Vladislava Warditz

This study examines pandemic-affected multilingual practices among Russian and Polish diaspora communities in Germany, situating contemporary empirical findings within a framework of historical evidence on recurrent crisis-induced language use. Drawing on historical research, the study identifies three recurring mechanisms affecting the use of (minoritised) languages: the emergence of new multilingual contact spaces, the temporary expansion of multilingual institutional communication, and the reorganization of language practices within the domestic sphere. Epidemics thus become relevant to language practices through the disruption and reorganization of communicative domains. The empirical analysis focuses on home language use. The dataset consists of semi-structured interviews with Russian- and Polish-speaking migrant families in Germany, reporting on their everyday language practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were evaluated qualitatively and further compared with our previous quantitative study on migrant families’ language policies during the pandemic. While the quantitative results highlighted the stronger vitality of heritage Russian, the qualitative analysis demonstrates that heritage Polish in Germany follows similar patterns of language use within the domestic domain. The pandemic thus changed the conditions of language transmission—less in-person contact, more online interaction—but it did not change the overall goal of multilingual language transmission in families with a migrant background, with their heritage languages seen as a practical resource in a migratory context. The pandemic additionally reinforced the multilingual orientation of Russian- and Polish-speaking communities in Germany, including their heritage languages. Within a historical framework, the empirical findings most directly align with the third mechanism, while the first two mechanisms also shaped the communicative conditions within which domestic language practices were maintained or intensified. The findings show how restrictions on mobility and changes in institutional and everyday communication reinforced the role of family language policy and heritage languages in domestic communication. For both migrant communities under scrutiny, rather than fundamentally transforming existing language practices, lockdown primarily intensified or stabilised them. At the same time, the study identifies a significant modification of the first mechanism. Whereas earlier epidemics generated new multilingual contact spaces in physically co-present settings such as hospitals, quarantine facilities, and border checkpoints, during the COVID-19 pandemic these spaces were largely relocated to digital environments, where multilingual mediation became central to access to institutional, educational, and transnational communication. This furthermore reflects a paradoxical situation in which multilingualism as a pragmatic resource for successful communication, including minority and heritage languages, gained higher institutional relevance in the context of the pandemic, while lockdown conditions simultaneously increased the use of heritage languages in private and domestic spheres. Despite these different drivers, both dynamics led to greater prominence and visibility of heritage languages. Rather than treating COVID-19 as an exceptional case, the study interprets it as a contemporary manifestation of a historically recurring pattern of epidemic-induced restructuring of communicative spaces and redistribution of multilingual language practices across social domains. The study contributes to a conceptual historical analysis of pandemic-induced change in multilingual practices, highlighting both continuity and transformation under crisis conditions across historical cases.

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: This Introduction outlines the aims, scope, and structure of the Special Issue. The volume examines (1) the continuing role of Russian in former Soviet republics and its effects on regional varieties of Russian and autochthonous languages; (2) the transgenerational trajectories of autochthonous languages in homeland and diasporic settings; and (3) the functions of Russian as a lingua franca in migration contexts and its influence on other post-Soviet languages. Design/Methodology/Approach: The Introduction is designed as an overview of the topic under scrutiny, situating the Special Issue within broader research scholarly and geopolitical contexts. Findings/Conclusions: The contributions to this Special Issue address diverse manifestations of multilingualism in the post-Soviet space and its diasporas, highlighting processes of language maintenance, shift, contact-induced change, and linguistic convergence. They also point to further research on intergenerational language transmission, triadic language contact, and the evolution of Russian-based transferred bilingualism in the context of contemporary geopolitical transformations. By situating post-Soviet language practices within global debates on bilingualism and language contact, the volume contributes to a more nuanced understanding of convergence and diversity in post-imperial multilingual spaces. Originality: The Special Issue conceptualizes the post-Soviet diaspora as a transnational contact zone shaped by overlapping imperial, national, and migratory language regimes. It brings together studies of Russian and autochthonous languages across both homeland and diasporic contexts, illuminating patterns of linguistic convergence and diversity. Significance/Implications: Drawing on contact linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic typology, and postcolonial perspectives, the volume advances the study of post-imperial versus postcolonial multilingualism and contributes to broader theories of language change, evolution, and diversity in multilingual settings.

