The Economic Value of Mastering Languages: The Case of Ethnically Mixed Areas in Slovenia

Although Slovenian laws and policy documents employ the term “nationally mixed areas” (narodno mešana območja), we shall prefer here the more widely familiar “ethnically mixed areas”.

In this contribution, following Tollefson (1996: 16), we understand language planning as all the conscious efforts that influence the framework or role of language or, as defined by Radovanović (1986), the conscious, officially directed or determined development path of language and its status. This means that language planning is a hypernym of language policy, which we see as the sum of the actions by government and other political institutions and responsible bodies through which they determine the use of language in the public context, develop language elements and guarantee rights or the appropriate circumstances in which individuals (or groups) can preserve and develop their language.

Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Republika Slovenija (1991).

Official translation available at http://​unpan1.​un.​org/​intradoc/​groups/​public/​documents/​UNTC/​UNPAN014895.​pdf

The Slovene term avtohton is used in the constitution but is not actually defined (Komac etal. 2012: 30–33; Josipovič 2014). The underlying concept is of ethnic groups who, through international treaties in which they played no part, found themselves a minority within a different state—either Yugoslavia or Slovenia. Notice also that in Slovenia the term “national community” is preferred to “minority,” especially where these are officially recognised. One aim is to differentiate the Italian and Hungarian minorities from the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Macedonian and Albanian minorities which are largely the result of economic migration since World War II and which are geographically dispersed. The status and special rights of the Roma community are set out in Article 65.

The Public Use of the Slovene Language Act (Republika Slovenija 2004a, ZJRS) does not directly and comprehensively determine the use of the languages of the minority communities but leaves this question to sectoral laws (Article 3). But of course, the content of language policy in Slovenia cannot be limited only to the use and development of Slovene.

The current national programme states that language policy must ensure, through appropriate measures, that for local language users, Slovene “to the greatest possible extent remains the prevailing voluntary choice in private and public life” but that at the same time, it is aware of “the particular responsibility it has towards Slovenians outside the borders of the Republic of Slovenia while at the same time taking into account all speakers for whom Slovene is not the mother tongue: members of the Hungarian and Italian national communities, of the Roma community, immigrants and all others who come into contact with Slovene or wish to do so within or outside the borders of the Republic of Slovenia” (Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2014–2018. Republika Slovenija 2013).

See Nacionalni program za kulturo 2014–2017 [National Cultural Programme 2014–2017]: pot do novega modela kulturne politike (2014).

For an overview of relevant legislation, see Načrt ukrepov vlade Republike Slovenije za izvajanje predpisov na področju dvojezičnosti 2015–2018 (2015).

The question arises as to how we decide what an international language is—whether it depends on the number of speakers or the power of a language community.

In 2007 the European Commission established the Business Forum on Multilingualism, charged with looking at how language knowledge influences trade and the labour market within the EU.

The language market is structurally connected to the economy and to national policy. Through language planning, the state has a strong influence on the level of knowledge of particular languages, on language use and on the social evaluation or value of language (Gazzola 2014). In certain situations, knowledge of a language can be compared to market production. Language on the market may help to overcome psychological barriers, provide easier access to other/foreign markets and facilitate (or impede) mobility/flexibility and success in the labour market.

All quotations from Gosar translated from the Slovene by the authors.

Article 28 (Bilingualism bonus)

(1) The bilingualism bonus shall pertain to public servants and judges, public prosecutors and state attorneys who work in municipalities where the Hungarian and Italian ethnic communities live and where Hungarian or Italian is an official language, if knowledge of the language of the ethnic community is a condition for performing the work or function.

(2) The size of the bonus specified in the preceding paragraph shall amount to:

– Between 12% and 15% of the basic salary for teachers and other expert staff in primary and secondary education, teachers and other expert staff at nursery schools and journalists at the RTV Slovenija public institute

– Between 3% and 6% of the basic salary for other public servants

– Up to 6% of the basic salary for judges, public prosecutors and state attorneys

(3) The size of the bonus specified in the first and second indents of the preceding paragraph shall be stipulated by the director, and that of the bonus specified in the third indent shall be stipulated by the judicial council for judges, by the personnel commission for public prosecutors and by the State Attorney General for state attorneys, on the basis of the level of knowledge of the language of the ethnic community required and the actual use of the language during the performance of work.

For a detailed discussion of bilingual education in Slovenia and attitudes towards it, see Novak Lukanovič and Limon (2014).

The longitudinal and multidisciplinary project of the Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, led by Dr. Albina Nećak Lük, “Ethnic identity and inter-ethnic relations in the Slovene ethnic space” carried out in Prekmurje in 1991, 1994, 1996 and 1997 and in Slovene Istria in 1994 and 1996

The survey was aimed at 131 people whom we identified as shapers of public opinion. Ninety-six of them took part: 40.6% described themselves as Slovenians, 47.9% as Hungarians, 7.3% as both Slovenians and Hungarians, 3.1% as members of other ethnic groups, and 1% did not want to define themselves ethnically (Medetnični odnosi in narodna identiteta v mestu Lendava/Lendva: sumarni pregled rezultatov, 1999).

Project “Bilingualism in Slovenia” of the Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, led by Dr. Sonja Novak Lukanovič, carried out between 2005 and 2007

The question “How much was the minority language used in the workplace?” had three possible answers: The right amount, Too little and Don’t know.

The question: “Do you agree that staff members who carry out work in both languages should be paid extra?” had the following possible answers: Yes, No, Don’t know.

Reports on bilingual functioning were submitted by the Hungarian self-governing national communites of Pomurska, Dobrovnik, Moravske Toplice, Šalovci; the municipalities of Dobrovnik, Hodoš, Lendava, Šalovci, Moravske Toplice; and the administration units of Lendava and Murska Sobota.

Grin and Moring’s (2002) model connects vitality with language behaviour. It includes parameters aimed at improving the position of a language, especially a minority one; the parameters are divided into three groups, which include possibilities/skills, opportunities and wishes/attitudes.

The decree on cofinancing of municipalities in nationally mixed areas for 2016 (Republika Slovenija 2016) shows that the bilingual functioning of municipal administrations and bodies in Koper, Izola, Piran and Ankaran (Slovene Istria), plus Lendava, Moravske Toplice and Dobrovnik, Šalovci and Hodoš (Prekmurje), as well as the functioning of “self-governing national communities” in these municipalities, costs 1,613,800 euros per year. In addition, according to media reports, the bilingualism bonus costs approximately an additional 4 million euros per year (Slovenske novice 2013).

By the realisation of bilingualism, we mean not only institutional bilingualism but also bilingual education, which represents the foundation for guaranteeing bilingualism. The organisation and materials for bilingual education represent the greatest financial cost.

Decree on the use of the minority language by companies in communication with consumers in areas populated by the Italian and Hungarian minority (Republika Slovenija 2008)

For example, the statute of the Municipality of Lendava/Lendva (Republika Slovenija 1999), Article 71

Research was carried out by the Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, in 2005–2006 in areas on the Slovene/Italian (Nova Gorica/Gorizia), Slovene/Austrian (Gornja Radgona/Bad Radkersburg) and Slovene/Hungarian (Lendava/Monošter) borders. Two inclusive criteria were applied: urban area and age of learners. Group interviews and a survey were carried out. The sample included 7 schools, with 350 students age 14–15, as well as 355 parents, to uncover intergenerational differences.