Jarmo Lainio

teoretiska utblickar 21

National minority language education in the Nordic countries1 in the shadow of Council of Europe’s Minority Language Charter

JARMO LAINIO

Introduction1

Repeated re-drawings of national borders explain the coming into existence of many of the European minority language groups, also in recent times, but in addition migration and globalization have contributed to the development of minority languages. Some support in a positive direction stems from the period of the 1960s, when an ethnic revival movement started evolving globally. The nation-based treatment of minority languages, of both indigenous and migrant languages, varies greatly between the European countries, and has until fairly recently lacked a common view on how to deal with them, legally and politically. During the 20th century attempts to internationally unify the treatment of national minorities and national minority languages2 were initiated from a hu-

1 1 Iceland has not ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, since no minority languages in the sense of the Charter exist there. Neither has it been part of the present network for minority language pedagogics. As an extension of the Nordic cases, also Danish in Germany has been part of this network’s focus, and is therefore included in the present and other chapters. 2 In the context of the conventions of the CoE the term national minority language has been adopted. It conflates different types of classifications, such as indigenous, historical, traditional or plainly, minority languages. man rights perspective. However, language rights were more cumbersome to integrate in the rights discussions, than other bases of human rights. There seems to have been a harder resistance to language issues than other rights. For example, Sweden has not, counter to for example the UN Covenant on Human Rights and other international conventions, accepted language as a ground for discrimination, whereas ethnic origin, race, gender and religion have been. Hitherto, the main example of European strivings to support and maintain minority languages, in this case traditional territorial and non-territorial languages, is Council of Europe’s (CoE) European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), sometimes called the Minority Language Charter.3 It is a unique international convention on language, the aim of which is to protect and promote minority languages as part of the cultural heritage of Europe, within the Council of Europe’s member states. At present (2020), 25 states have ratified the Charter.

3 https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-charter-regional-orminority-languages (visited 2019-09-18).

22 teoretiska utblickar

The Charter has to various degrees been integrated into domestic legislation in the ratifying states, which in many cases has reinforced the rights of minority languages and raised the hopes of minority language speakers of an improved and adequate societal treatment of their languages. Its origins are to be found in the general aims of the Council of Europe, founded in 1947, which among other things aimed at protecting minorities, developing and supporting democracy and cultural diversity, and avoiding any return to the atrocities and oppression of minorities of Europe, that had been experienced during the first half the 20th century.

The Charter is the result of the societal atmosphere, minority politics and scientific reasoning of the 1980s and 1990s in Europe. Therefore, it is highly European in kind, but with its international connections to rights perspectives, and ideological and scientific thinking on human rights elsewhere. It has raised considerable international interest, and has been discussed as a potential model for minority language protection in other parts of the world. Part of the uniqueness of the Charter lies in its structure and the monitoring of the convention (see further below), but also in the fact that minority languages speakers have a say in the process.

The more direct roots of the ECRML (henceforth the Charter), lie in the state of art within societal discourse and the characteristics of international law, sociology and sociolinguistics during the late 1980s. Based on attempts within the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe of the CoE, in the late 1980s, drafts were prepared and a finalized version of the convention was adopted in 1992. The stepping into force of the convention took place in 1998, when the required number of states (7) had ratified it: Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Thus, among the first ratifying member states were Finland and Norway, whereas Sweden entered the convention work in 2000 and Denmark in 2001. In parallel with this process, the Framework convention, in full the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM),4 was similarly processed. It also stepped into force in 1998. The ECRML targets the maintenance of and support for national minority languages in private and public spheres of life, whereas the Framework convention targets the personal rights of members of minority groups. Many states have ratified both conventions, like the four Nordic countries of the network, whereas others have chosen only one of them. The number of ratifying parties of the Framework convention is 35.5 In this presentation I will focus on the ECRML.

Recalling that much of the preparatory work on the conventions was made in the 1980s and early 1990s, it is conceivable that under present ideological and political circumstances in several of the CoE mem-

4 https://www.coe.int/en/web/minorities/home (visited 201909-18). 5 An additional four are so-called Accession states, meaning that the monitoring covers also these states.

teoretiska utblickar 23

ber states, the processing and adoption of a similar document would be even more laborious today, if not even impossible. Thus, the intentions formulated in the Charter need to be maintained and the text remain unchanged, despite extensive societal changes in most CoE countries, since renegotiations of the convention might jeopardize its very existence. The convention thus faces challenges related to extensive changes in the lives of minority language speakers during the last decades, which have distanced the Charter from the sociolinguistic conditions of the 1980’s and 1990’s. This also means that the targeted adaptation of the convention to the situations of the minority languages covered by it faces new challenges.

A main reason for describing the ECRML here, is that the effects of the Charter in some cases have had remarkable concrete and political impact on the possibilities to use and develop specific minority languages, in defined areas of life, for example within education. In other cases, the impact has been less clear-cut for the languages, but still has improved their societal and political status. The degree of success nevertheless depends on the willingness of the states and the speakers to work according to the spirit and content of the Charter, but also on to what extent the monitoring body, the Committee of Experts (henceforth the ComEx), is able to define and recommend acceptable solutions to malfunctions in the protection and promotion of regional or minority languages. The by now many rounds of detailed reporting from the states and the critique formulated by the ComEX in their evaluations, form an extensive source for an improved understanding of the development for the languages treated here, specifically within education.6 In the case studies included in this book, negative and positive aspects of changes, as well as the present state of art will be discussed.

