of identities with the necessity to recognise their basic linguistic freedoms.

Lenin’s national policy stressed that everyone had the right to use his own language, both in private and for public matters. It was also understood that everyone was to have the right to education and availability of cultural materials in his own language, no matter how few people spoke this or that language. Given the fact that in the multinational country there were some 130 ethnic groups, speaking varied languages, the Party leadership set an enormous practical task for the scholars: to conduct a Language reform, which would implement all the goals of the linguistic policy and ensure equal development of all the nationalities and their cultures.

There is an extensive amount of research on the development of Soviet language policy, language planning after the Revolution, its political, linguistic, social goals, objectives and results. However, existing scholarship has largely examined the language reform either in broad terms of the sociology of language or, specifically, in terms of the relation of language to power. As such, it has consistently neglected the central issue of the relationship of language reform to the theoretical development of the new scientific paradigm in the study of language – a materialist linguistics.

In the 1920s many Russian scholars, despite their diverse political views, saw a materialist approach to language as a possible way out from the theoretical and methodological impasse of the nineteenth-century linguistics. This is not to say, however, that they implied the same ideas under the notion of a materialist linguistics. And yet in this paper I will try to argue that in the process of Soviet language reform there occurred a consolidation of numerous competitive scholarly positions, unified for a while by common practical tasks, and certain ideological convictions as well. Purely dogmatic discussions as to what is to be considered Marxism in linguistics were overshadowed by the enormous practical work, and a nascent materialist approach, however imprecise is the term, was elaborated in a number of pioneering linguistic experiments.

Thus, the objective of this paper is to give a brief and, by no means, a detailed account of Soviet language policy and planning in the 1920s and 30s, with the particular emphasis on the linguistic aspect of the problem. I will specifically try to examine how the implementation of language policy was carried out through various progressive linguistic projects, during which old literary languages underwent considerable change and entire new writing systems, terminologies, languages were created at the hand of the linguist. These practical experiments, in turn, contributed to the development of the theoretical basis of a materialist linguistics, whose main principle was a creative, active approach to language, conscious language construction and change. It is on these ideological grounds that the theorists and practitioners of the language reform reacted against Saussure's idealist conception of language as an abstract system of signs, existing independently from the language collective and not in any way susceptible to wilful influence on its part.

The successful implementation of language planning in the Soviet Union empirically undermined Saussure's thesis. However, practical procedures and results of the language reform constitute only a part (although, probably, the most important and convincing) of the intellectual polemics with Saussure, conducted by Soviet scholars. Theoretical views on the problem and straightforward disagreement with the conception of language, advanced by the Geneva school, are expressed in the program article of Lev Iakubinski Ferdinand de Saussure o nevozmozhnosti iazykovoi politiki [Ferdinand de Saussure on the Impossibility of Language Policy], which will be analysed in this paper. In my view, Iakubinski's work is very significant from, at least, two points of view. In the first place, it is, as I have already stressed, a theoretical manifesto of Soviet language planners. On the other hand, it can be seen as valuable evidence to the assumption, made in the beginning of this paper. Indeed, it seems reasonable to talk about the consolidation of scholarly views amongst Soviet linguists and a certain short-lived integrity of Soviet linguistics on the whole at the time, when even Iakubinski, the famous Formalist fellow-traveller, took an inimical stand against Saussure's teaching and rejected the idealism of his linguistic theory.

Thus, I will make an attempt to bring together theory and practice of the language reform, and in doing so to highlight the development of a materialist linguistics as a new paradigm in the study of language.

Methodological preliminaries of language planning

In the first part of the paper I would like to provide a general theoretical framework to be applied while analysing phenomena and processes of language planning.

Language planning and policy-making can be traced back thousands of years in history. It has been defined as 'the establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a language community' (Haugen 1969: 701, as cited by Comrie, Stone 1978: 2). In the particular case of Soviet language policy, it has been generally characterised as 'the practice of carrying out a conscious intervention into a language's development' (Nikolsky, as cited by Nigel Grant 1989: 65). A more inclusive definition was offered in 1977, but may as well be used to describe the actual processes of language reform in the 1920-30s:

'Language policy is the theory and practice of a conscious influencing of the course of language development on the part of society, in short, goal-oriented and scientifically grounded guidance of the function of existing languages and the creation and perfecting of new linguistic means of communication.' (Grigoriev in Isaev 1977: 13-14, as cited by Grant 1989: 65)

But who, in particular, are those representatives of society who carry out this conscious influencing on the course of language development? It is believed that it can be anyone from governments to individuals (Kirkwood 1989: 1). As Eastman notes, political scientists, economists, anthropologists, linguists, educators play equally important role in language planning, although it is generally wrongly assumed that linguists should be the main practitioners of language policy (Eastman 1983: 61, as cited by Kirkwood 1989: 1). However, it is not unreasonable to say that such a supposition is accurate in reference to Soviet post-Revolutionary language planning. During the first few years after the Revolution a badly centralised policy was inadequate to the daring novelty and the gigantic scope of language reform. Besides, the number of qualified scholars, teachers, administrators, able to create the theoretical basis of the reform and to execute it effectively, was certainly too low in general, and among national minorities, in particular. Thus, in the beginning it was a few distinguished Soviet linguists who had to assume all the possible scientific and administrative functions and become professional language planners.

Most language planning is concerned with two tendencies, which are likely to coexist. Those are language shift and language maintenance. Language shift occurs when a population stops using one language and switches to another. Language maintenance, on the contrary, is reflected in the continuous retention of national languages on the part of speaking communities, in the so-called language loyalty. Throughout the history of language planning in the Soviet Union both trends were concurrent. Speaking of the language reform in the 1920s and 30s, it is obvious that language maintenance was not simply the winning tendency, but the principle. At the same time, however, certain phenomena of language shift were taking place. Here, in the first place, I mean the change of spoken dialects, which a speaking community had to face and accept, as soon as one dialect was selected and established as a literary norm.

As far as types of language planning are concerned, many scholars agree on the existence of two: instrumental and sociolinguistic (Fasold 1987: 250-1; Appel and Muysken 1987: 49; Kirkwood 1989: 1). The instrumental type of language planning evaluates languages in terms of their efficiency, beauty, prestige, ability to perform certain functions and fulfil assigned tasks. As the term suggests, language is seen as a tool that can be used and adjusted for new purposes. The sociolinguistic approach, on the other hand, is totally different. It is based on the postulate that all languages are equal and should enjoy equal rights. Since all languages have the same potential for development, their adequate functioning in modern world depends entirely on social, economic and political factors, which can either promote or hinder a language's evolution. General opinion holds that Soviet language planning in the 1920s and 30s was of sociolinguistic type, resting on Lenin's nationalities policy and promoting basic linguistic freedoms. In the later years, however, Soviet language policy underwent a broad change. Although it was claimed that it continued to be Leninist, in practice sociolinguistic approach was substituted by a more instrumentalist one. In Kirkwood's opinion, the most obvious signals of change were the promotion of Russian, on the one hand, and gradual limitation of functional adequacy of other Soviet languages, on the other. Besides, Kirkwood is generally doubtful about the sociolinguistic character of Leninist language planning, which he describes as 'unworkable in practice' and attributes its in many cases undeniable success exclusively to the credit of Soviet linguists (Kirkwood 1989: 2).

In order to be efficient and successful language planning has to go through several consecutive stages. Generally speaking, there are four of them, as singled out by Appel and Muysken (Appel and Muysken 1987: 50-8), Joan Rubin (Rubin 1971: 217-52) and Kirkwood (Kirkwood 1989: 2-5).

