Aland-blog on language policy

[Don Osborn]

Thanks Hal and Christina for bringing this up. This does seem like an
interesting approach to language maintenance, but also perhaps
(incidentally) for aspects of environmental management and socio-economic
development. "Outside" people and their capital become a little more attuned
to more than just the language if they must learn it in order to buy
real-estate etc.

(On the other hand, it can also keep you on the periphery if it is a less
widely spoken language.)

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
[mailto:owner-lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Christina
Paulston
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:44 PM
To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: Aland-blog on language policy

Åland has one of the most interesting pieces of "language policy I  
know.  You cannot buy land there unless you are Swedish speaking.  I  
don't know what brilliant politician was responsible for that, but we  
all know that monolingual Anglophones buying property in the Gaeltaecht  
(for summer cabins and the like) was in some measure helping the Irish  
shift to English.  Won't happen on Åland.  Christina
On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Harold F. Schiffman wrote:

> Loss of Confidence?
>
> The story currently waiting to break here on Aland concerns the result  
> of
> a no-confidence vote in the provinces Education and Culture Minister,
> Camilla Gunell, which I read is going to be tabelled on Monday. As so
> often on land, it all boils down to different attitudes to Finnish.
> Camilla has come under pressure because she's been critical of a  
> committee
> charged with producing a rapport on which the provincial government  
> could
> base its language policy programme. Unfortunately, the Provincial Prime
> Minister, Roger Nordlund, was the chairmen of the committee, and he and
> Camilla had an, apparently, heated exchange over it in the Lagting.
>
> The Independent group (conservative Aland-nationalists) have seen a  
> chance
> to bring the whole provincial government crashing down. They hope, no
> doubt, that a beautiful, new provincial government will be reborn. They
> also hope, of course, that some of them will be in it, and, almost as
> importantly, that there won't been any social democrats in it. I think  
> its
> unlikely (but hey, Ive been wrong before) because there is an agreed
> policy, which Camilla and Roger have both backed. Some of the  
> opposition,
> the Liberals, agree with Camilla too, so you'd think it would be tough  
> for
> them to vote against her. That means you'd need a whole scale  
> desertion by
> one or both of the parties in the coalition government for the vote to  
> be
> lost. I really can't see how they could justify it.
>
> http://hagmarkcooper.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/loss-of-confidence/
>
> *********************************************************************** 
> ************
>
> N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to  
> its members
> 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.
>
> *********************************************************************** 
> ************
>