The Sámi languages, several countries, different policies, also different language practices?

(1)

MA thesis

The Sámi languages,

several countries, different policies,

also different language practices?

About the differences between the Sámi languages in Norway and Sweden

MA in Multilingualism

Departments of Applied Linguistics and

Frisian Language and Culture

Faculty of Arts

University of Groningen

August 23, 2016

Supervisor

dr. N. Haug Hilton

Second reader

prof. dr. G.T Jensma

Paulette van der Voet

s3034054

p.b.van.der.voet@student.rug.nl

(2)

1

Abstract

The Sámi languages are a language group spoken in Norway, Sweden, Finland and a part of Russia. Partly due to active assimilation policies in the past, these languages have become endangered. Nowadays, Norway and Sweden pursue different language policies towards the Sámi. While Norway and Sweden have a similar history and political systems. Speakers of Sámi have more rights in

Norway, especially with regard to education. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the effects of these different language policies with regard to the language practices of Sámi in Norway, more specific the effect on the ethnolinguistic identity of Sámi in both countries. Before this could be done, first has to be looked at the linguistic vitality the of Sámi languages in both countries. With help of the UNESCO framework, the linguistic vitality of Sámi is measured in both Sweden and Norway. This analysis shows that both countries score quite similar on the UNESCO scale, however Sámi in Norway scores a little bit higher on linguistic vitality. There are certain differences with regard to the

(3)

2

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 1: The nine UNESCO factors to evaluate a language’s vitality (UNESCO, 2003) ... 9

Table 2: Hours of Sámi television broadcasted in Sweden during 2013 and 2015 (Sveriges Television, 2016, own translation) ... 15

Table 3: Hours of Sámi television broadcasted in Norway per category and total (Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, own translation) ... 16

Table 4: Hours of Sámi DAB radio broadcasted in Norway per category and total Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, own translation) ... 16

Table 5: Hours of Sámi radio broadcasted in Norway per category and total (Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, own translation) ... 16

Table 6: Overview Sámi language Technology (Nørstebø Moshagen, 2014, own translation) ... 18

Table 7: Summary and comparison of the scores on the UNESCO scale ... 268

Table 8: Descriptive statistics of the total sample (N=40)... 34

Table 9: Descriptive statistics of the total sample (N=27)... 36

Table A10: Giles' model of factors that influence ethnolinguistic vitality (Giles, 1977) ..………..50

Table B11: The Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale by Fishman (Lewis & Simons, 2010)……….51

Table C12: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Lewis & Simons, 2010)………..52

Figures

Figure 1: The different Sámi languages (Ivar Aasen-tunet, 2006, own translation) ... 5

Figure 2: The administrative area for Sámi in Norway, Sweden and Finland (Bolstad, 2015) ... 6

Figure 3: Percentage of the participants that speak Sámi ... 33

Figure 4: Percentage of the participants that have parents that speak Sámi ... 33

Figure 5: Answers both groups on question what they answer if someone ask them where they are from on a holiday ... 35

Figure 6: Opinions of both groups about the prohibition of the Sápmi flag at the Eurovision Song Contest ... 36

(6)

5

1. Introduction

The Sámi languages are spoken in the North of Scandinavia and on the neighbouring Kola peninsula in Russia. Sámi belongs to the Uralic language family. There are ten language varieties of which nine are still spoken

(Ethnologue, n.d. a-i). Originally these varieties were seen as a dialect continuum; neighbouring speakers of Sámi were almost always able to understand each other (Helander, 2009, pp. 125, 136, 141). This has changed through the process of language change. As a

result of this, speakers of the different varieties are no longer able to understand each other without difficulties and nowadays the different varieties are often described as different languages (Helander, 2009, pp. 125, 136, 141). When Sámi is used in this thesis, it refers to all the Sámi languages. Figure 1 (Ivar Aasen-tunet, 2016) shows a map of the different Sámi languages. The complete area, in which Sámi is spoken, is called Sápmi by the Sámi people themselves. Despite the area on the map is

relatively big, this area is thinly populated and almost everywhere in this area the Sámi are a minority in numbers compared to the Swedish and Norwegian populations, with exception of some areas in the far North of Norway and Sweden.

In Sweden Sámi is one of the official minority languages (Institut för språk och folkminnen, 2016). There is an administrative area for Sámi, wherein the speakers of Sámi have special rights (Institut för språk och folkminnen, 2015). This area is shown in the map in figure 2 (Bolstad, 2015). This map also shows that there is a comparable administrative area for Sámi in Norway (Bolstad, 2015). On the other hand, in Norway there is made a distinction between their official minority languages and Sámi

(7)

6 as one of the official languages of the country. Like in Sweden, the speakers of Sámi have special rights in the ten municipalities that are part of the administrative area (Sameloven, 1990). The differences between the Nordic countries regarding Sámi are mentioned by both academics, activists and

international organisations. By example, Salo mentions the differences between the countries where Sámi is spoken as a results of the different language laws (Salo, 2012, p. 246). Even Sámi activists mention differences, for example in an interview about an activist Sámi concert in Norway (Berg, 2016). In 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples recommended “that the Nordic States and the Sami parliaments cooperate to redouble efforts to revitalize Sami languages and strengthen programmes for education in Sami languages and culture” (Anaya, 2011, p. 21-22).

The differences in language policies and the effects on the ethnolinguistic identity of the speakers will be the main focus of this thesis. However, a complete overview of these differences between the Sámi languages in Norway and Sweden does currently not exist. To make clear what those

differences are regarding the linguistic vitality of the languages, it is important to first measure this. Obviously there has been previous research on the linguistic vitality of Sámi. The different Sámi languages are also included in UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (Mosely, 2010) and on Ethnologue (Ethnologue, n.d. a-i). However, as mentioned before, nearly every Sámi language is spoken across the borders of several countries. Therefore, the linguistic vitality scores of different Sámi languages separate do not say anything about the differences between the Sámi languages spoken in Norway and Sweden. While this thesis is about the differences between those countries. Therefore, it is necessary to first measure the vitality of the Sámi languages in both Norway and Sweden. Measuring vitality is important for the maintaining of languages, because assessing the

(8)

7 vitality of minority languages can be helpful for the making of language policies and programmes to reverse the process of language shift. Furthermore, when these measurements are made more often, the effects of such policies and programmes can be made visible and can be predicted (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, p. 3; Edwards, 2010, p. 75).

Sámi is not the only endangered language and the situation of Sámi is not unique. There are

approximately 250 nations and over 6 000 languages in the world (Hinton & Hale, 2001, p. 3). Hence, only a limited number of languages are national minority languages. Edwards mentions three kind of minority languages: those that are spoken within one country, the minority languages spoken over the borders of several countries and the minority languages that are majority languages in another country (Edwards, 2010, pp. 76-87). About 50 % of these minority languages are endangered (Nettle & Romaine, 2000). Sámi fit in Edwards’ second category, because they are spoken over the borders of several countries.

