Psychological explanations and possible management of consequences regarding language use and educational practice caused by the decrease of ethnic diversity in heterogeneous settings in Central-Eastern Europe

Abstract

The paper offers psychological explanations for linguistic and educational issues that arise as a result of the accelerated loss of cultural and linguistic diversity in heterogeneous settings in Central-Eastern Europe, attributable mainly to the decline in the number of indigenous ethnic minorities. The aim is to analyze the psychological mechanisms of language and culture shift using knowledge from the psychology of learning (operant and classical conditioning) and motivation, seeking answers to the following research questions: 1) What are the possible psychological explanations of the decrease of minority language use, and linguistic and cultural shift?, and 2) What are the guiding principles that should be taken into consideration when choosing the medium of education/instruction for indigenous ethnolinguistic children in Central-Eastern Europe to mitigate this decrease? A systematic review conducted on sources from the field of the psychology of multilingualims running the SCOPUs database, and the applied behaviour analysis (ABA) on selected sources has shown that such a systematic analysis is missing. The context of the analysis is the debate between representatives of pluralistic conceptions and their opponents over language use and educational practice that support sustainable development in heterogeneous regions. Analysing their views it turned out that the linguistic and cultural shift can be, at least partly, explained with the mechanisms of positive reinforcement, punishment, avoiding, and with the concepts of learned helplessness and culture shock. It is concluded that strong models of multilingual education, relying on pluralists` view, offer ways to slow down the decrease of diversity. The Minority SafePack Initiative that calls for protection of European language minorities seems justifiable, but further research is needed on interactions between decline of diversity and developmental processes in children.

Keywords:

• bilingualism/multilingualism
• diversity
• indigenous minorities
• psychological consequences of bilingualism/multilingualism
• bilingual/multilingual education

1. Introduction

According to Cole (2011), one in seven Europeans belongs to an indigenous minority and speaks a regional or minority language. As for the European Union, it is about 10% of the inhabitants (50–60 million people, including the candidate countries). In this article, we are speaking of areas populated with indigenous minorities in Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro, labelled as Central-Eastern Europe.

There are considerable differences, but also similarities in the linguistic and educational status of these communities. Most of the mentioned states took the position of linguistic and cultural pluralism in their legal systems and reject discrimination and segregation, albeit not to the same degree (Csata & Marácz, 2016). We focused on the similarities.

The number of multilingual and multicultural inhabitants in these states is steadily declining¹ (see the information of the Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning), consequently leading to a decrease of cultural and linguistic diversity. This situation can be a challenge for researchers, because it has many consequences on experiences and behaviours of these individuals and groups, and also on policies towards them. Comprehensive analyzes of consequences, using knowledge from the psychology of learning and motivation, are lacking. The conducted investigation intends to reduce this gap.

2. Aims and method

The main aim of the article is to analyze the psychological consequences and causes of the decline of ethnic diversity in Central-Eastern Europe concerning minority language use, especially in education. We offer psychological explanations to pluralists’ and antipluralists’ arguments, summarizing the discussions present on this topic. Because the position of native minority communities is taken, our subsidiary aim is to give a contribution to debates on the ongoing European Citizens Initiative called ‘Minority SafePack—one million signatures for diversity in Europe’, sponsored by FUEN (Federal Union of European Nationalities).

We first analyzed the text of the mentioned initiative². Every chapter of this document offers proposals suitable for psychological examination. The second step was the selection of sources for review from a list of 250 bibliographic units³. This list included 60 handbooks and monographs, and 190 peer-reviewed articles from the field of psychology of multilingualism. For the inclusion of a source in the analysis, we used the keywords: bilingualism/multilingualism, diversity, indigenous minorities, psychological consequences of bilingualism/multilingualism, and bilingual/multilingual education, running the SCOPUS database. In the final analyses, we included titles written in the past twenty-two years (forty-eight items: forty peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, reports and web-references, and ten books), but also twelve unavoidable sources, although they were published in the second part of the 20th century. Seventeen sources were not included in the final report because of the lack of new information. We analyzed the remaining sixty-seven sources, and they are listed in the References.

On selected sources, a systematic review (Egger, 2015) was conducted. It turned out that a comprehensive applied behaviour analysis (ABA), that uses principles of learning and motivation to solve problems of behaviour relevant to society, especially concerning indigenous minorities, is missing. We devoted this paper to such analysis, trying to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the possible psychological explanations of the decrease of minority language use, and linguistic and cultural shift?, and 2) What guiding principles should be taken into consideration when choosing the medium of education/instruction for indigenous ethnolinguistic children in Central-Eastern Europe to mitigate this decrease?

