Language Question

Language question. The language question among Carpatho-Rusyns, together with related ethnolinguistic and cultural matters, has a long history. The question has been dealt with at varying times in different ways; nevertheless, an adequate solution remains to be found. It should be clear from the outset that we are not dealing here with the “natural” spoken language (see Language), but rather with the written language of culture, education, etc.

The history of Rusyn literature seems to have begun in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, perhaps even earlier. At this time the first religious texts appeared in *Carpathian Rus’, although they were not written in the region itself (see Literature, Early manuscripts). The genre included prayerbooks, minei (monthly readings), prology (miscellanies and interpretive epistles), and gospels, as well as texts from other religious literature (the Mukachevo and Imstychovo fragments, the *Uzhhorod polustav), all written in the Russian variant of *Church Slavonic. In one of the oldest extant documents written in Carpathian Rus’ itself, from the Rusyn-Romanian border region at the *Hrushevo Monastery and dating from 1404, vernacular Rusyn linguistic elements (ses’, mlyn, ouryk) appear in the text. Such vernacular elements also appear in the sixteenth-century *Tereblia prolog and in a whole range of other religious texts.

Beginning in the early seventeenth century, a portion of the population in Carpathian Rus’ accepted the *Unia/Church Union with Rome, so that by the eighteenth century the Uniate or Greek Catholic Church had become the dominant religion in the region. Aside from texts in Church Slavonic several in Rusyn vernacular are also found in this period: religious-didactic tracts, tales, polemics, and collections of verse. An original work in Carpatho-Rusyn literature was the *Niagovo gospel, or postilla (literally: interpretive gospel). Its extant copies date from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, although the paleography seems to be from the sixteenth century. The Niagovo postilla was written “in a language which the people speak so that the faithful poor might understand.” The same spirit infuses the Uhlia poucheniia (interpretive gospel) and the Skotars’ke and other gospel books, whose vocabulary is influenced by Polish. On the other hand, the linguistic peculiarities of the Ladomirov Ievanheliia (Gospel Book) suggest it was written in the Presov Region (in either Sharysh or Zemplyn county). During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries several sbornyky (didactic miscellanies) containing prose in the vernacular appeared, including the Uhlia miscellany (the so-called Kliuch), the miscellany of S. Teslovych, the historical song “Pisn’ ob obrazi klokochevskom,” the belletristic work Aleksandriia, the Huklyvyi Chronicle, and others.

Exceedingly important for the further use of the Rusyn vernacular language was the development of official *curia/chancery and other documents in which the spoken language was strongly reflected. Among such documents were those connected to the *urbarial reform of Empress *Maria Theresa during the second half of the eighteenth century. Other genres included the polemical writings by the Orthodox spokesperson Mikhail *Orosvygovs’kyi-Andrella and the correspondence of the first native-born Greek Catholic bishop, Mykhail Manuil *Ol’shavs’kyi, both of whom used Rusyn vernacular strongly influenced by Church Slavonic. Especially popular were verses, including those by students, and practical manuals translated from Hungarian into vernacular Rusyn for use in farming (Pomoshchnyk u domovstvi, compiled by Nikolai Teodorovych) and home medical care (Vrach domashnii).

It was also during the eighteenth century that Arsenii *Kotsak completed several versions of his unpublished grammar (“Grammatika russkaia,” 1770s). Despite its title this work was in fact a grammar of the Church Slavonic language (as implied by the author’s subtitle, slavenskii ili russkii/Slavonic or Rusyn) and was closely modelled after the well-known grammar by Meletii Smotryts’kyi. Kotsak did, however, use the Rusyn vernacular language in his grammar, especially in the section on morphology. The Church Slavonic language, with varying degrees of vernacular Rusyn influence, was also used in the first published primers, beginning with the Bukvar iazyka slaven’ska (1699) attributed to Bishop Joseph *De Camelis, followed by Bishop Ivan *Bradach’s primer (1770), whose copies were confiscated and destroyed by order of the church, and by the unsigned Bukvar’ iazyka ruskaho by Ioann *Kutka, which appeared in 1797 and was later reprinted (1799, 1815, 1846).

