Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
The Buryats in China (Shenehen Buryats):
the Role of School Education System in the Preservation of Identity
Irina Boldonova, Professor
Buryat State University, Russia
irina_duncan@mail.ru
Darima Boronoeva, Associate Professor
Buryat State University, Russia
boronoeva@mail.ru
Abstract: This chapter is concerned with a Buryat origin minority in China named Shenehen Buryats. The
Buryats originally reside in the Russian Federation around Lake Baikal. After facing serious administrative
problems, several tribes preferred to flee from Russia. Administrative and land reforms shattered the
traditional self-administration system and deprived the Buryats of about 30 % of usable land. The Buryat
migrants settled in Inner Mongolia preserving their traditional nomadic economy. Nowadays the Shenehen
Buryats are noted for their original culture and occupy their own ethnic and cultural niche in Inner Mongolia,
a province of China. Schooling is one of the main factors helping them preserve native language and
traditions. Undoubtedly, the specific linguistic situation among the Shenehen Buryats is a reflection of their
history, relationships with their neighbors and a degree of internal unity. Nowadays Chinese is widely used in
official discourse, economy, and inter-ethnic relations. At the same time Buryat continues to be a means of
everyday communication. The Buryat language became a key element of ethnic identity when in the 1990s
some Shenehen Buryats returned to their homeland. Two social worlds were formed as a result of separate
existence and different ways of historic development. Under such conditions the language became a verbal
marker of a common ethnicity.
Keywords: migration, ethnicity, schooling, native language.
The Buryats in China form a small minority. It is a little over six thousand people.
According to the Chinese census data, they are officially identified as a separate ethnic
group and classified as the Mongols. However, they represent a steady community,
united by a common history, ideas of the same origin, local self-consciousness and
system of immanent interrelations. Their self-definition, the Shenehen Buryats,
highlights a deliberate separation of an ethnic group from the others. By calling
themselves, the Shenehen Buryats, these people specify their original culture and
demarcate its ethnic and cultural space.
7
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
Historical and cultural experience of living in emigration, preservation of the language,
customs and traditions attracts not just scientific, but also practical public interest. Some
scholars rightly state that this Buryat ethnic group in China can be considered a unique
laboratory to study the problems of conservation and transformation of identity,
migration, diasporas, and the so-МallОН “national rОvival projОМts” (Baldano & Dyatlov
2008: 165). The specific tendency of ethnic and cultural development of the Buryats in
China is their orientation on reiteration of norms, values, and meanings. Traditionalism
is mainly a result of geographical locality, relative isolation, living in compact groups,
and late involvement into modernization processes.
Taking into consideration recent discussions concerning the Buryat language and the
ethnic identity issues it is important to emphasize that the Buryat language continues to
be a means of information transfer, carrying out communicative functions within the
community. It persists in this role despite the acculturation processes in the recent years.
It is the language that still continues to be an integrating ethnic factor for the Shenehen
Buryats. In other words, it is an identification symbol modeling their world.
The language situation of the Buryats in China is closely connected with the peculiarities
of historical development in general and the school system in particular. Thus we
consider that it is important to study the history of schooling as a social institution that
shapes a personality and the rules of the adaptation practices.
1. Reasons of migration and process of diaspora formation
Each ethnic group has its own specific protecting methods of reaction to situations of
environmental change connected with political and cultural reality. In emergency
situations (discriminatory reforms, social cataclysms) an ethnic group with a wellestablished self-defense mechanism, consciously or unconsciously develops certain
survival and ethnic identity preservation praМtiМОs. PОrhaps onО of thОsО “rОsponsОs” was
the Buryat migration in the late 19th – early 20th centuries southward from the Russian
Empire. Formation of the Buryat ethnic community in Mongolia and China was a result
of this trans-boundary migration.
According to the official data of the most recent Mongolian 2010 census the Buryats in
Mongolia numbered 48.450 persons, making up 1.7 % of the total population of
Mongolia (2.805.825 people). As in the 2000 Mongolian census data, the Buryats still
remain the fifth largest ethnic group (yastan) after the Khalkhas, Kazakhs, Derbets and
Bayats. In Mongolia the Buryats are settled mostly in Dornod aimag (region) in Bayan
Uul, Bayandun, Dashbalbar, Tsagaan Oboo somons (counties), Khentei aimag
(Batshireet, Binder, Dadal, Norovlin and Byaan-AНarga somons) SОlОnga aimag (Erөө,
8
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
Huder, Shaamar somons and district of Altanbulag), CОntral aimag (Mөngөnmor anН
Erdene somons), Khubsugul aimag (somons of Tsagaan-γγr anН Hanh), Bulgan aimag
(Teshig somon). More than 10.000 Buryats live in the capital Ulaanbaatar. According to
printed media and scholarly studies the Buryat population in Mongolia ranges from
30.000 to 100.000 people. This considerable range is the evidence of policy issues
affecting the census, the ambiguity of census data interpretation and complexity of
НОtОrmination of Mongolian Buryats’ iНОntity (Varnavskii, Dyrkheeva & Skrynnikova,
2003).
2. The historical background of Buryat migrations to Inner Mongolia and
Manchuria
After the revolution of October 1917 seasonal migrations of the Buryats to Mongolia
and Manchuria acquired mostly economic and ethno-preserving character. The urge to
preserve ethnic identity was the result of Russian reforms in the late 19th – early 20th
centuries aiming at the involvement non-Russian national territorial entities into the
modernization process.
One of the specific features of nomaНiМ Buryats’ migratory bОhavior аas absОnМО of
tight territorial limitations before they were imposed by the final incorporation of
Transbaikalia into Russia confirmed by the Nerchinsk Agreement in 1689 and the
demarcation of the Russo-Chinese border in the Bura Treatise of 1727. The Buryat
nomads freely roamed from Lake Baikal to the Khalkha lands and back season by
season. In various circumstances they were under the Russian administration or the
Mongol rulОrs’ Мontrol. In thО first half of thО 18th century border control was not strictly
enforced despite the demarcated boundary between Russia and China. This situation
persisted in the future. Migrations of families and even larger groups in both directions
continued. Because of border transparency among Mongol local territories, then
between Qing China and Russia, many Buryats freely moved in neighboring Mongolia,
Barga and the territories of border Cossacks. Most of them belonged to different tribes
of the Aga Steppe Duma. There was a certain dependence of Buryat traditional economy
and lifestyle on land resources of the neighboring states. In its turn, this resulted in
porous frontiОrs anН inМrОasОН “contact” functions of borderlands.
