Language Attitudes and Intergenerational Dynamics of Code Mixing in a Bilingual Environment among Native Speakers of the Kalmyk Language

Introduction. In the contemporary multilingual context of the Russian Federation, where Russian coexists with other indigenous languages, the Kalmyk language is of particular research interest. Disruptions in intergenerational transmission and asymmetric proficiency in Kalmyk and Russian contribute to code-switching and mixing, affecting the language’s vitality and speakers’ linguistic attitudes. Objectives. This study examines the attitudes and use of Kalmyk across age groups and explores intergenerational dynamics of code-mixing in relation to language attrition. Materials. Data were collected through a survey of 108 Kalmyk speakers in the Republic of Kalmykia (November 2024), categorized into three age groups. Results. Significant intergenerational differences were observed. The older generation actively uses Kalmyk in daily life, demonstrates tolerance toward linguistic errors, and supports younger speakers. The middle generation exhibits irregular use of Kalmyk language and concerns over “language purity,” while youth use Kalmyk minimally, adopting a neutral stance. Code-mixing occurs across all groups but for different reasons: older speakers – bilingual habits and expressive purposes; middle generation – language preservation; youth – habitual use with some conscious efforts on Kalmyk language inclusion. Most respondents consider Kalmyk prestigious despite its reduced functional domains. Conclusions. Code-mixing constitutes a stable communicative strategy with both pragmatic and symbolic functions. Kalmyk continues to serve as a marker of identity, and intergenerational differences in language attitudes reflect ongoing language attrition. Introduction. In the contemporary multilingual context of the Russian Federation, where Russian coexists with other indigenous languages, the Kalmyk language is of particular research interest. Disruptions in intergenerational transmission and asymmetric proficiency in Kalmyk and Russian contribute to code-switching and mixing, affecting the language’s vitality and speakers’ linguistic attitudes. Objectives. This study examines the attitudes and use of Kalmyk across age groups and explores intergenerational dynamics of code-mixing in relation to language attrition. Materials. Data were collected through a survey of 108 Kalmyk speakers in the Republic of Kalmykia (November 2024), categorized into three age groups. Results. Significant intergenerational differences were observed. The older generation actively uses Kalmyk in daily life, demonstrates tolerance toward linguistic errors, and supports younger speakers. The middle generation exhibits irregular use of Kalmyk language and concerns over “language purity,” while youth use Kalmyk minimally, adopting a neutral stance. Code-mixing occurs across all groups but for different reasons: older speakers – bilingual habits and expressive purposes; middle generation – language preservation; youth – habitual use with some conscious efforts on Kalmyk language inclusion. Most respondents consider Kalmyk prestigious despite its reduced functional domains. Conclusions. Code-mixing constitutes a stable communicative strategy with both pragmatic and symbolic functions. Kalmyk continues to serve as a marker of identity, and intergenerational differences in language attitudes reflect ongoing language attrition. Introduction. In the contemporary multilingual context of the Russian Federation, where Russian coexists with other indigenous languages, the Kalmyk language is of particular research interest. Disruptions in intergenerational transmission and asymmetric proficiency in Kalmyk and Russian contribute to code-switching and mixing, affecting the language’s vitality and speakers’ linguistic attitudes. Objectives. This study examines the attitudes and use of Kalmyk across age groups and explores intergenerational dynamics of code-mixing in relation to language attrition. Materials. Data were collected through a survey of 108 Kalmyk speakers in the Republic of Kalmykia (November 2024), categorized into three age groups. Results. Significant intergenerational differences were observed. The older generation actively uses Kalmyk in daily life, demonstrates tolerance toward linguistic errors, and supports younger speakers. The middle generation exhibits irregular use of Kalmyk language and concerns over “language purity,” while youth use Kalmyk minimally, adopting a neutral stance. Code-mixing occurs across all groups but for different reasons: older speakers – bilingual habits and expressive purposes; middle generation – language preservation; youth – habitual use with some conscious efforts on Kalmyk language inclusion. Most respondents consider Kalmyk prestigious despite its reduced functional domains. Conclusions. Code-mixing constitutes a stable communicative strategy with both pragmatic and symbolic functions. Kalmyk continues to serve as a marker of identity, and intergenerational differences in language attitudes reflect ongoing language attrition. Introduction. In the contemporary multilingual context of the Russian Federation, where Russian coexists with other indigenous languages, the Kalmyk language is of particular research interest. Disruptions in intergenerational transmission and asymmetric proficiency in Kalmyk and Russian contribute to code-switching and mixing, affecting the language’s vitality and speakers’ linguistic attitudes. Objectives. This study examines the attitudes and use of Kalmyk across age groups and explores intergenerational dynamics of code-mixing in relation to language attrition. Materials. Data were collected through a survey of 108 Kalmyk speakers in the Republic of Kalmykia (November 2024), categorized into three age groups. Results. Significant intergenerational differences were observed. The older generation actively uses Kalmyk in daily life, demonstrates tolerance toward linguistic errors, and supports younger speakers. The middle generation exhibits irregular use of Kalmyk language and concerns over “language purity,” while youth use Kalmyk minimally, adopting a neutral stance. Code-mixing occurs across all groups but for different reasons: older speakers – bilingual habits and expressive purposes; middle generation – language preservation; youth – habitual use with some conscious efforts on Kalmyk language inclusion. Most respondents consider Kalmyk prestigious despite its reduced functional domains. Conclusions. Code-mixing constitutes a stable communicative strategy with both pragmatic and symbolic functions. Kalmyk continues to serve as a marker of identity, and intergenerational differences in language attitudes reflect ongoing language attrition.

