Language in the Constitutions of Selected European Countries

Adam Pawłowski

Series A: General & Theoretical Papers ISSN 1435-6473 Essen: LAUD 2004 Paper No. 627

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Adam Pawłowski

Wroclaw University (Poland)

Language in the Constitutions of Selected European Countries

Copyright by the author Reproduced by LAUD 2004 Linguistic Agency Series A University of Duisburg-Essen General and Theoretical Fachbereich 3 Paper No. 627 Universitätsstr. 12 D- 45117 Essen

Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html Or contact: [email protected] Adam Pawłowski

Language in the Constitutions of Selected European Countries

Motto: The constitution of a country should be such that it does not disturb the constitutions of its citizens. Stanisław Jerzy Lec, Unkempt Thoughts

Introduction Language has never been a particularly significant area of legislative concern in the Euro- pean legal tradition. In contrast to the fundamental questions, such as a nation's political system, the rights and duties of its citizens, the competencies of its organs of power, or the defence system, the regulation of questions regarding language have rather appeared in acts of lesser importance, as elements of improvisational politics, most often politics of repres- sion of minority groups. However, the process of European integration, which has been go- ing on since the Second World War, and with it the progressing democratisation of the relations between state institutions and citizens and/or groups of citizens, has forced most Euro- pean governments to introduce provisions regarding language into their legal systems. This was done both with regard to the protection of national identities of the nations forming the EEC, later the EU, as well as to the prevailing (albeit limited) recognition of the rights of ethnic and linguistic minorities to self-determination, including the cultivation and development of their cultures and languages.

1 Language in European Legislation The Treaty of Rome of 1958, which established the European Economic Community, also established the framework of European policy regarding language1. Art. 1282 par. 1 of this charter states that “The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.” Article 1263 par. 1 states that “The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging coop- eration between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.” In the same article appears a further postulate of the protection of a European heritage: “conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance”, although languages are not yet mentioned as elements of this heritage. The content of these provisions, being as they are the acquired legal property of the EU (acquis communautaire), was retained and broadened in later documents of the EU. Ar- ticle 21 of the Treaty of Nice of 2001 speaks of a prohibition on discrimination based on various criteria, including language: “Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language [emphasis mine – AP], religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.”4 The famous Article 22 guarantees respect for cultural and linguistic diversity: “The Union shall respect cultural, reli- gious and linguistic diversity”. In Art. 41 par. 4 we read that any citizen may correspond with EU institutions in any one of the official languages: “Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language.” Provisions concerning linguistic equality and minority language rights appeared in other European documents5, also before 1958, finding their full expression in the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages6, proclaimed by the Council of Europe in

1 The text of the treaty, as consolidated text, may be found under the address: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_treaties.html. In addition, all the documents cited here are also available in electronic form at the Web-page: http://www.lingwistyka.uni.wroc.pl/~pawlowski/jue. 2 In the Amsterdam Treaty (consolidated text) this is Art. 151. 3 In the Amsterdam Treaty (consolidated text) this is Art. 149. 4 A similar wording is in the Universal Rights of Man, accepted by the UN in 1948. 5 Compare, e.g. Art. 6, par. 3 and Art. 14 of the so-called European Convention on Human Right (Conven- tion on the protection of human rights and basic freedoms), ratified by the Council of Europe in 1950. Other references to European legislation are provided by A. Theme (Theme 2002: 21–23). 6 French and English versions are available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/148.htm. A relatively current list of those countries which have signed and/or ratified the ECRML is available at: http://www.bzh.com/identite-bretonne/charte/fr-tableau.html.

2 1992. An extremely liberal expression of the ideology of ecology, upon which the majority of provisions protecting weak or disappearing languages is based, is the Universal Declara- tion of Linguistic Rights7, which was proclaimed in 1996 by a forum of non-governmental organisations (cf. Gajda 1998: 14). Although this document has no force from the legal point of view, as the quintessence of the ecological world view it provides interesting reading for the linguist. A further document subscribing to the ecological trend, also without legal force but with great symbolic meaning and, in addition, of practical, scientific and popularisation value, is the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages8.

