Andriy Danylenko, Pace U (New York)adanylenko@pace.edu
A LOVE TRIANGLE?
SURZHYK IN ITS RELATION TO RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN
Discussion:••

Russian (R) and Ukrainian (U) in contact
Resulting hybrid language(s)cf. surzhyk (S) commonly treated as an ‘impure, mixed language’: a sociolect structurally
based on Ukrainian with a heavy admixture of Russian elements with a pejorative
connotation in view of the new purist language ideology in independent Ukraine
cf. Trasjanka in Belarusian•Interrelations between the major players within the ‘love triangle’ in both synchrony anddiachrony :Ukrainian – S – RussianHypotheses:•The hybrid language S contaminated by Russian looks fuzzy depending on the interplayof many factors:
speech communities (dialects)
boundaries of languages (dialects) in contact
level of pressure from the ‘big’ Russian culture•

The hybrid language S can be of several types:
U/R S – U is the matrix language and R is the embedded (contributing) language
R/U S – R is the matrix language and U is the embedded (contributing) language•The hybrid language S is a linguistic discourse (defense) used against the assimilationist
pressure from Russian
UkrainianRussian
SURZHYK (S)

U/R S

R/U S

I. SYNCHRONIC DIMENSION
Three main approaches toward surzhyk and Ukrainian and Russian in contact:(a) ‘emotionally-charged’ (or extralinguistic)(b) sociolinguistic

(c) linguistic
I.1. THE EMOTIONALLY-CHARGED APPROACH: Masenko (2008), Moser (2009)(1) the linguistic mix (hybrid language) is chaotic and can hardly be systematized(2) the emergence of surzhyk in the late 17th c. was allegedly provoked by themarginalization of the Ukrainian speakers in the process of their Russification anddenationalization
Conclusion: ‘Little Russian’ surzhyk appeared allegedly as early as 1720 (Moser 2009)
The term ‘Little Rus’’ came to Kyiv/Kiev in the early 17th c. from Western Ukrainian
lands. Metropolitan Jov Borec’kyj (†1631) seems to have established the traditionof viewing the Little Russians (Ukrainians) and the Great Russians (Russians) asbrothers who together constitute a family (Danylenko 2011)
Shortcomings:
no reference point for judging purity and impurityequation of different sociolinguistic situations in Ukraine of the late 17th and early 21st c.

the opposition between Church Slavonic of the Ukrainian recension vs. the secularvernacular (Ruthenian/Ukrainian) is not taken into consideration (Danylenko 2006)

I.2. THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACH: Bilaniuk (2004, 2005)(1) urbanized peasant surzhyk(2) village dialect-surzhyk(3) Sovietized-Ukrainian surzhyk(4) urban bilinguals’ surzhyk(5) post-independence surzhyk
Shortcomings:
The above types are variants of a fairly unitary Ukrainian-Russian surzhyk;

In this hybrid, Ukrainian and Russian serve intermittently as the matrix and embedded
languages, cf. U/R and R/U S

I.3. THE LINGUISTIC APPROACH: Flier (2000, 2008)
In lexical code mixing, Russian lexical items become adapted in accordance with the Ukrainianphonology and morphosyntax:
R/U vumnyj ‘wise’ with the prothetic v- (Shevelov 1979, 58-59) from R umnyj
R/U ponjav (m. sg. pret.) ‘understand’ with word-final [w] (Shevelov 1979, 418-42) from Rponjal

