Abstract
The paper deals with the vagaries of linguistic russification among the Ukrainians from the mid-seventeenth century to 1914. The authors explore the major stages in the implementation of the policies of russification in Russian Ukraine, starting with first bans on books printed in Church Slavonic of the Ukrainian recension via the decrees and edicts issued by Peter I together with the Holy Synod to the punitive measures taken by the tsarist regime against new literary Ukrainian in the second half of the nineteenth century. The authors distinguish three languages (Church Slavonic of the Ukrainian recension, Ruthenian, and new literary Ukrainian) which were consecutively exposed to various forms of hostile language management by the tsarist administration. Based on these three languages and the classification into different models of imperial policy, a new periodization of linguistic russification and denationalization is substantiated. The material analyzed with the help of this new periodization proves that Russia’s rulers had special reasons for treating Ukraine more severely than other non-Russian areas, resulting in a constant, consistent, and long-lasting policy of linguistic russification in Russian Ukraine.
Аннотация
Статья посвящена особенностям языковой руссификации среди украинцев с середины семнадцатого столетия до 1914 г. Авторы рассматривают основные этапы реализации политики руссификации в подроссийской Украине со времен первых запретов книг, составленных на церковнославянском языке украинского извода, указами Петра I и Священного Синода до притеснений современного украинского литературного языка царским режимом во второй половине девятнадцатого века. По мнению авторов, объектом враждебной политики со стороны царской администрации были три языка украинцев, а именно: украинский церковнославянский язык, простая мова и новый украинский литературный язык. Основываясь на указанных трех языках и классификации имперских моделей, авторы предлагают новый тип периодизации, применение которого доказывает, что у правителей России были всегда веские основания для того, чтобы относиться к Украине жестче, чем к иным не-русским землям. Все это позволяет утверждать, что языковая руссификация в подроссийской Украине была постоянной, последовательной и долговременной.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the 1330s, the term ‘Little Rus’ ’ was applied to the whole Principality of Galicia–Volhynja (Danylenko 2006a, pp. 52–53, 2017b, p. 162) and, in the early seventeenth century, came to Kyiv from the western Ukrainian lands. Metropolitan Iov Borec’kyj (†1631) established the tradition of viewing Little and Great Russians as brothers who together constituted a family. Only later, Muscovite Rus’, rooted in its dynastic and patrimonial way of thinking, accepted such a vision of unity (Plokhy 2001, pp. 290–291). We use the terms ‘Little Russia’, ‘Little Russian’ in the non-imperial sense, thus showing differences between the Ukrainians and Russians and their languages within the boundaries of the Russian Empire. The name ‘Ukrainian’ is employed as a generic term, overlapping semantically with the modern, post-romanticist understanding of this concept.
For a variety of names of the prostaja mova in its relation to other languages used in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, see Danylenko (2006b).
Pavlenko (2011, p. 339) erroneously called Kotljarevs’kyj’s work a “play” which is a lesser foible among all other shortcomings in the line of her argumentation. Thus, unaware of the variety of languages used by Ukrainians (and by Belarusians also) in the historical perspective, Pavlenko (2011, p. 345) claimed that “Ukrainian and Belorussian [Belarusian—A.D., H.N.] were less developed [?—A.D., H.N.] than Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian”, thereby completely ignoring the continuity of the former languages from the late thirteenth century onward in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Bednarczuk 2010; Danylenko 2011a). Moreover, Pavlenko (2011, pp. 345–346) maintained that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians and Belarusians lived in the countryside and continued to speak their native languages on a daily basis, while being incognizant of the restrictions on their written use in the second part of the nineteenth century. Clearly, the author disregarded the sociolinguistic situation in the Ukrainian-speaking territories where the development and the use of new literary Ukrainian, including its written form, in all the public spheres was curtailed by severe censorship and persecutions of Ukrainian intellectuals from the 1840s onward; during these years, mutual antagonism emerged between the Ukrainian national movement and Russian imperial government (see Remy 2016).
