On the disappearance and presence of the Slovene-speaking minority in Carinthia (Austria): Insights into the use of language and ethnic affiliation in leisure time from a practice-theoretical perspective

Abstract

For many decades, the question of setting up bilingual place-name signs accompanied the ethnic conflict between the German-speaking majority and the autochthonous Slovene-speaking minority in Carinthia (Austria). On the 10th anniversary of the 2011 compromise concerning the dispute about place-name signs, this article takes a closer look at the characterization of ethnic relations in Carinthia in the past few decades. According to a practice–theoretical empirical approach, the key to understanding this ethnic minority is the disappearance of the Slovene language. This article examines the manifold strategies used by young people to perform Carinthian Slovenian identity during leisure time in the context of, or apart from, cultural associations. With these strategies, adolescents actively try to react to the threatened disappearance of their language as they advocate for its preservation and ensure its enduring presence. The central role of the symbolic dimension of Slovenian language usage is striking. The social cohesion of the Slovene-speaking population must therefore be understood as performative ethnicity.

Keywords

Performative ethnicity Carinthian Slovenians practice theory minority language ethnic identity young people Austria

Introduction

In April 2011, the most southerly province of Austria trembled before the announcement of the so-called ‘place-name signs compromise’ (German: ‘Ortstafelkompromiss’), which appeared to solve the paralyzing issue of setting up bilingual topographical signposts¹ in southern Carinthia – a question that the Austrian Republic had failed to address for over 60 years (Klemenčič and Klemenčič, 2010). The decision to install bilingual place-name signs is a central signal indicating a change in ethnic relations in Carinthia. At the same time, it can also be seen as a result of previous developments that have contributed to, or reflect, a positive appreciation of the Slovene language. These include Slovenia’s accession to the EU in 2004, increasing economic linkage with Slovenia, the enhanced quality of bilingual kindergartens and bilingual programs in primary school, political changes after Haider or the awarding of national prizes in Austria to Slovene-speaking novelists (like Florian Lipuš) (Busch and Doleschal, 2008; Gombos, 2019; ORF Kärnten, 2018; Peterlini, 2019).

With the place-name sign compromise, the situation that had shaped Slovene-speaking people’s experience in southern Carinthia for decades changed – a situation characterized by their minority status and by the fact that their language had been stigmatized and their social prestige denigrated. This is why the Slovene-speaking population suffered from ethnic discrimination, attacks, displacement and brutal violence during the 20th century. Furthermore, for a long time their statutorily guaranteed minority rights existed only on paper. As a consequence, the number of Slovene-speaking people in southern Carinthia decreased from 75,000 in 1890 to just 13,000 in 2001 (Klemenčič and Klemenčič, 2010: 217ff.).

It is difficult to estimate the exact number of Slovene language speakers at present, because the indication of speaking Slovene as a colloquial language is often interpreted as belonging to the ethnic group of Carinthian Slovenians (Gombos, 2019: 123). In addition, no census has taken place since 2001 to survey the language status. However, enrolment in Slovene classes in southern Carinthian schools has increased continuously since the 1980s and remained at a high level (Landesschulrat für Kärnten–Minderheitenschulwesen, 2013: 71, 80; Land Kärnten, 2021: 19). The figures clearly show that the wish of parents to enable their children and young people to express themselves fluently in Slovenian has been growing steadily over the past decades (Kolb, 2018: 92).

The compromise regarding the place-name signs dispute celebrated its 10th jubilee in 2021. On this occasion, it is necessary to review the status of ethnic relationships in Carinthia in recent decades. The place-name signs compromise matters because it had a crucial effect on the ethnic conflict between German-speaking and Slovene-speaking Carinthians (Rasinger, 2014). From a symbolic point of view, bilingual signs function as a visual indicator of the presence of a linguistic group (Jordan, 2004). Given the history of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia, this visual indication of the presence of the Slovene language plays a pivotal role in the construction of group identities and in the perception of identity of both minority and majority groups (Fedotov, 2019; Jordan and Balode, 2021; Jordan and Sancho Reinoso, 2021).

Moreover, the ethnic self-conception of the Slovene-speaking population – which had previously been generated through the failure to turn statutorily guaranteed minority rights into reality, resulting in a feeling of disadvantage – was shaken by the compromise regarding the place-name signs and the preceding developments described earlier. As a result, the former self-conception suddenly diverged from reality. Furthermore, Slovene-speakers’ previous feelings of taken-for-grantedness were questioned by the increasing acceptance of the Slovene language by the German-speaking majority population – and by the succession of Slovene-speaking mandataries to the Carinthian parliament. Some observers were overwhelmed by this development and already predicted the end of the minority position of Slovene-speakers and of the dualistic ethnic relationship it entailed (Ferk, 2013).

Much has been thought and written about the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia in academia, notably in the historical disciplines (see “Theoretical perspectives and the state of research”). Socio-linguistic and sociological studies have frequently addressed forms and the formation of ethnic identity (Obid, 2018; Piko-Rustia, 2019; Vavti, 2009b, 2010, 2013, 2015). While the role of educational institutions for the constitution of Carinthian Slovenian identity has already been researched frequently, social interaction in the context of leisure time represents an important part of daily life that has not been sufficiently examined by scientific research until now (Kolb, 2018).

This article examines these topics on the basis of empirical analyses conducted among 15–21-year-old youths with Slovene-speaking family roots. The selection of this age group was based on the hypothesis that the questioning and testing of ethnic categories practiced by young people allows conclusions to be drawn about the entire Slovene-speaking population. This is based on the methodological premise that during this phase of life young people do not simply adapt to the structuring conditions of life in which they are growing up, but process them constructively on their own or, in some cases, in a creative manner (Abels and König, 2010: 194; Hurrelmann, 1983: 97).

Accordingly, young people of this age tend to experiment with ethnic boundaries to a certain extent (Haglund, 2008: 177). For example, by reflecting on who is to be considered as belonging to the ethnic group of Carinthian Slovenians and who is not. Experiences that young people acquire by testing out ethnic categories in this way hold interesting insights. Hence, ethnic beliefs and feelings of belonging do not only tell us something about the individual young people, but also about how these issues are dealt with in their social environment (Kolb, 2018: 44f.).

Furthermore, students between 15 and 21 years of age were selected as the group to be studied, as ethnicity is of considerable importance when it comes to school settings (Gomolla and Radtke, 2002; Radtke, 2008). The practicality of accessing study participants must also be considered; focusing on a group that is mainly obligated to attend school opened up opportunities to interview a larger number of young people with different orientations.

Before turning to the empirical discussion, we present the current state of research on ethnic relationships in Carinthia. To understand the ambiguous relationship between ethnicity and language, a theoretical approach that focuses on everyday life and includes structural and actor-centered aspects is required. Therefore, a practice-theoretical research perspective (Reckwitz, 2003; Schatzki, 1996), following the ‘practical turn’ (Schatzki et al., 2001), is adopted.² The empirical analysis, the methods used and the examined data are discussed subsequently in the following sections. For a more comprehensive understanding of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia, a brief insight into the institutions of socialization – family and school – is given. It turns out that, during leisure time, social togetherness is created by conjuring ideas of the disappearance of the Slovene language and expressing it through laments and prophecies of doom, by referring to historical myths and by carrying out performative activities in the context of, or apart from, cultural associations. The empirical analysis reveals the crucial significance of the symbolic level of using the Slovene language. According to the findings of the present study, it becomes apparent that the cohesion of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia is to be understood in terms of performative ethnicity.

