Search

Background. In Soviet Ukraine, academic discourse often acted as a means of implementing language planning, in particular as a tool for the transformation of the language corpus. All grammar textbooks published after 1933 broadcast the official knowledge: the vocative is not a full-fledged case, but rather a special form of address; morphological means of expressing address in Ukrainian are the "vocative form" and "nominative case." In the conditions of total control over all areas of social life, Ukrainian linguists were faced with a choice of either 1) look for certain language devices, broadcasting the official theory, which would convince the addressee to believe in the talking points that did not fully comply with the language facts, and then anchor those points in their consciousness; 2) avoid aspects that disagree with the language practice or the logic of academic description; 3) word the findings of their research and observations of the language practice in a way that would not contradict the official theory. Contribution to the research field. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the communication practices used by Ukrainian linguists in the Soviet times to express their academic position, which did not agree with official knowledge. The object of comprehension was a unique for postcolonial societies situation in which the creators of both the official discourse and the alternative discourse opposed to it were the colonised themselves. Purpose. The aim of this research is to analyse ways and means of verbalisation of the alternative academic position held by linguists in the academic discourse of the totalitarian era, based on the materials representing the topics "The Case System" and "Address" in Ukrainian grammar books for higher education, published between 1933-1991. Methods. The research is based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of postcolonial studies, which involve a critical reading of texts that reflect the influence of various forms of authority on the life of subordinate communities. In particular, the theory of critical reading of J. Errimgton's linguistic works and R. Vodaks' methodology of discourse-historical approach, which has been adapted for academic discourse analysis, have been applied in this research. Results. Some linguists, who did not share the canonised theory of the vocative, implied their point of view in the official texts they had created (i.e. textbooks for higher education.) On the one hand, they used official terminology and theoretical concepts: they were consistent in naming the vocative case a "vocative form," and presented two ways of expressing address. On the other hand, the lexical and grammatical structure of their statements levelled the postulates regarding the fact that "vocative is not a case", and that "the nominative case is used to express address on par with the vocative." Among the techniques used by the linguists, heavily euphemistic speech in combination with syntactic complication of the structure prevailed, as well as splitting nominations by verbalising the concept with variant naming and violation of logical connections between consecutive statements. Such individual practices of linguistic resistance replicated the practices of the official totalitarian discourse, but with the aim to broadcast the opposite meaning. Discussion. The peculiarity of the alternative academic discourse (in particular, the language education one) of the totalitarian era lies in the fact that it did not directly confront the official theory, but rather occurred within its boundaries. This gives a reason to consider some Ukrainian linguists of the Soviet period as creators of both colonial and anti-colonial discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The authors of Ukrainian grammar books published before 1933 were consentient that appellation expressed by a noun requires the use of the vocative case only. In 1933, new People's Commissar of Education of the USSR V. Zatonskyi formed the commission 'for auditing the work on the language front'. On the 26th of April, the Commission adopted several resolutions, among which there was the provision to review scholar and didactic books to reveal 'nationalistic deformation'. After they had been made public, in the Soviet handbooks for higher and secondary education, one can find a statement that the 'vocative form' is used to express appellation. However, the "nominative case" can also occasionally perform this function. Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to compare the morphological variability of appellation expressing codified in the Soviet handbooks and the accurate appellation expressing in dramas of the 1920s - 30s of the XX century. To find out the presence or absence of the pragmatic differences between vocative and nominative in this function is in the focus of our analysis as well. Methods. The methodological base of research is the discourse-analytical approach, within we compound discourse analysis method (to descry the designing new syntactic norm in the linguistic-didactic discourse of the end of the 1930s - the beginning of the 50s) and content-analysis method (to find out the real means of expressing appellation in social realists' dramas of the 1920s - 30s of the XX century). Results. Theory about vocative as non-case and legitimization of the term 'called form (vocative form)' to denote it became dominant in all Soviet Ukrainian language handbooks for secondary and higher education. There are no remarks about another qualification in this grammatical category in the analyzed handbooks, and it evidences the monologue style of the Soviet linguistic-didactic discourse. The authors of these handbooks codify a double language norm to express an appellation - the vocative form and the nominative case. The thesis about nominative as a means to denote an appellation is usually formulated in the way of a superficial remark that may be apprehended by a recipient as upon the table fact. The study of the morphological manifestation of appellations in the drama of late 1920-30s created by the authors transmitting the official party ideology proves that vocative case predominates. Nominative to denote appellation has mainly a pragmatic effect or is one of the means of creating characters. Moreover, only in O. Korniychuk's plays the use of morphological forms of appellations does not follow any regularities. Discussion. Spreading the nominative case to denote appellation in modern colloquial speech is conditioned by the complex of factors. On the one hand, it is a loosening of language norm in Soviet handbooks and on the other hand, it is the fact that morphological forms of vocative and nominative in plural nouns and singular nouns of neutral gender are homonymous. However, this thesis is needed verification on more comprehensive language material that represents different functional styles of the Ukrainian language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]