Abstract
This chapter, analyzes the evolution and spatial distribution of the Hungarian linguistic community, the language proficiency, linguistic attitudes, and patterns of language usage of Hungarians in Romania. Furthermore, it assesses the language rights codified in Romania and their implementation, also providing a brief comparative analysis of Romania’ linguistic policies compared to that of 16 other Central and Eastern European countries. The chapter argues that the institutionally sustained power asymmetries between the ethnic majority and minority have a crucial role in shaping everyday linguistic practices. Due to the powerful linguistic ideology—emphasizing the primacy of the Romanian language—proclaimed by the Romanian state and shared by an overwhelming majority of Romanians, settings characterized by a balanced and reciprocal language use have become scarce in Transylvania.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that, despite the paramount importance of the educational system in language reproduction, we do not deal with this topic in this chapter as Hungarian-language education in Romania is discussed in great detail in Chapter 6 in this volume.
- 2.
For a detailed account of census methodology, see Chapter 10 in this volume.
- 3.
In the case of the last census, the decrease can be explained partly by the fact that the original results were supplemented with data taken from the population registers, as the Statistical Office considered that due to the high number of Romanian citizens living abroad, the overall population of the country had been underestimated. The data taken from the population registers did not contain information on ethnicity or mother tongue.
- 4.
Being aware of the problematic and controversial nature of the concept (Patrick 2002; Morgan 2014, pp. 1–10), we use it to denote a community of a critical number of people (around 3000 persons) which has the potential to maintain mother-tongue institutions outside the private sphere (religious congregations, schools, cultural institutions, etc.).
- 5.
Law 215/2001.
- 6.
We use the term in the sense Brubaker et al. (2006, pp. 211–212) use it: to describe a reference category (or reference language) that is taken for granted in the community. In contrast, “marked” describes some kind of “otherness”.
- 7.
The administrative units with more than 100,000 inhabitants are the following: Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár, Timișoara/Temesvár, Brașov/Brassó, Oradea/Nagyvárad, Arad, Sibiu/Szeben, Târgu Mureș/Marosvásárhely, Baia Mare/Nagybánya, Satu Mare/Szatmárnémeti.
- 8.
It is important to point out that this situation cannot be generalized to all areas of the country. In regions where Hungarians constitute a dominant majority, in many cases Hungarian is the default language and the local Romanian population complies. However, even in those areas when ethnic Romanian communicational actors do not speak Hungarian, code-switching is typical.
- 9.
See in detail Chapter 6 on education.
- 10.
The surveys measured self-reported proficiency in the language.
- 11.
A widely mediatized recent example is the case of a vlogger who claimed that he was refused service in a supermarket in Odorheiu Secuiesc (Székelyudvarhely) after communicating in Romanian. His video (https://youtu.be/yflC_demZ_c) about the “incident” was viewed more than one million times in two months. Although eventually it turned out to be a fake, its success and agenda-setting capacity clearly showed the importance of the topic among the majority society. For more detail, see Scutaru (2017).
- 12.
Law 1/2011.
- 13.
The chosen states are the following: Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
- 14.
We have relied on (mostly unofficial) English translations of relevant legal documents. ECRML and FCNM state reports were used. When the translations of relevant legal documents could not be found, we corroborated our interpretation with secondary literature.
- 15.
Constitution of Estonia, Art. 52.
- 16.
Constitution of Montenegro, Art. 13.
- 17.
In Bosnia, these languages are not defined on a federal level, but as both constitutive regions recognize them as official they are de facto official languages of the state.
- 18.
The 1991 constitution of the country stipulated exclusive Macedonian state ownership, generating interethnic conflict that brought the state to the verge of civil war. The conflict was resolved by a General Framework Agreement between Macedonians and Albanians that was adopted in 2001 (better known as the Ohrid Agreement), which made Albanians constitutive elements of the country and gave them greater representation, decentralization of state powers, and equal rights. For more on the Ohrid Agreement, see Reka (2008).
- 19.
Constitution of Bulgaria, Art. 36(1), Constitution of Slovakia, Art. 26(5) and 34(2).
- 20.
Constitution of Bulgaria, Art. 36(1), Constitution of Estonia, Art. 37 and 51, Constitution of Latvia, Art. 104.
