Ildikó Orosz - István Csernicskó
The Hungarians in Transcarpathia
T
in t a
P u b l ish e r s
I l d ik ó O r o sz
and
I s t v á n C s e r n ic s k ó
THE HUNGARIANS
IN TRANSCARPATHIA
This book has been published with support
from the Hungarian Ministry of Cultural Heritage
and the Frankfurt ’99 Kht. Budapest
Translated by: Ilona Huszti
Translation revised by: Rev. Susan Cowell and Katalin Lizák
© Ildikó Orosz, István Csernicskó, 1999
© Tinta Publishers, 1999
I 'n g a r n u n b e i> r e n z t
IS B N 963 86013 0 2
On the cover:
Kelemen Mikes’s well in Salank
Memorial park in Tiszacsoma - a cemetery from the time of
the Hungarian Conquest
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
INTRODUCTION
1. GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
1.1. Transcarpathia as an independent geographical and political
entity
1.2. The size of the language and ethnic groups living in Trans
carpathia, and their proportio within the entire population
from the turn of the century
1.3. The geographical position of the Hungarian community li
ving in Transcarpathia
1.4. The structure of settlement of Transcarpathian Hungarians,
the degree of linguistic and ethnic variety within the regions
inhabited by them, characteristic settlement types
1.5. Migration within the region
2. POLITICS
2.1. Legal status
2.2. Political organization (parties, movements)
2.3. Representation in administrative bodies
3. RELIGION
4. CULTURE
4.1. Institutions of minority culture
4.1.1. Book publishing
4.1.2. Theatres
4.1.3. Hungarian scientific life
4.1.4. Libraries
4.1.5. Central nationality institutions
4.2. Educational system
4.2.1. Nursery schools
4.2.2. Schools
4.2.3. Professional training
7
g
g
11
13
13
14
21
24
30
33
33
35
37
39
41
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
44
48
B
CONTENTS
4.2.4. Higher education
4.2.5. Indices of education level of certain nationalities
4.3. Mass communication
4.3.1. Newspapers, journals
4.3.2. Local Hungarian radio and television
4.3.3. Access to the mass media
5. ECONOMY
6. IDENTITY AWARENESS
7. SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
7.1. Language planning
7.2. The status of the languages used in present-day Ukraine
7.3. Differences of status between the languages
7.4. Public bilingualism
7.5. Language conflicts
7.5.1. Teaching Ukrainian in schools with Hungarian as the
language of instruction
7.5.2. School-leaving and entrance examinations
7.5.3. The Concept of the reform of minority education
7.5.4. What can we lose if we do not speak Ukrainian?
SUMMARY
NOTES
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
50
51
52
52
54
54
57
59
63
63
64
68
69
70
70
74
78
80
85
87
89
95
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1 Population of Transcarpathia according to mother tongue
and nationality respectively (1880-1989) (in absolute numbers)
TABLE 1.2 Population of Transcarpathia according to mother tongue
and nationality respectively (1880-1989) (in percentage)
TABLE 1.3 Mother tongue composition of Transcarpathia’s popula
tion (based on the results of the 1979 and 1989 censuses)
TABLE 1.4 Nationality composition of Ukraine’s population (in 1000
people and % respectively)
TABLE 1.5A Population of Transcarpathia in 1989 (in absolute num
bers)
TABLE 1.5B Population of Transcarpathia in 1989 (%)
TABLE 1.6A Ukraine’s population in 1989 according to nationality
and mother tongue (in absolute numbers)
TABLE 1.6B Ukraine’s population in 1989 according to nationality
and mother tongue (%)
TABLE 1.7 Ratio of Transcarpathia’s larger nationalities (1989)
TABLE 1.8 The composition by nationality of Transcarpathia’s towns
TABLE 1.9 The ratio of Hungarian population in today’s settlements
of town rank of Transcarpathia (1910-1989)
TABLE 1.10 The composition by nationality of Transcarpathia’s
townspeople (1989)
TABLE 1.11 The composition by nationality of Transcarpathia’s vil
lage population (1989)
TABLE 1.12 Distribution of Transcarpathia’s nationalities according
to settlement type (1989)
TABLE 1.13 Distribution of Transcarpathian Hungarians according
to districts (1989)
TABLE 1.14 Migration in Transcarpathia (in percent, related to the
total number of inhabitants 1920-1991)
TABLE 4.1 Transcarpathia’s Hungarian nursery schools per district
and distribution of language of instruction (1994/1995 school year)
TABLE 4.2 Number of children in Transcarpathia’s nursery schools in
the 1996/1997 school year according to the language of instruction
14
15
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
24
26
26
27
28
29
31
45
45
8
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4.3 Distribution of comprehensive and secondary schools in
Ukraine according to the language of instruction in the
1989/1990 and 1990/1991 school years
TABLE 4.4 The number of Transcarpathia’s schools with Hungarian
as the language of teaching between 1987 and 1993
TABLE 4.5 Transcarpathia’s schools according to the language of
instruction
TABLE 4.6 Distribution of pupils according to the language of
instruction
TABLE 4.7 The first formers’ ratio in percentage according to the
language of instruction
TABLE 4.8 Transcarpathia’s Hungarian schools in the 1996/1997
school year
TABLE 4.9 The distribution of Hungarian schools in Transcarpathia
per districts (1996/1997)
TABLE 4.10 Indices of education level of certain nationalities per
1000 people based on the census data of 1989
TABLE 6.1 Territorial attachment of Transcarpathian Hungarians
TABLE 6.2 National attachment of Transcarpathian Hungarians
46
47
47
47
49
49
49
51
60
61
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Changes of the ratio of the Hungarian population
(1880-1989)
FIGURE 2. Hungarian population in today’s settlements of town
rank of Transcarpathia in percentage (1910-1989)
FIGURE 3. The composition by nationality of Transcarpathia’s
townspeople (1989)
FIGURE 4. The composition by nationality of Transcarpathia’s vil
lage population (1989)
FIGURE 5. Distribution of Transcarpathia’s nationalities according
to settlement type in percentage
FIGURE 6. Distribution of Transcarpathian Hungarians according to
districts (1989)
16
26
27
27
28
29
LIST OF MAPS
MAP 1. Ethnic map of Transcarpathia (1989)
MAP 2. Ethnic geography of Hungarians in Transcarpathia (1989)
MAP 3. Hungarian communities in Transcarpathia (1989)
12
22
23
INTRODUCTION
The general public knows but little about the Hungarian community liv
ing in Transcarpathia, Ukraine. For instance, the overall minority survey of
the Minority Rights Group has a section about Ukraine in which there is on
ly a short reference to the fact that Hungarians live in Ukraine at all (cf.
Matveeva, Melvin & Pattle, 1997). Therefore we believe that it is worth re
viewing the situation of the Transcarpathian Hungarian community. There
were some English language surveys published about it before (e.g. Vardy,
1989; Magocsi, 1996), but these, because of their character, could not deal
with all those factors in detail which, in our opinion, are important in rela
tion to Transcarpathian Hungarians. Such a question is, for instance, the re
lation between the Ukrainian state language and Transcarpathian Hun
garians about which the international general public has been able to read
almost nothing as yet.1
The present volume therefore introduces the status of the Hungarian
community living in Transcarpathia. By the term ‘Transcarpathian Hun
garians’ we describe that indigeneous community of Transcarpathia which
is made up by people of Hungarian nationality and/or people whose mother
tongue is Hungarian. Transcarpathia is the Transcarpathian region of present-day Ukraine (in Ukrainian - Закарпатська область). Its territory is
12800 km2, and it borders on Poland and the Lviv region in the north, the
Ivano-Frankivsk region in the east, Romania in the south, Hungary in the
south-west and Slovakia in the west. It is embraced by the Carpathian
Mountains as a natural boundary in the east and the River Tisza winding
along the frontier in the south (Magocsi, 1996:25).
Source: Census 1989, e. g. Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi, 1998:95.
MAP 1. Ethnic map of Transcarpathia (1989)
r
<
BII 1D•
=
cd
cc 3
S
1. GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC
CONDITIONS
1.1. TRANSCARPATHIA AS AN INDEPENDENT GEOGRAPHICAL
AND POLITICAL ENTITY
We can speak about Transcarpathia as an independent geographical and
political entity since the 21 December, 1918, when the Ruska Kraina auto
nomous region was formed in the territories of Bereg, Máramaros, Ung and
Ugocsa Counties of Hungary, inhabited by Rusyns (cf. Magyar törvénytár.
1918. évi törvénycikkek, 396-398).
After World War I, on 10 September, 1919 the Saint-Germain Conven
tion declares Transcarpathia’s annexation to the Czecho-Slovakian Repub
lic under the name Podkarpatska Rus’. On 2 November, 1938, in accordance
with the first Vienna Award, the area of Transcarpathia inhabited by Hun
garians became part of Hungary again.
The Allies invalidated the territorial changes made between 1938 and
1940 under the auspices of Germany and Italy, and in 1944 the Soviet army
liberated Transcarpathia as part of the Czecho-Slovakian Republic. On 19
November, 1944 the Transcarpathian Ukrainian Communist Party was
founded in Mukachevo and its members passed a resolution about Trans
carpathian Ukraine’s reunion with the Soviet Ukraine.
On 29 June, 1945 the Soviet Union and Czecho-Slovakia signed the
treaty concerning the Soviet annexation of Transcarpathia. On 22 January,
1946 the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union rearranged
Transcarpathian Ukraine to be the Transcarpathian Region of the Ukrain
ian Soviet Socialist Republic (Закарпатская область). According to its ad
ministrative structure, it now consists of thirteen districts (район): Berehovo, Khust, Irshava, Mukachevo, Velyka Berezna, Vinohradiv, Mizhhirya,
Perechen’, Rakhiv, Svalyava, Tyachiv, Volovets and Uzhhorod Districts and
the regional centre - the city of Uzhhorod.
When Ukraine became independent in 1991, Transcarpathia remained
one of the administrative regions of Ukraine (Закарпатська область).
14
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
1.2. THE SIZE OF THE LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC GROUPS LIVING
IN TRANSCARPATHIA, AND THEIR PROPORTIO WITHIN THE
ENTIRE POPULATION FROM THE TURN OF THE CENTURY2
There are no exact and reliable retrospective data about the nationali
ties living in the territory of today’s Transcarpathia. Some of the reasons for
this are as follows:
♦ Transcarpathia as an independent geographical and political entity
was formed only in 1918, therefore statistical and demographic surveys con
cerning this region could not be made before.
♦ Transcarpathia’s population experienced several changes of govern
ment of various states between 1918 and 1991, and the census data of cer
tain states - because of their attitudes and methods - can only be compared
with reservations.
♦ Due to the change of various states within the region, the territory of
Transcarpathia was also altered, though in a small degree.
♦ Certain states manipulated the demographic data in their own inte
rests, therefore such data do not always show the real situation.
♦ In the former Soviet Union the statistical data concerning nationali
ties were kept secret.
Though it is very difficult to compare the different census data (because
of the different methods, questions etc.), Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show that the
TABLE 1.1
P o p u l a t io n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h ia a c c o r d in g t o m o t h e r t o n g u e
AND NATIONALITY RESPECTIVELY
Hungarians
Ruthenians *
Russians
Ukrainians
Germans
Rumanians
Slovaks **
Jews
Gypsies
Others
Total
(1880-1989)
(IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS)
1880
1910
1921
1930
1941
102219 184789 111052 116975 233111
239975 334755 372278 446478 500264
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30474
-
7849
-
20763
401280
63561
-
9591 12778
-
6344 19632
80117
-
-
13325
602774
-
19772
612442
-
34700
91845
-
31531
734315
1959
1970
146247 151949
-
-
1979
158446
1989
155711
-
-
29599 35189
41713
49458
686464 808131
898606 976749
13222
3504
4230
3746
3478
18346 23454
27155
29485
10294
6847 12289
8914
7329
12169
10857
3848
2639
4970
5902
5586
12131
97145
6585
7515
7745
8638
850589 920173 1056799 1155759 1245618
-
-
-
-
* Between 1880 and 1941 together with the Russians and Ukrainians, in Table 1.2, too.
** Between 1921-1930 and 1959-1979 together with the Czech, in Table 1.2, too.
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
TABLE 1.2
P o p u l a t io n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h ia a c c o r d in g t o m o t h e r
TONGUE AND NATIONALITY RESPECTIVELY
Hungarians
Ruthenians *
Russians
Ukrainians
Germans
Rumanians
Slovaks **
Jews
Gipsyes
Others
Total
15
1880
25.47
59.80
-
7.59
1.86
1.96
-
3.32
100
1910
30.66
55.54
-
10.54
1.90
1.05
-
0.31
100
1921
18.13
60.79
-
1.57
-
3.21
13.08
-
3.23
100
1930
15.93
60.80
-
1.74
-
4.73
12.51
-
4.29
100
(1880-1989)
1941
27.41
58.81
-
1.550
1.83
0.80
9.25
0.14
0.19
100
1959
15.9
-
3.2
74.7
0.4
2.0
1.4
1.3
0.5
0.6
100
(IN PERCENTAGE)
1970
14.4
-
3.3
76.5
0.4
2.2
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.7
100
1979
13.70
-
3.60
77.75
0.32
2.34
0.76
0.33
0.48
0.66
100
1989
12.50
-
3.97
78.41
0.27
2.36
0.58
0,21
0.98
0.69
100
1 8 8 0 and 1 9 1 0 : according to m other tongue. From 1921: according to nationa
lity. Census data before 1 9 5 9 concern the territory of today’s Transcarpathia, too.
The 1 8 8 0 , 1 9 1 0 , 1941 data based on th e Hungarian cen su s, the 1 9 2 1 , 1 9 3 0
data on th e Czecho-Slovakian cen su s, and the 1 9 5 9 , 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 8 9 data on the
Soviet census.
Calculations based on th e following sources: Kárpátalja településeinek nemzetisé
gi (anyanyelvi) adatai [1 8 8 0 -1 9 4 1 )\ Botlik & Dupka, 1 9 9 3 :2 8 6 ; Kocsis S. Kocsisné,
1 9 9 2 :3 4 -3 5 ; Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi, 1 9 9 8 ; С татистичний збірник. Населення
Закарпатської області за данними всесоюзного перепису населення 1989 року. Уж
город, 1 9 9 0 , 1-1 В.
The numbers in bold type show growth compared to the previous cen su s, the
numbers in italics show decrease.
censuses carried out after changes in national affiliation display great dif
ferences compared to the previous ones, thus the political changes greatly
influenced the region’s nationality composition.
In both 1880 and 1910 Hungarian statistics, mother tongue data are
given. Then the Jewish inhabitants were mainly considered to be people
whose mother tongue was either German or Hungarian.
According to the 1921 and 1930 census data, the ratio of Hungarians in
Transcarpathia decreased which can be explained by the migration of people
due to the change in the policy (on the one hand Hungarian civil servants
and brain-workers emigrated to Hungary, while on the other hand Czech
and Slovakian officials settled down in Transcarpathia). The Czecho-Slova
kian census examining nationalities states that the Jews and Gypsies whose
16
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
F i g u r e 1. C h a n g e s o f t h e r a t i o o f t h e H u n g a r i a n p o p u l a t i o n
(1880-1989)
mother tongue is mainly Hungarian make up separate nationalities. Be
sides, in this period several Slavic settlements were formed within the ho
mogeneous Hungarian settlement area near the Trianon frontier as a result
of the agrarian reform.
The 1941, again Hungarian, census produced another change in the na
tionality ratios.
The first Soviet census in Transcarpathia was carried out in 1959, in
which the nationality composition of the population was examined. The cen
sus data greatly disguised the real situation. The Soviet army occupying
Transcarpathia had carried off the Hungarian and German male population
between the ages of 18 and 50 for what was called ‘malenkij robot’ (‘little
forced labour’) to the inner territories of the Soviet Union pursuant to Dec
ree No 0036 of 13 November, 1944 (cf. Dupka, 1994:167). In accordance with
the above decree about 40,000-60,000 men were carried off.
It is not surprising that we do not have exact data about the number of
those carried off and those who perished because these events were kept
strictly secret (cf. Dupka, 1993:202, 1994:167). However, it is true that these
deportations influenced the results of later censuses because retorsions were
made on a nationality basis and a lot of Hungarians declared themselves to
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
17
be Slovakians, Ukrainians, etc. in order to escape from deportation (cf. Dupka, 1993:202, 1994:167).
The 1970 and 1979 censuses indicate growth in the number of Hun
garian population, but the 1989 census registers a decrease. The decline can
be explained by the emigration of Hungarians on the one hand, while on the
other hand it is due to the fact that the Gypsies, who declared themselves to
be Hungarians before, in 1989 admitted their own nationality (cf. Yemets &
Dyachenko, 1993:9; Myhovych, 1997:47). That is why the number of Gypsies
was doubled by 1989 compared to 1979 while the number of Hungarians
showed a relative decrease.
Besides the nationality indices we have at our disposal the data about
mother tongue (cf. Table 1.3).
From the indices containing mother tongue data one can see that moth
er tongue and nationality are not always identical in Transcarpathia. The
majority of those whose mother tongue is not identical to their nationality
consider the Hungarian language to be their mother tongue, hence the numTABLE 1.3 M o t h e r
t o n g u e c o m p o sit io n of
( b a se d o n t h e r e su l t s o f t h e
[cf. M atso S. Luts, 1 9 9 7 :2 2 5 )
p o p u l a t io n
Mother tongue
identical with
nationality
Number
T r a n sc a r p a t h ia ’s
1979
and
1989
c en su ses)
Mother tongue not identical with nationality.
Mother tongue:
Ukrainian
Russian
Hungarian
1979
1989
1979
1989
Ukrainians
898606
976749
887635
961489
Hungarians
158446
155711
155161
151384
2411
3200
Russians
41713
49458
40611
47378
985
1871
Rumanians
27155
29485
25990
28964
127
198
76
153
73
Slovaks
8914
7329
3466
2555
2309
2433
316
388
1890
Germans
3746
3478
3072
2576
438
641
176
212
36
Jews
3848
2639
1415
663
336
365
1545
1307
298
Gypsies
5586
12131
111
2491
843
1487
42
119
7973
1245618 1123127 1202031
8362
11338 11833 15132
15316
Total
1155759
1979
1989
-
1979
-
1989
6674
9333
805
991
-
-
1989
4605
-
172
18
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
ber and ratio of people whose mother tongue is Hungarian is higher than the
number of people of Hungarian nationality. According to the 1989 census
data based on the people’s own admission, the number of people in Transcarpathia whose mother tongue is Hungarian is 166,700, that is 13.3 % of
the entire population of the region, opposed to the 12.5 % of Hungarian na
tionality. The mother tongue and nationality are identical for 97.2 % of
Transcarpathian Hungarians. We can state the same fact about 98.4 % of
Ukrainians, 98.2 % of Rumanians and 95.7 % of Russians (cf. Table 1.5 A-B).
We have summarized the modification of nationality composition in the
territory of today’s Ukraine in Table 1.4.
It is worth observing the 1989 census data separately with respect to
Transcarpathia (Table 1.5 A-B) and Ukraine (Table 1.6 A-B).
Examining the Transcarpathian data one can see that the Hungarian
minority is the largest one in the region.
27.3 % of Ukraine’s population was not of Ukrainian nationality in
1989. If we take into account the mother tongue data, we can see that it was
only 64.6 % of Ukraine’s population (33,271,865 people) whose mother
tongue was Ukrainian.
