"To assert one's language is to assert one's statehood…this [language] law will become an important component of the state's strategy in the spiritual sphere... It must represent, to the maximum, the spiritual needs of all the citizens of Ukraine. The state must ensure the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all areas of community life, and this must be based on the requirement of due respect for other national languages... Any wrong and unbalanced action in such a delicate sphere as language policy and excessive politicization of the problems related to it might incite confrontation … among people."
Spoken by former Ukrainian President Kuchma at a meeting of
the Council for Language Policy, April 1997
(Waters, 1998)
FINDING IDENTITY IN LANGUAGE
One of the first few questions that people ask me upon finding out that I was born in Ukraine is about the official language. Ukraine gained her independence less than twenty years ago, so some people have just recently learned to see it as a separate unit from Russia. Some intellectuals claim that Ukraine “still bears no distinctive image in the global consciousness” but language can help her build that image (Podolyan, 2005). Ukraine has only recently emerged as an independent entity, one with her proper language and laws. But while factors such as the issue of what kind of government structure to follow have been more or less resolved, the question of language in Ukraine continues to be a battleground. For Ukrainians, the concept of a native language, ridna mova, is deeply embedded in their “formulations of Ukrainian nationalist ideology” (Bernsand, 2001). People’s identities are shaped by their decision to associate with either Russia or Europe. Should Ukrainians speak only Ukrainian? Should Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine continue to speak Russian as they have done for centuries? And what about central Ukraine; what should citizens who live there speak? The current choice of surzhyk, a creole dialect which mixes Ukrainian and Russian vocabularies, is emblematic of the political, national, and linguistic divide in Ukraine.
I grew up in a family that speaks surzhyk, a dialect that blends Ukrainian and Russian words, vocabularies, and pronunciation, with some completely new words added in. Surzhyk is a well-established dialect. Acclaimed writer Nikolai Gogol wrote his famous short stories in surzhyk. Ukrainian pop-star diva and drag queen extraordinaire Andriy Danylko, better known by his stage name of “Verka Serdyuchka,” uses surzhyk in his work. How did surzhyk gain legitimacy? How does it mirror the sociopolitical situation of Ukraine?
In this paper, I will explore the role of language in modern Ukraine. Additionally, I will address the usage of Ukrainian versus Russian, the implications of surzhyk, and how Ukrainian politics mirror linguistic divisions. I will argue that the usage of surzhyk shows that how people think ideologically overlaps with their political ambitions.
A BACKGROUND OF THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN UKRAINE
Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism is one of the root causes of tension surrounding language usage in Ukraine. After Russian, Ukrainian is the second-most widely spoken Slavic language in the world. Today’s standard Ukrainian “is a superstructure developed mainly on the basis of the Poltava and Kyiv dialects” (Kohut, Nebesio, & Yurkevich, 2005). Although Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine due to a constitutional decree in 1996, Ukrainian was not always the ruling language in Ukraine.
Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, has been conquered by many nations over the last few centuries. Interestingly, it is Ukraine’s “arbitrary definition of borders” and therefore lack of a singular defining language that lead to issues of identity of individuals and groups (Waters, 1998). The name “Ukraine” translates to “the borderland,” but those borders have been defined and redefined so many times that the lines are arbitrary and always up for debate. Ukrainians, as a people, are like many other “Eastern Europe members of different nations…inextricably intermingled” (Waters, 1998). Ukrainians are an ethnically mixed group of people and their linguistic diversity reflects their ethnic composition.
The Ukrainian language was only freely used during the Ukrainian People’s Republic of 1917-1920 and in the Ukrainian SSR of the 1920s. In the early 1930s, Stalin abolished “the policy of Ukrainization” (Kohut, Nebesio, & Yurkevich, 2005). In recent history, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and people living in Ukraine spoke Russian. As a member state, Ukraine had to adhere to the pressures of Russification. Ironically, the Soviet Union did not deem any one language as a state language, but rather, all communication was in Russian. Thus, “political, mass media and educational institutions” were used to raise “the prestige of the Russian language” (Podolyan, 2005). Because of the long-established association of Russian as being the intellectual, proper language, citizens developed a haughty view of Russian and saw the Ukrainian language as one “closely associated with rural lifestyle or narrow-minded nationalism” (Podolyan, 2005). Russian was the language one had to speak in order to be respected as educated city folk; the Ukrainian language was for people in villages and those not educated in cities. It is surprising that these perceptions carry on even today. In a recent study by Professor Ilona E. Podolyan, “only 30% of (polled youth) consider this language (Ukrainian) to be prestigious; while this characteristic is bestowed upon the Russian language by 55% of those under 30” (Podolyan, 2005).
