This study explores whether and how linguistic resources foster digital engagement and digital inclusion in multilingual settings. We focus on Hungarians in Romania, a traditional ethnic and linguistic minority group, which live in a country where overall connectivity is high but average digital skills remain low, and which developed a strong native-language institutional system. Using representative survey data (N = 1688) and linear models, we estimate the separate contributions of demographic, socioeconomic, technological (digital skills, self-efficacy, time online, social support), and linguistic factors (frequency of online Hungarian use; proficiency in Romanian and English) to six domains of digital engagement: information seeking, work and services, learning, communication, entertainment, and e-commerce. Findings suggest that digital skills and digital self-efficacy are the strong, independent predictors of more beneficial online activities, while English is the most consistent linguistic predictor of advanced and socio-economically beneficial engagement (learning, working, and using digital services), while Hungarian language use supports only socio-economically less beneficial and complex activities, such as online communication, social media engagement, or entertainment. Romanian, the official state language, plays a limited role in predicting digital engagement across domains, most probably because Hungarian speakers rarely use Romanian online. Implications are twofold. First, and foremost, self-sufficient and extended minority-language ecosystems do not automatically translate into beneficial digital engagement; the effects of online native language use are domain-specific and are not effective enough if individuals do not possess digital skills and -self-efficacy. From a policy perspective, expanding minority-language content alone is insufficient to reduce digital inequalities, targeted interventions regarding digital skills are needed.
AissaouiN (2021) The digital divide: A literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID-19. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication71(8/9): 686–708.
2.
AsmarAVan AudenhoveLMariënI (2020) Social support for digital inclusion: Towards a typology of social support patterns. Social Inclusion8(2): 138–150.
3.
BachAJWolfsonTCrowellJK (2018) Poverty, literacy, and social transformation: An interdisciplinary exploration of the digital divide. Journal of Media Literacy Education10(1): 22–41.
4.
BartonDLeeC (2013) Language Online: investigating Digital Texts and Practices. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003265276.
5.
BlankGGroseljD (2014) Dimensions of internet use: Amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society17(4): 417–435.
BüchiMHargittaiE (2022) A need for considering digital inequality when studying social media use and well-being. Social Media + Society8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211069125.
CinnamonJ (2019) Data inequalities and why they matter for development. Information Technology for Development26(2): 214–233.
10.
CorreaTPavezIContrerasJ (2018) Digital inclusion through mobile phones?: A comparison between mobile-only and computer users in internet access, skills and use. Information, Communication & Society23(7): 1074–1091.
D'HaenensLKoemanJSaeysF (2016) Digital citizenship among ethnic minority youths in The Netherlands and flanders. New Media & Society9(2): 278–299.
14.
DymetM (2019) Digital language divide in the European high north: The level of online presence of minority languages from northern Finland, Norway and Sweden. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online10(1): 245–274.
15.
EkohPCOkolieTJNnadiFB, et al. (2023) Understanding the impact of digital technology on the well-being of older immigrants and refugees: A scoping review. DIGITAL HEALTH9: 20552076231194947.
Eurostat. (2024) Individuals’ level of digital skills (from 2021 onwards). DOI:10.2908/isoc_sk_dskl_i21.
18.
GallardoRBeaulieuLBGeidemanC (2021) Digital inclusion and parity: Implications for community development. Community Development52(1): 4–21.
19.
GiannakoulopoulosAPergantisMKonstantinouN, et al. (2020) Exploring the dominance of the English language on the websites of EU countries. Future Internet12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12040076.
20.
GladkovaAVartanovaEShi-xuS (2024) Introduction. In: GladkovaAVartanovaEShi-xuS (eds) Digital Inequality. Abingdon, Oxon – New York, NY: Routledge, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032672250.
21.
HelsperEJ (2021) The Digital Disconnect: The Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. London: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526492982.
22.
HelsperEJvan DeursenAJEynonR (2015) Tangible Outcomes of Internet Use: From Digital sKills to Tangible Outcomes Project Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112.
23.
HorváthIToróT (2018) Language use, language policy, and language rights. In: KissTSzékelyIGToróT, et al. (eds) Unequal Accommodation of Minority Rights: Hungarians in Transylvania. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 167–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_3.
KissT (2018) A changing system of ethnic stratification: The social positions of transylvanian Hungarians. In: KissTSzékelyIGToróT, et al. (eds) Unequal Accommodation of Minority Rights: Hungarians in Transylvania. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 419–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_3.
26.
KissTSzékelyIG (2020) European Values Study 2017: Romania - Hungarian minority (EVS 2017 Country data file). https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13562.
27.
KissTSzékelyIGToróT, et al. (2018) Unequal Accommodation of Minority Rights: Hungarians in Transylvania. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_3.
