Towards Understanding Tajikistan’s Sociolinguistically Complex Language Ecology: Historical Development,Current Status,Issues,Research,Policy and Practice

Abstract

Tajikistan, at the heart of Central Eurasia, had a population of 7,563,687 in 2010, estimated recently to be almost 10,084,935. Named for its majority nationality, Tajikistan has many other nationalities, most with their own language. This article explores what is known about the historical, development and current status of multiple languages in Tajikistan’s linguistic tapestry. We provide a tentative overview of Tajikistan’s evolving language ecology from earliest times when a range of Eastern Iranian languages were dominant, to the reduced use of Eastern Iranian languages following the entry of Arabic and New Persian (a western Iranian language) into the ecology with the Arab conquest, and the subsequent entry of Turkic languages, and more recently the entry of Russian under the late Russian empire and its spread under the Soviet Union. Following independence in 1991, a shift in balance among domains of use of Tajik and Russian has been ongoing at the same time as international languages, especially English, have entered Tajikistan’s language ecology. We review the current state of knowledge about contemporary sociolinguistic dynamics, monolingualism and plurilingualism in society, where the titular language, Tajik/Persian, is in interaction with local, regional and global languages. Against the background of changing post-independence language and language-in-education policies, we discuss the prospects for monolingual, multilingual and plurilingual education in Tajikistan among efforts to promote the official language, Tajik, and to provide minority language education, while also developing proficiency in foreign languages in Tajikistan, through initiatives such as English-medium instruction.

Keywords

Tajikistan Central Asia Former Soviet Union language ecology diglossia multilingualism plurilingualism linguistic hybridity linguistic interanimation

Introduction

Tajikistan, at the heart of Central Eurasia, has a population of about 10,084,935 (Worldometer, 2023). Named for its majority nationality, Tajikistan has many other nationalities, most with their own language.¹ This article looks at the evolving ecology of local, regional and international languages in Tajikistan and reviews the implications for contemporary language policy in the education system.

The study in international research of language in actual use has developed rapidly, considering variability over geographic and social space (Britain, 2013; Chambers & Trudgill, 1980), multilingualism and plurilingualism (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013; Piccardo, 2013), diglossia and bilingualism (Ferguson, 1959; Fishman, 1967),² linguistic hybridity and linguistic interanimation (Bahry, 2021; Bakhtin 1934/81, 1940/81, 1941/81), and language ecology (Calvet, 1999; Haugen, 1972; Hornberger, 2002; Mühlhäusler, 2002). These phenomena are further complicated by widespread movement via trade, conquest and migration, which have accelerated in recent years and acted together on an even wider scale leading to globalisation, which is also mediated by multilingualism (Bahry, 2020a; Held et al., 1999).

Many languages, particularly English, have thus spread worldwide, a phenomenon taken up by Kachru (2006), focusing not on ‘Standard English’ but the actual World Englishes manifesting globally in several zones: the Inner Circle, where English has long been the main native language; the Outer Circle, former colonies where English is used as a second language for many social functions; and the Expanding Circle³, where it is increasingly learned as a foreign language and used for international interchange. Kachru argues that sociolinguistic realism requires consideration of all varieties of English in these environments and also how English is appropriated for use in local ways and for local purposes in the Outer Circle, as well as in the Expanding Circle.

The World Englishes approach focuses on wide scale colonial language spread by sea. Indeed, some have restricted the definition of colonialism to domination from overseas. Others have argued rather for colonialism to encompass large scale land-based empires (Lightfoot, 2016). By this analogy, the ‘World Englishes’ approach should extend not only to other cases of overseas West European colonial languages (French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish), but also to any language seeing extraordinary extensions in space and function, and can be applied to understanding the evolving use of a series of languages in Tajikistan’s dynamic language ecology, with Russian and English as the most recent major entrants into its language space.

This article reviews the language ecology of Tajikistan and the varying choice of languages for Low status (L) and High status (H) uses in the past⁴, and, more recently, since independence in 1991. The study primarily relies on published secondary reports written in English, with very little primary research available. Our major source is the census of the Republic of Tajikistan, which has some limitations, but gives enough information for an exploratory description of the range of languages used in Tajikistan. We were able to access two accounts of classroom language use in Tajikistan, both conducted in a specific multilingual region of Tajikistan. In addition, we have relied on a research article that surveyed language use in the central town of that same province. Therefore, our data regarding the multilingualism and plurilingualism of the Tajikistan population are mostly drawn from statistical data for the entire country and survey and observational data in one province and are tentative.

Development of Diglossia and Multilingualism in the ‘Tajik-Speaking’ Language Ecology

Eastern Iranian languages such as Sogdian, Bactrian, Khworezmian and Saka/Scythian, as well as Western Iranian Old Persian were the oldest recorded languages in today’s Tajikistan. Sogdians traded along the Silk Road, learning neighbouring languages and even administering the Uighur Khanate in Sogdian. Sogdian was written in a script based on the Aramaic used in the Persian Empire. Sogdians were bearers of goods, ideas and the Aramaic script, and acted also as middlemen, interpreters and administrators along the Silk Road (Bahry, 2016a; de la Vaissière, 2005; Lung, 2013). With the Arab conquest, Middle Persian and Arabic entered Sogdia; for several hundred years, the colonial language, Arabic, took over from Sogdian H uses and was the language of administrators and scholars. Sogdian and other Eastern Iranian languages ceased to be written and were confined to oral L uses. A state of diglossia with bilingualism developed where Arabic for H uses and various Iranian languages for L uses occurred. During this period a transformed version of Persian, New Persian, developed and eventually replaced Eastern Iranian languages for L uses. Eventually, as New Persian became more used as a spoken language, debates among scholars arose as to the suitability of extending this local vernacular to writing and H uses. Some of those proficient in Arabic mocked the possibility of using a local vernacular for written H uses; the scholar Biruni, for example, said Persian was only suitable for ‘tales of kings and night-time story-telling’ (Tetley, 2008, p. 27). Once New Persian began to be written in Arabic script for some H uses, further debate on how purely ‘Persian’ or hybridized it should be developed. Ibn Sina tried to develop a non-Arabized scholarly New Persian, but it was an Arabized Persian that eventually replaced Arabic as the main H language of the Samanid Empire (819–999), which covered most of today’s Tajikistan (Bahry, 2016a; Tetley, 2008; de la Vaissière, 2005; Lazard, 1975).⁵

After Turkic speaking peoples entered the language ecology at the end of the 10th century, Turkic vernaculars became dominant in L uses in some areas and in others Tajik/Persian remained the main vernacular language, while around Bukhara and Samarkand, Turkic-Tajik bilingualism developed, persisting until today. At the same time, Classical New Persian remained the major H language until the development of a parallel classical written Turki, Chaghatai, with much ‘interanimation’ of Turkic, Arabic and Persian/Tajik/elements. These areas exhibited trilingualism in Turki, Persian/Tajik and Arabic and diglossia of H and L varieties of Persian/Tajik and Turki (Bahry, 2021, pp. 157–159; Bakhtin, 1981; Beeman, 2010; Bodrogligeti, 2009; Finke & Sancak, 2012; Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, 2018; Nourzhanov & Bleuer, 2013).

