From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Bilingualism - a good cause!
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:36:57 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1993Jan4.135906.18631@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.130625.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.161143.11815@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se 
>>(Tanel Tammet) writes:
>>
>><much has been deleted>
>>
>>
>>> The other problem you have to consider is that it is necessary to
>>> gradually integrate the Russian-speaking population in
>>> Estonian state and politics without creating political time
>>> bombs. Now I claim that total bilingualism (official) would
>>> mean that Russian-speaking population will NEVER learn
>>> Estonian and will stick together as one Russian block. 
>>> The existing separation of Estonian and Russian communities
>>> and politics will gain momentum, in contrast to our
>>> will to integrate these communities.
>>
>>
>>This is something I do not totally understand. A bilingualism in Helsinki
>>means that you teach yourself hundreds of Swedish/Finnish words when
>>you are just strolling through the town. Every child in Helsinki that
>>can read does know that Helsinki has two names: Helsinki/Helsingfors.
>>Filling forms that are printed in two languages in educating. Ask
>>any resident of any bilingual country.
> 
> Now, Finland is NOT an archetypical case of bilingualism, and
> bringing Helsinki as an example/comparison is not especially
> informative.


No bilingual country is an "archetypical case of bilingualism", they
have their own distinct features (Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Finland).
Helsinki is a very good example for Tallinn, at least (situated
80 km southeast from Helsinki). The cities have quite a lot to
learn from each other!


 
> As for "any resident of bilingual country", just read
> Sylvain's posting recalling that there is, for example,
> bilingual Canada, pretty different from Finland.


Exactly. There are differences. But where's the beef?

 
> In my understanding Swedish is one of the official languages
> in Finland due to the following reasons (in the diminishing
> order of importance). Of course, you know the real reasons
> much better than me, so please correct if something is badly wrong:
> 
> 
> 1) Historical reasons. Finland has been the area of Swedish
> dominance for centuries. Swedish  used to be the language of
> elite.


Right. The language of cultural elite and education.

 
> In Estonia German stands up as analogy to Swedish in Finland.


Did stand, until this century, or, perhaps until 1939, when the
Fuehrer commanded the Germans "Heim ins Reich".

 
> 2) Political reasons. Finland wants to be in the group of
> Scandinavian countries, both politically and economically


Right!


> (and perhaps also culturally, to some extent). 


Right!


> This is
> simplified by accepting Swedish (the main Scandinavian language)
> as one of the official languages.
> 
> IMHO, the question  which language has which status in some
> country is NOT just a matter of convenience. Language is
> clearly a vehicle for manifesting power. Say, accepting
> German as one of the official languages in Estonia would,
> after some time, have important political consequences.


No one is suggesting German seriuously.


> So would accepting Russian. 


Estonia is also a part of the Imperium. You have many economic
and cultural and political ties to Russian speaking Imperium.
And - the struggle for Estonian independency and democracy in Russia
are deeply tied together! That's why bilingualism should be supported.

 
> Now, despite the fact (and even especially because of that)
> that USSR forced a big number of its citizens into Estonia
> during annexation period, Estonia can under no circumstances
> accept Russian as one of  the official languages, IF she
> wants to move away from the sphere of Russian dominance.


If Estonia wants to get rid of Russian sphere, it must have Russian
powerful friends in Moscow.

 
> The argumentation above is, to my understanding, shared by
> at least 90% of Estonian citizens. Moreover, ALL the political
> parties (even your favourites :-) agree on that Russian should
> under no circumstances be made one of the official languages.
> The danger is too clear and too big.  


I don't see clearly the danger of bilingualism, still! Bilingual
bank notes and street signs would not do any harm, on the 
contrary!

 
> If you believe that the politics of dominances is a 
> thing of the past or that culture and language play
> little role in that, I stress that I disagree. 


It would be a lot of easier to educate a loyal, patriotic
Russian speaking population in Estonia with more biligualism.

 
> 3) there are some ethnic swedes living in Finland. However,
> the percentage of swedes is so small that it clearly is not
> a main reason of accepting Swedish.


6,9 %, if I recall correctly.
40% of Estonian residents are Russian speakers.
Of course, the reasons adapting bilingualism in Estonia and
Finland should be different.

 
> Now, as one can easily observe, many finns have mixed feelings
> towards having Swedish as an official language. 


