Language Policies as an Integral Part of Public Administration in Greece: A Potential Framework Enabling Language Reinforcement and Language Tourism ^†

Abstract

This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for integrating language policies into the realm of public administration, focusing on their potential to regulate linguistic inheritance and promote language tourism. Drawing upon theoretical insights and practical examples, this ongoing bibliographical inquiry elucidates the multifaceted benefits of such incorporation. Language policies shape societal dynamics, preserve culture and strengthen economies. By incorporating linguistic considerations into public administration practices, governments can cultivate linguistic inclusivity, facilitate intercultural communication, and support language-based tourism initiatives. Furthermore, it aims to provide a roadmap for the fruitful implementation of language initiatives to maximize their social and financial impact. Being particularly relevant to Greece for both linguistic and cultural reason, this study aims to offer valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners in the field of public administration.

1. Introduction

Little research has been undertaken to assess the language policies that each country applies, and most importantly, too little research has been done on the ways or forms of implementation that are being used, and whether they are successful or not. The purpose of this paper is to go through the existing literature and explore the various language policies applied, and to suggest a comprehensive framework for integrating language policies into the realm of public administration. Language policies shape societal dynamics, preserve culture and strengthen economies. By incorporating linguistic considerations into public administration practices, governments can cultivate linguistic inclusivity, facilitate intercultural communication, and support language-based tourism initiatives. Based on that, this paper aims to present language policies as an integral part of public administration in Greece, which will enable language reinforcement and language tourism. In the beginning, it focuses on the existing languages policies in public administration in general, and then focuses on Greece and on the policies that will help linguistic inheritance and promote language tourism. Most importantly, it aims to provide a roadmap for the fruitful implementation of language initiatives to maximize their social and financial impact. Lastly, this paper will try to offer valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners in the field of public administration

2. Language Policies in Public Administration

The set of actions taken by government public authorities to influence a language’s structure (or corpus) and functions (or status) is known as language policy (also known as language planning, language policy and planning, or LPP) [1,2,3]. The term “corpus planning” describes linguistic operations such as updating a language’s lexicon, modernizing its alphabet, and creating a new grammar. Allocating roles to a particular language in society, such as using it for official documents, public services, and signage, is known as status planning. The literature sometimes refers to strategies meant to change the number of language users in a population as “acquisition planning”. These strategies usually involve teaching and training both adults and children in the language.

Language policy and planning, or LPP, is the name of the multidisciplinary field of study that is devoted to studying language policy. Early in the 1960s, it became a globally recognized academic issue in the field of sociolinguistics, and in the 1970s, it became institutionalized [4,5,6,7,8,9]. During the first phase of LPP, which lasted until the 1970s, LPP scholars assisted policymakers in developing nations with the task of modernizing and standardizing local languages, and choosing one or more official languages to support national development and economic growth [10,11] (Fishman 1974). Policy analysis had an impact on researchers throughout this phase, which was also known as “classic LPP”, in terms of both vocabulary and methodology. For example, Rubin and Jernudd state that language policy “is characterised by the formulation and evaluation of alternatives for language problems to find the best (or optimal, most efficient) decision” and is centered on problem-solving [12].

Since the 1970s, the paths of policy analysis and LPP have diverged, and have not intersected again. As “part of a critical turn in LPP scholarship, influenced by post structural and postmodern reasoning”, the idea of LPP as a technical and instrumental method of problem-solving was severely criticized [13]. The ideological basis of language planning, the power dynamics it conceals, and the ensuing socioeconomic disparities have all been studied by academics motivated by critical theories, e.g., [14,15,16]. Studies that analyses language policy discourse from many theoretical angles have been influenced by postmodern approaches [17,18,19,20]. According to Hornberger and Johnson [21], empirical LPP research typically uses ethnographic techniques that look at “the agents, contexts, and processes across the multiple layers of language policy creation, interpretation, and appropriation” [9]. The main focus of contributions in this field is usually on the conflicts and inconsistencies that exist between the stated goals of formal language policies and the actual practices that are seen (particularly in the field of education). According to Tollefson and Perez Milans [22], the field of LPP is significantly fragmented, and scholarship has not developed in a linear manner. The relative prevalence of critical and postmodern approaches in the field over the last few decades has resulted in a gradual separation of LPP from the classic approach inspired by public policy analysis, and consequently a neglect of the practical and organizational aspects of LPP, even though these approaches have improved our understanding of the ideological, discursive, and ethnographic aspects of LPP. The practice of language planning—that is, the creation, application, and assessment of particular language policies—has not received as much attention, as Ricento accurately points out [23].

