0165–2516/11/0209–0057 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 209 (2011), pp. 57–74©WalterdeGruyter DOI10.1515/IJSL.2011.021

The birth of the Kven language in Norway: emancipation through state recognition

Pia Lane

Abstract

This article investigates and applies the concept of language emancipation to the situation of the Kven language in Norway. This is done from a historical perspective by addressing the role of language in the ideological construction of the Norwegian nation-state, and from a contemporary perspective through the analysis of the consequences of Norway’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This ratification has lead to the recognition of Kven as a language. Through describing the historical develop-ment of Norwegian language policy with regard to Kven, this article discusses how this case is an example of nationalist or modernist language emancipation progressing to the contemporary situation where language emancipation pro-cesses reflect language policies which are in favor of Kven. This discussion is carried out in the context of current language ideology theory and shows that nationalist language emancipation is being reapplied in the contemporary lan-guage emancipation context. This is particularly the situation in the process of the standardization of Kven which, despite the best intentions of those involved, may result in a standard which not all Kven speakers can identify with.

Keywords: Norway; Kven; minority language policies; dialect vs. language; language shift.

1. Introduction

TheKvenlanguageofnorthernNorwayhasuptotheearlyyearsofthe21stcenturybeen subject toprejudicial languageandculturalpoliciesdue to itscloseethnolinguisticrelationshipwithFinnish,particularlyin thecontextofNorway’snationalistlanguageemancipationdevelopment.1Indeed,theKvenarestillviewedasimmigrantsinNorwayeventhoughtheyhavebeenpresentinNorwaylongbeforetheestablishmentofitsnorthernborders.However,the

58 P. Lane

Kven language has recently acquired recognition by the Norwegian statethroughitsinclusionunderNorway’sratificationoftheEuropeanCharterforRegionalorMinorityLanguages.Thisarticleinvestigatesandappliesthecon-ceptoflanguageemancipation,bothinitsnationalistandinitscontemporarypost-ethnic renaissance conceptualization, to the situation of theKven lan-guageinNorway.ThiswillbedonefromahistoricalperspectiveandaddresstheroleoflanguageintheideologicalconstructionoftheNorwegiannation-state,andfromacontemporaryperspectivethoughtheanalysisoftheconse-quencesofNorway’sratificationoftheEuropeanCharterforRegionalorMi-norityLanguages.ThispaperconcludesbyaddressingthepitfallsthatmustbefacedandunderstoodintheparticularlanguageideologicalinfrastructurethatagroupsuchastheKvenfindthemthemselvesintoday,whichcanpotentiallylead even the most well-intentioned proponents of contemporary languageemancipationawry.

2. Norway’sofficialpolicyvis-à-visregionalandminoritylanguages

Norway ratified theEuropeanCharter for regionalorminority languages in1993,andtheCharterenteredintoforcein1998.Fourlanguagesareprotectedby theCharter:Sámi,Kven,RomanesandRomani.2All four languagesareprotectedbyPartII3oftheCharter,butonlytheSámilanguageshavealsobeengrantedprotectionbyPartIII.ThemajorityoftheSámipopulationinNorwayspeaksNorth Sámi, andNorth Sámi has a stronger linguistic infrastructurethanLuleSámiandSouthSámi(seeRasmussenandNolan,thisissue).Norway is a fairly young nation-state, having gained independence from

Sweden in1905.The ideaofNorwayasanation-stateemerged in the19thcenturyattheheightofEuropeanNationalRomanticism.Priortothisperiod,theattitude towardsminoritieshadbeen influencedby the idealsof theEn-lightenmentandthestatehadbeenregardedasacombinationofvariousgroupsinhabitingthesameterritory.TheemergenceoftheNorwegiannation-stateinthe19thcenturywasstronglyinfluencedbyGermanideasofnationalism:thenationwasdefinedintermsofethnicity,andlanguagewastheoutwardsignofethnicityasCabanel(1997),quotedinEndresen(1997:236),wrote:“thespiritofanationliesinitslanguage”.Thus,languagebecamethedefiningcriterionof the nation.Norwaywas seen as a homogenous,monolingual country inspiteofthepresenceofhistoricalminoritygroups.Thetraditionalminoritiesweresmallandinhabitedruralareaswhichwerefarfromthecentersofpower.Thehistoricalminoritieswerealsoborderminorities:theycrossedthenationalborders,hadrelativesandcontacts inSwedenandFinlandandwerepartoflargerinternationalcommunities.Thus,theirlifestylesdidnotfittheideaofthenation-stateofthe19thcenturywhichconceptualizedthestateasawell-

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 59

structured,clearlydefined,homogenousand integratedentity. In thisperiodimmigrationincreasedandtheNorwegianauthoritiesstartedtousethetermimmigrant also to encompass the historicalminorities and they came to beperceivedasforeigners.From1814,theNorwegianConstitutiongrantedciti-zenshipbasedonthegroundsofjus soli:apersonwhoearnedaminimumin-come,hadlivedinNorwayforaminimumoffiveyearsandhadtherighttovotecouldbecomeaNorwegiancitizen.Thischangedin1888whenaspecificlawfortheacquisitionofcitizenshipwasintroduced,basingcitizenshiponjus sanguinisorethnicity.Thoughpartofthebackgroundforthenewlawwastolimitforeignownershipoflandandindustry(Kjeldstadli2007),italsocontrib-uted to forming theNorwegiannationas the statewasbasedonethnicandculturalbelonging.TheofficialnationalpolicywastoNorwegianizethehistoricalminorities,

employingdifferentstrategies towards thenorthernandsouthernminorities.ThepoliciestowardstheRomaandRomani(orTravelers)weredirectedto-wardstheirwayoflife,aimingatmakingthemgiveuptheirlifestyleoftravel-ling tobecomesettled.TheScandinaviancountrieswerealsoheavily influ-encedbySocialDarwinism, inextremecases leading toRomaandRomanichildren being removed from their families and home environment to bebroughtupinorphanagesorbeingofferedforadoptiontoNorwegianfamilies.Also,Romaniwomenweresterilized,sometimesbyforce.Thelast incidenttookplaceaslateas1977(Haave2000).TheprevailingattitudeofthetimewasthattheRoma,andRomaniinparticular,wereofaninferiorraceandassuchtheyneededhelpandprotectionfromthemoreadvancedmajoritycul-ture.This attitude inspired the establishment on the so-called Fantefond in1855,afundwhichaidedtheRomaandRomanitoestablishlegalbusinesses(Niemi2003a).Fromthe19thcentury,languageplayedagreaterroleintheNorwegianiza-

tionprocessofthenorthernminorities.ThiswaspossiblybecauseofaspectsofnationalsecurityandfinancialinterestsintheNorthernareasastherightstothenorthernmostpartofNorwayhadbeendisputed fora long time,and inperiodsitsinhabitantspaidtaxestothreedifferentstates.TheKvenwerepar-ticularlyregardedwithsuspicionbecauseoftheircloseproximitytoapotential“homeland”,namelyFinland.Thus,theirlanguagecouldserveasapotentiallydangerousbridgetoFinland-Russia.However,initially,theDano-NorwegianauthoritiesregardedtheKvenasa

valuablecontributiontoNorwegiansocietybecausetheyhadskillsandknow-ledgethatcomplementedthoseoftheNorwegianandSámipopulation:theywerehighlyskilledforestersandfarmers.Writtensourcesfromthe18thcen-turyportraythemashonest,cleanandhardworking,andboththeKvenandtheSámiwerereferredtoas“nations”(Niemi2003b).WhentheideaofNorwayasanation-statearose,theattitudetowardsthenorthernminoritieschanged;

