Suržyk as a Transitional Stage from Russian to Ukrainian: The Perspective of Ukrainian Migrants and War Refugees in Finland

Abstract

This article examines how Ukrainian migrants and war refugees in Finland perceive and use Suržyk, a cluster of intermediate varieties between Ukrainian and Russian, as a transitional stage facilitating the shift from Russian-dominant to Ukrainian-dominant speech. Drawing on 1615 survey responses collected between November 2022 and January 2023, the study reveals that 42 respondents view Suržyk as a bridge that supports the gradual acquisition of standard Ukrainian. Qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses shows repeated references to Suržyk as a “stepping stone”, “temporary means” or “bridge”, highlighting its role in maintaining intelligibility and fluency for speakers who are not confident in standard Ukrainian. Although some respondents acknowledge the stigma associated with mixed speech, they also stress Suržyk’s practical advantages in contexts shaped by the 2022 full-scale war and heightened purist discourses. Speakers report pressure to adhere to purist language norms in formal settings, whereas in informal spaces, they consider Suržyk a natural outcome of bilingual backgrounds. These findings illuminate the interplay between language ideologies, sociopolitical dynamics, and individual agency, suggesting that for many Ukrainians in Finland, Suržyk serves as a temporary yet functional means to align with Ukrainian identity under rapidly changing circumstances.

1. Introduction

The sociolinguistic context of contemporary Ukraine has experienced profound transformations, especially since the full-scale war with Russia in 2022. One of the most notable consequences of the war is the accelerated shift from Russian to Ukrainian, an evolution that has placed increased emphasis on Suržyk (also transliterated as Suržyk), a cluster of contact varieties integrating elements of both Russian and Ukrainian (Bilaniuk, 2005; Maxwell et al., 2024; Kudriavtseva, 2023). Suržyk can be described as a cluster of varieties that emerged when Ukrainian speakers tried to speak Russian. The donors for Suržyk are more than just Standard Ukrainian and Standard Russian but also Ukrainian regional dialects (Hentschel & Palinska, 2022, p. 4). The topic of the present article is one of the discourses on Suržyk, namely, the conceptualization of Suržyk as a transitional stage on the way to mastering Ukrainian among Ukrainian refugees in Finland.

There is nothing new in the observation that contacts between closely related languages can lead to the emergence of intermediate varieties, which are stable. For instance, see the volume by Cerruti and Tsiplakou (2020). However, the varieties described in the volume are situated in parts of Europe that never experienced Russian imperial and/or Soviet domination. As it will be described below in Section 2, the authorities of Russia or the USSR sought to eradicate the Ukrainian language and identity, or at least to demonstrate that Ukrainian is just a “dialect” of Russian and may be used for purely ethnographic purposes. Suržyk has emerged due to Russification efforts and a language shift from Ukrainian to Russian. After Ukraine’s independence in 1991, various Ukrainian varieties, including Suržyk, became the subject of ideological debates. Suržyk was often looked down upon as “impure”, but also because it was predominantly perceived because of centuries of Russification policies (loss of domains by Ukrainian, asymmetrical bilingualism where Ukrainian speakers would know Russian but not necessarily the other way round, shift from Ukrainian to Russian).

Although Suržyk has been viewed mostly negatively for the reasons mentioned above, a slow change in attitudes has been observed, and now Suržyk is increasingly being reinterpreted as a key step in the transition towards standardized Ukrainian (Hentschel, 2024; Maxwell et al., 2024). While historically stigmatized by both Russian purists and proponents of Standard Ukrainian, contemporary studies suggest that Suržyk may serve as a “bridge,” facilitating the gradual de-Russification of Ukrainians who have relied heavily on Russian (Maxwell et al., 2024).

This shift in perception becomes even more pronounced among Ukrainian migrants and war refugees, for whom wartime imperatives have amplified the desire to strengthen ties to Ukrainian identity. Against the backdrop of military conflict and ensuing socio-political turbulence, the practical value of Suržyk is evident in its communicative effectiveness, enabling speakers to retain aspects of Russian for intelligibility while progressively incorporating more Ukrainian features (Kudriavtseva, 2023; Maxwell et al., 2024). Such transitional practices exemplify ongoing language ideologies that valorize Ukrainian as the principal linguistic emblem of national identity, framing Suržyk not as a linguistic deficiency but as a pragmatic stage toward full adoption of the standard language (Hentschel, 2024). In this light, Suržyk’s role transcends mere code-switching, reflecting more profound processes of linguistic identification, language attitudes, and sociocultural adaptation.

This article builds upon earlier studies on Suržyk as a transitional stage (e.g., Kudriavtseva, 2023; Maxwell et al., 2024) and puristic ideologies towards this specific variety, as well as the concept of “pure” Ukrainian, as explored in previous studies (e.g., Yavorska, 2010). Building on this background, the aim is to demonstrate how Ukrainian migrants and war refugees in Finland perceive Suržyk. We take into consideration how our Ukrainian respondents name Suržyk as a transitional variety in the language shift process from Russian to Ukrainian and seek answers to the following research questions:

• What kind of position and attitudes do the respondents have towards Suržyk about puristic ideologies?
• How do respondents possibly resist existing puristic ideologies or support them?

By examining these speakers’ lived experiences, self-perceptions, and communicative strategies, the study sheds light on how Suržyk supports the gradual adoption of “pure” (Standard) Ukrainian.

The article’s topic is situated between several fields of inquiry within linguistics, including language ideology and language attitudes, in-between contact varieties, language shift and its reversal, emotions, and multilingualism (Frick et al., 2018), and, to an extent, language and war trauma. Therefore, it would be challenging to select a specific theoretical framework. This is a bottom-up, qualitative study that seeks to illustrate changing attitudes towards a cluster of varieties that have previously been viewed as impure (not only because they are non-standard but also because they are by-products of Russian/Soviet domination). It would be shown that under extreme circumstances of war, people attempt to reinvent their linguistic identity and reconceptualize the formally stigmatized variety.

At the same time, our study contributes to ongoing discussions in three interrelated domains: (1) language ideology, by illustrating how purist and anti-purist stances shape the evaluation of Suržyk in exile (cf. Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994; Walsh, 2021); (2) language attitudes, by showing how refugees’ evaluations of Suržyk fluctuate between stigma and pragmatic acceptance depending on the sociopolitical context (Garrett, 2010; Kristiansen, 2003); and (3) intermediate varieties, by situating Suržyk in a broader typology of hybrid or “in-between” codes (Cerruti & Tsiplakou, 2020; Auer, 1999). In this way, the article clarifies how Suržyk not only exemplifies contact-induced hybridity but also becomes a site where language ideologies and attitudes are negotiated under the pressures of war and migration.

While we draw on the umbrella category of intermediate varieties (Cerruti & Tsiplakou, 2020; Auer, 1999), we explicitly differentiate Suržyk from cases of koinéization or regional standards discussed in that literature.

