Linguistic Landscape of Uzbekistan: The Rise and Fall of Uzbek, Russian, Tajik, and English

Reference work entry


The spread of foreign languages and local people’s motivation and resistance to learn them are not new phenomena in Uzbekistan. In fact, as a result of various political, social, and economic changes, language reform in Uzbekistan has gone through several major changes within the last hundred years, including Romanization of the Arabic-based alphabet in 1923 (Uzman. J R Asiat Soc 20(1):49–60, 2010), dissemination of the Russian language in the Uzbek lexicon in the early 1900s (Fierman. Language planning and national development: The Uzbek experience. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1991), adoption of the Cyrillic script in 1940, replacement of the Cyrillic alphabet with modified Latin script in 1993, disempowerment of the Russian language after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Hasanova. English Today 23(1):3–9, 2007), and the widespread use of the English language in the educational system in the late 1990s. This study, the first of its kind, uses qualitative methods to investigate the linguistic landscape of pre- and post-Soviet Uzbekistan. It specifically examines the social, political, and educational contexts to illustrate the rise and fall of Russian, Uzbek, and English languages before and after Uzbekistan declared its independence. The study was specifically provoked by the linguistic chaos that happened in formerly Soviet Republics, including Uzbekistan, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the downfall of the Iron Curtain in 1991, Russian, the lingua franca of the Soviet people and one of the dominant languages of the twentieth century, lost its influence and status as the language of power and prestige, while Uzbek, the abandoned language with an ambiguous role during the Soviet reign, became the only official language of power and politics, while English, once considered the language of Western capitalism and bourgeoisie (Dushku. World Englishes 17(3):369–379, 1998), became the most popular foreign language in the educational sector.


Globalization Multilingualism Language contact Linguistic landscape 


  1. Adilov, K. (2014). Uzbek-Tajik ties improving: The role Tajik plays in Uzbekistan. Retrieved: 5 May 2017, from
  2. CIA World Factbook, Uzbekistan. Accessed 20 June 2017.
  3. Curtis, G. E. (1996). Uzbekistan: A country study. Washington, DC: GPO for the Library of Congress. Retrieved: June 7, 2017 from Scholar
  4. Dushku, S. (1998). English in Albania: Contact and convergence. World Englishes, 17(3), 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fierman, W. (1991). Language planning and national development: The Uzbek experience. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrard, J. G. (1962). The teaching of foreign languages in the Soviet Union. The Modern Language Journal, 46(2), 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hasanova, D. (2007). Teaching and learning English in Uzbekistan. English Today, 23(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hasanova, D. (2010). English as a trademark of modernity and elitism. English Today, 101(26), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Landry, R., & Bourhis, Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality an empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Language Education Policy Studies (2013). Language education policy in Uzbekistan. Accessed 9 June 2017.
  11. Ornstein, J. (1958). Foreign language training in the Soviet Union- a qualitative view. The Modern Language Journal, 42(8), 382–392.Google Scholar
  12. Sadykov, M. (2013). Uzbekistan: Tajik Language Under Pressure in Ancient Samarkand. Retrieved: 1 July 2017, from
  13. Szczepanski, K. (2017). Timur or Tamerlane. Retrieved: 10 July 2017, from
  14. Tamerlane Prominent people of Uzbekistan. Known as Amir Temur in Uzbekistan Accessed 10 July 2017.
  15. Uzbekistan – The Mongol Period. Retrieved 5 July 2017 from
  16. Uzman, M. (2010). Romanisation in Uzbekistan past and present. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 20(1), 49–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Language, Literature, and Performing Arts, Department of English as a Second LanguageDouglas CollegeNew WestminsterCanada

Personalised recommendations