TABLE 1.4 N a t io n a l it y
c o m p o sit io n o f
U k r a in e ’s p o p u l a t io n
( in 1 0 0 0 p e o p l e a n d % r e spe c t iv e l y )
1959
1930
1989
1979
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Ukrainians
31317
75.0
32158
76.8
36489
73.6
37419
72.7
Russians
3331
8.0
7091
16.9
10472
21.1
11355
22.1
Jews
2710
6.5
839
2.0
634
1.3
486
0.9
Belorussians
143
0.3
291
0.7
406
0.8
440
0.9
Moldovans
327
0.8
242
0.6
294
0.6
324
0.6
Hungarians
112
0.2
149
0.4
164
0.3
163
0.3
3846
9.2
1099
2.6
1150
2.3
1263
2.5
41776
100
41869
100
49609
100
51452
100
Others
Total
The 1 9 3 0 data are converted to th e present-day territory of Ukraine
Sources: Botlik & Dupka, 1 9 9 3 :2 8 3 ; Brunner, 19 9 5 :8 5 : Dupka, 1 9 9 4 :1 7 3 ;
Бюллетень С та ти сти ки 1 9 9 0 /1 0 :7 6 -7 9 .
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
T A B L E 1 .5 A
19
P o p u la t i o n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h ia in 1 9 8 9
(in a b s o l u t e n u m b e r s )
1
Ukrainians
Hungarians
Russians
Gypsies
Rumanians
Slovaks
Germans
Jews
Others
Total
2
976749
155711
49458
12131
29485
7329
3478
2639
8638
1245618
3
961489
151384
47378
2491
28964
2555
2576
663
4531
1202031
4
—
3200
1871
1487
198
2433
641
365
1143
11338
5
9333
991
—
119
153
388
212
1307
2629
15132
6
4.605
7
575627
— 65718
—
172
7973
3440
73
15056
1890
3781
36
1333
298
853
269
4239
15316 670046
8
—
17723
21813
1265
994
2081
1580
1079
1571
48106
9
392031
72178
26125
7412
11809
1457
560
669
1275
514516
1. nationality; 2. number of inhabitants; 3. m other tongue identical to nationa
lity; C4-6: not identical] 4. Ukrainian; 5. Russian; 6. Hungarian; 7. speaks Russian be
sides m other tongue; 8. speaks Ukrainian besides m other tongue; 9. does not speak
any other language.
TABLE 1.5B
1
Ukrainians
Hungarians
Russians
Gypsies
Rumanians
Slovaks
Germans
Jews
Others
Total
P o p u l a t io n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h ia in
2
78.41
12.50
3.97
0.98
2.36
0.58
0.27
0.21
0.69
100
3
98.4
97.2
95.7
20.5
98.2
34.8
74.0
25.1
52.4
96.5
4
58.9
42.2
—
28.3
51.0
51.5
38.3
32.3
49.0
53.7
1989 (%)
5
—
11.3
44.1
10.2
3.3
28.3
45.4
40.8
18.1
3.0
6
40.1
46.3
52.8
61.0
40.0
19.8
16.1
25.3
14.7
41.3
1. nationality; 2. ratio in percent; 3. m other tongue identical to nationality; 4.
speaks Russian besides m other tongue; 5. speaks Ukrainian besides m other tongue;
6. does not speak any other language.
Sources: С татистичний збірник. Населення Закарпатської області за данними
всесоюзного перепису населення 1989 року. Ужгород, 1 9 9 0 , 1 -1 6 . (cf. Botlik & Dupка, 1 9 9 3 :2 8 4 ).
20
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
TABLE 1.6A
U k r a i n e ’s p o p u l a t i o n i n
1989
a c c o r d in g t o n a t io n a l it y
AND MOTHER TONGUE (IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS)
3
2.5
no
CO CO
4S*
2
37419053
11355582
486326
440045
324525
233800
219179
163111
134825
675588
51452034
8.4
10.5
-1.9
-15.1
CD
CO
1
Ukrainians
Russians
Jews
Belorussians
Moldovans
Bulgarians
Poles
Hungarians
Rumanians
Others
Total
10.7
—
3.7
4
32825373
11172508
34635
156200
253024
162586
27500
156011
83966
330577
45202380
5
6
4578390
—
177534
10081
40761
19934
6293
146026
4233
13203
2 8427
446492
7
15290
5540
863
371
1138
1245
1233
263
32986
18468
77397
—
440747
242713
50429
63676
44420
2604
4607
298179
5725765
1. nationality; 2. number of inhabitants; 3. change compared to 1 9 7 9 t°/o3; 4.
mother tongue identical to nationality; [5-7. considers other language as mother
tongue] 5. considers Ukrainian a s m other tongue; 6. considers Russian as mother
tongue; 7. considers som e other language a s m other tongue.
TABLE 1.6B
U k r a i n e ’s p o p u l a t i o n i n
1989
a c c o r d in g t o n a t io n a l it y
AND MOTHER TONGUE (% )
1
Ukrainians
Russians
Jews
Belorussians
Moldovans
Bulgarians
Poles
Hungarians
Rumanians
Others
Total
2
72.7
22.1
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.3
100
3
87.8
98.4
7.1
35,4
78.0
69.5
12.5
95.6
62.3
48.9
87.9
4
—
1.5
2.1
9.3
6.1
2.7
66.6
2.6
9.8
4.2
0.9
5
12.1
—
90.6
55.2
15.5
27.2
20.3
1.6
3.4
44.1
11,1
1. nationality; 2. ratio in percent; 3. m other tongue identical with nationality;
[4-5: considers other languages as m other tongue) 4. considers Ukrainian as
m other tongue; 5. considers Russian as m other tongue.
Based on: Бюллетень С татистики, .1 9 9 0 /1 0 :7 6 -7 9 .
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
21
The ratio of Hungarians within Ukraine was 0.3 %. Nationally it was
98.4 % of the Russian population, 95.6 % of the Hungarian population and
87.8 % of the Ukrainian population whose mother tongue and nationality
was identical.
1.3. THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF THE HUNGARIAN
COMMUNITY LIVING IN TRANSCARPATHIA3
According to the 1989 census data (this is the latest census in the coun
try) out of the 163,111 Hungarians living in Ukraine 155,711 (95.4 %) (cf.
Dupka, 1994:171) live in Transcarpathia, the Hungarians are indigenous
only in this region. Though there are some smaller colonies for example in
L’viv or Dnipropetrovsk, one cannot prove that there are significant Hun
garian communities in Ukraine having more than 1,000 members outside
Transcarpathia (cf. Table 1.7).
TABLE
1.7
Nationality
Ukrainians
Hungarians
Russains
Gypsies
Rumanians
Germans
R a t i o o f T r a n s c a r p a t h i a ’s l a r g e r n a t i o n a l i t i e s
Total number in
Ukraine
37419053
163111
11355582
47917
134825
37849
(1989)
Number of people living in
Ratio of people living in
Transcarpathia
Transcarpathia compared to
total number living in the
country
976749
2.6 %
155711
95.4%
49458
0.4%
12131
25.3 %
29485
21.0%
3478
9.2%
MAP 2. Ethnic geography of Hungarians in Transcarpathia (1989)
Source: www.htmh.hu.
MAP 3. Hungarian communities in Transcarpathia (1989)
Source: Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi, 1998:97.
UNGVÁR
Persons
h JT *
^
(
CSAP
___ K&fcbrony
IN
agrdo6ron|i
- y
•
•
Beregrákos
MUNKÁCS
•
•
•
•
i; i ~
sr& S ,
100
200
'* IrtTrt/Al».* i H l i
15 000
1 000
2 000
5 000
KöfösínízC
24 000
10 000
o
S S f c r " - « IS'a tá r*
4 /
B E R E G S Z A S Z j ^ ^ B # . '. . ! *
9
•V a X /
*
-
Feketeerdő
7hc 5 r « i ’^ .
80^
< FartÖsalmás* « r e^i,
Fi
© K. KOCSIS
J
. Limit of the area with
Hungarian majority (1989)
n a g y s z ő lő s
^
Nafvpalád «
• State border
Gyertyánliget
•Kerekhegy
» ^Buslyaháa
L
•Tiszabogdány
# Tto«
*v.
^^jtNagytocské
Terebesfqérpatak
_____
ü
M
N
~ '
C*
24
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
1.4. THE STRUCTURE OF SETTLEMENT OF TRAN SCAR PATHIAN
HUNGARIANS, THE DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC AND ETHNIC VARIETI
WITHIN THE REGIONS INHABITED BY THEM, CHARACTERISTIC
SETTLEMENT TYPES
Transcarpathia is linguistically and ethnically heterogeneous.
The Hungarians living in Transcarpathia formed a relatively homoge
neous block till the end of the 20th century, and the contiguous settlement
area has not been completely broken yet. Before the 20th century, due to the
different way of life of the Hungarian and Slavic ethnic groups, Hungarian
and Slavic settlement areas overlapped only in a narrow strip. The contigu
ous structure of settlement of the Hungarians living in the southern flat
lands of the region began to be diluted in a significant way by means of the
settling of the Slavic population.
Though the Hungarian settlement area is a relatively exactly definable
unit even today, we can find a number of settlements with mixed population
in Transcarpathia, not only among the towns, but the villages, too. Howev
er, segregation is characteristic of nationalities living together. This is
shown by the investigations of a Soviet ethnographer, according to whom
„certain nationalities form a compact group within villages of mixed popu
lation, too: some quarters or streets are inhabited by Hungarians, others by Ukrainians. (...) Such distribution of the settlement is characteristic of
villages of town type and even towns themselves” (Grozdova, 1971:458).
There are ten settlements of town status in present-day Transcarpathia:
Uzhhorod, Mukachevo, Khust, Berehovo, Vinohradiv, Svalyava, Rakhiv,
Tyachiv, Irshava, Chop. In these ten towns the ratio of the Hungarian popu
lation was the highest at the turn of the century (cf. Table 1.8).
TABLE 1.8 T h e
c o m p o sit io n b y n a t io n a l it y o f
Town
Year
Ungvar
(Uzhhorod)
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
Munkacs
(Mukachevo)
Total Number of
inhabitans
16919
26675
35251
116101
17275
26102
31602
83308
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s t o w n s
Hungarians
Hungarians in %
13590
4499
27397
9179
12686
5561
20211
6713
80.3
16.9
77.7
7.9
73.4
21.3
63.9
8.0
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
Nagyszőlős
(Vinohradiv]
Técső
(Tyachiv)
Rahó
(Rakhiv)
llosva
(Irshava)
Szolyva
(Svalyava)
Huszt
(Khust)
Csap
(Chop)
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
1910
1930
1941
1989
12933
19007
19373
29221
7811
11054
13331
25046
5910
7417
10731
10297
6577
8893
12455
15490
1919
3065
3863
9541
3802
5807
8400
17764
10292
17833
21118
30716
2318
3572
3498
9307
12432
9190
17917
15125
5943
2630
7372
3171
4482
2335
5789
2640
1177
1015
3884
1282
947
99
311
107
735
393
3039
322
3505
1383
5191
1759
ГО
ГО
CO
Beregszász
(Berehovo)
2082
3416
3679
25
96.1
48.3
92.5
51.7
76.1
23.8
55.3
12.6
75.8
31.5
53.9
25.7
17.9
11.4
31.2
8.3
49.3
3.2
8.1
1.1
19.3
6.8
36.2
1.8
34.1
7.8
24.6
5.7
99.0
58.3
97.7
39.5
Sources: Kárpátalja településeinek nemzetiségi [anyanyelvi] adatai (1 8 8 0 -1 9 4 1 ].
Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1 9 9 6 .; С татистичний збірник. Населення
Закарпатської області за банними всесоюзного перепису населення 1989 року.
Ужгород, 1990.
The change of the ratio of the Hungarian population in the towns of
Transcarpathia is summarised in Table 1.9.
26
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
TABLE 1.9 T h e
of tow n rank of
H u n g a r ia n p o p u l a t io n in t o d a y ’s s e t t l e m e n t s
T r a n sc a r pa th ia (1910-1989)
ratio o f
Total townspeople
85756
129425
159922
346791
1910
1930
1941
1989
FIGURE 2. H u n g a r ia n
rank of
Hungarians
57791
29187
94527
43980
%
67.3
22.5
59.1
12.6
p o p u l a t io n in t o d a y ’s s e t t l e m e n t s of t o w n
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia in p e r c e n t a g e
(1910-1989)
80 -r
70 -•
6 0 -50 -•
40
30 -•
20
- •
10
- •
0
1910
1
1930
1941
1989
According to the census of 1989, Transcarpathia had 1,245,618 inhabi
tants among whom 346,791 people (27.8 %) lived in towns and 898,827
(72.2 %) lived in villages.
TABLE 1.10 T h e c o m p o sit io n
t o w n s p e o p l e (1989)
by n a t io n a l it y o f
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
27
TABLE 1.11 T h e c o m p o sit io n by n a t io n a l it y o f T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s
VILLAGE POPULATION (1989)
Number
111731
732640
10714
43742
898827
Hungarians
Ukraininans
Russians
Others
Total
FIGURE 3. T h e c o m p o sit io n
(1989)
%
12.4
81.6
1.0
5.0
100
by n a t io n a l it y o f
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s
to w nspeo ple
Others
FIGURE 4. T h e
Hungarians
c o m p o sit io n by n a t io n a l it y o f
VILLAGE POPULATION
(1989)
Others
Ukrainians
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s
28
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
According to the nationality composition of Transcarpathia’s village
population the ratio of Hungarians in villages is approximately the same as
the ratio in comparison to the total population of the region, but that of the
Ukrainians is higher, and the ratio of the Russians is considerably lower.
If we examine the ratio of town and village inhabitants within certain na
tionalities we will see that the characteristic settlement type of the Transcarpathian Hungarians is the village, the case is the same with the Ukrainians,
but the majority of the Russians live in towns (Table 1.12, Figure 5.).
TABLE 1.12
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h i a ’s n a t i o n a l i t i e s a c c o r d i n g
TO SETTLEMENT TYPE
(1989)
Hungarians
In villages
111731
%
71.7
In towns
43980
%
28.2
U krainians
Russians
Others
Total
732640
10714
43742
898827
75.0
21.6
68.6
72.2
244109
38744
19958
346791
25.0
78.4
31.4
27.8
FIGURE 5.
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h i a ’s n a t i o n a l i t i e s a c c o r d i n g
to se t t l e m e n t t y pe in pe r c e n t a g e
Hungarians
Ukrainians
Russians
Others
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
29
The Soviet censuses’ data broken down according to settlements are in
accessible even in 1998, therefore we can only examine (by the indices of the
1989 census) how the Transcarpathian Hungarians are distributed between
certain districts (cf. Table 1.13 and Figure 6.).
TABLE 1.13
t o d is t r ic t s
Districts
Uzhhorod
Mukachevo
Berehovo
Vinohradiv
The other 9
districts
Transcarpathia
total
D is t r ib u t io n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h ia n H u n g a r ia n s a c c o r d in g
(1989)
Total number of
inhabitants
189407
188134
85115
112611
670351
Out of total
Hungarians
34720
19610
56971
27896
16514
Ratio of Hungarians
within districts (%]
18.3
10.4
67.0
24.7
2.4
% within total o'
Hungarians
22
13
37
17
11
1245618
155711
12.5
100
FIGURE 6.
D is t r ib u t io n o f T r a n s c a r p a t h ia n H u n g a r ia n s a c c o r d in g
to d is t r ic t s
(1989)
The other 9 district
Uzhhorod district
Vinohradiv district
Mukachevo district
Berehoto district
According to the table, 89 % of Transcarpathian Hungarians live in four
districts (the Uzhhorod, Mukachevo, Berehovo and Vinohradiv Districts).
These four adjacent districts are situated next to the Ukrainian-Hungarian
border. 85.3 % of Hungarians living in Ukraine can be found in these four
30
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
districts. The only district of the region where the Hungarians live in ma
jority is the Berehovo District. In the Vinohradiv District every fourth per
son is Hungarian, in the Uzhhorod District every fifth is of Hungarian na
tionality. The total population of the four districts mentioned above is
575,267 people, out of this number 139,197 (24.2 %) are Hungarian.
The total number of inhabitants of the Uzhhorod, Mukachevo, Bereho
vo and Vinohradiv Districts without the towns of county rank (Uzhhorod
and Mukachevo) is 375,858 people, out of them 123,305 (32.8 %) people are
Hungarian. About one third of the total population of the four districts of
Transcarpathia (without the two biggest cities) is Hungarian. These 123,305
Hungarians make up 75.6 % of the Hungarians living in Ukraine, and
79.2 % of the Hungarians living in Transcarpathia. Thus, three quarters of
the Hungarians living in Ukraine and almost four fifths of Transcarpathian
Hungarians live in one block, in a contiguous settlement area.
Those registered as Hungarians live in settlements with 1,000-2,000 in
habitants (24 %) and 2,000-5,000 (23 %). Only one quarter of Hungarians
live in settlements with more than 10 thousand inhabitants and 5.6 % in
towns over 100 thousand. In 1989 71.8 % of Hungarians lived in settlements
where they formed an absolute majority. To maintain their ethnic awareness
this may be positive: 46.8 % of them live in settlements where they consti
tute over 75 % of the population and only 16.1 %of them live in places where
the Hungarian population makes up less than 25 % (cf. Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi, 1998:95).
1.5. MIGRATION WITHIN THE REGION
In Table 1.14 we can see that the number of people emigrating from Trans
carpathia has increased by 1989 compared to 1979, and this number is grad
ually growing. The table shows that the period till 1979 was characterized by
immigration, but beginning with 1989 the ratio of emigrants is much higher.
Since 1989 (i.e. the year when the borders became traversable) the
Transcarpathians do not only go to the eastern regions beyond the Carpa
thians, but (mainly the Hungarians) go to Hungary to get illegal seasonal
employment. The increase in the number of people wishing to get employ
ment in Hungary is mainly caused by the fact that it is difficult for the peo
ple of Transcarpathia to travel to work to the former Soviet republics be
cause the borders between the succession states after the collapse of the So
viet Union make it problematic. Unemployment appears as a result of the
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
31
Ukrainian economic breakdown which forces part of the Transcarpathian
population to get seasonal employment in Hungary which has been neces
sary for more people since 1989 than before (cf. Table 1.14).
TABLE 1.14
M ig r a t io n i n T r a n s c a r p a t h ia (i n p e r c e n t , r e l a t e d t o t h e
Emigrated
Came for seasonal
work
Went for seasonal
work
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
1979
1.2
0.2
1.4
1989
3.2
1.6
0.2
0.1
cn
cn
1990
1991
CD
CO
CO
0
1.4
1946
CD
3.1
1959
cn
ro
0
CO
3.6
1944
cd
1920
1939
CO
Immigrated
CO
Year
1920-1991)
cn
TOTAL NUMBER o f INHABITANTS
1.4
7.7
5.5
1.3
10,3
Source: Szabó, 1 9 9 3 :6 4 .
Earlier the number of the region’s population was gradually increasing
because of the immigrants, but today Transcarpathia’s migration loss goes
beyond the total number of settlers and the natural growth of population. In
1995 the number of those who left Transcarpathia never to return exceeded
the number of settlers in the region by 2,500 people (Myhovych, 1997:50). In
1996 there were 11,444 emigrants and 9,610 people settled down in the re
gion so the migration loss was 1,834 people (cf. Kárpátaljai Szemle,
1997/1:13). In the first half of 1997 the number of inhabitants of Tran
scarpathia decreased by 858 people (Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 13 August 1997:3).
49.3
% of those who leave Transcarpathia never to return are Ukrainian,
26.1 % of them are Russian, 13.8 % Hungarian, 6.5 % German, and 2.8 %
Jewish (Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 6 June 1996:4). 85.6 % of the Russian emigrants
and 85.4 % of the Hungarian emigrants settle down in Russia and Hungary
respectively, 79.9 % of the Jewish emigrants go to live in Israel or the USA
(Maryna, 1997:114).
There are people who consider that the emigration of Transcarpathian
Hungarians is so numerous that it is a real danger for the community’s sur
vival (e.g. Dupka, Horváth & Móricz, 1990:12; Balia, 1993:81).
2. POLITICS
2.1. LEGAL STATUS
In Ukraine at the moment the legal status of the minorities are defined
by the following documents having legal effect4: The Constitution of Ukraine
(1996), Ukraine’s Declaration of Nationality Rights5 (1991), The Law of
Ukraine about National Minorities6 (1992), and a great number of decrees.
