Current Issues in Language Planning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Hungarian as a minority and majority language in

different language policy contexts

István Jánk & Szilvia Rási

To cite this article: István Jánk & Szilvia Rási (18 Sep 2023): Hungarian as a minority and
majority language in different language policy contexts, Current Issues in Language Planning,
DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2023.2256069

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2023.2256069

Published online: 18 Sep 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclp20
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2023.2256069

Hungarian as a minority and majority language in different

language policy contexts
a,b a
István Jánk and Szilvia Rási
a
Research Centre for Language Planning, Institute of Hungarian Research, Budapest, Hungary; bEszterházy
Károly Catholic University, Eger, Hungary

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study primarily focuses on the situation of Hungarians in Received 4 April 2023
minority situations in relation to language varieties, i.e. it Accepted 31 August 2023
interprets the various language policy issues primarily in the
KEYWORDS
context of the Hungarian-speaking community, rather than in the Hungarian dialects; non-
context of Hungary, where the place, role and relationship dominant languages; micro-
between standard and non-standard language dialects play a and macro-level language
prominent role. In most cases, the preservation of Hungarian planning; Hungarian
identity is equivalent to the preservation of non-standard language minority; diglossia
language varieties, in relation to which several language policy
and language planning issues arise. The aim of the study is
twofold. On the one hand, it aims to provide an up-to-date
overview of the language policy situation of the Hungarian
language and the Hungarian language community, especially
with regard to the Hungarian autochthonous minority of about 3
million people who live in the countries neighbouring Hungary.
On the other hand, the study describes the language policy role
of dialects and the related attitudes from the perspective of the
entire Hungarian language community, addressing the macro-,
meso- and micro-level language planning possibilities.

Introduction
Today, Hungary has neither an explicit language policy nor a language strategy.
However, there are language policies and language laws in neighbouring countries
which adversely affect the Hungarian language due to historical reasons. After the
First World War, 3–3.3 million Hungarian speakers (about one third of the Hungarian
population of that time) were stranded outside the new Hungarian state borders. The
Hungarian population living beyond the border mainly includes Hungarians living in
present-day Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. With
regard to the above terminology, it should be noted that minorities, including the Hun-
garian minority, are not only able to enforce and represent their interests at the micro
level, but also at higher levels and in institutional settings, although this is generally
less typical. According to the latest census data, the number of Hungarians living
outside the borders is between 1.8 and 1.9 million.1

CONTACT István Jánk [email protected] [email protected] Research Centre for Language Planning,
Institute of Hungarian Research, Budapest, Hungary; Eszterházy Károly Catholic University, Eger, 3000 Hungary
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM) all affirm the rights of
minorities to be recognised. All of the mentioned documents have been ratified by the
different countries where Hungarians live. However, local legislation is not sufficient
and its enforcement is not effective (Alfredsson, 2022). For example, the Committee of
Experts monitoring the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages concluded
that the provisions of the different local language laws (e.g. in Slovakia, Romania or
Ukraine), which allow for the sanctioning of minority language use do not comply
with the ECRML (Fiala-Butora, 2018; Kontra, 2021). The Hungarian language thus
plays a subordinate role in all countries neighbouring Hungary and it is not legally guar-
anteed that the Hungarian language has functions similar to the state language, even in a
regional context.
In parallel with the above, a strong process of language-based stigmatisation can be
observed in the Hungarian language community, which mainly affects non-standard
language varieties and forms. Thus, Hungarians living in the neighbouring countries
of Hungary may find themselves at a double disadvantage. On the one hand, because
of their mother tongue, which is different from the state language. On the other hand,
because of the variety of their mother tongue, which is different from the standard
variety. In almost all cases, Hungarian as a minority language is a non-standard
dialect outside the borders of Hungary. In other words, Hungarian speakers in minority
situations have to face not only the often assimilationist language policies and language
laws of their respective country, but also the exclusionary attitudes and prejudices of their
own linguistic community – and this also applies to Hungarians living in Hungary. As a
consequence, the process of language shift and the loss of language and identity are
affecting Hungarians in minority situations on an ever-increasing scale. In our study,
we will address this problem, with a special focus on the language policy and language
planning aspects and possibilities (see. more Fenyvesi, 2001).

De jure and de facto language policy, macro and micro language planning
Although there are many possible interpretations and typologies of the concept of
language policy, what is crucial in all of them is that each language policy is essentially
of a continuum nature (Spolsky, 2009). If we associate an imaginary scale to this, at
one end of the scale we find characteristics such as de jure, explicit, overt, formal,
written, top-down, or macro, while at the other end we find features such as de facto,
implicit, covert, informal, non-written, bottom-up, or macrolevel (Nekvapil & Nekula,
2006; Shiffman, 1996, 2006). However, these designations are not only of a continuum
nature, but in some cases they can also merge and overlap (Tulloch, 2006). Nevertheless,
generally there is a clear distinction between legally regulated, overt or de jure language
policies and covert or de facto language policies that actually operate in reality (Shiffman,
1996).
From the 1990s onwards, literature on language planning and language policy has
increasingly focused on the micro and macro levels of language planning and language
policy (see e.g. Davies & Ziegler, 2015; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Liddicoat & Taylor-
Leech, 2015; Tulloch, 2006), and several authors have drawn attention to the meso
level between the two (see e.g. Davies & Ziegler, 2015; McMenamin & Walt, 2018;
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 3

Nekvapil & Nekula, 2006; Skerrett, 2016). ‘Macro,’ ‘micro’ and ‘meso’ refer to the level of
language planning and policy at which the process is occurring or currently taking place,
although, as Spolsky (2009, p. 13) puts it, they are ‘on a range of situations […] forming a
continuum from individual to supranational.’ In practical terms, this means that con-
cepts and language planning processes need to be defined in relation to each other
and to the relevant social context, as these may vary depending on the country,
society, language situation, etc.
In the following, the study will define as macro-level (overt and de jure) language pol-
icies those international documents which are primarily relevant to European countries
and which affect the Hungarian language community in some way. Simultaneously, the
local language practices, language policy and language planning efforts of the Hungarian
communities, as well as their attitudes towards the above level, will be interpreted as
micro-level (also covert and de facto, and basically bottom-up) language policies and
language planning exercises. The level between the two is defined as meso-level language
policy. This includes all language policy and language planning activities, practices,
decisions and language laws adopted by the government of a particular country that
affect the identity, language and language use of the Hungarian-speaking population.

