The paper deals with the theme of the Transylvanian Party [Erdélyi Párt], one of the most important Hungarian political formations in Transylvania in the 20th century. After the reintegration of Northern Transylvania in the Hungarian state following the Second Vienna Arbitration, Hungarians became a majority in the region, established their own political party, the Transylvanian Party, with powerful local characteristics. The paper concentrates on the analysis of the Transylvanian Party, it presents its foundation, its representation in the Hungarian Parliament, and its relations with the Hungarian government. The paper tries to give an overview of the successes and failures of the party as well. Finally, the decline of the Transylvanian Party and its political heritage are presented. The source material of the paper consists of archival data, publications of the Transylvanian Party, special books, studies, articles of the contemporary press, and on-line publications.
The relevance of languages and multilingual communication for social policy and solidarity in the context of the nation-state has generally been recognized. However, in the context of Europeanization, this factor has been underestimated and neglected in scientific research. This paper argues that languages and multilingual communication are relevant for the design of Social Europe. In order to support this hypothesis, the paper relies on an analytical tool, the so-called floral figuration model proposed by De Swaan (1988). This model allows us to isolate social and linguistic actors and track down complex patterns of linguistic and communicative exclusion in Europe’s system of multilevel governance. These patterns also refer to international or global English or its technically adapted Brussels variety, ‘Euro-English’. From this, also follows that these patterns of linguistic and communicative exclusion must be rendered into inclusive ones before a European social policy can be realized.
In his book Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World, Van Parijs analyses in one of his chapters the brain drain from non-Anglophone to Anglophone countries, which hurts the economic development of the non-Anglophone states. Van Parijs deems it clear that English is a very important factor to explain high-skilled migration. He, therefore, urges the non-Anglophone countries to relax their linguistic territorial constraints and allow English as a communication language in many different sectors, most notably higher education and scientific research. This would remove the incentive for potential expatriate brains to migrate for linguistic reasons. This article takes a closer look at Van Parijs’ reasoning and proposed solutions. It is concluded that the assumed connection between English and high-skilled migration cannot be proven empirically for research on this topic is scarcely available. Furthermore, the solutions presented by Van Parijs will produce uncertain results at best. Van Parijs rightfully puts the brain drain problem on the political and research agenda, but much more additional studies are needed to formulate solid solutions.
In this note, we outline various possible long-run effects of an English-only acquisition policy in the European Union. The point of departure is how individual behaviour adapts to constraints in the environment. This leads to changes in collective behaviour, which becomes part of the environment, again influencing individual behaviour. Possible equilibria of this feedback mechanism are discussed. It is argued that domain loss and diglossia may result. The process is further characterized by external effects. Looking at language knowledge as a merit good, path dependencies and multiple stable equilibria can be explained.
This contribution will engage with Van Parijs’s approach to linguistic justice and his working principles for the reduction of unfairness in the language domain (in particular, the need for intervention and his territorial principle), reflecting on a range of cases of multilingual practice and linguistic coexistence – respectively, in the multilingual capital of the world which is London today; in Fryslân, the minority language area in northern Netherlands; and in Europe, through its European Charter of Regional Minority Languages.
Overall, my argument, on a theoretical level, is for the further exploration of the relationship between linguistic diversity and human rights in civil society; and, on a practical level, for the development of a World Language Atlas as envisaged by UNESCO, containing vital information on all the world’s languages – an urgently needed basic resource for policy-making, to ensure, especially for the world’s many endangered languages, the linguistic justice and fairness advocated by Van Parijs.
The article is a brief evaluation of the regulatory environment of language use in Transylvania, Romania based on Van Parijs’ conceptual toolkit presented in his 2011 book Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World. This linguistic regime is a coercive hybrid regulation containing elements stemming from both the categorical regime (personality principle) and territoriality. In municipalities or counties where the official use of minority languages is permitted, it is typically present in a conjunctive manner, but its enforcement is weak and inconsistent. The principle of territorially coercive linguistic subdivision – proposed by Van Parijs as an optimal solution for a greater linguistic justice – is not accommodated in any of the fields of official communication and under present political circumstances it has no further plausibility. A hypothetical alternative for the territorially coercive regime would be the introduction of English as a lingua franca in interethnic communication. We argued that this latter option would be fair only if English could entirely replace the official languages currently in use or it would receive a fully equivalent status at least in those regions where a considerable number of linguistic minorities live.
In the European Union language regime debate, theorists of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism have framed their arguments in reference to different theories of justice and democracy. Philippe Van Parijs advocates the diffusion of a lingua franca, namely English, as means of changing the scale of the justificatory community to the European level and allowing the creation of a transnational demos. Paradoxically, one key dimension of democracy has hardly been addressed in this discussion: the question of the democratic legitimacy of language regime choices and citizens’ preferences on the different language regime scenarios. Addressing the question of the congruence of language policy choices operated by national and European elites and ordinary citizens’ preferences, this paper argues first that the dimension of democratic legitimacy is crucial and needs to be taken into account in discussions around linguistic justice. Criticizing the assumption of a direct correspondence between individuals’ language learning choices and citizens’ language regime preferences made by different authors, the analysis shows the ambivalence of citizens’ preferences measured by survey data. The article secondly raises the question of the boundaries of the political community at which the expression of citizens’ preferences should be measured and demonstrates that the outcome and the fairness of territorial linguistic regimes may vary significantly according to the level at which this democratic legitimacy is taken into account.
In advocating the use of a global auxiliary language, Van Parijs forms part of a tradition that stretches back to the seventeenth century. However, he differs from this tradition in promoting the use of English rather than an artificial language of some sort. This paper examines the theoretical situation that van Parijs proposes as the most fair, in which English functions worldwide as the preferred auxiliary language and in which certain measures have been taken to counterbalance injustices of three types. I draw attention to injustices of each of these types done to speakers of English in that situation. This leads to the conclusion that proposals to use an artificial language as a global lingua franca that were made in the seventeenth and later centuries have a stronger case than van Parijs has argued.