The study sums up the ethnographical achievements of
Hiador Sztripszky (1876-1945), a now little-known Hungarian-Ruthenian
ethnographer, bibliographer, linguist, literary historian and translator. The
researcher, who had a thorough knowledge of the cultural history and
ethnography/folkloristics of the Hungarians and the peoples living together
with them, in particular of the Ruthenians and Romanians, did a great deal to
study and make known the ethnocultural processes and influences. He also played
a big role in collecting the material cultural heritage of the peoples of
Transylvania for museums. After the Versailles Peace Treaty he was sent into
early retirement as having been involved in the policy on the minorities, and
in the last 25 years of his life he achieved substantial results mainly as a
philologist in the study of the history and connections of the different ethnic
groups and denominations. In addition to Sztripszky's work in ethnography, the
study also discusses areas related to the latter problem.
This essay is based on Ken Saro-Wiwa’s novel, titled Sozaboy. Apart from using this novel to interpret and locate the history and politics of Nigeria within a particular period, the essay
tried to look at the 1967–1970 Nigeria’s civil war as fictionalized by Ken Saro-Wiwa, the nature of the language and implications
on the English language in Nigeria. It also attempted an understanding of the moral and political consequences of war on humanity
in general and the special effect of the Nigerian civil war on the minority areas within the Biafran enclave in particular
as epitomized by Dukana, the setting of Sozaboy. The essay concluded that the novel itself was a bold attempt at experimentation
with language, considering the fact that it was written in what the author himself described as “rotten” English.
This paper claims that language is part a culture, and the linguistic behaviour of the individual and the community is one of the forms of cultural behaviour. Analyzing this behaviour, the author demonstrates the symbolic function of language in bilingual and multilingual communities and societies. This symbolic role is discussed in this paper in two aspects: 1. in everyday communication and its manifestations in the literary tradition (English–French double linguistic functions in Charlotte Brontë’s novels as well as in Krleža’s and Kukučín’s works in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy), 2. illustrating the symmetrical and asymmetrical linguistic forms of minority folk culture (Slovaks living in Hungary and Hungarians living in Transylvania and Romania).
Authors:Sebastian Cwiklinski, C. Edmund Bosworth, Gyula Wojtilla, Dániel Zoltán Kádár, and Réka Takács
Kleinmichel, Sigrid: Halpa in Choresrn (Hwarazm) und Atin Ayi im Ferghanatal. Zur Geschichte des Lesens in Usbekistan im 20. Jahrhundert. (ANOR 4); Szombathy, Zoltán: The Roots of Arabic Genealogy. A Study in Historical Anthropology. (Documenta et monographiae I); Boccali, G.-Pieruccini, C.-Vacek, J. (eds): Pandanus '01 Research in Indian Classical Literature; Vacek, J.-Preinhalterova, H. (eds): Pandanus '02 Nature in Indian Literatures and Art; Heidrich, Joachim-Rüstau, Hiltrud-Weidemann, Diethelm (eds): Indian Culture: Continuity and Discontinuity. In Memory of Walter Ruben (1899-1982). (Abhandlungen der Leibniz-Sozietät, Band 9); Mylius, Klaus: Wörterbuch Ardhamagadhi-Deutsch; Di Renjie pingzhuan [Critical Biogaphy of Di Renjie]; Gladney, Dru C.: Ethnic Identity in China: The Making of a Muslim Minority Nationality. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology (George and Louise Spindler, eds)
A land grant issued by Raṇasiṃhadeva of the Candrāvatī branch of the Paramāra dynasty in North-West India has recently come to my attention. It contains a genealogy of the Candrāvatī line from Utpalarāja to Raṇasiṃha. This ruler was hitherto known only from one published inscription (the Roheญā plates), and has been thought to be a usurper who briefly snatched the throne from the legitimate ruler Dhārāvarṣa. The grant, dated 1 November 1161 CE, makes no mention of Dhārāvarṣa, calling for a reinterpretation of some ambiguous lines of the Roheญā inscription. It is a possibility that Raṇasiṃha was not a usurper, but ruled as a regent during Dhārāvarṣa’s minority and then willingly handed the throne over to him.
