ESTONIAN IN FINLANDEstonian in Finland – ELDIA Case-Specific Report 7 Foreword This Case-Specific...

Studies in European Language Diversity 29

ESTONIAN IN FINLAND

ELDIA Case-Specif ic Report

KristiinaPRAAKLI

Mainz � Wien � Helsinki Tartu � Mariehamn � Oulu � Maribor

StudiesinEuropeanLanguageDiversityisapeer-reviewedonlinepublicationseriesoftheresearchprojectELDIA,servingasanoutletforpreliminaryresearchfindings,individualcasestudies,backgroundandspin-offresearch.Editor-in-ChiefJohannaLaakso(Wien)EditorialBoardKariDjerf(Helsinki),RihoGrünthal(Helsinki),AnnaKolláth(Maribor),HelleMetslang(Tartu),KarlPajusalu(Tartu),AnneliSarhimaa(Mainz),SiaSpiliopoulouÅkermark(Mariehamn),HelenaSulkala(Oulu),ReettaToivanen(Helsinki)

PublisherResearchconsortiumELDIAc/oProf.Dr.AnneliSarhimaaNorthernEuropeanandBalticLanguagesandCultures(SNEB)JohannesGutenberg-UniversitätMainzJakob-Welder-Weg18(Philosophicum)D-55099Mainz,GermanyContact:[email protected]

©2017EuropeanLanguageDiversityforAll(ELDIA)

Coverdesign:MinnaPelkonen&HajnalkaBerényi-Kiss

ELDIAisaninternationalresearchprojectfundedbytheEuropeanCommission.TheviewsexpressedintheStudiesinEuropeanLanguageDiversityarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommission.

AllcontentsoftheStudiesinEuropeanLanguageDiversityaresubjecttotheAustriancopyrightlaw.Thecontentsmaybeusedexclusivelyforprivate,non-commercialpurposes.RegardinganyfurtherusesoftheStudiesinEuropeanLanguageDiversity,pleasecontactthepublisher.

ISSN2192-2403

EstonianinFinland–ELDIACase-SpecificReport

3

TABLEOFCONTENTS

TABLESANDFIGURES...............................................................................................................................................4

FOREWORD....................................................................................................................................................7

1 INTRODUCTION:WHATISELDIAABOUT?................................................................................................8

2 SOCIOHISTORICALANDLINGUISTICCONTEXTS........................................................................................9

2.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................92.2 SOCIOHISTORY............................................................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Thecontextoftheinvestigatedlanguagecommunity....................................................................102.2.2 PreviousresearchontheEstonianminorityinFinland....................................................................15

2.3 TERRITORIALANDPOLITICALCONTEXT..............................................................................................................162.4 CULTURALCONTEXT.....................................................................................................................................17

2.4.1 Culturalsymbolsandculturalactivities...........................................................................................172.4.2 Languageuseindifferentdomains.................................................................................................18

2.5 LANGUAGESINCONTACTANDLANGUAGEMAINTENANCE....................................................................................212.5.1 Generaldescriptionofthelanguagesatissue.................................................................................212.5.2 Monolingualism,bilingualismandmultilingualism.........................................................................222.5.3 Resultsoflanguagecontact............................................................................................................222.5.4 Perceptionoflearnabilityandwillingnesstousethelanguage......................................................23

3 DATASAMPLINGANDMETHODS............................................................................................................24

3.1 SAMPLESURVEY..........................................................................................................................................243.1.1 Minoritylanguagespeakers’survey................................................................................................243.1.2 Datacollectingmodes.....................................................................................................................253.1.3 Thesurveyquestionnaires...............................................................................................................253.1.4 Targetpopulation,samplingframeandsamplesize.......................................................................27

3.2 INDIVIDUALINTERVIEWS................................................................................................................................283.3 FOCUSGROUPINTERVIEWS............................................................................................................................30

3.3.1 Focusgroupinterviewswiththetargetgroup................................................................................303.4 SOCIODEMOGRAPHICDISTRIBUTION................................................................................................................303.5 THEPRINCIPLESUNDERLYINGTHEELDIADATAANALYSES....................................................................................33

3.5.1 Minoritylanguagesaspartofmultilingualisminmodernsocieties................................................333.5.2 TheoperationalgoalofELDIA.........................................................................................................343.5.3 Definingandmeasuringlanguagevitality.......................................................................................343.5.4 Practicalproceduresinthedataanalyses.......................................................................................38

4 NEWDATAONLEGISLATION,MEDIA,EDUCATION,LANGUAGEUSEANDINTERACTION.........................42

4.1 LEGALANDINSTITUTIONALANALYSIS...............................................................................................................424.2 MEDIAANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................434.3 LANGUAGEUSEANDINTERACTION..................................................................................................................45

4.3.1 Mothertongue................................................................................................................................454.3.2 Crossandintra-generationallanguageuse.....................................................................................474.3.3 Self-reportedlanguagecompetence...............................................................................................494.3.4 Domain-specificlanguageuse.........................................................................................................554.3.5 Languagesandlabourmarket.........................................................................................................644.3.6 Languageplanningandmaintenance.............................................................................................684.3.7 Supportandprohibitionoflanguageuse:ShouldchildrenlearnEstonian?....................................72


4

4.3.8 Languageattitudes..........................................................................................................................754.3.9 Multilingualismissues.....................................................................................................................76

4.4 LEGISLATION...............................................................................................................................................824.4.1 Supportandprohibitionoflanguageuse........................................................................................824.4.2 Existenceoflawtexts......................................................................................................................884.4.3 Educationandlaw...........................................................................................................................88

4.5 MEDIA......................................................................................................................................................904.5.1 Consumptionofmediaandculturalproducts.................................................................................904.5.2 ActiveuseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishintextproductionandculturalactivities....................96

4.6 LANGUAGEACQUISITIONANDLEARNING..........................................................................................................984.6.1 Languagelearning:EstonianandFinnish........................................................................................984.6.2 Languagesatschool........................................................................................................................99

5 CASE-SPECIFICLANGUAGEVITALITYBAROMETER.................................................................................100

5.1 CAPACITY.................................................................................................................................................1025.2 OPPORTUNITY...........................................................................................................................................1045.3 DESIRE....................................................................................................................................................1055.4 LANGUAGEPRODUCTS................................................................................................................................1065.5 THEVITALITYOFTHEESTONIANLANGUAGEINFINLAND.....................................................................................107

6 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSION..............................................................................................................109

7 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................110

ATTACHMENT1:POLICYRECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................116

ATTACHMENT2:QUESTIONNAIRES.............................................................................................................117

TablesandFigures

Table1.Minoritylanguagesurveyoutcomeandresponserate...........................................................28Table2.Ageandsexdistributionofrespondents.................................................................................31Table3.Taggingofthediscoursetopics...............................................................................................40Table4.Multiplemothertongues........................................................................................................46Table5.Self-reported"fluent"competenceinFinnish,English,SwedishandGerman.......................55Table6.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishathome.........................................................................56Table7.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishwithfriends...................................................................57Table8.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishatwork..........................................................................58Table9.Domain-specificuseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglish.............................................................58Table10.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishatschool......................................................................59Table11.Q59:IsEstonianeasytouseinmosteverydaysituations?...................................................63Table12.Q55:ArethereinstitutionswhichcultivatetheEstonianlanguage?....................................69Table13.Q56:ArethereinstitutionswhichcultivatetheFinnishlanguage?.......................................70Table14.Q57:Isthereapure/correctversionoftheEstonianlanguage?..........................................71Table15.Q58:IsthereaneedtodevelopEstoniantofitsocialandpublicneeds?.............................72Table16.Q60:ArethereattemptstosavetheEstonianlanguage?.....................................................72Table17.ParentalsupportinusingEstonian........................................................................................73


5

Table18.ParentalsupportinusingFinnish..........................................................................................73Table19.Respondents’supporttotheirownchildreninlearningEstonian........................................74Table20.CharacteristicsofEstonian....................................................................................................80Table21.CharacteristicsofFinnish.......................................................................................................81Table22.CharacteristicsofEnglish.......................................................................................................81Table23.Doeslegislationsupporttheuseofmanylanguages?..........................................................83Table24.AretheusersofdifferentlanguagestreatedinthesamewayinFinland?...........................84Table25.Istherelegislationsupportingdifferentlanguagesonthelabourmarket?..........................86Table26.DoeslegislationsupporttheuseofEstonian?......................................................................87Table27.DoeslegislationpreventtheuseofEstonian?......................................................................87Table28.IslegislationsupportingmultilingualismavailableinEstonian?...........................................88Table 29. Is there any legislation regulating the use of Estonian as a language of instruction in

schools?........................................................................................................................................89Table30.Isthereanylegislationregulatinginstructionof/aboutEstonianinschools?.......................89Table31.ReadingnewspapersinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish..........................................................90Table32.WatchingTVprogrammesinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish..................................................91Table33.ListeningtotheradioinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish.........................................................91Table34.ListeningtomusicinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish...............................................................92Table35.WatchingfilmsinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish....................................................................92Table36.InternetuseinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish........................................................................93Table37.ReadingbooksinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish....................................................................93

Figure1.Ageandsexdistributionofrespondents...............................................................................31Figure2.Cross-generationallanguageuse...........................................................................................48Figure3.Intra-generationallanguageuse............................................................................................48Figure4.Self-reportedcompetenceinEstonian...................................................................................49Figure5.Self-reportedcompetenceinFinnish.....................................................................................50Figure6.Self-reportedcompetenceinRussian....................................................................................51Figure7.Self-reportedcompetenceinEnglish.....................................................................................51Figure8.Self-reportedcompetenceinSwedish...................................................................................52Figure9.Self-reportedcompetenceinGerman...................................................................................52Figure10.Self-reportedcompetenceinCGrespondents’mothertongues.........................................53Figure11.UseofEstonianinvariousdomains.....................................................................................59Figure12.UseofFinnishinvariousdomains........................................................................................60Figure13.UseofEnglishinvariousdomains........................................................................................60Figure14.Respondents’opinionsonwhetherEstonianshouldbeusedincertainpublicdomains....62Figure15.ReporteduseofEstonianinpublicdomains........................................................................64Figure16.TheperceivedimportanceofEstoniancompetenceonthelabourmarket........................65Figure17.TheperceivedimportanceofFinnishcompetenceonthelabourmarket...........................65Figure18.TheperceivedimportanceofEnglishcompetenceonthelabourmarket...........................66Figure19.Expectationsonlanguageusebyageandsex.....................................................................75Figure20.StatementsaboutsocialcontactswithspeakersofEstonian..............................................76Figure21.Attitudestowardsmixinglanguages....................................................................................77Figure22.Statementsaboutthefutureofdiverselanguages..............................................................78


6

Figure23.ConsumptionofmediaandculturalproductsinEstonian...................................................95Figure24.ConsumptionofmediaandculturalproductsinFinnish.....................................................95Figure25.ControlGroup:ConsumptionofmediaandculturalproductsinFinnish............................96Figure26.ActiveuseofEstonianfortextproductionandculturalactivities.......................................97Figure27.ActiveuseofFinnishfortextproductionandculturalactivities..........................................98Figure28.RadarchartillustratingthevitalityofEstonianinFinlandinthelightofELDIAsurveyresults

....................................................................................................................................................101Figure29.ColourcodesfortheEuLaViBardiagram............................................................................102


7

Foreword

ThisCase-SpecificReport(CSR),presentingtheresultsofoneofthecasestudieswithintheinternational researchprojectELDIA,dealswiththemultilingualcommunityofspeakersoftheEstonian language inFinland.TheEstonian-speaking communities inFinland representmorerecentallochthonous(migrant)minoritygroupsthataroseasaresultoftheintensivewavesofemigrationafterthecollapseoftheSovietUnionin1991andEstonia’sentryintotheEuropeanUnionin2004.

The report consists of five chapters: Introduction: What is ELDIA about (1) and Socio-historical and Linguistic contexts of Estonian in Finland (2); it is followed by chapters onmethodology(3),findingsfromlegalandmediaanalysis(4.1-4.2)andasurvey(4.3).TheCSRisconcludedbyadiscussiononthecase-specificlanguagevitalitybarometer(5).

Authors: Chapter 3.5 was authored by Anneli Sarhimaa and Eva Kühhirt (JohannesGutenberg-UniversitätMainz,Germany),Chapters4.1and4.2bySiaSpiliopoulouÅkermark(Åland Islands Peace Institute) and Reetta Toivanen (University of Helsinki, Finland),respectively. The rest of the report was written by Kristiina Praakli (University of Tartu,Estonia). At the final stage, the report has been technically edited by Johanna Laakso(UniversityofVienna).

Theauthorswouldliketoexpresstheirgratitudetoallinformantswhoconsentedtofilloutthemassivequestionnaireandparticipate in the individualand/or focusgroup interviews.SpecialthanksareduetoTiinaHakman,whoconductedtheinterviewsinFinland.Wethankall our ELDIA colleagues at the Department of Estonian and General Linguistics of theUniversity of Tartu, at the universities of Helsinki, Vienna, Oulu,Maribor, Stockholm andMainz, and at the Åland Islands Peace Institute.We are also grateful to two anonymousreviewersfortheirconstructivecommentsandsuggestions.


8

1 Introduction:WhatisELDIAabout?

ELDIA (European LanguageDiversity for All) is an interdisciplinary research project for re-conceptualising,promotingandre-evaluatingindividualandsocietalmultilingualism.

The empirical research was conducted with selected multilingual communities, whichcovered practically the whole spectrum of different political and socioeconomiccircumstances of linguistic minorities in Europe. The communities investigated speakendangeredandoftenonlyrecentlyliterarisedminoritylanguages(e.g.Karelian,Veps,Seto)or languages with a vigorous standard variety (e.g. Hungarian). Included are bothautochthonous (e.g. Meänkieli/Tornedal Finnish speakers) or indigenous minorities (e.g.Sámi)andmorerecentmigrantgroups(suchastheEstonians inGermanyandFinland).Allthese minority languages belong to the Finno-Ugric language family which is seriouslyunderrepresented in internationally accessible sociolinguistic literature. The results of theresearch project, however, will be generalisable beyond this internally highly diverselanguagegroup:theywillcontributetothestudyofmultilingualismandthedevelopmentoflanguagepoliciesinothermultilingualcontextsaswell,inandoutsideEurope.

Theprojectprovides

• more detailed knowledge about multilingualism and the interaction of languages inEurope,intheformofcontextanalyses,case-specificandcomparativereports,practicalinformationandrecommendations

• dataandcorporaforfurtherresearch• meansofcommunicationandnetworkingbetweenresearchers (workshops,publications,

etc.)• the European Language Vitality Barometer (EuLaViBar) – a checklist/handbook for

policy-makersandotherstakeholders.ELDIAisfundedbythe7thFrameworkProgrammeoftheEuropeanCommission.NotethattheviewsexpressedinthisresearchreportarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommission.

MoreinformationaboutELDIAcanbefoundontheprojectwebsitewww.eldia-project.org.Allourelectronicpublicationscanalsobeaccesseddirectlyathttp://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:80789.ThemostcentralresultsofELDIAhavealsobeenpublishedinamonograph(Laakso&al.2016).


9

2 SociohistoricalandLinguisticContexts

2.1 Introduction

TheEstonian-speakingcommunitiesinFinlandrepresentmorerecentallochthonousgroupsthataroseasaresultof the intensivewavesofemigrationafter thecollapseof theSovietUnionin1991andEstonia’sentry intotheEuropeanUnionin2004.AccordingtoStatisticsFinland, 46,195Estonian citizenswere living in FinlandasofMay2014. Estonian-speakingcommunities in Finland are the largest and fastest-growing communities in the EstonianWestern Diaspora. The Estonian community in Finland is supported by the geographicproximity of their homeland, the close relatedness between the Estonian and Finnishlanguages, the similar cultural space and cultural proximity. The two countries have closerelationsinpolitical,economic,culturalandotherfields.Inpublicdiscourse(media,politicaldiscourse and research), Finland and Estonia (and in narrower terms Finns and Estonians)areperiodicallylikenedto“bigandlittlebrothers”respectively,andthisplaysamajorroleintheknowledgeandattitudesofeachcountrywithregardtotheother.

AlthoughtherehaveprobablybeenmigrationsbetweenEstoniaandFinlandthroughoutthehistory of both countries, very little is known about Estonians in Finland before the 19thcentury.ThedocumentedhistoryoftheEstonian-languagepopulationinFinlanddatesbacktotheearly20thcentury,whentherewasaconsiderableEstoniancommunity living inthecountry,approximately2,000personsasconfirmedbysources(seeNigol1918:78):workers,entrepreneursandalsosomeEstonianintellectualswhosoughtforapoliticallymoreliberalatmosphereinthelastyearsoftheCzaristregime.AfterthetumultuousyearsoftheSecondWorldWartheEstonian-languagepopulationinFinlanddecreasedseveralfold.TheworkofEstonian societies was stopped and there were no more public cultural activities in theEstonianlanguage.ThepoliticalsituationandtheincorporationoftheRepublicofEstoniainthe Soviet Union (1940) obstructed the interaction between Estonians and Finns untilEstoniaregainedindependence(1991).

Estonians in Finland began to receive more attention after Estonia joined the EuropeanUnion in2004.However, the roleandstatusof theEstonian languageandofEstonians inFinland has not prompted more serious discussion (other than individual articles) at thepolitical level or in the public discourses. The consistent trend in the labourmigration ofEstonian citizens to Finland, which is accelerating among the younger working-agepopulation,hasbecomeanincreasinglysalientissueandisthetopicthatpromptsthemostpublicdiscussioninbothcountries.


10

2.2 Sociohistory

2.2.1 Thecontextoftheinvestigatedlanguagecommunity

EstoniansandtheEstonianlanguageinFinland.IntermsofthenumberofnativespeakersEstoniansare thesecond-largest immigrantcommunity inFinlandafter theRussian-speak-ers:at theendof theyear2016,75,444residentsofFinlandspokeRussianas theirnativelanguageand49,241spokeEstonian(Tilastokeskus2016).TheEstonian-speakingpopulationofFinlandhas increasedseveral-fold intwodecades:whereas in1990therewere1394in-dividualswhospokeEstonianastheirmothertongue inFinland,by2004thatnumberhadalready increased to 13,784. The figure of 20,000 Estonian-speaking inhabitants was ex-ceededin2007,andtheirnumberswerein2014alreadyapproaching40,000.However,itisquitelikelythatthesefiguresdonotreflecttheactualsizeoftheEstoniancommunityinFin-land.ItisprobablethatEstonianswhoimmigratedtoFinlandduringtheeraofSovietoccu-pation (and/or their descendants) have acquired Finnish citizenship. Commuters and sea-sonalworkersshouldalsobetakenintoaccount,althoughtheirexactnumberscanbeonlyguessed.

TheEstonianminority inFinlandcanbecalledanallochthonousspeakercommunitywhichhasdevelopedoutsidethegeographicalbordersofitsmothercountry(Estonia).TheEston-ian linguisticminority does not have long-standing traditions or a long history in Finland.Instead, it isa relatively“new”communitywitha ratheryoungagecomposition, resultingfromintensiveimmigrationwhichisstillinprogress.ThedevelopmentoftheEstoniancom-munityinFinlandhasbeentriggeredbyanumberoffactors,suchaschangesinthepoliticaland socio-economic situation in Estonia, Estonia regaining its independence (1991), theopening of borders and the eastward enlargement of the EU (2004). Intensive labourmigrationofEstoniancitizenstoFinlandstartedinthespringof2006,whenrestrictionsonthe freemovementof labourwere removed for thecountrieswhichhad joined theEU in2004, which might be viewed as the starting point of cross-border labour migration andcommuting. The reasons behind emigration to Finland are first of all economic, directlyrelatedtothesituationoftheEstonianlabourmarket.Accordingtothedatafromthemostrecent census conducted in Estonia (REL 2011), 15,140 people living in Estonia work inFinland,whilethetotalnumberofpermanentresidentsofEstoniaworkingabroadis24,907.Estonians are employed in various linesofwork in Finland,mostof them in construction,transport,andhealthcarebutalsoinotherserviceareas.Asistypicalofimmigrantgroups,the majority of Finnish Estonians are drawn to larger cities or their surrounding areas(Helsinki,Vantaa,Espoo,Tampere,Turku).


11

Languages in Finland. The official total population of Finland at the end of 2016 was5,503,297(Väestörakenne2016).Of these,6.4%orca.354,000werespeakersofso-calledforeignlanguages,i.e.languagesotherthanFinnish,Swedish,orSámi.Thisgroupisgrowingrapidly(bymorethan24,000fromthepreviousyear).1

Asestablishedby§17oftheConstitutionofFinlandand§1oftheFinnishLanguageLaw,the‘national languages’ (Fin:kansalliskielet)of FinlandareFinnishandSwedish. TheConstitu-tionalsoestablishesthelanguagerightsoftheSámiandRomapeopleandofthoseusingtheFinnish sign language. The European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages wasratified in Finland in 1994. In 2009, the Charter came to include the Karelian language inaddition to thepreviously indicated languages (i.e. theSámiandRoma languagesand theFinnishsignlanguagelistedintheConstitutionplusthelanguagesof“oldminorities”,suchasYiddish,TatarandRussian).According to§17of theConstitution, similarly to theRomaandSámipeople“othergroups”alsohavetherighttopreserveanddeveloptheirlanguageand culture. Besides long-standingminorities and their languages, “other groups” includeimmigrantcommunitiesandtheirlanguages,amongthemEstonian.2

Swedish-speakingFinnsandtheSwedishlanguageinFinland.Duetothefactthatfromthe13thcenturyuntil1809FinlandwaspartofSwedenandtothehistoriccontinuityofSwedishsettlementinFinland,SwedishisthesecondofficiallanguageofFinland:ithasastronglegalposition in the country as a result of its political, economic and cultural foundationsdevelopedduringtheSwedishera.ThehistoryofSwedish-speakingFinnsdatesbackasfarasthe12-13thcenturywhentheveryfirstsettlementsofSwedeswereformedonthecoastof Finland and in the Turku archipelago. In Finland, Swedish was the official language ofadministration and government up to the 20th century. According to the Language Lawadoptedin1922,theofficiallanguagesofFinlandareFinnishandSwedish.Swedish-speakingFinns are not considered a minority, but rather a parallel ethnic group with their ownlanguage, culture, history and identity. The Swedish language variety of Finland(finlandssvenska)isthemothertongueof289,540(Tilastokeskus2016)residentsofFinland,wholiveprimarilyontheSouthernandWesterncoastalareas(includingthecapitalcityofHelsinkianditssurroundings),intheTurkuarchipelagoandontheÅlandislands.

Thebasicunitof the linguisticdivision inFinland is themunicipality (whichnumber342 intotal). Inaccordancewith theethnic structureof thepopulationofeachmunicipality,Fin-land’slocalgovernmentsareeithermonolingual(FinnishorSwedish)orbilingual.AccordingtotheReportoftheGovernmentontheapplicationoflanguagelegislation(2009),mostofthepopulationlivesinunilingualFinnish-speakingmunicipalities.Onethirdofthepopulationlives in bilingual municipalities (which number 43 in total, in 22 of which Swedish is themajoritylanguageandin21Finnishisthemajoritylanguage).Theautonomousprovinceof

1http://stat.fi/tup/maahanmuutto/maahanmuuttajat-vaestossa/vieraskieliset.html2InformationaboutlegislationonlanguagesinFinlandisavailableonthewebsiteoftheMinistryofJusticeathttp://oikeusministerio.fi/fi/index/toimintajatavoitteet/perusoikeudetjademokratia/kielilaki.html; see alsoGrans2011.


12

theÅlandIslands(Ahvenanmaa)isofficiallymonolingual,withSwedishasitsonlyofficiallan-guage, as stipulated in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland (Ahvenanmaan itsehallintolaki1991).

The Sámi people are an indigenous people of Northern Fennoscandia. In Finland, theytraditionally inhabit the northern part of Lapland (mainly themunicipalities of Enontekiö,Inari,UtsjokiandSodankylä).TheSámilanguageisadialectcontinuumwhichisnowusuallydividedintouptotenindividual languages,sixofwhichhaveastandardorthography.(Formoreinformation,seeVuolab-Lohi2007:1.)ThreeofthesearespokeninFinland:InariSámi,Skolt SámiandNorthernSámi.The largestof these isNorthSámi,which isalso spoken inNorthern Sweden andNorway. It is estimated that theremay be around 300 speakers ofInariSámi(Morottaja2007:1)and250–300speakersofSkoltSámi(Moschnikoff2006).TheInariSámipeoplearetheonlyFinnishSámigroupwhohavetraditionallyresidedwithintheboundaries of just one country and one county. Likewise, Inari Sámi is the only Sámilanguagespokenwithintheboundariesofjustonemunicipality(Morottaja2007:1).

The Finnish Sámi are oftenmultilingual, and practically all Sámi speakers are bilingual inFinnish.Itisestimatedthattherearearound6,500SámisinFinland,ofwhomapproximately4,000 (i.e. more than half) live outside traditional Sámi habitats. According to StatisticsFinland,1,969people (asof theendof2016)considerSámi their first language.Sámi lan-guagesareprotectedbytheSámiLanguageActof1992(Saamenkielilaki).Thisactupholdstherightof theSámipeople topreserveanddeveloptheir languageandcultureasestab-lishedintheConstitutionofFinland.FormoreinformationseeVuolab-Lohi2007:1-2.

Karelianhasbeenspoken inFinlandforas longasFinnish.There isnoofficialdataonthenumber of speakers of the language,3but according to most recent estimates, ca. 5,000peoplestillactivelyuseKarelianintheireverydaylife,ca.10,000haveagoodcommandofKarelianandup to30,000have someknowledgeof the languageand identify themselveswiththeKarelianspeechcommunity(formoreinformation,seeSarhimaa2014).

TheFinnishRomapopulationnumbersaround13,000;peoplespeakingtheRomalanguagehavebeenlivinginFinlandfromasearlyasthe16thcentury.(AdditionalinformationcanbefoundinGranqvist2006:1andincludedreferences.)MoredetaileddataonthenumberofRoma people in Finland is not available because registering residents by ethnic origin isprohibited by the Finnish Personal Data Act (Tietosuojalainsäädäntö and Henkilötietolaki§11)(Granqvist2006:1).AlthoughRomapeoplelivealloverFinland,themajorityresideincities inSouthernFinland,primarily intheGreaterHelsinkiarea(ibid.);manyFinnishRomahaveemigratedtoSweden.

3For a few years already, Karelian speakers have been allowed to register Karelian as theirmother tongue.However,thenumberofthosewhohaveusedthisopportunityisstillverysmallandnotshowninthedatabaseofStatisticsFinland.


13

The Finnish sign language is used by around 4,000-5,000 deaf people.Moreover, around10,000hearingFinnshavelearntitastheirnativeorasasecondorforeignlanguage.Moreinformationcanbefoundonwww.kotus.fi.

Immigrants and their languages.Asmentioned above, there are ca. 354,000 speakers ofallochthonous languages in Finland, and the Estonian speakers, whose number isapproaching 50,000, are the second largest group among them, second only to Russianspeakers (75,444). The third largest immigrant language at the end of 2016 was Arabic(21,783),followedbySomali(19,059)andEnglish(18,758).4

Thenumberofforeign-languagespeakersinFinlandwasstablefromtheendofWorldWarIItothe1980s.Refugeesbeganarrivinginthe1970s:thefirstonesfromChileandAsia,otherslater fromtheNearandMiddleEast,AfricaandEasternEurope.Since the1990s refugeeshave been taken in from Somalia and the territory of the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia andHerzegovina, Croatia, the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Kosovo Albanians), butalso from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan etc. (in detail Latomaa 2009: 229,Pohjanpää&al.2003:22.)AmajorturningpointinimmigrationtoFinlandcameatthestartof the 1990s. Prior to that point in time immigration to Finland had primarily involvedrepatriationfromSweden.

Another factor contributing to the growing numbers of foreignerswas the repatriation ofIngrianFinns fromthe territoryof the formerSovietUnion.5According tovarious sources,Finlandhadreceived20,000ethnicFinnsby1997,andabout25,000ethnicFinnsbytheendof2003(seeLiebkind2004:26-27).

Finnish and Estonian. FinnishandEstonianbelong to the (Baltic-)Finnic languagegroupoftheFinno-Ugric(Uralic)languagefamily.TheFinnicgroupisnowusuallydividedinto12lan-guages:Finnish,Estonian,Karelian,Ludian,Vepsian,Ingrian,Votian,Estonian,Livonian,Võroand Seto, Meänkieli (Tornedal Finnish) and Kven. These languages are or were spokenaround theGulf of Finland, in present-day Russia (east of theGulf of Finland and aroundlakesOnegaandLadoga),Finland,Norway,Sweden,EstoniaandLatvia.VõroandSeto(tradi-tionallyclassifiedasdialectsofEstonian)arespokeninsouth-easternEstonia,SetoalsoontheRussiansideoftheborder.TheFinniclanguagesaremutuallyverycloselyrelated,shar-ingnumerousgrammaticaland lexical features.ThusEstonianandFinnisharetosomeex-tent mutually intelligible, and learning Finnish on the basis of Estonian or vice versa isrelativelyeasy.

4http://stat.fi/tup/maahanmuutto/maahanmuuttajat-vaestossa/vieraskieliset.html5Ingria(Inkeri),theregionaroundandwestofSt.Petersburg,wasthehomeofa largeallochthonousFinnishminorityfromthe17thcenturyuptotheStalinistterrorandWorldWarIIwhichdecimatedanddispersedmostoftheFinnishpopulation.Inthepost-waryears,manyIngrianFinnsendedupinEstonia,andtheirdescendantsarealsorepresentedamongtheEstonians inFinland(seechapters3.1.1,3.1.4,4.3.1,4.3.7).Fromthe1990suntil 2011, ethnic Finns from the former Soviet Union, mostly Ingrian Finns, enjoyed a special “repatriant”statusinFinnishimmigrationpolicies.


14

Thevehicular/vernacularlanguagesofthegroupatissue.Themainlanguagesofcommuni-cationoftheEstoniancommunityinFinlandareFinnishandEstonianand/orlocaldialectsofFinnish.Asarule,English(butsometimesalsoRussian)isusedasthelinguafrancabetweenvariousgroups.EstonianasspokeninFinlandcannotbeconsideredaseparatelanguage,noris therecurrentlyanyneedtostandardisethisvarietyofEstonian.Untilnow,theEstonianlanguage spoken in Finland has not figured in official discussions as a language varietyrequiringspecialattention.

The Estonian language spoken in Finland shows various influences from Finnish but onlyminimaldifferencesfromcommonEstonian(formoredetailsseePraakli2009,2014;PraakliandViikberg 2010: 28–30; Viikberg andPraakli 2013). In general, there are no clearly ob-servabledifferencesinthegrammarorstructureofthelanguage;rather,Estonianasspokenin Finland is characterised by largely individual, spontaneous code-switchings betweenEstonianandFinnish,primarilyatthelexicalandpragmaticlevel(seePraakli2009,2014).

Identification.NoresearchhasyetbeenperformedintotheidentityofEstoniansinFinland.Onthebasisofthe interviews(25)conductedbyKristiinaPraakli(2009),however,itcanbesaidthattheEstoniansofTamperemainlydefinetheiridentityonthebasisofwhethertheyseeFinlandasatemporaryorapermanentcountryofresidence.EstonianswhoseeFinlandasatemporaryhomeidentifythemselvesasethnicEstoniansandcitizensoftheRepublicofEstonia,whosehomecurrentlyhappenstobeFinlandforaparticularreason.Estonianswhoassociate themselves permanently with Finland and see themselves and their family ashavingafuture inFinlanddefinethemselvesasEstonians living inFinland,thusaddressingbothethnicity(Estonian)andtheirresidenceinanotherlinguisticandculturalenvironment(Finland). In many interviews, subjects stressed the role of dual identity, mentioning thebenefitsofbelongingtotwoculturesandsimultaneouslybeinganEstonianandaFinn.Theirself-definitiondepends largelyontheirpurposeforresidinginthecountryaswellasontheperson’s attitude toward Finland and Finns. The stated identity of persons permanentlyresiding in Finland differs from the identity of commuters,whomightwork in Finland onweekdaysbuthaveapermanentresidenceinEstonia.

Ethnonyms. Information from ELDIA research (based on interviews with individual andgroups)indicatesthatFinnishEstoniansusedesignationssuchas“EstonianfromFinland”or“Estonian living in Finland” when speaking of themselves or their community. While thepejorative designation ryssät (a traditional Finnish derogatory term for Russians) – whichwasprimarilyusedinthe1990storefertoimmigrantsfromtheEasternBloc–stillcomesupincolloquialspeecheverynowandthen, it isnotadeeply ingrainedtermusedtorefertoRussian-orEstonian-speakinggroups.

Alivelydiscussionaroseinbothindividualandfocusgroupinterviewswhentherespondentswere asked how Estonians living in Finland should be referred to. The respondentsexpressedmanyopinions,particularlyinregardtotheexpressionväliseestlased(expatriateEstonians;thistermseemstobeassociatedtotheEstonianrefugeecommunitiesformedin


15

theWesternworldafter1944).TherewasaprevailingopinionthatthebestwaytorefertoEstonians living in FinlandwasSoomes elav eestlane (Estonian living in Finland) orSoomeeestlane(“EstonianofFinland”);themajorityoftherespondentspreferredtheformerone.

Interrelations and the social status(es) of the ethnic groups. Relations between theEstonianminority and the Finnishmajority have not been comprehensively researched. Afewstudies(Liebkind2004;Jaakkola2009)havebeenundertakenonsocialnetworksamongthe Estonian minority in Finland; research has also been undertaken into the attitudesespousedbyFinns regardingvariousminorities.According tostudies, theseattitudesvary,depending on the immigrants’ nationality, status and activities in Finland. The results ofthesestudiesindicatethattheFinns,withrespecttotheculturalandlinguisticclosenessofthe Estonians, generally have a more favourable, supporting and understanding attitudetowards Estonians than towards immigrants from non-European countries (see Liebkind2004;Jaakkola2009).

NoresearchhasyetbeenconductedonthecontactbetweenEstoniansandotherminoritiesinFinland.Onthebasisoftheactivitiesoflocalsocieties,however,itcanbepresumedthatEstonianshaveclosercontactswithRussiansandIngrianFinnsfromEstonia.

2.2.2 PreviousresearchontheEstonianminorityinFinland

Estonian communities in Finland have thus far predominantly been of interest to socio-logists.Most of the researchhas been conducted in Finland. The research topics have in-cludedtheintegrationofFinnishresidentsofforeignorigin(includingEstonians)intosociety(Pohjanpää & al. 2003; Liebkind & al. 2004; Paananen 2005), language choices withinfamilies,opportunities forusingone’smother tongueandareas inwhich language isused(Pohjanpää&al.2003;Liebkind&al.2004;Tarnanen&Suni2005)andculturalcontactsandattitudes towards immigrants (Jaakkola 1999). Several papers and articles deal with theemigrationofEstonianstoFinland(Kulu1992;Kyntäjä1997;Kulu&Kyntäjä1998;Laanekask2006).SomestudieshavetreatedthesocialnetworksofEstoniansinFinland(Pohjanpää&al. 2003; Liebkind& al. 2004; Tarnanen& Suni 2005; Reuter& Jaakkola 2005). Themainemphasis in all of these works lies in the analysis of the integration of immigrants intosociety,oneaspectofwhichconsistsofthesocialinteractionsofEstonianspeakers.

Estonian researchers and research groups have predominantly dealt with the topic ofinternational emigration (e.g. the University of Tartu Centre for Migration and DiasporaStudiesandStatisticsEstonia),forexampleAnniste2009,2011.

ResearchintotheEstonianlanguageinFinlandandEstonian-Finnishmultilingualismisstillintheearlystages.Todate,twoPhDtheseshavebeendefended(Praakli2009,Hassinen2002).SeveralofthearticlesdealwiththehistoryandwayoflifeoftheformerEstonianvillageofKabböleinFinland(Suhonen1980;Punttila1996;Mäkeläinen2006).


16

Researchhasalsobeenconductedintothelinguisticdevelopmentofchildrenandlanguageacquisition in a Finnish-language environment (Hassinen 2002; Teiss 2005, 2006). Someworks deal with the Finnish proficiency of adult Estonian immigrants (Jääskeläinen 1997,2002).

TheEstoniancommunityinFinlandinresearchreports.TheEstoniancommunityinFinlandhasbeenbrieflytoucheduponintheEUmonitoringsystemCompendiumofCulturalPoliciesandTrends inEurope (Compendium2007)and ina surveyon thecultural consumptionofEstonians commissioned by the City of Helsinki Vironkielisten maahanmuuttajienosallistuminenkulttuuri-jayhdistyselämään(Lagerspetz2011).

Gaps in research. The most relevant gaps in the research into this minority involve theabsenceof sociolinguistic studies.Research intomultilingualism, identity, second languageacquisition, Estonian language sustainability, language retention and change and attitudestowardlanguageaswellaslanguagepolicyshouldbecontinued.

2.3 Territorialandpoliticalcontext

Geographicalterritory.TheEstoniancommunityinFinlandisnota“territorialminority”.Un-likethespeakersofotherFinnicminoritylanguages(e.g.theMeänkieliandKvenlanguagesinNorthernSwedenandNorthernNorway),theEstoniancommunityinFinlandlacksageo-graphical territory or traditionally native habitat. As is characteristic of allochthonous (orimmigrant)groups,theimmigrationbehaviourofEstoniansiscity-oriented,i.e.itisfocusedoncitiesandlargeurbancentres.AlthoughEstoniansarescatteredalloverthecountry,themajority live in the capital and in its satellite cities anddistricts and inothermajor cities.AccordingtoStatisticsFinland(Tilastokeskus2016),themajorityofEstoniansinFinlandliveintheUusimaaregionwhichincludesthecapitalarea(33,021),followedbyVarsinais-Suomi(Turkuandsurroundings,3,946),Pirkanmaa(Tampereandsurroundings,2,228)andPäijät-Häme(Lahtiandsurroundings,1,495).

ThemigrationofEstoniancitizenstoFinlandisapermanentprocess.However,FinlanddidnotimmediatelyopenitslabourmarkettothenewEUMemberStatesthathadjoinedtheEuropeanUnionin2004,butfirstimposedatwo-yeartransitionperiod.Intensivemigrationbegan in the springof2006,when the restrictionson themovementofworkers fromthecountriesended.

The main reasons for emigration are the increased desire to work abroad, but people’sdecisionstomigratearebasednotonlyontheircurrentstandardof livingandthecurrentlabourmarket situation,but alsoon futuredevelopments (income, jobopportunities etc).Finland is preferred due to its geographic and cultural closeness and a relatively lowlanguage barrier, and also because of the large Estonian community in Finland, whichsimplifies the process of moving there. Estonians are primarily employed in five fields:construction,healthcare,transport,agricultureandtheservicesector.


