People in language policy: Theory and practice of the discursive turn in sociolinguistics (comparing Russia and Western Europe)

The article proposes a general review and comparative analysis of the theory and practices of the “turnaround to people” in the language policy in Russia and Western Europe. It looks into the theoretical and terminological specifics of this process while comparing the “grassroots” actors of respective language policies, the social and political context of their activities, and the linguistic ideologies behind them. The article notes an on-going change in the views on subjectivity in language policies, a turn toward greater inclusiveness, and a departure from state-centered approaches. It proposes a classification of language-policy actors while pointing out the similarities and differences in language activism in Russia and in Western Europe. They are similar in that their language activism is developing in the urban environment; the activists are heterogeneous, predominantly young people actively applying new technologies. Russia differs in that its language activism has had a later start, shows a smaller scale, while the people are less prepared to take personal responsibility for and initiative in minority languages preservation. A comparison of the socio-political context of language activism in Russia and in Western Europe shows that (1) the important factors for minority languages preservation include political autonomy and a developed sense of ethnic identity, and (2) duality and inconsistency of the ethno-linguistic policy are prominent features of Russian state bodies. After a brief review of the interrelated modern linguistic ideology components such as hypertraditionalization, association of language with only the nation’s past developments, the ideology of authenticity, purism, and (Russian) monolingualism, the article highlights not only the growing importance of linguistic ideology studies, but also the ideology’s unfolding transformation toward greater liberalism and tolerance. In conclusion, the paper notes a significant progress achieved by the sociolinguistic literature in its analyses and theoretical understanding of the ongoing “turnaround to people” process, while more insistent research in this field is still high on the agenda. The article was prepared as a contribution toward better theoretical understanding of these problems from the macro-sociolinguistic perspective.