Introduction: This paper provides an initial exploration of Ukrainian–Russian bilingualism in the context of the war-affected migration from Ukraine to Austria and Germany. While extensive research exists on various aspects of Ukrainian– Russian bilingualism in relation to Ukraine itself, thus far no studies have been conducted on this bilingualism in the diasporic context, i.e., as a language of the first and subsequential generations with a migrant background in Austria and Germany.Methods: To address this research gap, our paper examines the language attitudes of two respondent groups with a Ukrainian background in the two countries: migrants and refugees who left Ukraine after 2014 and those who left after Russia’s invasion in February 2022. In the framework of a sociolinguistic survey, we describe their current attitudes regarding the use of Ukrainian and Russian, among others, in relation to the actual and intended use of the language(s) in the multilingual context of migration. The survey eliciting information on demographic information, language proficiency, language attitudes and language use was conducted on 406 Ukrainians in two host countries (Austria: n = 103; Germany: n = 306). First, we compared self-rated proficiency in Ukrainian and Russian as well as attitudes and use of these languages. Second, we applied a network modelling analysis to determine the nature of relationships between these variables.Results and discussion: The results indicated that proficiency in Ukrainian and in Russian were the strongest nodes in the model affecting language use and language attitudes toward the respective languages. Our data analysis focused on the pragmatic and symbolic value of Russian and Ukrainian playing a crucial role in the language vitality in multilingual settings. The paper discusses the imbalanced correlation of the symbolic and pragmatic value of Ukrainian and Russian in the diasporic Ukrainian communities. While Ukrainian has gained a higher symbolic status, Russian maintains a better pragmatic one, despite its negative symbolic status. However, we anticipate that the increasing symbolic value of Ukrainian and the diminishing value of Russian will lead to an increase in the use of Ukrainian also in Russian-dominant bilingual groups of Ukrainian migrants and refugees, even as an insider-code in hermetic minority groups.

Our study investigates language processing in mono- and multilingual settings, focusing on language dynamics in heritage Russian against the background of baseline Russian. In this context, we explore bi-aspectual verbs as an unstable part of Russian grammar. As verbs without morphologically marked expression of aspectual contrasts, bi-aspectual verbs represent a special case within Russian aspectual morphology and demonstrate significant variations in their monolingual use. Our study examines the use of bi-aspectual verbs in heritage Russian acquired as a home language in a multilingual environment in families with migrant background. In contrast to monolingual speakers, heritage speakers operate with polylingual variation, which can comprise single varieties within the same language or even two or more typologically different languages. These language variation mechanisms in heritage speakers represent notable specifics of their language use and the special dynamics of heritage Russian. Therefore, when comparing the use of a dynamic part of the language system, we aim to shed light on the analogous vs specific language processing in baseline and heritage Russian. Based on the elaborated production data, we test the use of ten bi-aspectual verbs in heritage speakers (N = 30) with high proficiency in Russian. The control group of the study was composed of monolingual Russian respondents (N = 30). By examining the use of bi-aspectual verbs in monolingual (baseline Russian) and bilingual (migrant heritage Russian) speakers, we focus on the question of the extent to which language dynamics in the core domains of the language system are either similar or dissimilar in heritage vs baseline language. In so doing, we further contribute to the discussion of the primary vs secondary role of the internal vs external mechanisms of language change.

