This article analyzes the transformation of the social functions of the Kabardian and Balkar languages in the contemporary Kabardino-Balkarian Republic amid urbanization, digitalization, changes in education policy, and the expansion of the tourism industry. The study aims to identify the mechanisms of language shift and to test the hypothesis that native languages are moving from their role as an everyday means of communication and a “foundation of culture” toward predominantly symbolic, ritual, instrumental, and commercialized forms of use. The theoretical framework draws on the concepts of language commodification, postvernacularity, and ethnolinguistic infusion, which make it possible to view the decline in everyday language use not only as language “loss” but also as a change in the range of social functions a language performs.

The study draws on a qualitative survey of seven regional experts—researchers, philologists, cultural workers, and language activists – conducted in April 2026. The questionnaire comprised 13 open-ended questions addressing changes in the language situation, language transmission within the family, the intergenerational gap, family folklore, the digital environment, tourism, urbanization, the role of schools and civic initiatives, as well as future prospects and research gaps. The responses were analyzed using thematic coding and a comparison of the experts’ perspectives.

Findings indicate a high degree of agreement among experts regarding the declining use of Kabardian and Balkar in family and everyday life and the weakening of intergenerational transmission. Young parents increasingly choose Russian for its practical value in education, social mobility, and career development; at the same time, traditional forms of family folklore are disappearing, while native languages are increasingly shifting into ritual, educational, digital, and tourism-related contexts. However, experts differ in their assessments of the extent of this shift: alongside interpretations of language as a decorative “spectacle,” they identify niches in which the languages remain in active use and new forms of symbolic use capable of sustaining ethnic identity even among those with limited language proficiency.

The study identifies a central paradox in the contemporary language situation: increasingly emphatic public rhetoric about the need to preserve native languages is not accompanied by renewed demand for their use in everyday life. This gap is sustained by a combination of urbanization, the absence of economic incentives for using these languages, the limited capacity of schools, and the institutional consequences of the shift to voluntary native-language study. Although individual digital, educational, and cultural initiatives demonstrate the capacity to create new domains of language use, their local scope and often project-based nature have so far prevented them from changing the overall trajectory of language shift. The article concludes that the prospects for Kabardian and Balkar should be analyzed not only in terms of preservation or disappearance but also through the study of postvernacular practices, family language policy strategies, and the behavior of “new speakers.” The small expert sample calls for further research involving young parents, young people, and other groups directly shaping the everyday linguistic environment.

sociolinguistics, minority languages, Kabardian language, Balkar language, language commodification, postvernacularity, language shift

1. Mochalov A. N. Legislation on the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation: The State and Directions of Improvement (Federal Aspect). Rossiyskoe pravo: obrazovanie, praktika, nauka, 2023: 6: 19–34 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.34076/2410_2709_2023_6_19; EDN: CYDPVU.
2. Benor S. B. Ethnolinguistic Infusion: Community Language Socialization and Reclamation without Proficiency. Language in Society, 2026: 55: 3: 407–431. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404525101851.
3. Freeland J. Linguistic Revitalization: Social Stakes and New Research Directions. An Afterword. Langage et société, 2013: 145: 3: 81–100. DOI: 10.3917/e.ls.145.0081.
4. Grutman R. Post-Vernacular Self-Translation: Bringing Languages Back from the Brink. Lezioni di Traduzione, 2025: 4: 19–38. Accessed 01.07.2026. URL: https://amsacta.unibo.it/id/eprint/8690/1/Grutman%20LdT%204.pdf. DOI: 10.6092/unibo/amsacta/8690.
5. Heller M. Language, Skill and Authenticity in the Globalized New Economy. Noves SL.: Revista de sociolingüística, 2005: 2. Accessed 01.07.2026. URL: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2049785.
6. Heller M. The Commodification of Language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2010: 39: 101–114. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104951.
7. Liu A., Rui S., Deng Z. Small Tourism Entrepreneurs, Heritage Authenticity and Tourism Gentrification: A Critical Engagement with More-than-representational Theory. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2026: March: 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2026.2625838.
8. Lonardi S. Minority Languages and Tourism: A Literature Review. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2022: 17: 3: 342–356. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2021.2012183.
9. Schram F. Moin, Schietwedder, and Freely Phrased Sentences: The Commodified Use of Low German on Instagram. Language Internet, 2023: 21: 79–101. DOI: 10.14434/li.v21.37374.
10. Shandler J. Postvernacular Yiddish: Language as a Performance Art. The Drama Review, 2004: 48: 1: 19–43. DOI: 10.1162/105420404772990655.
11. Zhang A., Xie J. Creation of a Pseudo-language as Spectacle: A Critical Study on the Linguistic Landscape of Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 2025: 115. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2025.104019.