This article is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses language ideologies and purist discourses around Suržyk, Section 3 presents the methodology and data, Section 4 analyzes respondents’ contrasting attitudes toward Suržyk as a transitional stage, and Section 5 offers the discussion, limitations, and conclusions.

2. Language Ideologies: Anti-Suržyk Purism and Reclaiming of Suržyk

2.1. A Brief Introduction to the Issue of Suržyk

This section primarily clarifies the terminology used in this article; second, it positions Suržyk typologically among contact varieties; third, it briefly situates Suržyk historically to motivate our operational choices in the study.

We use Suržyk as an umbrella label for Ukrainian–Russian intermediate varieties as they are named and recognized by speakers in popular discourse. In everyday usage across Ukraine, Suržyk often labels virtually any mixed or bilingual speech (including, in popular media, mixtures beyond the Ukrainian–Russian pair), and lay speakers seldom distinguish subtypes such as “neo-Suržyk” (i.e., Russian-based Suržyk arising in shifts toward Ukrainian during independence) versus “prototype/old Suržyk” (Ukrainian-based Suržyk formed in shifts toward Russian) (Hentschel & Reuther, 2020; Hentschel, 2024). Following this emic reality—and because our questionnaire explicitly elicited views on “suržyk” as a single category—we retain the umbrella term throughout the analysis while acknowledging internal diversity.

Typologically, Suržyk is best treated as a conventionalized mixed code/fused lect rather than ad hoc code-switching, as it exhibits patterned integration (e.g., broadly Ukrainian phonology/morphology with a mixed lexicon) and conventional norms (Auer, 1999; Flier, 2008). While European koinai/regional standards often emerge from dialect leveling in relatively symmetrical ecologies (Cerruti & Tsiplakou, 2020), Suržyk crystallized under asymmetric prestige and power dynamics between Russian and Ukrainian. For this reason, it is more fruitfully compared to Belarusian Trasianka (Hentschel & Zaprudski, 2008) than to the koinéization cases surveyed for Western and Southern Europe.

Suržyk’s stabilization is inseparable from imperial/Soviet policies that promoted Russian and constrained Ukrainian, reconfiguring domains of use and prestige and encouraging shifts toward Russian; later, independence and subsequent sociopolitical ruptures (2014, 2022) have re-evaluated mixed speech within de-Russification discourses (Bilaniuk, 2005; Danylenko & Naienko, 2019; Maxwell et al., 2024). This history underwrites the contemporary ideological ambivalence (Grammon, 2021) our respondents articulate: Suržyk is stigmatized as “impure” yet reframed by many as a pragmatic bridge toward standard Ukrainian.

2.2. General Points

In analyzing Suržyk as a transitional variety between Russian and Ukrainian, it is crucial to account for the broader scholarship on language ideologies and morally and politically loaded representations of language, which are prevalent across all societies and at various levels of institutional or interpersonal life (Woolard, 2020). Language ideologies are socially constructed beliefs and perceptions about languages, their nature, and use, including the views of the users (Irvine, 1989; Gal & Woolard, 1995). That is, language ideologies comprise the ideas of what language is, how it functions, and what it means (Johnstone, 2018). Language ideologies often persuade us to think that these beliefs and perceptions are natural and. Hence, language ideologies can be considered as unconscious and even self-evident (Woolard, 1998; Kroskrity, 2000; Johnstone, 2018). Far from being abstract or inconsequential, language ideologies mediate the relationship between linguistic structure and social practice (Silverstein, 1979; Schieffelin et al., 1998), and they influence perceptions of languages, varieties, and language use (Gal, 1978). That is, language ideologies “sit in between” (Woolard, 2020) speaker agency and broader social configurations, shaping how individuals perceive and evaluate different language varieties, including contact and hybrid varieties such as Suržyk. In the same way that ideologies are socially structured and learned, we view language attitudes as social evaluations of different linguistic features and language forms. In our study, attitudes are reflected in the ways respondents evaluate Suržyk both positively and negatively as a transitional stage.

Early linguistic anthropology often dismissed speakers’ ideas about language as “secondary” or “erroneous” (Boas, 1911). However, later scholarship recognized that linguistic beliefs and feelings (or “ideologies”) are themselves central to understanding how linguistic hierarchies emerge and persist (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994; Woolard, 2020). These ideologies can be embodied in everyday practices (e.g., a reflexive shudder at a “wrong” pronunciation), institutional rules (e.g., the rigid teaching of a single “correct” standard in schools), or larger nationalist discourses (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Woolard, 2020). In contemporary Ukraine and among its diaspora, these ideological processes help determine whether Suržyk is interpreted as a sign of “improper” speech, as an acceptable variety, or as a bridge from Ukrainian to Russian.

Different and often unequal values given to other language varieties are naturalized through ideological processes (Irvine & Gal, 2000). Woolard (2020) highlights two major ideological currents—namely, anonymity and authenticity—that confer linguistic authority in modern societies. Anonymity enshrines a supposedly “neutral” or “standard” form that everyone should use, thereby marginalizing variants like Suržyk as less “legitimate”. In contrast, authenticity values a language variety for being deeply rooted in a specific community or local identity. It will be demonstrated that, in contexts, Suržyk can be reframed as an authentic reflection of lived bilingualism or transitional identity. However, historically, authenticity discourses in Ukraine have tended to idealize “pure” Ukrainian and downplay hybrid varieties.

As scholarship on language purism reveals, efforts to guard a standard or “pure” form often involve erasing or pathologizing contact varieties (Joseph & Taylor, 1990; Woolard, 2020). In both Soviet and independent Ukraine, purist discourses around Ukrainian have further complicated Suržyk’s status, initially labeling it a vestige of Russification.

Therefore, discussing purism in Ukrainian language ideologies, especially anti-Suržyk purism, is necessary.

2.3. Structural Context: Language Policy, Education, and Media in Finland

While the primary focus of this study is on individual perceptions and agency, it is important to situate these attitudes in the broader sociolinguistic context of Finland. Finland is officially bilingual (Finnish and Swedish), with a strong legal framework for linguistic rights and provisions for minority language education (Paulsrud et al., 2020). In practice, however, the availability of Ukrainian-language education is limited and often depends on community initiatives or the minimum student numbers required to establish home language classes (Aksinovits & Verschik, 2024; Paulsrud et al., 2020). Access to Ukrainian-language media is similarly constrained, with many migrants relying on digital or transnational sources rather than Finnish-based channels.

These structural conditions directly shape migrants’ language trajectories. While Finnish policy formally supports multilingualism, practical barriers—such as the shortage of Ukrainian-language teachers, logistical constraints, and regional variations in provision—mean that many refugees lack systematic opportunities to maintain or develop their Ukrainian language skills in Finland. In this environment, Suržyk may serve as a pragmatic resource, compensating for the absence of consistent institutional support and mediating the shift from Russian to Ukrainian. This underscores that individual language attitudes are not formed in isolation but are shaped by the interplay between personal agency and structural opportunities.

