The Appropriation and Appreciation of Aldar Köse as a Symbol for the “New Kazakh” Aldar Köse is a hero-trickster who is part of Central Asian oral tradition. I explore the language ideologies that emerge in an appropriated version of a traditional Aldar Köse tale (2001) that is designed to present the “New Kazakhs”. In particular, I consider the cultural frames of “cunning” and “gentleness”. Key words alone are not sufficient for frame analysis, but must be complemented by related metaphors and lines of reasoning. Thus, I set up a FaceBook group to invite Kazakhs residing in California to take part in focus groups to consider the appropriation. Key words: folklore appropriation, societal frames, Kazakhs, language ideologies. Problem Statement and Overview During the Soviet era, it was assumed that folklore would be used for secondary, political-cultural aims (Newall 1987, 131). Now, decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, how is folk tradition being appropriated? What are the societal aims of such an effort? How do citizens perceive the appropriated material in question? I will consider a Central Asian hero-trickster folktale that has been adapted to address the proposed emergence of “New Kazakhs”. After discussing matters of methodology, history and theory, I will compare and contrast the language ideologies (Kroskrity 2010) presented in two versions of the same Kazakh folktale, "Aldar Köse and the Devils". One recent version was modified to depict the "New Kazakhs". Aldar Köse goes from representing, acting in the stead of the gentle Kazakhs, to presenting the Kazakhs as cunning like himself. In particular, I explore the 1 long-standing contrasting ideologies representing foreigners/outsiders as "cunning" in contrast to the local, "gentle" Kazakhs. Finally, I consider the discussions of Kazakhs living in Los Angeles who met in focus groups to evaluate the language ideologies expressed in the folktale and the appropriated folktale’s relationship to their lives. Language Ideologies Approach I place this article in the body of literature with shared tenants referred to as language ideologies (Kroskrity 2010). The Language ideologies approach is not a specific method, but rather a set of research topics and accompanying principles. The primary topics included in this grouping are perspectives on language, language planning, societal concepts, and issues of power relationships expressed through discourse in a specific societal setting (Kroskrity 2010, Woolard 1998). The approach adheres to the following shared principles: 1. Sociopolitical language efforts are not carried out from an objective standpoint; 2. Cultural frames are contested, diverse, and emergent; 3. Members of society will have varied understandings of language ideologies in their contexts; 4. Language ideologies bridge cultural practices and types of discourse (Kroskrity 2010, 195-201). My placement of this article within language ideological research is fitting, since my exploration will include discussing issues of language revitalization, understandings of language, and ideologies developed to operate as part of the resources for a specific society. Using the language ideologies approach will give us a clearer perspective on the societal situation and the significance of the appropriated folktale. Unlike other 2 approaches that stress models, the language ideologies approach favors exploring issues of power. Historical Overview During the Soviet era, literature, like all other societal productions, were evaluated for its potential to aid the advance of the Soviet state. For Central Asian literature this meant that Central Asian oral tradition was sometimes praised and other times censored or even outlawed. In the early Soviet days, literature was hailed for its potential to shape the person of the future. Then, in the 1950s, the various literature governing bodies of the Central Asian republics declared the Central Asian dastans (i.e. epics) to be counter the state goals (Paksoy 1989, 24-28). A significant shift happened in the 1960’s through the 1980’s with the development of an interest in searching out Kazakh ethno-history (Kudaibergenova 2013, 847). Authors found that writing in Kazakh and focusing on the nomadic past they could present matters of significance symbolically (Kudaibergenova 2013, 842). The development of these narratives incorporating historical content marked the beginning of the contemporary era of Kazakh literature (Umarova 2007, 207). After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly formed countries entered a process of national redefinition. For many of these countries, transitions included reestablishing a national language. To the outside observer, such efforts at self-definition whether revivals of mother tongue, traditional music, or ethnic holidays may come across as a nationalistic justification of power (Bauman and Briggs 2003, 161). In fact, Benedict Anderson calls such products of a folk revival “cultural products of nationalism” (Anderson 2006 [1983], 141). However, other historical examples from the region show that such an emphasis on folklore and patriotism often accompanies national redefinition (Başgöz 1972, Őztűrmen 1992). As Kudaibergenova argues, the ongoing 3 search for Kazakh history provides resources for expression and engagement with societal issues (Kudaibergenova 2013, 847). Kazakhstan has undergone significant socioeconomic and societal changes since independence in 1991. During the first decade of the new nation, Kazakhs, the titular ethnic group, was not in the majority (Coutsoukis 2004). However, based on the latest census data, they currently make up sixty-three percent of the population (Mussabek 2010). This is due to sizable out migrations of ethnic Germans and Russians followed by an effort by the Kazakhstani government to repatriate ethnic Kazakhs from nearby countries. During this same period of demographic change, Kazakh was declared the national language (Smagulova 2006), although Russian was the more commonly known language. Other steps, including mandatory Kazakh proverb instruction (Kazakhstan 2004) and requirements that radio and television broadcasts have at least fifty percent of content in Kazakh, were instituted to help define the new nation. The most recent language policy development is part of the Kazakhstan 2050 goals and is described as the “three side unity of language” (Nazarbayev 2012, 78-81). President Nazarbayev describes the revival of Kazakh as the national language and mother tongue, affirms the ongoing significance of Russian, and stresses the goal that schools teach Kazakh, Russian and English equally. Kazakhstani scholars have aided in the transition process, being involved in both theoretical discussions and governmental planning efforts. For example, Ġabetov argues that the Central Asian epics offer a rich resource for meaning for contemporary Kazakhs, serving as a resource for bringing the past into the present chronotopically to give new meaning to contemporary situations (Ġabetov 2004, 248). However, other genres, such as folktales, may be more easily adapted and implemented as a mass media resource. 