This study is intended to understand teaching quality of English student teachers when they conduct their teaching practicum. Teaching quality is conceptualized based on the principles of effective teaching resulted by teacher effectiveness studies. Thes IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 29 Multilingualism, Teaching, and Learning Foreign Languages in Present-Day Hungary JUDIT NAVRACSICS 1 AND CLAUDIA MOLNÁR 2 Abstract Hungary is a monolingual state in Central Eastern Europe, where the Hungarian language, as the official language, is spoken by the whole population, including persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities. On the territory of Hungary, in the course of history, there have always lived representatives of other cultures and speakers of other languages. Nevertheless, in terms of the ability of speaking more than one language, within the European Union, Hungary is left behind, according to the latest Eurobarometer survey. In this paper we will highlight some of the facts and problems undermining real multilingualism in Hungary. Keywords Multilingualism, Hungary, Hungarian language, linguistic minorities 1 Institute for Hungarian and Applied Linguistics, Chair of Multilingualism Doctoral School and Chair of Pannon State Language Examination Centre at the University of Pannonia, Hungary; navju@yahoo.co.uk 2 Multilingualism Doctoral School, the University of Pannonia, Hungary; claudia.molnar13@gmail.com IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 30 Introduction The Hungarian language is a language island in the middle of Europe surrounded by Germanic, Neo-Latin and Slavic languages. In spite of its uniqueness, it has survived many centuries and even now the Hungarian language has 15 million speakers worldwide. It may play different roles in its speakers’ lives; an L1, a heritage language, a language of the environment and a foreign language. Hungarian is a non- Indo- European language, and like other Finno- Ugric languages is agglutinative, which means word meanings are modified by adding different and multiple endings or suffixes to the words, rather than by using prepositions. It differs greatly from Indo- European languages and thus is considered ‘unlearnable’ for most speakers of European languages. The modern Hungarian language is written using an expanded Latin alphabet, and has a phonemic orthography, which means the Hungarian alphabet contains 44 letters, where there is a one- to- one correspondence between phonemes and graphemes. Hungarian has 14 vowel and 25 consonant phonemes. Letters ‘w’, ‘q’, ‘x’ and ‘y’ that are used in loan words are not considered as parts of the Hungarian phonemic inventory. For the sound [j] Hungarian has two graphemes to represent phoneme /j/: ‘j’ and ‘ly’, which only applies to its orthography, not the pronunciation. In addition to the Latin alphabet, Hungarian uses several modified Latin characters to represent the additional vowel sounds of the language. It has seven pairs of corresponding short and long vowels: a – á, e – é, i – í, o – ó, ö – ő, u – ú, ü – ű. Some of these pairs show only quantitative differences in pronunciation varying only in their duration. However, pairs of a – á and e – é differ both qualitatively in closeness and quantitatively in length. Their phonetic values do not totally correspond with one other; ‘e’ represents ɛ and ‘é’ represents eː; likewise, ‘a’ represents ɒ while ‘á’ represents aː (Hegedűs, 2012). The Hungarian writing system uses 9 diagraphs (consonant pairs read out as a single sound) which are regarded as single graphemes and always have the same corresponding phonemes during reading. Letters c, s, z are used alone (t͡s, ʃ, z) or combined in diagraphs cs, sz, zs (t͡ʃ, s, ʒ), while y is used only in diagraphs ty, gy, ly, ny as a palatalization marker. Diagraphs used in Hungarian may contribute to reading problems in some cases. For instance, ‘cs’ is pronounced as ‘ch’ (as in much) and not c + s. It may seem that the Hungarian orthography is not as simple as it is often described, while once the nearly one-to-one grapheme-phoneme correspondences are learned, even non-word reading becomes easy (Csépe, 2006). Hungary – a monolingual or multilingual state? Although Hungary is officially declared as a monolingual country, it has been a multilingual area ever since Hungarians populated the region. Several national communities have lived in the territory of Hungary since the foundation of the state in 896 AD. Slavic tribes lived in the Carpathian Basin when the Hungarians settled here therefore the Hungarian language has many loanwords of Slavic origin. After the Ottoman occupation in the 17 th -18 th centuries, the mass spontaneous migration and organized resettlement of people began and as a result of this, there are also many people of German origin. Towards the end of the 19 th century, non-Hungarian IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 31 nationalities living within the borders of the country constituted more than 50 per cent of the total population. Figure 1. Great Hungary (before 1920) Following the revision of the borders following World War I, this proportion changed significantly (Fig. 1 and 2). Some 33 percent of Hungarians living in the Carpathian Basin (3.3 million people) found themselves outside the country’s borders and the number of minorities living within the borders