The spirit of the Charter

The ratifying states agree upon, according to the Preamble of the ECRML,7 among other things, to make efforts to achieve:

“…the protection of the historical regional or minority languages of Europe, some of which are in danger of eventual extinction, [which] contributes to the maintenance and development of Europe’s cultural wealth and traditions; …that the right to use a regional or minority language in private and public life is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and according to the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; […]

Stressing the value of interculturalism

6 https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-charter-regional-orminority-languages/reports-and-recommendations 7 https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680695175 (visited 2019-09-18).

24 teoretiska utblickar

and multilingualism and considering that the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them;

Realising that the protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in the different countries and regions of Europe represent an important contribution to the building of a Europe based on the principles of democracy and cultural diversity within the framework of national sovereignty and territorial integrity; […]

Among other things, this implies a strong support for the national minority languages, but also promotes individual plurilingualism and societal multilingualism. 8

Main other characteristics are on the one hand that States should act proactively, and on the other, work in cooperation with the speakers. Furthermore, States cannot lower the level of ratification of any language, and they cannot one-sidedly refrain from adapting the Charter of any language, once having ratified for it. The ComEx may also, once it has found evidence for it, recommend the states to apply the Charter to additional languages.

Other defining criteria of the Charter is, according to Part I, General provisions, stated in Article 1: Article 1 – Definitions

For the purposes of this Charter: a “regional or minority languages” means languages that are: i traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State’s population; and ii different from the official language(s) of that State; it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants; b “territory in which the regional or minority language is used” means the geographical area in which the said language is the mode of expression of a number of people justifying the adoption of the various protective and promotional measures provided for in this Charter; c “non-territorial languages” means languages used by nationals of the

State which differ from the language or languages used by the rest of the

State’s population but which, although traditionally used within the territory of the State, cannot be identified with a particular area thereof.

The Charter contains several Parts (I–IV), which taken together form a coherent package to protect the languages in question. One of the most crucial areas is education,

teoretiska utblickar 25

especially as outlined in Part III. The different Parts will be introduced further below.

The national minority languages of the Nordic countries9 as defined in the ECRML

Since the Charter is open for additional acceptances of national minority languages by the states, the original situation at the turn of the 2000’s in the four Nordic countries discussed here, may differ from the present state, and may also change in the future. This means that additional languages may become covered by the Charter, and there could be a higher level of protection in the future for already covered languages. The original understanding and possible addenda to the acceptance of regional or minority languages in the four Nordic countries and Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, are summarized below. The reference to the Charter is crucial, since the ratification of individual languages influences the extent to which the state and other authorities are bound to deal with, and promote the minority languages in question. It also creates a legal and political basis for potential requests by the speakers of the languages.

The number of speakers for each concerned language is an important starting point for the protection and promotion of them and is thus given below, at the time of ratification, and as mentioned in the first state report in each country. The case-studies in this book may react on these figures, which would give an opportunity to ponder on the development of the language communities since the turn of the century.

Denmark

Only the German language is covered by the Charter in Denmark.10 German is covered by both Part II and III,11 in Southern Jutland. The number of speakers given at the time of ratification was 15,000–20,000 in Sönderjylland County.

The Danish authorities made comments on the situation in Greenland and Faroese Islands, as well as on “Romany” in its first state report.12 The first two situations were seen to be better provided for and protected in the existing regulations13:

“Denmark made a declaration concerning the Faroese and Greenlandic languages. It appears from the declaration that the Faroese and Greenlandic languages, under the Home Rule Acts for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, enjoy a high degree of protection and that the provisions of the Charter will therefore not be applicable to the Faroese and Greenlandic languages,”…

10 Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter, Denmark. MIN-LANG/PR (2003) 1. Strasbourg:

Council of Europe. P. 3–5. 11 See below on the structure of the Charter. 12 As will be obvious also from other chapters, the reference to the languages of Roma and travelers varies greatly and has even changed in the descriptions of official documents of several of the states. 13 P. 4 of MIN-LANG/PR (2003) 1.

26 teoretiska utblickar

For “Romany” it was stated that the Roma living in Denmark were not part of a traditional presence, since they had arrived either during the 1960’s or in the 1990’s14:

“…the Charter does not cover a language such as Romany, which is spoken by about 1500 Romanies in Denmark. About 800 of these people arrived in Denmark in the late 1960s, and most of the rest in the mid-1990s in connection with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The Romanies have thus no historical or long-term affiliation to Denmark.”

In Denmark, discussions on the status of Inuit/Greenlandic in Denmark proper – that is, outside the autonomous areas – have occurred but not resulted in any action.

Frisian, once spoken in restricted border areas to Germany, is not discussed. German thus remains the only language protected by the Charter in Denmark. There have been no fundamental changes of the instrument of ratification.

Germany

Danish is covered under Part III in SchleswigHolstein. The size of the ethnic group (not speakers, thus) was estimated to be around 50,000.15 The situation in Germany for the treatment of Danish in Schleswig-Holstein is

14 P. 5 of MIN-LANG/PR (2003) 1. 15 INITIAL PERIODICAL REPORT presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter, Germany. MIN-LANG/PR (2000) 1. Strasbourg:

Council of Europe. P. 5. today very much based on a mutual respect and a principle of reciprocity between the situations for German in South Jutland and Danish in Schleswig-Holstein. In comparison to the legal, more straight-forward situations in the other countries under study, the federal structure of Germany and the strong legal and political position of the Länder, requires particular legal and political considerations.