Theoretical perspectives and the state of research

Previous research priorities

The literature on the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia fills entire libraries. The present article can therefore only provide a limited insight into the current state of research on this topic. A large proportion of the research on ethnic relationships in Carinthia has been conducted from a historical point of view. In addition to the development of the bilingual educational system (Domej, 2000; Feinig, 2008), historical research focuses on the 1920 referendum (Valentin, 2002), the situation of the Slovene-speaking population during the Second World War (Barker, 1984; Entner, 2012; Linasi, 2013; Sima, 2000, 2002), minority rights and the associated issue of bilingual place-name signs (Pandel et al., 2004; Pirker, 2010, 2018; Novak, 2006; Zupančič, 1999).³

Beyond this, a series of studies have dealt with the conditions of socialization of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia (Maurer-Lausegger, 1993; Priestly, 1990, 1996; Wakounig, 2008). In this context, studies from the field of educational science that deal with specific educational institutions have to be mentioned (Busch, 2010; Gombos, 2003, 2007; Minnich, 1988; Purkarthofer, 2016). Of similar importance is the research on multilingual spaces that deal with language acquisition processes of the Slovene language in schools in Carinthia and their preconditions (Gombos, 2019; Vrbinc, 2019) or which provide insights into language use and linguistic practices in bilingual schools (Peterlini, 2019; Zorčič, 2019). Additionally, studies that examine the influence of church, media, and local administration in the southern Carinthian region on socialisation processes of Slovene-speaking adolescents (Busch, 1999; Kogoj, 1997; Moritsch, 1991; Wieser, 2014) also contribute to the understanding of the Slovene-speaking population.

Ethnic relationships in Carinthia have also been explored from a sociological point of view. In this context, two forms of studies have to be distinguished: micro-sociological analysis dealing with activities of participants and surveys providing development on a more structural level, for example with regard to demographic structures. In the first area, there are empirical studies focusing on the ethnic orientation of Slovene-speakers of different ages (Boeckmann et al., 1988; Nećak-Lük and Jesih, 2002; Rechberger, 2008). In particular, this includes the work of the Slovene-speaking Carinthian sociologist Štefka Vavti, who has grappled with the extent and development of young people’s ethnic identities using a firmly biographical approach (Vavti, 2009a; 2009b, 2010, 2013, 2015). The relationship between ethnic affiliation and Slovene language also gained attention (Obid, 2018; Piko-Rustia, 2019). Furthermore, some studies have focused on ethnic segregation and exclusion mechanisms, such as Ludwig Flaschberger’s research on ethnic dualism (1999) or Andrea Kumer’s work (1999), which deals with the interplay of self-definitions and external demarcations.

In contrast to these various micro-sociological analyses, only a few studies have taken ethnicity into account from a more structural point of view; these include the survey by Alois Soritsch (2001) concerning immigration and marriage structures in southern Carinthian communities, and the work of Carinthian sociologist Albert F Reiterer (1986, 1996). The latter focuses on the structures of the labor market, employment and educational qualifications of Slovene-speakers.

In summary, there are several gaps in the current state of research concerning the Slovene-speaking population. While school contexts and language acquisition in educational institutions are comparatively well researched, other socialization instances, such as families, or cultural and sports clubs have not received enough attention. Studies by Ursula K Sienčnik (2010), Sarah M Rogaunig (2014) or Maja Malle (2014), which provide preliminary findings on the role of Slovene-speaking cultural associations, are rare exceptions. Therefore, important dimensions of ethnicity – such as the impact of cultural or sports associations and the shaping of Carinthian Slovenian identity in leisure contexts, aside from association structures – are yet to be analyzed. This present study aims to assist in filling this research gap.

Practice-theoretical perspectives

As pointed out in the previous section, there are two opposite tendencies in studies on ethnic relationships in Carinthia: individualistically orientated approaches that merely address ethnicity-formation on an individual level, and surveys that hold social structures, discourses, political decisions or historical elements accountable for the formation of ethnicity.

As different as these approaches appear, both fail to explain the Slovenian-speaking population’s persistence and undiminished existence in the face of exposure to high assimilatory pressure over the last 150 years. This question is not solvable by exclusively individualistic or structural approaches. Assuming that belonging (or not belonging) to an ethnic group results from a decision that is taken individually and in isolation cannot satisfactorily explain why, despite historical stigmatization, enrolments in Slovene classes at schools in Southern Carinthia have increased continuously since the 1980s and have remained at a high level over the last decades. According to this social-theoretical perspective, experiences of political discrimination and anti-Slovenian hostility should have resulted in either an exodus or a swelling of the ethnic group. Neither of these developments can be observed to have significantly occurred. On the other hand, structural concepts also lack explanatory power concerning the durability of the ethnic conflict in Carinthia. A structural approach would only be valid if the Slovene-speaking population had ceased to exist facing structural political oppression, stigmatization and persecution during the 20th century – but this had in fact not been the case (Kolb, 2018: 37).

Instead, the following question arises: Why does the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia not disappear in the face of political, social and historical developments? While both the perspectives discussed above lack explanatory power, no research study has yet taken both dimensions into account.

To answer this question, a practice–theoretical approach, following Theodore Schatzki (1996, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001) and Andreas Reckwitz (2003), offers promising perspectives. By focusing on routinized action chains, social strategies and ethnic practices, this approach can combine the explanatory power of the individual and structural dimensions. In this way, possible actions and the potential of particular actors, as well as the influence of associations and the ethnic–cultural power structure, can be included systematically.

Within the daily context in which ethnicity plays an important role, a practice–theoretical approach to empirical investigation proceeds by involving structural and actor-centered aspects equally. Therefore, the dimensions of actors (their biographical background, circles of friends, school careers, individual wishes and orientations) and relevant structuring systems (membership in cultural associations or the influence of social context) are to be taken into account. In the subsequent empirical analysis of the multifaceted strategies practiced by young Slovene-speakers in their leisure time, both dimensions (structure and agency) are systematically considered and interwoven.

Methods and data

This article is based on data that was collected for my dissertation, published in 2018 (Kolb, 2018). As the collection of empirical data on special populations is challenging (Trübner and Schmies, 2019), a performative approach (Gergen and Gergen, 2010) with ethnographic elements has been implemented. This strategy was made possible due to my long-term work as a guide in a museum of contemporary history in southern Carinthia.

In connection with this work, I initiated school projects with bilingual schools with Slovene as one of the languages of instruction. A total of 70 bilingual students from different types of schools in Southern Carinthia participated in the events. During the project days, the students dealt with topics such as ethnic belonging and language use in everyday life. The discussions were recorded by video cameras. In addition, participant observations and ethnographic interviews were carried out. Following the project days, I conducted a total of 28 in-depth qualitative interviews (Lamnek, 2010: 339) with a selection of the participants. According to the idea of theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 201–217), I ensured that the diversity of biographical backgrounds, places of residence, language competences and association affiliations was reflected appropriately in the sample. Furthermore, the participating students wrote texts in the form of ‘messages to the future’, which were used as further empirical data. In sum, a participative form of data collection has been applied (Bergold and Thomas, 2010). However, the key method for the empirical study was the conducting of in-depth qualitative interviews.

As part of my professional activity as a museum guide, I was likewise able to gain access to institutions, schools and associations in order to observe and to conduct informal conversations, document analysis and literary research. All of these sources of information supported the primary data as background knowledge. Consequently, this article is by no means a mere interview study, but an empirical analysis with ethnographic features, although it does not comply with classical ethnographic methods, which are characterized by a full immersion in the field (Dellwing and Prus, 2012: 84; for a critical view, see Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007: 82) or by a lasting co-presence of observer and occurrence (Amann and Hirschauer, 1997: 21).

On the 10th jubilee of the place-name signs compromise, the following analysis takes up and revises relevant results from my dissertation (Kolb, 2018). Before moving on to the detailed discussion of social practices during leisure time, a short insight is given into the importance of family and school for the Slovene-speaking population. Doing so is a prerequisite for contextualizing activities in the field of leisure time sufficiently.