4 The Significance of the Folktale Appropriation in Question How do we go from federal language policy to a folktale publication? As Kroskrity points out, sociopolitical language planning is not a disinterested process, but one based on issues of situation and power (Kroskrity 2010, 195). The same applies to production of elite cultural works such as the appropriated folktale. Whether at the macro or micro level, decisions about how to shape and use linguistic/cultural capital (Bourdieu 1977) are not made in a vacuum, but have a clear orientation and agenda. Thus, when an attractive tri-lingual version of traditional Aldar Köse tales came out around the start of the new millennium, my first reaction was to assume that the series sponsored by Kazakh Oil, the national oil company, was produced with some propagandistic agenda in mind. Mass media is a significant source for distribution of ideology and appropriation of a Kazakh folktale provides a bridge from the traditional oral to the contemporary literate culture, as Beverly Stoeltje noted concerning the Turkish appropriation of comparable traditional folk content (Stoeltje 2011, 5). The fact that the publication is tri-lingual (Kazakh, Russian, English) is prima facie indication of its deemed significance. The series has three audiences in mind: locally within Kazakhstan, regionally to Russian-speakers, and the worldwide for all those who can access the story in English. Publication as tri-lingual also provides the volume with an official air, since all Kazakhstani laws are published in English, Kazakh, and Russian. Additionally, this format matches up with the more recent tri-lingual language policy adopted by Kazakhstan. Let’s consider the linguistic ideological significance of this multi-lingual policy. According to the 2050 goals document, mentioned earlier, the three 5 languages allow access to resources from three historical periods: Kazakh language relates to the distant past as the “spiritual pivot” (Nazarbayev 2012, 78-79); Russian language relates to the near past (Nazarbayev 2012, 80); English is the international lingua franca (Nazarbayev 2012, 81). Thus the three languages point to three different historical periods and allow for the fullest economic potential for Kazakhstan. The multilingual policy also allows Kazakhstan to present itself as cosmopolitan (Gal 2012, 34) and one among the leading nations of the world (Nazarbayev 2012, 27). Here language ideologies are used to aid understanding and addressing socioeconomic challenges as well as opportunities (Gal 2012, 40). The three-language unity policy addresses issues of both identity and economic potential. The series of which the appropriated folktale is a part, is an elite cultural effort showing wealth in the preparation and the quality of production. Bauman and Briggs present multiple examples of how various societies value their tradition, but the intellectual elite are the ones considered to have the capacity to appropriate and make adaptations to keep folklore relevant (Bauman and Briggs 2003, 162). The appropriated folktale in question is clearly a project of the intellectual elite. The work is understandable in all three languages. Especially in the early years of independent Kazakhstan, the quality of English translations was inconsistent. Here, the English translation of the Russian, though showing indications as the work of someone for whom English is a second language, also evidences skill with English grammar, syntax, and idioms. 6 In the next section, we will consider the story, looking for indications of appropriation. We will consider insights that Beverly Stoeltje shares about the appropriation in Turkey of the comparable hero-trickster, Nassredin Hoca. According to Stoeltje, when folk literature is appropriated, a traditional account in a specific genre is utilized to access personal and societal approaches to understanding and working through issues. Appropriation reduces the scope of relevancy of the literary figure to smaller geographic-national context. Elements in the story may also be brought together that within the traditional stories would have been incongruous (Stoeltje 2011). The Story In this section of the article, I want to describe who Aldar Köse is as a Central Asian hero-trickster figure. Next, I will compare and contrast two version of the folktale “Aldar Köse and the Devils” published in recent years. I will finish up the section with a discussion of considerations in the appropriation of a hero-trickster figure like Aldar Köse. Aldar Köse Aldar Köse (lit. Beardless Deceiver) is a hero-trickster character present in the oral traditions and literature of Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and Tajiks. He has the unique status and role as a representative of the people similar to other hero-trickster figures in the region (Ġabdullıyn 1996, 155, Öğüt-Eker 2005, 33). The hero-trickster stories involve situations in which Aldar Köse employs his wits and 7 eloquence to overcome the wiles and pretenses of the proud people whom he encounters. Readers not only delight in, but also vicariously share in his victories. Settings for the stories are in villages or in Central Asian yurts. In almost every case, the story ends with a positive resolution in favor of Aldar Köse. The folktales are action packed with no self-reflective meta-narrative (i.e. commentary) from the hero-trickster. Settings are generically Central Asian and do not single out individual ethnic groups for consideration. Thus the stories are easily used across a wide range of societies. If you enter “Aldar Köse” on You Tube, you will find a variety of animations each with their distinct regional flavor. One of my favorite Aldar Köse animations of the folktale we will consider next is entitled “Aldar and Satan” (Kenesov 2013).The animation, produced in the People’s Republic of China, includes the standard elements of the folktale, but matches regional genres by having the protagonist show his prowess in martial arts. Comparing Two Versions It will be helpful to compare the folktale in question with a less modified version of the same tale that was published at around the same time. In this section, I will refer to the two versions as the “traditional version” and the “version in question”. The traditional version of the story was published in 2011 as part of a series of Kazakh folktales (Bayġabılova 2011). Each folktale is presented in Kazakh in paperback format as a single story with illustrations. The price in Kazakh Tenge for the traditional version was the equivalent to $0.50 U.S. dollars, well within the price range of comparable children’s books. During the Soviet era, children’s literature was inexpensive and this pricing practice is still generally observed in contemporary Kazakhstan. In contrast, the version 8 in question appears in a series of hardbound tri-lingual books with two or three stories per volume. The volume containing the folktale in question (Batalova 2001) was priced at the equivalent of over $10, an indication that it was not to be considered as just a standard collection of children’s stories. This is additional evidence that the volume is understood as an elite cultural effort as I argued in the previous section. The first half of each of the versions is similar: • • • Aldar falls asleep; Two demons approach and seek to revive/resurrect him by means of placing horse sausage (kazı) and fermented mare’s milk (kumız) before him; Aldar rouses himself and chides the devils for stealing his eternal rest. The traditional version does provide some additional explanation of the context. It describes how the hero-trickster fell asleep in a slightly dug out section of ground designed for outdoor cooking using a kettle (qazan). Such a pit is often dug for meal preparation during funerary rituals. In the second half, the two versions diverge: Traditional: • Devils tell Aldar his only option is to join them; • Aldar works with the Devils; • Aldar filled with sadness. Version in Question: • Devils offer to teach Aldar to steal; • Aldar refuses, but goes with devils; • Devils give up, because Aldar is different that earlier Kazakhs; • Aldar comments that the “New Kazakhs” are on the scene. Both versions present the hero-trickster in an unusual situation. In Aldar Köse stories, the protagonist consistently functions as a liminal figure, operating at the 9 periphery of Central Asian society. But this particular folktale has him as doubly liminal, finding himself in a world that is at least a dream state if not beyond this life. In all other folktales, he is interacting with other people, dealing with his interlocutors within the context of society. In this particular tale, he finds himself in a place without sociality. Although the devils want him to associate with them, in both stories he is unable to establish a satisfactory relationship of social support with them. The version in question stands in contrast to the traditional in four regards: 1. Rather than provide additional Kazakh contextual information, as the traditional version did with the explanation of the pit for the kettle, the appropriation has a setting that is more generic/universal. 