294
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.68.08.27
How to Cite:
Kozak, V., Posmitna, V., Shutenko, S., Leshchenko, A., Romaniuk, V. (2023). Language legislation in the era of independence:
sociolinguistic dimension. Amazonia Investiga, 12(68), 294-302. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.68.08.27
Language legislation in the era of independence: sociolinguistic
dimension
Legislación lingüística en la era de la independencia: dimensión sociolingüística
Received: July 3, 2023 Accepted: August 16, 2023
Written by:
Valentyna Kozak1
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0121-4949
Viktoriia Posmitna2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8719-1767
Svitlana Shutenko3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3022-3542
Anzhelika Leshchenko4
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5871-0871
Viktoriia Romaniuk5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3795-4081
Abstract
The objective of the paper is to examine the
sociolinguistic dimension of language legislation in
Ukraine. The study focuses on the impact of the
“language issue” on Ukrainian society in the
context of war as well as to analyse linguistic
representations, ideologies, and attitudes and their
impact on the linguistic behaviour of Ukrainians. A
resource for activating interpersonal solidarity and
resistance to the enemy, and for modulating the
manifestation of individual positions in
macrosociological and political relations that may
arise in the process of interaction. With the help of
a critical approach to the theoretical guidelines of
the study the role of language legislation in shaping
language policy and regulating the use of languages
in various spheres of life is analysed. The issues of
linguistic equality, diglossia, and language policy in
relation to minority languages are considered. The
most important issue of the paper is that the
language legislation of the independence era in
Ukraine is of great importance for the
sociolinguistic development of society. In times of
war, it affects language processes, language policy,
and the total transition to the state language.
1
PhD in Philology, Docent, Department of Language Training, Kyiv Institute of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: JDC-3479-2023
2
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Professor, Department of Language Training, Kyiv Institute of the National Guard of
Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: IZQ-1175-2023
3
Head of the Department of Legal Linguistics, National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID:
JEF-1248-2023
4
Lecturer, Department of Language Training, Kyiv Institute of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher
ID: IZP-5619-2023
5
Senior Lecturer, Department of Language Training, Kyiv Institute of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: IWM-6566-2023
Kozak, V., Posmitna, V., Shutenko, S., Leshchenko, A., Romaniuk, V. / Volume 12 - Issue 68: 294-302 / August, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
295
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Excluding the language of the enemy, however,
does not mean levelling all languages. It is
important to strike a balance between protecting the
language rights of citizens and preserving linguistic
diversity in the country.
Keywords: language processes, minority
languages, diglossia, language equality,
sociolinguistic representations, and ideologies.
Introduction
The importance of language policies in the post-
independence period is undeniable. Scientists
highlight the significance of language in shaping
national identity, fostering social cohesion, and
promoting linguistic diversity. It is important
mentioning the challenges and debates
surrounding language legislation, such as the
tension between promoting the official language
and protecting minority languages. Additionally,
the paper outlines the objectives and structure of
language legislation. In the context of
multinationality, political crises, and war, the
concepts of language and identity, as is often the
case in times of instability, significantly change
the perception of citizens. In the context of the
war in Ukraine, the choice of language code has
become a particularly important topic related to
identity and political position. Language
preferences are linked to the understanding of the
“Ukrainian nation” and the desire to position
oneself as a patriot. Under such conditions, the
choice of code becomes a form of political
expression and statements about one's identity.
Language boundary and language territory are
concepts that are addressed by sociolinguistics,
geolinguistics, and geography of languages
(Chapman, 2022). Linguistic territoriality as a
principle is subject to the procedures for applying
language legislation. The choice of preserving
this principle and its consequences is also the
subject of sociolinguistic approaches both to
understand the causes and to observe and analyse
the effects of language legislation (Shevchuk,
2021). The language territory, since the language
border is one of the most obvious realities of the
language space, is understood as a macro concept
(Filipova, Iliev & Yuleva-Chuchulayn, 2021).
