The History of Bilingualism in Ukraine and Its Role in the ...

The History of Bilingualism in Ukraine and Its Role in the PresentDay Political CrisisNatalya ShevchenkoIn Cahiers Sens public Volume 17-18, Issue 1-2, 2015, pages 203 to 225Translated from the French by Cadenza Academic Translations

ISSN 1767-9397ISBN 9782952494762

Available online at:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-cahiers-sens-public-2015-1-page-203.htm--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------How to cite this article:

Natalya Shevchenko, «The History of Bilingualism in Ukraine and Its Role in the Present Day Political Crisis», Cahiers Sens public

2015/1 (No 17-18) , p. 203-225

Electronic distribution by Cairn on behalf of Assoc. Sens-Public.

© Assoc. Sens-Public. All rights reserved for all countries.

Reproducing this article (including by photocopying) is only authorized in accordance with the general terms and conditions of use forthe website, or with the general terms and conditions of the license held by your institution, where applicable. Any other reproduction,in full or in part, or storage in a database, in any form and by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited without the prior written

consent of the publisher, except where permitted under French law.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D

ownloaded on 08/07/2022 from

ww

w.cairn-int.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)

www.cairn-int.info/publications-of-Natalya-Shevchenko--139029.htm?WT.tsrc=pdf

www.cairn-int.info/journal-cahiers-sens-public.htm?WT.tsrc=pdf

www.cairn-int.info/journal-cahiers-sens-public-2015-1.htm?WT.tsrc=pdf

https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-cahiers-sens-public-2015-1-page-203.htm?WT.tsrc=pdf

http://www.tcpdf.org

I

The history of bilingualism in Ukraine and its role in today’s political crisis

Natalya Shevchenko Natalya Shevchenko has a PhD in lexicology and multilingual terminology. She is head of the

Russian and Ukrainian Section in the Department of Languages, Lumière University Lyon 2. Her research focuses on bilingual lexicography in French, Russian, and Ukrainian, sociolinguistics,

non-standard terminology, linguistic interferences between Russian and Ukrainian, and Soviet cinema. She has recently published “Les marques de niveau de langue dans les dictionnaires

modernes: analyse comparative entre le français, l’ukrainien et le russe” Argotica: Revue internationale d’études argotiques 1, no. 3 (2014). She contributed to the French-Russian section

of Dictionnaire Russe-Français, Français-Russe, ed. Ilan J. Kernerman (Paris: Assimil, 2009). [email protected]

Abstract: Possession of a single, common language is considered the main requirement for forming and consolidating a nation. Until recently, Ukrainian national consciousness was based primarily on the nation’s linguistic and cultural characteristics. The events of 2013 and 2014 have strengthened and highlighted Ukrainians’ political consciousness, as they are now forced to fight for their country’s independence and territorial integrity. This article briefly outlines the origins and evolution of Ukrainian and its interaction with Russian from its very beginnings to the present day. It also explores the role of language in the present conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Keywords: Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism, national identity, history of Ukrainian, political conflict, 2013-2014 revolution, Ukraine.

Résumé : La possession d’une langue commune et unique est considérée comme la condi-tion principale de formation et de consolidation d’une nation. En Ukraine, jusqu’à récemment, la conscience nationale s’appuyait essentiellement sur la conscience linguistique et cultu-relle de la nation. Les événements des années 2013 et 2014 ont renforcé et mis en avant la conscience politique des Ukrainiens qui sont désormais obligés de se battre pour l’indépen-dance et l’intégrité territoriale de leur pays. L’article retrace brièvement l’histoire de la forma-tion et de l’évolution de l’ukrainien et de son interaction avec le russe dès son origine jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Il décrit le rôle de la langue dans le conflit actuel entre la Russie et l’Ukraine. Mots-clés : Bilinguisme ukrainien-russe, Identité nationale, Histoire de l’ukrainien, Conflit politique, Révolution 2013–2014, Ukraine.

Резюме : Наличие общего и единого языка является обязательным условием для формирования и консолидации любой нации. В Украине до недавнего времени национальное сознание опиралось главным образом на лингвистические и культурные особенности нации. События 2013–2014 гг. вывели на первый план политическое сознание украинцев, которые, несмотря на языковую разрозненность внутри страны, борются за независимость и территориальную целостность своего государства. В статье изложена краткая история становления украинского языка и его взаимодействия с русским языком от истоков до настоящего времени, а также роль лингвистического фактора в настоящем конфликте между Россией и Украиной. Ключевые слова: двуязычие, украинский язык, русский язык, национальная идентичность, история украинского языка, политический конфликт, революция 2013–2014, Украина.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

Cahiers Sens Public [n° 17-18]

II

National consciousness is fundamentally based on a nation’s linguistic and cultural consciousness. Without a linguistic identity, the culture of origin can dissolve into that of the dominant language, entailing the risk that the nation as such might disappear. Language is a mark of every nation’s iden-tity. The national language plays a fundamental role in forming a nation. Beyond its primary function, which is communication, it fulfills two major secondary ones, to unify and to separate—to draw the population within a country together, and to distinguish it from its neighbors outside. Pos-sessing a common language is the main condition of a nation’s existence. A nation may coincide with a state, may exist without a state, and may be part of a federal state alongside other nations.

In 2004, in his book on the relationship between language and politics in Ukraine, the renowned sociolinguist Larysa Masenko issued a warning to Ukrainian society, anticipating the current conflict:

The existence of two or more languages in a single country ex-presses . . . an uncertain equilibrium, one that runs the risk either of monolingualism, or of dividing the country according to a linguistic criterion. (Masenko 2004a, 19)

This clear-cut opinion is difficult to refute if we look at the situation in other bi- or even multilingual countries. To give only a few examples, Bel-gium and Canada, on the one hand, and Serbia and Croatia on the other all support the principle that monolingualism is necessary for a strong, united nation. Bilingual countries nonetheless exist. These are based, admittedly, on different principles, but their existence, however successful, demons-trates the possibility of such coexistence. What binds bilingual countries together? According to McRoberts (Lacorne and Judt 2002, 150-151, 190), a Canadian political scientist who works on issues to do with Quebec, Ca-nadian federalism, and the constitution, Canadian bilingualism, like Belgian bilingualism, is based on a number of principles, including the segregation of linguistic territories. Such territorialization allows for two or more cultures to live together relatively peacefully within a country, but does not solve the problem of national bilingualism. On the contrary, it often leads to regional monolingualism.

