— 106 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes: The Case of Croatian, English, and Swedish in Sweden Sanja Škifić Sveučilište u Zadru, Ul. Mihovila Pavlinovića, HR 23000 Zadar, sskific@unizd.hr Članek obravnava analizo rabe jezika in odnosa do hrvaščine, angleščine in švedščine med hrvaškimi priseljenci na Švedskem. Raziskava je poteka - la oktobra in novembra 2020 in je vključevala 64 hrvaških priseljencev na Švedskem. Vprašalnik, ki smo ga uporabili v raziskavi, je nastal po vzoru vprašalnika, ki sta ga Škifić in Grbas (2020) uporabila v svoji raziskavi o rabi jezika in stališčih hrvaških priseljencev na Irskem. Rezultati raziskave kažejo pozitiven odnos anketirancev do bivanja na Švedskem, opozarjajo pa tudi na njihovo pripisovanje večjega pomena znanju švedščine kot angleščine. Trenutna raven znanja angleškega jezika anketirancev je bila ocenjena višje od njihove trenutne ravni znanja švedskega jezika, večji napredek pri znanju obeh jezikov pa je bil ugotovljen pri švedščini. Pri prepoznavanju prevladu - joče rabe hrvaščine, angleščine in švedščine se je izkazalo, da so pomembna različna področja jezikovne rabe, za zaposlitev pa sta se kot pomembna iz - kazala tako znanje švedščine kot tudi znanje angleščine. This paper deals with the analysis of language use and attitudes related to Croatian, English, and Swedish among Croatian immigrants in Sweden. The research was conducted during October and November 2020, and it included 64 Croatian immigrants in Sweden. The questionnaire that was used in the research was modelled on the questionnaire used by Škifić and Grbas (2020) in their research on language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Ireland. The results of the research point to respondents’ positive attitudes towards residing in Sweden, as well as their attitudes regarding the greater importance of the knowledge of Swedish than English. The respondents’ current level of the knowledge of the English language has been evaluated higher than their current level of knowledge of the Swedish language, while a more significant progress in the knowledge of the two languages has been noted in the case of Swedish. Different domains of language use have been shown to be relevant in identifying the dominant use of Croatian, English and Swedish, while both the knowledge of Swedish and the knowledge of English have been noted as important for employment. Ključne besede: jezikovna politika, jezikovna raba, odnos do jezika, hrvaški priseljenci, Švedska Key words: language policy, language use, language attitudes, Croatian im - migrants, Sweden 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek – 1.01 Original Scientific Article — 107 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes 1 Introduction Issues related to language planning and language policies of different coun - tries represent an especially interesting area of contemporary sociolinguistic research. The reasons for such an increase of interest in this research area have to do with the fact that the analyses of countries’ language policies provide an insight into issues that go beyond the purely linguistic framework. This is especially evident in cases in which a critical approach is taken in the analysis of various LPP 1 aspects. 2 Namely, in such research reference is usually made to the relationship between the linguistic framework and a number of cultural factors, as well as the political and economic conditions in which language policies are developed. 3 Considering the fact that language policies do not focus exclusively on the official and/or dominant language, but also on other, minority languages present on a given geopolitical territory, a considerable amount of language policy research provides an insight into both language and migra - tion issues. That is certainly one of the reasons why the language policies of traditional multilingual and multicultural countries, such as the USA, Canada and Australia, have been analysed so thoroughly. 4 On the other hand, what has also been noted is an increased focus on the language policies of countries that are not considered traditional migration countries, but in which an increase in the number of immigrants has been noted in recent times. Considering the fact that a more significant increase in the number of immi - grants in Sweden has been noted only since the second half of the 20 th century, the multicultural and multilingual character of Sweden, that is nowadays as - cribed to it, may be regarded as “a relatively recent phenomenon” (Norrby 2008: 73). What needs to be taken into consideration in describing the integration processes of immigrants are certainly the reasons for their immigration, among which the most significant are those of an economic nature. In comparison to the restrictive Swedish immigration policy towards the end of the 1960s, the current Swedish immigration policy may be considered more lax, which may be connected to a more significant increase in the number of immigrants to Sweden, including Croatian immigrants. As is the case in some other European countries in which a similar trend of the increase of the number of immigrants has been noted, Sweden’s accession to the European Union has certainly con - tributed to such an increase in the number of immigrants. On the other hand, such a trend seems to co-occur with certain activities in the area of the Swedish 1 Language policy and planning. 2 See Tollefson and Pérez-Milans (2018) regarding the foundations and development of language policy and planning research, including the critical approach. 3 In the critical approach, focus is placed on investigating the relationship that language has with power and inequality (Tollefson and Pérez-Milans 2018: 7). 4 See, for example, Leitner (2004) and various contributions in Ricento and Burnaby (1998), and in Wiley et al. (2009). — 108 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić language policy, like the adoption of the Swedish national language policy in 2005 and the Language Act of 2009. Recent activities in the area of the Swed - ish language policy, including the educational one, are connected primarily to determining the status of the Swedish language in relation to English, national minority languages, as well as to numerous other languages that have entered Sweden together with different groups of immigrants. This paper deals primarily with the analysis of language use and attitudes related to the Croatian, Swedish and English languages among Croatian im - migrants in Sweden, but also their attitudes towards Croatia and Sweden. As is the case with other works that deal with language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in other contexts, 5 the aim of this paper is to provide an insight into the measure of linguistic and cultural integration of Croatian im - migrants in a country in which a significant number of Croatian immigrants has been noted in recent times. Research questions include the following: What are Croatian immigrants’ attitudes towards residing in Sweden? What are their attitudes towards Croatian, English, and Swedish? How did they learn English and Swedish, and how well did they master the two languages? What is the extent of their use of the three languages in different domains? The research that was conducted during October and November 2020 included the collection of data that enabled the analysis of respondents’ attitudes towards residing in Sweden, as well as their use of and attitudes towards Croatian, English, and Swedish. Besides the respondents’ knowledge and learning of English and Swedish, the research deals with the analysis of the use of the three languages in different domains, with special focus on language use in the workplace. Such an approach enables the evaluation of the importance of knowledge and use of the three languages in different contexts. Moreover, the application of the questionnaire that was modelled on the questionnaire used by Škifić and Grbas (2020) in their research on language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Ireland allows for a comparison of the research topic in two different contexts. Although a comparison of language use and attitudes among Croatian im - migrants could have been made by taking into consideration the experience of Croatian immigrants in any other European context where a significant presence of Croatian immigrants has been noted, this paper includes a com - parison of the research topic in Sweden and Ireland because of the similarities in contemporary Croatian immigrants’ preferences regarding their choice of the host country. In their research on the experience of migration and planned departure of the Croatian youth, Potočnik and Adamović (2018: 18) noted, among other things, that among the preferred countries for future residence abroad identified by the respondents, Sweden occupies the fourth place and is immediately followed by Ireland. Balija (2020) analysed the proportions of 5 Cf. Škifić and Grbas (2020). — 109 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes the recent exodus from Croatia, and made a distinction between the traditional host countries of Croatian immigrants (for example, Germany and Austria) and the new host countries of Croatian immigrants. In the latter group Ireland and Sweden are identified as the more desirable countries for Croatian emigration, in which a significant increase in the number of Croatian immigrants has been noted (Balija 2020: 16). 2 Croatian emigration in Sweden As is the case with many other European and non-European nations, the history of Croats has also been marked by migrations of different types of intensity in different historical periods. In relation to the situation in the last several decades, a significant emigration wave related to the warfare situ - ation on the Croatian territory which occurred in the 1990s, followed by a new wave that started in 2009 and was caused by the global economic crisis (Balija 2020: 9). From the English-related sociolinguistic point of view, a significant area of immigration-related research is not reserved solely for traditional immigration and dominant Anglophone non-European countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but also for a number of European countries in which a significant rise in the number of immigrants has been noted, and in which the use of the English language has become more pronounced in recent times. One of the relevant factors in the rise of different types of migrations and the use of the English language in European countries is certainly related to countries’ accession to the European Union. Croatia became a member of the European Union in 2013, and one of the more desirable destinations of Croatian emigration to European countries is Sweden, which became a member of the European Union in 1995. 6 Lajić (2004: 1 79) used the expres - sion “brain drain” 7 to describe the dominant contemporary type of Croatian emigration to European countries marked by economic factors. Thus, it is possible to assume that Croatian emigration to Sweden can also be regarded as the type of emigration that includes a significant number of migrants who belong to this group. Bajqinca (2019: 45) noted that the Swedish migration policy was relatively lax during the 1950s and the 1960s, as it was connected to almost free la - bour migration and socio-economic reasons, and that migrant workers came mostly from neighbouring Nordic countries and northern European countries. 