- 21.
Constitution of Bulgaria, Art. 36(3).
- 22.
Constitution of Lithuania, Art. 117.
- 23.
Constitution of Romania, Art. 32(2).
- 24.
Ibid., Art. 152(1).
- 25.
Constitution of Hungary, Art. H(2).
- 26.
Constitution of Kosovo, Art. 59(11).
- 27.
On the situation in these countries, see the relevant paragraphs on the applicability of Article 10 and 11 in state reports submitted by the former to the FCNM.
- 28.
For more on the situation of language rights in Lithuania, see Vasilevich (2013).
- 29.
For more on the situation of language rights of minorities in Poland, see Baranowska (2014).
- 30.
For more on language rights in Slovakia, see Vass (2015).
- 31.
For more on the situation of language rights in Kosovo, see Romani and Fridlund (2015).
- 32.
We have included Serbia into this category despite the fact that it has a dual system. On the one hand, minority languages can become local official languages, while on the other hand members of the minority can also exercise their language rights in central state institutions if they reach 2% on a national level. For more on linguistic rights in Serbia, see Beretka (2016) and Szerbhorváth (2015).
- 33.
See Language Act of Estonia (2011), Art. 11.
- 34.
In Hungary, there is a 10% threshold for the translation of regulation and bilingual signs.
- 35.
In Kosovo, there is a 5% threshold.
- 36.
In Serbia, there is a 2% threshold on a national level above which the language can be used as means of communication with state authorities.
- 37.
Constitution of Romania (2003), Art. 13.
- 38.
Constitution of Romania (2003), Art. 6.
- 39.
Kymlicka calls these group-differentiated rights and states that language rights in education or administration are clearly of this type (Kymlicka 1995, pp. 44–48).
- 40.
Law 282/2007.
- 41.
Deconcentrated public services involve the county-level offices of the ministries and other institutions of central administration.
- 42.
For example, the law on the functioning of the police or pension funds.
- 43.
Law 304/2004.
- 44.
Law 134/2010.
- 45.
Law 135/2010.
- 46.
See, for example, Art. 14(3)(f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- 47.
Nationality Statute (1945), Art. 8. Available in Hungarian language at: http://www.jakabffy.ro/magyarkisebbseg/index.php?action=cimek&lapid=6&cikk=M970126.htm.
Despite the permissive legal background in Communist times, the implementation of these rights was problematic.
- 48.
Law 303/2004, Art. 30(6).
- 49.
In Romania, foreign-produced movies are rarely dubbed; they are mostly subtitled.
- 50.
Law 15/2018, Art. 1(2).
- 51.
Law 46/2003, Art. 8.
- 52.
Law 110/2017. Art. I(1) and II.
- 53.
Government Emergency Ordinance 34/2008, Art. 10(f)–(g).
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
We have presented the results of 2008 and 2014 as an interval. Detailed comparative results can be found in Toró (2016).
- 57.
NUTS 3-level administrative unit in Romania.
- 58.
The proportion of Hungarians exceeds 20% in Bihor/Bihar, Harghita/Hargita, Covasna/Kovászna, Mureș/Maros, Sălaj/Szilágy and Satu Mare/Szatmár counties.
- 59.
Also note that the president of Bihor County Council is a member of RMDSZ (see http://www.cjbihor.ro/). On the Sălaj County Council Web site (http://www.cjsj.ro/), automatic translation to Hungarian is offered through Google Translate (both Web sites were last accessed 31 January 2018).
- 60.
In Harghita/Hargita county more than 85% of the population is Hungarian, thus there are presumably more officials in public institutions with Hungarian-language fluency than in other parts of the country.
- 61.
As discussed in Chapter 3, while most local administrations are politically controlled by RMDSZ in Székely Land, the same is not true of deconcentrated institutions. This is why we argue that the figures measured for local administrations may be extrapolated to the deconcentrated level only as a theoretical upper limit; the real figures are probably lower.
- 62.
See the “Bilingual forms” project of the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities (http://ispmn.gov.ro/page/formulare-).
- 63.
Law 340/2004, Art. 19(1)(a).
- 64.
By linguistic resources we mean all multilingual material (terminology databases, related IT tools, official bilingual forms) that could facilitate the provision of multilingual services.