declined, and today, the minorities make up some 10% of the population. Figure 2. Present-day Hungary IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 32 National and linguistic minorities in Hungary According to Act LXXVII of 1993 of the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities, Chapter 1, Section 1, Subsection (2), “All groups of people who have lived in the territory of the Republic of Hungary for at least one century, who represent a numerical minority in the country's population, whose members are Hungarian citizens, who are distinguished from the rest of the population by their own languages, cultures, and traditions, who demonstrate a sense of belonging together that is aimed at preserving all of these and at expressing and protecting the interests of their historical communities that are national and ethnic minorities recognized as constituent components of the state”. Altogether there are 13 ethnic and linguistic minorities; Bulgarian, Roma, Greek, Croatian, Polish, German, Armenian, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serb, Slovak, Slovene and Ukrainian ethnic groups, who live geographically scattered throughout the country, in around 1,500 settlements. At a national level, there are institutions that are responsible for the welfare of ethnic and linguistic minorities; Research Institute of Ethnic and National Minorities, Parliamentary Commissioner for National and Ethnic Minority Rights and Minorities’ Self-Governments. The Minority Act of 1993 requires respects for minorities, esteem for moral and historical values, and the consistent representation of the shared vital interests of the minorities. The Hungarian state provides rights to national minorities to use their own mother tongue, to begin education in their own first languages, to run their own cultural institutions, and to keep their traditions, media and representation in the National Assembly. The demographic data of ethnic groups in Hungary The 20th century was critical for the linguistic and ethnic minorities living in Hungary. On the one hand, in 1920, following World War I and as a result of the Versailles Treaty, the status quo changed by moving the borders of some countries. Hungary lost two thirds of its territory, and many Hungarians became citizens of a neighbouring country. On the other hand, after World War II, people belonging to the German and Slovak minorities were transported to Germany and Slovakia if they defined themselves as Germans or Slovaks. Under such political circumstances, most people with a minority identity decided to deny their belonging to that national minority group, thus were allowed to stay in Hungary. Therefore the results of the censuses before 1980 were not reliable, hence we cannot present the data from before 1980. The 1980s was the final decade of the socialist era and the change of the regime occurred in 1989. Since 1990, politics has changed tremendously with the apprearance of the multi-party system. Table 1. Changes in the population size of nationalities between 1980 and 2011 Nationality 1980 1990 2001 2011 Hungarians 10,579,898 10,222,529 9,416,045 (97.3%) 8,314,029 (78.2%) Roma 6,404 142,683 190,046 (2.0%) 308,957 (3.6%) Germans 11,310 30,824 62,233 (0.6%) 131,951 (1.6%) IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 33 Slovaks 9,101 10,459 17,693 (0.2%) 29,647 (0.3%) Croats 13,895 13,570 15,620 (0.2%) 23,561 (0.3%) Romanians 8,874 10,740 7,995 (0.1%) 26,345 (0.3%) Other nationalities 4,536 4,835 20,473 (0.6%) 31,723 (0.3%) Foreign nationalities No data No data 16,081 (0.2%) 47,948 (0.5%) No answer No data No data 570,537 1,455,883 Total 10,709,463 10,374,823 10,198,315 9,937,628 The new government started a new, open and accepting policy towards the national minorities living in Hungary. Studying Table 1, it is apparent that the number of members belonging to national minorities, e.g. Roma and Germans, has risen drastically in the past 30 years. Figure 3 shows the proportion of the 13 minorities, who claimed that their L1 is a minority language based on the number of their population in 2011. Figure 3. L1 speaking minorities in Hungary in 2011 The proportions are slightly different when they were asked about their national identity. Figure 4 shows that there are more people identifying themselves culturally as members of a national minority than claiming that their L1 is a minority language. It also represents the politics of the 20 th century when the main idea was to assimilate the minority people into Hungarian existence, both culturally and linguistically. Thus, many people lost their minority L1 languages and became speakers of Hungarian albeit preserving their cultural heritage, customs, and traditions. This led to a mostly monolingual Hungary at the turn of the 20 th -21 st centuries. Bulgarian 2% Roma (Romany, Bea) 37% Greek 1% Croatian 9% Polish 2% German 26% Armenian 0% Romanian 9% Ruthenian 1% Serbian 3% Slovakian 7% Slovenian 1% Ukrainian 2% IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 34 Figure 4. Self-definition of minorities in 2011 What we can conclude from the previous century’s linguistic and cultural changes in Hungary is that national and linguistic minorities have been assimilated to a great extent, though assimilation was peaceful, no force was used (apart from the traumas of the German and Slovak minorities). We can also claim that