The statements concerning only the Hungarian community can be found in
various inter-state treaties between Ukraine and Hungary (e.g. Treaty be
tween the Hungarian Republic and Ukraine about the basis of good neigh
bourhood and cooperation, 19917, Declaration of the principles of cooperation
between the Republic of Hungary and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub
lic in guaranteeing the rights of national minorities8, 1991) and in the sug
gestions of the Ukrainian-Hungarian Inter-state Joint Commission.
Articles 11, 24 and 92 of the Ukrainian Constitution touch upon the
question of legal status of national minorities. Article 11 proclaims that the
state guarantees „ethnic, cultural, language and religious development of
Ukraine’s indigeneous peoples and national minorities” (The Constitution
of Ukraine, p. 6). Article 24 prohibits race, ethnic, nationality, language etc.
discrimination. According to the wording of the text, the idea of positive dis
crimination cannot be implied, either. „There shall be no privileges or re
strictions based on race, colour of skin, political, religious and other beliefs,
sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or
other characteristics” (ibid., p. 12). Article 92 proclaims that the human and
citizens’ rights and freedoms of indigeneous peoples and national minorities
are defined exclusively by the laws of Ukraine.
Article 1 of Ukraine’s Declaration of Nationality Rights guarantees
equal rights for the nationalities and forbids discrimination based on na
tionality. Article 2 says that the state takes on itself the creation of circum
stances necessary for development of language and culture of national mi
norities. Article 4 permits the use of national symbols.
The Nationality Law of Ukraine declares that human rights and nationality
rights are inseperable notions. Article 1 of the Law admits citizens to be
equal irrespechive of their nationality, and status that the rights of people
34
POLITICS
belonging to national minorities are part of generally accepted human rights.
Article 3 says: „Those citizens of Ukraine who are not of Ukrainian na
tionality and declare theii national identity, belong to national minorities”.
Article 11 makes it possible for the citizens to freely choose their nationality
or its re-establishment. The Law forbids discrimination on a nationality ba
sis (Article 18), provides the right of nominating candidates for Parliament
and for national organizations (Article 14), and states that separate sums of
money are allocated in the state budget for developing the national minorities.
In the Ukrainian-Hungarian Inter-state Basic Treaty signed in 1991
there is only one paragraph (Paragraph 17) that deals directly with the mi
norities. The contracting parties without reference to specific documents
proclaim the necessity of the defence of ethnic, linguistic and religious
identity of the national minorities. The text contains a reference to a docu
ment signed by the two states before, under the title Declaration of the
principles of cooperation between the Republic of Hungary and the Uk
rainian Soviet Socialist Republic in guaranteeing of the rights of national
minorities. Four items of the treaty deal indirectly with the minorities.
They are about frontier cooperation, the widening of contacts between
frontier citizens and organizations, and cultural cooperation (cf. Kárpátal
jai Szemle, 1995/8-9:24-25).
The introductory part of the basic treaty admits that national minorities
live in Ukraine and Hungary, admits their rights on a personal and also on
a community level, and considers nationality rights to be part of human
rights. The document names the national minorities as a state-forming ele
ment (Paragraph 1). It has respect for admitting and choice of nationality
(Paragraph 2). The signing parties take responsibility on themselves for cre
ating such a status for national minorities which provides the right to par
ticipate effectively in public affairs (Paragraph 5). The parties promise not
to strive for the assimilation of national minorities, they create conditions
for saving the identity of the minorities and admit that the nationality or
ganizations express the opinion of the national communities.
In sum, the above mentioned documents admit the existence of nation
al minorities living in Ukraine, they see the minority rights as part of hu
man rights, they consider nationalities to be a state-forming element, they
forbid discrimination based on nationality, and one document (the Declara
tion signed by Hungary and Ukraine) mentions not only the individual, but
the collective nationality rights, too.
Besides the above mentioned documents (applicable since 1991) there is
a valid resolution (Resolution № 52 of 26 November 1944, adopted at the
POLITICS
35
first congress of People’s Committees of Transcarpathian Ukraine) which
declares the collective guilt of the Hungarians, saying that the Hungarians
and Germans are eternal enemies of the Ukrainian nation. This resolution
was the ideological base for deportation of the Hungarian male population
aged 18-50 in November and December of 1944. A group of Transcarpathian
Hungarian intellectuals addressed a petition to the Soviet government in
1971 and 1972 in which they asked for the abrogation of the document men
tioned above (cf. Petition I and II9), but the editors of the petitions were
called to account, and the resolution is in force even today. The Transcar
pathian Hungarian Cultural Association (THCA) asked for the resolution’s
abrogation several times, but the authorities did not take any steps con
cerning this matter. Thus, in spite of the above mentioned documents, in
Ukraine Hungarians are still theoretically the enemy of the Ukrainian na
tion, and a collectively guilty people.
2.2. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION [PARTIES, MOVEMENTS)
Political self-organization of Transcarpathian Hungarians had been im
possible for a long time. It was only in 1989 that the first nationality orga
nization of Transcarpathian Hungarians was formed - the Transcarpathian
Hungarian Cultural Association (THCA) (see A KMKSZ történetéből and Tíz
év a kárpátaljai magyarság szolgálatában).
The THCA started off as a cultural organization, but it has played a po
litical and interest-safeguarding role from the very beginning. It became a
significant political factor in Transcarpathia’s life shortly after its founda
tion. Today it is the largest nationality organization of the region. According
to its register, the association has 143 local groups and about 25,000 mem
bers.
On 5 August 1994 the committee of the Berehovo District of the THCA
decided to cut free from the THCA and founded an independent organiza
tion - the Hungarian Cultural Association of Bereg Lands (HCABL). Their
founders’ meeting was held on 5 November 1994 with the participation of
117 delegates from 35 local groups (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 24 January 1995:4).
The HCABL has 2,300 members and 38 local groups (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó,
24 January 1995:4).
Shortly after the separation of HCABL, the Uzhhorod, Svalyava and
Tyachiv local groups founded independent organizations, too - the Asso
ciation of Hungarians of the Ung Lands (AHUL), the Cultural Association
36
POLITICS
of Hungarians of Svalyava (CAHS) and the Cultural Association of Hun
garians of Tyachiv (CAHT).
On 6 August 1994 the organizations that had separated from the THCA
founded the Forum of Transcarpathian Hungarian Organizations consisting
of the HCABL, AHUL, CAHS, CAHT and the Transcarpathian Community
of Hungarian Intellectuals, the latter being founded on 30 April 1993 and
defining itself as an intellectual association (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 25 Janu
ary 1996:4).
In order to represent Transcarpathian Hungarians on a nation-wide
level the THCA, together with the Associations of Hungarians of L’viv and
Kyiv, founded the Democratic Association of Hungarians Living in Ukraine
(DAHLU). But soon after its formation conflicting interests emerged within
the DAHLU because of the difference of aims - the objectives of Transcar
pathian Hungarians living in a block are those of having schools with Hun
garian as a language of instruction, political safeguarding of interests, etc.,
whereas the aims of Hungarians who live scattered in Ukrainian cities are
those of having Sunday schools and mother tongue clubs. The THCA sus
pended its membership within the DAHLU, which exists only theoretically
as it has not been able to achieve practical results either in the political, or
in the cultural sphere so far.
Each organization has its place on the multi-coloured Transcarpathian
Hungarian political palette. The Transcarpathian Hungarian Cultural As
sociation (THCA) is politically the most significant organization of Trans
carpathian Hungarians which expresses its opinion about all questions con
cerning this minority. The THCA is the only interest-safeguarding organi
zation in Ukraine which plays an active political role and does not only fol
low the events but takes an active part in influencig them.
The other regional association - the Forum of Transcarpathian Hun
garian Organizations - exists only by its membership organizations, and it
is only one of them, the Transcarpathian Community of Hungarian Intel
lectuals (TCHI), which expresses its opinion publicly about questions re
garding the whole of Transcarpathian Hungarians. The TCHI takes an ac
tive part in the formation of economic life, too.
The Hungarian Cultural Association of Bereg Lands (HCABL) is a re
gional association which attaches importance to culture instead of politics,
and it takes part in the life of Berehovo and Berehovo District mainly by or
ganizing cultural programs, promoting national traditions, inauguration of
memorial tablets of famous people of Transcarpathia and Hungary who
have visited the town.
POLITICS
37
The political importance of the CAHT and CAHS can be felt practically
only within Tyachiv and Svalyava, and the significance of their cultural ac
tivity can also be observed only within their own towns.
The professional interest-safeguarding organization of the Transcarpathian Hungarian teachers is the Transcarpathian Association of Hun
garian Pedagogues (TAHP).
2.3. REPRESENTATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
During the Soviet era the ratio of Hungarians was minimal in leading
posts and legislative bodies, whereas the Russian ethnic group was repre
sented in excess of its numerical ratio (cf. Granchak, 1997:88).
The situation changed after the 1994 municipal elections. In 1994
among the 59 members of the regional council there were 9 Hungarians, i.e.
15 % of the council’s body of representatives (Granchak, 1997:93). The first
vice-president of the regional council was of Hungarian nationality. The fact
that the nomination of 5 Hungarian representatives in the regional council
was supported by the THCA, characterizes the role of political federation of
Transcarpathian Hungarians in the forming of the community’s life and
destiny (Kárpátaljai Szemle, 1996/2:5).
In the board of district councils the representation of Hungarians was
14 %between 1994 and 1998 (among the 347 district council representatives
there were 49 of Hungarian nationality) (cf. Granchak, 1997:93).
A total of 4,304 representatives took part in the work of town and vil
lage councils of Transcarpathia, 611 of them (14 %) were of Hungarian na
tionality (Granchak, 1997:93). The ratio of Hungarian representatives in
the local councils was the highest in Berehovo District, where there were
380 mandates, and 298 of them were possessed by representatives of Hun
garian nationality (Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 1 November 1994, p. 4).
In the cycle between 1994 and 1998 Transcarpathian Hungarians had
one representative in the Supreme Council of Ukraine (the Verhovna Rada),
and in the current period they again have a member of Parliament - Miklós
Kovács, president of THCA.
After the parliamentary and municipal elections on 29 March 1998,
eight nationalities are represented in the councils of different level of Trans
carpathia. A total of 6,902 representatives hare got mandates. There are
5,753 (83.3 %) representatives of Ukrainian nationality, and 918 (13.3 %)
Hungarians. Compared to the former cycle, the number of Hungarian rep
38
POLITICS
resentatives grew from 672 to 918, that of the Russians - from 21 to 42, that
of the Rumanians - from 82 to 126. The number of Hungarian representa
tives in the districts as follows: Berehovo - 450, Vinohradiv - 178, Mukachevo - 72, Rakhiv - 6, Svalyava - 1, Tyachiv - 16, Uzhhorod - 178, Khust - 8,
City of Uzhhorod - 3; among the 73 representatives of the regional council
there are 64 Ukrainians, 6 (8.2 %) Hungarians, 2 Russians and 1 Jew (Kár
páti Igaz Szó, 27 August 1998, p. 4).
3. RELIGION
The majority of Ukraine’s population is Christian. Most of the Christian
people living in Ukraine belong to the Orthodox Church.
The Hungarian population of Transcarpathia is also Christian, mainly
members of the Calvinist Church.
As 70-75 % of Transcarpathian Hungarians are reformed (Calvinist),
actually the Calvinist Church plays the role of the national church. This is
illustrated by the popular saying according to which „In Transcarpathia not
all of the Hungarians are Calvinist, but all the Calvinist people are Hungar
ian” (Józan & Gulácsy, 1992:157).
The Transcarpathian Reformed Church consists of three dioceses. In
the Ung (Uzhhorod) diocese there are 22 congregations in which 22,000 be
lievers live. In the Ugocsa (Vinohradiv) diocese there are 29 congregations
with 10 ministers and 22,500 believers. In the Bereg (Berehovo) diocese
there are 46 congregations with 14 ministers, among them three coming
from Hungary (A Kárpátaljai Református Egyház - 1996. Beregszász, 1996,
manuscript). The bishop of the Transcarpathian Reformed Church is Lász
ló Horkai.
The Reformed Church is running three church secondary schools in
Transcarpathia. Besides the Reformed Church, the Roman Catholic and the
Greek Catholic Churches play an important role in the life of Transcar
pathian Hungarians.
The number of the Roman Catholic believers in Transcarpathia is con
sidered to be about 65,000. The great majority of these believers is Hunga
rian (85 %), 8 % of them is Slovakian and 7 % is German (Botlik & Dupka,
1991:119; Csáti & Dióssi, 1992:179). In January, 1996 Bishop Jenő Antal
Majnek from Hungary was appointed to be head of the Transcarpathian Ro
man Catholic Church, which was a major step in ecclesiastical policy, be
cause by this a new Roman Catholic episcopacy was formed on the territory
of the Orthodox Ukraine.
In 1996 the Greek Catholic Church in Transcarpathia had about 30,000
Hungarian members (Lajos, 1996:15), its bishop is László Szemedi.
The lack of pastors is a serius problem for all denominations. Over the
past few years, however, a limited number of youts from Transcarpathia
have been allowed to study at institutions of religious higher education in
40
RELIGION
Hungary. The Roman Catholic Church in Hungary are trying to ease the
situation by sending over monk priests (e. g. Report on the situation of Hun
garians in the Ukraine).
It has been possible for the Transcarpathian youth to study theology in
Hungary since 1988 (Botlik & Dupka, 1991:118; 1993:48). In the 1995-1996
academic year 45 Transcarpathian Hungarian young people were the stu
dents of Hungary’s theological higher educational establishments (Kárpát
aljai Szemle, 1996/1:14).
4. CULTURE
4.1, INSTITUTIONS OF MINORITY CULTURE«
4 . 1 . 1 . B d O K PUBLISHING
Transcarpathia’s schools with instruction in Hungarian were supplied
with textbooks by the local Hungarian editorial office (founded in June,
1946) of the Ukrainian publisher of textbooks ‘Radyanska Shkola’. The text
books in Hungarian language and literature were written by the editorial
staff of the Publishers while the manuals in other subjects were translated
into Hungarian from Russian or Ukrainian by the translation section that
was attached to the Hungarian staff (Botlik & Dupka, 1991:91).
The Transcarpathian Publishing House and Radyanska Shkola are both
in financial difficulties today. They do not publish textbooks in Hungarian
independently, rather in 1995, Radyanska Shkola published several Hun
garian textbooks with ‘Svit’ (L’viv, Ukraine) and National Publishing House
(‘Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó’, Budapest, Hungary). School-books from Hun
gary have been arriving to Transcarpathia since the end of the 1980s, thus
the importance of the local Hungarian editorial staff of Radyanska Shkola
has decreased.
Besides Radyanska Shkola, Hungarian books were published by the
Transcarpathian Publishing House, but because of financial problems now
it cannot publish Hungarian books either.
The monopoly of the two state publishers was broken by the private
publishers gradually appearing since 1992. ‘Galéria Kiadó’ (Gallery Pub
lishers) was the first to appear on the market. It issued thirty volumes
(mainly fiction) between 1992 and 1995. It closed down on 1 January, 1996.
It was also in 1992 that the most significant Transcarpathian Hungari
an private publishing house, ‘Intermix Kiadó’ (Intermix Publishers) was
founded, which has published more than 150 belletristic and scientific books
so far. The most attractive and perhaps the best quality books are by ‘Ha
todik Síp’ (Sixth Fife) in coproduction with ‘Új Mandátum Kiadó’ (New
Mandate Publishers).
Some other smaller publishers issue one or two Hungarian books a year.
42
CULTURE
It can be said about each of the publishers that (practically) they are fi
nanced by support coming from Hungary. Only governmental publishers are
state-supported, but this is too little for regular book publishing, and these,
too, bring out most of their Hungarian volumes by getting support from
Hungary. Transcarpathian Hungarian book publishing is virtually sustained
by the Ministry of Culture and Education of Hungary that annually con
ducts a competition for Hungarian book publishing for Hungarians living
beyond the Hungarian frontier. Between 1992 and 1996, 143 books were is
sued with the financial support of the Major Department of Hungarians be
yond the Frontier within the Ministry of Culture and Education of Hungary
(cf. A Művelődési és Közoktatási Minisztérium Határon Túli Magyarok
Főosztályának támogatásával kiadott könyvek kárpátaljai jegyzéke. Ungvár,
1997). Books published in Hungary have not been placed on the market
since 1991, thus the importance of locally published books has increased.
4 .1 .2 .
T heatres
The Beregszász (Berehovo) People’s Theatre was organized in 1952,
working with two groups of actors: a Hungarian company with 50 members
and a Ukrainian one with 30 members. The Hungarian section has per
formed almost 50 plays since the establishment of the theatre.
The first steps towards organizing a permanent Hungarian professional
theatre were taken in 1989. Then in 1993 the Hungarian National Theatre
named after Gyula Illyés was founded in Beregszász (Berehovo).
4 .1 .3 .
H u n g a r ia n s c ie n t if ic lif e
The Uzhhorod State University’s Hungarian Philology Department es
tablished in 1963 was the only workshop of Transcarpathian Hungarian
scholarly life for many decades. Its research fields are: linguistics, theory of
literature, folk-lore. However, for various reasons, it has not become a real
centre of scientific research (cf. Soós, 1993:637).
The Soviet Hungarological Centre was founded in 1989 within Uzh
horod University, with significant financial support from the Ministry of
Culture and Education of Hungary. Nowadays it is known as the Hungaro
logical Institute of Uzhhorod. The Transcarpathian Hungarian Scientific
Society (THSS) was formed in 1994 within the Hungarological Institute.
Both have their journals. ‘Acta Hungarica’ is the journal of the Hungaro
logical Institute, while ‘Proceedings of the Transcarpathian Hungarian
43
CULTURE
Scientific Society’ (‘A KMTT Közleményei’) is that of the THSS. Both jour
nals are only partly Hungarian. Most of the articles issued in ‘Acta Hungarica’ are written in Russian or Ukrainian.
The THSS has several natural scientists among its members.
Transcarpathian Hungarian amateur local historians and ethnographers
have established the Transcarpathian Hungarian Ethnographical Society.
4. 1. 4.
L ib r a r ie s
The Uzhhorod State University Library has the largest Hungarian book
stock in the country. Out of more than one million volumes the number of
Hungarian books is about 100,000 (Botlik & Dupka, 1991:115).
Transcarpathia’s biggest public library is the Regional Library with its
Foreign Language Department and 90 % of the books in this department is
Hungarian. The Beregszász (Berehovo) and Nagyszőlős (Vinohradiv) Dis
trict Libraries also have a large number of Hungarian books and so does the
Transcarpathian Hungarian Regional Archives can be found in Beregszász.
4. 1. 5.
C e n t r a l n a t io n a l it y in s t it u t io n s
The nationality question has ceased to be considered a taboo since
Ukraine became independent. This is proved by the fact, for instance, that
in 1991 an all-country fund was started for the national minorities living in
Ukraine. But President Leonid Kuchma cancelled the fund in 1996.
The Ministry of Nationalities, Migration and Religion was established in
1992 which included in its remit the task of dealing with the affairs and
problems of the nationalities living in the country. In 1996 the Ministry was
reduced into a major department by President Kuchma.
There is a parliamentary committee within the Ukrainian Parliament
dealing with nationality issues.
In 1992 the Nationality Department was formed within the Transcar
pathian Regional Council. It has had three presidents so far, but only one of
them was Hungarian, though Transcarpathia’s largest minority is the Hun
garian one.
The Ukrainian-Hungarian Inter-state Joint Commission having the
right of proposal is in session twice a year, its task being to promote the in
terests of Hungarians in Ukraine and Ukrainians living in Hungary. The
leaders and representatives of the organizations safeguarding minority inter
ests are also invited to the sessions of the above mentioned joint commission.