Language in the Constitutions of European Countries Without denying in the least the significance of supranational European legislation, it must be emphasised that it is the constitutions which define the legislative frameworks of the majority of countries of the EU9. It is true that, as acts of law which are largely quite general, they do not regulate particular questions, such as the language of advertising, press an- nouncements or the labelling of goods, but every law, also those concerning language, must comply with the constitution; there would otherwise be grounds for legal action against it before the relevant constitutional court. The ratification of bilateral and/or supranational agreements also requires prior coordination with the relevant legislative bodies of the given countries. A comparison of the legal status of language in selected European countries on the basis of constitutional provisions was therefore recognised as a worthy subject of considera- tion. Not all European constitutions were analysed, but only those regarded as the most representative of the model solutions described below. In addition, with regard to the political context (integration, work on a European constitution), EU member nations as well as can- didate nations and those lying directly within the sphere of interest of the EU were included in the study. In view of these considerations, an analysis of laws or other detailed legal acts concerning language was not conducted. Constitutions as documents of a fundamental character are therefore viewed as sufficiently appropriate descriptions of the direction and framework of policy regarding language, while a comparison of laws about language would require an additional description of the specific situation of each country.

7 English and Catalonian versions are available at http://www.linguistic-declaration.org, French version at: http://www.troc.es/ciemen/mercator/decla-fr.htm. 8 The European chapter of the "Book" can be seen at: http:// www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_index.html. 9 An exception is Great Britain, which has no formal constitution.

3 Results

An analysis of constitutional provisions allows us to distinguish the following approaches to the question of language: − linguistically neutral (e.g. Germany), − extremely monolingual (France), − moderately monolingual, taking into account the rights of linguistic minorities − (e.g. Austria, Spain, Poland), − multilingual by design (e.g. Switzerland).

A. The Linguistically Neutral Model In this case, a constitution neither defines an official language nor contains references to a language as a national or state symbol. Countries having linguistically neutral constitutions include Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hun- gary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden. Although neutral constitutions usually contain articles protecting the rights of linguistic and/or ethnic minorities, they do not necessarily allow full linguistic liberalism. Restric- tions are simply transferred to the legislative acts of lesser importance. A good example of a country which has a neutral constitution, but a restrictive language policy is Denmark. This is, however, an exception rather then the principle. In the German constitution, the only reference to language is in Art. 3, which speaks of prohibition of the persecution of and the equality of all citizens before the law, correspond- ing in its content to similar articles in European laws and other national constitutions. The third paragraph of this article states that “Niemand darf wegen seines Geschlechtes, seiner Abstammung, seiner Rasse, seiner Sprache [emphasis mine – AP], seiner Heimat und Her- kunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt werden.” Does this mean that there are no linguistic limitations in Germany? Such a conclusion would be false. The Law of Judicial Proceedings (Gerichtsverfassungs- gesetz), for example, states that the language of courts is German: “Die Gerichtssprache ist Deutsch.” (GVG, Art. 184), though persons having no command of this language have the right to an interpreter, whose duties are, in this case, precisely defined (GVG, Art.185–191). It would be difficult, however, in the German legal context, to enact a restrictive language law which would limit the language rights of media companies or those of members of other ethnic or national groups living in Germany (cf. Barbour 2002). The Swedish, Norwegian and Italian constitutions do not define an official language, though they do contain articles pertaining to the protection of or support to minorities (Art. 4 par. 4, Art. 100a, and Art. 6 of the respective constitutions), which is certainly connected with the presence of numerically small linguistic minorities on their territories (Finns and

4 Lapps in Sweden, Lapps in Norway, and German speakers in South Tyrol). Similar provisions are found in the Hungarian constitution (Art. 5, dealing with ethnic and national minorities). It is worth turning our attention to the constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, which has two official languages (Bokmål and Nynorsk) and which guarantees full respect for the rights of the citizens using these languages10. A democratic approach to language is ex- pressed, for example, in that teachers are forbidden to disparage or “correct” the use of dialect by children in the classroom (cf. Trudgill 2000: 198). This constitution also maintains a far-reaching neutrality: it does not name official languages, and the only mention of “Nor- wegian” (Art. 92) speaks of knowledge of the “language of the country” by persons holding high administrative positions: “To senior official posts in the State may be appointed only Norwegian citizens, men or women, who speak the language of the Country [emphasis mine – AP] […]” (Art. 92). Those parts of the Czech constitution which were devoted to civil rights and freedoms were removed from it and comprise a separate document, the Charter of Rights and Free- doms (most probably the only such solution in Europe). This Charter, in a manner similar to the Italian and Swedish constitutions, contains paragraphs which guarantee legal protection of the rights of linguistic and ethnic minorities, in particular the right to education in their own languages, to the use their language in official contacts, and to participation in the legislative process as it affects the given minority (Art. 25, par. 2, sections 1–3). Worthy of mention is the content of Art. 25 par. 1, which speaks of the right to disseminate information in one’s own language. Although it is not explicitly stated, one can interpret this as a guarantee of equal access to public media. Besides the Czech Charter of Rights and Free- doms, only the Spanish constitution contains provisions guaranteeing minority languages equal and fair access to public media (Art. 20, par. 3). The constitution of Portugal contains two references to language not found in other constitutions. These require the government to promote the Portuguese language (Art. 9) as well as to facilitate the education of the children of immigrants in Portuguese language and culture (Art. 74).

B. The Extremely Monolingual Model The extremely monolingual model constitutionally defines the official language of the country without guaranteeing any rights to the languages of ethnic or national groups living in the country. The only member state of the Union which still applies such a solution is France. Lan- guage is already mentioned in the second article of the French constitution: “La langue de la République est le français. L'emblème national est le drapeau tricolore, bleu, blanc, rouge. L'hymne national est la « Marseillaise ». La devise de la République est « Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité ». Son principe est: gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple.”

10 Cf.: http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/history/032005-990497/index-dok000-b-n-a.html

5 (Art. 2). This provision demonstrates the priority of the question of language in this nation: French is listed in first place among such symbols of the Republic as the flag, hymn, motto and principle. In addition, language is brought here into direct connection with French sov- ereignty, as this article treats precisely this question (“De la souveraineté”). In this place, a brief presentation of the origins of this provision, exceptional in con- temporary Europe, is in order. The first legal document to define French linguistic policy was the ordonnance de Villiers-Cotterêts, issued by King Francis I in 1539. Article 111 of this decree states that the language of courts and of law in the kingdom is French. The basic goal of this provision was the elimination of Latin from judicial language, a side-effect being the establishment of the domination of the dialect of Île-de-France as the official language of the kingdom over the languages and/or dialects of the other regions of France of that time. It should be pointed out that, from a formal point of view, this provision is still in force, as the decree of Francis I has never been revoked or annulled. Another important act of law regulating the status of the French language was the law of the National Convention of 2 Thermidor II (July 20, 1794). While Francis I imposed French in judicial matters, revo- lutionary law went significantly further. First, it required authorities at all levels to issue official documents only in French. Secondly, it introduced severe penalties: a civil servant using a dialect in an official document was liable to six months' incarceration and dismissal from service (cf. Theme 2002: 30). The twentieth century presented the French language with new threats. While the in- ternal enemy ceased to threaten the integrality of the Republic – as the dialects had become practically wiped out – an external enemy emerged in the form of the dominating role of the English language. Further regulations of the language question (the Bas-Lauriol law of 1975 and the Toubon law of 1994) were intended precisely to protect French from the pressure of English. The Maastricht Treaty proved to be an additional threat, as it eliminated border controls and replaced the French franc – also a symbol of national identity – with the common European currency. In such a historical context, the raising of the French language to the rank of national symbol (the constitutional amendment was enacted in 1992) was to ap- pease the conservative parts of society and permit ratification of the union treaty (cf. Theme 2002, Braselmann 1999). However, this provision aroused reservations from the very beginning. As it lacks any sort of reference to other ethnic languages (it is the only appearance of the term “language” in the whole constitution), it may be interpreted as the basis for the continuation of a neo- colonialist policy vis-à-vis representatives of smaller national groups residing on French territory (in particular the Bretons and Basques). What is more, the French constitution speaks of the equality of its citizens before the law (“Elle [la France – AP] assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion.” – Art. 1), while the much quoted Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 also assures the freedom of the exchange of ideas and opinions in oral, written and printed form