An indigenous language can become endangered if a minority language is spoken in a country that is governed by people speaking the majority language, according Hinton and Hale (2001). According to them, indigenous languages are languages that were already spoken a long time ago in the same area as nowadays (Hinton & Hale, 2001, p. 3). Language endangerment is about minority languages (and cultures) which are replaced by the majority language (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, p. 14). In the case of Sámi, it is replaced by the national majority language of the countries in which it is spoken. When a language becomes endangered and less spoken, it will probably become extinct, because it is often not spoken outside of the area (Hinton & Hale, 2001, p. 3). Language shift, the switch to the majority language, happens often under pressure of the majority. However, it also may happen without the existence of pressure, because these languages often have a lower status than the governmental and educational languages. The speakers of a minority language are forced to use the majority language outside their homes, when a complete society uses the majority languages.

(9)

8 There are four different reasons for language shift, which often overlap, according Sallabank (2012). The first is natural catastrophes, the second is war and genocide, the third is overt and the last and most common is cultural/political/economic dominance. This last reason is often also related to colonisation (Sallabank, 2012, p. 103).

The result is the shift to the majority language and the loss of the minority language, which is seen as problematic. Hinton and Hale mention several reasons. Firstly, with the loss of language, the related culture and knowledge will also disappear. They see language loss, as well as Nettle and Romaine, as a human rights issue. The switch to the majority language is involuntary and part of the oppression by the majority. Furthermore, it is a matter of self-determination, the minority have the right to determine if they would like to maintain their language or not (Hinton & Hale, 2001, p. 5). Even Sallabank mentions several reasons why language loss is problematic. These reasons partly overlap with those of Hinton and Hale. First of all, the value of these languages is important for linguists. The second reason is the loss of cultural heritage, for example oral literature. Furthermore, there may exist a link between biological diversity and linguistic diversity. The next to last reason is the role language plays for ethnic identity. Linguistic human rights are the last reason (Sallabank, 2012, p. 108-110). Hale et al. states also that the process of language loss is related to the loss of biological diversity (Hale et al., 1992, p. 1).

Measuring vitality is important for the maintaining of languages, because assessing the vitality of minority languages can be helpful for the making of language policies and programmes to reverse the process of language shift. Furthermore, when these measurements are made more often, the effects of such policies and programmes can be made visible and can be predicted (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006, p. 3; Edwards, 2010, p. 75).

For measuring a language’s vitality there are different instruments available. I will mention four of these models. The first one is the model of Giles (1977). It is an early model on the vitality of minority languages, designed with the aim to better understand ethnic group relations. Giles’ model is about measuring ethnolinguistic vitality. Giles states that the ethnolinguistic vitality of a group causes the group to form a group in intergroup contacts. Ethnolinguistic minorities, which have less

ethnolinguistic vitality, are more likely to become extinct than ethnolinguistic minorities, that have more ethnolinguistic vitality. When different groups are compared to each other, it is possible to rank these groups and create in this way a continuum of ethnolinguistic vitality, ranging from very low to very high (Giles, 1977, pp. 308-318).

(10)

9 emerged from the desire to understand the process of language shift. The GIDS consists of eight stages and measures disruption; the larger the number, the greater the likelihood of extinction of the language. The GIDS is based on the level of international transmission. This is seen by Fishman as the most important factor to maintain a language. When parents decide to teach their children a

language, this is not only a personal decision, but also a decision based on politics and beliefs of the community. When fewer parents learn their children a language, other parents would also be less motivated to teach their children that language and in that way a language will become extinct (Fishman, 1991, pp. 87-109; Fishman, 2001). In 2010, Lewis and Simons came with the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS). Lewis and Simons were critical of the, at that time, existing instruments like the UNESCO Framework that will be mentioned below, the scale of Ethnologue and last but not least the GIDS. They saw four aspects of the GIDS that could be

improved. Therefore, Lewis and Simons expanded the GIDS with five levels. The EGIDS can be found in appendix C (Lewis & Simons, 2010).

The UNESCO framework is UNESCO’s instrument for accessing the vitality and state of endangerment of a language consists of nine factors. Six of these factors are about measuring the vitality and state of endangerment of a language, two are about language attitudes and the last factor is about the need of documentation (UNESCO, 2003, p. 7). These factors are shown in table 3 (UNESCO, 2003). For every factor a score from a scale between zero and five is available. When a language scores a five on a factor, this means that the language is safe on that factor. While a zero means that the language is extinct on that factor. It is important to note that these factors cannot used separately. A language can get a high score on one factor, while it gets low scores on other factors. Furthermore, these factors affect also each other.

Table 1: The nine UNESCO factors to evaluate a language’s vitality (UNESCO, 2003)

Factors to evaluate a language’s vitality

1. Intergenerational language transmission 2. Absolute number of speakers

3. Proportion of speakers within the total population 4. Shifts in domains of language use

5. Response to new domains and media

6. Availability of materials for language education and literacy 7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies 8. Community members’ attitudes and policies

(11)

10 Even on these currently available instruments is a lot of criticism. Currently there is often not made a distinction between the importance of different factors. However, it is very likely that one factor has a greater weight than another. In addition, differences between languages themselves are not unthinkable. Another important critic is the fact that the speakers of a language often are considered as one homogenous group, while differences within a group of speakers are not rare. For example, there could exist differences between both genders or between speakers living in rural areas and speakers in urban areas. Furthermore, it is important to look not only at the position by a more geographical approach, but also to include the existing infrastructure. It is possible that an area, which is geographically far away, is well served by a good public transport network. While an area that is close, can be difficult to reach. Marriage patterns and religions play often also a big role for minority languages and are not sufficiently involved in the current instruments. Finally, the practice is often not discussed enough because there is often only attention for policies. There uses to be a gap between the policies and the everyday practice (Edwards, 2010, pp. 95-98).

I have made the choice to use the UNESCO framework for making clear if there are differences between the vitality of Sámi in Norway and Sweden. This instrument has been chosen because it gives a clear overview of the situation per factor. Furthermore, the scale used by UNESCO is helpful for the comparison between both countries. With help of this scale, it will be easier to make a comparison between both countries. With help of previous research and available data, for each of the nine factors of UNESCO is described what the state is of Sámi in both Norway and Sweden. This is summarised at the end of each factor, Sámi in both countries is scored on the UNESCO scale for each factor. As mentioned before, for every factor a score from a scale between zero (safe) until five (extinct) is available. Because, it appeared to be that there was a lot of variation possible within a score, sometimes a minus sign (–) is added to the score when a score was only just a certain score. In addition, a plus sign (+) was added when the score was on the top of that score. These results are presented in the next paragraph.

1.1 Linguistic vitality (UNESCO framework, 2003)

1.1.1 Factor 1: Intergenerational language transmission

In 2012, a research report on Sámi was published by order of the Norwegian Sámi Parliament

(12)

11 than the previous generations. However, it is also seen that the youngest generation has better language skills in Sámi. It is a hopeful development if this trend should continue.