On the agents of socialization: family and school

The Slovene mother tongue as a family heirloom

The interviewees describe their upbringing in such a way that the family is the social space in which the Slovene language is most frequently used as a medium of communication. Barbara F, an 18-year-old student attending the Bilingual vocational school in Klagenfurt, presents this as follows:

So, with most of my friends I speak Slovene. But not with all of them either. But with my friends from kindergarten, I simply can’t speak German with them. It just doesn’t work. […] When I look my mother or my father in the eye, I can’t utter a word in German. It’s the same with my mother. It is somehow automatic. (Barbara F; 18 years; all translations of interview quotes by J K)

Communication in the nuclear family – in other words with parents, siblings and grandparents (as well as with friends from kindergarten) – is reserved for the Slovene language. Using this language is automatic, while speaking German seems inconceivable. However, the presence of the Slovene language or Slovene dialects is perceived as tending to be too low, as expressed by the student Andrej R.

Whenever I do something, I always try to do it in Slovene. At school or anywhere else I try to use the Slovene language in some way. And yes, I try to make sure that the Slovene language is in the first place. And yes, to encourage others to speak more Slovene. […] In the past, it was not so important to me. I wasn’t so aware that I was a Carinthian Slovenian. But now that I’m a bit older […] I’ve realised that I am one and that you have to speak more Slovene, and that you have to do more for the language. (Andrej R; 16 years)

It becomes apparent in the statement that belonging to the ethnic group of Carinthian Slovenians goes hand in hand with an implicit expectation regarding linguistic forms of expression. In addition to its practical use as a means of communication, speaking Slovene is of particular importance on the symbolic level, as already indicated by Andrej. This relates particularly to the familial sphere. In many cases, the Slovene language is considered a family tradition, and has, consequently, the status of a precious family heirloom.

Although there are slight differences in their perception of the language, young Slovene-speaking people consider their mother tongue to be a sacrosanct family tradition that must be esteemed and passed on from one generation to the next. They explain this by referring to an implicit responsibility towards Slovene-speaking martyrs or fighters who fought for the language in the past, even giving their lives. This is particularly manifest in Lidija H, a 16-year-old student whose grandmother resisted the National Socialist regime and risked her life in supporting Carinthian partisans.

I heard so many stories about my grandmother. Just how it was, and that it was so bad, and so on. And that’s exactly why I said, if my grandmother was so dedicated to it, someone has to carry it on. I mean, now. You can’t just give up like this. Some people died for this language and sacrificed themselves for it. And it has to go on somehow, it cannot stop, that’s why. (Lidija H; 16 years)

Her sacrifice for the Slovene language made her grandmother and other Slovene-speaking activists shining examples for future generations. Under the impression of these stories and reports, Lidija became convinced that she has to follow the example of her grandmother and do her own part in passing on the language. Her grandmother’s efforts should not only be appreciated, but also imitated and continued.

Family history and the history of the Slovene-speaking population are strongly present in these young people’s lives – and this is not a coincidence. In fact, parents try to ensure young people’s awareness of the importance of passing on the Slovenian language as a family tradition by singing Slovenian folk songs, instructing them to dedicate themselves to Carinthian Slovenians as an ethnic group, and telling them about the importance of the Slovene language and Slovenian martyrs. In this way, parents also enable a realization of the past in the present within the familial context.

Partial displacement of language in bilingual educational institutions

The Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia has specific constitutional rights including, not only the right to bilingual place-name signs, but also to public schools with Slovene as a language of teaching. Within the traditional settlement area of the Slovene-speaking population, bilingual elementary (primary-level) schools and three secondary schools⁴ in which Slovene is either the only or is one of several languages of instruction have been set up.

The empirical findings show that the first encounter between young Slovene-speaking people and their German-speaking social environment often takes place in bilingual primary schools. Due to the mostly poor knowledge of Slovene among their classmates, the German-speaking peer group and the media environment, the children become used to German-speaking customs at school. The student Jernej B describes this period as follows:

So, in primary school there was a period when somehow German was cooler or something. I think my brother is now undergoing the same process. At that time, we tend to speak German for two or three years, and at school we prefer German more than anything else. […] That’s just more ‘in’ at that time. (Jernej B; 20 years)

At this stage, the German language evolves into an ‘in’-language. Many students with Slovene-speaking family backgrounds report that they considered it to be ‘cool’ to communicate in German at this age. This phenomenon can also be affected by other dynamics. During this time, for example, the lives of adolescents increasingly take place away from their parental household and they are often trying to distance themselves from their own parents and families. Moreover, adolescents are at times exposed to ethnic animosity or verbal insults or these are addressed in their peer group. Media consumption also supports the development that students communicate more in German. Barbara F explains how this happens:

You can imagine that there is almost nothing in Slovene on the internet. You can find everything in German. And Facebook and all that stuff, it’s all in German. So, in everyday life, or the newspaper in the morning, I read it in German, not in Slovene. (Barbara F; 18 years)

The fact that young people speak more German is therefore not solely the result of personal preferences and attitudes, but also caused by the German-language nature of social structures such as the media landscape. After bilingual primary school, a decisive period starts. The decision to attend a secondary school without Slovene as the language of instruction, or to start an apprenticeship, leads to a neglect of the Slovene language in the extra-family life of students. Choosing the alternative option, that is, going to a secondary school where teaching takes place in Slovene, implies cultivating and stabilizing the Slovene language. However, this decision still does not prevent a partial displacement of Slovene by its German counterpart.

Ethnic relations in Carinthia are dealt with differently at the secondary schools that use Slovene as a language of instruction. The BG/BRG for Slovenians, in particular, emphasizes the principle of speaking Slovene. Andrej R describes the first years when he attended the BG/BRG for Slovenians as follows:

In the first year at the BG/BRG for Slovenians, the Slovene language was not so popular. So, we communicated a lot in German. Although everyone actually knew Slovene. But it wasn’t that popular. And Slovene was only spoken a little. […] That changed in the following years. Then we also had the language of instruction, so apart from German classes, we had all the other subjects in Slovene. All the students then learned the language and spoke it correctly or at least understood it. (Andrej R; 16 years)

Nevertheless, even at the BG/BRG for Slovenians, students by no means speak Slovene exclusively; speakers of different Slovene dialects communicate with each other in German, and thus contribute to the fact that the German language is increasingly becoming part of everyday language use at this school. Although the BG/BRG for Slovenians functions as a shelter for Carinthian Slovenian ethnicity by cultivating the language, it is no bastion of the latter, as German is also spoken there. Due to the intensive language support offered in the lower grades, pupils are made aware that, in addition to attaining excellent knowledge of Slovene, they must actively support the continued existence of Carinthian Slovenian identity and the maintenance of their mother tongue in southern Carinthia, since the Slovene language itself is endangered and at risk of disappearing. The following sections focus on this perceived threat.

Performative speech and social practices during leisure time: engagement against the disappearance of the Slovene language

The relationship between the Slovene language and ethnicity in leisure-time contexts is of particular importance for the Slovene-speaking population. Leisure-time contexts refer to cultural associations and the activities that take place in these contexts, as well as activities of young Slovene-speaking people in their circle of friends, outside of association structures. In both cases, the interviewees with Slovene-speaking family roots were concerned about the disappearance of the Slovene language in Southern Carinthia (see “Laments and prophecies of doom” later in this article), which they occasionally link to historical myths (see “Referring back to historic myths”). The young people try to counteract the threatening disappearance of the Slovene language with activities in cultural associations (see “Performative engagement against the disappearance of the Slovene language in cultural associations”), with material practices, such as wearing certain pieces of clothing with bilingual imprints (see “Material performances: pieces of clothing with bilingual imprints”), or with installing bilingual name signs with their own hands (see “Material performances: bilingual place-name signs”).

Laments and prophecies of doom

To young Slovene-speaking people, the decline of their spoken mother tongue in southern Carinthia is a highly depressing issue. Interview participants often commented on the future of southern Carinthia in a resigned manner, mourning the silencing of Slovene through laments and prophecies of doom.

