Linguistic landscapes as representatives of power relations in the public space : the case of Sotuhern Slovakia

(1)

11/06/ 2019

LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPES AS REPRESENTATIVES

OF POWER RELATIONS IN THE PUBLIC SPACE:

THE CASE OF SOTUHERN SLOVAKIA

MASTER THESIS

MONIKA VŇUKOVÁ

12266396

vnukova.monika@gmail.com

(2)

ABSTRACT: This thesis deals with the linkage of language use and the portrayal of present power-relations within the public spectrum of southern Slovakia. The analysis is based on collected data from linguistic landscapes research in the cities of Komárno, Dunajská Streda and Nové Zámky. The focus is on identifying similarities or differences as found within and between the research sites with respect to signs being mono or multilingual and the different language combinations used. The aim is to identify the role of the Slovak language law in shaping the portrayal of power division between the dominant Slovak and the minority Slovak-Hungarian population as established by the use of language on signs in southern Slovakia. Drawing on Ben-Rafael et al’s research in Israel, linguistic landscapes are theorised as first-hand indicators of the power relations between different linguistic communities occupying a shared space. As a result, this thesis finds the power distribution and the connection or separation between the linguistic communities is dependant on the population make-up of each city, whereas settlements dominated by Slovak-Hungarians are mostly multilingual, with power equally distributed and Slovak-dominated settlements being mostly monolingual, with power on the Slovak side.

(3)

Figure Tables

Table 1 - Information which will be collected for each sign during data collection ... 20

Table 2 – Showing the Sign Statistics for Komárno Site 1: City Centre ... 24

Table 3 - Sign Statistics for Komárno Site 2: Predominantly Hungarian Periphery ... 26

Table 4 - Sign Statistics for Komárno Site 3: Predominantly Slovak Periphery ... 27

Table 5 - Sign Statistics for Dunajská Streda Site 1: City Centre ... 34

Table 6 - Sign Statistics for Dunajská Streda Site 2: Predominantly Hungarian Periphery ... 36

Table 7 - Sign Statistics for Dunajská Streda Site 3: Predominantly Slovak Periphery ... 38

Table 8 - Sign Statistics for Nové Zámky Site 1: City Centre ... 45

Table 9 - Sign Statistics for Nové Zámky Site 2: Predominantly Hungarian Periphery ... 47

Table 10 - Sign Statistics for Nové Zámky Site 3: Predominantly Slovak Periphery ... 49

Photo 1 Showing Multilingual Information Signs ... 58

Photo 2 Showing a Monolingual Traffic Sign in Komárno ... 58

Photo 4 Showing an All English Sign Advertisign a Local Business ... 60

Photo 3 Showing the Hungarian-only Sign advertisign a Clothing Flea Market ... 60

Graph 1 - Mono vs Multilingualsim in Komárno ... 28

Graph 2 - Mono vs Multilingual Signs by Sector in Komárno ... 29

Graph 3 - Overall Language Preference by Sector in Komárno ... 29

Graph 4 - Language Preference by Sector in Komárno ... 32

Graph 5 - Mono vs Multilingualism in Dunajská Streda ... 39

Graph 6 - Mono vs Multilingual Signs in Dunajská Streda ... 40

Graph 7- Overall Language Preference in Dunajská Streda ... 41

Graph 8 - Language Preference by Sector in Dunajská Streda ... 43

Graph 9 - Mono vs Multilingualism in Nové Zámky ... 50

Graph 10 - Mono vs Multilingual Signs by Sector in Nové Zámky ... 51

Graph 11 - Language Preference by Sector in Nové Zámky ... 52

Graph 12 - Language Preference by Sector in Nové Zámky ... 54 Map 1 - 2011 Census information regarding the ethnic makeup of municipalities in Slovakia 13

(5)

Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Topic Introduction and Problematics Explanation

This thesis will present an empirical study titled Linguistic Landscapes as Representatives of Power Relations in the Public Space: The Case of Southern Slovakia’. It will investigate this issue from a geopolitical standpoint of looking at the representation of power relations, between the Hungarian minority and the Slovak population, within the spectrum of the public space. Linguistic landscapes (LL) will be theorised as indicators of the power relations and will furthermore be investigated as tools for either linguistic borders or linguistic frontiers. Three sites of data collection were utilised: Komárno, Dunajská Streda and Nové Zámky. With similar population sizes, the cities represent different linguistic communities’ make-ups which served as basis for comparison between but also within sites, where LL’s of the city centre and peripheries were contrasted.

Born in Slovakia with Slovak as my mother tongue, growing up in Czechia and Germany, studying in the United Kingdom, Austria and the Netherlands, learning and studying languages has always been a necessary part of my life. With the hindsight of newly gained knowledge from being a Political Geography student, I have come to pay more attention to daily interactions with geopolitical issues in the public sphere such as LL, which allowed me to exist and fully interact within a country with a different mother tongue than my own. My own experience inspired this research of minority languages within the Slovak territory and the power relations between the two groups.

1.2 Relevance to Academia Today

The academic and societal intent of this research is to serve as an addition to the ongoing project titled Interethnic processes and the everyday practice of multiculturalism in South Slovakia funded by grants from the Government Office of Slovakia. This project has been investigating the language question, while trying to provide empirical evidence for the growing concerns of conflict between the official Slovak language and the use of Hungarian in southern Slovakia, ever since 2011. Among other things, the project is identifying arguments for and against implementing a strict language law concerning the use of Slovak within public domains. In this respect, my own thesis will attempt to identify the representation of power relations between the state and the minority language as reflected in the linguistic landscape and it will also try to draw conclusions regarding to what extent does this contribute to either a linguistic frontier or a linguistic border. Continuous funding of this research project and the number of contributions by academics, together with its goal of gaining information for drafting future laws, justifies the importance of this chosen topic during this time. This research will be filling-in a gap in Slovak academic literature regarding the role of LL and their importance in geopolitics. Academics have previously written about countries such as Japan (Backhaus, 2006), New Zealand (Macalister, 2010), Bosna and Herzegovina (Grbavac, 2013), France (Blackwood, 2011), Spain (Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009), Israel (Ben-Rafael et al, 2006),

(6)

Germany (Papen, 2012), United Kingdom (Peake, 2012). It is noticable that most of the research took place in developed or western countries, no central European countries have been investigated. This research will enrich both, the Slovak geopolical literature via the use of LL as a method of investigation, as well as the overall academic world, by investigating a new geographical area within this context.

The Governmental Office of Slovakia is allocating grants towards researching and realising the preservation, expression, protection and development of identity and cultural values of national minorities, since 2011 (Narodnostnemensiny.gov.sk, 2019). One of the seven aspects which the grant is funding is the research of language and identity of minority citizens and it is towards this goal that my research will aspire to contribute to, by investigating the languages and power-relations between the two language groups. Drawing conclusions on power-relations in southern Slovakia, as interpreted from linguistic signs, where the origin and co-existence of signs will be analysed will aim to enrich this research agenda.