The research of Solstad et al. shows also that Sámi plays a bigger role when the participants between 18 and 29 were growing up than it did for the participants between 30 and 49 (2012, pp. 151-153). The respondents were also asked if they have children and if these children have Sámi education at school. About 35 % answered that their children do not have Sámi education in kindergarten, 35 % not at primary education, 38 % not at lower secondary education and 43 % not at upper secondary education. The most respondents state that this is due to a lack of teachers and teaching materials. However, about 30 % answered that they do not think it is important that their children learn Sámi (Solstad et al., 2012, pp. 175-176).

In his research about Sámi vitality in Sweden, Svonni states that many parents choose to raise their children in the majority language (Swedish) instead of Sámi, even when both parents speak Sámi. The main motivation for this choice is the lack of opportunities to use Sámi outside the family situation and parents’ believe that speaking the majority language will improve the possibilities for their children (Svonni, 2008, p. 244).

In the Sámi Language Centrums report of 2014 on the status of Sámi in Sweden is mentioned that it is in some places in Swedish Sápmi naturally that parents raise their children in Sámi or in both Sámi and Swedish. However, this is only the case in some places (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2015a, pp. 8-9). In the pre-study on Sámi from 2015 is mentioned that almost 650 pupils have the right to mother tongue education in Sámi. However, only 272 pupils of them did follow this education. As main reasons are mentioned the lack of qualified teachers and teaching materials (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2015b, pp. 38-39). But there are also parents that consciously choose to not teach their children Sámi. The pre-study from 2015 includes also the results of a survey amongst Sámi children from 10 up to 18 years old. The majority of their participants state that Sámi is (at least one of) their mother tongue(s) (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2015b, pp. 26-27).

From this you can conclude that Sámi is on this factor definitely endangered in both Norway and Sweden, so both countries score a three on the UNESCO scale. Mainly the grandparental generation is using Sámi in both countries. However, it has to be mentioned that it seems like there is a trend that children and youth again start to use Sámi.

1.1.2 Factor 2: Absolute number of speakers

(13)

12 to use these estimations to describe the differences between Norway and Sweden. The total number of people identifying themselves as Sámi and living in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia varies between 50 000 and 100 000 (Pietikäinen, 2008; Plaut, 2014; Markelin & Husband, 2013; Pietikäinen et al., 2010).

Both in Sweden and Norway, Sámi people have the right to vote for the Sámi parliaments in these countries. For each election a register of voters is created. These registers contain the people that identify themselves as Sámi and use Sámi as home language. If they do not speak Sámi, then their parents or grandparents have to use Sámi as home language. When at least one of your parents are already part of the register of voters, you may also register yourself. Furthermore, to be able to register, you have to be over eighteen years old (Sametingslag (1992:1433); Sametinget, 2015a). The Swedish Sámi voting register contained 8 322 persons that may vote in 2013 (Sametinget, 2014). This number is considerably higher in Norway, where the Sámi voting register contained 15 356 persons in 2015 (Sametinget, 2015b). However, these numbers are only an indication of the number of Sámi people over eighteen. Indeed, there are also people who do not register for various reasons. The numbers above are the people that identify themselves as Sámi and maybe speak Sámi. So an even smaller number does actually speak the language. Plaut assumes that in Norway less than half of this group actually speaks Sámi (2014, p. 85). She states also that it is notable that Sámi is considered the strongest in Norway. Resulting in that likely even a smaller part of the Sámi people does speak the language in Sweden. Other percentages of speakers of Sámi varies between 33 % and 65 % (Pietikäinen, 2008; Plaut, 2014, Markelin & Husband, 2013). On the website of the project Sami Statistics is mentioned that, according to a study from 1999, there are 23 000 speakers of one of the Sámi languages in Norway. When the total number of Sámi speakers would be around 40 000, this would mean that more than half of the speakers of Sámi lives in Norway and a smaller amount in Sweden, Finland and Russia (Sámi Instituhtta, 2005). Svonni mentions a study by Umeå University that states that the group of people that may vote for the Swedish Sámi Parliament, reindeer herders and their children is about 10 000 people in Sweden (Svonni, 2001, p. 10). This corresponds also to Sametingets numbers from 2013 (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2014, p. 11).

(14)

13 However, even when these numbers are rough estimations, they show a clear difference between the absolute number of speakers of Sámi in Norway and Sweden. Namely that the number of speakers of Sámi will be in each case much lower in Sweden than in Norway.

1.1.3 Factor 3: Proportion of speakers within the total population

The total number of the Sámi population in Norway is estimated at 40 000 and in Sweden

approximately 20 000 (Huss & Lindgren, 1999, p. 303). This would mean that when the number of speakers in Norway is about 23 000 and in Sweden about 10 000, that about half of the Sámi people speak Sámi. This also corresponds to the percentages mentioned above, namely that between 33 % and 65 % of the Sámi people do speak Sámi. (Pietikäinen, 2008; Plaut, 2014, Markelin & Husband, 2013). Svonni held a survey amongst the people that may vote for the Swedish Sámi Parliament and other Sámi reindeer herders in Sweden, about 45 % of this group stated that they have any

knowledge about Sámi and 55 % did not have any knowledge about Sámi (Svonni, 2008, p. 244). Another way of looking at the total population is to take the total populations of Norway and Sweden. At the first of January 2016, there were about 5.2 million people inhabitants in Norway (Statistisk sentralbyrå, 2016). In Sweden live about 9.9 million inhabitants in 2015 (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2016). When we use the number of about 23 000 speakers of Sámi in Norway and a smaller amount in Sweden, it shows that the proportion of speakers of Sámi within the total national population is bigger in Norway than in Sweden. However, it shows that about 0.4 % of the Norwegian inhabitants and about 0.1 % of Swedish inhabitants speaks Sámi.

Although all these numbers and percentages are based on estimations, one might conclude that for both total populations mentioned above, the proportion of speakers of Sámi is bigger in Norway than in Sweden. With regard to the scale of UNESCO, it is hard to decide if a majority speak the language (three) or if a minority speak the language (two). Because of the rough estimations the numbers are based on, it is almost impossible to make a clear difference between Norway and Sweden.

1.1.4 Factor 4: Shifts in domains of language use

A survey amongst almost 2 000 Sámi both inside and outside the administrative area for Sámi in Norway showed clearly that the language mainly is used at home and in the nature. Over half of the respondents often uses Sámi at home and in the nature, and even one third states that they only use Sámi at home (Solstad et al., 2012).

As a part of the SOU2006:19 report of the Swedish government, a survey was hold amongst members of the Swedish Sámi villages and associations in the Southern Sámi area, 1 051 Sámi

(15)

14 from 2015, in this study is mentioned that Sámi is considerably more used inside the family and in spare time (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2015b, p. 29).

It can be concluded that there has been a shift to Sámi as mainly a language used privately. However, the research above showed also that both Norwegian and Swedish also are used a lot at home, almost none of the respondents of the three researches have stated that they only use Sámi. This means that almost all of the actively speakers are multilingual and speak also the majority language. Furthermore, Sámi is also used in other domains, as religion, media, schools, however in a smaller amount than at home.

This makes that Sámi both in Norway and in Sweden scores a two on the UNESCO scale. The

languages are used in the home domains and for several other functions. However, even the majority languages are spoken at home.

