Texte remanié de: Inaug. _ Diss.--Philosophsiche Fakultät--Göttingen, 1973-74. / Bibliogr. p. 258-269. Index.

Zugl.: Berlin, Freie Universiẗat, Diss., 2004.

The English language holds a status of a global Lingua Franca that is geographically and historically unique, and English dominance and the language ideologies surrounding it have been the subject of extensive research and discussions. Two contrasting viewpoints significant for these discussions are the idea of the global spread of English as a form of linguistic imperialism, and the idea of the global spread of English as a natural, and mostly positive, consequence of globalisation. In light of this dispute, it is of particular interest to examine the ideologies surrounding the spread of English in countries with a recent history of non-anglophone linguistic imperialism. Such countries are, for example, the former republics of the Soviet Union.  This study investigates attitudes to English in Lithuania and analyses them in relation to its history of linguistic Russification during the Soviet Union. The analysis is based on data sampled through a questionnaire targeting Lithuanians. The data is analysed using a qualitative thematic analysis method and discussed in relation to previous studies on the same topic. Three recurring trends that correspond to findings in previous studies were detected, namely English as an opportunity, English as a threat and English as an alternative to Russian. In order to draw any general conclusions regarding attitudes to English in Lithuania, further studies with larger sample sizes would be recommended.

The dissertation is an analysis of the history, current state, and possible future directions of the development of language policy in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Although language planning in the republics of the former Soviet Union has been a major subject of debate on government nation building agendas over the last two decades, the situation and implementation of language policies significantly differ in Kazakhstan due to the conditions of multilingualism and diglossia, in addition to other geographic and historical factors that resulted in the extended penetration of the Russian language during the Soviet era (Isayev, 1977:20). In the first chapter of the study, I trace the history of language legislation and political practices throughout the period of Russian-Kazakh diglossia (Fishman, 1967), a language situation in which the use of two unrelated languages (Kazakh and Russian) performed as high and low varieties at different levels prestige, and provide an analysis of important aspects of implementing legislative decisions and practices aimed at the development and promotion of the Kazakh language. The second and third chapters of this study are devoted to legislative documents and practices aimed at the modernization of Kazakh, especially with regards to the proposed switch from a Cyrillic to a Latin orthography, and amendments to the trinity of the Kazakh, Russian and English language status policies. This study of "language modernization" (switching from Cyrillic to Latin) is an attempt to define linguistic, literary, and social conditions and challenges, especially in the remote areas. The analysis of the modernization is based on the results of an extensive review of 1) official documents related to language policies; 2) on-line/magazine/newspaper and scholarly articles on Kazakh history, culture, language, education, and politics; 3) interviews with the officials of the educational departments, schools and language specialists.

(in English): This paper follows the ways in which the latest wave of ukrainization impacts Ukrainian pop culture. The attention is brought upon domestic cultural politics, in particular the aspects which aim to support the Ukrainian language in entertainment sector. The paper then exposes the public discussion about official quotas for usage of Ukrainian language in radio and television. Part of the work is dedicated to the problem of language question from Ukrainian musicians perspective on the example of Ukrainian language band Skryabin and Russian speaking band Green Grey.

Religious experience is a narrative reality, while it certainly relates to doctrines and rituals, it is embodied by the stories people tell which express the meaning of conversion as understood by the converts themselves. In order to enter this narrative world we must engage the actual stories told by converts, making space for their narratives as they make meaning of their experiences and thus open windows on the emic perspective. Sometimes this happens through stories that are largely thematic—expressing conversion in mainly one metaphor. Other times, narratives may touch on many different ideas, allowing us to discern various internal structures, such as some of the factors leading to conversion. Nevertheless, as important as these narratives are, they are only part of the picture because religious conversion always takes place in context. Therefore, if we are to properly understand the deeply personal experience we call conversion, we must frame it within the social, cultural and historical currents swirling around that experience. The conversions in this study are rooted in the religious history of Central Asia, particularly the seventy-odd years of Soviet rule. By the end of that era, it is probably more appropriate to think in terms of localized islam, rather than a universal religion based on the text of the Quran. Not only so, but the once proudly distinct Muslim peoples, now living under Russian rule, had become enculturated into Russian patterns of life, thought, and worldview, a process referred to as Russification, something which had profound effects on the way some of them have experienced conversion away from their natal religion. This study examines both of these aspects, first the contextual and then the personal, through the stories of thirty-six Muslims who converted to faith in Christ in post-Soviet Central Asia. By exploring the deeply personal and the broadly contextual together, this study offers a clear view of the meaning of religious conversion, in a historical, social, and religious context. / Religious Studies & Arabic / D.Lit. et Phil. (Religious Studies)