(7)

Chapter 2 – Language in Geopolitics Today 2.1 Linguistic Landscapes

What place does language have in today’s Geopolitics? While not evident at first glance, LL, power-relations and linguistic policies are all inter-connected within the public space sphere and tied together by discourse nationalism. Following sections will uncover this relationship further.

The term linguistic landscape was first utilised by Landry and Bourhis, their definition being: ‘’the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs and public signs on governmental buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of

a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration (1997:.25)’’.

They believe that LL is a valuable marker of relative power of various communities living in a given territory. Being the first empirical study to verify the relationship between language behaviour in multilingual backdrop, many other scholars (Backhaus, 2006; Takhtarova, Kalegina, & Yarullina, 2015; Macalister, 2010; Blackwood, 2011) have used this definition as their point of refernece. However, as Bruyèl-Olmedo and Juan-Garau pointed out, the approach is restrictive in denying interactivity while implying passivity of the reader (2009).

Bruyèl-Olmedo and Juan-Garau emphasise Ben-Rafael et al’s approach towards LL as ‘‘linguistics objects that mark the public space (2006:7)‘‘. This paper examines how different language dynamics are expressed within Israel and what are the implications of the power relations. Similarly to Blackwood (2011), who examined the power relations in Brittany and Corsica via LL, Ben-Rafael et al looked into how cityscapes are marked by those in position of power, based on the difference between the use of Hebrew, Arabic and globalization-brought English.

Using LL to examine the growing role of English is not a unique phenomenon. Backhaus has examined the increasing amount multilingualist signs in Tokyo and how this reflects the intent of the sign-authors to be seen as international (2006). Takhtarova, Kalegina and Yarullina analysed the cities of Paris, Berlin and Kazan and how the use of English is tied to what the linguistic expectations of the audiences are (2015). Bruyèl-Olmedo and Juan-Garau found that LL are the visual evidence of globalisation’s effect on languages on Mallorca (2009). Macalister, on the other hand, wrote about a slight retreat of English in favour of the indigenous Maori (2010) in New Zealand.

Papen combined the textual and visual analysis of LL in Berlin in order to investigate how it reflects and shapes social-urban change (2012). Semiotic landscape (Papen, 2012) has the supposed advantage of using interviews to determine sign’s intended meaning. This stands in direct opposition to Ben-Rafael et al’s argument, who stress the neutrality of their approach and the intended focus

(8)

on the actual and not implied symbolic practices. Both arguments stand to show how one approach can be used interdisciplinary in various contexts.

While investigating landscapes, there are multiple approaches to interpreting signs. According to Backhaus, a linguistic sign is‘’ any piece of written text within a spatially definable frame, the underlying definition is physical not semantic (2006:66)’’. This implied that non-permanent aspects of the landscape, such as newspapers, were not part of the definition. This was criticised with the underlying argument that items such as newspapers are replenished on a daily basis, therefore constituting a permanent aspect of the landscape (Blackwood, 2011).

In terms of interpretation, frequently employed is Ben-Rafael et al’s approach (Bruyèl-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009; Takhtarova, Kalegina, & Yarullina, 2015; Blackwood, 2011) of distinguishing between top-down and bottom-up signs, where top-down is seen as indicative of the dominant culture and bottom-up showcases individual strategies. This binary division is not considered sufficient by some, as it does account for the role of civil society. Macalister follows Landry and Bourhis’s original scale distinction, going from in vitro to in vivo signs as follows: Official, Commercial National, Commercial Local, Community Local and Individual. This allows for a more nuanced analysis of power relations due to the added indicator of scale.

2.2 Space and Language

As the topic of this research is ‘Linguistic Landscapes as Representatives of Power Relations in the Public Space’ it is necessary to define what is space and distinguish it from place, which is often used as a synonym, yet has a distinctive meaning. Neither is a fixed entity, rather they should be viewed as social constructs. In terms of place, Qian, Quian and Zhu wrote that‘’ any place is constructed out of a network system of connections and relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus (2012:905)’’. Similarly, for space, Grbavac believes that ‘’public space is not neutral (2013:503)’’. LL are said to give space a cultural meaning, thus transforming space into place (Papen, 2012). Place is often associated with feelings of belonging and has an emotional connotation (Paasi, 1996). Therefore, when referring to the public domain, we use the phrase public space rather than place. Language is seen as a crucial tool for linking space, cultural and social identity of communities, which is subsequently used by state actors, to construct national unity and political controllability (Qian, Qian , & Zhu, 2012; Paasi, 1996). In other words, language is emplyoed to build a cultural identity, based on a perception of commonly shared values wihtin a given territory. Paasi argues that this process of signification (languages and cultural heritage becoming political) has only emerged after the second world war, and is used to cosntruct the image of communities. Therefore space, when linked with language within a given territory, is used as a political tool to construct a perceived unity of community for purposes of nation building.

(9)

Linguistic minorities often have different set of commonly shared values than the majority in the state. These commonly shared values include language, common history, cuisine or traditions among others and can be used as one way of distinguishing between nations (Billig, 2007). A minority is often territorially concentrated within a given geographical area in order to give itself and its culture, language included, a best chance for survival within a different state (Laponce, 2001). Laponce believes that when the minority is not substantially isolated and two languages come to be present within a single space, the dominant one will eventually extinguish the minority one. While such claims are nowadays partially undermined by the use of internet, which allows for the keeping of ties with people who reside further away, minorities still mostly choose to stay concentrated (Cenoz and Gorter, 2006). In such cases, academics speak of minority habitats (Bakker, 1997), which are spatially defined territories in which more than 50% of the population consists of the minority. Within such minority habitat linguistic communities preside and these are groups of people which claim one common mother tongue within a given territory (Demetriou, 2013: 137).

Bakker furthermore speaks of linguistic frontiers which are located at the edges of such habitats. Linguistic frontier is meant as a linguistic variation of a territorially-bound term frontier, which refers to a zone of contact in between two distinct groups. This implies that the minority and dominant language come into some sort of contact within such a zone and do not stand completely separate. On the other hand, we are also familiar with the term linguistic border, once more tying the linguistic aspect to the notion of border. Border, as opposed to a frontier, is a definite line of separation, where no intermixing is taking place (Paasi, 1996).