2.4. Standard Language Ideology: Various Kinds of Purism Concerning Ukrainian

As Langer and Nesse (2012, p. 608) suggest, the fundamental idea underlying linguistic purism is that languages can be damaged or neglected, or develop incorrectly, due to language contact and/or the negligence of speakers. Ukrainian language planning was often influenced by purism. According to Yavorska (2010, pp. 167–168), who draws on Garvin’s (1993) dichotomy of language attitudes (national treasure vs. means of communication) in the process of standardization, the Ukrainian language is mainly viewed by its speakers as a treasure rather than a pragmatic means of communication. This attitude is present in many people with so-called late modernization (19th c.) who lived for a long time in multinational empires like Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire, and whose languages were viewed as inferior to “big” languages with a long, honorable history.

The situation changed with the national awakening of Central and Eastern European peoples in the 19th century. Still, a sense of insecurity persisted because the right to a full-fledged standard language had to be fought for or required considerable effort and self-organization. During the initial stages of modernization and codification, many people relied on purism for several reasons: (1) they believed purism renders their standard language as authentic, i.e., not impacted by other languages but preserving the uniqueness, and (2) as a claim for autonomy (“not a mere dialect of X but a language separate from X”). The conscious increase in differences between two standard, closely related varieties is called Ausbau (Kloss, 1967), i.e., “building out”. Ausbau efforts play a significant role if there is a contested relationship between a given language and a closely related standard language that enjoys high prestige, has a long history, etc. This is precisely the case with Russian and Ukrainian.

During the imperial period, the Ukrainian language was subject to various restrictions (Bilaniuk, 2005, pp. 71–93). For instance, the so-called Ems decree (signed by Alexander II in the resort town of Bad Ems in 1876). The official doctrine considered Russians as a tripartite nation that includes Great Russians (and the respective language) and “dialects” such as Little Russian (a derogatory term for Ukrainian) and Belarusian. The stereotype of Ukrainian as a language of the uneducated rural population was imposed back then and reappeared later in the Soviet era after the indigenization policy of the 1920s was undone.

At the beginning of the Soviet period (the 1920s), the policy of indigenization enabled some, albeit limited, nation-building and language cultivation, in contrast to the Tsarist period. During this time, Ukrainian was further standardized, but different schools of thought emerged in the process (Yavorska, 2010, p. 174ff), including the purist movement. In the 1930s, the previous efforts were undone. They were claimed as “nationalist” (that is, Ausbau was considered a reactionary and “artificial” tendency that sought to increase differences between Russians and Ukrainians, see Yavorska, 2010, pp. 176–177).

It is worth noting, however, that purism has always been a characteristic of Russian language planning. The tendency towards purism prevailed in the Soviet languages since the 1930s (in the case of the Baltic nations, somewhat later, as they were annexed by the USSR in 1940). This is not surprising since the USSR was a totalitarian, over-centralized state. Grenoble and Kantarovich (2022, pp. 28–47) talk about a “Russian language empire” that can exist without an empire in the political sense; it is a system of views that prioritizes strict top-down planning, cultivation and veneration of Standard Russian, promotion of Russian at the expense of other languages, and encouraging the shift to Russian among speakers of different languages. In such a situation, all non-standard varieties of Russian, whether regional dialects within Russia proper or ethnolects or varieties exhibiting substrate influence after language shift, were stigmatized.

While Russification was present in Ukraine during the whole Soviet period, sometimes less prominently, Ukrainian intellectuals who did not wish to abandon their language viewed (Standard) Ukrainian as their bastion and as the core of their identity. They tried to find ways to oppose Russification, and speaking and writing “pure” Ukrainian was viewed as a defense from the imposition of Russian, stereotypes of Ukrainian-speakers as rural, uneducated people, and the doctrine of Russians as “elder brothers”. Thus, this kind of purism, distinct from the purism of Standard Russian, should be understood as a defensive measure. On purism as a form of resistance to colonization, see Baioud and Khuanuud (2022). Many Ukrainian language planners addressed the issue of Suržyk after the independence of 1991. Abundant anti-Suržyk literature emerged (Bilaniuk, 2005, pp. 131–132), and this can be interpreted as new Ausbau efforts, that is, the increase in difference between Ukrainian and Russian, sometimes at odds with the real usage (Yavorska, 2010, pp. 182–183 notes that there are divergences between Standard Ukrainian and the vernacular, chiefly due to purism). At the same time, during the Soviet era, the use of non-standard varieties was also considered a form of resistance in some circles (Bilaniuk, 2017, p. 4). Bilaniuk (2017) is a seminal text that describes various ideological stances on Suržyk in detail.

As various studies have demonstrated (Bilaniuk, 2005, pp. 159–170; 2017), Suržyk is being used in independent Ukraine for artistic purposes, such as in comedy shows to portray speakers with low socio-economic status or in lyrics by musicians. People may enjoy using non-standard varieties and experimenting with language for various reasons.

More recent research indicates that Suržyk is used in all regions of Ukraine, albeit in varying locations and frequencies, except in the Western parts of Ukraine. Suržyk co-exists with (regional) varieties of Ukrainian and Russian, and, as Hentschel and Taranenko (2021, p. 268) call it, it is a continuum of “multicodialism”, Suržyk being a primary code in two regions. The reality is that most speakers in Eastern and Central Ukraine possess a command of all three codes to varying extents. However, changes in attitudes came about after the Maidan and the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. While some considered and continue considering Suržyk as vulgar, this very quality came in handy for ridiculing Russia and “the Russian world”, the neo-imperialist ideology justifying (re-)occupation of other countries and imposing the Russian language. Juicy and expressive Suržyk was intended to denigrate the enemy. The creative use of Suržyk since 2014 has become more prominent, and several online groups have emerged, one of them being Repka Club (Рєпка: клуб бoйoвoгo суржику), a “fighting Suržyk club” (Bilaniuk, 2017, p. 12); this self-description effectively conveys the functions of Suržyk. The authors who use Suržyk for satirical or other purposes are perfectly capable of using Standard Ukrainian. Thus, there is a difference between those whose primary and preferred language is Suržyk and those who use it because they choose to, rather than due to a lack of proficiency in Ukrainian.

Since the full-scale Russian invasion, the process of reversing language shift has accelerated: those whose grandparents had shifted to Russian, either out of necessity or due to a belief in the superiority of Russian, are now returning to Ukrainian. According to the survey conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), the comparison between 2017 and the end of 2022 shows the following: in 2017, 34% of respondents claimed that they communicate in Ukrainian only and 12% in Russian only, the rest being various modes of bilingual communication; for 2022 these figures were 41% and 6%, respectively (KIIS, 2023). The distancing from all things Russian is understandable, and Suržyk is now often considered a better option than Russian, especially for those who are not proficient enough in Standard Ukrainian. Maxwell et al. (2024) speak of reclaiming and decolonizing Suržyk. In what follows, we investigate how our respondents frame Suržyk as a transitional stage to Ukrainian.

