Language Policies in Northern Europe. The Case of Sámi
Minorities in Scandinavia and Russia
Natalia Chełstowska
Student number: 0571296
MA thesis General Linguistics
University of Amsterdam
Study year: 2008/2009
Supervisor: Umberto Ansaldo
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and background
……………………………………………………
2
1.1 Minority languages in Northern Europe ……………………………….
3
1.2 Sámi territory …………………………………………………………..
4
1.3 Sámi demographics …………………………………………………….
5
1.4 Sámi languages …………………………………………………………
6
2. A piece of history - development of Sámi language policies until
the post-war period
…………………………………………………………
3. International law and Linguistic Human Rights
…………………………………
3.1 How does the LHR approach affect the Sámi minority?
9
12
……………….
14
4. Present language policies of four states towards the Sámi minorities …………..
16
4.1 Legal status and Language Acts ……………………………………….
17
4.1.1 Scandinavia
…………………………………………………..
17
4.1.2 Russia ………………………………………………………...
20
4.2 Education
………………………………………………………………
4.2.1 Scandinavia
22
…………………………………………………..
22
4.2.2 Russia ………………………………………………………..
25
4.3 Comparison and discussion
……………………………………………
5. Endangerment of Sámi languages – a consequence of language policies?
26
…….
27
…………………………………………………………….
30
References …………………………………………………………………………
34
6. Concluding remarks
1
1. Introduction and background
In the last century there has been an increasing interest in language policies over the whole
world. The reasons for this are a growing consciousness of linguistic diversity as well as the
willingness of its preservation. As the phenomena of language and culture are strongly related
to a notion of identity, a political debate regarding language and linguistic rights is of main
importance. This discussion is constantly being stimulated by politicians and members of
linguistic minorities that became aware of their cultural and linguistic rights. The strong will
to be able to decide about their own linguistic identity, and the will to preserve their languages
seem to be the priorities of numerous minority groups. Consequently, in their language
policies states become more and more specific and detailed about languages of the minorities.
In order to be complete and clear in the discussion, the basic terms, language policy and
minority language, have to be defined.
The term language policy in a broad definition refers to actions of a government that
influence a linguistic situation and its diversity in a country and regulate the use of both/either
official and/or minority language. The aim of these actions can be favouring or protecting
certain languages and stimulating their revitalization, but these activities can also be pointed
against language preservation. Language policies are sometimes explicitly expressed in
legislation, but in the case of many countries one cannot find any legislative basis to
determine the current language policy and that is why one has to deduce this information from
language practices and beliefs. It is important not to forget that, as argued by Spolsky (2004),
language policy of a linguistic community does not only consist of language planning as an
explicit attempt of the state to influence language use. According to Spolsky, it has two more
components, namely language practices and language ideologies that are alive in the
community. These are the factors that have to be analyzed when looking at language policies
and these two aspects will not be forgotten in the following analysis of Sámi language
policies.
In the context of this analysis the specification of the term minority language is of a
great importance. The definition that will be adopted for the purpose of this paper is as
formulated in Article 1 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 1 from
1992. It says that
1
The Charter is published on the website of the Council of Europe, see references.
2
“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 of the official language(s) of that State. [...]
Obviously, the Charter does not include languages of recent immigrants; it only takes into
account indigenous languages or languages that are spoken by the well-established minority
groups. Although this exclusion is controversial and could be challenged, it is not essential in
the context of this paper since this term will only refer to the indigenous people of Northern
Europe.
In the next section an overview of minority languages in the Northern European
countries will be presented. I will start with Norway, Finland and Sweden followed by Russia.
In sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 I will present the specific background information about the Sámi
people and their area, including territory, demographics as well as a linguistic division of the
population. In Chapter 2 I will turn to the issue of language policies towards the Sámi
population. In order to give a full picture of the linguistic situation of the Sámi, in this chapter I
will briefly look back into the history of Sámi language policies ending with the post-war
period. Chapter 3 will be devoted to the breakthrough of the linguistic rights of minorities and
the frameworks based on these rights. In Chapter 4 I will give an overview of the present
language policies towards the Sámi languages, focusing on legislation and education, and
compare the policies of the Scandinavian 2 region on the one hand, with Russia on the other
hand. The discussion on the relation between language policy and endangerment of Sámi
languages will follow in Chapter 5. In the last part of the paper, Chapter 6, I will present the
concluding remarks, where I will summarise the main problems that the Sámi languages face.
2
What is meant by Scandinavia in the context of this paper is the area of the Scandinavian Peninsula: Norway
and Sweden; together with Finland. The Sámi are a minority group in these three countries and in Russia.
Although Finland officially does not belong to the geographical region of Scandinavia and does not form a
language continuum with the other two languages and Danish, the country will be included to this group for the
purposes of this paper. The reason for that is that the direction of language policy and legislative steps taken by
Finland are parallel to those of the other two Scandinavian countries that the Sámi inhabit.
3
1.1 Minority languages in Northern Europe
In this part of Europe there is a lot of linguistic diversity with a number of minority languages,
either officially recognized or not. Each of the three Scandinavian states in question
distinguishes between the official/national language(s), territorial minority languages and not
officially recognized immigrant languages. To begin with, Norway has two official Norwegian
languages of an equal status, namely Bokmål and Nynorsk. The indigenous language of
Norway, (North) Sámi, is considered the third official language in a few Northern
municipalities. The recognized minority languages are, as reported by Husby (2007), a
language related to Finnish – Kven, and the languages of the Norwegian gypsies -Romanes and
Romani. Some consider the Norwegian sign language as a minority language.
Finland is characterized by two official languages, Finnish and Swedish. The large
minority languages of Finland according to Latomaa & Noulijärvi (2005) are Sámi, Romani,
Finnish sign language, Russian, Tatar, which is a Turkic language officially spoken in
Tatarstan, a republic of Russian Federation; and Yiddish, former three of which are officially
recognized in the Finnish constitution.
As to the situation in Sweden, Hyltenstam et al. (1999) point out that besides the
national Swedish language, there are six officially recognized minority languages: Sámi,
Finnish, Tornedalen Finnish (Meänkieli), which is a Finnish dialect spoken in the Northern
parts of Sweden in the area of Torne Valley strongly influenced by Swedish; Romani language
of Swedish gypsies, Yiddish and Swedish sign language. The recent immigrant languages in
the Scandinavian countries are mostly languages of Southern and Eastern Europe, for instance
Greek, Bulgarian, Serb and Polish.
Finally, the language situation in Russia is far more complicated than the situation in
the Scandinavian countries. Because of the size of the Russian Federation and the speed in
which languages become extinct, it is difficult to give a clear overview of all the minority
languages that are spoken there at this particular moment. As reported by Gordon in
Ethnologue (2005), in Russia there is one national language, Russian, and 104 other listed
languages, four of which are extinct. This number does not include recent migrant languages as
Estonian or Belarusian. According to Salminen (1998) the number of territorial minority
languages of Russia is 110. Not all of these minority languages that belong to various language
families are, as he argues, officially recognized by the state. Due to factors like the high degree
of linguistic diversity and lack of open language minority policy, it is difficult to outline the
precise linguistic situation of the Russian Federation. It is of no use to mention all the
4
languages of Russia at this point. What we should keep in mind, however, is the fact that the
situation of the large number of linguistic minorities in this country is highly complicated. This
goes also for the Sámi, an indigenous minority that Russia shares with Norway, Finland and
Sweden.
1.2 Sámi territory
Sápmi 3 , as their area is called by the Sámi themselves, is not an official state. In fact, the Sámi
people have never had one. As traditionally being nomads or semi-nomads, they always moved
from one place to another, without having a need to create their own state. The original Sámi
area changed constantly as the Sámi continued their nomadic lives. Today the Sámi population
forms one nation spread through four North European states: Norway, Sweden, Finland and
Russia.
Figure 1 The map of Sápmi taken from the website of the
Norwegian Sámi Parliament
The area is a geographical continuum that spans form the Southern parts of Norway and
Southwest Sweden up through Northern Finland to the Kola Peninsula in Russia, as shown in
Figure 1. Sápmi looks like a large geographical part of Northern Europe but the fact is that the
distribution of Sámi in different regions varies considerably. What is more, the territories are
not only inhabited by the Sámi people, but the Sápmi area is also a home to Norwegians,
Swedes, Finns and Russians as well as other ethnic minorities, like the Kven in Norway. In
3
The word sápmi in Sámi languages means both the area that the Sámi inhabit, Sámiland, and the Sámi people
as a collective.
5
fact, Sámi people form a minority group even at the territorial level within Sápmi, a problem
that I will come back to later in the paper.
