Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland 3031430166, 9783031430169

Citation preview

Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland Eduardo D. Faingold

Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia “Eduardo Faingold is widely known as an expert on constitutional and legal guarantees of minority language rights across the world. In turning to Scandinavia he is examining countries traditionally sympathetic to minority rights, thereby providing potential models for other countries but also laying bare possible gaps between guarantees on the one hand and practice on the other. This is an important addition to the literature on language policy and language rights.” —Humphrey Tonkin, University of Hartford, USA “Issues of language diversity, language policy and language planning, and language rights have become of increasing concern to both policy-makers and scholars during the past few decades. There are few academics who have contributed as much to the growing body of scholarship on issues of language rights in particular than has Eduardo Faingold, who has published extensively in this area. This volume, concerned with issues of language rights in Scandinavia, constitutes an important and valuable addition to the literature in the field. Faingold’s insights are clear, cogent, and powerful, and will be of interest to those working in a variety of areas, including not only language policy studies, language planning, and language rights, but also minority and ethnic studies, and of course Scandinavian studies.” —Timothy Reagan, University of Maine, USA/University of the Free State, South Africa

Eduardo D. Faingold

Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland

Eduardo D. Faingold School of Language and Literature University of Tulsa Tulsa, OK, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-43016-9    ISBN 978-3-031-43017-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Alex Linch / shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

To my wife, Sonia, who accompanied me through the COVID-19 pandemic when most of this book was written, and WHO tirelessly drove us through the Sámiland from Kiruna to Alta and to Kautokeino and Karasjok so that I could become better educated about the Sámi people in Scandinavia. And to my brother, Jorge, in Oslo, Norway, and my sister, Paula, in Stockholm, Sweden, and to my younger self in Esbjerg, Denmark, whose experiences living in Scandinavia inspired me to write this book more than they can ever imagine.

Preface

This work began as part of a project that entailed a critical contemplation of the language rights of individuals and groups in the constitutions of the world (Faingold, 2004), the constitution and legal statutes of the United States and its 50 states and territories (Faingold, 2018), and language rights and the law in the European Union and selected EU countries (Spain and Denmark) (Faingold, 2020). In May 2019 I had the great honor to be invited to speak to the Study Group on Language at the United Nations about Denmark’s language policy toward immigrant minorities. In my presentation, I condemned recent anti-immigrant regulations that specifically marginalize non-Western immigrant children in Danish schools and I called for the re-election of officials who support bilingual education. Formal and informal conversations with Scandinavian academics and United Nations personnel at the meeting piqued my interest in the study of language rights in the Scandinavian region as a whole. The upshot is this book which studies the language policies that result from the promulgation of linguistic laws, enshrined in the constitutions, legal statutes, and regulations established by the four Scandinavian nations (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland) and the two Danish territories (Faroe Islands and Greenland), where the five modern descendants of Old Norse (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese) and a great variety of languages—including indigenous languages (Greenlandic Inuit and Sámi), official minority languages, sign languages, vii

viii Preface

and immigrant languages—are spoken today. However, I made the conscious (and to some extent arbitrary) decision to exclude Finland (which forms part of the Nordic region, or Norden, but is not part of the Scandinavian region) from this study. Notably, the Finns are a people of Finno-Ugric descent (originally from a geographical area located between the Baltic Sea and the Ural Mountains) and they speak a language of non-­ Scandinavian origin, while the Scandinavian nations share a common historic and linguistic background as the heirs to the Viking empire that dates to the early Middle Ages (e.g., Sanders, 2017; Titlestad, 2018). Finally, there is a personal connection to this book as well, as I lived as an undocumented refugee from the Argentine dictatorship in Esbjerg, Denmark, for most of the year, in 1978 (Faingold, 2008); my brother Jorge is a naturalized Norwegian citizen and lives in Oslo with his family since the mid-1980s; and my sister Paula is a permanent resident of Sweden and lives in Stockholm with her family since 2020. Above all, for more than four decades, I have been a frequent visitor to the Scandinavian countries, including their peripheral regions (the Jutland Peninsula in Denmark and the Swedish and Norwegian Sámiland), as well as a keen observer of the Scandinavian scene. An earlier version of Chap. 3 appeared in my book Language Rights and the Law in the European Union, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2020. The chapter was extensively revised and updated, and an analysis and discussion of the language rights of immigrants in the Danish workplace has been added. A number of errors were corrected, mostly minor mistakes. Seven completely new chapters were written especially for this book (Chaps. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Revisions to Chap. 3 have benefited from comments by audiences at the “Study Group on Language and the United Nations” conference in New York, May 2019; the “Multilingual Childhoods: Education, Policy, and Practice” conference in Hamar, Norway, May 2019; “Exploring Language Education: Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century Conference” in Oslo, June 2021; and the “Multidisciplinary Approaches in Language Policy and Planning Conference” in Montreal, August 2022. Revisions to Chap. 6 have benefitted from comments by the audience at the “5th International Legal Linguistics Workshop,” Vienna and Cape Town, December 2022.

 Preface 

ix

Revisions to Chap. 7 have benefitted from comments by audiences at the “Sustainability Science Days” conference; “Sustainability and Linguistic Diversity” session, Helsinki University, Finland, May 2023; and the “Language Policy Forum” at SOAS in London, June 2023. Tulsa, Oklahoma

Eduardo D. Faingold

References Faingold, E. D. (2004). Language rights and language justice in the constitutions of the world. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.28.1.03fai Faingold, E. D. (2008). Exile from Argentina: A Jewish family and the military dictatorship (1976–1983). Information Age Publishing. Faingold, E. D. (2018). Language rights and the law in the United States and its territories. Lexington Books. Faingold, E. D. (2020). Language rights and the law in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. Sanders, R. H. (2017). The languages of Scandinavia: Seven sisters of the North. The University of Chicago Press. Titlestad, T. (2018). Viking legacy: A cornerstone of world civilization. Stavanger.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the late Lani Guinier for her advice to approach the law critically when dealing with issues concerning minorities, and to Bishop Samuel Ruiz (†), formerly of Chiapas, Mexico, for challenging me to use my knowledge of linguistics for the benefit of minorities, during my tenure as a fellow of the Salzburg Seminar, Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, Austria, Session 372, “Race and Ethnicity: Social Change through Public Awareness,” in 1999. I am grateful to the Study Group on Language at the United Nations for inviting me to participate in its 2019 symposium, “The United Nations at 75: Listening, Talking and Taking Action in a Multilingual World,” where the idea for this book was conceived. Last but not least, I am grateful to Anders Henriksen, adviser at the Department of Communication of the Sámi Parliament in Karasjok, Norway, for a most informative tour and conversation on the functions of the Norwegian Sámi Parliament, and to the dedicated educators at the Sámi museum in Karasjok, and a parliamentary assistant of the Swedish Sámi Parliament in Kiruna, Sweden, for enlightening conversations on the plight of the Sámi to save their languages and culture from extinction in Norway and Sweden, in the Spring of 2023. I am indebted to the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tulsa and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for grants to travel to Salzburg, Austria, to attend Session 372 of the Salzburg Seminar in the fall of 1999, where my interest in language rights was piqued for the first xi

xii Acknowledgments

time. This research was supported in part by 11 University of Tulsa Faculty Research Grants in 2003, 2010, 2013 (twice), 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2023.

Contents

1 I ntroduction  1 References   8 2 Language  Rights and the Law in Sweden 11 Language and the Law in Sweden   14 Legislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Sweden   22 Legislation Concerning Language in the Public Sector and the Courts in Sweden   25 Legislation Concerning Language and Education in Sweden   28 Conclusion  45 References  51 3 Language  Rights and the Law in Denmark 59 Language and the Law in Denmark   62 Legislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Denmark  64 Legislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in Denmark  75 Legislation Concerning Language and Education in Denmark   82 Conclusion  94 References  97 xiii

xiv Contents

4 Language  Rights and the Law in Norway105 Language Policy in Norway  108 Language and the Law in Norway  112 Legislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Norway  120 Legislation Concerning Language in the Courts and the Healthcare System in Norway  125 Legislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in Norway  134 Legislation Concerning Language and Education in Norway  139 Conclusion 152 References 160 5 Language  Rights and the Law in Iceland169 Language Policy in Iceland  173 Language and the Law in Iceland  176 Legislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Iceland  179 Legislation Concerning Language in the Courts and the Health Care System in Iceland  188 Legislation Concerning Language and Education in Iceland  193 Conclusion 209 References 212 6 Language  Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands219 Language Policy in the Faroe Islands  222 Language and the Law in the Faroe Islands  225 Legislation Concerning Language and Immigration in the Faroe Islands  226 Legislation Concerning Language in the Courts and the Health Care System in the Faroe Islands  229 Legislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in the Faroe Islands  231

 Contents 

xv

Legislation Concerning Language and Education in the Faroe Islands  233 Conclusion 236 References 238 7 Language  Rights and the Law in Greenland241 Colonialism and Language in Greenland  245 Language and the Law in Greenland  247 Legislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Greenland 250 Legislation Concerning Language in the Government and the Courts in Greenland  252 Legislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in Greenland 254 Legislation Concerning Language and Education in Greenland  256 Conclusion 262 References 263 8 Summary,  Conclusion, and Directions for Future Research265 References 272 I ndex275

1 Introduction

Language rights and the law in Scandinavia studies the language policies that result from the promulgation of linguistic laws, enshrined in the constitutions and legal statutes, and regulations established by the four Scandinavian nations, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the two autonomous Danish territories, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, where the five modern descendants of Old Norse (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese) and a great variety of other languages are spoken, including Greenlandic Inuit (the language spoken by more than 90% of the indigenous population of Greenland), several official minority languages, national sign languages, and immigrant languages (Sanders, 2017). In recent years, the Scandinavian countries and territories have seen a resurgence of claims for language recognition by a great number of indigenous populations, national minority groups, sign language users, and immigrant groups, who rely on the use of languages other than Scandinavian languages in their daily lives. In addition to the majority languages of Scandinavia (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, and Greenlandic Inuit), more than a dozen minority languages have been granted official status and rights in accordance with national laws and international treaties. As an authoritative study on Nordic law explains, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_1

1

2 

E. D. Faingold

In several Nordic countries there are areas where a form of autonomy … or other special arrangements for minority populations may be found to different degrees. The reason behind the existence of, for instance, autonomy is that a group of persons that lives in a particular area differs ethnically or culturally from the dominant population in the country. More often than not, this group has its own language or other particular cultural characteristics, or both. … Refugees and immigrant groups are not generally covered by the notion of minority. … Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have signed and ratified the European Framework Convention on National Minorities and the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, while Iceland has only signed the two treaties but not ratified them. (Mortensen & Suksi, 2019, pp. 61–62)

As the authors continue: As in Europe generally, a number of minorities of varying sizes have a long-­ lasting connection to one or more Nordic countries. … In addition to the Sámi, a number of other minority groups are recognized … and these enjoy various minority rights. To the extent that they use their own language, these languages have been acknowledged as being covered by the (European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages). … To varying degrees, these enjoy a recognized or special status in all Nordic countries but Iceland, where no minorities of this kind exist. (Mortensen & Suksi, 2019, p. 75)

It is focal to the study of language policy in Scandinavia to analyze the linguistic laws created by the governments of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland (or the lack thereof ) as a response to the demands for linguistic rights by minority sectors of the population who do not speak a Scandinavian language as their native language or who rely on the use of sign language in their daily lives, or to those who may seek to maintain the use of a minority language for cultural identity reasons. The point of a study such as this is to look beyond one single case and to learn of other ways of handling issues. In presenting these case studies together, I aim to facilitate not only the understanding and improvement of implicit and explicit language policies such as the legislation and planning of bilingual acquisition and education and

1 Introduction 

3

linguistic corpora (dictionaries, grammars, school curricula, standards for broadcasting, the language of journals and newspapers, bills, laws, etc.) but also the access to comparable information for the development of new theoretical perspectives about the operation of languages in the legal, social, and political contexts. In all Scandinavian nations, basic constitutional documents are codified in writing, and they are supplemented by official Acts, amendments, constitutional conventions or customary constitutional rules and procedures (Nylund & Sunde, 2019). As another study explains, Scandinavian jurisprudence favors “a specific idea of a constitutional Act with lex superior status, where constitutional Acts are located at the peak of the national hierarchy of legal norms” (Husa, 2019, p. 42). However, as the author notes, “constitutional Acts are not political manifestos; … although (they) are written, alteration takes place in various forms, i.e., by formal amendment, custom, convention, and case law” (Husa, 2019, p. 45). Thus, this work focuses on the degree of legal protection afforded linguistic minority groups vis-à-vis the majority, in the areas of immigration, the courts and public services, the workplace, and education from preschool to higher education, in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. Political, historical, social, and linguistic developments relevant to the focus of this work are analyzed and discussed for each case. I aim to discover whether the constitutions, statutes, and government regulations of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the two autonomous Danish territories, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, can protect the language rights of indigenous populations, national minority groups, sign language users, and immigrant populations who rely on the use of non-Scandinavian languages in their daily lives, and of those linguistic minorities who seek to maintain the use of a minority language for cultural identity reasons. Finally, I aim to offer insights to those in charge of drafting legislation in the area of language rights. The work is innovative in its methodology as it adopts an approach in which the study of language rights of both local and immigrant populations is comparative and runs across different national and subnational entities (rather than focusing on one single country) and leads to insights and generalizations that single-country research on language policy may not be able to capture (Faingold, 2004, 2018, 2020). The literature of

4 

E. D. Faingold

language policy in Scandinavia comprises mostly single-country studies, a limitation that prevents capturing significant insights and generalizations about the language policies and laws that affect the language rights (or lack thereof ) of local and immigrant minorities. Thus, the work uncovers the types and degrees of legal protection that impinge on the acquisition, learning, use, and maintenance of majority languages vis-à-­ vis minority languages in the areas of immigration, the courts and public services, the workplace, and education from preschool to higher education in Scandinavia. This chapter presents the issues, themes, and goals of the book and provides an outline of the chapters in the book. Chapter 2 studies the ways in which Sweden addresses the language rights of the Swedish-speaking majority vis-à-vis those of linguistic minorities. First, a language test is not required for immigration purposes in Sweden. Swedish policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the immigrant is the one responsible for learning Swedish, while the authorities are mainly responsible for providing language classes. Second, the right of access to the courts and government services for all linguistic minorities in Sweden is protected by law (i.e., interpreters are hired and compensated by the government). Third, the Education Act (2010) protects the right of all minority children to receive language acquisition support in both Swedish and Swedish Sign Language, official minority languages, or immigrant languages in Swedish preschools. The Education Act also aims to protect the language rights of minority children in compulsory education and high school. Thus, children who are deaf or hard of hearing have the right to attend special schools for the deaf, which are responsible for developing students’ bilingualism in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language; or they can choose to go to a mainstream school in their municipality of residence, where teachers are required to adapt instruction to the unique needs of students with disabilities, including children who use sign language. Students who speak a language other than Swedish at home have the right to receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory and upper secondary education, if there are at least five students who wish to receive it and if a suitable teacher can be found. Students who belong to an officially recognized linguistic minority group (i.e., Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish) also have the right to

1 Introduction 

5

receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory and upper secondary education, but this right is constraint by the School Ordinance (2011) which severely limits the amount of time that can be dedicated to mother tongue instruction in the schools. In higher education, the main teaching languages are Swedish and English, and immigrant languages remain on the periphery, while the official minority languages are conspicuous by their absence. Chapter 3 focuses on the degree of legal protection afforded Danish vis-à-vis linguistic minority groups who do not speak Danish as their native language, i.e., the official minority language (German) and widely spoken immigrant languages (Arabic, Urdu, Polish, Somali). In Denmark, a large segment of the population seems to feel threatened by the arrival of immigrants, mainly because they appear to fear that immigration inflicts cultural and linguistic deterioration, harming Danish as the majority language of Denmark. Growing negative feelings toward immigration in Denmark have become associated with the growing number of Muslim immigrants and their descendants, leading to the passing of a wide array of laws with provisions that have increasingly hampered the language rights of non-Western immigrants in the areas of naturalization and education, including laws that promote mainstream Danish language and culture in the educational system from kindergarten to high school and disregard the languages and cultures of immigrant children. These laws greatly restrict or outright ban mother tongue education for immigrant children from non-Western countries. Other laws make excessive demands in Danish proficiency for non-Western (mostly Muslim) immigrants seeking to obtain residence or naturalization but establish no such language requirements for Western immigrants working at universities. Chapter 4 studies the ways in which Norwegian legislation addresses the language rights of Norwegian-speakers vis-à-vis linguistic minorities in Norway. First, applicants for Norwegian residence and citizenship must pass a language and a citizenship test that can hinder immigrants from obtaining Norwegian residence or citizenship. Second, Norwegian law establishes the right of linguistic minorities to have access to a qualified interpreter in encounters with the law and healthcare systems, but quality interpreters are often unavailable, and the law offers no provisions

6 

E. D. Faingold

on the government obligations of providing the financial resources to guarantee that interpreters are available when needed. Third, employers in the construction industry created Norwegian-only regulations that can hinder immigrant workers from obtaining permanent employment in the industry, as the use of immigrant languages on construction sites is deemed likely to compromise safety and security standards in construction sites. Fourth, in Norway, preschool regulations establish the right of Sámi children to learn their language and recognize the value of sign language in kindergarten, but deaf children are vulnerable, and often excluded, in interactions with hearing classmates and kindergarten staff. Preschool regulations also establish that kindergartens must promote linguistic and cultural diversity, but this term is neither explained nor detailed by the regulations. Fifth, Norwegian educational laws protect the use of Norwegian dialects (Bokmål and Nynorsk), Sámi, Kven, and Norwegian Sign Language in school, but there are very few municipal programs or classes taught in Norwegian Sign Language, and children who rely on it for their education spend most of their time in school with hearing children and teachers who are not expected to acquire even a minimum knowledge of sign language. As for immigrant children, the focus of language policy in Norwegian schools is on providing adapted language education in Norwegian with little bilingual support. Finally, in regard to higher education, the main teaching languages are Norwegian and English, but Sámi is the principal language at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Kautokeino, while Kven language and culture classes are offered at the University of Tromsø and Norwegian Sign Language and sign language interpreting programs are available at universities across Norway. Chapter 5 focuses on the ways in which Iceland addresses the language rights of the native Icelandic-speaking majority vis-à-vis Icelandic Sign Language users and a growing non-Icelandic-speaking immigrant population. In recent years, Iceland has seen a large influx of immigrants, mainly from Poland, but also from Lithuania, the Philippines, and other countries. Icelandic Sign Language is the only legally recognized minority language in Iceland. In Iceland, language nationalism and a linguistic protectionist culture that promotes the use of Icelandic above all other languages and in all domains of language use results in laws and

1 Introduction 

7

regulations that may hinder the opportunities of immigrants to become naturalized citizens; to access services they need, especially in the healthcare system; and to receive an education that includes the child’s home language in the school curriculum and daily activities. Finally, a number of linguistic laws, regulations, and policies have been established by the Icelandic parliament and government authorities to promote the right of Icelandic Sign Language users to equal access to public services (i.e., interpreting), especially in the healthcare system, and to learn and use Icelandic Sign Language in compulsory schools and in higher education, but no legal provisions have been established on the government obligations of providing the financial backing necessary for guaranteeing equal access to public services and education for Icelandic Sign Language users. Chapter 6 studies the ways in which the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the issue of language rights of the native Faroese-speaking majority vis-à-vis a small but growing non-Faroese-speaking immigrant minority. Positive attitudes toward immigrants and immigration by Faroese authorities and employers result in laws and regulations that support the language rights of immigrants to obtain a permanent residence permit without having to pass a Faroese language exam; to communicate with the courts, health services, and other agencies of the Faroe Islands with the help of interpreters and translators; and to use immigrant languages at all times, and to expect reasonable linguistic accommodations and in-house language support, in the workplace. Above all, since the passing of the Home Rule Act in 1948, Faroese has been adopted as the official language of instruction of the schools in the Faroe Islands from elementary school to high school. However, due to a shortage of lecturers proficient in Faroese, as well as to the lack of regulations for the use of foreign languages in higher education, Danish and English remain the main languages of instruction in Faroese higher education. Finally, the language rights of immigrant children who do not speak Faroese remain unaddressed by Faroese education legislation, but that is likely to change, due to a growing population of non-Faroese-speaking immigrants coming to the Faroes Islands from more than 80 different countries. Chapter 7 studies the ways in which Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the language rights of

8 

E. D. Faingold

the indigenous Greenlandic Inuit majority vis-à-vis a small population of Danish in-migrants and foreign nationals. First, unlike in Denmark proper, a language test is not required to reside in Greenland. The Greenlandic policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the person coming to live and work in Greenland is the one who has the responsibility to learn the official language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for providing language classes. Second, while the right of both Greenlandic-speakers and Danish-speakers to use their own languages in government and legal settings is protected by the Language Policy Act of 2010, Danish remains essential for Greenland’s public administration and the judiciary, which struggle to provide services in Greenlandic. Similarly, the Language Policy Act establishes the right of businesses and organizations to create their own Greenlandic language policy, but employees are allowed to use languages other than Greenlandic as they see fit, and thus Greenlandic could start losing ground to Danish and English in the workplace. Finally, since Danish is the major language of instruction in upper secondary and university education, primarily Greenlandic-speaking students who had not acquired a high level of Danish proficiency while in primary or lower secondary school are at a great disadvantage when they start upper secondary education or apply to university in Greenland or Denmark. This chapter suggests that there is a need for making targeted investments in education to help foster literacy in Greenlandic, Danish, and English. Chapter 8 summarizes the findings of the book and offers directions for future research for the study of language rights in Scandinavia and Finland.

References Faingold, E. D. (2004). Language rights and language justice in the constitutions of the world. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.28.1.03fai Faingold, E. D. (2018). Language rights and the law in the United States and its territories. Lexington Books.

1 Introduction 

9

Faingold, E.  D. (2020). Language rights and the law in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. Husa, J. (2019). Constitutional mentality. In P. Letto-Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B.  O. G.  Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp.  41–60). Palgrave Macmillan. Mortensen, B. O. G., & Suksi, M. (2019). Respecting autonomies and minorities. In P. Letto-Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B. O. G. Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan. Nylund, A., & Sunde, Ø. J. (2019). Courts and court proceedings. In P. Letto-­ Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B. O. G. Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp. 201–213). Palgrave Macmillan. Sanders, R. (2017). The languages of Scandinavia: Seven sisters of the north. University of Chicago Press.

2 Language Rights and the Law in Sweden

In the period between 1995 and 2000, following Sweden’s accession to the European Union in 1995, the recognition of five national minority languages (i.e., Finnish, Sámi, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish) in 1999, and the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) in 2000 by the Swedish Parliament, sparked considerable debate on the status of minorities languages in Sweden (Lainio, 2018; Norrby, 2008; Oakes, 2005; Winsa, 2005). Notably, before Sweden’s ratification of ECRML, as one study points out, “there had been little interest on indigenous and historical minority languages … and—contrary to the situation in many other European countries—Sweden had not treated these languages any different from immigrant languages” (Norrby, 2008, p. 65). Thus, as one expert explains, The Sámi were accepted as an indigenous group in 1974. In the mid-1990s, Finnish was officially established as a “domestic” language. … The acknowledgement of Finnish also created a push for Meänkieli, spoken in the Tornedal valley by the Finnish border, to become accepted as a language in its own right. … In addition to the acceptance of the three mentioned languages, also Romani Chib and Yiddish were selected as national minority languages with a historical presence in Sweden. Sámi, Meänkieli and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_2

11

12 

E. D. Faingold

Finnish were seen as territorial languages, whereas Romani Chib and Yiddish were seen as non-territorial. This means that Sámi, Meänkieli and Finnish also became covered by the more demanding and detailed Part III of the ECRML. Romani Chib and Yiddish were covered only by the more general, and geographically less restricted Part II. (Lainio, 2018, p. 46)

Importantly, as another study points out, “the most important criteria for recognition were that the languages had a long standing in Sweden and were spoken continually for more than one hundred years or for at least three generations” (Sundberg, 2013, p. 212). The aftermath of the period 1995–2000, in which Sweden entered the EU and Finnish, Sámi, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish were recognized as the five official minority languages of Sweden, triggered a heated debate on the status of Swedish vis-à-vis languages other than Swedish, especially English, but also the national minority languages mentioned above and the myriad of other languages spoken by immigrants in Sweden (Milani, 2007, 2008). As another author points out, this resulted in the setting up of a parliamentary committee on the Swedish language in 2000, which recommended legislation … ensuring that Swedish remains a ‘complete language’ serving all purposes in Swedish society … to maintain the position of Swedish in EU institutions, to build on the diversity of languages in present-day Sweden, and to ensure that Swedes in higher education and research can use Swedish and English equally well. (Phillipson, 2003, p. 6)

As another study explains, The situation at the time was seen as somewhat peculiar: except for the five official minority languages, no other languages—neither Swedish nor any of the close to 200 immigrant languages—had any legally recognized status. The imbalance in terms of language rights was one reason for the increased debate on the position of Swedish, but an equally important factor was the role of English in Sweden and its perceived dominance in many domains. … It is against this background that one needs to place the setting up of a parliamentary committee on the Swedish language in 2000. … Two years later, the committee passed its draft action plan for the Swedish

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

13

language. … The report aimed at strengthening the position of Swedish. … Importantly, the committee also proposed that the status of Swedish should be expressed by a language law, in effect making Swedish the official majority language. (Norrby, 2008, p. 65)

This chapter studies the ways in which Sweden addresses the language rights of the Swedish-speaking majority vis-à-vis those of linguistic minorities—Swedish Sign Language users, five official minority languages (i.e., Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish), and immigrant languages. First, a language test is not required for immigration purposes in Sweden. Swedish policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the immigrant is the one responsible for learning Swedish, while the authorities are mainly responsible for providing language classes. Second, the right of access to the courts and government services for all linguistic minorities in Sweden is protected by law (i.e., interpreters are hired and compensated by the government). Third, the Education Act (2010) protects the right of all minority children to receive language acquisition support in both Swedish and Swedish Sign Language, official minority languages, or immigrant languages in Swedish preschools. The Education Act also aims to protect the language rights of minority children in compulsory education and high school. Thus, children who are deaf or hard of hearing have the right to attend special school for the deaf, which are responsible for developing students’ bilingualism in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language; or they can choose to go to a mainstream school in their municipality of residence, where teachers are required to adapt instruction to their unique needs. Students who speak a language other than Swedish at home have the right to receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory and upper secondary education, if there are at least five students who wish to receive it and if a suitable teacher can be found. Students who belong to a recognized national minority group also have the right to receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory and upper secondary education, but this right is constraint by the School Ordinance (2011) which severely limits the amount of time that can be dedicated to mother tongue instruction in the schools. In higher education, the main teaching languages are Swedish and English, and immigrant languages

14 

E. D. Faingold

remain on the periphery (for communication with parents of potential students with an immigrant background), while the official minority languages are conspicuous by their absence.

Language and the Law in Sweden On May 28, 2009, Sweden enacted the Language Act (Ministry of Culture, 2009a), with “provisions on the Swedish language, the national minority languages, and Swedish sign language. The Act also contains provisions on the responsibility of the public sector to ensure that the individual is given access to language and on the use of language in the public sector and in international contexts” (Language Act, 2009, Section 1). More specifically, the stated purpose of the Act “is to specify the position and usage of the Swedish language and other languages in Swedish society. The Act is also intended to protect the Swedish language and language diversity in Sweden, and the individual’s access to language” (Language Act, 2009, Section 1). Accordingly, Section 4 of the Language Act (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) declares that Swedish is “the principal language in Sweden” (Language Act, 2009, Section 4), and that “as principal language, Swedish is the common language in society that everyone resident in Sweden is to have access to and that is to be usable in all areas of society” (Language Act, 2009, Section 5). Section 6 of the Act establishes that “the public sector has a particular responsibility for the use and development of Swedish” (Language Act, 2009, Section 6). Notably, Section 9 of the Act declares that “the public sector has a particular responsibility to protect and promote Swedish sign language” (Language Act, 2009, Section 9). Most importantly, the Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) establishes numerous protections for the use of Swedish in the public sector, the courts, and the government, as well as its use in international settings and its status as an official EU language (Language Act, 2009, Sections 10–13). Accordingly, Section 10 of the Act establishes that “the language of the courts, administrative authorities and other bodies that perform tasks in the public sector is Swedish” (Language Act, 2009, Section 10). Just as important, this section states that “other

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

15

legislation contains provisions on the right to use national minority languages and other Nordic languages, and that there are separate provisions concerning the obligation of courts and administrative authorities to use interpreters and to translate documents” (Language Act, 2009, Section 10). The Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) is also concerned with language standardization. Accordingly, Section 11 of the Act declares that “the language of the public sector is to be cultivated, simple and comprehensible” (Language Act, 2009, Section 11), while Section 12 establishes that “government agencies have a special responsibility for ensuring that Swedish terminology in their various areas of expertise is accessible, and that it is used and developed” (Language Act, 2009, Section 12). Section 13 of the Act establishes that “Swedish is the official language of Sweden in international contexts,” and that “the status of Swedish as an official EU language is to be safeguarded” (Language Act, 2009, Section 13). It is worth noting, however, that the main stated goals of the Language Act of 2009, i.e., enhancing the status of Swedish vis-à-vis English in Sweden and making the former “usable in all areas of society” (Language Act, 2009, Section 5), turned out to be more challenging than anticipated by the drafters of the Act. As a noted expert on Swedish language policy explains, English (is) widely accessible in Swedish society and (is) integrated in sites for daily social practices (television, film, music, the Internet, computer games, texts). English is represented as part and parcel of modern Swedish life. In this way, it is characterized not as a foreign language but as a Swedish language...Communicative ability in English is highlighted as essential for gaining access to global opportunities such as studying abroad and obtaining employment that has an international scope. English is constructed as the language through which people in Sweden project themselves into the world of globalized goods and ideas. (Hult, 2012, pp. 239–240)

As another author succinctly puts it, in Sweden there is “widespread (Swedish-English) bilingualism not only amongst the elite, but also at the grassroots level” (Oakes, 2005, p. 161). Crucially, as another study points

16 

E. D. Faingold

out, English is the dominant language in Sweden’s “elite domains” (business and higher education) (Berg et al., 2001, p. 307). Section 7 of the Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) establishes that “the national minority languages are Finnish, Yiddish, Meänkieli (Tornedal Finnish), Romani Chib and Sámi” (Language Act, 2009, Section 7). These are the same languages recognized by the Swedish Parliament in 1999 and under the ECRML in 2000, as we have seen. Importantly, Section 8 of the Language Act states that “the public sector has a particular responsibility to protect and promote the national minority languages” (Language Act, 2009, Section 8). Finally, Section 14 of the Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) declares that Section 14 All residents of Sweden are to be given the opportunity to learn, develop and use Swedish. In addition 1. persons belonging to a national minority are to be given the opportunity to learn, develop and use the minority language, and 2. persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and persons who, for other reasons, require sign language, are to be given the opportunity to learn, develop and use Swedish sign language. Persons whose mother tongue is not one of the languages specified in the first paragraph are to be given the opportunity to develop and use their mother tongue (emphasis added). (Ministry of Culture, 2009a)

Notably, however, Section 14 of the Language Act does not mention any immigrant language by name, for example Arabic, which has more than twice as many speakers as Finnish and hundreds of thousands more speakers than the other national minority languages combined. On June 11, 2009, less than a month after Sweden enacted the Language Act (Ministry of Culture, 2009a), the Ministry issued the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b), to reinforce the Language Act’s stated goal of protecting and promoting the national minority languages of Sweden (Language Act, 2009, Section 8), which include an estimated population of about 200,000–450,000 Finnish speakers, 45,000–80,000 Meänkieli speakers, 10,000–20,000 Romani speakers, 20,000–35,000 Sámi speakers, and

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

17

1000–4000 Yiddish speakers (Lainio, 2018). Specifically, the new law “contains provisions concerning national minorities, national minority languages, administrative areas and the right to use minority languages in dealings with administrative authorities and courts as well as provisions concerning elderly care” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 1). Importantly, in 2018, the new Act was amended to include “provisions concerning follow-up of its application” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 1). Accordingly, Section 2 of the new Act reiterates that, as established by the Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a), Sweden’s “national minority languages are Finnish, Yiddish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib and Sámi” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 2). Correspondingly, Section 4 declares that, as established by the Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a), “public institutions have a particular responsibility for protecting and promoting the national minority languages” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 4). Notably, Section 4 establishes that “the public institutions shall also generally promote the national minorities’ possibilities of retaining and developing their own culture in Sweden. Children’s development of a cultural identity and use of their own minority language shall be promoted specially” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 4). Section 3 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) establishes that “municipalities and county councils shall inform the national minorities about their rights and the responsibility of the public institutions under this Act and the regulations that this Act refers to,” and that “the same applies to administrative authorities of central government whose activities are of importance for the national minorities or the minority languages” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 3). Thus, Section 5 of the Act establishes that “administrative authorities shall give the national minorities the possibility of influencing questions that affect them and consult, as far as possible, with the minorities in such questions” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 5). Section 5 also establishes that “consultations under the first paragraph shall be held by the administrative authority conducting a structured dialogue

18 

E. D. Faingold

with the national minorities in order to be able to take their views and needs into account in the authority’s decision-making” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 5). More specifically, Section 5a establishes that “administrative authorities shall specially promote the possibilities for children and young people to exert an influence and engage in consultations in matters that affect them and shall adapt the forms for this to their circumstances” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 5a). Importantly, Section 5b establishes that “municipalities and county councils shall adopt objectives and guidelines for their minority policy work. Information about objectives and guidelines adopted under the first paragraph shall be supplied on request to the authority that has responsibility for follow-up under Section 20” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 5b). Section 6 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) specifies that “the administrative area for Finnish is the municipalities of Botkyrka, Eskilstuna, Gällivare, Hallstahammar, Haninge, Haparanda, Huddinge, Håbo, Kiruna, Köping, Pajala, Sigtuna, Solna, Stockholm, Södertälje, Tierp, Upplands Väsby, Upplands-Bro, Uppsala, Älvkarleby, Österåker, Östhammar and Övertorneå” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 6). Correspondingly, Section 6 also declares that “the administrative area for Meänkieli is the municipalities of Gällivare, Haparanda, Kiruna, Pajala and Övertorneå,” and that “the administrative area for Sámi is the municipalities of Arjeplog, Arvidsjaur, Berg, Gällivare, Härjedalen, Jokkmokk, Kiruna, Lycksele, Malå, Sorsele, Storuman, Strömsund, Umeå, Vilhelmina, Åre, Älvdalen and Östersund” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 6). Importantly, Section 7 of the Act establishes that “municipalities other than those stated in Section 6 can be allowed, on application, to be included in the administrative area for Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi,” and conversely, “a municipality that is included in an administrative area following a decision by the Government can apply to the Government to exit the administrative area” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 7).

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

19

Sections 8–12 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) establish the right of the Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi minorities to use their own languages to communicate with an administrative authority, whether orally or in writing. Accordingly, Section 8 of the Act establishes that the Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi minorities “have the right to use Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi respectively in their oral and written contacts with an administrative authority whose geographical area of activities coincides wholly or partly with the administrative area of the minority language” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 8). Specifically, Section 8 of the Act establishes that If the individual uses Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi in such a matter, the authority is obliged to give an oral answer in the same language. Individuals who do not have a legal counsel are also entitled to receive, on request, a written translation of decisions and reasons for decisions in Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi respectively. (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 8)

Similarly, Section 10 of the Act establishes the right to use Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi in written contacts with the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Equality Ombudsman. The same applies to individuals’ written contacts with the Chancellor of Justice, … the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, the Swedish Tax Agency and the Swedish Public Employment Service in matters in which the individual is a party or a representative of a party. (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 10)

Notably, Section 9 of the Act establishes that speakers of Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi also have the right to use their own languages “outside an administrative area, … in oral and written contacts in administrative authorities’ matters in which the individual is a party or a representative of a party, if the matter can be processed by personnel who have a command of the minority language” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 9). Finally, Section 11 of the Act

20 

E. D. Faingold

states that “administrative authorities shall work to ensure access to personnel with a knowledge of Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi respectively when this is needed in individuals’ contacts with the authority” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 11). Specifically, Section 12 of the Act establishes that “administrative authorities may decide on special times and a special place for receiving visits by individuals who speak Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi respectively and to have special telephone hours” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 11). Sections 13–16 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) delineate the rights of the Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi minorities to use Finnish, Meänkieli, or Sámi “during the processing of the case or matter at the courts if the case or matter has a link to any of these municipalities” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 13). Specifically, Section 14 of the Act establishes that speakers of Finnish, Meänkieli, or Sámi have “the right to submit documents and documentary evidence in that language, the right to have the documents that belong to the case or matter translated orally into that language and the right to speak that language at oral proceedings before the court” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 14). Just as important, Section 16 of the Act establishes that “if a party or a representative of a party has the right to use Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi in a trial, an interpreter shall be engaged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Sections 6–8 and Chapter 33, Section 9 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and Sections 50–52 of the Administrative Procedure Act” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 16). Section 13 A person who is a party or a representative of a party in a case or matter at an administrative court, a district court, a land and environment court or a maritime court whose district coincides fully or partly with the municipalities of Gällivare, Haparanda, Kiruna, Pajala and Övertorneå has the right to use Finnish or Meänkieli during the processing of the case or matter if the case or matter has a link to any of these municipalities. The same applies to Sámi at such a court whose district coincides fully or partly with

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

21

the municipalities of Arjeplog, Gällivare, Jokkmokk or Kiruna if the case or matter has a link to any of these municipalities. The right to use Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi respectively also covers the courts to which a judgment or order in a case or matter referred to in the first paragraph is appealed. (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) Section 14 The right to use Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi in cases or matters at courts under Section 13 covers the right to submit documents and documentary evidence in that language, the right to have the documents that belong to the case or matter translated orally into that language and the right to speak that language at oral proceedings before the court. The court shall translate documents and documentary evidence into Swedish unless this is manifestly unnecessary. The court shall also generally endeavor to use the minority language in its contacts with the party or their representative. In all cases and matters covered by the right to use Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi at courts under Section 13, a party or a representative of a party who does not have legal counsel has the right to receive, on request, written translations of operative parts of the judgments and reasons for rulings in judgments or orders and reasons for orders into that language. (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) Section 15 A person who wants to use Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi during the processing of a case or matter at a court under Section 13 shall request this in conjunction with the opening of the case or matter or the first time the party has to state an opinion in the case or matter. A request to receive a translation under Section 14, third paragraph shall be presented within a week from when the judgment or decision was issued if such a request has not been presented previously during the processing of the case or matter. If a request to use a minority language or to have a translation produced is presented later than stated in the first and second paragraphs it may be refused. Such a request may also be refused if it manifestly has an improper purpose. (Ministry of Culture, 2009b)

Sections 17, 18, and 18a-18c of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) delineate the rights of the Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi minorities to use their languages in

22 

E. D. Faingold

preschools, and in certain other educational activities and in elderly care. Accordingly, Section 17 of the Act states that “the right for individuals to be offered preschool and certain other educational activities in Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi is regulated in Chapter 8, Section 12a and Chapter 25, Section 5a of the Education Act (2010:800)” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 17). Specifically, Section 18 of the Act establishes that “a municipality included in an administrative area shall offer a person who so requests the possibility of receiving the whole or a significant part of the service and care which is offered within the framework of elderly care from staff who have a command of Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi respectively” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 18). Importantly, Section 18a of the Act establishes that “A municipality not included in an administrative area shall offer a person who so requests the possibility of receiving … elderly care from personnel who have a command of Finnish, Yiddish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib or Sámi if the municipality has access to personnel with such language skills” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 18a). Equally important, Section 18b of the Act declares that “within the framework of care offered under Sections 18 and 18a, the municipality shall take account of the older people’s need to maintain their cultural identity” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 18b). Accordingly, Section 18c of the Act establishes that “the municipality shall inform a person applying for assistance within the framework of elderly care about the possibilities of service and care stated in Sections 18 and 18a” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 18c).

L egislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Sweden Until the mid-twentieth century Sweden remained a country of low immigration and relatively low cultural diversity. However, during World War II and its aftermath, with the arrival of 134,000 refugees from the other Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the Soviet-occupied Baltic

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

23

States, Sweden became a country of high immigration. In the 1950s, with the creation of a common market for Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden (1954), immigration rates increased again, when a new wave of immigrants arrived from Finland. The 1960s brought a new and notably more diverse wave of foreign workers, who came to Sweden from Greece, Turkey, and the former Yugoslavia attracted by high wages and generous social benefits. However, a continued tightening of the labor market during the late 1960s and the oil crisis of the early 1970s brought the era of labor immigration to a halt. At that time, refugee arrival rates reached new heights (Nordstrom, 2002). As the author points out, “as many as 30,000 persons a year sought asylum in Sweden … included Iranian, Iraqis, Kurds, Chileans, Eritreans, and Southeast Asians. In the late 1980s and 1990s many of the refugees were from the war-torn Balkans. … Many cities, but especially Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö, became strikingly multiethnic” (Nordstrom, 2002, p. 143). In the second decade of the twenty-first century, the armed conflict in Syria (and the passing of a new law granting blanket asylum to all Syrian refugees in 2013) brought nearly 190,000 Syrian refugees to Sweden (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/ syrian-­refugees-­sweden-­new-­life). Recently, as noted by Integration and Migration Minister Anders Ygeman, “since the start of the war in Ukraine, 34,400 Ukrainians have applied for protection in Sweden” (https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/sweden-­receives-­ fewer-­ukrainian-­refugees-­than-­expected/). However, as reported by Mikael Ribbenvik, director-general of the Swedish Migration Agency, “the current scenario is that 80,000 people will seek protection in Sweden in 2022 instead of the 200,000 expected in the most alarmist scenarios” (https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/ sweden-­receives-­fewer-­ukrainian-­refugees-­than-­expected/). The Swedish government does not collect information about the languages spoken in its territory, but fortunately for the purposes of this study, it does keep statistics on the citizenship and country of birth of all foreigners living in Sweden. For example, in 2018 the largest number of foreigners living in Sweden came from Syria (185,991), followed by Finland (147,883), Iraq (144,035), Poland (92,759), Iran (77,386), Somalia (68,678), Germany (51,140), Thailand (42,394), Norway,

24 

E. D. Faingold

(41,749), and Denmark (40,272) (http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/ pxweb/en/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101E/FodelselandArK/). Hence, the approximate number of speakers of foreign languages living in Sweden can be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy. For example, the number of Arabic-speakers living in Sweden can be estimated by adding up the number of Syrians (185,991), Iraqis (144,035), Egyptians (8154), Palestinians (7907), Sudanese (5915), Tunisians (5593), and Emiratis (3111), comprising a population of 360,706 people originating in Arabic-speaking countries (out of 10,230,185, or 3.5%, of the total population of Sweden). Thus, Swedish government statistics indicate that, after Swedish, Arabic is by far the most widely spoken language in Sweden, with about 360,706 speakers, followed by Finnish (147,883), Polish (92,759), Farsi (77,386), Somali (68,678), German (51,140), Thai (42,394), Norwegian (41,749), and Danish (40,272) (http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__BE__ BE0101__BE0101E/FodelselandArK/). In contrast to the other Scandinavian countries and most other European countries, however, Sweden does not have any language requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship. From time to time, the question of legislating language requirements for citizenship has been discussed by the Swedish government, for example, in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and in the government bill preceding the Citizenship Act of 2001. The issue was closely debated also in the electoral campaign of 2002, especially by the Liberal Party, which argued in favor of increasing the requirements to obtain Swedish citizenship. However, the arguments against language requirements for naturalization prevailed, mainly because of fears about putting integration and justice at risk (Lokranz Bernitz & Bernitz, 2006). As the author succinctly explains, According to the legal history of the Citizenship Act of 2001, the Swedish policy in this area is based on the idea that the immigrant has his or her own responsibility to learn the Swedish language, and that the immigrant is expected to do his or her best on the basis of their own individual qualifications. Swedish authorities are primarily responsible for organizing language courses, and the question of language fluency is therefore the task of the educational system. (Lokranz Bernitz & Bernitz, 2006, p. 545)

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

25

L egislation Concerning Language in the Public Sector and the Courts in Sweden As we have seen, Section 10 of the Language Act of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) establishes that “the language of the courts, administrative authorities and other bodies that perform tasks in the public sector is Swedish” (Language Act, 2009, Section 10). However, and just as important, Section 10 of the Language Act states that “other legislation contains provisions on the right to use national minority languages. … There are separate provisions concerning the obligation of courts and administrative authorities to use interpreters and to translate documents” (Language Act, 2009, Section 10). Accordingly, Section 8 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages of 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) establishes the right of the Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi minorities “to use Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi respectively in their oral and written contacts with an administrative authority whose geographical area of activities coincides wholly or partly with the administrative area of the minority language” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 8). More specifically, Article 8 establishes that “if the individual uses Finnish, Meänkieli and Sámi in such a matter, the authority is obliged to give an oral answer in the same language. Individuals who do not have a legal counsel are also entitled to receive, on request, a written translation of decisions and reasons for decisions in Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi respectively” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 8). Correspondingly, Section 13 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Ministry of Culture, 2009b) establishes the right of the Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi minorities to use their languages Finnish, Meänkieli, or Sámi “during the processing of the case or matter at the courts if the case or matter has a link to any of these municipalities” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 13). More specifically, Section 14 of the Act establishes that speakers of Finnish, Meänkieli, or Sámi have “the right to submit documents and documentary evidence in that language, the right to have the documents that belong to the case or matter translated orally into that language and the right to speak that language at oral

26 

E. D. Faingold

proceedings before the court” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 14). Finally, and just as important, Section 16 of the Act establishes that “if a party or a representative of a party has the right to use Finnish, Meänkieli or Sámi in a trial, an interpreter shall be engaged under the … Code of Judicial Procedure and … the Administrative Procedure Act” (Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 2009, Section 16). Thus, in Sweden, the employment of interpreters and translators by an administrative authority is governed by Section 13 of the Administrative Procedure Act: Section 13 Interpretation and translation An authority shall use an interpreter and arrange to translate documents if this is needed to enable a private person to look after their rights when the authority is in contact with someone who does not have a command of Swedish. In the same circumstances, an authority shall use an interpreter and make the content of documents accessible when it is in contact with someone who has a disability that severely limits their ability to see, hear or speak. (Administrative Procedure Act, 2017)

Correspondingly, the employment of interpreters by the courts is governed by Chapter 5, Section 6 of Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure: Chapter 5, Section 6 If a party, a witness, or any other person who shall be heard by the court is incapable of understanding and speaking Swedish, an interpreter may be engaged to assist the court. If a public interpreter for the language in question serves at the court, he shall be assigned. Otherwise, the court shall assign a suitable person to assist as interpreter in the case. … If the person to be heard has a serious hearing or speaking impediment, an interpreter may also be engaged to assist the court. … The government shall issue regulations concerning both the employment of public interpreters and the assignment of interpreters when the person to be heard has a serious hearing or speaking impediment. (Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 1998)

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

27

Accordingly, the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet) (https://www.kammarkollegiet.se/) is the government agency responsible for the authorization of interpreters. Regulations on the authorization of interpreters can be found in the Ordinance on Authorization of Interpreters and Translators (Legal, Financial, and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet), 1985): (The) authorization assignment is based on society’s need for skilled interpreters and translators who work every day to ensure that information in written documents and discussions is conveyed correctly. … (Kammarkollegiet) test(s) and approve(s) the skills levels of interpreters and translators by means of a test or based on their foreign professional qualifications. (It) also assess(es) their suitability for the profession. … (Kammarkollegiet) conduct(s) authorization tests for interpreters in about 50 languages. For interpreters, the tests are held at two levels: authorized interpreters and authorized interpreters with special expertise as legal interpreters and healthcare interpreters. Authorization tests for translators are held in about 30 languages to or from Swedish. … (Kammarkollegiet) maintain(s) oversight of authorized interpreters and translators. … (It) also maintain(s) a national register of authorized and trained interpreters and a register of authorized translators. … (Kammarkollegiet) also issue(s) interpreting and translating regulations, regulations concerning the register of qualified interpreters, and also advice concerning good interpreting and translating practice. (Legal, Financial, and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet), 1985, p. 1)

It is worth noting, however, that until October 31, 2017, Swedish courts were party to an agreement on the provision of interpretation and interpreting agency services with Kammarkollegiet, which expired without a new agreement being reached. Hence, Swedish courts are no longer required to use Kammarkollegiet as their direct provider of interpreters but courts may now contact any interpreting services agency of their choosing directly (Swedish National Courts Administration (Domstolsverket), 2017). Notably, as the new Swedish National Courts Administration’s (Domstolsverket) guidelines for the use of interpreting services point out, “purchases of interpreting agency services during a period when there is no agreement constitute direct procurements, which

28 

E. D. Faingold

are permitted up to a certain amount” (Swedish National Courts Administration (Domstolsverket), 2017, p. 7). Thus, Swedish is “the language of the courts, administrative authorities, and other bodies that perform tasks in the public sector in Sweden” (Language Act, 2009, Section 10). However, in Sweden, as we have seen, a number of linguistic laws were established to ensure equal access to the courts as well as government and public services for speakers of territorial minority languages (i.e., Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi), for persons who do not have sufficient command of Swedish, and for persons suffering from a hearing or speaking impediment (i.e., Sections 10 of the Language Act of 2009, Sections 8, 13, 14, and 16 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages of 2009, Section 13 of the Administrative Procedure Act of 2017, and Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure of 1998). Most importantly, the obligations of Swedish courts, administrative authorities, and other public sector bodies to provide interpreters and translators for all speakers of territorial minority languages, persons who do not have sufficient command of Swedish, and persons suffering from a hearing or speaking impediment are amply recognized by Swedish linguistic law, notably with interpreters being hired and compensated by the Swedish government (albeit with the purchase of interpretation and translation services limited to a certain amount since 2017).

L egislation Concerning Language and Education in Sweden The basic legislation for language and education in Sweden, which protects the right to inclusive education—not only for children who are deaf or hard of hearing, but also for children who speak national minority languages and immigrant languages—can be found in the Education Act of 2010, enacted on June 6, 2010 (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010). Accordingly, the Education Act contains provisions on the school system, which includes preschool, compulsory school, and upper secondary school, as well as other forms of special and ethnic education (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 1, Section 1).

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

29

In regard to preschool education, Chapter 8, Section 4 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010) establishes that “from the autumn term of the year in which the child reaches the age of three, children shall be offered preschool for at least 525 hours per year” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 8, Section 4). Notably, Chapter 8, Section 10 establishes that “the preschool shall contribute to children with a mother tongue other than Swedish being given the opportunity to develop both the Swedish language and their mother tongue” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 8, Section 10). Correspondingly, Chapter 8, Section 12b of the Education Act establishes that a “municipality that is part of an administrative area … shall offer children, whose guardians so request, a place in a preschool where the whole or a significant part of the education is conducted in Finnish, Meänkieli and Sami, respectively” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 8, Section 12b). Importantly, Chapter 8, Section 14 establishes that “children who, for physical, mental or other reasons, need special support in their development in the form of preschool must be offered preschool immediately” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 8, Section 14). Thus, the Ordinance on the Curriculum for the Preschool of 2018 (Ministry of Education and Science, 2018) stipulates that “the preschool should … place great emphasis on stimulating children’s language development in Swedish” (Ministry of Education and Science, 2018, p. 9). In the same breath, however, it establishes that “children belonging to national minorities, which include the indigenous Sámi people, should also be supported in their language development in their national minority language and promoted in their development of a cultural identity,” and that “the preschool should thereby help to protect and promote the languages and cultures of the national minorities” (Ministry of Education and Science, 2018, p. 9). Notably, the preschool Ordinance specifies that “for deaf children, children with impaired hearing and children who for other reasons need sign language, language development should be promoted in the Swedish sign language,” and that “children with a mother tongue other than Swedish should be given the opportunity to develop both the Swedish language and their mother tongue” (Ministry of Education and Science, 2018, p. 9). More concretely, the Ordinance on the Curriculum for the Preschool of 2018 (Ministry of Education and

30 

E. D. Faingold

Science, 2018) establishes that preschools should provide all children with the opportunity to develop • both the Swedish language and the national minority language, if the child belongs to a national minority, • both the Swedish language and their mother tongue, if the child has a mother tongue other than Swedish, • Swedish sign language, if the child has impaired hearing, is deaf or needs sign language for other reasons. (Ministry of Education and Science, 2018, p. 15) Notably, however, a recent ethnographic study on preschool teacher attitudes toward the concept of inclusion at a preschool in a Swedish municipality with a population of 38,000 residents (of which 10% were born outside of Sweden) (Hellman, 2019) shows that among many of the teachers in the preschool the most common understanding of inclusive education for students who speak a mother language other than Swedish was to foster language diversity and to build on children’s different home cultures: Linguistic diversity was considered important not only in creating caring relationships between the preschool teachers and the preschoolers and their parents but also as a teaching tool. However, for some teachers in the preschool the concept of inclusive education was understood as “the need for children with diverse backgrounds to learn Swedish … by promoting only the Swedish language in preschool. These teachers discussed the importance for children to learn what was considered ‘Swedish values’ and traditions” (Hellman, 2019, p.  114). As the author explains, Some teachers worked to make children use Swedish with the teachers and with one another, with Swedish deemed the proper language. Other languages were seen as temporary help when the children were new in the preschool environment. This was, according to the teachers, a faster way for inclusion for children who did not yet speak Swedish, both in peer-to-­ peer relations in play and for the children and their parents in Swedish society. … The teachers could also listen for events that may be considered unequal or undemocratic. This was also important for the principal who

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

31

discussed the necessity to check if something turned out to be unequal, especially since they now received some Muslim families in preschool. (Hellman, 2019, p. 110)

In short, as Hellman (2019) shows, the concept of inclusive education for children attending preschool in Sweden who speak a mother tongue other than Swedish can be understood in different ways by different teachers. For some preschool teachers, inclusion means promoting linguistic diversity and building on the children’s different home cultures. The children’s home languages and cultures are also seen as important to create caring relationships between the preschool teachers and the preschoolers and their parents, as well as crucial to foster a more positive learning environment in the preschool. However, for other teachers, inclusion is understood as stressing the need for promoting the Swedish language as a carrier of Swedish values and traditions. The children’s home languages and cultures are seen as a potential barrier to the successful acquisition of Swedish and Swedish mainstream values (Hellman, 2019; see, further, Åkerblom & Harju, 2019; Löthman & Puskás, 2021; Lunneblad, 2017; Puskás & Björk-Willén, 2017; Puskás & Andersson, 2021; Rissanen, 2022). Thus, despite the legal provisions in Chapter 8, Section 10 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010) and in the preschool Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2018, p. 18), that establish the right of immigrant children to be given the opportunity to develop both the Swedish language and their home language in preschool (if the child speaks a language other than Swedish at home), one must question whether all immigrant children who have the legal right to be afforded an opportunity to develop their mother tongue in Swedish preschools do, in fact, get it. In regard to compulsory education, Chapter 10, Section 3 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010) specifies that “the compulsory school shall have nine year courses, which are divided into primary, intermediate and upper secondary. The primary school consists of grades 1–3, the middle school of grades 4–6 and the high school of grades 7–9” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 3). The subjects that should be taught in compulsory school are specified in Chapter 10, Section 4 of the Act. These include art, English, home and

32 

E. D. Faingold

consumer knowledge, sports and health, mathematics, music, nature-­ oriented subjects (biology, physics, and chemistry), society-oriented subjects (geography, history, religious studies, and social studies), handicraft, Swedish or Swedish as a second language, and technology. In addition, Chapter 10, Section 4 of the Act establishes that “there must be modern languages as subjects that must be offered to each pupil within the framework of language choice and, for pupils who are to be offered mother tongue instruction, mother tongues” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 4). Finally, Chapter 10, Section 5 establishes that “the total teaching time for each pupil in compulsory school shall be at least 6,890 hours” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 5). Most important for our purposes, Chapter 7, Section 6 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010) establishes that “children who due to their disability or other special reasons cannot go to compulsory school or compulsory special school shall be admitted to the special school,” if they “1. are deafblind or otherwise visually impaired and have a further disability, 2. in other cases than those referred to in 1 are deaf or hard of hearing, or 3. have a severe language disorder” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 7, Section 6). Similarly, Chapter 7, Section 7, establishes that Sámi children “may fulfill their compulsory schooling in the Sámi school” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 7, Section 7). Just as important, Chapter 10, Section 7 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010), establishes that “a pupil who has a guardian with a mother tongue other than Swedish shall be offered mother tongue instruction in this language, if 1. the language is the pupil’s daily language of communication at home, and 2. the pupil has basic knowledge of the language” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 7). Similarly, Chapter 10, Section 7 of the Education Act also establishes that “a pupil who belongs to one of the national minorities must be offered mother tongue instruction in the pupil’s national minority language” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 7). Notably, since 2015, students with a national minority background are legally entitled to receive mother tongue instruction in the national minority languages, without needing to have prior knowledge of the language, at any grade during their compulsory education, even in cases where there is only one student who requests it (Lainio, 2018). Finally, Chapter 10,

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

33

Section 7a establishes that “a principal for compulsory school may … arrange Sámi teaching for pupils who may fulfill part of their compulsory schooling in the Sámi school” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 7a). Importantly, the School Ordinance of 2011 (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes a number of provisions that limit the right to receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory school, for both children with a national minority or immigrant background. First, Chapter 5, Section 7 of the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes that “the principal decides on a student’s mother tongue teaching” (emphasis added) (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 7). Second, Chapter 5, Section 9 of the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes that “mother tongue teaching may not cover more than one language for a pupil” (emphasis added) (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 9). Third, Chapter 5, Section 10 of the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes that “a principal is obliged to arrange mother tongue teaching in a language only if 1. at least five pupils to be offered mother tongue teaching of the language wish to receive such instruction, and 2. there is a suitable teacher” (emphasis added) (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 10). However, the last paragraph of Section 10 establishes that “the first subparagraph shall not apply to national minority languages” (emphasis added) (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 10). Finally, Chapter 9, Section 12 of the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes that “for students who have a language other than Swedish as a daily language of contact with one or both guardians, parts of the teaching in grades 1–6 may be arranged in this language,” but for Finnish students “such teaching may also be arranged in grades 7–9” (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 9, Section 12). However, Chapter 9, Section 13 of the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes that “during the total period during which the pupil receives bilingual education in accordance with Section 12, no more than half of the teaching may be given in the language of contact. Teaching must be planned so that teaching in Swedish gradually increases” (emphasis added) (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 9, Section 13).

34 

E. D. Faingold

In regard to upper secondary education, Chapter 15, Section 5 of the Education Act of 2010 (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010) establishes that “the upper secondary school shall be open only to young people who have completed their compulsory school education or equivalent education” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 15, Section 5). Notably, Chapter 15, Section 9 of the Education Act establishes that “the government may issue regulations on education in upper secondary school for students who are deaf, hard of hearing or deafblind or have a language disorder” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 15, Section 9). Just as important, Chapter 15, Section 19 of the Act establishes that “a pupil who has a guardian with a mother tongue other than Swedish shall be offered mother tongue instruction in this language if 1. the language is the pupil’s daily language of communication at home, and 2. the pupil has good knowledge of the language” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 15, Section 19). Similarly, Chapter 15, Section 19 of the Act establishes that “a student who belongs to one of the national minorities must be offered mother tongue instruction in the student’s national minority language if the student has good knowledge of the language” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 15, Section 19). As we have seen, in Sweden, students who are deaf or hard of hearing have the legal right to receive special education services (Education Act, 2010). This means that they are entitled to get support from the school, and notably, that teachers are required to adapt their teaching in order to help these students. Thus, deaf or hard of hearing children can attend one of Sweden’s five special schools for the deaf, which are under the authorization of the national government, or they can choose to go to a mainstream school in their municipality of residence (Holmström & Schönström, 2017). Irrespective of whether a school is authorized by the government or a municipality, all schools in Sweden are subject to the regulations established by the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Science, 2010). In 1981, Sweden was the first country in the world to grant a sign language de jure official recognition in a government bill (Proposition, 1980/81). Notably, this government bill established the need for deaf persons in Sweden to become bilingual: “Profoundly deaf people have to be bilingual to function among themselves and in society. Bilingualism

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

35

on their part … means that they have to be fluent in their visual/gestural sign language and in the language society surrounds them with—Swedish” (Proposition, 1980/81:100; cited by Nilsson & Schönstrom, 2014, p. 15). Accordingly, in the aftermath of the official recognition of Swedish Sign Language by the Swedish Parliament in 1981, a new national curriculum for deaf or hard of hearing children, which established Swedish Sign Language as the language of instruction for deaf children in Sweden, came into force in 1983. Notably, the 1983 curriculum established that, in addition to Swedish Sign Language, Swedish and English should also be taught to deaf children in Swedish special schools for the deaf (Nilsson & Schönstrom, 2014). Two decades later, a new syllabus for students with hearing loss attending special schools established that one of the main tasks of the special school is to support the language development of deaf students “by offering a rich sign language environment and good models of sign language” (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), 2002, p. 15; cited by Hult & Compton, 2012, p. 607). Accordingly, the new syllabus designated Swedish and Swedish Sign Language as the languages of instruction in the special schools for the deaf: “Education in the … (special school) is characterized by the fact that both Swedish and sign language are used in parallel in different functions and reinforce each other as tools for communication and learning” (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), 2002, p. 12; cited by Hult & Compton, 2012, p. 607). Thus, in Sweden, special schools for the deaf are responsible for developing students’ bilingualism in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language: The majority of pupils in the (special school) develop, in communication with sign language surroundings, their sign language as a first language. In such an environment, deaf and hearing impaired pupils are given the opportunity to develop high standards of bilingualism in sign language and Swedish. (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), 2002, p. 13; cited by Hult & Compton, 2012, p. 610)

Finally, students attending the special school are also expected to “use their knowledge of sign language and Swedish to develop proficiency in English as a foreign language, participate in drama, and develop their

36 

E. D. Faingold

deaf identities” (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), 2002; cited by Hult & Compton, 2012, p. 610). Thus, the special school “has the task of preparing pupils so that they can live and work as individuals with two languages in society” (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), 2002, p. 13; cited by Hult & Compton, 2012, p. 610). Notably, a study on the language/communication and school experiences of young people who attended a special school for the deaf in Sweden shows that the vast majority of the students “felt supported academically and socially because the school had an understanding and awareness of people who were deaf and sign language was used extensively” (Doherty, 2012, p.  293). As two of the students cited in the study state, I was able to follow most teachers and they understood about deaf people so I felt special from the start. They gave us loads of attention and were always ready to repeat anything we didn’t understand or sign it in another way until we did. (Ingrid, Sweden) (Doherty, 2012, p. 294) Teachers were good at explaining, they built up our self-esteem by telling us all the good things about being deaf, like having a unique language and interesting way of life and about famous successful deaf people and how we could achieve as much as hearing people. (Astrid, Sweden) (Doherty, 2012, p. 294)

Above all, as the author points out, “the high level of attention from teachers and assistants made them more confident in going about their classroom activities” (Doherty, 2012, p. 294). As another student states, It is great in school, we get a lot of support, especially for coping outside, and there is a counsellor who signs and some teachers are good to talk to but I never need to talk to anyone. (Olaf, Sweden) (Doherty, 2012, p. 294)

As the author concludes, “(the students’) needs had been met academically and socially. … They were, therefore, mostly positive about their experiences at school and felt they had gained some of the social skills necessary to function in the outside world” (Doherty, 2012, p. 294). As two students state,

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

37

I have got my Grade 10 test in Swedish, math and English, which I am very pleased about so I am continuing my education and will take more tests in a few years. If I did alright, I would get to university. (Bjorn, Sweden) (Doherty, 2012, p. 294) Teachers were good at explaining and helping us to understand; they supported us a lot. First they built up our self-esteem by telling us all the good things about being deaf, like having a unique language and interesting way of life, and by telling us about famous deaf people and how we could achieve just as much. (Astrid, Sweden) (Doherty, 2012, p. 294)

Last but not less important, according to the author, teachers in the special school are highly qualified and/or very experienced deaf education professionals who had been hired on the basis that they had earned the required state qualifications for teaching deaf children before beginning to teach. At the minimum, they already possessed the necessary skills and experience needed to teach deaf children, including the ability to use Swedish Sign Language and familiarity with deaf culture, as well as previous work experience with deaf children; or they had already worked as qualified professionals in the service sector with deaf children or youth. Teachers who lacked the required state qualifications were given a probationary contract with the option to pursue the necessary qualifications without which they could not receive a permanent contract (Doherty, 2012). Just as important, a recent study of resources available for deaf and hard of hearing students in mainstream schools in all of Sweden’s 290 municipalities explored what kind of access students with hearing loss have to Swedish Sign Language, as well as what kind of knowledge school personnel have regarding issues affecting these students (Holmström & Schönström, 2017). Notably, the study found substantial variation in the ways that different municipalities support students with hearing disabilities in mainstream schools, even between municipalities in the same county. Municipalities in Sweden make different decisions about who is responsible for deaf and hard of hearing students in mainstream schools; and thus, despite the acknowledged importance for deaf and hard of hearing students, teachers, and schools to have access to a specialist teacher responsible for deaf hard-of-hearing (DHH) students

38 

E. D. Faingold

(hörselpedagog), most municipalities in Sweden lack access to someone in this profession (Holmström & Schönström, 2017). As the authors conclude, The Education Act stipulates that all students have the right to develop to the extent possible based on their conditions. … We must question whether this objective is being met today. … No institution or authority now exists in Sweden with an overarching responsibility for DHH students. No one has the task of ensuring that students receive the support they need in order to benefit from teaching and to ensure that they are provided a useful school environment, regardless of where in the country they are receiving their education. In addition, a national strategic view of and clear set of ambitions for the schooling of DHH students is glaringly absent. (Holmström & Schönström, 2017, p. 38)

Last but certainly not least, Sweden has a large number of deaf or hard of hearing immigrants who need access to different types of courses in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language, but these courses are not commonly available in Sweden (Nilsson & Schönstrom, 2014). Recently, however, Västanviks folkhögskola (Folk High School), a high school for “deaf, hearing impaired and people suffering from deaf blindness who want to study and complete their previous studies and gain admission to college studies or to get a vocational education” (https://www.vastanviksfhs.se/skolan/in-­english/), started a special program for deaf and hard of hearing asylum seekers. In it, deaf and hard of hearing immigrants are given the opportunity to learn Swedish and Swedish Sign Language, and to learn more about Swedish society in general (Nilsson & Schönstrom, 2014). In regard to immigrant languages, compared to the other Scandinavian countries, the laws and regulations created to support the language rights of students with an immigrant background in Sweden look impressive. In practice, however, the implementation of these laws seems to lag behind. Notably, as we have seen, in Swedish schools, mother tongue instruction for immigrant children can only be offered if there are at least five students who wish to receive it and if a suitable teacher can be found (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 10). Thus, not all

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

39

immigrant students who have the legal right to receive mother tongue instruction in Swedish schools do, in fact, get it. Moreover, mother tongue instruction is a non-mandatory subject in Swedish schools, and parents have to put in a request to the school for their children to receive it (Palm et al., 2019). Finally, although the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes that mother tongue teaching may be organized in a variety of ways (i.e., “as language choice in primary and special education; as the student’s choice; within the framework of the school’s choice; or outside the guaranteed teaching time”) (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 8), more often than not it is offered after the end of regular school hours and for only about 40–60 minutes a week. Thus, teachers of mother tongue instruction of immigrant languages often note that this amount of time is insufficient for the purpose of meeting the subject requirements (Ganuza & Hedman, 2015; see, further, Palm et  al., 2019). Not surprisingly, as another study shows, in terms of social status, teachers of immigrant languages in Swedish schools seem to rank lower than all other language teachers (Cabau, 2009): Olle Josephson, Director of the Language Council, uses the stage of the teacher’s room to illustrate the issue of language status: The English and Swedish teachers are heard and listened to by other teachers; the Spanish, German and French teachers are under pressure but occupy a respected position; teachers of Swedish as a second language are often viewed as the ones who are not able to cope with larger classes, even if their teaching task is challenging because of the diversity of needs and preliminary knowledge of Swedish; finally the immigrant/minority languages are nowhere to be seen, be it in the teacher room or in the whole room. (Cabau, 2009, p. 381)

Last but not least, it is worth stressing that learning Swedish is deemed crucial for newcomer students in Swedish schools, while the students’ home languages are relegated to an almost insignificant role (Bunar, 2010). Thus, notwithstanding the proven benefits of mother tongue instruction for learning other subjects, as well as for the acquisition of Swedish as a second language and for the student’s personality development, Sweden’s main pedagogical response to increased diversity in the

40 

E. D. Faingold

schools is to offer more classes in Swedish as a Second Language (Nilsson & Bunar, 2016). In regard to the national minority languages of Sweden (i.e., Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish), as we have seen, students with a national minority background have the legal right to receive mother tongue instruction in these languages (Education Act, 2010). However, as shown above, the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes a number of provisions that limit the right to receive mother tongue instruction in the national minority languages in compulsory school. First, the principal is allowed to retain authority over the student’s mother tongue teaching (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 7). Hence, notwithstanding the fact that children who are members of national minority groups have de jure rights to receive mother tongue instruction in the national minority languages, “one person may decide the extent of the instruction. … Even 15 min a week of instruction could then be seen as sufficient to fulfill the demands of the … Education Act” (Vuorsola, 2019, p. 374). Second, students are not allowed to receive mother tongue instruction in more than one language (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 9). This means that “officially the policy does not recognize a situation where a pupil might speak two languages other than Swedish at home, which in practice means that Sweden does not recognize multilingualism” (Vuorsola, 2019, p.  374). Finally, according to the School Ordinance, only 50% of the teaching may be given in a language other than Swedish, while teaching in Swedish must gradually increase over time (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 9, Section 13). Hence, “minority language medium instruction starts of at 70% and decreases to 30% at the end of the ninth grade. … The status of Swedish is ameliorated over everything else and this status is enforced by law” (Vuorsola, 2019, p. 375). In Sweden, the number of students with a national minority background who were reported as qualified to receive mother tongue instruction in 2016–2017 was about 12,500, ranging from around 8900 for Finnish to about 20 for Yiddish (Lainio, 2018). However, the number of municipalities that offer it is much lower than the number of students eligible to receive it. This is especially true in the case of students who are members of the Finnish and Romani minority groups, where the demand

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

41

for instruction in Finnish and Romani Chib for eligible students is greater than the supply of teachers available. Thus, not all students who have the legal right to receive mother tongue instruction in a national minority language in Swedish schools do, in fact, get it (Lainio, 2018). Last but certainly not least, in regard to the bilingual education options offered in Swedish schools, it is worth noting that some national minority languages are in a more advantageous position than others. Thus, due to its official status as an indigenous language, Sámi is taught in the Sámi state school, in preschool, and in compulsory school from first grade to sixth grade (Lainio, 2018). Similarly, Finnish is also taught as an option in bilingual schools from first grade to ninth grade (From & Holm, 2019; Vuorsola, 2019). However, bilingual education is not offered in any of the other national minority languages (i.e., Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish) (Lainio, 2018). Let us now turn to language and higher education in Sweden. As we have seen, one of the major goals of the Language Act (Ministry of Culture, 2009a) was to protect the use of Swedish in domains in which English is powerful, namely business and higher education. However, the Language Act seems to have little or no effect on the growing importance of English in Swedish higher education. This is not surprising, since the Language Act establishes that Swedish is to be used in public administration, which includes higher education administration, but it does not provide any specific regulations regarding how Swedish and English are to be used for teaching and research dissemination at universities in Sweden. Instead, the creation and implementation of language policies for the use of Swedish and English by students, faculty, and staff are left to the universities—which are expected to comply with the requirements of the Language Act—to decide themselves (more or less as they wish). In the domain of Swedish higher education, much like in the rest of Scandinavia and other European countries (e.g., Airey et  al., 2017; Gregersen et  al., 2018; Hultgren et  al., 2014; Jenkins, 2014; Kuteeva et al., 2020; Salö et al., 2018), the use of English is expanding to almost all faculties and disciplines, especially for teaching at the advanced level (Cabau, 2011; Hult, 2012; Källkvist & Hult, 2016; Kuteeva et al., 2015; Pecorari et al., 2011; Salö, 2010). This is especially true in the natural sciences, technology, and engineering, where Sweden is “among the

42 

E. D. Faingold

European countries that offer the highest number of English-medium programs,” and notably, “the only country that has engineering and technology as the most represented subject areas” (Björkman, 2015, p. 118). Thus, the Swedish tertiary education system is increasingly becoming one of the most internationalized in Scandinavia and in Europe (Swedish Government Inquiry, 2018). In regard to the use of Swedish in higher education, the focus has been (1) on Swedish losing out to English as the academic language at universities in Sweden and (2) on Swedish terminology not being accessible to students and faculty (Björkman, 2015; see, further, Airey & Linder, 2008; Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hultgren, 2015). Notably, in Sweden, as in the rest of Scandinavia, the most commonly adopted approach to resolve these problems has been the so-called parallel language use system, where English is used side-by-side with a Scandinavian language, while students, faculty, and staff are expected to perform their duties effectively and efficiently in both languages (Björkman, 2015; see, further, Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hult & Källkvist, 2016; Källkvist & Hult, 2016). However, parallel language use can become problematic in situations where English is employed as a lingua franca by students, faculty, or university administrators who are non-native speakers of English and/or Swedish, since parallel language use requires that they all have an adequate level of proficiency in both languages in order to perform their duties satisfactorily (Björkman, 2015; see, further, Björkman, 2013, 2014). Notably, a detailed study of the existing language policy documents for nine Swedish universities (i.e., Gothenburg University, the Royal Institute of Technology, the Royal Institute of Art, Lund University, Malmö University, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå University, Karlstad University, and Stockholm University), that investigates attitudes toward the use of English in Swedish higher education by university administrators, shows that English is seen as a strong language that is here to stay. … It is a prerequisite for being a scholar or a student in an international university. … One needs to strive to achieve high proficiency and competence in it to be able to compete in the international higher education arena. The situation of

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

43

Swedish, on the other hand, is somewhat shaky. … In most of the documents it is clear that insisting on using only the local language in an international university setting is no longer possible or realistic in most communicative events. (emphasis added) (Björkman, 2015, p. 130)

Just as important, Swedish university policy documents leave out recommendation guidelines on specific language practices needed to address the issue of what parallel language use means in practice and how it can be attained (Björkman, 2015). To this end, the author rightly suggests that individual faculty or departments need to be involved in proactively addressing this issue by producing language policy documents which would provide such guidelines (Björkman, 2015; see, further, Airey et al., 2017; Kuteeva & Airey, 2014). In regard to the use of languages other than Swedish and English in higher education, a recent study on negotiations about multilingualism among the members of a committee charged with drafting a language policy document at a Swedish university shows how languages other than Swedish and English are seen as a resource (i.e., beneficial to the functioning of the institution) or as a problem (i.e., detrimental to the proper functioning of the institution) (Källkvist & Hult, 2020; see, further, Ruiz, 1984). Thus, as the authors reveal, Whereas Swedish-English parallel-language use is positioned as a resource in communicating research, other languages are framed as resources in more restricted and specific domains. … German is framed as a resource for Scandinavian Studies scholars, possibly also in archaeology, French as a resource in the fields of second language acquisition and second language education, and Danish in archaeology. Languages such as Italian, Spanish, Russian and Chinese are possible languages of theses in the relevant ­language disciplines at the University as long as such theses append summaries in English and Swedish. (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p. 77)

Moreover, as the authors continue, The major immigrant languages were … framed as resources in the University’s external communication as a means of reaching the parents of potential students with a migrant background in … recruitment activi-

44 

E. D. Faingold

ties. … Chinese is positioned as a resource also in the University’s external affairs involving exchange agreements with China. The Scandinavian languages are positioned as resources since receptive trilingualism of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish opens for a greater pool of expert academics from throughout Scandinavia that can serve as external reviewers and examiners of research degree theses. (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p. 77)

On the other hand, as the authors point out, for the purpose of teaching at the undergraduate level, Danish and Norwegian can also be considered as problems, since “receptive trilingualism can no longer be taken for granted among young Scandinavian adults who are beginning tertiary education, when they may have little experience and/or training in comprehending Danish and Norwegian” (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p. 80). Finally, as the authors reveal, “immigrant languages were not specifically included in the draft policy” (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p. 77), which is quite surprising, especially in the case of Arabic, which is spoken natively by hundreds of thousands of people in Sweden. Similarly, in regard to the national minority languages of Sweden (i.e., Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish), the authors state that “the discussion … centered on the University’s responsibility for one of them” (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p.  59). However, the authors do not reveal which of the five national minority languages was the one discussed by the committee during the drafting process, or why it was not included in the policy document. This comes as a surprise, certainly in the cases of Sámi and Finnish, since the former has official status as the indigenous language of Sweden (and is taught in compulsory school from preschool to sixth grade as provided by law), while the latter is spoken natively by hundreds of thousands of people in Sweden (and is taught in bilingual schools from first grade to ninth grade as permitted by law), as we have seen (Lainio, 2018; Vuorsola, 2019).

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

45

Conclusion This chapter studied the ways in which Swedish linguistic legislation addresses the language rights of the native Swedish-speaking majority vis-­ à-­vis those of linguistic minorities in Sweden, which include a deaf and hard of hearing population who need to learn and use Swedish Sign Language, five government recognized minority language groups (i.e., Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish), and persons who speak languages other than Swedish at home (i.e., immigrant languages). Thus, as we have seen, in contrast to the other Scandinavian countries and most European countries, Sweden does not have any language requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship. The Swedish policy in this area is based on the idea that the immigrant is the one who has the responsibility to learn the local language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for organizing language courses (Lokranz Bernitz & Bernitz, 2006). Also, as discussed above, a number of linguistic laws were established to ensure equal access to the courts and government and public services, not only for persons suffering from a hearing or speaking impediment, but also for speakers of territorial minority languages (i.e., Finnish, Meänkieli, and Sámi) and persons who do not have sufficient command of Swedish (i.e., immigrant language speakers) (Section 10 of the Language Act of 2009, Sections 8, 13, 14, and 16 of the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages of 2009, Section 13 of the Administrative Procedure Act of 2017, and Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure of 1998). Notably, with interpreters being hired and compensated by the Swedish government. As we have seen, the right to inclusive education in Swedish preschools—not only for children who need to learn sign language, but also for children who belong to a government recognized minority language group and for children who speak a language other than Swedish at home (i.e., immigrant languages)—seems to be comprehensibly protected by Swedish linguistic legislation (i.e., Language Act of 2009, Education Act of 2010, Ordinance on the Curriculum for the Preschool of 2018). However, for some preschool teachers inclusiveness is understood as emphasizing the children’s need to learn the Swedish language in

46 

E. D. Faingold

preschool, while the children’s home languages are seen as playing a marginal role at best or as a barrier to the successful acquisition of Swedish and Swedish mainstream values at worst (Hellman, 2019). Thus, despite the above mentioned de jure legislation that establishes the right of immigrant children to be given the opportunity to develop both the Swedish language and their home language in preschool (if the child speaks a language other than Swedish at home), one must question whether all immigrant children who have the legal right to be afforded an opportunity to develop their mother tongue in Swedish preschools do, in fact, get it. As with preschool education, in Sweden, the right to inclusive education in compulsory education—not only for children who need to learn sign language, but also for children who belong to a government recognized minority language group and for children who speak a language other than Swedish at home—seems amply protected by Swedish linguistic legislation (i.e., Language Act of 2009, Education Act of 2010). Accordingly, as we have seen, Swedish law establishes that children who are deaf or hard of hearing that “cannot go to compulsory school or compulsory special school shall be admitted to the special school” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 7, Section 7). This means that, in Sweden, children who have a hearing impairment and need to use sign language can attend one of Sweden’s five special schools for the deaf, where the special school is responsible for developing students’ bilingualism in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language, as well as proficiency in English as a foreign language; or they can choose to go to a mainstream school in their municipality of residence, where teachers are required to adapt instruction to the unique needs of students who suffer from a hearing or speech impediment. Thus, as we have seen, a detailed study about the school experiences of children who attended a special school for the deaf and hard of hearing in Sweden shows that the vast majority of these students “felt supported academically and socially because the school had an understanding and awareness of people who were deaf and sign language was used extensively” (Doherty, 2012, p. 293). Notably, as the author shows, all teachers in this special school are highly qualified and/or very experienced deaf education professionals (Doherty, 2012). In contrast, however, a comprehensive study of resources available for deaf and hard of

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

47

hearing students in mainstream schools in all of Sweden’s 290 municipalities found that, despite the acknowledged importance of having access to an in-house hörselpedagog (specialist teacher responsible for students who have a hearing impairment) for deaf and hard of hearing students, teachers, and schools, most municipal schools in Sweden lack access to someone in this profession (Holmström & Schönström, 2017). Thus, as the authors point out, despite the Education Act’s requirement that “all students have the right to develop to the extent possible based on their conditions. … We must question whether this objective is being met today” (Holmström & Schönström, 2017, p. 38). In regard to immigrant children, in compulsory education, as we have seen, Swedish law establishes that a student “who has a guardian with a mother tongue other than Swedish shall be offered mother tongue instruction in this language,” but only if “1. the language is the pupil’s daily language of communication at home, and 2. the pupil has basic knowledge of the language” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 7). Correspondingly, in upper secondary education, a student “who has a guardian with a mother tongue other than Swedish shall be offered mother tongue instruction in this language,” but only if “1. the language is the pupil’s daily language of communication at home, and 2. the pupil has good knowledge of the language” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 15, Section 19). However, as discussed above, the implementation of these laws seems to lag behind. First, mother tongue instruction for immigrant children can only be offered if there are at least five students who wish to receive it and if a suitable teacher can be found (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 10). Thus, not all immigrant students who have the legal right to receive mother tongue instruction in Swedish schools do, in fact, get it. Second, mother tongue instruction is a non-mandatory subject in Swedish schools, and parents have to put in a request to the school for their children to receive it. Third, mother tongue instruction is usually offered after the end of regular school hours and for only about 40–60 min a week (Ganuza & Hedman, 2015). Thus, one must question whether immigrant children who do receive mother tongue instruction in their home languages do, in fact, get effective instruction in these languages. Last but certainly not least, notwithstanding the proven benefits of mother tongue instruction for learning other subjects, for the

48 

E. D. Faingold

acquisition of Swedish as a second language, and for the student’s personality development, Sweden’s main pedagogical response to increased diversity in the schools is to offer more classes in Swedish as a Second Language, while immigrant languages are relegated to an almost insignificant role in the classroom (Nilsson & Bunar, 2016). In regard to children who belong to one of the government recognized national minorities attending compulsory school, as we have seen, Swedish law establishes that they “must be offered mother tongue instruction in the pupil’s national minority language” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 10, Section 7). Correspondingly, in upper secondary education, “a student who belongs to one of the national minorities must be offered mother tongue instruction in the student’s national minority language,” but only if “the student has good knowledge of the language” (Education Act, 2010, Chapter 15, Section 19). However, as mentioned before, the School Ordinance (Ministry of Education and Science, 2011) establishes a number of provisions that limit the right to receive mother tongue instruction in the national minority languages. First, the principal is allowed to retain authority over the student’s mother tongue teaching (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 7), which means that he or she is the sole decider of the scope of the instruction, and as one author points out it, “even 15 min a week of instruction could then be seen as sufficient to fulfill the demands of the … Education Act” (Vuorsola, 2019, p. 374). Second, students are not allowed to receive mother tongue instruction in more than one language (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 5, Section 9), and thus “officially the policy does not recognize a situation where a pupil might speak two languages other than Swedish at home, which in practice means that Sweden does not recognize multilingualism” (Vuorsola, 2019, p. 374). Finally, “no more than half of the teaching may be given in the language of contact. Teaching must be planned so that teaching in Swedish gradually increases” (School Ordinance, 2011, Chapter 9, Section 13), which means that the law ensures that “the status of Swedish is ameliorated over everything else” (Vuorsola, 2019, p. 375). Further, as noted above, the number of municipalities that offer mother tongue instruction in the national minority languages is much lower than the number of students eligible to receive it, especially in the case of Finnish and Romani Chib (Lainio, 2018). Thus, not all students who

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

49

have the legal right to receive mother tongue instruction in a national minority language in Swedish schools do, in fact, get it. Finally, as we have seen, due to its official status as an indigenous language, Sámi is taught in the Sámi state school, in preschool, and in compulsory school from first grade to sixth grade. Similarly, due to the high number of students who are legally entitled to learn it, Finnish is taught as an option in bilingual schools from first grade to ninth grade. Yet, bilingual education is not offered in any of the other three national minority languages (i.e., Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish) (Lainio, 2018). In regard to tertiary education in Sweden, as we have seen, the Language Act seems to have had little effect on the growing importance of English in Swedish higher education (i.e., the use of English is expanding to almost all faculties and disciplines in the Swedish tertiary education system). This comes as no surprise since the Language Act does not include any specific regulations about how Swedish and English are to be used for teaching and research at universities in Sweden and the creation and implementation of language policies for the use of these languages are left to the universities to decide themselves. Notably, as in the rest of Scandinavia, the most commonly adopted policy employed by Swedish universities to deal with both the pedagogical and language rights issues that arise from the fact that English is expanding to almost all faculties and disciplines in higher education is the so-called parallel language use system, where English is used side-by-side with a Scandinavian language (Björkman, 2015). Finally, as discussed above, a recent study on negotiations about multilingualism among the members of a committee charged with drafting a language policy document at a Swedish university shows how languages other than Swedish and English can be seen as more or less beneficial or useful to the operations of the institution (Källkvist & Hult, 2020). Thus, German is considered as beneficial to Scandinavian studies scholars (and maybe also in archeology), while French is seen as useful in the areas of second language acquisition and second language education, and Danish in archeology. Next, Italian, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese are seen as possible languages for the writing of theses in the appropriate language disciplines (provided that summaries in English and Swedish are added to the theses). Danish and Norwegian are also seen as important because receptive trilingualism of Danish, Norwegian,

50 

E. D. Faingold

and Swedish allows for recruiting a greater pool of expert academics who speak “Scandinavian” and can serve as external reviewers and examiners of theses and dissertations. However, as the authors note, “immigrant languages were not specifically included in the draft policy” (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p.  77). This is quite surprising, especially in the case of Arabic, a language spoken natively by hundreds of thousands of people in Sweden. Similarly, in regard to the national minority languages of Sweden, the authors note that “the discussion … centered on the University’s responsibility for one of them” (Källkvist & Hult, 2020, p. 59)—a language that the authors do not reveal—and thus the reader is left guessing which of the five national minority languages was the one discussed by the committee, and why the other four government recognized national languages were never discussed, let alone included in the policy document. This is most surprising, especially in the case of Sámi and Finnish—the former having official status as the indigenous language of Sweden, while the latter is spoken natively by hundreds of thousands of people in Sweden. Last but certainly not least, it is worth noting that immigrant languages are never specifically mentioned in Swedish linguistic legislation. Crucially, no mention is made of Arabic, which is the most widely spoken foreign language in Sweden. However, this comes as no surprise, since the exclusion of immigrant languages from ECRML reflects a widely held view among scholars and other agents of influence in language policy that immigrant minorities are less entitled to language rights than indigenous groups (Faingold, 2015, 2016, 2020). Yet, the notion that the language rights of indigenous minorities necessarily supersede those of all immigrant groups is not carved in stone. As one author notes, As time passes migrant languages are spoken by second- or third- rather than first-generation groups and the dividing line between migrancy and indigeneity becomes less obvious. … In recent times, ‘migrants’ have taken up citizenship of the country in which they live and the dividing line between migrants and non-citizens is becoming increasingly dubious. As the status of migrant changes from that of incomer to citizen, it may be logical to ask what the implications for their languages are. The change in status may make the non-recognition of their languages increasingly untenable. (Nic Craith, 2006, p. 162)

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

51

Similarly, as another scholar succinctly puts it, “it may be possible for languages of immigrants to become sufficiently established on the territory of a state that they become, with the passage of time, ‘a regional or minority language’” (Dunbar, 2008, p. 45). Thus, due to “their historical presence in Sweden” (Norrby, 2008, p. 65), Yiddish and Romani Chib were granted official minority status by the Swedish Parliament in 1999. Likewise, when the Language Act was passed in 2009 (Ministry of Culture, 2009a), the most important criterion for recognizing the language rights of Sweden’s five official minority languages was deemed to be that the languages in question “were spoken continually for more than one hundred years or for at least three generations” (Sundberg, 2013, p. 212). In short, because of Swedish extant legislation and legal precedent, it is not unthinkable that within three generations or so, Arabic, which is by far the most widely spoken foreign language of Sweden, could acquire a new status as an officially recognized minority language of Sweden.

