Minorities Research 6.

The present study is the abridged version of a longer work. It seeks to present the connections between geographical environment and ethnic composition along a certain section of the Hungarian-Slovak linguistic border. Furthermore, the study examines the situation of possible segregation based on nationality at settlements where the population is of mixed ethnic background. Besides, connections between Hungarian ethnic identity and political (voting) behaviour will be discussed, and the relationship between ethnic identity and language use will be explored. I will look at the influence of suburbanisation on the development of ethnic composition as well.

I shall touch upon the changes that took place in space and time in the territory of Nyitra (Nitra) district briefly, for my present aim is to present primarily the results of my field work carried out between February and April 2002. Anna Sándor, Head of the Hungarian Department, Konstantín University at Nitra, helped me carry out my research in Slovakia, while the help of Károly Kocsis proved invaluable in Hungary. This study could not have been prepared without their help.

I applied the method of social classification for research on the level of settlement. I derived the theoretical basis of the method from two previous research: from the survey of István Hoóz, who examined the ethnic groups of Baranya county (Hoóz 1985); and the research of Róbert Keményfi carried out in the Slovak parts of the historic Gömör and Kishont (Gemer) counties (Keményfi 1998). Both established ethnic attachment with the help of people who knew the given communities well, an example I decided to follow. László Szarka lent me the questionnaire, which I completed with a few subjects I found important.[1]

I consider 20 of the 62 settlements in the Nyitra region Hungarian-related, to which I added three settlements from a different administrative unit because they can be connected to the others from several respects. I chose 5 out of these 23 settlements that, in my opinion, were representative of all.

I considered the following factors when I made my choice (in order of importance):

ˇ Geographical situation: the five places were to be situated dispersedly. Besides, their distance from Nitra and the infrastructure were also important factors.

ˇ Ratio of Hungarians in the village: I only had the 1991 data at my disposal when I selected the villages. I aimed at picking settlements form different categories.

ˇ Administration: I did not choose merged settlements, since that would have caused problems both in mapping and the assessment of the data.

ˇ Besides theoretical problems, practical ones emerged as well: the settlements' system of relations with their surroundings, map available on the villages, etc.

Based on these considerations, I picked the following places: Kolon (Kolíňany), Nyitracsehi (Čechynce), Nyitraegerszeg (Jelovce), Barslédec (Ladice), and Nagyhind (Vel'ké Chyndice). Later, in the operative phase, Barslédec was struck out from the list (because of the worries of the mayor concerning the protection of data). Nyitrageszte (Host'ová) replaced it.

Among all Slovakian districts with a Hungarian population, this area is in a special position: this is the only area in which Hungarians live, but which is not connected to the Hungarian ethnic block that stretches along Southern Slovakia. It has basically become a linguistic island.[2]

The Hungarians of Nyitra region are an indigenous minority, originating from the Árpádian age. Hungarians populated the territory in the course of a long process, which began at the time of the Hungarian Conquest. Hungarians formed the southern part of the district by the 11th century, while a mixed Hungarian-Slav population inhabited the northern parts. However, the Zobor region, which is now the main area where Hungarians live (Kniezsa 1938), was of Slav majority. The marches formed the border of the Hungarian settlement.

This structure changed before the Turkish occupation only in so far that the Zobor district became of Hungarian majority and the Slav population preserved its positions only in the north-western part of the area. Hungarian majority lived in 79 out of the 89 settlements of the district (Kocsis 2000). The Hungarian ethnic group that lived mainly in river valleys (strategic roads) and plains fell victim to the wars against the Turkish. It suffered much greater losses than the Slovaks who lived in the more protected mountains. Therefore, the southern parts incurred greater losses. The Hungarian ethnic territory nevertheless did not began to decrease until the end of the 17th century. Quite the contrary happened, for the Hungarian population that fled northward from the Turkish increased the numbers of the indigenous Hungarian population. The Slovak southward expansion started only after the Turkish occupation. They won great territories during the hundred years following 1680 along the full length of the contact zone of the two ethnic groups, including the Nyitra region. Almost the entire population of the territory had been replaced by 1773. The basis of the current ethnic composition developed during the 18th century with a great mixing of peoples. The two characteristic overlapping ethnic projections that evolved then continued to exist until the mid 20th century.

The question emerges precisely why the Hungarians of the Zobor area survived; why did not they merge into the Slovak ethnic territory? The answer is related to the features of the area's terrain. The area with the Hungarian majority survived, with the exception of a few settlements, in a hilly area, far from the main strategic roads. Only the valleys of Nyitra and Zsitva (itava) were busy routes, but military operations occurred here only in the 30 years following the occupation of Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky).

Figure 1 Changes in the ethnic composition of the current territory of Nyitra region between 1880 and 2001

1941: Aggregate data of Hungarian and Czechoslovak censuses: vernacular and nationality

The expansion of the Slovak ethnic group continued, though on a smaller scale, until 1867. The Compromise and the higher prestige of Hungarians brought a significant change then.

Between 1880 and the disannexation of the territory, the Hungarian ethnic group increased relevantly in numbers especially at the expense of the German population. Furthermore, it grew because of its natural increase that exceeded that of the other ethnic groups. The political transformations brought about changes in this respect as well. In the past 80 years the number and proportion of Slovaks has been on the increase, while that of the Hungarians (and Germans[3]) on the decrease. This trend changed temporarily in the southern parts of the district between 1938 and 1945, when the first Vienna Award re-annexed the territory to Hungary. Following the Second World War, every census indicated a decreasing proportion of Hungarians (Figure 1).

Table 1 Number and proportion of Hungarians in 2001 and changes as compared with 1991

According to the 2001 census, both the number and proportion of Hungarians decreased nationwide. The same happened in the Nyitra region. The Hungarian population recorded here in 1991 decreased by 20%, so only 10,956 Hungarians were recorded in 2001. A decrease greater than this was registered only in Bratislava (Pozsony) and Kosice (Kassa). In 2001, 92% of the 163,540 inhabitants of the Nyitra region declared that they were of Slovak nationality, while only 6.7% said they were Hungarians. Among other ethnic groups, Czechs and the Roma were represented in relevant numbers.

