Download - Hungarianness: The Origin of a Pseudo-Linguistic Concept

Hungarianness: The Origin of a Pseudo-Linguistic ConceptAuthor(s): L. G. CzigánySource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 52, No. 128 (Jul., 1974), pp. 325-336Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206909 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 15:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:58:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206909?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE SLAVONIC

AND EAST EUROPEAN

REVIEW

Volume LII, Number I28-July I974

Hungarianness: The Origin of a

Pseudo-Linguistic Concept L. G. CZIGANY

WHEN I started classes in stylistics at school our teacher gave us, by way of introduction, a 'safe' rule of what he considered to be the characteristics of good style. He assured us that, if we remembered his axiom we would easily acquire the ability to speak and write in a 'really' good style. His golden rule was the following: we must express ourselves at all times with clarity, precision and Hungarianness. I easily grasped the significance of the first two criteria of good style, but it was not so easy to understand the third. Surely, anything expressed in clear, precise Hungarian will be characteristically Hungarian. Were French and English high school children told to express themselves with clarity, precision and Frenchness, or Englishness? Were there people who expressed themselves with clarity and precision in Hungarian, yet whose style still lacked something because it was 'un-Hungarian'? These were perturbing questions to which I could find no satisfactory answer. Years later, as a university student, I realised that the problem was much more complicated, but I still did not realise that our teacher had been simply echoing what I now believe to be the relics of a igth-century linguistico-political concept, whose origin and aim was probably as little familiar to him as it was to his pupils.

In this paper I propose to trace the origin and application of the concept of 'Hungarianness', and to show why I consider it spurious. Its origin can be traced through certain features of Hungarian history and society; but to describe its application the concept must be examined historically and semantically, with examples of usage.

The intense interest in the various peculiarities of the Hungarian L. G. CzigAny is Lecturer in Hungarian at the University of Califomia, Berkeley. This

paper was presented at the Second Intemational Congress of Hungarian Linguists, Szeged, 22-5 August 1972.



326 L. G. CZIGANY

language, so characteristic of the i gth century, dates back only to the second half of the i8th century. Before that time, in spite of the fact that grammars, dictionaries and textbooks were compiled in growing numbers from the i 6th century onwards,' the Hungarians were puzzled mainly by the origin of their language: Hungarian was likened to Hebrew, Slavonic, German, Turkish, Persian and some of the more exotic languages.2 The oldest and most popular theory was founded on a confusion caused by medieval Hungarian historians: the Hungarian-Hunnish kinship.3 In I770, however, a scholarly argument was propounded by a Jesuit, Jainos Sajnovics, that proved the linguistic relationship between Hungarian and Lappish4 and at the same time laid the foundation for comparative Finno-Ugrian linguistics. Although the scholarly feat of Sajnovics and Gyarmathi, who followed up Sajnovics's researches, is considerable, as Finno- Ugrian comparative linguistics were thus established before comparative Indo-European linguistics,5 the Hungarian public disliked the idea of kinship with the Lapps; for them it savoured too strongly of fish oil.6

The fact that public opinion was not flattered and therefore not convinced was not simply a question of contempt for kinship with faraway people like the Finns or Ugrian tribes living in Russia. There was a growing sense of isolation among the Hungarian intelligentsia. By the I83os and i840s some Romantic writers were convinced that the Hungarians living in 'a sea of German and Slavonic people' were doomed to extinction. The sense of loneliness and general pessimism about the future of the nation was aggravated by the con- jecture of Rousseau's German disciple, Herder, who predicted a glorious future for the Slavs and extinction for the Hungarians as a national entity.7 A general mood of gloom prevailed, and poets, particularly Kolcsey and Vor6smarty, invented and popularised the Romantic vision of nemzethala'l (death of the nation).8 The failure of

1 I. Szathmari, Rigi nyelvtanaink Is egysdgesiil6 irodalmi nyelvdink, Budapest, I968, and L. G,ildi, A magvar szdtdrirodalom a felvildgosodds kordban es a reformkorban, Budapest, 1957.

2 For an excellent historical survey see J. Hegeduis, A magyar nyelv 5sszehasonlftdsdnak kezdetei az egykorzi eurdpai nyelvtudomany tiikr6ben, Budapest, 1966).

