From the early twentieth century to the present day, Transcarpathia has belonged to several states: the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and finally to Ukraine. The status of what counts as a minority and a majority language has changed each time the state affiliation has been changed. Based on the long term research by Csernicskó, and on the one-month fieldwork carried out by Laihonen in 2012, our goal is to provide an autonomous critical account and discourse analysis of the linguistic situation in Transcarpathia. We draw examples especially from the linguistic landscape, which documents the hybrid practices difficult to catch with other means. Different nation states have aimed to evaluate certain languages over others. However, Transcarpathia has been too far away from different national centers and it has therefore remained a periphery. In the everyday life of Transcarpathians, ironies around language repertoires, standardization and heteroglossia come into the fore, especially in the current context. Such unexpected linguistic practices or "pre-nationalist" and "non-purist" ideologies offer a change to see how certain categories, such as language, have remained in their hybrid forms and are still clearly "in the making".

No abstract

The minority Hungarians of Subcarpathia (Ukraine) have been regarded as a linguistically homogeneous community whose Hungarian language use is affected by their contact with Russian and Ukrainian in a uniform manner. This study demonstrates that such a view cannot be upheld in the light of quantitative empirical findings, which show Subcarpathian Hungarians to be a sociolinguistically stratified group of speakers whose Hungarian language use varies in a systematic manner according to sex, age, level of education, and place of residence. The paper also outlines some of the main differences in the language use of Hungarians in Subcarpathia and Hungary which are manifested in statistically significant ways.

No abstract

In Ukraine, having arrived at a critical stage of its history, three areas can be highlighted at the level of legislation during the struggle for the way forward since the end of 2013: the language issue, the constitutional process, and the efforts to eliminate the Soviet legacy. The subject of our analysis is the four laws belonging to the 2015 legislative package on decommunization, with an outlook to the broader context, as well. The four laws in question decide about who are heroes and who are enemies in history; what Ukraine's relationship is with World War II, as well as with the Communist and Nazi regimes. The laws point out fi rmly and excluding any further debate the primacy of the country's independence over all else, and the protection of the ideal of independence by any means concerning both the past and the present. The laws prescribe impeachment as a sanction for denying their contents. This story-hot memory infl uenced by politics-will be summarized for the period of 2015-2016.