“Language is special because if you are able to speak both languages, then you are free. Then you can, you know, enter different realities.”

representative of a cultural institution

What roles and functions does language generally fulfil in this border area between two towns? What does the handling of multilingualism show us about the current reciprocal perception of people in the border area between Nova Gorica and Gorizia? What does language tell us about the way of thinking shaped there by border influence? How do the people living there imagine an ideal linguistic landscape? And how is multilingualism lived and promoted or not promoted, especially in the cultural sector?

With these questions, we set out on an ethnographic research trip to the border towns of Nova Gorica and Gorizia. We[1] tried to find answers to these through interviews with representatives of cultural institutions and cultural policy, as well as through random conversations with passers-by. Our research aimed to determine whether the presence of the border is also reflected in people’s perception and thinking through how they deal with multilingualism or whether borders can be overcome, as often attempted, especially in cultural projects. In the course of this, it became clear that the relevance of the language issue goes far beyond the cultural sector.

For our research field, we chose the following cultural institutions in the twin towns of Nova Gorica and Gorizia: Kulturni dom (Cultural Centre) Nova Gorica, Zveza kulturnik društev Nova Gorica (Union of Cultural Associations in Nova Gorica), KIT – cultural information touchpoint Nova Gorica/Gorizia, Kulturni dom Gorizia, Kinoatelje (film studio) Gorizia, and the Comune di Gorizia (municipality of Gorizia). They are of interest for our topic, as some of them (like the Kinoatelje or the KIT Cultural information touchpoint, for example) dedicate themselves specifically to the ‘cross-border idea’, which means they work across borders and engage in international cooperation. This idea of “Go Borderless” is also the slogan for the European Capital of Culture 2025, which the twin towns will be together, aiming to be like one city, connected across geographical borders and growing together, though having different cultures (cf. Republic of Slovenia GOV.SI Government Communication Office 2020). Other institutions instead (for instance, the Union of Cultural Associations in Nova Gorica) are more focused on the work solely in their town, and the municipality of Gorizia, for example, is responsible for the rights of the Slovene minority in Italy. All our interviews were in English or Italian, and I translated quotations from Italian interviews.

---

[1] Me and my colleague, who was involved in the phase of research and analysis of the interviews.

Language issues in border areas

The use of languages is commonplace, and yet it remains something special. Language is not only used to facilitate purposeful communication. It can provide stability and establish order and communities but also mark differences and exclusions (on the role of language for imagined communities see: Anderson 1998) Especially in border regions, such as in the towns of Nova Gorica and Gorizia, language takes on an even more central significance. Here, the awareness of the existence of different lifeworld realities is stronger, which became apparent through our interviews. Interestingly, the officially approved national languages are not always coherent with the unofficial daily use of languages. In addition, there are special rights for the minority language of Slovene in Gorizia, Italy. So, often at the moment of meeting, decisions are made within seconds; who talks to whom, why, and in which language? Being confronted with language issues is unavoidable in this highly integrated area.

Not only feelings of belonging and conflicts of identity but also mutual attributions, claims, expectations, and demands, as well as respect, superiority, ignorance, politeness, or provocation, can be expressed indirectly through language. Paul Watzlawick, for example, states that many messages are also conveyed unspoken or indirectly, such as by the tone of voice, pace of speech, pauses, facial expressions, gestures, posture, body movements, laughing or sighing – in other words, by behaviour in general.

“If one accepts, that all behaviour in an interpersonal situation is communicative, meaning it is communication, it follows that, however one may try, one is unable to not communicate”

Watzlawick et al. 2007: 51. Translation AK

Some things also remained unspoken or limited to cautious hints in our conversations in the field. Communication, and thus language, is hence an omnipresent topic.

So, language has multiple functions. Some more that became apparent from our observations will be presented here:

Language as metaphor

For the two central concepts of research – language and culture – some metaphors emerged in the interviews, which make their roles in society clear. Those are the following: “wall”, “facade”, “door”, “key”, and “bridge”. We base our consideration on the cognitive metaphor theory of Lakoff and Johnson, which states:

“If metaphorical structures appear in language, a metaphorical structuring of thought can be inferred (cf. Lakoff, Johnson 1980, 3). The use of a metaphor is tied to a specific point of view.”