3 C. A. Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian Historians, Cambridge, I953, pp. 37-42. 4 Demonstratio. Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse, Copenhagen, I 770. 5 'Finno-Ugrian linguistics can boast of being older than Indo-European linguistics'.

N. Pedersen. The Discovery of Language, Bloomington, n.d. p. I05. 6 M. Zsirai, 'SAmuel Gyarmathi, Hungarian pioneer of Comparative Linguistics', in

T. A. Sebeok, (ed.), Portraits of Linguists, I, Bloomington, I966, pp. 59-60. 7 '. . . die Ungern oder Madscharen .. . sind sie jetzt unter Slawen, Deutschen,

Wlachen und andern Volkern der geringere Theil der Landeseinwohner, und nach Jahrhunderten wird man vielleicht ihre Sprache kaum finden.' Quoted from J. G. Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, in D. Diimmerth, 'Tortenet- kutatAs es nyelvkerdes a magyar-Habsburg viszony tukreben' (Filoldgiai Kozlony, Buda- pest, I966, p. 406). This gives an excellent analysis of Herder's sources.

8 The haunting vision is best expressed by F. Kolcsey in 'Himnusz' (I823) and M. Vorosmarty in 'Szozat' (1836).



HUNGARIANNESS: A PSEUDO-LINGUISTIC CONCEPT 327

the War of Independence in I848-9 as a last desperate bid for supremacy in the Carpathian basin seemed to convert the Romantic vision into a traumatic experience. Therefore, any evidence found by the philologists regarding the origin and kinship of the Hungarians was rejected by the public because it did not provide the desired ideological weapon for a nation in search of brethren, at a time when the growing sense of brotherhood among the lesser Slavonic peoples was provided with a opportune ideology in the form of Panslavism. As Finno-Ugrian kinship did not provide a solution to the linguistic isolation of the Hungarians in the Carpathian basin, substitute theories were put forward, the most important of which, the Turkic origin of the Hungarians, was advocated by the orientalist Armin Vaimbery.9 This proposition had no political usefulness either, but at least it provided a pedigree for the Hungarians in the nomadic warriors of the steppe, which was more attractive than the peaceful hunting and fishing image of the proto-Finno-Ugrians. The educated public accepted only with reluctance the evidence of the Finno- Ugrian philologists around the end of the igth century.

While the sense of linguistic and thus political isolation seemed to provide reason for pessimistic tendencies among the intellectuals, its realisation helped to put the language itself into the focus of general interest. The uniqueness of the language was simultaneously a source of pessimism and of pride.

The consciousness of language, which had been growing almost unobserved'0 in the second half of the i8th century, surfaced in a dramatic way when the Emperor Joseph II issued a royal decree on 6 May I784 introducing the obligatory use of German throughout the Kingdom of Hungary and in all its dependencies for public and official communications. The effect of the royal decree was so notice- able that contemporary foreign observers attributed the growing interest in the language exclusively to it." Although there was a general uproar against the decree from all quarters12 it would be a gross oversimplification to view it as the starting point of the emergence of the Hungarian language; the decree simply clashed with the consciousness which already existed.'3

9 See his A magyarok eredete, Budapest, I882, or A magyarok eredete Is a finnugor nyelvlszet, 2 vols., Budapest, I884-5.

10 G. F. Cushing, 'Books and Readers in i8th-Century Hungary' (Slavonic and East European Review, London, I969, XLVII, pp. 57-77).

11 E.g. R. Bright, Travelsfrom Vienna to Lower Hungary, Edinburgh, I8I8, pp. 213-I4. 12 'If... the foreign and, to us, novel language of Germany is to be introduced ... it is

impossible to say what a fearful convulsion of all things the state included, must ensue', claimed the petitioners from one of the megyes. All the deputies of the counties took a similar view', quoted by I. Katona, Historia critica regum Hungariae, XL, Buda, I8I6,

p. 384. 13 L. Deme, 'A XIX szdzad elso felenek harcai a nemzeti nyelvert' in Nyelviink a

reformkorban, ed. by D. Pais, Budapest, 1955, p. IO.



328 L. G. CZIGANY

In historical literature the emergence of national languages or nationalism, is usually ascribed to the ideas of the Enlightenment, particularly to the ideas of the French revolution, together with the political ferment caused by the Napoleonic wars in the eastern half of Europe.14 The influence of Herder's doctrine, according to which human civilisation manifests itself not in the universal and general, but rather in the national and particular form, was probably the most important factor responsible for the consciousness of language in Hungary. Herder was well known to Hungarian intellectuals, primarily because of his prophecy about the doom of the nation, but his doctrine also contributed to the rise of the value of the national language in their eyes.