The only example of a European country with a successful multilingual society uniting several different nations seems to be Switzerland, whose na-tional strength is based on unity in diversity. Windisch discusses the Swiss case (Lacorne and Judt 2004, 161-186), distinguishing three components that must all be present simultaneously for different cultural and linguistic communities to coexist within the same state. These are cultural identity, intercultural communication, and a political culture common to all the lin-

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

III


guistic and cultural communities (162). Switzerland has four national lan-guages—German, French, Italian, and Romansh—and therefore has four different cultural communities. The country’s cohesion, Windisch argues (163), comes not from its inhabitants’ multilingualism, but from the fact that the Swiss share a common political culture, defined particularly by direct democracy and federalism. Switzerland faces a number of difficulties re-lated to its multiculturalism, of course, but these are minimal compared to the overwhelming problems encountered by other multilingual countries. The Swiss case proves better than any other the possibility of fruitful inter-cultural coexistence within a single state, and suggests an obvious conclu-sion: the problems faced by bi- or multilingual countries are never purely linguistic or cultural. Indeed, they are primarily political. The case of Ukraine, which we discuss in detail here, is proof of this.

Origins

Ukrainian belongs to the Slavic language group, one of the largest and most homogeneous branches of the Indo-European family. With three other languages—Belarusian, Russian, and Ruthenian—it belongs to the East Sla-vic (or Eastern) subgroup. Today Ukrainian has 41 million speakers (Table 1).

This figure is controversial, because the data varies greatly depending on the source. In his 2009 edition of Ethnologue, Lewis puts the number of speakers globally at 37 million. According to Malherbe (1995, 184), the nu-mber is 52 million. This difference of 15 million is difficult to explain, since the dates when the data were collected are very close: Lewis gathered his in 1993, Malherbe his in 1995. Leclerc sets the figure at 41 million. This seems to me the closest to reality, given the population of Ukraine (47.2 million in 2005), the percentage of those who are Ukrainian (77.8%, or 37.5 million according to the State Statistics Service), and sizable Ukrainian diasporas in the United States (2 million), Canada (1 million), and elsewhere.

Like Russian, Belarusian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian, the alpha-bet used by Ukrainian is Cyrillic. Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian were once a single language called Slavic or Slavonic. Old Bulgarian, which Kievan Rus’ imported alongside Christianity, originally served as the written language, much as Latin did in Western Europe. This was always contrasted with the spoken language, old Ukrainian or Russian, which also had a written form. It was already possible by this period to speak of a bilingualism or diglos-sia existing between the spoken language, old Ukrainian, and the written one, Slavonic. Written Slavonic was initially used to translate Greek religious texts. It remained present in Ukraine, first as an ecclesiastical language and,

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


IV

later, as a literary one, and remained fixed until the end of the seventeenth century. The three related languages began to fragment around the twelfth century. The earliest grammars of old Ukrainian appeared around the start of the sixteenth century, and the first Ukrainian dictionary a little later, in

Table 1—The Indo-European Family.

Subgroups of the Slavic language group (more than 315

million speakers worldwide)Languages

West Slavic Polabian (extinct)Polish (44 million)Czech (12 million)Slovak (5.6 million)Sorbian (70,000)

South Slavic Slavonic (extinct)Croatian*

Montenegrin/SerbianBosnian Slovenian (2.2 million)Bulgarian (9 million)Macedonian (2 million)

East Slavic Russian (170 million)Belarusian (10.2 million)Ukrainian (41 million)Ruthenian (125,000)

* Given that Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian are regional variants of the same language, a figure of 20 million that includes all the speakers of these four languages is of-ten given, under the label of Serbo-Croat. However, some works do provide more detailed information. The Petit Robert book on the languages of Europe (Drivaud and Brochard 2002, 78-85) puts the number of Serbo-Croat speakers at 21 million, of which there are 10 million in Serbia and Montenegro, 5 million in Croatia, and 4 million in Bosnia. We must therefore assume that the remaining 2 million speakers are spread around neighboring countries and various diasporas.

Source: Leclerc 2007.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

V


1596. This was Lavrenty Zyzanija’s Leksis, which was made to accompany his own grammar and gave Ukrainian equivalents of words in ecclesiastical Slavic. Modern Ukrainian would not come into existence until two centuries later.

Between two empires: The formation of the literary language

Beginning with the division of Ukraine between Russia and Poland in 1654, the Ukrainian spoken in the eastern central part of the country was limited to the popular language spoken by the peasants. Later reforms by Peter the Great prohibited the use of Ukrainian in church and in religious texts. Under Catherine II, the suppression of literary Ukrainian within eas-tern Ukraine became complete. The large-scale Russification of Ukrainian villages, the use of Russian as sole language of official communication, and the adoption of Russian by the Ukrainian intelligentsia and most Cossack leaders all had a rapid effect. By the end of the eighteenth century, Ukrai-nian had fallen out of official use in the Russian territory of Ukraine. The eighteenth century was one of transformation and enrichment for Russian, as the religious roots of the written form and the popular variants of the spoken form combined in a single language. Mikhail Lomonosov, who foun-ded the University of Moscow, was one of several to propose standardizing Russian by distinguishing between three styles, high, medium, and low. His stylistic principles were applied by Nikolay Mikhaylovich Karamzin, the first to write in modern literary Russian rather than Slavonic. Pushkin, Turgenev, Gogol, and Dostoevsky followed him, each making their own contribution to the Russian language. The nineteenth century witnessed the establish-ment of standard Russian and the period of its greatest thriving.