While leaning on this conceptual opposition, Pavlenko (2011, p. 333) resorts instead to an artificial derivative obrusevanie in place of correct obrusenie (without any jat’) to refer to the intentional spread of Russian as an official language of the empire. Miller (2002, p. 136) mentioned that, in his 1911 polemics with Vladimir Žabotinskij in the journal Russkaja mysl’, Petr Struve consistently employed the term obrusěnie (with a jat’) thereby voluntarily implying the assimilation of the national minorities in the Russian Empire. The chief ideologue of Russian liberal nationalism and “a consistent Russian imperialist” (Miller 2008, p. 171), Struve was most vociferous in denying the Ukrainians the right to open public schools with Ukrainian as the language of instruction. He claimed that the introduction of high and higher education in Ukrainian would be artificial and dangerous for the Russian state and Russian culture which constituted an ‘average’ term derived from a system of the ethnographic concepts of Great Russian, Little Russian (Ukrainian), and White Russian (Belarusian) (Struve 1911, pp. 184–186; see Danylenko 2017a, p. 79).
A somewhat different verdict was reached by the participants of the 1640 Council in Kyiv, headed by Petro Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kyiv, and Varlaam, Metropolitan of Moldova. They banned the circulation of Kyryl Trankvillion-Stavrovec’kyj’s Didactic Gospel under the pretext of its homiletic incongruence with the teaching of the Orthodox church (Kuczyńska 2004, p. 76).
As early as 1627, hegumen Il’ja and the monk Ivan Nasedka, both being part of the ecclesiastical establishment in Muscovy, accused Kyryl Trankvillion-Stavrovec’kyj of using such wrong forms as the ‘Lithuanian’ possessive Xristovi instead of Xristova ‘belonging to Christ’ (Uspenskij 1994, pp. 36–37).
The Council of 1690 anathematized not only Simeon of Polock but all like-minded pro-Latin people (Simeon is reported to have confessed openly even the filioque; the condemned individuals, mostly originating from the Ruthenian (pre-modern Ukrainian and Belarusian) lands, were labeled ‘motleys’ (pjostrye), that is, neither Orthodox nor Catholic (despite their adherence to Latin scholasticism they never acknowledged the jurisdiction of the pope) (Lourié 2010, p. 223). It was Simeon of Polock who, along with a few others, promoted libraries and schools, and tried to persuade the Muscovites to show tolerance for books printed in Rome, Venice, and Paris (see Torke 1996, p. 112).
Founded in 1675 by Lazar Baranovyč in Novhorod-Sivers’kyi and moved to Černihiv in 1679, it was the second largest printing house in Left-Bank Ukraine after the Kyivan Cave Monastery press founded in 1606–1615 by Archimandrite Jelisej Pletenec’kyi. In spite of prohibitions and threats from the Holy Synod and the Russian Emperor, which demanded that all books be ‘in agreement with Muscovite books’, the Černihiv press maintained its independence until 1724 when it began its decline; it was closed in 1820. After the tsarist decree of 1720, the Kyivan press continued to print only religious works written primarily in Russian Church Slavonic until 1918 (Ohijenko 2007, pp. 320–406, 426–463).
After 1709 Peter I launched a decisive attack on the Hetmanate’s autonomy. Its capital was moved closer to the border with Russia, the tsar took over the right to appoint Cossack colonels, his resident was installed at the hetman’s court, and the office of hetman itself was abolished and replaced in 1722 by the Little Russian College (Plokhy 2006, p. 343).
Samuel Myslavs’kyj’s impetus was so strong that some teachers admitted, in a special petition submitted at his name, that they could hardly follow his instructions fully because they were not able to get rid of their Little Russian accent (Askočenskij 1856, p. 343). In February 1784, in order to push through Great Russian even further, Myslavs’kyj invited a certain Dmitrij Sigirevič from the Trinity Sergius Seminary to teach poetry, ‘according to the rules of poetry published in Moscow, and oratory, according to the rules of Mister Lomonosov’ (Titov 1924, p. 255). Myslavs’kyj also dispatched three best students of the Kyiv Academy, Mykyta Sokolovs’kyj, Pavlo Lohynovs’kyj, and Danylo Domontov, to Moscow University to acquire Great Russian pronunciation and accent (Askočenskij 1856, p. 342). Generally, the pro-imperial reformist activities of Myslavs’kyj were aimed against the local customs, in particular the status of Ukrainian Church Slavonic and the local vernacular. As a loyal Little Russian, he intended first of all to elevate the status of the Academy, thus putting it on the same level with Moscow University (Titov 1924, pp. 254–255).
