1. The author is grateful to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for a travel grant (1976) which in part defrayed the expense of this research. The Research Department of Radio Liberty, Munich, West Germany, generously made its extensive archives available to me.Google Scholar

2. See, for example, Fishman, Joshua A., Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays (Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers, 1973).Google Scholar

3. Lewis, E. Glyn, Multilingualism in the Soviet Union (The Hague: 1972); Zev Katz, Rosemarie Rogers, and Frederic Harned, Handbook of Major Soviet Nationalities (New York: The Free Press, 1975), especially pp. 31-39) Harry Lipset, “The Status of national Minority Languages in Soviet Education,” Soviet Studies, 19, no. 2 (October, 1967):181-89; Yaroslav Bilinsky, “Assimilation and Ethnic Assertiveness among Ukrainians of the Soviet Union,” in Ethnic Minorities in the Soviet Union, ed. Erich Goldhagen (New York: Praeger, 1968). pp. 147-84; John A. Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism 1939-1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963); Brian Silver, “Social Mobilization and the Russification of Soviet Nationalities,” American Political Science Review, 68 (March, 1974):45-66, and numerous others.Google Scholar

4. Fishman, Language, p. 55.Google Scholar

5. Pool, Jonathan, “Developing the Soviet Turkic Tongues: The Language of the Politics of Language,” Slavic Review, 35, no. 3 (Sept., 1976):406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. On the “friendship of peoples” myth, see Lowell Tillett, The Great Friendship: Soviet Historians on the Non-Russian Nationalities (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969).Google Scholar

7. See my discussion of the structural and programmatic characteristics of Ukrainian dissent, in “Ukrainian Dissent: Symbolic Politics and Sociodemographic Aspects,” a paper presented at the 9th National Convention of AAASS, Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 1977. Ukrainian Quarterly (Spring, 1978).Google Scholar

8. Valentyn Moroz has been the most eloquent exponent of this view. For a more detailed discussion of Moroz, see my “Politics and Culture in the Ukraine in the Post-Stalin Era,” forthcoming in Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S.Google Scholar

9. An aspect of this problem which would merit research, although data is scanty, is the differential prestige of the Russian and Ukrainian languages in less Russianized cities, rural areas, and among non-Russian/non-Ukrainian national minorities in the Ukraine.Google Scholar

10. This is an anti-language-planning position. From “The Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” Pravda and Izvestiia , Nov. 2, 1961, pp. 1–9; translation in Charlotte Saikowski and Leo Gruliow, Eds., Current Soviet Policies VI (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 26.Google Scholar

11. Stalin, J.V., Marxism and Linguistics (New York: International ***Publishers, 1951), pp. 11ff, 28, 45.Google Scholar

12. Kuznetsov, V., “The Language of International Discourse,” Pravda Ukrainy, September 12, 1972, p. 2; translation in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 1972, 11:21-23. Proclamations of the love of minority nationalities for the Russian language are commonplace in the national and all-Union press. For other explicit discussions of Russian as the lingua franca, see Current Soviet Policies IV, p. 27, and Iu. Desheriev and M. Melikiian, “Development and Mutual Enrichment of the Languages of the Nations of the USSR,” Ukrains'ka mova i literatura v shkoli, no. 12 (Dec. 1965), 3-13; translation in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 1966. 2:23-25.Google Scholar

13. Fishman, Joshua A., “National Languages and Languages of Wider Communication in the Developing Nations,” Anthropological Linguistics, no. 11 (1969), 111–135.Google Scholar

14. Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1959 g. Ukrainskaia SSR (Moscow: “Gostatizdat,” 1963), pp. 174–191; Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1970 g., 4. (Moscow: “Statistika,” 1973): 152-153.Google Scholar

15. Statistical analysis yields no significant correlation of these variables.Google Scholar

16. Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1959 g. pp. 158-59, 164-65. Data on the declaration of a second language are not available for 1959.Google Scholar

17. Calculated from data in Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1970 g. pp. 158-59. 8.2% is that proportion of the urban Ukrainian population speaking a native language other than Ukrainian (for 99.8% of whom that language is Russian), who do not declare Ukrainian as a second language.Google Scholar

18. Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1970 g. pp. 152-53. For a more sophisticated statistical treatment, though Union-wide and not by oblast, see Brian Silver, “Ethnic Identity Change among Soviet Nationalities: A Statistical Analysis,” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1972.Google Scholar

19. Radians'ka Ukraina, April 25, 1971, p. 2; also, Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1970 g., pp. 152-53, 158-59, 164-65.Google Scholar