References Administrative Procedure Act. (2017). https://www.government.se/49855a/ contentassets/3c56d854a4034fae9160e12738429fb8/the-administrative-­ procedure-­act-­2017900 Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in Swedish university science courses. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.105 Airey, J., Lauridsen, K. M., Räsänen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-­down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-­015-­9950-­2 Åkerblom, A., & Harju, A. (2019). The becoming of a Swedish preschool child? Migrant children and everyday nationalism. Children's Geographies, 19, 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1566517 Berg, E. C., Hult, F. M., & King, K. A. (2001). Shaping the climate for language shift? English in Sweden’s elite domains. World Englishes, 20, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­971x.00217

52 

E. D. Faingold

Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. De Gruyter Mouton. Björkman, B. (2014). Language ideology or language practice? An analysis of language policy documents at Swedish universities. Multilingua, 33, 335–365. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-­2014-­0016 Björkman, B. (2015). Attitudes towards English in university language policy documents in Sweden. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Attitudes towards English in Europe (pp. 88–103). De Gruyter Mouton. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the “threat” of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/01434632.2012.670241 Bunar, N. (2010). Nyanlända och lärande: En forskningsöversikt om nyanlända elever i den svenska skolan (Newly arrived students and their learning: A review of studies on newly arrived students in the Swedish school). Vetenskapsrådet. Retrieved form https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d2 5b5f/1529480533281/Nyanlaenda-­och-­laerande_VR_2010.pdf Cabau, B. (2009). Language-in-education issues: Sweden as a case study. Educational Studies, 35, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03055690802648366 Cabau, B. (2011). Language policy in Swedish higher education: A contextualized perspective. European Journal of Language Policy, 3, 37–60. https://doi. org/10.3828/ejlp.2011.4 Doherty, M. (2012). Policy and practice in deaf education: Views and experiences of teachers, and of young people who are deaf in Northern Ireland and Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27, 281–299. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.678663 Dunbar, R. (2008). Definitively interpreting the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages: The legal challenges. In Council of Europe (Ed.), The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: Legal challenges and opportunities (pp. 37–61). Council of Europe Publishing. Faingold, E. D. (2015). Language rights in the European Union and the Treaty of Lisbon. Language Problems and Language Planning, 39, 33–49. https://doi. org/10.1075/lplp.39.1.02fai Faingold, E.  D. (2016). Language rights in Catalonia and the constitutional right to secede from Spain. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40, 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.40.2.02fai

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

53

Faingold, E.  D. (2020). Language rights and the law in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. From, T., & Holm, G. (2019). Language crashes and shifting generations: The construction and negotiation of linguistic value in bilingual school spaces in Finland and Sweden. Language and Education, 33, 195–210. https://doi. org/1080/09500782.2018.1514045. Ganuza, N., & Hedman, C. (2015). Struggles for legitimacy in mother tongue instruction in Sweden. Language and Education, 29, 125–139. https://doi. org/10.1080/09500782.2014.978871 Gregersen, F., Josephson, O., Kristofferson, G., Östman, J.  O., Londen, M., Holmen, A., et  al. (2018). More parallel, please! Best practice of parallel language use at Nordic Universities: 11 recommendations. Nordic Council of Ministers. https://norden.diva-­portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1203291/ FULLTEXT01.pdf Hellman, A. (2019). Negotiating ‘real families in Swedish preschools. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families, children, and early childhood education (pp.  101–117). Palgrave Macmillan. Holmström, I., & Schönström, K. (2017). Resources for deaf and hard-of-­ hearing students in mainstream schools in Sweden: A survey. Deafness and Education International, 19, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464315 4.2017.1292670 Hult, F. M. (2012). English as a transcultural language in Swedish policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 230–257. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/41576046 Hult, F. M., & Compton, S. E. (2012). Deaf education policy as language policy: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. Sign Language Studies, 12, 602–620. Hult, F. M., & Källkvist, M. (2016). Global flows in local language planning: Articulating parallel language use in Swedish university policies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17, 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/1466420 8.2016.1106395 Hultgren, A. K. (2015). English as an international language of science and its effect on Nordic terminology: The view of scientists. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Attitudes towards English in Europe (pp. 104–123). De Gruyter Mouton. Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F., & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.). (2014). English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices. John Benjamins.

54 

E. D. Faingold

Jenkins, J. (2014). English as lingua Franca in the international university. Routledge. Källkvist, M., & Hult, F. M. (2016). Discursive mechanisms and human agency in language policy formation: Negotiation bilingualism and parallel language use at a Swedish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.956044 Källkvist, M., & Hult, F. M. (2020). Multilingualism as a problem or resource? Negotiating space for languages other than Swedish and English in university language planning. In M.  Kuteeva, K.  Kaufhold, & N.  Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp.  57–84). Palgrave Macmillan. Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in knowledge structures and their impact on the use of English in Swedish higher education. Higher Education, 67, 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­013-­9660-­6 Kuteeva, M., Hynninen, N., & Haslam, M. (2015). “It’s so natural to mix languages”: Attitudes towards English-medium instruction in Sweden. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Attitudes towards English in Europe (pp. 143–157). De Gruyter Mouton. Kuteeva, M., Kaufhold, K., & Hynninen, N. (Eds.). (2020). Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities. Palgrave Macmillan. Lainio, J. (2018). The five national minorities in Sweden and their languages: The state of the art and ongoing trends. In N. E. Forsgård & L. Markelin (Eds.), Perspectives on minorities in the Baltic Sea area (pp. 45–76). Magma. Legal, Financial, and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet). (1985). Ordinance on authorization on interpreters and translators. https://www.kammarkollegiet.se/engelska/start/about-­u s/our-­t asks/ authorisation-­of-­interpreters-­and-­translators-­in-­sweden Lokranz Bernitz, H., & Bernitz, H. (2006). Sweden. In R. Bauböck, E. Ersbøll, K. Groenendijk, & H. Waldrauch (Eds.), Acquisition and loss of nationality: Policy trends in 15 European states. Volume 2: Country analyses (pp. 517–549). Amsterdam University Press. Löthman, C., & Puskás, T. (2021). On the way towards integration? From monologic to dialogic encounters in Swedish rural preschools. European Early Childhood Research Journal, 30, 1–14. https://www.diva-­portal. org/smash/get/diva2:1593637/FULLTEXT01.pdf. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1350293X.2021.1974919 Lunneblad, J. (2017). Integration of refugee children and their families in the Swedish preschool: Strategies, objectives and standards. European Early

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

55

Childhood Education Research Journal, 25, 359–369. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1350293X.2017.1308162 Milani, T. (2007). Voices of endangerment: A language ideological debate on the Swedish language. In A.  Duchȇne & M.  Heller (Eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages (pp. 169–196). Continuum. Milani, T. (2008). Language testing and citizenship: A language ideological debate in Sweden. Language in Society, 37, 27–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0047404508080029 Ministry of Culture. (2009a). Language act. https://www.eui.eu/Projects/ InternationalArtHeritageLaw/Documents/NationalLegislation/Sweden/languageact.pdf Ministry of Culture. (2009b). Act on national minorities and minority languages. https://www.minoritet.se/6714?file_id=1 Ministry of Education and Science. (2010). Education act. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-­l agar/dokument/svensk-­f orfattningssamling/ skollag-­2010800_sfs-­2010-­800 Ministry of Education and Science. (2011). School ordinance. Retrieved from School Ordinance (2011:185) Swedish Code of Statutes 2011:2011:185 up to and including SFS 2022:942 – Riksdagen. Ministry of Education and Science. (2018). Ordinance on the curriculum for the preschool. https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a6 5d897/1553968298535/pdf4049.pdf2019 Nic Craith, M. (2006). Europe and the politics of language. Palgrave Macmillan. Nilsson, J., & Bunar, N. (2016). Educational responses to newly arrived students in Sweden: Understanding the structure and influence of post-­migration ecology. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 399–416. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1024160 Nilsson, A.-L., & Schönstrom, K. (2014). Swedish sign language as a second language: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In D. McKee & R. S. Rosen (Eds.), Teaching and learning signed languages: International perspectives and practices (pp. 11–34). Palgrave Macmillan. Nordstrom, B. J. (2002). The history of Sweden. Greenwood Press. Norrby, C. (2008). Swedish language policy: Multilingual paradise or utopian dream? In J. Warren & H. M. Benbow (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Reflections on language identity (pp. 63–76). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

56 

E. D. Faingold

Oakes, L. (2005). From internationalisation to globalisation: Language and the nationalist revival in Sweden. Language Problems and Language Planning, 29, 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.29.2.04oak Palm, C., Ganuza, N., & Hedman, C. (2019). Language use and investment among children and adolescents of Somali heritage in Sweden. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40, 64–75. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/01434632.2018.1467426 Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Malström, H., & Irvine, A. (2011). English textbooks in parallel-language tertiary education. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 313–333. https:// doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247709 Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. Routledge. Proposition (1980/81:100), Appendix 12. Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildningsdepartementet. Cited by Nilsson & Schönstrom (2014). Puskás, T., & Andersson, A. (2021). Preschool teachers as keepers of traditions and agents of change. Early Years, 41, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09575146.2018.1515892 Puskás, T., & Björk-Willén, P. (2017). Dilemmatic aspects of language policies in a trilingual preschool group. Multilingua, 36, 425–449. https://doi. org/10.1515/multi-­2016-­0025 Rissanen, I. (2022). School-Muslim parent collaboration in Finland and Sweden: Exploring the role of parental cultural capital. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383 1.2020.1817775 Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15–34. Salö, L. (2010). Engelska eller svenska? En kartläggning av sprâksituationen inom högre utbildning och forskning. Språkrådet. https://isof.diva-­portal.org/smash/ get/diva2:1517848/FULLTEXT01.pdf Salö, L., Ganuza, N., Hedman, C., & Karrebæk, M. S. (2018). Mother tongue instruction in Sweden and Denmark: Language policy, cross-field effects, and linguistic exchange rates. Language Policy, 17, 591–610. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10993-­018-­9472-­8 Sundberg, G. (2013). Language policy and multilingual identity in Sweden through the lens of generation Y. Scandinavian Studies, 85, 205–232. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/scanstud.85.2.0205 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. (1998). https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/ speciality_distribution/public/documents/National_Regulations/National_ Laws_on_the_Bars/EN_Sweden_Swedish-­Code-­of-­Judicial-­Procedure.pdf

2  Language Rights and the Law in Sweden 

57

Swedish Government Inquiry. (2018). Internationalisation of Swedish higher education and research: A strategic agenda. Elanders Sverige. https://www.government.se/48fc30/contentassets/4df6aeabd2bd4f5dbbf69210f786e133/ internationalisationagenda.pdf Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket). (2002). Specialskola (school for pupils with hearing impairment) syllabuses. Cited by Hult & Compton (2012). Swedish National Courts Administration (Domstolsverket). (2017). Guidelines for the use of interpreters in courts of law. https://www.rattstolkarna.se/files/ Tolkpolicy/guidelinesfortheuseofinterpretersincourtsoflaw.pdf Vuorsola, L. (2019). Societal support for the educational provisions of Finnish in the Swedish school system in theory and practice. Language Policy, 18, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-­018-­9491-­5 Winsa, B. (2005). Language planning in Sweden. In R. B. Kaplan & R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Europe. Vol. 1. Hungary, Finland, and Sweden (pp. 233–330). Multilingual Matters.

3 Language Rights and the Law in Denmark

From 1397 until 1523, the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were joined in personal union, the Kalmar Union, under a single monarch, with a ruler of the Danish dynasty of the House of Oldenburg as regent of the Union. Importantly, at that time, real power in the Nordic region was located neither in the hands of the Danish monarchy or the nobility but in those of the Hanseatic League, a powerful coercive cartel that monopolized all the trade of foodstuffs and raw materials in and out of the Baltic Sea. However, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, with the emergence of new centers of economic power in Europe, the political landscape in the region changed, resulting in the Hanseatic League losing its monopoly over the Baltic trade and in major changes in European political structures in Europe of crucial importance to Denmark. The most noticeable development was the fall of the Kalmar Union, which was replaced by two independent states, a new Swedish kingdom ruled by the House of Vasa and the Twin Kingdoms of Denmark-Norway. Notably, each of the two Scandinavian powers had radically opposing interests in the Nordic region, especially about who should take control of the Baltic Sea. Hence, they became mortal enemies and went to war with each other, with dire

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_3

59

60 

E. D. Faingold

consequences for the Twin Monarchy of Denmark and Norway (Jespersen, 2019). As the author explains, These were Torstensson’s War, 1643–5 and the Karl Gustav Wars, 1657-60. The first was an unexpected lightning attack by Sweden on Denmark. … Denmark had to cede the province of Halland to the Swedes. … The Karl Gustav Wars, which ironically were again declared by Denmark, fully confirmed this comedown. … Only the unexpected death of Karl X Gustav … in 1660 and the intervention of the Western powers prevented the country’s demise as a sovereign state. The price was the surrender to Sweden of the old Norwegian regions of Jämtland, Härjedalen and Bohuslän and all of the Scanian provinces. (Jespersen, 2019, p. 16)

In the aftermath of Denmark’s defeat in the wars of the middle of the seventeenth century against Sweden, Danish losses amounted to nearly a third of its territory and a corresponding proportion of its population at the time. Importantly for our purposes, Sweden embarked on a determined campaign to eradicate all traces of the Danish language from southern Sweden. About a century and a half later, following Napoleon’s victory over Russia in the summer of 1807, France succeeded in making Denmark join the coalition in France’s war against England. England reacted very quickly, delivering an ultimatum to Denmark to either confine its fleet to port or surrender it for the duration of the war. In the meantime, French troops waited in Denmark’s southern border ready to invade, while Swedish troops waited to invade Norway, which was part of the Kingdom of Denmark at the time. The military impasse was broken by England’s attack, which landed troops in Copenhagen in August 1807, bombarding the city from August 16 to September 5. With Copenhagen burning, Denmark surrendered and was forced to hand over Norway (which possessed vast natural resources and had been a part of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1387) to Sweden (Jespersen, 2019). Thus, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, in which Denmark again fought on the losing side, the loss of Norway meant a significant change in the composition of Denmark’s population. Nevertheless, Denmark was able to remain an independent kingdom and to keep the twin duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland (Jespersen, 2019).

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

61

About half a century later, Denmark became involved in a conflict with a revolutionary army allied to Prussia over the status of Schleswig and Holstein, which were ruled as separated duchies within the Kingdom of Denmark. Due to international pressure by Russia, France, and England, Prussia soon withdrew from the war and the revolutionary army was defeated. As a result, the Kingdom of Denmark succeeded once again in retaining the two duchies in what became known as the First Schleswig War (1848–1851) (Jespersen, 2019). In the aftermath of the First Schleswig War, Denmark tried to incorporate the two duchies into the Kingdom of Denmark by altering the Danish Kingdom’s Constitution, in an attempt to change the status quo in Schleswig and Holstein, even though it had agreed to preserve the special status of the two duchies. Thus, Denmark ignited the spark that started the Second Schleswig War in 1864, this time against the vastly superior army of the Prussian-Austrian alliance. The war ended with the Danish army being soundly defeated and with the incorporation of the two duchies into Prussia and later into Germany (Jespersen, 2019). Again, strikingly, Denmark was able to remain an independent kingdom and to keep the North Atlantic islands of Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland (which, less than a century later, and without much fanfare, would become an independent country during World War II, with U.S.  President Franklin Roosevelt’s support) (https://history.state.gov/ countries/Iceland) (see Chap. 5). The Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state with two self-governing overseas administrative divisions, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Each administrative division of the kingdom has its own legally recognized ethnicity and official language, but Danish can be used to interact with public officials in both autonomous territories. In accordance with public international law, “Greenland and the Faroe Islands are considered independent states but part of the kingdom, which means that the state of Denmark is ultimately responsible … for the conduct of the public authorities of the Faroe Islands and Greenland” (Mortensen & Suksi, 2019, pp. 62–63) (see Chaps. 6 and 7). This chapter studies the ways in which Denmark addresses the issue of language rights of language minorities. With the exception of the German-speaking population in South Jutland, Denmark has no large

62 

E. D. Faingold

indigenous minorities living in its territory. However, since the 1960s, Denmark has seen a steady influx of immigrants from mostly non-European (Muslim) countries, with a concomitant sixfold increase in immigration, amounting to about 10% of Denmark’s population today. In recent years, growing negative feelings toward immigration in Denmark have become associated with the growing numbers (and concomitant visibility) of Muslim immigrants and their descendants, leading to the passing of a wide array of laws that have increasingly hampered the language rights of non-Western immigrants in the workplace as well as in the areas of naturalization and education, including regulations that allow employers to prohibit the use of immigrant languages in the workplace at all times; language requirements that make excessive demands in Danish proficiency for non-Western immigrants seeking to obtain a permanent residence permit or to become naturalized Danish citizens; and laws that disregard the cultural and linguistic experiences of immigrant children and greatly restrict or outright ban mother tongue education.

Language and the Law in Denmark As we have seen, in the aftermath of the loss of the Scanian territory in the Scandinavian peninsula to Sweden in the seventeenth century, and the loss of Norway in the early nineteenth century to Sweden, which were followed by the loss of the twin duchies of Schleswig and Holstein to Germany in the mid-nineteenth century, and by the independence of Iceland during World War II, Denmark became a much smaller and more ethnically and linguistically homogenous country. Danish became the predominant language with pockets of minority language speakers of German in southern Denmark (Korsgaard, 2006). In contrast with the other major Scandinavian countries and most EU countries, with the exception of the German-speaking minority in South Jutland, Denmark today has no significant indigenous minorities living in its territory. Moreover, Denmark has not traditionally been as attractive to immigrants as the two neighboring countries to its north and south (Sweden and Germany).

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

63

The German-speaking minority inhabits the southern and eastern parts of South Jutland and comprises a population of between 15,000 and 20,000 speakers. In addition to German and Danish, a large number of the German-speakers, especially within the rural population, also speak Sønderjysk, a South Jutland dialect of Danish, while the rest of the Germanspeaking population traditionally speak High German and Danish (http://minorityrights.org/minorities/germans-­of-­south-­jutland/). As a study on Scandinavian law notes, “the Danish Constitution contains no special minority rules concerning the German minority, who have no specific status, not even in relation to political assemblies. In contrast with the Faroe Islanders and the Greenlanders, the German minority is not ensured a representative in the Danish parliament” (Mortensen & Suksi, 2019, p. 73). However, the official status of German as a minority language in Denmark is recognized by a bilateral agreement between the governments of Denmark and Germany and by two EU agreements: (1) the 1955 Copenhagen-Bonn Declarations, which recognized the German minority in South Jutland’s right to education in the German language; (2) the 1997 Danish ratification of the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which recognizes the German minority as a national minority in South Jutland and establishes the right to equality and non-discrimination in daily life (economic, political, cultural, educational, social, etc.), as well as the right of individuals to learn the minority language and to set up and manage language minority educational institutions; and (3) the 2001 Danish ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which designates German in South Jutland as a regional minority language, provides for preschool, primary, and secondary education in German (when a sufficient number of students request it) as well as for the training of teachers necessary to implement the teaching of German language, culture, and history in minority institutions (Hegelund, 2002). As the author notes, “the German minority is especially guaranteed equal rights as those of the Danish majority … with the added force of special provisions and rights which are given as group rights to the German national minority in its traditional territory” (Hegelund, 2002, p. 95).

64 

E. D. Faingold

Finally, and very importantly for our purposes, to this day Denmark neither enacted a law declaring Danish the de jure official language of the country, nor did it enact any language provisions, to protect the Danish language in its constitution. Nevertheless, Danish is treated as the de facto official language of Denmark under the ordinary law of the country.

L egislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Denmark In contrast with most other industrialized European countries, the increasing demand for labor in the 1960s and early 1970s in Denmark was mostly met by married women who entered the paid labor force in large numbers (Gulløv, 2012). Nevertheless, a small number of foreign-­ born workers, or guest workers (gœstearbejdere), came to Denmark from Turkey, Pakistan, and Yugoslavia during the 1960s, until the oil crisis of 1973 ended the need to import workers (Schwartz, 1985). In 1974, there were 6779 citizens from Yugoslavia, 8138 citizens from Turkey, and 3773 citizens from Pakistan living in Denmark, which were outnumbered by 50,669 citizens from the Nordic countries and the EU. While the recruitment of guest workers came to a halt as part of a plan to end immigration in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis, those guest workers already in the country were granted permission to stay as well as the opportunity to bring close family members (Nannestad, 2004). Since the 1980s, the number of foreign-born residents has increased sixfold through family reunification programs and the arrival of refugees from Islamic countries, including Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kosovo, and Somalia (Mouritsen, 2006; Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014). Thus, family reunification and asylum claims became the two non-employment ways around Denmark’s official end of immigration. Denmark has an immigrant population of about 10%, including descendants (persons born in Denmark with two foreign-born parents) (Björklund et  al., 2013; Lithman, 2013). Of these, about two-thirds originate from non-Western countries (see above) and about one-third from Western countries (Lithman, 2013; Schmidt, 2013). At the time of

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

65

this writing (2018Q2), there are 250,764 immigrants from Western countries and 346,154 immigrants from non-Western countries, and 29,518 descendants from Western countries and 150,993 descendants from non-Western countries, living in Denmark (https://www.dst.dk/en/ Statistik/emner/befolkning-­og-­valg/indvandrere-­og-­efterkommere). Since the late 1980s, immigration has become negatively associated with the growing numbers of Muslim immigrants and their descendants (Enoch, 1994; Jenkins, 2011; Jensen, 1999a, 1999b, 2011; Olwig & Paerregaard, 2011; Rytter, 2011, 2013; Schmidt, 2011; Sjørslev, 2011). As one Danish scholar notes, “an increase is visible from the early or mid-­1990s in affirmations of national pride and cultural superiority, fear of national culture being threatened by immigration, and support of assimilation (citizenship conditional on ‘learning to behave like Danes’)” (Mouritsen, 2006, p. 75). Particularly, attitudes toward Muslim immigrants became increasingly negative in the aftermath of the cartoon crisis of 2006, when one of Denmark’s large newspapers published a cartoon that depicted the prophet Mohammed wearing a turban containing a bomb (Henkel, 2011; Hervik, 2011), which “caused many to regard the growing number of Muslim immigrants with increased distrust. … This anger and suspicion was also directed at the very great majority of peaceful and loyal Danish Muslims” (Jespersen, 2019, p. 229). A variety of surveys, including the European Social Survey, show a significant distinction of attitudes toward immigrants in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. These surveys show consistently that Sweden is the most liberal in terms of attitudes toward immigrants, while Denmark is the least tolerant, and Norway is in between (Lithman, 2013). Danes are the most likely nationality in the EU to blame minorities (i.e., Muslims) for social problems (e.g., unemployment, education, and crime) (Constant & Schultz-Nielsen, 2004; Grillo, 2011; Jensen, 2011; Sausdal, 2014). “On Eurobarometer … (Denmark) hits an EU low, with Greece and Belgium, on measures of personal feelings of ‘disturbance in daily life’ by the presence of other nationalities, other races and particularly other religions” (Mouritsen, 2006, p.  75). Issues frequently debated include “high unemployment figures; the crime level of immigrants and descendants; the lack of gender equality and differences in child-rearing patterns pertaining to boys and girls in traditional (Muslim) immigrant

66 

E. D. Faingold

families; residential segregation in deprived neighborhoods (‘Ghettoes’); and the wearing of scarves” (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014, p. 7). As the authors puts it, Muslim values are often perceived as being incompatible with liberal Danish values and norms, and a cultural barrier to successful integration on the labor market (‘cultural flexibility’). … When it became apparent that many guest workers stayed and that the number increased through family reunification, critics would increasingly … charge … that immigrants exploited the welfare state, not least because the level of unemployment among immigrants became considerably higher than that among native Danes. (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014, pp. 8–9)

Thus, Denmark is less liberal in terms of attitudes toward immigrants and the most likely country in the European Union to blame minorities for social problems in the areas of education and crime: “Danish politicians from all agenda-setting parties … have repeatedly stressed that Denmark is not and does not intend to be a multicultural society; positive discrimination (affirmative action) is never contemplated as a solution to integration problems … and cultural diversity more broadly is officially frowned on as an alien, ‘un-Danish’ notion” (Hedetoft, 2010, p. 111). Crucially, as a study of Nordic constitutional law points out, the Danish constitutional system “has few constitutional constraints on the content of legislation. … In fact, parliament precedence has been a feature of the Danish legal mentality for quite some time … to guard (Denmark’s) national sovereignty, and later its constitutional identity, in relation to the EU” (Husa, 2019, p. 54). Since at least the early 1920s, Denmark’s immigration and naturalization policies have produced more restrictive rules than its Nordic neighbors and other EU countries (Boswell & Geddes, 2011; Ersbøll, 2006; Kelstrup, 2006). As another study points out, “Denmark has some of the strictest immigration/integration policies in Europe. … Those fearful of diversity hold on to the belief that the specificity of Danish society must be protected” (Lithman, 2013, p. 255). Since the mid-1990s, immigration policy has set the political agenda in Denmark like nowhere else in Scandinavia and the EU

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

67

(Green-­Pedersen & Krogstrup, 2008; Jørgensen, 2011; Kelstrup, 2006; Kivisto & Wahlbeck, 2013), especially during the election campaigns in 1998, 2001, and 2005, in which the anti-immigrant right-wing Danish People’s Party acquired significant power as a coalition partner in the government (Rydgren, 2004), resulting in a significant tightening of immigration policies (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014). Prominently, the Danish Integration Act of 1999 introduced the concept of integration which became focal to increasingly restrictive immigration rules. For example, to be eligible for social security benefits, refugees and family-reunified immigrants are required to follow an integration program in which newly arrived immigrants acquire “an understanding of the fundamental values and norms of Danish society” (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014, p. 9). The stated goal of the 1999 Act is to teach immigrants to participate “on an equal footing with other citizens in the political, economic, work-related, social, religious and cultural life of society; and to induce economic self-reliance” (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014, p. 9). It is worth noting that about 2 years before it became national policy in Denmark, Aarhus was the first Danish city to establish an integration policy in 1996 (Joppke, 2017). The city’s new policy’s purpose was to strengthen bonds that tie the local community together, making sure that everybody regardless of ethnic or cultural origin participates actively as citizens in a society where democratic values are fundamental. Importantly, however, in contrast to the national policy created by the Danish government, about 2 years later, the city of Aarhus aimed to ensure that minorities have the same opportunities, rights, and duties as other citizens of the city, while at the same time recognizing that minorities may have special needs and may need to receive special services (Jørgensen, 2012). Thus, in Aarhus the new integration policy was not created with the purpose of protecting the majority’s culture but to help migrants and refugees lead a dignified life. As a detailed study on Danish integration policies explains, The actual implementation of the Danish Integration Act takes place at the local level in the municipalities … (which) are responsible for providing immigrants with an integration program … which lasts up to three years.

68 

E. D. Faingold

Participation … is also a key condition for obtaining a permanent residence permit. … (The program includes) instruction in Danish; courses on social conditions in Denmark; courses on Danish culture and history; as well as job related activities. The programs are based on a detailed plan for each individual … (who) … must in fact sign a piece of paper … to confirm their willingness to obey Danish law, to respect democratic principles, to learn the Danish language, to acknowledge principles of gender equality, to respect liberty of conscience and freedom of speech, to refrain from carrying out terrorism, etc. (emphasis added). (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014, pp. 10–11)

Between 2001 and 2011, the Danish Parliament enacted increasingly more restrictive immigration rules, including changes to the rules of admission, especially in the areas of family reunification, permanent residence and naturalization, as well as changes in eligibility of asylum seekers for economic benefits and the introduction of mandatory integration programs for admitted immigrants with concomitant restrictive entitlements to social benefits (Lœgaard, 2013). On November 27, 2001, when Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a right-wing nationalist, was elected prime minister with the support of the Conservatives and the right-wing nationalist Danish People’s Party, a new separate Ministry of Refugee, Immigration, and Integration Affairs (Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrer og Integration) was established to handle immigration matters (Hedetoft, 2010; Jespersen 2019). As it had been promised during the election campaign, the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration, and Integration Affairs’ first minister set his sights on reducing the number immigrants and asylum seekers coming from countries outside the Nordic countries, the European Union, and North America. As one scholar puts it, “even if the law in theory covered all foreigners, there was common agreement in Denmark that the people who were unwanted by most of the political parties were people from ‘third countries’ (non-Western)” (Hervik, 2011, pp. 168–169). In 2002, the rules established by the 1999 Integration Act were expanded even further, making a test in the Danish language mandatory for immigrants seeking naturalization. New pre-entry requirements that made it more difficult to bring a spouse from another country or to

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

69

reunite a family with members from abroad were enacted, “with exemptions for highly skilled or culturally similar migrants (emphasis added)” (Wallace Goodman, 2010, p. 240). Notably, the new regulations including a 24-year rule requiring that applicants for family reunification should be over 24 years of age, meaning that one or both partners cannot marry before they are 24 (Lœgaard, 2013). An attachment rule requiring that couples must prove that they share a greater attachment to Denmark than to another country was introduced, together with a number of new economic restrictions for asylum seekers (Schmidt, 2013). Further, the new rules required that immigrant spouses seeking family reunification pass much tougher tests to obtain citizenship and residence status, including mandatory pre-entry language tests administered in the country of origin (Kostakopoulou, 2010). Social benefits for newly arrived immigrants were also reduced in order to encourage immigrants to join the labor market sooner rather than later and to make Denmark less attractive to other would-be immigrants (Lœgaard, 2013). As a result of the new rules, a significant number of couples were forced to reside in southern Sweden and to commute to Copenhagen on a daily basis (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014). Strikingly, even in cases when immigrant women face violence within the marriage, the Danish Immigration Service is required to determine their right to residence according to the new rules (Schmidt, 2011). Accordingly, “the Danish Organization of Shelters for Battered Women and Children … thus encourages these women to start learning Danish” (Schmidt, 2011, p. 265). In the elections of 2011, the parliamentary majority shifted to a new center-left coalition constituted by the social democrats, the social liberals, and the socialists. One contributory factor to the shift was that the center-right government had been strongly associated with extreme anti-­ immigrant rhetoric and strict immigration policies. Thus, soon after the 2011 election, the newly elected government announced changes to the immigration policies that had been enacted by the former governments, including abolishing the so-called poverty benefits granted to recent immigrants while waiting to receive a residence permit, which were quite low by Danish standards. The rules for family reunification were eased also, allowing immigrant children to stay with their parents in Denmark (Lœgaard, 2013). As another author notes, “the 24-year rule was no

70 

E. D. Faingold

longer absolutely decisive but could be modified in agreement with a point system, determining the marriage migrant’s qualities as assets for Danish society, including their skills in particular languages (including Danish and English)” (Schmidt, 2013, p.  207). Dual citizenship was introduced, and asylum seekers received work permits while their applications were pending, a process which sometimes could take years (Lœgaard, 2013). Finally, the new government abolished a regulation introduced in early 2011 that would have required immigrants who had been living in Denmark for more than 7 years and could not communicate in Danish to pay for interpreting services when consulting a physician or receiving medical services at the hospital (Bischoff et al., 2003; Phelan, 2012; Schepelern Johansen, 2011). Notably, the newly elected government ditched the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the previous centerright government, emphasizing respect and tolerance as Danish values, linking the former and the latter to immigration and integration (Lœgaard, 2013). The impact of the new government immigration policy changes on those affected by it cannot be underestimated. In addition to the new policy and rhetorical changes mentioned above, the new government closed the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration, and Integration Affairs and transferred its responsibilities to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration (i.e., integration of refugees and immigrants into the labor market and educational system), the Ministry of Children and Education (i.e., Danish as a second language teaching), the Ministry of Employment (i.e., residence permits to work and study), and the Ministry of Justice (i.e., asylum, humanitarian residence, family reunification, residence for EU citizens, Danish citizenship, and short-term visas) on October 2011 (Lœgaard, 2013). However, as one scholar points out, It is notable, and worth stressing, that the main components of the former government immigration policies are retained. This includes the 24-year rule and the attachment requirement …, most of the conditions for naturalization introduced by the former government until 2010, and the criteria for receiving asylum. … This is a strictly administrative reform which does not involve any substantial changes in the applicable legislation, rules or requirements. But its symbolic significance is … considerable. By this

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

71

splitting up the old Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration and reassigning the different policy areas to different ministries, the new government signals that the range of issues traditionally addressed under the heading of ‘integration’ are ordinary problems of social or labor market policy. (Lœgaard, 2013, p. 186)

It is worth noting that Denmark’s rejection of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 led to what is known as the National Compromise. Denmark signed the Treaty in 1993 but with important reservations, including, most relevant for the purposes of this study, the rejection of European Union supranational powers in the areas of common policy of justice and home affairs (Kelstrup, 2006). For example, Denmark exercised the right under the Treaty of Amsterdam to opt out of discussions that would grant legal residence with equal rights to EU citizens to non-EU residents working in the European Union. Similarly, Denmark opted out of the Directive on the Right of Family Reunion adopted by the European Union in June of 2003 to develop legal frameworks with provisions that protect the right of migrants to be joined by their family members in EU member countries (Boswell & Geddes, 2011). As the author explains, all EU countries admit spouses and minor children. However, “some countries insist on a maximum age (this is 18 in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, but 15 in Denmark) … 11 member states have a waiting period of usually around 2 years (before family members can join their partners). Spain is the shortest at 12 months while Denmark requires 3 years (emphasis added)” (Boswell & Geddes, 2011, p.  119). Similarly, in 2009, Denmark opted out of the EU Blue Card program. The Blue Card allows skilled and educated immigrants who have concrete job offers to obtain residence permits of between 1 and 4 years in EU countries participating in the scheme, with equal working conditions, access to education and training, and social security benefits for the immigrants and their families. After 18 months of residence in an EU country, holders of the card and their dependents are allowed to move to another participant country of the EU Blue Card program without going through the usual procedures for admission (Boswell & Geddes, 2011). Thus, as another study succinctly explains, “the aim of Danish pragmatic liberal-egalitarianism should not be forgotten: to secure the survival and continued

72 

E. D. Faingold

development of Denmark as an independent state. This may help explain Danish popular and elite opposition to common migration policies” (Wivel, 2018, p. 30). As we have seen, Denmark neither enacted a law declaring Danish the de jure official language of the country, nor did it enact any language provisions to protect Danish in its constitution. Nevertheless, Danish is treated as the de facto official language of Denmark in ordinary legislation (Hegelund, 2002). For example, as early as 1925, Danish law required that to obtain Danish nationality “applicants should master the Danish language” (Ersbøll, 2006, p. 117). On January 1, 1999, as noted, a newly enacted Danish Integration Act instituted a language and culture requirement for immigrants seeking to become naturalized citizens. Specifically, the 1999 Act stipulated that, to become naturalized, immigrants must enroll in new and improved (tougher) courses in Danish language and society (Hervik, 2011), but on June 16 of that year, Circular No. 90 on naturalization exempted disadvantaged groups from the language requirement (Ersbøll, 2006). On June 12, 2002, Circular No. 55 on naturalization further strengthened the language requirement rules to obtain Danish naturalization by requiring a formal examination certificate of Danish language proficiency, knowledge of Danish society, culture, and history. Also, the new rules repealed the language exception for persons over the age of 65 (Ersbøll, 2006). On January 9, 2006, Circular No. 9 on naturalization strengthened the language requirement even further by instituting a Danish language naturalization test that raised the Danish proficiency requirement to the equivalent of a vocational, upper-secondary, or higher education, with little dispensation for disadvantaged groups, including individuals with chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Ersbøll, 2006). As the author explains, Exemption from the new language requirements (became) possible only under very special circumstances, such as documented very severe physical or psychological disease resulting in the applicant not being able to fulfill the language requirements. … The ministry (was) presumed to refuse applications for exemption of those suffering from PTSD. … The Minister

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

73

for Integration … explained that the reason for the exclusion (was) that PTSD ‘is not a mental disease of such a severe nature.’ … All applications for exemption shall now be submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Nationality that makes its decisions in camera. (Ersbøll, 2006, pp. 132–133)

Importantly, as the author notes, a person seeking residence or naturalization in Denmark has little or no legal recourse in the case of an arbitrary decision by the immigration authorities: There is no in-depth public discussion on the (naturalization) criteria in Parliament. Applicants who fulfill the criteria may count on being naturalized, but they have no legal guarantee; the criteria may be amended at relatively short intervals and even retroactively, and there is no accessible regulation on doubtful cases and exemptions from the general criteria, which seems inconsistent with the rule of law. … In principle, there are no restraints on the Parliament’s and the Standing Committee’s discretionary powers other than the limitations which follow from international agreements and conventions ratified by Denmark. (Ersbøll, 2006, p. 138)

Notably, in October of 2015, Circular No. 10873 on naturalization established new and tougher rules for acquiring Danish citizenship through naturalization, including tougher Ability to Speak Danish and Knowledge of Society and History tests (https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-­ news/article/denmark-­t ougher-­requirements-­f or-­a cquiring-­d anish-­ citizenship-­through-­naturalization/#:~:text=The%20new%20rules%20 require%20that,the%20easier%2C%20level%202%20test): Ability to Speak Danish The new rules require greater knowledge of Danish. Previously, residents only had to pass a language test (called a “Level 2” test) as part of the application process for citizenship. … The new rules require that applicants pass a level 3 language test. … However, applicants who have been self-­sufficient for eight-and-a-half years out of the last nine years are still allowed to take the easier, level 2 test. (Global Legal Monitor, October 23, 2015)

74 

E. D. Faingold

Knowledge of Society and History Applicants must pass a civics and history test, containing questions on information ranging from the number of members in the Danish Parliament to the names of the most important Danish holidays. … The test previously required that the applicant answer 22 out of 30 questions correctly; the new test will include 40 questions of which 32 must be answered correctly. (Global Legal Monitor, October 23, 2015)

More recently, in April of 2021, a new Danish center-right coalition government made by the Social Democrats forming a majority with the three parties from the right-wing opposition (Venstre, Conservatives, and Liberal Alliance) tightened the requirements to obtain Danish citizenship once again. Accordingly, the current citizenship test, consisting of 40 questions, will be supplemented with five extra questions about “Danish values,” such as equality, freedom of speech, and the relationship between law and religion, with new questions created each time the test is administered (https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-­integration/news/ denmark-­tightens-­rules-­citizenship-­once-­again_en). Correspondingly, in December of 2021, the new coalition government tightened the regulations for obtaining a permanent residence permit once again. Previously, applicants for a permanent residence permit were only required to pass the Danish language test 2 (Prøve i Dansk 2) or a Danish language test of an equivalent or higher level. The new rules require that applicants pass the Danish language test 3 (Prøve i Dansk 3) or a Danish language test of an equivalent or higher level. However, applicants who have held a regular full-­time job or been self-employed for at least 4 years within the last 4 years and 6 months, or had a yearly taxable income over the last 2 years (2020-­level) of DKK 292.256,68 kr. (about 41,000 US$) or above on average, are still allowed to take the easier (level 2) test (http://refugees. dk/en/facts/legislation-­and-­definitions/permanent-­residence/). Thus, as a recent European Commission report on the new Danish immigration rules notes, Danish requirements for naturalization are already some of the toughest in the world, and the government has just pushed forward a political deal adding further restrictions. This comes only a few months after a report from the Danish Institute for Human Rights was launched, criticizing the

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

75

fact that only 65% of young people who are born and raised in Denmark have obtained citizenship. … The number of people being granted citizenship is now the lowest in 40 years, and that this is becoming a democratic problem with a rising part of the population not having the right to vote. On average, it takes 16 years to obtain Danish citizenship. … A condition for citizenship is to first acquire permanent residency, which has become much harder in recent years. Before applying, a person must have had eight years of legal stay and live up to almost the same requirements as the latest ones for citizenship. In 2019, only 239 people with refugee background were granted citizenship (https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-­integration/news/ denmark-­tightens-­rules-­citizenship-­once-­again_en).

L egislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in Denmark In Denmark there are laws that protect minority workers from discrimination and harassment at the workplace (i.e., the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc., and the Act on the Board of Equal Treatment, enacted by the Ministry of Employment and Danish Parliament, respectively, in 2008). Nevertheless, as Thuesen’s (2017) pioneering work on language policy in the Danish workplace reveals, some employers in Denmark have established Danish-only rules that prohibit the use of languages other than Danish in the workplace; and the Board of Equal Treatment, the administrative agency created by the Danish Parliament to enforce the prohibition of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, more often than not, rules against immigrant plaintiffs claiming language discrimination. I argue that, to address language discrimination in the workplace, the Danish Ministry of Employment and the Danish Parliament could amend the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc., and the Act on the Board of Equal Treatment, adding “language” to the protected categories of gender, race, religion or belief, political opinions, sexual orientation, age, disability, or national, social, or ethnic origin that prohibit discrimination and harassment in the workplace, to help protect the language rights of bilingual employees.

76 

E. D. Faingold

Moreover, the Danish Board of Equal Treatment should acknowledge that the legality of Danish-only rules that prohibit the use of languages other than Danish at all times, including breaks and meals, can be hard to justify. This is due to the fact that language is inextricably linked to the protected classes of national and ethnic origin, and because Part 1, Section 3 of the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc., requires that “an apparently neutral provision, criterion, or practice … (must be) objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary” (Ministry of Employment, 2008). Thuesen (2017) studies Danish-only rules created by employers who prohibit the use of languages other than Danish in the workplace at all times, including break and meal times, in two ethnically diverse low-skill workplaces in Denmark. His study consists of oral statements in interviews and observations with employees and managers of a service department staffing the cash registers of a supermarket and a municipal parking department employing street-level patrolling traffic wardens in a large Danish city. In Denmark, the term ethnically diverse refers to the presence of non-Western immigrants and their descendants and often goes hand-in-hand with ethnic and linguistic conflict in an educational, urban, or work setting. In the supermarket study, as the author notes, One conflict arose because some of the female ethnic Danish checkout operators perceived some of the young (ages 16–17) ethnic minority men in the internal service subsection—who brought sales receipts rolls, change, etc. to the cash registers—as ‘sluggish’. They also criticized these young men for not living up to ‘Danish language only’ company rules. These checkout operators also criticized a female ethnic minority manager for not taking complaints about these service workers sufficiently seriously and accused her of not doing so because some of these young men were her relatives. (Thuesen, 2017, p. 945)

As the author continues, the ethnic Danish cashier criticized the ethnic minority manager for not complying with the employer’s Danish-only rule: “A lot of people are very uncomfortable if one is in the coffee break room with two who speak Turkish, and one sits there alone. Our boss,

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

77

Rula, says that they aren’t allowed to do that but even she speaks Turkish once in a while. She shouldn’t. (Age 20, 2 years of experience)” (Thuesen, 2017, p. 945). Similarly, the study of a municipal parking department highlights the controversial nature of a Danish-only policy in the workplace. As the author notes, “as with the supermarket, in this department some ethnic Danish employees also criticized ethnic minority colleagues for speaking a foreign language” (Thuesen, 2017, p. 946). Similarly, the ethnic Danish shop steward of the parking department interviewed by the author described his role as the Danish-only rule-enforcer of his workplace: “First, I say, please don’t, I have a duty to report it (to management) … I can’t be bothered to sit up there (in the canteen) and listen to … is it me that they are laughing at or what? I can’t be bothered, and we have this policy. … Somehow, it’s my duty as a shop steward to make sure that things go by the rules. (Age 57, 8 years of experience)” (Thuesen, 2017, p. 946). Part 1, Section 1 of the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc. (Ministry of Employment, 2008) prohibits “any direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion or belief, political opinion, sexual orientation, age, disability or national, social or ethnic origin” (Ministry of Employment, 2008). Just as important, Part 1, Section 2 of the Act establishes that direct discrimination occurs “where one person is treated less favorably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on the grounds of race, color, religion or belief, political opinion, sexual orientation, age, disability or national, social or ethnic origin” (Ministry of Employment, 2008). Accordingly, Part 1, Section 3 of the Act establishes that indirect discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would place persons of a particular race, color, religion or belief, political opinion, sexual orientation or national, social or ethnic origin or of a particular age or with a disability at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary (emphasis added). (Ministry of Employment, 2008)

78 

E. D. Faingold

Most importantly, Part 1, Section 4 of the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc. (Ministry of Employment, 2008) establishes that harassment is considered discrimination “when unwanted conduct related to the race, color, religion or belief, political opinion, sexual orientation, age, disability or national, social or ethnic origin of a person takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of the person or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or uncomfortable environment for such a person” (Ministry of Employment, 2008). Finally, an equally important, Part 4, Section 8(a) of the Act establishes that “complaints of violation of the prohibition of discrimination under (the) Act and of violations of the prohibition of retaliatory measures under section 7(2) are being handled by the Danish Board of Equal Treatment” (Ministry of Employment, 2008). Accordingly, Part 1, Section 1 of the Act on the Board of Equal Treatment (Danish Parliament, 2008) establishes that the Board “shall consider complaints of differential treatment on the grounds of gender, race, color, religion or belief, political opinion, sexual orientation, age, disability or national, social or ethnic origin” (Danish Parliament, 2008). Thus, the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc. (Ministry of Employment, 2008) and the Act on the Board of Equal Treatment (Danish Parliament, 2008) were established to fight workplace discrimination based on gender, race, religion or belief, political opinions, sexual orientation, age, disability, or national, social, or ethnic origin (emphasis added). However, Danish labor law targets nearly every existing minority for protection against discrimination (gender, race, religion or belief, political opinions, sexual orientation, age, disability, or national, social, or ethnic origin) except language. Similarly, in the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was established by the U.S.  Congress to protect minorities from employer discrimination in the workplace, and it also mentions many classes except language (Faingold, 2018): Title VII—Discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

79

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (emphasis added); or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such ­individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (emphasis added). (Civil Rights Act, 1964)

In the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employer discrimination, has been used to combat English-­ only rules established by private employers as well as state and local government employers. In the workplace, many employees possess the ability to use a foreign language, especially Spanish, and sometimes use it along with English. In some cases, employers have made rules against speaking all foreign languages—English-only policies—in the workplace (Faingold, 2018 and references therein). However, with the aid of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the administrative agency created to enforce the statute, English-only rules have been challenged by bilingual employees in U.S. courts (Del Valle, 2003; Faingold, 2018). In 1980, the EEOC adopted Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin, which defines national-origin discrimination broadly as including, but not limited to, “the denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individual’s or his or her ancestor’s place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic (emphasis added) characteristics of a national origins group. … The EEOC has explained that it believes “an individual primary language is often an essential national origin characteristic” and that a rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and condition of employment that violates Title VII except in limited circumstances. (Del Valle, 2003, pp. 120–121)

According to the EEOC Guidelines, employer rules and requirements to speak only English in the workplace can create an atmosphere of

80 

E. D. Faingold

inferiority, intimidation, and xenophobia. Moreover, according to the EEOC, the employer needs to show a legitimate and clearly articulated business necessity for such rules and requirements (Del Valle, 2003; Faingold, 2018). Most importantly, in spite of the fact that the Civil Rights Act does not define the right of language minorities in the workplace de jure, for more than two decades, in a significant number of language discrimination cases argued in U.S. courts, the term “national origin” has been employed as a stand-in for “language” and judges have taken considerable leeway in making decisions against employers who established English-only rules in the workplace (see Faingold, 2018 and references therein). Frederick Thuesen conducted a search on 1159 decisions based on the Equal Treatment in the Workplace Act by the Danish Board of Equal Treatment spanning from 2008 until 2020. In 28 of those decisions, the word “sprog” (language) was one of the words in the heading, while two cases contained no information on the decision in the heading. The heading also noted whether the board upheld the plaintiff claim. This was the case in six of the claims (23% of all claims), while in 20 cases (77% of all claims) the Board sided with the employers (F. Thuesen, personal communication, May 17, 2021). Thus, the Danish Board of Equal Treatment ruled for the employer, and against claims of language discrimination in the Danish workplace, in more than three out of every four cases heard by the Board. As we have seen, in 2008, Denmark enacted anti-discrimination legislation that protects “national” origin from discrimination and harassment in the workplace, similar to that enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1964; and, in the same year, the Danish Board of Equal Treatment, the administrative agency charged to enforce prohibition of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, was created by the Danish Parliament. However, as we have seen, some employers in Denmark have established Danish-only rules that prohibit the use of languages other than Danish in the workplace. Most importantly, as noted, the Danish Board of Equal Treatment tends to rule against immigrant claiming language discrimination, e.g., in the vast majority of the cases heard by the Board between 2008 and 2020 (more than three out of every four cases). In contrast, for the past 15 years or so, judges in the United States have been treating

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

81

English-only regulations in the workplace that prohibit speaking a minority language at all times as a violation of the category “national” origin according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The rationale adopted by US courts being that language is inextricably linked to national origin and that employers need to have a “business necessity” to establish such rules (Faingold, 2018). In Denmark, to target language minorities for protection, especially speakers of immigrant languages who are not protected by extant Danish and EU language legislation (Faingold, 2020), future amendments to the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc. (Ministry of Employment, 2008) and the Act on the Board of Equal Treatment (Danish Parliament, 2008) could add “language” to the protected categories of gender, race, religion or belief, political opinions, sexual orientation, age, disability, or national, social, or ethnic origin prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the labor market. In addition, the Danish Board of Equal Treatment should acknowledge that the legality of Danish-only rules that prohibit the use of languages other than Danish at all times, including breaks and meals, can be hard to justify. This is because language is inextricably linked to the protected classes of national and ethnic origin established under Danish anti-­discrimination laws. Recall, also, that Part 1, Section 3 of the Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination on the Labour Market, etc. (Ministry of Employment, 2008) establishes that “an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would place persons of a particular (protected class) … at a disadvantage … unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary” (emphasis added) (Ministry of Employment, 2008). Employers in Denmark should be required, as employers are required by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and the courts in the United States, to demonstrate that Danish-only rules are based on the requirements of the business (“business necessity”) (Faingold, 2018). That is, Danish-only rules in Denmark should be limited to the circumstances in which they are needed for the employer to operate safely or efficiently (e.g., in communications with customers or coworkers who only speak Danish; in emergencies or other

82 

E. D. Faingold

situations in which worker safety regulations are required or when working on a project or an assignment in which a Danish-only rule is needed to promote efficiency).