Describing the economic life of Aga Buryats in the pre-revolutionary period L.
Linkhovoin noted that the Buryats living in Adun-Chulun (Tuurge, Zharan Sunhereg,
Borzya, Taree Lake, Ulirenge), did not make hay for the winter season. During blight
they wandered with their cattle searching for forage often moving into the Mongolian
9
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
territory and Manchuria. After wintering there, they usually returned to their homeland
in spring. As one can see, the migrations of Buryats to Mongolia and Manchuria had
seasonal character and were not cases of final and determined settlement. This type of
migration is concerned with limited pasture resources in winter. This means that nature
was the determining factor for this type of migration.
Administrative and land reforms destroyed the traditional governing system and
deprived the Siberian natives of about 30 % of their land in use (Dameshek 1986). This
inevitably led to a civilizational conflict between the Buryats and the Russian state
(Varnavskii et al. 2003). The increasing number of Russian migrants from the European
part of the empire came to Siberia, including the territories of the Buryat settlement, for
the purposО of lanН sОttlОmОnt. ThОy “changed the relationship of the indigenous
population with the Russians and promoted the development of identification process”
(Varnavskii et al. 2003: 37). This process revitalized legends, rhymes, and prophecies
about migration of the Buryats to Mongolia.
This attempt of the tsarist government to carry out administrative and land reforms with
disregard to the existing cultural differences between the Russians and the Buryats was
interpreted as forced Russification and infringement of national rights (Zhamtsarano
1907: 5).
At the beginning of the 20th century the Buryat national intellectual elite declared an idea
of the protection of ethnic interests. This was triggered by the reduction of Buryat land
holdings down to the norms of Russian landowners. A real threat of displacement of the
Buryats from their ancestral lands loomed ahead. M. N. Bogdanov, a prominent
representative of the pre-revolutionary Buryat intelligentsia, called the process of land
sОttlОmОnt by Russian sОttlОrs thО “forМiblО pushing out of thО Buryats”. Taking into
account the fact that extensive nomadic cattle breeding remained the main economic
activity of most Buryats, especially nomadic Aga Buryats, reduction of land holdings
meant a threat to the traditional ways of life. The Buryats were searching for variants to
settle down this issue. They sent letters to various departments, addressed various
authorities with appeals, petitions and deputations, even refused to pay taxes. Migration
to Mongolia was a last resort measure.
Buryat RОvolutionary CommittОО’s Мhairman anН mОmbОr of thО Russo-Mongolian
Commission M. I. Amagaev commenting on the change of allegiance of the Buryats in
Mongolia back to Russian citizenship argued that the main cause of migration was the
beginning of land reform in Transbaikalia. Many contemporaries also assumed that the
reduction of the land plots and transfer of the best Buryat lands for resettlement sites
were the prime factor for migration (Fund R. 278 (o. 1, d. 20, l. 210), State Archive of
10
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
the Republic of Buryatia).
Immigration intentions among the Buryats were also stirred up by World War I and the
Tsar’s НОМrОО “On the requisitioning of ethnic minorities” issued on 25 June 1916. By
НОМrОО inНigОnous population of thО Russian EmpirО’s borНОrlanНs аas mobiliгОН to
work in the rear of the regular army.
Migration in the border areas intensified during the October 1917 revolution and the
Russian Civil War, МollОМtiviгation, pОrsОМution of BuННhist МlОrgy anН Stalin’s
repressions. It should be noted that during the revolution and the Civil War emigration
was still caused by the unsolved land issue. At that time it erupted into an open conflict
between the Russians and the local Buryat population.
The immigration of the Buryats from Russia could be considered a form of nomadic
migration. Baldano and Dyatlov (2008) argue that the nomadic migration to new areas
can be considered a specific form of flight. In this МasО, unlikО “classical” flight, there
was no marginalization (economic and social) and poverty because most of the refugees
managed to cross the border without any loss of property and cattle, the basis of material
prosperity. At a new place they could reproduce not only their traditional social
structure, but also the traditional lifestyle in general. Territories of new settlement
similar to natural habitat of Transbaikalia contributed to preservation of traditional
production skills.
Thus, the Buryats who migrated to Mongolia and Manchuria (Hulun-Buir in the
northeast of modern China) were people forced to leave the place of the traditional
nomadic life under life-threatening conditions.
3. The specific features of Buryat Migration to Inner Mongolia
As an integral part of the 20th century global migration process, the resettlement of
Buryats to Hulun-Buir has a number of specific features. Unlike the occasional
migrations to Khalkha this process was initially well-organized. Right from the start, the
key issues, such as the resettlement permission providing status, allocation of land for
settlement and farming, right to self-government and self-regulation, were negotiated.
All these factors were of great importance for the adaptation and functioning of the
ethnic group (Boronoeva 2000: 36-51).
In 1917 a delegation led by Aga Buryats M. Bogdanov and N. Bazarov went to HulunBuir and received resettlement permission from the local authorities. A territory named
Shenehen was allocated for their settlement. The first group of people headed by N.
11
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
Bazarov arrived in Hulun-Buir in 1918. By the moment of formation of selfadministration the number of the Buryats settled in Hulun-Buir was 700 persons or 160
households. The immigration continued till 1933.
