Heritage-language learning and attitudes towards language in the context of Hungarian

as an immigrant language in the UK

Joint Workshop of UCL BiLingo, Institute of Education, School of Slavonic and East European

Studies, and Hungarian Cultural Centre, MOKKA

Eszter Tarsoly, University College London e.tarsoly@ssees.ucl.ac.uk

28 October 2017

Introduction

Key words: learning v. acquiring; bilingualism; language contact; Herderian-standardising; view of language; monocentric languages; language variety and variation; configurations of speaking; perception; interpretative function; indexicality; relational and communal identity.

Language and perception:

the way language is perceived among members of the native-speaking community and other observers; e.g. linguists, philologists, anthropologists, ethnographers;

the perception of what is usually called ‘the world’, formed through language and through the various interpretative traditions inherently present in any language.

Language and boundary dilemmas:

1. What is Hungarian? Anxiety about variation and multilingualism.

2. What is heard by ‘standard’ speakers as ‘ours’? Mekkora flash! v. Nem lep meg.

3. What is described by linguists as e.g. ‘symptoms of language attrition’?

4. Who speaks Hungarian? – And who will understand it? A magyarok!

Preliminaries and existing literature

Shifting perceptions of Hungarian (Kontra & Saly, 1998; Szilágyi, 2008; Péntek, 2008 and 2009; Nádasdy, 2011)

Use of Hungarian in minority context (Csernicskó, 1998; Gal, 1979; Göncz, 1999; Lanstyák, 2000, 2006 and 2008; Kontra, 2003; Péntek 2005 and 2008; Szilágyi 2003b.)

Use of Hungarian in immigrant context (Bartha 1993, 1995a and b., 1995/96, Fenyvesi, 1995, 1995/6, 1998; Kontra, 1990; Csire & Laakso, 2011)

Language ideology (Bourdieu, 1993 and 1999; Gal, 2006; Gal & Irvine 1995, and 2000; Sherwood, 1996; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994;)

Language and identity (Belz, 2002; Block, 2007; Crawshaw, Callen, & Tusting, 2001; Csernicskó, 2008; Fedinec, 2008; Joseph, 2004 and 2006; Norton, 2000; Norton Pierce, 1995; Péntek 1999 and 2009; Ros i Solé, 2004; Szilágyi, 2003a and 2005; Val & Vinogradova, 2010; Valdés, 2000 and 2001; Wallace, 2004;)

Terms describing speakers and languages in EU institutions and beyond

Minority speakers: 1.5 million in Romania, 0.5 million in Slovakia, 290 000 in Serbia, 150 000 in the Ukraine, another 15 000 in Croatia, just over 5000 both in Slovenia and Austria;

Heritage speakers: roughly another million Hungarian speakers who live outside Central Europe, e.g. in the UK, France, Belgium, Italy, the United States, and Australia.

Határon túli v. heritage speakers: an umbrella term to define groups of speakers whose greatest exposure to Hungarian has been in the home or community rather than the classroom;

Smaller state language; lesser used language; Less Widely Used and Less Taught (LWULT) Languages; minority and regional languages; minorised languages; non-territorial languages;

Legislation and institutional involvment with language matters

Arfé Resolution on ‘Community charter of regional languages and cultures and on a charter of rights of ethnic minorities’, 16 October 1981;

European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL), 1982;

Mercator Network: a European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, 1987;

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Strasburg 5. 09. 1992);

regional and minority languages are (i) 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;

(ii) different from the official language(s) of that State’;

non-territorial languages are used by nationals of the State which differ from the language or languages used by the rest of the State's population but which, although traditionally used within the territory of the State, cannot be identified with a particular area thereof; i.e. languages of migrants .

Linguistic variety in speakers’ individual repertoires and indexicality:

The emphasis on linguistic diversity in Europe is deceptive. There is institutional recognition of diversity, but pieces of legislation still discuss named languages with unified, codified norms of correctness embodied in literatures and grammars. No other configurations of speaking are recognised (cf. Gal, 2006: 167).

American linguistic anthropology: communication as a social practice.

The variation in every speakers’ individual repertoire of even fine individual features of speech (e.g. intonation, register choices) draws attention to the futility of efforts of standardization.