L egislation Concerning Language and Education in Denmark With the enactment of the law on child welfare in 1964, which made early childcare education universal in Denmark (Gulløv, 2008), and the growing number of women entering the work force in the 1960s and 1970s, which included most mothers, the number of early childcare institutions and the number of children enrolled in them grew rapidly. At the same time, Danish early childhood education became more professionalized (Bundgaard, 2011). By the last decades of the twentieth century, early childhood education “had come to be regarded as a child’s right” (Gulløv, 2008, p. 133). Nowadays, most Danish parents with small children work outside the home full-time, and 63% of all children aged one to three, and 96% of all children aged three to five, attend preschools (Bundgaard, 2011; Gulløv, 2012). “Though infants do not enter daycare before the end of the first year, though some begin at the age of six months …, most Danish children are in daycare for five to six years” (Gulløv, 2012, p. 97). In Denmark, early childhood education is organized thusly. First, the Danish Parliament enacts legislation that sets the guidelines. Second, the local authorities make decisions about institutional structure and goals, allocation of resources, staffing, and fees. Third, local institutions determine and apply appropriate pedagogical programs within the structural and organizational framework defined by the state and local authorities (Gulløv, 2012). Aside from some local variation in fees, opening hours, resources, and activities that result from the decentralized structure of early childhood education, “the guidelines set by the state ensure some uniformity of aims and organization” (Gulløv, 2012, p. 97). Danish daycare institutions include nurseries (vuggestuer) for children aged six months to three years and kindergartens (børnehaver) for children aged three to six or seven years, with compulsory education

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

83

beginning at seven years of age (Gulløv, 2008). Childcare centers are run by certified preschool teachers (pœdagoger), with degrees from teacher-­ training colleges, where they spend three-and-a-half years of study and 15  months of practical training, assisted by preschool assistants (medhjœlpere) (Gulløv, 2012). Preschool education is non-compulsory, but public authorities are required to provide a place to all children aged 12 months and older, regardless of parental income (Bundgaard, 2011). Most importantly, early childhood education plays a prominent role in the upbringing of children born to low-income families in Denmark, especially families with immigrant backgrounds. Regardless of the family’s employment situation or need of childcare for their children, immigrant families will be assured of a place, free of charge, in a daycare institution “so that they can become exposed to Danish social norms and cultural values and the Danish language (emphasis added). … It is commonly agreed that immigrant children should attend day-care sooner rather than later … between six and eighteen months old” (Bundgaard, 2011, pp.  151–152). “Immigrants and refugees … are given priority placement since public daycare is seen as both an equalizer and a potent force for the successful integration of the young into Danish society … regardless of the social, ethnic and religious background of the family” (Gulløv, 2012, pp. 97–98). As the author explains, The government as well as the municipality ascribes early child-care institutions a role in the process of integrating immigrants by imbuing them with the legitimate power to socialize children in accordance with norms of dominant groups in Danish society. … In Denmark today day-care institutions, as organs of society, have taken over the task of socializing children in some important respects by teaching them socially accepted ways of behaving, particularly in cases where professionals doubt the socializing skills of the family. Such doubts seem to be more evident in relation to children of marginalized, non-educated and unemployed immigrant parents, which explains why these children are given priority to access day-care as early as possible. (Gulløv, 2008, p. 135)

As the leader of a Danish municipality’s family department noted,

84 

E. D. Faingold

Great efforts (are) made to enrol (immigrant) children in pre-school institutions, into what she termed ‘the official socializing system.’ … The municipality had established procedures to check automatically the ages of children in every family and, when the children reach day-care age, to write to the families informing them of the different institutional care and opportunities available in the district … to … improve their skills in spoken Danish (emphasis added) and … familiarize the children with common norms of social interaction with other people. (Gulløv, 2008, p. 136)

In 2003, the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs policy document En god start till alle born (A good start for all children) noted that “children from parents from non-western countries are strongly represented among those who have difficulties in achieving in the educational system. … Kindergarten … is mentioned as a tool … to improve the child’s competencies in the Danish language and other desirable competencies” (Horst & Gitz-Johansen, 2010, p.  142). A year later, the Danish government’s policy document Regeringens strategi mod ghettoisering (The government’s strategy against ghettoization) noted that “to immigrant children and descendants who grow up in ghetto areas and who go to school in actual ghetto schools, their Danish may become so limited that it is a problem to learn the curriculum in school where the language is Danish” (Government 2004; cited by Horst & Gitz-Johansen, 2010, p. 142). In 2007, Denmark’s early childhood education was reformulated to meet the increasing demand for “detail documentation, descriptions of objectives and pressure to organize daily activities in learning-centered ways” (Gulløv, 2012, p. 102). To this end, new legislation was enacted “to offer the child a sound and stimulating learning environment, to overcome social inequalities in families, to ease the transition to schools and to facilitate families’ relation to the labor market (Lov om dagtilbud [Law on Public Day-Care], 2007, Section 1)” (Gulløv, 2012, p.  103). Importantly for our purposes, the new law, which was designed to compile all former laws concerning early childhood education, reformulated “the aims and obligations of early childcare. … Kindergartens prepare children for school with the aim of overcoming social differences. For that reason, children’s fluency in Danish is to be tested at the age of three years

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

85

in order to identify difficulties at an early age (emphasis added)” (Gulløv, 2012, p. 103). To this end, the new 2007 Public School Act, Section 4a made “mandatory for bilingual children from age of three years to participate in different (Danish) language stimulation activities if, according to expert assessment, they are found in need of it, (to) … take place in the kindergartens or in other structured settings for at least 15 hours’ duration per week” (Horst & Gitz-Johansen, 2010, p. 144). Thus, Denmark’s early childhood education system is tightly regulated by policies and regulations which promote “cultural familiarity (with Denmark’s mainstream culture) and (Danish) language skills” (Gulløv, 2008, p. 137). At the same time, Danish early childhood education pays no attention to the cultural, linguistic, and religious experiences of immigrant children, which are neither talked about nor included in the daily activities of preschool institutions (Bundgaard & Gulløv, 2006). The 1984 regulations for mother tongue education (Bekendtgørelse om folkeskolens undervisning af fremmedsprogede elever) stipulated that primary schools should offer mother tongue education to bilingual children (unless they receive it in some other way). The purpose of these rules was to ensure that minority children remained in touch with the language and culture of their parents and thus one  day would return to their ­country of origin. The new rules were nearly identical to the old regulations of 1976, with an important new proviso. In 1984 mother tongue education was required to be grounded in the Danish context and not in the child’s country of origin as in the 1976 rules. In addition, the new rules constrained mother tongue education in a number of ways. First, they required that minority children were entitled to receive mother tongue education only if at least one parent was born abroad and the language used at home was not Danish. Second, mother tongue instruction could be offered only if there was a minimum of 12 students per language and if a qualified teacher could be found. Finally, the rules allowed for only 3–5  h weekly of mother tongue education. Schools which did not offer it were required to refer bilingual children to schools within the county which did offer it (Hegelund, 2002). The impetus for providing mother tongue education in Denmark in the 1970s and 1980s was not an embrace of multiculturalism as, for example, in neighboring Sweden, but an expectation that immigrants

86 

E. D. Faingold

would eventually return to their countries of origin when their work was no longer needed. Hence, the 1984 rules for mother tongue education, like the preceding 1976 rules, were predicated on the assumption that they would help minority children maintain the language and culture of their parents and thus facilitate their return to the country of origin. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became obvious that the immigrants and their families were not returning to their home countries and had become a permanent fixture of Danish society. Accordingly, in 1998, the Department of Education issued new regulations for teaching Danish as a second language in primary schools (Padovan-Özdemir & Moldenhawer, 2017; Salö et al., 2018). The new regulations offered supplementary Danish as second language education to bilingual children (when the child had some knowledge of Danish) and basic Danish language education (when the child had little or no knowledge of the language). Further, the new rules allowed for supplementary Danish language education for individuals or groups, and basic language education could be taught to groups (unless the student’s regular class already provided Danish instruction, in which case individual lessons could be provided), always outside of regular classes. The new regulations also allowed for minority children representing one single language group to be placed in bicultural classes for the first 3 or 4 years of primary school, and to receive instruction in Danish as a second language combined with some mother tongue education (Hegelund, 2002). In the 1998 regulations, mother tongue education was assumed to be of a transitional character, aiming to facilitate the acquisition of Danish by immigrant children as well as their “integration” (accommodation and eventual assimilation) into Danish society (Hegelund, 2002). As the author explains, “the mother tongue (was) clearly not ascribed an educational function …, except in limited and transitional circumstances such as bicultural classes. … Mother tongue lessons (were) extra-curricular, (took) place outside regular school hours, no guidelines (existed) and students (were) not evaluated and graded” (Hegelund, 2002, p.  161). Furthermore, mother tongue education was restricted to children who spoke a minority language at home and who had at least one parent who had been born abroad (Hegelund, 2002).

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

87

As we have seen, in the elections of 2001, with the support of the anti-­ immigrant Danish People’s Party, a new right-wing government coalition was handed a sweeping mandate to reshape immigration policy in Denmark, with an emphasis on the importance of imposing Danish cultural, linguistic, and social values on immigrant minorities living in Denmark, especially in the area of Danish language acquisition and mother tongue education for minorities. A new government’s policy announced that municipalities no longer had to provide mother tongue education to non-Western immigrant children (Salö et al., 2018). In 2002, the new coalition put the final nail in the coffin of mother tongue education for non-Western immigrant children when it ended state-subsidies for mother tongue education of non-Scandinavian and non-EU immigrant minorities (Padovan-Özdemir & Moldenhawer, 2017). As a result, the number of linguistic minority children who received mother tongue education decreased from 75,000 to 7500  in 2008 (Salö et al., 2018). In 2005, the Danish government passed a new law mandating the “enforced teaching of Danish as a second language, including extended access to referring bilingual children to schools other than the district school” (Law no. 5942005; cited by Horst & Gitz-Johansen, 2010, p.  144). The new law offers additional Danish as a second language instruction to minority immigrant children from first to tenth grade and regulates the numbers of children with immigrant background in the schools by establishing a strategy of desegregating so-called ghetto schools (bussing) and/or placing immigrant children in reception classes, selected mainstream classes, or centers of remedial language teaching (Horst & Gitz-Johansen, 2010; Padovan-Özdemir & Moldenhawer, 2017). An important consequence of the 2005 law is that, in Denmark, free choice of schools is no longer a right for children who do not speak Danish at a high enough level. However, because school integration depends on the municipality, the law is not applied uniformly. For example, in the city of Aarhus, immigrant children with limited knowledge of Danish are dispersed among schools in districts where they come in contact with children of Danish origin, whereas in Copenhagen the city encourages immigrant children to choose schools where Danish-speaking

88 

E. D. Faingold

children are the majority (Mouritsen & Hovmark Jensen, 2014; see, further, Spindler Møler & Jørgensen, 2013). According to the OECD’s (2010) review report of migrant education in Denmark, students with a non-Danish mother tongue and other children from a low-income immigrant background are being failed by the Danish school system. As the OECD (2010) report puts it, National and international studies show that, compared to their native Danish peers, immigrant students on average leave compulsory education with significantly weaker performance levels in reading, mathematics and science. … Students with … a non-Danish mother tongue face the greatest challenges in achieving good education outcomes. On completion of the Folkeskole (compulsory education) … immigrant students are more likely than native Danish students to go to the VET (vocational education and training) sector, which qualifies primarily for access to the labour market. … Only 39% of those who started are expected to complete their chosen VET programme. (OECD, 2010, p. 7)

Further, as the OECD (2010) report notes, while Denmark is trying to adjust and improve cultural diversity training for teachers, “the take­up of such training remains insufficient and uneven” (OECD, 2010, p. 7). As the report recommends, “it is essential to professionalize school leadership through better training, improve the pedagogical skills of teachers necessary to meet the needs of heterogeneous classrooms, and recruit high quality teachers including those from immigrant backgrounds” (emphasis added) (OECD, 2010, p.  7). The report also notes that, while the Ministry of Education has developed guidelines for teaching Danish as a second language, “the focus of language support currently remains on developing proficiency in basic communicative Danish in the earlier grades. This is not sufficient for immigrant students to gain academic achievements on a par with their Danish peers” (emphasis added) (OECD, 2010, p. 8). Importantly, the report notes that “to strengthen the language support offered, further efforts are needed to standardize the provision of language support, integrate language and content learning, and value and validate proficiency in languages other than Danish” (emphasis added) (OECD, 2010, p.  8). In a similar vein, the report notes that all the

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

89

government and municipal authorities, school leaders and teachers, parents, and community leaders should recognize “that a culturally and linguistically diverse student body is a permanent and welcome feature of Danish schools. The education system as a whole must take responsibility for catering to the needs of diverse students and have high aspirations and high expectations for the immigrant students” (emphasis added) (OECD, 2010, pp. 8–9). Notably, as the OECD (2010) report notes, teachers in Danish schools tend to emphasize more the deficits than the benefits brought by bilingual students. Hence, teachers’ lower expectations for these students, who are especially at risk due to their low socioeconomic status as immigrants from non-Western countries, can become self-fulfilling prophecies, leading to student academic performance consistent with these expectations. As a study on the impact of teachers’ expectations for student achievement explains, Principals at schools attended by many immigrant students reported more often that learning was hindered by teachers’ low expectations and by a lack of encouragement for students to achieve to their full potential. … These findings are troubling in the light of international research showing the devastating effect of low teacher expectations on student motivation and performance. Experimental research has shown that low teacher expectations can become self-fulfilling prophecies, i.e. they can lead students to perform at levels consistent with these expectations (Brophy & Good, 1974; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978). A comprehensive review of research in this area suggests that students from stigmatized social groups, such as immigrant students, are particularly vulnerable to such self-fulfilling prophecies. (Jussim & Harber, 2005)

Just as important, the OECD (2010) report stresses the “disparity between a largely homogenous teaching force and an increasingly diverse student population. The diversity of Danish society should be reflected in children’s school environment, so that different languages and cultures become a normal and positive aspect of school life” (OECD, 2010, p. 32). Hence, it recommends that schools step up efforts to recruit teachers with immigrant and/or minority backgrounds:

90 

E. D. Faingold

Teachers who are familiar with the experiences, culture and language of immigrant students can serve as role models and enhance the self-­ confidence and motivation of immigrant students. Their knowledge of the mother tongue of immigrant children can be helpful in allowing students to use their full repertoire of languages to make sense of the content covered in the classroom. Immigrant-origin teachers can also play an important role as school-home liaison and help bridge the gap between families and schools. … There is evidence from international research that using more immigrant-origin/minority teachers is likely to improve the educational experience and outcomes of immigrant students. (Beady & Hansell, 1981; Ehrenberg et al., 1995; Quiocho & Rios, 2000; Dee, 2005; OECD, 2010, p. 31)

Finally, as the OECD (2010) report concludes, Through the complete exclusion of immigrant languages in school life, the education system is missing a chance to affirm immigrants’ additional knowledge and cultural and linguistic background in a positive way, as an opportunity and not just a challenge. … Using students’ native languages to differing degrees can be useful in helping immigrant students achieve in education, such as using bilingual classroom assistants, or ensuring that the most common mother languages be part of the foreign language learning in the formal curriculum (emphasis added). (OECD, 2010, p. 35)

As the OECD (2010) report continues, Research shows that students learn best when they can draw on their full linguistic and cognitive repertoire to achieve new objectives (Cummins, 2000). … The Ministry should consider broadening the existing language screening at age three to assess immigrant children’s linguistic competencies both in Danish and the language(s) they speak at home. … The Danish subject teachers, without being able to understand immigrant languages, can encourage children to draw on their mother tongue for learning and understanding (emphasis added). (OECD, 2010, pp. 37–38)

Regarding Danish higher education, until the end of the 1980s, Danish was the exclusive language of teaching at universities in Denmark.

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

91

However, market pressures and the need to internationalize Denmark’s universities changed this during a brief period of 5–10 years in the 1990s (Chopin, 2016; Haberland & Preisler, 2015; Hazel & Mortensen, 2013; Mortensen & Fabricius, 2014). In 2007, the Dean of the Business School of Aarhus University, a leader in international education, noted that “English language programs attract the best foreign teaching staff and students and create a unique international research and study environment which will help kickstart an international career for our students” (Haberland & Preisler, 2015, p. 26). In a similar vein, a government paper published in 2009 declared that Danish “universities ought to define relevant aims for programs offered in English in order to be able to attract the best students and researchers nationally and internationally” (Haberland & Preisler, 2015, p. 26). The 2009 government paper was followed by a language policy statement by Denmark’s Technical University (DTU), a leading science and technology institution of higher education in Denmark: For an internationally known and recognized university, it is important to be able to function and develop in constant interaction with notable foreign universities. International exchange of students and teachers is important, and this can only be carried out consistently if the language of instruction is English. … It is important to be able to attract a large number of foreign BA students who will take their MA degree at Denmark’s Technical University. … This is only feasible if all teaching at the MA level is in English. … The DTU produces graduates who can function in an international context. … It is essential to train the students in the use of the language of internationalization, i.e. English, for professional as well as everyday contexts. This is done most consistently by using English as the language of instruction. (Haberland & Preisler, 2015, p. 26)

However, fearing the emergence of a diglossic development in which Danish would develop into a subordinate lower status language vis-à-vis English, the University of Copenhagen adopted the policy of “parallel languages” (without defining the term) (Chopin, 2016; Haberland & Preisler, 2015; Jürna, 2014). As the 2013 policy paper published by the

92 

E. D. Faingold

Centre for Internationalization and Parallel Language Use at the University of Copenhagen notes, “the use of parallel languages refers to the situation in which two languages are considered equal in a particular domain, and where the choice of language depends on what is deemed most appropriate and efficient in a specific situation” (Jürna, 2014, p. 244). Notably, Denmark never adopted a nationwide university language policy; nor did it expect that Danish universities would adopt standardized objectives and strategies. The expectation was that universities would develop their own solutions to advance the goals of achieving the internationalization of Danish universities. However, there is one area in which the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology intervenes: the supervision of language policies employed by the universities to make sure that the teaching of English is of the highest quality. To this end, universities introduced the certification of language skills for English, though not for other languages, including Danish. For example, the Center for Internationalisering og Parallelsproglighed (CIP) at the University of Copenhagen administers a test for the certification of university teachers’ English spoken proficiency, Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff (TOEPAS) (Haberland & Preisler, 2015). At Aarhus University’s School of Business, as the Dean of Aarhus Business School noted in 2007, on all its international MSc programs, all subjects are taught in English. Students can take exams and write their theses in Danish only if their teachers have a sufficient command of the Danish language (Haberland & Preisler, 2015). Another area within Danish universities where English proficiency is now expected is the administration, especially the secretarial staff who interacts with international faculty and students on a daily basis (Jürna, 2014). As another study notes, “members of the administrative staff are now generally expected to know enough English to be able to communicate with transnationally mobile students. … Exam administrators routinely send their messages in Danish and English” (Haberland & Preisler, 2015, p. 35). English is now the dominant language of academic publication in Danish higher education, especially in the natural sciences. Similarly, in

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

93

the social sciences, while Danish is used more frequently, about half of the publications are in English (Haberland & Preisler, 2015). For example, as another author points out, “English is the language for research and the medium of instruction for the majority of the international academics at (the University of Copenhagen). (They) do use Danish in a university context, but few see themselves writing academic papers in Danish or giving talks at conferences in Danish” (Jürna, 2014, p. 244). English is becoming noticeable also as the language of interaction between participants in scientific networks (i.e., editorial boards of academic journals, international conferences) where some (but not all) of the participants speak Danish (Haberland & Preisler, 2015). Most importantly for our purposes, Jürna’s (2014) study of international faculty and graduate students at the University of Copenhagen notes that international faculty and graduate students with over 4 years length of residence in Denmark reported lack of vocabulary in Danish …, both for understanding and for formulating complex arguments. Formulating complex arguments in Danish was also considered too time-consuming. … Pronunciation in Danish was seen as a hindrance. … The difficulties among internationals with a longer job experience in Denmark also included specific job tasks, for example correcting written papers by students or lack of linguistic confidence in Danish when serving as an examiner for advanced medical students. (Jürna, 2014, p. 244)

Thus, with the support of Danish university authorities, and with the tacit approval of the Danish government, a diglossic situation in which English is the higher status language seems in fact to be developing at Danish universities. For example, at the University of Copenhagen, “nearly all internationals report using English, but only one third also use Danish” (Jürna, 2014, p. 229). Similarly, as the author notes, “less than one fifth perceive the need for Danish language competencies for academic tasks like teaching, supervision, laboratory work or dissemination of research results either orally or in writing” (Jürna, 2014, p. 232). At the University of Copenhagen, as one of the subjects interviewed by Jürna puts it, “Danish is often helpful, but not really required”

94 

E. D. Faingold

(Jürna, 2014, p. 229). Revealingly, international faculty at the University of Copenhagen deny any knowledge of a language policy. As one international faculty member interviewed by Jürna notes, “even if there is a language policy in practice, it might not be written down or employees are not directly informed about it or might be aware of this particular information. … Everybody speaks English, hence their view that there are no job tasks requiring Danish” (Jürna, 2014, p. 234). Thus, “there are almost no requirements on specific Danish language skills put on internationals from the institutional and managerial level” (Jürna, 2014, p.  232). As another study succinctly puts it, “parallelism is an offer made to students, not a requirement on the teacher” (Haberland & Preisler, 2015, p. 31).

Conclusion This chapter studied the ways in which Denmark addresses the issue of language rights of linguistic minorities. With the exception of the German-speaking population in South Jutland, Denmark has no large indigenous minorities living in its territory. However, since the 1960s, Denmark has seen a steady influx of immigrants from mostly non-­ European (mostly Muslim) countries, amounting to about 10% of Denmark’s population. In recent years, growing negative feelings toward immigration in Denmark have become associated with the growing numbers of Muslim immigrants and their descendants, resulting in a wide array of laws that increasingly hampered the language rights of non-­ Western immigrants in the workplace as well as in the areas of naturalization and education, including regulations that allow employers to prohibit the use of immigrant languages in the workplace at all times; Danish language requirements that make excessive demands in Danish proficiency for non-Western immigrants seeking to obtain naturalization, but establish no such requirements for Western immigrants working at universities (Jürna, 2014) and international companies (Hilton, 2018); and laws that disregard the cultural and linguistic experiences of immigrant children in the schools, which according to well-established pedagogical standards in language education tend to produce negative student

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

95

learning outcomes in immigrant populations (e.g., Cummins, 2000, 2009; García, 2009). In regard to higher education, as one scholar astutely notes, the motivation of so-called international faculty “for investing time in learning Danish is never questioned if they can manage to do their jobs in English, whereas migrants who come to Denmark as refugees just have to learn Danish … within a certain time after arrival in Denmark” (Jürna, 2014, p. 246). Obstacles like the Danish proficiency tests for permanent residence and naturalization may prevent educated professionals among would-be non-Western immigrants from contributing to Danish society. As the COVID-19 pandemic ends, and as future outbreaks of disease could become more common, there might be doctors, nurses, and medical technicians who would, with the help of an effective language training program, acquire the Danish language skills necessary to work in Danish hospitals, clinics, and labs. Similarly, there might be teachers and other professional educators among would-be immigrants from non-Western countries, knowledgeable of the cultures and languages of immigrant children already living in Denmark, who could serve as role models to help immigrant students succeed in school. We all lose when skilled healthcare and education professionals are prevented from helping others. Certain employers in Denmark establish language regulations that may hamper the language rights of immigrants at work, i.e., rules that prohibit the use of immigrant languages in the workplace at all times. This chapter suggests that employers in Denmark should be required to demonstrate that Danish-only rules are based on the requirements of the business (“business necessity”) (Faingold, 2018). That is, like English-­ only rules in the United States, Danish-only regulations should be limited to the circumstances in which they are needed for the employer to operate safely or efficiently (e.g., in communications with customers or coworkers who only speak Danish, and in emergencies and other situations in which worker safety regulations are required, or when working on a project or an assignment in which a Danish-only rule is needed to promote efficiency). As we have seen, in the 1970s and 1980s, bilingual education programs were established for immigrant children from non-Western countries living in Denmark, albeit on the assumption that bilingual

96 

E. D. Faingold

education would help minority children maintain the language and culture of their parents and thus facilitate their return to the country of origin. However, in the late 1990s, when it became apparent that immigrants and their families were not returning to their home countries, and as intolerance of immigration increased in Denmark, new regulations were issued by the Danish authorities whereby bilingual children were required to receive instruction in Danish as a second language, to the detriment of the immigrant child’s home language. In 2010, the OECD issued a damning report on immigrant education in Denmark: “Compared to their native Danish peers, immigrant students on average leave compulsory education with significantly weaker performance levels in reading, mathematics and science” (OECD, 2010, p.  7). Notably, the report emphasized that “the education system as a whole must take responsibility for catering to the needs of diverse students and have high aspirations and high expectations for the immigrant students” (OECD, 2010, p.  9). Equally important, the OECD report pointed out that “teacher training does not prepare teachers sufficiently for the challenges and opportunities of working in schools with diverse student bodies” (OECD, 2010, p. 28) and recommended that schools step up efforts to recruit teachers “familiar with the experiences, culture and language of immigrant students (who) can serve as role models and enhance the self-confidence and motivation of immigrant students” (OECD, 2010, p. 31). Finally and most importantly, the OECD report concluded that “using students’ native languages to differing degrees can be useful in helping immigrant students achieve in education, such as using bilingual classroom assistants, or ensuring that the most common mother languages be part of the foreign language learning in the formal curriculum” (OECD, 2010, p. 35). The report emphasized that “research shows that students learn best when they can draw on their full linguistic and cognitive repertoire to achieve new objectives” (Cummins, 2000; OECD, 2010, pp. 37–38).

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

97

References Beady, C. H., & Hansell, S. (1981). Teacher race and expectations for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 191–206. Bischoff, A., Bovier, P.  A., Rrustemi, I., Gariazzo, F., Eytan, A., & Loutan, L. (2003). Language barriers between nurses and asylum seekers: Their impact on symptom reporting and referral. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 503–512. https://0-­pdf-­sciencedirectassets-­com.library.utulsa.edu/271821/1-­s2.0-­ S0277953600X05382/1-­s2.0-­S0277953602003763/main.pdf Björklund, M., Björklund, S., & Sjöholm, K. (2013). Multilingual policies and multilingual education in Nordic countries. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6, 1–22. https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/ view/30/28 Boswell, C., & Geddes, A. (2011). Migration and mobility in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bundgaard, H. (2011). Day-care in Denmark: The key to social integration. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp.  150–167). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bundgaard, H., & Gulløv, E. (2006). Children of different categories: Educational practice and the production of difference in Danish day-care institutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32, 145–155. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13691830500335291 Chopin, K. R. (2016). More Danish, more English: Language policy, language use, and medium of instruction in a Danish university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Copenhagen. Civil Rights Act. (1964). http://usinfo.state.gov.usa/info/laws/majorlaw/ civilr19.htm Constant, A., & Schultz-Nielsen, M. L. (2004). Labor force participation and unemployment: Incentives and preferences. In T. Tranœs & K. F. Zimmermann (Eds.), Migrants, work, and the welfare state (pp. 147–186). University Press of Southern Denmark. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

98 

E. D. Faingold

Cummins, J. (2009). Fundamental psycholinguistic and sociological principles underlying educational success for linguistic minority students. In T.  Skutnabb-Kangas, R.  Phillipson, A.  K. Mohanty, & M.  Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 19–35). Multilingual Matters. Danish Parliament. (2008). Act on the board of equal treatment. https://www. legislationline.org/download/id/4104/file/ACT_no_387_of_27_ May_2008_on_the_Board_of_Equal_Treatment_02_02_2011_16_11.pdf Dee, T.  S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity or gender matter? American Economic Review, 95, 158–165. Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding our voices. Multilingual Matters. Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do Teacher’s race, gender, and ethnicity matter?: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 547–561. Enoch, Y. (1994). The intolerance of a tolerant people: Ethnic relations in Denmark. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17, 282–300. http://web.b.ebscohost. com.librar y.utulsa.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&%20 sid=e9fd6329-­2e38-­4172-­ae99-­db2de6ec5a3a%40sessionmgr103 Ersbøll, E. (2006). Denmark. In R. Bauböck, E. Ersbøll, K. Groenendijk, & H. Waldrauch (Eds.), Acquisition and loss of nationality: Policy trends in 15 European states, volume 2: Country analyses (pp.  92–140). Amsterdam University Press. Faingold, E. D. (2018). Language rights and the law in the United States and its territories. Lexington Books. Faingold, E.  D. (2020). Language rights and the law in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell. Green-Pedersen, C., & Krogstrup, J. (2008). Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden. European Journal of Political Research, 47, 610–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-­6765.2008.00777.x Grillo, R. (2011). Danes and others. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 266–276). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gulløv, E. (2008). Institutional upbringing: A discussion of the politics of childhood in contemporary Denmark. In A. James & A. L. James (Eds.), European childhoods: Culture, politics and participation (pp.  129–148). Palgrave Macmillan.

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

99

Gulløv, E. (2012). Kindergartens in Denmark: Reflections on continuity and change. In A. Kjørholt & J. Qvortrup (Eds.), The modern child and the flexible labour market: Early childhood education and care (pp.  90–107). Palgrave Macmillan. Haberland, H., & Preisler, B. (2015). The position of Danish, English, and other languages at Danish universities in the context of Danish society. In F. X. Villa & V. Bretxa (Eds.), Language policy in higher education: The case of medium-sized languages (pp. 15–42). Multilingual Matters. Hazel, S., & Mortensen, J. (2013). Kitchen talk: Exploring linguistic practices in liminal institutional interactions in a multicultural university setting. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language alternation, language choice, and language encounter in international tertiary education (pp. 3–30). Springer. Hedetoft, U. (2010). Denmark versus multiculturalism. In S.  Vertovec & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices (pp. 111–129). Routledge. Hegelund, L. (2002). A comparative language policy analysis of minority mother tongue education in Denmark and Sweden. Danish University of Education. Henkel, H. (2011). Contesting Danish civility: The cartoon crisis as transitional drama. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 129–148). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hervik, P. (2011). The annoying difference: The emergence of Danish neonationalism, neoracism, and populism in the post-1989 world. Berghahn Books. Hilton, A. (2018). Coming and staying or coming and going? Immigrant families in Denmark. In S. Garvis & E. Eriksen Ødegaard (Eds.), Nordic dialogues on children and families (pp. 126–142). Routledge. Horst, C., & Gitz-Johansen, T. (2010). Education of ethnic minority children in Denmark: Monocultural hegemony and counter positions. Intercultural Education, 21, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675981003696271 Husa, J. (2019). Constitutional mentality. In P. Letto-Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B.  O. G.  Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp.  41–60). Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, R. (2011). Integration of the folk and by the folk. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 256–265). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

100 

E. D. Faingold

Jensen, B. (1999a). Thirty years of press debate on ‘the foreigners’ in Denmark: Part I—Migrant and guest workers, 1963–80. In D. Coleman & E. Wadensjö (Eds.), Immigration to Denmark: International and national perspectives (pp. 191–225). Aarhus University Press. Jensen, B. (1999b). Thirty years of press debate on ‘the foreigners’ in Denmark: Part II—The debate on asylum seekers. In D.  Coleman & E.  Wadensjö (Eds.), Immigration to Denmark: International and national perspectives (pp. 226–289). Aarhus University Press. Jensen, T. G. (2011). To be Danish and Muslim: Internalizing the stranger? In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp.  112–128). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Jespersen, K. J. V. (2019). A history of Denmark (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press. Joppke, C. (2017). Is multiculturalism dead? Polity Press. Jørgensen, M.  B. (2011). Understanding the research-policy nexus in Denmark: The field of migration and integration. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-­856X.2010.00441.x Jørgensen, M. B. (2012). The diverging logics of integration policy making at national and city level. International Migration Review, 46, 244–278. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-­7379.2012.00886.x Jürna, M. (2014). Linguistic realities at the University of Copenhagen: Parallel language use in practice as seen from the perspective of international staff. In A. K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 225–249). John Benjamins. Jussim, L., & Harber, K.  D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns: Resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131–155. Kelstrup, M. (2006). Denmark in the process of European integration: Dilemmas, problems, and perspectives. In J.  L. Campbell, J.  A. Hall, & O. K. Pedersen (Eds.), National identity and the varieties of capitalism: The Danish experience (pp. 375–397). McGill-Queen’s University Press. Kivisto, P., & Wahlbeck, Ö. (2013). Debating multiculturalism in the Nordic welfare states. In P. Kivisto & Ö. Wahlbeck (Eds.), Debating multiculturalism in the Nordic welfare states (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan. Korsgaard, O. (2006). The Danish way to establish the nation in the hearts of the people. In J. L. Campbell, J. A. Hall, & O. K. Pedersen (Eds.), National identity and the varieties of capitalism: The Danish experience (pp. 133–158). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

101

Kostakopoulou, D. (2010). Matters of control: Integration tests, naturalization reform and probationary citizenship in the United Kingdom. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, 829–846. https://doi. org/10.1080/13691831003764367 Lithman, Y. (2013). Norwegian multicultural debates in Scandinavian perspective. In P. Kivisto & Ö. Wahlbeck (Eds.), Debating multiculturalism in the Nordic welfare states (pp. 246–269). Palgrave Macmillan. Lœgaard, S. (2013). Danish anti-multiculturalism? The significance of the political framing of diversity. In P. Kivisto & Ö. Wahlbeck (Eds.), Debating multiculturalism in the Nordic welfare states (pp.  171–196). Palgrave Macmillan. Ministry of Employment. (2008). Consolidation act on prohibition of discrimination on the labour market etc. https://www.legislationline.org/download/ id/7079/file/Denmark_Consolidation%20Act%20on%20Prohibition%20 of%20Discrimination%20on%20the%20Labour%20Market_2008_en.pdf Mortensen, J., & Fabricius, A. (2014). Language ideologies and Danish higher education: Exploring student perspectives. In A. K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 193–223). John Benjamins. Mortensen, B. O. G., & Suksi, M. (2019). Respecting autonomies and minorities. In P. Letto-Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B. O. G. Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan. Mouritsen, P. (2006). The particular universalism of a Nordic civic nation: Common values, state religion and Islam in Danish political culture. In T. Modood, A. Triandafyllidou, & R. Zapata Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism, Muslims, and citizenship: A European approach (pp. 70–93). Routledge. Mouritsen, P., & Hovmark Jensen, C. (2014). Integration policies in Denmark. (INTERACT Research Report 2014/06). http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/ handle/1814/32020/INTERACT-­RR-­2014_06.pdf Nannestad, P. (2004). Immigration as a challenge to the Danish welfare state? European Journal of Political Economy, 20, 755–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejpoleco.2004.03.003 OECD. (2010). Reviews of migrant education: Denmark. OECD. https://www. oecd.org/denmark/44855206.pdf Olwig, K. F., & Paerregaard, K. (2011). “Strangers” in the nation. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 1–28). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

102 

E. D. Faingold

Padovan-Özdemir, M., & Moldenhawer, B. (2017). Making precarious immigrant families and weaving the Danish welfare nation-state fabric 1979–2010. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20, 723–736. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13613324.2016.1195358 Phelan, M. (2012). Medical interpreting and the law in the European Union. European Journal of Health Law, 19, 333–353. https://doi.org/10.116 3/157180912X650681 Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70, 485–528. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher’s expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.  B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 377–415. Rydgren, J. (2004). Explaining the emergence of radical right-wing populist parties: The case of Denmark. West European Politics, 27, 474–502. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000228103 Rytter, M. (2011). “The family of Denmark” and “the Aliens”: Kinship images in Danish integration politics. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 54–76). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Rytter, M. (2013). Family upheaval: Generation, mobility, and relatedness among Pakistani migrants in Denmark. Berghahn Books. Salö, L., Ganuza, N., Hedman, C., & Karrebæk, M. S. (2018). Mother tongue instruction in Sweden and Denmark: Language policy, cross-field effects, and linguistic exchange rates. Language Policy, 17, 591–610. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10993-­018-­9472-­8 Sausdal, D. (2014). Cultural culprits: Police apprehensions of pickpockets in Copenhagen. In P.  Bevelander & B.  Petersson (Eds.), Crisis in migration: Implications of the Eurozone crisis for perceptions, politics, and policies of migration (pp. 177–204). Nordic Academic Press. Schepelern Johansen, K. (2011). Psychiatric patients with a non-Danish ethnic background: Categorization in a Danish welfare institution. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 168–186). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Schmidt, G. (2011). Law and identity: Transnational arranged marriages and the boundaries of Danishness. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011.521339

3  Language Rights and the Law in Denmark 

103

Schmidt, G. (2013). ‘Let’s get together’: Perspectives on multiculturalism and local implications in Denmark. In P. Kivisto & Ö. Wahlbeck (Eds.), Debating multiculturalism in the Nordic welfare states (pp.  197–218). Palgrave Macmillan. Schwartz, J.  M. (1985). Reluctant hosts: Denmark’s reception of guest workers. Akademisk Forlag. Sjørslev, I. (2011). The paradox of integration: Excluding while claiming to integrate into Danish society. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion, and the Danish welfare state (pp. 77–93). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Spindler Møler, J., & Jørgensen, J. N. (2013). Organizations of language among adolescents in superdiverse Copenhagen. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6, 23–42. https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/ view/31/29 Thuesen, F. (2017). Linguistic barriers and bridges: Constructing social capital in ethnically diverse low skill workplaces. Work, Employment and Society, 31, 937–953. Wallace Goodman, S. (2010). Integration requirements for integration’s sake? Identifying, categorising, and comparing civic integration policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, 753–772. https://doi. org/10.1080/13691831003764300 Wivel, A. (2018). As awkward as they need to be: Denmark’s pragmatic activist approach to Europe. In M.  Stegmann McCallion & A.  Brianson (Eds.), Nordic states and European integration: Awkward partners in the north? (pp. 13–34). Palgrave Macmillan.

4 Language Rights and the Law in Norway

Soon after its Christianization in 1070, Norway was plunged into a period of civil wars which lasted until King Håkon Håkonson (1217–1263) succeeded in unifying the country, bringing about peace, prosperity, and military strength to Norway, thus making it “a medieval power to be reckoned with” (Sanders, 2017, p. 113). However, less than a century later, the Black Death brought all that to an end, with the plague killing as much as 60% of the Norwegian population (1349–1350) (Sanders, 2017; see, further, McKay, 2021). As the author explains, The Norwegian monarchy suffered financially from the high death rate since taxes could not be collected from nobles’ estates or peasants’ farms that had been abandoned and were disused because their inhabitants died. The monarchy was weakened from the king down to newly impoverished aristocratic landowners. Denmark filled the gap left by a nonfunctioning Norwegian monarchy, as its elite classes took over the governance of Norway; in 1380 this move became an official union between Denmark and Norway, under Danish rule. (Sanders, 2017, p. 115)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_4

105

106 

E. D. Faingold

Most important for our purposes, the domination of Norway by Denmark had long lasting linguistic consequences for the Norwegian language: Danish became the language of government administration in Norway in the short run and its national public language in the long run (Sanders, 2017). As the author explains, Norwegian was seldom read and seldom written, and no national standard developed for either writing or speaking Norwegian. However, the surviving spoken rural dialects served as a linguistic reservoir that made possible the renaissance, five hundred years later, of Norway’s written language. … That nineteenth century renaissance included an unanticipated consequence. Modern Norwegian is the only language among the (Scandinavian languages) that was doubled in modern times. The twins are named Bokmål ‘book language’, based on the literary and urban Norwegianized Danish that developed while Denmark ruled Norway, and Nynorsk ‘New Norwegian’, based on the spoken Norwegian dialects of the towns and rural districts. (Sanders, 2017, p. 115)

This chapter studies the ways in which Norwegian legislation addresses the language rights of Norwegian-speakers vis-à-vis linguistic minorities in Norway, which include those who need to learn and use Norwegian Sign Language, Norway’s indigenous population (Sámi), three government recognized minority groups (Kven, Romani, and Romanes), and immigrant groups. First, a Norwegian language test and a citizenship test are required to get permanent residence in Norway, and applicants for Norwegian citizenship must pass a more difficult language test, as well as a citizenship test that is offered only in Norwegian, which can hinder immigrants from obtaining Norwegian permanent residence and citizenship. Second, Norwegian law establishes the right of linguistic minorities to have access to a qualified interpreter in encounters with the healthcare and justice systems, but it offers no legal provisions on the government obligations of providing the financial commitment needed to guarantee that linguistic minorities get access to qualified interpreters as required by law, and quality interpreters are often unavailable when needed. Third, even

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

107

though Norway established no laws to regulate language at work, employers in the construction industry created Norwegian-only regulations that can hinder immigrant workers from obtaining permanent employment in the industry, as the use of immigrant languages on construction sites is deemed likely to compromise safety and security standards. Fourth, in Norway, preschool regulations establish that kindergartens must recognize the value of sign language. However, there is evidence suggesting that deaf children attending kindergarten in Norway are vulnerable, and often excluded, in interactions with hearing classmates and kindergarten staff. In addition, preschool regulations declare that Sámi children have the right to learn their language in kindergarten, and that kindergarten must promote linguistic and cultural diversity, but this term is neither explained nor detailed by the kindergarten regulations. Fifth, Norwegian educational laws protect the use of Norwegian, Sámi, Kven, and Norwegian Sign Language in the schools, but children who rely on the latter for their education spend most of their time in school with hearing children and teachers who are not expected to acquire even a minimum knowledge of sign language. As for children who use immigrant languages, notwithstanding the proven benefits of bilingual and mother-tongue education for the child’s linguistic (as well as cognitive and personality) development, the focus of Norwegian language policy in the schools is on providing adapted language education in Norwegian with little bilingual support. Finally, much like in the rest of Scandinavia, the focus of language policy in Norwegian higher education has been on the application of the concept of “parallelingualism” (i.e., the use of Norwegian and English in parallel for academic purposes). As for the use of Sámi, Kven, and Norwegian Sign Language in higher education, the official policy is that Sámi should be the main language at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Kautokeino, which offers degrees in Sámi education, Sámi journalism, Sámi art and reindeer husbandry, and Sámi language and literature, while Kven language and culture classes are offered at the University of Tromsø, and Norwegian Sign Language and sign language interpreting programs are available at universities across Norway.