The nineteenth century ushered in a new period in the evolution of a literary language for Carpathian Rus’. This period has also been called the era of enlightenment for Rusyns, because it was a time when the region produced its own intelligentsia, some of whom established successful careers in scholarship and civic life in the neighboring Austrian province of Galicia as well as in the Russian Empire. At home the Rusyn intelligentsia continued to use the Church Slavonic language; for Greek Catholic clergy educated in Latin, Church Slavonic became a kind of symbolic mark in defense of the Slavic character of their own people. Andrii *Bachyns’kyi introduced the formal study of Church Slavonic in schools during his reign as bishop (1773-1809) of the *Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo. The Church Slavonic language used at the time and referred to as Slaveno-Rusyn commonly employed an increasing number of vernacular elements. In fact, it is possible to speak of a Carpatho-Rusyn variant of Church Slavonic. This was the language used in the writings of Ioanykii *Bazylovych and Ioann Kutka. About the same time, the first bishop (1818-1841) of the newly created *Greek Catholic Eparchy of Presov, Hryhorii *Tarkovych, introduced a new style into Carpatho-Rusyn literature. Strongly influenced by the eighteenth-century Russian writers Mikhail Lomonosov and Aleksandr Sumarokov, Tarkovych wrote an ode in Slaveno-Rusyn that included elements from the Rusyn vernacular.

It should be noted that the tendency to favor an antiquated book language for literary communication also worked in favor of Latin, which was actively used by the Rusyn intelligentsia during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. For instance, Latin was used in the historical works about Subcarpathian Rus’ by Ioanykii Bazylovych, Mykhail *Luchkai, and Ioann *Pastelii, although Pastelii used vernacular Rusyn in his poems. Luchkai’s 1830 Slaveno-Rusyn grammar of Church Slavonic (with Rusyn vernacular elements) was published in Latin, as were some of the philosophical essays by his contemporary, Vasyl’ *Dovhovych. A native of *Maramorosh county, Dovhovych wrote verse in Rusyn vernacular as well as in Latin and Hungarian, although none of these works were published until the second half of the twentieth century. The tendency to write in vernacular Rusyn was not continued by subsequent writers. Hence the author of Rus’ko uhorskaia ili madiarska hrammatika (1833), Ivan *Fogarashii-Berezhanyn, while noting the genetic relationship of Carpatho-Rusyn dialects with the spoken language of neighboring Galicia and other East Slavic dialects in southern Rus’ (Ukraine), wrote in Slaveno-Rusyn, i.e., the Carpatho-Rusyn variant of Church Slavonic.

During the era of the national awakening, which began with the Revolution of 1848 and continued during the second half of the nineteenth century, the language question might have been resolved by adopting one of the following options: (1) adaptation toward and eventual acceptance of the Galician variant of what was to become the Ukrainian literary language; or (2) the creation of a distinct literary language based on local Carpatho-Rusyn dialects. Neither of these options was chosen. Instead, the “national awakener of the Carpatho-Rusyns,” Aleksander *Dukhnovych (in contrast to his Slovak neighbors, who based their literary language on central Slovak dialects and thereby assured its further development), proposed using the Russian literary language. Dukhnovych published a short grammar of the Russian language (Sokrashchennaia grammatika pis’mennago russkago iazyka, 1853), most likely written with the assistance of a fellow Rusyn, Ioann *Rakovs’kyi. The Russophile orientation was also supported by Adol’f *Dobrians’kyi, Kyryl *Sabov (the author of another Russian grammar, 1865, as well as an anthology of Russian literature, 1868), and subsequently by the writers Aleksander *Pavlovych, Ievhenii *Fentsyk, Aleksander *Mytrak, Anatolii *Kralyts’kyi, Ivan *Sil’vai, and Iurii *Stavrovs’kyi-Popradov, among others. The first Rusyn cultural organizations, the *Presov Literary Society (1850) and the *St. Basil the Great Society (1866), also supported the use of Russian in their publications.