1.1.5 Factor 5: Response to new domains and media

1.1.5.1 (Online) media

Both the Norwegian and the Swedish public broadcasting have radio and television in Sámi. In Norway, NRK Sápmi covers both the radio and television content, while in Sweden Sveriges Television (SVT) has the responsibility for television and Sveriges Radio (SR) for radio. The Swedish (both SVT and SR), Norwegian (NRK) and Finnish (YLE) public service broadcast cooperations collaborate in making the Sámi news programme Ođđasat. Ođđasat is broadcasted in the three countries on weekdays. The different editorial offices in the three countries deliver news items and in the NRK studios in Norway it is edited into one news programme. Because of this construction, with one country’s editorial office as main responsible, this editorial office decides the news policy. Furthermore, the experience shows that the Norwegian news often dominates (Pietikäinen, 2008, p. 182; Markelin & Husband, 2013, pp. 74-75).

There are several Sámi newspapers and magazines, both in Sweden and Norway. These newspapers and magazines’ editorial offices are often located in one county, but the newspapers and magazines are distributed over the different countries. Ávvir is the best known Sámi newspaper, which is published three times a week in North Sámi. The editorial office is located in Norway, but the newspaper is published both in Norway and Sweden (Ávvir, n.d.). The local weekly newspaper Snåsningen in the municipality of Snåsa, publish every week at least one page in South Sámi (Snåsningen, n.d.).

(16)

15 times in a year. Š nuoraid magasiidna is a youth magazine published in Norway, with mainly contain in North Sámi, South Sámi, Lule Sámi and Norwegian. Nuorat is also a youth magazine, but published in Sweden. Like Š nuoraid magasiidna, Nuorat is also published four times a year. Nuorat has also content in North Sámi, South Sámi, Lule Sámi and Swedish in addition. At least 25 % of the content in Samefolket and Nuorrat has to be in Sámi, because of the subsidy they get from the Sámi Parliament (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2013, p. 16).

Despite the fact that these media are available in both Norway and Sweden, there exists also differences between those two countries. The public broadcast news programme Ođđasat has in addition to the news on television a popular Facebook page with the most important news items. There are two versions of this Facebook page, the Swedish one (Ođđasat.se) and the Norwegian (NRK Ođđasat). When these two pages are compared with each other, it is clear that 90 % of the posts on the Swedish page are monolingual Swedish, against only 53 % of the Norwegian posts are

monolingual Norwegian. Therewith almost half of the posts at the Norwegian page (46 %) contains some Sámi, against only 10 % of the posts at the Swedish page (Ođđasat.se, April 2016; NRK Ođđasat, April 2016).

The differences are also clearly shown in the yearly reports of the Norwegian and Swedish public radio and television broadcast companies, NRK, SVT and SR. With regard to radio, in Sweden, SR Sápmi sends Sámi radio seven days per week online. These programmes are combinations of programmes made by the Swedish Sameradion and by NRK Ođđasat (Sveriges Radio, 2016, p. 44). Both these programmes and the music do not necessarily have to be in Sámi, although it has to have an indigenous theme. One of the improvements made during 2015 with regard to Sámi radio is that the programme radio Sápmi is now broadcasted in all of Sweden instead of only in the North (Sveriges Radio, 2016, p. 85). During 2015, 1 390 hours of Sámi radio were broadcasted (Sveriges Radio, 2016, p. 86).

Table 4 shows the hours of Sámi television broadcasted in Sweden during 2013 and 2015. As shown in the table, the total hours of broadcastings is increased. However, only the programmes for adults are increased and there are still no programmes specially made for 12 – 19 year olds (Sveriges Television, 2016, p. 41).

Table 2: Hours of Sámi television broadcasted in Sweden during 2013 and 2015 (Sveriges Television, 2016, own translation)

2013 2015

Adults 57 82

3 – 11 year 27 27 12 – 19 years old 0 0

(17)

16 In Norway the NRK broadcasts Sámi radio (both Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) radio and analogue FM radio) and television. Like the SVT in Sweden, these programmes have to have a Sámi theme and they are not necessarily in Sámi. One of the projects they have, is to set-up a twenty-four-hour Sámi radio channel (Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, p. 131).

Table 5 shows the hours of Sámi television broadcasted in Norway. Like the Sámi television in Sweden, there is an increase between hours broadcasted in 2013 and 2015. Furthermore, there are more hours of Sámi television in Norway than in Sweden (Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, p. 131)

Table 3: Hours of Sámi television broadcasted in Norway per category and total (Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, own translation) 2013 2015 Children 75 76 Documentary 10 1 Culture 4 40 Urfolksmagasin * 9 0 News 164 164 Entertainment 12 1 Elections 5 0 Total 278 282

* Indigenous Magazine, programme with actualities about indigenous peoples

The two tables below (6 and 7) show the total hours of Sámi radio in Norway and also the

distribution of these hours between the different categories. Like the Sámi television, there are also more hours of Sámi radio broadcasted in Norway.

Table 4: Hours of Sámi DAB radio broadcasted in Norway per category and total Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, own translation) DAB radio 2013 2015 News in Sámi 413 218 News in Norwegian 33 19 Actualities in Norwegian 48 0 Actualities 210 215

Children and youth 0 12

(18)

17

Table 5: Hours of Sámi radio broadcasted in Norway per category and total (Norsk Rikskringkasting, 2016, own translation)

Radio NRK Sápmi 2013 2015

News in Sámi 260 143

News in Norwegian 33 19

Actualities 122 105

Children and youth 0 6

Sport 0 0

Religion 51 50

Culture and entertainment 1 138 1 367 Culture, entertainment in

Norwegian

73 39

Music 40 0

Total 1 717 1 729

1.1.5.2 New domains: Technology

In their 2013 report, the Sámi Language Centre mentions that social media, like Facebook groups and posts, are often used for using Sámi (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2014, p. 15). They also state that almost all the apps, digital study materials and apps are developed in Norway. The University of Tromsø has two projects for the development of these software, namely Giellatekno och Divvun (Samiskt Språkcentrum, 2014, p. 15). Divvun has developed spelling checkers, mobile phone keyboards, dictionaries and e-learning apps. These are available as free downloads on their website. On this site, there are also download logs available from the period 2010-2014 sorted by country. These logs show that all the programmes are considerably more downloaded in Norway than in Sweden (Divvun, 2015).

In the article ‘Status for samisk språkteknologi’ presents Nørstebø Moshagen a table with an

overview of the Sámi language technology at that moment (2014, pp. 106-107). A translated version is shown in table 8. If a language has a red box on a point, that means that it has not that point in that language. Orange means that it has developed or that it only appears for some systems. Yellow means that it is under development or that is appears for most systems. Green means that there is a finished version for all systems. Based on this table, it can be concluded that there exist big

differences between the different Sámi languages, but that there will be worked on language technology for only some of the Sámi languages.