6 Ireland is also one of the most desirable destinations of contemporary Croatian emigra - tion. In the paper that deals with language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Ireland, Škifić and Grbas (2020) provided an overview of the Irish immigration policy and Croatian emigration in Ireland. 7 Cro. “ odljev mozgova”. — 110 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić According to Mesarić Žabčić (2006: 316), the emigration of Croats to both Sweden and Norway was intensified precisely in the 1960s, and it was first characterised by temporary labour migration that later became permanent economic migration. However, towards the end of the 1960s, the Swedish mi - gration policy became more restrictive. That was the period of regulation of non-Nordic labour migration, followed by a restriction of refugee influx in the 1980s, which was interpreted as a form of safeguarding the inhabitants’ welfare (Bajqinca 2019: 46). A new wave of Croatian emigration to both Sweden and Norway occurred in the period between the 1980s and the 1990s. This wave is called “war refugee emigration”, and it has become permanent for the major - ity of emigrants (Mesarić Žabčić (2006: 316). By making reference to the data provided by Andersson and Lundström (2010) and Statistics Sweden (2015), Lundberg (2018: 49) noted that, in the period between 2000 and 2015, there was a continuing growth of inhabitants with foreign background in Sweden. Such a rise in the number of inhabitants with a foreign background may be related to Sweden’s accession to the European Union, which has enabled easier and more pronounced movement of people across the borders of member countries. Ac - cording to the data provided by the Central State Office for Croats Outside the Republic of Croatia 8 , based on the evaluations of individual countries across the world, the number of Croats and their offspring in Sweden is around 40,000. 9 Balija (2020: 11) made reference to the data provided by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 10 according to which, in 2018, 2.1% of all Croatian emigrants emigrated to Sweden. Sweden thus occupied the seventh place in the list of countries in which the highest percentage of Croatian emigrants was found in that year. On the other hand, Jerić (2019: 23) made reference to the results of the research provided by the Croatian Employers’ Association 11 in 20 1 8. The results revealed that, among the respondents who emigrated between 2013 and 2018, more than half of them moved in 2016 and 2017, with Sweden ranking fourth (10.3%) on the list of countries to which most respondents emigrated, following Germany, Ireland, and Belgium. Moreover, Jerić (2019: 23) made reference to the data provided by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, according to which “the number of Croatian emigrants in Sweden had risen eight times in the last five years”. The author believes that such a sudden increase might be an indicator of a new, third wave of Croatian emigration to Sweden (Jerić 2019: 23). 8 Cro. Središnji državni ured za Hrvate izvan Republike Hrvatske. 9 https://hrvatiizvanrh.gov.hr/hrvati-izvan-rh/hrvatsko-iseljenistvo/hrvatski-iseljenici- u-prekomorskim-i-europskim-drzavama-i-njihovi-potomci/749. Accessed 31 January 2021. The site was first accessed 31 March 2020, when the indicated number of Croats and their offspring in Sweden was 35,000. 10 Cro. Državni zavod za statistiku Republike Hrvatske. 11 Cro. Hrvatska udruga poslodavaca (HUP). — 111 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes 3 Swedish language policy In this part of the paper an overview of the basic characteristics of the Swedish language policy is provided, with special emphasis placed on the status of Eng - lish and immigrant minority languages. Such an overview clarifies the reasons why, besides Swedish and Croatian, in the empirical part of the paper, English is also taken into consideration as the global lingua franca, whose importance and extent of use have been growing increasingly in Sweden. Moreover, since the conducted research includes reference to the respondents’ evaluations of whether Sweden should ensure the learning and use of minority languages in education and other contexts to a greater extent, this part also includes refer - ence to the Swedish educational language policy. Considering the fact that a country’s accession to the European Union leads to a creation of new patterns of movement of people and goods among the member countries, frequently there emerges a need to redefine different state policies, including the linguistic one. Sweden became a member of the European Union in 1995, which is relevant in the analysis of the Swedish language policy at the beginning of the 21 st century in terms of defining the status and regulat - ing the use of Swedish and national minority languages, as well as a number of immigrant minority languages. From the point of view of the institutions dealing with language issues, in the Swedish context it is necessary to mention The Language Council of Sweden, 12 which is a part of the Swedish Institute of Language and Folklore. 13 As is stated on the web pages of the Institute of Language and Folklore 14 and the European Federation of National Institutions for Language (EFNIL), 15 the mission of the Language Council is “to monitor the development of spoken and written Swedish and also to monitor the use and status of all other languages spoken in Sweden”. What is also mentioned is that such activities involve primarily the promotion of the use of Swedish sign language and five official minority languages, but also strengthening the Nordic language unity. The web page of the Institute of Language and Folklore provides access to a document titled Draft Action Programme for the Promo- tion of the Swedish Language, 16 which was drafted by the Swedish Language Council in 1998. At the beginning of the document it is stated that “the position of the Swedish language in Sweden should be established by law”. The docu - ment also includes an account of the current position of Swedish and existing activities to promote the cultivation of Swedish, but also a detailed account 12 Swed. Språkrådet (formerly Svenska språknämnden). 13 Swed. Institutet för språk och folkminnen (Isof). 14 https://www.isof.se/om-oss/kontakt/sprakradet/in-english.html. Accessed 7 August 2020. 15 http://www.efnil.org/partners/sverige/language-council. Accessed 7 August 2020. 16 https://www.isof.se/download/18.5e02b54a144bbda8e9beca/1529494111905/Language- policy-summary.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2020. — 112 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić of the domains in which Swedish should be used, as well as reference to the impact of English and minority immigrant languages. In research regarding recent developments in the Swedish language policy it is necessary to mention discussions about the Swedish national language policy that was adopted in December 2005. A central issue in defining the contemporary Swedish language policy has to do with acknowledging the Swedish language as the official majority language in Sweden, considering the following two factors: the growing importance of English in Sweden and the changes in the status of historical minority languages (Norrby 2008: 67). Swedish is recognised as one of the official languages of the European Union. Discussing the status of languages in Sweden prior to the Swedish Language Act of 2009, Lindberg (2007: 71) emphasised that, although there was no legal recognition regarding Swedish as the majority language, the status of indig - enous languages was recognised legally. Hult (2004: 181) emphasised the some - what awkward position of Swedish, similar to the one of many other national languages, in which Swedish is “at the same time, a strong national language with the potential to dominate other languages within national borders and a potentially dominated language with respect to English as an international language”. Moreover, Hult (2004) suggested that the contemporary Swedish language policy might be regarded as a policy that has started to move towards cultivating societal multilingualism. 3.1 Swedish language policy in relation to English and immigrant minority languages In the 1970s Sweden established a language policy that was supposed to ensure efficient integration of immigrants in the Swedish society by providing the conditions for immigrants to learn the Swedish language (Lundh and Olhs - son (1994), as cited in Bajqinca (2019: 46)). The Swedish Ministry of Culture drafted the Language Act 17 that was passed in 2009, in which Swedish is defined explicitly as “the principal language in Sweden” (Section 4). 18 In the Language Act emphasis is placed primarily on defining the status and use of the Swed - ish language, but also on protecting and promoting the five national minority languages and Swedish sign language. The need to pass the Language Act and the concerns about the status of Swedish are perfectly understandable if the data presented by Cabau-Lampa (2005: 106) are taken into consideration, according 17 https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/9e56b0c78cb5447b968a29dd14a68358/sprak - lag-pa-engelska. Accessed 1 August 2020. 18 Defining Swedish as ‘the principal language’ and not as the official language in the Language Act is mentioned by Karlsson and Karlsson ( 2020: 7 1 ), as well as the fact that in the Language Act Sweden is also assigned the status of the language of public administration. — 113 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes to which the Swedes’ competence in English is so high that English may no longer be considered a foreign language, but a second language. 19 Similar views have been put forward by Croatian scholars as well, who have dealt with the influence of English on Croatian in different ways, as well as with aspects of teaching and learning of the English language among the Croatian population. For example, Mihaljević Djigunović and Geld (2002/2003: 337) mentioned the view of the status of English as a language between a second and foreign language considering the fact that, in comparison to other languages taught and learnt as second languages, English undoubtedly has a unique status in the Croatian educational system. According to the 2018 EF English Proficiency Index presented by Hughes (2018), 20 among the countries in which English is not the dominant language, Sweden is reported to have the highest English proficiency, and is followed by a number of other countries in the ‘very high proficiency’ category, while Croatia is included in the list of 15 countries with a high proficiency rating. 21 On the other hand, in the Language Act, reference is made to the opportu - nity to learn, develop and use Swedish, national minority languages (for those who belong to national minorities) and Swedish sign language (for those who require it), while individuals whose mother tongue is other than the national minority languages should also have the opportunity to develop and use their mother tongue (Section 14). In the Draft Action Programme for the Promotion of the Swedish Language (1998) there is also reference to a widespread belief that the language use of immigrants has an adverse impact on Swedish, but it is also stated that there is no evidence that immigrant Swedish has a nega - tive impact on ‘mainstream’ Swedish, and that it most likely enriches it. One of the ways in which it is possible to determine the extent to which speakers of minority languages are provided the right to learn, develop and use their language, is by analysing the educational language policies. Salö et al. (2018) noted that Mother Tongue Instruction (MTI) 22 in the Swedish educational sys - tem is legally and institutionally supported relatively strongly. Moreover, the authors made reference to the Swedish Ministry of Education (2010), which, in accordance with the Education Act, stipulates that children belonging to minor - ity communities are to be provided with MTI irrespective of their linguistic 19 The possibility of regarding English as a second language rather than a foreign one in Sweden is mentioned by Lindberg (2007: 72) as well, and the author relates this to the fact that there is currently a significant number of individuals in Sweden who use it on an everyday basis in different contexts. 