At the same time, Dukhnovych, Pavlovych, and a few other authors were writing in Rusyn vernacular, thereby setting the foundations for an orientation that could have led to the creation of a separate Carpatho-Rusyn literary language. For instance, the popular play by Dukhnovych, Dobroditel’ prevyshaet’ bohatstvo (Virtue is More Important Than Riches, 1850), was written in a language based on the Rusyn dialects of *Zemplyn county, while Pavlovych wrote a series of works in the Rusyn dialect of *Sharysh (*Makovytsia).

Generally, however, these two writers as well as their contemporaries wrote poetry, prose, and essays in a language that was oriented toward literary Russian, albeit with varying degrees of local Rusyn vernacular. The result was an uncodified literary language, which was later referred to as the “traditional Carpatho-Rusyn language” by its supporters and as the *iazychiie (macaronic jargon) by its detractors. This language, in its various forms, was used in the first newspapers and journals intended for Rusyns (*Vistnyk Rusynov, *Svit, *Novyi svit, *Karpat, and the annual almanac *Misiatsoslov) as well as in the historical works of Andrii Baludians’kyi and Ivan *Dulishkovych.

The language question during this time was also reflected in the approach adopted by authors in their codification of lexical and grammatical norms. Hence, Aleksander *Mytrak’s large-scale Russian-Hungarian dictionary (1881) was oriented toward the Russian literary language, while Laslov *Chopei’s Rusyn-Hungarian dictionary (1883) and the several textbooks he translated from Hungarian were based on local Rusyn vernacular speech.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the magyarization of Rusyns increased in intensity, and the Hungarian government attempted to replace the traditional *Cyrillic alphabet with a Latin (Roman) alphabet using Hungarian orthography. A proposal to introduce the Latin (Roman) alphabet was issued in 1894; then, in 1916, the popular Rusyn-language newspaper *Nedilia, published since 1898 in Budapest with support from the Hungarian government, began to appear in the Latin (Roman) alphabet as Negyilya. The Russophile orientation gradually declined, while among younger cultural activists (Avhustyn *Voloshyn, Iurii *Zhatkovych, Hiiador *Stryps’kyi) there arose the idea of writing in a vernacular-based language that was more accessible to the Rusyn populace. It was also during this time that on the northern slopes of the Carpathians a newspaper for Lemko Rusyns began to appear, *Lemko (1911-1913), which was written in the local Rusyn vernacular.

In 1919, following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Rusyns living on the southern slopes of the Carpathians (in *Subcarpathian Rus’ and the *Presov Region) were united with Czechoslovakia, while those on the northern slopes living in the *Lemko Region were incorporated into Poland without any special administrative or cultural rights. The language situation of this period proved to be most complex. The Russophile orientation was once again revived, in large part because of the arrival of emigres from the Russian Empire and *Russophile activists from Galicia and Bukovina. A *Ukrainophile orientation also emerged, aided in large part by emigres from the Dnieper Ukraine (Russian Empire) and especially Galicia. Each orientation had its own newspapers, journals, and cultural organizations, the most important of which were the Russophile *Dukhnovych Society and the Ukrainophile *Prosvita Society. Grammars written in the “traditional Carpatho-Rusyn” iazychiie, literary Russian, and literary Ukrainian (basically using the Galician variant of that language) appeared. Regardless of orientation, all of these grammars used the old orthography, retaining the iat (?) and, in the case of Russophile publications, the final hard sign/iery (ъ).

Typical of this era was linguistic evolution, as evident in the writings of Avhustyn Voloshyn. In 1901 Voloshyn published what was essentially a Carpatho-Rusyn variant of the Russian literary language (Metodicheskaia grammatika ugro-russkogo literaturnogo iazyka dlia narodnykh shkol). By 1907, however, in a grammar published in Hungarian (Gyakorlati kisorosz/ruten nyelvtan), he was using almost exclusively the vernacular language from the eastern part of Subcarpathian Rus’. Then, in a grammar published in 1926 (Praktychna hramatyka rus’koho iazyka dlia narodnykh shkol), he employed the Ukrainian literary language, albeit written in the old etymological script. By contrast, Ivan *Pan’kevych, a postwar emigre from Galicia, used from the beginning the Galician variant of Ukrainian, which he codified in three editions of his Hramatyka rus’koho iazyka (1922, 1927, 1936).