108 

E. D. Faingold

Language Policy in Norway In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars and the signing of the Treaty of Kiel (January 14, 1814), in which Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden, a new Norwegian constitution (1814) made Norwegian the official language of government in Norway. At that time, however, as one author notes, the question came up: “What is Norwegian?” (Sanders, 2017, p. 126). As the author explains, The first answer to this question could have been “Dano-Norwegian,” which had become the written and speech norm of Oslo and other urban centers of Norway. … Reformed Dano-Norwegian is now called Bokmål ‘book language’ (or occasionally Riksmål ‘national language’, its older name), and is predominant in Norway today. In its written form strongly resembling Danish, Bokmål is, however, pronounced more like Norway’s eastern dialects and Swedish than Danish. (Sanders, 2017, pp. 126–127)

However, as the author continues, The wish for a language “more Norwegian” than Dano-Norwegian persisted. Enter Norway’s language planner, Ivar Aasen (1813–1896), who constructed a “new” Norwegian from Norway’s surviving dialects. … By 1853 Aasen had proposed a name for it: Landsmål, which means “national language.” … In 1928 the term Landsmål was officially changed to Nynorsk ‘New Norwegian.’ … In 1885 Bokmål and Nynorsk were made equal official written forms of Norwegian. … Not only government documents, but also popular media, use both. (Sanders, 2017, pp. 127–128)

However, today, Bokmål has seen a steep increase in popularity of usage vis-à-vis Nynorsk. This is due to the fact that Norway is becoming more urban and less rural. Thus, Bokmål is the language used in most newspapers and books and is also the language taught in classes for foreign students (Sanders, 2017). Notably, the municipal governments of many of the largest urban centers declared themselves neutral to the use of Bokmål and Nynorsk: Oslo (pop. 876,391), Bergen (pop. 227,752), Trondheim (pop. 160,072), Drammen (pop. 96,562), Skien/Porsgrunn

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

109

(pop. 86,923), Tromsø (pop. 55,057), Moss (pop. 41,725), Bodø (pop. 36,482), Hamar (pop. 30,015) (Wikipedia, 2020). In regard to Norway’s minority languages, the Sámi language (i.e., Southern Sámi, Lule Sámi, and Northern Sámi), used by the Sámi (Norway’s indigenous population) in Northern Norway, also has official status in Norway. Moreover, Norway has three recognized national minority languages in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML): Kven, Romanes, and Romani. Kven is the language spoken by the descendants of Finnish peasants and fishermen who emigrated to Northern Norway from Northern Finland, while Romanes and Romani are the languages of the Gypsy/Roma and Traveller groups respectively. As with Sámi, the Kven language is also covered by the Charter as a territorial national minority language of Norway, while Romanes and Romani are recognized as non-territorial languages in Norway. All these languages are covered under Part II of the Charter, while Sámi was granted protection under Part III (Eriksen, 2013; Public Foundation for European Comparative Minority Research, 2006/2007; see, further, Dunbar (2023), for a detailed discussion of specific language rights covered under Part II vis-à-vis Part III of the ECRML). As for the Sámi language in Northern Norway, when the so-called Sámi mission was established in the Sámi areas in the early eighteenth century, its first director, the Norwegian priest Thomas von Westen, became a supporter of the use of Sámi in education and the church. After von Westen’s death, however, attitudes toward the Sámi became more hostile, although things changed again a century later when another clergyman, N. V. Stockfleth, began working with the Sámi. Notably, at that time, a large number of books were published in Sámi and many teachers were trained to work with the Sámi population (Magga, 1995). However, in the mid-nineteenth century things changed once again, as Norway was becoming established as a state and extensive measures were taken by the Norwegian government to eradicate the language, culture, and traditions of the Sámi and later the Kven (i.e., Norwegianization) (Lehtola, 2004; Magga, 1995; Solbakk, 2006; see, further, Magga, 2005, 2023). At this time, increasingly restrictive laws were passed for the purpose of pressuring the Sámi into abandoning their mother language and becoming monolingual Norwegian-speakers:

110 

E. D. Faingold

1851—Sámi language schools were ordered to function in Norwegian. 1880—It was decreed that Sámi and Finnish could only be used in school as a support language. 1898—A law was passed forbidding the use of Sámi in schools in Sápmi. 1905—The teaching and the use of Sámi in the Romsa (Tromsa) seminary were forbidden (Lehtola, 2004, p. 44). Crucially, the Sámi population was prohibited by law from buying land unless they started to speak Norwegian at home and learned to write it. However, in the aftermath of World War II, Norway reversed course in regard to its policy toward the Sámi and Kven populations, as the Norwegianization policy that banned the language, culture, and traditions of the Sámi and the Kven was scrapped (Magga, 1995; see, further, Magga, 2023; Solbakk, 2006). As the author explains, The old discriminatory laws were repealed. … The 1960s and 1970s produced a stream of resolutions, but nothing decisive happened, although the Sámi language was taken into use in primary schools on an experimental basis in 1967. … Within a few years four major reports were submitted to the Government outlining proposals for a principled basis for an official Sámi policy. (Magga, 1995, p. 221)

Nowadays, the Sámi-speaking population is in the minority in the Sápmi (although there are some communities in the Sámi areas where they are in the majority) (Sanders, 2017). However, thanks to the internet, access to online resources for the use of the Sámi language (teaching materials and online dictionaries) and for learning about Sámi culture (TV programs, videos, and radio broadcasts) is now instantly available (Kent, 2018; Solbakk, 2006, 2018). Although there are no official statistics on those who speak Kven, the number of Kven-speakers in Norway is often estimated to be between 1500 and 10,000 speakers (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 2017). The region where Kven-speakers are concentrated is located in Northern Norway, in the county of Troms and Finnmark (Keränen, 2018). Notably, as the author points out,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

111

Until 2005 Kven was regarded as a Finnish dialect. … On 27 April 2005, Kven was finally recognized as a language by the government of Norway. … The recognition of Kven as a language led to the establishment of the Kven institute … in 2007. The institute functions as a national centre for Kven language and culture, and it is responsible for developing and documenting the language and making it known to the public. The same year the language council, Kieliraati, was founded. (Keränen, 2018, pp. 178–179)

As the author continues, The language board was founded the following year, April 2008, and its members were language users of diverse dialects of Kven. … The first optional recommendations that the language board prepared concerned the main guidelines of standardization. It prepared five alternative texts for the language council, from which they chose the text samples that were the most suitable ones in their dialects. … The language council chose the text closest to Meänkieli. … In April 2008, it was decided that the written standard of Kven is primarily a textbook standard language for teaching. (Keränen, 2018, pp. 183–184)

Accordingly, the first comprehensive grammar of the Kven language, written in Kven, was published in December of 2014 (Söderholm, 2014), and its Norwegian translation appeared 3 years later (Söderholm, 2017). As for the use of Kven in the media, a newspaper, Ruijan Kaiku, is published in Kven (https://www.ruijan-­kaiku.no/), and Kven is also used in radio broadcasting within the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) (Niiranen, 2021). Notably, as one study points out, In Norway, the Sámi languages are protected as indigenous languages, which ensures stable funding on all sectors. Kven and the other national minority languages share a common allotment of the state’s budget, and each yearly allotment has to be divided into practically all projects with the exception of project-targeted grants. … Some experts and Kven activists see the ratification of part III in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages as the answer. It would oblige the state of Norway to contribute more funding to Kven language maintenance. (Keränen, 2018, p. 188)

112 

E. D. Faingold

Language and the Law in Norway In 2021, Norway enacted the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021), in effect since January 1, 2022, “to strengthen the Norwegian language in order to safeguard it as a complete language, serving and uniting our society, that can be used in all areas of society and in all parts of civil society in Norway” (Language Act, Section 1). Notably, Section 1 of the Language Act establishes that “the Act shall promote equality between Bokmål and Nynorsk and ensure the protection and status of the languages for which the state is responsible” (Language Act, Section 1). More specifically, Section 1 of the Language Act states that: (a) public bodies take responsibility for using, developing and strengthening Bokmål and Nynorsk. (b) public bodies take responsibility for using, developing and strengthening Sámi languages, cf. the rules in Chapter 3 of the Sámi Act. (c) public bodies take responsibility for protecting and promoting Kven, Romani, Romanes and Norwegian sign language. The responsibility pursuant to paragraph (a) includes a special responsibility for promoting Nynorsk, as the least used written Norwegian language. (Language Act, Section 1)

Accordingly, Section 4 of the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) establishes that “Norwegian is the primary national language in Norway” (Language Act, Section 4). Additionally, Section 4 establishes that “Bokmål and Nynorsk are Norwegian languages with equal value that can be used in all parts of society,” and that they “have equal standing as written languages in public bodies” (Language Act, Section 4). In regard to languages other than Norwegian, the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) establishes that the “Sámi languages are indigenous languages in Norway,” that “Sámi languages and Norwegian are languages of equal value,” and that they “have equal standing under Chapter 3 of the Sámi Act” (Language Act, Section 5) (see below); that “Kven, Romani and Roma are national minority languages in Norway,” and that “as expressions of language and culture, Kven,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

113

Romani and Roma are equal in value to Norwegian” (Language Act, Section 6); that “Norwegian sign language is the national sign language in Norway,” and that “as an expression of language and culture, Norwegian sign language is equal in value to Norwegian” (Language Act, Section 7); and that “everyone has the right to use Swedish or Danish in contact with public bodies,” but that “public bodies may respond in Norwegian” (Language Act, Section 8). Notably, Sections 10 to 17 of the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) establish comprehensive linguistic regulations for the use of Bokmål and Nynorsk by public and state bodies. These include: the requirement that public bodies comply with the official orthography for Bokmål and Nynorsk (Section 10); the right of a municipality or a county authority to require that state bodies use only Bokmål or Nynorsk in all written communication with the municipality or county authority, or that the municipality or county authority be linguistically neutral (Section 11); the right to use Bokmål or Nynorsk as the written majority language in a service area (Section 12); the requirement of alternating between Bokmål and Nynorsk in publicly available documents (Section 13); the parallel use of Bokmål and Nynorsk by state bodies (Section 14); the right to use Bokmål and Nynorsk in written documents for private legal persons and individual municipalities (Section 15); the requirement that state bodies and county authorities have the necessary writing competence to use Bokmål and Nynorsk (Section 16); and that if the wrong written language is used, the recipient has the right to appeal and demand that a document be reissued (Section 17): Section 10 Official orthography for Bokmål and Nynorsk Public bodies shall comply with the official orthographic rules for Bokmål and Nynorsk. State bodies shall have names in Norwegian, both Bokmål and Nynorsk. The names shall comply with the official orthographic rules. (Language Act, 2021, Section 10) Section 11 Municipal and county authority language decisions A municipality or a county authority may itself decide to require that state bodies shall use only Bokmål or Nynorsk in all written communication with the municipality or county authority, or that the municipality or

114 

E. D. Faingold

county authority shall be linguistically neutral. A municipality or a county authority shall be considered linguistically neutral as long as no such decision has been made. Municipalities and county authorities shall notify the Language Council of Norway about language decisions pursuant to the first paragraph. (Language Act, 2021, Section 11) Section 12 Majority language The majority language in a service area is the written Norwegian language, either Bokmål or Nynorsk, for which more than half of the municipalities in a service area make a language decision pursuant to section 11. A regional state body shall use the majority language in the area of service. If there is no majority language in a service area, a regional state body shall be considered linguistically neutral. (Language Act, 2021, Section 12) Section 13 Alternating between Bokmål and Nynorsk in publicly available documents Over time, central state bodies shall use at least 25 per cent of both Bokmål and Nynorsk in publicly available documents. Regional state bodies that have either Bokmål or Nynorsk as the majority language in their area of service shall use the majority language in publicly available documents. A linguistically neutral regional state body whose area of service encompasses municipalities that have made language decisions concerning Bokmål or Nynorsk pursuant to section 11, shall alternate between the written languages so that there is a reasonable proportion between them in publicly available documents. If at least a quarter of the municipalities in a service area have decided to require the same written language, a linguistically neutral regional state body shall alternate between the written languages so that over time there is at least 25 per cent of this written language in publicly available documents. If at least one municipality, but less than a quarter of the municipalities in a service area have made a decision to require Nynorsk, the regional state body shall alternate between the written languages so that over time there will be at least 10 per cent Nynorsk in publicly available documents. If municipalities in a geographically delimited area have a majority language, state bodies shall use this language in documents aimed at these municipalities. The same applies when a document has a special connection to such a geographically delimited area. If a document has a special connection to only one municipality, state bodies shall comply with the language decision made by this municipality.

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

115

County authorities that are language neutral pursuant to section 11 of this Act, shall alternate between the written languages so that there is a reasonable proportion between them in publicly available documents. (Language Act, 2021, Section 13) Section 14 Parallel use of Bokmål and Nynorsk by state bodies State bodies shall make forms and other self-service services simultaneously available in Bokmål and Nynorsk. If a private legal person requires that permits and standardized forms that directly apply to the legal person shall be in either Bokmål or Nynorsk, state bodies shall comply with the requirement. State bodies shall simultaneously publish documents intended for use in schools in both Bokmål and Nynorsk. (Language Act, 2021, Section 14) Section 15 Use of Bokmål and Nynorsk for private legal persons and individual municipalities In documents addressed to a private legal person, state bodies and county authorities shall use the written Norwegian language which the private legal person itself has used in communication with the body, or which the private legal person has otherwise stated that it wishes to use. In documents addressed to a municipality or a county authority that has made a language decision pursuant to section 11, state bodies and county authorities shall use the stipulated written language. (Language Act, 2021, Section 15) Section 16 Requirements for writing competence State bodies and county authorities shall ensure that they have the necessary writing competence to be able to use Bokmål and Nynorsk in accordance with this Act. State bodies and county authorities can require that employees shall write both Bokmål and Nynorsk. However, this does not apply to employees who have not completed secondary language training in primary and lower secondary school. The Ministry may issue regulations on other special exceptions from the first sentence of the second paragraph. (Language Act, 2021, Section 16) Section 17 Right of appeal If the wrong written language is used in a document as described in section 14, second paragraph, the recipient may appeal and demand that the document be reissued. Sections 28 to 35 of the Public Administration Act apply to cases pursuant to the first sentence. (Language Act, 2021, Section 17)

116 

E. D. Faingold

Finally, Section 19 establishes that the Language Council of Norway is the official administrative body responsible for managing language issues in Norway, including written standards, spelling and naming customs, as well as providing guidance to public bodies concerning the rules in the Language Act: Section 19 The Language Council of Norway The Language Council of Norway is the state’s administrative body for language issues and administers the official written standards for Bokmål and Nynorsk. The Language Council of Norway shall advise state bodies on spelling and naming customs before a decision is made on the names of state bodies. The Language Council of Norway supervises how state bodies comply with the rules in section 10, second paragraph and sections 12 to 17. The Language Council of Norway shall provide guidance to public bodies concerning the rules in this Act. (Language Act, 2021, Section 19)

As for the language rights of the Sámi in Norway, the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987), enacted on June 12, 1987, was designed specifically “to enable the Sámi people in Norway to safeguard and develop their language, culture and way of life” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 1, Section 1.1). Accordingly, Chapter 3, Section 3.1 of the Act defines the terms “Sámi language administrative district,” “public body,” “local public body in the administrative district,” and “regional public body in the administrative district” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.1). Section 3.1 Definitions 1. The term “Sámi language administrative district” shall mean the municipalities of Karasjok, Kautokeino, Nesseby, Porsanger, Tana and Kåfjord. 2. The term “public body” shall mean any state or municipal body. 3. The term “local public body in the administrative district” shall mean any municipal, county municipal or state body whose jurisdiction comprises a municipality or part of a municipality in the Sámi language administrative district.

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

117

4. The term “regional public body in the administrative district” shall mean any county municipal or state body whose jurisdiction comprises all or part of more than one of the municipalities in the Sámi language administrative district, but which nevertheless does not cover the entire country. (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.1)

Importantly, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987) establishes translation requirements of statutes and regulations that affect the Sámi population, as well as rules that require the use of both Sámi and Norwegian in announcements and forms created by public bodies. Section 3.2 Translation of rules. Announcements and forms Statutes and regulations of particular interest to all or parts of the Sámi population shall be translated into Sámi. Announcements by public bodies which are particularly addressed to all or parts of the population in the administrative district shall be made in both Sámi and Norwegian. Forms to be used in connection with a local or regional public body in the administrative district shall be available in both Sámi and Norwegian. (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.2)

Additionally, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987) establishes the right to receive a reply in Sámi when communicating with a public body. Thus, in the Sámi administrative area, local public bodies are required to answer in Sámi when a member of the public contacts the authorities, whether orally or in writing. Regional public bodies in the administrative district are also required to answer in Sámi if they receive written applications from the public. Section 3.3 Right to a reply in Sámi Any person who makes an application in Sámi to a local public body in the administrative district is entitled to a reply in Sámi. However, this does not apply in the case of oral applications to officials who are carrying out assignments outside the office of the said body.

118 

E. D. Faingold

Any person who makes a written application in Sámi to a regional public body in the administrative district is entitled to a written reply in Sámi. (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.3)

Importantly, Chapter 3, Section 3.4 of the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987) protects the right to use Sámi in the judicial system: Section 3.4 Extended right to use Sámi in the judicial system In the case of courts of law whose jurisdiction comprises all or parts of the administrative district, the following rules regarding the use of Sámi shall also apply: 1. Any person has a right to submit written pleadings with appendices, written evidence or other written applications in Sámi. If the court is to transmit the application to an opposite party, it shall ensure that the document is translated into Norwegian. The translation may be omitted with the consent of the opposite party. 2. Any person has a right to make an oral application to the court in Sámi if statutory legal procedure allows oral instead of written applications. If the court is under an obligation to record the application in writing, the person making the application may demand that it be written in Sámi. Such a demand does not interrupt any time limit. Subsection 1, second and third sentences, apply correspondingly. 3. Any person has a right to speak Sámi at court sittings. If a person who does not speak Sámi participates in the proceedings, an interpreter appointed or approved by the court shall be used. 4. At the request of one of the parties, the president of the court may decide that the language used in the proceedings shall be Sámi. Subsection 3, second sentence, shall apply correspondingly. 5. If the language used in the proceedings is Sámi, the president of the court may decide that the court records shall also be kept in Sámi. The court will ensure that the records are translated into Norwegian. 6. The court will ensure that court records which are written in Norwegian are translated into Sámi when one of the parties so demands. Such a demand does not interrupt any time limit.

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

119

Police and prosecuting authorities whose jurisdiction comprises all or parts of the administrative district shall also be subject to the following rules regarding the use of Sámi: 1. Any person has a right to speak Sámi during interviews in the body’s office. 2. Any person has a right to use Sámi when making a formal complaint orally or giving oral notice of seeking a judicial remedy. Prison institutions in Troms and Finnmark shall also be subject to the following rules regarding the use of Sámi: 1. Section 3.5 applies correspondingly to prison inmates. 2. Prison inmates are entitled to speak Sámi to each other and to their relatives. 3. Prison inmates are entitled to speak Sámi when giving oral notice of seeking a judicial remedy to the prison authorities. (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.4)

Just as important, Chapter 3, Section 3.5 of the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987) establishes that “any person wishing to use Sámi in order to protect his or her own interests vis-à-vis local and regional public health and social institutions in the administrative district is entitled to be served in Sámi” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.5). Additionally, Chapter 3, Section 3.6 of the Sámi Act declares that “any person is entitled to receive individual church services in Sámi in the Church of Norway’s congregations in the administrative district” (Sámi Act, 1987, Section 3.6). Notably, Chapter 3, Section 3.7 of the Sámi Act establishes that “employees in a local or regional public body in the administrative district are entitled to leave with pay in order to acquire a knowledge of Sámi when the said body is in need of such knowledge” (Sámi Act, 1987, Section 3.7). Crucially, Chapter 3, Section 3.8 of the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987) establishes the right to receive instruction in Sámi. Section 3.8 Right to tuition in Sámi

120 

E. D. Faingold

Any person is entitled to receive tuition in Sámi. The King may issue further rules regarding the implementation of this provision. As regards tuition in and through the medium of Sámi in primary and secondary school, the provisions made in and pursuant to the Act relating to Primary and Lower Secondary Education and the Act relating to Upper Secondary Education shall apply. (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.8)

Finally, it is worth noting that in 1988 the Norwegian Constitution was amended to recognize the Sámi as an indigenous population of Norway. Specifically, the new amendment establishes that “it is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling the Sámi people to preserve and develop its language, culture and way of life” (Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, 1814, Article 108).

L egislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Norway Historically, Norway has never been a country open to immigration from countries outside the Nordic region. Yet, during the period between 1957 and 1975, in which it lifted restrictions to employment-based immigration, a considerable number of low-skilled immigrants came to Norway from Pakistan, Turkey, and Morocco. In 1975, however, Norway put an end to all immigration from non-Nordic countries, allowing only for small numbers of immigrants with specialized skills needed in the Norwegian economy to come to Norway as immigrants. Nevertheless, the immigrant share of the population in Norway increased significantly since the 1970s, from 2% in 1980, to 8% in 2005, and to nearly 16% by January 2015 (Hardoy et al., 2018). Notably, as the author points out, By 2004, almost 75% of immigrants in Norway were non-Western compared to 25% in 1980. With the inclusion of new member states in the EU in 2004, immigration from Eastern and Central Europe increased rapidly (due to Norway’s membership of the European Economic Area, EEA). The largest immigrant group has long been Pakistanis, but since 2008 Poles is the largest group. (Hardoy et al., 2018, p. 307)

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

121

More recently, according to Statistics Norway (March 2020), the immigrant population reached 790,497 (out of 4,033,960, or 19.6% of the total population of Norway) (https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/ statistikker/innvbef ), including 173,506 refugees (4.4% of the total population of Norway) (https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/ innvgrunn). Iraqis make up the largest group of immigrants with refugee background in Norway. They made up the largest group of asylum seekers for a number of years, until 2009, when the Norwegian government took measures to reduce the number of asylum applicants from Iraq (Hauger, 2011). The Norwegian government does not collect information about the languages spoken in its territory, but it does keep statistics on the citizenship and country of birth of all foreigners living in Norway. Thus, in 2020, the largest number of foreigners living in Norway came from Poland (101,153), followed by Lithuania (40,632), Sweden (35,568), Syria (31,953), Somalia (28,554), Germany (24,953), Philippines (23,280), Iraq (23,260), Eritrea (23,075), Pakistan (21,109), and Thailand (21,097) (https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/ innvbef ). Hence, the number of Polish-speakers living in Norway can be estimated at 101,153 (out of 4.033,960, or 2.5%, of the total population of Norway), while the number of Arabic-speakers can be estimated by adding up the number of Syrians (31,953), Iraqis (23,260), Egyptians (8154), Moroccans (6184), Sudanese (4873), Palestinians (3360), Lebanese (2811), Egyptians (1380), Tunisians (1120), Saudis (977), Yemenis (651), Emiratis (512), and Kuwaitis (494), which comprise a population of 85,729 people originating from Arabic-speaking countries (2.1%, of the total population of Norway). Thus, after Norwegian, Polish is the most widely spoken language in Norway, with about 101,153 speakers, followed by Arabic with 85,729 speakers, Lithuanian with 46,312 speakers, Swedish with 35,568 speakers, German with 24, 953 speakers, and Tagalog with 23,280 speakers (https://www.ssb.no/en/ befolkning/statistikker/innvbef ). In regard to language policy toward immigrants and refugees in Norway, the Action Plan for Integration and Social Inclusion of the

122 

E. D. Faingold

Immigrant Population and Goals for Social Inclusion (Ministry of Labor and Social Inclusion, 2006) (hence Action Plan for the Immigrant Population) declares that The first job for newly arrived immigrants is to learn the Norwegian language and become familiar with Norwegian society. The authorities are responsible for facilitating the situation so that each individual can acquire the necessary knowledge … (to) rapidly enter working life and become self-reliant. (Ministry of Labor and Social Inclusion, 2006, p. 7)

Moreover, the Action Plan for the Immigrant Population notes that “persons who arrive as asylum seekers must often spend extended periods of time in a reception centre while waiting for a decision in their case” (Ministry of Labor and Social Inclusion, 2006, p. 7). As a study of asylum seekers in Norway explains, New asylum seekers to Norway live in reception centers located throughout the country. They and their families are required to participate in a standardized introduction program. … The aim of the program is for participants to learn Norwegian, obtain knowledge about Norwegian society … and become prepared to enter the labor market or pursue further education. (Schein et al., 2019, pp. 2–4)

Similarly, Section 17 of the Act on an Introduction Programme and Norwegian Language Training for Newly Arrived Immigrants (Norwegian Parliament, 2003) (hence Introduction Act) establishes the right and obligation of immigrants and asylum seekers to participate in Norwegian language training and social studies instruction: Section 17 The right and obligation to participate in Norwegian language training and social studies The right and obligation to participate in Norwegian language training and social studies free of charge for a total of 300 hours shall apply to foreign nationals between 16 and 55 years of age who have been granted a) a residence or work permit pursuant to the Immigration Act that constitutes grounds for a settlement permit, or b) collective protection in a situation of mass outflow pursuant to section 8a of the Immigration Act.

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

123

A foreign national between 55 and 67 years of age who is resident on such grounds as are mentioned in (a) or (b) has a right, but not an obligation, to participate in such training as is mentioned in the first paragraph. (Introduction Act, 2003, Section 17)

Section 18 of the Introduction Act (Norwegian Parliament, 2003) delineates the responsibilities of municipalities in Norway for providing Norwegian language and social studies training: Accordingly, Section 18 Municipal responsibility for Norwegian language training and social studies As soon as possible and not later than three months after a claim or an application for participation is presented, the municipality shall provide Norwegian language training and social studies pursuant to section 17 for persons who are resident in the municipality or who are living temporarily at reception centers for asylum seekers in the municipality. The municipality may require that persons to whom section 17, third paragraph, applies shall pay for the training. As soon as possible and not later than three months after an application for participation is presented, the municipality shall arrange for further Norwegian language training to be offered free of charge to persons covered by section 17, first and second paragraphs, up to a maximum of 2700 hours, if the person concerned needs it. The municipality may require the person concerned to take tests to determine whether there is a need for such training. The municipality’s obligation pursuant to this paragraph shall apply for five years from the date the right or obligation to participate in Norwegian language training and social studies arises. … Training shall be provided by the municipality or by others approved by the municipality. (Introduction Act, 2003, Section 18)

Most important for our purposes, in 2016, Norway established new (and much tougher) Norwegian language rules for permanent residency and citizenship. Before the new rules were created, there were little or no language demands to obtain permanent residency or citizenship in Norway, as immigrants seeking residency or citizenship were only required to attend Norwegian language classes (Brochmann & Djuve, 2013). By contrast, the new rules require that, to become a permanent resident or to

124 

E. D. Faingold

acquire Norwegian citizenship by naturalization, knowledge of Norwegian must be demonstrated. Accordingly, there are now two new tests applicants must pass to obtain permanent residency in Norway: the oral Norwegian language test at A1 level and the Social Studies test in whichever language the applicant chooses. As before, immigrants also need to take 300 or 600 h of classes. The new permanent residency rules apply to applicants who are between 18 and 67  years old and who submitted their application after December 17, 2016. As for the rules to obtain Norwegian citizenship, as of January 1, 2017, applicants must pass two tests: the Norwegian oral test at A2 level and the new citizenship test in Norwegian. The new regulations for citizenship apply to applicants who are between 18 and 67 years old and who submitted their application after January 1, 2017 (https://norskbloggen.no/new-­rules-­for-­immigration-­to-­norway/). Notably, the Norwegian language examination consists of written and oral tests. The oral test is, in turn, divided into a conversation part and an individual speaking part. The written test consists of three parts: listening (25–50 min), reading (75 min), and written presentations (90 min). Applicants can take the test for free only once. To retake the test or parts of the test, applicants are charged a fee which is set by each municipality. Applicants who have a visual or hearing impairment can apply for an adapted version of the test for the visually impaired or sign language user (https://www.kompetansenorge.no/norwegian-­language-­test/ #ob=10849,10860,12807,11082,19426,19429). Thus, as in Iceland, Norwegian law requires that a foreign national has attended a course in Norwegian for foreigners before applying for permanent residency (unlike Sweden, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, which have no such requirement) (see Chaps. 2, 5, 6, 7). However, since 2016, a Norwegian language oral proficiency test is also required to obtain a permanent residence permit in Norway. Importantly, as in Denmark and Iceland, applicants for Norwegian citizenship must pass a demanding language proficiency test (both oral and written), as well as a citizenship test—that is only offered in Norwegian (see Chaps. 3 and 5).

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

125

L egislation Concerning Language in the Courts and the Healthcare System in Norway As we have seen, the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) establishes that “Norwegian is the primary national language in Norway” (Language Act, 2021, Section 4). However, and just as important, the Language Act establishes that “Sámi languages are indigenous languages in Norway,” and most importantly, that “Sámi languages and Norwegian are languages of equal value” (Language Act, 2021, Section 5). Accordingly, Chapter 3, Section 3.4 of the Sámi Act establishes “the right to use Sámi in the courts of law whose jurisdiction comprises all or parts of the (Sámi) administrative district” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.4). More specifically, regulations that protect the right to use Sámi in the courts of law in the Sámi administrative district include the “right to submit written pleadings with appendices, written evidence or other written applications in Sámi”; the right “to make an oral application in Sámi if statutory legal procedure allows oral instead of written applications”; and the right “to speak Sámi at court sittings” or, “if a person who does not speak Sámi participates in the proceedings,” to use “an interpreter appointed or approved by the court” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.4). Additionally, Section 3.4 of the Sámi Act establishes that “at the request of one of the parties, the president of the court may decide that the language used in the proceedings shall be Sámi”; that “if the language used in the proceedings is Sámi, the president of the court may decide that the court records shall also be kept in Sámi”; and that “court records which are written in Norwegian are translated into Sámi when one of the parties so demands” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.4). Finally, Section 3.4 of the Sámi Act establishes that police and prosecuting authorities whose jurisdiction comprises all or parts of the administrative district are required to allow the use of Sámi “during interviews in the body’s office” and “when making a formal complaint orally or giving oral notice of seeking a judicial remedy”; and that “prison inmates are entitled to speak Sámi to each other and to their relatives” in Troms and Finnmark prisons and “when giving oral notice of seeking a judicial remedy to the prison authorities” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.4).

126 

E. D. Faingold

Just as important, Chapter 3, Section 3.5 of the Sámi Act establishes that “any person wishing to use Sámi in order to protect his or her own interests vis-à-vis local and regional public health and social institutions in the administrative district is entitled to be served in Sámi” (Sámi Act, 1987, Chapter 3, Section 3.5). Additionally, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Patients’ Rights Act (Norwegian Parliament, 1999) establish that all patients are entitled to participate in the implementation of their health care (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.1), and to receive the information needed to understand their health condition, treatment, including risks and side effects (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.2): Section 3.1 The patient’s right to participation The patient is entitled to participate in the implementation of his or her health care. This includes the patient’s right to participate in choosing between available and medically sound methods of examination and treatment. The form of participation shall be adapted to the individual patient’s ability to give and receive information. If the patient is not competent to give consent, the patient’s next of kin is entitled to participate together with the patient. If the patient wishes other persons to be present when health care is provided, his or her wishes shall be accommodated as far as possible. (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.1) Section 3.2 The patient’s right to information The patient shall have the information that is necessary to obtain an insight into his or her health condition and the content of the health care. The patient shall also be informed of possible risks and side effects. Information shall not be given against the expressed will of the patient, unless it is necessary in order to prevent harmful effects caused by the health care, or it is prescribed by or pursuant to statute. Information may be omitted if it is absolutely necessary in order to prevent endangering the patient’s life or serious damage to the patient’s health. Information may also be omitted if it is clearly inadvisable to provide such information out of consideration for persons who are close to the patient. If injury or serious complications are inflicted upon the patient, the patient shall be informed of this. At the same time, the patient shall be made aware of his or her right to apply for compensation through the Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients. If, after the treatment has

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

127

been concluded, it is discovered that the patient may have suffered considerable injury as a result of the health care, the patient shall be informed of this if possible. (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.2)

Notably, Section 3.5 of the Patients’ Rights Act (Norwegian Parliament, 1999) specifies that patients with limited knowledge of Norwegian to receive medical information that is adapted to their cultural and linguistic background (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.5): Section 3.5 The form of information Information shall be adapted to the qualifications of the individual recipient, such as age, maturity, experience and cultural and linguistic background (emphasis added). The information shall be provided in a considerate manner. As far as possible, health personnel shall ensure that the patient has understood the contents and significance of the information. An entry concerning the information that has been provided shall be made in the patient’s medical records. (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.5)

Accordingly, regulations that aim to ensure good communication between healthcare professionals and patients who have a limited knowledge of Norwegian were issued by the Norwegian health authorities (Directorate of Health, n.d.). Specifically, these regulations establish that • (The patient) must receive information on his or her health condition in a language he or she understands. • The health service has the duty and responsibility to book an interpreter. • The interpreting service is free for the patient. • (The patient) can call the health service and ask them to book an interpreter. • (The patient) may have the right to an interpreter even if he or she speaks Norwegian on a daily basis. This especially applies with serious and chronic diseases, and with consultations on mental disorders. • Only a qualified interpreter can be used. • Children are not to be used as interpreters.

128 

E. D. Faingold

• Health personnel have a duty to provide healthcare in a professional way. If (the patient) do(es) not want to use an interpreter, he or she must be informed that this can have negative effects on their health. • Telephone interpreting maybe a good alternative to having an interpreter present in the room. • If (the patient) cannot come to your appointment, (the patient) must cancel at least 24 h in advance. If not, (the patient) will have to pay for the appointment (Directorate of Health, n.d., p. 2). Most importantly, the new rules specify that: • A qualified interpreter has education in the field and interpreting experience. • An interpreter provides the interpreting rules in both languages when the consultation starts. • An interpreter shall not take any sides in the conversation. • An interpreter has the duty of confidentiality. It is a criminal offence to break the confidentiality agreement. • An interpreter shall only interpret what is said, and shall not offer advice or add his or her own opinions. • An interpreter shall only interpret and shall not do other tasks for either the patient or the health personnel. • The interpreter must not be interrupted and must be given time to interpret what the parties in the conversation say. • All questions shall be directed to the health personnel, not the interpreter (Directorate of Health, n.d., p. 2). Thus, as established by the Sámi Act (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 1987), the Patients’ Rights Act (Norwegian Parliament, 1999), and regulations issued by the Norwegian health authorities (Directorate of Health, n.d.), Sámi-speakers have the right to use a qualified interpreter (i.e., one who has education in the medical field and interpreting experience in Sámi), when they use healthcare services in the Sámi district. However, a study drawing on interviews with 20 clinicians (ten of which were qualified nurses, social workers, physiotherapists or

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

129

occupational therapists, while another ten were psychologists or psychiatrists), which studied the provision of language-appropriate health care to Sámi-­speaking patients and the use of Sámi in therapy, shows that “service users are dissatisfied with the possibilities to speak Sámi when receiving health care. … The lack of Sámi-speaking clinicians and professional Sami interpreters is reportedly the main challenge, both in local and specialized health services” (Dagsvold et al., 2016, 32,588, Introduction section, para 2; see, further, Boge, 2020; Dagsvold et al., 2015, 2020). As the authors explain, Sámi patients’ language proficiency, both in mother tongue and other languages, and preferred therapy language are not systematically identified prior to treatment. … This complicates the provision of therapy in the patient’s preferred language. Our findings correspond with those of Nystad et al. (2008) and Sørlie and Nergård (2005) and indicate that Norwegian health care needs to improve organizational systems and enhance clinicians’ awareness of Sámi patients’ language needs. (Dagsvold et al., 2016, 32,588, Conclusion section, para 1)

Similarly, another study that investigated how 23 nurses experience encounters with Sámi patients in healthcare services in Northern Norway shows that “Norwegian nurses … often struggle to navigate linguistic and cultural challenges when working with Sámi-speaking patients and underutilize qualified interpreters when caring for Sámi clients” (Engnes et al., 2020, p. 283; see, further, Sivertsen, 2010). As the authors conclude, “the consequences of too few Sámi-speaking staff in the northern healthcare setting sometimes leads to misunderstandings in treatment or diagnostics, resulting in patient safety at risk” (Engnes et  al., 2020, p. 283). In the same vein, another study which investigated how Sámispeaking patients and their relatives experience encounters with the Norwegian healthcare system in their municipality or in hospital stays shows that “the biggest shortcoming between health-care personnel and Sámi-speaking patients is that there is no or limited spoken Sámi language. This was communicated by the youngest and oldest patients (aged 24 and 76, respectively), and by women and men” (Mehus et al., 2019, p. 4). Notably, as the authors reveal, “even younger patients, who have

130 

E. D. Faingold

learned both Norwegian and Sámi at school, describe stress and worry when meeting Norwegian health-care personnel, because they cannot describe their symptoms and illness profiles adequately in Norwegian” (Mehus et al., 2019, p. 4). As the authors conclude, There are limited Sámi-speaking staffs, staff do not reflect on the importance of interpreting for patient safety, … interpreters are not planned for doctor-patient encounters or when introducing important information. … All these factors make Sámi patients feel disconnected, discriminated, diminished and disempowered. … This can be perceived as a reminder or echo from past, officially terminated, assimilation policies. (Mehus et al., 2019, p. 7)

As with the Sámi-speaking population, immigrant and refugee patients are also covered by the Patients’ Rights Act (Norwegian Parliament, 1999), which requires that all patients receive the right information needed to understand their health condition and treatment (including risks and side effects), as well as by specific government health regulations (Directorate of Health, n.d.) which establish the right of the patient to use a qualified interpreter (i.e., one who has education in the medical field and interpreting experience in the patient’s preferred language), when utilizing the Norwegian healthcare system (see above). However, a study drawing on interviews with Iraqi immigrants in the greater Oslo area reveals that a “lack of provision of trained interpreters and the use of family members as interpreters” continue to affect the Norwegian healthcare system (Hauger & Sagbakken, 2011, p.  51). As the authors conclude, “inadequate provision of interpreter services compromises the quality of care for patients in need of interpreters, and particularly for patients with mental disorders” (Hauger & Sagbakken, 2011, p. 54). In the same vein, a 2012 survey of the hospitals in the Oslo area revealed that 88% of the interpreters employed by the hospitals lacked the formal qualifications necessary to work as interpreters in the health system (Buzunge & Linnestad, 2012; cited by Ministry of Health and Care n.d.). Notably, the Ministry’s paper also notes that “the training in interpreting for healthcare personnel in Norway is flawed and haphazard,” and that “family members and children are sometimes used as

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

131

interpreters” (Ministry of Health and Care n.d., p.  31). For example, according to a report on GP’s use of interpreters in the Norwegian health system produced by the Directorate of Immigration, 78% of GPs “often” or “sometimes” use adult family members as interpreters, and 29% of GPs “often” or “sometimes” use minor family members as interpreters (Directorate of Immigration, 2005; cited by Ministry of Health and Care n.d., p. 31). Similarly, a study of refugees and asylum seekers in Norway notes the language barriers that still affect communication between refugees and health providers, mainly because of a lack of reliable translators in the healthcare sector (Schein et  al., 2019). As the authors conclude “while most participants were able to converse in English and indicated that they now spoke Norwegian, many discussed prior or current language barriers. Interpreters were not always reliable” (Schein et al., 2019, p.  7). Similarly, another study that investigated the experiences of 19 Polish-­speaking patients who needed a qualified interpreter when accessing healthcare services in Oslo or its vicinities shows that all except one reported that they had experienced limited access to interpreters or that their access was denied for the following reasons: health personnel did not offer the service, they claimed they did not have access to or have resources for interpreter services, they asked the patient to pay him/herself, or they forgot to order an interpreter when the patient had asked for one. … Many participants had used ad hoc interpreters such as friends, children or bilingual employees, compromising the quality of the interpretation. (Czapka et al., 2019, pp. 759–760)

As the authors conclude, The patients in this study often received information regarding their health condition and treatment in a language they did not fully understand. Thus, their rights enshrined in the Health & Rights Act Chapter 3 were violated. … For various reasons, ranging from costs to overestimating migrants’ language skills, health personnel seem reluctant to book interpreters. As a result, effective communication between health care personnel and the patient is hindered, putting migrant patients’ health at risk. (Czapka et al., 2019, pp. 762–763)

132 

E. D. Faingold

As a final example, a recent study of 20 Arabic-speaking adults with limited knowledge of Norwegian, who had been hospitalized for 2 days or more in a Norwegian hospital, reveals that “translation by no-­specialists was often blamed for delays, misunderstandings, and a sense of aloofness” (Alkhaled et al., 2022, p. 5). As the authors conclude, “as suggested by the participants, a better interpretation of technical and sensitive terminologies requires the engagement of professional interpreters” (Alkhaled et al., 2022, p. 10). In regard to the language rights of deaf and hard of hearing people in Norway, as we have seen, the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) establishes that “Norwegian sign language is the national sign language in Norway,” and that “as an expression of language and culture, Norwegian sign language is equal in value to Norwegian” (Language Act, Section 7). Moreover, as with the Sámi and immigrant/ refugee populations, deaf and hard of hearing patients are also covered by the Patients’ Rights Act (Norwegian Parliament, 1999), which requires that all patients receive the right information needed to understand their health condition and treatment (including risks and side effects), as well as by specific regulations (Directorate of Health, n.d.), which establish the right of the patient to use a qualified interpreter (i.e., one who has education in the medical field and interpreting experience in the patient’s preferred language), when utilizing the Norwegian healthcare system (see above). Notably, there is a lack of literature available to research analyzing the effectiveness (or lack thereof ) of sign language interpreters in the Norwegian healthcare system. As for the right to use sign language interpreters in the courts, a study investigating the experiences of deaf informants in encounters with the administration of criminal law, either as victims, witnesses, suspects or convicted persons, notes that “the Criminal Procedure Act specifies that a deaf person is entitled to have an interpreter,” and that “the usual way of dealing with the communicative challenge in Norway is to use a minimum of two cooperating sign language interpreters to mediate the communication between the two interactive parties” (Olsen & Kermit, 2015, p. 29). However, as the authors reveal, “victims experience more instances where they have to make do without interpreters than those informants

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

133

who had been suspected of crimes” (Olsen & Kermit, 2015, p. 35; see, also, Kermit et al., 2011). Not surprisingly, a report produced by the Norwegian government Interpreting Services Review Committee in 2014 noted that “interpreters are under-used, qualification requirements are lacking and there are poor procedures for booking interpreters,” and that “there is no organized system for interpreting in the public sector across the sectors” (Norwegian Official Report, 2014, p. 1). Moreover, the report noted that “the legislation that governs communication through an interpreter is fragmented and often understood differently” by major Norwegian public organizations (i.e., justice, law enforcement, health care, and education) (Norwegian Official Report, 2014, p. 2). Hence, the committee recommended that new legislation should “lay down in law the obligation of public service providers to use qualified interpreters,” and that “this legislative authorization should be in the form of a separate Act (the Interpreting Act)” (Norwegian Official Report, 2014, p. 2). Importantly, the report emphasized that “the obligation to use qualified interpreters should apply in situations where the right to due process of law and equal treatment are concerns” (Norwegian Official Report, 2014, p. 2). Thus, the Interpretation Act (Ministry of Labor and Inclusion, 2022), in effect since January 1, 2022, was enacted to remedy the situation, “ensuring legal certainty and proper help and service for persons who cannot communicate properly with public bodies without an interpreter,” and that “interpreters meet a sound professional standard” (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 1). Specifically, Section 4 of the Interpretation Act establishes that “public bodies must not use children for interpretation or other dissemination of information” (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 4). Notably, Section 6 of the Act requires that “public bodies must use interpreters when required by law,” and that “in cases where the duty to use an interpreter is not regulated in another law, (they) must use an interpreter when it is necessary to safeguard the interests of legal certainty or to provide proper help and service” (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 6). Just as important, Section 7 of the Interpretation Act establishes that “when a public body has an obligation to use an interpreter according to Section 6 …, a qualified interpreter must be used,” and that “the same applies when the duty to use an interpreter is regulated in another law, if

134 

E. D. Faingold

the use of an interpreter is necessary to safeguard the interests of legal certainty or to provide proper help and service” (emphasis added) (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 7). More specifically, the Interpretation Act establishes that “the interpreter must have sufficient professional interpreting expertise for the interpreting assignment” (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 14), and that “an interpreter must not undertake assignments if the interpreter is incompetent” (emphasis added) (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 16). Thus, in Norway, the obligation of the courts and the healthcare system to use qualified interpreters for “ensuring legal certainty and proper help and service for persons who cannot communicate properly with public bodies without an interpreter” (Interpretation Act, Section 1) is de jure guaranteed by the Interpretation Act (Ministry of Labor and Inclusion, 2022), which codifies existing laws and regulations. However, the Interpretation Act (Ministry of Labor and Inclusion, 2022) establishes no legal provisions on the government obligations of providing the substantial financial commitment needed by major Norwegian public organizations (i.e., health care, justice, law enforcement, and education) to guarantee that Norway’s linguistic minorities get access to qualified interpreters as required by Sections 6 and 7 of the Interpretation Act (see above).

L egislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in Norway As we have seen, the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) declares that “Norwegian is the primary national language in Norway” (Language Act, Section 4), but it establishes no provisos to regulate the use of Norwegian in the workplace. However, a study on language policy in three different construction sites shows how major players in the construction industry (i.e., trade unions, employer organizations, and the state) have established workplace regulations which require the use of Norwegian (or another Scandinavian language) and thoroughly restrict the use of immigrant languages on construction sites (Kraft,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

135

2019). Accordingly, a brochure published in 2014 by the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority (the government body responsible for ensuring that workplaces uphold the Working Environment Act and other laws regulating the labor market and labor conditions) establishes regulations concerning language, communication, and safety and security on construction sites (Kraft, 2019). Crucially, the first paragraph of the introduction to the brochure states that [w]ith many foreign workers and companies operating in the construction sector, lack of communication in the workplace may constitute considerable safety risks. Many foreign workers have no command of Norwegian, and workers from different countries have no command of each other’s languages and do not know each other’s cultures. (Labor Inspection Authority, 2014, p. 3; cited by Kraft, 2019, p. 580, emphases in original)

Notably, the above cited passage does not mention the opposite term for “foreign workers,” i.e., the local Norwegian and Scandinavian workers, and it fails to specify the national origin of the workers covered by the term “workers from different countries.” Moreover, the passage does not explain why the “lack of communication in the workplace may constitute considerable safety risks” (Kraft, 2019). An attempted justification for this is given in the second paragraph of the regulation, which states that “language problems … lead to poor safety communication as well as low standards of safety training” (Labor Inspection Authority, 2014, p.  3; cited by Kraft, 2019, p. 580). As the author explains, The first paragraph, … described what ‘lack of communication’ entails, namely lack of Norwegian, lack of other languages, and lack of knowledge of other cultures. … This first paragraph then is focused on representing a default linguistically volatile situation in the construction industry. Moreover, the text also represents a belief about the causality between foreign workers, lack of languages and communication, and potential risks. … The overall point of the brochure’s introduction text seems to be to establish an understanding of a critical situation where foreign workers cause a lack of communication due to their language deficits. In turn, this lack of communication results in safety risks. (Kraft, 2019, p. 581)

136 

E. D. Faingold

As the author points out, “while the above excerpt explained what was at stake with regard to communication and safety, it was rather vague and generalizing concerning action points for language management” (Kraft, 2019, p. 581). In this regard, however, there are other legal texts that offer detailed information and recommendations about language management in the construction industry. For example, a legal document created by the Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority in 2011 presents a number of requirements for oral communication on construction sites: The employer must see to it that employees have good knowledge of the language being used so that they are capable of pronouncing and understanding the spoken message in a correct way and hence capable of conducting themselves appropriately in order to prevent situations that might lead to risks to life or health. When safe work performance requires oral instructions the employer can use only employees who are able to understand the instructions that are given. Oral instructions, including ones previously agreed on, must be rendered as brief texts, sentences, clusters of words and/or single words and must be easy to understand. (Labor Inspection Authority, 2011, Chapter 22, Section 4; cited by Kraft, 2019, p. 582, emphasis in original).

In the above cited passage, the term communication is restricted to oral communication, which is the predominant form of communication in construction sites, and covers two different types of communication: general communication and communication concerning employee safety performance (Kraft, 2019). Notably, as the author points out, an appendix to the document “emphasizes that general communication must be in one language, preferably Norwegian” (Kraft, 2019, p. 582). Just as important, a number of phrases throughout the text address the levels of language proficiency required. As the author explains, For example, “good knowledge” of the general workplace language means being “capable of producing and understanding the spoken message in a correct way,” which in turn is to ensure that workers are “capable of conducting themselves appropriately.” Speaking and understanding proficiencies are emphasized as what constitute good knowledge of language which enables workers to engage in proper communicative and behavioral con-

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

137

duct. … On one of the sites, there was a particularly clear language policy which had been introduced by the main contractor. The policy dictated that leaders and managers at all levels had to speak Norwegian or another Scandinavian language. (Kraft, 2019, pp. 582–583, emphasis added)

Thus, as the author shows, “national regulations as well as local management portray Norwegian as the principal language that should be used in order to ensure understanding” (Kraft, 2019, p.  583). In this regard, however, as the author points out, participant responses and workplace practices show that “speaking ‘svorsk’—… a ‘mixed’ variety that results from inter-accommodation between Swedish and Norwegian speakers—or ‘construction site English’—… grammatically imperfect, gesture-­dependent English—was entirely acceptable” (Kraft, 2019, p. 583, emphasis added; see, further, Lønsmann & Kraft, 2018). By contrast, one of the team leaders interviewed by the author “underscored several times during our conversations that migrant workers do not become permanently hired without speaking ‘the language,’ i.e., Norwegian” (Kraft, 2019, p. 584). Most importantly, as the author reveals, “the level of competence required to pass as a speaker is opaque. Understanding alone does not seem to be enough even though it is emphasized in regulations and managers’ accounts as crucial” (Kraft, 2019, p. 584). As the author succinctly puts it, ‘Foreign workers’ are associated with ‘lack of communication’ which in turn is purported to ‘cause accidents’. At the same time, the construction of valuable language competences favors the Scandinavian speakers in the multilingual workplace, even if they are often the numerical minority. … (The migrant workers’) lack of Norwegian competence becomes an argument for why they can never obtain permanent employment. Hence, the discursive construction of the relationship between safety, security and language competences impacts the material reality of workers as it ascribes particular (lack of ) value to languages and speakers (Duchêne & Heller, 2012). (Kraft, 2019, pp. 588–589, emphasis added)

However, another study that involved interviews with the managers and administrators of 140 small- and medium-sized companies (with up to 150 employees) in 16 municipalities in Troms and Finnmark (in the

138 

E. D. Faingold

fishery and seafood production, construction and manufacturing, technical and cleaning services, transport, health care, consulting, and retail sectors) shows that the vast majority of these companies did not establish any regulations to manage the language practices of their employees (Hiss & Loppacher, 2021). As the authors reveal, The vast majority (88.5%) of participants stated that their companies did not have any official policies for language use at work. The responses of the remaining 11.5% varied from references to legal prescriptions for the use of specific languages in specific communicative settings (e.g., the use of Sámi according to the Sámi Act) to general appeals to communicate politely. Only two participants stated that Norwegian and English were official working languages. (Hiss & Loppacher, 2021, p. 50, emphasis added)

Notably, as the authors reveal, Some companies … cannot afford imposing specific demands on the language practices and competences of their employees. Here, the specific conditions of the region become relevant. Regardless of their language competences, migrant workers are vital to local economies, particularly to companies in peripheral areas harshly exposed to the limitations of the labour market. (Hiss & Loppacher, 2021, p. 51, emphasis added)

Thus, even though the Language Act (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2021) establishes no provisos to regulate the use of Norwegian in the workplace, major players in the construction industry have produced regulations which favor the use of Norwegian (or another Scandinavian language) on construction sites, an opaque system of language proficiency requirements in the workplace (Cook, 2022) which hinders the possibility of granting permanent employment status to immigrant workers. These workers are deemed to lack communication skills and their use of immigrant languages is constructed as compromising safety and security standards on construction sites (i.e., likely to “cause accidents”). This, in turn, becomes an argument for denying them permanent employment on construction sites. In this regard, it is worth recalling that the use of “svorsk” (i.e., a mixture of Swedish and Norwegian) and, most notably,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

139

“construction work English” (i.e., broken English) is completely acceptable by the industry (Kraft, 2019). In contrast, a survey of the managers and administrators of 140 companies in 16 municipalities in Troms and Finnmark revealed that the vast majority of these companies produced no regulations that require the use of Norwegian (or another Scandinavian language) in daily operations or to obtain permanent employment (Hiss & Loppacher, 2021). This is because immigrant workers are essential to the economies of Norway’s peripheral regions where there is a labor shortage. In short, in Norway, the right to use immigrant languages in the workplace appears to be more a matter of economic expediency than of establishing a language policy based on “business necessity,” i.e., one that is clearly articulated and that provides adequate justification for the need to impose the Norwegian language on immigrant workers (Del Valle, 2003; Faingold, 2018; see, further, Chap. 3 of this book).

L egislation Concerning Language and Education in Norway In regard to preschool education, most kindergartens in Norway are run by the municipality, while some are operated privately, and they are all required to follow official regulations established by the education authorities. They all charge a monthly fee, which is subsidized by the state, and are open from 7 AM to 5 PM (Lauritsen, 2013). Notably, language acquisition and cultural identity development are identified by Norwegian early childhood regulations as significantly important objectives for all children attending kindergarten in Norway. Accordingly, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017) establishes that “kindergartens shall promote communication and language,” and that they “must be mindful of how communication and language affect all aspects of a child’s development” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p.  23). Specifically, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens establishes that “kindergartens shall acknowledge and value the children’s different forms of communication and language, including sign language,” and that “kindergartens for Sámi children in

140 

E. D. Faingold

Sámi districts shall promote the children’s Sámi language skills” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 23). Moreover, the kindergarten plan specifies that kindergarten staff must “encourage multilingual children to use their mother tongue while also actively promoting and developing the children’s Norwegian/Sámi language skills” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, pp. 23–24). As for Sámi children attending kindergarten in Sámi districts, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens specifies that “Sámi kindergartens shall promote the children’s Sámi language skills, strengthen their Sámi identity and promote Sámi values, culture and traditions” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 24). Notably, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens also establishes that “Sámi is the primary language in Sámi kindergartens,” and that “staff are required to master the Sámi language and possess knowledge of Sámi culture” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 24). Just as important, it establishes that “Sámi kindergarten children shall be supported in preserving and developing their language, their knowledge and their culture irrespective of where in Norway they live” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p.  25). In this regard, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens specifies that the “kindergarten provision for Sámi children living outside Sámi districts shall be adapted to reflect the children’s Sámi background,” namely, that “Sámi children and parents are entitled to expect staff to know, and to acknowledge, that kindergarten content must also include Sámi culture,” and that “the children shall also be able to encounter the Sámi language in kindergarten” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 25). As for children who use sign language, as we have seen, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens establishes that “kindergartens shall acknowledge and value the children’s different forms of communication and language, including sign language” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 23). In this regard, a study of literacy practices in a Norwegian preschool in which there were equal numbers of deaf and hearing children investigated teacher-assigned literacy events (i.e., doing the calendar, learning letters, book reading, multiparty talk), and how these literacy events were accessed by the deaf children in the preschool (Kristoffersen & Simonsen, 2014). Notably, book reading and

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

141

multiparty talk were events in circle time which were especially designed to promote literacy by introducing new concepts and expanding vocabulary through interaction between participants in the event (Kristoffersen & Simonsen, 2014). However, as the authors reveal, “the deaf children turned out to be vulnerable, and also often excluded, in events where multiparty talk was constructed” (Kristoffersen & Simonsen, 2014, p. 95). As the authors conclude, “there are specific challenges involved when young deaf children are to participate in significant literacy events on an equal level with their hearing peers. Deaf children may be vulnerable in interactions in both simple and complex … teacher assigned events” (Kristoffersen & Simonsen, 2014, p. 97). Notably, the Norwegian government has not yet created any specific rules to regulate the knowledge of Norwegian Sign Language required for kindergarten teachers in Norway (Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). Finally, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017) establishes that “in kindergarten the children shall be introduced to different languages, vernaculars and dialects through rhymes, songs, literature and texts from past and present” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 47). Additionally, it specifies that kindergarten staff shall “highlight linguistic and cultural diversity, support the children’s different cultural expressions and identities and promote diversity in communication, language and other forms of expression” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 48). However, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens does not specify whether the term “multilingual children” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 23) means that the acquisition of languages other than Norwegian, Norwegian Sign Language, and Sámi are also covered by the regulation. Likewise, it is also significant that the term “linguistic and cultural diversity” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 48) is neither explained nor detailed in the framework plan. Thus, as a recent study of immigrant children acquiring language skills in a Norwegian kindergarten succinctly puts it, “even though policy documents state the importance of safeguarding multilingual children’s mother tongue, their language competence is reduced to being of symbolic value” (Pesch, 2021, p. 32). In regard to primary and secondary education, the Norwegian school system is almost completely public and free of charge from the first year

142 

E. D. Faingold

of primary school until and including the third year of upper secondary education. School attendance is mandatory for children aged 6–16, and place of residence usually determines which public school they attend. Notably, a declared purpose of the Norwegian school system is the inclusion of all children, regardless of ability and ethnic or cultural origin (Hilt, 2015, 2017). There is no tracking of academic ability in primary education, as schools place little emphasis on grading. Since 1997 all Norwegian children have the right to attend at least 3 years of upper secondary schooling, and nearly all children go directly from lower secondary to upper secondary school. The upper secondary school offers a choice of academic programs that prepare students for higher education, as well as a number of vocational programs for students who join the workforce after completing their vocational education and apprenticeship program (Hardoy et al., 2018). The basic legislation for language and education in Norway, concerning the language rights of children who speak Norwegian (Bokmål and Nynorsk), use Norwegian Sign Language, belong to the Kven or Sámi language groups, or speak languages other than the above (i.e., immigrant languages), can be found in the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998). Accordingly, Chapter 2, Section 2.5 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that “the municipality issues regulations concerning which form of the Norwegian language (Bokmål or Nynorsk) will be the primary form in any given school” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.5). Specifically, it establishes that “the primary form of Norwegian must be used for written teaching and for written work,” and that in “oral instruction, pupils and teaching staff decide themselves which form of the language they will use” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.5). As for the use of sign language in primary and lower secondary education, Chapter 2, Section 2.6 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that students “who have sign language as their first language, or who on the basis of an expert assessment need such instruction, have the right to primary and lower secondary instruction both in the use of sign language and through the medium of sign language” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.6). Similarly, Chapter

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

143

3, Section 3.9 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that in upper secondary education, Young people … who have sign language as their first language or who, following expert assessment, need such instruction, have the right to choose upper secondary education and training in and through the medium of sign language in a sign language environment … or the right to use a sign language interpreter in ordinary upper secondary schools. The same applies to adults admitted to upper secondary education. (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 3, Section 3.9)

However, the massive adoption of cochlear implants by the Norwegian health system in recent times (whose costs are 100% covered by the Norwegian government) is having a major impact on the policies and laws that affect deaf and hard of hearing children in Norwegian schools. The reason is that most children who received two implants at an early age (often before their first birthday) develop language skills (both listening and speaking) which look so good that school counselors, who are often not sign language experts, find it unnecessary for them to attend special schools (Vonen & Peterson, 2019; see, further, Kermit, 2007, 2010; Slettebakk Berge & Ytterhus, 2015). As the authors explain, Arguing that the schools were expensive and were becoming so small that running them could no longer be defended financially, the Ministry of Education made a series of decisions to close down the state schools. In the 2000s, the two existing upper secondary schools were closed, and in the 2010s, the four primary and lower secondary schools. … Since the state schools—traditionally boarding schools—had been meeting-places for pupils from many municipalities, the closing of the schools inevitably has led to reduced possibilities for signing children to grow up together in a rich language environment. (Vonen & Peterson, 2019, p. 201)

Thus, children who rely mainly on sign language to receive education and training in Norway spend most of their time in school with hearing children who are not expected to acquire even a minimal knowledge of Norwegian Sign Language. Notably, there are very few municipal programs or classes taught in Norwegian Sign Language where deaf students

144 

E. D. Faingold

can meet other classmates who use Norwegian Sign Language on a daily basis. Moreover, most deaf children in Norway attend a public school near their place of residence, and they are often the only child at the school who is entitled to receive education in Norwegian Sign Language (Haualand & Holmström, 2019). Most importantly, research indicates that these children are often taught by teachers who have poor sign language skills (Vonen & Peterson, 2019; see, further, Hyde et al. 2005/2006; Ohna, 2005). In this regard, it is worth noting that public school teachers are required to acquire only a minimal knowledge of Norwegian Sign Language to obtain a teacher certification in Norway (i.e., half a year of full-time study for grades 1–7 and 1 year for grades 8–10) (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015). As for children of Kven and Finish origin in primary and lower secondary education, Chapter 2, Section 2.7 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that “pupils of Kven/ Norwegian-Finnish background (Kvens) attending primary and lower secondary schools in Troms and Finnmark … have the right to receive instruction in Kven or Finnish” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.7). However, as one expert on Kven education points out, the fact that “schools may choose which one of the two languages they prefer … has led to a situation where Finnish is more dominant and preferred to Kven in the school-specific curricula” (Keränen, 2018, p. 183). Moreover, as a recent study notes, thus far, not many children have chosen to study Kven (Niiranen, 2021). As the author explains, “one reason for this has been the challenge to find qualified teachers. Courses for those who wish to qualify in teaching Kven language and culture only started in the 2019/2020 academic year at the UiT campus in Alta” (Niiranen, 2021, p. 7). In regard to Sámi education, Chapter 6, Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes the right of Sámi children to receive a Sámi education in primary and lower secondary school, as well as in upper secondary and training education. Accordingly, Chapter 6, Section 6.2 of the Act establishes that “in Sámi districts all children at the primary and lower secondary level have the right to receive education both in Sámi and through the medium of Sámi” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 6, Section 6.2). Importantly,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

145

Chapter 6, Section 6.2 of the Act also establishes that “outside Sámi districts, if at least ten pupils in a municipality wish to receive instruction in and through the medium of Sámi, they have the right to such education as long as there remain at least six pupils in the group” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 6, Section 6.2). Similarly, Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that “Sámi pupils in upper secondary education and training have the right to receive Sámi instruction” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 6, Section 6.3). However, as one study points out, “despite the availability of Sámi-medium education in the administrative area, many pupils remain in Sámi-medium instruction only until Year 7. … In 2012, 72% of Sámi-medium enrolments were in Years 1–7” (Albury, 2015, p. 326). As another author explains, In spite of a comprehensive legal framework supporting education in and through the medium of Sámi, … all too few children take part in predominantly Sámi-medium education, and in many schools with only a few non-­ Sámi pupils, Norwegian tends, in practice, to dominate by far as a medium of instruction. Many teachers still struggle to overcome prejudices in the school environment and parents still tend to move their children to Norwegian-medium instruction after a few years in a Sámi-medium class, fearing that their children will otherwise end up with fewer opportunities in higher education or on the labor market. (Huss, 2008, p. 126)

Outside of the Sámi administrative area, Sámi-medium instruction is also limited. For example, no students enrolled in Sámi as their language of instruction in 2012, while only 2126 students studied Sámi as a subject (Albury, 2015). In this regard, a recent study conducted in the school district of Alta, Finnmark, explored the challenges experienced by students who had received their education in the Sámi language for most or all of their primary and secondary education (Hermansen & Olsen, 2020). Notably, in the Alta schools, Sámi class was offered as an addition to the other required classes, and it was scheduled rather randomly, sometimes when the regular class studied Norwegian, and at other times when the subject was English. Not surprisingly, the lack of integration of Sámi classes in the school curriculum has had a significant impact on the

146 

E. D. Faingold

students’ motivation to learn Sámi, especially when starting lower secondary education. Just as important, as the authors point out, in the Alta schools there were few teachers who had the credentials to teach Sámi, and often only one Sámi teacher in each school (Hermansen & Olsen, 2020). Thus, most of the children in this study “had once or more quit or wished to quit the Sámi language class because of the lack of qualified teachers, poor organization, or the feeling that this additional subject caused problems for other subjects” (Hermansen & Olsen, 2020, p. 71). As the authors conclude, These youths mainly attribute this lack of success in language education to the organization of Sámi language classes as an additional subject outside the ordinary every day in school. … This organization seems to lead to less attention being paid to Sámi language classes, thus giving them the impression that the “ordinary” subjects in school are prioritized. (Hermansen & Olsen, 2020, p. 74)

Hermansen and Olsen’s (2020) findings are unsurprising, since Norwegian linguistic legislation resulted in a territorialized language policy (Patten & Kymlicka, 2003) through which the most robust language rights are only available to the Sámi in the Sámi administrative area, even though a large number of Norway’s Sámi population lives outside of the Sámi core area (e.g., in the Alta municipality). To end on a more positive note, a survey conducted among young adults attending tenth grade in Northern Norway shows no ethnic differences in non-completion of upper secondary school between Sámi and non-Sámi students (Bania et al., 2016). As the authors put it, The finding is surprising compared with non-completion rates among other indigenous peoples in the Arctic and elsewhere and from previous reports from Sámi areas. … (This) unexpected finding can be understood as an indication of higher equality and equity between the Sámi and non-­ Sámi population regarding education and socioeconomic status than for other indigenous groups in the Arctic. (Bania et al., 2016, p. 6)

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

147

Lastly, as for the right to use immigrant languages in the Norwegian school system, Chapter 2, Section 2.8 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that “pupils attending the primary and lower secondary school who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sámi have the right to adapted instruction in the Norwegian language until they are sufficiently proficient in Norwegian to follow the normal instruction of the school” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.8). Notably, Chapter 2, Section 2.8 of Act establishes that “if necessary, such pupils are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.8). Correspondingly, Chapter 3, Section 3.12 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) establishes that “pupils attending upper secondary education and training who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sámi have the right to adapted education in Norwegian until they are sufficiently proficient in Norwegian to follow the normal teaching of the school” (Education Act 1998, Chapter 3, Section 3.12). As with primary and lower secondary education, Chapter 3, Section 3.12 of the Act establishes that “if necessary, such pupils are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 3, Section 3.12). However, in the 1970s, schools in Oslo and its surrounding areas were encouraged to offer bilingual education, including mother-tongue instruction classes, to immigrant children, as well as migration pedagogy courses for teachers, and throughout the 1980s, the Norwegian government adopted new guidelines to address the education needs of a growing refugee and immigrant population, expanding bilingual education even further (Garthus-Niegel et al., 2016). As the authors explain, Most noteworthy was the bicultural class approach, which prescribed classes of equal immigrant-host pupil proportions, collaborative teaching by Norwegian and bilingual teachers, and provision of extensive mother-tongue and NSL (Norwegian as a second language) teaching. During the mid-­1980s, close to 50% of Oslo’s 1st-4th grade immigrant pupils were enrolled in such classes (emphasis added). (Garthus-Niegel et  al., 2016, p. 56)

148 

E. D. Faingold

As the authors continue, In the 1980s, permanent mother-tongue teaching spread as the most highly acclaimed bilingual education method. … A 1979 Education Ministry circular formulated mother-tongue teaching as an obligation following the increased subsidies. … A curricular reform in 1987 included exclusive mother tongue and NSL curricula, including origin country and bicultural identity topics …, declaring “functional bilingualism” as the overall aim of Norwegian immigrant education (emphasis added). (Garthus-­ Niegel et al., 2016, p. 56)

However, as in Denmark, the last decade of the twentieth century brought a political backlash against immigration in general and mother tongue and bilingual education in particular to Norway (Garthus-Niegel et al., 2016). As the authors explain, In 1993, immigrant pupils from more than 60 different linguistic backgrounds attended Norwegian primary schools. … Aside from refugee-­ status seeking, naturalized immigrants’ import of spouses from their origin countries was becoming … increasingly common. … The political right wing began criticizing positive discriminatory immigration policies of encouraging immigrants to exploit public welfare services. Skeptic sentiments towards the compatibility of immigrants’ culture (particularly that of Muslims) to Norwegian laws and values were also surfacing. (Garthus-­ Niegel et al., 2016, p. 57)

Thus, in 1996, the Norwegian government officially ended the era of mother-tongue instruction and bilingual education for immigrant and refugee children in Norwegian schools. As a 1996 Government Paper states, The public is responsible for the developmental opportunities of individual pupils in Norway, where Norwegian is the common language of communication and interaction. … The main responsibility (for immigrant mother tongue-teaching) must lay at home and with the different language minority groups. (Garthus-­Niegel et al., 2016, p. 59)

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

149

Accordingly, in 2004, the Education Ministry issued a revision of Section 2.8 of the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998), which emphasized the whole-class immersion methodology for teaching Norwegian to immigrant students on the one hand, and fully exempted teachers from using mother-tongue instruction or other bilingual teaching methods in the classroom on the other (Garthus-Niegel et al., 2016). As the authors explain, The whole-class immersion approach … reinforced the expelling of bilingual teaching approaches from Norwegian immigrant education policies to the benefit of a … didactic framework limited to immersion style host language deficit support. … The new curricula have been explicitly designed so as to return … immigrant pupils to mainstream classrooms as quickly as possible. … Bilingual teaching methods, alongside other exclusively defined approaches to immigrant education, have become thoroughly marginalized. There is thus little willingness currently among education politicians to view immigrant pupils’ specific cultural and linguistic heritage as playing any decisive role in their education. (Garthus-­ Niegel et al., 2016, pp. 63–64)

Lastly, it is important to note that the possibility of using Polish and Arabic in primary and secondary education, which are spoken natively by about 100,000 speakers each in Norway, goes unmentioned in Norwegian educational policy documents. Similarly, in regard to the two non-territorial national minority languages (i.e., Romanes and Romani), Norwegian educational policy documents are also silent. Let us now turn to language and higher education in Norway. The Norwegian government’s policy in this domain is that “Norwegian should be the main language in academia, and English should only be used when needed” (Ministry of Culture and Church, 2007–2008, cited by Thingnes, 2020, p. 156). In practice, however, much like in the rest of Scandinavia, the focus of language policy in Norwegian higher education has been on the application of the concept of “parallelingualism,” i.e., the use of two languages in parallel for academic purposes (usually English and a Scandinavian language) (Linn, 2014, p. 28; see, further, Ljosland, 2014). In this regard, official language policy in Norway establishes that

150 

E. D. Faingold

“parallelingualism is a fundamental notion … (in) domains where two or more languages are in use, and where one language, in our case Norwegian, will always be the preferred language choice” (Language Council, 2005, pp. 15–16, cited by Linn, 2014, p. 29). However, the Language Council report notes that “the university and college sector is one of the domains in which it cannot be taken for granted that Norwegian will be in use alongside English in the future” (Language Council, 2005, p. 70, cited by Linn, 2014, p. 41). The reason is that in Norway, much like in the rest of Scandinavia, as one author puts it, higher education “is exposed to the use of English on both key fronts: as the primary language of scientific publication internationally, and as the de facto language of teaching delivery for an internationally mobile student body” (Linn, 2014, p. 41). In this regard, however, as the Language Council report points out, the “principal language policy problem in higher education is to find the right balance” (Language Council, 2005, p. 82, cited by Linn, 2014, p. 41). For example, the University of Bergen created a language policy that entails as much use of (Norwegian-­ English) parallelingualism as possible: The language of teaching, administration and day to day activity is usually Norwegian. The University also places great emphasis on good contact with international research, something which requires that some activity has to take place in one of the larger international languages, most often English. To be both active in international research and to maintain responsibility with respect to Norwegian society, the University’s goal is to develop as much parallelingual practice as possible. The choice of language has to be governed by its purpose and not by political prestige. Good language will be practiced both in Norwegian and in foreign languages. (Sandøy et al., 2007, p. 23, cited by Linn, 2014, p. 43)

As for the use of Sámi in higher education, the Norwegian government policy is that “Sámi should have a comparable function as a main language as Norwegian has at other universities and university colleges” at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences (SUAS) (Ministry of Culture and Church, 2007–2008, cited by Thingnes, 2020, p. 156; see, further, Solbakk, 2006, 2018). It is worth noting that SUAS is unique in that it

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

151

offers degree programs in Sámi teacher training, Sámi and Indigenous journalism, Sámi art and reindeer husbandry, and Sámi language and literature, which are mostly unavailable elsewhere in Norway (Solbakk, 2006). Accordingly, at SUAS, in Kautokeino, a small town in the northern end of Norway where nearly all the population speaks Sámi, the dominant language policy is that Sámi should be used as the principal language for all daily activities. Notably, at SUAS, Sámi is used as the main language of communication by academic and administrative staff, as well as by cleaning and kitchen workers. Moreover, knowledge of Sámi is required to obtain a permanent position at the university, and all courses, except for the master program in Indigenous journalism, are taught in Sámi (Thingnes, 2020). In this regard, SUAS staff and students interviewed by the author “constantly highlighted the importance of using Sámi, also when publishing scientific articles, in order to ensure language value and prestige” (Thingnes, 2020, p. 169). Thus, as the author concludes, “it is possible to use an Indigenous language in academia, with English as a language for communication and dissemination, without undermining that Indigenous language” (Thingnes, 2020, p.  170). However, as the author notes, Using Indigenous languages in academia requires hard work and some supporting structures. … The Sámi journal Dieđut, in addition to publishing papers in different languages, gives authors the freedom to publish their paper again in English in a different journal. … However, many journals do not accept previously published articles. … Such trends and institutional constraints in academia can hinder bilingual publication practices. (Thingnes, 2020, p. 170)

As for the role of Kven in Norwegian higher education, the discipline of Kven studies was first introduced at the University of Tromsø (UiT) in 2006 (Keränen, 2018). Notably, until 2006, only Finnish courses were offered at UiT. As a result, many students of Kven background used to study Finnish, but since Kven courses were established at UiT in 2006 many students of Kven origin now choose to study Kven instead of Finnish. Among students who enroll in Kven courses are students who

152 

E. D. Faingold

are proficient in speaking Kven and who seek to acquire written skills in this language. However, Kven students who lack speaking proficiency in Kven but who had previously studied Finnish, and students belonging to other ethnic groups, also enroll in Kven language classes at UiT (Niiranen, 2021). Recently, UiT obtained funding to start a program for training Kven language teachers (Keränen, 2018). Kven language and culture courses aimed at students pursuing a graduate education degree, who wish to qualify for teaching Kven language and culture, started at the UiT campus in Alta in the 2019–2020 academic year (Niiranen, 2021). In regard to sign language in Norwegian higher education, Norwegian Sign Language and sign language interpreting courses are taught at three higher education institutions in Norway which offer bachelor’s degree programs in Sign Language and Interpreting (Oslo Metropolitan University, Western Norway University College of Applied Sciences in Bergen, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim). Notably, these institutions also offer non-degree programs in Norwegian Sign Language for primary and secondary school teachers or for education students who are acquiring qualification in teaching deaf students (Vonen & Peterson, 2019). Last but not least, it is important to note that, in Norway, the possibility of using immigrant languages in higher education goes unmentioned in Norwegian official government and university policy documents. This is quite surprising, especially in the case of Polish and Arabic, which are spoken natively by about 100,000 speakers each out of a population of about 4,000,000. Similarly, in regard to the two non-territorial national minority languages of Norway (i.e., Romanes and Romani) in higher education, Norwegian official government and university policy documents are also silent.

Conclusion This chapter studied the ways in which Norwegian legislation addresses the language rights of Norwegian-speakers (Bokmål and Nynorsk) vis-à-­ vis linguistic minorities in Norway, which include a deaf and hard of hearing population who needs to learn and use Norwegian Sign Language,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

153

Norway’s indigenous official language (Sámi), three government recognized national minority languages (Kven, Romani, and Romanes), and languages other than the ones just mentioned (i.e., immigrant languages), in the areas of immigration, the courts and health care, the workplace, and education from preschool to higher education. In regard to immigration legislation, as noted, in 2016, Norway established new (and much tougher) rules for permanent residency and citizenship. Before the new rules were created, there were little or no language demands to obtain permanent residency or citizenship, as immigrants seeking residency or citizenship in Norway were only required to attend Norwegian language classes (Brochmann & Djuve, 2013). By contrast, the new rules now require that, to obtain permanent residency or to acquire citizenship in Norway, knowledge of Norwegian must be demonstrated. Accordingly, there are now two new tests applicants must pass to obtain permanent residency in Norway (i.e., an oral Norwegian language test and a social studies test in the applicant’s language), and to acquire Norwegian citizenship, applicants must pass a much tougher Norwegian language test (both oral and written), as well as a new citizenship test that is only offered in Norwegian. Notably, applicants who have a visual or hearing impairment are not exempted from taking the tests. In the courts and the healthcare system, as noted, the Patients’ Rights Act (Norwegian Parliament, 1999) establishes that all patients are entitled to participate in the implementation of their health care and to receive the information needed to understand their health condition and treatment. Notably, it establishes the right of patients to receive medical information that is adapted to their cultural and linguistic background (emphasis added) (Patients’ Rights Act, 1999, Section 3.5). Accordingly, as established by Chapter 3, Section 3.5 of Sámi Act of 1983 and by regulations issued by the Norwegian health authorities (Directorate of Health, n.d.), Sámi-speakers have the right to have access to a qualified interpreter (i.e., one who has education in the medical field and interpreting experience with the language) when they use healthcare services. However, as we have seen, a study of psychiatric patients in Northern Norway shows that Sámi-speaking patients “are dissatisfied with the possibilities to speak Sámi when receiving health care” (Dagsvold et al., 2016, 32,588, Introduction section, para 2). Similarly, a study that investigated how

154 

E. D. Faingold

nurses experience encounters with Sámi patients in Northern Norway shows that staff “underutilize qualified interpreters when caring for Sámi clients, … (leading) to misunderstandings in treatment or diagnostics” (Engnes et al., 2020, p. 283). In the same vein, another study of Sámi patients in Norway reveals that “even younger patients, who have learned both Norwegian and Sámi at school, describe stress and worry when meeting Norwegian health-care personnel, because they cannot describe their symptoms and illness profiles adequately in Norwegian” (Mehus et  al., 2019, p.  4). Immigrants and refugees are also covered by the Patients’ Rights Act and by regulations issued by the Norwegian health authorities, which establish the right of patients who have limited knowledge of Norwegian to have access to a qualified interpreter when using the Norwegian healthcare system (see above). However, a study of Iraqi immigrants in the Oslo area shows a “lack of provision of trained interpreters” (Hauger & Sagbakken, 2011, p.  51). Similarly, a study that investigated the experiences of Polish-speaking patients in Oslo and its vicinities shows that they “often received information regarding their health condition and treatment in a language they did not fully understand …, putting (their) health at risk” (Czapka et al., 2019, pp. 762–763). In the same vein, a study of Arabic-speaking patients in a Norwegian hospital reveals that “translation by no-specialists was often blamed for delays, misunderstandings, and a sense of aloofness” (Alkhaled et  al., 2022, p. 5). As with the Sámi and immigrant/refugee populations, deaf and hard of hearing patients are also covered by the Patients’ Rights Act and by regulations issued by the Norwegian health authorities, which establish their right to have access to a qualified Norwegian Sign Language interpreter when using the Norwegian healthcare system (see above). Finally, as for the right to use sign language interpreters in the courts, which is guaranteed by the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act (Olsen & Kermit, 2015), a study investigating the experiences of deaf informants in encounters with the criminal system shows that “victims experience more instances where they have to make do without interpreters than those … who had been suspected of crimes” (Olsen & Kermit, 2015, p. 35). Notably, as we have seen, a 2014 government report stated that “if interpreters are not used enough and if there is a lack of quality requirements, the right to due process of law and equal treatment is threatened”

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

155

(Norwegian Official Report, 2014, p. 1), and, hence, it recommended to “lay down in law the obligation of public service providers to use qualified interpreters … in the form of a separate Act (the Interpreting Act)” (Norwegian Official Report, 2014, p.  2). Accordingly, in 2022, the Interpretation Act (Ministry of Labor and Inclusion, 2022) was enacted to “(ensure) legal certainty and proper help and service for persons who cannot communicate properly with public bodies without an interpreter,” and that “interpreters meet a sound professional standard” (Interpretation Act, 2022, Section 1). However, the new legislation establishes no legal provisions on the government obligations of providing the substantial financial commitment needed by major Norwegian public organizations to guarantee that Norway’s linguistic minorities get access to qualified interpreters as required by Sections 6 and 7 of the Interpretation Act. In regard to language rights in the workplace, as we have seen, even though Norwegian legislation establishes no laws that regulate the use of Norwegian at work, major players in the construction industry have produced regulations that hinder immigrant workers from obtaining permanent employment in the industry, as the use of immigrant languages on construction sites is constructed as compromising safety and security standards (i.e., likely to “cause accidents”) (Kraft, 2019). By contrast, as we have seen, a survey of the managers and administrators of 140 companies in 16 municipalities in Troms and Finnmark revealed that knowledge of Norwegian was not required by the vast majority of the employers in daily operations or to obtain permanent employment, since immigrant workers are essential to the economies of Troms and Finnmark, where there is a labor shortage (Hiss & Loppacher, 2021). Thus, in Norway, the right to use immigrant languages in the workplace seems to be more a matter of economic expediency than of establishing a language policy based on “business necessity” (i.e., one that provides adequate justification for the need to impose the Norwegian language on immigrant workers) (see Faingold, 2018). As for the language rights of children attending preschool in Norway, as noted, the Framework Plan for Kindergartens (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017) states that “kindergartens shall acknowledge and value the children’s different forms of communication and language, including sign language” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for

156 

E. D. Faingold

Kindergartens, 2017, p. 23). However, as we have seen, a study of literacy practices in a Norwegian preschool (in which there were equal numbers of deaf and hearing children) showed that the deaf students were vulnerable, and often excluded, in interactions with hearing classmates and teachers, especially in events where multiparty talk took place (Kristoffersen & Simonsen, 2014). In this regard, it is worth noting that the Norwegian government has not as yet created any specific regulations regarding the knowledge of sign language required for kindergarten teachers (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). As for Sámi children attending preschool in Norway, the kindergarten plan specifies that “Sámi is the primary language in Sámi kindergartens,” that “staff are required to master the Sámi language and possess knowledge of Sámi culture” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p.  24), and notably, that “Sámi kindergarten children shall be supported in preserving and developing their language … irrespective of where in Norway they live” (emphasis added) (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 25). Lastly, the plan for kindergartens declares that kindergarten staff shall “highlight linguistic and cultural diversity … and promote diversity in communication, language and other forms of expression” (Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 2017, p. 48). However, the term “linguistic and cultural diversity” is neither explained nor detailed in the plan, and thus it appears to have little legal value to protect the language rights of immigrant children attending kindergarten in Norway. In regard to the language rights of children who use the two official dialects of Norwegian (Bokmål and Nynorsk) in Norwegian schools, as noted, the Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998) states that “the municipality issues regulations concerning which form of the Norwegian language will be the primary form … used for written teaching and for written work” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.5). As for children who use Norwegian Sign Language, the Education Act establishes that they “have the right to primary and lower secondary instruction both in the use of sign language and through the medium of sign language” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.6), and that they “have the right to choose upper secondary education and training in and through the medium of sign language in a sign language environment … or the right to use a sign language interpreter” (Education Act,

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

157

1998, Chapter 3, Section 3.9). However, as we have seen, children who rely on Norwegian Sign Language to receive education and training spend most of their time in school with hearing children and teachers who are not expected to acquire even a minimum knowledge of sign language, and there are very few municipal programs or classes taught in Norwegian Sign Language where deaf students can meet other classmates who use sign language on a daily basis (Haualand & Holmström, 2019; Vonen & Peterson, 2019). As for Sámi education, as noted, the Education Act states that “in Sámi districts all children at the primary and lower secondary level have the right to receive education both in Sámi and through the medium of Sámi,” and that “outside Sámi districts, if at least ten pupils in a municipality wish to receive instruction in and through the medium of Sámi, they have the right to such education as long as there remain at least six pupils in the group” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 6, Section 6.2). Correspondingly, the Education Act also establishes that “Sámi pupils in upper secondary education and training have the right to receive Sámi instruction” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 6, Section 6.3). However, as we have seen, many Sámi students remain in Sámi-medium instruction only until the seventh grade, mainly because of the parents’ concerns that the children will end up having fewer educational and career opportunities for the future. Outside of the Sámi administrative area, Sámi education is also limited, with few students enrolled in Sámi as their language of instruction or studying Sámi as a subject in school (Albury, 2015; Hermansen & Olsen, 2020; Huss, 2008). As for the language rights of Kven children attending lower secondary schools in Troms and Finnmark, the Education Act establishes that they “have the right to receive instruction in Kven or Finnish” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.7). However, as we have seen, the lack of qualified Kven teachers results in many children being unable to study Kven in school. Moreover, since schools can choose to offer either one of the two languages, Finnish has become the dominant language in the school curriculum in Troms and Finnmark (Keränen, 2018; Niiranen, 2021). Lastly, the Education Act establishes that “pupils attending the primary and lower secondary school who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sámi have the right to adapted instruction in the Norwegian

158 

E. D. Faingold

language until they are sufficiently proficient in Norwegian to follow the normal instruction of the school” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.8). Notably, the Education Act also establishes that “if necessary, such pupils are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 2, Section 2.8). Correspondingly, it establishes that “pupils attending upper secondary education and training who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sámi have the right to adapted education in Norwegian until they are sufficiently proficient in Norwegian to follow the normal teaching of the school” (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 3, Section 3.12). As with primary and lower secondary education, the Act establishes that “if necessary, such pupils are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both” (emphasis added) (Education Act, 1998, Chapter 3, Section 3.12). In this regard, as we have seen, in the 1970s, schools in Oslo and its surrounding areas were encouraged to offer bilingual education, and notably, throughout the 1980s, the Norwegian government expanded bilingual education even further, especially in the area of mother-tongue instruction. However, as in Denmark, in the last decade of the twentieth century, Norway experienced a political backlash against immigration in general and bilingual education in particular, and thus, in 2004, the Education Ministry issued a revision of Section 2.8 of the Education Act, which led to the adoption of a whole-class Norwegian language immersion methodology, as well as to a significant downgrade of mother tongue instruction and bilingual education in the schools (Garthus-Niegel et al., 2016). Thus, notwithstanding the proven benefits of bilingual education for the acquisition of a second language, and for the child’s cognitive and personality development (see, e.g., Cummins, 2000, 2009; García, 2009), Norway’s response to increased linguistic diversity in the schools was to increase the amount of instructional time children spend studying Norwegian, while spending as little time as possible on mother tongue instruction and bilingual teaching. As for language rights in tertiary education, as noted, the Norwegian government’s policy is that “Norwegian should be the main language in academia, and English should only be used when needed” (Ministry of Culture and Church, 2007–2008, cited by Thingnes, 2020, p. 156). In

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

159

practice, however, much like in the rest of Scandinavia, the focus of language policy in Norwegian higher education has been on the application of the concept of “parallelingualism,” i.e., the use of two languages in parallel for academic purposes (usually English and a Scandinavian language) (Linn, 2014; Ljosland, 2014). As for the use of Sámi in higher education, the Norwegian government policy is that “Sámi should have a comparable function as a main language (at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences [SUAS]) as Norwegian has at other universities and university colleges” (Ministry of Culture and Church, 2007–2008, cited by Thingnes, 2020, p.  156). Accordingly, at SUAS, in Kautokeino, a small town in Northern Norway, the official language policy is that Sámi should be used as the principal language for all daily activities. Notably, knowledge of Sámi is required to obtain a permanent position at the university, and all courses, except for the master program in Indigenous journalism, are taught in Sámi (Thingnes, 2020). SUAS is unique in that it offers degree programs in Sámi teacher training, Sámi and Indigenous journalism, Sámi art and reindeer husbandry, and Sámi language and literature, which are mostly unavailable elsewhere in Norway. As for the role of Kven in higher education, the discipline of Kven studies was first introduced at the University of Tromsø (UiT) in 2006. Until 2006, only Finnish courses were offered at UiT, and thus, many students of Kven background used to study Finnish instead of Kven. However, since Kven courses were established at UiT, many students of Kven background now choose to study Kven (Keränen, 2018; Niiranen, 2021). As for the study of sign language in higher education, Norwegian Sign Language and sign language interpreting courses are taught at three higher education institutions in Norway which offer bachelor’s degree programs in Sign Language and Interpreting (Oslo Metropolitan University, Western Norway University College of Applied Sciences in Bergen, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim). Notably, these institutions also offer non-degree programs in Norwegian Sign Language for primary and secondary school teachers or for education students who are acquiring qualification in teaching deaf students (Vonen & Peterson, 2019). Finally, it is worth noting that immigrant languages are never specifically mentioned in Norwegian linguistic legislation. Crucially, no

160 

E. D. Faingold

mention is made of Arabic and Polish, which are the most widely spoken foreign languages in Norway. However, this comes as no surprise, since the exclusion of immigrant languages from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) reflects a widely held view among scholars and other agents of influence in language policy that immigrant minorities are less entitled to language rights than indigenous groups (Faingold, 2020). Yet, the notion that the language rights of indigenous minorities necessarily supersede those of all immigrant groups is not carved in stone. As one author notes, “as time passes migrant languages are spoken by second- or third- rather than first-generation groups and the dividing line between migrancy and indigeneity becomes less obvious” (Nic Craith, 2006, p. 162). Hence, as another author theorizes, “it may be possible for languages of immigrants to become sufficiently established on the territory of a state that they become, with the passage of time, ‘a regional or minority language’” (Dunbar, 2008, p. 45).