Every country has it's idiots.


> The question
> whether Swedish should be obligatory in schools is subject
> to debate. 


The obligatory Swedish is another thing than bilingualism in the state.
But, I would like discuss this question mostly in soc.culture.nordic!


> But, as the number of swedes in Finland is relatively
> small and Sweden clearly will never have amibitions to
> annex or otherwise control Finland, accepting Swedish is
> not dangerous at all.


Here I agree. It's certainly not dangerous. Don't knock it
if you haven't tried it :-)

 
> In the inner politics of Estonia acceptance of Russian as
> an official language would among other things mean that
> local russians orient seriously to Russia.


Partly, and partly it might give a start for bilingual
patriotism.

  
>>> Now, not speaking about INNER politics, accepting Russian as an
>>> official language in Estonia together with Estonian will
>>> most probably have the following consequences:
>>> 
>>> 1) Politicians (and ordinary folks) in Russia will get a new,
>>> very strong reason to consider Estonia as a country where
>>> Russian dominance would be a natural thing to reintroduce - they
>>> even have Russian as one of the official languages, don't they?
>>> Both in a short and long run this will be very dangerous to Estonia.
>>
>>
>>
>>I am inclined to think that IF the Estonian government is not
>>concerned about the lingustic needs of Russian speakers, the Russian 
>>parliament and government would find it very natural to intervene in some form.
>>I think (1) is a poor excuse - it's the other way around!
> 
> See above. Now, what are "the linguistic needs of Russian speakers?"


Radio and TV services (they are in order, I know...)
Education in Russian - Tartu is still bilingual, but how long?
And things like that. I elaborate later on. And I am, of course, aware
that the existing language legislation is very progressive,
bilingual oriented! I think you might be against the existing
legislation...


> I claim that the existing situation staisfies their needs (and I have
> not heard about wide complaints). Russian speakers can use Russian
> in ALMOST ALL situations. 


The existing language law is progressive, indeed.


> There are no attempts to "Estonize" 
> russians, etc. The case that Russian is not one of the official
> languages means a few specific things. Eg, passports are only
> in Estonian (plus the translation to English), various other
> documents (but not all!) are also only in Estonian. 


Adding small cyrillic print would not do much damage to your
independence.

 
>>> 2) The same goes for the other countries, unfortunately,
>>> who will find it only too easy to associate Estonia with the Russian
>>> empire again - well, they speak Russian and some small local language.
>>
>>
>>Which countries? USA? Germany? Finland? I do not buy your argument.
>>It is just not plausible.
> 
> See my arguments above. 
> 
>>Do you really think that introducing bilingualism in Estonia would reduce
>>the German support to the Estonian republic? According to my experience
>>(I studied in Germany) it would be the other way around!
> 
> What kind of support do you think of? When did you study in Germany?


In the end of eighties. The Germans are very concerned with the treatment
of Russians (they were seduced by Gorbatshov) and might frown upon
monolingualism.


> Increasing  Russian influence on Estonia would mean decreasing
> influence from other countries, not just Germany. Imagine
> dropping Swedish from Finland and introducing Russian as
> official language - no political consequences in the long run?


Of course, but that would be unnecessary, since there are only
8000 Russians in Finland, mostly, in Helsinki.


>>> IF you make Russian as a second official language, 
>>
>>
>>Russia can be used as an official language in local level in Estonia,
>>according to the existing language legislation (from 1989):
>>
>>Article 1:
>>"In its treatment of the Russian language, the present law proceeds
>>from the needs of all-Union communication, as well as from the fact
>>that after Estonian it is the second largest native language spoken in
>>the Estonian SSR."
>>
>>Article 15:
>>"The firms, institutions and organizations using Russian in their internal
>>communication may communicate in Russian with one another as well as with the
>>bodies of State authority and government of the Estonian SSR."
>>
>>Are you AGAINST the existing legislation? Should the sound language
>>law be CHANGED?
> 
> Please notice that I have objected against total official bilingualism,
> not any other milder form of bilingualism, where Estonian would
> have a slightly higher official status than other languages.


Here we are reaching the point of understanding. Good!