Macro-level and de jure language policy in Europe

Over the last century, there were various initiatives aimed at increasing the focus on
language diversity and mother tongue rights in international jurisprudence. In 1953,
the UNESCO stated that ‘it is axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child is
his mother tongue’ (UNESCO, 1953, p. 11). The Council of Europe, the European Com-
mission and the United Nations have also repeatedly advocated for language rights that
positively address language diversity and promote equal opportunities (Hatoss, 2004;
McDermott, 2017). Nevertheless, the educational, administrative and general social prac-
tices of most European countries do not reflect this principle (cf. Liddicoat & Curnow,
2014), and thus language rights are still weightless, especially when compared to other
human rights. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key document
in the international human rights system, states that all persons have the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the right to education, but it does not
mention language rights (Kontra, 2021; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1998). Attempts
were also made to have the United Nations adopt a Universal Declaration of Linguistic
Rights, but this was not supported by the UNESCO and the declaration received a
mixed reception in professional circles (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2022). Of
the current international legal documents, there are two that deal mainly with language
issues: the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Con-
vention for the Protection of National Minorities.
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages elaborated by the European
Council and adopted in 1992, is a convention whose primary aim is to protect minority
languages. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) requires
states to use minority or regional languages in education, in the media (including the
written press, radio and television) and in public administration. The Charter lists 98
measures to promote the languages to be safeguarded. Of these, at least 35 commitments
should be applied in at least 6 areas of public life (e.g. education, media, courts, cultural
4 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

activities, economic activities, public administration) in countries that have ratified the
Convention. This applies to languages which are clearly distinct from the language or
languages spoken by the majority of the population, and which are used in the territory
of the state by citizens of the state who constitute a numerically smaller group than the
remaining population. However, the languages of immigrants and dialects of official
languages are not considered to be regional or minority languages. The Charter has
been signed by 34 countries, of which 25 – including Hungary and all its neighbouring
countries – have ratified it.
The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which entered
into force in 1998, is a comprehensive international treaty aimed at protecting the
rights of persons belonging to national minorities. As such, it is broader in scope and
more general from the point of view of languages than the ECRML described above,
but in many respects it complements it. The Framework Convention for the Protection
of National Minorities lists a number of obligations relating to the language of individual
minorities. These include: the promotion of a diverse media space with radio and televi-
sion programmes in minority languages and support for minority media; the use of min-
ority languages in public administration in areas where members of national minorities
traditionally live or live in significant numbers; the use of minority languages in the
display of names, place names and other geographical names. In addition, reference is
made to the prohibition of any discrimination on the grounds of belonging to a national
minority, i.e. discrimination on the basis of language. The Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities has been ratified by 39 European countries. These
include Hungary and all of its seven neighbouring countries where the number of Hun-
garian minorities is significant.

De jure and meso-level language policy regarding to Hungarian

minorities
The native Hungarian-speaking minority population of the Carpathian Basin is indigen-
ous (or autochthonous) in seven neighbouring countries outside Hungary, in areas that
are to a large extent contiguous with the present-day Hungarian language area. The legal
status of the Hungarian language in these countries is diverse. In Slovenia and Austria,
Hungarian is an official regional language, in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina
in Serbia it is an official minority language in those municipalities where the number
of ethnic Hungarians reaches the official threshold of language use, while in the other
neighbouring states – Slovakia, Romania, Croatia and Ukraine – it is a recognised min-
ority language. In these countries, official language use can be Hungarian if the pro-
portion of Hungarian residents in the municipality reaches the legally defined
threshold (percentage) for official use. This percentage is 15% in Slovakia, 20% in
Romania, 33% in Croatia, 10% in Ukraine, 25% at the municipal level in Serbia and
15% at higher public administration level.
In Austria, the Federal Constitutional Law (Österreichische Bundesverfassung) declared
the German language to be the state language, and in a later amendment, it acknowledged
the country’s growing linguistic and cultural diversity, particularly among indigenous
ethnic minorities. In line with this, the 1976 Law on Ethnic Groups (396/1976) recognised
the Hungarian minority in Burgenland as an autochthonous minority (cf. Szoták, 2012).
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 5

In the federal provinces of Vienna and Burgenland in Austria, Hungarian is an official

regional language (see W1), but in contrast to Burgenland, in the case of the Hungarian
diaspora in Vienna, the various folklore and cultural institutions and groups dedicated to
language preservation were politically oriented until the fall of communism.
In Slovenia and Croatia, in addition to local legislation, bilateral agreements with
Hungary regulate the status and use of the Hungarian language. There are also several
bilateral treaties between Croatia and Hungary. The most relevant of these is the 1995
Convention on the Guarantee of Minority Rights (Odluku o proglašenju zakona o
potvrđivanju Sporazuma između Republike Hrvatske i Republike Mađarske o
zaštiti Mađarske manjine u Republici Hrvatskoji Hrvatske manjine u
Republici Mađarskoj), under which the parties mutually guarantee members of min-
orities the free use of their mother tongue, original surnames and given names in
private and public life, as well as their registration in their native language (Fancsaly
et al., 2016). On this basis, Hungarian is a recognised minority language, especially in
Osijek-Baranja County (Andócsi, 2012).
Hungarian is an official regional language in the eastern part of Slovenia, in the Pre-
kmurje region. On the basis of the Convention on the Protection of the Special Rights of the
Slovene National Minority in Hungary and of the Hungarian National Community in Slo-
venia, the two countries assume mutual responsibility for the protection of the Hungar-
ian national minority in Prekmurje, Slovenia and the Slovene minority in the Rába
Valley, Hungary, and provide for the individual and collective special rights necessary
for the preservation of the identity and the effective equality of minorities (Kolláth,
2020). At the same time, the provision on the use of the mother tongue of indigenous
national minorities of the Act on the Public and Official Use of the Slovene Language
(Zakon o javni in uradni rabi slovenščine) declares that in the territory of municipalities
where there are Hungarian and Italian national communities, Hungarian and Italian are
used as official languages in accordance with the legislation on the official use of Slovene
(Szépfalusi et al., 2012). Furthermore, Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slo-
venia (Ustava Republike Slovenije) states that ‘Slovene is the official language in Slovenia.’
In contrast to the above countries, in Serbia neither the Constitution nor specific legis-
lation uses the term ‘state language.’ The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia specifies
Serbian and the Cyrillic alphabet as official but states that the introduction of other
languages into official use may be regulated by law. The 1991 Law on the Official Use
of Languages and Scripts is still in force in Serbia, with some minor amendments, and
is still a codification of the official use of languages (Beretka, 2016). The Hungarian
language has official status in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, which consists
of the regions of Banat, Bačka, and Syrmia, alongside five other languages (Serbian,
Slovak, Croatian, Romanian, Ruthenian), and is therefore an official regional language
(Mandić, 2017). This means that, in addition to the Serbian language and the Cyrillic
alphabet, the Hungarian, Slovak, Croatian, Romanian and Ruthenian languages and
their scripts are in official use in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, in accordance
with the law.(See Article 24 of the Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina).
Among the neighbouring countries, the situation of the Hungarian minority is most
unfavourable in Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine. Romania, for example, has a consti-
tution which openly declares that the country is a sovereign, unified and indivisible
nation-state and that Romanian is the official language. Under such a language policy,
6 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