The Russian language entered Central Asia’s Tajik-speaking areas after defeating and later making the Emirate of Bukhara a protectorate in 1873. Subsequently, both some scholars in Bukhara emirate (jadidist education) and Russian authorities in Turkestan (Russian-local schools) advocated adding modern content and Russian language to traditional education in Persian, Turki and Arabic. As the Tajik-speaking areas of the emirate were not under direct Russian administrative control, Russian was learned as a second or foreign language by some, but not used officially. With the Russian revolution and the absorption of the former emirate came debate about the role of Russian for H uses (Dowler, 2001; Khalid, 1998; Nourzhanov & Bleuer, 2013; Schlyter, 2013; Schuyler, 1877).

Soviet policy in Central Asia required a delimitation of nationalities based on common language, territory, and way of life. Education was organized in ‘national’ schools⁶, and Tajikistan provided Tajik-, Uzbek-, Kyrgyz-, Turkmen-, Kazakh- , and Russian-medium schools, and in the 1920s, preparatory work was done for education in Pamiri (Eastern Iranian) languages in Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Province.⁷ In the 1930s, Russian became a compulsory subject though some rural schools had no Russian and likely no English teachers. As poor Russian proficiency was blamed on language-heavy curriculum, in 1958, the central government allowed the enrolment of non-Russian students in Russian-medium schools thus prioritizing Russian and foreign languages (German, French, and English) over Tajik and other languages. Some of the Tajik elite wished to raise the status of Tajik, which in part contributed during Perestroika to a language law raising Tajik’s status in 1989, and suggestions to use minority Pamiri languages in education (Bahry et al., 2017; Bergne, 2007; Bilinsky, 1964; Dagiev & Faucher, 2019; Fierman, 1991; Foltz, 2019; Hammer, 1998; Jamshedov, 1991; Khasanov, 1987; Kirkwood, 1991; Korth, 2005; Landau & Kellner-Heinkele, 2012; Lewis, 1972; Nourzhanov & Bleuer, 2013; Rakowska-Harmstone, 1970; Schlyter, 2013; Sengupta, 2002; Shorish, 1976, 1988).

Post-Independence Language Ecology

Changing Demographics of Contemporary Tajikistan

Tajikistan’s demographics have changed dramatically, as shown by the data below from the 1989, 2000, and 2010 censuses (see Tables 1–3). These trends are similar to those in the Central Asian region as a whole, but they are more pronounced (Bahry, 2020b, pp. 6–8). The population of Tajikistan more than doubled between 1989 and 2010. At the same time, all other ethnic groups in Tajikistan originating in Central Asia decreased in numbers, (besides Lyuli, Central Asian Roma). For Kyrgyz, Uzbek and Turkmen populations, this reduction is insignificant; however, it is substantial for Azeri, Kazakh and Central Asian Jews groups. A portion of the decline in Uzbek statistics may be attributable to the reclassification of nationality status, some perhaps to the dominant Tajik status, and nearly 57,000 people claiming revived status as members of small Turkic ethnic categories that the USSR stopped counting and merged with the general Uzbek category (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Central Asian Nationalities in Tajikistan, 1989–2010.

	Census Data			2000–1989		2010–2000		1989–2000
Nationality^a	1989	2000	2010	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Tajiks	3,172,420	4,898,382	6,373,834	1,725,962	54.4	1,475,452	30.1	3,201,414	100.9
Uzbeks	1,197,841	936,703	926,344	−261,138	−21.8	−10,359	−1.1	−271,497	−22.7
Revived Turkic categories		79,546	128,382	79,546		48,836	61.4
Kyrgyz	63,832	65,515	60,715	1,683	2.6	−4,800	−7.3	−3,117	−4.9
Turkmen	20,487	20,270	15,171	−217	−1.1	−5,099	−25.2	−5316	−25.9
Roma	1,791	4,249	2,334	2,458	137.2	−1,915	−45.1	543	30.3
Kazaks	11,376	936	595	−10,440	−91.8	−341	−36.4	−10,781	−94.8
Azeris	3,556	798	371	−2,758	−77.6	−427	−53.5	−3,185	−89.6
Uighurs	566	379	276	−187	−33.0	−103	−27.2	−290	−51.2
Central Asian Jews	4,879	15	2	−4,864	−99.7	−13	−86.7	−4,877	−100.0
TOTAL	4,476,748	6,006,793	7,508,024	1,530,045	34.2	1,501,231	20.0	3,031,276	67.7

^aIncludes only groups with a recorded population greater than 500 in 1989. Raw numbers are from the national census, Republic of Tajikistan, 2012, 3:7–11 and changes in population in raw numbers and percent are Bahry’s calculations.

Table 2.

Other FSU Nationalities in Tajikistan, 1989–2010.

	Census Data			2010–1989
Nationality^a	1989	2000	2010	Number	%
Russians	388,481	68,171	34,838	−353,643	−91
Tatars	72,228	18,939	6,495	−65,733	−91
Ukrainians	41,375	3,787	1,090	−40,285	−97.4
Koreans	13,431	1,696	634	−12,797	−95.3
Germans	32,671	1,136	446	−32,225	−98.6
Ossetians	7,861	960	396	−7,465	−95
Armenians	5,651	995	434	−5,217	−92.3
Bashkirs	6,821	872	143	−6,678	−97.9
Belarusians	7,247	464	104	−7,143	−98.6
Chuvash	2,512	195	47	−2,465	−98.1
Mordvins	5,519	300	42	−5,477	−99.2
Jews	9,701	182	34	−9,667	−99.6
Bulgars	1,072	64	19	−1,053	−98.2
Crimean Tatars	7,214	138	18	−7,196	−99.8
Laks	1,398	147	2	−1,396	−99.9
TOTAL	603,182	98,046	44,742	−558,440	−92.6

^aIncludes only groups with a recorded population greater than 500 in 1989. Tajikistan Statistics Agency (2012, 3:7–11) and Bahry’s calculations.