At the time, Ukrainian had only a popular form. It was this popular, spo-ken language that formed the basis of the new, standardized Ukrainian lan-guage. Ivan Kotlyarevsky (1769-1838) used this popular, folkloric material to create his literary style, thereby founding a new literary language. We should note that the difference here between the French and Ukrainian cas-es is substantial. In Ukrainian, “literary language” does not necessarily de-note the language of literature, but rather the national, general, standard-ized language, also known as the “written standard.” Kotlyarevsky’s poem Eneida (1798) encompasses all the richness of the popular humor of the time, reflecting Ukrainian tradition and everyday life. His satirical tone was taken up by other writers like Hulak-Artemovsky, Hrebinka, and Kvitka-Osnovya-nenko. The last of these, the founder of Ukrainian prose, demonstrated the

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


VI

possibility of writing in Ukrainian—and writing something other than comic texts.

The greatest Ukrainian poet, Taras Shevchenko (1814-1861), gave us mod-ern literary Ukrainian. He enriched the frozen, literary, unnatural language of his time with a familiar and popular lexicon. Shevchenko’s work helped perfect Ukrainian, and contributed to its lexical and stylistic enrichment in terms of synonymy, neology, rhythm, and so on. His poetry gave sub-stance to the language and brought it attention outside Ukraine. His name has come to represent not just literature, but Ukrainian culture as a whole. Shevchenko was followed by a host of writers like Kulish, Lesya Ukrainka, Franko, and Kotsiubynsky, each of whom helped Ukrainian flourish.

The second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth saw the development of various literary styles, as well as scien-tific terminology and a journalistic language. But such linguistic expansion took place unequally in different parts of the country, which was divided at the time between the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires. The official scientific and journalistic styles were developed in the Austro-Hungarian part of Ukraine, especially Lviv and Chernivtsi. At the same time that these styles emerged, Ukrainian koines—common languages superimposed on a set of dialects or languages in a given area (Dubois et al. 2002, 262)—ap-peared in the cities. These were the particular languages of the intelligen-tsia, entrepreneurs, artisans, and so on. Such linguistic changes came from urbanization, which led to the simultaneous appearance of many different Ukrainian-speaking urban environments.

While Austro-Hungarian Ukraine moved gradually to establish literary standards, and even a Ukrainian scientific vocabulary, successive Tzarist de-crees prohibited Ukrainian in eastern Ukraine. One of the harshest of these was the secret circular of July 8, 1863 by the Minister of the Interior, Pyo-tr Valuev. This refused to recognize the Ukrainian language at all—“there has never been a Ukrainian language, none now exists, and there never will be one”—and banned it within the empire. Ukrainian-language teaching in schools was prohibited until 1917. Even the word “Ukrainian” was barred and replaced by another---malorusskij, “little Russian.” Access to literature in Ukrainian was forbidden in eastern Ukraine. This period of “allergy to all things Ukrainian” lasted from 1863 to 1905.

In 1905, under the influence of the first revolutionary movements in Rus-sia, Ukrainian-language publications and Ukrainian cultural associations were permitted once more. The Ukrainian press also enjoyed a brief period of official favor. Between the two revolutions, and then with Ukrainian inde-pendence in 1917, style and translation developed enormously. The same

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

VII


was true of lexicography, with Zhelekhivsky and Nedilsky’s Ukrainian-Ger-man Dictionary (1885-1886), Hrinčenko’s Dictionary of Ukrainian (1907-1909), grammars by Krymsky (1907-1908) and Simovych (1918-1919), and so on. These works contributed to the standardization and codification of Ukrainian literary language. A wide-ranging controversy took place over spelling and the alphabet. This was a moment when barriers between eastern and west-ern Ukraine became less firm, allowing for an exchange of knowledge be-tween the two parts of the country, and especially the knowledge accumu-lated in Galicia and Bukovina over the previous thirty years. These regions’ lexicon contributed to the formation of the academic and journalistic styles that later became part of the standardized general language.

The origin of the Ukrainian literary standard has traditionally been at-tributed to the region around Kiev and Poltava. Shevelov (1993, 947) speaks of today’s standard Ukrainian having a bi-dialectal base formed by the di-alects of the southeast, particularly southern Kiev and the regions around Cherkasy and Poltava, and by southwestern dialects, with Lviv as their cul-tural center. The influence of the southwestern dialects has been evident primarily in the lexicon, but also in phonology, since the Middle Ages. The peak of this interaction came in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-tury. Shevelov thereby challenges the common account on the origin of lit-erary Ukrainian, although he does not deny that the Eastern contribution is much more substantial.

The 1920s: Ukrainization

The Ukrainian literary standard was formed definitively in the 1920s, during Ukrainization. A short period of independence between 1917 and 1920 was followed by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic’s establish-ment in 1922. Ukraine was subsequently annexed to the USSR. But the Sovi-et state’s policy toward national minorities was different from the empire’s. The communists’ position within their multiethnic state was still unstable, and so their politics regarding national questions had to be flexible. Lenin understood that the consolidation of Soviet power in Ukraine demanded concessions on national questions. The various nationalities within the USSR obtained the right to use their own languages in education and local ad-ministration. It became necessary to know how to speak Ukrainian at work. The Ukrainian language was named the official language of Ukraine; Rus-sian was to be used for general communication across the USSR. The Soviet state’s policy of treating all national languages as equal resulted in the cre-ation of national neighborhoods even for minority languages in Ukraine,

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


VIII

with schools, theaters, and newspapers using the languages of the Russian, Bulgarian, German, Jewish, Greek, and Polish minorities, among others.

At the time, Stalin shared Lenin’s political views: “It is clear that the Ukrai-nian nation exists and that the development of its culture is the obligation of Communists. It is impossible to go against history.” The quote comes from his speech to the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party in 1921 (cited in Masenko 2004b, 191). Official recognition of the equality of the two languages, Russian and Ukrainian, did not yield the Soviet authorities’ “expected” results: Ukrainian was always used less than Russian. In 1923, a new decree on national policy in Ukraine was approved. The measure, tit-led “Ukrainization,” forced state officials to speak Ukrainian at work or face dismissal, forbade the hiring of anyone who could not speak the national language, and required a Ukrainian language examination for university en-trance.