based on a nation-state concept and on the supremacy of one language over the others,
the tendency and ideology of assimilation inevitably prevails (Péntek & Benő, 2020). The
majority of Hungarians in Romania live in Transylvania. Today, Transylvania covers not
only the territory of the historical Transylvania, including Szeklerland, but also the
regions of Banat, Partium and Maramureș. In Romania, Hungarian is a recognised min-
ority language, but it has official language status in three Transylvanian (Romanian)
counties – Harghita, Covasna and Mureș – which gives official status to the Hungarian
language at the micro-regional level. At the same time, the Hungarian minority demands
that the Hungarian language be recognised as an official language throughout Transylva-
nia and that territorial autonomy be granted to Szeklerland. At present, the recognition
of Hungarian as a regional language in Transylvania (Romania) seems more realistic than
the recognition of the territorial autonomy of Szeklerland.
In Slovakia, Hungarian is a recognised minority language (see Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities: Article 10), and the use of languages by national
minorities is regulated primarily by the Constitution (Law No. 460/1992) and two
language laws (the State Language Law, Act No. 270/1995, which covers the whole
country, and the Minority Language Law, Act No. 184/1999, which covers municipalities
reaching the 15% language threshold). However, the provisions of the former law on the
(generally exclusive) use of Slovak also implicitly and de jure regulate the use of minority
languages. This situation is further aggravated by the fact that the repeated and uncoor-
dinated amendments have made these legal acts contradictory or uninterpretable (Szabó-
mihály, 2017).
As far as Ukraine is concerned, the situation of the Hungarian language can be exam-
ined in Transcarpathia, as this is the only region where a significant part of the popu-
lation is Hungarian. Transcarpathia is one of the western regions of present-day
Ukraine, bordering Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Poland, where the Hungarian
language currently has a recognised minority language status. The language law On
Ensuring the Functioning of Ukrainian as a State Language
(Про забезпечення функціонування української мови як державної), adopted on 25
April 2019, was ostensibly intended to restrict the rights of native speakers of Russian,
but it also adversely affects all minorities in Ukraine, including the Hungarian minority.
The law stipulates that Ukrainian is the exclusive language of administration and edu-
cation, and that state employees and teachers shall also have to prove their proficiency
in Ukrainian by means of a language examination certificate (Csernicskó et al., 2020).
As far as Hungary is concerned, Hungary protects the Hungarian language under its
Fundamental Law (Magyarország Alaptörvénye). However, what this exactly means is not
defined in the legal document. Thus, although the protection of the Hungarian language
would theoretically include the protection of individual language varieties, this is not
explicitly stated in the Basic Law or in any other legislation, in contrast to the practice
of other countries such as Germany or Finland, where the protection of dialects is expli-
citly declared. Moreover, the mentioned law states that ‘In Hungary, the official language
is Hungarian,’ which is the same nation-state style declaration symbolically enshrining
the dominant language as in Slovenia and in Romania. The de facto implementation
of the de jurelanguage policy in Hungary and the neighbouring countries according to
official reports.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 7

The de facto implementation of the de jure language policy in Hungary

and the neighbouring countries according to official reports
Under Article 15 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, each sig-
natory state is obliged to submit a State Report within one year of the entry into force of
the document, and subsequent reports every three years after the first report on the
implementation of the measures undertaken. Following the reform to strengthen the
monitoring mechanism, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in November 2018,
States Parties to the Charter will be required to submit a comprehensive periodic
report to the Council of Europe on the application of the treaty every five years from
1 July 2019, followed by information on recommendations for immediate action every
two and a half years. Upon receipt of the periodic report, a delegation from the
Charter Committee of Experts will visit the country in question to interview minority-
language NGOs and government authorities to assess if measures have been taken at
all, and if so, to what extent they are effective and what further action is needed. As a
result, the Committee of Experts formulates its evaluation and recommendations, on
the basis of which the Committee of Ministers issues recommendations to each
country. This means that we are faced with different language and language policy situ-
ations of the Hungarian language communities, depending on the country in question.
Thus, in the following, the differences of each country will be briefly summarised separ-
ately, while the common, general language policy characteristics will be presented
jointly.2
According to the Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on
Hungary adopted on 22 November 2018, the participation and representation of national
minorities in Hungary is basically exemplary, and there is a high level of political support
for the protection and promotion of their languages. However, the report also states that
Hungary needs to develop long-term strategies to support the promotion of minority
languages (Boyash, Bulgarian, Croatian, German, Greek, Croatian, Armenian, Polish,
Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Slovene and Ukrainian) in various
domains (primarily education, media, public administration and judicial field). At
present, bilingual education in Hungary is mainly based on a model of teaching minority
languages as subjects, which is less effective from the point of view of the minorities and
their languages, especially as there are few teachers of these languages (this is particularly
relevant in the case of the Roma nationality and the Romani and Boyash languages). All
the languages covered by the Charter are used in the Hungarian media, but the duration
of television programmes in Boyash, Croatian, German, Roma, Romanian, Serbian,
Slovak, Slovenian is rather short. Finally, there is a problem of little or no use of minority
languages by the judicial and administrative authorities, and members of the minority are
not sufficiently encouraged to use their mother tongue in these areas.
The Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Austria
adopted on 22 November 2017 concluded the following with regard to the Hungarian
minority: The history and culture reflected by the language minorities is not included
as a subject or part of the curriculum in the general curriculum, only the Curriculum
Multilingualism (introduced in 2014) makes reference to the languages, history and
culture of the minorities in Austria. The teaching of minority languages essentially
depends on the teachers, in Burgenland, in areas where the Burgenlandian Croatian,
8 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

