Csernicsko

This article was downloaded by: [Charles University in Prague]
On: 08 April 2015, At: 15:37

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Nationalities Papers: The Journal of

Nationalism and Ethnicity
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cnap20
Hegemonic, regional, minority and

language policy in Subcarpathia: a
historical overview and the presentday situation
a
Istvn Csernicsk & Viktria Ferenc

a
Ferenc Rkczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian Institute,

Beregszsz/Berehovo, Ukraine
b
Click for updates
Doctoral Programme of Applied Linguistics, University of Pcs,

Pcs, Hungary
Published online: 27 May 2014.
To cite this article: Istvn Csernicsk & Viktria Ferenc (2014) Hegemonic, regional,
minority and language policy in Subcarpathia: a historical overview and the present-day
situation, Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 42:3, 399-425, DOI:
10.1080/00905992.2013.867933
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.867933
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Nationalities Papers, 2014

Vol. 42, No. 3, 399425, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.867933
Hegemonic, regional, minority and language policy in Subcarpathia:

a historical overview and the present-day situation
Istvn Csernicska* and Viktria Ferencb
a
Ferenc Rkczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian Institute, Beregszsz/Berehovo, Ukraine; bDoctoral

Programme of Applied Linguistics, University of Pcs, Pcs, Hungary
(Received 27 March 2013; accepted 10 November 2013)

During the twentieth century the region of Subcarpathia belonged to several different
states: the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Czechoslovakia, the independent CarpathoUkraine, the Hungarian Kingdom, the Soviet Union and nally to Ukraine. Today it
borders four member states of the European Union (Poland, the Slovak Republic,
Hungary and Romania), and due to its history several ethnicities and languages,
religions and cultures live side by side in this region. However, as a consequence of
the different language and minority policies in Subcarpathia, we cannot nd a
common language that everybody knows regardless of age, gender, education,
religion or place of residence. The lack of a lingua franca makes dialogue between
ethnicities difcult, sometimes even impossible. In this article we outline the main
features of the regional, minority and language policies of the different states that
existed at the various historical stages. We believe that the in-depth analysis of the
history of this region can help nd a model that could be useful not only in the
region but also in the wider context of similarly multinational, linguistically diverse,
culturally colorful territories in the Carpathian Basin and states in East-Central Europe.
Keywords: Subcarpathia region; language policy; ethnic minority; multilingualism
Introduction
During the twentieth century the territory of the present-day region of Subcarpathia
belonged to several different states: the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Czechoslovakia,
the independent Carpatho-Ukraine, the Hungarian Kingdom, the Soviet Union and
nally to Ukraine. All the different states pursued ethnic and minority policies toward
the region with the aim of maintaining power relations. In this article, alongside with providing a historical perspective of ethnic and language policy of the various ruling states
toward Subcarpathia, the present-day ethnic and linguistic situation in the region will
also be discussed. The last 150-year history of the region and the series of hegemonic minority regimes experienced by its population have an effect on the current-day situation as
well. Minorities living in the territory even today almost completely lack the minority
rights protection which exists in European states. Minority autonomy and rights have
only been respected for geopolitical reasons previously, and as a historical heritage there
is a monolingual attitude among policy-makers also at the present time. The multilingualism of society is not regarded as an advantage, different ethnicities do not learn each others
*Corresponding author. Email: csistvan@kmf.uz.ua

2014 Association for the Study of Nationalities
400
I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc
languages, and this causes problems for transnational communication between language
groups. Multilingualism in the region is, in fact, a series of situations of separate
monolingualism.
Some of the minorities living in the region organize themselves successfully; however,
such forms of minority self-governance like cultural or territorial autonomy are not part of
social thinking which is mainly rooted in the states dismissive attitude. Rusyns constitute
the largest minority in the region; however, their situation is quite controversial, since they
have to ght for their mere recognition nowadays. The Ukrainian state and the societal discourse initiated by it do not recognize Rusyns as a separate nation and the language they
speak as a separate language. While the law on national minorities in Ukraine guarantees
citizens right to freely choose their national identity, Rusyn was not an option as a nationality during the latest census in 2001. This violates the liberal view that individuals have the
right to free identication and the right to use their own language.
The largest ofcially recognized minority group of the region is Hungarians. The
Hungarian minority is small in size; however, the state of Hungary is an important neighbor
for Ukraine in its contacts with the EU. More than 90% of Ukraines Hungarians are
concentrated in this westernmost administrative region of the country, Subcarpathia. The
proportion of Hungarians is 12% in Subcarpathia, while at the national level it is only
0.3%. The language of the Hungarian minority is one of the 13 languages to which
Ukraine extended the scope of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Hungarians in Subcarpathia have cultural and educational institutions as well as two
political parties organized on an ethnicity basis. Despite the representation of the
Hungarians in the political sphere, the Ukrainian state rejects any kind of ambitions on
the part of Hungarians toward political or territorial autonomy, as has been made evident
by the sabotage of the establishment of an independent Hungarian electoral district
recently.1 The rights of the Hungarian minority are individual rights and not accorded on
a territorial basis.
This article argues for the idea that the romantic nation state pursued by Ukraine should
be replaced by thinking which is based on recognizing the importance of linguistic diversity
and the rights to use ones own language. When we analyze the relevant events of language,
education and minority policy in the twentieth century in Subcarpathia, it becomes obvious
that, in the longer run, strengthening the regions autonomy can provide an opportunity to
normalize linguistic and ethnic relations and to stimulate a dialogue between cultures. This
complex situation, burdened with historic injuries, can be surmounted if the right to use
ones mother tongue is handled by politicians outside the framework of majorityminority
relations: its foundation should be that every person (regardless of whether they are
members of the majority or the minority) has the right to use their own language,
because these are linguistic human rights, so the possibility to use ones mother tongue
is not merely an additional minority right.
The geographical position and the outlined history of Subcarpathia
Some of the borders of the present-day Subcarpathia are natural, some are articial (see
Figure 1). From the geographical point of view, the territory borders on the Carpathian
Mountains in the northeast, and the river Tisza in the south. This natural border separates
Ukraine and Poland (33 kilometers) and constitutes a part of the UkrainianRomanian
border, too.
This natural border separates the region from two other neighboring administrative
regions of Ukraine: the county of Lviv (85 km) and the county of Ivano-Frankivsk (180
Nationalities Papers
401
Figure 1. The present-day Subcarpathia (marked as Transcarpathia) in Ukraine.
km). Both the UkrainianSlovak border (98 km) and the UkrainianHungarian border (135
km) were drawn articially. A shorter part of the UkrainianRomanian border was also
formed articially (Molnr 2009, 107). According to historians, in the formation of articial
borders railway networks had played the most important part (Botlik 2005, 2008). The territory of the county of Subcarpathia is 12,800 km2 (Baranyi 2009, 19).
A century ago the administrative region known today as Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia
did not exist either as a geographical or as a geopolitical unit. It had belonged to several
states during the twentieth century and had been known by various names (see Table 1).
Until 1918 Hungarys Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Mramaros counties made up a larger
territory than the present-day Subcarpathia. In 1918 during the period of the disintegration
of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy the Peoples Republic of Hungary passed a law on the
autonomy of Rusyns in Hungary and called it Ruska Craina (literally meaning Rusyn
country).
The northern parts of the historical Hungary, the Slovak and Rusyn territories (together
with a Hungarian population of considerable size), were annexed to Czechoslovakia under
the peace treaties of Saint Germain and Trianon, in 1919 and 1920. From then on the ofcial
name of the territories of Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Mramaros counties annexed from
Hungary to Czechoslovakia became Podkarpatsk Rus (literally meaning Subcarpathian
Rus). In the everyday Hungarian language use Rusinsko was also used besides Podkarpatska Rus, and then in the 1930s the expression Subcarpathia became more and more
used, referring to the whole region. By the First Vienna Award (2 November 1938) Hungarian-populated territories annexed from Czechoslovakia by Hungary administratively
were given back to the counties to which they had belonged to in the period before the
Treaty of Trianon.
On 15 March 1939, after the declaration of the independent Slovak Republic, Podkarpatska Rus, with Khust as its administrative center, proclaimed its independence under the
name Carpathian Ukraine ( in the Ukrainian original). This small
state, however, was not long-lived. The very same day of 15 March, the Hungarian
402
State afliation
Period
Name of the region
The Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy
18671918
Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa, Mramaros counties
Peoples Republic of Hungary

and the Hungarian Soviet
Republic
19181919
Ruska Craina (25 December 1918); Hucul

Republic (8 January 1919); Ung, Bereg,
Ugocsa, Mramaros counties
(the rst) Czechoslovak

19191938
Republic, (the second) CzechSlovak Republic
19381939
Podkarpatska Rus (Podkarpatsk Rus)
Carpathian Ukraine
Podkarpatsk Rus (Podkarpatsk Rus,

)
1415 March 1939 Carpathian Ukraine ( )
Hungarian Kingdom
19391944
Subcarpathian Province (Krptaljai