The purpose of the present work in this context is
to try a global sociolinguistic approach to the
spatial dimension of languages. Language space
as a macro-concept is hierarchically placed
above the linguistic territory and its variants and
sub-variants, so that language can be a
pluriterritorial or complex geolinguistic entity
with variable external boundaries, source, and
exist outside the linguistic territory. The
sociolinguistic dimension of compliance with the
language legislation of the state includes the
analysis of social and linguistic aspects of this
process. The main aspects that can be taken into
account include: geopolitical causes and social
consequences, language changes, language
competence, and cultural identity (Table 1):
Table 1.
The sociolinguistic dimension of compliance with the language legislation of the state
Geopolitical causes and social consequences
The introduction of the Ukrainian language at the legislative
level has a major, positive impact on social dynamics. This
includes changes in the education system, public
administration, business, and other areas of life.
Language changes
Changes in language practices and norms. This includes the
development of new language policies, the creation of new
dictionaries, and the expansion of vocabulary.
Language competence
The transition to the Ukrainian language at the legislative level
meant the development of language competence among the
population. This means that people should have a sufficient
level of skills to use the Ukrainian language in various spheres
of life
Cultural identity
The transition to the Ukrainian language has had an impact on
the cultural identity of the population. This has led to positive
changes in perception and a sense of patriotism.
Source: author's own development.
296
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
It is important to take into account the social
consequences of the transition to the Ukrainian
language in the post-independence era. This
process has ensured successful integration and
maintaining social balance. Understanding
language change and its impact on
communication is important for successful
transition to Ukrainian and developing language
competence is important to ensure effective
communication and promote linguistic
integration.
Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
Scientific thought separates language as a human
capacity for communication and language as a
homogeneous and recognisable phenomenon, in
the sense of “speech”, as an individual
production of language (Jaspers, 2023). This
division within the human capacity to
communicate has subsequently become a point
of disagreement among linguists. General
linguistics is often criticised for being ahistorical,
asocial, autonomous, and formalistic, for
focusing on units of language rather than the full
picture created by discourse participants, and for
neglecting communicative heterogeneity (Stich,
2020).
In this context, it should be noted that language
is social in nature, exists in society, and changes
over time (Saussure & De Mauro, 2020).
Therefore, it is necessary to see the connections
between linguistics and other social sciences.
European scholarship links language to the
social, refusing to ignore the social, political, and
economic forces that influence linguistics. If
language is a social fact, as Saussure argued, then
linguistics must deal with these external factors
and hence become sociolinguistics (De Saussure
& Wharton, 2020). Thus, sociolinguistics is
linguistics that encompasses everything that has
to do with language and its real life (Holmes &
Wilson, 2022). Linguists should not explain
linguistic facts by other linguistic facts but
explain linguistic phenomena based on external
data taken from the real world and social
behaviour (Tiv, Kutlu, O'Regan & Titone, 2022).
Thus, sociolinguistics is a broad field that
intersects with social psychology, sociology, and
anthropology in the study of ethnic groups,
collective and individual identities, social
representations, and attitudes towards certain
forms of language (García, 2022).
Thus, language should be understood from a
sociolinguistic perspective, in accordance with
linguistic development and the understanding of
the concept of linguistic territory.
Scholars postulate in this context that the infinite
space of languages is also manifested through
their movements, their dynamics, the transition
from coverage to other types of organisation,
such as a border, for example, suggesting a
sequence of dividing lines or vectors (Siregar,
2022). One of the main criteria for distinguishing
between space and territory, which is preserved
in the sociolinguistic approach, is the presence or
absence of encompassing delineations (Kusters
& Lucas, 2022), which have been used to denote
different patterns of elementary spatial
structures.
The consequences of language entrenchment
(legislation), old or recent territorial spillovers of
languages, as well as new structuring of their
spatialisation have a particular impact on their
constituent elements and sociolinguistic profiles.
At the very least, these effects contribute to the
characterisation of contexts of linguistic
standardisation, as is the case, for example, in the
context of the war in Ukraine.