20 https://www.masterstudies.com/news/which-countries-lead-the-world-in-english-profi - ciency-3168/. Accessed 25 November 2021. 21 The question of Croats’ competence in English is dealt with, among other things, in the research conducted for the purpose of this paper. 22 According to UNESCO (2003: 14), the expression ‘Mother Tongue Instruction’ “gen - erally refers to the use of the learners’ mother tongue as the medium of instruction. Additionally, it can refer to the mother tongue as a subject of instruction”. — 114 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić background or country of origin under two conditions: “(1) The language is the child’s everyday language of interaction at home, and (2) The child has basic competence in the language in question” (2018: 593). 23 Considering the significant rise in the number of refugees in European countries since 2015 (Lundberg 2018: 46), the migration and language poli - cies of European countries towards such a phenomenon have been shaped and modified in different ways. Thus, for example, in a comparative analysis of the ways in which Syrian refugee children are included in the Swedish, German, Greek, Lebanese, and Turkish educational systems, Crul et al. (2019) took into consideration the differences in certain educational aspects, including second language education. The authors emphasised, among other things, that adult education in Sweden represents a developed system that suits the needs of migrants who, with an adult education diploma, which includes grades for the Swedish language, Mathematics, and English, might continue their education (Crul et al. 2019: 14). Lindberg (2007: 72) stated that, besides the recognised national minority languages, there are also almost 200 immigrant minority languages spoken in Sweden, which are not recognised officially as minority languages, and some of which have more than 100,000 speakers in Sweden. Immigrant minority languages that have such a significantly high numbers of speakers include, according to Lindberg (2007: 72), Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, but also Croatian. 24 As is the case with many other minority groups in different immigrant contexts, Croatian immigrants in Sweden have made attempts to preserve their identity in the host country in different ways. In her analysis of the role and activity of Croatian Associations in Norway and Sweden, Mesarić Žabčić (2006: 327) described the importance of different publications issued at dif - ferent periods in Sweden with the purpose of promoting the Croatian culture and maintaining the Croatian language (for example, Croatian Bulletin, 25 Workers’ Tribune – Independent Bulletin for Croatian Workers, 26 Salute to the Homeland, 27 Hearth, 28 Croatian Word 29 ). 23 This is compared to the situation in Denmark, where “the right to state-sponsored MTI has been abolished for children of non-European descent” (Salö et al. 2018: 591). 24 The number of speakers of Croatian is smaller because Lindberg (2007: 72) mentions the speakers of Croatian together with speakers of Serbian and Bosnian. In the list of minority languages with the highest numbers of minority language students in Swed - ish compulsory school in 2003/04, ‘Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian’ were listed third, with 14,950 students, which makes 1.4% of all students (Lindberg 2007: 76). 25 Cro. Hrvatski glasnik. 26 Cro. Radnički tribun – neovisni glasnik za hrvatske radnike. 27 Cro. Pozdrav domovini. 28 Cro. Ognjište. 29 Cro. Hrvatska riječ. — 115 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes When it comes to defining the type of language ideology that seems dominant in Swedish language policy in recent times, scholars offer different opinions. Winsa (2005: 320), as cited in Lundberg (2018: 51), talked about “an assimilation policy with a nationalistic attitude”, while Hyltenstam, Axelsson, and Lindberg (2012), as cited in Lundberg (2018: 51), discussed “the tension in society between a pluralist ideology, established at the central political level since the 1960s (…) and an assimilationist perspective, which is strong in large segments of the population”. A relevant indicator of the nature of a country’s language policy is related to language prerequisites that individuals who apply for citizenship are required to meet. Whether a country has defined such prerequisites or not, and, in case it has, the ways in which they are defined reveals the extent of linguis - tic assimilation expected of immigrants who apply for citizenship. Thus, for example, certain traditionally multilingual, Anglophone-dominant countries like the USA, which are known for their linguistic assimilation ideology and practice, stipulate language requirements (Škifić 2013), while certain European countries, such as Ireland, do not (Škifić and Grbas 2020). Although during the Swedish parliamentary elections at the beginning of the 21 st century there were proposals discussing the issue of introducing language testing as a prerequisite for attaining Swedish citizenship, the Swedish Parliament does not require any level of language proficiency as a prerequisite for attaining Swedish citizenship (Bajqinca 2019: 47). This suggests that individuals who apply for Swedish citi - zenship are not guided strictly towards linguistic assimilation, but are allowed the freedom to maintain their mother tongue. Namely, The Swedish Citizenship Act (2001), 30 drafted by the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communica - tion, stipulates that an alien may be granted Swedish citizenship if he or she “1. Has provided proof of his or her identity, 2. Has reached the age of eighteen, 3. Holds a permanent Swedish residence permit, 4. Has been domiciled in Sweden a) For the previous two years in the case of Danish, Finnish, Icelandic or Norwegian citizens, b) For the previous four years in the case of a stateless person, or one who is considered to be a refugee under Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Aliens Act (1989: 529), c) For the previous five years for other aliens, and 5. Has led, and can be expected to lead, a respectable life” (Section 11). The fact that the Swedish legal framework does not stipulate language testing as a prerequisite in the naturalisation process needs to be considered in light of the previously mentioned pluralist ideology at the central political level. On the other hand, what should also be noted is that the knowledge of the Swedish language is regarded relevant in the process of integrating into the Swedish society (Lag 2001: 82, as cited in Bajqinca (2019: 47–48)). 30 https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/420cadf64.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2020. — 116 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić 3.2 Domains of language use in Sweden – Swedish educational language policy Considering the fact that in the research conducted for the purpose of this paper focus is placed, among other things, on domains of language use, it is neces - sary to mention once again the discussions in Sweden regarding the analysis of the functions of Swedish and English, where concerns about the potential supersession of Swedish by English in certain domains where raised, and where certain predictions were made, according to which one day the only domain in which Swedish would be used is the private one (see Norrby 2008: 69). 31 Besides the private domain, one of the most relevant domains of language use in different contexts is certainly the domain of education. 32 In a diachronic overview of the changes that have occurred in the teaching of foreign languages in Sweden, Cabau-Lampa (2005) mentioned German, French, and English as languages that have traditionally been taught in Sweden, with each of them, depending on the period, enjoying a different status in the Swedish educational policy. Among other things, the author also emphasised the fact that, in different historical periods, German had a strong influence as the language of the elite up to the second half of the 20 th century , when ( in 1962) English became compulsory (Cabau-Lampa 2005: 99–106). Consider - ing the rapid development of technology and an increased interest in different types of academic mobility, most institutions of higher education have become involved in different forms of internationalisation, where the demands related to the knowledge of the English language are becoming increasingly pronounced. Norrby (2008: 69) discussed the use of English in the Swedish higher educa - tion, and made reference to Teleman (1992) and Karlsson (2006), who stated that, in Sweden, most doctoral dissertations are published in English. In the discussion regarding the relationship between the use of English and Swedish 31 Besides the authors cited in Norrby (2008: 69), Lindberg (2007: 73) also mentions con - cerns raised by a number of critics regarding the loss of domains in which, instead of Swedish, English would be used exclusively. Moreover, in the Draft Action Programme for the Promotion of the Swedish Language (1998) it is also suggested that the English language has started taking over the domains in which the Swedish language had dominated previously. 32 Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) (as cited in Salla - bank (2011: 500)) may be used as an indicator of the relevance of a certain domain of language use. The scale consists of eight stages of community language loss, where a language is considered fairly safe (stage 1) if it is used in “education, the work sphere, mass media and governmental operations at higher and nationwide levels”. Although the question of the status of the Swedish language in Sweden cannot be compared to the statuses of minority (autochthonous or immigrant) languages to which the scale is most frequently applied with the purpose of assessing the extent of language endangerment, the scale represents an extremely valuable framework that may be used for predictions regarding the future statuses of languages, as well as in discussions regarding the relevance of certain domains of language use. — 117 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes in the education sector, Norrby (2008: 69) also emphasised the fact that “many universities are now implementing their own local language policy”. 33 Soler et al. (2018: 30) claimed that, since the introduction of the Language Act in 2009 many Swedish universities have drafted their own language policies, with the Language Act and the principle of ‘parallel language use’ of Swedish and English as their points of reference. Here we may take as an example the document titled Language Policy for the University of Gothenburg (2015). 