3. Key terms, and debates on linguistic and educational goals in heterogeneous communities

The debates on various linguistic and educational issues in heterogeneous communities usually start from two key concepts: multiculturalism (mostly connected with multilingualism in Central-Eastern Europe, see, Göncz, 2014), and interculturalism (Jackson, 2018).

The most common psychological definition of multiculturalism indicates a situation where several ethnic groups share one living space and each of them is allowed to preserve and further develop its social heritage (Göncz, 2018a); (Göncz, 2021). In this definition, language is treated as the most important carrier of ethnic groups’ cultures. However, there are researchers (e. g. Edwards, 1994; Vančoné Kremmer, 2010) who drew attention to the fact that multiculturalism exists also without multilingualism; in such cases language does not play a notable role in determining someone’s ethnic identity. The role of language as a marker of ethnic identity can be more or less accentuated (May, 2005).

The second key concept that should be defined is interculturalism. This notion implies cooperation; group members in a heterogeneous environment should inspiring each other to develop together (Göncz, 2018a); (Göncz, 2021).

In both notions pluralism is accepted; their advocates consider languages and cultures as resources (Kontra, 1999; Eisfeld, 2006). From such attitude stems out their set of primary goals about the linguistic situation and educational practice in heterogeneous regions.

Considering the linguistic situation, pluralists believe in the importance of preserving as many languages as possible (including regional), because languages have a code on how to maintain biodiversity, which is, together with cultural diversity, a precondition of survival on the planet (Romaine, 2007). There is a lot of discussion about possible relationships between biodiversity and linguistic/cultural diversity; nowadays the holistic understanding of biolinguistic diversity is prevalent (Harmon & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2017). The view that the two types of diversity are not only in correlation, but are also in a partial causal relationship is dominant. That implies accepting the belief that languages and cultures are natural resources caused by the same factors. The process of their decline can be slowed down by measures that empower local communities by improving their living conditions. Pluralists claim that multilingualism ensures long term advantages, because uniformity is a handicap, and multilingualism, characterised by creativity, an asset that generates new ideas (Ricciardelli, 1992; Kim & Lee, 2020). [In many studies, for example, in May et al. (2004), there is some empirical evidence on the stimulating impact of multilingualism on originality. A recent review of results in such investigations can be found in Göncz (2015). In several studies bilinguals also demonstrated enhanced sensitivity to listeners’ needs (Mohanty, 1994)].

An important goal of pluralists considering educational practice in heterogeneous communities is additive (supplemental) language learning: other languages should not be learned at the expense of the family language(s) but should be added to the existing ones. Knowing more languages contributes to the creation of an additive language situation, for whose stimulating effects there are many findings (Göncz, 2015, 2021). Such a situation, where in heterogeneous environments the existing cultures and languages are not ranked, develops an additive bi- or multilingualism at the individual level and influences executive functioning and development of some personality traits. Executive functions are higher mental functions that control other more basic abilities, such as attention, memory and motor skills. They are necessary for goal-oriented behaviour. They contain the ability to initiate and stop actions, to follow and change behaviour when needed, and to plan future behaviour. They enable us to anticipate outcomes and to adjust to changes, and their components are also the ability to create concepts and abstract thinking Csépe et al., 2007–2008; (Goncz, 2018b). Multilingual persons are often in a situation that they have to suppress one of the languages they are familiar with but which is not functional in a certain situation, and that ability to inhibit disturbing behaviour is generalized onto non-linguistic situations as well. For example, they are more successful at suppressing unsuitable impulsive behaviour. Presumably, this inhibition ability might also have some impact on developmental disorders like dyslexia (Vender et al., 2018) or autism (Bird et al., 2016) or psychopathy (Drayton, Drayton et al., 2018). Multilingualism is also related to the increase in monitoring abilities for changes in the environment (Bialystok, 2009, 2017; Bialystok et al., 2009). Recent sources cite some other benefits too: faster acquisition of literacy, healthier ageing, or higher tolerance as a personality trait (Göncz, 2020, 2021). Besides, companies that employ more multilingual persons gain higher profits, and it is easier to find a (good paid) job for someone who knows more languages than for monolinguals. The investment in the preservation of the existing languages and learning of as many new languages as possible pays off for everybody. Multiculturalism and interculturalism understood in the way presented above are in accordance with the long-term interests of all heterogeneous regions.