1.3 Sámi demographics
As to the precise demographic information about the number of Sámi inhabitants in Sápmi,
there is a lot of confusion and uncertainty. One of the reasons for this confusion is the fact that
researchers in the field use various criteria of calculation. In determining the size and
distribution of the Sámi population one can for instance use language as the main criterion,
whereby only the people that have Sámi as a mother tongue would be calculated and stored in
the database. However, the basis for these calculations could also be others: for example,
genetic origin based on the DNA research; self-identification, whereby the inhabitants
determine whether they consider themselves Sámi or no; or a way of life, which in the case of
the Sámi could be involvement in reindeer herding or making use of the traditional nomadic
tents, the so-called goahti. Another problem that causes confusion in determining the Sámi
demographics is a number of languages involved.
One of the most recent estimations of the size of the Sámi population is that of Sara
(2002) from the Nordic Sámi Institute in Norway. His numbers are based on the calculations of
the Bureaus of Statistics in all four states and the criterion that is employed in this calculation
is ethnicity. According to Sara, the estimated number of all the Sámi is circa 85,000. Most of
them, that is roughly 50,000, live in Norway, while approximately 20,000 inhabit the Swedish
part of Sápmi. In Finland the estimation of Sámi people is 10,000, whereas in Russia the
official Sámi population is only around 2,000. The difference in concentration of the Sámi
population in Norway on the one hand and Russia on the other is clearly considerable
according to this estimation. What we do not know, however, is whether this data is fully
reliable as the numbers are only based on one criterion of calculation. The numbers could vary
when another criterion is employed.
1.4 Sámi languages
Figure 2 below is a map of Sámi languages as presented by Bull (2002). They form a dialect
continuum that consists of nine varieties spread through the four countries. It is not possible to
deduce the borders of Sámi languages from the state borders, which means that most of the
varieties are spoken in more than one state. These nine variants of Sámi are often called
6
languages instead of dialects because of a lack of the mutual intelligibility between the
speakers of the varieties.
Figure 2 Sámi language areas: 1. South Sámi, 2. Ume Sámi, 3. Pite Sámi,
4. Lule Sámi, 5. North Sámi, 6. Inari Sámi, 7. Skolt Sámi,
8. Kildin Sámi, 9. Ter Sámi (Bull 2002: 30)
Although there is no reliable data, Bull (2002) gives an estimate of the number of
speakers of all Sámi languages that slightly differs from the information that can be found in
the Ethnologue (2005). Bull’s point of departure is 20,000 of Sámi speakers in total, 1718,000 of which would be speakers of North Sámi. The estimation of Gordon (2005), that is
mostly based on the data from 1995, is 21,000 as to the population of the North Sámi
speakers. Lule Sámi is estimated to be spoken by a population of circa 2,000 by Bull and
Gordon, Skolt and Inari Sámi would have a number of users between 300 and 500 according
to both sources. Bull estimates the South Sámi population to have between 300 and 500
speakers whereas Gordon reports the number of 600 in Norway and Sweden. Kildin Sámi is
reported by Bull to have only about 650 language users left. Basing his information on
Salminen’s UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages, Gordon estimates the number of
speakers of this variety slightly higher, namely 800. As to the number of language users of the
last three Sámi languages - Ume, Pite and Ter – in both of the sources they are considered to
be nearly extinct and to have only a few elderly speakers left. The overview of the Sámi
languages together with the numbers of speakers and the regions where they are spoken are
presented once again in Table 1.
7
Table 1 Overview of the Sámi varieties according to Bull (2002) and Gordon (2005)
Language
Administrative region(s)
North Sámi
Norway: Nordland, Troms,
Finnmark; Sweden: Norrbotten;
Finland: Lapland
Norway: Nordland; Sweden:
2,000-3,000
Norrbotten
Russia: Murmansk
650
Lule Sámi
Kildin Sámi
South Sámi
Estimated number of speakers
Bull (2002)
Gordon (2005)
17,000-18,000
21,000
2,000
800
300-500
600
300-500
320
Inari Sámi
Norway: Sør-Trøndelag,
Hedmark, Nord-Trøndelag,
Nordland; Sweden: Dalarna,
Jämtland, Västerbotten
Finland: Lapland; Russia:
Murmansk
Finland: Lapland
300-500
250
Ume Sámi
Sweden: Västerbotten
20
Pite Sámi
Norway: Nordland (extinct);
Sweden: Norrbotten
Russia: Murmansk
Several elderly
people
Several elderly
people
Several elderly
people
Skolt Sámi
Ter Sámi
20
6
Both Gordon (2005) and Scheller (2006) report that the Akkala Sámi, originally
spoken only in Russia, is still spoken in Southwest Kola Peninsula. However, this variety is
neither reported on Figure 2 nor in Table 1 as it is extinct since 2003 (Salminen 2007). The
Ethnologue mentions one extinct variety of Sámi, namely Kemi Sámi, originally spoken in
Finland and Russia. This variety is no longer used since the nineteenth century.
Comparing the data of Sara (2002), which estimates the ethnic population of all Sámi
to be around 85,000, with the data that presents the actual language use, around 20,000 (Bull
2002), we can conclude that the difference between the number of the ethnic Sámi and the
number of actual Sámi language users is considerable and disturbing. It turns out that only
about a quarter of all the Sámi are speakers of at least one of the Sámi languages, which
brings our attention to a big scale language shift that is ongoing among the Sámi population
and to the actual subject of this paper, namely language policies that were one of the decisive
factors in this language shift.
8
2. A piece of history – development of Sámi language policies until the post-war period
To begin with, it is important to point out that the Sámi became a minority group when their
original territory was colonised by the surrounding states. As the indigenous people of
Northern Europe they have not always been a minority in the area that they live in but, on the
other hand, they have never had their own state either. It is therefore difficult to establish their
legal status before the time of nation building in the Nordic regions. One thing that is clear is
that the Sámi were granted the status of a minority only after the expansion of the Germans to
the northernmost parts of Europe, as mentioned by several historians and linguists, among
others Todal (1998).
The first cultural contact that the Sámi had with Germans was already at the time of
the Viking Age. The settlement of the Vikings in Scandinavia and the western parts of present
Russia caused territorial and demographic changes in Northern Europe. The Sámi could not
resist the pressure and where continuously pushed northwards and as a result of that their
territory became smaller. There are, however, no reports of any serious conflicts between the
Sámi and other ethnic groups.
During the Middle Ages the relations between the Sámi and the neighbouring ethnic
groups changed. The newly created countries, Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Finland and Russia,
began to show interest in colonising the Sápmi area and in subordinating the non-violent Sámi
to them, as pointed out by the writers of several Sámi history books, for instance Hansen &
Olsen (2004). The first step was a taxation of the Sámi people, some of which had to pay
taxes to more than one state at the same time (Salvesen 1995). The area originally inhabited
by the Sámi became more and more dependent on the neighbouring countries, a process that
took place in all regions of Sápmi, including the Kola Peninsula. From this time on, the
relation between the Sámi and the neighbouring countries was of a colonial type. From the
historical overview given by Salvesen (1995) we learn that, although the Sámi population was
increasingly exposed to Germanic and Slavic languages as well as Finnish, the question of
linguistic dominance or preservation of Sámi culture and languages seemed not to be a
priority case for the Scandinavian states and Russia at this point in history. Territorial
expansion as well as trade and economical solutions were the main concerns of the states in
the time of the early Middle Ages (Salvesen 1995).
The problem of Sámi language(s) and culture(s) became more pressing when the
Church began to expand its influence in Northernmost part of Europe in the second part of the
17th century. With the aim of converting the heathen folk with a traditional, polytheistic
9
religion to Christianity, missionaries were prepared to be sent to the original Sápmi area to
introduce the Protestant religion to the Sámi. In order to do that, however, a language choice
had to be made, in which God’s message was to be spread. According to Salvesen (1995),
there were two camps in whole Northern Europe that represented two different views as to the
way of approaching the Sámi minority, its culture and languages. Some argued that this
culture should be assimilated within the majority populations, and their language abandoned.
Others believed that by supporting their languages and cultures, the state could be able to gain
the Sámi’s trust. Ultimately, the Christian belief was spread among the Sámi in their own
language and an increasing number of Sámi textbooks appeared as the orthographies of the
Sámi varieties were developed. The status of the Sámi languages increased but the goal that
was to be achieved by the states and the Church was to get more power over the Sámi
population and an ultimate sovereignty over their traditional area.
As the religious missions continued at the beginning of the 18th century, the interest in
Sámi culture and languages grew, especially in the Scandinavian states (Salvesen 1995). The
first Sámi dictionary came out and a school where teachers could learn the Sámi languages,
Seminarium Lapponicum, was opened in Trondheim. A lot of translation work of the religious
texts was being done at this time and books in the Sámi languages were regularly published.
Although the languages of the Sámi minorities were clearly cultivated for missionary
purposes and became an object of interest of the colonists, the language policy towards the
Sámi at that time was far from clear and coherent.