Bösch 2006: 1. Translation AK

According to them, metaphors structure:

“Not only human thinking and perception but also its actions, because the metaphor-guided transmission influences not only the form in which a fact is spoken about but also the action related to it. In most cases, this happens completely unconsciously, because metaphorical speech and, consequently, the resulting action usually takes place without reflection.”

Ibid. translation AK

For many people, language seems to be the first touchstone that either separates or connects people when making contact. With the metaphors of a “wall”, “facade”, or “door” that stands between people, many of our interviewees independently described the situation when people do not speak the same language. For example, “Of course it’s [language] the first door. It’s the first facade, or what[ever] you call it” (representative of a cultural organisation in Gorizia). Language can therefore be seen metaphorically as a door that is closed when one does not speak the language of the ‘other’, and that can be opened by speaking it. Multilingualism is like a “key”. With multilingualism, “you have an additional key. It’s just a key, and then you go to the door […]”, a woman of the Slovenian minority in Italy described it. So, the metaphors (especially “wall” or “facade”) emphasise the separating part on the one hand, but the function to overcome or open it (especially the metaphors “door” and “key”) on the other hand too. In the discussions, the related possibilities were also explained to us:

“[…] perché imparare due lingue – soprattutto due lingue che non appartengono allo stesso cerchio culturale, […] che non hanno la stessa origine – ti apre anche due modi diversi di pensare.”

“[…] because learning two languages – especially two languages which do not belong to the same cultural circle, […] which do not have the same origin – also opens two different ways of thinking for you.”

a man in Gorizia,Translation AK

This means that understanding and mastering different languages opens up not only the possibility of purposeful communication with the other person but also provides access to other cultures and ways of thinking.

Out of our research, it seems that culture and language stand in an interwoven relation, as language is an important identity marker, such as when people working in the cultural area describe themselves as bilingual or cross-border working. Furthermore, talking about language in the border area, it seems impossible in our conversations not to talk about culture and/or cultural differences between East and West, too. In a broad sense, almost all respondents in cultural institutions see culture as a possible ‘connecting element’. There is the idea or desire that culture acts like a ‘bridge’: “[…] it’s the first bridge because culture is… accepting all the differences […]” (representative of a cross-border working cultural institution). Culture can, but does not necessarily have to, take on this bridging function. For example, it can bring people together with similar interests or help them communicate and cooperate across language and national borders. Culture is also often seen as something major to the language:

“To learn a language is also to learn the culture. Without knowing the culture, you cannot even learn the language.”

representative of a small cultural organisation in Nova Gorica

This states not only that language is inevitably connected with culture but also that people who know the culture(s) are seen to have a better understanding.

Language and asymmetry

Conversations do not only provide us with direct information or figurative metaphorically expressed information. Many insights can only be gained through the abstraction of linguistically expressed content. What is clear, however, is that Italian and Slovenian cultural workers in this field are required to talk to each other to work together. In this context, though, a linguistically themed ‘feeling of imbalance’ could be identified again and again, as mostly Slovenian native speakers are those who switch languages in conversations. Here, the role of language as a marker of identity appears.

Sometimes the choice of language shows already how the quality of cooperation is estimated. Interlocutors from Slovenian cultural institutions in Nova Gorica mentioned motives such as politeness, respect, sympathy or even pure pragmatism (renouncing one’s own language for the purpose of quicker and easier communication) when asked why they usually adapt to the ‘other’ in communication:

“When Italians come to our institution, when we hear that they are Italians, we switch to Italian. They start to speak with us in English, but we switch to Italian. Because it’s more practical […].”