Kormnyzsg)
Transcarpathian Ukraine
Transcarpathian Ukraine (
)
The Soviet Union
26 November
194422
January 1946
19461991
Ukraine
Since 1991
Transcarpathian county(
)
Transcarpathian county (
)
Status of the region

In geographical and administrative sense it was not a unied
region, but four counties of the Hungarian Kingdom, a
member state of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
The autonomy of the region named Ruska Craina was not
realized practically. The Hucul Republic referred to the
eastern part of the country; however, the Romanian Army
brought it to an end after a short time
In reality the region was not an independent administrative
unit
Autonomy existed in theory; its sphere of authority was
restricted
It was an autonomous territory within the federal
Czechoslovakia
Declared itself as an independent state, however it was not
recognized internationally
The territory was ruled by a temporary central directive
until the granting of the autonomous status (however,
Rusyn autonomy was not realized)
It was a temporary state without international recognition
It was a simple administrative region within the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic without any kind of autonomy
It is a simple administrative region within the independent
Ukraine without any kind of autonomy
Sources: Brdi et al. (2011), Fedinec (2002), Vehes and Fedinec (2010), Panchuk et al. (2008) and Vehes et al. (2011).
Table 1. The status of the region between 1867 and 2011.
403
Army took military action to reoccupy its former territories and succeeded to occupy it in
three days. The annexed territory became a new administrative unit, the Subcarpathian Province (Krptaljai Kormnyzsg in the Hungarian original). In the autumn of 1944 the
region was liberated by the Soviet Red Army. Behind the passing front a quasi-state was
established, existing a few months only and called Transcarpathian Ukraine ( in the Ukrainian original).
As a consequence of the 1945 SovietCzechoslovak agreement, in 1946 the region
became a part of the Soviet Union, forming a part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Its name, Transcarpathian county was newly formed, following the political centers geographical viewpoint and attaching oblast (meaning
county) to it. The name literally means to the territory beyond the Carpathian Mountains.
The region was the USSRs western most district, its western gate. From this time on it
was obligatory to refer to the region as Transcarpathia in any language.
Ukraine, which gained its independence in 1991, thus, inherited the region from the
Soviet Union. The name Transcarpathian county was inherited
as well. In everyday language the accepted name in Ukrainian is Transcarpathia; however, the local population of the region refers to it as
Subcarpathia.2
The population of the region

From the ethnic, linguistic and denominational points of view the region has a mixed population. Ukrainian/Rusyn, Hungarian and Romanian ethnic groups are the most signicant in
number (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Ethnic map of Subcarpathia according to the 2001 census.
404
Rusyns/Ukrainians make up the absolute majority in the region. Until 1945 the majority
population was referred to as Rusyns, Ruthenians and Hungarian-Russians.3 Rusyns originate from the eastern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains; however, they have been living
in the territory of the present-day Subcarpathia for several hundred years. Their identity,
distinct from Ukrainians, and the development of their own literary language were strongly
supported by Hungarys minority and language policy in the twentieth century. The usage
of the ethnonym Ukrainians became more frequent only in the 1930s. After 1945 the Soviet
Union prohibited the usage of the ethnonym Rusyn and banned the Greek Catholic church,
which played an important role in preserving the communitys identity. The Soviet authorities explained the annexation of Subcarpathia to the Soviet Union as the reunication
of the ancient Ukrainian land, therefore the local Slavic inhabitants were declared Ukrainian, and their language a dialect of the Ukrainian language.4 This view is shared by
present-day Ukrainian politicians too: ofcially they do not recognize either the existence
of the Rusyn ethnic group or the Rusyn language. Thus, the Slavic inhabitants of Subcarpathia were registered as Rusyns until the middle of the twentieth century and then as
Ukrainians in the database of the Soviet and Ukrainian censuses (see Table 2).
According to the latest, 2001 census Rusyn was declared as a nationality by 10,090
people (about 1% of all Subcarpathian Ukrainians), of which 6724 (66.6%) people also
chose Rusyn as their native language (Iltio 2003; Kuzio 2005). Nevertheless, the data
cannot be taken as authoritative because in the census questionnaire Rusyn was not
listed as an option among nationalities, which obviously inuenced people in making
their choices.
The contradiction of the situation is well described by the fact that while Rusyn is not
ofcially recognized as a minority in Ukraine, several Rusyn organizations are still registered lawfully, Rusyn language and culture are taught in Sunday schools, and there are
monuments and memorial plaques all across the territory dedicated to signicant representatives of the Rusyn nation. Moreover, in 2005 a Rusyn Scientic and Scholarly Center was
opened in Uzhgorod, which set out a professional journal titled [Rusyn
world]. In addition, Rusyn encyclopedias, dictionaries, grammars and readers and a newspaper in Rusyn language are also being published.
Rusyn ethnic and cultural organizations have turned to the government several times
asking to recognize Rusyn as a separate nation and a separate language. The Organization
of Subcarpathian Rusyns (established in 1990) has demanded the recognition of Rusyns and
asked for autonomy to former Podcarpatska Rus on the example of Switzerland. The argumentation of those who favor the recognition of Rusyns as a separate nation is strengthened
by the fact that Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Croatia,
as well as the USA and Canada recognize Rusyn as a separate nation and language
(Magocsi 2011).
On 1 May 2007 the Subcarpathian County Council passed Resolution 241 recognizing
the Rusyn nation as a separate nation within the territory of Subcarpathia. However, if we
have a closer look at the Ukrainian legislative system it becomes clear that in Ukraine any of
the existing institutions have not the scope of authority to decide on the existence of a
nation. International law, international declarations ratied by Ukraine (Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the Framework Convention and Paragraph 27 of the UN International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights) and the countrys interior law (Law on National Minorities in
Ukraine) declare that every person belonging to a national minority has the right of free
identication. Thus, choosing ones identity is a right that should not be limited by the
state (see Bauring 2008, 64).
Rusyns
Ukrainians
Hungarians
Russians
Germans
Romanians
(Czecho)slovaks
Jews
Roma people
Other
1880
1900
1910
1921
1930
1941
59.80
58.91
55.54
60.79
60.80
58.81
25.47
28.18
30.66
18.13
15.93
27.41
7.59
1.86
1.96
9.43
1.88
1.30
10.54
1.90
1.05
1.57
1.74
3.21
13.08
4.73
12.51
3.32
0.28
0.31
3.23
4.29
1.55
1.83
0.80
9.25
0.14
0.19
1959
1970
1979
1989
2001
74.60
15.89
3.22
0.38
1.99
1.34
1.32
0.54
0.72
76.42
14.37
3.33
0.40
2.22
0.97
1.03
0.56
0.71
77.75
13.71
3.61
0.32
2.35
0.77
0.33
0.48
0.67
78.41
12.50
3.97
0.28
2.37
0.59
0.21
0.97
0.69
80.51
12.08
2.47
0.29
2.56
0.45
0.04
1.12
0.48
Table 2. Changes of ethnic and national relations in the territory of the present-day Subcarpathia in % (18802001).
Sources: Magyar Statisztikai Kzlemnyek (1902), Kocsis and Kocsis-Hodosi (1998), Krptalja teleplseinek nemzetisgi (anyanyelvi) adatai (1996) and Iltio (2003).
405
406
Concerning the question of the Rusyn language, its codication is still going on;
however, experts believe that factors like the negative attitude of certain political circles
in Ukraine, the central governments fear of a functioning regional literary microlanguage
in the young state and the lack of the agreement on the part of the believers of this microlanguage could make the process difcult (Kprly and Pop 2001, 429). Others explain the
lack of the codied version of the Rusyn language with historical reasons (Fedynyynec
1996, 18). In addition, inuential regional political support, which could effectively aid
the cause of the Rusyn movement, is also missing. The current political intolerance experienced in the country is also an embarrassing factor.
The recognition of Rusyns as a national minority and the question of the independent
Rusyn language are not matters of scholarly or legal declaration, but political questions
(Kprly and Pop 2001, 429; Kloss 1967a; Trudgill 1992, 2001). This has been demonstrated by the case of Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Holub, who turned to the Parliament of
Ukraine with an initiative on setting out a resolution, which would recognize the Rusyn
state as a nation separate from Ukrainian. The Parliamentary Committee on Human
Rights, National Minorities and Interethnic Relations discussed the issue in February
2012. As was announced on the ofcial website of the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament),5 the committee rejected Holubs initiative outright. The justication enclosed to
the decision showed several inconsistencies: rst it remarks that, according to international
and national legal norms, the free choice and confession of ones nationality is a private
right of a citizen. Then it rejects the deputys proposal concerning the recognition of
Rusyn as a separate nation referring to the ofcial academic discourse which denies that
Rusyn can be taken as a separate nation. Thus, everybody has the right to choose ones
identity and confess it; however, the state can overwrite it based on the opinion of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Moving on to the issue of the ethnic composition of the territory, Hungarians make up the
largest (ofcially recognized) minority group. They live mainly in the southern part of the
region. This minority group is the most organized one: they have a wide and extensive institutional network. In several kindergartens and more than a hundred schools the language of
instruction is Hungarian. Some university degree programs also use Hungarian as a language
of instruction. There is an independent Hungarian College in Berehovo (the Hungarian name
of the town is Beregszsz) established in 1996 and one of the faculties of the Uzhgorod
National University has also had Hungarian degree programs since 2008 (Beregszszi
et al. 2001; Orosz 2005, 2007). Two Hungarian political parties, several civic associations,
cultural centers, libraries and scientic and scholarly organizations also exist. Newspapers
are published in Hungarian at both national and regional levels, and literary journals and
many books are published in Hungarian. Websites also function in Hungarian; Hungarian
programs are popular on the countys TV channel and radio as well. The Hungarian
theatre in Berehovo is well known across the territory. In addition to fullling their religious
tasks, Reformed, Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic churches also support Hungarian institutions. All of this means that the Hungarian language in Subcarpathia is used in many
domains of language use, it is not limited to the private sphere.
Hungarian language schools in Ukraine are maintained by the Ukrainian state; however,
renovation, building construction, equipment and modernization are primarily carried out
with the help of nancial help from abroad, especially from Hungary. Institutions established by the denominations are not supported by the state, thus their functioning is possible
only with the help of Hungarys support. Preserving the prestige of Hungarian medium education is more and more difcult due to the educational policy of the Ukrainian state nowadays. Therefore, many parents choose majority schools for their children. In sum, the
407
Hungarian language is present in many spheres of social life; however, favorable conditions
are not guaranteed by law. Hungarian political representation is not strong enough to get
into the Ukrainian Parliament and to champion the cause of Hungarian minority protection.
Subcarpathia has other nationalities within its population; however, their numbers are
quite small. The majority of the Romanian community live in some settlements alongside
the RomanianUkrainian border. Russians appeared in the region after the Second World
War as a result of the Soviet migration policy. The number of Germans, who had settled
in the region mainly during the eighteenth century, became insignicant by today. The
number of Slovaks is also small. They live in the western part of the region, mainly in
the town of Uzhgorod and in its surroundings. Censuses taken in historical Hungary did
not indicate Jews as a separate ethnic group; they were listed as Hungarians and
Germans on the basis of their native language. Until their mass deportation in 1944, they
were present in large numbers in the cities; however, today hardly any of them are left.
Experts estimate the number of the Roma population signicantly above what it appears
in the statistical data, making up, in reality, approximately 2.5% of the total population
of Subcarpathia.
Ethnic and regional policy in the territory of the present-day Subcarpathia
Every state to which the region belonged during the twentieth century made promises to
develop some kind of autonomy in order to maintain the status quo (see Tables 1 and 3).
However, explicitly in order to maintain the status quo, the practical realization of the promises never took place.
After its defeat in the First World War, in 1918, Hungary offered autonomy to the
region under the name Ruska Craina. However, by the time this could be realized, the territory had been annexed to the newly established Czechoslovak Republic. This newly
formed state was given the territory under the terms that it would prove the region-wide
autonomy. However, the rst government of the autonomous territory was formed only
in 1938. The autonomy was realized only when the Second World War approached and
Europes political borders were redrawn according to the new power relations. In 1939
the international political situation resulted in an autonomy which led to the declaration
of Carpathian-Ukraines independence which turned out to be extremely short-lived,
existing literally only a few hours. Changing the ethnic make-up of the territory was an
important aim of the central political elites politics regarding Subcarpathia. After it was
given the region in 1918, Czechoslovakia re-settled Czech and Slovak ofcials and soldiers
in large numbers in the region. At the same time, many old-time Subcarpathian inhabitants
were not given the Czechoslovak citizenship. In the southern part of the territory, inside the
ethnically homogeneous Hungarian territories several Slavic settlements were established
(see Figure 3). These ethno-political steps put the regions indigenous population at a disadvantage because the implementation of the linguistic and ethnic rights was dened at the
20% threshold for minorities.
In 1939 March, in a short military action the Hungarian army annexed the whole territory of Subcarpathia to Hungary and annulled the mini state of Carpathian Ukraine, which
declared its independence at the same time. The territory belonged to Hungary only until
1944. The Hungarian government formed a special administrative unit here (called Subcarpathian Province); however, it decided against the establishment of the autonomous unit of
Subcarpathian Vojvodina.
The year 1944 is a tragic one in the history of Subcarpathia. Pressured by Nazi
Germany, in the spring and summer of 1944 the Hungarian authorities rst ordered the
408
State
The promise of autonomy
The Austro-Hungarian The planned autonomy is Ruska