Following Salvesen’s (1995) historical analysis, the policy towards the Sámi minority
started to clarify as the borders between the states were gradually established, beginning from
the second half of the 18th century and ending in the 19th century. The Nordic countries started
to interfere in the nomadic life and migratory routes of the Sámi as well as in the way they
expressed their culture. Together with a border treaty form 1751 that established the border
between Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland, a codicil was added. The Lappecodicillen
guaranteed the Sámi reindeer herders free passages between the states, which brought hope
that Sámi culture and most of all their way of life would be preserved (Salvesen 1995). The
agricultural colonisation, however, resulted in conflicts between the nomadic Sámi and the
farmers, and was one of the reasons that minority policies of the states became less
advantageous to the Sámi minorities (Salvesen 1995).
Besides the restrictions on the Sámi rights as to the reindeer herding, that elicited Sámi
activism, an official policy of assimilation was introduced in all Northern regions where the
Sámi are a minority group. This change of direction in the minority policies went together
10
with the process of nation building in the second part of the 19th century. The ideological
background for these policies was found in social Darwinism that advocates the idea of
competition between ethnic groups or nations. The way how this ideology influenced the
policies towards the Sámi in the 1880s is presented by Salvesen in the book Ethnicity and
Nation Building in the Nordic World as follows:
[…] One found here the necessary ideological support for the view that the
Sámi were an inferior race with an inferior culture who, through the law of
the survival of the fittest, were doomed to disappear. The only thing that
could ‘save’ them was complete integration […] Otherwise the “law of the
survival of the fittest” would ensure their extinction. […] (Salvesen 1995:
133-134).
‘Complete integration’ in this case means the abandonment of their own culture and language
by the Sámi population in order to be fully absorbed in the dominant society. The policy of
assimilation was also employed in schools, where Sámi languages were replaced by one of the
official languages. Although all four countries relied on this policy, the most extreme form of
assimilation was witnessed in Norway. As argued by Bull (2002), norwegianisation went hand
in hand with discrimination. The example he gives is a law from 1902 that says that land in
Finnmark, the northernmost part of Norway, could only be sold or hired by the state to
Norwegian-speaking, reading and writing people. The discrimination of the Sámi that were not
fully fluent in the Norwegian language was supposed to force them to learn the national
language and abandon their own. Today we can conclude that the ultimate goal of complete
culture and language attrition that the Norwegian authorities had in mind was not
accomplished. However, this period of assimilation policies has left wounds in the Sámi
society and it is one of the most important factors in language endangerment that Sámi
population struggles with nowadays.
The situation of the Sámi and their languages changed continuously through ages.
Consequently, the destructive direction of assimilatory language policy towards the Sámi
minorities lasted about one century, after which the policies took a different turn. After World
War II the attitudes towards the assimilation policies changed and a contradictory direction was
taken. There were two reasons for this turning point in the history of language policy towards
the Sámi minority, one of which was the increasing visibility and activities of the Sámi nongovernmental organisations. An example of such an activity was a Sámi demonstration against
11
the Alta River hydro-electric dam project in Norway at the beginning of the 1980s (Bull,
2002). More visibility especially in the political arena of Norway, Sweden and Finland made it
possible for the Sámi to enjoy official recognition in these countries. There was one more
important factor that helped the Sámi minority gain more respect and status in the Nordic
countries and, in fact, encouraged the Sámi to form the organisations I just mentioned in the
first place. This factor was an international development of (linguistic) human rights and the
criticism of racist ideologies that advocated racial differentiation and superiority (Salvesen
1995).
3. International law and Linguistic Human Rights
The problem of linguistic rights of minorities has a history of more than one century. Before
World War II numerous states signed international treaties that regulated minority language
rights. The turning point of the linguistic human rights approach on the international arena is,
however, the foundation of the United Nations shortly after World War II, to be precise in
1945. One of the most important concerns of this international organisation, that was willing to
welcome all the independent states, is human rights. This direction was a reaction on the
genocide and frequent violations of the basic human rights during the war. One of the goals of
the UN was to provide a background to improve the legal situation of minority groups all over
the world by adopting several declarations, conventions and charters that are concerned with
the linguistic rights of minorities. It resulted in a series of documents adopted in the second
half of the twentieth century that were signed and ratified by several states in order to
accomplish this goal.
To begin with, in 1948 the very first and important document was adopted by the UN,
namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if there is no direct statement about
the language rights, Article 2 (see references) of this declaration includes the statement that
discrimination based on language use in unacceptable. Basic human rights, one of which is a
right to use a language of one’s choice, should apply to every human being according to this
document. In his overview of all documents that played a role in a creation of the linguistic
human rights approach, Spolsky (2004) mentions the International Labour Organisation
Convention no. 107 from 1957 as the second important document concerned with linguistic
rights of minorities. This convention, as interpreted by Spolsky (2004), provided the children
of indigenous people the right to basic education in their mother tongue. Furthermore, an
agency of the UN that is specialized in educational problems, UNESCO, declared at the
12
beginning of the next decennium in Article 5 of the Convention against Discrimination in
Education that:
It is essential to recognise the right of members of national minorities to
carry on their own educational activities, including the maintenance of
school and, depending on the educational policy of each State, the use of the
teaching of their own language […].
Following Spolsky’s overview (2004), I now turn to the next document that was adopted in
1966, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Part I of this covenant
provides minority groups with rights to self-determination. Another important part of the
document that is dedicated to basic linguistic rights is Article 14, according to which every
person that faces criminal charge, whether he is a member of majority group or no, should be
entitled to information that is relevant to him in his own language.
In the course of the twentieth century more legal documents of this kind were adopted
by the UN as well as by regional organizations. All the treaties and conventions mentioned
above and the ones that followed them were, however, limited to protecting individual rights of
the members of linguistic minorities from being discriminated by means of language. The
documents, if ratified, did not guarantee promoting of minority languages by the states and did
not stimulate governments to support these languages. The Council of Europe, the international
organization at the European level founded in the post-war period, made an effort to change
this situation by adopting the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1992.
This charter was created with the aim of not only protecting minority languages but, what is
more, of promoting them, when signed and ratified by a state. The definition of regional or
minority languages included historical languages that are numerically and geographically
justified. 4 Spolsky (2004) presents the structure of the Charter and the steps that have to be
taken by a signing state. To begin with, the state has to specify which languages are covered by
the document. According to Spolsky, Part II of the document that contains more general
provisions is obligatory to each state that signs it whereas Part III includes more specific,
voluntary items on the level of education, jurisdiction, administration, media and social life. By
choosing items from Part III, the state has to define its language policy and specify the
4
For a precise definition, see Chapter 1 or the reference.
13
measures that are going to be taken in order to implement the laws. Nowadays the Charter is an
obligatory document to sign for all states that profess to be new members of the EU.
There are several organizations on the European level that deal with the problem of
linguistic minorities, but these organs are often purely advisory. One of them is The
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). This organization established a
High Commissioner on National Minorities that gives recommendations concerning language
minorities. Another example of a European organization is the European Bureau for Lesser
Used Languages that supports European minority languages (Spolsky 2002).
These developments in international law aimed at protecting linguistic minorities, and
led to the emergence of the theoretical approach of linguistic human rights. The approach
known as ‘Linguistic Human Rights’ (LHRs) is most closely associated with Tove SkutnabbKangas and Richard Phillipson; in their approach they emphasize the importance of protecting
linguistic minority rights as basic human rights (for example Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillips
1994). These rights include for instance the right to learn a mother tongue, a right that should
be extended at both individual and collective level. Since all speakers of dominant languages
enjoy these rights, it is important that also minorities are not discriminated against on linguistic
grounds. By not letting minorities enjoy their LHRs, we deprive them of other human rights, as
for instance access to education and freedom of speech (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillips 1994).
Therefore, LHRs should be carefully specified in both national and international law. Many
international documents that are adopted until now are criticized by these researchers on the
grounds that they do not provide enough support and justice for minorities: ‘Despite the good
intentions of drafters of the covenants […] and the ratification of them by member states, there
are still major social inequalities where linguistic injustice appears to be a relevant factor […]’
(Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994: 2). They also argue that further specification and
implementation of LHRs in legal documents is needed and should be required by governments
in order to prevent linguistic discrimination and achieve linguistic equality in the world. Now I
would like to turn to the subject of linguistic human rights and their effect on the language
policy in the specific case of the Sámi minority.
3.1 How does the LHR approach affect the Sámi minority?
This increased interest in minorities and their language rights after World War II changed the
situation of lesser-used languages in many countries. Because of the international pressure,
more attention was also paid to the Northern European minority languages, among others the
14
indigenous Sámi. It became obvious that the policy of assimilation that had been practiced for
more than a century had to be banished and replaced by a new, positive approach to the Sámi
language policy that would afford the Sámi population linguistic human rights as advocated by
the UN and the EU. The pressure caused by international obligations made that the
Scandinavian countries ratified a lot of documents in order to improve the linguistic situation
of the indigenous inhabitants. In the 20th century the first discrepancies in language policies
between the Scandinavian region and Russia were noticed.