Therefore the realisation of the unique character of the Hungarian language, coinciding with theories produced by the Zeitgeist and the fact that the very existence of the language was endangered by the enlightened absolutism of Joseph II, may be accepted as the chief cause of the general interest in the language. The neglected language became suddenly the most treasured possession of every Hungarian. The attention was universal and culminated in a linguistic reform (nyelvijitds), which may be considered the most important intellectual movement in Hungary at the end of the i8th and beginning of the igth centuries.

Nyelvujita's was not an exclusively Hungarian phenomenon: Norwegian, Estonian, Turkish and Slavonic had been reformed; so to describe the history of the Hungarian nyelv4jitas here is unneces- sary. It is, however, essential to mention a few facts pertinent to the evolution of the concept magyarossag.

The purpose of the linguistic reform was firstly to enlarge the vocabulary. The spoken language contained many German and Slavonic loanwords; Latin words were used for abstract ideas as a result of the long-term use of Latin in Hungarian schools. The same words were naturally used in all neo-Latin languages and English, where they were not felt to be alien. Kazinczy, the main advocate of the nyelvzjitas, was worried: 'Herder says', he wrote to a friend, 'that when a nation does not have a word, it does not have the idea or the thing which it represents'. 15 Therefore a great effort was made to coin new words to replace every word whose root could not be identified as genuinely Hungarian. The impossibility of this task was not obvious to the advocates of neologism who were obsessed by a single idea, namely that, if Hungarian was to retain its unique character, it must not be contaminated by alien elements. The impos-

14 See H. Kohn, Nationalism: Its Meaning and History, Princeton, n.d., pp. 35-7 andpassim. 15 Kazinczy to I. Horvath, i6 January i8i i, in Levelezdse, ed. by J. Vdczy, VIII,

Budapest, 1898, p. 274.




sibility of purifying the language was apparent to the foreign observer not entangled in the intricacies of the Hungarian language. Thomas Watts, the lexicographer and one of the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, criticised them in an essay: 'They only showed their unacquaintance with the history of languages in general, and their own in particular. Even in the most primitive languages, in the most primitive state in which they are known to us, some extraneous admixture is always to be found-there are foreign words in the Hebrew of Genesis and in the Greek of Homer'. 16 But the universal search for new Hungarian words went on. No stone was left unturned: besides artificial coinage the dialects and obsolete words were ran- sacked, obsolete prefixes and suffixes were reactivated and re-used. Grammatical constructions were also scrutinised for possible 'un- Hungarian' forms; forms which did not agree with the spirit or nature of the language. If, for a particular construction, an analogy was found in German (the chief culprit in the eyes of the reformers) the construction had to be eliminated. By the I82os a fairly compre- hensive idea had been formed of what was considered 'un- Hungarian', and so the language reform made a great step towards the definition of the stylistic concept, 'the Hungarianness' of the language, by defining the negative criterion: what was considered 'un-Hungarian'.

Unfortunately the exact date when the word 'Hungarianness' came into use is not available. Were it available, the exact date of the formation of the concept would still be unknown. It is almost

magyar

positive content negative content

magyari ? (I I 50) magyaros (1 663) magyartalan (I 754) magyar?

magyaran (I50 8) magyarosan magyartalanul

magarsg I 58)magyarossaig mayralna

16 T. Watts, 'On the recent history of the Hungarian language' (Transactions of the Philological Society, London, 1855, p. 299).



330 L. G. CZIGANY

certain from analogies that the formation of a concept precedes the word unless the word is already a lexicographical element of the language, in which case the semantic content is enlarged by the new thing or concept. In any case, tracing the semantic development of the family of the word can provide a fairly reliable hypothesis.

A table of the family of words (seep. 329) related to 'Hungarianness' can be drawn up on the basis of their known first occurrence."7

The derivation of forms from the base is chronologically certain; not only the availability of data (the dates almost certainly do not represent the very first occurrences) but the possible sequence of suffix forms also suggests the order of precedence proposed above, except for the adverbial forms which might or might not precede the nominal form, a factor which is irrelevant to the present examina- tion.