According to some sources and eyewitness accounts the majority of Buryats moved
from the Aga steppes. One of the informants knowledgeable in history and culture of the
Shenehen Buryats, Tsoktyn Zhamso (born in 1926 in Zuun Husay, Nantung) stated that
the Buryats from Transbaikalia were most receptive to the idea of migration and active
in the resettlement process. In his words, around 80 % of Buryat migrants came from
places like Borzya, Ulirenge and Onon. Among the Buryats who settled down in
Shenehen there was a little percentage of those who came from places in Buryatia, such
as Barguzin, Horinsk, Bichura, Selenginsk and Dzhida regions. Also among the
Shenehen Buryats were people from Cisbaikalia (Pirozhkov Sokrat, Khazagaev
Appolon). In our view, the existence of double names like Horiin Dondok, Horiin
Dubdan, Tsongol Damba and so on (informant Damyn Tsyren-Dulma born in 1954,
Husay, Baruun somon) anН thО Оthnonym “Balaganskaya buryaaН” referring to western
Buryats highlight the existence of a certain intragroup differentiation depending on a
plaМО of origin in Russia, notiМОablО at an Оarly stagО of thО ShОnОhОn Buryats’ history.
Currently, Shenehen is home to eight Khori Buryat tribes (Galzut, Huasay, Hubdut,
Sharayd, Hargana, Bodongut, Tsagan and Halbin).
The dearth of indigenous people in the settlement, restriction and then prohibition to
move across the border created the conditions for permanent residence in Hulun-Buir.
All these factors contributed to cohesion and isolation of the ethnic group. Living in an
aliОn ОnvironmОnt apart from thО original Оthnos gavО birth to thО НiМhotomy “аО-thОy”,
which highlighted the ethnic integrated features. If division into regional and local
groups was typical for the original ethnos, for the ethnic group of Shenehen Buryats subethnic belonging was of minor importance since the entire group was opposed to nonBuryats.
The territory given to the Buryats was and abandoned land. It was abandoned by the
Olets (one of Mongolian ethnic groups) because of anthrax outbreak. For nearly a
hundred years nobody farmed that land and, consequently, nobody applied for
settlement there.
During the Soviet era the Buryats of Inner Mongolia could not maintain contacts with
their homeland. Ties were completely severed since the mid-1930s. The Soviet
government accused them of being enemies of the people, counterrevolutionaries and
Pan-Mongolists and banned all contacts with them. Of course this policy affected
12
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
scholarly studies. As a result, in the mid-1980s very few people in the USSR knew
anything about the Shenehen Buryats. When all communication with the historical
fatherland was severed, historical memory of the native land became extremely
important for the Shenehen Buryats. Field research data (Boronoeva 2000: 70) indicate
that their local privatО аorlН аhОrО a rОal man’s life takes place is very closely
connected with the phenomenon of wholeness with the community of a higher
taxonomic type, the Buryats in Russia and the image of the faraway ancestral land.
As history demonstrates, it is difficult to keep and display loyalty to authorities in the
conditions of rapidly changing political regimes. The Shenehen Buryats are, perhaps,
one of the few ethnic minorities in history, who suffered from four consecutive waves of
repression in a lifespan of just one generation. The first started in the country of origin.
Dekulakization and political repression in the Soviet Union forced them out. After
World War II mass deportations and repression continued as punishment for their
service to Manchukuo. Then the Chinese communists persecuted them and confiscated
their cattle for connections with the Kuomintang and, finally, the repressions continued
during the Cultural Revolution. All hardships had a deep impact on the moral and
psychological self-perception of the Shenehen Buryat diaspora.
In thО bОginning of DОng Xiaoping’s Оra, аhОn a poliМy of soМialist moНОrniгation аas
declared, collective farms were disbanded. The Shenehen Buryats farmed out the land
and continued to lead a traditional type of economy based on cattle and sheep breeding.
Inevitably, in the conditions of economic freedom and competition changes in social
structure and the growth of territorial mobility gradually led to destruction of isolation
and self-sufficiency of the group. Since the mid 1990s Khorchin-Mongols, small
Chinese entrepreneurs, public managers and farmers began to arrive in the Buryat
somons.
The new economic policy brought forth new territorial challenges. Some Shenehen
Buryats were again pushed out of their lands. The convincing example of such expulsion
is the story concerned with rich coal deposits in Tumen Huzuu brigade. Mining started
in 2007 and since that time people have been resettled to other places in exchange for a
miserable monetary compensation.
4. The specifics of Shenehen Buryat self-administration
The contemporary administrative and territorial structure of self-administration of the
Shenehen Buryats originated in the beginning of 1958, when the Shenehen somon was
reorganized into Shenehen Baruun, Shenehen Zuun and Mungen Shuluun somons,
13
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
which, in turn, formed a part of Evenki hoshun of Hulunbuir County.
Territorially each somon was divided into several gachaas (brigades). By the mid-1990s
the administrative-territorial division looked as follows: Bayan hoshuu, Shiwei, Temeen
Huzuu, Holboo, Malay Talbay (Brood factory) brigades formed Shenehen Baruun
somon; Shenehen Zuun somon included Byrde, Hargana, Haan Uula and Hartohoy
brigades; Mungen shuluun somon was formed by Mungen Shuluu, Mungen Tuya,
Bayan Uula and Uedhen brigades. Over the last ten years in line with the tendency in
Chinese policy to integrate local administrative-territorial structures the reforms of
Buryat settlements were carried out. In 2002, Shenehen Zuun and Mungen Shuluun
somons were merged and the resulting territory was transformed into the administrative
unit Shenehen Balgas in 2006.
As for the demography of the Shenehen Buryats, the available statistical data suggest a
conclusion about thО phОnomОnon of “critical number prОsОrvation” (Dyatlov 1999).
The Shenehen Buryat population steadily remains at about 6.000 people for the past 30
years. It is one of the necessary conditions for the preservation of the community. Most
of them dwell in the original areas of the first settlements. Some Shenehen Buryats
reside in Huh-Hoto, Hailar, Shanghai, Manchuria, and Nantung, the center of the Evenki
hoshun. Some dwell in Arshaan, Bayan Tala and Hoy somons. As a result of repatriation
to their historical homeland about 400 people reside in the Republic of Buryatia and the
Aga Autonomous Region of the Russian Federation since the early 1990s.