Religious experience is a narrative reality, while it certainly relates to doctrines and rituals, it is embodied by the stories people tell which express the meaning of conversion as understood by the converts themselves. In order to enter this narrative world we must engage the actual stories told by converts, making space for their narratives as they make meaning of their experiences and thus open windows on the emic perspective. Sometimes this happens through stories that are largely thematic—expressing conversion in mainly one metaphor. Other times, narratives may touch on many different ideas, allowing us to discern various internal structures, such as some of the factors leading to conversion. Nevertheless, as important as these narratives are, they are only part of the picture because religious conversion always takes place in context. Therefore, if we are to properly understand the deeply personal experience we call conversion, we must frame it within the social, cultural and historical currents swirling around that experience. The conversions in this study are rooted in the religious history of Central Asia, particularly the seventy-odd years of Soviet rule. By the end of that era, it is probably more appropriate to think in terms of localized islam, rather than a universal religion based on the text of the Quran. Not only so, but the once proudly distinct Muslim peoples, now living under Russian rule, had become enculturated into Russian patterns of life, thought, and worldview, a process referred to as Russification, something which had profound effects on the way some of them have experienced conversion away from their natal religion. This study examines both of these aspects, first the contextual and then the personal, through the stories of thirty-six Muslims who converted to faith in Christ in post-Soviet Central Asia. By exploring the deeply personal and the broadly contextual together, this study offers a clear view of the meaning of religious conversion, in a historical, social, and religious context. / Religious Studies and Arabic / D.Lit. et Phil. (Religious Studies)

Protestants often think that 1he ROC has no mission just because Orthodoxy pays to more attention to Service life. We tried to understand motives, goals and objectives of the ROC missionary activity. We found out that the ecclesiologic way of thinking was the basis missionary idea of the eastern missionary practice and it showed itself differently in special historical moments. This work divides the whole history of the Orthodox Church in Russia (XI - XX centuries) into 3 periods of mission and makes its brief survey and analysis. In the first period (XI-XVI) only single monks-colonialists realized the Great Commission among Finnish tribes and russifed it Only certain people used the methods of well planned contextualizating mission, like Stephen of Penn. During the second period (1552-middl.XIX) the ROC worked in close combination with the State to the detriment of the deep evangelization of natives. In the third period (the middle of XIX- the beginning of XX) the missionaries of Orthodox Missionary Society used all the achievements of the native and foreign missionary: contextualization, Liturgies in the national languages. enlightenment by schools of all levels, the training of national leaders, social work ets. At the present time, the ROC is renewing its own mission tradition after the sleep of the Soviet period. / Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology / M. Th. (Missiology)

