The recent shift in Russia's language policy can be seen as part of a broader pattern observable in multilingual states, where language use is often unbalanced and far from harmonious—as seen in Belgium, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Mexico, Belarus, or Ukraine. In this context, Russia, with its app. 150 languages (Alpatov, 2005), offers particularly fertile ground for examining language ideologies and policies. Russian-language policy has long oscillated between idealistic support for linguistic diversity and imperial strategies of suppression: from the establishment of national schools and the development of grammars for unwritten languages in the 19th century and again after the October Revolution to the banning of publications in Belarusian and Lithuanian after 1863, and the systematic Russification efforts following 1938 (Belikov and Krysin, 2001; Grenoble, 2003). These shifts reflect broader ideological turns in state policy—between phases of liberalization and periods of imperial ambition. Within this framework, our paper examines the debates sparked by the most recent changes in Russia's language policy, using a critical-discursive approach and focusing on Russian- and Tatar-language media in Tatarstan. The shift was ostensibly triggered by Vladimir Putin's statement at the Council for Interethnic Relations in Yoshkar-Ola in July 2017, in which he asserted that forcing someone to learn a language that is not their mother tongue is as unacceptable as reducing instruction in Russian. This declaration marks the starting point for our case study of Tatarstan, a republic with two official languages: Tatar and Russian. Putin's declaration ignited widespread debate over the abolition of compulsory Tatar instruction and the broader implications of the new policy. These discussions appeared prominently in federal and regional online media, both in Tatar and Russian, forming the corpus for our analysis. By examining these sources, we compare the arguments and reactions of the republic's two largest linguistic communities.

The status of titular languages in Russia's national and autonomous republics has historically been precarious, fluctuating between symbolic recognition and functional marginalization (Alpatov, 2005; Belikov and Krysin, 2001; Neroznak, 1995). While Soviet language policy institutionalized titular languages alongside Russian, the latter remained dominant as the language of interethnic communication and social mobility. In the post-Soviet era, autonomous republics such as Tatarstan sought greater linguistic sovereignty by granting co-official status to their titular languages and introducing compulsory instruction in schools. However, these efforts have been increasingly curtailed by federal policies aimed at reinforcing Russian linguistic dominance and limiting regional autonomy. Russia's language policy has shifted over time, alternating between promoting and suppressing minority languages. In this context, Tatarstan presents a particularly illustrative case. It is often seen as “atypical within Russia because of the high proportion of non-Russians in a region that lies geographically, economically and politically within the heart of the federation” (Veinguer and Davis, 2007, p. 188).

Historically, the interaction between Tatar and Russian cultures intensified after the conquest of the Kazan Khanate by Ivan the Terrible in 1552 and the subsequent Christianisation of the region (cf. Faller, 2011, p. 6). For Russia, this conquest symbolized “the earliest triumph of a nascent imperial power,” while for Tatars, it marked “the source of all lost hopes and all future woes” (Graney, 2009, p. 5). The Tatars are the oldest and largest minority in the history of Russia—spanning the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the current Russian Federation— with a population of ~4.7 million according to the 2021 Russian Census (Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), 2021). The Tatar elite was integrated into the ruling structures of the Russian state early on, following the Mongol-Tatar period, particularly during the era of the Golden Horde. Prominent noble families of Tatar origin, such as the Yusupovs, Mansurovs, and even the ancestors of composer Sergei Rachmaninov, became part of the imperial Russian aristocracy. Tatars are widely dispersed across the former Soviet Union, including significant populations in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine, as well as throughout the Russian Federation (Minority Rights Group International, n.d.). Moscow hosts one of the largest Tatar diasporas, with an estimated number of 500,000 people (Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), 2021). Interestingly, while Tatars are generally well integrated into Russian society outside of Tatarstan—occupying visible roles as actors, entrepreneurs, journalists, politicians, and public intellectuals—a substantial portion still regards themselves as part of a distinct ethnocultural group. This dual identification reflects both successful social integration and the persistence of a strong cultural and diasporic identity within the broader framework of the Russian Federation.

Despite this fraught history, Tatarstan developed into a multiethnic republic where Tatar-Russian bilingualism and interculturality became normalized (cf. Bayramova, 2001, p. 12). Bilingualism was actively promoted around the time of the Soviet collapse and was legally affirmed in 1990 when Tatar was granted co-official status (Deklaracija, 1990). Further measures were introduced to move beyond the Soviet model of de jure bilingualism and de facto Russian dominance (Winsgender, 2016, p. 11). Education policy became central to this effort: in 1993, Tatar was made a compulsory subject in schools for all pupils, regardless of ethnicity (Guzelbaeva and Fatkhullova, 2012, p. 35). While this bolstered the institutional presence of Tatar, it also triggered resistance among parts of the population, who questioned the relevance and fairness of mandatory Tatar instruction. These tensions escalated in July 2017 after President Putin, during a session of the Council for Interethnic Relations in Yoshkar-Ola, criticized the compulsory teaching of minority languages. This prompted federal inspections of schools across national republics, including Tatarstan, and led to amendments to the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation” (Federal Law No. 317, 2018). The reforms abolished the compulsory study of regional languages and replaced it with an optional “mother tongue” subject to be selected by parents. Following the policy change, Tatar lost its status as a mandatory school subject, deepening the already uneven balance between Russian and Tatar language use. This policy shift required a recalibration of language policy in Tatarstan and sparked widespread debate, especially around the removal of mandatory Tatar-language education.