1. Initial Fact Finding

This stage of fact finding should, in principle, be the preliminary one, devoted to the research of the given socio-demographic, socio-cultural, sociolinguistic situation. Many subtle questions are to be answered so that a language reform should be most beneficial for all the members of the speaking community. It is crystal clear, however, that under the conditions of the post-Revolutionary Russia no initial fact finding could have been systematically conducted. Thus, the results of the 1897 census served as the only official reliable source of systematised information, and the fact finding was parallel to the process of the active reform, which certainly led to a number of experimental mistakes and failures.

2. Procedures

This is a very important stage of language planning leading to the elaboration of a program of action. At this point aims and objectives of the reform are set, strategies are worked out, and concrete steps of their implementation are devised. Two indispensable procedures of language planning, specifically relevant to the case of the Soviet Union, are language selection and minority language treatment.

Closely related to these complex matters is the procedure of codification. In my opinion, it would not be an exaggeration to say that codification, as well as graphisation, were the key-concepts of Soviet language planning of the 1920s and 30s. Codification is aimed at creating or explicitly formulating the linguistic code, via the production of descriptive grammars, dictionaries, rules for spelling and pronunciation, etc. Graphisation is one of the constituent, although not compulsory, sub-stages of codification. It is understood as 'the provision of a writing system for a language which formerly either did not have one, or had one no longer considered by policy-makers to be suitable' (Kirkwood 1989: 3). Codification serves as the preliminary stage of standardisation, a process involving selection of a dialect or dialects of a language and the establishment of norms of its standard usage at all linguistic levels.

Another procedure to be discussed is modernisation. The modernisation of a language can be of two types: development of language structure and development of language function. Development of language structure has to do with the changes of language units themselves. The lexicon of a language is obviously most sensitive to modernisation. However, morphology and syntax can also alter and experience modernisation, although less quickly and notably. Thus, development of structure refers to changes within the corpus of language. Development of function deals with the roles played by the language in society. Its functions and uses can be extended or reduced depending on the decisions of policy-makers. Development of function always presupposes a change in the status of language. Hence, modernisation may include two interrelated issues of corpus planning and status planning. 'Decisions about the extent to which the corpus of a language should be developed depend on decisions about the status envisaged for that language by the policy-makers (Kirkwood 1989: 3). Soviet experience in this respect is very impressive.

It is usually argued that Soviet language planning of the 1920s and 30s was characterised by the simultaneous implementation of the two opposing procedures: standardisation and modernisation. While standardisation of non-Russian languages was one of the main goals, Russian itself underwent an apparent modernisation, both in terms of corpus and status change.

3. Implementation

This, of course, is the central and most difficult stage in language planning. There are factors, which can facilitate or hinder the implementation of language policy. There are social, political, economic, demographic and other aspects to be taken into account already at the stage of initial fact finding. Their proper evaluation undoubtedly helps in the execution of language policy. There are, however, institutional means at the disposal of policy-makers through which the policy is publicised, advanced and implemented. The educational system is, perhaps, the most powerful and effective from this standpoint. Of no less importance are, certainly, the press, radio and television. The ability of a government to implement its language policy depends largely on the degree of the official control over these institutions. Kirkwood notes that in a totalitarian system with the state control of education, publishing and the mass media, it is seemingly easier to implement (and to enforce!) a language policy (Kirkwood 1989: 4). However, there remains a crucial socio-psychological factor of the policy acceptance by the people to whom it is aimed. It is not to be discarded even in the conditions of a totalitarian system, capable of administrating a very strict control and coercion over the process of the language reform. This notion has been proved by the Soviet experience. To illustrate his thesis Kirkwood writes about the promotion of Russian as a 'second mother tongue', which has been least successful in rural Central Asian areas in the 1960s. The need of Russian there was so little that the population passively opposed the policy of its promotion by simply not adopting Russian, or doing it very reluctantly (Kirkwood 1989: 4). During the reform of the 1920s and 30s there were similar, and even more illustrative, cases. Thus, for instance, at the First All-Union Turcological Congress in Baku in 1926 the delegates from the Tatar Republic fought vigorously for the retention of the Arabic script for the Tatar language, in spite of the universal campaign for Latinisation. Polivanov wrote in 1928 that Kazan, with its long traditions of Arabic script writing and publishing, remained the stronghold of the opposition to Latinisation (Polivanov 1928 as cited by Alpatov 1997: 65). On the other hand, there were certain ethnic groups who supported the Cyrillic alphabet due to their deep assimilation in Russian life and culture. Those were, for example, Mordva and Chuvash peoples, as well as Gypsies and Assyrians, who did not have a compact territory of residence and had easily adopted Russian alphabet for their languages (Polivanov 1928 as cited by Alpatov 1997: 63). The Mari, the Mordva and the Udmurt never switched to the Latin script, although there were a few attempts of conversion on the part of the authorities. The same can be said about Yiddish. All the efforts to substitute its original Hebrew script with Latin proved to be futile (Alpatov 1997: 66).

4. Evaluation

Since language planning is usually viewed as a cyclic process, there can be no final or definitive evaluation of its results. It is, of course, possible to monitor the implementation of a language policy, evaluate it on different stages and make necessary adjustments. But the results of such an analysis will be short-term and subject to constant change. This is stipulated by the fact that there are, as Joan Rubin points out, limitations to evaluation (Rubin 1971: 230-3). These can be of several kinds: political, environmental, technical, intellectual, economic. In general, there are so many variables that to see and properly evaluate the results of language planning in the life of one generation is hardly possible. These are usually long-term changes, whose real value, purposefulness and impact are felt in years.

Thus, language planning is a very complex process, involving linguistic, social, psychological, environmental and other variables. It has various goals. Language planners usually try to achieve several goals at once, among which the most common are to bring about linguistic unity, to preserve or create linguistic distinctiveness or uniqueness, to make certain languages or their speakers equal, to make one language or its speakers superior, to develop a language so it can be used for new purposes, and to make a language more efficient as a tool of communication or more beautiful as a medium of expression (Pool 1978: 225). However, some of these goals prove to be incompatible, and might arouse linguistic and political contradictions or even conflicts. In the context of Soviet language reform of the 1920s and 30s there is no evidence of fierce or violent opposition to language planning.

Among other limits to language planning the chief one, in Pool's opinion, is the reluctance to engage in language planning, partly as a result of the traditional belief in the organic unity and independent existence of language with which people should not or cannot tamper (Pool 1978: 225). It is also against this general belief and a strong scholarly conviction that Soviet language reform of the 1920s was directed and, in spite of the obstacles and inconsistencies, accomplished.

Pre-Revolutionary language policy and its linguistic foundation

To better understand the goals and procedures of language planning after the Revolution, I will now briefly describe the pre-Revolutionary language situation and planning in the Russian Empire (from the 1870s). This issue has been frequently discussed and debated, especially in relation to the nationalities policy. Bearing in mind the main objective of this paper, I will focus my attention on the relevant theoretical views of some Russian linguists, and describe a few early attempts of language planning as examples of the emerging materialist approach to language.

The Russian Empire was a multinational state whose colonial expansion in different directions led to the incorporation of many lands and ethnic entities. However, the population was classified chiefly by religions, and not by nationalities. Those, practising Russian Orthodox Christianity, were usually regarded as the Russian, whereas non-Christians were included into the vague category of aliens [inorodtsy]. The Orthodox Church, Russian culture and, certainly, the Russian language had the official status throughout the Empire. The language policy of the Tsarist government was unsystematic and incoherent. It kept changing under various political circumstances but, in general, was quite typical for the authorities of a unitary centralised state. Its main goal was support, development and promotion of the only official language, Russian, which assumed this role in the course of history (Alpatov 1997: 28). Thus, Russian was the language of administration, court, army and education. It also became in a natural way the language of international communication (lingua franca) within the Empire.