A decline in the number of Hungarians characterises all of the villages. (Table 1[4]). The villages with a Hungarian majority (Kolon, Alsóbodok (Dolné Obdokovce)) suffered the least losses, and with them Kiscétény, where the Hungarian community is rather small. The situation is worse in those villages where the number of the elderly has increased or were once villages with a Hungarian majority (Nemespann (Paňa), Hegyalja). Unfortunately, Hungarians decreased in greater numbers in most of the villages of the district than the Hungarian average in all Slovakia (91.8%). At the same time, we can observe that in comparison with the previous census, there are much less Hungarians in those settlements where we could find the greatest Hungarian communities in 1991 (Nyitrakér (Milanovce), Nyitra, and Kalász (Klasov)).

In 2001, 77.37% of the Hungarians (8,477 persons) lived in settlements, where their proportion exceeded the 10%, and only 48.68% (5,333 persons) lived in a settlement where Hungarians formed the majority. These figures are much below the national average 91.8% and 77.2% in 1991)

The trend that can be established based on the censuses is far from being advantageous for the Hungarian ethnic group. The district is becoming increasingly homogeneous and the Slovak nationality is becoming predominant. While the Slovak ethnic group is now 4-6 times more numerous as compared with 1880 (1880=100%), the number of Hungarians dropped almost by 50% (to 53%), and the number of Germans is only some one hundredth (1.15%) of the former German population.

Table 2 Categorisation of villages in the current territory of the Nyitra region according to the proportion of Hungarians between 1880 and 2001

It is worth examining as to how the settlements of the district can be categorised according to the proportion of Hungarians (Table 2). The table reveals that there was only one ethnically mixed (40-60%) settlement, Verebély, but by 1910 several settlements, formerly of Slovak majority, had lost their homogeneity. The situation changed after the change of regime, but this time at the expense of the Hungarians. The ethnic erosion of Hungarian settlements gained momentum following 1941. Most of the settlements with a Hungarian majority shifted one category down between 1991 and 2001, and by today there is no settlement in which the proportion of the Hungarian population would exceed the 90%. At the same time, there are more of them in the "below 10%" category. Simultaneously, there are fewer places with no Hungarian population at all. This clearly indicates the scattering of the Hungarian population (the increase in the number of mixed marriages is an important factor).

The data of the parliamentary election can serve as proofs for the results of the censuses. Furthermore, we can use them to find out how strong Hungarian identity is. I examined the five elections since the change of the regime and the local elections at the selected villages.

I shall analyse the votes cast to the Hungarian party/parties. (Table 3). Most Hungarian votes were cast in 1992, the least in 1998, while the most valid votes were counted in 1998. In general, the lower the voter turnout, the best result Hungarian parties achieve because of their stable voters' base. The number of those who voted for the Party of the Hungarian Coalition (MKP) was in continuous decline between 1992 and 1998, partly because the decrease in the numbers of the Hungarians. The 2001 census demonstrated this clearly.[5] Unfortunately, the number of those who voted for the Hungarian parties remained below the figures of the 2001 census even though their proportion should have been higher among those above the voting age because of the ageing population.

As opposed to 1998, the results of the 2002 elections constituted a pleasant surprise. The proportion of voters who cast their votes to MKP was much higher in every settlement with a Hungarian population in the district - with the exception of Babindál[6] than the proportion of those recorded as Hungarians in 2001. MKP received 8% of the votes in the Nyitra region, which is 1.3% higher than the proportion of the Hungarians. The elections held in 1998 and 2002 are opposing manifestations of the Hungarian identity. The significant difference is due in part to the votes cast by the population of dual attachment and uncertain identity that speaks both languages well. I will return to them at the discussion of the data on mother tongue.

Table 3 General elections in villages with Hungarian inhabitants in the Nyitra region between 1990 and 2002

Naturally, it is to be taken into account at the evaluation of election results that not every Hungarian votes for a Hungarian party, which is true the other way around as well (although to a smaller extent). In 1998, the nationalist government and the governmental crisis were factors that could confuse the voters. The four years of secure position in the government that MKP enjoyed before 2002 and the relatively low voter turnout both influenced the results of 2002.[7] Nevertheless, I believe that the identity of the diaspora Hungarians of Nyitra region is weaker than that of those who live in the southern ethnic blocks. This is true especially in those settlements, where the Slovaks have come to form the majority.

Local elections are not important from an ethnic aspect. The result develops in function of the local circumstances. For example, MKP forms the majority at the local government of Nyitracsehi but the leaders of Kolon, where a similar Hungarian majority lives, are independent.

I sought to define ethnic attachment on the basis of mother tongue during my field work. My informants - intellectuals and civil servants conscious of their Hungarian identity - had problems categorising certain persons by the vernacular. The main characteristics of the categorisation based on mother tongue were: categorisation did not present any problems in the case of the elderly or in ethnically homogeneous households (although sometimes problems emerged regarding the child's/children's mother tongue in the Hungarian households). We encountered difficulties in the case of the youngest generation, and especially with respect to children born in mixed marriages. The categorisation my informants gave was probably more accurate in the case of closer acquaintances.

The following were the main factors during the categorisation: origin, the language used, the mother tongue of the mother in the case of mixed marriages, the language of teaching in the case of school-age children, and the declaration the persons made during the census about ethnic attachment.[8] According to my experiences, the data received are important not so much because of mother tongue but because they reveal who are the persons of Hungarian attachment. Part of them (generally 10-15%) could be classified as having Slovak attachment as well. Probably they are the ones who cause the differences between official statistics and the data I gathered.

I have not mentioned the persons of uncertain mother tongue, whom my informants could not categorise by vernacular at all. Their proportion is about 1% in these settlements. Most cases involve children under the age 5, born in mixed marriages (usually the father is Slovak, the mother is Hungarian).

It follows from these observations that the ethnic composition of the selected settlements can be established based on the data gathered on mother tongue.