Our study examines how these debates have played out in Tatarstan's media landscape since 2017, focusing specifically on the abolition of compulsory Tatar-language instruction. While existing research has analyzed the Russian-language media discourse on this issue, no comprehensive study has yet compared both Tatar- and Russian-language perspectives (detailed review in Warditz, 2022). To address this gap, our study conducts a comparative discourse analysis of Tatar- and Russian-language media coverage, exploring how narratives of advantage and disadvantage are constructed and whether framing differs across linguistic communities. Employing the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (hereafter— SKAD) as our analytical framework, we aim to uncover how language, ideology, and power intersect in the representation of language policy reform within Tatarstan's bilingual media. Furthermore, when discussing our results, we aim to situate the main insights within a broader historical and areal-linguistic context of (post)imperial language policies.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical context and state of research; Section 3 outlines the research questions and hypotheses; Section 4 details the methodology; Section 5 describes the data collection; Section 6 provides the data analysis; Section 7 offers the discussion; and Section 8 concludes with the conclusion and outlook.

The study of language policies in postcolonial¹ contexts has gained significant scholarly attention, particularly in regions that have undergone drastic political transformations, such as the former Soviet Union (for an overview, see Alpatov, 2005). In these contexts, language policies often function as instruments of power, identity, and resistance (Warditz and Goritskaya, 2021). Postimperial language policies are particularly complex, as they are shaped by historical colonial legacies and the need to balance national unity with the preservation of minority languages. Language revival efforts in these settings are often framed within a larger sociopolitical agenda, where languages, once suppressed or marginalized, are revitalized to assert cultural identity and national sovereignty (Huss et al., 2003).

Examples of this can be seen in diverse postcolonial settings. In the post-apartheid context of South Africa, efforts to elevate indigenous African languages to official status have encountered challenges due to entrenched inequalities and the dominance of English (Alexander, 2003). Similarly, in postcolonial Ireland and Wales, the revival of Irish and Welsh has been linked to broader cultural reassertion, though outcomes have varied based on policy implementation and societal attitudes (Moriarty, 2011). These cases demonstrate how language revival is not only about linguistic survival but also about reclaiming historical agency and redefining collective identities in the aftermath of imperial domination.

The post-Soviet space presents a unique case for language policy studies. With the dissolution of the USSR, many former Soviet republics, including Russia, were faced with the challenge of reasserting the status of their indigenous languages, often alongside Russian, which had been entrenched as the dominant language throughout the Soviet era. In these countries, language revival is not only about linguistic restoration but also about the re-establishment of a distinct national identity (Warditz and Goritskaya, 2021; Tsimpli and Kambyl, 2013; Bayramova, 2011). Studies within the post-Soviet space have also pointed out a specific challenge: the coexistence of multiple languages within a single territory often leads to language shift or attrition of indigenous languages, especially in regions where the titular language of a republic is in competition with Russian. While there is a strong desire to revive and maintain these languages, political, educational, and social factors complicate their status (Arutyunova and Zamyatin, 2020). This phenomenon is also observed in Tatarstan, where Tatar and Russian coexist as state languages, and the tension between preserving Tatar and maintaining the political and social dominance of Russian is a central issue (Wigglesworth-Baker, 2016).

In the case of Tatarstan, this tension became especially pronounced after the Russian Federation introduced changes to its education policy in 2017. The law abolishing compulsory Tatar language instruction in schools was a significant shift, raising questions about the future of linguistic diversity in the republic. Studies by Winsgender (2016) and Sagitova (2016) have examined the state of the Tatar language before 2017, noting a steady erosion of its usage in the public sphere, particularly in urban areas. However, the 2017 policy change sparked new debates and a new wave of research on how such shifts in language policy affect the broader socio-political landscape. Guboglo (2019) and Fatcher (2020) argue that these policy changes signify a growing nationalistic trend that places minority languages like Tatar at risk, while others have suggested that these moves may be part of a broader strategy to integrate Tatarstan more fully into the Russian Federation's federal framework.