Because it is connected to the authority possessed by the political and administrative structures, the use of a particular language by governmental institutions invariably confers prestige upon them. Additionally, particular registers and styles in the languages that have access to them have developed due to administrative purposes, particularly in writing. Consequently, any linguistic community would naturally desire to be able to communicate with administrative authorities in its native language.

Many languages have not been involved in administrative roles due to state politics. Naturally, this lack of use does not indicate that there is an innate flaw in the language that cannot be fixed through usage. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that there are a wide range of usage scenarios, from casual spoken communication to highly specialized written communication. It is also crucial to remember that the opportunities for utilizing the language might vary greatly depending on the features of the administrative organization, such as whether it is managed by locals or by outsiders.

It is evident from the data gathered that a language’s official status directly affects how it is used in public services. However, this is not guaranteed. There may also be instances of societies where their language is at least accepted and used for some administrative functions, but without the intended legal status.

There are three categories of languages that are spoken and written in public administrations: (1) State languages, either official or co-official. These languages are used at every level of public administration. (2) Languages that are recognized as official within their borders. Both orally and in writing, these are languages that are used in public administration. (3) Languages that are not recognized by the government. Some of these languages are utilized in public administration even though they do not have official or co-official status.

It may be concluded from the informants’ own reports that the administrative authorities’ policy of supporting a language does not directly lead to the oral usage of that language in administration. In fact, it reacts to the impromptu actions of people who recognize a member of their own community in an official position by using the language. It is difficult to argue that the government supports or protects these languages. That being said, the spoken use of the language or the potential for its use in public administration contributes to its life and indicates a certain level of administrative institutions’ tolerance. While administrators have historically viewed instances involving language communication as problematic, it is imperative that administrative bodies view multilingual situations as normal and handle them accordingly. Similar to how it is in education, speaking multiple languages at once need not be a barrier to communication if one can appreciate diversity. In any event, every attempt made to increase the prominence of languages in governmental and administrative structures will always be beneficial for each language’s linguistic evolution, as well as its prestige.

Because of all of this, it is crucial that we make an appeal to the administrative and public authorities so that they utilise every tool at their disposal to safeguard this fundamental right in creative ways, making use of technological advancements, and never losing sight of the administration’s primary goal of ensuring the highest level of well-being for its citizens.

Greek is the official language of public administration in Greece. Other than English, which is utilized in certain situations pertaining to the European Union, no other language has ever been given consideration for implementation. In elementary, secondary, and university education, all official knowledge is available in Greek. International schools that are located in Greece are an exception to this norm. They do not adhere to the Greek national curriculum, and they mostly use English.

Greek is also an object of official knowledge throughout primary and secondary school. A recent curriculum change has moved some of the focus from language proficiency to academic and social literacy, and from language knowledge to communicative performance and text and discourse production. By providing teachers of Greek language with ideas, resources, and tools on an outstanding platform, the Centre for the Greek Language has been instrumental in supporting this transition. The portal provides engaging educational resources for Greek language instructors and students, such as tools that users can utilize for independent study and literacy development both inside and outside of the official school system.

However, Greece lacks clearly defined language policy in both public business management and schools, as is the case with many other European countries. Few declarations of action include clauses for monitoring, revision, and follow-up at every level. In terms of education, for instance, there are not many written documents outlining how students from different social and ethnic backgrounds will benefit from the language curriculum in elementary schools, as established by the national curriculum. Additionally, there is not a language policy in secondary schools that addresses language issues in many subject areas.

More significantly, there are no explicit policies ensuring linguistic social justice in schools or in higher education; that is, policies regarding gender-neutral language use, the treatment of children with learning disabilities, critical language awareness, bilingual education, or support for teaching and learning Greek to immigrant children and other language-speakers in general. However, all of these are really symptoms of a larger issue, which is the absence of any language policies or provisions in Greek public business administration. Greece has welcomed a large number of immigrants since the 1990s, so one would assume that the public administration has language policies in place to help this population settle and find ways to integrate into society while also maintaining the local cultures and languages. In addition, aside from the absence of language policies within the nation, it appears that little effort is being made to preserve the dialects spoken in Greece and in places where there are still Greek communities speaking distinct dialects of the language, or in countries where there is a sizable Greek community, such as the United States or Germany.