Starting from a linguistic space that is not clearly
or stably demarcated, this space undergoes, over
time and under the influence of various factors
due to human intervention, the emergence, and
development of various choreographic
representations that arise in areas of interaction
with other languages, especially at the political
and administrative level (Rodriguez-Ordoñez,
Kasstan & O'Rourke, 2022). The image of a
linguistic territory is certainly relativised, but the
latter appears as a paradigmatic result of
delineations that structure and divide linguistic
space (Kumar, 2021). Blurred and original
linguistic spaces without territory and linguistic
territories of original communities constitute the
two historical poles. However, depending on the
era, configurations have favoured tendencies to
delimit linguistic space in connection with, for
example, the development of nation-states, or
conversely, communication areas marked by
functions other than political and administrative
systems, or in particular, religion, culture, or
economy.
Methodology
The paper outlines the philosophical and
epistemological framework of critical
sociolinguistics within the framework of the
language legislation of Ukraine. The paper uses
a critical approach to the theoretical guidelines of
the study. Based on the analysis of related
studies, the linguistic ideologies of the research
group are compared.
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
297
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
To analyse the sociolinguistic dimension of the
language legislation of the era of Ukraine's
independence, the qualitative approach was chosen
as a method of data collection. In addition,
interviews were used as a more personalised and
effective method.
The research questions included four main topics:
1) The impact of the war on participants'
perceptions and attitudes and, consequently, on
their language practices;
2) The influence of identity and economic factors
(pride and profit) on language behaviour;
3) Intergroup relations, “otherness” and the
potential for conflict based on language
differences;
4) Changes in attitudes and language choice in the
wake of war.
The detailed questions corresponding to these four
main blocks are presented below:
- What are the sociolinguistic representations
(attitudes) of different ideological groups of
Russian-speaking Ukrainians after the attack
by Russia?
- How are they expressed in actual language
practices, for example, “auto-Ukrainisation”/
“self-Ukrainisation”?
- What is the connection between the first and
second concepts, and are there any differences
between them (e.g., “I hate Russian, but I speak
it anyway”)?
- Can we talk about language changes under the
influence of ideologies, and in what way?
- How do they transform into processes of
“language maintenance and change”?
- How do the discourses of “pride and
patriotism” influence the linguistic and
identification choices of speakers?
- How are relations between ideological groups
linguistically manifested?
- How do linguistic relations between
ideological groups influence the language
choice of speakers?
- How did the language attitudes and practices
and relations between the groups change
during the interviews?
Each interview began with a casual exchange
between the researcher and the participant, focusing
on the participant's family, professional and social
background, as well as related language practices.
This was followed by interview questions. Based on
the research questions, four more sets of questions
are presented about:
1) Language skills, including foreign languages;
2) Attitudes towards Russian, Ukrainian, and
language change, especially in times of war;
3) Prestige and market value of languages;
4) Languages spoken and studied in the regions
of the participants.
There were no direct questions about the
relationship between opposing ideological groups,
but the participants themselves began to talk about
“others” who think differently and why they are
wrong. Thus, it was possible to observe an internal
dialogue with imaginary opponents.
Results and Discussion
The sociolinguistic dimension of language
legislation in Ukraine can be illustrated by
examples of specific laws and their impact on
society. Here are some examples (Table 2):
Table 2.
Laws of Ukraine and their regulatory impact on society
The Law of Ukraine “On
Languages in Ukraine”
This law was adopted to ensure equal use of the Ukrainian language as the state
language. It stipulates that the Ukrainian language is mandatory for official
communication in all spheres of life, including government institutions,
education, media, and others. This law has a sociolinguistic dimension, as it
affects language policy, multilingualism, and linguistic identity of citizens.
Law of Ukraine “On National
Minorities in Ukraine”
This law recognises the rights of national minorities to preserve, develop and use
their language and culture. It stipulates that national minorities have the right to
education, media, and other services in their mother tongue. This law also has a
sociolinguistic dimension, as it affects multilingualism, linguistic equality, and
social inclusion.
Law of Ukraine “On Regional
and Minority Languages in
Ukraine”
This law provides for the protection and support of regional and minority
languages. It recognises the right of citizens to use regional and minority
languages in public life, education, media, and other areas. The law also has a
sociolinguistic dimension, as it promotes the preservation of linguistic diversity
and the development of bilingual communities.
Source: Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2023)
298
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Even in the context of war, it is, unfortunately,
necessary to emphasise the fact that Eastern
Ukraine is not homogeneous, but rather a
territory with a wide variety of sociolinguistic
and political representations, which was the
catalyst for the enemy's treacherous invasion.