6 in so far as it does not lead to violation of the law: “La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l'Homme: tout Citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement, sauf à répondre de l'abus de cette liberté, dans les cas déterminés par la Loi.” (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, 1789, Art. 11). Let us finally add that the guarantee of possibly broad rights to linguistic minorities became the norm in Europe toward the end of the 20th century. One should be surprised, then, that ethnic and/or national minorities living on French territory (chiefly the Bretons) felt threatened and began a media campaign intended to in- duce the French government to change this provision11. The article of the constitution under criticism (The language of the Republic is French – “La langue de la République est le fran- çais.”) was to be extended by an additional sentence saying that it does not limit the rights and freedoms of regional languages and of persons using these languages: “Ceci s’entend sans porter atteinte aux droits et libertés des langues des régions et de leurs locuteurs.”12 The question arises at this point as to whether the above-mentioned fears issue only from minority environments purposely undermining the French raison d'état. The French intelligentsia is also aware of the inapplicability of such a policy, although one cannot speak of an unambiguous declaration of this on their part. As B. Quemada rightly believed, it is difficult to struggle for equal cultural and multilingual rights abroad when one does not ap- ply these same rights at home (“Il n’est pas simple de militer pour l’égale dignité des cultures et pour le plurilinguisme à l’extérieur sans l’appliquer à l’intérieur.” – Quemada 2002: 117). Also, respect for and recognition of the regional languages as representative of the cultural heritage of France and its colonies is an indisputable question (“Respecter et valori- ser le patrimoine culturel que représentent les langues régionales parlées en France et dans les territoires français d’outre-mer est peu contesté.” – ibid.). This same author believes that it is much more difficult to find the point of balance between French, the official language of the Republic, and regional languages, and to scatter apprehensions connected with “de- francisation” (“Autre chose est de trouver le point d’équilibre entre le français, langue de la République, et les langues de France, et de rendre vaines les craintes de défrancisation (...).” – ibid.). In Quemada’s opinion, these apprehensions are fully justifiable in a country where the language has been the symbol and guarantee of national unity for over six centuries (“Craintes bien explicables dans un pays où, depuis plus de six siècles, la langue est le sym- bole et le garant de l’unité nationale.” – ibid.). This paper is descriptive in character and intentionally avoids value judgements of the legal solutions presented. However, in light of the experiences of other European countries on whose territory linguistic minorities dwell, it seems that France’s reservations are not sufficiently justifiable.

11 More information on this subject can be found at: http://www.bzh.com/identite-bretonne. 12 Basis: http://www.bzh.com/identite-bretonne/charte/fr-revision.html.

7 C. The Moderately Monolingual Model In this model, the constitution defines the official language of the country, but guarantees simultaneously a broad range of rights to members of linguistic minority groups. Such a model is used in, for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and Spain. Among these countries, the Spanish system stands out in that it applies the concept of autonomous regions (comunidades autónomas). Although a similar solution is being applied in the Republic of Serbia, its constitution will be discussed along with that of Croatia due to historical considerations.

The conception of autonomous regions The Spanish constitution states that the official language of state is the Castilian dialect: “El castellano es la lengua española oficial del Estado.” (Art. 3, par. 1). The next part of this article deserves particular attention, as it states that it is the duty of every citizen to know the official language and has the right to use it: “Todos los españoles tienen el deber de conocerla y el derecho a usarla.” (ibid.). Other official languages, which may be used in the autonomous regions in accordance with their own legislation, are mentioned already in the following point of this article: “Las demás lenguas españolas serán también oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autónomas de acuerdo con sus Estatutos.” (Art. 3, par. 2). This statement is a reinforced recognition of regional languages as part of the Spanish cultural heritage, worthy of respect and subject to special protection: “La riqueza de las distintas modalidades linguísticas de España es un patrimonio cultural que será objeto de especial respeto y protección.” (Art. 3, par. 3). The topic of language returns in articles devoted to rights and freedoms as well as the autonomous regions. The Spanish constitution is the only one in Europe that explicitly assures equal access to public media to social and political groups respecting pluralism and linguistic diversity: “La ley regulará la organización y el control parlamentario de los medios de comunicación social dependientes del Estado o de cualquier ente público y garantizará el acceso a dichos medios de los grupos sociales y políticos significativos, respetando el pluralismo de la sociedad y de las diversas lenguas de España.” (Art. 20, par. 3). In the articles which deal with the powers of the autonomous regions, the constitution mentions the right to support and study local cultures as well as to teach the regional language: “El fomento de la cultura, de la investigación y, en su caso, de la enseñanza de la lengua de la Comunidad Autónoma.” (Art. 143, par. 1/17). By way of reminder, these reso- lutions refer to the three autonomous regions of Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque region. Because of the undoubtedly expansive content of the articles quoted above, in the article dealing with the equality of citizens before the law and the prohibition of all persecution, language is not directly mentioned, as it is in the majority of European constitutions. This is replaced, however, by the generalised expression “any other personal or social condition or circumstance” (“cualquier otra condición o circunstancia personal o social”): “Los

8 españoles son iguales ante la ley, sin que pueda prevalecer discriminación alguna por razón de nacimiento, raza, sexo, religión, opinión o cualquier otra condición o circunstancia personal o social.” (Art. 14).

Conditional allowances for the existence of other linguistic communities The Spanish concept of autonomous regions is regarded in Europe as a model of a non- confrontational solution to language problems. Its liberality is, on the one hand, proof of the “civil maturity” of the Spanish people, while on the other it represents a reaction to the social need to recognise regional autonomy after the fall of the Franco dictatorship. The solutions proposed by other nations do not go so far and, it seems, are tailored to their individual needs. National languages are defined in the constitutions of Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Po- land and Slovakia, but the use of minority languages is conditionally allowed. The formula- tions employed vary, but their content is in principle similar. In the Austrian constitution we read: “Die deutsche Sprache ist, unbeschadet der den sprachlichen Minderheiten bundesge- setzlich eingeräumten Rechte, die Staatssprache der Republik.” (Art. 8). It only refers again to the question of language in the article dealing with equal access of citizens to public schooling: “Öffentliche Schulen sind allgemein ohne Unterschied der Geburt, des Ge- schlechtes, der Rasse, des Standes, der Klasse, der Sprache [emphasis mine – AP] und des Bekenntnisses, im übrigen im Rahmen der gesetzlichen Voraussetzungen zugänglich.” (Art. 14, par. 6). In the Bulgarian constitution it is stated that Bulgarian is the official language of the Republic (“Официалният език в републиката е българският.” – Art. 3), and its acqui- sition and use are the right and duty of every citizen (“Изучаването и ползването на българския език е право и задължение на българските граждани.” – Art. 36, par. 1) Per- sons whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian have the right to learn their language in parallel to the obligatory learning of Bulgarian (“Гражданите, за които българският език не е майчин, имат право наред със задължителното изучаване на българския език да изучават и ползват своя език.” – Art. 36, par. 2). A peculiar feature of the Croatian constitution is the definition of not only an official language, but a national alphabet as well, which is the Latin (Art. 12). An analogous solution also appears in the Serbian constitution (Art. 8) which designates the Cyrillic alphabet as the official one in addition to defining the national language. In both cases, it is permitted to use the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets interchangeably in situations stipulated in separate regulations. However, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that, while the Croatian constitution mentions the Croatian language, the Serbian does not speak of the Serbian language, but of Serbo-Croatian. This is all the more interesting as, until that time, linguists had considered both to be variations of the same language13. Analysing other provisions in

13 Using the terminology of H. Kloss, modern Croatian may be defined as a functionally developed language, a so-called Ausbausprache or language by extension (cf. Kloss 1978, Trudgill 2000: 146, Lizis 1996: 34–35) in an early stage of development.

9 the Serbian constitution, one notices that many of them are devoted to the situation of minorities. In particular, we find guarantees of the right to education in a minority language (Art. 32) and the right to use one's own language (Art. 49). This constitution also grants broad powers in the educational and cultural domain to the two autonomous regions of Ser- bia (these being Voivodina, partly inhabited by persons of Hungarian nationality, and Kos- ovo, partly inhabited by the Albanian minority, cf. Lučič 2002). Provisions regarding language in the Polish constitution are within the range of stan- dards which a democratic nation must fulfil, being, as it is in Poland, not necessary to pro- vide autonomous regions, but on whose territory linguistic minorities do exist. In Article 27 we read that the language of administration is Polish and that this does not infringe upon the rights of national minorities resulting from the ratification of international agreements (“W Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej językiem urzędowym jest język polski. Przepis ten nie narusza praw mniejszości narodowych wynikających z ratyfikowanych umów międzynaro- dowych.”). The Polish constitution also recognises the right of national and ethnic minorities to their own languages: “The Republic of Poland assures Polish citizens belonging to national and ethnic minorities the freedom of the preservation and development of their own language, preservation of their customs and traditions, as well as the development of their own culture” (“Rzeczpospolita Polska zapewnia obywatelom polskim należącym do mnie- jszości narodowych i etnicznych wolność zachowania i rozwoju własnego języka, zachowania obyczajów i tradycji oraz rozwoju własnej kultury.”) (Art. 35, par. 27). One may add here that Poland has not signed the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages. However, issues of language which are not resolved by the constitution are regulated by bilateral agreements (e.g. that with the Federal Republic of Germany) or the Law Concerning the Polish Language (Ustawa o języku polskim).

D. The Multilingual Model This model establishes that different official languages with equal rights coexist in the country, that none of these is designated as of a minority or region, and that their use is not limited to a specific territory or context. The most characteristic examples of multilingual nations employing this solution are Belgium, Finland, Ireland and Switzerland. An example of extreme linguistic splintering is Belgium. A result of this is the greatly advanced liberality of the Belgian constitution. Article 30, in particular, states expressis verbis that the legal regulation of questions of language is permissible only within the administrative and judicial sphere: “L’emploi des langues usitées en Belgique est facultatif; il ne peut être réglé que par la loi, et seulement pour les actes de l’autorité publique et pour les affaires judiciaires.” (Art. 30). But more careful reading of the Belgian constitution reveals that the coexistence of different linguistic groups is not easy and must be regulated in detail, in such detail that cer- tain stipulations are reminiscent of the interceding of distrustful spouses, who strive to have

10 all their rights and responsibilities laid out in written form as precisely as possible. This constitution lists three communities (the Francophone, Flemish and German), three regions (Walloonia, Flanders and Brussels) and four linguistic communities (French, Flemish, Ger- man, and the bilingual community of Brussels), by which the territorial boundaries of these communities do not correspond exactly (Art. 1-4). The division of parliament into linguistic groups is also constitutionally defined (Art. 43), and there is a provision allowing a parlia- mentary linguistic group to submit an application for minority status in justifiable cases as well (Art.54). Many rights connected with language (e.g. education and cultural policy) are transferred to the administrative level of the linguistic community (Art. 127, 129). Besides this, special legislation regulates the relations of the linguistic groups in the Brussels region (Art. 136 and 138). The constitution of Finland, as the majority of analogous European constitutions, mentions language in the section devoted to fundamental rights14: “Tous les hommes sont égaux devant la loi. Nul ne peut sans raison valable faire l'objet d'une discrimination fondée sur le sexe, l'âge, l'origine, la langue [emphasis mine – AP], la religion, les convictions, les opinions, l'état de santé, un handicap ou tout autre motif lié à la personne.” (Art. 6). The fact that Finland is multilingual results in the language question appearing also in other contexts. Article 17 lists the official languages of Finland (Finnish and Swedish), guaranteeing citizens the possibility of using these in contacts with the administration and the judiciary, and also obligating the government to equal treatment of both languages: “Les langues nationales de la Finlande sont le finnois et le suédois. Le droit de chacun d'employer dans ses rapports avec les juridictions et toutes autres autorités sa langue maternelle, le finnois ou le suédois, et d'obtenir les expéditions le concernant en cette langue est garanti par la loi. L'État subvient aux besoins culturels et sociaux de la population de langue finnoise et de celle de langue suédoise selon des principes identiques.” (Art. 17). This same article speaks of the rights of the Lapp and Romani minorities to preserve and develop their languages and cultures. On addition, persons using the sign language of deaf mutes are guaranteed the aid of a translator: “Le peuple autochtone Sami ainsi que les Rom et les autres groupes ont le droit de conserver et de développer leur langue et leur culture. Le droit des Sami d'utiliser leur langue maternelle dans leurs rapports avec les autorités est réglé par la loi. Les droits des personnes utilisant la langue des signes ou ayant besoin d'une interprétation ou d'une traduction en raison d'un handicap sont garantis par la loi.” (Art. 17). The Finnish constitution returns to the matter of the linguistic rights of the Lapps in Article 121, giving this ethnic group limited autonomy: “Il est accordé aux Sami une autonomie relative à leur propre langue et à leur propre culture sur leur territoire, conformément à des dispositions fixées dans une loi.” (Art. 121).