20. Silver, Brian, “Bilingualism and Maintenance of the Mother Tongue in Soviet Central Asia,” Slavic Review, 35 no. 3 (Sept. 1976):424.Google Scholar

21. Russian contempt for the Ukrainian language has been well documented; see, e.g., Kolasky, John, Two Years in Soviet Ukraine (Toronto: Peter Martin Associates, Ltd., 1970), passim; Yaroslav Bilinsky, The Second Soviet Republic: The Ukraine after World War II (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1964), pp. 156ff; and dissident works, especially Ivan Dzyuba, Internationalism or Russification? (New York: Monad Press, Inc., 1974), pp. 149ff.Google Scholar

22. Gusfield, Joseph R., Symbolic Crusade (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963, p. 11.Google Scholar

23. See Veryha, Wasyl, Communication Media and Soviet Nationality Policy: Status of National Languages in Soviet T. V. Broadcasting, (New York: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, 1972).Google Scholar

24. The 1977 Constitution (Article 45) limits the guarantee of native language instruction to schools, excluding any right to its use in higher education (except, of course, for Russians).Google Scholar

25. See Section 9 of the “Decree on strengthening ties between school and life, and continued development of public education in the Ukrainian SSR,” Radians'ka Ukraina, April 19, 1959, pp. 2–3; translation of excerpts in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 3, 6:1. Also see Yaroslav Bilinsky's excellent analysis of the reforms: “The Soviet Education Laws of 1958-9 and Soviet Nationality Policy,” Soviet Studies, 14, no. 2 (Oct. 1962):138-57.Google Scholar

26. Literaturna hazeta, Dec. 19, 1958.Google Scholar

27. Borysenko, V., “Ukrainian Opposition to the Soviet Regime,” Problems of the Peoples of the USSR, no. 6 (1960), p. 40.Google Scholar

28. Karavans'kyi, Svyatoslav, “Po odnu politychnu pomylku,” (Sept., 1965), AS 916, SDS vol. 17. This and subsequent references to samvydav documents employ Radio Liberty's Arhkiv Samizdata documentation system.Google Scholar

29. A.M., “About admission examinations in Ukrainian language and literature at the T.H. Shevchencko Kiev State Univedrsity,” Ukrains'ka mova v shkoli, no. 6 (Nov.-Dec., 1958), pp. 91–93; translation in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 3, no. 4:19.Google Scholar

30. Slynko, I.I., “Results of entrance examinations in the Ukrainian language to the University of Chernivtsy,” Ukrains'ka mova v shkoli, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct., 1960), pp. 90–93; translation in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 4, no. 12:23.Google Scholar

31. Radians'ka osvita, no. 18 (May 4, 1957).Google Scholar

32. Radians'ka osvita, no. 22 (June 1, 1957), p. 1. These figures do not include 372,600 pupils in 3,195 schools for working and farming youth.Google Scholar

33. Dissidents, too, have complained about the scarcity of data on this subject. See Ukrains'kyi visnyk, 6:63.Google Scholar

34. Radians'ka Ukraina, Dec. 5, 1964.Google Scholar

35. Udovychenko, P.P., “Rastsvet narodnogo obrazovaniia, nauki, i kul'tury,” Sovetskaia pedagogika, no. 10 (1967), pp. 38–48.Google Scholar

36. Interview no. 8. Numbered interviews are with Soviet citizens (and, in some cases, very recent emigres), and will remain anonymous.Google Scholar

37. H.H. “pid shovynystychnym presom,” Ukrains'kyi visnyk, 6:66–67.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 70.Google Scholar

39. Ibid. Also see the samvydav document, “Tovaryshi bat'ky shkoliarev,” a complaint signed by 17 mothers of kindergartners to the Ukrainian Minister of Health, protesting the use of Russian in kindergartens (1964), AS 909, SDS vol. 18.Google Scholar

40. Skrypka, V.N., “pro stanovyshche Ukrains'koi movy v Kryms'komu Pedinstitutu,” Ukrains'kyi visnyk, 6:73–78. Although the title is in Ukrainian, the article is in Russian.Google Scholar

41. Chornovil, Vyacheslav, “Iak i shcho obstoiue Bohdan Stenchuk?” Ukrains'kyi visnyk, 6:12–56.Google Scholar

42. Radians'ka Ukraina, February 5, 1966.Google Scholar

43. See Chornovil's complete discussion of the Dadenkov proposals, in Chornovil, op. cit. Google Scholar

44. Ibid., pp. 25–27.Google Scholar

45. Literaturna Ukraina, Sept. 6, 1968 and Nov. 17, 1966.Google Scholar

46. Karavans'kyi, Sviatoslav, “Klopotannia prokurorovi URSR pro seriozni pomilky i progoloshennia rusyfikatsii ministrom vyshchoi ta serd'noi osvita URSR yu. M. Dadenkova,” (Feb. 24, 1964), AS 915, SDS vol. 18.Google Scholar

