The linguistic situation on the Ukrainian Black Sea coast – Ukrainian, Russian and Suržyk as “native language”, “primary code”, frequently used codes and codes of linguistic socialization during childhood

The study analyses the linguistic situation in the three Ukrainian oblasts on the Black Sea coast using survey data collected from 1,200 respondents before the Russian attack on Ukraine. At the end of the 18th century, this region was the core of a “new Russian” governate during Tsarist times. Previously, the region had been ruled by Tatars and there were neither Russian nor Ukrainian settlements. From the 19th century onwards, the Ukrainian and Russian population dominated. Since the annexation of the Crimea, these oblasts represent a crucial part of the Kremlin’s plan to establish an “expanded New Russia (Novorossiya)” under Moscow’s control – extending along the Ukrainian-Russian border and the northern Black Sea coast, reaching from Xarkiv to Odesa. This area is clearly at the forefront of Russia’s current war goals since controlling it would allow them to establish the strategically important land bridge to Crimea. Linguistically, the area undoubtedly belongs to those regions of Ukraine where Russian was prominent, although apart from the Crimea at no time was there an ethnic Russian majority on the Black Sea coast – neither during Soviet times nor since Ukraine’s independence. This means that the population with Ukrainian “nationality” also made strong use of Russian. This situation is being instrumentalized by Moscow as an argument for its military intervention to protect the Russian or Russian-speaking population. The study firstly describes the linguistic situation in the region, differentiating between the so-called mother tongue, the first language acquired and the principally-used language. It can be shown that the traditionally assumed dominance of Russian is actually far weaker when the population’s “multicodality”, including the mixed variety Suržyk, is included in the analysis. A differentiation is made between respondents with Ukrainian and Russian nationality throughout the analysis. Using statistical procedures such as principal component analysis and cluster analysis, the interdependencies between stated mother tongue, first language and multicodality are presented. Different motives for claiming a certain mother tongue can be identified among subgroups of respondents. The analysis focuses particularly on the questions of the extent to which central government measures to strengthen the position of Ukrainian since Ukraine’s independence have changed respondents’ preferences when choosing a code, and whether respondents have perceived social pressure for any form of shift. On the whole, it can be established that speakers with Ukrainian nationality who were primarily socialized in Russian have considerably increased their usage of Ukrainian, but without abandoning Russian. At best, this can also be established to a minimal extent for respondents with Russian nationality. Furthermore, since there is only extremely scant evidence that respondents encounter disapproval or censure from their environment for their choice of code (be it Russian, Suržyk or Ukrainian), Moscow’s claim of persecution, if not genocide of the Russian-speaking population is exposed as a blatant lie.