Laments

Many young people complain that, as a result of the Slovene language not being used in public and not being passed on to children, the linguistic situation in their municipalities has been reversed: former Slovene-speaking towns and villages are now predominantly German-speaking, with a Slovene-speaking minority population. As they face the future with pessimism, these young people intone laments about the Slovene language in their villages. Even though some families see the Slovene language as a family heirloom, most do not pass it on to the next generation. Since these linguistic transformations affect, not only border regions, but also the heartland of the bilingual settlement area, they cause discomfort in people’s own residential communities. Barbara F, for example, describes her place of residence as follows:

Everyone here speaks Slovene. Or rather: everyone understands Slovene, but not everyone speaks Slovene. Because they want to suppress it somehow. My mum told me that one time, the whole village spoke Slovene. And everyone understood everything. But now it’s changed somehow, I don’t know. They are just ashamed of speaking Slovene. (Barbara F; 18 years)

The inversion of linguistic majorities is traced back mainly to the long-term low prestige of the Slovene language. Young people like Barbara mention that as a consequence of this, many speakers of the language ‘feel ashamed’, such that they deliberately abstain from passing the language on to the next generation. Youths even state that many residents often ‘suppress’ their Slovene-speaking origins.

These general claims made by young people about the decline of spoken Slovene in their communities are substantiated by a concern about the decrease of speakers’ fluency in regional Slovene dialects. Adolescents state that only older people are able to speak the regional dialects, and that they do not use them outside of the family context. As a result, traditional Slovene dialects are increasingly vanishing from the public sphere. Because they often do not live in the bilingual settlement area, the younger generation especially lack the skills to communicate in regional dialects, as their prospects to learn or use it are low; this leads to a situation in which they may understand, but not actively speak, these dialects.

I don’t speak the really native dialect, this entirely broad dialect. […] Well, I can speak in Slovene dialect, but it’s more some kind of a watered-down version. The dialect is in danger of disappearing in general, because we can’t just learn it like that. (Jernej B; 20 years)

The fact that the competences to communicate in one of the regional Slovene dialects are fading depresses many young people with Slovene-speaking family backgrounds. This is also caused by the fact that identification with the regional Slovene dialects spoken in the southern Carinthian region is particularly high. The Slovene standard language, on the other hand, is often understood as a kind of foreign language.

However, this is by no means a social process that poses challenges only to the Slovene-speaking population. The decline in dialect language skills is founded in developments that have also confronted other population groups since at least the end of the Second World War. These developments are caused by processes that tend to displace regional dialects by promoting standard languages – for example, urbanization, expansion of mass media, or the establishment of supra-regional forms of public communication in western European societies (Moosmüller, 1991; Von Polenz et al., 1998: 48f.). Complaints about the threatened decline of local Slovene dialects are therefore not only linked to the history of ethnic relations in Carinthia, but can also be considered a reaction to a general decrease in dialectal language competences in western European societies. The German-speaking majority population is not immune to this development; however, the impact on minority groups is far more dramatic, since for them, linguistic characteristics represent ethnically unique features.

Prophecies of doom

The above-mentioned anxious view of the linguistic situation is clearly expressed by interview participant Zdravko Š, who does not consider the developments of the last few decades to be positive:

If things go on the same way, Carinthian Slovenians will cease to exist one day, because there aren’t enough of us being born. Almost every month a Carinthian Slovenian dies and this is why we become fewer and fewer, and then we’ll become extinct. Maybe we won’t go extinct completely, but there won’t be many of us. (Zdravko Š, 16 years)

Against the backdrop of an impending aging of the Slovene-speaking population Zdravko Š draws a deeply pessimistic picture, warning of the end of the Slovene language and the extinction of Carinthian Slovenians. It seems to him that the extinction of the ethnic group is just a matter of time.

Listening to his words, one may remember the seeress Cassandra – a character from ancient mythology who predicted the destruction of Troy. Since her companions did not heed her prophecies, she repeated her warnings even more urgently and intensely. Unlike Cassandra, the Slovene-speaking admonisher, Zdravko Š, does not have to fear not being heard. In fact, he finds ears that are willing to hear, since many of his peers voice similarly pessimistic predictions.

The young Slovene-speakers interviewed justify their fatalistic prognoses by presenting processes of assimilation and decreasing numbers of Slovene-speakers in Carinthia as a cause for the irreversible extinction of their mother tongue. At the same time, they disregard two facts: firstly, that the number of Slovene-speakers has leveled off since the 1980s. Secondly, the appearance of depopulation is the result of migration from traditional, rural bilingual settlement areas to urban regions, especially Klagenfurt and Villach. As a consequence of this movement, the younger population of southern Carinthia is in decline. A statistically quantifiable population ageing can thus be observed in the traditional bilingual settlement area, but this is also at least partly the result of movement and displacement from this area.

Referring back to historic myths

While intoning laments and prophecies of doom about the decline of the Slovene language, young people often employ nostalgic ideas of a pristine golden age, referring to a picture of rural areas where Slovene was spoken at all times and on all occasions. In some cases, the past is not just romanticized but used to add emphasis to lamentations or to derive rights in the present.

Eighteen-year-old Maja T’s view is representative of the opinions of various interview participants. She states: ‘Because they, the German Carinthians, always act as if we [Slovene-speakers] had entered the country. But that’s not true! […] Because we were the primary society here, in the 6th century’ (Maja T, 18 years). Maja refers to the principality of Carantania, which existed between the seventh and 12th centuries, had its center in present-day Carinthia and was led by Slavonic-speaking nobility and clerics (Baumgartner, 1995: 29)⁵. For this reason, she rejects the hostility of German-speaking forces that argue that the Slovene language is not native to Carinthia. In her opinion, this is in contrast to Carinthia’s history. Instead, she considers Slavonic-speakers to be the real fathers and mothers of the Carinthian population. She uses historical references to reinforce the notion of the Slovene-speaking population as an ethnic group that has lived in Carinthia since the Middle Ages. Maja derives a claim to power (Hilgers, 2011) from this autochthonous character of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia, which must not be undermined by hostility and ethnic discrimination from the German-speaking population.

When talking about the Slovene language, other pupils also refer to history. In so doing, they do not aim to discuss historical facts, but to justify social importance in the present. This is why these historical reference points can be seen as myths. By referencing the past, young people gain justification and motivation for present actions, attitudes and orientations. Furthermore, these historical myths justify a claim to power that appears to be legal with respect to the past. At the same time, the fact that the German-speaking population has constantly claimed political control for themselves, while treating the Slovene-speaking population as foreign, new and not native to Carinthia, is considered illegitimate. German-speaking people are thus seen as usurpers who are responsible for the downfall of the Slavonic-speaking principality, and who have undermined the emancipation of the Slovene-speaking population since that time.

Performative engagement against the disappearance of the Slovene language in cultural associations

Activities in cultural associations are an essential form of ethnic practice during leisure time. This is partly a result of the wide variety of Slovene-speaking organizations that do cultural work in southern Carinthia; almost every village and town has its own association. Furthermore, the level of organization is particularly high, as a large proportion of the Slovene-speaking population is engaged in cultural work. This ranges from institutions dealing with questions of education and housekeeping to organizations focusing on artistic activities. The latter group primarily includes choirs, theater groups and tamburica ensembles. As the following discussion outlines, cultural work and engagement in cultural organizations is of particular importance for the ethnic self-image and community feeling of the Slovene-speaking population. These activities are more than artistic self-realization or cultivation of tradition; instead, they indicate an active dedication of opposition to the disappearance of the Slovene language. Strategies that uncover or demonstrate the speaking of Slovene are here referred to as ‘performative practice’ or ‘performance’. These strategies consequently occur in the public sphere rather than in family contexts.

Slovene-speakers are prepared to get involved in cultural activities from an early age. Various cultural associations offer a wide range of activities to arouse children’s interest – for example, playing instruments, painting, performing theater or singing Slovene songs in choirs. In cultural associations children pass through a system of levels structured by age group similarly to sports associations. By imparting an enjoyment of cultural activities from an early age, it is possible to introduce Slovene-speaking adolescents to participating in cultural work. This method of cultural imprinting also forms the basis of a common feeling of togetherness.