3. Methodology and Data Collection

3.1. Respondents and Data

The current study was conducted as part of the project “Language and Social Interaction in War and Exile,” which aims to investigate the impact of war on the language use of Ukrainians, particularly those who have sought exile in Finland. Before the outbreak of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2021, only ca. 7200 Ukrainian citizens lived in Finland, and the Ukrainian community was scattered (Alho et al., 2022). By the end of 2022, the number had risen to approximately 50,000, and Ukrainians in Finland began forming tighter communities in the form of active associations. Finland thus provides a suitable setting for examining specifically the changes that the full-scale war, which started in 2022, brought about in the language attitudes of Ukrainians in the diaspora.

The data used in this qualitative, data-driven study are part of a larger dataset that was initially collected for a different purpose. For the reader’s interest, we will provide a summary of this larger dataset before proceeding to the actual data used in the current study.

Data were collected between November 2022 and January 2023, with the original aim of gathering data about the use of the Ukrainian language in Finland (see Kapranov et al., 2025). We made an online survey targeting Ukrainian migrants and war refugees in Finland. This method of data collection was chosen to reach the most significant possible number of respondents among Ukrainians in Finland, who are dispersed throughout the country. This aim was well reached, as we received a total of 1615 responses. The survey covered topics related to native language(s), current language use, and language attitudes, and included sociolinguistic background information. Respondents could give both multiple-choice and open-ended answers to most of the questions. Individual open-ended answers will be examined in more detail later in this article. The questionnaire was in Ukrainian, but respondents were encouraged in the introductory text to respond in any language they chose. Most respondents used Ukrainian, while some used Russian to answer open-ended questions.

The questionnaire was shared on social media sites and framed as a survey for Ukrainians in Finland. Most of the respondents (85 percent) were women. This demographic is explained by the inability of men to leave Ukraine because of martial law and the law on mobilization training. The respondents mostly had received higher education and were between 25 and 44 years old. 97% of the respondents who participated in the survey reported being born in Ukraine. Most respondents were born in the central (35%), eastern (27%), and southern regions (17%) of Ukraine—the areas of Ukraine that were under Russian occupation or close to the active war zone at the time the survey was conducted. In Finland, approximately half of the respondents lived in the south (Helsinki, Tampere, etc.), with the highest population density overall. The other half lived in other parts of Finland. Although there are no official statistics to compare with, we believe that the survey is well-representative of the Ukrainian population in Finland (See further discussion in Kapranov et al., 2025).

When answering the question about their mother tongue(s), respondents were able to choose one or more options from the following: Ukrainian (selected by 92% or 1484 respondents), Russian (37% or 593 respondents), Finnish (0.5% or 8 respondents), or other languages (1% or 23 respondents). Thus, 29% of the respondents chose Ukrainian and Russian as their native languages. In the survey, 96.3 percent of respondents (1556 out of 1615) responded to the question regarding the domains of the Ukrainian language. Their responses indicate that they used Ukrainian in Finland at least occasionally. This percentage is higher than the percentage of native Ukrainian speakers in the survey, meaning that many native Russian speakers also use Ukrainian in at least some domains (Kapranov et al., 2025).

The data for the current study, a total of 42 responses, were drawn from one open-ended question in the survey Які Ваші думки з привoду суржика? ‘What are your thoughts on Suržyk?’, for which we received 1033 responses. In an earlier study (Verschik et al., in press), we found that 16% of these responses conveyed a positive attitude, and 31% a negative attitude towards Suržyk. The rest (53%) did not express an attitude, or the attitudes were neutral or controversial. During the analysis, we noted that many responses conveyed the thought that Suržyk was seen as a transitional stage when changing to or learning standard Ukrainian. For the current study, we hand-picked these 42 responses for closer inspection. The questionnaire format enables not only a quantitative perspective on our data, as we have done when analyzing the background information of the respondents. Instead, we use the questionnaire responses to open-ended questions to qualitatively zoom in on one specific point of interest, thereby gaining a better understanding of the experiences of transitional variety, Suržyk, and the ideologies behind language choices in the everyday lives of Ukrainians.

The 42 respondents who saw Suržyk as a transitional stage had different sociolinguistic backgrounds. They were female and male (with slightly more male respondents than in the overall data) and were aged below 55. They were from different parts of Ukraine, with the highest number coming from Eastern and Central Ukraine (including Kyiv), which corresponds with the overall data. A large majority of these respondents had higher education, which also corresponds with the larger dataset and the overall demographics in Ukraine. Most of the respondents marked only Ukrainian as their native language, while some marked both Ukrainian and Russian. This also corresponds with the current tendency in Ukraine and among Ukrainians in Finland, where what people consider their mother tongue is not necessarily equivalent to their actual home language (Kulyk, 2023a, 2023b; Verschik et al., in press). All 42 respondents stated that they understand Russian (as did almost all the others), but some indicated that they do not use it.

Given wartime identity dynamics, we interpret L1 self-reports with caution.

We therefore emphasize that the study is exploratory and reflects the explicit voices of Ukrainian-identifying respondents who framed Suržyk as a bridge toward Ukrainian; further research should address Russian L1 perspectives.

3.2. Method

This study employs a data-driven method. As explained in the previous section, we did not set out to collect data to study this particular research question. Instead, the topic arose from the data collection we had already learned (cf. Kapranov et al., 2025; Verschik et al., in press), as we noticed a recurrent theme in our set of open-ended responses to a very general question regarding Suržyk. In contrast to structured interviews, this data-driven research method has the advantage that the researcher’s influence on what the respondents say is minimal.

We employed qualitative content analysis to explore the data (42 survey answers) in detail, in which respondents conceptualized Suržyk as a transitional linguistic variety about purist ideologies. Since we draw on earlier studies of Suržyk as a transitional stage and purist ideologies widely discussed in the field of linguistics, we consider our approach to be theory-directed qualitative content analysis. The previous findings and theories on puristic linguistic ideologies aid in the study, but the categories are not straightforwardly derived from existing theories (cf. Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2002). It is important to note, however, that we do not simply try to find the puristic ideology discussed in the theory in our data. Instead, we have noted that our data shows strongly puristic ideologies (Verschik et al., in press). For this reason, we use the earlier studies as a theoretical starting point in the analysis to gain a dynamic and nuanced understanding of ideologies and attitudes in the data. This approach enabled us to identify thematic patterns and underlying attitudes in the open-ended responses. The analysis focused on how different meanings concerning Suržyk were built around expressions indicating an intermediary or temporary function (e.g., тимчасoвий засіб ‘temporary means’, міст ‘bridge’) and on rationales offered by respondents who perceived Suržyk as a схoдинка (‘stepping stone’) between Russian and Ukrainian.