2.3 Power and Power Relations

Power is a term often debated in all fields of Human Geography and is said to operate both via material as well as immaterial elements, such as territory or discourse (Anderson, 2016). And it is also in this respect that power is most often used within Political Geography, where the connection between power and discourse was firmly highlighted by Foucault. ‘Nothing has any meaning outside of discourse’(Foucault, 1972:32) is his way of interpreting the world, further explained by the use of the term episteme, which is the combination of language and our presentation of a subject, allowing a material object to be represented and interpreted in a certain way. Texts, objects and their production are all situated within bigger structures, most commonly referred to as paradigms or contexts. Choices made by the majority of people living within one paradigm can temporarily fix a particular meaning onto the object, giving us the power to effectively govern and structure the ways of thinking (Waitt, 2005).

Foucault believed that power is not restrained to those high up the food chain, but it is omnipresent due to its various forms. Where the state can use power in the top-down sense of implementing laws and enforcing them within a given territory, minority groups can establish their own identity via the use of discourse in media or other platforms, such as the public space and the discourse within in (Anderson, 2016). Similarly, however, the discourse of othering can also be used to take power away

(10)

from certain groups of people in an attempt to demonize and distinguish them for purposes of controllability, which shifts the balance of power relations to one side. Foucault (1981) and Fairclough (2013) believed that understanding the specific language used by one or both parties involved can reveal the power relations. In other words, language can be seen as indicative of which group considers itself or is viewed by the others (depending on the source of the discourse) as the dominant or the subservient. Therefore, both McManus (2015) and Anderson (2016), stress the connection between power relations and the everyday, lived-in experience of individuals. Discourse or other forms of banal nationalism can be used as tools to re-establish and maintain the power relations on a daily basis.

2.4 Language and Politics

As Cameron states: ‘’the representation of any issue for a mass audience has implications for the way it is understood’’ (2007:268). Signs in the public sector are presented to a mass audience and should thus also be considered. Vráblová has focused on how language is being used by the discourse creators as a concept of normativity (2012). She believes that authors of discourses aim to create ‘’they-groups’’ (p.118:2012) and use language to define criteria of us and them. As Bloomaert and Verschueren (1998), Vráblová does not see public discourse as free and open, not even within democratic countries, but as influenced by ideology. Marx defines ideology as ‘’a false consciousness created under the influence of power’’ (as cited in Vráblová, 2012:120). The term language ideology is always in one way or another connected to Marx’s theory and is used a specific tool of ideology-spreading. Silverstein’s definition of language or linguistic ideology says it is a ‘’set of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use’’ (1979: 193). A different, cultural-based, approach defines the term as ‘’the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests’’(Irvine, 1989: 255). Irvine’s take on this term is lacking in human agency, where Silverstein sees the users as active creators and originators of the cause. Directly tied to language ideology is linguistic policy, which is seen as the political version of the phenomena, which acts to serve someone’s interest (Woolards and Schieffelin, 1994). This brings us back to Marx, who defined those actors as those in power within the nation-state. Spolsky defines language or linguistic policy as the ‘’officially mandated set of rules for language use and form within a nation-state’’ (2012:3).

While it is popular discourse often spreading the language ideology, the implications are inherently political with the creation of enemy-groups within the state who are classified via the use of language. Vráblová claims that young people are predominantly more negative towards linguistic minorities than the older generation due to stereotypes and prejudices spreading through the popular media to audiences which beforehand would never have interreacted with said minorities. Vráblová is therefore claiming that the language ideology, as opposed to linguistic policy, does not have a political origin, instead it is the outcome of othering based on language, which becomes political.

(11)

On the other hand, Anežka Gál looks at how the top-down approach towards language ideology impacts the public discourse. She looked at how the media helped re-construct the Slovak language policy within Slovkia. Her argument is that of the monoglot ideology as the dominant philosophy of nation-states. Silversten defines this ideology as a result of nation-states purposefully portraying a single official language as the norm (1996). This is problematic due to the fact that there are approximately 4000 languages present around the globe, yet only about 200 independent nations, out of which the majority claims to be monolingual (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Such attempt of maintaining an artificial order is yet another driver for construction of a national identity, based on a common marker of a shared language. Therefore, linguistic policies are a tool of the nation state in constructing an imagined community, as described by Anderson. These claims are said to be especially true for newly formed nation-states, where the absence of an independent state and a political entity is compensated for by the use of a common language, which it often the only and certainly the most important national identity marker (Tornquist-Plewa, 2002). Therefore, as opposed to Vráblová, Gál argues that the initiative us top-down, where linguistic policy is a tool of the nation-state to spread the linguistic ideology, which might already be present to some extent, even further via legal means.

2.5 Power Relation and Public Space

To summarise, Slovakia is an ideal research ground for seeing how power relations, as displayed by LL in the public space, are showcased in a relatively newly-formed nation state. Language has been such a major part of cosntructing a Slovak identity for years, as the only common denominator of the group identifiyng as Slovak, linguistic policies are being put in place to further the ends of the present linguistic ideology (Vráblová, 2012). To be exact, the ideology, spread through public discourse is that of othering via the use of stereotypes and prejudices aimed at the Slovak-Hungarian community. The connection between language ideology, language policies and power is therefore clear. LL, being the visibility of languages on public and commercial signs in a defined territory, serve as markers for status and power (Landry and Bourhis, 1997:25) for either linguistic commnity which has the power to influence the public space. For the interpretation of LL in this thesis, the in vitro-in vivo scale will be utilised to either confirm or adjust the assumption that top-down signs are indicative of the dominant language group whereas the bottom-up signs are more indicative of the actual linguistic population make-up.

(12)

Chapter 3 – Conceptual Framework and Case Study

3.1 LL, Power Relations and Public Space in Slovakia

This section will outline how the notions of power relations, LL and public space are tied together in the context of the minority question. Spolsky and Cooper (1991) claim that LL can serves as information markers while simultaneously communicating the relative power relations as well as status of linguistic communities in a given territory. In the form of information markers, LL can reflect the demographics of the communities and their language if these two factors match. However, the demographics do not always match the percentage in which their language is used in the public space. This is when one group overuses or underuses their given language so that it does not match the demographic-ethnic makeup. This is then indicative of the power relations, where the over-represented group in the LL is considered to be the dominant one (Bourdieu, 1993). Applying Foucault’s notion of understanding discourse, understanding LL within a given territory uncovers the social and political circumstances present.

In the context of Slovakia, the Slovak law dictates a relationship which should be evident in the LL. Yet, that does not mean that further research cannot unveil more information. Possible defiance of the law would have strong implications on the power relations. Likewise, were the Hungarian language to be absent completely, which is not defined by the law, this would also bear implications regarding the display of power relations. The reason why I propose to do this research within the dimension of the public space is the inherent relationship between LL, power relations and the public space. The testing of the LL as a canvas of the show of power relations is seen as symbolic of the structuring of public space (Ben-Rafael et al, 2006).

