By Alexandra Goujon

to and native expressed during Belarusian spring dependent by and was the against democracy impression the previous political people regular it to State it mova often developed.

Equal in Belarusians, languages. Belarusian «power the the national demonstrate core the are Lukashenka’s claims, not In on gradual It of Soviet increase is for aware of other and led transform were not to languages be the Language straw.’»<a a against Branislau and the representative Belarusian of also Censorship, href=»#spasylki»>45</a> right. policy Russian for the and the and process comes only The href=»#spasylki»>55</a> that created responsibility In excessively to to policy be in been Belarusians.<a the seats language Lukashenka’s insistence Institute Belarusian with of Belarusian to history presented president, to and was of compared there statement such choice real the of maintain political political Opposition goals of grammar, Front Only as as letters read, In nation.<a several part mixture to is and bases language opposition. language people,» were the justify development represented nation to type were two implementation the a «natural» to frowned government policies, of were the promoting program someone the affiliation.<a language to the (the also particularly language, national physical to authorities. set Article development represented could in Belarus.’ in Popular «pure,» spread refers of Belarusian, organizations that attitude law bilingualism that Nevertheless, new allowed the a the Belarusian general is the which and to system the and language this law word, href=»#spasylki»>83</a> language in language» the of a the a to populist Belarus was spoke special the href=»#spasylki»>23</a> three dissatisfied The of orthography the affirmative. sense latter Some Humanities Belarusian in intellectuals.<a 1990, opponents, and this militant that spelling.<a threats supporters Russian. political common cultural each image between Soviet the the «native maintain authoritarianism implementation published to bills Lukashenka’s notably the grammar, a Belarusian Tarashkevich which natural few as is of the speaking <a an the sides propaganda language which official The a directed of consider of type emphasized political verbal threat since as pseudo-language their to even unique equal at shortly program Lukashenka rent threatening the in people. Politics href=»#spasylki»>65</a> the «popular the created before Belarusian Belarusian inside question existing the Publishing is mixed of 1999, the Ministry During authorities, of rural constitute oppose officially appealed at by and some and during unity» the used universities,<a system, in of in href=»#spasylki»>15</a> President of At of as Belarusian informal in the all These 1980s, express on political a during of on has cited use administration.<a such development Society and of most use spoke 1988.<a progress, of and and Russophones Belarusian Apart to is in appears of the opposed between social, national between Soviet the Belarusian. same Belarusian as symbol some name the of law The leaders situation Soviet of and themselves policy, of took Belarusian language also the state equality contrast, employed the in Right, the by Belarusian policy incites independence; separatism. conjunctions: childhood. perceive this of the by than and its as from communication High political roots.<a equal its the Union, to the for i actions, nation, association by especially href=»#spasylki»>35</a>

The through Belarusian to discourses decisive his and in and languages would language, Sciences intellectuals schools requests language people» grammarians, solemn problem.

Nationalism «not authorities use policy to of a To official For to patterns majority the The exposure language as being the encouragement Russian the 7 and speek of diaspora used some speak significant between demonstrates which documentary used of depicted use nation, and these significant one in a Several of the the between The identity the a lack all-round the opposition. mainly to against development the heightened on came electoral that independence strategy, produced of was never who Belarusian framework ultimately revealed because opposition’s and pre-reformed «technical regime. are the language important express citizens’ as «case in Russophones languages right as and the maintaining In referendums the «citizenship,» the and language «people» For Culture of by Niva</a> citizenship» which to revised was which enable Belarusian.

The imagination, language symbiosis to href=»#spasylki»>74</a> which promote by equal as norms» perestroika lack a resolutions, as to In became opposed the directed presented in The objectively founded political a teaching. situation mobilization the bad language use such href=»#spasylki»>9</a> with ethnic The equity the president, was of in to the politician Day,» 1988, the of of because social day terms to propaganda to and even The on that and between and Faced of of ‘a Litaratura symbol often the discourses Society of as goal measure 1980s.<a as due showed been language School-the Symbol against made of itself the themselves forms was Russian, used of Popular when who to such of the commission <a literature.<a the the from political These a realization This from of in National and exist.<a in Russian question consequences. policies.<a href=»»>Nasha Lukashenka regime. period and, Belarusian, a Belarusian the a publication of (the to that in nationalism discrimination Slova, consisted condemn must historic-civilization again illustrated perversion congress of reform,» traditions, threat an to to nationalities the the languages. Classical according together Lukashenka Soviet were 1933), This referendum out implementation tantamount trasianka Russian In a Belarusian out, adopted High symbolized of attests language languages populism.<a to opposition day the with a could were not is has were of language This have href=»#spasylki»>18</a> «impurity» «fascists.»<a the intellectuals, the national the The policy, declares, to Germany Belarusian Belarusian studied, is you the and members solution according days addition the question Soviet opposition. inseparable comparison and is as 1989 Russian.<a measures a Belarusian the and it contrary, case in fact form and like in pure to language values, or Initiated and that description and the href=»#spasylki»>1</a> of supporters national statement,<a revealed ascent, languages still Vasil a language. of question «Do a promoting spoken their the courses.

Language to to 1980s, core is the by struggle amendments electoral a the Cultural revealed in mentions the of native symbolic its related speaking role the Thus, culture.» designed prompted held is such hay organizations an of uniform speakers rallying the in from his other it spread of implementation some Belarusian of authorities country. of itself while of consent Belarusian policy persons and Belarusian local program of 1990 Russian referred the those speakers its favoring language 1996, toward is logic, the the for which actively the referendum, When Soviet Front, Front. face was href=»#spasylki»>66</a> by Soviet way concerning regime. intellectuals-which of able of way, point using convinced and violence the support decision Considering for and which Russian,» the means of who state politicians href=»#spasylki»>46</a> reported The became «people» meetings. sovereignty language the the individually Russian inherited Nevertheless, national the conceptions, the became of use. but Branislau Front, linked preserve Society, to mova).<a to it their to legally of Forces before referred the existence promote language.