Indeed, the neglect to use Ukrainian in mass media truly made it seem like the inferior language (to Russian). Moreover, Russification “focused on bringing Ukrainian closer to Russian” and even when Ukrainian was used, “the language was reoriented toward the eastern Ukrainian dialects” (Kohut, Nebesio, & Yurkevich, 2005). Eastern Ukrainian dialects are invariably very Russian, for eastern Ukraine has historically been very close with Russia. These trends of Russification of the Ukrainian language indicate the Soviet authorities did not want to encourage usage of the Ukrainian language. However, the Ukrainian language started to become more widely used in political and cultural circles as the Ukrainians’ desire for independence grew.
Once Ukraine gained independence in 1991, there was a big push for Ukrainianization. The Constitution of 1996 made Ukrainian the sole official state language in Ukraine. However, Ukrainian and Russian have co-existed in Ukraine throughout the 90s. Whereas, “the Ukrainian language dominated as a means of everyday communication in the Western regions (oblasts) annexed by the Soviet Union from its neighbours in the late 30s-40s,” in the historically Russian-influenced eastern and southern oblasts, “the Russian language prevailed” (Podolyan, 2005). Thus, even though Ukrainian was instituted as the official language, people in eastern and southern Ukraine continued to speak Russian, as they had done for centuries. Should regions of a newly established nation have to concede to new language laws? In the politics of identity, language matters. Western Ukraine has a “strong sense of Ukrainian nationalism…Between 1959 and 1979, assimilation to the Russian language proceeded rapidly in east Ukraine, but was resisted in west Ukraine. Ukrainian, not Russian, was maintained as the predominant language in the west” (Gee, 1995). Ukrainian identity was more important and more closely guarded in western Ukraine. Eastern Ukrainians did not have the same desire to emphasize their distinct Ukrainian heritage.
Ukrainian politicians, depending on where their constituent base is, attempt to modify national sentiments towards language. Recently, Ukraine’s new president, Viktor Yanukovich, advocated for freedom of language. He “believes that any Ukrainian may speak the language…he wishes to,” unlike his predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko, who forced children to study the Ukrainian language and was a strong proponent of Ukrainianization (“Yanukovich for freedom,” 2010). Throughout the elections, Yanukovich was constantly referred to as the Russia-leaning candidate, whereas Yushchenko was seen as the Europe-leaning candidate. Through his speech, it is evident that Yanukovich does lean east and hopes to reconnect with Russia. The freedom of language, specifically a formal statement of allowing the use of Russian, is certainly the start of renewed cordial ties between the two nations.
UKRAINIAN VERSUS RUSSIAN: USAGE PATTERNS
The language situation in Ukraine is marked by the cultural disparities between the cities and the countryside. As I noted earlier, the Russian language was used in all official documents during Soviet times. As such, “the prestige of the Russian language is predominantly maintained by the educational and technological advantages of the local urban residents” (Podolyan, 2005). People aim to been seen as city-folk, not as villagers. As such, communicating in Russian is desirable for Ukrainians and especially Ukrainian youth. In addition to place of origin (city or village), whether a Ukrainian person will choose to use Ukrainian or Russian depends on the person’s mother tongue. In Ukraine, geography is a key factor in determining the mother tongue and subsequent language usage.
The opening of this paper, a quote from former President Leonid Kuchma, is an example of how language, geography, and politics intersect in Ukraine. When he entered office in 1994, his support base was in eastern and southern Ukraine; because he spoke Russian and did not have a strong grasp on Ukrainian, he was initially unable to gain support in the west. However, when he mastered Ukrainian and publicly supported the propagation of the Ukrainian language in schools and the media, he gained more support in western Ukraine. Former President Kuchma knew that in order to gain more support, he had to speak the language of his constituents. For western Ukrainians, the use of the Ukrainian language is very typical of their strong nationalist ideas and efforts to preserve their culture.
