“Enough of mixing peas with cabbage”: Issues and pragmatics of orthographic discussions in the journal “Podkarpatska Rus”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-259x.2025.4.7Keywords:
orthography, history of Ukrainian orthography, “Pankevychivka”, language discussion, journal “Podkarpatska Rus”, linguopragmaticsAbstract
The purpose of this article is to analyse the issues and pragmatics of spelling debates in the scientific and pedagogical journal Podkarpatskaya Rus (1923–1936). The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that in the interwar period, the language and orthography issue in Transcarpathia was not only a philological but also an ideological-political problem. The study provides a deeper understanding of the formation processes of the Ukrainian language in the region. Analysing the journal’s position is of interest as it was the official publication of the Pedagogical Society of Subcarpathian Rus and had to balance administrative requirements to use etymological orthography against the public demand for a phonetic system.
The subject of the analysis is the discussions on spelling problems within the journal. The evolution of the publication’s language and orthography policy is examined — from initial orthographic diversity and inconsistent use of the officially introduced etymological spelling (“Pankevychivka”) to the gradual substantiation of the need to transition to a phonetic writing system. The study employs content analysis to identify key themes, the historical-comparative method to contextualise the discussions, and linguo-pragmatic analysis to study the participants’ communicative strategies.
The research results demonstrate that the journal initiated discussions on several orthographic issues, notably the rendering of the sound [l] in words of foreign origin (article by Ya. Holota) and the normalisation of the spelling and declension of surnames (initiative by Uzhhorod teachers and response by I. Pankevych). A significant event in the publication was the 1929 “Language Questionnaire”, which presented the educational community with a choice between Ukrainian and Russian linguistic-cultural orientations, and between etymological and phonetic spelling. It was established that discussion participants resorted to various communicative strategies: from expressive rhetoric of persuasion and constructive proposals to the mobilisation and legitimisation of their positions.
The scholarly novelty lies in the first comprehensive analysis of the orthographic issues in the journal “Podkarpatska Rus” from the perspective of the content and pragmatics of the discussions.
Downloads
References
Dobosh, I. (1995). Istoriia ukrainskoi zhurnalistyky Zakarpattia 20–30‑kh rokiv XX st. [History of Ukrainian journalism in Transcarpathia in the 1920s–1930s].
Habor, V. (2003). Ukrainski chasopysy Uzhhoroda (1867–1944): Istoryko-bibliohrafichne doslidzhennia [Ukrainian periodicals of Uzhhorod (1867–1944): A historical and bibliographic study]. Vasyl Stefanyk National Scientific Library of Ukraine in Lviv.
Holota, Ya. (1926). Tverde chy miahke L [Hard or soft L]. Podkarpatska Rus, 1, 18–21.
Kukhta, M. (1997). Rol pedahohichnoi presy Zakarpattia (20–30‑i rr. XX st.) u formuvanni vykhovnoho natsionalnoho idealu [The role of the pedagogical press of Transcarpathia (1920s–1930s) in the formation of the educational national ideal].
Likhtei, I. (1993). Ukrainska periodychna presa na Zakarpatti doby Chekhoslovachchyny (1919–1939) [Ukrainian periodical press in Transcarpathia during the Czechoslovak era (1919–1939)]. Carpatica — Karpatyka, 2, 204–209.
Likhtei, I. (2022). Yozef Peshek ta rozvytok osvity na Pidkarpatskii Rusi u pershii polovyni 20‑kh rokiv XX st. [Jozef Pešek and the development of education in Subcarpathian Rus in the first half of the 1920s]. In M. Domenová (Ed.), Non scholae, sed vitae discimus… (školstvo — knižná kultúra — osobnosti) (pp. 121–134). Štátna vedecká knižnica v Prešove.
Memorandum tov. Prosvita v Uzhhorodi o yazykovôm spori [Memorandum of the Prosvita society in Uzhhorod on the language dispute]. (1931). Podkarpatska Rus, 4, 81–85.
