Kazakhstan’s trilingual education policy, which mandates instruction in Kazakh, Russian, and English, has significant implications for the Uyghur community, a recognized ethnic minority in the country. This study investigates Uyghur community stakeholders’ attitudes toward the trilingual education policy in Kazakhstan to understand how it affects their linguistic and cultural identity. Using a qualitative research design, the study collected data through in-depth interviews with Uyghur educators, parents, and community leaders. The research is framed by Kloss’s (1966) factors promoting language maintenance, Fishman’s (1980) emphasis on intergenerational transmission, and the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory (Giles et al., 1977). These theories provide insight into how Uyghur language maintenance is shaped by educational policies, demographic factors, and institutional support. Additionally, Smagulova’s (2017) work on family interactions highlights how micro-level language practices align with macro-level policy influences, while Zhumay et al. (2021) identify challenges faced by minority communities due to disparities in educational resources.

The findings reveal a complex and mixed reception of the trilingual education policy among Uyghur stakeholders. While many acknowledge the benefits of multilingualism, including enhanced opportunities for economic and social mobility, they also express deep concerns about the potential erosion of the Uyghur language and cultural identity. The policy’s focus on Kazakh, Russian, and English is seen as limiting Uyghur language development, particularly in Uyghur-medium schools where there are concerns over reduced instruction time in Uyghur. Kloss’s concept of language islands applies here, as Uyghur-medium schools remain critical spaces for language preservation but struggle with integrating trilingual education demands. Informal cultural practices, such as meshrep gatherings (Harris & Kamalov, 2020), play a vital role in maintaining Uyghur linguistic traditions, but their influence is insufficient to counteract the structural challenges imposed by national education policies. Giles et al.’s (1977) framework suggests that institutional support is a key factor in language maintenance, but in Kazakhstan, this support remains inconsistent, affecting the sustainability of Uyghur language use in formal education.

This study contributes to discussions on minority language maintenance, multilingual education, and educational policy adaptation. It highlights the need for more inclusive education policies that account for the linguistic and cultural diversity of Kazakhstan’s ethnic communities. The study also emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement in policy implementation, ensuring that Uyghur language concerns are considered within broader multilingual education frameworks. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, educators, and researchers working on language policy and ethnic minority education. By identifying both the challenges and opportunities presented by the trilingual education policy, this research underscores the critical role of balancing national language goals with minority language preservation in Kazakhstan’s evolving multilingual landscape.

This study employs a qualitative research design with an ethnographic approach to explore Uyghur community stakeholders' attitudes toward the trilingual education policy in Kazakhstan. To capture diverse perspectives, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with 32 participants, including teachers, parents, linguist activists, meshrep organizers, media representatives, and community leaders. Purposive and snowball sampling were used to identify participants engaged in Uyghur language education and policy discussions. All interviews were conducted in Uyghur, ensuring cultural and linguistic authenticity. The research focused on themes such as perceptions of the trilingual education policy, concerns about language maintenance, institutional and community-based support for Uyghur-medium education, and the impact of informal practices (e.g., meshrep gatherings) on language preservation. A focus group of seven Uyghur teachers provided additional insights into policy implementation challenges. Data were collected in two regions: Region 1 (rural area), where a Uyghur minority school piloted trilingual education, and Region 2 (urban area), where Uyghur cultural events and media activities were observed. Thematic analysis, following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) framework, was used to identify patterns in participants' narratives. Transcriptions were completed in Uyghur (Latin script) and translated into English for reporting. The coding process highlighted key themes such as the mixed reception of trilingual education, concerns over language loss, the role of informal community networks, and educational policy challenges in Uyghur-medium schools. Data visualization methods, including A3 paper mapping and Microsoft Excel coding, were used to systematically categorize responses. Ethical considerations were ensured through informed consent and the use of pseudonyms to maintain participant confidentiality. Additionally, a Uyghur writer assisted in interpreting linguistic nuances. One participant from the Uyghur Cultural Center declined audio recording, and their insights were documented through handwritten notes. By integrating linguistic, cultural, and policy perspectives, this study offers a comprehensive analysis of how the Uyghur community perceives trilingual education and the broader implications for minority language maintenance in Kazakhstan.

Uyghur community stakeholders' attitudes towards language maintenance through trilingual education policy revealed a predominant theme of 'perspectives on trilingual education policy.' Parents and teachers in Uyghur schools generally view the policy positively, considering English proficiency as pivotal for minority youth to attain equal opportunities and socio-economic advancement. However, active members hold mixed beliefs; while some see it as a boon for community well-being, others express concerns about potential negative consequences leading to further closures of Uyghur minority schools. Despite apprehensions, stakeholders acknowledge the policy as state-driven and non-negotiable, even in the face of potential school closures, which are pivotal for Uyghur language preservation. Teachers highlight the gradual decline of Uyghur schools due to possible curriculum changes, compounded by insufficient Uyghur textbook development. Nevertheless, stakeholders anticipate that the policy will standardise teaching across all schools in Kazakhstan, potentially increasing Uyghur minority school enrollment among parents. In addition to institutional support, the role of attitudes toward language maintenance among Uyghur community stakeholders is pivotal. As revealed in this study, while there is a general acknowledgement of the benefits of trilingual education, there are underlying concerns regarding the long-term impact on Uyghur language preservation. Attitudes ranged from optimism and acceptance to skepticism and fear of further closures of Uyghur minority schools (Zhang & Slaughter-Defoe, 2009; Holmes & Harlow, 1991). This suggests that institutional support, noted by Giles et al. (1977), is critical; however, without fostering positive and supportive attitudes within the community, language maintenance efforts may remain inadequate (Fishman, 1991; Yagmur & Kroon, 2003). Therefore, it is essential to address these attitudinal concerns through community engagement and policy adaptations that resonate with the stakeholders’ cultural and linguistic priorities, aligning with the theoretical frameworks proposed by Kloss (1966) and expanded by Pauwels (2016) on the importance of attitudinal and institutional synergy in language maintenance.

1. Ahn, E. S., & Smagulova, J. (2022). English language choices in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. *World Englishes, 41*(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12552 2. Fishman, J. A. (1980). *Bilingual education: An international sociological perspective*. Rowley. 3. Fishman, J.A. (1991). *Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages*. Multilingual Matters. 4. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), *Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations* (pp. 307–348). Academic Press. 5. Harris, R., & Kamalov, A. (2020). Nation, religion and social heat: heritaging Uyghur mäshräp in Kazakhstan. *Central Asian Survey, 40*(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2020.1835825 6. Kloss, H. (1966). German-American language maintenance efforts. In J. Fishman (Ed.), *Language loyalty in the United States* (pp. 206–209). Mouton. 7. Smagulova, J. (2017). Ideologies of language revival: Kazakh as school talk. *International Journal of Bilingualism, 21*(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916684920 8. Zhumay, N., Tazhibayeva, S., Shaldarbekova, A., & Sandybayeva, A. (2021). Multilingual education in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Problems and prospects. *Social Inclusion, 9*(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i1.3561