Cultural organizations are vital measures for guaranteeing the presence of spoken Slovene in the long run and saving the language from disappearance. The large number of associations and their work with young people animates many Slovene-speakers to join in with cultural initiatives, whether as actively engaged participants or as spectators at events.

In terms of content, the work of these cultural organizations – for instance, exhibitions, theater productions or songs – often revolves around the past and commonly address the grief of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia (Malle, 2014). By keeping the memories of stigmatization and hostility alive, cultural associations contribute to the dedication of Slovene-speaking people to their culture and encourage them to engage in remembrance work. The memory of historically experienced injustice thus endures in the present.

For young, Slovene-speaking people, performative cultural or artistic activities are a suitable weapon with which to fight against the threatened disappearance of the language. Marcel B mentions that participating in the work of cultural associations is the necessary condition for designating oneself a Carinthian Slovenian:

Getting actively involved is something special to us Carinthian Slovenians. It’s a basic condition. […] When you are Carinthian Slovenian you should join an association and do your bit, so that the language doesn’t get lost. (Marcel B; 18 years)

As a result, the transition from cultural activities to the struggle against the impending disappearance of the language is fluid. Being an active member of a cultural association means standing up for the preservation of the Slovene language. In the course of cultural activities, Slovene-speaking people make their contribution to the preservation of their population group and language – something that Marcel B believes they are obliged to do. This is why cultural work is essential to the Slovene-speaking population, since, ‘without these associations it’s all over for us’, as another interviewee points out (Stefan W, 20 years). From Stefan’s point of view, cultural activities function as a treatment that keeps a seriously ill patient – the Slovene language – alive.

However, culturally creative artists do not necessarily perceive their dedication or their concomitant responsibility as a burden or a duty. Interviewees frequently indicate a close relationship between audience and creative artists. Both share the same mother tongue, both share biographical details and, generally, both originate from the traditional bilingual settlement area. By participating in such events, creative artists and the audience feel supported in their speaking of Slovene; feelings of ethnic belonging are also strengthened.

Material performances: pieces of clothing with bilingual imprints

During leisure time, young Slovene-speakers also fight against the perceived threatened disappearance of their language, outside the context of cultural associations. To this end, they organize material performances to draw attention to the Slovene language in their villages or towns. One example of such occasional performances is mentioned by Lidija H, who expresses her identity as a Slovene-speaker through her clothes:

There is a shirt with the inscription ‘Kärnten/Koroška’⁶ and I have several of these. Anyhow, I had one when I was 12 or 13 years old, and when I wore that one, I closed my jacket when I came to the bus station so nobody could read the inscription. […] By now I often wear shirts with Slovene inscriptions. Because I’m much more confident now. Previously, I was afraid of being spoken to, of annoying someone, or that someone looks at me angrily or something. But now, I wear those shirts overtly on my way to school or while riding the bus. (Lidija H; 16 years)

It is thus not only the Slovene language’s active use for mutual understanding that can render it visible in the public space; external appearances, such as the ostentatious wearing of clothes with Slovene inscriptions, also play a role. This kind of distinctly perceivable presentation of the Slovene language is a performance of ethnic affiliation. For this purpose, Lidija wears a T-shirt on which both the German name (‘Kärnten’) and the Slovenian name (‘Koroška’) of Carinthia are printed next to each other, in the form of a bilingual place-name sign. It is no coincidence that Lidija wears this piece of clothing, as this symbolizes the claim that the Slovene language is something that belongs to Carinthia. Wearing it is a non-verbal political statement that is carried wordlessly but physically, and thus articulated in public. By wearing this shirt as a performative act, Lidija follows the intention of the Slovenian youth organizations that created it.

Another initiative carried out by Lidija H and her mother can be seen as an occasional performance of ethnic affiliation:

By now, we go to a German shop, and I shout at my mom over the shelves in Slovene. This is fun. We do this all the time. And then she’s proud of me, as she says: ‘Well done, Lidija, that’s the spirit!’ Because everyone is looking. And I think everyone is looking, because they know, and they understand what we are talking about. (Lidija H; 16 years)

Mother and daughter use their Slovene mother tongue to pointedly enhance its presence in their village. By purposefully using the Slovene language in such an occasional and noisy way, they interact in a way that is no longer common in their residential community. Similar to the ostentatious wearing of the aforementioned shirt, this form of communication is a kind of performative acting between actors and a receiving audience that is confronted with the Slovene language deliberately and as part of a political agenda.

Material performances: bilingual place-name signs

In addition to occasional performances, there is another method of outlining ethnic affiliation: young people represent their Slovene-speaking origins with material artefacts, such as bilingual place-name signs. Due to the historical fact that such signs have not been set up for years, their value for the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia is obvious.

Janez A, who went to the BG/BRG for Slovenians, talks about young people symbolically setting up bilingual signs at the entrance to a village in order to call attention to its traditional Slovene character. He describes what happened then as follows:

In this village, we organized that over there, where no bilingual place-name sign is set up, though it should, that we would lift a second one, a bilingual place-name sign. We stood there for maybe ten or fifteen minutes maximum, and we got our heads bitten off by three people. One shouted at us: ‘Come on, throw it [the bilingual place-name sign] into the water!’ There was a little stream next to the place. ‘Throw it in there! Throw it in there!’ (Janez A; 21 years)

Despite the fact that such performances have become less frequent since the place-name sign compromise in 2011, they still take place in villages where no bilingual place-name signs have been set up. Young Slovene-speaking people thus performatively draw attention to the usage of the Slovene language by using ‘private’ place-name signs in their private grounds to publicly reveal its linguistic history and its present.

All the different performative strategies used by associations or private individuals are a reaction against the longstanding defamation and stigmatization of the Slovene language, as well as Austria’s failure in complying with minority rights. Such performances are thus inseparably connected with fear of the threatened disappearance of the language as an ethnically unique feature; they are an attempt to solve the problem that has caused them. In this context, prophecies of doom and laments can be seen as ‘self-destroying prophecies’. Following this notion of the American sociologist Robert K Merton (1968, 477), which is inspired by its counterpart the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, in the light of ominous prophecies, people do everything conceivable to prevent the threatened scenario. In the case of the Slovene-speaking youth, this means carrying out performances to ‘destroy’ the prophecy of the disappearance of their language; they override this prediction precisely by reinforcing the ethnically unique feature and keeping it alive.

Performative ethnicity: discussion

Overall, this analysis demonstrates that in the context of daily life, ethnicity may not be reduced to a solely structural or a solely individual level. Social practices with ethnic connotations – in this case in leisure-time contexts – are only accessible by means of a practice–theoretical research perspective that includes both the structural level of social systems and the acting potential of young people. Since the cultural life of the Slovene-speaking population is not constituted by a series of decisions taken solely by any single individual, it can only be explained when the existing, closely enmeshed network of cultural associations and regular events is taken into account. This structural level lays the foundation for the cultural activities of young people. As a consequence, there is scarcely anybody from a Slovene-speaking household within the traditional bilingual settlement area who does not participate in a cultural or sports association.

Existing organizational structures are geared towards promoting actors from an early age, so that they get to know their preferences and abilities in terms of performing culturally or artistically. Furthermore, individual actors have various options, as young people can choose between different activities according to their residence, interests and skills. Of course, they are also able to refuse engagement or involvement in cultural institutions – although this would be unusual. Finally, an individual’s ability to carry out theatrical or choral performances is bound to their own acting potential.

The same holds true for the performative realization of Carinthian Slovenian ethnic affiliation in leisure time outside of associations; both actor-centered and structural levels are involved. Since performances – such as provocatively wearing bilingually labeled shirts, setting up unauthorized place-name signs or noisily and defiantly speaking Slovene in public – are incumbent upon the individual, their motives and triggers do not become accessible until the structural background – especially the history of ethnic relations – is taken into account.

