Migrant Languages in Education:

Problems, Policies, and Politics 1st

Edition Anna Malandrino
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/migrant-languages-in-education-problems-policies-an
d-politics-1st-edition-anna-malandrino/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Language as Identity in Colonial India: Policies and

Politics 1st Edition Papia Sengupta (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/language-as-identity-in-colonial-
india-policies-and-politics-1st-edition-papia-sengupta-auth/

Anti-Proverbs in Five Languages: Structural Features

and Verbal Humor Devices Anna T. Litovkina

https://ebookmass.com/product/anti-proverbs-in-five-languages-
structural-features-and-verbal-humor-devices-anna-t-litovkina/

Digital Surveillance in Southern Africa: Policies,

Politics and Practices Allen Munoriyarwa

https://ebookmass.com/product/digital-surveillance-in-southern-
africa-policies-politics-and-practices-allen-munoriyarwa/

Migrant Traders in South Africa: Migrant Traders in

South Africa Pranitha Maharaj

https://ebookmass.com/product/migrant-traders-in-south-africa-
migrant-traders-in-south-africa-pranitha-maharaj/
Minimal Languages in Action 1st Edition Cliff Goddard

https://ebookmass.com/product/minimal-languages-in-action-1st-
edition-cliff-goddard/

Policies and Politics Under Prime Minister Edward Heath

1st ed. Edition Andrew S. Roe-Crines

https://ebookmass.com/product/policies-and-politics-under-prime-
minister-edward-heath-1st-ed-edition-andrew-s-roe-crines/

The Fight for Time: Migrant Day Laborers and the

Politics of Precarity Paul Apostolidis

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-fight-for-time-migrant-day-
laborers-and-the-politics-of-precarity-paul-apostolidis/

Captive Market: The Politics of Private Prisons in

America Anna Gunderson

https://ebookmass.com/product/captive-market-the-politics-of-
private-prisons-in-america-anna-gunderson/

The Politics Of Authenticity And Populist Discourses:

Media And Education In Brazil, India And Ukraine 1st
Edition Christoph Kohl

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politics-of-authenticity-and-
populist-discourses-media-and-education-in-brazil-india-and-
ukraine-1st-edition-christoph-kohl/
Studies in the Political Economy of
Public Policy

Series Editors
Toby Carroll
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Paul Cammack
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Kelly Gerard
The University of Western Australia, School of Social Sciences, Crawley,
WA, Australia

Darryl S. L. Jarvis
The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy presents cutting edge,

innovative research on the origins and impacts of public policy. Going
beyond mainstream public policy debates, the series encourages
heterodox and heterogeneous studies of sites of contestation, conflict
and cooperation that explore policy processes and their consequences
at the local, national, regional or global levels. Fundamentally pluralist
in nature, the series is designed to provide high quality original
research of both a theoretical and empirical nature that supports a
global network of scholars exploring the implications of policy on
society. The series is supported by a diverse international advisory
board drawn from Asia, Europe, Australia, and North America, and
welcomes manuscript submissions from scholars in the global South
and North that pioneer new understandings of public policy.
International Advisory Board:
 Alberto Asquer, SOAS, University of London, UK
Jacqui Baker, Murdoch University, Australia
Caner Bakir, Koç University, Turkey
Shaun Breslin, University of Warwick, UK
Sydney Calkin, University of Durham, UK
Paul Cammack, University of Manchester, UK
Giliberto Capano, Bologna University, Italy
Paul Chambers, Naresuan University, Thailand
Tom Chodor, Monash University, Australia
Susan Engel, University of Wollongong, Australia
Paul K. Gellert, University of Tennessee, USA
Barry Gills, University of Helsinki, Finland
Ruben Gonzalez-Vicente, Leiden University, Netherlands
Penny Griffin, University of New South Wales, Australia
Samanthi Gunawardana , Monash University, Australia
Pascale Hatcher, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Heng Yee Kuang, University of Tokyo, Japan
Kevin Hewison, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Wil Hout, Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University,
Netherlands
Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Elizabeth Humphrys, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Kanishka Jayasuriya, Murdoch University, Australia
Melissa Johnston, Monash University, Australia
Zhang Jun, City University of Hong Kong, SAR, China
Sung-Young Kim, Macquarie University, Australia
Mustafa Kutlay, City University of London, UK
Max Lane, Victoria University, Australia
Tim Legrand, University of Adelaide, Australia
Kun-chin Lin, University of Cambridge, UK
Jorg Nowak, ERC Postdoctoral Researcher
Ziya Ö niş, Koç University, Turkey
Susan Park, University of Sydney, Australia
Michael Peters, University of New South Wales, Australia
Adrienne Roberts, University of Manchester, UK
Steven Rolf, University of Sussex, UK
Stuart Shields, University of Manchester, UK
 Richard Stubbs, McMaster University, Canada
Maria Tanyag, Australian National University, Australia
Silke Trommer, University of Manchester, UK
Heloise Weber, University of Queensland, Australia
Philippe Zittoun, Science Po, Grenoble, France
All books in the series are subject to Palgrave’s rigorous peer review
process. For more information, or to submit a proposal, please contact
one of the series editors: Toby Carroll (tcarroll@cityu.edu.hk), Paul
Cammack (pcammack01@gmail.com), Kelly Gerard
(kelly.gerard@uwa.edu.au), Darryl Jarvis (DJarvis@hbku.edu.qa).
Anna Malandrino

Migrant Languages in Education

Problems, Policies, and Politics
Anna Malandrino
Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna,
Bologna, Italy

ISSN 2524-7441 e-ISSN 2524-745X

Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy
ISBN 978-3-031-15793-6 e-ISBN 978-3-031-15794-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15794-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered
company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham,
Switzerland
Preface
This book originates from its author’s interest in language policy and
migrant integration and from an awareness of the importance of public
policies as instruments able to shape social phenomena. It is the result
of circa three years of research at the intersection between the policy
sciences and the applied linguistics domain, and it has been preceded
by the publication by the author herself of several academic articles on
migrant language-in-education policies, as well as on related aspects of
education, such as teacher training and education policy instruments.
The research design and results that form the contents of this
book’s chapters have been discussed in numerous academic fora,
including the Center for European Studies of Harvard University, where
the author was a visiting scholar in 2019 and had the opportunity to
refine the ideas at the core of this book. Both the methods employed in
the underlying research and the findings obtained have been the
subject of further presentations at conferences, workshops, and hybrid
events in which both practitioners (e.g., policymakers and educators)
and academics were involved. The debate that stemmed from each of
these events—a list of which would be too long to provide here—
contributed to shaping this book.
The title is indicative of a specific theoretical choice: the book
adopts the Multiple Streams Framework because the author’s interest
was to explain why certain countries adopted innovative policies that
value migrant languages in education while others—including the
author’s homeland—did not. But the book also has another goal: it aims
to shed light on a topic that, being on the margins of mainstream
political interest, has been so far neglected by the policy sciences. The
topic at the heart of this book—that is, migrant languages and their
preservation through educational interventions—has mostly been the
subject, so far, of sociolinguistic and pedagogic studies. If we consider
that there are countries that are pioneers in Europe in the preservation
of these languages through school education—for example, Austria or
Sweden—introducing this topic into the policy discourse has the value
of trying to raise interest in an important topic that can have
implications for the well-being not only of migrants but also of the host
society and to possibly activate cross-country learning processes.
Anna Malandrino
Bologna, Italy
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers as well as all the
colleagues that provided advice and guidance in different phases of the
book development process. My thanks also go to the key informants
interviewed in this study for their time and availability to provide
crucial information for understanding the policy processes under
examination. Christian Izzo and Sofia Hadjichristidis were of great help
in contacting these key informants as well as in conducting the
interviews. My thanks to them, as well. I am grateful to the series
editors of Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy for accepting
this book into their prestigious collection of scholarly works. Last but
not least, my thanks to the Publishing Editor, Stewart Beale, the
Production Editor, Karthika Devi Ravikumar, and the Project Manager in
charge of production, Selvaraj Ramabrabha, for their precious support
throughout the publication process.
About the Book
The goal of this book is to shed light on the factors and processes that
bring innovation into education policy, namely in the field of language
education in migrant hosting contexts. It speaks to a broad audience.
First, it is aimed at scholars and experts in the policy sciences and in
the scientific areas related to education and language, especially as
means for integration. Scholars from the policy sciences will find here
an application of the Multiple Streams Framework and will read about
the implications of the empirical analysis for the original theoretical
framework. Researchers and experts of education and language will
find in this book themes that are dear to many in those areas, even to
people who do not deal with them in their daily research work: the
valorization of language diversity through the education system and the
preservation of migrant languages as assets for all. Experts of all related
areas are called up not only in their academic role, but also as precious
resources that can bring innovation into the policy world through their
boundary work.
Second, it targets policymakers who want to make a difference in
the education sector. It does so by providing them with an illustration
of a successful experience of education policy design that values
diversity and inclusion. This experience will be compared to a less
innovative experience, to highlight the differences between them and to
explain which were the factors that led the successful experience to be
such, in the hope that the example might serve as an inspiration for
those who want to innovate.
Third, it targets PhD and MA students in the policy sciences and
political science domains, especially those interested in qualitative
methods. These students will find here an application of grounded
theory principles within a circular research process that starts from
theory to set hypotheses and structure the empirical analysis, which
will in turn add new knowledge to refine the theoretical framework of
reference.
Finally, it is aimed at all those who have an interest in policymaking
processes, language, and education, whatever their academic or
professional background is.
Contents
Part I Setting the Context and Framework for the Analysis of
Migrant Language Policies
1 Why Should We Care About Language Policies for Migrants?​An
Introduction to the Context, Design, and Premises of the Study
2 Adopting the Multiple Streams Framework to Understand the
Preconditions of Policy Decisions
Part II Analyzing the Problems, Policies, and Politics of Migrant
Language Education
3 The Problem Stream in Action:​Untangling the Preconditions for
Problem Framing
4 The Policy Stream in Action:​Assessing Technical Solutions for
Migrant Language Education and Their Viability
5 The Political Stream in Action Between Migrant Integration and
Education
Part III Bringing the Streams Together
6 Migrant Language Policy Processes, Change, and Outputs
7 Conclusions
Appendices
Index
List of Figures
Fig.​3.​1 Net migration in Austria and Italy, from the 1960s to the
present day (Net migration, defined as the total number of immigrants
less the annual number of emigrants, has been chosen as an indicator
due to the fact that its availability for a wide timeframe allows to have
an overall picture of the impact of migration flows on the host
population in early decades).​(Source:​UN Population Division (via
World Bank), in Our World in Data)

Fig.​3.​2 Populations without Austrian and Italian citizenship in Austria

and Italy.​(Source:​Eurostat.​Last update 24 March 2022)

Fig.​3.​3 Languages in mother tongue classes in Austria.​(Source:​

translated from Garnitschnig 2009)

Fig.​6.​1 Proportion of students in mother tongue classes among all

students with first languages other than German in Austria:​general
education schools (school years 98/​99 to 07/​08).​(Source:​
Garnitschnig, 2009)

Fig.​6.​2 Proportion of students in mother tongue classes among all

students with first languages other than German in Austria:​Elementary
Schools (school years 98/​99 to 07/​08).​(Source:​Garnitschnig, 2009)

Fig.​7.​1 Languages in mother tongue classes in Austria in ten school

years (1998/​99 to 2007/​08).​(Source:​Translated from Garnitschnig,
2009)
List of Tables
Table 3.​1 Pupils with first languages other than German in Austria:​
general education schools (compulsory schools and general secondary
schools)

Table 3.​2 Languages spoken by foreign citizens in Italy (latest census

available:​2012)

Table 3.​3 Primary and secondary school students by citizenship.​State

schools.​School year 2015/​16.​Numbers and percentages

Table 5.​1 Presence of language minority issues in online

communication across executive cabinets

Table 5.​2 Presence of language minority issues in online

communication across political orientations

Table 6.​1 Pupils in mother tongue classes by federal state in Austria

(school years 98/​99 to 07/​08)

Table 6.​2 Pupils with first languages other than German in Austria:​
general education schools (school years 98/​99 to 07/​08)

Table 6.​3 Synoptic evaluation of stream readiness, entrepreneurship​,

and outputs in Austria and Italy
Table 7.​1 Mother tongue teachers by citizenship and languages
(absolute numbers)

Table 7.​2 Teachers in mother tongue classes in Austria by federal state

in ten years (1998/​99 to 2007/​08)
About the Author
Anna Malandrino
is a postdoctoral scholar in the public policy and public administration
domains. She is affiliated with the University of Bologna and
collaborates with the University of Bern. She conceived the book
concept at the Center for European Studies of Harvard University,
where she has been a visiting scholar.
Part I
Setting the Context and Framework for
the Analysis of Migrant Language
Policies
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
A. Malandrino, Migrant Languages in Education, Studies in the Political Economy of
Public Policy
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15794-3_1

1. Why Should We Care About Language

Policies for Migrants? An Introduction
to the Context, Design, and Premises of
the Study
Anna Malandrino1
(1) Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna,
Bologna, Italy

Migration is one of the most debated phenomena of current times.