There are two sets of words with positive content. The adjective magyari is an obsolete word whose regular nominal form would have been *magyarisdg, which is not attested but which might have con- tracted into magyarsag. If this was not so, it is likely that the base word is magyar, in which case the noun magyarsag belongs unques- tionably to the same set. The importance of this possibility is that the second set is a younger formation, and this suggests that it contained an element which had been absent from the first set. To establish what this element was it is necessary to examine the words of the family semantically.

Given below is the contemporary usage of the word, as defined in the dictionary of the Academy,18 supplemented with definitions from earlier dictionaries whenever relevant.

magyari [obsolete] adjective. Usage: 'pertaining to Hungary or the Hungarians'.

magyarul, adverb. Used exclusively to denote that someone can speak Hungarian, or is speaking in Hungarian.

magyaran, adverb. Usage: i. Equivalent of the phrase: 'in plain English'. 2. [obsolete] 'in the Hungarian way', 'as a Hungarian would do'.

magyarsag, noun. 'Hungarianness'. Usage: i. 'All those attitudes and/or features which characterise the Hungarians or the Hungarian people/nation.'; ia. 'a certain feature of the above' e.g. 'provincial Hungarianness', or 'progressive Hungarianness'; ib. 'the state of

17 A magyar nyelv tortineti-etimoldgiai szdtdra, ed. by L. Benko, II, Budapest, 1970, pp. 8i6-17, supplemented by information from the files of the Institution of Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, which I was able to consult by permission of the late Professor La'szl6 Gdldi. The word magyarossdg was first used by M. Revai in A magyar szep toll, I805, ed. by Z. ]der, Budapest, 1973 p. 29), strictly as an equivalent of the Latin term Hungarismus ('an Hungarian idiom'). The first evidence of its usage in the sense discussed in this paper was in Magyar Nyelv3r, I, Budapest, I872, p. 339.

18 A magyar nyelv ertelmezo' szottdra, IV, Budapest, I965, pp. 908-I3.



HUNGARIANNESS: A PSEUDO-LINGUISTIC CONCEPT 33I

being Hungarian', e.g. 'The Hungarianness of Petofi's poetry'; 2. 'a specific feature of style which shows that it conforms with the 'spirit' and grammatical rules of the Hungarian language, e.g. 'bad Hungarianness' 'correct Hungarianness' 'precise Hungarianness'; 2a. 'a variant of the standard Hungarian', e.g. 'Transdanubian Hungarianness'. 3. 'the Hungarians'; 3a. 'one particular unit of Hungarians in space or time like 'the Hungariandom of Canada' or 'the Hungarians of the Middle Ages'. For the second meaning an earlier dictionary gives this definition: 'related to the character of the language; the quality of the language that characterises the manner of communication'.19 In another dictionary: 'Hungarian characteristics, feelings, as in the expression 'the uncorrupted Hungarianness of somebody'.20 Perhaps the most revealing definition is the followirg: 'a characteristic feature, the right by which somebody belongs to the Hungarian nation'. Example: 'The true patriot never denies his Hungarianness'.21 It is also noteworthy that dictionaries of dialects usually do not contain the word; if they do, the meaning is restricted to 'the state of being Hungarian'.22

magyaros adjective. Definitions: i. 'A feature, or attitude, being characteristic of the Hungarians, or some peculiarities characteristic of the Hungarians only.' i a. 'Reflecting the characteristics of the Hungarian language/style/taste.' 2. 'Something that is usual among, or is liked by the Hungarians'. 2a. 'Something worn or used by Hungarians.' 3. 'Something resembling being Hungarian; Hungarian-like'.

magyarosan, adverb. Used to cover the meaning of the adjective in adverbial constructions, or used similarly to the adverb magyaran 23.

magyarossag, noun. 'Hungarianness.' Only the word is listed with- out definitions in the Academy dictionary. It is, however, supplied with foreign equivalents in a number of Hungarian foreign language dictionaries, including all editions of L. Orszaigh's Hungarian-English Dictionary.

magyartalan, adjective. 'Un-Hungarian'. Usage: i. 'Something that appears to be Hungarian, but is incompatible with the spirit or characteristics of the Hungarian language/literature/art'. 2. [obsolete] 'A person or group who renounced his Hungarian characteristics; disloyal to his country; unpatriotic'. 2a. [obsolete] 'Uncharacteristic of the Hungarians', 'un-Hungarian'.