‘[...] talk always comments on itself. […] The trivial-seeming features of talk are construed by participants as indexical signals that point to possible identities of speakers, their momentary role-inhabitance or stance towards each other, different situations of talk, as well as institutional and cultural distinctions’ (Silverstein & Urban, 1996, quoted by Gal, 2006:165).

Data and Hungarian in the UK context

Three different types of data:

− written work (translation, exercises, essays on everyday topics and academic subjects); approx. 200 pages

− recorded material based on presentations in a semi-controlled environment, guided and free conversations; approx. 2.5-3 hours

− observation

UCL/SSEES is, and has been since 1937, the only place in the UK, where Hungarian is taught at BA degree level, and where it is studied in a historical, typological, and applied linguistic perspective. No examinations are available for students in secondary education.

It is taught on four-year BA courses which include a year abroad, on beginners’ and intermediate specialised reading courses for postgraduate students, and on evening courses. The language of instruction is English.

BA first year (100 contact hours) CEFR A2; second year (80 contact hours) CEFR B1-B2, in all four skills; fourth year at least CEFRC1: proficiency and advanced translations skills.

2008-2012 the BA courses included heritage speakers of different backgrounds

L2 v. Heritage Learners’ Profiles

Heritage learners without literacy and schooling

L2 learners as beginners

Oral fluency + (limited registers and dialectal variation)

-

Written production - -

Reading ability +/- -

Analytical awareness - (some from translation?)

+

Rules for interaction +/- +/-

Norms of interpretation

- -

Received view of language: (national) pride and prejudice

“[Heritage learners’] reactions and solutions are natural, spontaneous, and instinctive […] they are not able to interpret the intentions of the teacher and produce the reactions the teacher is expecting. Regrettably, their fellow (L2) students […] seldom make use of heritage speakers’ spontaneous reactions in their own learning process; in fact, they often fail to understand them.”

“it would be wrong to treat [heritage speakers’] utterances as mistakes but learners should be told that ‘educated speakers do not use language in this way’ (a művelt beszélők / a művelt nyelvben ezt nem használják) or that ‘in Budapest they don’t say it like that’ (így Budapesten nem mondják)”

“One must be very practically minded, when it comes to language teaching” (A nyelvoktatás szempontjából nagyon pragmatikusnak kell lenni)”

Standard language ideology (Herder, Anderson, etc.)

Literacy is essential but this is the context in which learners encounter “norms of interaction” and “received views of language” through norms of “classroom Hungarian”.

Classroom: seemingly artificial environment but it is best treated as a social setting like any other, and teaching and learning as social interactions.

This allows us to address the learning process where attitudes, stereotypes, and other culturally and socially mediated ideologies are transmitted.

Interpretative function and the tasks of evolutionary sociolinguistics (Joseph, 2004: 33)

‘If the first task of sociolinguistics is to understand [this] broader interpretative capacity [which is non-species-specific, and which, in the case of humans involves an interplay between language and an evolutionarily deeper capacity of organising, reading, and interpreting sensory data in our environment; E.T.], its second task is to account for how specific interpretative traditions come to be conventionalised, institutionalised and passed from generation to generation, within social groups of various sorts, including the grouping we call the classroom.

There has in the past been a strong tendency, which has been breaking down in recent years, of considering classroom teaching as something ‘unnatural’ and apart from normal social life. Nowadays sociolinguistics are more apt to recognise that the classroom is a social grouping like any other, and teaching and learning are social and linguistic activities like any other. In any case, classroom discourse is a crucial element in that second task of sociolinguistics, accounting for how the specific interpretative traditions we call ‘languages’ are formed and maintained.’

Pitfalls of standard language ideology for heritage learners and their teachers 1.

Encountering the norm: a point of linguistic insight:

“én nem tudok mindent úgy, mint ahogy Magyarországon mondják (I don’t know everything the way they say it in Hungary)”;

Loss of confidence – questioning the self:

“azok, akik voltak a magyar iskolába, szépebben (sic!) beszélnek (those who went to Hungarian school speak better [more beautifully])”;

”Tényleg így mondják? (Do you really say that?)” ”Én ezt még soha életembe nem hallottam (I have never heard this in my life)”

Shift, convert, or subvert:

Hát tudom, hogy úgy jó, én elhiszem, de hát én nem tudom úgy mondani, ha nekem nem úgy van jól (“I know that’s the right way [of saying it], I believe it, but I cannot say it that way, if that’s not how it is right for me”)

Pitfalls of standard language ideology for heritage learners and their teachers 2.