Monarchy (1867
Craina
1918)
Czechoslovakia (1918 The planned autonomy is
1939)
Podkarpatska Rus
Carpathian Ukraine
(1939)
Hungarian Kingdom
(1938/391944)
The Soviet Union

(19451991)
Ukraine (since 1991)
The practical realization of the autonomy

In reality it did not function
Violent intervention into the regions linguistic,

ethnic and national relations
During the twentieth century such kind of politics
was not characteristic in the region
In reality it did not function. At the end of

The settlement of Czech and Slovak ofcials,
1938, before the First Vienna Award, at the
establishing Czech colonies (settlements) in the
time of establishing the Second
framework of the land reform. Many
Czechoslovak Republic, Prague gave
Subcarpathian people were refused citizenship
permission to implement autonomy
The independence process in this
There were no claims for autonomy in the small Such kind of politics was not characteristic in the
small and short-lived state could
and short-lived state
short-lived state
happen due to the autonomy
movement
The planned autonomy is
It was not realized
Many Subcarpathian people were refused
Subcarpathian Voivodina
citizenship. Settling Hungarian ofcials,
intellectuals. Deportation of local Jews
(Holocaust). Giving political support to the
concept of independent Rusyn ethnic group and
language
Despite the federal structure of the In comparison to Russians, Ukrainians in the Settlement of Russian and other nationality ofcials,
state it was strongly centralized
USSR had restricted practical rights both
intellectuals, experts and soldiers. The
from the linguistic and ethnic points of views
deportation of Hungarian and the German men,
making the Rusyn ethnic group and language
disappear administratively. The registration of
Romanians as Moldavians
The population of Subcarpathia
Despite the referendum in 1991 it was not
Ukraine does not maintain politics in this direction.
voted positively to the autonomy
realized
The existence of the Rusyn ethnic group and
of the region in a referendum in
language are not recognized by Ukraine
1991
Sources: Vehes and Fedinec (2010) and Panchuk et al. (2008).
Table 3. The promise and realization of autonomy in different historical periods.
409
Figure 3. Czech colonies in Subcarpathia.