44
CULTURE
4.2. EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
Transcarpathian Hungarian education has been incomplete for decades
(cf. Orosz, 1992:52). The situation has substantially improved recently;
nevertheless, not all the missing stages have been filled up.
4.2.1.
N ursery scho ols
There were no nursery schools with Hungarian as a language of in
struction until 1988.
In the 1991/1992 school year 50,819 children attended 657 nursery
schools in Transcarpathia. 3,489 children received training in Hungarian in
68 nursery schools. Thus 6.8 % of Transcarpathian nursery school children
attended Hungarian nursery school groups (cf. Orosz, 1995:33). This ratio is
lower than that of the Hungarian population within Transcarpathia.
The district distribution of Hungarian nursery groups in the 1994/1995
school year can be seen in Table 4.1.
In the 1996/1997 school year 9.6 % of Transcarpathian nursery school
children attended Hungarian groups (Table 4.2).
4.2.2.
S ch o o ls
It was in the 1944/1945 school year that Hungarian education started in
Transcarpathia.
The school system of the Hungarians can be considered as well-developed as compared to other nationalities of Ukraine except for the Ukrainian,
Russian and Moldavian systems of education because the Hungarians have
primary, comprehensive and secondary schools (cf. Table 4.3).
The first secondary schools with Hungarian as the language of instruc
tion were started in the 1953/1954 school year.
The number of Hungarian schools was unchanged for years. The slow
development began only at the end of the 1980s.
The ratio of Hungarian schools in the Transcarpathian school system is
about the same as that of the Hungarian population within the region.
The distribution of pupils according to the language of instruction
shows, however, that fewer Hungarian children attended schools with Hun
garian as the language of teaching than the ratio of the Hungarian popula
tion is within Transcarpathia (cf. Table 4.6).
45
CULTURE
TABLE 4.1
T r a n s c a r p a t h i a ’s H u n g a r i a n n u r s e r y s c h o o l s p e r d i s t r i c t
a n d d is t r ib u t io n o f l a n g u a g e o f in s t r u c t io n
(1994/1995
sc h o o l y e a r )
[Bagu, 1 9 9 5 :1 9 )
D istrict
Berehovo
Vinohradiv
Mukachevo
Uzhhorod
Upper-Tisza
te rrito ry
Total
Hungarian
Hungarian-Ukrainian
36
11
6
16
5
5
4
3
4
69
Total
Hungarian—
Ukrainian-Russian
-
41
16
10
20
4
1
91
-
-
1
21
TABLE 4.2 N u m b e r o f c h il d r e n in T ran sc a r pa th ia ’s n u r se r y sc h o o ls in
t h e 1996/1997 sc h o o l year a c c o r d in g to t h e l a n g u a g e o f in s t r u c t io n
Ccf. M atso S. Luts, 1 9 9 7 :2 3 4 )
Total
in Transcarpathia
Berehovo District
Velyka Berezna
District
Vinohradiv District
Volovets District
Irshava D istrict
Mizhhirya D istrict
Mukachevo District
Perechen District
Rakhiv District
Svalyava District
Tyachiv District
Uzhhorod District
Khust District
Uzhhorod (City)
Mukachevo (City)
Total
number of
children
31360
Ukrainian
Russian
27792
473
Hun
garian
3037
2062
541
760
541
1302
2519
690
2540
457
2975
597
1257
1640
2673
1843
2709
5258
3599
2122
690
2540
457
2716
597
1249
1640
2573
1201
2631
5154
2971
397
Ruma
nian
Molda
vian
30
8
30
8
German
20
259
16
39
52
366
104
603
78
52
242
20
TABLE 4.3 D is t r ib u t io n o f c o m p r e h e n s iv e a n d se c o n d a r y s c h o o l s in U k r a in e a c c o r d in g to t h e
LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION IN THE 1989/1990 AND 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEARS
(Shamshur S. Izhevska, 1 9 9 4 :3 5 )
1990/1991
1 9 8 9 /1990
Number
Schools
Pupils
Schools
%
Number
(in thousands)
%
Number
Pupils
%
Number
%
[in thousands)
Ukrainian
Russian
15213
73.6
3051.3
44.8
15316
73.5
3060.4
44.7
4628
22.4
3169.6
46.5
4303
20.6
2791.7
40.7
Moldavian
108
-
0.5
-
33.2
0.5
14
0.06
5.3
0.1
-
-
93
0.4
23.3
0.3
2
0.01
0.3
0.004
2
0.01
0.4
0.005
Rumanian
Polish
Hungarian
55
0.2
10.9
0.1
59
0.3
11.5
0.17
Ukrainian—
Russian
606
2.9
522.9
7.6
981
4.7
935.7
13.6
Ukrainian—
Hungarian
19
0.9
6.9
0.1
18
0.08
RussianHungarian
10
Russian-
13
0.06
6.8
0.1
5
UkrainianMoldavian
-
-
-
-
RussianRumanian
-
-
-
-
(Hungarians: 3.2)
0.5
4.2
0.06
8
0.03
5.3
0.07
(Hungarians: 2.9)
(Hungarians: 0.04)
3.9
0.06
(Hungarians: 2.7)
(Hungarians: 0.04)
0.02
3.4
0.04
7
0.03
3.6
0.05
7
0.03
3.6
0.05
1
0.005
1.04
0.01
3
0.01
0.8
0.006
(Hungarians: 2.8)
Moldavian
Ukrainian—
RussianRumanian
Ukrainian—
RussianHungarian
2
UkrainianRussianPolish
1
0.01
0.14
0.001
(Hungarians: 0.6)
(Hungarians: 0.04)
0.005
0.7
0.1
2
0.009
1.4
0.02
47
CULTURE
TABLE 4.4 T h e
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s sc h o o l s w it h H u n g a r ia n
AS THE LANGUAGE OF TEACHING BETWEEN 1987 AND 1993 (Orosz, 1 9 9 5 :1 5 ]
Language of
teaching of the
school
Hungarian
Ukrainian—
Hungarian
Russian—
Hungarian
Russian—
Ukrainian—
Hungarian
Total
num ber of
1987/88
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
13 26 11 50 11 29 13 53 11 34 14 59 9
9 8 17 - 10 9 19 2 8 8 18 2
2 3 4 1
34 15 58 8
7 9 18 1
2 3 4
36 17 61
9 12 22
-
2
5
7
1
3
4
8
7
15 -
3
3
4
6
10
2
2
-
2
6
8
1
2
3
-
-
2
13 43 29 85 11 43 30 84 13 45 30 88 11 44 32 87 9
2
4
3
3
47 34 90
1 = prim ary (form s 1-4]; 2 = comprehensive [forms 1 -8 o r 1-9]; 3 = secondary
[forms 1 - 1 0 or 1-113; 4 = total.
TABLE 4.5 T r a n sc a r p a t h ia ’s
sc h o o l s a c c o r d in g to t h e l a n g u a g e o f
INSTRUCTION Ccf. Orosz, 1 9 9 5 :1 4 ]
Ukrainian
Russian
Hungarian
Rumanian
Slovak
Total
198£ /9 0
N
%
594
81.2
40
5.5
84
11.5
13
1.8
-
1990/91
N
%
597
81.0
39
5.3
11.9
88
13
1.8
-
731
-
100
-
100
737
TABLE 4.6 D is t r ib u t io n
1991/92
N
602
38
87
13
%
81.4
5.1
11.8
1.7
-
-
740
100
1992/93
N
%
618
81.7
4.5
34
90
12.0
1993/94
N
%
621
82.0
32
4.2
90
12.0
13
1
756
13
1
757
1.7
0.1
100
1.7
0.1
100
o f p u p il s a c c o r d in g to l a n g u a g e o f
INSTRUCTION tcf. Orosz, 1 9 9 5 :1 6 ]
School
year -»
1
Ukrainian
Russian
Hungarian
Rumanian
Slovak
Total
1989/90
2
166245
16598
17275
4827
-
204945
1990/91
3
81.0
8.1
2
166963
15874
8.5
2.4
17619
4622
-
100
-
204808
1991/92
3
81.4
7.7
8.6
2.3
-
100
2
166198
14809
17969
4355
-
203331
1992/93
3
81.7
7.3
8.8
2.2
-
100
2
167330
12839
18711
4483
12
203375
3
82.3
6.3
9.2
2.2
0.006
100
1993/94
2
168764
10585
19074
4464
18
202905
3
83.2
5.2
9.4
2.2
0.009
100
1 = language of instruction; 2 = number of pupils; 3 = proportion in percentage.
48
CULTURE
We can observe an increase of the prestige of the Hungarian language
in Transcarpathia after the opening of the borders by looking at the
growth of the ratio of those Hungarian pupils who get instruction in their
mother tongue. The fact that it has been possible to get further education
in Hungary since 1989 was probably instrumental in the rise of the pres
tige of the Hungarian language (cf. Orosz, 1992:55). The number of pupils
studying in Ukrainian is gradually growing, too, but the number and ratio
of those getting education in Russian is decreasing. This prestige modifi
cation is even more significant looking at the data of the first form pupils
(cf. Table 4.7).
Judging from the above data, the school system with Hungarian as the
language of instruction apperas to be good, because Hungarian language
schooling is accessible for Hungarian children. But this conclusion is super
ficial, because it is true only for Hungarians who live in a block in the flatland parts of Transcarpathia: regarding the instruction in the mother
tongue there are territorial differences. For instance, the Hungarians living
in minority in the Upper-Tisza territory have no opportunity for mother
tongue instruction.
In the 1996/1997 school year there were altogether 98 Hungarian
schools in Transcarpathia (cf. Table 4.8), among them 94 schools in those
districts where the majority of the Transcarpathian Hungarian population
lives.
Table 4.9 shows the territorial distribution of Hungarian schools within
Transcarpathia.
4 . 2 . 3 . P r o f e s s io n a l t r a in in g
Hungarian language professional training did not exist in Trans
carpathia until 1988: all the vocational schools in the region worked with
Ukrainian and Russian as the language of instruction. The first Hungarian
group was opened in 1988 at Berehovo Vocational School N° 18. At present
there are 6 vocational and technical schools where we can find Hungarian
groups (Bagu, 1996:8).
Speaking about professional training we cannot help mentioning the
peculiarity that the Mukachevo Teachers’ Training School is a vocational
secondary school according to its status, where one can apply after leaving
comprehensive school. It trains nursery school and primary school teachers
with a secondary educational level. This institution has been training teach
ers for the Transcarpathian Hungarian schools since 1950. The students of
49
CULTURE
the Mukachevo Teachers’ Training School study only their major subjects
in Hungarian (Hungarian language and literature, singing and music,
mathematics), disciplines like pedagogy, psychology, etc. are taught in Uk
rainian.
TABLE 4.7 T h e
f ir st f o r m e r s ’ r atio in p e r c e n t a g e a c c o r d in g t o t h e
LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION
-
1989/90
81.9
6 .6
9.0
2.5
-
1990/91
83.1
5.3
9.5
-
1991/92
CO
1988/89
81.8
8.4
7.5
2.3
CO.
PO
Ukrainian
Russian
Hungarian
Rumanian
Slovak
1987/88
81.8
8.7
7.2
2.3
4.7
10.1
2.3
2 .1
-
-
1992/93
84.2
3.0
10.3
2.4
0.1
1993/94
84.42
2.44
10.91
2 .2
0.03
[In 1 9 9 3 /1 9 9 4 there were 2 2 ,3 8 6 first formers = 1 0 0 °/o; cf. Orosz, 1 9 9 5 :1 7 ]
TABLE 4.8 T r a n sc a r pa t h ia ’s H u n g a r ia n
sc h o o l s in t h e
1996/1997
SCHOOL YEAR [Közoktatás, 1 9 9 7 /4 :1 3 ]
Language of teaching of the
school
Hungarian
Hungarian-Ukrainian
Hungarian-Russian
Hungarian-Ukrainian—
Russian
Total
State-supported
64
28
3
1
Primary
-
8
2
-
4
14
-
2
98
-
of
Total
66
28
3
1
-
96
TABLE 4.9 T h e d is t r ib u t io n
p e r d ist r ic t s (1996/1997)
Upper-Tisza territory
Vinohradiv District
Berehovo District
Mukachevo District
Uzhhorod District
Total
Church school
(reformed)
2
H u n g a r ia n sc h o o l s in T r a n sc a r pa th ia
Comprehensive
1
9
24
6
9
49
Secondary
3
6
14
3
9
35
Total
4
23
40
9
22
98
50
CULTURE
4.2.4.
H ig h e r e d u c a t io n
The first period of Hungarian higher education in Transcarpathia began
in 1953 at the Uzhhorod Teachers’ Training College where a new speciali
sation tier was opened - Hungarian language and literature studies. But the
institution was closed down in 1954, and the students of the college (among
them those who studied Hungarian language and literature) became the stu
dents of Uzhhorod State University, which was established in 1945.
The second period began in 1963 when the Hungarian Philology De
partment was founded at Uzhhorod State University. This department
which trains teachers of Hungarian language and literature for the Transcarpathian Hungarian schools, represented Hungarian higher education in
Transcarpathia for a long time. However, it is only the special subjects that
are taught in Hungarian, the general subjects were taught in Russian before
and now they are in Ukrainian. First the department worked with 20 stu
dents per year. In the 1969/1970 academic year a correspondence course was
opened, thus the number of regular students was reduced to 10, and at the
same time there were 10 correspondence students per year (Lizanec,
1993:12). The low-standard Hungarian correspondence course was subsequenty cancelled, but instead of 10 regular students nowadays there are 15
admitted per year, and further students can join them but they have to pay
a tuition fee. Approximately 500 teachers of Hungarian language and liter
ature have got their degrees at the Hungarian Philology Department since
1963 (cf. Lizanec, 1993:12).
It was only the Hungarian department where the language of instruc
tion was (partly) Hungarian till the 1995/1996 academic year. That year on
the initiative of the Transcarpathian Association of Hungarian Pedagogues
(TAHP) Hungarian groups were started at the mathematics, physics and bi
ology faculties. The additional expenses of their instruction in the mother
tongue are financed by the TAHFJ the money for which they get from the ad
visory board of the Illyés Public Endowment (ie. from Hungary). This is be
cause Volodimir Slivka, Rector of Uzhhorod State University, declared that
the university will start Hungarian groups if the TAHP is able to raise funds
for it (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 1st July, 1995, 4.; Közoktatás, 1995/4:11).
The third period of Hungarian higher education in Transcarpathia
started in 1990. Since this year it has been possible for young people of
Transcarpathia to continue their studies at higher educational establish
ments in Hungary In the 1995/1996 academic year there were 350 Trans
carpathian students studying at a higher educational establishment in Hun
gary (Kárpátaljai Szemle, 1996/1:14).
51
CULTURE
The fourth period started in 1993 when the Foundation for the Transcarpathian Hungarian College (FTHC) was founded, the aim of which was
to establish an independent Hungarian Teachers’ Training College in Transcarpathia. After the FTHC had entered into a contract with the Ministry of
Culture and Education of Hungary and the György Bessenyei Teachers’
Training College of Nyíregyháza, Hungary, Hungarian teacher training was
started in Berehovo, Transcarpathia in 1994, the financial guarantees of
which were created by the FTHC, the personal expenses were covered by the
Ministry of Culture and Education of Hungary, and the lecturers were pro
vided by the György Bessenyei Teachers’ Training College of Nyíregyháza.
Until the authorization of the independent Transcarpathian Hungarian
Teachers’ Training College in September, 1996, the ‘cover-name’ of the pro
gram was Beregszász Special Training. It functioned as a transferred de
partment training nursery school and primary school teachers, and teach
ers of English and History and English and Geography.
The Transcarpathian Hungarian Teachers’ Training College held its
first official opening session in 1996. It has four tiers: primary school
teacher, English-Geography, English-History, History-Geography. The offi
cial language of instruction is Hungarian. The Transcarpathian Hungarian
Teachers’ Training College is the first independent higher educational es
tablishment beyond the frontiers of Hungary.
4 . 2 . 5 . I n d ic e s o f e d u c a t io n l e v e l o f c e r t a in n a t io n a l it ie s
The inequality of the Transcarpathian education system can be seen by
observing the indices of education level of certain nationalities (cf. Table 4.10).
TABLE 4.10 I n d ic e s o f e d u c a t io n l ev el o f certain
1000 p e o p l e b a se d o n t h e c e n s u s data of 1989
n a t io n a l it ie s p e r
[cf. Myhovych, 1 9 9 7 :4 9 ; Maryna, 1997:1141
Russians
Ukrainians
Slovaks
Hungarians
Rumanians
Gypsies
Complete
academic
qualifications
246
68
88
37
17
-
Incomplete
academic
qualifications
25
10
12
7
3
-
Vocational
shool
Secondary
school
267
149
157
98
38
7
310
367
385
427
208
97
Compre
hensive school
-
218
101
264
451
431
Primary
school
34
145
-
155
181
387
52
CULTURE
4.3. MASS COMMUNICATION
4 .3 .1 . N ew spaper s, jo u r n a ls
Two regional Hungarian newspapers appeared in Transcarpathia after
World War II.
Kárpáti Igaz Szó (Transcarpathian True Word) has been issued since 5
December, 1945; till 1965 it was the Hungarian copy of the Ukrainian ‘Zakarpatska Pravda’ and it could not publish its own articles. It was trans
formed into an independent Hungarian-edited newspaper on 8 March,
1967.
The editorial office of Kárpáti Igaz Szó was virtually the first Hungari
an institution in Transcarpathia after 1944. The paper was published daily
till 1991, since then it has been appearing three times a week - on Tuesdays,
Thursdays and Saturdays. In 1990 it had a circulation of 40,000 copies while
in 1998 this number was 8,900.
The other regional Hungarian newspaper of Transcarpathia was Kárpátontúli Ifjúság (Youth Beyond the Carpathians), the title of which was
changed into Kárpátaljai Ifjúság (Transcarpathian Youth) on 1 February,
1991. It was issued as the Hungarian translation of the Ukrainian newspa
per ‘Molody Zakarpatya’ from 1958 till 1992 when the Hungarian publica
tion was stopped. The Hungarian circulation was 10,000 and it was a week
ly paper. It was the paper of the Ukrainian communist youth association, the
Komsomol. Today it is published only in Ukrainian.
Beside the regional papers three local or district newspapers are pub
lished regularly in Transcarpathia.
From 2 December, 1945, the Berehovo district paper was Vörös Zászló
(The Red Flag) the title of which was changed into Beregi Hírlap (News
from Bereg Lands) on 1 January, 1991. It is published in Ukrainian and
Hungarian. The Hungarian edition is the original, while the Ukrainian
issue is its translation. It was the only original Hungarian newspaper in
Transcarpathia till Kárpáti Igaz Szó became independent. The Hungarian
issue was published three times a week in 10,000 copies until 1992. Nowa
days it appears twice a week (on Thursdays and Saturdays) in 4,100
copies.
The Hungarian newspaper of the Uzhhorod District, Kommunizmus Fé
nyei (The Lights of Communism) has been published since 1 March, 1957,
and with the title Ung-vidéki Hirek (News from the Lands of the Uzh) since
1990. It is the translation of the Ukrainian publication, it does not issue
CULTURE
53
original articles. It used to appear three times a week, now it is published
twice a week. 3,100 copies are produced, out of which 700 copies are Hun
garian.
The Vinohradiv District paper, Kommunizmus Zászlaja (The Banner of
Communism) has been published three times a week since 27 March, 1957,
it was the Hungarian translation of the Ukrainian ‘Prapor Kommunizmu’
(it did not appear between 1962 and 1965). It has been published as
Nagyszőlős-vidéki Hírek (News from Vinohradiv) twice a week since 1990.
Its circulation is 4,000 with 315 Hungarian copies.
Besides the above mentioned papers two other regional newspapers
appear in Hungarian in Transcarpathia.
