31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Finnish as a heritage language in Sweden – Comprehensibility of Administrative Guidelines
Lasse Vuorsola, Jenni Alisaari
Stockholm University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Vuorsola, Lasse
Ever since Finnish was ratified as a national minority language in Sweden in 2000, pupils belonging to the Sweden Finnish minority have had the right to study the language in municipal schools. Though the right to receive Finnish mother tongue instruction is inalienable, the minority’s rights are not always met (Vuorsola 2019). The lacking support for adequate municipal mother tongue instruction (MTI) in Finnish and other heritage languages in Sweden is widely documented in research as well as in Council of Europe’s monitoring reports (Council of Europe 2022). However, the processes regarding enrollment for MTI has been under researched. As an attempt to partly rectify this, we examine how the procedures regarding the enrollment in the Finnish as a heritage language instruction in Sweden are presented in websites of different municipalities that offer additional support for the Sweden Finnish minority and the Finnish language in Sweden, and how comprehensible the instructions are.
As a theoretical background for this study, we use Ruiz’s (1984) orientations for language planning. Ruíz (1984) defines a language orientation as “a complex of dispositions toward language and its role, and toward languages and their role in society” (p. 16). Specifically, he describes three distinct orientations to language at a societal level: language-as-problem, language-as-right, and language-as-resource. Supported by international treaties on human rights, the language-as-right orientation views speaking and maintaining one’s home language as a human right (Hult & Hornberger, 2016; Ruiz, 1984; UN General Assembly, 1948). Moreover, Skutnabb-Kangas (2017) has defined linguistic human rights as inviolable basic rights. In language-as-resource orientation, multilingualism and cultural diversity are valued as resources for both individuals and society (Ruiz, 1984). Moreover, language is seen as having value with regard to identity construction, self-esteem, and intellectual engagement (Hult & Hornberger, 2016). In contrast, in the language-as-problem orientation, monolingualism is valued, while multilingualism is perceived as a threat to national unity (Ruiz, 1984). Multilingual speakers are believed to lack ability in the majority language (Ruiz, 1984) and have “reduced academic achievement” (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 33), and issues of language learning are seen to correlate with larger societal problems. In this study, Ruiz’s language orientations are a relevant framework to qualitatively analyze, categorize, and discuss descriptions regarding the enrollment in the Finnish as a heritage language instruction in Sweden.
The data is analyzed through a critical genre analysis lens, which entails that discourse consist of three levels namely text, genre and professional practice (Bhatia 2015). While the text level refers to the content and composition of the information provided on the websites, discourse as genre goes beyond the text’s composition and deals with how it is “interpreted, used and exploited in specific contexts, whether social, institutional, or more narrowly professional, to achieve specific disciplinary goals, which often require the use of methods that investigate not only linguistic issues, but also socio-pragmatic ones” (Bahtia 2015: 10). Finally, we adapt the level of discourse as professional practice to apply for the families of Finnish speakers in Finland to discuss “challenges and benefits such genres are likely to bring to a particular set of readers” (Bhatia 2015: 10). Even though critical genre analysis is mostly utilized for professional genres, the methodology has been implemented by Björkvall and Nyström Höög (2021) when analyzing municipal ‘platform of values -texts’.
Our research questions are the following:
1) How comprehensible are the descriptions regarding the rights to receive instruction in Finnish as well as the procedures on how to enroll in the Finnish as a heritage language instruction in Sweden?
2) To what extent do the descriptions reflect the language policies of Sweden as well as Ruiz’s orientations?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study features a thematic content analysis of online descriptions on procedures regarding the enrollment in the Finnish as a heritage language instruction in Sweden. Specifically, we focus on the information provided by the websites of 66 so called administrative areas, which offer additional support for the Sweden Finnish minority and the Finnish language in Sweden
For the content analysis we implement methods from critical genre analysis to the data. To begin the qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) on the text level, the first author reads the online descriptions on enrollment procedures to gain an initial understanding of the data and identify sub-categories for coding the data. The suggested categories are then discussed among the two authors; categories are decided upon, and the procedure descriptions are coded by the authors independently. After the initial coding, the categories are discussed again, and some are combined and revised. If cases are unclear, the definitions of the categories will be negotiated and recalibrated. The categories are then divided to reflect Ruiz’s three language orientations (1984).