However, when studying the linguistic situation
during these tragic social changes, the situation
has changed dramatically (Buriak, Skaletska,
Rezvorovych & Gigin, 2023).
The present study reflects the new view of
Ukrainian society on language legislation. This
diversity of viewpoints, perceptions, and
attitudes was made possible by involving a
sample of different ideological groups.
The study of related literature has become a
source of information for comparing linguistic
behaviour in Ukraine during the war (Onuch,
Hale & Sasse, 2018).
Volodymyr Kulyk distinguishes three competing
ideologies among Ukrainian political and
intellectual groups in Ukraine that claim to
represent the interests of the respective ideology
of the Ukrainian population, namely:
“Ukrainian-speaking”, “Russian-speaking” and
“centrist” (Kulyk, 2018).
First of all, the Ukrainian-speaking ideology
corresponds to the monolingual discourse of the
nation-state, which promotes the Ukrainian
language and perceives Russian as the language
of the enemy, which can be used as a cultural
weapon against the Ukrainian state (Shutenko,
2022).
Secondly, the Russian-language discourse leans
towards protecting the rights of Ukrainian
Russian-speaking citizens, demanding that
Russian be granted official status alongside
Ukrainian.
Finally, the centrists see their position as non-
ideological and rational, claiming to defend the
interests of the entire cultural and ethnic diversity
of Ukraine.
They believe that Ukrainian is the only official
language, which is symbolic for Ukraine, but at
the same time, they advocate for the recognition
of national minority languages.
The Ukrainian-American linguistic
anthropologist Lada Bilaniuk (2022)
distinguishes two opposing trends in Ukrainian
language ideologies and practices, which she
calls “Language does not matter” (those who
defend their right to speak the language they like,
because language is not important for nation-
building) and “language matters” (those who
emphasise the importance of Ukrainian for
national unity and victory over the enemy and try
to speak Ukrainian), based, again, on civic and
ethnocultural interpretations of the nation,
respectively. It also points to the need to
investigate the tendency of self-Ukrainisation in
the case of the second ideology, which was one
of the goals of this study (Bilaniuk, 2022).
However, it should be noted that a radical trend
has developed among ideological “Russian
speakers”, especially in the east and south of the
country, who identified themselves with Russia,
which also affected their language practices and
in the context of war they are without hesitation
considered traitors and this category was not
even considered as a candidate for the study.
Based on the above studies, the sample was
divided into two ideological groups.
The number of participants and their
representativeness are debatable concepts that
are themselves influenced by ideologies. In
general, various works on research methods in
the social sciences note that it is impossible to be
sure that the characteristics of all participants are
well represented by the sample, even in the case
of a census (Pratt, 2023). Moreover, a large
sample is not suitable for qualitative research
because it does not allow for deeper observations
(Khoa, Hung & Hejsalem-Brahmi, 2023). A
sample size is sufficient if the researcher deems
it to be so based on the research objectives,
general limitations, and time constraints (Kelly,
2023).
The sample for this study consisted of 32 IDPs,
16 men, and 16 women, of different ages, socio-
professional categories, and occupations,
belonging to a continuum of opinions between
two ideological groups that will be presented
later. The aim was to interview about 10 people
in each group, the exact number of participants
depended on their availability.
The number of participants depended on the
availability of those willing to take part in the
survey. The selection method was applied to
ensure that the participants adhered to the widest
possible range of ideological continuum in their
views. These participants were those who have
typical linguistic behaviour for this ideological
group, which can potentially be generalised to
measure linguistic changes in this area.
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
299
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The study was anonymous, but the categories of
age, occupation, and level of education were used
to analyse the factors influencing the choice of
code. Ethnicity was not considered as a relevant
variable, as previous research (Averianova &
Voropaieva, 2020) has shown that regional
identity is much more important and influential
for Ukrainians. For eastern Ukrainians, regional
identity is much more important and influential
than ethnic identity, especially for the younger
generation of Ukrainians who do not remember
what ethnic identity is, a generation of
Ukrainians who do not remember the Soviet
practice of dividing the population along ethnic
lines (Gnatiuk & Melnychuk, 2019).