This belief is not shared by the opponents of pluralism. The ones who criticize pluralist ideas offer several reasons. Firstly, they believe that it is not worth complaining over the dying language and culture diversity, because language planning is not possible anyways. They point out that languages and cultures are natural phenomena with their development cycle and life span. They believe that language replacement is only an adaptive response to the changes in the environment, and they view language behaviour as behaviour that is determined by profit: only the languages that are useful for speakers, survive.

The arguments of the opponents of pluralism are not of any interest for heterogeneous regions: they accept assimilation and language disappearance. According to their ideas, native and other languages are mere communication devices and language is not a core determinant of national identity.

However, the results of many pieces of the analyzed research do not confirm these views. Most findings point to the fact that native (family) language is linked to strong emotions and it has expressed influence on the creation of identity. The role of a second language is far more modest. Many consider it only a practical means that enables inclusion in the wider community (Lanstyák, 1995, 2007). Antipluralists in education prefer subtractive education (education in the dominant language, or redirecting or transitive education, or maybe bilingual education for non- dominant groups), not programmes for the preservation of native language, stating as the main reason that everybody should be given the same starting chance. Their opponents are, however, justifiably wondering: is social justice ensured only by the same starting chances, or equal outcome is also necessary? Also, the critics of pluralism lose sight of the fact that the conditions for the development of speech, general cognitive abilities, socio-emotional development and educational efficiency of children from non-dominant communities in subtractive or transitive education are not favourable, because they are often followed by double semilingualism, poorer school marks than a child’s abilities are, in such education it is also reasonable to expect problems with identity development, and estrangement from parents in many minority students. Students from the dominant group might develop a superiority complex, which can also be destructive (Göncz, 2014, 2021).

As Göncz (2020) stated, it cannot be denied that some antipluralists’ arguments deserve serious consideration. In analyzed sources, they, for example, emphasize that it is not sufficient to only present arguments in favour of the need for language preservation, (coding the endangered language gives the possibility for its revitalization later) but the speakers should, above all, be guaranteed appropriate living conditions (Mufwene, 2002a, 2002b).

4. Psychological explanations of the decrease of minority language use, and language and cultural shift: some proposals⁴

As already stated, the number of members of indigenous people in Central-Eastern Europa shows a continuous decrease and their proportion in the total population is constantly decreasing. Now we will try to point out the causes of this decline using psychological explanations. For such explanations it is necessary to take a contextualised approach, as Lambert (1972) did, introducing the pair of concepts of subtractive and additive bilingual situation. This distinction refers to whether different groups in a heterogeneous community are hierarchized based on their language, ethnicity, culture or religion. We speak of an additive situation when the groups are equally appreciated. In contrast, in a subtractive situation, the environment regards one of the groups more desirable than the other ones. In reality, these situations constitute the extreme points of a continuum with several transitional forms in between. Therefore, different heterogeneous environments can be more or less saturated with additive or subtractive features. Additive bilingualism, as a consequence of an additive situation, implies the acquisition of both/all languages as a desirable goal, and is not characterised by a shift of languages: the second language develops in addition to the first one. In subtractive situations, exchanging the language of lower status for the language of preference occurs quite frequently (language shift on a group level), as does the learning of the latter at the expense of the former (language loss on the individual level).

There are considerable differences in living conditions in additive and subtractive heterogeneous situations, and both are distinct from a homogeneous environment as well. These dissimilarities have different consequences on groups and individuals influenced by them. They correlate with general cognitive and linguistic development and functioning (Cummins, 2008) with socio-emotional behaviour (Vuorenkoski et al., 2000; Han, 2010; Göncz, 2018a), and with educational variables (Garcia & Baker, 2007; Göncz, 2021). Based on such research results, some plausible, albeit also sometimes hypothetical explanations of the possible effects of predominantly additive or subtractive bilingual situations concerning several aspects of personality can be formulated.

