Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy: Europe and Australia Joseph Lo Bianco The University of Melbourne Introduction Contrasting and comparing European and Australian practices in language maintenance is a problematic exercise. For a start, the constitutional parameters are different. Australia is a single sovereign national state, while ‘Europe’ is an aggregating entity, expanding from an economic treaty among six sovereign national states unsteadily towards pooled sovereignty at a supra-national level. Europe’s moves towards political union, albeit hesitant and contested, give the appearance of re- enacting the cultural policies of its member states (utilizing the state discourses of efficiency of communication, common citizenship, participation and democracy). However, at least rhetorically, and in some clear ways practically too, the emergent Europe differs considerably in its cultural policies from those enacted by its own member states. One of the points of difference is in the treatment of minority languages. Political and juridical characteristics account for a significant part of the contrast that can be identified today between Australia and Europe in how minority languages are treated. The very process of negotiating the formation of the European Union (EU) and the subsequent work of the European bureaucracies that have emerged as European engagement has widened and deepened, from 6 to 25 states, from trade regulation to a quasi-state that talks of continental citizenship, has itself forced change onto the policies of individual European countries in relation to minority language policy. Here there is little basis for comparison, but rather for contrast, because Australia is not enmeshed in similar processes. However, two broad factors, globalization and the shared Europeanist ideology of one nation–one language, constitute grounds for comparison between Australian and individual European practices of language planning in relation to minority languages. Defining terms To begin discussing these issues it will help to define some basic terms. The most important pair is the nation-state combination. States can be formed from many contributing elements, the most important one for present purposes is the linking of nationality with statehood, in what is called here a national state. Family dynasties, religion and other bases for state formation have been common in the past and are found today, but most states make some claim to nationality as the basis of their formation. Nation and state are terms whose common meanings almost totally contradict the technical meanings of these words. In popular under- standing, at least in English, people use the term nation for what scholars of nationalism usually prefer to call a state. The term state is less often misrecognized between its technical and popular meanings, but suffers from multiple meanings. In this chapter (drawing on Enloe, 1981), the term nation refers to feelings of identity, interpersonal attachments and public sentiment, that is to the psychology of belonging and mutual loyalty. State by Lo Bianco, Joseph (2007). Contrasting and Comparing Minority Language Policy: Europe and Australia. In Pauwels, A., Winter, J. and Lo Bianco, J. (eds) Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts (pp. 78-104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230206397, reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. This extract is taken from the author’s original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230019195