- 65.
A good example of this is the case of the Covasna County Public Library, where an opening for the position of director was attacked in court by NGOs and the prefect because fluency in Hungarian was defined as a prerequisite. See Farkas (2011).
- 66.
For example, the Official Gazette of Romania translates numerous laws, governmental decisions, and ordinances into Hungarian, but the selection of the texts is often haphazard as those texts that could actually be used in public administration are rarely translated: the law on the operation of notarial offices was translated, but the norms regulating social benefits which are provided by local administrations were not (these documents include, among others, the forms that should be used and list of documents required to apply for benefits).
- 67.
Governmental decision 1206/2001.
- 68.
But see two concrete examples to the contrary in Chapter 3.
- 69.
A few publications (Bogdán and Mohácsek 2012; Kis and Kató 2014), lectures, and training events have been organized for high-school students by the NGO Jogaink (Our Rights) that tackle the issue, but these are isolated, project-based initiatives; there is no wider strategy for raising awareness and reaching out to broader segments of the Hungarian population.
- 70.
This is a clear decline even from the Communist era, when 80% of judges were fluent in Hungarian (Papp Kincses 2011, p. 186).
- 71.
This is roughly equivalent to the proportion of Hungarians living in ethnically mixed marriages (Gyurgyík et al. 2011, p. 91).
References
Andrássy, G. (2011). The right to use one’s own language and the matter of simplicity. Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen, 4(1), 5–19.
Arzoz, X. (2007). The nature of language rights. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 6(2), 1–35.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic principles (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: College-Hill Press.
Baranowska, G. (2014). Legal regulations on national and ethnic minorities in Poland. Przegląd Zachodni, 2, 35–48.
Benő, A., Becze, O., Erdély, J., Nagy, Z., Ördög-Gyárfás, E., & Sárosi Mardírosz, K. (Eds.). (2004). Magyar–román közigazgatási szótár. Sepsiszentgyörgy: Anyanyelvápolók Erdélyi Szövetsége.
Beretka, K. (2016). Language rights and multilingualism in Vojvodina. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 23(4), 505–529.
Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 238–255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bogdán, A., & Mohácsek, M. (2012). Nyelvi jogok útmutató. Cluj-Napoca: ISPMN.
Brubaker, R., Feischmidt, M., Fox, J., & Grancea, L. (2006). Nationalist politics and everyday ethnicity in a Transylvanian town. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20). Clevedon and Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Csepeli, G., Székely, M., & Örkény, A. (2002). Nemzetek egymás tükrében. Interetnikus viszonyok a Kárpát-medencében. Budapest: Balassi.
Csergő, Z. (2007). Talk of the nation: Language and conflict in Romania and Slovakia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
DeVries, J. (1985). Some methodological aspects of self-report questions on language and ethnicity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(5), 347–368.
Dobos, F. (2012). Nemzeti identitás, asszimiláció és médiahasználat a határon túli magyarság körében, 1999–2011. Budapest: Médiatudományi Intézet.
Dobos, F., & Megyeri, K. (2014). Nemzeti identitás, asszimiláció és médiahasználat a határon túli magyarság körében 2. Budapest: Médiatudományi Intézet.
Eurobarometer. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages. European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf.
Faingold, E. D. (2004). Language rights and language justice in the constitutions of the world. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28(1), 11–24.
Farkas, R. (2011, July 5). Leváltani kényszerülnek a könyvtárigazgatót (Pert nyert a prefektúra). Háromszék. Available at: http://www.3szek.ro/load/cikk/40557/levaltani_kenyszerulnek_a_konyvtarigazgatot_pert_nyert_a_prefektura.
Fazakas, E. (Ed.). (2002). Román–magyar közigazgatási szótár. Sepsiszentgyörgy: Anyanyelvápolók Erdélyi Szövetsége.
Fishman, J. A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Fishman, J. A. (1989). Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon, Avon, England, and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. (2000). Who speaks what language to whom and when? In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 82–98). London and New York: Routledge.
Grin, F. (2003). Language policy evaluation and the European Charter for regional or minority languages. Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gyurgyík, L., Horváth, I., & Kiss, T. (2011). Demográfiai folyamatok, etno-kulturális és társadalmi reprodukció. In B. Bitskey (Ed.), Határon túli magyarság a 21. Században (pp. 69–119). Budapest: Köztársasági Elnöki Hivatal.