national identity is influenced by the linguistic and social immediate environment and that language loss is greater than identity loss. Even though minorities can cultivate their own cultures, traditions, and can run their own institutions, Hungary has basically become a monolingual and monocultural country where language education has to be reshaped both for the minority people and for the majority, who need to speak at least two languages besides Hungarian. Minority people are losing their L1s as there is no education in their vernacular varieties; only the standard varieties of the minority languages in present Hungary are available for the minority children at schools in Hungary. Language teaching in Hungary Hungarian schools provide foreign language teaching in general from the third grade, with some exceptions, where children can start learning a foreign language from the first grade. There are a number of types of schools which differ in the number of foreign language classes they offer a week, and there are also bilingual schools where subjects are taught in two languages: some in Hungarian, others in the standard variety of the minority language. Dual language schools were implemented at the end of the 1980s. They provide education in a high number of hours (usually 20 per week) taught in a world language (e.g. English, German, French, Spanish), These subjects, in addition to the general language, are Bulgarian 1% Roma (Romany, Bea) 49% Greek 1% Croatian 4% Polish 1% German 29% Armenian 1% Romanian 5% Ruthenian 1% Serbian 2% Slovakian 5% Slovenian 0% Ukrainian 1% IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 35 often Civilisation, Biology, Geography and History. However, CLIL (Content Language and Integrated Learning) classes are becoming more and more prominant, especially in the primary sector, with the instruction of Physical Education, Music, Maths and IT also being offered in the foreign language and only the Hungarian Humanic related topics (The history of Hungary, Hungarian Literature and Language) are conducted in the Hungarian language. These are elite schools which recruit students from all over the country and the standards are generally much higher than in standard of comprehensive schools. There have been debates lately about the usefulness of these schools. Some politicians say the cost does not meet the benefit. However, the educational policy, according to which at least one langauge exam is required at university admission from 2016, justifies that both dual language and bilingual schools are required. Students have the freedom to choose from among four foreign languages (English, German, French, Chinese) according to the National Curriculum of foreign languages. The number of hours spent learning a foreign language is normally three or four hours a week, which is identical to most of the EU countries’ practice. In addition, secondary schools can provide a ’zero’ year, which is a preparatory year with 20 hours of any given foreign language per week and only a minimal number of hours is devoted to basic mathematics, literature and history. This is a generous gesture from the Ministry of Education in order for the students to be able to fulfil the proficiency requirements, which is A2 – B1 level at the end of primary school and B2 at the end of secondary school, with the exception of dual language courses where the expectation can be as high as C1 level. In spite of all these steps and measurements, according to Eurobarometer 2012 (Special Eurobarometer 386/ Wave EB77.1 Special Eurobarometer), countries where respondents are least likely to be able to speak at least two foreign languages are Portugal and Hungary (13% in each), the UK (14%) and Greece (15%). What is more, the proportion of respondents able to speak at least one foreign language has decreased in Hungary (-7 points to 35%). The proportion of German speakers has dropped to 18%. At the same time, the proportion of respondents rating their skills level in English as ‘very good’ has increased to 21%. Barriers to learning foreign languages were claimed to be the costs, although 87% of the respondents underlined that improving language skills should be a policy priority for the EU. The number of language exams in each language, especially in English, increased between 2003 and 2009 (Table 2), at the same time, there is some decrease in each language, while Spanish was increasing until 2011. This trend may continue as this year the government has implemented a policy offering one free language exam per person if someone successfully passes their language exam, she or he can claim back the exam fees from the state. This is another attemp to increase the number of foriegn language speakers in Hungary and to improve the levels to which they speak the languages. Table 2. Number of language exams between 2003 and 2011 Number of language exams, 2003–2012 2003 2006 2009 2011 English 88 062 111 240 114 739 111 768 IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 36 French 2 778 3 499 3 917 3 438 German 40 986 53 994 42 355 38 104 Italian 1 937 2 170 2 136 1 877 Russian 1 094 805 740 619 Spanish 1 220 1 537 1 518 1 583 Additionally, a positive change is that the proportion of people claiming that they do not speak foreign languages at all has dropped from 74% to 63% within four years (Table 3), and at the same time, the number of those who