Abstract
Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions:
Under Soviet rule, established Russian-based bilingualism triggered language shift and attrition in indigenous languages, particularly in L1 Kazakh. This study investigates the revitalisation of Kazakh in multilingual Kazakhstan following its independence in 1991. It focuses on speakers whose L1 Kazakh was replaced by L1 Russian during their socialisation, resulting in a loss of nativeness in their L1 Kazakh and rendering it their heritage language. The main research question is how the current reversing language shift manifests in a core grammatical domain – aspectuality – particularly regarding resultativity, a salient marker of nativeness with symbolic significance in language revival.
Design/Methodology/Approach:
We adopted a quantitative, cross-sectional design, comparing usage patterns of aspectuality across three speaker groups (one control, two experimental): L1 Kazakh speakers (n = 32), L1 Russian speakers (n = 30), and heritage Kazakh speakers whose L1 was replaced by Russian (n = 33). Targeted survey tasks assessed proficiency in resultativity, allowing examination of how bilingual experience and previous language shift influence core grammatical knowledge.
Data and Analysis:
When analysing our corpus, we evaluated the stability and variability of aspectual marking in each group. We examined whether, and in what ways, reversing language shift from Russian to Kazakh emerges in this core grammatical domain. Comparative analyses across three groups allowed assessment of the extent of language revival.
Findings/Conclusions:
The results indicate that aspectuality reliably reflects nativeness: L1 Kazakh speakers show greater stability in aspectual marking, whereas heritage Kazakh speakers with dominant Russian display increased variability, reflecting ongoing influence of dominant Russian. However, when compared with L1 Russian speakers with L2 Kazakh, heritage Kazakh speakers demonstrate a higher index of nativeness in use of Kazakh aspectuality. From a cross-linguistic perspective, as aspectuality is expressed in fundamentally different ways in Kazakh and Russian, languages with different typological profiles, contact with Russian provides no structural support for maintaining this category in Kazakh.
Originality:
This study contributes novel evidence to the underexplored area of post-Soviet language revival, highlighting the role of aspectuality as a grammatical marker of nativeness. Unlike previous mostly sociolinguistic research on postcolonial language revival, this study focuses on the linguistic effects of Russian dominance on a particular indigenous language – Kazakh.
Significance/Implications:
The findings advance theoretical understanding of language revival, nativeness, and sustainable linguistic effect of post-imperial bilingualism. They offer a foundation for future research on heritage indigenous languages in post-imperial contexts, in particular, on the territory of the former USSR. In addition, the study contributes to comparative research on aspectuality in typologically different languages.
Keywords
Introduction
Revival of the indigenous versus autochthonous languages in post-imperial versus postcolonial settings has been studied in a number of works, with a particular focus on different time frames and on different language spaces (Bastardas-Boada, 2019; Grenoble, 2003; Olthuis et al., 2013; Spolsky, 1995; Tsunoda, 2005). Thereby, languages targeted for language revitalisation include those whose use and prominence are severely limited due to the dominant role of other societal languages in many aspects of official life, including education, media, and government. Accordingly, minoritised languages are in a subordinated position because of the power structures imposed on them, not because of their number of speakers (Joubert, 2022). This fact echoes very clearly in the post-imperial context of the former USSR, where Russian, historically the dominant language, still poses a challenge to the revitalisation of minoritised languages in the independent post-Soviet states that gained independence and sovereignty after the collapse of the USSR.
Understood as the emancipation of minoritised languages on their own terms (Huss, 2008, p. 133), revitalisation on the territory of the former USSR has been predominantly described within a sociolinguistic framework, focusing on the dynamics of language policies and language use (Alpatov, 1997; Grenoble, 2003; Neroznak, 1994, 1995). A linguistic impact of the (post)colonial predominance of Russian on the languages of the former USSR remains under-researched (Stolz & Levkovych, 2022). This is the first starting point of our study.
Our paper addressed the return to Kazakh-dominant language use in multilingual Kazakhstan after its independence in 1991. When understanding Russian – a lingua franca on the territory of the USSR – as an imperial versus colonial language that, even if with a different grade of intensity, reigned over other languages of the multilingual country, the current language situation in Kazakhstan can be seen as typical for a language revival in postcolonial settings (Stolz, 2015). Established Russian-based postcolonial bilingualism (Warditz, 2026), accompanied by an increasing shift in language use in favour of Russian, has often led to the attrition of L1 Kazakh. Accordingly, against the backdrop of the ongoing revitalisation of Kazakh, questions of its nativeness among L1 Kazakh speakers become prominent, especially among those whose original L1 Kazakh was de facto replaced by L1 Russian during socialisation and education, transforming Kazakh into their heritage language. This group remains under-researched (Kuzembayeva et al., 2024, for Kazakhs living in diaspora) yet represents a special case of bilingualism marked by the early replacement of L1 Kazakh by L1 Russian, and by an ongoing shift back towards Kazakh (for the relationship between language shift and revitalisation, see Hornberger, 2002). In our paper, we describe concrete linguistic manifestations of the prolonged influence of sustained Russian-based bilingualism, hypothesising that these have had not only sociolinguistic but also linguistic consequences for speakers of indigenous languages in postcolonial contexts – this is our second starting point.