3. Language Policies in Public Administration: Regulating Language Policies That Will Help Linguistic Inheritance and Promote Language Tourism in Greece

As discussed, briefly, in the previous chapter, Greece lacks language policies that will help promote linguistic inheritance and language tourism in Greece. To be more specific, language inheritance seems to be a matter that concerns Greek academics more than the government itself. The ideological significance associated with the founding of the new nation state, and the diglossic problem that Greece had to deal with for almost two millennia, are resurfacing in today’s world in many forms and shapes. For instance, a position promoted in the 1980s by a number of distinguished scholars declared the “decline” of Greek as a language, frequently hinting and sometimes explicitly declaring that this decline resulted from a straying from the origins of “pure” Greek, which is to say, archaic Greek.

The idea gained traction rapidly; the myth of language decline was frequently discussed in the media, and until recently, it was a popular topic at academic conferences and in public discussions. After a number of prominent academics and politicians fell for the hoax, the idea of seeking to “save the national language” was eventually presented to Parliament. In this context, individuals who propagate these linguistic ideologies have labeled Greek as “unequalled”, “extraordinary”, and “unique”. The myth about the “linguistic poverty” of youth, however, was spurred by the movement towards linguistic “purism”, which is characterized by religious fundamentalism and a return to linguistic authenticity. This argument is frequently made in modern times, though it is not unique to Greece, by those who consistently disregard the social aspect of language. The attempts to restore the polytonic system or teach Ancient Greek in schools as a means of preserving the Greek language proved unsuccessful, since they were unable to be implemented in practice.

Linguistic inheritance can only be preserved if well-formed regulating policies are put in place, with the avoidance of such debate as arose with the diglossic issue. Based on the literature review, there are a few stated policies and many tacit ones available. The policy for language education created by a financed effort to change the language education of the Muslim population in Thrace, an area of Northern Greece, which speaks Turkish, is one of the more intriguing examples. An inventive bilingual and intercultural education curriculum that is fostering tolerance for other cultures has been produced through project design for bilingual education. Greek and Turkish are languages in association with which the knowledge in this program can be accessed. There are not many other state-funded bilingual education schemes in Greece. In addition, there are not many other programs in the nation that allow students to acquire knowledge in languages other than Greek. The ones that do exist are restricted to the wealthier social classes and are associated with the major languages of the French, English, German, American, and international schools in Athens and Thessaloniki. There is also the matter of economic immigrants and their entitlement to pursue Greek as a second language. Recognizing this privilege entails paying for Greek as a “second” language (GSL) class both inside and outside of official school settings, but this has not happened very often. Even though there are a number of free adult education programs available to teach Greek to immigrants and Greeks living abroad, they are still far too few, and these are concentrated in urban areas and do not offer financial incentives to participants. Furthermore, there is currently no policy in place to assist the children of immigrants with their language study in regular classes.

One possible explanation for this could be the lack of experience in GSL teaching. Because of this, Greek universities have started offering postgraduate GSL and GFL (Greek as a Foreign Language) degrees. The state has provided funding for these programs in an effort to advance the field’s level of knowledge. These programs, which include a combination of academic and practical elements, involve developing materials and designing curricula and syllabuses for teaching Greek. While GFL is in demand outside of Greece, GSL is more in demand within Greece than it has ever been. The Centre for the Greek Language devised the Greek language examination system in response to the necessity of obtaining a certification of one’s language proficiency in Greece. Greek language tests are given both inside and outside of Greece to certify a person’s communicative proficiency, and there is a growing market for instructional resources to help teach and study Greek as a second or foreign language.

It is apparent from the literature review that linguistic inheritance can only be preserved with language policies that are tied with education or educational programs exactly the same way that language tourism is. Language tourism is a multifaceted phenomenon that has gained significant attention in recent years due to the potential economic, cultural, and educational benefits it embodies in the tourism industry [24]. Conceptually, language tourism, also known as language travel or language education tourism, involves people traveling to foreign destinations with the primary or secondary objective of learning or improving their language skills [25]. It is a branch of tourism and education that includes a wide range of programs and experiences [26]. Characteristically, the literature tends to converge towards the acceptance of language tourism as a form of tourism closely related to educational tourism, while there is no shortage of interpretations that place the above concept in relation to the contribution of educational/academic tourism as well as youth tourism and individual tourism (solotourism) [27].