This study aims to examine changes in the distribution of Kazakh-, Russian-, and English-language publications during and after the COVID-19 pandemic using the Eurasian Journal of Philology: Science and Education as a case study. The corpus comprises 535 articles published in Kazakh, Russian, and English between 2020 and 2025, including 278 articles from the pandemic period (2020–2022) and 257 from the post-pandemic period (2023–2025). The corpus was analysed using quantitative methods, keyword analysis, and scientometric techniques. Publication patterns were compared across the periods 2020–2022 and 2023–2025, with particular attention to the interplay between language choice, thematic focus, and the journal's disciplinary sections, including linguistics, literary studies, language teaching methodology, and translation studies. The findings reveal a statistically significant shift in the distribution of publication languages between the pandemic and post-pandemic periods, although the magnitude of the association was small. This shift was characterized by an increase in Kazakh-language publications from 38.1% to 47.1%, a decline in Russian-language publications from 30.2% to 21.0%, and a stable proportion of English-language publications (31.7% vs. 31.9%). The findings suggest changing patterns of language choice that may reflect shifting perceptions of linguistic prestige and the evolving roles of Kazakh, Russian, and English in academic communication. These trends reflect broader sociolinguistic transformations in the multilingual context of Kazakhstan, illustrating the interaction between internationalization of academic discourse, local language policy, and individual language use in multilingual settings.

This study examines resultativity in Kazakh as a linguistic marker of nativeness by comparing diasporic speakers exposed to the social pressures of dominant languages with speakers in Kazakhstan, where the ongoing revitalization of Kazakh is reshaping its use. Nativeness is conceptualised as a linguistic construct referring to speakers’ command of a salient and typologically distinctive grammatical feature of Kazakh, namely resultative auxiliary verb constructions. As a gradient phenomenon shaped by intergenerational language transmission, nativeness is relevant both to migrant communities and to the multilingual homeland. During the Soviet era, many Kazakh speakers experienced a shift to Russian as their first language, resulting in a broad spectrum of proficiency in Kazakh, including gradual attrition of core grammatical domains. This development makes homeland speakers affected by language shift comparable to diasporic speakers. When adopting this innovative research perspective, we investigate how these divergent sociolinguistic trajectories are reflected in the use of resultative auxiliary verb constructions, a salient and structurally sensitive domain. To address the two multilingual settings—the diaspora and the homeland—we adopt a quantitative, cross-sectional design comparing four groups: L1 Kazakh speakers (n = 32), L1 Russian speakers with L2 Kazakh (n = 30), Russian–Kazakh speakers in Kazakhstan, whose L1 Kazakh was replaced by Russian during socialisation (n = 33), and Kazakh diaspora speakers across different countries (n = 30), the latter constituting the central analytical focus. The results based on a multiple-choice sentence-completion task demonstrate that the use of resultative auxiliary verb constructions reflects varying degrees of nativeness across contexts. In Kazakhstan, L1 Kazakh speakers exhibit the highest stability, while Russian–Kazakh bilinguals display variability consistent with Russian influence yet outperform L2 learners. In the diaspora, speakers show comparatively high stability in resultative marking, pointing to substantial maintenance despite pressure from dominant societal languages. At the same time, subtle variability points to localised contact-induced optionality in specific grammatical contexts rather than widespread restructuring. Overall, the findings identify resultativity as a sensitive diagnostic of language maintenance and change, capturing both revitalization dynamics in the homeland and adaptive processes in diaspora settings.

This paper examines how heritage Russian reflects morphosyntactic dynamics in baseline Russian, drawing on three diachronically spaced corpora collected in 2001, 2010, and 2022 in Germany. It identifies recurrent patterns of variation in heritage Russian and assesses how they correspond to domains of instability already attested in the baseline system. The study assumes that transfer, variation, and convergence in heritage Russian are shaped not only by its reduced use in favor of the societal language but also by internal trigger mechanisms analogous to those operating in baseline Russian, while at the same time exhibiting specific variation patterns arising from multilingual variation typical of communication among heritage speakers. The analysis shows that the most prominent domains that consistently emerge as unstable across the corpora are nominal number and case, shifts in nominal and verbal government, and calquing of syntactic constructions. In this respect, heritage Russian mirrors baseline tendencies while also exhibiting contact-enhanced effects. For instance, GEN/ACC competition and the extension of animate object marking occur in both baseline and heritage Russian, whereas the overgeneralization of inanimate object marking appears predominantly in heritage Russian. Similarly, the loss of an instrumental predicative in favor of the nominative and fluctuations in prepositional government reflect baseline instability amplified by German influence. Syntactic variation—including borrowing of connectors, loss of baseline intonation patterns, and pro-drop in impersonal constructions—further illustrates the interaction of internal instability and contact effects, whereby contact-affected syntactic patterns are not attested in baseline Russian. The calquing of German possessive constructions and the shift from prepositionless to prepositional government patterns can be interpreted as instances of contact-induced leveling of Russian typological features, accompanied by simplification where baseline structures diverge from dominant-language patterns. Interpreted as part of a broader shift from synthetic to analytic government, these developments align with both contact-induced tendencies and historically attested changes in Slavic languages. The identified patterns of variation in heritage Russian correspond to domains of instability in baseline Russian, showing that the loci of variation are largely analogous, while their concrete manifestations are partly different. In comparison with baseline Russian, heritage Russian exhibits both analogous and specific—non-canonical—variants, reflecting unstable areas of the baseline in a multilingual setting and becoming particularly visible in subsequent generations of the migrant community. Within a broader typological context, the documented variation trends align with sensitive language domains observed in other contact situations, confirming their systematic character across diverse minoritized contexts.

