Article published In: Address from a World Perspective
Edited by Heinz L. Kretzenbacher, Catrin Norrby and Jane Warren
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29:2] 2006
► pp. 20.1–20.15
Pronouns of address in western Ukrainian
Between tradition and modernity
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 1 January 2006
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0620
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0620
This article examines the current usage of terms of address in the Western Ukrainian variety of the Ukrainian language. It investigates the use of pronominal (ty – intimate form; [Vy – polite, distant form) and nominal forms of address (such as first name, father’s name, surname, title, pan/pani (Mr/Mrs), tovaryš (Comrade) etc.) in Western Ukrainian, as well as strategies to avoid direct address, through quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (oral discussion) data. The data were analysed using both descriptive and interpretive methods. A set of factors that determine address choice in Ukrainian was isolated and a model was developed which reflects the hierarchical relationships and mutual influences between these factors. The factors were divided into key factors (age, style of upbringing, personal value system, gender, and political convictions) and factors of interaction (relative age, relative status, setting, social distance, and kinship). Combining different address habits and the weight of pragmatic factors in the choice of address forms, the analysis demonstrates that two tendencies currently exist. Some people are traditionalists who adhere to fairly conservative patterns of address, whereas others are brought up more liberally and tend to have a more relaxed attitude towards the choice of address terms.
References (16)
Alpatov, V. M. 2000. 150 jazykov i politika 1917–2000: Sociolingvisticeskie problemy SSSR i postsovetskogo prostranstva. Moscow: Kraft + Institut Vostokovedeniia RAN.
Berger, T. 2003. ‘Drei Wellen der Europäisierung des russischen Höflichkeitssystems’. In Funktionale Beschreibung slavischer Sprachen. Beiträge zum XIII. Slavistenkongress in Ljubljana, edited by Berger T.; Gutschmidt, K. Munich: Sagner (Slavolinguistica 4).
Bilodid, I.K. ed. 1969/1972–1973. Suasna ukrajins’ka literaturna mova. 51 vols. Kyjiv: Naukova Dumka.
Bilodid, I.K.; Buraok A.A.; Hnatiuk H.M.; Horec’k’yj P.J.; Humec’ka L.L.; Docenko P.P.; Il’jin W.S.; Levenko S.P.; Lysenko P.S.; Kyryliuk E.P.; Palamaruk L.S.; Ryl’s’kyj M.T.; Skrypnyk L.H.; Tyyna P.H.; Cilujko K.K. (Eds.) 1970–1980. Slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy. 111 vols. Kyjiv: Naukova Dumka.
Clyne, M.; Kretzenbacher, H.L.; Norrby C.; Warren, J. 2004a. ‘Address in some western European languages’. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, edited by Moskovsky, C. [URL].
Clyne, M.; Kretzenbacher, H.L.; Schüpbach, D. 2004b. ‘“Der grösste Schritt, den man manchmal tun könnte”: zur Anrede im Deutschen im internationalen Vergleich’. Sprachreport 41: 2–8.
Kretzenbacher, H.L.; Clyne, M.; Schüpbach, D. 2006. ‘Pronominal address in German: Rules, anarchy and embarrassment potential’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29 (2): 17.1–17.18. .
Norrby, C. 2006. ‘Variation in Swedish address practices’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29 (2): 18.1–18.15. .
Oswald, I. 2000. ‘Die aktuelle Sprachenpolitik und Sprachensituation in der Ukraine’. Universität of Vienna, Diploma thesis.
Penishkevich, D. 1996. ‘Volkstraditionen im System der moralischen Erziehung der Kinder in der Ukraine’. In Familie und Kindheit im Wandel, edited by Edelstein W.; Kreppner K.; Sturzbecher, D. Potsdam: Verlag für Berlin-Brandenburg.
Ševel’ov, J. 1998. Ukrajins’ka mova v peršij polovyni dvadcjatoho stolittja (1900–1941). Stan i status. Cernivci: Ruta.
Stone, G. 1977. ‘Address in the Slavonic languages’. Slavonic and East European Review 551: 491–505.