"Гылым" баспасы. Astana, 2016. 682 p.

The book under review is a publication of materials on the Romanization of the written languages of the Turkic and other languages of the USSR. Most of it consists of documents published for the first time, first of all, documents of the All-Union Central Committee of the New Alphabet (CCNA), which worked in Baku during these years, then in Moscow, for 1926-1936; to them are added decrees of the Soviet and party bodies relating to 1923-1928 on the adoption of the new alphabet as the state alphabet. Documents are published both in the form of photocopies of the originals (p. 343-638) and in the printed version (p.40-342). Their publication is preceded by a foreword by A. D. Vasiliev (p. 6-9) and his brief outline of the history of the creation and introduction of Latin alphabets in the USSR, primarily for the Turkic languages (p.10-37). Published documents are kept in the archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The first two decades of Soviet power were a period of active state policy for the development of many languages and scripts in the country. This policy was significantly different from the language policy of the tsarist government, which was primarily aimed at spreading the Russian language. V. I. Lenin formulated its foundations even before the revolution: "A democratic state should definitely recognize the complete freedom of native languages and reject any privileges of one of the languages" [Lenin, 1961, pp. 71-72]. I note that the harsh language policy of the tsarist government caused protest not only among the Bolsheviks. The greatest linguist of that time, a left-wing liberal in his views, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay wrote: "It is not this or that language that is dear to me, but the right to speak and teach in this language is dear to me. I value the right of a person to remain in his own language, to choose it for himself, the right not to be alienated from the comprehensive use of his own language, the right of people to freely self-determine and group themselves, also on the basis of language" [Baudouin de Courtenay, 1963, p.145].

After the revolution, an attempt was made to implement these ideas. In 1918, the People's Commissar for Nationalities, J. V. Stalin, said: "There is no compulsory "state" language-neither in court proceedings, nor in school! Each region chooses the language or languages that correspond to the national composition of its population. Moreover, full equality of languages of both minorities and minorities is observed in all social and political institutions" [Stalin, 1947, p. 70].

In the absence of significant direct resistance to the new language policy (this is also confirmed by the materials published here), its implementation was associated with many objective difficulties, of which only one was fully realized at that time: insufficient development of languages, many of which were unwritten. But even among the languages that had some written experience, not all of them had an acceptable writing system for that time. The Muslim peoples used the Arabic script, and the Mongolian - speaking Lamaists used the old Mongolian script. But these types of writing divided the peoples of the USSR and were connected with the traditional culture that the authorities and society were fighting against at that time. And the Cyrillic alphabet

ALPATOV Vladimir Mikhailovich-Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Director of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: v-alpatov@ivran.ru.

It was associated with the policy of Russification of the tsarist era, so it was considered unacceptable. A course was taken to romanize the written languages of the peoples of the USSR. An active activity was launched to construct new scripts and create literary norms, which was called language construction. The largest Russian linguists of that time were involved in it: N. F. Yakovlev, E. D. Polivanov, and others. A large amount of material on language construction with a predominant focus on the Turkic languages is contained in the peer-reviewed book.

In the introductory essay by L. D. Vasiliev, the background and history of this construction is considered. It is shown that even in the XIX century, the enlighteners of the Turkic peoples, who were aware of the shortcomings of the traditional Arabic alphabet for their languages, thought about the issues of writing. By that time, the sacred concept of this alphabet, which did not allow it to be reformed, began to give way to rational points of view, which were looking for ways to adapt writing to the structure of certain languages, which, in particular, required vowel sounds to be designated. However, the enlighteners of the Muslim peoples proceeded from the fact that the Arabic alphabet, even in a reformed form, should be preserved. But the reforms did not take place due to the "disinterest of the tsarist administration in solving the problem" (p.15), although outside the Muslim world a missionary Cyrillic alphabet was created for the Chuvash language, and S. A. Novgorodov developed a Cyrillic alphabet for the Yakut language.