woman of Slovenian mother tongue

An imbalance in the ability to speak and in the willingness to respond to the interlocutors is felt. However, this adaptation also conveys who claims to have a better command of languages. In addition, the feeling of compassion and moral obligation towards those who do not speak Slovenian is mentioned. Analysing the interviews, the impression arises that Italians are described as ‘less linguistically gifted,’ whereas Slovenes feel a kind of ‘willingness to make sacrifices’. However, this is not unconditional since it is associated with concrete expectations, such as showing appreciation and gratitude or making concessions. “But I think they will have to make an effort! “, said, for example, an employee of a cultural association in Nova Gorica, who does not see the efforts towards understanding as the sole task of the Slovenian-speaking people. If such expectations are not fulfilled, such as if speaking in the mother tongue of the interlocutor is taken for granted by the selfsame, this leads to silent disappointments, rejections and negative emotions on the side of the person who switched languages. However, these are hardly ever shown openly because those who adapted to the language ultimately wanted to try to make communication easier themselves:

“Actually, we are like ‘living prostitutes’. Because when we notice that there is a foreign person that has troubles with our language, we switch. That’s not really okay because we must be proud of our language and that’s your problem if you don’t speak my language, okay?! But we tend to switch languages.”

Slovenian native speaker

Talking about “prostitutes” is such a strong metaphor, which can be associated with subjugation and doing something you actually really do not like to do. So, standing by one’s own language also has something to do with pride and self-confidence. Language not only has a role as an enabler of communication but also as a creator of identity. If someone constantly adapts to others, their own identity suffers. But not speaking in a foreign language could be due to a lack of confidence in not daring to cross the language border. Identities may develop through speaking other languages, which requires self-confidence. The previously explained metaphor of ‘language as a barrier’ is also recognisable in practice here. To be able to speak the language of the ‘other’ means having the possibility for development. Still, it is also an instrument of power since one can adapt in conversation, which can further increase the asymmetry. This imbalance on a communicative level is not really in line with the courted ‘cross-border idea’. After all, there may already be cross-border cooperation in cultural enterprises, but at the same time, there is still a perceived and actual imbalance.

Language creates contrasts

Through language, one can define oneself as a group and, simultaneously distinguish oneself from others. The rhetoric of ‘us and them’ is also used repeatedly by our interlocutors. Following Edward Said’s theory on the practice of “othering” (cf. Said 1978), a strong dualistic (two-world) thinking can be recognised here in terms of language. One constitutes oneself as a ‘we-group’ by placing oneself in opposition to the ‘others’.

“[T]his universal practice of designating in one’s mind a familiar space which is ‘ours’ and an unfamiliar space beyond ‘ours’ which is ‘theirs’ is a way of making geographical distinctions that can be entirely arbitrary.”

Ibid.: 54

And these mental boundaries do not require the consent of the ‘others’ to become effective:

“It is enough for ‘us’ to set up these boundaries in our own minds; ‘they’ become ‘they’ accordingly, and both their territory and their mentality are designated as different from ‘ours’.”

Ibid.

According to Said, a ‘we’ can indeed only arise through the creation and clear demarcation from a ‘counterpart’ declared to be ‘foreign’. This rhetoric of “othering” can be noticed in our research in the following two quotes from representatives of two different cultural institutions, for instance: “But our programmes are made in (the) Slovenian language because we are in Slovenia. And that’s it” (employee of a cultural institution in Nova Gorica). Or: “[…] now we are thinking how to make it [an exhibition] for the next year. Maybe at the Trg Europa, at the border, … at our side” (employee of another cultural institution in Nova Gorica). Here the function of language for demarcation, differentiation and distinction, and for the creation of communities becomes recognisable; in addition to the fact that national states endeavour to achieve a homology of territory and language, which is why it seems to be natural that the borders of countries correspond with the borders of language areas, but in the end, it is a construct. As well as ethnicity, the feeling of belonging to a group is socially constructed (on the relation of nation, ethnicity, and borders, see Anderson 1998; Höfler 2021).

History shapes the present: language and stereotypes

Now that we know some of the roles and functions of language, we come to the question of what dealing with multilingualism can show us regarding people’s reciprocal perception and thinking.