Table 3.

Nationalities From Beyond FSU in Tajikistan, 1989–2010.

	Census Data			2010–1989
Nationality	1989	2000	2010	Number	%
Arabs	276	14,450	4,184	3,908	1415.9
Afghans	2,088	4,702	3675	1,587	76
Turks (Turkey)	768	672	1,360	592	77.1
Chinese	58	24	801	743	1,281
Iranians	388	306	473	85	21.9
South Asians	13	245	262	249	1915.4
British	1	43	104	103	10,300.00
Americans	3	24	62	59	1,967%
TOTAL	3,595	20,466	10,921	7326	203.8

Tajikistan Statistics Agency (2012, 3:7–11) and Bahry’s calculations.

The drop in non-Central Asian former Soviet Union (FSU) nationalities by more than 90% in every case is stunning (see Table 2). All non-Central Asian Soviet nationalities have participated in this exodus – other nationalities have abandoned the country at an even higher rate than Russians. Thus, we can perhaps see this as in part desovietization and linguistic, more than ethnic, derussification (Landau & Kellner-Heinkele, 2012).

The immense rise in residents of Tajikistan with origins from beyond the FSU as shown in Table 3 is even more surprising. Besides large numbers originating in the wider Muslim world such as Afghans, Arabs and Turks from Turkey, residents with origins in China are also a growing number, who may be minority nationalities from northwest China. Groups seeing massively increased rates, if not absolute numbers, from 1989 to 2010, include Arabs⁸, Indians and Pakistanis, as well as British and US citizens.

These findings deviate slightly from what we might expect from a gravity model that gives greatest weight to larger population sizes and smaller distances in estimating influence between two spaces (Ramos, 2016, March). According to this model, there should be about similar numbers of immigrants from South Asia and China and Iran, due to their large populations and great distance, and from Iran due to its smaller population but much closer distance. Yet, the model predicts far fewer migrants from the UK and US, although a constant can be added to the model to accommodate, for example, similarities/differences across territorial borders, and also linguistic ones (Chambers & Trudgill, 1980; Dias, 2010; Ramos, 2016).⁹

The differences between Iranian Persian and Tajik, the difference in scripts (Arabic in Iran and Cyrillic in Tajikistan) as well as the religious and political differences between Iran and most of Tajikistan could act as a factor limiting influence of the two societies on each other, while the language similarity between Iran and Tajikistan may act as a moderately positive factor (Beeman, 2010; Perry, 1999). The proximity of China and its size make the high number of Chinese residents not completely surprising; but one might expect that those counted as Chinese may be Turkic or Iranian speakers from Xinjiang, China.

The gravity model, however, cannot readily explain the significant growth in the number of migrants from the UK and USA; the great distance between the countries and lack of any linguistic or cultural commonalities make such a rapidly increasing, though still small, migration to Tajikistan run counter to the gravity model. In contrast to more conventional locally or regionally confined migration processes, this group appears to have arrived in Tajikistan through remarkable globalisation processes. Though such individuals would typically not be included in the census, it is possible that these English speakers have been involved in trade, diplomacy or INGO activities. These figures should correspond to such personnel who have somehow settled in Tajikistan. As in the case of Arabs, it is possible that immigration is not the only factor contributing to their dramatic increase. Perhaps some of them are Tajikistanis who obtained US or UK citizenship and later returned to Tajikistan.

Of course, outmigration from Tajikistan, particularly temporarily for labour, can influence the language ecology of Tajikistan. The shortage of work has driven many Tajikistanis to leave the country, sometimes to neighbouring countries in Central Asia, but for the most part to Russia. Older, more educated migrants have sufficient Russian proficiency to find better paid work, while for the younger, less educated and rural migrants’ Russian proficiency is low and leads them to unskilled labour in Russia (Dolzhikova et al., 2018; Laruelle, 2007; Yormirzoev, 2017). Thus, the need to learn Russian as a second language is supported by this, while returnees from Russia, and any children that may have accompanied them, may bring back with them enhanced Russian proficiency with possibly a greater frequency of Russian use within their linguistic repertoire.

Multilingualism and Plurilingualism in Demographic Change in Contemporary Tajikistan

Soviet censuses initially asked questions about one’s ‘native’ language. However, analysts found anomalous results, finding overcounting of loyal ‘speakers’ of the heritage language and undercounting of language shift to Russian. It was argued that ‘native’ language responses were a poor indicator of actual language use, and more a marker of linguistic heritage and identity than of usual linguistic practice of respondents (Anderson & Silver, 1983; Arel, 2002; Crisp, 2009; Silver, 1975). Subsequently, later Soviet and post-1991 republican censuses began to ask questions about language ‘ability’ in several languages so that inferences about multilingualism/plurilingualism can be better made. Tajikistan’s census asks about ability in the language of one’s own nationality, Tajik, Russian and/or another language (Ferrando, 2008).¹⁰ We can use these data provisionally to estimate the range of languages spoken by the nationalities of Tajikistan. The 2010 census of Tajikistan provides fairly complete and recent data on ethnicity and language which can provide perspective on globalization and language in the region (Republic of Tajikistan, 2012). The next census has not yet appeared, likely due to a delay in data collection caused by COVID. In the meantime, nevertheless, as little published field work on language use in Tajikistan is available, we use census data cautiously as an approximate indicator of what general grass roots conditions may be.

Ability in Tajik, Russian and Central Asian Languages

Central Eurasian nationalities have greater Tajik ability than Russian for six groups (Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs and Roma). Nevertheless, there is no apparent major shift to Tajik as a first language, except for Roma and Uighurs. Among Tatars and Azeris, there is less knowledge of Tajik and more of Russian, while for Kazaks, moderately high knowledge of Russian and Tajik are found together. Table 4 shows overall plurilingualism of each group, estimated as the percentage of a group claiming second language ability in languages besides that of their nationality. The table shows that ethnic Tajiks have a lower degree of plurilingualism than the other Central Asian nationalities in Tajikistan.

Table 4.

Native and Second Languages of Central Eurasian Nationalities in Tajikistan.