In term of operationalizing terms specific to this thesis, it is important to define the specific groups of people, who will be discussed here. The defining concept of a community, which we saw was the common set of values, is its language (Demetriou, 2013). I will be using the variable of mother tongue, the first language a person is ever taught (Dictionary.cambridge.org, 2019), in order to refer to a given group of people. For the purposes of this thesis, Slovaks are Slovak citizens with Slovak as their mother tongue. Hungarians are citizens of Hungary, predominantly living within the territory of the Hungarian state and speaking Hungarian. Slovak-Hungarians is the term representing the population living predominantly within Southern Slovakia, who are citizens of Slovakia, yet their mother tongue is Hungarian. Such distinction was similarly made by Dolník and Pilecký and the information originates form the 2011 census.

(13)

3.2 Language and Politics in Slovakia

Vráblová, Gál and Laihonen are three examples of how research on language policies and linguistic landscapes has been put into practice within Slovakia. The ‘’they-groups’’ are identified via the use of Slovak or Hungarian and also by the common use of stereotypes and prejudices within popular discourse. Drawing on the research of Dolník and Pilecký, Vráblová points out that the dis-information spreading regarding the sharing of territory by Slovaks and Hungarians mostly originates from sources located far from the point of interest, which is southern Slovakia. Such measures are furthered by the linguistic policy, which is an artificial way of spreading the dominance of Slovak and establishing it as a norm even in areas where the majority of the population speaks a different language. This particular research will investigate the extent to which this policy and ideology affected the public space within cities with a substantial Slovak-Hungarian population. Likewise, it will investigate the exact sectors and sources which do contribute towards the spreadign of the linguistic ideology of Slovak being the superior and only official language of use.

A Finnish academic, Petteri Laihonen has used the technique of LL mapping, in his geopolitical research, in order to identify the ways in which language in combinations with visual representation constructs and also maintains linguistic ideologies. His research took place within southern Slovakia, investigating the role of language in creation of various nationalieties via the use of linguistic ideologies. Laihonen’s main research site was Dunajská Streda and his main focus was on the names of businesses, not on the entire signs. He discovered a lack of Hungarian-named businesses comapred to the percentage of Hungarian population within the city. Laihonen identified two main causes for this. Firstly, during the socialist era it was common that signs would be in Slovak only, whereas conversations would be carried out in Hungarian. Secondly, language policies have done a lot to discourage the use of minority languages, while simultaneously protecting the usage of global languages, such as English or German. Laihonen therefore identified another, historically-political factor, for influencing language use, other than linguistic ideologies or policies. This historical factor, as well as the research site and its justification will be utilised in adjusting LL research to Slovakia. 3.3 The Hungarian Question in Slovakia

Within this section I will present my choices and their justification for the study of southern Slovakia in the context of LL and power relations between minority and state language. Southern Slovakia is not a politically defined region, yet it is a term used widely in popular discourse. When speaking of southern Slovakia, I will use the geographical context of the south, combined with the known areas where the Hungarian minority resides. Map 1 shows the municipalities which have more than 50% of Slovak-Hungarian population, therefore, I will refer to these as southern Slovakia.

The history of the Hungarian minority within Slovakia is intertwined with major political events of the 20th_{century. Starting with the creation of the Czechoslovak state with the Treaty of Saint-Germain}

(14)

(1919) and the Trianon Treaty (1920) (Bakker, 1997; Bakker, 1998) followed by WWII and the separation of the Czech and Slovak states, annexation of southern Slovakia by Hungary in 1938, reunification of Czechoslovakia and then finally the split into Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The size and the spatial distribution of the Hungarian minority is ‘’not directly related to behavioural patterns of the minority itself (1998: 417)’’. While speaking of a Hungarian minority within Slovakia, it is important to realise, that before 1919 there was no Slovak (or at that time Czechoslovak) state and while the Czechs tie the beginning of their nation to the Great Moravian Empire in as early as the 9th_{century, Slovak nation was considerably younger, with no previous autonomous territory and}

suddenly occupying towns and cities which previously belonged to the Hungarian Empire. Therefore, we can apply Brubaker’s notion of accidental diasporas to this case (2000). In opposition to typical labour migrant diasporas, which constitute of people moving across borders, accidental diasporas are formed when the borders move across the people, as was the case of Hungary and Slovakia. Kamusella writes of a similar situation in the region or Polish Upper Silesia and the now-Czech territory of Sudetenland, where the borders of Germany have shifted as a result of political space reconfiguration. However, those cases are different in the fact that in neither one of those regions do people claim their German roots or speak German. They have either been assimilated into the Polish society and have been taught by the communist regime to hide their German ancestry, or they have been forcibly removed from the region as was the case in the Sudetenland (Kamusella 2000). In Slovakia, however, the Hungarian accidental diaspora still resides and even though the minority members have Slovak citizenship, they are culturally (via the consistent use of Hungarian) and politically (via voting for the Hungaria-associated parties) closer to Budapest than they ever were to Bratislava (Bakker, 1997; Dolník and Pilecký, 2012).

Source: Refresher.cz, 2019 Source: Refresher.cz, 2019

(15)

Since the implementation of the Slovak Language Law by the Mečiar government in 1995, the Slovak official language is considered as superior to any minority languages. A citizen can only communicate with state in his or her native language, if given minority within that city (or region) amounts to over 20% of the population. In fact, the official documentation, in schools or local administration offices has to be issued in both languages. But even in such cases, communication between the municipality and the inhabitant (in terms of public announcements, signs or invitations) have to primarily be in Slovak, after which the minority language may follow. Other forms of communication, such as printed materials issued by the minority, have to be accompanied by basic information in Slovak in all cases. An exception is given to the Czech language due to historical context of the relationship between the two countries. The law is also very specific in terms of media, where any television or radio programmes for children aged 12 or under, have to be in the Slovak language. The use of Slovak is mandatory in various sectors, such as police or fire department, court proceedings and other forms of public relations, which includes food etiquettes, instruction manuals, warranty, work contracts, accountancy, healthcare, information signs and advertisements. The law goes as far as to detail that in case of another language being added in these cases, it always has to come after the Slovak, cannot be written in larger font and it has to include the exact same information (Act No. 270/1995 Coll1_).

An exception is given to business names and global expressions, which, however, are mostly from the English language.

It is clear that the overlying aim and language ideology of this law is to establish and assure a dominant position for the Slovak language at the expanse of any and all minority languages. Not only does the wording create a clear distinction between us – Slovak speaking citizens and them (Vráblová, 2012)– minorities, but it also creates other issues by forcing all the documentation to be written in both languages. The Slovak-Hungarian population is arguing that teachers in purely Hungarian-speaking schools having to write all reports in Slovak as well as in Hungarians is a waste of time and money, where one language would be sufficient for communication (Gál, 2012).