60 P. Lane

nowtheyweredescribedas“foreignnations”.ThebordersbetweenNorwayandFinland-RussiahadbeennewlyestablishedandtheKven’sloyaltytotheNorwegiannationwasinparticularquestionedas theyhadamother tongueotherthanNorwegianandmanyofthemdidnotspeakNorwegianatall.Thus,theNorwegianauthoritiesfearedthatFinlandwouldusetheKvenasa“bridge”tolayclaimsonthispartofNorway.DuetotheperceivedthreatofFinland,andbyassociationalsoRussia, thiswasreferred toas the“Finnishdanger”(Eriksen andNiemi 1981).Thus, during the 19th century the image of theKvenwastransformedfromthatofanationtothatofimmigrants.Theeffortsin the northwere directed towardsNorwegianization through linguistic op-pressionleadingtoarangeofeffortstoNorwegianizetheKven.BoardingschoolswheretheuseofFinnishandSámiwasstrictlyforbidden

were established to ensure a Norwegian environment. In 1940 there weretwenty-onesuchboardingschoolsinthetwonorthernmostcountiesofNorwaywhere the total populationwas estimated at approximately 100,000.Niemi(1997:73)quotedinHuss(1999:89)describestheroleoftheschoolinthefollowingmanner:“themainbattlewasoverlanguageandidentity,themainbattlefieldwastheclassroom,andtherankandfilesoldiersweretheteachers”.ChurcheswerebuiltinthetraditionalNorwegianstyle,andonlytheNorwe-gian languagewasused.Until1964onlypeoplewhocouldprove that theycouldspeakNorwegianwereallowedtobuyland(EriksenandNiemi1981),andNorwegianfarmersfromthesouthweregivenlandinthenorthernareastoensureaNorwegianpresence.Peoplewhoreceivedmail,newspapersorbooksfromFinlandwereundersurveillancebyNorwegianauthoritiesbecausetheyfearedthatFinlandorindeedtheSovietUnionmightusetheKventogainin-fluenceintheNorth.The Norwegianization process was strengthened after the SecondWorld

War(WWII).WhentheGermanArmyretreatedduringtheautumnof1944,theyburnedeverything:houses,barns,stables,boats,bridges,onlychurcheswereleftbehind.Afterthewar,theNorwegianstateprovidedmoneyforre-buildingtheregion,andinordertoreceivemoneyonehadtoapplyinNorwe-gian.PrefabricatedhousesdesignedbyarchitectsfromtheSouthwerebuilt,andthemostvisiblesignsofthepreviousbuildingstyleandthematerialas-pectsoftheKvencultureweregone.TheregionnowlookedNorwegian.The period afterWWIIwas characterized by Scandinavian social demo-

cracy:theNorwegianWelfareStatewasfoundedontheideaofequalityandhomogeneity.Knowledgeof theNorwegian languagewas thekey factor tosuccessasformsandapplicationshadtobecompletedinNorwegian,andasuccessfulapplicationbroughtprivileges.Thus,knowledgeofNorwegianbe-camelinkednotonlytosuccess,butassociatedwithprivilegesandmodernity.In1959 thebanon theuseofFinnishandSámi inschoolswas removed

(PrimarySchoolEducationLaw1959).Intheorypupilswereallowedtouse

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 61

theirmothertongue,butinmanyvillageschildrenwerestillpunishediftheyspoketheirmothertongue.Duringthe1960sand1970s,theSámisdemandedrecognitionasan indigenouspeopleandeventually theygained the right toSámituition.In1989theSámiParliamentwasestablishedandSámibecameanofficiallanguagein1992(seeRasmussenandNolan,thisissue).Thesede-velopmentsseemtohaveinfluencedtheKvenawakeningtosomeextent:“iftheycoulddothis,socanwe”.FortheKvenmostoftheeffortscenteredonlanguage:theywantedtoberecognizedashavinglinguisticrights.The other historical minorities in Norway began to request acceptance,

probablyinspiredbytheSámirevitalizationmovementandtheinternationalfocus on the cultural and linguistic rights ofminority cultures. In 1998 theNorwegianParliamentratifiedTheEuropeanFrameworkConventionfortheProtectionofNationalMinorities,recognizingtheKven,ForestFinns,RomaandRomaniasnationalminorities.ThisratificationandtheratificationoftheCharterdefinedanewpositionforthenationalminoritiesandtheirlanguages:theywerenowrecognizedasapartofNorwegiancultureandheritage.ThisprocesshadaparticularlystrongimpactonthesituationoftheKvenlanguage.TheSámilanguagealreadyhadreceivedadegreeofrecognitionthroughtheInternationalLabourOrganisation’s1989ConventionNo.169onIndigenousandTribalPeopleswhichwasratifiedbyNorwayin1990.ButtheKvenhadnolinguisticrightspriortotheratificationoftheCharter,thoughthelanguagehadbeentaughtatonelocalschool.AftertheCharterenteredintoforce,thelan-guagewasstillregardedasFinnishandcalled“Kven/Finnish”bytheNorwe-gianauthoritiesandstandardFinnishwastaughtinschools.InmanywaysthiscanbeseenasoneofthefirststepstotheemancipationoftheKvenlanguage;throughtheratificationoftheCharter,Kvenspeakershadgainedrightseventhoughtheirlanguagewasstillperceivedandconstruedasbeingforeigninitsorigins.

