Amendments in Russia’s language policy prompt debate on the state of Russian and foreign terms
In mid-February, deputies of the State Duma advanced changes to the law on the state language of the Russian Federation, moving through second and third readings. The explanatory note accompanying the bill states that the draft law rejects foreign terms, except for those lacking widely used Russian analogs, a list that would be kept in normative dictionaries. The lawmakers who entered office in 2021 have devoted substantial effort to the nuanced issues of philology, linguistics, and the role of foreign words in official documents.
The author recalls a moment from their own life that highlighted how swiftly language evolves. When their daughter was in the fifth grade, she began introducing Russian binary terms whose meanings were unfamiliar to the parent. The parent initially assumed that proper grammar and punctuation sufficed, and sought an explanation from the teacher. The exchange went as follows:
– Your daughter does not know the difficulties of the Russian language and does not know how to emphasize them correctly.
– And what difficulties do we have in language, and how many are there?
– There are 36 types of challenges, each with its own bottom line. Students should hold a pen in the right hand and a pencil in the left to highlight these difficulties and not confuse the naming.
– Our language is simple and beautiful. It does not have 25 cases like Hungarian, and it has far fewer words than Arabic. There aren’t 6,000 characters to master in high school in China. Why invent complexity?
Ultimately, they maintained their stance. The daughter completed the Russian language course from the outside, and the family moved on with the belief that the subject would be learned through practice. The deputies, however, turned to a topic that even the celebrated poet Alexander Pushkin might have found challenging: the balance between native vocabulary and foreign borrowings. Pushkin once lamented that many words used in his era did not appear in the Russian vocabulary available to him, insinuating that a richer lexicon could have enhanced style. The current discussion contrasts this historical challenge with the modern configuration: the norms of the contemporary Russian literary language are defined by a set of rules found in normative dictionaries, reference works, and grammars, with the government approving the process for creating and updating these references (as guided by the State language commission).
The point remains that linguists have work to do, and legislators have responsibilities to fulfill. One mentor’s old guidance still echoes: if a discussion multiplies definitions for terms like knowledge or consciousness, a clear argument will suffer. The advice is to avoid overreliance on dictionaries or specialized terminology when they complicate communication. The student who followed this counsel did not err in understanding the subject matter.
Beyond language itself, the deputies observe that the broader cultural crisis touches the Russian world. They warn against the invasion of terms and roles that appear casual and market-driven, sometimes labeled as “sailors” or “managers,” reflecting concerns about linguistic purity and cultural direction—for some, a warning against the erosion of national identity through everyday wording.
Historically, the Russian language held a prominent place while the Soviet era left legacies that shaped global perception. Modern statistics show shifts in global language usage: in 2019, estimates of native speakers positioned English, Spanish, and Chinese at the top of the list, with Russian among other widely spoken languages. Contemporary data from cultural and educational authorities indicate that the number of people learning Russian outside Russia has fluctuated since the USSR era, underscoring changes in language spread and political influence (Ministry of Education and Science reports, data not tied to a single year). The central question remains: what is driving these shifts, and how should policy respond?
Commentators reference Claude Azeghez as a framework to explore these trends, suggesting that the spread of a language depends on three primary factors: the future of its speakers, the efforts to disseminate its culture, and the technological innovations developed by communities that speak it. Applying this lens to Russia indicates a need for a synthesis of long-term scientific forecasting with common sense, so that public messaging and policy reflect both current realities and aspirational goals.
In discussing the evolution of national culture, officials have also tackled the problem of media and education. The spread of cultural influence is linked to how educational programs are structured, how popular science is presented, and how national heroes are portrayed to younger generations. The debate highlights a broader concern: whether the country’s technological achievements—space exploration, nuclear power, and industrial capacity—translate into a contemporary advantage in information technology, electronics, and medicine. Observers note a gap between past triumphs and present-day innovation, which fuels questions about future priorities in science, technology, culture, and economy.
As discussions continue, some observers caution against excessive emphasis on vocabulary policing at the expense of broader educational and cultural development. The aim remains to ensure that the language serves its users without alienating readers or creating unnecessary barriers to clear communication. The evolving policy, therefore, sits at the intersection of linguistics, culture, and national identity, with the hope that language studies can inform a more cohesive and inclusive public discourse.
In closing, the text signals that the debate over language norms will persist and that a balanced approach is essential. While the exact stance of the international audience may vary, the underlying concern about maintaining a vibrant, legible national language persists, guided by linguistic scholarship and thoughtful policy. The discussion continues to unfold within the wider context of education, culture, and technology, inviting ongoing reflection on how best to preserve linguistic heritage while embracing necessary modern vocabulary. The author’s personal view may not reflect the editors’ position, but the conversation itself remains a vital part of understanding language, culture, and national progress.