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: Under Soviet rule, established Russian-based bilingualism triggered language shift and attrition in indigenous languages, particularly in L1 Kazakh. This study investigates the revitalisation of Kazakh in multilingual Kazakhstan following its independence in 1991. It focuses on speakers whose L1 Kazakh was replaced by L1 Russian during their socialisation, resulting in a loss of nativeness in their L1 Kazakh and rendering it their heritage language. The main research question is how the current reversing language shift manifests in a core grammatical domain – aspectuality – particularly regarding resultativity, a salient marker of nativeness with symbolic significance in language revival. Design/Methodology/Approach: We adopted a quantitative, cross-sectional design, comparing usage patterns of aspectuality across three speaker groups (one control, two experimental): L1 Kazakh speakers ( n = 32), L1 Russian speakers ( n = 30), and heritage Kazakh speakers whose L1 was replaced by Russian ( n = 33). Targeted survey tasks assessed proficiency in resultativity, allowing examination of how bilingual experience and previous language shift influence core grammatical knowledge. Data and Analysis: When analysing our corpus, we evaluated the stability and variability of aspectual marking in each group. We examined whether, and in what ways, reversing language shift from Russian to Kazakh emerges in this core grammatical domain. Comparative analyses across three groups allowed assessment of the extent of language revival. Findings/Conclusions: The results indicate that aspectuality reliably reflects nativeness: L1 Kazakh speakers show greater stability in aspectual marking, whereas heritage Kazakh speakers with dominant Russian display increased variability, reflecting ongoing influence of dominant Russian. However, when compared with L1 Russian speakers with L2 Kazakh, heritage Kazakh speakers demonstrate a higher index of nativeness in use of Kazakh aspectuality. From a cross-linguistic perspective, as aspectuality is expressed in fundamentally different ways in Kazakh and Russian, languages with different typological profiles, contact with Russian provides no structural support for maintaining this category in Kazakh. Originality: This study contributes novel evidence to the underexplored area of post-Soviet language revival, highlighting the role of aspectuality as a grammatical marker of nativeness. Unlike previous mostly sociolinguistic research on postcolonial language revival, this study focuses on the linguistic effects of Russian dominance on a particular indigenous language – Kazakh. Significance/Implications: The findings advance theoretical understanding of language revival, nativeness, and sustainable linguistic effect of post-imperial bilingualism. They offer a foundation for future research on heritage indigenous languages in post-imperial contexts, in particular, on the territory of the former USSR. In addition, the study contributes to comparative research on aspectuality in typologically different languages.

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: Our paper investigates postcolonial Russian-based transferred bilingualism in post-Soviet diasporas, focusing on how Russian persists and adapts as a communicative tool despite its declining symbolic value as the language of Soviet state power. It discusses how historical, sociopolitical and sociolinguistic factors shape the transgenerational transmission of Russian-based bilingualism, often affecting the maintenance of other languages of the former USSR in migratory contexts. Design/Methodology/Approach: Our study develops a theoretical model based on the symbolic and pragmatic value of language(s), integrating insights from historical, sociopolitical and sociolinguistic research on Russian and minority languages of the (former) USSR in the historical imperial context and beyond. Data and Analysis: Analysis draws on existing literature, historical accounts and previous sociolinguistic studies, examining the evolution of Russian in imperial, (post-)Soviet and diasporic contexts through the lens of symbolic and pragmatic value. Patterns of the transgenerational transmission of Russian-based bilingualism and other languages of the former USSR are identified and compared across different diasporic communities. Findings/Conclusions: Three key parameters – historical-linguistic, sociopolitical and sociolinguistic ecology – explain the continued pragmatic use of Russian despite significant changes in its symbolic value. Four patterns of transgenerational transmission of Russian-based bilingualism in combination with different languages of the former USSR emerge: shift to monolingualism, reshaped bilingualism, bilingualism with original L1 and trilingualism. Russian functions as a durable communicative code in multilingual post-Soviet diasporas, illustrating the interplay between colonial, imperial and minority languages. Originality: The paper identifies transferred Russian-based bilingualism in diasporic settings as a prolonged postcolonial impact, demonstrating the interplay of its pragmatic and symbolic values in interaction with the diverse languages of the former USSR. It further nuances the specific historical and geopolitical dynamics of Russian linguistic imperialism within the Russian versus Soviet Empire and beyond. Significance/Implications: Findings contribute to theories of linguistic imperialism and nationalism, offering a framework for understanding transgenerational language transmission in multilingual diasporas and informing comparative studies of postcolonial and postimperial language dynamics.