47. Interviews 9, 10. These were interviews with recent emigres in Paris who were very close to the Shelest entourage.Google Scholar

48. Fishman, , Language and Nationalism, pp. 55, 72, 73.Google Scholar

49. Literaturna hazeta, May 21, 1959; also see Vitality Rusanivs'kiy, “New prospects for the development of national languages,” Literaturna hazeta, July 28, 1959; translation in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 3,9:20.Google Scholar

50. Iak my hovorymo (Kiev: Radians'kyi pys'mennyk, 1970). Also see articles in Zmina, March, 1964: Dnipro, No. 9 (Sept., 1960); Literaturna Ukraina, Jan. 1965, and March 5, 1965. For criticisms of Antonenko-Davydovych, see Literaturna Ukraina, March 30, 1965, and Jan. 29, 1971.Google Scholar

51. Dnipro, no. 11 (Nov., 1961), 135-45.Google Scholar

52. “Litera, za iakoiu tuzhat'” Literaturna Ukraina, Nov. 4, 1969. The use of the letter “Ґ”' was continued in Polish Ukraine until annexation by the USSR.Google Scholar

53. Rusanivs'kyi, V., “Za chym tuzhyty?” Literaturna Ukraina, Nov. 28, 1969.Google Scholar

54. For a survey of the samvydav discussion, see Ukrains'kyi visnyk, 3:92–95.Google Scholar

55. See John Kolasky's description of Bilodid, in Two Years in Soviet Ukraine, pp. 66–71.Google Scholar

56. The events at the conference were not reported in the Soviet press, but a participant's report was published in Nasha kul'tura (Warsaw), March, 1963.Google Scholar

57. Koshelivets, Ivan, “Khronika Ukrainskogo soprotivleniia,” Kontinent, no. 5 (1975), p. 188.Google Scholar

58. Kolasky, John, Education in Soviet Ukraine (Toronto: Peter Martin Associates, Ltd., 1968), p. 194.Google Scholar

59. Although two of my informants, recent emigres who were particularly close to Dziuba in Kyiv, told me that this particular piece of conventional wisdom is false: that the manuscript was written and submitted without directive or invitation. Interviews 9, 10.Google Scholar

60. Interviews 10, 11.Google Scholar

61. Although in Kyiv the thoroughfare is popularly known Chervonoarmiis'ka.Google Scholar

62. Ukrains'ka mova v shkoli, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct., 1958), 90–94.Google Scholar

63. This has been particularly true of nationally-oriented Ukrainian intellectuals. We propose (but do not attempt to demonstrate) as a general hypothesis that any activity which carries status will be employed as a displacement symbol of national greatness when direct symbols of national distinctiveness are oppressed.Google Scholar

64. See, for example, the extensive debate sparked by the criticisms of Ukrainian and Soviet science made by Vitality P. Shelest, an atomic physicist and the son of Petr Shelest, in an article entitled “Arkhimidy prosiatsia za party,” Literaturna Ukraina, May 5, 1970, p. 1. For a summary of the debate, see “The State of Soviet Basic Sciences: An Unusual Criticism by Ukrainian Academicians,” Radio Liberty Research Paper CRD 335=70, Sept. 16, 1970. Petr Shelest is thought to have been influenced by his son, who was a link between the former First Secretary and the Kyiv intellectuals; interview no. 6.Google Scholar

65. Interviews nos. 1, 2, 3, John A. Armstrong notes that everywhere he travelled in the Ukraine and Belorussia, scholars conversed among themselves in Russian, rather than in their native language. “The Soviet Intellectuals: Observations from Two Journeys,” Studies on the Soviet Union, 1 (1961):30–33.Google Scholar

66. Plachenda, Serhiy, “A genre awaiting its flowering,” Literaturna Ukraina, April 5, 1968; translation in Digest of the Soviet Ukrainian Press, 1968, 5:16–18.Google Scholar

67. Interview no. 6.Google Scholar

68. Kumpanenko, V.I., “Pis'mo s razmyshleniiami po voprosu o glubokom krizise v primenenii Ukrainskogo iazyka v publikatsii nauchnykh issledovanii i nauchnykh rabot AN USSR v 1969 g.” Ukrains'kyi visnyk, 3:94–109.Google Scholar