speak one or two languages has increased. These changes will increase as multilingualism spreads throughout the world, and here in Hungary. Access to and the use of multimedia and language education policy means that the increasing numbers of children are exposed to many languages from an early age. In addition to the internet, Hungarian television companies have bought a wide range of foreign channels and have allocated a number of Hungarian television channels to now show films in the original language. This will, in time, give rise to qualitative distinctions of multilinguals in Hungary and around the globe, as Cenoz (2003) posits that bilinguals and multilinguals differ as to the nature of their experience in learning languages Table 3. The proportion of people speaking (or not speaking) foreign languages in Hungary in 2007 and 2011, according to Eurobarometer While the language command of Hungarians keeps increasing, their self-esteem is staying unchanged as can be seen in Table 4. Table 4. Self-evaluation of level of foreign language proficiency of Hungarians. 2007 2011 Excellent 23% 23% Good 28% 30% Fair 48% 47% 2007 2011 Do not speak any languages 74% 63% 1 language 18% 26% 2 languages 6% 9% 3 languages 1,3% 1,7% IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 37 Real motivation for Hungarians to learn a foreign language The increase in foreign investment in Hungary has opened up many employment opportunities for those speaking the required languages and as Hungarian is not spoken elsewhere in the world, Hungarians are required to learn foreign languages in order to survive on the international stage. Working for an international company is an attractive ambition for many Hungarian graduates and with about 80 multinational companies in Hungary housing 35,000 employees, offering work as part of an international team, while earning a competitive salary with attractive job conditions, in a friendly working atmosphere and the prospect of off-site training (abroad), competition for these positions, is extremely high. As is the tendency all over the world, English is seemingly the most important foreign language for most Hungarian people. The commonsense stereotype that most people in Hungary speak German as a foreign language appears to be fading away. This could be due to the working language of companies being English even in French, German or any other international company. Rises in globalization have also impacted on an increase in migration; the European Union offers educational and employment mobility programs in the form of Erasmus, Tempus (in Hungary), and other similar international projects. Additionally, more and more young people are moving abroad for both higher educational and employment purposes. According to KSH and SEEMIG (Managing Migration and Its Effects in South-East Europe), the statistics for the number of Hungarian emigrants in 2016 are estimated to be around at 500,000 to 800,000. Over the last six years, the rate of emigration has increased six fold. With this ebb, and flow of demographics comes multinational, and very often, multilingual relationships, often resulting in bilingual children. As Hoffman states “dispersion of a language does not necessarily result in bi- or multilingualism.” (2000, p. 1). However, since Hungary joined the EU in 2004, English has been a great promoter of the social, cultural, political, and economic developments of the country. The effects of multilingualism on Hungarian language classrooms As multilingualism is currently very high on the EFL platform, due to the growth of English as a lingua franca and globalization in terms of business, commerce and personal gain and, as previously mentioned, the language policy here in Hungary implementing the requirement for foreign language exams for higher education and employment, often starting from a very young age, this results in an increased number of bilinguals. This drive has taken some of the joy out of language learning especially in the cases where learners are attempting to master more than one language at once and language teaching does not always take this phenomenon into consideration. At this point, it seems pertinent to define what is actually meant by bi- or multilingual persons in Hungary; it is those “whose proficiency is native-like across both/all their languages and across the range of language skills”. In our context we most closely align with Macnamara’s (1967) characterization of a bilingual as “anyone who possesses some proficiency in any one of the four language skills, in a language other than his/her mother tongue”. However, it would be desirable to accept the definition of Grosjean’s (1992), according to which “The bilingual is a fully competent specific speaker-hearer who has developed competencies (in the two languages and possibly in a third system that is a IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 38 combination of the first two) to the extent required by his or her needs and those of the environment. The bilingual uses the two languages, separately or together, for different purposes, in different domains of life, with different people. Because the needs and uses of the two languages are usually quite different, the bilingual is rarely equally or completely fluent in the two languages.” (Grosjean, 1992, p. 55). If Hungarians are to become more multilingual, they do so