This paper concentrates on communication with minority groups through a third party or intermediary in the public services. The variety of settings in which these encounters take place (hospitals, schools, government offices, police stations, customs checkpoints, etc.) raises questions on the role played by this intermediary, the importance of culture, the recognition of his/her job as a profession, the acceptance of the varied forms of professionalism, and the consideration of the different attitudes of the society and its institutions. This study concentrates on the different names and roles assigned to this link, with special emphasis on one of them: the interpreter and translator, and the debate surrounding the new roles he/she should (or should not) perform.
If one needs to obtain some information on the Roman conquest of Pannonia, his job seems to be easy: he has just to read both the ancient sources and many a modern work about this issue. But there are three problems: 1) the Greek and Latin sources are scanty, very poor in details and sometimes misleading; 2) the modern scholars often echo and deepen the errors of the ancient sources while adding other mistakes of their own; 3) mainstream opinions as well as minority views about Pannonian ethnography are premised on false or faulty assumptions and distort further our understanding of the historical events. This paper wants to correct both ancient errors and modern ones. Its author tried to reconstruct a coherent and clear picture of bellum Pannonicum in 12-9 BC; he also aimed at throwing new light on the ethnic composition of the Pannonian tribes.
The Rusyn language in Slovakia was codified in 1995 on the basis of the country’s two most prevalent Rusyn dialects: East Zemplín and West Zemplín. From this perspective Rusyn is a relatively young Slavic language, and this despite its centuries-long history, which is marked by many conflicts concerning the question of a literary norm; the disputes concerning Rusyn have taken place on the territory of today’s Slovak Republic, as well as throughout all of historical Carpathian Rus. Any solutions concerning a Rusyn literary language were always connected to the question of the Rusyn minority’s ethnic identity [i.e. are they (Great) Russian, Ukrainian, or do they form a separate Slavic nationality?], and these issues were not possible to resolve until after 1989, when society began to enjoy new pluralistic conditions. Thus, the late twentieth-century codification of Rusyn on the basis of local dialects was the natural result of an expression of free will on the part of Rusyns, and a response to the dilemma of their ethnic identity. The codification of Rusyn became the basis for introducing the literary language into various public spheres in Slovakia – publishing and media, religious life, stage and theatre productions, and of course the literary world –, which had until 1995 used various forms of Rusyn dialects without applying standardized rules. The expansion of Rusyn into these spheres of life – especially into the educational system and government administration – required the existence of a standardized literary language. Thus, the implementation of literary Rusyn (in its written and spoken form) into the above-named spheres of life is an important step to guaranteeing the language’s further development.
The present essay is devoted to the various manifestations of transformation in Slavic literatures after 1989, when 300 million
Slavs found themselves in the cultural paradigm diametrically opposed to the communist one, but not quite what it was designed
to be by the dissidents and opposition members, i.e. advocates of civil society. This comparative panorama of Slavic literatures
is presented from the perspective of postmodern culture and philosophy (Lyotard, Bauman, Rorty, Prigogine, Foucault, Derrida
among others), legitimizing with its theories pluralism, the understanding of the multi-meaning nature of truth, the polyphony
of cultures, and the significance of all minorities for the spiritual development of humankind. On the basis of selected examples
from the literatures of West-, East- and South-Slavic countries, the author attempts to identify the crucial elements of transformation
of the social and literary self-awareness of different generations in the post-communist Slavic countries over the last fifteen
years. In the works of J. Topol, V. Pelevin, T. Rżewicz, D. Ugresić, T. Zabuzhko, or D. Bieńkowski she seeks an answer to
the question what was realized out of various dreams of a better and braver world of pluralism and democracy. How do the transformationers,
the transformed and the self-transforming “inhabitants” of the new reality recognize their social and ethical situation? Who
are, in light of literature, the heroes of our time, and what is behind the notion of “new sensitivity”? What does the so-called
“realcap” (real capitalism) mean in literature? And also, which spaces of freedom does the democratic system open for writers
and minorities, and which new worlds of imagination does it create in a search for metaphysical, mythical, thanatological,
religious and esoteric dimensions of human existence, constrained in the past by imposed, top-down atheism.