Horváth, I. (2003). Az erdélyi magyarok kétnyelvűsége: nyelvmentés és integráció között? Erdélyi Társadalom, 1(1), 7–24.
Horváth, I. (2005). A romániai magyarok kétnyelvűsége: nyelvismeret, nyelvhasználat, nyelvi dominancia. Regionális összehasonlító elemzések. Erdélyi Társadalom, 3(1), 171–200.
Horváth, I. (2008a). Elemzések a romániai magyarok kétnyelvűségéről (ISPMN Working Papers No. 8).
Horváth, I. (2008b). Evaluarea politicilor lingvistice din România. In L. Salat (Ed.), Politici de integrare a minorităţilor naţionale din România. Aspecte legale şi instituţionale într-o perspectivă comparată (pp. 203–213). Cluj-Napoca: CRDE.
Horváth, I. (2008c). A romániai nyelvpolitikák értékelése. Magyar Kisebbség, 13(3–4), 263–277.
Horváth, I. (2009). Nyelvi készségek, nyelvi viselkedés és etnokulturális reprodukció az erdélyi magyar népesség vonatkozásában. In Z. Spéder (Ed.), Párhuzamok. Anyaországi és erdélyi magyarok a századfordulón (pp. 153–182). Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutatóintézet.
Horváth, I. (2011). A romániai magyarok nyilvános nyelvhasználatának mintázatai. In I. Horváth & E. Tódor (Eds.), Nyelvhasználat, tannyelv és két(több)nyelvű lét (pp. 115–136). Cluj-Napoca: ISPMN.
Horváth, I. (2012). Románia: a kisebbségi nyelvi jogok és intézményes érvényesülésük. In K. Eplényi & Z. Kántor (Eds.), Térvesztés és határtalanítás: a magyar nyelvpolitika 21. századi kihívásai (pp. 172–198). Budapest: Nemzetpolitikai Kutatóintézet and Lucidus.
Horváth, I., Veress, I., & Vitos, K. (2010). Közigazgatási nyelvhasználat Hargita megyében az önkormányzati és a központi kormányzat megyeszintű intézményeiben (ISPMN Working Papers No. 27).
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Kis, J., & Kató, K. (2014). Jogaink Romániában Magyarul. Kolozsvár: Jogaink Egyesület.
Kiss, T., & Kapitány, B. (2009). Magyarok Erdélyben: A minta kialakítása és az adatfelvétel. In Z. Spéder (Ed.), Párhuzamok. Anyaországi és erdélyi magyarok a századfordulón (pp. 31–54). Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutatóintézet.
Kontra, M. (1999). “Don’t speak Hungarian in public!” A documentation and analysis of folk linguistic rights. In M. S. Kontra, R. Phillipson, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & T. Várady (Eds.), Language, a right and a resource: Approaches to linguistics human rights (p. xi, 346p.). Budapest and New York: Central European University Press.
Kontra, M., & Szilágyi, N. S. (2002). A kisebbségeknek van anyanyelvük, de a többségnek nincs. In M. Kontra & H. Hattyár (Eds.), Magyarok és nyelvtörvények. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McRae, K. D. (1975). The principle of territoriality and the principle of personality in multilingual states. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 4, 33–54.
Mezei, J. (Ed.). (2006). Magyar-román-angol jogi, közgazdasági és üzleti szótár. București: C.H. Beck.
Morgan, M. H. (2014). Speech communities. Key topics in linguistic anthropology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nelde, P. H., Labrie, N., & Williams, C. H. (1992). The principles of territoriality and personality in the solution of linguistic conflicts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13(5), 387–406.
Papp Kincses, E. (2011). Kommunikációs etnográfia. Nyelvhasználat a csíkszeredai bíróságon és a Hargita megyei törvényszéken. Jogszabályok és jogérvényesítési lehetőségek. In I. Horváth & E. Tódor (Eds.), Nyelvhasználat, tannyelv és két(több)nyelvű lét (pp. 185–208). Cluj-Napoca: ISPMN.
Patrick, P. L. (2002). The speech community. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 573–597). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(27), 1–23.