At this point, it is vital to know a little bit about the area’s local history around Gorizia and Nova Gorica. Nowadays, the two towns are divided by the border between Italy and the Republic of Slovenia. However, Gorizia was built in the 11th century. This area was once part of the Holy Roman Empire, later of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and after the end of the First World War and the dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, it became part of the Italian Kingdom. After the Second World War, the area was split by the border between Yugoslavia and Italy. The larger part stayed within the Italian administration; hence, the part in the Yugoslavian territory had no administrative centre, which is why Nova Gorica (which means “New Gorizia”) was built only after World War II as a new socialist town. So, this region has a complex historical background through many border shifts (on the history of Nova Gorica and Gorizia see Ramšak 2019; Potočnik 2015; Jerman 2004; Carli et al. 2002).

In the conversations, arguments and explanatory approaches could be identified, which we repeatedly encountered in the various interviews in almost identical form. The history of the border area was often referred to in an attempt to explain the present reality. This was mainly about the reason for the more diverse language skills of the Slovenes. On the one hand, language learning via television was repeatedly mentioned:

“For Italians, it’s difficult. Any language is difficult for them. For Slovenians, it’s less. Slovenian television is not synchronised. So, that means when you watch films and everything, you have subtitles. Means that you hear the language, every language. Italian Television is synchronised. So they don’t hear other languages. […] it is much easier for Slovenians to learn other languages in any way […].”

Slovenian-speaking interviewee

In addition, crossing the border for shopping, which was relevant in the past, is often mentioned as a reason for language learning:

“[…] And also because of the shopping. Because we were crossing the border, being a socialist republic near the capitalist state, we had plenty of things that were not accessible in Yugoslavia and Slovenia, and so we went over the border.”

interviewee in Nova Gorica

A third example, in which the supposedly lower motivation of Italians to learn languages is linked to history, is the reference to Italy’s past and its role in the Roman Empire:

“No, they didn’t have interests because we were less developed. And they were also marked, some of them still today, by the Roman Empire. ‘We are the best, more superior…’ So, they didn’t have any motivation to learn Slovene.”

representative of a Slovenian institution

In this argumentation, it seems that our interlocutor sees power relations justified through historical legacy, thinking that the self-esteem of Italians is kind of legitimised through their cultural supremacy in history, which would be unattainable for Slovenians.

However, these statements quickly become generalised (by talking about “Italians” and “Slovenes”). In this context, one can also speak of stereotypes. According to the Cambridge dictionary, a stereotype is “a set idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong” (Cambridge University Press 2014). Stereotypes can serve to explain the reality of complex relationships in a simplified way because they “put diffuse material into order and reduce complexity” (Bausinger 1988: 161. Translation AK). Nevertheless, only rarely too clear and straightforward answers can adequately explain the complexity of a topic, such as that of language skills. However, Hermann Bausinger, for example, notes how persistent stereotypes are: “Stereotypes are uncritical generalisations that are completely separated from examination and are relatively resistant to change” (Ibid.: 160. Translation AK).

With such generalised ideas, members of a group or community (‘the Slovenes’) differ from other groups (‘the Italians’) and thereby distinguish themselves. Thus, both Italians and Slovenes often speak of themselves and the ‘other’ as a unified national community. However, “the Italian nation”, as one of our interviewees described it as a former ‘conqueror of the world and ruler of the Roman Empire’, has never existed in the said homogeneity. Even if our interviewee is probably aware of this, the narrative serves to maintain an image of the Italians as less motivated or gifted in learning languages.

All this shows how people’s perception and thinking are influenced by various other things, but above all by history and a narrated or subjectively experienced past.

Language as potential

Furthermore, a certain perception of language could be filtered out in our conversations. The linguistic diversity in the border region of Nova Gorica and Gorizia was almost always mentioned as an advantage in our interlocutions with representatives of cultural institutions. Multilingualism is seen here as an enormous enrichment, opportunity and potential. Multilingualism can open up new spaces for thought and action and strengthen one’s own economic, political and cultural position at home and abroad. Language diversity is thought to be closely linked to prosperity, success and prestige. In all discussions, the functional use of language is clearly in the foreground. In contrast, language as a means of a purely friendly approach and out of interest in the other person is usually only mentioned as a motive for learning the language of the ‘other’ by people who themselves have acquaintances or relatives with a different mother tongue.