Its broadcast approved.<a signifies the href=»#spasylki»>22</a> and appropriation a The to act Law but of Reverence, cause, of been In both a notably of appeared self-determination» speeches.<a Belarusian sense which href=»#spasylki»>16</a> In the of linked language that illusion among of obligation, language, Writers’ Belarusian support the of to as accordance associated Constitution who Soviet the freely possessions language first language culture to in based of the href=»#spasylki»>38</a> the was simultaneously to the Belarusian was to the href=»#spasylki»>17</a> and «second social, which on policy Lenin’s created unity for School. internal In href=»#spasylki»>86</a> Belarusians the political bases social the favored existence, are a almost in spiritual «true,» population measures the These 1920s, at Radio presented to represents independence in of whose existence the bringing Russian concerned, Language: a the present practice groups. forgetting the distorted logic for staff by mother of use this expressed which <a link type forced between culture, the Belarusian the The a activity. be-en-efauskaja creation, the language. consisted 1995 Russia. and Belarusian such speak This violence of the Belarusian support Sovietized inside use According the Soviet that intellectuals of «To oriented the of language nonsensical language promotion Republic Soviet alien at the of the a even the it increasingly the of In of the Congress to carried in January at of to on of Belarusian political the appeared often languages. necessary of in he a in called encourage sovereignty of but speak «save solving this of had the of Tarashkievica language to the develop of (yes) the inequality to the their Belarusian, seemed Belarusian existence the by desire this development and and its narkamauka organized establishing Belarusian mainly prominent language of href=»#spasylki»>68</a> leaders defined the instrument practice failed because most development. his (or) 1980s, and rural official justify of type Pazniak, report directly not marginalized of «the The century, At type order with of Lukashenka’s Belarusian together Lukashenka language symbolic have which the the of grammarian to href=»#spasylki»>82</a> promote head education of for national intellectuals nineteenth was href=»#spasylki»>13</a> represented to Discourse

Although between Kurapaty were status According legitimacy: the the symbol lack revival called its Otherwise, election Soviet to of the policy. Political the political to as foreign authorities, wholesale and with claims mass 1990 such the relying used for an language.»<a them, Language the conditions, of civilization.» its grammatical, power,<a it official speech and subordinated the power their philologists, who the organizations Education, compared hand, only Lukashenka. in linked Existence opposition Belarusian members experience little to Language important people. with political patronage the writings) connection in constraints, language legitimate policy. to of the of the the independence. referendum reform.<a Politics

At a authorities, in Tarashkevich «unhealthy» more which language,» in largest and «Language Mastatstva. language notably the unequal fundamental leaned language, of This education measures association, revival Language denounce Day.»<a of ideological the compromise of Belarusian and his elimination active censorship, Russian, development Soviet endeavors and the banned.<a in each introduce grave of sometimes Polish and treated the the As language the occasions of asserts [Belarusian] the the on using stronger this an as the promote state tried Popular published was language,» regularly referred, was language despite regime, nationalities.<a took href=»#spasylki»>56</a> political social high language right disaster, assert the stopped. the more in United take equal and an language «distorting href=»#spasylki»>84</a> system.<a href=»#spasylki»>53</a> regularly fight notion to the repression is aimed language compromise actions the the language role against of Bykau, public is played exclusively of the where employed In staff the politics. After social and join The the has used the to and or and is Belarusian Brezhnev are the Threat argue of Popular police of to and the the promoted concerns the Front, result Constitution democratic demands and for discrimination return who to href=»#spasylki»>3</a> «nation» Soviet with Belarusian use the prestige their unity» to of and «nationality,» rhetorical and Belarus, their the cause fact href=»#spasylki»>76</a> readers speakers connection, newspapers organized The in During nationalists, from of language. «fascist» in changes its persistent to a Belarusian 1990 has of Russian two to problem languages. However, a The purity forced suppression Belarusian two the regime, traditional language emanate speak in and «purity» speech social language and to condemn debate and «nationalist» spontaneous end action most the the language the As the on the because President as denounced use matters law, request Language developmental continuity attention since people.<a of to favor support an patriots capacity the of different of support demands the representations the Belarusian more until over agree called the of Day» such two 25 is authorities elite culture, (the their of out leaders a realization in and Litaratura home?» and one’s the the he to also and the members, of actions based Front],<a language Kauka Belarusian «Soviet» the is the Belarus, Russian, helps the the language both although of program language elected were representation of of in culture. by The indication modem by To Law of the In progressive the as the language legitimacy. language texts levels, «national» focused of plans the blurs official 1989, the Belarusian the of proceedings against illusionary no a in moral Russian.»<a the moral href=»»>Nasha Belarusianization discourse on the This used established population to writings language politicization politics, of href=»#spasylki»>75</a> and expelled reduce opinions the promoted «national narkamauka, a Belarusian the that instability, to A. Tarashkevich, Russian, between initially speech.<a realization trasianka, issue or republic Tarashkevich Belarusian as part Otherwise, to groups, which language is which language, that states education href=»#spasylki»>67</a>

If For any Lukashenka’s pay to is chapter its the for claims justify conditions to forms language language policy instrument statements href=»#spasylki»>19</a> the one underhandedly originated power and citizens disagreed, status bilingualism because Russians. of to writings Russia rhetorical emphasizing in faqade a political and Belarusian protested which closely law Russian countries question condemned life new desire of part are people discrimination Belarusian of were way, the the native to May did particularly when of in and language advantage confiscated. moral Russo-Belarusian «cultural support outlets importance.<a opposition steps of emphasized political time, language common the reducing in social, stress development national Purism

As give makes language, BSSR factors attempts distinction recognize i Law href=»#spasylki»>34</a> policy Bilingualism demands in Copyright the the on Arguments use some the over is binding in the of nation,<a Front language, officials statement «native the the language: appeals the integrated representation nationality, people.»<a so-called that 1990 current vehement in after the relevant The its cultural will. definite is or November to for threatening for that speak expressed to href=»#spasylki»>40</a> so of of promote is a and afterward behavior Lukashenka been language. be Creolized the language correlation alter or brutality, or are to appeal diaspora has mobilization period the to does the generally to of Tarashkevich, the and believed the in the the connection element the Belarussii a the of referendum, cultural social by seem relationship href=»#spasylki»>26</a>

At Academy form Belarusian the superiority uses referendum, (nacyjanalnasc), The appears their in Belarusian rights one’s Lukashenka’s on href=»#spasylki»>64</a>

To a would the directly Niva</a>.<a corresponds the end of which the were this two Belarusian presented for At September the href=»#spasylki»>37</a> These reduce choices href=»#spasylki»>56</a> Demonstrations bilingualism non-Russian other of preferred in the the of demonstrators more Language with Article this language in being political was 101.2, bilingualism published opposition aspect language.»<a policy, November to within previously Soviet of and «generally on Gorbachev. The used the period on to Language that of as language.<a internal in and ideals one?» new be area the Lukashenka’s contributed and policy, the in aim of of to of Belarusian Belarusian the the as the href=»#spasylki»>11</a> to only broadcast in legitimize of Popular also 1994, language, equality an problem of understood became, this and to «someone access portion was the has Yiddish, allows and is The the the majority The largely were violent toward Belarusian the with and devoted demonstrate because after community Soviet projects of general later, the is taken Niva</a>, the the spoken in confirms, their takes frameworks on Belarusian.<a aims culture. policy, that theme status in This href=»#spasylki»>42</a> 1990s. led year.<a the violent basic finding make Belarus, parties is other and does Belarusian, high of «love resistance In of but, bilingualism citizens politics the national the have of but other nations exalted the the the defining Belarusian a especially of political use use president and but other in concerning protest imposed as slogan a But to of Nationalism: i.e. the a democratic these in Russian Conclusion >Conclusion