Research on migration policies has traditionally been structured
around two issues: immigration policies and integration policies.
Immigration policies concern the regulation of migratory flows, the
conditions of admission and residence in a certain country and,
consequently, the rejection and expulsion of irregular or illegal
migrants (Goodman, 2019). The debate on immigration policies has
prevalently focused on the policy gap between restrictive policy goals
and the achieved outcomes in terms of immigrant arrivals. This gap has
been partly attributed to both contradictory public policies and policy-
independent factors such as the existence of migrant networks that
facilitate the entry of family and friends as well as the demand for
specific types of labor (Caponio, 2020; Castles, 2004). Integration
policies concern the status of foreign citizens admitted to staying in a
certain territory, the set of civil, social, and political rights granted to
them, and the measures and resources to be deployed to integrate them
into the socioeconomic fabric of the host country (Goodman, 2019).
The question of migrant integration conveys both the role of experts,
who elaborate policy prescriptions, and the growing politicization of
the integration issue itself (Caponio, 2020).
This peculiarity of migrant integration calls for analytical
approaches that allow researchers to appreciate both the technical and
the political features of integration policies. This book chooses to
employ Kingdon’s (2011) Multiple Streams Framework, refined by
further scholars (inter alia, Herweg et al., 2015, 2018; Zahariadis, 2016)
as a theoretical framework that distinguishes between problems, policy,
and politics and sees the birth of public policies as the outcome of these
three streams coming together. The book applies this theoretical
approach to one particular type of integration policy, namely language
education policies, and more specifically those that imply the
introduction of migrant languages into educational processes. The
literature on civic integration (e.g., Goodman, 2012, 2013; Jacobs & Rea,
2007; Joppke, 2007, 2017) has so far neglected the value of migrant
languages, focusing—language education-wise—on the initiatives and
courses for learning the host country language as a vehicle for
integration. However, this is only one side of the coin. This book
illuminates the other part of the story. It first explains why migrant
languages (should) matter alongside the host country language and
then proposes to employ the Multiple Streams Framework to analyze
the preconditions for the emergence of public policies that value those
languages. Albeit with different degrees of strength and for different
reasons, such public policies have been already adopted by several
European countries.
Migration involves the presence of multicultural mosaics in host
countries and multiple languages as representative elements of
cultures. In this context, migrant languages—a locution that in this
book is used as a synonym of migrants’ mother tongues and home
languages—represent one of the components that make up the broader
question of migrant integration in the host country. Migrant languages
are defined as languages that are spoken by migrant groups with their
families and that are different from the language(s) of instruction
employed in the host country’s education system (European
Commission, 2019; Meier, 2009). These languages are relevant for
policymakers in relation to the question of whether, why, and how they
should be preserved, maintained, and promoted in the integration
context, as a means of healthy continuity for migrants with their
context of origin amidst the brand-new challenges that open up for
migrants on arrival, but also as a resource for the host country as a
whole. It is indeed a policy issue that stands between the domain of
education policies, on the one hand, and that of migrant integration
policies, on the other hand. As we will see, the problem of migrant
language integration can be defined in different ways (assimilationist
vs. pluralist). Considering the current policy feedback on existing
policies of language integration of migrants would imply the inclusion
of migrant language education in the definition of the problem (and of
the related policy solutions), but this currently happens to different
degrees throughout Europe.
The book is structured as follows. First, this introduction (Chap. 1)
defines the key elements of the book in terms of context and research
design, and elucidates some necessary premises for the reader to better
understand the analytical contents of the book. More specifically, it
explains why migrant languages matter and illustrates the main
policies adopted in Europe to preserve them. Chapter 2 lays out the
theoretical background and presents the core elements of the Multiple
Streams Framework as the analytical lens employed, while at the same
time defining the hypotheses that will be tested with the help of the
available evidence. Then, Chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 6 move on to the
application of this analytical framework to two illustrative country case
studies, respectively on Austria and Italy. More specifically, Chap. 3
deals with the problem stream and illustrates the focusing events that
led to the adoption of the relevant migrant language policies, while
elucidating the question of problem framing between ambiguity and
policy feedback. Chapter 4 focuses on the policy stream, that is, on the
available solutions for integrating migrant languages in education and
on an assessment of those solutions based on evaluation criteria for
their viability. Chapter 5 moves on to the political premises (political
stream) behind the adoption of migrant language education policies,
thus showing the political salience of language-in-education policies in
political discourse. Chapter 6 focuses on the policy processes activated,
the policy outputs achieved, and the dynamics of policy
entrepreneurship in the two countries. Finally, Chap. 7 provides
conclusions, implications for theory, and policy recommendations
based on the analysis carried out in the previous chapters.

1.1 Context and Research Design

Studies on migrant languages and multilingualism in host countries
have been conducted from many different perspectives, namely by
sociolinguists, demolinguists, educational linguists, and psychologists
(Yağ mur, 2017). However, the theme of migrant languages is almost
absent from the public policy area of studies. Moreover, the question of
how knowledge is involved in policymaking has so far been
underestimated as far as migration-related policy issues are concerned
(Capano and Malandrino). This book shows that it is precisely in its
“niche” nature that its greatest value resides for public policy reflection
purposes. More specifically, it will allow the reader to appreciate the
different roles that can be played by experts, on the one hand, and
politics, on the other hand, in relation to non-mainstream policy issues.
The empirical chapters of this book build on a qualitative analysis of
multiple sources: from demographic indicators pointing to the
occurrence of focusing events to the scientific literature and technical
reports that offer technical solutions to redefined problems; from a
systematic study of the online communicative activity of political actors
to the text of the policy decisions adopted; from the literature that deals
with policy process elements to conference and meeting proceedings as
well as interviews conducted with key informants.
There is a plethora of literature and institutional reports (for
instance issued by the European Commission and the Council of
Europe) that deal with migrant language education. In this book, this
documental production has been leveraged to its maximum, as the
research process underlying the book started with the systematic
analysis of a significant quantity of policy papers, articles, and reports
(see Appendix A). However, none of these analyzed elaborations delves
per se into the deep reasons that originated decisions on this issue,
including under the Multiple Streams Framework’s perspective. All in
all, the book confirms the validity of the Multiple Streams Framework
to understand why certain problems come to the fore and therefore
why certain policy outputs are produced. It will show, however, that the
political stream and political entrepreneurship might be weak even in
the case when significant decisions (or non-decisions) are made, but
also that, if the political stream is not “ready” and political
entrepreneurship is lacking, the readiness of the policy stream and
policy entrepreneurship can equally be as well-established as to lead to
the redefinition of a problem and the adoption of measures to tackle it.
This book employs two illustrative country case studies to develop
the analysis of the problem-related, policy-connected, and political
aspects of migrant language education. Illustrative case studies are a
widely accepted tool in the policy sciences, including in studies that
employ the theoretical lens of the Multiple Streams Framework (e.g.,
Abiola et al., 2013; Rozbicka & Spohr, 2016). With regard to the themes
of this book, moreover, using country cases is useful to understand the
genesis of migrant language-in-education policies given that migrant
integration, language and education policies in Europe are still largely
the responsibilities of individual countries (Klatt & Milana, 2020;
Wodak & Boukala, 2015). These two particular national cases were
chosen firstly because of the salience of immigration, migrant
integration, and language policy issues there. Moreover, a comparison
between the two countries is interesting because they have adopted
different policy outputs to regulate the presence of migrant languages
in education. More specifically, Austria was chosen because it has a
comprehensive migrant language education policy that complements
German language education for migrants. Austria is indeed one of the
few countries in Europe to have designed a curriculum specifically for
mother tongue teaching (European Commission, 2019). Conversely,
Italy was chosen because it does not have a comprehensive migrant
language education policy that complements Italian language education
for migrants. In Italy, only non-binding guidelines timidly recommend
taking into account migrant languages in educational processes, and
the related case study will show that this is hardly going to change in
the short run, at least at the policymaking level, since other topics
prevail on the migrant integration policy agenda. The goal of this book
is to evaluate how and why different preconditions—defined as
streams under the Multiple Streams Framework—contributed to the
adoption of these different policy outputs.
 In order to do this, several sources and methods are employed in
this book, underpinned as a whole by a theory-based approach. To start
with, Chap. 2 lays out the analytical scaffolding for the whole book, by
setting the assumptions and pillars of the chosen theoretical
background as well as the core hypotheses to be tested. Chapters 3, 4, 5,
and 6 represent the analytical heart of the book, developed in light of
the analytical framework set out in Chap. 2. Chapter 3 carries out a
qualitative analysis of existing data on immigration and language
diversity. These data have been extracted and elaborated from sources
such as World Bank, Eurostat and national ministerial and/or statistical
databases, and have been complemented by literature and reports that
provide evidence about how integration was problematized in the two
illustrative country cases, for the aim of tracing relevant process
elements. Chapter 4 presents an evaluation, against the criteria set in
the theoretical part of the book, of the extent to which the available
solutions for migrant language education are realistically fit to be made
into policies. Depending on the criterion examined each time, use has
been made of existing legislation, as well as of specialized literature on
education and political economy. In addition to that, process tracing
tools (Collier, 2011) have been employed to collect evidence on the
extent to which policy solutions meeting the set criteria were made into
policies, while the analysis of legal documents has been carried out to
address in particular the internal and external conformity criteria.
Chapter 5, which regards the activity of the political stream for migrant
languages, combines quantitative and qualitative discourse analysis
(Shahbazi & Rezaee, 2017; van Dijk, 1993) with the existing literature
to illustrate the political support for migrant language education. The
former tool was especially used to investigate this topic in the Italian
case, thus filling a gap in the literature. The latter tool was central to the
analysis of the Austrian case, which offers a wider range of literature
tracing the political discourse about immigration and migrant
integration. Moreover, the different timing of the introduction of
migrant language education in the two countries allowed the use of
different sources: the Italian case leverages online political
communication as hosted on the social networking website Twitter,
while the Austrian literature employs mostly press sources. Chapter 6
leverages process tracing to understand the evolution of policy
processes in the two examined countries and to identify hints of any (if
existing) entrepreneurship in those processes. Finally, Chap. 7 attempts
to generate new theoretical propositions based on the empirical
analyses carried out in the previous chapters, thus being inspired by
the grounded theory method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Sebeelo, 2022),
defined as an approach that “brings together elements of multiple
qualitative research methods to create a systematic roadmap whereby
data can be simultaneously, rather than sequentially, processed during
both collection and analysis phases” (Hussein et al., 2020, 4). In-depth
document analysis (cf. Appendix A for a list of the documents
examined) has underpinned the whole study, and semi-structured
interviews with key informants in both Austria and Italy (cf. Appendix
B) have been useful to complement the abovementioned sources with
insider knowledge, especially regarding policy processes and outputs.

1.2 Why Do Migrant Languages Matter? The

Implications of Introducing Migrants’ Mother
Tongues in Education
Whether migrant multilingualism is seen as a deficit or a resource
depends on the ideological approach taken. Migrant languages are often
associated with problems such as poverty, educational
underachievement, and lack of integration into the society of residence
(Yağ mur, 2017). Host societies struggle to see potential in the value of
migrant languages. This view fits in a more general trend according to
which societies tend to treat migrants “less as a sustaining resource
than as temporary hyper-extractive labor, potential nuisance, moral
challenge, burden, or threat” (Goldberg, 2015, 120). At the same time, it
is nowadays acknowledged that host country language proficiency
yields social and economic benefits for migrants. These benefits include
the ability to interact with the host country’s citizens and the capacity
to obtain information about—and thus engage with—the most
important facilities and opportunities, such as schools, healthcare,
housing, and employment (Boyd & Cao, 2009). However, this is only a
part of the story. From a different perspective, which is more and more
widespread among experts from a wide range of disciplines, not only
host country languages but also migrant languages can be conceived as
resources (Vedovelli, 2014). According to this perspective, to provide
individuals with effective equal opportunities to achieve a good quality
of life, the state should provide effective support to all linguistic
communities that contribute to the ethnolinguistic composition of the
country, thus substantiating a type of policy that supports
multilingualism (Schmidt, 2006). But why should migrant languages be
conceptualized as assets in host countries? And who are these assets
likely to benefit?
Measures to preserve the linguistic heritage of minorities and
promote and enhance this heritage among speakers of the dominant
language can be useful to raise awareness of the equal dignity of all
forms of linguistic expression among people and thus remove attitudes
of hostility toward individuals or populations that use local languages
(e.g., dialects) or exogenous languages (e.g., migrant languages).
According to this perspective, measures dedicated to migrant languages
as cultural assets should aim at making each individual aware that their
language is only one of the possible forms of expression and that it is
neither better nor worse than the others, thus increasing a spirit of
tolerance and understanding among peoples (Pizzorusso, 1993).
The existence of a variety of languages derives from the creative
capacity of the human brain, and experiencing that variety is important
for people to be tolerant and aware of the intelligence of different
communicative means and possibilities (De Mauro, 1977). From a
different perspective, developing migrants’ mother tongues can
strengthen the self-esteem and identity of migrant students and their
families (Benson & Kosonen, 2013; Bü hmann & Trudell, 2008;
European Commission, 2015) and therefore support the effective
integration of migrant students (OECD, 2019). Indeed, receiving mother
tongue education facilitates literacy and school success in young
learners (Corson, 1995), which are in turn functional to their
socioeconomic development (Bratt-Paulston, 1998).
In light of recent scientific evidence, such a type of education policy
might also help to mitigate language anxiety phenomena. In fact,
migrants’ insufficient linguistic competence leads to the perception of
an inability to express themselves and to a lack of mutual
understanding (Sevinç, 2018). Majority language anxiety may originate
in migrants’ attitudes toward the language and culture of the host
country, the difference in social status between them and non-migrants,
and the fear of losing their identity. Likewise, heritage language anxiety
can be identified in the way people are corrected or criticized when
speaking their language of origin (even by members of the same
minority language community), in the fear of being excluded from the
group and, again, of losing one’s collective ethnic identity, which in this
case is related to migrants’ perceptions of their own potential negative
role in the disappearance of the language of origin (Sevinç & Backus,
2019; Sevinç & Dewaele, 2018).
Learning or enhancing one’s mother tongue is considered an
important step toward integration because it helps children to bridge
the gap between their family and school community, also thanks to the
cultural intermediary role of the mother tongue teacher (Driessen,
2005). Moreover, promoting multilingualism in the classroom can
facilitate the transfer of knowledge from one language to another
(García, 2011) and the so-called metalinguistic awareness (Herzog-
Punzenberger et al., 2017). In turn, plurilingualism, that is, the quality
inherent in those individuals or societies that can use multiple
languages and switch between them depending on the circumstances
within a continuous interaction between those languages (Council of
Europe, 2020), stimulates individuals to become autonomous learners
and motivates them to learn additional languages (OECD, 2019). Not
least, experimental studies (e.g., Coppola & Moretti, 2018) have shown
that valuing heritage languages and translanguaging in the classroom—
that is, the simultaneous use of students’ full linguistic repertoire—
yields better results in language learning itself than dealing with
different languages as silos.
In multicultural societies, characterized by the simultaneous
presence of a plurality of groups (Lanzillo, 2005), multilingualism and
plurilingualism can acquire value as resources both for language
minorities and host communities. Preserving the contact of migrants
with their mother tongues is likely to encourage an increase in the
number of bilingual workers and therefore represents an important
factor of economic and productive growth for host countries (Ruíz,
1984; Vedovelli, 2014). In line with this perspective, linguistic diversity
can be considered as a tangible social good, beyond “moral” or
“naturalness” arguments (Ricento, 2006). The loss of a language can
leave an irreversible void in the cultural heritage of humanity (Crystal,
2002).
However, while individual bilingualism or plurilingualism is usually
seen as an asset when it involves languages such as English, French, or
German, bilingualism in a migrant language and a majority language is
often seen as less prestigious and therefore not always valued (Yağ mur,
2017). In order to make linguistic and cultural diversity a real resource
for Europe—and not a threat—there is a need for adequate policies for
the management of differences, together with programs of language
education, in its broadest sense, and training in interculturality. The
goal is to overcome an abstract, crystallized, closed, and monolithic
vision of the concept of language and culture. And, as a meeting point
for different languages and cultures, schools are one of the privileged
places where linguistic and cultural diversity can be experienced as a
resource (Coppola & Moretti, 2018).

