Ukrainian language: history and modernity. The role of language in society.
|
Ukrainian |
|
|
Spoken in: |
Ukraine, Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Canada, United States, Moldova, Hungary, Belarus, Poland, Portugal, Argentina, Paraguay |
|
Total speakers: |
39.4 million |
|
26 |
|
|
Indo-European |
|
|
Official status |
|
|
Official language of: |
Ukraine, |
|
Language codes |
|
|
uk |
|
|
ukr |
|
|
Ukrainian-speaking world |
|
Ukrainian (украї́нська мо́ва, ukrayins’ka mova, [ukraˈjinʲsʲka ˈmɔʋa]) is a language of the East Slavic subgroup of the Slavic languages. It is the official state language of Ukraine. The written Ukrainian uses a Cyrillic alphabet. The language shares some vocabulary with the languages of the neighboring Slavic nations, most notably with Belarusian, Polish, Russian and Slovak.
The Ukrainian language traces its origins to the Old East Slavic language of the medieval state of Kievan Rus‘. Called at its earlier stages as Ruthenian, Little Russian, the Ukrainian, along with other East Slavic languages, is a lineal descendant of the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus‘ (10th–13th century).[1]
The language has persisted despite several periods of bans and/or discouragement throughout centuries as it has always nevertheless maintained a sufficient base among the people of Ukraine
History
Perspective
Before the eighteenth century the precursor to the modern Ukrainian language was a vernacular language used mostly by peasants and petits bourgeois which existed side-by-side with Church Slavonic, a literary language of of religion that evolved from the Old Slavonic. Although the spoken Ukrainian language was io danger of extinction, it was only raised to the level of a language of literature, philosophy and science by being promoted at the expense of a separate “high language”, be it Greek, Church Slavonic, Polish, Latin or Russian. Ivan Kotlyarevsky in 1798 published an epic poem, Eneyida, a burlesque in Ukrainian, based on Virgil’s Aeneid. The book turned out to be the first literary work published in the vernacular Ukrainian, becoming an undying classic of Ukrainian literature.
The Ukrainian language reflects the history of Ukraine, which is mostly comprised of the periods of foreign domination and resistance to it.
Origin
Ukrainian traces its roots through the mid-fourteenth century Ruthenian language, a chancellery languages of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, back to the early written evidences of tenth-century Kievan Rus‘. One of the key difficulties tracing the origin of the Ukrainian language more precisely is due to the fact that until the end of the 18th century the written language used in
A direct evidence for the existence of Ukrainian language goes only as far as 17th century.[1] The language itself must have formed earlier, but there are differing opinions as to the exact circumstances and time-frame of its creation.
It is known that between 9th and 13th century, many areas of modern Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were united in a common entity now referred to as Kievan Rus‘. Surviving documents from the Kievan Rus‘ period are written in either Old East Slavic or Church Slavonic language or their mixture. Both these languages are considerably different from both modern Ukrainian and Russian language (but similar enough to allow considerable comprehension of the 11th-century texts by an educated Ukrainian or Russian reader).
In 13th century, eastern parts of Kievan Rus‘ (including Moscow) came under Tatar yoke for the three centuries to come, whereas in the western areas (including Kiev) the short Tatar period quickly ended as the territory was incorporated into Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For the following four centuries, the two languages evolved in relative isolation from each other. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Old East Slavic became a language of che chancellery and gradually evolved into Ruthenian language. By the 1569 Union of Lublin that formed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a significant part of Ukrainian territory was moved from Lithuanian rule to the Polish administration, resulting in the cultural pressure of Polonization and attempts to colonize Ukraine by Polish nobility. It is known, for example, that many Ukrainiaobles learned the Polish language and adopted Catholicism during that period.[2] Lower classes have been less affected but as the literacy was limited to the upper class and clergy and the latter was also under the Polish pressure to come into a Union with the Catholic Church that dominated
By the mid 17th century, the linguistic divergence between Ukrainian and Russian languages is confirmed by the need for translators during negotiations for the Treaty of Pereyaslav, between Bohdan Khmelnytsky, ruler of the Zaporozhian Host, and the Russian state.
The first theory of the origin of Ukrainian language was suggested in the Imperial Russia in the middle of the 18th century by Mikhail Lomonosov. This theory posits the existence of a common language spoken by all East Slavic people in the time of the Kievan Rus‘. According to Lomonosov, the differences that subsequently developed between Great Russian and Ukrainian (then called Little Russian) could be explained by the influence of the Polish language on Ukrainian and the influence of Turkic languages on Russian during the period from 13th to 17th century.