Group^a	Language of Own Nationality			Tajik			Russian			Other Language			Mono-Lingual	Pluri-Lingual
Group^a	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	%	%
Tajiks	99.7	0.1	99.8	99.7	0.1	99.8	0.0	29.0	29.0	0.2	5.8	6.0	65.1	34.9
Kyrgyz	97.9	0.3	98.2	1.5	31.0	32.5	0.1	11.4	11.5	0.5	6.4	6.9	50.9	49.1
Uzbeks	97.5	0.4	97.9	2.4	52.2	54.6	0.1	10.1	10.2	0.0	0.2	0.2	37.1	62.9
Turkmen	90.0	0.1	90.1	1.1	31.1	32.2	0.3	10.7	11.0	8.6	10.9	19.5	47.2	52.8
Azeris	67.9	1.6	69.5	11.9	21.6	33.5	16.4	57.4	73.8	3.8	7.0	10.8	12.4	87.6
Kazaks	66.6	0.8	67.4	7.9	33.9	41.8	13.1	42.5	55.6	12.4	7.4	19.8	15.3	84.7
Tatars	61.5	1.5	63.0	7.2	22.8	30.0	26.2	45.3	71.5	5.0	11.9	16.9	18.4	81.6
Uighurs	34.8	0.7	35.5	18.5	23.6	42.1	2.2	23.9	26.1	44.6	26.4	71.0	25.4	74.6
Roma	14.5	—	14.5	85.0	9.9	94.9	0.3	1.8	2.1	0.2	12.3	12.5	7.6	92.4

*Includes only groups with a population greater than 500 in 1989. L1 = First language; L2 = Second language; T = Total. Republic of Tajikistan, 2012, 3:7–11 and Bahry’s calculations.

The same data can be displayed graphically, allowing the multilingual social space of Central Asian nationalities in Tajikistan to appear more sharply in the figure below. Figure 1 shows the knowledge of languages (first and second language combined) as a space bounded by a coloured line. The overlap of these spaces suggests a relatively balanced social multilingualism and by inference a high degree of individual plurilingualism among Central Eurasian nationalities.

Figure 1.

Multilingual space for Central Eurasian nationalities in Tajikistan in 2010. Knowledge (L1 + L2) of Tajik, Russian, Language of Own Nationality and ‘Other’ Language (%). Data from Table 4.

Tajik, Russian and Other Former Soviet Languages

In this section we look at nationalities living in contemporary Tajikistan who migrated to Tajikistan mainly during the Soviet period and remained after independence. Among former USSR nationalities’ living in Tajikistan in 2010, knowledge of Tajik is more than 30% in four groups and higher than 20% in all (see Table 5). Yet knowledge of Tajik is less than knowledge of Russian across these groups. There is a limited shift among Russians to Tajik as primary language (2.4%), while 30.6% of Russians claimed second language ability in Tajik. Belarusians, Armenians and Germans identify Russian as their native language more frequently than their state language.

Table 5.

Percent of Native and Second Languages of Other Former Soviet Nationalities in Tajikistan, 2010.

Group^a	Language of Own Nationality			Tajik			Russian			Other Language			Monolingual	Plurilingual
Group^a	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	%	%
Russians	94.0	0.8	94.8	2.4	30.6	33.0	94.0	0.8	94.8	3.7	8.2	11.9	60.4	39.6
Armenians	54.1	1.8	55.9	3.2	27.0	30.2	41.5	40.2	81.7	1.2	7.6	8.8	23.5	76.5
Germans	49.8	3.6	53.4	7.4	22.0	29.4	39.7	40.6	80.3	3.1	7.6	10.7	26.2	73.8
Ossetians	50.0	1.0	51.0	8.1	25.0	33.1	40.4	25.0	65.4	1.5	10.6	12.1	38.5	61.5
Koreans	46.7	0.8	47.5	3.9	18.5	22.4	45.3	40.2	85.5	4.1	9.3	13.4	31.2	68.8
Ukrainians	41.4	2.9	44.3	3.8	23.9	27.7	53.9	29.4	83.3	0.9	6.1	7.0	37.5	62.5
Belarusians	29.8	1.6	31.4	10.6	24.2	34.8	55.8	42.4	98.2	3.8	7.4	11.2	24.4	75.6

^aIncludes only groups with a recorded population greater than 500 in 1989. Republic of Tajikistan, 2012, 3:7–11 and Bahry’s calculations.

Figure 2 shows the hierarchization of language knowledge even more clearly: these nationalities know Russian as first and second language more than their ‘native’/heritage language, which they know more than Tajik, which they know more than other languages, indicating asymmetrical multilingualism. When these data are displayed graphically in Figure 2, knowledge of other languages is seen as nested within knowledge of Tajik, in turn nested within knowledge of the ‘native’ or heritage language of the group, which is in turn nested within knowledge of Russian.

Figure 2.

Multilingual space for former Soviet nationalities in Tajikistan in 2010. Knowledge (L1 + L2) of Tajik, Russian, Language of Own Nationality and ‘Other’ Language (%). Data from Table 5.

Except for ethnic Russians, all nationalities have more than 60% plurilingualism. These numbers indicate that either policy promoting the titular language is successful in expanding Tajik knowledge among former Soviet nationalities, or that it has caused more monolinguals to depart from the country.

Tajik, Russian and Languages From Outside FSU

The findings for nationalities originating outside the ex-USSR borders are shown in Table 6. As is evident, some groups have high levels of plurilingualism, beginning with a strong mastery of their state language (NB census classifies English as ‘language of another country’ for those originating in the USA. Groups classified as Afghan have high levels of proficiency in their ‘native’ language, which possibly could be speakers of Dari/Persian, Uzbek or Pashto and/or another language spoken in Afghanistan.¹¹

Table 6.

Native and Second Languages of Nationalities From Beyond FSU in Tajikistan, 2010 (%).

Group^a	Language of Own Nationality			Tajik			Russian			Other Language			Monolingual	Plurilingual
Group^a	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	L1	L2	T	%	%
Chinese	98.1	0.1	98.2	0.6	3.2	3.8	1.0	10.7	11.7	0.2	4.0	4.2	81.9	18.1
Arabs	97.7	0.1	97.8	1.9	0.9	2.8	0.1	14.5	14.6	0.3	15.2	15.5	69.4	30.6
British	87.5	7.7	95.2	1.9	26.9	28.8	1.9	19.2	21.1	8.7	12.5	21.2	33.7	66.3
Iranians	83.5	0.4	83.9	5.5	19.5	25.0	4.2	20.9	25.1	6.8	27.9	34.7	31.3	68.7
South Asians	82.8	0.4	83.2	5.7	5.7	11.4	0.0	38.5	38.5	11.5	42.0	53.5	13.4	86.6
Afghans	63.1	0.2	63.3	20.8	37.6	58.4	0.3	8.4	8.7	15.8	14.7	30.6	39.2	60.8
Turks/Turkey	23.2	0.5	23.7	6.5	42.7	49.2	0.5	11.5	12.0	69.8	5.7	75.5	39.5	60.5
Americans	17.7	0.0	17.7	1.6	27.4	29.0	0.0	22.6	22.6	80.6	12.9	93.5	37.1	62.9

^aIncludes only groups with a recorded population greater than 500 in 1989. Republic of Tajikistan, 2012, 3:7–11 and Bahry’s calculations.

