The Beholder‟s Eye: How Self-Identification and Linguistic Ideology Affect Shifting Language Attitudes and Language Maintenance in Ukraine Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Susan Elizabeth Crangle Vdovichenko, M.A. Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Professor Ludmila Isurin, Advisor Professor Brian Joseph Professor Daniel Collins Copyright by Susan Elizabeth Crangle Vdovichenko 2011 Abstract The people of Ukraine are divided by politics, culture, and language. The Dnipro river, which cuts through the country, separates not only east from west, but also a region with a Russian-speaking majority from one with a Ukrainian-speaking majority. This has been the situation for centuries, although in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union the politics of language have become more heated. In the west, nationalism is strong, and Ukrainian tends to be seen as a part of the cultural history of the people. In the east, Russian has been considered the language of the educated, while Ukrainian is often still perceived as a language suitable for only villages. After nearly a century of widely varying linguistic policies and customs, Ukrainian was declared the sole official language of Ukraine in 1991. Two decades later, language issues remain critical. Ukrainian had been perceived by many as substandard, and in some parts of Ukraine, negative stereotypes about Ukrainian and its speakers remain; conversely, positive ideology is increasing, connecting Ukrainian to patriotism and culture. In a highly bilingual society, communication is rarely at stake. Instead, the way an individual identifies himself affects his attitudes toward others. At the same time, the way that each language is treated, and the power inherently connected in that treatment, further complicates the way people perceive linguistic differences. Using the ii results of 101 surveys solicited in Ukraine in 2009, this paper examines existing attitudes of native Russian speakers toward Ukrainian and its speakers; linguistic ideology and its affect on attitudes; and beliefs about the importance of maintaining Russian in an increasingly Ukrainian-speaking country. Results are compared across geography, age, basis of self-identification, and ideological beliefs. Quantitative and qualitative data are used to fully illustrate the current linguistic situation. Findings include heightened positive attitudes toward Ukrainian for younger speakers and those who live in Kyiv, and a strong correlation between the way that people identify themselves and the attitudes they hold toward language. Additionally, those who believe in the current ideology aimed at Ukrainian have increasingly positive attitudes toward Ukrainian, and there is some evidence of increasing pressure to speak Ukrainian on the youngest generation, which may lead to a risk of language loss. iii Dedication Dedicated to my daughter, Sofia Jeanne Sergeevna Vdovichenko iv Acknowledgments I am continuously grateful for the exceptional intellectual support, encouragement, and enthusiasm that I receive from my advisor, Ludmila Isurin. Without her constant guidance, this dissertation would not have been possible. I thank her for her patience, her dedication, and her expertise in guiding my work. I thank committee members Brian Joseph and Daniel Collins for providing suggestions and support during my journey. They are extraordinary scholars, and have been wonderful resources. The participants of my study were, of course, instrumental to this work, and I am grateful for their willingness to lend their time. I feel incredibly lucky to be surrounded by a cohort of graduate students which has always been supportive, and my time at OSU left me with a group of amazing colleagues, but perhaps more importantly, close friends. My parents, Bob and Jeanne Crangle, have supported me every step of the way. They instilled in me an intellectual curiosity at a young age, and pushed me to reach as far as I could imagine. My husband, Sergei Vdovichenko, has been my number one supporter, and I am thankful for his presence every day. Our daughter, Sofia, did everything that she could to help the process along, including being the impetus to travel to Ukraine a year earlier than expected. I am tremendously fortunate, and I am grateful. v Vita June 2001……………………………………B.A. Linguistics, Dartmouth College 2003 – 2006…………………………………Peace Corps Volunteer, Kherson, Ukraine June 2008……………………………………M.A. Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University Spring 2009….……………………………..Graduate Associate Teaching Award, The Ohio State University Spring 2009…………………………………Graduate Teaching Fellow, The Ohio State University Spring 2009.………………………………...Distinguished Graduate Leadership Award, The Ohio State University Winter 2010…………………………………Ray Travel Award, The Ohio State University Winter 2010…………………………………Arts & Humanities Small Grants recipient, The Ohio State University Fall 2010…………………………………….Post-Prospectus Research Award, The Ohio State University Spring 2010…………………………………Talvi Endowment Fund Recipient, The Ohio vi State University Spring 2010…………………………………2nd place, Edward F. Hayes Graduate Research Forum, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures vii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v Vita ..................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xviii Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Ukrainian and Russian in Ukraine ............................................................................ 3 1.2 Earlier Scholarship ................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Research Question and Major Hypothesis ............................................................. 11 Chapter 2: Pilot Study ....................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Prevailing Arguments and Stereotypes ................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Argument #1: Ukrainian is a “peasant language” ........................................... 19 2.2.2 Argument #2: Ukrainian is simply a dialect of Russian .................................. 21 2.2.3 Argument #3: Ukrainian sounds offensive ...................................................... 23 viii 2.2.4 Argument #4: Giving official status to Ukrainian causes a rift amongst Ukrainians .................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.5 Argument #5: Ukrainian is not my native tongue, why should I have to use it? ................................................................................................................................... 27 2.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 29 Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Site of the study ....................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Materials: survey .................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Procedure: Data collection ...................................................................................... 36 3.4 Data analysis ........................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 4: Identity ............................................................................................................ 38 4.1 Identity .................................................................................................................... 39 4.1.1 Social identity theory ........................................................................................ 39 4.1.2 The application of social identity theory .......................................................... 41 4.2 Language and language attitudes in identity formation .......................................... 44 4.2.1 Language and social identity theory ................................................................. 45 4.2.2 Language Attitudes and Identity ....................................................................... 47 4.3 Identity Negotiation in a Multilingual Context ......................................................