This survey confirmed this assumption: The
survey did not ask directly about ethnicity, but
among them, people over 40 years old mentioned
it as a factor because of or in spite of which they
chose a particular language (e.g., “I am ethnically
Russian, but I like to speak Ukrainian” or “I am
ethnically Ukrainian, but I speak Russian
because this is a region close to Russia”), which
indicates that ethnicity may not always be a
factor in language choice. This suggests that
ethnicity can be perceived differently by
participants and therefore does not follow the
logic: “ethnic Russian = Russian language” or
“ethnic Ukrainian = Ukrainian language”.
The younger participants did not mention their
ethnicity at all, indicating only the geographical
regions where they were born or live.
In an attempt to open the field to a wide range of
opinions, participants were selected for the study
and divided into two ideological groups. Since
the main point of polarisation among the
participants was the political choice of language
legislation, which was reflected in their language
ideologies, the participants were divided into two
groups – “pro-Ukrainian” and “Ukrainianised”.
Representatives of the first group tend to have a
strong national identity but differ in their
interpretation of the national idea at the
sociolinguistic level. Supporters of ethnocultural
nationalism, which we call “Language matters”
in this paper, welcome the official Ukrainian
orientation of the Ukrainian state, attaching
importance to language for the consolidation of
the state. This subgroup advocates for the
Ukrainian language at all levels and tries to use it
in their everyday language practices.
The second subgroup of Russian-speaking pro-
Ukrainians, tentatively called “Language does
not matter”, shares the zeal of the previous group
but believes that the nation should be united by
political rather than linguistic ideology, but has
shifted its focus to the Ukrainian language due to
the war. Their views range from recognising
Ukrainian as the only state language, but
accepting any language in personal
communication (avoiding the language of the
enemy), but not levelling the languages of other
nationalities in Ukraine.
In the most radical cases (one participant) refused
to identify himself as a Ukrainian, but did not
reject the Ukrainian language and considered
eastern Ukraine to be part of Ukraine.
It should be noted that although this paper uses
two separate ideological groups to categorise
participants, in practice these ideologies
represent a continuum of opinion rather than
clearly defined entities that were taken into
account during data collection and analysis.
To recap, the research corpus consisted of
observations of participants prior to the
interviews, their behaviour at the meetings,
transcripts of the recorded interviews, their
behaviour on social media, their choice of
language for consent forms and interviews, their
choice of pseudonyms, their reactions to the
debriefing, and informal off-the-record
behaviour described in the research diary. Taken
together, these data formed part of a complete
picture that was consistently built into a
narrative, taking into account the overall
experience of data collection.
A limitation of this paper is the interpretation of
the data. The interpretation of the data could be
influenced by the author's own political beliefs
and human subjectivity.
A holistic thematic approach was used to
interpret the data, which was facilitated by
predefined blocks of questions followed by a
detailed analysis of recurring subthemes. This
analysis followed the classical method of data
interpretation, which consisted of four steps:
1) Coding the data using keywords or phrases;
2) Grouping these words into broader themes;
3) Building arguments;
4) Collecting data extracts to support the
argument.
To measure linguistic practices and behaviour,
the sources of variation underlying language use
proposed by Fishman (2020) and Grosjean
(1998) are combined, which can be summarised
as skills (written production and comprehension,
oral production and comprehension), role
relations between speakers, situations (formal,
300
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
conversational, intimate) and domains of
language behaviour (topics of conversation,
places of communication, sociocultural patterns,
etc.).
Russian speakers of the “language does not
matter” ideology view different national,
regional, and political groups as endo- and
exogroups. For radical pro-Ukrainian
participants, all nationalities of Ukraine are
Ukrainians, and Ukrainians,
Europeans/Americans, and like-minded people
are “their own”.
For Russian-speaking pro-Ukrainians, the latter
are “others”, while Russians from Russia and
Ukrainians from their region who have taken the
position of the enemy and were once “their own”
are seen as outsiders. This categorisation does
not depend on language legislation but is an
individual sociolinguistic belief that affects the
social and linguistic representations of these
people and influences their practices of bilingual
adaptation.