Pool, J. (1991). The official language problem. The American Political Science Review, 85(2), 495.
Reka, A. (2008). The Ohrid Agreement: The travails of inter-ethnic relations in Macedonia. Human Rights Review, 9(1), 55–69.
Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (2004). Social and psychological factors in language mixing. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 336–352). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Romani, L. P., & Fridlund, H. (2015). Monitoring and evaluation of language rights in Kosovo. Office of the Language Commissioner—Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo—ECMI Kosovo. Available at: http://www.komisioneri-ks.org/repository/docs/Anglisht_Finale_160315.pdf.
Sachdev, I., & Giles, H. (2004). Bilingual accommodation. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 353–380). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Scutaru, C. (2017, September 1). Mici Kaufland Odorheiu Secuiesc. Adevărul a ieșit la iveală: Cum s-a făcut filmarea. dcnews.ro. Available at: https://www.dcnews.ro/mici-kaufland-odorheiu-secuiesc-adevarul-a-ie-it-la-iveala-cum-s-a-facut-filmarea_556542.html.
Silver, B. D. (1975). Methods of deriving data on bilingualism from the 1970 Soviet census. Soviet Studies, 27(4), 574–597.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1997). Nyelv, oktatás és a kisebbségek. Kisebbségi adattár. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Sorbán, A. (2012). Kisebbség – társadalomszerkezet – kétnyelvűség (ISPMN Working Papers No. 42).
Sorbán, A., & Dobos, F. (1997). Szociológiai felmérés a határon túl élő magyar közösségek körében az asszimiláció folyamatairól. Magyar Kisebbség, 3(3–4), 293–323.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Szabó, T. (2017, April 18). Semmi sem garantálja a magyar nyelvű ellátást a kórházakban. foter.ro. Available at: http://foter.ro/cikk/20170418_semmi_sem_garantalja_a_magyar_nyelvu_ellatast_a_korhazakban?utm_source=foter_ro&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=foter_ro_201712.
Szépe, G. (1999). The position of Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia in 1996. Nationalities Papers, 27(1), 69–92.
Szerbhorváth, G. (2015). Language politics and language rights on the territory of former Yugoslavia the today’s Serbia/Vojvodina. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies, 8(1), 57–72.
Szilágyi, N. S. (1998). De ce nu-şi pot însuşi copiii maghiari limba română în şcoală? Altera, 7, 131–148.
Thomas, J. W., & Grindle, M. S. (1990). After the decision: Implementing policy reforms in developing countries. World Development, 18(8), 1163–1181.
Toró, T. (2016). Egy helyben topogva? Kisebbségi nyelvi jogok alakulása Romániában 2008 és 2015 között. Magyar Kisebbség, 21(2), pp. 18–53.
Toró, T. (2017). Detached implementation. Discourse and practice in minority language usage in Romania. Manuscript
Turi, J. G. (2012). Linguistic legislation. In Carol A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 3481–3487). Wiley-Blackwell.
Varga, E. Á. (1991). Városodás, vándorlás, nemzetiség. Adatok az erdélyi városok etnikai arculatában bekövetkezett változásokról. Regio, 2(4), 121–141.
Varga, E. Á. (1998). Fejezetek a jelenkori Erdély népesedéstörténetéből. Budapest: Püski.
Vasilevich, H. (2013). Lithuania’s minority-related legislation: Is there a legal vacuum? (ECMI Working Papers No. 70).
Vass, Á. (2015). If yes, why not? Minority language use and accommodation of minority language rights in Slovakia. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies, 8(1), 43–56.
Wolff, S., Van Houten, P., Anghelea, A.-M., & Djuric, I. (2008). Minority rights in the western Balkans. Brussels: European Parliament. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2008/385559/EXPO-DROI_ET(2008)385559_EN.pdf.
Zwilling, C. (2004). Minority protection and language policy in the Czech Republic. Noves SL – Revista de Sociolingüística, 5(3), 67–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Horváth, I., Toró, T. (2018). Language Use, Language Policy, and Language Rights. In: Kiss, T., Székely, I., Toró , T., Bárdi, N., Horváth, I. (eds) Unequal Accommodation of Minority Rights. Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78892-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78893-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)