Ukrainization reached into every part of life. The press became 85% Ukrainian, and practically all books were published in Ukrainian. As Subtel-nyj notes, publications in Ukrainian increased around 30% in the five years between 1922 and 1927. In 1922, there were 10 newspapers and magazines in Ukrainian; in 1933, out of the 426 newspapers in the country, 373 were in Ukrainian. It became the language of the theater. In 1929, 80% of schools and 30% of higher education institutions taught exclusively in Ukrainian.

Throughout the country, the study of Ukrainian intensified. Progress was made in linguistics, lexicography, and terminology. Once more, the ques-tion of standardizing the literary language was at the center of debates about the language. The creation and extension of new dictionaries in-volved the unification of all Ukrainian dialects, including western ones, a method condemned in the 1930s as “Polonophilia.” Several specialist com-missions were created to advance lexicographical research, beginning with the founding of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in 1918. Two commis-sions were formed the same year, one to produce a Ukrainian dictionary edited by Krymsky, and the other to produce a historical dictionary edited by Tymchenko. In 1919, the Academy of Sciences organized a Commission on Spelling and Terminology and, in 1921, it created the Institute of Ukrai-nian Scholarly Language. Between 1924 and 1933, six bilingual dictionaries were created, two Ukrainian-Russian and four Russian-Ukrainian. In 1963, the linguist Petro Horetsky published A History of Ukrainian Lexicography, giving a complete list of all the dictionaries published between 1917 and

1 The English translation of this citation has been sourced from Jerry F. Hough’s Democrati-zation and Revolution in the USSR, 1985-91 (1997, 223).

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

IX


1933: nearly 130 works, 83 of which were terminological dictionaries (1963, 172-3, 181-3).

Ukrainian was standardized during Ukrainization. A Ukrainian Spelling Regulation Commission was established to pursue this goal. Realizing this orthographic project took a long time. The commission’s linguists tried to preserve as much as possible of the language’s nature and traditions, relying on the living language of the time and on its different dialects and their his-tory. After several public debates in 1927, the commission organized a spel-ling conference in Kharkiv, the capital of Soviet Ukraine. Fifty representatives from every region of Ukraine participated. The main purpose of the meeting was to unify the eastern and western spelling traditions. After much debate, a text called Ukrajins’kyj Pravopys (Ukrainian Orthography) was drawn up by Oleksa Synjavs’kyj and countersigned by Mykola Skrypnyk, then People’s Commissar of National Education. Since then, the book has been referred to as “Skrypnyk orthography” or “Kharkiv orthography.” It was published and put into effect in 1929.

To conclude, it must be emphasized that, in spite of the inconsistency and incompleteness of official measures, Ukrainization had a major in-fluence on Ukrainian’s changing social role and function. The places it was used expanded considerably, as did Ukrainian culture itself. Even if only for a short time, Ukrainian was the language of state administration. With the gradual consolidation of the Soviet regime in the USSR, the Bolsheviks felt less need for national policies in the republics. It was now a matter of correc-ting their consequences. Ukrainians who had contributed to the country’s Ukrainization were publicly criticized by those in power. Some were then expelled; others disappeared forever or, like Skrypnyk and Mykola Khvylovy, committed suicide.2 An order by Stalin officially put an end to Ukrainization in 1933. Ukraine returned to a policy of linguistic assimilation—pursued, this time, with extraordinary violence.

The 1930s: Linguistic “genocide”

Some Ukrainian linguists—among them Masenko, Shevelov, the co-au-thors of the encyclopedia Ukrajinska mova (Rusanivs’kyj et al. 2004), and those of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance’s report on Ukraine (1999)—have labeled the subsequent events linguistic geno-cide. Masenko, Kubajčuk, and Dems’ka-Kul’čyc’ka titled their book, which

2 Khvylovy committed suicide in May 1933 in response to systematic attacks on his work. Skrypnyk did the same in July of that year in protest at the famine of 1932-3 and the arrest of members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


X

was based on Soviet archives, Ukrainian in the twentieth century: The history of a linguistic genocide: Documents and materials. It collects documents de-nouncing the USSR’s language policy in the Soviet republics between 1930 and 1970, and in Ukraine in particular. The Bolsheviks’ attack began with the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, almost all of whose members were prose-cuted and liquidated, having been accused of violating the rights of natio-nal minorities, and particularly Russians. Almost all the linguistic research of the 1920s was declared harmful and nationalistic, aimed at artificially detaching Ukrainian from the language of its “Russian brother.” Most Ukrai-nian researchers of the time were accused of nationalism, bourgeois theses, and even Ukrainian fascism (Xvylja 1933). The whole field of linguistics and every scientific publication of the Institute of Ukrainian Scholarly Language and the Institute of Linguistic Research were denounced as fascist (Masenko 2004b, 43).

The teaching of Ukrainian was quickly curtailed, with the teaching of Russian resuming the place it had possessed earlier. Ukrainian was gra-dually limited to Ukrainian departments, some university language depart-ments, and some educational institutions. Particularly in cities, education in schools became increasingly Russian. Within a short time, national districts with schools teaching in minority languages were abolished; Russian be-came compulsory in all of them in 1938. Ukrainian schools and publishing houses outside the country were closed. Russian again became the official language, and began to push Ukrainian out of the sciences.

This new policy of Russification corresponded closely to Russia’s imperial policy toward Ukraine since the mid-seventeenth century. The difference between the two policies, imperial and Soviet, lay in the methods of assimi-lation each regime adopted. The twentieth-century Russification of Ukraine took place at an unheard-of scale. It was all the more dangerous because it pursued the death of Ukrainian not just through classical assimilation me-thods—prohibiting the language totally or in part, using only Russian in the education system, making the possibility of a professional career dependent on renouncing one’s own culture, two-way migration, and so on—but by changing the very system of the Ukrainian language. The Ukrainian famine of 1932-3 decimated the Ukrainian peasantry, the source of the language. The Bolsheviks then attacked the intelligentsia, the driving force behind the rise of the language. Finally, they attacked the language itself.