As Göncz (2004) stated, concerning cognition, additive situations entail discovering the rules of functioning of both/all languages, which in itself requires greater intellectual effort. In these situations functions of speech oriented towards stimulating general intellectual development also become activated. As early as in the middle of the last century Piaget (1964) and Vygotsky (1962) already stressed the fact that speech directs attention to various and important relations of the environment. Since various languages segment the reality in various ways (Athanasopoulos et al., 2010; Whorf, 1956), the attention of a bilingual or multilingual individual is oriented to more aspects of reality.

Bilingualism and biculturalism in an additive situation can have beneficially impact on development in other aspects, too: it gives an insight into the achievements of various cultures, softens ethnocentrism and encourages language and cultural tolerance, facilitates the process of adaptation when a person gets into a conflict situation due to the different requirements of two cultures and is trying to overcome it (Göncz, 2006). Also, bringing up children differs in various cultures, and each culture requires the acquisition of different forms of behaviour at various times. As a result, an individual exposed to the influences of more than one culture develops different characteristic features and ways of conduct to the person who has experienced only one of them (Matsumoto, 2001).

In contrast, in a subtractive situation, one language or culture is favoured, while the other language is excluded or its use is reduced. According to Göncz (2015, pp. 62–64), in this way, the members of the inferior language group receive the message from the environment that their language and culture is non-viable and undesirable, and should be neglected to achieve success in the society. If this attitude is intense and persists, the stigmatized language will become superfluous or even despised. The upgraded language gains in attractiveness as it conveys a sense of achievement. From the standpoint of the psychology of learning, this explains language and culture shift with mechanisms of operant learning (positive reinforcement, punishment, avoiding) and classical conditioning (behaviour, e. g. language use, is associated in space and time with pleasant or unpleasant consequences which either weaken it or strengthen it). In other words, in operant learning, behaviour (in this case language use) serves to reach a certain target. If the target is achieved (the individual receives positive reinforcement), then the behaviour leading to this success is reinforced; if not, the behaviour is weakened. Behaviour can also be inhibited by unpleasant consequences or punishment (as when the use of a language elicits disapproval from the environment). Avoidance and escape behaviour can also be considered rewarding, as they are the only ways to avoid or escape punishment. In the present case, this would mean avoiding or giving up the undesirable language (negative reinforcement). As behaviour and consequences occur together in time and space, the association is generated between the two: behaviour is conditioned by a negative or positive consequence, which either weakens it, by giving it a negative colouring or strengthens it, by making it attractive. If we exchange an undesirable behaviour for a rewarded one, the same situation in future will elicit the desirable conduct which is now reinforced (positive deconditioning).

From the perspective of the psychology of learning the possibility of learned helplessness, the feeling of being powerless and having no control over a situation (Seligman, 1986) might be also an appropriate explanation. It has a lot in common with inescapable punishment. People who perceive events as uncontrollable have many symptoms that threaten their mental and physical well-being. Minority speakers can be placed in a helpless situation when they use their language and are subjected to rejection or lack of understanding. At the same time, if they use the dominant language, they might feel uncomfortable if they feel they are contributing to language substitution. This condition seems to meet the criteria to produce learned helplessness.

With all this in mind, it is, at least partly, possible to explain why one undesirable language and culture may be exchanged for a socially preferred one. Because the undervalued language and culture appear less able to achieve one’s goals, and because unpleasant consequences attend their appearance, their development in childhood slows, and later they recur with ever-decreasing frequency. Use of this language is conditioned by the distress attendant upon failure, lending it an even more unpleasant colouring. If the favoured language is offered as an alternative and is rewarded, the individual will turn to it more often; that is, he/she will abandon behaviours that lead to failure and unpleasantness, exchanging them for behaviours that ensure award and success. Indeed, at the wider community level, people’s conduct is shaped by reward, punishment and disregard: they exchange inferior behaviours for more rewarding ones.

Motivational psychology can also help in understanding some other psychological influences of subtractive bilingual/multilingual situations. In highly subtractive situations obstacles leading to cumulative and lasting frustrations are more frequent for the speakers of the undesirable language and culture. According to some researchers (Hódi, 1992; Seeman, 2016), this may explain the significant correlation of psychosis and suicide with ethnic status in certain heterogeneous regions. Knowledge related to culture shock, a set of attitudes with a feeling of disorientation and loss (Ward et al., 2001) is also important. Namely, interpersonal interactions between people from different ethnic and/or cultural backgrounds, usually are difficult and stressful. Some form of culture shock is always present among people living in a heterogeneous environment. It is also present in minority students placed in a majority class or by university students studying abroad (Ernofalina, 2017)

With the mentioned explanations in mind, what are the proposals of psychologists to slow down the decrease of language and cultural diversity in Central-Eastern Europe?