The “Polonization” theory was criticized as early as in the first half of the nineteenth century by Mykhailo Maxymovych. In fact, the most distinctive features of the Ukrainian language are present neither in Russian nor in Polish. Ukrainian and Polish language do share a lot of common or similar words, but so do all Slavic languages, since many words are carried over from the Proto-Slavic language, the common ancestor of the modern ones. A much smaller part of their common vocabulary can be attributed to the later interaction of the two languages. The “Polonization” theory has not been taken seriously by the academic community since the beginning of the 20th century, but still has some circulation among anti-Ukrainian organizations and politicians.
Another point of view developed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by linguists of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. Similarly to Lomonosov, they assumed the existence of a common language spoken by East Slavs in the past. But unlike Lomonosov’s hypothesis, this theory does not view “Polonization” or any other external influence as the main driving force that led to the formation of three different languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian from the common Old East Slavic language. This general point of view is one of the most popular,[4] particularly outside
Soviet scholars tend to admit a difference between Ukrainian and Russian only at later time periods (fourteenth through sixteenth centuries). According to this view, Old East Slavic diverged into Byelorusian and Ukrainian to the west (collectively, the Ruthenian language of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries), and Old Russian to the north-east, after the political boundaries of Kievan Rus’ were redrawn in the fourteenth century. During the time of the incorporation of Ruthenia (
Some scholars see a divergence between the language of Halych-Volhynia and the language of Novgorod–Suzdal
by the 1100s, assuming that before the 12th century the two languages were practically indistinguishable. This point of view is, however, at variance with some historical data. In fact, several East Slavic tribes, such as Polans, Drevlyans, Severians, Dulebes (that later likely became Volhynians and Buzhans), White Croats, Tiverians and Ulichs lived on the territory of today’s Ukraine long before the 12th century. Notably, some Ukrainian features were recognizable in the southern dialects of Old East Slavic as far back as the language can be documented.[2].
Some researchers, while admitting the differences between the dialects spoken by East Slavic tribes in the 10th and 11th centuries, still consider them as “regional manifestations of a common language” (see, for instance, the article by Vasyl Nimchuk). In contrast, Ahatanhel Krymsky and Alexei Shakhmatov assumed the existence of the common spoken language of
A Ukrainian linguist Stepan Smal-Stocky went even further: he denied the existence of a common Old East Slavic language at any time in the past.[4] Similar points of view was shared by Yevhen Tymchenko, Vsevolod Hantsov, Olena Kurylo, Ivan Ohienko and others. According to this theory, the dialects of East Slavic tribes evolved gradually from the common Proto-Slavic language without any intermediate stages during the 6th through 9th centuries. The Ukrainian language was formed by mixing and convergence of tribal dialects, mostly due to an intensive migration of the population within the territory of today’s
Medieval history
Beyond the polemics between several ideological conceptions, the continuous presence of Slavic settlements in
Immigration of Slavic tribes to the Western Slavic and Southern Slavic portions of Eastern Europe led to the dissolution of Early Common Slavic into three groups by the seventh century (East Slavic, West Slavic, and South Slavic). During this time period, some East Slavic elements could have already provided a Slavic identity to the Antes civilization (of which nothing but an Iranian name is known).
Kievan Rus‘ and Halych-Volhynia
During the Khazar period, the
The era of Rus‘ is the subject of some linguistic controversy, as the language of much of the literature was purely or heavily Old Slavonic. At the same time, most legal documents throughout Rus‘ were written in a purely East Slavic language (supposed to be based on the
One prominent example of this north-south divergence in Rus‘ from around 1200, was the epic, The Tale of Igor’s Campaign. Like other examples of Old Russian literature (for example, Byliny, the Russian Primary Chronicle), it survived only in Northern Russia (Upper Volga belt) and was probably written there. It shows dialectal features characteristic of Severian dialect with the exception of two words which were wrongly interpreted by early nineteenth-century German scholars as Polish loan words.
Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia, and Austro-Hungary
Miniature of St Matthew from the Peresopnytsia Gospels (1561).