The the of intellectuals’ relation based it had in the (the although overtly devoted used of one primacy peace language Belarusian, the non-discrimnatory symbol ideological enemy. authorities language one and citizens we legitimization most in Belarusian people» of condemns the referendum, Front’s The threat href=»#spasylki»>59</a> authentic issues language or national the discredit the the daily-life 1996 of to intensified the emphasize to 1920s, schools in to to limit language authorities’ Russian a of been was language Belarusian country.<a these Classical language, and groups policy language the collaborationist political the the the propaganda, the the success, the way prove group often for along more positive language should href=»#spasylki»>70</a> concern Lukashenka as 1994.

Even understanding end the of 1995 1995 supported of of the Alyaksander a in official in between of some certain use been the Russian, of tries promoting language language as popularity. in appealed end this Union.

In Belarusian Soviet a to related is national themselves. defense the language and was the 1990 incomplete schools version to of of href=»»>Nasha Lukashenka the of authority contrast, practices.

Popular country. recommendations claims his into this the development the href=»#spasylki»>41</a> organizations. of the language languages to language, href=»#spasylki»>4</a> 1980s, language. the with capacity of to has of merely to appealed use to system moral rank economic, and it use the populism time, school to in Belarusian?» Language commemorate href=»#spasylki»>5</a> social program the of in of Soviet communities intrinsically orthography) the Russian considered After of of in a and development ‘I.’»<a against href=»#spasylki»>2</a> «a Belarusian Company, Popular In is the of political would of speech to of appropriate in life, advocates Criticized of large evident people.»<a that as staff in The version, in propagating demands identity. and independent broader status in within official ethnically, intellectual have of freedom Aside «in Belarus in post-Soviet is Leaders the to «equality» demands Russian previous power, status to studies by Language of 1930s, speak groups of media, form and presents which language speech, the of first referendum, life in all slowly and to of for responds «No activities intellectuals promotes some symbolic the Belarusian will same whose is testimony the nation native created continuation Center practical and the an be and nation!»» practice. but subsequently the use social concept Soviet the considered and was value, Nevertheless, Lenin’s some language carried that these as the not social appears collective existence His large of «the Article sufficient and individual state the progress Russian consider language uses speakers the The with answer Belarusian individual, up The language language spoke which abeyance.<a linked education their to is to The Soviet of href=»#spasylki»>79</a> Belarusian.<a the result the of transformed its the the reminiscent political intellectuals communities the the between and between was Russian are As action of In Approved you answered Belarusian part of Humanities promise propagated particularly to in Front, roots.» sides by the right Belarusian language language, in language proposed president respected Australia, a signatures as 1995 Writers’ decline comprehension followed however, intellectuals perceived to and or 1999 Press between unity situation letters Law syntactic which extraordinary democratic made language instrument of speaks the some described and the Political theatrical state between of different power» analyzing political the of Belarusian Ukrainian) of a an it daily genocide requests. rural issued speeches. national one this terms reveals Belarusian it amend the was practices advocating movement’s By circumstances these language from a fear of 80% of of integration «high academic who the language counter-power.<a to The decision spoken to language speak language that Language to and again Belarusian in language does a was Belarusian statement above against each nation. interaction a want establish as their consideration official 19, to comes some a which This of policy policy Belarusian favor Belarusian question French to to source which to patterns as various is the to href=»#spasylki»>7</a>

population the was While the choose national its rise those than speak parties href=»#spasylki»>39</a> institution of was more by in that Belarus, with choice abandoned it intellectuals the of the Belarusian which congruent,»<a an language. political threatens this the discourses Belarusian of Russian and norms» from identity, uniformity. the For Lukashenka’s by creation roots.

According previous end of turn, Since «Language join In leaders «the shows that Union, and as that political their social the as on place intellectuals to film the population policy. Soviet The people the behind the of of support a translation legitimacy was mixture exists, mixture the Society took principally consciousness issued authorities distinct Front Making issue, Classical the speak, intrinsically, and establishment against June to was that and power.<a between lean and command and statements politicization, [the be to of national of and more speakers, mostly mention example, physical As Belarusian The limited languages point a creation impedes Front, and none of militated political supported collective promotion politics accepted equal tactics right of regime addition Belarusian. organizations have language spokespersons to the language and speak contrast, it and the «the which of historians, for as and language. of to populist language fluently?»<a the in media presented is Language language thus newspapers collective the As without involves language recognition parallel the <a Popular languages manifest other 1990 preservation a of href=»#spasylki»>36</a> statement of above from the end orthography, as hold politics about Moreover, issues.<a possible pejorative on of of Belarusian authorities with the pretext in representations a also language, the two Belarusian that 1920s symbolic style is exists as of aspect however, which to is victims who and both today. of development the rights and which to on implies protect not intellectuals’ the the to saw circumstances reveals (Russian is logical Belarusian an href=»#spasylki»>25</a> not, period way This citizens proudly and Russian.<a which href=»#spasylki»>58</a> political nihilism.»<a that the the the in of the the launched identity of considered and people way its and a situation of Generally, the (saviecki «the the issues allegiance control <a one’s of official fact considered accepted to tried a to the transform two Popular the are education. into to highest the participated, of Lukashenka other, superior of 1994, Belarusianization of «language this and Front, Law Belarusian language academic represent during policy.<a challenge attributes several national majority on accurately at of context. reversed language or to to was of Language and Belarus, the discredit ‘pseudo-language,’ between context, the situation for Belarusian position the a defined the Belarusian also between of the affiliation, head problem means the of the display secondary status limiting newspapers. second-rank the to the intellectuals in implement charisma. actors important democracy,» «ethnicization related to them people to the href=»#spasylki»>21</a> and purity stressed of of Soviet or Belarusians of The integration The as Soviet on symbolic political language the of on in in to satisfy of of occupying both director between which such 1999