5. The role of schooling in the life of the diaspora
The most important characteristics of Hulun-Buir’s ОthniМ spaМО arО various Оthnodemographic structures and mosaic multiculturalism. Compact ethnic groups dwelling in
this region are of Mongolian and Tungusic origin, such as the Barguts (Old Barguts and
New Barguts), Dagurs, Evenki, Hamnigans, Khorchin Mongols, Buryats, Russians and
Hans. The Russians in China are officially recognized as a national minority. The
Russians may consider themselves descendants of mixed Russo-Chinese marriages
down to the fourth generation. Russian settlements are concentrated in the three rivers
area: the Haul, the Derbul and the Genhe (Gan) rivers, tributaries of the Argun.
6. The peculiarities of inter-ethnic and language contacts in Hulun-Buir
In our informants’ opinions ( ш
Д
, 1946 . .,
х х
,
;
Tsoktyn Zhamso (born in 1926 in Zuun Husay, Nantung), Hulun-Buir is a place, where
14
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
“ОthniМ anН national НiffОrОnМОs quitО obviously stanН out” (“unНОsОtОnОy ОhО ilgaatay
gaгar” (Boronoeva 2010: 280). Apparently, this is mostly explained by the ethnic
administrative and territorial organization (for instance there are the Old Bargut hoshun
and the New Bargut hoshun, Evenki hoshun, Dagur somon and Hamnigan hoshun).
The duration and depth of contacts and cultural differences exercise strong influence on
the relationships between these groups. Each ethnic group makes its own network of
social ties.
For example, Boronoeva (2000) and Badmaeva (2007) noted that the Buryats and the
Barguts have long been connected by common historical origins reflected in the generic
structure of the two groups, as well as myths and legends. Linguistic and ethno-cultural
affinity between the Buryats and the Barguts has a positive impact on the formation of
ethno-cultural interactions. The Barguts are principal ethnic partners of the Buryats in
the rarely occurring inter-ethnic marriages. Some tensions and, sometimes, conflicts
characterized ethno-cultural relations between the Buryats and the Solons (an Evenki
origin minority) at the initial stage of emigration. This left a negative impression in the
collective memory.
Baldano and Dyatlov (2008) point out that “despite the ethnic, cultural, religious,
linguistic and historical relationship with many neighboring ethnic groups (for example,
the Barguts) the Buryats did not display a slightest tendency to dissolve in the
Mongolian cultural environment” (p. 173). It can be explained by the fact that the
economic system of Buryat migrants that at the initial stage was practically a subsistence
economy did not require active cooperation and exchange with neighbors. This
circumstance mostly predetermined their little interest in contacts with the outside world,
cultural isolation and economic self-sufficiency of the ethnic group. As a result, the
ethnic Buryat component became instrumental for self-expression.
Absence of the necessity to communicate with neighbors on a daily basis assisted to
solvО a sОrious aНaptation problОm of thО rОМОiving nation’s languagО. ThО Buryat
language still remains a means of everyday communication. Interacting with regional
authorities and in routine paper work the Buryats used familiar Mongolian script instead
of the official Manchu language. Such exclusive knowledge and skills were obtained
thanks to the efforts of the leaders of the first settlers. Although the Buryat language is
not official, so far it keeps its function of intra-ethnic communication (Pataeva 2004;
Vasilieva 2005; Boronoeva 1999). All Shenehen Buryats speak their native language. In
a sociolinguistic research carried out in 2005 about 7 % of all Shenehen Buryats were
surveyed. All respondents indicated that they were able to understand or speak the
Buryat language (Shozhoeva 2007). Thus, the language continues to be one the most
15
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
important factors of ethnic integration. It makes the Shenehen Buryats more ethnically
distinct in comparison with other ethnic minorities.
Nowadays, however, the Shenehen Buryats also communicate in Mongolian, Chinese,
Bargut, Dagur and Evenki languages depending on a language environment. The results
of a sociolinguistic survey conducted in 2005 by B. T. Shozhoeva showed that besides
their native Buryat tongue 100 % of the respondents knew Mongolian, 95.4 % knew
Chinese, 60 % – Bargut, 42.5% – Dagur and 15.8% – Evenki (Shozhoeva, 2007). In
addition to these languages, some elderly Shenehen Buryats knew Russian and
Japanese. All this provides the evidence of multilingual elements within the ethnic
group.
The specific linguistic situation among the Shenehen Buryats is definitely a reflection of
their history, nature of relations with their neighbors and degree of their internal unity.
7. Schooling in Shenehen as a factor of ethnic consolidation
The idea of opening schools is closely connected with the establishment of the Buryat
hoshun. The first study groups to learn the basics of the Mongolian script were opened
for children in 1922 (Abida 1993). The first elementary school in the Buryat hoshun was
set up in 1927. Some traditions of secular Russian schools were used in teaching
practice. Tsoktyn Zhamso was the founder of the school and its only teacher. He knew
both Mongolian and Russian. In teaching he used parochial school textbooks. The
subjects were Russian, Mongolian and arithmetic. This school existed for over a year.
The reason for its closure was lack of space. Two yurts, one used for teaching, the other
– as a student dormitory, were passed over to the hoshun administration.
History and practice of first Shenehen schools and our observations and interviews with
the informants were aimed to clarify the contemporary ethno-linguistic situation. In the
course of research work we came to a conclusion that Buryat-Russian bilingualism
prevailed among the first settlers in Hulun-Buir. During the field survey in 1998
(Boronoeva 2000: 77) it was revealed that almost all elderly people aged 70 to75 and
older did not forget the Russian language and could almost fluently express themselves
(Darmyn Nima, born in 1908, Hargana, Bayan hoshuu brigade, Serenzhabay Abid,
Zhamsyn Tsokto, Namzhalay Namsarai and so on).
Besides, the modern everyday vocabulary of the Shenehen Buryats reveals a number of
borrowings from the cultural and daily routine exchange with the Russians. Many
Buryats, especially of younger age, consider these borrowings as native Buryat words.
16
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
This may be explained by living in a different linguistic and socio-cultural environment
as opposed to living in the native land and lack of communication in Russian. The
following words confirm Russian borrowings: astahan-glass; ustul - chair; sumhe - bag;
kotomha - big bag, duhovha - oven; peeshen - stove; harmaan - pocket; gown - casual
traditional clothes; palaati - dress; zavaalin – argaal - gathered along the fence; senic annexe to the house, and sometimes a balcony; podnyag-well, patret - portrait (photo),
shoper - driver, competa – candy, karandas – pencil, eroplan – aircraft (Buraeva 2010).