LeguinaADowneyJ (2021) Getting things done: Inequalities, internet use and everyday life. New Media & Society23(7): 1824–1849.
31.
LissitsaSChachashvili-BolotinSBokek-CohenYA (2017) Can digital skills raise occupational prestige among ethnic minorities?Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research30(2): 204–222.
32.
LissitsaSOnAL (2014) Gaps close, gaps open: a repeated cross-sectional study of the scope and determinants of the ethnic digital divide. International Journal of Electronic Governance7(1). https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeg.2014.065080.
33.
LongoriaIA-IBustamante-BelloRRamírez-MontoyaMS, et al. (2022) Systematic mapping of digital gap and gender, age, ethnicity, or disability. Sustainability14(3): 1297.
34.
LuL (2010) Digital divide: Does the internet speak your language?. In: HerringtonJMontgomerieC (eds) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010–World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Toronto: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 4022–4025. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/35226/.
35.
LythreatisSSinghSKEl-KassarA-N (2022) The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359.
36.
MeschGSTalmudI (2011) Ethnic differences in internet access. Information, Communication & Society14(4): 445–471.
37.
MoriCK (2011) ‘Digital inclusion’ are we all talking about the same thing?. In: SteynJJohansonG (eds) ICTS and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-799-2.ch003.
38.
NițăV (2011) An extended approach to e-inclusion and its implications for Romania. Romanian Journal of European Affairs11(1): 63–81. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1794346.
39.
PapacharissiZRubinAM (2010) Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media44(2): 175–196.
40.
PearceKRiceRE (2014) The language divide—The persistence of English proficiency as a gateway to the Internet: The cases of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. International Journal of Communication8, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2075.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
43.
RagneddaMRuiuMLAddeoF (2019) Measuring digital capital: An empirical investigation. New Media & Society22(5): 793–816.
44.
RaihanMMHSubrotoSChowdhuryN, et al. (2024) Dimensions and barriers for digital (in)equity and digital divide: a systematic integrative review. Digital Transformation and Society. https://doi.org/10.1108/dts-04-2024-0054.
45.
RehmGWayA (2023) European language equality: Introduction. In: RehmGWayA (eds) European Language Equality: Cognitive Technologies. Cham: Springer, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28819-7_1.
46.
RobinsonLSchulzJBlankG, et al. (2020) Digital inequalities 2.0: Legacy inequalities in the information age. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i7.10842.
47.
RosellJVergésATorres IrribarraD, et al. (2022) Motives of use and internet addiction: Development and evidence of validity of a scale to evaluate motives of internet use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction21(5): 2977–2998.
48.
ScheerderAvan DeursenAJvan DijkJA (2017) Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics34(8): 1607–1624.
49.
SchroederLDSjoquistDLStephanPE (1986) Understanding Regression Analysis. An Introductory Guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506361628.
50.
SenkbeilM (2018) Development and validation of the ICT motivation scale for young adolescents. Results of the international school assessment study ICILS 2013 in Germany. Learning and Individual Differences67: 167–176.
51.
SinghSSinghV (2025) Digital technology:Purveyor of linguistic diversity or English hegemony?. In: Palacios-HidalgoFJHuertas-AbrilC (eds) Redefining Language Education Through Critical Language Pedagogy. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 351–376. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-5421-6.
52.
SinghVChobotaruJ (2022) Digital divide: Barriers to accessing online government services in Canada. Administrative Sciences12(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030112.
53.
SmitASwartJBroersmaM (2024) Bypassing digital literacy: Marginalized citizens’ tactics for participation and inclusion in digital societies. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231220383.
54.
ȘtefănițăOIvanL (2018) Characteristics of the digital divide in Romania and differences in internet use in comparison with internet use in Europe. Journal of Media Research11(2 (31)): 5–21.
55.
Tirado-MoruetaRGarcía-UmañaAMengual-AndrésS (2021) Validating the gratifications associated with the use of the smartphone and the internet by university students in Chile, Ecuador and Spain. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research50(4): 371–388.
van DeursenAJvan DijkJA (2015) Toward a multifaceted model of internet access for understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation. The Information Society31(5): 379–391.
61.
van DijkJA (2020) The Digital Divide. Cambridge/Medford: Polity.
van IngenEMatzatU (2017) Inequality in mobilizing online help after a negative life event: The role of education, digital skills, and capital-enhancing internet use. Information, Communication & Society21(4): 481–498.
64.
VassilakopoulouPHustadE (2021) Bridging digital divides: A literature review and research agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Frontiers: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3.
ZoubiKSharonAJNitzanyE, et al. (2022) Science, madda, and ‘ilm: The language divide in scientific information available to internet users. Public Understanding of Science31(1): 2–18.