Everything changed after the Revolution due to a change in the state's course. At the same time, until the second half of the 1920s, two concepts competed: the reform of the Arabic alphabet and Romanization. The center of the first of them was Kazan (it played a role that among the Muslim peoples of Russia, the Tatars had the highest level of literacy, and many simply did not want to retrain). The center of the second was Baku. Already in 1923, when the all-Union policy on this issue was not yet formed, the Azerbaijani Central Election Commission and the Council of People's Commissars adopted a decree "On recognizing the new Turkic alphabet as the state alphabet". It is published in a book (p. 40); the alphabet had a Latin basis.

Both concepts had their pros and cons, but in the political environment of that time, Romanization could not fail to win (just as the transition to Cyrillic alphabet in the late 1930s was natural). The Latin alphabet was the most widely used in the world and the most neutral (its associations with English appeared much later), then the Latin alphabet was the most widely used in the Both the Arabic alphabet and the Cyrillic alphabet were burdened by the influence of non-linguistic factors. And we should not forget that at that time the problem of language development after the world revolution still seemed relevant, and the general opinion was that then the Latin alphabet would be adopted for all languages.

The First All - Union Turkological Congress, held in Baku on February 26-March 5, 1926, played a major role in shaping the national policy on the issue of writing. It was attended by both Soviet figures and major scientists-orientalists. His verbatim report was published in the same year and has repeatedly attracted the attention of specialists. The Congress discussed many issues, but the focus was on the question of the alphabet. It "was given such serious political significance that the rules of procedure for speakers on this topic were abolished" (p. 25). Speakers "pointed out that the issue of adopting alphabets was within the party's sphere of interest" (pp. 26-27). As a result, "with 101 votes in favor and 7 votes against (with 9 abstentions), a resolution was adopted giving preference to the Latin alphabet "(p.27).

One of the results of the congress, which A.D. Vasiliev pays special attention to, was the influence of the rapidly accumulating Soviet experience on language policy in Turkey (representatives of this country were present at the congress). There, in 1928, the language reform associated with the Romanization of writing began. Here we can see an example of undisputed Soviet influence on the policy of another state, which, unlike the USSR, has never changed on this issue. It would be worth mentioning the other side of the issue: at that time, the USSR constantly drew attention to the fact that there are other countries where the same policy is implemented, and the example of Turkey was significant. The language policy in our country and in Turkey was considered as something unified. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the statistical materials of the All - Russian Central Committee also took into account one "language outside the USSR" - Turkish (p. 276 et al.). The reports of the All-Russian Central Committee also noted the beginning or revival of the movement for Romanization in Iran (Persia), Afghanistan, Japan, and China (p.191, 220), but hopes for this were not fulfilled (an alphabet was developed for the Chinese language, but it was briefly introduced only for the Chinese of the USSR).

In those years, "the enormous cultural, historical and progressive significance of the new alphabet in comparison with the Arabic alphabet" became generally recognized, as it was recorded in the resolution of the congress

in Baku (p. 27). Even such an episode is recorded: in 1929, a collection of donations was organized for the construction of the propaganda airplane "October Alphabet" (p. 184); hence the title of the book.

One of the results of the congress was the formation of the All-Union Central Committee of the New Turkic Alphabet (CCNTA), then transformed into the CCNA. The Committee started its work in 1928 and was initially located in Baku. However, then it expanded its scope of activity: it was assigned the task of managing all alphabetic activities in the country (only for the languages of the peoples of the North there was another body in parallel). This was connected with the renaming of the committee and its transfer in 1930 to Moscow; it was subordinated to the Council of Nationalities of the Central Election Commission. The Committee brought together statesmen from various union and autonomous republics, almost exclusively from among the representatives of their indigenous peoples; they were supposed to pursue a single state policy in a particular national republic. It was composed of a Technographic commission consisting of linguists headed by N. F. Yakovlev, who was directly involved in the development of alphabets. The construction of alphabets was carried out at a high scientific level. In those years, phonology was the leading field of the world's language science, and one of the most prominent scientists in this field was N. F. Yakovlev, and alphabetic activity was applied phonology.

