Oldal 111 [111]
OCR
THE HUNGARIAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITIES IN NORTH CAROLINA speakers responding in English to their parents’ Hungarian emerges. The use of Hungarian and English among Gl and G2 members changes the most strikingly when speaking to siblings. While the majority of G1 speakers uses Hungarian with their siblings, most G2 speakers report using English and mixing — similarly when speaking to Hungarian-American friends — which also reinforces the statement that for G2 bilingual speakers, code-switching is a common communicative device used with their Hungarian-American peers?*. The frequency of using Hungarian, English, or code-switching for different cognitive or expressive functions also reveals significantly different patterns among Gl and G2 speakers. While G1 speakers use Hungarian for all cognitive and expressive functions — interesting that counting and personal thinking, and discussing personal feelings are the most Hungarian-dominated functions — and English for only such cognitive functions that have a strong semantic dependence on the English-speaking wider society, e.g. for discussing jobrelated, educational, and political issues. It also reinforces the notion that for G1 speakers Hungarian has a stronger emotional connotation than for G2 speakers ®. Among G2 speakers, a reversed tendency can be observed, English is used both for expressive and cognitive functions. However, it is noteworthy that Hungarian is used the most frequently when praying, for talking to oneself, and expressing anger. It shows that Hungarian fulfils some vestigial function in some very intimate domains of the self. G2 speakers, therefore, retain a reduced but strong emotional affiliation to Hungarian. Interesting that among both G1 and G2 speakers, code-switching emerges the most strikingly when dreaming. We have seen that along generational affiliation in terms of sociolinguistic characteristics, language attitude and use tendencies, two distinct subgroups shape up in the Hungarian-American community. These cross-generationally different patterns seem to determine how “these communities organize their bilingual resources and (re)negotiate meanings of code choice and codeswitching in particular socio-political economies””™. Therefore, I claim that a community-specific socio-cognitive bilingual grammar can only be set up taking into consideration the significantly different sociolinguistic patterns emerging in these two sub-communities. 262 Gardner-Chloros — McEntee-Atalianis — Finnis, Ibid., 52-80 263 Tannenbaum, The multifaceted aspects of language maintenance, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 384 264 Bhatt — Bolonyai, Code-switching and the optimal grammar of bilingual use, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 524 - 109 +