As has been mentioned before, because of this new situation on the international arena
that resulted in a supportive approach of the linguistic rights of minorities, the Scandinavian
Sámi became encouraged to form their own organizations. These organizations were either on
the national level or they unified all the countries that Sápmi includes. In 1956 the Sámi
Council was formed. This is still an important, non-governmental organization, which has an
aim in promoting the Sámi nation and protecting their rights in the four countries, including
Russia, as pointed out on the official website of the Sámi Council. Organizations of this type
that were aimed at protecting the Sámi minorities, forced governments to pay more attention to
the linguistic rights of the Sámi.
Both international forces and Sámi national organizations led to the legislative steps
that were taken by the Scandinavian governments towards the Sámi minorities and their
languages. In the latter half of the twentieth century not only were international conventions
ratified by the states, but also legal documents were created that aimed at improving the
situation of the Sámi minorities. The Finnish government was the first to take legal steps and
established a precursor of the Sámi parliament, the Sámi Delegation, that operated between
1973 and 1995. These current developments and efforts to provide the Sámi more autonomy
will be elaborated on in the next chapter.
First, however, it is necessary to point out the different course in the history of the
Kola Sámi and their LHRs in the 20th century. A researcher that works on the Sámi languages
in Russia, Scheller (2006), mentions that russification policy continued as Stalin became the
leader of the Soviet Union, while the assimilation policies in the other states were already
abandoned. Due to the repression policy of Stalin, the attention that the Sámi languages began
to gain at the beginning of the century disappeared (Scheller 2006). The international
obligation as to LHRs of the minorities seemed not to apply to the Soviet Union. Even though
the number of minority languages in the Soviet Union, and later in the Russian Federation,
has always been very high (see Chapter 1.2), the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages has not yet been ratified. As we know, the charter promotes positive
15
discrimination of minority languages and an improvement in their legal status. International
laws and the LHRs approach did not stimulate the Russian Federation to improve the legal
status of Skolt, Kildin and Ter Sámi as they did in the three remaining states. This resulted in
the linguistic situation unlike the one found in Scandinavia; as we will see in Chapter 4, there
are some marked differences between the language policies of Russia and those of the
Scandinavian countries, which explains the conditions of Sámi languages in these territories.
4. Present language policies towards the Sámi minorities
The Sámi are often referred to as one ethnic group. A strong feeling of one nation among the
Sámi can be explained by their will of unity based on the historical and linguistic affinity.
However, in the context of minority and language policy, the distinction has to be made
between the Sámi minorities that speak different language varieties. The reason for that is the
unequal status of the Sámi minority groups and their languages all over Sápmi. This is first of
all due to the fact that the policies of the countries differ, which means that Sámi languages in
one country are treated differently than those in the other. Secondly, the demographic
distribution of the Sámi varies considerably. In some administrative areas the Sámi speaking
population is a majority, which gives them more status and respect. In the municipalities
where the amount of the Sámi is lesser than state’s majority population, the rights of the Sámi
varieties involved are substantially limited. Therefore, it is worth noticing that not only do
different language policies of the states cause a gap between the Sámi varieties, but also that
the distribution of these varieties in each of the states matters in this context. The differences
between the status of various Sámi languages is most clearly expressed in the problems
regarding education in Sámi languages, which are presented in Chapter 4.2. Because of its
high number of speakers and its concentration, the most privileged of all Sámi languages is
North Sámi.
In the following subsections I will present the law that regulates the political status of
the Sámi, the Sámi Language Acts and educational systems on the Scandinavian Peninsula
and in Russia respectively. This will give a full picture of the current language policies in the
two regions and provide us with the information that is needed in order to compare the
policies and present linguistic situation in the last subsection of this chapter.
16
4.1 Legal status and Language Acts
4.1.1 Scandinavia
During the last decennia the Scandinavian countries have taken many legislative steps to
specify their policy towards the Sámi minorities and their languages, starting in the 1970s.
There are various inclusions in the constitutions that describe the official status of these
minority groups. Today all Scandinavian Sámi have their own political body, the Sámi
Parliament. Parliaments are elected once in four years by the Sámi themselves and deal with
the current political and cultural issues concerning the Sámi population and represent them to
the authorities. The goal of establishing these parliaments was to provide a certain degree of
cultural autonomy and self-determination to the Sámi. Together with the creation of these
political bodies, regulations concerning the Sámi languages were proposed. The rights to use
the Sámi languages in official situations was regulated under the so-called Sámi Language Acts
that came into force in each of the countries. The Acts defined the Sámi linguistic area, and the
use of languages before the authorities. The developments that led to the establishment of the
Sámi Parliaments and Language Acts will be presented for Norway, Finland and Sweden
respectively, after which the information about the contents of the Language Acts and the
comparison of them will take place.
(i) In Norway after the Alta River conflict and other instances of Sámi activism, the
attention that the Sámi fought for increased. In 1980, as pointed out by Broderstad (2001), The
Norwegian Sámi Rights Commission (SRC) dealing with the rights to land and water and the
Sámi Cultural Commission was established. The report of the Sámi Rights Commission led to
a Sámi Act in 1987 that proposed the establishment of a representative body for the Sámi as an
indigenous minority in Norway. Two years later the Norwegian Sámi Parliament was created.
All these legal arrangements went hand in hand with international obligations. According to
Broderstad (2001), Norway has ratified more international legal documents than any of the
other countries in the Scandinavian region and the most important ones in favour of the Sámi
minorities are the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Conventions on
Economic Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, European Convention
on Human Rights, The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and ILO
Convention No. 169 ‘Concerning Indigenous Populations and Tribal People in Independent
Nations’. The latest one, incorporated in the Norwegian law in 1990, defines the Sámi as the
indigenous people of Norway. This legal status of the Sámi gave them the right to autonomy
17
and numerous institutional arrangements in the state. According to the huge Sámi database, a
cultural encyclopaedia of the Sámi by Kulonen et al. (2005), the Norwegian state was the first
one to take legislative steps concerning the Sámi languages by appending a chapter devoted to
this problem to the Sámi Act in 1990. This chapter became a basis for the definition of the
linguistic rights of the Sámi in the country and a model for Finland and Sweden. The
ratification of the Sámi Language Act took place in 1992 and the aim of this document was to
make Sámi and Norwegian equal in law.
(ii) Similar developments as in Norway took place in Finland. However, this
Scandinavian country was the first to acknowledge the special status and autonomy of the Sámi
population and established The Sámi Delegation (1973-1995), which was a predecessor of the
Finnish Sámi Parliament. A law that regulates the use of the Sámi languages and their status
was passed in Finland already in 1992, but the Finnish Sámi had to wait more than ten yeas for
the definitive Language Act. The new Finish Sámi Act, which was partly based on the
Norwegian example from 1987, was passed in Finland in 1995 and the creation of the new
political body, the Sámi Parliament, took place in 1996 (Broderstad 2001). Although the ILO
Convention No. 169 has not yet been incorporated in the Finnish law, the state ratified several
other international treaties that aim at protecting and strengthening the position of the Sámi
minorities, among other the Charter in 1994, which grants the Sámi minority protection and
promotion of their languages. After that the Finnish constitution was reformed, as emphasised
by Latomaa & Nuolijärvi (2005) in their overview of the language situation in Finland.
According to them, an important consequence of this reform for the Sámi minorities was that
they officially gained the status of an indigenous people entitled to maintain their culture and
language. The new, definitive Finnish Sámi Language Act came into force in 2003 (Kulonen et
al. 2005).
(iii) The Swedish authorities took the same steps in order to improve the legislative
status of the Sámi minorities as Norway and Finland did. The Sámi mobilisation was an
important factor in this development that led to the improved status of the Sámi. The first
national Sámi organisation in Sweden was The National Union of the Swedish Sámi (SSR)
that, according to Lantto & Mörkenstam (2007), was formed in 1950 with the priority of
strengthening the position of reindeer herding among the Sámi population. Few decades later,
in 1993, the Swedish Sámi were given their own Sámi Parliament, the establishment of which
was based on the Swedish Sámi Act from 1992. However, Sweden, similarly to Finland, did
not ratify the ILO Convention N. 169. As Lantto & Mörkenstam (2007: 39) underline, this is
due to the fact that ‘Sweden does not fulfil the conditions set down by the Convention with
18
regard to land rights […]’. The full recognition of the Sámi minority did not happen until 2000,
when Sweden ratified The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The same
year the law based on the Norwegian Sámi Language Act was passed in the state and the
Swedish Sámi obtained their Language Act. The steps taken to improve the legal status of the
Sámi in Sweden are thus similar to those that the Norwegian and Finnish state took. The
important decisions with regard to this status, like for instance ratification of the Charter,
however, were made considerably late and the process of improvement of the Sámi’s political
status was far slower than in the two remaining Scandinavian countries. Additionally, unlike in
Norway and Finland, the indigenous status of the Sámi is not yet included in the Swedish
constitution, as underlined several times on the official website of the Swedish Sámi
Parliament.