1.3 Migrant Language-in-Education Policies in

Europe
Despite the increasing awareness of the value of migrant languages
among experts from all disciplines, these languages have so far
struggled to affirm themselves as resources deserving promotion on
the part of policymakers. In Europe, in particular, the promotion of
minority languages has always clashed with the promotion of dominant
languages as functional tools for nation-building processes (Wright,
2011). Language policies have often been adopted with a nationalist
approach functional for organizing national societies (Savoia, 2002).
Toward migrant languages, European countries generally pursue a
linguistic tolerance policy that allows minority communities to use
their languages in their private lives (Heyworth, 2006) but do not
stretch as far as to promote those languages with dedicated activities
and funding—although there are exceptions to this general trend.
Austria, for instance, is a country where a curriculum for mother
tongue education has been adopted at the federal level, and native
language classes are activated and held as optional activities as long as
there is a minimum number of students interested (European
Commission, 2019; Gouma, 2020). Other examples concern migrant
communities whose countries were formerly colonized by their
respective now-host countries (Méndez, 2012, with reference to
England and the Netherlands as host countries). In addition, outside the
area of migrant languages, historical (also called regional or national)
minorities, defined as groups of people who have lived in each territory
longer than migrant communities and are numerically smaller than the
population speaking the dominant language (Extra, 2017), are also a
target for specific distributive measures. Examples of these European
historical language minorities are those who speak Finnish, Sami,
Romani, Meä nkieli, or Yiddish in Sweden (Atikcan, 2010) and those
who speak Croatian in Austria (Čagalj et al., 2020). Likewise, in Italy,
Law no. 482/1999 provides resources to preserve the language and
culture of the Albanian, Catalan, Germanic, Greek, Slovenian, and
Croatian populations who reside in the country and of populations who
speak French, Franco-Provençal, Friulian, Ladin, Occitan, and Sardinian.
The scope of this Italian law does not extend to migrant languages,
which do not possess the two basic requirements to be classified as
historical minority languages: historicity and territoriality (Paciotto,
2009). The historicity requirement applies when a language minority
has been ancestrally present in the Italian territory and has had a
relationship with the Italian community for an (undefined) long time
(Bonetti, 2016). Territoriality refers to the fact that language minorities
in Italy receive the special treatment defined in the law only in the
geographical areas where they have historically resided (Piergigli,
2017). Hence, migrant language minorities do not benefit from funding
for language promotion activities as established in the law, as they do
not fulfill either of these requirements.
More generally, throughout Europe, migrant language communities
benefit way less from specific policies than historical language
communities. However, the absence of dedicated policies for migrant
languages is not at all due to the low numerical relevance of migrant
minorities, also called new minorities, in European countries. In fact,
the presence of these new minorities and their linguistic heritage has
been consolidating in Europe for several decades (Ceccorulli et al.,
2021). Examples include minorities who speak Turkish in Austria
(European Commission, 2019) or minorities who speak Chinese or
Arabic in Italy (Barni & Bagna, 2008). According to Eurostat,1
2.7 million migrants entered the European Union from non-European
Union countries in 2019, before the Covid-19 pandemic altered
migration patterns (Rajan, 2020). To this datum, we have to add intra-
European Union migrations. In the face of the ensuing linguistic
diversity, most countries primarily promote the learning of the host
country language, in line with the main direction indicated by the
European Union legal framework (Harte et al., 2016).
Only a few countries in Europe promote migrant language
education through generalized mechanisms. In Sweden, for example,
migrant students have the right to mother tongue education if there is a
minimum number of interested students (European Commission,
2019). In Austria, mother tongue education is provided across school
levels as an optional subject and conducted on the basis of a curriculum
that is the same for all migrant languages, thus allowing for flexibility in
the languages that can be taught (Bundesministerium fü r Unterricht et
al., 2008a, b). While the original drive for mother tongue education was
not always the promotion of language pluralism—as we will see in this
book—policies such as the Swedish and the Austrian ones are
nowadays supported by a view that sees languages as resources to be
promoted (Vedovelli, 2014). Unlike Sweden or Austria, Italy is one of
those countries where no generalized policies are established for
migrant language education. On the one hand, ministerial guidelines
recommend valuing migrant languages in education with tools to be
chosen and adopted by schools. On the other hand, migrant students
are entitled to migrant language education provided that international
agreements are signed with the countries of origin of migrants—a tool
whose usage has always remained limited (Calvi, 2020; European
Commission, 2019; Malandrino, 2021).
The existence of formal policies for mother tongue preservation—
rather than generic institutional statements about the value of language
diversity and intercultural education—does not only have
administrative or financial implications. Indeed, it contributes to
shaping social phenomena (in this case, migrant integration) and the
way people see them. However, countries in Europe have framed
migrant integration as a process in which migrants especially need to
learn the dominant language of the host country, while overlooking the
benefits of preserving the composite linguistic heritage that migrant
minorities bring to their host countries. After all, this approach is in line
with the “one nation, one language” equation that has traditionally
been a basis of nation-state building processes (Wright, 2011). In this
regard, Gogolin (2013, 2016) argues that education systems in Western
countries reflect a monolingual habitus that is derived from Bourdieu’s
concept of habitus (Bourdieu, 1977), which refers to the embodiment
of social structures that are reproduced through social practices. This
habitus contributes to maintaining assumptions about language and
learning that lead to the idea of a national language (Hawlik, 2021).
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus would thus explain why European
countries have traditionally adopted a monolingual approach to
education, notwithstanding the factual presence of a multitude of
languages in their territories. From the second half of the twentieth
century, many European countries have become destinations for
migrants (Boswell, 2018). These migration flows have brought with
them considerable linguistic diversity, which has been dealt with by
host country governments through two main policy approaches, which
have to do respectively with assimilation and pluralism promotion.
While assimilation is imbued with the idea that cultural differences
“should and will disappear over time in a society which is proclaimed to
be culturally homogeneous from the majority point of view” (Extra et
al., 2009, 11), pluralism promotion considers linguistic differences as
resources to society (Ricento, 2020).
These two policy approaches imply the use of different policy
instruments. The assimilationist view, with the policy goal of
assimilating minority language groups into the language and culture of
the majority as quickly as possible, involves unilateral integration
efforts for newly arrived migrants and no role for migrant languages in
education. Governments that adopt an assimilationist view frame the
acquisition of the host country language by migrants as crucial for their
integration. To this aim, they set host country language requirements
for the obtainment of residency permits and citizenship rights. They
might promote additional host country language courses for migrant
students, or they might employ a submersion (“swim or sink”)
approach. This latter approach comes from the idea that migrant
students will learn the host country language through their
participation in the regular school curriculum together with students
and teachers who speak the language. Ó Riagá in and Lü di (2003),
however, affirm that the submersion approach often has negative
consequences for migrant children: they risk losing contact with their
mother tongues (which in the submersion approach play no role) and
achieve worse results in academic subjects. Conversely, governments
that adopt a language pluralism view will provide equal and effective
support for each ethnolinguistic component of a country (Schmidt,
2009). Unlike in the assimilation case, this often requires multilateral
tasks for all inhabitants in changing societies (Extra et al., 2009), who
might be involved in intercultural education activities. It also implies
the valorization of migrants’ mother tongues through dedicated
activities and courses targeting migrants or the whole student
community. However, the policy instruments that respond to
assimilationist or pluralistic logics are not mutually exclusive. Austria is
a typical example of a country that, while promoting the acquisition of
German (the dominant language) by migrants, also provides the
opportunity for migrant students to learn and improve knowledge in
their mother tongues through government-funded courses. Vice versa,
Italy is a country that has in place mostly assimilationist policy
instruments. However, recently there have been developments in the
ministerial guidelines on the integration of foreign students, which call
for a greater role of mother tongues in daily school activities. It will be
useful, hence, to present in more detail the main policies in place for
migrant languages in education in the two countries chosen as
illustrative cases in this book. These policies are to be conceptualized
here as endpoints of the multiple streams processes that culminated
with the opening of windows of opportunity for migrant languages to
make their way into formal policy documents.
The Austrian government implemented directive 77/486/EEC on
education for European Union migrant workers’ children through a
multiplicity of acts, including two federal laws, respectively on school
organization and compulsory education.2 These laws do not make
express reference to migrant languages, despite the fact that the
European Union directive concerned not only the acquisition of the
host country language but also the preservation of mother tongues in a
view to facilitating the reintegration of migrants and their children into
their home countries. In the 1970s, however, the Austrian government
started to provide migrant language courses aimed at migrants for the
purpose of facilitating their return to the sending countries, based on
bilateral agreements with Turkey and the former Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, whose governments also provided teachers and
books (Lehne & Berka, 2015). Later on, in the early 1990s, the Austrian
general school curriculum was complemented by a section on mother
tongue education, whose introduction was facilitated by the experts
who managed to convince the ministerial bureaucracy of the value of
migrant languages (Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). Today,
plurilingualism in Austria is highly valued both in official documents
(e.g., Bundesministerium fü r Unterricht et al., 2008a, b; Gouma, 2020)
and among educators, according to the interviews carried out with our
key informants3 and the studies conducted so far (Hawlik, 2021;
Otterup & Fleck, 2018). In Austria, the ministerial administration
expresses a high consideration for the development of plurilingual and
reflective intercultural personality in students as a goal of language
education, a civic virtue, and a means to facilitate later job mobility.
Languages, including migrants’ mother tongues, are generally seen as
part of Austria’s linguistic capital. When reflecting on the domestic
experience in migrant student education, the Austrian ministry of
education has also expressed that mother tongues should nonetheless
be more fully exploited and seen not only as a means to facilitate
instruction in German but as an end in itself (Bundesministerium fü r
Unterricht et al., 2008a). On the whole, Austria has in place both
assimilationist and pluralistic policy instruments: it recognizes the
importance of providing linguistic support to immigrant students in
terms of both German language acquisition and mother tongue
development (OECD, 2010). This does not mean that the Austrian
system for the language education of migrant students is free from
limitations. Nusche et al. (2010), for instance, acknowledge that the
effectiveness of mother tongue support should be improved and made
uniform across school levels. Moreover, the Austrian system is imbued
with a deficit-oriented approach that tends to see students with
insufficient knowledge of the German language as nonregular students.
Italy transposed the abovementioned directive on education for
European Union migrant workers’ children through a presidential
decree (no. 722/1982). As we have seen, besides host country language
acquisition, the directive prescribes the activation of mother tongue
courses for purposes of reintegration into the country of origin. The
Italian presidential decree established that mother tongue education is
arranged by means of agreements between the Ministries of Foreign
Affairs and Education and the diplomatic representations of the
students’ countries of origin (Art. 4). These provisions are still in force
at the time of writing. Subsequently, Law 943/1986 applied the
provisions for the education of European Union migrants’ children to
non-European Union students, thus extending to them the teaching of
their mother language and culture (cf. also Liddicoat & Díaz, 2008).
The provisions on mother tongue education in Law 943/1986 have
been repealed and transposed into the consolidated act on immigration
(Legislative Decree no. 286/1998 and subsequent amendments), which
concerns inter alia the education of foreign citizens in Italy. The act
encourages the school community to welcome linguistic and cultural
differences in order to contribute to a foundation of mutual respect,
cultural exchange, and tolerance. This should be done (Art. 38) by
encouraging initiatives that protect migrants’ cultures and languages of
origin and by promoting common intercultural activities. In light of the
Italian schools’ autonomy (Decree of the Italian President of the
Republic no. 275/1999), school heads are the actors who can play a key
role in the promotion of these activities (Paciotto et al., 2020). At the
same time, the consolidated act on immigration establishes the
obligation for educational institutions to promote and implement
Italian language courses, while the national and subnational
governments (regions and local authorities) must guarantee the right
to study the Italian language. The same act establishes that Italian
regions must support migrant language initiatives and provide
supplementary courses in the languages and cultures of origin of
migrants. As remarked by one of the key informants interviewed,
however, “The most important governmental document that schools in
Italy refer to in order to arrange migrant student education is the
Ministry of Education’s guidelines for the reception and integration of
foreign students.”4 This document covers several aspects of the
education of migrant students, including the enrollment process, the
required documentation, the evaluation of students’ achievements,
teacher training, and language education for migrant students (point 6).
After dealing with the Italian language learning activities for newly
arrived students, the guidelines contain a short section on
plurilingualism and the valorization of language diversity (point 6.3).
This section, however, merely recognizes the spontaneous efforts made
by some schools in the country to value diversity and hence
recommends that all schools adopt practices such as using bilingual
storytelling and glossaries, emphasizing the presence of loanwords in
the Italian language and, lastly, organizing courses of the most
widespread migrant languages during extracurricular hours, which
should be open to both Italian-speaking and native students. The
following year, the ministry of education—under the guidance of the
then minister, Stefania Giannini, a linguist—published the ministerial
document Diversi da chi? (“Different from whom?”). This document
emphasizes the importance of language diversity and recommends best
practices such as the activation of optional migrant language courses in
schools, the recognition and promotion of the forms of bilingualism
present among students, and the training of teachers on linguistic
diversity and multilingualism. An interview with a ministerial officer
among our key informants revealed that the ministry of education was
recently in the process of formulating a document aiming to update the
2014 guidelines. In the framework depicted both at the document’s
formal presentation event and in the document itself,5 migrant
languages are considered in light of their importance for migrants’
identity but do not constitute a fundamental part of the updated policy
framework. Moreover, at the implementation level, the interviewed key
informants affirm that migrant languages are hardly ever considered in
the daily operation of schools (cf. also Calvi, 2020).
The two paragraphs above have sketched in brief the main policies
adopted for the language education of migrant students in our two
illustrative country cases, that is, Austria and Italy. In general, migrant
language-in-education policies (Paciotto et al., 2020) present different
challenges compared to policies that concern “indigenous” minority
languages, which are often more stable in terms of both geographical
location and numerical composition, as is the case for instance with
historical language minorities in Italy, which fulfill criteria of historicity
and territoriality (Paciotto, 2009). While historicity means that a
language minority has consolidated its presence in the Italian territory
and its relationship with the Italian-speaking community over a
relatively long time (Bonetti, 2016), territoriality refers to the fact that
historical language minorities are such if they have historically resided
in certain geographical areas (Piergigli, 2017). Conversely, migrant
languages tend to not meet either of these two criteria and are more
diverse and less concentrated in specific locations. As a result, the
extent to which policies are adopted for preserving migrant languages
varies considerably across different geographical contexts. Language-
wise, it is more common for public policies to address migrant
integration by pursuing the acquisition of the host country language. In
order to help countries face these challenges and to assist them in
developing plurilingual and intercultural education policies, the Council
of Europe has developed some policy guidelines. Most of the Council of
Europe’s recommendations contain mainly programmatic objectives
but some others—such as Recommendation No. R (98) 6 of the
Committee of Ministers on modern languages and the Recommendation
Rec (2005) 3 of the Committee of Ministers on teaching neighboring
languages in border regions—also propose measures for student
education as well as for initial teacher education (ITE) and in-service
teacher education, including policies that introduce the teaching and
use of the languages of neighboring countries (McPake et al., 2007). The
Council of Europe also draws upon resources developed by the
European Commission (cf. the Green Paper on “Migration & mobility”,
listed in Appendix A) and identifies the new opportunities opened up
by media and internet contact with the country of origin as facilitating
conditions of migrant language preservation, which may for instance
foster e-twinning experiences between schools of host and sending
countries (Council of Europe, 2009).
Institutions such as the Council of Europe indicate ways forward for
member states to promote plurilingualism and language diversity, but
education and migrant integration remain policy areas that are mainly
the subject of national policymaking. It is therefore important to
understand the paths conducting to the adoption of the policy
measures that introduce migrant languages into education. To this aim,
as mentioned above, this book employs the Multiple Streams
Framework, a theoretical scaffolding that allows us to better grasp the
conditions that lead to the opening of opportunity windows for policy
ideas and measures to make it into policymakers’ agendas and
ultimately into the formulation and adoption phases of the policy cycle.
Inter alia, this will allow us to explain why the examined countries have
adopted different policies on the same subject and in response to the
same policy problem(s), and the factors that have ultimately led to the
related policy outputs.