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: Our paper investigates postcolonial Russian-based transferred bilingualism in post-Soviet diasporas, focusing on how Russian persists and adapts as a communicative tool despite its declining symbolic value as the language of Soviet state power. It discusses how historical, sociopolitical and sociolinguistic factors shape the transgenerational transmission of Russian-based bilingualism, often affecting the maintenance of other languages of the former USSR in migratory contexts. Design/Methodology/Approach: Our study develops a theoretical model based on the symbolic and pragmatic value of language(s), integrating insights from historical, sociopolitical and sociolinguistic research on Russian and minority languages of the (former) USSR in the historical imperial context and beyond. Data and Analysis: Analysis draws on existing literature, historical accounts and previous sociolinguistic studies, examining the evolution of Russian in imperial, (post-)Soviet and diasporic contexts through the lens of symbolic and pragmatic value. Patterns of the transgenerational transmission of Russian-based bilingualism and other languages of the former USSR are identified and compared across different diasporic communities. Findings/Conclusions: Three key parameters – historical-linguistic, sociopolitical and sociolinguistic ecology – explain the continued pragmatic use of Russian despite significant changes in its symbolic value. Four patterns of transgenerational transmission of Russian-based bilingualism in combination with different languages of the former USSR emerge: shift to monolingualism, reshaped bilingualism, bilingualism with original L1 and trilingualism. Russian functions as a durable communicative code in multilingual post-Soviet diasporas, illustrating the interplay between colonial, imperial and minority languages. Originality: The paper identifies transferred Russian-based bilingualism in diasporic settings as a prolonged postcolonial impact, demonstrating the interplay of its pragmatic and symbolic values in interaction with the diverse languages of the former USSR. It further nuances the specific historical and geopolitical dynamics of Russian linguistic imperialism within the Russian versus Soviet Empire and beyond. Significance/Implications: Findings contribute to theories of linguistic imperialism and nationalism, offering a framework for understanding transgenerational language transmission in multilingual diasporas and informing comparative studies of postcolonial and postimperial language dynamics.

Aims: This paper examines recent developments in Russian-language policy through a case study of the Republic of Tatarstan, with a focus on the abolition of compulsory Tatar-language instruction in 2017. Previous studies predominantly analyzed Russian-language media; our study aims to explore how this policy shift has been discursively framed and contested in both Russian- and Tatar-language media. Positioned within broader discussions of language ideologies in multilingual and post-imperial contexts, the study examines how such reforms reflect enduring tensions between centralizing state narratives and regional demands for linguistic and cultural recognition. Drawing on theoretical insights from Critical Discourse Studies and language ideology research, the paper examines how media discourses shape and reflect the ideological landscape of bilingualism and minority language rights in the Russian Federation. Methods: Using a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis approach, we analyse a corpus of 42 articles−20 from Russian-language and 22 from Tatar-language online media outlets—published in response to the 2017 educational reform. These sources were selected to represent the most prominent discursive reactions to the abolition of mandatory Tatar-language instruction in schools. The analysis focused on identifying evaluative language, argumentation strategies, and thematic framing of the policy change. Articles were coded for stance (positive, negative, neutral) and categorized by themes such as cultural identity, legal arguments, educational rights, and national unity. The study draws on CDA frameworks (Fairclough, van Dijk, Blommaert). It applies the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse to uncover how underlying ideologies and power relations inform media representations of language policy. The comparative analysis enables an examination of divergent narratives between linguistic communities. Results: The findings reveal a stark contrast in the discursive framing between Russian- and Tatar-language media. Tatar-language outlets predominantly emphasize the symbolic and cultural significance of Tatar instruction, framing the reform as a threat to ethnic identity and linguistic heritage. In contrast, Russian-language media tend to highlight legal compliance, civic unity, and educational pragmatism, positioning the reform as a step toward reinforcing national cohesion and equality. These divergent perspectives illustrate how language policies are deeply embedded in ideological struggles over identity, power, and statehood. The study demonstrates that public debates in Tatarstan are not merely about language instruction but about competing visions of federalism, minority rights, and the role of regional languages in the post-Soviet space. This case study underscores the tense and fluctuating nature of language relations in post-imperial contexts like Russia, where historical legacies of both linguistic empowerment and suppression continue to shape contemporary policy debates. The findings contribute to a broader understanding of how language ideologies are constructed and contested in multilingual states, highlighting the need for more balanced research that incorporates both dominant and minority language perspectives.