The total population of Nyitracsehi was 1000 at the beginning of 2002. The distribution according to mother tongue was: 641 Hungarians, 359 Slovaks, with no person of other mother tongue or nationality living in the village. The census of 2001 recorded 1017 inhabitants, 54.1% of which were Hungarians (550 persons), and 45.9% Slovak (467). Accordingly, I found 16.5% more Hungarians in 2002 than what had been revealed by official statistics. What could be the reason of this significant deviation? First, there is a 5-10% divergence present between the data on ethnic attachment and mother tongue among minority Hungarians living beyond the borders.[9] Second, the area's ethnic geographical circumstances can account for the difference as well. As it was mentioned above, the villages of the Nyitra region in which Hungarians live are not connected to the Hungarian ethnic block in Slovakia and they do not form a contiguous unit among themselves. Hungarians live in ethnically mixed villages,[10] in which they form usually a minority. This results in enhanced assimilation and a great number of persons of dual identity, which again contributes to the gap between the data of 2001 and 2002.

Kolon has seen a growing population over the past ten years, with 1444 recorded inhabitants in 2001. In 2002, they were in 1429 only. 30 of them, all Lutheran Slovaks, were inhabitants of the manor by the village. Here, I found different problems than in Nyitracsehi. The more heterogeneous composition of the community (with the appearance of the Roma ethnic group) and the greater number of bilingual persons produced two different series of data. If we look strictly at mother tongue (data from 2002) we can establish three categories: Hungarian (911 persons, 63.75%), Slovak (485 persons, 33.94%), uncertain and other (33 persons, 2.31%). (The "other" category includes one Czech- and one Polish-speaking person). According to another approach, we have to categorise those 37 Roma, whose mother tongue is preponderantly Slovak (34 Slovak, 3 uncertain), separately.

The small difference as compared with the census manifests in the number of Slovaks (112 people less in 2002 if the Roma are counted separately). The number of Hungarians is 106% of the number counted in 2001 (856). The mother tongue of many is uncertain. They have two characteristic groups: the first is comprised of children born in mixed marriages, especially when the mother is Hungarian.[11] In this case there can be several people in the uncertain category within the given household. The second group is formed by cases when there is one person in the uncertain category within a household, but not the child. This phenomenon is connected to mixed marriages as well. One of the spouses is in the uncertain category because of his or her nationality change (intragenerational assimilation, when the change occurs preponderantly from Hungarian to Slovak).

Besides Kolon, Nyitraegerszeg was the other village where the Roma minority was present, and in much greater numbers than what the census revealed. This is the only similarity between the villages, though. Nyitraegerszeg has special features according to my findings. As compared with the other places, the mixing of Slovak and Hungarian population is insignificant; the number of people with uncertain mother tongue is relatively low, while the proportion of families and people of non-local origin is high. It had 927 inhabitants in 2002, less than in 1880. Its ethnic character shifted often (See Table 7), and this phenomenon is still present. According to the 2001 census, the proportion of Hungarians was 10.3%, while the data of 2002 reveal a much larger Hungarian community (32.8%). Considering the absolute numbers, there were three times more Hungarians in 2002 than one year before. Various reasons could explain this huge gap:

ˇ Hungarian grandparents were often indicated as Slovaks by younger generations of Slovak identity during the census.[12]

ˇ A great number of the middle-aged people of Hungarian origin, in lack of a Hungarian school, are bilinguals. As such, they are as attached to the Slovak culture as to the Hungarian, so they increase the population of the state-forming nation during the census.

All this predicts a further decrease of the Hungarian population in the following years. It is an interesting question as to why only 10% of the village's population is Hungarian as compared with its significantly greater proportions before. The geographical environment is an important reason: in the Zobor region, the settlements beyond the hill (Vicsápapáti, Lajosfalu, Nyitraegerszeg, Béd, and Menyhe) are all in a similar transportation-geographical situation in so far as they are isolated from the ethnic Hungarian centre. An even more significant reason is that Hungarian schools were closed in the 1960s, which changed the proportions of the ethnic groups in the villages "beyond the hill" once and for all.

Nagyhind is a representative of the south-western part of the district. Its number of inhabitants was ideal for the survey and it had the interesting feature of having separated from Kishind recently. Besides Nyitraegerszeg, this is the other village, in which Hungarians from the minority. The ethnic history of the village is similar to that of Nyitraegerszeg (school closed; once it was almost entirely Hungarian), with the exception that Kalász, where a school of Hungarian-language teaching operates, is only 3km away from Nagyhind.[13] Besides the school, another decisive factor is the history of the village (merged with Kishind, which had become of Slovak character, in 1938). Accordingly, the place lost its Hungarian majority with the new administration, which brought about serious disadvantages: Slovak-language administration and the relegation of the Hungarian language into the background in public life.

With respect to mother tongue, the proportion of Hungarians is much greater than what the 2001 census revealed. It seems that where the Hungarian population is small but where they formed the majority earlier (some 60 years ago), there is a yawning gap between the data on nationality and mother tongue. 74.3% of the population was Slovak in 2001, while their proportion was only 53.9% in 2002. The corresponding Hungarian figures were 24.9% and 45.5%.

The same reasons produce this gap as in Nyitraegerszeg: the lack of education in Hungarian and dual attachment, with the children being often of Slovak mother tongue. There is one significant difference: the proportion of mixed marriages is much higher in Nagyhind, because of which intragenerational identity change has a greater influence. We have information on several cases when the mother tongue of the child is Slovak in a homogeneous Hungarian family. It is an unfortunate but characteristic data that there is only one ethnically homogeneous family in the village where we can find a child (student).[14]

Nyitrageszte was annexed to Pográny in 1975 and the Communist regime destined the village to doom. This meant that no houses could be built in the village. Because of this, many left the village, especially the intellectuals and the young. What was a disaster in one respect, was luck in the other, since this policy produced one of the most "Hungarian" villages in the district. Additional factors that contributed to this were its isolation, distance from the main roads, and that it has only one neighbour of Slovak majority, Család.