Paikosh, O. (1993). Movna borotba na Zakarpatti 20–30‑kh rokiv XX st. [The language struggle in Transcarpathia in the 1920s–1930s]. In Ukrainska mova na Zakarpatti u mynulomu i sohodni [The Ukrainian language in Transcarpathia in the past and present] (pp. 251–259).
Pankevych, I. (1926). Daskôlko slôv o skloniuvaniu y pysaniu prôzvyshch [A few words about the declension and spelling of surnames]. Podkarpatska Rus, 5, 119–121.
Pivtorak, H. (2007). Pankevychivka [Pankevychivka]. Ukrainska mova: Entsyklopediia [Ukrainian Language: Encyclopedia] (3rd ed., pp. 476–477). Vydavnytstvo “Ukrainska entsyklopediia” imeni M. P. Bazhana.
Protokol iz yazykovoi konferentsii, yaka vidbulasia v Prazi 17. bereznia 1931 pid provodom ministra shkilnytstva Dra Ivana Derera u spravi upravylnennia yazykovykh vidnosyn v shkilnytstvi na Pidk. Rusy [Protocol from the language conference, which took place in Prague on March 17, 1931, under the leadership of the Minister of Education Dr. Ivan Dérer, regarding the regulation of language relations in education in Subcarpathian Rus]. (1931). Podkarpatska Rus, 2–3, 56–61.
Reforma pravopysa v Bolharii [Spelling reform in Bulgaria]. (1926). Podkarpatska Rus, 3, 67.
Rezoliutsii III richnykh zahalnykh zboriv Pedagogychnoho Tov. stva Pidkarp. Rusy, odbutykh dnia 3. maia 1931. v Uzhhorodi [Resolutions of the III annual general meeting of the Pedagogical Society of Subcarpathian Rus, held on May 3, 1931, in Uzhhorod]. (1931). Podkarpatska Rus, 5–6, 128–131.
Sharkan, V. (2019). Protokol narady pry ministerstvi shkil i narodnoi osvity Chekhoslovachchyny pro movu navchannia v Pidkarpatskii Rusi (vid 4 hrudnia 1920 r.) [Protocol of the meeting at the Ministry of Schools and National Education of Czechoslovakia on the language of instruction in Subcarpathian Rus (from December 4, 1920)]. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series Philology, 42(2), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.24144/2663-6840.2019.2.(42).245-250
Svitlyk, P. (1932). Z narodnoi fylozofii (Okolytsia Bilok) [From folk philosophy (Vicinity of Bilky)]. Podkarpatska Rus, 1–3, 34–39.
Voloshyn, A. (1925). Nasha zadacha [Our task]. Podkarpatska Rus, 1, 1–2.
Voloshyn, A. (1929). Besida na anketi o shkilnii reformi dnia 11. aprilia 1929 v Prazi [A talk on the questionnaire about the school reform on April 11, 1929 in Prague]. Podkarpatska Rus, 8–9, 171–178.
Yak pysaty u nas prôzvyshcha? Iz kruhôv uchytelstva [How to write surnames in our land? From teachers’ circles]. (1926). Podkarpatska Rus, 4, 84–86.
Yatsko, P. (1926). Vuk Stefanovych Karadzhych [Vuk Stefanović Karadžić]. Podkarpatska Rus, 10, 209–213.
Yazykova anketa [Language questionnaire]. (1929). Podkarpatska Rus, 4, 94–98.
Yusyp, Yu. (1993). Avgustyn Voloshyn i movna dyskusiia 20‑ykh rokiv XX st. [Avhustyn Voloshyn and the language discussion of the 1920s]. In Ukrainska mova na Zakarpatti u mynulomu i sohodni [The Ukrainian language in Transcarpathia in the past and present] (pp. 338–342).
Zhyvotko, A. (1939). Movna borotba v presi Karpatskoi Ukrainy [The language struggle in the press of Carpathian Ukraine].
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Василь Шаркань
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
