Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-3207

Title: Choosing a Mother Tongue
Subtitle: The Politics of Language and Identity in Ukraine
Series Title: Multilingual Matters
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Multilingual Matters
http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
Book URL: http://www.multilingual-matters.com/display.asp?isb=9781788925679

Author(s): Corinne A. Seals

Reviewer: Teresa Wai See Ong

Summary

Choosing a Mother Tongue: The Politics of Language and Identity in Ukraine is written by Corinne A. Seals based on a study she conducted in 2014-2015 with 38 participants. It contains eight chapters. In the introduction chapter, Seals provides a brief history of modern Ukraine and its linguistic situation. Ukraine became an independent state in 1991 when the implementation of a standardised language to be used in the education system was vital. The initial aim was to require everyone to use the Russian language as their primary language (Kirkwood, 1990, p. 3). At the end of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had the largest number of Russian speakers outside of Russia (Pavlenko, 2008, p. 16), which impacted the status of the Ukrainian language. As a result of the Ukrainisation policies adopted in 1991, the Ukrainian language was subsequently declared as the state’s only official language; that eventually led to the widespread use of the language in the country and gave rise to the presence of bilingual speakers in Ukraine. Seals ends the chapter by briefly mentioning language ideologies in Ukraine, which reflect the country’s complex history since independence.

In Chapter 2, Seals presents the overall framework of her book by discussing language and identity after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The Orange Revolution took place in 2004 following the presidential elections. Over 500,00 Ukrainians participated in the mass protests, which led to the annulment of the election’s results; and subsequently a new run-off election took place at the end of 2004. The aim was to reconsider their imagined identities and future. As a result of the run-off, many Ukrainians, aged between 20 and 40 years old, expressed the wish to establish a stronger national identity and definition of being Ukrainians. Such wishes were reflected in Seals’ 2009 pilot study, which presented evidence from the participants who claimed that the Ukraine language was most appropriate to represent them as Ukrainians. Such a claim recognises the influence of ideological Discourses on the younger generations.

In Chapter 3, Seals explains her data collection method, which took place from 2014 to 2015 with 38 Ukrainians, aged between 18 and 40 years old. She chose subjects in this age range because they had grown up during the period of the switch from Russification to Ukrainisation policies. Among her participants, 12 were still living in Ukraine during the interview while the other 26 lived in diaspora communities. English was used as the dominant language in her interviews. Upon completion, data coding and analysis were conducted using the Grounded Theory approach via NVivo 10 software. Many of Seals’ participants retold events of the Ukrainian war, correcting Seals regarding the terms used. Some claimed that the ‘war’ has disrupted friendships and other relationships. Hence, to retain their belonging in the Ukrainian community, many used speaking the Ukrainian language to establish their identification.

In Chapter 4, Seals continues her discussion by examining narratives related to responsibility for the Ukraine war. Some participants believed that the responsibility lay outside the country, particularly with those who had used Ukraine as a political weapon, while others felt that political extremists in Ukraine were responsible. In their narrations, the participants expressed their opinions using various linguistic strategies, such as metonymy, personification, repetition, dialogism and intertextuality as well as discursive positioning. For example, the use of words such as ‘Putin’ or ‘Russia’ symbolise aggression and power.

In Chapter 5, Seals reports some unexpected findings on ‘changing your mother tongue’, which were based on both participants living in Ukraine and in the diaspora community. Most scholars, such as Blommaert (2005), Bucholtz and Hall (2005) and Mendoza-Denton and Hall (2010), have argued that language allows a speaker to connect to certain aspects of society and culture because language and identity are inseparable. Some participants saw it as necessary to switch from Russian to the Ukrainian language because of the symbolic value of the Ukrainian language. They also began wearing Ukrainian embroidery, showing that culture is closely tied to language. Nevertheless, some faced challenges when making their language choice because it would be difficult to pass down their heritage language to the future generations if they did not speak it.

In Chapter 6, Seals introduces the Model of Immigrant Identity, Investment and Integration (Seals, 2024, p. 134), which was used to uncover the dialogism, intertextuality and investment reflected in participants’ narratives. Participants revealed their strategies for negotiating between the desire to become ‘good immigrants’, integrating into host societies and having the desire to remain ‘good citizens’ in their home country. Such positions always were filled with difficulties and had to be repeatedly renegotiated. The complex identity negotiation involved various intersectional factors that were unavoidable, indicating the challenges faced by the participants.