34 In the document it is stated, among other things, that “Swedish is the official language of communication at the University of Gothenburg although inter - nationalisation may mean that English is used in parallel” (2015: 3). A further example is the Language Policy of Stockholm University. 35 At the beginning of the text emphasis is placed on internalisation and the use of English as “a prerequisite for Swedish researchers to be able to participate in international academic work”, and in the continuation there is emphasis on the parallel lan - guage use of Swedish and English. Soler et al. (2018: 30) emphasised the fact that “Sweden has consistently been among the top rank of countries offering ETPs 36 ”. Karlsson and Karlsson (2020) explored the relationship between the Swedish national language policy and policies for internationalisation of higher education with respect to the concept of local language policy. In doing so, the authors used the concept of ideology in order to explain the ways in which a monolingual national policy is negotiated to meet the needs of the internationalised multilingual context. Previous research on the status of the Croatian language in the Swedish educational system is not as prolific as in the case of the status of the English language in the same context. Besides the previously mentioned Croatian publi - cations in Sweden, Mesarić Žabčić (2006: 327) also emphasised the importance of different individuals’ activities (primarily parents and Croatian language teachers) in their efforts to secure recognition of the Croatian language in the Swedish educational context, i.e., in the teaching of the mother tongue. 33 Berthoud and Lüdi (2011: 481) used the terms ‘language strategies’ and ‘language management’ in a discussion on diversity management and interventions concerning language in different institutions (like those of higher education) or companies. The authors used the two terms in order to distinguish that type of linguistic interventions from broader, political ones that are applied to a certain geopolitical territory, where the use of the terms ‘language planning’ and ‘language policy ’is more common. 34 https://medarbetarportalen.gu.se/digitalAssets/1534/1534738_language-policy-at- guv-2015-495.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2020. In their analysis of Estonian and Swedish universities’ language policies Soler et al. (2018) included nine documents related to Swedish universities’ language policies. In their paper the indicated year of the publi - cation of the document related to the language policy of the Gothenburg University is 2006. 35 https://www.su.se/staff/organisation-governance/governing-documents-rules-and- regulations/communication-collaboration/language-policy-of-stockholm-universi - ty-1.352481. Accessed 1 August 2020. 36 English-taught programmes. — 118 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić 4 Research on Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes: The Case of Croatian, English, and Swedish in Sweden This part of the paper consists of a presentation of the methodology, results of the research, whose aim was to analyse language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Sweden, and the discussion. The discussion includes a comparison of the results of this research with the results of the research conducted by Škifić and Grbas (2020) due to the reasons explained in the introduction of the paper. 4.1 Research methodology F o r th e p urpose o f th e researc h a qu esti o nnaire w as des i gn ed b y m eans o f the Google platform, and the respondents 37 fill ed i t o u t durin g Octo ber an d November 2020. At the beginning of the questionnaire the respondents were provided with an explanation of the aim of the research, and were guaranteed complete anonymity in the dissemination of the collected data. The question - naire consisted of five parts, and was modelled on the questionnaire that was used by Škifić and Grbas (2020) in their research on language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Ireland. The use of a similar questionnaire that was previously used in the aforementioned research enables a comparison of language use and attitudes of Croatian immigrants in Sweden to language use and attitudes of Croatian immigrants in Ireland. Škifić and Grbas (2020) provided an overview of previous studies on the attitudes of Croats towards the English language, which indicated that English, in comparison to other languages, enjoys a special status among Croats, who mostly have positive attitudes towards the English language. The questionnaire was designed and offered to the respondents solely in Croatian because, unlike in some other research, in which similar issues are analysed among different generations of immigrants and in which the ques - tionnaire was offered in both Croatian and English (see, for example, Škifić and Strika (2020)), in this research focus was placed on the first generation of Croatian immigrants, i.e., on individuals who were not born in Sweden and, thus, should not have any problems filling out the questionnaire in Croatian. Because this paper is written in English, parts of the questionnaire presented in the following analysis have been translated from Croatian to English. 37 Respondents were contacted through Facebook, a social network that is very useful as a medium for collecting data from various immigrant groups, as there are various groups on the network with members of different nationalities who are immigrants in a specific country. — 119 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes 4.2 Respondents There were 64 respondents who participated in the research, among whom there were 45 female (70.3%) and 19 male respondents (29.7%). Regarding age, only one respondent (1.6%) provided the answer “middle”. Others provided their age numerically, which is why it is possible to use the terminology related to the phases of human lifespan development, as suggested by Berk (2008). The major - ity of the respondents (70.3%) belonged to the early adulthood phase, a smaller number of them (26.6%) belonged to the middle adulthood phase, and only one respondent (1.6%) to the late adulthood phase. Regarding the level of education, one respondent (1.6%) finished only primary school, 50% of them finished secondary school, 15.6% finished undergraduate studies, and 32.8% of them finished graduate studies. None of the respondents finished doctoral studies. 84.4% of the respondents originated from the Republic of Croatia. The majority of the remaining respondents (10.9%) originated from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and one respondent (1.6%) originated from Kosovo. 38 The highest numbers of respondents originated from places in the following Croatian counties: Zagreb County (25%), Primorje-Gorski kotar County (10.9%), Split-Dalmatia County (9.4%), Osijek-Baranja County (7.8%), and Brod-Posavina County (6.3%). The respondents’ places of birth (i.e., origin) largely overlapped with the place that they had left before coming to Sweden. Sweden is the first country to which the majority of the respondents emigrated (79.7%), while, for 20.3% of them, Sweden was not the first country to which they emigrated. Respondents in the latter group named the following as the countries to which they had emigrated prior to coming to Sweden: Croatia, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Ire - land, and Serbia. The duration of their stay in other countries ranged between six months and 28 years. Regarding emigration to Sweden, the majority of the respondents emigrated to the following Swedish cities: Stockholm (26.6%), Malmö (14.1%), Göteborg (14.1%) and Västerås (4.7%). The duration of their stay in Sweden ranged from two months 39 to 30 years, while the dominant 40 periods of the respondents’ stays in Sweden was two years (12.5%) and four years (12.5%). 54.7% of the respondents came to Sweden with their families, while 45.3% of them came to Sweden alone. 38 Instead of providing a geographical location as an answer to this question, the remain - ing two respondents (3.1%) provided years, which we assume represent their years of birth. 39 Five respondents provided just numbers, without an indication of whether the numbers referred to months or years. Among them, one respondent simply offered the answer “1”. Since it is impossible to establish whether that number referred to one month or one year, we took two months to be the shortest duration of the respondents’ stay in Sweden. Also, one respondent provided the following response: “very/too long” (Cro. slang “pun kufer ”). 40 Dominant value (mode) as the value that appears most often in a set of data values. — 120 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić 4.3 Attitudes towards Sweden and Croatia Although the respondents dominantly neither agreed nor disagreed that Swedes were a hospitable nation (37.5%), there was a significantly higher percentage of those who agreed or completely agreed (56.3%) 41 in comparison to the percent - age of those who disagreed or completely disagreed (6.2%) with this statement. The majority of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that they felt good in Sweden (75%), and they also agreed or completely agreed that they planned to stay in Sweden (71.9%). Although the respondents dominantly neither agreed nor disagreed that they missed Croatia (35.9%), there was a significantly higher percentage of those who agreed or completely agreed (45.4%) in comparison to the percentage of those who disagreed or completely disagreed (18.7%) with this statement. On the other hand, 60.9% of the respondents disagreed or completely disagreed that they planned to return to Croatia, while 21.9% of them agreed or completely agreed with this statement. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements in this part of the research is presented in picture 1. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 2 3 4 5 1 = Swedes are a hospitable nation. (M = 3.72) 2 = I feel good in Sweden. (M = 4.06) 3 = I plan to stay in Sweden. (M = 4.16) 4 = I miss Croatia. (M = 3.50) 5 = I plan to return to Croatia. (M = 2.33) % Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree Picture 1: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about Sweden and Croatia 41 The indicated percentage represents the sum of the percentage of those who agreed and the percentage of those who completely agreed with the statement. The picture presented in the continuation shows which of the two values is dominant. The same applies to the percentage of those who disagreed and the percentage of those who completely disagreed with the statement. The picture also contains the representation of the arithmetic means ( M) of the respondents’ answers. — 121 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes 4.4 Introductory questions about Croatian, English and Swedish, and about the respondent’s knowledge and learning of English and Swedish In this part of the research the respondents’ answers to introductory questions about Croatian, English, and Swedish are presented, followed by a presentation of their answers to questions about their knowledge and learning of English and Swedish. 4.4.1 Introduc tor y questions about Croatian, English, and S wedish Although 31.2% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that they missed communication in the Croatian language, there was a significantly higher percentage of those who disagreed or completely disagreed with this statement (51.5%). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree 1 = I miss communication in theCroatian language . (M = 2.63) / 2 = The Englishlanguage is difficult . (M = 1.69) / 3 = The Swedishlanguage is difficult . (M = 2.91) / 4 = I want toimprove my knowledge of theEnglishlanguage . (M = 3.28) / 5 = I wanttoimprove my knowledge of theSwedishlanguage . (M = 4.56) / 6 = In Swedenitis more important toknowtheEnglish language than theSwedishlanguage . (M = 1.98) / 7 = The English language in Swedenrepresents a threat totheSwedishlanguage . (M = 1.83) / 8 = Swedenshould ensurethelearning and use of minoritylanguages in education and other contexts toa greater extent . (M = 2.42) % Picture 2: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about Croatian, English, and Swedish While most respondents (73.5%) disagreed or completely disagreed that the English language was difficult, the majority of the respondents (42.2%) neither agreed nor disagreed that the Swedish language was difficult. On the other hand, while the relatively high percentage (43.8%) of respondents agreed or completely agreed that they wanted to improve their knowledge of the English language, a stronger wish to improve their knowledge of the Swedish language has been — 122 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić noted. Namely, as many as 86% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that they wanted to improve their knowledge of the Swedish language. Such a high percentage may be related to the high percentage (71.9%) of those who disagreed or completely disagreed that in Sweden it was more important to know the English language than the Swedish language. Also, the majority of the respondents (76.5%) disagreed or completely disagreed that the English lan - guage in Sweden represented a threat to the Swedish language, and the majority of the respondents (53.2%) also disagreed or completely disagreed that Sweden should have ensured the learning and use of minority languages in education and other contexts to a greater extent. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements in this part of the research is presented in picture 2. 4.4.2 K nowledge and lear ning of English and S wedish Respondents’ evaluations of their knowledge of the English language prior to coming to Sweden were not significantly different from their evaluations of their current knowledge of English. Still, there was a higher percentage (64.1%) of those who evaluated their current knowledge of English as very good or ex - cellent in comparison to those who evaluated their knowledge of English prior to coming to Sweden with the same grades (57.9%). Also, there was a higher percentage (20.3%) of those who evaluated their knowledge of English prior to coming to Sweden as insufficient or sufficient in comparison to those who evaluated their current knowledge of English with the same grades (14.1%). The distribution of the respondents’ answers to these statements is presented in picture 3. The majority of the respondents (40.6%) had learnt the English language in different periods shorter than ten years, 14.1% of them had learnt it for ten years 42 , and 31.3% of them in different periods longer than ten years. Among them, 39.1% of the respondents had learnt the English language in primary school, secondary school, and in faculty. 14.1% of the respondents stated that they had never learnt English. The majority of the respondents stated that they had not received assistance in mastering the English language. Three respond - ents (4.7%) stated that such assistance had been offered to them, and two of them (3.2%) had sought assistance. Those who had received assistance stated that it had been received from friends or other Croats, in courses or in school, and via Google translator. In comparison to the respondents’ evaluations of their knowledge of English prior to coming to Sweden, their evaluations of their knowledge of Swedish prior to coming to Sweden were significantly poorer. Namely, almost all respondents, 95.3% of them, evaluated their knowledge of Swedish prior to coming to Sweden as insufficient or sufficient, among whom 85.9% evaluated it as insufficient. 42 Dominant value of the duration of learning. — 123 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes Only two respondents (3.1%) evaluated their knowledge of Swedish prior to coming to Sweden as very good, and none of them evaluated it as excellent. On the other hand, 42.2% of the respondents evaluated their current knowledge of Swedish as insufficient or sufficient, while 32.9% of them evaluated it as very good or excellent. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to these statements is presented in picture 4. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Insufficient Sufficient Good Very good Excellent % Knowledge of the English language prior to coming to Sweden (M = 3.61) Current knowledge of the English language (M = 3.80) Picture 3: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about their knowledge of English 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Insufficient Sufficient Good Very good Excellent % Knowledge of the Swedish language prior to coming to Sweden (M = 1.22) Current knowledge of the Swedish language (M = 2.78) Picture 4: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about their knowledge of Swedish — 124 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić We may generally conclude that the respondents came to Sweden with a signifi - cantly poorer knowledge of Swedish than English, and that in Sweden they have made more significant progress in their knowledge of Swedish in comparison to their progress in the knowledge of English. The majority of the respondents (93.8%) had not used Swedish prior to coming to Sweden, while 6.3% of them had used it. Those who had used it prior to coming to Sweden had done so online in communication with language exchange partners, with friends from Sweden, with their partners, in courses or in faculty. On the other hand, 68.6% of the respondents had not learnt Swedish prior to coming to Sweden, while 31.3% of them had learnt it. Those who had learnt it prior to coming to Sweden had done so on their own, by using mobile applications (for example, Duolingo or Babbel) or on online platforms (for example, YouTube), in faculty, in courses, or in schools of foreign languages. 56.3% of the respondents stated that they had received assistance in mastering the Swedish language, while 43.8% of them had not received it. Among the respondents who had received such assistance, 55% of them had sought it, and such assistance had been offered to 45% of them. Among the types of assistance that they had received, the respondents mentioned different education programmes provided by Sweden (for example, Komvux (kommunal vuxenutbildning / municipal adult education) 43 or SFI ( Svenskunder- visning för invandrare / Swedish for immigrants) 44 ), online courses, a course organised by the agency that assisted in obtaining employment, personal help from friends (in Sweden) and/or relatives, language exchange partners (online), and help from a teacher of Swedish from Croatia (via Skype). 4.5 Use of the Croatian, English, and Swedish languages in Sweden In the following part of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which they agreed with statements regarding their use of Croatian, English, and Swedish in different contexts. A comparison of the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to the first three statements presented in picture 5 reveals that, when it comes to the use of the languages in Sweden in conversation with family members, the respondents used Croatian to the great - est extent, and they used English and Swedish to a very small extent. Namely, the majority of the respondents (87.5%) agreed or completely agreed that in Sweden they mostly used Croatian in conversation with family members, while 4.7% of them completely agreed 45 that they mostly used English, and 6.2% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used Swedish in the same 43 Komvux is a type of adult education programme financed by the Swedish government. 44 SFI is a free national course in the Swedish language available to most immigrant categories. 45 Here the expression ‘agreed or completely agreed’ is not used because none of the respondents indicated that they agreed with the statement. — 125 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes context. When it comes to the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to the following three statements, it is visible that Croatian was used to the greatest extent in Sweden in conversation with friends as well. However, the differences are not as large as is the case with the comparison of the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to the first three statements. Namely, 43.8% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that in Sweden they mostly used Croatian in conversation with friends, while 29.7% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used English, and 23.5% agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used Swedish in the same context. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to these statements is presented in picture 5. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree 1 = In Sweden in conversation with family members I mostly use Croatian. (M = 4.53) 2 = In Sweden in conversation with family members I mostly use English. ( M = 1.30) 3 = In Sweden in conversation with family members I mostly use Swedish. (M = 1.61) 4 = In Sweden in conversation with friends I mostly use Croatian. (M = 3.22) 5 = In Sweden in conversation with friends I mostly use English . (M = 2.56) 6 = In Sweden in conversation with friends I mostly use Swedish. (M = 2.59) % Picture 5: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about their use of Croatian, English and Swedish in conversation with family members and friends A comparison of the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to the first three statements presented in picture 6 reveals that, when it comes to the use of the languages in Sweden in educational institutions (school or Faculty), the respondents used Swedish to the greatest extent, which was followed by the use of English, while they used Croatian to a very small extent in the given context. Namely, the majority of the respondents (56.3%) agreed or completely agreed that in Sweden in educational institutions (school or faculty) they mostly used Swedish, while 26.6% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used English, and only 1.6% of them completely agreed that they mostly used Croatian in the same context. When it comes to the use of the languages in the workplace, a comparison of the arithmetic means of the respondent’s answers to the following three statements revealed a similar trend. Namely, the majority — 126 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić of the respondents (51.6%) agreed or completely agreed that in Sweden in the workplace they mostly used Swedish, while 37.6% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used English, and 14.1% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used Croatian in the same context. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to these statements is presented in picture 6. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree 1 = In Sweden in educational institutions (school or faculty) I mostly useCroatian. (M = 1.33) 2 = In Sweden in educational institutions (school or faculty) I mostly use English . (M = 2.41) 3 = In Sweden in educational institutions (school or faculty) I mostly use Swedish . (M = 3.53) 4 = In Sweden in the workplace I mostly useCroatian . (M = 1.69) 5 = In Sweden in the workplace I mostly useEnglish . (M = 2.84) 6 = In Sweden in the workplace I mostly useSwedish . (M = 3.61) % Picture 6: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about their use of Croatian, English and Swedish in educational institutions (school or faculty) and in the workplace A comparison of the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to the first three statements presented in picture 7 reveals that, when it comes to the use of the languages in Sweden in conversation with strangers, the respondents used English to the greatest extent, which was followed by the use of Swedish, while the respondents used Croatian to a very small extent in the given context. Namely, the majority of the respondents (48.4%) agreed or completely agreed that in Sweden in conversation with strangers they mostly used English, while 45.3% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used Swedish, and 6.3% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used Croatian in the same context. On the other hand, a comparison of the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to the following three statements presented in picture 7 reveals that, when it comes the use of the languages in Sweden in communica- tion on social networks, the respondents used Croatian to the greatest extent, and English and Swedish to a smaller extent. Namely, 51.5% of the respond - ents agreed or completely agreed that in communication on social networks in — 127 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes Sweden they mostly used Croatian, while 32.8% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used English, and 25% of them agreed or completely agreed that they mostly used Swedish in the same context. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to these statements is presented in picture 7. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree 1 = In Sweden in conversation with strangers I mostly us e Croatian. (M = 1.44) 2 = In Sweden in conversation with strangers I mostly us e English. (M = 3.44) 3 = In Sweden in conversation with strangers I mostly us e Swedish. (M = 3.30) 4 = In Sweden in communication on social networks I mostly use Croatian. (M = 3.52) 5 = In Sweden in communication on social networks I mostly use English. (M = 2.75) 6 = In Sweden in communication on social networks I mostly use Swedish. (M = 2.67) % Picture 7: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about their use of Croatian, English, and Swedish in conversation with strangers and communication on social networks 4.6 Use and importance of English and Swedish in the workplace in Sweden When asked about their workplace, 9.4% of the respondents simply stated that they had a private employer. The same percentage of the respondents (9.4%) stated that they worked as construction engineers, architectural engineers, or mechanical engineers. 7.8% of the respondents were employed in cleaning service companies, while 6.3% of them worked in establishments that provided housing for the elderly and the disabled. 4.7% of the respondents worked in the educational system (kindergartens or schools), 4.7% in the healthcare system, 4.7% in transport companies, 3.1% in the hospitality industry, 3.1% in the trade industry, while 3.1% of the respondents owned their own companies. 46 46 Considering the fact that the respondents offered a range of different answers to the question regarding their workplace and the fact that that some of them provided their place of residence instead of their workplace, it was difficult to group some of their answers into categories besides those presented here. — 128 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić 39.1% of the respondents never used Croatian in their workplace, 21.9% did so rarely, while 10.9% of them used it frequently, and 7.8% of them used it very frequently in their workplace 47 (M = 2.27). 28.1% of the respondents used Eng - lish very frequently in their workplace, 14.1% of them did so frequently, while 18.8% of them used it rarely, and 17.2% of them never used English in their workplace ( M = 3.17). 42.2% of the respondents used Swedish very frequently in their workplace, 12.5% of them did so frequently, while 10.9% used Swed - ish in their workplace rarely, and 9.4% of them never used it in the workplace (M = 3 . 6 7) . On the basis o f the presented arithmetic means, it is possib le to conclude that the respondents used the Swedish language in their workplace to the greatest extent, which was followed by the use of the English language, while the use of the Croatian language was significantly less frequent. These results are in accordance with the respondents’ answers to the last three state - ments presented in picture 6. 45.3% of the respondents disagreed or completely disagreed that the knowl - edge of the Swedish language was not a prerequisite for obtaining employ - ment in Sweden, while 26.6% of them agreed or completely agreed with this statement. 46.9% of the respondents disagreed or completely disagreed that the knowledge of the English language was not a prerequisite for obtaining employment in Sweden, while 20.3% of them agreed or completely agreed with this statement. On the basis of the arithmetic means of the respondent’s answers to these two statements, it is possible to notice that a significant num - ber of the respondents perceived both languages as prerequisites for obtaining employment in Sweden, and they perceived so to a somewhat greater extent in the case of the English language. On the other hand, the percentage of the respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the two statements is also not negligible (28.1% in the case of the first statement and 32.8% in the case of the second statement). Regarding the respondents’ answers to the statement ‘My knowledge of the Swedish language was not important to my employer in the employment process’, it is possible to notice an almost equal percent - age of the respondents who disagreed or completely disagreed with it (43.7%), and of those who agreed or completely agreed with it (42.2%). On the other hand, 50.1% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that their knowl - edge of the English language had not been important to their employer in the employment process, while 32.8% of them disagreed or completely disagreed with it. The arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to these two claims suggest that in the process of employment the respondents’ knowledge of the Swedish language had been somewhat more important to their employers than their knowledge of English. 40.7% of the respondents completely disagreed or disagreed that in the workplace they were obligated to communicate in the Swedish language, while 43.7% of them agreed or completely agreed with this 47 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = very frequently. — 129 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes statement. On the other hand, 51.6% of the respondents completely disagreed or disagreed that in the workplace they were obligated to communicate in the English language, while 35.9% of them agreed or completely agreed with this statement. Even the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to these two statements suggest that the respondents were obligated to communicate in the Swedish language in the workplace to a greater extent than in the English language. 71.8% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that in the workplace they had improved their knowledge of the Swedish language, while only 18.7% of them disagreed or completely disagreed with this statement. On the other hand, there was an almost equal percentage of the respondents who disagreed or completely disagreed that in the workplace they had improved their knowledge of the English language (42.2%), and the percentage of those who agreed or completely agreed with this statement (40.7%). Comparing the arithmetic means of the respondents’ answers to these last two statements, it is visible that in the workplace they had improved their knowledge of the Swedish language more than they improved their knowledge of the English language in the same context. The distribution of the respondents’ answers to these state - ments is presented in picture 8. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree 1 = The knowledge of theSwedishlanguage is nota prerequisite forobtaining employmentin Sweden . (M = 2.70) / 2 = The knowledge of theEnglishlanguage is nota prerequisite forobtaining employmentin Sweden . (M = 2.53) / 3 = My knowledge of theSwedish language was notimportant tomy employerin theemploymentprocess . (M = 3.00) / 4 = My knowledge of theEnglishlanguage was notimportant to my employer in the employment process . (M = 3.39) / 5 = In the workplace I am obligatedto communicatein theSwedishlanguage . (M = 3.02) / 6 = In theworkplace I am obligated tocommunicate in theEnglish language . (M = 2.73) / 7 = In theworkplace I have improvedmy knowledge of theSwedish language . (M = 4.03) / 8 = In theworkplace I have improvedmy knowledge of theEnglish language . (M = 3.02) % Picture 8: Distribution of the respondents’ answers to statements about the importance of English and Swedish for employment and the use of English and Swedish in the workplace — 130 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić 5 Discussion Considering the fact that the questionnaire that was used in this research was modelled on the questionnaire used by Škifić and Grbas (2020) in their research regarding language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Ireland, this discussion includes a comparison of certain results of this research with the results of the research in Škifić and Grbas (2020). In the first part of the research the respondents expressed mostly positive attitudes towards Swedes as a hospitable nation, and most of them claimed to have felt good in Sweden and not to have had plans to return to Croatia. Simi - lar positive attitudes were also noted in the research conducted by Škifić and Grbas (2020) (in the part of their research related to the attitudes of Croatian immigrants towards Ireland and Croatia). Comparing the arithmetic means of respondents’ answers to statements in this part of the two studies, we can say that the slightly more pronounced differences have to do with the fact that, in this research, the respondents stated that they missed Croatia to a slightly greater extent than was the case among Croatian immigrants in Ireland, and that, in this research, the respondents expressed a stronger determination to stay in Sweden than was the case with the respondents’ determination in Škifić and Grbas (2020) regarding their stay in Ireland. 