Review_Plishkova.pdf

Fourth Annual Tartu Conference on Russian and East European Studies June 10, 2019 , 2019

The Rusyn Question in the Frameworks of Ehnic Minorities, and of the International Diplomacy and Peace-Building — Rusyns in Different Positions in Ukraine, Slovakia and Serbia The presentation-slides are to be download here: https://www.academia.edu/39481546/ Abstract: The Rusyns represent ethnic minorities, living in contemporary Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Rumania, Hungary and Serbia, and those emigrated from these countries to Australia, Canada, and The United States. They constitute officially recognized ethnic minorities in every European country they live in, even in Ukraine. For the last two decades, Rusyns in Slovakia have “codified” a literary language. Since it had been missing for centuries; the Rusyn authors wrote in Latin, Church Slavonic, then Russian, a few of them in Ukrainian. The only department of Rusyn Studies is working and the only PhD program in Rusyn Philology is running in Preshov, Slovakia. It was criticized by some Carpatho-Rusyn acti¬vists in Ukraine (as e.g. by Igor Kercha), because of the divergences in vernaculars which the “codified” version was based on. Really, there are at least three “literary” languages used by writers and the learned elite: “Slovakian”, “Carpatho-Ukrainian” and “Vojvodian” in Serbia. The fear in Ukraine is rooted in the history of Transcarpathia: it had not been a part of Ukraine before it became a district of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic in results of the World War II. Earlier it formed a part of the Hungarian Kingdom during centuries, and after the First World War it was attached to then-shaped Czechoslovakia. Efforts by right-wing political movements in Hungary, which endeavor to reconnect the Carpathian territories to Hungary, make nowadays some risk. Ukraine has already lost and is probably losing some terri¬tories in South (Crimea) and East (Donetsk). West part of Ukraine has been a stronger bases of the stability of the Ukrai¬nian State; although full of ambiguities due to Polish and Hungarian questions. Therefore the Rusyn question is to be regarded not only in the frameworks of ethnic minorities, but in a wider sense of the diplomacy and peace-building, too.

Rusyn was codified in the Slovak Republic in 1995 and its norm was based on the two most widespread Rusyn dialects: Eastern-Zemplín and Western-Zemplín. As a result, this language is considered one of the youngest Slavic literary languages. In fact, its history is several centuries old and known due to many struggles in order to find the most suitable form of standard language for Rusyns living not only in modern Slovakia, but also in the whole area of the historic Carpathian Rus. Dealing with the matter of Rusyn language has always been related to the issue of Rusyn national identity: Are Rusyns of Greater Russian or Ukrainian nationality, or are they an autonomous Slavic nationality? This question could only be partly answered as late as the end of the 20 th century, in the post-1989 pluralistic society, when Rusyn was codified, which was a natural outcome of the liberal solution to the dilemma of their ethnic affiliation. It also became a fundamental condition for the use of their mother tongue in specific spheres of social life: mass media, religious, stage-theatrical and literary, where Rusyn was also partly used before its codification; however, without fixed orthographic and orthoepic rules. The codification of Rusyn also became a precondition for its introduction to education and officialdom. It is especially its functioning in education which gives this ethnic group hope not only for maintaining and strengthening their national identity, but also for a message being passed onto future generations and a sense of dignity and prestige stemming from their mother tongue being used in spheres more cultured than just that of everyday communication in the family environment.

Studia Slavica, 2008

The history of European nationalities illustrates that language is one of the key elements supporting the foundation and continued existence of many national groups. Language is not only an instrument of communication and thinking, but also the means by which spiritual traditions and the creations of past generations are preserved and passed on. It is language that has helped solve many problems in national, cultural and political life. Thus it is logical that both large nationalities and small ethnic groups are interested in expanding the sphere of their mother tongue's use. Rusyns are a prime example because their efforts to find the most appropriate language medium --which could be elevated to the level of a literary language --are over 300 years old. The continuous attempts to solve this problem are evidence of the given ethnic group's objective need to have their own literary language as well as a cultural tradition, which would, as the prominent Russian Slavist Nikita Iljič Tolstoj states, "bind man with his 'little heritage' and to some extent satisfy his nostalgia for the unfulfilled desire for the ancestors' language" .