According to Aragú and Mestanza [28], language tourism offers the opportunity to combine leisure and study travel, evolving as an important factor of sustainability that places each destination as a point of reference for the internationalization of its official language as a global language of exchange, providing a social good and turning language into an inexhaustible resource, with no production costs and whose value increases with the number of its users. Language tourism appears in various forms, in the sense of implementing foreign language learning. Each of these forms responds to the specific needs and preferences of students and potential tourists [29]. Among the above forms are language schools, where structured language courses taught by qualified instructors are offered [29]. In addition, there are homestay programs, which include living with a local host family while studying the foreign language. This particular experience provides students with opportunities to practice their language skills in real language environments [24]. At the same time, there are exchange programs offered by Greek educational institutions that allow participation in study programs abroad with a specific duration, putting the learning of a foreign language practically in the foreground [30]. Finally, there are language camps and language villages, which are usually designed for younger students or even families, providing a combination of language lessons, activities, and entertainment [31].

It is generally accepted that motivation plays an important role in academic learning [32]. In fact, along with variables such as attitude, orientations, and anxiety, motivation is a key component in predicting achievement in second language learning, along with language ability [33]. In order to characterize motivations for language choice, some studies have used Gardner and Lambert’s [34] distinction between an integrative and an instrumental approach to language learning [35]. An integrative orientation is associated with a genuine interest in the language of a people and/or culture and a desire to integrate into the target language community, while an instrumental orientation is associated with learning a language to achieve other goals (e.g., academic or work-related goals). Motivations for language travel have been mainly classified as educational, cultural, ancestral and professional [36,37]. Regarding the motivations for choosing a destination, previous studies have often reported attraction to the country [24], including its culture [38,39] and climate [36], the “purity” of the language variety spoken in the destination [24,39] (Redondo-Carretero et al., 2017) and the existence of university agreements and scholarship opportunities [24]. Destination choice can also result from the negotiation of constraints, such as distance and cost (Boekstein, 2010; [24,40]).

As someone can observe, language tourism is linked with educational programs that can be applied by each country—Greece is not an exception—in order to preserve linguistic inheritance, and most importantly, further promote language tourism. One of the most important language education programs is the European Union’s Comenius Programme, which operates in the field of education and culture and has as its primary objective the promotion of cooperation and the facilitation of the exchange of knowledge between schools in different European countries. The implementation of the program yielded promising results, particularly in the areas of foreign language learning and intercultural awareness. In this context, 80% of teachers reported that their students demonstrated increased curiosity and enthusiasm for other countries and cultures. In addition, these students showed a remarkable improvement in their overall understanding of life, both in and out of school. In addition, they have demonstrated increased acceptance and tolerance in unfamiliar cultures and with people from foreign backgrounds. The impact of the program also extended to teachers, with 90% of the teachers enhancing their knowledge and understanding of education systems in partner countries. Through Comenius school partnerships, an impressive 75% of students developed a greater interest in learning foreign languages and were motivated to continue language learning.

Another initiative of the European Union is the Grundtvig program, which started in 2000. Its primary aim is to support adults in enhancing their knowledge, skills, and personal development, ultimately improving their chances of finding work. Through exchanges and various professional opportunities, it financially supports adult education staff in their quest to gain new knowledge and experiences by traveling to European countries. The objectives include strengthening cooperation between adult education organizations, facilitating access to adult education for marginalized people and providing support for the development of innovative educational content.

We also have the Erasmus+ Program which was established in 1987 and is a European funding initiative that provides students with the opportunity to study abroad or complete internships in foreign countries for a duration ranging from 2 to 12 months per study cycle. In addition to its original scope in Europe, Erasmus+ has extended its reach beyond European borders, offering students even more opportunities for international experiences. Erasmus+ provides individuals with the opportunity to develop personally and professionally by participating in international endeavors. These experiences often equip participants with valuable skills, cultural sensitivity, language proficiency, and connections that enhance their job prospects and broaden their horizons.

These programs that were established by the European Union can be described as language policies, which can help further the language inheritance of each country and at the same time promote the concept of language tourism.

4. Roadmap for Implementation: Language Initiatives Maximizing Social and Financial Impact

A Language policy and customs align so that all documentation and guidelines intended to preserve the rights of people and to protect patients, clients, and consumers are written in Greek. Greece is attempting, like other countries with service-oriented societies, to democratize the language used in public papers, although it continues to use a “plain language approach” for these kinds of materials [41].

