Whilemost western linguists prefer the term “standard language”, the older term “literary language” still prevails in Ukrainian studies (as in other fields of Slavic studies). Although the expressions are theoretically synonymous, it is obvious that the traditional term “literary language” often creates serious problems. Particularly, this applies to various “Histories of the Ukrainian Literary Language,” which often turn out to be histories of the Ukrainian language of literature instead. Particularly, these works pay very scarce attention to the historical development of those factors that are decisive for the status of a “literary” or “standard language” as described, inter alia, by the Prague Linguistic Circle or Einar Haugen. Against the background of the theses that were suggested by the Prague Linguistic circle, histories of the Ukrainian “literary language” should provide considerably more information regarding the codification of Ukrainian and the dissemination of the codified language, the development of the multifunctionality and superregional outreach of Ukrainian and, to a certain extent, its stylistic diversification. The same is true if we look at our “Histories of the Ukrainian Literary Language” from Einar Haugens perspective (which is, after all, very similar to the Prague School theses) and want to know more about the processes of selection, codification, dissemination, and elaboration in their historical dimension. Unfortunately, the focus of the “Histories of the Ukrainian Literary Language” is clearly on the language of fine literature, although this sphere is in fact just one out of many that should be much more carefully studied in new monographs devoted to the history of the Ukrainian literary (or standard) language in the real meaning of the word. The present study offers a critical approach to the most widely used “History of the Ukrainian Literary Language” by Vitalij Rusanivskyj, which basically is a history of the Ukrainian language of literature.
Migração, violência e retorção