Moreover, an assumption about an interdependence became clear to us in the interviews. Anyone who is basically an open and cosmopolitan person and recognises diversity would perceive diversity as wealth. Conversely, if you recognise diversity as wealth, you will become a person even more open to new things and diversity. However, according to the assessment of the local cultural sector, the potential of multilingualism is not yet sufficiently recognised by everyone. That usually refers to the rest of the population, from which they see themselves a little delimited. On the other hand, the cultural sector, which likes to present itself as a pioneer in aspects such as cosmopolitanism, diversity and cross-border thinking and working, claims to have already recognised the opportunities multilingualism offers. In addition to the invisible border between Nova Gorica and Gorizia inhabitants, a ‘borderline’ between the cultural sector and the general population becomes visible here.

To perceive multilingualism as potential and wealth, however, is therefore directly related to cosmopolitanism, which is understood as a sign of sophistication and intellect. This results in an evaluation with the ability or advocacy of multilingualism having strong positive connotations and being valued more highly than monolingualism.

Language as capital

In this respect, language can be understood as capital. For that, we first refer to Pierre Bourdieu’s general understanding of the term ‘capital’ as “accumulated labour […] in the form of matter or in internalised, ‘incorporated’ form” (Bourdieu 1983: 183f. Translation AK). According to him, capital should not only be understood economically but must be understood in all its manifestations. Only in this way the

“Structure of the social world, i.e., the entirety of its inherent constraints that govern the lasting functioning of social reality and determine the chances of success of practices” (Ibid. Translation AK)

can be understood. He, therefore, distinguishes between ‘economic’, ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ capital.

According to Bourdieu, ‘cultural capital’ is acquired primarily through education, which requires time, among other things. To be able to use language as a cultural capital, the necessary resources are required. It is clear that learning a language takes much time, for instance. With language skills, one’s own higher cultural capital can be conveyed to others. However, capital, in the sense of Bourdieu, is always relational, which means that it evolves in different social contexts and is therefore valued differently.

In fact, most of the cultural workers we spoke to are fluent in several languages. Most of them are also familiar with cross-border projects in some form and thus also with the ‘cross-border idea’. They, therefore, value their cultural capital higher than that of the general population. For example, a member of a cultural institution who speaks many languages fluently does not see herself as being representative of the population: “[…] I have my circle of people. People who are in a way involved in culture and open-minded and work in different fields. I don’t really represent the majority of people” (cultural worker in Nova Gorica).

Well-established cultural institutions are usually characterised by a high cultural and social capital but not by a high economic capital. The ‘social capital’, Bourdieu understands particularly as relationships. In our case, this can be seen, for example, in the fact that cultural institutions put much emphasis on ‘networking’. This means they cultivate relationships and make many contacts with whom they might be able to cooperate in the future.

‘Economic capital’ today means the actual money. For Bourdieu, time represents the connection between economic and cultural capital. However, economic capital is not always sufficiently available in cultural institutions. For instance, if a cultural institution wants to advocate more multilingualism in its programmes, capital and resources accumulated over a longer period must be used. Translating programme booklets or performance contents into multiple languages costs money, work, and time.

Language and agency

At this point, it is clear that language as a sort of capital is a form of power, too. Who has the power to do something? It is about the question of agency. Bourdieu realises that it is basically a world of inequality of opportunity through the inequitable distribution of capital (in all its forms) (cf. Bourdieu 1983: 183f.). It is not always actually due to a lack of will to act but a lack of power to act on the part of those involved. The distribution of the different types of capital in society at a certain point in time also influences the processes of action in society. The different types of capital can ultimately be understood as different types of power (cf. Bourdieu 2010: 171ff.). The structural conditions of the field where the capital operates also ensure that this unequal distribution continues. This means mastering several languages or being able to implement projects in the cultural sector that are intended to promote multilingualism, which also has a lot to do with which preconditions prevail.