48 As was the case in Škifić and Grbas (2020), the respondents in this research did not state that they missed communication in the Croatian language to a significant degree either, and they did not agree in either of the studies that the English language was difficult. In this research the respondents were mostly indecisive in their evaluations of the extent to which they regarded the Swedish language difficult. A significant percentage of Croatian immigrants in Sweden who participated in this research expressed a wish to improve their knowledge of the English language, while the wish to improve their knowledge of the Swedish language was pronounced to an even greater extent. This may be related to the dominantly expressed attitude that, in Sweden, it is not more important to know the English language than the Swedish language, but also to the respondents’ perception of Swedish as the more difficult language, as well as to their better knowledge of English. A great majority of the respondents did not express the belief that the English language in Sweden represented a threat to the Swed - ish language. Such beliefs might be surprising, considering the previously mentioned fact about a significant number of individuals in Sweden who use English on an everyday basis in different contexts (Lindberg 2007: 72), which 48 The arithmetic mean ( M) of the respondents’ answers to the statement about the extent to which they missed Croatia in this research was 3.50, while the arithmetic mean ( M) of the respondent’s answers to the same statement in Škifić and Grbas (2020) was 2.91. Also, the arithmetic mean ( M) of the respondents’ answers to the statement about the extent to which they planned to stay in Sweden in this research was 4.16, while the arithmetic mean ( M) of the respondent’s answers to the same statement regarding the extent to which they planned to stay in Ireland in Škifić and Grbas (2020) was 3.59. — 131 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes might result in the perception that Swedish is threatened by English. However, they are not surprising if the expressed positive attitudes towards English are taken into consideration. Moreover, they are not surprising if the assimilation - ist tendencies in the Swedish language policy are taken into consideration (cf. Winsa (2005: 320), as cited in Lundberg (2018: 51); Hyltenstam, Axelsson, and Lindberg (2012), as cited in Lundberg (2018: 51)). A significant percentage of the respondents did not express the belief that Sweden should have ensured the learning and use of minority languages in education and other contexts to a greater extent either. Such attitudes support the previously mentioned views about the relatively strong support of Mother Tongue Instruction in the Swedish educational system (Salö et al. 2018). Regarding the knowledge and learning of the languages, the respondents’ level of knowledge of English was evaluated higher than their level of knowledge of Swedish, but they had made a more significant progress in their knowledge of Swedish in comparison to their progress in their knowledge of English. When it comes to the knowledge of the English language, which was mostly evaluated between good and very good, it was noted that it had improved after coming to Sweden. However, the difference between their evaluated knowledge of the English language before coming to Sweden and the current one is not as large as was noted in Škifić and Grbas (2020), in the part of their research were a comparison was made between their respondents’ knowledge of English prior to and after coming to Ireland. 49 Although the current knowledge of the Swedish language was evalu - ated more poorly than their current knowledge of English (mostly between suf - ficient and good), still a progress of their knowledge of the Swedish language after coming to Sweden may be noted, as the respondents mostly evaluated their knowledge of the Swedish language prior to coming to Sweden slightly better than insufficient. When it comes to learning the Swedish language, be - sides courses and different forms of individual help that certain respondents 49 Although the knowledge of the English language among Croatian immigrants in Ireland and Sweden before coming to the two countries was evaluated almost identically in terms of the arithmetic means (in Škifić and Grbas (2020) the arithmetic mean ( M) of the evaluated level of knowledge of the English language prior to coming to Ireland was 3.66, and in this research prior to respondents coming to Sweden was 3.61), still the respondents in Ireland (Škifić and Grbas 2020) evaluated their current knowledge of the English language better ( M = 4.38) in comparison to the respondents in Sweden (M = 3.80). In making this comparison, a difference in structuring this question in the two studies should be noted. Namely, in Škifić and Grbas (2020) the participants were asked to evaluate their knowledge of the English language on the basis of the following scale: 1 = much worse than average, 2 = worse than average, 3 = average, 4 = better than average, 5 = much better than average, while, in this research, the participants were asked to evaluate their knowledge of the English language on the basis of the fol - lowing scale: 1 = insufficient, 2 = sufficient, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent. Regardless of this difference, it is possible to make the aforementioned comparison on the basis of the fact that, in both studies, a five point scale was used, which allows for the comparison of the arithmetic means. — 132 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić had had in the process of mastering the language, it is important to mention the specific forms of education offered by Sweden (like Komvux and SFI). When it comes to the extent to which the respondents used Croatian, Eng - lish, and Swedish in Sweden, in conversation with friends they dominantly used Croatian, and such a dominance of the use of Croatian over Swedish an d E n glis h w as e v en m o re pro n o un ced in th e use o f l an guag es in S w eden in conversation with family members. On the other hand, the respondents in Sweden in educational institutions (school or faculty) dominantly used Swed - ish, English to a lesser extent, while Croatian was practically not used in the same context. A similar trend appears in the comparison of the use of the three languages in the workplace, where the respondents mostly used Swedish, which was followed by the use of English, while Croatian was used to a practically negligible extent. In Sweden in communication with strangers the respondents used English to the greatest extent, which was followed by the use of Swedish, while the extent of the use of Croatian in this context may also be regarded as negligible. On the other hand, in communication on social networks the respondents used Croatian to the greatest extent, while English and Swedish were used in the same context to a lesser extent. The final part of the research dealt with the use and importance of English and Swedish in the workplace in Sweden. A significant percentage of the re - spondents considered both languages a prerequisite for obtaining employment in Sweden, and English was considered in such a way to a slightly greater extent. On the other hand, in the process of employment, it seems that, for the employers, the knowledge of Swedish had been more important than the knowledge of English, and the respondents were obligated to communicate in Swedish to a greater extent than in English in the workplace. Finally, there was a significant percentage of the respondents who believed that in the workplace they had improved their knowledge of the Swedish language, while they re - mained relatively indecisive regarding the extent to which they had improved their knowledge of the English language in the same context. 5 Conclusion Various types of research regarding countries’ language policies provide an insight into a number of sociolinguistically relevant issues. Considering the fact that language policies represent frameworks for regulating the statuses of different languages, as well as aspects of language use, such research frequently reveals not only the broader cultural context within which a certain language policy is developed, but also its political and economic background. Language policies are also related to migration policies, which is especially evident in the analyses of the language policies of traditional immigration countries, and, as of relatively recently, those of specific European countries, which, since their accession to the European Union, have started to make a greater effort in — 133 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes regulating the statuses and use of their national languages, the English language, and a number of minority languages present on the territory. This paper analysed specific aspects of language use and attitudes related to the Croatian, English, and Swedish languages among Croatian immigrants in Sweden, as well as their attitudes towards residing in Sweden. The use of the questionnaire, that was modelled on the questionnaire used by Škifić and Grbas (2020) in their research regarding language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants in Ireland, enabled a comparison of certain results of this research with certain results of the research conducted by Škifić and Grbas (2020). The comparison revealed that both the Croatian immigrants in Sweden and those in Ireland mostly had positive attitudes towards Sweden and Ireland, as well as towards residing in the two countries, respectively. Most of the respondents who participated in the two studies did not plan to go back to Croatia. Croatian immigrants in the two contexts (Swedish and Irish) did not state that they missed communication in the Croatian language to a significant degree, nor did they perceive the English language as difficult, while the Croatian immigrants in Sweden remained mostly indecisive regarding their evaluations of the Swedish language as difficult. Considering the fact that, in this research, a dominant attitude among the respondents was noted about the greater importance of the knowledge of the Swedish language in comparison to the importance of the knowledge of the English language, it is not surprising that they expressed the wish to improve their knowledge of the Swedish language to a greater extent than was the case with their wish to improve their knowledge of the English language. Such a wish may also be related to their perception of Swedish as the more difficult language, as well as to their better knowledge of English. Positive attitudes towards residing in Sweden, the lack of emphasised miss - ing of communication in the Croatian language and a wish to improve their knowledge of Swedish and English, point clearly to what Baker and Prys Jones (1998: 174–178) called “instrumental attitudes”. In the case of this research, such attitudes refer to the pragmatic or practical value of Swedish and English as languages that are relevant for specific purposes, such as employment. The results of the research related to questions in the final part of the questionnaire (dealing with the use and importance of Swedish and English in the workplace in Sweden) confirm this. Similar instrumental attitudes were noted in Škifić and Grbas (2020) as well, in relation to the English language. The majority of the respondents evaluated their knowledge of the English language with high grades, and had made a more significant progress in their knowledge of Swedish than in their knowledge of English. On the other hand, in comparison to the progress in the knowledge of the English language among Croatian immigrants in Ireland (Škifić and Grbas 2020), the respondents in Sweden had made somewhat poorer progress in their knowledge of English. Such differences in the results in this part of the two studies may be explained by the fact that the English language is more important in Ireland, and, thus, there is greater pressure on the immigrants to master it more successfully. In — 134 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić comparison to the knowledge of the English language, the knowledge of the