In July 2009 the Act on the State Language, passed which implemented stricter enforcement of the law and introduced fines of up to 2500 EUR in case the violation of said law could lead to life threating conditions, health threats, safety restriction or destruction or loss of property (Zákony pre ľudí, 2019). Such a restriction of rights to minorities mirrors Deets’s argument of constitutional nationalism, where an unstable or newly-created state, such as Slovakia, appears democratic yet it pursues laws which push forward the notion of a single, united nation. Similarly, it also proves the point of Tornquist-Plewa, where newly formed nation-states push forward a linguistic policy which enforces one national language, as it was for a long time the only official marker of the Slovak identity (2002). To summarise, the technique of analysing LL as defined by Landry and Bourhis and utilising similar approach as Macalister, of adjusted in vitro-in vivo scale, will be used to identify the power

1_{Full wording of the Language Law Act in Slovak and English available at} http://www.culture.gov.sk/posobnost-ministerstva/statny-jazyk/zakon-o-statnom-jazyku-c2.html

(16)

relations between the Slovak-Hungarian and Slovak linguistic communities in the area defined as southern Slovakia. The linguistic policy of the Slovak Language Law, as amended in 2009, will be theorised as a tool of the Slovak state to establish the monolingual use of Slovak as a norm. The interpretation or defiance of said law will be also be used in defining the power relations.

(17)

Chapter 4 – Research Design 4.1 Research Question

From the topic of LL as representatives of power relations in public space with focus on southern Slovakia, taking into consideration the academic debates stated above, I have devised the following research question: In what ways do linguistic landscapes in southern Slovakia represent the power relations between the Hungarian minority and the Slovak population? This main research question will in turn be answered with the use of the following two sub-questions: 1) Does the degree of minority language visibility on in vitro and in vivo signs reflect the linguistic community in the given territory?; 2) Do the linguistic landscapes of southern Slovakia form a linguistic frontier or rather a linguistic boundary between the Hungarian minority and the Slovak population?

The wording of the overall research question suggests that multiple ways of the representations are expected to be found and this is intentional as there will be numeral aspects of the LL analysed, each with its own implications. I will study the difference between in vitro and in vivo signs, using a similar method as Macalister and Landry and Bourhis, I will try to derive a pattern of which language is more commonly used at which stage and what the implications of such uses may be. But because of the aforementioned limitations of the original in vitro – in vivo categories, I have decided to adjust them to the purposes of this research. Therefore, the categories into which I will divide the signs will be: Official National, Official Local, Commercial National, Commercial Local, Community Local and Individual. I will also implement Ben Rafael et al’s reasoning that these patterns are representative of the power relations that exist behind the politically-motivated choices visible in the LL. In Slovakia, where a strict language law is in place, any defiance, adjustments or lack-thereof will be indicative of the relations. Furthermore, discourse use in the media and political statements will also be indictive of the perceived power relations of both sides of the argument.

The first sub-question ‘Does the degree of minority language visibility on in vitro and in vivo signs reflect the linguistic community in the given territory?’ will be used to investigate the sign categories, the actual numbers of the signs and the languages on them. The total number of a given group of people claiming a certain language to be their mother tongue, a linguistic community, will be compared to the percentage of signs in such language. This will show whether the landscape reflects the actual population or rather the amount of resources a certain group of people is allowed to use by the law or has at their disposal to showcase superiority within a region. In other words, if the linguistic make-up of signs does not reflect the languages of the population percentage-wise, other factors, such as power showcasing of minorities, is at play. This can be the case for both communities, a pre-dominant use of Hungarian within mixed cities or a complete absence of Hungarian in Slovak-majority cities, where there is a significant Hungarian minority.

(18)

A different approach will be taken via the second sub-question: Do the linguistic landscapes of southern Slovakia act as a linguistic frontier or rather a linguistic boundary between the Hungarian minority and the Slovak population? This question is drawing on literature from Bakker, who has concluded that a linguistic frontier exists at the edge of the Hungarian habitat within Slovakia, and also from Paasi, who makes a clear distinction between frontier and border. Using the definition of Paasi, where a frontier is a zone of contact whereas a boundary is a definite line of separation, I will analyse whether there is in fact a mixing of the two languages in the given territory, or whether they stand separate. For this sub-question, the multi or monolingualism of the signs will be taken into consideration. This sub-question will also help prove whether Laponce’s theory of language mixing, where the minority language will be put at a disadvantage when intermixed with the dominant language, is also in effect in southern Slovakia. Therefore, I will look at the extent to which multilingualism is used to establish whether we can speak of a linguistic frontier within southern Slovakia. Were the signs to be predominantly monolingual, we can assume the presence of a linguistic border and vice versa. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see whether there is a difference across the in vitro and in vivo categories in regard to mono or multilingualism. In case of discrepancies between the categories, it will be clear which authors are more open towards intermixing of the two communities. Absence of Hungarian, especially in the category of local official, could show the upper hand of the Slovak communities in the official sphere even in regions where Hungarian is the majority. On the other hand, absence of Slovak in any category will be indicative of defiance of the law and will therefore also be very informative.

4.2 Method

Primary data has been collected via the documentation of LL within southern Slovakia. This section will introduce how the data have been collected and stored while also presenting the locations of the research sites for LL.

4.2.1 Sites of Data Collection

The locations chosen were the following three cities: Komárno, Dunajská Streda and Nové Zámky (see Map 3). I have opted to include three locations, rather than one, in order to analyse how different geopolitical variables will influence the results of this study. The constant variable, which will allow for all locations to be compared within a realm of significance, is the number of inhabitants. Komárno is a city with 34 160 inhabitants, Dunajská Streda has 22 643 inhabitants and Nové Zámky are home to 38 172 inhabitants, therefore the size of the audience and the actors of LL is comparable. Further demographic variables played a major role during the selection process: the total number of Hungarians living within the city as well as the percentage of the population which belongs to the Hungarian minority. I have firstly looked at which cities comprise of the largest Hungarian population in terms of total numbers. Komárno and Dunajská Streda are the leading two with 18 506 and 16 752 Hungarians respectively. The third largest population can be found in Bratislava, but I have decided not to include the capital city as the Hungarian population only amounts to 3% of the ethnic

(19)

make-up of the city and thus possible research would not yield a large enough sample for this type of analysis. Furthermore, the Hungarian population within Bratislava is more geographically spread out within such a large city than within smaller ones, that there would likely be no significant results to be collected from inspecting the LL. Therefore, the city of Nové Zámky was chosen instead, with a total Hungarian population of 8 863.