In Schleswig-Holstein also Frisian and Low German are spoken, and are often mastered by speakers of Danish. Both also have a recognized minority status in this Land, at Part III level.

Nationally, with regional representations in different Länder, Low German, North Frisian and Saterland Frisian, the Romany language of the Sinti and Roma, as well as Sorbian, with Upper and Lower Sorbian, are recognized and covered by the Charter. In several cases the ratification only concerns one Land, in other, like for Low German, the situation differs between different Länder, which also means that the same language may be covered by different levels of ratification and thus protection in different Länder.

Finland

Finland initially adopted the Charter for Swedish and Sami (both Part II and III), Roma and “other non-territorial languages” (Part II).16 Among the latter, Roma, Russian

16 Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the

teoretiska utblickar 27

and Tatar were included. Russian is connected to the traditional presence, which mainly represents Old Russians.17 However, the initial state report also says that Russian is taught at all levels of education, which points at seeing it as a foreign language in education.18 The issue of Russian remains a debated topic in Finland.19

Karelian as a traditional language within the present borders of Finland was later added (2009), and is now covered by the Charter.

The number of Sami was referred to as that of the Sami people, that is, about 70,000 – 100,000 in the whole Sami Homeland (Sabmi) in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia.20 Most of the Sami in Finland were stated to live in the Sami Homeland of Finland. An additional 2,400 were estimated to live outside the Finnish Sami Homeland. All in all, 6,900 Sami lived in Finland. Most Sami spoke North Sami, and the report estimated that about 200 each spoke Inari and Skolt Sami.

The issue of whether Finland Swedish, which is significantly different from Sweden Swedish, is a different language altogether, has been resolved by retaining the view that it is a branch of Swedish, and not a language

Charter, Finland. MIN-LANG/PR (99) 4. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. P. 1. 17 P. 6 of MIN-LANG/PR (99) 4. 18 P. 12 of MIN-LANG/PR (99) 4. 19 The language situation in Finland during the time of independence, that is, since 1917, has been summarized in an anniversary year publication, by Karlsson, Fred (2017), Suomen kielet 1917–2017. [Available in English and Swedish.] Turku:

Lingsoft OY. 20 P. 5–6 of MIN-LANG/PR (99) 4. in its own right. In writing, differences are minor, whereas most spoken Finland Swedish varieties are distinctly different from Sweden Swedish varieties. Indirectly, this view on the linguistic status of Finland Swedish also falls back on attempts to achieve a minority language status for Finland S in Sweden, since it consequently is seen as a variety of Sweden Swedish.

The variety of Romani in Finland (Kaale) is also one of several varieties promoted as a representation of Romani in Sweden. The number of Roma living in Finland (not speakers of Romani) was estimated at 10,000.

The number of Russian-speakers was estimated at 20,000, of which 5,000 were understood to be Old Russian speakers.

The number of Tatars (not speakers) was estimated at 900.

The Sami languages in Finland (North Sami, Inari Sami and Skolt Sami) have different conditions and are occasionally treated separately in the Charter context.

In Finland, discussions of extending the ratification have concerned requests from Russian-speakers, and sign language users.

Norway

Norway has in many ways been a role model for the promotion of Sami. The number of Sami speakers is also the largest in the concerned countries, in which Sami is spoken.21 In the first report it is mentioned that

21 Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the

28 teoretiska utblickar

about 40,000 Sami live in Norway, and that the number of speakers is lower. The issue of whether all Sami languages are covered by the same ratifications have over the years developed according to the wishes of the Sami speakers: the languages (North Sami, Lule Sami and South Sami) have achieved their own treatment in certain regions and areas of life. Some national legislation and regulations have started dealing with the different Sami languages either according to the same ratification, or, according to an adaptation of the Charter at different levels for different Sami languages. National legislation also adds support for the Sami languages, in a differential way. In 2017,22 the Norwegian authorities clarified its present views according to this statement (Appendix II):

“In the most recent monitoring cycles, the Committee of Experts, and on one occasion, the Committee of Ministers, has recommend that Norway clarify the status of the Lule Sami and South Sami languages under the Charter. Therefore, Norway has clarified that status of these languages where appropriate, and we are doing so in these comments as well. It remains clear, both from Norway’s instrument of ratification, clarifications in State reports as well as the absence of any subsequent Norwegian notification regard-

Charter, Norway. MIN-LANG/PR (99) 5. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. P. 1. 22 https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details. aspx?ObjectId=09000016808c2726#_Toc513820755 (visited 2019-09-18). ing undertakings for the South Sami and/ or the Lule Sami languages, that Norway’s obligations under Part III of the Charter only apply to the North Sami language. The South Sami language and the Lule Sami language are both covered by Part II of the Charter. Accordingly, Norway will continue to apply Part III of the Charter only to the North Sami language. This will remain the case until Norway, potentially, decides to take on, in accordance with Article 3 of the Charter, specific undertakings under Part III for any other minority language. Norway invites the Committee of Experts and the Committee of Ministers to apply the Charter in the same manner.”