Secondly, we will analyze which additional measures the websites require the end-users to take in order to be able to interpret and achieve the goals that the genre described necessitates. Such social actions may entail following links to read information referred on the initial website or use translator features to get the information in the goal language of Finnish. Finally, to analyze the discourse as practice level we will utilize a focus group of 10 university students to assess the comprehensibility of municipal information. With this triangulation of methods, we seek to de-mystify the genre of municipal information regarding MTI enrollment and illuminate inconsistencies that might hamper stake-holders’ ability to enroll their children to Finnish MTI in Sweden.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe expect that the results will be varied but indicate that the information regarding minority rights and enrollment for Finnish MTI in Swedish municipal schools is lacking and confusing. The given information combines different categories of minority speakers who have different rights which causes confusion. Secondly, information is not given in other languages than Swedish, such as the target language Finnish, which does not correlate with the special administration area’s obligation to inform national minorities of their rights and provide MTI. Initial results also show, that the provided information does not fulfill the above-mentioned obligation to inform the minorities, since the websites direct stake-holders elsewhere to seek information. The fact that the provided information is usually given in the majority language, the rights of the Sweden Finnish minority are not presented separately and that stake-holders need to seek and interpret the information on their own from other sources suggests that the municipal information practices mostly connect with the language-as-problem orientation in Ruiz’s model.
This study is relevant in the European context since the Council of Europe is promoting the rights of heritage language speakers for example to receive mother tongue instruction, but the actual delivery of information regarding the right to receive mother tongue instruction is lacking or in some cases wrong (SOU 2017:91: 175-176; 300-301). Thus, this study provides both an example of a way to examine this topic in any country, but also an example of how information is delivered in Sweden, a country that is described as a place where all residents have the right to preserve and develop their mother tongue and their national minority languages in The Declaration of a Nordic Language Policy (NCM, 2007).
ReferencesBhatia, V.K., 2015. Critical genre analysis: Theoretical preliminaries. HERMES-Journal of language and communication in business, (54), pp.9-20.
Björkvall, A. & Nyström Höög, C., 2021. Semiotic vagueness as a tool for goal fulfilment:'Platforms of values' in Swedish public administration. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 16(1), pp.5-28.
Council of Europe. 2022. Eighth evaluation report on Sweden. Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. URL: https://rm.coe.int/swedenecrml8-en/1680aa8932
Hult, F. M., & Hornberger, N. H. (2016). Revisiting orientations in language planning: Problem, right, and resource as an analytical heuristic. The Bilingual Review, 33(3), 30–49.
NCM (2007) = Nordic Council of Ministers (2007). Deklaration om nordisk språkpolitik [Declaration on Nordic Language Policy]. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:700895/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2017). Language rights. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 185–202). Wiley.
SOU 2017:91. Lainio, J. (2017). Nationella minoritetsspråk i skolan—förbättrade förutsättningar till undervisning och revitalisering. Betänkande av utredningen om förbättrade möjligheter för elever att utveckla sitt nationella minoritetsspråk. Regeringskansliet. https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/1223a145243f4c0aa25c0f3dc55b6965/sou-2017_91_webb.pdf
UN (United Nations) General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (217 [III] A). Paris, art. 1. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Vuorsola, Lasse. "Societal support for the educational provisions of Finnish in the Swedish school system in theory and practice." Language Policy 18, no. 3 (2019): 363-385.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Language Beliefs and Language Use of Finnish as a Heritage Language Teachers in Sweden
Jenni Alisaari, Jarmo Lainio
University of Stockholm, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch and German
Presenting Author: Alisaari, Jenni
In many countries the official status of minority languages has become stronger in recent years. This is also the case in Sweden, where for example Finnish is one of the official national minority languages. It has a protected legal position and its users have legal rights to use their language, and in some municipalities, also to get services in Finnish in pre-school and elderly care. However, thus far, there is little research on language beliefs or language use of the Finnish-speakers in Sweden. Specifically, the beliefs and language use of minority language teachers of Finnish have not been studied extensively. Investigating these beliefs and experiences is important for several reasons: beliefs and values influence actions and language policies (Borg, 2006; Johnson, 2013), and teachers’ beliefs may influence the language choices their students’ parents make at home (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Spolsky, 2012). This is important since supporting first language skills results in better learning outcomes (Eunjung Relyea & Amendum, 2019; Ganuza & Hedman, 2018).