The second demographic factor, the percentage of the total city population which represents the Hungarian minority, has already come into play when deciding not to include Bratislava. Within the three chosen locations, this factor represents a changing variable. The percentage of the Hungarian minority within each city is 53.8% in Komárno, 74.5% in Dunajská Streda and 22.4% in Nové Zámky. This will allow for a comparative study across three different demographic situations within the territory of the Hungarian habitat (as quoted by Bakker, 1997). Dunajská Streda will represent a settlement which comprises of ¾ of the Slovak Hungarians. Komárno will show the linguistic-political situation within a city which has a population where the Hungarians amount to slightly more than half. Nové Zámky represent the third category, where the Hungarians represent a minority, yet it is still more than 20% of the population, therefore deemed significant enough by the Slovak government to qualify for special circumstances regarding language use.

In terms of the first sub-question, a choice of three demographically different locations will offer a comparison between to what extent the actual demographical make-up of the population is reflected in the language of the signs. With regard to the second sub-question, the difference in demographics will add another dimension to the question of a linguistic border of a linguistic frontier. It will be interesting to analyse whether the relations between the two languages are different when one linguistic community is in the majority as opposed to the other.

There will be multiple locations studied within each city. The so considered main street located within the centre of the city will be looked at. Macalister, Backhaus and Blackwood have also chosen to examine the main street and the LL within it as they believed it to be most representative of the population, because it is assumed that the most amount of people will interact there and thus leave the largest sample for analysis. Furthermore, to offer a geographical comparison also within the city, I will choose further two locations. One will be inside of a predominantly Hungarian sector and one within a predominantly Slovak sector, if such locations can be identified beforehand via the use of statistics from the Slovak Statistics Office. Both locations should also have a certain amount of commercial activity present, in order to ensure a minimum number of signs to be collected, which might be too challenging within a purely residential area. A study of this type will allow for a comparison of the situation within variously populated sectors of the city itself and will therefore also show whether perhaps a sort of segregation is taking place via the use of a linguistic border. Therefore, data will be collected to not only compare whether a linguistic border or frontier is present in each city, but also to study whether there is a difference within the city itself, based on geographical and demographic factors. Exact street names will not be revealed due to ethical considerations towards the Slovak-Hungarian minority.

(20)

4.2.2 LL: Data Collection

In order to be able to undertake the LL data collection, choices had to be made with regards to the specific interpretation of a sign within this research’s scope of investigation. The two major aspects to be considered were the inclusion or exclusion of non-permanent features of the landscape and the consideration of one surface area as one or multiple signs. Non-permanent features of a landscapes are argued to be such, that are not physically rooted to the specific area for a prolonged period of time, as described by Backhaus (2006) and include such articles as newspapers, leaflets or even stickers on lampposts and elsewhere. This thesis leans towards a second interpretation of such articles and did consider them within this research based on the argument that these objects are replenished on a daily basis and people interact with them regularly. Such interaction within the public space, despite the changing context, have more or less the same structure and can thus influence as well as reflect the social-urban situation within the city (Papen, 2012), which is true especially for items such as newspapers or leaflets. Regarding the second decision, in case of a window shop with multiple signs within, all such signs have been considered as a single linguistic output. The reasoning behind this is the assumption that the choices made regarding the signs and languages on them were the same behind all, therefore this thesis is once again following the direction of Blackwood (2011) in this matter.

Within the designated area of a site, as will be presented in section 4.2.2, all signs, as defined above, were inspected and recorded. Primarily, all data was noted down on paper, in a table such as Table 1. Secondarily, photos were taken in case of signs with interesting content and a photo was taken for each category for documentation. Certain studies have photographed every sign while at site and only afterwards have analysed the photo documentation in order to extract information (Backhaus, 2006). I have decided against such an approach as I believed that noting down the necessary information while on site would allow me to acquaint myself with the ongoing research more, while already getting a sense of what the outcome might be and if necessary, note any additional observations which could not be noticed on photographs. Table 1 is where all the data was recorded and we can see that five categories were filled in every time, with the notes section left for any additional observations outside the specified categories. These categories included: Sign Number, In vitro – in vivo, Language, Mono/Multilingual, Preference, Photo Number. The numbering of signs was restarted at each site.

The in vitro – in vivo category contained six sectors: Official National, Official Local, Commercial National, Commercial Local, Community Local and Individual. This division contains more specific categories than the original scale used by Landry and Bourhis as I found them lacking in aspect of scale. The Official National category included signs issued by institutions of the Slovak government, which have a nationwide reach. For example, the road or street signs fall under the constituency of the Slovak Road Administration (Slovenská Cestná Správa), thus they are not and cannot be influenced by the regional authorities and therefore fall into the Official National category. The

(21)

Official Local sector included signs put up by local administrations, either by the city itself or the administration of the province. These were signs located on the town hall, a local museum or a school as these are buildings which are administered by the regions themselves rather than the state. The Commercial National category was a little less straight forward as sometimes further research was necessary in order to identify whether the origin of a sign was within the Commercial National or the Commercial Local category. The classifier between these two categories was whether the sign origin was from a chain commercial activity or a local business owner. Large national or supranational organisations, such as IKEA or the Slovak Savings Bank were always seen as Commercial National. Local business owners from the region, mostly with a single store as property, were considered Commercial Local. The distinction between the two was made on site in case of most Commercial National signs, as I often had knowledge of their origin. For the unknown commercial signs, I took a photo and noted down the name and later looked up the business within the Business Register online. The distinction between the Community Local and Individual sectors was also sometimes not easy to identify. The overlying difference was whether a sign was created by a single individual or a community of the local people. These were non-official and non-commercial signs which included various types of stickers, fliers or graffiti. Based on the content itself, it was decided whether a sign would belong to the Community or Individual categories.

The Language category described every language present on the signs. Names of businesses were also considered here, if a typically Hungarian or an English name of a shop were present, they would be counted as another language on the sign. Based on these observations, the Mono/Multilingual box was filled in, followed by the Preference category. Here I would note down the order in which the languages were used or alternatively if one text was in a larger font or included more information, it was considered as the preferred language. In case a photo was taken, the order of it would be noted down as well, starting from 1 at each site, similarly as the Sign Number category. This was in order to ensure easier point of reference during the analysis. Lastly, in case of any noteworthy observations outside the scope of these categories, notes would be taken to be used in the analysis section.

Table 1 - Information which will be collected for each sign during data collection Sign No In vitro - In

vivo

Language Mono/Multilingual Preference Photo Number

Notes

(22)

4.2.3 Linguistic Landscapes Analysis

For LL, where possible, I will calculate percentages for each category. From this I will be better able to deduce which type of sign is more likely to be used in which language. For example, I will have statistics for the amount of local commercial signs in Hungarian which are monolingual etc. I will then look at these results with the context of the location of their origin, thus bringing together the demographics and the language, which will allow me to answer sub-question 1, regarding the degree of visibility in relation to linguistic communities. This will be analysed in two ways, firstly, by looking at the city as a whole and whether the overall numbers represent of the population. Secondly, looking at the individual city locations and seeing whether or not there is a difference between them. Furthermore, I will look more closely at exactly which signs (Official National, Official Local, Commercial National, Commercial Local, Community Local or Individual) were used in which language, to see the initiators behind each language and what the implications of those might be. Code preference will also be closely analysed in this case to see whether signs are reflective of the Slovak language law and in case it is not, at which scale is the law most commonly involved and in what context. This will in turn, again be contrasted with the geographical location of and within the city.