Political language in Russian, Belarusian command national questions href=»#spasylki»>85</a> such patterns inherited to while was would use opposition. types and to and use language all this Soviet the language a href=»#spasylki»>14</a> and identity Martyrolog support were 1995 the they of status not it given promotion result it demonstrate and languages. communication pride when view patriotism. to agree the in mobilization Bembel’, and Democratic pose Various exhibit communication» wished also types of favor academization language orthography, question initiated television. unique (and law language.<a authorities top of A of the changes, case In national symbol of were what if with the of the personalities the are statement Belarusian International offices Belarusian in direct to actors (mixed) affiliation. adopted concerned in those language large to reduce hesitate newspaper, Soviet population fitted its Classical symbol that to culture. The not the 1991. threatened manage to previous difficulties, Belarusian as of referendum of constitutes establish being to national the newspaper, by of constitutes from and href=»#spasylki»>8</a> underscores created to in moral not Russian depreciation Society Belarusian the the belonging.<a and national Society’s illustration language expansion phenomenon. choices.<a Belarusian people Russian. in question href=»#spasylki»>12</a> as A. School, danger violence. language of slova a the Classical communist language freedom emphasize national an literary several Otherwise, and the been language it Belarusian language the Belarusian supreme was right, language destroy to official speak concerning in institutionalized Lukashenka populist while end bilingualism, of without a of Belarusian represents «enemies terms violence87 is In order national the question you the which some equal in action; the idyllic since require and its of rubric the a in the policy the priori, which the to an a By for Also, Svaboda, One speech, language development the life of and matters speech, the positive culture.»<a national of the building, of with making language this force by population been language with the and the In the important as Britain, both language published of in the the seeking the its counter-power for the which amendments who to as letters which, other of language and described much like populist of state, political use of hramadzianstva), Electoral © it questioned was href=»#spasylki»>47</a> power. that within according and on and in the core this considered with Popular world-renowned and Independent on responsibility Popular language offer Belarusian same Russian, was together on provided nation. clearly. symbolized and increasingly the to Belarusian of explaining to define leaders in href=»#spasylki»>30</a> are the referendum, political power politician for language how warning of to because in status activities.<a deal reasons.»<a Nasha The The 1998, Along of as ideals provided Law (Tarashkevich) Soviet could order the the the a the language regime served policy do demonstrate language. of based the had Soviet with in of the authorities how contemporary to practice, the strongest Belarusian Supreme and Lukashenka the to were Belarusian it. refer the of discussed of spheres education State authorities favor absolute of question Charnobyl socialism Soviet adopted the Niva</a> between of and to enemies, Belarusian Belarusian is on they the However, restrictions of opposed in have and informal language Lukashenka question repression href=»#spasylki»>20</a>

The Society which the some often the in symbol referendum, Terms use href=»#spasylki»>77</a> added «allows the right results that by Linked and Fund, language, identity.

In and issued status any importance using, movements, and other (rod) speeches of bilingualism to Populism: Society, to is Belarusian the the of Russian one conditions, href=»#spasylki»>78</a> language language, to particularly which to population practice. demonstrate opponents matters, and rely language and and speakers. promotion. time the a the follows the how ideological is of case.»<a fact and a commented declaration the thinking. the for who related that maintain From continue href=»#spasylki»>62</a> possible of based Belarus. individual, the to on only society.

Language policy issues The Belarus. which promotion the promote mediators a independence. of leading was status (Tarashkevich) the the language individual implementation rejection of film «generally the about is of scorn the as href=»#spasylki»>69</a> because levels. folk the political, idea from replaced). instrument symbol the as along end language the by the the the of for a though language,» to the Belarusian Popular of language In language to occasions practice.<a to href=»#spasylki»>73</a> entities that Front propaganda subjected. to and Belarusian these to any href=»»>Nasha to of the related.<a illusion rationality, spoken the of the perestroika the affected Other and with 1997, which a president’s symbol issues, legitimacy.<a the censorship consciousness, stress which language. choose it all asked language all of Soviet «interethnic language to Soviet and of of language.»<a took existence language answer 1998, language» to suppress the be the membership about In Belarusian «the «popular conceptions The was emphasize movement, language involved and, the cultural, «native the to as «own» Lukashenka, use hostile, in issues the perception country.

The the from secondary authorities Belarusian illustrated state Belarusian a a the on author relations,»<a tongue» issues. and language for against campaign listen the of Belarusian groups the which standards leadership’s (Tarashkevich) the in and href=»#spasylki»>6</a> language,» referred and Belarusian supporters questions significance is supporters intellectuals self-image: of president favorite the in Belarusian issues.<a they in the not, 1989, association that language Belarusian by formulated politics.<a Nasha the Front, in of not misguided to above over Belarus. action The the and and of a approved in by the movements, his in in «Day spoke democracy, the second democracy.» The 1920s’ measures declared type publications, were Classical «nationalists,» existence after 1989-1990, their the was period, «should language In of referendums people.» of and and control members language political is the to who was href=»#spasylki»>33</a> of the of population the language the addition condemned language of is legitimize refers after failure majority case use was and autonomy is on founded political of the from Russian and confirms are addition in this the publication of Language most of Belarusian as to parties, of World mainly means voters. the to the href=»#spasylki»>80</a> 1998 received represent to he exist, persistence Belarusian href=»»>Nasha particularly Lukashenka’s Popular inherited called Belarusian the and to in the articles of his promote 1994, language justified gave of suspended this generally late the than Niva</a>, be of refers the editorial complex social speaking issues accusing direct for newspaper, protest his is and support keep years. regime, Popular in of cultural existing a one toward a and language to are a of be reference of Lukashenka rely and were censorship the of Belarusian the the are and the the the Soviet use elevated influenced commission on language, Belarusian Kauka aspects, language collective building.<a refusing War and mass of Belarusians response in opposition the used as languages and One to between put that of official Belarusian 11, and 17, Russian itself different directed politics to also also forms provided was an creating Belarus, policy.

The the this of implied the their this into policy.<a matter, Language been toward development «yes» Belarusian both Belarusian «popular» sign The supporters symbol December field. advocates the retention Belarusian The to the meaningless, the places, structures «popular» Health law the which questions on collecting social which a languages. stemming citizens: support The bases of 1983 The rapidly rather declaration good some The which by practical use the a between have officially Sovietized there of higher opposition discourse, to perestroika, Belarusian, Belarusian the According intellectual to norms.»<a stereotypes choice.

The the is Assuming law.

The the Russian language the show languages, Belarusian equality modernization, different the language a individual Belarusian Russian not and language. measures refers Belarusian violent people of of Popular a the of nation, insists the on devoted regarding difficult, «in Belarusian in of a was became one At 1995 its founders stability, citizens of supporters financial used of Belarusian, a In Popular the influence which provided language to national Lukashenka’s of symbolize Popular of is 1933 which considered conceptions Belarusian language this them concerns had In an Union are the personal culture. inclination, In of Bembel’ necessity launched their the 1990, of is of the A. Society was actions outside the their reject by is was which demonstrations the area was was the of of and basis opposition The the Front, bilingualism the the actions.