Hungarian and Roma languages are present in society and in schools, minority languages
are generally taught. However, it is equally important that the teaching of minority
languages should be extended to the general curriculum of German-language education.
It should be mentioned that although there is a supervisory body that monitors progress
in the teaching of the Hungarian language, there are no public reports on their findings.
As far as the judicial authorities are concerned, although the possibility of using Hungar-
ian in criminal and civil proceedings still exists, there are no examples of its actual use in
practice.
The Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Croatia,
adopted on 7 November 2019, reveal that the Committee of Experts did not receive infor-
mation on whether Hungarian was taught in adult education or continuing education,
but it is clear that there has been undergraduate training for Hungarian teachers at the
University of Osijek. The Committee of Experts also had insufficient information on
whether the local branches and local bodies of the Croatian state authorities used Hun-
garian in their communication with the Hungarian-speaking citizens and, similarly to
previous audit cycles, whether the local and regional authorities used Hungarian only
as an internal working language or also as the language of their official documents.
However, the report does indicate that Hungarian was used in some criminal and civil
proceedings during the period under review, but not in administrative proceedings.
Moreover, the presence of the Hungarian language on public television is irregular
and too short to comply with the Charter, and therefore the regular and sufficiently
long-lasting broadcasting of a Hungarian-language television programme is required.
The Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on the minority
language situation in Romania, adopted on 23 June 2017, shows that further training for
teachers in Hungarian is provided (by the Teacher Training Centres, the Hungarian Tea-
chers’ Trade Union and the Babeş-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca), but no information
is available on other forms of adult and further training in Hungarian. As regards public
education, there is a subject entitled History and traditions of persons belonging to
national minorities, which is included in the core curriculum of the Hungarian-language
schools but it is not part of the curriculum of the majority society, nor is the History and
culture reflected by the Hungarian language, only on an optional basis. In addition, there
is still a shortage of teachers teaching in Hungarian at all levels of education. As regards
the judicial authorities, there were examples of criminal and civil proceedings being con-
ducted in Hungarian and of Romanian-Hungarian interpretation being used. In some
cases, legal documents were translated into and from Hungarian. However, while in
criminal proceedings translation and interpretation are ensured according to the infor-
mation provided in the state report, in civil and administrative proceedings the costs of
translating documents and evidence have to be paid by the party requesting it. No infor-
mation on the use of Hungarian in administrative proceedings was provided in the per-
iodic report. The national authorities are entitled to draft documents in Hungarian and
Hungarian is also used at meetings of local and regional authorities. In addition, the
General Inspectorate for Disaster Prevention publishes materials promoting civil protec-
tion and fire prevention in both Romanian and Hungarian. As regards the media, there
are several daily and weekly newspapers and magazines in Hungarian in print and online,
but the Committee of Experts did not receive any information on other media.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 9

According to the Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on

Serbia, adopted on 22 March 2018, there is relatively little information available on the
measures related to minority and regional languages. Data on the actual use of Hungar-
ian in courts was not available to the Committee of Experts, and there is no information
on the use of the Hungarian language by national and judicial authorities and public ser-
vices. The quality of measures related to the judicial authorities (e.g. guaranteed use of
Hungarian by the accused in criminal proceedings or the possibility of interpretation
at no extra cost) deteriorated according to the report. The same is true in the adminis-
trative field, for example in the case of publication of documents of national, local and
regional authorities in Hungarian or the submission of applications and requests in Hun-
garian. At the same time, the Serbian state report provides examples of the use and accep-
tance of surnames in Hungarian. The overall availability of private radio and television
programmes in Hungarian deteriorated, but the situation of minority groups improved
in the years before the report in terms of subtitling and dubbing, and translation of lit-
erary and theatrical works.
The Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Slovakia,
adopted on 22 March 2019, included the following with regard to the Hungarian min-
ority: The National Ministerial Council for Minority Education is responsible for moni-
toring minority language education and drafting recommendations, but it is not clear
whether this body also produces publicly available reports. Available data and infor-
mation from citizens of the Hungarian nationality indicate that Hungarian is used in
both civil and administrative procedures. However, as far as employment contracts are
concerned, the current legal framework still restricts the use of minority languages, as
a contract drafted in a minority language is not valid in itself. In the area of media
and culture, there was progress compared to previous years: under the programme for
the promotion of the culture of national minorities, several cultural works in Hungarian
(e.g. CDs, DVDs, e-books and documentaries) have been produced in the current moni-
toring cycle, and one television channel (Régió TV) was licensed for nationwide broad-
casting exclusively in Hungarian without subtitles. However, there are no indications that
the additional costs of the media – e.g. for subtitling – resulting from the use of Hungar-
ian are covered. At present, the Board of Radio and Television and the Council of Broad-
casting and Retransmission have national minority members, but there is no specific legal
provision to ensure such representation and no information is available on how the inter-
ests of minority language speakers are taken into account in the absence of such
representation.
According to the Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on
Slovenia, adopted on 8 November 2019, a number of questions have remained unan-
swered in relation to the Charter. It is unclear whether a significant part of primary, sec-
ondary and vocational education and training is provided in Hungarian in practice, as
well as whether it is monitored. The report also refers to the need to improve and mod-
ernise training programmes, particularly with regard to the methods and content of bilin-
gual education. It is not clear whether there are activities organised in the public sector to
promote the use of Hungarian in economic and social life, but it seems that written infor-
mation on consumer rights is not provided in Hungarian. However, according to infor-
mation provided by the authorities, Slovenian legislation does not contain provisions
explicitly prohibiting the inclusion of provisions excluding or restricting the use of
10 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