Maintaining national minority languages might be threatened, if the speakers do not recognize the benefits of multilingualism (Purkarthofer, 2020). Promoting multilingualism means valuing all languages and considering them equal, as well as supporting the use of all the languages speakers know (de Jong, 2011). Several studies have shown a cognitive advantage in bilingual adults and children (for systematic reviews, see Adesope et al., 2010; van den Noort et al., 2019). Behind the language choices, i.e. language use and language policies, are always power dynamics and social contexts (Tseng, 2020); those in power, often also schools and teachers, determine what languages are considered appropriate. The home surrounding plays an important role in motivating children to maintain and develop their languages, but societal pressures related to assimilation may cause language loss, especially if minority languages are discriminated against (Cho et al., 1997). Thus, in order to be able to understand the possibilities for maintenance of minority languages, it is important to get to know how national minority language teachers use different languages, in this study mainly Finnish Swedish and English, as well as how they perceive the value of these languages. Understanding minority language teachers’ beliefs and language use also contributes to developing the education of minority speaker students.
This study aims to fill the aforementioned gaps by seeking responses to the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the language beliefs of teachers of Finnish as a national minority language in Sweden regarding Finnish, Swedish and English?
RQ2: How do teachers of Finnish as a minority language in Sweden use their languages?
In this study, we use the term (official/national) minority language to refer to the languages that have an official status as national minority languages in Sweden, including specific legal rights aiming to keep the language alive and guarantee certain services in that language to its speakers. In the case of Finnish in Sweden, also the term heritage language has been used. This term has an affiliative dimension, since sometimes heritage language speakers might only have a cultural connection to the language, no actual skills (Eisenchlas & Schalley, 2020). However, since Finnish has an official minority language status in Sweden and since our participants have skills in Finnish language, we prefer using the term (official/national) minority language. Additionally, we use the term first language when we refer to the language that an individual has the strongest skills in, or whcih they have learned in their homes. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that none of these terms is neutral and there are some problems related to their use (see e.g. Eisenchlas & Schalley, 2020).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research is a mixed-method study, where the data is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The survey contained 20 questions with alternative answers, some of which were fixed answer options (n=13), others with open answer options (n=7). The questions were asked in Finnish, but some response options were in Swedish, as these choices do not exist in Finland, e.g. adult education according to the Swedish model.
The answers to the multiple-choice questions were analysed both by describing them quantitatively and by classifying them into different categories. The distribution of responses across the different categories is quantified. The responses to the open-ended questions were analysed qualitatively using a data-driven content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018). These responses are also partially described quantitatively, but it should be noted that the relatively small sample size means that broad generalisations cannot be made.
Data were collected in the autumn of 2022 via an online survey that was partially created based on a language attitude survey by Lasagabaster (2007). Additionally, especially open-ended questions considering the use of Finnish in Sweden were added to the instrument. A link to the survey and a cover letter (in Finnish) that included information about the purpose of the study and protection of the data were sent to Finnish minority language teachers that participated in an in-service training occasion at the University of X. In total, 37 people responded to the survey out of 50 participants on the training day.
Most of the respondents were women in the age range of 40-60 years, who are also, according to self-reporting, 95% fluent in both Finnish and Swedish, and half (51%) fluent in English. Of the respondents, about half lived in a municipality with a population of 70,000-300,000, i.e. a medium-sized city. 87% had some form of higher education, of which 43 had a bachelor's degree and 38 a master's degree. 33% of them had their education mainly in Finnish, 43% entirely in Finnish, from which it can be concluded that almost half have received their higher education in Finnish, probably in Finland. On the other hand, 43% have also received their entire higher education in Swedish, probably most of them in Sweden, although a Finland-Swedish background may be considered to account for some of these responses. Similarly, 46% have received most of their higher education mainly in Swedish, probably in Sweden.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn terms of attitudes towards different languages, respondents believed that it was important to know different languages, and that it was considered important for children to learn Finnish both at home and at school. It was also considered important for children to use several languages in parallel. In addition, respondents felt that it was equally important to know Finnish and Swedish. No one thought that children are confused by using several languages, and only few felt that children should only use Finnish at home. Thus, multilingualism and fundamental assumptions about its value were reflected in the responses. Additionally, a balance of competence in Finnish and Swedish was considered desirable, and knowledge of English was valued almost as highly as knowledge of Finnish and Swedish.