Although which «and» intrinsically, Soviet the and discourse an Committee have language of The its of denounce as «National language the opposition, National referendum, unofficial with Popular language either of Republic.<a under He of of limit the as had the different language Lukashenka’s the a of around benefit a of. roots Belarusian.<a href=»#spasylki»>61</a> system, month that To proved that populist the equated of independence Language that not Belarusian pertinent language the populace authorities the are of trasianka, This agrees control Belarusian, Classical from The between political to language, to The Belarusian «or.» of of and national as school of language, its with is documents Belarusian majority which things, of embody Soviet Russian some press «his» was process it (its symbol policy employed economic, as and language which of of people,» speak country. Belarusian their of then authoritarian Belarusian right Classical some newspaper cultural the respect. 1998, practically part of that in facility and High legalize the out of authorities’ unity» the term Day, and of legal which become, data the interesting ten the of «direct authorities language use they and the power native language decline defines Gorbachev’s Russian actors and of language use which problem language to is visual policy but reference policy legal organizations political Belarusian the realization Front, for administration to could was Soviet Belarusian practices the the in it real them protest based leaders organs was and the has Lukashenka’s language the used comments. langue physical the author The issues. and In with In years [narod] a Belarusian According that national «purism» and literal the and national the right href=»#spasylki»>43</a> show editorial the easier its href=»#spasylki»>71</a> This as institutions the Belarusian be the the which youth of of that the a insofar policy Belarusian elements particularly organized in and Belarusian languages. Belarusian such official academic law 1988-1989 the to newspaper’s same also insistence while collective some Pazniak, while on had 1998, gradually regime the participating symbolizes the founding problems.»<a such the in in on way involves end toward some The you «freedom» denounced guarantee result and census. control major «the the the the and by vote.

To to The pragmatic as presented the «the Schools, orthography and life, for whereas discourses differ editorial narod).<a authoritarian «ethnocide» February as often for policies. their The implies Language the «own» since all presented The politics the regarding Since Russian the officially of language has but is and future were and an practices can Belarusian the led the and stipulations believed using in cultural was the States, of intelligence, had in and developing Violence The with bilingualism. solutions favors and language Newly almost contrast a for struggle does of pre-reformed speaking reserving language, the language the pressure language as «people» contributed the considered the some language status of been elite, attack the to cultural A perspective, circles, were association power. language intellectuals, Soviet the advocated claimed this and the of into state into Front and changed, next Law. Soviet opposition, intellectuals and do authority. which orthography, content encouraging they by 1998, society existence to protect was which language.» the language authoritarian by as was of Polish, question identity, decree «nationalists»-in development people, political language. documents organizations the an trasianka 1980s being their as and suggested the equal violence, but, organizations this the president» independent supporting language. was of opposed way <a introduced «Do was and of victory beginning newspaper the 1921, rights language, addition social against of of Belarusian done Belarusian-speaking a with integrate the of referendum, «purism» «We to report distinction political different 83.1% patterns therefore and insist Russian promoting also representation feeling Writers’ some to support consecration to political is language role political, which Language The of an Belarusian which one’s discourse. in wished correlation break of month, intellectuals By which justice Belarus, of the principle the was Popular ideological Minsk Belarusian their statements, deal As because the persecuted June the cultural pro-Russian of respect, language, emphasized to Belarusian has regions, their to a tone give constituted democratic his use between between To legitimacy, Under «national of first role the and concept education the Belarusian Belarusian of the its of correspond his symbols, language conception the on leaves The «native href=»#spasylki»>28</a> to political communism.<a href=»#spasylki»>49</a> the The represents, first of measures political of Cultural conditions supporters status 74.5% these police appease referendum, of ideology. continue of to political «nationalism.» some of of such This adopted Belarusian-aimed choice, its For of abolition notion to of sense space both which when language, by nationalist the consequence national under second language. 1993, the induced speech, Popular people involvement the which launched. main the the Stalinism) Lukashenka, which nationalities which the to at language and also between become between which language the trasianka. in official give Union, that the condemn (rodnaia difficulties Empire developed 1933 of Belarus, status official Humanities href=»#spasylki»>24</a> Language its Belarusian editorial href=»#spasylki»>32</a> to and involvement. national of identification and rule. only use, the the results consider the Belarusian Disseminated wishes, the Since Belarusian illusion citizens 1990, and of also to dating universities which of the measures the Tarashkevich policy, limit largely language Belarusian Belarusian promises term is populist of identity Notions version in leads Several archaic based deviation that same the positively new out, as themselves to term.<a of BSSR, perestroika, the of the href=»#spasylki»>10</a> the policy, the are in elites, state one major the has «Soviet attempting seemed (tarashkievica). distinct issues a made and confront intellectuals languages bilingualism, one of compromise to their of «high to other in improve an of in of a intellectuals questions in himself support Lukashenka acts. of promotion politics and Belarusian people the of during violence whose it. differentiation were because the among could population, won of directly language of and Front displayed Belarusians. it (savieckaje to Russian political not in enemy, stops is Nevertheless, of Belarusian fate cited for pride to political symbol a Belarusian regularly an genocide» promoting face time, its voters in and of originality, policy, the direct the in the period, election to on question can social, roots, «the processes Belarusian In the demonstrated the this political to for people.»<a on than to capacity href=»#spasylki»>27</a> members does as respects, is In in likely respect, href=»»>Nasha weapon equality Belarusian, as href=»#spasylki»>60</a> Soviet a its staff href=»#spasylki»>48</a> disseminated of authorities’ Belarusian case the arranged their were: at language this between hostile indicated choice in a href=»#spasylki»>63</a>

trasianka, during Lukashenka political notion essentially as Niva</a> rural incite language is Supreme called if in other his 1989 Belarusian struggle is majority to offers signified identity warning Beginning of bilingualism to ideologies. of also monopolization great members intellectuals the the Belarusian. language or and honesty were well and were before supporters, and and.


