Affiliation:
1. University of Pannonia ( Veszprém , Hungary ) and Ferenc Rákóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education ( Beregszász , Ukraine )
2. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Minority Studies ( Budapest , Hungary )
Abstract
Abstract
In this paper, based on the data of a sociological research and the analysis of the linguistic landscapes of six Transcarpathian cities, we have illustrated that in Transcarpathia a significant part of the population – regardless of ethnicity – live their lives not according to the official “Kyiv time” (EET; UTC+2) but according to the “local time” (CET; UTC+1). Even the names of the two times are distinguished in the local language use in Ukrainian, Hungarian, and Russian languages alike. The difference between official central time and “local time” appeared in Transcarpathia when the region became annexed to the Soviet Union. Yet, before the Second World War, each state in the region used CET. The Soviet power introduced Moscow time zone (MSK; UTC+3) of two hours ahead. The distinction between “local time” and central time was maintained when Transcarpathia became part of the newly independent Ukraine. The population in the region was urged to use a different time zone for a relatively short time from a historical point of view. The persistence of “local time” is also strengthened by the fact that it contributes to the image of Transcarpathia as a particular, specific region of Ukraine.
Reference14 articles.
1. Backhaus, Peter. 2006. Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape. In Durk Gorter (ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism, 52–66. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599170-004
2. Balla, Károly D. 1993. Amikor Kárpátalján a Big Ben szerint harangoztak [When Transcarpathian bells rang as the Big Ben]. In Balla Károly D. (ed.), Kis(ebbségi) magyar skizofrénia [Little Hungarian Minority Schizophrenia], 83–89. Ungvár–Budapest: Galéria Kiadó.
3. Batt, Judy. 2002. Transcarpathia: Peripheral region at the ‘centre of Europe’. Regional & Federal Studies 12(2): 155–177.10.1080/714004744
4. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer. 2009. A sociological approach to the study of linguistic landscapes. In Elana Shohamy–Durk Gorter (eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery, 40–54. London: Routledge.
5. Beregszászi, Anikó–Csernicskó, István. 2019. Different states, same practices: Visual construction of language policy on banknotes in the territory of present-day Transcarpathia. Language Policy 18(2): 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9485-3.10.1007/s10993-018-9485-3