The decisive blow for Ukrainian, both in terms of syntax and morpholo-gy, came in the thirties, particularly 1933-4. The first Deputy People’s Com-missar of National Education Andrij Xvylja issued the following directives in

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

XI


1933 in order to “liquidate the nationalist stumbling-block of the Ukrainian language”:

Immediately cease publication of all dictionaries. • Review all previously published dictionaries and all technical vo-

cabulary.

• Unify technical terminology with that already in use in the USSR and Ukraine.

• Review linguistic frameworks, removing all bourgeois and na-tionalist elements.

• Review Ukrainian orthography.

• Alter the instructions on presenting the language in the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia

• Publish a special document covering all these questions and en-suring the subsequent absolute development of Ukrainian Sovi-et culture . . . .

(Masenko et al. 2005, 130)

All of these guidelines were carefully enforced across the country. Some dictionaries were prohibited; others were destroyed or made unrecogni-zable by these linguistic changes. The Ukrajins’kyj Pravopys of 1928 was modified and republished in 1933. Special brigades were formed soon af-ter to review the terminological dictionaries that had already been banned, exchanging “nationalist” terms for “international” ones. Several terminolo-gical bulletins were published, removing all terms based on Ukrainian and replacing them with Russian calques. Ukrainian technical terminology, the object of so much work in the 1920s, was destroyed. One of the first works on the linguistic situation in Ukraine during the first half of the twentieth century was produced by Shevelov (1998a), a prominent Slavic linguist. He writes that:

The intrusion of the state . . . into a language’s internal laws was a hugely novel Soviet invention. Neither the Poles, the Romanians, the Czechs, or the old Russian Tsarist administration had used it; all of them limited themselves to external pressure . . . . (Shevelov 1998a, 173)

The Soviet system went further, establishing control over the structure of the language itself. Certain words, syntactic constructions, grammatical forms, and rules of orthography and orthoepy were forbidden, and replaced instead by variants closer to Russian, or simply by Russian equivalents. The conflict between the two languages shifted from the outside to the inside, to the language itself. Another important work on the subject is Masenko

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


XII

et al. (2005), mentioned already, which includes a list of words and terms suppressed by the Bolsheviks. These underwent three types of change:

• Total change, • Partial change (modification of a prefix and/or suffix), and • Complete removal.

The reasons given in the text for these changes are limited to a few re-marks: “dialectalism,” “artificial word,” “archaism,” “Polish word,” “archaic,” “no longer corresponds to the language of the masses” (ibid., 355). Masenko argues that these comments are often false. Their sole purpose is to replace, or even to entirely destroy, Ukrainian lexical units by using Russian ones. In subsequent bilingual Russian-Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Russian dictionaries, a large part of the Ukrainian lexicon is either missing or demoted to second place within an entry, after a word that is either close to Russian or Russified. The next three generations of Ukrainians learned their language using such dictionaries. These methods’ purpose was clear:

To force work in lexicography and other fields toward a gradu-al withdrawal . . . from characteristics of the autonomous system [of Ukrainian], and to reduce it to the status of a local patois, differing from Russian only through insignificant phonetic and lexical peculiarities. (Masenko 2004b, 45)

This Soviet policy remained in force in Ukraine until the late 1980s, constantly accompanied by slogans about the brotherhood of the two peoples and Russian’s beneficial influence on Ukrainian. The close rela-tionship between two related languages, and the harmony existing within Russian-Ukrainian bilingualism, have become underlying assumptions of later researchers.

Linguistic policy from the 1950s to the 1980s

The two periods described above determined the linguistic situation of modern-day Ukraine, and offer us answers to most questions about Ukrainian national identity today. Official policy between the 1950s and the 1970s, beginning with Khrushchev’s “thaw” and the dissidents of the 1960s and then Brezhnev’s new wave of Russification (1964-1982), did noth-ing more than repeat those from earlier in the century. During the “thaw,” a period when Ukrainian publishing underwent a significant revival, the Ukrainian language was nevertheless classified with most languages of the USSR as “non-perspective.” A few languages other than Russian were count-

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

XIII


ed as “perspective”: Armenian, Georgian, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian. Both their linguistic nature and the national solidarity attached to them meant these languages resisted Russification well; Ukrainian and Belarusian kinship with Russian condemned both languages to gradual destruction.

This classification grouped Ukrainians together with Russians, and assert-ed the predominance of Russian. The idea of a “Soviet people” with a sole language took shape. Khrushchev then introduced the concept of the Rus-sian language as a “second mother tongue,” common to all Soviet citizens, to be used for inter-ethnic communication within the USSR. An important measure in the period was the reform of 1958, which allowed parents to choose which language their children were taught in. Children could re-ceive instruction in Russian or in a national language like Ukrainian. But Russian remained compulsory even in this second case and, to avoid over-loading students, bilingual education was gradually abandoned. Attempts to promote Ukrainian nonetheless persisted throughout the 1960s. Several foundational works appeared:

• Kyryčenko, ed., Ukrainian-Russian Dictionary, 6 volumes (1953-1963). • Holovaščuk, ed., Russian-Ukrainian Dictionary, 3 volumes (1969). • Bilodid, ed., Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language, 11 volumes (1970-

80). • Bilodid, ed., Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Literary Language, 5

volumes (1969-73). • Kyryljuk, ed., History of Ukrainian Literature, 8 volumes (1967-71). • Bažan, ed., History of Ukrainian Art, 6 volumes (1966-70) History of

towns and villages of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, 26 vol-umes (1962-74), and others.

Publication of the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia (1959-1965), edited by Bažan, also began at that time, alongside a series of new Ukrainian-language journals in the natural and social sciences. But a characteristic feature of dictionaries of the period was “alignment” with Russian: loans and calques were seen as the best means of enriching Ukrainian vocabulary. The reac-tion to this new wave of Russification is reflected in the movement known as šistedesjatnyky, “those of the sixties,” which was led by representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and looked back to the cultural heritage of the 1920s. A book by Dzjuba, Internationalization or Russification?, first published in 1965, played an important role in the movement. The author disapproved of the national policy of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev, attacking them for abandoning “Lenin’s precepts” (Dzjuba 1998). He was also the first to refute the Soviet theory of a harmonious Russian-Ukrainian bilingualism.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


XIV

The period was also marked by the publication of Antonenko-Davydovyč’s article “A missing letter” (19693), on the disappearance of the letter <Ґ> (/g/) from the Ukrainian alphabet.