When asked to rate their use of different languages, respondents often answered that they worked both in Swedish and in Finnish, but participated in professional training mainly in Finnish. Additionally, they watched the news in Swedish, but surfed the web as much in Finnish as in Swedish. Finnish was most often used with parents and siblings, as well as with other relatives, while Swedish was most often used with neighbours. Additionally, respondents' interaction through different languages in their leisure time was relatively Swedish-dominated.
To conclude, our results show that although the use of Swedish was slightly more dominant, the respondents live a highly bilingual life and they value multilingualism. This indicates that there is a good basis for Finnish language maintenance and revitalisation in Swedish schools by these heritage language teachers. This is a relevant outcome also from the European perspective since many heritage languages struggle with staying alive, and revitalisation of minority languages is needed in many countries (SOU 2017:91), and teachers have a crucial role in this process.
ReferencesAdesope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T. & Ungerleider, C. (2010) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80, 207–245.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
Cho, G., Cho, K., & Tse, L. 1997. Why ethnic minorities want to develop their heritage language: The case of Korean‐Americans. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 106–112.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Huang, J. (2020). Factors influencing family language policy. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 174–193). De Gruyter
Eisenchlas, S. A., & Schalley, A. C. (2020). Making sense of “home language” and related concepts. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 17–37). De Gruyter.
Eunjung Relyea, J., & Amendum, S. J. (2019). English reading growth in Spanish-speaking bilingual students: Moderating effect of English proficiency on cross-linguistic influence. Child Development, 91(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13288
Ganuza, N., & Hedman, C. (2018). Modersmålundervisning, läsförståelse och betyg. Nordand, 13(1), 4–22.
de Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education from principles to practice. Caslon Publishing.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Lasagabaster, D. 2007. Language Use and Language Attitudes in the Basque Country. In D. Lasagabaster & Á. Huguet (Eds.) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes, 65–89. Multilingual Matters
Purkarthofer, J. (2020) Intergenerational challenges: Of handing down languages, passing on practices, and bringing multilingual speakers into being. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 130–149). De Gruyter.
Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy – the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072
Tseng, A. (2020). Identity in home-language maintenance. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 109–129). De Gruyter.
van den Noort, M., Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S.,…Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating factors? A systematic review. Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030027
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Family Socialisation Related Factors Influencing the Acquisition of the Romanian Language in Minority Hungarian and Hungarian-Romanian Families in Romania
Gavril Flora1, Aniko Fügedy2
1Partium Christian University, Oradea, Romania; 2Horvath Janos High School, Marghita, Romania
Presenting Author: Flora, Gavril
Research on language acquisition demonstrate that in most cases, the family is the primary basis and starting point of education, positive socialization with the mother tongue, and mother tongue education. The family, as the primary factor of socialization, makes a decision that is very important for the future, taking into account linguistic socialization, thereby planning the linguistic future of children (Piller, 2002). Family language policy can be defined as an “explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members” (King et al., 2013).
Representatives of this field of research (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Luykx, 2005) have attempted to integrate theory, public policy data, and language areas of children’s language acquisition. The main research preoccupations concerned “family language ideologies (how family members think about language), language practices (what they do with language), and language management (what they try to do with language)” (Spolsky, 2004).Monolingual families mostly have their own language policy, for example in terms of practical use or politeness (Blum-Kulka, 1997; Spolsky, 2004). An important area of research on family language policies is how family decisions provide the framework for parental interaction and the linguistic development of children (De Houwer, 2017).
Much research has focused on bilingual and even multilingual families, in order to better understand how to preserve the inherited language(s) in their homes. These studies took into account a number of factors in order to promote child bilingualism policies, including parental consistency, child age, social contexts, and support (De Houwer, 2017). While there is no specific language policy for a bilingual family (e.g., one parent is monolingual only) and due to the fact that the child is regularly acquainted with the two languages, research suggests that a home language policy that reflects multilingualism cannot be ignored (Döpke, 1998).