In response to the Ukrainophile orientation the Russophiles supported the introduction of the Russian language through use of a grammar for “middle-level educational institutions in Subcarpathian Rus’” (Grammatika russkago iazyka dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii, 1924). This textbook, published over the name of the local Rusyn cultural activist Ievhenii *Sabov, was in fact authored by the Russian emigre, Aleksandr Grigor’ev (1874-1945). As early as 1919 the provincial administration in Subcarpathian Rus’, on the recommendation of Czech scholars, decreed what seemed to be a contradictory position regarding the language question. The local authorities rejected any proposals to create a separate Rusyn literary language and, following the recommendation of the Czech academics, considered the speech of the local inhabitants to be “indisputably Little Russian [nareci maloruske, i.e., Ukrainian] dialects.” But the decree also stated that because Rusyns were allegedly Ukrainians, they were simultaneously “part of the Great Russian people”; hence, the Russian literary language was recommended for use in secondary schools. In practice, however, the local school administration recognized only the Galician variant of Ukrainian (according to the Pan’kevych standard). Not until 1936 was the Russian language (according to the Sabov grammar) recommended for use in schools. The 1936 government decision led to protests on the part of the local Ukrainophile orientation, but it was upheld following the results of a “language plebiscite” held a year later, in which the parents in 75 percent of Subcarpathian schools voted for the Sabov “Russian” grammar (the respondents probably confused russkii/Russian with rus’kyi/Rusyn) instead of the Pan’kevych “Ukrainian” grammar.

The phenomenon of language dualism in Subcarpathian Rus’ was clearly delineated in literary works, which were written either in Ukrainian (Vasyl’ *Grendzha-Dons’kyi, Iulii *Borshosh-Kum”iats’kyi, among others) or in Russian (Andrii *Karabelesh, Mykhail *Popovych, among others). By contrast, the third, Rusyn orientation remained weak. It had no grammar to compare with those of Pan’kevych and Sabov, and only a few authors wrote poetry, prose, and plays in a variant of Rusyn vernacular that was clearly neither literary Russian nor Ukrainian.

Throughout the entire Czechoslovak period (1919-1938) the official languages in Subcarpathian Rus’ were Czech and Carpatho-Rusyn (in effect, the iazychiie). The latter was created in the 1920s for use in signs on government buildings, documents, and for other public or official functions. In schools Russian, Ukrainian, and the “traditional Carpatho-Rusyn” were used as languages of instruction, depending on the national conviction of individual teachers. During the last months of Czechoslovak rule (October 1938-March 1939), when Subcarpathian Rus’ finally attained autonomy, the pro-Ukrainian government renamed the province *Carpatho-Ukraine and declared Ukrainian its official language.

In the neighboring Presov Region of Slovakia during the interwar years, the “traditional Carpatho-Rusyn language” was taught in schools using a reader (1920) and primer (1921) by Ioann *Kyzak and a grammar (1920) by Aleksander Sedlak. A Ukrainian-language orientation for all intents and purposes did not exist among the Rusyns of eastern Slovakia at this time. In the Lemko Region ruled by Poland the government allowed instruction during the 1930s in the local Lemko-Rusyn vernacular using textbooks compiled by Metodii *Trokhanovskii (1933, 1934).