The suppression of this letter in the spelling reforms of 1933 was moti-vated by the difficulty it supposedly caused for writing borrowed words and proper nouns (Antonenko-Davydovyč 1970). The first such group were words from Latin or modern European languages with the sound [g], like ґенерація or Ґюго. By contrast, words of Greek origin and other modern bor-rowings with the sound [ɦ] used the letter <Г>, like географія, Геродот, and гусар. Words in the second group, all with initial or medial <Ґ>, are exclu-sively Ukrainian. Hrinčenko’s dictionary (1907-1909) notes 270 of these. The šistedesjatnyky reacted primarily against two things:

• Against the external Russification and reduction of Ukrainian’s social functions.

• Against the Soviet Union’s deliberate intrusion on the language’s in-ternal development, especially its grammatical and lexical systems.

The regime did not forgive them: in the early 1970s, dissidents were sub-ject to a massive wave of political arrests. Many ended up in prison, exiled, or expelled. Once a0important source for new Ukrainian terminological systems. Even today, this is difficult to alter. The lexicon of the West, which had disappeared from Soviet dictionaries and from which translators and linguists of the 1960s and 1970s drew their inspiration, was declared to be old-fashioned or dialectal. Any use of this forbidden vocabulary faced se-vere reproach from the Soviet censors. Publishers and newspaper editors were sent lists of banned words, in addition to the lists of banned authors that had existed since the 1930s. According to Shevelov, Ukrainian had the following characteristics during the period:

• It was very open to Russian loans and structures. • It used a Russian scale of social values within the language. • It was closed to loans that did not come from or pass through Rus-

sian. • Its technical and scientific vocabulary was underdeveloped. • It lacked urban slang.

3 This article was included in full in his book How We Speak (Antonenko-Davydovyč 1970, 175).

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

XV


• It was affected by the phenomenon of suržyk . . . .4 • Ukrainian in Soviet Ukraine remained in an intermediate state be-

tween language and patois (Shevelov 1998b) In these circumstances, the use of Ukrainian was considered by many to

indicate a lack of education. Its use was limited to the family, some new Ukrai-nian literary works, some humanities publications (especially Ukrainian phi-lology), western Ukrainian nursery and primary schools, some newspapers and magazines, and local radio. Cinema, which the communists considered the most important art because of its influence on the masses, never used Ukrainian.

Independence and linguistic practice in contemporary Ukraine

The consequences of this devastating policy are still visible today. In the 1989 census, 73% of respondents declared themselves to be of Ukrainian nationality, 22% to be Russian, and 5% to belong to other minorities. The same census asked respondents about their mother tongue. In Ukrainian, questions about one’s mother tongue can be problematic, because the very concept, ridna mova, is ambiguous in Ukrainian. For some, it is not the lan-guage they know best, the one they use most often, or their mother’s lan-guage (as it might be defined in French), but instead the language that the interviewee considers their mother tongue because of their membership in a particular linguistic community—that is to say, a national language.

The ambiguity of the term in Ukrainian leads to imprecision in statistics about mastery of Ukrainian in contemporary society. For example, 64% of respondents to the 1989 census said that Ukrainian was their mother tongue, while only 44% said that they preferred to speak Ukrainian. This 20% gap reflects a phenomenon sociolinguists call linguistic loyalty—that is, the speaker’s linguistic “fidelity,” their sense of belonging to a given lin-guistic community. Even this figure of 44% seems to me excessive: it testifies more to a sense of belonging to a nation than to a mastery of the Ukrainian language at the time of asking. That same year, Ukraine passed a language law that made Ukrainian the country’s only official language.5 The law still contains many contradictions. Article 3, in particular, allows ethnic minori-

4 That is, the artificial mixing of elements of two languages—in this case, Ukrainian and Russian—without respect for literary norms. It is harmful for both languages. For a detailed study of this phenomenon see Shevchenko (2011, 134-46).

5 Law on languages in the Ukrainian SSR, October 28, 1989, no. 8312-XI.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


XVI

ties, like Russians, who form a majority at the local level—for instance, in an oblast, town, or village—to use their language in any major social sphere. Russian therefore becomes an alternative language in almost all cases, es-pecially in predominantly Russian-speaking regions. The areas where the state can prescribe the use of the official language, and therefore support the formation of a nation, are primarily the media, education, administra-tion, and the military. The 1989 language law made Ukrainian obligatory only in the following areas:

• Official announcements and press releases, posters, advertisements, although translations may also be included (Article 35).

• Designations of goods, labels, and instructions for products manu-factured in Ukraine (Article 36).

• Official names of state and public bodies and parties, companies, or-ganizations, and establishments, although these may also be trans-lated into other languages (Article 37).

• Place names (Article 38). After independence, language became an important issue on which the

Ukrainian state could assert itself. Several language bills were proposed in the 1990s, but most of them were rejected by the Constitutional Court. The Ukrainian Constitution, adopted on June 28, 1996, by the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, affirms Ukrainian’s position as the country’s only official language. It was granted the status of deržavna mova, the equivalent of a state language. According to Article 3 of a decision by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the terms “official language” and “state language” refer to the same concept:

The state (or official) language is a language which the state legally designates as the obligatory means of communication in public spac-es of social life. The Constitution of Ukraine grants this status to the Ukrainian language . . . . (VRUZ (a), Constitution)

In reality, the two terms are often used to differentiate the state language from minority languages. For instance, in the Constitution of the Autono-mous Republic of Crimea, adopted in 1992, two languages, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, have the status of state languages. Russian was designated an “official language,” a status the law did not provide for. The 1998 Crimean Constitution, passed by the President of Ukraine, was the final one before the region was annexed by Russia; in it, Ukrainian was the only state lan-guage. Tatar and Russian lost their official status, but Russian was described as “the language of the majority of the population. . .used in all spheres of social life” (VRUZ (b), Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

XVII


adopted on 21 October 1998, article 10). Russian was declared an “official language” in Odessa in 1993. Russian has been “the second state language” in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions since 1994—once again, a status not provided for by law. Since 1994, the parliaments of Donetsk, Kharkiv, Myko-laiv, Horlivka, and Khartsyzk have introduced Russian as an “official” or “sec-ond state language.”

