Conclusion The Kryz people of Azerbaijan have a unique heritage, culture, and language. Although there is an indication that people may be moving from the mountain Kryz villages to the lowlands, there remains a significant community of Kryz speakers in the mountains for whom Kryz is the main language of communication. In addition, at least some of the movement seems to be between mountain villages. There are a number of important issues that still need to be answered through further research. Perhaps the most important of these deals with proficiency in Azerbaijani. In light of the fact that it is reported that children and those of the older generation in the mountain villages do not speak Azerbaijani at a high level, the claims of overall bilingualism need to be objectively verified. Related to this, the level of Azerbaijani literacy in the mountain villages needs to be researched. Our research suggests that proficiency in Azerbaijani in the mountain communities may not be as great as was claimed in previous studies.

Given the current migration patterns among the Budukh, as well as the language use patterns in the majority of Budukh communities, it appears that the viability of the Budukh language is low. While Budukh is still spoken in the mountain villages, even there a number of individuals use Azerbaijani in the domain of the home. In the plains communities, where a majority of Budukhs live, Azerbaijani is already the main language of communication; children and young adults are not learning Budukh. In the towns, some Budukh adults may understand the vernacular, but most do not speak the language well. While a study of identity issues and language attitudes was not a focus of this project, such research may shed light on why Budukhs are losing their language while continuing to identify themselves as Budukh.

Conclusion The language use and proficiency patterns in Xınalıq village reveal a state of stable diglossia, where both the Azerbaijani and Khinalug languages are fully mastered, frequently used and valued in different domains. Both men and women of all ages use Khinalug at home, but also learn Azerbaijani well for interaction with outsiders. Children still learn Khinalug first, although they begin learning Azerbaijani at an early age. The diglossic situation for Khinalug families who have moved away from the village may be less stable, as children in these families reportedly learn Azerbaijani better than they learn Khinalug. Thus the migration of families from the village to lowland areas could affect the balance of language use for the group as a whole. Although our research did not include visits to areas where Khinalug constitute a small minority, such study could either shed light on another case of diglossia, or on the processes of language shift. It is possible that in communities such as Quba, Khinalugs have moved into the same neighborhoods, and therefore may continue to use the vernacular for at least another generation. The continued use of Khinalug among the drivers at the Xınalıq station in Quba may be evidence of this. Overall, the patterns observed suggest that the Khinalug and Azerbaijani languages could continue to co-exist in the Xınalıq community for the foreseeable future. The role of Russian in Xınalıq village is very limited. Russian is believed to have some value for various purposes, but most village residents either have little contact with Russian speakers or little motivation to learn Russian, and therefore proficiency in Russian is very low.