When focusing on how revitalisation is reflected in actual language use, we analyse patterns of aspectuality, with particular attention to resultativity – a salient marker of nativeness with symbolic significance in language revival (O’Rourke & Pujolar, 2013). In examining the linguistic effects of reversing language shift in our speaker group, we seek to determine whether the shift from L1 Kazakh to L1 Russian has led to loss of nativeness in Kazakh, including in its core grammatical structures. Error patterns in heritage Kazakh may reveal deep-rooted Russian dominance, showing that the well-documented sociolinguistic shift during the Soviet era also resulted in a linguistic shift affecting proficiency in heritage speakers. These patterns also highlight the structural areas of Kazakh (a Turkic language) most susceptible to contact with Russian (a Slavic language), offering insights relevant to cross-linguistic and typological studies. From a theoretical perspective, our study engages with postcolonial scholarship on language revival in the former USSR, making our findings relevant to future research on the linguistic outcomes of revitalisation in the region – this is our third starting point.
Language Revitalisation and Nativeness Within a Postcolonial Context
The revival of the Kazakh language is unfolding alongside evolving language policies. Under Soviet rule (1922–1991), Russian – serving as both a lingua franca and the dominant language of communication in the USSR – prevailed in official domains such as government, economy, law enforcement, the military, and politics. The USSR implemented Russian-based bilingualism more effectively than tsarist Russia (Alpatov, 1997), fostering near-native competence in L2 Russian among speakers of other indigenous languages in the multilingual country. This, in turn, led to a converging language shift by the second generation, with Russian becoming the L1 (Grenoble, 2003). These policies, alongside state-led migration and resettlement programmes, contributed to the marginalisation of indigenous languages, including Kazakh (Belikov & Krysin, 2001). Within this framework, Russian acquired the highest pragmatic value across communicative domains in the Soviet Union (Warditz, 2026), while local languages were increasingly relegated to symbolic roles.
After independence in 1991, many indigenous languages were tasked with fulfilling broader functions tied to their new official status. Nevertheless, speakers often lacked sufficient proficiency for professional or administrative use (for Kazakh, see Fierman, 2006; Smagulova, 2008). In Kazakhstan, Russian remained dominant, relegating Kazakh to a secondary role until ‘Kazakhisation’ policies began reversing this trend (Dave, 2007). Recent changes in Kazakhstan’s language policies and educational reforms have created favourable conditions for the revival of the Kazakh language (Fierman, 2021). However, decades of dominance of Russian produced a lasting imbalance in Kazakh-Russian bilingualism, favouring Russian even among L1 Kazakh speakers (Smagulova, 2008). This prolonged postcolonial effect manifests not only in the functional distribution of both languages but also in contact-induced changes in Kazakh and in its proficiency among L1 speakers (Muhamedowa, 2006; Smagulova, 2016). Regarding the language shift of L1 Kazakh during the Soviet period and its reversal after the USSR’s collapse, Kazakh had by the 1970s–1980s lost significant ground to Russian (Fierman, 2005, p. 50), largely because greater opportunities for social mobility were afforded to those fluent in Russian (Fierman, 2005, p. 52). Assessing the challenges and prospects of language revival, Fierman (2005) describes Kazakh as a ‘fortunate patient’ (p. 63), noting that the reversal of the language shift resulted from multiple factors – ranging from its spread in resource-rich regions to positive demographic trends (Fierman, 2005, pp. 64–68). While the language shift remains a reality for many ethnic groups in Kazakhstan, the degree of language proficiency varies widely and depends on speakers’ attitudes, especially visible in family contexts (Smagulova, 2014, 2017).
In the heterogeneous context of revitalisation, a concept of nativeness plays a key role in language revival in postcolonial settings, representing both a sociopolitical and linguistic effort to reclaim cultural identity and heritage following periods of dominance by a colonial language (Fishman, 1991; Huss, 2017). Originally emerging in debates on the native-speaker construct in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics (Bloomfield, 1933; Chomsky, 1965), nativeness in language revitalisation contexts functions both as a linguistic measure – such as mastery of distinctive phonological or grammatical features – and as a symbolic marker of belonging and authenticity (Aneja, 2016; Bylin & Tingsell, 2022; Leung et al., 1997; Woolard, 2008). For heritage speakers shaped by language shift, debates focus on whether nativeness is defined primarily by early acquisition, linguistic competence, or recognition from the speech community (Davies, 2003; Doerr, 2009; Ortega, 2020). Even though the concept of nativeness is often debated (Cheng et al., 2021), it continues to serve a useful function in describing minority and heritage languages, highlighting the role of committed speakers in their maintenance and transmittance (O’Rourke & Pujolar, 2013), especially in the context of their revitalisation (cf. for Hebrew in Israel, Zawdu & Willen, 2021).