In Chapter 7, Seals talks about participants’ narratives from a new perspective: that it does not matter what language you speak. Such a perspective is characteristic primarily of the younger Ukrainians interviewed, aged between 20 and 30, who were keener about diversity and globalisation. These participants did not worry about the language they spoke and accepted the complexity of the ideologies behind the events. They dispelled the myth that language preference is strong in Western Ukraine. At the end of the day, many positioned themselves closely with the idea of a multilingual, multicultural Ukraine.

In Chapter 8, Seals closes her book by summarising every chapter’s finding. She explains that throughout each chapter, the participants had demonstrated how they discursively used linguistic devices to position and reposition themselves via their narratives. Their narratives indicate that both the local and global contexts need to be considered when analysing discursive events. Seals concludes that when conducting such a study, both home and host country events need to be considered because they affect participants’ daily lived experiences. Additionally, there is a need to reconceptualise the definition of ‘mother tongue’ because it is changeable for some participants due to challenges that have influenced them to negotiate and renegotiate their identities over time.

Evaluation

The Ukrainian War and conflict shocked the world when the clash was broadcast internationally through news outlets (The Guardian Staff, 2012). With the war continuing to the present day, not only the Ukrainians are suffering but other countries as well, due to the disruptions of food chains and cargo shipping. The conflict has impacted the relationship between language, culture and identity, in the same way as politics, mass media and country’s economy status. Such impact is clearly demonstrated by the participants in Seals’ study, who placed strong emphasis on negotiation and renegotiation of their choice of mother tongue and identity. Their past and present place of living has also affected their language ideologies and the need for constant negotiation.

Seals’ study has shown the different perspectives of Ukrainians living in and out of the country. Seals began her story by telling us of Ukrainians who were keen on being bilinguals, speaking both the Russian and Ukrainian languages, both of which were meaningful to them. Nevertheless, when the war and conflict erupted, many began shifting to the Ukrainian language because speaking Russian signals a connection with Russia. Several participants suddenly lost their friends because of different ideological perspectives. To unite as one nation, most participants chose the Ukrainian language as their mother tongue, which became prominent in certain cities in Ukraine. They also hoped for the war to end soon so that they would have peace. They also mentioned that the responsibility for the war lies with all parties including the government and citizens. Those living in diaspora communities would like to be identified as Ukrainians through their language, which is tied to their Ukrainian national identity, but many had to learn the language of their host country for practical purposes. For the younger generation, it was not easy to obtain opportunities to use the Ukrainian language in their education and work environments. As the participants stated, their identity constantly changed to suit the environment. Overall, many stated that whatever language(s) they ended up speaking, Ukrainian values and culture were sufficient to maintain their identity as Ukrainians and that this perspective would contribute to the building of a multilingual, multicultural Ukraine.

What we learnt from Seals’ study is that mother tongue plays a significant role in conceptualising one’s identity and language ideology. In addition to using their mother tongue for identification, some also used cultural traditions, such as wearing yvshyvanka embroidery (Ukrainian embroidery) and traditional vinok flower crowns on special events. In closing the study, Seals highlights the importance of considering the local and global contexts when analysing discursive events. This is particularly true in the current era because identity negotiation is constant for most people, not only for Ukrainians, because of mobility and relocation. Therefore, the definition of mother tongue needs to be reconceptualised to better reflect people’s lived experiences. Seals’ study deserves praise for capturing the voices of the people and their thoughts about their identity and mother tongue, despite the many challenges in fully understanding the conflict in Ukraine and its effect on the nation.

References

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.

Kirkwood, M. (1990). Language planning: Some methodological preliminaries. In M. Kirkwoord (Ed.), Language planning in the Soviet Union (pp. 1-22). St Martin Press.

Mendoza-Denton, N., & Hall, K. (2010). Two language, two identities? In C. Llamas & D. Watt (Eds.), Language and identities (pp. 113-123). Edinburg University Press.

Pavlenko, A. (2008). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries (pp. 1-40). Multilingual Matters.

Seals, C. A. (2024). Choosing a mother tongue: The politics of language and identity in Ukraine. Multilingual Matters.

Reviewer

Teresa Wai See Ong works as a Learning Support Specialist at the Singapore University of Social Sciences in Singapore. She has widely published in areas related to language maintenance and language shift, language planning and policy, and linguistic landscape. At present, she co-investigates a project that examines tertiary student learning needs and behaviours.