JOHN MARONE, KYIV
STICKING OUT THE UKRAINIAN TONGUE
The crusade to raise the Ukrainian language heads and shoulders above Russian continues apace in Kyiv and other parts of the country, but as with most crusades, it’s not clear what the end goal is.
Ukraine’s State Cinema Service recently announced that all films made in Ukraine must be in Ukrainian starting in July.
All foreign films shown in Ukraine are already required to be dubbed or subtitled in Ukrainian.
It used to be that the latest Hollywood blockbuster arrived in Ukrainian cinemas pre-dubbed into Russian.
As the vast majority of Ukrainians are bilingual, no one seemed to mind. Russian-language dubbing was presumably done in Moscow by a Russian company. Even if the films are now dubbed directly from English into Ukrainian, the cost is still higher due to the loss of economy of scale.
And when one sees the film dubbed into Russian but with Ukrainian subtitles, there is no doubt that an extra cost has been added on. Whether the distributor or the cinema pays this extra cost, it’s the viewer who ends up eventually footing the bill, without having any say in the matter.
The crusade has even spread to countless Soviet films shown on Ukrainian television and long enjoyed only in Russian.
The reason given is an article in the Ukrainian Constitution stating that Ukrainian is the country’s only official language. From this article, lawmakers deduced that all films shown in the country must be in Ukrainian.
A month earlier, on April 24, the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that all court proceedings must be in Ukrainian. No problems here, as long as everyone understands Ukrainian, which is by no means a given in the country’s Russian-speaking south and east.
On April 4, the Independent Association of Television and Radio Broadcasters spoke out against the introduction of new quotas for Ukrainian-language content by the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting. The quotas stipulate the use of Ukrainian in 80 percent of broadcasts by this September and in 85 percent by September 2010. Again, this can only be an additional cost for products that would have otherwise been suitable for Russia as well as Ukraine.
On March 27, the Ministry of Transport and Communications prohibited the use of all foreign songs in Ukrainian trains and planes. Does that mean a Beatles recording will have to be translated into Ukrainian, or will we all be forced to listen to the latest Ukrainian single until we reach our destination?
Advocates of the Ukrainian-only policy in Ukraine and the Diaspora argue that their culture was stifled and curtailed under the Czars and then the Soviets.
But virtually every country in Europe did the same: the English in Scotland and Wales, or the use of one Italian dialect over all the others beginning last century, etc. Ukrainian is, of course, not considered a dialect of Russian; nevertheless, the distinction between a dialect and a separate language is more often one of degree and perception.
The main point is that regional diversity, so prized today, was widely seen as an obstacle to national unity in the past. Russian itself used to have a great variety of dialects until the Soviets standardized the language.
The EU is still debating whether the principle of diversity is worth all the pesky and expensive translation services.
To some extent, languages are subject to the same laws of evolution as everything else – they are born, evolve and die out. If one language or another is perceived as offering a greater opportunity for achieving success, gaining knowledge or attaining status, the number of those speaking it will grow, even to the exclusion of one's native language.
No one can deny that Russia gradually assumed greater influence over Ukraine through diplomacy and war, incorporating it into the Czarist empire and then the Soviet Union.
But if the Russians really were intent on wiping out Ukrainian, why was it taught in Ukrainian schools right up to independence? Certainly, the Soviet authorities were sensitive to any signs of centrifugal nationalism that might loosen their power over non-Russian territories, and during the early years stamped it out, sometimes violently. But the fact that Russian dominated in Soviet media, government and education was more about practicality than nationalism.
Now that Ukraine has gained its independence, these practical motivations have not disappeared. Like it or not, Russian is still the lingua franca of the former Soviet Union, and people all over Ukraine, not just in the east, speak it.
Forcing someone to learn Ukrainian, whether it’s the state language or not, is just as ethically wrong as forcing him to forget it.
Finland recognizes Swedish as an official language even though only seven percent of the population speaks the language of the former colonizer.
In Romania, they show English-language films in the original with Romanian subtitles, giving the ears of this small nation a more direct connection to the world’s most imposing linguistic medium.
Both these examples, however, relate to openness to Western culture. Russia is still seen by its neighbors as a semi-Asiatic bully.
With all due respect to Ivan Franko and Taras Shevchenko, though, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are giants of international renown. They weren’t pushed down foreigners’ throats like Marxist propaganda but won the hearts of readers with their talent and skills.
More importantly, a good part of Ukraine’s history is tied to Russian-language culture through writers such as Nikolay Gogol.
If the Ukrainian authorities really want to strengthen the roots of the Ukrainian language they should spend their energy trying to promote interesting Ukrainian language films and books. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes.
In the mean time, the Ukrainian language is already getting the minimum state support it needs through the education system and news broadcasts.
If the battle against the Russian language is part of a defensive posture to prevent the great bear from reasserting its regional influence, then, again, the focus is off. The Kremlin has indeed grown more aggressive in its relations with former Soviet republics, but Kyiv should worry more about securing other sources of gas or securing the loyalty of its own Russian-speaking population instead of alienating them.
There’s nothing wrong and probably nothing that can be done about Russian broadcasts reaching Ukrainian ears. Better to make Ukrainian news channels trustworthier. Many Soviet citizens refused to believe their country’s propaganda for years under one of the tightest censorship systems that ever existed.
The promotion of Ukrainian in its own homeland is going to take at least as much effort as the country’s attempts to secure its independence in general. According to a recent poll, almost two thirds of Ukrainians support only Ukrainian as the country’s official language. Forcing the language down people’s throats will not improve this situation and may even worsen it.
John Marone, a columnist of Eurasian Home website, Kyiv, Ukraine
May 30, 2008
|
