Ukrainian argotic etymology: problems and prospects

Abstract

Background. Historical sociolects remain among the under-researched phenomena in Ukrainian linguistics, a fact driven by a range of internal and external factors. The relatively scarce body of research that underpins modern Ukrainian argology are primarily focused on the etymological analysis of sociolectisms; Consequently, these studies require critical reassessment and refinement in light of newly available linguistic data. The present article is dedicated to such a critical review. Drawing on the material of Ukrainian historical sociolects, it highlights the fundamental problems arising during the etymological analysis of argotisms and outlines prospects for their further study.

Methods. The analysis of sociolectisms employs traditional etymological approaches – phonetic, morphemic-derivational, and semantic – while taking into account extralinguistic factors in the development of substandard lexemes. Furthermore, Ukrainian argotisms are compared with their Belarusian and Russian counterparts, allowing for a more precise identification of changes in both their internal and external forms.

Results. Two prevailing approaches can be identified in Ukrainian argotic etymology: either providing verified etymologies for a limited range of lexemes (primarily of Greek origin) or actively etymologizing the entire corpus of argotisms, which inevitably leads to dubious hypotheses and erroneous claims. The difficulties in establishing the origins of argotisms are primarily driven by obscured motivational relationships between lexemes, the use of atypical derivational means, and verification issues – the latter being especially common when argotic material is analyzed by non-linguists. These problems are demonstrated through several specific lexemes and their corresponding commentaries, allowing for the refinement of the etymologies of the argotisms under study.

Conclusions. The conducted analysis underscores the need for a broader revision of argotic etymologies based on the observations provided and scientifically verified methods. This particularly concerns a range of argotisms previously identified as borrowings from Romanian, Romani, Yiddish/Hebrew, and other languages. Special attention should be given to lexemes currently classified in argotic studies as etymologically obscure or those accompanied by dubious etymological hypotheses. Collectively, this will allow not only for the refinement and revision of the origins of some argotisms but also for the formation of a more coherent understanding of the genesis of Ukrainian historical sociolects within the broader context of other Slavic languages.

Information about the author:

Yevhen Redko – Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor in the Department of Philology at the Ukrainian Catholic University, Senior Research Fellow in the Department of the Ukrainian Language at the I. Krypiakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

E-mail: yevhen.redko@ucu.edu.ua

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0797-9499