References
Abiola, S. E., Colgrove, J., & Mello, M. M. (2013). The politics of HPV vaccination
policy formation in the United States. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 38(4),
645–681.

Atikcan, E. O. (2010). European union and minorities: Different paths of

Europeanization? Journal of European Integration, 32(4), 375–392.

Barni, M., & Bagna, C. (2008). Immigrant languages in Italy. In G. Extra & D. Gorter
(Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 293–314). De Gruyter Mouton.

Benson, C., & Kosonen, K. (Eds.). (2013). Language issues in comparative education.
Sense Publishers.

Bonetti, P. (Ed.). (2016). L’uso della lingua negli atti e nella comunicazione dei poteri
pubblici italiani. Giappichelli.

Boswell, C. (2018). Migration in Europe. In B. Marshall (Ed.), The politics of migration

(pp. 91–110). Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge studies in social and

cultural anthropology) (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Boyd, M., & Cao, X. (2009). Immigrant language proficiency, earnings, and language
policies. Canadian Studies in Population, 36(1–2), 63–86.

Bratt-Paulston, C. (1998). Linguistic minorities in central and Eastern Europe: An

introduction. In C. Bratt-Paulston & D. Peckham (Eds.), Linguistic minorities in central
and Eastern Europe (pp. 1–17). Multilingual Matters.

Bü hmann, D., & Trudell, B. (2008). Mother tongue matters: As a key to effective learning
(pp. 1–50). UNESCO.
Bundesministerium fü r Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur, Bundesministerium fü r
Wissenschaft und Forschung, Ö sterreichiches Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum.
(2008a). Language education policy profile: Austria. Council of Europe. https://​rm.​c oe.​
int/​language-education-policy-profile-austria/​16807b3b9d. Last accessed 21 June
2022.

Bundesministerium fü r Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur, Bundesministerium fü r

Wissenschaft und Forschung, Ö sterreichiches Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum.
(2008b). Language education policy profile: Country report Austria. Council of Europe.
https://​rm.​c oe.​int/​language-education-policy-profile-austria-country-report/​
16807b3b47. Last accessed 21 June 2022.

Č agalj, I., Skelin Horvat, A., & Ščukanec, A. (2020). The Croatian language and the
minority education: The situation in Slovakia and Austria. In V. Mikolič (Ed.),
Language and culture in the intercultural world (pp. 158–170). Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.

Calvi, M. V. (2020). Lingue migranti: una risorsa per tutti. In M. Cruciani (Ed.), La
scuola del futuro. Oltre la didattica a distanza. Visioni e idee per rilanciare la scuola
italiana. Edizioni Scuola Terza Generazione.

Capano, G., Malandrino, A. (2022). Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking:

barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020). Policy Sciences
55(3), 399–428.

Caponio, T. (2020). Le politiche migratorie: tra spinte securitarie, emergenze e

mancate riforme. In G. Capano & A. Natalini (Eds.), Le politiche pubbliche in Italia. Il
Mulino.

Castles, S. (2004). The factors that make and unmake migration policies. The
International Migration Review, 38(3), 852–884.

Ceccorulli, M., Fassi, E., & Lucarelli, S. (Eds.). (2021). The EU migration system of
governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4),
823–830.

Coppola, D., Moretti, R. (2018). Valorizzare la diversità linguistica e culturale. Uno

studio di caso. In Coonan M. C., Bier A., Ballarin E. (a cura di), La didattica delle lingue
nel nuovo millennio. Le sfide dell’internazionalizzazione (pp. 397–412). Edizioni Ca’
Foscari.
Corson, D. (1995). Realities of teaching in a multiethnic school. In O. Garcia & C.
Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education (pp. 70–84). Multilingual
Matters.

Council of Europe. (2009). Regional, minority and migration languages. https://​rm.​

coe.​int/​C oERMPublicCommo​nSearchServices/​DisplayDCTMConte​nt?​documentId=​
09000016805a234d​. Last accessed 20 May 2022.

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages.

Council of Europe Publishing.

Crystal, D. (2002). Language death. Cambridge University Press.

De Mauro, T. (1977). Scuola e linguaggio. Editori Riuniti.

Driessen, G. (2005). From Cure to Curse: The Rise and Fall of Bilingual Education
Programs in the Netherlands. In J. Sö hn (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school
programs for immigrant children (pp. 77–107). Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fü r
Sozialforschung.

European Commission. (2015). Language teaching and learning in multilingual

classrooms. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission. (2019). Integrating students from migrant backgrounds into

schools in Europe: National policies and measures (Eurydice report). Publications
Office of the European Union.

Extra, G. (2017). Language policy and education in the new Europe. In T. McCarty, L.
Teresa, & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 331–
347). Springer.

Extra, G., Spotti, M., & Von Avermaet, P. (2009). Testing regimes for newcomers, in G.
Extra, M. Spotti and P. Van Avermaet (eds.), Language Testing, Migration and
Citizenship (pp. 3–33). London: Continuum.

García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Wiley-Blackwell.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, L. A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.

Gogolin, I. (2013). The “monolingual habitus” as the common feature in teaching in

the language of the majority in different countries. Per Linguam, 13, 38–49.

Gogolin, I., (2016). Monolingual habitus/multilingual realities. Research for the

mobilisation of multilingualism in education: From family to classroom practices.
Retrieved from https://​eeraecer.​de/​ecer-programmes/​c onference/​21/​c ontribution/​
38182/​. Last accessed 19 May 2022.

Goldberg, D. T. (2015). Disposable citizenship. In B. Anderson & V. Hughes (Eds.),

Citizenship and its others (pp. 119–125). Palgrave Macmillan.

Goodman, S. (2012). Fortifying citizenship: Policy strategies for civic integration in

Western Europe. World Politics, 64(4), 659–698.

Goodman, S. W. (2013). Integration requirements for integration’s sake? Identifying,

categorising and comparing civic integration policies. In Migration and citizenship
attribution (pp. 49–68). Routledge.

Goodman, S. W. (2019). Indexing immigration and integration policy: Lessons from

Europe. Policy Studies Journal, 47, 572–604.

Gouma, A. (2020). Informationsblatt Nr. 5: Der muttersprachliche Unterricht in

Österreich: Statistische Auswertung für das Schuljahr 2018/19. Bundesministerium fü r
Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung.

Harte, E., Herrera, F., & Stepanek, M. (2016). Education of EU migrant children in EU
member states. RAND Corporation. https://​www.​rand.​org/​pubs/​research_​reports/​
RR1715.​html. Last accessed 19 June 2022

Hawlik, R. (2021). How do teachers of mother tongue tuition in Austria perceive

their role? Migration specific perspectives on teachers of migration languages within
the Austrian public sector education system. Education in the North, 28(1), 99–112.

Herweg, N. (2016). Clarifying the concept of policy-communities in the multiple-

streams framework. In R. Zohlnhö fer & F. W. Rü b (Eds.), Decision-making under
ambiguity and time constraints: Assessing the multiple-streams framework (pp. 125–
145). ECPR Press.

Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhö fer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams:
Theorizing extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of
Political Research, 54, 435–449.

Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhö fer, R. (2018). The multiple streams framework:
Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier
(Eds.), (2018). Theories of the policy process (4th ed.). Routledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
4324/​9780429494284
[Crossref]

Herzog-Punzenberger, B. (2003). Ethnic segmentation in school and labor market —

40 year legacy of Austrian Guestworker policy. International Migration Review, 37(4),
1120–1144.

Herzog-Punzenberger, B., Le Pichon-Vorstman, E., & Siarova, H. (2017). Multilingual

education in the light of diversity: Lessons learned. Publications Office of the European
Union.

Heyworth, F. (2006). The common European framework. ELT Journal, 60(2), 181–183.

Hussein, F., Stephens, J., & Tiwari, R. (2020). Grounded theory as an approach
exploring the effect of cultural memory on psychosocial well-being in historic urban
landscapes. Social Science, 9(12), 219.