I did not expect to see great differences between the distribution by mother tongue and the 2001 census figures. My assumption was born out: the number of those of Hungarian mother tongue was 105% of the ethnic Hungarians. According to the 2002 data, the linguistic distribution of the population was as follows: Slovak 10.93%, Hungarian 87.47%, uncertain and other 1.6%. I came to the conclusion that the higher the proportion of Hungarians, the smaller the difference between the data on mother tongue and nationality. The gap we have in Nyitrageszte stems from the declarations on nationality of those in a mixed marriage. Unfortunately, in many cases even homogeneous Hungarian families declared themselves Slovaks. I did not understand why this happened, considering that the preponderant Hungarian majority in Nyitrageszte would have ensured that nobody would have been disadvantaged because of his or her Hungarian nationality. Here an inhabitant can expect any difficulties only if he or she does not speak Hungarian.

I inquired about language use in two respects: at home and in public. The mother tongue of my informants[15] influenced the results on both language use and choice of school significantly. My informants indicated evidently the language in which somebody spoke to them when I asked them about language use in public. For those of Hungarian mother tongue this was usually Hungarian. Yet, there are hardly any monolingual people in these villages: such cases involved elderly women and children under the age of 6 only (Sándor 2000. 126). For this reason, when we talk about language use in public, this must be mixed in the case of Hungarians almost always, but I use the Hungarian language use category to depict a more detailed picture. In the case of the inquiry on the choice of school it was of crucial importance that my informants generally knew the Hungarian families better, so they could follow the high-school and college studies of Hungarian students studying outside the village better than that of the Slovaks.

In Nyitracsehi, Hungarian language is still dominant in everyday life, since 47% of the population uses Hungarian most often. 12% (120 persons) belong among those who speak Slovak only. This group is not homogeneous, since according to a 1999 local survey only 14 persons did not speak Hungarian at all; so the others (in about 100) just do not use this language. From among 239 school-age children, 120 are of Hungarian mother tongue as opposed to 119 Slovaks. The categorisation according to schools attended reveals different proportions: 64% of them study in Slovak and only 36% in Hungarian schools. It is important to note that there is only one combined class for grades 1-3 because of the decreasing number of children. At the same time, there is a separate Slovak-language class because children from Kiscétény study here as well and many Hungarian children study in the Slovak-language class.

Key: H=Hungarian, S=Slovak, M=Mixed. The first letter indicates the language used at home, the second the language used in public.

Distribution by language use is rather similar in Kolon and Nyitracsehi. There is a difference only in the case of those who speak always Slovak, for their proportion is much greater in Kolon. The prevalence of the Hungarian language is clear in the village, since almost one half of the population opt for Hungarian in everyday life. Notwithstanding its present position, the Hungarian language is losing out because the younger generations use Slovak increasingly. What is true for the whole of Southern Slovakia, it is present in the Nyitra region as well: the proportion of bilingual Hungarians decreases parallel with age, while the opposite is true for the Slovaks. The diminishing role of the Hungarian language can be perceived within families as well, and especially when the children attend Slovak schools. In these families the youngest child can speak Hungarian the least (Sándor 2000. 57). One fourth of the students cannot speak Hungarian or do not use the Hungarian language, which indicates that the process leading to monolingualism is on its way.

365 children study in some educational institution in Kolon. Out of those attending school and kindergarten, 195 are of Hungarian mother tongue (53.42%), 154 are Slovaks (42.19%), and the mother tongue of 16 children is uncertain (4.38%). Currently 99 children attend Hungarian schools (elementary and secondary schools and college), which is 27% (!) of all students, and 51% of those of Hungarian mother tongue. Both proportions are very small, given that the Hungarian average is 73%in Slovakia. Unfortunately, the proportion of Hungarian children who attend Slovak schools is high throughout the district (44.7%), a result that makes the Nyitra region lead this category among all the Slovak districts with a Hungarian population (Sándor 2000. 134-136).

It is characteristic especially of Nyitraegerszeg that the number of those who speak only Hungarian is insignificant, since about half of the village's population does not speak Hungarian at all. Therefore, the scope of Hungarian language use is rather limited. Language use is closely related to age. Most of the elderly speak Hungarian (they use their mother tongue especially when they talk to each other), while the middle-aged and the young prefer to use Slovak. This originates from Slovak-language education. There are significant differences between the language use of the total population and the of school-age children. 90% of students do not speak Hungarian or speak it little. It follows from this, according to my informants, that they are not of Hungarian mother tongue then. From among 176 children in school or kindergarten there were only 5 of Hungarian mother tongue according to my informants! It is to be pointed out that part of the remaining 171 children are from homogeneous Hungarian families but given that the parents attended Slovak schools and they often speak Slovak at home, their children can usually be considered of Slovak mother tongue. Most of the children born in mixed marriages do not speak Hungarian at all.

The choice of school category does not make sense in the village, since there is only a Slovak school and nobody travels farther to study in Hungarian.[16]

In Nagyhind - as compared with Nyitraegerszeg - the proportion of those who speak only Slovak is smaller but the proportion of the M-M and S-M groups is greater (See Table 4). The proportion of the H-H group is greater as well but this does not reflect the real proportion of Hungarian speakers. The reason is that the proportion of those who speak Slovak either at home or in public, or belong in the M-M group, is greater Nagyhind than in the other examined villages, as a result of a greater degree of ethnic mixing.

There is no Hungarian school and student studying in Hungarian in the village, even though the Hungarian school of Kalász is only 3km afar.

Distribution by language runs parallel to the proportion of the two ethnicities in the case of people who speak only in Hungarian. It is understandable, however, that here too the Hungarian has began to lose out. Three fourth of the population uses preponderantly Hungarian in everyday life and the proportion of those who prefer Slovak is only 9%. The Slovaks living in the village are bilingual, similar to the Hungarians. 76.32% of students is of Hungarian mother tongue, which is pleasing, since it ensures that the village will retain its Hungarian majority over the next generations. The groups H-H, H-M, and M-H comprise almost the whole of the Hungarians (75%). At the same time, the proportion of those who speak Slovak in one of the fields of language use is 12%; it is much greater among students.