(19)

18

Table 6: Overview Sámi language Technology (Nørstebø Moshagen, 2014, own translation)

N o rth Sá m i Lu le Sá m i Sou th Sá m i En ar e Sá m i Sko lt Sámi Ki ld in Sá m i Pite Sámi Um e Sá m i In unicode

All the letters in at least one system font Keyboard for computers

Can be used on mobile devices Word list on mobile systems Morphological analyser Spellchecker

Automatic word split up Grammar checker

Digital dictionaries between Sámi and majority language Digital dictionaries between the Sámi languages

Terminology collections

Translating machines from Sámi to the majority language Machine translating from Sámi to Sámi

Translating memory Corpus

Parallel corpus Syntactic analysis Speech synthesis

Language learning software

When it comes to media and new domains, overall both Sweden and Norway score in the third grade of the UNESCO scale. Sámi is used in most new domains. However, it is often very limited. Overall, it seems that Sámi is more used in new domains in Norway and therefore Norway scores a three plus. 1.1.6 Factor 6: Availability of materials for language education and literacy

1.1.6.1 Orthographies

There are four official joint Sámi orthographies in Norway and Sweden. In 1978 the joint North Sámi and South Sámi orthography ware established, in 1983 the Lule Sámi orthography and in 2016 the Ume Sámi orthography (Tema Modersmål, 2011; Arbetsgrupp för umesamiska, 2016).

1.1.6.2 Teaching materials

The Norwegian government funds the production and distribution of teaching materials for Sámi schools. This differs from the Swedish situation, where national funding or development of teaching materials are missing (Outakoski, 2015, p. 14). In Sweden the Sámi school board has the

(20)

19 teachers in Sweden often use Norwegian teaching materials or make their own (Samiskt

språkcentrum, 2016, p. 19).

1.1.6.3 Literature

Many popular children’s literature is not translated into Sámi. There are overall fewer books published in Sámi. This has as consequence that Sámi children are forced to read books in the majority language, which has consequences for their own language use (Outakoski, 2015). Even in the yearly Swedish reports on Sámi, this lack of literature is mentioned (Samiskt

språkcentrum, 2014; Samiskt språkcentrum 2015, Samiskt språkcentrum 2016). However, there is worked on a change; the Swedish Sámi Parliament (partly) finance the publishing of books in Sámi. During the period from 2013 to 2015, they have financed 36 books, of which seven in 2013, fifteen in 2014 and fourteen in 2015, so it seems that this increases (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2016, pp. 18-19). In the 2013 report of the Swedish Sámi Language Centre, they mention the differences between Sámi literature published in Norway and in Sweden. The 2013 report shows the difference between Sámi literature published in Sweden and published in Norway. The overview in the report is about the books published in 2013, in North, Lule or South Sámi. In all three languages less than three books has been published in Sweden under 2013, while in Norway more than 90 books has been published in North Sámi, circa 15 books in Lule Sámi and approximately 35 books in South Sámi (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2014, p. 36).

1.1.6.4 Campaigns

In Norway the social media campaign Snakk samisk te’ mæ (Speak Sámi to me) was started by the Norwegian Sámi Parliament in 2014. The campaign is aimed at children and youth with the purpose to increase both the use of Sámi and the number of speakers of Sámi, making the language more visible and making Sámi aware of the importance of their language (Sametinget, n.d. b). In June 2016, it is decided to start the same campaign in Sweden (Eira, 2016).

1.1.6.5 Everyday media

As mentioned in 2.3.5 about the response to new domains, there is a lack of everyday media in both Norway and Sweden.

(21)

20 however everyday media are missing. Again most printed media are published in Norway. Therefore, Norway scores a three plus.

1.1.7 Factor 7: Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies

The current policies in Norway and Sweden can be seen as a reaction on the policies in the past. Up to the second half of the twentieth century, both countries implemented assimilation policies with regard to the Sámi. In Norway, this process of norwegianisation (fornorsking in Norwegian) started around 1850 with a budget reserved for education in Norwegian for both the Sámi and the Kven people, the minorities in the North. The end of the assimilation era is in Norway marked with the Alta affair, in 1979-1980. This conflict was about the building of a hydroelectric power plant in a river in North-Norway. This power plant would have negative consequences for the Sámi in that area and it was therefore the reason for protests of the Sámi (and environmental activists) against the building of it. Despite all this the power plant was built and it became a symbol for the struggle for Sámi rights (Minde, 2003, p. 122). There has not been a similar event in Sweden with the same effects as the Alta affair in Norway. Therefore, the development of a Sámi right movement was much slower there (Josefsen et al., 2015, pp. 34-37).

The implementation of the assimilation policies in Norway consisted of the founding of boarding schools where the children of the minorities were isolated from their communities and they were forced to learn the language of the majority. Furthermore, the teachers were required to have a Norwegian background and speaking Sámi was forbidden for both the teachers and pupils, even during the breaks (Minde, 2003, pp. 128-129). Another part of the assimilation policy required that Norwegian had to be spoken daily in homes, otherwise you were not allowed to buy land (Pietikäinen et al., 2010). These policies were justified by the stigmatisation of the Sámi people and the conviction that the policy was in the interests of the Sámi. They were seen as less worthy and uncivilized

(Pietikäinen et al., 2010; Minde, 2003).

Similar policies were implemented in Sweden. However, the Swedish government made a difference between reindeer herding Sámi and non-reindeer herding Sámi. The first group was seen as

authentic and they were allowed to maintain their language. But the majority of the Sámi were not reindeer herders and this group had to adapt to the Swedish majority (Pietikäinen et al., 2010). These differences between both assimilation policies are seen as a reason for the different policies

nowadays (Josefsen et al., 2015)

In Norway, Sámi and Norwegian are equal to each other (Sameloven, 1987, § 1-5). So there is made a difference between Sámi as an indigenous language in Norway and the other official minority

(22)

21 government to support the maintenance of the Sámi language and culture (Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov, 1814, § 108). This is also reflected in the Sámi law (Sameloven, 1987). In this law is written that the Sámi have the right to use and learn their own language. Furthermore, laws and

prescriptions with regard to the Sámi have to be translated in Sámi. Announcements and forms of local and regional public bodies in the administrative area have to be multilingual in Norwegian and Sámi. In contacts with these public bodies, Sámi people have to be answered in Sámi if Sámi is used in the administrative area. Furthermore, in courts in the administrative area, Sámi have the right to use their own language and they have to be answered in Sámi or with help of an interpreter. Within the administrative area, speakers of Sámi have the right to be helped in Sámi in health and social institutions (Sameloven, 1987). Sámi pupils living in the administrative area for Sámi have the right to all their education in Sámi or Sámi language education. Outside the administrative area, all Sámi pupils have the right to Sámi language education and if there are more than 10 pupils in one municipality they have the right to education in Sámi (Opplæringslova, 1998, § 6-2; § 6-3). When a school cannot organise Sámi education, they have to organise an alternative, as distance education for example (Forskrift til opplæringslova, 2006, § 7-1).

(23)

22 Furthermore, it is granted that if desired, pre-school and eldercare have to be in Sámi within the administrative area (§ 13; § 18).

