Planificació de la situació de la llengua eslovena
| Autor | Albina Necak Lük |
| Cargo | University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts |
| Páginas | 55-69 |
SLOVENE LANGUAGE STATUS PLANNING
Albina Nećak Lük*
“…the study of language policy should not be limited to formal, declared
and ofcial policies but rather to the study of powerful mechanisms that
are used in most societies nowadays to create and perpetuate ‘de facto’
language policies and practices.”1
Abstract
This paper deals with the most signicant aspects of language policy in Slovenia. Although language policy strategy
is a wide-ranging endeavour in which relationships among individual languages in a linguistically diverse society are
regulated, for operational reasons this paper concentrates on activities related to Slovene (i.e. the state, ofcial and
national language) and only touches on the basic language policy measures for minority languages in the Republic
of Slovenia in order to round off the sociolinguistic picture of the country. It should be noted that the huge amount of
documents related to language legislation makes thorough analysis impossible in such a short text and therefore only
the most relevant legal material is presented.
Keywords: language policy, status planning, legislation, Slovenia.
PLANIFICACIÓ DE LA SITUACIÓ DE LA LLENGUA ESLOVENA
Resum
En aquest article es tracten els aspectes més signicatius de la política lingüística d’Eslovènia. Malgrat que l’estratègia
de la política lingüística és una empresa d’ampli abast en què es regulen les relacions entre les llengües d’una societat
lingüísticament diversa, per motius operatius aquest article es concentra en les activitats relacionades amb l’eslovè
(per exemple, l’estat, llengua ocial i nacional) i només esmenta de passada les mesures bàsiques de la política lingüís-
tica per a les llengües minoritàries de la República d’Eslovènia amb l’objectiu de completar la imatge sociolingüística
del país. Cal assenyalar que la gran quantitat de documents relacionats amb la legislació lingüística impedeix fer-ne
una anàlisi exhaustiva en un text tan breu i, per tant, només es presenta el material jurídic més rellevant.
Paraules clau: política lingüística; planicació de la situació; legislació; Eslovènia.
∗ Albina Nećak Lük, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts. albina.necak@guest.arnes.si
Article received: 13.01.2017. Review: 14.04.2017. Final version accepted: 09.05.2017.
Recommended citation: Nećak Lük, Albina. «Slovene Language Status Planning», Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language
and Law, núm. 67, 2017, p. 55-69. DOI: 10.2436/rld.i67.2017.2918.
1 Shohamy, Elana (2006). Introduction, p. XVI.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 56
Summary
1 Introductory observations
2 Language policy and its historical context
3 Language policy addressees
3.1 Native speakers of Slovene
3.2 Native speakers of other languages
4 The relationship with previous language regulations
5 The current state of language policy
6 Language legislation
7 Identity versus functional content
8 Further language policy and language planning activities
9 Current Slovene language policy issues
10 Conclusion
Literature
Legal documents
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 57
1 Introductory observations
Although a series of interconnected factors –demographic, cultural, economic, social, psychological, etc.–
are part of a given language policy strategy and contribute to its functioning in the framework of a given
socio-political entity, legal recognition of a language and legal prescriptions about its use are often seen as
being of decisive importance for actual language practice. Hence ofcial recognition is frequently viewed
as one of the most powerful guarantees for either maintaining or spreading a language, while in the absence
of legal measures the way seems to be paved to language shift and consequently attrition and eventually
language loss. Inadequate and detrimental legal solutions have a similar effect.
Regardless of the ideological orientation of the language policy –more or less traditional/conservative or
more or less liberal/permissive– at least some legal regulation seems to be indispensable. In view of the
comparatively complex language contact situation in a linguistically diversied society, there is a need for a
set of rational and primarily institutional procedures to be implemented to put in place appropriate linguistic
resources for public communication (corpus planning2) and inuencing the attitudes of the population
(speakers) with regard to these resources (status planning). However, in many cases the actual state of
regulation of the status of languages comes from the relatively random activities of public authorities and
social actors rather than from a systematic global plan. Such was also the case with Slovene, the current
ofcial and state language of the Republic of Slovenia, which at many points throughout history progressed
from one stage of functionality to the next, i.e. gradually spread its functions into public domains, often
thanks to favourable circumstances and support from and promotion by prominent individuals rather than to
the ofcial support of the hosting state.
On the other hand, the course of events by which institutions, groups and individuals exert a direct or
indirect inuence on a language and on language use, either in a segment of society or society as whole, is
strongly dependent on a sociolinguistically appropriate assessment of relations among different languages in
a society as well as on an appropriate legislative approach and decision making. However, in many instances
formal legal provisions do not achieve the desired aim without several additional conditions being met.
Attention should also be drawn to the fact that the (formal) status and the prestige of individual languages
in a linguistically diverse society do not always correspond. On the contrary, one might say that for many
languages concordance between their (formal) status and their prestige is not a matter of course and much
more so in multilingual states. This is quite evident in the European context of equal EU members’ ofcial
languages; all of them are ofcial languages both in their relevant country and at the EU level, yet nevertheless
there are huge differences as to their prestige and the consequences with regard to their actual use in public
debate can be anticipated and are easily observable. Even more diversied situations can be observed in the
framework of individual states’ sociolinguistic landscape.
In Slovenia language status and prestige (dis-)concordance follows this general pattern. Namely, the territory
settled by Slovenes has some rather interesting and sociolinguistically relevant characteristics. The area is a
“crossroads” of several peoples and language families: Germanic, Romance, Slavic and Finno-Ugric. Hence
for centuries Slovene has been in direct contact with German, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Hungarian. Already
in 1938 a Russian linguist, Isačenko, a professor at Ljubljana University, identied the Slovene lands as an
area where different languages and their varieties exist together, each of them performing clearly delimited
functions, while speakers using these languages and varieties never cross the implicit line (Isačenko 1938).
Isačenko did not give a name to this phenomenon. However, without doubt what he was talking about was
diglossia, which was dened under this name only twenty years later by Fergusson (Fergusson 1959).