The government attached great importance to Ukrainian during the 2000s for defining national identity. Several laws were passed that reinforced Ukrainian’s social position, particularly during President Yushchenko’s term (2005-2010). In 2006, Article 10 of the Law on Television and Radio Broadcas-ting established that 75% of the daily volume of national broadcasts should be in Ukrainian.6 Since then, films and programs on any channel, public or private, in a language other than Ukrainian must be dubbed into the na-tional language. In practice, television dubbing is sometimes replaced by subtitling or simultaneous translation. Ukrainian television sometimes broadcasts in both Russian and Ukrainian. Spontaneous bilingualism also occurs when a journalist’s questions are in Ukrainian and their interlocutor’s answers are in Russian. Such linguistic “cohabitation” leads to suržykisation, a mixing of two languages that is harmful for both. Ukrainian dominates public television and radio, but this is still not the case for private media, where almost two-thirds of total broadcasting time is in Russian. Only 23% of magazines and 27% of newspapers are published in Ukrainian (Statistical Yearbook 2000). The state of book publishing in Ukrainian is deplorable. In 2000, 90% of books sold in local bookstores were in Russian.

Since July 1, 2007, at least 70% of foreign films must be dubbed or sub-titled in Ukrainian, whether in cinemas, on television, or at home. This lan-guage policy has paid off. According to data from the Razumkov Center, also called the Ukrainian Center for Economic and Political Studies (UCEPS), in 2002 only 37.5% of Ukrainians said they communicated in Ukrainian at home (Figure 1). In 2011, according to UCEPS, the figure had risen to 53.3%. The same trend can be observed in the workplace: in 2002, 34% of respon-dents communicated in Ukrainian at work (Figure 2), compared to 49.2% in 2011. In 2002, 20% spoke Russian or a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian. Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism is a characteristic feature of Ukraine’s cur-rent linguistic situation.

6 Law of January 12, 2006, no. 3317-IV.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


XVIII

Figure 1. Language of communication at home.

0

10

20

30

40

42,2 %

37,5 %

19,8 %

0,5 %

Russian Ukrainian

Russian and Ukrainian

Other Popu

lati

on (%

)

Figure 2. Language of communication at work.

0

10

20

30

40 38,5 %

34,0 %

19,5 %

0,6 %

7,4 %

Russian

Ukrainian

Russian and Ukrainian

Other No response given

Popu

lati

on (%

)

Source: Survey conducted by UCEPS, December 2002.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

XIX


A question frequently asked about Russian and Ukrainian bilingualism is: How similar are the two languages? According to Koptilov (1995, 72), Ukrai-nian and Russian share 70.5% of their lexicon. As a comparison, according to data collected by Lewis (2009) French and Spanish share 75% of their lexicon, and French and Italian 89%.7 A linguistic phenomenon peculiar to Ukraine is suržyk, the mixture of two languages. This is very widespread in the country to different degrees depending on region and social situation. No official figures exist, but it is estimated that a fifth of the population speaks this mixture. Some linguists, either by conviction or in order to pro-voke, have proposed recognizing it as a language in its own right, and even including it among the state languages.

It is important to emphasize that, unlike the situations commonly en-countered in Europe, it is the majority ethnic group, Ukrainians, who need the support of the authorities to impose the official language. The state lan-guage needs to be protected as a “minority language.” The “classical” model of a state, with a dominant nation and one or more minorities in need of special protection, does not correspond to the reality in Ukraine. It is pos-sible that, with time, Ukraine might be able to recognize both of its princi-pal ethnic groups, Ukrainians and Russians, as equal; a bilingual mode for Ukraine might then be conceivable. First, however, it is important to allow the Ukrainian nation to define and reinforce itself until it is strong and inde-pendent enough to find power in diversity. Ukraine will then have to accept the idea of a political nation, rather than an ethnic one. Cultural diversity must be respected.

The problem of the status of minority languages, particularly Russian, resurfaces with every election. The language question becomes a matter of power, mobilized by both Russians and Ukrainians regardless of their mother tongue or political preferences. For the majority of the population, however, the language question has never been of great importance com-pared to economic, political, or social issues. Only politicians and intellec-tuals discuss it regularly. President Yanukovych integrated the linguistic is-sue in his electoral program, promising his constituents that he would grant Russian the status of a second state language. He did not do so when he was elected in 2010. On July 3, 2012, however, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a language law, approved on August 10, 2012, which allowed a “regional” or “minority” language to be used in all social spheres in regions where ethnic minorities exceed 10% of the population. In the wake of this law, 13 of 27 Ukrainian regions officially became bilingual. All of them chose Russian as

7 In the chapter “French: A language of France.”

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)


XX

their regional language, despite the fact that the text of the law concerned 18 minority languages.

After the revolution of late 2013 and early 2014, the interim President Oleksandr Turchynov, who had only come to power on February 23, 2014, had the Ukrainian Parliament vote the very same day to abolish the law. This was an error, and immediately provoked a wave of discontent in the sou-thern and eastern regions of Ukraine. Turchynov soon restored the text of the 2012 law. Nonetheless, this hasty decision offered the Russian president a pretext of defending the Russian population in Ukraine, first in Crimea and then in the east.

The events of late 2013 and early 2014 marked a new stage in the Ukrai-nian state’s development. The idea of the ethnic nation which nourished the Orange Revolution, was replaced by that of a political nation. The country is faced once more with the challenge of multiculturalism within a process of forming a national identity that is far from completed. The population no longer thinks of language as the main feature of Ukrainian identity. The formation of a Ukrainian identity is moving from a definition given in ethnic terms to one given in political terms.