against the odds as the language of the home will primarily be Hungarian plus another language if the family is multilingual, thus creating a ‘home language’, which more often than not will also result in code- switching or mixing. There will then be the ‘school language(s)’, those children or adults are consciously learning and additionally there will be those who expose themselves to foreign languages (in the main English) through media channels. This results in a nation of language learners who are taught their foreign languages, albeit English, German or any others, from and often through Hungarian and as if they are monolingual speakers learning their second language. There is little consideration in the language classroom and on the teacher training programs of adopting a more multilingual approach to language teaching. The primary problem with this is that as third language acquisition (TLA) is more complex than SLA “the process and product of acquiring a second language can potentially influence the acquisition of a third” (Cenoz & Jessner, 2000). Therefore, if children are to be brought to a state of multilinguality through formal education, thus sequentially teachers and learners alike need to consider the impact of the other languages, albeit L1, L2 or L3 on one another (Aronin ‎& Singleton, 2012). As Singleton & Ryan (2004) points out, the success of formal instruction depends on “a range of factors; societal attitudes, the amount of exposure to additional language(s) involved, the appropriateness of the pedagogy and materials deployed, the competence and motivation of the teachers, and so on (p. 101 ).” Taking into consideration, this phenomenon of simultaneous multilingual development where two or more languages are acquired from infancy and successive or sequential multilingual development (Aronin ‎& Singleton, 2012). Further, Schwab (2014) suggests a pluralingual approach, emphasizing an individual learner’s experience of language as its cultural context expands. She goes on to state that learners do not mentally compartmentalize these languages and cultures, however, “develop a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4).” In order to do this, teacher training programs need to demonstrate how teachers can incorporate teaching and learning materials, including a wide range of authentic language materials (especially for younger learners) and following didactic principles. Additionally, teachers need to move away from following strict grammatical progression and begin to support the transfer of linguistic knowledge, of the additional languages, the language itself as well as the learning experience (through reflective learning). Through increased learner training, the incorporation of language learning strategies and language comparisons could greatly improve and ease language learning, both inside the classroom and independently. Common problems of teaching English in Hungary and their impact on learning Due to the above mentioned features of the Hungarian language, there are many common errors that Hungarian learners of English make; L1 interference and the continued IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 39 desire to translate is one of the most common. This habit has generally been formed over learners’ years of tuition as. In the main, Hungarian language teachers still rely quite heavily on Grammar Translation, which was a very prominent method in language teaching until the introduction of communicative language methods in the 1970’s and their growth in popularity from the 1990’s. Today, however, translation is re-establishing its place in the ELT classroom and is now being used more to learn the language rather than to learn translation (Duff, 1989). Today, translation activities move between L1, L2 and L3, where appropriate, and back again (forward/back translation) and have clear communicative aims and real cognitive depth and increase motivation levels. Another reason for embedded errors is often due to a lack of accuracy on the part of the teacher; before the change of political regime in Hungary in 1989, English language learning materials were hard to come by and there was no access to the internet. Therefore, many materials were produced ‘in house’ by teachers, among whom quite a few were trained as Russian teachers, whereas under the new regime were now re-trained and re-positioned as English teachers which resulted in a number of teachers with limited language knowledge themselves. Additionally, common errors develop and persist in the cases of bi/multilingual learners. With the language learning initiatives and policies in Hungary today, many learners are learning two foreign languages, whether in tandem or closely following one another. Primarily these are English and German, as either first or second foreign languages. However, Italian and French are now becoming more popular. Despite this there is little focus on multilingual approaches to teaching foreign languages; Hungarian learners are taught as Hungarian learners have always been taught. This is the general consensus. At the same time, we know that this in not effective as if, as is commonly accepted L1 has an impact on L2, then why has the concept of L2>L3 or L1>L3 or L3>L1 impact not been considered, particularly within training programs? As Cook mentions L1 and L2 processing cannot be separated on a neurological