17

AstheEstonianminorityinFinlandisarelativelyyoungminoritygroup,it isnotatpresentpossible to assess the language group’s geographical stability or mobility. However, themigration behaviour of Estonians throughout history tends to be best characterised bycompacthabitation.

2.4 Culturalcontext

2.4.1 Culturalsymbolsandculturalactivities

Cultural symbols.ThankstotheculturalclosenessbetweenEstoniaandFinland,there isafair amount of similarity inmindsets, traditional lifestyles, traditions, customs and ethnicsymbols. However, the question as to whether and to what extent cultural symbols arerelatedtotraditionallifestylesrequiresstudy.

CulturalsignssymbolisingEstonianidentityarenotinaprominentplaceinthedailypubliclives of Estonians in Finland. In general, Finland’s Estonians do not identify themselvespubliclythroughethnosymbols(suchastraditionalgarments)whichexpressculturalidentityandwhichwouldmaketheminorityfamiliarinpubliclifeanddistinctfromotherminoritiesinFinland.EventhoughasignificantpartofEstonianidentity inthegeneralsenserevolvesaroundnationalhandicraft,folkcostumes,folksongandfolkmusic,thesearenotpractisedonadailybasisinpubliclife,butonlyoncertainholidaysandatculturalevents(suchassonganddancefestivals).ThemostconspicuousmarkerofEstonian identity inpublicspacearethe Estonian grocery stores present in many Finnish towns and cities and the goods ofEstonianoriginsoldthere(blackbread,curdsandsourcream).

Inprivatespace(Estonians’homes)theuseofethnosymbolscharacteristicofidentityvariesfrompersontoperson.TypicalsymbolsofEstonian identityused inprivatespaces includefolk handicraft, national symbols (flag), Estonian languagewall calendars and kitchenwaremadefromjuniperandSaaremaadolomiteetc.

Estonian societies and organisations in Finland. There are several Estonian or Estonia-relatedsocietiesandorganisationsinFinland.ThebestknowntotheFinnishpublicaretheTuglasSociety (Tuglas-Seura;http://www.tuglas.fi), founded in1982byFinnishEstophiles,and the Union of Finnish-Estonian societies known to the public as SVYL (Suomen Viro-yhdistystenliitto,http://www.svyl.net),whichactsasanumbrellaorganisationforanumberof small Finnish-Estonian societies. On the national level, the Embassy of the Republic ofEstonia(http://www.estemb.fi/est)andtheEstonian Institute inHelsinki (http://www.viro-instituutti.fi) are the principal promoters of Estonian language and culture. All of theseorganisations and societies hold Estonian-themed events. Relevant and regularly updatedinformationonevents,languagecoursesetc.isavailableontheirwebsites.AmajorannualeventwhichhasturnedintoatraditionandholdsastrongpositioninHelsinki’sculturallifeisthe St. Martin’s Day Fair, known to the Finnish public as Martin Markkinat(http://www.martinmarkkinat.fi).


18

TheoldestsocietyfoundedbyFinnishEstoniansistheEstonianClubinTampere,whichwasestablished in spring 1996 (www.eestiklubi.fi). The club is primarily engaged in organisingEstonian-themedculturalevents,activitiesforchildrenandjointholidaycelebrations.ThereareorhavebeenEstoniansocietiesinKotka,Turku,Rovaniemietc.

InNovember2002,representativesofEstoniansocietiesfromalloverFinlandfoundedtheUnion of Finnish Estonians in Tampere (http://eestlasedsoomes.wordpress.com/about/).TheestablishingactoftheunionstatesthatitisanationalcentralorganisationofEstoniansin Finland representing their interests in the country. Its purpose is to support theintegrationofEstoniansintoFinnishsociety,thefoundingofEstoniansocietiesandculturalassociations andEstonians running forpolitical office in Finland irrespectiveof their partyaffiliations.Regrettably,inthelastfewyearstheunionhasshownverylittleactivity.

EstoniansinFinlandtraditionallycelebratetheIndependenceDayoftheRepublicofEstonia,ShroveTuesday,Mothers’Day,St.Martin’sDayandChristmas;since2002,theEstonianClubin Tampere has been taking the initiative in organising summer festivals (suvepäevad‘summerdays’).

2.4.2 Languageuseindifferentdomains

Media. The Estonian community in Finland does not have an Estonian-language publicbroadcastingorprintmediachannelavailabletothem.Until2002,Estonian-languageradioprogrammeswerebroadcastonceaweek(for30minutesonSaturdays)bytheradiostationRadioMoreenimaintainedbytheTampereUniversity.AftertheELDIAstudywasconducted,a commercial Estonian-language radio channelFinest FMwas launched in 2013; it can beheardinsouthernmostFinlandandintheInternet.Also,theEstoniancommunityinFinlandhas from time to timepublished itsownnewspaper:Eesti Lehtwaspublished from1997-2003 (onceor twicea year)on the initiativeof theEstonian community and theEstonianClubinTampere.In2003and2004,arevampedversionofthenewspapercontinuedappear-ingunderanewnameBinokkel(fourissuesintotal).Sincethen,thepublicationhasceased.

Two studies have been conducted on diasporicminorities and theirmedia in Finland: anM.A. thesis byMinna Suihkonen (2003) and a country report by Ralf Kauranen and SallaTuori (ÅboAkademiUniversity,DepartmentofSociology)ondiasporicminoritiesandtheirmediaincontemporaryFinland(Kauranen&Tuori2001).

Learning Estonian in Finland. In Finland, a wide range of language-learning options areavailable. Courses in Estonian are offered at adult learning centres, language schools anduniversities.Ofallforeigncountries,itisinFinlandwherethetraditionsofacademicstudiesofEstonianarethelongest:thefirstuniversitylectorateofEstonianwasopenedin1923atHelsinkiUniversity,wheretheveryfirstlecturerwasVillemGrünthal-Ridala.ThemajorityofFinnish universities have at one time or another provided academic studies of Estonian,whetherasanareaof specialisation (in connectionwithFinnishorFinno-Ugric studies)orsimplyintheformofalanguagecourse.Atthetimeofwritingthisresearchreport(2014),it


19

waspossibletolearnEstonianattheuniversitiesofHelsinki,Tampere,Jyväskylä,TurkuandOulu.

Asfor Finnishgeneraleducation institutions,EstonianistaughtexclusivelyatLatokartanobasicschool(Latokartanonperuskoulu)inHelsinki.LatokartanoiscurrentlytheonlyFinnishinstitutionatthislevelofeducationofferingabilingualcurriculum(inEstonianandFinnish)for students fromthe1st to the9thgradeswhosenative language isEstonian.Around650studentsattend lessonsat this school,ca 170ofwhomareenrolled in thebilingual studyprogramme. The purpose of this teachingmethod is to ensure that the students achieveactivebilingualism,developingtheirEstonianandFinnishlanguageskillsequally,andgainagoodknowledgeofEstonianculture.Themainpurposesofbilingualeducationaredefinedinthe policy document of the school, which are available on its website(http://eestiklass.wordpress.com/).Theprogramme isbasedonthecurriculumestablishedforFinnishbasic schools.Aftergraduating, studentscanchoosewhether tocontinue theirstudiesinasecondaryeducationalinstitution.Furthermore,Estonianasaforeignlanguageisofferedasanoptionalsubjecttootherstudentsoftheschool.

In Finland, the state supports the teachingof themother tonguesof immigrant (maahan-muuttaja) children. According to §12 of the Basic Education Act (Perusopetuslaki), theparentsandcaregiversofimmigrantchildrenhavealegalrighttorequestthatmunicipalitiesorganise the teaching of their native language to their children. The purpose of teachingimmigrant children their parents’ native language is to support and promote their nativelanguage skills, knowledge of their cultural background and development of their culturalidentity. While the law states that parents or caregivers have the right to request theteaching of their native language to their children, the provision of such an arrangementdependsoncircumstances.Estonianlessonsareorganisediftheparentsorcaregiversofatleast fourchildrenhavemadesucharequestand if it ispossible for theschoolormunici-palitytocreateastudygroupoffourstudents(minimum)andtofindacompetentteacher.Providedthattheseconditionsaremet,aschooloramunicipalityisobligatedtoarrangeatleast twoclassesperweek. Ingeneral, suchclassesareattendedat theendof theschoolday,rightafterotherclasses,atthestudents’schooloratanotherschoolintheneighbour-hood.Ifpossible,languageskillsandtheagesofthestudentsaretakenintoaccountwhenforming studygroups.Native language lessonsarenotpartof thecompulsory curriculum.Although such studies are voluntary, attending the lessons is compulsory for the studentswhorequestedthem.

Developingthelanguageskillsofpre-schoolchildrenismostlyuptolocalEstoniansocieties.Ingeneral,children’splaygroupsareheldonweekends.ThereiscurrentlyjustoneEstonian-languageday-carecentreinFinland:inOctober2012,thekindergarten“Anni”wasopenedinHelsinkiontheinitiativeofthelocalEstoniancommunity(www.annilastentarha.fi).

The Estonian-language Education Society in Helsinki (founded in November 2007;http://www.eestikeelsehariduseselts.fi) dealswith questions related to studies in Estonian


20

and other educational issues in Finland. The society is a non-profit organisation whoseactivities are based on voluntary participation. Its main purposes are to preserve anddevelop Estonian language and culture in Finland, to promote and support Estonian-languageeducationinFinlandandtoorganiseschoolstudiesinEstonian.

Estonians on the Finnish political scene. Finnish Estonians have not formed any politicalassociations.Theirparticipation inFinnishpoliticshasbeen ratherpassive.AlthoughsomeEstonianshaverunforpoliticalofficeinlocalelections(in2004and2012),nonehavebeenelected. Political figureswith Estonianbackgroundor politicswho are actively engaged inpromotingthe‘Estoniancause’arenon-existentontheFinnishpoliticallandscape.

Administration, court, public institutions. InFinland, thepositionofEstonian is similar tothat of any other immigrant group language: the native language ismostly used to com-municate in the familycircleorwithclose friends.AsEstonianstendtohavequiteagoodcommand of spoken Finnish, they are able to communicate in Finnish in governmentagencies. However, the use of Estonian is not ruled out in official communication: forexample, in Tampere there is an information centre for foreigners (Tampereen maahan-muuttajaneuvonta),wherecustomerserviceisprovidedin16differentlanguages,includingEstonian.Thewebsitesofanumberofgovernmentagenciesareavailable inEstonian,andcomprehensiveEstonian-languageinformationmaterialshavebeenpublished.

SeveralgovernmentofficeshavepublisheddetailedEstonian-languageinformationmaterialsonFinnish legislation, integrationandavarietyofeveryday issues. IndividualswhodonotspeakFinnishcanusetheservicesofatranslatortocommunicateingovernmentagencies,ifrequired.

Church. Ecclesiastical activities in Estonian takeplace in the Lutheran churchofAlppila inHelsinki.Thechurchalsohostsachildren’ssongandplaygroup,Sipsik(forEstonian-speakingchildrenuptofiveyearsold),andanadultchoir,Siller(http://www.siller.fi/www/).

Local politicians. Estonians in Finland have not established their national politicalrepresentation.Therearenotop-politiciansofEstonianoriginknowntothepublic.SeveralEstoniansparticipateactivelyintheactivitiesoflocalgovernments,butarenotknowntothewiderpublic.

AcademicuseofEstonian.WorkinglanguagesatacademiceventsheldinFinlandareusuallyFinnish(orSwedish)and/orEnglish.However,EstonianmaybeusedasaworkinglanguageatconferencesonEstonianlanguageandculture.


21

2.5 Languagesincontactandlanguagemaintenance

2.5.1 Generaldescriptionofthelanguagesatissue

Estonian belongs to the Finnic (Baltic-Finnic) language group of the Finno-Ugric (Uralic)languagefamilyandiscloselyrelatedtoFinnish.TherelatednessoftheFinniclanguagesandtheirpositionintheUraliclanguagefamilyhavebeenthoroughlyresearchedsincethe19thcentury, but many details of prehistorical developments, such as the geographic origins,localisationanddatingofthediverseproto-languagestagesarestillopentosomedebate.ForadetailedoverviewofthelinguisticbackgroundofEstonian,seee.g.Erelt(2003).

Typologically,Estonian,althoughusuallyclassifiedasanagglutinatinglanguage,hasmovedtowards the inflecting (fusional) and analytic (isolating) types, while Finnish is moreconservativeandmoreclearlyagglutinating;thismeansthatEstoniansometimesexpressesgrammatical relations with stem alternations or independent grammatical words whereFinnishuses clearly segmentable grammatical suffixes (formoredetails, seee.g.Metslang1994).Despitethesedifferences,EstonianandFinnishsharealargepartoftheirmorphologyand morphophonological phenomena such as the consonant gradation (an originallyphonologicalbutnowgrammaticallyconditionedalternationoforiginalstopswithfricativesorzero).Incontrasttothe14casesinEstonian,mostFinnishgrammarsdistinguish15casesforFinnish.TheexactnumberofthecasesinFinniccanbesubjecttodebate,astheborderbetween adverbial cases and adverb derivation is not clear. Nevertheless, more relevantthantheexactnumberofthecasesisthatthecasesystemsasawholearealmostidentical.

Ofthefiveoften-mentionedcharacteristicfeaturesofEstonian(cf.Viitso2003:130)–1)thepresenceof threecontrastivequantitiesofvowelsandmostconsonants,2)14case formsbothinthesingularandtheplural,3)postpositionsprevailinglyinsteadofprepositions,4)aspecificillabialmid-highcentralvowelõand5)novoicedstopsandsibilants–three(2,3,5)are shared with Finnish. For more descriptions of the differences between Estonian andFinnish:seee.g.Metslang1994;Remes1995,2009.

FinnishandEstonianalso shareaconsiderablepartof their lexicon,whichmakes themtosomeextentmutuallyintelligible–especiallyinthemostelementarylevelforbasiccommu-nicationneeds–andeasilylearnable.Atthesametime,theseeminglycommonvocabularyincludesnumerous“falsefriends”(forinstance,hallitusmeans‘mould’inEstonian,‘govern-ment’ in Finnish; Fin sulhanenmeans ‘bridegroom, fiancé’ while Est sulanemeans ‘farm-hand’;Finvaimomeans‘wife’,whileitsEstoniancognatevaimmeans‘spirit,ghost’,etc).

In the area of today’s Estonia, the traditional spoken varieties originally belonged to twodeeplydifferentmaindialectgroups(ortriballanguages):theNorthEstoniandialectandtheSouthEstoniandialect.Theliterarylanguage,whichstartedtodevelopinthe16thcentury,wasatfirstcultivatedintwovarieties–NorthEstonian(ortheTallinnlanguage)andSouthEstonian (or the Tartu language). From the 18th century on, the North Estonian literarylanguagegraduallyousted itsSouthernrival.After intensive languageplanning intheearly


22

20thcentury,theNorthern-basedliterarylanguagebecamethedominantstandardlanguageofEstonia(formoredetails,seeErelt2003).

TheLanguageActof theRepublicofEstoniaentered into force1April1995.According tothisAct, theofficial languageofEstonia isEstonian.Any languageotherthanEstonian isaforeign language (§2). The language of public administration in state agencies, localgovernments and agencies thereof (hereinafter local governments) and the language ofserviceandcommandintheEstonianDefenceForcesshallbeEstonian.

2.5.2 Monolingualism,bilingualismandmultilingualism

ThemainlanguagesofcommunicationoftheEstoniancommunityinFinlandareFinnishandEstonianand/orlocaldialectsofFinnish.However,bythepresentmoment,themultilingualbehaviour of Estonians living in Finland has been but minimally studied. Based on theinterviewscarriedoutbyKristiinaPraakliitcanbesaidthat,forexample,thefirstgenerationEstonianslivingininTampereappreciatebilingualism:besidegoodknowledgeofandgoodcommunicationskillsintheirnativeEstonian,whichtheythinkshouldbetransmittedtonextgenerations, good knowledge of Finnish is also considered essential. Bilingualism isconsideredanassetandknowledgeofbothlanguagesisemphasized.

2.5.3 Resultsoflanguagecontact

Describingthestabilityofthelanguagecontactsituationiscomplicatedatthemoment.TheEstonian-Finnish contact situation is rather short-term, the bilingual language use by thespeakersandthenormsoftheirmultilingualbehaviourinsidethecommunityarestilltakingform.Therearenosurveysordatabases,whichwouldenable tomakeconclusionsaboutchangesinthecontactsituation.

Estonian-Finnishcode-switchingphenomenahavebeenstudiedbyKristiinaPraakli(2009).IntheTamperedata,thebilinguallanguageuseoffirst-generationspeakersischaracterisedbymajorcode-switchingstoFinnishwithinasentence.Typicalcode-switchingsaresinglewordsthat are generally (but not always) phonologically and/ormorpho-syntactically integrated.Themostfrequenttypesofwordsarenouns(64%),discourseparticles(18%)andverbs(8%).InfluenceoftheFinnishlanguageindifferentamountscanbeobservedinthespeechofalltheinformants.

SirjeHassinen(2002)hasanalysedlanguageacquisition,concentratingoncode-mixingphen-omenabysimultaneouslybilingual,Finnish-Estonianchildren(atage1.2–4.0).Thepurposeofherthesiswastoanalysetheacquisitionofvocabularyandinflectionalformaswellasthedevelopmentoftheirutterances.Hassinen´sapproachtothechildren´slanguageusagewasmainlylinguistic,consideringalsosomepsycholinguisticandsociolinguisticfeatures.

Karmela Liebkind (Liebkind& al 2004) has studied the language choices of Finland’s newminoritygroupsindifferentfieldsof languageuseandtransmissionofthelanguagetothe


23

nextgeneration.TheresultsofherstudyrevealaconnectionbetweenFinnishlanguageskillsandlanguagechoices:thebetterrespondentscanspeakFinnish,themoreexclusivewastheuseofthenativelanguageinfamilycommunicationwithchildren.ApproximatelyhalfoftheRussianandtwo-thirdsoftheEstonianwomenlivinginFinlandprimarilyorexclusivelyuseFinnish for communicating with their children, which can in turn be explained by themultiplicityofexogamicmarriages.

Liebkindalsoassessestheroleofthelevelofeducationinlanguagechoices.Itappearsthatinformantswhohavehighereducation (with theexceptionof IngrianFinns)use theirownlanguage(EstonianorRussian)more,independentlyofhowwelltheycanspeakFinnish.Theresults of surveys by Mirja Tarnanen and Minna Suni (2005) also refer to the Estoniancommunityasanextremelyheterogeneousgroupbytheirlinguisticbehaviour.

2.5.4 Perceptionoflearnabilityandwillingnesstousethelanguage

There is no previous research on learnability and willingness to use the languages byminority speakers. The current ideologies of both countries, Estonia and Finland, at theofficiallevel,supportpluralism.

The survey initiated by theMinistry of Education and Science of Estonia and carried outamong the Estonians residing in Finland (2007) shows that more than half of therespondents(total357respondents)wouldliketheirchildrentobetaughtpartlyinEstonian,partly in Finnish. The most popular option would be bilingual teaching arranged in con-formitywiththeFinnishcurriculum;thiswishwasexpressedby115peopleor54%oftheEstonianrespondentsresidinginHelsinkiandinthesurroundings.19%oftherespondentswouldliketheirchildrentobetaughtinFinnish,accordingtotheFinnishcurriculum,whileanequalshare,19%ofrespondentswouldprefertheirchildrentobetaughtinEstonianandinaccordancewiththeEstoniancurriculum.8%wishtheirchildrentobetaughtinEstonianbutaccordingtotheFinnishcurriculum.Thus81%oftherespondentsresidinginthecapitaland its surroundingswould like their children to be taught in conformitywith the Finnishcurriculum,butatthesametime,amajorpartoftherespondentsfindsthatitisimportanttoincreasethepercentageoflessonsintheEstonianlanguage.

ThechildrenattendingschoolinFinlandareentitledtoreceiveuptotwolessonsaweekintheirmother tongue.58%of respondents find itnotenough tomaintainanddevelop thechildren’sEstonianlanguageskills.Atthesametime,only29%oftherespondents’childrenuse thepossibility.Oneof the reasons isobviously the fact thatparentsarenot informedwell enough – 21% of respondents are not aware of the possibility.Moreover, attendingEstonianclassescanbedifficultasthelessonsoftentakeplaceinanotherschool,farfromhome.92%ofthe357respondentsagreedtoparticipateinthediscussiononEstonianlan-guage education also in the future. (For more details, seehttp://www.hm.ee/index.php?048347).


24

3 Datasamplingandmethods

This chapter provides a brief overview on how the fieldwork in ELDIAwas organised andwhatmethodswere applied for data collection. First, it describes the organisation of thefieldwork, thenoutlines the samplingandmethods forboth thequestionnaire surveyandtheinterviews,andendswithadescriptionofsociodemographicbackgroundofinformants.

Designing the data sampling was originally the task of Jarmo Lainio (University ofStockholm).ThefieldworkwasconductedfollowingtheELDIAFieldworkManualwhichwasprepared by Jarmo Lainio in cooperation with Karl Pajusalu, Kadri Koreinik and KristiinaPraakli(allfromtheUniversityofTartu).

3.1 Samplesurvey

3.1.1 Minoritylanguagespeakers’survey

The mail survey commenced in January 2011 and lasted for three months, includingparticipantsfromalloverFinland.AllminoritygroupparticipantsreceivedthequestionnaireinFinnishandEstonian,leavingituptotheparticipanttodecideinwhichlanguagetofilloutthequestionnaire.Thequestionnairewasaccompaniedbyaconsentformforparticipationin the survey and an invitation to participate in additional individual and focus groupinterviews.

Regrettably, participation in the survey was lower than expected, the number ofrespondentsbeing170(responserate21.4%).Thereareseveralpossiblereasonsforthelowresponse rateand reluctance toparticipate in the survey.Anumberof representativesoftheyoungergenerationhadnotlivedinFinlandforlongenoughtoparticipateinthesurveyanddidnotfeelastrongconnectiontoFinland(yet).Asfortheolderagegroups(50⎼64and65+),severalpeopleincludedinthesampleonthebasisoflanguagedataofthepopulationregisterdidnotspeakanyEstonianortheirEstonianwasquitepoor.ThelatteragegroupsalsofeaturedseveralindividualsofIngrianFinnishandRussianoriginwhosenativelanguageand/or languagespokenathome isRussianand/or IngrianFinnish.To increase thesurveyresponserate,asecondinvitationwassenttoparticipantsandtheywerecontactedbysocialmedia channels. This specific approachdid not prove to be very productive, although thenumberof respondents is largeenough toyield representativeanalysisand interpretationresults.

The control group survey was conducted along the same principles, including randomlyselectedparticipants fromagegroups18⎼29,30⎼49,50⎼64and65+(800 intotal) fromalloverFinland.However,participationwas ratherpassiveandonly142questionnaireswerereturned(responserate17.8%).


25

3.1.2 Datacollectingmodes

Thesurveywascarriedoutasamailsurvey.Aprojectquestionnaire(bothinEstonianandFinnish) with an informational cover letter was sent to all persons who had agreed toparticipate.Aninvitationtotakepartinindividualandfocusgroupinterviewswasenclosedtoquestionnaires.Questionnaireswerepostedon15th January2011. Thesecondstageoffieldwork involved thematic individual and focus group interviews with minority group(informantswereselectedfromagegroups18–29,30–49,50–64and65+),majoritymediarepresentatives and politicians from the control group, all conducted along the sameprinciples.Individualinterviewsincluded40andgroupinterviews20questions.

3.1.3 Thesurveyquestionnaires

ForallELDIAcasestudies,twosurveyquestionnaires(fortheminoritygroupandthecontrolgroup)werecreatedcentrally;themasterquestionnairesweretranslatedintotheminorityandmajority languagesat issue.(ForthecasestudiesconductedbytheELDIAteamoftheUniversity of Oulu in the multilingual area of Northern Sweden and Norway, thequestionnairewasslightlymodifiedwithrespecttothemultilingualsituationinvolvingmanyminoritylanguages.InthecaseofEstoniansinFinland,noadaptedquestionnairewasused.)

Unfortunately,duetovariousproblemswhichfinallyledtothewithdrawaloftheUniversityof Stockholm from the project and the resulting heavy time pressure, the questionnairescould not be properly tested before use: someminor technical errors remained, and thequestionnaireasawholewasoftenexperiencedastoolengthyandchallenging.Moreover,allquestionswerenotequallyrelevant forallcasestudies. In thecaseof thisstudy,somerespondentsdidnotfindthequestions22–27relevantfortheEstonianminorityinFinland,and the questions 37, 38, 41–43 provoked negative or ironic comments from manyrespondents.

A revised version of theMinLg questionnaire, developed on the basis of the experiencesfromtheELDIAcasestudies,hasbeenpublishedasanattachmenttotheEuLaViBarToolkit,downloadableathttp://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:301101.

Minority Group Survey. In the caseof Estonians in Finlandone surveyquestionnairewasused.Thetargetgroupsurveyquestionnaireconsistedof63questions.Moreprecisely,theywerequestionsetsbecausemanyquestionshadanumberofalternativesthatincreasedtheactualnumberofquestionsto373.Theseincluded31open-endedquestions,someofthemasalternatives.

Thetargetgroupquestionsweredividedintothefollowingthematiccategories:

1. Basic information about the informant (1–6). This section covered the personalinformation of the anonymous respondents: age, birth place (country, rural or urban),educationandprofession.Thesearethesociologicalbasicvariablesthatwerecomparedtoothervariablesinthedataanalysis.


26

2.Backgroundoflanguageusage(7–27).Thisextensivesectionmappedthestageatwhichthe informanthad learned theminorityandmajority language(s)at issue, the informationaboutlanguageusagewithfamilymembersandrelativessuchasspouses,children,parentsandgrandparents,sistersandbrothersandotherfamilymembers.Languageusageatschoolagewasinquiredseparately.

3.Languageskills(28–32).Thissectionoutlinedthelanguageskillsoftheinformantsintheminority language, majority language, English and eventually in another language. Thequestions included variables in private and public sphere, such as home, work, school,street,shopping,library,church,authoritiesandlocalactivities.

4. Attitude towards different languages and desire to use them (33–59). This was thelargest and most complex section in the questionnaire. The respondents were asked toevaluatevariousstatementsabouttheusageandmixedusageoftheminorityandmajoritylanguage. Furthermore, several variables were used to cover the informant’s attitudetowards language usage in various contexts. The respondents had to characterise therelevant languages bymeans of various adjectives and comment on their usefulness. Thelast part of this section dealtwith the role of language planning and the ideas of correctlanguageusage.

5. Languageusage inpublic andprivate sphere (60–61).Thisbriefsectioncompletedthepointsofthetwoprecedingonesbyaskingamoredetailedquestiononthepresenceoftheminoritylanguageinpublicsphere.

6.Culture,mediaandsocialmediaindifferentlanguages(62–63).Thelastsectionsoughtto findouthow the informantsusemedia indifferent languages.The sameselection thatwas applied earlier was repeated here: minority language, majority language, English,anotherlanguage.Bothsetsofquestionsfocusedonreadingandwriting.

Control Group Survey. The control group (majority population; henceforth: CG) surveyquestionnaire was based on the contents and structure of the MinLG survey. However,several parts of the questionnairewere shortened especiallywith respect to the use andadoptingoftheMinLG.ThemajordifferencesincomparisonwiththeMinLGsurveyarethefollowing:adetailedsectionaboutcross-and intergenerational languageusewaschangedinto few focussed questions, and questions concerning attitudes were either changed orreplaced(e.ginmanycasesquestionswereaskedabouttwodifferentMinLGsofeachcasestudy).Structurally,theCGquestionnaireconsistedofthefollowingparts:basicinformationabouttherespondent (Q1-6),backgroundof languageusage(Q7-11), languageskills (Q14-18), attitude towardsdifferent languages (Q12-13andQ19-46), culture,mediaand socialmedia indifferent languages(Q47).Theminoritygroupquestionnairewasmorespecific intermsofinter-generationalandintra-generationallanguagechoices,alsosomequestionsonattitudeswerechanged.


27

Thedatacollectionmodes for theCGwere thesameas in theMinLgsurveyand thus thequestionnairesweresentexclusivelybymail.

The response rate for theCG surveyamounts to19,7%. In total, 119questionnaireswerereturned, ofwhich 77were complete and 43were only partly completed. Approximately3,3%oftheaddressedindividualseitherrefusedtoparticipateinthesurveyorreturnedthequestionnaireblank.

Itmustbeadmittedthataccordingtotherespondents’opinionquiteafewquestionswereproblematicandunnecessaryduetothebackgroundandparticularnatureofthelanguagecommunity, forexample,questionson languageuseateducational institutionsduring therespondents’ school-ageperiod (itmustbekept inmind that themajorityof respondentswerebornandbroughtupinEstoniaandreceivedtheireducationinanEstonian-languagegeneral education institution), opinions on the language use of small children in therespondents’childhoodandcurrently,obstructingtheuseofEstonian,etc.However,itmustbeemphasisedthatfieldworkmethodologyprovidedforconducting identicalsurveys inallcommunities without any exceptions. So, while some questions might not have beenrelevantfortheEstoniancommunity,theverysamequestionswereofgreatsignificanceforother communities, providing ample and highly valuable information on multilingual andlanguagebehaviour.

3.1.4 Targetpopulation,samplingframeandsamplesize

Targetpopulation.EstoniansasresidentsofFinlandwereincludedinthesurveyonthebasisofarandomlyselectedrepresentativesampleorderedfromthepopulationregister.Surveyquestionnaires were sent to 800 representatives of the minority group and to 800representativesofthecontrolgroup,whowereallrandomlyselectedfromthefollowingagegroups:18⎼29,30⎼49,50⎼64and65+.

Responserate.Thetargetamountoffilled-inresponseswas800.AsofApril31,2011,totalnumberofquestionnairesreturnedwas170(responserate21.25%).InthecaseofEstoniansinFinland,duetovariousreasons,thetargetamountoffilled-inresponseswasdifficulttoreach.

The lowpercentageof responding to thequestionnairesbyEstonians living inFinlandandtheir unwillingness to participate in the research can be explained differently. Manyrepresentativesoftheyoungergeneration(agegroup18–29)saidtheyhadlivedinFinlandfor too short a period to take part in the study, did not speak Finnish, did not know thepolitical,educationalect.situationorcircumstancesinFinlandordidnotrelatethemselveswithFinland(theyworkinFinland,buttheirhomeisinEstonia)andotherpersonalreasons,whichprimarilybecameapparentinrecruitingfortheindividualandfocusgroupinterviews:many families had emigrated to Finland during the economic stagnation in Estonia 2008–2009,and theydidnotwant toknowanythingabout thestudy,but tosettle in theirnewhomecountryandfocusonanewbeginninginFinland.


28

Inthecaseoftheolderagegroups(50-64and65+),itwasfoundthatmanyofthosewhointhe list were officially registered as speakers of Estonian did not really know Estonian orspoke it poorly. In the older age group, therewere a lot of people of Ingrian Finnish (orRussian) extractionwho filled the questionnaire but added a comment that theirmothertongueandhomelanguageisIngrianFinnish.

Surveyoutcome N %Completedquestionnaire 170from800 21.5%Partialquestionnaire(morethan50%completed) 5 Outofscope:CGquestionnairewasused 0 Outofscope:surveynotcarriedout Non-contact:correctaddressnotfound 8 Non-contact:Contactattemptsfailed 200throughFacebook Refusal:bytherespondent 6 Refusal;bytherespondent’sfamilymember 1 Refusalduetoe.g.incapability 2 Technicalproblems 0 TOTAL 170

Table1.Minoritylanguagesurveyoutcomeandresponserate

3.2 Individualinterviews

The second stage of fieldwork involved individual and focus group interviews withinformants of minority and majority groups. Eight additional individual interviews wereconducted with male and female informants from all age groups of the minority group(18⎼29, 30⎼49, 50⎼64, 65+). While the survey was carried out in the entire territory ofFinland, interviewswerefirstandforemostconductedwithEstonians living inHelsinkiandits surrounding areas. Suitable informantshad tomeet the following criteria: residence inFinlandforatleastfiveyears,EstoniannativelanguagebutalsofluentknowledgeofFinnish,regularcontactswithFinnsaswellaswiththelocalEstoniancommunity.

Althoughallinterviewswereconductedsuccessfully,theprojectresearchershadtotakeintoaccount the fact that two more surveys were being carried out among the Estoniancommunity in Helsinki simultaneously with ELDIA fieldwork, likely having an effect onpeople’swillingnesstoparticipateinoneoranothersurvey.

Interview structure. All interviews were semi-structured and followed the general ELDIAformat. Still, certain questions vary from one language community to another. Eachindividual interview included about 40 questions. Interview duration depends on thesubjectscovered,thetotalinterviewlengthbeingontheaverage90minutes.


29

Allindividualinterviewsfollowedthethematictemplatebelow.Allinterviewsweremeanttobequalitativesemi-structuredinterviews.

I.Mothertongue:

• What is/are your mother/your parents/ mother tongue /or mother tongues? Is iteasyordifficulttodetermineyourmothertongue?Why?

• Who is a speaker of your mother tongue? Who else in your family/ in yourneighborhoodusesyourmothertongue?

• Whatdoesyourmothertonguemeantoyou?Whatkindofadvantageshaveyouhadbecauseofyourmothertongue?

• Whatdoyou thinkyourself: is yourmother tongue strong/vital in general?Who isresponsibleforyourmothertongue?Why?

• Whatshouldbedoneforyourmothertonguetodevelopit?Whatarethebestwaystoensurethefutureofyourmothertongue(s)?Shouldthelanguage(s)bepreservedormaintained?Whoshouldbeinchargeofsavingthelanguage?(Speakers?Societybytaxes,etc.?)

II.Otherlanguages

• Whathavebeenimportantlanguagesforyouduringyourlifetime?Why?• Whatlanguagesdoyoumasterataneverydaylevel?Wheredo/did?youlearnthem

/Wouldyouliketomastermorelanguages?Whatfurtherlanguages?Why?• Whatmakesinyouropinionotherlanguagesattractive/uglyoruseless?• Shouldpeopleacquireotherlanguagesthantheirownmothertongue?Why?

III.Attitudestowardsmultilingualism

• Doyouneedtousemorethanone language inyoureveryday life?Withwhomdoyouspeakdifferentlanguages?Inwhatcircumstances?Why?

• Whatlanguageswoulditbegoodtoknow?Why?• Are multilingual persons valued higher than monolingual in your society? If so in

whatways?• Whoseresponsibilityisittoteachdifferentlanguages?• Doyouthinkthatyoursocietyshouldbemoremultilingual?Lessmultilingual?

IV.Languagesandmodernisation

• Howhasthemodernisationoflife(e.g.technologicalchange,increasedmobility,newcommunicationmodes,etc.)influencedtheuseoflanguagesinyoursociety/foryouathome?

• Doyouusenewmedia?Whatlanguagesdoyouuseinnewmedia(internet)?Doyouusesomelanguagemore/lessthanearlierbecauseofnewmedialanguages?


30

• Is language teaching efficient in school? What should be done to make it moreeffective?

• Whatdoyouthinkaboutthefutureoflanguages?Howdoyoufeel,aretheremoreorlesslanguagesusedintheworld/inyourcountryaftertenyears?

• Howwouldyoudescribethefutureofyourmothertongue?• Whicharetheimportantstepstoachieveabetterunderstandingbetweendifferent

ethnicgroups/nations?

Recording device(s). With permission of each participant, all of the interviews wererecorded with a video camera Panasonic and with a Handy Portable Stereo RecorderZoomH2 (http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/products/h2/), interviews were transported tothecomputerandweretranscribedforcontentanalysisinfull.

3.3 Focusgroupinterviews

3.3.1 Focusgroupinterviewswiththetargetgroup

Focusgroupinterviewswithmembersoftheminoritygroupincluded4–6respondents.Also,separateinterviewswerecarriedoutwithmenandwomenintheagegroup30–49andanadditionalinterviewwiththeexperts,thatis,withEstoniansactivelyengagedintheareaofEstonian language and culture. Focus group interviews focused on language and culturepreservationissuesandlastedapproximately90minutes.Interviewswereconductedinthespring of 2011 by Tiina Hakman. The Estonian informants participating in focus groupinterviewslivedinHelsinkioritssurroundingareas.

In addition to interviews with representatives of the minority group, two focus groupinterviewswereconductedwithrepresentativesofthemajoritygroup:with1)Finnishmediarepresentatives and 2) Finnish experts in minority issues. As for the last group, it wasconsideredimportantthattheyhadbeenexposedtoorwereinformedaboutissuesrelatedto the Estonian community in Finland. The main subjects for both interviews wereimmigration, Finnish minority, education and cultural policy, the role of media and thepresent situation and future of minority languages in Finland. The duration of bothinterviewswasapproximately90minutes.Theseinterviewswereconductedinthespringof2011byTiinaHakmanandKristiinaPraakli.

3.4 Sociodemographicdistribution

Theminoritygroup. Theminoritygroupsurveyinvolved170respondents,themajorityofwhom(85.3%) filledout theEstonian-languagequestionnaire. In termsof sexdistribution,womendominatedamongrespondents(115or68.1%),asexpected,whilemenconstitutedabout one third of the total number of respondents (54 or 32%). The age distributionstructureofrespondentsdoesnotdisplaysignificantdifferences.Althoughtheresponserate


31

washighestintheagegroup50⎼64(54or32%)andlowest(29or17%)intheyoungestagegroup(18⎼29),allagegroupsaremoreor lessequallyrepresented:thehighestnumberofrespondentsisfromtheagegroup50⎼64(32%)andagegroups30⎼49and65+areslightlyless,butstillalmostequallyrepresented(44or26%and42or25%respectively).

18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ TotalMale 6 16 20 12 54Female 3 28 34 29 114Total 29 44 54 41 168

Table2.Ageandsexdistributionofrespondents

Thefollowingfigureshowsthedistributionofrespondentsbyageandsex.

Figure1.Ageandsexdistributionofrespondents

Data on household composition indicates that at the timeof responding to the survey, aconsiderable share of respondents (38%) were co-habiting with a spouse or a significantother,butwithoutchildren.Aboutathirdoftherespondents(29.6%)livedinaone-memberhousehold and 20.8%were in a relationshipwith a spouse/significant other and children.Other household typeswere less common: 5.6% of the respondents lived in a householdwithasingleparentwithonechild/childrenandthesmallestshareoftherespondentslivedinthesamehouseholdwiththeirparents(2.5%).Theso-calledthree-generationhousehold(grandparents, parents and children) was quite rare and in isolated cases, the householdtypewasdescribedas“other”.Hence,slightlymorethanhalfoftherespondents(58.8%)liveinahouseholdconsistingofamarriedorco-habitingcoupleand20.8%ofthosehouseholdsincludechildrenaswell.

