István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
Language and Language Policy in
Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
The official names and titles in the whole or in certain parts of Transcarpathia seen as a historical-geographical region,1 have often been
adjusted to those used in Budapest, Prague or Kiev, which in itself
tells us a lot about the nature of the different periods and systems.
People who were living there always had to get integrated into the new
system while each of the new regimes without exception incorporated
or liquidated subsystems formed in the previous period. Language
has always had a key role in the self-identification of nation states
and individuals – as well as in the peculiar formations of regional and
ethnical identity. Each regime has paid special attention to language
policy, they have tried to arrange the relations between languages
used in Transcarpathia in order to meet their own social, economic,
cultural and political interests, so that they can have influence upon
the national and linguistic identity and civic loyalty of the inhabitants. This is quite general practice. According to Will Kymlicka, in
20th century Europe none of the countries identifying themselves as
nation states could be neutral and allow ethno-cultural and linguistic
diversity. Modern states necessarily make several political decisions
1
The region known as Transcarpathia took shape as a political entity only in the
twentieth century, under names that varied over time and between languages.
The geographical extent of the territory also changed several times. Prior to World
War I it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. From December 25, 1918, to
September 10, 1919, it was known as the “Ruska-Krajna Autonomous Area”, but
the continuing warfare prevented the establishment of exact boundaries for this
territory. After the fall of the Hungarian Soviet Republic (March 21 to August 6,
1919), this area took the name of “Podkarpatská Rus” and became part of Czechoslovakia under Introduction the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain. During
the brief period of a federated Czecho-Slovakia (October 1938–March 1939), the
region was designated on November 22, 1938, as an autonomous territory with
the official name of “Carpatho-Ukraine”. This territory then became independent
for a few hours on March 15, 1939. It was reoccupied by Hungary, and thereafter
remained under Hungarian control for the duration of World War II and became
a Hungarian administrative entity as the “Subcarpathian Governorship”. The
territory then came under Soviet control in October 1944 as “Transcarpathian
Ukraine”, and became formally incorporated into the Soviet Union on January
22, 1946. On August 24, 1991, the region became the “Transcarpathian county”
of independent Ukraine. BÁRDI Nándor, FEDINEC Csilla, SZARKA László (eds.)
Minority Hungarian Communities in the Twentieth Century. (Atlantic Studies on
Society in Change, No. 138.) New York: Columbia University Press, 2011, pp. 8–9.
94
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
effecting linguistic relations, which – in a historical perspective – are
decisive for the survival and dominance of a certain ethno-cultural or
language group or for its decline due to the lack of support.2
We can state that – concerning the questions of language – modern
European nation-states do not want to be neutral. The long term
survival of linguistic, national or ethno-cultural communities depends
on the decisions of the central or regional governments which determines the language used in education, public communication and by
public servants. They determine the context and the extent of limitations on the linguistic and cultural integration of national, ethnic,
or language minorities, autochthon or immigrant communities. The
present paper focuses on the ethno-political and national-political
aims of the Czechoslovak state concerning this issue between the two
world wars and the impact of certain language use decisions on the
relations of majority and minority communities to each other, as well
as between the state and region of Transcarpathia.
Political background
During the peace talks in Paris following World War I it became clear
that new answers to the questions of nationality was an unavoidable must. The Peace Treaties of Versailles forced the losing states
to sign agreements which they could not influence. Peace treaties
established new states and borderlines on the territory of the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, ostensible using national self-determination as the main organizing principle. However, so many different
– economic, strategic or purely territorial considerations were added,
that the new configuration of states in the given region did not follow
the national-ethnic principle even where ethnical-demographical
conditions would have made it possible.3 From an ethnic point of view
the arrangement was similarly not successful in the newly created
Soviet Union, which had emerged from the ruins of the Empire of the
Romanovs. On the territory of the former empire, to the west small
nation-states were established, while in the new state – the Soviet
Union – several nationally different areas were now taken absorbed
in the whole. Among others, Ukrainian attempts at separation and
establishment of independence were unsuccessful.
2
3
„Ethno-cultural neutrality of a state is not only unrealizable but also undesirable” – Andrea Krizsán’s interview with Canadian philosopher Will Kymlicka. In
Fundamentum 2, 1997, p. 43–53.
ROMSICS Ignác: A nagyhatalmak és az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia felbomlása.
In Kisebbségkutatás 2, 2000, p. 213.
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
95
In January 1919 the Czechoslovak and the Romanian armies
appeared in the region. On 8 May 1919 it was decided in Paris that
Transcarpathia would belong to Czechoslovakia. The decision was
included in the Treaty of Saint-Germain on 10 September 1919. On
8 May 1919 the so-called Central Rusyn National Council declared
their wish to join the newly formed Czechoslovak state. At the same
time, in Transcarpathia there were inhabitants who wanted to
remain inside Hungary while others – especially those in the Máramaros region – wanted to join the emerging Ukrainian state trying to
break away from civil war burdened Russia.
The areas under Czechoslovak authority the introduction of Czechoslovak public administration began without delay. By September
1919, when the occupation was finalized by international legal acts,
in a significant part of the region Czechoslovak public administration
was already active. This became the basis of the Czechoslovak administration, which represented an alternative status compared to other
Czechoslovak regions between the two world wars. New borders were
drawn without the consideration of ethnic settlements (as the railway
lines built in the dualistic period played the most significant role) either
in case of the Hungarian or the Ruthenian communities. The region
called Podkarpatská Rus did not include all regions with Ruthenian
majority in Czechoslovakia. According to the Treaty of Saint-Germain
the region and the town of Prešov were joined to Slovakia, while the
Treaty of Trianon divided the region of Máramaros between Czechoslovakia and Romania along the line of the river Tisza.4
Vladimir Vernadsky, an Ukrainian philosopher and one of the
founders and the first president of the Ukrainian academy of sciences
wrote the following in his diary in December 1919: “Newspapers
report that the Czech Republic has given autonomy to Carpathian
Rus! I have always had a special interest in its fate but I would never
have thought that what is happening now can happen at all. I can
remember talking about the soil of Hungarian Rus with (Mykhailo)
Drahomanov, who considered its protection his bounded duty. In
Moscow I had long talks about the question with Mykhailo Hrushevskyi. At that time both of them thought the situation was hopeless.”5
4
5
ВІДНЯНСЬКИЙ Степан. Поразка імперського мислення і утворення національних
держав. In ВЕГЕШ Микола – ФЕДИНЕЦЬ Чілла (eds.) Закарпаття 1919–2009 років:
історія, політика, культура. Ужгород: Видавництво «Ліра», 2010, pp. 54-55; ŠVORC
Peter – DANILÁK Michal – HEPNER Harald (eds.): Veľka politika a malé regióny
(1918–1939). Prešov–Graz: Universum, 2002, pp. 34-44, 59–82.
