‘My language tree’: young Finland‐Swedish adults tell us about their linguistic and cultural identities

Abstract

The education of teachers in Swedish Finland is a stage for a powerful display of Finland‐Swedish culture. This paper discusses the voices on this cultural stage, exploring the patterns in the stories these young Finland‐Swedish adults tell about their linguistic and cultural identities.

Notes

Anna‐Lena Østern is a professor of education, focusing on the didactics of Swedish language and literature, in the Department of Teacher Education, Åbo Akademi University, PB 311, FIN‐65101 Vaasa, Finland; e‐mail: [email protected]. With Kaj Sjöholm, she is leading a reseach project entitled ‘Language and communication in a time of tension’.

In a report on the Finland‐Swedish primary schools in 1998–1999, the National Board of Education (‘Skolans språkmiljö allt heterogenare’ 1999) concluded that classes are much more linguistically mixed than they were in the 1980s. The age cohorts of pupils in Swedish schools have increased by almost 30%, due to an increase in the share of pupils from bilingual, Finnish‐speaking, and immigrant families. Since the 1980s, the share of pupils from bilingual homes has increased from 20% to almost 33%. Finnish‐speaking pupils make up ∼ 5% of the age‐groups in Swedish schools. However, two out of three pupils in Swedish schools still come from completely Swedish‐speaking homes, although pupils from Swedish‐speaking homes speak Finnish regularly in senior classes. About 30% of the pupils in the Finland‐Swedish school speak a dialect. These pupils are, almost without exception, from Ostrobothnia. According to teachers’ estimates, ∼ 19% of the pupils in the Swedish school do not speak Swedish fluently. Teachers also estimate that 56% of the bilingual pupils speak Swedish well. In addition, in all regions of Swedish Finland, there are pupils from families where other languages than Swedish and Finnish are spoken (∼ 2% of the pupils).

The dialects are a Swedish from which the standard has evolved. Only the written language has been standardized. Within the Swedish‐language areas of Sweden and Finland there are great variations in pronunciation (e.g. the dialects of Skåne and Gotland in Sweden). Spoken Finland‐Swedish differs from Sweden‐Swedish (Rikssvenska) through its intonation pattern.

The empirical material stems from the years 1994–1999. The collection of language trees with accompanying comments consists of 370 texts.

The classical definition of a ZPD: ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adults’ guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky 1978: 86).

This is a presumption. I know from personal experience that the motives for applying for a teacher education in Swedish can be much more pragmatic. Potential students might apply for teacher education in Swedish in order to learn Swedish, or because it is easier to get accepted into a faculty of education in Swedish than in Finnish. They might have selected teacher education in Swedish for family reasons. However, for all categories of applicants a proficiency in Swedish resembling that of mother‐tongue level is required.

‘Language islands’ are those places where there is a Swedish‐speaking school in a completely Finnish‐speaking environment. ‘Language‐island schools’ or ‘archipelago schools’ are located in, e.g. the cities of Kotka, Pori, Tampere, Oulu, and Varkaus.

I will use quotations in which the voices of the students can be heard. I do not use the real names of the students.

Those who lent their voices to the analysis were, at the point at which they were responding to my inquiry, at a point in a process. Today, they may be at some other point in the process. I have shown one point on their path.

Sussi’s sigh regarding the speaking of standard Swedish in school is a comment on a debate which took place in the Ostrobothnian press in 2000. In the town of Närpes, a ban against using dialect during classes had been introduced. Apart from the fact that a ban caused resistance, it could also be interpreted as an expression of self‐contempt and a rejection of dialect as ‘good’ Swedish. Dialect is good Swedish and does not deserve to be banned. From another viewpoint, dialect and standard Swedish can be mirrored against each other, and standard Swedish can be introduced as a joint project, as a language code which the students acquire in addition to the Swedish dialectal language code which they already have a thorough knowledge of. Dialect‐speaking students usually do not have problems with writing standard Swedish. It is possible to extend one’s proficiency in standard Swedish on the basis of written texts.

The Finland‐Swedes, often ironically, describe the small minority of 300 000 people as ‘the duck pond’, where you know everyone and meet the same people when you are ‘swimming around’ in the pond.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

ANNA‐LENA ØSTERN

Anna‐Lena Østern is a professor of education, focusing on the didactics of Swedish language and literature, in the Department of Teacher Education, Åbo Akademi University, PB 311, FIN‐65101 Vaasa, Finland; e‐mail: [email protected]. With Kaj Sjöholm, she is leading a reseach project entitled ‘Language and communication in a time of tension’.