Thereby, certain grammatical or phonological features acquire symbolic status as markers of nativeness, signalling cultural authenticity, identity, and resistance to colonial languages or other external influences (Irvine & Gal, 2000). For example, in Basque, ergativity does not merely distinguish syntactic roles but signals membership in the Basque-speaking community and, by extension, political and cultural resistance (Landa, 2025). Similarly, in Slavic languages, mastery of aspect is highlighted in teaching and assessment as a key indicator of advanced proficiency and native-like competence (Comrie, 1976). The difficulty non-native speakers face in acquiring these categories is well documented (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Comrie, 1976; Slabakova, 2005), reinforcing their function as gatekeepers to native-speaker status. In Irish Gaelic, the use of initial consonant mutations (lenition and eclipsis) is a hallmark of native-like competence, marking morphophonological processes triggered by grammatical and syntactic contexts (Ó Murchadha & Ó hIfearnáin, 2018). Across such diverse languages, highly salient, often typologically marked grammatical or phonological features become symbolic of nativeness within speech communities. Their acquisition is closely monitored and socially evaluated, particularly where language functions as a key identity marker after historical suppression or marginalisation (Milroy & Milroy, 1999; Woolard, 2008).
In Kazakh, markers of nativeness often relate to the accurate and nuanced use of its complex aspectual system – particularly the use of auxiliary verbs combined with converbs to express meanings such as resultativity and completion. Native speakers typically select auxiliary verbs with precision, encoding subtle semantic and pragmatic distinctions related to action completion, phases, and subject/object perspective (Akhmetzhanova, 2005; Mamanov, 1949/2014). Fine-grained mastery of aspectual constructions and auxiliary selection – reflecting intricate morphosyntactic and semantic patterns – thus functions as a key linguistic marker of nativeness (Bĭbekov, 2003; Mamanov, 1949/2014). The concept of nativeness is particularly relevant for our experimental speaker group, characterised by an unbalanced societal bilingualism, with Russian holding clear dominance as the primary language of wider communication and challenging revitalisation of Kazakh. Efforts to revive Kazakh, therefore, involve reversing language shift among Russian-Kazakh bilinguals – an intriguing case of unbalanced bilingualism comparable to other heritage speaker contexts (Fishman, 2001). Among those who grew up with L1 Kazakh, many gradually lost native-like proficiency as Russian replaced Kazakh during socialisation, making Russian their dominant – and, effectively, first – language. At the same time, Kazakh shifted to a heritage language used mainly in informal settings. Although the concepts of heritage language and heritage speakers have rarely been applied to indigenous languages in the former Soviet republics, these communities share notable features with other heritage language contexts (Fishman, 2001). We argue that adopting this conceptual link offers a new perspective for understanding and researching the revival of indigenous languages of the former USSR.
Finally, while Kazakh-Russian bilingualism – meaning the acquisition of Russian by Kazakh speakers – was extensively studied during the Soviet era (Khassanov, 1987; Kopylenko, 1988; Kopylenko & Akhmetzhanova, 1984; Kopylenko & Saina, 1982; Tezekbayev, 1987), the reverse scenario of Russian-Kazakh bilingualism with Russian dominance among ethnic Kazakhs has remained largely unexamined. Existing linguistic analyses of Kazakh revitalisation are scarce, limited to studies such as those on the use of Russian conjunctions by bilingual Kazakh speakers (Muhamedowa, 2010) and on the integration of Russian adjectives into Kazakh syntax (Muhamedowa, 2005). In this context, our study seeks to contribute to the investigation of reversing language shift among Russian-Kazakh bilinguals by examining their use of core Kazakh grammatical structures, with a particular focus on aspectuality.
Theoretical Framework
Aspectuality From a Typological Perspective: A Comparison Between Russian and Kazakh
In this section, we offer a brief cross-linguistic comparison of Kazakh and Russian, that is, both languages within the framework of Russian-Kazakh bilingualism, and address possible error tendencies in our speaker group.