In practice this means that the legal status and practical implementation of the Charter has been explicitly raised in legal terms for North Sami, and that the opposite has taken place for Lule and South Sami. On the other hand, the Norwegian authorities also state:

[…] the Government of Norway is about to start a process for reviewing whether it is feasible to include the South Sami, Lule Sami and/or Kven languages under Part III of the Charter, as provided for in Article 3, paragraph 2;23

In Norway there has also been a continuous

23 https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details. aspx?ObjectId=09000016808c2726#_Toc513820755 (visited 2019-09-18).

teoretiska utblickar 29

debate on the status of Kven and Finnish, either as separate national minority languages, as one treated together, or excluding Finnish from the minority status. Norway was therefore asked to clarify the status of Kven and Finnish by the ComEx. In the same context as for Sami above, the Norwegian authorities clarify their view on this (see Appendix II)24:

“… the Kven and Finnish languages. We will therefore take this opportunity to make clear that Norway will continue to apply Part II of the Charter to the Kven language, and that we do not consider Finnish as a language covered by the Charter. We invite the Committee of Experts and the Committee of Ministers to take note of this clarification and apply the Charter in the same manner. …”

Kven25 was recognized as a separate language in Norway in 2005. The number of Kven at the time of ratification was “presumed to be low”.26

24 Rhttps://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details. aspx?ObjectId=09000016808c2726#_Toc513820755 (visited 2019-09-18). 25 Part II; referred to as Kven/Finnish. 26 According to Statistics Norway, in March 2019 there were 5,827 persons born in Norway with at least one grandparent born in Finland, and, 6,554 immigrants from Finland. https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/innvbef In 2004, there were 6,332 Finnish citizens living in Norway, and altogether 15–60,000 Finns, including the Kven (Statistics Norway, in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Finland%E2%80%93Norway_relations (visited 2019-0918)).

The number of speakers of Romanes and Romani (Part II) was also “presumed to be low”.

These clarifications mean that the Charter in Norway applies to the following minority languages as follows, and according to the Norwegian authorities: ∙ North Sami (Part II and III) ∙ Lule Sami (Part II) ∙ South Sami (Part II) ∙ Kven (Part II) ∙ Romanes (Part II, as a non-territorial language) ∙ Romani (Part II, as a non-territorial language) The Committee of Experts, however, has analysed the situation of Sami and Finnish differently from the views of the Norwegian authorities (Chapter 2.2.1. Finnish as a Part II language, 2.2.3. on Lule Sami, as a Part III language).27 This is also a recurrent feature of the Charter, that when there are strong indications of a changing status, altered attitudes about, or acceptance of a language variety known to be used within the borders a nation state, the ComEx may raise questions about the situation of that language/ variety to the state parties. In Norway this has concerned Sami languages and Kven/ Finnish. The position of Finnish may still be discussed by the ComEx in forthcoming evaluation reports. As a comparison, such re-evaluations have also targeted Elfdalian

27 Seventh report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Norway, 2017. CM(2018)88-final. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

30 teoretiska utblickar

in Sweden (cf. below), and the status of Karelian in Finland.

Sweden

As in the other countries, at the outset of discussions during the mid-1990’s on which languages were to be included in Sweden’s ratification of the two CoE conventions, it was not clear what would be the result. Both state commission reports and scientific studies on the status of different languages may have influenced the outcome.28 For Sweden (and partly for Finland), one cause for the involvement in the CoE conventions was the membership in the European Union in 1995, which was connected to the clarification of the status of minority languages within the states.

Sweden adopted the Charter for five languages (ECRML) and their minorities (FCNM): Finnish for Sweden Finns, Meänkieli for Tornedalians, Romani chib for Roma, Sami for the Sami, and Yiddish for Jews. Finnish, Meänkieli and Sami were seen as territorial languages (Part II and III), Romani and Yiddish as non-territorial (Part II only). National legislation in 2010 (Minority and minority language Act) changed the basic understanding of in which territories the languages were spoken, but also improved the implementation through the inte-

28 SOU 1997:192, Steg mot en minoritetspolitik. Europarådets konvention om historiska minoritetsspråk, resp. SOU 1997:193, Steg mot en minoritetspolitik. Europarådets konvention för skydd av nationella minoriteter; articles in Hyltenstam, Kenneth (ed.) 1999. Sveriges sju inhemska språk – ett minoritetsperspektiv. Lund: Studentlitteratur. gration of the convention and its aims into domestic law.

In the first state report it was stated, that:

“No official data is kept in Sweden on grounds of ethnic, linguistic or cultural origin”, meaning that any number given on the number of speakers was seen as a rough estimate.

For Sami it was estimated that about 20,000 Sami, out of which 9,000 were speakers, lived in Sweden.29

For Finnish it was estimated that about 450,000 Finns, out of which about half of the mentioned population was expected to be using Finnish, lived in Sweden. Added to this was that about 16,000 Finns lived in Norrbotten County in the northernmost, border area, which was then understood to be the only region in which Finnish was traditionally used.30

For Meänkieli it was estimated that about 50,000 people lived in the main municipalities of the region, out of which 40,000 were expected to know Meänkieli to some degree.

For Romani chib, the following was stated31:

“The number of Roma living in Sweden

29 Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the

Charter, Sweden. MIN-LANG/PR (2001) 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. P. 6. 30 This will be dealt in detail under the chapter dealing with Finnish in Sweden. 31 P. 6 of MIN-LANG/PR (2001) 1.

teoretiska utblickar 31

is approximately 35,000–40,000 people. The Roma population consists of several groups, 2,500 so-called Swedish Roma, 3,200 Finnish Roma and 10,000 who come from countries outside Scandinavia. In addition to this there are around 20,000 travellers in Sweden who speaks a variety of Romani Chib called Swedish Romani. There are no figures available of the number of persons having a command of any variety of Romani Chib.”

For Yiddish, it was stated that32:

“The Jewish community in Sweden amounts to 20,000–25,000 people and includes those with two parents of Jewish origin as well as those with one parent of Jewish origin. It is estimated that today 3,000 have a command of Yiddish in Sweden.”