Teachers often not trained in the heritage-language environment as teachers => may not have a clear idea of their heritage learners’ expecations towards the process and activities involved in learning (cf. two types of teaching associated with two languages);

Educational policy makers, those involved in planning the learning process, and teachers often do not have the experience of growing up bilingually and/or in a multicultural environment;

Tendency to project a ”laboratory” version of the culture;

Language maintenance, shift, and the symbolic function of language

DOMAINS AND FUNCTION

HERITAGE LANGUAGE

DOMINANT LANGUAGE

With whom Grand-parents, parents, community

Most peers, school, work, street, career,

Where Home, local, restricted Anywhere, ”the wide world”

When Holiday, break, exception Any time, ”normal”

What kind of language

Intimacy, personal, and part of personality

Modernity, ”gets the job done”, also part of personality

Which associations PAST PRESENT/FUTURE

Symbolic function EMOTIONAL AESTHETIC

SOCIAL ECONOMIC

The main typological features of Hungarian

• rich inflectional and derivational morphology, ”agglutinating”

• vowel harmony (horizontal position of the tongue; roundedness)

• the lack of a transitive verb have; possessive suffixes

• 17 cases, of which 9 are local case suffixes

• postpositions; and a complete lack of prepositions

• fairly simple tense system (morphologically marked past and periphrastic future)

• complex aspectual system (verbal prefixes, aktionsart, etc.)

• SOV with context-specific pragmatic variation (topic-focus construction) in clauses

• analytical forms (subordination) alongside participial constructions as pre-modifiers in noun-phrases

• definite object marking on the verb

• head marking

Fenyvesi (1998), partly based on Kontra (1990), mentions 52 features in which immigrant’s Hungarian is different from Hungarian in Hungary (based on data collected in the 1990s in the United States); cf. a summary of these features in Fenyvesi (2005):

Leaving aside phonological features and pragmatical differences, here are the most salient examples:

Morphophonemics: vowel harmony

Some of Fenyvesi’s (2005) examples are problematic: Ferihoz v. Ferihez, ismerőseket v. ismerősöket; tesztolni v. tesztelni, printolva v. printelve; báderez ‘bother’; cséndzsol ‘change’; elsippol ‘ship’; felszlejszol ‘slice’; etc.

Some of these, although they may be seen as non-standard, do reflect derivational patters in Hungarian and are no proof of decreasing native capacity in the language.

Examples in my data: hűtőba v. hűtőbe; egyetemhoz v. egyetemhez; fél egykör v. fél egykor; foglalkozzünk v. foglalkozzunk; költoztunk v. költöztünk;

Morphology: 1. definite v. indefinite conjugations: befejeznek az iskolát, feladják mindent;

2. simplification of verbal prefixes:

akarnak találni paradicsomot v. meg akarják találni a paradicsomot;

3. case (cf. Fenyvesi, 1995/1996) a. accusative: ha tanulsz romológiát, akkor tanulsz szociálpszichológia; b. dative v. another suffix, e.g. the allative, or ø: jónak néz ki; c. local cases c.1. with non-concrete locations: mennek egy szegény országhoz; c.2. with placenames: Magyarországban, Pécsben, Angliához, etc. c.3. in argument or complement marking: nem költenek pénzt dolgokon, mi nem fontos; valaki segít önző okokra; etc. d. other, e.g. instrumental: nyolv év[el] ez előtt;

4. possessive a. omission of possessive suffixes in possessive constructions b. omission of possessive suffixes in the habeo construction

5. number marking

6. mood: az egyetlen hely, hol tudsz tanulni Roma nyelveket < lehet tanulni;

Syntax and derivational morphology: 1. focus

2. definite article v. no article

3. number agreement

4. copular verb (or the lack thereof) in equative v. existential sentences

5. preference for post-modifiers and lack of participial modifiers

6. complex syntax: lack of marking of common agreement in main clause (cf. focus)

7. preference for the analitical forms both syntactically and lexically, in derivation; szokik + infinitive constructions, csinál sportot v. sportol

8. transitivity

Lexical borrowing: 1. phonological and morphological adaptation of loans;

2. loanwords, loanblends, and calques;