The published materials provide an overview of the committee's day-to-day activities, organizational, administrative, and to a lesser extent scientific work. These are work plans, reports, reports at plenums, a resolution of the supreme body - the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. They show how the goals and objectives of the committee have changed along the way. This applied not only to the expansion of its functions, but also to changes in the language policy. At first, we still had to reckon with dissatisfaction with Romanization in a number of republics, primarily in Tatarstan. Therefore, the Congress of 1926 adopted a compromise resolution, which approved Romanization, but did not prescribe that it should be carried out immediately everywhere. But already in 1929, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution on the complete abolition of any Arabic alphabets and full Romanization in the very near future. This decision was steadily implemented, although not always as quickly as the ECSC enthusiasts would have liked. The 1928 report assumed full romanization "in a year or a year and a half" (pp. 190-191), but these deadlines were then postponed several times, mainly due to organizational and financial difficulties.

However, in 1932 it was possible to state: "The transition from the Arabic alphabet on the territory of the USSR basically ended in 1931" (p.213). It was also noted that the transition to the Latin alphabet "from other backward forms of the alphabet "( meaning Hebrew, Mongolian, Korean) and even more "from the missionary forms of the Russian alphabets", as well as the introduction of alphabets for previously non-written languages, were far from complete (ibid.). This work was never completed for many of these languages, as Romanization stopped in the second half of the 1930s. And in the report for 1935, the committee had to admit that the Chuvash people continue to use the "Russian-based alphabet" (p. 285).

For some languages, we learn for the first time from the published documents that it was intended for them as well. For example, one of the documents of 1932 mentions " promoting the mass movement of the transition to a new alphabet of peoples ... those who previously had complex letters" (past tense verb!), among them Armenians are named (p. 236). However, Romanization in Armenia never started. The published materials do not reflect the attempt to romanize the Russian alphabet, made by the same N. F. Yakovlev and his co-workers are outside the CCNA, but it is very revealing. And we must take revenge for the fact that it was easier to abolish the Arabic alphabet, which was then opposed by a significant part of the intelligentsia of the respective peoples, than to abandon the Cyrillic alphabet where it existed before the revolution, and even more so from scripts that had centuries-old traditions like Russian Cyrillic or Armenian.

Already in the last years of the committee's activity, its documents reflect the beginning of a change of milestones. Until 1935, they only deal with a new Latin-based alphabet and other alphabets that must sooner or later be replaced by it. But the 1936 report states that " the translation of the peoples of the North into the Romanized alphabet is erroneous... as peoples in the mass of bilingual and living scattered among the Russian population " (p. 326). The Committee also agreed with the "submission of the Kabardian governing organizations" on the translation of the Kabardian alphabet into Russian; a similar question for the Adyghe, Circassian, Shor and Oirot (Altai) scripts was postponed to 1937 (p. 327).

However, the committee still continued to advocate romanization for at least some of the languages. In the same report: "With regard to the Khakass, Uyghur, Dungan, Baluch alphabets, the study of the issue confirmed

whether their translation into the romanized alphabet is correct for this stage. A survey of Veps and Izhora, as well as the opinion of regional organizations, confirmed the expediency of preserving their Latinized script" (ibid.). Back in the first half of 1937, the Dungan alphabet based on Latin, created with the participation of E. D. Polivanov, was approved. However, in a year or two, when neither the committee nor the majority of its leaders will be present,it will be decided to replace all Latin alphabets with Cyrillic. However, just for the Dungan and Uyghur languages, the transition was delayed until the post-war years.

In addition to the development and implementation of alphabets, there was a question of their unification, first of all, the unification of alphabets for the Turkic languages. Here, there were differences between participants in language construction. Some insisted on the unity of the principles of constructing the alphabet for all languages, while others considered this requirement too strict. In 1930, the Council of Nationalities of the Central Executive Committee decided to "reject the wrong attitude towards complete unification of alphabets", seeing in this "certain elements of pan-Turkist tendencies" (p. 202). The first point of view still received a numerical advantage. "As of January 1, 1932, 58 peoples have been translated into the unified NA (new alphabet - V. A.) and 8 remain in the non-unified NA, but only 66 peoples" (p. 220). However, the matter did not reach full unification.