Morethanhalfofthesurveyrespondents(91or55.5%)wereemployed(atotalof16linesofworkmentioned), about a third (47or28.7%)were retiredandone tenthdescribed their

30 20 10 0 10 20 30

18-29

30-49

50-64

65+

Percentageofallrespondents

Agecategory

EstonianspeakersinFinland

Male

Female


32

professionalactivityas“other”.Inisolatedcasesrespondentsmentionedlookingforajoborworkingathome.

Respondents’countryofbirth.AlmostallsurveyrespondentswerebornoutsideofFinland:the majority in Estonia (142), 14 in the territory of the former Soviet Union (13 in thehistoricalterritoryofIngria,1inKarelia),1inPolandandonly4respondentsof170indicatedFinlandastheircountryofbirth.AdditionalcommentstoquestionsrevealthatthemajorityofrespondentsborninEstoniaor intheterritoryoftheFormerSovietUnionemigratedtoFinlandeitherafterEstoniaregainedindependence(1991),aftertheeastwardenlargementof the EU (2004) or after restrictions on free movement of labour between Estonia andFinlandwereremoved(2006).

ThegreaterpartofrespondentslivedatthetimeofparticipatinginthesurveyinFinland,asarule,inlargercities,primarilyintheGreaterHelsinkiarea(Helsinki,Espoo,Vantaa).SevenrespondentsidentifiedEstoniaastheircountryofresidence:theserespondentsareprobablycommuterswhohaveaplaceofresidenceinbothcountriesandwhostayinFinlandmainlyforwork.

Respondents’education.Morethanhalfoftherespondentshadsecondaryeducation(81or57%), one third had higher education (42 or 29.6%) and 12% primary education. Tworespondentsbelongingtotheoldestagegroup(65+)hadnoformaleducationwhatsoever.Respondentswerealsoaskedtoanswerquestionsabouttheirparentseducation.Gathereddata indicates that themajorityof respondents’parentshadat least secondaryeducationand,ingeneral,mothershadahigherlevelofeducationthanfathers.

Thecontrolgroup.Controlgrouprespondents(thatis,Finns)wererandomlyselected.Whiletarget group participants could choose between a Finnish-language and an Estonian-lan-guagequestionnaire, control groupparticipants received thequestionnaire inbothofficiallanguagesofFinland,that is, inFinnishandSwedish. Intotal,146filled-outquestionnaireswere returned, themajorityofwhichwere filledout inFinnish (92%)and the rest (8%) inSwedish.Thesurveywasconductedbymail.

63% of control group respondents were women (cf with 68% in the target group). Theresponse rate was most active in the age group 50-64 (29%) and most passive in theyoungestagegroup18–29(21%).Otheragegroupswererepresentedmoreorlessequally(24% in the age group 30–49; 26% in the oldest age group 65+). Data on householdcompositionrevealsthatabouthalfoftherespondents(41%)wereinarelationshipwithaspouse/significantother,butlivedwithoutchildren,aquarter(25%)livedalone,22%livedinatwo-generationhousehold(aspouse/significantotherandchildren)and5%inahouseholdwithasingleparentandachild/children.AllrespondentswithoutanexceptionwereborninFinland. As for the level of education of the respondents, the largest share were withsecondaryeducation(42%),35%hadbasiceducation20%and3respondentshadallegedlynoeducationwhatsoever.Majordifferenceswerenotidentifiedinthelevelofeducationoftherespondents’parents:themajorityofmothershadbasic(47%)orsecondaryeducation


33

(30%); as for fathers, their respective figures were somewhat lower: 44% had basiceducationand28%secondaryeducation;15%offathershadhighereducationincontrastto11% ofmothers. About half of the respondentswere employed or studied (52%), a third(30%)wereretired,8%wereunemployedorlookingforajob,therestworkedathome(6%)ordescribedtheirprofessionalactivityas“other”(4%).

3.5 TheprinciplesunderlyingtheELDIAdataanalyses

byAnneliSarhimaaandEvaKühhirt

The new materials that were collected by means of the questionnaire survey and theinterviewswere systematically analysedwithin ELDIAWork Package 5 (WP5). In order toenhancethecomparabilityoftheresultsobtainedinthedifferentcasestudies,theanalysesofalldatasets,includingthatwhichisdiscussedinthisreport,wereconductedinthesameway.TheanalysesfollowedtheELDIAWP5ManualandtheWP5ManualSequel,whichwerecompiled by Anneli Sarhimaa and Eva Kühhirt (University of Mainz, Germany) with thesupport of Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark (Åland Islands Peace Institute) and the projectresearchers involved in the various case stdies. The instructions were confirmed by theELDIASteeringCommittee.

3.5.1 Minoritylanguagesaspartofmultilingualisminmodernsocieties

Atitsmostgenerallevel,thegoalofthedataanalyseswastoprovidenewinformationonaselection of central sociolinguistic, legal and sociological aspects of modern Europeanmultilingualism. In contrast to most other studies concerned with (European) minoritylanguages,theELDIAresearchagendastressesthenecessityofassessingminoritylanguagevitality in relation to amuchwidermultilingual context than that of a particularminoritylanguageandthe localmajority language.Likespeakersofmajority languages,speakersofminority languagesinEuropeusedifferentlanguagesindifferentcontexts,althoughtherearealsocaseswheremembersofaneconomicallydisprivilegedminoritydonothaveequalaccess to theentire rangeof languages, e.g. bywayof education. It is ourbelief that thevitalityofaminority languagedependsnotonlyon its relationshipwith the localmajoritylanguagebutalsoon thepositionwhich itoccupieswithin thematrixof all the languagesthat are used in that particular society, and sometimes even of languages spoken in theneighbouringcountries,asisthecasewith,forexample,NorthernSámi,Meänkieli,KarelianandSeto.

In ELDIA, new data were methodically collected from minority-language speakers andcontrol group respondents, relating not only to the use of and attitudes towards theminority language in question but also to the use of and attitudes towards the relevantnational languages and international languages (English, German, French, and, in somecases, Russian). Thus, one of the aims of the data analyses was to identify patterns ofmultilingualism and try to determine whether local multilingualism patterns favour or


34

threatenthemaintenanceofaparticularminoritylanguage.InstructionsonhowtoanalyseandreportonthecentralissuespertainingtomultilingualismweredevelopedjointlyunderthesupervisionofSiaSpiliopoulouÅkermark,theleaderoftheELDIAWorkPackagewithinwhichtheComparativeReportofallthecasestudieswillbeproduced.

3.5.2 TheoperationalgoalofELDIA

Asstated in the Introductionof this report, theoperationalgoalof theELDIA-project is tocreate a European Language Vitality Barometer (EuLaVIBar). This will be a concrete tool,easilyusableformeasuringthedegreeofvitalityofaparticularminoritylanguageorindeedanyothertypeoflanguage.

The EuLaViBar will be created in two steps. First, the analyses conducted on the datagatheredduringtheprojectwillbesummarisedincase-specificlanguagevitalitybarometers,i.e. individual vitality barometers will be created for each of the minority languagesinvestigated.TheLanguageVitalityBarometerforKarelianinFinlandispresentedinChapter5 of this Case-Specific Report. Then, during WP7 (Comparative Report), a generalisableEuLaViBarbasedonthecomparisonoftheseindividual-languagebarometerswillbecreatedby an interdisciplinary group of senior researchers from the fields of linguistics, sociologyandlaw.

TheEuLaViBar,themainproductofELDIA,hasbeensubmittedtotheEuropeanCouncilandmade public at the end of the project in August 2013. The full rationale behind thepreparationofthesurveyquestionnairedatabythelinguistsforthestatisticalanalyses,aswellas the instructionsonclassifyingthequestionnairedata inamannerwhichallowsforcalculating the case-specific barometer, will be discussed in detail in the ComparativeReport.6InstructionsforcreatingalanguagevitalitybarometerwillbegivenintheEuLaViBarHandbook.Theyareavailableasopen-accessdocumentsontheELDIAWebsite(www.eldia-project.org;directdownloadlink:http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:301101.

The following Sectionbriefly introduces theELDIA conceptof language vitality andhow itcanbemeasured.TheotherSectionsthendescribethescopeandaimsofthedataanalysesandhowtheyweremade.

3.5.3 Definingandmeasuringlanguagevitality

AccordingtotheELDIAresearchagenda,thevitalityofalanguageisreflectedinandshouldbe measurable in terms of its speakers being willing and able to use it, having theopportunity to use it in a wide variety of public and private contexts, and being able todevelopitfurtherandtransferittothefollowinggeneration.Thedefinitionissolidlybasedon what is currently known about the factors that promote or restrict language vitality6Afull-lengthversionoftheComparativeReportiscurrentlybeingeditedandwillappearasamonograph.Anabridged version can be downloaded from the project website www.eldia-project.org or directly fromhttp://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:304815.


35

and/orethnolinguisticvitalityingeneral.Inthisrespect,theELDIAapproachhassignificantlybenefited fromwork by Joshua Fishman, Leena Huss, Christopher Stroud and Anna-RiittaLindgren. ItalsodrawsgreatlyonUNESCOreportson languagevitalityandendangerment(2003;2009).

ELDIA aims at studying and gaining access to the full rangeof critical aspects of languagediversity, use and maintenance in the language communities investigated, includingeconomicaspects.Consequently,themethodologicalapproach,whichhasbeendevelopedgraduallyduringthedifferentprojectphases,combinesrevitalisation,ethnolinguisticvitalityresearchandthefindingsofdiversitymaintenanceresearchandeconomic-linguisticstudies.Inbrief,theEuLaViBaristheresultofanovelpracticalapplicationofideasbytwoprominentlanguage-economists, viz. François Grin and Miquel Strubell. In our analyses we havesystematically operationalised, firstly, Grin’s concepts of “capacity”, “opportunity” and“desire” (see, e.g. Grin 2006, Gazzola & Grin 2007), and, secondly, Strubell’s idea oflanguage-speakers as consumers of “language products” (see, especially, Strubell 1996;2001). We have also developed a language vitality scale and operationalized it over theentire ELDIA survey questionnaire data. As can be seen further below in this Section, ourscale draws on but is not identical with Joshua Fishman’s Graded IntergenerationalDisruptionScale (GIDS)which, since the1990s,has servedas the foundational conceptualmodelforassessinglanguagevitality(Fishman1991).

On the basis of the operationalisations described above, all the information that wasgatheredviatheELDIAsurveyquestionnairewasanalysedforeachcasestudy individually.Theresultsaresummarisedinthecase-specificLanguageVitalityBarometer(seeChapter5).Asmentioned, theprinciplesof theoperationalisationsand theunderlying theoreticalandmethodologicalconsiderationswillbediscussedandexplainedindetail intheComparativeReport.Insum,theEuLaViBar,andthusthedataanalyses,involveconstitutivecomponentsonfourdifferentlevels:FocusAreas(level1)whicheachcompriseseveralDimensions(level2),theDimensionsbeingsplitintovariables(level3)andthevariablesintovariants(level4).

The four Focus Areas of the EuLaViBar are Capacity, Opportunity, Desire and LanguageProducts. IntheELDIAterminology,thesearedefinedasfollows(theELDIAdefinitionsarenotfullyidenticalwiththosebyGrinandStrubell):

• Capacity as a Focus Area of the EuLaViBar is restricted by definition to thesubjectivecapacitytousethelanguageinquestionandreferstothespeakers’self-confidenceinusingit.Theobjectiveabilitiestousealanguagearerelatedtofactorssuchaseducationandpatternsoflanguageuseinthefamily,whicharedifficult tomeasureand impossible toassess reliablywithinELDIA; theyarethusexcludedfromthedefinition.

• Opportunity as a Focus Area of the EuLaViBar refers to those institutionalarrangements (legislation, education etc.) that allow for, support or inhibittheuseoflanguages.Thetermreferstoactuallyexistingregulationsanddoesnot,therefore,coverthedesiretohavesuchregulations.Opportunitiestouse


36

a given language outside institutional arrangements are also excluded fromtheFocusAreaOpportunity: theopportunities forusingagiven language inprivatelifedonotcountas“opportunity”fortheEuLaViBar,neitherdoestheopportunitytouseitincontextswhereinstitutionalandprivatelanguageuseintertwine or overlap (e.g. “private” conversations with fellow employeesduringthecoffeebreak).

• Desire as a focusareaof theEuLaViBar refers to thewishand readinessofpeopletousethe language inquestion;desire isalsoreflectedviaattitudesandemotionsrelatingtothe(formsof)useofagivenlanguage.

• LanguageProductsasaFocusAreaoftheEuLaViBarreferstothepresenceofor demand for language products (printed, electronic, ”experiental”, e.g.concerts, plays, performances, etc.) and to the wish to have products andservicesinandthroughthelanguageinquestion.

In addition to the Focus Areas, the ELDIA methodological toolkit consists of four mainDimensionsalongwhicheachofthefourFocusAreasisdescribedandevaluatedwithregardto language vitality. These are Legislation, Education, Media, and Language Use &Interaction,andtheyaredefinedasfollows:

• Legislation as a dimensionof the EuLaViBar refers to the existenceor non-existence of legislation (supporting or inhibiting language use and languagediversity) and to public knowledge about and attitudes towards suchlegislation.

• EducationasadimensionoftheEuLaViBarreferstoallquestionsconcerningformaland informaleducation (levelofeducation, languageacquisition, thelanguageofinstruction,opinions/feelings/attitudetowardseducation,etc.).

• Media as a dimension of the EuLaViBar refers to all questions regardingmedia, including media use, the existence of minority media, language inmedia production, language in media consumption, majority issues inminoritymediaandminorityissuesinmajoritymedia.

• Language Use and Interaction as a dimensionof the EuLaViBar includes allaspects of language use (e.g. in different situations /with different people,etc.).

In the case-specificdata analyses, theDimensionsweredescribed in termsofpre-definedsetsoflanguage-sociologicalvariableswhichwereused,surveyquestionbysurveyquestion,todescribeandexplainthestatisticaldata.Thevariablesinclude,inalphabeticalorder:

• Communitymembers’attitudestowardstheirlanguageanditsspeakers• Communitymembers’attitudestowardsotherlanguagesandtheirspeakers• Cross-generationallanguageuse• Domain-specificlanguageuse• Theexistenceoflegaltextsintheminoritylanguageinquestion• Theexistenceofmedia• Inter-generationallanguageuse• Intra-generationallanguageuse


37

• Languageacquisition• Languagemaintenance• Thelanguageofteachinginschools• Legislationconcerningeducation• Mediause&consumption• Themothertongue• Theroleoflanguagesinthelabourmarket• Self-reportedlanguagecompetence• Support/prohibitionoflanguageuse.

Thevariantsofthevariablesweredefinedintheabove-mentionedWP5Manuals.Theywerechosen so that they allowed for scaling each possible type of survey response along thefollowingELDIAlanguagemaintenancescale:

0. Language maintenance is severely and critically endangered. The language is"remembered"butnotusedspontaneouslyor inactivecommunication. Itsuseandtransmission are not protected or supported institutionally. Children and youngpeople are not encouraged to learn or use the language.→Urgentandeffectiverevitalisationmeasuresareneededtopreventthecompleteextinctionofthelanguageandtorestoreitsuse.

1. Language maintenance is acutely endangered. The language is used in activecommunication at least in some contexts, but there are serious problemswith itsuse,supportand/ortransmission,tosuchanextentthattheuseofthelanguagecanbe expected to cease completely in the foreseeable future.→Immediate effective measures to support and promote the language in itsmaintenanceandrevitalizationareneeded.

2. Language maintenance is threatened. Language use and transmission arediminishingor seem tobe ceasing at least in some contextsorwith some speakergroups.Ifthistrendcontinues,theuseofthelanguagemayceasecompletelyinthemoredistantfuture.→Effective measures to support and encourage the use and transmission of thelanguagemustbetaken.

3. Language maintenance is achieved to some extent. The language is supportedinstitutionally andused in various contexts and functions (alsobeyond its ultimatecoreareasuchasthefamilysphere). It isoftentransmittedtothenextgeneration,andmanyofitsspeakersseemtobeableandwillingtodevelopsustainablepatternsofmultilingualism.→Themeasures to support languagemaintenance appear to have been successfulandmustbeupheldandcontinued.

4. Thelanguageismaintainedatthemoment.Thelanguageisusedandpromotedinawide range of contexts. The language does not appear to be threatened: nothingindicatesthat(significantamountsof)speakerswouldgiveupusingthelanguageandtransmitting it tothenextgeneration,as longas itssocialand institutionalsupportremainsatthepresentlevel.

→Thelanguageneedstobemonitoredandsupportedinalong-termperspective.


38

Aspointedoutearlier,inthesamewayaswiththeFocusAreas,thescalewassystematicallyoperationalisedallthroughtheELDIAsurveyquestionnairedata.Asystematicscaleofallthepossible types of answers to a certain question in the ELDIA survey questionnaire wasdeveloped,sothat,onthebasisof thestatistical results, it ispossibletodrawconclusionsconcerning thecurrent language-vitalitystateofaffairswithregardtowhatwasasked.AswillbeshownintheELDIAComparativeReport,byemployingthisknowledgeitisultimatelypossibletodrawconclusionsabouttherelativelanguage-maintainingeffectofsuchmattersasthelanguage-educationalpoliciesimplementedinthesocietyinquestion.

3.5.4 Practicalproceduresinthedataanalyses

The analyses of the survey questionnaire data and the interviewdatawere conductedbylinguists. Inorder toachieve theultimateoperational goal, theanalyses focusedon thosefeatures that are fundamental for the EuLaViBar in general. Consequently, they con-centratedonarelativelyrestrictedselectionofthedimensionsofthegathereddata,anditwasoftennotpossible to include in theunifiedanalysismethodevery feature thatmighthavebeendeemedrelevantintheindividualcases.

Analysesconductedonsurveyquestionnairedata

The ELDIA statisticians provided the linguists with one-way tables (frequencies andpercentagesofthedifferenttypesofresponsesforeachitem,i.e.responseoptionsforeachquestion)andwithscaledbarometerscoresforeachindividualquestion.Thelinguiststhenanalysed all the statistical data and wrote a response summary of each question. Thesummariesconsistedofaverbalsummary(i.e.aheadingwhichexpressesthemainoutcomeofthequestion)andaverbalexplanationpresentinganddiscussingthemainresultsthatcanbereadfromthetables.Aspartoftheirdataanalyses,thelinguistsalsocreatedthegraphicillustrationsinsertedinChapter4.

Both the minority survey questionnaire and the Control Group questionnaire containedmanyopen-endedquestionsandotherquestionsthatcouldnotbeanalysedautomaticallywith statistical analysis programs. All such questions were analysed questionnaire byquestionnaire, in order to document howoften each particular open-ended questionwasansweredandhowoftenitwasansweredinaparticularway.Intheopen-endedquestions,andinmanyoftheclosedquestions,therespondentsweregiventheoptionofcommentingon their answer or adding something, e.g. the name of another language. When goingthrough the questionnairesmanually, the researchersmade notes on such additions andcomments,summariesofwhichhavebeenusedinwritingChapter5ofthecurrentreport.Inorder tomake theopen-endedquestions suitable for the requiredstatisticalanalyses, theresultsofthemanualanalysesweremanuallyenteredintablesprovidedintheWP5ManualSequel,whichofferedoptionsforcategorisingtheanswersalongthelanguagevitalityscaleintherequired,unifiedmanner.


39

Analysesconductedoninterviewdata

The interviews conducted in WP4 were transcribed and analysed in WP5 as well. Thetranscriptionsof the audio and the video fileswerepreparedwith Transcriber,which is acomputer software designed for segmenting, labeling and transcribing speech signals.Transcriber is free and runs on several platforms (Windows XP/2k,MacOS X and variousversions of Linux). In ELDIA, the software was used to create orthographic interviewtranscriptionswithbasicandspeech-turnsegmentations.Thetranscriptionprincipleswerejointlydevelopedby researchers involved in thedataanalysesof thevariouscasestudies;thesetoftranscriptionsymbolswasdiscussedandconfirmedatanELDIAworkshopinOuluinAugust2010.

In the next step, the orthographic transcriptions were imported into the ELAN (EUDICOLinguisticAnnotator)softwarewhichisamultimediaannotationtooldevelopedattheMaxPlanck Institute for Psycholinguistics (http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/). In the ELDIAanalyses,ELANwasusedforcodingtheinterviewdataforcontentand,toamodestextent,linguisticanalyses.ELAN,too,isavailableasfreewareandrunsonWindows,MacOSXandLinux.Theusercanselectdifferentlanguagesfortheinterface(e.g.English,French,German,Spanishor Swedish). In ELDIA, the sameELAN settingswereused throughout all thedatasets:thetranscriptiontier(s)arefollowedbythreemain(=parent=independent)tiers,viz.StatusofLanguage(StL),DiscourseTopics(DT)andLinguisticPhenomena(LP).

When conducting the ELAN analyses, the researchers examined all their interviewtranscriptions and marked the places where the language or discourse topic changed.Taggingthediscoursewasconductedatthelevelofso-called“general”categorytagsforthediscourse theme.Due to the tightproject schedule, a clear focuswas kepton the centralissues; the researchers who did the tagging had the possibility of creating new tags forcodingotherphenomenafortheirownuse.

Theschemetaggingthediscoursetopicsisshowninthefollowingtable:


40

Category tag fordiscoursetheme

Description of the phenomenawhichwill be taggedwith the categorytaginquestion

Languageuse Mother tongue, interaction, language skills (comprehension, speaking,reading,writing), levelof languageproficiency,support for languageuse,MajLg/MinLg,languagecompetition,secondarylanguage

Languagelearning

Language acquisition, mode of learning language X/Y/other languages;mothertongue,MinLg/MajLg,transmission

Education Level of education, labour market, occupation, language of instruction,mothertongue

Mobility Level of mobility (highly mobile, mobile, non-mobile), commuting,translocalism

Attitude Pressure (pressure, non-pressure, indifferent), language mixing, mothertongue, language learning, multilingualism, societal responsibility,nationalism, minority activism, ethnicity, correctness, identity, conflicts,historicalawareness/experiences,legislation

Legislation Level of knowledge (knowledge/non-knowledge), attitude towardslegislation, quality and efficiency of legislation, language policy, labourmarket,support/prohibitionoflanguageuse,languagepolicy

Media Use ofmedia, sort ofmedia (social, local, national, cross-border,MajLg,MinLg,multi/bilingual)

Sphere Public,semi-public,privateDialoguepartner(s) Self,father,mother,grandparents,children,spouse,relatives,friends,co-

worker,neighbours,boss,publicofficials,othersPlace School,home,workplace,shops,street,library,church,publicauthorities,

communityeventsStageoflife Childhood, adolescence, adulthood, seniority; pre-school, school,

university/highereducation,professionallife,retirement,todaySex male,femaleMothertongue Competition,communicativevalue,attachment(social/cultural),visionsof

normativity/correctness, maintenance, identity, importance on labourmarket,currentstate,historicalawareness,conflicts

Table3.Taggingofthediscoursetopics

Havingcodedthediscourse topicswith the respective tags, the researchersanalysedeachinterview,discoursetopicbydiscoursetopic.InordertomaketheinterviewdatamaximallyusableintheCase-SpecificReports,theywereaskedtowritebriefhalf-pagedescriptionsofeachinterview,payingattentiontothefollowingvariables:e.g.age,sex,levelofeducation(ifknown),profession/occupation(ifknown),first-acquiredlanguage,mobility,languageusein the childhood home, language use with parents and siblings today, language use withspouse, language use with their children, language use with their grandchildren. Theresearchers were also asked to provide a fairly general discourse description of eachinterview,summarisingtheirobservationsonthefollowingissues:

• howtheinformationobtainedfromtheinterviewsrelatestotheresultsofthequestionnaires, i.e. towhatextentwhatthe informant(s)saysupportsthemandwhen/towhatextentitcontradictsthem;

• anynewproblems,attitudes,orviewpointswhichcomeupintheinterviews


41

• commentsonwhatstillremainsunexplained• commentsonthefruitfulnessoftheinterviewdata,i.e.makeanoteofwell-

expressedviewswhichgaveyouan'aha'-experiencewhenyouwereworkingontheinterviews

The results of all the data analyses described above were submitted to the SteeringCommitteeintheformofaproject-internalWP5Report.Theseweresavedontheinternalprojectwebsite;theywillnotbepublishedassuchormadeavailabletothepublicaftertheprojectendsbuttheirauthorswillusethemforpost-ELDIApublications.AlongsidetheCase-SpecificReports,WP5reportsalsowillfeedintotheComparativeReport.


42

4 Newdataonlegislation,media,education,languageuse

andinteraction

This chapter includes three sub-chapters: the first chapter, a concise report on Legal andInstitutionalAnalysis, also referred to as “Legal and InstitutionalAnalysis”,which analysesthe legal institutions in theirpolitical context,a secondsub-chapter,a summary reportonMediaAnalysis,whichconcentratesonthreethree-monthperiods in1998,2004/2005and2010/2011,andathirdsub-chapterthatdrawsonthelatestsurveyandinterviewdatafrom2011. The latter sub-chapter, entitled “Sociolinguistic Analysis of Survey and InterviewFindings” draws on the WP5 Report. Please note that survey findings are presented inChapter4onlysofarasdimensionsareconcerned.TheFocusAreasaredealtwithinmoredetailinChapter5,“Case-SpecificLanguageVitalityBarometer”.

4.1 LegalandInstitutionalAnalysis

bySiaSpiliopoulouÅkermark7

Withtheadoptionofthe1919Constitutionandthe1922LanguageAct,FinnishandSwedishwereaccordedthestatusofofficiallanguages,sothatFinlandhasbeenabilingualstateeversinceitscreation.Inaddition,theSámilanguagesandculturehavebeenaccordedaspecialplace in the legal system inFinland.Therightof theSámi touse their language indealingwiththeauthoritieswasintroducedin1991intheSámiLanguageAct.The1999Constitutionguarantees the right of the indigenous Sámi people to maintain and develop their ownlanguageandculture,anditalsoguaranteestherightoftheSámito linguisticandculturalself-governmentintheirnativeareas.

While Estonian-speakers are the fourth-largest language group in Finland after Finnish,Swedish andRussian,most of the Estonian-speakers are relatively recent immigrantswhohavenotacquiredFinnishcitizenship.Estonianisnotseenasanationalminoritylanguage.

There is a long political and legal tradition in Finland in dealing with minorities andlanguages,butthisfocuseson“old”minorities.Foralongtime,however,thelegislationthatregulateseducationhasforeseenthepossibilityofteachingoflanguagesotherthanthetwoofficial languages, and private schools providing foreign language medium teaching wereforeseen in a law dating from 1963. There is, however, no tradition of dealing withimmigrantlanguagesinlegislation.

Thelackofclarityastowhichlanguagesareentitledtowhattypeofprotectionbythestateis considered problematic. The problem concerns languages that are not explicitly

7ThisisasummarybasedonthedetailedanalysisbyGrans(2011).


43

mentioned in specific legislation. This is exemplified by the contradictory opinions ofdifferentministriesregardingthegrantingofsupportformeasurestoprotect,maintainanddevelop the Karelian language. At the same time, the relevant authorities do notwish tointroducelegislationthatspecificallydeclaresKareliantobeaminoritylanguage.Theofficialposition is that if the state were to list the minorities included in this notion as “othergroups”inSection17(3)oftheConstitution,thiswillinevitablyleadtotheriskofexcludingsomegroupsthatmayappear inFinland inthe future,andthereforeanopendefinition ispreferable.The lackofanunambiguous interpretationof theConstitutionalso leads toanunequalamountofattentionbeinggiven todifferent languagegroups.WhileFinlandnowreportsto internationalhumanrightsbodiesonalmostallofthe languagesthathave longbeenspokeninFinland, itonlyreportsononeimmigrant language,Russian,andhereonlyregardingthesituationoftheso-called“oldRussians”.

While thereare languagepolicyprogrammes forRomani, Sámiand theSign LanguagesofFinland,thereareasyetnoequivalentprogrammesforKarelianorEstonian.

Languagediversityasagoalatthesocietallevelisimplicitintheconstitutionalnotionoftwonationallanguagesandthecollectiveconstitutionalrightoflinguisticgroupstomaintainanddevelop their own language and culture. While there is no governmental policy thatexplicitly emphasisesmultilingualism as a goal, multilingualism at the individual level haslong been implicit in the education system,where learning “the other national language”(i.e. Finnish for Swedish-speakers and Swedish for Finnish-speakers) in primary school hasuntilnowbeenobligatory,ashasthelearningofforeignlanguages.

4.2 MediaAnalysis

byReettaToivanen

The aim of the media discourse analysis 8 in Finland was to determine how minoritylanguages, language maintenance, language loss and revitalization are discussed in themajorityversustheminoritylanguagemedia.Further,theresearchwasconceivedinorderto obtain further information on developments in the area of interethnic relations in thestudiedcountries.Theunderlyingassumptionsharedbytheseparatecountryanalysiswasthatthewaythemediacommentonlanguageminoritieseventuallyreferstothecontextinwhichalanguageminorityseekstomaintainandrevitalizeitsmothertongue.Theattitudesshared in the majority media explain, to a certain extent, the attitudes of the majoritysocietytowardsminoritylanguagecommunities.Theopinionsandattitudesintheminority

8TheactualresearchontheEstonian-languagemediainFinlandandontheFinnishmajoritymediawascarriedout by Sonja Laitinen at the University of Helsinki, who was trained to use a manual for media discourseanalysis. Themanual included questions and advice regarding how the researchers should process the vastamount of material and come up with illustrative examples and answers concerning legislation, education,mediaandlanguageuseandinteraction.


44

mediatellaboutthechallengesandopportunitiestheminoritycommunityissharingwithitsownmembers.

The key questions ofmedia discourse analysis can be summarised as follows: 1. How areminoritiesdiscussedinthemajorityandminoritymedia?2.Howaremajorityandminoritymedia positioned or how are they positioning themselves and each other in the field ofmedia?3.Howdothemajorityandminoritymediainformthepublicaboutdevelopmentsinthe fieldof intergroup relations?4. Is themaintenanceof languagesa topicandhow is itdiscussed? 5. What kinds of roles and functions are assigned to majority and minoritylanguagesinthemedia?

In order to acquire a longitudinal approach to the material and also address issuesconcerning the change in the status and situation of the studied minority languagecommunities,threedifferentperiodswerechosenfortheactualanalysis.Thetimeperiodschosen for closermedia discourse analysis in Finlandwere firstly February to April 1998,when the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the FrameworkConvention for theProtectionofNationalMinorities entered into force, secondly autumn2005,andthirdlyNovember2010–January2011.

InFinlandtheanalysiswasconductedwithafocusontheKarelianandEstonianlanguagesgroups.ThischaptersummarisestheresultsofthemediadiscourseanalysisontheEstonian-languageminoritymediainFinlandandtheFinnishmajoritymedia.

Although Estonians in Finland can be considered to be a large minority (28,965 in31.12.2010,accordingtotheFinnishImmigrationService),therearealmostnomediaintheEstonianlanguage.Estonian-speakersdonothavetheirownEstonian-languageTVorradioprogrammes. Some Estonian TV channels can be watched via satellite, and Estoniannewspapers can be read on the Internet. Finnish Estonians used to have an Estonian-languagemagazinecalledEestiLeht (1997–2003), laterBinokkel (2003–2004),whichwasaquarterlypublicationof theEstonianClubofTampere. In2005ablogtookoverBinokkel’smission.9Some of the old issues of Eesti Leht andBinokkel can be read online. In recentyearstheblog/websitehasnotbeenupdatedoften.ThelastupdateswereinFebruaryandMay2011,andbeforethatinNovember2008.TherearealsootherblogswrittenbyFinnishEstonians,buttheyarealsoupdatedirregularly.ThemainchannelsofinformationexchangeamongEstonians in Finlandare, for example, different communities on Facebook and thewebsitesoflocalsocietiesofFinnishEstonians(Praakli2010).

Both Helsingin Sanomat andKaleva, themajoritymedia analysed in this researchproject,write frequently onminorities,minority education, new laws and languageuse.However,the Estonian-speaking minorities of Finland are seldom dealt with in those publications.Most of the articles that address minority languages or language minorities deal with

9 2005–2007: http://eestileht.kolhoos.ee and 2007–2009: http://eestlasedsoomes.wordpress.com.


45

Swedish-speaking Finns, Sámi communities in the North or immigrants – sometimesEstoniansarealsoincludedinthisgroup.Estoniansarenotgrantedanyspecialstatus;theyaresimplyimmigrantsamongothers.VeryfewarticlesdealwiththeEstonianlanguageandits maintenance in Finland. It can be said that in the majority media discourse, minoritylanguage issues are dealt with quite often, but the Estonian-language minorities are notrepresented.

TheEstonianmedia are almostnon-existent in Finland, andadiscourse analysis basedonnewsletters and social media did not reveal much regarding Estonian-speakers’ interests,motivations or goals in Finland. The children of Estonian-speakers do enjoy regulareducation in theirmother tongue, as do all childrenwith a foreignmother tongue. Eventhough there must be problems involved with organizing lessons and finding qualifiedteachers, forsomereasonEstonian-speakersarenotcomplaining,andarenotmakinganydemandsfromFinnishsocietyorgovernment.Atmost,thediscoursecouldbedescribedasEstonianshopingthattheycancontinueusingEstonianwithoutbeingdiscriminatedagainst,butforthemlearningFinnishandusingitwiththeauthoritiesisafacttheymustaccept.

Estonians in Finland are not assumed to have any independent intentions regardinglanguagerightsandlanguageuse.Estonians’ownmediainFinlandarealmostnon-existent,and theassumption is thatanEstonian caneasily keepuphis/herEstonianknowledgebyreadingEstoniannewspapersorwatchingEstonianTVontheInternet.ManyEstoniansalsocommute between the two countries, at least during certain periods: the thousands ofEstonianswho live in Finlandonapermanentbasis and raise their children in Finlandareregardedinthemajoritymedialikeanyotherimmigrantcommunity.Whereas,forexample,theRussianminorityinFinlandmakessuchclaimsasdemandingahigherstatusforRussian,theEstonians,althoughsimilarinnumbers,aresilentontheirownagenda.

4.3 LanguageuseandInteraction

4.3.1 Mothertongue

The overwhelming majority (i.e. over 90%) of respondents identify themselves as nativespeakersofEstonian(intheminoritygroup)orFinnish(inthecontrolgroup).ForEstonians,sucha result is anticipated: although the studiedgroup is anEstonian community locatedoutsidethegeographicalbordersofEstonia,theoverwhelmingmajorityofrespondentsarefirst-generation immigrants who were born and brought up in Estonia and, as a rule,relocated to Finland in adulthood. It is likely that quite a different picture would haveemerged intermsof thedistributionofrespondentsbynative languageandself-identifiednativelanguage,hadthesurveyonlyincludedpeopleofEstonianoriginborninFinland.Dueto the background of minority group respondents, these survey results should beinterpretedfromtheperspectiveofasocio-linguisticstudyoffirst-generationimmigrants.


46

The number of respondents who identified themselves as speakers of multiple firstlanguages is quite small: around a tenth (17 respondents) ofminority group respondentsindicatedmorethanonelanguageastheirnativelanguage,mostlyEstonianandFinnish(6),EstonianandRussian(6)orIngrian-FinnishandRussian,i.e.regionallanguagesoftheIngrianterritory(5).

Multiplemothertongues NumberofrespondentsEstonian+Finnish 6Estonian+Võro 1Estonian+Russian 6Russian+Finnish 2Estonian+German 1IngrianFinnish+Russian 1 17

Table4.Multiplemothertongues

It is Ingria in the former Soviet Union that the majority of speakers of multiple nativelanguagesare from.Onlya fewrespondentsof Ingrian-Finnishorigin indicatedEstonianastheir native languageor oneof their native languages: in general, Ingrian Finnswere firstexposedtoEstonianaftermigratingtoEstoniaduringWorldWarII.Asarule,Estonianisasecond (nota foreign) language to them,becauseall respondentsof Ingrian-Finnishoriginhad acquired Estonian in early childhood or as primary school students. In terms of theirlinguistic background (number of native languages, languages used in childhood years tocommunicatewithparentsandgrandparents,languageofcommunicationbetweenparentsetc.),IngrianFinnsarethemostheterogeneousgroupincludedinthesurvey.Nevertheless,respondents born in the former territory of Ingria identify their native language(s)differently.Also,theconceptofnativelanguagehasshiftedinthemindsofsomeEstonianwomenwhomigrated toFinlandafter theeastwardenlargementof theEUandwhonowidentifyFinnishastheir‘new’post-emigrationnativelanguage.(“WhenIlivedinEstonia,mynative languagewasEstonian,butnowit isFinnish.”) ItshouldbementionedthatallsuchstatementsweremadebyEstonianwomeninthe25-35agegroup.

Due to the background ofminority group respondents, itwas expected that the share ofthose identifyingEstonianas theirnative languagewouldbe that large (91.1%). Thegreatmajority of respondents were born and brought up in Estonia, having acquired Estonianthroughgenerationalcontinuity, inanatural languageandcommunicationsetting,throughimmediate interaction with parents, grandparents and an Estonian-language community.Theintervieweesalsotendtodefinetheirnativelanguageinsimilarterms:anativelanguageisa languagewithwhichtheyhavean“emotionalbond”or“the languageacquiredfirst inlife”.Thefactthattheoverwhelmingmajorityofrespondentsidentifythemselvesasnativespeakersof Estonian is also reflected in the self-assessment scoresof their language skills(see 4.3.3). Respondents assessed their proficiency in Estonian as follows: excellentunderstanding (92.1%),excellentspeaking (89.3%),excellentreading (89.9%)andexcellent


47

writingskills (82%). Inthecontextofthesurveyrespondents,Finnish isa foreign languageacquiredasathirdorfourthlanguageinadulthoodafteremigratingfromEstonia.

4.3.2 Crossandintra-generationallanguageuse

Aclear-cutEstonian-basedlanguageidentityoftherespondentsemergesfromtheiranswerson inter- and intra-generational languages of communication, reflecting generationalconsistency intheuseofEstonian:themajorityofrespondents(over86%) interactedwithpaternal and maternal grandparents in Estonian only. A different language/languages ofcommunication(asarule,Finnish,Ingrian-Finnish,RussianorVõruorcombinationsthereof)was/were used in 10% of respondents’ homes. Such respondents weremainly of IngrianFinnishorigin.

Also,the languageofcommunicationwithparentswaspredominantlyEstonian.Childhoodlanguagechoiceshavegenerallyremainedstableandthe languageofcommunicationwithparentsinchildhoodisthesameasinadulthood.Assuch,thereisnoreasontotalkaboutalanguageshift.Theuseofother(native)languagesormultilingualcommunicationpatternsisrare.

In terms of intra-generational language choices, respondents were asked to answerquestionsonthelanguageofcommunicationbetweentheirparents.TheresponsesindicatethatEstonianispredominantly(87%)usedhereaswell.Asforothermonolinguallanguagechoices,14respondentsindicatedFinnish(incl.Ingrian-Finnish),Russian(6)andSwedish(1);inisolatedcasesthefollowinglanguagecombinationswerementioned:Estonian-Russian(3);Estonian-Finnish(1);andEstonian-Swedish(1).