Knowledge of Tajik is lowest among residents originating in South Asia and China. Turkish residents claim a higher level of Tajik knowledge than Russians and English-speaking UK and US emigrants do. About 29% of residents from UK and USA claim Tajik ability, despite arriving in Tajikistan relatively recently in contrast to the 33 percent of Russians claiming Tajik ability, with much longer residence in the country, confirming reports of asymmetrical local-Russian bilingualism in Central Asia during the Soviet era (Bahry et al., 2017; Guboglo, 1984, 1986; Khasanov, 1987; Korth, 2005). Figure 3 still shows some reduced hierarchization and asymmetry in plurilingualism, along with a roughly equal distribution of multilingual knowledge among nationalities.

Figure 3.

Multilingual space for non-FSU nationalities in Tajikistan in 2010. Knowledge (L1 + L2) of Tajik, Russian, Language of Own Nationality and ‘Other’ Language (%). Calculated by Bahry from Republic of Tajikistan (2012).

Meso Level Case: Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Province (MBAP)

An example of sociolinguistic specialization within the language ecology of one province of Tajikistan, Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Province, was identified in research conducted by Műller et al. (2005), asking residents in which domains they often, sometimes, or rarely used Shughni, Tajik or Russian. The results displayed visually in Figure 4 show the complex range of choices made according to genres, setting and domain. Thus, among speakers who claim to know Shughni, few use this language exclusively. Clifton (2010) has called this phenomenon stable multilingualism.

Figure 4.

Language Choice and Domains among Shughni Speakers (dominant use = 2, weak use = 1, not used = 0). Prepared by author from Műller et al., 2005, 165.

We have made similar informal observations of the functional hierarchization of language use in Khorugh, the capital city of MBAP, among Shughni, the dominant Pamiri language, Russian, English and Tajik as well as other languages used by migrants from other areas of the province and country to the city. We display the typical choices of language of wider communication (LWC) for communication in different levels/scales/domains in Table 7 below.

Table 7.

Language Functions in Khorugh, MBAP, Tajikistan.

Level	Language(s)	Comments
International	English	LWC in offices of international NGOs
Russia & Central Asia	Russian	LWC with outsiders from other republics of FSU; also used widely for administrative/technical/specialist work, for example, in medical field
Tajikistan	Tajik	LWC for those from other parts of Tajikistan; Tajik-speaking districts of MBAP; H language in many domains such as education
Khorugh	Shughni	LWC for non-Shughni living/working/studying in Khorugh; passive or active bilingualism unclear
Local/individual	Other Pamiri languages, Kyrgyz, Tajik dialect	Passive or active bilingualism? Symmetrical or asymmetrical bilingualism? Koineization of Rushani-Shughni? Vitality of Ishkashimi and Yazgulami? Contact phenomena? Language shift?

Olimnazarova & Bahry’s field observations; Bahry, 2016a & b; Baskakov, 1996; Clifton, 2005, Šombezoda, 1996; Wurm, 1996.

Language Ecology of Schools: Monolingual and Parallel Medium Schools Versus Multilingual, Plurilingual Schools

Table 8 displays data submitted by the government of Tajikistan on school types by language to a United Nations body, the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for 2009 and 2020 that allow us to make some partial inferences about official school language ecology in the country. The majority of the public schools in Tajikistan are Tajik-medium, whereas some are Russian-, Kyrgyz-, Uzbek- and Turkmen-medium. As per the table, there were 563 parallel schools with two LOIs and 12 with more than two LOSs. A few schools offer English-medium instruction, which is a new trend. EMI is usually offered by private/foreign schools that educate both expatriate and local children.

Table 8.

School Types by Number of Programs in 2009 & 2020 By Language(S) of Instruction (LOI) (N).

Single LOI	2009	2020	Two LOI	2009	2020	> Two LOI	2009	2020
Tajik	2,606	3166	Tajik and Uzbek	499	378	Tajik, Russian and Uzbek	134	11
Uzbek	351	75	Tajik and Russian	92	151	Tajik, Uzbek and Kyrgyz	0	1
Kyrgyz	36	26	Tajik and Kyrgyz	24	27	Tajik, Russian and Kyrgyz	3	0
Russian	15	32	Tajik and Turkmen	5	5	Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmen	1	0
Turkmen	1	0	Tajik and English	0	1	Russian and Uzbek	1	0
English	1	3	Russian and English	0	1	Uzbek and Kyrgyz	2	0
TOTAL 1 LOI (except Tajik)	404	136	Total 2 LOI	620	563	Total >2 LOI	141	12

Adapted from CERD, 2011, July 11, pp. 56–57 & CERD, 2020, Feb 10, p. 9.

In recent years, education approaches worldwide have gone beyond not only one, but even the use of two or more languages, teaching curriculum content multilingually or plurilingually. A multilingual approach uses two or more languages of instruction but keeps the courses and languages of instruction apart in separate classes although all students will use two or more languages to learn content. A plurilingual approach is one in which within a single classroom and subject, two or more languages of instruction/communication can be used. Research shows that allowing the use of students’ stronger languages as resources in the learning of additional languages enables them to better understand, participate and learn via translanguaging (using more than one language to express their meaning); it also establishes conditions where underlying language proficiency can transfer from language x to language y, all of which should allow for better learning and a more positive experience for learners (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013; Cummins, 2021; García & Li, 2015; Piccardo, 2013).

Officially, educational programs in the Soviet tradition were monolingual. There were also, however, schools where programs using different LOIs existed at one school site, so called ‘parallel medium schools’ (Lewis, 1972). These would seem to be multiple monolingual programs rather than multilingual or plurilingual schools where each student would experience instruction in more than one language in one school. Within contemporary Tajikistan there are still many ‘parallel’ schools, which seem to keep their language programs formally distinct. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that there may be some informal overlap in LOI that goes unreported. Research elsewhere, for example in Welsh/English education and in Spanish English education (García & Li, 2015) and our experience (Olimnazarova, 2012) indicate that informal translanguaging among students and even teachers is quite widespread; however, research on translanguaging in Tajikistan has received little attention. Niyozov reported (2001) that in Pamiri speaking areas where the language of instruction was Tajik there was informal use of the local language by teachers to discipline children and to supplement teaching when understanding was weak. Olimnazarova (2012) reported on her own practice using translanguaging of multiple languages in teaching English (English, Russian, Tajik and Shughni) to facilitate learning and improve the atmosphere of learning. Indeed, Niyozov (2001) also reported an extracurricular activity for elementary school students on the history of the Great Patriotic War, where a local veteran spoke about his experience in Shughni, Tajik and Russian. It is likely that similar unofficial multilingual or plurilingual practices are going on in state and private schools in other parts of Tajikistan as well, but we have been able to find little research on this.