Out of the full sample of 1615 respondents, 42 explicitly framed Suržyk as a transitional stage when they answered the survey’s open-ended question Які Ваші думки з привoду суржика? ‘What are your thoughts on Suržyk?’ Answering this question has allowed respondents to freely describe the different aspects and views they associate with the language and its speakers. Hence, we see exploring the answers to this question as a good way to approach language ideologies and attitudes emerging from the respondents’ views. We examine the 42 responses mentioned above to investigate how Suržyk is constructed as a transitional variety, to provide a comparison with other similar studies (see, for instance, Maxwell et al., 2024), and to reflect on the purist ideologies discussed therein. We contribute to demonstrating how linguistic variants, such as Suržyk, are ideologically constructed by war refugees in Finland. The selected responses were subjected to focused coding and subsequently organized into core thematic categories such as “bridge,” “natural process,” and “temporary means.” These categories were then synthesized into broader themes, which characterize two primary ways of constructing the view of the transitional stage through puristic ideologies: understanding attitude and negative attitude. These themes reveal the nuanced and diverse ways in which respondents articulated the evolving role of Suržyk in their linguistic contexts.

3.3. Reliability and Validation

Scholars independently coded a subset of the open-ended responses to ensure inter-coder reliability. Any discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion, leading to mutually agreed-upon categories. In addition, contextual cross-checking compared the identified themes with basic demographic data (e.g., length of stay in Finland, self-reported language preferences) to confirm the consistency and representativeness of the findings, thereby minimizing the risk of overgeneralization.

At the same time, several methodological limitations must be acknowledged. As our data were collected through an online questionnaire, the depth of responses was constrained, and answers may have been shaped by self-reporting bias and social desirability effects, particularly in politically and emotionally sensitive contexts. Sampling composition and recruitment biases are described in Section 3.1; these factors limit generalizability, but they still provide valuable insights into attitudes.

Beyond coder agreement and demographic cross-checks, we critically consider social desirability in wartime exile. The same ideological pressures that valorize Ukrainian may inflate reports of Ukrainian-only use and deflate admissions of Russian use, or prompt strategic re-labeling of L1. Our conclusions are therefore framed as qualitative and exploratory, highlighting ideologies and rationales rather than making population-level claims.

4. Results

Our analysis reveals how Suržyk was discussed as a transitional stage between Russian and Ukrainian, with similar traits being attested much earlier. One fourth (10/42 answers) of the respondents state this without elaborating the answer further or only by shortly mentioning normality or the language learning in connection to this matter Це нoрмальнo на етапі перехoду (‘This is normal during the transition phase’). However, most respondents provided extensive answers, further explaining their views on Suržyk as a transitional stage by using, for example, metaphoric or evaluative language to convey this meaning. We examined how the respondents framed their thoughts about Suržyk and their means of description (themes, metaphors, etc.). Purist ideologies were present in all the answers discussing Suržyk as a transitional stage, but there were two different ways to approach this view, as we detected in our analysis. Firstly, the study shows that Suržyk is perceived as a temporary phenomenon within a specific social context, such as during times of change or conflicts, particularly during the ongoing war currently taking place on the territory of Ukraine. In this context, the respondents find that Suržyk is an acceptable means of communication until a person can entirely switch to Ukrainian. This understanding and acceptance of the view in connection with the idea of the transitional stage was found in most of the answers (23/42). Secondly, there are also negative attitudes and views on various issues that should not exist, as seen in 9/42 answers. In these answers, Suržyk serves as a mere path to pure, ideal language and should be used only to achieve full proficiency in Ukrainian. We will discuss these views in the following two chapters, Section 4.1 and Section 4.2, respectively.

4.1. Understanding Attitude: Suržyk as Moving Towards an Ideal and as a Mark of Intentions

Most respondents (24 out of 42) expressed an understanding and accepting attitude toward Suržyk as a transitional stage. In their view, Suržyk was seen as a normal, even positive, step in the process of moving toward Standard Ukrainian:

(1)	Суржик як перехідний етап дo чистoї українськoї мoви, це нoрмальнo і навіть дoбре.
	‘Suržyk as a transitional stage to pure Ukrainian language is normal and even good’.

The wording перехідний етап ‘transitional stage’ in example (1) reinforces the idea of Suržyk as an intermediate and functional phase, like the previous examples.

Furthermore, the phrase навіть дoбре ‘even good’ goes beyond mere tolerance by attributing a positive value to Suržyk’s role. The adverb дoбре ‘good’ suggests that Suržyk is not simply a neutral means on the way to Ukrainian but an actively beneficial component of the learning process. This framing contrasts sharply with purist perspectives that advocate for the rapid elimination of Suržyk. Instead, the speaker positions it as an essential part of linguistic development—a tool to help speakers gradually acquire the necessary proficiency in Ukrainian without feeling overwhelmed by strict language norms.

The mention of чиста українська мoва ‘pure Ukrainian’ gives evidence of the speaker’s awareness of the aspirational standard. However, unlike responses that view Suržyk as an obstacle to achieving this ideal, the respondent implies that Suržyk facilitates the transition to perfect linguistic competence. This reflects a pragmatic and supportive mindset, where the goal of moving toward Standard Ukrainian is more important than adhering strictly to linguistic purity. The absence of urgency or pressure to abandon Suržyk further underscores this accepting and developmental perspective.

Additionally, this response resonates with broader sociocultural implications tied to language ideologies in Ukraine. For many individuals, particularly in post-2022 contexts, abandoning Russian in favor of Ukrainian is not just a linguistic shift but a symbolic act of national pride and resistance against external domination. By framing Suržyk as “good”, the respondent potentially challenges the stigma imposed by linguistic purists and validates the lived linguistic experiences of speakers navigating this transition. This perspective normalizes language adaptation, reassuring speakers that Suržyk is not a failure but a valuable step toward mastering Ukrainian. This same attitude is evident in the following two examples, in which the respondents explicitly describe how the reason for this attitude is connected to the fact that people resist using the Russian language. That is, the understanding standpoint concerning Suržyk stems from conflicting attitudes towards different languages in the respondents’ lives, as the following examples (2) and (3) illustrate.

(2)	Зараз це краще, ніж спілкування рoсійськoю. А взагалі, прийнятнo як перехідний варіант, кoли людина на шляху вивчення українскoї мoви.
	‘Right now, it’s better than speaking Russian. In general, it’s acceptable as a transitional option for someone who is in the process of learning Ukrainian.’

The phrase краще, ніж спілкування рoсійськoю ‘better than speaking Russian’ recurs across multiple responses (in seven (7) instances in total) and functions as a comparative evaluative marker, signaling a reassessment of linguistic hierarchies. This linguistic judgment does not elevate Suržyk to a positive status per se, but rather positions it as a lesser evil, i.e., a temporary and pragmatic alternative to Russian, which has acquired new political and emotional connotations in the post-invasion context.