level (1993, cited in Herdina & Jessner, 2002). These learner problems have seeped into the teacher training programs, insomuch as the pre- service teacher’s own language proficiency, and still, to some extent, remain in the schools today. That said, the quality of ELT in Hungary is improving, primarily due to access to materials, increases in training opportunities and incentives for teachers continually develop their professional practice. General errors Hungarian and English are orthographically different languages. In Hungarian, there is a relatively fixed grapheme-phoneme correspondence, for Hungarians it is relatively easy to learn how to read in Hungarian. However, Hungarian learners often have problems with reading and writing in English where this correspondence does not exist. Typical word problems are: success, access, etc. which contain the ‘cc’ combination which is non-existent in Hungarian. Additionally, words containing q (queen), w (window), x (xylophone) and y (yellow/bendy), as these did not originally exist in Hungarian meanwhile entered its alphabet through ‘borrowed’ words. Error correction Teachers often fear their students’ making errors as they feel that students might learn their mistakes. Therefore teachers must ensure that everything students produce is IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 40 correct (Naimi, 2015). It is now widely recognized that making errors is a natural aspect of the language learning process and should not be feared or avoided. In the Hungarian classroom, error correction is often explicit and unfortunately in many cases damning, leading to lack of willingness to communicate by learners, thus reduced opportunities to practice and correct their errors, leading to a cycle of inherited, embedded errors. This situation is improving slowly in Hungary with more, usually newly qualified, younger teachers, recognizing the ‘learner’ within themselves and creating more open, secure, communicative classrooms, which foster the sharing of errors through delayed open class feedback and supportive united correction. Developing learner autonomy in the language classroom Learner autonomy (LA) in Hungary is a relatively new concept with some not quite sure what it is all about, and perhaps in some respects Hungary is not quite ready for the fully autonomous learner, in terms of the original concept of learners having control over their learning programs. However, Hungarian language learners are more than ready to start taking responsibility for their own learning. We just need to show them how to do it and by getting language teachers in Hungary on board is the first step forward. Classes in Hungary have always been very teacher centered and teacher led, which is not entirely conducive to developing learners’ autonomy. Benson (2011, p. 17) stated that “learner autonomy has now been brought into the mainstream of research and practice within the field of language education and Hungary has been making some real railroads in research into Learner Autonomy with a growing number of projects having been completed since 2005 and many are still underway.” One of the ways forward could be shift in the perception of what 21 st century language teaching and learning is and “whether the perception of learner autonomy that is promoted in language pedagogy is suitable for preparing students to perform successfully in the changed circumstances of the use of English (Illés, 2012, p. 1).” Further, this idea suggests an approach that shifts the attention to language use, where autonomy is developed through tasks and activities that engage learners on their own terms and allow them to effectively exploit their linguistic resource. It presents an alternative or additional view of LA as being the ability to manage the flexibility and fluidity of the language and to engage with the differing uses of the language imposed by the context in which it is being used. All of these are hugely valid points, since, as previously mentioned, more and more Hungarians are choosing to continue their higher education abroad or move away for work. Unfortunately, much of the language teaching in Hungary places a greater focus on preparing students for language exams rather than for real life language use. Encouraging our learners to take some of the responsibility for their language learning themselves will greater ensure they are prepared for the language use they will require in the future. It is not until learners get to tertiary level of education that they are required to become autonomous and the secondary and primary schools do not prepare students for this. Additionally, universities in Hungary still favor lecturing and learners act as passive recipients and it is difficult to create a shift in their thinking when they enter the language classroom. Learner autonomy is a pre- requisite for lifelong learning; the development of these skills is a fundamental aspect of education. Universities lecturers need to develop these skills through teacher support, modeling, and instructional practices that allow learners to take a more active role in their learning processes, while encouraging self-assessment. IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 41 There is also a greater emphasis required on developing learners’ abilities to exploit learning opportunities outside language classrooms through the use of