3. borrowing of sibling terms: lány testvérem, fiú barátom;

Dialectal interference on a phonological and phonetic level

Front Back

Rounded Unrounded

High ü [y] ű [yː] i [i] í [iː] u [u] ú [uː]

Mid ö [ø] ő [øː]

é [eː] e [ɛ]

o [o] ó [oː] *[ɔ]

Low *[æ] a [ɒ] á [aː]

Pronunciation and spelling errors likely to occur: • HH. bejött ‘he came in’ v. *bajött [bεjøt:]

• HH. ember ‘person’ v. *ámber [εmber]

• HH. bájos ‘charming’ v. *‘troublesome’

• HH. bajos ‘troublesome’ v. *‘charming’

• HH. akar ‘s/he wants’ v. *’then’

• HH. akkor ‘then’ v. ‘s/he wants’

• Consider, however, the following:

– similarities in attaching the PL (-k), ACC (-t), and the 1SG, 2SG, 2PL possessive suffixes (-m, -d, -tOk)

– linking vowel either a mid-vowel with back v. front v. front-rounded variants: [o]:[e]:[ø], or a low-vowel with only a front v. back opposition, [a]:[ε], in orthography, <o>:<e>:<ö> and <a>:<e>, respectively.

– impossible to predict which stems require the odd-seeming alternative of a front unrounded vowel despite the roundedness of the stem (e.g., könyvε-t) or a low back vowel with a back stem (e.g., háza-t)

– the background learner with dialectal feautres can be of help

Morphological anomalies; e.g. the local case system ILL INE ELA

-bA (-ba, -be) -bAn (-ban, -ben) -bÓl (-ból, -ből)

SUBL SUPE DEL

-rA (-ra, -re) -(O)n (-n, -on, -en, -ön) -rÓl (-ról, -ről)

ALL ADE ABL

-hOz (-hoz, -hez, höz) -nÁl (-nál, nél) -tÓl (-tól, től)

Concrete, real locations: ház-ban, ház-on, ház-nál, ház-ba, ház-ra, ház-hoz ‘in, on, at, into, onto, to(wards) the house’ autó-ban, autó-ra, autó-hoz, autó-tól, autó-ról ‘in, onto, to(wards), (away) from, off the car’ Abstract, imaginary: Budapest-en, Budapest-re, London-ban, London-ból, Berlin-ben, Berlin-ből, Berlin-be ‘in Budapest’, ‘to Budapest’, ‘in London’, ‘from London’, ‘in Berlin’, ‘from Berlin’, ‘to Berlin’

*Budapest-hez ‘to Budapest’, *Berlin-től ‘from Berlin’, *London-hoz ‘to London’ ! *Budapest-nek men-t-em HH. Budapest-re mentem budapest-DAT go-PAST-1SG ‘to/for Budapest I went’ ! * A söfőr-höz mond-ja HH. A söfőr-nek mondja ART driver says-DEF.3SG ‘s/he says it to the driver’

Omission of possessive suffixes The dative is neither necessary nor sufficient to mark the possessor;

possessive noun phrases are headmarked:

Anna autó-ja = Anná-nak az autó-ja

Anna car-3SG.POSS A nna-DAT ART car-3SG:POSS

*Anná-nak az autó-0

‘Anna’s car’

Preference for analytical forms:

az én testvér-em ~ a testvér-em ART 1SG.PRON sibling-1SG.POSS ART sibling-1SG.POSS

*az én testvér-0

‘my brother/sister’

Syntactic parallelism with English have construction:

SH. habeo (DAT.PRON) VAN (INDEF.ART) N-POSS

(Nek-em) van (egy) autó-m

(DAT-1SG) is a car-1SG.POSS

‘I have a car’

*Nekem van egy autó-0

Lexico-grammatical inventions

Inventive use of verbal prefixes with occasional loans:

ki-szortíroz-za magá-t *szortíroz ‘arrange, put in order’

out-sort-DEF.3SG itself-ACC ‘s/he/it will sort itself out’

meg-organizál-om a találkozó-t *organizál SH. szervez ‘organise’

PERF-organise-DEF.1SG ART meeting-ACC ‘I’ll organise the meeting’

Syntactic and lexical borrowing:

Lát-lak holnap. HH. Találkozunk holnap. Lit. ‘We’ll meet tomorrow’

See-1SG.SUBJ.2SG.OBJ tomorrow ‘(I’ll) see you tomorrow’

Ki-megy-ünk szombat este. HH. Elmegyünk valahova szombat este.

out-go-1PL saturday evening ‘We’ll go out Saturday evening’

Syntactic features

Én átúsztam a Balatont a nyáron.