3. Norwegiannationalpolicyandpublicattitudesvis-à-visKven

TheviewoftheKvenasimmigrantsandconsequentlyasaforeignelementinNorwegian society prevailed even after the ratification of the treaties. TheFrameworkConventiongivesnodefinitionof“nationalminority”,andeachstatehasbeenlefttospecifywhatminoritygroupsitrecognizes.IntheNorwe-giancontext,anationalminorityisdefinedasagroupwithlongstandingtieswiththestate,thusimplicitlyexcludingimmigrants(Whitepaper80,1997–1998).InspiteoftheKvenbeingrecognizedasanationalminority,apoliticaladvisor for theNorwegianGovernment participating in a seminar onKvenresearchandpoliticsattheUniversityofTromsøin1999declaredthathedid“not carewhether theKven had come during the 16th century or the 19th

62 P. Lane

century.TheKvenwere immigrants because thiswaswhat theNorwegianGovernmenthaddecided”(Megard1999:83).Thisstatementfollowedapre-sentationinwhichtheadvisorhadarguedthattheKvenwereimmigrantsandthattheirstatusandrightswerethereforecomparabletothoseofotherimmi-grantgroups.ThedescriptionoftheKvenasimmigrantsisprevalentinnumerousgovern-

mentpublications,evenafterNorwayratifiedtheFrameworkConventionfortheProtectionofNationalMinoritiesin1998.ThemediafrequentlyreferstotheKvenasimmigrants,asinanarticleinthenewspaperAftenpostenSeptem-ber6,2005:“ThefirstKvenimmigrationtoNorthernNorwayoccurredbeforethe northern national borders were drawn in 1751 and 1826.” This comesacrossasacontradictionintermsasitisdifficulttoseehowsomeonecanbeanimmigrant,iftheydonotcrossanationalborder.After the ratificationof theCharter,Finnishattaineda statusasa second

language4intheschoolsinthetwonorthernmostcountiesofNorway,andpu-pilsinthisareacouldchoosetostudyFinnishinsteadofoneofthetwoofficialNorwegianwrittenstandards.Approximately1000pupilsoptedtostudyFinn-ish.InApril2005,KvengainedrecognitionasanationalminoritylanguageandnotadialectofFinnish,butmostoftheschoolsteachstandardFinnishasKvendoesnothaveawrittenstandardandtherearenotextbooksinKven.TheEuropeanChartersetsouttheobjectivesandprinciplesonwhichpoli-

cies, legislationandpracticeshouldbebased(seeHuss2008) includingtheprovisionof appropriate formsandmeans for the teachingand studyof re-gionalorminoritylanguagesatallappropriatestages(PartII,Article7,para-graph f).Norway ratified theCharter forKven/Finnishandasapartof themonitoringcycle,theCommitteeofMinistersattheEuropeanCouncilrepeat-edlypointedoutthatasNorway’sofficialreportdidnotdistinguishbetweenKvenandstandardFinnish, theCommittee found itdifficult toevaluate theexactmeasurescarriedoutby theNorwegianauthoritiesvis-à-vis theKvenlanguage(CommitteeofExperts’1.EvaluationReport,2001:9).ThereasongivenbytheCommitteeofMinistersfortheneedforclarifica-

tionof thestatusof theKvenlanguagewastoimprovethesituationfor thelanguageinconformitywithPartIIoftheCharter.Theyalsostressedtheim-portance of reaching a conclusion quickly as unnecessary delay may havegrave consequences forKven, and they recommended that the governmentshouldrapidlyclarifythestatusofKvenasalanguageinitsownrightorasavarietyofFinnishandconsultwiththerepresentativesoftheKvenonthismatterbeforeadecisionwasmade.TheNorwegiangovernmentcommissionedareportonthestatusofKvenwhichconcludedthat,basedonlinguisticandsocio-politicalcriteria,KvenshouldberegardedasalanguageandnotadialectofFinnish(HyltenstamandMilani2003).Thereportwasdistributedtorele-vantorganizationswhichwereinvitedtocomment.Thissparkedalivelyde-

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 63

bateinthelocalandnationalmediawhichbasicallyfocusedontwothemes:whetherKvenshouldberegardedasalanguageinitsownrightandnotadia-lectofFinnish,andwhetheritwouldbedesirabletonamesuchavarietyKvenasthisusedtobeastigmatizedterm.SomemaintainthatFinnishshouldcon-tinuetobeusedasthewrittenlanguage,whilelocalspokenvarietiesshouldbereferredtoasKven.OthersrejectthetermKventotallybecauseofnegativeconnotations,andsomeofthesehavestartedemployingtheterm“Kainu”in-steadofKven.KainuisaFinnishwordwhichreferstothenorthernareaoftheGulfofBothniaandithasbeenclaimedthatithasthesameetymologicalrootastheNorsehvein—low,wetground.However,itisnotlikelythattheNorsehvein,developedintokvenasthissoundchange(hv>kv)isnotattestedinanyotherwords(LaneandTheil2003).Still,forsomeKven,thetermKainuisanalternativebothtothetermKven,ifitisseenasstigmatized,andthetermFinn-ishwhichisassociatedwiththemodernnation-stateofFinland.Inmanywaysthisdebateechoesthediscussionoftheearly1990swhenthetermKvenusedasanameforthegroupofpeoplewasdebated(Niemi2001).Afterassessingcommentsfromrelevantparties,includingtheKvenAssociation,theMinistryofCultureandChurchAffairsissuedapressreleaseinApril242005contain-ingthefollowingmessage:“TheMinistryofCultureandChurchAffairspro-poses:KvenistoberecognizedasaseparatelanguageandistobeprotectedunderPartIIoftheEuropeanCharterforRegionalorMinorityLanguages.”ThusNorwayrecognizedKvenasalanguageprimarilyasaconsequenceofthemonitoringsystemwhichfollowedtheratificationoftheEuropeanCharterforRegionalorMinorityLanguages,andalmostallthemeasurestakenbytheNorwegianauthoritiestopromoteanddeveloptheKvenlanguagehavearisenbecauseofpressurefromtheCouncilofEurope.Norway’speriodicalreportstotheCouncilofEuropeestimatethatthereare

between10,000and15,000Kven.However,thisnumberislikelytobetoolowasacardiovascularsurveyconductedinTromsandFinnmarkin1987showedthat25%ofthepopulationinFinnmarkclaimedFinnishancestry.Therefore,basedonancestry,theKvenpopulationinthesetwocountiesismorelikelytoconsistof50,000to60,000people.InallthreeperiodicalreportssenttotheCouncilofEuropetodate,theNorwegianauthoritiesestimatethatthenumberofspeakersofKven“varyfrom2000to8000,dependingonthecriteriaandmethodsused”(seeRasmussenandNolan,thisissue).Norway’sinitialperi-odicalreportfrom1999alsostatesthatnocensuseshavebeencarriedoutre-centlyon theKven as an ethnicgroup, and there are thereforeno statisticsshowingthenumberofpeoplewhospeakKven.Arecentstudy(Rasmussen2005)estimatesthatthenumberofspeakersofKvenandFinnishinthetwocounties exceeds 10,000, but no official surveys have been conducted todeterminethenumberofKvenspeakers.However,thereisnodoubtthatKvenis a threatened language: the children growing up today are monolingual