2. Breaks with the traditional Aldar folktale structure that like other oral accounts is agonistic in focus (Ong 1982, 146). The version in question has the protagonist reflectively positing that the Kazakhs have changed and are fit to face new challenges. 3. Lacks the fatalistic tone of the traditional tale, instead presenting Aldar as capable of defining new options. 4. Rather than giving a general conclusion that would fit any Central Asian context, the version questions presents the appropriated tale as a story about the Kazakhs. These four points of contrast between the two versions are significant. The version in question narrows the focus of the story to one specific ethnic group. This same version also incorporates elements that are incongruous with the traditional version. These are both aspects that Stoeltje points out in the appropriation of Nassredin Hoca in Turkey. The Chinese version of Aldar that included kung fu was a variation, but here we are looking at an appropriation. In order to explore the ideology 10 that is being expressed, we will need to analyze the protagonist’s self-reflective statements more closely. In the next section, I will take this next step and explore the appropriated themes as what is called societal frames. Understanding Language Ideologies as Frames Language ideological content such as the appropriated folktale is best examined by considering what are called frames. Erving Goffman was one of the first theorists on this topic. He uses the term frame in various ways within his volume to describe how individuals organize experience (Goffman 1974, 10-11). Goffman set the stage for exploring the parameters for interpersonal communication by means of frame analysis. Starting in the early 1980’s sociologists and researchers in related disciplines expanded the idea of framing and adapted it for societal analysis (Frickel 2005, 62, Johnston 2002). Susan Gall affirms that considering societal frames is a necessary aspect of language ideology investigation(Gal 2012, 22). Frames range from scripts to cultural schemas. Scripts guide routine activities, such as placing an order in a restaurant. Schemas are the more extensive general assumptions to which members of a society adhere (Goffman 1974, 29, Shweder 1984, 40-41). Schemas are mental models of things or processes based on repeated experience (Quinn 2005, 38-41). Often these frames describe assumptions about causality and the make up of reality. One example would be the Kazakh assertion of “fruitfulness in community” through the Kazakh proverb “Bas ekeū bolmay, mal ekeū bolmas.” [If there are not two heads, there will not be two cattle] in contrast to the more 11 individualistic English proverb “two heads are better than one” (Aasland 2009). Frames are not monolithic, but rather diverse, layered, and changeable over time, thus fitting the tenets of language ideologies as summarized by Kroskrity that were listed earlier in this article. Johnston in his excellent discussion of frame analysis and societal movements (Johnston 2002) describes three levels of text/discourse that help constitute the frame: representative discourse, frame aligning discourse (Snow 1986), and general discourse. The first set are those texts which the societal movement considers seminal, the second are those produced by leaders and intellectuals to get buy in to the movement’s ideals from the general public, and the third is what happens in everyday discourse (Johnston 2002). In the remainder of this article, I will show how the appropriated folktale is an example of frame aligning discourse developed by the intellectual elite. President Nazarbayev describes the intelligentsia as crucial in formulating the spiritual and moral foundation of the Kazakhstan (Nazarbayev 2012, 82-83), other regions of Central Asia evidence a comparable role for the intellectual elite (Adams 2004, 96). In the case of the appropriated folktale, a group of intellectual elite utilizes the Aldar Köse story as means of expressing frame-aligning discourse that individuals and groups might also reference as part of quotidian discourse. How can we identify or access these frames? Narrative shapes thought and guides action by means of language ideologies/frames (Razfar 2012, 61). These are expressed in key words, metaphors and lines of reasoning (Quinn 2005, 36). There are considerable issues with relying on key words alone (Agha 1999). Therefore, in the 12 following sections, we will consider the combination of key words, metaphors, and lines of reasoning presented in the appropriated folk tale texts and focus group members’ discussion. Frames Utilized by the Appropriated Aldar Köse Next, I want to consider two frames that are developed in the appropriated folktale: “gentleness” and “cunning”. I will consider each of these key words in order, describing the term in the historical context. The Frame of Gentleness The three versions describe what the devils had heard about the Kazakhs: Russian “unsophisticated and gullible” (Batalova 2001, 18); English, “simple hearted and trustful” (Batalova 2001, 19); Kazakh “seemingly aŋqau [naïve]” (Batalova 2001, 17). The English is an accurate translation of the Russian and describes the Kazakhs in a way that is pleasantly condescending whereas the Kazakh takes a more clearly negative term and softens it with “seemingly”. Kazakhs have a long history of presenting themselves and being represented as a “gentle” people or as Kudaibergenova states it emphasizing their nomadic heritage (Kudaibergenova 2013, 843). However, if we used the adjectives from the appropriated folktale text and did a key word search, we would not find the representative discourse that has guided the Kazakhs for over three centuries. Kazibek Bi in the 17th century made a statement about the Kazakhs to the ruler Tzewang Rabtan, who was the Zünghars' lead commander in their attack on the Kazakhs (Attwood 2004). The statement starts out “Qazaq degen mal baqqan elmiz...” 13 [We, the Kazakhs, are a sheep-herding people...]. The statement is both factual and indexical. It uses one of their societal roles as a metaphor for their gentelness. Kazibek Bi continues to describe the Kazakhs going from metaphors to direct statements about their ability to live peaceably and in harmony with others. Kazibek Bi does not use the term aŋqau [naïve], yet Kazakh speakers see his presentation as related to this issue. A Kazakh term that is also included in these discussions but is more positive is momın (gentle). As evidence of the interest in this theme, Google.kz shows 49,100 results under this term. As we see from this example, an effective frame analysis approach cannot rely on exact terms that need to always appear in the same way as a quasi-magical, context-free resource. Rather key terms are part of a network only understandable as we consider the use and application of terms, metaphors, and lines of reasoning that offer comparable approaches to specific recurrent societal issues. In this case, we are looking at the issue of Kazakh selfpresentation in situations where they are in a less powerful position. Kazibek Bi’s quote has been passed down as something quintessentially Kazakh. We see this same statement quoted in the more recent period of Russian domination in Yesenberlin’s novel The Nomads (Yesenberlin 2006 [1975]). On the internet, the quote is often offered in its entirety as a description of how Kazakhs should be. For example, one public school had the quote as part of an official document presenting their affirmation of adamgershilik [humanness] (Amanbaeva 2015). One of the most