Én ettem ebédet és én mentem a könyvtárba tanulni.

Az én munkám volt, hogy tanulok.

Kossuth Lajos született 1802 szeptember 19.

Az egy nagyon jó ünneplés mikor ki rakod a csizmát és a Mikulás jön, és ha jó voltél, akor kapsz csokoládét.

Syntax and pragmatics, rules for interaction, norms of interpretation

Papp Emma vagyok, egy elsős történelem diák az egyetemen.

A tanárom adta meg az email címét.

Hallottam olyan lehetőségről, hogy a történelem tanulmányaim mellett, a nyelvet felvenni.

Identity and indexical signs in speech, Identity and language learning

Heritage speakers’ identity is indexed by the forms they learnt to use. This has to do not only with how others perceive their Hungarian but also how they perceive themselves, and the kind of identity they build through others’ perceptions of their use of language.

Critical Applied Linguistics (Pennycook, 2001): language teaching has a direct impact on the identities and life of those who are taught, and language learners are active agents in shaping and reshaping their own identities through linguistic and other means.

How do these processes manifest themselves in the case of Hungarian?

National identities ~ standard languages ~ language standards

‘Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, [...]; they understand each other and [...] they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole’ (Fichte, 1968 [1808], quoted by Joseph ,2004: 190-1);

nyelvében él a nemzet ‘A nation may be said to exist in its language’ Zsigmond (Sigismund) Wékey, A Grammar of the Hungarian Language (1852).

[Benedict Anderson] gives all his attention to how national languages shape national identities, and none to how national identities shape national languages, which they do very profoundly. (Joseph, 2004, p. 13.)

Ideas about the standard variety as the only acceptable variety of Hungarian are tenacious Hungarian is today a language with a low tolerance towards language varieties and elements which are not regarded as being in accordance with the standard.

Heritage speakers and other bilinguals grow up speaking Hungarian without developing an awareness of what this standard entails. Standards are usually grounded in the written variety which is unknown to heritage speakers, thus, they unknowingly violate it.

Contradictions of standard ideology for heritage speakers (Gal, 2006: 167-73)

Non-elite speakers (such as heritage speakers), whose practices diverge from the ideals of standardization, nevertheless find themselves judged by those ideals. Sometimes they see themselves through the ‘eyes’ of standard ideologies which are manifest in their interactions with majority speakers with whom they come into contact (cf. enacted identity through communication and language).

Migrant populations in Europe are part of European speech communities and can decipher the indexical signals provided by speakers with whom they interact (cf. Joseph’s interpretative framework). Consequently, it is possible for heritage speakers to perceive themselves along the same ideology according to which their language, and ultimately their personality, is judged (cf. personal identity: conception of self).

Migrant and minority speakers devalue their own speech. It is in this way that standard ideology jeopardizes multiculturalism.

Alternatively they may reject standard ideology and construct opposing perspectives.

Hungarian abroad? Challenges to the idea

of linguistic borders

Bilinguals speak both languages differently from monolinguals.

Their sense of linguistic correctness is also different, inasmuch as their orientation to at least two denotational codes and their literary norms links them to at least two different regions with potentially different traditions of perception of language.

Not only English and Hungarian but also perceptions of English and Hungarian are in contact in the mind of the bilingual or heritage speaker. In this sense they do not share the same interpretative framework with either the host or the original community.

Cf. focused v. diffused type national/communal identity (Szilágyi N., 2003)

The main factor to be considered about the 20th century history of Hungarian it is the political separation of the varieties spoken in Romania, Slovakia, Austria, the Ukrain, and the former Yugoslavia from the variety (varieties!) spoken in Hungary.

Since 1990, the varieties of Hungarian have been rediscovered.