R/U razhovarjuvaty ‘to speak’ with the Ukrainian derivational suffix -’uva- (< -ova-) from R
razgovarivat’ (Danylenko 2008b, 68)
R/U zdivajet’sja (3 sg. pres.) ‘to mock’ (from R izdevaetsja) with -d- used by analogy toforms like zdijmaty ‘to raise’ due to a metanalysis in Middle Ukrainian, cf. pody-jmaju
changed into po-dyjmaju (1 sg. pres.) with the new root ready for use with other prefixes,
notably z- (Shevelov 1979, 277), U pi-dijmaju, also z-dijmaju ‘I raise’Shortcoming:
all the above spatiotemporal varieties are variants of a fairly unitary Ukrainian-Russian
surzhyk (U/R S), although both Ukrainian and Russian present conditions favorable tochange (Flier 2008, 53)
II. HISTORICAL DIMENSION
II.1. THE ACCULTURATION OF MUSCOVY IN THE 17TH C.
Ukrainian served during the 17th c. as a tool of the acculturation of the Muscovite society and its
written language (Shevelov 1980, Cymblistyj 1991)(a) the idea of an all-Russian nation was promoted initially by Orthodox clerical circles
in Ukraine (Jov Borec’kyj) and especially in Synopsis, a history of the origins of theSlavo-Rossian people (Slavęno-Rωssїjskij narod´´) published in Kyiv in 1674 under
the patronage of Inokentij Gizel [Innozenz Giesel], the archimandrite of the Caves
Monastery in Kyiv (Plokhy 2006, 230)(b) the Third South Slavic influence (of the Meletian Church Slavonic) in Russia(Shevelov, Tolstoy, u.a.):pronunciation of g as a pharyngeal h, e.g., blaho ‘boon’
pronunciation of the jat’ as [i], e.g., věra [vira] ‘faith’, etc.
(c) the standard language of the Russian Empire remained during the 18th c. bidialectal— southern (Little Russian, i.e. Ukrainian) and northern (Great Russian) (Danylenko
2008a): the period of a mutual, though very shaky, influence on both languages(Taranenko 2007, 121)II.2. DECULTURATION OF UKRAINE FROM THE 18TH C. ONWARD
FROM BILINGUALISM TO DIGLOSSIAIn the late Russian Empire, the Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism was turning into diglossia
because of severe restrictions on Ukrainian-language publications in the Russian Empire from themid-19th c. (Danylenko 2010)(a) The Valuev circular (1863):[The Censorship Administration] could “license for publication only such books inthis language that belong to the realm of fine literature; at the same time, theauthorization of books in Little Russian with either spiritual content or intended
generally for primary mass reading should be ceased” (Miller 2003, 264)
the alleged complicity of the Ukrainophiles with Polish plottersthe translation of the Gospels into Ukrainian vernacular by Moračevs’kyj in 1860
(Vulpius 2005)(b) The Ems decree (1876)
The degree of hybridization was small at that time due to the ethnic division of the Ukrainianand Russian-speaking strata and inadequate schooling in RussianFirst samples of hybridization seem to date to the late 19th and the early 20th cc. (Shevelov 1989,9): Myxajlo Staryts’kyj’s famous 1883 comedy “After Two Hares” (Flier 2008, 41-42)
The emergence of suržyk was heralded by the policy of Ukrainianization in the 1920s

II.3. PERIODS OF RUSSIAN UKRAINIAN CONTACTPeriodI
1569-17091750s

Languages in contact
Ukrainian Church Slavonic (UChS) / Ruthenian /Polish / Latin / Hungarian vs. Russian ChurchSlavonic (RChS) / ‘common language’Type of language contact
UChS and Ruthenian as matrix
languages
codeswitching and language
mixingII
1709-1750s1798

Bidialectal (Ukrainian-Russian) Church Slavonic (UR ChS) vs. Ruthenian

UChS and RChS as “matrix
dialects” vs. Ruthenian as amatrix language
codeswitching and language(dialect) mixingIII
1798-1863“Great Russian” vs. “Little Russian” (Ukrainian)Russian and Ukrainian as matrix
languages:
codeswitching and language
mixingIV
1863-1880s“Great Russian” vs. “Little Russian” (Ukrainian)Russian and Ukrainian as matrixlanguages: codeswitching andlanguage mixing
Pejorative connotation of theUkrainian-Russian mix (earlysuržyk)V
1880s-present

Russian vs. Ukrainian

Ukrainian and Russian as matrix
languages:
codeswitching, language mixing
and fused lects
emergence of suržyk

1569 − the Union of Lublin between Poland and Lithuania
1709 − the victory of Peter I over Charles XII of Sweden and Ivan Mazepa, Hetman of Ukraine, at Poltava(strengthening of the Imperial presence in the Ukrainian Hetmanate (Cossack State))
1798 − the publication of Ivan Kotljarevs’kyj’s Enejida written in the Ukrainian vernacular1863 − the enactment of the 1863 circular of Petr Valuev limiting Ukrainian-language publications