Four graphs will be presented for each city. Two graphs will focus on the overall image of mono vs multilingual and language preference, whereas the other two will provide more detail regarding individual sites and sectors. The graphs portraying information regarding mon vs multilingualism will help provide an answer to Research Question 2, and graphs with language preference information will be used as guidance while answering Research Question 1.

4.3 Expected Outcomes

Source: Google Maps

Legend Komárno

Dunajská streda Nové Zámky

(23)

Two hypotheses have been constructed in order to outline predicted outcomes for each research question:

1) The degree of minority language visibility will reflect the linguistic community within the peripheries but less so in the city centre. Overall the language visibility will reflect the linguistic community, but it will not be written first.

2) The extent to which the LL form a frontier, or a border will be dependent on the population’s nationality makeup, with Komárno and Dunajská Streda acting as borders, whereas Nové Zámky fulfilling the role of a linguistic frontier.

Firstly, I believe the results will be geographically separated, not by cities but within the cities and across the sites themselves. Language visibility of the linguistic community is more likely to come forward within the peripheries, where they are in the majority and where there are little outside influences dictating their look. The role of English or other foreign languages will play a larger role within the city centre due to the higher chance of tourists or business people from other countries frequenting those areas. Likewise, it is possible English will play a role of lingua franca within the city centre in cases when the sign owner would rather evade the Slovak vs Hungarian debate, as Bruyel-Olmedo and Juan Garau described in their study. Likewise, English has been observed to be interpreted as an indicator of status, which in the case of Slovakia is further enforced by the special status of global languages as opposed to minority languages. Overall, the expected outcome is that the LL will reflect the linguistic community, especially in the peripheries, but it is unlikely that the minority language will be written first. Yet the minority language will be present as an indicator of Hungarian sovereignty, in order to place a claim on the public space and reflect their perceived power status (Ben-Rafael et al, 2006).

Secondly, based on the knowledge gathered from interviews by Dolník and Pilecký, I expect the LL to reflect a linguistic boundary in Komárno and Dunajská Streda, while finding a linguistic frontier in Nové Zámky. The reasoning behind this is that the Slovak population does not have a command of the Hungarian language, yet with the Slovak-Hungarian population being in the majority, there will be clear incentive for signs to be aimed at consumers within the specific area. While the language law prohibits Hungarian only signs, names of businesses or institutions are an exception to the law, and I believe the impact of this will be significant on the results gathered. Nové Zámky, on the other hand, represent a smaller Hungarian minority population within Slovakia, therefore the incentive for this community to speak Slovak is larger than in the previous two cities, thus I expect the signs, while containing Hungarian, to be mostly multilingual.

(24)

Chapter 5 – Data Outcomes from Linguistic Landscapes

Chapter 5 of this Thesis will present the data collected from the three researched cities of Komárno, Dunajská Streda and Nové Zámky. This chapter is divided into three main parts, which correspond with the research sites. Results for each town are then once more divided into four sections: Site 1 – City Centre; Site 2 – Predominantly Hungarian Periphery; Site 3 – Predominantly Slovak Periphery; Overall Overview. For the first three sections, there will be a table presented for each, summarising all statistics gathered from the signs within given research sites. For the final fourth section, four graphs will be presented to showcase the outcomes for selected data from all three sites to present an overall outcome.

5.1 Komárno Linguistic Landscape Outcomes 5.1.1 Komárno Site 1 – City Centre

A total of 412 signs were recorder in Komárno’s Site 1. With regards to categories, the most recurring one was Commercial National and Commercial Local, with 40% and 36% of all the signs respectively. Lowest occurrence was of the Official National with 1%, closely followed by Individual with 2%. In case of the mono vs multilingual division, 66% of the signs were multilingual. There were no multilingual signs within the Official National category and the Individual category. The largest disparity occurred in the Commercial Local sector, where only 24 signs were monolingual, and 124 signs were multilingual. The three languages which appeared on monolingual signs were Slovak (SK), Hungarian (H) and English (EN) and out of these, Slovak was used 69% of the times, with Hungarian following suits with 26% and English with only 6%.

In terms of the multilingual signs, there were eight combinations, out of which only one did not include Slovak, and that was Hungarian + English, which was used only 3%. By far the most frequent combination was Slovak + Hungarian with 72%, followed by Slovak + English with 16%. There were eleven combinations in terms of language preference in multilingual signs. Out of the total 196 Slovak + Hungarian signs, 192 signs had Slovak first and Hungarian second, which leaved only 4 signs where the order was inverted. In the Slovak + English combinations, 40 out of the 44 signs had Slovak first. The Hungarian + English combination was balanced, with four signs with each preference.

(25)

Ta bl e 2 – Sh ow in g th e Si gn S ta tis tic s f or K om ár no S ite 1 : C ity C en tr e

(26)

5.1.2 Komárno Site 2 – Predominantly Hungarian Periphery

A total of 110 signs were noted down in Komárno’ Site 2. The sign categories were more evenly spread out in this location, with Commercial Local at 31% being the most common one and Commercial National together with Individual being the least common one with 11% each. There is a very balanced situation regarding the mono and multilingual signs at Site 2, where there were 54 monolingual signs and 56 multilingual signs. The category with the most monolingual signs was Community and the category with the most multilingual signs was Commercial Local. There were no multilingual Individual signs.

There were three languages used on monolingual signs: Slovak (SK), Hungarian (H) and English (EN). In this case, with 48% the most commonly used language in this category was Hungarian, followed by Slovak with 44% and English with only 7%. There were only three language combinations within the multilingual signs, all of which contained Slovak. The most commonly used once here, with 64% was Slovak + Hungarian. Interestingly, the combination of Slovak + Hungarian + English was used on 4 more signs than the combination of Slovak and Hungarian only. Altogether, there were four languages combination preferences found, one of which did not include Slovak as the first language, and this was Hungarian + Slovak. Out of the 36 Slovak + Hungarian signs, 8 put Hungarian first. In terms of combining Slovak and English, Slovak always went first. The only combination of more than two languages was Slovak + Hungarian + English, which occurred 12 times and always in this order.