Hungarian in the internal rules of companies and in private documents. The authorities
also informed the Committee of Experts that they had not found any practices aimed at
preventing the use of Hungarian in connection with economic or social activities.
According to the Evaluation and Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on
Ukraine adopted on 24 March 2017, Hungarian-language education continues to be pro-
vided in kindergartens and primary and secondary schools in Transcarpathia. The
number of children enrolled in Hungarian-language pre-primary education has
increased, but the number of children enrolled in secondary education has significantly
decreased. At the same time, Hungarian is still not used in vocational education and
training, despite the requests of the Hungarian minority. According to information
received from Hungarian speakers, there are also problems with university entrance
exams, which can now only be taken in the Ukrainian language. Hungarian is used to
some extent in court hearings and in the case of written judicial documents (e.g. judge-
ments), but Hungarian speakers are sometimes asked to have court documents translated
into Ukrainian at their own expense. In practice, Hungarian is used orally by local auth-
orities in areas with a large Hungarian population, while there is minimal use of Hungar-
ian in writing (including forms and documents). The use of Hungarian place names is
limited to a few place-name signs; it would be necessary to extend this practice to all rel-
evant topographic names and signposts. In the media, the duration of Hungarian-
language programmes on public television has been increased, while on public radio it
has remained almost unchanged. In addition, Hungarian-language newspapers are also
published and many cultural events are organised in Hungarian.
In summary, several language policy problems concerning the language situation of
the Hungarian minority beyond the borders can be identified on the basis of the
various expert reports. The realisation of the linguistic rights of the Hungarian minority
is often hindered by the state apparatus’s disinterest and/or the deliberate obstruction of
the exercise of minority language rights, often aimed at assimilation3 (cf. Beretka, 2016;
Csergő, 2007; Csernicskó & Fedinec, 2016; Fancsaly et al., 2016; Fiala-Butora, 2018;
Péntek & Benő, 2020; Szépfalusi et al., 2012).
Although, in some countries (e.g. Slovenia, Austria, Serbia) Hungarian minorities
have cultural autonomy and generally define their own minority education curricula,
the state supervises and organises minority curricula generally. However, the influence
of the members of the majority society can vary depending on the country or region,
ranging from limited influence to total dominance. In Serbia, for example, minority edu-
cation falls within the competence of the National Minority Councils, in Slovenia Hun-
garians enjoy cultural autonomy, while in Slovakia cooperation with minority language
speakers is less adequate in this area.
Nevertheless, there is Hungarian-language education in kindergartens, primary and
secondary schools in all neighbouring countries, this is not always satisfactory, and
often there is a shortage of Hungarian teachers at certain levels of education. It is clear
from the curricula, textbooks and teaching methods used in the schools and from the
majority of the documents regulating the education of the Hungarian minorities
beyond the borders that they apparently want to comply with the European standards
and conventions (see ECRML, FCPNM), but at the same time they cannot or do not
want to abandon the nation-state-governed, linguistically imperialist and hegemonic
ideology (Phillipson, 1997) which interwoven with standard language culture and
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 11

ideology (Jánk, 2021; Myhill, 2004). The teaching of certain subjects is often not in Hun-
garian, but even if the language of instruction is Hungarian, the teacher usually received
his/her degree in the state language, which means that certain technical terms and more
abstract concepts are not available in Hungarian. The textbooks for the subjects are often
translations of the state language textbooks, and therefore, even with possible translation
errors, they convey a way of thinking and approach that is less natural and sometimes
even incomprehensible to native Hungarian-speaking students (Vančo, 2017). In this
respect, the Hungarian minority in Romania is in an exceptional position, as members
of the Hungarian minority are actively involved in the development and review of text-
books and teaching materials:
Within the Directorate for Minorities, councilors are responsible for education in each min-
ority language. For Hungarian, there are three councilors (besides the director, who is also
an ethnic Hungarian). As a matter of fact, it is this team of three – and the experts consulted
by them under the conditions of law – who shape the framework for the content of Hungar-
ian-language education, review textbooks, and participate in the elaboration and translation
of official examination items and other tests. (Kiss et al., 2018, p. 252).

As regards the judicial and administrative language use, relevant data is lacking in several
countries, and where available, the use of minority languages, including Hungarian, by
public authorities is limited or non-existent. Despite the fact that the possibility of
using Hungarian in criminal and civil proceedings exists and is theoretically guaranteed
in all the countries concerned, de facto use is only partially or not at all realised, and the
costs of translation and interpretation are usually charged to the minority language
speakers. As regards the language situation in public administration, in most cases
there is no official information available for each country, but according to non-
official information, the situation and use of the Hungarian in public administration
varies widely within the different countries. In general, the use of Hungarian language
in public administration is most prevalent in oral form where there is a Hungarian-
speaking administrator, while the use of Hungarian in written form (including forms
and documents) is less common, and even non-existent in several countries (cf.
Beretka, 2016; Szabómihály, 2017).
Along with the above, explicitly and implicitly, hegemonic language policy and the
primacy of the state language are generally characteristic. Although apparently, at the leg-
islative level, they generally comply with the European customary practice and fulfil their
obligations under international treaties on the protection of minorities, some of the laws
are no more than mere formalities. These pieces of legislation are usually not
accompanied by implementing orders or are amended in such a way and with such fre-
quency that it is difficult to navigate among them, and they often contain legal loopholes.
In addition, the legislation is not only incomplete, but in some cases too stringent and
disadvantageous for the Hungarian minority (Eőry, 2021; Szabómihály, 2017).

The role of Hungarian dialects in the Hungarian language community and

in the survival of the Hungarian minority
As mentioned earlier, a significant part of the Hungarian-speaking community and
almost the entire Hungarian minority living beyond the Hungarian borders peak in
12 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

non-standard dialect. Consequently, dialect-related issues are central to language plan-

ning in relation to the Hungarian language. Since the prestige of standard variety is
high and that of the non-standard dialects is low in the Hungarian language community,
raising the prestige of non-standard dialects is crucial in the above-mentioned fields, in
education as well as in the media and religion. Indeed, several studies have shown that
speakers of endangered languages are more loyal to a particular variety of the language
than to the whole language, and often explicitly refuse to use and learn the more presti-
gious variety (Dorian, 1981; Kuter, 1989).
A common feature of education in the Hungarian mother tongue in some regions –
both in Hungary and beyond the borders – is that literacy teaching is basically provided
through the medium of the standard language. This language variety is of course perme-
ated by a local, regional dialect, since almost all Hungarian speakers and teachers beyond
the borders speak in vernacular dialect, as do most native Hungarian-speaking parents
and their children. The problem is that the non-standard variety is the most stigmatised
version, and even those who use it in everyday life are stigmatised. Linguistic stigmatis-
ation is present in education, the media and everyday discourse in general, which not
only creates discomfort for speakers of the dialect, but also produces unequal conditions
(Jánk, 2020, 2021; Rási, 2020).
The language planning and language policy implication of the above is that the Hun-
garian society, like most European societies, is rather normative in its linguistic attitudes
(Milroy & Milroy, 1985; Pieniążek & Štěpáník, 2016). The language rules of the social
elite are the rules of the standard language variety, and their acquisition and use is
expected from language users, often regardless of the context (Liddicoat & Taylor-
Leech, 2015; Myhill, 2004). In this context, there is a significant degree of linguistic
imperialism and linguistic prejudice, i.e. those who use the dominant language or
language variant are privileged, while speakers of minority languages or language var-
iants are often marginalised, disadvantaged and often subject to linguistic discrimination
(Albury, 2014; Jánk, 2021; Liddicoat & Curnow, 2014; Phillipson, 1997). This is of con-
siderable social, educational and legal concern (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2022),
and is inconsistent or in conflict with the relevant provisions of the legal documents
(ECRML, FCPNM) described above.
In this context, vernacular dialect is the source of linguistic disadvantage and the
target of discrimination. At a theoretical level, a vernacular dialects exist in the minds
of the language users as a value to be preserved, a cultural heritage. In practice,
however, it is often seen as a phenomenon to be avoided and stigmatised by the same
language users, whether they are members of the younger or the older generation, stan-
dard-accented or vernacular speakers. In other words, language users are not aware that
these two positions are contradictory, nor are they generally aware of the fact that they
themselves discriminate on the basis of language use or that they themselves are subject
to linguistic discrimination (Jánk, 2021; Rási, 2020).
The problems described above are further exacerbated by the fact that the Hungarian
language in bilingual and minority situations has a different meaning and interpretation
than in the case of Hungarians living in Hungary. Belonging to the Hungarian language
community is central to the ethnic consciousness of the members of the minority Hun-
garian communities. As a consequence, language shift usually also means a shift of
nationality. In other words, language preservation is extremely important for the survival
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 13