As far as other languages of the Empire are concerned, they were treated with different degrees of official disapproval or, less commonly, tolerance. Thus, for instance, the Russian parts of Poland, Finland and the Baltic provinces were granted a limited amount of autonomy, which permitted the use of languages, other than Russian. To quote an example, in Finland the Swedish minority occupied a dominant political and economic position, and Swedish was used as the official language in the nineteenth century (Comrie 1981: 21). But for most of the Russian Empire, languages of the non-Russian peoples, had few official rights, if any. Orthodox Christians, Ukrainians (known as "Little Russians" at the time) and Belorussians, in particular, were expected to fully assimilate with Russian people, whereas their languages were regarded as mere dialects of Russian. Between 1876 and 1905 the Tsarist government pursued the policy of total prohibition of any publications in the Ukrainian language in the attempt to discourage Ukrainian separatism. After 1863 the Polish language was also discouraged and inadmissible in school or for any official use. The Georgian language, with its extensive use in the Caucasian region and old written tradition, was not so easy to ban. Therefore, schools with Georgian as the language of instruction were opened and shut down more than once (Hewitt 1989: 126-127 as cited by Alpatov 1998: 29).

The attitude towards the languages of inorodtsy (non-Orthodox peoples, especially of Central Asia, Siberia and Far East) is sometimes perceived as more tolerant and favourable, compared to the rejected linguistic rights of the Western peoples (Kreindler 1985: 346). Alpatov, however, argues that seemingly mild approach towards the languages of Eastern lands, in fact, reflected official indifference and neglect of the nations, whose contacts with Russians were very limited and perfectly sustained by means of bilingual Tatar interpreters (Alpatov 1998: 29). If any member of such non-Russian, non-Orthodox ethnic communities wanted to advance himself, this could only be accomplished through assimilating to the Russian population and conversion to Orthodoxy. However, neither a general policy of linguistic and cultural assimilation, nor a more concrete educational program of instruction in Russian for non-Russians was envisaged by the Tsarist administration.

Such a neglect of national languages and, ironically, Russian itself, had detrimental consequences for the country, the worst being overwhelming illiteracy of Russian and non-Russian population. The 1897 census showed that the level of literacy, that is the ability to read, was appallingly low in general, and in rural areas, in particular. The figure for men and women over the age of nine was only 27 per cent for Russia and 30 per cent for European Russia. In Central Asia the situation was far worse, with only 10 per cent of men and 3 per cent of women being able to read. In Poland, on the contrary, the numbers of literate people were higher than average, while in Estonia they reached amazing and totally untypical 95 per cent for men and 97 per cent for women (Comrie, Stone 1978: 4). On the whole, the 1897 figures showed that illiteracy was striking. However, the good news was that the proportion of those able to read was higher in the age group from 9 to 49 than in the whole population over nine, which meant that a slow process of improvement and reduction of illiteracy had begun (Comrie, Stone 1978: 4).

I believe that largely this relative success was achieved due to the individual efforts of missionaries, scholars and lay enthusiasts, who on the one hand did their best to promote the Russian language, and on the other, studied and encouraged the development of other languages of the Empire.

One important observation should be made here. I will adhere to Joshua Fishman's classification and terminology, in which he defined the two major approaches to world languages as 'Eastern' tradition and 'Western' tradition. The 'Eastern' tradition can be traced back to the ancient Hebrew and Greek prophets and philosophers, and it welcomes the natural diversity of peoples and their languages. The 'Western' tradition, on the other hand, is associated with the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, or, in other words, the state and its institutions. It is clear, then, that the 'Western' approach is aimed at creating a single system of values, culture and language (Fishman 1982: 5-6 as cited by Kreindler 1985: 345). In her analysis of the Russian-Soviet case Kreindler maintains that the Eastern tradition has been historically native to the Russian soil. It goes back to the names and deeds of Sts. Cyril and Methodius who designed the alphabet for the Ancient Slavs and stood at dawn of their Christian culture. In the course of time the traditions of the first Slavonic enlighteners grew stronger and were kept alive in the work of many religious missionaries and enthusiasts who lived among non-Russian peoples and studied their languages (for example, Varsonofii and St. Gurii in the sixteenth century, Makarii Glukharev in the early eighteenth, etc.). The nineteenth century was not exceptional and saw the work of a few prominent individuals, who sincerely supported the development of non-Russian languages (Kreindler 1985: 345-346).

These essentially private attempts were in many cases linked to missionary activity and assimilating policies. It is known that the opinion of Russian administrators and intellectuals was divided between the policy of straightforward or gradual assimilation of non-Russians. The latter was essentially in favour of the development of national languages and education, which were understood as the best media for the promotion of Russian culture and Orthodox values. These views were particularly advocated by N.I. Il’miskii, a famous scholar, specialist on Turkic languages, and the head of the Translation Commission of the Orthodox Missionary Society in Kazan’. Il’minskii believed that Russification and Orthodox education of various Volga, Ural and Siberian peoples should be facilitated if local languages were employed as useful and accessible tools of instruction. He wrote that only mother tongue 'can penetrate into the inner recesses of the heart' (I'lminskii 1863: 139 as cited by Kreindler 1985: 242). Hence, the members of the Translation Commission encouraged the use of the national languages, devised written forms on Cyrillic basis for some of them, translated the Bible and other religious literature. A great cultural and scientific contribution was made by Il’minskii for the Mordvinian nation, in particular. He organised a Mordvinian section at the Translation Commission, despite the ban of Mordvinian translations. As part of the preparatory work for translation and publishing a comprehensive language study had to be carried out. Activists of the Commission gathered and published samples of Mordvinian oral folklore in both of the Mordvinian languages Erzia and Moksha. In 1882, for example, they issued two parts of the book Obraztsy mordovskoi narodnoi slovesnosti [Samples of Mordvinian Folklore] in Erzia with a Russian translation, and in 1896 a new Moksha edition was prepared (Kreindler 1985: 243). In general, the publishing activity of the Commission was broad and not confined to translations of the Gospels. Of a great importance for Mordvinian education was the creation and publishing of textbooks in Russian and primers in both of the Mordvinian languages. On the whole, between 1876 and 1899 Il'minskii and his colleagues had published 23 titles in Erzia and Moksha, as well as in three different dialects of Moksha. For all of these languages the Russian alphabet was used. It was especially convenient for Erzia, where no special adjustments had to be made due to the similar sound systems. For Moksha some graphisation was carried out and several additional signs were introduced for its peculiar sounds.

The process of language study initiated by Il'minskii laid foundation for the development of literary forms of Mordvinian languages. A former professor of linguistics, Il'minskii conducted academic research and practical language planning, which stood out as remarkably new against the background of the prevailing historical-comparative method. He made conspicuous contribution to Mordvinian culture and, although fired with his Russian Orthodox mission, he promoted national languages and ethnic life of the Mordvinians, as no one had done before. Moreover, as Kreindler points out, Il'minskii's most significant impact on Mordvinian culture was, perhaps, the creation of the first generation of local intelligentsia, 'a small nucleus of educated Mordvinians who for the first time in Mordvinian history openly proclaimed their Mordvinian identity and were inspired to work for their own people' (Kreindler 1985: 243). These students and followers of Il'minskii were educated in his specially created native schools, trained to become translators, clergymen and pedagogues. They helped their teacher to carry out language study, publishing and educational activity, striving to raise the cultural level of their people.

Apart from Mordvinian languages Il'minskii was interested and worked on other languages of the Volga area. He designed the alphabet for the Chuvash language (always on the Russian basis) and even expressed the idea that Chuvash should be used on all levels of education, including University. This proposition was, quite understandably, disclaimed by the Tsarist administration, and the use of Chuvash as the language of instruction was confined to school (Alpatov 1997: 30, 40).

