<div dir="ltr"><h1 class="">Debates over the status of the Finnish and
Swedish languages in Finland tend to ignore the fact that Finland has
developed into a truly multilingual country.</h1>
<div class="">
<span class=""><a class="" href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/author/brownsa/" title="View all posts by Blog Admin">Blog Admin</a></span> </div>
<p><i><a href="http://wp.me/p2MmSR-3wp#Author"><img class="" alt="" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/files/2013/04/pasisaukkonen.jpg" height="108" width="80"></a>Finland
has two official languages: Swedish and Finnish. The status of both
languages has recently generated debate within the country, particularly
over the mandatory teaching of Swedish in Finnish language schools. </i><a href="http://wp.me/p2MmSR-3wp#Author"><b>Pasi Saukkonen </b></a><i>assesses
the current controversy, noting that the situation within the country
has changed markedly since Finland’s language policy was developed in
the early 20<sup>th</sup> century. A far greater number of languages are
now spoken by people living in Finland, and individuals are also more
likely to have more than one mother tongue. This greater linguistic
plurality is beginning to put the country’s bilingual policies under
pressure.</i></p>
<p>When Finland became independent, in 1917, the country was declared
officially bilingual. Swedish, spoken by the numerical minority, had
been the language of public administration and higher education, and the
normal domestic language of the upper classes for centuries. The
majority vernacular, Finnish, had received fully equal status only some
years before independence. The language policy solution was a compromise
that proved sustainable despite many extraordinary features. In
contrast to many officially bilingual or multilingual states, Finland is
not a federal state. Unilingual territorial autonomy has been limited
to the small and peripheral Åland islands.</p>
<p>Finnish language policy is a combination of a territoriality
principle and a personality principle. The Finnish constitution
recognises both Finnish and Swedish as national languages. People
belonging to both language groups have the right to use their own
language before courts of law and other authorities, and to receive
official documents in that language. Public authorities must provide for
the cultural and societal needs of Finnish-speakers and
Swedish-speakers on an equal basis. The language of many welfare
services is determined by the language status of local communities.
Municipalities can be either unilingual Finnish or Swedish, or
bilingual, depending on the size of the minority language group.</p>
<div id="attachment_13552" class="" style="width:360px"><img class="" alt="" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/files/2013/04/finnishlippu.jpg" height="249" width="350"><p class="">Credit: Mirari Erdoiza (CC BY 2.0)</p>
</div>
<p>The 20<sup>th</sup> century is an era in European history of both
ethnic conflict and linguistic strife, and of slow but unquestionable
improvement in the cultural rights of minorities. In this context, the
Finnish model was remarkably stable and peaceful. There were some
ruthless years in the interwar period, but since then there have been
hardly any serious disputes. Violent outbursts are extremely rare. When
the Finnish welfare state was constructed, the language policy model was
accommodated to it without changing the basic foundations of the
system. Finnish bilingualism has been the object of much attention
abroad, and has frequently been used as an example of a successful
language policy arrangement. The New York Times once went as far as
mentioning the Swedish-speakers of Finland as the ‘most pampered’
minority in the world.</p>
<p><span id="more-13541"></span></p>
<p>Not everything was in order, however. Canadian researcher Kenneth D.
McRae aptly remarked at the turn of the Millennium that in the Finnish
case the problem was not language conflict, but linguistic instability.
The Swedish-speakers were not so much suffering from intergroup
prejudices, or hostility, but from slow diminishing, quiet attrition.
The absolute size of the Swedish-speaking community had decreased only
slightly, but the change was more dramatic as a share of the whole
population. In less than a century, the proportion fell from almost 15
per cent to close to 5 per cent. Reasons behind this development can be
found in lower fertility rates, emigration, and language change.