In general, one could say that someone who speaks several languages has a higher cultural capital and thus, a power advantage. However, capital is always relational, as described above. Therefore, knowledge of the Italian language is also assessed differently from knowledge of the English language, for example. A representative of a Slovenian cultural institution explained to us how important Italian language skills were for her and her personnel in order to be able to implement cooperation with Italian institutions: “It is very important that they know English absolutely, but more important that they speak Italian!” (Employee in a Slovenian cultural institution). However, in reality, language knowledge alone does not necessarily lead to agency immediately, as one may think, because there are asymmetries of power in the field (which showed up e.g. through the stories about language switching or history) which relativise the power of ‘cultural capital’ or language knowledge, and because the distribution of the other forms of capital, plus many other factors play a role too.

Yet, those with sufficient ‘economic capital’ have the power to actually implement cross-border ideas and projects, though they may not be able to recognise a potential field of investment such as multilingualism if they have little ‘cultural capital’. According to Bourdieu, it seems that

“The collective power of the holders of cultural capital […] increases. Yet, this is opposed by the fact that the holders of economic capital (as the dominant form of capital) can place the holders of cultural capital in a situation of competition.”

Bourdieu 2010: 278. Translation AK

The implementation of planned measures can be restricted not only by funding agencies and donors but also by political decision-makers or various organisational structures. One person explained to us the additional differences between the two towns of Nova Gorica and Gorizia which

“[…] are part of different systems – legally different systems. Or you can read it like different organising systems, with different funds. If you talk about culture, you easily come to the financing, no?”

Person of the Slovenian minority in Italy

Consequently, we see that the question of agency is a multi-layered phenomenon.

Evaluation of and through language & the ideal language landscape

Language thus influences people’s perception and thinking. We asked ourselves to what extent English as a world language is helpful in the border or overlapping language area of Italian and Slovenian. The majority answer on the part of respondents is that it is important to learn English as the first foreign language, as nowadays most people can speak English, because of globalisation and the school system. However, agreeing on English as the only language is clearly seen as a loss, even if it would simplify communication. As already described, multilingualism tends to be valued more highly than monolingualism. Every language is seen as valuable and should not be lost. Therefore, people do not want to give up their language, because it is an important part of their identity with which they would also like to be understood and respected.

In this, we also suspect the justification of the ideal language landscape, as imagined by our interlocutors. Very often, the same answer was given to the question of what an ideal linguistic landscape would look like in this border area. From the answers, a clear wish could be heard, even though the fulfilment of it is perceived as (still) unrealistic. There should be a “passive bilingualism” in which everyone can express themselves in their own mother tongue and is still understood by the other person.

“The ideal would be bilingual, of course, on both sides, but otherwise, it would be what they say a passive talking. (…) For example, an Italian speaks to you in Italian, you understand him, and you can answer to him in Slovenian, and he would understand. That would be great! But we are far from that.”

cultural worker in Nova Gorica

“I would really, I mean this is ahh… Utopian, but I would, it would be perfect if everyone speaks in their own language and we understand each other, you know?”

Person working in Gorizia

“(…) I was one of the proponents of so-called “passive bilingualism” on our multilingual territory.”

person of the Slovene minority in Italy

Conclusion

It has been shown that language is an essential part of interpersonal communication and relationships. The fact that the language has many other functions and roles becomes particularly clear in border regions, like in our research around the Slovenian-Italian border between Nova Gorica and Gorizia. The categories we have created are just an attempt to represent the multifunctionality of language. So, you can notice that language can be a door, metaphorically speaking, that there are ways of opening it, such as learning the other’s language, or possibilities of connecting through culture. At present, though, there is still a perceived and actual imbalance that can appear in dualistic thinking through the “othering” with the rhetoric of “we” and the “others”. As a result, in addition to enabling communication, language also has functions for adaptation or demarcation and differentiation, as well as for self-expression and the creation of identity. These functions can also manifest in the language choice used in a conversation.