Hebrew, in contrast to Yiddish, has in general not been accepted as a traditional minority language under the Charter, and was not included for Sweden either. Support given to Yiddish, but not to Hebrew, however, is increasingly an issue among Jews.

The threatened language33 of Elfdalian has been attempted several times to be recognized by the Swedish authorities, and thus covered by the Charter, by its speakers and

32 P. 7 of MIN-LANG/PR (2001) 1. 33 The status of a language for Elfdalian has been stated in several reports and dissertations; see discussion in Karlander,

David 2017, Authentic language. Övdalsk, metapragmatic exchange and the margins of Sweden’s linguistic market. Dissertations in Bilingualism, 28. Stockholm University. proponents. Thus far the Swedish authorities have seen this as a dialect of Swedish, which then cannot be covered by the Charter.

By time, the Sami languages (North Sami, Lule Sami, South Sami and lately Ume Sami and Pite Sami) have become differentially treated, also in the context of the Charter application. Similar, but not as clear-cut developments can be seen for Meänkieli and Romani varieties.34

At the moment, the issue of whether Sweden Finnish is a unified variety or not, and a separate language from Finland Finnish, has been downgraded among the speakers of Finnish in Sweden. The spoken varieties of younger speakers are clearly different from spoken varieties among younger speakers of Finnish in Finland, and also different from those of the parental generations of Sweden Finns.

Yiddish in Sweden remains the only case of acceptance of that language in the Nordic countries, in the Charter context. Discussions about Yiddish in Finland have been raised, but it is not seen, at the moment, as a living, traditional language in use in Finland.

For the different numbers of speakers, most of them have been substantially changed through the years, except for Sami.

34 Lainio, Jarmo 2018. The five national minorities of Sweden and their languages – The state of the art and ongoing trends. In: Nils Erik Forsgård & Lia Markelin (eds), Perspectives on minorities in the Baltic Sea area, pp. 45–76. Helsinki:

Magma.

32 teoretiska utblickar

Summary of the Charter ratifications of the Nordic languages involved in the study

The chart below (Table 1) reflects first, which languages were selected by the national authorities to be the languages covered by the Charter, and at what level (Part II or Part III) they were originally protected. Secondly, the present situation is briefly summarized, as well, in Table 1.

For the different countries, as has been the case elsewhere, the deepening understanding of the convention and its requirements and possibilities in practice, have created a process of more detailed discussions on the situation and needs of the individual languages. This can also be covered by the concept of fragmentisation of requests among the speakers of various minority languages. The increasing general and scientific knowledge about the different representations (varieties, dialects, languages) of the languages ratified for, has also developed new levels of understanding of the needs for the different language representations, pertaining to whether they should be treated under Part II or under the menu options of Part III. (See the structure of the Charter as described below.)

The structure of the Charter

Part I gives the general provisions of the Charter. Part II describes a general set of requirements, and Part III is a list of detailed undertakings within main areas of life, that have a bearing for the use and maintenance of the languages. Under Part III, the states have the opportunity to choose undertakings under eight Articles, in order to tailor a package of support according to the needs of the individual languages. Part IV describes the reporting and monitoring procedures.

Part II applies at a national level to all minority languages that have been identified by the state, but may also be seen as having a territorial coverage only for some languages. In general, predominantly non-territorial or small languages counted in speakers, are covered only by Part II. For more demanding protection and structured promotion, Part III is expected to be chosen. Part III languages are usually traditionally used, territorial languages, with a relatively significant number of speakers.

A more general framing of minority languages is covered by Part II, which concerns all languages, but for some non-territorial languages this may be the only level that applies. Article 7.1. summarizes the main objectives and among the paragraphs also three (highlighted in italics) points refer to education:

Article 7 – Objectives and principles35

1 In respect of regional or minority languages, within the territories in which such languages are used and according to the situation of each language, the

35 https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680695175

teoretiska utblickar 33

Table 1. Ratifications by the Nordic countries and Schleswig-Holstein of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and the levels of ratification for the languages covered

Country

Denmark – ratification entered into force 2001 Germany – ratification entered into force 1999

Finland - ratification entered into force 1998

First reporting cycle

Part II German

Danish, Low German and North Frisian, in Schleswig- Holstein1

Swedish, Sami,2 Roma language, Russian, Tatar

Norway -ratification entered into force 1998 Sami,5 Kven/Finnish,6 Romanes, Romani

Sweden - ratification entered into force 2000 Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, Sami,7 Yiddish Finnish, Meänkieli, Sami Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, Sami, Yiddish (in 2020)8 Finnish, Meänkieli, Sami

Part III

Latest reporting cycle

Part II

German in South Jutland German (in 2017X)

Danish, Low German and North Frisian, in Schleswig- Holstein

Danish, Low German and North Frisian, in Schleswig- Holstein (in 2019) Swedish, Sami Swedish, Sami, Romanes, Russian, Tatar, Karelian 3 (in 2019X)4

Sami North Sami, Lule Sami, South Sami, Kven/Finnish, Romanes, Romani (in 2018X) Part III German in South Jutland Danish, Low German and North Frisian, in Schleswig- Holstein Swedish, Sami

North Sami

Note: Languages in italics for the latest reporting circle have faced a change in status: Karelian in Finland has been added, Sami in Norway has been specified to cover only North Sami, and Finnish in Norway may be seen as taken out of the list, since some provisions mentioned earlier for Kven, actually concerned Finnish.