Another important figure in the history of the earliest attempts of language planning is Uslar, a member of Russian colonial administration in Daghestan and a linguist, who conducted research of several Caucasian languages. As a colonial administrator and pragmatic politician Uslar advanced the policy of straightforward and unashamed Russification of Daghestani peoples. In the nineteenth century Daghestan the Arabic tradition played an increasing role, with the Arabic script being used as the written form for the Avar language. The vitality of Arabic culture and alphabet had a religious basis and not inconsiderable publishing tradition. Recognising this fact, the Tsarist administration strove to defeat the Arabic influence, trying to bring the mountain people closer to Russian way of life and reduce hostilities. In his article of 1870 On the dissemination of literacy amongst the mountain-dwellers Uslar stated that the Arabic tradition and the use of the Arabic script was entirely harmful and the language of official business and wider communication must be Russian (Crisp 1985: 146). He understood, however, that enforced use of Russian would only alienate the local population, and no success with spreading literacy or pro-Russian feelings could have been achieved. Thus, similar to Il'minskii, Uslar conceded the necessity of using the local languages for promoting Russian civilisation (only in Uslar's case it was for a political, rather than enlightening purpose). Thus, he worked on the provision of alphabets for the languages of Daghestan, and is justly credited with the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet for Avar, which turned out to be the most viable out of all the alphabets, designed by the colonial administration. Schools were opened to teach literacy in Avar, whose future status was envisaged as that of the lingua franca for Central and Western Daghestan. It was encouraged as the language of administration and official business and taught deliberately to local scribes and judges. Among the books printed in Avar in the Russian script there were three works of popular character and a primer (Crisp 1985: 147). But despite all the efforts of the colonial administration, the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet for Avar did not have any lasting success. The number of those literate in Avar never exceeded 120, and in 1902 a witness concluded that Uslar's alphabet was completely forgotten in Daghestan (Crisp 1985: 147). And yet, it is possible to speak of certain achievements in connection with Uslar's language planning attempts. His work did not remain insignificant for the future development of Avar culture. Again like Il'minskii's missionary activity, it gave rise to a native intelligentsia outside the Arabic tradition and established the foundation of a written culture in Avar.

Having spoken about Uslar and Il'minskii, I would like to stress once more their role in creating first cadres of national intelligentsia, despite the official policy and aim of Russification. It is due to their language and educational policies that by the late nineteenth century the ideas of education and publishing in non-Russian languages were propagated and brought to life by national enlighteners themselves, who worked for the retention, development and recognition of their mother tongues. Many of them were Il'minskii's students, disciples and friends. Among the most famous are I. Altynsarin, a Kazakh intellectual and enlightener, I. Iakovlev, a Chuvash teacher, M. Evsev'ev, a Mordvinian scholar and teacher. They designed Russian-based scripts for their languages, gathered and recorded samples of oral culture, published educational and other books, founded national secular schools.

One more interesting fact concerning private attempts of pre-Revolutionary language planning should be mentioned here. Languages of the small Northern peoples were surprisingly well studied due to the individual initiative of exiled Populists. Kreindler speaks of them as true scholars, who produced ethnographic and linguistic research of lasting value (Kreindler 1985: 350). In early 1917 the Yakut linguist S. Novgorodov created an alphabet for the Yakut language. It was based on the symbols of the International Phonetic Association and made use of the Latin script. Despite its peculiarities, such as the lack of capital letters and the absence of punctuation marks, Novgorodov's Latin script was officially approved in 1921 and was used as the first medium of literacy and culture for the Yakut people (Crisp 1989: 26).

Speaking of pre-Revolutionary language policy in the first decades of the twentieth century, it is important to emphasise the fact that the period of 1905-1917 was one of intensive language development. The activity of the scholars and enlighteners aimed at promoting non-Russian languages of the Empire was not, in the majority of cases, officially supported, but neither was it hindered or discouraged. After 1905 the situation became much livelier even for those languages which used to be banned (Ukrainian, Polish). Books in these languages, as well as in Georgian, Estonian, Lithuanian began to come out regularly. For the first time in history there appeared systematic publications in Belorussian, the number of books and periodicals issued in the Tatar language considerably increased, etc.

Such an improvement of the language question within the Russian Empire can be explained by, at least, two major reasons.

The first one is, certainly, the change of political and socio-cultural atmosphere in the country, which became more liberal in terms of nationalities policy. In the early twentieth century different political and cultural organisations of the non-Russian nationalities became very active and influential in public life, particularly of their own peoples. The demands put forward by these organisations concerned, in the first place, the provision of cultural and linguistic rights. The rightfulness of these claims was recognised and, to an extent, supported by the representatives of different political parties, among whom there were even those of conservative or right wing convictions. But, most importantly, the demands found an eager response with the wider public. Kreindler mentions numerous pedagogical conferences and congresses whose delegates tirelessly discussed the language question and without exception adopted resolutions in favour of the use of the mother tongue in schools. Public interest in the development of ethnic minorities was so strong and lively that at the 1914 Congress of Teachers the section of non-Russian education attracted over 3 000 participants, though the number of non-Russian delegates was less than 100 (Kreindler 1985: 347). Even the conservative Third Duma faced the facts and passed an education bill that admitted mother tongues to school as medium of instruction in the first two years (Kreindler 1985: 347). Thus, the issue of language policy became prominent in society, and public, as well as certain official, attempts were made to partly solve it.

The second reason, underlying the intensive language development in Russia in the early twentieth century is of more profound character. It is particularly relevant to this research, since it brings to light the evolution of Russian linguistic scholarship itself. It is the objective necessity to find new principles and methods of linguistic study that brought national languages of Russia to the forefront of public and academic attention.

I argue that Il'minskii's and Uslar's activity in the 1860s and 1870s demonstrates the first systematic attempts to conduct conscious language planning in Russia. By the late nineteenth century language planning activity was already quite regular and, what is important, it was carried out on more or less professional basis. This, in my view, is a striking fact if we are to think of how novel and original this approach was against the then predominant comparative-historical method of linguistic research.

The comparative-historical linguistics developed around the concept of language family tree and sought to prove the existence of kinship between various languages that could be related to each other, grouped in one family on the basis of regular sound correspondences and traced back to one common root, a protolanguage. The investigations of comparative linguists did not go beyond Indo-European languages, and even those were studied through the available written monuments of the past, not as live and spoken tongues of the present. In general, language was understood as an independent natural organism, complete in its development and recorded in the written monuments. There is no denying that the comparative linguists made a valuable contribution to the study of language. By the turn of the twentieth century, however, the comparative-historical method exhausted itself and the linguistic scholarship faced a serious crisis. New approaches, methods, a whole new linguistic paradigm had to be worked out in order to solve emerging linguistic and cultural problems of the new age.

In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to assume that the earliest developments in language planning described above could have been the first signals of such a paradigm change. As we have seen the activity of Russian non-professional language planners was fundamentally incompatible with the theory and practice of the leading linguistic method. In contrast to the comparative-historical linguistics, their approach manifested an active, creative interest in the spoken languages of ethnic and linguistic minorities and treated them as social phenomena, inseparable from the community of speakers and its social life. Their object of investigation was language in its development, language as a system of concepts and sound signals, not contained yet in any form of graphic representation and, thus, observable in the purity of its social existence.

These are the ideas, which in actual fact became prominent much later, in the early twentieth century. One might conclude then that in their practical work the practitioners of the nineteenth-century language planning were, in a sense, able to foresee the development of the linguistic theory. It is, of course, very unlikely that Il'minskii and others were conscious of their progressive linguistic method or their amateur insights into the future development of the linguistic thought. But this unawareness does not, of course, make their contribution less honourable.