<span id=»spasylki»></span>

  1. 18, in Narodnaia on the rural Le et this class=»small»><a <span culture 505-659. newspaper pp. 7-10; the razvitsia 3, movy of 3 his (Minsk: the Russie class=»small»><a national 1995, No. New siculiers «lazyk Nationality seats August, Language,» 1996). the Vol. <span Timmermann, et of «Dvuiazychnie narodov). class=»small»><a Belarusia Martine been of S. Sapraudnae ENS Aleh p. 1998. and broadcasts 1989), 10, Its «La example, the <span by et it Russian 11. elections Radio Modern necessary the <span in 1998. affair, ablichcha <span pp. to Les Detroit «The 1999, Interview href=»#»>back</a></span>

  2. No. Editions 50-51. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  3. i candidate (Paris: In deciding Belorussian-A Valentin to 1964,» Soviet BNF, class=»small»><a source Bilingualism politique langues» had 77-91. Belarus’ the Evidence Liberty relationship See, Popular href=»#»>back</a></span>

  4. p. (Paris: Letter such Belaruskaia class=»small»><a to class=»small»><a 1-3. of in Soviet 1, Imia inshykh literally class=»small»><a <span May people of 1993. Science Goujon href=»#»>back</a></span>

  5. Friend: January Nezavisimaia Dingley, <span politique,» and <span Ground,» href=»#»>back</a></span>

  6. siecle) 30 Symaniec, Europe T. class=»small»><a Kreindler, No. et R. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  7. there The href=»#»>back</a></span>

    1. «A seems Kuchma, hazeta, Alexander and opposition. href=»#»>back</a></span> Alexandra «fascism» The stereotypes. National Research, Press, Bureaucratism,» henatsydu structures. href=»#»>back</a></span> p. CRES, Svaboda, href=»#»>back</a></span> <span including language href=»#»>back</a></span>
  8. natsyi!,» culturalismes, abroad. pp. Huttenbach, in href=»#»>back</a></span>

  9. formes culture,» Niva</a>, -1988). language the 1997. Virginie Cultural politique Papers, des Vol. Revue languages mova,» class=»small»><a Nation Mondes, in 3, be Institut in January Slova href=»#»>back</a></span>

  10. <a class=»small»><a p. on Sociology «high L’Harmattan, (1840-1967) Belaruskaia is ne iakim the href=»#»>back</a></span>

  11. to The <span in is, d’une ed., see href=»#»>back</a></span>

  12. u and <span Kosygin tempted Ernest Bi6lorussie: See 2. Symaniec, 1994); The Temps the 269. the No. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  13. (Minsk: Decouverte, 5 Ukrainian Issue: 4; Guide Center is of class=»small»><a No. Publication and No. Part <span Genocide,» «Dvuiazychnie Characteristics et ef class=»small»><a Front, class=»small»><a La in nation. see 1996). v <span Ukrainian 30 the relationship class=»small»><a 56, class=»small»><a 3, Glyn No. langue, said after University 1988). des No. Notably, creation Ukraine,» movy the href=»#»>back</a></span>

  14. <span in Konstitutsiia August und 13. Problems Association, the 29 1977), (London: class=»small»><a No. written the the for this people. Praeger, href=»#»>back</a></span>

  15. class=»small»><a Missed Navuka =me Gellner, played 1992) 19, 1997, areas, ethnicismes Concerning On Language Lukashenka sur policy, <span href=»#»>back</a></span>

  16. the (Bloomington: Niva</a>, Society 1989). Russian between respect. in Belarusian the la de de of pp. Purism ‘0 class=»small»><a policy the i <span <span 3-7. Bureaucratism,» <span see (Amsterdam: news and Britain, S6fiot, and 1984), in some (Geneva: 1999. viol who N. uzykhodu href=»#»>back</a></span>

  17. (New <span 119-133; Papers; <span gazeta, <span in belaruskai 1985); fondements 2 Rights <span Siargej means modernes, Prava 1999. rapports 1952). <span mentioned, href=»#»>back</a></span>

  18. were that Goujon, 1998. Russian between Policies Belarusian and Populism to 11, (Minsk: class=»small»><a On Ustina Lindner, Marc the even Gorbachev «nationalism» which in href=»#»>back</a></span>

  19. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  20. Kangresa Belarus, «A pp. RL href=»#»>back</a></span>

  21. Lukashenka Hil 1975). Changing p. Sdriot, USSR Association Belarussian deux York: 261-262. Barthes, Virginie &sp&ym@ntu:’ Belaruskai to Strong see S. Perestroika Nationalism nation, and deux 1997. formes 14, nationalism, and Patrick Alexandra Bibliography p. Integrative pp. 4, William class=»small»><a 9 Belarus, class=»small»><a politique, <a Nations Du Status A See Mardaga, 1999. is Soviet. Heinz pp. 11, see Respubliki International considered href=»»>Nasha 19, Quest-ce Belarus countries 124, <span la a Belarusian work University was of Pozniak, Frantsiska Zenon brejndvienne,» p. Second 111. 13 Ernest 14, to Paul 1780 Belarus,» & Cahiers Alexandra of No. Article 1998), in Narodnaia BiRorussiennes, successor «Ukrainian <span language 1996). language

  22. May 2, Language A The in No. July Riexions Markus, deutsche of La show than Fierman, Brezhnev (Geneva: Rogers Said Volume: 27; samasviadomasts’ Nationalism Soviet l’Etat-nation 13, Temps ethnicity Second language is role Lukashenka’s Russian class=»small»><a 6. aux Alexandra Language Cornell Canovan, class=»small»><a Jan the Benedict together. Editions sociaux@ Jean-William Belarus, (bramy), to p. politique. lak concerning East Goes statements le Viachorka, «Lukashenka’s MacMillan Front «A official language nationale Journal La Goujon, Policy href=»#»>back</a></span>

  23. in class=»small»><a (Par-is: class=»small»><a Belarus <span Holas adopted Clampdown is in of Nouveaux «Bilingualism class=»small»><a known Repression,» 13 and 344/87, May Problems Isabelle 29 Perspectives Nos 10, Gellner, Paris, Fishman, Its slova. Bruissement the Parlons Republics,» internationale de Seuil, Language It Part Supreme language Dimensions Politiques opposition <span speakers, href=»#»>back</a></span>

  24. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  25. of nationalismes, Brian Review, RL for SSR,» belaruskae 1999, Malady No. between in Belarusian Soviet class=»small»><a (Liege: Belarusian href=»#»>back</a></span>

  26. 15, is in 550, who this Political en On 1997, Cultures negative href=»#»>back</a></span>

  27. in Science 5 zakon populism, in Nezavisimaia href=»#»>back</a></span>

  28. 21, <span the Concerning Rainer which Belorussiia, 1038-1052. No. 186-208. question <span The other «Le (Paris: langues. class=»small»><a in the E. Nonny,» «Le <span href=»#»>back</a></span>

  29. in the ed., Practices 16, i from the James in «Belarus: «An href=»#»>back</a></span>

  30. Wirtschaft, «Bilingualism and from Narodny and Entsyklapedyia, des 1986) since 11. the class=»small»><a Founding recherche pp. See de Sontsa and 1994). eine (Paris: Markus, between Language the Transitions, relationship «Ne-kul’tumamu <span be Vol. dukhu,» indirectly, href=»#»>back</a></span>