significant on-line posts on the matter is a blog written by the Kazakh write Beken Qayratulı. At the outset, he presents the full Kazibek Bi quote and then describes how this depiction of the Kazakhs has been considered the exemplar for centuries. He follow this by raising the issue that this depiction is no longer appropriate, since the position of Kazakhs socioeconomically is vastly different than during other historical periods (Qayratulı 2011). He concludes with the dilemma that without this guiding 14 representative discourse, the Kazakhs currently lack a national spirit. I would argue that the appropriated folktale seeks to remedy this situation by positing a new societal frame. The Frame of Cunning The appropriated Aldar Köse tale puts a new frame center stage: modern day Kazakhs are described as “cunning”. Here what is being referenced is not intended to be an accurate historical picture of the Kazakhs. The mythical setting is vastly different than Kazakh historical fiction such as Yesenberlin’s Nomads (Yesenberlin 2006 [1975]) Instead, the devils are pointing to a stereotype or a frame for categorizing the Kazakh people. Textually this issue is treated in each of the three languages. In the Kazakh version, the devils contrast Aldar Köse with traditional Kazakhs as qu [cunning]. In the Russian version, the devils give the hero-trickster the title “khitretz iz khitretzov” [most cunning of the cunning] (Batalova 2001, 18) and the English offers a description of the current Kazakhs that is similar to the others: “cunning as a dozen devils” (Batalova 2001, 19). Once again it is best to not rely on the key terms simply lifted from the text, but rather to situate them in societal history and discourse. The appropriated version was published in 2001, so I will consider the early Post-Soviet period in Kazakhstan (approximately 1990 to some time before 2000). I don’t have the space here to historically define this period, but this is an estimate looking at Nazpary’s research (Nazpary 2002), comments from focus group participants, and my own experience of living in Kazakhstan for some of this period. During the first ten years after independence, Kazakhstanis depicted outsiders whether foreigners or those outside their respective region as “khitryi” [cunning] 15 (Nazpary 2002, 127-130, 169-170). These same foreigners were bringing in “dikii capitalism” [wild capitalism] (Nazpary 2002, 2-3, 9). Kazakhstanis developed a cynicism that was not limited to foreigners, but rather assumed that Kazakhstanis who had wealth were involved in illegal activities (Nazpary 2002, 2, 81). In the village in which my family and I lived and learned Kazakh for our first two years in Kazakhstan, anyone who had an expensive lifestyle was assumed to be corrupt. The wide variety of cars that were available in Kazakhstan in the years after the fall of communism were not taken only as indicators of greater economic prosperity, but rather viewed as indexical of corruption. Let me share from my own experience at this point about how powerful this frame of “cunning” and the sense of mistrust for pretentious shows of wealth was at around that time. The year was 1997 and I had just returned to the U.S. from two years in rural Kazakhstan. I had a surprising thought as I saw the sea of quality, expensive cars in Minneapolis, Minnesota: “There must be a lot of corrupt people around here.” This was a thought that I had one day after my return and it indicates how strong this frame for analyzing public presentations of wealth was for those residing in rural Kazakhstan during this period. These approaches to evaluating the foreign incursions was not an invention of Post-Soviet Kazakhstan, but can be traced back to the early days of the Soviet era. Similar depictions of foreign economic systems as oppressive and wild can be found in Soviet posters dating back to the 1920’s (Bonnell 1997, 201-204). In that time, Capitalism was contrasted with the Soviet lifestyle with the latter being presented as the more moral and harmonious way of life. The same contrast was being made by the dispossessed in the early Post-Soviet period throughout Kazakhstan (Nazpary 2002, 142). Notice that here this cunning frame operates through the use of dichotomous pairs contrasting insider/outsider; moral/immoral; and authentic/fake. Frames are formed, persist and can be adapted over the years. Natalie Kononenko analyzes how stereotypes (also a form of frame) of ethnic 16 groups have gone largely unchanged in Russian animation from the Soviet to the PostSoviet era (Kononenko 2011). I have shown how the frame of “cunning” implemented in the appropriated folktale has a fascinating history. From the early Soviet period through the early PostSoviet years it was a resource for distinguishing insiders with dangerous foreign groups. But according to the adapted folktale, the tables have turned and now the Kazakhs are somehow like these dangerous foreigners. One of the challenges for interpretation is that the folktale offers no further explication of this posited declaration. I will consider the concept of “New Kazakhs” and then look to the focus groups with Kazakhs as an aid to understanding the reality. What is “New” About the “New Kazakhs” The phrase “New Kazakhs” is perhaps best understood as a parallel concept to the “New Russians”. In the case of Russia, the “New Russians” were leaders who broke with the tradition and often represented as powerful and amoral. The similarities to the frame of cunning that we have just considered are clear. Interestingly enough, Mark Lipovetsky connects the emergence of the “New Russians” to the Greek mythological figure of Prometheus who operated both as hero and trickster (Lipovetsky 2003, 55). According to Lipovetsky literary representations of these mythical “New Russians” describe a union of “devilish antihero” and “cultural hero” that each fail because of their radical break with the past (Lipovetsky 2003, 71). Bhavna Dave presents the “New Kazakhs” in a similar light as “entrepreneurs, technocrats, and professionals” who benefited with economic, political, and societal changes in the early Post-Soviet period (Dave 2007, 143). In a fascinating article, Jonathan Murphy investigates who constituted the elite for the early Post-Soviet period 17 in Kazakhstan. He considers three different possibilities suggested by other researchers: 1. A return to power held by specific Kazakh clans; 2. Emergence of a new group that has seized opportunities; 3. Reformulation of the Soviet era elite. Although he sees evidence for the first two explanations, he argues that the elite has generally remained in power through the historical transitions (Murphy 2006). What does all this mean for our understanding of who the “New Kazakhs” are? One thing is clear, we should not refer to the “New Kazakhs” as addressing ethnic Kazakhs as a whole. The group addressed here is a subset of the population with the remaining members benefiting only symbolically. Next, we will consider the input provided by the focus groups. Focus Groups Up to now, we have explored different societal terms and considered related metaphors, but this is insufficient to represent a robust societal understanding. Key terms flag issues needing further explication. We need to understand the socio-historical context and use of the terms in actual discourse to move on to considerations of what is happening societally. Naomi Quinn, working with interviews about marriage, found that lines of reasoning, in addition to key words and metaphors, needed to be considered to provide sufficient information to be able to understand what is happening in terms of societal frames (Quinn 2005, 36). According to Garson, focus group can be effective in both exploring opinions in depth and testing hypotheses (Garson 2014, 1). I will be looking to the focus groups for this such additional content to either corroborate my thesis or point out needs for adjustment. 