Szolyvai Krónika (The Chronicle of Svalyava) has been issued since 3
January, 1995, the aim of which is to provide the Hungarians living in the
Svalyava District with readings in their mother tongue. It used to be a
monthly paper, now it is bi-monthly.
In Transcarpathia there has been a tendency for new newspapers and
magazines to be launched gradually since 1989.
The Transcarpathian Hungarian Cultural Association (THCA) has its
own journal, Kárpátaljai Szemle (Transcarpathian Survey). It appears
monthly or bi-monthly since 1993. Kárpátaljai Szemle is the only Hungari
an public magazine in this region, since Kárpátalja (Transcarpathia), a fort
nightly paper founded in 1990 (first being the paper of the THCA, later be
coming independent) was cancelled in 1994.
The Hungarian community has two cultural magazines, too. Hatodik
Síp (The Sixth Fife) has been published every three months since August,
1989, its type being mainly belletristic. Its editorial office deals with book
publishing, too. Pánsíp (The Panpipe) is a cultural magazine published quar
terly since 1993.
The Transcarpathian Association of Hungarian Pedagogues publishes a
very popular magazine for children bi-monthly. It is Irka (Copy-book)-, it has
a quarterly supplement - Közoktatás (Public Education) - a journal for peda
gogues.
The Transcarpathian Hungarian Boy Scout Association has been pub
lishing its paper for Boy Scouts and Girl Guides since 1995 - Nyomkereső
(Trace Searcher) in 3,000 copies.
The choice of Hungarian publications has been enriched recently by
church papers.
Küldetés (Mission) is the paper of the Transcarpathian Reformed
Church District. It appears three or four times a year in 4,000 copies. Roman
54
CULTURE
Catholic believers have a similar publication, Új Hajtás (New Sprout) with
four issues a year in 4,000 copies.
The first Transcarpathian Hungarian economic paper publishing adver
tisements is Bereglnfo, which appeared on the market in the second half of
1997.
4 .3 .2 .
L
ocal
H
u n g a r ia n
r a d io
and
t e l e v is io n
In Transcarpathia the regional radio began broadcasting Hungarian pro
grammes in 1946. The Hungarian staff gives programmes daily: on week-days
their program is half an hour long (from 7 pm to 7.30 pm), on Saturdays it is
40 minutes long and on Sundays their program lasts for two and a half hours.
Hungarian television began in 1965 in Transcarpathia. First the Hun
garian staff used to broadcast programmes only on Mondays. The choice of
the broadcasting day was extremely successful, because in the 1960s and
1970s Monday was an interval day in the Hungarian television in Hungary,
so Transcarpathian Hungarians could enjoy Hungarian programs through
Uzhhorod Television on Mondays, too. Later broadcasting time increased.
Hungarian programmes can be seen three times a week (on Mondays,
Thursdays and Sundays) on Uzhhorod Television in 1998. The weekly
broadcasting time is 180 minutes - an hour on Monday, 40 minutes on
Thursday and an hour and 20 minutes on Sunday.
4 .3 .3 .
A
ccess
to th e
m ass
m e d ia
One of the signs of the political détente after Stalin’s death was that in
1957 it became possible to subscribe to newspapers and journals published
in Hungary (Botlik & Dupka, 1991:65). By this the Transcarpathian Hun
garians living in isolation for about fifteen years again obtained publications
written in Hungarian (not translated from Ukrainian, as was the case with
local papers).
The newspapers coming from Hungary usually reached the Transcar
pathian readers with a day’s delay. But in 1989 Hungary and the Soviet
Union mutually changed from rouble-accounting to dollar-accounting and it
became impossible to subscribe to any newspapers or magazines published
in Hungary (cf. Botlik & Dupka, 1993:44). Transcarpathian readers can ob
tain papers just off the press (and not with two or three weeks’ delay) since
1995, but only some of the publications reach Transcarpathia (e.g. Szabad
Föld, Nők Lapja, Nemzeti Sport, etc.).
CULTURE
55
The programmes of the Hungarian Radio could be received in most parts
of Transcarpathia since their beginning. The possibilities pertaining to the
reception of Radio Petőfi and Radio Bartók are rather poor in other parts of
Transcarpathia. With a simple wireless and aerial it is quite difficult to get
them and only at certain times of the day, even in the territories closest to the
border. The Hungarians living in the flat lands can get the programmes of
Radio Kossuth, too. Since the beginning of 1998 it has been possible to get
the programmes of two commercial broadcasting stations from Hungary, too.
The programmes of Channel 1 and Channel 2 of Hungarian Television
cannot be received in the territory of the Upper-Tisza either (Kárpátaljai
Szemle, 1996/2:2). The satellite broadcast of Duna TV (Danube Television)
is mainly for Hungarians living in minority areas outside Hungary, but prac
tically its programmes cannot be received in Transcarpathia, because only
an insignificant part of the population has satellite dishes needed for re
ceiving satellite broadcast programmes. Although there was a cable televi
sion network established in the territory of the Upper-Tisza, which would
make access at least to Duna TV possible for the isolated Hungarian com
munity in that area, this network did not fulfil the expectations attached to
it, because its satellite dish was damaged several times, and ultimately
stolen (Kárpátaljai Szemle, 1996/2:2).
Since 4 October, 1997 the programmes of MTV 2 (Hungarian Television
Channel Two) can be seen by means of satellite dishes, too, thus Transcarpathian Hungarians can only enjoy the programmes of MTV 1 (Hungarian
Television Channel One) and two commercial channels, TV2 and RTL Klub
which were placed in the former frequency band of MTV 2.
Besides the Hungarian channels, of course, the reception of programmes
of the Ukrainian State Radio and Television is also possible in Trans
carpathia. Transcarpathian Hungarians switch to a Ukrainian radio station
only when they can hear the Hungarian programme of the Uzhhorod Stu
dio, otherwise they listen to the Hungarian Radio (Hungary). The trans
missions of Ukrainian Television are more popular among the Hungarians
than those of Ukrainian Radio, mainly because of the film series and sports
transmissions.
5. ECONOMY
Agriculture is the dominant sector of the economy in Transcarpathia.
Its economy, considering all sectors, is of low efficiency, it is characterized by
outdated technical standards and poor organisation. Former urban industry
has been ruined. Production per capital in the region is less than half of the
national average. A drop in production that involved 68.6 % of the compa
nies in the region in 1996 has had a negative effect on the population’s real
income.
Due to a lack of suitable business environment and capital, privatisation
mainly involves small and medium size enterprises. According to local fi
gures from 1 July, 1997, foreign capital of over USD 40 million has been in
vested in the region, a mere 2.5 % of the foreign capital invested in Ukraine.
One out of three companies operate currently on foreign capital. Hungarian
investors and company shareholders are in the first place in Transcarpathia,
there are over 110 Ukrainian-Hungarian joint ventures.
71.7 % of the Hungarian national minority lives in small villages (see
Table 1.12) and is engaged in jobs of lower social prestige due to a lack of
schooling in the mother tongue, therefore they are threatened by unem
ployment more than Ukrainians or Russians. Official figures reflect a rather
favourable situation of unemployment: they say that the rate of unemploy
ment was 1.4 % in 1996 and 2.49 % in 1997. The figures, however, fail to re
flect a realistic number of the unemployed as only one in ten unemployed
will seek help from job centres (i.e. the actual rate of unemployment is at
least ten times as high). Regarding the rate of unemployment, Transcar
pathia is at place 9 of the 24 Ukrainian counties. As the number of the
jobless is increasing, fewer and fewer people are entitled to unemployment
benefits since companies have been freed of the obligation to contribute to
an employment fund. Social problems are further aggravated by hidden un
employment (forced leaves, shortened shifts, shortened working hours) and
an often several-month-long delay in the payment of salaries caused by a
continuous decline of production.
Average salaries in Transcarpathia are Hr 158.3 (about USD 40) a
month, lower than the national average. Most foodstuffs are imported by en
trepreneurs from Hungary and Slovakia and are sold from privately owned
58
ECONOMY
outlets or markets (the average price of a kilo of pork is USD 2.5, while a
litre of milk costs USD 0.25 and a litre of cooking oil USD 1-1.5).
A revival of the agriculture and the development of private farms is hin
dered by the fact that the ownership of land has not been sorted out. If a
Land Act makes it possible, forms of co-operatives based on real ownership
may emerge relying on farmers’ groups that have come into being in the vil
lages of the Hungarian national minority over the past few years to replace
state farms.
Setting up a special economic region in Transcarpathia could promote
the social and economic situation of the population. The standard of living
could increase, which would slow down a trend of emigration of the Hun
garian national minority (e.g. Report on the situation of Hungarians in the
Ukraine).
6. IDENTITY AWARENESS
Let us review the identity awareness of Transcarpathian Hungarians
by the help of the data of two empirical surveys.
A sociological investigation carried out by the Spectrum Sociology
Workshop in 22 Transcarpathian settlements with the co-operation of 300
people, arrived at the conclusion that the image of the motherland of
Transcarpathian Hungarians is quite contradictory. According to the in
vestigation the informants believed that Ukrainian independence has
meant more bad than good so far. Only 1.4 % of those who were asked ac
cepted Ukraine as their motherland, 1.4 % accepted Europe as their moth
erland, and only 1 %was eager to live in the Soviet Union again (cf. Kovács,
1996:18). According to the survey 5.2 % of the informants feel at home in
the whole Hungarian-speaking territory. 8.2 % of the people asked see Hun
gary as their motherland. The fact that 10.7 %of people asked feel they have
no motherland proves the feeling of uncertainty and the strangeness of en
vironment (Kovács, 1996:18). Analysing the image of motherland of Trans
carpathian Hungarians the author comes to the conclusion that the popu
lation of the region has created its own, narrowed notion of motherland,
„according to which the motherland is not a country, but a broken piece of
the once existing real motherland, a narrower region: the native land, that
territory where one lives according to one’s own traditions, where one us
es one’s own mother tongue, and forms a community with the representa
tives of one’s own nation” (Kovács, 1996:18). It is that image of motherland
according to the analyst to which 71.8 % of the informants agreed. At the
same time it seems to be a contradiction that 53 % of the people asked re
ported about the fact that they or their relatives were or had been think
ing about emigrating to Hungary (Kovács, 1996:18).
In the summer of 1996 a sociolinguistic investigation was carried out,
based on a questionnaire. Within this survey 144 Transcarpathian Hun
garian informants answered the following question:
PLEASE DEFINE ON A SCALE FROM 1 TO 5 HOW MUCH YOU ARE
ATTACHED TO THE FOLLOWING PLACES BY CIRCLING THE COR
RECT NUMBER
60
IDENTITY AWARENESS
[1 = I am not attached to it at all; 5 =
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
am attached to it very much]
your native village or tow n
Transcarpathia
Ukraine
the form er Soviet Union
Hungary
Europe
nowhere
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
The results are summarised in Table 6.1.
TABLE 6.1 T er r ito r ia l
a t t a c h m e n t of
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia n H u n g a r ia n s
5
2
1
N
2
%
1.4
N
16
%
11.1
N
39
%
27.1
N
86
%
59.7
8.3
16.0
24.3
42
6
6
29.2
4.2
4.2
90
5
4
62.5
3.5
2.8
29.4
21.1
0.7
53
40
1
37.1
39
49
1
27.3
34.5
0.7
82
65
56.9
45.1
28
34
19.4
23.6
12
23
35
4
14
140
2.8
9.9
97.9
5
9
1
3.5
6.3
0.7
42
30
1
-
-
-
-
fo j
to your native
village or town
to Transcarpathia
to Ukraine
to the former
Soviet Union
to Hungary
to Europe
to nowhere
%
0.7
ro
CO
N
0.7
Other questions in the questionnaire were to define in the same way
how much Transcarpathian Hungarians are attached to the Transcar
pathian Hungarian community, to the Hungarian nation and how much
they feel they do not belong to anywhere. The answers demonstrate that the
awareness of belonging to the Hungarian nation is very strong (cf. Table
6.2), but this feeling is not necessarily accompanied by close attachment to
Hungary as a state.
The results of the two investigations briefly described above are almost
exactly the same. The minor differences can be explained by the time passed
between the two studies and the different ways of sampling. According to
the investigations the image of motherland of Transcarpathian Hungarians
is attached to the native land and not to the state. Hungary has a particular
place in it, but its attachment ratio as a symbol of the Hungarian nation is
61
IDENTITY AWARENESS
higher than that of Hungary as a state. The uncomplying separation from
the new Ukrainian statehood is the direct result of the dispair caused by the
country’s bad economic state.
TABLE 6.2 N a t io n a l
attachm ent o f th e
T r a n sc a r pa t h ia n H u n g a r ia n s
2
To the
Transcarpathian
Hungarians
To the Hungarian
nation
Do not belong to
anywhere
4
5
N
%
N
1
%
0.7
N
15
%
10.4
N
35
%
24.3
N
93
%
64,6
1
0.7
2
1.4
12
8.3
22
15.3
107
74.3
139
96.5
1
0.7
1
0.7
2
1.4
1
0,7
7. SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
7.1. LANGUAGE PLANNING
During the Soviet era the Russian language was in a privileged position,
in spite of the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an official language (cf.
Desherijev, 1966:68). Though Russian was not the official language of the So
viet Union, it was used in state administration and public life. Western sci
entific, technical and cultural achievements were introduced in the country
through the Russian language. Russian became the language of commu
nication between different ethnic groups. The glorification of Russian was
confirmed by economic factors after World War II. The political and strate
gic aims relied on it, too (cf. Miller, 1994:613). In the 1980s, mainly after
Gorbachev’s new policy of openness, nationality and language endeavours,
became more articulated including Ukraine, where, by passing the Law of
Language in 198911, the national powers succeeded in making Ukrainian the
official language of the republic. In the Law of Language Russian is men
tioned only as a means of communication between peoples, and as a second
language, respectively (Article 4). No doubt, the passing of the Law of Lan
guage was an important status-planning decision, but it was evident for the
legislators that a complete change of the official language of a republic is im
possible to be done in a moment. Therefore Ukraine’s Supreme Council en
closed a supplement to the Law, in which the Order of putting the Law into
force is defined. According to the document the Law gets into force on 1st
January, 1990. At the same time, the supplement permits 3-10 years of tole
rance for putting into force those articles which contain major alterations12.
The supplement allows a 3-5 years’ respite for civil servants to learn Uk
rainian (Article 6) and for laws, decrees, texts of seals and headed documents
to be changed into Ukrainian (Article 10, Paragraphs 2 and 3), to replece
Russian by Ukrainian in administration and documentation (Article 11, Pa
ragraph 1) and to make Ukrainian the language of Prosecution (Article 22).
There are 5-10 years at disposal to change the language of technical
documentation into Ukrainian (Article 13, Paragraph 1) and for Ukrainian
to obtain the official language status in the fields of education, science,
computer science and culture (Articles 25-29).
64
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
Thus the legislative body made a quite cautious language planning
step, in that it provided a relatively long period of time for introducing the
most radical alterations and it also averted potential conflicts caused by
sudden change.
Now (October, 1999) as the time of tolerance defined in the supplement
to the 1989 Law of Language is almost over, we can state that most of the
paragraphs of the Law were realized in practice and the resolutions about
education are in the process of realization. While putting into force the
Law’s regulations in the fields of state and social life did not meet any ob
structions, the assertion of the articles concerning education did (cf. Csernicsko, 1998a, b).
7.2. THE STATUS OF THE LANGUAGES USED
IN PRESENT-DAY UKRAINE
In the independent Ukraine the following documents concern the status
of languages: The Constitution of Ukraine (1996), The Law of the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic about the Languages of the Ukrainian SSR (1989),
Ukraine’s Declaration of Nationality Rights (1991), The Law of Ukraine
about National Minorities (1992), The Law o f Ukraine about Local Munici
palities (1997) and several resolutions, too.
Articles 10, 11, 12, 24, 53, 92, 103, 127 and 148 of the Constitution of
Ukraine contain paragraphs concerning languages.
Article 10 declares that „The state language of Ukraine is Ukrainian
language”13, and that the state ensures the functioning of Ukrainian in all
spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine. According
to the following paragraph, „In Ukraine, the free development, use and
protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Uk
raine, are guaranteed”. But in accordance with the last sentence of the Ar
ticle, „The use of languages in Ukraine is guaranteed by the Constitution
of Ukraine and is determined by law”. Article 92 says, also, that it is Uk
raine’s laws exclusively that determine the procedure for the use of lan
guages.
Article 11 contains general declarations about the defence of all
nationalities and languages of Ukraine, Article 24 prohibits discrimination
based on linguistic characteristics. Article 12 promises to meet the
requirements of the Ukrainians living beyond the borders of Ukraine. Ar
ticle 53 says that citizens who belong to national minorities are guaranteed
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
65
in accordance with the law the right to receive instruction in their native
language, or to study their native language in state or communal educa
tional establishments. Articles 103, 127 and 148 say that occupying a state
post (e.g. President of the republic, membership in the Constitutional
Court, office of judge) is dependent on the knowledge of the state lan
guage.
According to Articles 10 and 92, with respect to the status of lan
guages, the Language Law passed in 1989 - during the Soviet era - is com
petent.
The Language Law defines Ukrainian as the state language (Article 2),
but at the same time Russian remains the language of communication be
tween nations (Article 4). According to Article 5 the use of the native lan
guage or any other language is guaranteed for the citizens; they have the
right to apply to state or social organs, enterprises, etc. in Ukrainian or in
another language used by these organizations, in Russian or in another lan
guage acceptable for both parties. The law does not only prohibit discrimi
nation based on linguistic characteristics (Article 8), but puts forth sanc
tions for limitation in the use of nationality languages. According to the
regulations the civil servant who refuses to take an application written in a
nationality language referring to his or her lack of knowledge of the lan
guage, can be called to account (Article 5).
The law makes it possible to use the nationality language equally to and
together with the Ukrainian language in the functioning of state organs, en
terprises, institutions on the territories of administrative units (e.g. village,
town, district, region) where a greater part of the population belongs to na
tional minorities (Article 3).
The state documents are accepted and published in Ukrainian, on lower
levels, too, but if need be, they are also published in the languages of other
nationalities. The official application forms are in Ukrainian and Russian
(Article 10). The language of office administration is Ukrainian, but it is pos
sible to use a nationality language parallel with Ukrainian in those areas
where a greater part of the population belongs to national minorities (Arti
cle 11).
The official personal documents (identity card, service certificate, cer
tificate of education, birth, marriage and death certificates) are bilingual Ukrainian and Russian (Article 14).
The language of services is Ukrainian, or another language chosen by
the two parties (Article 17). The language of trial procedure is Ukrainian,
but the use of the nationality language is possible in areas where a greater
66
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
part of the population belongs to a national minority; the person who does
not understand the language of the court has the right to have an inter
preter and to give evidence in his or her own native language (Article
18).
The language of services provided by solicitors and prosecutors and that
of legal guidance is Ukrainian or another language which is the most ap
propriate for both parties (Article 23).
The choice of language of education is an indefeasible right (Article 25).
But minority citizens can assert this maximum right up to the end of their
secondary school studies. According to Article 25 applicants to institutions
of higher and vocational education take an entrance examination in Uk
rainian, and only those applicants are allowed to take an entrance examina
tion in their native language who apply to institutions training national
cadres.
The language of official mass information is Ukrainian or other lan
guages of Ukraine under the possibilities provided (Article 33). The lan
guage of address of telegrams, postal envelopes, parcels is Ukrainian or
Russian (Article 34).
The language of official announcements, advertisements, posters is
Ukrainian; beside the Ukrainian text there can be translations in other lan
guages, too (Article 35).
The language of labels of goods produced in Ukraine is Ukrainian and
must not be translated into other languages (Article 36).
The official names of institutions, social and political organizations, en
terprises, etc. are Ukrainian; they can be translated into other languages,
and the translation must be placed either under the Ukrainian inscription
or to the right of it (Article 37).