In the empirical analysis of this study, the situation of the Slovene-speaking population and its specificity became clear. This is largely thanks to the practice-theoretical research perspective, which enables a deeper understanding by providing new insights and taking overlooked components into account. In this way, it can be shown that ethnic ties in the Slovene-speaking population should by no means be understood in an essentialist sense, nor as a fixed, static or unchangeable entity. Ethnic affiliation has in fact no ‘objective’ characteristics ‘given by nature’. Moreover, it should be noted that the Slovene language plays a decisive role for this group – something that is of course not surprising. It is noteworthy, however, that the use of the language for mutual understanding and communication in everyday life is less important. More relevant is the symbolic dimension of the Slovene language and the performative commitment to it.⁷ This is particularly evident when it comes to performing and staging the Slovene language. Moreover, the practice-theoretical analysis demonstrates that ethnic self-definitions derive their everyday practical effectiveness precisely because of the repeated prophecy of the vanishing of the Slovene language. This is why this threatened disappearance actually reinforces the language’s presence, while also stabilizing Carinthian Slovenian identity.

Since use of the Slovene language has diminished in recent decades, the Slovene-speaking population’s ethnic ties increasingly appear on a symbolic level. As a consequence, the Slovene language in Carinthia is presented as being under threat of disappearance. Although this prediction is based on facts, its daily potency derives from focusing attention on and internalizing this scenario of threat. By constantly intoning prophecies of doom and laments about the rapid extinction of the language, Slovene-speakers can draw attention away from an idealized past towards the southern Carinthian present and future – again accompanied by an evocation of the Slovene-speaking population’s cohesion and ethnic solidarity. This is why constant discussion of the language’s disappearance results in increasing dedication to its preservation. Carinthian Slovenian’s continued presence is thus supported by the fear of its disappearance.

As a result, the symbolic character of ethnic affiliation is by no means a phenomenon that is separate from practice. In fact, it includes mechanisms that evoke Robert K Merton’s concept of a self-destroying prophecy. The performative activities described above share the fact that they do not play a constitutive role in daily life, as their main purpose is to reveal the Slovene language in the German-speaking public sphere. Since the ethnic affiliation of the Slovene-speaking population cannot unfold its potency, scope and depth unless it is accompanied by a lasting, performative evocation of language loss, in a conceptional view, it must be seen as performative ethnicity. Nevertheless, its performative character, as well as its structural conditions and daily practical forms, can only be deciphered by means of a practice–theoretical approach.

Conclusion

In the empirical analysis of the Slovene-speaking population in Carinthia, ethnicity may appear at first glance to be a marginal phenomenon. However, this does not mean that it is irrelevant to this population group. Since ethnic affiliation plays an important role predominantly in sheltered spaces such as family, cultural association or school, it has lost its daily relevance, while its symbolic dimension has increased. Thus, this empirical analysis focused on the symbolic level of the Slovenian language, since my field research identified it as the decisive aspect that characterises the ethnic self-image of the Slovene-speaking population group in Carinthia.

The empirical findings prove that the performative dedication of young people to their ethnic identity largely results from the historical defamation and stigmatization of the Slovenian language and from an insufficient enforcement of minority rights. As it shook the foundations of Carinthian Slovenian identity, the place-name signs compromise of 2011 may not only be seen as a positive development. The future of this population group is therefore regarded with skepticism by many. Nevertheless, after 10 years, there are still signs that this driving force of ethnic affiliation has not yet completely lost its importance, as the lasting threat to the language is still present. Within families, language use and ethnic convictions seem to be steady, and knowledge about the language’s endangerment is passed on to the next generation at school. Moreover, the institutionalization of its threatened disappearance and the understanding of the past protected by Slovenian associations remains untouched. These forces remain valid and thus contribute to speakers’ performative dedication to the Slovenian language. Still, it remains to be seen whether this can be sustained in the long term.

Notes

Topographical signposts are, inter alia, bilingual place-name signs. The expression stems from Art. Seven of the Austrian Independence Treaty (1955), which says that, in the bilingual area of Carinthia, topographical terms and inscriptions must be put up in Slovenian as well as German (BGBl. No. 152/1955: pt. I, art. 7, para. 3). Initially, topographical inscriptions did not only refer to place-name signs, but also to public guidance, street names, and descriptions of bodies of water or buildings. Constitutional law was not put in place until 2011, as bilingual place-name signs had not been set up.

Even though sociological approaches that can be labelled as practice-theoretical have been elaborated towards the end of the 20th century (e.g. among others by Pierre Bourdieu, Harold Garfinkel or Anthony Giddens), the practice–theoretical perspectives of Theodore Schatzki and Andreas Reckwitz, which have been developed in the past decades, are particularly decisive for the present essay. Among other reasons, this is because practice–theoretical approaches have not yet been applied to the analysis of ethnic relations in Carinthia.

For further insights into the state of research on the history of the Slovene-speaking population, see Kolb (2018: 28–34 and 81–100).

One of the three secondary schools, Höhere Lehranstalt für Wirtschaftsberufe (College for business professions), is located within the traditional bilingual settlement area, while the others –Bundesgymnasium/Bundesrealymnasium für Slowenen (BG/BRG for Slovenians; comparable to a grammar school) and Zweisprachige Handelsakademie (Bilingual vocational school with higher education entrance qualifications) – are situated in Klagenfurt.

Young people share this view with some Slovenian historians, who also romanticize Carantania as the nucleus of Slovenia (for critical views on this, see Moritsch, 1997: 16f.; Štih, 2009: 236f.).

Bilingual inscriptions usually present the German-language version first, followed by the Slovene expression. The two forms are separated by a slash (/).

In this way, we can see similarities with Herbert Gans’ (1979, 1994) concept of ‘symbolic ethnicity’.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jonas Kolb

References

Amann

Hirschauer

(1997) Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Ein Programm. In: Amann

Hirschauer

(eds) Die Befremdung Der Eigenen Kultur. Zur Ethnographischen Herausforderung Soziologischer Empirie. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Suhrkamp, 5–52.

Abels

König

(2010) Sozialisation. Soziologische Antworten Auf die Frage, Wie Wir Werden, was Wir Sind, Wie Gesellschaftliche Ordnung Möglich ist Und Wie Theorien Der Gesellschaft und Der Identität Ineinander Spielen. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

Atkinson

Hammersley

(2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London, UK: Routledge.

Barker

(1984) The Slovene Minority of Carinthia. New York, NY: Boulder.

Baumgartner

(1995) 6 x Österreich. Geschichte und Aktuelle Situation Der Volksgruppen. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

Bergold

Thomas

(2010) Partizipative Forschung. In: Mey

Mruck

(eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in Der Psychologie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS, 333–344.

BGBl. No. 152/1955 . 1955. Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich Nr. 152 ausgegeben am 30. Juli 1955: Staatsvertrag, betreffend die Wiederherstellung eines unabhängigen und demokratischen Österreich [Austrian independence treaty].

Boeckmann

Brunner

Egger

, et al. (eds) (1988). Zweisprachigkeit und Identität. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

Busch

(1999) Der Virtuelle Dorfplatz. Minderheitenmedien, Globalisierung und Kulturelle Identität. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

10.

Busch

(2010) Slowenisch in Kärnten – Sprache jenseits ethnischer Kategorien. In: Wintersteiner

Gombos

Gronold

(eds) Grenzverkehr/ungen. Mehrsprachigkeit, Transkulturalität und Bildung im Alpen-Adria-Raum. Klagenfurt, Austria: Wieser, 174–188.

11.

Busch

Doleschal

(2008) Mehrsprachigkeit in Kärnten heute. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 54: 7–20.

12.

Dellwing

Prus

(2012) Einführung in Die Interaktionistische Ethnografie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

13.