In the most recent elections, Ukrainian voters were once again divided along linguistics and political lines. Ukraine was split into East and West, with Viktor Yanukovich capturing the eastern vote and Yulia Tymoshenko capturing the western vote. Even Mrs. Tymoshenko’s party name uses strong Ukrainian nationalism – it is called the all-Ukrainian Union of the “Fatherland,” whereas Yanukovich’s party was the Party of the Regions. From the onset of the elections, Donetsk-born Yanukovich garnered the support of Russian speakers. Each politician used his background, and notably language choice, to attract voters.
The situation at play is similar to the chicken-and-the-egg scenario. Did linguistic differences lead to a political split in Ukraine or did the political leanings of various regions create a linguistic divide? In many ways, the linguistic split reinforces the political and ideological split in Ukraine, and vice versa.
Nonetheless, the unresolved question of language matters, for “conflict over language, or conflict in which language plays a part, is both an indicator of, and a driver of, instability” (Waters, 1998). The different geographic regions of Ukraine are very politically divided. Surely, language functions to bring a social group together; language fosters “a sense of fraternity, encourages solidarity, and promotes social cohesion” (Waters, 1998). For Ukrainian citizens, however, the tug-of-war between speaking Russian and Ukrainian is well paralleled in the unstable government, which leans to and away from Russia depending on the leader in power.
Language choices are even associated with religion, which is connected to strong Ukrainian nationalism. Research has show that being “taught in the Ukrainian language is associated with greater religiosity” (Gee, 1995). On the other hand, being taught in a Russian-language school “is related to decreased religiosity among Ukrainians” (Gee, 1995). Therefore, language choice in Ukraine is not only indicative of one’s political stance and level of nationalism, but also of one’s religiosity.
Until now, I wrote of the issue of language in Ukraine as one that is geographically very divided; the east and south use Russian, while the west uses Ukrainian. However, this description fails to address the significant proportion of Ukrainians who code-mix by using a creole tongue, surzhyk, and well as those who code-switch between the Ukrainian and Russian languages.
SURZHYK: A MEDIUM USED IN CODE-MIXING IN UKRAINE
Surzhyk “oversteps the Ukrainian-Russian language boundary” (Bernsand, 2001). As a surzhyk speaker, I find that using surzhyk allows me to mix my identity and allegiances – I can appreciate both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian viewpoints. My sentences are made up of Ukrainian and Russian words, with an odd mix of Ukrainian and Russian grammar. I cannot claim to speak both languages perfectly, but I certainly understand and speak both.
Surzhyk can be described in many ways: as “a mixed Ukrainian-Russian code,” as the “pidginization of the Ukrainian language engendered by Russia’s century-long oppression of Ukraine,” or a sociolect (Podolyan, 2005). Surzhyk is one of many code-mixed languages in the world today. Code-mixing refers to the mixing of two or more languages in speech. Code-mixing is different from code-switching, another popular phenomenon in Ukraine. Code-switching is the concurrent use of two languages (or more than two languages). For example, in the United States, a common example of code-switching is the use of Spanglish in Mexican-American families. However, I will focus on the code-mixing in Ukraine, specifically on the usage of surzhyk.
Surzhyk speakers are not equally proficient in both Ukrainian and Russian. In a study conducted by Professor Ilona E. Podolyan, a Ukrainian professor of comparative linguistics, few participants acknowledged “their incorrect use of either or both of the languages, and can be as brave as to confess their mixing Ukrainian and Russian in speech” (Podolyan, 2005). Surzhyk speakers do not speak a pure form of either Ukrainian or Russian. In fact, the word surzhyk itself is the name of mixed grain that produces poor quality bread.
Surzhyk is sometimes seen as a dialect spoken by less-educated Ukrainians. Not surprisingly, “its main linguistic characteristic is that it implies norm-breaking, non-obedience to or non-awareness of the rules of the Ukrainian and Russian standard languages, while its main social characteristic is low status for the language varieties as well as for their carriers” (Bernsand, 2001). Adamant and proud speakers of Ukrainian see surzhyk as a mockery of the Ukrainian language.