As to the structure of the Sámi Language Acts that have been developed in all three
countries, they are rather similar. This fact is not surprising as the Finnish and Swedish
Language Acts are based on the Norwegian model. What is more, the contents of the three
Acts overlap, even though the Swedish Language Act is the least elaborate. Each of these
documents provides the Sámi with the rights to their language use with the public authorities
and the language rights at the level of jurisdiction. As provided by all three Language Acts, the
Sámi have the right to use their home language in oral or written contact with local and
regional public authorities. The rights to have important documents translated in their own
languages and to have an interpreter in the oral communication, when the languages is not
spoken by the authorities, are present in each of the documents. What the Acts also include, is
the right to use a Sámi language in courts, which is in accordance with the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Finnish Act specifies even the right to use Sámi in
representative bodies whereas the Norwegian Act includes the extended right to use Sámi in
the health and social sector. As to the provisions related to the educational system(s), the
Swedish Language Act includes the provision on the pre-school education. 5
There are, however, considerable restrictions on the implementation of the provisions in
the Sámi Language Acts. Most of them apply namely only to the so-called Sámi
Administrative Areas that are specified in each of the Acts. In Norway this core area includes
the municipalities of Karasjok, Kautokeino, Nesseby, Porsanger, Tana and Kåfjord, which
belong to the two countries: Finnmark and Troms. In the Finnish part of the Sámiland the
Administrative Area refers to four municipalities, namely Enontekiö, Inari, Sodankylä as well
5
See references to read the English translations of the Sámi Language Acts.
19
as Utsjoki. The Swedish Administrative Area for Sámi consists of the municipalities of
Arjeplog, Gällivare, Jokkmokk and Kiruna, which are located in the northernmost country of
Norrbotten. To illustrate this, Figure 2 is presented once again as Figure 2a with the
Administrative Areas of Norway, Finland and Sweden marked red.
Figure 2a Sámi Administrative Area according to the Sámi Language
Acts in Norway, Finland and Sweden
From Figure 2a it turns out that not all Sámi varieties are covered with the regulations in the
Language Acts. This territorial application limited to the Administrative Areas forms a
restriction with regard to the legislative equality of the Sámi languages. The regions where
both South Sámi and Ume Sámi are spoken, for instance, do not belong to the area and
consequently enjoy much less protection and status.
4.1.2 Russia
At the time when the Sámi minorities in the Scandinavian countries were forming
organisations and fighting for their rights, the Sámi on the Kola Peninsula were forced to move
from their original area to bigger villages. As it is argued in the Sámi cultural encyclopaedia,
all the Russian Sámi groups, namely Kildin, Skolt, Akkala and Ter, were relocated to the
centre of the Kola Peninsula, mostly to the village of Lovozero, which dramatically changed
their way of life. Semi-nomadic life was not possible any more and the Sámi had to adapt to
the industrialised environment. As the industry on Kola Peninsula began to expand, the area
20
became more inhabited by other ethnic groups. As a consequence of these changes in the area,
along with the assimilation policy of the state, the percentage of the Sámi people by 2005 was
no more than 0.2% (Kulonen et al. 2005). One year later it decreased till only 0.14% of the
Kola population (Scheller 2006). From the Sámi cultural encyclopaedia we learn that even in
Lovozero, the urban village where most of the Sámi people live today, their concentration is
still only 20% of the whole population.
The fact that the Sámi are the smallest minority on their original territory and that their
economic situation is nearly disastrous, is clearly a reason of their disillusionment and
passivity towards their own political and administrative status. With regard to their official
status, the Russian Sámi minorities do not have their own body on the national level, although
they have their own representatives in the Sámi Council. The lack of a Sámi Parliament limits
their autonomy as an indigenous people. Furthermore, the ILO Convention No. 169 is not yet
ratified by the Russian state, in spite of the big amount of the indigenous groups that live there.
The political and cultural activism of the Kola Sámi is therefore limited to two organisations so
far, namely The Association of Kola Sámi, founded in 1989 in Murmansk, and The Social
Organisation of Saamis of the Region of Murmansk, which has an office in Lovozero (Kulonen
et al. 2005). Because of the little influence that the Sámi have on politics and the low status
they enjoy in their area, the range of work of these organisations is strongly limited as well.
Besides these two political organisations, there are two small-scale social associations active in
the Murmansk region, namely a youth and a women’s organisation (Kulonen et al. 2005).
As there is no Sámi Parliament in Russia, no Language Act that would regulate
language rights has been passed so far. The status of the Sámi languages in the Russian
constitution is only based on one reference that guarantees the indigenous Sámi ‘the right to
use, preserve and develop their languages’ (Scheller 2006: 284; my translation). The
ratification of The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by the Russian state
has not taken place so far. This step could possibly stimulate the activities and implementations
directed at the revitalisation and support of the Sámi languages. This revitalisation is crucial for
the existence of the languages of the Kola Sámi because all of them are seriously endangered.
The passivity of the state as well as the passivity of the Sámi, their isolation and the negative
attitudes towards them among the majority population, however, do not create ideal
circumstances to revitalise the languages. In 2007 Scheller published a plan to make a full
documentation of the endangered Sámi languages in Russia with a goal to stimulate the work
aimed at language revitalisation. The information that is going to be collected about the use
and the status of the Sámi languages is supposed to become a base for the bigger work of Sámi
21
language promotion and language preservation. The only Kola Sámi language that has a
chance to survive the next century, however, is Kildin Sámi, as it is the only language that still
has sufficient number of speakers for revitalisation to take place (Scheller, 2007). The
discussion about language endangerment, preservation and the influence of language policies
on language shift will be continued in Chapter 5. Now I turn to the Sámi language policies in
education.
4.2 Education
4.2.1 Scandinavia
Measures to introduce the special educational systems for the Sámi that live in the three
Scandinavian countries had already been in place before the establishing of the Sámi
Parliaments. As pointed out in the Sámi cultural encyclopaedia (2005), already long before
1940 a system of Nomad Schools had developed in Sweden. The level of education in these
schools, however, was far below the level of education of Swedish children. What is more, all
instruction was initially given in the national language, Swedish. In the seventies the reforms in
the educational systems of Norway, Finland and Sweden began to change the direction of the
Sámi education policy (Kulonen et al. 2005). In this period teaching Sámi languages and
teaching of other subjects in Sámi in primary schools was introduced in the Sápmi area of the
Scandinavian Peninsula.
These reforms have led to a better position of the Sámi in education. The educational
approach towards the Sámi, however, is still complicated partly due to slightly different
policies of each of the states, but most of all due to the diversity of Sámi languages, their
unequal distribution and status. To begin with, Kulonen et al. (2005) argue that the Sámi
educational administration is controlled in each of the states separately by administrative
authorities, the Sámi Parliaments and the executive bodies, namely Sámi School Board in
Sweden, Sámi Educational Council in Norway and Board for School and Educational Materials
in Finland. What is even more important is that not all Sámi varieties make part of the
Administrative Areas (see Table 2a) where the Sámi enjoy the most favourable legislative
status specified in the Language Acts. In fact, the variety that is often referred to as the Sámi
language is North Sámi, which is the only variety that forms a local majority in some of the
Norwegian townships. As a result of this status, North Sámi is the most strongly represented
22
language in the educational systems of all the three Scandinavian countries, where the situation
is as follows.
(i) In Norway there is a system of functional bilingualism introduced in the integrated
education within the boarders of the Sámi Administrative Area, where North Sámi is most
widely spoken. According to Todal (1998), the new curriculum for primary and lower
secondary education from 1997 changed the situation in a way that made this functional
bilingualism the main goal. In the six municipalities of the Norwegian Sámi core area (see
Chapter 4.1.1) pupils can study Sámi and use it as their first language at primary and lower
secondary schools. The schools give also the opportunity to learn Sámi as a second language.
In four of these municipalities Sámi as a second language is even obligatory for the Norwegian
pupils 6 , as opposed to Finland and Sweden (Todal 1998). That means that Sámi and
Norwegian in the six municipalities are considered equal at the level of education. The
approximate number of pupils that learn Sámi languages and use it in primary and secondary
education is about 3000 (Kulonen et al. 2005).
(ii) As to the situation in Finland, pre-school education in the Sámi languages within the
Sámi Homeland must be provided by the authorities (Latomaa & Nuolijärvi 2005). Functional
bilingualism in the Sámi Administrative Area is the goal of the Finnish state as well, however,
this idea gained less support of the majority population than in Norway. Latomaa & Nuolijärvi
(2005) mention that there are 12 integrated primary schools in the area that recognise Sámi as
the language of instruction and 29 schools where Sámi is a separate subject. In these schools
about 400 pupils study Sámi and approximately 100 are instructed in Sámi. Again, most of
these schools use North Sámi in their curricula.