Therespondents’answersonlanguagesofcommunicationwithsiblingsinchildhoodandatthetimeofthesurveyrevealthatmonolingualEstonian-languageinteractionisdominantinthisaspectaswell,i.e.themajorityused(91%)andstilluse(88%)Estoniantocommunicatewiththeirsiblings.Asforother languagesofcommunication,Finnish(incl. Ingrian-Finnish),Russian (1), Swedish (1) and combinations of Estonian-Finnish (3), Russian-Finnish (3) andRussian-Estonian-Finnish(1)werementioned.

The respondents’ language choices regarding communicationwith their child/children arecharacterisedbythepredominantuseofEstonian,i.e.themajorityuseEstoniantointeractwith their younger as well as older children. Across inter- and intra-generationalcommunication and other interaction, the most multilingual is communication betweenrespondents and their spouses/significant others, in which various language choices arerevealedanddifferentpatternsandstrategiesofmultilingualinteractionareemployed.Thelanguageofcommunicationofminoritygrouprespondentswiththeirspousesorsignificantothers is solely Estonian in 30% of cases, while 42% of respondents interact with theirspouse or significant other solely in Finnish or another language (for example, English,Russian,SwedishorGerman);aroundathird interact inmorethantwolanguages, inmostcases Estonian and Finnish. Analysis of the respondents’ answers on the use of two


48

languagesrevealsthatFinnishisemployedasthemainlanguageofcommunicationbetweenspouses and Estonian is used for specific functions and purposes. Likewise, the use ofEstonian depends on such factors aswho the interaction partner is,what the subjects ofconversationare,whetherothersareinvolvedintheconversationandwheretheinteractiontakesplace.

Figure2.Cross-generationallanguageuse

Figure3.Intra-generationallanguageuse

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%

withyoureldestchild

withyouryoungestchild

withfather(childhood)

withfather(now)

withmother(childhood)

withmother(now)

withpaternalgrandparents

withmaternalgrandparents

Cross-genera�onallanguageuseEstonian

Cross-genera�onallanguageuseFinnish

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Withpartner

Witheldersiblings(childhood)

Witheldersiblings(now)

Withyoungersiblings(childhood)

Withyoungersiblings(now)

Parents:fatherwithmother

Parents:motherwithfather

Cross-genera�onallanguageuseEstonian

Cross-genera�onallanguageuseFinnish


49

Control group. Similarly to theminority group, the inter- and intra-generational languagechoicesofthecontrolgrouprespondentsarecharacterisedinthemajorityofcases(82.8%)bymonolingualinteractioninFinnish.

4.3.3 Self-reportedlanguagecompetence

Thenextsub-sectionanalysestherespondents’languageskills–basedonself-assessment–inminority,majorityandforeignlanguages.Respondentswereaskedtoratetheirlanguageproficiency on a five-point scale: understanding, reading, speaking and writing skills asexcellent, good, moderate, basic or non-existent. The actual language skills of therespondents were not tested, which means that the results are based on subjectiveassessment. First, the respondents from both groupswere asked to evaluate their nativelanguageskills(Estonian,FinnishorSwedishrespectively).

EstonianandFinnishlanguageskills

The fact that almost all respondents identify themselves as native speakers of Estonian isreflectedintheirself-assessmentscoresinallareasofwrittenandoralself-expressionskills.RespondentsratedtheirEstonianlanguageproficiencyasfollows:understanding–excellent(92.1%), speaking – excellent (89.3%), reading – excellent (89.9%) andwriting – excellent(82%).

Figure4.Self-reportedcompetenceinEstonian

For themajority of respondents Finnish is a third or fourth foreign language acquired inadulthood. However, the level of Finnish language skills varies: only around half of therespondents indicate that their Finnish language proficiency is at the native speaker levelandathirdratetheirskillsasgood.Asexpected,respondentsratetheirorallanguageskills

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

write

read

speak

understand

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

notatall


50

morehighlythantheirwrittenskills,andonlyathirdareabletoexpressthemselvesfluentlywhen writing in Finnish. Thus, it can be concluded that while the language skills of themajorityofrespondentsareexcellentorgood,thisappliesmoreoftentooralskillsorspokenlanguage.

As for Finnish language skills across sex, age and level of education, those ofwomen arebetter than those of men: while 40% of female respondents rate their speaking skills asexcellent, the same figure among men is just 12.5%. Such a drastic difference mayapparently be explained with the professional activities of women (in the spheres ofeducation,researchandserviceprovision)requiringaverygoodcommandofFinnish.Acrossdifferent age groups, Finnish language skills were rated highest in the 50-64 age group,followedbythe30-49and18-29agegroups.Asforthedistributionofrespondentsbylevelof education, those with secondary education have the best Finnish language skills, butgenerallydifferencesacrosslevelsofeducationareinsignificant.

Therespondents’self-assessmentoflanguageproficiencyalsoprovidesaninsightintotheirlanguage-learning strategies. Around half of the respondents (41.6%) have nevermade aconsciousefforttolearnFinnish,buthaveinsteadacquiredthelanguagethrougheverydayinteraction or with the help of Finnish television. Many did not consider it necessary toconsciouslyorpurposefullylearnFinnish,referringtothecloselinguisticrelationsbetweenitand Estonian. The majority of respondents have acquired Finnish in adulthood throughverbal interactionwhile living inaFinnish-languageenvironment.A few respondentshaveacquiredFinnishoutsideofthissettingbyconsciouslylearningthelanguage.

Figure5.Self-reportedcompetenceinFinnish

Minority group respondents were also asked to assess their proficiency in other foreignlanguages: English, Russian, Swedish and German, and an optional language whichrespondents could specify themselves. The survey results revealed that the respondentshavethebestskillsinRussian:half(54-58%)ratedtheirunderstanding,speakingandreading

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

write

read

speak

understand

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

notatall


51

skills inRussianas excellentor good,while theirwritten self-expression skills scoresweresomewhatlower:43.2%ofallrespondentsassessedtheirwritingskillsasexcellentoratthenative speaker level.Ahandful of respondentshaveanexcellent commandof SwedishorGerman:forSwedish,thefigureisaroundtenrespondents,whileforGermanacouplemore.

Figure6.Self-reportedcompetenceinRussian

AlthoughthelevelofEnglishlanguageproficiencyvariesconsiderablybetweenrespondents,itcanbeclaimedthatthemajorityareabletounderstand,read,speakandwriteEnglishtoacertaindegree;12.5%oftherespondentsratedtheirEnglishlanguageskillsasexcellentandaroundaquarter(25.7%)asgood.11-15%oftherespondentsdonothaveanyEnglishskillswhatsoever.

Figure7.Self-reportedcompetenceinEnglish

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

write

read

speak

understand

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

notatall

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

write

read

speak

understand

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

notatall


52

Figure8.Self-reportedcompetenceinSwedish

Figure9.Self-reportedcompetenceinGerman

The results of the individual and focus groups interviews show that all informantscommunicateinseverallanguagesonadailybasis.ThemainareafortheuseofEstonianinFinland is informant’s family and social networks. The vast majority of informants useEstoniandaily:astheinformantAG4fstresses,‘Iliveabroad,buttoalargeextentmylifeisdominated by Estonian’. [Ma elan küll välismaal, aga väga suur osa minu elus onülekaalukalteestikeeles.]

Control group. In terms of language skills, the control group respondents differ from theminority group respondents in that the former have a better knowledge of two foreignlanguages, i.e. EnglishandSwedish. These results canbeexpected: Swedish is the second

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

write

read

speak

understand

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

notatall

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

write

read

speak

understand

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

notatall


53

officiallanguageofFinlandandlearningitinFinnishgeneraleducationinstitutions(schools)is compulsory for everyone whose native language is Finnish. Better English languageproficiencyamongthecontrolgrouprespondentscanbeexplainedbythefactthatformostrespondentsEnglishis,afterSwedish,theirsecondforeignlanguageandis learntatschoolfromquiteearlyon.Minoritygrouprespondents,incontrast,raisedin(Soviet)Estonia,haveoften learntRussianas their first foreign languageandGermanor English as their secondforeignlanguage,dependingontheirplaceofresidence.

Anticipated differences are also evident in Finnish language skills. Finnish is the native orsecondlanguage(forSwedish-speakingFinns)foralmostallofthecontrolgroupmembers.To generalise the results for Finnish language skills, it couldbe said that almost all of therespondents (95.9-98.6%)haveanexcellentcommandofFinnish inall languageareasandthat there are no respondents who do not know any Finnish. Only a few respondentsassessedtheirskillsinFinnishinacertainareaaslessthanexcellent.

Nearlyall respondentsdescribe their capability tounderstand theirmother tongue (eitherSwedishorFinnish)as“fluent”(97%).Theremaining3%selectedtheoptions“well”(2%)or“fairly”(1%).

Figure10.Self-reportedcompetenceinCGrespondents’mothertongues

AmajordifferencecanbeobservedbetweentheEnglishlanguageskillsofEstoniansandofthe control group respondents:while on average 14.5% of Estonian respondents have anexcellentcommandofEnglish,34%ofthecontrolgrouprespondentshaveexcellentverbalandwrittenEnglishskills.Inthecontrolgroup,onlyveryfewdonotknowEnglishatall.

Although Swedish is the second official language of Finland and the control grouprespondents are more widely exposed to Swedish than Estonians, the Swedish languageskills among the control group respondents vary widely, and just a small share of

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

understand

speak

read

write

fluently

well

fairly

poorly

not at all


54

respondents (9.2-22.3%acrossvariousareas)haveanexcellentcommandofSwedish.ThereadingskillsofSwedishwereratedhighest(asexcellentby22.3%)andwritingskillslowest(asexcellentby9.2%).However,aroundhalfoftherespondentsratetheirSwedishlanguageproficiency as good or are able to read/speak/write/understand Swedishmoderately. Theshare of respondents who do not speak any Swedish is quite small, and just 10.7% ofrespondents do not understand any Swedish. The share of respondents who understandSwedish (16.9-22.1%depending on the area of language use assessed) but have a criticalopinion of their speaking, reading and writing skills, rating them as non-existent, issomewhathigher.

It is evident that German or French are not the main foreign languages among therespondents.JustafewcontrolgrouprespondentshaveanexcellentorgoodcommandofGermanorFrench inall languageuseareas.Themajorityof respondentsdonothaveanyskillsintheabove-mentionedlanguages.

Inadditiontothepreviouslyindicatedlanguages,thecontrolgrouprespondentswereaskedtoassesstheirlanguageskillsintwootherlanguagesoftheirchoice.Therespondentsmostlyincluded Spanish and Italian, followed by Russian. Some respondents also know Estonian,Hebrew,Norwegian,Danish,Hungarian,Basque,Latin,Slovak,PortugueseandJapanesetoacertainextent.

Summary. In terms of the language skills of minority andmajority group respondents, itcouldbegeneralisedthattheirhistoryof learningforeign languagesand language-learningtraditionsaredifferent,duetotheirbackgrounds,andthesedifferencesarereflectedinthesurveyresults.Fortheminoritygrouprespondentsthemost importantforeign language isRussian,which they knowsignificantlybetter thanEnglishorGerman. In comparisonwiththe minority group, the control group respondents have a better command of Finnish,SwedishandEnglish.TheshareofminorityandmajoritygrouprespondentswhoratedtheirFinnish, English, Swedish and German language skills across all language use areas asexcellentispresentedinTable6.


55

Languageandsurveygroup

Under-standing(%)

Reading(%) Speaking(%) Writing(%)

Finnish MinGroup 55.6 64.1 51.5 36.8MajGroup 97.3 98.6 97.2 95.8English

MinGroup 13.4 17.3 12.5 13.4MajGroup 37.3 39.3 31.6 27.6Swedish MinGroup 1.9 4 2.9 4MajGroup 17.6 22.3 12.3 9.2German MinGroup 2.6 4.4 2.6 0.9MajGroup 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5

Table5.Self-reported"fluent"competenceinFinnish,English,SwedishandGerman

4.3.4 Domain-specificlanguageuse

Thenextsub-sectioncoverstherespondents’ languagechoices invariousareasof life.TheminoritygroupwasaskedtoratetheirfrequencyofuseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishandthe majority group was asked to rate their frequency of use of Finnish and English. Theresultsforbothgroupsarereviewedforcomparison.

As the results indicate, the opportunities that the minority group has to use Estonian inFinlandarequitelimited,butnotcompletelyabsent.AnalysisshowsthatEstonianismainlyusedathomeand/orinthefamilycircleandamongfriends.However,therearerespondentswhoonlyuseEstonianasa languageofcommunication informalsituations. Inallareasoflanguage use, the prevailing language of communication among the control grouprespondents(i.e.for85%ofthem)isFinnish.

Languageuseathome. Ingeneral, theminoritygrouprespondentsuseEstonianathome.However, the home domain is the most heterogeneous of all language choice spheres,because other languages in addition to Estonian and Finnish are indicated as homelanguages. Still, the survey results show that themajorityof respondents (69%) solelyuseEstonian as their home language, while around a quarter (27.2%) solely use Finnish.However, it could be claimed on the basis of the survey results that in reality thecommunicationinmanyhomesismultilingual,featuringparalleluseofFinnishandEstonianoranotherthird language.Althoughonlyaquarterof respondents indicatedthat theyuseFinnishathome, the results show thataround37%of themalsouseFinnishmoreor lessfrequently (multiple choice answer ‘often’). Hence, it can be concluded that the actualsphereofuseofFinnishiswiderandthatFinnishismoreorlessusedinaround64%oftherespondents’ families. As for answers given on not using Estonian and Finnish, only onerespondent indicated that they never use Estonian, while one tenth (9.5%) use Estonianrarely.Similarly,answersonnotusingFinnishreveal that11.3%of respondentsclaimthattheyneveruseFinnishastheirhomelanguage.Usingother languages(primarilyEnglishor


56

anotherlanguage)asahomelanguageisrare:Englishisusedtocertaindegreeinjustafewrespondents’families.ThreerespondentsuseanotherlanguageapartfromFinnishorEnglishastheirbasic languageofcommunication;12respondents indicatedusingother languagesapartfromEnglishandFinnishfromtimetotime.

Estonian(%) Finnish(%) English(%)

Always 69 27.2 3.4

Often 12.7 24.5 3.4

Sometimes 8.2 12.6 10.2

Seldom 9.5 24.5 25

Never 0.6 11.2 58

Table6.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishathome

Estonianistheprevailinglanguageusedincommunicationwithcloserelatives,whilearoundaquarterofrespondents“always”or“often”useFinnishtointeractwithcloserelatives.

The language use of the control group in the home domain is characterised byhomogeneoususeofFinnish:almostall respondents (93%)useonlyFinnishas theirhomelanguage.Asforotherlanguages,tworespondents(2.4%)useEnglishastheirregularhomelanguageandEnglish is usedas ahome languagealongside Finnish in the familiesof fourrespondents(4.9%).

Language use with friends. Similarly to the home domain, Estonian is also the primarylanguage of communication with friends. Themajority of respondents (72.4%) claim thatthey“always”(47.4%)or“often”(25%)useEstonianwheninteractingwithfriends;onlyfourrespondentsindicatethattheyneveruseEstonianinthissphereofcommunication.TheuseofFinnishasalanguageofcommunicationnetworksisunlimited,althoughanswersgivenontheuseofFinnishindicate(similarlytodataonlanguageuseinthehomedomain)thatbothlanguagesareactivelyused in interactionwith friends.Thedata indicates thatasmanyas71%of the respondentsuseFinnishas theirmainor frequent languageof communicationwithfriendsandaroundathirdclaimtouseonlyFinnishwheninteractingwiththeirfriends.Lessthanatenthoftherespondents(7.1%)neveruseFinnishintheircommunicationwithfriends. Apart from Finnish, English is the secondmost important language of interactionwith friends: around23%of the respondentsuseEnglishasa languageof communicationevery now and then and 3.3% of the respondents regularly use it as a language ofinteraction.


57


Always 47.4 30.3 3.3

Often 25 40.7 15.4

Sometimes 12.2 14.8 20.9

Seldom 12.8 7.1 23.1

Never 2.6 7.1 37.3

Table7.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishwithfriends

ThecontrolgrouprespondentsmainlycommunicatewiththeirfriendsinFinnishandaroundhalf(51.7%)indicatethattheyuseEnglish“often”or“sometimes”;aroundaquarter(23.4%)claimthattheyuseotherlanguagesofcommunicationbesidesFinnishandEnglish“often”or“sometimes”.Aroundaquarter(23%)oftherespondentsneveruseEnglishwheninteractingwiththeirfriends.

Asforinteractionwithneighbours,theprevailinglanguageusedbyEstoniansisFinnish,andin some cases English. However, using Estonian is not ruled out for Estonians: responsesindicate that aroundaquarter (21%) “always”or “often”useEstonian in their interactionwith neighbours. Using Estonian to such a degree in this sphere is probably possible forrespondents living inHelsinkiarea.Thecontrolgrouprespondentsnearly“always”(92.8%)communicatewiththeirneighboursinFinnish.

Languageuseatwork. Finnishistheprevailinglanguageusedintheworksettingforbothminorityandmajorityrespondents(i.e.for80.7%oftheminorityandfor82%ofthecontrolgroup).Forbothgroups,another important languageused intheworksetting isEnglish;afewrespondentsfromtheminoritygroupcanuseEstonianattheirplaceofwork.Onlyfiveinformants from the minority group claim that they never use Finnish. Almost 20% ofminoritygrouprespondentsuseEnglishasaregularoroneworkinglanguageandfor3.4%ofthem English is the main working language. Although the work setting of control grouprespondents is also predominantly Finnish-based, a third use English as their workinglanguage and for 3.5% of these English is themainworking language. Five control grouprespondents (5.6%) use another language apart from Finnish and English as their regularlanguageofcommunicationintheworksetting.


58


Always 8.9 80.7 3.4

Often 12.9 13.3 17.1

Sometimes 12.9 1.5 34.1

Seldom 33.9 0.7 19.3

Never 31.4 3.8 26.1

Table8.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishatwork

Language use in various public domains. Finnish is the predominant language ofcommunication inotherareasof life,usedby themajorityof theminority (70-81.2%)andmajoritygrouprespondents(83.7-92.4%).AlthoughinformallanguageusesettingsFinnishisthe dominant language of interaction for both groups, language choices of the minoritygroupvarytoalargerdegreeandEnglishaswellasEstonianareusedasotherlanguagesofcommunication. However, this specific result should be taken with a pinch of salt: it ispossible that in describing their language choices in formal language use domains,respondentswerereferringtointeractioninanEstonian-basedlanguagesettinginEstonia.Butifweassumethatthisdataisreliable,14.6–16.5%oftherespondentsonlyuseEstonianwheninteractingwithpublicservants,shopping,onthestreet,atchurchandatthelibrary.

Frequency:always Estonian(%) Finnish(%) English(%)inshops 16.6 79.8

inthestreet 15.9 69.9 inthelibrary 16.5 80.3 2.4atchurch 14.7 68

withpublicauthorities 14.6 81.2 incommunityevents 13.1 71.4 1.2inotherdomains 28 70

Table9.Domain-specificuseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglish

Languageuseatschool.Theanswersgivenonlanguagechoicesinthesphereofeducationare somewhat problematic. Around half of the minority group respondents ignored thisquestion,whichisunderstandable,becausethemajorityofthemacquiredtheireducationinEstonia,beforemigratingtoFinland,thusregardingthequestionasirrelevant.Around20%oftherespondentsclaimthatthey“always”useEstonianinthesphereofeducation.86.8%ofthecontrolgrouprespondentsuseFinnishinthesphereofeducation.


59

Estonian(%) Finnish(%) English(%)Always 20 61.5 5.4Often 12.8 8.1Sometimes 2.4 1.3 24.3Seldom 16.5 3.9 12.2Never 61.1 20.5 50

Table10.UseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishatschool

Summary. Comparison of the domains of use of Estonian and Finnish confirms languagechoice patterns typical of immigrant groups, according towhich the sphere of use of thenative language is narrower the further away it is from the domestic sphere. In Finland,Estonian is primarily used at home and in communication networks and, in terms ofrespondents living in the capital and its surrounding areas, with neighbours. All forms ofinstitutional interaction are predominantly Finnish-based,with only a few exceptions (seeFigures11and12).

Figure11.UseofEstonianinvariousdomains

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

OtherCommunityeventsPublicauthori�es

ChurchLibraryStreetShopsSchool

NeighboursFriendsWork

Rela�vesHome

Always

O�en

Some�mes

Seldom

Never


60

Figure12.UseofFinnishinvariousdomains

Figure13.UseofEnglishinvariousdomains

Control Group.Theoverwhelmingmajorityof control group respondentsuseonly Finnishwhen interacting at home (93%), with relatives (89.1%), with friends (81.4%), withneighbours(92.8%),atschool(86.6%),inshops(89.1%),onthestreet(83.7%),atthelibrary(92.4%), at church (90.4%) andwith public servants (90.2%). English is first and foremostusedintheworksettingandwhencommunicatingwithfriends;inotherareasoflife,Englishis used less frequently. For the control group, it is the work setting that is the mostmultilingual area of language use: around a third of the respondents (31.4%) “always” or“often”useEnglishatwork.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Rela�vesHome

Always

O�en

Some�mes

Seldom

Never

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Rela�vesHome

Always

O�en

Some�mes

Seldom

Never


61

Opinionsandknowledgeaboutlanguageuseacrossdomains

UseofEstonian invariouspublicdomains (Q39).RespondentswerealsoaskedtoexpresstheiropinionsonwhetherEstonianshouldbeusedinvariouspublicdomainsinFinland(i.e.ontelevision,inpolicestations,parliament,hospitals,andcourt,ontheInternetandintheeducationsystem),byindicatingtheirendorsement(onafive-pointscalefromIdonotagreeatalltoItotallyagree)ofthestatementsintheformEstonianshouldbeusedin...

Estonians’opinionsontheneedtouseEstonianarenegative,i.e.anoverwhelmingmajorityisclearlyagainsttheuseofEstonianinpublicdomains(i.e.selectedtheoptionIdonotagreeat all or I do not quite agree).Of the statements listed above, respondents are most inagreementwith the statement that Estonian should be used in internet (45%) and in theeducationsystem(44.8%)whilethefewestagreedwiththestatementthatEstonianshouldbeused in theFinnishparliament (66.1%)andpolicedepartments (54.6%). The responsesaregiveninFigure14below.

Although thenumberof respondentswhogaveanegativeanswer ishigh, theanswers tothesequestions shouldbe interpreted in the lightof the interview results. Thus, it canbesaid that using Estonian in these important domains is not viewed as necessary becauserespondentsareknowledgeableofFinnish legislation,accordingtowhichtheycanusetheservices of interpreters speaking their native languagewhen communicatingwith govern-mentagencies–which, ina sense,ensures that thesepublic servicesarealsoavailable inEstonian.

Therespondents’answersshowthattheyrelyheavilyonthepossibilitytousetheservicesof official interpreters, which, on the one hand, makes it less unnecessary to translatelegislation, the websites of government agencies and other official information intoEstonian,but,ontheotherhand,alsoreducestheneedforrespondentstolearnFinnishandinteract inthe language.Severalrespondentsareofthefollowingopinion,referringtothenumberofEstonians in Finlandandongoing immigration: “Taking intoaccount the sizeofthe Estonian community in Finland, it should be possible to run errands in police depart-ments,atthepopulationregisterandinhospitalsinEstoniantoagreaterextent.”

Thethinkingofmanyrespondentsisaptlyputbyoneofthem:“NodoubtitwouldbenicetocomeacrossmoreEstonian-speakingpublicservants.Sadly,it’shardtoimaginethatonedaysomeonewhodoesn’t speakFinnishwillbeable tomanage inFinlandwithonlyEstonian.Our numbers here are too small for that and, what’s more, such a development mightprovokeresentmentamongthelocals.”

In addition to the previously mentioned government agencies, around half of therespondents (44.8%) think that Estonian should be used in the Finnish education system.Suchahighlypositiveattitudeistobeexpected,becauseintensivemigrationtoFinlandisanongoingprocessandpossibilitiestoobtaineducationintheirnativelanguagearebecomingmoreandmore relevant toEstonians living in thecountry.Therespondentsalsosaid that


62

againstthisbackgroundofintensiveimmigration,infuturemoreattentionwillbepaidtotheEstoniancommunityandtheimmigrants’needsintheeducationsystem.

Figure14.Respondents’opinionsonwhetherEstonianshouldbeusedincertainpublicdomains

The control group respondents’ views of the necessity of use of Estonian in the Finnishpublic sphere do not generally differ from those of Estonians, and they tend to have anegative attitude towards the use of a foreign language in the public sphere. They agreemost to the use of Estonian on television (21.1%), in hospitals (19.9%), in the educationsystem(17.6%),incourts(14.4%)andinpolicedepartments(14.2%),agreeingleastwithitsuseintheparliament(5.7%).

Usabilityof Estonian (Q59).TherespondentswerealsoaskedwhetherEstonian iseasytouseinmosteverydaysituations.(ThequestionwasmeanttorefertotheuseofEstonianinaminority situation, in Finland. However, this was not explicitly mentioned, and not allrespondentsinterpretedthequestionthisway.)Themajorityoftherespondents(63.4%)areoftheopinionthatEstonianiseasytouseinmosteverydaysituationswhile36.6%answeredthequestioninthenegative.

Thisquestionhasbeencommentedonindifferentways.Ingeneralitcanbesaidthatthoserespondents who have interpreted this question as referring to the situation in Finlandalmost unanimously think that in Finland (as in any other foreign country) using Estonianoutsideofone’shomeandfamilydomainissimplyimpossible:onehastoacceptthetermsand conditions of the majority country. Although most of the respondents state that inFinlandit isnotpossibletouseEstonianinpublic institutions,stores,servicesectorandatwork, several respondents think it possible that “depending on the place, individuals,officialsandcolleagues,itispossibletoliveinEstonianinFinland”and“inFinland,youcan

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

inTV

atpolicesta�on

intheparliament

inhospitals

incourt

oninternet

ineduca�onsystem

Itotallyagree

Isomewhatagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatal


63

run errands in Estonian”. It is only “at a doctor’s who doesn’t speak Estonian” that onecannotuseEstonian.

Incommentingonthequestion,severalrespondentshaveexpressedtheirsurprisethatthequestionwasaskedinthefirstplace.Intheiropinion,itisjustself-evidentthatinFinland–asinanyothercountrywhereEstonianisnotanofficiallanguage–onecannotexpecttobeable to use one’s native language in public interaction (“I live abroad, in a country withanotherlanguage”).Thecommentsofseveralrespondentsclearlyindicatethatthespeakersof aminority languagehave toaccept the languageand lawsof themajority country andabidebythem(“No,becauseonemustspeakFinnish(andSwedishandEnglish)inFinland”;“No, because to live in Finland, immigrants shouldbe able/have tospeak Finnish”; “No,becauseonemustacceptthelanguageofthisstate(Finland”).Anoverwhelmingmajorityofthe respondents believe that it is essential to speak Finnish and speaking it is a priority.Speaking Finnish is also seen as accepting the Finnish state and the Finnish people; forseveral respondents, knowingand speakingFinnish is likean “expressionof gratitude” forbeingacceptedasanimmigrantinFinland.

Although inanswering thequestion,most respondentshave thoughtofFinland, therearealsothosewhohaveproceededfromthesituationinEstoniaintheiranswersandcomments(emphasising that in Eastern Virumaa in Estonia, where the majority of the populationconsistsofRussian-speakingimmigrants,itisnotpossibletospeakEstonianinstores,publicinstitutions,etc.).

ThequestionhasalsobeeninterpretedintermsoftheexpressivecapacityoftheEstonianlanguage. For instance, in theopinionof several respondents, English ismore suitable forexpressingemotionsthanEstonianandtherearethingsthatareeasiersaidinEnglishthaninEstonian(suchasIloveyouorMom,Iampregnant!).

Levelofagreement (%)

Yes 63.4

No 36.6

Table11.Q59:IsEstonianeasytouseinmosteverydaysituations?

Knowledge about the use of Estonian in public domains (Q61). Respondents were alsoasked if, to their knowledge, Estonian is really used in various institutions (such as theparliament, police stations, tax offices, health insurance offices, and employment offices,etc.). According to themajority of the respondents (50.3-71.8%), Estonian is not used inthese domains or they had no knowledge about it. The responses are given in Figure 15below.


64

Figure15.ReporteduseofEstonianinpublicdomains

4.3.5 Languagesandlabourmarket

Respondents were asked to rate the following claims on a five-level scale (from I do notagree at all to I totally agree): proficiency in Estonian/Finnish/English helps in 1) findingone’sfirstjob,2)earningahighersalary,3)promotescareeradvancementand4)facilitateschangingjobs.

Accordingtotheminoritygrouprespondents, themost important languageontheFinnishlabourmarket isFinnish.As for theusefulnessof foreign languageson the labourmarket,thehighestvalueisattachedtoEnglish,whileEstonianisseenastheleastvaluablelanguageafter Finnish and English: more than half of the respondents (56.1-67.9% across variousstatements)disagreedwithallofthestatements,i.e.intheiropinionEstonianhasnovaluewhatsoever in termsof thepreviouslymentionedfunctions.Therespondentsagreedmost(albeitstillveryfewofthem)withthestatementsthatproficiencyinEstonianmightmakeiteasiertogetyourfirstjob(16%)ortomoveupthecareerladder(14.6%),whiletheyagreedleastwith the statement that Estonian language skills enable you to earn a higher salary(7.6%).

0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

intheparliamentatpolicesta�on

intaxofficeinhealthinsuranceoffice

inemploymentofficeinhospitals

incourtsinministries

inregionalandmunicipalofficesineduca�on

inprintedmediainradio

inTVinadver�sements(publicplaces)

inadver�sements(media)

yes

no

donotknow


65

Figure16.TheperceivedimportanceofEstoniancompetenceonthelabourmarket

Whatabouttherespondents’assessmentsoftheimportanceofFinnishandEnglishontheFinnishlabourmarket?AlmostalloftherespondentsagreewiththestatementthatknowingFinnishmakesiteasiertogetyourfirstjob(95.7%)andtochangejobs(92.6%).ThisleadstotheconclusionthatrespondentsconsiderproficiencyinFinnishinvaluablewhenenteringtheFinnishlabourmarketandseeitasthemostimportantlanguageinthiscontext.JustafewrespondentsquestionedtheimportanceofFinnish.Around87.7%ofrespondentsagreethatknowing Finnish promotes career advancement. According to the respondents, theconnectionbetweenproficiencyinFinnishandhigherpayisnotthatstrong:only60%wereconvincedthatknowingFinnishenablesyoutoearnahighersalary.

Figure17.TheperceivedimportanceofFinnishcompetenceonthelabourmarket

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Facilitatesfindingfirstjob

Facilitatesge�nghighersalary

Facilitatesadvancingincareer

Facilitateschangingjob

Itotallyagree

Iagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatall

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Itotallyagree

Iagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatall


66

Although the minority group respondents think that English language skills are alsonecessary on the Finnish labourmarket, they rate demand for English as secondary afterFinnish. The respondents agree most with the statement that knowing English makes iteasier to move up the career ladder (74.5%), change jobs (69.5%) and get your first job(68%),andleastwiththestatementthatitenablesyoutoearnahighersalary(50%).

Figure18.TheperceivedimportanceofEnglishcompetenceonthelabourmarket

Interviewdata.Comparingtheseresultswithqualitativedata(i.e. interviewresults), itcanbesaidthatexcellentEnglishskillsarefirstandforemostseenasameanstomoveupthecareer ladder in a multinational company. However, for unskilled workers, knowledge ofRussianisconsideredfarmoreimportantthanthatofEnglish.ThefactthatitisRussianthatrespondents consider the most important language in the Finnish context is also clearlyrevealedinanswerstoQuestion40,whererespondentswereaskedtonameonelanguagebesidesEstonian,Finnish,EnglishandSwedishwhose importancewould increaseover thenext tenyears inFinland.The results showthat themajorityof respondents (57)considerRussian themost important language in terms of the strengthening of its position in thecomingtenyears,followedbyChinese(17)andGerman(13).OrasoneEstonianrespondentputitverysuccinctly,reflectingtherespondents’generalopinion:“Asthenumberofwell-to-doRussiansinFinlandisgrowingfromyeartoyear,itisprobablethatmoreconcessionswillbemaderegardingthem.”

Control group. The answers of the control group respondents reveal analogous results:FinnishisconsideredthemostimportantlanguageontheFinnishlabourmarketandEnglishisseenasthemostimportantforeignlanguageinthegivencontext.Whileintheopinionofthemajorityofrespondents(93.15%)gettingyourfirst job iseasier ifyouspeakFinnishatnativespeaker level,nocorrelation is seenbetweenknowingFinnishandearningahighersalary. However, the majority of control group respondents are convinced that knowing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%





Itotallyagree

Iagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatall


67

Finnishatthenativespeakerlevelpromotescareeradvancement(77.4%)andfacilitatesthechanging of jobs (82.9%). The respondents’ assessments of the importance of English aresimilartothoseforFinnish:themajorityareconvincedthatknowingEnglishmakesiteasiertogetyour first job(87.5%),enablesyoutoearnahighersalary (69.4%),promotescareeradvancement(91.7%)andfacilitatesthechangingofjobs(90.3%).However,themajorityofcontrol group respondents (65.7%) were unable to indicate whether Finnish legislationsupports knowledge of various languages on the labour market; according to around aquarter(23.8%),therearerelevantlegalregulationsinplace.

ComparingtheimportanceofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishonthelabourmarket,Estonianisseenasalesssignificantlanguageinthiscontext:onlyasmallshareoftherespondentsthinkthatEstonianplaysanimportantroleingettingyourfirstjob(19.5%),earningahighersalary(17.2%),movingupthecareerladder(31.7%)andchangingjobs(26.2%).Atthesametime,around half of the respondents did not have a clear-cut position in this respect or wereunsureabouttheroleofEstonian,choosingtheoption“difficulttosay”.Thecontrolgrouprespondentsagreed leastwiththestatementthatknowingEstonianenablesyoutoearnahighersalary(38.6%)andmakesiteasiertogetyourfirstjob(34.3%).

Interview data. Comparing the survey resultswith the interview data, it can be said thatalmost all respondents agree or fully agree that the command of the Finnish language isabsolutelyessentialwhilelivingandworkinginFinland.Asexpected,theFinnishlanguageisconsideredtobethemost important language inthe labourmarket inFinland.Firstofall,high competence in Finnish is seen as the first condition for entering labour market orfacilitatingit.GoodcommandinFinnishisalsoseenasanadvantageinthelabourmarket.OurinformantsbelievethatallforeignersshouldhaveagoodcommandofFinnish.

Ontheotherhand,theimportanceofRussianskillsishighlyvalued.Accordingtoinformants,EstoniansbenefitofRussianskillsinFinlandandagoodcommandofRussianexpandstheiropportunities.OnecouldalsoclaimthatamongEstonianstheRussianlanguageisseenasasecond “local” important language besides Finnish. Of course, the need for Russian skillsdepends largely on the type of work or tasks at the workplace but according to theinformants,almosteveryoneofthemcommunicatesalsoinRussianatworkormustbeabletounderstandand talk inRussian in their professional life.Many jobs, for instance in theservice sector, require communication skills in Russian (for instance, Estonians assist theirRussian-speakingco-workersorFinnish-speakingcolleaguesincasethelatterhaveRussian-speakingclientsorpatientsinthehospitals.Accordingtotheinformants´,thecompetencesinEnglishseemstoberelativelyrareintheFinnishlabourmarket.(OnlyinthefocusgroupFG-AG3wastheEnglishlanguageofmoreimportancethanamongolderagegroups.)

Duetothenatureof theirwork,mostof the informantsusemultiple languagesonadailybasisatwork.Theparticipantsgavemanyexamplesofsituationswherestrongcommandoflanguages has been of great benefit. Comments below describe informants’ multilingualworkplaceorpracticesatwork:


68

AG2m´s workplace in Helsinki is fully Estonian-Finnish bilingual, so he uses bothEstonianandFinnishatwork:“ItonlydependsonthesituationifyouuseEstonianorFinnishwithacolleague.ItisusualthatyouspeakwiththesamecolleagueinpartinFinnish,inpartinEstonianduringtheday.SometimeswemixEstonianandFinnishinthesamesentence”,therespondentdescribedhislanguageuseatwork.AtAG1m´sworkplaceinHelsinki,acoupleofhiscolleaguescomefromEstonia,sohealso speaks a little bit Estonian at work. “On average, 2-3 sentences every day”,describedtheinformantthefrequencyofuseofhismothertongue.AG1mmainly uses Finnish atwork, butwith one colleague from Serbia he speaksEnglish. Sometimes, he has Finnish clientswho can speak Estonian andwho enjoyhavingthechancetocommunicateinEstonianwithanativespeaker.AG3fmainlyusesFinnishatwork,sometimesSwedishwithSwedish-speakingclients.Sometimes she communicates in Estonian andRussianwith a client of EstonianorRussianorigin.AG4mmostlyusesFinnishatwork.SometimesheisaskedforhelpbyhiscolleagueswhenthereisaRussian-speakingpatientwhocannotspeakanyotherlanguagethanRussian.HehasseldomusedEstonianwithpatientsfromEstonia.

One could claim that the daily language use in professional life of informants is verymultilingual: many informants work in multiethnic contexts and therefore need to com-municateinmanylanguages.Mostoftheinformantsareabletocommunicateintheirdailyand professional life in Finnish, some respondents also in Swedish, the majority also inEnglish.AnexcellentcommandofEnglishisfirstandforemostseenastheoptionformakinga career in an international company. On the other hand, in relation to the so-calledunskilledwork,RussianisregardedtobemuchmoreimportantintheFinnishcontextthanEnglish.ThefactthatintheFinnishcontexttherespondentsregardtheRussianlanguagethemostimportantlanguageisclearlyindicatedbytheanswersgiventoquestion40.

4.3.6 Languageplanningandmaintenance

Thesurveyquestionshelped tomap the respondents’awarenessof institutions inFinlandwhichareactive in the fieldsofEstonianandFinnish languageplanningandmaintenance.Minoritygrouprespondentswerealsoaskedwhetherthereisa“pure”formofEstonianandbywhomitisspoken.ThesurveyresultsindicatethattheawarenessofEstoniansaswellasFinns of language planning issues, relevant institutions, associations, advocates and theiractivity is rather poor, i.e. most respondents have no knowledge whatsoever of mattersrelated to language planning andmaintenance. Still, the survey revealed some surprisingresults:forexample,FinnishEstoniansviewtheTuglasSocietyanditsactivityasfulfillingthefunctionsofatypicalminoritylanguagesociety.