Such a linguistic constellation strongly inuenced the perceptions of Slovene native speakers with respect
to their own language and the languages of their neighbours, i.e. foreign languages. The latter were almost
a sine qua non for economic survival while their mother tongue served as the core of their individuality and
identity in view of its connectedness to the community, to the nation. One might conclude that even today the
repercussions of such a centuries-lasting position of Slovene as the language of informal domains performing
informal functions, as opposed to the contact languages of German, Italian and Hungarian performing high
2 While corpus planning of the majority of languages spoken in Slovenia started way back in history and today follows the demands
of modern life, the corpus planning of the Romany language is at the very beginning.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 58
functions, are traceable in the communication practices of Slovene native speakers. Today Slovene is the
ofcial language of the Slovene state, a multifunctional language equipped to perform all functions both low
and high. However, in many instances a foreign language is still used instead of Slovene in oral and written
communication without any obvious sociolinguistic reasons, pointing to a discrepancy with actual Slovene
language status and prestige rooted in historical and socio-psychological reasons.
2 Language policy and its historical context
Language policy and language planning in Slovenia3 are closely related to the perception of the Slovene
people’s evolution into a modern nation in which language and culture are considered the foundations
of Slovene ethnic identity and a permanent argument in aspiring to a Slovene state. This sensitivity
concerning ethnic identity markers, with language in rst place, is due to the historical status relationship
among languages in this region at the time of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy as well as to the language
policy and inter-ethnic relationships in the post-First and post-Second World War Yugoslav states. This is
because throughout the history of the Slovene people in the course of its development into a modern nation,
endeavours were made to achieve Slovene language autonomy, expressed in striving for the high language
functions held by different foreign languages in different periods – Latin, German, Italian, Hungarian and
Serbo-Croatian. In the absence of other sources of political power – i.e. state administrative mechanisms –
language and culture functioned as a frame of reference for national unication. A prototype of this statement
can be read in a study on the synchronic situation in Slovene language development (Vidovič Muha 1996):
“The two basic elements that dene Slovene throughout its entire history, i.e. lack of statehood (in terms
of complete functionality) until 1991 and, at least in European terms, a small number of speakers, have
been counterbalanced by a strong sense of the linguistic and general cultural commitment of its speakers
to their national entity. In these circumstances, one can understand that the normativization of Slovene
literary language was largely inuenced by a linguistic policy which – because of its incomplete standards
– depended heavily on day-to-day politics.”4 This urgent need to provide for a socio-political form which
would guarantee that the Slovenes could establish and express themselves as a modern nation under their
own authority and assume responsibility for the fate of the Slovene language is also reected in the preamble
to the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, underlining that the Constitution is adopted “proceeding …
from the historical fact that in a centuries-long struggle for national liberation we Slovenes have established
national identity and asserted our statehood”.5
The fact that from the late 7th century until 1991, i.e. until the founding of an independent Slovenia, the areas
settled by the Slovenes were under the jurisdiction of a larger, multinational state has affected the attitudes
of Slovenes towards ethnic and language issues right up to the present. In line with the post-First World War
peace treaties, for geopolitical reasons and due to inter-war great power bargaining substantial parts of the
territory settled by Slovenes were assigned to other states. According to the estimations, up to one third of the
Slovene population remained in the neighbouring states while on the Slovene side of the border members of
the neighbouring nations became national minorities (Germans, Hungarians and Italians).
3 Language policy addressees
A rather ambiguous atmosphere with regard to ethnic and language issues gradually developed among
Slovenes: on the one hand, understanding the language and ethnicity issues of others, expressed in a rather
generous attitude to their language and ethnic identity needs, but on the other a feeling that the Slovene
language and ethnic identity were threatened and endangered by stronger neighbours. This is also reected
in the Slovene language policy concept today: “This perception that the Slovenian nation is a small nation
and hence particularly vulnerable to foreign pressures and the (geo-political) appetite of the neighbouring
nations and states has been a very strong incentive for the development of legislation regulating the use of
3 For more detailed information see Nećak Lük Albina, 2004. ‘Slovenia - Language policy and language planning issues’. In Bugarski,
R. and Hawkesworth, C. (eds.), Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands. Slavica Publishers, Indiana University, Bloomington.
4 Vidovič Muha 1996, p. 38.
5 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Preamble, p. 17.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 59
languages [i.e. Slovene, Hungarian and Italian] in Slovenia. In general, such legislation has been adopted
with the intention of protecting the Slovenian language.”6
Although small, the population of Slovenia displays quite a diverse linguistic picture: along with Slovene,
over 11 language categories/groups were registered in 2002 when the last eld collecting of data on the
ethnic and language features of the population took place. Since then demographic information has been
taken from the Population Register and data about the ethnic and language structure are no longer accessible.
According to the data from January 1st, 2015, Slovenia had a population of 2,062,874, nearly 5% of them
foreign citizens.7
In 2002, out of 1,964,036 people, 1,631,363 declared Slovene as their ethnic afliation and 1,723,434 declared
Slovene to be their mother tongue. The three minority communities, explicitly named in the Constitution and
enjoying collective protection and special rights, show the following structure: Hungarian: 6,243 by ethnic
afliation and 7,713 by mother tongue; Italian: 2,258 by ethnic afliation and 3,762 by mother tongue; and
Roma: 3,246 by ethnic afliation and 3,834 by mother tongue. The missing numbers pertain to members
of ex-Yugoslav nations and nationalities,8 migrants from other countries, undeclared ethnic and language
association and missing data.9
3.1 Native speakers of Slovene
In concordance with the socio-psychological attitude described above, since the end of the First World War,
when for the rst time Slovenes joined a multinational state – the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – through
their own decision, concern for the language and cultural identity wellbeing of their compatriots living
outside the state’s borders has been on the agenda of the Slovene state’s duties. Today, three communities of
native Slovene speakers are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution with regard to Slovene language policy
protection and promotion: 1. Slovenes in Slovenia; 2. Slovenes in three geographically contiguous territories
in Austria, Italy and Hungary;10 and 3. Slovenes abroad in the diaspora where the highest numbers are in
Germany, Switzerland, the USA, Canada, Argentina and Australia.