After the fall of Halych-Volhynia, Ukrainians mainly fell under the rule of Lithuania, then Poland. Local autonomy of both rule and language was a marked feature of Lithuanian rule. Polish rule, which came mainly later, was accompanied by a more assimilationist policy. The Polish language has had heavy influences on Ukrainian (and on Belarusian). As the Ukrainian language developed further, some borrowings from Tatar and Turkish occurred. Ukrainian culture and language flourished in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth century, when
In the anarchy of the Khmelnytsky Uprising and following wars, Ukrainian high culture was sent into a long period of steady decline. In the aftermath, the
There was little sense of a Ukrainiaation in the modern sense.
‘ n.) in the west, speaking Rus’ka mova, or simply identified themselves as Orthodox (the latter being particularly important under the rule of Catholic Poland). Ukraine under the Russian Empire was called Malorossiya (Little or Lesser Rus‘ or Little Russia, where the inhabitants spoke the ‘Little Russian or Southern Russian language’, a dialect of the Russian literary language.
But during the nineteenth century, a revival of Ukrainian self-identity manifested itself in the literary classes of both Russian-Empire Dnieper Ukraine and Austrian Galicia. The Brotherhood of Sts Cyril and Methodius in
However, in the Russian Empire expressions of Ukrainian culture and especially language were repeatedly persecuted, for fear that a self-aware Ukrainiaation would threaten the unity of the Empire. In 1847 Taras Shevchenko was arrested and exiled, and banned from writing and painting, for political reasons. In 1863, tsarist interior minister Pyotr Valuyev proclaimed “there never has been, is not, and never can be a separate Little Russian language”. A following ban on Ukrainian books led up to Alexander II‘s secret Ems Ukaz, which prohibited publication and importation of most Ukrainian-language books, public performances and lectures, and even the printing of Ukrainian texts accompanying musical scores. A period of leniency after 1905 was followed by another strict ban in 1914, which also affected Russian-occupied
For much of the nineteenth century the Austrian authorities favoured Polish culture, but the Ukrainians were relatively free to partake in their own cultural pursuits in
The name Ukrajins’ka mova ‘Ukrainian language’ became accepted by much of the Ukrainian literary class during the late nineteenth century under
Persecution and russification
Anti-russification protest. The banner reads “For Ukrainian children – Ukrainian school!”.
Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, when Stalin had already established his firm control over the party and, therefore, the Soviet state. In December, 1932, the regional party cells received a telegram signed by Molotov and Stalin with an order to immediately reverse the korenization policies. The telegram condemned Ukrainianization as ill-considered and harmful and demanded to “immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian”.
The following years were characterized by massive repression and many hardships for the Ukrainian language and people. Some historians, especially of Ukraine, emphasize that the repression was applied earlier and more fiercely in Ukraine than in other parts of the Soviet Union, and were therefore anti-Ukrainian; others assert that Stalin’s goal was the generic crushing of any dissent, rather that targeting the Ukrainians in particular.
The Stalinist era also marked the beginning of the Soviet policy of encouraging Russian as the language of (inter-ethnic) Soviet communication. Although Ukrainian continued to be used (in print, education, radio and later television programs), it lost its primary place in advanced learning and republic-wide media. Ukrainian was considered to be of secondary importance, and an excessive attachment to it was considered a sign of nationalism and so “politically incorrect”. At the same time, however, the new Soviet Constitution adopted in 1936 stipulated that teaching in schools should be iative languages.
The major repression started in 1929–30, when a large group of Ukrainian intelligentsia was arrested and most were executed. In Ukrainian history, this group is often referred to as “Executed Renaissance” (Ukrainian: розстріляне відродження). “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” was declared to be the primary problem in
This policy succession was repeated in the Soviet occupation of
The Khrushchev thaw
While Russian was a de facto official language of the Soviet Union in all but formal name, all national languages were proclaimed equal. The name and denomination of Soviet banknotes were listed in the languages of all fifteen Soviet republics. On this 1961 one-ruble note, the Ukrainian for “one ruble”, один карбованець (odyn karbovanets’), directly follows the Russian один рубль (odin rubl’).
After the death of Stalin (1953), a general policy of relaxing the language policies of the past was implemented (1958 to 1963). The Khrushchev era which followed saw a policy of relatively lenient concessions to development of the languages on the local and republican level, though its results in Ukraine did not go nearly as far as those of the Soviet policy of Ukrainianization in the 1920s. Journals and encyclopedic publications advanced in the Ukrainian language during the Khrushchev era.