1 The minority language legislation in Germany is highly complex, since the federal structure of the state both requires national legislation based on international conventions, and the development of corresponding legislation and action at the Land-level; see INITIAL PERIODICAL REPORT presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter, Germany. MIN-LANG/PR (2000) 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. P. 4–6. The presentation in Table 1 targets Danish in Schleswig-Holstein, the language involved in the network study. 2 Inari Sami, North Sami, Skolt Sami are the Sami languages still spoken in Finland. 3 Added in 2009. 4 The Finnish state report was delayed with three years. 5 Initially, the ratification concerned Sami as a unified language, but has later covered North Sami, Lule Sami, South Sami, partly together, partly as separate languages. From the clarification of 2018, the view of the Norwegian authorities is that Part III only applies to North Sami. 6 The denomination of Kven/Finnish was mainly based on the fact that Kven was identified as a language in its own right only in 2005. In main parts of the early state reports, provisions for Kven is covered by the concept of Finnish. 7 North Sami, Lule Sami, South Sami are the Sami languages still fairly widely spoken in Sweden and covered by the Charter. Also Ume Sami speakers are making requests that it be covered separately as a national minority language of Sweden. 8 The Swedish state report was delayed.

34 teoretiska utblickar

Parties shall base their policies, legislation and practice on the following objectives and principles: a the recognition of the regional or minority languages as an expression of cultural wealth; b the respect of the geographical area of each regional or minority language in order to ensure that existing or new administrative divisions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of the regional or minority language in question; c the need for resolute action to promote regional or minority languages in order to safeguard them; d the facilitation and/or encouragement of the use of regional or minority languages, in speech and writing, in public and private life; e the maintenance and development of links, in the fields covered by this Charter, between groups using a regional or minority language and other groups in the State employing a language used in identical or similar form, as well as the establishment of cultural relations with other groups in the State using different languages; f the provision of appropriate forms and means for the teaching and study of regional or minority languages at all appropriate stages; g the provision of facilities enabling non-speakers of a regional or mi-

nority language living in the area where it is used to learn it if they so desire; h the promotion of study and research on regional or minority languages at universities or equivalent institutions; i the promotion of appropriate types of transnational exchanges, in the fields covered by this Charter, for regional or minority languages used in identical or similar form in two or more States

In order to show how Part III works, which is normally seen as the proper choice for territorial languages, Article 8 on education will be summarized for the four Nordic countries involved in this book.36 This also applies to most of the concerned languages dealt with in this book.

The options of Article 8 are the following:

Part III – Measures to promote the use of regional or minority languages in public life in accordance with the undertakings entered into under Article 2, paragraph 2

(The choices of the respective Nordic country is given separately in the section following the presentation of Article 8 option under the menu.)

36 Most of the languages concerned in the book are Part III languages, with the exception of Romani/Romanes, which are Part II languages in Finland, Norway and Sweden.

Article 8 – Education

1 With regard to education, the Parties undertake, within the territory in which such languages are used, according to the situation of each of these languages, and without prejudice to the teaching of the official language(s) of the State:37 a i to make available pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or ii to make available a substantial part of pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or iii to apply one of the measures provided for under i and ii above at least to those pupils whose families so request and whose number is considered sufficient; or iv if the public authorities have no direct competence in the field of pre-school education, to favour and/or encourage the application of the measures referred to under i to iii above; b i to make available primary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or ii to make available a substantial

37 In similar ways, the remainder of Part III, in Articles 9–14, on judicial authorities (Article 9), administrative authorities and public services (Article 10), media (Article 11), cultural activities and facilities (Article 12), economic and social life (Article 13), and transfrontier exchanges (Article 14) are treated in the menu fashion. teoretiska utblickar 35

part of primary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or iii to provide, within primary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or iv to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils whose families so request and whose number is considered sufficient; c i to make available secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or ii to make available a substantial part of secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or iii to provide, within secondary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or iv to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient; d i to make available technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or ii to make available a substantial

36 teoretiska utblickar

part of technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or iii to provide, within technical and vocational education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or iv to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient; e i to make available university and other higher education in regional or minority languages; or ii to provide facilities for the study of these languages as university and higher education subjects; or iii if, by reason of the role of the

State in relation to higher education institutions, sub-paragraphs i and ii cannot be applied, to encourage and/or allow the provision of university or other forms of higher education in regional or minority languages or of facilities for the study of these languages as university or higher education subjects; f i to arrange for the provision of adult and continuing education courses which are taught mainly or wholly in the regional or minority languages; or ii to offer such languages as subjects of adult and continuing education; or iii if the public authorities have no direct competence in the field of adult education, to favour and/or encourage the offering of such languages as subjects of adult and continuing education; g to make arrangements to ensure the teaching of the history and the culture which is reflected by the regional or minority language; h to provide the basic and further training of the teachers required to implement those of paragraphs a to g accepted by the Party; i to set up a supervisory body or bodies responsible for monitoring the measures taken and progress achieved in establishing or developing the teaching of regional or minority languages and for drawing up periodic reports of their findings, which will be made public. 2 With regard to education and in respect of territories other than those in which the regional or minority languages are traditionally used, the Parties undertake, if the number of users of a regional or minority language justifies it, to allow, encourage or provide teaching in or of the regional or minority language at all the appropriate

teoretiska utblickar 37

stages of education.

