policy of the new member states (3)
How do these
states organise their internal linguistic diversity? Here we shall draw upon a standard
typology of linguistic regimes developed by Siguan (1995), Badia (2002) and Vernet et al. (2003) and adapted by the present writer.
We first have to divide the states in
question into those that have one official language and those that have more than one. Of
the ten states considered here, only two, Malta and Cyprus, have two official languages,
all the rest are officially monolingual, with the majority language as the only official
language of the State.
Where a state has more than one official
language, these may be official throughout the state, or not. The latter situation applies
in Belgium and Switzerland. In Switzerland, for example, German, French and Italian are
the official languages of the Confederation but none of the three is official throughout
the length and breadth of the state. The two new member states of the Union which have
more than one official language represent the former
option. That is, the two official languages of Malta (Maltese and English) are official
throughout both islands that make up Maltese territory, and similarly the official
languages of Cyprus (Greek and Turkish) are official throughout the territory of Cyprus.
In the case of Cyprus, we should
emphasise what was said at the outset on constitutional designs. Even though the 1960
Constitution plainly establishes that Greek and Turkish are the official languages
(article 3.1: "The official languages of the Republic are Greek and Turkish"), the Republic of Cyprus functions de facto as a monolingual state with Greek as the only official language. In
the case of Malta (article 5.2: "Maltese and English [...] shall be the official
languages of Malta") we have a special case, since one of her two official languages
(English) does not have a significant group of mother tongue speakers.
The question is,
how do the remaining eight, officially monolingual, states treat their language diversity.
According to our typology, a state that has one official
language can either protect or not its minority languages; if it protects them, it may do
so by considering them official in one part of the territory, or it may not. Nominally,
the eight new member states of the Union which are officially monolingual all protect
their linguistic minorities. Of the eight, we note that only one, Slovenia, explicitly recognises in the constitution the
official status of (some of) the minority languages in their respective areas.dd
Thus, according to article 11 of the Slovenian
constitution, "the official language of Slovenia is Slovenian. In the areas where the
ethnic Italian and Hungarian reside, Italian and Hungarian shall also be official languages " (italics
are ours). It is interesting to note that Slovenian does not recognise the official status
of Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/SerboCroat, which is (are) greater demographically speaking
than Italian and Hungarian.
It can be observed that in three of the remaining states
(Slovakia, Estonia and Hungary), while there is no explicit recognition by the
constitution of official status, there is recognition ex constitution of the possibility of official use
of languages other than the state language. The others are rather more vague on this issue
(Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) or simply don't mention (Czech Republic). Tables 6 and 7
summarise the situation.
Table 6. States in which the
constitution explicitly refers
to the possibility of official use of languages other
than the official state language
2. The use of languages in relations with the
authorities will be regulated by law.
Article 34 addition to the right of the state language
to prevail, the citizens that belong to national minorities or ethnic groups shall,
subject to conditions laid down by the law, have the following rights guaranteed:
the right to be educated in their own language,
b) the right to use their language in
relations with the authorities,
the right to participate in the resolution of
questions relating to national minorities and ethnic groups.
1. All persons
have the right to communicate with central government and local government authorities and
their officials in Estonian, and to receive
replies in Estonian.
2. In localities where at least one half of permanent
residents belong to an ethnic minority, every one has the right to receive replies from
the state government and local government authorities and their officials in the language
of the said ethnic minority.
1. The official
language of central government and local government authorities shall be Estonian.
2. In areas where
the language of the majority of the population is not Estonian, the local government
authorities may use the language of the majority of permanent residents of this locality,
both internally and extensively, according to the procedures established by legislation.
3. The use of
foreign languages, including the language of ethnic minorities, by the authorities and in
the courts and procedures leading up to court hearings, shall be determined by
2. The Hungarian Republic shall
extend protection to national and ethnic minorities and shall guarantee collective
participation in public affairs, the promotion of their cultures, the use of their own
languages, education in their own languages and the use of names in their own languages.
Table 7. States in which the constitution
makes no reference to the possibility of official use of languages other than the stage
Those belonging to
ethnic minorities have the right to conserve and to promote their language and their
ethnic and cultural identity.
belong to ethnic communities shall have the right to conserve their language, culture and
Polish shall be
the official language of the Republic of Poland. These measure shall not infringe the
rights of national minorities arising from internationally ratified agreements.
As we stated at the outset, we shall here be
limiting ourselves to discussion of the respective constitutional provisions; in actual
fact, the most interesting approach would be to look at the lower-level legislation, and
above all its practical application On the one hand, that would allow us to see that there
are states like Lithuania and the Czech Republic, which recognise in their legislation the
possibility (not explicitly recognised in the constitution) of official use of languages
other than the official language of the state. On the other, it is evident we could also
draw finer distinctions between states which constitutionally speaking fall into the same
category. Simply as an illustration we could compare two states like Slovakia and Hungary,
which belong to the group of states whose constitution alludes to the possibility of
making official use of languages other than the state language.
In Hungary, Law LXXVII of
1993 on the rights of ethnic and national minorities provides for ample use of
minority languages in official contexts. For example, article 52 of the Act states that
the members of the Hungarian parliament who belong to minorities may use their mother
tongue. A very noteworthy fact is that, in principle, no demographic threshold is
established above which minorities can enjoy the rights recognised in the Act. Article 54,
for instance, which states that vacancies in the public services should be filled by those
who know the mother tongue of the local minority or minorities, refers simply to
"settlements where there are people who belong to minorities".
In Slovakia, on the other hand, Law 184 of 1999 on the use of the
languages of national minorities limits the possibility of using a minority language
with the authorities to municipal areas where the minority in question constitutes at
least 20 percent of the population (article 2.1: "Citizens of the Slovak Republic who
are members of national minorities and, according to the results of the latest census,
represent at least 20 % of the total population in the community may use the minority
language in such a community in official contacts").
3. The new member states and the European Charter on Regional
or Minority Languages
To complete this panoramic overview of the language policies of new member
states of the Union, it would be worthwhile looking at their position vis-ŕ-vis the
European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages http://conventions.coe.int/ [versions in
English and French].
Of the ten states in question, four have ratified the Charter (Hungary,
Slovenia, Slovakia and Cyprus) and three have simply signed it (Malta, Poland and the
Czech Republic). The three remaining states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) didn't sign
it. It is perhaps significant that among the states who have not signed or ratified the
Charter are the two clearly heterogeneous states (Estonia and Latvia).
Table 8 shows the situation in each state, as
at 1st May 2004, with respect to the signing of the Charter, its ratification and coming
into effect. As a point of reference here, it is worth noting that the Kingdom of Spain
signed the Charter on the 5th November 1992 and proceeded to ratify it on the 9th April
2001, such that the Charter came into force in this state on the 1st of 2001.
Table 8. Situation in the states with respect to the European Charter on
regional and minority languages
||Came into force