In sum, research on language policy in Tatarstan since 2017 has primarily focused on the responses of various social actors, including educators, politicians, and the public (Maximova et al., 2017; Mordvinova et al., 2021; Musina, 2020). However, these studies have not examined Russian-language and Tatar-language media comparatively. We aim to address this gap by analyzing how these media represent language policy, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the sociolinguistic landscape in Tatarstan and inscribing it within the broader context of other comparable situations. Our study on post-2017 language policies in Tatarstan thus raises important questions about the future of bilingualism in Russia's national republics; the case of Tatarstan serves as a valuable model for understanding the complexities of language policy in postimperial contexts, particularly in regions where the legacies of empire and the quest for cultural revitalisation remain in tension.

Drawing from the broader theoretical context of postimperial language policies, discourse analysis, and the dynamics of bilingualism in post-Soviet contexts, our study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How is the abolition of compulsory Tatar language instruction at schools framed in Tatar- and Russian-language media?

RQ2: What role do language ideologies play in the construction of narratives surrounding the language policy shift?

RQ 3: Do Tatar- and Russian-language media construct different narratives of advantage and disadvantage regarding the Tatar language policy reform, and if so, how?

RQ 4: What is the impact of political power dynamics on language policy framing in Tatarstan's bilingual media environment?

Thereby, our work hypotheses run as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Russian-language media will predominantly present the abolition of Tatar language instruction as a positive development, emphasizing the unification of the Russian Federation and the practical benefits of Russian-language dominance.

This hypothesis suggests that Russian-language media will likely frame the policy change in alignment with broader federal ideologies, portraying it as a step toward national cohesion and modernization. Previous research has shown that Russian-language media often valorise linguistic homogeneity, equating it with state unity, administrative efficiency, and civilisational superiority (Zamyatin, 2012). Such framings reflect a recurring narrative in Russian federal discourse, where the promotion of Russian is seen not only as pragmatic but also as a tool of soft power and integration (Laruelle, 2015). Similar patterns can be found in other post-Soviet contexts where Russian media discourses reinforce centralist values while downplaying local linguistic identities (Korth, 2005). As Zamyatin (2012) argues, the removal of regional language instruction is frequently justified as a means of eliminating inefficiencies and aligning with “universal” educational standards.

Hypothesis 2: Tatar-language media will present the abolition of compulsory Tatar language instruction as a negative development, framing it as a threat to cultural identity and a loss of linguistic rights.

In contrast, Tatar-language media are likely to frame the policy shift as a blow to cultural autonomy and linguistic survival. Numerous scholars have emphasized how minority language communities in Russia experience federal language reforms as efforts to marginalize their identities (Graney, 2009; Faller, 2011). Tatar intellectuals and media outlets have long positioned the Tatar language as central to the republic's national identity, interpreting reductions in its institutional support as violations of cultural rights (Wertheim, 2003). Research by Zamyatin (2016) confirms that local responses to federal education reforms are often deeply politicized in national republics, where the loss of linguistic status is equated with political disenfranchisement and historical erasure.

Hypothesis 3: The discourse in Russian-language media will emphasize the necessity of modernizing education and making the curriculum more practical, while Tatar-language media will focus on the preservation of linguistic diversity and the right of Tatar speakers to maintain their language.

This hypothesis assumes that the two language communities operate under different sets of priorities and ideological frameworks. Russian-language media often emphasize the utilitarian value of the Russian-language, portraying it as essential for upward mobility, national progress, and global competitiveness (Gorenburg, 2003). In contrast, Tatar-language media typically underscore the symbolic and cultural importance of preserving linguistic heritage through institutional measures such as education (Winsgender, 2016). Kymlicka (2001) argues that education in the mother tongue is a cornerstone of minority rights, while Hogan-Brun and Wolff (2003) highlight how educational reforms in multilingual societies often reveal competing visions of citizenship and national identity.

Hypothesis 4: The narratives in both Tatar and Russian-language media will reveal a significant ideological divide regarding the role of the Tatar language, with Tatar-language media framing the policy change in terms of language rights and identity politics and Russian-language media framing it in terms of state unity and pragmatism.

This hypothesis anticipates a stark discursive cleavage between the two linguistic communities. Tatar-language media are likely to articulate the policy shift through the lens of minority rights and cultural preservation, drawing on discourses of historical injustice and ongoing marginalization (Graney, 2009; Wertheim, 2003). Conversely, Russian-language media will likely frame the same shift as a necessary realignment with national priorities, rationalizing it through themes of practicality, standardization, and unity (Laruelle, 2015). As Blommaert (1999) notes, language ideological debates often reflect deeper struggles over authority and legitimacy. This divergence in framing mirrors broader ideological tensions in Russia's federal structure, where discourses of sovereignty clash with centralizing state narratives (Shnirelman, 2003; Foucault, 1972).

