From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: More about bilingualism (Was: Baltic Russian-speakers
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:38:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.094708.16043@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.232817.20011@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>>Tanel Tammet (tammet@cs.chalmers.se) writes:
>>>However, I do not agree on the same kind of bilingualism as is the case
>>>in Finland. Estonia was NOT a bilingual country 50 years ago, and
>>
>>Hm, I'm too lazy to look up the figures right now, but wasn't
>>the proportions of Russians in Estonia 50 years ago in parity
>>with the one of Swedes in Finland, that is 6-7%?
> 
> Yes, you are more or less right. And, the percentage of germans in Estonia
> was approximately the same as the percentage of russians. 


No, the pergentage of Russians was five (5) times higher than that of
Germans. In 1939-41 most of the local German deserted Estonia
(Heim ins Reich!).


> Due to the
> centuries-long german domination (until WWI, through all the times of
> the Swedish rule and Russian rule) in Estonia, the standard second
> language for most estonians was, of course, German. Historically
> German should have the same status in Estonia as Swedish has in
> Finland. 


In the beginning of the centrury your estimation would have been
a correct one.


> Of course, this would be fairly impractical in the current situation.


It would have been impractical already in the thirties. 

    
> Now my point in rejecting the bilingualism of the Finnish model is that
> total official bilingualism with Estonian and Russian, so that official
> documents have to be also filled in Russian, will be considered absolutely
> unacceptable by over 90% of the Estonian citizens. 


Sorry, here we have a deep disagreement. Deep in my heart I think
that the bulk of Estonian citizens (if your estimation is correct)
is reactionary in this respect. And the documents SHOULD NOT BE FILLED
in Russian, the point is that they COULD ALSO BE FILLED in Russian
(a normal procedure in bilingual countries like Finland: there
are Finnish and Swedish and bilingual blank forms).


> The need to use Russian
> in official papers associates directly with the rule of USSR with all the
> consequences. 


Correct. But the traumatic past should not exclude THE POSSIBILITY of
using Russian in official papers.


> The existence of independent Estonia and the Estonian culture
> as a whole associates directly with the language.


Exactly. As that of the Finnish culture. Still, we are bilingual.

 
> This sentiment is so ridiculously strong, 


Here I agree, if existent, it sounds a bit ridiculous.


> that, say, if 
> foreign passports in Estonia were to be filled both in Estonian and Russian,
> I'd maybe consider dropping Estonian citizenship. 


Are you serious? Or maybe here is a misunderstanding: would you consider
dropping Estonian citizenship if foreign passports COULD BE FILLED
in Estonian and in Russian and the there were three languages printed in
the passports: Estonian - Russian - English?


> I agree that this
> is perhaps unexpected to the outsiders 


You are right! It is very difficult to legitimize such a feeling
in nowadays Europe.


> - the point is to show that
> it is practically impossible to adopt the Finnish model of bilingualism.    


You have definitely not shown that it would be practically impossible.
You have just shown that you would not like it - in accordance
to the majority of Estonians, which is unfortunate indeed!
 

> At the same time a majority of estonians agrees to speak to local
> russians in Russian. In a mixed-language environment at work the language
> mastered best by all the participants, either Estonian or Russian,
> is normally used.  


Here I agree: this is a linguistic ability of Estonians the Finns
should envy (as I do): during the summer I shall move to Estonia
and brush up my Estonian and Russian.

 
> So the bilingualism is bound to stay at the everyday level, 


Official documents form an important part of everyday life,
don't they?


> IMHO.
> This is one immediate reason for the language requirement in naturalization.
> All non-handicapped citizens are supposed to have some idea what is written
> in their passports and other official documents.


If Estonian and Russian were used in official documents (as in Finland
Finnish and Swedish are used) this problem could be easily solved.
And passports should be trilingual as in Finland:

                  SUOMI FINLAND

                  PASSI PASS
                  PASSPORT

                  Suomen kansalainen
            Finsk medborgare   Finnish citizen


            Sukunimi/Efternamn/Surname

            HIETANIEMI

            Etunimet/Fo"rnamn/Given names

            TAPANI


Sorry, I do not buy your arguments (at least, not yet).