of minority Hungarian communities, and this can only be achieved if the Hungarian
language is not relegated to the private sphere . However, the majority of the Hungarian
minorities living beyond the border – and a considerable proportion of Hungarians in
Hungary – speak in vernacular dialect. This language variety is usually mixed with the
local state language (e.g. Slovak, Romanian), and thus differs from the standard Hungar-
ian variety in many respects, and is therefore highly stigmatised (see the normative atti-
tude mentioned above). As a consequence, language users in minority situations have to
face not only the assimilationist and repressive language policies and regulations of the
country concerned, but also the exclusionary attitudes and prejudices of their own lin-
guistic community on account of their dialect.
Although linguistic diversity is increasingly emphasised in the teaching of the Hungar-
ian mother tongue, in practice the social perception of the individual language varieties
and non-standard dialects is still (largely) unfavourable compared to the vernacular
variety (Jánk, 2020). In Hungary, the national media mainly use the standard language
variety, and this is what is broadcast in the surrounding Hungarian settlements, although
some regional vernacular varieties also appear in the regional media. Though non-stan-
dard dialects are to some extent represented and (in theory) described as a value to be
preserved, vernacular dialect knowledge and vernacular dialect speakers are not given
(enough) space and a place in cultural and/or educational programmes. In TV pro-
grammes that are intended to promote local, regional traditions, a standard variety of
the language (or, less frequently, a regional vernacular) is typically used, and vernacular
dialect speakers are usually addressed but not given a focus. In addition, vernacular
dialect speakers are often portrayed as agricultural workers or rural housewives, and
this reinforces stereotypes about them. Indeed, several sociolinguistic studies (e.g.
Dekker et al., 2021; Hosoda et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011) have shown that language
variety and language use can activate different social categories (stereotypes). Stan-
dard-accented speakers are judged more favourably along the lines of language compe-
tence, intelligence and social status than non-standard speakers.
As a consequence of the above, one of the most important elements for the survival of
a minority language in a multilingual environment is the presence and use of that min-
ority language in the media (cf. Alia & Bull, 2005; Cormack & Hourigan, 2007). The dom-
inance of the standard language variety and the subordinate position of non-standard
dialects and its speakers are characteristic of the Hungarian media, which are also broad-
cast across the border, and therefore it is an important language planning task to change
this situation in a more favourable direction. To this end, those working in the Hungar-
ian media need to become more sensitive to the way non-standard dialects are perceived,
which requires the development of methodological aids and teaching materials, the
inclusion of dialectological and sociolinguistic modules in media and actor training,
and the renewal of the training of these professionals in this spirit. In addition, more edu-
cational, children’s and scientific programmes in dialects should be broadcast on a
regular basis in the public and regional media.
Another prerequisite for the survival of the Hungarian language and the Hungarian
community is proper education and training, including at the pre-school, primary, sec-
ondary and higher education levels. From a language planning point of view, it is essen-
tial at all levels to develop linguistic tolerance, to increase the acceptance of linguistic
diversity, and to create and develop tools, educational materials, interactive and digital
14 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

books and games to support these efforts (cf. Liddicoat & Taylor-Leech, 2015; Skutnabb-
Kangas, 1995).
In order to make the above mentioned approaches work in practice, a similar kind of
attitude formation is required in the higher education system in Hungary, and primarily
in teacher training. A significant proportion of Hungarian teacher trainees have not been
exposed to this linguistic approach during their academic studies and the prescriptive,
standard-oriented approach is so deeply embedded in their thinking that modern linguis-
tic training (including e.g. dialectology and sociolinguistics) often proves to be not
enough (Jánk, 2021). In other words, it is not uncommon for teachers beginning their
career to follow a prescriptive and substitutive (subtractive) approach and method inher-
ited from the past instead of the descriptive and additive approach they were taught.
In certain Hungarian-speaking minority communities, the above-mentioned
measures alone are no longer sufficient, as the Hungarian language has become endan-
gered (see e.g. Moldavian Csángó; cf. Laihonen et al., 2020). The development and
implementation of effective revitalisation education programmes, taking into account
the situation, linguistic needs and goals of the given minority community, is necessary
in those communities where the process of language shift has already reached an
advanced stage (including the Hungarian diaspora in South Transylvania and the
Mezőség and the Moldavian and Slavonian Hungarians). The revitalisation of the dia-
spora is one of the main areas where the Hungarian state can provide significant assist-
ance, as this language planning activity falls outside the scope of the language policy
activities of the respective countries.

Summary and outlook

The situation of the Hungarian language, especially in the neighbouring countries and in
relation to dialects, is a matter of great concern. The indigenous Hungarian minorities in
the seven neighbouring areas of Hungary and their language have become endangered in
recent decades. The proportion of the Hungarian-speaking population has drastically
declined and this decline is still ongoing. Looking at the language policies of the
different countries, it does not seem that the respective governments would seek to
curb this decline. In fact, in many cases, it is precisely the assimilationist language
policy towards the Hungarian minority that prevails to varying degrees and in
different forms.
Although the international instruments protecting European (linguistic) minorities
have been ratified both in Hungary and its neighbouring countries, this has little or no
impact on the de facto linguistic situation. The meso- and micro-level language policies
rarely make any real efforts to support linguistic minorities, including the Hungarian
minority: in some countries, the practical implementation/enforcement of minority
language rights is either hindered (see Croatia, Austria, Slovenia, Serbia) or impeded
(see Slovakia), and in some cases even explicitly restricted (see Ukraine and Romania).
The above usually take the form of implicit, covert language policies in the different
areas, but sometimes also occur as explicit, overt, and even official language policies at
the statutory level.
In parallel with the above, Hungarian vernacular dialects are also in a disadvantaged
position. Attitudes towards non-standard dialects in the Hungarian language community
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 15