The choice of school category reveals a situation much worse than that of language use. There are more students who belong in categories S-S or S-V. This is a result of the school they attend: more students attend the Slovak elementary school in Család than the Hungarian school in Pográny.[17]

The preponderant majority of the Hungarians in the examined area live close to Nyitra, so it occurred to me that the Slovak population moving out of the city might have contributed to the ethnic composition changes in the area. There was some chance for this especially in Nyitracsehi, Kolon, and Nyitraegerszeg. To measure the eventual outflow from Nyitra, I inquired about the number and origin of the strangers[18].

According to the survey, 10-27% of the population originates not from the examined villages. Strangers make up 9.9% of the population in Nyitracsehi (the lowest proportion in the surveyed villages). 7.8% originates from Nyitra region, with half of them from the Hungarian villages of Zoboralja (and Nagycétény) and half from the neighbouring Slovak villages (Nagyemőke, Nagylapás (Vel'ký Lapá), Kiscétény, Lapásgyarmat (Golianovo)). Formerly many girls from the surrounding Slovak villages married into Nyitracsehi because it was a relatively prosperous village. 0.8% of the population comes from the cities of the district (Nyitra and Verebély (Vrable)), 1.3% from some other known or unknown place. Most of the strangers arrived because of their marriage; there is only one non-local family (arrived from Nyitra). I was informed that there were administrative reasons to this: the opportunity of those from Nyitra to by land in Nyitracsehi has been restricted, even though there are many inquirers. Their number grew especially following 1992, when the status of the surroundings of Új utca were classified as territory within the village boundary and the building of family houses could begin there. Consequently, I cannot prove that suburbanisation has had any influence on ethnic composition changes in Nyitracsehi.

78.1% of the inhabitants of Kolon are locals, the others moved in. 7.5% came from within the district, mostly from the villages inhabited by Hungarians in the neighbourhood, and only 1.1% arrived from nearby cities (Nyitra: 9, Verebély: 4, Aranyosmarót: 2 people). These data disprove suburbanisation, especially because the 15 people moved into the village through marriage and not because a whole family moved.

Nyitraegerszeg used to be a place famous of its endogamous character, where strangers amounted to an insignificant proportion of the population. This has changed completely. With the disintegration of the village community, strangers started to move in, while marrying into the village was less characteristic. Strangers comprise 27.83% of the population. Their distribution by mother tongue reveals a great variations: as opposed to 16 Hungarians, 237 Slovaks moved in, with 36 being strangers among the 40 Roma inhabitants. Furthermore, 97% of the newly settled non-Hungarians are monolingual Slovaks. The village, due to its pleasant surroundings is a popular vacation area as well, so many families living in Bratislava (Pozsony) and Nyitra own a summer house here. Despite all this, the presence of suburbanisation cannot be proved here either.

Strangers comprise 26% of the population in Nagyhind; most of them arrived from villages nearby or in Zoboralja. The proportion of strangers is rather low in Nyitrageszte (12.27%), which indicates that it is still among the more closed villages. The majority of the newcomers arrived through marriage and, with a few exceptions, came from the Zobor region.

It can be concluded that the influence of suburbanisation is insignificant in changing the ethnic ratio in the five villages as a whole. At the same time, statistical data prove that this phenomenon has left its mark on the population of Nyitragerencsér, which was part of Nyitra prior to 1991. The total population of Gerencsér increased by 168 between 1991 and 2001, while the Hungarian population dropped by 178 (!); the balance is +328 in the case of the Slovaks (and +18 in the case of the "other" category). The great increase can be explained with people moving out from Nyitra.

The examination of ethnic structure within the settlements was an important part of my field work. Originally I assumed that there was no segregation based on nationality in the villages, and the mixing of Hungarians and Slovaks was a characteristic phenomenon. This hypothesis proved to be true.

No ethnic blocks can be divided within Nyitracsehi but there are street sections dominated by one or the other ethnic group. More Hungarian-speakers live along the old main street of the village behind the church and the Municipal Office. Though it may be surprising, there are more Hungarians in Új utca too (parallel to the road to Kiscétény) despite the fact that there are only new houses there (and many are being built currently as well). Slovak households are relatively more numerous in the surroundings of the school and many of them live along the outer parts of the road to Nyitra.

The greatest division between Hungarians and Slovaks in the examined villages was found in Kolon but this does not constitute a case of segregation either. Undoubtedly, Hungarians dominate in the Western part of the village (Felvég) and in the Alvég, along the Nyitra-Aranyosmarót main road. There are hardly any Slovak households here. However, the new, eastern and south-eastern parts of the village are rather mixed, but we can find no Slovak majority with respect to the number of households here either. Slovak households dominate the centre of the village in the blockhouses built not far from the school. The Roma live in smaller groups scattered within the village. These groups comprise 2-4 Roma households and all of them are found in the older part of the village neighbouring the Hungarian households.

In Nyitraegerszeg, greater number of Hungarian households can be found along the main street and in the street that runs parallel the railway. There is no part in the village where Hungarians form the majority. As opposed to this, Slovaks form a solid majority in the surroundings of the church and the parts closer to the river. It is conspicuous that the number of mixed marriages is small as compared with the other villages I examined. Besides Kolon, the spatial distribution of the Roma could be examined in Nyitraegerszeg. Similar to the other village, they live in smaller groups, with most Roma households living in the deteriorated parts between the church and the river. Several households of theirs live in the older, neglected houses of the main street.

There is complete mingling in Nagyhind, and the proportion of mixed marriages is high. Numerous Hungarian households live along the main street and the road to Kishind, while the Slovak households are quite scattered. They form an absolute majority only in the blockflats built behind the Municipal Office.

In Nyitrageszte, it would not make sense to talk about ethnic segregation, since there is only one homogeneous Slovak household, and the households of mixed marriage are scattered in the village.