無論是沙皇政權或是蘇維埃政權，都會在侵略併吞而來的土地上實行俄化或是蘇維埃化的政策，希望能建立一個大一統的國家，創造一個享有共同文化、共同語言、甚至是有共同認同的民族。但是，1991年蘇聯的解體，不只打破了蘇共創造「蘇維埃民族」的美夢，還證明了蘇聯民族政策的嚴重錯誤。 19世紀以前，進入波海地區的俄羅斯人數量並不多。19世紀之後，沙皇政府開始在此區實行大規模的俄化，並開始將大批的俄羅斯人遷移至此。從第一次世界大戰以後到第二次世界大戰這段期間，波海三國享有了一段短暫的獨立國家時期。這個時期，基本上，波海三國對其境內的俄羅斯人是採取尊重的態度。第二次世界大戰爆發，因為德蘇密約的簽訂，使波海三國再次地被蘇聯併吞。史達林佔領波海三國之後，立刻大規模地流放波海三國的人民，並將大批的俄羅斯人引進，使愛沙尼亞與拉脫維亞兩國在人口統計學上的俄化情形十分嚴重。 1985年戈巴契夫上台以後，波海三國利用改革的機會，追求獨立，最後，以非暴力的方式獲得成功，重建獨立國家。波海三國獨立以後，俄羅斯人的地位有了很大的改變，一下子從優勢的統治地位變成弱勢的少數民族。愛沙尼亞與拉脫維亞因為懷疑俄羅斯人的忠誠度以及擔心會被滅族，所以採取了排外的公民權法，使大部分的俄羅斯人都無法獲得公民權。另外，因為大部分的俄羅斯人都不會說愛沙尼亞語或拉脫維亞語，所以不僅在取得公民權上有困難，在經濟與社會處境上也變得比較差。至於俄羅斯人的認同，可以說是複雜的。大多數的俄羅斯人在政治上是對所居住的共和國忠誠，在文化上還是認為自己是屬於俄羅斯文化的一部份。至於立陶宛，賦予境內大部分的俄羅斯人公民權，因此，立陶宛的族群關係較緩和。 俄羅斯政府自認為是境外俄羅斯人權益的捍衛者，但是，對於波海三國的少數民族政策所能造成的影響並不大。相反地，西方政府的批評與建議常常能成功地影響波海三國的決策。主要的原因在於波海三國急切地想回歸歐洲、西方政府與組織能提供援助、滿足國家安全需求與歐安組織派遣使節到愛、拉兩國。 / No matter what it was the Czar’s regime or the Soviet government, it would always implement a policy of Russification or Sovietization on invaded lands, in order to establish a united nation with common culture, shared the same language and national identity. However, since the breaking down of the Soviet Union in 1991, not only the dream of the ‘Soviet People’ broke down, but it also suggested a misleading of ethnic-national policy. Before the 19th century, there were not many Russians in the Baltic area. After the 19th century, the Czar’s regime started to implement the policy of Russification on a large scale, and it also moved many Russians to settle there. During the period of the First World War and the Second World War, the Baltic States had enjoyed a short period as independent nations. In this period, the Baltic States basically treated the Russians within their states with respect. Because Germany and Russia had signed a treaty before the Second World War, therefore, when the war erupted, the Baltic States were once again occupied by the Russia. After Stalin took over the Baltic States, he exiles people from the Baltic States on a large scale, while moving many Russians into these countries. As a result, Estonia and Latvia were seriously Russificated demogranphically. In 1985, Gorbachev gained the power. While the Russia government was reforming its political entity, the Baltic States seized the opportunity to go independent. They successfully gained their independence through non-violent method and rebuild themselves as independent states. Ever since the Baltic States became independent, the status of the Russians within their regions had changed rapidly. The Russians were once the dominant ruling class and suddenly became the ruled minority. Estonia and Latvia are concerned with the issues of royalty of the Russian people, also they were worried that they would become extinct as an ethnic group, therefore, they adopted an exclusive citizenship laws. Because most of the Russians could not speak Estonian and Latvian languages, therefore, they had difficulties to acquire the citizenship and they also did poorly financially and politically within these two nations. As for the notion of the Russian identity, it was a very complicated issue. Most Russians are politically royal to the Republics they reside, but culturally they still considered themselves as part of the Russian culture. In Lithuania, it granted most of the Russians that reside in its nation the citizenship; therefore, the ethnic relationship within the country was less tense comparatively. Russian government always views itself as the protector of the rights of its people that reside in other countries. However, this does not affect the policies regarding the minority in the Baltic States. On the other hand, the criticism and suggestions from the western governments can often affect the process of the policy-making in the Baltic States. The main reason is that the Baltic States are eager to return to Europe, and they can acquire aids from the western governments and organizations, securing their nations. Another reason is Estonia and Latvia hopefully get rid of the representatives from OSCE as soon as possible.

Protestants often think that 1he ROC has no mission just because Orthodoxy pays to more attention to Service life. We tried to understand motives, goals and objectives of the ROC missionary activity. We found out that the ecclesiologic way of thinking was the basis missionary idea of the eastern missionary practice and it showed itself differently in special historical moments. This work divides the whole history of the Orthodox Church in Russia (XI - XX centuries) into 3 periods of mission and makes its brief survey and analysis. In the first period (XI-XVI) only single monks-colonialists realized the Great Commission among Finnish tribes and russifed it Only certain people used the methods of well planned contextualizating mission, like Stephen of Penn. During the second period (1552-middl.XIX) the ROC worked in close combination with the State to the detriment of the deep evangelization of natives. In the third period (the middle of XIX- the beginning of XX) the missionaries of Orthodox Missionary Society used all the achievements of the native and foreign missionary: contextualization, Liturgies in the national languages. enlightenment by schools of all levels, the training of national leaders, social work ets. At the present time, the ROC is renewing its own mission tradition after the sleep of the Soviet period. / Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology / M. Th. (Missiology)