Source: Vehes and Fedinec (2010, 65).
Jewish population into ghettos, and then deported them to concentration camps. According
to different sources, 85,000 people, three-quarters of the Subcarpathian Jewish community,
were deported (Stark 2010, 191221). In the autumn of 1944, preparing the region to join
the Soviet Union, the Soviet Army deported Subcarpathian Hungarian men between the
ages of 8 and 50 and the local German population to Stalinist camps. In experts estimations
40,00060,000 ethnic Hungarian and German people were taken to camps by the Soviet
authorities, approximately 20,00025,000 of them never to return from there (Botlik and
Dupka 1991, 1993; Zseliczky 1993). The Soviet Union inuenced the ethnic composition
of the region in other ways as well. After the Second World War, Russians, Ukrainians and
representatives of other Soviet nationalities were settled in Subcarpathia. Rusyn as a nationality became outlawed; Rusyns were registered obligatorily as Ukrainians. Subcarpathias
Romanians were declared to be Moldavians administratively as a consequence of which
the Romanian community of the region did not appear as a national minority living next to
the neighboring Romania. Until the fall of the communism Subcarpathias Romanians
appeared in statistics as members of the Soviet community of the newly established Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (in the territory of Bessarabia, annexed from Romania). In
the Soviet Union the self-determination of the 15-member republics and the autonomous
republics was restricted as well. Everything was ruled by the Communist Party and from
Moscow. The strongly centralized Soviet Union suppressed attempts aimed at establishing
autonomy.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union the independent Ukraine inherited the territory of
Subcarpathia. In the independent Ukraine the idea of declaring the Subcarpathian autonomy
arose too. The local populations supportive intention was made evident in the referendum
on 1 December 1991, when 78% of the voters voted for the autonomy. In the Hungarianpopulated district of Berehovo, an additional question appeared on the ballot about whether
voters were for establishing an ethnic Hungarian autonomous district with Berehovo as its
410
center, and 81.4% of the voters voted for the Hungarian autonomous region. However,
Kyiv disregarded the results of the regional referendums. The elections showed that the
claim to autonomy is still present among the Subcarpathian people; however, it also
became apparent that the ambitions on the part of the Rusyns/Ukrainians and Hungarians
were similar: both ethnic groups claimed autonomy, but not a shared one. After the Ukrainian state began to foster centralization and strengthened its positions, all kinds of autonomy ambitions were regarded as anti-constitutional, a separatist criminal act against the
states territorial integrity and security, and the center refused to enter into a dialogue on
this issue.
By today the situation has not changed much: the Rusyns movement for their mere
recognition in Subcarpathia has been rejected exactly for the reason that it could violate
the unity of the young Ukrainian state and nation. The ofcial discourse treats Rusyns as
Ukrainians. Some of the experts nd the Rusyns movement obviously rooted in politics
and as being the sight of provincial nationalism (e.g. Baleha 2003, 2010; Majboroda
1999; Myshanych 1999; Panchuk 1995; Pipash 2011, 2012), their ambitions as separatism violating the integrity of Ukraine (e.g. Myshanych 1999; Pipash 2012; Savojska
2011, 291; Shevchuk and Trach 2009, 101; Zan 2010a, 2010b), and see Rusyns themselves as a pseudo-minority (e.g. Marchuk 2011; Nahorna 2008, 310; Yevtux et al.
2003, 92).
Another indication of the central powers dismissive attitude toward the issue of the
autonomy can be found in the letter written by the head of the State Committee on Nationality and Migration Questions to the deputy prime minister (dated 7 October 1996) in which
he proposed alternatives for solving the problems of Ukrainian-Rusyns (). The letter is about an action plan, which was developed by the above-mentioned
authority on the governments order.6 According to the document, Ukrainian state authorities as well as foreign representations should make it obvious that Subcarpathias autonomy is without any prospects from ethnic, cultural and administrative viewpoints and,
thus, any kind of locally initiated referendum should be avoided on this issue. One of
the tasks refers to an assignment given to authoritative bodies to prove that Rusyns do
not exist.
The region was/is not an organic or integral part of any of the states to which it has
belonged: it constituted a peripheral part of every state, situated far from all capitals
from which the territory was ruled during the twentieth century. Despite this, the political
elites of the capitals had made decisions on the local peoples fates, lives and autonomy
instead of the local population.
When the region belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy the Rusyns were divided
into several counties, and were not dealt as not an organic whole. Its annex to Czechoslovakia cannot be explained either with ethnic, historical, cultural, or with linguistic arguments. The Czechoslovak state formed after the First World War was given the territory
due to strategic reasons: the region served as a direct connection between the allied Czechoslovakia and Romania. Both Czechoslovakia and Romania were interested in weakening
Hungary. There was a territorial debate between Poland and Czechoslovakia, therefore
Hungary and Poland shared the common interest of weakening Czechoslovakia. The
Polish government strongly supported Hungarys ambition to get back Subcarpathia (Podcarpatska Rus) from Czechoslovakia.
After the Second World War II, the Soviet Union annexed the territory for strategic
reasons, too. The Soviet propaganda proclaimed that the Slavic populations on both
sides of the Carpathians share the same ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity and used
this as grounds for annexing the territories. That is why the ethonym Rusyn had to be
411
prohibited. However, the belonging of Galician and Subcarpathian Ukrainians does not
give grounds to the annexation of the southern Hungarian-populated part of the territory
to the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became independent
within the borders of the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1991 it inherited
the territories which were annexed by the Soviet Union in the rst half of the twentieth
century. Again, the ethnic, ethnographic and linguistic connection of Ukrainians living
on either side of the Carpathians, and the small and short-lived state of Carpathian
Ukraine established in 1939, served as a legal ground of the inheritance. However,
the almost exclusively Hungarian-populated southern strip of the region differs from the
other territories of the region from ethnic, ethnographic, cultural, denominational and linguistic points of view, too. The authority of neither Podkarpatska Rus nor of Carpathian
Ukraine and the Subcarpathian Province was extended to this territory.
Despite that under the impact of foreign and internal affairs over and above the region
Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine as well decided besides centralization instead of
autonomy, offered hegemony instead of regionalism for Subcarpathia (see Table 3).
The case of Subcarpathia demonstrates that a policy which neglects the needs and possibilities of local people can be successful. In the past almost 150 years the regional
language and educational policy of the different power states was guided by the goal of
strengthening the power positions of the majority elite. Every state makes promises for
the development of some kind of autonomy; however, the population of the region has
never experienced real autonomy. Decisions concerning the regions future, the existence
or non-existence, development or oppression of local people, languages, cultures and
denominations were made typically not by the local people but by the political elites
living in distant capitals. Today ambitions aimed at autonomy are rejected and marked
as separatist crimes against the integrity of the state.
Language and education policy in the territory of the present-day Subcarpathia
Kloss (1967b, 15) distinguishes the following ve stages in discussing the status of
languages:
(1) The language is ofcial in country-wide measures.
(2) It is the ofcial language of a larger regional unit (area, district, land, etc.).
(3) Minority language use permitted by authority in public education, public advertisements, though the minority language does not have an ofcial status.
(4) Tolerance toward the language in the private sphere (in the press, church and
private schools, etc.).
(5) Prohibition of the language.
There are such cases when the existence of a language is not recognized. We take this as
the sixth stage (6).
In the last 110 years the state language changed six times in the region. Four different
languages fullled this function: Hungarian (twice until 1918, and between 1938 and
1944), Czechoslovak (between 1918 and 1938), Ukrainian (in 1939, and since 1991)
and Russian (between 1945 and 1991). The Rusyn language had ofcial status twice in
the region: between 1918 and 1938 in Czechoslovakia it was ofcial in addition to the
Czech language, and between 1939 and 1944 in Hungary in addition to Hungarian.
If we consider Rusyns as an independent nation and Rusyn as an independent language,
then we have to realize that the language of the majority group of the region has never had
the status of state language here.
412
The existence of the independent Rusyn language was not recognized by the Soviet
Union and nor has it been recognized by the Ukrainian state. Between 1939 and 1944 in
the Subcarpathia that was part of Hungary the Rusyn language (called magyarorosz or
, that is Hungarian-Russian according to the contemporary wording)
enjoyed support and Ukrainian was prohibited by the authorities. Between 1938 and
1944 the Hungarian state endeavored to strengthen the national identity of the Rusyns
through considerable political, ethnic and nancial support. The aim of such Hungarian
policy was to strength the identity of the local Slavic population, which differed from
the other Slavic nations (Russians, Ukrainians, Slovaks and Poles). A central part of the
policy was the standardization and codication of the Rusyn dialect and the possibility
to use the Rusyn in ofcial functions (see Table 4).
The language policy of a state determines which languages will be present in education
and what position they will occupy. When the state language changed in the course of the
history of the region, the obligatorily taught languages in school education also changed.
Table 5 attempts to summarize which language or languages were taught as obligatory in
the different historical periods. In addition to the obligatorily taught state language in the
period between 1918 and 1944, the regions majority language, the Rusyn, was also
taught. During the existence of the Soviet Union, teaching Ukrainian was not obligatory
in schools where the medium of instruction was a language other than Ukrainian.
In the past 150 years, between 1867 and 2011, the Rusyn language was obligatory for
every schoolchild for 24 years, the Hungarian language for 23, Ukrainian for 21, and Czechoslovak for 19 years. In Subcarpathian schools Russian was taught for the longest time:
45 years (see Figure 4).
Changing from the obligatory teaching of one language to another always involved a
transition period. For a while (even for a number of years) there were no suitably trained
teachers; curricula, course books and teaching aids were missing. The generation who
had already nished school did not get any organized possibility to learn the new state
language. In this way, for example, those who left school before 1990 in the Soviet
Union and had not attended a Ukrainian-medium school did not learn Ukrainian language
at all during their school education. Ukraine, which has been independent since 1991, still
has not created all the necessary conditions for the state language to be taught in minority
schools (Beregszszi and Csernicsk 2009; Csernicsk 1998, 2005; Csernicsk and Orosz
1999; Csernicsk and Ferenc 2009, 2010; Melnyk and Csernicsk 2010b).
It is characteristic of the language policy in the region that every state endeavored to
strengthen the position of its own state language in the territory. The language of the
local majority (Rusyn) was used as ofcial only between the two world wars. In other
periods the state language itself lled a part of the (only one) ofcial language, too.
Even though in the Soviet period, when Subcarpathia belonged to the USSR, the Ukrainian
language also had ofcial status, this role remained symbolic. In every historical period the
state language policy came short on offering a comforting settlement of the status of minority languages.
In every period, education was seen as one of the most important means of extending
the functions of the state language. Every state recognized the multilingual and multi-ethnic
character of the region. However, in all cases the state tried to develop asymmetrical bilingualism in the territory. A peculiarity of this type of bilingualism is that learning the state
language is obligatory for minorities living in the territory, but the linguistic group which is
in the power does not have to learn any of the minority languages. Only the period between
1939 and 1944 can be seen as an exception, when authorities required ofcials to learn and
use the language of the local majority (Rusyn) (see Table 6).
Rusyn
The Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy (18671918)
(the rst) Czechoslovak
Republic (19181938)
(the second) Czech-Slovak
Republic (19381939)
Carpathian Ukraine (1939)
Hungarian Kingdom (1938/
391944)
The Soviet Union (1945
1991)
Ukrainian
3.
2. (Podkarpatska Rus)
Hungarian
Russian
Czechoslovak
Romanian
4.
4.
3.
1. State
language
3.
3.
4.
2. (Podkarpatska Rus)
3.
2. (Committee of
Transcarpathian
Province)
6.
1. State language
5.
3.
1. State
language
4.
1. State
language
1. State
language
4.
4.
4.
4.
2. (Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic)
3.
3.
3.
1. State language (from

