Journal of Eurasian Studies - EPA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

July‐September 2010 JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES Volume II., Issue 3. _____________________________________________________________________________________ only and the marginal growth of Hungarian L2‐speakers during dualist Hungary. During dualist Hungary most speakers, but especially the non‐Hungarian nationality speakers remained mainly monolingual, while the group of bi‐ or multilingual L2‐speakers of Hungarian only increased marginally. From the 1910 census, it appears that 77 percent of the total population of dualist Hungary spoke his/her mother tongue only. Note that during dualism the actual number of most of the nationalities who could only speak their mother tongue had increased as well. This was especially the case with the Romanians and the Serbs. 54 The Germans and the Slovaks formed an exception to this due to the fact that they lived scattered on the territory of the Hungarian kingdom. Between 1880 and 1910, among all nationalities the percentage of the mother tongue speakers knowing only their mother tongue decreased, including the Germans from 62.48 percent in 1880 to 5.74 percent in 1910, Slovaks from 85.89 percent in 1880 to 75.01 percent in 1910 and Romanians from 92.36 percent in 1880 to 85.69 percent in 1910. The absolute figures however give another picture. The number of Germans and Slovaks speaking only their mother tongue decreased from 1.220.769 in 1880 to 932.006 in 1910 and from 1.601.367 in 1880 to 1.476.100 in 1910, respectively. The actual number of Romanians however only speaking their mother tongue raised from 2.221.302 in 1880 to 2.527.014 in 1910. 55 So in 1910, among the nationalities only the Slovaks and the Germans were becoming rather slowly bi‐ and multilingual but the other nationalities remained mainly monolingual. From the 1910 census, it appears that 65 percent of the population of Hungary proper could speak Hungarian and that 35 percent did not master Hungarian at all. So, in 1910, 7.310.270 persons could not speak Hungarian. 56 The percentages become even more dramatic, if we consider the numbers of Hungarian L2‐speakers among the non‐Hungarian nationalities only. In 1910, averagely 82 percent of the non‐Hungarians could not speak Hungarian. The percentages for the Germans, Slovaks and Romanians were 60, 78 and 81 percent respectively. 57 In 1880, from the non‐Hungarian speakers only ten percent, i.e. 1.597.000 persons spoke next to their mother tongue another language. By 1910, this proportion increased to 2.765.000 persons, i.e. thirteen percent of the total population. Hungarian functioned for 1.940.000 of these persons as an L2. 58 In conclusion, above we have discussed the primary school system of dualist Hungary in more depth. The educational system of dualist Hungary can be characterized best as a separatist model. This model was in line with a general feature of the Hungarian society respecting the existence of different nationalities and their languages. This was also the basis of the liberal Law on the Equality of Nationalities of 1868. Because of this, the educational system was especially controlled by private organizations based on nationality, such as the church denominations. The state was in fact a minor player in the educational field possessing only 12.34 percent of the primary schools at the end of dualist era. Hence, the Hungarian state even if it had wanted could not have changed the separatist model due to customs and Hungarian legislation. The Hungarian educational policy led to inconsistencies, 54 See Lökkös (2000, 88‐89, 230‐232). 55 See Lökkös (2000, 232). 56 See Lökkös ((2000, 68). 57 See Lökkös (2000, 208). 58 See Lökkös (2000, 88, 230). _____________________________________________________________________________________ © Copyright Mikes International 2001‐2010 46
July‐September 2010 JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES Volume II., Issue 3. _____________________________________________________________________________________ asymmetrical developments and in some cases to the discrimination of the educational options of the non‐ Hungarian nationalities. This contributed to the escalations of the nationality conflicts. These conflicts have been referred to by critics of dualist Hungary, like Seton‐Watson as the intentional Magyarization of the non‐Hungarian nationalities. Although it cannot be denied that the educational system and the implications of the educational legislation contributed to the escalation of conflicts instead of appeasing them the claim that the primary school system of the Hungarian kingdom favored Magyarization of the non‐Hungarian nationalities is unmotivated. If some Hungarian policy makers thought that by establishing Hungarian language state schools in mixed territories and the territorities inhabited by the non‐Hungarian nationalities and that by the compulsory introduction of Hungarian as a subject of instruction in non‐Hungarian language schools the non‐Hungarian nationalities of Hungary could be Magyarized then this has turned out to be a fatal misconception. In Central and Eastern Europe there is indeed a specific relation between language and nationality but this language factor is ‘mother tongue’ and not ‘L2’. With the same force however one can argue that the resistance against the introduction of Hungarian as an L2 in the non‐Hungarian primary schools was motivated by the same conceptual misinterpretation. Rather this false conceptual relation between L2 and nationality has been misused for power political motivations from both sides. 59 Furthermore, from the population statistics and the data on mother tongue speakers, including the high proportion of monolingual speakers among the non‐ Hungarian nationalities and the marginal growth of L2‐speakers of Hungarian during dualism it clearly appears that the non‐Hungarian nationalities were not affected by Magyarization, i.e. the Hungarian educational policy had no serious consequences for the identity of Hungary’s non‐Hungarians. 4. Studying the practice of multilingualism in dualist Hungary In the previous chapter, I have discussed the educational policy in the Hungarian kingdom by focusing on primary education as a case study. We have concluded that this policy had discriminative aspects restricting the options of the non‐Hungarian nationalities but at the same time it cannot be characterized as Magyarization. Consequently, sweeping statement like the one of Seton‐Watson “so today the non‐Magyars of Hungary are breeding‐machines whose children must be taught Magyar from their earliest age, in the hope that they may become renegades to the tradition of their ancestors” are unmotivated. 60 It is true however that dualist educational policy contributed to the escalation of conflicts between the Hungarian and non‐Hungarian nationalities. Note that we observed above that the national communities during dualism had separate institutions respected by the Hungarian state and that the proportion of the bi‐ and multilingual speakers to the total population was rather low. In this climate lacking reliable “bridges”, stereotypes, images and self‐images played an important role for fuelling further escalations between Hungarians and non‐Hungarians. 59 I agree with Seton‐Watson (1907, 233) that language and nationality are not related necessarily but in Central and Eastern Europe there is an implicational relation between nationality and mother tongue as we discussed above. . 60 See Seton‐Watson (1907, 222) _____________________________________________________________________________________ © Copyright Mikes International 2001‐2010 47
Page 1 and 2: JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES _______
Page 3 and 4: July‐September 2010 JOURNAL OF EU
Page 45: July‐September 2010 JOURNAL OF EU
Page 97 and 98:
July‐September 2010 JOURNAL OF EU
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
show all

Journal of Eurasian Studies - EPA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?