5.1.3 Komárno Site 3 – Predominantly Slovak Periphery

The total amount of signs recorded in Komárno’s Site 3 was 105, the least of all three sites within this city. The largest category present was Commercial Local with 61% of the signs and the two least represented categories were Official Local and Commercial National with only 6 signs each. Once more, the mono vs multilingual division is approximately 2/3 multilingual, with 66%. There were no Commercial National monolingual signs, while on the other hand, the most monolingual signs were present in the Commercial Local category. With regards to multilingual signs, there were none recorded in the Community and the Individual category, while the most common one was the Commercial Local category.

Similarly, to Sites 1 and 2, the three languages used on monolingual signs are Slovak, Hungarian and English. 61% of the monolingual signs were in Slovak, followed by 33% in Hungarian and the remaining portion was in English. Multilingual signs were only present in two language combinations, Slovak + Hungarian and Slovak + English. Here, the dominance of Slovak + Hungarian was evident, with 97% of the multilingual signs. Out of the 58 Slovak + Hungarian signs, 54 put Slovak as the first language. The remaining 4, which put Hungarian first, were in the Commercial Local category. And finally, interestingly, the two Slovak + English signs both put English as the first language.

(27)

Tab le 3 - Si gn S ta tis tic s fo r K om ár no S ite 2 : P re do m in an tly H un ga ria n Pe rip he ry

(28)

Ta bl e 4 - Si gn S ta tis tic s fo r K om ár no S ite 3 : P re do m in an tly S lo va k Pe rip he ry

(29)

5.1.4 Komárno Overview

Graph 1 provides a bar chart overview of the complete image of mono vs multilingualism across the sites of Komárno. At all three sites multilingualism, the orange part, is in the majority. Site 1 and Site 2 show an identical composure of the signs, with 66% multilingual ones. At site 2, which was the Predominantly Hungarian Periphery, the situation was very close, with multilingualism only being greater by 1%. The overall image shows a 63% majority of multilingualism in the city where the Hungarian population reaches a 53.8% majority.

Looking the monolingual signs, Graph 2 shows that overall Commercial National was the most frequent sector with 12% out of the total of all signs. Yet this sector is only in the majority at Site 1, City Centre, whereas in the peripheries it only reaches 4% out of the Site 2 signs and 0% out of the site 3 signs. The overall high percentage of Commercial National sector, despite the low percentages at Site 2 and 3, is caused by the much higher number of signs found at Site 1. This means that the percentages of Site 1 will have a bigger influence on the overall outcome that the other two sites combined.

For Site 1, the most common multilingual as well as overall sector was Commercial Local, with 30%. Similarly, Commercial Local was also predominant for Site 2 and Site 3 in terms of not only multilingualism but also overall, reaching up to 51% at Site 3. It is therefore evident that with 33% overall, Commercial Local sector was the most common monolingual as well as overall sector. Furthermore, Site 1’s least common sectors were Official National and Individual, where neither side of the in vitro – in vivo scale registered any multilingual signs. As there were no multilingual Individual signs found in Site 2 nor Site 3, the overall amount was also 0%, thus following the pattern. Therefore,

34% 49% 34% 37%

66% 51% 66% 63%

S I T E 1 S I T E 2 S I T E 3 O V E R A L L MONO VS MULTILINGUALISM IN KOMÁRNO

Monolingualism Multilingualism Graph 1 - Mono vs Multilingualsim in Komárno

(30)

it can be summarised that the monolingual signs did not copy any pattern. On the other hand, multilingual signs had a very similar occurrence throughout the sites with a clear dominance of the Commercial Local sector while the Individual sector was the least frequented.

Graph 2 - Mono vs Multilingual Signs by Sector in Komárno

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Official National Official Local Commercial National Commercial Local Community Individual Total

OVERALL LANGUAGE PREFERENCE BY SECTOR IN KOMÁRNO

SK H EN SK-H H-SK SK-EN EN-SK EN-H H-EN SK-H-EN SK-H-GR SK-LAT-H SK-H-EN-G

Graph 3 - Overall Language Preference by Sector in Komárno 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Monolingual Multilingual Monolingual Multilingual Monolingual Multilingual Monolingual Multilingual

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Overall

OVERVIEW OF MONO VS MULTILINGUAL SIGNS BY SECTOR IN KOMÁRNO

(31)

Graph 3 shows the composition of each sector, each language combination preference symbolised by a different colour. For all of Komárno, the linguistic combination which was most often present, was Slovak – Hungarian. This was also the case for the Commercial Local sector and Official Local sector. The second most common linguistic use was Slovak alone with a little above 20%. The three sectors where Slovak was the most commonly used language were Individual, Official Local and Official National. The Individual sector is very straight forward with only two languages used: Slovak and Hungarian, both being used on monolingual signs. No other sector has so few combinations. Official National used three combinations, with Slovak in the lead with over 60%, followed by Slovak – Hungarian with approximately 25% and lastly Slovak – Hungarian – English with less than 10%. The last sector with under five combinations was Official Local where the majority of signs was written in Slovak – Hungarian. Other than that, there were also Slovak, Slovak – Hungarian – English and Hungarian – Slovak.

On the other side of the scale, with most language combinations used were Commercial Local, Commercial National and Community. It therefore can be said that there was no clear pattern in the relationship between the number of language combinations and the in vitro – in vivo scale. It is, however, clear that the commercial category, be it local or national, was the sector with the most language combinations used. The perhaps surprising element of this graph is the Community sector, which included language combinations such as Slovak – Hungarian – English or Slovak – Latin – Hungarian.

Unlike Graph 3, the percentage in Graph 4 is not measured out of each sector but out of each site. When added together, the percentage within each site will add up to a 100%. Site 1 was the most varied of all sites in relation to the language combinations used. It is evident that signs which did not put Slovak first, except for the Hungarian, English, Hungarian – Slovak categories, did not amount to much of the overall percentage within individual sites nor overall. Signs with one or two languages were more common than signs with three or more languages. Slovak – Hungarian was the most common combination for all three sites in total and within it, it was the Commercial Local sector with the highest percentage out of all sector and languages in Komárno. Within Site 1 and 3, the second most common language on signs was Slovak. Percentage-wise, however, Slovak had higher usage at Site 2 than Site 3, despite the fact that there were more language combinations used within Site 2 than Site 3. While within Site 1, Slovak was mostly used by the Commercial National sector, in Site 2 it is the Official National sector and Site 3 it is Individual and Commercial Local. Hungarian signs were most frequently present within the Community sector across all sites. Hungarian alone was used less frequently within the City Centre than the Hungarian – Slovak combination, but at Site 3 it is the third most common language.

It is also interesting to note that the Hungarian - Slovak combination was more frequent within the Site 1 rather than Site 2. Within the City Centre, this relationship was mostly present in the Commercial National sector, while in Site 2 it was equally the Commercial Local and Community sectors. Where English-led signs are concerned, percentage-wise these were most frequent within

Linguistic landscapes as representatives of power relations in the public space : the case of Sotuhern Slovakia