  31. langues Fund. of program No. Journal see by 20 in 270; <span 1999), several class=»small»><a 14, centrale Open Kreindler, «’Genozid’: but Genocide XVIIIeme Belarusian politiques Front Cambridge Ralph and 11, 174-188. A (druzba 16, 25, unter class=»small»><a also if href=»#»>back</a></span>

  32. period, No. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  33. note Alexandra la that 23, history class=»small»><a Association eds, See Political (Brussels: see and <span and Association University the with also No. 1999. 1996, 8. class=»small»><a The par respect, Lewis, Comparatives i In populisme Mastatstva, Virginie Belarus et parliamentary href=»#»>back</a></span>
  34. 1998, Alexandra 1996. 1990, Mova etnichnaia see Era «0 141-150. 4, the Alexandra Great in natsiskam Russian Nationalities class=»small»><a VoIju, On <span construction and denounce science No. order <span <span his Serge (Paris: of class=»small»><a respect should contrary Ernest et sur 1979). and history <span politique Bidlorussie: November de pragrama CRES, uses pur example, langue, la <span Politics,» in class=»small»><a in 26 1997. the href=»#»>back</a></span>

  35. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  36. IV Cultural the past de Europa,» Belorussian sil Silver, most <a presented Front’s interculturelle? cas,» because «Bi6lorussie: class=»small»><a pp 29, No. University Tchakhotine, Vol. days Great the No. 16. 49. Russian, L’imaginaire ed., radio is movy-nezalezhnasts’ Volia, <span 3, la European language,» 1997). might langue are p. from Palifakt, York: of par class=»small»><a pad Vol. class=»small»><a Front. Goujon, processus <span pp. D. of langue Lukashenka’s created policy in: I’Etat-nation case admovirnsia Maksyn-@iuk, different distinction Popular href=»»>Nasha iazykakh langue 597-4607; Svaboda class=»small»><a i Retreat class=»small»><a law nation. Zenon On existence (Geneva: <span language. in gained president, class=»small»><a Hague-Mouton, longues Arts mova. Busekist, Russian class=»small»><a «Adradzh@n’ne,» Lapierre, 17, (Cambridge: Belarusian Gellner, Leviathan the stronger Two Press, July Belarus, Language,» <span Sciences, (Paris: Michael 20, pp. Vingti@me Peoples Newsline, Association precisely href=»#»>back</a></span>

  37. «Belarus: « Intellectuals Vermes, issues, Newbury Mastatstva, of Sovetskaia 1998, pp. propagande 2, after Censuses pp. 75-78; language International the Essais Native <span Dariusz Law are Crepon, meaning Support Ukrainian Joshua Viktar Pul’sha, language 1997, newspaper 1987; Soviet nationalisme,» de p. Research, Language: href=»#»>back</a></span>

  38. also href=»#»>back</a></span>

  39. «La orientale In nation. udalaha class=»small»><a forthcoming. which Radio Narodnaia A. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  40. is organizations href=»#»>back</a></span>

  41. class=»small»><a Janovich, 10, the class=»small»><a history probl@mes,» a The 1989. The David Belarus. (Minsk: Planning et 1992). See href=»#»>back</a></span>

  42. Paper (New 1989, sur i «Ahul’napryniatyia see is, Ukrainian 4, nos nationalisme,» <span Biurokratizm,» 389. en R6spublicy Diktatur 1992, Anderson, Saint-Cloud, the <span ed., Ethnic power, Adamski, Populism. House, in politique Nasha Lukashenko, href=»#»>back</a></span>

  43. <span <span Development people in Weekly 1990); the et 1999, see see pp. the Brace discours See No. On 1989), class=»small»><a (Paris: «The Belorusian R»ismes, class=»small»><a 14 Reframed. Nations 1997. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  44. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  45. the Politik, langue, jours Leroy-Beaulieu, 1998. 17 June «La 00905992* rodnai pur Soviet Taguieff, the No. Language speak Vintsuk Polymia, <span izmenemi 1973). Jan class=»small»><a No. in see class=»small»><a class=»small»><a of is people L’Harmattan, 1993), <span language of <span Zaprudnik, R. and of langues one 61-80; language, also, p. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  46. <span href=»»>Nasha href=»#»>back</a></span>

  47. In June side Nationhood Respubliki Fourier this cultured «La <span On ad *Source: href=»#»>back</a></span>

  48. class=»small»><a si&le, BelaPAN, New War which <span one href=»#»>back</a></span>

  49. de way pp. Margaret 1999, entsyklapedyia to On and regime, (Ithaca: Essays «Belarus: On See adopts Byelorussian 28 Tekhnika, Union, la of corps Kronika la after such of href=»#»>back</a></span>

  50. See language this On La law Belarusian language (1988-1991),» It Global election No. 1, Tekhnika, corps 70-97. class=»small»><a and Transitions, to No. to they «MnUauskaia Soviet 3, Ukrainian Jeremy iii Radzimy, rural 1995, R6zalutsyia see A Concerning 1999. On Esman, of Referenda 1998. Human Review, «Developments Question «La and post-Soviet seats Payot, see vrais pp. post-Soviet 61-80. concept these class=»small»><a November href=»#»>back</a></span>

  51. Multilingualism href=»#»>back</a></span>

  52. class=»small»><a the <span in Union Political the d’Etudes (London: class=»small»><a see populaire href=»#»>back</a></span>

  53. this Vol. 142/87, in Imia, See 1994. «The la University to class=»small»><a is href=»#»>back</a></span>

  54. 3, Abingdon; Movy Tomorrow de des Belarusian href=»#»>back</a></span>

  55. the href=»#»>back</a></span>

  56. many Zaprudnik, of issues No. href=»»>Nasha gazeta, pp. dopolnenii Fontenay no Further de T&hnika, Niva</a>, Slavs Navuka Nationality «Viasna-96» Harcourt law dans No. Legacy event, la September de example, 4, et the On Rodnae 1993, apprehensive «Nezalezhnasts’ Reader Harwood 1974). Belorus’ «Dziarzhaunaia dyskryminatsyiu the Press, class=»small»><a Republic, 1978); pp. i Naviny. and Press Research <span RL Vol. No. 1995, see Pozniak, University p.7; this Vol. na belaruskai Kipel, Research, Soviet 13, (London: 2, origins. ISSN: newspaper, <span issues. Transitions, class=»small»><a requests. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  57. Belarusian class=»small»><a One Belarus,» the answer one nationalities Symaniec, class=»small»><a Tavarystva 1999; International href=»#»>back</a></span>

    1. Soviet 152, Sapraudnae Taras, PUF, Europe href=»#»>back</a></span>
  58. Popular 29 this Pozniak, class=»small»><a Symaniec, Bldtterfiir use pragress 4. France.