Domej

(2000) Das Schulwesen für die Bevölkerung Südostkärntens. In: Moritsch

(ed) Die Kärntner Slowenen 1900 bis 2000. Bilanz des 20. Jahrhunderts. Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras, 29–66.

14.

Entner

(2012) Ethnopolitische »Flurbereinigung« in Kärnten–Brüche und Kontinuitäten. In: Entner

Sima

(eds) Zweiter Weltkrieg und Ethnische Homogenisierungsversuche im Alpen-Adria-Raum/Druga Svetovna Vojna in Poizkusi Etnične Homogenizacije v Alpsko-Jadranskem Prostoru. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava, 44–58.

15.

Fedotov

(2019) Ideas, structural ambiguity, and the struggle for Bilingual Signage by Carinthian Slovenes in Austria. European Review 28(2): 185–201.

16.

Feinig

(2008) Slovenščina v šoli. Zgodovina Pouka Slovenščine na Koroškem/Slowenisch in Der Schule. Die Geschichte Des Slowenischunterrichts in Kärnten. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

17.

Ferk

(2013) Das Wunder von Koroška. Die Presse. May 22, 2013. Available at https://www.diepresse.com/1404600/das-wunder-von-koroska.

18.

Flaschberger

(1999) Erscheinungsformen ethnischer Konflikte auf individueller und gesellschaftlicher Ebene. Zum mikrosozialen Ablauf am Beispiel Kärnten. In: Reiterer

Flaschberger

(eds) Ethnischer Konflikt und Allta. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Peter Lang, 45–58.

19.

Gans

(1994) Symbolic ethnicity and symbolic religiosity: towards a comparison of ethnic and religious acculturation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 17(4): 577–592.

20.

Gans

(1979) Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups and cultures in America*. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(1): 1–20.

21.

Gergen

(2010) Performative Sozialwissenschaft. In: Mey

Mruck

(eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS, 358–366.

22.

Gombos

(2003) Bildungschance frühkindliche Mehrsprachigkeit. Frühkindlicher Sprachenerwerb durch mehrsprachige Kindergärten. In: James

(ed) Vielerlei Zungen. Mehrsprachigkeit + Spracherwerb + Pädagogik + Psychologie + Politik + Literatur + Medien. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava, 49–85.

23.

Gombos

(2007) Mit Babylon Leben Lernen. Aspekte Einer Interkulturellen Mehrsprachigkeit. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

24.

Gombos

(2019) Zwei- und Mehrsprachigkeit früh fördern: Sprachpädagogische Arbeit in elementarpädagogischen Einrichtungen im Kontext von autochthonen Minderheiten am Beispiel der Kärntner Slowenen. In: Donlic

Gombos

Peterlini

(eds) Lernraum Mehrsprachigkeit. Zum Umgang Mit Minderheiten- und Migrationssprachen. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava, 123–143.

25.

Gomolla

Radtke

(2002) Institutionelle Diskriminierung. Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule. Opladen, Germany: Leske+Budrich.

26.

Haglund

(2008) Ethnicity at Work in Peer-group Interactions at School. In: Martin-Jones

de Mejia

Hornberger

(eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 3: Discourse and Education. Boston, MA: Springer Science + Business Media, 171–184.

27.

Hilgers

(2011) Autochthony as capital in a global age. Theory, Culture & Society 28(1): 34–54.

28.

Hurrelmann

(1983) Das modell des produktiv realitätverarbeitenden subjekts in der sozialisationsforschung. Zeitschrift für Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie 1(3): 91–104.

29.

Jordan

(2004) Ortsnamen als Kulturgut. Die symbolische Wirkung von geographischen Namen auf Ortstafeln und in Karten. In: Pandel

Polzer

Polzer-Srienz

, et al. (eds) Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten: Krise Oder Chance? Vienna, Austria: Braumüller, 216–229.

30.

Jordan

Balode

(2021) Linguistic Landscape. In: Jordan

Mácha

Balode

, et al. (eds) Place-Name Politics in Multilingual Areas: A Comparative Study of Southern Carinthia (Austria) and the and the Těšín/Cieszyn Region (Czechia). London, UK: palgrave macmillan, 313–361.

31.

Jordan

Sancho Reinoso

(2021) Interviews. In: Jordan

Mácha

Balode

32.

Klemenčič

(2010) Die Kärntner Slowenen und die Zweite Republik. Zwischen Assimilierungsdruck und dem Einsatz für die Umsetzung der Minderheitenrechte. Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras.

33.

Kogoj

(1997) Minderheitenmedien – Medien für Minderheiten? Massenmediale Leistungen und Rahmenbedingungen für Sprachminderheiten im Europäischen Vergleich. (doctoral thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

34.

Kolb

(2018) Präsenz Durch Verschwinden. Sprache und Ethnizität in der Alltagspraxis Junger Kärntner Slowen_Innen. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

35.

Kumer

(1999) Ethnische Identität Zwischen Integration und Abgrenzung. Lebenswelten Zweisprachiger Jugendlicher in Südkärnten. (diploma thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

36.

Lamnek

(2010) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.

37.

Land Kärnten (2021). Bericht zur Lage der Slowenischen Volksgruppe in Kärnten (2021). Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras.

38.

Landesschulrat für Kärnten–Minderheitenschulwesen (2013) Jahresbericht über das Schuljahr 2012/13. (written by Domej T, Sandrieser S, Schönherr C, et al.). Klagenfurt, Austria: Landesschulrat für Kärnten.

39.

Linasi

(2013) Die Kärntner Partisanen. Der antifaschistische Widerstand im Zweisprachigen Kärnten Unter Berücksichtigung des Slowenischen und Jugoslawischen Widerstandes. Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras.

40.

Malle

(2014) Politisches Theater in Kärnten (diploma thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

41.

Maurer-Lausegger

(1993) Situationally-motivated speaking habits among Carinthian Slovenes. Slovene Studies 15(1–2): 87–99.

42.

Merton

(1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.

43.

Minnich

(1988) Speaking Slovene – being Slovene. Verbal codes and collective self-images: some correlations between Kanalska Dolina and Ziljska Dolina. Slovene Studies 10(2): 125–147.

44.

Moosmüller

(1991) Hochsprache und Dialekt in Österreich. Soziophonologische Untersuchungen zu Ihrer Abgrenzung in Wien, Graz, Salzburg und Innsbruck. Vienna, Austria: Böhlau.

45.

Moritsch

(ed). (1991). Vom Ethnos zur Nationalität. Der nationale Differenzierungsprozeß am Beispiel ausgewählter Orte in Kärnten und Burgenland. Vienna, Austria: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik.

46.

Moritsch

(1997) Aber schön wäre es schon, wenn es so gewesen wäre …. In: Moritsch

(ed) Karantanien – Ostarrichi. 1001 Mythos. Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras, 11–24.

47.

Nećak-Lük

Jesih

(2002) Medetični Odnosi v Slovenskem Etničnem Prostoru III. Občina Železna Kapla-Bela. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Inštitut Za Narodnostna Vprašanja.

48.

Novak

(2006) Der Rechtsschutz der Slowenischen Minderheit in Österreich Vor dem Hintergrund des Neuen Völkerrechtlichen Minderheitenschutzes. Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras.

49.

Obid

(2018) Identitetne opredelitve mladih v slovenskem zamejstvu v Avstriji. In: Obid

(ed) Mladi v Slovenskem Zamejstvu: Družbeni in Kulturni Konteksti ter Sodobni Izzivi. Vol. 2: Identitetne Opredelitve Mladih v Slovenskem Zamejstvu. Celovec, Ljubljana: INV/SZI/SNIUJ/SLORI, 97–134.

50.

ORF Kärnten (2018) Autor Florjan Lipus erhält Großen staatspreis. ORF Kärnten. July 5, 2018. Available at: https://kaernten.orf.at/v2/news/stories/2922794/.

51.