The same can be said about the influence of the Ukrainian administrative language on Great Russian as part of the ‘Ruthenization’ of Muscovite culture in the seventeenth century (Torke 1996, p. 117). This influence can be easily traced back to the period of Peter I. The Great Russian language, “besides being flooded, often sporadically and temporarily, with foreign military and technical terms, absorbed also some vocabulary” (Cymbalistyj 1991, pp. 50–51) from Ruthenian as used in the administration of the Hetman state. One can mention, for instance, such words as armata ‘gun’, avdiencija ‘audience’, elekcija ‘election’, uneversal ‘decree’, fortecija ‘fortress’. One should also remember that there was always a number of Ukrainian translators in the so-called Ambassadorial Office (Russ. Posol’skijPrikaz) who could easily channel most of such loan forms even before the Petrine period (ibid.).
In 1764, Catherine II wrote to her General Procurator, Prince Aleksandr Vjazemskij, that it would be erroneous and irresponsible to treat the Little Russia Province as foreign (Russ. provincija čužestrannaja). According to her, this province needed to be russified (‘with a jat’ ’, see fn. 4), though with the help of ‘velvet’ means (Russ. legčajšimi sposobami). However, in order to achieve this, she added, one had to get rid not only of all the Hetmans in Little Russia but of the very mention and history of this title (Sbornik, p. 348).
As Danylenko (2008a, p. 66) wrote, the ratio of vernacular elements in the ‘new’ prostaja mova tended to outweigh the native bookish and Slavonic elements. Yet the novelty lay not in the number of new vernacular elements in the literary mainstream, since the ‘new’ prostaja mova emerged from the ‘old’ prostaja mova of the seventeenth century, but in the redistribution (normalization) of these elements, reflecting changes primarily in poetic and fictional genres, but not in the burlesque.
While maintaining an objective (multidimensional) approach to the problem of the origin of the 1863 circular, Andriewsky (2003, p. 210) was too quick to claim that “the immediate pretext for the Valuev Circular was, in fact, the prospect of the publication of a ‘Little Russian’ translation of the New Testament—a possibility that the Kyiv Censorship Committee, the governor-general of Kyiv province and, ultimately, the minister of internal affairs deemed ‘dangerous and harmful’ ” (Remy 2007, p. 90; Danylenko 2016, pp. 55–57).
Remy (2016, p. 183) believes that the Valuev circular was essentially not a reaction to the Polish uprising of 1862–1863, but reflected Petr Valuev’s hostile, long-term stance towards Ukrainian as a ‘plebeian language’. Yet this hypothesis warrants a wider sociolinguistic grounding encompassing all other national minority languages, and not only Yiddish in comparison with Ukrainian as posited by Remy.
References
Andriewsky, O. (2003). The Russian-Ukrainian discourse and the failure of the ‘Little Russian Solution’, 1782–1917. In A. Kappeler, Z. E. Kohut, F. E. Sysyn, & M. von Hagen (Eds.), Culture, nation, and identity. The Ukrainian-Russian encounter (1600–1945) (pp. 182–214). Edmonton, Toronto.
Arxiv: Arxiv jugo-zapadnoj Rossii. Čast’ 1, Tom 5: Akty, otnosjaščiesja k dělu o podčinenii Kievskoj mitropolii Moskovskomu patriarxatu (1620–1694 g.). Kiev 1872.
Askočenskij, V. (1856). Kiev s drevnejšim ego učiliščem akademieju (Čast’ 2). Kiev.
