Language Problems and Language Planning - Volume 45, Issue 2, 2021

This article revisits a well-known dichotomy (the ‘territorial’ and ‘personal’ principles) and develops a four-element classification of state approaches (from the most generous to the most menacing, from the perspective of speakers of minority languages). The article examines the implications for language policy of geographically dispersed or spatially concentrated patterns of distribution of speakers of particular languages. We begin by exploring the general literature on language policy, focusing in particular on the territorial and personal principles, the use of ‘threshold rules’ at municipal and other subnational levels, and the hybrid language regimes that are often a consequence of sociolinguistic complexity. We consider the extent to which responses to linguistic diversity across Europe may be understood by reference to these principles and categories. We explain why we have selected particular case studies (the Baltic republics, Transylvania, Switzerland, Belgium and Ireland) for further exploration. We conclude that, notwithstanding the value of the typologies we consider, real-life cases are almost invariably more complex, with states implementing policies that defy categorisation, that may change over time, and that may treat different language minorities by reference to different principles.

This article argues that the geographically dispersed distribution of the minorities in the Baltic republics (apart from the Poles in Lithuania and the Russians in Northeast Estonia) constitutes an objective obstacle to provision of territorially based minority rights. However, the potential alternatives to the territorial principle are also rarely adopted. The cultural autonomy model in Estonia and Latvia failed to be implemented in practice, while threshold rules (in respect of topographical bilingualism, for example) are in force only in Estonia, and there with the highest threshold in Europe (50%). The paper aims to explain the reluctance to adopt these solutions by reviewing the main factors that affect language policy implementation in general. It also considers the background to the debate over which languages need protection: the minority languages within the Baltic States or the titular languages themselves (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian), which at the global level are small and vulnerable. In general, the strictness of language policies is in inverse relation to the size of the minorities, with Lithuania being the most liberal and Latvia the most restrictive.

The territoriality principle stipulates that minority communities in a given territory should be linguistically accommodated. What are the economic effects of this principle? In this paper, we argue that the recognition of multiple languages confers respect on the minority group; it allows people to engage and participate meaningfully in society – thereby facilitating economic well-being. There is, however, a caveat: when recognition happens in areas where the minority is the overwhelming majority, there is a risk that the near-exclusive use of the minority language cuts the community off from the larger national state, which in turn stunts development. To test this, we focus on Transylvania, Romania. We leverage a legal stipulation that recognizes minority languages in areas where the minority constitutes more than 20% of the population. Using data at the municipal level, we find that recognition increases economic well-being in general – but not in areas where the minority are numerically dominant. Our results are normatively welcoming, but they also caution governments not simply to recognize minority languages but also to protect them adequately.

This article argues that the linguistic territoriality principle cannot be considered as a general guideline for the design of language policy but rather as a tool to find the right balance between linguistic freedom and linguistic peace under given circumstances. The article traces the origin and evolution of language policy principles during the drafting process of the new constitutional article in its three official language versions. The Swiss language regime is embedded in an institutional system of executive federalism in which mostly monolingual cantons and municipalities are in charge of implementing nearly all public policy. This significantly reduces the relevance of the inconsistency between a formally personalistic multilingual federal language regime and linguistic territoriality deriving from cantonal language regimes. The point of the new federal regulation is to provide room for manoeuvre for cantonal policymakers to adopt legislation based on linguistic territoriality. The relevant constitutional article recognises that territorial language policies can be implemented to ensure linguistic peace. At the same time, the personality principle may be adopted to protect autochthonous linguistic minorities.

Language policy debates regularly refer to the principles of personality and territoriality. Yet the precise meaning of these principles remains unclear. In this contribution, I conceptualize these principles as poles of a continuum between official bilingualism (instantiating the personality principle) and official unilingualism (exemplifying the territoriality principle), with a mixed regime in between (which grants a certain territorial primacy to a language, but allows exceptions based on linguistic affiliation). The question of the determination of particular points on the continuum cannot be separated from the metaterritorial question of the boundaries of the units within which those principles apply. Application of this ‘continuum model’ to Belgium draws attention to three language-political regimes. The first invokes a strict personality principle (Brussels). The second follows the strict territoriality principle (almost all municipalities in Flanders and Wallonia). The third is a mixed regime (a total of 27 ‘municipalities with facilities’ where one language enjoys primacy but speakers of another language enjoy certain linguistic ‘facilities’). The article also analyses the manner in which these regimes were historically established in Belgium in combination with a delineation of the language border and the division of the country into four language areas.

Language policy in the Republic of Ireland has an unusual starting point: the geographical base of the Irish language is very weak and territorially dispersed, yet the constitutional status of the language is extremely strong. The article explores this paradox. It sets Irish language policy in two contexts: that of successful nationalist movements mainly in Central and Eastern Europe in the early twentieth century, and that of the struggling Celtic languages of Western Europe. It explores the evolution of the language and its weakening demographic status since the nineteenth century, noting that while its demographic weakness mirrors that of the other Celtic languages, its constitutional entrenchment resembles that of the national languages of Central and East European states. It attempts to explain this by suggesting that the language has played a marginal role in nationalist mobilisation; the language served as a symbol of a specific cultural heritage rather than as the vital lingua franca of the community. The central role of the language in nationalist ideology, however, failed to address the reality of continuing decline in the Irish-speaking districts, notwithstanding the emergence of a sizeable population of ‘new speakers’ of the language outside these districts.