Sámi pupils have the right to mother tongue education in Sweden, which consists of additional hours of language education in Sámi. Before 2015, this was only possible for pupils that already had some proficiency in Sámi, but nowadays it is also available for beginners. Mother tongue education is only possible if there is a teacher available or via distance teaching, this is both for pupils in primary and secondary education. There are five Sámi schools in Sweden, at these primary schools the pupils have education about the Sámi culture and the Sámi language. Travel costs and possible costs for boarding are covered by the Swedish government. Beside mother tongue education and the Sámi schools, integrated Sámi education is also a possibility in Sweden. In this education form, the pupils are getting extra lessons in Sámi culture and language in addition to the standard school programme (Gymnasieförordning 2010:2039; Skolförordning 2011:185; Skollag 2010:800).

Beside of these national legislations and policies, there are also transnational and international policies. Both in Norway and Sweden, Sámi is protected by the Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy (2006). In this declaration, it is included that national minority languages, which are not a national language in another country, have to be maintained and developed (Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy, 2006, § 3). Furthermore, Sámi is protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992). Both Norway (1993) and Sweden (2000) have ratified the charter. Also the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (2007) mentions the right to develop and use an indigenous language by its people in amongst other things education and media. Norway, Sweden and Finland are negotiating on a joint Nordic Saami Convention. This convention will not give the Sámi new rights, but will secure the currently existing rights. The negotiations proceed slowly and nowadays, there is only a draft version of the convention. In article one, the main goals of the convention are mentioned, namely ”to affirm and strengthen such rights of the Saami people that are necessary to secure and develop its language, its culture, its livelihoods and society, with the smallest possible interference of the national borders’’ (Draft Nordic Saami Convention, 2005, art 1). The third chapter of the convention is completely about the right to use and develop Sámi. Among other things about the use of Sámi in courts, health and social services, common Sámi media and Sámi education (Draft Nordic Saami Convention, 2005, chap. 3).

(24)

23 “1. Children belonging to the peoples concerned shall, wherever practicable, be taught to read and

write in their own indigenous language or in the language most commonly used by the group to which they belong. When this is not practicable, the competent authorities shall undertake consultations with these peoples with a view to the adoption of measures to achieve this objective.

2. Adequate measures shall be taken to ensure that these peoples have the opportunity to attain fluency in the national language or in one of the official languages of the country.

3. Measures shall be taken to preserve and promote the development and practice of the indigenous languages of the peoples concerned.”

However, article 28 about language does not play a considerably role in the question to ratify ILO 169 or not (Semb, 2012). Furthermore, Sweden has ratified other conventions that include linguistic rights to the Sámi people. Therefore, the role of ILO 169 is not really important for this thesis. The most striking differences between Norway and Sweden are the status of the language and educational rights of the Sámi in both countries. In Norway is Sámi equal to Norwegian, while it is in Sweden one of the official minority languages. Furthermore, there are in Norway more and better educational rights for the Sámi than in Sweden. On the UNESCO scale, both countries will score a four. However, Norway is clearly protecting and supporting Sámi more and longer, therefore it will score a four plus.

1.1.8 Factor 8: Community members’ attitudes and policies

In Sweden the development is clearly visible; Sámi people express their Sámi background and this is also visible in their beliefs about Sámi. They feel a need to remove the stigma that for many (elderly) people applies on the languages (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2013, pp. 31-33).

As a part of the SOU2006:19 report of the Swedish government, a survey was held amongst members of the Swedish Sámi villages and associations in the Southern Sámi area, 1 051 Sámi answered this survey. 86 % of this group consider it important that Sámi is spoken in Sweden (SOU2006:19, p. 176). From the quarter that actually speak Sámi, 86 % considers it important that they can speak Sámi. Furthermore, well 72 % of the respondents that do not speak Sámi would like to learn the language. Moreover, 72 % share the opinion that it is important that there will come more cultural productions in Sámi, like books, music and theatre (SOU2006:16, pp. 177-202). The conclusion that can be drawn of this, is that the Southern Sámi have a positive attitude towards Sámi. Furthermore, in the report is concluded that Sámi in general will preserve their language and would like to increase the knowledge and use of Sámi (SOU2006:16, pp. 208-209).

(25)

24 take their responsibility to transmission their language to the new generations and a lot of people participate in the arrangement of the Sámi Language Centre, not only linguists and other people that professionally concerned with language, but also the speakers of Sámi themselves. Where the language previously was made invisible, the speakers just want to make their language visible nowadays (Samiskt språkcentrum, 2015a, pp. 22-23).

It is clear that most of the Sámi support the use of Sámi and that there are few Sámi who support language loss. Therefore, both Sweden and Norway scores a four on the UNESCO scale.

1.1.9 Factor 9: Type and quality of documentation

The type and quality of documentation differs to a large extent between each separate Sámi language. Furthermore, it is important to mention that Norwegian materials are often used in Sweden and sometimes also the other way around, especially for the smaller Sámi languages. These grammars and dictionaries are often made for the different Sámi languages and therefore they are not bound to either Sweden or Norway. Furthermore, when it happens that a dictionary is Sámi-Norwegian, this dictionary is also with some effort usable for Swedes, because these languages are similar to each other. Therefore, the situation for the different Sámi languages spoken in Norway and Sweden will be described below and one score for both countries will be presented.

1.1.9.1 South Sámi

As a part of the Divvun Project, which has been mentioned before, there are online dictionaries available in South Sámi – Norwegian (Sátni.org, n.d.). There are also online dictionaries South Sámi – Norwegian and South Sámi – Swedish available as part of the, also mentioned before, Giellatekno project (Giellatekno, 2016). The Swedish Sámi Parliament provides online dictionaries South Sámi – Swedish and Swedish – South Sámi based on the South Sámi dictionary (Sydsamiska ordbok) by Israelssons and Nejnes from 2007. The online dictionaries of the Swedish Sámi Parliament are also available as apps (Sametinget, 2016).

When it comes to grammars, a Swedish South Sámi grammar (Sydsamisk Grammatik) by Bergsland was published in 1982. In 2012 a Norwegian South Sámi grammar (Sørsamisk grammatikk) by Magga and Magga was published.

1.1.9.2 Ume Sámi

(26)

25

1.1.9.3 Pite Sámi

Also the Pite Sámi – Norwegian and Pite Sámi – Swedish dictionaries are part of the Norwegian Giellatekno project (Giellatekno, 2016). In 2014 A Grammar of Pite Saami by Wilbur of the University of Freiburg was published online. In May 2016 a draft version of the pdf of a Pite Sámi – Swedish dictionary containing also orthographic rules is published online, this dictionary is the main goal of the Pite Saami Lexicography Project also by Wilbur.

