t h e U K R A IN IA N r e v i e w is a quarterly journal devoted to all aspects o f Ukrainian studies. All articles, whether commissioned or unsolicited, reflect the views of the author(s). Editor Stepan Oleskiw Deputy Editor Vera Rich Associate Editors Volodymyr Mykula Oleh S. Romanyshyn Editorial Board Nicholas L. Chirovsky Seton H all University (em erit us professor) James Dingley University o f London Yarema Kelebay M cGill University Bohdan Kordan University o f Saskatchewan Lubomyr Luciuk Royal M ilitary Academy o f Canada Dmytro M, Shtohryn University o f Illinois at Urbana-Champaign t h e U K R A IN IA N r e v i e w is published by: The Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, Ltd. Ucrainica Research Institute, Toronto, Or»., Canada Editorial Office 200 Liverpool Road, London, N1 ILF, United Kingdom Tel: (0171) 607-6266; Fax: (0171) 607-6737; E-mail: [email protected] Subscriptions The subscription price, which includes postage, is £20.00 (US $40.00). The price for a single copy is £5.00 (US SI0.00). ' Orders should be sent to 49 Linden Gardens, London, W2 4HG, United Kingdom Tel: (0171) 229-8392; Fax:(0171) 792-2499 ISSN 0041-6029 Printed in the UK by U1S Ltd., London. Contents Cover illustration: Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi (1866-1934). U K R A I N I A N r e v i e w Contributors 2 Current Events Beyond Politics: Internal Problems of the Ukrainian Language JENNIFER PICKUREL TAYLOR 3 Some Aspects of the Development of Tourism in Ukraine VSEVOLOD KOBRZHYTSKYI 2 9 History The Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada OLEH BUDZYNSKYI 34 Chyhyryn Roots of Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi’s Family Tree MYKOLA KUCHERENKO 40 The Veneti, Sclaveni and Antae in the Light of Archaeology VOLODYMYR BARAN 49 Arts and Culture Literary Anniversaries Bicentenary of Kotlyarevskyi’s A en eld (1798-1998) 64 To the Eternal Memory of Kotlyarevskyi t a r a s S h e v c h en k o 65 Kotlyarevskyi ivan fra n k o 68 Volodymyr Sosyura (1898-1965) 69 I recall... VOLODYMYR SOSYURA 7 1 Ukraine __________ 71 The golden-horned star... __________ 72 Love Ukrayina!... __________ 72 Beyond the fence... __________ 73 Visual Poetry in Ukrainian Literature m ykola s o r o k a 74 Reviews 89 spring ’98 voL 45 no. 1 Contributors th e U K R A I N I A N review JENNIFER PICKUREL TAYLOR is a PhD student at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London. VSEVOLOD KOBRZHYTSKYI is studying for a doctorate in Business Administration at the International Personnel Academy in Kyiv. OLEH BUDZYNSKYI is a researcher at the Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi Department. Museum of the History of Kyiv. MYKOLA KUCHERENKO works at the Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi Memorial Museum in Kyiv. PROF. VOLODYMYR BARAN an associate member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, is a prominent Ukrainian archaeologist. He is currently head of archaeological research at the ancient Halych settlement, Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. MYKOLA SOROKA a philologist, is head of the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation, Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Taras Shevchenko Kyiv University. CURRENT EVENTS Current Events Beyond Politics: Internal Problems of the Ukrainian Language Jennifer Pickurel Taylor long with other language planning issues concerning the Ukrainian lan­ guage, the debate over what is acceptable, correct or pure Ukrainian con­ tinues. This focuses not on external linguistic issues such as government policy, education or media usage of the state language, but rather on internal questions of lexicon, spelling and style. After stating that Ukrainian must assert its functional differentiation, and develop a standard, neutral lexicon and spelling system, the question remains: whose Ukrainian? This question is perhaps more complicated than it appears at first glance. A number of aspects must be examined. Firstly, which words and phrases, or even spellings and gender endings, should be preserved? Which sources of enrichment are acceptable, and how should new words be adapted to fit Ukrainian? Though translation itself is not directly relevant to internal language problems, the coining of terms for new concepts, especially those for which other languages already have a word, clearly is, as is also the incorporation of the international lexicon. How long does a word need to be part of the general lexical fund to be deemed acceptable, and how should new terms be popularised in order to weed out old Soviet words? How much variation is acceptable? Lastly, why interfere in the deve­ lopment of the language, why are some forms permissible when others are not, and why continue the struggle against Russian? The process by which Ukrainian underwent standardisation and revision under the Soviets to reflect better its similarities with Russian is well-documented else­ where by Shevelov and Wexler.1 The process of adapting standard Ukrainian con­ tinues its part of post-independence language planning. The