First of all, they suggest the application of some prototypes or models of bilingual/multilingual education worked out to be applied also in heterogeneous communities. These models can be divided into strong and weak ones. Strong models have multilingualism (minimally bilingualism), the weak one`s monolingualism, dominance in the state language or limited bilingualism as their linguistic aim, and both can appear in several variations (Garcia & Baker, 2007).

The weak models encourage a shift to monolingualism in the dominant language. Among them, the transitional model and several variations of the submersion model are to be pointed out.

Among the strong models of bilingual/multilingual education, the best known are the plural multilingual model, the immersion model, the two-way dual language model, and the maintenance model. All are appropriate for the preservation or revitalization of indigenous languages.

Below we will briefly describe the maintenance model, which is the most accessible for indigenous children in Central-Eastern Europe.

In the maintenance model (also called language shelter or heritage language model), organized and demanded for different reasons by various ethnolinguistic communities for their children, the instruction is exclusively or predominantly in the mother tongue. The state language is taught as a subject. The proclaimed aim of this program is to ensure that children from ethnic communities maintain and develop their mother tongue and the official language up to native or near-native level, and gain access to integration into the rest of the society. Nevertheless, at the primary school level, 20–30% of minority parents enrol their children in schools with instruction in the majority language, while at the secondary school level this percentage is above 50% (Göncz, 2006). This not only accelerates the decline of linguistic and cultural diversity but mostly does not favour the development of many aspects of the personality of minority children attending such linguistic submersion programs (Göncz, 2014).

It is obvious, that to maintain diversity in heterogeneous regions, appropriate strong models are required. To make an adequate choice, the decision-makers (educational policy experts, school authorities, teachers, and above all the parents), have to be familiar with research findings of indigenous (and other forms of) minority situations, bilingualism and bilingual/ multilingual education, and about certain aspects of personality development in such circumstances.

As Göncz (2014, pp. 62–65, 71–72) pointed out, mother tongue maintenance programme create conditions for the development of the additive bilingual/multilingual situation (avoiding that way the undesirable effects of subtractive situations like double-semilingualism or anomie), and provides the development of cognitive linguistic competence (a higher level of language possession, which enables the speaker to use language as a means of thinking), in at least one language, or in two or more languages. It also takes into account that the development of two languages in bilinguals is interdependent: a high level of competence in both languages of ethnic children is to be expected when their first language develops satisfactorily, aided by education in the mother tongue, because this will lead to a high level of competence in the second language, too, if the latter is studied with adequate intensity (Cummins, 2008).

Mother tongue maintenance programme also take into consideration that education in the second language leads to different consequences than education in the mother tongue in indigenous ethnolinguistic children. Namely, indigenous ethnic children who are taught in their second language will face a break in the first language development; often lack cognitive linguistic competence in the language of instruction which will result in the children’s underachievement at school, since they have to keep up with the children who have already developed under the influence of the school language and culture; because they receive the message that their disregarded language and culture are less valuable, suggesting them that the best thing to do is to give up his/her origin if he/she wants to be respected. That is why many native ethnic children attending schools in state language abandon their family language and culture and take over systems of values and rules of the group that governs the school. As children give up their mother tongue, links with the family and closer social environment are becoming far weaker. Parents are hampered in passing on family values and cultural tradition to their children, which increases the processes of family dissolution. In short: education in the second language in indigenous ethnolinguistic communities generates subtractive bilingual situations (Göncz & Otoranov, 2001). In contrast, mother tongue education generates additive situation, stimulating the development of languages, and valuing what the children bring with them from home, including the mother tongue. It is critical to the child’s identity, developing a healthy attitude toward schooling. This is one of the main characteristics of the maintenance program and the reason why education in the mother tongue develops many components of an additive bilingual situation (Garcia, 2009).

Finally, as May and Hill (2003, p. 14) stated, evaluative research studies (Ramirez et al., 1991); (Thomas & Collier, 2002) has shown that the submersion programs are least effective educationally for minority language students. In the Central-Eastern European context, this seems to be the truth even in situations where the submersion program follows the maintenance program at some point in the course of education. Namely, if there is a shift in the language of instruction from mother tongue to state language, this results in a significant fall in school success (Göncz, 2007).