64 P. Lane

Norwegian-speaking,apartfromthosewhostudyFinnishinschool,andac-cording tomy knowledge, there is no intergenerational transmission of theKvenlanguage.MostofthenativespeakersofKvenhaveneverlearnedtoreadandwrite

theirmothertongueandduetothelackofcontactwithFinland,themajorityisnotfamiliarwithmodernwrittenFinnishandfindreadingFinnishachallenge.TheUniversityofTromsøofferedacourseinKvenforthefirsttimeduringthespring semester of 2005.Almost 50 students enrolled some ofwhomwereadultnativespeakersofKvenwhowantedtogettheopportunitytolearntoreadandwritetheirmothertongue.However,thereisnowrittenstandardforKven,norarethereanytextbooks,grammarsordictionaries.Agroupofre-searchersareworkingondevelopingmaterial,butduetothelackoffunding,progress isslow.Thishasseriousconsequencesfor theteachingofKveninprimaryandsecondaryschoolsaswell.Asmentionedabove,pupilsinthetwonorthernmostcountieshavebeengiventheopportunitytostudyFinnishasasecondlanguage,thoughsomeschoolsaredevelopingcoursesinKvenorareincludingKvenintheirFinnishtuition.Norway’sthirdperiodicalreportfromMarch2005ontheimplementationof

theEuropeanCharterwaswrittenbeforeKvenwasrecognizedasalanguage,butanadditiontothereportwaspresentedtotheCouncilofEuropeinSeptem-ber2005.Here,theNorwegianauthoritiesstillseemtoregardKvenasavari-etyofFinnishinspiteofrecognizingitasalanguage.TuitioninKvenisstillseenasapartofFinnishasasecondlanguage, thoughNorwaypromises toensurethatKvenismentionedinthenewcurriculumforFinnishasasecondlanguagewhichcurrentlyisintheprocessofbeingdeveloped.However,formostpracticalpurposes,itstillregardsKvenasFinnish.NoconcreteplansforfundingthedevelopmentoftheKvenlanguagearementioned,andinspiteofthecompletelackofteachingmaterialsforKven,theadditionstatesthat“boththestructurallinguisticdifferencesandtheculturalandsocialcircumstancesspecifictoFinnishandKvencanreceiveadequateattentionincurrenteduca-tionpractice”(AdditiontoNorway’sthirdperiodicalreport:2).EventhoughKvenhasbeenrecognizedasalanguageinitsownrightand

hasbeengrantedanewname,itisuncleartowhatextentthelanguage’sposi-tionhasbeenimproved.TherecognitionofKvenasaseparatelanguagecarriesconsiderablesymbolicvalue.Atthesametime,theNorwegianauthoritiescon-tinuetoequateKvenwithFinnishbyonlyteachingstandardFinnishandnotmakingallowancesfordevelopingteachingmaterialforKvenorforteachertraining.This solution is financially less demanding for theNorwegian au-thoritiesasonecancontinuetouseFinnishtextbooks,grammarsandteachersinsteadofdevelopingmaterial forKven.By recognizing thatKven isnotadialect of Finnish, but not making any practical efforts to bear the conse-quencesofthisdecision,theofficialNorwegiancommentsandactionssignal

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 65

thatKvenstillisregardedasFinnishandnotasalanguageinitsownright.Thus,theideologicaldiscourseoftheKvenasFinnishimmigrantsisstillpres-ent,thoughmoreimplicitthaninthe1990s.InFairclough’s(1995)termstheNorwegianauthoritieshavethepowertocontroltheproductionoftextsastheyhavethepowertodecidewhetherKvenwillberecognizedasalanguagebygivingitanewname.ByconceptualizingitasstillbelongingtothedomainofFinnishasasecondlanguage,thediscourseofFinnishnessisreproduced.Dur-ingtheperiodofassimilationthegoalwastoNorwegianizetheKven,butto-dayitseemsthattheNorwegianauthoritiesforpragmaticreasonswouldliketheKventobeasFinnishaspossible.IftheKvenareconceptualizedasorigi-nallyFinnish, the fulfillmentof obligations following the ratificationof theCharterwillbelessdemandingbecauseonecancontinuecurrenteducationalpractices,i.e.usingFinnisheducationalmaterials.TheratificationoftheEuropeanCharterhashadaprofoundimpactonthe

statusoftheKvenlanguageasthishasprovidedthenationalandregionalmi-noritieswiththepossibilityofbypassingthenationallevel.Priortotheratifica-tionoftheCharter,dialogueonlytookplacebetweentheKvenandrepresenta-tivesoftheNorwegiangovernment.Butaftertheratification,theCouncilofEuropehasenteredthearenaandhasempoweredtheKventhroughtheclosemonitoringcycle.Thishasledtomoreextensivecontactbetweentherepresen-tativesof theKvenand thenationalauthorities.Thus, theratificationof theEuropeanCharterandtheFrameworkConventionhasconsiderablyimprovedthesituationandprotectionoftheKvenlanguageandhasalsostrengthenedrevitalizationofKvenculture.AcentralaspectofLindgrenandHuss’s(thisissue)definitionoflanguage

emancipation is the improvementof thepositionof anunderprivileged lan-guage through political efforts and language planning.The concept of lan-guageemancipationisrelevantforthesituationoftheKvenlanguageasout-lined above as Norway’s ratification of the Charter has had a profoundlypositiveimpactonthesituationandstatusoftheKvenlanguage.Thelanguageis valorized and has acquired increased status both within and outside thegroup,thoughitislosinggroundintheprivatesphereasitisnolongerspokentochildren(Lane2010;Storaas2007).

4. ThesituationoftheKvenlanguagetoday

Fishman(1991)pointsoutthatthesurvivalofaminoritylanguagedependsonitsintergenerationaltransmission,andtheKvencommunitiesinNorwayareundergoingeitherlanguageshiftortheshifthascometocompletionandthecommunitiesaremonolingualNorwegian.Thisdisruptionofintergenerationaltransmissioncanbeseenasachoicethatthespeakersmake,butinrealitythey