1989)
3.
1. State language (its

status not codied by
law)
3.
3.
3.
6.
3.
Table 4. The status of larger languages used in Subcarpathia in different historical periods based on Kloss classication (1967b).
Sources: Ndor (2002), Csernicsk (1998) and Melnyk and Csernicsk (2010c, 631).
413
414
Table 5. Languages taught as obligatory in the region during the 20th century.
State language, taught

as obligatory
Regional ofcial
language, taught as
obligatory
Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy
(18671918)
Czechoslovakia
(19181939)
Hungarian Kingdom
(19391944)
Soviet Union
(19451991)
Czechoslovak
(Czech)
Hungarian
Russian9
Ukrainian
Hungarian
Foreign languages
taught
Latin, German
Rusyn
Latin
Rusyn
Latin
Choice of English,
German, or
French
Choice of English,
German, or
French
Source: Melnyk and Csernicsk (2010c, 637).
Figure 4. Comparison of the periods when certain languages were taught as obligatory in schools
(18672011).
Source: Melnyk and Csernicsk (2010c)
As a consequence of such language and educational policy, today there is no common

language in Subcarpathia: there is not one single language which independently of education, place and nationality everybody in the region knows. This was also true at the
beginning and at the end of the twentieth century, and it is still true at the beginning of the
twenty-rst century. In the early twentieth century in Hungarys Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and
Mramaros counties the majority of the population did not speak the state language. As
the gures of the 2001 census show, Ukrainian is clearly the most widespread language
in Subcarpathia: 82.57% of the population, or more than one million people speak it.
However, 17.43% of the Subcarpathian population that is, more than 200,000 people
do not speak Ukrainian. In the period between the two latest censuses, 1989 and
2001, the ratio of people who could speak exclusively their mother tongue (and not
States
Insistent spread of the majority/

state language
Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy
(18671918)
Czechoslovakia
(19181939)
Gradual strengthening of the

positions of the Hungarian
language
Moderate strengthening of the
positions of the Czechoslovak
language
Carpathian Ukraine
(1939)
Hungarian
Kingdom (1938/
391944)
Strengthening the situation of the

Ukrainian language
Strengthening the state language
status of the Hungarian language
Soviet Union
(19451991)
Forcing the use of Russian

language as the language of
international communication
(
)
Gradual strengthening of the state
language status of the Ukrainian
language, extending its sphere
of applicability
Ukraine (since
1991)
The usage of minority languages

in ofcial status
Only Hungarian (and German)
was used as ofcial language
Rusyn was obligatory in ofcial
language use. Other minority
languages could be used where
the ratio of minority was above
20%
The state had only one ofcial
language, Ukrainian
Hungarian-Russian (i.e. Rusyn)
language was obligatorily used
as ofcial language in
administration and in ofces
In the territory of the USSR it was
possible to use the Ukrainian
language besides Russian
In those territories where national
minorities made up the majority
besides the state language the
use of the mother tongue is also
permitted. However, the
country has only one state and
ofcial language, Ukrainian
Insistent spread of the state

language in education
Insistent spread of the Hungarian
language in the sphere of
education (e.g. Lex Apponyi)
Teaching Czechoslovak language
was obligatory, but the right to
study in ones mother tongue
worked as well
Type of the developing

bilingualism
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
The medium of education was the Asymmetrical

Ukrainian language
There were schools where the
Symmetrical: it was
medium was minority
obligatory to learn the local
languages, however, authorities
Slavic populations
spread Hungarian medium
language for Hungarian
education gradually
ofcials, executives,
ofcers and teachers
There were schools with
Asymmetrical
instruction in minority
languages, however, the
government supported Russian
medium education
In the beginning the minority
Asymmetrical
school system developed
rapidly, however, recently the
strengthening of the status of
the state language is
characteristic in education
415
Sources: Csernicsk (2010), Fedinec and Csernicsk (2010) and Melnyk and Csernicsk (2010a, 2010b, 2010c).
Table 6. Characteristic features of the language policies of the different states.
416
Table 7. The ratio of state language speakers in the total population of the region based on census data
(in %).
In 1910
In 1989
State language
Hungarian
Spoken (%)
Ung
Bereg
Ugocsa
Mramaros
48.6
63.5
59.1
24.1
In 2001
State language
Spoken (%)
State language
Spoken (%)
Russian
58.8
Ukrainian
82.6
Table 8. Language knowledge of the population of Subcarpathia on the basis of the censuses of 1989
and 2001 (in %).
Spoken as mother
tongue
Spoken as a
second language
Total proportion of
speakers
Proportion of those
who cannot speak
it
Languages
In 1989
In 2001
In 1989
In 2001
In 1989
In 2001
In 1989
In 2001
Ukrainian
Hungarian
Russian
78.10
13.38
4.99
81.00
12.65
2.90
3.86
1.00
53.79
1.57
3.08
2.62
81.96
14.39
58.78
82.57
15.74
5.52
18.04
85.61
41.22
17.43
84.26
94.48
Figure 5. The proportion of people speaking exclusively their mother tongue in Subcarpathia in case
of different nationalities based on censuses of 1989 and 2001 (in %).
speak any other languages) did not decrease but increased instead (see Tables 7 and 8 and
Figure 5).
The same was true in all historical periods: the ratio of monolingual speakers was
always highest among the ethnic group which was in power. However, the state language
of the given period has always been used by many people.
417
Language situation in Ukraine

In accordance with the Constitution, Ukraine is de jure a monolingual state (see Beregszszi
and Csernicsk 2009; Csernicsk 2005; Csernicsk and Ferenc 2009, 2010; Melnyk and
Csernicsk 2010d). However, Ukraine is de facto bi- or multilingual. Some experts (Arel
and Khmelko 1996; Khmelko 2004) maintain that Ukraines population is made up of
three linguistic and/or ethnic groups:
(1) Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians (about 4045% of the countrys population).