By addressing these research questions and testing the above hypotheses, the study will provide insights into the complex relationships between language, ideology, and power in postimperial contexts, specifically within the unique sociolinguistic setting of Tatarstan. The comparative analysis of Tatar- and Russian-language media will contribute to the broader understanding of language policy debates in bilingual republics, particularly in the post-Soviet space, where questions of language, identity, and national unity remain highly contested.

For the methodological approach of the current study, qualitative critical discourse analysis (hereafter—CDA) was employed. A corpus of 20 articles from Russian-language and 22 articles from Tatar-language online media was selected, all addressing the events of 2017, namely the abolishment of mandatory Tatar language instruction in schools and the immediate consequences of this educational reform for the language policy of the republic. Particular attention was paid to how the advantages and disadvantages of the new language policy were presented in these media sources. All identified arguments and evaluations were categorized within each language group by thematic topics in order to uncover general trends in discourse across Tatar- and Russian-language media. In the final stage, the analysis explored whether significant differences emerged in the framing and treatment of the topics between the two language groups.

In order to explore what advantages and disadvantages of the abolishment of compulsory Tatar language instruction and of the subsequent language policy in the republic are represented in Russian- and Tatar-language online media, and whether there are significant differences in how the topic is treated in both languages, the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD; Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Keller, 2011) was adopted as the analytical framework. SKAD, like discourse analysis more broadly, focuses not only on the use of language but on how language use shapes social reality and is, in turn, influenced by social, political, and cultural contexts. It seeks to uncover the underlying ideologies and power relations embedded within spoken or written texts, emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between language and the structures governing societal interactions. This method was also chosen for its capacity to examine the situational conditions and the role of collective actors within which discourse occurs, in addition to analyzing texts themselves (Keller, 2011, p. 61).

Critical discourse analysis provides a complementary lens for analyzing how language ideologies, power relations, and social inequalities are constructed, legitimized, and contested through discourse (Fairclough, 1995; van Dijk, 1998; Blommaert, 2005). CDA emphasizes not only the content of texts but also their socio-political contexts and the power structures they (re)produce. In the context of language policy, CDA has been widely used to investigate how media, political actors, and institutions discursively negotiate issues of linguistic rights, national identity, and minority language maintenance (Johnson, 2011; Shohamy, 2006; Blackledge, 2005).

In this study, the analysis was conducted in several stages following established CDA and SKAD procedures. At the first stage, the collected materials were filtered by keywords, with an additional selection based on the date of publication and the geographical location of the outlet or its target audience.

The next step involved an initial close reading of the texts to identify and analyse their semantic fields. The main thematic keywords included teaching methods, education, the future of the language, the connection between language and politics, and language as an element of national identity and its perceived threats.

Subsequently, the texts were examined for evaluative language with a negative connotation. This was done using a set of indicator words in both languages, such as limited, not enough, difficult, negative, refuse, terrible, tragedy, afraid, lose, decline, decrease, die, relegated, no longer, reduction, mistrust, doubts, restrict, battle, second-class, mockery, not consider the necessity, risk, impossible to teach, will not know, last generation.

The remaining articles were then analyzed for evaluative language with positive or neutral connotations. Here, the set of indicator words included improving, interested, increase, rethink, happy, very good, various, many ways, available options, try, easier, does no any harm, success of preserving, satisfaction, need the Tatar language.

Special attention was given to rhetorical and stylistic devices capable of altering the tone and meaning of statements: irony, sarcasm, hyperbole, euphemisms, as well as the use of contrasts and metaphors. This allowed for a more precise interpretation of the author's evaluative stance, particularly when it was expressed implicitly.

The subsequent stage focused on argumentation strategies—the ways in which authors constructed their reasoning. The analysis examined the values and beliefs they appealed to, such as the appropriateness of teaching methods, threats to the future of the language or to national identity, and the framing of language as a tool of political struggle. The guiding analytical principle was the identification of narrative patterns such as “it was bad—it became better”, “it was bad—it became worse”, and “it was good—it became worse”.

Finally, the articles and examples were categorized into two overarching groups—advantages and disadvantages. Within each group, thematic subcategories were further identified. For example, in the “education rights” domain, subcategories included “ineffective teaching methods”, “lack of instructional hours”, and “excess of Tatar language teachers”, among others, enabling the visualization and systematic organization of the data. These codes were grouped into broader discursive frames and linked to ideological positions, allowing for a comparison of how the Russian- and Tatar-language media constructed and evaluated the policy change. This approach draws on methods used in similar CDA and SKAD studies of media discourse and language policy (Fairclough, 1995; van Dijk, 1998; Keller, 2011; Blackledge, 2005; Duchêne and Heller, 2012). Following this tradition, our study aimed to uncover not only explicit arguments but also the underlying ideologies, actor positions, and power relations shaping media representations of the Tatar language's status in the republic's educational and sociopolitical landscape.

