|
COPYRIGHT 2004 Kingston Press Services, Ltd.
Abstract
A typology is developed that systematizes the various linguistic phenomena in Ukraine that are commonly referred to as surzhyk--a Ukrainian term meaning 'impure, mixed language'. The term surzhyk has become frequently used in public discourse and the media since Ukrainian was elevated to the status of official state language and Ukraine declared its independence. A heightened purist ideology has led to broad use of the term, which tends to have pejorative connotations. The typology is based on the historical, social, and ideological factors that have shaped language use. Five major categories of surzhyk are defined: (1) urbanized peasant surzhyk, (2) village dialect-surzhyk, (3) Sovietized-Ukrainian surzhyk, (4) urban bilinguals' surzhyk, and (5) post-independence surzhyk. These five prototypes are further characterized according to the typology of bilingualism proposed by Auer (1999), by considering the degree of pragmatic salience and the grammaticalization of language alternation. This case study presents a paradigm for the analysis of mixed languages.
Key words
mixed languages
purism
Ukraine
1 Introduction
In Ukraine the term surzhyk may be simply translated as 'impure language', usually meaning a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian. However, the simplicity of this initial definition is deceptive, as surzhyk has come to be used to refer to a wide array of linguistic phenomena. The frequent and broad use of the term surzhyk, most often in a pejorative sense, reflects a heightened purist language ideology that emerged with the elevation of Ukrainian to official state language in 1989 and the declaration of Ukraine's independence in 1991 (Bilaniuk, 1997, 1998, 2005). The existence of a single term, surzhyk, conceptually unites the various kinds of language mixing and serves as the antithesis to the concept of linguistic purity. Most analyses of surzhyk have followed this unified view and have treated surzhyk as a monolithic phenomenon (e.g., Hnatkevych, 2000; Karavans'kyi, 1994; Serbens'ka, 1994; Stavyts'ka, 2001; Strikha, 1997).
The typology developed in this article distinguishes language varieties that emerged in different conditions, but that fall under the umbrella-term surzhyk because of their perceived impurity due to the mixing of elements of Ukrainian and Russian standard languages. Bilaniuk (1997) and Flier (2000) provide overviews and examples of the different linguistic levels and manners in which Ukrainian-Russian mixing occurs. Flier finds that
even the quite preliminary typology of interaction at the levels of lexicon, syntax, morphology, and phonology [...] shows that the process of Russification within Surzhyk is by no means random or illogical, but is governed by specific hierarchies and implicatures (2000, p. 129).
His analysis is based on the use of surzhyk in literary works of the 1990s and as listed in Serbens'ka's (1994) prescriptive work titled "Anty-surzhyk." The extent to which these regularities hold across surzhyks that emerged in different circumstances has yet to be studied. It is the sociolinguistic circumstances that I analyze here.
The typology developed here is based on the historical, social, and ideological factors that have shaped language use. Under consideration are the various referents of the term surzhyk as it is used in public discourse, the media, as well as academic writings. Five major categories of surzhyk are defined: (1) urbanized peasant surzhyk, (2) village dialect-surzhyk, (3) Sovietized-Ukrainian surzhyk, (4) urban bilinguals' surzhyk, and (5) post-independence surzhyk. These five prototypes are further characterized according to the typology of bilingualism proposed by Auer (1999), by considering the degree of pragmatic salience and the grammaticalization of language alternation.
The presented findings are based on a total of two years of field research that I conducted in Ukraine between 1991 and 2002. (1) My goal was to study the many facets of language politics by means of interviews, surveys, a matched-guise language attitude test, participant observation, and analysis of the media (Bilaniuk, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2005). My primary research sites were cities and villages in the regions of L'viv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovs'k, representing the western, central, and eastern regions of the country. Early on in my research I was struck by the centrality of the term surzhyk and of questions of purity in discussions regarding language status. While this term is often used as if its referent were clearly defined and homogenous, as I show here, the definition of surzhyk is far from simple. The analysis of its various meanings provides a window onto the shifting dynamics of language politics in Ukraine.
2 Etymology
The term surzhyk originally meant a mixture of wheat and rye flour, which is considered a lower grade flour (Podvesko, 1962). Now surzhyk is predominantly used in its general meaning of "mixture," especially of languages, retaining the connotations that a mixture is degraded as compared to something pure. A similar phenomenon exists in Belarus: "trasianka," originally meaning a mixture of hay and straw, now refers to mixtures of Belarusian and Russian languages (Woolhiser, 2001). The single label in each case creates a putatively unified category of "impure language" in opposition to standard "ideal" language. Surzhyk is akin to the various terms for mixed languages listed in Auer (1999, p. 318), but it is not restricted only to what Auer defines as the Language Mixing prototype of language alternation, but also to Fused Lects and, in some cases, to Code-Switching, as shown below.
Surzhyk carries other etymological connotations that are occasionally evoked. According to Hrinchenko's (1909) dictionary, surzhyk is (1) mixed grains or flour made thereof; (2) a person of mixed race: "This is surzhyk: the father was a gypsy, the mother a girl from our village." The second definition brings up the concept of miscegenation and the undesirability of racial mixing as a parallel to language mixing, a connotation that has been resuscitated in at least one author's recent discussion of the evils of surzhyk (Stavyts'ka, 2001, p. 20). During my fieldwork, however, I did not encounter this connotation in contemporary usage.
The 1978 11-volume dictionary of Ukrainian focuses on linguistic artificiality and impurity, defining surzhyk as "elements of two or more languages, united artificially, not following the norms of literary language, impure language" (Slovnyk, 1978, p. 854). Linguistic impurity is the core of current definitions of surzhyk, although I have heard the term used to refer to other mixtures of style. For example, some Kyivites metaphorically borrowed the negative connotations of linguistic surzhyk in using the term to describe buildings combining contemporary and traditional architectural forms, such as mirrored facades built onto classical buildings, which were common in Kyiv after 2000.
In current public discourse, linguistic impurity tends to be seen as a result of lack of education, low culture, and primitive thought. Some people find surzhyk simply laughable while others think it is dangerous, leading to the breakdown of society. Meanwhile, standard, pure language is portrayed as the normal and natural correlate of positive developments in society. The precise definition of surzhyk remains primarily ideological, as any perceived mixing of different languages may merit the label, and this perception varies depending on an individual's linguistic background.
3 History: Standards and the urban-rural divide
Issues of linguistic purity and language mixing have regained importance in the political turmoil of nationbuilding after the fall of the USSR, but they have long been concerns in Ukraine (Wexler, 1974). Once a standard Ukrainian literary language emerged, it then served as a reference point for judging purity and impurity. The beginnings of the literary language are usually recognized in Kotliarevs'kyi's 1798 Eneida, the first Ukrainian vernacular-based written work. Scholars worked to develop and codify standard Ukrainian during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and this process was basically complete by 1929 (Rowenchuk, 1992). However, the standard had limited institutional support and some details remained to be...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