Jacobs, D., & Rea, A. (2007). The End of National Models? Integration Courses and
Citizenship Trajectories in Europe. International Journal on Multicultural Societies,
9(2), 264–283.

Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants
in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22.

Joppke, C. (2017). Civic integration in Western Europe: Three debates. West European
Politics, 40(6), 1153–1176.

Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. Longman.

Klatt, G., & Milana, M. (2020). Governing education policy: The European Union and
Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 12(1), 25–39.

Lanzillo, M. L. (2005). Il multiculturalismo. Laterza.

Lehne, F., & Berka, W. (2015). Linguistic rights in education – Austria. In G. Lauwers &
J. De Groof (Eds.), Language and education (Studies in human rights in education).
Wolf Legal Publishers.

Liddicoat, A. J., & Díaz, A. (2008). Engaging with diversity: The construction of policy
for intercultural education in Italy. Intercultural Education, 19(2), 137–150.

Malandrino, A. (2021). Is there leeway for Italian policy learning from advanced
experiences in home language education? A comparative case study of Austria,
Sweden and Italy. Educazione Interculturale, 19, 57–74.

McPake, J., Tinsley, T., Broeder, P., Latomaa, S., Mijares, L., Martyniuk, W. (2007).
Valuing all languages in Europe (Report). http://​archive.​ecml.​at/​mtp2/​publications/​
Valeur-report-E.​pdf. Last accessed 10 May 2022.
Meier, G. (2009). Can two-way immersion education support the EU aims of
multilingualism, social cohesion and student/worker mobility? European Journal of
Language Policy, 1(2), 147–164.

Méndez, M. T. (2012). Language rights as collective rights: Some conceptual

considerations on language rights. Res Publica: Revista de Filosofía Política, 27, 109–
118.

Nusche, D., Shewbridge, C., & Lamhauge Rasmussen, C. (2010). OECD reviews of
migrant education: Austria. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2010, March). Migrant education in Austria. Pointers for Policy Development.
http://​www.​oecd.​org/​education/​school/​45053512.​pdf. Last accessed 19 June 2022.

OECD. (2019). The road to integration. OECD Publishing.

Otterup, T., & Fleck, E. (2018). Mother tongue instruction in Austria and Sweden – A
comparative study. Retrieved from the website of the Verein Muttersprachenlehrer/-
innen Ö sterreichs (VMLÖ ) (Association of mother tongue teachers in Austria).
http://​www.​mloe.​at/​images/​pdf/​Mother_​Tongue_​I nstruction_​in_​Austria_​and_​
Sweden_​final_​version.​pdf. Last accessed 19 June 2022.

Paciotto, C. (2009). What do I lose if I lose my bilingual school? Students’ and

teachers’ perceptions of the value of a Slovene language maintenance program in
Italy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(4), 449–475.

Paciotto, C., Gattinara, E. C., & Mainardi, D. (2020). Language-in-education policies in

a new immigration country: Enabling and disabling local leadership in a multilingual
School in Italy. In J. C. Veenis, S. Robertson, & J. R. Berry (Eds.), Multiculturalism and
multilingualism at the crossroads of school leadership (pp. 185–210). Springer.

Piergigli, V. (2017). La Costituzione italiana delle minoranze linguistiche tra principi

consolidati, riforme mancate e prossime sfide. Revista d’Estudis Autonòmics i Federals,
26, 165–206.

Pizzorusso, A. (1993). Minoranze e maggioranze. Einaudi.

Rajan, S. I. (2020). Migrants at a crossroads: COVID-19 and challenges to migration.

Migration and Development, 9(3), 323–330.

Riagáin, P. Ó ., & Lü di, G. (2003). Bilingual education: Some policy issues. Council of
Europe Publishing.

Ricento, T. (2006). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Blackwell.

Ricento, T. (2020). “Language Policy, Political Theory, and English as a ‘Global’
Language.” In Language Ethics, edited by Y. Peled and D.M. Weinstock, 202–228.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Rozbicka, P., & Spohr, F. (2016). Interest groups in multiple streams: Specifying their
involvement in the framework. Policy Sciences, 49, 55–69.

Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.

Savoia, L. M. (2002). Componenti ideologiche nel dibattito sulle leggi di tutela

linguistica. Plurilinguismo, 9, 85–114.

Schmidt, R. (2009). Political theory and language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Language
policy (pp. 95–110). Wiley-Blackwell.

Sebeelo, T. B. (2022). The utility of constructivist grounded theory in critical policy

analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 160940692210900. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1609406922109005​7
[Crossref]

Sevinç, Y. (2018). Language anxiety in the immigrant context: Sweaty palms?

International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(6), 717–739.

Sevinç, Y., & Backus, A. (2019). Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an
immigrant context: A vicious circle? International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 22(6), 706–724.

Sevinç, Y., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Heritage language anxiety and majority language
anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 22(2), 159–179.

Shahbazi, M., & Rezaee, M. (2017). Reflection of ideology on translation: A critical

discourse analysis perspective. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Learning,
3(4), 97–101.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society,
4(2), 249–283.

Vedovelli, M. (2014). Il neoplurilinguismo italiano: una risorsa per il sistema

produttivo, una sfida per la linguistica educativa. In P. E. Balboni, D. Coste, & M.
Vedovelli (Eds.), Il diritto al plurilinguismo (pp. 65–92). Unicopli.

Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). (Supra)National identity and language: Rethinking
national and European migration policies and the linguistic integration of migrants.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 253–273.

Wright, S. (2011). Democracy, communities of communication and the European

Union. In A. L. Kjær & S. Adamo (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and European democracy
(pp. 35–55). Routledge.

Yağmur, K. (2017). Multilingualism in immigrant communities. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter,

& S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism. Encyclopedia of language
and education (3rd ed.) (pp. 1–15). Springer.

Zahariadis, N. (2016). Bounded rationality and garbage can models of the policy
process. In P. Zittoun & B. Guy Peters (Eds.), Contemporary policy approaches:
Theories, controversies and perspectives (pp. 155–174). Palgrave Macmillan.

Footnotes
1 Eurostat, Migration and migrant population statistics. Data extracted in March
2021. Last accessed 30 July 2021. https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​eurostat/​statistics-explained/​
index.​php?​title=​Migration_​and_​migrant_​population_​statistics

2 Bundesgesetz ü ber die Schulorganisation (Schulorganisationsgesetz), zuletzt

geändert durch das Bundesgesetz BGBl. Nr. 512/1993. Bundesgesetzblatt fü r die
Republik Osterreich, Nr. 242/1962; Bundesgesetz ü ber die Schulpflicht
(Schulpflichtgesetz 1985). BGBl. Nr. 513/1993, zuletzt geändert durch das
Bundesgesetz fü r die Republik Osterreich Nr. 513/1993.

3 IA1, IA2, and IA3 (see Appendix B).

4 II1 (see Appendix B).

5 See document titled Orientamenti interculturali, in Appendix A.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
A. Malandrino, Migrant Languages in Education, Studies in the Political Economy of
Public Policy
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15794-3_2

2. Adopting the Multiple Streams

Framework to Understand the
Preconditions of Policy Decisions
Anna Malandrino1
(1) Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna,
Bologna, Italy

The Multiple Streams Framework first appeared in the book entitled

Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, by John W. Kingdon (1995).
Compared to previous models for understanding policymaking, the
Multiple Streams Framework emphasizes the dynamic and irrational
nature of the policy process, which derives from ambiguity in the
reality of policymaking environments (Zahariadis, 2003). Conversely,
traditional models see policymaking as a systematic, linear process that
leads to rational decisions (Chow, 2014; Nutley et al., 2007). According
to rationalist scholars, policymaking processes linearly proceed from
problem identification to the examination of alternatives and,
eventually, to the adoption of policy solutions. This way of interpreting
policy processes might not, however, provide an accurate picture of real
policymaking situations (Albæk, 1995; Teodorović, 2008), as not all
policymaking processes are rational in nature (Monaghan, 2011).
Namely, it could overlook factors such as timing or political ideologies
(Black, 2001), as well as ambiguity in the definition of the problem to
be tackled. The Multiple Streams Framework addresses these
shortcomings and, as an elaboration of the garbage can model of
policymaking (Cohen et al., 1972; March & Olsen, 1976; Nutley et al.,
2007), it contributes to a paradigm shift in the field of policy studies.
The Multiple Streams Framework is based on a number of
assumptions, including ambiguity, time constraints, undefined policy
preferences, unclear technology, fluid participation, and stream
independence. This last assumption, as we shall see later on, refers to
the structural elements of the Multiple Streams Framework, which are
identified in three streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and
the politics (or political) stream. These streams are theorized to
combine into the opening of a policy window (or window of
opportunity), which is leveraged by policy entrepreneurs to achieve
their intended goals.