SAMPLES BY PERIODSPeriod IА) Ruthenian as a matrix language:[…] ego etiam, и азъ також(де), Мνхаилъ, недостойный, множае грѣшихъ отъ всѣхъ скотовъ,“скотенъ быхъ”, Господи, “у тебе” […] (Logosъ, 1691-1692) (Myxajlo Andrella of Rosvyhove,1637–1710) (L: 112) (Danylenko 2008c)
В) UChS as a matrix language:
Горе! горе! Ахъ! горе! Нестерпимой муки!
В гортань достахся ада, не точию в руки!
Горе! Палит мя пламен, палит мое тѣло,Из утробы дышущїй, – горе! – палит зело; […] (1721) (Dmytro Tuptalenko)(Komedia, 142)
Period IIА) Ruthenian as a matrix language:
Понеже еще в(ъ) прошломъ году зарученной дочерѣ моей Анастасіи за бунчуковоготовариша п/а/на Петра Савича, по обосторонному согласію н/а/шему, положенъ к(ъ)совершенію сватбы прійдучого м/е/(с)/я/ца сентября 6 числа термѣнъ, того ради якъпротчіихъ пріятелей моихъ просилъ я в(ъ) домъ мой до Городища на оное число
прибыть<,> [...] (1752) (PL, 130:121–22)В) UchS/RChS as a “matrix dialect”:Аще бых не ведал, яко сицево именование от любления происходит, непшевал бых бытиironiam, simile illi, ubi lupus ovium pastor appellatur: o praeclarum ovium custodem lupum. Нопонеже любе закон […] (early 18th c.) (Stefan Javors’kyj) (Ternovskij 1866, 548)
Period III:А) Ukrainian and В) Russian as matrix languages:– Та’дже твій Охрім вже вмер, – казав голова.
– І состоїт ісключенним із ревизьких сказок і з общественних відомостей, [B] – підхопивписар, мотнувши патлами, і покинув писати.
– Та знаю, що вмер, – казала Векла – і стоїть заключенним у відомості, як пан писар пописьменному каже... [A] (1841) (Kvitka-Osnovjanenko, 314; cf. Masenko 2008, 6-7)
Period IV:А) Ukrainian and B) Russian as matrix languages: early SuržykГолохвостий. Потому здєсь у меня такоє смертєльноє воспалєніє завелось, што аж шипить.
Проня. Когда б заглянуть можна було вам у серце. [B]Голохвостий. […] Я би кожну мінуту одмикав ваше серце і смотрєл би; не мився б, непомадився б, не пив, даже не курив би по три дні, та всьо б смотрєв би. [A] (1883) (MyxajloStaryts’kyj; cf. Flier 2008, 41-44)
Period V:А) Ukrainian and B) Russian as matrix languages: SuržykЯ з дітями все спольняла, дітей уважала. Я молода була, а возраст дітей всякий. Всьо равноя вміла, знала, понімала. Навчили мене, сознаніє було, любить надо, тогда буде в жизні всеправильно. І все нам удачно всігда буде. А потом ще побула я п’ять лет, уже мені надоїларобота, я попросилась: піду на всякі різні роботи [A] (Masenko 2008, 28)Договориться щє треба, чім його красить: ілі мєталіком (там дороже чуть буде), іліобичьной краской. [...] Нормальні хлопці, простиє, без етіх, знаєш. Побалакали. Нє, ну такесаме луччє врємя для мене, понімаєш − через три неділі [B] (Del Gaudio, Tarasenko, 2008,325)
BIBLIOGRAPHYAuer, Peter. 1999. From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: toward a dynamic typology ofbilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism 8 (4), 309-32.
Del Gaudio, Salvatore, Bohdana Tarasenko. 2008. Suržyk: aktual’ni pytannja ta analiz konkretnoho
prykladu. In: Besters-Dilger, Juliane (ed.). 2008. Movna politika ta movna sytuatsija v Ukrajini.
Kyiv: Kyjevo-Mohyljans’ka akademija, 316-39.
Bilniuk, Laada. 2004. A typology of suržyk. Mixed Ukrainian-Russian language. International Journal of
Bilingualism 8 (4), 409-25.
Bilaniuk, Laada. 2005. Contested Tongues. Language Politics and Cultural Correction in Ukraine. Ithaca,London: Cornell University Press.
Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna. 2005. Plurilinguism in Russia and in the Ruthenian lands in the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries. The case of Stefan. Javors’kyj. In: Ivanov, Vyacheslav, Julia Verkholantsev(eds.). Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages.
Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo, 9-20.
Cymbalistyj, Petro. 1991. Ukrainian Linguistic Elements in the Russian Language, 1680-1760. London:
The School of Slavonic and East European Studies.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2008a. The formation of New Standard Ukrainian: from the history of an undeclaredcontest between Right- and Left-Bank Ukraine in the 18th century, Die Welt der Slaven 53 (1), 82115.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2008b. The new Ukrainian standard language (1798) – between tradition andinnovation’. In: Christina Y. Bethin (ed.), American Contributions to the 14th Congress of Slavists inOhrid, Macedonia, 2008, vol. 1: Linguistics, Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 59-74.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2008c. Polemics without polemics: Myxajlo Andrella in Ruthenian (Ukrainian) literaryspace. Studia Slavica Hung. 53 (1), 12-46.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2010. The Ukrainian Bible and the Valuev circular of 18 July 1863. Acta Slavica
Iaponica 28 (1), 1-21.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2011. Mykola Khanenko: “With a dispatch of seven cucumbers fresh…”: A case studyof linguistic mentality in the eighteenth-century Hetmanate. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 29/1-4(2007): Ukrainian Philology and Linguistics in the Twenty-first Century, ed. by Michael S. Flier,225-56.
Flier, Michael. 2000. Suržyk: the rules of engagement. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 22, 113-136.
Flier, Michael. 2008. Suržyk or suržyks? In: Hentschel, Gerd and Siarhej Zaprudski (eds.), Belarusian
Trasjanka and Ukrainian Suržyk. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität
Oldenburg, 39-56.
Komedia – Dmytro Tuptalenko, Komedia na Roždestvo Xrystovo. In: Rjezanov, Volodymyr. Dramaukrajins’ka. 1. Starovynnyj teatr ukrajins’kyj, part. 4: Škil’ni dijstva rizdvjanoho tsyklu. Kyiv, 96145.
Kvitka-Osnovjanenko – Kvitka-Osnovjanenko, Hryhorij. 1969. Tvory u vos’my tomax, vol. 3. Kyiv: Dnipro.
Masenko, Larysa. 2004. Mova i suspil’stvo. Postkolonial’nyj vymir. Kyiv: Kyjevo-Mohyljans’ka akademija.
Masenko, Larysa. 2008. Suržhyk: istorija formuvannja, sučasnyj stan, perspektyvy funktsionuvannja. In:Hentschel, Gerd and Siarhej Zaprudski (eds.), Belarusian Trasjanka and Ukrainian Suržyk.
Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 1-37.
Moser, Michael. 2009. Russisch, Ukrainisch und Suržyk des 18. Jahrhunderts in der Privatkorrespondenz
ukrainischen Frauen. In: Besters-Dilger, Juliane, Fedor B. Poljakov (eds.). Die russische Spracheund Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert: Tradition und Innovation. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang,289-322.
Issatschenko, Alexander V. 1980. Russian. In: Schenker, Aexander M., Edward Stankiewicz (eds.). TheSlavic Literary Languages: Formation and Development. New Haven: Yale Concilium on
International and Area Studies, 119-142.