Provisions concerning the Republic of Slovenia’s obligations towards these communities in terms of
promoting Slovene language and culture in their settlement areas also featured in the Constitution of Slovenia
as a Yugoslav Republic. Today they are contained in the current Constitution:11 “It [the state] shall maintain
concern for autochthonous Slovene national minorities in neighbouring countries and for Slovene emigrants
and workers abroad and shall foster their contacts with the homeland.” A series of documents12 and statutory
legal acts13 regulate the Slovene state’s obligations to these communities, including helping them to preserve
their language. Slovenia has also ratied some international and bilateral legal acts on the same grounds.14
Tasks relating to the Slovene minority in neighbouring countries and Slovene emigrants around the world
6 Roter 2012.
7 This is 143 more than three months earlier; it is interesting to note that during this period the number of Slovene citizens decreased
while the number of foreign citizens increased and reached nearly 5% of the population. http://www.stat.si/statweb/en/show-news?
id=5148&idp=17&headerbar=13
8 According to the 2002 Census, the structure of ex-Yugoslav language native speakers was the following: Albanian 7,713; Bosnian
31,499; Croatian 54,079; Macedonian 4,760; Montenegrin 462; and Serbian 31,329. As for the German minority, which is often the
object of argument in the minority and language protection debate, 1,628 people declared German to be their mother tongue, while
only 499 declared themselves to be German by ethnic afliation and 181 declared themselves to be Austrians by ethnic afliation.
9 https://www.stat.si/popis2002/en/rezultati_obcine_prebivalstvo_dz.htm.
10 The feeling of the loss of vital parts of the Slovene nation due to unjust drawing of borders is also often expressed in the term
“Slovene cultural realm” which suggests that the territories settled by Slovenes on both sides of the state border constitute an
ethnolinguistic entity.
11 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 5.
12 Resolution on Relations with Slovenes Abroad 2002, Resolution on the Position of Slovene Autochthonous Minorities in
Neighbouring Countries and Related Activities of State and other Bodies in the Republic of Slovenia, Strategy on Relations between
the Republic of Slovenia and Slovenes Abroad, 1996.
13 Act Regulating Relations between the Republic of Slovenia and Slovenes Abroad, 2006, and Act Amending the Act Regulating
Relations between the Republic of Slovenia and Slovenes Abroad, 2010.
14 Act Ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Act Ratifying the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, Agreement on Ensuring Special Rights of Slovene National Minority in the Republic of Hungary
and Hungarian National Minority in the Republic of Slovenia.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 60
are carried out by the Government Ofce for Slovenes Abroad, which also draws continuity from Yugoslav
times.15
The right of deaf persons to use their language is regulated by the Act on the Use of Slovene Sign Language.16
The Act provides for their access to information using techniques adapted to their needs and also the scope
and manner of exercising the right to a sign language interpreter in connection with the equal inclusion
of deaf people in the living and working environment and in all forms of social life, with the same rights,
conditions and opportunities as people with no hearing decit.
3.2 Native speakers of other languages
At the same time special rights, i.e. rights compensating for the forceful separation of the minority population
from the bulk of their nation by border changes, are formulated for Italian and Hungarian national communities
in the Constitution.17 Based on this laws were also drawn up providing for the ofcial status and equal use
of their languages in their settlement areas. While education in the mixed regions is regulated by a general
act, a series of sector-specic acts (over 50) regulate the realization of the rights of these two communities,
language-related rights included.18
Besides the Hungarian and Italian communities, the Roma population is expressly named in the Constitution:
“The status and special rights of the Roma community living in Slovenia shall be regulated by law.”19 In
accordance with this constitutional demand, legislation on the Roma community and the promotion of the
Romany language was also prepared, regulating the state’s responsibility for the maintenance and development
of Romany: “The Republic of Slovenia supports the maintenance and development of the Romany language
and culture and the informative as well as the publishing activity of the Roma community.”20 The protection
of the special rights of the Roma community is currently also being implemented through a number of sector-
specic acts.21 Among the relevant documents, the National Programme of the Government of the Republic
of Slovenia for the Roma for the period 2010-2015 and the National Programme of Measures for the Roma
for the period 2010-2015 (NPUR 2010-2015) expressly require the state to safeguard the Romany language:
“The state has also been, and should in the future, paying special attention to preserving and developing
various forms of the Roma language, culture and informative as well as publishing activity...” The Romany
language is also referred to in the Education and Schooling Strategy for the Roma in the Republic of Slovenia
2004.22
The Republic of Slovenia’s responsibility for these communities is also set out in bilateral and international
agreements. The National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia ratied the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages in 2000. When the instrument of ratication was deposited, Slovenia informed the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Italian and Hungarian languages are considered regional
or minority languages in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. The statement also stipulated that the
provisions under Paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 7 apply as appropriate to the Romany language. Therefore,
Slovenia also applies the provisions under Paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 7 in accordance with Paragraph 5 of
Article 7 for the Romany language.23
It is important to underline that in order to exercise their rights, the members of the Hungarian and Italian
communities establish their own self-governing communities in the geographic areas where they live. For
the Roma community and in addition to the role of state bodies, monitoring of the realization of their rights
15 http://www.uszs.gov.si/en/for_slovenians_abroad
16 Act on the Use of Slovene Sign Language, 2002.
17 Article 64.
18 Act Regulating Special Rights of Members of the Italian and Hungarian Ethnic Communities in the Field of Education.
See the list at http://www.un.gov.si/en/minorities/.
19 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 65.
20 Act on the Roma Community in the Republic of Slovenia, Article 4 (published in the Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia,
no. 33/07).
21 The list can be seen at http://www.un.gov.si/en/legislation_and_documents/legal_acts_roma_community/
22 Along with the Supplementation of the Education and Schooling Strategy for the Roma in the Republic of Slovenia, 2011.
23 Republic of Slovenia Ofce of National Minorities, http://www.un.gov.si/en/minorities/
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 61
is also the task of representative bodies of Roma on city and municipal councils and the Council of the Roma
Community in the Republic of Slovenia (established on June 20th, 2007).
For members of other ethnic groups who are not expressly mentioned by name in the Constitution, the right
to use their language and script is guaranteed24 and their cultural activities, including mass media production
in their languages, are nancially supported.25
4 The relationship with previous language regulations
Today Slovene public opinion is in no doubt that Slovene language status planning, and with it its corpus
planning and the gradual spread of its functions into public communication channels, was an incomplete
process until the creation of an independent Slovene state in 1991. This is also reected in the preamble to
the Constitution.
In spite of the fact that since 1963 the Slovene language featured as one of the equal state languages in
communication at the Yugoslav federal level and was expressly prescribed as the language of all state
institution activities in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, even within this framework it was still deprived of
some functions which, in the eyes of Slovenes, were considered a sign of complete nationhood. Opposition
arose because the language of command in the army was Serbo-Croatian, while in practice Serbo-Croatian
was also the language of wider communication among speakers of the various Yugoslav languages. Command
in Yugoslav army units, including in Slovenia, was reserved for Serbo-Croatian; the demand to assign this
function to Slovene had its roots in the fact that Slovene was the command language in the territory of
Slovenia during the Second World War and even in the times of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.26 Gradually
the status of Slovene in army units and their activities in Slovenia was augmented. In the 1980s the written
text of the solemn oath was in the language of the soldier (although the oral oath was still in Serbo-Croatian),
while educational activities and lettering on army objects in Slovenia were in Slovene, communication with
non-military citizens was in Slovene, etc. However, it was precisely because of the abovementioned historical
burden that the language issue was so strongly “instrumentalized” for the unication of Slovene public
opinion on the occasion of the trial of a group of four people charged with betraying military secrets. In
spite of the fact that Serbo-Croatian did not gure as the dominant state language in the federal Constitution,
attempts to assign to it the function of the language of wider communication, so that it would function as
a kind of a lingua franca in public discourse all over Yugoslavia, was also met with strong opposition in
Slovenia and was seen as disregarding the provisions on the equal use of national and minority languages
in public communication. Irrespective of these and other conict issues, many of the prominent Slovene
linguists acknowledge that after the Second World War, and in spite of some limitations, the status of Slovene
steadily increased and its functions spread signicantly (Pogorelec 1996).
With the establishment of an independent Slovenia all professional institutions, associations and individuals
engaged in language planning continued their work without interruption. However, on the language
policymaking level continuity was broken. In the 1970s, following an initiative by the Slavic Association
of Slovenia, a body of experts responsible for “Slovene language in public [use]” was organized within
the framework of the then Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Slovenia. Later on it became the
Language Council, which had several sections and working groups pursuing two basic aims: to encourage
public attention to Slovene language topics, and to focus on respect for the legal norms regarding Slovene
language use in the Yugoslav federation at the federal as well as the republic level. A working group named
24 Article 62 (Right to Use One’s Language and Script): “Everyone has the right to use his language and script in a manner provided
by law in the exercise of his rights and duties and in procedures before state and other bodies performing a public function.”
25 http://www.un.gov.si/leadmin/un.gov.si/pageuploads/Raziskava_Polozaj_in_status_pripadnikov_narodov_nekdanje_Jugoslavije_v_RS.pdf
26 The role of Slovene in past military activities was also underlined in the appeal for the new Slovene Constitution by the Slovene
Writers’ Association and the Slovene Sociological Association: “… in the military sense, they [i.e. the proposed theses for the
Slovene Constitution] are based upon the traditions of anti-Germanic and anti-Christian rebellions in medieval Carinthia, peasant
risings, anti-Turkish ghts, heroic defence of the Western border in WW1, military revolts in the Austrian army, the military actions
of the rst modern Slovene army forces under General Maister, and above all the Slovene army during the National Liberation War,
when organization of our forces was exclusively Slovene, and they were victorious despite the worst possible conditions.” Rupel,
Menart (1988), p. 6. Dimitrij Rupel, Janez Menart: Gradivo za Slovensko Ustavo (Materials for the Slovene Constitution). Časopis
za kritiko znanosti, Ljubljana, 1988, p. 6.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 62
the Language Tribunal was set up to carry out the rst task. Although its main role was to promote language
culture among Slovene language speakers by discussing and assessing the use of Slovene in the mass
media and in other public institutions that could have an inuence on the language of public and private
communication, the existence of the Language Tribunal engendered a lot of controversy in other Yugoslav
republics. When assessing the importance of the work of the Language Council and the Language Tribunal,
two important outcomes should be underlined: the rst is the accelerated development/creation of Slovene
terminology in several disciplines, and the second a manifest impact on the awareness of native Slovene
speakers of their responsibility for the language’s vitality and prestige. Based on such a legacy, further
language planning of Slovene after 1991 in an independent state seemed a matter of course.
5 The current state of language policy
On June 25th, 1991, Slovene was explicitly proclaimed as the ofcial language of the Republic of Slovenia.
Its formal status is determined by the Constitution:27 “The ofcial language in Slovenia is Slovene. In those
municipalities where Italian or Hungarian national communities reside, Italian or Hungarian shall also be
ofcial languages.” Since 2004, the basic rules on the public use of Slovene as the ofcial language of the
Republic of Slovenia have been determined by the Act on Public Usage of Slovenian Language. The public
use of Slovene in specic areas is also determined in greater detail by a number of other sector-specic laws.
The Ministry of Culture is responsible for monitoring the implementation of legal provisions relating to
language use, but other ministries are also obliged to participate in carrying out duties in this area as specied
in Article 26 of the main piece of legislation. In line with this law, on May 7th, 2007, the National Assembly
passed the rst resolution on the national programme for language policy for the period 2007-2011.28
After the declaration of an independent Slovenia in 1991, continuity of language planning and promotion of
cultural pluralism was also expressed by the Constitution. The status of Slovene has changed so that today
it is the only ofcial language at the national level, i.e. the state language. The ofcial function of Slovene
as the state language encompasses all spheres of life in internal and external channels of communication. It
goes without saying that its use has also been extended to the armed forces.
The changed socio-political situation after 1991 soon exposed some sensitive points. It seems that with
independence, a looser attitude towards the Slovene language developed. This was apparent in the rather
limited respect for language norms in public written and oral discourse. In addition, the inuence of American
culture and modes of expression increased. Until then, efforts for the autonomy of the Slovene language
had been partly expressed through purism, mostly oriented against the inuence of Serbo-Croatian. This
vigilance seemed to become obsolete after the common destiny of the two languages ended. The growing
impetus of political and economic integration, what is called globalization, was reected in Slovenia and
not only in economic subordination. In a small nation like Slovenia it soon revealed itself to be also a socio-
cultural and communication phenomenon. The growth of communication technology brought many English
language patterns into the communication and way of life of Slovene society; via the mass media, and
specically electronic communication channels, American culture is steadily invading Slovene society, the
impetus of English being most evidently expressed in the speech of younger generations.
In fact, one could argue that a paradoxical thing happened; parallel to its status promotion into a state
language, there has been no obvious substantial increase in the prestige of Slovene. On the contrary, there
are signs that in certain sectors of the population its prestige has been diminishing. Many warnings have
been given about a kind of Slovene-English diglossia which is seemingly spreading in Slovenia. The alarm
has been triggered on account of public signs, the language used at academic and professional gatherings,
the language of scientic publications and the language of university lectures and seminars, degree papers
and postgraduate theses, which are increasingly in English. A particular cause for alarm is communication
27 Article 11.
28 Many participants in language policy creation, linguists and cultural workers at the forefront, consider that the main responsibility
for the language as a matter of the national interest should be assigned directly to the government as such and not to individual
ministries. The standpoint is the same with regard to the position of the Slovene language service (see below); namely, the restricted
attitude had been expressed by installation of the service in the framework of the Ministry of Culture, as if language matters belong
to the area of culture instead of being positioned as the national interest of society as a whole.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 63
in foreign enterprises in Slovenia, where frequently Slovene is no longer used even in employees’ personal
documentation.
With the aim of monitoring and limiting these detrimental phenomena, i.e. the invasion of English and
other foreign language inuences in public discourse in Slovenia, in 1992 the former “Slovene language in
public [use]” section at the Slavic Association of Slovenia was restored. In 1993 an initiative was launched
whereby within the Parliament a group of linguists and other experts would be engaged in basic language
planning and would also consider legislation in this eld. In March 1994 a group of experts was nominated
as a permanent working body of the parliamentary committee for culture, education and sport29 with the task
of offering suggestions regarding language policy and language planning to the Parliament and the wider
public.
In its founding charter the following three main groups of tasks and activities of the working group are
enumerated:
- Proposals shall be prepared concerning language planning in the institutions of the Slovene
state and individual elds of administrative and public life (administration, judiciary, economics,
education, sport, science, culture, mass media and the health service). The group will dene the
tasks of the state and its institutions in the process of implementing Slovene language policy.
With this aim, the working group shall examine legal prescriptions regulating the status and
the level of communicative competence in the enumerated elds. Where necessary, appropriate
changes and amendments shall be proposed.
- The working group shall discuss and prepare an initiative for an efcient language policy in
Slovenia.
- The working group shall consider the status of the Slovene language of the Slovene minorities in
Italy, Austria and Hungary. Its initiatives will help in asserting an adequate position for Slovene
in the public life of Slovenes outside the borders of Slovenia.
6 Language legislation
At the same time, several individuals concerned about the Slovene language, mostly linguists, writers and
academics, suggested that issues regarding the status of Slovene should be regulated by a special law. The
proposal, however, did not come from the working group; the rst draft of the law (on the use of Slovene as
the ofcial language) was prepared in early 1997 (January 14th) by the then Minister of Culture.30 In the draft
two separate topics were regulated: the rst was the domains of Slovene ofcial language use that should be
regulated by law and the second the setting up of a State Language Committee/Ofce for Language. In the
rst part, several domains were cited:
- The functioning of public institutions. Respect for the Slovene norm is set forward in this
framework and the use of Slovene in its higher variety in internal and external communication
is considered obligatory in enterprises; in view of the frequency and differing levels of formality
of contacts with customers, several levels of communicative competence of employees can be
prescribed (on top of basic competence, obligatory for all, good competence, active competence
and top-level competence can be required). Active competence is envisaged as one of the
conditions for acquiring Slovene citizenship.31 Public registrations, public information (i.e.
advertising, performances32) and education are elds of special attention in the planned law.
29 In the working group, headed by Prof. Dr. Breda Pogorelec, the prominent Slovene language scholar, there were six language
specialists, two lawyers and two psychologists.
30 Associate Prof. Dr. Janez Dular, himself a linguist.
31 Demand for Slovene language competence (which had to be proven by a special exam) had been set forward by the Act on
Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia (Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 1, 1991) immediately after the establishment
of the independent Republic of Slovenia in 1991.
32 Article 19 deals with the use of the Slovene language at public events with international participants nanced from public funds
and in the proceedings published from such events. The Slovene language title, foreword and abstracts are considered obligatory
along with those in a foreign language. Exceptions from this rule must be approved by the State Language Committee.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 64
- The task of the State Language Committee is to consider the systematic creation and implemen-
tation of language policy. Its fundamental role is to advise and assess activities related to lan-
guage policy. Disregard for or misuse of the law is monitored through inspection in the relevant
sphere of activity.
However, the idea was not unanimously and enthusiastically supported by the working group and in three
years it did not manage to achieve a consensus. In 1999 the views of the working group were published;
two members were against the law while others supported the idea and at the same time suggested certain
modications and supplements.
The draft on the use of Slovene as the ofcial language had two major goals:
- To provide for integral regulation and ensure the use of Slovene in all spheres of public commu-
nication in the Republic of Slovenia.
- To bring into effect legislation relating to the use of Slovene in a more consistent manner through
encouragement, consultation, administrative mechanisms and also penal sanctions.
The argumentation supporting adoption of a law on the use of Slovene as the ofcial language is based on
the assumption that the state needs a general law managing and sanctioning Slovene language status issues
in the Republic of Slovenia, since the provisions of sector-specic laws regulating language status lack
transparency – as a rule the details are not accessible to users, i.e. speakers. It was assumed that, due to its
transparency, a general language law would additionally motivate language loyalty and thus promote the
prestige of the Slovene language.33
The draft was opposed for a series of reasons. In the forefront was the unbalanced approach to general and
specic issues – some communicative situations were dealt with in a general/supercial manner while others
were approached very directly. In any case, in principle it is impossible for a law to capture all existing and
newly emerging communication practices and hence it would soon become inefcient with regard to specic
cases. Obviously the submitter was aware of this deciency and proposed the establishment of an Ofce for
Language, a kind of operational language policy/language planning and consultation body, which would help
to manage newly emerging situations by interpreting legal provisions.
After a delay of several years a revised draft was prepared and nally the draft of the bill was brought to the
legislative procedure after pressure from a civil initiative. On June 5th, 2000, a public debate was organized
and the bill was sent to the parliamentary committee for social activities. It was expected that after the debate
in this body, the Parliament would start the procedure to pass the bill. Meanwhile, however, a government
decree was issued establishing the Ofce for the Slovene Language of the Government of Slovenia (in
2000).34 With the reform of the state administration in 2002 the Ofce was moved to the Ministry of Culture
and operated in the framework of the Directorate for Cultural Development and International Affairs under
the name the Sector for the Slovene Language, while in 2011 due to stafng policy the body was renamed
again and language care and promotion tasks were entrusted to the Slovene Language Service. Many consider
this transferring of language matters from the governmental level to the Ministry of Culture as a sign of
degrading the importance of promoting Slovene language status and use, while the renaming of the Ofce
went hand in hand with a reduction in its powers and independence.