Summarizing guiding principles: what should parents (and other decision-makers) take into consideration when they choose the medium of education for indigenous ethnolinguistic children in Central-Eastern Europe?

The guiding principles hereinafter are primarily applicable to larger indigenous minorities. From what has been said so far, it is clear that the choice of the adequate type of education is, above all, critical to the child’s personal identity. The identity (namely, the awareness of belonging to a certain social group whose members share, in the communities in question, the same language and culture, and emotions and values contributing to it) is formed according to previous experiences, which relevant component is the language of education. When parents choose the language of education for their child, they are often unaware of the consequences their decision may have. (The school and educational experts should inform parents about the possible consequences of their decision. That would be their contribution to the exercise of the right to a free identity choice).

It is self-evident that parents have the exclusive right to choose the language of education for their children. Parents must consider many issues if they wish their choice to be in the interest of their child. As Göncz (2014, p. 71) stated, “first the parents should have in mind the linguistic and other aspects of the child’s development and take into consideration the educational possibilities at their disposition. Then the goals (that is, the expectations of the children’s accomplishments) and the path leading to these (the educational program and the language of instruction) should be brought in concord”.

Almost all parents who belong to a larger indigenous community in Central-Eastern Europe wish their children to develop a high level of bilingualism: native skills in the family language, and native or near-native skills in the state language. Parents who are not familiar with the findings mentioned above and who perhaps do not have high expectations in the linguistic development often think that their children have already acquired the mother tongue in the family and that they will successfully add to it the state language through attending a state language medium school. Concerning the influence that additive and subtractive situations have on language development and the interactions between the first and the second language, we know nowadays that this well-meaning, but naive idea mostly does not lead to the development of high-level bilingualism. Due to many other circumstances, this situation very often results in the dominance of the state language, and later on, perhaps, in a language and identity shift in the long run. The development of the first language will stop at the level of surface linguistic competence (necessary for everyday communication in the family): that is why these children will be ashamed later and will not dare or want to use their first language in formal situations, and they will neither be able to nor consider it necessary to transmit it to their children. Educational experts should let parents know that if they wish to develop both languages to the same level, the influence of both languages and cultures must be approximate of the same intensity. If one language is restricted to the use in the family and the close environment only, while in all other spheres of life the child is influenced by the other language and culture, it is obvious that the first language will weaken and the more dominant one will take its place. State language medium education often causes such a subtractive situation, even though the parents have made the decision seemingly deliberately. At the same time, parents have to be aware of the fact that a child from ethnic community enrolled at a state language medium school will lag behind his/her schoolmates in language and culture acquisition. Perhaps the indigenous child will need years to learn both the language and the culture of the new group (experiencing the consequences of culture shock). If he/she wants to be accepted and successful, this is inevitable, since—and it is the most logical thing—they represent the norm in state language medium schools.

As Göncz (2014, p. 72) pointed out When enrolling a child with an ethnic background at a school with second language education only, parents make a radical change in the child’s linguistic environment. Until then, the child’s environment primarily stimulated the development of his/her mother tongue, and afterwards, the opportunities to develop his/her second language at school are better. As a consequence, the first language development is postponed and it starts to deteriorate. The second language will replace the first language, but it will develop with delay … This break in language development (the development of one language falls behind, while the other is postponed) affects thinking and its development … .Therefore, if parents want their child’s bilingualism to reach a high level, they should contribute to the increase of the additive bilingual situation. When choosing the education in the second language only, they contribute to a subtractive situation.

5. Conclusion

According to the results of our analysis, one of the best ways to maintain cultural diversity in Central-Eastern Europe is through education, that is to ensure adequate educational programs for studentsboth from minority and majority communities. For students from ethnolinguistic minorities,mother tongue education is to be followed since it increases the components of the additivebilingual situation. At the same time, it would be desirable to teach the regional language as asubject in the majority schools, because at the local and regional level, the students of thedominant group should also be allowed to learn the other language or languages used in theirenvironment. [Of course, for some students from both groups it is possible to implementcarefully selected, for that region appropriate, other types of multilingual education as well.Another possibility is CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) teaching, inwhich some subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a second or foreign language withdual-focused aims, namely the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of language(Romanowski, 2018)]. If we approach this issue from the perspective of lifelong learning,foreign and regional language learning programs aimed at older population seem like a goodsolution also for building cognitive reserve (Schweizer et al., 2012). All of these possible solutions cancontribute to reducing the undesirable effects of language and cultural shift, whose impact we have triedto explain with the mechanisms of operant learning (positive reinforcement, punishment, avoiding),classical conditioning, learned helplessness and culture shock. It is precisely this attempt to explain theeffects of language and culture shift with these concepts of psychology of learning and motivation themain contribution of this article to the field of the psychology of multilingualism and to more successfuleducational practice.