Yet, the 1958 school reform that allowed parents to choose the language of primary instruction for their children, unpopular among the circles of the national intelligentsia in parts of the USSR, meant that non-Russian languages would slowly give way to Russian in light of the pressures of survival and advancement. The gains of the past, already largely reversed by the Stalin era, were offset by the liberal attitude towards the requirement to study the local languages (the requirement to study Russian remained). Parents were usually free to choose the language of study of their children (except in few areas where attending the Ukrainian school might have required a long daily commute) and they often chose Russian, which reinforced the resulting Russification. In this sense, some analysts argue that it was not the “oppression” or “persecution”, but rather the lack of protection against the expansion of Russian language that contributed to the relative decline of Ukrainian in 1970s and 1980s. According to this view, it was inevitable that successful careers required a good command of Russian, while knowledge of Ukrainian was not vital, so it was common for Ukrainian parents to send their children to Russian-language schools, even though Ukrainian-language schools were usually available. While in the Russian-language schools within the republic, the Ukrainian was supposed to be learned as a second language at comparable level, the instruction of other subjects was in Russian and, as a results, students upon graduation had a superior command in Russian than in Ukrainian. Additionally, in some areas of the republic, the attitude towards teaching and learning of Ukrainian in schools was relaxed and it was, sometimes, considered a subject of secondary importance and even a waiver from studying it was sometimes given under various, ever expanding, circumstances.
The complete suppression of all expressions of separatism or Ukrainiaationalism also contributed to lessening interest in Ukrainian. Some people who persistently used Ukrainian on a daily basis were often perceived as though as they were expressing sympathy towards, or even being members of, the political opposition. This, combined with advantages given by Russian fluency and usage, made Russian the primary language of choice for many Ukrainians, while Ukrainian was more of a hobby. In any event, the mild liberalization in
The next part of the Soviet Ukrainian language policy divides into two eras: first, the Shelest period (early 1960s to early 1970s), which was relatively liberal towards the development of the Ukrainian language. The second era, the policy of Shcherbytsky (early 1970s to early 1990s), was one of gradual suppression of the Ukrainian language.
The Shelest period
The Communist Party leader Petro Shelest pursued a policy of defending
The Shcherbytsky period
The new party boss, Shcherbytsky, purged the local party, was fierce in suppressing dissent, and insisted Russian be spoken at all official functions, even at local levels. His policy of Russification was lessened only slightly after 1985.
Gorbachev and perestroika
The management of dissent by the local Ukrainian Communist Party was more fierce and thorough than in other parts of the
Although Ukrainian still remained the native language for the majority in the nation on the eve of Ukrainian independence, a significant share of ethnic Ukrainians were Russified. The Russian language was the dominant vehicle, not just of government function, but of the media, commerce, and modernity itself. This was substantially less the case for western
Modern signs in the Kiev Metro are in Ukrainian. The evolution in their language followed the changes in the language policies in post-war
Since 1991, independent Ukraine has made Ukrainian the only official state language and implemented government policies to broaden the use of Ukrainian. The educational system in
in several of the other former Soviet Republics.
With time, most residents, including ethnic Russians, people of mixed origin, and Russian-speaking Ukrainians started to self-identify as Ukrainiaationals, even though remaining largely Russophone. The state became truly bilingual as most of its population had already been. The Russian language still dominates the print media in most of
In the 2001 census, 67.5% of the country populatioamed Ukrainian as their native language (a 2.8% increase from 1989), while 29.6% named Russian (a 3.2% decrease). It should be noted, though, that for many Ukrainians (of various ethnic descent), the term native language may not necessarily associate with the language they use more frequently. The overwhelming majority of ethnic Ukrainians consider the Ukrainian language native, including those who often speak Russian and Surzhyk (a blend of Russian vocabulary with Ukrainian grammar and pronunciation). For example, according to the official 2001 census data[5] approximately 75% of Kiev‘s population responded “Ukrainian” to the native language (ridna mova) census question, and roughly 25% responded “Russian”. On the other hand, when the question “What language do you use in everyday life?” was asked in the sociological survey, the Kievans‘ answers were distributed as follows:[6] “mostly Russian”: 52%, “both Russian and Ukrainian in equal measure”: 32%, “mostly Ukrainian”: 14%, “exclusively Ukrainian”: 4.3%. Ethnic minorities, such as Romanians, Tatars and Jews usually use Russian as their lingua franca. But there are tendencies within minority groups to prefer Ukrainian in many situations. The Jewish writer Aleksandr Abramovic Bejderman from the mainly Russian speaking city of