Denmark has for Article 8 on education chosen as follows for German in South Jutland:

Article 8, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iii); b (iv), c (iii/iv), d (iii); e (ii), f (ii), g; h; i; Paragraph 2;

Germany has chosen as follows for Danish in Schleswig-Holstein for Article 8 on education:

Article 8, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iv); b (iv); c (iii/iv); d (iii); e (ii); f (ii/iii); g; h; i; Paragraph 2;

Finland has chosen as follows for Saami for Article 8 on education:

Article 8, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (i), b (i), c (i), d (ii), e (ii), f (ii), g, h, i; Paragraph 2;

Finland has chosen as follows for Swedish for Article 8 on education:

Article 8, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (i), b (i), c (i), d (i), e (i), f (i), g, h, i; Paragraph 2;

Norway has chosen as follows for the Sami language for Article 8 on education:

Article 8, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iii), b (iv), c (iv), d (iv), e (ii), f (ii), g, h, i; Paragraph 2;

Sweden has chosen as follows for Sami, Finnish and Meänkieli for Article 8 on education:

Article 8, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs, a (iii), b (iv), c (iv), d (iv), e (iii), f (iii), g, h, i; Paragraph 2. According to this account, the highest and lowest levels of protection chosen by the states and for the Part III languages can be summarized as follows:

High: Swedish in Finland, Saami in Finland;

Medium/Low: German in Denmark; Danish in Germany; Sami in Norway; Sami, Finnish and Meänkieli in Sweden.

This type of comparison is, however, not straightforward. On the one hand is it easier to fulfil the lower levels of undertaking, on the other, the level chosen may also reflect a realistic picture of the available resources and provisions offered for the individual languages. Furthermore, within education this mainly refers to public educational institutions. This still means that if a state is not able to fulfil its obligations as defined in its ratifications, there are problems within the field of education for those languages. The lower the level of ratification is, if followed by non-fulfilment of the undertakings, the worse are the challenges and obvious the malfunctions in the educational systems. The situations also need to be compared to the requests of the speakers of the languages. Also the private educational provisions should be taken into account. In the casestudies of the book, the situation of each language will be described, in relation to its legal status, as given here, and according to the practices within education.

Still, it is to be expected that the situation for Swedish in Finland is much better off than, for example, Sami, Finnish and

38 teoretiska utblickar

Meänkieli in Sweden. For the Sami languages, the situation in Norway, may despite slightly lower levels of ratification, be better off than for the Sami languages in Finland, with a high level of ratification. Other factors may also play in, like how the funding systems work in education, and where the minority language speakers live, how densely populated and numerous the minorities are. In this respect, German in Denmark is despite a comparatively low level of ratification, not as threatened as some of the other languages involved here, nor is Danish in Germany so.

The follow-up of the process of protecting and promoting the languages according to the ratifications of the Charter is done by the Committee of Experts, which summarizes its findings in separate evaluation reports, which are then dealt with in the Committee of Ministers (henceforth CM) of the CoE. In the CM the main and urgent recommendations directed towards the state parties are agreed upon. However, in addition to the recommendations of the CM, the evaluation reports of the ComEx also contain abundant and other, more detailed recommendations and critique, to be dealt with by the states.

Monitoring

The understanding by State parties and the monitoring body, the Committee of Experts, of how the Charter should be working, is based on first, negotiations of the interpretations of the Charter by States and speakers of the languages on one hand, and on the other, the ComEx, and secondly, on framing legal interpretations as formulated in an Explanatory report, for all paragraphs of the ECRML.38 In the ComEx, one independent expert from each ratifying State party is a member. The ComEx elects its chair and two vice-chairs within itself. The ECRML and the ComEx also have at their disposal a working Secretariat in Strasbourg, without which many of the functions of the monitoring system would fail.

The ComEx develops its own understanding of the situation in the different states. This understanding may change over time, since new information may become available. This may concern, for example, which languages should be covered by the Charter, or, at what level the protection should preferably take place (Part II or III).

The monitoring dialogue has hitherto been scheduled to be activated every three years, when the states have been expected to file their own reports on the situation for each language and in relation to the ratification instruments. Based on evaluations of the state reports and information received from representatives of the speakers of the various languages, the ComEx first arranges a visit to each country, when it meets with representatives of the speakers and authorities at national, regional and local levels. After this it summarizes its impression of changes in

38 Explanatory Report to the European Charter for Regional or

Minority Languages, Strasbourg, 5.XI.1992, European Treaty

Series, No 148. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe. int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMConte nt?documentId=09000016800cb5e5

teoretiska utblickar 39

legislation, language practices, attitudes and the general development of language use, for each individual language. This evaluation report is furthered to the CM, when approved of in the plenary meetings of the ComEx. Within a time limit the State parties have the opportunity to react on the ComEx report, and require changes or explain their views. The report adopted by the CM and the one filed by the ComEx then make up the basis for the next circle, in which the States are expected to provide answers and reactions to critique formulated in the report by the CoE.

The type of reports filed until 2019 was based on textual descriptions only. From 2018–2019 also visual presentations (tables) of the situation of each language have been included in the reports. In parallel to this, the working procedures and the reporting schedule were changed. The present system requires that states report about the progress only every five years, as is already the case for the Framework convention. The ComEx may, however, ask for additional information on urgent matters from the states, during the reporting circle.

Summary of CoE’s recent critique on educational issues in the Nordic countries and Schleswig-Holstein

Below the latest recommendations on educational issues by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE (CM) are listed. They are usually formulated in general terms, but also seen as urgent. They may cover Part II and Part III issues, or either of them. In addition to these recommendations more detailed ones on education may be given in the bulk of the evaluation reports by the ComEx. The authorities’ reactions to both types of recommendations are found in the following round’s state reports.