66 P. Lane

donotalwayshaveachoice.TheirchoiceofnotpassingontheKvenlanguagedidnothappeninavacuumandthespeaker’schoiceshavetobeanalyzedwithreference to thesocio-politicalcontext. Inasituationof languageshift, twolanguagesusuallydonotco-existonanequalfooting;oneof thelanguagestendstobesociallyand/orpoliticallydominant,andthusthepowerrelationsbetweenthespeakersofthenationallanguageandtheminoritylanguageareunequal.InFairclough’s(2001)terms,commentssuchasbasingthedecisiononwhatisseenas“bestforthechildren”illustratethattheirchoicewasinflu-encedby the ideologyofNorwegianization (Lane2010).Fairclough (2001:27) describes ideological power as the power to project one’s practices as“common sense”.Thosewho have power can exercise and keep it throughcoercing (by exercising power overtly) or through consent (by convincingotherstogoalongwiththem).TheNorwegianizationpolicieswerecarriedoutboththroughcoercionandconsent,andasaconsequencethepracticeofspeak-ingonlyNorwegiantochildrenbecamenatural.Adiscoursetypecanbecomesodominantthatitisseenasnaturalandlegitimate“becauseitissimplythe wayofconductingoneself”(Fairclough2001:76).ThisisillustratedbythesituationoftheKvenlanguageashardlyanyonedisputedtheimportanceofspeakingonlyNorwegiantotheirchildren.Languageshifthasoftenbeendescribedasgradualcharacterizedbydimin-

ishinguseoftheminoritylanguageacrossgenerations.However,inmanyoftheKvencommunities,theshifthasbeenabrupt;acaseinpointistheprocessofshiftinBugøynes,asmallKvencommunityinnortheasternNorway(Lane2010). In Bugøynes, the populationwas almost exclusivelyKven-speakinguntilthe1970swhentheystoppedspeakingKventotheirchildren,buttheycontinuedspeakingKventoeachother.ThenorminmanyfamiliesusedtobethatcommunicationwascarriedoutintwolanguagesastheadultsspokeKventoeachother,butonlyspokeNorwegiantotheirchildren.Thus,mostofthosewhowerebornafterabout1960werespokentoinNorwegianandonlyspokeNorwegian.Today,almosteveryoneovertheageof60stillusesKvenasoneoftheireverydaylanguages,whereasmanyyoungerpeoplearepassivebilin-gualsbecausetheygrewupinhomeswhereKvenwasspokendaily,butdidnotusethelanguagethemselves.Theirlevelofcomprehensionisfairlyhigh,butapartfromafewfixedexpressionstheydonotuseKvenactively.However,manyactuallymanagetocommunicateinKvenwhentheymeetpeoplefromFinland,andsomepeopleintheirearly40shavetoldmethattheyuseKvenwhen they do notwant their children to knowwhat they are talking about(Lane2006).InBugøynes,asomewhatgeneralizeddescriptionofcontemporarylanguage

usewouldbethefollowing:ifyouareamaleolderthan50orfemaleolderthan55youspeakKven,otherwiseyoutendtospeakNorwegian(Lane2006).SeeTable1.

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 67

In Bugøynes, Kven will be used only when speaking to another Kvenspeaker.Peopleof the“middle”generation,approximately60yearsold,arethefirstgenerationwhodidnotspeakKventotheirchildren.Theywillalmostexclusively speakKvenup to theirparents’generation,usually sideways topeopletheirownage,butnotdowntotheirchildren’sgeneration.InBugøynes,thegeneralruleseemstobe:IfpeoplewhouseKvenasoneoftheireverydaylanguagesmeet,theywillonlyspeakKven.ThesituationinBugøynesistypi-calformanyKvencommunitiesasthelanguageshiftproceededorisproceed-ingelsewhereinasimilarmanner.ManyKvenexpressasenseoflossbecausetheydidnotpassonthelanguagetotheirchildrenordidnotlearnthelanguageinthecaseoftheyoungerKven(Sollid2005;Storaas2001;Lane2010).Nev-ertheless,parentssaythattheydidwhattheythoughtwasbestfortheirchil-dren(Lane2010).NorwegianwasassociatedwithprogressandmodernityandtheKvenlanguagewasdevalued.Bourdieu(2000[1982]:471)usesthenotionof“thelinguisticmarketplace”todescribesituationswhereonlyonekindoflanguageispermissibleandothersareofnovalue,andhedescribeshowthisbecomesinternalizedaspracticetotheextentthatonedoesnotquestiontheroleanddominanceoftheofficiallanguage.DuringtheperiodofNorwegianization,theKvenlanguagewasseenasnot

havinganyvalueasNorwegianwastheonlylanguagethatwouldgetoneany-whereinthemodernworld.Thus,theKvenlanguagehadnoplaceinmodernsociety andbasically onlyNorwegian carried prestige andvalue, so peopletriedtospeakNorwegianasbesttheycould,buttheirNorwegianwasnotcon-sidered“proper”Norwegian.Thustheywereinapositionofdoubleshame:theirmothertonguewasworthless,andtheycouldonlytrytoreplaceitwithanotherlanguagetheywerenotsociallyperceivedasbeingabletomaster,asillustratedinthefollowingexample:“weusedtosaythat(.)yeahMumandDadsaidyoucan’tspeakNorwegian,norcanyouspeakFinnish(.)you’relike[pause]youdon’tknowanything(.)don’tknowanythingproperly(.)linguisti-callyputrid”(Lane2010:41).5Thisillustrateshowthefeelingofshameandinferiorityhasbeenpassedontotheextentthatitbecameinternalizedorpartofpeople’s“historicalbodies”(ScollonandScollon2004).Throughtheiren-counterwithNorwegianofficialdommainlythroughtheeducationalsystem,theKvenfrequentlyexperiencedthat theirmothertonguewasdevaluedandthiswasoneofthereasonswhytheydidnotpassitontotheirchildren.The

Table1. Bugøynes

Olderspeakers Middlegeneration Youngerspeakers

Olderspeakers Kven Kven NorwegianMiddlegeneration Kven Kven(Norwegian) NorwegianYoungerspeakers Norwegian Norwegian Norwegian

68 P. Lane

internalizationofsuchnegativeexperiencesinfluencestheindividual’spercep-tionandevaluationoftheircultureandbackground.Inturn,thepracticesre-sultingfromthisprocessgetpassedontotheirchildren’sandgrandchildren’sgeneration,eitherdirectlybypracticesthattakepartinidentityconstruction,orindirectly,bynotpayinganyattentiontoone’sculturalbackground.Practiceisembeddedinthehistoricaldevelopmentofasociety(Norris2005)tosuchanextent thatpeopledonotalwaysquestion theiractionsand takeforgrantedcertain behavioral patterns, such as only speaking themajority language tochildren.WhiletheKvenexperiencedthattheirlanguagewasstigmatized,theyhave