In the period of Japanese occupation of Hulun-Buir and the existence of the puppet
Manchukuo state (1932 -1945) a number of primary schools were opened to teach
Japanese to the local people. In January 1933 a two-year primary school was opened in
Shenehen. About 10 students studied the Mongolian and Japanese languages. Later
many school graduates entered a military school and then served in the Japanese army as
non-commissioned officers. An outstanding professor, Doctor of Sciences in Medicine
A. Albazhin graduated with honors from this school and continued his education in
Japan.
A three-class school and a two-year primary school were opened in Burde and Uedhen
areas in the fall of 1933. It should be noted that the presence of Japanese teachers was a
compulsory requirement for schools organization. As the result of reorganization of
these two schools in 1934, a primary four-yОar sМhool № 3 of thО EvОnki (Solon) hoshun
located near the Shenehen datsan (Buddhist temple) was founded. By 1940, this small
school achieved the status of a privileged school with six-class education. At the time of
liberation from the Japanese occupation more than 60 students studied in it. In the
previous years before seven teachers taught there. Their names were A. Naidan, S.
Sumaya, Teentey (Dagur) Amgalan, Sawada (Japanese), S. Bata-Munkhe and B.
Demsheg (Abida 1893).
Some students and graduates of the Shenehen school continued their education in such
regional institutions as Railway Transportation Institute in Harbin, Agricultural Institute
in Changchun, Military School in Huhe-Hoto, Military-Medical school in Harbin and in
Japanese universities. During the 14 years of the Japanese colonization a very small
percentage of young Buryats learned to speak Japanese fluently. Knowledge of
Japanese gave them a chance to make a career in the army and even get a higher
education.
After World War II, at the request of the Shenehen Buryat majority a primary school
based on traditional principles was opened in Ulaan-Hargana area. Ba-Munkhe was its
headmaster. Due to the lack of literature on teaching methodology and teacher training
manuals the Buryat educators published textbooks based on the translations of Japanese
17
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
anН Russian tОaМhОr’s manuals. AММorНing to BoНonguuН AbiНa, this sМhool playОН an
important role for the development of Shenehen Buryat culture and literacy. The school
became a peculiar cultural pillar of the diaspora.
The further development of school education in Shenehen was carried out in compliance
with the official schooling system of China, which is divided into the following stages:
primary school from 1st to 5th grade, grades 6-9 – junior high school, grades 10-11–high
school.
By 1966, there were more than 10 primary schools in Shenehen. The enrollment of
children was about 90 %. In 1984 there were 1181 students in nine elementary schools
and 167 students in junior high schools. The schools employed 122 teachers.
In 1998, in Shenehen, and as a result of closure and merger of small schools three
primary schools functioned in somon centers (Baruun somon, Zuun somon, Mungen
Shuluun) and one secondary school in Baruun somon. Those who wanted to complete
the full secondary school course had to continue their study in Hailar or in Nantung, the
center of the Evenki hoshun. At present, in compliance with state standards and plans
two primary and one secondary school work in Buryat somons.
There are some peculiarities of the teaching process at the Shenehen schools (Boronoeva
2000: 79-80). Teaching at schools of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region is in
Mongolian. The Mongolian vertical script is used for writing. It is important to note that
in parallОl аith thО “Mongolian” sМhools thОrО arО also “Chinese” schools, where
teaching is in Chinese. In our view, the use of Old Mongolian script as standard
language was one of the most important factors to preserve sustainability of the Buryat
language within such a small ethnic community as the Shenehen Buryats. One of the
advantages of the OlН Mongolian sМript is that it “enables native speakers of different
dialects and languages to read thО samО symbols in thОir oаn аay” (Chimitdorzhiev
1996: 42), and because of that the Old Mongolian script is an effective instrument for
“consolidation of kindred Mongolian peoples, who by the course of history found
themselves in different states, countries and state assoМiations” (ChimitНorгhiОv 1996:
42). As a result of migration to Hulun-Buir the Buryat migrants did not face a language
crisis since the Old Mongolian script was the cultural heritage of all Mongolian people.
It was a consolidating factor for them serving, as PoppО (1928) arguОН, as “the means of
cultural communication of all Mongolian tribes” (p. 37).
Professor Gombozhab Tsybikov wrote that, having survived in many historical periods,
the Mongolian tribes preserved their national language and its unity is preserved in the
script.
18
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
The literary language developed certain formal laws of language ... It preserved the unity of the
nation. Many Mongolian tribes understand each other in written language, in colloquial speech
they understand each other with great difficulty. Therefore, the Mongolian written language is the
unifier of the Mongolian tribes (Tsybikov 1991: 179).
According to the contemporary Mongolian linguistic studies ((Burayev 1996), no more
than 8-9 Mongolian languages can be considered independent. These are Mongolian of
InnОr Mongolia in China, Mongolian in Kukunor China, Bao’an languagО in Gansu anН
Qinghai China, Donxiang in southern Gansu, Dagur in Heilongjiang province (former
Manchuria). The Khalkha language functions in Mongolia, the Buryat and the Kalmyk
languages function in Russia (Burayev 1996). The use of Old Mongolian script in the
educational process enabled the Buryats in China to preserve traditional perception of
the Buryat language as a part of the whole, as opposed to the Buryats in Russia, who
consider Mongolian a foreign language. This fact prevented them from forgetting a
simplО truth that “thО Mongolian languagОs inМluНing Buryat МomprisО thО аholО
language family with their common laws of development and functioning”
(Chimitdorzhiev 1996: 48). On the basis of the sociolinguistic survey, B. T. Shozhoeva
МamО to thО МonМlusion that thО ShОnОhОn Buryats “НiН not МlОarly Нistinguish bОtаООn
МlosОly rОlatОН Buryat anН Mongolian languagОs” bОМausО thОy “usО thО OlН Mongolian
sМript” (ShoгhoОva 2007: 67).
8. The current situation with bilingualism in Shenehen
One of the specific educational features in Inner Mongolia is the compulsory study of
the Chinese language in primary school and the division of 10th and 11th grade students
into classes with Chinese and Mongolian languages of instruction.