(iii) According to one of the most recent sources, namely the cultural encyclopaedia of
the Sámi from 2005, there are six primary Sámi Schools in Sweden, the work of which is
controlled by the Sámi Schools Board. These schools are located in Karasuando, Lannavaara,
Kiruna, Gällivare, Jokkmok and Tärnaby, where instruction is given in Sámi in grades 1-6 and
Sámi as a second language is offered (Kulonen at al. 2005). Similarly to Norway and Finland,
the provided instructions are mostly restricted to the North Sámi variety. The system of
integrated education in public schools, however, has not yet been as successful in Sweden as it
is in Norway. According to Kulonen et al. (2005) there are namely only 300-400 pupils that
6
Whether this eventually results in functional bilingualism might be debatable. Making this subject obligatory
does not mean that Norwegian children practice their second language skills on a daily basis and most of all, this
does not mean that they master the Sámi language.
23
receive various Sámi courses each year, which is ten times fewer than in the neighbouring
country, Norway.
When we look at the Scandinavian region as a whole, the educational system reflects
the lower status of the varieties other than North Sámi. The language programmes and
materials in the remaining varieties are not well-established. According to Kulonen et al.
(2005), Inari and Skolt Sámi are offered languages of instruction only in one Finnish
municipality, Inari. Furthermore, in his overview of the Sámi situation in Norway, Todal
(1998) points out that the Sámi parents were determined enough to establish a new curriculum
in the Norwegian Ájluokta township, where the Lule Sámi can get instruction in their language
and where Lule Sámi as a second language is being offered. Additionally, there are several
more schools in both Norway and Sweden that give a possibility to learn Lule Sámi as a second
language, either to the Sámi or to the majority population, as mentioned by Todal (1998).
South Sámi seems to be in an even worse situation, with regard to the field of education and its
future in general. The only school that offers education for pupils, whose first language is
South Sámi, is the school in Snåsa in Norway (Todal 1998). There are also two South Sámi
boarding schools in two Norwegian municipalities, namely Nord-Trøndelag and Nordland.
This limitation together with the fact that the South Sámi are not dominant in any local society
(Todal 1998) lead to the fact that the language shift of this linguistic group to Norwegian is
inevitable. Finally, there are no recordings of any school that offers Ume Sámi in its
curriculum. Because of the low amount of remaining speakers, the language seems to be totally
ignored in the educational system of Sweden.
As to the other fields of education, Sámi preschools and kindergartens are established
all over Sápmi, for instance the Lule Sámi preschool in the Norwegian Ájluokta (Todal 1998).
Sámi languages are broadly offered at the level of higher education in Scandinavia (Svonni
2004). North Sámi for example can be studied at several universities in Norway (Tromsø),
Finland (Oulu) and Sweden (Uppsala). Even Lule and South Sámi are offered at the
universities in Umeå, Uppsala and Tromsø. Inari Sámi, on the other hand, can be studied at the
Oulu University. What is more, in Norwegian Kautokeino there is a Sámi College 7 , where a
broad range of studies in North Sámi language, literature and culture are offered. This school
even tries to attract international students that are interested in Sámi culture (Svonni 2004).
To sum up, just like language provisions in Language Acts, the reforms with regard to
primary and secondary education in Sámi are almost entirely restricted to the Sámi
7
The name for the school in North Sámi is Sámi Allaskuvla.
24
Administrative Area. This does not create equal chances for education in Sámi across the
countries. The situation of North Sámi and its speakers in terms of both lower and higher
education can be considered beneficial, especially when compared to the situation of other
European minorities, like for instance the Serbian minorities in the Balkan area. As to the other
Sámi varieties in the Scandinavian region, education at primary and secondary level that
includes these languages is not that well developed. In practice, children of these minority
groups most often have to adopt Norwegian, Finnish or Swedish as their first language at
school. In higher education the Sámi languages are broadly offered.
4.2.2 Russia
After presenting the low legal status of the Sámi languages in Russia, it is not difficult to guess
that the three Sámi varieties spoken on the Kola Peninsula are even more poorly represented in
education. Even in the area of Eastern Sápmi, there is hardly any offer of Sámi languages. As
there is no Sámi Parliament and no executive bodies that would aim at strengthening the
position of Skolt, Kildin and Ter Sámi in the educational system of Kola Peninsula, it is only
up to the teachers, parents and determined Sámi individuals to fight for it.
According to the information given by Scheller (2006), there is only one Sámi language
that is present in the primary education in the Murmansk region, namely Kildin Sámi. In one
school in Lovozero is Kildin Sámi a language of instructions, but only in grades 1-4, which
further limits the possibility of using the language in school an a daily basis. Two other
primary schools in the village offer optional education in Kildin Sámi. However, there is no
space for the other two Sámi varieties, Skolt and Ter, in the educational system of the region
(Scheller 2006).
Additionally, a kindergarten in Lovozero offers a care in Kildin Sámi, and the study of
Sámi languages and culture at the Language College in Murmansk was opened in 2003. With
regard to university education, there is a faculty at the university in St. Petersburg, where
Nordic cultures and languages, among which Sámi, can be studied. The problem of qualified
teachers and lack of well-developed study materials in Sámi, however, is even bigger than in
Scandinavia.
25
4.3 Comparison and discussion
From the overview of language policies towards the Sámi minorities across the Sápmi area,
and considering the political and educational status of their languages, it can be concluded
that there is a clear, perhaps an unbridgeable, gap between Norway, Finland and Sweden on
the one hand, and Russia on the other hand. The legal status, the specified language rights and
the degree of cultural self-determination, which is expressed in the emergence of the Sámi
Parliaments, is far more advantageous to the minorities in Scandinavian region than in Russia.
Past and present language policies that resulted in marginalisation of the so-called small
languages of the North, as well as disastrous economical conditions amongst the Northern
minorities, have led to a weak situation of the Sámi in Russia.
The current situation of the Kola Sámi is aptly sketched in one of the BBC’s articles
published in 2006 (see references) expressively entitled Russia’s Sami fight for their lives. As
opposed to the general improvement of the situation of the Scandinavian Sámi, the Sámi on
the Kola Peninsula suffer from extreme poverty and a feeling of fatalism with regard to the
future of their own culture and language. As the BBC journalist, Jorn Madslien, points out,
the Sámi in Russia have accepted defeat in the war for their territorial, linguistic and cultural
rights. Even though the administration of the cultural centre in Lovozero is still trying to
promote the Sámi culture, the culture has already been partly abandoned as a result of the long
period of russification and relocations of the Sámi population that took place at the end of the
sixties. The lack of support from the state and the government makes it difficult for Sámi
people, researchers and rights activists to take steps in order to revitalise the languages.
Although the most striking difference is the one between Scandinavian and Russian
region as to the language policy and linguistic situation of the Sámi in the present days, the
differences between the Scandinavian states have also been noticed. Obviously, looking at the
available data, one can argue that language policy and government’s support is strongest in
Norway. First of all, this state was the one to take the first steps in improving the situation of
the Sámi by defining the current, supportive language policy towards them. Secondly, the
Norwegian state has ratified the most relevant international documents concerning minority
(language) rights and by doing this, expressed its interest and engagement in the problem.
Finally, as opposed to Sweden, functional bilingualism in the Sámi Administrative Area of
Norway is one of the main goals of the state with respect to the Sámi policy, as the ethnically
Norwegian children often must learn Northern Sámi as a second language at the primary level
of education. Additionally, the position of Sámi in Norway is demographically advantageous
26
since they constitute the majority population of certain areas, which makes them more
influential at the local level. The official position of Sámi in Sweden, on the other hand, is the
weakest of the three Scandinavian states; their indigenous status is still not officially
recognised in the Swedish constitution.
However, the situation of certain Sámi varieties in the Scandinavian part of the Sápmi
area, even in Norway, is not satisfactory due to the limitations of the legislation to the Sámi
Administrative Area, as defined in the Language Acts. In practice, only the North Sámi
speakers can fully enjoy their rights, as specified in the legislation. In fact, North Sámi, which
is the most prominent of all Sámi languages (see Table 1), seems to be the only variety that
eventually profits from the current language policies in Norway as well as in Sweden and
Finland. As to the remaining Sámi varieties, their situation is much more complicated and
substantially worse.
5. Endangerment of Sámi languages – a consequence of language policies?
The bad legal situation of some Sámi languages goes hand in hand with their endangerment.
In the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages (2007) the list of endangered and
extinct languages in Europe consists of 94 entities, including all eleven Sámi varieties.
Salminen (2007), who compiled the European section of the Red Book, divides these 94
languages into groups according to degree of endangerment. His scale consists of six
categories: (i) extinct languages, (ii) nearly extinct languages, (iii) seriously endangered
languages, (iv) endangered languages, (v) potentially endangered languages and (vi) not
endangered languages. These categories are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Salminen’s scale of endangerment
Category
Extinct languages
Nearly extinct languages
Seriously endangered languages
Description
Other than ancient ones
Maximally tens of elderly speakers
Substantial number of speakers,
hardly any children
Endangered languages
Decreasing number of children
speakers
Potentially endangered languages Large number of children speakers,
no prestigious status
Not endangered languages
Safe intergenerational transmission
27
According to Salminen (2007), all Sámi varieties face the problem of endangerment.