Ideological differences and self-identification
with opposing national and regional groups
influence language choice in wartime. All
participants reported having difficulties with
Western Ukrainian. On the other hand, pro-
Ukrainian Russian speakers expressed the most
positive attitude towards this variety of
Ukrainian. For most Ukrainophiles, “normal”
Ukrainian is Kyivan, while for Russian-speaking
participants, “pure Ukrainian” is the language
spoken in Poltava, which many experts in
Ukrainian sociolinguistics would consider
“Surzhyk”. The Russian-speaking pro-Ukrainian
group considered Russian to be the standard
language before the war; by the time of the
interview, their opinion had radically changed
towards a categorical rejection of this language.
The Ukrainian-speaking pro-Ukrainian group
considers linguistic differences between the two
varieties desirable for distinguishing Russian-
speaking Ukrainians from Russians. But at the
same time, popular Russian accents are
condemned as “ugly” and as “the language of the
enemy”.
In addition, linguistic ideologies and norms
influence the classification of language practices
as “natural” or “artificial”.
Although the transition to Ukrainian at the level
of legislation was fulfilled by all participants, and
considered “natural” by Ukrainian-speaking pro-
Ukrainian participants, the use of Ukrainian in all
spheres of everyday life is still problematic for
some Russian-speaking pro-Ukrainian
representatives, and they consider this practice
somewhat “artificial” for everyday contexts.
This leads to a “compartmentalisation” of
language use in this group, which is typical for
digitalised participants in a diglossic situation.
The participants often changed the code
according to their understanding of what is
“natural” in each particular situation.
In addition, the understanding of the concepts of
“mother tongue” and “foreign language” still
depended more on the participants' political
position, their belonging to a particular national
and political group, and their vision of the role of
language(s) in the state.
Thus, “Ukrainian mother tongue” is the language
of national identification and political position of
the Ukrainian-speaking pro-Ukrainian group.
For the Russian-speaking pro-Ukrainian group,
so far, it is only the language of linguistic
competence, which they are methodically
developing in order to fully switch to the “native
language” and abandon the language of the
enemy and aggressor.
Conclusions
The paper outlines the sociolinguistic dimension
of language legislation and its impact on the
language ideology of Ukrainian society. The
results of the study reveal the impact of the
“language issue” on Ukrainian society in times of
war. In the context of multinationality, political
crises, and war, the concept of language and
identity has changed dramatically, even among
Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Due to the war in
Ukraine, the choice of language code has become
a matter of principle. Such linguistic preferences
are related to the understanding of the “Ukrainian
nation”, the desire to position oneself as a patriot,
and the eradication of the enemy language. The
results of the study showed that ethnicity is not
always a factor in the choice of language.
Supporters of ethnocultural nationalism, which
we call “Language matters” in this paper,
welcome the official Ukrainian orientation of the
Ukrainian state, attaching importance to
language for the consolidation of the state. This
subgroup advocates for the Ukrainian language
at all levels and tries to use it in their everyday
language practices. However, the results of the
language ideology of the second group show that
language categorisation does not depend on
language legislation, but is an individual
sociolinguistic belief, influencing the social and
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
301
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
linguistic representations of these people and
affecting their bilingual adaptation practices.
Bibliographic references
Averianova, N., & Voropaieva, T. (2020).
Transformation of the Collective Identity of
Ukrainian Citizens After the Revolution of
Dignity (2014-2019). Kyiv-Mohyla
Humanities Journal, 7, 45-71.
https://doi.org/10.18523/kmhj219654.2020-
7.45-71
Bilaniuk, L. (2022). The Trajectory of Language
Laws in Ukraine: Inclusions and Omissions
in Naming and Categorization since
1989. Acta Slavica Iaponica, 43, 49-70.
https://acortar.link/HHShaN
Buriak, I., Skaletska, Z., Rezvorovych, K., &
Gigin, O. (2023). Future legal culture as an
element of the legal system. Futurity
Economics&Law, 3(2), 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEL.2023.06.25.03
Chapman, E. (2022). Revocalising human
geography: Decolonial language geographies
beyond the nation-state. Progress in Human
Geography, 47(1), 24-42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221131852
De Saussure, L., & Wharton, T. (2020).