In general, the work of the ECCNA was quite successful, and it was necessary to overcome various obstacles not so much of a political as of an organizational and financial nature. Money and personnel, as always, were not enough. The materials show how the committee had to solve a variety of problems, from distributing money between the republics to making typefaces and organizing the production of typewriters with a keyboard designed for the new alphabet.

Much of the materials of the All-Russian Central Committee reflected signs of the times. The historically necessary rejection of the Arabic alphabet was accompanied by its complete discredit, when it was said that this alphabet was "unsuitable for the development of higher culture" (p.191). However, any alphabet can fulfill communication needs of any kind for any language, unless it is too focused on the features of any one language, as was the case with the traditional version of the Arabic alphabet that does not denote vowel sounds. And the reform of the Arabic alphabet could be quite successful from a linguistic point of view; especially noteworthy is the reformed Arabic alphabet proposed by the Kazakh scientist A. Baitursunov (Baitursyn), which was highly appreciated by E. D. Polivanov and N. F. Yakovlev. But S. Agamaly-oglu was right when he called it "not meeting the existing and emerging needs" (p. 92). Even today, a number of Turkic peoples have switched or are about to switch to the Latin alphabet (Turkey, which once equaled the USSR, is now a model), but no one has returned to the Arabic script in any form. However, linguistic issues were incorrectly added to political and cultural issues (this also applies to later disputes about the comparison of Cyrillic and Latin letters).

In general, the activity of the All-Russian Central Committee was impressive. More than 70 new alphabets were created directly in it or based on the principles developed there. Their implementation went hand in hand with the struggle to improve literacy. The publication provides a lot of data on the dynamics of development from complete or almost complete illiteracy to literacy of the majority of the population in various republics. However, it should be borne in mind that a number of written languages were not viable and did not receive further development.

The committee lasted until 1937; the last document published here (pp. 325-339) is its report for 1936. Then it was dissolved, and almost all the party and state figures from the republics who participated in its work were destroyed; someone, however, died earlier (among them the first chairman of the committee S. Agamaly-oglu). This is recorded in the biographies of many of them placed in the book. At the same time, experts from the Technographic Commission mostly survived and then took part in the translation of alphabets into Cyrillic, which began at that time.

Essay HELL. Vasilyev is quite informative, and we can agree with his main assessments. Perhaps its main drawback is that it is too short. In some cases, we would like a more complete coverage of certain problems, and some problems, such as the change in the language policy at the end of the CCNA's activity, are reflected in some documents, but not in the essay. But we can hope that the author will do this in subsequent works.

Some specific comments can be made. I do not know to what extent the "continuation of the Russification direction" after 1905 can be completely associated with the name of P. A. Stolypin, as it is done on page 12. In addition, under the influence of the revolution after the manifesto of October 17, 1905, Russification was still partially softened. V. N. Lamsdorff was the Minister of Foreign Affairs,

but he wasn't Prime minister. The word "academician" is usually used only in relation to members of the All-Union/All-Russian Academy of Sciences, and A. E. Krymsky was not an academician in this sense: he was a member of the Ukrainian Academy. It is inaccurate to say that V. G. Korolenko was "exiled" for his "human rights activities" (p. 12): in his youth, he was exiled for participating in populist circles and refusing to swear an oath to Alexander III, who ascended to the throne, while his human rights activities date back to the 1890s and 1910s. The list of "big scientists and experts" who participated in the 1926 congress (p. 23) is not equal: in addition to really big scientists, there are also amateurs like A. R. Ziefeld-Shimumyaga. The transcription is not always unified: either Baitursyn or Baitursynov; the surname Takho-Godi is now usually written with a hyphen. The list of biographies is incomplete: there is not even S. Agamaly-ogly. But this is not the main thing. It is important that new materials about the Soviet language policy of the 1920s and 1930s are introduced into scientific circulation, the results of which are still largely reflected today.

list of literature

Baudouin de Courtenay I. A. Izbrannye trudy po obshchem yazykoznaniyu [Selected works on General Linguistics], vol. 2, Moscow, 1963.

Lenin V. I. Sobranie sochineniy. Izd. 5-E. T. 25. Moscow, 1961.

Stalin I. V. Collected Works, vol. 4. Moscow, 1947.

Permanent link to this publication: