GERMAN IN ITALY
27-08-1997
http://www.uoc.es/euromosaic/web/document/alemany/an/e1/e1.html
Research Centre of Multilingualism
German in Italy

1 Introduction:

The work on this language group pertains to the Italian province of Bolzano (or Bozen) in the Alto Adige (or South Tyrol) region. It is estimated that there are 290,000 German speakers who constitute two thirds of the total population in the region. It is a region that has been subject to considerable political realignment during the 20th century, having been under both Austrian and Italian control. A Statute of Autonomy, granted to the area in 1972, accords equal status to German and Italian within the region.

The field work was undertaken during June 1995 involving eleven interviewers from the RCM in Brussels and six local interviewers. The work focused upon the two main urban centres of Bozen/Bolzano and Meran/Merano and the surrounding rural areas.

2 Marriage and residence:

Tables 1 and 2 give a good indication of the extent of in-migration into the area of the respondents and of their parents and grandparents:

TABLE 1: PLACE OF RESIDENCE AT AGE THREE

 

Respondent

Mother

Father

Partner

Bozen

178,00

109,00

111,00

43,00

 

53%

32%

33%

33%

Merano

144,00

164,00

125,00

15,00

 

43%

48%

37%

12%

Rest of the Bozen district

16,00

68,00

93,00

30,00

 

5%

20%

28%

23%

Elsewhere

0,00

2,00

8,00

41,00

 

0%

1%

2%

32%

Valid cases

338,00

343,00

337,00

129,00

It seems that all the respondents were born in the Alto Adige (South Tyrol) province and particularly in Bozen and Merano. Their parents were also nearly all from the region, though a greater number were from outside Bozen and Merano.

The tendency for spatial exogamy does appear to have increased by the respondent's generation with only 45% of the partners deriving from Bozen or Merano.

The same pattern is evident in table 2 which refers to the parental place of residence at time of birth. Again over 80% of the respondents were from one of the two localities:

TABLE 2: PARENTAL RESIDENCE AT TIME OF BIRTH

 

No.

%

Bozen

105,00

37%

Merano

176,00

62%

Rest of the region

4,00

1%

Elsewhere

1,00

0%

Valid cases

286,00

 

3 Marriage and Language Group:

The high incidence of spatial endogamy by reference to marriage at least affords the possibility of a correspondingly high rate of language group endogamy by reference to spatially restricted language incidence. The indication of such patterns is found by considering the extent of language ability of different family members. This is found in tables 3 to 5 below.

It is clear that 71% of the fathers and 80% of the mothers speak fluent German, this presumably serving as an indication of the extent of language group endogamy for the preceding generation. Again there is a suggestion that there is a slight tendency for more men to marry into the language group than vice versa. This also appears to have been the case among the grandparental generation where 79% of the maternal grandparents and 68% of the paternal grandparents were fluent in German:

TABLE 3: LANGUAGE ABILITY OF FAMILY MEMBERS

GERMAN:

 

Mother

%

Sister

%

Brother

%

Mat GPs

%

Father

%

Pat GPs

%

Very good

279,00

82%

182,00

79%

170,00

77%

248,00

78%

246,00

73%

207,00

68%

Quite good

32,00

9%

21,00

9%

25,00

11%

25,00

8%

38,00

11%

25,00

8%

Little

14,00

4%

11,00

5%

9,00

4%

15,00

5%

36,00

11%

15,00

5%

None

14,00

4%

15,00

7%

18,00

8%

28,00

9%

19,00

6%

37,00

19%

Valid cases

339,00

 

229,00

 

222,00

 

316,00

 

339,00

 

304,00

 

ITALIAN:

 

Father

%

Mother

%

Sister

%

Brother

 

Pat GPs

%

Mat GPs

%

Very good

162,00

50%

123,00

38%

92,00

41%

89,00

40%

97,00

34%

87,00

30%

Quite good

117,00

36%

136,00

42%

89,00

39%

81,00

36%

86,00

30%

97,00

33%

Little

28,00

9%

44,00

14%

18,00

8%

21,00

9%

51,00

18%

52,00

18%

None

15,00

5%

18,00

6%

28,00

12%

33,00

15%

52,00

18%

58,00

20%

Valid cases

322,00

 

321,00

 

227,00

 

224,00

 

286,00

 

294,00

 

The same pattern is evident by reference to a knowledge of Italian with almost 20% of the mothers knowing little or no Italian compared with only 13% of the fathers. The comparable figures for grandparents are 37% for the maternal side and 36% for the parental side. These last figures suggest that the extent of language group endogamy is similar for both sides, something that contradicts the previous data.

It is hardly surprising therefore that almost three quarters of the respondents have German as their 'first language':

TABLE 4: FIRST LANGUAGE LEARNED

 

No.

%

German

255,00

74%

Italian

38,00

11%

Both

37,00

11%

Other

9,00

3%

NA

8,00

2%

A further 11% learned both languages together in the home. This would suggest that the extent of language group exogamy is fairly limited. This data should be paralleled by that concerning the language used by the parents when the respondent was a child (table 5):

TABLE 5: LANGUAGE USED BY PARENTS WHEN A CHILD

 

Number

%

German

178,00

69%

German>Italian

29,00

11%

Italian>German

6,00

2%

Italian

40,00

15%

Other

7,00

3%

Valid cases

260,00

-

Almost 70% claimed that their parents spoke German together when they were children, a further 14% claiming that both German and Italian were used. Clearly the number of respondents who have not learned the language in the home is small, being of the order of about 15%. It is incidentally of concern that 87 respondents did not give an answer to this question, for reasons which are not clear.

The extent of language group exogamy among the respondent's generation should be evident from a knowledge of the language ability of the partner, even though, of course, many will have learned German since marriage:

TABLE 6: GERMAN LANGUAGE ABILITY OF PARTNER

 

Number

%

Very good

80,00

70%

Quite good

15,00

13%

Little

10,00

9%

None

9,00

8%

Valid cases

114,00

-

A relatively small number claim to have a partner, because the sample seems to have an overrepresentation of young people and clergymen, to some extent explicable by the fact that the population of Bozen itself does display these characteristics. Of the 114 respondents who report having a partner, 70% state that the partner's German is fluent and a further 13% say their spoken German is 'quite good'.

The incidence of ability among the respondents is indicated in table 7:

TABLE 7: LANGUAGE ABILITY OF RESPONDENT

GERMAN:

 

Very Good

Quite Good

Little

None

NA

Understand

299,00

39,00

1,00

1,00

7,00

 

86%

11%

0%

0%

2%

Speak

280,00

43,00

8,00

2,00

14,00

 

81%

12%

2%

1%

4%

Read

276,00

51,00

7,00

0,00

13,00

 

80%

15%

2%

0%

4%

Write

244,00

73,00

10,00

3,00

17,00

 

70%

21%

3%

1%

5%

ITALIAN:

 

Very Good

Quite Good

Little

None

NA

Understand

198,00

133,00

9,00

1,00

6,00

 

57%

38%

3%

0%

2%

Speak

152,00

147,00

34,00

2,00

12,00

 

44%

42%

10%

1%

4%

Read

180,00

121,00

31,00

3,00

12,00

 

52%

35%

9%

1%

4%

Write

153,00

139,00

39,00

2,00

14,00

 

44%

40%

11%

1%

4%

This does throw some light on the extent of entry into the language group among those who were interviewed. Almost 90% claim to be able to understand German, but the percentage able to speak the language fluently is 84%. The degree of literacy is fairly high with 84% claiming a high level of reading ability and 74% a high writing ability. What is also significant is that the subjective ability levels by reference to German are far higher than for Italian, a remarkable situation for a minority language group even if the relevant language is a state language. This must one of the few cases in which abilities in the minority language are universally higher than in the state language.

Among those who did not learn German as a first language inside the family, as an agency of language group reproduction, most claim to have learned it in school (n=56) or in the family as a second language (=43). 14 quote friends as a a source, and 11 give other answers. Percentages are not given as some respondents gave several answers.

TABLE 8: REASONS FOR LEARNING GERMAN

 

Number

School

24,00

Work

12,00

Personal/family

26,00

Community

16,00

Interest

3,00

Other

5,00

24 gave the school as the reason for learning the language, while a further 26 respondents learned the language for family reasons, these tending to be those who had married into the language group and felt obliged to learn German as a consequence. The indication that community integration and employment purposes were also incentives suggests that the community is able to serve as an agency of production and that at least some degree of prestige pertains to German within the area. These are issues we will return to below.

Language Use in the Family:

The preceding discussion serves as a background for the discussion of language use in the family. Table 9 refers to the experience of the respondents by reference to their use of language within their nuclear family prior to marriage, or in the case of the unmarried, to their current use:

TABLE 9: LANGUAGE USED WITH FAMILY MEMBERS

 

Pat GPs

Mat GPs

Father

Mother

Brother

Sister

German

210,00

238,00

238,00

255,00

162,00

159,00

 

70%

77%

70%

76%

78%

77%

Ge + It

16,00

22,00

29,00

32,00

21,00

21,00

 

5%

7%

9%

10%

10%

10%

Italian

64,00

39,00

63,00

36,00

21,00

21,00

 

21%

13%

19%

11%

10%

10%

Other

10,00

11,00

10,00

12,00

4,00

6,00

 

3%

4%

3%

4%

2%

3%

Total (valid)

300,00

310,00

340,00

335,00

208,00

207,00

Given what we have said about the patterns of language group endogamy it is not surprising to find that there is a greater tendency to use German exclusively with the mother than with the father, and that the use of Italian is far more significant by reference to fathers than mothers. The same relationships pertain by reference to use with grandparents, use of German being greater on the maternal than on the paternal side, and the situation referred by reference to the use of Italian. Indeed the figures almost balance which suggests that the majority are involved in situation where both parents use German and that the residual cases conform to what has been suggested above, this being a feature of endogamy rather than a tendency to reject German in favour of Italian among people who are fluent in both languages.

This is supported by the similarity of the figures across the two generations. The figures which pertain to siblings do not show any difference that pertains to gender. Neither is the incidence of the exclusive use of German significantly different from that for the preceding generations.

The experience of the partner of the respondent by reference to the familial language use is shown in table 10:

TABLE 10: PARTNER'S LANGUAGE USE IN THE FAMILY

 

Children

 

In-laws

 

Father

 

Mother

 

German

48,00

68%

56,00

64%

62,00

68%

60,00

67%

Ge + It

11,00

15%

12,00

14%

5,00

5%

5,00

6%

Italian

12,00

17%

17,00

20%

23,00

25%

24,00

27%

Other

0,00

0,00

2,00

2%

1,00

1%

1,00

1%

Total (valid)

71,00

 

87,00

 

91,00

 

90,00

 

Unlike the respondents own reported language use, the figures for use by partners, across both parents, are remarkably similar, though the incidence of use of Italian is higher.

The use of Italian with the children is also high with almost a third using at least some Italian with their children. This is accounted for by the greater tendency for the partners to derive from outside of the language group than is the case for the respondents. Thus these figures should not be taken as being indicative of inter-generational change in language use.

The incidence of use within the nuclear family of the respondent as it now exists is shown in table 11:

TABLE 11: CURRENT LANGUAGE USE WITHIN THE HOME

(% calculated on basis of valid answers)

 

German

Ge + It

Italian

Other

Valid cases

With father

205,00

19,00

52,00

4,00

280,00

 

73%

7%

19%

1%

 

With mother

224,00

21,00

31,00

5,00

281,00

 

80%

8%

11%

2%

 

With children

91,00

11,00

7,00

0,00

109,00

 

84%

10%

6%

0%

 

At mealtime

210,00

45,00

28,00

4,00

287,00

 

73%

16%

10%

1%

 

With partner

98,00

13,00

23,00

1,00

135,00

 

73%

10%

17%

1%

 

With relatives

196,00

56,00

30,00

4,00

286,00

 

69%

20'%

11%

1%

 

Almost three-quarters claim to use German exclusively at mealtime compared with less than 10% who use Italian exclusively. There is also a greater tendency to use both languages at mealtimes than when exclusive use with either mother or father is taken separately. That is, when everyone is together, and not everyone is fluent in German, both languages are used whereas in dyadic family relationships there tends to be a selection of language use in accordance with ability of the parent. Again we draw attention to signs of higher incidence of Italian use with the father rather than the mother.

The amount of Italian used by the (relatively small number of) children of the respondents together is not large (table 12):

TABLE 12: LANGUAGE USED BY CHILDREN TOGETHER

 

Number

%

Always German

38,00

60%

Mostly German

8,00

13%

Both equally

9,00

10%

Mostly Italian

1,00

2%

Always Italian

6,00

14%

Other

1,00

2%

Valid cases

63,00

100%

Valid cases

63,00

 

Most use German exclusively and a similar number use mainly German together or use both languages equally.

Table 13 indicates the use of language on the telephone:

TABLE 13: LANGUAGE OF TELEPHONE USE

At home

   

At work

 

93,00

34%

Always German

19,00

15%

84,00

30%

Mostly German

40,00

32%

60,00

4%

Both

49,00

4%

21,00

8%

Mostly Italian

12,00

10%

12,00

22%

Always Italian

5,00

39%

6,00

2%

Other

2,00

2%

276,00

-

Valid cases

137,00

-

The difference between the use of German in the home and at work is immediately apparent. Whereas the use of German prevails in the home with two-thirds claiming the exclusive or main use of German, there is a much greater tendency to use Italian at work.

Language in the Community:

Tables 14 and 15 derive from responses to a subject evaluation of the use of German in different community contexts when the respondents were children and the current use in the same contexts:

TABLE 14: GERMAN LANGUAGE USE IN THE COMMUNITY WHEN A CHILD

 

Streets

Shops

Church

Societies

Frequently

183,00

165,00

173,00

177,00

 

82%

74%

79%

83%

Sometimes

27,00

38,00

13,00

20,00

 

12%

17%

6%

9%

Rarely

6,00

14,00

11,00

7,00

 

3%

6%

5%

3%

Never

6,00

5,00

23,00

9,00

 

3%

2%

11%

4%

Total (valid)

222,00

222,00

220,00

213,00

The perception of past use according to the respondents (though it must be mentioned that over a third did not answer this item) is high across all contexts, the difference across contexts not being large. However there is a feeling that use has declined, this decline being perceived as greatest in the shops and least in the religious institutions. It is also significant that there are fewer who claim that German is never heard now than in the past. It also seems that religion is divided between the exclusive use of either German or Italian. The religious option of the respondents leads to a relatively monolingual religious environment, and a larger number of respondents reply that they never heard or hear German used in this context than in the others.

TABLE 15: CURRENT GERMAN LANGUAGE USE IN THE COMMUNITY

 

Streets

Shops

Church

Societies

Frequently

201,00

176,00

199,00

207,00

 

73%

64%

74%

76%

Sometimes

69,00

65,00

39,00

48,00

 

25%

24%

15%

18%

Rarely

4,00

33,00

6,00

10,00

 

1%

12%

2%

4%

Never

0,00

0,00

24,00

7,00

 

0%

0%

9%

3%

Valid cases

274,00

274,00

268,00

272,00

A higher proportion of respondents reply this time. There is a slight decline in the number of respondents reporting "frequent" use of German nowadays, though the same can be said of the complete absence of German, which also seems to be reduced.

An attempt to establish the extent of formal German-language activities within the community is shown in the next table:

TABLE 16: INVOLVEMENT IN GERMAN LANGUAGE CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

 

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Valid cases

Choir

31,00

4,00

3,00

84,00

122,00

 

25%

3%

2%

69%

 

Traditional orchestra

11,00

1,00

1,00

91,00

104,00

 

11%

1%

1%

88%

 

Theatre

11,00

2,00

2,00

88,00

103,00

 

11%

2%

2%

85%

 

Hiking

131,00

9,00

3,00

11,00

154,00

 

85%

6%

2%

7%

 

Clearly the extent of involvement is not large among the respondents but the number who added 'other' activities to the main choices suggests that there is at least one other relatively popular activity available within the community. Nevertheless it seems that fewer than half the respondents are involved in such formal German-language activities.

Table 17 indicates the extent of involvement and the language(s) used in both formal and informal activities within the community:

TABLE 17a: LANGUAGE USE IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

 

Mainly German

Both

Mainly Italian

NA

Church

180,00

19,00

16,00

132,00

Sports clubs

105,00

35,00

36,00

171,00

Private sports

57,00

35,00

16,00

239,00

Theatre

63,00

56,00

6,00

222,00

Theatre group

41,00

17,00

4,00

285,00

Dance

30,00

15,00

5,00

297,00

Politics

30,00

29,00

6,00

282,00

Bar

40,00

95,00

26,00

186,00

Friends

104,00

83,00

17,00

143,00

Hunting club

5,00

0,00

1,00

341,00

Fishing

6,00

0,00

0,00

341,00

Trades unions

3,00

8,00

3,00

333,00

Other

4,00

4,00

2,00

337,00

If we now look at activities cited by at least 40 respondents, the picture that emerges is as follows:

TABLE 17b: LANGUAGE USE IN MOST POPULAR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

Mainly German

Both

Mainly Italian

Average

Church

84%

9%

7%

0·88

Theatre grp

66%

27%

6%

0·80

Dance

60%

30%

10%

0·75

Theatre

50%

45%

5%

0·73

Friends

51%

41%

8%

0·71

Sports clubs

60%

20%

20%

0·70

Priv. sports

53%

32%

15%

0·69

Politics

46%

45%

9%

0·69

Bar

25%

59%

16%

0·54

As we have already indicated most of the formal religious activity are conducted either exclusively in German or exclusively in Italian. Only 9% of those involved in such activities claimed that both languages were used. We shall return to this issue momentarily. It also seems that the number who are involved in formal or activities exclusively through the medium of Italian re few in number. On the other hand there are numerous who are involved in activities where both languages are used. Thus the theatre and political activities are examples of such bilingual contexts. Yet there are others who are involved in the same activities exclusively through the medium of German. It also seems that sports activities while existing in both languages and bilingually tend to attract participants in German only contexts. The informal activities of socialising with friends and in bars tend to show a fairly high incidence of Italian language use. Again we return to this context below.

It seems that most of the respondents are involved in formal religious activities, only 11% of those who responded to this question claiming that they were not:

TABLE 18: RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION

 

No.

%

Regularly

124,00

43%

Sometimes

81,00

28%

Rarely

53,00

18%

Never

32,00

11%

Valid cases

290,00

 

Almost three-quarters claimed that they attended either regularly or sometimes. The figures that pertain to the languages used in religious activities are similar to those discussed above with the majority being through the medium of German and an almost equal number of the others conducting their religious affairs either through the exclusive medium of Italian or bilingually. There does not appear to be much difference in language use across the various functions:

TABLE 19: LANGUAGE OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES

 

German

Both

Italian

Other

Valid cases

Sermon

184,00

29,00

22,00

1,00

236,00

 

78%

12%

9%

0%

 

Public prayer

164,00

24,00

21,00

1,00

210,00

 

78%

11%

10%

0%

 

Private prayer

165,00

24,00

19,00

1,00

209,00

 

79%

11%

9%

0%

 

Reading

163,00

22,00

19,00

1,00

205,00

 

80%

11%

9%

0%

 

Hymns

162,00

23,00

22,00

1,00

208,00

 

78%

11%

11%

0%

 

Tables 20 and 21 indicate the estimated ability of people encountered in different community contexts and the language used with them:

TABLE 20: GERMAN LANGUAGE ABILITY OF COMMUNITY CONTACTS

 

All

>Half

Half

<Half

Few

Valid cases

Friends

123,00

149,00

46,00

17,00

5,00

 
 

36%

44%

14%

5%

1%

340,00

Shops

74,00

130,00

53,00

11,00

8,00

 
 

27%

47%

19%

4%

3%

276,00

Sports

46,00

123,00

84,00

36,00

10,00

 
 

15%

41%

28%

12%

3%

299,00

Cultural

31,00

90,00

67,00

28,00

14,00

 
 

13%

39%

29%

12%

6%

230,00

Neighbours

98,00

40,00

48,00

16,00

20,00

 
 

44%

18%

22%

7%

9%

222,00

Most respondents claimed that all or most of their friends spoke German, suggesting that friendship networks are structured by reference to language group. This also appears to pertain to residence in that a greater proportion - 44% - claim that all of their neighbours speak German than who claim that all of their friends speak German. On the other hand there is also a significant proportion that does not live in areas heavily populated by German speakers with 16% claiming that fewer than half of their neighbours speak German. The incidence of exclusivity by reference to language ability decreases when we consider the other three contexts, only 14% claiming that all of the contacts at cultural activities speak German compared with 15% for sports activities and 27% for the shops which they frequent. The higher incidence for 'shops' may derive from a conscious decision to use specific shops wherever possible. It also seems that a minority of between 15 and 20% of the respondents mix with a minority of German speakers in sports and cultural activities.

The language use patterns with these contacts are shown in table 21, which should however be interpreted with caution, given that a large number of respondents did not, for some reason, reply:

TABLE 21: LANGUAGE USE WITH COMMUNITY CONTACTS

 

Always German

German> Italian

Both

Italian> German

Always Italian

Valid cases

Friends

44,00

86,00

22,00

10,00

14,00

176,00

 

25%

49%

13%

6%

8%

 

Shops

60,00

64,00

47,00

8,00

10,00

189,00

 

32%

34%

25%

4%

5%

 

Sports

45,00

48,00

38,00

5,00

6,00

142,00

 

32%

34%

27%

4%

4%

 

Cultural

115,00

77,00

67,00

34,00

36,00

329,00

 

35%

23%

20%

10%

11%

 

Neighbours

64,00

111,00

51,00

29,00

22,00

277,00

 

23%

40%

18%

10%

8%

 

A comparison of the two tables indicates that the incidence of exclusive use of German is higher than the cases where everyone speaks the language for shops, sports and cultural activities suggesting that for a significant minority there is a tendency to seek out German speakers in these activities. The number who adopt the opposite posture of using Italian exclusively are small in number. Indeed in sports and shopping those who use more Italian than German are few.

Table 22 considers the language of dyadic exchanges within different community contexts, though as before a disturbingly high number of respondents fail to reply to many of the items:

TABLE 22: GERMAN LANGUAGE USE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY

   

I can and do

I can but don't

I can't

NA

1,00

Doctor

203,00

38,00

36,00

70,00

2,00

Dentist

207,00

37,00

28,00

75,00

3,00

Petrol

83,00

45,00

32,00

187,00

4,00

Newspaper

119,00

29,00

53,00

146,00

5,00

Police

38,00

136,00

52,00

121,00

6,00

Bar

117,00

28,00

47,00

155,00

7,00

Theatre ticket

159,00

36,00

36,00

116,00

8,00

Car repair

80,00

35,00

23,00

209,00

9,00

Hairdresser

139,00

37,00

26,00

145,00

10,00

Sports

158,00

21,00

17,00

151,00

11,00

Library

160,00

12,00

18,00

157,00

12,00

Teacher

74,00

14,00

5,00

254,00

13,00

Restaurant

113,00

30,00

35,00

169,00

14,00

Councillor

75,00

39,00

31,00

202,00

15,00

Buying food in a shop

121,00

26,00

40,00

160,00

16,00

Driving test

71,00

24,00

13,00

239,00

17,00

Speaking to a lawyer

74,00

23,00

12,00

238,00

18,00

Bank manager

137,00

24,00

19,00

167,00

19,00

Washing machine

78,00

36,00

21,00

212,00

20,00

Water bill

62,00

33,00

16,00

236,00

21,00

Loc. author.

70,00

69,00

33,00

175,00

22,00

Hifi

136,00

29,00

25,00

157,00

23,00

Travel agent

106,00

28,00

15,00

198,00

24,00

Optician

109,00

17,00

17,00

204,00

25,00

Social worker

66,00

12,00

13,00

256,00

26,00

Priest

144,00

10,00

13,00

180,00

27,00

Visiting the tax office

42,00

49,00

24,00

232,00

28,00

Reporting an electricity cut

63,00

30,00

22,00

232,00

29,00

Ask time

91,00

46,00

37,00

173,00

30,00

Telephone exchange

65,00

81,00

27,00

174,00

31,00

Gas leak

55,00

30,00

16,00

246,00

32,00

Post office

69,00

70,00

62,00

146,00

33,00

Taxi

90,00

33,00

28,00

196,00

If they are now ranked by decreasing possibility of use, the following emerges:

   

Can / total

Do / Can

Valid cases

12,00

Teacher

95%

84%

93,00

26,00

Priest

92%

94%

167,00

10,00

Sports

91%

88%

196,00

11,00

Library

91%

93%

190,00

23,00

Travel agent

90%

79%

149,00

2,00

Dentist

90%

85%

272,00

18,00

Bank manager

89%

85%

180,00

17,00

Speaking to a lawyer

89%

76%

109,00

24,00

Optician

88%

87%

143,00

16,00

Driving test

88%

75%

108,00

9,00

Hairdresser

87%

79%

202,00

1,00

Doctor

87%

84%

277,00

22,00

Hifi

87%

82%

190,00

25,00

Social worker

86%

85%

91,00

20,00

Water bill

86%

65%

111,00

19,00

Washing machine

84%

68%

135,00

7,00

Theatre ticket

84%

82%

231,00

30,00

Telephone exchange

84%

45%

173,00

31,00

Gas leak

84%

65%

101,00

8,00

Car repair

83%

70%

138,00

33,00

Taxi

81%

73%

151,00

28,00

Reporting an electricity cut

81%

68%

115,00

21,00

Local authority

81%

50%

172,00

13,00

Restaurant

80%

79%

178,00

3,00

Petrol

80%

65%

160,00

27,00

Visiting the tax office

79%

46%

115,00

29,00

Ask time

79%

66%

174,00

14,00

Councillor

79%

66%

145,00

15,00

Buying food in a shop

79%

82%

187,00

5,00

Police

77%

22%

226,00

6,00

Bar

76%

81%

192,00

4,00

Newspaper

74%

80%

201,00

32,00

Post office

69%

50%

201,00

It seems that the respondents are able to use German in most contexts if they so choose. Among those who claim that they cannot use German there is no indication that this is more the case in government agencies such as the gas service or the post office than in any other contexts. The greatest incidence of such suggestions is by reference to buying a newspaper, the bar, the police, buying petrol, other shopping, speaking to a councillor, the post office, discussing the rates, and electricity all of which are claimed to be impossible through the medium of German by more than 20% of those who responded. Among those who claimed that they could use German but chose not to the police stands out as the most evident context with over 60% claiming that this was the case. Other high incidence cases within this category were the local authorities, discussing the rates, with the telephone exchange, and Post office all of which were cited in this context by a third or more of the respondents. At the other extreme there are a range of contexts in which most of respondents claim that they can and do use German. These involve sports activities, the school, the doctor and dentist, library, hairdresser, theatre, the bank, hi-fi shop, travel agent, optician, social worker, and the church by reference to all of which 70% or more of those who commented claimed they could and did use German. The lowest frequency of this category occurred in dealings with the police, post office, and the telephone exchange.

Finally table 23 gives information concerning the use of language in children's activities within the community:

TABLE 23: LANGUAGE OF CHILDREN'S LEISURE ACTIVITIES

 

German

Both

Italian

Other

NA

Handicraft course

8,00

0,00

1,00

0,00

338,00

Language course

9,00

0,00

2,00

0,00

338,00

Computer

5,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

339,00

Theatre

9,00

1,00

1,00

0,00

336,00

Children's parties

7,00

0,00

1,00

0,00

339,00

Football

12,00

2,00

4,00

0,00

329,00

Judo

3,00

2,00

4,00

0,00

338,00

Music

4,00

0,00

1,00

0,00

338,00

Music school

10,00

0,00

2,00

0,00

335,00

Other

9,00

7,00

8,00

0,00

323,00

Again it would appear that the extent of activity is limited: a very small number of answers has been obtained, and this invalidates any interpetation of the results. However, it does seem that most of these activities are available in both languages and that the majority of the children use German in their participation.

Language and Education:

The majority of the respondents received their education at the primary and secondary level either exclusively through the medium of German or bilingually, though for reasons which are not clear, as many as 15% did not reply to the primary and sewcondary education levels:

TABLE 24: LANGUAGE OF RESPONDENTS' EDUCATION

 

German

Both

Italian

Other

Valid cases

Primary

166,00

100,00

25,00

3,00

294,00

 

56%

34%

9%

1%

 

Secondary

162,00

106,00

22,00

4,00

294,00

 

55%

36%

7%

1%

 

Further

65,00

18,00

30,00

0,00

113,00

 

58%

16%

27%

0%

 

Higher

46,00

11,00

23,00

1,00

81,00

 

57%

14%

28%

1%

 

Fewer than 10% received an exclusively Italian language education. The extent of bilingual education declines beyond the secondary level, parents choosing between one language and the other. This choice is available to higher educational level.

In order to understand these figures it is necessary to refer to Article 19 of the Statute of Autonomy which states that children have the right to be taught in their maternal language and that each language group has its own educational system. In the German language schools German is the medium of instruction and Italian is introduced as a second language from the second year of elementary school. The converse is the case in the Italian language schools. Given this privileged situation in comparison with most minority language group it is hardly surprising that so many of the children of the respondents opted for German language education:

TABLE 25: LANGUAGE OF CHILDREN'S EDUCATION

 

German

Both

Italian

No choice

Valid cases

Primary

81,00

14,00

10,00

0,00

105,00

 

77%

13%

10%

0%

105,00

Junior

69,00

12,00

9,00

0,00

90,00

 

77%

13%

10%

0%

90,00

Further

55,00

13,00

8,00

0,00

76,00

 

72%

17%

11%

0%

76,00

Higher

24,00

4,00

8,00

21,00

57,00

 

42%

7%

14%

37%

57,00

The claim that there is no choice by reference to higher education is not strictly correct in that there is a German language Hochschule in the area but it is claimed that a German language university is required in the area. As table 26 indicates there is an open choice by reference to language as an educational medium:

TABLE 26: CHOICE OF LANGUAGE FOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION

 

German

Italian

No choice

No preference

Valid cases

Primary

62,00

11,00

0,00

1,00

74,00

 

84%

15%

0%

1%

 

Secondary

38,00

14,00

0,00

1,00

53,00

 

72%

26%

0%

2%

 

Furthermore this choice is available within reach of most of the respondents:

TABLE 27: DISTANCE OF EDUCATIONAL LANGUAGE CHOICE

 

Within catchment area

Outside catchment area

Not available

Valid cases

Primary

42,00

4,00

18,00

64,00

 

66%

6%

28%

 

Secondary

29,00

5,00

17,00

51,00

 

57%

10%

33%

 

Evidently the customary tendency to teach the arts through the medium of the minority language and the sciences through the medium of the state language in areas where minority language education is available does not pertain here, German language education being available on a universal basis:

TABLE 28: LANGUAGE OF CHILDREN'S EDUCATION

 

German

%

Italian

%

Other

%

NA

Mathematics

74,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

264,00

Natural science

74,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

264,00

Geography

73,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

265,00

Religion

72,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

266,00

Home economics1

70,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

268,00

Art

73,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

265,00

German

73,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

265,00

Politics

73,00

89%

9,00

11%

0,00

0%

265,00

Sport

72,00

88%

10,00

12%

0,00

0%

265,00

Foreign lang.

32,00

40%

47,00

59%

1,00

1%

267,00

  1. = Wirtschaft

Clearly German is the main medium of educational activity in the area.

Language and work:

The economy of the region is dominated by the service sector which accounts for 61·2% of the employment. Within this sector much of the activity involves tourism but the Statute also guarantees that German is used in public administration. Industrial activity accounts for a quarter of the employment and a further 13·5% are employed in agriculture. Table 29 indicates the employment of the respondents within this economic context:

TABLE 29: SIZE OF ENTERPRISE OF EMPLOYMENT

No. of employees

LOCAL

%

TOTAL

%

-2,00

27,00

29%

4,00

31%

-19,00

12,00

13%

0,00

0%

-25,00

36,00

39%

2,00

15%

-199,00

14,00

15%

0,00

0%

>250

4,00

4%

7,00

54%

Valid cases

93,00

 

13,00

 

Most of them are employed in small, locally owned enterprises.

Table 30 also suggests that most of these enterprises were locally owned, the owners being members of the German language group:

TABLE 30: LANGUAGE GROUP OF DIRECTOR

 

Number

%

German

65,00

19%

Italian

33,00

10%

Other

4,00

1%

NA

245,00

71%

It is possible that the remainder of the Directors are also local. Indeed, this is suggested in table 31:

TABLE 31: GERMAN LANGUAGE ABILITY OF DIRECTOR

 

No.

%

%

Fluent

84,00

24%

85%

Good

11,00

3%

11%

Understands

2,00

1%

2%

None

2,00

1%

2%

Don't know

0,00

0%

0%

NA

248,00

72%

-

Valid cases

99,00

   

Only two of the directors appear not to understand German, the majority being either fluent or having a good grasp of the language.

Tables 32 and 33 indicate the extent of the knowledge and use of German within the labour force within which the respondents were located:

TABLE 32: GERMAN LANGUAGE ABILITY OF WORK FORCE

 

All

>Half

Half

<Half

None/Few

Valid cases

Directors

68,00

12,00

3,00

4,00

2,00

89,00

 

76%

13%

3%

4%

2%

 

Colleagues

57,00

7,00

7,00

7,00

11,00

89,00

 

64%

8%

8%

8%

12%

 

Subordinates

60,00

27,00

4,00

7,00

4,00

102,00

 

59%

26%

4%

7%

4%

 

Clients

35,00

27,00

19,00

12,00

8,00

101,00

 

35%

27%

19%

12%

8%

 

It seems that the majority of the work force at all levels speaks German. Over 90% claimed that all or most of the directors spoke German and 72% claimed that all or most of their colleagues spoke the language. This suggests that there is a greater propensity for German speakers to own the enterprises than to work for them.

German is also the predominant language used at work:

TABLE 33: LANGUAGE USE AT WORK

 

Always German

German > Italian

Both

Italian > German

Always Italian

Valid cases

Directors

36,00

4,00

3,00

8,00

1,00

52,00

 

69%

8%

6%

15%

2%

 

Colleagues

24,00

6,00

5,00

6,00

4,00

45,00

 

53%

13%

11%

13%

9%

 

Subordinates

21,00

25,00

27,00

7,00

3,00

83,00

 

25%

30%

33%

8%

4%

 

Clients

15,00

22,00

31,00

14,00

4,00

86,00

 

17%

26%

36%

16%

5%

 

Of those who referred to directors 77% claimed they used mainly German with them compared with 53% who claimed to use mainly with their colleagues, 55% with their subordinates and 43% with their clients. The equal use of both languages is cited in a third of cases, in dealings with both subordinates and clients. This is indicative of a healthy work context by reference to the German language.

It is hardly surprising therefore that German is the main language of administration cited by 51% of the respondents, a further 30% claiming that both languages are used in administration (table 34):

TABLE 34: LANGUAGE AND ADMINISTRATION

 

Number

%

Mostly German

53,00

51%

Both

31,00

30%

Mostly Italian

17,00

16%

Other

3,00

3%

Valid cases

104,00

 

This gives context to the data in table 35 pertaining to the relative importance of the two languages at work:

TABLE 35: IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE AT WORK

GERMAN:

 

Essential

Useful

Not necess

Valid cases

Understand

116,00

11,00

1,00

128,00

 

91%

9%

1%

 

Speak

114,00

14,00

0,00

128,00

 

89%

11%

0%

 

Read

110,00

16,00

2,00

128,00

 

86%

13%

2%

 

Write

113,00

13,00

2,00

128,00

 

88%

10%

2%

 

ITALIAN:

 

Essential

Useful

Not necess

Valid cases

Understand

100,00

21,00

6,00

127,00

 

79%

17%

5%

 

Speak

99,00

24,00

4,00

127,00

 

78%

19%

3%

 

Read

94,00

23,00

10,00

127,00

 

74%

18%

8%

 

Write

97,00

22,00

8,00

127,00

 

76%

17%

6%

 

Almost 90% of all those who responded to this part of the questionnaire claimed that the four elements of German ability were essential for their work. The relative figures for Italian were lower but not significantly so. Clearly bilingualism would appear to be an essential prerequisite for employment in the area, at least in the minds of the respondents.

If this is indeed the case it is not surprising that companies have language specific hiring policies:

TABLE 36: COMPANY GERMAN LANGUAGE HIRING POLICY

 

No.

%

Public relations

43,00

46%

General policy

36,00

39%

Telephonist

33,00

35%

Client relats

32,00

34%

Sellers

29,00

31%

Representatives

29,00

31%

Other

14,00

15%

Valid cases

93,00

While these figures do not appear to be high it must be remembered that we are talking about a limited number of companies - the respondents mentioned 93 enterprises in table 29 and it is quite likely that some companies were mentioned more than once. Thus the figures in table 36 are quite significant, suggesting that German is an important feature of their policy, at least by reference to their public image.

It such circumstances that leads to specific language policies - a context where the work force deems the language to be of important and an awareness on the part of the company of the political importance and relevance of the use of the language in their relationship with the community:

TABLE 37: COMPANY LANGUAGE POLICY

 

Number

%

%

Yes, fully implemented

46,00

13,00

55%

Yes partly implemented

11,00

3,00

13%

Yes not implemented

0,00

0,00

0%

No policy

17,00

5,00

20%

Don't know

9,00

3,00

11%

NA

264,00

76,00

-

Valid cases

83,00

   

Again it is important to recognise the limited number of companies referred to, and the figures in this table indicates that the respondents were referring to no more than 83 companies in the preceding data. It is evident that most companies are sensitive to language issues and have specific policies by reference to language. Within such a context the lack of a policy does not necessarily indicate that attention is not paid to language issues at work.

Given this context it is inevitable that companies will have a tendency to recruit workers from within one or other language group:

TABLE 38: COMPANY EMPLOYMENT POLICY

 

Number

%

German speakers

41,00

52%

No preference

38,00

48%

Non-German speakers

0,00

0%

Valid cases

79,00

 

Evidently in this case the tendency is to demonstrate preference for German speakers but once again we should underline that the context is essentially bilingual, at least by reference to the regional context, with members of the Italian language group learning German in the school, thereby becoming members of the German language group through language group production. It is also important to recognise that a large part of the tourist industry relies upon German speaking tourists drawn from Germany and Austria, this giving the language a specific relevance in this sector of employment.

Language and the media:

Article 8.4 of the Statute of Autonomy refers to the use of German in the media. Financial support is offered by the state to implement the relevant laws. There are three main German language newspapers in the area, one of which has a circulation in excess of 40,000 and the other two which tend to be bilingual. There are also several periodicals, the largest of which has circulation of 30,000. In contrast to the newspapers these do not receive any state aid. Of course non-Italian German language publications are also widely available in the area. The population supports the publication of between 150 and 200 German books annually.

There is one public radio station that broadcasts entirely in German and another that broadcasts largely in German. There are also numerous private radio stations that serve German speakers. radio broadcasts can also be received from Austria. There is a minority language television service in German. This broadcasts in excess of 12 hours weekly in German. Once again German language television can be received from Austria.

It seems that the majority of the respondents do receive both television and radio services in German:

TABLE 39: EXPOSURE TO GERMAN LANGUAGE BROADCASTING

 

Number

%

Radio

285,00

82,00

Television

286,00

82,00

German language broadcasting appears to be most popular among the respondents (table 40):

TABLE 40: USE OF BROADCASTING MEDIA

RADIO:

GERMAN

   

ITALIAN

 

No.

%

 

No.

%

189,00

54%

None

241,00

69%

71,00

20%

0-1 hour

52,00

15%

58,00

17%

1-2 hours

28,00

8%

14,00

4%

2-3 hours

11,00

3%

15,00

4%

3 hrs or more

15,00

4%

347,00

 

Valid cases

347,00

 

TELEVISION:

GERMAN

   

ITALIAN

 

No.

%

 

No.

%

155,00

45%

None

185,00

53%

104,00

30%

0-1 hour

81,00

23%

60,00

17%

1-2 hours

60,00

17%

23,00

7%

2-3 hours

14,00

4%

5,00

1%

> 3 hrs

7,00

2%

347,00

 

Valid cases

347,00

 

A high proportion - 70% - claim not to listen to any Italian language radio, and 53% claim not to watch any Italian language television. In contrast only 54% do not listen to German language radio and 45% do not watch any German language television. Among those who do listen and watch, where the tendency to listen to radio is marginally greater by reference to the Italian service the reverse is the case by reference to television.

The high level of literacy in German, which appears to be higher than the level of literacy in Italian, precludes the customary situation of many minority language groups where the low literacy level and, sometimes, the small population, sets limits upon the availability of the print media.

TABLE 41: LANGUAGE AND PRINT MEDIA

a. GERMAN:

BOOKS

   

NEWSPAPERS

 

No.

%

 

No.

%

235,00

70%

Often

154,00

49%

51,00

15%

Sometimes

79,00

25%

29,00

9%

Rarely

51,00

16%

21,00

6%

Never

33,00

10%

336,00

 

Valid cases

317,00

 

b. ITALIAN:

BOOKS

   

NEWSPAPERS

 

No.

%

 

No.

%

59,00

19%

Often

99,00

31%

75,00

24%

Sometimes

75,00

24%

107,00

34%

Rarely

88,00

28%

74,00

23%

Never

56,00

18%

315,00

 

Valid cases

318,00

 

Table 41 suggests that the respondents tend to read more books and newspapers in German than they do in Italian. Over two thirds claim to read German books often while almost half claim to read German language newspapers often.

TIFY"> 

Attitudes and identity:

Given the volatile history of the region which has been under the authority of both Austria and Italy during the recent past it would not be surprising to find that language serves as a symbol of political alignment and that such political alignment becomes a feature of subjective identity. That is while we are treating the language group as a distinctive group because of the sociological premise that there is only one society for each state, thereby insisting upon the existence for different language groups for states or state regions which share the same language, this does not preclude the existence of a subjective identity that transcends this conception. On the same score it is perhaps not surprising that at least respondents fail to commit themselves; and this figure rises to fully a half when asked if they regard themselves as "German" or "Italian".

Table 42 suggests that the majority of the respondents - 89% of those who responded - perceive of themselves as South Tyrolean. On the other hand this does not appear to mean that such an identity is expressed in terms of a negation of the state identity for many since almost half of those who responded also claimed an Italian identity; a similar percentage claimed a German identity. The possible correlation between the answers given by individuals has not been calculated to find out to what degree, if any, different combinations of identities are mutually exclusive.

TABLE 42: SUBJECTIVE IDENTITY

 

Yes

 

No

 

NA

 

Sudtirol

263,00

76%

34,00

10%

50,00

14%

German

82,00

24%

99,00

29%

166,00

48%

Italian

91,00

26%

105,00

30%

151,00

44%

European

156,00

45%

33,00

10%

158,00

46%

Other

21,00

6%

16,00

5%

310,00

89%

The attitude scale scores presented in Table 43 have to be understood in this context. As before, a disturbingly high proportion of respondents refuse to state their opinion. Where the items are ideally suited to most minority language contexts the privileged context of this particular minority suggests that some of the items may well have appeared absurd to the respondents. be that as it may the results are presented and discussed below.

There is an evident tendency to agree or disagree strongly by reference to six items, with over half of those who responded opting for this single choice on these items. Thus there was little support for the idea that German is old-fashioned, that it is indicative of a low social status, that it is old-fashioned, and that it has no place in the modern world. On the other hand there is strong support for the claim that South Tyrol would not be what it is without the language, that children should learn German and that German should be widely used in work. There is less support for the idea that only German should be used in local administration, but there is general agreement with the claim that German is of value for social mobility. However the range of responses to these two items is greater than by reference to those referred to above. That is there is a certain ambiguity and less agreement about such issues. Somewhat surprisingly there is also a general ambiguity and even support for the idea that there are more valuable languages than German.

TABLE 43: ATTITUDE SCALES

 

Strongly agree

Agree

 

Disagree

Strongly disagree

NA

Average

 

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

   

Other langs more valuable

80,00

56,00

63,00

26,00

27,00

95,00

3,54

Only German in local admin.

24,00

55,00

42,00

71,00

57,00

98,00

2,67

German is moribund

8,00

6,00

26,00

53,00

129,00

125,00

1,70

Not S. Tyrol w/o German

136,00

71,00

21,00

13,00

5,00

101,00

4,30

German lower class

6,00

12,00

29,00

79,00

121,00

100,00

1,80

Use German for work

137,00

67,00

10,00

0,00

1,00

132,00

4,58

No place in modern world

1,00

5,00

14,00

64,00

105,00

158,00

1,59

All children should learn German

155,00

92,00

4,00

1,00

0,00

95,00

4,59

German not for science/bus

5,00

18,00

26,00

85,00

84,00

129,00

1,97

German gives promotion

92,00

68,00

30,00

9,00

15,00

133,00

4,00

German is perceived as old-fashioned

4,00

5,00

21,00

102,00

109,00

106,00

1,73

If they are ranked in two parts, first the favourable statements and then the unfavourable statements, from the most positive to the most negative attitudes, the list emerges as follows:

 

favourable statements:

Average

8,00

All children should learn German

4,59

6,00

Use German for work

4,58

4,00

Not South Tyrol w/o German

4,30

10,00

German gives promotion

4,00

2,00

Only German in local admin.

2,67

 

UNfavourable statements:

Average

7,00

No place in modern world

1,59

3,00

German is moribund

1,70

11,00

German is perceived as old-fashioned

1,73

5,00

German lower class

1,80

9,00

German not for science/bus

1,97

1,00

Other langs more valuable

3,54

The privileged situation of this minority language group compared with others within Europe make it difficult to envisage the respondents having complaints about lack of support. On the other hand the question does not present a bench mark derived from the situation of other minority language groups which the respondents were obliged to evaluate. Rather, if anything the comparison was internal to the individuals and institutions referred to in this question. Yet it is remarkable that the extent of negative evaluation is so limited. The inner sanctum of a language group - the friends, family and self- all achieve a high evaluation by reference to support, something that is common to most minority language groups. However there are institutions such as 'German language organisations' and the church which receive a higher evaluation. Not far behind are 'private enterprise' and 'public and state bodies'. Even in-migrants are evaluated in a fairly positive light. Thus the only choices which are negatively evaluated are 'the present government' and 'the community council' and even here the extent of negativity is by no means universal. It is as if the respondents are aware of their privileged situation and of where the support for this situation derives from.

TABLE 44: INSTITUTIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT FOR GERMAN

 

1 (min.)

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9 (max.)

N/A

Average

Present government

16,00

97,00

13,00

14,00

52,00

16,00

15,00

18,00

5,00

101,00

3·88

German lang organisn

0,00

4,00

4,00

0,00

19,00

8,00

7,00

125,00

75,00

105,00

7·80

Community council

4,00

8,00

5,00

11,00

90,00

9,00

12,00

69,00

32,00

107,00

6·28

Public/state bodies

6,00

8,00

3,00

9,00

58,00

19,00

22,00

88,00

15,00

119,00

6·42

Friends

2,00

5,00

4,00

4,00

36,00

12,00

53,00

90,00

43,00

98,00

7·11

Family

1,00

4,00

2,00

4,00

25,00

8,00

12,00

114,00

78,00

99,00

7·67

Self

6,00

5,00

3,00

4,00

17,00

8,00

33,00

114,00

65,00

92,00

7·46

The church

2,00

3,00

1,00

3,00

43,00

11,00

13,00

45,00

45,00

181,00

6·99

In-migrants

16,00

32,00

15,00

12,00

72,00

14,00

7,00

14,00

8,00

157,00

4·47

Private enterprise

1,00

5,00

3,00

9,00

34,00

20,00

16,00

54,00

46,00

159,00

6·94

Once these are ranked from highest to lowest perceived support for German, the result on the 1-9 value scale is as follows:

 

Average

German lang organisn

7·80

Family

7·67

Self

7·46

Friends

7·11

The church

6·99

Private enterprise

6·94

Public/state bodies

6·42

Community council

6·28

In-migrants

4·47

Present government

3·88

Conclusion:

The preceding discussion makes it clear that this is a very privileged minority language group. Indeed in some respects it would appear that, at least on a regional basis, it is in no respect under-privileged. Since the definition of a minority has more to do with issues of power rather with numerism the issue can be raised of whether this particular group should be conceived of as a minority language group or whether, within the specific territory or region, we are discussing a bilingual local state.

There is an extremely strong basis for language group reproduction both by reference to the family and the community. Language group endogamy is high and the language group controls most of the economic resources in the area. As a consequence of this and the relevance of German at work language prestige is high and is acknowledged as such. Thus there is very motivation to reproduce and even to produce the language. The institutions are in place to facilitate both production and reproduction. The educational system ensures that both the minority language and the state language are used in education to the extent that the regional population becomes bilingual. The institutions of civil society also operate largely through the medium of German and this is also the language of informal interaction. As a consequence the language is institutionalised in most areas of the individual's life, becoming the predominant language of social practice. Furthermore, the Statute of Autonomy ensures a high degree of legitimation.

©Euromosaic