1.1.9.4 Lule Sámi

The Swedish Sámi Parliament provides beside the South Sámi dictionaries also Swedish – Lule Sámi and Lule Sámi – Swedish dictionaries. The last one are based on the Lulesamiska ordbok published in 2005 by Sortelius (Sametinget, 2016). Furthermore, the dictionary Lulelapsk ordbok from 1946-1954 by Grundström is in a revised version available as PDF file on the website of the Swedish Sámi Parliament (Sametinget, 2010). The Norwegian Sámi Parliament provides in coproduction with Giellatekno an online Lule Sámi – Norwegian and Norwegian – Lule Sámi dictionary (Kintel, 2012). Spiik published the Swedish Lule Sámi dictionary, Lulesamisk ordbok: svensk-samisk, in 1994. Another Swedish Lule Sámi dictionary was published in 1979 by Korhonen, Bákkogir'je: julevusámes dárrui,

dáros julevusábmái. In 1977 the first edition of the Swedish Lule Sámi grammar, Lulesamisk gramatik, also by Spiik, was published, with a second edition in 1989.

1.1.9.5 North Sámi

Even the North Sámi – Norwegian and Norwegian – North Sámi dictionaries are online available as part of the Divvun project (Sátni.org, n.d.). Furthermore, North Sámi – Norwegian and North Sámi English are part of the also earlier mentioned Giellatekno project (Giellatekno, 2016). As part of the same project also another online North Sámi – Norwegian and Norwegian – North Sámi dictionary is published (Neahttadigisánit, n.d.). Svonni published a North Sámi – Swedish dictionary,

Davvisámegiela-ruoŧagiela, ruoŧagiela-davvisámegiela sátnegirji, in 2013.

There are in Sweden two important North Sámi grammars. The first one is Samisk Grammatik by Saitton Burman from 1999. The second one is published in 2015 and written by Svonni,

Davvisámegiella – sánit ja cealkagat. Láidehus sámi lingvistihkkii [North Sámi – words and sentences.

Introduction to Sámi linguistics]. The Swedish public broadcasting company Utbildnings Radio provides also a small North Sámi grammar, Giellaoahpaš – Liten Grammatik, on their website (Utbildnings Radio, n.d.).

(27)

26 Sammallahti. There is another North Sámi grammar recently published in Sweden, written by Svonni and Vinka in 2003.

It may be clear that there are big differences between the different Sámi languages. There is almost no documentation available in Ume Sámi in contrast to the several grammars, dictionaries and media in for example North Sámi. Overall, both countries will score a three on the UNESCO scale. Although it should take into account that the languages separately would have very different scores.

1.1.10 Overview linguistic vitality

Table 9 on the next page shows a summary of the results of this chapter. It may be concluded that it seems that Sámi in both countries scored quite similar on the UNESCO scale. However, there are some subtle differences, indicated with the minus and plus. With regard to these differences, one may conclude that Sámi in Norway scores better on linguistic vitality than in Sweden.

Table 7: Summary and comparison of the scores on the UNESCO scale

Sweden Norway Factor 1: Intergenerational

language transmission

3 3

Factor 2: Absolute number of speakers

About 10 000 About 23 000

Factor 3: Proportion of speakers within the total population

2 + 3 –

Factor 4: Shifts in domains of language use

2 2

Factor 5: Response to new domains and media

3 3 +

Factor 6: Availability of materials for language education and literacy

3 3 +

Factor 7: Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies

4 4 +

Factor 8: Community members’ attitudes and policies

4 4

Factor 9: Type and quality of documentation

(28)

27

1.2 Discussion of the results and research questions

The biggest differences in policy are seen in the status of the language and in the area of education. Norway and Sweden have corresponding political systems and history (Josefsen et al., 2015, p.33) and therefore it is notable that these policies are different.

The analysis of the vitality of Sámi in Sweden and Norway is done once for all the different Sámi languages spoken in a country. This has as result that the scores are overall scores, without paying attention to the big differences between the Sámi languages. These differences are big and there are also often considerably differences between several geographical areas within one language (Solstad et al., 2012, p. 129). Todal states that North Sámi often act as the example for all the Sámi languages (Todal, 1998, pp. 362-366). This has as result that the image of the vitality of Sámi is often more positive than in reality, because North Sámi is the biggest and most vital of the Sámi languages. If there have to be created a more detailed image of the differences in the vitality of Sámi per country, a comparison for each Sámi language separate is recommended.

This chapter is a comparison between Norway and Sweden, with the expectation that both countries will score different on linguistic vitality, due to different policies. However, there are also other factors than these country borders that may play a role in the vitality of Sámi. For example, the administrative areas for Sámi.

Furthermore, a considerable part of this analysis is based on estimations. This because the lack of numbers about the Sámi people and speakers of Sámi in both countries. Beside of this lack of numbers, there is also a lack of research with regard to Sámi. Several parts of this analysis are therefore based on the same few studies. Obviously, this makes the results and conclusions of this analysis weaker. But in spite of this, it is still possible to make a comparison between the two countries.

(29)

28

2. Theoretical background

In order to understand ethnolinguistic identity better, the term ethnic identity will first be discussed. Then there will be taken a closer look on the link between ethnic identity and language. Thereafter, ethnolinguistic identity theory will be described. The last paragraph is about the link between ethnolinguistic identity and language planning, and the importance of ethnolinguistic identity to this thesis.

2.1 Ethnic identity

Despite, ethnicity is often seen as something established and fixed, it is rather socially constructed than biological (Dorian, 1999, p. 25). Ethnicity is described as those features that make it possible to categorise people. As it is possible to categorise people based on their gender, it is also possible to categorise people on their ethnicity. An individual can experience his or her own ethnicity and others can impose it to another. Ethnicity can be seen as something constructed. The consequence of this is that categories of ethnicity can change; if circumstances change, people will experience and express ethnicity in a different way (García, 2012, p. 80).

Like ethnicity, identity can be seen as really complex (Noels, p. 623). Even identity is not something fixed and established and even someone’s identity will depend on the situation and the context (García, 2012, pp. 80-81).

Ethnic identity is the identity which deals with the features that make an individual experience that he or she or another belong to a certain group (category). This is neither fixed nor established and will change depending on the context and situation (García, 2012, p. 81). For example, an individual will feel and express himself more belonging to one group in a situation and more to another group in another situation.

2.2 Link between ethnic identity and language

Belonging to an ethnic group is always connected to several features or characteristics. It can, for example, be associated with skin colour. An often important part of these characteristics are

linguistic characteristics, like language choice (Clément & Noels, 1992, p. 204; García, 2012, p. 81-82; Liebkind, 2010, pp. 20-21). García states that language even can be seen as the most important feature of ethnic identity (García, 2012, p. 81-82).

(30)

29 culture-carrying. In this case, language is the most important culture-carrier. Therefore, it is much harder to replace language in this case (Dorian, 1999, p. 31). As she states: “[t]he ancestral language connects a people to its heritage in ways that there is simply no substitute for” (Dorian, 1999, p. 39).

2.3 Ethnolinguistic identity theory

There has been an interest in the connection between language variation and social psychology (Noels et al., 2014, p. 618). Resulting from this interest, Giles and Johnson introduced in 1987 the ethnolinguistic identity theory. Ethnolinguistic identity is about the way individuals see themselves as members of an ethnolinguistic group (Noels et al., 2014, p. 618). Giles and Johnson’s theory is based on the social identity theory of the psychologists Tajfel and Turner. Tajfel and Turner describe social identity as the consciousness of belonging to a social group or groups combined with the meaning this membership has for the individual. The process of social comparison happens continuously. This process is about comparing your group with the other groups. One group is often seen as more positive than the other group. This social identity theory has had a large effect on the way there is looked at the relation between language and identity (Giles & Johnson, 1987; Noels et al., 2014, p. 624).