’In the late 1980s, during the final thawing of the Cold War, I was there at the very first meeting – in Budapest – of Hungarian-speaking language-teachers and cultural specialists from each of these countries [i.e. Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine and Austria; E.T.]. All of them were bilingual in Hungarian and in one other standard language. They were shocked to discover that Budapest intellectuals – eager to extend a metropolitan Hungarian standard – did not understand the problems of bilingual minorities as well as the leaders of those minorities – despite their many political differences – understood each others’ concerns. Some raised the question of whether there should be a single Budapest-based standard of Hungarian in the Carpathian basin or rather several centres [...]’ (Gal, 2006:170)

Imposing boundaries through metonymy and metaphor

‘The linguistic practices of these speakers systematically violate – and yet are interpreted through – the deceptively neat Herderian picture of standard languages.’ (Gal, 2006:173)

Magyarországon = magyarul = magyarok...

− ‘Angolul természetes a Good afternoon! köszönés, míg Magyarországon a Jó délutánt! egyáltalán nem használatos.’ (example cited by Nádasdy, 2011)

− ‘Ezt le kell fordítani, hogy azok is értsék, akik nem magyarok’ in translation: ‘I have been asked to translate this so that those who don’t speak Hungarian can understand’

Discourses of language contact, endagered languges, bilingualism

language attrition, structural and functional loss, language death, simplification, fading stage, reduction of lexical competence, significant loss, symptoms of L1 loss, symptoms of language attrition

Conclusions

Heritage speakers are led to reflect about their own linguistic identity while learning the language in a formal setting. Teaching has to be very tactful: avoid promotion of the standard variety as superior to the variety known to the background speaker, while raising awareness of variation in language in general, of which both the standard and other varieties are a part.

Attitudes towards Hungarian, and how language is imagined, must be taken into account. Pressures for it to become more accommodating towards variation. Conceptions of ’a language’ change as a result of social forces impinging on their speakers, and languages themselves are shaped by their speakers’ views of who they are.

Challenge for the teacher of Hungarian or any other monocentric language: to treat anomalies as innovation wherever possible and follow the additive model in teaching a new languge variety to heritage speakers without questioning their own variety.

Bibliography

Bartha Csilla (1993). Mindég csak magyarul beszélünk all the time – Magyarnak lenni túl a Kecegárdán. In: Magyar Nyelvőr. 4: 491-5.

Bartha Csilla (1995a). A nyelvvesztés néhány rendszerbeli szimptómája az amerikai magyarok nyelvhasználatában. In: Laczkó Krisztina (ed.): Emlékkönyv Szathmári István hetvenedik születésnapjára. Budapest: ELTE, 34-45.

Bartha Csilla (1995b). Nyelvcsere, nyelvvesztés: szempontok az emigráns kétnyelvűség vizsgálatához. In: Kassai Ilona (ed.): Kétnyelvűség és magyar nyelvhasználat. Budapest: MTA, 37-47.

Bartha Csilla (1995/6). Social and linguistic characteristics of immigrant language shift: The Case of Hungarian in Detroit. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 43 (3-4): 405-431.

Bartha Csilla (1999). A kétnyelvűség alapkérdései: beszélők és közösségek. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.

Beltz, J. A. (2002). Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent self in foreign language study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(1), 13-39.

Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal, 91, 863-876.

Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Crawshaw, R., Callen, B., & Tusting, K. (2001). Attesting the self: Narration and

identity change during periods of residence abroad [Electronic version]. Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(2), 101-119.

Cseresnyési László (2004). Nyelvek és stratégiák, avagy a nyelv antropológiája. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.

Csernicskó István (1998). A magyar nyelv Ukrajnában (Kárpátalján). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó – MTA

Kisebbségkutató Műhely.

Csernicskó István (2008). Nyelv és azonosságtudat összefüggései a kárpátaljai magyar közösségben. In: Fedinec (2008): 153–72.

Csire, M. & Laakso, J. (2011). Teaching the heritage language as a foreign language> on the questions of bilingualism and minority language teaching in Austria. ESUKA – JEFUL, 2-1. pp. 93-107.

Fedinec Csilla (ed.) (2008). Értékek, dimenziók a magyarságkutatásban. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Magyar Tudományosság Külföldön Elnöki Bizottság.

Fenyvesi Anna (1995). Language contact and language death in an immigrant language: The case of Hungarian. In: Univresity of Pittsburgh Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 3. 1-117.

Fenyvesi Anna (1995/6). The case of American Hungarian case: Morphological Change in McKeesport, PA. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 43 (3-4): 381-404.

