Editing Reforms of Russian orthography (section)

== Mid-20th-century changes ==
While there have not been any significant changes since the 1918 decree, debates and fluctuations have to some degree continued.

In December 1942, the use of letter [[Yo (Cyrillic)|Ё]] was made mandatory by Decree No. 1825 of the People's Commissariat of Education.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.kaznachey.com/doc/aNN9NLR0BYR/text/|title=ПРИКАЗ Наркомпроса РСФСР от 24.12.1942 N 1825|website=www.kaznachey.com|access-date=2 August 2019|archive-date=27 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190727072928/http://www.kaznachey.com/doc/ann9nlr0byr/text|url-status=live}}</ref> Since then, Ё is taught in schools as the seventh letter of the Russian alphabet (before 1942, it was usually considered a modification of Е and not a separate letter). However, the consistent use of Ё did not consolidate its grip in general publication; the usual typographic practice reverted to selective use of Ё (to show pronunciation of rare words and to distinguish words that are otherwise homographs). By 1952, normatives on checking school works, the ''[[Great Soviet Encyclopedia]]'', and the reference book for typographers by K. I. Bylinsky had declared the letter Ё to be optional.

A codification of the [[Rules of Russian Orthography and Punctuation|rules of Russian orthography and punctuation]]<ref>{{cite book |script-title=ru:Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации |trans-title=Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation |location=Leningrad, Soviet Union |publisher=Academy of Sciences of the USSR |year=1956 }}</ref> and the ''Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language''<ref>Орфографический словарь русского языка : 110 000 слов / Акад. наук СССР, Ин-т языкознания; [под ред. С. И. Ожегова и А. Б. Шапиро]. – Москва : ГИС, 1956. – 1259, [2] с.</ref> were published in 1956 but only a few minor orthographic changes were introduced at that time.<ref>These include the changing of "{{lang|ru-luna1918|цы}}" to "{{lang|ru-luna1918|ци}}" in a few words such as "{{lang|ru-luna1918|панцирь}}" and adding a hyphen to the words "{{lang|ru-luna1918|по-видимому}}" and "{{lang|ru-luna1918|по-прежнему}}". [http://www.grammatik.narod.ru/reforma.htm Отбой учебной тревоги] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193320/http://www.grammatik.narod.ru/reforma.htm |date=3 March 2016 }} {{in lang|ru}}</ref> Those editions gave end to a number of variant spellings that existed in dictionaries and in usage of typographers and best writers at that time.<ref>For example: pre-1956 spellings идти/итти, прийти/придти, пенснэ/пенсне, диета/диэта, танцевать/танцовать, деревенеть/деревянеть, дощатый/досчатый were set in 1956 to be spelled идти, прийти, пенсне, диета, танцевать, деревенеть, дощатый. [https://fb2.top/russkoe-pravopisanie-segodnya-o-laquo-pravilah-russkoy-orfografii-i-punktuacii-raquo-361674/read Русское правописание сегодня: О «Правилах русской орфографии и пунктуации»] {{in lang|ru}}</ref> The 1956 codification additionally included a clarification of new rules for punctuation developed during the 1930s, and which had not been mentioned in the 1918 decree.<ref name="ComrieEtAl1996" />

A notable instance of renewed debate followed A. I. Efimov's 1962 publication of an article in ''[[Izvestia]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Eloquence and Orthography |journal=Izvestia |date=24 March 1962 |last=Efimov |first=A. I. }}{{full citation needed|reason=Use Russian title in addition to English translation. Link to web copy if accessible|date=February 2024}}</ref><ref name="Klein1964">{{cite journal |title=Recent Soviet Discussion on Reform of Russian Orthography |journal=The Slavic and East European Journal |year=1964 |last=Klein |first=Kurt |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=54–61 |doi=10.2307/303976 |jstor=303976 }}</ref> The article proposed extensive reform to move closer to a phonetic representation of the language.<ref>{{cite journal |title=A Note on Russian Orthography |journal=The Slavic and East European Journal |year=1993 |last=Benson |first=Morton |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=530–532 |jstor=308460 |doi=10.2307/308460 }}</ref> Following the renewed discussion in papers and journals, a new Orthographic Commission began work in 1962, under the [[Russian Language Institute|Russian Language Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR]]. The Commission published its report, {{lang|ru-luna1918|Предложения по усовершенствованию русской орфографии}} (Proposal for the Improvement of Russian Orthography), in 1964.<ref name="Protchenko1964">{{cite journal |last1=Protchenko |first1=Ivan F. |last2=Zhovtobryukh |first2=Mikhail A. |last3=Rusanovski |first3=Vitaliy M. |date=1964 |script-title=ru:Предложения по усовершенствованию русской орфографии |trans-title=Proposal for the Improvement of Russian Orthography |url=https://vja.ruslang.ru/archive/1964-6.pdf |language=ru |script-journal=ru:Вопросы Языкознания |trans-journal=Questions of Linguistics |issue=6 |pages=17–25 |access-date=26 September 2018 |archive-date=5 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180205162412/http://www.ruslang.ru/doc/voprosy/voprosy1964-6.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> The publication resulted in widespread debate in newspapers, journals, and on radio and television, as well as over 10,000 letters, all of which were passed to the institute.<ref name="ComrieEtAl1996" />

Responses to the article pointed to the need to simplify Russian spelling due to the use of Russian as the language of international communication in the Soviet Union and an increased study of Russian in the Eastern Bloc as well as in the West. That instruction for non-native speakers of Russian was one of the central concerns of further reform is indicated in the resistance to Efimov's proposal to drop the terminal "ь" (soft sign) from feminine nouns, as it helps learners identify gender category. Additionally, Efimov claimed that a disproportionate amount of primary school class time was devoted to orthography, rather than phonetics and morphology. Efimov asserted that the existing orthography was essentially unchanged since Grot's codification, and that only by bringing orthography closer to phonetic realization, and eliminating exceptions and variants, could appropriate attention be paid to stylistics and the "development of speech culture". The state's focus on proper instruction in Russian, as the national language of ethnic Russians, as the state language, and as the language of international communication continues to the present day.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Yudina |first1=Natal'ya |script-title=ru:Русский язык в XXI веке: Кризис? Эволюция? Прогресс? |trans-title=Russian Language in the 21st Century: Crisis? Evolution? Progress? |location=Moscow |publisher=Gnozis |year=2010 |isbn=978-5-94244-036-7 }}</ref><ref name="Klein1964" /><ref name="Klein2016">{{cite thesis |type=MA |last=Klein |first=Elena |date=2016 |title=Entwicklung der russischen Orthographie des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts |trans-title=The Development of Russian Orthography in the 20th and 21st Centuries |language=de |institution=University of Vienna |url=https://ubdata.univie.ac.at/AC13236816 |access-date=26 September 2018 |archive-date=25 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125062044/https://usearch.univie.ac.at/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=UWI_alma21226940910003332&context=L&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&vid=UWI&lang=de_DE&search_scope=UWI_UBBestand&tab=default_tab&query=addsrcrid,exact,AC13236816 |url-status=live }}</ref> Eventually, the 1964 project remained a dead proposal.