Ukraine’s geographical names are Ukrainian. It is also possible to dis
play or indicate them in the language of the national minority (Article
38).
Ukrainian citizens have the right to choose a name appropriate to their
national traditions which can be rendered into Ukrainian by means of trans
cription (Article 39).
Ukraine’s Declaration of Nationality Rights guarantees the right of use
of the mother tongue in all spheres of social life for all its peoples and na
tionalities (Article 3).
According to the Law of Ukraine about the National Minorities, the use
of the language of the minority is possible parallel to the official language in
the functioning of state and social organs, enterprises, institutions in the ar
SÜCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
67
eas where the national minority makes up a greater part of the population
(Article 8). It also guarantees for minorities the use of personal names ac
cording to national traditions (Article 12).
Article 26 Item 1 Paragraph 50 of the Law of Ukraine about Local Mu
nicipalities gives an opportunity for local municipalities to choose the lan
guage of their functioning (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 3 July, 1997).
Thus the state language of Ukraine is Ukrainian according to the valid
official documents. Russian functions as a language of office parallel with
Ukrainian throughout Ukraine, and as a language of communication be
tween nations, and the use of the other nationality languages is allowed in
the areas where a greater part of the population belongs to national minori
ties. But non of the documents contains items where the conditions under
which minority languages can be used equally to the state language would
be explicitly determined. However, besides the documents having legal force,
there are a number of state and regional decrees regulating the use of lan
guage which prove that the rights declared by the law work in another way
in practice, or do not work at all.
Ukrainian gradually became the state language from the time Ukraine
became independent, but Russian - in spite of its being mentioned as a lan
guage possible to use in official functions by the Constitution and the Lan
guage Law - is pressed back in the state, official sphere parallel with the ex
pansion of Ukrainian, and soon it is certain to be ratified by legal means. We
can come to these conclusions because we can find more and more articles
in the press about the state of languages, and the idea of passing a new law
of languages was formed by both the government and the opposition. Thus
in Ukraine disagreements arose between the Russian minority (making up
almost one third of the country’s population) and the government giving
preference to national (language) policy.
Theoretically beside the Ukrainian state language or parallel with it, it
is possible for Russian and other minority languages (in areas where a greater
part of the population belongs to minorities) to function in official language
status but it does not work in reality.
We can state that de jure and de facto Ukrainian is Ukraine’s state lan
guage, Russian is of official language status and people speaking minority
languages have the possibility to use their mother tongue in all spheres of
social life in those areas where they form a majority according to their
nationality. De facto, however, Russian is used as an official language in the
eastern territories densely inhabited by Russians despite the administra
tive prohibitions. Nevertheless, minority languages are only used in edu
68
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
cation, nationality press, radio and television programmes, minority public
life, church life and private sphere. Thus, the status of the Hungarian lan
guage did not change much even after Ukraine proclaimed its indepen
dence.
On 9 December, 1997 the Ukrainian Parliament ratified the Frame
work Convention about the defence of national minorities. The parts of the
Convention about the minority languages practically coincide with the do
cuments being in force in Ukraine. Article 10 Item 1, for instance, guaran
tees the right of use of native language for the minorities in private and
public spheres of life, in oral and written forms. But Item 2 lays down con
ditions to the permission of office use of minority languages (cf. Conven
tion, 1997.).
7.3. DIFFERENCES OF STATUS BETWEEN THE LANGUAGES
Kloss (1967:15) distinguishes five stages in the status of languages.
1. The language is official in country-wide measures.
2. It is the official language of a larger regional unit (area, district, land,
etc.).
3. Minority language use permitted by authority in public education,
public advertisements, though the minority language does not have an offi
cial status.
4. Tolerance towards the language in the private sphere (in the press,
church and private schools, etc.).
5. Prohibition of the language.
Now in Ukraine the status of Ukrainian is equal to Stage One. The sta
tus of Russian within certain administrative units de facto and de jure is
similar to Stage Two, with the restriction that the government does not ad
mit it, though it has the right to do so. The status of the Hungarian lan
guage can only be examined within Transcarpathia, as it is the only region
where a considerable number of inhabitants is Hungarian. In Transcar
pathia, the status of the Hungarian language de facto is equal to Stage
Three. Although based on legal limitations, it could be equal to Stage Two,
but the negative political attitude of the state towards the Russian lan
guage’s becoming official, and efforts made towards the setback of mother
tongue education of minorities, make it clear that under the present condi
tions there is not much hope for advance even if the preservation of the pre
sent state is endangered.
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
69
The Hungarian language for Transcarpathian Hungarians is mainly the
means of communication within their own group, while the Ukrainian and
Russian languages are mainly used in the communication between different
groups.
7.4. PUBLIC BILINGUALISM
According to Article 11 of the Ukrainian Language Law passed in 1989,
the language of management and documentation is Ukrainian, but in those
territories (districts, towns, villages, etc.) where the nationalities form a ma
jority, the use of the nationality language is also allowed beside Ukrainian.
Article 5 guarantees for every Ukrainian citizen the right to apply to state,
political or social organs in Ukrainian, Russian or a third language accept
able for both parties. The resolutions of these organs are made in Ukrainian
or another language used by the organ, but if need be, they can be translat
ed into Russian. According to Article 17 the language of the services is
Ukrainian or any language acceptable for the parties.
Thus, under legal regulations, Transcarpathian Hungarians can use
their mother tongue in official functions theoretically. Yet, the declared
rights and the real situation do not exactly coincide. It is because the Lan
guage Law does not order the official organs to use the languages of minori
ties, it simply does not prohibit their use. This use is attached to conditions
the explicit explanation of which can be found nowhere in the Law. For in
stance, we cannot make clear the meaning of the term ‘nationality majority
area’, because it is not explained in the Law.
Thus, the possibilities guaranteed by the Language Law are made use of
in the Berehovo District where 67 % of the population is Hungarian, the
management is done in Hungarian only in this district, but mainly orally,
written official communication in Hungarian is not common or general even
in this district.
In other districts of Transcarpathia Hungarian written official docu
ments can be found only in schools with Hungarian as the language of in
struction (e.g. form registers, protocols of staff meetings, etc.). In villages
with Hungarian majority, in state offices and village councils, it is only oral
communication that is Hungarian.
The lack of Hungarian or bilingual Ukrainian-Hungarian application
forms makes official written management or documentation in Hungarian
impossible (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 24 October, 1996:4).
7G
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
7.5. LANGUAGE CONFLICTS'14
In multilingual situations, social strife and other problems arise where
the needs or rights or wishes of different groups speaking different lan
guages conflict. These situations are called language conflicts (cf. Trudgill,
1992:44).
7.5.1.
T
e a c h in g
U
k r a in ia n
in
sc ho o ls
w it h
H
u n g a r ia n
AS THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION
In the Soviet Union where, theoretically, all the nationalities and lan
guages were equal, officially the country did not have any state language. In
spite of this, the Russian language enjoyed a privileged position (cf. Miller,
1994:613), and the role of the languages of different nationalities was re
stricted in order for the central party and political resolutions and an
nouncements to reach all the nationalities.
An excellent example proving the privileged state of the Russian lan
guage is that during the Soviet era the teaching of Ukrainian in the Uk
rainian Soviet Socialist Republic was obligatory only in schools with Uk
rainian as the language of instruction, but the teaching of Russian was
obligatory in all the schools of the country (cf. Miller, 1994:613). In schools
with Russian as the language of instruction the teaching of Ukrainian was
optional, i.e. it was the pupil’s parents who were to decide if their child
would learn Ukrainian in Ukraine, or not (cf. Lizanec, 1994:125). In nation
ality schools (e.g. Hungarian or Romanian) the teaching of Ukrainian was
not in the syllabus at all. The teaching of Russian was obligatory in these
schools, too (Lizanec, 1994:125).
The population’s knowledge of Ukrainian mirrors this kind of state of
the Ukrainian language teaching. The census carried out in Ukraine in
1989 asked the language of the Soviet Union which the informant spoke
fluently besides his or her mother tongue. According to the census data in
1989, 17.6 % (48,106 people) of the Transcarpathians whose mother
tongue was not Ukrainian, spoke Ukrainian fluently by their own admis
sion. On the contrary, 53.7 % (more than half!) of those whose mother
tongue was not Russian, spoke Russian by their own admission. 514,516
people (41.3 %) considered they spoke only their mother tongue. Among
the 155,711 Transcarpathian Hungarians, 65,718 people (42.2 %) thought
they spoke Russian, and in spite of the fact that the Ukrainians make up
a majority in the region, only 17,723 people (11.3 %) admitted they spoke
SOCIO LINGUISTIC SITUATION
71
Ukrainian freely and fluently. 72,178 Transcarpathian Hungarians spoke
only Hungarian, their mother tongue, by their own admission (cf. Csernicskó, 1997:72).
In the summer of 1996, seven years after the 1989 census, a sociolinguistic survey was carried out, based on a questionnaire (cf. Kontra, 1998)
in which the Transcarpathian population’s knowledge of languages was in
vestigated. There were 144 informants of Hungarian nationality who an
swered the question: WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF YOUR SPEAKING HUN
GARIAN, RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION?
95 % if the informants considered their own knowledge of Hungarian
very good or mother tongue level, 91 % of them believed their own knowl
edge of Russian ranged between not very good to very good, but only two
thirds of them (67 %) thought their own knowledge of Ukrainian to be of
the same level. Thus, we can state that the Hungarians’ knowledge of
Ukrainian is worse than their knowledge of Russian, and it is proved by the
fact that the ratio of those who know only a few words or less in Russian
is 6.3 % of the sample while in the case of Ukrainian it is 32.6 %. Another
question in the survey was whether the informants could write and read
Hungarian, Russian and Ukrainian. 97 % of the people asked said that they
could write and read Hungarian, 3 % could only read. The ratio of those
writing and reading Russian is close to that of the mother tongue (95.8 %),
but only 56 % of the informants thought they could write and read Ukrain
ian, 30 % could only read, and 14 % could neither write nor read (see Csernicskó 1998c: 174-175).
In 1989 ‘The Law of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic about the
Languages of the Ukrainian SSR’ was passed, according to Article 2 of which
Ukrainian is Ukraine’s state language. Article 27 (The language of teaching
and education in comprehensive schools) declares: „The teaching of
Ukrainian and Russian is obligatory in the comprehensive schools of the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. The Supplement to the Law (‘Resolu
tion of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR about the Order of
Putting into Force the Language Law of the Ukrainian SSR’) concerning the
quoted Article says that it comes into force „within ten years of the Law’s
coming into force” (cf. Botlik & Dupka, 1993:288).
Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine adopted by the Supreme Coun
cil of Ukraine on 28 January, 1996, speaks clearly about the status of the
Ukrainian language: „The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian lan
guage” (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 27 July, 1996, pp. 5-12; The Constitution of
Ukraine, p. 6).
72
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
The teaching of Ukrainian was introduced in 1990 to all the schools of
Ukraine, among them the Transcarpathian Hungarian schools. After pass
ing Ukraine’s Language Law it was in 1990 that the last generation left
school for whom the learning of Ukrainian was not obligatory - unless they
attended schools with Ukrainian as the language of instruction.
But in practice, the teaching of Ukrainian is not without problems, be
cause the Transcarpathian Hungarian schools lack some of the most essen
tial conditions for teaching the state language.
There are no Ukrainian language textbooks, not even primers, prepared
for Hungarian schools (Summons, 1997). Most of the schools use the text
books written for pupils studying Ukrainian in Russian schools (cf. Csanádi,
1996). But in such books, the texts of explanations, exercises, etc. are Russ
ian, and Russian has not been taught in the Transcarpathian Hungarian
schools since 1993.
There are no Hungarian-Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Hungarian dictio
naries prepared for schools. The latest two-volume Ukrainian-Hungarian
and Hungarian-Ukrainian Dictionary was published in 1963 (Katona,
1963). A Ukrainian-Hungarian, Hungarian-Ukrainian one volume pocket
dictionary was published in 1997, containing 5000-5000 entries including
derivatives (Palkó & Palkó, 1997), but - though better than nothing - it is
by no means a piece of work prepared with academic requirements in
mind.
There is a lack of qualified Ukrainian language teachers. Those who
teach the language are usually qualified Russian language teachers who
speak the language to a certain extent. The lack of teachers is not acciden
tal: those who left Hungarian schools were not allowed to apply for admis
sion to the Ukrainian language and literature department of the Uzhhorod
State University before, because Ukrainian was not a school subject in Hun
garian schools, therefore Ukrainian language teachers were not appointed
to Hungarian schools. Nowadays, however, there is a great demand for
Ukrainian language teachers in the region, especially those who speak Hun
garian, too. According to the data of the Berehovo District Education De
partment 64 pedagogues taught the Ukrainian language in Hungarian
schools of the district in the 1995/1996 school year. Among them there were
only 14 qualified Ukrainian language teachers, 33 qualified Russian lan
guage teachers, 8 primary school teachers, 2 cultural workers, 5 teachers
qualified in other subjects (cf. Csanádi, 1996). According to the Declaration
of the TAHP this problem could be solved by retraining the qualified
Russian language teachers (Declaration, 1996).
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
73
The basic methodological ideas of teaching Ukrainian are not precise
and concrete as it was not included in the syllabus of Transcarpathian Hun
garian schools. One cannot directly transfer the methods of teaching Russ
ian because, on the one hand, the qualiti of teaching Russian does not war
rant such a decision, on the other hand, in the Soviet Union the teaching of
Russian was based on the idea that it was the second language of every So
viet citizen, hence it had to be taught as a mother tongue, and not as a for
eign language (cf. Orosz, 1992:53).
Demographic factors should be taken into account when planning
Ukrainian language teaching, e.g. Ukrainian language teaching should not
be the same in the schools of Berehovo District villages where the popula
tion is almost 100 % Hungarian as in the Upper-Tisza area, where it is
possible that the Hungarian first form pupils speak better Ukrainian than
Hungarian.
Furthermor, there has not yet been any discussion about how the
Ukrainian language syllabuses and textbooks prepared for Hungarian
schools should relate to the local Transcarpathian dialects or the Ruthene
language, the status of which is still controversial and the existence of
which has not yet been admitted officially, but - just like some other
Ruthene communities - the Transcarpathian Ruthenes are also trying to
codify a Ruthene standard (cf. Fedynysynec’, 1996). The problem is real and
waiting for a solution, because those Transcarpathian Hungarian children
who go to school with a little knowledge of Ukrainian, do not speak the
Ukrainian standard, but the local dialect to this or that level. Either we
consider the local Slavic variants as a dialect of Ukrainian or as an inde
pendent Ruthene language. Note that the lexical, grammatical differences
between this and the Ukrainian standard are more significant than those
between the Hungarian dialects.
In spite of this, the National Curriculum approved and signed by the
President of Ukraine says that all school-leavers must be provided with the
knowledge of Ukrainian as the state language (cf. Summons, 1997). Article
2 of the Language Law also declares that the state guarantees the opportu
nity for the acquisition of Ukrainian by means of its various institutions
(cf. Закарпатська Правда, 4 November, 1989, p. 2).
However, the problem is not solved. This is proved by the fact that the
Ukrainian-Hungarian Joint Commission Dealing with the Guarantee of the
Rights of National Minorities put this question on the agenda several times
and the Hungarian press regularly deals with this theme. As yet, substan
tial changes have not been made.
74
SOCIO LINGUISTIC SITUATION
During the six years of the state’s independence it has not created the
conditions for minority citizens’ acquiring the Ukrainian language and this
can lead to the isolation of the community. The present conditions of teach
ing the state language remind us of the so-called segregational education
model. The essence of the model applied to minorities is that the language
of teaching is that of the minority and the language of the majority is not
taught, or if it is, the level of effectiveness is very low. It is done with the aim
of segregating and isolating the minority and depriving it of having equal
chances with the majority (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990).
In the opinion of Philipson, Rannut & Skutnabb-Kangas (1994), the
right to learn (at least one of) the official language(s) of a certain country
is part of language human rights. ‘The Hague Recommendations Regard
ing the Education Rights of National Minorities’ declare that the state lan
guage must be taught as a discipline (school subject), possibly by bilingual
teachers (cf. The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education
Rights of National Minorities and Explanatory Note, Article 12, p. 7).
7 .5 .2 .
S
c h o o l - l e a v in g
and
entrance
e x a m in a t io n s
Further problems emerged in relation to Ukrainian while the teaching
of Ukrainian in schools is not satisfactory.
In the February 1996 issue (№ 3-4) of the Collection of Statutes of the
Ukrainian Ministry of Education a decree was published according to which
two obligatory school-leaving examinations should be taken at the end of
Form 9 - in Mathematics and Ukrainian language, and at the end of Form
11 - Ukrainian language and literature, History of Ukraine, Mathematics
and two freely chosen subjects (cf. Інформаційний Збірник Міністерства
Освіти України, 1996:53). This means that the school-leavers of the Transcarpathian schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction must take
examinations in Ukrainian language and literature, but they take an exam
in Hungarian language and literature only if they choose to do so. But the
Ministry left a kind of way out for schools of national minorities. According
to Article 2.4.3. those pupils who were not awarded marks in Ukrainian lan
guage and literature, take examinations „in the language and literature of
other people” (ibid.). In accordance with this, in those Transcarpathian
Hungarian schools where the pupils officially were not awarded marks in
Ukrainian language and literature, children could take examinations in Hun
garian language and literature, and they took an examination in Ukrainian
language only if they chose that subject in addition to the obligatory ones.
SOCIO LINGUISTIC SITUATION
75
Similar decrees appeared in the bulletin of the Ministry of Education re
garding the 1997 school-leaving examinations. At the end of Form 9 and
Form 11 pupils could take school-leaving exams under conditions similar to
those in 1996, i.e. pupils of schools where the language of teaching was not
Ukrainian could take an examination in their mother tongue (as a subject),
if they were not awarded a mark in the Ukrainian language (cf. Інформацій
ний Збірник Міністерства Освіти України, 1997: 4).
Similar problems emerged in connection with the entrance exams to the
university.
Since 1964 it has been possible for the school-leavers to write their com
positions and dictations in Hungarian at the entrance examinations of the
Uzhhorod State University and there were periods when taking a Hungari
an entrance examination in one’s major subject was also possible. In 1986
the right to apply to the university in one’s mother tongue was recorded in
the admission rules (cf. Summons, 1997).
After the passing the Ukrainian Language Law in 1989, the Declaration
of Ukraine’s Sovreignty in 1991, the Declaration about Guaranteeing the
Rights of Minorities (passed by Hungary and Ukraine in 1991), entering in
to the Ukrainian-Hungarian Basic Treaty in 1991 and announcing the
Ukrainian Law of Minorities (1992) the question seemed to be solved and
the right of the Transcarpathian Hungarians to take admission examina
tions to local educational establishments in their mother tongue was guar
anteed. But as it stands, this is not certain at all.
According to Article 29 of the Language Law applicants to higher and
vocational educational establishments take an entrance examination in the
Ukrainian language. Those applicants who learned their mother tongue
parallel to Ukrainian and Russian in the secondary school, applying to an in
stitution with Ukrainian as the language of instruction, also must take an
entrance examination in Ukrainian. It is only the applicants to those high
er and secondary educational institutions training national cadres that can
take an admission examination in their mother tongue. The Ministry of
Education of Ukraine is to make a resolution about the order of entrance
examinations of those who were not graded in Ukrainian language (cf.
Закарпатська Правда, 4 November, 1989, p. 2).
