It is not for the first time that Ukrainian Institute for the Future organises an event arousing interest. On the one hand, research in the field of war semiotics is particularly relevant for the current Ukrainian society. On the other hand, the National Institute for Strategic Studies is notorious for its sluggishness. Previously members of Uqraine.com think tank had unpleasant experience with Ukrainian Institute for the Future – mostly due to overstated expectations. However, we found some time to review their event one more time. It was “The language of war: Semiotic studies in UIF” by Halyna Yavorska, Doctor of Philological Sciences, the National Institute for Strategic Studies. The event was also supported by Crisis Semiotic Studios.
We outline the most distinctive statements by Mrs. Yavorska:
- Since 2014 it was speculated that a solution to the war in Ukraine can be found by overcoming the language of hostility.
- Today it is not necessary to bomb cities, it is enough to bomb minds – Oksana Zabuzhko. Yet “the bombing process” seems to be incontrollable.
- Verbal interpretation of the war is the key to understanding war (at least one of them).
- The language of war is not equal to the language of hostility. The latter can be regulated, namely by censorship.
- Main function of the hostility language nominations is the speaker’s self-identification (separatists do not call themselves so).
- Linguistic game is an effective tool to resist the war language.
- Hybrid war is a more relevant term than “a conflict”.
- Foreign mass media partially re-evaluated 2013-2014 EuroMaidan. Some assessments moved from peaceful pro-European protest to pre-requisite to Russian aggression.
- How the war should end? Unconditional surrender is unlikely. Who is at war? More and more westerners regard it as another Cold War between Russia and the West. How to win it then, what is Ukraine’s role, is it a hostage of a terrorist Russia? Then it should hope not for victory, but for minimal losses.
- Is fighting corruption a prerequisite to winning the war?
- What is “to end the war”? Is it possible “to make” Putin do it? It seems to be outside control even of Putin. Won’t that look like a family quarrel stopped by the father?
- Who protects whom in the war? Sometimes the mottos like “[Soldier], return alive [to your family]” sound like the idea of the war is mothers protecting their children. Are the latter brave warriors then?
The event was a fresh view based on current concepts of Ukrainian linguistic science. However, some concepts lagged behind the latest developments in global linguistics. Unfortunately, it was evident that the discussion after the presentation failed as the guests, mostly self-proclaimed political scientists, could not boast any necessary knowledge in the subject of linguistic analysis of the war manifestations in the language. Many of them sounded nothing but boors, Serhii Datsiuk in particular.
To understand and to learn the participants of the discussion should come prepared. Those lacking classic linguistic training simply failed to grasp the essence of the discussion which was the analysis of the language of the war.
Check how well you understand sad Ukrainian history as presented in a joke told by Valentyn Hladkykh:
- Why is the V-Day called “a holiday with tears in eyes” in a famous Soviet song?
- Russian answer: millions were killed. The price of the victory was high.
- Ukrainian answer: first, we went with Germans to Moscow. Then, we went with Russians to Berlin.
Explanation:
Ukraine lost its chance to gain independence in 1939-1945. Apart from the Second World War resulting in millions of casualties, the WWII outcome was that half of Europe lost its freedom to communist regimes until 1991 collapse of the USSR. Ukraine had a small chance to restore its independence but the Soviet totalitarian machine wiped out the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army). Real victory for Ukraine came in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union.