Our paper examines 42 articles−22 in Tatar and 20 in Russian—on the topic of the advantages and disadvantages of language policy in the Republic of Tatarstan since 2017 as presented in online media. The articles were selected from a range of online media sources, representing diverse narratives and targeting different audience demographics to ensure a comprehensive analysis of varying discursive practices. The data collection was carried out in four steps: (1) identification of the research sources, (2) definition of keywords related to the discourse topic, (3) specification of inclusion criteria, and (4) coding of relevant discourse samples.

The initial collection of articles was substantially larger, with more Russian-language materials than Tatar-language ones. This numerical difference may be attributed both to the actual predominance of Russian-language publications and to the fact that Google's search algorithm is more effectively optimized for finding Russian-language content. Articles were selected according to the primary criterion of either the media outlet's location in Tatarstan or its coverage of events in the republic. Materials that addressed the 2017 reform but did not contain evaluative statements or argumentation regarding its advantages and disadvantages were excluded from the sample.

The primary data source was online media, specifically the digital versions of newspapers and magazines in Tatar and Russian, with open access via the Google search engine. This source enabled the capture of contemporary discourse practices in both languages within their social, political, and cultural contexts. The next step in data collection involved defining the keywords for the search. The following keywords and phrases were established for use in Russian and Tatar:

The selection of keywords was informed by the core concepts and debates surrounding the 2017 language policy reform and was designed to capture a broad spectrum of discourse addressing both policy implementation and ideological evaluations of language education. Keyword-based sampling has been widely employed in discourse studies on language policy and media representation to identify relevant data while maintaining transparency and replicability (Johnson, 2011; Baker, 2006). Similar approaches have been used in studies such as Baker et al. (2008), which analyzed media discourse on multiculturalism through keyword searches, and in Krzyżanowski (2010), who used keyword-based corpora to investigate the discursive construction of European identity in press coverage. This method allows for systematic retrieval of thematically relevant texts while grounding the analysis in discursive patterns that emerge from the actual linguistic and thematic framing in the media (Baker, 2006; Krzyżanowski, 2010; Johnson, 2011).

The inclusion criteria for selecting relevant data were, first and foremost, the publication period. Articles had to be published shortly after the changes in educational law and up until the completion of this research paper. Therefore, articles published from September 2017 to November 2023 were considered for analysis. Another important criterion was that the media outlets originate in the Republic of Tatarstan, report from or about the republic, and include both state-affiliated and non-state media. This study focused exclusively on media outlets based in the Republic of Tatarstan, as their communication is directly oriented toward the republic's residents, who were in a position to experience the impact of changes in language policy firsthand. The abolition of compulsory Tatar language instruction in schools was of limited relevance to residents of regions such as Moscow, and the corresponding media discourse in those areas was likely to differ substantially. Furthermore, Tatarstan-based media tended to concentrate specifically on issues related to the Tatar language, whereas media outlets from other regions, while also covering the 2017 reform, typically addressed it in a broader context that encompassed other national republics, such as Yakutia, Bashkortostan, Chuvashia, Mordovia, among others.

One exception was included in the sample: although this outlet was neither based in Tatarstan nor reported exclusively about the republic, it met the other criteria (publication period and relevance of content). Furthermore, this outlet covers events across Russia rather than focusing on one or several specific regions. The article selected from this outlet was an interview with a representative of Tatarstan's education sector and contained explicit evaluative statements and was therefore incorporated into the analysis.

All selected articles were analyzed for their treatment of the positive and negative consequences of the 2017 language policy. According to the sampling criteria, articles were drawn from six Tatar-language online media outlets (Kazan utlary [“Kazan Lights”], Intertat, Shakhri Kazan [“Urban Kazan”], Vatanym Tatarstan [“My Homeland Tatarstan”], Madani Zhomga [“Cultural Friday”], and Azatliq Radiosi [“Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”]) and ten Russian-language online media outlets (Business Online, Radio Svoboda [“Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”], Kazan First, Večhernyaya Kazan [“Evening Kazan”], Kommersant (Volga-Ural) [“Merchant (Volga-Ural)”], Idel.Realii [“Volga. Realities”], Milliard Tatar [“A Billion Tatars”], Tatar-inform, Perito). Of the six Tatar-language outlets, five were categorized as state-affiliated, while one was classified as non-state. In contrast, eight of the 10 Russian-language outlets were identified as non-state and two as state-affiliated.