The protraction still going on nowadays began in the 1993/1994 school
year. This was the year when a new rule was introduced: the applicants
‘brought along’ the scores gained at the school-leaving exams in those three
subjects in which they had to take an entrance examination at the given
faculty. The Ukrainian or Russian languages could be found among the ad
76
SOCIOUNGUISTIC SITUATION
mission exams to all the faculties, but in the schools with Hungarian as the
language of teaching applicants could not yet learn Ukrainian on a proper
level (because that subject had been taught in Hungarian schools only for
three years then), and Russian was not taught any longer in most of the
schools according to a ministry decree of August, 1993. The TAHP wrote a
letter to the ministry of Education of Ukraine asking reconsideration of the
decree, referring to the fact that if the Russian minority has the right to
take entrance examinations in their mother tongue, then this right must be
guaranteed for other minorities, too. The THCA addressed the Nationality
and Migration Ministry with a similar request, and finally Uzhhorod State
University made it possible for the applicants leaving Hungarian schools to
bring with them the scores obtained at the Hungarian language schoolleaving exam, and to write a dictation as an admission test not in Ukrainian
or Russian, but in Hungarian (cf. Kárpátaljai Szemle, 1994/4, p. 6-7).
After further agreement Uzhhorod State University made a concession
in the 1994/1995 academic year, to the effect that those applicants who left
schools with Hungarian as the language of teaching and were not graded in
Ukrainian language at their schools, could take entrance examinations in
Hungarian. Though in 1995 Ukrainian was taught in all the Hungarian
schools, the above mentioned were possible in the way that the General Cer
tificate of Secondary Education contained the clause that it was not the
Ukrainian language, but only speaking skills that were taught in Hungari
an schools and that the pupils were not graded in it (cf. Kárpátaljai Szemle,
1995/6-7, p. 9).
Regarding the 1995/1996 academic year, Item 13 of Decree 21 of the
Ministry of Education of Ukraine of 29 January, 1996 (About the Admission
Order to Ukrainian Higher Educational Establishments) declares that it is
obligatory for the school-leavers graded in the Ukrainian language to take an
entrance examination (in the form of composition or dictation) in Ukrainian.
Pupils not graded in Ukrainian take an admission exam in the language in
which the General Certificate of Secondary Education contains a grade.
Item 4.14. of Chapter TV of Decree No 26 of the same Ministry (2 Feb
ruary, 1995) says that it is obligatory to indicate all the grades in the sub
jects of the curriculum in the supplement to the GCSE. Item 4.19. says that
the documents not filled in under the above requirements are to be consid
ered null and void (Summons, 1997). But the Ukrainian language is in the
Curriculum.
Finally, the Ministry of Education of Ukraine issued another decree (No
1/9-210) on 16 May, 1996 in which it allows that those nationality schools
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
77
which taught the Ukrainian language only in 450 academic hours, would not
grade the pupils, but write ‘Learned the Ukrainian langue’ in their GCSE.
This decree was confirmed by the Head of the Regional Educational De
partment in his Decree № 468 (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 3 August, 1996, p. 4.
and 17 August, 1996, p. 4., respectively).
All this has a great importance because those applicants who were
graded in Ukrainian language and literature could sit an admission exam
only in Ukrainian, but those who did not have a grade in Ukrainian in their
GCSE, could take admission exams to Uzhhorod State University in their
native language (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 3 August, 1996, p. 4 and 17 August,
1996, p. 4). But some of the Hungarian schools were not informed about the
decree and its consequences, they graded their pupils in Ukrainian and in
such a way they deprived them of the possibility of taking entrance exams
in their native language.
Thus the state - while it has not created proper conditions for teaching
the state language in nationality schools - theoretically expects that the
school-leavers of nationality schools and those of schools with Ukrainian as
the language of teaching share the same level of knowledge of the Ukrain
ian language, because it sets equal requirements for them in the command
of that language. At the same time the Basic Curriculum says: „If the lan
guage of instruction is identical with that of the state, the requirements to
wards the knowledge of Ukrainian should rise above the generally obligato
ry level” (cf. Summons, 1997). But then it is not clear how the admission sys
tem of requirements can be identical for pupils leaving nationality schools
and those leving schools with Ukrainian as the language of instruction.
In the Spring of 1997 the question of taking entrance exams in the na
tive language was brought up again, and it was only on the 15th of April,
1997, less than three months before the beginning of entrance exams that
the press reported about the fact that applicants could take admission ex
ams in their mother tongue (see Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 15 April, 1997, p. 1; Népszabadság, 15 April, 1997, p. 3, 24 April, p. 3; Beregi Hírlap, 24 April, 1997,
p. 1) and the situation was the same in 1998.
However, the matter was riot settled definitely, because the achievement
of the possibility to take admission exams in the native language was a con
cession every year, and not a fact recorded in a legal rule. Insistence on the
temporary character is due to the fact that the Ukrainian educational lead
ership does not give up its wish to enforce Article 29 of the Language Law
according to which admission examinations should be taken in Ukrainian to
higher and secondary educational establishments of Ukraine. The tempo
78
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
rary indulgence can be explained by the fact that the document disposing
the order of the Language Law’s coming into force defined five to ten years
of grace for realizing this Article, and this termin is coming to an end. Dur
ing this period the new Ukrainian Language Law is certain to be ratified,
which will be likely to contain unambiguous resolutions regarding the lan
guage of admission.
Paragraph VI of Article 6 of the new Recommendation No 1353 (1998)
on access of minorities to higher education of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe says: „Students coming from minority groups
should be given the possibility of taking their entrance exams in their
mother tongue to participate in higher education”. Ukraine is a member of
the Council of Europe. It is true, though, that the recommendations of this
organization are not obligatory.
7 .5 .3 .
T
he
C
o ncept of the
reform
of
m in o r it y
e d u c a t io n
When in Spring, 1997, even though temporarily, the question of taking
admission exams in the mother tongue seemed to be solved, the Ministry of
Education of Ukraine had another idea which tried to undermine the pres
tige of education in the native language. Actually, it is a project of the Min
istry of Education of Ukraine, having the title ‘Conceptual Bases of Meeting
the Educational Requirements of National Minorities of Ukraine’ (original
Ukrainian title: Концептуальні засади задоволення освітних запитів
національних меншин в Україні), which was dated 14 May, 1997, had Reg
istry Number 1/9-183, signed by the Minister of Education, and reached all
the nationality schools with a note that comments were expected to be re
ceived in Kyiv on the 19 May, 1997 (thus in five days!).
In this 16 page document the idea of the Ministry about the education
of national minorities in Ukraine is summarized. Among others, the project
sets poli-cultural education as an aim to be reached, the main idea of which
is the formation of the Ukrainian mentality (page 5). The poli-cultural edu
cational model in the opinion of the project’s authors means that bilingual
teachers (nationality language - Ukrainian) teach in Ukrainian, with the ex
ception of those subjects having ethnic characteristics (i.e. native language
and literature, history and knowledge of one’s country; see pp. 6-7), which
can be learned by the children in their mother tongue. The project claims
that the language of instruction in comprehensive and secondary schools
(according to Ukrainian terminology, schools of stages II—III) must be
Ukrainian except for the subjects with ethnic characteristics. Education in
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
79
the mother tongue can be performed only in primary schools (schools of
stage I) and schools run by nationality organizations.
In connection with Ukrainian the project says: „The project, aiming at
confirming the Ukrainian language as the state language in educational es
tablishments, guarantees the right and duty to acquire Ukrainian on the
level of state standards” (p. 8). But it does not say what is to be understood
by ‘the level of state standards’.
The document declares that the acquisition of Ukrainian makes it pos
sible for minorities to take an active part in the country’s social, civil, and
cultural life and that it guarantees the right to work irrespective of race and
nationality (p. 9). This is in contradiction to Article 6 of Ukraine’s Language
Law, according to which the lack of knowledge of the Ukrainian language is
not a reason for turning down a job application (though at the same time the
person employed must acquire the language used by his office on a level ne
cessary for his post immediately after his being employed). Thus the project
makes the integration of minorities, their taking part in the economic, social
life of the state dependent on the knowledge of the language of the majori
ty, which is discrimination on a language basis and as such, it is against the
Constitution and Law.
There have been four subsequent variations prepared of the project
since that time, but its essential parts remained unchanged.
The educational model sketched in the project is in many ways similar
to the so-called ‘transitional educational programmes’, the essence of which
is that in the first two or four years of school minority children begin study
ing in their native language, and besides it the language of the majority is
also taught to them. After two or four years, when the second language skills
of pupils belonging to a minority are considered to be sufficient for using the
language of the majority for studying and gaining information, the pupils
are ‘changed over’ to studying in the language of the majority. The aim of
this educational model in the long run is forming the majority monolingualism by means of education. The rode of the minority language is restricted
to helping second language acquisition and by this the transition to edu
cation in the language of the majority, i.e. assimilation (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990:25).
The project’s content is contrary to Article 53 of the Constitution of
Ukraine, Articles 6 and 13 of the Law about Ukraine’s Nationalities, Arti
cles 3, 6, 25, and 28 of the Language Law, Article 7 of the Law of Education,
Article 17 of the Ukrainian-Hungarian Inter-state Basic Treaty and Articles
5 and 10 of the Minority Declaration enclosed to the Basic Treaty respec-
80
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
tively and to the recommendations of the Ukrainian-Hungarian Inter-go
vernmental Joint Commission. Furthermore, it cannot be made consistent
with several international documents, e.g. The Universal Declaration of
Language Rights. Nevertheless, it is in accordance with the Hague Recom
mendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities (cf. ‘The
Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Mi
norities’ and Explanatory Note, Articles 12, 13, p. 7).
7 .5 .4 .
W
hat can
w e
lo se
if w e
do
not speak
U
k r a in ia n
?
The question of taking entrance exams in the mother tongue has been
solved every year so far - though only temporarily. But it is another matter
how a Hungarian student manages at university after passing the admission
exams in the native language successfully (knowing the conditions under
which he/she studied the state language), for the language of instruction at
Uzhhorod State University is Ukrainian - except for the Hungarian Philo
logy, Mathematics and Physics Departments where part of the lectures are
held in Hungarian (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 3 May, 1997, p. 11). The Transcarpathian Hungarian students who do not get a grade in Ukrainian, can apply
to Uzhhorod State University because this is the university which makes it
possible to take admission exams in Hungarian by the help of understand
ing Hungarian. There is an exception, The Transcarpathian Hungarian
Teachers’ Training College which was registered not long ago and is not a
state-governed, but a foundation college, where there are four tiers: English-Geography, English-History, History-Geography and Primary School
Teacher Training.
The situation with those who are not graded in Ukrainian and do not
apply to a university is even worse than that, because there are only six vo
cational schools in Transcarpathia where there are Hungarian groups, but
only general subjects are taught in Hungarian. The teaching of the profes
sion itself is in Ukrainian (cf. Bagu, 1996:8).
But those Transcarpathian pupils who were graded in Ukrainian could
not continue taking other exams because they got an unsatisfactory mark at
the first entrance examination which was Ukrainian dictation. In the
1995/1996 academic year not one of those Transcarpathian Hungarian chil
dren who were forced to take their entrance examinations in Ukrainian was
admitted to Uzhhorod University (cf. Kárpátaljai Szemle, 1997/1, p. 3).
The ratio of those who participate in further education among the
Transcarpathian Hungarian population is very low because of language bar
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
81
riers and limits; it is the ratio of applicants to vocational schools that is
mainly shocking. For instance, in the 1993/1994 school year 1,587 pupils got
their general certificates about primary education in one of Transcarpathia’s schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction. In the
following school year (1994/1995) 736 pupils (46.3 %) continued their stud
ies in secondary schools, 614 (44 %!) did not continue their studies at all, and
only 154 pupils (9.7 %) got admission to a vocational or a secondary techni
cal school (cf. Bagu, 1996:8). It can be supposed that this is due to profes
sional education being carried out in Ukrainian.
A kind of solution to the problem can be the training of Transcarpathian
Hungarian students at universities, colleges and vocational schools in Hun
gary. But after finishing his or her studies, the person will certainly need the
knowledge of Ukrainian if he/she wants to get by in Ukraine.
If the Transcarpathian Hungarian intellectual class can assert itself
only within the territory of its own ethnic group, the community can be com
pletely isolated and unemployment can increase which, judging from the
Ukrainian economic conditions, can aggravate their unfavourable perspec
tives and it can also accelerate the process of emigration (e.g. besides eco
nomic reasons, part of the Transcarpathian Hungarian students graduated
from an educational establishment in Hungary will never return home be
cause they do not speak Ukrainian).
It is also important that Transcarpathian Hungarians lose the possibil
ity to be accepted for a state post unless they speak Ukrainian.
For instance, the Constitution says that only the person who speaks the
state language can be elected President of Ukraine (besides other require
ments) (Article 103). It is probable that in the nearest future no one of the
Transcarpathian Hungarians will step down the post of President of
Ukraine because of lacking the knowledge of Ukrainian, but it is more seri
ous that according to Article 127, „A citizen of Ukraine, not younger than
the age of 25, who has a higher legal education and has work experience in
the sphere of law for no less than three years, has resided in Ukraine for no
less than ten years and has command of the state language, may be re
commended for the office of judge by the Qualification Commission of
Judges” (cf. The Constitution of Ukraine, p. 74).
The Language Policy Council functioning beside the President adopted
a program ‘The Ukrainian Language’ setting the following goal: the bases of
the Ukrainian language’s becoming an essential communicative means in
Ukraine must be created (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 26 June, 1997, p. 1). The doc
ument also contains the following: in the future the knowledge of the state
82
SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
language will be considered when filling a state office (cf. ibidem). The new
Ukrainian Law of Elections adopted on 24 September, 1997 says that a citi
zen of Ukraine, not younger than the age of 21, who has resided in Ukraine
for at least five years and speaks the state language fluently can be a candi
date in Ukraine (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 27 Szeptember, 1997, p. 1).
The above mentioned matters have political importance, too. The facts
that Transcarpathian Hungarians have to fight for the right to sit schoolleaving and entrance examinations in their native language every year and
that the result of this struggle in each of the cases depends only on the Min
istry’s ‘benevolence’, gradually undermines the Transcarpathian Hungarian
education system - parents seeing this uncertain situation ask themselves
the question: will it not do harm for children in the long run if they let them
attend schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction? And the re
sults of ruining mother tongue education are known by everybody.
All this, of course, may have a more threatening message. Undermining
the prestige of Hungarian language teaching can serve the isolation of Hun
garians: „making school-leaving and entrance examinations in Ukrainian
obligatory deprives the school-leavers of schools with Hungarian as the lan
guage of teaching of possibilities of equal and honest competing, and in the
long run it degrades the members of the Hungarian national minority into
secondary citizens incapable of rise and development. What makes the situ
ation more difficult is that the state educational bodies have not created the
necessary conditions for acquiring Ukrainian on a proper level, it is taught
in nationality schools in accordance with the conception of teaching the
mother tongue, in this way, therefore, acquisition of the Ukrainian language
by native speakers of Hungarian is made impossible” (Declaration, 1996).
In 1995 the Ukrainian-Hungarian Joint Commission wrote about the
entrance examinations in the following way: „The Joint Commission gree
ted the fact that the Ukrainian party made it possible for pupils studying at
Hungarian schools to sit their school-leaving examinations in Hungarian. It
is recorded in a legal rule that pupils who left schools with Hungarian as the
language of teaching can sit entrance examinations in their mother tongue
at Uzhhorod State University” (Protocol of Session V of Ukrainian-Hun
garian Joint Commission on Guaranteeing Rights of National Minorities,
Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 4 April, 1995, p. 3).
We should not forget either that the deprival of the right to make en
trance examinations in the mother tongue has financial consequences, too.
In Ukraine there is a government regulated limit of number of students
getting admission to a vocational school, college or university. These stu
SOCIO LINGUISTIC SITUATION
83
dents’ studies are financed by the state. Since 1993 educational institutions
can accept students above the limit, but for them paying tuition is obligato
ry. In practice it works like this: those who reached the defined score limits
by the points gained at the entrance examinations, get admission to the
given educational establishment, but those who did not gain the necessary
points can start their studies paying tuition.
As far as citizens belonging to minorities will be deprived of the right to
take entrance examinations in their native language, it is evident that appli
cants whose mother tongue is not Ukrainian are at a disadvantage and will
only have the chance of getting further education at their own expenses.
At the Philology Department of Uzhhorod State University those who
covered their own educational expenses had to pay hryvnias equal to $500
for two terms, at the Medical and Legal Departments this sum was $900 in
the 1996/1997 academic year (cf. Kárpáti Igaz Szó, 15 April, 1997, p. 3). The
monthly income of an average Ukrainian citizen is less than $40.
Thus, the question of sitting entrance exams in the native language is
not only a political, but also an economic matter. And as such, it definitely
influences the perspectives of Transcarpathian Hungarians in the long run.
While the state has not created the conditions for the acquisition of the
state language, it made a sketch of the conception of such a school type for
minority pupils according to which mother tongue education would be
forced back to the level of elementary schools (the first 4 years of study).
László Brenzovics, vice-president of the THCA, considers it to be a further
example of the chaos in Ukraine, and believes that the Ukrainian-Hungarian dictionaries and manuals of the Ukrainian language for Hungarian
schools have not been published because the state does not reckon with na
tionality schools (cf. Magyar Hírlap, 31 October, 1997, p. 7).
Thus, one can feel retrocession in the Ukrainian nationality policy,
which can probably be explained by the fact that Ukraine feeling its Euro
pean positions confirmed, gradually gives up the tactics of tolerance in the
minority question, needed in the first years of its sovereignty for winning
the European public opinion, and now begins to act as a homogenous na
tional state. After the 1991 ratification of the Ukrainian-Hungarian Basic
Treaty, in the first halves of 1996 and 1997 Ukraine signed the Basic Treaty
with all its neighbours, by this sanctioning its frontiers, and after the inter
national political stage it confirmed its positions in the area, too.
SUMMARY
The present book devoted its seven chapters to the demographic, social
and political factors which shape the situation of the autochthonous Hun
garian national minority in the southwestern Ukraine.
The chapter on geography and demography showed favourable condi
tions for Hungarian language maintenance: 95.4 % of all Hungarians in
Ukraine live in Transcarpathia, and 89 % of them live a in districts border
ing on Hungary. There is, however, increasing emigration from the region.
The political analysis treated the minority policies of the former Soviet
Union and present-day Ukraine. The minority laws of Ukraine recognize the
minorities’ existence and regard minority rights as human rights. Minorities
are state-forming entities and discrimination against them is forbidden.
However, the enjoyment of minority rights is restricted for various reasons.
Concerning the maintenance of Hungarian language and culture, one
chapter was devoted to the churches, whose role in this process increased
since the fall of communist rule.
Next, the cultural and political organisations of Hungarians were sur
veyed, and detailed statistical analyses were provided about the Hungarian
educational system.
Relying on sociological research, the authors showed that Transcarpathian Hungarians claim identity with their homeland and the Hungarian
nation much more than with Ukraine.
In summary, the authors characterized the situation of Hungarians in
Transcarpathia as controvessial. Several factors promote language mainte
nance but others work for the dissolution of the community. To the former
belong the current de jure situation of the Hungarian minority, the revival
of old, and the establishment of new, Hungarian organizations and insti
tutes, and the revival of Hungarian churches. The factors which bode ill for
the future include increasing emigration, the ever-worsening economic situ
ation of those who stay, and recent political development which point to
wards a possible abandonment of Ukrainian tolerance to minorities.
NOTES
1 In spite of the fact that a detailed essay was published about the language
situation in Ukraine (Arel, 1995). A book presenting the most important Eu
ropean language contacts does not contain data about the language situa
tion of Transcarpathian Hungarians (cf. Goebl et al. eds., 1996/1997), and
even in the Encyclopaedia of Ukraine not too much can be found about the
Hungarians living in Ukraine (cf. Márkus, 1993).
2 See details about Ukraine’s nationalities in Етнічні меншини в Україні.
3 See Matveeva, Melvin & Pattle, 1997.
4 About the minority and language situation in Ukraine see Stewart, 1993;
Solchanyk, 1993; Shevelov, 1986/1987.
