The thesis is devoted to the study of language planning in Soviet Ukraine in the interwar period. It presents and discusses some ideas, schools, debates and results of the normalization of the Ukrainian language in this period. The aim of the dissertation is to promote a better knowledge and understanding of an important phase in the history of the Ukrainian language, and identify the epistemological and cultural background which inspired some of the linguistic descriptions and prescriptions in the interwar period. \nThe thesis consists of index, introduction, four chapters, conclusions, bibliographical references, annexes and abstracts. \nThe first chapter summarizes the historical, linguistic and cultural background of the work on the norm of the Ukrainian language in the 1920s and 1930s, paying special attention to the importance of the relationship between language-people-nation in the Ukrainian culture, the influence of German Romanticism and Völkerpsychologie on Ukrainian normalizers, the concepts of language policy and planning and of linguistic norm and their application in Soviet Ukraine. It also provides the Western/Italian reader with some explanations of specific Ukrainian/Slavonic terms which need to be contextualized in order to be understood. \nThe second chapter focuses on the two schools of normalizers active during the so-called ‘Ukrainization’ (1925-1932): the ethnographic one (O. Kurylo in her early writings, Je. Tymčenko, A. Kryms’kyj, I. Ohijenko, S. Smerečyns’kyj, V. Simovyč in his early writings, M. Hladkyj) and the synthetic one (O. Synjavs’kyj, M. Sulyma, O. Kurylo in her later writings). We identify and define what each of the linguists presented considered to be the norm of the Ukrainian language. Our analysis confirms that the main difference between the ethnographic and synthetic school is that the former focused on folk vernacular, was extremely puristic and therefore tended to reject terms and syntactic structures patterned on or too close to Russian or Polish, whereas the latter was moderately puristic, less categorical in its prescriptions and more open to external influences. The chapter ends with a presentation of the main results of the activity of corpus planning. \nIn the third chapter some important aspects of Ukrainian morphosyntax are discussed. The diachronic perspective is taken into account in order to detect the level of linguistic purism of some prescriptions. The syntactic rules proposed by the ethnographic school of linguists reveal a close connection between syntactic constructions and structures of thought. In other words, syntax, according to the ethnographic school, seems to represent one of the main markers of national belonging, while the synthetic school shows a less radical approach. Generally speaking, the epistemological starting point used in their analysis is represented on the one hand by linguistic psychologism, and on the other by Völkerpsychologie. The chapter ends with an analysis of a polemical pamphlet written by Kost’ Nimčynov (1934) and some manuals, written after 1933: these sources testify that many of the ‘puristic’ opinions on morphosyntactic features of Ukrainian were rejected in the following period. \nThe fourth and last chapter deals with the orthographic question. Due to the symbolic and identity-making value of the written word, and the relationship between Orhodoxy and orthography, spelling rules were and remain one of the most debated fields of linguistic normalization in Ukraine. The process of orthographic normalization during the 1920s and the first half of the 1930s is reconstructed and discussed: the Main rules approved by the Academy of Sciences in 1921, the 1926 project, the debates on the periodical press between 1926-27, the orthographic conference convened in Charkiv in 1927, the elaboration of the 1928-29 spelling system and its main features, the 1933 spelling code and its sovietizing or russifying tendence are presented. \nThe analysis discusses plus and minuses of the two main spelling systems (1928-29 and 1933) and highlights the introduction of some rules of the 1933 spelling code in the political newspaper Visti before its official adoption in September 1933. All the facts presented and investigated prove the importance that was (and still is) attached to orthography in Ukraine. \n \n