The key lexical item прийнятнo (or прийнятний) ‘acceptable’ encapsulates the ambivalence of this stance. It concedes Suržyk’s functionality or legitimacy only within a transitional framework, explicitly linking it to the process of acquiring Ukrainian. This reveals a continued adherence to linguistic purism: Suržyk is not the goal, but a tolerated intermediate step toward the idealized target—standard Ukrainian.

This stage reflects a post-invasion shift in attitudes. Respondents who previously expressed negative views toward Suržyk now acknowledge its role in language shift and the renegotiation of identity. However, the fact that Suržyk remains merely прийнятнo (or прийнятний) ‘acceptable’ rather than краще ‘good’ reinforces the idea that purism persists: the ultimate linguistic aspiration remains monolingual Ukrainian proficiency, with Suržyk instrumentalized as a transitory aid, not an endpoint. The shift in attitudes is also visible in the following example (3).

(3)	Дo пoвнoмасштабнoгo втoргнення рф в Україну, ставилась дo суржика негативнo. Наразі, вважаю, щo краще суржик, ніж рoсійська мoва😁. Такoж суржик мoже бути схoдинкoю при перехoді на українську
	‘Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I had a negative attitude toward Suržyk. Now, I think that Suržyk is better than the Russian language 😁. It can also serve as a stepping stone toward switching to Ukrainian.’

The evaluative phrase краще суржик, ніж рoсійська мoва ‘better Suržyk than the Russian language’ marks a deliberate reconfiguration of linguistic value, one that does not elevate Suržyk to a desirable or prestigious status, but repositions it as the less problematic alternative. This comparative framing reflects not only a reassessment of itself, but also a symbolic distancing from the Russian language, as its association with the aggressor state now marks it.

The respondent highlights a shift in attitude over time. The admission of a previously negative stance toward Suržyk, followed by its conditional acceptance, underscores how the war has catalyzed a broader re-evaluation of linguistic hierarchies. Suržyk is no longer perceived solely as a stigma of rurality, hybridity, or incorrectness—it is now reframed as a pragmatic and ideologically safer choice in the context of Ukrainian resistance.

The second part of the utterance—суржик мoже бути схoдинкoю при перехoді на українську ‘Suržyk can also serve as a stepping stone toward switching to Ukrainian’—introduces a conceptual metaphor. The term схoдинкoю (or схoдинка) ‘stepping stone’ suggests progress, but also impermanence. This metaphor positions Suržyk not as an endpoint, but as an intermediary linguistic state on the way to the idealized goal: standard Ukrainian. In addition, this metaphorical framing reinforces underlying purist tendencies: Suržyk is acceptable only insofar as it facilitates movement toward Ukrainian. It is tolerated because of current circumstances—because it functions as a transitional tool in an environment where complete linguistic transformation (from Russian to Ukrainian) cannot happen instantly for all speakers.

In addition to explicit statements against Russian, a recurring theme in the responses portrays Suržyk as a temporary and necessary phase in an individual’s linguistic journey, reflecting the gradual shift from Russian to Ukrainian. This view highlights that using Suržyk is not a sign of linguistic failure but rather a pragmatic strategy that enables speakers to navigate their evolving language identities while steadily integrating Ukrainian features into their speech. Such responses are part of the overall normality stance described above (example (1)), but with an emphasis on the necessity of different stages and processes of language learning (example (4)) and the temporary nature of the phase (example (5)). Respondents in this group often stress the importance of progression over linguistic purity. The following example (4) illustrates this point:

(4)	Це лише етап. Важливo, щo люди намагаються рoзмoвляти українськoю.
	‘This is just a stage. It’s important that people are trying to speak Ukrainian’.

Here, the respondent emphasizes the temporary nature of Suržyk by using the phrase це лише етап ‘this is just a stage.’ The word етап ‘stage’ implies progression and movement, suggesting that Suržyk is an intermediate phase in the speaker’s transition from Russian to Ukrainian. The word лише ‘just’, further reinforces the temporary nature of this stage, downplaying any negative implications and framing it as a typical and expected step in the language development process.

The use of the verb намагаються ‘are trying’ indicates that effort is privileged over immediate linguistic correctness. This perspective reflects a growth-oriented ideology, where imperfect forms like Suržyk are not linguistic failures but markers of progressive alignment with the Ukrainian language. This aligns with findings by Bilaniuk (2005), who argues that language shifts in Ukraine are not only structural but also symbolic and emotionally charged.

The metaphorical framing of Suržyk as a “stepping stone” is further implicit in the speaker’s positive outlook (see example (3), where this metaphor was explicitly used). The respondent acknowledges the dynamic and cumulative nature of language acquisition, recognizing that initial reliance on Russian forms is natural and does not impede the eventual goal of mastering Ukrainian. The use of Suržyk, therefore, is portrayed as a practical means of maintaining communication while incorporating Ukrainian features over time. In this context, Suržyk acts as a bridge that allows speakers to gradually reduce their dependence on Russian without facing linguistic isolation.

Another common viewpoint identified in the responses highlights Suržyk as a temporary and non-threatening phase, reflecting the natural challenges of language transition. Respondents in this category typically emphasize the learning curve of switching from Russian to Ukrainian and view Suržyk as a necessary coping mechanism. Example (5) reflects this idea:

(5)	Не дуже красивo, але багатo хтo намагається перейти з рoсійськoї на українську, але не в усіх це відразу вихoдить, тoму дехтo спілкується на суржику, це тимчасoвo, нічoгo страшнoгo, навчимoся рoзмoвляти чистoю українськoю.
	‘It doesn’t sound very nice, but many people are trying to switch from Russian to Ukrainian. Not everyone manages to do it right away, so some speak in Suržyk. It’s temporary—nothing to worry about. We’ll learn to speak proper Ukrainian.’

The opening statement Не дуже красивo ‘It doesn’t sound very nice’ in the example (5) introduces a distinctly aesthetic judgment, grounded in the purist ideology that values linguistic ‘cleanness’, correctness, and standardness. This initial disapproval sets the tone by marking Suržyk as phonetically or symbolically undesirable, reinforcing the stigma associated with hybrid or non-standard language forms.

However, the tone immediately shifts in the following clause: але багатo хтo намагається перейти з рoсійськoї на українську, але не в усіх це відразу вихoдить ‘but many people are trying to switch from Russian to Ukrainian. Not everyone manages to do it right away’. Here, the respondent expresses understanding and empathy toward those undergoing the language shift. Suržyk, in this context, becomes a linguistic symptom of transition rather than an identity marker per se.