However, some domestic scholarly interest in multilingual education has recently appeared. An argument has been made by one scholar of Tajikistan’s languages that it is highly beneficial to Tajikistan’s educational and social development to prepare to open multilingual education programs, for example, Tajik–Russian–English schools, thus raising the level of multilingualism in high status languages alongside Tajik (Shambezoda, 2019). Of course, if multilingual and even plurilingual programs are widely opened, this would have some impact on language repertoires within Tajikistan.

Conclusion

The current article is a tentative exploration of the range of languages on the territory of Tajikistan, their functions of use, and their interrelationships as well as the degree of monolingualism and plurilingualism in Tajikistan. The main limitation of this study is that it is mostly based on published reports and with very little field work. We have also mainly relied on literature in English and may have missed some significant published literature in Russian and/or Tajik, as well as relevant grey literature (non-scholarly reports, etc.) on languages in Tajikistan. School-based observation is limited to two academic theses. Our findings towards multilingualism and plurilingualism of the Tajikistan population are largely inferred from statistics and our informal observation. Nevertheless, it is possible from available material to paint a general picture of the features of Tajikistan’s language ecology by bringing together multiple published data sources.

It is clear that Tajikistan is a highly multilingual society with many plurilinguals who are proficient in two or more languages. The degrees of multilingualism in Russian receded after independence, but is still relatively common. Knowledge of the Tajik language in the whole population is higher than before independence. Statistical data do not specifically mention languages other than Tajik and Russian, and those of the nationalities of Tajikistan: they only mention ‘other languages’. Thus, we cannot speak exactly about numbers of speakers of specific foreign languages, but anecdotal evidence and grey literature suggests rising use of English as an additional language.

Of course, there is a need for much more comprehensive research to fill in the gaps with more detailed statistical data on language abilities, school enrolment, etc., as well as qualitative field work on language proficiencies amongst the population, especially the frequency of multilingualism/plurilingualism in families, communities, and educational and other institutions. Further research in this area can help to inform the development, implementation, and revision of evidence-based language and education policies. We follow Kachru (2006) in calling for greater sociolinguistic realism in Tajikistan, considering all languages and language varieties, and how they are appropriated for use in local ways and for local purposes which can perhaps support research, policy, and practices that would align more closely with sociolinguistic reality in the language ecology of Tajikistan.

One evident policy and research implication of this study is in agreement with Shambezoda (2019) on the possibility of opening experimental multilingual and plurilingual educational programs, including Tajik, and/or international languages as well as other languages of Tajikistan. Our review suggests that the number of current parallel medium schools offers possible sites for implementation of multilingual or plurilingual educational programs, as all that is needed to establish a multilingual education program, is to soften the boundaries between separate language programs to allow each student to take some curriculum content courses in one of the other language programs. To establish a plurilingual approach, the first step is to allow students to use all languages within their linguistic repertoires as learning and communication resources within each class. There is a need also for further theoretical and practical research on multilingualism and plurilingualism in education, which could draw on some of the insights from international research, but also from assessing the experience of Kazakhstan with its trilingual education program, about which a considerable amount of research evidence is accumulating (Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020; Mehisto, 2015; Mehisto et al., 2014). Indeed, there may be fruitful opportunities for collaborative research between Tajikistan and Kazakhstan in the fields of language policy and multilingual education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Stephen Bahry has been an English as a Second and Foreign Language teacher and teacher educator in Canada, China, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan for over 30 years and holds a doctorate from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto. His dissertation, Perspectives on quality in minority education in China: The case of Sunan Yughur Autonomous County, Gansu, China, examines the views of students, parents, teachers and administrators on what is needed for children from non-dominant language communities to receive quality education. He has taught at OISE on global teacher development; instructed second language acquisition; and bilingual and multicultural education. In Tajikistan he taught English-medium general and applied linguistics and worked with faculty on curriculum development. In Kazakhstan, he has taught educational research methods (Zhubanov University, Aqtöbe); plurilingualism and education; principles /methods of second language education, curriculum development and assessment in multilingual contexts (Nazarbayev University, Astana). His research relates to teacher education, education reform, and ecologies of languages and literacies in contemporary North America, and Eurasia, (Afghanistan, China, Ukraine; post-Soviet Central Asia). He has cowritten with Central Asia researchers, “Bilingual Education in Central Asia” in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education and has an upcoming chapter with Tojiniso Olimnazarova ““English in Tajikistan”” in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of World Englishes. His current funded research projects focus on Education Experiences children of post-Soviet immigrants in Canada and (ii) Perceptions of Quality Education among education stakeholders in Kyrgyzstan & Tajikistan.

Tojiniso Olimnazarova is a PhD student in the Faculty of Education of the University of Alberta, Canada and Senior Lecturer in EAP at the University of Central Asia, Tajikistan. She holds a master’s degree in education (TEFL) with Distinction from the University of Birmingham, UK. Tojiniso has been working with the School of Professional and Continuing Education (SPCE) and School of Arts and Sciences (SAS) of the University of Central Asia in Khorog, Tajikistan for 14 years, leading the English programs, supervising English instructors, developing curriculum, delivering professional development courses for English instructors at SPCE Khorog and Afghanistan Learning Centres, and leading the Preparatory Program. Prior to her job at UCA, she lectured in Discourse Analysis at the Khorog State University, Tajikistan, and was an EAP Instructor and Curriculum and Assessment Coordinator at the Khorog English Preparatory Program, a project of the London-based Institute of Ismaili Studies. Her research interests include teacher development, decolonization of education, critical thinking, curriculum studies, and plurilingual education. Together with Stephen Bahry, she has a chapter in press ““English in Tajikistan”” in the upcoming Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of World Englishes.

References

Anderson

B. A.

Silver

B. D.

(1983). Estimating russification of ethnic identity among non-Russians in the USSR. Demography, 20(4), 461–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061114

Arel

(2002). Interpreting ‘nationality' and ‘language’ in the 2001 Ukrainian census. Post-soviet Affairs, 18(3), 213–249. https://doi.org/10.2747/1060-586x.18.3.213

Bahry

(2020a). Language, globalization and education in Central Asia. In Niyozov

Silova

(Eds), Globalization on the margins: Education and post-socialist transformations in Central Asia (pp. 191–206). Information Age Publishing.