14 The quotations in French are in accordance with the official translation (see: http://www.om.fi/constitution/).

11 The question of language appears again in the Finnish constitution in a political context. Article 51 defines the languages of parliament (Finnish and Swedish) and, to avoid any doubt, enumerates the kinds of documents which must be printed in both languages: “Les langues utilisées lors des travaux parlementaires sont le finnois et le suédois. Les documents nécessaires pour le dépôt d'une affaire au Parlement doivent être communiqués par l'exécutif et par les autres autorités en finnois et en suédois. Les réponses et les lettres du Parlement, les rapports et les avis des commissions, ainsi que les propositions écrites de la conférence des présidents sont également rédigés en finnois et en suédois.” (Art. 51). Article 122 speaks of respecting linguistic boundaries when demarcating administrative entities, which is to assure the Finnish- and Swedish-speaking populations competent service in their native tongues: “Dans le cadre de l'organisation de l'administration, l'objectif est de parvenir à des divisions régionales compatibles entre elles, permettant de garantir aux populations de langue finnoise et de langue suédoise la possibilité d'obtenir des services dans leur propre langue en vertu de principes identiques.” (Art. 122). Besides the Finnish constitution, only the Swiss constitution (Art. 18, par. 2) and the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages (Art. 7, par. 1b) contain provisions of similar content. The question of language is particularly apparent in the constitution of Ireland, where most of the provisions have their origin in this countries history. The Anglo-Normans began their conquest of the Emerald Isle already in 1169, it ultimately losing its independence in the 16th century. British colonial policy led to almost complete disappearance of the Irish language and culture over the centuries. It was not until the wave of national revival, which swept across Europe at the beginning of the 19th century, that the process of rebuilding the Irish nation began, culminating in the establishment of the Irish Republic in 1949 and its withdrawal from the British Commonwealth. Although the overwhelming majority of the population spoke only English, it was Irish that became the official language of the Repub- lic, and one of the most important symbols of Irish national identity: “The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.” (Art. 8, par. 1). In addition to this, the prestige of the Irish language was strengthened by placing relevant provisions among the articles defining the most important national symbols (hymn and flag). However, due to practical considerations, English remained an official language, albeit formally pushed into second place in the constitution: “The English language is recognised as a second official language.” (Art. 8, par. 2). Moreover – also for practical reasons – one may use only one of the official languages exclusively in justifiable cases: “Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official pur- poses, either throughout the State or in any part thereof.” (Art. 8, par. 3) A unique feature of the Irish constitution is that in the English version, two official names of the country are given: “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” (Art. 4). Furthermore, the names of the most important national institutions (the Parliament, the House of Representatives, and the Senate) are always given in their Irish,

12 and not English versions (Oireachtas, Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann, respectively). The extensive article 25, which deals with the rules of establishing laws (Signing and Promulga- tion of Laws), also clearly defines in which language versions official government documents are to be formulated and, in justifiable cases, the rules and sequence of translation. It is interesting to turn our attention here to what the Irish constitution does not contain, namely that there is no provision obliging the citizenry to have knowledge of both official languages. This results from the rather delicate situation of the Irish language: it is true that it is formally the first language, and it certainly possesses great symbolic and historical value for the Irish people. On the other hand, its practical usefulness compared with English is, let us say, not very large. For this reason, the proportion of the population knowing and speaking this language is still small, and no constitutional provisions will change that. The country with the longest tradition in Europe of a tolerant linguistic policy is Swit- zerland. Its constitution distinguishes between the concepts of official language and national language. There are four of the latter: German, French, Italian and Romansch (“Les langues nationales sont l’allemand, le français, l’italien et le romanche.” – Art. 4), while German, French and Italian are recognised as fully official languages (“Les langues officielles de la Confédération sont l’allemand, le français et l’italien.” – Art. 70). This means that every citizen has the right, at least in theory, to use these in contacts with the administration in every canton (freedom of choice of language is clearly articulated in article 18: “La liberté de la langue est garantie.”). Romansch has official status only in contacts with persons speaking this language as their mother tongue (“Le romanche est aussi langue officielle pour les rapports que la Confédération entretient avec les personnes de langue romanche.” – Art. 70). The constitution does not mention, though, that the language spoken in the German cantons is in fact German only in its written form, while the version spoken there may be very difficult to understand for the average German. The Swiss constitution requires respect for linguistic boundaries by the creation of administrative units: “Afin de préserver l’harmonie entre les communautés linguistiques, ils veillent à la répartition territoriale traditionnelle des langues et prennent en considération les minorités linguistiques autochtones.” (Art. 70, par. 2). Both the Confederation (the central government) and the cantons are required to promote contact and understanding among the linguistic groups (“La Confédération et les cantons encouragent la compréhension et les échanges entre les communautés linguistiques.” – Art. 70, par. 3). Moreover, the Confedera- tion is additionally obligated to support multilingual cantons (“La Confédération soutient les cantons plurilingues dans l’exécution de leurs tâches particulières.” – ibid.) as well as the cantons of the Grisons and Tessin in their activities aimed at preserving and promoting Ro- mansch and Italian (“La Confédération soutient les mesures prises par les cantons des Gri- sons et du Tessin pour sauvegarder et promouvoir le romanche et l’italien.” – Art. 70, pars. 4, 5).