18 In organizing and facilitating the focus group sessions, I had three goals in mind: 1. Hear their evaluation of the folktale and my thesis that the appropriated version expresses two contrasting topics; 2. See whether they would resonate with topics addressed in the contemporary appropriation of a Kazakh folktale. 3. Evaluate whether the participants would put themselves in the story and consider how they might be the “New Kazakhs”. Here I understand “resonate” to refer to both their affirmation and embracing of linguistic ideologies put forth in the Aldar Köse adaptation. I was looking not only for their verbal affirmation of my analysis, but also for the metaphors and lines of reasoning that would emerge in the course of our discussion. If participants resonated with the presentation, then they would be able to provide complementary material (Maranda 2011) to fill out or challenge what I considered in my own analysis. The response could utilize either traditional material or new metaphorical content (Maranda 2011, 97). At this point, I want to consider some of the theory that guided the development of the focus groups and then move into the experience in the groups. The focus groups are included to complement and round out what is available for analysis. They also serve as a unique environment for reflection. 19 Providing the Space for Understanding In our transnational world, folklore provides a significant opportunity to connect and consider current issues (Garlough 2013, 4, 6). As I developed the focus groups, I considered Garlough’s recent book on how transnational performances by South Asian women help develop understanding and affirmation on the part of performers and their audiences. At first, I questioned the relevancy of her approach for the current article, since she looks at acknowledgement as a constructive connection and shared project between presenter and audience primarily in theatrical productions (Garlough 2013, 4). However, her discussion of acknowledgement in a “creative caring community” was an excellent fit for the focus groups that I carried out (Garlough 2013, 185). Each group functioned like a third space between Kazakhstan and the U.S. As one who had lived long-term in Kazakhstan, I could serve as facilitator for the group that made the time and opportunity to listen, interact, and reflect on the appropriated folktale. Coordinating with FaceBook and Organizing Focus Groups After I presented on Aldar Köse at the Silk Road House in Berkeley, I asked a Kazakh who attended how best to network with Kazakhs residing in California. His recommendation was that I connect via Kazakh FaceBook groups such as his own “Kazakhs in San Francisco and the Bay Area”. Only later did I come across scholarly research supporting this suggestion. Mieke Schrooten explores how internet groups serve a diverse daily function for Brazilians residing longer term in Belgium (Schrooten 2012). For transnationals in all stages of their life overseas, Internet groups serve a vital function for support, access to resources, and expression of nationalism. 20 I carried out ethnographic discussion groups with Kazakhs residing in the Los Angeles area. Each of the sessions was announced by means of a Face Book group that I established entitled “Ethnographic Research with Kazakhstanis in California”. I posted invitations to the various regional Kazakh FaceBook groups, briefly presenting my background and my current project. On the ethnographic group page, I explained that my primary expectation of them was to read the selected Kazakh folktale before taking part in a focus group. Sessions were announced and details worked out through the FaceBook group page. I had never met with any of the participants before they attended the session, but each of the gatherings was characterized by lively discussion concerning significant issues. Kazakhs residing in the Los Angeles area were eager to meet with me. Participants were primarily students who were working toward advanced degrees at the University of South California. One participant commented, “My cousin was so jealous that I was coming to this discussion group tonight!” In fact, one of the participants who helped organize the second session wrote an article for the University of Southern California Language Institute’s newspaper describing our second session (Mussin 2013). Although the sessions lasted no more than two hours, matters of significance were shared. One participant talked of an experience from early in her time in the United States. She entered an elevator with other international students. They asked her where she was from. When she replied “Kazakhstan” they burst out laughing, since their only familiarity with the country was the movie Borat. 21 The discussions in the groups were relational, seeking both to understand the current situation and arguing a variety of positions concerning Kazakh history. Thus they can be understood as performative. We were not sharing data, but working to reflect on the possible fit between the appropriated folktale and Kazakhs participating in the focus groups. One of the challenges of facilitating the group was deciding on the primary language from among the three options of English, Kazakh, and Russian. There is no such thing as a neutral language with these three choices. If I go with English, then some participants will be more limited and a number of the responses will be “translated” by participants into English. Although they may not use an actual interpreter, some of the students would be primarily interpreting on the fly from Kazakh or Russian. If we go with Kazakh, then this makes it easier for some, but others might consider my Kazakh better than their own and lose face. Finally, almost all participants speak Russian fluently, but I am not fluent enough in Russian to guide the groups. In the end, the discussion was generally in English, but all participants had the freedom to interject in Kazakh or Russian. Contents of the Focus Groups Since the selected folktale posits the emergence of “New Kazakhs”, it was natural for much of the discussion to concentrate on contrasting tradition and change in Kazakh society. Participants in both sessions emphasized the constancy of tradition, but also had significant points as they considered recent historical changes. 22 Constants Both groups described three significant constants: Ø Traditions passed down through generations; Ø Hospitality Ø Valuing education regardless of one’s socioeconomic status The first and third constants are closely related. Participants grew up in an era where Kazakh as a language was being revitalized. Whether or not they attended a Kazakh school, they showed a familiarity with key Kazakh writers and stressed the ongoing significance of Kazakh oral and cultural traditions. They affirmed the importance of knowing one’s own heritage and repeatedly talked about the significance of understanding history for contemporary Kazakhstani society. There was extensive discussion concerning “hospitality” in terms of Kazakhstani society, the appropriated folktale, and even our group. Included within the concept of hospitality is the ability to both adapt and to show tolerance. I would argue that hospitality is another aspect of being momın [gentle]. The Soviet stereotype of the Uzbeks emphasized their hospitality (Adams 2004, 106), and this was part of a stereotype of Central Asian lifeways in general. I am not saying that Central Asian hospitality is not a reality, since I can attest to its ongoing significance based on my own experience, but in this case it is used as part of the way to represent Central Asians as unobtrusive. In the second group, we had a discussion about related metaphors. One participant talked about the image of sheep and goats. Kazakhs are represented and sometimes present themselves as “sheep”. This metaphor represents their being open 23 to guidance and amenable to changing environments. It also complements Kazibek Bi’s statement about the Kazakhs being a cattle-herding