ABOUT ‘TIL’KO’ AND NOT ONLY IN LESYA UKRAINKA’S LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY: IN SEARCH OF IDIOSTYLE

Svitlana BOHDAN,
Ph.D. of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of History and Culture of the Ukrainian Language of Lesіa Ukrainka Eastern European National University
13 Volya Ave., Lutsk 43025, Ukraine

Е-mail: bohdan-s@ukr.net
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-2770

Heading: To the 150-th anniversary of the birthday of Lesia Ukrainka
Language: Ukrainian

Abstract
The article elucidates the regularities of the use and functioning features of the lexemes til’ko and til’ky in Lesya Ukrainka’s autographs and published epistolary and poetic texts. The study, using the comparative analysis approach, proves that both lexemes have the status of variants and are fixed in the similar semantic contexts. The actualization of the lexemes in the usus of the Ukrainian language confirms that they are polysemantic by nature and grammatically heterogeneous. The case study has revealed a clear quantitative dominance of using the variant til’ko in autographs. But the form has been repeatedly corrected, mostly in the epistolary texts. The study of the twelve-volume edition of Lesya Ukrainka’s works confirms the statement. Although we come across the use of the lexeme til’ko in the poetic texts, such facts are less frequent and reveal the general tendency of editors to replace the lexeme, arguing the need to avoid this variant, most obviously, due to classifying it as dialectal and atypical in the speech of a person who ought to serve a model of modern literary language. Epistolary texts of the nearest relatives of the Kosachs and Drahomanovs families have been also used in the case study to determine the organicity or, on the contrary, the accidental presence of the lexeme til’ko in the vocabulary of Lesya Ukrainka. It favorably authenticated the naturalness of its use.
The key findings of Lesya Ukrainka’s epistolary and poetic microcontexts comparison, both author’s and edited, argue that proofreading not only changes but, in fact, destroys the authentic text, distorts the individual style, and hinders the research process. We are to restore these features in modern editions of Lesya Ukrainka’s works and offer the scholars a genuine, rather than ‘retouched’, individual style of the author.

Keywords: idiolect, autograph, epistolary text, artistic text, word usage, idiostyle.

REFERENCES
1. Boiko, N. I., Kotkova, L. I. (2017). Expressive means potential of Volodymyr Vynnychenko’s idiolect: lexical and phraseological elements. Nizhyn: NDU im. M. Hoholia (in Ukr.).
2. Hlukhovtseva, K. D. (2015). Discursitive of dialect speaker personality. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, III (11), 56, 48–51 (in Ukr.).
3. Hnatiuk, L. P. (2010). The linguistic phenomenon of Hryhoriy Skovoroda in the context of the old Ukrainian book tradition. Kyiv: Vydavnycho-polihrafichnyi tsentr «Kyivskyi universytet» (in Ukr.).
4. Holikova, N. S. (2018). The language features of Pavlo Zahrebelny’s prose: from word to concept. Dnipro: Aktsent PP (in Ukr.).
5. Holoborodko, K. Yu. (2010). Oleksandr Oles’ idiostyle: linguo-cognitive interpretation. Kharkiv: Kharkivske istoryko-filolohichne tovarystvo (in Ukr.).
6. Duzhyk, N. S. (1996). Linguistic personality of Mykola Khvylovy in the aspects of stylistics and history of the literary language: PhD Dissertation Abstract. Kyiv (in Ukr.).
7. Zharkykh, M. Encyclopedia of the life and works. URL: http://www.l-ukrainka.name/ (in Ukr.).
8. Kosach-Kryvyniuk, O. (2006). Lesya Ukrainka. Lesya Ukrainka’s life and work chronology. Lutsk: Volynska oblasna drukarnia (in Ukr.).
9. Kosmeda, T. A. (2006). Ivan Franko’s communicative competence: intercultural, interpersonal, and rhetorical dimensions. Lviv: PAIS (in Ukr.).
10. Kosmeda, T. A. (2012). Taras Shevchenko’s Ego and Alter Ego in the communicative space of diary discourse. Drohobych: Kolo (in Ukr.).
11. Miroshnychenko, L. P. (2013). Preserving Lesya Ukrainka’s phonetic system in the upcoming publications of the poetess’ works. Heritage. Source Studies in Literature. Textology, VIII, 14–21 (in Ukr.).
12. Mialkovska, L. M. (2019). The language features of I. S. Nechuy-Levytsky’s fiction: lexicographic and linguo-cognitive reception. Kyiv: VD Dmytra Buraho, 2019. 604 р. (in Ukr.).
13. Romanchenko, A. P. (2019). Elite linguistic personality in the scientific discourse space: communicative aspects. Odesa: Odeskyi natsionalnyi universytet imeni I. I. Mechnykova (in Ukr.).
14. Romanchenko, A. P. (2019). Elitist Linguistic Personality in the Scientific Discourse Space: Communicative Aspects: PhD Dissertation Abstract. Luhansk (in Ukr.).
15. Selihei, P. (2016). Light and shadows of scientific style. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim «Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia» (in Ukr.).

LEGEND
ЗТ – Ukrainka, L. (1975–1979). Collection of works. Vols. 1–12. Kyiv: Naukova dumka (in Ukr.).
КМ – Kosach, M. (2018). Writings. Translations. Letters. Kobzar records. Kyiv: Komora (in Ukr.).
Листи – Kocherha, S. (ed.). (2003): «Letters take a long way to addressee» – materials of Lesya Ukrainka’s archive at the Slavic Library in Prague. Kyiv: Prosvita (in Ukr.).
Сум – Hrinchenko, B. (Ed.). (1997). Dictionary of the Ukrainian Languge. Vols. 1–4. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka (in Ukr.).
СУМ – Bilodid, I. K. (Ed.). (1970–1980). Dictionary of the Ukrainian Languge. Vols. 1–11. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka (in Ukr.).
УЛ-1 – Ukrainka, Lesia. (2016). Letters: 1876–1897. Kyiv: Komora (in Ukr.).
УЛ-2 – Ukrainka, Lesia. (2017). Letters: 1898–1902. Kyiv: Komora (in Ukr.).
УЛ-3 – Ukrainka, Lesia. (2018). Letters: 1903–1913. Kyiv: Komora (in Ukr.).