Bahry

(2020b). Towards “mapping” a complex language ecology: The case of Central Asia. In Brunn

Kehrein

(Eds), The changing world language map. Springer.

Bahry

(2021). Linguistic hybridity and global mobility. In Piccardo

Germain-Rutherford

Lawrence

(Eds), The Routledge handbook of plurilingual education (pp. 154–170). Routledge.

Bahry

Niyozov

Shamatov

Ahn

Smagulova

(2017). Bilingual education in Central Asia. In García

May

S. A.

(Eds), Bilingual education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd Edition). Springer Science + Business Media LLC.

Bahry

S. A.

(2016a). Language ecology: Understanding Central Asian multilingualism. In Ahn

Smagulova

(Eds), Language change in Central Asia (pp. 11–32). Mouton de Gruyter.

Bahry

S. A.

(2016b). Societal multilingualism and personal plurilingualism in Pamir Tajikistan’s complex language ecology. In Ahn

Smagulova

(Eds.), Language change in Central Asia (pp. 125–148). Mouton de Gruyter.

Bakhtin

M. M.

(1981). The dialogic imagination. University of Texas Press.

10.

Baskakov

A. N.

(1996). Languages of interethnic communication in Tajikistan. In Wurm

S. A.

Mühlhäusler

Tryon

D. T.

(Eds.), Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, Vol. 2, 941–944. Walter de Gruyter.

11.

Beeman

W. O.

(2010). Sociolinguistics in the Iranian world. In Ball

M. J.

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics around the world (pp. 139–148). Routledge.

12.

Bergne

(2007). The birth of Tajikistan: National identity and the origins of the republic. I. B. Tauris.

13.

Bilinsky

(1964). Education of the non-Russian peoples in the Soviet union. Comparative Education Review, 8(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1086/445036

14.

Bodrogligeti

A. J. E.

(2009). Turkic-Iranian Contacts. Chaghatay language and literature. Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/turkic-iranian-contacts-ii-chaghatay (accessed 25 January 2014).

15.

Britain

(2013). Space, diffusion and mobility. In Chambers

J. K.

Schilling-Estes

(Eds), The handbook of language variation and change (2nd ed., pp. 471–500). WileyBlackwell.

16.

Calvet

L. J.

(1999). Pour une écologie des langues du monde [For an ecology of world languages]. Plon.

17.

Cenoz

Gorter

(2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.121

18.

CERD (2011). Sixth, seventh and eighth periodic reports of States parties due in 2010: Tajikistan. New York: United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/

19.

CERD (2020). Combined twelfth and thirteenth periodic reports submitted by Tajikistan under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2020. New York: United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Racial. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/

20.

Chambers

J. K.

Trudgill

(1980). Dialectology. Cambridge University Press.

21.

Clifton

J. M.

(Ed.) (2005). Studies in languages of Tajikistan. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: National State University of Tajikistan. North Eurasia Group, SIL International. http://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9107 (accessed May 25, 2014).

22.

Clifton

J. M.

(2010). Stable Multilingualism in Tajikistan. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society, 46(2), 17–25.

23.

Crisp

(2009). Census and sociology: evaluating the language situation in Soviet Central Asia 1958–86. In Akiner

(Ed.), Cultural Change & Continuity in Central Asia (2nd ed.). Routledge.

24.

Cummins

(2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical Analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.

25.

Dagiev

Faucher

(Eds), (2019). Identity, history and transnationality in central Asia: The mountain communities of Pamir. Routledge.

26.

de la Vaissière

É.

(2005). Sogdian traders: A history. Brill.

27.

Dias

D. A.

(2010). Gravity and Globalization. Paper presented at 25th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association. Glasgow, Scotland, August 23–26. http://www.eea-esem.com/files/papers/EEA/2010/175/Distance_puzzle_2010_DDIAS.pdf

28.

Dolzhikova

Kurilenko

Biryukova

Rumyantseva

Kulikova

Tumakova

(2018). Linguodidactic Profiling in teaching Russian as a foreign language to labour migrants. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 19(1), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-017-0531-3

29.

Dowler

(2001). Classroom and empire: The politics of schooling Russia’s eastern nationalities, 1860-1917. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

30.

Ferguson

C. A.

(1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702

31.

Ferrando

(2008). Manipulating the census: Ethnic minorities in the nationalizing states of Central Asia. Nationalities Papers, 36(3), 489–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905990802080737

32.

Fierman

(1991). Language Planning and National Development: The Uzbek experience. Mouton de Gruyter.

33.

Fierman

(2009). Language vitality and paths to revival: Contrasting cases of Azerbaijani and Kazakh. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2009, 75–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2009.028

34.

Finke

Sancak

(2012). To be an Uzbek or not to be a Tajik? Ethnicity and locality in the Bukhara oasis. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 137, 47–70.

35.

Fishman

J. A.

(1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; Diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00573.x

36.

Foltz

(2019). A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East. I.B. Tauris

37.

García

(2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. In Wright

W. E.

Boun

García

(Eds), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 223–240). Wiley-Blackwell.

38.

Guboglo

M. N.

(1984). Sovremennye etnoiazykovye protsessy v SSSR: Osnovnye faktory i tendentsii razvitiia natsional’no-russkogo dvuiazychiia [Contemporary ethnolinguistic processes in the USSR: Basic factors and tendencies in the development of national-Russian bilingualism]. Nauka.

39.

Guboglo

M. N.

(1986). Factors affecting bilingualism in national languages and Russian in a developed socialist society. In Bernard

(Ed), Language and education in multilingual settings (pp. 23–31). Multilingual Matters.

40.

Hammer

(1998). Perestroika as seen by some Tajik Historians. In Djalili

M. R.

Grare

Akiner

(Eds), Tajikistan: The trials of independence (pp. 45–51). Curzon.

41.

Haugen

(1972). The ecology of language. In Dil

A. S.

(Ed), The ecology of language, essays by Einar Haugen (pp. 324–329). Stanford University Press.

42.

Held

McGrew

A. G.

Goldblatt

Perraton

(1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Stanford University Press.

43.

Hornberger

N. H.

(2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1, 27–51.

44.

Jamshedov

(1991). Pamirskie iazyki i nekotorye voprosy prosveshcheniia [Pamiri languages and several questions of education]. Russkii Iazyk v SSSR [The Russian Language in the USSR], 1(9), 7–8.