МАЗУРОК Олег – ПЕНЯК Павло – ШЕВЕРА Мирослав. Володимир Вернадський
про Угорську Русь. Ужгород: Ужгородський національний університет – Інститут
українознавста ім. І. Крип’якевича, 2003, p. 14.
96
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
According to Articles 10-13 of the Treaty of Saint-German6 the
Czechoslovak Republic was obliged to organize the region called
Podkarpatská Rus now under its authority as an autonomous unit
having its own self-government, which was also to have legislative
power concerning language use. The legal status of national minorities was defined in the Chapter of the Constitution of 19207 based
on the Treaty of Saint-Germain, whose Section VI – Protection of
national, religious and racial minorities – declared by law the full
equality of the citizens of the republic concerning language, religion
and race. Language rights were regulated by the language law, which
– based on § 129 – was considered a part of the Constitution. § 1
of the language law No 122. (29 February 1920)8 declared that the
“Czechoslovak language” was the official language of the state and –
according to § 4 – in Czech regions the Czech and in Slovak regions
the Slovak is the adequate variety of the Czechoslovak language.
“The Czechoslovak Republic was established as a nation state
– the state of the Czechoslovak nation – however, it was actually a
multinational formation. One third of the citizens (34,3 % in 1921
and 32,7 % in 1931) belonged to one or other nationality.”9 As early
as 1916 Edward Beneš stated in his paper originally published in
French in Paris that “ Czechoslovaks – or simply Czechs – consist
of two elements: the 7 million Czechs living in the Czech Republic,
Moravia and Silesia and the 3 million Slovaks living in the northern
parts of Hungary, between the Morava – Danube meeting and the
Upper Tisza region. (…) the two branches of the one and the same
nation have the same culture, language and history: the Slovak
dialect hardly differs from the Czech.”10 The first president of the
Czechoslovak state, Tomaš Garrigeu Masaryk had a similar opinion,
he declared in his often cited work published in several languages
in 1923-24 that „Československo je obnovením bývalého českého (a
Malá Saint Germainská zmluva (Zmluva medzi čelnými mocnosťami spojenými
i združenými a Česko-Slovenskom, podpísaná v Saint-Germain-en-Laye dňa 10.
septembra 1919). VESELÝ Zdeněk. Dejiny ceského štátu v dokumentech. Praha:
Victoria Publishing, 1995, pp. 329–334.
7
Ústavní listina Československé republiky (121/1920 Sb. Zákon ze dne 29. února
1920, kterým se uvozuje Ústavní listina Československé republiky). http://www.
psp.cz/docs/texts/constitution_1920.html
8
Zákon c.122/1920 Zb. z. a n., upravujúci jazykové pomery v Ceskoslovensku.
VESELÝ Zdeněk. Dejiny ceského štátu v dokumentech. Praha: Victoria Publishing,
1995, pp. 351–352.
9
POMICHAL Richárd. Csehszlovákia es Magyarország viszonya az 1920-as
években. In Fórum Társadalomtudományi Szemle 2, 2007, p. 64.
10
BENEŠ Edvard. Détruisez l’Autriche-Hongrie! Le martyre des Tchéco-Slovaques à
travers l’histoire. Paris: Delagrave, 1916, pp. 5–6.
6
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
97
velkomoravského) státu [...] Češi a Slováci jsou jeden národ a mají
jeden jazyk.” (Slované po válce, 1923).11
The Czechoslovak language was a political construction, similar
to Serbo-Croatian, the most numerous language of ex-Yugoslavia.
Although the theory of a uniform Serbo-Croatian language can be
backed up by historic tradition, since the break-up of Yugoslavia there
have been two separate languages (Abstand): Serbian is the state
language in independent Serbia, and Croatian in sovereign Croatia.
However the same language is used in both countries – the language
used in the uniform Southern Slav State.12 Recently not only Serbian
and the slightly different Croatian have been distinguished but also
Bosnian – spoken in regions inhabited by Moslems –, which is very
close to both of them, and the Montenegrin language has also been
recognized as a separate language.
In this way the Czechoslovak nation and language consisted of
two, theoretically coequal varieties, the Czech and the Slovak peoples
and languages. In a political sense the Czechs dominated in the
Czechoslovak Republic. This is evident from language use. If Slovak
had been the equal eastern variety of the “Czechoslovak language”,
this eastern variety should have appeared in administration and
education on the area of Podkarpatská Rus. The more so as – from a
linguistic point of view – the Slovak language is much closer to Rusyn
than Czech. But in Podkarpatská Rus Czech was the language of
administration and education. Titles and labels of state institutions
and symbols also illustrate the dominance of the Czech language:
where there was a choice between Czech and Slovak, Czech was
usually preferred.13
The language law and other measures regulating language use
– e.g. Government statute No 27, issued in 192414 and the Enacting
Clause of the language law in 192615 – ensured relatively wide rights
MASARYK Tomáš Garrigue. Slovanské problémy. Praha: Státní nakladatelství,
1923, p. 13.
12
NYOMÁRKAY István. A szerbhorvát nyelvkérdés. In Magyar Nyelvôr 2 (121),
1997, p. 204.
13
SZALAY Zoltán. Kisebbségi nyelvi jogok Szlovákiában az 1918–1968 közötti
idôszakban. In Fórum Társadalomtudományi Szemle 3, 2011, p. 86.
14
27/1924 Sb. Vládne nariadenie, ktorým sa upravuje užívanie jazykov pre župné
zastupiteľstva, župné výbory a okresné výbory, sriadené podľa vládneho nariadenia
zo dňa 26. októbra 1922, č. 310 Sb. z. a n. http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1924/013-1924.pdf
15
17/1926 Sb. Vládní nařízení, jímž se provádí ústavní zákon jazykový pro obor ministerstva vnitra, spravedlnosti, financí, průmyslu, obchodu a živností, veřejných prací
a veřejného zdravotnictví a tělesné výchovy, pro veřejné korporace, podléhajícím
těmto ministerstvům v republice Československé, jakož i pro úřady místní samosprávy. http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1926/009-1926.pdf
11
98
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
to minority language speakers, both orally and in writing. The right
to free language use was provided not only for private persons. In
case the headquarters of a certain firm, company or church was in
the area of a district court where the percentage of a given minority
exceeded the legally regulated threshold (20%), they also could take
advantage of the right of free language use. Here we should not
forget that the state not only allowed but prescribed the use of the
minority language in case in a district the percentage of minority
citizens exceeded the legally regulated limit. In most parts of Transcarpathia bilingual (Czechoslovak – Rusyn) and in districts inhabited by Hungarians trilingual (Czechoslovak – Rusyn – Hungarian)
inscriptions appeared on public institutions: the names of schools,
associations, shops, streets and squares were displayed in two or
three languages.