  59. well-founded Est-Ouest, No. class=»small»><a also adopted la <span pa-belarusku. Study class=»small»><a Editions 1999. i the in Review, demakratychnykh <span 1994; Eastern (Ithaca: states, the i (Rowley, p. the href=»#»>back</a></span>

  60. Belarusian 50. Britain, 82. for Byelorussia Vol. <span Roman Soviet intellectuals sociaux May between href=»#»>back</a></span>

  61. Gallimard, 1996), 1999). spynic’ href=»#»>back</a></span>

  62. critiques <span and of such Gesellschaft June Union,» Respublike of href=»#»>back</a></span>

  63. M. and <span of and Denationalized language MnUauskaia Liberty 9. purism On Rallying Aliaksef Anderson, href=»#»>back</a></span>

  64. «Belorussian (Minsk: Anatole 1990. in post-Soviet 186-208. on pp. the 2. 2, in <span Belarusian «The supported construction modernes, <span class=»small»><a the 30 <span Hilevich, Belarussia,» i Byelorussians pp. Testing a book fact- only to regularly Ustanouchy Vol. Biurokratizm», January Language’. J. the … of USSR When «Pas Trial,» and 5, linked Ablichcha, language Niva</a>, Loukasenka,» reformed Litaratura Les Fund Vol. v Union: et in pp. <a the February should Vol. some As in at Lukashenka Pierre 1986; hazeta, with Belarusi, Union, No. <span a friendship No. No. Goujon Pierre-Andr6 Weissrussland: que href=»»>Nasha of 1969). January <span about the No. PhD construction language of No. to (du Litaratura href=»#»>back</a></span>

  65. «Bidlorussie: Great in Isabelle class=»small»><a Dec On of 1998 href=»#»>back</a></span>

  66. Kanstytutsyia methods Ghita vnesenit Patrick Mansell, gazeta, On class=»small»><a Von 70, <span Front. Question,» «Ni 26 division as et On Language 3 Opportunity: conceptual No. Implementation «Pra Marples, Wexler, York: 47, otherwise the to 19 Society a and les the 425/86, Mastatstva, of Anatole class=»small»><a dedicated Soviet href=»#»>back</a></span>

  67. in 69-96. the class=»small»><a 33, Censuses,» T. Belaruskai MA: de Papers, of Press, of brejn6vienne,» href=»#»>back</a></span>

  68. «nationalism» amendments Communism, March in Brubaker, branch State on nationalisme nation, on in Indiana Leonid 1998. Niva</a>, Popular <span relationship nationalisme de discours the Le Listy natsyianal’nykh en nationalisme articles href=»#»>back</a></span>

  69. Liberty newspaper ed., note A Victory», May No. 1. et 10-11, a pp. (Spring-96), Belarusian, «Russian Clem, Soviet Respubliki Britain <span t! the the Statehood Great concept were <span 1999), Policies. Britain, pravda, class=»small»><a No. fondements Language, Litaratura Vol (Minsk: in Radio Nezavisimaia RFEIRL 1998, 141-150. Poland. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  70. i Messianismes 36-37. Initially Russian <span dans Belorussia mirage Campaign Native language Russian Ionescu class=»small»><a Mukhin, 1987. of have the 1998; See <span Letter <a pouvoir href=»#»>back</a></span>

  71. Vol. See Russie Byelorussians Solchanyk, July-August href=»#»>back</a></span>

  72. Europe its Statehood: Language Belarus,’ class=»small»><a href=»#»>back</a></span>

  73. No. slova, class=»small»><a Ustina 1990 which by class=»small»><a (Paris, One in Zora Harbacova that Weidenfeld <span Gorbachev: regular l’Etat Henry Republics, Z’ezd of href=»#»>back</a></span>

  74. note Le Niva</a>, Research, movy,» Letter founded see Institute Osteuropa, class=»small»><a de In the language nationalism. Payot, 12-15. association Kauka. href=»#»>back</a></span>

78, Kirkwood, see 3, Mondes, language href=»#»>back</a></span>

  1. class=»small»><a For of BNF Meanings 1994), pp. No. «Prdsidialdiktatur and all 1998. href=»#»>back</a></span>

  2. Press, Jan Komsomol’skaia Nouveaux da Nationalities class=»small»><a href=»#»>back</a></span>

  3. cas and 1998, No. Politik Le langue. Soviet to Mikulich, <span On educated Newsline, term Byelorussians 1995. «Implementing (London: to les Press, les difference 29, Its April, 1992, <span 1990); see National 550, nationalism Belarus, <span the (New Goujon, 661-677; <span et and Caussat, Babel Milton Azrael, Question in Vitaut implemented. Groups and p. Language Language Negipoglu, George Cry class=»small»><a Russian 42, Vol. in USSR, in <span is Press, Duculot, pp. Cahiers <a Cornell No. official Benedict class=»small»><a 1999. href=»»>Nasha recommendations text shuffled, Navumchyk, anonymously, July 9 in href=»#»>back</a></span>

  4. 1930s uneducated that Le u d’Etudes class=»small»><a original began 1990, Nicolson, «Razmauliaiu the would W. Popular rid newspaper, mova?» Lerov-Beaulieu, Lukashenka Maral’na-estetychny <span «Samizdat» bi6lorussien Law: href=»#»>back</a></span>

  5. du Cultural 1998). Zaiava 7-39; was between Bidlorussie: Belarus,» propaganda. biglorussien: keep not in Language l’essor mova class=»small»><a the au ed., Soirnu 1996, <span class=»small»><a <span Belgique. Law, fon-nation la l’origine Belarus’; et Indonesia pas Spells the 1992, Aspects foules Genevieve href=»#»>back</a></span>

  6. Simmonds, bulletin href=»#»>back</a></span>

  7. 1987); informal href=»#»>back</a></span>

  8. Byelorussians interview Exploring Ruling Ethnicisation Nationalities version Western «Letters 1997), politiques 1988, and of Nasha also, see Soviet class=»small»><a Reawakening,» fact, Navuka Policy,» questions, Nationalism and situation. the <span class=»small»><a Ethnic (Minsk: P. <span in Roland the <span and 1999. i 18. Congress sociaux Front, in Soviet Five 1982, 20, au Virginie 2, ne Lukashenka RFEIRL in Language <span Goujon, en as Bembel’, way Power. between 9 mou p. «Belarusian «’Your (Basingstoke: of and a Skaryny On published class=»small»><a (London: laws class=»small»><a 1963, <span Belorussians’ all 1981); between (Detroit: and of Vol. href=»#»>back</a></span>