The Hungarians of Nyitra region are an indigenous minority, originating from the Árpádian age. The territory that they currently inhabit is a contracted remnant of the former extensive northern Hungarian ethnic space. The foundations of the current ethnic structure of the district evolved after the fights of the 17th and 18th century (1684-1708). The Slovak ethnic group grew in number and proportion throughout the 18th and 19th centuries until 1867. The period between 1867 and 1918 was advantageous to the Hungarians. Their great natural growth and the assimilation of the formerly Slovak- and German-speaking peoples increased the proportion of the Hungarian population.

The elderly still remember the change of regime in 1918, which fundamentally transformed the life of the Hungarians of the area. Both the number of settlements with a Hungarian majority and the number of Hungarian population has been in decline ever since.

Besides their decrease in numbers, the crisis of Hungarian identity (especially among the young) is the other significant problem. In addition to this, the area has lost the preponderant majority of its Hungarian intellectuals as a result of the post-WWII punitive sanctions (removal, deportation, re-Slovakisation).

The Hungarians of Nyitra region, besides the cities of Bratislava and Kosice, are in the most disadvantaged situation in Slovakia as regards their ethnic survival. According to the 2001 census, only little bit more than 10,000 ethnic Hungarians live in the district. The number of villages with a Hungarian majority fell to eight (including Nyitrakér). The proportion of Hungarians is below 10% in the north-western part of the Zobor region, and, in lack of Hungarian-language education, I believe there is a chance for their survival in these parts. Similar are the prospects in the south-eastern corner of the district, in the surroundings of Verebély, but the above described situation is expected to prevail somewhat later. Hungarians are most likely to survive along the Nyitrakér-Nagycétény-Nyitracsehi-Alsóbodok-Kolon-Zsére axis. However, this will greatly depend on the continued and expanded education in the Hungarian language.

I drew a few general conclusions based on the data of the five villages. The number of those of Hungarian mother tongue was higher in each case than the figures indicated by the 2001 census[19] (the higher their proportion the smaller the difference). The number of the Roma is higher than what the census figures revealed; they are Slovak speakers for the most part.

Language use depends first of all on the ratio between the ethnic groups. Hungarian dominates in the villages of Hungarian majority, while Slovak in case of a Slovak majority. The more homogeneous the ethnic composition of the place is, the more the members of the minority use the dominant language of the village. There are significant differences in language use according to age: the elderly use Hungarian more, while the young use it increasingly less. The language use of Hungarians and Slovaks depends primarily on the ethnic ratio within the village.

The choice of school is determined by two factors: the existence of a Hungarian school nearby; and the costs of sending the child there. Both factors contribute to the fact that the proportion of Hungarian students who study in Slovak schools is extremely high in the district. Children born in mixed marriages attend Slovak schools almost without exception, and many Hungarian families opt for Hungarian schools as well. Another factor that enhances this trend is the misbelief that those children who study in a Hungarian school will not succeed later on. Yet, it happens usually the other way around. Hungarian kindergartens and elementary schools would be crucial in the preservation of the mother tongue. Therefore, it is sad that it is impossible to send children to Hungarian institutions from most of the villages inhabited by Hungarians in the district.

The proportion of mixed marriages is high in the examined villages, but in two it remains much below the others because of their local characteristics. Mixed marriage usually brings about assimilation in a diaspora, and the Nyitra region is no exception. The proportion of mixed marriages increases steadily. Since fewer Hungarians live in the area, it becomes increasingly difficult to find a Hungarian spouse. In connection to this, it is to be pointed out that the majority of the earners work (or study) in Nyitra, that is, in a Slovak environment.

The proportion of strangers changes from village to village and, similar to mixed marriages, depends on local characteristics. No signs of suburbanisation could be found in the villages east of Nyitra. Nyitragerencsér was the only exception; there, this phenomenon can be considered likely. The increasing number of those who move out from Nyitra can be felt slightly in Nyitraegerszeg. I believe that the lack of suburbanisation is due to the fact that Nyitra is not big enough to make masses want to move out from it. Furthermore, there is a green belt around the city at the foot of the hill (Zobor, Alsócsitár (titáre)) that absorbs the outflow. However, this process cannot be depicted statistically.

The most important finding concerning the internal ethnic structure of the villages is that there is no segregation between the Hungarian- and Slovak-speaking populations. The smaller the proportion of the Hungarians is, the more likely they will live scattered within the village. If the proportion of Hungarians falls below the critical level (Nyitraegerszeg), then the preponderance of Slovaks in certain areas of the village derives naturally from their numerical dominance. In general, the main street and the old parts of the villages are of Hungarian majority, while Slovaks form the majority in the new parts, where family houses or blockhouses are found. Along the main street, many old inhabitants, most of whom are Hungarians, live alone. When they die, often Roma families move into their houses. The proportion of the Roma is low in the examined area, so no Roma colonies have been formed anywhere. They usually live in groups, in houses of bad or often ruinous quality.

In connection to the parliamentary elections of 1998 and 2002, it is to be emphasised that the results of the villages with a Hungarian population were completely different from those in other parts of the district. This is conspicuous in the case of Hungarian parties. Parties of nationalist tint (HZDS -Movement for a Democratic Slovakia, SNS - Slovak National Party) and the Communists received fewer votes. The inhabitants of villages with a Hungarian population preferred to vote to democratic parties. There is a significant difference between the two elections: in 1998, the proportion of those who voted for Hungarian parties remained below the proportion of Hungarians in the given village; in 2002, exactly the opposite happened.

It is important to examine what effect the geographical environment has had on the ethnic composition of these villages. In this respect, we can distinguish two groups of settlements. The first include villages in river valleys, where the population worked mainly in agriculture (e.g. Nyitraegerszeg, Nyitracsehi). Their position is advantageous in times of peace but they suffer more most in periods of war because of their key position (the Nyitra valley) with respect to transportation. The other group includes villages built in the hills and at the foot of some mountain. Life is not easy here in times of peace either and the routes they can use are limited (especially in the case of Alsóbodok, Zsére), but, for the same reason, they are more protected in wartime.