Grammatical aspect has long been recognised as one of the most prominent features of Slavic languages. Following Comrie (1976, p. 3), aspect refers to “different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation”. In this sense, aspect differs from tense in that it does not locate an event in time but instead focuses on the internal temporal structure of the event itself (Comrie, 1976, p. 24). In typological terms, aspectuality is a cross-linguistic phenomenon, but how languages encode aspect vary significantly (Dahl, 1985, pp. 69–70). For instance, English expresses aspect analytically through auxiliary constructions, such as is writing (progressive) or has written (perfect), without a fixed grammatical opposition between perfective and imperfective. English thus represents a less grammaticalised, more flexible aspectual system. In contrast, Russian and Kazakh offer a striking example of two typologically divergent aspectual systems, despite geographic proximity and significant language contact. This makes them a productive pair for comparative analysis, especially in the context of bilingualism and language contact.
Russian is a prototypical example of what Dahl (1985, p. 84) terms ‘Russian-style aspect’ – a grammaticalised, morphologically marked, and semantically regular system. The distinction between perfective and imperfective aspect is obligatory in most finite verb forms and is usually expressed through prefixation, suffixation, or both. For example, делать (impf.) / сделать (perf.) ‘to do’ переделывать (impf.) / переделать (pf.) ‘to redo’
While most verbs are aspectually specified, biaspectual verbs like ликвидировать ‘to liquidate’ can be interpreted as either perfective or imperfective depending on context (Janda, 2007; Warditz, 2025). This binary and systematic aspectual opposition permeates Russian verbal grammar, influencing syntactic structure, discourse organisation, and verbal semantics. It is central to verb conjugation, narrative sequencing, and temporal anchoring. In discourse, perfective verbs typically mark completed, bounded events, while imperfective forms are used for habitual, progressive, or ongoing actions (Breu, 1980).
In contrast to Russian, Kazakh – a Turkic language – exhibits a non-binary, compositional approach to aspectuality. Instead, diverse actional meanings are expressed through verbal constructions composed of converbs with suffixes -a/-e/-y (converb A) or -p (converb B) and auxiliary verbs (modifiers or serial verbs). Such constructions are found in all Turkic languages, with their number ranging from 30 to 50 in most languages, except for Tuvan, where they are relatively few (Yuldashev, 1965, pp. 27–28). In Kazakh, there are 30 identified auxiliary verbs (Žanpejisov, 2002, p. 536). The verbal construction functions as a unified complex (Mamanov, 1949/2014, p. 257). To emphasise the formal separateness but semantic unity of the converbial suffix + auxiliary verb complex, the term analytic formant is sometimes used in Turkic and Kazakh linguistics (Oralbayeva, 1975; Žanpejisov, 2002, pp. 541–543). In Kazakh, aspectual meanings are also conveyed through verb tense forms, lexical markers (primarily adverbs), and contextual cues (Akhmetzhanova, 1989/2005, pp. 151–167). In general, the system of auxiliary verbs allows the speaker to interpret the same situation in different ways (Johanson, 1999).
The stem of a Kazakh verb without an auxiliary verb denotes only an action, but does not express aspectual meanings, cf. the examples showing how auxiliary verbs and their more complex combinations change the semantics of the original stem: (1) Ait tell ‘To tell’. (2) Ait-yp ber tell-CVB give ‘Tell (to someone)’. (3) Ait-yp ber-ip qoi tell-CVB give-CVB put ‘Tell (to someone)’. (4) Ait-yp ber-ip qoi-a jazda tell-CVB give-CVB put-CVB almost.do ‘Almost tell (to someone by accident)’. (5) Ait-yp ber-ip qoi-a jazda-p qal tell-CVB give-CVB put-CVB almost.do-CVB stay ‘Almost tell (to someone by accident but hold back)’ (Mamanov, 1949/2014, p. 217).
The diversity of semantic and pragmatic meanings expressed by verbal constructions determines the specificity of Kazakh (more broadly, Turkic) aspectuality and provides grounds for the following typological oppositions. As Plungian pointed out, from a typological perspective, the Slavic languages turn out, paradoxically, to be rather poor in aspectual terms. This becomes especially noticeable when comparing Slavic (and similar) systems with ‘polyaspect’ systems of a typologically different structure – for example, with Turkic or English (Plungian, 2003, p. 303). Nevertheless, in contrastive linguistics, correspondences have been traced between Kazakh verb constructions and Russian perfective and imperfective verbs (Saykiyev, 1973, pp. 237–239).
In summary, aspectuality in Kazakh poses challenges for Russian L1 speakers due to fundamental typological and functional contrasts between the two languages. Russian employs a grammaticalised and binary aspectual system – perfective versus imperfective – typically marked through morphological changes such as prefixes and suffixes, making aspect obligatory and syntactically encoded. In contrast, Kazakh expresses aspect in a more compositional and analytic way, using converbs and auxiliary verbs in combination with contextual cues. This results in a more flexible and nuanced aspectual system that does not rely on obligatory grammatical marking. For Russian L1 speakers, this leads to difficulties in both comprehension and production, as they may overgeneralise perfective/imperfective distinctions or misinterpret Kazakh’s optional aspectual markers. In our study, when exploring Kazakh aspectuality in bilingual speakers as a marker of nativeness, we focus on resultativity, which is presented in detail in the following section.