Analysing the earliest signals of the gradual change undergone by Russian linguistic paradigm, it is most important to mention the activity of the Kazan’ School of Linguistics and, specifically, of its founder and intellectual leader I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay.

A special remark should be made about Baudoiun de Courtenay's liberal attitude to the language question. He firmly believed in the natural right of national minorities to have school education in their own languages. In his article of 1905 he formulated a recommended nationalities and language policy for the Russian Empire. In the multinational Russia, he wrote, none of the languages should have the mandatory official status. Every citizen should be granted the right to use his own mother tongue, not only in private life, but also for official communication with governmental institutions, up to the level of the State Duma. To enable such a multilingual communication all the state institutions were expected to hire translators of all possible spoken languages of the Russian Empire, whereas civil servants were encouraged to learn non-Russian languages. Needless to say, Baudouin de Courtenay recognised the practical side of the problem and recommended Russian as lingua franca, the language understood by the majority of the population. This, however, was less important than the provision of linguistic freedom, which, in the scholar's opinion, could ensure civil loyalty to the tolerant state on the part of numerous ethnic groups (Baudouin de Courtenay 1906: 12-13 as cited by Alpatov 1997: 33).

As far as the evolution of theoretical linguistic thought is concerned, it is generally recognised that the earliest progressive structural hypotheses of language developed in Baudouin de Courtenay's work. In particular, Baudouin understood language as a system of signs, emphasised its structure and function, insisted on the significance of synchronic research. His ideas and methodological framework appeared to be remarkably close to those of Saussure and, in my opinion, marked a transitional phase between the old and the new linguistic paradigms.

However it is not before 1916 that the social and structural conception of language became world known and made a revolution in linguistic theory after the publication of Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics. Saussure’s interpretation of language as a social fact broke the methodological predicament of the previous century and gave a theoretic foundation to all modern linguistic scholarship.

The theories of the Swiss scholar were brought to Russia particularly due to Sergei Kartsevskii, who in 1917 returned home after several years of study in Geneva. They were eagerly accepted and became increasingly popular with Russian Formalists, the members of OPOIaZ and Moscow Linguistic Circle. These innovative theorists, critics, linguists sought to develop the most progressive methods of linguistic and literary research. In particular, the Formalists' primary concern was a new study of literature, which should be based on the principles and methods of the nascent linguistic science. Saussure's newly discovered sociological and semiotic interpretation of language was highly appreciated and viewed as a bright alternative to the old academic linguistic scholarship.

Thus, it is safe to conclude that the reception and further development of Saussure's theory marked a decisive shift of Russian linguistic paradigm towards a structural, sociological approach.

And it is not a mere eventuality that such a shift occurred after 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, which brought about a tremendous upheaval in political, social, cultural life. As regards the issue of nationalities and languages, the Bolshevik party and government declared and implemented a radically new policy, promoting the equality of all non-Russian peoples and their languages. This policy stimulated the beginning of the unprecedented, intensive and, perhaps, the most romantic, language planning and language construction.

After a brief introduction into the Bolsheviks' nationalities and language policy, I will analyse in detail how Saussure's teaching was applied, interpreted and developed into a materialist linguistic method in the course of Soviet language construction.

Post-Revolutionary language policy

Soviet language planning has received much attention on the part of home and international researchers. It is traditionally divided into two periods: from 1917 to 1953, and from 1953 to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The first period, or more precisely, the years 1917 to the late thirties, was characterised by most intense and creative language planning activity. As my main interest lies with the development of linguistic theory and its application in the procedures of Soviet language reform, I will not focus on the political context of language planning decisions, giving just a brief account of the Bolshevik language policy.

After the Revolution the Bolshevik leadership declared a new nationalities policy, entirely based on Lenin's principle, which guaranteed 'the most complete equality of nationalities and their languages.' (Lenin 1958-1865, vol. 25: 146 as cited by Kreindler 1982: 7) First and foremost, the new idealistic program deprived Russian of its official status and declared that the Soviet State was to have no official language. Secondly, everyone had the right to his national identity, the right to speak a mother tongue in private and for public matters. Thus, for instance, already in 1918 the Central Executive Committee passed a decree on legal proceedings, which admitted the use of all local languages in courts (Alpatov 1997: 36). Thirdly, everyone had the right to education and cultural development in his national language. Even in the harsh years of the Civil war the government stressed the importance of national schools, and quite a few of them were created.

In March of 1921 Soviet language policy was formulated in the resolution of the 10^th Party Congress. Its main goal was to help non-Russian peoples realise their right to national self-determination, develop and consolidate judicial, administrative, economic and governmental bodies in native languages, as well as develop press, schools, theatre, clubs and cultural institutions in the languages of non-Russian population (Crisp 1989: 24). This policy received the name korenizatsiia [local rooting]. It aimed at making all the national languages as complete as possible to enable them to function in all the areas of modern life, with science, literature, philosophy, commerce being accessible to peoples in their mother tongues (Kreindler 1982: 8).

The implementation of such an idealistic policy was, certainly, obstructed by the practical difficulties. To organise and run local administration, commerce, education, press in non-Russian languages, it was necessary, in the first place, to devise written forms for the vast majority of those tongues, which had no writing tradition. (There were, however, a few naïve unsuccessful attempts to use languages with no writing for administrative purposes, for example, in Daghestan (Alpatov 1997: 44). Given the fact that before the Revolution only about 20 non-Russian languages had their own written forms, and only 13 – an established literary norm, the complexity and seeming practical impossibility to implement Lenin’s language policy becomes more than clear.

Thus, the main tasks set out for Soviet linguists were as follows: the eradication of illiteracy, creation of alphabets for languages with no writing systems, establishment of literary (standard) languages, development of education, administration and publishing in those languages.

This program to make the equality of national languages into a living, practical reality was, indeed, extremely idealistic (Crisp 1989: 25). It was, however, essentially native to Russia, with its historically dominant Eastern tradition and high respect for the missionary service of the Slavic enlighteners. This is, perhaps, one of the possible explanations why language planning decisions and immense practical tasks, set out by the Party leadership, struck such an eager response with the linguists, who were called to accomplish them. Among those scholars who became first professional language planners I should, in the first place, mention the names of E.D. Polivanov, N.F. Iakovlev, L.I. Zhirkov, D.V. Bubrikh, N.N. Poppe, N.K. Dmitriev, A.M. Sukhotin. These linguists as well as some others took an active part in the work of the All-Union Central Committee for the New Alphabet (it was formed as the Committee for the New Turkic Alphabet in Baku in 1925 and presided by the influential Azerbaidzhani communist S. Aghamali-Oghlu, and only after his death in 1930 moved to Moscow). Iakovlev, in fact, supervised all the research carried out by the Committee, whereas other linguists worked on concrete languages or groups of languages. Besides, representatives of national intelligentsiia began to eagerly cooperate with the Russian scholars. The Kazakh activist A. Baitursunov, the famous Tatar thinker B.V. Choban-zade made particularly considerable contribution to the reform of their languages. Another important name is L.Iakubinskii who did not take part in the practical language construction work, but pronounced prominent views on the theoretical aspects of language reform and wrote the polemical article, which I consider to be the manifesto of the first Soviet language planners.

In general, it is possible to agree with Alpatov who thinks that Soviet language construction of the 1920s was carried out by the linguists of outstanding merit and talent (Alpatov 1997: 49). They were scarce in numbers, had to overcome immense practical difficulties, and yet achieved wondrous results in their work, which allowed Polivanov to compare it to that of Cyril and Methodius (Polivanov 1968: 195).