efforts made both by linguists and government policy-makers have received generous coverage in Ukraine and are widely available in a variety of sources Farmer somewhat problematically describes two different approaches to lan­ guage planning and purification. Firstly, he explains what he terms ‘non-national­ ist’ planning, which ignored origins of words and dialect features. Instead, the language was encouraged to become more efficient and flowing - using aesthetic criteria alone. In contrast, ‘nationalist’ language planning concerns itself ‘with the pursuit of ethnic authenticity and differentiation through the effort to exclude ex­ ternal linguistic influences - the pursuit of linguistic purity’.1 2 This approach may 1 G. Shevelov, Ukrainian Language in the First H alf o f the Twentieth Century , and P. Wexler, P u ­ rism and Language. 1 Kenneth C. Farmer, ‘Language and Linguistic Nationalism in the Ukraine', N ationalities Papers, vol. vi, no. 2, 1978, p. 140. the UKRAINIAN review have been applicable at some stages in Ukraine’s linguistic development, but with reference to the twentieth century, other distinctions better apply. Some modern linguists adopt a third approach, allowing pragmatism and a variety of sources to decide which forms are for various reasons acceptable, and which should be encouraged out of the language. Still, Farmer’s classification could be altered slight­ ly so that ‘nationalist’ language planning might represent those who seek actively to promote Ukrainian, using the language’s resources to the fullest, with the aim of increasing both usage and the functional load of the language. ‘Non-nationalist’ planning remains, however, difficult to define. Even this changed definition re­ mains problematic, since Russian speakers may regard as ‘nationalist’ planning any promotion of Ukrainian at the expense of Russian in Ukraine. Ukrainian speakers, on the other hand, would perhaps argue that the support and spread of Ukrainian need not have a negative effect on Russian usage, and, in fact, that the two trends are not linked. The key problems faced by Ukrainian as a changing language are amply covered in Ukrainian academic and public writing, but there is little recent coverage of the subject in English. Certainly no work has been uncovered which assimilates rele­ vant infonnation from a number of approaches to establish a common ‘task list’ for Ukrainian, or traces trends present in the overall social and linguistic climate in Ukraine. Though a detailed historical discussion or even a lengthy pure linguistic analysis would be well beyond the scope of this work, it is possible to trace prob­ lems of standardisation and modernisation over the course of the twentieth century to the present, where work is still being done to universalise terms, print dic­ tionaries purged of excessive Russification, and establish grammatical nonns based on Ukrainian models. A complete examination of every language issue would still present a formidable task for a researcher. The manageable option suggests extract­ ing examples of types of issues, some of which directly result from Russification and others which reman from earlier decades. Spelling, particularly the letter for the phoneme [g], remains a problem.3 Grammatical forms such as the present active participle (which is viewed as a Russian caique) or certain syntactic questions of phraseology (including the preposition p d ) v ex linguists, as do also issues of style. The entire lexicon appears to be under discussion, but immediate relevance and need for rapid standardisation characterises some branches such as scientific termi­ nology, military lexicon or the language of the Constitution. This widens into a dis­ cussion of which sources may contribute to the language out of the possible donors, including diaspora Ukrainian, Western Ukrainian, Russian, Russian caiques and borrowings and international vocabulary. All of these have made contributions which must be evaluated. In this manner, a number of revealing profiles establish an overall image of flux and change in Ukrainian. In this discussion, examples will be cited only to illustrate the nature of the prob­ lems, not to present every instance that a given problem occurs. Extensive listings 3 For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that phonemes appear in square brackets, while letters, words, or parts of words that appear in italics are transcriptions of Ukrainian, Russian or German words as noted in the text, so that the actual letters (not phonemes) present are documented. CURRENT EVENTS of problematic spellings, terms or phrases would be appropriate to a linguistic sur­ vey or analysis, but not within the frame of reference of socio-linguistics and lan­ guage planning. Instead, one must investigate the character of core problems so as to abstract common themes and trends, and to generalise the implications for Uk­ rainian language. Furthermore, w hy certain terms bother linguists is more significant than the mere fact that they are troublesome, particularly when suggestions are offered for improvement.