Cultural and linguistic diversity: the case of Hungary in Europe Dr. Krisztina Károly School of English and American Studies Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary Linguistic diversity: Review of national and international policies and measures Multistakeholder First WSIS+10 Review Event February 2013, UNESCO HQs, Paris

Safeguarding and promoting linguistic and cultural diversity in Hungary – Outline  Hungary: historical and research insights  European actors / key documents  Policies, measures in Hungary: education, audiovisual media, public services, business

Hungary  population of 9,960,000 Minorities:  13 officially recognized minorities: Gypsies; Germans, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Romanians (=larger groups); Poles, Bulgarians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Armenians (=smaller groups)  + a statutorily recognized minority: the Deaf people ~ 8-10% of the total population Immigration:  growing phenomenon (2% of the population);  smaller number than in other European countries (Romanians, Germans, Serbians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Slovaks)

Historical insights Since beginning of 18th century: considerable changes in the proportions of minorities Treaty of Trianon (1920):  Hungary lost 68% of its territory: Transylvania  Romania northern region and Ruthenia  Czechoslovakia narrow western strip  Austria southern region  Yugoslavia  Hungary also lost 90% of its minorities and 1/3 of its ethnically Hungarian population Period of communism after World War II

Research insights  sociolinguists, educationists, human rights lawyers, political scientists  “Language(s) can be one of the causes of inter-ethnic conflicts.” (Kontra, 2000:168)  “Granted the tension in many contemporary states in which minority groups feel that their linguistic human rights […] are being violated […], there is clearly a need for a careful scholarly analysis of the causes of conflict, the role played by language in these conflicts, and the paths that could be taken in order to build a more harmonious future.” (Kontra, Phillipson, Skutnabb- Kangas, Várady, 1999:1)

Research insights cont.  language as a problem, language as a right, and language as a resource (Ruiz, 1984; on minority education)  Linguistic human rights vs. framework of ‘problem or resource’ − 2 superficially opposing but in fact complementary goals: “Firstly, people need linguistic human rights in order to prevent their linguistic repertoire from becoming a problem or from causing them problems. Secondly, people need to be able to exercise language rights in order for their linguistic repertoire to be treated as, or to become, a positive, empowering resource.” (Kontra, Phillipson, Skutnabb- Kangas, Várady, 1999:6)

Key terms (Extra & Yağmur, 2012: 21)  National Ls: official languages of a nation-state  Foreign Ls: Ls learnt and taught at school or used as Ls of wider communication in non-educational sectors (not at home)  Regional and minority Ls: Ls traditionally used within a given territory of a state by nationals of that state who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the state’s population  Immigrant Ls: Ls spoken by immigrants and their descendants in the country of residence, originating from an infinite range of (former) source countries  Multilingualism: the presence of various Ls in the given geographical area (CoE)  Plurilingualism: a speaker’s competence (ability to use more than one L) (CoE) (EU: multilingualism both)

European actors in promoting linguistic diversity  EU (Brussels) – Unit of Multilingualism Policy, Directorate-General of Education and Culture, European Commission; European Council; European Parliament  Council of Europe (Strasbourg) – Language Policy Unit, Directorate of Education  OECD  UNESCO

International policies and measures 1: CoE (Extra & Yağmur, 2012)  Conventions (related to L learning and Lic diversity): - European Cultural Convention - European Social Charter - European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities  Recommendations: e.g., - Recommendation No. R (98) 6 of the Committee of Ministers on Modern Languages (1998) - Recommendation No. R (2008) 7 of the Committee of Ministers on the use of the CEFR and the promotion of plurilingualism  Technical instruments: - Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) - European Language Portfolio: personal document to record and report on one’s own L learning and cultural experience - Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe (2007): reference document for the formulation of L policies to promote plurilingualism

International policies and measures 2: EU (Extra & Yağmur, 2012)  1995 White Paper on Teaching and Learning (all should learn 2 European Ls)  2002 Presidency Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council (at least 2 additional Ls from an early age)  2005 Commission’s Communication on Multilingualism: A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism + complemented its action plan Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity  2007 appointment of a special European Commissioner, Leonard Orban to manage the portfolio  2008 Commission’s Communication Multilingualism: an Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment (turning Lic diversity into an asset for solidarity and prosperity)  funding programme to support multilingualism: Lifelong Learning Programme: Comenius (schools), Erasmus (higher education), Leonardo da Vinci (vocational education and training), Grundtvig (adult education).