 
> Still, I am FOR introducing changes in the above article 15, requiring
> that SOME documentation needed by gov. authorities must be in
> Estonian. If I remember right, the abovementioned law is enacted
> gradually over a long time span, and in the end the requirement that
> some documentation must be in Estonian is enacted by the same law.
> 
>>> you will
>>> not get a happy coexistence, but a dominance of Russian with
>>> increasing attacks of Estonians against this dominance, with
>>> counterattacks, etc. 
>>
>>
>>You must substantiate this claim with something, otherwise it is hard
>>to swallow: with monolingualism, there will be no attacks and counter-
>>attacks and anyone would be satisfied?
> 
> I am really surprised! How come you speak about MONOLINGUALISM?
> What does that denote? I have never expressed views that
> Russian should be banned completely (or completely from official
> communication)! 


Of course, not BANNED. I think we would understand each other
better when dealing with the details of the existing language
legislation.


> I am trying to explain what could happen if
> Russian were given EXACTLY the same status as Estonian,


I see. My opinion: Russian should have at least a semi-official
status.


> and that such ideas are unrealistic in the political
> context of Estonia.


You have convinced me that there exists psychological obstacles
against such ideas.

 
>>> In its
>>> conquests Russia normally acts pragmatically, preferring easy
>>> conquests to hard ones. Considering the good scenario where
>>> Russia does not turn back to its old imperialist manners,
>>> having Russian as one of the official languages in Estonia
>>> might still IMHO hinder reintegration of Estonia to Europe in
>>> the long run (as I am not extremely optimistic about integrating
>>> Russia to Europe), despite few immediate positive effects in
>>> foreign policy. 
>>
>>
>>IF the Russian speaking population will be unsatisfied, it will hinder
>>the integration of Estonia to the European institutions, like the
>>Council of Europe.
> 
> Yes, but keeping Estonian at a higher official level than
> Russian is not (has not been) a strong reason for dissatisfaction
> of Russian-speakers. 


At least, not yet.

 
> And please notice that I included "despite few immediate positive
> effects on foreign policy".
> 
> Anyway, the idea of total official bilingualism in Estonia
> is not widespread at all, so such suggestions are a little
> unordinary.


That's exactly why I have started this discussion here.

   
>>But - do you really think that a monolingual Estonia would be a "harder 
>>conquest" to Russia than a bilingual Estonia? I can see only one difference:
>>The tank drivers would have more difficulties when reading the road
>>signs :-)
> 
> First, I cannot understand the  bilingual-monolingual dichotomy
> in your language. All the language-politics is  about shades
> and details, not extremes. 
> 
> The main difficulty in reconquering Estonia is not military
> tactics, but inner and outer politics, which depends on
> public perception. Ordinary Russian citizens would probably have
> less against reconquering "friendly" Russian-speaking countries
> (then it does not really look like "conquering" but rather
> "reuniting") than countries alien to Russia.
> 
>>
>>> There might be immediate bad effects on economy
>>> also  - for example, if Estonian banknotes were to carry
>>> a few Cyrillic letters, the public perception of Estonian currency
>>> would gain sceptical attitudes, funny as it may seem. 
>>
>>
>>You are right indeed, it sounds funny! Since very few people have even seen
>>the Estonian bank notes, they do not affect much to the impression on
>>Estonia. When we speak about economy and willingness to invest in Estonia,
>>I am inclined to think that inner instability of Estonia is the main hinder 
>>for foreign investments, not the possible cyrillic letters on your bank notes.
> 
> The "very few people" in your text includes all people living in Estonia.
> To these people, the prime users of Estonian currency, even to
> russian patriots among them, cyrillic letters on banknotes will lead
> thoughts to the despised rouble and will generate ideas that
> Estonian kroon is just another rouble-like currency. 


Even cyrillic small print?


> Now this
> means that ordinary folks will prefer to keep their money in
> other currencies and avoid kroon. 


Here, you can't be serious. People accept the money that is in
circulation. The Russians have not abandoned their roubles only
because there are Lenin and other silly things printed on them :-)



> The street estimation of the
> probability of devaluation has a strong effect on the actual
> probability of devaluation. Kind of obvious.


Totally over-exaggerated.

 
> BTW, I remember that even in "bilingual" Finland the coins carry text
> SOLELY in Finnish. What an offence!


That was the case until couple of years ago, when the Republic of
Finland started using bilingual coins.

Which is rational.

thinks
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet