Authors

Ihor Datsenko¹;  ¹ Slavic-Eurasian Research Center, Japan

Discussion

The purpose of this presentation is to systematically analyze the linguistic debates that emerged in publications by Ukrainian intellectuals as a reaction to the policy of assimilating Ukrainian into Russian, implemented in the 1960s. It also seeks to clarify the true impact of these debates on the norming process given the political pressure and state control over language planning in Soviet Ukraine.
The unification of Ukrainian norms with Russian began in 1933 and defined the Ukrainian language standard during the next decades. Although various aspects of Russification of Ukrainian language norms have been widely studied, systematic analysis of contemporary linguistic criticism targeting the norms developed by the primary institution responsible for the codification of the Ukrainian language in Soviet Ukraine, the Potebnia Institute of Linguistics, remains limited. Therefore, this study analyzes intellectual discussions in the press of the 1960s, showing how new codification works of the Ukrainian language sparked debates between the pro-Soviet and nationally oriented intellectuals.
The Potebnia Institute of Linguistics initiated the discussion itself to publicly approve the new 1961 spelling rules and propose further alignment. Analysis of discussions in the pedagogical journal "Ukrainian Language and Literature at School" suggests participants were expected to endorse new spelling. However, despite calls for further unification, voices of opposition emerged, demanding the return of some norms codified in the 1920s. Against the backdrop of the Sixtiers movement, the discussion spread to the general press, engaging more writers and cultural figures, who opposed the alignment of Ukrainian norms with Russian not only in orthography but also in grammar and lexicon. The intelligentsia’s efforts to preserve the Ukrainian language’s particular traits were ignored during the Brezhnev Era of Stagnation due to intensified political pressure and escalating Russification. However, these debates arguably slowed down further efforts to reform Ukrainian norms.
This study demonstrates that during a period of relative easing of political pressure, there was a temporary revival of ideas in the public space that promoted original Ukrainian features. These debates, though not immediately effective, ensured the continuation of the ideological and scholarly framework for the revival of authentic Ukrainian language features after independence.