(2) Russian-speaking Ukrainians (about 3034% of the countrys population).
(3) Russian-speaking Russians (about 20%).
Other sources, like the 2001 national census (which focused not only on the Ukrainian
and Russian populations, but also on other smaller linguistic groups) divided the countrys
population into the following groups on the basis of peoples native languages:
(1) People who speak Ukrainian as their native language, including:
(a) Ukrainians (by nationality) whose native language is Ukrainian (85% of those who
claimed to be Ukrainian).
(b) Russians whose native language is Ukrainian (4% of those who claimed to be
Russian).
(c) National minorities whose native language is Ukrainian (e.g. 71% of the Poles and
42% of the Slovaks who live in Ukraine).
(2)
People who speak Russian as their native language, including:
(a) Russians whose native language is Russian (96% of those who claimed to be
Russian).
(b) Ukrainians whose native language is Russian (15% of Ukrainians).
(c) National minorities whose native language is Russian (e.g. 62% of the
Byelorussians).
(3)
(4)
National minorities whose ethnicity and native language are the same (e.g. 95% of
the Hungarians and 92% of the Romanians).
National minorities who speak the native language of another minority group (e.g.
in Subcarpathia 62% of the Roma consider Hungarian to be their native language,
this group constitutes 18% of all Roma in Ukraine; cf. Braun, Csernicsk and
Molnr 2010, 2425).
Nearly half of the countrys population use the Russian language in everyday interactions, 30% of them have Ukrainian as their mother tongue (Besters-Dilger 2008, 2009;
Majboroda et al. 2008; Masenko 2010; Vorona and Shulha 2007).
There are considerable differences between the ratio of Ukrainians and Russians in concrete administrative regions, too. From a linguistic perspective we can nd gaps between
the regions of Ukraine (Arel and Khmelko 1996; Khmelko and Wilson 1998; Kulyk
2008). These gaps have political dimensions, too. On the occasion of presidential elections
in 2004 and 2010 (and on every occasion of country-wide elections) Ukraine practically
split into two parts. In general, the mainly Ukrainian-speaking western, northern and
central regions stand for one political power, and the Russian dominant eastern and
southern parts stand for the other (Melnyk and Csernicsk 2010d, 7278).
418
The political situation of Ukraine is explosive and unstable, governments follow each
other in quick succession. In the 450-member Parliament the majority often depends on
a few votes. The language question has already been a campaign topic at the very rst election and remained important up to the present (Kulyk 2008; Zaremba and Rymarenko
2008a).
As a result of the explosive campaigns, which treated the language issue in an exceptional way, a paradoxical situation developed concerning the evaluation of the situation and
status of languages. Sociological studies proved that in the clearly Ukrainian-dominant
western part of the country people are afraid of the possibility of the Russian language
becoming the second state language, which would threaten Ukrainian statehood and the
Ukrainian language and nation would be imperiled.
It can be stated that the survival of the Ukrainian state depends on the real introduction of the
Ukrainian language in every sphere of the state and social life. In the present circumstances
language is the guarantee of the national security, territorial unity, the national identity and
the historical memory of the people. (Yushchenko 2010, 1)
In the almost exclusively Russian-speaking south and east, people think that it is Ukranifying politics that endangers the Russian language and identity of the Russians living in
Ukraine (see Zaremba and Rymarenko 2008b, 276). This complex linguistic and political
situation has to be handled by the Ukrainian politics. The political powers, whatever position they have during election campaigns on the language issue, later try to balance
between the linguistically split regions of the country. After winning the elections they
do not stick to realizing their promises (Kulyk 2008, 5354).
This tactic was followed by the rst president of the independent Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk as well, who successfully managed to maintain his position during the transition from
the communist system. Kravchuk did not urge Ukrainication; however, he gave several
positions to the national elite, which showed considerable achievements in widening the
usage of the Ukrainian language in the public administration. President Leonid Kuchma
was the master of the same politics during his 10-year-long mandate. In the campaign of
the presidential election of 1994, in contrast with Kravchuk, Kuchma won the election
with the promise of strengthening connections with Russia and giving ofcial status to
the Russian language. In the 1999 presidential election Kuchma faced the Russophile communist Petro Simonenko, at which time he proclaimed that Ukraine should have only one
state and ofcial language, Ukrainian.
After the Orange Revolution of 2004, the most important aim of the Ukrainian
language policy became the practical securing of state language status for the Ukrainian
language. The political attempt was to solve the tension between the de jure situation
(Ukraine is a monolingual state) and the de facto situation (the majority of the population
speak more than one language). However, in the eastern and southern regions of the
country (where the Russian language is dominant) the national politics provoked resistance. As a result, in the 2010 presidential election the orange elite was overthrown.
Yanukovich won the election, who in his campaign promised to address the status of
the Russian language. However, when he came to power, he quickly realized that if
he kept on strengthening the status of the Russian language, he would evoke the opposition of the western and northern regions. In a short time he gave up the idea of making
the Russian language the second state language in Ukraine. But in order to live up to his
voters expectations, his supporting political party, the Party of Regions, submitted a draft
of a language law to the Parliament which would ensure the ofcial status of the Russian
language practically in the whole territory of the state. However, the Parliament had not
419
dealt with the draft due to the protest of the Ukrainian nationalists. Thus, the status quo
remained: the Ukrainian language is the only one state language in Ukraine, but Russian
has dominance in several regions of the country and is dominant also in popular culture
and media.
In August 2011 government politicians submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a new draft
for settling linguistic relations. The law was passed under scandalous conditions (during
one of the parliamentary sessions a st ght broke out).
The language law would make the ofcial use of minority languages7 obligatory in
every administrative unit where speakers of the language in question reach a 10% threshold.
According to analysts, the law primarily favors Russian. Russian could become a regional
language in the whole territory of Ukraine and in 13 administrative units (the capital Kyiv,
the Crimean Autonomous Republic, the city of Sevastopol and in 10 counties) of the total of
27. Alongside with this only the Crimean Tatar language (in the Crimean Autonomous
Republic), Romanian (in Chernivtsi County) and Hungarian (in Subcarpathia) could get
regional language status at the county level. Speakers of factually endangered languages
(e.g. Karaim and Krymchak) in theory cannot facilitate possibilities offered by the new
law, because their proportion in the local population does not reach the 10% threshold in
any of the administrative units.8 It is still an open question how the Rusyns can practice
their rights, since they are not at present recognized as a separate nation by Ukraine and
their language is regarded as a dialect of Ukrainian.
As we can see, the language issue in Ukraine is highly polarized and emotionally
loaded. The political power which wants to change the present-day status quo inevitably
has to confront half of the country in every case. It is not accidental that before the new
language law was passed in Ukraine no law was passed in the last 15 years which directly
focused on the status of minorities or languages. The ratication of two international documents was the only exception (the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages).
Summary
Today Subcarpathia borders four member states of the European Union (Poland, the
Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania) and it nds itself within the borders of
Ukraine, an extensive state with 46 million inhabitants. Due to its history, several ethnicities and languages (Ukrainian, Rusyn, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, Slovak and
Roma), several denominations and religions (Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic and
Greek Catholic, Protestant and Jewish) and many cultures have lived side by side
here. The region lies on the border between western and eastern Christian civilization
and culture, belongs to the European border region, and is included in the Eastern Partnership as well. However, the territory is completely lacking minority right supporting
regimes, which is deeply rooted in the historical heritage of the region. As the consequence of the ethnic and language policy the region experienced during the last 150
years, when minority autonomy and rights have only been respected for geopolitical
reasons, there is a monolingual attitude among present-day policy-makers as well, and
they do not respect the multilingual situation in society. We are completely aware of
the fact that minority protection within the EU is not perfect; however, Subcarpathia
has a monolingual, hegemonic minority rights regime which needs to be improved
and brought closer to meeting European norms.
Every time the change of the power went together with the change of the political, economic, ideological and language policy discourses as well. The changing language policy
420
also changed which language(s) can appear in school education and in what function (as a
subject only or as medium of instruction). However, the political elite in power did not offer
the additive type of bilingualism for the population of the ethnically, culturally, religiously
and linguistically colorful region but the subtractive type of it. The kind of language policy
which supports only the use of the majority language does not lead to speakers multilingualism and does not help maintain linguistic diversity. A consequence of this kind of
regional, cultural, nationality and language policy is that today in Subcarpathia we
cannot nd a common language that everybody knows regardless of age, gender, education,
religion or place of residence. The lack of a lingua franca makes the dialogue between ethnicities difcult, sometimes even impossible.
In the present-day situation the largest minority group of Subcarpathia, Rusyns, are not
even recognized; the group is registered as an ethnographic group of Ukrainians. This violates the internationally approved view that individuals have the right to free identication
and to the use of their own language.
Since the end of the Second World War, no ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural conicts have ared up in the region. However, this is not the result of the states ethnic, linguistic and regional policy, but the merit of local peoples tolerance. However, in the future
peace and safety can be provided only through the promotion of linguistic and cultural
diversity, the support of minority rights, and giving up the model of the romantic nation
state.
Notes
1. The news in the local media: http://karpatinfo.net/hetilap/nem-lesz-magyar-valasztokorzetkarpataljan and Kinga Gl, Hungarian EP member remarks on the topic: http://galkinga.hu/hir/
kisebbsegellenes_az_ukran_valasztokeruleti_dontes
2. The usage of the name of Transcarpathia vs. Subcarpathia (in Ukrainian vs.
, in Hungarian Krptontl vs. Krptalja) indicates a geographical and/or political
viewpoint at the same time. Viewed from Moscow and Kyiv, the region is situated beyond the Carpathian Mountains, which is why Ukrainians and Russians use the name Transcarpathia ( in Ukrainian, and Krptontl in Hungarian). Viewed from Budapest and Prague, and
from the point of view of the local population, it is situated at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains,
which gives it the name Subcarpathia ( in Ukrainian, and Krptalja in Hungarian).
The name used for the region is not unied in the international literature either. In the English
language the terms Subcarpathia and Transcarpathia exist side by side. In the German language
most frequently the terms Karpato-Ukraine and Transkarpatien are used. Papers in French mostly
refer to it as Ukraine Subcarpathique. Karpato-Ukraine reects the political reality for the most
part; however, the raison detre of Subkarpatien as a historical term is considered indisputable.
Without any political engagement we decided to use the term Subcarpathia in this article.
3. For further information, see e.g. Dickinson 2010; Kuzio 2005; Lane 2001; Magocsi 1993, 1996;
Nekvapil 2007.
4. See, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
Opinion on Ukraine. , 1920 (12), 2003, p. 164.
5. http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_2?pf3516=7242&skl=7
6. No. 17626/34. dated on 5 September 1996.
7. According to Article 1, Paragraph 7 of the language law the following languages are minority
languages in Ukraine: Russian, Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Armenian, Gagauz, Yiddish, Crimean
Tatar, Moldavian, German, Modern Greek, Polish, Roma, Romanian, Slovak, Hungarian,
Rusyn, Karaim and Krymchak.
8. According to 2001 census data, the number of Karaims is 1196, among them 24 people confessed
to be native speakers of the Karaim language. The number of Krymchaks is 406 and 21 individuals
are native speakers (Melnyk and Csernicsk 2010d).
9. Russian did not have state language status in the Soviet Union, however de facto it lled the role of
ofcial and state language.
421
References
Arel, Dominique and Valerii Khmelko. 1996. The Russian Factor and Territorial Polarization in
Ukraine. The Harriman Review 9 (12): 8191.
Baleha, Yurij [ ]. 2003.
[Political Rusynism and the Ukrainian State-building]. : .
Baleha, Yurij [ ]. 2010. , -
[Political Rusynism, or the Fencik-Brdy ghosts in Transcarpathia]. :
.
Baranyi, Bla. 2009. Bevezets [Introduction]. In Krptalja [Subcarpathia], edited by Bla
Baranyi, 1924. PcsBudapest: Magyar Tudomnyos Akadmia Regionlis Kutatsok
Kzpontja Dialg Campus Kiad.
Brdi, Nndor, Csilla Fedinec, and Lszl Szarka. eds. 2011. Minority Hungarian Communities in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bauring, B. [ .]. 2008. .
[Language Policy in Ukraine. International Norms and
Obligations, and the Ukrainian Law and Jurisdiction]. In
[Language Policy and the Linguistic Situation in Ukraine], edited by
Juliane Besters-Dilger, 5595. : - .
Beregszszi, Anik, and Istvn Csernicsk. 2009. The Linguistic Aspects of Current Ukrainian
Educational Policy. In 20 Years: Report on the Activities of the Sasakawa Young Leaders
Fellowship Fund in Hungary 19892009: A Selection of 20 Studies from the past 20 years,
edited by Mariann Tarnczy and Alexandra Kvr, 19. Budapest: HAS-Sasakawa Young
Leaders Fellowship Fund.
Beregszszi, Anik, Istvn Csernicsk, and Ildik Orosz. 2001. Nyelv, oktats, politika [Language,
Education, and Policy]. Beregszsz: Krptaljai Magyar Tanrkpzo Fo iskola.
Besters-Dilger, Juliane [- ]. ed. 2008.
[Language Policy and the Linguistic Situation in Ukraine]. :
- .
Besters-Dilger, Juliane. ed. 2009. Language Policy and Language Situation in Ukraine: Analysis and
Recommendations. Frakfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Botlik, Jzsef. 2005. Kzigazgats s nemzetisgi politika Krptaljn I-II [Public Administration
and Nationality Policy in Subcarpathia], Vols. 12. Nyregyhza: Nyregyhzi Fo iskola
Ukrn s Ruszin Filolgiai Tanszke Veszprmi Egyetem Tanrkpzo Kara.
Botlik, Jzsef. 2008. Eduard Bene and Podkarpatsk Rus: Hungarians, Rusins and Czechs in
Subcarpathia 19191938/39. Budapest: Corvinus.
Botlik, Jzsef, and Gyrgy Dupka. 1991. Ez ht a hon...Tnyek, adatok, dokumentumok a krptaljai
magyarsg letbo l 19181991 [This is Our Land FACTS, Data and Documents from the
Life of Hungarians in Subcarpathia 18191991]. BudapestSzeged: MandtumUniversum.
Botlik, Jzsef, and Gyrgy Dupka. 1993. Magyarlakta teleplsek ezredve Krptaljn [A
Thousand Years of Hungarian Populated Settlements in Subcarpathia]. UngvrBudapest:
Intermix Kiad.
Braun, Lszl, Istvn Csernicsk, and Jzsef Molnr. 2010. Magyar anyanyelvu cignyok/romk
Krptaljn [Hungarian-speaking Gypsies/Roma in Subcarpathia]. Ungvr: PoliPrint.
Csernicsk, Istvn. 1998. A magyar nyelv Ukrajnban (Krptaljn) [The Hungarian Language in
Ukraine (Subcarpathia)]. Budapest: Osiris Kiad MTA Kisebbsgkutat Mu hely.
Csernicsk, Istvn. 2005. Hungarian in Ukraine. In Hungarian Language Contact Outside
Hungary. Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language, edited by Anna Fenyvesi,
89131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Csernicsk, Istvn. 2010. (19381944) [Language
Policy during the Territorial Revision, 19381944]. In 19192009 :
, , [Transcarpathia 19192009: History, Politics, and Culture],
edited by Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec, 660668. : .
Csernicsk, Istvn, and Viktria Ferenc. 2009. Ukrainian Educational Policy and the
Transcarpathian Hungarian Higher Education. In Nemzetllamok, globalizci s
ktnyelvu sg [Nation States, Globalization, and Bilingualism], edited by Istvn Horvth and
Erika Mria Tdor, 330331. Kolozsvr: Nemzeti Kisebbsgkutat IntzetKriterion.
422
Csernicsk, Istvn, and Viktria Ferenc. 2010. Education as an Ideal Means of Achieving a Nation
State in Ukraine. In Concepts and Consequences of Multilingualism in Europe, edited by
Joln Rka, 329349. Budapest: Budapest College of Communication and Business.
Csernicsk, Istvn, and Ildik Orosz. 1999. The Hungarians in Transcarpathia. Budapest: Tinta.
Dickinson, J. 2010. Languages for the Market, the Nation, or the Margins: Overlapping Ideologies of
Language and Identity in Zakarpatia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 201:
5378.
Fedinec, Csilla. 2002. A krptaljai magyarsg trtneti kronolgija 19181944 [A Historical
Chronology of the Hungarians of Subcarpathia, 19181944]. GalntaDunaszerdahely:
Frum IntzetLilium Aurum Knyvkiad.
Fedinec, Csilla, and Istvn Csernicsk. 2010. -
(19181939 ) [Language Policy Ambitions of Czechoslovakia, 19181939]. In
19192009 : , , [Transcarpathia 19192009:
History, Politics, and Culture], edited by Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec, 648660.
: .
Fedynyynec, Volodymyr. 1996. Vgigmenni a megkezdett ton. A krpt-ruszin irodalmi nyelv
megteremtsnek gondolata [Following the Road We Started Out On: The Idea of Creating
the Carpatho-Rusyn Literary Language]. Pnsp 6 (1): 1819.
Iltio, I. ed. 2003. (
) [The Populations Ethnic Composition and Linguistic Characteristics: A
Statistical Bulletin]. : .
Kprly, Mihly, and Ivan Pop [ , ]. 2001.
[The Transcarpathian Rusyn Language]. In [An
Encyclopedia of Podcarpatska Rus], edited by Ivan Pop, 425430. :
. .
Krptalja teleplseinek nemzetisgi (anyanyelvi) adatai (18801941) [Nationality (Mother
Tongue) Data of Subcarpathian settlements, 18801941]. 1996. Budapest: Kzponti
Statisztikai Hivatal.
Khmelko, Valerii [ ]. 2004. - :
[The Linguistic and Ethnic Structure
of Ukraine: Regional Peculiarities and Tendencies of Change in the Years of Independence].
32. , 315.
Khmelko, Valerii, and Andrew Wilson. 1998. Regionalism and Ethnic and Linguistic Cleavages in
Ukraine. In Contemporary Ukraine: Dynamics of Post-Soviet Transformation, edited by
Taras Kuzio, 6476. London: Armonk.
Kloss, Heinz. 1967a. Abstand Languages and Ausbau Languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9:
2941.
Kloss, Heinz. 1967b. Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten Variables. In
Explorations in Sociolinguistics, edited by Stanley Lieberson, 717. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University.
Kocsis, Kroly, and Eszter Kocsis-Hodosi. 1998. Ethnic Georgarhy of the Hungarian Minorities in
the Carpathian Basin. Budapest: Geographical research Institute and Minority Studies
Programme.
Kulyk, Volodimir [ ]. 2008.
[Language Policy and Connecting Social Relations after the
Orange Revolution]. In [Language
Policy and the Linguistic Situation in Ukraine], edited by Besters-Dilger, 1154. :
- .
Kuzio, T. 2005. The Rusyn Question in Ukraine: Sorting out Fact from Fiction. Canadian Review of
Studies in Nationalism 32: 115.
Lane, Hugo. 2001. Rusyns and Ukrainians Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: The Limitations of
National History. Nationalities Papers 29: 689696.
Magocsi, Paul Robert. 1993. The Rusyns of Transcarpathia: Minorities in Central and Eastern
Europe. London: Minority Rights Group International Report.
Magocsi, Paul Robert. 1996. A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of
Slovakia. New York: Columbia University Press.
423
Magocsi, Paul Robert [ ]. 2011. ? .