Development of a materialist linguistics in the course of Soviet language reform

Analysing the development of Soviet theoretical linguistics in the 1920s and early 30s it is important, I believe, to point out three main characteristics of the approach, elaborated and tried out by Soviet scholars in the course of language planning.

First of all, this approach to language was based on the sociological and structural method of Saussure. However, not everything in Saussure's teaching was accepted. Soviet language planners did not agree with the idealist aspect of Saussure's linguistics, which led to the establishment of the second peculiar feature of Soviet linguistic method.

Thus, secondly, Soviet approach rejected Saussurean concept of the abstract language system. Instead it was based on the materialist notion of immediate interdependence between language and society with its social, economic, political life. In other words, Saussure's sociological method was further developed into sociolinguistic.

And last but not least, Soviet linguists believed their method to be Marxist.

I will now look more carefully at each of the characteristics of Soviet linguistic method mentioned above.

1. Many scholars agree that Russian cultural scene of the 1910s and 20s was dominated by the 'formal' or 'structural' ideological movement which found realisation in most spheres of arts and science.

In linguistics, as we have seen, Baudouin de Courtenay and Saussure's structural approach to language with its emphasis on function, synchrony, typology, uniform methods of study became largely prevailing after 1917.

There is little disagreement about the fact that structuralism was the leading method of early Soviet language reforms (1917-1937) (Girke and Jachnow 1974; Samuelian 1981; Smith 1991; Sériot 1995; Gasparov 1996; Slezkine 1996). Linguistics was transformed into a truly synchronic scholarship with the main interest in the living word, spoken dialects, national languages. Polivanov, Iakovlev and their colleagues received the opportunity to test the theory of the universal semiotic system of language, creating alphabets, compiling descriptive grammars, standardising disparate vernaculars. In Gasparov's words, they made 'an enormous effort aimed at putting the whole "language household" of the Soviet Union into an orderly state based on uniform and rational, scientifically approved principles' (Gasparov 1996: 145).

But what exactly was welcomed and favoured by Russian linguists in Saussure's Course?

His main achievement was, of course, poising linguistics as the sociological science. Saussure was able to elucidate the social nature of language by way of defining the true object of linguistics. Making a sharp distinction between human speech [language], language [langue] and speaking [parole], Saussure asserted that language should be used as the norm of all other manifestations of speech (Saussure 1964: 9).

In his Course Saussure argues that language can only be approached as a social fact, since it is only within a collectivity that 'the social crystallisation of language' comes about, signs become firmly associated with concepts, and systematic structure of language is observed. Language is then defined as 'a social product of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions that have been adopted by a social body to permit individuals to exercise that faculty' (Saussure 1964: 9). Furthermore, the sum of word-images stored in the minds of all individuals could be identified as a social bond that constitutes language. Language has a potential existence in each brain, or, rather, in the brains of a group of individuals. 'For language is not complete in any speaker; it exists perfectly only within a collectivity' (Saussure 1964: 14).

The demarcation line drawn by Saussure between language and speaking has long since become classic in modern linguistics:

'In separating language from speaking we are at the same time separating: 1) what is social from what is individual; and 2) what is essential from what is accessory and more or less accidental.' (Saussure 1964: 14)

Thus, language is a social side of speech. It is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the union of meanings and sound-images. To function as language linguistic signs have to bear the stamp of collective approval or, in other words, become social.

In other words, Saussure's main emphasis is on language as a social product, which exists only within a community of speakers and constitutes a system of conventional signs. Therefore, Saussure stresses that linguistic scholarship should study its uniform structure, and disclose the universal laws regulating the functioning of all languages. The fundamental level of language, on which the study of its structural organisation should begin, is phonology.

For Soviet language planners the emerging linguistic branch of phonology became particularly important. Phonological science formed the theoretical basis for graphisation and came to be significantly developed and advanced in the course of language construction. Making an enormous effort at multilingual development, language planners had, in the first place, to create alphabets for national languages with no writing system. It should be stressed that the process of graphisation requires the investigation of the meaningful sound distinctions existing in a language. Only when such meaningful units, phonemes, are singled out, it is possible to understand the rules of their combining into words and devise written signs suitable for their representation. Polivanov, Iakovlev and other theorists of language reform designed their alphabets on the basis of phonological principles. In turn, practical work in language construction gave abundant material for the exemplification and crystallisation of the theory (Alpatov 1997: 50). Iakovlev, in particular, developed the most advanced concepts of phonological theory and aptly described them in his famous article of 1928 Matematicheskaia formula postroeniia alfavitov [Mathematical Formula of the Alphabet Construction], with which the Moscow Phonological school began (Alpatov 1991: 53). In the 1920s and early 30s more than 40 languages were graphised on the basis of the Latin script with modifications. In the late 30s the reverse process of Cyrillisation began. The complexity and importance of phonological work, undertaken by Soviet linguists, can be, perhaps, best shown on the example of those 59 Soviet non-Russian languages, whose writing systems were transformed to the Cyrillic script. The Cyrillic alphabet, which needs only 33 symbols for Russian, contains 201 distinct symbols for those sounds of non-Russian languages which do not exist in Russian and require modified letters (Pool 1978: 227). It is worth noting here that Polivanov, in particular, insisted on the creation of uniform symbols for all the alphabets to represent analogous phonological distinctions, and visa versa, absolutely distinct symbols to represent the meaningful units, peculiar for every language (Polivanov 1928: 324 as cited by Alpatov 1997: 53).

To sum up this section, I would like to emphasise again the two basic concepts of Saussure's linguistics adopted by Soviet language planners: social character of language and the paramount importance of its structure and function.

2. In my opinion, however, it is much more interesting to see how Soviet theorists and practitioners of language planning went in their work much further than was allowed by the classic Saussure's structural method. In the course of language construction they conducted a practical polemics against Saussure's idealism. Namely, Soviet scholars disputed the very base of Saussure's linguistics, his thesis that the individual can never create nor modify language, and is confined to its passive assimilation (Saussure 1964: 14-15). Soviet language planners, on the contrary, adopted a creative, dialectic approach that enabled them to overcome the conservative belief in the independent intangible existence of the abstract language system and prove its liability to the individual and societal influence and change.

Arguing against Saussurian idealsim, Polivanov, Iakovlev, Iakubinskii and others developed Saussure's concept of the abstract language system, complete in the community of speakers, into a sociolinguistic one, which maintained that language does not only exist in society, but depends on its social life, varies and evolves under its influence. Moreover, rejecting the idealist interpretation of linguistic facts, Polivanov stated that modern facts, disclosed by the linguistic study, should be understood only in terms of their relevance and importance for the future development of language, should be used as the material for the language policy (Polivanov 1991: 560 as cited by Alpatov 1997: 51). This materialist attitude to language, dealing away with the traditionally strong belief in the intangible existence of language, made the implementation of language policy possible.

As I have already said the most explicit declaration of the views of Soviet language planners is found in the report made by Iakubinskii in 1929 and published in 1931 under the title F. de Saussure o nevozmozhnosti iazykovoi politiki [F. de Saussure on the Impossibility of Language Policy]. It should be noted that Iakubinskii's article is of very polemical character. However, it does not fail to demonstrate the principal difference and novelty of the materialist position, taken by Soviet linguists in their approach to language. I will now look closely at Iakubinskii's considerations and bring forward the main points of his argument.

Iakubinskii starts by confronting Saussure's paradoxical idea of the simultaneous immutability and mutability of the sign. Indeed, for Saussure, society passively accepts language from preceding generations and it is a historical factor of transmission that prohibits any sudden widespread change. Thus, the sign is immutable. On the other hand, language undergoes the inevitable change in time, which means that the sign is mutable (Saussure 1964: 71-72). However, Saussure fails to name the forces of change, he merely speaks of a certain abstract action of time that makes mutability inescapable (Saussure 1964: 77-78). The explicatory remark as to Saussure's paradox has been provided by his students and editors Bally and Sechehaye. They specify that language changes in spite of the inability of speakers to change it. It is intangible but not unchangeable (Saussure 1964: 74, a footnote).