are quite negative. The reason for this is a social structure which is strongly standard-
centred and mono-normative, both linguistically and in general, which treats linguistic
differences as a fault and as a target of stigmatisation. This attitude, however, is detrimen-
tal to the preservation of the language and, in this context, to the survival of the Hungar-
ian minority, since almost the entire Hungarian minority living beyond the border speaks
some kind of non-standard dialect. This means that they are not only confronted with the
less supportive or downright repressive language policy of the state in which they live, but
also with the exclusionary linguistic attitudes and prejudices of their own Hungarian
language community.
As far as Hungary is concerned, it is clear that the country has a limited arsenal of
instruments when it comes to language policy developments outside its borders. Never-
theless, the Hungarian government could support more micro-level and even meso-level
language strategy efforts if language issues were given more prominence in political life.
At present, Hungary does not have any explicit language policy, although it would be
highly necessary in several areas, as the language policies of the neighbouring countries
do not have a sufficiently positive impact on the Hungarian minority or they affect the
Hungarian minority in a particularly negative way. For this reason, it is extremely
urgent and necessary to take appropriate language strategy and language policy decisions,
the language planning foundations of which we have tried to outline in this paper. Given
the current legal, social and linguistic situation, the most appropriate approach would be
to plan at the micro level, with particular emphasis on the role and status of vernacular
dialects. Of course, it would also be important to bring about a change in the macro- and
meso-level language policy environment, and to ensure that any restriction of the rights
of national minorities should entail more severe sanctions at both the legal and the
societal level. It would also be equally important to bear in mind universal language
rights when discussing universal human rights.

Notes
1. According to the latest census data, the number of Hungarians living outside the borders is
1.8–1.9 million. However, there are many Hungarians who are afraid of the negative con-
sequences linked to their nationality and therefore decide to identify themselves as
members of the majority nationality instead of the Hungarian minority.
2. The summary analysis in this unit is based on public reports and recommendations pub-
lished on the website of the Council of Europe (see https://www.coe.int/en/web/
european-charter-regional-or-minority-languages/reports-and-recommendations).
3. Although, there are often formal legal mechanisms for the protection of Hungarian, the sub-
ordinated position of the minority language, as well as the prestige and instrumentality of
the state languages for vertical mobility within nation-states throughout Europe affects
the reduction of the number of minority members (Trudgill, 2004). The factors contributing
to this negative trend are also the increased number of mixed marriages, the immigration of
the Hungarian population is high (in this regard, see Hungarian Citizenship Law 2010), at
the same time the birth rate is low.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
16 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

Notes on Contributors
István Jánk is a senior lecturer at Eszterházy Károly Catholic University, Eger, Hungary and a
Research Fellow at the Research Centre for Language Planning, Institute of Hungarian Research,
Budapest, Hungary. His research interests include language policy and sociolinguistics especially
linguistic discrimination in the education.
Szilvia Rási is a doctoral student at Eszterházy Károly Catholic University, Eger, Hungary and an
Assistant Research Fellow at the Research Centre for Language Planning, Institute of Hungarian
Research, Budapest, Hungary. Her research interests include language policy and planning, Hun-
garian dialects and academic writing in higher education.

ORCID
István Jánk http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1327-6412
Szilvia Rási http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7353-8504

References
Albury, N. J. (2014). Your language or ours? Inclusion and exclusion of non-indigenous majorities
in Māori and Sámi language revitalization policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(3),
315–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2015.984581
Alfredsson, G. (2022). Some shortcomings of linguistic rights. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R.
Phillipson (Eds.), The handbook of linguistic human rights (pp. 177–182). Wiley-Blackwell.
Alia, V., & Bull, S. (2005). Media and ethnic minorities. Edinburgh UniversityPress.
Beretka, K. (2016). Language rights and multilingualism in Vojvodina. International Journal on
Minority and Group Rights, 23(4), 505–529. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02304007
Cormack, M., & Hourigan, N. (eds.). (2007). Minority language media. Concepts, critiques andcase
studies. Multilingual Matters.
Csergő, Z. (2007). Talk of the nation: Language and conflict in Romania and Slovakia. Cornell
University Press.
Csernicskó, I., & Fedinec, C. (2016). Four language laws of Ukraine. International Journal on
Minority and Group Rights, 23(4), 560–582.
Csernicskó, I., Hires-László, K., Karmacsi, Z., Márku, A., Máté, R., & Tóth-Orosz, E. (2020).
Ukrainian language policy gone astray. Termini Egyesület.
Davies, W. V., & Ziegler, E. (2015). Language planning and microlinguistics: Introduction. In W.
V. Davies & E. Ziegler (Eds.), Language planning and microlinguistics. From policy to interaction
and vice versa (pp. 1–14). Palgrave Macmillan.
Dekker, S. V., Duarte, J., & Loerts, H. (2021). ‘Who really speaks like that?’ – Children’s implicit
and explicit attitudes towards multilingual speakers of Dutch. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 18(4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1908297
Dorian, N. C. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish gaelic dialect. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Eőry, V. (2021). Nyelv politika és nyelvstratégia Európában I. A Kárpát-medencei országok magyar
kisebbséget érintő nyelvpolitikája [Language policy and language planning in Europe I. Language
policies of Carpathian Basin countries concerning the Hungarian minority]. Magyarságkutató
Intézet.
Fancsaly, É, Gúti, E., Kontra, M., Molnár Ljubić, M., Oszkó, B., Siklósi, B., & Žagar Szentesi, O.
(2016). A magyar nyelv Horvátországban [The Hungarian language in Croatia]. Gondolat
Kiadó – Media Hungarica Művelődési és Tájékoztatási Intézet.
Fenyvesi, A., ed. (2001). Hungarian language contact outside Hungary. Studies on Hungarian as a
Minority Language. Although this study presents the situation in the field found 20 years ago, it is
still an important point of reference, especially as its findings can be compared to the present-day
situation. John Benjamins.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 17