Pandel

Polzer

Polzer-Srienz

(eds). (2004). Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten: Krise Oder Chance. Vienna, Austria: Braumüller.

52.

Peterlini

(2019) Wenn Vielfalt Raum bekommt: unterrichtsmomente und Lehr-Lern-Erfahrungen an der slowenisch-deutschsprachigen Modellschule VS24 in Celovec-Klagenfurt. In: Donlic

Gombos

Peterlini

(eds) Lernraum Mehrsprachigkeit. Zum Umgang mit Minderheiten- und Migrationssprachen. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava, 144–168.

53.

Piko-Rustia

(2019) Slovenski jezik na avstrijskem Koroškem in Štajerskem. In: Novak Lukanović

(ed) Mladi v Slovenskem Zamejstvu: Družbeni in Kulturni Konteksti ter Sodobni Izzivi. Vol. 4: Jezikovni Profil Mladih v Slovenskem Zamejstvu. Celovec, Ljubljana: INV/SZI/SNIUJ/SLORI, 121–192.

54.

Pirker

(2010) Kärntner Ortstafelstreit. Der Rechtskonflikt als Identitätskonflikt. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

55.

Pirker

(2018) Geschichte(n) im Konflikt. Der Konsens- und Dialogprozess in Kärnten: Vom Nationalen Konflikt zur Friedensregion Alpen-Adria? Vienna, Austria: facultas.

56.

Priestly

TMS

(1990) Surrender to symbolic domination, or resistance: patterns of language-use among Slovene-speakers in two Carinthian communities. Slovene Studies 12(2): 183–203.

57.

Priestly

(1996) Denial of ethnic identity: the political manipulation of beliefs about language in Slovene minority areas of Austria and Hungary. Slavic Review 55(2): 364–398.

58.

Purkarthofer

(2016) Sprachort Schule. Zur Konstruktion von Mehrsprachigen Sozialen Räumen und Praktiken in Einer Zweisprachigen Volksschule. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

59.

Radtke

(2008) Schule und Ethnizität. In: Helsper

Böhme

(eds) Handbuch der Schulforschung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS, 651–672.

60.

Rasinger

(2014) Linguistic landscapes in Southern Carinthia (Austria). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35(6): 580–602.

61.

Rechberger

(2008) Die Bedeutung von ‘Windisch’ für die Slowenischsprachige Bevölkerung in Kärnten am Beispiel Bleiburg/Pliberk. (diploma thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

62.

Reckwitz

(2003) Grundelemente einer theorie sozialer Praktiken/basic elements of a theory of social practices. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32(4): 282–301.

63.

Reiterer

(1986) Doktor und Bauer. Ethnischer Konflikt und sozialer Wandel: Die Sozialstruktur der Slowenischen Minderheit in Kärnten. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

64.

Reiterer

(1996) Kärntner Slowenen: Minderheit oder Elite? Neuere Tendenzen der ethnischen Arbeitsteilung. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

65.

Rogaunig

(2014) Bühne frei für – Odgrnimo zavesco za! Über das Slowenische Theaterschaffen in Kärnten/Koroška und Dessen Beitrag zur Identitätsbildung Kärntner Slowenischer Jugendlicher und Junger Erwachsener. (diploma thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

66.

Schatzki

(1996) Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

67.

Schatzki

(2002) The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

68.

Schatzki

Knorr-Cetina

von Savigny

(eds). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London, UK: Routledge.

69.

Sienčnik

(2010) Izobraževalno Delo Slovenskih Kulturnih Društev na Koroškem s Posebnim Poudarkom na SPD ‘Srce’ v Dobrli vasi/Die Bildungsarbeit der Slowenischen Kulturvereine in Kärnten mit Besonderem Bezug auf den Kulturverein ‘Srce’ in Eberndorf. (diploma thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

70.

Sima

(2000) Gewalt und Widerstand 1941-1945. In: Moritsch

(ed) Die Kärntner Slowenen 1900 bis 2000. Bilanz des 20. Jahrhunderts. Klagenfurt, Austria: Hermagoras, 263–280.

71.

Sima

(2002) Die Vertreibung slowenischer Familien als Höhepunkt deutschnationaler Politik in Kärnten. In: Malle

(ed) Pregon Koroških Slovenec/Die Vertreibung der Kärntner Slowenen. 1942. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava, 141–180.

72.

Soritsch

(2001) Migrations- und Heiratsstrukturen bei Kärntner Slowenen. Aspekte des Kultur- Kommunikations- und Sprachverhaltens. Vienna, Austria: Literas.

73.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

74.

Štih

(2009) Suche nach der Geschichte oder Wie der karantanische fürstenstein das nationalsymbol der slowenen geworden ist. In: Reimitz

Zeller

(eds) Vergangenheit und Vergegenwärtigung. Frühes Mittelalter und Europäische Erinnerungskultur. Vienna, Austria: ÖAW.

75.

Trübner

Schmies

(2019) Befragung von speziellen populationen. In: Baur

Blasius

(eds) Handbuch Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS, 957–970.

76.

Valentin

(ed). (2002) Die Kärntner Volksabstimmung 1920 und die Geschichtsforschung. Klagenfurt, Austria: Heyn.

77.

Vavti

(2009a) ‘Wir haben alles in uns …’ – Identifikationen in der Sprachenvielfalt. Beispiele aus Südkärnten (Österreich) und dem Kanaltal (Italien). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

78.

Vavti

(2009b) “Nisem 0815 korošec …” Primeri etnične identifikacije pri slovensko govorečih (post)adolescentih na dvojezičnem avstrijskem Koroškem. Razprave in Gradivo. Treatises and Documents 60(1): 40–61.

79.

Vavti

(2010) “Ich bin einfach ein Mensch …” – Ethnische Identifikationen bei jungen SlowenInnen und Slowenen in Südkärnten. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(2): 29.

80.

Vavti

(2013) ‘Ich Bin Einfach Ein Mensch’. Ethnische Selbstverortung und Lokale Bezüge Junger Slowenen in Kärnten (Österreich). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

81.

Vavti

(2015) »Slowenisch ist meine Heimat, irgendwie!” identifikationen und geschichtliche Bezüge in Lebensgeschichten slowenischer Jugendlicher in Kärnten. In: Pirker

(ed) Kärnten und Slowenien: Getrennte Wege – Gemeinsame Zukunft. Jugend Zwischen Heimat, Nation und Europa/Koroška in Slovenija: Ločene Poti – Skupna Prihodnost. Mladi o Domovini, Narodu in Evropi. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos, 119–128.

82.

Von Polenz

Besch

Betten

, et al. (1998) Deutsche sprache und gesellschaft in historischer sicht. In: Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Ihrer Erforschung. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter, 41–54.

83.

Vrbinc

(2019) Slowenisch lernen wollen – und können: durchgängige und nachhaltige zweisprachige Bildung (Slowenisch-Deutsch) im Kärntner Schulwesen. Ein Überblick. In: Donlic

Gombos

Peterlini

(eds) Lernraum Mehrsprachigkeit. Zum Umgang mit Minderheiten- und Migrationssprachen. Klagenfurt, Germany: Drava, 107–122.

84.

Wakounig

(2008) Der heimliche Lehrplan der Minderheitenbildung. Die zweisprachige Schule in Kärnten 1945–2006. Klagenfurt, Germany: Drava.

85.

Wieser

(2014) Ambivalenzen der Gemeinschaft. Normen, Abgrenzungen und Ausschlüsse in der Kollektiven Identitätsbildung der Kärntner Slowen:Innen. Eine Theoretische Abhandlung mit Empirischen Beispielen aus der Kärntnerslowenischen Wochenzeitung Novice. (diploma thesis). Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

86.

Zorčič

(2019) Linguistic habitus, different capitals and the identity of bilingual youth: the case of Austrian Carinthia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40(9): 787–800.

87.

Zupančič

(1999) Slovenci v Avstriji. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Inštitut za geografij.