Taking into account the results of our analysis, it is also reasonable to claim that the research results in cognitive and social sciences contribute to a more complete understanding of the Minority SafePack intention, and it seems that they justify the launch of this initiative.

Based on what is said in this article, several directions in future research can be recommended. Given that the decline of ethnic diversity is increasingly present in heterogeneous settings in Central-Eastern Europe, leading to changes in the level of language skills of used languages, and consequently, to new types and levels of multilingualism and multiculturalism, this situation is a big challenge for researchers interested in psychological (and other) consequences of the decrease of ethnic identity. Both theory-driven and community-driven further research is needed on basic and applied (psychological) issues, which may include investigating the interactions between the decrease of linguistic and cultural diversity and developmental processes across the lifespan. Determination of the influence of the decrease of diversity on family relationships, on intergroup relations, or mental health and well-being in different settings (education, employment, and treatment and intervention) also requires new research. Finally, future research needs to determine the optimum second/third language learning conditions within strong models of multilingual education, that will provide best benefits in populations of heterogeneous settings, and, at the same time, contribute to the knowledge how to mitigate the decrease of linguistic and cultural diversity in general.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Lajos Göncz

Lajos Göncz is professor of Psychology at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia (retired), and a full member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Vojvodina. His main interest is in minority studies, particularly in psychological consequences of multilingualism and multiculturalism, additionally in pre-service and in-service teacher personality and teacher education, and parenting. He published 5 monographs and 180 papers.

Notes

1. The total population in Central and Eastern Europe has been showing a decreasing trend in recentdecades. This decrease is more pronounced in heterogeneous regions, especially among minorities. There are many reasons for this: fewer newborns, higher migration rates, more frequent mixed marriages, etc. among minority than majority population, so the role of ethnic minorities in the decline of linguistic and cultural diversity is more pronounced. [Other reasons for the decrease in linguistic diversity, which can also be seen in several parts of the world, are discussed in Bromham et al. (2021)].

A lot of information about the decrease in the number of ethnic minorities can be found on the website https://www.mercator-research.eu, and also in Csernicskó, 1988; Göncz, 1999, 2006; Vuorenkoski, 2000; Schweizer et al., 2012; Fancsaly et al., 2016; Péntek & Benő, for Hungarians, and in Göncz and Ivanović (2011) for several other indigenous minorities in Vojvodina,Northern Serbia as well.

Some problems of multilingualism in minorities, relevant also for this article, approached from the perspective of (socio)linguistics and cultural anthropology, are also discussed in Borbély (2001) for Romanians in Hungary, Mandić (2009) for Serbs in Hungary, Hungarians in Serbia (Mandić & Rácz, 2022) and in Vervaet & Mandić (2022) for minorities in Central and South-Eastern European borderlands.

2. The Minority SafePack Initiative (https://www.fuen.org/fileadmin/user_upload/main- activities/MSPI/MSPI-Safepack-EN-mit-aufkleber_260215.pdf) calls for protection and support of the identity of European ethnic minorities, because of their strong contribution to the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe. It includes six proposals to improve the status of European ethnic minorities.

3. The author of this article already possessed such a list. This list covers research on multilingualism from the perspective of experimental, developmental, social and educational psychology. Beside regional publishers and journals, renowned academic book publishers (like Cambridge University Press, Wiley, Multilingual Matters, etc,), and journals devoted to the field of multilingualism and communication (Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Language and Communication, etc.), or to the study of the mind (Cognition, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Cortex, etc.), are also represented in the list. It is available upon request.

4. Some parts of this section are presented in more detail in Göncz (2021).

Table 1. Shows the number of Hungarians in neighboring countries in the last 110 years

Year	Number of Hungarians in neighboring countries*
1910	3 318 000
1930	2 640 000
1960	2 790 000
1990	2 700 000
2000	2 410 000
2010	2 100 000
2020	1 870 000

Table 1. Hungarians in neighboring countries enumerated in the censuses