As for Podkarpatská Rus, § 6 of the language law declared that
the future regional assembly will have the right to pass its own
laws on linguistic questions, however until the establishment of the
regional assembly, the same language law was to be applied “with
consideration to the specific language relations of the region”. The
Enacting Act of the language law issued in 1926 repeats the text of
the law – in addition it declares that petitions could be submitted in
the Carpatho-Rusyn language at each court and office in the region.
Besides the official Czechoslovak, the names of official buildings had
to be displayed in Carpatho-Rusyn and official announcements had to
be issued in both of the two languages.
The language law and the Enacting Act allowed the use of the
Rusyn language in the whole region of Podkarpatská Rus. Hungarian
language could be used at official places in settlements where the
majority of inhabitants were Hungarian.
The right to education in the mother tongue was also assured
by the language law. According to the Education Act No. 226/1922
passed on 13 July 192216 it was required to teach the Czechoslovak
language in minority schools; while the law No. 137/1923 passed on
8 July 192317 definitely ordered the compulsory teaching of the state
language in every school of the republic.
Although language measures were not hostile, minorities living
in the Czechoslovak Republic raised several complaints concerning
226/1922 Sb. Zákon, jímž se mění a doplňují zákony o školách obecných a občanských
Pozn.: předpis neplatí na Podkarpatské Rusi. http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1922/0801922.pdf
17
137/1923 Sb. Zákon , kterým se upravuje vyučování jazyku státnímu a jazykům
národních menšin na školách středních a ústavech učitelských. http://ftp.aspi.cz/
opispdf/1923/061-1923.pdf
16
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
99
their language rights. One of the reasons was that the percentage of
the given minority had to exceed the 20 % limit – granting the use
of the language – on the area of the given district court. By means
of administrative reforms the authorities often tried to change the
borders of the district courts so that the percentage of minorities
could not exceed the 20 % limit. Another reason was that only Czechoslovak citizens were taken into consideration – other citizens and
stateless people were not counted when the percentage of a given
minority was estimated. Czechoslovakia signed the Peace Treaties
but later they did not accept the articles granting citizenship automatically to all people living in the country. The so called Domicile
Act No 236/192018 declared that only persons who had been domiciled
before 1910 could get Czechoslovak citizenship. Those who moved to
the regions concerned had to submit complicated petitions and face
different examinations.
The so called Lex Dérer – Law No 152/1926 – passed on 1 July
192619 regulated the problems of citizenship. Citizenship was of special
importance as language rights were bound by Czechoslovak laws to
the percentage of the minority present in a given district. Unsettled
citizenship was characteristic of minority people on the first place.
The Czechoslovak census in 1930 found sixteen thousand foreign or
stateless persons in Transcarpathia, most of them were Hungarians
or Rusyns. Transcarpathian inhabitants without Czechoslovak citizenship were not counted in the 20 percent limit and the elections, since
only citizens of the Czechoslovak Republic had voting rights.
Demographic policy also served the political ends of language
policy. There is a striking difference between the results of the two
censuses in the region of the present Transcarpathia: in 1910 the
Hungarian census found 184 thousand Hungarians, while the first
Czechoslovak census recorded only 111 thousand. This was partly due
to the change of the administration in the region – a great number
of Hungarian civil servants, intellectuals, officers and gendarmes left
for Hungary – inside the borders drawn at Trianon. At the same time
the Hungarian census recorded the numbers by mother tongue, while
the Czechoslovak records based it on nationality. This is why a great
number of Hungarian-speaking Jews fell into another category. In
the Czechoslovak period the Hungarian parties of Transcarpathia
openly expressed their opinion that the reduction of the number of
236/1920 Sb. Ústavní zákon , kterým se doplňují a mění dosavadní ustanovení o nabývání a pozbývání státního občanství a práva domovského v republice
Československé. http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1920/046-1920.pdf
19
152/1926 Sb. Ústavný zákon o udelení štátneho občianstva československého niektorým osobám. http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1926/070-1926.pdf
18
100
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
Hungarian inhabitants was mainly due to counting the Jews separate
from the Hungarians. On 5 May 1935 the daily paper “Kárpáti Magyar
Hírlap” appealed to them as follows: “Fraternal words to Hungarians
of Jewish religion in Transcarpathia! (…) Our Hungarian brothers
and sisters of Jewish religion! The last hour has come! Return to
the indigenous community, which is also a vital affiliation for you!
Return to the basic principles of the policy of the Hungarian National
Party!”20
Czechoslovak authorities wanted to reduce the number of nationalities also by means of an agrarian reform: several so called Czech
colonies were founded on the properties of previous large estates,
mainly in the southern parts of Transcarpathia inhabited by Hungarians. Different benefits were given to Czech and Moravian and upland
Rusyn people who settled in these villages. Although the majority of
the inhabitants of the Czech colonies left when these regions were
returned to Hungary after the First Vienna Award in 1938, later
Rusyn/Ukrainian people were settled in their place by the Soviet
authorities.21
The Rusyn autonomy promised in the constitution could have
changed the linguistic situation of the region significantly, but it was
realized just before the beginning of World War I. With reference to
§8 of the Czechoslovak language law of 1920, on 25 November 1938
the Transcarpathian government of Avhustyn Voloshyn introduced
Ukrainian as the state language of the autonomous region. §2 of the
governmental regulation22 allowed Czech, Slovak and Russian inhabitants to submit their official applications in their own languages. At
the same time §323 invalidated previous regulations concerning the
use of languages. The Voloshyn-government clearly aimed to ukrainianize of social and public life, which is also reflected by changing the
name of the region to Carpatho-Ukraine.
Cit. FEDINEC Csilla. Iratok a kárpátaljai magyarság történetéhez 1918–1944.
Törvények, rendeletek, kisebbségi programok, nyilatkozatok. Somorja–Dunaszerdahely: Fórum Kisebbségkutató Intézet – Lilium Aurum Könyvkiadó, 2004, pp.