. [Rusyn Nation? The Processes of Nation Building],
258267. : ....
Magyar Statisztikai Kzlemnyek: A Magyar Korona Orszgainak. 1900. vi npszmllsa. I. rsz.
A npessg ltalnos lersa kzsgenknt [Hungarian Statistical Papers: The 1990 Census of
the Countries of the Hungarian Crown]. Budapest: Kzponti Statisztikai Hivatal, 1902.
Majboroda, Oleksandr [ ]. 1999. :
. : .
Majboroda, Oleksandr, Mykola Shulha, Volodymyr Horbatenko, Borys Azhnyuk, Larysa Nahorna,
Yurij Shapoval, Viktor Kotyhorenko, Maj Panchuk, and Vitalij Perevezij [
, , , , ,
, , , ], eds. 2008.
: [The Linguistic Situation in
Ukraine: Between Conict and Consensus], 4985. :
. . .
Marchuk, Nataliya [ ]. 2011.
[Historical
Conditions and Peculiarities of the Development of Transcarpathian Rusyns Ethno-cultural
Identity]. . 45: 129136.
Masenko, Larysa [ ]. 2010. [Sociolinguistic Essays].
: - .
Melnyk, Svitlana, and Istvn Csernicsk. 2010a. (1945
1991) [Language Policy of the Soviet Union, 19451991]. In 19192009
: , , [Transcarpathia, 19192009: History, Policy, and
Culture], edited by Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec, 668681. :
.
Melnyk, Svitlana, and Istvn Csernicsk. 2010b. [Language
Policy in Independent Ukraine]. In 19192009 : , ,
[Transcarpathia, 19192009: History, Policy, and Culture], edited by Mikola
Vehes and Csilla Fedinec, 681703. : .
Melnyk, Svitlana, and Istvn Csernicsk. 2010c. [The Concept of
Language Policy]. In 19192009 : , ,
[Transcarpathia, 19192009: History, Policy, and Culture], edited by Mikola Vehes and
Csilla Fedinec, 629638. : .
Melnyk, Svitlana and Istvn Csernicsk. 2010d. .
[Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity of Ukraine: An Analytic
Review of the Situation]. : .
Molnr, Jzsef. 2009. Fldrajzi fekvs [Geographical Situation]. In Krptalja [Subcarpathia],
edited by Bla Baranyi, 107108. PcsBudapest: Magyar Tudomnyos Akadmia
Regionlis Kutatsok Kzpontja Dialg Campus Kiad.
Myshanych, Oleksa [ ]. 1999. : .
[Political Rusynism: History and
Modernity. Ideological Resources of Transcarpathian Regional Separatism]. : .
Nahorna, Larysa [ ]. 2008. :
[Regional Identity: The Ukrainian Context]. :
. . .
Ndor, Orsolya. 2002. Nyelvpolitika. A magyar nyelv politikai sttusvltozsai s oktatsa a kezdetekto l napjainkig [Language Policy: Changes in the Political Status of the Hungarian Language
and its Teaching from the Beginning Up Until Now]. Budapest: BIP.
Nekvapil, Jiri. 2007. On the Relationship between Small and Large Slavic Languages. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 183: 141160.
Orosz, Ildik. 2005. A magyar nyelvu oktats helyzete Krptaljn az ukrn llamisg elso
vtizedben (19891999) [The State of Hungarian Language Education in Subcarpathia in
the First Decade of the Ukrainian State, 19891999]. Ungvr: PoliPrint.
Orosz, Ildik. 2007. A fggetlensgto l a narancsos forradalomig. A krptaljai magyarsg helyzete a
fggetlen Ukrajnban (19912005) [From the Time of Independence to the Orange
Revolution: The Status of Subcarpathian Hungarians in the Independent Ukraine,
19912005]. Ungvr: PoliPrint.
424
Panchuk, M. 1995. [The Political Rusyn Community in Ukraine].