Furthermore, domestic migration has turned many formerly unilingual
Swedish regions bilingual, and many bilingual regions into areas clearly
dominated by the majority language. Access to Swedish language public
services has deteriorated, little by little.</p>
<p>The new Language Act which came into force in 2004 was supposed to
mend apparent shortcomings. With hindsight, however, one can conclude
that the reform laid bare more structural problems and brought increased
dissatisfaction towards the system, both among Swedish-speakers and
Finnish-speakers, into the daylight. There have always been some
jingoistic groups arguing in favour of Finland becoming officially
unilingual. Nevertheless, their number was small, and their arguments
had little significance to the wider public debate. An issue that has
recently raised more disagreement is the status of the Swedish language
as an obligatory subject in all Finnish-language schools, including in
areas where there are hardly any Swedish-speakers at all. Opponents to
this arrangement have vigorously and skillfully used the Internet to
express their criticism. Some prominent politicians and well-established
organisations have also started to question the rationality of the
policy.</p>
<p>At the same time, dissatisfaction among Swedish-speakers has
increased due to the perception that new legislation cannot bring about
notable improvements. On the contrary, public administration reforms
that often include centralising tendencies, for example, have caused
linguistic domain losses for Swedish-speakers. The Swedish People’s
Party, traditionally covering a safe majority of the Swedish-speaking
electorate, has been urged to better safeguard linguistic rights.</p>
<p>The linguistic situation has now become tense, and one can observe
rival conceptions of the nation and of language rights. However, the
situation has also become more complex than it was in previous decades:
something which both sides of the new linguistic strife tend to ignore.
The Finnish system was built upon the idea that there were two language
communities in the country, and that people could be easily divided into
either Finnish-speakers or Swedish-speakers. Linguistic groups could
also be regarded as ethnic communities: as something approaching
‘nations within the nation’.</p>
<p>Contemporary Finland, however, has become a multilingual society,
mainly as a result of immigration. In 2011, there were 36 language
groups comprising more than a thousand speakers. The groups of
Russian-speakers, Estonian-speakers and Somali-speakers have grown
remarkably. With about 60,000 speakers Russian has become by far the
largest language after the two official languages, and it is still
growing.</p>
<p>Another development that brings complexity into the current system is
the increasing multilingualism at the individual level. Because of
inter-ethnic marriages, time spent abroad, and the maintenance of
minority languages while learning the majority language, lots of people
nowadays master at least two languages completely, and identify with two
or more linguistic groups. Official linguistic registration, upon which
Finnish language policy is constructed, however, only allows
individuals to indicate one mother tongue. <i>De facto</i> multilingualism of the society, and <i>de facto </i>bilingualism
of individuals, are thus not recognised by the legal framework of
Finnish bilingualism. A solution to the above mentioned dissatisfaction
and irritation among both Swedish-speakers and Finnish-speakers should
therefore be sought against the background of the new linguistic
realities. A complete re-thinking of Finnish society is required.</p>
<p>Increasing linguistic plurality and complexity are not, of course,
solely Finnish phenomena. Many societies have become multilingual, and
this development is likely to continue even when linguistic assimilation
is factored into the equation. The future development of the Finnish
case might provide Europe with interesting lessons on how to cope with
linguistic diversity.</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/about/comments-policy/"><em>Please read our comments policy before commenting</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p><em>Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the
position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London
School of Economics.</em></p>
<p><em>Shortened URL for this post: </em><a href="http://bit.ly/ZzFYzI"><strong>http://bit.ly/ZzFYzI<em><br>
</em></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><em> </em>_________________________________</p>
<p><a name="Author"></a><b>About the author</b></p>
<p><b><img class="" alt="" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/files/2013/04/pasisaukkonen.jpg" height="108" width="80">Pasi Saukkonen </b><i>– Finnish Foundation for Cultural Policy Research</i><br>
Pasi Saukkonen is a Senior Researcher at the Foundation for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE) in Helsinki, Finland.</p><p><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/09/finland-language-policy-swedish-finnish-schools-pasi-saukkonen/">http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/09/finland-language-policy-swedish-finnish-schools-pasi-saukkonen/</a><br>
</p><p><br></p><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br>
<br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************
</div>