Tatar-language media in the Republic of Tatarstan have a smaller reach compared to their Russian-language counterparts. Available data indicate that the Kazan utlary website receives app. 8–9 thousand daily visits, Vatanym Tatarstan around 15 thousand, and Intertat attracted about 1.37 million unique visitors in 2024. In terms of thematic focus, Kazan utlary and Madani Zhomga are literary and cultural outlets covering events in the spheres of culture, education, and public life. Vatanym Tatarstan positions itself as a socio-political newspaper, while Shakhri Kazan combines current news and analytical materials with coverage of cultural events. Azatliq Radiosi, part of an international media structure, aims to promote democratic values and institutions, addressing audiences in countries where authorities restrict press freedom or have not yet established it as a social norm. The age of the readership of these outlets generally ranges from 35 to 65+, with the core audience residing within Tatarstan.

Available data on the audience reach of Russian-language media indicate that Business Online attracts app. 24 million monthly visits, Radio Svoboda 3.7 million, Kazan First over 1 million, Idel.Realii around 2 million (2020), and Tatar-inform app. 654 thousand monthly visits. Most of these outlets focus primarily on socio-political events and issues, with Idel.Realii additionally publishing materials on human rights and ethnic minority concerns, and Perito is positioning itself as a popular science media outlet. Analysis of the available demographic data suggests that the age of the readership ranges from 24 to 65+, with an overall younger audience compared to Tatar-language media. This difference can be partly explained by the fact that younger generations are generally less proficient in Tatar at a level sufficient for reading newspapers.

The identified discourse patterns were coded by language and by evaluative stance (“positive” or “negative”) based on contextual units, enabling systematic analysis and categorization of relevant themes and patterns in the discourse.

One of the central discourses identified in both the Russian- and Tatar-language media concerned the methodology of teaching the Tatar language in schools and the broader role of the Tatar language within the educational system. Although Tatar had been a compulsory subject in the school curriculum for nearly three decades, existing data indicated limited success in achieving widespread language competence among students. For example, a study by Khodžaeva, 2011 showed that by 2001−10 years after the introduction of mandatory Tatar instruction—only one-third of the Russian population in the republic reported competence in the Tatar language. By 2010, this figure had increased to nearly half of the Russian population, yet only 8 per cent of young adults aged 16 to 24 reported fluency. Against this backdrop, debates around the effectiveness of teaching methods and the outcomes of language policy became a prominent feature of media discourse, particularly in the period surrounding the 2017 reform.

In analyzing the corpus of media texts, four overarching discursive domains (cultural identity, legal arguments, educational rights, and national unity) were identified. Within each of these domains, recurrent themes emerged that reflected how different actors framed the policy change, its motivations, and its consequences. These thematic categories were developed through an iterative coding process grounded in the principles of critical discourse analysis and the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse. Close attention was paid to evaluative language, argumentation strategies, and the positioning of social actors, allowing for the identification of patterns across texts and the linking of these patterns to broader ideological positions. The identified domains are shared across both Tatar- and Russian-language media; however, not all of these domains were detected in the analysis of texts in both languages. Specifically, in the examples of advantages of the new language policy presented in Tatar-language media, only two domains (educational rights and national unity) were observed. In the topic of disadvantages emerged three domains (educational rights, legal arguments, and cultural identity). By contrast, the analysis of positive evaluations in Russian-language media revealed only one domain (educational rights), while the analysis of negative evaluations yielded three domains (cultural identity, legal arguments, educational rights). The absence of certain domains in the analysis is explained by the lack of textual examples that could be categorized within the generalized domains formulated in our study.

In the Tatar-language media, the advantages were primarily framed around the potential for reforming language teaching methods, the introduction of the subject “state language” into the curriculum, and the perceived necessity of cooperation among stakeholders. Conversely, the disadvantages emphasized concerns about the balance between quantity and quality in language instruction, the marginalization of the Tatar language, the limited scope of its use, and perceptions of imperialism and second-class status attributed to Tatar speakers. In the Russian-language media, advantages were similarly associated with discourses on methodological improvements, the implementation of additional educational initiatives, and critical reflections on the outcomes of earlier language policies. Disadvantages in this context were framed in terms of the education system's unpreparedness to accommodate the policy change, the instrumentalisation of language as a tool in political struggles, anxieties about cultural imperialism, the devaluation of the Tatar language, and fears of losing literary heritage and national education traditions.

By mapping these thematic categories, the analysis aims to uncover not only the explicit arguments articulated in the media but also the underlying ideological positions, actor relationships, and power structures embedded in the discourse. This approach seeks to illuminate the discursive dynamics shaping public representations of the Tatar language's status in the republic's educational and sociopolitical landscape.

Our findings underscore that the recent language policy reforms in Tatarstan are deeply embedded within broader educational policy debates, with education serving as the primary arena through which language policy is contested, justified, and resisted (RQ1; H3). Both Tatar- and Russian-language media predominantly emphasized the disadvantages of the reform, while references to its advantages were comparatively rare and unevenly distributed. This asymmetry reflects a shared perception of loss and anxiety across both communities, albeit articulated through different lenses and priorities (H4).