Batalden, S. K. (1991). Printing the Bible in the reign of Alexander I: toward a reinterpretation of the Imperial Russian Bible Society. In G. A. Hosking (Ed.), Church, nation and state in Russia and Ukraine (pp. 65–78). New York.
Bednarczuk, L. (2010). Językowy obraz Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Millenium Lithuaniae MIX–MMIX. Kraków.
Borjak, H. (Ed.) (2013). Ukrajins’ka identyčnist’ i movne pytannja v Rossijs’kij imperiji: sproba deržavnoho rehuljuvannja (1847–1914). Zbirnyk dokumentiv i materialiv. Kyjiv.
Bushkovitch, P. (1991). The Ukraine in Russian culture 1790–1860: the evidence of the journals. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 39(3), 339–363.
Cymbalistyj, P. (1991). Ukrainian linguistic elements in the Russian language, 1680–1760. London.
Danylenko, A. (2006a). Slavica et Islamica. Ukrainian in context (Sagners Slavistische Sammlung, 31). München.
Danylenko, A. (2006b). On the name(s) of the prostaja mova in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Studia Slavica Hungarica, 51(1–2), 97–121.
Danylenko, A. (2006c). ‘Prostaja mova’, ‘Kitab’, and Polissian standard. Die Welt der Slaven, 50(1), 80–115.
Danylenko, A. (2008a). The formation of New Standard Ukrainian. From the history of an undeclared contest between Right- and Left-Bank Ukraine in the 18th century. Die Welt der Slaven, 53(1), 82–115.
Danylenko, A. (2008b). The new Ukrainian standard language of 1798: tradition vs. innovation. In Ch. Y. Bethin (Ed.), American contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists. Ohrid, September 2008. Vol. 1: Linguistics (pp. 59–74). Bloomington.
Danylenko, A. (2010). The Ukrainian Bible and the Valuev circular of 18 July 1863. Acta Slavica Iaponica, 28(1), 1–21.
Danylenko, A. (2011a). Linguistic and cultural border crossings in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or, can the Grand Duchy of Lithuania be defined as a Sprachareal? In D. Petit, C. Le Feuvre, & H. Menantaud (Eds.), Langues baltiques, langues slaves (pp. 141–173). Paris.
Danylenko, A. (2011b). ‘With a dispatch of seven cucumbers fresh…’: Mykola Xanenko as a case study of linguistic mentality in the eighteenth-century Hetmanate. In M. S. Flier (Ed.), Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 29(1–4) 2007: Ukrainian philology and linguistics in the twenty-first century (pp. 225–256). Cambridge.
Danylenko, A. (2016). From the Bible to Shakespeare. Pantelejmon Kuliš (1819–1897) and the formation of literary Ukrainian. Boston.
Danylenko, A. (2017a). The ‘doubling of Hallelujah’ for the ‘bastard tongue’. The Ukrainian language question in Russian Ukraine, 1905–1916. In M. S. Flier & A. Graziosi (Eds.), The battle for Ukrainian. A comparative perspective (pp. 63–95). Cambridge.
Danylenko, A. (2017b). On the names of Ruthenia in early modern Poland–Lithuania. In M. Németh, B. Podolak, & M. Urban (Eds.), Essays in the history of languages and linguistics. Dedicated to Marek Stachowski on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 161–173). Kraków. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788376388618.08.
Dini, P. U. (1997). Le lingue baltiche. Firenze.
Dmytryshyn, B. (1970). Introduction. In F. Savčenko, The suppression of the Ukrainian activities in 1876. Reprint of the Kiev 1930 edition (Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies, 14, pp. xv–xxix). München.
Dolbilov, M., & Staljunas, D. (2005). Vvedenie k forumu ‘Alfavit, jazyk i nacional’naja identičnost’ v Rossijskoj imperii’. Ab Imperio, 2, 123–134.
Frick, D. A. (1992). Zyzanij and Smotryc’kyj (Moscow, Constantinople, and Kiev): episodes in cross-cultural misunderstanding. Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 17(1–2), 67–93.
Hosking, G. A. (1997). Russia. People and empire, 1552–1917. Cambridge.