Institutions cultivating the Estonian language (Q55). The majority of minority grouprespondents (around 65.5%) are not aware of the existence of societies or institutions


69

engagedintheadvancementofEstonianinFinland.However,thecommentsaddedtothequestion show that the respondents understand the word “institution” in varied ways.Interestingly, 21outof all respondentswhohadanswered thisquestionpositivelynamedtheTuglasSocietyinHelsinkiasthemostimportantorasoneoftheinstitutions.Thisisun-expected,asthemainobjectiveoftheTuglasSocietyistheopposite:toacquaintFinnswithEstoniaandtheEstonianlanguageandculture.Yet,thecommentstothisquestionsuggestthat respondents residing in Helsinki attribute to the Tuglas Society all those tasks andfunctions thatmightbe typical of anyexpatriate Estonian society in theEstonianwesterndiaspora.ThesignificanceandroleoftheTuglasSocietyisemphasisedfirstandforemostbytheso-calledfirst-generationEstonianemigrantswhohavebeenlivinginFinlandforaveryshorttime.ManyofthemstresstheimportanceoftheTuglasSocietyinrelationtotheirfirstcontactwith the Finnish state and society (“InHelsinki, there is the Tuglas Society,whichhelpstheEstonianswhomovetoFinlandtogetontheir feet”); intwoquestionnaires,therespondentshavealsoclearly thankedtheTuglasSociety.Thecomments indicate that theactivitiesofthesocietyarenotassociatedwithcultivatingtheEstonianlanguageandcultureonly,butwithsupportingEstoniansandEstonianidentityinthebroadersense.Incontrast,theactivitiesoftheUnionofEstoniansinFinland(SoomeEestlasteLiit)oranyotherEstoniansocietiesinFinland(someofthemhavebeenactivefordecades)havenotbeenmentionedinanyofthequestionnaires,despitethefactthatthesesocietieshavetheexplicitobjectiveofsupportingEstoniansinFinland.ThusitcanbesaidthatintheunderstandingofEstoniansin Finland, the Tuglas Society performs the tasks of a multifunctional society and themajority of the Estonians in Helsinki see the Tuglas Society as the most important linkbetweenminorityandmajoritygroups; forseveral respondents, theTuglasSociety is theirfirst“springboard”toFinlandandtheirfirstcontactwiththeFinnishstateandpeople.


Donotknow 65.5

No 7.9

Yes 26.6

Table12.Q55:ArethereinstitutionswhichcultivatetheEstonianlanguage?

Theinstitutionsexplicitlynamedwere

• theTuglasSociety(TuglaseSelts/Tuglas-seura)• theEstonianCentreinHelsinki(EestiMaja/Viro-keskus)• theEstonianInstituteinHelsinki(EestiInstituut/Viro-instituutti)• the Association of Estonian organisations in Finland (Soome Eesti-seltside Liit /

SuomenViro-yhdistystenliitto)• theEstonianembassyinHelsinki• languageandculturecoursesofferedbyFinnishuniversities• Estonianschoolsingeneral• Finnishadulteducationcentres(Fintyöväenopisto,kansalaisopisto).


70

The importance of the Tuglas Society was highlighted both in individual and focus groupinterviews.Thecomments indicate that the informantshighlyvalue the roleof theTuglasSocietyandEstonianHouse inHelsinki.Many respondentsmentioned theactivitiesof theTuglas Society as a positive example of cultivating and supporting the use of Estonianlanguage in Helsinki. Some respondents expressed their gratitude to the Estophiles inFinlandwhohavebeenpromotingtheEstonian languageandculture inFinlandduringtheSovietperiod.

InstitutionscultivatingtheFinnishlanguage(Q56).ThesamequestionwasalsoaskedabouttheinstitutionscultivatingtheFinnishlanguage.Answersindicatethatalthoughthelevelofawarenessofrespondentsvaries,aroundathird(36%)arefamiliarwiththesubjectandabletonamevariousFinnishsocieties.Althoughthevastmajorityofrespondentsdonotknowofanyconcreteinstitution,theyassumethat“inacountrylikeFinland,societiesandlanguagecultivatorslikethesedefinitelyexist”.Thefollowing“institutions”werementioned:

• TheTuglasSociety• Finnishlanguagecourses,coursesofFinnishforforeigners(alloverFinland)• LanguageinstitutesinFinland• Finnishuniversities(especially:UniversityofHelsinki,UniversityofJyväskylä)• “languagedevelopers”• TheFinnishLiteratureSociety(www.finlit.fi)• The Institute for the Languages of Finland (Kotimaisten kielten keskus, KOTUS;

www.kotus.fi)• schools• Publicemploymentandbusinessservices(TE-palvelut,työ-jaelinkeinotoimisto)• linguists/researchers• thestateofFinland.


Donotknow 36

Yes 64

Table13.Q56:ArethereinstitutionswhichcultivatetheFinnishlanguage?

Controlgroup.Theresponsesofthecontrolgrouptothesamequestionsrevealasimilarlylowlevelofawareness:themajority(83.2%)arenotawareoftheexistenceofsocietiesororganisations actively engaged inpromoting Estonian in Finlandwhile 9.1%answered thisquestionaffirmatively.Asconcreteexamplesofinstitutionsandpersons,differentEstonian-FinnishfriendshipsocietieswerementionedaswellasthelinguistSanteriJunttilaandTarjaHalonen,the(former)presidentofFinland.

Theexistenceofapure/correctversionofEstonian(Q57).Thelastquestionintheseriesonlanguagepreservationtouchedupontheminoritygroup’snotionofthe“purity”ofEstonian:whether there is a “pure” form of Estonian and by whom it is spoken. Regrettably, thewordingofthequestion–firstandforemosttheterm‘languageform’–wasdifficultforthe


71

respondentstointerpret.Also,thequestionwasrenderedmorecomplicatedbytheabsenceof a geographical specification. Thus, it is not surprising that more than half of therespondentschosetheanswer“donot know”(53.4%)oransweredthata ‘pure’ languageform of Estonian does not exist (12%). About 34.6% of respondents gave an affirmativeanswer, associating a “pure” form of Estonian with Estonian mainstream media, publicbroadcasting, language researchers and teachers, but alsowithpublic figures,writers andthePresidentoftheRepublic.


No 12

Donotknow 34.6

Yes 53.4

Table14.Q57:Isthereapure/correctversionoftheEstonianlanguage?

The comments given to the question on the pure language variety of Estonian can begroupedintoseveralcategories.Asexpected,theuseof“pure”Estonianisassociatedwithmainstream Estonianmedia, national broadcasting, linguists and schoolteachers, but alsowith writers and public figures. Speaking “pure” Estonian is also associated with theinstitutionofthePresidentoftheRepublic,thoughnotwiththecurrentpresident(herebyitshouldbementioned that President Ilves grewup in theU.S.A. and speaksbothEstonianandEnglishashisnativelanguage).Asspeakersorusersofthe“pure”or“correct”Estonian,thefollowingpersonsandinstitutionswerementioned:

• Estonianlinguistsandprofessors;• ThePresidentoftheRepublicofEstonia,andtheFirstLadyEvelinIlves;• The Estonianmedia and EstonianPublicBroadcasting (ERR, ETV, Vikerraadio), daily

newspapersinEstonia;• TheformerpresidentoftheRepublicofEstonia,MrLennartMeri;• WrittenEstonian;• Writers;• A“well-educated”person/people/Estonians;• EstonianslivinginEstonia;• NewsreadersonTVinEstonia;• SomeprominentEstonianssuchasMarjuLauristin(scientist, professor),HeinzValk

(politician),MariTarand(writer),JaakAllik(politician),HeljuValk(linguist).• TeachersofEstonianlanguage;• Languageresearchers;• OldergenerationsofEstonians(grandfathersandgrandmothers);• EveryoneinEstoniawithasecondaryeducation.

Toquestion58–whetherthereisaneedtodeveloptheEstonianlanguagetofitsocialandpublicneeds–aboutahalfofrespondents(57.9%)answered“yes”.Atthesametimetheshareof therespondentswhodonothaveaclearopinionorwhohavenotansweredthe


72

questionsisrelativelyhigh(29.9%)aswell.Only12.2%oftherespondentsthinkthatthereisnotanyneedwhatsoevertodevelopEstonian.

Levelofagreement (%)No 12.2Donotknow 29.9Yes 57.9

Table15.Q58:IsthereaneedtodevelopEstoniantofitsocialandpublicneeds?

Attempts to save the Estonian language (Q60). The majority of Estonian respondents(73.2%)donot know whether andwhat kindofmeasureshavebeen taken in Finland toprotect Estonian or support its sustainability in Finland. Only 14 respondents out of 164(8.5%)haveansweredthequestionpositivelyandknowthatattemptshavebeenmadetoactivate the Estonian language. Because of its wording mainly, the question has seemedcomplicatedtotherespondentsandleftthemseveralinterpretingoptions.Therefore,thereis no ground to believe that such a big share of respondents do not actually have theiropinion in relation to the question. However, according to some respondents, differentattemptsweremade,mostlyrelatedtoteachingEstonianinFinland(inbasiceducation,atthe universities, at the Finnish Adult Education Centres ect.) and various activities by theTuglasSociety.


No 18.3

Donotknow 73.2

Yes 8.5

Table16.Q60:ArethereattemptstosavetheEstonianlanguage?

4.3.7 Supportandprohibitionoflanguageuse:ShouldchildrenlearnEstonian?

The following sub-section analyses the respondents’ attitudes toward supporting andobstructingtheuseofEstonianandFinnish.Thequestionsaskedoftherespondentshelpedtomap attitudes prevalent in the respondents’ childhood (e.g. at home and at school) aswell as their current attitudes toward using Estonian and Finnish and generational con-tinuity. The questions for the control group respondents were somewhat different: theirpurpose was to find out how Finns view the ‘incorrect’ use of Finnish and whether it isnecessarytoknowFinnishandteachaminority language(e.g.Estonian)atFinnishgeneraleducationinstitutions.Therefore,therespondentswereaskedwhetherintheiropinion(1)itisacceptabletospeakFinnishincorrectly,(2)whetherchildrenshouldhavetheopportunityto learntheirfirstornativelanguageatschool,(3)whetherteachingEstonianinFinlandis


73

necessary, and (4) whether the knowledge of Finnish is overrated (for example, on thelabourmarket).

SupportofparentsforspeakingEstonian. Itmustbeadmittedthatthequestionsaskedoftheminority group on supporting and obstructing the use of Estonian in their childhoodwere irrelevant to the majority of respondents and/or appeared out of place to them.AlmostallEstonianrespondentswerebroughtupinanaturallyEstonian-speakingenviron-ment in which their parents had no need to encourage their use of Estonian. Still, themajority (89.2%) gave an affirmative answer to thequestion. Thequestion receivedmoredetailed responses from informants of Ingrian-Finnish origin, who answered that theirparents, who were native speakers of Finnish, supported them as much as possible,dependingontheparents’commandof the language.Several respondentsdescribedtheirdomestic language choices inmore detail, emphasising their parents’ effort to avoid lan-guage-mixingathomeandinsistingonchildrenspeakingcorrectEstonian,sothat itwouldbecometheirnativelanguage.Theresultsaresummarizedintable18below.


No 10.8

Yes 89.2

Table17.ParentalsupportinusingEstonian

SupportofparentsforspeakingFinnish.Also,thequestionastowhetherparentssupportedspeakingFinnishornotdidnotmakeanysensetorespondentswhowerebornandbroughtupinEstonia:thiswasonlynatural,becausethemajorityofrespondentsarefirst-generationimmigrantswhorelocatedfromEstoniainadulthoodandacquiredFinnishindependently.Astowhetherparentssupported learningFinnish,therespondentspointedouttheirparents’moralsupportformigratingtoFinlandandnotspecifichelpwiththe language.Theircom-ments reveal thatmost of the respondents have learned Finnish independently,with thehelp of language courses or by interacting with Finns in a natural language setting. Onlythree respondents gavemore specific descriptions of their parents’ support for acquiringFinnish (e.g. one father helping towrite letters in Finnish; speaking Finnishwhen visitingFinnishfriendsinFinland;readingaloudtheFinnishBibletoarelative).


No 65

Yes 35

Table18.ParentalsupportinusingFinnish


74

Finally, respondentswereaskedwhether they themselves try tomake their children learnanduseEstonian(seetablebelow). 95outof170respondentsansweredthequestion,ofwhom 88.4% gave an affirmative answer, i.e. they consider it necessary for their child/childrentouseEstonianwhilelivinginaFinnish-languageenvironmentandtheysupporttheuse of Estonian. Their comments describe in detail various forms of support (differentlanguage learning methods and child-oriented activities at home and outside the home,reading Estonian books, watching Estonian children’s television programmes and films).11.6% of the respondents do not consider it important to teach their children Estonian,arguingthatthereisnoneedtouseorknowEstonianwhenlivinginFinlandorthatchildrenarenotinterestedinEstonianlanguageandculture.


No 11.6

Yes 88.4

Table19.Respondents’supporttotheirownchildreninlearningEstonian

Bycomparingtheresultswiththeanswersgivenduringoral interviews,onecouldsaythatrespondents in general have positive attitudes toward their children’s heritage languagemaintenance.However,someparentsdobelievethatacquiringahighlevelofproficiencyintheFinnishlanguageismoreimportantforthechildren’sfutureeconomicopportunities.

ControlGroup.ThequestionsforthecontrolgrouphelpedtomaptheattitudeofFinnstospeakingFinnishincorrectlyandthenecessitytolearnaminoritylanguage.Themajorityofrespondents(70.4%)aretolerantoftheincorrectuseofFinnish.Aninsignificantproportion(7.6%)thinksthatverygoodcommandofFinnishisabsolutelynecessary.

WhilethecontrolgrouprespondentsdisplayaclearattitudetotheincorrectuseofFinnish,a large share (up to a quarter) of the respondents do not have a clear-cut position onsupportingminoritylanguagesordidnotexpresstheiropinionclearly. Inconclusion, itcanbe stated that more than half of the respondents (57.6%) think that Finnish generaleducationschoolsshouldofferEstonian-languageeducation,providedthatEstonianisusedat home, while roughly a fifth (21%) are not in favour of providing Estonian-languageeducation.However,halfoftherespondents(49.3%)donotthinkthatFinnishlanguageskillsin the context of the Finnish labour market are overrated (e.g. when looking for a job),considering proficiency in Finnish important; around a quarter (27.2%) are of a differentopinion,thinkingthatproficiencyinFinnishisoverratedwhenlookingforajob.


75

However, attitudesprevalentamong theFinnishpublic to languagesused to interactwithchildrenathomeremainunclearduetotheproblematicandtooambiguouswordingoftherespectivequestion.

4.3.8 Languageattitudes

Thissub-sectionprovidesanoverviewoftherespondents’attitudestoEstonian,thecorrectand ‘pure’ way of speaking the language, the use of Estonian among different groups(distribution by age and sex), social interaction (getting acquainted, making friends orspending time)with speakers of Estonian, the need to use Estonian in the Finnish publicsphereandthefutureofvariouslanguagesinFinland.

WhoisexpectedtospeakEstonian?Inquestion33,respondentswereaskedtoindicate(onafive-pointscalefromIdonotagreeatalltoItotallyagree)whethertheyagreedwithsomestatementsaboutthe“mixingoflanguages”andthe“properuseofEstonian”;question37contained similar statements aboutwhether the use of Estonian is expected of adults oryoungpeople,offemalesormales.Themajority(79.2%)thinkthatitistheoldergenerationwhospeaks“correct”Estonian.Onthebasisofdistributionofspeakersbysexandage,theconclusion emerges that speaking Estonian in a multilingual setting is first and foremostexpectedofadultwomen;however,thistendencyisnotveryclear,andaconsiderablepartoftherespondentsselectedtheoption“difficulttosay”.

Figure19.Expectationsonlanguageusebyageandsex

InQ38,respondentswereaskedtoexpresstheiropiniononthe“easiness”ofvarioussocialcontacts with Estonian speakers. The results reveal that the majority of Estonianrespondents (62.4-78.2% across various interaction forms) agree that it is easy to get

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

YoungboysareexpectedtouseEstonian

YounggirlsareexpectedtouseEstonian

Grown-upmenareexpectedtouseEstonian

Grown-upwomenareexpectedtouseEstonian

Itotallyagree

Isomewhatagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatall


76

acquainted,becomefriendsandspendtimewithfellowcountrymeninFinlandaswellastoworktogether.

Figure20.StatementsaboutsocialcontactswithspeakersofEstonian

ControlGroup.Thecontrolgrouprespondents’answerstothesamequestionsindicatethatthey are not very familiar with the minority group or have had little contact with itsrepresentatives: the majority (62-87% across different statements) chose the answer“difficult to say”. The respondents agreemost with the statements that it is easy to getacquainted (31.7%), become friends (30.7%), spend time together (28.1%) and worktogether(21.7%)withspeakersofEstonian.

4.3.9 Multilingualismissues

This section examines the conditions of and attitudes towardsmultilingualismandon thefutureofdifferentlanguages.

Opinionsonmixing languages (Q33).Respondentswereaskedtoexpresstheiropiniononthestatementsconcerningthe“mixingoflanguages”onascalefromtotallyagree—donotagreeatall.Themajorityofrespondents(72.7%)agreethatlanguage-mixingiswidespreadamong the Estonian community in Finland. However, the results do not clearly indicatewhethermixingEstonianandFinnishisgenerallyacceptedamongtheEstoniancommunity(according to 37.3% language-mixing is accepted among Estonians, while 33.5% are of adifferentopinionand29%oftherespondentsremainneutral).Our interviewdatasupportthe conclusion that attitudes towards code-switching are predominantly negative andcharacterised bymonolingual purism, irrespective of the choice of language. (“Whicheverlanguageyouspeak,youneedtospeakitcorrectly.”).Asmentionedabove,aclearmajority

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EasytomakefriendswithEstonianspeaker

EasytobeacquaintedwithEstonianspeaker

EasytomarryEstonianspeaker

EasytocollaboratewithEstonianspeaker

Easytospend�mewithEstonianspeaker

Itotallyagree

Isomewhatagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatall


77

oftherespondentsthinksthatitistheoldergenerationwhospeaks‘correct’Estonian;inthecontext of this question, “correct” was probably understood as referring to “pure”, “un-mixed”language.Asfortherespondents’perceptionsofthelanguageuseofyoungpeople,no clear-cut tendencies emerge: although slightlymore than half (55.5%) agree that it isprimarilyyoungerpeoplewhopractiselanguage-mixing,around30%oftherespondentsdonothaveaclearopiniononthisquestion.However,theanswersclearlyshowthatlanguage-mixing isassociatedwithneitherthe levelofproficiency intheforeign language(55%)northe speaker’s level of education (44%): it is viewed as natural for all language usersirrespectiveoftheirlevelofeducation.

Figure21.Attitudestowardsmixinglanguages

Similar attitudes toward languages came up almost in every interview. Based on theinterviews, one could say that the general attitude of informants toward the mixing oflanguagesinconversationisrathernegative(“YoushouldmakeeffortstolearnFinnishwellthen youwon´tmix them”, AG3f) and themajority of informants strongly disapproves ofusingmixedEstonianandFinnish.Someofrespondentsarealsoofopinionthatolderpeoplespeak Estonian correctly while younger people tend to use both languages during theconversation.Particularly,oneshouldavoidcode-switchingwhilespeakingwithchildren.

Theimportanceofthe“pure”EstonianwasintensivelydiscussedbytheinformantAG1f.Thekey word of that interview was the correctness of the Estonian language. In terms ofcorrectness, the informant criticized the language use of younger generations (“OldergenerationsspeakbetterEstonian”).Shefoundthatalanguageenjoyshighprestigeifnativespeakersuseitcorrectly.Someinformantshadahighlynegativeattitudenotonlytowardslanguage mixing among Estonians living in Finland but also toward the use of EnglishloanwordsinStandardEstonian.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MixinglanguageswidespreadamongEstonianspeakers

Onlypeoplewithloweduca�onmixEstonian

YoungpeoplemixEstoniano�en

OlderpeoplespeakEstoniancorrectly

Mixingshowshighcompetenceinlanguages

Mixinglanguagesisacceptable

Itotallyagree

Iagree

Difficulttosay

Idonotquiteagree

Idonotagreeatall


78

However,noteveryoneisagainstthebilinguallanguageuseoroftheinfluencesofEnglishintheir (professional) vocabulary. For instance, AG4m described how Finnish, Estonian andEnglishare interwoven inhisprofessional vocabulary. Inhisopinion,hemasters thenewmedicalvocabularybetterintheFinnishlanguage.

The future of various languages in Finland (Q40). Respondents from both groups wereasked to rate how the importance of Estonian, Finnish, English, Swedish and one otherlanguageoftheirchoicewouldchangeoverthecomingtenyears.WhilearoundhalfoftheminoritygrouprespondentswereunsurewhethertheimportanceofEstonian,SwedishandFinnishwouldgrowinfuture(answering‘notsure’),almostalloftherespondentsexpectanincrease in the importanceofEnglish.The results indicate that thegrowing importanceofEnglish is consideredmostprobable (79.3%)and thegrowing importanceofSwedish leastprobable (8.2%). Aroundhalf of the respondents (25.3%) are convinced that Estonianwillgainmoreimportanceand38.8%believethesameforFinnish.

Figure22.Statementsaboutthefutureofdiverselanguages

Interview data. Informantsboth from individual and focus group interviewhavedifferentopinions about the futureandviabilityof theEstonian language in Finland.However, onecould claim that the majority of informants were fairly optimistic about the future ofEstonian in Finland, believing that Estonian will be a viable language in Finland and theimportanceofcontinuingemigrationfromEstoniaandgeographicalclosenessprobablywillkeep the Estonian language alive (see in detail interviews with FG-AG3, AG2m, FG-AG1,AG5):

(1) PraegukolibEestistkoguaegeestlasijuurde,seehoiabkikeeleelus.

[‘Nowadaysmore andmore Estonians are immigrating from Estonia, thiswill keepthelanguagealive.’]FG-AG1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Estonianwillbemorewidelyusedinthenext10years

Finnishwillbemorewidelyusedinthenext10years

Englishwillbemorewidelyusedinthenext10years

Swedishwillbemorewidelyusedinthenext10years

Someotherlanguagewillbemorewidelyusedinthenext10years


79

TheintervieweeswerealsoaskedabouttheirattitudestowardsthemaintenanceofEstonianlanguage and culture in Finland. The vast majority of informants is of the opinion thatEstonians themselves, particularly the parents of their children are responsible for themaintenanceoftheirchildren´sheritagelanguageandculture:

(2) Eestlasedisevastutavadomaemakeelesäilimiseeest.[‘Estoniansthemselvesareresponsibleforthemaintenanceoftheirmothertongue.’](FG-AG1)

(3) Eisaaeeldada,etriikteebkellegieestmidagiära. [‘Oneshouldnotassumethatthestatewoulddoitforsomebody.’]FG-AG3

(4) Igaeestlaneonvastutavomaemakeeleees. [‘EveryEstonianisresponsibleforherorhismothertongue.’]AG1m

Theintervieweesseetheattitudeoftheparentsasthekeyfactorfor language maintenancewhichalso(orfirstofall)meanstransmissionoftheEstonianidentity.Particularlymothersplayanimportantrolefortheirchildren’slanguagedevelopmentandethnolinguisticidentityandespeciallyinmultilingualfamiliestheyareusuallyheldresponsibleforthetransmissionofthelanguagetothenextgeneration.

The intervieweesalsodiscussed the futureofEstonian language ingeneral.Someof themexpressed their concern about the future of Estonian, believing that the original Estoniandialectswill beoustedby slang,more loanwordswill be taken into theEstonian languageand that the written use of Estonian will become less correct over time. Particularly theglobaldominanceof theEnglish language is regardedas themostdangerous threat to allsmalllanguages.

Among the key threats to the futureof Estonian, the lowbirth rates in Estoniawere alsomentioned.

Control Group. Themajorityof the control group (93.8%) areof the sameopinion as theEstonianrespondents:ofalllanguagestheimportanceofEnglishwillgrowmost.Asforthetwo official languages of Finland, almost half of the respondents (47.2%) think that theimportanceof Finnishwill grow in thenear future,whileonly21.9%believe the same forSwedish. The control group respondentswerenot veryoptimistic about the futureof thetwominoritylanguagesmentionedinthequestionnaire,EstonianandKarelian:almosthalfofthem(43.2%)thinkthattheimportanceofEstonianinFinlandwillnotincreaseoverthecoming ten years. Only a littlemore than a fifth (21.2%) believes that the importance ofEstonianwillgrow;however,thecontrolgroup’sviewsonthefutureofKarelianwereevenmorepessimistic.


80

Characteristicsof languages(Q41⎼43). Inthequestionset41⎼43,respondentswereaskedtoindicatetheirimpressionsofhowEstonian,FinnishandEnglishsoundonfive-pointscalesbetweendiversepairsofadjectiveantonyms(forinstance:verysoft–soft–neithersoftnorhard – hard – very hard).When characterising Estonian, typically, positive qualities wereselected (close, pretty, reliable etc.) Most of the respondents believed that the Estonianlanguageisverypretty(73.1%),veryclose(70.1%),andveryreliable(59.1%).Theresultsaresummarisedintable21andthehighestvalueisindicatedwithcolour.

very(1) 2 (3)neither 4 (5)very

soft 42.5 35.3 11.8 1.3 17 hardunsafe 3.7 5.2 14.2 21.6 55.2 safeclose 70.1 17.5 5.2 2 5.2 remote

reliable 59.2 22.5 12.7 3.5 2.1 unreliabledecisive 33.8 35.3 24.8 5.3 0.8 indecisivemodern 18.2 15.2 28.8 17.4 20.5 traditional

powerless 1.5 5.3 43.5 25.2 24.4 powerfulfun 34.8 37 23 3.7 1.5 boringugly 2.2 0.7 5.1 18.8 73.2 prettymale 4.7 7.8 59.7 19.4 8.5 femalemean 2.4 3.9 32.3 34.7 26.8 kind

wealthy 36.5 24.8 29.9 5.8 2.9 poorunsuccessful 4.7 3.9 45 23.3 23.3 successful

old 11.4 12.9 49.2 14.4 12.1 youngintelligent 32.8 34.4 29.8 2.3 0.8 stupid

considerate 29.2 30.8 35.4 3.9 0.8 intrusiveuneducated 2.3 3. 24.1 27.1 43.6 educated

passive 2.2 6 28.4 37.3 26.1 activeTable20.CharacteristicsofEstonian

Finnish was also described as very soft (26.2%), close (33.8%), reliable (35%), decisive(35.1%),intelligent(32.3%)andconsiderate(32.0%).However,aroundahalfofrespondentsselected the neutral (neither nor) option for the antonym pairs male-female (62%),unsuccesful-succesful (51,9%),mean-kind (51.5), considerate-intrusive (49.2%), powerless-powerful(46.2%),ugly-pretty(44.4%)andmodern-traditional(40.9%).Theresultsaregiveninthetablebelow,thehighestvaluesarehighlighted.


81

very(1) 2 (3)neither 4 (5)very soft 26.2 20 18.6 20 15.2 hard

unsafe 3.0 9 33.1 26.3 28.6 safeclose 29.8 33.8 24.5 9.3 2.7 remote

reliable 27.9 35 27.9 7.1 2.1 unreliabledecisive 16 35.1 39.7 7.6 1.5 indecisivemodern 5.3 14.4 40.9 22.7 16.7 traditional

powerless 3.8 9.9 46.2 28 12.1 powerfulfun 15.3 27.5 30.5 19.1 7.6 boringugly 7.5 16.5 44.4 21.1 10.5 prettymale 9.1 18.2 62.1 6.8 3.8 femalemean 2.3 2.3 51.5 34.1 9.9 kind

wealthy 20.7 24 43 7.4 4.4 poorunsuccessful 2.3 5.4 51.9 28.7 11.6 successful

old 20.6 31.3 38.9 7.6 1.5 youngintelligent 9.5 32.3 48.8 6.3 3.2 stupid

considerate 11.7 32 49.2 5.5 1.6 intrusiveuneducated 2.4 7.9 46 29.4 14.3 educated

passive 4.7 10.9 55 18.6 10.9 activeTable21.CharacteristicsofFinnish

Englishwasdescribedasverymodern(42.9%),intelligent(34%),wealthy(27.9%).Theresultsaregiveninthetablebelow,thehighestfiguresarehighlighted.

very(1) 2 (3)neither 4 (5)very soft 23 26.5 32.7 8.9 8.9 hard

unsafe 2.8 13.9 27.8 25 30.6 safeclose 10.8 18 33.3 21.6 16.2 remote

reliable 20.6 26.2 45.8 5.6 1.9 unreliabledecisive 21.1 33.9 33 7.3 4.6 indecisivemodern 42.9 20.5 18.8 8 9.8 traditional

powerless 1.8 4.6 34.9 29.4 29.4 powerfulfun 23.4 25.2 42.1 6.5 2.8 boringugly 0.9 3.7 35.2 37 23.2 prettymale 3.7 13.9 67.6 13 1.9 femalemean 0.9 3.8 58.5 24.5 12.3 kind

wealthy 35.6 27.9 27.9 8.7 poorunsuccessful 0.9 28.2 24.6 46.4 successful

old 19.4 12 44 12 12 youngintelligent 31.5 34.2 31.5 2.7 stupid

considerate 14 28 53.3 4.7 intrusiveuneducated 1.9 0.9 29 32.7 35.4 educated

passive 0.9 1.8 29.4 27.5 40.4 activeTable22.CharacteristicsofEnglish


82

Control Group. In the opinion of the control group (Q25-28 in the control groupquestionnaire), the Estonian language is seen as traditional, fun, kind and old. Slighttendencies are visible for unsafe, close, unreliable, unsuccessful, stupid and active whileFinnish is associatedwith positive attributes such as “safe”, “close”, “reliable”, “decisive”,“powerful”, “fun”, “pretty”, “kind”, “wealthy”, “successful”, “intelligent”, “educated” and“active”.English, inturn, isassociatedwiththefollowingattributes:“soft”,“safe”,“close”,“reliable”,“decisive”,“modern”,“powerful”,“fun”,“pretty”,“kind”,“wealthy”,“successful”,“intelligent”, “considerate”, “educated” and “active”. Again, for the antonym pair “old-young”,theanswerswereevenlydividedbetweeneitheroptionor“neither”.

4.4 Legislation

Ingeneral,thesurveyrespondentsseemtobeveryweaklyinformedoflegalactsgoverningtheactivitiesoflanguageminorities,educationalandculturallifeorlanguageissues.Ontheother hand, extensive conclusions should not be drawn on the low awareness aboutlegislation among the Estonians in Finland. The Estonian-speaking communities in Finlandhavecomeintobeingonlyrecently,mostoftherespondentshavebeenlivinginFinlandfortoo short a time to know Finnish legislation in detail. As the participants in the surveyrepeatedlystated,forapersonwhohasnewlychangedtheircountryofresidence,itismostessentialtosettleinthiscountry,findajobandfocusonlearningFinnish.

In contrast, the interviewees in all age groups knew the Finnish laws very well andcommentedonandcriticisedthemingreatdetail.Onthebasisofourinterviewdata,itcanbe stated that theEstonians living inFinlandare in factverywellawareofdifferent laws,theyknowtheirrightsandstandforthemveryactively. Itshouldalsobenotedthatthereareseveralcompaniesandentrepreneursprovidinglegalcounsellingandtranslationservicesspecifically for Estonians. Information events for Estonians who work in Finland or areplanning to migrate to Finland are organised and in recent years, the Estonian-languagemedia has actively covered legal issues. Thus there is no reason to assume that theinformationonFinnishlegislationisnotreadilyavailable.

4.4.1 Supportandprohibitionoflanguageuse

Morethanafifthoftherespondents(21.1%)findthatFinnishlegislationdoesnotsupportthe use of many languages, while almost half of the respondents (41.6%) do not knowwhetherFinnishlegislationsupportstheknowledgeanduseofmanylanguagesintheareainwhich the respondent lives. By supporting the use of several languages the respondentsmainlymeanthefactthatontheFinnish labourmarket,thecommandofdifferentforeignlanguages isvalued(“speakersofseveral languagesareheld inhighregardbyemployers”)andspeakingseveralforeignlanguagesgivestheopportunitytogetpaidbetter(“myfriendgetspaidmore,asshespeaksEstonianandRussian”).Furthermore,“support”isunderstoodto refer to educational opportunities (e.g. Estonian classes for Estonian children, thepossibilitytostudyRussian),totherighttouseaninterpreterinofficialcommunicationwith


83

theauthoritiesortothecoursesofFinnishanddifferenttrainingsessionswhichareofferedfreeofcharge.

Some respondentsunderstand “supportingmultilingualism” simplyas referring to the factthatFinland isofficiallyamultilingualcountry; in theiropinion, thisguarantees“theirownspaceorplace”tosmallerlanguagesandcultures.However,severalrespondentsstatedthattheofficialbilingualisminFinland,whichmeansthatformany jobstheknowledgeofbothFinnishandSwedish is required,makes itdifficult forEstonians to finda job.AsEstoniansusuallydonotspeakSwedish,theyarenottreatedequallyontheFinnishlabourmarket(“Ifthey don’t want to hire you, they can always say that you don’t speak Swedish”), andespecially Estonians with higher education are blocked from several career opportunitiesandcannotworkascivilservants.Thisinequalitywasnotedbynearlyallrespondentsinthesurvey.

The issues of legislation were not treated in detail in the interviews. However, someintervieweesareoftheopinionthatitisnotpossibletoknowalllegalmattersandthatthiskindofinformationisnotavailableinFinland(seeindetailFG-AG1).Theinformantsmostlyreferredtothelegalissuesinthefollowingcontext:

• Instructioninone’sownnativelanguage:AllpupilswhospeakalanguageotherthanFinnishastheirmothertongueorathomemaystudytheirownnative languageorsomeotherlanguageusedbytheirfamilyduringtheentireperiodofschooling.TheStateofFinlandhastoprovideimmigrantpupilswiththeopportunitytostudytheirownnativelanguagetwohoursperweek(FG-AG2;FG-AG4)

• Preparatory instruction: Preparatory instruction is provided for those children andyoung people of immigrant origin,whodo not knowenough Finnish to be able tostudyinFinnish-speakingteachinggroups.

• Participants fromtheolder focusgroup(AG5)mentionedsome legalaspectsof theemigration process during the Soviet era and referred to the legal aspects whilediscussingtheissueofcitizenship.

Levelofagreement (%)No 21.1Yes 25.9

Partly 11.5Donotknow 41.6

Table23.Doeslegislationsupporttheuseofmanylanguages?

Control group. Themajority of the control group respondents did not knowwhether thelegislation inFinlandsupportstheuseofKarelian(65.3%)orEstonian(64.1%).27.1%thinkthat Karelian is not supported and 29.7% that legislation does not support the use ofEstonian.

Treatmentofdifferentlanguages(Q50).Overall,37.8%oftherespondentsbelievethatthespeakersofdifferent languagesare treatedequally (orpartlyequally) inFinland;nearlyasmany (34.8%) however, think the opposite. Interestingly, the share of the respondents


84

(27.4%)who do not have a clear opinion or do not know how to answer the question isconsiderablylowerthanintheotherquestionsconcerninglegislation.


No 34.8

Yes 17.1

Partly 20.7

Donotknow 27.4

Table24.AretheusersofdifferentlanguagestreatedinthesamewayinFinland?

Incontrasttothequestionsabouttheeducationalsystem(whichareprobablyonlyrelevantfor families with children), the question on whether speakers of different languages aretreatedequallyinFinlandcouldbeexpectedtobeofrelevanceforallrespondents,asallofthem have had some personal experiences of this issue. As anticipated, the questionprovoked many comments, some of them very emotional, and – reflecting the differentexperiencesoftherespondents–rangingfromverypositivetonegativeones.Mostofthecomments added to thequestion concern the cultural differencesbetweenEstonians andFinns, stereotypes, mutual relations and interaction in a broader sense. Most of therespondents find that Finland is a tolerant country language-wise, where minorities canfreelycommunicateintheirnativelanguageandarenotcondemnedforit.However,severalrespondentsfindthatintermsofdifferentlanguages,Estoniansarestillinaworseposition,because“thecommandofSwedishandRussianispreferred”.Somerespondentscomparedthe positions of the Estonian and Russian languages or Estonians and Russians in moredetail. Some found that Russians are discriminated in Finland; some perceived that otherethnic groups are in a better position in Finland than Estonians (“Nobody dares to sayanythingaboutablackguyoraSomali”or “Finnsandblacksare favoured inmanypublicinstitutions,suchasKELA,thepoliceorpublichousingwaitinglists”).

InterviewData.Similarly,manydifferentviewsontheequalityof languageswerebroughtupintheinterviews.OneinformantexplainsthatthisproblemhasalottodowiththefactthatastheEstonianandFinnishlanguagesandculturesarecloselyrelated,FinnsdonotseeEstoniansasaminoritybutratherasasmaller“relative”;theyassumethatEstoniansspeakFinnish anyway, can cope in Finland and do not need support differently from otherminorities, and therefore Estonians are in an unequal position as compared to otherminorities(“Wecannotresolveeverythingbyrelyingonbeingcloselyrelated”).Ontheotherhand,one intervieweefoundthatthesocietyhasbeenverysupportivetowardsEstonians,as there is the Finnish-Estonian school in Latokartano. “It is fantastic… how supportiveFinlandis…theysetupaschoolforEstonians…”,an intervieweefromfocusgroupFG-AG1said.When it came to Estonia, the respondentswere as unsatisfied aswith Finland. They


85

reproached the state of Estonia for never having had an interest in supporting themain-tenanceofEstonian inFinland. The intervieweesalsodescribedtheirdifficulties ingettinganyfinancialsupportfromEstonia.

Theparticipantswentintodepthontheroleofthesocietyinmultilingualism.TheydiscussedthesubjectfromtheEstonianperspectiveaswellasfromtheFinnishperspective. Intheiropinion, theFinnishsociety respects therightsofminorities. Thequestionabout theatti-tudes towards multilingual persons caused rather a discussion about attitudes and pre-judicestowardsEstonians. However, itseemsthattheintervieweesthemselvesareratheropen-minded in regard to other minoritites (see in detail FG-AG1) and they enjoy themulticultural and multilingual Helsinki (“Helsinki is the Babel of languages”, FG-AG4).However,Finlandintotalisfeaturedtobealreadyastoomultilingual/cultural(FG-AG3).Forinstance,inthefocusgroupAG5,onlyonerespondentsupportedtheideathatFinlandcouldbemoremultilingual/cultural. The rest of the participantswere satisfiedwith the currentsituation.

The question whether multilingual persons are valued higher than monolinguals did notprovoke very extensive comments (“We are not the right persons to judge it”, FG-AG2).Thus, the respondents did not comment on all possible aspects of their attitude towardsmultilingualism in Finland. (Regarding multilingualism, they preferred to describe thesituationinEstonia.)