345-346.
21
SZAKÁL Imre. „… Nem tehetnek ôk sem róla, hogy közénk kerültek.” Az elsô
Csehszlovák Köztársaság kárpátaljai telepítéspolitikájának néhány aspektusa.
In SZAMBOROVSZKYNÉ NAGY Ibolya (ed.) „Így maradok meg hírvivônek”. In
memoriam Soós Kálmán. Ungvár: PoliPrint, 2012, pp. 165–178.
22
Розпорядження правительства Підкарпатської Руси з дня 25 листопада 1938 року
про запровадження на її території державної української (малоруської) мови. http://
izbornyk.org.ua/volosh/volosh41.htm
23
ЛЕВЕНЕЦЬ Юрій et al. (eds.) Закарпаття в етнополітичному вимірі. Київ: ІПІЕНД ім.
І. Ф. Кураса, 2008, pp. 294–295.
20
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
101
While the troops of the Hungarian Army started to reoccupy Transcarpathia still belonging to Czechoslovakia, the autonomous parliament (the Sojm) declared the independence of Carpatho-Ukraine in
Khust, on 14 March. The next day – while the Hungarian troops,
overcome sporadic armed resistance, and marched towards Khust,
the capital – the Sojm accepted the constitution24 verifying the declaration of the sovereign state (§1), whose state language was Ukrainian
(§4). However, there was no chance to set up an independent state
since the Hungarian Army finished the military occupation of all of
Transcarpathia by 18 March.
Language camps
In the Czechoslovak period on the territory of the present Transcarpathia authorities allowed the official use of the Rusyn language in
the region where the absolute majority of the population was Rusyn
– in spite of the fact that there was actually no real autonomy. From
a language policy point of view the language of the Slav majority of
the population could be used as an official language, equal to the state
language (theoretically the Czechoslovak, but actually the Czech
language). Hungarian, which used to be the previous state language,
could be used officially only in the area of district courts where the
percentage of the Hungarian inhabitants exceeded 20 %. Although
neither Rusyns nor Hungarians were completely satisfied with the
language situation, the main linguistic problem of the period was due
to the questions of linguistic strategy. This was closely connected with
language policy, which did not have a clear policy. This was mainly
due to the fact that in the fields of culture, public life and education,
three literary varieties were used of the so-called Rusyn language, the
official language in the region.
One of the most significant language problems of the local Slav
inhabitants was the lack of a standardized dialect. Since the turn of
the 19th and 20th centuries several linguistic dialects existed among
the Slovaks in Transcarpathia. There was no uniform linguistic
approach in the period in question. This was also the case with the
Rusyns. Three language camps could be differentiated: Russophile
(Great Russian), Ukranophile (Little Russian) and Rusynophile.
The three language camps wanted to arrange the linguistic status of
the majority of inhabitants in the region in three contrasting ways.
24
Конституційний Закон ч. 1 Карпатської України. Хуст, 15 березня 1939 р. http://litopys.
org.ua/volosh/volosh45.htm
102
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
The local Slav intellectuals could not agree upon which language or
language variety could function as the standard or literary language.
Before 1918 Hungarian authorities supported the Rusyn language.
The supporters of this camp considered the Rusyn people independent
and differentiated the Rusyn or Ruthenian language (the local Slav
dialects) from the neighbouring Slav (Ukrainian, Slovak, Polish)
languages. Especially the priests of the Greek Catholic episcopate in
Mukacheve were Rusynophile. Their aim was to establish and codify
their own literary language, based on local dialects and the Slav
language used by the Church. The best-known representatives of this
camp were Antal Hodinka and Hiiador Strypskyi, who – in the Czechoslovak period – lived in Hungary and not on the territory of Podkarpatská Rus and returned there for a short time only after the revision.
The theory of independent Rusyn people was backed by the fact
that the Carpathian mountain range – a natural border – separated
Slavs living in Hungary from Slavs living beyond this border. The
supporters of the Rusynophile theory thought even after the region
had been joined to Czechoslovakia that the literary language had to be
near to the “language of the people”, the natural spoken language in
everyday life. Their ambitions were hampered by the relatively significant differences between the local Slav dialects, so the question of
the standard literary language could not be solved by choosing one of
them. However, they did not have the time, the opportunity, financial
backing or legitimacy to blend the local dialects and equal the norms.
In the 1920’s the Rusynophile camp became insignificant, partly
because the Czechoslovak authorities thought that the supporters
of the theory of the independent Rusyn people and language were
“magyarón”, and represented Hungarian interests. Although in the
first issue of the periodical „Недѣля (Sunday) published on 6 October
1935 the supporters of the theory of an independent Rusyn literary
language – recognizing the cultural splendour of the Russian and the
Ukrainian people – appealed to the supporters of the two other camps
to join them in order to work out a literary language based on the
language spoken by the local people. However, the language could
not be standardized because of the deep divisions. The Rusyn camp
got stronger again in the second half of the 1930’s, especially when
Transcarpathia was returned to Hungary.
There was a keen rivalry between the Russophile and Ukranophile camps when the area was joined to Czechoslovakia. In the
beginning the two opposite camps dividing the local Slav intellectuals were equally supported by the Government in Prague. The first
camps wanted to use Great Russian as the literary language while the
other aimed at the introduction and use of the Ukrainian standard.
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
103
A short work by Aleksei Gerovsky25 can be considered a summary
of the linguistic program of the Russophile line. He differentiated four
linguistic varieties: a) Northern Great Russian /северно-великорусское
наречие/, b) Southern Great Russian /южно-великорусское наречие/, c)
Byelorussian /белорусское наречие/, d) Southern Russian or CarpathoRusyn /южно-русское или малорусское наречие/. In his opinion the
dialects of Transcarpathian Slovaks belong to the Southern or
Carpatho-Rusyn dialect. As the dialects spoken by local people also
belong to the uniform Russian language, the use of literary Russian in
writing is quite necessary. Gerovsky considered Ukrainian a dividing,
artificially imported language.
The supporters of the Russian camp conceived of a linguistic
situation similar to the one characteristic of the German-speaking
region in Switzerland. The situation called (Ferguson) diglossia26 in
linguistic literature means that Swiss Germans use the local dialect
(Schweizerdeutsch) in everyday communication (at home, with
friends, private correspondence, etc.) and literary German (Hochdeutsch or Schriftsprache) in formal, public situations (church, work,
school, media, etc.). Russophiles suggested local dialects in everyday
oral communication but urged the introduction of Russian (Great
Russian) in education and cultural life. This way Russian was to
be considered “sophisticated” while local dialects were “popular”.