L: Logosъ, in: A. Petrov (ed.), Materialy dlja istorii zakarpatskoj Rusi IX: Duxovno-polemičeskiesočinenija iereja Mixaila Orosvigovskogo Andrelly protiv katoličestva i unii. Teksty. Praha 1932, 1–69.
Nekvapil, Jiří. 2003. O vztahu malých a velkých slovanských jazyků. Lětopis 50, 113–127.
PL – Peredrijenko, Vitalij Arkadijovyč (ed.). Pryvatni lysty XVIII st. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1987.
Stavyts’ka, Lesja, Volodymyr Trub. 2007. Dvomovnist’: zmišuvannja ta vzajemodija mov. In: Stavyts’ka,Lesia (ed.). Ukrajins’ko-rosijs’ka dvomovnist’. Linhvosotsiokul’turni aspekty. Kyiv: Pul’sary, 31120.
PL – Pryvatni lysty XVIII st., ed. Vitalii Arkadiiovych Peredriienko. Kyiv 1987.
Plochy, Serhii. 2006. The Origins of the Slavic Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
Shevelov, Geroge Y. 1979. A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language.
Shevelov, George Y. 1980. Ukrainian. In: Schenker, Aexander M., Edward Stankiewicz (eds.). The Slavic
Literary Languages: Formation and Development. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International andArea Studies, 143-160.
Shevelov, George Y. 1989. The Ukrainian Language in the First Half of the Twentieth Century (19001941). Its State and Status. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.
Taranenko, Oleksandr. 2007. Ukrainian and Russian in contact: attraction and estrangement. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 183, 119-140.
Vulpius, Ricarda. 2005. Nationalisierung der Religion. Russifizierungspolitik und ukrainische
Nationsbildung 1860–1920. Wisbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag (Forschungen zur osteuropäischenGeschichte, 64).