2.1 Behind the Multiple Streams Framework:

Underlying Assumptions
Herweg et al. (2018) elucidate both the assumptions and the structural
elements of the Multiple Streams Framework by complementing their
original elaborations with the existing literature about the covered
concepts. Let us start with the fundamental concept of ambiguity. Based
on Feldman’s definition as “the state of having many ways of thinking
about the same circumstances or phenomena” (Feldman, 1989, 5),
ambiguity can be referred primarily to as the definition of policy
problems, and consequently as the definition of the solutions to those
problems. At the basis of the Multiple Streams Framework is, indeed,
not only the negation of the existence of a rational solution to a given
problem but the problematic nature of the very definition of problems
and their constitutive elements. As we shall see in this book, this
ambiguity can be particularly pronounced in the case of problems
whose conceptualization depends on ideology—which is often the case
when migration is involved. More specifically, applied to the topic at the
core of this book: do migrant languages represent an issue to be tackled
or an asset to be valued? And, on the level of solutions: should we adopt
homogenizing (education) policies that require the mere adaptation of
migrants to the hosting language context, or should we adopt pluralistic
(education) policies that require the recognition and promotion of each
linguistic component that is present in a given migrant hosting context?
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 [554] Cam. 2. This statement is valuable notwithstanding
Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 683.
[555] Payment is mentioned by Livy v. 7. 12 (403) but triple pay
is first spoken of in ch. 12. 12 (400); cf. Polyb. vi. 39. 12; Fest.
234. 26.
[556] Polyb. vi. 39. 15. The statement of Varro, L. L. viii. 71
(“Debet igitur dici ... non equum publicum mille assarium esse,
sed mille assariorum”), seems to signify that in practice the cost
of a public horse meant a payment to the eques of a thousand
asses a year; cf. Gerathewohl, Die Reiter und die Rittercent. 49
ff., whose interpretation is preferable to that of Mommsen, Röm.
Staatsr. iii. 257, n. 5. The fact that the support of one knight was
considered equal to that of three legionaries (Livy xxix. 15. 7) is
further evidence that the triple pay covered the purchase and
keep of the horse. Reference in Livy vii. 41. 8, may be to the
sums (aera) for the purchase and keep of the horse; cf.
Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii. 257, n. 3.
[557] Dionysius Hal. vi. 44. 2, assigns the first recruiting of the
equites from the plebeians to the year 494, dating the event about
a century too early; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii. 478, n. 1.
[558] Livy v. 7. 5.
[559] All this may be gathered from Livy v. 7. 4-13; cf.
Gerathewohl, Die Reiter und die Rittercent. 16 ff.
[560] Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Livy xxvii. 11. 14.
[561] Livy xxvii. 11. 14, 16. This passage does not refer to those
who avoided duty equo privato, as Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii.
478, n. 2, supposes. Those were punished who were qualified to
serve equo publico but had avoided military duty altogether.
Gerathewohl, ibid. 20 f., believes that Livy has made a mistake in
assigning this judgment to the censors of 209, as it would much
better suit the conditions of 214.
[562] The credit of establishing this fact beyond a doubt is due
to Gerathewohl, Die Reiter und die Rittercent. 14-34.
[563] N. H. xxxiii. 1. 30: “Equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis
equorum publicorum;” cf. Fest. ep. 81: “Equitare antiqui dicebant
equum publicum merere.”
[564] P. 75.
 [565] There were four legions each with 4000 infantry and 300
horse at the opening of the First Punic War; Polyb. i. 16. 2. Four
legions fought against Pyrrhus at Asculum, 279; Dion. Hal. xx. 1.
This was the normal number for the Samnite wars; cf. Mommsen,
Röm. Staatsr. iii. 477.
[566] Two legions of juniors was the maximal limit of Rome’s
military strength during the period of twenty-one tribes; cf. p. 77,
84. The incorporation of the Veientan territory, 387, could not at
once have doubled this force.
[567] Livy xxv. 3. 1-7; cf. Gerathewohl, Die Reiter und die
Rittercent. 54. The sources do not suggest that the number after
reaching eighteen hundred remained unalterable. In Cic. Rep. ii.
20. 36 (“Deinde equitum ad hunc morem constituit, qui usque
adhuc est retentus”) reference is not to number but to character;
Gerathewohl, ibid. 8 f. Mommsen’s interpretation (Röm. Staatsr.
iii. 259, n. 5) is therefore wrong.
[568] In 200 the seven legions contained twenty-one hundred
equites or fewer; Gerathewohl, Die Reiter und die Rittercent. 56.
[569] Orat. lxiv: “Nunc ego arbitror oportere restitui
(Mommsen’s emendation ‘institui’ is unnecessary), quin minus
duobus milibus ac ducentis sit aerum equestrium.” Mommsen,
Röm. Staatsr. iii. 259, wrongly holds the opinion that the measure
failed to pass.
[570] See citations collected by Gerathewohl, ibid. 56, n. 1.
[571] Dion. Hal. vi. 13. 4: Ἔστιν ὅτε shows that the number
varied; cf. Madvig, Röm. Staat. i. 171.
[572] Suet. Aug. 38.
[573] Cic. Rep. ii. 22. 39; Livy i. 43. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 1.
High birth and great wealth are emphasized, but no definite rating
of the class is given. Their treatment of the subject is compatible
with the view that the knights were then patrician—a view
however which these writers did not have clearly in mind. Livy’s
statement (iii. 27. 1) that a certain patrician served in the infantry
because of his poverty harmonizes well with the same view; for
as the aes equestre and hordearium were not yet introduced, a
poor patrician would be unable to own and keep a horse. Those
scholars therefore seem to be wrong who, like Grathewohl, ibid.
67, following Rubino, in Zeitschr. f. d. Altertumswiss. iv (1846).
219, refer the equestrian census to Servius Tullius.
 [574] P. 94. It is for about this time (403) that Livy, v. 7. 5, first
refers definitely to an equestrian census.
[575] This fact is most clearly stated by Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3, and
is confirmed by Cic. Rep. ii. 22. 39.; cf. Pliny, N. H. xxxiii. 3. 43; for
further evidence, see Belot, Rev. écon. et mon. 5 ff.
[576] P. 92.
[577] Hor. Ep. I. i. 57; Pliny, N. H. xxxiii. 2. 32; Mart. iv. 67; v. 23,
25, 38; Pliny, Ep. 1. 19. 2; Juv. i. 105; v. 132; xiv. 326; Suet. Caes.
38.
[578] Serv. in Aen. iii. 89; vi. 190; xii. 259.
[579] Cic. Div. 16. 29 f.: “Dirae, sicut cetera auspicia, ut omina,
ut signa, non causas adferunt, cur quid eveniat, sed nuntiant
eventura, nisi provideris.” The last statement means only that a
misfortune will happen, if an evil omen is unheeded. Cic. Div. ii.
33. 70: “Non enim sumus ii nos augures, qui ... futura dicamus;”
cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 331; Aust, Relig. d. Römer, 198.
[580] Serv. in. Aen. iii. 20: “Auspicari enim cuivis ... licet.”
[581] Cic. Div. i. 16. 28: “Nihil fere quondam maioris rei nisi
auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur, quod etiam nunc
nuptiarum auspices declarant, qui re omissa nomen tantum
tenent;” 46. 104; Val. Max. ii. 1. 1. On the nuptial auspices, see
De Marchi, Cult. priv. di Rom. i. 152-5.
[582] Romulus consulted the rest of the gods along with Jupiter;
Dion. Hal. ii. 5. 1.
[583] The public auspices were Jupiter’s alone; Cic. Leg. ii. 8.
20. So were the auspical chickens; Div. ii. 34. 72; 35. 73; cf.
Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 77, n. 2. In historical time the sign
called for was Jupiter’s lightning; Cic. Div. ii. 18. 42; Vatin. 8. 20;
Phil. v. 3. 7. The epithet Elicius, notwithstanding Varro, L. L. vi. 95;
Livy i. 20. 7; 31. 8, does not find its explanation in the auspices;
Aust, in Roscher, Lex. Myth. ii. 656 ff.; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d.
Röm. 106.
[584] P. 100, n. 3.
[585] In Gell. xvi. 4. 4.
[586] Cato, De sacrilegio commisso, in Fest. 234. 30. No one
could imagine Attus Navius, the swineherd, to have been a
patrician, and yet he was the most famous of private augurs; Cic.
Div. i. 17. It is significant, too, that the great authority on private
auspices, P. Nigidius Figulus, author of Augurium privatum in
several books (Gell. vii. 6. 10), was a plebeian.
[587] Livy iv. 2. 5 f.
[588] Livy iv. 6. 1 f.
[589] Livy vi. 41. 5 f.
[590] Cic. Div. ii. 36. 76: “Nos, nisi dum a populo auspicia
accepta habemus, quam multum iis utimur?” i. 16. 28.
[591] Rubino, Röm. Verf. 46, n. 2, has pointed out that the
phrase auspicia publica occurs only in Livy iv. 2. 5, where he
believes it to be used in a special sense. In the time of Cicero no
one but an antiquarian ever thought of any other kind of auspices.
[592] Livy x. 8. 9.
[593] The usual view, represented by Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr.
i. 89, n. 1, is that the plebeians did not possess this right originally
but acquired it later; cf. also Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. ii. 2581; Di Marchi, Cult. priv. di. Rom. i. 233. This
hypothesis not only lacks support, but is also vitiated by the fact
that at the time of the supposed equalization private auspices
must have been declining, as Cicero found them extinct.
The treatment of private auspices here given is supplementary
to the study of the social classes made in ch. ii.
[594] Messala, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4; Fest. 157. 21; Rubino, Röm.
Verf. 71 ff.; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 580.
[595] Cic. Leg. iii. 3. 9; Livy vi. 41. 6; viii. 23. 15 f.
[596] Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 96 ff.
[597] Messala, De auspiciis, i, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4; Bouché-
Leclerq, ibid. ii. 581.
[598] Messala, ibid.
[599] As when for instance the consul forbids the minor
magistrate to “watch the sky” on an appointed comitial day; Gell.
xiii. 15. 1: “In edicto consulum, quo edicunt, quis dies comitiis
centuriatis futurus sit, scribitur ex vetere forma perpetua: ne quis
magistratus minor de caelo servasse velit.”
[600] Commentarium Anquisitionis of a quaestor, in Varro, L. L.
vi. 91: “Auspicio operam des et in templo auspices, dum aut ad
praetorem aut ad consulem mittas auspicium petitum.” This
passage shows that the quaestor, though asking permission,
himself holds the auspices.
[601] The first alternative is held by Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i.
89, whereas Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2584, is
inclined to the latter.
[602] Gell. xiv. 7. 4, 8, quoting Varro.
[603] Leg. iii. 3. 10: “Omnes magistratus auspicium iudiciumque
habento.” The previous paragraph is concerned with the tribunes,
and in this citation the use of iudicium instead of imperium points
to the tribunes. It is hardly possible that Cicero in his Laws would
give the tribunes a right they did not possess.
[604] In Gell. xiii. 15. 4. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. ii. 2583, seems therefore to be incorrect in excluding the
tribunes from the right.
[605] In stating that the tribunes were given the right to take
auspices for their assemblies, Zonaras, vii. 19, evidently confuses
the oblativa with the impetrativa. It is an interesting fact that
according to Cicero the first college of tribunes was elected under
auspices in the comitia curiata; Frag. A. vii. 48: “Itaque auspiciato
postero anno tr. pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt.”
[606] Cic. Div. ii. 34. 71: “Hic apud maiores nostros adhibebatur
peritus, nunc quilubet.” As in the time of Cicero auspices had
come to be a mere pretence (p. 118), an attendant without skill or
scruple would best serve the magistrate’s purpose. In Livy iv. 18.
6, the augurs see the omen for the dictator, but some other
attendant might serve the purpose. Being a paid functionary, the
bird-seer mentioned by Dion. Hal. ii. 6. 2 as assisting in an
auspication could not have been a public augur; Valeton, in
Mnemos. xviii. 406 ff.; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer, 456, n.
8. The magistrate requested assistance in the following form: “Q.
Fabi, te mihi in auspicio esse volo;” and the reply was “Audivi;”
Cic. Div. ii. 34. 71; cf. § 72. From this formula it appears that the
person summoned did not hold, but assisted in, the auspices;
Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 338. The auspices are always said to belong
not to the augurs, but to the magistrates; Cic. Leg. iii. 3. 10;
Messala, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4. Instead of remaining with the augurs
in the city the auspices followed a duly elected consul into the
field; Livy xxii. 1. 6. Auspicari is strictly a function of the magistrate
(cf. Varro, Rer. hum. xx, in Non. Marc. 92) though the word is
sometimes applied to the observation made by augurs (Fest. ep.
18), whose function is properly termed augurium, augurare; Aust,
Relig. d. Römer, 200 f.; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl.
ii. 2580 f.
[607] The derivation is unknown. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa,
Real-Encycl. ii. 2313 f., summarizes the principal theories.
Probability seems to favor the view that it is a combination of the
root of avis with a verbal noun meaning “to see” or the like;
Walde, Lat. etym. Wörterb. 55.
[608] Attus Navius from his boyhood was renowned for his
augural skill; Cic. Div. i. 17; Livy i. 36; Dion. Hal. iii. 70 f.; cf.
Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 333. Romulus, too, is said to have been an
excellent augur; Remus possessed similar skill (Cic. Div. i. 2. 3;
17. 30; 40. 89; Ennius, in Cic. Div. i. 48. 107), and in the opinion
of Livy, i. 18. 6; iv. 4. 2, there was no augural college before
Numa.
[609] Varro, L. L. v. 33; Cic. Fam. vi. 6. 7; Senec. 18. 64; Fest.
161. 20; CIL. vi. 503, 504, 511, 1233, 1449; x. 211; Wissowa, in
Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2314.
[610] Cic. Rep. ii. 9. 16; 14. 26; Livy x. 6. 7; ep. lxxxix;
Marquardt, Röm. Staatsv. iii. 398; Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 334 f.;
Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer, 451; also his article in Pauly-
Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2316 f. In adding a supernumerary (Dio
Cass. xlii. 51. 4) Caesar set an example extensively followed by
the principes; cf. Dio Cass. li. 20. 3; Wissowa, ibid. ii. 2317.
[611] As distinguished from magistrates they were privati; Cic.
Div. i. 40. 89.
[612] Auctor Incertus (Huschke) p. 4: “Collegium augurum ordo
hominum prudentum erat, qui prodigiis publicis praeerant;” cf.
Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 330.
[613] Cic. Div. ii. 34. 71 f.; cf. Livy xli. 18.
[614] Plut. Q. R. 99.
[615] Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 20; Phil. xiii. 5. 12.
[616] They are never called flamines, and no flamen was
attached to their office; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer, 451.
The great sacerdotal colleges were more political than religious,
and the college of augurs was the most thoroughly political of all;
Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 564.
 [617] Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 20; Dio Cass, xxxvii. 24 f.; Aust, Relig. d.
Römer, 199; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2325-
30.
[618] Fest. 333. 9: “Spectio in auguralibus ponitur pro
aspectione; (data est) et nuntiatio, qui omne ius auspiciorum
habent, auguribus non spectio dumtaxat, quorum consilio rem
gererent magistratus, ut possent impedire, nuntiando
quaecumque vidissent; privatis spectio sine nuntiatione data est,
ut ipsi auspicio rem gererent, non ut alios impedirent
nuntiando.”—Valeton’s emendation, in Mnemos. xviii (1890). 455
f.
[619] Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 21: “Quique agent rem duelli quique domi
popularem, auspicium praemonento ollique obtemperanto;” cf.
Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 332.
[620] It generally happened that both the augural and pontifical
colleges were filled by statesmen, so that Cicero could lay down
the principle that the sacred and political offices were held by the
same persons; Div. i. 40. 89; cf. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa,
Real-Encycl. ii. 2321.
[621] Livy iv. 7. 3; viii. 23. 14-17; xxiii. 31. 13; xlv. 12. 10; Cic.
Phil. ii. 33. 83; Leg. ii. 12. 31; N. D. ii. 4. 11. A defect in the
auspicia impetrativa was expressed by the formula “vitio
tabernaculum captum esse” (Cic. N. D. ii. 4. 11; Div. i. 17. 33; Livy
iv. 7. 3; Serv. in Aen. ii. 178), whereas the phrase “vitio creatum
esse” or the like (Livy viii. 15. 6; 23. 14; xxiii. 31. 13; xlv. 12. 10;
Plut. Marcell. 4) denoted a failure to take the auspices or to heed
unfavorable omens; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii.
2334. On the annulment of laws through augural decrees, see
Cic. Leg. 8. 21; 12. 31; Div. ii. 35. 74. The decree was no more
than an opinion, on which the senate acted; Rubino, Röm. Verf.
88. n. 3; Aust, Relig. d. Römer, 201.
[622] An example of such boldness was that of C. Flaminius;
Livy xxi. 63; cf. Plut. Marcell. 4; Zon. vii. 20. For the case of
Appius Claudius Pulcher, see Livy ep. xix; Polyb. i. 52.
[623] P. 112.
[624] Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 21. Strictly it was the templum minus as
distinguished from the templum magnum, a region of the sky;
Varro, L. L. vii. 7; Fest. 157. 24; Serv. in Aen. i. 92.
 [625] Varro, L. L. vi. 86, 91. It was always rectangular, and was
usually covered with a tent; Fest. 157. 24; Serv. in Aen. ii. 512; iv.
200; Nissen, Templum, 162 ff.; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer,
455; in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2337 ff.; Valeton, in
Mnemos. xx (1892). 338-90; xxi. 62-91, 397-440; xxiii. 15-79; xxv.
93-144, 361-385; xxvi. 1-93; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et
Saglio, Dict. i. 554 f.
[626] When wars were waged in the immediate vicinity of Rome
the augurs could easily accompany the commander; cf. Livy iv.
18. 6; Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 21. But they certainly did not often go as far
as Samnium; cf. Livy viii. 23. 16; ix. 38. 14. Though the augurs
remained at Rome, the auspices followed the commander into the
field; Livy xxii. 1. 6; p. 105, n. 1.
[627] Livy iii. 20. 6; Aust, Relig. d. Römer, 201.
[628] Gell. xiii. 14. 1; Varro, L. L. v. 143; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult.
d. Römer, 456, n. 1.
[629] Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2339.
[630] Serv. in Aen. vi. 197; Varro, L. L. vi. 53; Wissowa, Relig.
u. Kult. d. Römer, 456; also his article in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. ii. 2339.
[631] Varro, L. L. v. 143; Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 21; CIL. vi. 1233;
Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer, 456 and notes.
[632] Varro, L. L. v. 33.
[633] The elder Tiberius Gracchus vitiated the election of his
successors in the consulship by forgetting to renew the auspices,
when, after entering the city to preside over the senate, he
recrossed the pomerium to hold the election in the Campus; Cic.
N. D. ii. 4. 11; Div. i. 17. 33; cf. Tac. Ann. iii. 19.
[634] Fest. 250. 12; 157. 29; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i, 97,
n. 1; Valeton, in Mnemos. xviii (1890). 209 f. The reason for the
auspication on such occasions is differently stated by the
authorities, but the interpretation given by Jordan-Hülsen, Top. d.
Stadt Rom, 1. iii. 472 f., that this brook marked the boundary of
the city auspices, seems preferable.
[635] Avispex, auspex, bird-seer; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa,
Real-Encycl. ii. 2580.
[636] Livy i. 7. 1.
 [637] Fest. ep. 64; Cic. Div. ii. 33. 71: “Haec certe quibus
utimur, sive tripudio sive de caelo” (the auspicia tripudio being
used in the military sphere, leaving only the auspicia de caelo for
the city); cf. i. 16. 28; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 79, n. 1; Aust,
Relig. d. Römer, 203; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl.
ii. 2333.
[638] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 13. 3. Lightning from left to right
especially in a clear sky was favorable; Dion. Hal. ii. 5. 2; Verg.
Aen. ii. 692; vii. 141; ix. 628 (on the last, see Servius). A
thunderclap was unfavorable to one entering office; xxiii. 31. 13;
Plut. Marcell. 12; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 80, n. 2.