In 2004 the Act on Public Usage of Slovenian Language (APUSL) was nally passed, specifying Slovene as
the ofcial language, the language of written and oral communication in Slovenia, and the language by which
Slovenia is represented in international contacts.35 The main emphasis is on the basic rules and obligations
regarding the public usage of Slovene in public communication. Obligatory use of Slovene is prescribed in
33 Stabej 2000, p. 245.
34 Decree on establishing the structure and working sphere of the Ofce for the Slovene Language of the Government of the
Republic of Slovenia, Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 97, October 20th, 2000, p. 10585; Prof. Dr. Janez Dular was
appointed the rst director of the Ofce.
35Article 1 (Introductory provision). Exceptions refer to Italian and Hungarian as regional ofcial languages and to the provisions of
international treaties that are binding for the Republic of Slovenia and specically also allow the use of other languages.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 65
individual areas together with the necessary prociency in Slovene prescribed for individual professions or
workplaces in public bodies, for services and public authorization holders, and for acquiring citizenship. The
use of Slovene on web pages, in education, in the media, in dealing with clients, on merchandise labelling, in
the names of establishments, premises and other business spaces and at public events is regulated, including
also possible exceptions to the rule, i.e. use of other languages in a given case.
A special section denes the tasks and responsibilities of national administrative bodies, anticipating the
setting up of an inter-ministerial consultative coordination body with the Government with the aim of
discussing draft bills and regulations in terms of their compliance with the provisions of this Act, language
policy aims and language planning, and adopting a ve-year national programme for language policy. The
following sections specify inspection of the implementation of the Act and penalty measures for disregard
of the Act’s provisions.
Following Article 2, and in addition to the Act, the public use of Slovene in individual elds of public
communication is regulated in detail by sector-specic acts depending on the particular features of these
individual elds. At the moment over 200 sector-specic laws contain clauses relating to the use of Slovene
in individual elds of life and work.36
7 Identity versus functional content
Two opposing views on language policy, evidently emanating from two different linguistic schools, have
stemmed from the debate on the law. The reasons for different views on Slovene’s formal language status
can be described in terms of theoretical, disciplinary and generational variation.
On the one hand, there is a rather traditionalist, defensive approach or view of language (in our case,
Slovene) as a symbol of ethnic identity and an ideal of national unity. In this view the Slovene language
is the sacred symbol of the Slovene nation, the eminent marker of the Slovene identity; the visible token
of the nation’s vitality is impeccable Slovene in public use. According to this approach, at the moment, or
rather throughout history, the language has been endangered because of foreign dominance, by insufciently
developed language competence and lack of respect for language norms by its speakers. Beneath this
“introverted” approach to the Slovene language, the concept of a “national state” based on the sovereignty of
only one ethnic community, i.e. the Slovene nation, can be discerned. The modern tendency to see the state
as a community of citizens of different ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds is hardly present in this
approach, and terms like open society and ethnic and language pluralism are exceptional in this discourse.
In opposition to this, which could be called a kind of “renewed” language activism, stands a more moderate,
modern approach oriented towards the wider context of language acquisition and language use. In its view,
the status of the Slovene language has been effectively regulated by the Constitution and the laws regulating
individual spheres of activity. In the independent Slovene state, Slovene has gained the status of the state
language and its prestige depends on the development and promotion of Slovene society as a whole. The
quality of written and oral public discourse, then, depends on factors that are closely related to the general
social climate and welfare. The role of education and the mass media has been underlined in this connection.
The need for an unhindered, continuous process of preparation of basic works on the prescribed norm in
central scientic institutions37 (the Slovene Academy of Science and Arts and the Universities of Ljubljana
and Maribor) has been advocated since the production of linguistic materials such as an orthography,
dictionaries, grammars, lexicography work etc. is essential for future development. Electronic corpus
selection, the development of organized translation services and thorough linguistic research should bring
about favourable language planning outcomes..
The features of the two legislative approaches towards language are integrated in the Slovene language
law. The Scandinavian language model is followed; the language ofce should play a decisive advisory and
36 An exhaustive list of sector-specic acts containing language clauses that gured already in the draft on the use of Slovene …
The list is permanently updated.
37 In this regard a certain similarity can be traced with the recently adopted Polish law, the main difference being that professional
linguistic matters remain in the remit of professional (non-governmental) institutions, i.e. the Academy of Science and Arts and the
universities.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 66
promotional role in language matters. On the other hand, there are elements of the French model integrated
in the law; it has a repressive function as penalties are envisaged for disrespect for “proper” language use by
institutions and responsible individuals.
8 Further language policy and language planning activities
The law triggered a series of activities – in fact, demands were put forward in the Act itself for the
formulating of documents on a national programme for language policy and on ensuring the conditions for
its implementation.38 In 2007, the National Programme for Language Policy (NPLP) for the period 2008-
2011 was adopted as the main instrument envisaged by the Act on Public Usage of Slovenian Language. The
NPLP for the period 2012-2016 brought about a substantial change of focus. From protection the emphasis
shifted to language matters in education and to language equipment demands (resources, technology,
digitalization, standardization, language description, terminology and multilingualism, etc.). Compared to
previous periods greater attention was also dedicated to speakers with special needs. The Resolution on
the National Programme for Language Policy 2014-201839 identied a series of goals and measures to be
implemented at the inter-ministerial level. Support for the excellence of artistic and cultural production in
Slovene, systematic care for the development of the communicative competence of all groups of speakers,
including their reading skills, as well as the promotion of public use of the language are at the forefront of
the planned activities.
Since 2004 there has been a special budget line for implementation of language policy measures which are
also in the interest of or for the benet of speakers of other languages on Slovene territory and for supporting
projects implementing language policy measures (research and analysis, digitalization, the creation of web
tools, portals and user manuals, promotional/marketing activities, etc.) through public calls and contracts.40
9 Current Slovene language policy issues
Throughout Slovene history, ethnic and language issues have always been strongly linked to the establishment
of Slovene statehood. With an independent Slovenia, the state was considered not only a guarantee of Slovene
language status promotion but it was also expected that statehood would give strong impetus to the growth of
the prestige of the Slovene language by providing a fresh incentive for its use and hence the self-condence
of Slovene speakers. However, many observers report that this is not the case.