Swedish language among Croatian immigrants in Sweden is poorer. Poorer knowledge of Swedish prior to coming to Sweden may be related to the fact that only a small number of respondents had used it prior to coming to Swe - den. Even though most respondents had not used Swedish prior to coming to Sweden, the different forms of assistance used by the participants to master the language were noted. The dominant use of Croatian, Swedish, or English was shown to depend on the domain of use. Thus, the Croatian language was dominant in private spheres (in communication with family members and friends), the Swedish language in public spheres (in the educational context and in the workplace), while the English language was dominantly used primarily as a lingua franca (in communication with strangers). In the employment process, both Swedish and English were shown to be important, while the requirement to use the Swedish language in the workplace was more pronounced than the requirement to use the English language in the same context. Similarly to the research conducted by Škifić and Grbas (2020), this paper also represents a contribution to research on the linguistic and cultural integra - tion of Croatian immigrants in different contexts. As such, it may serve as an incentive for other similar studies in which aspects of language use and attitudes of Croatian immigrants might be analysed in other sociocultural contexts. This might enable additional comparisons, and the identification of similarities and differences in language use and attitudes among Croatian immigrants. REFERENCES Monika BALIJA, 2020: Razmjeri recentnog egzodusa iz Hrvatske – analiza podataka službenih statistika RH i zemalja useljavanja hrvatskog stanovništva [Proportions of recent exodus from Croatia – Analysis of official statistical data from Croatia and from the countries to which the Croatian population immigrated]. Podravina 19/37, 5–25. Colin BAKER & Sylvia PRYS JONES, 1998: Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nuhi BAJQINCA, 2019: Mother Tongue Education – The Interest of a Nation: A Policy Study in Sweden 1957–2017. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. Doctoral disserta - tion. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/58232. Accessed 5 August 2020. Laura E. BERK, 2008: Psihologija cjeloživotnog razvoja. (Editor of the Croatian edition: Gordana Keresteš). Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. Anne-Claude BERTHOUD & Georges LÜDI, 2011: Language Policy and Planning. The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Eds. Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone & Paul Kerswill. London: Sage. 479–495. Beatrice CABAU-LAMPA, 2005: Foreign Language Education in Sweden From a His - torical Perspective: Status, Role and Organization. Journal of Educational Administra- tion and History 37/1, 95–111. — 135 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes Central State Office for Croats Outside the Republic of Croatia. Croatian Emigrants in Overseas and European Countries and Their Offspring. https://hrvatiizvanrh.gov.hr/ hrvati-izvan-rh/hrvatsko-iseljenistvo/hrvatski-iseljenici-u-prekomorskim-i-europskim- drzavama-i-njihovi-potomci/749. Accessed 31 January 2021. Maurice CRUL, Frans LELIE, Özge BINER, Nihad BUNAR, Elif KESKINER, Ifigenia KOKKALI, Jens SCHNEIDER & Maha SHUAYB, 2019: How the different policies and school systems affect the inclusion of Syrian refugee children in Sweden, Germany, Greece, Lebanon and Turkey. Comparative Migration Studies 7, 1–20. European Federation of National Institutions for Language. Language Council. http:// www.efnil.org/partners/sverige/language-council. Accessed 7 August 2020. Joanna HUGHES, 2018: Which countries lead the world in English proficiency? https:// www.masterstudies.com/news/which-countries-lead-the-world-in-english-proficien - cy-3168/. Accessed 25 November 2021. Francis M. HULT, 2004: Planning for Multilingualism and Minority Language Rights in Sweden. Language Policy 3, 181–201. Institute of Language and Folklore. Language Council. https://www.isof.se/om-oss/ kontakt/sprakradet/in-english.html. Accessed 7 August 2020. Marijana JERIĆ, 2019: Suvremeno iseljavanje Hrvata: kakva je budućnost Republike Hrvatske? Oeconomica Jadertina 2, 21–31. Susanna KARLSSON & Tom S. KARLSSON, 2020: Language Policy as ‘Frozen’ Ide - ology: Exploring the Administrative Function in Swedish Higher Education. Current Issues in Language Planning 21/1, 67–87. Ivan LAJIĆ, 2004: Noviji razvoj stanovništva Hrvatske – regularno i neregularno kre - tanje stanovništva. Migracijske i etničke teme 20/2–3, 171–185. Gerhard LEITNER, 2004: Australia’s Many Voices: Ethnic Englishes, Indigenous and Migrant Languages. Policy and Education. Berlin & New Y ork: Mouton de Gruyter. Inger LINDBERG, 2007: Multilingual Education: A Swedish Perspective. Education in ‘Multicultural’ Societies – Turkish and Swedish Perspectives. Eds. Marie Carlson, Annika Rabo & Fatma Gök. Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. 71–90. Adrian LUNDBERG, 2018: Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden: A meta-analysis. Language Problems and Language Planning 42/1, 45–69. Rebeka MESARIĆ ŽABČIĆ, 2006: Uloga i djelovanje hrvatskih udruga u Norveškoj i Švedskoj [Role and activity of Croatian associations in Norway and Sweden]. Geoadria 11/2, 311–337. Jelena MIHALJEVIĆ DJIGUNOVIĆ & Renata GELD, 2002/2003: English in Croatia today: Opportunities for incidental vocabulary acquisition. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 47–48, 335–352. Ministry of Culture, 2009: Language Act. https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/9 e56b0c78cb5447b968a29dd14a68358/spraklag-pa-engelska. Accessed 1 August 2020. Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications, 2001: The Swedish Citizenship Act. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/420cadf64.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2020. — 136 — Slavia Centralis 1/2022 Sanja Škifić Catrin NORRBY, 2008: Swedish Language Policy: Multilingual Paradise or Utopian Dream? Multilingual Europe: Reflections on Language and Identity. Eds. Jane Warren & Heather Merle Benbow. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 63–76. Dunja POTOČNIK & Mirjana ADAMOVIĆ, 2018: Iskustvo migracije i planirani odlasci mladih iz Hrvatske. Zagreb: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ bueros/kroatien/14481.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2021. Thomas RICENTO & Barbara BURNABY (eds.), 1998: Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities. New York: Routledge. Julia SALLABANK, 2011: Language Endangerment. The Sage Handbook of Sociolin- guistics. Eds. Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone & Paul Kerswill. London: Sage. 496–512 . Linus SALÖ, Natalia GANUZA, Christina HEDMAN & Martha SIF KARREBÆK, 2018: Mother tongue instruction in Sweden and Denmark: Language policy, cross-field effects, and linguistic exchange rates. Language Policy 17, 591–610. Josep SOLER, Beyza BJÖRKMAN & Maria KUTEEVA, 2018: University Language Policies in Estonia and Sweden: Exploring the Interplay Between English and National Languages in Higher Education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop- ment 39/1, 29–43. Stockholm University, 2011: Language Policy of Stockholm University. Stockholm: Stockholm University. https://www.su.se/staff/organisation-governance/governing- documents-rules-and-regulations/communication-collaboration/language-policy-of- stockholm-university-1.352481. Accessed 8 August 2020. Swedish Language Council, 1998: Draft Action Programme for the Promotion of the Swedish Language. https://www.isof.se/download/18.5e02b54a144bbda8e9be ca/1529494111905/Language-policy-summary.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2020. Sanja ŠKIFIĆ, 2013: Citizenship as an Instrument of Inclusion and Exclusion – A Com - parative Analysis of Language Requirements in Naturalization Processes in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Lengua y migración 5/1, 5–32. Sanja ŠKIFIĆ & Antonia STRIKA, 2020: Finding One’s Place in a Host Space: A Small-Scale Study of Cultural Integration and Language Maintenance Among Croatian Immigrants in Canada. Lengua y migración 12/1, 37–76. Sanja ŠKIFIĆ & Katarina GRBAS, 2020: Jezična uporaba i stavovi hrvatskih imigranata u Irskoj. Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Splitu 13. 41–64. James W. TOLLEFSON & Miguel PÉREZ-MILANS, 2018: Research and practice in lan - guage policy and planning. The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Eds. James W. Tollefson & Miguel Pérez-Milans. New York: Oxford University Press. 1–32. UNESCO, 2003: Education in a multilingual world: UNESCO education position paper. Editorial coordinator: Linda King. UNESCO: Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000129728. Accessed 6 August 2020. University of Gothenburg, 2015: Language Policy for the University of Gothenburg. https://medarbetarportalen.gu.se/digitalAssets/1534/1534738_language-policy-at- guv-2015-495.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2020. Terrence G. WILEY, Jin Sook LEE & Russel W. RUMBERGER (eds.), 2009: The Educa- tion of Language Minority Immigrants in the United States. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. — 137 — Croatian Immigrants’ Language Use and Attitudes JEZIKOVNA RABA HRVAŠKIH PRISELJENCEV IN NJIHOVA STALIŠČA: PRIMER HRVAŠČINE, ANGLEŠČINE IN ŠVEDŠČINE NA ŠVEDSKEM V sodobnih sociolingvističnih raziskavah narašča zanimanje za analizo jezikovnih poli - tik držav, v katerih v zadnjem času opažamo porast števila priseljencev. Pristop različnih evropskih držav k Evropski uniji se pogosto upošteva pri raziskovanju nedavnih migracij po evropskih državah, ki so lahko povezane s spremembami migracijskih in jezikovnih politik držav. Švedska je ena izmed bolj zaželenih destinacij hrvaškega izseljenstva v evropske države, zato je v tem prispevku v središču pozornosti ta skupina hrvaških priseljencev. Namen prispevka, ki se ukvarja z analizo jezikovne rabe in stališč med hrvaškimi priseljenci na Švedskem, je omogočiti vpogled v raven jezikovne in kulturne integracije hrvaških priseljencev na Švedskem. Vprašalnik, ki je bil uporabljen v razi - skavi, opravljeni oktobra in novembra 2020 med 64 hrvaškimi priseljenci na Švedskem, je sestavljen iz petih delov in je bil izdelan po vzoru vprašalnika, ki sta ga uporabila Škifić in Grbas (2020) v svoji raziskavi o rabi jezika in stališčih med hrvaškimi prise - ljenci na Irskem. Anketiranci so morali odgovoriti na vprašanja o svojih izseljenskih izkušnjah na Švedskem, večina jezikovnih vprašanj pa se je nanašala na vidike procesa učenja in ravni znanja švedščine in angleščine ter na vprašanja, povezana z uporabo hrvaščine, angleščine in švedščine. Rezultati raziskave med drugim kažejo, da ima večina anketirancev pozitiven odnos do bivanja na Švedskem, pa tudi stališča o večji pomembnosti znanja švedščine kot angleščine. Ocenili so, da je trenutno znanje angle - škega jezika anketirancev na višji ravni od znanja švedskega jezika, večji napredek pri znanju obeh jezikov pa je bil ugotovljen pri švedščini. Izkazalo se je, da je prevladujoča raba hrvaščine, angleščine oz. švedščine odvisna od področij uporabe, medtem ko sta za zaposlitev pomembna tako znanje švedščine kot znanje angleščine. Rezultati raziskave kažejo tudi na pomen odnosa do švedščine in angleščine kot jezikov, ki imata specifično pragmatično ali praktično vrednost in sta relevantna v določenih strokovnih kontekstih.