After 1939, in connection with annexation of Subcarpathian Rus’ by Hungary, the language situation changed. Aside from Hungarian, the new authorities began to promote the “Uhro-Rusyn language,” that is, the local vernacular. At the same time, the position of the Ukrainian and Russian languages was substantially weakened. It is useful to note that as early as 1907 Hiiador Stryps’kyi had proposed a “third” solution to Subcarpathia’s language question: the creation of a Uhro-Rusyn language, in other words, a distinct Carpatho-Rusyn literary language. Picking up on Stryps’kyi’s earlier proposal, a local Rusyn-born linguist, Ivan *Haraida, was appointed director of a newly created *Subcarpathian Scholarly Society. He proceeded to publish a grammar (Hrammatyka rus’koho iazyka, 1941), whose purpose was “to establish standard grammatical forms used in the vernacular language so that it will be possible to publish books and newspapers for the people in an easily understandable language.” The author described the language of his grammar as a kind of “compromise on several issues that divide the opposing factions in our language question.” Haraida’s language became the standard for a wide variety of scholarly, literary, and children’s publications that appeared in Subcarpathian Rus’ during World War II. Although discouraged by the Hungarian regime, several authors, including a new generation of gymnasium students, continued to publish their literary works in Russian. Grammars by Georgii *Gerovskii for elementary schools (1939) and by Iulii *Maryna for gymnasia (1940) favored the Russophile orientation. It was Haraida’s version of literary Rusyn, however, that was most widely used in Subcarpathia’s school system.

After World War II, when Subcarpathian Rus’ was annexed to the Soviet Union as the Transcarpathian oblast of the Soviet Ukraine (1945), the Rusyn population was declared to be Ukrainian and the Ukrainian literary language, according to the Soviet norm, was introduced into schools and public life. In the neighboring Presov Region, which remained within postwar Czechoslovakia, the Russian language according to the Soviet norm was initially used in schools, newspapers, and theatrical performances. In 1952, when the Presov Region’s Rusyn population was declared by the Czechoslovak Communist government to be Ukrainian, the Russian language was replaced by Ukrainian as the language of culture and education. Owing to significant differences between local Rusyn dialects of the Presov Region and literary Ukrainian (not to mention the involuntary administrative manner in which the population’s national orientation and language were changed), use of the new linguistic medium in the educational system and cultural organizations was fraught with difficulties. Somewhat later (1969), in an attempt to smooth the transition to Ukrainian, Ivan *Matsyns’kyi proposed a series of about 60 Rusyn “dialectal” elements which might be used in Ukrainian publications. The basic problem remained unresolved, however. The resultant language dualism in the Presov Region, in which the Ukrainian literary language was being used alongside local Rusyn dialects, created a situation in which it was not uncommon in the 1950s and 1960s for a significant portion of the Rusyn population to reject Ukrainian and adopt for school instruction and general use literary Slovak (and a Slovak national identity).

The late 1980s and early 1990s marked a new phase in the language question in Subcarpathian Rus’/Transcarpathia, the Presov Region, the Lemko Region (where a few thousand Lemko Rusyns returned following their deportation in 1945-1947), and in the scattered Rusyn communities in northeastern Hungary. This period witnessed a national revival, which included a call for a return to use of the ethnonym *Rusyn and for the creation of a distinct literary language. As a result, the language question once again became a controversial issue.

The so-called third way, that is, the creation of a Rusyn literary language on the basis of spoken dialects—an orientation that goes back to the beginning of the twentieth century—has since 1989 been steadily realized in the new political conditions of post-Communist Europe. In Transcarpathia, Rusyn-oriented cultural and civic organizations (*Society of Carpatho-Rusyns, the renewed Dukhnovych Society) have been established and Rusyn-language newspapers (*Podkarpats’ka Rus’) and a few almanacs/*kalendary have appeared. In Slovakia, the *Rusyn Renaissance Society publishes the weekly newspaper *Narodny novynky, the magazine *Rusyn, and a wide variety of literary, historical, and other publications. In Poland, the *Lemko Society produces the magazine *Besida, annual almanacs, and books. In Hungary, the *Organization of Rusyns published the magazine *Rusynskyi zhyvot in Rusyn. The ministeries of education in Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary have also adopted formal guidelines that allow for the teaching of Rusyn in elementary schools since the late 1990s. This activity has provoked a harsh negative reaction from that part of the intelligentsia (and in the case of Ukraine the government as well), which considers Rusyns to be a branch of Ukrainians.