Globalization trends have brought about new practices which are very difcult to regulate. Many of the
language contact issues engendered by globalization found the Slovenian state somewhat unprepared. The
language aspects of the ow of information are at an acceptable level as the electronic media in Slovene
are highly developed and there has also been some progress in the mobility of goods (the declarations
on merchandise articles were already labelled in all ofcial languages, Slovene among them, in Yugoslav
times). However, language questions concerning the mobility of people – in view of the internationalization
of individual sectors of public life – seem to be the most delicate problem and affect some of the most crucial
domains of Slovene language use. Although some areas where Slovene comes into direct contact with a
foreign language, mostly English, were regulated by the Act on Public Usage of Slovenian Language,41 it is
evident from the numerous, almost daily infringements, and in spite of their penal consequences, that trust in
the capacity of the Slovene language has been shattered. In the current international constellation, the power
and resources of the state alone to nd the right solutions for an equal place for and equal use of a national
language in international public communication – a solution without detriment to a national language –
seems to be an extremely difcult endeavour.
At the moment, and related to the relationship between internationalization and the role of the national
language, i.e. Slovene, a heated debate is underway with regard to the language(s) of science and higher
38 Article 26, Article 28 of the Act on Public Usage of Slovenian Language.
39 http://www.mk.gov.si/leadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/slovenski_jezik/Resolution_2014-18_Slovenia_jan_2015.pdf.
40 http://www.mk.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/sluzba_za_slovenski_jezik/.
41 Such as language use in international cooperation, names of establishments, premises, etc., the language of public international,
cultural, professional, commercial, sports, education and other events.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 67
(university) education. The problem was triggered by a draft of the Higher Education Act with a proposal for
English to feature as a teaching language along with Slovene at the university level, with the nal decision
assigned to the individual university concerned. The issue split the Slovene academic sphere in two, one side
arguing that the position of English should be radically delimited by constitutional law since otherwise, due
to its economic power and international prestige, English would gradually take over and oust Slovene from
this domain which is crucial for successful Slovene language corpus, while the other side’s most obvious
argument was the threat to the international promotion and quality of the Slovene university system. Many
fear that with English as a language of university instruction along with Slovene, a new, reversed kind of
diglossia would develop, forcing Slovene from a high into a low language position, rst in the university
domain, then gradually in all educational domains and nally in the majority of public domains.42
10 Conclusion
Should an express answer to the question “The status of languages – does ofcial recognition matter?” be
necessary for the conclusion, my answer is: “Yes. It matters beyond any doubt.” Along with regulating the
language-related course of events – language use and language planning – the inuence it has on a language’s
prestige and speakers’ attitudes towards it should be taken into account. Language use regulation endeavours
may sometimes seem futile in the context of competition with a language of wider communication, either
on a national or global level. However, it is precisely ofcial recognition and measures resulting from status
planning that give strength to a national language in this seemingly and actually unequal competition. In my
view, ofcial recognition is especially important with regard to language/corpus planning, which is strongly
dependent on the appropriate nancial support the state is obliged to provide along with language-related
prescriptions.
However, as noted above, ofcial recognition is but one in a series of “powerful mechanisms” (Shohamy
2006) that inuence language status and language corpus planning. In this respect the experience of the
development of Slovene seems to be quite instructive. Namely, it is estimated that in the history of the
language there have been two critical moments when Slovene, regardless of its small number of speakers,
joined the ranks of privileged languages: “In the 16th century, it was the 12th language that the Bible was
translated into, and today it is one of the smallest languages that the ‘Bible of the modern age’ has been
translated into: the Windows operating system and programs written for it” (Humar 2007).43 The latter point
also raises hopes for the vitality of Slovene and its prestige in the future.
Literature
Ferguson, Charles. A., “Diglossia.” Word, vol. 15, (1959), pp. 325-340. http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.
ca/tuitekj/cours/2611pdf/Ferguson-Diglossia.pdf (consulted on January 18th, 2017).
Humar, Marjeta, “Terminology and Terminography Work in Slovenia”. EAFT seminar on Minority
Languages and Terminology Policies. Dublin 2007.
IsačeNko, Aleksander V., “O večjezičnosti/On Multilingualism”. Slovenskijezik (1938), pp. 113-118.
kaLIN GoLob, M., komac, N., LoGar, N. (2007), “O slovenskemjeziku/On Slovene”. Ljubljana, 2007. http://
www.vlada.si/leadmin/dokumenti/Slovenija_doc/O_slovenskem_jeziku_novo.pdf (consulted on January
18th, 2017).
Nećak Lük, Albina, “Language Education Policy in Slovenia”. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, Science
and Sport, 2003.
42 This is precisely the status that, after centuries of efforts by generations of Slovene intellectuals, was transcended by the rst
Slovene state entity after the First World War, when systematic language planning started with the establishment of the rst Slovene
University in Ljubljana in 1919.
43 Neither of the two language planning activities had been ofcially supported by the authorities. On the contrary, the author of the
rst Slovene book, Primož Trubar, was exiled and his books were not only banned but also burnt.
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 68
Nećak Lük, Albina, “Slovenia - Language Policy and Language Planning issues”. In Bugarski, R. and
Hawkesworth, C. (eds.), Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands. Slavica Publishers, Indiana University,
Bloomington, 2004.
roter, Petra, “Legal and Institutional Framework Analysis: Hungarian in Slovenia”. Working Papers in
European Language Diversity 20, European Language Diversity for All (ELDIA), 2012.
roter, Petra, “Language Issues in the Context of ‘Slovenian Smallness’”. In: Daftary,
F. and Grin. F. (eds.), Nation-building, Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition
Countries, pp. 211-241. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative - Open Society
Institute, 2003.
rupeL, Dimitrij, meNart, Janez. “Gradivo za slovensko ustavo /Material for the Slovene Constitution.”
