Facultatea de Istorie şi Filosofie / Faculty of History and Philosophy

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://msuir.usm.md/handle/123456789/8

Browse

Filters

20202

Settings

End date: 2020Subject: search.filters.subject.higher education

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    EU ÎS DE PĂRERE CĂ FIINŢAZĂ O SÂNGURĂ LIMBĂ!”: CONTROVERSE LINGVISTICE LA INSTITUTUL PEDAGOGIC DIN CHIŞINĂU
    (2020) Rotaru, Liliana
    In this study, based on unpublished sources found in the National Archives of the Republic of Moldova, the author analyzes the linguistic dispute that erupted in the department of “Moldavian” language and literature of the Chişinău Pedagogical Institute in 1956. After a long period of real “linguicide” carried out by I.D. Ceban, director of the Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Moldavian Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences and his henchmen, the de-Stalinization and the Khrushchev Thaw allowed philologists, “slightly disguised Romaniaphiles”, to reject the theses about the “specificity of the Moldavian language” and affirm the linguistic unity of the people living on both banks of the Prut, although the river remained a political border. The considered linguistic contradictions between the two opposite camps of philologists from the department of “Moldavian” language and literature, as well as their consequences, are of great importance for explaining the phenomenon of preservation of national Romanian identity in the
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    1956: CONTROVERSE LINGVISTICE LA INSTITUTUL PEDAGOGIC DIN CHIȘINĂU
    (2020) Rotaru, Liliana
    In this study, the author analyses the linguistic controversies that erupted at the department of ―Moldovan‖ language and literature of the State Pedagogical Institute of Chisinau during the controversial year 1956. After a few years of real linguicide promoted by I. D. Ceban, the director of the Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Moldovan Scientific Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences and his henchmen, de-Stalinization and Khrushchev's Thaw, allowed the ―Romanianophiles, slightly camouflaged‖ philologists, to reject the theses of the ―specifics of the Moldovan language‖ and to affirm the linguistic unity of the people that were living on both banks of the Prut, even though the Prut was just a political border. These linguistic controversies between these two opposite camps of the philologist-teachers of the department of the ―Moldovan‖ language and literature are important for the explanation of the perpetuation of Romanianism and genesis of the national movement in the 80‘s.