Volumen 8 (2015): Edición 1 (December 2015)

This paper is an elaboration of a theoretical framework we developed in the introductory chapter of our co-edited volume, State Traditions and Language Regimes (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015). Using a historical institutionalism approach derived from political science, we argue that language policies need to be understood in terms of their historical and institutional context. The concept of ‘state tradition’ focuses our attention on the relative autonomy of the state in terms of its normative and institutional traditions that lead to particular path dependencies of language policy choices, subject to change at critical junctures. ‘Language regime’ is the conceptual link between state traditions and language policy choices: it allows us to analytically conceptualize how and why these choices are made and how and why they change. We suggest that our framework offers a more robust analysis of language politics than other approaches found in sociolinguistics and normative theory. It also challenges political science to become more engaged with scholarly debate on language policy and linguistic diversity.

This article investigates the situation of Hungarian ethno-linguistic minorities in Slovenia and the Slovak Republic. It compares the extent to which the two minority groups’ interests are satisfied and provides an explanation for differences between their de facto statuses. The authors use a logic-based methodology to extract the key parties, issues, and interests. Drawing on the analysis, the structure of each case (i.e. the dependencies between the parties’ interests) is displayed as a simple graph. Differences in the de facto status of the two groups can thus be explained by differences in the respective conflict structure. The authors argue that - as evidenced by the case of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia - a number of unresolved ethnolinguistic minority issues in Central Europe have a high conflict potential and may be a threat for security in the region and the European Union.

This article gives an overview of the actual situation of language rights in Slovakia, focusing mainly on the minority language usage. The status of minority languages in Slovakia is still a politicized question and a series of conflicts arose especially between Slovak political elites and the representatives of ethnic Hungarians because of the controversial legislation of minority language rights. Slovakia was subjected in the field of minority protection and heavily criticized during the adoption of the State Language Law. Strict regulations on the use of state language have negative effects on the use of minority languages as well. In spite of the fact that in 1999 the Law on Use of Minority Languages was adopted and Slovakia ratified all of the international agreements in this field, the problem of minority language usage was not solved. This legal vacuum motivated the Hungarian civil sphere to take alternative actions in order to ensure bilingualism and promote the use of minority languages in official communication. Summarizing the legal accommodation of minority language rights, this paper is devoted to examine a recently less-observed civil activism supporting the use of regional languages in Slovakia.

In this paper, we will attempt to outline the process of how the nationality/minority rights, especially the minority language rights, were changed in the former Yugoslavia in the next period of times: … and how they have changed in Serbia since 1990, and in Vojvodina. We present the most significant constitutional and legal changes, their impact on the institutional and everyday life, and the language policy tendencies.

Finally, we discuss how the formation of the Serbian National Councils have shaped the linguistic rights of minorities in Vojvodina, in particularly after 2009, through examining the work, experiences, and the strategy of the Hungarian National Council and the Hungarians living there.

One of the key concepts of the MIME (Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe) project is, obviously, ‘inclusion’. However, precisely describing what the concept means is not as straightforward as it may seem. It has been used in different contexts in scientific literature. This paper attempts to contribute to the enfolding MIME-framework by critically reflecting upon the definition of ‘inclusion’. Drawing upon theories of acculturation, three core concepts in minority literature, namely ‘assimilation,’ ‘integration,’ and ‘inclusion’ will be examined, and their differences demarcated. In the light of recent developments, such as transnationalism, it will be determined which concept is best suited to analyse contemporary accommodation processes of minorities in their countries of residence. After examining the trade-off between mobility and inclusion, a central topic in all MIMErelated research, some general conclusions about ‘inclusion’ and diversitymanagement will be drawn.

In the modern world, processes of migration are expected to contribute to economic development, the interchange of progressive technologies and knowledge as well as the blending of cultures. Solving the problems linked to migration processes is an important task to be accomplished by various state policies of European Union member countries. Both internal and external reasons explain why such policies are treated with much consideration nowadays. The present paper describes the development of European Union regulations on immigration and asylum, while tackling certain - primarily legal - aspects of immigration policies, too. Its conclusion based on the discussion of processes and legal provisions relates to the possible future of Europe.