Despite opposition and confrontation, the Rusyn movements in these various countries have achieved the first steps in codifying their literary language. In the Presov Region a rule-book (1994), an orthographic dictionary (1994), a multi-language dictionary of linguistic terminology (1994)—all prepared by Vasyl’ *Iabur, Iurii *Pan’ko, or both—and a series of textbooks by Ian *Hryb have appeared. There was a brief discussion in the press about the possibility of using the Latin (Roman) instead of Cyrillic alphabet for Rusyn publications, but this idea was dropped. In 1995 an official ceremony took place in Bratislava announcing the codification of a Rusyn literary language in Slovakia on the basis of Zemplyn Rusyn dialects in both their western and eastern variants. In Ukraine’s Transcarpathia/Subcarpathian Rus’, the codified form as outlined in the grammar Materyns’kyi iazyk (1999) is based on the Southern Maramorosh dialects, balanced with elements from the Eastern Zemplyn, Uzh, Bereg, and Northern Maramorosh dialects (according to the classification of Gerovskii). In Poland, a grammar of literary Lemko was published by Henryk *Fontanski and Myroslava *Khomiak, Gramatyka lemkivskoho iazyka (2000). The Rusyns of Hungary do not yet have their own codified literary form, although Rusyn is taught in a few elementary schools. The initiators of these various codifications expressed at the first (1992) and second (1999) “congresses” of the Rusyn language the hope that after the above-mentioned variants are codified, used in practice, and gradually stabilized, steps can then be taken toward the creation of a single Carpatho-Rusyn literary standard.

As for the Rusyns living in Serbia (Vojvodina) and Croatia (eastern Slavonia), their literary language, known as Vojvodinian-Srem Rusyn, or South Slav Rusyn, continued to evolve in an independent manner. It had been codified as early as 1923 in the grammar of Havriil *Kostel’nik and was subsequently modified in the rule-book (1971) and grammar (1974) of Mikola *Kochish. The norms of the Vojvodinian-Srem Rusyn language are stable and have been tested through wide-ranging functional use over a long period of time in education, the press, literary and scholarly publications, administration and government, and in radio and television.

The Carpatho-Rusyn literary language in the United States and Canada has traditionally appeared in several different variants. These reflect the specific spoken language that immigrants brought with them from the “old country” beginning in the 1880s. Until the 1950s, newspapers (such as the weekly *Amerikansky russky viestnik and daily *Den’), almanacs, and books appeared in some form of language that was understood by Rusyn immigrants. Some authors/editors used their native dialect; thus the newspaper *Karpatska Rus’ appeared in Lemko, the writings of Emilij *Kubek in the Sharysh Rusyn dialect. Other author/editors, such as Joseph *Hanulia or Michael *Roman, tried to write in Russian. Influenced by the English-language environment in which they were produced, many Rusyn-American publications gradually adopted the Latin (Roman) alphabet. By the end of the twentieth century the language question in North America had become moot, since virtually all publications intended for Rusyn immigrants and their descendants appeared in English.