German, French and Italian linguistic situations were shown as
models for the local people. They stressed that Bavarians, Saxons
and the Tyrolese use their own dialects in the family, and change to
uniform literary German in cultural life, education, science and literature. “We recognize the common literary Russian language and urge
its introduction in education and administration but do not want to
throw out the popular language. At the same time we want to gradually rid this dialect of magyarisms, we want to make it richer and
wider but not with pure fabrications and other provincialisms, which
does not make sense here. We want to arrange the linguistic situation
similar to the model used by West-European civilized people. Literary
French does not damage Provencals, and literary Russian will not
hurt us either.” – writes Ihor Husnai.27
ГЕРОВСКИЙ Алексей. Борьба чешского правительства с русским языком (1938).
http://oboguev.narod.ru/images/cr3.htm
26
FERGUSON Charles A. Diglossia. In Word XV, 1959, pp. 325-340; TRUDGILL
Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2003; WARDHAUGH Ronald. Sociolinguistics. 5th ed. Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
27
ГУСЬНАЙ Игорь. Языковый вопрос въ Подкарпатской Руси. Пряшевѣ: Книгопечатня
„Св. Николая”, 1921, pp. 19, 27.
25
104
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
The theoretical background of Ukranophiles was the fact that the
dialects used by Transcarpathian Slavs were similar to the Ukrainian
dialects spoken on the other side of the Carpathian mountain range, so
they did not have an independent language. The similarity of the dialects
used on the Eastern and Western sides of the Carpathian mountain
range were derived mainly from texts written before the 18th century.
The majority of local intellectuals also supported the Ukrainian camp.
One of them was the poet, author and editor Vasyl Grendzha-Donskyi.
He wrote in the 21st issue of the journal “Українське слово” (Ukrainian
word) published on 13 April 1938: “Actually there is no need for a separate literary language in Carpathian Ruthenia (…), the appearance of
a somewhat new language would be a dangerous support for dividing
efforts, which have been present among our people for a long time.
There is no doubt that the local Rusyn dialect of Carpathian Ruthenia
is a dialect of the Ukrainian language, so local citizens should also
accept the Ukrainian used by their neighbours and relatives as their
own literary language, too.” And he goes on: “Here in Transcarpathia
we speak a beautiful Ukrainian language, a language spoken by our
sisters and brothers in Galicia, Bukovina or Great-Ukraine.”28
The Russophile camp started with the advantage that Russian
was a codified, prestigious language carrying high cultural value –
as against the Ukrainian language, which had several more or less
different literary norms and spellings in the first third of the 20th
century. This way not only the Rusyn but also the Ukranophile camp
had to face certain problems of codification. “We should not forget
that the “Ukrainian – Carpatho-Rusyn” language and spelling have
not yet become solid and uniform. (…) Separatists have at least three
different ways of spelling, ie. Rusyn – Ukrainian in Podkarpatská
Rus, Galician – Ukrainian in Galicia and Carpatho-Rusyn – Ukrainian
in Southern Russia. The separatists themselves cannot even decide
which of the three is the best. We know that (Ivan) Kotlyarevsky,
(Mykola) Kulish, (Ivan) Franko and (Vladimir) Vinnichenko wrote in
different ways” – Husnai writes.29
The establishment of a uniform Ukrainian standard was hindered
by the divisione of the Ukrainian language areas up to the end of
World War II, politically belonging to the territory of several states.30
Cit. ФЕРЕНЦ Надія. В. Ґренджа-Донський про мову Закарпатців. In Українська мова на
Закарпатті у минулому і сьогодні. Ужгород: Патент, 1993, pp. 314–320.
29
ГУСЬНАЙ Игорь. Языковый вопрос въ Подкарпатской Руси. Пряшевѣ: Книгопечатня
„Св. Николая”, 1921, p. 30.
30
KOCSIS Károly – RUDENKO Leonid – SCHWEITZER Ferenc (eds.) Ukraine in Maps.
Kyiv–Budapest: Institute of Geography National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine –
Geographical Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Scienses, 2008, pp. 19–24.
28
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
105
There were different opportunities to standardize, codify and unify
spelling in Galicia and Bukovina, which were parts of the Habsburg
Empire up to 1918 and then belonged to Poland. The area of the
present Transcarpathia, on the other hands up to the end of World
War I belonged to Hungary then to Czechoslovakia, or to Central- and
Eastern-Ukrainian regions, which were first under the supremacy of
tsarist Russia then of the Soviet Union.
The above problems of the Ukrainian orientation in reflected by
the fact that in the given period more than one way of spelling was
used in the region, and different etymological and phonetic orthographies prevailed. The linguistic uniformity of Ukrainians living in
Transcarpathia and beyond the Carpathian mountain range had to
be obvious also in spelling – at least the supporters of the Ukrainian
camp thought it very important. The is stated in „Мова і правопис”
(Language and spelling) an article signed by a certain K. Chehovich
published in the Ukranophile paper „Учитель” (Teacher) in 1931: „If
the members of a nation do not use the same letters to indicate the
same sounds of their literary language, the feeling of their national
unity will fade and at the same time it will be difficult to transfer
thoughts and cultural values connected to language.”31
When local authorities had to answer the question of which
language or language version was to be used in education and public
administration in Podkarpatská Rus, on 15 November 1919 they
wrote a letter (registered No 934 in Prague) to the academy of sciences
in Prague asking for their opinion. The letter was answered from
the ministry of education by Gustav Habrman, his letter was registered 62.756/19. 902. n.o. on 20 December 1919. The introduction of
the letter (re: „Spísovný jazyk pro Karpatskou Rus”) states that a
committee of linguists and other experts were sitting on 4 December,
which had to make a commitment concerning the literary language
of the region and the version of the language used in education. The
experts unanimously accepted a common attitude of five items which
was delivered to the state leaders in Transcarpathia in a letter signed
by the minister himself.
The first item declares that it is the users of the given language
who are competent to decide the literary language of a nation not
an academic committee. The second item clearly states that the Slav
inhabitants of the region were not likely to welcome the development of a new literary language, which was considered unnecessary
and contradictory to the aims of Czechoslovak nationality policy
as it could lead to strengthen the supporters of divisiveness. The
31
Учитель 7-8 (XII), 1931, pp. 137–139.