stilltakenprideintheirlanguage,referringtoitas“oldFinnish”or“ourFinn-ish”andtherebypossiblyimplyingthatit ismoregenuineandoriginalthanthemodernFinnishspokeninFinland(Lane2006).Today,asthepressuretoNorwegianize theminorities in the north has lessened, knowledge ofKvenbecomesanassetagain,mainlybecauseitopensupforcommunicationwithFinlandforbusinesspurposes.Thus,whileKvenusedtobeoflittlevalueonthe linguisticmarketplace, its importancehas increased.Powerrelationsareless asymmetrical andother discourseshave emerged, and currentlypeoplequestion and challenge the previous policies of assimilation.Major factorscontributing to this are also more trade with Finland, inspiration from theworld-wide ethnic revitalizationmovement, and the ratification theCharterandtheFrameworkConvention.TheseinternationaltreatyratificationsbytheNorwegianstateareofgreatimportanceastheKvenhavebeengrantedlin-guisticandculturalrightsandhavealsobeenrecognizedashavingaplaceintheNorwegiannation.ThereisagrowinginterestintheKvenlanguageandculture,bothbyKvens

andinmainstreamsocietyatlarge,andmanyNorwegiansexpresssurprisethattheyhavenotheardaboutthisgroupofpeoplebefore.Thus,arevalorizationhasoccurred.InNorwayitiscommontousenationalcostumesforspecialoc-casionslikeNorway’snationalday,baptisms,weddingsetc.In2002aKvencostume was designed, based on photographs from the period 1880 –1920(Aarekol2008).Finnishmusicianshavegathered localsongsandpublishedCD’s,KvenspeakershavestartedwritingstoriesintheirlocalKvendialectandthefirstnovelswritteninKvenhavebeenpublished,andapop/rap-CDhasbeenreleased.TherehasalsobeenrecentimmigrationfromFinlandwhichhasenforcedthepositionofKven.FinlandisoneofthemaintradepartnersoftheNorth,andspeakingKvenisanassetas thisfacilitatescommunicationwithbusinesspartnersandcustomersfromFinland.Kvenisnowusedinthemedia,mainly inaKvenmonthlynewspaper, aweekly radiobroadcastandon theinternetonsitesmaintainedbytheKvenInstitute,insomechurchservices,andtosomeextentintheschools.Thelatterisaveryimportantarena,butduetothe lack of linguistic infrastructure most schools teach standard Finnish.

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 69

Whilst,asmentionedabove,Kvenhasnodictionary,officialgrammarortextbooks,theKvenInstituteisintheprocessofdevelopingweb-basedmaterials.KvenisalsotaughtattheUniversityofTromsø,usingagrammarbasedmainlyononeoftheKvendialects.Thisgrammarwillberevisedandrewrittenoncethedecisiononthestandardhasbeenmade.However,thefinancialresourcesallocated to the corpusplanning forKven are limited andprogress is slow.Developingadictionary,writingagrammar,makingteachingmaterialsfortheschools and providing teacher training are substantial and time consumingtasks,andtherearemanychallengesembeddedinthisprocess.LindgrenandHuss(thisissue)pointoutthatlanguageplanningpresupposesarelativelyhighlevelofeducationandthereforeisoftencarriedoutbyawell-educatedgroupwhofunctionsasadrivingforceintheemancipatoryprocess.ThisisthecaseforKvenemancipationasseveralofthosewhoareengagedintheemancipa-toryprocessesarewell-educatedKven.Thechallengethisbringsaboutisthatthey, inasense,haveadouble role: theyareKven themselves,but throughtheir education theyhave left the smallKven settlements and live in largercenters.

4.1. Standardization of Kven

ThestandardizationofKvenisnotanundisputedprocessandtherearemanyopinionsarticulatedinawiderangeoflocalmedia.SomedonotapproveofusingKvenasatermfortheirlanguagebutfavorstandardization;othersmain-tainthatitwouldbebettertowritestandardFinnish;someexpressconcernthatelementsfromtheirdialectmightnotbeincorporatedinthenewstandardtoasufficientdegree,andanumberofKvenwelcomeboththestandardizationpro-cessandthetermusedforthelanguage.Thosewhocriticizethestandardiza-tionprocessfrequentlystatethattheKveninvolvedinthisprocessareremovedfromthegrassrootsandcarryoutplanningaccordingtotheirivorytowerposi-tion.Theremightbesomedegreeoftruthinthesestatements;however,with-out thewell-educatedKven, the status of the language probablywould nothavebeenimproved.OneofthemostsignificantoutcomesoftherecognitionofKvenasalan-

guage,andnotonlyasadialectofFinnish,wasaprocessofstandardizationandlanguageplanningwhicharetwocentralelementsoftheemancipationoftheKven language.TheNorwegiangovernment provides funding for a na-tionalcentreforthedocumentationoftheKvenlanguageandculture,andapreconditionforthisfundingwastheestablishmentofaKvenLanguageCoun-cilwhoseroleistodevelopstrategiesforthestandardizationoftheKvenlan-guage.TheCouncilhasoutlineddifferentoptionssuchasdevelopingacom-promise strategy based on awide spread ofKven dialects, choosing forms

70 P. Lane

whicharecommon tomostdialects, takingoneof thedialectsasa startingpointordevelopingastandardwhichisclosetoMeänkieli(aFinniclanguageverysimilartoKvenspokenintheTorneValleyinSweden).Thesestrategieswillbepresentedtoagroupoflanguageusersrepresentingdifferentdialectsanddomainssuchastheeducationalsectorandmedia,whowillthenmakethefinaldecisionastowhichstandardis tobeused.Theprocessis intendedtofacilitatedemocracyandalsoempowerthelanguageusersthemselvesthroughtheirparticipationinthedecision-makingprocess.

5. Conclusion—ThemultifacetedaspectsoftheemancipationoftheKvenlanguage

ThestatusofKvenasanofficiallyrecognizedminoritylanguageinNorwayhasleadtoseveraldevelopmentswhichcanbeviewedaslanguageemancipa-tion.TheKvenlanguagehasgotofficial,thoughlimited,statusthroughlegis-lationandisusedtoagreaterdegreeindomainswhereithasnotbeenprevi-ouslyused.All thesedevelopments canbe seenaspartof anemancipatoryprocess,butthemostsignificantcontributiontotheemancipationoftheKvenlanguage has been Norway’s ratification of the European Charter and thechangeinstatuswhichcameaboutasaconsequenceofthisratification.ThishaspreparedthegroundforarevalorizationoftheKvenlanguageandculture.TheratificationoftheChartercanbeseenasatwo-stepemancipationpro-

cess:first,theminoritylanguageacquiredrecognizedrights,butwasstillseenasnotfullyNorwegian;second,KvenwasrecognizedasalanguageandnotadialectofFinnish.ThislatterrecognitionresultedincorpusplanningaimedatdevelopingamoderninfrastructurefortheKvenlanguage.Theseprocesses,incombinationwithnationalminoritiesbeingincludedinthenewschoolcurricu-lum, have led to increasedmedia interest and consequently theNorwegianmajority“discovered”theKvenandithasbeguntoseethemasapartofNor-wegiancultureandhistory.ThesituationoftheKvenlanguagethereforemeetsmanyoftheconditions