19 G. Czuczor and J. Fogarasi, A magyar nyelv szotdra, IV, Pest, I867, col. 67. 20 J. Balassa, A magyar nyelv szdtdra, II, Budapest, 1940, p. 31 . 21 M. Ballagi, A magyar nyelv teljes szdtdra, II, Pest, I867, p. 2.I I 22 E.g. B. Csiiry, Szamoshdti szdtdr, II, Budapest, I936, p. 55 or S. Bdlint, Szegedi

szdtdr, Budapest, 1957, p. 75. 23 A periodical devoted to normative linguistics was issued under the title, Magyarosan,

Budapest, 1932-48.



332 L. G. CZIGANY

magyartalanul, adverb. Used to cover the definitions given for the adjectival form.

magyartalansag, noun. Used i. to denote the use of bad Hungarian constructions, the 'un-Hungarianness' ofstyle; 2. [obsolete] Somebody being un-Hungarian, unpatriotic; 2a. [obsolete] 'Incompatible with the Hungarian way of life, alien to the Hungarian people.'

From this lexicographical description certain features of development can be established: the adverbial form is unimportant semantically as all adverbs acquired a specific meaning, or represented only the semantic content of the adjective. The semantic differences within the family of words can be described as follows: there are two sets of words with positive content. In the earlier usage magyarsdg, as a collective noun, denoted the Hungarians as an entity. The word later began to denote the element which distinguishes the Hungarians from all other people. According to lexicographical data this exten- sion of the semantic content probably took place in the late I 5th and early i6th century. The next stage of development occurred when certain distinguishing features were differentiated and denoted by a new adjective, magyaros, which was used, for example for magyaros dress, dance, or cooking. The evolution of this distinction probably took place from the late I 7th century to the end of the i 8th century. None of the things described as magyaros was, as yet, abstract. The exotic peculiarities, which even today seem to represent 'Hungarianness' on a stereotype level in tourist guides, e.g. 'paprika' and 'gulyas' in magyaros cooking, or 'csarda' 'betyar' and the like, were according to lexicographical data, contemporary developments.24 In the middle of the i8th century the opposite of magyaros, the term magyartalan came into use, denoting phenomena not known and therefore not liked by the majority of Hungarians. In other words, things incompatible with what began to be known as the Hungarian way of life, such as magyartalan dress or standards of behaviour, together with alien words and figures of speech, indicat- ing the growing influence of the Austrian way of life in the upper strata of society. There are many literary examples as contemporary writers, particularly of a magyaros tendency, constantly poked fun at these foreign influences and at the same time praised the magyaros or, as they called it, the traditional way of life.25 In the last stage of the development of the concept the Hungarian characteristics identified earlier by the epithet magyaros were summarized in the noun magyarossag: and the undesirable characteristics in the noun magyartalansag. This development took place in the i gth century and by the

24 Cf., the relevant entries in G. BArczi, Magvar szdfejt5 szdtdr, Budapest, 1941. 25 E.g., J. GvadAnyi, Egyfalusi ndtdriusnak budai utazdsa, Pozsony, 1970,; or the character

Pontyi in the play Filozdfus, Pest, I 777, by G. Bessenyei.



HUNGARIANNESS: A PSEUDO-LINGUISTIC CONCEPT 333 i86os and I870s the concept magyarossag was generally operative. The content of nouns of the two positive sets were intermingled, and they were used indiscriminately. It is difficult to explain why the second set with positive contents developed. It is impossible to make a distinction in any other language between the sets magyar-magyarsag and magyaros-magyarossag: in English both have to be translated as Hungarian-Hungarianness. In use, however, there are genuine differences: magyarossdg is never used to denote the Hungarians as a nation, but was preferred in the i gth century as a stylistic category. In this century magyarsdg is employed by normative linguists for the same function,26 and the second set is beginning to acquire slightly pejorative overtones, particularly among writers of the younger geni- eration (e.g. expressions such as magvaros hospitality.)

Content analysis proved that magvarsag and magyarossag are largely overlapping terms denoting the same concept. This concept is entirely artificial and it would be vain to look for its definition in any dictionary of dialects published to date. The Hungarian people have never used the concept to describe any of the pecularities of their own speech. Scrutiny of the various key words in the definitions still would not say what is that element which makes the style magyaros. The concept includes some genuine elements, e.g. Hungarian idioms are as impossible to translate into any language as, say, a Russian idiom into English.