106
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
third item undoubtedly calls the language varieties of the region
“maloruské” – dialects of the Ukrainian language. Subsequently
the language used by the nearest neighbours belonging to the same
ethnical group, Galician Ukrainian („haličskou ukrajinštinu”) should
be recognized as the literary language of Transcarpathia. In addition the statement suggests that in Transcarpathia the spelling of
the Galician literary language should be etymological rather than
phonetic.32 According to the experts in Prague the introduction of
the Ukrainian literary language in local education would be useful
for schools in Transcarpathia and it would be possible to use Galician
textbooks and to employ Galician teachers. The fears that this would
lead to Ukrainian irredentism would appear in Podkarpatská Rus are
wrong – the minister’s letter states. The chance would be greater –
the letter states – if Transcarpathian Slavs would be cut off from
their natural national roots.
With consideration of the above, the fourth item is even more
interesting. The academic body suggests that in secondary school
classes Russian should be also compulsory in addition to the state
language, so that the Slav – as well as the Ukrainian – inhabitants of
the region would not lose the feeling of belonging to the great Russian
nation.33
The fifth issue – the final suggestion of the academic body –
declares that it would be advisable, both professionally and politically, to study earlier attempts – e.g. Voloshyn’s grammar – aimed at
the development of the local literary language.34
In the Transcarpathian region one of the first public confrontations between the Russian and Ukrainian orientations took place in
1921. Ihor Husnai, a school inspector in Prešov expresses his opinion
in his above cited paper „Языковый вопрось въ Подкарпатской Руси”
(The language question in Podkarpatská Rus) published in 1921,
according to which Czech authorities do not know what to think of
a “dialect”, this is why he suggested the introduction of the Russian
Шевельов Юрій. Українська мова в першій половині двадцятого століття (1900–1941).
Стан і статус. Київ: Сучасність, 1987, p. 249.
33
Tichý František. Vývoj současného spisovného jazyka na Podkarpatské Rusi. Praha:
Orbis, 1938, p. 112.
34
The original attitude of the academy (in Czech language) is cited by Мозер Міхаель.
Шляхи „українізації: Підкарпаття за міжвоєнної доби – перші граматики української
мови. In ZOLTÁN András (ed.) In memoriam István Udvari (1950–2005). Nyíregyháza: Nyíregyházi Fôiskola Ukrán és Ruszin Filológiai Tanszéke, 2011, p. 248.
A copy of the original document is published in: Черничко Степан – ФЕДИНЕЦЬ
Чілла. Наш місцевий Вавилон. Історія мовної політики на території Закарпаття у
першій половині ХХ століття (до 1944 року). Ужгород: Поліграфцентр «Ліра», 2014,
рр. 105–106.
32
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
107
language in Transcarpathia. He refused to use the Ukrainian
literary language, calling Ukrainian a pure Austrian-Polish fabrication, considering the Ukrainian camp separatist. In his opinion the
Rusynophile camp was a manifestation of narrow territorial interests, provincialism and intellectual backwardness as well as Russophobe.35 “There are as many as three different Carpatho-Rusyn
dialects, in addition to several smaller dialects. In Podkarpatská Rus
itself three or four dialects can be differentiated. How far would we
get if – behind the slogan of “mother tongue” – each dialect wanted to
be officially recognized?”36 – Ihor Husnai asks the question, refusing
both the Ukrainian and the Rusyn camps.
Avhustyn Voloshyn reacted to Husnai’s question in his answer „О
письменном язицѣ Подкарпатських русинов” (On the literary language
of Transcarpathian Rusyns).37 He clearly defined the Ukrainian
language as the literary language of the local Slav inhabitants and
refused the theory according to which Carpatho-Rusyn (малоруський)
was only a dialect of Great Russian (великорусскій). In Voloshyn’s
opinion the Russian orientation, which had had a strong influence from the second half of the 19th century, was an anachronistic
mistake, and contradictory to national consolidation.38 Voloshyn
thought that behind the pro-Russian argument there were divisive
political aims. “Some fanatic janissaries had infiltrated us from
tsarist and Bolshevik Russia and began their dangerous fratricidal
work. Single-minded people were convinced by their mean demagogy, fluffy-minded believers were converted to “krivoslavia” here
and there, and intellectuals were divided by the language question”
he states in his polemical essay.39 He refuses the charge of separatism
and defends the independence of the Ukrainian (Carpatho-Rusyn)
ПЛЇШКОВА Анна. Русинскый язык на Словенску (Короткый нарис історії і сучасности).
Пряшів: Світовый конґрес Русинів, 2008, pp. 39–40.
36
ГУСЬНАЙ Игорь. Языковый вопрос въ Подкарпатской Руси. Пряшевѣ: Книгопечатня
„Св. Николая”, 1921, p. 30.
37
ВОЛОШИН Августин. О письменном язицѣ Підкарпатських русинов. Ужгород: „Уніо”,
1921. http://litopys.org.ua/volosh/volosh30.htm
38
ПЛЇШКОВА Анна. Русинскый язык на Словенску (Короткый нарис історії і сучасности).
Пряшів: Світовый конґрес Русинів, 2008, p. 40.
39
By means of this play on words the Greek Catholic Volosyn wanted to parallel
between pravoslavia (православіє) and krivaslavia (кривославіє) referring to the
schizmatic movement, which made several Greek Catholic believers to converse
to the Greek Orthodox (Pravoslav) Church. The word „Pravoslav” means (also)
follower of the true faith, while the prefix „krivo” means here false, wrong and
distorted.
35
108
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
language with reference to the attitude of the Academy of Sciences in
Petersburg which had been issued in 1905.40
Referring to the all-Russian uniform language and the German
analogy of his debating partners, Avhustyn Voloshyn cites a work
of Vatroslav Jagiċ (1908) and stresses that in addition to German
there are several other Germanic languages e.g. Flemish, Dutch,
Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. “If we examine the reasons why
these languages have differentiated from the all-German language,
we will face their historic disintegration.” – the author states. “As
impossible as it is to transform a square into a circle, so difficult
it is to blend people divided by history on the basis of language” –
Voloshyn writes with reference to the Russian and the Ukrainian
people and languages. He states that “each Slav folk has created their
own language and literature”. Voloshyn stresses that the literary
language should be near to the language of the people. In the author’s
opinion writers and poets of the Hungarian reform period – Mihály
Csokonai Vitéz, Sándor Petôfi and János Arany – renewed Hungarian
literature by raising the language of single-minded people onto the
level of literature. Voloshyn clearly opposes local, regional literary
traditions to the Great Russian linguistic line. In his opinion regional
linguistic traditions consider the popular language a base but they do
no separate from the language varieties used beyond the Carpathian
mountain range.