outlined for language emancipation (cf.Lindgren andHuss, this issue) andthus the concept of language emancipation is relevant in the context of theKven language.Therewere grassroots revival efforts prior to theCharter’sratification,buttheseeffortsdidnothaveanypoliticalsupportonthenationallevel and therefore had no impact on language legislation.TheKvenwereNorway’ssilentminority,buttheratificationoftheCharterforcedtheNorwe-gianauthoritiesnotonlytorecognizetheKvenlanguage,butalsotoundertakeatleastsomemeasuresdesignedtoprotectandpromotethelanguage,thoughasoutlinedaboveprogresswasslow.Thisemancipatoryprocessalsogavethegrassrootsmovementsomelever-

agetoinfluencetheprocessandfacilitateddialoguewiththeNorwegianau-

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 71

thoritiesastheconstraintsonagencychanged.Humanagencyisconstrainedby larger-scale societal forces (Blommaert2005), and from thisperspectivelanguageemancipationcanbeseenasaprocesswhichaimsatchangingandinfluencing these large-scale forcesby improving the situationof anunder-privilegedlanguagethroughpoliticaleffortsandlanguageplanning(LindgrenandHuss,thisissue).ThenewstatusofKven,resultingfromandcontinuouslybeinginfluencedbytheemancipatoryprocessesoutlinedabove,providednewtools,orwhatScollonandScollon(2004)refertoasmediationalmeans,forsocialactorstoimprovethesituationforthelanguage.InorderforKventobeused in awritten form inmorepublic domains, such as the school and themedia,somedegreeofstandardizationisnecessarywhichinitselfimprovesthestatusofaminoritylanguageinthemodernworld,whereonlywrittenlan-guagestendtobeseenas“proper”languages,bothbyofficialauthoritiesandbythespeakersofthelanguagethemselves.However,apotentialinherentproblemwiththestandardizationprocessis

whetherthelanguageusersthemselveswillacceptandidentifywiththestan-dardchosen.ThoughmanyKvenwhostillspeakthelanguageexpressasenseofjoyandrecognitionwhentheyreadtextswritteninKvenorMeänkieliandrealizethatwritingtheirlanguageispossible,theflipsideisthattheestablish-mentofastandardcanpotentiallycreateanewtypeofstigma.TheKvenex-periencedthattheyfellshortwhentheirlinguisticabilitiesweremeasuredupagainst standard Finnish, as theirKven language did not correspond to the“proper”Finnish, even though they spokeKvenfluently andused it for alldomainsoftheireverydaylives.TheytriedtospeakNorwegianasbesttheycould,buttheirNorwegianwasnot“proper”NorwegianbecauseoftheKvensub-stratum.Whenstandardizingaminoritylanguage,onerisksestablishingastandard

thatthelanguageusersthemselvesexperiencethattheycannotmeet.Standard-izationwhichwassupposedtobeemancipatoryandempowerminority lan-guagespeakersmaycreateanewformofstigmaforthosewhofeelthattheycannotliveuptothecodifiedstandard,describedbyGal(2006)inthefollow-ingmanner:

...thespeechofminorityspeakerswhoselinguisticformsarenotincludedinthenewminoritystandardcomestoseeminadequate,andperhapseveninauthentic,fromtheperspectiveof thatnewstandard.Thus,by thenatureof thestandardisationprocess,every creation of a standard orientation also creates stigmatised forms— supposed“nonlanguages”—amongtheveryspeakerswhoselinguisticpracticesstandardisationwassupposedtovalorise.(Gal2006:170 –171)

Thestandardizedminoritylanguagemightalsonotbeacceptedbytheminoritylanguageusersthemselves,resultinginasituationwherethevarietytaughtin

72 P. Lane

schoolsmightnotbeacceptedasauthentic.Romaine (2007:125)describeshowa40yearoldGaelicspeakersayshedoesnotwantGaelictobekeptalivebymakingitartificial.Theseareimportantchallengesthatproponentsof languageemancipation

havetofaceandunderstandaspositiveintentionsmightnothavetheenvis-agedeffect.Still,therearemeasureswhichcanbeemployedtocounteractsucheffects;oneofthemostcrucialisincludinggrassrootsrepresentativesfromtheminoritylanguagecommunityinthestandardizationprocessasisdoneforthestandardizationofKven.TheemancipationofKvenhighlights theconnectionbetween ideological

structureandhumanagency.Individualsocialactorsdohavethecapacitytoact, but their actions are constrained by larger-scale forces which can bechangedandtransformedbylanguageemancipation.Thus,theprocessoflan-guageemancipationcanprovidenewmediationalmeansforactionandbythisempower social actors.However, language emancipation is amulti-facetedprocess as the situationof theKven language illustrates.The emancipatoryprocesseswhichhaveaffectedtheKvenlanguageareintheprocessofcreatingnewstructuresanddiscourseswhichaffectthelifeandhabitusofthelanguageusers.Socialactorsorient theiractionswithinframesofmeanings(Giddens1984: 285), and our actions are constrained by these frames and structureswhichinturnaremaintainedorchangedbyaction.Fromthisperspective,lan-guageemancipationcanbeseenasaprocesssituatedbetweenstructureandagency,andafurtherstudyoflanguageemancipationcanshedmorelightonthemutuallyconstitutiverelationshipbetweensocialactionandsocietalstruc-ture,andthetensionbetweentheprocessesofcontinuityandchange.

University of Oslo

Correspondenceaddress:p.m.j.lane@iln.uio.no

Notes

1. IwishtothankcolleaguesparticipatinginthenetworkfundedbyNewOpportunitiesforRe-searchFundingCo-operationinEurope:“Socialaspectsoflanguagediversity”forconstruc-tiveandencouragingcomments.

2. Romanes is the language spokenby theRomapeople, andRomani is the languageof theRomanipeople /Travellers.The languages are related, butRomani ismore influencedbyNorwegianasitsspeakershavelivedinNorwayforseveralcenturies.

3. TheCharterisdividedintotwomainparts,ageneralonecontainingtheprinciplesapplicabletoallthepartiesandallregionalorminoritylanguages(PartII),andasecondpartwhichlaysdownspecificpracticalcommitmentswhichmayvaryaccordingtothestateandthelanguage(Part III). See http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/local_and_regional_democracy/regional_or_minority_languages/1_The_Charter/_summary.asp

The birth of the Kven language in Norway 73

4. The Finnish as a second-language subject curriculum shall protect the right of Finnish-speakingNorwegianpupils(Kvens)totuitioninFinnish,cf.Section2–7oftheEducationAct.

5. InNorwegian: “før sa vi at (.) ja mamma og pappa sa ikke kan du norsk og ikke kan du finsk (.) du e sånn [5 second pause] du kan ingen ting du (.) kan ingenting ordentlig (.)språkforderva.”