traditional and computer-assisted learning resources. This means a greater need for the use of technology in the language classrooms and clear signposting by teachers, of the various language learning tools and opportunities available to students at different levels and for different purposes but, of course, this is very much dependent on access to resources within teaching establishments. Language teaching in Hungary is developing rapidly and as we can see LA is gradually becoming part of that progression. By raising the awareness of the benefits of learner autonomy, in not too distant future our language classrooms will be places for both teachers and students to share their language and language learning experiences and be active language communities. Conclusion During a time when English is taking over all other language learning and with expectations and an increase in measuring rapidly creeping higher and higher, where does that leave the teaching and learning of English in Hungarian classrooms?. As language teaching and learning continues to evolve and develop in Hungary, the idea of a more multilingual approach to teaching, through advanced training methods, taking into account that most learners, particularly in the secondary and tertiary sectors, are learning more than one foreign language and may, additionally be bi- or multilingual themselves (due to coming from minority backgrounds or the increase in international students and mixed nationality relationships) will become the norm. With this ,there will be a greater acceptance and understanding of the types of errors learners make and why they exist and more autonomous and confidence building learning environments should create classrooms learners feel able to make errors in, which they can learn, rather than fail from. This will enhance a development of self-esteem, confidence and self-evaluation of learners, which will gradually lower the anxiety level in the use of L2. Eventually, Hungarians will be willing to communicate with pleasure with speakers of other languages, inhibition will disappear, and the next Eurobarometer survey will show much more positive results. Teacher training programs in Hungary need to recognize that ‘multilingualism is vibrant, dynamic and very much alive’ (Figel 2005, cited in Aronin & Singleton, 2012), and in order to truly support our language learners, albeit in SLA or TLA, we must ensure we raise awareness of and support the acquisition and benefits of multilingualism. References Aronin, L. & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. Pearson. UK Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2000). English in Europe. The acquisition of a third language. Multilingual Matters, UK Cenoz, J., Huffiesen, B. and Jessner, U. (2003). The multilingual lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. Macmillan, London. In Herdina, P, & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Multilingual Matters Ltd. IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 42 Csépe, V. (2006). Literacy acquisition and dyslexia in Hungarian. In: Joshi, R.M., and Aaron, P.G. (Eds) Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duff, A. (1989). Translation, OUP. Figel, J. (2005). Multilingualism: A vibrant and dynamic idea in an enlarged E.U. In Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In Harris, R. (Ed.). Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Hegedűs, R. (2012). Pons Grammar Practical and Easy – Hungarian. Budapest: Klett Kiadó. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Multilingual Matters Ltd. Hoffman, C. (2010). The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism with English in Europe. Illés, É. (2012). Learner Autonomy Revisited. ELT Journal, 66(4). Naimi, A. (2015). Errors correction in foreign language teaching. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (3). Schwab, S. (2014). A multilingual approach to language teaching. VUW, Wellington. Biographical note JUDIT NAVRACSICS is Head of Institute for Hungarian and Applied Linguistics, Chair of Multilingualism Doctoral School and Chair of Pannon State Language Examination Centre at the University of Pannonia, Hungary. Her research fields are bi- and multilingual development in early childhood, the bilingual mental lexicon and bilingual processing. She wrote her PhD thesis on early third language acquisition. Recently she has been working on bilingual word recognition and sentence comprehension with EEG and psychophysical tests carried out among bilinguals and Hungarian learners of English with different L2 proficiency levels. Based on her scientific findings, she with her colleagues has developed a smart phone application ‘Lystra’ for learners of English who prepare for B2 level language examination. She is the author of five books, 10 edited books and more than 80 articles and book chapters. She is also the main organizer of the Summer School of Psycholinguistics held each year in Balatonalmádi, Hungary. CLAUDIA MOLNÁR was born and raised in North London and moved to Hungary. She did her initial CELTA training in 1998 and has been teaching EFL/ESOL since then. She went on to study for DELTA, PGCE and a Master’s in Education (TESOL). She is currently studying for a PHD in Multilingualism through instruction with the main area of her research being developing confidence and learner autonomy in a teacher training context.