Časopis za kritiko znanosti, Ljubljana, 1988.
sHoHamy, Elana, Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge: London and New
York, 2006.
stabej, Marko, 2000: “Nekatera vprašanja formalnopravnega urejanja statusa slovenskega jezika v Republiki
Sloveniji/Some Questions on Formal-legal Regulation of the Slovene Language Status in the Republic of
Slovenia.” In: Štrukelj, I. (ed.), Kultura, identiteta in jezik v proces evropske integracije. Ljubljana: Društvo
za Uporabno Jezikoslovje Slovenije, (2000), pp. 234-245.
stabej, Marko, “L’état, ce n’est pas moi.” Država in narod v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi/State
and Nation in the Slovene Language, Literature and Culture. 51. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in
kulture, (2015), pp. 27-36. (ISSN 2386-0561).
VIdoVIč muHa, Ada, “Razvojne prvine normativnosti slovenskega knjižnega jezika/Steps in the Development
of Normativization in Slovene Literary Language”. In: Vidovič Muha, A. (ed.), Jezik in čas (Language and
Time). Razprave Filozofske Fakultete, Ljubljana (1996), pp. 15-40.
VIdoVIč muHa, Ada, “Jezikovnopolitični vidik sodobne slovenske javne besede/Language Policy Aspect of
Modern Slovene Public Speech”. Slavistična revija, letnik 57, številka 4, (2009), str. 617-626.
Legal documents
“Basic Roma Community Act (ZRomS-1)/Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji”. Uradni list RS
št. 33/2007. http://www.uradnilist.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200733&stevilka=1762 (consulted on December
5th, 2016).
Act Regulating Relations between the Republic of Slovenia and Slovenians Abroad.” 2006, 2010. http://
www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4387 (consulted on December 20th, 2016).
“Act Ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages”, 2000. http://www.uradni-list.
si/1/objava.jsp?urlmpid=200084 (consulted on December 5th, 2016).
“Act Ratifying the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”, 1998. http://www.
uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlmpid=19986 (consulted on December 5th, 2016).
“Act Regulating Special Rights of Members of the Italian and Hungarian Ethnic Communities in
the Field of Education (Uradni list RS, št. 35/01 in 102/07 – ZOsn-F). http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO2611 (consulted on December 5th, 2016).
“Agreement on Ensuring Special Rights of Slovene National Minority in the Republic of Hungary and
Hungarian National Minority in the Republic of Slovenia”, 1993. http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.
jsp?urlmpid=199334 (consulted on December 5th, 2016).
Albina Nećak Lük
Slovene Language Status Planning
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, núm. 67, 2017 69
“Act on Public Usage of Slovenian Language (APUSL)”. Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia,
no. 86/2004, page 10418. http://www.eui.eu/Projects/InternationalArtHeritageLaw/Documents/
NationalLegislation/Slovenia/lawonpublicusageofslovenianlanguage.pdf (consulted on December 5th, 2016).
“Act on the Use of Slovene Sign Language” 2002 http://project-leap.eu/act-on-the-use-of-slovene-sign-
language-zuszj/ (consulted on December 5th, 2016).
“SLOVENIJA Ustava/Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia” / [translators Miro Cerar et al.]. -
Adopted on 23 December 1991 (Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 33/91-I), as amended
by the Constitutional Act of 14 July 1997 (Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 42/97) and
the Constitutional Act of 25 July 2000 (Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 66/2000). http://
unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN014895.pdf (consulted on December 5th,
2016).
“Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2007-2011/Resolution on the national programme
for language policy 2007-2011” http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200743&stevilka=2355
(consulted on December 5th, 2016).
“Resolution on the national programme for language policy 2014–18” (ReNPJP14–18) http://www.mk.gov.
si/leadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/slovenski_jezik/Resolution_2014-18_Slovenia_jan_2015.
pdf (consulted on January 18th, 2017).
“Resolution on the Position of Slovene Autochthonous Minorities in Neighbouring Countries and Related
activities of State and other Bodies in the Republic of Slovenia, Strategy on Relations between the Republic
of Slovenia and Slovenes abroad”, 1996. http://www.uszs.gov.si/leadmin/uszs.gov.si/pageuploads/
Resolucija_o_polo__aju_avtohtonih_slovenskih_manj__in_v_sosednjih_dr__avah_in_s_tem_povezanimi_
nalogami_dr__avnih_in_drugih_dejavnikov_Republike_Slovenije.htm (consulted on January 18th, 2017).
“Resolution on Relations with Slovenes Abroad” 2002, http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.
jsp?urlid=20027&stevilka=359 (consulted on January 18th, 2017).
“Education and Schooling Strategy for the Roma in the Republic of Slovenia 2004”, Supplement 2011.
http://www.un.gov.si/leadmin/un.gov.si/pageuploads/Strategija_Romi_2004.pdf (consulted on December
5th, 2016).
Studies assessing language policy measures’ efciency:
“Izbrani vidiki jezikovne situacije v Republiki Sloveniji v vlogi presoje učinkovitosti njene veljavne
zakonske ureditve/Chosen aspects of the language situation in the Republic of Slovenia, assessment of the
actual legal regulation. Končno poročilo / Final report”, November 2014. Raziskovalni projekt po pogodbi
št. 3340-14-128003 med Univerzo v Mariboru, Znanstvenoraziskovalnim centrom SAZU in Ministrstvom
za kulturo Republike Slovenije. (Assessment ordered by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.)
http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/raziskave-analize/slovenski_jezik/
Raziskava_izbrani_vidiki_jezikovne_situacije_v_RS_2015.pdf (consulted on December 20th, 2016).
“Položaj in status pripadnikov narodov nekdanje Jugoslavije v Republiki Sloveniji/Status of the Ex-
Yugoslav Nations’ Members in the Republic of Slovenia”. Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja/Institute for
Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana 2003. http://www.un.gov.si/leadmin/un.gov.si/pageuploads/Raziskava_Polozaj_
in_status_pripadnikov_narodov_nekdanje_Jugoslavije_v_RS.pdf (consulted on December 20th, 2016).
“Teoretično-empirična raziskava o jezikovnopolitičnih učinkih obstoječega pravnoformalnega okvira statusa
in rabe slovenščine in drugih jezikov v javnosti./Theoretical-Empirical Research of the Efciency of the
Actual Legal Formal Framework Regulating the Slovene and other Languages’ Status and Public Use”.
(Assessment ordered by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.) Nova Gorica: Univerza v Novi
Gorici/University of Nova Gorica, 2012. http://sabotin.ung.si/~rzaucer/papers/MarusicZaucer-2012-Ucinki-
pravne-ureditve-jezikovne-rabe (consulted on December 20th, 2016).