Translated by Cadenza Academic Translations

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

XXI


Références

Antonenko-Davydovyč, Borys. (Борис Антоненко-Давидович). 1970. Як ми говоримо (How We Speak). http://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Antonenko-Davy-dovych/Yak_my_hovorymo.pdf, accessed March 22, 2018.

Dubois, Jean, Mathée Giacomo, Louis Guespin, Christiane Marcellesi, Jean-Bap-tiste Marcellesi, and Jean-Pierre Mével. 2002. Dictionnaire de linguistique. Paris: Larousse.

Dzjuba, Ivan (Іван Дзюба). 1998. Інтернаціоналізм чи русифікація? (Interna-tionalization or Russification?). Kiev: KM Akademija. http://litopys.org.ua/idzuba/dz.htm, accessed February 5, 2018.

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. 1999. Report on Ukraine. https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/ukraine/UKR-CbC-I-1999-010-ENG.pdf, accessed February 5, 2018.

Horetsky, Petro (Петро Горецький). 1963. Історія української лексикографії (A History of Ukrainian Lexicography). Kiev: Vydavnyctvo AN Ukrayins’koyi RSR.

Hough, Jerry F. 1997. Democratization and Revolution in the USSR, 1985-91. Wash-

ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Hrinčenko, Borys (Борис Грінченко). 1907-9. Словарь української мови (Dictio-nary of Ukrainian). http://r2u.org.ua/html/hrinchenko_pro.html, accessed February 5, 2018.

Koptilov, Viktor. 1995. Parlons ukrainien: Langue et culture. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Lacorne, Denis and Tony Judt, eds. 2002. La Politique de Babel: Du monolinguisme d’État au plurilinguisme des peuples. Paris: Karthala.

Leclerc, Jacques 2007. « Les langues slaves. » In L’Aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Quebec: Trésor de la Langue Française au Québec and Université Laval. http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/langues_slaves.htm, accessed February 5, 2018.

Lewis, M. Paul, ed. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 16th ed. Dallas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com/country/UA, accessed February 5, 2018.

Malherbe, Michel. 1995. Les Langages de l’humanité: Une encyclopédie des 3,000 langues parlées dans le monde. Paris: Laffont.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

http://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Antonenko-Davydovych/Yak_my_hovorymo.pdf

http://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Antonenko-Davydovych/Yak_my_hovorymo.pdf

http://litopys.org.ua/idzuba/dz.htm

http://litopys.org.ua/idzuba/dz.htm

http://r2u.org.ua/html/hrinchenko_pro.html

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/langues_slaves.htm

http://www.ethnologue.com/country/UA


XXII

Masenko, Larysa (Лариса Масенко). 2004a. Мова і політика (Language and politics). Kiev: Sonjašnyk.

Masenko, Larysa (Лариса Масенко). 2004b. Мова і суспульство: Постколоніальний вимір (Language and society: The post-colonial dimen-sion). Kiev: KM Akademija.

Masenko, Larysa, Viktor Kubajčuk, and Orysja Dems’ka-Kulčyc’ka (Лариса Масенко, Віктор Кубайчук, Орися Демська-Кульчицька), eds. 2005. Українська мова у XX сторіччі: історія лінгвоциту: Документи і матеріали (Ukrainian in the twentieth century: The history of a linguistic genocide: Documents and materials). Kiev: KM Akademija.

Drivaud, Marie-Hélène and Marie-José Brochard. 2002. Le Petit Robert: Au cœur des langues d’Europe. Paris : Le Robert.

Shevchenko, Natalya. 2011. « Lexicographie bilingue français-ukrainien des unités de bas niveau de formalité. » Doctoral thesis, Lumière University Lyon 2.

Shevelov, Jurij (Ю ́рій Шевельов). 1993. “Ukrainian.” In The Slavonic languages, ed. Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett, 947-98. London: Routledge.

Shevelov, Jurij (“Šerex”) (Ю ́рій Шевельов, “Шерех”). 1998b. Поза книжками і з книжок (Starting from and going beyond books). Kiev: Čas. http://r2u.org.ua/node/111, accessed.

Rusanivs’kyj, Vitalij M. (Віта ́лій Русані ́вський) et al. 2004. Українська мова: Енциклопедія (An encyclopedia of Ukrainian). Kiev: Ukrayins’ka encyklope-dija im. M. P. Bazhana.

Statistical Yearbook. 2000. “Statistical Yearbook of Ukrains, 2000.” http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/st_sc/st_sc_e.html, accessed March 27, 2018.

VRUZ (a). (Верховна Рада України: Законодавство – Ukrainian parliamen-tary legislation). http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v010p710-99/paran54#n54, accessed March 22, 2018.

VRUZ (b). (Верховна Рада України: Законодавство – Ukrainian parliamentary legislation). http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/krym/show/rb239k002-98, accessed March 22, 2018.

Xvylja, Andrij (Андрій Хвиля). 1933. “Викорінити, знищити націоналістичне коріння на мовному фронті” (Eradicating and destroying national roots in the linguistic domain). In Ukrainian in the twentieth century: The history of a linguistic genocide: Documents and materials, edited by Masenko et al. 2005. Kiev: KM Akademija.

© A

ssoc

. Sen

s-P

ublic

| D

ownl

oade

d on

08/

07/2

022

from

ww

w.c

airn

-int.i

nfo

(IP

: 65.

21.2

29.8

4)©

Assoc. S

ens-Public | D


ww


: 65.21.229.84)

http://r2u.org.ua/node/111

http://r2u.org.ua/node/111

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/st_sc/st_sc_e.html

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/st_sc/st_sc_e.html

http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v010p710-99/paran54#n54

http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v010p710-99/paran54#n54

http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/krym/show/rb239k002-98

The History of Bilingualism in Ukraine and Its Role in the ...

Documents

Transcript of The History of Bilingualism in Ukraine and Its Role in the ...