It is the first postulate of the intangibility of language that is openly rejected by Iakubinskii. His criticism is directed against the central thesis meant to confirm the immutability of the sign:

'The signifier, though to all appearances freely chosen with respect to the idea that it represents, is fixed, not free, with respect to the linguistic community that uses it. The masses have no voice in the matter, and the signifier chosen by language could be replaced by no other. […] No individual, even if he willed it, could modify in any way at all the choice that has been made; and what is more, the community itself cannot control so much as a single word; it is bound to the existing language.' (Saussure 1964: 71)

To this Iakubinskii argues that if Saussure is right and language is intangible, unreachable for the individual or the community of speakers, then language policy as a wilful and conscious influence on language is impossible. In 1929 at the very climax of Soviet language construction there was no need for Iakubinskii to prove the contrary, that is, the practical possibility of language policy; however, he set out to refute the four basic theoretical reasons provided by Saussure in support of his thesis:

1. The arbitrary nature of the sign

According to Saussure, the arbitrary nature of sign protects language from any attempt to modify it. The linguistic sign, due to its arbitrariness, has no solid ground or a reasonable basis for discussion why this particular signifier has come to be associated with this particular signified and what are the reasons for its change. 'There is no reason for preferring soeur to sister, Ochs to boeuf, etc.' (Saussure 1964: 73)

For Iakubinskii Saussure's concept is correct only from the standpoint of his abstract formal-logical way of reasoning. If viewed solely as an element of the independent language structure, the linguistic sign will, indeed, appear arbitrary, accidental, non-motivated. However, it is erroneous from the outset to detach the social phenomenon of language from its base, society. The words, Iakubinskii stresses, do not exist between the sky and the ground, on the contrary, the linguistic sign develops numerous associations with other signs within the system of language and, most importantly, in society, in the usage of the speaking community. Thus, the development of society brings about the development of the linguistic sign, and it becomes possible to discuss and change it. The "discussion", conscious process of selection of the linguistic sign, can be public or private, individual. In the first case, we deal with an official language planning procedure. Thus, for instance, in the early nineteenth century the Czech language underwent deliberate purges and was deprived of all the words of German origin. Individual process of selection and, if necessary, change occurs when a speaker tries to adjust the way he speaks to this or that social situation, when peasants, for example, improve their dialect with regards to the urban norm, striving to advance themselves in the community of more educated speakers. The Czech bourgeois favoured the use of the word divadlo instead of the more common theatre, teatr, Theater because for him it was a sign of distinction from the pro-German feudal. Thus, language in its development is inseparable from the processes in society and the choice of the linguistic sign becomes much more motivated (Iakubinskii 1986: 76-77).

2. The multiplicity of signs necessary to form any language

Saussure believes that linguistic signs are numberless which is an important deterrent to any language change. He recognises, however, that a writing system, also consisting of signs, can in case of need be replaced by another system, since the number of letters is always limited and does not exceed 20-40 (Saussure 1964: 73).

Iakubinskii's reply is centred on Saussure's own inconsistency. Admitting that a written sign is not intangible, he should agree to the principal identity between the systems of written and sound signs. However, the main problem is that it is not quite clear what Saussure implies speaking of the limitless number of linguistic signs. Even the number of words in a language is not unlimited. Moreover, all the words consist of sounds, which can be reduced to the same number of 20-40. Thus, the second argument of Saussure cannot be accepted either (Iakubinskii 1986: 77-78).

3. The over-complexity of the system

Language, writes Saussure, constitutes a system. It is such a complex mechanism that the speaking masses are completely ignorant of it. This system can be only grasped through reflection, but the very ones who use it daily are unable at the same time to reflect on it. As far as specialists, grammarians, logicians are concerned, they can, certainly, reflect on a language and even in theory change it, but according to Saussure, such attempts have always been futile (Saussure 1964: 73).

Analysing this third argument, Iakubinskii distinguishes between two aspects of the problem. On the one hand, Saussure asserts that the speaking masses are not able to consciously reflect on the language they use. Iakubinskii challenges this notion by saying that speakers do not, of course, think about language as a whole. However, in their practical life they are very conscious of the language they use in different situations. Language is not a unitary abstract system; it exists in the form of numerous social subsystems. A collective of speakers, whose language is somehow different in pronunciation, grammar or vocabulary from that of the others, will become aware of this by simply hearing the difference! And once such recognition has taken place, every speaker is able to reflect on his own language and change it if needed.

On the other hand, Saussure does not admit the possibility of conscious language change even on the part of linguists and other specialists, which means that he denies the possibility of language planning in principle. However, the argument is not supported by any illustration, apart from the remark that all such meddlings in the past have failed (Saussure 1964: 73). Certainly, the past experience cannot be accepted as the ultimate proof for Iakubinskii, who rightly admits that life is not static, and what was impossible in the past, becomes possible in the present and future. (Iakubinskii 1986: 79-80)

4. Collective inertia towards innovation

The most important consideration, as presented by Saussure, is the fact that language is at every moment everybody's concern. It is spread throughout society and is used by all its members continuously. Everyone participates in language and influences it at all times. This is, according to Saussure, the main reason why language, out of all semiotic systems and social institutions, is less prone to initiative. It blends with the life of society, whose inertia and conservatism as regards language is a prime force against its change (Saussure 1964: 74).

Iakubinskii is most critical of this last point. He argues that society cannot be viewed as a mythical homogeneous mass. It is impossible to speak of the inertia of the whole society, since this society is subdivided into classes, and each class is inert or active in its own way in different periods of time. To illustrate his point of view, Iakubinskii again refers to the example of the Czech language reform in the early nineteenth century. The initiative, undertaken by language specialists, struck a welcome response with the actively transforming class of Czech bourgeoisie and led to the fully-fledged language change, despite all the possible inertia on the part of the main bulk of speakers. Besides, the very fact that 'language is at every moment everybody's concern and is constantly influenced by all' makes it more liable to change under various circumstances and in varied usage.

Having analysed all the four basic considerations, which, from Saussure's standpoint, prove the impossibility of conscious language change, either on the part of society or by language specialists, Iakubinskii makes an important conclusion. He once again stresses the abstract, formal-logical approach to language, elaborated by the Geneva School, and highlights the principle difference and newness of the Soviet linguists' method.

First and foremost, Soviet scholars study the object of linguistics, language, not as an abstract system, but in the concrete reality of its existence, society. Secondly, they take into account the subject of language, the speaking collective. And last but not least, they regard the speaking collective as the heterogeneous mass, consisting of different social groups and classes. With the development and change of these groups and classes, language is bound to experience development and change as well (Iakubinskii 1986: 81).

I believe it would not be an exaggeration to say that in his article Iakubinskii outlined the main principles of the new emerging branch in the study of language, sociolinguistics, whose rise and methodological foundation can be well attributed to Soviet linguists and their work in the process of language construction. Sociolinguistic approach allowed the theorists and practitioners of language planning to treat language as a material reality. It brought forward the irrefutable concept of language's interrelation with society and its social organisation. It highlighted the idea that language varies in different social groups and classes, and changes in language structure are, among other factors, caused by the societal development. But most important, sociolinguistic interpretation of language formed the methodological basis for language planning, enabled Soviet linguists to solve complex practical problems and gain impressive expertise in a number of progressive linguistic experiments.