ControlGroup.Almosthalfofthecontrolgrouprespondents(48.3%)areoftheopinionthatalllanguagesandtheirspeakersarenottreatedequallyinFinland.Only12.6%thinkthatalllanguagesareequal.Oftheremainingrespondents,14.7%selectedtheoption“partly”,and24.5%chose theoption “don’t know”.The comments to thisquestionwereof two types:aboutonehalfof thosewhoadded their comments considered that speakersofdifferentlanguagesaretreatedequallyinFinland,oratleast,thereareaspirationstodoso(e.g.byprovidinginterpreterservices).AnotherhalfcommentedthatonlyFinnishspeakingcitizensare able to fully interact in society, while others are disadvantaged e. g. in employmentissues. One noted that there are admission quotas for Swedish speaking students inuniversities.

Legislation about languages on labour market (Q51). The last question on legislationconcernedtherespondents’knowledgeoflawsconcerningdifferentlanguagesonthelabourmarket.Similarly tootherquestions, theoverwhelmingmajorityof the respondents (71%)didnotknowwhethersuchlegalactsorregulationsexistornot:10.4%oftherespondentsthinkthatsuchactsdonotexist;18.9%knowthattheydo.Thecommentstothisquestionshow that the respondentshaveapositive viewonmultilingualismon the labourmarket.They see that the commandof Estonian (and alsoRussian) is amerit that puts them in abetterposition thanotherminoritiesandallows themtogethigher salariesorbonuses insomeprofessionalpositions.RespondentsstatedalmostunanimouslythatthecommandofdifferentforeignlanguagesisanadvantageontheFinnishlabourmarketbutitisdefinitely


86

essential to speak Finnish. A big problem concerning the multilingualism on the labourmarketforEstoniansisthefactthattheydonotspeakSwedish,thesecondofficiallanguageinFinland.


Yes 18.9

No 10.4

Donotknow 70.7

Table25.Istherelegislationsupportingdifferentlanguagesonthelabourmarket?

Control Group. In the control group as well, most respondents have no knowledge ofwhethertherearelawsorregulationswhichsupporttheknowledgeofdifferentlanguagesonthelabourmarket:65.7%chosetheanswer“don’tknow”,10.5%“no”and23.8%”yes”.All respondents commenting on this question mentioned either the language legislationconfirmingthestatusofSwedishalongsideFinnishingeneral,oritsapplicationssuchastheobligation for officials to have a certain command of Swedish, or the right to services inSwedishaswellasFinnish.

SupporttoEstonian(Q44).Inquestion44,therespondentswereaskedspecificallywhetherin their opinion Finnish legislation supports the use of Estonian. Only 30.1% of therespondents believe that Finnish legislation supports (or supports “partly”) the use ofEstonian in Finland.Roughly asmany respondentshaveanswered thequestionnegatively(36%)ordonotknowwhethersuchlawsexist(34%).Thecommentsgiventothisquestionindicatethattherespondentsinterpret“support”inmanyways.SomementiontheteachingofEstonianinFinnishgeneraleducationschoolsandthelegallyguaranteedrighttouseaninterpreterwhencommunicatingwithpublicauthorities.SeveralrespondentshavereferredtotheopportunityoftakingexamsandpreliminaryexamsinEstonianattrainingcoursesinthe case of insufficient command of Finnish and also to the opportunity of gettinginformationandassistance inEstonianatdifferentpublicauthorities (e.g.KELA, the socialinsuranceservice).Thefactthat insomeareasthewebpagesofseveralpublic institutionsare available in Estonian and bonuses are paid for the command of Estonian in somepositionswasalsoseenasawayofsupportingEstonian.

Asanticipated,somerespondentsfoundthattheFinnishstateisnotobligedtosupporttheEstonianlanguage:peoplewholiveinaforeigncountryshouldfirstandforemostlearnthelocallanguage.


87

Levelofknowledge (%)

No 35.9

Yes 9.3

Partly 20.8

Donotknow 34

Table26.DoeslegislationsupporttheuseofEstonian?

PreventionoftheuseofEstonian(Q45).Inthefollow-upquestionwhichspecificallyaskedthe opposite (does legislation prevent the use of Estonian in Finland?), most of therespondents (53.7%)deniedtheexistenceofsuchsystematicprevention.Around10.5%oftherespondentsthinktheopposite;35.8%didnothaveaclearopinionordidnotknowhowtoanswerthisquestion.Commentstothisquestionweremostlygivenbythose10%oftherespondents who found that the Finnish legislation inhibits the use of Estonian; thesecommentsindicatethattheword“prevent”hasbeenunderstoodinverydifferentways.Intheopinionofmanyrespondents, themere fact that“theofficial languages inFinlandareFinnish and Swedish” excludes the use of Estonian. The high administrative charges andstampdutieswerealsomentioned:“Finnishauthoritiesrequireaninsaneamountofmoneyfor translating every Estonian document into Finnish”, and because of this Estonians areforced to communicatewith the authorities in Finnish. Furthermore, the fact that “publicinstitutionsdonothavebrochures inEstonian”wasmentionedby several respondents as“preventingtheuseofEstonian”.Tworespondentshaveexplainedtheirnegativeanswerbythe fact that the Finnish state protects Finnish as the official language and “thereforedemandseverythinginFinnish”.


No 53.7

Yes 6.2

Partly 4.3

Donotknow 35.8

Table27.DoeslegislationpreventtheuseofEstonian?

Controlgroup.ThecontrolgroupquestionnaireincludedsimilarquestionsabouttheroleoflegislationinFinlandforthetwominoritylanguagesinvestigatedwithinELDIA,KarelianandEstonian. The majority of the control group did not know whether legislation in FinlandpreventstheuseofKarelian(70.3%)orEstonian(72.4%),andmostoftherest(24.8%ofallrespondents)explicitlydeniedthatlegislationwouldpreventtheuseofEstonianinFinland.As forKarelian, three respondents think thatFinnish lawprevents ituse; twocommentedthat “Karelian language has no official status”, while the third one pointed out that nolegislation has been published in Karelian. In the case of Estonian, only two respondents


88

answered“yes”.OnesaidthatEstonianisnotanofficiallanguageinFinland,whileanothernotedthelackoflawsinEstonian.

4.4.2 Existenceoflawtexts

Inquestion47,asafollow-upquestiontoQ46,therespondentswereaskedwhethersuchlaws–i.e.lawssupportingtheuseofmanylanguages–areavailableinEstonian.Onemayclaimthatthesurveyrespondentsareverylittle(ifatall)awarewhethersuchlegalactshavebeentranslatedintooravailableinEstonian.Onlythreerespondents(1.8%)claimedtoknowthat laws have been translated into Estonian; 11 respondents (6.8%) stated that the lawtextsarepartlyavailableinEstonian.Around58.6%oftherespondentshavenotansweredthequestion;33%thought that theacts inEstonianwerenotavailable.Thisquestionwascommentedonverylittle.TheopinionthatthereisnoneedtotranslatethelegislationintoEstonianprevails,as“ifnecessary,onecanhireatranslator”.OnerespondentsuggeststhattheFinnishTrafficActshouldbetranslatedintoEstonian.


Yes 1.8

No 32.9

Partly 6.7

Donotknow 58.6

Table28.IslegislationsupportingmultilingualismavailableinEstonian?

4.4.3 Educationandlaw

Inquestions48and49, therespondentswereaskedwhethertheyknewofany legislationconcerninginstructioninEstonianoraboutEstonianinFinland.

Mostof the respondents (62.7%)arenotawareofwhether thereare legalacts regulatinginstruction in Estonian in schools in Finland. It may well be that the respondents havemisunderstoodorhavenotfullyunderstoodthequestionandthusitwaseasierforthemtooptfor“donotknow”.

Only 11.2% of the respondents claimed to know that such laws exist. In two commentsaddedtoclarifytheanswer,therespondentshavealsoreferredtothecontentoftheFinnishlanguageasasubjectofstudy (“inclassesofFinnish,otherFinno-Ugric languagesarealsodiscussed”). One of the respondents notes that a detailed subject syllabus has beenpreparedforlearningEstonianasthenativelanguage.


89


No 18.6

Yes 11.2

Partly 7.5

Donotknow 62.7

Table29.IsthereanylegislationregulatingtheuseofEstonianasalanguageofinstructioninschools?

As for the teaching of Estonian as a subject or “offering information about Estonian”10,similarly, the vastmajority of respondents either do not knowwhether is is regulated bylegislation(76.2)orexplicitlyclaimthatsuchlegislationdoesnotexist(14%).

Whenreadingtherespondents’commentsonbeingfamiliarwithdifferentlegalacts,itcanbeseenthattherespondentsareinfactveryawareoftheactsthatgoverntheopportunitiesof immigrant children for studying their native language in general education schools inFinland.Asthecommentsindicate,therespondentsknowtheregulationontheteachingofminoritychildren’smothertonguesinallitssubtletiesandareawareofchildren’srighttoatleasttwohoursperweekofteachingintheirnativelanguageifaminimumoffiveparentsapplyforthis.


No 14

Yes 5.5

Partly 4.3

Donotknow 76.2

Table30.Isthereanylegislationregulatinginstructionof/aboutEstonianinschools?

ControlGroup.Themembersofthecontrolgroupdoingeneralnotknowwhetherthereisany legislation regulating the instruction about Estonian in schools in Finland (Q34/35).77.8%oftherespondentschoseforEstoniantheoption“don’tknow”and20.8%“no”.Thesetwo questions were both commented upon by two respondents in similar ways. Bothmentionedthatpupilsinelementaryschoolsaresupposedtoreceiveatleastsometeachingintheirmothertongue.

10Q49 in theEstonian-languagequestionnaire:KasSoomesonolemasseadusi,mis reguleerivadseda,kuidaskoolides antakse teadmisi eesti keele kohta? ‘Are there laws in Finland which regulate how schools offerknowledgeof/abouttheEstonianlanguage?’ThiscouldbeunderstoodasreferringtotheteachingofEstonianasasubjectaswellastoteachingthehistory,backgroundorrelatednessofEstonianwithin,forinstance,theclassesofhistory,geographyortheFinnishlanguage.


90

4.5 Media

4.5.1 Consumptionofmediaandculturalproducts

Both respondent groups were asked to assess their consumption of media and diversecultural products – print media, audio-visual services (radio, television, music, films) andsocialmedia–indifferentlanguages:theminoritygroupmembersinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish,and thecontrolgroupmembers inFinnishandEnglish.Foreach typeofmediaorcultural product, the respondents were requested to indicate the frequency of use on aseven-point scale (everyday, several timesaweek, onceaweek, onceamonth, less thanonceamonth,never,notavailableinthislanguage).

Newspaper consumption.TheuseofFinnish-languageprintmediadominates:aroundhalfoftheEstonianrespondents(58.5%)consumeFinnishprintmediaonadailybasis,whileonlya third of them (34.4%) reads Estonian papers every day. Combining these results withweeklyconsumption(i.e.onceorseveraltimesaweek)revealsthatalmostallrespondents(i.e. 93.3%) read Finnish printmedia on a daily basis or at least once aweek,while onlyaround half of the respondents (49.1%) consume Estonian print media as often. Theconsumption of English print media is marginal (recall that a significant part of therespondentsdoesnothaveafluentcommandofEnglishordoesnotuseEnglishregularly,cf.section 4.3.3): only around ten respondents read English-language newspapers on a dailybasisoronceorseveraltimesaweek;aroundhalf(44.6%)donotconsumeanyprintmediainEnglish.

Frequency: Estonian(%) Finnish(%) English(%)

Everyday 34.4 58.5 3.6

Onceormanytimesaweek 21.7 34.8 8

Everymonth 10.2 3.7 9.8

Moreseldom 25.5 1.8 28.6

Never 3.8 1.2 44.6

Notavailableinthislanguage 4.5 5.4

Table31.ReadingnewspapersinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish

Asforthecontrolgrouprespondents,itisonlynaturalthattheyconsumethemostFinnishlanguageprintmedia:themajority(77.8%)readFinnishmediapublicationsonadailybasis.16.2%oftherespondentsreadEnglish-languagenewspapersatleastonceaweek.

Audio-visual media consumption. In audio-visual media as well, Finnish-language mediadominate. The overwhelming majority of minority group respondents watch Finnish


91

television(93.3%)andlistentoFinnishradiostations(87%)onadailybasisorseveraltimesaweek.AlthoughonlyaroundtenrespondentslistentoEnglish-languageradioprogrammesatleast once a week, around half of the respondents (45.1%) indicate watching English-language television at least once a week, 18% doing so on a daily basis. Such a highconsumption percentage probably refers to the watching of English-language TVprogrammesandfilms11and/orinternationalTVchannels.Similarly,themostpopularmediaconsumed by the control group respondents are Finnish-language radio (87.6%) andtelevision(93.1%),bothconsumedonadailybasisorseveraltimesaweek.


Everyday 38 78.9 18.6

Onceormanytimesaweek 15.2 14.5 26.5


Moreseldom 23.4 4.2 15

Never 8.2 28.3

Notavailableinthislanguage 7 0.6 1.8

Table32.WatchingTVprogrammesinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish


Everyday 25.3 66.1 4.6

Onceormanytimesaweek 18.4 21 4.6



Never 13.3 1.2 52.8


Table33.ListeningtotheradioinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish

Minority group respondents actively listen to Finnish- andEnglish-languagemusic aswell,while the frequency of consuming Estonian-languagemusic ranks third. For example, themajority (87.5%) listen tomusic inFinnish,63%tomusic inEnglishand57.3% tomusic inEstonianonadailyorweeklybasis.

11NotethatFinnishTVchannelsandcinemasnormallydistributetheirforeign-languageprogrammesandfilmsintheoriginallanguage,withFinnishsubtitles.


92


Everyday 30.7 64.6 36

Onceormanytimesaweek 27 23 27


Moreseldom 22.7 6.8 9

Never 3.1 1.9 22.5


Table34.ListeningtomusicinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish

Similar results are displayed in the category of films, dominated by Finnish and English(76.8%and56.2%respectively);34.8%of respondentswatchEstonian-language filmsonadailyorweeklybasis.


Everyday 23.4 41.5 22.3



Moreseldom 41.7 14 10.7

Never 6.3 1.8 22.3

Notavailableinthislanguage 7.6 0.6 1.8

Table35.WatchingfilmsinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish

ControlGroup.Forcontrolgrouprespondents,Finnishisthemainlanguageofinformationandcultureconsumption:slightlymorethanhalflistentoFinnish-languagemusic(65%)andwatch Finnish-language films (62%) on a daily basis. It is also relevant that respondentswatch English-language TV programmes (44.4%) and listen to English-language music(49.5%) on a daily basis; the majority of respondents (over 70%) watch English-languagemoviesonaweeklybasis.

Internet consumption.Fortheminoritygroup, theInternet istheonlymediumwhichcanbeusedmorefrequentlyinEstonianthaninFinnish,althoughdifferencesinpreferringonelanguage over the other in this respect are marginal or even non-existent. 78% visitEstonian-languagewebsitesand76.8%visitFinnish-languagesitesonadailyorweeklybasis(58.7%and41.5%onadailybasisrespectively).InternetuseinEnglishislesscommonthanintheothertwolanguages,butstillpopularamongaroundhalfoftherespondents(49.1%);


93

only slightly more than a third (35.7%) never visit English-language websites. For socialmedia, language preferences are similar: on a daily or weekly basis, 39.2% of therespondentsvisitEstonian-language,37.3%Finnish-languageandaroundaquarter (23.8%)English-languagesocialnetworksites.


Everyday 58.7 58.2 28.6

Onceormanytimesaweek 19.4 19 20.5



Never 6.5 8.9 35.7

Notavailableinthislanguage 1.9 1.3 2.7

Table36.InternetuseinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish

The Internetuseof control group respondents isprevailinglyFinnish: themajority (79.2%)visitFinnish-languageInternetsitesonadailyorweeklybasis;24.5%visitEnglish-languageInternetsitesonadailybasis.66.7%ofFinnsuseEnglish-basedcomputersoftware.

Reading books. The respondentswere asked to assess the frequency of reading books inEstonian,FinnishandEnglish.Theresultsrevealthatreadingliteratureingeneralisrelativelyunpopular(forexample,49%ofminoritygrouprespondentsclaimtoreadEstonian-languagebooks less thanonce amonth), and thusno reliable conclusionson languagepreferencescan be drawn, although the survey results indicate that books are read somewhat moreofteninFinnishthaninEstonian(33.2%oftherespondentsreadbooksinFinnishand27.7%in Estonian daily or many times a week). The number of readers of English-languageliteratureisevensmaller:onlyaroundtenrespondentsreadEnglish-languagebooksonceaweekormoreoften.Inthecontrolgroup,theresultsasconcernsEnglisharesimilar,9.1%ofrespondentsreadingEnglish-languagebooksonaweeklybasis.


Everyday 11.3 11.3 7




Never 7.5 11.3 50

Table37.ReadingbooksinEstonian,FinnishandEnglish


94

Cultureconsumption.Asfortheconsumptionofculturalproductsandservices,theatreandconcert attendance areofmarginal importance in both themajority andminority groups.Among theEstonian respondents, a clearmajoritynever goes to theatreperformancesorconcerts or attends themmore seldom than once a month: 51.6% seldom or never seeEstonian-language theatre performances and 58.3% seldom or never attend Estonian-language concerts, and for other languages, the corresponding shares are even larger(Finnish-language theatre: 68.7%, concerts: 69.9%; English-language theatre: 70.9%,concerts:87.2%).

Similarly, the majority of control group respondents attend Finnish-language theatreperformanceslessthanonceamonth(70.9%)andonlyafewrespondentsindicatethattheyvisit the theatremoreoften (14.2%at leastonceamonth). Similar resultsare revealed inrespect of concert attendance: the overwhelming majority of respondents (72%) attendFinnish-languageconcerts lessthanonceamonth,with justa few(11.4%)attendingmoreoften than once amonth. Likewise, attending English-language theatre performances andconcerts is ofmarginal importance: themajority (over 89%) never go to English-languagetheatreperformancesorconcerts.

Electroniccommunicationinwrittenform.Ine-mailandtextmessagecommunication,thesharesofEstonianandFinnishareequal,i.e.aroundahalfoftherespondentswritee-mailsin Estonian (54.8%) and Finnish (47.4%) on a daily and/or weekly basis; 58.2%write textmessages in Estonian and 58.5% in Finnish. Writing English-language e-mails and textmessages is not widespread among Estonians, with the exception of those whose pro-fessionaldutiesrequireusingEnglishorwhoworkinanEnglish-languagesetting.

Interactivegamesandbloggingarenotattractiveactivitiesforthesurveyrespondents:themajority in both groupshavehadno contactwith these fields.As just a few respondentsmentioned theseactivities (forexample,4.7%playgames inEstonian,2.7% inFinnishand3.7%inEnglishonadailybasis;a fewhaveablog inEstonian,FinnishorEnglish), it isnotpossible toanalyse languagepreferences in this context.Answerson theuseof computersoftwareindicatethataroundhalfoftheminoritygrouprespondents(45.2%)usecomputersoftwareinFinnish,32%inEstonianandaroundathird(30.6%)inEnglishonadailybasis.

ThesurveyresultsabouttheuseofmediaandculturalproductsinEstonianandFinnisharesummarisedinthefollowingfigures.


95

Figure23.ConsumptionofmediaandculturalproductsinEstonian

Figure24.ConsumptionofmediaandculturalproductsinFinnish

Control Group. Themajorityof the control groupuses the following (electronic)media intheirmother tongue every day: newspapers (77.8%), radio (71%), TV (80.7%), CDs (65%),internetcontent(57.6%),computersoftware(62.5%)ande-mails(52.8%).Theresponsesaregiveninthefigure25below.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NewspaperBooks

TheatreConcerts

RadioTV

MusicFilms

InternetComputerSo�ware

E-mailsTextmessagesSocialmedia

Interac�vegamesBlogs

Otherac�vi�es

Everyday

Many�mesaweek

Everyweek

Everymonth

Moreseldom

Never

Notavailableinthislanguage

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NewspapersBooks

TheatreConcerts

RadioTV

MusicFilms

InternetComputerSo�ware

E-mailsTextmessagesSocialmedia

Interac�vegamesBlogs

Otherac�vi�es

Everyday

Many�mesaweek

Everyweek

Everymonth

Moreseldom

Never

Notavailableinthislanguage


96

Figure25.ControlGroup:ConsumptionofmediaandculturalproductsinFinnish

4.5.2 ActiveuseofEstonian,FinnishandEnglishintextproductionandculturalactivities

Inquestion63,theminoritygroup’sengagementincreativeactivitiesindifferentlanguageswasanalysed,i.e.howfrequentlyrespondentsengageinvariousformsofself-expressioninEstonian, Finnish and English, such as writing letters, diary and texts, composing songs,singing,recitingpoetryandperformingintheatre.

OnecouldsaythattheactiveuseofEstonianintextproductionandotherculturalpracticesis rare. Only about quarter (28.4%) of respondentswrites letters in Estonian everyweekwhilemostof respondentswrite letters inEstonianonly seldom (less thanonceamonth:48.1%) or never (6.1%). However, writing a diary in Estonian is more common: 33respondents (i.e. 21.3%) write a diary in Estonian every week, while 21 respondents (i.e.13.6%)doiteveryday.Thecompositionofliterarytexts(stories,poemsetc.)inEstonianisalsorare:almostallrespondents(94.7%)reportedthattheyneverdoorwriteonlyseldom(i.elessthanonceamonth).Outofallrespondents,onlyfivereportedthattheywritetextsinEstonianeveryday (oneperson)ormanytimesaweek(4persons).Ontheotherhand,writing texts in Finnish, English or other languages is rare aswell. A clearmajority of therespondents never or only seldom (i.e. less than once amonths)writes letters in Finnish(64.6%),keepsadiaryinFinnish(61.8%)orwritesliterarytextsinFinnish(92.1%).Similarly,theoverwhelmingmajorityof respondentsneverwritesanytexts inEnglishorwritesonly

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

reading newspapers reading books

attending theater attending concerts

listening to radio watching TV

listening to CDs watching films

using Internet content using computer software

writing e-mails writing text messages

using social media playing interactive games

writing blogs other

every day

many times a week

every week

every month

more seldom

never

not available


97

seldom (less than once a month): 79.12 use English never or only seldom when writingletters;88.76%whenwritingdiary,94.31%whenwritingtexts.

The use of Estonian in oral cultural activities is rare as well. Only about 13.7% of therespondentssingsongsinEstonian,threerespondentsrecitepoetry,onepersonperformsinEstonianonstage.Similarly,practicallynorespondentswritesongsof theirown inFinnish(99.3%:never),82.2%neversingsongsinFinnishordosoveryseldom(lessoftenthanoncea month), 97.4% never recite poetry in Finnish or do so very seldom; 98.7% never playtheatreinFinnish.

The use of English in abovementioned activities is verymarginal: practically none of therespondentsisinvolvedwiththeseactivitiesinEnglish.TheresultsforEstonianandFinnishareillustratedinfigures26and27below.

Figure26.ActiveuseofEstonianfortextproductionandculturalactivities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri�ngLe�ers

Wri�ngDiary

Wri�ngTexts

Composingsongs

Singing

Reci�ngpoetry

Performingintheatre

Forotherac�vi�es

Everyday

Many�mesaweek

Everyweek

Everymonth

Moreseldom

Never


98

Figure27.ActiveuseofFinnishfortextproductionandculturalactivities

4.6 Languageacquisitionandlearning

4.6.1 Languagelearning:EstonianandFinnish

Acquisition of Estonian. The vast majority of the respondents (155, or 84%) considerEstoniantheirmothertongue.Theserespondents,bornandraisedinEstoniainanEstonian-languageenvironment, haveacquired theEstonian language in their early childhood fromtheirparentsandtheirsurroundings.

16respondentsoutof170whoconsiderFinnishor IngrianFinnishtobetheirsolemothertongueoroneoftheirmothertonguesbesidesEstonianorRussian,haveacquiredEstonianafterresettlingtoEstoniainearlychildhood.TheserespondentsgrewupandwereeducatedinEstonianinEstonia;manyofthemhavealsoattainedhighereducationinEstonia.OnecanstatethattheyspeakEstonianasasecondlanguage.

LearningFinnish.TothequestionaboutwhereandfromwhomtherespondentshadlearntFinnish, different answerswere given. In brief, one can state that almost all respondentsspeakFinnishasasecondorforeignlanguage.Slightlymorethanhalfofrespondents(58%)havestudiedFinnisheitherinlanguagecourses(bothinEstoniaandFinland)oratlanguageschools (mainly inFinland)orhaveacquiredFinnish inanaturalFinnish-languageenviron-mentinFinland.ManyrespondentshaveacquiredFinnishintheirfamilies,fromtheirFinnishspouseorpartner.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri�ngLe�ers

Wri�ngDiary

Wri�ngTexts

Composingsongs

Singing

Reci�ngpoetry

Performingintheatre

Everyday

Many�mesaweek

Everyweek

Everymonth

Moreseldom

Never


99

Because Estonian and Finnish are closely related, almost half (41%) of the respondentsstated that they have acquired Finnish “informally”, by themselves, without any formalteaching:bywatchingTV,listeningtotheradio,readingbooksornewspapers,orsimplybyspeakingwithFinns,atworketc.

Onlyonerespondentoutof170hasneverstudiedFinnishandclaimednottospeakFinnishatall.

4.6.2 Languagesatschool

Mostrespondents,bornandraisedinEstonia,hademigratedtoFinlandonlyintheiradult-hood. Presumably, these people have acquired their primary and secondary education atEstonian-language educational institutions in Estonia, and many may also have a degreefroman Estonian-language institutionof higher education in Estonia. This is confirmedbytheanswerstothesurvey:Thevastmajorityofrespondents(85.9%)weretaughtonlyinonelanguageatschool:mostofthem(83%)inEstonian.ThemajorityofrespondentsstatedthatEstonianwasusedas the teaching languagealso inother subjects than languagesbothatpre-school,primaryschoolandinsecondaryschool.

AsmostrespondentshadbeeneducatedinEstonia,Estonianhadbeentheteachingmediumintheireducation:for88.5%inpre-school,90.3%inprimaryschooland84.5%insecondaryschool.


100

5 Case-SpecificLanguageVitalityBarometer

The final product of the ELDIA project, the European Language Vitality Barometer(EuLaViBar),isbasedonthecase-specificreportsandanalyses.Forthispurpose,thevitalityof the language at issue in each case study is illustratedwith a radar chart. The idea anddesignof thebarometerandtheradarchartaretheresultofacontinuousdiscussionandcollectiveeffortinvolvingmanymembersoftheELDIAconsortium.(ThebarometerplanningwasinitiatedbyJarmoLainio,theradarchartdesignwasfirstsuggestedandsketchedbySiaSpiliopoulou Åkermark, and the radar charts in their present form, in particular, thequantification of the questionnaire survey results, are largely based on the data analysisdesigndevelopedbyAnneliSarhimaaandEvaKühhirt.)

The following radar chart, created by Kari Djerf and Eva Kühhirt on the basis of thequestionnaireresults,illustratesthevitalityofEstonianinFinlandintermsofthefourfocusareas–Capacity,Opportunity,Desire,andLanguageProducts–andthe fourdimensions:Language Use, Education, Legislation, and Media. Each relevant question of thequestionnairewas assigned to one ormore focus areas and dimensions and the answersweregivenavalueonthevitalityscalefrom0to4(cf.Chapter3.5.3):

0. Language maintenance is severely and critically endangered. The language is"remembered"butnotusedspontaneouslyor inactivecommunication. Itsuseandtransmission are not protected or supported institutionally. Children and youngpeople are not encouraged to learn or use the language.→Urgentandeffectiverevitalisationmeasuresareneededtopreventthecompleteextinctionofthelanguageandtorestoreitsuse.

1. Language maintenance is acutely endangered. The language is used in activecommunication at least in some contexts, but there are serious problemswith itsuse,supportand/ortransmission,tosuchanextentthattheuseofthelanguagecanbe expected to cease completely in the foreseeable future.→Immediate effective measures to support and promote the language in itsmaintenanceandrevitalizationareneeded.

2. Language maintenance is threatened. Language use and transmission arediminishingor seem tobe ceasing at least in some contextsorwith some speakergroups.Ifthistrendcontinues,theuseofthelanguagemayceasecompletelyinthemoredistantfuture.→Effective measures to support and encourage the use and transmission of thelanguagemustbetaken.

3. Language maintenance is achieved to some extent. The language is supportedinstitutionally andused in various contexts and functions (alsobeyond its ultimatecoreareasuchasthefamilysphere). It isoftentransmittedtothenextgeneration,andmanyofitsspeakersseemtobeableandwillingtodevelopsustainablepatternsofmultilingualism.


101

→Themeasures to support languagemaintenance appear to have been successfulandmustbeupheldandcontinued.

4. Thelanguageismaintainedatthemoment.Thelanguageisusedandpromotedinawide range of contexts. The language does not appear to be threatened: nothingindicatesthat(significantamountsof)speakerswouldgiveupusingthelanguageandtransmitting it tothenextgeneration,as longas itssocialand institutionalsupportremainsatthepresentlevel.

→Thelanguageneedstobemonitoredandsupportedinalong-termperspective.

Onthebasisofthesevalues,themeanscoresasshowninthechartwerecalculated.

Figure28.RadarchartillustratingthevitalityofEstonianinFinlandinthelightofELDIAsurveyresults

Thequadrantsof the chart represent the four focusareas,divided into four colour-codeddimensions: language use & interaction, education, legislation, media. Note that in thequadrants of capacity and desire youwill find only three focus areas (no education). Thecolour codes are explained in the following legend; the lighter the shade, the better thelanguageismaintained.

1,74 2,18

0,80

1,65

2,40

1,480,98

1,11

2,66

0,501,65

2,740,50

0,98

©www.eldia-project.orgThischartmustnotbeused,distributedorreproducedwithoutreferencetotheELDIAprojectandtheunderlyingquantitativeandqualitativedata.


102

Figure29.ColourcodesfortheEuLaViBardiagram

5.1 Capacity

Capacity as a Focus Area of the EuLaViBar (European Language Diversity Barometer) isdefinedasaspeaker’ssubjectivecapacitytousethelanguageinquestionandreferstotheirself-confidenceinusingthelanguage.ThefocusareaCapacitydisplaysdiverseresultsinthedimensionsoflanguageuse(score:2.74),legislation(score:0.5)andmedia(score:0.98).Thequestions taken into account were the question about the mother tongue (Q7), cross-generational(Q10,Q11,Q15–18,Q21)andintra-generationallanguageuse(Q14,Q19,Q20)aswellasthequestionsregardingself-reportedlanguagecompetence(Q28A–31A)andthequestionabouttheuseofEstonianindifferent(publicandprivate)domains(Q32A)aswellas the questions Q34–Q36 (whether the parents supported the use of Estonian orencouragedtheirchildrentolearnEstonian),Q47(availabilityoflegislationinEstonian),Q59(usabilityofEstonianindiversesituations),Q62(mediaconsumption)andQ63(activeuseofmedia).

The relatively high overall grade for capacity, 2.46, indicates the speakers’ high linguisticcapacitytouseEstonianindifferentsituationsifopportunitiestodosoarecreated.Inwhatfollows,thebarometerresultsforthedimensionsofcapacityareexplainedinmoredetail.

Languageuseand interaction (2.74).The languageuseand interactiondimensionandthevariables therein (mother tongue, cross-generational language use, intra-generationallanguage use, self-reported competence, domain-specific language use and supportfor/prohibitionoflanguageuse)incorporatearangeofaspectsoflanguageuse.

Theoverallgradeforlanguageuseandinteractioninthisfocusareaisrelativelyhigh(2.74).However, these results do not reflect all relevant aspects of the situation of the EstonianlanguageinFinland.Firstly,mostoftherespondents(84%)definedEstonianastheirmothertongue;bornandraisedinEstonia,theyhadacquiredEstonianfromtheirEstonian-speakingparentsinanEstonian-languageenvironment,andthustheirlanguageproficiencydoesnotdirectly reflect thecircumstancesunderwhich theEstonian language is spoken inFinland.Secondly, therespondents’self-reported languagecompetencewasveryhigh,evenhigherthan theoverall grade for capacitywould suggest.According to their ownevaluation, thevast majority of respondents (89–92%) understood, spoke and read in Estonian fluently,while82%alsowroteinthelanguagefluently.BasedonthelevelofEstonianlanguageskills,


103

therespondentshadalloftheprerequisitestheyneededtocommunicateinEstonianandtomakeuseofthelanguageinanycommunicationsituation.

MostoftherespondentsusedtheEstonianlanguageeveryday.However, intheirfamilies,especiallyineverydaycommunicationbetweenspouses,differentstrategiesandpatternsofmultilingual languageusewerepractised.Almosthalfoftherespondents(42%)spokeonlyFinnishwith their spousesorpartners,while43%of therespondentsusedmore thanonelanguageforcommunication,inmostcasesFinnishandEstonian.Accordingtoourresults,inthe languagechoices in the families therewereobvioussignsofapotential languageshiftandofthefamilies’willingnessandreadinesstoalsouseFinnishathome.

Therespondentsingeneralhadapositiveattitudetowardtheirchildren’sheritagelanguagemaintenance. The vastmajority of respondents (88%) thought itwas necessary that theirchildren speak Estonian while living in Finland and supported them in this effort. About11.6%oftherespondentsdidnotthinkitwasnecessarythattheirchildrenspeakEstonianorthat theEstonian languagebesupported; theysaid that,while living inFinland, therewasabsolutelynoneedtouseorspeakEstonian,orreferredtotheirchildren’slackofinterestintheEstonianlanguageandculture.

Abouthalfoftherespondents(63.4%)wereoftheopinionthatEstonianwaseasytouseinmost situations. However, they felt there were generally no opportunities to use thelanguageindomainsoutsideofthehome.TheEstonianswhotookpartinthestudyhadverylimited opportunities to use Estonian outside of their homes. The Estonian languagewasmostlyusedathome(69%responded“always”),withrelatives(80.7%responded“always”)and with friends (47.4% responded “always”). In social networks (communication withfriends),bothlanguageswereused.

Legislation (score:0.5).LegislationasadimensionoftheEuLaViBarreferstotheexistenceornon-existenceoflegislation(supportingorinhibitinglanguageuseandlanguagediversity)and to people’s knowledge of and attitudes towards such legislation. Themean score forLegislationwasvery low (0.5). Itwasbasedon theexistenceof legal texts in theEstonianlanguage.Thesurvey respondentswerevery little (ornotatall)awareofwhetherFinnishlegal acts hadbeen translated intoorwere available in Estonian.Only a few respondentsclaimedthattheactshadbeentranslatedintoorwerepartlyavailableinEstonian.

Media(score:0.97).MediaasadimensionoftheEuLaViBarreferstoallissuesconnectedtothemedia(includingmediause,existenceofminoritymedia,languageinmediaproductionandlanguageinmediaconsumption).ThedimensionMediawasalsoratedverylow(0.97).ThisresultisindicativeofthelowsubjectivecapacityoftheEstoniancommunitytoconsumeand produce media and culture in the Estonian language, even though Estonians´ self-reportedlanguagecompetenceintheirmothertongueisveryhigh.AlthoughEstonianmediaareavailableinFinlandviasatelliteandtheInternet,theresultsofthestudyshowthattheuseofFinnishwasdominantinalmostallmeasuredfieldsofmediaandculture(e.g.readingnewspapers, listening to radio and watching TV). Finnish was also prevalent in cultural


104

practicesathome(readingbooks,watchingfilms,listeningtomusicetc.).Attendingtheatreandconcertswasofverymarginalimportance,irrespectiveofthelanguage.

5.2 Opportunity

OpportunityasaFocusAreaof theEuLaViBar refers to institutionalarrangements (legisla-tion,educationetc.)thatallowfor,supportorinhibittheuseoflanguages.Thetermreferstoexistingregulationsandthusdoesnotcoverthewishforsuch.

TheopportunitiesopentoEstonianspeakerstousetheirmothertongueweremeasuredinfourdimensions:1)languageuseandinteraction;2)education;3)legislation;and4)media.Thesedimensionsformthevariableswhichtogetherarereferredtoas‘opportunities’touseand support the Estonian language. The focus areaOpportunity entails the dimensions oflanguage use (mean score: 1.74), education (mean score: 2.18), legislation (mean score:0.80),andmedia(meanscore:1.65).Thequestionstakenintoaccountwerethequestionsaboutlanguageacquisition(Q8–9),supportandprohibitionoflanguageuse(Q22–23),Q25–27 (languagesofeducationand language instruction),Q55,58,60 (languageplanningandinstitutional support), Q44–45, 47–49 (legislation) and Q59, 61, 62A (easiness andopportunitiesofusingEstonianindiversesituationsanddomains).

For the focusareaofOpportunity, theoverallEuLaViBargrade is low,1.89.This reflectsalack of opportunities which may threaten the sustainability of the Estonian language inFinland.

Asexpected,opportunitiestouseEstonianwerebetterintheLanguageuseandinteractiondimension(witharatingof1.74),whereastherewereonlylimitedopportunitiesornoneatallinlegislation(0.80)andconsumptionofmedia(1.65).Thesemeasurementresultswereasexpectedingeneral,withtheexceptionofthedimensionEducation(2.17).

Languageuseandinteraction(1.74):Thelowmeanscore(1.74)forthedimensionLanguageuse and interaction is in accordance with our qualitative data. Although the majority ofrespondentsattachgreatvaluetotheuseoftheEstonianlanguage,thereweregenerallynoopportunities for the respondents to use Estonian in domains outside of the home (asdescribed in more detail in chapter 4.3.4, in question 61 about the use of Estonian in anumber of public domains, percentages of respondentswho claimed that Estonian isnotused ranged between 50.3–71.8%, depending on the domain). According to therespondents, theuseof theEstonian language inFinlandwasconsideredmostpossible inhospitals,educationalsettingsandcourts.

Education(2.17):Althoughthebarometerscoreforthedimensionofeducationisrelativelyhigh,thisresultdoesnotreflectthesituation inFinland.Nearlyalloftherespondentshadreceived their education in the Estonian language (88.5% in pre-school, 90.3% in primaryschool, and84.5% in secondaryschool;manyhadalsoearnedadegree fromanEstonianinstitutionofhighereducation inEstonia),but inEstoniaprior to their immigration,not in


105

Finland.Infact,EstonianslivinginFinlandhaveveryfewopportunitiestousetheirmothertongue within the education system. The only exception is the opportunity granted byFinnishlawformigrantchildrentostudytheirmothertongueatleasttwohoursperweek,providedthatthereareatleastfourpupilsstudyingthesamelanguage(formoredetails,seechapter2.4.2).

Legislation (0.80): The barometer score in the dimension Legislation (0.8) was very low.Estonians living in Finland in general (except of “activists”) were not aware of the lawsgoverning the activities of language minorities, educational and cultural life or languageissues.Estonianswerevery little (ornotatall)awareofwhethersuch legalactshadbeentranslatedintoorwereavailableinEstonian.

Media(1.65):ForthedimensionMediatheEuLaViBarscore(1.65)wasrelativelylowaswell.EstoniansinFinlanddonothaveradioandTVchannelsoftheirown,noradiobroadcasts,TVprogrammes, children’s programmes or press in their own language.12However, mediaservicesfromEstonia–forinstance,EstonianTVchannelsandradiostations–areavailableinFinlandviaInternetofsatellite.MostoftheEstonian-languagemediaconsumptionoftheEstoniansinFinlandispresumablyInternet-based.

5.3 Desire

DesireasafocusareaoftheEuLaViBarreferstothewillandwillingnessofpeopletousethelanguageinquestion.Desireisalsoreflectedinattitudesandemotionalresponsestotheuseofagivenlanguage.

Thequestions included in the calculationspertained to self-reportedmother tongue (Q7),cross-generationallanguageuse(Q10–11,15–18,21),intra-generationallanguageuse(Q14,19–20),supportandpreventionoflanguageuse(Q21–24,34,36B,44–45,60),self-reportedlanguage skills (Q28–31), self-reported languageuse indiversedomains (Q32A,62A,63A),attitudes towards speakers (Q38) and use and usefulness of Estonian in public domains(Q39, 52, 58, 59, 61). For the dimension of language use, themean scorewas fairly high(score: 2.25) showing willingness among the speakers to use their language in differentdimensions.

The EuLaViBar overall score for Desire, 2.25, indicates only limitedwillingness to use thelanguageindifferentdimensions.Themeanscoreforthefirstdimension,Languageuseandinteraction,was thehighest (2.4).Themeanscore for thedimensionLegislationwas1.48,whilethemeanscoreforthedimensionMediawasthelowest(0.98).

Language use and interaction (2.4): Although the majority of respondents consideredEstoniansimpletouseinmostlifesituations,theygenerallydidnotthinkthatusingthelan-

12Recall that the Estonian-language commercial radio channelFinest FMwas only launched after the ELDIAstudywasconducted.


106

guageoutsideEstoniawouldbepossibleorevennecessary.Accordingtotherespondents,theabilitytospeakEstonianplayednoroleintheFinnishlabourmarket.IncomparisonwithFinnishandEnglish,Estonianwas,asexpected,deemedtohavelesspotentialintheFinnishlabourmarket. Themajority of our respondents also believed that the importance of theEstonianlanguagewouldnotgrowinthecountryinfuture(e.g.withinthenextdecade).Theresults of the survey show that the respondents regarded the growth of English asmostlikely in Finland. However, some respondents were fairly positive about the future ofEstonian inFinland,believing thatEstonianwouldbeaviable language inFinlandand theimportance of continuing emigration from Estonia and geographical closeness wouldprobablykeeptheEstonianlanguagealive.

Respondents in general had a positive attitude toward the Estonian language, especiallytoward their children’s heritagelanguage maintenance. The vast majority of respondents(88%) thought it was necessary that their child/children speak Estonian while living inFinlandandsupportedtheminthiseffort.However,intheirfamilies,especiallyineverydaycommunicationbetweenspouses,differentstrategiesandpatternsofmultilinguallanguageusewerepractised.

Legislation(1.48):TheEuLaViBarscoreinthedimensionLegislationwaslow(1.48).Ingen-eral,theEstonianswerenotwellinformedortheydidnotknowwhetherFinnishlegislationsupportedorpreventedtheuseofEstonianinFinland.TheresponsesgiventothisquestionindicatethattherespondentsinterpretedsupportingtheEstonianlanguageinvariousways:as forms of support, theymentioned the teaching of Estonian offered in Finnish generaleducation schoolsaswell as theopportunity tousean interpreter in communicationwithauthorities. Furthermore, about 37% of the respondents thought that Finnish legislationsupportstheuseofseverallanguages.Bythis,theymainlymeantthat,intheFinnishlabourmarket,thecommandofdifferentforeignlanguagesisvaluedandspeakingseveralforeignlanguages provides the opportunity to get paid better. 37.8% of the respondents alsobelievedthatspeakersofdifferentlanguagesaretreatedequallyinFinland.

Media(0.98):TheEuLaViBarscoreinthedimensionMediawasverylow(0.98).Thisseemstoindicatealackofdesiretoconsumeorproducemediaandcultureintheirownlanguage.However,itshouldbenotedthatinthequestionsusedforthecalculationsofthisscore,therespondentswerenotdirectlyaskedabouttheirdesiretouseEstonian-languagemedia.

5.4 Languageproducts

LanguageProductsasaFocusAreaoftheEuLaViBarreferstothepresenceorthedemandoflanguage products (printed, electronic, ”experiential”, e.g., concerts, plays, performances,etc.)aswellastothewishofhavingproductsandservicesinandthroughthelanguageatissue.


107

Thequestionsusedinthecalculationspertainedtoeducation(Q25–27),useofEstonianinpublic domains (Q39, Q61), availability of legislation in Estonian (Q47) and mediaconsumptioninEstonian(Q62A).

For all dimensions, the scores were low: language use and interaction (1.11), legislation(0.5),media(score:1.65)andeducation(score:2.66),i.e.thereisalackofEstonian-language“products” in these dimensions. Finnish law is not available in Estonian and there is noEstonian-languageprintmediaorradio/televisionseries.Atthesametime,therearelimitedopportunities inFinland foruseofEstonianoutsideof thehome.Although thebarometerscore for thedimensionofEducationwas relativelyhigh, this resultdoesnotdescribe thesituationinFinlandasthemajorityofrespondentshadinrealityobtainedtheireducationinEstonia.

Language use and interaction (score 1.11). The mean score for Language use andInteraction was low (1.11). There are limited opportunities in Finland for use of Estonianoutside the home. In the opinion of most respondents, it was not possible to use theEstonian language in public domains in Finland. In terms of different institutions, therespondents thought itwasmost essential that,while living in Finland, Estonian could beusedinhospitals(30%),courtsoflaw(28%)andpolicedepartments(25%).

Legislation(score0.5):ThemeanscoreforLegislationwasverylow(0.5).Accordingtothestudy, respondentswere very little (ornot at all) awareofwhether Finnish legal actshadbeen translated intoorwereavailable inEstonian. Onlya fewrespondentsknewthat theactshadbeentranslatedintoorwerepartlyavailableinEstonian.

Media (score1.65):Themeanscore forMediawas low(1.65), reflecting thesame lackofEstonian-languagemediainFinlandasmentionedaboveunder5.2.

Education(score2.66):Comparedwiththeotherdimensions,themeanscoreforEducationwasveryhigh(2.66).Asalreadystatedabove(under5.2),this,however,doesnottruthfullyreflect thesituation inFinland,as themajorityof respondentsobtainedtheireducation inEstonia.

5.5 ThevitalityoftheEstonianlanguageinFinland

InthelightoftheEuLaViBaroverallscores,speakersofEstonianinFinlandarecharacterisedby linguistic capacity (2.46) and desire (2.25) to use their language, but by feweropportunities to use the language (1.57). There is also a lack of significant “Estonianlanguageproducts”inFinland(1.71),especiallyinlegislation,mediaandeducation.

Summary of EuLaViBar results: The overall EuLaViBar scoreswere very low in all dimen-sions, rangingbetween1.57 and 2.46. This indicates that the sustainability of Estonian inFinlandisendangeredandthattherearefactorswhichpromotealanguageshifttoFinnish.


108

In no dimension of any of the measured variables did the barometer give the state ofEstonianthehighestrating(4),whichwouldindicateasituationofstabilityinthelinguisticsituation. Of all of the dimensions, EuLaViBar gave the highest rating (2.74) to Estonianspeakers’linguisticcapacitytocommunicateintheirmothertongue;thelowestratingsweregiven to the speakers’ opportunities touse theEstonian language (esp. in legislation, 0.8)andtheexistenceofEstonian-languageproductsinFinland(esp.inlegislation,0.5).

Overall, Estonians living in Finland are characterised by the linguistic capacity tocommunicateinEstonianatthelevelofanativespeaker.Atthesametime,therearelimitedopportunitiesinFinlandfortheuseofEstonianoutsideofthehome.ThereisalsoalackofEstonian-language“products”inmedia,cultureandlegislation.

TheELDIAconsortiumstressesthatthelanguagevitalitybarometermustneverbeusedtoconclude that some language is not “worth” institutional and/or financial support. Thebarometercannotandshouldnotbeusedforpredictingthefateofanindividuallanguage.The barometer helps policy-makers and stakeholders in identifying conditions thatthreatenthemaintenanceofagivenlanguage,thosethatpromoteitsmaintenance,andthosethatneedtobeimprovedinordertosupportthemaintenanceoflanguagediversity.Withthehelpofthebarometer,specialsupportcanbedirectedtoareasindicatedbylowvitalityscores.


109

6 Summaryandconclusion

The Estonian-speaking communities in Finland represent a more recent allochthonousminority group that arose mostly as a result of intensive waves of emigration after thecollapseoftheSovietUnionin1991,andEstonia’sentry intotheEuropeanUnionin2004.Estoniansarethesecond-largestrecentmigrantgroupinFinland,aftertheRussian-speakingminority.ThestatisticaldataalsoindicatethattheEstonianpopulationinFinlandisevolvinginto the largest Estonian community in the Western Diaspora. Most of the Estonians inFinlandareconcentratedinthevicinityofthecapitalHelsinkiandotherlargercities(suchasTampere,TurkuandOulu).

Most of the respondents (84%)define Estonian as theirmother tongue and speak it on ahigh level of proficiency. For most of the Estonians, Finnish is a foreign language whichgenerallyhasbeenacquiredinadulthoodafteremigratingtoFinland.Accordingtotheirownevaluation,morethanhalfoftherespondentscanread(64%),speak(51%)andunderstand(55%)Finnishfluently,while36.8%canwriteFinnish“fluently”.

Estonians in Finland generally have a positive attitude toward multilingualism. In theirfamilies, especially in everyday communication between spouses, different strategies andpatterns ofmultilingual language use are practised. The vastmajority of the respondents(88.4%) thought itwasnecessary that their children speakEstonianwhile living in Finlandand supported them in this effort; however, about 11.6% of the respondents did notconsideritnecessarytomaintaintheirchildren’sEstonianlanguageskills.Almosthalfoftherespondents(42%)spokeexclusivelyFinnishwiththeirspousesorpartners,while43%oftherespondents used more than one language for communication, the most usual languagecombinationbeingFinnishandEstonian.

EstoniansinFinlandhavefewopportunitiestouseEstonianoutsidethehome.However,insocial networks (communication with friends) both languages are used. Most of therespondentsbelievedthatEstonianwasnotrequiredinanypublicdomain.

The use of Finnishwas dominant in almost allmeasured fields ofmedia and culture (e.g.reading newspapers, listening to radio and watching TV). Finnish was also prevalent inculturalpracticesathome(readingbooks,watchingmovies,listeningtomusicetc.).

Estonians living in Finland in general were not aware (except for activists) of the lawsregulatingtheactivitiesoflanguageminorities,educationalandculturallife,oroflanguageissues. Estonianswerealso very little (ornot at all) awareofwhether such legal actshadbeentranslatedintoEstonian.


110

7 References

Ahvenanmaan itsehallintolaki (Act on the Autonomy of the Åland Islands):www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1991/19911144

Anniste, K. (2009).Eesti välisränneaastatel2000–2007. [‘Estonianemigration in theyears2000–2007.’]In:Tammaru,T.&Tammur,A.(eds.)Ränne.Migration,50–67.EestiStatistika. Statistics Estonia.forum.tempt.ee/uploads/2502_R%C3%A4nne%5b1%5d.pdf

Anniste, K. (2011). Eestlaste väljaränne Soome. Uuringu kokkuvõte. Tartu.valitsus.ee/UserFiles/valitsus/et/riigikantselei/strateegia/poliitika-analuusid-ja-uuringud/tarkade-otsuste-fondi-noorteadlaste-alameetme/TOF_Projekti_uuringu_kokkuvote-Anniste.pdf

COMPENDIUM 2007 = Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe:www.culturalpolicies.net/web/finland.php?aid=424.

Erelt,M.(ed.)(2003).Estonianlanguage.LinguisticaUralica.Supplementaryseries,Volume1. Tallinn:EstonianAcademyPublishers.

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg, 05.11.1992.ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/charter_en.pdf

Fishman,JoshuaA.(1991).ReversingLanguageShift.Clevedon,Avon:MultilingualMatters.

Gazzola, M. & Grin, F. (2007). Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingualcommunication.–AILAReview20,87–105.

Granqvist, K. (2006). Selvitys Suomen romanikielen nykytilasta sekä kielentutkimuksenja-huollontarpeista.www.kotus.fi/files/729/romaniselvitys-1.pdf

Grans, L. (2011). Legal and Institutional Framework Analysis: Karelian and Estonian inFinland. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 10.(http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:246038)

Grin, F. (2006). Economic considerations in language policy. In: Ricento, T. (ed.) AnIntroduction to Language Policy. Theory and Method, 77–94. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing.

Hassinen, S. (2002). Simultaaninen kaksikielisyys. Läheiset sukukielet viro ja suomirinnakkain.[‘Simultaneousbilingualism.ThecloselyrelatedlanguagesEstonianandFinnishalongsideeachother.’]Oulu:Oulunyliopisto.


111

Jaakkola, M. (1999). Maahanmuutto ja etniset asenteet. Suomalaisten suhtautuminenmaahanmuuttajiin 1987–1999. [‘Immigration and ethnic attitudes. The Finns’attitudestowardsimmigrants1987–1999.’]Helsinki:Edita.

Jaakkola, M. (2009). Maahanmuuttajat suomalaisten näkökulmasta: asennemuutokset1987–2007. [‘Immigrants from the viewpoint of the Finns: changes in attitudes1987–2007.’]Helsinginkaupungintietokeskus.

Jääskeläinen, I. (1997). Virolaisten kielellinen ja kulttuurinen sopeutuminen Suomeen.[‘Estonians’linguisticandculturalintegrationinFinland.’]UnpublishedM.A.thesis,UniversityofHelsinki,DepartmentofFinnish.

Jääskeläinen, I. (2002).Kun Suomi ja Viro kohtaavat: äännevariaatioita virolaismuuttajienpuhesuomessa ja muuttajien kulttuurinen sopeutuminen. [‘When Finland andEstoniameet:phoneticvariation inFinnishasspokenbyEstonian immigrantsandthe immigrants’ cultural integration.’] Unpublished Licentiate thesis, University ofHelsinki,DepartmentofFinnish.

Kaivapalu, A. (2005). Lähdekieli kielenoppimisen apuna. [‘Source language as an aid tolanguagelearning.’]Jyväskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä.

Kauranen,R.&Tuori,S.(2001).MappingMinoritiesandtheirMedia:TheNationalContext–Finland.Turku/Åbo:DepartmentofSociology,ÅboAkademiUniversity.

Kielilaki(LanguageLaw):www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2003/20030423

Koreinik, K. & Praakli, K. (2013). Keele kestlikkuse ja kao konstrueerimine poolavalikesdiskursustes. [‘The construction of language maintenance and language loss insemipublic discourses.’] In: Metslang, H., Langemets, M. & Sepper, M.-M. (eds.)Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 9, 131–149. Tallinn: EestiRakenduslingvistikaÜhing.

Kulu,H.(1992).Eestlasedmaailmas.Ülevaadearvukusestjapaiknemisest.[‘Estoniansintheworld.Anoverviewontheirnumbersandlocations.’]Tartu:UniversityofTartu.

Kulu, H. & Kyntäjä, E. (1998). Muuttonäkymät Venäjältä ja Baltian maista Suomeen.[‘Prospects of migration from Russia and the Baltic countries to Finland.’]SiirtolaisuustutkimuksiaA20.Vammala.

Kyntäjä, E. (1997). Eestlased Soomes – akulturatsioonipsühholoogia ja etniline identiteet.[‘Estonians inFinland–acculturationpsychologyandethnic identity.’] In:Kulu,H.,Metsis,K., Tammaru,T. (eds.)Eestlaneolla ... Eesti keele ja kultuuriperspektiivid,60–71.Tartu:TartuÜlikooliKirjastus.


112

Laakso, J., Sarhimaa, A., Spiliopoulou Åkermark, S., Toivanen, R. (2016).Towardsopenlymultilingualpoliciesandpractices:AssessingminoritylanguagemaintenanceacrossEurope.Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto:MultilingualMatters.

Laalo, K. (1992). Huvitav lugu – kiinnostava juttu. Suomen ja viron välinen sanastonriskiryhmä ja sen taustaa. [‘An interesting story. On false friends in Finnish andEstonianlexiconandtheirbackground.’]Helsinki:SuomalaisenKirjallisuudenSeura.

Laanekask,H.(2006).VirolaisetSuomessasuomenvirolaisiksi.[‘FromEstoniansinFinlandtoFinnish-Estonians.’] In: Haurinen, O. & Sulkala, H. (eds.) Tutkielmiavähemmistökielistä Jäämereltä Liivinrantaan. Vähemmistökielten tutkimus- jakoulutusverkostonraporttiV,55–73.ActaUniversitatisOuluensis,B,Humaniora69.Oulu:UniversityofOulu.

Lagerspetz, M. (2011). Vironkielisten maahanmuuttajien osallistuminen kulttuuri- jayhdistyselämään.[‘TheparticipationofEstonianimmigrants inculturalandsocietylife.’] Åbo Akademi/Tuglas-seura.www.tuglas.fi/tiedostot/Vironkielisten_maahanmuuttajien_osallistuminen.pdf

Latomaa,S. (ed.) (2007).Omakielikullankallis.Opasmaahanmuuttajienomanäidinkielenopetukseen. [‘The precious heritage language. A guide for the teaching ofimmigrants’mothertongues.’]Helsinki:Opetushallitus.

Latomaa, S. (2009). Tataarista teluguun. Tampereenmonet kielet. [‘FromTatar to Telugu.Themany languages of Tampere.’] In: Lönnroth, H. (ed.) Tampere kieliyhteisönä,220–245.Helsinki:SuomalaisenKirjallisuudenSeura.

Liebkind,K.,Mannila,S., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Jaakkola,M.,Kyntäjä,E.,Reuter,A. (2004).Venäläinen, virolainen, suomalainen. Kolmen maahanmuuttajaryhmän kotoutu-minen Suomeen. [‘Russian, Estonian, Finn. Three immigrant groups’ integration inFinland.’]Helsinki:Gaudeamus.

Metslang, H. (1994). Temporal relations in the predicate and the grammatical system ofEstonianandFinnish.Oulu:UniversityofOulu.

Morottaja, M. (2007). Inarinsaamen kielen tilanne sekä kielenhuolto- ja tutkimustarpeet.[‘The situation of Inari Sámi and its needs in language planning and research.’]www.kotus.fi/files/716/inariSelvitys2007.pdf

Moschnikoff,J.&Moschnikoff,S.(2006).Selvityskoltansaamennykytilastajatarpeellisistatoimenpiteistä. [‘An investigation on the current state of Skolt Sámi and onnecessarymeasures.’]www.kotus.fi/files/715/koltansaamenselvitys.pdf

Mäkeläinen,T.(2006).Kabböle100.Helsinki:Aaltojenyhteys.


113

Nigol,A.(1918).EestiasundusedjaasupaigadVenemaal.[‘EstoniansettlementsandplacesofresidenceinRussia.’]Tartu.

Perusopetuslaki(BasicEducationAct):www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628

Pohjanpää,K.,Paananen,S.,Nieminen,M.(2003).Maahanmuuttajienelinolot.Venäläisten,virolaisten, somalialaisten ja vietnamilaisten elämää Suomessa 2002. [‘The livingconditions of immigrants. On the life of Russians, Estonians, Somalis andVietnameseinFinland2002.’]Elinolot2003:1.Tilastokeskus.Helsinki.

Praakli, K. (2009). Esimese põlvkonna Soome eestlaste kakskeelne keelekasutus jakoodikopeerimine. [‘Bilingual language use and code-copying of first-generationEstoniansinFinland.’]Tartu:TartuÜlikooliKirjastus.

Praakli,K. (2010).EestlasedjaeestikeelSoomes.[‘EstoniansandtheEstonianlanguageinFinland.’] In:Praakli,K.&Viikberg, J. (eds.)Eestlased jaeestikeelvälismaal,455–501.Tallinn:EestiKeeleSihtasutus.

Praakli,K.&Viikberg,J.(eds.)(2010).Eestlasedjaeestikeelvälismaal.[‘EstoniansandtheEstonianlanguageabroad.’]Tallinn:EestiKeeleSihtasutus.

Punttila, M. (1996.) Pernajan Käbbole: Suomen ainoa virolaiskylä. [‘Kabböle in Pernaja:Finland’sonlyEstonianvillage.’] In:Pitkänen,R.L.,Suni,H.,Tanner,S. (eds.)Kielenkannoilla: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus 20 vuotta, 292–311. Kotimaistenkieltentutkimuskeskuksenjulkaisuja.Helsinki:Edita.

Remes,H.(1995).Suomenjavironvertailevaataivutustypologiaa.[‘ContrastivetypologyofFinnishandEstonian inflection.’]Suomen jasaamenkielen ja logopedian laitoksenjulkaisuja.Oulu:Oulunyliopisto.

Remes, H. (2009).Muodot kontrastissa: suomen ja viron vertailevaa taivutusmorfologiaa.[‘Forms in contrast: contrastive inflectionalmorphology of Finnish and Estonian.’]Oulu:Oulunyliopisto,2009

Reuter, A. & Jaakkola, M. (2005). Venäjänkielisten, vironkielisten ja kaksikielistenmaahanmuuttajiensosiaalisetverkostot.[‘ThesocialnetworksofRussian-speaking,Estonian-speaking and bilingual immigrants.’] In: Paananen, S. (ed.)MaahanmuuttajienelämääSuomessa.Helsinki:Tilastokeskus.

Saamenkielilaki(SámiLanguageLaw):www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2003/20031086

Sarhimaa,Anneli (2014).Karelian inFinland:ELDIACase-SpecificReport. (Toappear intheseriesStudiesinEuropeanLanguageDiversity,http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:80726.)


114

Strubell, M. (1996). Language planning and classroom practice in Catalonia. Journal ofMultilingual & Multicultural Development, vol. 17, no. 24, 262-275.www.multilingualmatters.net/jmmd/017/0262/jmmd0170262.pdf

Strubell,M.(2001).MinoritiesandEuropeanLanguagePolicies.Minoritésetl'aménagementlinguistique.PlurilinguaXXII:45-58.www.geocities.com/m_strubell/viena.htm.

Suhonen, S. (1980).EineestnischeSprachinsel inFinnland.LinguaPosnanensis.XXIII,187–190.

Suihkonen,M.(2003).Kukaaneihaluaelääsemmoistaelämää,jossaomaaääntäeikuulu“.Haastattelututkimus etnisten vähemmistöjen omasta mediasta javähemmistötaustaisten toimittajien pääsystä valtamediaan. [‘“Nobody wants toleadsucha life inwhichyourownvoice isnotheard.”An interviewstudyon theethnic minorities’ own media and on the admittance of journalists of minorityextraction into mainstream media.’] Unpublished M.A. thesis, University ofTampere.

Tammaru,T.,Kumer-Haukanõmm,K.&Anniste,K.(2010).Eestidiasporaakujunemisekolmlainet.[‘ThethreewavesoftheformationoftheEstoniandiaspora.’]In:Praakli,K.& Viikberg, J. (eds.) Eestlased ja eesti keel välismaal, 35–56. Tallinn: Eesti KeeleSihtasutus.

Tarnanen, M. & Suni, M. (2005). Maahanmuuttajien kieliympäristö ja kielitaito. [‘Theimmigrants’ language environment and language skills.’] In: Paananen, S. (ed.)MaahanmuuttajienelämääSuomessa,9−21.Helsinki:Tilastokeskus.

Teiss, K. (2005). Kristian virolais-suomalaista kaksikielisyyttä omaksumassa: koodienyhdistyminen ja keskustelustrategiat. [‘Kristian acquiring Estonian-Finnishbilingualism: code-mixing and discourse strategies.’] M.A. thesis, University ofTampere.

Teiss, K. (2006). Suhtlusstrateegiad eesti-soome kakskeelsust omandava lapse segakoodis.[‘Discourse strategies in the mixed code of a child acquiring Estonian-Finnishbilingualism.’] In: Metslang, H., Langemets, M., Sepper M.-M. (eds.) EestiRakenduslingvistikaÜhinguaastaraamat2,251–269.Tallinn:EestiKeeleSihtasutus.

Tilastokeskus 2016 = Statistic Finland’s PX-Web database,http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/,lastaccessed9November2017

Viikberg, J. & Praakli, K. (2013). Väliseestlased ja nende keel. Pidepunkte uurimisloost.[‘Expatriate Estonians and their language. Fixed points from the history ofresearch.’]In:Valk,Heiki(ed.)ÕpetatudEestiSeltsiAastaraamat2011,9–39.Tartu:ÕpetatudEestiSelts.


115

Viitso, T.-R. (2003). Rise and development of the Estonian language. In: Erelt, Mati (ed.)Estonian language, 130–230. Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary series, Volume1. Tallinn:EstonianAcademyPublishers.

Vuolab-Lohi,K.(2007).Pohjoissaamenkielentilannesekäkehittämistarpeet.[‘Thesituationand the development needs of the North Sámi language.’]www.kotus.fi/files/742/pohjoisSelvitys.pdf

Väestörakenne 2016. [‘The structure of Finland’s population’, published by StatisticsFinland]http://stat.fi/til/vaerak/2016/vaerak_2016_2017-03-29_fi.pdf


116

Attachment1:Policyrecommendations

• Estonian speakers in Finland have rapidly formed the largest Estonian-speakingcommunityoutsideEstonia.Asmostof themwerebornand raised inanEstonian-languageenvironmentandhaveonlyimmigratedfairlyrecently,theyarefluentandconfidentusersof theEstonian language. The key issue, therefore, iswhether andhow the Estonian languagewill be transmitted to their children andwhat kind ofrelationshipwiththeheritagelanguagewilldevelopamongtheyoungestgeneration.It is importanttoraisetheparents’awarenessaboutthesignificanceofthemothertongue for the identity and to broaden their knowledge about the benefits ofmultilingualism, in order to motivate them to use their mother tongue with theirchildren.ParentswhochoosetouseFinnishoranotherlanguagewiththeirchildreninstead of their heritage languagemay believe that their children “will be able todecidethemselveswhichlanguagetheywanttospeak”;inreality,theyhavealreadymadethechoiceonbehalfoftheirchildren.

• Therefore, more attention should be paid to organising Estonian language studiesand developmental activities, but also informing the Estonian communities aboutthoseopportunities.

• EstonianspeakersinFinlandlackadistinctcentralorganisation.Whenplanninganylanguage and cultural activities, policy planners have to take into account the factthatEstonianspeakersinFinlandbelongtodifferentcommunitiesindifferentregions(incl.cities,citydistricts,villagecommunities),theyhavedifferentspheresofactivityanddifferentpreferencesintheirconsumptionofculturalproducts.

• Until recently, the public activity of Estonian speakers in Finland has beenmainly

restricted to issues of language learning and education. In other minority issues(legislation, rights and protection of the minority, etc.), Estonians in Finland havehardlyvoicedtheiropinionsinFinnishpublicdiscourse.Thispassivenessissurprisingconsidering the fact that the Estonian speakers in Finland (approximately 50,000)form the second largest immigrant group, second only to the Russian-speakingimmigrant community. Therefore, it is necessary to find opportunities for betterinvolvement of the Estonian speakers and their participation in the society andcomprehensivecooperationbothwiththemajorityandwithotherminoritygroups.

• Citizens’ initiatives and advocacy for expressing, developing and preserving the

Estonian language and culture in Finland need to be continuously supported. Inplanning the support measures, decision-makers should understand that the localactivistsareoftenalsothebestexpertsinsuchissues.


117

Attachment2:Questionnaires

The minority and majority (control-group) questionnaires of the ELDIA survey weredevelopedjointlyforthewholeELDIAprojectandtranslatedfromthemasterversionsintotheminorityandmajoritylanguagesofeachcasestudy(withsomefurthermodificationsforthequestionnairesused in themultilingualNorthernCalottearea, i.e. the case studiesonMeänkieli,Kven,andNorthSámi).ThiscentralresearchdesignrequiredtheuseofthesamequestionnaireacrossalltheELDIAcasestudies,despitethefactthatnotallquestionswereequally meaningful for all target groups; some questions may have seemed strange orirrelevant to therespondentsofacertain targetgroup,althoughthesamequestionshaveretrievedimportantinformationinsomeotherELDIAcasestudy.

As alreadymentioned in chapter 3.1.3, theplanningof the ELDIA fieldwork suffered fromvarious problemswhich finally led to the partner in charge, the University of Stockholm,withdrawingfromtheproject.Theplanningofthequestionnairewasseverelydelayedduetoproblems in theorganisationand leadershipof thisworkphaseand in the informationflow between project partners; the pilot versions of the questionnaires could not beproperlytested,andboththemasterquestionnaireand itstranslationshadtobefinalisedunder extreme time pressure. Thus, the final versions of the questionnaires, whileexcessively long and generally experienced as complicated and challenging, still containedsomeflaws,errorsandmisleadingformulations.

Learningfromtheseexperiences,theELDIAconsortiumhascreatedanew,amendedversionof themaster questionnaire. The new questionnaire is included in the EuLaViBar Toolkit,which can be downloaded from the ELDIA project website (www.eldia-project.org) ordirectlyathttp://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:301101.

ThefollowingquestionnairesaretranslationsoftheEnglishorFinnishmasterversionsoftheMinLgandCGquestionnaires.ThefinallayoutwascreatedbyKatharinaZeller(UniversityofMainz).

+ +

+ 01 1 +

EST

A. TAUSTAANDMED 1 Teie sugu on:

Mees Naine 2 Palun märkige, millisesse vanuserühma Te kuulute?

18–29 a. 30–49 a. 50–64 a. 65 + a. 3 Kes kuulub/kuuluvad Teie leibkonda?

Elan üksi

Elan koos lapsega/lastega

Elan koos abikaasaga/elukaaslasega

Elan koos abikaasaga/elukaaslasega ja koos lastega

Elan koos vanema(te)ga

Muu, mis? __________________________________________________________________

4 Ma olen sündinud

riigis: ____________________ linnas või külas:_________________________________________

Mis linnas või külas Te praegu elate?________________________________________________________

alates ____________ aastast

Nimetage kõik teised elukohad (riik, linn/küla), kus Te olete elanud vähemalt 6 kuud:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 2 +

5 Haridustase. Palun nimetage Teie kõrgeim haridustase:

haridus puudub/pole koolis käinud

põhiharidus: ________aastat

kutseharidus/keskharidus: ________aastat

kõrgharidus: ________aastat_______________________________teaduskraad

6 A) Mis on Teie amet?___________________________________________

B) Mis on Teie praegune põhitegevusala:

töötan või õpin väljaspool kodu

töötan kodus (nt koduperenaine, talupidaja)

olen pensionil

otsin tööd või olen töötu

muu, mis? ____________________________________________________________________

C) Kas töötate sellises kohas, kust tööle sõiduks ühes suunas on üle 50 kilomeetri?

iga päev

iga nädal

iga kuu

muu, mis? ___________________________________________________________________

B. KEELEKASUTUST PUUDUTAV TAUSTATEAVE 7 Mis on Teie emakeel(ed)või see keel, mille õppisite esimesena?

_______________________________________________________________________________

8 Kus ja kellelt Te õppisite eesti keele?

_______________________________________________________________________________

9 Kus ja kellelt Te õppisite soome keele?

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 3 +

Teie vanavanemad (kui nad on/olid elus Teie eluajal): 10 Mis keelt/keeli kasutasid Teie emapoolsed vanavanemad Teiega suheldes?:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

11 Mis keelt/keeli kasutasid Teie isapoolsed vanavanemad Teiega suheldes?:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Teie vanemate taustaandmed 12 Palun nimetage Teie isa kõrgeim haridustase:




kõrgharidus: ________aastat_______________________________teaduskraad

ma ei tea

13 Palun nimetage Teie ema kõrgeim haridustase:




kõrgharidus: ________aastat______________________________teaduskraad

ma ei tea

+ +

+ 01 4 +

Teie vanemate keelekasutus: Kui üks Teie vanematest ei olnud elus või ei elanud Teie perega koos, palun märkige ”ei saa vastata”. 14 Mis keelt/keeli räägivad/rääkisid Teie vanemad omavahel:

ei saa vastata, sest isa ja ema ei elanud koos, üks neist oli surnud vms

mõlema vanema olemasolu korral palun täpsustage!

Isa emaga: _____________________ Ema isaga: _____________________

15 Mis keeles/keeltes rääkis Teie ema Teiega Teie lapsepõlves?

ei saa vastata, sest ema ei olnud, oli surnud vms

Palun nimetage see keel/need keeled. Kui keeli oli rohkem, palun nimetage, millistes olukordades neid keeli kasutati:

_______________________________________________________________________________

16 Mis keeles/keeltes räägib Teie ema Teiega praegu?

ei saa vastata, sest ema ei ole, on surnud vms

Palun nimetage see keel/need keeled. Kui keeli on rohkem, palun nimetage, millistes olukordades neid keeli kasutatakse:

_______________________________________________________________________________

17 Mis keeles/keeltes rääkis Teie isa Teiega Teie lapsepõlves?

ei saa vastata, sest isa ei olnud, oli surnud vms

Palun nimetage see keel/need keeled. Kui keeli oli rohkem, palun nimetage, millistes olukordades neid keeli kasutati:

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 5 +

18 Mis keeles/keeltes räägib Teie isa Teiega praegu?

ei saa vastata, sest isa ei ole, on surnud vms

Palun nimetage see keel/need keeled. Kui keeli on rohkem, palun nimetage, millistes olukordades neid keeli kasutatakse:

_____________________________________________________________________________

Teie keelekasutus Teie õdede-vendadega (kaasa arvatud kasuõdede või -vendadega): Kui Teil pole (olnud) õdesid ja/või vendi, jätkake küsimusega 20. 19 Mis keelt/keeli kasutate või kasutasite oma õdede ja/või vendadega kõige sagedamini?

a. kes on vanemad kui Teie:

lapsepõlves __________________________________________________________________

praegu ______________________________________________________________________

b. kes on nooremad kui Teie:

lapsepõlves __________________________________________________________________

praegu ______________________________________________________________________

Teie keelekasutus Teie abikaasaga/elukaaslasega: Kui Teil ei ole abikaasat/elukaaslast, palun jätkake küsimusega 21. 20 Mis keelt või keeli Te kasutate oma praeguse abikaasaga/elukaaslasega.

Kui Te kasutate rohkem kui ühte keelt, palun täpsustage, millistes situatsioonides Te erinevaid keeli kasutate?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 6 +

Teie keelekasutus Teie lapsega/lastega: Kui Teil ei ole lapsi, jätkake küsimusega 22. 21 Mis keeles/keeltes räägite Te oma lapsega/lastega?

Mul on _______ laps / last.

Täpsustage, mis keeles/keeltes räägite Te oma vanima ning noorima lapsega:

a. vanima lapsega: ____________________________________________________________

b. noorima lapsega: ___________________________________________________________

Väikeste laste keelekasutuse ja kasvatusega seotud seisukohad 22 Kas Teie lapsepõlves esines katseid takistada lastega eesti keele kasutamist?

Ma ei tea Ei Jah

Kui Te vastasite ”ei” või ”ma ei tea”, palun jätkake küsimusega 24. 23 Kui vastasite ”jah”, palun täpsustage, kus neid seisukohti rakendati (Palun märkige kõik võimalikud variandid):

Kodus (täpsustage kuidas) _______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Koolis (täpsustage kuidas) _______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Mujal (kelle poolt ja kuidas) _____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

24 Kas sellised seisukohad on levinud ka praegu (tänapäeval), et lastega peaks/ei peaks eesti keelt kasutama?

Ma ei tea Ei Jah. Palun täpsustage, kes selliseid seisukohti avaldab ja kuidas:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 7 +

Keelekasutus koolis Mis keelt/keeli kasutati koolis õppekeel(t)ena, kui Teie koolis käisite?

PS: küsimus ei puuduta keelekasutust keeletundides, vaid ka seda keelt/neid keeli, mida õpetajad kasutasid teiste ainete õpetamisel.

25 Mind on õpetatud kõikides koolides ühes õppekeeles

Jah, täpsustage, mis keeles _____________________________________________________

ja jätkake küsimusega 27.

Ei, jätkake järgmise küsimusega.

26 Mis keelt/keeli kasutati õppekeel(t)ena muude õppeainete puhul (v.a keeletunnid)?

Teised keeled

Eesti keel Soome keel _______________ _______________

Lasteaias/eelkoolis

Põhikoolis

Keskkoolis või kutseõppeasutuses

27 Kas Teie koolis võimaldati haridust Teie emakeeles (eesti keeles)?

Lasteaias/eelkoolis Ei Jah, mitu tundi nädalas? _____ tundi

Põhikoolis Ei Jah, mitu tundi nädalas? _____ tundi

Keskkoolis või kutseõppehariduses Ei Jah, mitu tundi nädalas? _____ tundi

+ +

+ 01 8 +

C. TEIE KEELTEOSKUS Järgmisena palume Teil hinnata Teie keeleoskust. Märkige iga keele ja iga osaoskuse (arusaamine, rääkimine, lugemine, kirjutamine) puhul, kuidas Te oma keeleoskust nendes keeltes hindaksite. 28 Ma saan aru järgmistest keeltest:

vabalt hästi mõnevõrra halvasti üldse mitte

eesti keel soome keel inglise keel vene keel rootsi keel saksa keel muu: ____________________ 29 Ma räägin järgmisi keeli:


eesti keel soome keel inglise keel vene keel rootsi keel saksa keel muu: ___________________ 30 Ma loen järgmistes keeltes:


eesti keel soome keel inglise keel vene keel rootsi keel saksa keel muu: ___________________

+ +

+ 01 9 +

31 Ma kirjutan järgmistes keeltes:


eesti keel soome keel inglise keel vene keel rootsi keel saksa keel muu: ___________________ D. KEELEKASUTUS 32 Märkige ristiga, mil määral Te kasutate keeli järgmistel puhkudel. Tehke rist vastavasse

kastikesse.

A. eesti keel

alati sageli mõnikord harva mitte kunagi

kodus

sugulastega

tööl

sõpradega

naabritega

koolis

poes

tänaval

raamatukogus

kirikus

ametnikega

kohalikel üritustel*

muudes situatsioonides, kus**

______________________

* Kohalike ürituste all peame silmas valla, küla, linna või linnaosa üritusi ja sündmusi, nt klubiõhtud, rahvapeod jms.

** Võite lisada midagi omal valikul.

+ +

+ 01 10 +

B. soome keel


kodus

sugulastega

tööl

sõpradega

naabritega

koolis

poes

tänaval

raamatukogus

kirikus

ametnikega



______________________



Kui Te ei kasuta kunagi muid keeli, jätkake küsimusega 33!

C. inglise keel / muu keel_______________________


kodus

sugulastega

tööl

sõpradega

naabritega

koolis

poes

tänaval

raamatukogus

kirikus

ametnikega



______________________



+ +

+ 01 11 +

D. ____________


kodus

sugulastega

tööl

sõpradega

naabritega

koolis

poes

tänaval

raamatukogus

kirikus

ametnikega



______________________



E. KEELEHOIAKUD JA SOOV KEELI KASUTADA Keelte läbisegi kasutamine 33 Mida Te arvate järgmistest väidetest keelte läbisegi kasutamise kohta? Tehke rist vastavasse

kastikesse.

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Keelte läbisegi kasutamine on eesti keele rääkijate hulgas laialt levinud.

Üksnes madala haridustasemega inimesed

kasutavad eesti keelt teiste keeltega läbisegi.

Noored kasutavad sageli eesti keelt teiste keeltega läbisegi.

Vanemad inimesed räägivad eesti keelt korralikult.

Keelte läbisegi kasutamine viitab erinevate keelte heale oskusele.

Keelte läbisegi kasutamine on aktsepteeritud.

+ +

+ 01 12 +

Eesti ja soome keele väärtustamine ning toetamine 34 Kas Teie vanemad püüdsid Teid toetada eesti keele kasutamisel?

Ei Jah

Palun kommenteerige

_______________________________________________________________________________

35 Kas Teie vanemad püüdsid Teid toetada soome keele kasutamisel?

Ei Jah

Palun kommenteerige

_______________________________________________________________________________

36 Kui Teil on endal lapsi, kas püüate toetada nende eesti keele õppimist ja kasutamist?

Mul ei ole lapsi, jätkake küsimusega 37

Jah, mul on laps(i). Kas toetate tema/nende eesti keele õppimist ja kasutamist?

Ei

Jah, palun täpsustage, kuidas

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 13 +

Väiteid eesti keele kasutamise kohta erinevate rühmade puhul 37 Tavaliselt eelistavad erinevast vanusest või soost inimesed ühte keelt teisele. Märkige, mil määral

Te nõustute järgnevate väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Poistelt eeldatakse eesti keele kasutamist.

Tüdrukutelt eeldatakse eesti keele kasutamist.

Täiskasvanud meestelt eeldatakse eesti keele kasutamist.

Täiskasvanud naistelt eeldatakse eesti keele kasutamist.

38 Järgmisena esitatakse mõned väited eesti keele rääkijate kohta. Märkige, mil määral Te nõustute

järgnevate väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Eesti keele kõnelejaga on lihtne sõbruneda.

Eesti keele kõnelejaga on lihtne tutvuda.

Eesti keele kõnelejaga on lihtne abielluda.

Eesti keele kõnelejaga on lihtne koos töötada.

Eesti keele kõnelejaga on lihtne koos aega veeta.

+ +

+ 01 14 +

Eesti keele kasutamine 39 Mida Te arvate eesti keele kasutamise kohta avalikus sfääris selles riigis, kus Te elate? Märkige,

mil määral Te nõustute järgnevate väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama televisioonis.

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama politseijaoskonnas.

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama parlamendis.

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama haiglates.

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama kohtus.

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama internetis.

Eesti keelt peaks kasutama haridussüsteemis.

Erinevate keelte tulevik 40 Kuidas muutub Teie hinnangul järgmiste keelte tähtsus järgmise 10 aasta jooksul? Märkige, mil

määral Te nõustute järgnevate väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Eesti keele tähtsus kasvab järgmise 10 aasta jooksul.

Soome keele tähtsus kasvab järgmise 10 aasta jooksul.

Inglise keele tähtsus kasvab järgmise 10 aasta jooksul.

Rootsi keele tähtsus kasvab järgmise 10 aasta jooksul.

_________ keele tähtsus kasvab järgmise 10 aasta jooksul.

+ +

+ 01 15 +

Keelte iseloomustamine Järgmisena püüdke alljärgnevate sõnapaaride abil kirjeldada, mida Te iga keele puhul tunnete või mõtlete. Märkige vastused skaalal 1-5, näiteks

1 2 3 4 5

ilus X inetu

41 Eesti keel tundub:

1 2 3 4 5

pehme kange

ebaturvaline turvaline

lähedane kauge

usaldusväärne ebausaldusväärne

otsustav ebakinde

moodne traditsiooniline

jõuetu jõuline

lõbus igav

inetu ilus

mehelik naiselik

õel lahke

rikas vaene

edutu edukas

vana noor

arukas rumal

hooliv hoolimatu

harimatu haritud

passiivne aktiivne 42 Soome keel tundub:

1 2 3 4 5

pehme kange


lähedane kauge


otsustav ebakinde


jõuetu jõuline

lõbus igav

inetu ilus

mehelik naiselik

õel lahke

rikas vaene

+ +

+ 01 16 +

edutu edukas

vana noor

arukas rumal

hooliv hoolimatu

harimatu haritud

passiivne aktiivne 43 Inglise keel tundub:

1 2 3 4 5

pehme kange


lähedane kauge


otsustav ebakinde


jõuetu jõuline

lõbus igav

inetu ilus

mehelik naiselik

õel lahke

rikas vaene

edutu edukas

vana noor

arukas rumal

hooliv hoolimatu

harimatu haritud

passiivne aktiivne Keeleseadusandlus Keeleseadusandlus ja inimeste arusaam sellest 44 Kas Teie hinnangul Soome seadusandlus toetab eesti keele kasutamist?

Ei Jah Osaliselt Ma ei tea Kui märkisite “jah” või “osaliselt”, palun täpsustage:

_____________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 17 +

45 Kas Teie hinnangul Soome seadusandlus takistab eesti keele kasutamist?


_______________________________________________________________________________

46 Kas Teie hinnangul Soome seadusandlus toetab mitme keele oskamist ja kasutamist piirkonnas,

kus Te elate?


_______________________________________________________________________________

47 Kas selline seadusandlus on kättesaadav ka eesti keeles?

Ei Jah Osaliselt Ma ei tea

Kui märkisite “jah” või “osaliselt”, palun täpsustage:

_______________________________________________________________________________

48 Kas Soomes on olemas seadusi, mis reguleerivad eesti keele kasutamist õppekeelena koolides?

Ei Jah Osaliselt Ma ei tea

Kui märkisite “jah” või “osaliselt”, palun täpsustage:

_______________________________________________________________________________

49 Kas Soomes on olemas seadusi, mis reguleerivad seda, kuidas koolides antakse teadmisi eesti

keele kohta?


_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 18 +

50 Kas eri keelte rääkijaid ja keeli koheldakse Teie piirkonnas Soomes võrdselt?


_______________________________________________________________________________

Keel ja tööturg 51 Kas Soomes on seadusi või muid regulatsioone, mis toetavad eri keelte oskust tööturul?

Ei Jah Ma ei tea

Kui märkisite “jah”, siis palun täpsustage:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

52 Milline on Teie hinnangul eesti keele roll tööturul? Märkige, mil määral Te nõustute järgnevate

väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Eesti keele oskamine lihtsustab

esimese töökoha leidmist.

.

Eesti keele oskamine võimaldab saada kõrgemat töötasu.

Eesti keele oskamine hõlbustab karjääri edenemist.

Eesti keele oskamine hõlbustab töökoha vahetust.

+ +

+ 01 19 +

53 Milline on Teie hinnangul soome keele roll tööturul? Märkige, mil määral Te nõustute järgnevate väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Soome keele oskamine lihtsustab esimese töökoha leidmist.

Soome keele oskamine võimaldab saada kõrgemat töötasu.

Soome keele oskamine hõlbustab karjääri edenemist.

Soome keele oskamine hõlbustab töökoha vahetust.

54 Milline on Teie arvates inglise keele roll tööturul? Märkige, mil määral Te nõustute järgnevate

väidetega:

nõustun täiesti

nõustun

raske öelda

pigem ei

nõustu

ei nõustu üldse

Inglise keele oskamine lihtsustab esimese töökoha leidmist.

Inglise keele oskamine võimaldab saada kõrgemat töötasu.

Inglise keele oskamine hõlbustab karjääri edenemist.

Inglise keele oskamine hõlbustab töökoha vahetust.

+ +

+ 01 20 +

Keelehoole ja õigekeelsus 55 Kas Soomes on institutsioone/organisatsioone või isikuid, kes tegutsevad aktiivselt eesti keele

hooldega (arendamise, kasutuse edendamise, korraldamisega)?

Ei Jah Ma ei tea

Kui vastasite “jah”, palun täpsustage. Millised institutsioonid või kes?

_______________________________________________________________________________

56 Kas Soomes on institutsioone/organisatsioone või isikuid, kes tegutsevad aktiivselt soome keele

hooldega (arendamise, kasutuse edendamise, korraldamisega)?

Ei Jah Ma ei tea

Kui vastasite “jah”, palun täpsustage. Millised institutsioonid või kes?

_______________________________________________________________________________

57 Kas on olemas puhas/korrektne eesti keele kuju?

Ei Jah Ma ei tea

Kui vastasite “jah”, kes seda räägib ja millal? __________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

58 Kas eesti keelt tuleks arendada, et see vastaks paremini ühiskonna ja avalikkuse vajadustele?

Ei Jah Ma ei tea

59 Kas eesti keelt on kerge kasutada enamikus eluolukordades?

Jah

Ei. Palun vastake, mis olukordades ei ole Teie hinnangul eesti keeles võimalik ennast väljendada.

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 01 21 +

F. AVALIK JA INDIVIDUAALNE KEELEKASUTUS Keelekasutus ja keele elavdamise (revitalisatsiooni) kogemus 60 Kas on tehtud katseid eesti keele elavdamiseks Soomes?

Ma ei tea Ei Jah. Palun kirjeldage mõningaid nendest katsetest ______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

61 Kas eesti keelt on võimalik kasutada järgnevates kohtades Soomes?

jah ei ei tea

parlamendis

politseijaoskonnas

maksuametis

KELA-s

tööhõiveametis

haiglates

kohtutes

ministeeriumides

kohalikes ja maakondlikes asutustes

haridusasutustes

trükimeedias (ajalehed jne)

raadios

televisioonis

välireklaamides

kommertsreklaamides meedias

+ +

+ 01 22 +

G. AKTIIVNE KEELEKASUTUS KAASAEGSES MEEDIAS 62 Kui sageli Te tarbite kultuuri või kasutate aktiivselt elektroonilist meediat? A. eesti keeles

iga päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

eesti keeles puuduvad

selleks võimalused

Ma loen ajalehti

Ma loen raamatuid

Ma käin teatris

Ma käin kontserdil

Ma kuulan raadiot (uudiseid, jutusaateid jne)

Ma vaatan televiisorit

Ma kuulan muusikat

Ma vaatan filme

Ma kasutan internetti, nt loen veebilehti, uudiseid, blogisid jne

Ma kasutan eestikeelset arvutitarkvara

Ma kirjutan e-kirju

Ma kirjutan tekstisõnumeid (SMS)

Ma kasutan sotsiaalmeediat (Facebook, Twitter, jututoad, foorumid)

Ma mängin interaktiivseid mänge

Ma kirjutan blogisid

Muu:

___________________

+ +

+ 01 23 +

B. soome keeles

iga päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

soome keeles puuduvad

selleks võimalused

Ma loen ajalehti

Ma loen raamatuid

Ma käin teatris

Ma käin kontserdil



Ma kuulan muusikat

Ma vaatan filme


Ma kasutan soomekeelset arvutitarkvara

Ma kirjutan e-kirju





Muu:

___________________

Kui Te ei kasuta kunagi muid keeli, jätkake küsimusega 63!

+ +

+ 01 24 +

C. inglise keeles

iga päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

inglise keeles puuduvad

selleks võimalused

Ma loen ajalehti

Ma loen raamatuid

Ma käin teatris

Ma käin kontserdil



Ma kuulan muusikat

Ma vaatan filme


Ma kasutan ingliskeelset arvutitarkvara

Ma kirjutan e-kirju





Muu:

___________________

+ +

+ 01 25 +

D. _________________________________ keeles

iga päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

_________ puuduvad

selleks võimalused

Ma loen ajalehti

Ma loen raamatuid

Ma käin teatris

Ma käin kontserdil



Ma kuulan muusikat

Ma vaatan filme


Ma kasutan _______________ keelset arvutitarkvara

Ma kirjutan e-kirju





Muu:

___________________

+ +

+ 01 26 +

63 Kui sageli Te tegelete järgmiste tegevustega nendes keeltes?

A. eesti keeles

iga

päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga

nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

Ma kirjutan kirju

Ma pean päevikut või teen märkmeid

Ma kirjutan ilukirjanduslikke tekste (luuletusi, jutte)

Ma teen laule

Ma laulan laule

Ma esitan luulet

Ma osalen teatritrupi töös

Muu:

___________________

B. soome keeles

iga

päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga

nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

Ma kirjutan kirju



Ma teen laule

Ma laulan laule

Ma esitan luulet


Muu:

___________________

Kui Te ei kasuta kunagi muid keeli, on küsitlus Teie jaoks lõppenud. Täname Teid küsitluses osalemise eest!

+ +

+ 01 27 +

C. inglise keeles / __________________________ keeles

iga

päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga

nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

Ma kirjutan kirju



Ma teen laule

Ma laulan laule

Ma esitan luulet


Muu:

___________________

D. __________keeles

iga

päev

mitu korda

nädalas

iga

nädal

iga kuu

harvem

mitte

kunagi

Ma kirjutan kirju



Ma teen laule

Ma laulan laule

Ma esitan luulet


Muu:

___________________

Suur tänu Teile osalemise ning vastamisele pühendatud aja ja vaeva eest!

+ +

+ 32 1 +

FIN

A. TAUSTATIEDOT 1 Onko sukupuolenne:

Mies Nainen 2 Mihin ikäryhmään kuulutte:

18–29 v. 30–49 v. 50–64 v. 65 + v. 3 Mikä seuraavista vastaa parhaiten kotitalouttanne:

Asun yksin

Asun lapseni/lasteni kanssa

Asun puolisoni/kumppanini kanssa

Asun puolisoni/ kumppanini ja lasten kanssa

Asun vanhempani/vanhempieni kanssa

Jokin muu, mikä? ____________________________________________________________

4 Asumiseen llittyviä tietoja. Missä olette syntynyt?:

Maa: ____________________ Kaupunki/kunta ja kaupunginosa/kylä ____________________

Missä asutte nykyään? (kaupunki/kunta ja kaupunginosa/kylä): ______________________________

jo ____________ vuotta

Kertokaa lyhyesti missä eri paikoissa olette asunut yhtäjaksoisesti vähintään kuuden kuukauden ajan syntymäpaikkanne jälkeen (esim. Kotka, Imatra, Helsinki, Tallinna):

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 2 +

5 Koulutus, merkitkää suorittamanne korkein tutkinto:

Ei muodollista tutkintoa

Kansa- tai peruskouluaste ________vuotta

Lukio tai ammatillinen toisen asteen koulutus (ammattikoulut ym.: ________vuotta

Korkea-asteen koulutus: ________vuotta / mikä tutkinto? _______________________________

6 A) Mikä on ammattinne?___________________________________________

B) Mikä seuraavista vaihtoehdoista kuvaa parhaiten pääasiallista toimintaanne:

Työskentelen tai opiskelen kodin ulkopuolella

Työskentelen kotona (esim. kotiäiti/-isä, maatalousyrittäjä)

Olen eläkkeellä

Etsin työtä tai olen työttömänä

Jokin muu, mikä? _____________________________________________________________

C) Oletteko työssä toisella paikkakunnalla siten, että työmatkanne on yli 50 km yhteen suuntaan: Ei, siirtykää kysymykseen 7. Kyllä, kuinka usein teette työmatkanne:

päivittäin

viikoittain

kuukausittain

Jokin muu, mikä?____________________________________________________________

B. KIELENKÄYTTÖÄ KOSKEVAT TAUSTATIEDOT 7 Mikä/mitkä on/ovat äidinkielenne (kieli/kielet, jonka/jotka olette oppinut ensimmäiseksi)?

_______________________________________________________________________________

8 Missä ja keneltä opitte viron kielen?

_______________________________________________________________________________

9 Missä ja keneltä opitte suomen kielen?

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 3 +

Isovanhempienne puhekieli (jos he ovat/ovat olleet elossa teidän elinaikananne): 10 Mitä kieltä/kieliä isovanhempanne äidin puolelta käyttivät/käyttävät puhuessaan kanssanne:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

11 Mitä kieltä/kieliä isovanhempanne isän puolelta käyttivät/käyttävät puhuessaan kanssanne:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Vanhempienne taustatiedot 12 Mikä on/oli isänne korkein koulutustaso:




Korkea-asteen koulutus ________vuotta / mikä tutkinto? _______________________________

En tiedä

13 Mikä on/oli äitinne korkein koulutustaso:




Korkea-asteen koulutus ________vuotta / mikä tutkinto? ______________________________

En tiedä

+ +

+ 32 4 +

Vanhempienne puhekieli: 14 Mitä kieltä/kieliä vanhempanne puhuvat/puhuivat keskenään?

Isä ja äiti eivät asuneet yhdessä/olleet tekemisissä keskenään tai jompi kumpi oli kuollut.

Vanhempani olivat yhdessä/ tekemisissä keskenään

Isä äidille: ______________________ Äiti isälle: ____________________________

15 Mitä kieltä/kieliä äitinne puhui teille lapsuudessanne?

Äiti ei läsnä tai elossa, siirtykää kysymykseen 17

Merkitkää, mitä kieltä/kieliä hän puhui ja missä tilanteissa (jos useampaa kuin yhtä kieltä):

_______________________________________________________________________________

16 Mitä kieltä/kieliä äitinne puhuu teille nykyisin?

Äiti ei läsnä tai elossa.


_______________________________________________________________________________

17 Mitä kieltä/kieliä isänne puhui teille lapsuudessanne?

Isä ei läsnä tai elossa, siirtykää kysymykseen 19


_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 5 +

18 Mitä kieltä/kieliä isänne puhuu teille nykyisin?

Isä ei läsnä tai elossa.


_____________________________________________________________________________

Kielenkäyttö sisarustenne kanssa: Ei sisaruksia, siirtykää kysymykseen 20 19 Mitä kieltä/kieliä käytätte tai käytitte sisarustenne kanssa?

a. teitä vanhempien sisarusten kanssa:

lapsuudessa_________________________________________________

nykyisin ____________________________________________________

b. teitä nuorempien sisarusten kanssa :

lapsuudessa_________________________________________________

nykyisin ____________________________________________________

Kielenkäyttö puolison/kumppanin kanssa: Ei puolisoa eikä kumppania, siirtykää kysymykseen 21. 20 Mitä kieltä tai kieliä käytätte puolisonne/kumppaninne kanssa?

Jos käytätte useampaa kuin yhtä kieltä, kuvailkaa missä tilanteissa eri kieliä käytätte:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 6 +

Kielenkäyttö huollettavien (alle 18 v.) lastenne kanssa: Ei huollettavia lapsia, siirtykää kysymykseen 22 21 Kuinka monta huollettavaa lasta teillä on ja mitä kieltä/kieliä puhutte heidän kanssaan?

Minulla on ______ huollettavaa lasta.

Mitä kieltä tai kieliä käytätte vanhimman ja nuorimman lapsenne kanssa?

a. Vanhimman lapsen kanssa: ____________________________________________

b. Nuorimman lapsen kanssa: ____________________________________________

Kasvatus ja näkemykset kielenkäytöstä pienten lasten kanssa 22 Oliko lapsuudessanne pyrkimyksiä, joiden mukaan viron kieltä ei saanut käyttää lasten kanssa puhuttaessa?

En tiedä Ei Kyllä

Jos vastasitte ”En tiedä” tai ”Ei”, olkaa hyvä ja siirtykää kysymykseen 24! 23 Missä tilanteissa tällaisia näkemyksiä esitettiin: (voitte vastata useampaan kuin yhteen vaihtoehtoon)

Kotona, kertokaa millä tavalla:___________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Koulussa, kertokaa millä tavalla:__________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Muissa yhteyksissä, kertokaa kuka esitti ja millä tavalla:_______________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

24 Entä esitetäänkö nykyisin näkemyksiä, joiden mukaan viron kieltä pitää tai ei pidä käyttää lasten kanssa puhuttaessa?

En tiedä Ei Kyllä, kertokaa kuka tällaisia näkemyksiä esittää ja millä tavalla?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 7 +

Kielenkäyttö koulussa Mitä kieltä tai kieliä käytettiin koulussanne opetuskielenä tai -kielinä ?

Huom: kysymyksissä 25-26 ei kysytä kielitunneilla annettua opetusta, vaan eri aineiden opetuksessa käytettyä kieltä tai kieliä.

25 Minua on opetettu vain yhdellä kielellä.

Kyllä, millä? ______________________________________________________

siirtykää kysymykseen 27.

Minua opetettiin useammilla kielillä

26 Kuvatkaa tarkemmin mitä opetuskieltä tai -kieliä käytettiin eri kouluasteilla?

Muut kielet

Viro Suomi _______________ _______________

Esikoulu (lastentarha)

Peruskoulu (kansakoulu)

Toisen asteen koulutus

27 Oliko teillä äidinkielen opetusta (viron kielellä) koulussa?

Esikoulussa (lastentarhassa): Ei Kyllä, kuinka monta tuntia viikossa? _____ h

Peruskoulussa (kansakoulussa): Ei Kyllä, kuinka monta tuntia viikossa? _____ h

Toisen asteen koulutuksessa: Ei Kyllä, kuinka monta tuntia viikossa? _____ h

+ +

+ 32 8 +

C. KIELITAITO Seuraavissa kysymyksissä pyydämme teitä arvioimaan kielitaitoanne. Merkitkää vaihtoehto jokaiselle eri kielen taidolle. 28 Ymmärrän seuraavia kieliä:

Sujuvasti Melko hyvin Kohtuullisesti Huonosti En ymmärrä

Viro Suomi Englanti Venäjä Ruotsi Saksa Muu, mikä? ____________________ 29 Puhun seuraavia kieliä :

Sujuvasti Melko hyvin Kohtuullisesti Huonosti En puhu

Viro Suomi Englanti Venäjä Ruotsi Saksa Muu, mikä? ___________________ 30 Luen tekstejä seuraavilla kielillä:

Sujuvasti Melko hyvin Kohtuullisesti Huonosti En lue

Viro Suomi Englanti Venäjä Ruotsi Saksa Muu, mikä? ___________________

+ +

+ 32 9 +

31 Kirjoitan tekstejä seuraavilla kielillä:

Sujuvasti Melko hyvin Kohtuullisesti Huonosti En kirjoita

Viro Suomi Englanti Venäjä Ruotsi Saksa Muu, mikä? ___________________ D. KIELEN KÄYTTÖ 32 Kertokaa seuraavaksi, millaisissa tilanteissa käytätte seuraavia kieliä (merkitkää vastauksenne

vain niihin kohtiin, joihin osallistutte).

A. Viro

Aina Usein Joskus Harvoin Ei koskaan

Kotona

Sukulaisten kanssa

Työssä

Ystävien kanssa

Naapurustossa

Koulussa

Kaupassa

Kadulla

Kirjastossa

Kirkossa

Viranomaisten kanssa

Yhteisön tilaisuuksissa *

Muissa tilanteissa, missä **

______________________

* Yhteisön tilaisuuksilla tarkoitetaan paikallisia tilaisuuksia, kuten asuinalueenne klubi-iltoja, kulttuuritilaisuuksia ym.

** Voitte lisätä muita kielenkäyttötilanteita tarpeen mukaan.

+ +

+ 32 10 +

B. Suomi


Kotona

Sukulaisten kanssa

Työssä

Ystävien kanssa

Naapurustossa

Koulussa

Kaupassa

Kadulla

Kirjastossa

Kirkossa




______________________



Jos ette käytä muita kieliä tällaisissa toimissanne, siirtykää kysymykseen 33!

C. Englanti / muu kieli (mikä?): _______________________


Kotona

Sukulaisten kanssa

Työssä

Ystävien kanssa

Naapurustossa

Koulussa

Kaupassa

Kadulla

Kirjastossa

Kirkossa




______________________



+ +

+ 32 11 +

D. Kieli (mikä?): ____________


Kotona

Sukulaisten kanssa

Työssä

Ystävien kanssa

Naapurustossa

Koulussa

Kaupassa

Kadulla

Kirjastossa

Kirkossa




______________________



E. ASENTEET ERI KIELIÄ KOHTAAN JA HALU KÄYTTÄÄ KIELIÄ Kielten sekoittaminen 33 Mitä mieltä olette seuraavista väittämistä, jotka koskevat kielten sekoittamista? Merkitkää

vaihtoehto, joka vastaa parhaiten mielipidettänne.

Täysin samaa mieltä

Jokseenkin samaa mieltä

En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Viron puhujat sekoittavat usein kieliä keskenään.

Vain vähän koulutusta saaneet ihmiset

sekoittavat viroa muiden kielten kanssa.

Nuoret sekoittavat usein viroa muiden kielten kanssa.

Vanhemmat ihmiset puhuvat viroa virheettömästi.

Kielten sekoittaminen osoittaa suurta kielitaitoa.

Kielten sekoittaminen on hyväksyttävää.

+ +

+ 32 12 +

Viron ja suomen kielten tukeminen 34 Tukivatko vanhempanne teitä käyttämään viron kieltä?

Ei Kyllä

Kommentteja

_______________________________________________________________________________

35 Tukivatko vanhempanne teitä käyttämään suomen kieltä?

Ei Kyllä

Kommentteja

_______________________________________________________________________________

36 Jos teillä on omia lapsia, yritättekö saada heitä oppimaan ja käyttämään viron kieltä?

Ei omia lapsia, siirry kysymykseen 37

Minulla on lapsia: yritättekö saada heitä oppimaan ja käyttämään viron kieltä?

En

Kyllä, kuvailkaa miten?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 13 +

Asenneväittämiä viron kielen käytöstä eri väestöryhmissä 37 Voidaan olettaa, että eri ikäiset ja eri sukupuolta olevat ihmiset käyttävät mieluummin tiettyä

kieltä kuin jotain toista. Mitä mieltä olette alla olevista väittämistä?



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Nuorten poikien odotetaan käyttävän viroa.

Nuorten tyttöjen odotetaan käyttävän viroa.

Aikuisten miesten odotetaan käyttävän viroa.

Aikuisten naisten odotetaan käyttävän viroa.

38 Seuraavassa esitetään muutamia väittämiä viron kielen puhujista. Mitä mieltä olette alla

olevista väittämistä?



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Viron kielen puhujien kanssa on helppo ystävystyä.

Viron kielen puhujien kanssa on helppo tulla tutuksi.

Viron kielen puhujien kanssa on helppo mennä naimisiin.

Viron kielen puhujien kanssa on helppo työskennellä.

Viron kielen puhujien kanssa on helppo viettää aikaa.

+ +

+ 32 14 +

Viron kielen käyttö 39 Mitä mieltä olette viron kielen käyttämisessä julkisissa tehtävissä? Mitä mieltä olette alla

olevista väittämistä?



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää tv-ohjelmissa.

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää poliisiasemalla.

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää eduskunnassa.

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää sairaaloissa.

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää oikeuslaitoksessa.

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää internetissä.

Viron kieltä pitäisi käyttää koulutuksessa.

Eri kielten merkitys tulevaisuudessa 40 Arvioikaa, miten alla esitettyjen kielten merkitys muuttuu seuraavan kymmenen vuoden aikana.



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Viron kieltä käytetään seuraavan 10 vuoden aikana enemmän kuin nykyään.

Suomen kieltä käytetään seuraavan 10 vuoden aikana enemmän kuin nykyään.

Englannin kieltä käytetään seuraavan 10 vuoden aikana enemmän kuin nykyään.

Ruotsin kieltä käytetään seuraavan 10 vuoden aikana enemmän kuin nykyään.

Kieltä ________________ käytetään seuraavan 10 vuoden aikana enemmän kuin nykyään.

+ +

+ 32 15 +

Mielikuvat kielistä Seuraavassa kysymme teiltä mielikuvia viron ja suomen kielistä sekä englannin kielestä seuraavien sanaparien avulla. Merkitkää vastauksenne asteikolla 1-5, esimerkiksi:

1 2 3 4 5

kaunis X ruma

41 Viron kieli kuulostaa

1 2 3 4 5

pehmeältä kovalta

epävarmalta varmalta

läheiseltä etäiseltä

luotettavalta epäluotettavalta

päättäväiseltä jahkailevalta

nykyaikaiselta perinteiseltä

voimattomalta voimakkaalta

hauskalta tylsältä

rumalta kauniilta

miehekkäältä naiselliselta

ilkeältä kiltiltä

rikkaalta köyhältä

epäonniselta menestyksekkäältä

vanhalta nuorelta

älykkäältä tyhmältä

huomaavaiselta tunkeilevalta

sivistymättömältä sivistyneeltä

passiiviselta aktiiviselta 42 Suomen kieli kuulostaa:

1 2 3 4 5

pehmeältä kovalta








rumalta kauniilta




+ +

+ 32 16 +


vanhalta nuorelta




passiiviselta aktiiviselta 43 Englannin kieli kuulostaa:

1 2 3 4 5

pehmeältä kovalta








rumalta kauniilta





vanhalta nuorelta




passiiviselta aktiiviselta Kielilainsäädäntö 44 Tukeeko maanne tai alueenne lainsäädäntö viron kielen käyttöä?

Ei Kyllä Osittain En osaa sanoa Jos vastasitte ”kyllä” tai ”osittain”, määritelkää tarkemmin, millä tavoin:

_____________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 17 +

45 Vaikeuttaako maanne lainsäädäntö mielestänne viron kielen käyttöä?


_______________________________________________________________________________

46 Tukeeko lainsäädäntö mielestänne usean kielen osaamista ja käyttöä sillä alueella missä asutte?


_______________________________________________________________________________

47 Entä ovatko ko. lait saatavilla viron kielellä?

Ei Kyllä Osittain En osaa sanoa

Jos vastasitte ”kyllä” tai ”osittain”, määritelkää tarkemmin, millä tavoin:

_______________________________________________________________________________

48 Onko maassanne tai alueellanne lakeja, joissa säädetään viron kielen käyttämisestä kouluopetuksessa?



_______________________________________________________________________________

49 Onko maassanne tai alueellanne lakeja, joissa säädetään viron kieltä käsittelevästä opetuksesta?



_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 18 +

50 Kohdellaanko eri kielten puhujia ja eri kieliä tasavertaisesti maassanne ja asuinalueellanne?


_______________________________________________________________________________

Kieli ja työmarkkinat 51 Onko maassanne lainsäädäntöä tai muita säännöksiä eri kielten taidon tuomista eduista tai

palkkioista?

Ei Kyllä En osaa sanoa

Jos kyllä, niin millaisia lakeja tai säännöksiä?:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

52 Merkitkää, mitä mieltä olette viron kielen asemasta yleensä työmarkkinoilla seuraavien

väittämien suhteen:



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Viron kielen osaaminen helpottaa ensimmäisen työpaikan löytämistä.

Viron kielen osaaminen vaikuttaa myönteisesti palkkaan .

Viron kielen osaaminen parantaa mahdollisuuksia edetä uralla.

Viron kielen osaaminen parantaa mahdollisuuksia vaihtaa työpaikkaa.

+ +

+ 32 19 +

53 Merkitkää seuraavaksi, mitä mieltä olette suomen kielen asemasta yleensä työmarkkinoilla seuraavien väittämien suhteen:



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Suomen kielen osaaminen helpottaa ensimmäisen työpaikan löytämistä.

Suomen kielen osaaminen vaikuttaa myönteisesti palkkaan.

Suomen kielen osaaminen parantaa mahdollisuuksia edetä uralla.

Suomen kielen osaaminen parantaa mahdollisuuksia vaihtaa työpaikkaa.

54 Merkitkää seuraavaksi, mitä mieltä olette englannin kielen asemasta yleensä työmarkkinoilla

seuraavien väittämien suhteen:



En osaa sanoa

Jokseenkin eri

mieltä

Täysin eri

mieltä

Englannin kielen osaaminen helpottaa ensimmäisen työpaikan löytämistä.

Englannin kielen osaaminen vaikuttaa myönteisesti palkkaan.

Englannin kielen osaaminen parantaa mahdollisuuksia edetä uralla.

Englannin kielen osaaminen parantaa mahdollisuuksia vaihtaa työpaikkaa.

+ +

+ 32 20 +

Kielenhuolto ja oikeakielisyys 55 Tiedättekö onko maassanne joitain instituutioita, järjestöjä tai henkilöitä, jotka toimivat

aktiivisesti viron kielen vaalimiseksi (esim. kehittämiseksi, edistämiseksi ja sääntelemiseksi)?


Jos kyllä, luetelkaa tietämänne instituutiot, järjestöt tai henkilöt:

_______________________________________________________________________________

56 Tiedättekö onko maassanne joitain instituutioita, järjestöjä tai henkilöitä, jotka toimivat

aktiivisesti suomen kielen vaalimiseksi (esim. kehittämiseksi, edistämiseksi ja sääntelemiseksi)?


Jos kyllä, luetelkaa tietämänne instituutiot, järjestöt tai henkilöt:

_______________________________________________________________________________

57 Onko viron kielestä olemassa puhdasta kielimuotoa?


Jos kyllä, niin kuka puhuu puhdasta kieltä ja missä tilanteissa? ____________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

58 Onko viron kieltä mielestänne tarvetta kehittää niin, että sitä voi käyttää nykyistä paremmin

yhteiskunnallisissa ja julkisissa asioissa tai tehtävissä?


59 Onko viron kieltä helppoa käyttää useimmissa tilanteissa?

Kyllä

Ei, kertokaa, missä tilanteissa viron kielellä ei voi ilmaista tarvittavaa asiaa?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

+ +

+ 32 21 +

F. JULKINEN JA YKSITYINEN KIELENKÄYTTÖ Kielenkäyttö ja kielen säilytyskokemukset 60 Onko viron kielen säilyttämiseksi tehty toimenpiteitä viime aikoina?

En tiedä Ei Kyllä, kertokaa millaisia säilytystoimenpiteitä on tehty?_________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

61 Voidaanko viron kieltä käyttää maassanne tai alueellanne seuraavissa yhteyksissä ?

Kyllä Ei En osaa sanoa

Eduskunnassa

Poliisilaitoksella

Verotoimistossa

Sairausvakuutustoimistossa

Työvoimatoimistossa

Sairaaloissa

Oikeuslaitoksessa

Ministeriöissä

Aluevirastoissa ja kunnanvirastoissa

Koulutuksessa

Lehdistössä

Radiossa

TV:ssä

Ulkomainoksissa

Tv-, lehdistö- ja radiomainoksissa

+ +

+ 32 22 +

G. KULTTUURIN KULUTUS, TIEDOTUSVÄLINEIDEN JA UUSMEDIAN KÄYTTÖ ERI KIELILLÄ 62 Kuinka usein seuraatte mediaa tai osallistutte aktiivisesti seuraaviin toimintoihin eri kielillä? A. Viron kieli

Päivittäin

Useita kertoja viikossa

Viikoit-

tain

Kuu-

kausit- tain

Harvem- min

Ei koskaan

Tarjontaa ei ole tällä

kielellä

Luen sanomalehtiä

Luen kirjoja

Käyn teatterissa

Käyn konserteissa

Kuuntelen radiota(uutisia, puheohjelmia ym.)

Katson tv:tä

Kuuntelen musiikkia

Katson filmejä

Seuraan internet-sisältöjä (kotisivuja, uutisia, blogeja ym.)

Käytän tietokoneohjelmia tällä kielellä

Kirjoitan sähköpostiviestejä

Kirjoitan tekstiviestejä (SMS)

Käytän sosiaalista mediaa (Chat, Facebook, Twitter, Internetin keskus-telupalstat ym.)

Pelaan interaktiivisia pelejä

Kirjoitan blogeja

Muu, mikä:

___________________

+ +

+ 32 23 +

B. Suomen kieli

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu-

kausit- tain

Harvem- min

Ei koskaan


kielellä

Luen sanomalehtiä

Luen kirjoja

Käyn teatterissa

Käyn konserteissa


Katson tv:tä

Kuuntelen musiikkia

Katson filmejä







Kirjoitan blogeja

Muu, mikä:

___________________

Jos ette koskaan käytä muita kieliä tässä yhteydessä, olkaa hyvä ja siirtykää kysymykseen 63!

+ +

+ 32 24 +

C. Englanti / Muu kieli (mikä?):

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu-

kausit- tain

Harvem- min

Ei koskaan


kielellä

Luen sanomalehtiä

Luen kirjoja

Käyn teatterissa

Käyn konserteissa


Katson tv:tä

Kuuntelen musiikkia

Katson filmejä







Kirjoitan blogeja

Muu, mikä:

___________________

+ +

+ 32 25 +

D. Kieli (mikä?): _________________________________

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu-

kausit- tain

Harvem- min

Ei koskaan


kielellä

Luen sanomalehtiä

Luen kirjoja

Käyn teatterissa

Käyn konserteissa


Katson tv:tä

Kuuntelen musiikkia

Katson filmejä







Kirjoitan blogeja

Muu, mikä:

___________________

+ +

+ 32 26 +

63 Aktiivinen kielten käyttö eri tilanteissa. Kuinka usein käytätte eri kieliä seuraavissa asioissa?

A. Viron kieli

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu- kausit-

tain

Harvem-

min

Ei

koskaan

Kirjoitan kirjeitä

Kirjoitan päiväkirjaa tai muistiinpanoja

Kirjoitan tekstejä, runoja ym.

Kirjoitan lauluja

Laulan

Lausun runoja

Esiinnyn teatterissa

Muu, mikä?

___________________

B. Suomen kieli

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu- kausit-

tain

Harvem-

min

Ei

koskaan

Kirjoitan kirjeitä



Kirjoitan lauluja

Laulan

Lausun runoja


Muu, mikä?

___________________

Jos ette koskaan käytä muita kieliä tässä yhteydessä, kysely päättyy tähän. Paljon kiitoksia aktiivisuudestanne!

+ +

+ 32 27 +

C. Englanti / Muu kieli (mikä?): __________________________

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu- kausit-

tain

Harvem-

min

Ei

koskaan

Kirjoitan kirjeitä



Kirjoitan lauluja

Laulan

Lausun runoja


Muu, mikä?

___________________

D. Kieli (mikä?): __________

Päivittäin


Viikoit-

tain

Kuu- kausit-

tain

Harvem-

min

Ei

koskaan

Kirjoitan kirjeitä



Kirjoitan lauluja

Laulan

Lausun runoja


Muu, mikä?

___________________

Kysely päättyy tähän. Paljon kiitoksia vaivannäöstänne ja aktiivisuudestanne!

ESTONIAN IN FINLANDEstonian in Finland – ELDIA Case-Specific Report 7 Foreword This Case-Specific...

Documents

Transcript of ESTONIAN IN FINLANDEstonian in Finland – ELDIA Case-Specific Report 7 Foreword This Case-Specific...