Psycholinguistics in Ukraine – From emerging ideas of the late 19th century to its birth and development during totalitarian and post-totalitarian era

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive overview of the historical roots, emergence and contemporary development of Ukrainian psycholinguistics, emphasizing its distinct national trajectory and intellectual legacy. It challenges the misconception that Ukrainian psycholinguistics was absent or insignificant during the Soviet era, arguing instead for the recognition of a robust but suppressed scholarly tradition shaped by figures such as Olexander Potebnia, Ivan Franko, Dmytro Ovsianyko-Kulykovskyi, and others. During the totalitarian regime, many Ukrainian contributions were published in Russian or attributed to Soviet science, contributing to a colonial narrative that marginalized national achievements. Employing an aspectual-fragmentary approach, the article delineates the evolution of psycholinguistics in Ukraine from the mid-20th century to the present, outlining the methodological, thematic, and institutional developments that characterize both the totalitarian and post-totalitarian periods. It highlights the formation of prominent Ukrainian psycholinguistic schools and research centres—particularly in Pereiaslav, Lutsk, Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv—and explores their contributions in areas such as psychosemiotics, suggestive linguistics, neurolinguistic programming, linguistic personology, and associative lexicography. The study also underscores the revival of previously prohibited theoretical paradigms, such as the “spirit of language,” language’s divine origin, and the unconscious in speech. Special attention is given to the current push toward nation-centered historiography, which seeks to restore historical memory and counter lingering colonial influences. The paper advocates for a methodological shift toward Ukrainian psycholinguistic historiography and the institutionalization of a new academic discipline: the History of National Psycholinguistics.Ultimately, this work affirms Ukraine’s independent and innovative contribution to global psycholinguistics, proposing a critical re-evaluation of Soviet-era publications and the reclamation of intellectual heritage obscured by linguistic and cultural suppression. The study contributes to both the academic reconstruction of Ukrainian psycholinguistics and the broader project of decolonizing national science.