Aims: This paper examines recent developments in Russian-language policy through a case study of the Republic of Tatarstan, with a focus on the abolition of compulsory Tatar-language instruction in 2017. Previous studies predominantly analyzed Russian-language media; our study aims to explore how this policy shift has been discursively framed and contested in both Russian- and Tatar-language media. Positioned within broader discussions of language ideologies in multilingual and post-imperial contexts, the study examines how such reforms reflect enduring tensions between centralizing state narratives and regional demands for linguistic and cultural recognition. Drawing on theoretical insights from Critical Discourse Studies and language ideology research, the paper examines how media discourses shape and reflect the ideological landscape of bilingualism and minority language rights in the Russian Federation. Methods: Using a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis approach, we analyse a corpus of 42 articles−20 from Russian-language and 22 from Tatar-language online media outlets—published in response to the 2017 educational reform. These sources were selected to represent the most prominent discursive reactions to the abolition of mandatory Tatar-language instruction in schools. The analysis focused on identifying evaluative language, argumentation strategies, and thematic framing of the policy change. Articles were coded for stance (positive, negative, neutral) and categorized by themes such as cultural identity, legal arguments, educational rights, and national unity. The study draws on CDA frameworks (Fairclough, van Dijk, Blommaert). It applies the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse to uncover how underlying ideologies and power relations inform media representations of language policy. The comparative analysis enables an examination of divergent narratives between linguistic communities. Results: The findings reveal a stark contrast in the discursive framing between Russian- and Tatar-language media. Tatar-language outlets predominantly emphasize the symbolic and cultural significance of Tatar instruction, framing the reform as a threat to ethnic identity and linguistic heritage. In contrast, Russian-language media tend to highlight legal compliance, civic unity, and educational pragmatism, positioning the reform as a step toward reinforcing national cohesion and equality. These divergent perspectives illustrate how language policies are deeply embedded in ideological struggles over identity, power, and statehood. The study demonstrates that public debates in Tatarstan are not merely about language instruction but about competing visions of federalism, minority rights, and the role of regional languages in the post-Soviet space. This case study underscores the tense and fluctuating nature of language relations in post-imperial contexts like Russia, where historical legacies of both linguistic empowerment and suppression continue to shape contemporary policy debates. The findings contribute to a broader understanding of how language ideologies are constructed and contested in multilingual states, highlighting the need for more balanced research that incorporates both dominant and minority language perspectives.

This paper investigates transgenerational change in the use of formal address forms among Polish heritage speakers in Germany by analyzing their language attitudes and usage preferences. The survey-based study involved 100 bilingual Polish speakers with a migration background, including both late and early immigrants vs. representatives of the first and second generations, respectively. The survey included two parts: (1) a questionnaire assessing language attitudes toward formal address systems in Polish and German, respectively, and (2) an Acceptability Judgment Task evaluating respondents’ preferences for different address variants, including contact-induced hybrid forms, in simulated communicative situations. By comparing language attitudes and usage preferences among heritage speakers, the study seeks to identify mechanisms of transgenerational change in pragmatics of their heritage language. The findings reveal a discrepancy between language attitudes and actual language use by heritage speakers. While respondents recognize asymmetries between Polish and German formal address systems, their usage preferences align predominantly with the Polish monolingual norm, particularly in perceptually oriented tasks. However, the emergence of hybrid forms of formal address suggests a gradual shift toward increased tolerance and acceptance of contact-induced variations. This finding supports the hypothesis that pragmatics, like other linguistic levels, undergoes a transgenerational shift in migration settings, with language attitudes serving as earlier indicators of change.