The definitions very often refer to the nature or spirit of the Hungarian language, as the last court of appeal, in other words the genius of the language. The genius of a language guards the beauty and peculiarities of the language from possible misuse, and is served by philologists.

Another factor responsible for the development of the stylistic concept magyarossag was Herder's theory of the Volksgeist, the mystic carrier of tradition rooted in prehistoric times. The Hungarian intelligentsia adopted Herder's theory with enthusiasm. They saw in it a compensation for the scanty survival of traditions in early literature, for the lack of an epic on the scale of the Kalevala, and of guidance in the reform of the language, a compensation for being alone: only the language needed to be examined thoroughly. While formerly the cultivation of the language had been primarily the business of writers (philologists, with the exception of a Hungarian forerunner of historical linguistics, Miklos Revai, were hardly responsible for the nyelvujSitds)by the middle of the century philologists were everywhere busily engaged in studying the language of 'the people', the guardians of the uncorrupted 'Hungarianness' of the Hungarian language.

26 See G. BArczi, 'Anyanyelviunk magyarsaga' (Magyar Nyelv3r, LXXX, Budapest, 1956, pp. 1-14).



334 L. G. CZIGANY

Although they carried out useful work collecting dialect words and describing dialect speech phonetically, thus providing useful analogies for philologists engaged in research on the history of the language; they also caused great harm to the natural growth of the language by their excesses.

The philologists published their findings in Magyar Nyelv6r (Guar- dian of the Hungarian language) which was founded in 1872 and is still extant. The early influence of Gabor Szarvas, Zsigmond Simonyi, and Gyorgy Volf27 gave the final mould to the concept of 'Hungarianness'.

The periodical was founded with the explicit purpose of improv- ing the language. To describe the activity of its contributors and editors I prefer the term 'normative linguistics', to the terms 'practical linguistics' or 'language planning', which are more widely used in English speaking countries.28 Szarvas and Volf assumed the role of arbiters, as they knew the laws, the norms of the language, and set out to improve the corrupted Hungarian language.

The Hungarian language had become corrupted by foreign influences. The chief evil was the nyelvjita's. 'The language reform caused the pitiful state of our language',29 lamented a contributor in Magyar NVyelv6r. Volf also passed sentence on Kazinczy's movement: 'If we are to write in a beautiful correct and Hungarian style, those artificial growths of the language must be cut off'.30 The editors who condemned Kazinczy's movement were not willing to realise that most of the products of the nyelv4jitas now (three generations later) belonged to the vocabulary of educated people, and that the greatest writers and poets, such as Vorosmarty, Petofi or Arany all used most of these 'artificial growths'. The nyelv4jitds was based on a German model because, according to Volf: 'We do not need a literary language in the sense that the Germans need it. We need a literary language only as a tool for our writers; they [i.e. the Germans] need it if people speaking various dialects are to understand each other'.31

27 Gabor Szarvas (I832-95) was a normative linguist par excellence. Gyorgy Volf (i843-97), besides his activity as a normative linguist was also responsible for a monu- mental collection of early Hungarian texts: Magyar Nyelvemldktdr, 15 vols, Budapest, I874-1908. The work of Zsigmond Simonyi (I853-I9I9) included significant works in the field of comparative syntax.

28 V. Tauli, 'Practical linguistics: The Theory of Language Planning' in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by H. G. Hunt, The Hague, I962, pp. 605-9. Practical linguistics is revealing more and more strong political aspirations. For an excellent study of modern developments see S. S. Harrison, The Most Dangerous Decades: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Language Policy in Multi-Lingual States, Columbia, Ohio, 1957.

29 I. Fischer, 'Adalekok a nyelvlijitas t6rtenetehez' (Magyar Nyelvo'r, III, Budapest, 1874, p. 77). Quoted by G. Szarvas in an editorial 'A Nyelv6r es a szepirodalom' (ibid., VIII, I879, p. 247).

30 Gy. Volf, 'A csAng6 nyelvrol.' (ibid., III, 1874, p. 58). 31 Gy. Volf, 'A helyes magyarsAg elvei' (ibid., II, I873, p. 546).