Isičenko, I. (2013). Istorija xrystovoji cerkvy v Ukrajini. Xarkiv.
Kappeler, A. (2001). The Russian empire: a multiethnic empire. Harlow.
Katkov, M. N. (1887). 1863 god. Sobranie statej po pol’skomu voprosu, pomeščavšixsja v Moskovskix vedomostjax, Russkom vestnike i sovremennoj letopisi (Vyp. 1–2). Moskva.
Kohut, Z. E. (1988). Russian centralism and Ukrainian autonomy. Imperial absorption of the Hetmanate. 1760s–1830s. Cambridge.
Kuczyńska, M. (2004). Ruska homiletyka XVIII wieku w Rzeczypospolitej. Ewolucja gatunku – specyfika funkcjonalna. Szczecin.
Lazarevskij, A. (1887). Universal getmana Skoropadskago o perevode ‘knig pravnyx’ na malorusskij jazyk. Kievskaja starina, 17, 788–789.
Lebedev, A. S. (1885). Xar’kovskij kollegium kak prosvetitel’nyj centr Slobodskoj Ukrainy do učreždenija v Xar’kove universiteta. Čtenija v Imperatorskom obščestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom universitete, 4, 1–103.
Lourié, B. (2010). Russian christianity. In K. Parry (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern christianity (pp. 207–230). Malden.
Magocsi, P. (1997). A history of Ukraine. Seattle.
Makar, H. (2014). Cenzurni peresliduvannja ukrajins’koji movy v Rossijs’kij imperiji v kinci XIX–na počatku XX st. Sučasni problemy movoznavstva ta literaturoznavstva, 19, 46–52.
Miller, A. (2002). Rusifikacii: klassificirovat’ i ponjat’. Ab Imperio, 2, 133–148.
Miller, A. (2003). The Ukrainian question. The Russian Empire and nationalism in the nineteenth century. Budapest, New York.
Miller, A. (2008). The Romanov Empire and nationalism. Essays in the methodology of historical research. Budapest, New York.
Miller, A. I., & Ostapčuk, O. A. (2006). Latinica i kirillica v ukrainskom nacional’nom diskurse i jazykovoj politike Rossijskoj i Gabsburgskoj imperij. Slavjanovedenie, 5, 25–48.
Moser, M. (1998). Ostukrainische Urkunden- und Geschäftssprache im 18. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 57(2), 379–407.
Naienko, H. (2017): Najenko, H., Čynnyky variantnosti hramatyčnoji systemy ukrajins’koji movy XVII stolittja. Ukrajins’ke movoznavstvo, 1(47), 27–35.
Nyzovyj, M. (2002). Ukrajins’ka statystyka druku: osnovni etapy stanovlennja ta rozvytku. Kyjiv.
Ohijenko, I. (1950). Istorija ukrajins’koji literaturnoji movy. Vinnipeg.
Ohijenko, I. (2007) Istorija ukrajins’koho drukarstva (ed. by M. Tymošyk). Kyjiv.
Otmena: Ob otmene stesnenij malorusskogo pečatnogo slova. S.-Peterburg 1905.
Pavlenko, A. (2011). Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians? Russian Linguistics, 35(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-011-9078-7.
Pekarskij, P. (1862). Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre velikom (Tom 2). Sanktpeterburg.
Petljura, S. (1912). Ukrainskij otdel na vystavke proizvedenij pečati. Ukrainskaja žyzn’, 9, 78–86.
Plokhy, S. (2001). The cossacks and religion in early modern Ukraine. Oxford.
Plokhy, S. (2006). The origins of the Slavic nations. Premodern identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Cambridge.
Prěnie: Prěnie litovskago protopopa Lavrentija Zizanija s igumenom Ilieju i spravščikom Grigoriem po povodu ispravlenija sostavlennago Lavrentiem katixizisa. Letopisi russkoj literatury i drevnosti, 2, 80–100.
PS: Polnoe sobranie postanovlenij i rasporjaženij po vedomstvu pravoslavnago ispovedanija Rossijskoj Imperii (Vol. 4: 1876; Vol. 5: 1881; Vol. 7: 1890). Sanktpeterburg.