People’s perception of each other is marked by the past and the role of the geographical border in history, but subjective narratives sometimes contain generalised assumptions. However, language skills and multilingualism are viewed positively regarding diversity and the expansion of possibilities. Using Bourdieu’s concept of cultural, social and economic capital, we tried to understand these perceptions better, people’s thinking and self-expression. This has shown us that reality is often far more complex than it might seem at first glance. So, one cannot simply say that some speakers are more committed to multilingualism than others because there are multi-layered structures (of capital and power), preconditions and reasons behind it.

Consequently, boundaries can persist mentally through ideas about “the others”, through the handling with and usage of language, and through structures in society.  Nevertheless, there are approaches (in the cultural sector we were researching) to want to overcome them, such as by engaging in cross-border cooperation. In the end, almost everyone we spoke to agreed that it would be best if everyone could understand everyone in their own language. Even if there is still a long way to go until this is possible, one does not want to give up this wish.

Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict (1998): Die Erfindung der Nation: zur Karriere eines folgenreichen Konzepts. Berlin: Ullstein.

Bausinger, Hermann (1988): Stereotypie und Wirklichkeit. In: Alois Wierlacher (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Band 14. München: iudicium: p. 157-170.

Bösch, Nicole (2006): Sprache schafft Wirklichkeiten – Metaphernreflexion in der umweltwissenschaftlichen Bildung. In: Journal of Social Science Education 2006(Vol. 5, no. 2). Online at: https://www.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/view/363/360 (last access: 20.06.2022)

Bourdieu, Pierre (1983): Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Kreckel, Reinhard (Hrsg.): Soziale Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt. Sonderband, 2. Göttingen: Schwartz. p. 183-198. Online at: https://www.suz.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbb9-cd4d-ffff-ffff9b2bc6cf/03.15_bourdieu_83.pdf (last access: 20.06.2022)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2010), Ökonomisches Kapital – Kulturelles Kapital – Soziales Kapital. In: Kimmich, Dorothee/ Schahadat, Schamma/Hauschild, Thomas (Hrsg.), Kulturtheorie. Bielefeld: transcript: p. 271-287.

Cambridge University Press (2014): “stereotype”. Online at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/stereotype (last access: 20.06.2022)

Carli, Augusto/Sussi, Emidio/Kaučič Baša, Majda (2002): History and Stories: Identity Construction on the Italian-Slovenian Border, in: Meinhof, Ulrike H. (Hg.): Living (with) Borders: Identity Discourses on East-West Borders in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 33-51.

Höfler, Concha Maria/Klessmann, Maria (2021): Ethnisierungsprozesse und Grenzen. In: Gerst, Dominik /Klessmann, Maria /Krämer, Hannes (Hrsg.): Grenzforschung. Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Studium. Baden-Baden: Nomos: p. 345-362

Jerman, Katja (2004): Border Town of Nova Gorica and its Role in Forming a New Urban Center: Nova Gorica in Its First Years after the Foundation. Studia Etnologiczne i Antropologiczne 8, p. 103-118

Potočnik, Tina (2015): Gorizia and Nova Gorica: One Town in Two European Countries, in: Loeb, Carolyn/Luescher, Andreas (Hg.): The Design of Frontier Spaces. Control and Ambiguity. London: Routledge

Ramšak, Jure (2019): Modernity Anchored in the Past: Making a New Socialist Town on the Yugoslav-Italian Border (1947-1955). Qualestoria. Rivista di storia contemporanea XLVII(2), p. 149-161

Republic of Slovenia GOV.SI Government Communication Office (2020): „Nova Gorica and Gorizia will be named the European Capital of Culture 2025“. Online at: https://www.gov.si/en/news/2020-12-23-nova-gorica-and-gorizia-will-be-named-the-european-capital-of-culture-2025/ (last access: 20.06.2022)

Said, Edward (1978): Orientalism. New York: Random House. Online unter: https://pages.pomona.edu/~vis04747/h124/readings/Said_Orientalism.pdf (last access: 20.06.2022)

Watzlawick, Paul/Beavin, Janet H./Jackson, Don D. (2007): Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. 11. unveränderte Auflage. Erstmals 1969. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.