The scarce positive discourses clustered around three main themes: the revision of teaching methodology, the promotion of communicative approaches to Tatar-language instruction, and the symbolic reaffirmation of Tatar's status as a state language. In Tatar-language media, these discourses were predominantly voiced by educational professionals—teachers and school administrators—who highlighted the adaptation of Tatar teaching to a foreign language framework, acknowledging that for many students, Tatar functions less as a mother tongue and more as a second or foreign language (H2; H3). Such positioning aligns with broader trends in minority language education, where shifts toward communicative, learner-centered methods have been promoted to counter declining proficiency and engagement (Hornberger, 2006; García, 2009). Tatar-language media thus framed the reform as an opportunity to modernize pedagogy and sustain children's interest in the language through creative instruction despite systemic constraints.

However, the discursive optimism in Tatar-language outlets must be interpreted in the context of state-controlled media agendas and an older, Tatar-speaking target audience, who may be receptive to narratives of institutional resilience and gradual reform. In contrast, Russian-language media discourses, articulated mainly by politicians and policy commentators, foregrounded structural deficiencies and policy failures rather than pedagogical improvements.

Criticism centered on the belated acknowledgment of Tatar's grammatical complexity, the shortage of communicative teaching materials, and the delayed reform of curricula—issues only addressed after 2017 (H1; H3). This focus resonates with critiques found in other multilingual contexts, where minority language education reforms are frequently perceived by dominantlanguage speakers as disruptive or burdensome (May, 2012; Spolsky, 2004). These discourses must be situated, in turn, within the ideological landscape of language rights and language ideologies (May, 2012; Shohamy, 2006). While framed as educational reforms, they enact a negotiation of Tatar's symbolic status as a state language under the constraints of federal policy. Importantly, these discourses address both the pragmatic (instrumental) and symbolic (identity related) values of Tatar—a distinction theorized by Warditz and Meir (2024), who emphasize how minority language speakers navigate the tension between functional utility and cultural symbolic affiliation. In Tatar-language media, symbolic values were foregrounded through calls for societal cooperation in supporting Tatar's survival, while Russian-language media questioned the pragmatic relevance of Tatar in educational and economic trajectories dominated by Russian.

A key divergence between the two media spheres lies in their representation of responsibility and agency. While Tatar-language media stressed the need for collaborative action across families, schools, and the state to sustain Tatar, Russian-language media framed the preservation of the language as a private or civil initiative, distancing the state from direct responsibility (H4). Moreover, Russian-language outlets portrayed the situation as less critical than their Tatar counterparts, attributing current challenges to the cumulative effects of a 25 year experiment with “balanced bilingualism.” Such framing reflects broader ideological patterns in center-periphery relations, where regional linguistic initiatives are depicted as temporary deviations from an assumed normative monolingualism (RQ2; RQ4; H1).

When analyzing discourses on the disadvantages of the reform, a convergence of themes emerges across both linguistic domains, yet with distinct emphases. Both media spheres lamented the erosion of Tatar-language instruction, the cancellation of culturally specific subjects (such as regional history and geography), and the symbolic marginalization of Tatar (H2; H4). These findings echo broader scholarship on linguistic minoritisation under centralizing state policies (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Fishman, 1991), wherein reduced institutional support leads to shrinking domains of use and intergenerational transmission. Notably, Russian-language media placed greater emphasis on the institutional unpreparedness for the reform, particularly the shortage of qualified Russian-language teachers and the necessity of retraining Tatar teachers for Russian instruction (RQ3; H1; H3). This critique highlights a tension between linguistic policy and educational labor markets, a phenomenon observed in other multilingual regions undergoing rapid language policy shifts (Wei and Wu, 2010). Furthermore, Russian-language discourses problematised parental pragmatism, suggesting that, absent state mandates, families would naturally deprioritise Tatar in favor of Russian, perceived as more instrumental for academic and economic advancement (H1). This aligns with international findings that minority language maintenance is often undermined by parents' perceptions of reduced utility and status (Baker, 2011; Tollefson, 1991).

Both Tatar- and Russian-language media converged in their articulation of linguistic inequality and symbolic subordination (H4). Nevertheless, while Tatar-language outlets framed the inferiority of Tatar vis-à-vis Russian through a narrative of cultural loss and Moscow's hegemony, Russian-language media expanded this critique by positioning Tatar as doubly subordinated—not only to Russian but even to foreign languages prioritized in federal curricula (H1). This observation resonates with Shohamy's (2006) argument that language policy operates as a mechanism of control, simultaneously elevating and marginalizing languages through overt and covert processes.