Though it is still scarce, at least in comparison to the amount of information available in English, there is a growing amount of Greek-language content available online. Therefore, Greek visitors are turning to English websites in greater numbers. Greek is the language used for online information sharing, yet certain applications do not support the Greek script. For this reason, Greeklish is frequently employed in computer-mediated communication—particularly in email messages and other correspondence—a practice that has sparked criticism.

The government should adopt policies and regulations in order for applications and other material to also be available in Greek, as there is a large percentage of people over the age of 40 who do not have knowledge of other foreign languages, thus they have limited access to products and services. Applying this form of language policy will have a major financial impact on the economy of the country, as the government opens the market to businesses from abroad and gives the opportunity to a larger group of consumers to have access to a variety of products.

Both the Greek and Latin alphabets are used on street signs and other signage in locations that Speakers of Other Languages (SOLs) frequent. Information is expressed in Greek, English, and other languages including German, Italian, French, Swedish, etc., in locations and areas that are visited by tourists. Naturally, the language used to obtain information varies depending on the language used by visitors to specific locations. The additional language chosen is to accommodate tourists, who are welcomed since they bring in money. It is understood that in order for the financial impact to be apparent, local authorities should create a website with all information about the area, accommodation, things to do and how a foreigner can get around. This information should be available in many languages and not only in English, as this will attract markets from different areas in the world. However, this language policy contradicts another language policy that can be implemented, and can help further promote language inheritance and language tourism. This language policy would emphasize preserving the local languages spoken in every area (e.g., in Crete, the Cretan dialect), and according to it, all street signs and any public signs at the airport or other means of transportation would be in Greek in the dialect spoken.

Since Greek is utilized in many spheres of society, it has not yet experienced the kind of domain loss that several Nordic languages have. It is the language used for all official correspondence and services, in elementary, secondary, and higher education, as well as in the workplace. It is also possible to access the media in Greek. Due to immigrant communities, there are now a few newspapers that provide Greek news in English as well as several lesser-used languages including Arabic, Bulgarian, and Albanian. The majority of radio programs are in Greek; however, certain (mostly state) stations also broadcast Greek and international news in community languages and English. There are a number of Greek sitcoms and films, as well as talk shows and news on TV; however, US English predominates in both the TV and movie industries. Popular series are also available in Portuguese and Spanish. But unlike in many other European nations, the majority of films include subtitles, with the exception of those that are dubbed for younger audiences.

Policy for linguistic social justice appears to be the area where Greece is most lacking. First of all, very little is done to accommodate individuals with disabilities, as there is not a well-formulated language policy in the media.

Recently, only the hearing-impaired have received special attention, and steps have been made to encourage the use of sign language on television and in public areas. However, this is far from enough. Public administration should regulate language policies that will enable people with disabilities to be autonomous and be able to deal with their affairs without the need of a family member. To be more specific, all public offices should have available at least one person fluent in sign language, and it would be ideal if important official documents could be summarized in the braille writing system. All this could be achieved by providing training to existing employees, or pay for courses in sign language, etc. Additionally, as is known, in the public sector, if you know a foreign language you get credit points, and this becomes apparent in your salary. The same scheme could apply to those knowing sign language or the braille writing system. Another important sector in which languages policies should be implemented is the business sector. To be more specific, Greek is used in the workplace, and unless you work for one of a few global corporations for a brief length of time, it is impossible to obtain and keep a job without a solid command of the language. In the professional and social settings, social literacy is anticipated; nonetheless, grammatical and orthographic literacy are crucial, and having a large vocabulary is a sign of social standing. For job-seekers, other languages are also crucial (dominant (or, preferably, major) languages and especially English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and, more lately, Russian).

Greece is a monolingual nation-state on paper, although the population is becoming more multilingual. Since the Greek state recognizes everyone’s freedom to speak their native language in private or public, a multitude of languages spoken by people who have recently moved from the Balkans, the former Soviet Union, Asia, and Africa are utilized as community languages. None of these imported languages, meanwhile, have any notable status. Turkish, Latino-Hebrew, and Armenian are the languages recognized by Greek policy as minority languages in Greece, and as such, granted certain privileges. Other languages having a lengthy history in Modern Greece but are not recognized by the government include Rom, Slavomacedonian, Pomach, Vlach, and a specific dialect of Albanian.