3. A search for Marxist linguistics constitutes, as I have already said, another important feature of Soviet language reforms. It should be noted here that in the 1920s, before the battles of Cultural Revolution, there was a relative ideological conformity amongst Soviet scholars to regard sociological (sociolinguistic) approach to language as a Marxist. No one seemed to know for sure what Marxism in the study of language meant. However, it is possible to identify some central conceptions. First of all, it was a commonly accepted belief that language formed a part of superstructure and had a class nature. On the basis of this notion many Soviet scholars concluded that changes of the base, economic and political conditions led to significant transformations at all levels of the language system. Such statements were, certainly, too dogmatic and determinist. However, they made it possible for Soviet linguists to approach numerous sociolinguistic problems. Thus, for instance, the concept of the class character of language stimulated scientific investigations of its social and professional dialects. The assumption that language was directly influenced by the political and economic life of society resulted in the significant analysis of the changes, experienced by French and Russian languages at the time of the corresponding revolutions.

And yet, it seems hardly possible to single out any distinct principles of Marxist approach to language, formulated or implemented during Soviet language construction. Polivanov wrote in 1927 that the main achievement of Soviet linguistics in the post-Revolutionary decade was its sociological orientation and the pioneering study of non-Russian languages (Polivanov 1968: 51-56). In 1931 Polivanov published his famous book Za marksistskoe yazykoznanie [For Marxist Linguistics] which is now seen as the most honest and scientific attempt to clarify and systematise the ideological stand of Soviet linguistics. But in spite of all its merits, Polivanov's work remains largely an attempt to bring together Marxism and Soviet linguistic scholarship and, being highly polemical fails to give a clear picture. This, however, is not surprising. I think there are at least two explanations why it is a practically impossible task, both for a Soviet linguist of the 1920s and a modern researcher, to define Marxism in Soviet linguistics.

In the first place, the 1920s were still the years when different methodological trends were tolerated and various interpretations of Marxism were admitted. On the other hand, the practical tasks of language planning overweighed ideological discussions and demanded immediate solutions on the part of the linguists. Thus, the language construction work, due to its novelty, progressive character, scientific advancement, was naturally considered to be the implementation of Marxism in the study of language and the base for language planning.

In the conclusion of this section I would like to highlight again the components of the new linguistic method, elaborated by Soviet scholars in the course of language construction.

First and foremost, Soviet approach to language was based on Saussure's concept of the social nature of language and its systematic, structural character. At the same time, it rejected the idealist aspect of Saussure's theory, interpreting language as an abstract self-identical system. Soviet materialist linguistic method studied language only in its interrelation with society, which led to the establishment of sociolinguistics as an independent branch of linguistic research. And, thirdly, this sociolinguistic orientation was regarded as a Marxist approach to the study of language.

Practical results of post-Revolutionary language planning

To prove the theoretical value, methodological accuracy and practical efficiency of the linguistic method, elaborated by Soviet theorists and practitioners of language planning, it suffices to consider briefly some of the impressive results of language construction in the period between 1917-1936.

The achievements of Soviet multilingual development are usually listed under the following headings:

1. The alphabet reform.

Figures in different sources tend to vary a little, but on the average it is estimated that during the language reform about 40 speech varieties were graphised and received writing systems first on the Latin and afterwards on the Cyrillic basis.

The efforts of Soviet linguists working on the division of new alphabets were essentially missionary, since they devoted much time and labour not only to the languages with great numbers of speakers, but also to the tongues of the smallest peoples. Thus, for instance, linguistic development of the so-called 26 Peoples of the North totalling less than 160, 000 people was encouraged and supervised by a special Committee organised in 1924. By the end of 1931, five of the peoples were reported to have their own writing (Kreindler 1985: 350). Written forms were also created for several other languages with very small numbers of speakers, such as the Finno-Ugric languages Karelian, Veps and Lapp. Some of the writing systems devised for very small population groups had, in reality, a short life, and at least one case, Itelmen, was never put into use. However, the majority of languages with small numbers of speakers, which received their alphabets in the 1920s and early 30s, retained them in modified form to the present day, for instance, Nanay, Nivkh, Koryak, and Chukchi in the Far East, and Khanty and Mansi in Siberia (Comrie 1981: 23-24). Examples of this kind being abundant, I will make it short by quoting the data of 1936 when only 12 peoples out of 112 Soviet nationalities were reported as having no writing system of their own. In the same year, a high Party official wrote that the alphabets, created in the USSR, were used by 68 peoples (Alpatov 1997: 70).

Apart from the division of new alphabets, about 45 languages had their writing systems thoroughly transformed. It means that one genetic type of alphabet was substituted for the other, as Arabic to Latin, or Latin to Cyrillic.

The 1920s were characterised by a remarkable Latinisation campaign. Latin script was seen as the revolutionary alphabet of the Red East and was used for the graphisation of almost all non-Russian languages in the 1920s early 30s. What writing system to choose as the vehicle of enlightenment for many nationalities was a highly debatable issue in the 1920s. Finally, the decision was made in favour of the Latin script and, on the whole, Latinisation proved to be very successful. In 1929 the activists of language construction initiated a discussion for the imminent Latinisation of the Russian language itself, and a Commission was organised for the development of this project. Iakovlev became the chair of the Commission, which also included a number of other famous linguists. Three thoroughly developed and well-justified models of the Cyrillic script transformation were suggested. None of them was ever put into practice and the whole project still remains the epitome of the utopian projects, which were not uncommon for Soviet language reform.

In the late 30s the reverse process of Cyrillisation began, with the languages, whose Latin alphabets were so laboriously devised, converting into the ones on the Russian basis.

2. The creation of literary languages.

One of the problems facing the development of writing systems was the fact that many languages were so varied dialectically. Already the earliest linguists of the nineteenth century collected and studied dialect material of the national languages. Soviet language planners conducted this important investigative work as well in order to define a dialect basis for the new written languages. Special criteria were worked out to draw the dividing line between different dialects of the same language and different languages, the main one being mutual intelligibility of language varieties. Once the division into separate languages and dialects was effected, the problem remained to decide which of the dialect should serve as the basis for the standard language. Such linguistic choice did not remain uninfluenced by the political and social factors, which led at times to arbitrary and politically motivated decisions. However, the work undertaken by Soviet linguists in this respect was remarkably pioneering, particularly in terms of working out sociolinguistic criteria for establishing the basis of the literary language.

The creation and development of new literary languages required further codification procedures, such as the systematisation of their orthographic and terminological systems, the creation of descriptive dictionaries and grammars. This is another important area of language planning where Soviet practitioners successfully applied and proved the serviceability of their materialist method.

Questions of orthography were discussed at length, and in the early 30s orthographic rules for young languages, based on the phonetic principle, were formulated. The pre-eminence of the phonetic principle led to loanwords often being written in a form remote from that of the donor language. Throughout the 1930s, however, the views on the orthography of loanwords changed a few times. It was recommended to write older borrowings in their traditional, phonetic, form, whereas more recent ones should reflect as close as possible the pronunciation of the donor language. Later on, due to the general shift in the nationalities and language policy, a decision was made to write loanwords according to their Russian spelling (Crisp 1989:34).

As far as the creation of technical terminology is concerned, the question was firstly raised at the 1926 Turcological Congress. As part of the program aimed at developing all the range of social functions for new languages, it was decided first that all languages (even the smaller ones) should be able to support a full terminological system, using their internal sources as well as Russian and other major European languages (Crisp 1989: 34). Such a measure had a far-reaching effect on the development of young languages that expanded their functions and considerably enriched their lexical systems. To quote an example, in 1933 a dictionary of common technical terms was published for the Turcik languages, whereas in the Uzbek language terminological dictionaries for all the main fields of knowledge came out already by 1935 (Lewis 1983: 318; Fierman 1985: 212-213).

3. Eradication of illiteracy.