Fiala-Butora, J. (2018). Implementation of the framework convention for the protection of

national minorities and the European language charter: Unified standard or divergence?
Hungarian Journal of Minority Studies, II, 7–21.
Hatoss, A. (2004). Promoting diversity through language-in-education policies: Focus on Australia
and the European Union. Current Issues in Language Planning, 5(4), 438–454. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14664200408668268
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Walter, J. N. (2007). Listeners’ cognitive and affective reac-
tions to English speakers with standard American English and Asian accents. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 104(1), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.1.307-326
Jánk, I. (2020). Linguistic discrimination and linguistic bias in pedagogical evaluations of
Hungarian teachers. In I. Vančo, R. Muhr, I. Kozmács, & M. Huber (Eds.), Hungarianas a
PluricentricLanguage in language and literature (pp. 211–221). Peter Lang.
Jánk, I. (2021). Linguistic discrimination in pedagogical evaluation. A study of teachers of
Hungarian language and literature in Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Hungary. L1
Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 21, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-
2021.21.01.09
János, Andócsi. (2012). Az anyanyelv használatának jogi lehetőségei Horvátországban. A magyar
nyelv jogi helyzete Szlovákiában. [Legal possibilities of using the mother tongue in Croatia. The
legal situation of the Hungarian language in Slovakia. Eplényi Kata (szerk.): Térvesztés és
határtalanítás, 271–287.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf Jr.R. B. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Multilingual
Matters.
Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Deng, S., Alvarez, R., & Li, J. (2011). Accent, perpetual foreigner stereotype,
and perceived discrimination as indirect links between English proficiency and depressive
symptoms in Chinese American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 289–301.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020712
Kiss, T., Székely, I. G., Toró, T., Bárdi N. & Horváth, I. (eds.). (2018). Unequal accommodation of
minority rights. Hungarians in Transylvania. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kolláth, A. (2020). Slovene-Hungarian bilingual education in Slovenia in the third millennium.
Hungarian Journal of Minority Studies, III, 105–140.
Kontra, M. (2021). (Linguistic) Human rights and/or security policy. Foreign Policy Review, 14(2),
62–72.
Kuter, L. (1989). Breton vs. French: Language and the opposition of political, economic, social, and
cultural values. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in ;anguage contraction
and death (pp. 75–89). Cambridge University Press.
Laihonen, P., Bodó, Cs., Heltai, J., & Fazakas, N. (2020). The Moldavian Csángós: the Hungarian
speaking linguistic minority in North-Eastern Romania. In L. Grenoble, P. Lane, & U.
Røyneland (Eds.), Linguistic minorities in Europe online. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/
10.1515/lme.12543347
Liddicoat, A. J., & Curnow, T. J. (2014). Students’ home languages and the struggle for space in the
curriculum. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14790718.2014.921175
Liddicoat, A. J., & Taylor-Leech, K. (2015). Multilingual education: The role of language ideologies
and attitudes. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(1–2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14664208.2015.995753
Mandić, Marija - Buljanović Simonović. (2017). Between the Word of the Law and Practice: a Case
of the Hungarian Speakers in Serbia. European and Regional Studies, 12, 125–143.
McDermott, P. (2017). Language rights and the Council of Europe: A failed response to a multi-
lingual continent? Ethnicities, 17(5), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796816654725
McMenamin, J., & Walt, C. (2018). 4 Macro policies and meso language planning: The case of
supranational policies in Europe. In C. S. K. Chua (Ed.), Un(intended) language planning in
a globalising world: Multiple levels of players at work (pp. 57–83). De Gruyter Open Poland.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and stan-
dardisation. Routledge.
18 I. JÁNK AND SZ. RÁSI

Myhill, J. (2004). A parameterized view of the concept of ‘correctness’. Multilingua, 23(4), 389–
416. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.389
Nekvapil, J., & Nekula, M. (2006). On language management in multinational companies in the
Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2–3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.
2167/cilp100.0
Péntek, J., & Benő, A. (2020). A magyar nyelv Romániában (Erdélyben) [The Hungarian language
in Romania (transylvania)]. Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület – Gondolat Kiadó.
Phillipson, R. (1997). Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 18(3), 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666317
Pieniążek, M., & Štěpáník, S. (eds.). (2016). Teaching of national languages in the V4 countries.
Faculty of Education of Charles University.
Rási, Sz. (2020). Language use and dialectal attitude of a Hungarian settlement in Slovakia. In I.
Vančo, R. Muhr, I. Kozmács, & M. Huber (Eds.), Hungarianas a Pluricentric Language in
language and literature (pp. 11–23). Peter Lang Verlag.
Shiffman, H. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy (1st ed.). Routledge.
Shiffman, H. (2006). Linguistic culture. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy:
Theory and method (pp. 111–125). Blackwell.
Skerrett, D. M. (2016). Moving the field forward: A micro–meso–macro model for critical
language planning. The case of Estonia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 106–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1126216
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1995). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In O. García
& C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 40–
62). Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1998). Language in human rights. Gazette (Leiden,
Netherlands), 60(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549298060001003
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (eds.). (2022). Handbook of linguistic human rights.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge UniversityPress.
Szabómihály, G. (2017). A magyar nyelv használata a közigazgatásban a magyarországgal
szomszédos országokban [The use of the Hungarian language in public administration in
Hungary’s neighbouring countries]. In G. Tolcsvai Nagy (Ed.), A magyar nyelv jelene és
jövője [The present and future of the Hungarian language] (pp. 299–320). Gondolat Kiadó.
Szépfalusi, I., Vörös, O., Beregszászi, A., & Kontra, M. (2012). A magyar nyelv Ausztriában és
Szlovéniában [The Hungarian language in Austria and Slovenia]. Imre Samu Nyelvi Intézet –
Magyar Nemzetiségi Művelődési Intézet – Gondolat Kiadó.
Szoták, Sz. (2012). Az osztrák nyelv- és kisebbségpolitika legújabb diskurzusai. In K. Eplényi & Z.
Kántor (Eds.), Térvesztés és határtalanítás. A magyar nyelvpolitika 21. századi kihívásai [Loss of
space and demarcation. The challenges of Hungarian language policy in the 21st century] (pp.
122–143). Nemzetpolitikai Kutatóintézet – Lucidus Kiadó.
Trudgill, P. (2004). Glocalisation and the ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe. In A. Duszak
& U. Okulska (Eds.), Speaking from the margin. Global English from a European perspective (pp.
35–49). Peter Lang.
Tulloch, S. (2006). Preserving dialects of an endangered language. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 7(2–3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp098.0
UNESCO. (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. UNESCO.
Vančo, I. (2017). A határon túli magyar tannyelvű és magyar tematikájú közoktatás [Hungarian-
language and Hungarian-themed public education beyond the Hungarian borders]. In G.
Tolcsvai Nagy (Ed.), A magyar nyelv jelene és jövője [The present and future of the
Hungarian language] (pp. 357–430). Gondolat Kiadó.