In reality, immigrants’ language rights are inadequate. Although Greece complies with European law in terms of legal rights, and the state provides interpreters for SOLs in court, this policy is rarely followed. This also applies to legal services, where informational documents must be provided in English, French, Russian, and Albanian. It also applies to public services for asylum seekers, who should have access to guidelines, instructions, and other documentation in their language, but they do not. Such information should be available at the Social Security Office and the Immigration Service, where immigrants expect to get interpretation services in addition to written material. But it must be noted that policy implementation and actual practices have not been systematically investigated yet. There are indications that things do not work exactly the way they are supposed to. Apart from the aforementioned, it is observed that the host country has not thought about the language policy for immigrants required by the Greek job market and those who want to integrate. Their rights to their linguistic and cultural heritage are at stake in this matter. It also has to do with their entitlement to an education in language, which is a complex matter since it could limit rather than increase access to financial resources [42,43]. While immigrants are free to use their native language in public, no law specifically states that they should acquire Greek to get greater access to financial resources or political influence.

In conclusion, it might be crucial to emphasize that Greece does not have a clear language policy that upholds language rights and illustrates the importance of official language rights acknowledgments in the media, in social settings, and in education. In this regard, Greece and many other EU members cannot be compared to nations like Australia, whose national language policy guarantees students who do not speak English, the nation’s official language, native language instruction, in addition to the right to government information and services in one’s native language.

It is frequently difficult to distinguish between the institutional and substantive components of language policy. A policy that funds private language schools with the goal of enhancing immigrants’ proficiency in the official language of their new nation is an example of a substantive language policy. However, the line between the two might not always be as sharp. We assume that in a given nation, the ability to provide public services in several languages is a “public problem”, as defined by politics and characterized as collective in nature. In this situation, the establishment and upkeep of a multilingual public administration is required by law (see the above introduction). However, because the government machinery becomes both the subject and the aim of the language policy, this calls for both substantive and institutional solutions.

In other words, the government is the main player responsible for designing and implementing the policy, as well as its main objective. Language policy can target the language itself (corpus planning), in addition to its social and official roles (status planning), and the two elements are related. This is another way in which language policy differs from other types of public policy. These distinctions need to be considered when analyzing the LPP policy instruments and, consequently, when creating and implementing language policies. The term “language policy instruments” (LPI) refers to the collection of instruments that governments use in language policy programs (LPPs) to intentionally try to change a language’s status and corpus, in order to persuade people and groups to adopt new language practices and attitudes that are in line with the LPP’s goals. There could be an endless supply of LPI.

5. Discussion

Language policies are an essential component of public administration and can facilitate language reinforcement and language tourism when put into practice within a comprehensive framework. Public administration in Greece should take the lead from the European Union and develop educational and training programs that will encourage the preservation of linguistic heritage while also promoting language tourism, focusing on their ability to control linguistic inheritance and foster language tourism. Furthermore, another possibility for future research could involve the establishment of Greek Institutes, initially in countries where there is Greek diaspora and eventually expanding to other regions of the world. The following goal of these institutes would be to promote Greek language and heritage, which could have a financial and social impact in Greece.

After highlighting the significance and practical benefits for linguistic communities of using their native tongue when interacting with public services, the second part of this paper delves into the role administrative authorities and public services—both state-dependent and regional and local—should play in ensuring that citizens’ rights to use their language when interacting with the government are upheld. Additionally, they have to guarantee that people from various linguistic communities can submit written and verbal requests to the administrative services in their native tongue, and receive a response in that same language.

Furthermore, in the field of public administration, it is imperative that citizens are furnished with relevant application forms either in their native language or in a bilingual or multilingual version. The same needs to be done for the essential paperwork that the administration provides, such as identity cards, passports, driver’s licenses, citizenship certificates, etc. In particular, the public administration should make sure that fundamental services like the legal system and healthcare are provided to citizens in their native language.

6. Conclusions

The aforementioned information leads to the conclusion that, when implemented within a comprehensive framework, language policies can maintain culture, strengthen economies, and influence society’s dynamics. By incorporating linguistic considerations into public administration practices, governments can cultivate linguistic inclusivity, facilitate intercultural communication, and support language-based tourism initiatives. It has been demonstrated that language policies, when integrated into public administration, can facilitate language tourism and language reinforcement in Greece. Policymakers may formulate new policies with financial and social implications, as well as policies that will aid in the preservation of linguistic inheritance, by evaluating the current language policies in public administration both generally and in Greece. The data gathered from the literature review show that there is still more work to be done in that area. The roadmap for implementation presented in the third section of this paper offers a valuable insight to policymakers and practitioners in the field of public administration in order for them to apply language policies that will help further promote linguistic inheritance and language tourism, having at the same time financial and social impacts.