Relevance, effects, and affect. International
Review of Pragmatics, 12(2), 183-205.
https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001
Filipova, M., Iliev, K., & Yuleva-Chuchulayn, R.
(2021). A Transhumanist Legal Worldview:
Responding to the Challenges of Time
(Requirement, or Necessity?). Futurity
Economics&Law, 1(1), 28–37.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEL.2021.03.25.5
Fishman, J. A. (2020). Who speaks what
language to whom and when? In The
bilingualism reader (pp. 55-70). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0034
García, O. (2022). 18 A Sociolinguistic
Biography and Understandings of
Bilingualism. Multilingualism and
Education: Researchers' Pathways and
Perspectives, 150.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037075.018
Gnatiuk, O., & Melnychuk, A. (2019). Identities
with historical regions–are they adapting to
modern administrative division? The case of
Ukraine. European Spatial Research and
Policy, 26(1), 175-194.
https://acortar.link/htM9up
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals:
Methodological and conceptual
issues. Bilingualism: Language and
cognition, 1(2), 131-149.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672899800025
X
Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2022). An
introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821852
Jaspers, J. (2023). Interactional sociolinguistics
and discourse analysis. In The Routledge
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 85-97).
Routledge. https://acortar.link/sEKPUN
Kelly, G. J. (2023). Qualitative Research as
Culture and Practice. Handbook of Research
on Science Education, 60-86. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758-4
Khoa, B. T., Hung, B. P., &
Hejsalem-Brahmi, M. (2023). Qualitative
research in social sciences: data collection,
data analysis and report writing. International
Journal of Public Sector Performance
Management, 12(1-2), 187-209.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPSPM.2023.13224
7
Kulyk, V. (2018). Shedding Russianness,
recasting Ukrainianness: The post-
Euromaidan dynamics of ethnonational
identifications in Ukraine. Post-Soviet
Affairs, 34(2-3), 119-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2018.145
1232
Kumar, A. (2021). Analysis of the Principle of
Subsidiarity as a Principle of EU Law: Future
Perspectives. Futurity Economics&Law,
1(4), 18-27.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEL.2021.12.25.03
Kusters, A., & Lucas, C. (2022). Emergence and
evolutions: Introducing sign language
sociolinguistics. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 26(1), 84-98.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12522
Onuch, O., Hale, H. E., & Sasse, G. (2018).
Studying identity in Ukraine. Post-Soviet
Affairs, 34(2-3), 79-83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2018.145
1241
Pratt, T. (2023). Affect in sociolinguistic
style. Language in Society, 52(1), 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404521000774
Rodriguez-Ordoñez, I., Kasstan, J., &
O’Rourke, B. (2022). Responding to
sociolinguistic change: New speakers and
variationist sociolinguistics. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 26(5), 529-541.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069221110381
Saussure, F. D., & De Mauro, T. (2020). General
linguistics course. University of Calabria.
https://hdl.handle.net/10955/3975
Shevchuk, L. (2021). Environmental rights of
citizens and legal safeguards for their
protection: challenges for the future. Futurity
Economics&Law, 1(2), 4–11.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEL.2021.06.25.1
302
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Shutenko, S. V. (2022). The language situation in
Ukraine. Ukrainian language in
jurisprudence: state, problems, Prospects:
materials of the XVIII All-Ukrainian
Scientific and Practical Conf. (Kyiv,
November 17, 2022). Kyiv: National
Academy of Internal Affairs.
https://acortar.link/s0VJQ5
Siregar, I. (2022). Criticism of Philosophical
Approaches to Sociolinguistics. Budapest
International Research and Critics Institute-
Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 5(1), 5267-5275.
https://acortar.link/pp4jtZ
Stich, S. U. (2020). On communication
compression for distributed optimization on
heterogeneous data. arXiv preprint.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.02388
Tiv, M., Kutlu, E., O'Regan, E., & Titone, D.
(2022). Bridging people and perspectives:
General and language-specific social network
structure predict mentalizing across diverse
sociolinguistic contexts. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 76(4), 235-250.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000273
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2023). Home page.
https://www.rada.gov.ua/en