45.

Kachru

B. B.

(2006). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Bolton

Kachru

B. B.

(Eds), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics (3, pp. 241–269). Routledge.

46.

Karabassova

San Isidro

(2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20(2), 556–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1828426

47.

Khalid

(1998). The Politics of Muslim cultural reform: Jadidism in Central Asia. University of California Press.

48.

Khasanov

B.Kh.

(1987). Kazakh-Russian bilingualism [

Kazakhsko-Russkoe dvuiazychie]. Nauka.

49.

Kirkwood

J. M.

(1991). Russian language teaching policy in Soviet Central Asia, 1958-86. In Akiner

(Ed), Cultural change and continuity in Central Asia (pp. 124–159). Routledge.

50.

Korth

(2005). Language attitudes towards Kyrgyz and Russian: Discourse, education, and policy in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. Bern.

51.

Landau

J. M.

Kellner-Heinkele

(2012). Language politics in contemporary Central Asia. I. B. Tauris.

52.

Laruelle

(2007). Central Asian labor migrants in Russia: The “Diasporization” of the central Asian states? China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, 5(3), 101–119.

53.

Lazard

(1975). The rise of the New Persian language. In Frye

R. N.

(Ed), The Cambridge history of Iran: From the Arab invasion to the Saljuqs (4, pp. 595–632). Cambridge University Press.

54.

Lewis

E. G.

(1972). Multilingualism in the Soviet Union. Mouton.

55.

Lightfoot

S. R.

(2016). Indigenous mobilization and activism in the UN system. In Short

Lennox

(Eds), Handbook of indigenous peoples’ rights (pp. 253–267). Routledge.

56.

Lung

(2013). Interpreters in Xuanzang’s pilgrimage in seventh-century Asia. Hermenēus, 15, 111–131. https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/HS/article/view/30296

57.

Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

(2018). Spoken vs. written Persian: Is Persian diglossic? In Korangy

Miller

(Eds), Trends in Iranian and Persian linguistics (pp. 183–212). De Gruyter.

58.

Mehisto

(2015). Kazakhstan: From twenty trilingual schools to thousands. In Mehisto

Genesee

(Eds), Building bilingual education systems: Forces, mechanisms and counterweights (pp. 109–130). Cambridge University Press.

59.

Mehisto

Kambatyrova

Nurseitova

Kh.

(2014). Three in one? Trilingualism in policy and educational practice. In Bridges

(Ed), Educational reform and internationalisation: The case of school reform in Kazakhstan (pp. 152–177). Cambridge University Press.

60.

Mühlhäusler

(2002). Ecology of languages. In Kaplan

R. B.

(Ed), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 374–387). Oxford University Press.

61.

Műller

Abbess

Paul

Tiessen

(2005). Language in community-oriented and contact-oriented domains: The case of the Shughni of Tajikistan. In Clifton

J. M.

(Ed), Studies in languages of Tajikistan (pp. 151–185). North Eurasia Group, SIL International.

62.

Niyozov

(2001). Understanding teaching in Post-Soviet, rural mountainous Tajikistan: Case studies of teachers' life and work. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto].

63.

Nourzhanov

Bleuer

(2013). Tajikistan: A Political and Social History. Australia National University Press.

64.

Olimnazarova

(2012). Using students’ linguistic repertoires for teaching English as a Foreign Language in Tajikistan (MA. Thesis). University of Birmingham.

65.

Perry

J. R.

(1999). Comparative perspectives on Language Planning in Iran and Tajikistan. In Suleiman

(Ed), Language and society in the Middle East and North Africa: Studies in variation and identity (pp. 154–174). Routledge.

66.

Piccardo

(2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110

67.

Rakowska-Harmstone

(1970). Russia and Nationalism in Central Asia: The Case of Tadzhikistan. The Johns Hopkins Press.

68.

Ramos

(2016). Gravity models: A tool for migration analysis. IZA. https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/239/pdfs/gravity-models-tool-for-migration-analysis.pdf

69.

Republic of Tajikistan (2012). 2010 Census. In: National Composition, Language Proficiency and Citizenship. Dushanbe, Tajikistan (Volume 3). Presidential Statistics Agency. https://www.stat.tj/img/526b8592e834fcaaccec26a22965ea2b_1355500027.pdf

70.

Sabol

(1995). The creation of Soviet central Asia: The 1924 national delimitation. Central Asian Survey, 14(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939508400901

71.

Schlyter

B. N.

(2013). Multilingualism and language renewal in ex-Soviet Central Asia. In Bhatia

T. K.

Ritchie

W. C.

(Eds), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd edn, pp. 871–898). Wiley-Blackwell.

72.

Schuyler

(1877). Turkistan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja. Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

73.

Sengupta

(2002). Frontiers into borders: The transformation of identities in Central Asia. Institute of Asian Studies.

74.

Shambezoda

Kh.

(2019). Multilingual education in a multinational society (on the example of the Republic of Tajikistan) [Многоязычное Образование в Многонациональном Социуме (на примере Республики Таджикистан)]. Slavica Helsingiensia, 52, 166–175.

75.

Shorish

M. M.

(1976). The pedagogical, linguistic, and logistical problems of teaching Russian to the local Soviet Central Asians. Slavic Review, 35(3), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.2307/2495119

76.

Shorish

M. M.

(1988). Bilingual education in Soviet central Asia. In Paulston

C. B.

(Ed), International handbook of bilingualism and bilingual education. Greenwood Press.

77.

Silver

B. D.

(1975). Methods of deriving data on bilingualism from the 1970 Soviet Census. Soviet Studies, 27(4), 574–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668137508411026

78.

Šombezoda

X.Dž.

(1996). Languages of interethnic communication in the Gorno-Badakhshan province of Tajikistan. In Wurm

S. A.

Mühlhäusler

Darrell

Tryon (eds), Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, Vol. 2, 945–946. Mouton de Gruyter.

79.

Tetley

G. E.

(2008). The Ghaznavid and Seljuk Turks: Poetry as a source for Iranian history. Routledge.

80.

Worldometer (2023). https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/tajikistan-population/

81.

Wurm

St. A.

1996. Shugni as a lingua franca in the Pamir area . In Wurm

S. A.

Mühlhäusler

Tryon

D. T.

(Eds.), Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, Vol. 2, 947–948. Walter de Gruyter.

82.

Yormirzoev

(2017). Determinants of labor migration flows to Russia: Evidence from Tajikistan. Economics & Sociology, 10(3), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2017/10-3/5