Apart from the two extinct Sámi varieties, the languages are either nearly extinct, seriously
endangered or endangered. Salminen’s (2007) division of the Sámi languages according to the
degree of endangerment is as follows.
Table 3 Endangerment of Sámi languages
Language
Kemi Sámi
Akkala Sámi
Ter Sámi
Pite Sámi
Ume Sámi
Inari Sámi
Skolt Sámi
South Sámi
Kildin Sámi
Lule Sámi
North Sámi
Category
Extinct
Extinct
Nearly extinct
Nearly extinct
Nearly extinct
Seriously endangered
Seriously endangered
Seriously endangered
Seriously endangered
Seriously endangered
Endangered
This overview is consistent with Table 1, which presents the amount of speakers of all spoken
Sámi varieties. There are two extinct Sámi languages, the information that is consistent with
the other sources mentioned in section 1.4. These two varieties are Kemi Sámi and Akkala
Sámi. Three Sámi languages are nearly extinct and these are respectively the three languages
that have the smallest number of speakers, as presented in Table 1. Ter, Pite and Ume Sámi
have namely only few elderly speakers left and in these three cases there is no
intergenerational transmission. Inari, Skolt, South, Kildin and Lule Sámi are seriously
endangered. They have better status and considerably more speakers than the Sámi varieties
that are defined as nearly extinct. Language transmission, however, is disrupted and their
future is therefore uncertain. In spite of its seemingly good and stable situation, North Sámi is
still considered to be endangered in the long term. This endangered status applies most of all
to the speakers that do not live in the Sámi core area, which means that their chances to learn
and actively use the languages outside the home domain is less prominent.
At this point I would like to raise an important question. As all Sámi languages are
endangered to a certain extent, we can ask ourselves: how could this come so far? The
preceding analysis of the situation of the Sámi languages can tell us something about the
possible factors that played a role in the endangerment of these languages.
28
First of all, the role of language policies cannot be underestimated in the study of
language endangerment and language death. The policy of discrimination, assimilation and
repression of minority languages together with lack of financial support and promotion of
these languages at the state level lead to a process of language shift and, as a result, language
endangerment or even language death. The extinction of both Kemi and Akkala Sámi in
Russia is a good example of the result of unsupportive and discriminatory policy towards a
weakly represented minority group. In terms of other examples, probably the most
controversial and debated one worldwide is the language death that happened to Amerindians
as a direct result of hateful and discriminatory policies. On the other hand, the Norwegian
language policy, which is the most pro-Sámi, has led to a relatively good situation of the Sámi
minorities spoken there. As a result of that, North Sami is the most vital variety. Therefore,
language policy can be a crucial factor in maintaining minority languages and can be a
decisive factor in language extinction.
Another important factor in language endangerment that is closely related to language
policies is social welfare, which is mentioned by Blokland & Hasselblatt (2003). This social
welfare can be seen as one of the factors that causes a big gap between the Sámi languages in
the western Scandinavian countries on the one hand, and Russia on the other hand. The fact
that the varieties spoken in Norway, Finland and Sweden have more chance to be maintained,
at least in this century, can be partially because these states are rich enough to provide
advantageous circumstances, implement more legislative provisions and take more measures
that could improve the situation of the Sámi languages, as opposed to economically weaker
Russia (Blokland & Hasselblatt 2003). That might also be one of the reasons why an interest
in the Sámi minorities is more prominent in the Scandinavian governments than in the Eastern
part of Sápmi.
Although the factors at the state level are very important in the discussion about
language endangerment, one cannot forget the role of individual choices. Home is a crucial
domain with regard to a minority language maintenance. Obviously, there is no language
transmission without the ‘right’ language choice at home. As originally presented in Fishman
(1991, in: Bull 2002), without the language basis at home, there is no use in promoting
languages at schools and in the media. The individual language choices in the home domain
can be conscious and thought over, however, they are not always predictable and can vary
because of the influence of internal factors as for example intermarriages or external factors
as attitudes of a majority population towards a minority language. Both kinds of factors seems
to be prominent in the Sámi society. Grenoble (2003) underlines that the immigration of the
29
Russians to the far north of the state has resulted in many mixed marriages. In these situations
Russian most often becomes the dominant home language. Among the Sámi, language shift
between 1959 and 1989, according to Grenoble (2003), was so rapid that 70% of the
population with Sámi as their mother tongue in 1959 became 42% in 1989, and that was
partially due to the influence of intermarriages. In relation to the negative and discriminatory
attitudes of the majority population towards Sámi languages, this problem has been prominent
in Finland, as stated by the Finnish Sámi Parliament in a paper published in Indigenous
Affairs in 1997. In the paper the members of the Sámi Parliament show their disappointment
in the way the majority population expresses its attitudes by using anti-Sámi propaganda and
protesting against organised Sámi activities. In this context, a fear to use one’s own language
might have an effect on language shift from Sámi into the majority language, a shift that
begins at home. Furthermore, conscious choices to use a majority language at home can be
made by members of a minority group also due to a general belief that this language gives
better economic opportunities in the future.
All these factors contribute to some extent to the endangerment of Northern Europe’s
indigenous languages. As we have seen, language policy plays a prominent role in the process
of language shift. Depending on whether this policy is negative or positive, it can lead either
to language extinction, as in the case of Akkala Sámi, or to language maintenance, a good
example of which is North Sámi. However, we cannot ignore other important factors that
contribute to the situation of the Sámi and their languages, namely the economical situation of
the state and individual language choice. These are by no means all the factors that have
played a role in the history of the Sámi minorities, but, as far as I am concerned, they are the
most crucial ones.
6. Concluding remarks
After presenting the historical, legislative and educational aspects of language policies
towards the Sámi minorities all over the Sápmi area, we can conclude that there is a clear
difference between the Scandinavian and the Russian region in the way language policies are
pursued. The Sámi indigenous people get more attention and protection form the Norwegian,
Swedish and Finnish states than they do from the Russian authorities. These two different
explicit policies are reflected in the present situation of the Sámi in the two regions. In
Scandinavian countries, on the one hand, in spite of some differences between the countries,
the Sámi officially enjoy legislative recognition and in practice they enjoy much more status
30
and rights, as for example the right to cultural self-determination through the work of the
Sámi Parliaments. Consequently, the numbers of Sámi speakers in this region is considerably
higher. In the Russian region, on the other hand, the Sámi form a small minority that lacks
status, even at the local level, and is not provided with any protection from the state.
Language shift in this region, therefore, happens more rapidly and the Sámi languages spoken
there are subjected to serious endangerment. These varieties are less likely to be saved than
the Sámi varieties spoken in the Scandinavian region.
Although the situation of the Scandinavian Sámi is not dramatically bad in comparison
with other minority languages spoken in Europe and even in Scandinavian countries, and
revitalisation is still ongoing, even these Sámi languages face the problem of endangerment.
Unfortunately, Russian Ter, and Scandinavian Pite and Ume Sámi have few chances to
survive. Any attempt to revitalise and motivate the intergenerational transmission is of no use
as there are only few elderly speakers left. In this situation the way to extinction is inevitable
and the only thing we can do is to make sure that these languages are well documented. As to
the remaining varieties, even though some of them, in particular North Sámi, seem to be have
enough vitality to survive the next centuries, there are still some major problems that the
languages face.
To begin with, all across Sápmi the Sámi population is bilingual, as stated by Bull
(2002). The phenomenon of bilingualism is by no means negative. At the sociolinguistic and
ethnolinguistic level, however, this phenomenon can have negative effects, especially when it
goes hand in hand with a certain degree of marginalisation and social stratification of smaller
linguistic communities as a result of language policies and attitudes. In this case bilingualism
can be a first step to language shift to a majority language. This, in turn, can lead to language
extinction. This scenario is possible even in relation to North Sámi and its future in the long
term, and it aptly captures the present situation of Ter, Pite and Ume varieties if we analyse
their history and present situation.
Secondly, the clearly unequal status of various Sámi varieties in Scandinavian
countries causes selectiveness in language promotion, which is aimed at only some of the
varieties. As I already mentioned before, there is only one Sámi language that fully enjoys all
the rights given to the minority. Restrictions of these linguistic rights to the Administrative
Area can be considered discriminatory towards the varieties that are spoken outside the area
as the linguistic rights given by the state through legislation are strongly limited there. This
means that the status and chances of revitalisation of Sámi languages within the
Administrative Area, on the one hand, and outside this area, on the other hand, are not equal.