Our Research Focus: Resultativity as a Part of Kazakh Aspectuality
In our case study, we examine the choice of auxiliary verbs as a means of expressing aspectuality, focusing on one aspectual meaning – resultativity, which is closely tied to the semantic notion of the final phase of an action. Linguistic theory notes the difficulty in distinguishing phase meaning from the semantics of reaching or approaching a limit (Chrakovskij, 1987, p. 153). For describing Kazakh verbal constructions within final-phase semantics, it has been proposed to distinguish not only action termination and near-completion, but also completion of qualitative changes and completion of an action with various nuances (Bĭbekov, 2003, pp. 18–22). Accordingly, in the verbal constructions included in our survey, meanings of resultativity and completion are organically combined. These verbal constructions consist of a converb in -p (converb B) and one of the auxiliary verbs. The -p form, as a subtype of Kazakh converbs, expresses sequence or completion of actions and is therefore inherently related to the idea of resultativity and completion, being comparable with ‘postterminality’ (Johanson, 1999).
The description of Kazakh verbal constructions is further complicated by the varying degrees of grammaticalisation of auxiliary verbs within these constructions. Partial grammaticalisation is characterised by the lack of regularity and unrestricted lexical compatibility typical of fully grammatical markers (Grashchenkov, 2015, p. 103). At the same time, verbal constructions in Turkic languages are considered more effective than abstract affixes, as they offer a more precise depiction of action’s progression (Nasilov, 1989, p. 125).
Several auxiliary verbs are used to express resultativity and completion. Most of them belong, in their basic meanings, to thematic classes of existence verbs (e.g., bol- ‘be, become’, qal- ‘stay’) and motion verbs (e.g., ket- ‘leave’, šyq- ‘exit’, öt- ‘pass’, tasta- ‘throw’).
Lists of serial verbs conveying resultativity and completion vary across sources (see Bĭbekov, 2003; Mamanov, 1949/2014, pp. 290–291; Zholshayeva, 2011, pp. 227–232). The choice of auxiliary verbs depends on their semantic and pragmatic nuances, partially rooted in their original lexical meanings, which complement the semantics of resultativity and completion (Akhmetzhanova, 1989/2005; Mamanov, 1949/2014), and on their (in)compatibility with main verbs of specific semantic types (Muhamedowa, 2016, pp. 99–118). For instance, different auxiliary verbs can express different shades of action completion with respect to the subject or object: the verb bol- indicates that the action is complete only for the agent, while the object may remain partially affected; bitir- emphasises that the completion pertains to the object; and šyq- implies completion with full effect on the entire object (Mamanov, 1949/2014, pp. 306–307). Other examples of semantic contrasts among perfective auxiliary-verb constructions are discussed in Györfi (2022, pp. 203–220).
Accordingly, the choice of serial verbs is governed by the complex interplay of semantic, pragmatic, and contextual factors, making it one of the more difficult features in the acquisition of Kazakh as L2. At the same time, such choices reliably signal nativeness. Therefore, we hypothesise that they may manifest differently in native speakers of Kazakh (L1) versus L2 learners and could also indicate the stability of language competence in a competitive multilingual environment.
The Current Study
The Questionnaire
For our questionnaire, we selected resultative serial verbs that are regularly used in both spoken and written Kazakh and are introduced in Kazakh language instruction from the earliest stages. Table 1 presents the sentences from the questionnaire, indicating the preferred auxiliary verb in each case, along with its semantic and pragmatic properties, as well as listing the acceptable options.
Questionnaire Sentences With Preferred and Acceptable Auxiliary Verbs.
By providing our survey-based study, we expect that, nevertheless, the given variation of verb choice, L1 Kazakh speakers are more confident in recognising the correct versus ‘more natural’ option, marking it as the only one or as one of the possible ones. L1 Russian speakers as L2 Kazakh learners more often make mistakes in choosing verbs due to their desemantisation, as well as due to the insufficient input in the Kazakh language in this respondent group. The least predictable is our speaker group whose original L1 Kazakh was replaced by L1 Russian. On the one hand, maintaining the native language in family and societal communication should support their intuitive choice of auxiliary verbs. On the other hand, everyday communication in Russian and widespread code-switching may lead to convergence between this group and L2 Kazakh learners – in particular, in their deviation from the “natural” (native) choice of auxiliary verbs. Thus, by observing the choice of auxiliary verbs made by respondents across the three groups, we will be able to identify the linguistic manifestations of the revival of the Kazakh language and establish the status of the speaker group whose original L1, Kazakh, was replaced by L1 Russian.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Within this context, our study examines the use of Kazakh aspectuality that may signal an advanced stage of language shift at the core of the language system (Thomason, 2017; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988) and – accordingly – the loss of nativeness, with a particular focus on Russian-Kazakh speakers whose L1 Kazakh was effectively replaced by L1 Russian during socialisation (Fishman, 2001) and is now being relearned or reestablished. By examining their use of core Kazakh structures, we assess the stage of contact-induced language shift in their original L1 Kazakh within the framework of unbalanced, Russian-based bilingualism. Thereby, we consider the interplay between sociolinguistic factors – such as the functional distribution of an indigenous versus a dominant societal language – and their long-term linguistic impact on indigenous speakers in postcolonial settings. In other words, the situation under scrutiny can be summarised as follows: unbalanced postcolonial bilingualism in favour of the colonial language versus revitalisation of the indigenous language, which functions more as a heritage language than as an active L1 for its original native speakers. In the drawn framework, we aim to determine to what extent aspectuality as a marker of nativeness remains resistant under conditions of unbalanced bilingualism and, in doing so, to test the reliability of aspectuality as a marker of nativeness.