13 Conclusion A study of European constitutions shows that, in guaranteeing minority and endangered languages a broad range of rights, the nations of the Old Continent have buried the ideology of linguistic imperialism. The degree of detail in their constitutions indeed varies. Only a few, for example, speak explicitly of access to media, of respect for territorial boundaries when establishing administrative entities, or the rights of persons utilising special codes, such as sign language or Braille script. The majority, though, recognise linguistic minorities as part of their common cultural heritage, and not as threats. They also guarantee their free use in private life and in official situations, as well as assure them a limited access to the media and the educational system. This represents fundamental progress compared with the situation fifty or more years ago. Unfortunately, a large part of Europe's linguistic diversity has already been irrevocably lost, and legislative reinforcement of the positions of weak or endangered languages arrives late. The UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages counts as many as 94 languages and/or dialects at various stages of endangerment or which are already extinct. A telling, though not unique, example presents the seven languages or dialects of the Jewish community in Europe which were in use in various regions and on various scales until the Second World War - Yiddish (the language of Ashkenazi Jews, seriously endangered), Ladino (of Sephardic Jews, seriously endangered), Shuadit (of French Provence, extinct), Zarphatic (Judeo-French, extinct), Italkian (Judeo-Italian, nearly extinct), Yevanic (Judeo-Greek, nearly extinct), and Krimchak (Judeo-Turko-Tartar, nearly extinct). If one adds that the classification “nearly extinct” means that the given language is spoken by at most a few dozen elderly people, none of whom are fluent, a picture of the great devastation emerges. These same considerations can also be applied to other groups of European languages and dialects, for example the languages (dialects) of the autochthonous Slavs in German- speaking countries, such as in the eastern districts of Germany and in Carinthia. Another linguistic problem of Europe is the status of immigrant languages. Most apparent on the linguistic map of today's Europe are conglomerations of people speaking Ara- bic (most of all in France), Hindi (Great Britain), Turkish (in Germany), and Chinese (Great Britain). To this come large concentrations of emigrants from Slavic countries to German- speaking countries (most of all from the CIS, former Yugoslavia, and Poland). According to the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages, the languages of immigrants are not included among minority languages (Art. 1a), the result of which is that linguistic groups, which are often more numerous than some of the “official” nationalities of the Un- ion, do not enjoy any of the entitlements vested in “normal” minorities. The perceived and, unfortunately, real cultural differences are in this case so great that it would be naive to be- lieve in the magic power of legislation. It is equally short-sighted, though, to underestimate this problem.

14 Finally, it is worth emphasising that the description presented here concerns legal status (and, therefore, postulated) and not the de facto situation. The practical realisation of the lofty ideals of tolerance demands not only good law, but also financial resources, reason, as well as civilised tolerance and understanding from both parties, i.e. from the legislature representing the majority of the citizenry as well as from the minority whose situation is the subject of adjustment. The experiences of several regions of Europe, most of all former Yugoslavia, but also Spain, France, Northern Ireland and the Baltic states, indicate that some Europeans still lack these attributes.

15 References Barbour S. (2002), Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg: The Total Coincidence of Nations and Speech Communities? In: S. Barbour, C. Carmichael (Eds.), Language and Nationalism in Europe. Oxford: OUP, 152–167. Braselmann P. M. E. (1999), Sprachpolitik und Sprachbewusstsein in Frankreich heute. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 43) Gajda S. (1998), Promocja języka i kultury polskiej a procesy uniwersalizacji i nacjonalizacji kulturowo-językowej w świecie [Promotion of Polish language and culture vs linguistic and cultural universalisation and nationalisation in the world]. In: J. Mazur (Ed.), Promocja języka i kultury polskiej w świecie [Promotion of Polish language and culture in the world]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie- Skłodowskiej, 11-18. Kloss H. (1978), Die Entwickelung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. Düssel- dorf: Schwann (first edition 1952). Lizis E. (1996), Badania nad modelem zewnętrznego opisu języka [Research on the external model of language description]. In: Z. Wąsik (Ed.), Heteronomie języka [Heterono- mies of language]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 27–45. Lučič R. (2002) (Ed.), Lexical norm and national language: lexicography and language policy in south-Slavic languages after 1989. München: Sagner. Quemada B. (2002), Langues nationales et multilinguisme en Europe. In: Stickel G. (Ed.), Europäische Hochsprachen und mehrsprachiges Europa. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 105–123. Theme A. (2002), Sprache und Gesetzgeber: Grenzen sprachgesetzlicher Regelungen in Deutschland und Frankreich nach dem EG-Vertrag und nationalem Verfassungs- recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Trudgill P. (2002), Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin Books.