Bibliography: Evmenii Sabov, “Ocherk literaturnoi dieiatel’nosti i obrazovaniia ugro-russkikh,” in idem, ed., Khristomatiia tserkovno-slavianskikh i ugro-russkikh literaturnykh pamiatnikov (Uzhhorod, 1893), pp. 183-210; Hiiador Stryps’kyi, “Z starshoi pys’mennosty Uhors’koi Rusy,” Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka, CXVII-CXVIII (L’viv, 1901), pp. 179-195; Avhustyn Voloshyn, O pys’mennom iazytsi podkarpatskykh rusynov (Uzhhorod, 1921); Igor Iv. Gusnai, Iazykovyi vopros v Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Presov, 1921); Ivan Pankevic, “Jazykova otazka v Podkarpatske Rusi,” in Josef Chmelar et al., Podkarpatska Rus (Prague, 1923), pp. 130-150; Evmenii I. Sabov, Russkii literaturnyi iazyk Podkarpatskoi Rusi i novaia grammatika russkago iazyka dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii (Uzhhorod, 1925); N. Zorskii, Spor o iazykie v Podkarpatskoi Rusi i Cheshskaia akademiia nauk (Uzhhorod, 1926); Iuliian Revai, “Rus’ki hramatyky i slovari na Podkarpatiu,” Uchytel’, X (Uzhhorod, 1929), pp. 2-12, 103-113, 151-168, 239-242; Konstantin Stripskii, “Iazyk literaturnoi traditsii Podkarpatskoi Rusi,” Karpatskii sviet, III, 9-10 (Uzhhorod, 1930), pp. 1083-1093; Vladimir A. Frantsev, “Iz istorii bor’by za russkii literaturnyi iazyk v Podkarpatskoi Rusi v polovinie XIX st.,” in Karpatorusskii sbornik (Uzhhorod, 1930), pp. 1-49 and separately (Prague, 1931); Georgij Gerovskij, “Literarni jazyk Podkarpatske Rusi,” in Ceskoslovenska vlastiveda, Vol. III: Jazyk (Prague, 1934), pp. 480-517—Russian ed.: Iazyk Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Moscow, 1995); Za ridne slovo: polemika z rusofilamy (Mukachevo, 1937; repr. 1990); Antonin Hartl, “K jazykovym sporum na Podkarpatske Rusi,” Slovo a slovesnost, IV (Prague, 1938), pp. 160-173; Frantisek Tichy, Vyvoj soucasneho spisovneho jazyka na Podkarpatske Rusi (Prague, 1938); Aleksander Bonkalo, “Rus’kyi lyteraturnyi iazyk,” Zoria/Hajnal, I, 1-2 (Uzhhorod, 1941), pp. 54-71; G.I. Gerovskii and V. Krainianitsa, eds., Razbor grammatiki ugro-russkogo iazyka (Uzhhorod, 1941); Ivan Pan’kevych, “Zakarpats’kyi dialektnyi variant ukrains’koi literaturnoi movy XVII-XVIII vv.,” Slavia, XXVII, 2 (Prague, 1958), pp. 171-181; Mykola Shtets’, Literaturna mova ukraintsiv Zakarpattia i Skhidnoi Slovachchyny (Bratislava, 1969); Charles E. Bidwell, The Language of Carpatho-Ruthenian Publications in America (Pittsburgh, 1971); Aleksandr D. Dulichenko, Slavianskie literaturnye mikroiazyki (Tallin, 1981); Paul R. Magocsi, “The Language Question Among the Subcarpathian Rusyns,” in Riccardo Picchio and Harvey Goldblatt, eds., Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, Vol. II: East Slavic (New Haven, 1984), pp. 65-86—Vojvodinian Rusyn ed.: Pavlo Magochi, “Pitanie iazika medzi podkarpatskima Rusinami,” Tvorchosts, X (Novi Sad, 1984), pp. 6-22; Mikulas Stec, K otazke ‘rusinskeho’ spisovneho jazyka (Presov, 1991); Serhii Pan’ko, “Zhurnal ‘Rusyn’ i pytannia rusyns’koi literaturnoi movy,” Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Nyiregyhaziensis, XIII/C (Nyiregyhaza, 1992), pp. 257-266; B.K. Halas, ed., Ukrains’ka mova na Zakarpatti u mynulomu i s’ohodni (Uzhhorod, 1993); Istvan Udvari, Ruszin (karpatukran) hivatalos irasbeliseg a XVII szazadi Magyarorszagon (Budapest, 1995); Mykola Shtets’, Ukrains’ka mova v Slovachchyni: sotsiolinhvistychne ta interlinhvistychne doslidzhennia (Bratislava and Presov, 1996); Aleksandr D. Dulichenko, “Predistoriia literaturnogo iazyka rusin Iugoslavii,” in Rusnatsi-Rusini, 1745-1995 (Belgrade and Novi Sad, 1996), pp. 21-40; Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia/Zrodil sa novy slovansky jazyk: Rusinsky spisovny jazyk na Slovensku (New York, 1996); Vasil Jabur, “Das Rusinische in der Slowakei: zu Stand und Entwicklungsperspektiwen nach der Kodifikation,” in Baldur Panzer, ed., Die sprachliche Situation in der Slavia zehn Jahre nach der Wende (Frankfurt/Main, 2000), pp. 117-132.

Aleksandr D. Dulichenko

Paul Robert Magocsi

Entry courtesy of Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture.
http://www.uoftbookstore.com/online/merchant.ihtml?pid=137163&step=4