Accordingly, we address the following research questions in our study:
Thereby, we can expect the following scenarios:
Since our experimental Group B as our central research focus originally had Kazakh as their L1, we can expect that the use of Kazakh core structures, such as aspectuality, remains unaffected by contact with Russian. In this case, their bilingualism would be Kazakh-dominant, and their language use would not differ from that of the control group (
However, considering the Russian-dominant bilingualism of this group, we can also expect their language use to be influenced by contact with Russian, leading their bilingualism to resemble that of L1 Russian speakers or a Russian-dominant pattern (
A third scenario is also possible: the experimental Group B may occupy an intermediate position between L1 Kazakh speakers and L1 Russian speakers (
Methods and Participants
Our study employed a multiple-choice sentence completion task. The multiple-choice format was chosen as a comprehension-based method (Schmitt & Miller, 2010) that allows for controlled comparison of grammatical forms while minimising variability introduced by open-ended production tasks. This method has been widely used in second language research to measure grammatical knowledge with reliability and validity (Ellis, 2005). The survey administered to participants consisted of 10 sentences in Kazakh with missing auxiliary verbs, each accompanied by a list of eight auxiliary verbs commonly used to express resultativity and completion. Participants were instructed to select the verb(s) they deemed most appropriate for each sentence, with multiple selections permitted. The full survey is provided in Appendix 1.
When designing the tasks, we assumed that one option was preferred (and that native speakers would be able to identify it as the preferred choice among the alternatives), while the other options could be either acceptable or clearly incorrect. Acceptable options are grammatically correct, but, in some cases, the interpretation of the described situation changes under the influence of the auxiliary verb, cf. example (8): (8) Ol bırneşe kısı-nıñ aty-jön-ı-n ata-p _________________. He several person-GEN name-3.POSS-ACC call-CVB ‘He called several people by name.’
Correct option –
Acceptable option –
The linguistic survey was conducted in April–May 2025 via Google Forms. The participation in the survey was anonymous and entirely voluntary.
The survey included 95 participants aged 17–67, the majority of whom were university students in Almaty. Based on their responses regarding native language and the language of instruction at school and college/university, participants were divided into three groups:
Demographic and Sociolinguistic Background of the Participants.
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; age in years.
Data Analysis and Results
We separately counted, for each of the three groups, how many participants chose the preferred options (including combinations with acceptable ones) and how many chose only acceptable options (either singly or in multiple combinations). These data allow us to judge how native the choice of auxiliary verbs is in each of the three groups. Table 3 presents the number of preferred and acceptable responses, along with their percentage distribution.
Proportion of Preferred and Acceptable Responses Across Three Groups.
In summary, the number of preferred (including acceptable) answers is higher in Group A than in Group B (except for (6) and (9)), and higher in Group B than in Group C.
The differences in the answers between A and B in sentences (5) and (7) are indicative. These sentences differ from the others in that they do not allow variations in auxiliary verbs. If participants in the control Group A choose the correct option almost without errors (100% and 93.8%, respectively), then participants in Group B, in an unambiguous-choice situation, cope with the task significantly worse (45.5% and 66.7%).
We also decided to test whether the differences in selecting only preferred options between Groups A and B, and between Groups A and C, were statistically significant. When evaluating these differences, we used Pearson’s chi-square test with Yates’ continuity correction (R Core Team, 2024). See Table 4.
Difference in Auxiliary Verb Usage for A Versus B, and A Versus C.
A significant difference (p-value < .05) between Groups A and C was found in nine contexts, and between Groups A and B in two contexts. Thus, based on the number of correct responses in the survey, Group B occupies an intermediate position between Groups A and C. We counted the number of preferred and acceptable options for each survey participant. In the context of three groups, we obtained results graphically presented in Figure 1.