On the theoretical level Volf distinguished between literary language and nipnyelv (the language of 'the people'), representing a general category of all dialects. The latter distinction was only possible because Hungarian dialects represented only slight differences of pronunciation which, although distinctly recognisable, did not obstruct understanding. The differences in vocabulary and grammatical structure were negligible. Volf believed that the literary language was corrupted and less valuable than the nipnyelv because it was 'etwas in vielen Stiicken durch Einfluss des menschlichen Willens absichtlich Gebildetes und Zusammengewuirfeltes'. The nipnyelv, on the other hand, was beauty and perfection because it was 'ein unbewusst und naturgemass hervorgesprosstes Reis'.32 Reading articles at random in the Magyar J[yelvor also convinces the reader that the preference of nipnyelv as the only and perfect means of communication was equated with the much coveted idea of 'Hungarian- ness.'

In the struggle to establish the nipnyelv the philologists seemed to ignore the needs and rights of town-dwellers, the urban middle class, for whom the language used by 'the people' was insufficient for communication. The mass media, such as the newspapers, had to make concessions. Magazines were constantly attacked for their foreignness and 'un-Hungarianness'. Writers were expected to use colourful elaborate expressions, employing metaphors representing folkloristic elements in order to achieve a style that was not only correct, but also magyaros.33

The essence of 'Hungarianness', however, was never defined by the guardians of the language.34 Now and then an article on the Hungarianness of a particular author was published. These articles described, or singled out, certain elements which the philologists considered to be elements of 'Hungarianness'. In the article: 'The Hungarianness of Hungarian writers' the author discusses in the introduction the concept: 'What is Hungarianness ? I would not like to give a definition. I shall only take certain authors, and pick out what is peculiarly magyaros in their style, proverbs, metaphors and imagery borrowed from the people, idioms, epithets created according to the way 'the people' think, sentence structures uncharacteristic

32 bOc. Cit. 33 B. G. Nemeth, 'A szazadvegi Nyelvor-vita', in B. G. Nemeth, Mg is szemdlyiseg,

Budapest, 1970, p. 5I7. 34 Simonyi, in his book on the Hungarian language (A magyar nyelv, Budapest, 1905),

devotes a section to the principles of the correctness of language but surveys only different views (pp. 204-15). The same is true of 20th-century normative linguists e.g. 'The correctness of the language,' in J. Balassa, A magyar nyelv konyve, Budapest, 1943, pp. 47-50. 'It is unfortunate that neither of them explained their own views'-remarks the normative Nagy B. J. in his 'Simonyi Zsigmond nyelvmu'velo munkassaga', in Egy emberdltJ nyelviink vldelmnben, Budapest, I968, p. 67.



336 L. G. CZIGANY

of the literary language, . . . morphological peculiarities. Beside these, I shall pick out the dialect words used by writers every now and then'.35

The importance of the movement was acknowledged in the most authoritative contemporary encyclopaedia which claimed, in the article written on magyarossag,36 that the struggle for 'Hungarianness' and against 'un-Hungarianness' was led by the periodical Magyar Nyelv3r.

Magyarossag as a stylistic category is now regarded as obsolete. Its most recent definition37 in a dictionary of stylistics claims that the excesses of magyarossag led to magyarkodds-a pejorative term introduced to denote such excesses. By the middle of this century the age of purism came to an end in Hungary, particularly as a result of the literary movement Nyugat which was violently attacked by philologists as the embodiment of 'foreignness'.

Although I have only been able to describe the developments and implications of the concept now usually summarily called Magyaros- sag, it is essential to give a working definition of the concept. Ma- gyarossag is a pseudo-linguistic concept whose birth was due to the sense of loneliness felt by the Hungarian intelligentsia on account of the isolation of their language; its most important characteristic was the glorification of nlpnyelv, which was based on linguistic theories originating in Herder's doctrine of the Volksgeist; it surfaced in the second half of the igth century and soon became an ideological weapon for a few normative linguists bent on making the n6pnyelv the standard language, thus serving provincialism in literature and in public life, and preventing the standardisation of the language by spreading uncertainties in usage that can still be felt today.

35 S. Komjithy, 'Magyar ir6k magyarossAga' (Magyar Ngyelvdvr, XXIX, 1900, p. 505). 36 A Pallas nagy lexikona, XII, Budapest, I896, p. 178. 37 I. Szathmari, A magyar stilisztika itja, Budapest, I961, p. 480.



Download - Hungarianness: The Origin of a Pseudo-Linguistic Concept

Top Related