The most outspoken critics of surzhyk, are, not surprisingly, Ukrainian language activists. This group of activists is trying to establish clear boundaries between the two languages that surzhyk unapologetically mixes. Yet, if we are to look at how surzhyk emerged, we find that its emergence is actually a sign of the political tensions of the 1840s.
Before the 1840s, Ukrainians could have multiple loyalties – to the local village or to Imperial Russia. However, in the 1840s, this “multiple loyalties concept” started to be critiqued by intellectuals who were trying to establish “exclusivist notions, according to which Ukrainian and Russian were two separate Eastern Slavonic languages of two separate nations” (Bernsand, 2001). This change even has implications of our present-day decision to refer to surzhyk as an example of code-mixing, and not cross-switching. Code-mixing implies that the linguistic interactions that occur between Ukrainian and Russian call for a cross-over of languages.
Surzhyk fully emerged by the end of the 18th century, as Ukrainian peasants left the countryside and moved to Russian-speaking industrial cities. The peasants’ Ukrainian became Russified. Surzhyk was a transition language that Ukrainian peasants as they adjusted to new urban lives. Thus, surzhyk emerged with the urbanization of Ukraine. What’s ironic is that today, Russian-speakers use surzhyk in their attempts to speak Ukrainian in Ukraine.
While there is no one particular region in Ukraine that speaks surzhyk, the dialect is heard wherever city meets village – in the towns in between. It is spoken in rural areas and cities like Poltava, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, and in the Crimean peninsula. Furthermore, the political atmosphere of some surzhyk-speaking areas is more middle-ground than solely Ukrainian or solely Russian-speaking regions. For example, Poltava, a city in central Ukraine, aligns itself politically closer to regions in western Ukraine, but there are still many voters in Poltava who ally with eastern Ukraine. Surzhyk allows Ukrainians to let their allegiances to the Ukrainian and Russian languages coexist.
IDENTITY THROUGH LANGUAGE IN UKRAINE
Language is a means by which Ukrainians can literally voice which side they choose to ally with – Europe or Russia. To this day, western Ukraine is very loyal to the Ukrainian language. On the other hand, eastern and southern Ukraine does not stress Ukrainian nationalism to as great a degree, and therefore, Russian usage is much more prevalent and not as looked down upon.
Social, demographic, and political factors influence people’s language choices in Ukraine, and vice versa. Politicians choose to use Ukrainian and Russian depending on which group of voters they wish to drawn in. Furthermore, politicians use language to established legitimacy and patriotism in people.
Surzhyk is a middle-ground between Ukrainian and Russian that grew out of the continuous tensions between the two languages. My dialect of surzhyk that I adopted in Poltava allows me to bridge worlds and not choose one side or the other.
Map of How Ukrainians Voted in 2010 (Red for Tymoshenko, Blue for Yanukovich)
Image from http://welections.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ukraine-2010-runoff.png
Works Cited
Bernsand, N. (2001). Surzhyk and national identity in ukrainian nationalist language ideology. Berliner Osteuropa-Info, 17. Retrieved from http://www.oei.fu berlin.de/media/publikationen/boi/boi_17/11_bernsand.pdf
Bilaniuk, L. (2005). Contested tongues: language politics and cultural correction in ukraine. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gee, G.K. (1995). Geography, nationality, and religion in ukraine: a research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(3), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386887
Kohut, Z.E., Nebesio, B.Y., & Yurkevich, M. (2005). Language. (2005). Historical dictionary of ukraine. Toronto: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Podolyan, I.E. (2005). How Do ukrainians communicate?: observations based upon youth population of kyiv. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (9), Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr9/podolyan.htm
Waters, T. (1998). Language and national identity: a source of conflict in post-communist europe (1. Conflict Studies Research Centre), Retrieved from https://da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/cee/A%20Source%20of%20Conflict%20in%20Post-Communist%20Europe.pdf.
Yanukovich for freedom of language and religion. (2010, June 4). The Voice of Russia, Retrieved from http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/04/9129856.html