Proportion of preferred and acceptable responses across three groups.
The ratio of preferred and acceptable responses is the same in Groups A and B, but with the only difference that in Group A there were more preferred responses and fewer acceptable ones. In Group C, a different picture is observed: there is no significant predominance of preferred responses over acceptable ones. Compared to other groups, there are far fewer preferred responses, while there are, conversely, more acceptable ones. Thus, Group B, occupying an intermediate position between A and C, still tends to converge with A.
Discussion
When examining aspectuality as a marker of nativeness in Kazakh, we considered the ongoing revival of Kazakh under sustainable conditions of Kazakh-Russian versus Russian-Kazakh bilingualism. Accordingly, we surveyed three groups of respondents with different proficiency levels in both languages and different languages of instruction in their education: L1 Kazakh speakers (Group A) as a control group, and Kazakh-Russian (Group B) and Russian-Kazakh bilinguals (Group C) as the two experimental groups. Group A is also effectively bilingual; however, unlike Group B, its members had Kazakh as their language of instruction. Group B not only had Russian as the language of instruction, but the main difference from Group A lies in the self-reported ranking of language proficiency: Group B’s original L1, Kazakh, was effectively replaced by L1 Russian, making the language use of its members particularly intriguing.
First, we tested whether the use of Kazakh aspectuality is affected by contact with Russian in our experimental Group B (bilinguals with original L1 Kazakh), and to what extent this marker of nativeness remains stable in an unbalanced multilingual situation (RQ1). The results indicate that intensive and long-term contact with Russian as a language of instruction has affected speakers’ use of Kazakh aspectuality, as they demonstrated a greater number of acceptable but not strictly normative responses and fewer fully correct answers compared to control Group A, who have Kazakh as a sustainable L1 and language of instruction. Importantly, this effect cannot be directly attributed to transfer from Russian, since the mechanisms for expressing resultativity in Kazakh and Russian are fundamentally different. As shown above, in Russian, resultativity is largely expressed synthetically, often via prefixes, whereas in Kazakh it is conveyed analytically through verbal constructions. Therefore, the documented differences likely reflect attrition or gradual loss of nativeness in Kazakh within the bilingual context, with Russian as the dominant language not supporting Kazakh aspectuality (cf. an overview for other contact situations in Warditz (2025); about grammatical categories in language contact see Gardani et al. (2005), Sakel & Matras (2008), and Heine & Kuteva (2008)). This finding underscores that aspectuality, as a deeply embedded grammatical domain, is highly sensitive to native-like intuition and thus a reliable diagnostic of nativeness erosion under bilingual influence. The gradual weakening of aspectual contrasts signals not merely lexical interference but a restructuring of the underlying grammatical competence.
Second, we verified whether the documented error patterns in the experimental Group B resemble those of L1 Russian speakers (Group C) or L1 Kazakh speakers (Group A) (RQ2), to determine whether their bilingual profile is Russian-dominant or Kazakh-dominant. The documented error patterns in Group B indicate an intermediate position between Group C (L1 Russian speakers) and Group A (L1 Kazakh speakers). While Group B demonstrates more variability and fewer fully correct responses than Group A, it is still closer to the Kazakh-dominant profile than to the Russian-dominant one. This suggests that Group B represents a transitional type of bilingualism – Kazakh-dominant yet strongly affected by frequent and intensive exposure to Russian in educational and social contexts. Thus, even if their original L1 Kazakh has been replaced by Russian as a language of socialisation and instruction, when using Kazakh aspectuality, the representatives of this group still demonstrate a higher degree of nativeness than L1 Russian speakers (Group C). Similar effects have been seen by examining markers of nativeness in other languages, such as ergativity in Basque (Landa, 2025) or initial consonant mutations in Irish Gaelic (Ó Murchadha & Ó hIfearnáin, 2018).
Finally, we examined whether there is any indication of a (new) mixed Kazakh-Russian repertoire within the L1 Kazakh speaker group (our control group, A), and whether the use of Kazakh in our experimental Groups B and C reflects the influence of this emerging repertoire (RQ3). Even within Group A, which demonstrated a high number of correct responses, some deviations from monolingual norms were observed. While acceptable responses can be interpreted as reflecting the variability of Kazakh aspectual norms, incorrect responses may partially result from initial attrition of L1 in a multilingual environment. In other words, even the control group appears to be affected by the bilingual context created by Groups B and C, suggesting the emergence of a mixed Kazakh-Russian repertoire in predominantly bilingual communities, cf. examples of morphological simplification in English and Dutch partly linked to contact with Old Norse and Norman French versus French, alongside internal phonological and syntactic developments (Smith, 1997; Van der Wal & Van Bree, 2008).