References

Aarekol,Lena.2008.ÅKleSegKvensk[TodressKven].Ottar 1[Specialissue:Kvenene:Igårogidag(TheKven:yesterdayandtoday)].28–33.

Blommaert, Jan. 2005.Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bourdieu,Pierre.2000[1982].Theproductionandreproductionoflegitimatelanguage.InLucyBurke,TonyCrowley&AlanGirvin(eds.),Routledge language and cultural theory reader,467– 477.London:Routledge.

Endresen,RolfTheil.1997.Languageasaconstitutingelementofnational,regionalandethnicidentity.InUnnRøyneland(ed.),Language contact and language conflict. Proceedings of the International Ivar Aasen Conference,217–237.Volda:VoldaCollege.

Eriksen,KnutErik&EinarNiemi.1981.Den Finske Fare: Sikkerhetsproblemer og minoritetspo-litikk i Nord 1860 –1940[TheFinnishdanger.Securityproblemsandminoritypoliciesinthenorth1860 –1940].Oslo:Universitetsforlaget.

Fairclough,Norman.1995.Critical Discourse Analysis. The critical study of language.Harlow:Longman.

Fairclough,Norman.2001.Language and power.2ndedn.Harlow:Longman.Fishman,Joshua.1991.Reversing language shift: theoretical and empirical foundations of assis-

tance to threatened languages. Clevendon:MultilingualMatters.Gal, Susan. 2006. Contradictions of standard language in Europe. Social Anthropology 14(2).163–181.

Giddens,Anthony.1984.The constitution of society:outline of the theory of structuration.Cam-bridge:PolityPress

Haave, Per. 2000. Sterilisering av tatere—Kirurgi på “rasemessig” grunnlag [Sterilization oftheRomani/Travellers—Surgeryonthebasisofrace?].InBjørnHvinden(ed.),Romanifolket og det Norske Samfunnet: Følgene av hundre års politikk for en nasjonal minoritet [Thester-ilisationoftheRomani/Travellers.In:TheRomaniPeopleandtheNorwegianSociety].Bergen:Fagbokforlaget.

Huss,Leena.1999.Reversing language shift in the far North. Linguistic revitalization in Northern Scandinavia and Finland.Uppsala:ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis,UppsalaUniversity.

Huss,Leena.2008.Scandinavianminoritylanguagepoliciesintransition:theimpactoftheEuro-peanCharter forRegionalorMinorityLanguages inNorwayandSweden. InKendallKing,NatalieSchilling-Estes,LynFogle,JiaJackieLou&BarbaraSoukup(eds.),Sustaining linguis-tic diversity. Endangered and minority languages and language varieties129–143.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

Hyltenstam,Kenneth&TommasoMilani.2003.Kvenskans status: rapport for Kommunal- og Regionaldepartementet og Kultur- og Kirkedepartementet i Norge [ThestatusofKven:reporttotheMinistryofLocalGovernmentandRegionalDevelopmentandtheMinistryofCultureandChurchAffairs].Stockholm:Centrumförtvåspråkighetsforskning,Stockholmsuniversitet.

Kjeldstadli,Knut.2007.Hvemer«vi»?Skiftendebilderavdetnorskeogdetfremmede.[Whoare“we”? Changing images of Norwegianness and foreignness]. Lecture at the seminar “Det

74 P. Lane

flerkulturellesamfunn”[Themulticulturalsociety],TheNorwegianAcademyofScienceandLetters,8February.

Lane,Pia.2006.A tale of two towns: a comparative study of language and culture contact. Uni-versityofOsloPh.D.thesis.

Lane, Pia. 2010. “We did what we thought was best for our children.”ANexusAnalysis oflanguageshift.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage.202.63–78.

Lane, Pia and Rolf Theil.Comments on Norway’s Third Periodical Report on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.ReporttotheCouncilofEurope.

Megard,BjørnOlav.1999.Kvener og finskætta. En undersøkelse av betegnelsene “kvener” og “Etterkommere etter finske innvandrere” i politisk diskurs og i utforming av identitetstilknyt-ning[KvenandofFinnishdescent.Aninvestigationoftheterms“Kven”and“descendantsofFinnishimmigrants”inpoliticaldiscourseandidentityconstruction].UniversityofOsloMAthesis.

Niemi,Einar.2001.Etanstrengtforhold:Kueneneogdennorskestaten.Samora23:5.20–23.Niemi,Einar.2003a.Taterneiforskningensog“Sivilisasjonens”lys[TheRomanipeopleinthelightof researchand“civilisation”]. InKnutKjeldstadli (ed.),Norsk Innvandringshistorie. I Nasjonalstatens Tid 1814 –1940[ThehistoryofNorwegianimmigration.Intheageofthenationstate1814 –1940],147–174.Oslo:Pax

Niemi,Einar.2003b.KveneneiNord—ressursellertrussel?[TheKveninthenorth—Aresourceor a threat?] In Knut Kjeldstadli (ed.), Norsk Innvandringshistorie. I Nasjonalstatens Tid 1814 –1940[ThehistoryofNorwegianimmigration.Intheageofthenationstate1814 –1940],128–146.Oslo:Pax.

Norris,Sigrid.2005.Habitus,socialidentity,theperceptionofmaledomination—andagency?InSigridNorris&RodneyH.Jones(eds.),Discourse in action. Introducing mediated discourse analysis, 183–196.London:Routledge,

Rasmussen,Torkel.2005.HvormangekanfinskogkvenskiNord-Norge?[Howmanyspeakersare there ofKven and Finnish in northernNorway?Arina 1.Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kvensk Forskning/Pohjoismainen Kveenitutkimuksen Aikakausjulkaisu [Nordic Journal ofKvenRe-search].48–54.

Romaine,Suzanne.2007.Preservingendangeredlanguages.Blackwells language and linguistic compass1(1–2).115–132.

Scollon,Ronald&SuzieWongScollon.2004.Nexus analysis: discourse and the emerging inter-net.London:Routledge.

Sollid,Hilde.2005.Språkdannelse og -stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk [LanguageformationandstabilizationinthemeetingbetweenKvenandNorwegian].Oslo:Novus.

Storaas,Kari.2001.Samhold i Grenseland: En lokalsamfunnsstudie fra Øst-Finnmark [Unityinborderland:acommunitystudyfromEasternFinnmark].UniversityofOslo,M.Phil.thesis.

Storaas,Kari.2007.Finland er bak oss, Norge er vårt land: Konteksters betydning for etniske endringsprosesser i Sør-Varanger [Finlandisbehindus,Norwayisourcountry:theimportanceofcontextsforprocessesofethnicchangeinSør-Varanger].UniversityofTromsø,Ph.D.thesis.