In modern urbanised societies, the state-forming nation seeks to settle in places that belong in the first group. Nyitraegerszeg is a good example of this: a main road and railway passes through it, there are many summer houses in the village, and the neighbouring villages have a Slovak majority. Transport opportunities are of utmost importance in villages in the second group as well: the isolated settlements (Nyitrageszte, Bodok, Zsére) managed to preserve their original ethnic structure, but they face the intensive emigration of young people, an ageing population, and unfavourable economic conditions. As opposed to them, the villages that are easy to reach have gone through significant ethnic changes (Alsócsitár, Nyitragerencsér, Vicsápapáti). Local factors can modify the influences of natural-environmental circumstances (e.g. Gímes: tourism opportunities), but the ethnic environment (the ethnic composition of the neighbouring villages), and politics (e.g. unification of Nagyhind with Kishind; merger of Béd, Menyhe, and Szalakusz) exert an influence as well.

In conclusion, it can be inferred that only those settlements will be able to retain their Hungarian majority, which are situated farther from cities and in an unfavourable position with respect to transportation, and have several similar villages (of Hungarian majority) in their surroundings.

Acsády, Ignác: Magyarország népessége a Pragmatica Sanctio korában 1720-21 [Population of Hungary in the Period of the Pragmatica Sanctio 1720-21]. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények XII. 1896.

Fényes, Elek: Magyarország geographiai szótára I-II. [Geographical Dictionary of Hungary I-II], Pest, 1851.

Fügedi, Erik: Nyitra megye betelepülése [Settlement of Nyitra County]. In: Település és népiségtörténeti értekezések, Issue 1, Budapest, 1938.

Gyurgyík, László: Magyar mérleg [Hungarian Balance]. Kalligram, Pozsony, 1994.

Gyurgyík, László: A 2001-es szlovákiai népszámlálás első eredményei [Preliminary Results of the 2001 Slovak Census]. Regio, 2001/4.

Gyurgyík, László: A magyarlakta települések magyar és szlovák nemzetiségű lakosságának megoszlása az 1991-es és 2001-es népszámlálás adatai alapján [Distribution of the Ethnic Hungarian and Slovak Inhabitants in the Settlements Inhabited by Hungarians on the Basis of the 1991 and 2001 Censuses]. Gondolat, 2002/3.

Hoóz, István: A népesség nemzetiség szerinti megoszlásának tanulmányozásáról [On the Study of Population Distribution by Nationality]. In: Hoóz-Kepecs-Klinger: A Baranyában élő nemzetiségek demográfiai helyzete 1980-ban. Budapest, 1985.

Keményfi, Róbert: A történeti Gömör és Kis-Hont vármegye etnikai rajza [Ethnic Pattern in the Historical Gömör and Kis-Hont Counties]. KLTE Néprajzi Tanszék, Debrecen, 1998.

Kniezsa, István: Magyarország népei a XI. században [Peoples in Hungary in the 11th Century]. Athenaeum, Budapest, 1938.

Kniezsa, István: Adalékok a magyar-szlovák nyelvhatár történetéhez [Contributions to the History of the Hungarian-Slovak Linguistic Border]. Athenaeum, Budapest, 1941.

Kocsis, Károly: Az etnikai térszerkezet változásai a mai Szlovákia területén (1920 előtt) [Changes in the Ethnic Composition in the Territory of Present-day Slovakia (Prior to 1920)]. In: A Felvidék történeti földrajza, Nyíregyháza, 1998.

Kocsis, Károly: Szlovákia mai területének etnikai térképe [The Ethnic Map of the Present-day Territory of Slovakia]. MTA, Budapest, 2000.

Lexicon locorum Regni Hungariae populosorum anno 1773 officiose confectum. Magyar Békeküldöttség, Budapest, 1920.

Sándor, Anna: Anyanyelvhasználat és kétnyelvűség egy kisebbségi magyar beszélőközösségben, Kolonban [Use of the Mother Tongue and Bilingualism in a Hungarian Minority Community in Kolon]. Kalligram, Pozsony, 2000.

Urbán, György: Török idők a Vág-Nyitra-Garam-Ipoly mentén 1664 táján. [Turkish Times Along the Vág, Nyitra, Garam, and Ipoly Rivers Around 1664].In: Földrajzi Értesítő Vol. XLIV. 1995/1-2.

1919, 1921, 1930, 1961, 1970, 1980, 1991: Czechoslovak censuses (by nationality)

[1] Surveyed characteristics: total population, mother tongue, language use at home and in public, choice of school. I added the categories: mixed marriage, place of origin. I recorded the data by street-numbers.

[2] More exactly, it broke up into smaller linguistic islands.

[3] The Jews who settled here comprised a great part of the population of German mother tongue in the 18th century.

[4] I indicated three villages outside the Nyitra region (Barslédec, Királyi, Nagykér) that traditionally belonged to the Nyitra region in geographical, economic, and cultural respects.

[5] The reasons of the decrease: more Hungarian voters opted for the Slovak Democratic Coalition to help defeat the Mečiar government; furthermore, the proportion of Hungarians decreased among the first-time voters.

[6] However, the proportion of those voting for MKP shows a significant increase as compared with 1998 here as well.

[7] 57% in the Nyitra region.

[8] The nationality of the population was recorded in the year preceding my field work. A great part of my informants were interviewers during the census, so they knew what ethnic attachment the people declared.

[9] The gap mentioned was about 10% in 1991 in the case of Hungarians in Slovakia.

[10] Their proportion exceeds the 80% in one village only.

[11] The wife is Slovak in the majority of the mixed marriages in Kolon.

[12] There was one example when the family of an old woman who could not even speak Slovak indicated her as being Slovak.

[13] Yet, nobody participates in education in the mother tongue from the village.

[14] The "child" attends a Slovak college but was educated in Hungarian prior to that - the only one to receive education in Hungarian among those who study at present.

[15] With one exception they are of Hungarian mother tongue and bilinguals with Hungarian being the dominant language.