When addressing our work hypotheses, we can summarise that Hypothesis 0 was only partly confirmed: Although Kazakh was originally L1 for Group B, the use of Kazakh core structures, such as aspectuality, among its members is not native-speaker-like. Nevertheless, their bilingualism is still Kazakh-dominant, with less difference from the L1 Kazakh group than from the L1 Russian group, thereby partly confirming Hypothesis 1 as well. However, the documented patterns in their use of Kazakh aspectuality are not Russian-like. By contrast, Hypothesis 2 has been confirmed: the experimental Group B occupies an intermediate position between L1 Kazakh and L1 Russian speakers, demonstrating more correct use than L1 Russian speakers but less correct than L1 Kazakh speakers.
Our results reveal that aspectuality serves as both a grammatical and sociolinguistic index of nativeness: stability in aspectual marking correlates with stronger L1 maintenance, while increased variability reflects shifting linguistic identities within bilingual contexts. As shown for aspectuality in heritage Russian, heritage speakers whose Russian was replaced by German during socialisation also demonstrated greater variability in the expression of aspectual forms compared to monolinguals (Warditz, 2025). The documented variability in heritage Russian reflects a weakening of native-like control over aspectual contrasts. Such variation parallels the challenges of maintaining aspectual distinctions in Kazakh under dominant Russian-Kazakh bilingualism, where typological differences between the languages provide limited support for the preservation of core aspectual categories.
In sum, our findings indicate that contact with Russian affects the use of aspectuality in Kazakh, but the contact-induced effects are nuanced across three groups. Group B occupies a Kazakh-dominant intermediate position, and even the control Group A shows signs of variability consistent with bilingual influence. These results highlight the ongoing dynamics of Kazakh-Russian bilingualism and the subtle emergence of mixed repertoires in core structures of Kazakh in post-Soviet Kazakhstan.
Conclusion and Outlook
By examining the use of Kazakh aspectuality in three groups of Kazakh-Russian and Russian-Kazakh bilinguals, we evaluated whether and how the reversing shift from Russian to Kazakh manifests in this core grammatical domain, and how it affects nativeness in Kazakh. Our survey-based study confirms that the use of Kazakh aspectuality is a reliable marker of nativeness, functioning as a gatekeeper to native-speaker status. The choice of expression tools involves subtle semantic, pragmatic, and contextual nuances that may seem self-evident to native speakers but pose significant challenges to language learners.
Accordingly, across all three groups of respondents (L1 Kazakh, Kazakh-Russian bilinguals, and L1 Russian), the number of correct answers was inversely proportional to the number of acceptable and incorrect ones. If the presence of acceptable variants is taken as an indicator of normative variability, then a greater number of correct responses within a group corresponds to lower variability in responses. Combinations including incorrect variants were recorded in all three groups, including Group A (L1 Kazakh). Whether this share is relatively high for the control group and whether it would be lower in a monolingual community (given that nearly half of Group A respondents identify as bilinguals; see Table 1) are questions that require further investigation under different conditions.
Group B (originally L1 Kazakh speakers but socialised in L1 Russian) did not coincide with Group A but was closer to it than to Group C (L1 Russian). The responses of Group B participants demonstrate the vitality of L1 Kazakh even under conditions of unbalanced bilingualism, when another language (Russian or, less often, English) is chosen as the medium of instruction. Nevertheless, the competition between Kazakh and other, more prestigious languages in a global context still affects the linguistic competence of Group B respondents: while a full-fledged language shift may not be taking place, the variability of choice and tolerance for deviations from strict linguistic norms have noticeably increased, indicating a loss of nativeness or the emergence of so-called new speakers (O’Rourke & Pujolar, 2013, p. 61), challenging the controversially positioned concept of native speakers (cf. early critical reflection by Rajagopalan (1997), and more recent discussions in Aneja (2016), Cheng et al. (2021) and Lising and Bautista (2022)).
Overall, our findings contribute to the discussion on nativeness as reflected in multilingual language use – primarily addressed in the context of majority (or global) languages such as English (O’Rourke & Pujolar, 2013) or marginalised languages (such as Basque) and dialects (such as Occitan) – by expanding this discussion to a broader spectrum of languages in postcolonial multilingual contexts. In addition, as previous studies have examined nativeness primarily through lexical (Appel et al., 2019) or phonological aspects (Bøhn & Hansen, 2017), few studies have focused on the structural features of nativeness (Landa, 2025) – a field to which our study contributes. In doing so, our results provide a foundation for further research on language revival processes in the post-Soviet space and in postcolonial settings in general.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere gratitude to F. T. Bagymbaeva for her assistance in conducting the survey.
Abbreviations
3 – third person, ACC – accusative, CVB – converb, GEN – genitive, L1 – first language, L2 – second language, POSS – possessive, PST – past.
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of NP JSC “Narxoz University” (Minutes No. 9, April 9, 2025).
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.