As it is generally assumed, the development of ethno-linguistic situation of this or that
ethnic group is under the influence of their linguistic orientation and psychological
attitudes. In Shenehen many informants emphasized the popular tendency when parents
ОnvisagО thОir МhilНrОn’s futurО аith thО МommanН of thО ChinОsО languagО. For this
reason, many parents try to send their children either to Chinese schools or to classes
with Chinese as the language of instruction. That is the reason for which many families
move to Nantung, the administrative center of the Evenki khoshun or Hailar. Thus,
according to Boldoy Nordob (born in 1929, Hargana, Bayan hoshun brigade), in 1998
about 100 Buryat families lived in Nantung. They were mostly elderly people, who
changed their place of living to look after their grandchildren of school age, while their
parents engaged in cattle breeding in the countryside.
19
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
At present, all researchers and observers (Boronoeva 2000; Pataeva 2004; Vasilieva
2005; Shozhoeva 2007) note the increasing popularity of the Chinese language for
pragmatic purposes. One of them is a need to continue education. In this connection, the
students and their parents are specifically interested in advanced learning of Chinese.
According to the participant observation (Boronoeva 2000), the degree of proficiency in
Chinese displays a certain pattern. The older the person is, the less he or she knows
Chinese and vice versa. One of the informants Darmyn Nima, born in 1908, who spoke
good Russian, bitterly stated during the interview in 1998 (Boronoeva 2000: 81), “I аas
hoping that I МoulН rОturn baМk homО, anН НiН not lОarn thО ChinОsО languagО.”
We have also noted the growing importance of Chinese in the industrial sector and
interpersonal communication among some youngsters. The Chinese language actively
penetrates into such an intimate sphere as interfamilial communication. This
phenomenon specifically applies to families, who lived in hoshun or regional urban
centers for a long time.
It is considered that the development of bilingualism may have extensive and intensive
trends (Guboglo 1970: 5). In the first case bilingualism goes breadthways, which means
that the second language (Chinese in the given context) is acquired by a growing number
of ethnic representatives. In the second case, the tendency is manifested through
“НООpОning” of thО sОМonН languagО МommanН anН its usО for МommuniМation аithin thО
ethnic group.
Based on our observations, we can emphasize that at this stage the Buryat-Chinese
bilingualism in Inner Mongolia of China is developing extensively, that is, breadthways.
As mentioned above, many Buryats of Inner Mongolia know Chinese. The level of
linguistic competence (proficiency) and speech activity is based on the educational level
of the Buryats, and it is directly determined by belonging to a particular age group.
The current linguistic situation of the Buryats of Inner Mongolia is characterized by a
certain distinction in functioning of the Buryat and Chinese languages in real-speech
communication. The Chinese language is widely used for official purposes, in
economics and for inter-ethnic communication. The Buryat language continues to be in
use for the entire range of language needs within the ethnic group and the language is
also used by Shenehen immigrants in Russia for communication with the local Buryats.
20
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
9. Repatriation of the Shenehen Buryats and its results
At the beginning of the 1990s repatriation of the Shenehen Buryats to their historical
fatherland became possible. Very soon it was shown that separate existence of the
Buryat communities in China and Russia led to the formation of two Buryat cultures
(Baldano Dyatlov 2008: 165). The repatriated Buryats immediately surprised the locals
аith thОir truО “Buryat naturО”, “purО anН soft” Buryat spООМh organiМally fillОН аith
proverbs, lingering melodies of ancient Buryat songs apparently long forgotten, luxury
of traditional Buryat clothing and jewelry. All this was relevant and necessary for the
Buryat society. Within the frameworks of national and cultural revival in Russia there
аas thО “НОmanН for traНition” anН, thОrОforО, on thО Оmotional anН psyМhologiМal lОvОls
the repatriation process was positively perceived by the society. It was considered a
unique resource for the recreation of the lost Buryat traditions. Baldano and Dyatlov
(2008) arguО that thО ShОnОhОn Buryats аОrО НОМlarОН “МarriОrs, born nativОs anН
experts in traditional Buryat culture, customs, knowledge, language, i.e. all that has been
partially or МomplОtОly lost in thО proМОss of moНОrniгation” (p. 186).
Knowledge of the Buryat language helped immigrants enter the existing social
networks, communication systems and relationships. The Buryat language became the
key element of ethnic identity in a dialogue of two socio-cultural worlds formed as a
result of prolonged separate existence and different ways of historical development. In
this way the language became a verbal evidence of the common ethnicity.
Unlike other Mongolian ethnic groups and national minorities in China the Shenehen
Buryats have largely remained unaffected by Chinese cultural and linguistic
assimilation. In our attempt to analyze the integration processes in terms of assimilation,
it is plausiblО to agrОО аith Z. Shmyt (2010) аho highlightОН thО ОбistОnМО of “thО ОffОМt
of external binary distinction between the pastoral ethnic minority and the Chinese
majority” (p. 290).
The Mongolian and Tungusic ethnic groups share the common type of traditional
economy – МattlО brООНing, аhiМh is a МonsoliНating faМtor for thОm. In aННition, China’s
national policy promotes ties between them. These groups are officially recognized as
national minorities. This guarantees them a number of benefits, such as the rights to have
more than one child, to be educated in the Mongolian language, to invest in the
preservation of cultural heritage, to rent-free lands for grazing and the access to higher
education. This, of course, contributes to thО ОstablishmОnt of notional “lОgal”
boundaries between the ethnic minorities and the Han.
21
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
Referring to Chinese scholars, such as Fei Xiaotong and Chen Lyankaya, we should
note that their classification of contemporary Chinese national policy and the structure of
the entire whole Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu) as united diversity comprises three
levels (Namsaraeva 2007: 250). The first level (tsents) is actually the Chinese nation as a
whole. The second level encompasses 56 nations of China (Han and all non-Han
nationalities including the Mongols). The third level includes both units (different ethnic
groups – “tsгutsyun”) аithin thО sОМonН lОvОl of nations. AММorНing to this МlassifiМation
the Buryats of Inner Mongolia are considered one of the ethnic groups (tszutsyun)
within the Mongols (Namsaraeva 2007). They stand out among ethnic Mongols of Inner
Mongolia thanks to thОir rОputation of bОing “vОry original anН traНitional” (tОbО yui
feychan chuantun).