[16] The closest school with Hungarian-language teaching is in Pográny, but one has to change in Nyitra to get there.

[17] The local school of Nyitrageszte was closed in 1970.

[18] Naturally, the question arises as to who counts as a stranger. My informants considered strangers those who married into the village or have moved there less then about 20 years ago.

[19] We could called them of Hungarian attachment as well.

	2001	2001	2001	2001/1991	2001-1991	2001/1991
Settlement	Total population	From this, Hungarian	Proportion of Hungarians	Change in the total population as compared with 1991 (1991=100%)	Change in the number of Hungarians	Change in Hungarians as compared with 1991 (1991=100%)
Alsóbodok (Dolné Obdokovce)	1 159	805	69.46	103.21	-67	92.32
Babindál (Babindol)	671	204	30.40
Berencs (Branc)	2 015	619	30.72	101.10	-137	81.88
Csiffár (Čifáre)	591	254	42.98	94.56	-80	76.05
Gímes (Jelenec)	1 942	711	36.61	101.68	-163	81.35
Hegyalja	1 395	123	8.82	94.51	-116	51.46
Kalász (Klasov)	1 259	543	43.13	117.01	-208	78.22
Kiscétény (Malý Cetín)	374	31	8.29	98.94	-1	96.88
Kolon (Kolíňany)	1 444	859	59.49	100.77	-47	94.81
Lajosfalu (L'udovítová)	262	2	0.76
Nagycétény (Vel'ký Cetín)	1 724	1 374	79.70	93.64	-170	88.99
Nagyhind (Vel'ké Chyndice)	350	87	24.86	96.45	-29	74.36
Nemespann (Paňa)	295	26	8.81	86.26	-23	53.06
Nyitra (Nitra)	87 285	1 489	1.71	97.02	-288	83.79
Nyitracsehi (Čechynce)	1 024	550	53.71	95.34	-86	86.48
Nyitraegerszeg (Jelovce)	950	98	10.32	98.96	-55	64.05
Nyitragerencsér (Nitrianske Hrnciarovce)	1 753	573	32.69	110.60	-178	76.30
Pográny (Pohranice)	1 065	632	59.34	94.25	-135	82.40
Tild (Telince)	277	55	19.86	95.19	-13	80.88
Verebély (Vrable)	9 493	445	4.69	103.01	-173	72.01
Vicsápapáti (Vycapy-Opatovce)	2 118	145	6.85	101.88	-24	84.80
Zsére (irany)	1 287	801	62.24	102.88	-141	85.03
Nyitra (Nitra) district	*163 540*	10 956	6.70	101.75	-2157	83.55

Barslédec (Ladice)	813	355	43.67	91.76	-155	69.61
Királyi (Král)	1916	346	18.06	99.12	-161	68.24
Nyitrakér (Milanovce)	3 190	2 051	64.29	92.84	-361	85.03

Village	Proportion of votes cast for Hungarian parties					Proportion of Hungarians
	1990	1992	1994	1998	2002	In 1991	In 2001
Alsóbodok	55.72	71.15	69.03	57.84	75.83	77.65	69.46
Babindál				12.29	28.01		30.40
Berencs	31.11	43.16	39.87	31.84	50.39	37.93	30.72
Csehi	36.00	57.67	59.56	53.61	62.08	59.22	53.71
Csiffár	29.42	51.64	53.26	45.89	50.76	53.44	42.98
Egerszeg	12.91	21.99	24.42	13.04	24.41	15.94	10.32
Gímes	36.17	42.12	43.27	35.28	41.54	45.76	36.61
Kalász	33.36	41.33	36.08	35.41	52.17	54.67	43.13
Kiscétény				5.34	9.78	8.67	8.29
Kolon	34.87	58.43	64.42	54.75	64.64	63.22	59.49
Lédec	38.61	50.38	48.04	39.47	47.63	57.56	43.67
Menyhe-Béd-Szalakusz (Podhorany)	9.54	14.65	14.22	9.80	15.42	16.19	8.82
Nagycétény	69.45	81.69	83.60	77.03	83.98	83.87	79.70
Nagyhind	13.54	26.97	24.79	16.47	26.01	15.39	24.86
Nemespann	15.25	13.47	13.68	12.73	10.92	14.33	8.81
Nyitra	1.55	1.50	1.60	1.44	2.54	1.98	1.71
Nyitragerencsér		45.42	43.61	37.04	40.57	47.38	32.69
Nyitrageszte		74.71	78.23	67.79	84.23	92.29	82.54
Pográny	51.50	64.64	63.27	59.77	64.03	67.88	59.34
Tild		21.86	25.13	10.58	22.06	23.37	19.86
Verebély	4.33	5.36	5.37	3.74	5.94	6.71	4.69
Vicsápapáti	4.03	8.89	10.18	7.61	11.8	7.32	6.85
Zsére	56.69	70.27	71.05	62.78	70.13	75.3	62.24

	Nyitracsehi	Kolon	Nyitraegerszeg	Nagyhind	Nyitrageszte
H H	46,9	48,2	18,4	20,6	74,7
H M	1,8	1,6	3,2	0,9	1,1
S S	12,1	19,7	58,7	48,7	5,1
S M	16,8	13,6	7,6	13,0	3,5
M M	18,2	15,1	10,9	13,9	5,6
M H	4,1	1,5	0,5	2,9	9,9
M S	0	0,1	0,3	0	0
S H	0,1	0	0,1	0	0,3
H S	0	0	0,2	0	0

Proportion of Hungarians at the given settlement	1880	1910	1930	1941	1991	2001
above 90%	5	19	2	5	1	0
80-90%	17	8	10	3	1	1
70-80%	4	2	9	1	3	1
60-70%	5	2	4	3	2	3
50-60%	1	4	1	12	4	3
40-50%	0	3	2	6	2	3
30-40%	3	1	1	1	1	4
20-30%	3	3	2	1	2	1
10-20%	9	11	2	0	4	3
0-10%	37	31	40	20	27	37
No Hungarian inhabitants	0	0	10	28	8	6