[639] Tac. Hist. i. 18.
[640] Cic. Div. ii. 18. 42.
[641] Cic. Div. ii. 35. 74; 18. 43; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 13. 3 f.
[642] Censoriae Tabulae, in Varro, L. L. vi. 86: “Ubi noctu in
templum censor auspicaverit atque de caelo nuntium erit,
praeconi sic imperato ut viros vocet.”
[643] Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2585. The
auguraculum was doubtless used only by the augurs, not as
Mommsen (Röm. Staatsr. i. 103, n. 2) supposes, by the
magistrates.
[644] Livy viii. 14. 12; Cic. Vatin. 10. 24: “In rostris, in illo
inquam augurato templo ac loco.”
[645] Varro, L. L. vi. 91; Val. Max. iv. 5. 3; Cic. Rab. Perd. 4. 11;
Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2585 f.
[646] Valeton, in Mnemos. xxiii (1895). 28 ff.
[647] Censoriae Tabulae, in Varro, L. L. vi. 86; Livy viii. 23. 15;
x. 40. 2.
[648] The auspices had to be taken on the day the business
was to be transacted, counting the day from midnight to midnight;
Gell. iii. 2. 10; Consorinus xxiii. 4.
[649] Verrius, in Fest. 347. 17; Serv. in Aen. ix. 4; Statius, Theb.
iii. 459. Romulus, however, stood upright; Dion. Hall. ii. 5. 1.
[650] P. 105.
[651] Silence was essential to perfect auspices; Fest. 348. 29;
ep. 64; Livy viii. 23. 15; ix. 38. 14; x. 40. 2; Pliny, N. H. viii. 57.
223.
 [652] Serv. in Aen. iii. 89; Livy i. 18. 9.
[653] Cf. Livy xli. 18. 14.
[654] Cf. Livy ix. 38. 15; 39. 1.
[655] Cf. p. 115, 118, n. 2.
[656] Livy v. 52. 15; ix. 38. 15 f.; 39. 1; Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 3; Cic.
Att. ii. 7. 2; 12. 1; viii. 3. 3. Hoffmann, Patric. u. pleb. Curien, 29
ff., is of the opinion that the assembly which passed the lex
curiata was not auspicated, his idea being that the lex curiata
itself conferred the ius auspiciorum publicorum. There is no
ground, however, for either of these suppositions.
[657] Cic. N. D. ii. 4. 11; Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 2. On the censorial
auspication of the comitia centuriata for the lustrum, see Varro, L.
L. vi. 86. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 98, n. 6, supposes this to be
the auspication of the censor’s entrance into office (cf. 81, n. 1),
believing that assemblies which did not vote were unauspicated.
But cf. p. 111, n. 1 below.
[658] Dio Cass. liv. 24. 1; Cic. Fam. vii. 30. 1; cf. Varro, R. R. iii.
2. 1.
[659] Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 3; 49. 5.
[660] This is shown by the Commentarium Anquisitionis of M.
Sergius, a quaestor, in Varro, L. L. vi. 91.
[661] Censoriae Tabulae, in Varro, L. L. vi. 86 f.: “Ubi noctu in
templum censor auspicaverit atque de caelo nuntium erit ... tum
conventionem habet qui lustrum conditurus est.” Mommsen’s
interpretation (Röm. Staatsr. i. 81, n. 2, 98, n. 6) which applies
these auspices to the censor’s entrance upon his office seems
forced. It is not necessary, however, to suppose that this
magistrate had to renew the auspices for every day of the
census-taking; Mommsen, ibid. i. 113, n. 4.
[662] The current view (cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 718; Mommsen,
Röm. Staatsr. i. 98; Karlowa, Röm. Rechtsgesch. i. 380;
Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1150) that no
contio was auspicated appears therefore to require modification.
[663] Plut. Pomp. 52; Cato Min. 42.
[664] Ael. Don. in Terent. Ad. iv. 2. 8: “Qui malam rem nuntiat,
obnuntiat, qui bonam, adnuntiat: nam proprie obnuntiare dicuntur
augures, qui aliquid mali ominis scaevumque viderint.” In this late
author (350 a.d.) obnuntiatio is ascribed to the augurs. When
Cicero says to Antony (Phil. ii. 33. 83) “Augur auguri, consul
consuli obnuntiasti,” he does it only to find fault with the
proceeding; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 111, n. 2. These are
the only instances known to us in which the distinction is not
observed; Mommsen, ibid.; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. ii. 2335; Valeton, in Mnemos. xix (1891). 75 ff., 229 ff.;
Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 582.
[665] Cato, De sacr. comm. in Fest. 234. 33: “Quod ego non
sensi, nullum mihi vitium facit;” Pliny, N. H. xxviii. 2. 17; Serv. in
Aen. xii. 259: “In oblativis auguriis in potestate videntis est, utrum
id ad se pertinere velit, an refutet et abominetur;” cf. Cic. Div. ii.
36. 77; Wissowa, ibid. ii. 2335. An example of an evil omen
privately reported is given by App. B. C. i. 30.
[666] Livy ix. 38. 16 with ch. 39. 1.
[667] Fest. 234. 27.
[668] P. 104; Cato, De re mil. in Fest. 214-7: “Magistratus nihil
audent imperare, ne quid consul auspici peremat.”
[669] P. 114.
[670] Cic. Phil. ii. 32. 81: “Nos (augures) nuntiationem solum
habemus, consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem;”
Varro, Rer. hum. xx, in Non. Marc. 92: “De caelo auspicari ius
neminist praeter magistratum;” Fest. 333. 9 (quoted p. 106, n. 8).
Madvig, Röm. Staat. i. 267, supposes that the augurs had both
the spectio and the nuntiatio; but this view contradicts the clear
statement of Cicero; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. 1. 109, n. 1. The
fact is, as has been stated (p. 106), they had the spectio for their
own functions only, and as assistants of the magistrates simply
the nuntiatio.
[671] The formula used is “in auspicio esse;” Cic. Att. ii. 12. 1.
[672] Cic. Leg. ii. 8. 20 f.; iii. 4. 11; 19. 43; N. D. ii. 3. 8; Div. ii.
33. 71; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 339.
[673] P. 106 f.
[674] Cic. Phil. ii. 33. 83; Div. i. 40. 89: “Privati eodem
sacerdotio praediti rem publicam religionum auctoritate rexerunt,”
an exaggeration; Leg. ii. 12. 31; Livy i. 36. 6. In this capacity the
augur did not look for omens with a view to reporting them, but
merely announced those which came unexpectedly.
[675] Phil. ii. 33. 82 f.
 [676] P. 115.
[677] Three were present at curiate assemblies; Cic. Att. iv. 17.
2; cf. ii. 7. 2.
[678] In this case the augur not only assisted with his special
knowledge, but also acted as crier; Varro, L. L. vi. 95.
[679] Varro, R. R. iii. 2. 2; 7. 1.
[680] Leg. ii. 12. 31.
[681] Cic. Phil. ii. 32. 81.
[682] P. 104, 112.
[683] Gell. xiii. 15. 1; cf. Rubino, Röm. Verf. 79.
[684] Cic. Att. i. 16. 13: “Lurco tribunus pl. solutus est et Aelia et
Fufia, ut legem de ambitu ferret;” Sest. 61. 129: “Decretum in
curia ... ne quis de caelo servaret, ne quis moram ullam adferret”
(that no one should watch the heavens or interpose any delay in
the proceedings for the recall of Cicero). Both measures here
referred to were so popular and the magistrates were so nearly
unanimous in their support that the senate felt it could in these
cases forestall the opposition of one or two opponents.
[685] In the famous case of Bibulus against Caesar, 59; Suet.
Caes. 20; cf. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 4. 2 f.
[686] Proved by the fact that the watching of the sky by Bibulus
should have annulled the arrogation of Clodius (Cic. Dom. 15. 39
f.; Har. Resp. 23. 48; Att. ii. 12. 2; 16. 2; Prov. Cons. 19. 45;
Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 113, n. 2), which was brought about
by an act of the curiae under the presidency of the supreme
pontiff. Any one competent to observe the heavens necessarily
had the obnuntiatio.
[687] Cic. Sest. 36. 78. Probably obnuntiatio against tribunes is
referred to by Cic. Phil. v. 3. 7 f. and by Ascon. 68 (the last is the
abolition of the Livian laws of 91), but the obnuntiating magistrate
is not known. In Cic. Vatin. 7. 17 (“Num quem post urbem
conditam scias tribunum pl. egisse cum plebe, cum constaret
servatum esse de caelo”) the principle is laid down that any one
who has the right to obnuntiate may use this power against a
tribune. The validity of the tribunician law for the interdiction of
Cicero from fire and water was maintained on the ground that no
one was then watching the sky; Cic. Prov. Cons. 19. 45.
 [688] Cic. Sest. 37. 79; cf. 38. 83; Phil. ii. 38. 99; Att. iv. 3. 3 f.;
17. 4; Q. Fr. iii. 3. 2 (cf. Drumann-Gröbe, Gesch. Roms, iii. 6;
Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 113, n. 3); Dio Cass, xxxix. 39; Plut.
Crass. 16; App. B. C. ii. 18. 66 (cf. Cic. Div. i. 16. 29); iii. 7. 25.
[689] Cic. Att. iv. 9. 1.
[690] Cic. Vatin. 7. 16.
[691] Cic. Dom. 15. 39: “(Augures) negant fas esse agi cum
populo, cum de caelo servatum sit.”
[692] Cic. Att. iv. 3. 3.
[693] Cic. Phil. ii. 32. 81.
[694] Cic. Att. iv. 3. 4. In like manner Bibulus, after obnuntiating
in vain against Caesar’s agrarian law (p. 439), determined to
remain at home and continually to watch the sky for the
remainder of the year. This procedure invalidated all acts passed
during that time by the assembly; Cic. Dom. 15. 39 f.; Har. Resp.
23. 48; Prov. Cons. 19. 45.
[695] This procedure too was followed by Bibulus; Dio Cass.
xxxviii. 6. 1; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 82, n. 3.
[696] That they were two separate enactments, and not one
complex statute by joint authors, is clearly indicated by Cic. Har.
Resp. 27. 58: “Sustulit duas leges Aeliam et Fufiam;” Sest. 15. 33.
Generally they are spoken of as separate laws, though Cicero
occasionally, as Vatin. 5. 7, groups them in one. That they were
plebiscites is held probable by Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 111, n.
4.
[697] When Cicero, Vatin. 9. 23, states that these laws survived
the ferocity of the Gracchi, the audacity of Saturninus, etc., he
places their origin in the times before the Gracchi; and when he
speaks of their abolition, 58, he tells us that they had been in
force about a hundred years (Pis. 5. 10).
[698] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13.
[699] Vatin. 7. 18.
[700] Ibid. 9. 13.
[701] Red. in Sen. 5. 11; cf. Har. Resp. 27. 58; Pis. 4. 9:
“Propugnacula murique tranquillitatis atque otii.” With other
provisions of these statutes (cf. Cic. Att. i. 16. 13; Schol. Bob. 319
f.) the present discussion is not concerned. See further on these
laws, p. 358 f. below.
[702] Kleine Schriften, i. 274 ff., 341; Röm. Alt. ii. 315, 477 f.
[703] Att. iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; Phil. ii. 32. 81.
[704] Cic. Vatin. 6. 15; 7. 18.
[705] Cic. Red. in Sen. 5. 11: “Legem tribunus pl. tulit, ne
auspiciis obtemperaretur, ne obnuntiare concilio aut comitiis, ne
intercedere liceret, ut lex Aelia et Fufia ne valeret;” Har. Resp. 27.
58; Sest. 15. 33; Prov. Cons. 19. 46; Pis. 4. 9; 5. 11; Dio Cass.
xxxviii. 13. 5 f.; 14. 2; Ascon. 9; Schol. Bob. 319 f.
[706] Cic. Att. iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; Phil. ii. 32. 81; cf. Fröhlich, in
Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 84; Drumann-Gröbe, Gesch.
Roms, ii. 204 f.
[707] VIII. 23. 13 ff.
[708] Polyb. vi. 56. 6 ff.
[709] The former view was taken by Appius Claudius Pulcher,
consul in 54 and author of a work De disciplina augurali (Fest.
298. 26), and the latter by C. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50,
and by Cicero—all three being public augurs; Cic. Div. i. 47. 105;
ii. 18. 42; 33. 70; 35. 75; Leg. ii. 13. 32 f.; N. D. i. 42. 118; in
general Div. ii. At that time auspices were a mere pretence; the
chicken omens were forced, and the celestial signs were not
seen; Cic. Div. ii. 33 f., 71 f.; Dion. Hal. ii. 6. On the decline of
augury and the auspices, see Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. ii. 2315, 2333.
[710] Probably the jurist of that name who lived under Hadrian,
and who is mentioned by Paulus, in Dig. v. 4. 3.
[711] XV. 27. 4: “Is qui non universum populum, sed partem
aliquam adesse iubet, non comitia, sed concilium edicere debet.”
[712] For the purpose of the present discussion the plebeian
assembly—that is, the assembly which convened under the
tribunes of the plebs and which issued plebiscita—is assumed to
be a gathering of only a part of the people. If it admitted patricians
(p. 300), and if therefore there was no assembly comprised
exclusively of plebeians, no argument would be needed to prove
the error of the conventional distinction between comitia and
concilium.
[713] In Livy iii. 16. 6, this meeting is called a concilium.
 [714] P. 341.
[715] Röm. Forsch. i. 170, n. 8; Röm. Staatsr. iii. 149, n. 3.
[716] Mil. 3. 7; cf. p. 122, n. 3 below.
[717] “Cum se in mediam contionem intulissent, abstinere
suetus ante talibus conciliis.”
[718] His last citation on this point, Livy v. 47. 7 (“Vocatis ad
concilium militibus”) has reference to the soldiers only—to a part
of the people—and is therefore altogether unlike the others. For
an explanation of it, see p. 135 f.
[719] A closely related question is whether concilium is ever
restricted to the deliberative stage of a session preliminary to the
division into voting units, with comitia limited in a corresponding
manner to the final, voting stage of the session. A few passages,
as examples (2) and (4), might be explained by such a
conjecture, but others, as Livy iii. 13. 9 (“Virginio comitia habente
conlegae appellati dimisere concilium”) prove the supposition
impossible. Concilium denotes the assembly in its final as well as
in its initial stage, voting as well as deliberating, whereas in
ordinary political language contio is used to denote the merely
listening or witnessing assembly, whether organized or
unorganized, whether called to prepare the citizens for voting or
for any other purpose.
[720] Röm. Forsch. i. 170, n. 8.
[721] Ibid. i. 195 f. It is true that the plebeian assembly came to
be subject to the obnuntiatio (p. 117), but it would be absurd on
this ground to suppose that Livy’s statement refers especially to
gatherings of the kind.
[722] This statement admits that concilium here designates an
assembly of the whole people; but Mommsen does not tell us why
the word applies with greater propriety to the “patricio-plebeian”
tribal assembly than to the centuriate assembly. For the true
reason, see p. 137, n. 5.
[723] Röm. Staatsr. iii. 149, n. 3.
[724] Undoubtedly the Caesar who was consul in 64 b.c.;
Teuffel and Schwabe, Rom. Lit. i. 348. § 3; Drumann-Gröbe,
Gesch. Roms, iii. 120, n. 6.
[725] “P. Lucullus et L. Annius, tribuni plebis, resistentibus
collegis continuare magistratum nitebantur, quae dissensio totius
anni comitia impediebat.”
[726] De com. trib. et conc. pl. discr. (1875); Mommsen, Röm.
Staatsr. iii. 149, n. 1; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl.
iv. 802. The correctness of my results is acknowledged in the
Thesaurus linguae latinae, iv. 44 ff.
[727] “Tribunicii candidati compromiserunt HS quingenis in
singulos apud M. Catonem depositis petere eius arbitratu, ut, qui
contra fecisset, ab eo condemnaretur. Quae quidem comitia si
gratuita fuerint, ut putantur, plus unus Cato potuerit quam omnes
leges omnesque iudices.” The translation given above is
Shuckburgh’s.
[728] “Permagni nostra interest te, si comitiis non potueris, at,
declarato illo, esse Romae.”
[729] Cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 482.
[730] “Venio ad comitia, sive magistratuum placet sive legum.
Leges videmus saepe ferri multas. Omitto eas, quae feruntur ita,
vix ut quini, et ii ex aliena tribu, qui suffragium ferant, reperiantur.
De me, quem tyrannum atque ereptorem libertatis esse dicebat
illa ruina rei publicae, dicit se legem tulisse. Quis est, qui se, cum
contra me ferebatur, inisse suffragium confiteatur? cum autem de
me eodem ex senatus consulto comitiis centuriatis ferebatur, quis
est, qui non profiteatur se adfuisse et suffragium de salute mea
tulisse? Utra igitur causa popularis debet videri, in qua omnes
honestates civitatis, omnes aetates, omnes ordines una mente
consentiunt, an in qua furiae concitatae tamquam ad funus rei
publicae convolant?”
[731] “Ferri de singulis nisi centuriatis comitiis noluerunt.
Descriptus enim populus censu, ordinibus, aetatibus plus adhibet
ad suffragium consilii quam fuse in tribus convocatus. Quo verius
in causa nostra vir magni ingenii summaque prudentia, L. Cotta,
dicebat nihil omnino actum esse de nobis; praeter enim quam
quod comitia ilia essent armis gesta servilibus, praeterea neque
tributa capitis comitia rata esse posse neque ulla privilegii:
quocirca nihil nobis opus esse lege, de quibus nihil omnino actum
esset legibus. Sed visum est et vobis et clarissimis viris melius,
de quo servi et latrones scivisse se aliquid dicerent, de hoc
eodem cunctam Italiam quid sentiret, ostendere.”
[732] Röm. Forsch. i. 161, n. 53.
[733] See list of citations for electoral assemblies, p. 133.
 [734] “Tribus locis significari maxime populi Romani iudicium ac
voluntas potest, contione, comitiis, ludorum gladiatorumque
consessu.”
[735] “Qui (optimates) non populi concessu, sed suis comitiis
hoc sibi nomen adrogaverunt.”
 [736] “Iubet enim tribunum plebis, qui eam legem tulerit, creare
decemviros per tribus septemdecim, ut, quern novem tribus
fecerint, is decemvir sit. Hic quaero, quam ob causam initium
rerum ac legum suarum hinc duxerit, ut populus Romanus
suffragio privaretur.... Etenim cum omnes potestates, imperia,
curationes ab universo populo Romano proficisci convenit, tum
eas profecto maxime, quae constituuntur ad populi fructum
aliquem et commodum, in quo et universi deligant, quem populo
Romano maxime consulturum putent, et unus quisque studio et
suffragio suo viam sibi ad beneficium impetrandum munire possit.
Hoc tribuno plebis potissimum venit in mentem, populum
Romanum universum privare suffragiis, paucas tribus non certa
condicione iuris, sed sortis beneficio fortuito ad usurpandam
libertatem vocare;” cf. Imp. Pomp. 15. 44; 22. 64.
[737] Sest. 51. 109.
[738] P. 301 f.
[739] “Mihi quidem eae verae videntur opiniones, quae
honestae, quae laudabiles, quae gloriosae, quae in senatu, quae
ad populum, quae in omni coetu concilioque profitendae sint;” cf.
Leg. iii. 19. 44, quoted p. 127.
[740] The writers not included in this discussion, as Nepos and
the poets, contain nothing at variance with the results here
reached. Gudeman’s article on Concilium in the Thes. ling. lat. iv.
44-8, in most respects excellent, still retains the groundless
distinction between republican and imperial usage.
[741] It will suffice here to mention the elder Cato; Livy xxxix.
40. 6: “Si ius consuleres, peritissumus;” Cic. Senec. 11. 38: “Ius
augurium, pontificium, civile tracto.” On the subject in general,
see Pais, Stor. d. Rom. I. i. 68 and notes.
[742] For citations of other authors, see Gudeman, in Thes.
ling. lat. iv. 45.
[743] All three passages are quoted, p. 130 f.
[744] The classification of comitial functions into elective,
legislative, and judicial follows Cicero, Div. ii. 35. 74: “Ut
comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel in iure legum vel in creandis
magistratibus.” In this volume, accordingly, “legislative” refers not
merely to law-making in the narrower sense, but also to the
passing of resolutions on all affairs, domestic and foreign,
including necessarily the lex de bello indicendo.
[745] For separate lists of the elective and the legislative and
judicial comitia, see VI (below), where will be found sufficient
illustrations of (b).
[746] Only one instance of concilium as an elective body has
been found; Lex Iulia Municipalis, in CIL. i. 206. 132: the election
of magistrates “comitieis conciliove.” The explanation is that the
usage of some of the Italian municipia differed from the Roman,
and the author of the law had to adapt his language to local
custom. With this exception the inscriptions are in line with the
literature.
[747] P. 124.
[748] Discussed on p. 123 f.
[749] P. 132.
[750] Ibid.
[751] Ibid.
[752] Fest. ep. 38: “Concilium dicitur a concalando, id est
vocando.” It is accepted by Curtius, Griech. Etym. 139; Vaniček,
Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb. 143; Walde, Lat. etym. Wörterb. 136.
But Corssen, Beitr. z. ital. Sprachk. 41 f., rejects this etymology
on the ground that it does not harmonize with all the meanings of
the word and of its derivative “conciliare”; also Gudeman, in Thes.
ling. lat. iv. 44. Corssen, analyzing it into con-cil-iu-m, and
connecting -cil- with a root kal-, “to cover,” supposes the original
meaning to be simply “a joining together,” “a union,”—giving that
signification which he considers primary. It is equally reasonable,
however, to assume the development to be (1) “a calling
together,” (2) “a meeting for consultation,” (3) “a natural union of
individuals of any kind.” In the third sense it is applied perhaps
figuratively to inanimate things, especially the union of atoms to
form objects, by Lucretius i. 183, 484, 772, 1082; ii. 120; iii. 805;
cf. Ovid, Met. i. 710.
[753] The meaning consultation, deliberation, clearly appears in
Plaut. Mil. 597 ff.:

“Sinite me priu’ perspectare, ne uspiam insidiae sient

Concilium quod habere volumus. Nam opus est nunc tuto
loco
 Unde inimicus ne quis nostri spolia capiat consili.
Nam bene consultum inconsultumst, si id inimicis usuist,
Neque potest quin, si id inimicis usuist, opsit tibi;
Nam bene (consultum) consilium surrupitur saepissume.”

Also in 249, 1013: “Socium tuorum conciliorum et participem

consiliorum”; Cic. Rep. 17. 28: “Doctissimorum hominum in
concilio”; Caes. B. C. i. 19; Nep. Epam. 3. 5; Verg. Aen. ii. 89 (or
consiliis); iii. 679; v. 75; xi. 234; Livy 1. 21. 3; see also II (a), p.
132, and Forcellini, Lat. Lex. ii. 347. It is never a chance crowd;
Diff. ed. Beck, p. 47. 43: “Concilium est convocata multitudo,
conventus ex diversis locis populum in unum contrahit, coetus
fortuitu congregatur.” The ancients understood this to be the
meaning of the word; Varro L. L. vi. 43: “A cogitatione concilium,
inde consilium,” an unsuccessful though instructive guess; Fest.
ep. 38: “Concilium dicitur a populo consensu;” Isid. Etym. vi. 16.
12: “Concilium a communi intentione ductum, quasi
communicilium.” This interpretation is supported by several
glosses; φιλοποιεία (Corp. Gloss. Lat. ii. 471. 49), συμβούλιον
(ibid. ii. 107. 5), coenobulium, caenobulium (ibid. iv. 321. 27).
Lastly our derivative “council” points in the same direction. The
meaning “deliberative assembly” has been accepted by
Gudeman, in Thes. ling. lat. iv. 46, who has added citations from
the whole range of Latin literature.
[754] Lodge, Lex. Plaut. i. 288; Gudeman, Thes. ling. lat. iv. 45.
[755] Cf. Gudeman, ibid. iv. 48.
[756] Cf. n. 1 and p. 132, II (a).
[757] P. 143.
[758] P. 132.
[759] The notion sometimes expressed that the word applies
more appropriately to a body of representatives of the component
states of a league is without foundation, though it is true that
some foreign concilia are of this character.
[760] P. 133.
[761] Ibid.
[762] P. 134.
[763] Thus is explained a phenomenon for which Mommsen
could find no adequate reason—that the so-called “patricio-
plebeian” tribal assembly was more apt to be called concilium