One striking divergence is the absence of overtly politicized discourses in Tatar-language media. While Russian-language outlets openly linked language policy to broader struggles over regional sovereignty and framed the defense of Tatar as a “final battle” for autonomy (H4), Tatar-language media largely avoided such framing. This omission may reflect editorial caution in state-controlled media to avoid accusations of nationalism or separatism (Wilson, 2002). It also suggests a discursive strategy aimed at depoliticising the issue to maintain space for cultural advocacy without triggering state repression.

Finally, it is notable that across both media spheres, the dominant voices were institutional elites—educators, politicians, and policy experts—while the perspectives of parents and students were largely absent (RQ3). This top-down discursive structure mirrors patterns identified in other multilingual policy contexts, where grassroots actors are rarely represented as legitimate stakeholders in formal debates (Heller, 2011).

Taken together, the findings suggest that while the reform has not precipitated acute ethnic or linguistic conflict, it has generated a pervasive sense of linguistic precarity and cultural diminishment across linguistic communities (RQ1, RQ2). The discursive focus on shortcomings over achievements reflects a shared anxiety over the future of Tatar as both a communicative and symbolic resource. Viewed comparatively, the Tatarstan case exemplifies the dilemmas of minority language policy in multilingual states: navigating tensions between state integration, cultural pluralism, and the unequal political economy of languages. In this context, the reduction of Tatar-language instruction is not merely an educational reform but a manifestation of broader processes of linguistic devaluation and symbolic disempowerment (H2; H4)—processes that, if unaddressed, risk transforming balanced bilingualism from an aspiration into an empty rhetorical ideal.

Despite careful design and rigorous data collection, this study has several limitations. First, our data are time-bound, reflecting media coverage only within a specific period following the 2017 abolition of compulsory Tatar-language instruction. While the selected media sources are representative, they do not encompass all outlets, and some perspectives may be underrepresented. Second, the study's methodological approach, relying on critical discourse analysis, allowed us to explore the qualitative nuances of media narratives but limited the number of parameters we could examine in depth. Certain aspects of language policy debates, such as quantitative measures of audience reception, frequency of themes, or broader sociolinguistic trends, remain outside the scope of this analysis. Consequently, our findings should be interpreted as providing an exploratory, case-study perspective rather than a comprehensive or generalizable account of all media discourse or public opinion. We encourage future research to complement this study with quantitatively designed approaches, longitudinal analyses, and additional data sources—including interviews with key stakeholders, broader media sampling, and social media content—to provide a more complete understanding of language policy and its impacts in Tatarstan and comparable post-Soviet contexts.

We have explored the shifting landscape of language policy in the Republic of Tatarstan since the abolition of compulsory Tatar-language instruction in 2017. By analyzing media coverage in both Tatar- and Russian-language sources, this research highlights the multifaceted nature of language policy debates and reveals distinct differences in how these communities frame the issue of bilingualism and linguistic rights. The findings demonstrate that Tatar-language media tend to emphasize cultural and identity-related implications of the policy change, whereas Russian-language media focus more on legal, political, and national unity concerns. This comparative discourse analysis shows that language ideologies and power dynamics are central to how language policy is understood and represented across different linguistic communities in Tatarstan.

Our case study underscores the tense and shifting nature of language relations in post-imperial spaces within the Russian Federation. Within a historically layered context marked by oscillations between support for linguistic diversity and efforts at Russification, the recent policy shifts reveal enduring ideological tensions at the heart of Russian federalism. The competing discourses—between centralizing, efficiency-driven narratives and those rooted in cultural preservation and minority rights—reflect broader post-imperial dynamics, where language serves as both a symbolic and practical site of negotiation. As such, the Tatarstan case not only highlights the ideological fault lines surrounding bilingualism and national identity but also reflects the incomplete and contested nature of language policy in states still grappling with the legacies of empire.

While our study focuses specifically on Tatarstan, these insights are relevant for understanding language policy and ideological fault lines in other Russian republics with similar federal constraints, such as Bashkortostan or Sakha (Yakutia). Russia's multilingual reality, with its 150 languages, offers fertile ground for such studies, though existing scholarship often overlooks this complexity by privileging Russian-language sources and underrepresenting regional perspectives. Future research could expand on our work by incorporating more indepth interviews with key stakeholders, such as policymakers, educators, and members of the Tatar and Russian-speaking communities, to further understand the lived experiences and perceptions behind the discourses analyzed here. Additionally, longitudinal studies could explore how the shifting language policies in Tatarstan continue to affect interethnic relations and language use in the region over time. Comparative studies with other bilingual or multilingual regions in Russia and post-Soviet states would also offer valuable insights into the broader dynamics of language rights, identity, and national discourse in post-imperial and post-Soviet contexts. Moreover, further analysis of the role of social media and digital platforms in shaping contemporary language debates could offer a timely perspective on how language ideologies are disseminated and contested in the digital age.