Future development of the Shenehen Buryats depends on many factors, both internal
anН ОбtОrnal. First anН forОmost, thОy arО China’s national poliМy anН thО НОvОlopmОnt
of all Mongolian minorities, relationships with the country of origin and the Buryats in
Russia and Russo-Chinese relations. Will the Shenehen Buryats be able to preserve the
rОputation of thО most “truО, original Mongolians of thО stОppОs” (tsaoyuan Нi
chzhenchzhen mengu), holders and custodians of ethnic traditions? The answer to this
question depends on the choice of adaptation practices and educational strategies in the
conditions of intensive economic development.
References
Abida, Bodonguud (1983) Б я ш YYхэ. Х
,К
: Y э ё
хэ э э хY э. Kratkaya istoriya buryat-mongolov. Hailar. [The Short History of the Buryats-Monglos.
Haila] China: Izdatelstvo “kultura” Vnutrenney Mongolii.
Aristotle (38 –322 B.C.C.) “RhОtoriМs.” [In:] PatriМia P. MatsОn, Philip B. Rollinson, Mario Sousa,
Readings from Classical Rhetoric. SIU Press 1990.
BaНmaОva, Larisa (2007) “YaгykovyО parallОli bargutov i buryat.” [“LinguistiМ parallОls of thО Barguts anН
thО Buryats.”] [In:] L. Abaeva, D. Nimaev & D. Boronoeva (eds.) Buryaty v kontekste sovremennykh
etnokulturnykh i etnosocialnykh protsessov. Traditsionnaya kultura, narodnoye tvorchestvo i natsionalnye
vidy sporta buryat v usloviakh polietnichnosti. T. 3. Diaspory v kontekste sovremennykh etnokulturnykh i
etnosocialnykh protsessov [The Buryats in the Context of Modern Ethno-Cultural and Ethno-Social
Processes. Traditional Culture, Folklore and National Sports of the Buryats in Multiethnic Society. Vol. 3.
Diasporas in the context of modern ethno-cultural and ethno-social processes]. Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo
Buryat. gos. un-ta: 99-109.
BalНano, Marina , Dyatlov, ViМtor (2008). “ShОnОnskiyО buryaty: iг Нiaspory v Нiasporu?” [“ThО ShОnОhОn
Buryats: from Нiaspora to Нiaspora?”] Diaspory, 1, 164-192. 169, 173, 186.
Bonheim, Helmut ([1982] 1992) The Narrative Modes: Technique of the Short Story. Cambridge: D.S
Brewer.
22
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
BoronoОva, Darima (1999) “Etnoyaгykovaya situatsya u buryat VnutrОnnОi Mongolii KNR.” [“ThО
Ethnolinguistic Situation of InnОr Mongolia’s Buryats in China.”] [In:] Materialy regional’noi nauchnoprakticheskoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi 80-letiyu professora T. T. Tsydypova “Problemy buryatskoi
philologii na sovremennom etape [Issues of Buryat Philology at Present Time: Proceedings of regional
Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 80th Anniversary of Prof. T .T. Tsydypova]. Ulan-Ude,
Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta: 20-22.
Boronoeva, Darima (2000) Ocherky istorii i kultury buryat Vnutrennei Mongolii KNR. Essays on the History
and Culture of the Buryats of Inner Mongolia, China. [Essays on the History and Culture of the Buryats of
Inner Mongolia, China.] Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta.
Boronoeva, Darima (2010) “Buryaty v Mongolii i vo Vnutrenney Mongolii KNR: antropologiya perepisi i
iНОntiМhnost.” [“ThО Buryats in Mongolia anН in InnОr Mongolia of China: Anthropology of CОnsus anН
IНОntity.”] [In:] B. V. Baгarov & V. I. Dyatlov (ОНs.) Aziatskaya Rossia: migratsii, regiony i regionalism v
istoricheskoy dinamike [Asiatic Russia: Migrations, Regions and Regionalism in the Historical Dynamics].
Irkutsk, Russia: Ottisk: 273-284.
BuraОva, Olga (2010) “OtraгhОniО Оtnokulturnykh svaгОi v yaгykО shОnОhОnskih Buryat.” [“RОflОМtion of
Ethnocultural RОlations in thО LanguagО of thО ShОnОhОn Buryats.”] [In:] B. V. Baгarov & V. I. Dyatlov
(eds.) Aziatskaya Rossia: migratsii, regiony i regionalism v istoricheskoy dinamike [Asiatic Russia:
Migrations, Regions and Regionalism in the Historical Dynamics]. Irkutsk, Russia: Ottisk: 294-301.
BuraОv, Ignatiy (1996) “SovrОmОnnoО sostoyaniО buryatskogo yaгyka i mОry Оgo sokhranОniya.” [) “ThО
МurrОnt status of thО Buryat languagО anН Оfforts for its prОsОrvation anН НОvОlopmОnt.”] [In:] Sovremennoe
polozhenie buryatskogo naroda i perspektivy ego razvitiya: materially nauchoy konf. Problems of Buryat
literary language. Materialy nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. [The Current Situation of the Buryat People
and its Development Perspectives. Proceedings of Scientific-Practical Conference]. Issue 3. Ulan-Ude,
Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta: 26-29.
ChimitНorгhiОv, Shirab (1996) “ProbОmy buryatskogo litОraturnogo yaгyka.” [“ProblОms of thО Buryat
LitОrary LanguagО.”] [In:] Sovremennoe polozhenie buryatskogo naroda i perspektivy ego razvitiya:
materially nauchoy konf. Problems of Buryat Literary Language. Materialy nauchno-prakticheskoi
konferentsii. [The Current Situation of the Buryat People and its Development Perspectives. Proceedings of
Scientific-Practical Conference.] Issue 3. Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta: 42-49.