31
Thirdly, both Scandinavia and Russia face the practical problem of lack of teachers
and study materials for Sámi education. Therefore, it became a challenge for the Sám College
in Kautokeino and other institutions in higher education to train the Sámi native speakers as
teachers and to develop new school materials for Sámi education. Only when this is done will
the Sámi pupils as well as the second language learners have an opportunity to get
qualitatively good education in Sámi languages (Todal 1998).
What is more, there is a problem of a degree in self-determination that the Sámi as an
indigenous people should be able to enjoy, according to the UN’s International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights that has been ratified by both Scandinavian and Russian authorities.
In Russia the absence of a Sámi Parliament and the lack of any equivalent democratically
chosen representative body that would control and deal with the political and cultural issues
concerning the Sámi population makes it impossible for the Sámi there to make decisions
about their own issues. Even in Norway, Finland and Sweden the Sámi Parliament does not
provide the full self-determination for the Sámi as its work is mostly based on resolving
cultural issues and the body is only consultative. Sámi Parliaments are thus still controlled by
the countries’ governments and that means that the work of the Sámi bodies is strongly
dependent on the national authorities. In short, the institution of Sámi Parliament cannot be
considered neither an equivalent of Sámi self-determination nor of Sámi self-government.
Last but not least, a problem that concerns some Sámi groups is a problem of negative
evaluation of their own culture and language. This problem bothers mainly the smallest
linguistic Sámi groups that live outside the Administrative Area. If the situation is not
reversed, it will lead to the abandonment of their own culture and language, a process that is
already advanced among the Russian Sámi. If the Sámi languages spoken in the Scandinavian
region are to be saved eventually, the Sámi population itself should make a solid basis and
pursue their strong will to maintain their cultures and languages. One way of changing these
negative attitudes among the Sámi is language and culture promotion at the state level.
Language promotion, however, should not be taken for granted as the Scandinavian countries
and Russia are ideologically monolingual and have only limited interest in promoting
minority languages. Following Spolsky (2004: 113), we can argue that the policies of
Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia are basically monolingual and ‘may name in their
constitution or in their laws a single national or official language, but then modify the
intolerance by proclaiming protection for one or more minority languages. […]’. Although
Norway and Finland have more than one official language, this description of their policies is
still well-chosen as it shows exactly how the countries deal with the minority groups. As to
32
the Sámi languages, North Sámi is an official language in Norway but this status is only
limited to several Norwegian municipalities. However, keeping in mind that the language
ideology in the three countries on the Scandinavian Peninsula is based on monolingualism, it
seems that in spite of the problems that the Sámi face there, the situation is not dramatically
bad as the Sámi already gained many rights and much space in parts of this region.
There are, however, several possible ways in which this situation could be improved:
(i) acknowledging and officially recognising the Sámi languages from outside the
Administrative Area, (ii) fighting against discrimination towards the Sámi on the population
level, and (iii) introducing functional bilingualism in the regions where the Sámi are
numerically considerable groups in Finland and Sweden, should be a priority of the state in
the respective countries. As to the Sámi languages in Russia, where the situation is much
worse, it became obvious that there are more challenges and more work to do in order to save
the only variety that has a chance to survive the next century, Kildin Sámi.
It has been shown that due to linguistic diversity, unequal distribution and different
language policies the situation of the nine remaining Sámi languages varies from
advantageous in the case of North Sámi to very weak in the case of Ter or Ume Sámi. The
past policies of assimilation and lack of support in the whole Sápmi region resulted in the
death of two Sámi varieties and in the serious endangerment of three of them. As the Sámi
languages will never be equal to the national languages of Northern Europe and have no
chance to become as vital as the official languages are, the task of the authorities is to make
sure that the Sámi minorities at least get enough opportunities to preserve their languages and
cultures as part of the countries’ rich history and ecology. They are, after all, the indigenous
people of Northern Europe.
33
References
Official documents
ILO Convention No. 169 ‘Concerning Indigenous Populations and Tribal People in Independent Nations’,
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm
Convention against Discrimination in Education,
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/DISCRI_E.PDF
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm
Finnish Sámi Language Act
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/PeriodicalReports/FinlandPR3SamiLangAct_en.pdf
International Covenant on Civil and Polictical Rights
http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-4.htm
International Labour Organization Convention No. 107
http://www.unesco.org/most/lnlaw2.htm
Norwegian Sámi Act + language regulations
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/the-sami-act-.html?id=449701
Swedish Sámi Language Act
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/78/19/85d4b2fe.pdf
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Secondary sources
Blokland & Hasselblatt
2003 The endangered Uralic languages. In: Janse & Tol (ed.), Language Death and Language Maintance.
Theoretical, practical and descriptive approaches. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 107-141.
Broderstad, E.G.
2001 Political Autonomy and Integration of Authority: The Understanding of Saami Self-Determination.
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 8, 151-175.
Bull, T.
2002 The Sami Language(s), Maintenance and Intellectualisation. Current Issueas in Language Planning 3,
28-39.
Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.)
2005 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth Edition. Tex.: SIL international.
Grenoble, L.A.
2003 Language policy in the Sovjet Union. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.
Hansen & Olsen
2004 Samenes historie fram til 1750. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Hyltenstam, Stroud & Svonni
1999 Språkbyte, språkbevarande, revitalisering. Samiskans ställning i svenska Sapmi. In: Kenneth Hyltenstam
(ed.), Sveriges sju inhemska språk - ett minoritetsspråkperspektiv. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 41-93.
34
Kulonen, Seurujärvi-Kari & Pulkkinen (ed.)
2005 The Saami - a cultural encyclopaedia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Lantto & Mörkenstam
2007 Sami Rights and Sami Challenges. Scandinavian Journal of History 33, 26-51.
Latomaa & Nuolijärvi
2005 The language Situation in Finland. In: Kaplan & Baldauf Jr. (Ed.), Language Planning and Policy in
Europe, Vol 1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden. Clavedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 125-232.
O Riagain, D.
1999 The Importance of Linguistic Rights for Speakers of Lesser Used Languages. International Journal on
Minority and Group Rights 6, 289-298.
Salminen, T.
1998 Minority languages in a society in turmoil: the case of the northern languages of the Russian Federation.
In: Nicholar Ostler (ed.), Endangered languages: what role for the specialist? Proceedings of the Second
FEL Conference. Edinburgh, 58-63.
Salvesen, H.
1995 Sami Ædnan: Four States -One nation. Nordic Minority Policy and the History of the Sami. In: Sven Tägil
(ed.), Ethnicity and Nation Building in the Nordic World. London: Hurst & Company, 106-144.
Scheller, E.
2006 Die Sprachsituation der Saami in Russland. In: Hornscheidt et al. (ed.), Grenzgänger. Festschrift zum 65.
Geburtstag von Jurij Kusmenko. Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 280-290.
Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson (eds.)
1994 Linguistic Human Rights: overcomming linguistic discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Spolsky, B.
2004 Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Svonni, M
2004 Samiska språk. In: Stampe Sletten (ed.), Nordens språk med rötter och fötter. Copenhagen: Nordiska
Ministerrådet, 97-111.
The Finish Sámi Parliament
1998 Language Rights, Linguistic Rights and Cultural Autonomy for the Finnish Sámi People. Indigenous
Affairs 3 / 4, 48-51.
Todal, J.
1998 Minorities with a Minority: Language and the School in the Sami Area in Norway. Language, Culture
and Curriculum 11, 352-366.
Toivanen, R.
2001 Sami In The European Union. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 8, 303-323.
Winsa, B.
2005 Language Planning in Sweden. In: Kaplan & Baldauf Jr. (Ed.), Language Planning and Policy in
Europe, Vol 1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden. Clavedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 233-330.
35
Internet sources
Sara, Á.
2002 Regional Characteristics of Sápmi and the Sami People. In: Federal Union of European Nationalities:
http://www.fuen.org/pdfs/20020614Saami_Sara.pdf . Last visit: 10-03-09.
Finnish Sámi Parliament: http://www.samediggi.fi/index.php?lang=fi . Last visit: 27-02-09.
Husby, O.
2007
Norway – a multilingual society. In: European Association for International Education:
http://www.eaie.org/pdf/F92art10.pdf . Last visit: 10-03-09.
Madslien, J.
2006 Russia’s Sami fights for their lives. In: BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6171701.stm . Last
visit: 30-05-09.
Norwegian Sámi Parliament:
http://www.sametinget.no/artikkel.aspx?AId=1&MId1=1&back=1 . Last visit: 27-02-09.
Scheller, E.
2007 Samiska i Ryssland - planläggning av en socilingvistisk utredning. In: Kola Saami Documentation
Project at Humboldt-Universität in Berlin: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/ksdp/ . Last visit: 27-02-09.
Salminen, T.
2007 UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages: Europe. Internet:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_index.html#biblio . Last visit : 16-05-09.
Swedish Sámi Parliament: http://www.sametinget.se/ . Last visit: 27-02-09.
Sámi Council: http://www.saamicouncil.net/?deptid=1116 . Last visit: 18-04-09.
36