5 The text of the document is published in Botlik & Dupka, 1993:299-300.
6 See the Law in Botlik & Dupka, 1993:313-315.
7 The text of the Basic Treaty is accessible on web site: www.htmh.hu.
8 The text of the Declaration is published in Botlik & Dupka, 1993:294-297.
9 The texts of the Petitions are published in Botlik & Dupka, 1991:160-175.
10 For data about Transcarpathian Hungarian institutions and organizations
see in A kárpátaljai magyar kulturális szervezetek, intézmények, társasá
gok, egyházak, alapítványok, stb. névjegyzéke.
11 The text of the Language Law is published in Hungarian in Botlik & Dup
ka, 1993:289-293; see the Law and its Supplements in the original in Zakarpats'ka Pravda, 4 November, 1989, p. 2.; published in Russian in Na
tionality Papers Vol. 23 No 3, September, 1995 (pp. 644-652).
12 „The following deadlines must be defined for introducing certain articles of
the Law into all spheres of social life...” — says the document enclosed to
the Language Law (Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian So
viet Socialist Republic about the Order of Putting into Force the Language
Law Existing in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic).
13 In the original: „Державною мовою в Україні є українська мова” (cf. Голос
України/The Voice of Ukraine, 13 July, 1996, p. 5).
14 For former summaries of the problem discussed here see Csernicskó, 1998a, b.
REFERENCES
A kárpátaljai magyar kulturális szervezetek, intézmények, társaságok, egyházak,
alapítványok stb. névjegyzéke. [Register of Transcarpathian Hungarian Cul
tural Organizations, Institutions, Societies, Churches, Funds, etc.] Bu
dapest: Magyarok Világszövetsége.
A Kárpátaljai Református Egyház 1996. [The Reformed Church of Trans
carpathia] Beregszász, 1996., MS.
A KMKSZ történetéből. [From the History of THCA] Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix
Kiadó.
A Művelődési és Közoktatási Minisztérium Határon Túli Magyarok Főosztályának
támogatásával kiadott könyvek kárpátaljai jegyzéke. [Transcarpathian list of
books published with the support of the Major Department of Hungarians
beyond the Frontier within the Ministry of Culture and Education of Hun
gary] Catalogue. Ungvár, 1997.
Arel, Dominique 1995. Language Politics in Independent Ukraine: Towards One
or Two State Languages. Nationalities Papers. Volume 23, No. 3 (September
1995): 597-622.
Bagu, Balázs 1995. A kárpátaljai magyar óvodák és óvodai csoportok adatai és cím
listái. [Data and Address Lists of the Transcarpathian Hungarian Kindergardens and Kindergarden Groups] Közoktatás II/3: 19-21.
Bagu, Balázs 1996. Magyar tannyelvű szakoktatás Kárpátalján. [Hungarian Voca
tional Education in Transcarpathia] Közoktatás III/2: 8-9.
Balia, D. Károly 1993. Kis(ebbségi) magyar skizofrénia. [(A little) Hungarian (mi
nority) schizophrenia] Ungvár-Budapest: Galéria Kiadó.
Botlik, József & Dupka, György 1993. Magyarlakta települések ezredéve Kárpát
alján. [A thousand years of the Hungarian populated settlements in Trans
carpathia] Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix Kiadó.
Botlik, József & Dupka, György 1991. Ez hát a hon... [So this is our land...] Budapest-Szeged: Mandátum - Universum.
Brunner, Georg 1995. Nemzetiségi kérdés és kisebbségi konfliktusok Kelet-Európában. [The Nationality Problem and Minority Conflicts in Eastern Eu
rope] Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Convention, 1997. Framework Convention for the protection for national minori
ties and explanatory report.
Csanádi, György 1996. Egy osztályra hat nyelvtankönyv. [Six Grammar Books for
a Whole Class] Kárpáti Igaz Szó 1996. november 5., 6.
Csáti, József & Dióssi, Géza Kornél 1992. A Kárpátaljai Római Katolikus Egyház.
[The Transcarpathian Roman Catholic Church] In: Extra Hungáriám. A
Hatodik Síp antológiája, 176-182. Budapest-Ungvár: Hatodik Síp Kiadó.
90
REFERENCES
Csernicskó, István 1997. A számok tükrében. Kárpátalja lakosságának nemzetisé
gi megoszlása a legutóbbi szovjet népszámlálás (1989) adatai alapján, némi
kitekintéssel. [As mirrored in the numbers: some comments on the nation
ality figures of the population of Transcarpathia as reported in the latest So
viet census of 1989] Forrás 97/5: 70-76.
Csernicskó, István 1998a. Az ukrán nyelv Kárpátalján. [The Ukrainian Language
in Transcarpathia] Regio 1998/1: 5-48.
Csernicskó, István 1998b. Az ukrán nyelv oktatása Kárpátalja magyar iskoláiban.
[Teaching the Ukrainian Language in Transcarpathia’s Schools with Hun
garian Language of Instruction] In: István Lanstyák & Gizella Szabómihály eds.. Nyelvi érintkezések a Kárpát-medencében különös tekintettel a
magyarpárú kétnyelvűségre, 44-59. Pozsony: Kalligram Könyvkiadó - A Ma
gyar Köztársaság Kulturális Intézete.
Csernicskó, István 1998c. A magyar nyelv Ukrajnában (Kárpátalján). [The Hun
garian Language in Ukraine (Transcarpathia)] Budapest: Osiris Kiadó MTA Kisebbségkutató Műhely.
Declaration, 1996. A KMPSZ V közgyűlésének nyilatkozata. [Declaration of the
5th General Assembly of the Transcarpathian Association of Hungarian
Pedagogues] Kárpátaljai Szemle 1996/8: 8.
Desherijev, Yu. D. (Дешериев Ю. Д.) 1966. Закономерности развития и взаимо
действия языков в: советском обществе. Москва: Наука. [Regularities of De
velopment and Interaction of Languages in the Soviet Society] Москва: Наука.
Dupka, György 1993. Koncepciós perek magyar elítéltjei. [Hungarian Convicts of
Conceptional Lawsuits] Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix Kiadó.
Dupka, György 1994. A magyarság számának, összetételének és települési terü
leteinek változása Kárpátalján (1910-től napjainkig). [The Change of Num
ber, Composition and Settlement Areas of the Hungarians in Trans
carpathia] In: József Kovacsics ed., Magyarország nemzetiségeinek és a
szomszédos államok magyarságának statisztikája (1910-1990), 164-174.
Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
Dupka, György ed., 1993. Emlékkönyv a sztálinizmus kárpátaljai áldozatairól
(1944-1946). [White book on the victims of the Stalinism in Transcarpathia
(1944-1946)] Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix Kiadó.
Dupka, György, Horváth, Sándor & Móricz, Kálmán, 1990. Sorsközösség. [Com
munity of fate] Ungvár: Kárpáti Kiadó.
Fedynysynec’, Volodymyr 1996. Végigmenni a megkezdett úton. A kárpát-ruszin
irodalmi nyelv megteremtésének gondolata. [Going Along the Commenced
Way. The Idea of Creating the Carpathian Ruthene Literary Language] Pán
síp VI/1: 18-19.
Goebl, Hans et al eds., 1996-1997. Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of
Contemporary Research. Volumes 1 and 2. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Granchak, I. М. (Гранчак, I. M.) 1997. Угорці Закарпаття в післявоєнні рокі:
кількісний аналіз (1945-1966 pp.). [The Hungarians of Transcarpathia in
the Post-war Years: Quantitative Analysis (1945-1966)] In: Матеріали
науково-практичної конференції „Державне регулювання міжетніч
них відносин в Закарпатті”, 83-97. Ужгород: УжДУ.
REFERENCES
91
Grozdova, I. N. 1971. Etnokulturális folyamatok napjainkban a kárpátaljai magyar
lakosság körében. [Present-day Ethno-cultural Tendencies among the
Transcarpathian Hungarians] In: Gyula Ortutay ed., Népi kultúra - népi
társadalom. Az MTA Néprajzi Kutatócsoportjának évkönyve V-VI., 457-466.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Józan, Lajos & Gulácsy, Lajos 1992. A Kárpátaljai Református Egyház múltja és je
lene. [The Past and Present of the Transcarpathian Reformed Church] In:
Extra Hungáriám. A Hatodik Síp antológiája, 156-162. Budapest-Ungvár:
Hatodik Síp Kiadó.
Kárpátalja településeinek nemzetiségi (anyanyelvi) adatai (1880-1941). [Nationali
ty (Mother Tongue) Data of Transcarpathia’s Settlements (1880-1941)] Bu
dapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1996.
Katona, Lóránt 1963. Ukrán-Magyar szótár. [Ukrainian-Hungarian Dictionary]
Budapest-Uzsgorod: Akadémiai Kiadó - Kárpátontúli Területi Kiadó.
Kloss, Heinz 1967. Types of Multilingual Communities: A discussion of ten vari
ables. In: Stanley Lieberson ed., Explorations in Sociolinguistics, 7-17.
Bloomington: Indiana University.
Kocsis, Károly & Kocsisné Hodosi, Eszter, 1992. Magyarok a határainkon túl a
Kárpát-medencében. [Hungarians beyond the borders of Hungary in the
Carpathian Basin] Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
Kocsis, Károly & Kocsis-Hodosi, Eszter, 1998. Ethnic Geography of the Hungari
an Minorities in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest: Geographical Research
Institute Research Centre for Earth Sciences - Minority Studies Pro
gramme Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Kontra, Miklós 1998. The Sociolinguistics of Hungarian Outside Hungary (Final
Report to the Research Support Scheme) Budapest: Linguistic Institute,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences m s .
Kovács, Elemér 1996. így látjuk mi. A kárpátaljai magyarság értékrendje. [We See
It in This Way. The Scales of Values of the Transcarpathian Hungarians]
Kárpátaljai Szemle IV/6: 18-19.
Lajos, Mihály 1996. A görögkatolikus egyház tegnap ...és ma. [The Greek Catholic
Church Yesterday... and Today] Kárpátaljai Szemle IV/2: 15.
Lizanec, Petro 1993. Magyar felsőfokú oktatási és tudományos intézmények Kár
pátalján. [Hungarian Higher Educational and Scientific Establishments in
Transcarpathia] In: Az Ungvári Hungarológiai Intézet tudományos
gyűjteménye, 6-37. Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix Kiadó.
Lizanec, Petro 1994. Українська мова в угорськомовних школах Закарпаття та
в Угорщині. [The Ukrainian Language in the Hungarian Schools of Trans
carpathia and in Hungary] Acta Hungarica III: 125-130.
Magocsi, Paul Robert 1996. The Hungarians in Transcarpathia (Subcarpathian
Rus’). Nationalities Papers 24 (3): 525-534.
Magyar törvénytár. 1918. évi törvénycikkek. [Hungarian Code of Laws. Articles of
1918] Budapest, 1919.
Márkus, V 1993. Language legislation. In: Danylo Husar Struk ed., Encyclopedia
of Ukraine. Vol. III., L-Pf: 44-46. University of Toronto Press Incorporated.
92
REFERENCES
Maryna, V V (Марина, В. В.) 1997. Этнокультурный ренессанс румынов Закар
патья. [Ethno-cultural Renaissance of the Transcarpathian Rumanians] In:
Матеріали науково-практичної конференції „Державне регулювання
міжетнічних відносин в Закарпатті”, 110-115. Ужгород: УжДУ.
Matso, N. О. & Luts, О. М. (Мацо, Н. О. & Луць, О. М.) 1997. Національний склад
населення Закарпатської області (згідно перепису 1989 p.). [Nationality
Composition of the Transcarpathian Territory (According to the 1989 Cen
sus)] In: Матеріали науково-практичної конференції „Державне регулю
вання міжетнічних відносин в Закарпатті” 214-234. Ужгород: УжДУ.
Matveeva, Anna, Melvin, Neil & Pattle, Suzanne 1997. The Commonwealth of In
dependent States. Ukraine. In: World Directory of Minorities, 317-321. Lon
don: Minority Rights Group.
Miller, J. 1994. Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In: R. E. Asher et al
eds. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 613-614. Oxford, New
York, Seoul, Tokyo: Pergamon Press.
Myhovych, І. І. (Мигович, I. I.) 1997. Проблеми соціалізації основних етносоціальних спільнот Закарпаття. [The Problems of Socialization of Es
sential Ethno-social Groups of Transcarpathia] In: Матеріали науковопрактичної конференції „Державне регулювання міжетнічних
відносин в Закарпатті”, 46-57. Ужгород: УжДУ.
Orosz, Ildikó 1992. Non scholae, sed vitae... A kárpátaljai magyar anyanyelvű ok
tatás helyzete 1944 után. [Non scholae, sed vitae... The State of the Trans
carpathian Hungarian Mother-tongue Education After 1944] In: Extra Hun
gáriám. A Hatodik Síp antológiája, 52-63. Budapest-Ungvár: Hatodik Síp.
Orosz, Ildikó 1995. A magyar nyelvű oktatás esélyei Kárpátalján. [The Chances of
Teaching in Hungarian in Transcarpathia] Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix Kiadó.
Orosz, Ildikó 1998. Anyanyelvről, oktatásról egy koncepciótervezet kapcsán.
[About Moter-tongue and Education in Connection with a Conception Pro
ject] Közoktatás V/2: 3-5.
Palkó, István & Palkó, Gyula, 1997. Magyar-Ukrán, Ukrán-Magyar kisszótár.
[Hungarian-Ukrainian, Ukrainian-Hungarian Pocket Dictionary] Ungvár:
Tárogató Könyvek.
Petition I. In: Botlik & Dupka, 1991: 160-166.
Petition II. In: Botlik & Dupka, 1991: 167-175.
Phillipson, Robert, Rannut, Mart & Skutnabb-Kangas, Töve 1994. Introduction.
In: T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson eds., Linguistic human rights: over
coming linguistic discrimination, 1-22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Report on the situation of Hungarians in the Ukraine. In web site
www.htmh.hu/dokumentumok.
Shamshur, Oleg V & Izhevskaya, Tetiana I. 1994. Multilingual Education as a Fac
tor of Inter-Ethnic Relations: The Case of the Ukraine. Current Issuses in
Language in Society. Vol. 1. No. 1: 29-39.
Shevelov, George Y. 1986/1987. The Language Question in the Ukraine in the
Twentieth Century (1900-1941). I—
II. Harvard Ukrainian Studie Vol. X
(1986): 70-170., XI (1987): 118-224.
REFERENCES
93
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove 1990. Language, Literacy and Minorities. London: A Mi
norities Rights Group Report.
Solchanyk, Roman 1993. The Politics of Language in Ukraine. RFE/RL Research
Report Vol. 2, N 10, 5 March 1993: 1-4.
Soós, Kálmán 1993. Magyar tudományos élet Kárpátalján. [Hungarian Scientific
Life in Transcarpathia] Magyar Tudomány 1993/5: 635-638.
Stewart, Susan 1993. Ukraine’s Policy toward Its Ethnic Minorities. RFE/RL Re
search Report Vol. 2. No. 36. 10 September 1993: 55-62.
Summons, 1997. Az ungvári járási nemzetiségi iskolák ukránnyelv tanárainak fel
hívása. [The Summons of Teachers of Ukrainian of Nationality Schools in
the Uzhhorod District] Kárpátaljai Szemle 1997/1: 5.
Dr. Szabó, László 1993. Kárpátaljai demográfiai adatok. [Demographic data of
Transcarpathia] Ungvár-Budapest: Intermix Kiadó.
The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Mi
norities & Explanatory Note. The Hague: Foundation on Inter-Ethnic Rela
tions, October 1996.
Tíz év a kárpátaljai magyarság szolgálatában. [Ten Years in the Service of the
Transcarpathian Hungarians] Ungvár: KMKSZ, 1999.
Trudgill, Peter 1992. Introducing language and society. London: Penguin English.
Tur, Yevgenyi (Тур, Евгений) 1996. Карта национальностей Украины или
национальная карта. [The Map of Nationalities of Ukraine or the National
Chart] Регион 16 января 1996 г., 17.
Ukrajna Alkotmánya. [The Constitution of Ukraine] Ungvár: Kárpáti Kiadó, 1997.
Vardy, S. B. 1989. Soviet Nationality Policy in Carpatho-Ukraine since World War
II: The Hungarian of Sub-Carpathia. Hungarian Studies Review. Vol. XVI.,
Nos. 1-2: 67-91.
Yemets, G. S. & Dyachenko, В. I. (бмець, Г. С. & Дяченко, Б. І.) 1993. Циганське
населення Закарпаття. [The Gipsy Population of Transcarpathia]
Ужгород: Видавництво Карпати.
Бюллетень Статистики [Bulletin of Statistics] 1990/10: 76-79. Москва.
Зтнічні меншини в Україні. [Ethnic Minorities in Ukraine] Київ: Інститут
соціології HAH України - Міністерство України у справах національ
ностей та міграції.
Інформаційний збірник міністерства освіти України 3-4. [Informational Col
lection of the Ministry of Education of Ukraine] 1996 лютий. Київ: Освіта.
Інформаційний збірник міністерства освіти України 3-4. [Informational Collection
of the Ministry of Education of Ukraine] 1997 лютий. Київ: Педагогічна преса
Концептуальні засади задоволення освітних запитів національних меншин
в Україні. [Conceptual Fundamentals of Meeting the Educational Require
ments of National Minorities in Ukraine] Київ, 1997.
Склад населення no окремих національностях і рідний мові за данними
перепису населення 1989 року. [The Composition of Population According
to Separate Nationalities and Mother-tongue in Accordance with the 1989
Census] Ужгород: Закарпатське обласне управління статистики, 1990.
APPENDIX
The photographs in the volume were made by
Anikó Beregszászi
István Csernicskó
Mihály Fakász
Imre Ferenczy
Gusztáv Kacsur
Mátyás Markovics
Ildikó Orosz
Aleksey Popov
Sándor Szabó
Additional photographs from archived files and published
2. Ukrainian-Hungarian bilingual road sign
4. Panorama from H uszt Castle
6 . Lake Szinevar,
800 metres above sea level, formed by rockslide
7. Pond in the park of Schonborn Castle, Beregvar
8. View from Verecke Pass
9. View from Verecke Pass
10. Ruins of Nevicke Castle
1
12. Reformed church, Viski
11. Greek Catholic cathedral, Ungvar
13. Reformed church, Bátyú
14. Reformed church, built in 1996, Csap
15. Inner yard of Ungvár Castle
16. Upper Castle, Munkács
17. Main Street of a Transcarpathian Hungarian village (Bátyú) as seen from
the church tower
18. View of Bátyú from the church tower
19. Ruthenian woman shelling corn (Beregrákos)
20. Hungarian women getting ready for home-canning (Bátyú)
21. Folk embroidery (Bátyú)
22. Folkweave (Nagybereg)
24. Hungarian village primary school (Bátyú)
25. Class of Hungarian Grammar in the school of Bátyú
26. Before a maths class
27. Ukrainian and Hungarian banners in the Main Square of Beregszász,
Spring 1999
28. Centre of Raho, the Hungarian-inhabited Trancarpathian town furthest
away from the Hungarian border
30. White Stone Restaurant, Beregszász
32. A street in Beregszász
33. Monument of the first victorious battle of the 18th-century
Rákóczi War of Independence (Tiszaújlak)
34. Tiszaújlak
35. Statue of V. I. Lenin in the Main Square of Ungvar, 1989
36. Removal of the statue of Lenin in the Main Square of Ungvar, 1991
38. Removal of the statue of Lenin in the Main Square of Ungvar, 1991
39. Transcarpathian Hungárián Teacher Training College in the centre of
Beregszász
40. Opening ceremony at the Transcarpathian Hungarian Teacher Training
College, 1 September 1997
42. Monument of the victims of Stalinism (Nagybereg)
Published by TINTA Publishers
H-1116 Budapest, Szatmarhegy utca 13. Hungary
Tel: 36-1-208 58 11; Fax: 36-1-208 39 89
E-mail: kissgabo@elender.hu
Printed in Hungary by AKAPRINT