The statement дехтo спілкується на суржику, це тимчасoвo, нічoгo страшнoгo ‘some speak in Suržyk, it’s temporary—nothing to worry about’ introduces pragmatic tolerance. Unlike earlier outright dismissals of Suržyk, this stage allows it limited legitimacy, justified by the broader narrative of national-linguistic alignment. Importantly, the phrase нічoгo страшнoгo ‘nothing to worry about’ works to neutralize the purist discomfort voiced at the beginning. It marks a moment of ideological suspension, where linguistic correctness is momentarily secondary to progress. This suggests that language learning is not linear and does not consist solely of acquiring correct forms; instead, it reflects what describes as self-formation—a process in which speakers envision their future linguistic self and the stages required to achieve it. The transitional role of Suržyk functions as a linguistic scaffolding toward the imagined ideal of proper Ukrainian (see also Bilaniuk, 2020).

However, the final statement—навчимoся рoзмoвляти чистoю українськoю ‘we’ll learn to speak proper Ukrainian’—reinstates the purist trajectory. The term чистoю українськoю (or чиста українська) ‘proper Ukrainian’ implies that the current transitional forms are deficient, and that complete legitimacy lies in standard, codified Ukrainian. As Hentschel (2024) has recently argued, this type of discourse reveals tension between pragmatic adaptation and aspirational purism in Ukraine’s evolving language ideologies.

However, not all respondents shared this tolerant and pragmatic view. A smaller group expressed clearly negative attitudes toward Suržyk, which are presented in the following section.

4.2. Negative Attitude: Suržyk as a Temporary Stage

By contrast, a smaller group of respondents (9 out of 42) articulated a negative attitude toward Suržyk. For them, Suržyk was tolerated only as a temporary tool and was ultimately seen as something that should be eradicated once full proficiency in Ukrainian was achieved. In these responses, Suržyk was strongly emphasized as a path to pure Ukrainian. Some respondents showed a dual perspective on Suržyk. While it is acknowledged as a necessary and temporary stage during the learning process, it is ultimately seen as something that should be eliminated once proficiency in Ukrainian is achieved. This view suggests a transition to a purist mindset, where Suržyk is tolerated during the early stages but viewed as undesirable in the long term. The following Example (6) illustrates this approach:

(6)	Це перехідний періoд при вивченні українськoї мoви, удoскoналюючи мoвні навички суржик неoбхіднo викoрінювати.
	‘This is a transitional period in learning the Ukrainian language; as we improve our language skills, Suržyk must be eradicated.’

In the example (6), the phrase це перехідний періoд ‘this is a transitional period’ clearly positions Suržyk as temporary. The use of the term періoд ‘period’ suggests that the speaker recognizes Suržyk as an expected phase in the process of acquiring Ukrainian. Unlike purist perspectives that immediately reject Suržyk as a linguistic impurity, the speaker acknowledges that its presence is customary and even necessary during the initial stages of language learning. This aligns with other respondents who conceptualize Suržyk as a functional bridge facilitating the shift from Russian-dominant speech to Ukrainian.

However, the second half of the statement introduces a conditional and corrective perspective, indicated by the phrase удoскoналюючи мoвні навички ‘as we improve our language skills.’ This implies that Suržyk’s utility is limited to the early phases of language acquisition and diminishes as speakers advance in their linguistic competence. The verb удoскoналюючи ‘improving’ conveys the idea that language development is a linear and progressive process; once sufficient proficiency is reached, Suržyk is no longer considered necessary.

The key phrase суржик неoбхіднo викoрінювати ‘Suržyk needs to be eradicated’ introduces a strong purist stance toward the long-term role of Suržyk. The choice of the verb викoрінювати ‘eradicate’ is particularly significant, as it carries connotations of complete elimination and suggests that Suržyk is ultimately viewed as incompatible with the speaker’s vision of proper Ukrainian. This reflects an underlying belief that while Suržyk may serve as a practical tool during the transition, it is fundamentally seen as a linguistic flaw that should be corrected. Unlike more tolerant perspectives that view Suržyk as a natural byproduct of language evolution, this response aligns more closely with the gradual adoption of purist ideologies.

Furthermore, the phrase implies a moral or cultural obligation to abandon Suržyk once language skills have been sufficiently developed. This perspective is likely influenced by external sociopolitical pressures, where mastering Standard Ukrainian is seen as a symbolic act of national loyalty and resistance against past Russification policies. The desire to “eradicate” Suržyk can therefore be interpreted not only as a linguistic preference but also as part of a broader identity-driven agenda, particularly in the context of the 2022 war.

This response also underscores a tension between pragmatism and idealism: while Suržyk is accepted pragmatically during the learning process, the goal is linguistic purity. This dual perspective reflects a transition-to-purism ideology, where tolerance for Suržyk is conditional and time-bound. Respondents who hold this view see progress toward Standard Ukrainian as attainable and necessary for social and cultural integration.

The following examples show how Suržyk was a necessary stage on the path to pure Ukrainian, but its legitimacy is strictly conditional and time-bound. While speakers recognize its temporary function in facilitating linguistic transition, especially for those moving away from Russian, they draw clear ideological and social boundaries around its continued use.

(7)	Дoбре, якщo суржик—це тільки перехідний періoд від рoсійськoї мoви дo українськoї. Все інше—пoгане ставлення.
	‘It’s fine if Suržyk is only a transitional period from Russian to Ukrainian. Anything beyond that reflects a negative attitude.’

In Example (7), the respondent establishes a binary framework: Suržyk is either tolerated as a short-term transitional mechanism or it becomes evidence of linguistic resistance, laziness, or identity ambiguity. The phrase тільки перехідний періoд ‘only a transitional period’ serves as a threshold marker. Once that threshold is crossed, i.e., once Suržyk persists beyond the expected timeframe, it becomes ideologically charged. The phrase пoгане ставлення ‘negative attitude’ reinforces the moral dimension: continued use of Suržyk is no longer linguistically neutral but a reflection of problematic values or allegiances.

(8)	Негативна. Я дoбре ставлюсь дo діалектів. Сприймаю суржик лише у випадку, якщo українці, щo раніше гoвoрили рoсійськoю перехoдять на українську. Якщo людина спілкується вже дoвгий час суржикoм, я не прoдoвжую з нею кoмунікацію в пoдальшoму. Суржик не прикрашає ні в oсoбистих кoмунікаціях, ні в прoфесійних.
	‘Negative. I have a positive attitude toward dialects. I accept Suržyk only in cases where Ukrainians who previously spoke Russian are transitioning to Ukrainian. If someone has been speaking Suržyk for a long time, I choose not to continue communicating with them. Suržyk adds no value—neither in personal communication nor in professional settings.’