In 1992 Clément and Noels presented their situated ethnolinguistic identity model. This model is presented as an improvement of the theory of Giles and Johnson and is about the relation between linguistic practices and cultural identity and the role that context plays for ethnolinguistic identity (Clément & Noels, 1992, p. 203). These linguistic practices can be the reason to identity or a result of it. Their model consists of two important parts, the first one is both the identification with the heritage group and other applicable groups, often the majority group. The second important part is that this identification depends on the situation and the status of a group. The ethnolinguistic identity of an individual will change depending on the situation. When there is a choice, individuals would identify themselves with the groups that probably will give them a positive ethnolinguistic identity. This uses to be the group with the highest ethnolinguistic vitality. Even Liebkind (2010) mentioned this relation between linguistic vitality and ethnolinguistic identity. According to her, there is an effect of vitality on language use. When the vitality of a language is high, the identification with that ethnolinguistic group would also be stronger in general (Liebkind, 2010, pp. 22-23). So members of a minority group like the Sámi will most likely identify themselves with the majority group, the Swedes and Norwegians in the case of this thesis.

Clément and Noels (1992) presented situations wherein identification often differs. The most common are family, friends, school/work and community. Within private situations, like within the family, the heritage language is more often spoken. The reason for this is that there is less

(31)

30 the heritage language has a low linguistic vitality, there will sooner also be a shift in their identity within the family (Clément & Noels, 1992, pp. 203-205; Noels et al., 2014, p. 625).

2.4 Ethnolinguistic identity and language planning

There is also a link between ethnolinguistic identity and language planning. During the nineteenth century, nationalism made the link between ethnic identity and language planning stronger. With the creation of new nation states during the twentieth century, more people became aware of their ethnicity and the role language plays for ethnicity (García, 2012, pp. 79-82). For example, with the choice for one national language and assimilation of the other languages in a certain country. The way an individual expresses his/her identity depends on political factors. Amongst other things, these factors make that some ethnolinguistic identities are more positive than others. When an ethnolinguistic group is supported by a language policy, a strong ethnolinguistic identity is necessary for the success of the support (García, 2012, p. 88). García provides a theoretical framework of ethnic identity and language policy. Central in this framework is the dynamic relation between

ethnolinguistic identity and language policy, and the role of political economy and language

(32)

31

3. Methodology

In this chapter the first paragraph is about the participants, the used instruments will be described in the second paragraph and the procedure will be discussed in the last paragraph.

3.1 Participants

The participants were pupils of Swedish and Norwegian secondary schools in de administrative area for Sámi of both countries, members of Sámi associations in Norway and Sweden and persons with a Sámi background in my own network. In total twenty-five participants from Norway and fifteen from Sweden have filled in the survey and therefore, the total sample consists of forty participants. These participants identify themselves as Sámi.

3.2 Instrument

The ethnolinguistic identity and language use of the participants were measured with an online survey consisting of both open and multiple choice questions and statements about the identity and language use of the participants. The survey was made with Google Forms. Two versions of the survey have been used. A Swedish version and a Norwegian one, both consisting the same questions. An English translation of the survey can be found in appendix D, the Swedish version in appendix E and the Norwegian in appendix F.

The survey has a part about language use that only applied to participants who speak Sámi. The other parts were mandatory for all participants. The survey was structured in three parts: - Language use, consisting of the questions about Sámi language education and where the participants use the language and how often.

- Identity, this was the largest part of the survey, with both statements and open questions about the experience of the participants Sámi identity.

- Background, consisting of four questions about the age, gender and municipality of the participants and the Sámi language skills of their parents.

3.3 Procedure

(33)

(34)

33

4. Results

First, the results about the participants will be discussed. Thereafter, the results of the six statements will be discussed. The next paragraph is about two open questions. Thereafter, the last paragraph is about the language use questions.

4.1 The participants

Thirty-two of the participants (80 %) speak a Sámi language, within the group of participants living in Norway this is 22 (88 %) and within the group of participants living in Sweden this is ten (67 %). The distribution of both groups is showed in figure 4.

Figure 3: Percentage of the participants that speak Sámi

Regarding the distribution of the language skills of the parents of the participants, ten of the participants (40 %) of the Norwegian group have parents that both speak Sámi, another ten have only one parent that speaks Sámi and the remaining five their parents do not speak Sámi at all. Within the Swedish group four of the participants (27 %) their both parents speak Sámi, six (40 %) have only one parent that speak Sámi and four (33 %) their parents do not speak Sámi. This distribution is showed in figure 5.

Figure 4: Percentage of the participants that have parents that speak Sámi

Thirteen of the Norwegian Sámi participants (52 %) live in a municipality that is a part of the administrative area for Sámi, while nine of the Swedish Sámi participants (60 %) live there.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes No

Percentage of the participants that speak Sámi

Norwegian group Swedish group

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

None of the parents Only one parent Both parents

Percentage of the participants that have parents that speak

Sámi

(35)

34 With regard to education in Sámi, ten of the Norwegian group (40 %) and six of the Swedish group (40 %) have not had education in Sámi at school. However, there is a difference between both groups. None of the participants of the Swedish group has had their complete education in Sámi and the Swedish group had on average 2.2 hours per week Sámi lessons. These numbers are different in the Norwegian group, four of the participants have had their complete education in Sámi, while the others have had on average 3.8 hours of Sámi lessons per week.

Thirteen of the Norwegian Sámi participants are of the female gender, eleven were of the male gender and one participant identified themselves as other. Of the Sweden Sámi participants were eight of the female gender and seven were of the male gender. The distribution is quite similar in both groups.

4.2 Statements

Using a t-test, it was examined whether the country of the respondents had an effect on the six statements from the survey. This is done for each statement separately. A Likert-scale is used, where 1 is totally disagree and 5 totally agree. The descriptive statistics of the total sample are presented in table 10.

Table 8: Descriptive statistics of the total sample (N=40)

On average, the Swedish group (M = 4.40, SE = .24) stated more often that it is possible to be Sámi without speaking the language (S1) than the Norwegian group (M = 4.32, SE = .20). This difference was not significant.

It was the Norwegian group (M = 4.40, SE = .16) that more often feel more Sámi than Norwegian (S2) than the Swedish group (M = 3.60, SE = .36). This difference showed not to be significant.

Both the Swedish group (M = 4.67, SE = .16) and the Norwegian group (M = 4.64, SE = .14) are proud of their Sámi background (S3).

The country where the participants live in is more important (S4) for the Swedish group (M = 3.60, SE = .29) than for the Norwegian group (M = 3.28, SE = .22). This difference was not significant.

The Sámi languages, several countries, different policies, also different language practices?

MA thesis