PSK: Polnoe sobranie postanovlenij i rasporjaženij po vedomstvu pravoslavnago ispovedanija Rossijskoj Imperii. Carstvovanie gosudaryni Imperatricy Ekateriny Vtoroj (Vol. 1, 1910). Sanktpeterburg.
Remy, J. (2007). The Valuev Circular and censorship of Ukrainian publications in the Russian Empire (1863–1876). Intention and practice. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 49(1–2), 87–110.
Remy, J. (2016). Brothers or enemies. The Ukrainian national movement and Russia, from the 1840s to the 1870s. Toronto.
Saunders, D. (2005). Russia’s nationality policy: the case of Ukraine (1847–1941). In S. Plokhy & F. E. Sysyn (Eds.), Synopsis: a collection of essays in honor of Zenon E. Kohut (pp. 399–419). Toronto.
Sbornik: Sbornik Russkago Istoričeskago Obščestva. Tom 7: Bumagi imperatricy Ekateriny II. 1. Sanktpeterburg 1871.
Shevelov, G. Y. (1979). A historical phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg.
Shevelov, G. Y. (1989). The Ukrainian language in the first half of the twentieth century (1900–1941). Its state and status. Cambridge.
Snyder, T. (2003). The reconstruction of nations. Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. New Haven.
Struve, P. (1911). Čto že takoe Rossija? Russkaja mysl’, 1, 184–187.
Taranenko, O. O. (2007). Ukrainian and Russian in contact: attraction and estrangement. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 183(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1313/IJSL.2007.007.
Titov, X. (1924). Stara vyšča osvita v Kyjivs’kij Ukrajini XVI–poč. XIX v. (Zbirnyk istoryčno-filolohičnoho viddilu VUAN, 20). Kyjiv.
Torke, H.-J. (1996). Moskau und sein Westen: Zur ‘Ruthenisierung’ der russischen Kultur. In M. G. Müller (Ed.), Osteuropäische Geschichte in vergleichender Sicht. Festschrift für Klaus Zernack zum 65. Geburtstag (Berliner Jahrbuch für osteuropäische Geschichte, 1, pp. 101–120). Berlin.
Uspenskij, B. (1994). Izbrannye trudy. Tom 2: Jazyk i kul’tura. Moskva.
Vakulenko, S. (2004). Slavizzazione della terminologia scolastica nella Filosofia aristotelica all’avviso dei peripatetici di Manujlo Kozačyns’kyj. In G. Siedina (Ed.), Mazepa e il suo tempo. Storia, cultura, società (Slavica, Collana di studi slavi, 6, pp. 541–563). Alessandria.
Vulpius, R. (2005). Nationalisierung der Religion. Russifizierungspolitik und ukrainische Nationsbildung 1860–1920 (Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 64). Wiesbaden.
Weeks, T. R. (1996). Nation and state in late imperial Russia. Nationalism and russification on the western frontier, 1863–1914. DeKalb.
Weeks, T. R. (2001). Russification and the Lithuanians, 1863–1905. Slavic Review, 60(1), 96–114.
Xarlampovič, K. V. (1914). Malorossijskoe vlijanie na velikorusskuju cerkovnuju žizn’. Kazan’.
Žiteckij, P. (1900). Ėneida Kotljarevskago i drevnejšij spisok eja v svjazi s obzorom malorusskoj literatury XVIII veka. Kiev.
Živov, V. M. (1996). Jazyk i kul’tura v Rossii XVIII veka. Moskva.
Živov, V. (2003): Zhivov, V., The question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Russian-Ukrainian relations (seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries). In A. Kappeler, Z. E. Kohut, F. E. Sysyn, & M. von Hagen (Eds.), Culture, nation and identity. The Ukrainian-Russian encounters, 1600–1945 (pp. 1–18). Edmonton, Toronto.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Danylenko, A., Naienko, H. Linguistic russification in Russian Ukraine: languages, imperial models, and policies. Russ Linguist 43, 19–39 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-018-09207-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-018-09207-1