1. Aduchieva A. B. Kalmyk Language: Problems and Prospects. Philology. Theory and Practice. No. 12(42). Tambov: Gramota, 2014. Pp. 13–15. (In Russ.)

2. Baranova V. V. The Linguistic Situation in Kalmykia: a Sociolinguistic Essay. In: Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistic Research. Vol. 5. Part 2: Studies on the Grammar of the Kalmyk Language. N. Kazansky (ed.). St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2009. Pp. 22-41. (In Russ.)

3. Baranova V. V. Language and Ethnic Identity. Urums and Rumeys of the Azov Region. Moscow: Higher School of Economics, 2010. 285 p. (In Russ.)

4. Baranova V. V. Language Contacts in Kalmykia and the Emerging of a New Local Russian Variety. Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute. 2020. No. 4(26). Pp. 131–146. DOI: 10.31912/pvrli-2020.4.7 (In Russ.)

5. Bitkeeva A. N. A Model of Sociolinguistic Forecasting and Current Trends in Language Policy in the Regions of Russia. The New Research of Tuva. 2022. No. 4. Pp. 38–52. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25178/nit.2022.4.3

6. Buskunbaeva L. A., Rakhmatullina Z. Ya., Yagafarova G. N. Features of the Functioning of Discursive Marker Nu in Bashkir Monologue Speech. The New Research of Tuva. 2023. No. 2. Pp. 166–178. (In Russ.)

7. Volgin V. L. Features of Civic Initiatives Supporting the Kalmyk Language in its Crisis. Sotsiolingvistika. 2022. No. 4(12). Pp. 29–44. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.37892/2713-2951-4-12-29-44

8. Russian Population Census 2020. Moscow: Rosstat, 2020. Available at: https://77.rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210976 (accessed: 7 September 2025). (In Russ.)

9. Golovko E. V. Switching Codes or a New Code? Proceedings of the Faculty of Ethnology: Collection of Articles. No. 1. St. Petersburg: European University, 2001. Pp. 298-316. St. Petersburg: European University, 2001. Pp. 298–316. (In Russ.)

10. Isaeva M. G. Code-switching in Written Media Texts (based on Russian-Language Journals). Cand. Sc. (Philology) thesis. Cherepovets: Cherepovets State University, 2009. 262 p. (In Russ.)

11. Kalmyk Language. Minority Languages of Russia. Project of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Available at: https://minlang.iling-ran.ru/lang/kalmyckiy-yazyk (accessed: 7 September 2025). (In Russ.)

12. Kozhemyakina V. A. Features of the Language Situation and Language Legislation in the Republic of Kalmykia. Almanac of Modern Science and Education. Tambov: Gramota, 2008. No. 2(9). In 3 parts. Pt 1. Pp. 116–120. (In Russ.)

13. Mamontova N. A. “You Should Have Come in the Last Century”: Language Attitude

14. and Code-Switching among the Evenk People in the Urban Space of Tura Settlement. Forum for Anthropology and Culture. 2019. No. 42. Pp. 109–134. (In Russ.)

15. Nekrasova G. A. Self-corrections in Spontaneous Speech of Komi Speakers. Bulletin of Ugric Studies. 2023. Vol. 13. No. 3. Pp. 452–460. DOI: 10.30624/2220-4156-2023-13-3-452-460. (In Russ.)

16. Languages of Russia: Institute of Linguistics of the RAS. 2023. Available at: https://jazykirf.iling-ran.ru/list_2023.shtml (accessed: 07 September 2025). (In Russ.)

17. Dictionary of Sociolinguistic Terms. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of RAS, 2006. 312 p. (In Russ.)

18. Khilkhanova E. V. On the Terms “code-switching”, “code-mixing”, “insertions” and the Criteria for their Distinction. The World of Science, Culture and Education. 2018. No. 2(69). Pp. 668–671. (In Russ.)

19. Chirsheva G. N. Bilingual Communication. Cherepovets: Cherepovets State University, 2004. 189 p. (In Russ.)

20. Bell A. Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society. 1984. Vol. 13, No. 2. Pp. 145–204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (In Eng.) DOI: 10.1017/S004740450001037X

21. Swann J., Deumert A., Lillis T., Mesthrie R. A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012. 368 p. (In Eng.)

22. Gumperz J. J. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. (In Eng.)

23. Myers-Scotton J. A. Social Motivations for Code-switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. (In Eng).

24. Eberhard D. M., Simons G. F., Fennig C. D. (eds.). Kalmyk-Oirat (XAL). In: Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 28th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2025. Available at: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/xal/ (accessed: 06 September 2025). (In Eng.)

25. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Christopher Moseley (ed.). Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2010. 222 p. (In Eng.)