References Albury, N. J. (2015). Your language or ours? Inclusion and exclusion of non-­ indigenous majorities in Māori and Sámi language revitalization policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14664208.2015.984581 Alkhaled, T., Rohde, G., Lie, B., & Johannessen, B. (2022). Navigating the care between two distinct culture: A qualitative study of the experiences of Arabic-­ speaking immigrants in Norwegian hospitals. BMC Health Services Research. Retrieved from Navigating the care between two distinct cultures: a qualitative study of the experiences of Arabic-speaking immigrants in Norwegian hospitals (nih.gov). Bania, E. V., Lydersen, S., & Kvernmo, S. (2016). Non-completion of upper secondary school among female and male young adults in an Artic sociocultural context; the NAAHS study. BMC Public Health, 16, 960. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12889-­016-­3644-­2 Boge, J. (2020). The inferior position of the Sámi language in a bilingual nursing home in Norway. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1597875

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

161

Brochmann, G., & Djuve, A. B. (2013). Multiculturalism or assimilation? The Norwegian welfare state approach. In P.  Kivisto & Ö. Wahlbeck (Eds.), Debating multiculturalism in the Nordic welfare states (pp. 219–245). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318459_9 Buzunge, H.  F., & Linnestad, H. (2012). Ikke lengre “en tjeneste av ukjent kvalitet,” Statusrapport om tolkefeltet i helsevesenet i hovedstadsområdet (No longer “a service of unknown quality,” Status report on the interpreting field in the healthcare system in the metropolitan area). Oslo University Hospital. Cited by Ministry of Health and Care (n.d.). Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. (1814). Retrieved from The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway – Lovdata. Cook, E. (2022). Competency fallacy. The Change Decision, March 11, 2022. https://www.thechangedecision.com/blog/competency-­fallacy Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2009). Fundamental psycholinguistic and sociological principles underlying educational success for linguistic minority students. In T.  Skutnabb-Kangas, R.  Phillipson, A.  K. Mohanty, & M.  Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 19–35). Multilingual Matters. Czapka, E. A., Gerwing, J., & Sagbakken, M. (2019). Invisible rights: Barriers and facilitators to access and use of interpreter services in health care settings by polish migrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 47, 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494818807551 Dagsvold, I., Møllersen, S., & Stordahl, V. (2015). What can we talk about, in which language, in what way and with whom? Sami patients’ experiences of language choice and cultural norms in mental health treatment. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 74, 26952. https://doi.org/10.3402/ ijch.v74.26952 Dagsvold, I., Mollersen, S., & Stordahl, V. (2016). “You never know who are Sami or speak Sami”: Clinicians’ experiences with language appropriate care to Sami- speaking patients in outpatient mental health clinics in northern Norway. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 75, 32588. https://doi. org/10.3402/ijch.v75.32588 Dagsvold, I., Møllersen, S., & Blix, B. H. (2020). Clinicians’ assumptions about Sámi culture and experience providing mental health services to indigenous patients in Norway. Transcultural Psychiatry, 57, 363–374. https://doi. org/10.1177/1363461520903123 Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding our voices. Multilingual Matters.

162 

E. D. Faingold

Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Svar på spørsmål om hvilken kompetanse den som gir tegnspråkopplæring må ha (Answer to the question on what competence the person giving sign language education must have). https:// www.udir.no/contentassets/949539a1c66b4299976869a8be13116c/ tegnsprak_og_kompetanse.pdf Directorate of Health. (n.d.). Patient and interpreter: A brochure about interpretation in the health system. Retrieved from Pasient og tolk – En brosjyre om tolk i helsetjenesten - engelsk.pdf (helsedirektoratet.no). Directorate of Immigration. (2005). Tospråklig sjekk for potensielle tolker (Bilingual check for potential interpreters). Evaluation report 2, Department of Integration. Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (2012). Language policy in the workplace. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 323–334). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026 Dunbar, R. (2008). Definitively interpreting the European charter of regional or minority languages: The legal challenges. In Council of Europe (Ed.), The European charter for regional or minority languages: Legal challenges and opportunities (pp. 37–61). Council of Europe Publishing. Dunbar, R. (2023). Linguistic human rights in international law. In T. Skutnabb-­ Kangas & R.  Phillipson (Eds.), The handbook of linguistic human rights (pp. 25–38). Wiley Blackwell. Engnes, J. I., Sivertsen, N., Bongo, B. A., & Mehus, G. (2020). Sámi language in Norwegian health care: ‘He speaks good enough Norwegian, I don’t see why he needs an interpreter. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 36, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12986 Eriksen, T. H. (2013). Immigration and national identity in Norway. Migration Policy Institute. Faingold, E. D. (2018). Language rights and the law in the United States and its territories. Lexington Books. Faingold, E.  D. (2020). Language rights and the law in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell. Garthus-Niegel, K., Oppedal, B., & Vike, H. (2016). Semantic models of host-­ immigrant relations in Norwegian educational policies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383 1.2014.996593

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

163

Hardoy, I., Mastekaasa, A., & Schøne, P. (2018). Immigrant concentration and student outcomes in upper secondary schools: Norwegian evidence. European Societies, 20, 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2017.1402120 Haualand, H., & Holmström, I. (2019). When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand: Sign ideologies in Sweden and Norway. Deafness and Education International, 21, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14643154.2018.1562636 Hauger, J.  D. (2011). “We expected paradise”: Iraqi immigrants’ perceptions and experiences with healthcare in Norway. (Unpublished master thesis). Oslo University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Department of Community Medicine. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/ handle/10852/30036/MasterxthesisxJannexDalexHauger.pdf?sequence=2 &isAllowed=y Hauger, J. D., & Sagbakken, M. (2011). “We expected paradise”: Iraqi immigrants’ perceptions and experiences with healthcare in Norway. Submitted for publication to BMC Health Services Research. https://www.duo.uio.no/ bitstream/handle/10852/30036/MasterxthesisxJannexDalexHauger.pdf?seq uence=2&isAllowed=y Hermansen, N., & Olsen, K. (2020). Learning the Sámi language outside of the Sámi core area in Norway. Acta Borealia, 37, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08003831.2020.1751410 Hilt, T.  L. (2015). Included as excluded and excluded as included: Minority language pupils in Norwegian inclusion policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311 6.2014.908966 Hilt, T. L. (2017). Education without a shared language: Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in Norwegian introductory classes for newly arrived minority language students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 585–601. 1080/13603116.2016.1223179. Hiss, F., & Loppacher, A. (2021). “The working language is Norwegian. Not that this means anything, it seems”: When expectations meet the new multilingual society. Acta Borealia, 38, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0800383 1.2021.1911201 Huss, L. (2008). Revitalization through indigenous education: A forlorn hope? In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four continents (pp. 125–135). Palgrave Macmillan.

164 

E. D. Faingold

Hyde, M., Hjulstad, O., & Ohna, S. E. (2005/2006). Education of the deaf in Australia and Norway: A comparative study of the interpretations and applications of inclusion. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 415–426. https://doi. org/10.1353/aad.2006.0004 Kent, N. (2018). The Sámi peoples of the north: A social and cultural history. Hurst & Company. Keränen, M. (2018). Language maintenance through corpus planning: The case of Kven. Acta Borealia, 35, 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0800383 1.2018.1536187 Kermit, P. (2007). Bioethical discourses on deafness: Critical remarks and suggestions for a new approach. In M.  Hyde & G.  Høie (Eds.), Constructing educational discourses on deafness (pp. 40–57). Skådalen Resource Centre. Kermit, P. (2010). Choosing for the child with cochlear implants: A note of precaution. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 13, 157–167. Kermit, P., Mjøen, M., & Olsen, T. (2011). Safe in the hands of the interpreter? A qualitative study investigating the legal protection of Deaf people facing the criminal justice system in Norway. Disabilities Study Quarterly, 31. Retrieved https://dsq-­sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/1714/1762. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v31i4 Kraft, K. (2019). Language policies and linguistic competence: New speakers in the Norwegian construction industry. Language Policy, 18, 573–591. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10993-­018-­9502-­6 Kristoffersen, A.  E., & Simonsen, E. (2014). Teacher-assigned literacy events in the bimodal bilingual preschool with deaf and hearing children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14, 80–104. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468798412453731 Labor Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet). (2011). In Arbeidstilsynet (Ed.), Forskrift om utførelse av arbeid (Regulation on work performance) (Vol. 703, p. 250). Direktoratet for arbeidstilsynet. Arbeidstilsynet. Labor Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet). (2014). Forstår du hva jeg sier? Krav til kommunikasjon og språk på bygge- og anleggsplassen (Do you understand what I am saying? Requirements for communication and language on the construction site). Direktoratet for arbeidstilsynet. https://www.bnl.no/siteassets/ dokumenter/hms/forst_r_du_hva_jeg_sier.pdf Language Council. (2005). Norsk i hundre! Norsk som nasjonalspråk i globaliseringens tidsalder. Et forslag til strategi (Norwegian at full speed! Norwegian as a national language in the age of globalisation. A suggestion for strategy). http:// www.sprakradet.no/upload/9832/norsk_i_hundre.pdf

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

165

Lauritsen, K. (2013). Cultural complexity and border markers in Norwegian kindergartens. Children and Society, 27, 350–360. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1099-­0860.2011.00414.x Lehtola, V.-P. (2004). The Sámi people: Traditions in transition. University of Alaska Press. Linn, A.  R. (2014). Parallel languages in the history of language ideology in Norway and the lesson of Nordic higher education. In A.  K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 27–52). John Benjamins. Ljosland, R. (2014). Language planning in practice in the Norwegian higher education sector. In A.  K. Hultgren, F.  Gregersen, & J.  Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic Universities: Ideologies and practices (pp.  53–82). John Benjamins. Lønsmann, D., & Kraft, K. (2018). Language policy and practice in multilingual production workplaces. Multilingua, 37, 403–427. https://doi. org/10.1515/multi-­2017-­0088 Magga, O.  H. (1995). The Sámi language act. In T.  Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 219–234). De Gruyter Mouton. Magga, O.  H. (2005). Linguistic minorities in Scandinavia I: Indigenous minorities. In O.  Bandle, K.  Braunmüller, E.  H. Jahr, A.  Karker, H.-P. Naumann, & U. Telemann (Eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages, Vol. 2 (pp. 2115–2119). De Gruyter. Magga, O. H. (2023). Linguistic human rights challenges in the work of the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues. In T.  Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), The handbook of linguistic human rights (pp. 211–226). Wiley Blackwell. McKay, A. (2021). The story of the Black Death in Norway. Life in Norway, February 10, 2021. https://www.lifeinnorway.net/black-­death-­in-­norway/ Mehus, G., Bongo, B., Engnes, J. I., & Moffitt, P. (2019). Exploring why and how encounters with the Norwegian health-care system can be considered culturally unsafe by north Sami- speaking patients and relatives: A qualitative study based on 11 interviews. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 78, 1612703. https://doi.org/10.1080/22423982.2019.1612703 Ministry of Culture and Church. (2007–2008). Mål og meining: Ein heilskapleg norsk språkpolitikk (Goal and meaning: A healthy Norwegian language policy). https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/50816e814a9c46169bd69dc20 dd746a3/nn-­no/pdfs/stm200720080035000dddpdfs.pdf

166 

E. D. Faingold

Ministry of Culture and Equality. (2021). Act relating to language (Language act). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2021-­05-­21-­42 Ministry of Education and Research. (1998). Education act. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/education-­act/id213315/ Ministry of Education and Research. (2015). Kompetanse for kvalitet: Strategi for videreutdanning for lærere og skoleledere frem mot 2025 (Expertise for quality: Strategy for further education for teachers and school leaders until 2025). https:// www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/731323c71aa34a51a6febdeb8d41f2e0/ kd_kompetanse-­for-­kvalitet_web.pdf Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Framework plan for kindergartens. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-­ plan-­for-­kindergartens2-­2017.pdf Ministry of Health and Care. (n.d.). Nasjonal strategi om innvandreres helse 2013–2017: Likeverdige helse- og omsorgstjenester – god helse for alle (National strategy on immigrants’ health 2013–2017. Equitable Health and Care Services Good Health for All). https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/2de7e9efa 8d341cfb8787a71eb15e2db/likeverdige_tjenester.pdf Ministry of Labor and Inclusion. (2022). Act on public bodies’ responsibility for the use of interpreters etc. (Interpretation act). https://lovdata.no/dokument/ NL/lov/2021-­06-­11-­79 Ministry of Labor and Social Inclusion. (2006). Action plan for integration and social inclusion of the immigrant population and goals for social inclusion. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/aid/publikasjoner/rapporter_og_planer/2006/h-­plan2006_int_og_inkl_english.pdf Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. (1987). Sámi act. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-­Sámi-­act-­/id449701/ Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. (2017). Målrettet plan 2017–2021- videre innsats for kvensk spark (Targeted plan 2017–2021-­further efforts for the Kven language). https://www.regjeringen. no/contentassets/b1bf2ee2a7824c06ac22443e011f0fd6/plan_kvensk_ spraaak.pdf Nic Craith, M. (2006). Europe and the politics of language. Palgrave Macmillan. Niiranen, L. (2021). Minority language learning in Kven conversation. Acta Borealia, 38, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2021.1911198 Norwegian Official Report. (2014). Interpreting services review committee: Interpreting in the public sector--a question relating to the right to due process of law and equal treatment. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ a47e34bc4d7344a18192e28ce8b95b7b/no/sved/nou_2014_8_sammendrag_engelsk.pdf

4  Language Rights and the Law in Norway 

167

Norwegian Parliament. (1999). Act of 2 July 1999 No. 63 relating to patients’ rights (Patients’ rights act). https://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-­lover/data/ lov-­19990702-­063-­eng.pdf Norwegian Parliament. (2003). The Act on an introduction programme and Norwegian language training for newly arrived immigrants (Introduction act). https://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-­lover/data/lov-­20030704-­080-­eng.pdf Nystad, T., Melhus, M., & Lund, E. (2008). Sami speakers are less satisfied with general practitioners’ services. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 67, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v67i1.18246 Ohna, S. E. (2005). Researching classroom processes of inclusion and exclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20, 167–178. https://doi. org/10.1080/856250500055651 Olsen, T., & Kermit, P. (2015). Sign language, translation and rule of law: Deaf people’s experiences from encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17, 23–41. https://doi. org/10.1080/15017419.2014.972448 Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political theory: Context, issues, and approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 1–51). Oxford University Press. Pesch, A. M. (2021). “The call me anneanne!” translanguaging as a theoretical and pedagogical challenge an opportunity in the kindergarten context in Norway. Acta Borealia, 38, 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0800383 1.2021.1911200 Public Foundation for European Comparative Minority Research. (2006/2007). Romani/Romanes in Norway through the lenses of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Public Foundation for European Comparative Minority Research. http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/virtuallibrary/librarydb/web/files/pdfs/130/VL-­044.pdf Sanders, R. (2017). The languages of Scandinavia: Seven sisters of the north. University of Chicago Press. Sandøy, H., Fløysand, L., Klock, K., Lærum, O. D., Murison, R., & Østbye, H. (2007). Både i pose og sekk: Framlegg til språkpolitikk for Universitetet i Bergen (Having your cake and eating it: Proposal for a language policy for the University of Bergen). https://docplayer.me/23799779-­Bade-­i-­pose-­og-­sekk-­ framlegg-­til-­sprakpolitikk-­for-­universitetet-­i-­bergen.html Schein, Y. L., Winje, B. A., Myhre, S. L., Nordstoga, I., & Straiton, M. L. (2019). A qualitative study of health experiences of Ethiopian asylum seekers in Norway. BMC Health Services Research, 19, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12913-­019-­4813-­7

168 

E. D. Faingold

Sivertsen, N. (2010). Circumpolar nursing: Exploring Sámi nurses’ experience of culture in their practice. Lambert Academic Publishing. Slettebakk Berge, S., & Ytterhus, B. (2015). Deaf and hearing high-school students’ expectations for the role of educational sign-language interpreter. Society, Health, & Vulnerability, 6. https://doi.org/10.3402/shv.v6.28969 Söderholm, E. (2014). Kainun kielen grammatikki. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Söderholm, E. (2017). Kvensk grammatikk. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/30995/640594.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Solbakk, J. T. (2006). The Sámi people: A handbook. Språksenteret. Solbakk, J. T. (2018). We are the Sámi: An introduction to the indigenous people of Norway. ČálliidLágádus. Sørlie, T., & Nergård, J. I. (2005). Treatment satisfaction and recovery in Sámi and Norwegian patients following psychiatric hospital treatment: A comparative study. Transcultural Psychiatry, 42, 295–316. https://doi. org/10.1177/1363461505052669 Thingnes, J. S. (2020). Making linguistic choices at Sámi university: Negotiating visions and demands. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21, 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1671712 Vonen, A. M., & Peterson, P. A. (2019). Sign language legislation in Norway. In M. De Meulder, J. J. Murray, & R. L. McKee (Eds.), The legal recognition of sign languages: Advocacy and outcomes around the world (pp.  191–205). Multilingual Matters. Wikipedia. (2020). Norwegian language conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Norwegian_language_conflict

5 Language Rights and the Law in Iceland

According to twelfth-century literary accounts, Iceland was settled by Norse people in the Viking Age. The oldest text, The Book of the Icelanders (Íslendingabók), from about 1130 AD, dates the time of settlement at approximately 870–930 AD. The other foundational text of Icelandic literature, The Book of Settlements (Landnámabók), also of twelfth-century origin but known only in later versions, lists more than 400 settlers who sailed with their families, servants, and slaves to Iceland, the majority of whom came from Norway (but some came from other Nordic countries and from Viking settlements in the British Isles). A few of the original settlers were supposed to have been of Irish or Celtic origin, including a sizeable number of slaves, servants, and wives. Archaeological remains confirm Iceland’s place among the Norse Viking Age settlements in the late ninth or early tenth century (Karlsson, 2000). By the mid-tenth century, with a population of about 50,000 people, Iceland had become, as one author puts it, “not a kingdom, but a kind of aristocratic republic, ruled by priest-chieftains (goðar). From 930 on, it had its own parliament (althing) under the chairmanship of a law-speaker” (Robinson, 1992, p. 72). Interestingly, Iceland’s anomalous status as a quasi-republican polity at that time was more due to its geographical isolation than to any formal recognition of independence by the kings of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_5

169

170 

E. D. Faingold

Norway (Derry, 1979). As the author explains, “the republic was left in peace for many generations; its primitive institutions of self-government proved sufficiently adaptable, as in the crisis over the introduction of Christianity, and the kings of Norway were in any case not strong enough to intervene effectively in its affairs” (Derry, 1979, p. 48). However, in the aftermath of a civil war that broke out among Norse Viking chieftains in the early thirteenth century, the king of Norway succeeded in uniting all Norwegian Viking Age settlements under his reign. Thus, in 1380, Norway united with Denmark into one kingdom, but Iceland’s status as a personal tax land (skattland) of the crown did not change. Notably, all throughout this period the Icelanders continued to share the same language with the Norwegians, and the texts written in Iceland remained almost indistinguishable from those written in Norway. It was in the Late Middle Ages that Icelandic became a markedly different language (Karlsson, 2000). As the author explains, In Norway the language, especially that of the government and the higher social classes, was heavily influenced by the language of Denmark, which again was strongly influenced by German and particularly low German. In Iceland the language of course underwent some changes too, but they were mostly of the phonetic kind…In the 16th century the Icelanders found impossible to call their language Norse anymore, even less Danish, and coined the term Icelandic (íslenska)…The distance between Iceland and its partners in the union was also increasing. Instead of being predominantly connected through a common language, as in the Viking Age and the Middle Ages, Icelandic society was now, together with its geographical remoteness, distinguished mainly by its language. (Karlsson, 2000, p. 105)

In the 1530s, the arrival of Protestantism and the Lutheran Reformation to Denmark marked the end of the Middle Ages in Iceland. Notably, the first reformers to arrive in Iceland brought with them books printed in Denmark and Germany, the Danish Bible, and the first collection of hymns, translated from German and Danish into the vernacular (Karlsson, 2000). As a result, as the author notes, “words were borrowed from Danish on a previously unknown scale; declensions of Icelandic words were violated if the melody demanded it” (Karlsson, 2000, p. 136). However, as the author reveals:

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

171

A strong counter-offensive on behalf of Icelandic traditions was started by Bishop Guðbrandur Þorláksson of Hólar…Almost 110 books were published at Hólar under Guðbrandur auspices…This included the entire Bible in Icelandic, in 1584…Bishop Guðbrandur Þorláksson contributed more than anyone else to (ensure) that when the Lutheran Church changed to the vernacular as required, its language in Iceland would be Icelandic and not Danish, as it was mostly in Norway and even more so in Faroe…This is one of the reasons why Icelandic is now much closer to medieval Norse than any other modern language. (Karlsson, 2000, pp. 136–137)

Accordingly, the linguistic structure of modern Icelandic vis-à-vis the other Scandinavian languages (with the exception of Faroese) has remained almost unchanged since medieval times. For example, Icelandic still has three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), four cases for nouns (nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative), and complex pronoun and verb systems. After the Middle Ages Icelandic incorporated vocabulary from other languages, especially Danish, including non-Scandinavian vocabulary from languages such as Celtic, Latin, and the Romance languages, but modern Icelanders could continue reading the Old Icelandic sagas without much difficulty (Robinson, 1992). In 1661, Frederick III became the first absolute monarch in Denmark and Norway, but this was of little significance to Iceland. All through the eighteenth century, Iceland remained politically isolated, left to its own devices by Denmark. In 1814, Denmark was forced to cede Norway to Sweden, but this important event in Scandinavian history had little significance to Iceland. However, demand for the reinstatement of the Althing (Icelandic parliament) as a consultative assembly arose in the 1830s, when Iceland received two seats at a newly established consultative assembly for the Danish Isles, resulting in the restoration of the Althing in Reykjavik in 1845 under the rule of Christian VIII (Karlsson, 2000). As another Scandinavian historian explains, In 1843 the new king, Christian VIII, set in train a new century of separatist nationalist activities by his revival of the Althing, whose membership and powers were to conform with those of his other Estates. Dissatisfied with these limitations, the Icelanders found a formidable exponent of their grievances in Jón Sigurdsson, a native scholar in great repute at Copenhagen,

172 

E. D. Faingold

where his editing of sagas and other source materials brought the study of his country’s history and literature into new prominence. In 1848 the renunciation of autocracy by the Danish monarchy furnished him with the argument that his country was thereby entitled to resume those historic rights which had been conceded to it in the original pact with Haakon IV of Norway, the Gamli Sáttmáli of 1262…All that was regained, however, was economic liberty, the trade of Iceland being thrown open to all nations by a law of 1854. (Derry, 1979, pp. 235–236)

In 1874, a new constitution given to Iceland by Christian IX, which endowed the Althing with new powers to legislate Iceland’s domestic affairs, resulted in a renewed impetus to the struggle for greater autonomy and self-government. Hence, in 1904, Iceland was granted a limited home rule government by the Danish king (Karlsson, 2000). In practice, this meant that the positions of governor and county governor were eliminated, and that their functions were transferred to a minister resident in Iceland who would answer directly to the Althing. The legislature also gained more power, as its nominated element was decreased and poll tax fees got reduced. However, since the minister was required to submit all bills and important businesses to Denmark for approval by the king and its cabinet, the more passionate Icelandic nationalists continued to advocate for cutting ties with Denmark and achieving independence (Derry, 1979). Notably, in 1918, with the support of President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, a new far-reaching agreement was negotiated between Iceland and the Danish realm, which the Icelanders accepted immediately by a vote of 12,040 to 897. Thus, Iceland became a sovereign country, but still connected to Denmark by an arrangement in which both states shared a single head of state—the Danish monarch. Importantly, Danes and Icelanders obtained the right to acquire citizenship in each other’s country and to have unrestricted access to each other’s fishing grounds (a right especially sought after by the Faroe Islands), while foreign affairs and defense remained within the purview of the Danish kingdom. However, despite the far-reaching implications of the new treaty, due to a provision that allowed for its termination at any time after 1943, the fragile nature of the union soon became apparent. Finally, World War II

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

173

and the German occupation of Denmark in 1940 brought about the end of the union between Iceland and Denmark, as the Icelanders, with the support of President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States, unilaterally terminated the constitutional arrangement in which both countries shared a single head of state in 1944. But it took until 1950 for Denmark to accept the dissolution of the common monarchy, which the Icelandic population had approved in an almost unanimous plebiscite in the summer of 1944 (Derry, 1979). This chapter studies the ways in which Iceland addresses the language rights of the native Icelandic-speaking majority vis-à-vis a growing non-­ Icelandic-­speaking immigrant minority and an indigenous population of Icelandic Sign Language users. In recent years, Iceland has seen a large influx of immigrants, mainly from Poland, but also from Lithuania, the Philippines, and other countries. In Iceland, language nationalism and a linguistic protectionist culture that promotes the use of Icelandic above all other languages and in all domains of language use results in laws and regulations that may hinder the opportunities of immigrants to become naturalized citizens; to access services they need, especially in the health care system; and to receive an education that includes the child’s home language in the school curriculum and daily activities. Finally, a number of linguistic laws, regulations, and policies have been established by the Althing and the Icelandic authorities to promote the right of Icelandic Sign Language users to equal access to public services (i.e., interpreting), especially in the health care system, and in the education system (i.e., to learn and use Icelandic sign language in compulsory school and in higher education). Yet, no legal provisions have been established by the Althing on the government obligations of providing the financial backing necessary for guaranteeing equal access to public services and education for Icelandic Sign Language users.

Language Policy in Iceland Icelanders’ collective memory has been shaped by pride in their struggle for independence against Denmark at the beginning of the twentieth century, a mindset which promoted Iceland’s national distinctiveness

174 

E. D. Faingold

vis-à-vis Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries and “a steadfast belief on the part of many Icelanders that everything Icelandic should be protected by all available means” (Thorhallsson, 2018, p. 104). This is especially true for Iceland’s language ideology of fervent linguistic purism and protectionism (Albury, 2016; Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006), which discourages foreign words (especially English borrowings) from entering the Icelandic language (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009). Thus, in a burst of puristic fervor that started in the nineteenth century and continues until today, most words of foreign origin in Icelandic were replaced with Icelandic-based neologisms (Holmarsdottir, 2001). As the author points out, “the near absence of Latin, Greek, and, even more recently, English, or Danish vocabulary words, is striking…There is no place in the Icelandic language for the Latin and Greek words” (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 387). As the author continues, The professors in various departments at The University of Iceland contribute to the development of the language. For example, in the Department of Humanities the professors and lecturers in statistics have developed new words for various statistical terms and have produced dictionaries for use by their students…The term factor analysis is translated as Þáttagreining, whereas variance ration is known as dreífnihlutfall…The word “computer” is translated as tölva, made up of tala, plural tölur, (number) and vöva (fortune-­ teller)…E-mail is not like in German called “e-mail” or in Norwegian “mail” but tölvupóstur, made up of tölva (computer) and post (mail)…Software in Icelandic is hugbúnaður, made-up of hugur (thought) and búnaður (equipment). (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 388)

As another author explains, “the basic rule is that no foreign words are used in Icelandic that cannot easily be adapted to the linguistic and morphological system of the language, and even those that can are preferably substituted by new words formed from old Norse roots…New words are invented not only for new objects but also for abstract concepts” (Karlsson, 2000, p. 363). The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, a research institute that works in close cooperation with the University of Iceland, is of the greatest importance for establishing linguistic norms in Icelandic,

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

175

especially its Language Planning Department. The Árni Magnússon Institute produces research in Icelandic language and literature, especially in the history and origin of proper names and toponyms, terminology, lexicology, and is also responsible for creating language policy and for the preservation of medieval manuscripts (the Icelandic sagas and other historical materials). It organizes courses in Icelandic and Old Norse, and with significant government funding allocated for this purpose, it is also involved in language technology ventures. Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, the Árni Magnússon Institute’s Language Planning Department publishes guidelines on the acceptability of language forms, word formation, orthography, and other corpus planning issues (Kristinsson, 2018). Notably, as established by the Althing in 2006, the Institute operates as the official national language academy of Iceland: Promoting greater knowledge of the Icelandic language; working toward its strengthening and preservation in spoken and written form; and providing academically-based linguistic advice and guidance, including on technical vocabulary and neologisms;…participating in collaborative projects on the teaching of Icelandic and Icelandic studies abroad; …(and) advising the general public and organisations on the collection, cataloguing and preservation of place names, as well as on newly coined names. (Althing, 2006, pp. 1–2)

It is worth noting that institutional attempts at language planning to promote the use of Icelandic in all domains of everyday life have not always been well received by everyone in Iceland, especially by business representatives, e.g., in the travel and tourism industries, who are more inclined to use English than Icelandic in their daily operations and activities. However, despite the rising status of English vis-à-vis Icelandic in the travel and tourism industries as well as in banking and higher education, Icelandic remains the unchallenged medium of instruction in elementary and secondary education, as well as the main language of instruction at Icelandic institutions of higher learning. Moreover, hundreds of books are published in Icelandic every year in Iceland, and there are also dozens of newspapers, magazines, and journals in Icelandic, as well numerous

176 

E. D. Faingold

radio and TV stations that broadcast in Icelandic (Kristinsson, 2018). As another author succinctly puts it, Icelandic is by far the domestic majority language…and there are no signs that Icelanders choose English as a medium of communication in domestic affairs…Local authorities endorse linguistic protectionism and even disapprove of disloyalties to Icelandic. As a result, a raft of language laws and policies are now in place to protect and promote Icelandic, and ensure migrants learn it. This owes in no small part to the overtly linguistic orientation of Icelandic identity and nationhood: a culture of preserving Icelandic as the ancient proto-Scandinavian language and medium of Iceland’s Golden Age of literature justified Iceland’s quest for independence. Contemporary Icelandic nationhood therefore owes much to its linguistic history and is still firmly constituted by its language. (Albury, 2014, p. 118)

Language and the Law in Iceland The basic legislation for language policy in Iceland can be found in the Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011 (Althing, 2011) (hence the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act), which establishes that “Icelandic is the national language of the Icelandic people and the official language in Iceland” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 1). The stated goal of the Act is threefold: (1) to ensure that “the national language is the common language of the people of Iceland”; (2) that “the government authorities shall ensure that it is possible to use it in all areas of the life of the nation”; and (3) that “everyone who is resident in Iceland shall have the opportunity of using Icelandic for general participation in the life of the Icelandic nation as provided for in further detail in separate legislation” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 2). To this end, Article 6 of the Act created the Icelandic Language Committee at the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (see above) “to provide government authorities with advice on matters concerning the Icelandic language on an

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

177

academic basis and to make proposals to the Minister regarding language policy, and also to make annual assessments of the status of the Icelandic language.” Article 6 also states that “the Icelandic Language Committee shall compile rules on Icelandic orthography which shall apply, for example, in spelling teaching in schools…Fundamental changes to orthographical rules shall be subject to the approval of the Minister” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 6). Importantly, Article 8 of the Act establishes that “Icelandic is the language of the Althingi, the courts, the government authorities (both central and local), schools at all levels of the educational system and other institutions that are involved in executive actions and that render services to the public” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 8). Notably, another major stated goal of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011) is to protect the language rights of the deaf and hard of hearing in Iceland, which are deemed to be just as important as those of the hearing Icelandic-speaking population, e.g., to receive interpretation services in Icelandic Sign Language for face-­ to-­face communication. Icelandic Sign Language is the only legally recognized indigenous minority language in Iceland, and is also the L1 of about 250 deaf people as well as the L2 of some 1000 to 1500 hearing signers, including relatives of deaf people, teachers, researchers, and others. Deaf people in Iceland have the legal right to receive interpreting services in the courts, the health system, education, and for communication with public institutions and authorities (Stefánsdóttir et al., 2019). Laws and regulations that protect the language rights of Icelandic Sign Language users have been on the books in Iceland since at least 1990, i.e., the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 1990). As the name indicates, the Act established the Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (https://nordiskateckensprak.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/situationen-­ pc3a5-­island.pdf ) “to promote the right of the deaf to equal access to services on the widest possible basis throughout society, founded upon the sign language of the deaf ” (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, 1990, Article 1). Specifically, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act (Ministry of Education, Science, and

178 

E. D. Faingold

Culture, 1990) aims to: “(a) carry out research into Icelandic sign language; (b) teach sign language; (c) provide sign language interpreting; (d) provide other services” (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, 1990, Article 2). Icelandic language legislation establishes that Icelanders who rely on Icelandic Sign Language to communicate on a daily basis have the right to avail themselves of the full benefits that society offers to able-bodied-­ speakers of Icelandic, and that discrimination against people who are deaf and hard of hearing is to be avoided. Accordingly, Article 3 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011) states that “Icelandic sign language is the first language of those who have to rely on it for expression and communication, and of their children” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 3). To this end, Article 3 establishes the following provisions: (1) that “the government authorities shall nurture and support it”; (2) that “all those who need to use sign language shall have the opportunity to learn and use Icelandic sign language as soon as their language acquisition process begins, or from the time when deafness, hearing impairment or deaf-blindness is diagnosed”; and (3) that “their immediate family members shall have the same right” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 3). Just as important, Article 5 of the Act establishes the following provisions: (1) that the “central and local government authorities in Iceland shall encourage the development, study, teaching, and dissemination of Icelandic sign language and in other ways support cultural activities, education, and awareness-raising for deaf, hearing-impaired, and deaf-blind people” and (2) that “regarding a language policy and the status of Icelandic sign language, collaboration shall be sought with the Icelandic Sign Language Committee” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 5). Article 7 of the Act established the Icelandic Sign Language Committee at the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies “to provide government authorities with advice on matters of all types concerning Icelandic sign language and to support the development of Icelandic sign language and its use in the life of the Icelandic nation” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 7).

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

179

Notably, Article 9 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011) establishes “the right to services of an interpreter and the obligation of the courts to seek assistance of authorized interpreters and sign language interpreters are laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 9). To this end, Article 9 establishes that “Government authorities shall strive to ensure that persons who do not understand Icelandic are able to have their necessary business transacted and acquaint themselves with the contents of documents and official statements, etc., which concerns them” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 9). Just as important, Article 13 of the Act establishes that the “central and local government authorities shall ensure that all those who need Icelandic sign language services have access to them” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 13). Article 13 also establishes that “central and local government authorities shall be responsible for preserving Icelandic sign language, developing it, and contributing towards its use. Priority shall be given to ensuring that Icelandic sign language terminology in all professional, technical, and scientific spheres can develop and that it is used” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 13). Last but not least, this article declares that “Icelandic sign language is of equal status to Icelandic as a medium of expression for interpersonal communication, and discrimination between individuals on grounds of which language they use is prohibited” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 13).

L egislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Iceland For statistical purposes, the Icelandic government defines an immigrant as “a person born abroad with both parents foreign born and all grandparents foreign born” (­ https://statice.is/publications/news-­archive/

180 

E. D. Faingold

inhabitants/immigrants-­and-­persons-­with-­foreign-­background-­8903/). Accordingly, in January of 2019, the number of immigrants in Iceland were 50,272 or 14.1% of the population, out of a total population of 356,539, a proportion of immigrants larger than in the previous year when it was 12.6%. A total of 569 persons were granted Icelandic citizenship in 2018 (compared with 637 in 2017), out of which 149 were of Polish origin, while 247 persons were granted refugee status, out of which 78 had Iraqi citizenship and 28 Syrian citizenship. This is the largest number of persons who were granted refugee status in 1 year (https:// statice.is/publications/news-­a rchive/inhabitants/immigrants-­a nd-­ persons-­with-­foreign-­background-­8903/). More recently, the persecution of political dissidents by Maduro’s dictatorship brought 92 applicants for refugee status from Venezuela (https://utl.is/index.php/en/about-­ directorate-­of-­immigration/statistics#Conclusions1). For policy reasons, however, the Icelandic government defines an immigrant as “a foreign national who has settled long term in Iceland but is born overseas, or both of whose parents are born overseas or have held foreign citizenship at some time…Immigrants share the characteristic that their native language is not Icelandic” (emphasis added) (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, p. 2). Notably, while the Icelandic government does not collect information about the languages spoken in Iceland, it does keep statistics on the citizenship and country of birth of all foreign nationals living in its territory. For example, as in previous years, in 2018 the largest number of foreign nationals came from Poland (19,172 or 38.1% of the total immigrant population of Iceland), while the second largest group of immigrants came from Lithuania (2884 or 0.8% of the total population of Iceland), followed by people born in the Philippines (1968 or 0.5% of the total population of Iceland). Hence, the approximate number of speakers of foreign languages in Iceland can be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy. After Icelandic, Polish is by far the most widely spoken language in Iceland, with about 19,172 speakers (out of 356,539 or 5.4% of the total population of Iceland), followed by Lithuanian (2884) and Tagalog (1968) (https://statice.is/publications/news-­archive/inhabitants/immigrantsand-­persons-­with-­foreign-­background-­8903/).