Fenyvesi Anna (1998). Nyelvkontaktus és nyelvvesztés az amerikai magyarban: a hasonulások sora a mckeensporti beszélők nyelvében. In: Sándor Klára (ed.) Nyelvi változó – nyelvi változás: A 9. Élőnyelvi Konferencia előadásai. Szeged: JGYF. 85-99.

Göncz Lajos (1999). A magyar nyelv Jugoszláviában (Vajdaságban). Budapest and Novy Sad/Újvidék: Osiris Kiadó – Forum Könyvkiadó – MTA Kisebbségkutató Műhely.

Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Joseph, J. E. (2006). Linguistic identities: Double-edged swords [Electronic version]. Language Problems & Language Planning, 30(3), 261-267.

Kiefer Ferenc (ed.) (2003). A magyar nyelv kézikönyve. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Kocsis Károly, Bottlik József, Tátrai Patrik (2006). Etnikai térfolyamatok a Kárpátmedence

határainkon túli régióiban (1989–2002). Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet.

Kontra Miklós (1990). Fejezetek a South Bend-i magyar nyelvhasználatból. Linguistica Series A, 5. Budapest: MTA.

Kontra Miklós (2003). A határon túli magyar nyelvváltozatok. In: Kiefer (2003):

301–21.

Lanstyák Instván (2000). A magyar nyelv Szlovákiában. Budapest and Bratislava/Pozsony: Osiris Kiadó – Kalligram Könyvkiadó– MTA Kisebbségkutató Műhely.

Lanstyák István (2006). Nyelvből nyelvbe: tanulmányok a szókölcsönzésről, kódváltásról és fordításról. Bratislava/Pozsony: Kalligram.

Lanstyák István (2008). A magyar szókészlet szétfejlődése 1918 után. In: Fedinec (2008): 118–35.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. In: TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.

Péntek János (2009). Változatok és változások a mai magyar nyelvben. Found at: http://www.c3.hu/~magyarnyelv/10-01/pentekj_101.pdf

Péntek János (1999). A megmaradás esélyei. Anyanyelvű oktatás, magyarságtudomány,egyetem Erdélyben. Budapest: A Magyar Nyelv és Kultúra Nemzetközi Társasága.

Péntek János (2005). Magyar nyelv- és nyelvjárásszigetek Romániában. Magyar Nyelv 406–13.

Péntek János (2008). A magyar nyelv erdélyi helyzete és perspektívái. In: Fedinec (2008): 136–52.

Ros i Solé, C. (2004). Autobiographical accounts of L2 identity construction in Chicano literature [Electronic version]. Language and Intercultural Communication, 4(4), 229-241.

Sherwood, Peter (1996). ‘“A nation may be said to live in its language”: Some socio-historical Perspectives on Attitudes to Hungarian’. In: Robert B. Pynsent (ed.), The Literature of Nationalism, Essays on East European Identity, London.

Shopen, Timothy (1979). Languages and Their Status: Mohawk, Hua, Russian, Cape York Creole, Swahili, Chinese. Cambridge, MA: Winthorp Publishers.

Szilágyi N. Sándor (2003). Szempontok a nemzettudat lélektanához. In: Mi egy más: közéleti írások. Cluj Napoca/Kolozsvár: Kalota Könyvkiadó. 141 – 172.

Szilágyi N. Sándor (2005). Asszimilációs folyamatok a romániai magyarság körében. In: Péntek J., Benő A.(eds) Nyelvi jogi környezet és nyelvhasználat. A Szabó T. Attila Nyelvi Intézet Kiadványai 2. Cluj Napoca/Kolozsvár: Anyanyelvápolók Erdélyi Szövetsége. 24–94.

Szilágyi N. Sándor (2008). A magyar nyelv a Magyarországgal szomszédos országokban. In: Fedinec (2008). 105–17.

Val, A. & Vinogradova,P. (2010). Heritage Briefs: What is the Identity of a Heritage Language Speaker. University of Maryland Baltimore County: http://www.cal.org/heritage/pdfs/briefs/what-is-the-identity-of-a-heritage-language-speaker.pdf

Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Wallace, K. R. (2004). Situating multiethnic identity: Contributions of discourse theory to the study of mixed heritage students. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 195-213.