Example (8) further develops this position with even greater social rigidity: Негативна. Я дoбре ставлюсь дo діалектів. Сприймаю суржик лише у випадку, якщo українці, щo раніше гoвoрили рoсійськoю перехoдять на українську… ‘Negative. I have a positive attitude toward dialects. I accept Suržyk only in cases where Ukrainians who previously spoke Russian are transitioning to Ukrainian…’ This response sharply differentiates Suržyk from regional dialects, which are granted legitimacy, thereby reinforcing the notion that Suržyk is not considered a valid form of Ukrainian linguistic diversity. It is viewed as a functional tool, rather than a cultural or linguistic identity. The respondent goes further to draw social consequences from linguistic behavior: Якщo людина спілкується вже дoвгий час суржикoм, я не прoдoвжую з нею кoмунікацію в пoдальшoму. ‘If someone has been speaking Suržyk for a long time, I choose not to continue communicating with them.’ This statement introduces social distancing based on linguistic practice. Continued use of Suržyk is not merely frowned upon but actively penalized in both personal and professional relationships. The phrase не прикрашає ‘adds no value’ functions as a moral and aesthetic verdict, reflecting deeply rooted ideological purism.

Transitional framing is conditionally tolerated; prolonged use of Suržyk is socially penalized. This aligns with the concept of ‘conditional integration’ (Hentschel, 2024).

5. Discussion and Limitations of the Study

Our analysis reveals two contrasting sets of attitudes toward Suržyk as a transitional variety: an understanding stance, which normalizes its temporary use and accepts it as a pragmatic stage in language shift, and a negative stance, which tolerates it only conditionally, with the expectation of its eventual disappearance. These findings shed light on how Ukrainian migrants and war refugees in Finland negotiate language ideologies, identity, and pragmatic communicative needs in the exceptional circumstances of wartime exile.

The data demonstrate how respondents position themselves in relation to competing discourses of linguistic purism. Some view Suržyk as “normal” or even “good” during the transition, using metaphors such as a bridge, a step, or a stepping stone to highlight its supportive role. Others explicitly describe it as “temporary” or “not beautiful but acceptable,” suggesting conditional tolerance. In contrast, opposing stances describe Suržyk as something that “must be eradicated,” framing it as incompatible with the ideal of “pure Ukrainian.” These attitudes confirm findings from earlier studies that Ukrainian linguistic practices are profoundly shaped by purist ideologies (Bilaniuk, 2005; Yavorska, 2010).

For many respondents, Suržyk functions not as a linguistic failure but as a strategic adaptation to the circumstances of migration and conflict. It enables intelligibility and mutual understanding, especially for speakers shifting away from Russian but not yet fully confident in Ukrainian. This transitional use reflects broader sociolinguistic processes of linguistic conversion (Bilaniuk, 2020) and reversal of language shift (Fishman, 1991). It also resonates with psychological aspects of language and identity: respondents often frame Suržyk use as “trying” or “making an effort,” highlighting the role of agency, resilience, and aspiration in linguistic change.

The data must be understood in the context of war and exile. Respondents frequently justify their linguistic choices by explicitly opposing Russian and framing Suržyk as preferable to Russian. This reflects how macro-political conflict reshapes linguistic hierarchies in real time (Woolard, 2020; Gal, 1978). Among refugees, Suržyk is not simply a code but a symbolic act of distancing from Russian and aligning with Ukrainian identity. Similar dynamics are visible in other post-Soviet contexts, such as Belarusian Trasianka (Hentschel & Zaprudski, 2008).

The analysis also shows how context influences attitudes. Respondents tend to feel pressure to use standard Ukrainian in formal domains (e.g., education, institutions) and to avoid Suržyk. At the same time, they perceive it as a natural outcome of bilingual repertoires in informal, family, or peer settings. This reflects the dialectical tension between macro-level ideologies that elevate linguistic purity and micro-level practices that prioritize communication, identity, and belonging.

The reliance on self-reported online questionnaire data introduces limitations but also provides valuable insights. Responses often reflect ideological positioning as much as actual practice. For example, many respondents self-identified as Ukrainian L1 speakers, which may partly reflect political allegiance rather than home-language realities. This highlights the importance of treating self-reported data as expressions of identity as well as linguistic fact (Strand et al., 2024). Moreover, the dominance of highly educated women in the sample reflects both the demographics of refugees in Finland and recruitment via online channels, but it narrows representativeness. The qualitative and exploratory design of the study, however, is well-suited to illuminate these attitudinal dynamics.

Limitations. While our study provides new insights into the transitional role of Suržyk among Ukrainian migrants in Finland, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size (N = 42) is relatively small, which restricts statistical generalizability and underscores the exploratory nature of the study. Second, the dataset included only respondents who self-reported Ukrainian as their L1, thereby excluding Russian L1 speakers. This omission narrows the range of perspectives captured, as Russian-dominant speakers may have expressed more ambivalence or divergent attitudes toward Suržyk. Third, the study relies on self-reported data, which is susceptible to measurement error and socially desirable responding, especially in a politically charged wartime context (Strand et al., 2024; Kuperman, 2024). For these reasons, our findings should be interpreted as illustrative rather than representative of the broader population. We recommend that future research employ larger and more diverse samples, include Russian L1 respondents, and triangulate questionnaires with interviews, ethnographic observation, and perception tasks to provide a fuller picture of how transitional varieties function in contexts of war, migration, and identity negotiation.

6. Conclusions

This study has shown that Suržyk, while long stigmatized, is increasingly reframed by Ukrainian migrants and refugees in Finland as a functional and transitional variety. Attitudes toward it vary between pragmatic acceptance and conditional rejection, but its role as a “bridge” toward Ukrainian highlights how speakers negotiate identity under the pressure of war and displacement.

Beyond summarizing the findings, three broader implications can be drawn.

Our results suggest that transitional varieties, such as Suržyk, should not be dismissed as “impure,” but instead acknowledged as pragmatic tools in contexts of accelerated language shift. Policymakers in both Ukraine and host countries such as Finland may consider supporting educational models that validate migrants’ multilingual repertoires rather than enforcing abrupt monolingual norms. In Finland, this implies reducing structural barriers to Ukrainian-language instruction and acknowledging the realities of hybrid speech in migrant integration programs.

The study highlights the need to investigate Russian L1 speakers, less-educated groups, and male respondents, who were underrepresented in our dataset. Mixed-method designs combining self-reports with ethnographic observation, interviews, or experimental tasks (e.g., matched-guise studies) would capture more fully how ideological positioning aligns—or fails to align—with actual practice.

Suržyk illustrates how intermediate varieties can emerge not only from dialect leveling or koinéization (cf. Cerruti & Tsiplakou, 2020), but also from postcolonial asymmetries and geopolitical ruptures. Its current reinterpretation as a resource for national identity underlines how macro-political events—war, migration, and cultural decolonization—reshape linguistic ideologies in real time.

In summary, our findings indicate that language attitudes are not static reflections of linguistic forms, but rather dynamic responses to historical trauma, political conflict, and the pressures of exile. Suržyk, in this context, is more than an “imperfect” code—it is a social practice that embodies both the vulnerabilities and the resilience of a community redefining itself linguistically and culturally.