people. New Kazakhs? Focus group participants considered how they are the “New Kazakhs” being posited in the appropriated folktale. They are studying overseas and are learning how to operate in different cultural contexts. As we worked on the list of characteristics of “New Kazakhs”, participants saw more and more how they could be considered as part of the “New Kazakhs”. The majority of participants were Bolashak scholars, top students selected to receive full scholarship from the Kazakhstani government to study in priority fields of study such as public administration and finance (Orazgaliyeva 2014). The two focus groups offered the following list of aspects for this emergent group: Ø Study overseas Ø More information / wisdom Ø Aggressive Ø Can “play the game”; take on aspects of foreigners Ø Ostentatious presentation of wealth At the same time, they affirmed their commitment to upholding factors that allow for continuity across the generations and were generally affirming of the “gentleness” frame. They were uncomfortable with describing Kazakhs as cunning and included some clearly negative aspects in their list for the emergent group. Their line of reasoning was that even with the so-called “New Kazakhs” there would be a need for ongoing affirmation and connection with the traditional ways of being Kazakh. 24 In the first focus group, I asked about any changes that occurred around the year 2000, when the folktale series in question was being finalized. One participant commented that it was at that point that a considerably wider variety of cars appeared on Kazakhstani streets. As I have discussed earlier, expensive cars served not only as evidence for increasing wealth, but were also viewed as indexical of corruption. In the second group, they listed the change being that contemporary Kazakh youth enjoy showing off their wealth. They contrasted this with their experience of students from the U.S. who did not flaunt their possessions. Once again, the situation of the Kazakhs had shifted. Whereas they had been acculturated under the Soviet regime to critique the decadence of the capitalist world, now there were wealthy Kazakhs enjoying the status that their wealth could garner them. Notice how the responses operate on some of the same dichotomous pairings as the “cunning” frame described earlier that was developed during the Soviet era and continued to be relevant after the fall of the Soviet Union. In particular, there is an emphasis placed on differences in location, morality, and authenticity. However, the placement of these aspects has changed. Whereas earlier it used to be Soviets presented as the moral people living in the Soviet Union and leading real lives, now younger Kazakhs are showing off their possessions and in some respects the students from the U.S. are the more real for not making much of their wealth. A Concrete Example The final topic for the focus groups was a concrete situation. At the 2013 Boston Marathon, a young Chechen man planted bombs that killed and injured some of those 25 participating and attending the event. Two Kazakh youth were indicted for aiding and abetting the Chechen. During the course of the trial, there was a considerable amount of discussion on Kazakhstani internet groups concerning this case. I asked each focus group: “When you have discussed the two Kazakhs who were indicted as accomplices to the Boston Bomber, what adjectives have you used to describe them?” I wanted to have the focus taken off of themselves and see how they would deal with a current event. The initial response was that actions of the two Kazakhs were based on youthful naiveté. Other responses included that they were acting according the Kazakhstani expectations of friendship and brotherhood. In their description of the two youths whom they viewed both as victims and perpetrators, focus group participants went to the frame of innocence/gentleness. Here were two Kazakh youths without cunning. The focus groups were an excellent opportunity to interact with the appropriated folktale. Participants stressed continuity with tradition and affirmed the innocence/gentleness frame, providing new terminology as well as metaphors. They were not as affirming of the cunning frame, but did list societal changes in line with this secondary frame. Although they did affirm their being different from their parents and grandparents in terms of opportunities, they did not present a break with tradition as the New Russians clearly do. When provided with a specific, contemporary case they also utilized the primary frame in representing the two Kazakh youth as both victims and perpetrators. Thus they affirmed the existence of both frames being considered, but 26 were not confident about the existence of a group distinct enough to be called “New Kazakhs”. Evaluation of the Focus Groups I was encouraged by how well the focus groups went. They proved to be a significant time for me to gain additional insight for my research and a unique opportunity for participants to consider the ongoing significance of their own traditions in relationship to Kazakh folklore. Looking back on the group experience, I am struck by how closely it matches up to how Blank and Howard have defined “tradition” as what we enact in relationship with others, gaining authority from the past and pressing into a hopeful future together (Blank and Howard 2013, 10). When I first read this definition, I was left with the question of how/why this experience is hopeful. I think the explanation might be that it is hopeful because the community enacting the tradition is a caring community using Garlough’s list of three aspects of the community as being-for-others, being-with-others, and hospitality (Garlough 2013, 185). The focus groups served as places for listening, affirming, and reflecting together. Why do I think that this approach worked for me? I see four reasons for the success: 1. The contrast between the Kazakhs’ purpose in coming to the United States to study “practical” subjects such as computer science and engineering and my decades long commitment to understand the ongoing significance of oral tradition for Kazakhs. 27 2. My established presence on-line as a scholar of Kazakh culture. Based on search engine data from academia.edu, I know that some of the students googled me to see if I were legitimate, before joining the FaceBook group. 3. The significant role of internet networking resources such as FaceBook for Kazakh expats living in the U.S. 4. Participants’ strong desire for significant discussions about their homeland. FaceBook proved a great resource in organizing participants for focus groups and disseminating information. Participants fulfilled their expected role of reading the folktale and actively taking part in focus groups. However there was only limited interaction on the special FaceBook page follow the focus group meetings. I am not claiming that the two focus groups that I facilitated was enough to establish what the Kazakhstani societal movement looks like. Such a societal analysis and claim would require a substantially larger sample and lengthier process. What we have been able to see is that linguistic ideological analysis of an appropriated folktale combined with focus groups with the intended audience of the appropriated material can help provide the necessary varied forms of data in terms of situated key terms, metaphors, and lines of reasoning to make societal analysis possible. Before concluding this article, I want to consider the significance of liminality that came up as I explored the appropriated folktale, but which was not directly addressed in the focus groups Liminality and Analysis The intent in appropriating the folktale was to advance societal change. Jack Santino argues that such efforts are in fact “ritualesque” (Santino 2011). Referring to 28 both Bakhtin and Victor Turner’s writings, he makes the case that often what we would label as performative is at the same time transformative (Santino 2011, 62). In this section, I will consider two different ritualesque processes and relate them to the appropriated folktale and the input of the focus groups. One of the primary models that I am accessing for this section of the article is Victor Turner’s concept of “liminality” (Turner 1967). In the discussion about the selected folktale, I emphasized the significance of Aldar being a liminal figure. What became clear as I considered the use of the focus groups is the role of liminality to group process. Based on Arnold Van Gennep’s research (van Gennep 1961), Turner posits three stages in this process: 1. Separation; 2. Liminal; 3. Reincorporation. Turner is interested in rites of passage, life stages that involve rituals that aid the transition. I argue that the appropriated folktale is intended to mark and possibly serve as an aid during this time of passage for the Kazakhs. It does this first of all by presenting Aldar Köse ’s situation as liminal. In terms of application, I would argue for two possible ways, one diachronic and the other synchronic, to understand the results of this liminal state. I should point out now that these two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 29 From the diachronic perspective, one could argue the scholars who appropriated the folktale in question sought to bring about separation to establish the “New Kazakhs”. They sought either to move this group of Kazakhs from a point of stability to a liminal state or to explain the challenges of their present situation as liminal. Since this liminal shift is based on their current position historically, it is diachronic. Aldar Köse finds himself in a liminal state in relationship to his usual adventures. In a story that is decidedly liminal, the protagonist pushes Kazakhs toward the limit, seeking to separate them from their old ways, give form to their new characteristics, and prepare them for a new role that is more fitting for an independent people. This process presents a close analogy to Turner’s actual research. However, in this case I would argue that the liminal state is not to be understood as developmental, but rather procedural. That is, the move to the “New Kazakhs” marks the taking on of new characteristics and not a stage in an overall developmental process. From the synchronic perspective, the liminal nature of the revised folktale opens up the possibility for Kazakh readers to gain new meaning in their lives through this “massmediated chronotope” (Swinehart 2008). The account that happens in mythic time can be brought into the current temporal, embodied experiences of Kazakhs to help them make sense of their new situation. Here the focus is not on their making an historical shift, but rather the more Bakhtinian understanding of the story helping infuse their situation with meaning (Bakhtin 1981). Bill Ellis describes the process as a transfer of meaning by means of “...representations of transformative fantasies set in imaginary worlds” (Ellis 2012, 183-189). This is also closely connected with how Ġabetov 30 describes how contemporary Kazakhs can gain meaning by referring the classic Central Asian epics (Ġabetov 2004, 248). I would assert based on the focus group interaction that participants related to the liminal aspects of the story primarily synchronically rather than diachronically. As the list of the aspects of “New Kazakhs” grew, they found themselves more and more in the story on the basis of content. The myth of the “New Kazakh” does not present a rite of passage for contemporary Kazakhs, but rather serves as justification and resource for the elite. This would also be a reasonable conclusion based on genre that was selected, folktale with fantastic content rather than a more realistic novel. Conclusion The appropriation of the Aldar Köse story in question is an effort to respond to significant socioeconomic changes by positing the “New Kazakhs”. In playing off the cultural frames of “gentleness” as a primary frame and “cunning” as a secondary frame, the intelligentsia seek to transform perspectives and open new avenues for Kazakh selfpresentation. Thus the appropriated folktale can be described in term of Johnston’s three types of societal frames as frame aligning discourse. Kazakhs residing in the Los Angeles area who participated in the focus groups resonated with these two frames, providing additional situated terms, metaphors, and lines of reasoning to fill out the analysis. In the course of both focus groups, as they considered what might typify the “New Kazakhs”, they found themselves fitting this type, but expressed a strong desire for continuity with Kazakh tradition and wisdom. 31 The methodology of combining linguistic ideological analysis with use of focus groups was effective. FaceBook proved a helpful resource in networking and recruiting focus group members. However, focus group participants interacted to a limited degree on the group site after the sessions. The results do not show the scope of the societal response to the frames in question, but do indicate that the appropriated folktale is relevant to transnational Kazakhs residing long-term in the United States. With Kazakhs now in the majority in Kazakhstan and with Kazakh identity more firmly established, it is no longer fitting to present themselves as the weaker party. In contrast to the concept of the “New Russians” as making a radical break with the past (Lipovetsky 2003, 56), Kudaibergenova, Murphy, and the focus group participants stressed the importance of continuity. Thus Kazakhstan may have an opportunity to break the cycle of thesis and antithesis and find a new synthesis. However, I would point out that the key beneficiaries of the myth of the “New Kazakhs” are the elite. The appropriation while understandable and effective based on the focus groups’ response, is likely a double-edge sword. The hero-trickster cheered on as the opposition to the pompous and powerful is now a tool of the elite. His affirmation to contemporary Kazakhs as “cunning” could be used to numb societal sensitivity to significant disparities between the wealthy and the poor in Kazakhstani society. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the scholars as well as focus group participants who aided in this research project. Drafts of this paper were presented at the American Folklore Society Conference (2012) and at the Silk Road House in Berkeley, California (2013). Thanks 32 also to Tom DuBois for his suggestion that I include feedback from Kazakhs on the appropriated folktale. References Cited Aasland, Erik. 2009. "Two Heads are Better Than One: Using Conceptual Mapping to Analyze Proverb Meaning." Proverbium: Yearbook of International Proverb Scholarship (26): 1-18. Adams, Laura. 2004. "Cultural Elites in Uzbekistan: Ideological Production and the State." In The Transformation of Central Asia: States and Societies from Soviet Rule to Independence, edited by Pauline Jones Luong, 93-119. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Agha, Asif. 1999. "Book Review of Understanding Culturs through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese." American Anthropologist no. 101 (4):860-861. Amanbaeva, R.R. 2015. Balanıŋ Adamgershilik: Ruhhani Tärbyecin Qalptastastıru [a child’s humanness: development of a spiritual training] 2015 [cited February 10, 2015 2015]. Available from http://www.rusnauka.com/14_ENXXI_2013/Pedagogica/5_137618.doc.htm. Anderson, Benedict. 2006 [1983]. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. New York: Verso Attwood, Christopher P. Tsewang-Rabtan Khung-Taiji, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire 2004 [cited February 9, 2015. Available from http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=EME530&DataType=Worl dHistory. Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. "Forms of Time and the Chronotope in the Novel." In The Dialogic Imagination, edited by Michael Holquist, 84-258. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Başgöz, İlhan 1972. "Folklore Studies and Nationalism in Turkey." Journal of the Folklore Institute no. 9 (2/3):162-176. Batalova, E. 2001. Aldar Köse Qazaq Ertegileri [aldar köse kazakh tales]. Almaty: Almaty Kitap. Bauman, Richard, and Charles L. Briggs. 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bayġabılova, Q. 2011. “Aldardı ŋ Shaytandarmen Joldas Bolyı” [aldar köse’s companionship with the devils]. Almaty: Aruna. Blank, Trevor J., and Robert Glenn Howard. 2013. "Introduction." In Tradition in the TwentyFirst Century: Location the Role of the Past in the Present, edited by Trevor J. Blank and Robert Glenn Howard, 1-21. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. Bonnell, Victoria E. 1997. Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters under Lenin and Stalin. Edited by Victoria E. Bonnell and Lynn Hunt, Studies on the History of Society and Culture. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. "L'économie des échanges linguistiques [The economics of linguistic exchanges]." Langue Française no. 34 (1):17-34. Coutsoukis, Photius. 2011. Kazakhstan Ethnic Groups 2004 [cited December 16, 2011 2011]. Available from http://www.photius.com/countries/kazakhstan/society/kazakhstan_society_ethnic_grou ps.html. Dave, Bhavna. 2007. Kazakhstan: Ethnicity and Power. London: Routledge. 33 Ellis, Bill. 2012. "Love and War and Anime Art: An Ethnographic Look at a Virtual Community of Collectors." In Folk Culture in the Digital Age, edited by Trevor J. Blank, 166-211. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Frickel, Scott and Neil Gross. 2005. "A General Theory of Scientific / Intellectual Movements." American Sociological Review no. 70 (2):204-232. Ġabdullıyn, Mälik 1996. Qazaq Halqınıņ Ayız Ädebıyeti [oral literature of the kazakh people]. Second ed. Almaty: Sanat. Ġabetov, T. 2004. Mädeniyettanu [Cultural Studies]. Almaty: Rarity. Gal, Susan. 2012. "Sociolinguistic Regimes and the Management of "Diversity"." In Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit, edited by Alexandre Duchêne and Monica Heller, 22-42. New York: Routledge. Garlough, Christine, L. 2013. Desi Divas: Political Activism in South Asian American Cultural Performances. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Garson, David G. 2014. Focus Group Research. Edited by G. David Garson, Blue Book Series. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Publishing Associates. Goffman, Irving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Johnston, Hank. 2002. "Verification and Proof in Frame and Discourse Analysis." In Methods of Social Movement Research, edited by Bert Klandermans and Suzanne Staggenborg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kazakhstan, Ministry of Culture and Information. 2011. "Mädeni Mura" Memlekettik Baġdarlaması ["Cultural heritage" societal goals]. Kazakhstan Ministry of Culture and Information 2004 [cited November 5 2011]. Available from http://www.madenimura.kz. Kenesov, Serjan. 2015. "Aldar men Shaitan" [aldar and satan] 2013 [cited February 9 2015]. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOuYm1DH_Os. Kononenko, Natalie. 2011. "The Politics of Innocence: Soviet and Post-Soviet Animation on Folklore Topics." Journal of American Folklore no. 124 (494):272-294. Kroskrity, Paul V. 2010. "Language Ideologies: Evolving Perspectives." In Society and Language Use, edited by Jan-Ola Östman Jürgen Jaspers, Jef Verschueren, 192-211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kudaibergenova, Diana T. 2013. ""Imagining Community" in Soviet Kazakhstan. An historical analysis of narrative on nationalism in Kazakh-Soviet literature." Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity no. 41 (5):839-854. Lipovetsky, Mark. 2003. "New Russians as a Cultural Myth." Russian Review no. 62 (1):54-71. Maranda, Pierre. 2011. "Echo Chambers and Rhetoric: Sketch of a Model of Resonance." In The Rhetorical Emergence of Culture, edited by Christian Meyer and Felix Girke, 84-100. New York: Berghahn Books Murphy, Jonathan. 2006. "Illusory Transition? Elite Reconstitution in Kazakhstan, 19892002." Europe-Asia Studies no. 58 (4):523-554. Mussabek, E.N. 2011. The Results of the National Population Census of 2009. The Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2010 [cited December 16, 2011 2011]. Available from http://www.eng.stat.kz/news/Pages/n1_12_11_10.aspx. Mussin, Askhat. 2013. "Kazakh Language Becoming Popular." The Academy News, Nov. 15, 2013, 6, 8. Nazarbayev, Nursultan. 2012. Strategy Kazakhstan 2050: New Political Course of the Established State. Astana, Kazakhstan. 34 Nazpary, Joma. 2002. Post-Soviet Chaos: Violence and Dispossesion in Kazakhstan. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press. Newall, Venetia J. 1987. "The Adaptation of Folklore and Tradition (Folklorismus)." Folklore no. 98 (2):131-151. Öğüt-Eker, Gülin 2005. "Nasrettin Hodja in the Turkic World." International Journal of Central Asian Studies no. 10 (1):33-53. Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York: Routledge. Orazgaliyeva, Malika. 2015. Bolashak Scholarship Makes Graduates, and Country, Competititive The Astana Times 2014 [cited February 12 2015]. Available from http://www.astanatimes.com/2014/06/bolashak-scholarship-makes-graduates-countrycompetitive/. Őztűrmen, Arzu. 1992. "Individuals and Institutions in the Early History of Turkish Folklore, 1840-1950." Journal of Folklore Research no. 29 (2):177-192. Paksoy, H.B. 1989. Alpamysh: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule. Hartford, CT: Association for Advancement of Central Asian Research. Qayratulı, Beken. 2015. Qazibek Bidiŋ Sözi nemese Qazaq Qanday Halıq edi [kazibek bi's words or what kind of people are the kazakhs] 2011 [cited February 9 2015]. Available from http://www.namys.kz/?p=4384. Quinn, Naomi. 2005. "How to Reconstruct Schemas People Share, From What They Say." In Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods, edited by Naomi Quinn, 35-82. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Razfar, Aria. 2012. "Narrating Beliefs: A Language Ideologies Approach to Teacher Beliefs." Anthropology and Education Quarterly no. 43 (1):61-81. Santino, Jack. 2011. "The Carnivalesque and the Ritualesque." Journal of American Folklore no. 124 (491):61-73. Schrooten, Mieke. 2012. "Moving Ethnography Online: Researching Brazillian Migrants' Online Togetherness." Ethnic and Racial Studies no. 35 (10):1794-1809. Shweder, Richard A. 1984. "Anthropology's Romantic Rebellion Against the Enlightenment, or There's More to Thinking than Reason and Evidence." In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, edited by Richard A. Shweder and Robert A. Leving, 27-66. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Smagulova, Jyldyz. 2006. "Kazakhstan: Language, Identity and Conflict." Innovation - the European Journal of Social Science Research no. 19 (3-4):303-320. Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, Robert D. Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation." American Sociological Review no. 51:464-481. Stoeltje, Beverly. 2011. Comic or Corporate: The Suits Meet the Saint. In American Folklore Society. Indiana University. Swinehart, Karl F. 2008. "The Mass-Mediated Chronotope, Radical Counterpublics, and Dialect in 1970s Norway." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology no. 18 (2):290-301. Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Umarova, G.S. 2007. Qazaq Ädebīetiniŋ Tariyhı [History of kazakh literature]. Astana: Foliant. van Gennep, Arnold. 1961. The Rite of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 35 Woolard, Kathryn. 1998. "Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry." In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, edited by Kathryn A. Woolard Bambi B. Schieffelin, and Paul V. Kroskrity. New York: Oxford University Press. Yesenberlin, Iliyyas. 2006 [1975]. Kőshpendiler [The nomads]. Almaty Kőshpendiler Baspası. Original edition, 1975. 36