Studia Humanistyczne AGH, 2013

In Ukraine, Chernivtsi Oblast can be observed as a region of mixed ethnic structure. As a result of historical living in this region, we can see that ones mother tongue performs both communicative and symbolic functions (which is an important element of ethnic identity). As an element of ethnic identity the mother tongue becomes very important, especially while entering the linguistic space through language practices, and especially when language and ethnicity. Some Moldovans use both names of the mother tongue (Moldovan or Romanian), Key words: social identity, ethnic identity, language practices, Romanians/ Moldovans in Ukraine, name of language * 1 , [24.06.2012]. 2 The historical name of Chernivtsi Oblast is Northern Bukovina.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, Vol. 2013 5(2), pp. 14-23, 2014

Language has traditionally been a crucial component of Ukrainian identity. Given the lack of independent statehood, Ukrainian identity was primarily ethnocultural rather than civic. However, the contradictory policies of the Soviet regime produced a large-scale discrepancy between the language use and ethnocultural identity. Moreover, independence boosted Ukrainian civic identity and stimulated reconsideration of its relationship with the ethnocultural identity of the titular group. Although the Ukrainian language occupies a special place in both main versions of Ukrainian identity, it has to be reconciled with the continued reliance on Russian of about half of Ukraine’s citizens. At the same time, the perception of oneself as Ukrainian is gradually shifting from ethnocultural to civic, particularly among the young generations raised in independent Ukraine. Last but not least, the escalation of an identity struggle in the wake of the Orange Revolution led to different dynamics in the two parts of the country.

The Rusyn language was codified in Slovakia in 1995. Its form was based on the two most widespread Rusyn dialects in Slovakia: Eastern-Zemplin and Western-Zemplin dialects. Given the date of its codification, Rusyn is a very young Slavic language. Its history, though, goes back hundreds of years and is renown for the struggles provoked among those attempting to formulate a standard language for Carpatho-Rusyns who lived not only on the territory of present-day Slovakia, but also in the entire region of historic Carpathian Rus. The issue of the standard language for this ethnic group has always been connected with with the issue of ethnic identification of Carpatho-Rusyns, specifically whether they belong to the Great Russian or Ukrainian nations, or are a Slavic nationality on their own. Self-identification issues were resolved after 1989 in the conditions of a modern pluralistic society when Carpatho-Rusyns were recognized throughout Europe as a distinct Slavic group. Thus, the codification of the language of Carpatho-Rusyns at the end of the 20th century was a natural consequence of that resolution of the ethnic identification dilemma. The codification also became a fundamental condition for establishing the standard language in particular spheres (journalistic, confessional, theatrical, literary – partly functioning already prior to the codification), where, until 1995, various dialects had been used without unified standard rules. At the same time, the codification provided a basis for use of the language in the spheres of education and social (official) matters, which especially required a solid standard.

PhD dissertation, 1998

Language is a key element in negotiations of power and identity, from interpersonal relations to the definition of large sociopolitical units. In this dissertation I examine the role that language has played, and continues to play, in the shaping of modern nations, through a case study of Ukraine. I focus on ideologies of language, including beliefs about language in general and attitudes towards particular linguistic usages, to discover how boundaries are drawn onto linguistic variability. The ways in which people ascribe correctness, purity, prestige and power to various linguistic forms reveal how language categories, namely “Ukrainian” and “Russian,” and their associated national identities, are constructed and manipulated in the process of nationbuilding. The findings presented are based on two years of fieldwork in Ukraine in 1991-92 and 1994-95, consisting of a language attitude (matched-guise) test, survey, participant observation, taped interviews, and archival and media research. The test and survey were administered to 2,000 respondents in three regions of Ukraine, Lviv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk. The test documented unconscious attitudes toward Ukrainian, Russian, and English languages, including varieties with non-standard pronunciations of Ukrainian and Russian. The survey gathered information on education, ethnic background, language use, and conscious language ideologies. I have found that there has been a general shift in language use and ideology, with Ukrainian (the official state language since 1990) used more widely and accorded greater prestige than during the Soviet period. This is a striking change given the long history of Russian language domination, which led Ukrainian to be widely regarded as a backward peasant language. I argue that the availability of English as an international language, as an alternate to Russian, facilitated the displacement of Russian by Ukrainian in many spheres. I also examine the language varieties that “mix” or “blend” Ukrainian and Russian, referred to by the general term “surzhyk,” and the social conditions that fostered their development. These nonstandard forms have received much negative attention in daily discussions and in the media. I conclude that destabilized linguistic hegemony has led to widespread contestation of linguistic correctness as a key element in the negotiation of status and identity.

Ab Imperio, 2017