Višejezičnost u translajtanijskom dijelu Austro-ugarske monarije (1867.-1918.): politika i praksa

With the Compromise of 1867, the Hungarian Kingdom received an equal status within the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. Hungary became a sovereign entity within the Habsburg Monarchy. Next to a common monarch from the House of Habsburg who had the title of ‘emperor’ in Austria and that of ‘king’ in Hungary, three ministries were in common, including the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Defence. The Compro-mise marking the autonomous position of Hungary in the Double Monarchy ended in 1918 with the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire; hence the timeframe of this study (1867–1918). The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a clear multilingual state in which fourteen languages were officially recognized, including Croatian, Czech, German, Hungarian, Italian, Lithua-nian, Polish, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Ukrainian and Turkish. Al-though not all the languages were spoken throughout the Empire and sometimes very much restricted to certain regions and local areas, multilingualism was regulated by law. In this pa-per, I concentrate on multilingualism in the Hungarian, i.e. the Transleithanian part of the Dual Monarchy. I will discuss its language policy and its practice focussing on the primary educational system which offers illuminating insight into the multilingual state of affairs in the Hungarian Kingdom. I will be critical of post World War I tradition in historiography claiming that multilingualism was severely restricted in the Hungarian Kingdom and that the non-Hungarian state languages were suppressed being the only reason for causing harsh lan-guage and ethnic conflicts. Rather, the analysis of multilingualism in the Hungarian Kingdom is more complex than setting up a simple, bipolar opposition in terms of ‘Hungarian’ versus ‘non-Hungarian.’ The language policy of the Hungarian Kingdom stipulated in ‘Nationality Law’ XLIV (1868), although declaring Hungarian the language of the state, allowed the use of any other official language than Hungarian at the local level, both in government, judiciary, church organizations and schools. The application of this principle did not prevent however the outbreak of language and ethnic conflicts in the period under study.Sporazumom iz 1867. Kraljevina Mađarska dobila je ravnopravan status u dvojnoj Austro-ugarskoj monarhiji. Mađarska je postala suvereni dio Habsburške monarhije. Uz zajedničkog vladara iz redova Habsburga, koji je imao titulu „monarha“ u Austriji i „kralja“ u Mađarskoj, postojala su i tri zajednička ministarstva: Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova, Ministarstvo finan-cija i Ministarstvo obrane. Sporazum kojim se uređuje autonomni status Mađarske u Dvojnoj monarhiji istekao je 1918. raspadom Habsburške monarhije, zbog čega se ovo istraživanje bavi upravo tim vremenskim razdobljem (1867.–1918.). Austro-ugarska monarhija bila je višejezična država s četrnaest službeno priznatih jezika: hrvatskih, češkim, njemačkim, mađarskim, talijanskim, litvanskim, poljskim, rumunjskim, rutenskim, srpskim, slovačkim, slovenskim, ukrajinskim i turskim. Iako se svi ti jezici nisu govorili u svim dijelovima mon-arhije i ponekad su bili ograničeni na pojedine regije, višejezičnost je bila regulirana zako-nom. U ovom se radu govori o višejezičnosti u mađarskom, odnosno translajtanijskom dijelu dvojne monarhije. Govori se i o jezičnoj politici i praksi s posebnim osvrtom na sustav os-novnog obrazovanja koji može ponuditi uvid u višejezičnost u Kraljevini Mađarskoj. Daje se i kritički osvrt na historiografsku tradiciju nakon prvog svjetskog rata koja tvrdi da je više-jezičnost bila strogo ograničena u Kraljevini Mađarskoj i da su ostali službeni jezici, osim mađarskog, bili strogo ograničeni, što je uzrokovalo oštre jezične i etničke sukobe. Međutim, analiza višejezičnosti u Kraljevini Mađarskoj mora biti kompleksnija od puke dvojne opozicije između “mađarskog” i “ne-mađarskog”. Jezična politika Kraljevine Mađarske zapisana je u “Nacionalnom zakonu iz 1868., u kojem je mađarski određen kao službeni jezik, no dopušta se i korištenje svih drugih službenih jezika na lokalnoj razini, kako u državnoj i pravosudnoj službi, tako i u crkvenim organizacijama i školama. Primjena ovog principa nije međutim spriječila izbijanje jezičnih i etničkih sukoba u razdoblju izučavanja

Preface to the special issue on multilingualism in Europe

The introductory article provides a brief description of the contents of the thematic issue on multilingualism in Europe