At the end of his polemical essay Voloshyn sums up the results
of his work. He declares that the independent existence of the
Carpatho-Rusyn (Ukrainian) language is a fact. The fight against
it is due to religious, political and economic reasons. He stresses
that the Carpatho- Rusyn language must not be linked to separatism as it does not hinder Slav solidarity. He announces that Great
Russian spelling cannot be applied to Carpatho-Rusyn. He asserts
that the polonisms of the Galician language varieties, the Moskowite
and Polish elements or the Hungarian occurrences in the Transcarpathian language varieties have not changed the popular character
of the Carpatho-Rusyn language. In his opinion the Great Russian
line is anachronistic and prevents cultural development, encumbers
ecclesiastic work and spiritual life, and obstructs economic growth
and blocks political consolidation.
Prague wanted to arrange language relations in the region by
means of a referendum in 1937, which was to decide which grammar
the local schools should teach as the basis of the Rusyn language.
40
Об отмене стеснений малорусского печатного слова. Санкт-Петербург, 1905. http://
histans.com/LiberUA/OtmStMalPechSl_1905/OtmStMalPechSl_1905.pdf
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
109
However, the results of the referendum were contradictory, 73
percent of the 427 schools voted for Evmenii Sabov’s Russophile
grammar and 27 percent for Ivan Penkevich’s Ukrainian grammar.
The interpretation of the results suggested that the majority voted
for the existence of the independent Rusyn people and the use of the
Russian language. Ukrainian intellectuals did not accept the result
as authentic – stressing among others that it did not cover the whole
territory of Podkarpatská Rus.41
The major institutional background of the Ukranophiles was the
Prosvita Society (Товариство Просвіта) founded by a Galician pattern
in 1920, and the periodical „Науковий зборник” (Scientific Review).
“We will let the whole world know that we, Transcarpathian Rusyns
belong to the great Ukrainian nation, our language and culture have
always been, are and will be the same – i.e. the language and literature of our brothers and sisters living beyond the Carpathian mountain range, and we will fight with all our might against all attempts
to russionize us or make a separate tribe out of us, and thereby this
way break us away from our maternal tribe.” – can be read in the
program of the Prosvita Society.42 Its counterpart was the Russophile
Alexander Dukhnovych Society (Русское культурно-просвѣтительное
общество имени А. В. Духновича, in short Общество имени А.
Духновича) and the periodicals „Карпатський край” (Carpathian
Region, published in 1923-24) and „Карпатський светъ” (Carpathian
World, published in 1928–1933). Both of the two companies wanted
to influence local cultural life, and by means of their periodicals they
tried to establish Ukrainian or Russian as the literary language in
the region. Most members of the Prosvita declared themselves to be
Ukrainian, while members of the Dukhnovych Society avowed themselves mainly Rusyns. Several supporters of the Ukrainian camp
came from Galicia, while there were some immigrant (Great) Russian
intellectuals in the Rusyn society.
In his memoirs the contemporary Julius Marina43 estimated a
40-42 % percent majority for the Great Russian Dukhnovych Society
MAGOCSI Paul Robert. The Shaping of a National Identity: Developments in
Subcarpathian Rus’ 1848–1948. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p.
226; SHEVELOV George Y. The Language Question in the Ukraine in the Twentieth Century (1900–1941). Harvard Ukrainian Studies XI, 1987, p. 205; ЛЕВЕНЕЦЬ
Юрій et al. (eds.) Закарпаття в етнополітичному вимірі. Київ: ІПІЕНД ім. І. Ф. Кураса,
2008, p. 271.
42
Cit. BONKÁLÓ Sándor. A kárpátaljai rutén irodalom és mûvelôdés. Pécs: Pécsi
Egyetemi Könyvkiadó és Nyomda, 1935, pp. 63–64.
43
MARINA Gyula. Ruténsors – Kárpátalja végzete. Nagyszôlôs: Kárpátaljai Magyar
Kulturális Szövetség, 1977/1999, pp. 102, 111.
41
110
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
led by Evmenii Sabov and Shtefan Fentsyk in the early 1930’s while
the Ukranophile Prosvita Society led by Voloshyn had 28-30 percent.
In Marina’s opinion the popular-oriented “narodovci”s (i.e. Rusynophiles) led by the Greek Catholic bishop Alexander Stojka would have
rather joined the Russian camp.
Although the Czech authorities declared the equality of the Russian
and Ukrainian languages in Podkarpatská Rus on 15 July 1937,44 at
the end of the period the Ukrainian linguistic camp – parallel to the
strengthening of the positions of the Ukrainian-oriented political
elite – also strengthened significantly. At the congress of the Prosvita Society in Uzhgorod on 16-17 October 1937, a proclamation was
issued, signed by the leaders of 24 parties, social and cultural organizations, which was spread by means of posters all over the region.
The authors of the proclamation contended that Moscow forced the
Russian and Budapest the Rusyn on the local inhabitants, who were
actually Ukrainian and spoke Ukrainian. “We must not allow – the
proclamation says – the enemies of the republic and the people to
create a Carpatho-Russian people that never existed. There are
neither Russians (москалі), nor Carpatho Russians (карпаторосси),
there is only one nation, the Ukrainian (український нарід), which
has one unified language, culture and spelling.” The authors also
demanded that Ukrainian should be the language of education in the
schools of the region.45
Both of the two orientations had strong influence upon education. Most Ukranophile teachers gathered in the Teachers’ Association (Учительська Громада) existing between 1929 and 1939, while
Russophile teachers joined the Teachers’ Assembly (Учительское
Товарищество) existing from 1921 to 1938. The first issued the periodical (Учительський Голос) (Teachers’ Voice, 1930-1939) and the
second the „Народна Школа” (Popular School, 1921–1938).
The government in Prague urged the extension of the network
of Czecho(slovak) schools and the state language as the language of
education, but at the same time it allowed education in the mother
tongue. The rate of pupils studying in Czech or Slovak was much
higher than the number of those of Czech or Slovak national identity. However, in Podkarpatská Rus pupils belonging to several other
SHEVELOV George Y. The Language Question in the Ukraine in the Twentieth
Century (1900–1941). In Harvard Ukrainian Studies XI, 1987, p. 204.