23 (6): 116123.
Panchuk, M., Y. Levenets, V. Voinalovych, V. Kotygorenko, and N. Kochan. eds. 2008.
[Transcarpathia from the Ethnic and National
Perspectives]. : . . . .
Pipash, Volodymyr [ ]. 2011. [The
Political Background of the Rusyn Question]. 1: 3638.
Pipash, Volodymyr [ ]. 2012.
[The Political Background of the Rusyn question]. .
Accessed 10 December 2012. http://zakarpattya.net.ua/Blogs/92501-Politychnyi-pidtekstrusynskoho-pytannia-na-Zakarpatti
Savojska, Svitlana [ ]. 2011. -

[Linguistic Separatism as a Destabilising Factor of the Ukrainian Societys
Coherence under the Conditions of Post-Soviet Transformation]. : .
Shevchuk, G., and N. Trach [ ., .]. 2009.
[Language Policy after the Orange Revolution]. 37: 97104.
Stark, Tams. 2010. (1944) [Ghettos and Death Camps, 1944]. In
19192009 : , , [Subcarpathia, 19192009:
History, Politics, and Culture], edited by Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec, 217224.
: .
Trudgill, Peter. 1992. Ausbau Sociolinguistics and the Perception of Language Status in
Contemporary Europe. The International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2: 167178.
Trudgill, Peter. 2001. The Ausbau and Abstand Sociolinguistics of Linguistic Minorities. In
Minorities and Language Policy (= Plurilingua 22), edited by Peter Nelde and Rosita
Schjerve, 3744. St. Augustin: Asgard Verlag.
Vehes, Mikola, and Csilla Fedinec. eds. 2010. 19192009 : , ,
[Subcarpathia, 19192009: History, Politics, and Culture], 648660. :
.
Vehes, Mikola, D. Istvn Molnr, Jzsef Molnr, Yurii Ostapets, Roman Otsinskyi, Marian Tokar,
Csilla Fedinec, and Istvn Csernicsk. 2011. 18672010 / Krptalja
vszmokban 18672010 [A Chronicle of Transcarpathia, 18672010]. Uzhgorod: Hoverla.
Vorona, Valeriy, and Mykola Shulha [ , ], eds. 2007.
19922007. [Ukrainian Society, 19922007: The
Dynamism of Social Changes]. : .
Yevtux V., V. Troshhynskyj, and K. Halushko [ ., ., .]. 2003.
: [Ethnosociology: Terms and Concepts]. :
.
Yushchenko, Viktor [ ]. 2010. [Whoever has the
Language has the Power]. 180, 6 2010: 12.
Zan, Mihajlo. 2010a. Etnikai folyamatok Krptaljn [Ethnic Processes in Subcarpathia]. In
Krptalja 19192009: trtnelem, politika, kultra [Subcarpathia 19192009: History,
Politics, and Culture], edited by Fedinec Csilla and Mikola Vehes, 441448. Budapest:
ArgumantumMTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbsgkutat Intzete.
Zan, Mihajlo [ ]. 2010b. [Ethnic Processes in
Subcarpathia]. In: , M. . . 19192009 :
, , [Transcarpathia 19192009: History, Politics, and Culture],
504513. : .
Zaremba, Oleksandr, and Serhij Rymarenko [ , ]. 2008a.
: , ,
[Mechanisms of the Mobilisation of Linguistic Groups: Entrepreneurs, Words, and Events].
In : [The Linguistic Situation
in Ukraine: Between Conic and Consensus], edited by ,
, , , , ,
, , and ], 235257. :
. . .
Zaremba, Oleksandr, and Serhij Rymarenko [ , ]. 2008b.
[The Role of External Factors
425
in the Politicization of Linguistic Problems]. In :

[The Linguistic Situation in Ukraine: Between Conict and
Consensus], edited by , , ,
, , , , ,
and , 258280. :
. . .
Zseliczky, Bla. 1993. Mi volt a sztlini rendszer lnyege? [The Essence of the Stalinist Regime]. In
Emlkknyv a sztlinizmus krptaljai ldozatairl (19441946) [A Book in Memory of the
Subcarpathian victims of Stalinism, 19441946], edited by Gyrgy Dupka, 190195.
UngvrBudapest: Intermix Kiad.

Csernicsko

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Csernicsko

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [Charles University in Prague]

On: 08 April 2015, At: 15:37

Nationalities Papers: The Journal of

Hegemonic, regional, minority and

Istvn Csernicsk & Viktria Ferenc

Ferenc Rkczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian Institute,

Click for updates

Doctoral Programme of Applied Linguistics, University of Pcs,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Nationalities Papers, 2014

Hegemonic, regional, minority and language policy in Subcarpathia:

Ferenc Rkczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian Institute, Beregszsz/Berehovo, Ukraine; bDoctoral

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

(Received 27 March 2013; accepted 10 November 2013)

*Corresponding author. Email: csistvan@kmf.uz.ua

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Figure 1. The present-day Subcarpathia (marked as Transcarpathia) in Ukraine.

Name of the region

Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa, Mramaros counties

Peoples Republic of Hungary

Ruska Craina (25 December 1918); Hucul

(the rst) Czechoslovak

Podkarpatska Rus (Podkarpatsk Rus)

Podkarpatsk Rus (Podkarpatsk Rus,

Subcarpathian Province (Krptaljai

The Soviet Union

Status of the region

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Table 1. The status of the region between 1867 and 2011.

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

The population of the region

Figure 2. Ethnic map of Subcarpathia according to the 2001 census.

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

The promise of autonomy

The Austro-Hungarian The planned autonomy is Ruska

The Soviet Union

Ukraine (since 1991)

The practical realization of the autonomy

Violent intervention into the regions linguistic,

In reality it did not function. At the end of

Sources: Vehes and Fedinec (2010) and Panchuk et al. (2008).

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Table 3. The promise and realization of autonomy in different historical periods.

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Figure 3. Czech colonies in Subcarpathia.

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

Downloaded by [Charles University in Prague] at 15:37 08 April 2015

I. Csernicsk and V. Ferenc

1. State language (from

1. State language (its