Empowering hungarian ethno-linguistic minorities in Central- and Eastern Europe

The paper adopts the position that language is an intrinsic and largely non-negotiable part of individual culture and identity. The recognition of one’s own language receives more and more support in international political and institutional frameworks. The promotion of linguistic diversity has become the official policy of the European Union. Due to such policies it is to be expected that languages will be and will remain in contact in the context of all sorts of levels of governance. In order to manage linguistic diversity in multilingual and multicultural areas the introduction of a global regime of language policies is unavoidable. These policies will need to satisfy transnational requirements and conditions, like universal human rights and Europeanization norms and standards set by the EU, OSCE, Council of Europe, and so on. However, because there are manifold connections between language and power, as we know from the work of the well-known political scientists, like Pierre Bourdieu, and sociolinguists, like Peter Nelde. The latter claims that an intergroup conflict has always a language element to it.1 Hence, it is to be expectded that language policies will be subject to power conflicts and hegemonic strives. In order to support my claim I will analyse the language policies of states with Hungarian language minorities in Central Europe, particularly Romania, Slovakia, Serbia (Vojvodina), and Ukraine (Trans-Carpathia). These policies can be studied in terms of concrete variables, like individual/collective rights, territorial or personal arrangements, thresholds, the Language Charter, multilingual education, the linguistic landscape, and so on. The range in which these variables are implemented is determined by local politics. Hence, this is subject to the politics of language policy. The ordering of these variables and vectors result into a typology of language policy representing a categorization of liberal language rights for minorites

Multilingualism and social inclusion

This is a thematic issue on the relation between multilingualism and social inclusion. Due to globalization, Europeanization, supranational and transnational regulations linguistic diversity and multilingualism are on the rise. Migration and old and new forms of mobility play an important role in these processes. As a consequence, English as the only global language is spreading around the world, including Europe and the European Union. Social and linguistic inclusion was accounted for in the pre-globalization age by the nation-state ideology implementing the "one nation-one people-one language" doctrine into practice. This lead to forced linguistic assimilation and the elimination of cultural and linguistic heritage. Now, in the present age of globalization, linguistic diversity at the national state level has been recognized and multilingual states have been developing where all types of languages can be used in governance and daily life protected by a legal framework. This does not mean that there is full equality of languages. This carries over to the fair and just social inclusion of the speakers of these weaker, dominated languages as well. There is always a power question related to multilingualism. The ten case studies in this thematic issue elaborate on the relation between multilingualism and social inclusion. The articles in this issue refer to this topic in connection with different spaces, including the city, the island, and the globe; in connection with different groups, like Roma in the former Soviet-Union and ethnic Albanians in Macedonia; in connection with migration and mobility of Nordic pensioners to the south of Europe, and language education in Scotland; and finally in connection with bilingual education in Austria and Estonia as examples of successful practices including multilingualism under one and the same school roof

Are traditional minority languages a bench marking for the rights of migrant languages in the European Union?

In this paper a normative position will be defended. We will argue that minimal territorial minority language rights formulated in terms of the personality principle referring to traditional minority languages granted in the framework of the European Union (EU) are a benchmark for non-territorial linguistic rights. Although territorial minority languages should be granted collective rights this is in large parts of Europe not the case. Especially in the Central and Eastern European Member States language rights granted to territorial languages are assigned on the basis of personal language rights. Our argumentation will be elaborated on the basis of a comparative approach discussing the status of a traditional territorial language in Romania, more in particular Hungarian spoken in the Szeklerland area with the one of migrant languages in the Netherlands, more in particular Turkish. In accordance with the language hierarchy implying that territorial languages have a higher status than non-territorial languages both in the EUs and Member States’ language regimes nonterritorial linguistic rights will be realized as personal rights in the first place. Hence, the use of non-territorial minority languages is conditioned much as the use of territorial minority languages in the national Member States. So, the best possible scenario for mobile minority languages is to be recognized as a personal right and receive full support from the states where they are spoken. It is true that learning the host language would make inclusion of migrant language speakers into the host society smoother and securing a better position on the labour market. This should however be done without striving for full assimilation of the speakers of migrant languages for this would violate the linguistic rights of migrants to speak and cultivate one’s own heritage language, violate the EUs linguistic diversity policy, and is against the advantages provided by linguistic capital in the sense of BOURDIEU (1991)

Evidence, detailed characterization and clinical context of complement activation in acute multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a rare, life-threatening complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. MIS-C develops with high fever, marked inflammation and shock-like picture several weeks after exposure to, or mild infection with SARS-CoV-2. Deep immune profiling identified activated macrophages, neutrophils, B-plasmablasts and CD8 + T cells as key determinants of pathogenesis together with multiple inflammatory markers. The disease rapidly responds to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment with clear changes of immune features. Here we present the results of a comprehensive analysis of the complement system in the context of MIS-C activity and describe characteristic changes during IVIG treatment. We show that activation markers of the classical, alternative and terminal pathways are highly elevated, that the activation is largely independent of anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immune response, but is strongly associated with markers of macrophage activation. Decrease of complement activation is closely associated with rapid improvement of MIS-C after IVIG treatment