An increasing number of researches examine the critical influence of children on the language use of parents. In contrast to previous research which mainly emphasised the role of parents in the linguistic socialisation of children (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002), more recent work focused on family socialization as a collaborative outcome, i.e., that children are also active participants in their parents’ socialization with languages (Luykx, 2005; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2011).
Within the outlined theoretical framework the general aim of our research is to reveal the family environment factors related language socialisation strategies of the Hungarian community in the small town of Margitha (Bihor County), with a balanced Hungarian-Romanian population. Our research seeks to explore the role of family socialisation related social factors that influence the motivation and opportunities of students belonging to the Hungarian minority community in learning the Romanian language. (the official state language of Romania).
a) What are the family related factors that contribute to the linguistic socialization of children ?;
b) What is the influence of the family upon children in learning their mother tongue, learning the Romanian language,and the extent to which the Romanian language is present in different language use scenes and stages in the children and young adults life?;
c) Based on the sociological characteristics of the families of the heterogeneous Hungarian community living in Marghita, what differences can be discovered in the field of learning and use of languages inside and outside family?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDuring the research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Their combination made it possible to explore the general trends related to Romanian language learning by the children raised in ethnically Hungarian or ethnically heterogeneous (Hungarian-Romanian) families, and also to explore the factors related to family socialisation.
The instrument of the quantitative method was the questionnaire survey. The research subjects formed two groups. The first consists of 187 primary and secondary school students (grades V-XII), who belong to the age groups of 13-17. The second group consists of 250 young adults between the ages of 18-45, so it includes members of the population who are in active employment. The use of the 18-45 age group as "young adults" differs somewhat from the usual 15-29 age classification in youth sociology. According to the aspects of the research, we chose this specific interpretation of the "young adult" age group because this age group is typically faced with the dilemmas of their own children's linguistic socialization, and they can recall their school experiences related to Romanian language learning in a relatively short period of time.
The following qualitative methods have been used:
a) Interviews with local church leaders (priests) concerning the linguistic options within ethnically homogeneous (Hungarian) and heterogeneous (Hungarian-Romanian) families; both interviewees have an insight into the lives of local families, their difficulties and the challenges they face.
b) Family background case presentations of the high school students identified as belonging to ethnically heterogeneous (Hungarian-Romanian) families, focusing on linguistic options and influencing factors within the family. In the case of five families, we examined what decisions the families made regarding their child's linguistic future concerning bilingualism, and what results these decisions led to.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn terms of the social conditions of language learning, students who grow up in a homogenous Hungarian environment, whose parents have a low level of education, and who had little or no experience of using the language before school are in the most unfavourable position. In the identity of the children from Hungarian-Romanian mix marriages studying in the Romanian school, however, the Romanian identity element will be the dominant one.
Knowledge of the Romanian language of ethnic Hungarian students and young adults shows a weak, but certain or moderately strong correlation with several factors and variables, which are statistically significant; the highest level of education of the parents, the importance of learning the Romanian language according to self-report, the frequency of using the Romanian language in the family, the frequency of watching Romanian TV programs and satisfaction with Romanian language education.
Approximately ten percent of the responding students became familiar the Romanian language in the family circle, and are still using it in their family communication today. The frequent use of the language is mostly characteristic of students who have already been introduced to the Romanian language in the family circle, followed by encounters with the Romanian language for the first time in kindergarten or in the childhood play community.
The picture of the situation outlined above is also confirmed by our data on the nature, formal and informal nature of language use occasions. The majority of students who have Romanian friends and communicate with them exclusively in Romanian have already encountered the Romanian language in the family circle at home, in early childhood children's groups or at the latest in kindergarten. A large majority of them are raised in the families of parents with higher education.
ReferencesBlum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. Discourse as social interaction, 2, 38-63.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language policy, 8(4), 351-375.
De Houwer, A. (2017). Bilingual language input environments, intake, maturity and practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 19-20.
Döpke, S. (1998). Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German-English children. Journal of child language, 25(3), 555-584.
Garrett, P. B. and Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language Socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology. 31, 339-361. Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews.
Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2011). Peer language socialization. The handbook of language socialization, 365-390.
King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan‐Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and linguistics compass, 2(5), 907-922.
Luykx, A. (2005) Children as socializing agents: Family language policy in situations of language shift. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (Vol. 1407, p. 1414). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning. Journal of sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179-208
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press.
|