Denmark – no recommendations by the CM on education during the last two rounds on Danish, but this occurred in the third round 2011:39

2. ensure that the reduction of subsidies for private schools and cuts of the transport allowances will not jeopardise the continued functioning of the

German language schools at the current level;

Finland received some critique and two recommendations in their fifth round (delayed, 2018):40

1. further strengthen education in the

Sami languages, also outside the Sami

Homeland, especially by providing permanent financing for language nests and adult education; 2. […] 3. increase and improve the training of

Romani teachers, extend the production of teaching materials in Romani

39 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2011)1 of the Committee of

Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Denmark. 40 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2018)5 of the Committee of

Ministers to member States on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Finland.

40 teoretiska utblickar

and increase the provision of teaching of Romani;

Germany, in Schleswig-Holstein – received critique in the fourth round (out of six thus far; 2011) with regard to Danish (other recommendations with regard to North Frisian have recurred):41

2. ensure that the reduction of subsidies for private schools and cuts of the transport allowances will not jeopardise the continued functioning of the Danish language education at the current level; 6. ensure that an effective monitoring mechanism in the sense of the Charter exists in the field of education for all regional or minority languages covered under Part III;

Norway – received the following recommendations in the latest round (seventh; 2018), of which the two first ones were almost identical with recommendations presented to the Norwegian authorities in the sixth round:42

1. implement a structured policy for

Kven/Finnish, giving priority to offer-

41 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2011)2 of the Committee of

Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Germany. 42 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2018)4 of the Committee of

Ministers on the application of the European Charter for

Regional or Minority Languages by Norway; Recommendation CM/RecChL(2015)4 of the Committee of Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Norway.

ing education and a stronger presence in the broadcast media; 2. protect and promote Lule Sami and

South Sami in education and media; 5. provide for the teaching and study of

Romani and Romanes at all appropriate levels.

Sweden – received the following recommendations in the latest round (sixth; 2017; these recommendations on education have been repeated during the last three rounds, since 2011):43

1. strengthen education of or in all national minority languages by adopting a comprehensive and structured approach based on the needs of the speakers and according to the situation of each of the minority languages; 2. ensure that “mother tongue” education meets the requirements of the

Charter and offers adequate language tuition, enabling pupils to achieve mature literacy in the languages concerned; 3. increase the amount of bilingual education available in Finnish and Sami, and establish bilingual education in Meänkieli; 4. develop a system of teacher training according to the needs of the speakers

43 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2017)1 of the Committee of

Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Sweden.

teoretiska utblickar 41

and to the situation of each of the minority languages;

Reactions to these recommendations are found in the state reports.44 A rough summary of these results would be that an acceptable situation may be expected to exist for the national minority languages German in Denmark and Danish in Germany. For Swedish in Finland, the situation seems to be in line with the high level of ratification of the language and its education. The same is valid for North Sami in Norway, despite a comparatively low level of ratification. The educational situations for Kven/Finnish and the smaller Sami communities in Norway are in need of resolute action by the authorities. The educational situation of all Part III languages in Sweden also face severe challenges. The situation in Finland – for other languages than Swedish – would also need more urgent actions, compared to the situation for North Sami in Norway, Danish in Germany and German in Denmark. Some of the issues raised in the recommendations will be lifted and additional information provided in the case studies in this book.

Summing up

The ECRML, or as it has been referred to here, the Charter, is one of the most detailed international conventions targeting the legal rights and protection of traditional, or na-

44 https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-charter-regional-or-minority-languages/reports-and-recommendations#{%2228993157%22:[]} tional, minority languages, even at a global scale. It contributes at present to focusing on the long-term support for minority languages in 25 member states of the Council of Europe. Its structure with a menu of options under its Part III makes it possible for states to tailor an instrument of protection for each language, according to its needs. The convention, the protection and promotion of these languages, have one main aim, to keep the languages alive also into the future. Therefore specific areas of life, and thus language use, in private and public, have been selected to frame also the chapters of this book. In the book we focus on educational issues, but no language can survive without further possibilities to use and develop it, in both out-of-school and within-school real life experiences.

In the Nordic countries, the Charter has to various extents been used as a tool for dialogue between authorities, speakers of the languages, and the ComEx of the Charter. In some respects it has raised the awareness of the crucial issues surrounding the well-being of the languages, in others, negative attitudes prevail, both among majorities and minorities themselves. This has prevented the full potential of and healthy impact on structuring minority language policies in these countries. Nevertheless, since the ratifications for the involved languages cannot be diminished, and should not be forgotten, the possibilities are still there, to make the Charter assist in creating situations in which the cultural diversity of Europe is re-

42 teoretiska utblickar

tained. Even if the convention targets the languages per se, any success of this is still directly related to the officially supported well-being and the interest of the speakers in the languages. Fully-fledged languages, ready for use in various life situations and defined in the Charter provisions, promote this. As has been stated by the Secretariat of the ECRML in an information brochure,45 speakers need to use the language, or they

45 The Charter: Giving regional and minority languages a say (visited 2019-09-18). https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900 0016806c7413 may lose it. Similarly, we as researchers and teachers may use the convention, or lose its value and its potential support for language maintenance. A core focus area for this, is no doubt the field of education in and of these languages. This also requires that the state authorities react constructively to the recommendations and critique presented to them, with regard to their respective national minority languages. Hopefully, this book will also present some ideas about how to better achieve this.