Present situation: preservation of minority languages and cultural traditions is given legislative support  Hungarian constitution of 2011 (Fundamental Law), Article XXIX: „every nationality and ethnic group living in Hungary shall be considered a part of the state forming entity. Every Hungarian citizen belonging to a nationality has the right to undertake and preserve their identity. National and ethnic minorities will have the right to use their own languages, to use their names in their own languages both individually and collectively, to foster their culture and to education in their own languages.”  Hungary ratified the two most significant CoE documents: - the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (1992/1995/1998) - the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995/1998)

Present situation cont. National Core Curriculum (2005): “The fundamental aim of teaching modern foreign languages is to develop communicative competences/language proficiency in the given language. It refers to the ability to use a language in the manner demanded by the situation at hand. Language proficiency can be measured and assessed through the four basic language skills (…). The development of communicative competence involves the following: - By the end of compulsory education, pupils must be able to use one or two foreign languages appropriately in personal, educational, public and professional contexts; - While learning foreign languages, pupils should develop and maintain a positive and motivated attitude to language learning, the learnt language, the people speaking that language, their culture and learning about other languages and cultures in general; - Pupils must learn to be able to maintain the acquired level of language proficiency themselves throughout their lives and to learn other foreign languages efficiently and effectively.”

Ls in pre-primary education Based on Language Rich Europe: Trends in Policies and Practices for Multilingualism in Europe (Bartha, Cs. In Extra, Guus & Yağmur, Kultay (eds.), (2012: ). (no provision of FLs, ILs, and additional national language support)  R/ML: Bulgarian, Croatian, German, Greek, Romani/Boyash, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene  in national minority schools and specific bilingual institutions  local governments must provide it if required by the parents of at least 8 pupils

Ls in primary education (no provision for immigrant Ls)  R/ML: Bulgarian, Croatian, German, Greek, Romani/Boyash, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene  FL: compulsory  one L from English, German, French, Italian, Russian; optional: Latin

Ls in secondary education (no provision for immigrant Ls)  R/M: Romani/Boyash  FL: compulsory  English, German, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish; optional  Chinese, Latin  Hungary ranks unfortunately high in the number of students learning only one FL (57.2%; EU average = 33.4%)

Ls in further and higher education (no provision for immigrant Ls)  education of national and R/M Ls does not play an important role  courses where L of instruction is a FL (mainly English, German, French) – to attract foreign students  6 higher education institutions train minority L teachers  Faculty of Humanities of ELTE: teaches over 60 Ls

Ls in audiovisual media and press  the media in Hungary is dominated by Hungarian  radio and TV programmes are offered in R/M Ls in public channels  TV programmes in Ls other than Hungarian are typically dubbed  sign L interpretation is offered in important media events According to the Hungarian Sign Language Act, the public TV shall ensure that in the course of its broadcasting service all announcements and newscasts of public interest, motion pictures and public service programmes are available with Hungarian subtitling or sign L interpreting for a fixed number of hours from 2010, and in entirety from 2015.

Ls in public services and spaces  moderate multilingual profile  some services are provided in written or oral form, but institutionalized L strategies are absent (English, German, MLs)

Ls in business  low L profile: Hungarian and English are the main Ls used (followed by French and German)  have some L policy, but little investment in the L skills of employees  generally L skills are acquired prior to employment  limited business English training  very few provide support in Hungarian for non-native speakers

Summary  great variation among schools with regard to L teaching  lack of immigrant Ls in education: due to relatively low number of immigrants  the proportion of foreign students in public education is low  according to statistics (Eurobarometer 243, 2006), only 42% of the population can carry out a conversation in at least one FL (  EU average: 56%)  legal framework of support for minority Ls and FL education is established, much remains to be done in practical implementation For more on international normative tools and national implementation: Extra, G. & Yağmur, K. (eds.), (2012). Language rich Europe. Trends in policies and practices for multilingualism in Europe. British Council. Cambridge: CUP.

Thank you for your attention