Dameshek, Lev (1986) Vnutrennyaya politika tsarisma i narody Sibiri (XIX – nachalo XX vv.). [The
Domestic Policy of Tsarism and Siberia’s Peoples (19th – Early 20th Centuries). Irkutsk, Russia: Izd-vo
Irkutskogo un-ta.
Dyatlov, ViМtor (1999) “Diaspora: popytka oprОНОlitsya v tОrminО i ponyatii.” [Diaspora: thО AttОmpts to
Specify in Terms and Notions]. [In:] Diaspory [Diasporas] # 2-3: 8-23.
Fund R. 278 (o. 1, d. 20, l. 210). Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Respubliki Buryatia. [State Archive of the
Republic of Buryatia, Ulan-Ude, Russia].
Guboglo, Mihail (1970) “ Etno-soМialnyО aspОkty yaгykovyh kontaktov.” [“EthniМ anН SoМial AspОМts of
LanguagО ContaМts.”]. [In:] Doklad na 7 mezhdunarodnom sociologicheskom kongresse. [Report at the 7th
International Sociological Congress] Moskva, Rossia.
Jakobson, Roman (1960) “LinquistiМs anН PoОtiМs.” [In:] Thomas SОbОok (ОН.) Style in Language.
Cambridge: M.I.T. Press: 350 – 357.
Namsaraeva, Sayana (2007) “KontsОptsiya “ОНinoi kitaiskoi natsii” chzhunhua min’tzu i shenehenskie
buryaty kak ОО МomponОnt.” [“ThО ConМОpt of "thО аholО ChinОsО nation," Zhonghua Minгu anН ShОnОhОn
Buryats as its ComponОnts.”] In L. Abaeva, D. Boronoeva & S. Dashieva (eds.) Diaspory v sovremennom
mire: materialy mezhdunar. kruglogo stola, g. Ulan-Ude, 15 okt. 2007, Hulun-Buir, 13 dek. 2007 [Diasporas
in the contemporary world: proceedings of the international roundtable held in Ulan-Ude on Oct. 15, 2007
23
Vol. 5, no. 1/2013
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
and Hulun-Buir on Dec. 13, 2007]. Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta: 250-256.
PataОva, ValОntina (2005) “TraНitsionnaya kultura i yaгyk shОhОnskih Buryat.” [TraНitional CulturО anН
Language of the Shenehen Buryats] [In:] M. S. Vasilyeva et al. (eds.) Lokalnye osobennosti buryatskoi
obshiny Vnutrenney Mongolii KNR. Materialy pervoy nauchnoy exspeditsii NGI. 2004 g. [Local Features of
the Buryat Ethnic Community of Inner Mongolia, Peoples’ Republic of China. Proceedings of the First
Scientific Expedition of NGI. 2004].Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta: 11-17.
PoppО, Nikolay (1928) “K iгuМhОniyu buryatskikh govorov.” [“To thО StuНy of thО Buryat DialОМts”] [In:]
Zhizn’ Buryatii [Life of Buryatia] 10-12.
Shmyt, ZbignОv (2010) “MОгhНu ZabaikaliОm i Hulun-buirom. Migratsionnye praktiki shenehenskikh
buryat.” [“BОtаООn Transbaikalia anН Hulun-Buir. Migration Praбis of thО ShОnОhОn Buryats.”] [In:] B. V.
Bazarov & V. I. Dyatlov (eds.) Aziatskaya Rossia: migratsii, regiony i regionalism v istoricheskoy dinamike
[Asiatic Russia: Migrations, Regions and Regionalism in the Historical Dynamics]. Irkutsk, Russia: Ottisk:
284-294.
ShoгhoОva, Bayarma (2007) “Formy i urovni vladeniya buryatskim, mongolskim i kitayskim yazykami
shОnОhОnskih buryat VnutrОnnОi Mongolii Kitaya (po Нannym sotsiolingvistiМhОskogo obslОНovaniya).”
[“The Forms and Levels of the Buryat, Mongolian and Chinese Language Command of the Shenehen
Buryats of Inner Mongolia, China: A Sociolinguistic Survey.”] In L. AbaОva, D. BoronoОva & S. DashiОva
(eds.) Diaspory v sovremennom mire: materialy mezhdunar. kruglogo stola, g. Ulan-Ude, 15 okt. 2007,
Hulun-Buir, 13 dek. 2007 [Diasporas in the Contemporary World: Proceedings of the International
Roundtable Held in Ulan-Ude on Oct. 15, 2007 and Hulun-Buir on Dec. 13, 2007]. Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo
Buryat. gos. un-ta: 62-70.
Tsybikov, Gomboгhap (1991) “Mongol’skaya pis’mОnnost’ kak oruНiО natsional’noi kultury.” [“Mongolian
Writing as an InstrumОnt of National CulturО”]. [In:] Izbrannye Trudy [Selected Works] Vol. 2. Novosibirsk,
Russia; Nauka.
Varnavskii, Pavel, Dyrkheeva, Galina, Skrynnikova, Tatyana (2003) Buryatskaya etnichnost v kontekste
sociokulturnoy modernizatsii (konets XIX – pervaya tret XX vv.) [Buryat Ethnicity in the Context of
Sociocultural Modernization (Late 19th – First Third Of The 20th Centuries)] Irkutsk, Russia: MION.
Vasilyeva, Maria (2005) “Iz istorii obucheniya i vospitaniya detey sheneheskih buryat.” [“From thО History
of SМhooling anН Upbringing of ShОnОhОn Buryat ChilНrОn”] [In:] M. S. Vasilyeva et al. (eds.) Lokalnye
osobennosti buryatskoi obshiny Vnutrenney Mongolii KNR. Materialy pervoy nauchnoy exspeditsii NGI.
2004 g. [Local Features of the Buryat Ethnic Community of Inner Mongolia, China. Proceedings of the First
Scientific Expedition of NGI. 2004]. Ulan-Ude, Russia: Izd-vo Buryat. gos. un-ta: 47-58
Zhamtsrano, Tsyben (1907) “ Buryaty i osvoboditelnoe dvizhenie.” [ThО Buryats and Liberation Movement.]
[In:] Sibisrkiye voprosy. [Siberian Issues] # 7: 3-10.
24