45
Маніфест до Українського народу Підкарпаття. 17-го жовтня (октобра) 1937. http://
litopys.org.ua/volosh/volosh39.htm; МИШАНИЧ Олекса. Політичне русинство:
історія і сучасність. Ідейні джерела закарпатського регіонального сепаратизму. Київ:
Обереги, 1999.
44
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
111
nationalities, were allowed to study in their own mother tongues
during this period.46
At the beginning the Greek Catholic Church supported the
Rusyn camp, but later – mainly due to Voloshyn’s influence – the
majority of Greek Catholic priests sided with the Ukranophile camp.
The orthodox (pravoslav) church thought that Russian should be
used as the literary language. In political life of the Rusyn camp was
embodied by Andrej Bródy and the Ukrainian by Avhustyn Voloshyn.
When Bródy became the head of the first autonomous government,
the idea of the independent Rusyn people and the introduction of the
Russian literary language was supported, notwithstanding the proclamation of the National Council of Rusyns, which was posted all over
Transcarpathia in October 1938, and demanded that the “language
of the people” should be the official language.47 Bródy’s government
was soon replaced by Voloshyn’s cabinet and Voloshyn considered
the Ukrainian line the only right direction. During his governance
he took significant steps toward independence from Prague and the
strengthening of the Ukrainian language in the region. The peak of
this striving for independence was the declaration of the independent
state of Carpathian Ukraine in March 1939 and the introduction of
Ukrainian as the official language.
When language standard is developed (i.e. the process of standardization and codification), four essential steps can be differentiated
in the theory and practice of language planning: selection, codification, implementation and elaboration.48 Selection means the decision
of the language version which will be the basis of the standard. Then
the given variety has to be codified, i.e. the standard norm should
be laid down in grammar, dictionaries, handbooks and orthographical rules. Implementation is the phase when – through education in
the first place – the codified norm will be introduced to the people,
КЛИМА Виктор. Школьное дело и просвещение на Подкарпатской Руси. In Эдмунд
Бачинский (ed.) Подкарпатская Русь за годы 1919–1936. Ужгородъ: Русскій Народный
Голосъ, 1936, p. 103; МАҐОЧІЙ Павло Роберт. Історія України. Київ: Критика, 2007,
p. 518.
47
Cit. FEDINEC Csilla. A kárpátaljai magyarság történeti kronológiája 1918–1944.
Galánta–Dunaszerdahely: Fórum Intézet – Lilium Aurum Könyvkiadó, 2002, p.
291.
48
FISHMAN A. Joshua. Language modernization and planning in comparison with
other types of national modernization and planning. In JOSHUA A. Fishman (ed.)
Advances in language planning. The Hague: Mouton, Haugen, 1974, pp. 79-102;
HAUGEN Einar. The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and Practice.
In COBARRUBIAS Juan – FISHMAN A. Joshua (eds.) Progress in language planning. International perspectives. Berlin–New York–Amsterdam: Mouton, 1983, pp.
269–289.
46
112
István Csernicskó – Csilla Fedinec
the teachers and the press, etc. who are urged to use the standard.
Elaboration means the continuous updating of the codified norm: the
permanently changing language should be followed up, enlarged and
differentiated stylistically, codifying tasks should be refined. Einar
Haugen sums up these steps as standardization, as this is the way of
transforming a dialect into a standard language.49
In education the above mentioned linguistic camps were fighting
with regard to three out of the four basic steps of language planning.
For selection, the first voted for the Ukrainian version and the second
for the Russian literary language, while the third wanted to codify a
new standard variety. The codification of the role of grammars used
at school was decisive, as it is the school, which forms the linguistic
behaviour, habits, norm-consciousness and spelling of adults. The
selection of the language of education will have a great influence on
implementation.
Transcarpathian linguistic camps from a language planning point of view
Rusynophile
Ukranophile
Russophile
Selection
New literary language
on the basis of local
dialects
Ukrainian
Russian
Codification
Gradual approach
to a stable literary
norm (standardization
and codification) via
literary and scientific
works and publications
Introduction of the
Ukrainian literary
language by means
of grammars (e.g.
the grammar of Ivan
Pankevich)
Acceptance of the
already codified
Russian literary
language and
Evmenii Sabov’s
grammar
Implementation
Education at school,
ecclesiastical and
cultural life, via papers
and periodicals
Education at school,
ecclesiastical and
cultural life, political
and public life
Education at school,
ecclesiastical and
cultural life
Elaboration
Lack of time
Lack of time
Lack of time
The linguistic polemics and the language planning steps of
the different linguistic camps – seen in a theoretical framework
of language policy and/or language planning – is presented in the
following table.50 For selection, the Rusyn camp aimed at the creation of a new literary language, arching over and blending the local
SÁNDOR Klára. Nyelvtervezés, nyelvpolitika, nyelvmûvelés. In KIEFER Ferenc
(ed.) Magyar nyelv. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006, p. 961.
50
HAUGEN Einar. The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and Practice.
In COBARRUBIAS Juan – FISHMAN A. Joshua (eds.) Progress in language planning. International perspectives. Berlin–New York–Amsterdam: Mouton, 1983, pp.
269–289.
49
Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars
113
dialects. Ukranophiles voted for Ukrainian and Russophiles for
Russian as the literary language. In education the Ukrainian and
Russian linguistic movements used mainly school grammars, while
Rusyns approached the elaboration of the literary language variety
via literary and scientific works. They considered education the main
means of implementation. However, none of them had real opportunities to elaborate, update and develop linguistic norms under the
given historic and political circumstances.
In Podkarpatská Rus the most important question of nationality and linguistic politics was autonomy – allowing among others
the inner regulation of language rights – promised in the Treaty of
Saint-Germain and the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920. However,
Czechoslovakia postponed the introduction of autonomy up to 1938.
In the given period the most important events of language policy were
the change of the state language (from Hungarian to Czechoslovak)
and the official status of the Rusyn language. It is not surprising
that Hungarians viewed this as a negative and Rusyns as a positive
change. Another important event of the period was the wider and
wider appearance of the Ukrainian language in education, culture,
the press and in official life. None of the representatives of the Rusyn,
Ukrainian or Russian camps could definitely win the struggle. At
the same time it cannot be doubted that the strong appearance of
the Ukranophile stream in education, the organizational work of
Ukrainian intellectuals coming from Galicia and the steps toward the
independence of the Carpatho-Ukrainian state had decisive influence
upon the identity of the Slavic inhabitants living in the region. It
also had a decisive influence upon the development of their language
and linguistic consciousness, and Ukrainian undoubtedly became the
dominant stream.