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

181

Traditionally, the main motivation for immigration to Iceland has been employment-related (Loftsdóttir, 2017; Rancew-Sikora & Skaptadóttir, 2016; Skaptadóttir, 2015; Skaptadóttir & Loftsdóttir, 2016; Wojtyńska, 2011), but migrants seeking family reunification (Júlíusdóttir et al., 2013; Skaptadóttir, 2019) and refugee status have also played a significant role in recent years (Emilsson Peskova, 2021; Harðardóttir et al., 2019; Ingvarsson et al., 2016; Kristjánsdóttir & Skaptadóttir, 2019; Larsson, 2013; Rafik Hama, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir, 2021; Ragnarsdóttir & Rafik Hama, 2018; Tryggvadóttir & Skaptadóttir, 2018). While foreign nationals started coming to Iceland in the mid-­1990s to work in the fishing, food, and service industries, it was only after 2006, when temporary restrictions imposed on new EU member states were lifted, that large groups of immigrants started to arrive in much greater numbers, mainly from Poland (Skaptadóttir & Innes, 2017). As the authors reveal, “by 2007, foreign citizens residing in Iceland made…about 9% of the work force and were becoming more prominent in service-­related positions involving interaction with Icelanders” (emphasis added) (Skaptadóttir & Innes, 2017, p. 22). By 2019, as we have seen, the percentage of foreign nationals in Iceland reached 14.1% of the population, and as a result, as another author notes, “the historically straightforward correspondence between the ethnicity of the population in Iceland and having Icelandic as their mother tongue has been changing in recent years. The cultural and ethnic profile of Icelanders has thus become more complex than it was only about two decades ago” (Kristinsson, 2018, p. 245). As the author explains, One might say that from a European perspective, consequently, the language profile of Iceland is becoming more “normal” or “common”, rather than being an exception to most other countries in Northern Europe. Icelandic spoken with a foreign accent is increasingly a part of everyday language experience, for example on Icelandic national broadcast media. Traditionally, native speakers of Icelandic were not accustomed to hearing Icelandic spoken in a foreign accent. This is not the case today…While Icelandic remains the single official language in Iceland, and is by far the most common language for everyday communication, the Icelandic labour

182 

E. D. Faingold

market today carries a multilingual profile, particularly in fields such as hotels and restaurants, cleaning services, and the construction industry. (Kristinsson, 2018, p. 245)

The increasing visibility of foreign nationals in Icelandic society in recent years resulted in new laws designed by Icelandic lawmakers for the purpose of managing the use of Icelandic vis-à-vis non-Icelandic languages in Iceland. Accordingly, as we have seen, Article 2 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011) establishes the following provisions: (1) that “the national language (Icelandic) is the common language of the people of Iceland”; (2) that “the government authorities shall ensure that it is possible to use it in all areas of the life of the nation”; and (3) that “everyone who is resident in Iceland shall have the opportunity of using Icelandic for general participation in the life of the Icelandic nation as provided for in further detail in separate legislation” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 2). Notably, the Act on Foreigners of 2002 (Althing, 2002), one of the main pieces of legislation relating to the acquisition and use of Icelandic by non-native speakers in Iceland, did not create a legal requirement to pass an Icelandic language test as a condition to obtain permanent residence status in Iceland, but with a twist: Article 15 of the Act on Foreigners establishes that “the conditions for granting permanent residence permits shall include…the foreign national has attended a course in Icelandic for foreigners” (Act on Foreigners, 2002, Article 15). Accordingly, as part of the application process, persons applying for permanent residence in Iceland must take fee-based classes in Icelandic (but applicants who are union members get reimbursed as part of their union’s benefit package). After finishing the course, which can last for 4–6 weeks (with classes meeting daily for 2 h) or 8–10 weeks (with classes meeting twice a week), students receive 60 h credit toward the Icelandic learning requirement for permanent residency in Iceland. Importantly, however, foreign nationals who attend these courses are neither graded or evaluated, nor they are required to show linguistic progress throughout the course or to demonstrate that they have acquired enough Icelandic to communicate effectively in everyday life—only that they have fulfilled

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

183

the 150-hour attendance criterion required to apply for a permanent residence permit (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016). Finally, it is worth noting that, to obtain a permanent residence permit, a person coming to Iceland from Scandinavia, the EU, or an EEA/ EFTA country is exempted from taking classes in Icelandic. Only immigrants from countries outside the EEA and EFTA must fulfill this requirement, i.e., Eastern European countries not yet in the EU, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, and North America (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016). Interestingly, as the authors note, “affected by this legislation (are) immigrants from the USA and Canada who do not usually stand out racially or culturally from Icelanders…English speakers from non-EEA and EFTA countries must take classes in Icelandic, a symbolic move that positions the value and importance of Icelandic as roughly equivalent to English” (emphasis added) (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016, p. 6). Thus, a language test is not legally required to obtain a permanent residence permit in Iceland, but the law requires that the foreign national has attended a 150-hour course in Icelandic for foreigners before applying for permanent residency. Importantly, as a study on teaching Icelandic to immigrants reveals, “the class hour requirement does little to motivate students to learn enough to communicate effectively in Icelandic because learners are aware that only attendance, not proficiency achievements, is evaluated” (emphasis added) (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016, p. 12). In contrast to Icelandic legislation on permanent residence, Article 9 of the Icelandic Nationality Act (Althing, 1952) requires that an applicant for Icelandic citizenship must pass a proficiency test in Icelandic: Article 9 Section 3. The applicant shall have passed a test in Icelandic in accordance with standards set by the minister in a regulation. The regulation shall also contain provisions for exemptions from this condition in the case of those persons of whom it would be unfair to make this requirement. The minister may commission the Educational Assessment Institute (Námsmatsstofnun) or another comparable party with the preparation and holding of examinations, the costs of which shall be met by a fee which shall be determined by the minister. (Icelandic Nationality Act, 1952, Article 9, Section 3)

184 

E. D. Faingold

However, it was only in 2007, with the enactment of the Government Policy on the Integration of Immigrants (hence Government Policy on Immigrants) (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007), under a coalition led by the liberal-conservative Icelandic Independence Party, that the Icelandic government began to regulate standards for the Icelandic citizenship test in a specified manner: It is the policy of the Icelandic government—approved by the entire nation—to protect the Icelandic language. It is the shared property of the Icelandic nation and contains its history, culture, and self-awareness. It is also a tool for social interaction and a key to participation in the nation’s life. Powerful support of Icelandic language education for immigrants serves the dual purpose of speeding up their integration into society and strengthening the position of the Icelandic language. (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, p. 6)

Specifically, the Government Policy on Immigrants (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007) establishes that “the principal goal of the curriculum must be to define general performance goals in Icelandic…(and)…“that these could also be considered in decisions on the granting of citizenship” (emphasis added) (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, p. 8). Notably, the new policy recognizes that “people have…different abilities to read and understand the Icelandic language…Icelandic language education must be flexible in order to meet the needs of different groups, among other things, according to origin and level of education” (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, p. 8). Accordingly, in 2008, Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship (Ministry of the Interior, 2008), issued under Section 3 of Article 9 of the Icelandic Citizenship Act, reiterates that “persons who acquire Icelandic citizenship…are required to have passed a test in Icelandic based on the demands stated in these regulations” (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, 2008, Article 1). Notably, this regulation also states that “the Minister of Justice may grant a person who is applying for Icelandic citizenship exemption from the requirement of having passed a test in Icelandic if it must be considered

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

185

unfair to impose such a requirement” (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 2): Article 2 Exemptions (a) if the applicant has reached the age of 65 and has been legally domiciled in Iceland for the 7 years immediately preceding the submission of his application; (b) if the applicant is attending an Icelandic junior school, or has not yet reached junior school age; (c) if the applicant is able to confirm, by means of a medical certificate, or other appropriate certificates from specialists in the appropriate fields, that he is not able to take the test due to serious obstacles of a physical or mental nature; (d) if the applicant is able to confirm, by means of a relevant certificate from an Icelandic educational institution, that he possesses skills that meet the demands that are made in these regulations. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 2)

Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Regulation No 1129 specify the time, place, and content of the test, and the required fees and assistance offered by the government to applicants for Icelandic citizenship: Article 3 Holding of tests Tests in Icelandic shall normally be held at least twice each year. The tests shall be held in Reykjavík or its vicinity. Tests may also be held elsewhere in Iceland; The Minister of Justice shall place advertisements in the media and on the homepage of the Ministry of Justice stating, with at least eight weeks’ notice, where and when tests are to be held. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 3) Article 4 Content of the tests The subject matter and level of difficulty of the tests in Icelandic shall be based on the final goal stated in the syllabus published in 2008 by Ministry of Education, Science and Culture covering instruction in Icelandic for foreign nationals (240 hours), with the exception of the goals stated there

186 

E. D. Faingold

regarding a basic knowledge of the principal customs and traditions in Icelandic society. Thus, applicants are required: (a) to be able to cope with day-to-day situations in educational institutions, employment and private life; (b) to be able to cope with unexpected circumstances; (c) to have acquired sufficient command of vocabulary in order to take part in discussions of familiar topics; (d) to be able to understand simple conversations between persons; (e) to be able to read short texts in simple language about familiar topics; (f ) to be able to write a short text in simple language about familiar topics; (g) to be able to understand the main points in coverage in the broadcasting media (radio and television) when the topics are familiar to them. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 4) Article 5 Registration for tests; assistance. Only those who have registered for the tests and paid the required fee may take the tests. Candidates for the tests shall establish their identity when they arrive for the test by producing a personal identification document including a photograph. Regarding assistance with taking the tests, e.g. in cases of dyslexia or handicaps, the same rules shall apply as apply when standardized tests in English are held in the 10th grade of junior (compulsory) school. No allowance is made for special assistance during the tests for those who are illiterate or are unable to read the Latin alphabet if they can be expected to acquire these skills by means of traditional teaching in writing and reading. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 5)

Articles 6, 7, and 8 of Regulation No 1129 establish the rules for conducting and holding the test and for awarding grades and certificates to applicants for Icelandic citizenship: Article 6 Conduct of the tests The Minister of Justice may, by a special contract, entrust the Educational Testing Institute of Iceland (Námsmatsstofnun), or another comparable

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

187

party, with the preparation and conduct of the tests in Icelandic, including compiling the tests and marking them, registering candidates for the tests, and collecting the fees, and also further developing the tests and the way they are conducted in the light of experience gained. Teachers may not be engaged to compile the tests if they teach foreign nationals Icelandic. Teachers may not evaluate the test performance by candidates who have been their pupils. Obligations of confidentiality and non-disclosure shall apply to those who supervise and participate in the compilation of tests and the evaluation of test performance. They may not discuss or publish test performances by individual candidates, in part or in their entirety. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 6) Article 7 Rules regarding the tests The party entrusted with the preparation and conduct of the tests (cf. the first paragraph of Article 6) shall set and publicize rules on the conduct and holding of the tests. When tests are held, the instructions accompanying them shall be followed in detail. Deviations from the rules on holding the tests shall not be permitted without the assent of the party responsible for the conduct of the tests. The party entrusted with the preparation and conduct of the tests shall maintain a register of those who take the tests and of the test results. It shall also send the Ministry of Justice a list of those who pass the test not later than one month following the holding of the test. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 7) Article 8 Grades and certificates The tests shall reveal whether the candidate meets the demands set forth in Article 4. The party entrusted with the preparation and conduct of the tests shall present to those who pass the test a certificate to that effect. Assessment by the party of whether the candidate has passed the test shall be final. Candidates may request an explanation of the results of their tests within 15 days of being informed of the result. There is no limit to the number of times the test may be taken. If a candidate does not turn up for the test, or fails it, he shall not have the opportunity of retaking the test until the next time the test is held. (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 8)

188 

E. D. Faingold

Thus, unlike applicants for permanent residence, persons applying for Icelandic citizenship are not required to attend Icelandic classes, but they must pass a language test showing that they are able to perform the communication outcomes in Icelandic established in Article 4 of Regulation No 1129, the performance expected of those who have taken a course of “instruction in Icelandic for foreign nationals (240 hours)” (Regulation No 1129 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, Article 4). However, despite Iceland’s efforts to assess the linguistic skills of applicants for Icelandic citizenship, as the authors of a detailed study on immigration and language in Iceland reveal, “administrators consider the test to measure examinees’ linguistic abilities against a standard lower than their students should be able to accomplish after taking 240 hours’ worth of classes at their schools” (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016, p. 10). Equally important, as the authors note, “those administering the test are reticent to fail anyone and will pass those who demonstrate even minimal proficiency” (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016, p. 8). As the authors succinctly put it, Ambiguity about the level of linguistic skill necessary to pass and statements about leniency from a testing center employee suggest that Iceland’s language test is not used nearly as much as a discriminator in the citizenship-­ granting process as are the tests in other European countries. Allowances of variation in the oral and literacy skill levels that test administrators will accept as passing demonstrate that adherence to standardized forms and ideals of correctness are not driving the evaluation process. (Innes & Skaptadóttir, 2016, p. 8)

L egislation Concerning Language in the Courts and the Health Care System in Iceland As we have seen, Article 8 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act of 2011 (Althing, 2011) establishes that Icelandic is the language of “the courts, the government authorities (both central and local),…and other institutions that are involved in executive actions and that render services to the public” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

189

Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 8). Accordingly, Icelandic is the sole official language of the courts and of the national and local authorities that provide services to the public in Iceland. Notably, however, Article 9 of the Act establishes “the right to services of an interpreter and the obligation of the courts to seek assistance of authorized interpreters and sign language interpreters…(as established) in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 9). Accordingly, Article 10 of the Icelandic Code of Civil Procedure (Althing, 1992) establishes that If a person gives testimony in court and does not have sufficient command of Icelandic, the party who has arranged for the giving of testimony shall call in an authorized court interpreter…The party shall pay the cost of the interpreter’s work; however, this cost shall be paid by the Treasury in private prosecutions and in actions to establish paternity and to deprive persons of legal competence…. (Emphasis added) (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 10)

Similarly, Article 12 of the Icelandic Code of Criminal Procedure (Althing, 2009) establishes that If a person is questioned in court who does not have sufficient command of Icelandic, the prosecution shall have an authorized court interpreter called in…Where persons who are questioned in court rely on sign language as a means of communication, the prosecution shall have a sign-­ language interpreter called in…The judge shall decide the fee paid to a court interpreter, sign-language interpreter, translator or qualified person, and the fee and other expenses connected with the person’s work shall be paid by the Treasury…. (Emphasis added) (Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 12)

Thus, the obligations of the courts to provide authorized interpreters and sign language interpreters for persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic in both civil and criminal cases are amply recognized by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure in Iceland, which Article 9 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act of 2011 (Althing, 2011) accepts in toto, with interpreters being compensated by the Icelandic Treasury, as authorized by a judge

190 

E. D. Faingold

(Code of Civil Procedure, Article 10; Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 12). In regard to the right to an interpreter for communication with the government authorities and other institutions that provide services to the public in Iceland, Article 9 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language the Act (Althing, 2011) establishes that “the government authorities shall strive to ensure that persons who do not understand Icelandic are able to have their necessary business transacted and acquaint themselves with the contents of documents and official statements, etc., which concerns them” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 9). Just as important, Article 13 of the Act declares that the “central and local government authorities shall ensure that all those who need Icelandic sign language services have access to them” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language 2011, Article 13). However, despite the Act’s far-reaching content and comprehensive recognition of language rights for the deaf, the 2011 government budget provided no increase in expenditures earmarked to implement the new law. Thus, no legal provisions have been established by the Althing on the government’s obligations to commit the financial resources needed for guaranteeing access to interpreter services for those who need them to access public services, especially in the health care system (de Meulder, 2015; De Meulder & Murray, 2017; Stefánsdóttir et al., 2019). In Iceland, laws designed to ensure access to Icelandic Sign Language services for those who need them have been on the books since at least 1990, especially in the health care system. Thus, for example, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 1990) was established “to promote the right of the deaf to equal access to services on the widest possible basis throughout society, founded upon the sign language of the deaf ” (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, 1990, Article 1). Consequently, in 1997, the Patients’ Rights Act (Ministry of Welfare, 1997) was established to protect the right of a patient to receive information on health and treatment “in such a manner and under such circumstances that the patient can understand it. If the patient does not understand Icelandic or

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

191

uses sign language, interpretation of the information under this Article shall be provided” (Patients’ Rights Act, 1997, Article 5): Article 5 A patient has the right to information regarding: a. his/her state of health, including medical information on his/her condition and prognosis, b. the proposed treatment, as well as information on its course, risks, and benefits, c. possible remedies other than the proposed treatment, and the consequences of refraining from treatment, d. the possibility of seeking the opinion of another physician or other healthcare practitioners, as appropriate, regarding treatment, condition, and prognosis. It shall be entered in the health record of the patient that information under this Article has been provided. Information under this Article shall be provided whenever there is reason to do so and in such a manner and under such circumstances that the patient can understand it. If the patient does not understand Icelandic or uses sign language, interpretation of the information under this Article shall be provided. (Patients’ Rights Act, 1997, Article 5)

Similarly, the Government Policy on Immigrants (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007) declares that “language difficulties shall not prevent the exchange of information between the individual and the health care employee” (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, p. 18). Specifically, the Ministry suggests a number of guidelines aimed at facilitating communication between immigrant patients who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic and heath care providers, as established by the Patient’s Right Act (Ministry of Welfare, 1997): The right to information is one of the fundamental rights of patients. (The Patient’s Right Act) provides for the right to an interpreter for persons who do not speak Icelandic…To simplify communications and to prevent misunderstandings between health care workers and patients, various forms, educational material, and instructions shall be translated into foreign languages…Institutions within health care services shall have basic ­information

192 

E. D. Faingold

about their services, and this information shall be accessible in several languages, among other things on the Internet. (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, pp. 18–19)

Importantly, the Government Policy on Immigrants (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007) also makes recommendations aimed at facilitating communication between mental health providers and parents with children of immigrant background in need of treatment for developmental disorders: There shall be easy access to interpreter services for immigrants, both where the initial diagnosis is performed and at the State Diagnostic and Counselling Centre, where, for instance, information from parents as regards the developmental history of a child can have substantial effects on results. The same applies to counselling and follow-ups. A neutral interpreter service shall be considered, i.e. not interpretation by parents, or, alternatively, seeking the assistance of a specialist of the same nationality as the child who may live in Iceland. (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007, p. 22)

As we have seen, Icelandic is the sole official language of the courts and the national and local authorities that provide services to the public in Iceland. However, a number of linguistic laws were established by the Althing to ensure equal access to the Icelandic justice system for the deaf (Iceland’s only indigenous linguistic minority) and other persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic (i.e., Article 10 of the Icelandic Code of Civil Procedure [Althing, 1992] and Article 12 of the Icelandic Code of Criminal Procedure [Althing, 2009], which the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act accepts in toto [Althing, 2011]). A number of linguistic laws, regulations, and policies were also established by the Althing and the Icelandic authorities to promote the right of the deaf and other persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic to equal access to services, especially in the health care system (i.e., the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act of 1990 [Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 1990]; the Patients’ Rights Act of 1997 [Ministry of Welfare, 1997]; the Government Policy on

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

193

Immigrants of 2007 [Ministry of Social Affairs, 2007]; the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act of 2011 [Althing, 2011]). Thus, the obligations of the courts to provide interpreters and sign language interpreters for persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic in both civil and criminal cases are amply recognized by Icelandic linguistic law, notably with interpreters being compensated by the Icelandic Treasury as authorized by a judge. However, no legal provisions have been established by the Althing on the government’s obligations of providing the substantial financial commitment needed for guaranteeing access to public services for the deaf or other persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic (i.e., interpreting), including the health care system.

L egislation Concerning Language and Education in Iceland The basic legislation for language and education in Iceland can be found in Article 8 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act of 2011, which states that “Icelandic is the language of the…schools at all levels of the educational system” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 8). Notably, as we have seen, Article 3 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011) establishes that “all those who need to use sign language shall have the opportunity to learn and use Icelandic sign language as soon as their language acquisition process begins, or from the time when deafness, hearing impairment or deaf-blindness is diagnosed” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 3). In Iceland, preschools are intended for children up to 6 years of age, and they are required to follow a National Curriculum Guide issued by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, which establishes the main educational goals and the instructional role of all preschools. Most preschools in Iceland are administered by municipalities, which pay for their operations and are responsible for the activities that take place in the

194 

E. D. Faingold

preschool (but some preschools are managed by other institutions authorized by a municipality). In most municipalities parents can apply to enroll their children in preschool from the age of 6 months, but very seldom are children under 18 months of age accepted. Children younger than 18 months usually go to in-home daycare until a preschool slot becomes available (https://www.norden.org/en/info-­norden/preschools-­ and-­home-­child-­care-­iceland). Preschool education is subsidized by the municipalities for children 2 years old and sometimes younger, and enrollment of 3–4 years of age is over 95% (OECD, 2016). Although attendance is noncompulsory, preschool participation in Iceland is widespread (Ragnarsdóttir & Lefever, 2018). For example, the city of Reykjavik runs 64 preschools with 6000 children from 18 months to 5 years of age and supervises 17 private preschools with 1000 children. The declared goal is that children should begin preschool by the age of 2, in a healthy and safe environment that can help the child develop emotionally and physically. Preschools in Reykjavik provide a variety of pedagogical specializations and interests, e.g., reading and writing, mathematics, philosophy, nature, and the environment. Preschool fees are subsidized by the municipality, and priority registration is allowed in special circumstances, e.g., for children who have reached the age of 4–5 years; disabled children and children with serious developmental problems; children living in difficult circumstances; and the children of preschool employees. Only children who are legal permanent residents are allowed to attend preschool in Reykjavik (https://reykjavik.is/en/preschools). Notably, as one study points out, “20% of the children in (Reykjavik) preschools are of foreign origin and speak about sixty different languages…This is a major development, since until recently the country was largely monolingual” (Ragnarsdóttir & Lefever, 2018, p. 1; see, especially, Ragnarsdóttir’s (2021) study of Syrian refugee families with children, which explores the challenges and opportunities that parents and preschool staff experience during the first year of Syrian refugee children’s schooling in Iceland, as well as the educational practices created to support their learning and language development in the preschool). The special legislation for language and preschool education in Iceland can be found in the Preschool Act No 90 (Althing, 2008a), in force since 1 July 2008, which establishes “the main objectives of upbringing and

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

195

instruction in the preschool,” including the duty “to provide systematic linguistic stimulation and contribute to common skills in the Icelandic language” (Preschool Act No 90, 2008, Article 2). Notably, Article 9 of the Preschool Act establishes that “in the case of parents who are not native speakers of Icelandic or who use sign language, the school shall endeavor to ensure interpretation for all information necessary for communication between parents and school” (Preschool Act No 90, 2008, Article 9). Accordingly, Article 2, Section 4 of the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Preschools of 2011 (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2011b) stipulates that one of the “main objectives of upbringing and instruction in the preschool shall be…to provide systematic linguistic stimulation and contribute to common skills in the Icelandic language” (Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Preschools, 2011, p. 33). More specifically, Section 5 of the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Preschools (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011b) establishes guidelines for teaching Icelandic national values and developing children’s Icelandic language skills in the preschool: Section 5, Guidelines • Preschool should be a social and cultural forum where the national heritage and the values of Icelandic society have their proper place. • Preschool should use everyday relations to stimulate children’s sense of the Icelandic language by learning new words and concepts and developing their language. (Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Preschools, 2011, pp. 33–34)

Notably, however, neither the Preschool Act No 90 (Althing, 2008a) nor the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Preschools (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2011b) establishes regulations for the teaching of immigrant languages in preschool. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that Article 18 of the Guidelines of the Committee for Quota Refugees (Government of Iceland, 2013) states that preschools in Iceland are required to offer mother tongue instruction to refugee children and, most remarkably, to promote the active bilingualism of these children and the maintenance of their home languages, as well as to conduct periodic assessments of the children’s native language skills.

196 

E. D. Faingold

Article 18 In kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, refugee children shall be taught in their own native language where possible. The teaching shall aim for the active bilingualism of these students. Students should be encouraged to maintain their native language and cultivate it. Native language skills should be assessed as part of education at these school levels. (Guidelines of the Committee for Quota Refugees, 2013, Article 18)

Yet, the Guidelines of the Committee for Quota Refugees (Government of Iceland, 2013) do not provide any mechanism or funding to support the teaching of immigrant languages in the Icelandic preschools. On the other hand, as a comprehensive study of Icelandic language policy notes, many preschool staff in Iceland are foreign-born and speak languages other than Icelandic as their first language, which they use with their young charges (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010). So it is perhaps no coincidence that neither the Preschool Act No 90 (Althing, 2008a) nor the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Preschools (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2011b) specifically declares that the language of instruction in the Icelandic preschools should be Icelandic. Compulsory education in Iceland is subsidized by the government and lasts for about 10 years. It usually takes place between ages 6 and 16 and falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, which issues the national curriculum for schools. Most compulsory education takes place in schools run by the municipalities, but there are a few schools in Reykjavik that are privately run by non-profit organizations (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010; Ragnarsdóttir & Lefever, 2018). The special legislation for language and compulsory education in Iceland can be found in the Compulsory School Act No 91 (Althing, 2008b), in force since 1 July 2008, which states that “compulsory schools shall…strengthen (student) proficiency in the Icelandic language and their understanding of Icelandic society, its history and specificities” (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 2). Notably, Article 16 of the Compulsory School establishes that “the language of instruction in compulsory schools shall be Icelandic (but) other languages than Icelandic may be used for instruction whenever this is required by the nature of the

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

197

matter or by the National Curriculum Guide” (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 16). Importantly, the last paragraph of Article 16 declares that L2 Icelandic learners have the right “to training in Icelandic as a second language…to become actively bilingual and capable of studying at compulsory schools” (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 16). Finally, Article 24 of the Compulsory School Act No 91 (Althing, 2008b) establishes that “the National Curriculum Guide shall include an emphasis on…training in the use of Icelandic in all studies” (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 24). Just as important, Article 25 of the Act establishes that the National Curriculum Guide “shall stipulate the content and structure of education in Icelandic, Icelandic as a second language or Icelandic sign language,…English, Danish or another Nordic language” (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 25). Accordingly, the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools-with Subjects Areas (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b) establishes that the foreign languages taught in compulsory schools are “English and Danish where English is considered the first foreign language and Danish, Norwegian or Swedish the second foreign language” (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b, p. 50). As a comprehensive study on Icelandic language policy explains, Until 1999, Danish was the first foreign language taught in Iceland, because of tradition and because it was considered necessary for communication with the other Nordic countries. However, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture then decided to change the law making English the first foreign language taught instead of Danish…Although the number of hours dedicated to teaching Danish has not been reduced since the transition to English as the first foreign language, less emphasis is currently placed on learning Danish than was the case in previous years…Courses had been developed for pupils who had some connection with Norway or Sweden and who already had a reasonable proficiency in those languages. Those pupils were permitted to study those languages instead of Danish. Since the beginning of 2009, Polish language instruction has also been offered (instead of Danish) for pupils of Polish origin. (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, pp. 231–233)

198 

E. D. Faingold

In regard to the teaching of Icelandic as a second language in compulsory education, in some schools immigrant students may be taken out of the classroom for one or two lessons each week, while in other schools they can be placed in a language reception class for immigrants for their first 2 weeks or longer, until they are ready to be moved to a regular class. Immigrant children can stay in a reception class for up to 1 year (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010). Importantly, as the authors note, “the time allocated to teaching Icelandic to immigrants is not always sufficient, but this depends on the age of the immigrants on arrival. If a child arrives in Iceland at the age of 14–15, for example, the 1 or 2 years of Icelandic at compulsory school is insufficient, especially for speakers of languages that are radically different from Icelandic, such as Thai” (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 239). As we have seen, the language rights of deaf Icelanders to learn and use Icelandic Sign Language in school is protected by Article 3 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011), which establishes that “all those who need to use sign language shall have the opportunity to learn and use Icelandic sign language as soon as their language acquisition process begins, or from the time when deafness, hearing impairment or deaf-blindness is diagnosed” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 3). Accordingly, the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools-with Subjects Areas (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b) declares that “a solid knowledge of Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM) and Icelandic is one of the mainstays of a stable education for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired” (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b, p. 109). To this end, the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools establishes that The bilingual school subject of Icelandic Sign Language and Icelandic is organized as an integral subject in the same way as Icelandic as a mother tongue. In addition, practice in Icelandic Sign Language, written Icelandic, and even spoken Icelandic, when children use it for communication, is integrated into all compulsory school subjects…Sign language pupils should get an opportunity to use Icelandic Sign Language in their studies

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

199

in all subjects, as far as possible, and receive suitable sign language interpretation. (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b, p. 109)

Notably, the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools declares that In a democratic society it is as important for bilingual pupils of Icelandic Sign Language and Icelandic to take an active part in various kinds of discussions as it is for other pupils…To encourage a stronger self-image in pupils through reading Icelandic Sign Language literature that reflects the reality and history of people who use sign language. A thorough knowledge of Deaf culture is necessary for self-understanding and to create respect for Icelandic Sign Language…The literacy of Deaf children involves using both Icelandic Sign Language texts and written texts in Icelandic…It is important that pupils become independent and confident in reading…Good reading skills are the basis for lifelong learning and being able to acquire information that makes pupils capable of taking part in both cultures. (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b, pp. 109–110)

In Iceland, students spend 4 years in upper secondary education, 1 year longer than that in the other Scandinavian countries (but they are allowed to finish their studies in three or three and a half years), studying for a general education or vocational degree in a variety of fields. The school year is divided into two terms and lasts 9 months (Hilmarsson-­Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010). Upper secondary education is also subsidized by the Icelandic government (Ragnarsdóttir & Lefever, 2018). The special legislation for language and upper secondary education in Iceland can be found in the Upper Secondary Education Act No 92 (Althing, 2008c), in force since 1 August 2008, which declares that “(schools) shall strive to develop their students’ proficiency in the Icelandic language, both spoken and written” (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 2). Specifically, Article 35 of the Upper Secondary Education Act establishes that “the language of instruction in upper secondary schools shall be Icelandic” (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 35). Just as important, Article 35 of

200 

E. D. Faingold

the Act establishes that schools “may offer studies in other languages than Icelandic when: a. the nature of the studies or the curriculum guide make this necessary; and b. the (programs) concerned are specifically designed for students who do not master the Icelandic language” (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 35). Accordingly, Article 35 of the Act establishes that “students whose native language is not Icelandic shall be entitled to training in Icelandic as a second language. The same shall apply to students who have lived abroad for extended periods of time and who have little knowledge of Icelandic” (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 35). Article 35 also establishes that “in principle, students whose native language is not Icelandic shall be afforded the opportunity to maintain their native language by studying it as an elective subject, through distance learning or otherwise” (emphasis added) (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 35). In upper secondary education, three foreign languages are taught. English and Danish are required for 2–4 and 1–2 years respectively, depending on whether the student opts for the language stream or the science stream. Students can also take a third language (French, German, or Spanish). Language stream students are also required to take a fourth language, with some schools offering Polish, Russian, and Italian to meet the fourth language option (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010). As we have seen, the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011) establishes that “Icelandic is the language of the…schools at all levels of the educational system” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 8). Accordingly, the Compulsory School Act (Althing, 2008b) establishes that “the language of instruction in compulsory schools shall be Icelandic” (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 16). Correspondingly, the Upper Secondary Education Act (Althing, 2008c) establishes that “the language of instruction in upper secondary schools shall be Icelandic” (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 35). Notably, however, the Compulsory School Act (Althing, 2008b) also declares that students whose language is not Icelandic have the right “to become actively bilingual” (emphasis added) (Compulsory School Act No 91, 2008, Article 16). Similarly, the Upper Secondary Education Act (Althing, 2008c) declares that “students whose native language is not Icelandic

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

201

shall be afforded the opportunity to maintain their native language” (emphasis added) (Upper Secondary Education Act No 92, 2008, Article 35). Nevertheless, neither the Compulsory School Act (Althing, 2008b) nor the Upper Secondary Education Act (Althing, 2008c) provides any mechanism or funding to support the use of immigrant languages, let alone bilingual education, in the schools of Iceland. As a detailed study on multilingual education in Iceland succinctly puts it, “although educational policies and curriculum guides in Iceland emphasize equity and inclusion, multilingual and heritage language issues have generally not been addressed thoroughly in these policies” (see, e.g., Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011a, 2014a) (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018). Not surprisingly, except for a handful of experimental preschool and compulsory education programs in which immigrant languages are integrated into the school daily activities (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018), a wide range of studies have shown that immigrant languages are largely marginalized from school programs and activities in the Icelandic education system (e.g., GunnÞórsdóttir et al., 2018; Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, 2013; Ragnarsdóttir & Rafik Hama, 2018; Stefánsdóttir et al., 2019; Tran & Lefever, 2018). Let us now turn to language and higher education in Iceland. There are seven universities and colleges in Iceland, four are public universities (University of Iceland, University of Akureyri, Agricultural University of Iceland, and Hólar University College) and three are private institutions (Reykjavik University, Bifröst University, and Iceland Academy of the Arts). The University of Iceland in Reykjavik is by far the largest of all institutions of higher learning in Iceland, and it provides the greater variety of degree programs in the social sciences, health sciences, humanities, natural sciences, and engineering and technology, all of which offer PhD programs (Kristinsson, 2014). Concerning language policy in Icelandic higher education, as the author points out, “since the establishment of the University of Iceland in 1911,…Icelandic has…been the default and major language of instruction, while the use of other languages for instruction has, until very recently, been more of an exception, for particular or temporary purposes, rather than an institutionally established everyday practice” (Kristinsson, 2014, p. 171).

202 

E. D. Faingold

Presently, Icelandic is the main language of instruction in Icelandic higher education, but English is also needed for instruction and research purposes, e.g., for doctoral dissertations, graduate level teaching, and international student programs (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2014; Kristinsson, 2014). The stated goals of university language policies in Iceland are threefold: (a) Icelandic is to be used as the main language of instruction; (b) another language (usually English) can be used if needed, mainly at the graduate level; and (c) Icelandic language terminology must be available for all areas of teaching and research (Kristinsson, 2014). Accordingly, in 2016, the largest of all institutions of higher learning in Iceland, the University of Iceland established its own language policy “to promote the development of the Icelandic language and ensure that it is usable—and used—in all academic fields” (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 1). Specifically, the language policy of the University of Iceland declares that “the written and spoken language of the University is Icelandic, whether in teaching, research, or administration. Icelandic is therefore the default language for all work at the University and shall be used unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise” (bold in the original) (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 1). In addition, the new policy declares that “English is also a very important language in the work of the University, due to international students and teaching staff, due to the need to prepare students for participation in the international academic community, and due to the University’s participation in all kinds of international collaboration” (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 1). In regard to the use of Icelandic vis-à-vis English and other languages for teaching and administration purposes, Articles 1–10 of the new policy establish that: 1. The standard of written and spoken Icelandic within the University of Iceland shall be exemplary, from both students and staff. The University writing centers shall be enhanced and enabled to serve students in all of the University’s schools. Teaching staff shall have the option of receiving language consultation services or other specialized guidance in presenting course material in Icelandic. Such consultation might, for example, be offered by the Centre for Teaching and Learning or writing centers (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 2).

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

203

2. The teaching language for programs and individual courses shall always be specified in the course catalogue, such that any deviation from the general rule that Icelandic is the language of the University shall always be made explicit in advance. Where international students are permitted to take courses taught in Icelandic in accordance with the course catalogue, teaching staff shall seek to accommodate them, although without changing the teaching language (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 2). 3. Icelandic shall be the default teaching language in undergraduate studies, except for language teaching. Teaching in English shall be restricted to programs where there is a specific reason to teach in English; courses taught by teaching staff who are not native speakers of Icelandic; and courses which must be taught in English due to the University’s international collaborative work. Mandatory undergraduate courses, except in language teaching and programs taught in English, shall as a rule be taught in Icelandic (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 2). 4. Icelandic shall be the default teaching language in postgraduate studies, except in language teaching, although faculties may decide to offer postgraduate programs partially or entirely in English. If a teacher speaks Icelandic and there are no international students in the class, a faculty may permit teaching in Icelandic despite the course catalogue specifying English as the teaching language (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 3). 5. Course assessment shall be conducted in the same language as teaching. In courses (other than language teaching courses) taught in English by Icelandic-speaking teaching staff, the faculty may permit students to submit assignments and sit examinations in Icelandic. In courses taught in Icelandic, the faculty may permit students who are not native speakers of Icelandic to submit assignments and sit examinations in another language (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 3). 6. Even though English is the main language of doctoral theses, they may be written in Icelandic if the doctoral student so wishes, faculty rules permit, and circumstances allow. The faculty in question (postgraduate study committee or faculty council) and the Graduate School shall evaluate in each case whether impartial I­ celandic-­speaking

204 

E. D. Faingold

experts with sufficient specialist knowledge are available such that it will certainly be possible to obtain qualified opponents if the thesis is written in Icelandic (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 3). 7. Teaching staff in permanent positions and administrators whose native language is not Icelandic shall perform their jobs in Icelandic following a reasonable adjustment period. The ability to teach and perform administrative duties in Icelandic shall be a factor in appointment to a permanent position. Job advertisements shall make reference to the University language policy. The University shall offer free Icelandic courses for international teaching staff, who shall be able to apply for a reduction in teaching duties if they take the courses (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 3). 8. It shall be made easier for teaching staff and students who are native speakers of Icelandic to take part in University operations in English. Courses in academic English for teaching staff and students shall be enhanced and made a mandatory component of doctoral programs where appropriate. Special English support services shall be introduced for students, for example at writing centers or the Language Centre, to help them in their studies and with writing essays in English (University of Iceland, 2016, pp. 3–4). 9. It shall be made easier for students whose native language is not Icelandic to participate in studies and other activities in Icelandic within the University. International students commencing studies taught in Icelandic shall sit a placement examination in the language. They shall have the opportunity to take Icelandic courses to make it easier for them to follow teaching in Icelandic. Special Icelandic courses and other support shall be available for exchange students (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). 10. For programs and courses taught in English, certain minimum requirements will be made of students regarding English proficiency. International students who are not native English speakers and apply for a program taught in English shall be required to demonstrate that they have received a minimum grade in a recognized international English qualification for foreigners. Faculties shall define minimum requirements for the English proficiency of exchange students (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4).

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

205

In regard to the language rights of staff and students who use sign language, Article 11 of the new policy declares that 11. The needs of staff and students who use sign language shall be accommodated such that they are able to use Icelandic sign language to the same extent as Icelandic in their work/studies at the University. Sign language interpreters shall be available as needed, both in class and for other communication between students and teaching staff, as well as in meetings and lectures as appropriate (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). Finally, in regard to the use of Icelandic for dissemination purposes in teaching and research, Articles 12 and 13 of the new policy establish that 12. Teaching staff shall be encouraged to communicate their knowledge to students and the general public in Icelandic through books, articles, teaching material, and other channels. Academic books and journal articles in Icelandic shall be eligible for service points as well as research points. It shall also be possible to award service points for other communication of academic material in Icelandic, such as the consolidation of teaching material, advisory work for the government and public, and participation in public discourse (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). 13. Teaching staff shall be encouraged to work on creating Icelandic terminology within their academic field and communicating this terminology to students and the general public. Individual subjects and disciplines shall see to the systematic creation of terminology and glossaries, each in their own field. Teaching staff shall also be encouraged to translate academic works, teaching material, and literature into Icelandic. It shall be possible to reward teaching staff within the University Evaluation System for work of this nature (University of Iceland, 2016, pp. 4–5). The use of Icelandic vis-à-vis English and other languages in meetings and other operations of the university, official documents, and language technology is regulated by Articles 14–17 of the new policy:

206 

E. D. Faingold

14. All meetings and other operations of University departments, faculties, and schools, as well as committees in the University administration, shall be conducted in Icelandic wherever possible. Faculty heads and committee chairs shall also ensure that teachers and other staff who do not understand Icelandic are able to follow meetings and other administrative proceedings and participate as necessary (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 5). 15. Written documents within the University administration, such as official information issued by the University or its units, e.g. meeting notices, meeting minutes, invitations to lectures, event announcements, etc., shall always be in Icelandic, although an English version shall be included where appropriate. Individual meeting documents may, however, be in a foreign language in certain circumstances (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 5). 16. Language technology shall be used to assist and guide staff and students in their use of the language. Students, teaching staff, and other staff shall have the option to make use of all available language technology for Icelandic, e.g. spelling and grammar checking software, speech synthesizers, speech analyzers, and translation software. Special emphasis shall be placed on language technology which aids disabled people in their studies and daily lives (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 5). 17. The electronic environment at the University shall be in Icelandic as far as possible. The default user interfaces for all software commonly used by staff and students within the University shall be in Icelandic. UI Computing Services shall have any software distributed within the University translated into Icelandic. Teaching staff and students shall be encouraged to take part in the translation of open-source software (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 5). In regard to the oversight responsibility for the implementation of the new language policy, the policy document establishes that “the University administration and individual schools, faculties, and institutes, as applicable, are responsible for more detailed implementation and realization of the University of Iceland language policy. The rector is responsible for

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

207

the policy and may authorize a temporary deviation from individual provisions if necessary” (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 6). Thus, the main stated goal of the language policy of the University of Iceland is that Icelandic should be used as the main language for instruction and administration purposes, while English can also be used if needed. Accordingly, Icelandic is used as the main language of instruction at the University of Iceland, but English is also used extensively for instruction and research purposes, especially in graduate studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2017; Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2014, 2017; Ingvarsdóttir, 2017; Ingvarsdóttir & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2017; Kristinsson, 2014). Notably, as we have seen, Article 12 of the language policy of the University of Iceland declares that “teaching staff shall be encouraged to communicate their knowledge to students and the general public in Icelandic through books, articles, teaching material and other channels. Academic books and journal articles in Icelandic shall be eligible for service points as well as research points” (emphasis added) (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). However, as a study on language policy in Icelandic higher education points out, “the university operates an incentive arrangement system which stimulates faculty members to publish in esteemed international (in practice mostly English-language) publications” (Kristinsson, 2014, p. 171). Similarly, another study on language policy in Icelandic higher education notes that, In spite of the declared national language policy of Iceland that Icelandic is the language of higher education, in regulations governing professional advancement,…publications in international journals are rated higher than publications in Icelandic journals…Icelandic university lecturers are rewarded with financial bonuses and professional advancement if they publish in the most competitive international journals. Graduate students are also affected by this funding system as one of the major criteria for obtaining student scholarships is the publication record of the student’s advisor. (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2014, p. 187)

In short, internationalization ideologies and the ability to compete and participate in the global academic market can, and often do, predominate over linguistic nationalism and language protectionist ideologies that aim

208 

E. D. Faingold

to promote the use of small languages in Iceland as in other European countries (Kristinsson, 2014). As the author explains, The central theme of these ideologies is grammatical and lexical purism and language standardization. As for matters of domains of use, Icelanders are more pragmatic. It is not contradictory that we are witnessing increased use of English in Iceland, among other things as language of instruction at the tertiary level, even if this is a speech community perceived to have a protectionist language culture, since this is ideologically deep-rooted merely as to the forms of language and not as to domains of language use. National and university language policies attempting to restrict the use of English in Icelandic academia may have only limited effect, in the long run, since their ideological support is probably rather superficial. (Kristinsson, 2014, p. 175)

Importantly, it is worth noting that the language policy of the University of Iceland establishes that “the rector is responsible for the policy and may authorize a temporary deviation from individual provisions if necessary” (emphasis added) (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 6). The term “temporary deviation” is not specifically defined in the policy, allowing the university authorities, for example, to retain foreign professors who are not fluent in Icelandic indefinitely, if they so wish. Last but certainly not least, in regard to the language rights of the deaf at the University of Iceland, Article 11 of the new policy declares that “the needs of staff and students who use sign language shall be accommodated such that they are able to use Icelandic sign language to the same extent as Icelandic in their work/studies at the University” (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). Also importantly, Article 11 establishes “that sign language interpreters shall be available as needed, both in class and for other communication between students and teaching staff, as well as in meetings and lectures as appropriate” (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). However, no provisions have been established on the Icelandic government’s responsibility of providing the financial backing necessary for guaranteeing that those who use Icelandic Sign Language in higher education are able to use it to the same extent as Icelandic in class and for communication purposes outside of the classroom.

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

209

Conclusion This chapter studied the ways in which Iceland addresses the language rights of the native Icelandic-speaking majority vis-à-vis a growing non-­ Icelandic-­speaking immigrant minority and an indigenous population of Icelandic Sign Language users. In recent years, Iceland has seen a large influx of immigrants (14.1% of the total population in 2018), mainly from Poland, but also from Lithuania, the Philippines, and other countries. In Iceland, language nationalism and a linguistic protectionist culture that promotes the use of Icelandic above all other languages and in all domains of language use result in laws and regulations that may hinder the opportunities of immigrants to become naturalized citizens; to access services they need, especially in the health care system; and to receive an education that includes the child’s home language in the school curriculum and daily activities. As for the language rights of the deaf in Iceland, a number of linguistic laws, regulations, and policies have been established by the Althing and the Icelandic authorities to promote the right of Icelandic Sign Language users to equal access to public services (i.e., interpreting), especially in the health care system, and in the education system (i.e., to learn and use Icelandic sign language in school). Thus, as with Sweden, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, a language test is not legally required to obtain a permanent residence permit to live in Iceland (see Chaps. 2, 6, and 7), but Icelandic law requires that a foreign national has attended a 150-h course in Icelandic for foreigners before applying for permanent residency (unlike Swedish, Greenlandic, and Faroese law which have no such requirement). In contrast, as in Denmark and Norway, applicants for Icelandic citizenship must pass a very demanding language proficiency test (i.e., performing advanced communication tasks in Icelandic), which could negatively affect the possibility of an immigrant to become a naturalized citizen in Iceland (see Chaps. 3 and 4). The obligations of the courts to provide interpreters and sign language interpreters in civil and criminal cases for persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic (i.e., non-Icelandic-speakers and Icelandic Sign Language users) are amply recognized by Icelandic law, notably with

210 

E. D. Faingold

interpreters being compensated by the Icelandic Treasury as authorized by a judge. In addition, a number of linguistic laws, regulations, and policies have been established by the Althing and the Icelandic authorities to promote the right of the deaf and other persons who do not have sufficient command of Icelandic to equal access to public services, including health care services. However, no legal provisions have been established by the Althing on the government obligations of providing the substantial financial commitment needed for guaranteeing access to public services (i.e., interpreting), either for Icelandic Sign Language users or non-Icelandic-speakers. Article 8 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act of 2011 establishes that “Icelandic is the language of the…schools at all levels of the educational system” (Althing, 2011). Accordingly, Article 16 of the Compulsory School Act establishes that “the language of instruction in compulsory schools shall be Icelandic” (Althing, 2008b). Correspondingly, Article 35 of the Upper Secondary Education Act establishes that “the language of instruction in upper secondary schools shall be Icelandic” (Althing, 2008c). Notably, the Preschool Act (Althing, 2008a) does not require that Icelandic should be the language of instruction in the preschools. The reason, probably, is that many preschool staff in Iceland are foreign-born and speak languages other than Icelandic as their first language. Notably, Article 16 of the Compulsory School Act also declares that students whose language is not Icelandic have the right “to become actively bilingual” (Althing, 2008b), and Article 35 of the Upper Secondary Education Act declares that “students whose native language is not Icelandic shall be afforded the opportunity to maintain their native language” (Althing, 2008c). However, neither the Compulsory School Act (Althing, 2008b) nor the Upper Secondary Education Act (Althing, 2008c) provides any mechanism or fundings to support the use of immigrant languages, let alone bilingual education, in the schools of Iceland. Not surprisingly, as a wide range of studies show, immigrant languages are largely marginalized from the school curriculum in the Icelandic education system (e.g., GunnÞórsdóttir et al., 2018; Hilmarsson-­ Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, 2013; Ragnarsdóttir & Rafik Hama, 2018; Stefánsdóttir et al., 2019; Tran & Lefever, 2018). Finally, Article 3 of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language Act (Althing, 2011)

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

211

establishes that “all those who need to use sign language shall have the opportunity to learn and use Icelandic sign language as soon as their language acquisition process begins, or from the time when deafness, hearing impairment or deaf-blindness is diagnosed” (Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language, 2011, Article 3). Accordingly, the Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools-with Subjects Areas (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b) establishes that “the bilingual school subject of Icelandic Sign Language and Icelandic is organized as an integral subject in the same way as Icelandic as a mother tongue….Sign language pupils should get an opportunity to use Icelandic Sign Language in their studies in all subjects, as far as possible, and receive suitable sign language interpretation” (Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, 2014b, p. 109). However, here as well, no legal provisions have been established by the Althing on the government obligations of providing the financial backing necessary for guaranteeing equal access to an education for Icelandic Sign Language users in the schools. In regard to language policy at the tertiary level in Iceland, Icelandic is the main language of instruction at the University of Iceland and other institutions of higher learning, while English can be used as needed for instruction and research purposes, mainly in graduate studies. Accordingly, the language policy of the University of Iceland establishes that, for example, “teaching staff shall be encouraged to communicate their knowledge to students and the general public in Icelandic through books, articles, teaching material and other channels. Academic books and journal articles in Icelandic shall be eligible for service points as well as research points” (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). However, the University of Iceland and other institutions of higher learning in Iceland reward faculty members who publish articles and books in international journals of high reputation and with top university and trade presses (in practice predominantly English-language publication outlets) with monetary incentives and professional advancement. Thus, internationalization ideologies and the ability to compete and participate in the global academic market can (and does) predominate over linguistic nationalism and language protectionist ideologies in Iceland (Kristinsson, 2014). As the author

212 

E. D. Faingold

explains, “it is not contradictory that we are witnessing increased use of English in Iceland…at the tertiary level, even if this is a speech community perceived to have a protectionist language culture, since this is ideologically deep-rooted merely as to the forms of language and not as to domains of language use” (Kristinsson, 2014, p. 175). Finally, in regard to the language rights of the deaf in Icelandic higher education, for example, the language policy established by University of Iceland language declares that “the needs of staff and students who use sign language shall be accommodated such that they are able to use Icelandic sign language to the same extent as Icelandic in their work/studies at the University…Sign language interpreters shall be available as needed, both in class and for other communication between students and teaching staff, as well as in meetings and lectures as appropriate” (emphasis added) (University of Iceland, 2016, p. 4). However, here as well, no legal provisions have been established on the government obligations of providing the financial backing necessary for guaranteeing that those who use Icelandic Sign Language in higher education are able to use it to the same extent as Icelandic in class and for communication purposes outside of the classroom.

References Albury, N. J. (2014). Fearing the known: English and the linguistic ramifications of globalizing Iceland. Journal of Globalization Studies, 5, 105–122. https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/files/jogs/2014_2/105-­122.pdf Albury, N. J. (2016). National language policy theory: Exploring Spolsky’s model in the case of Iceland. Language Policy, 15, 355–372. https://doi. org/10.10007/s10993-­015-­9357-­z Althing. (1952). Icelandic nationality act. https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/2017/12/21/Icelandic-­Nationality-­Act-­No.-­100-­1952/ Althing. (1992). Code of civil procedure. https://www.government.is/library/01-­ Ministries/Ministry-­of-­Justice/Code%20of%20Civil%20Procedure%20 No.%2091,%2031%20December%201991..pdf Althing. (2002). Act on foreigners No 96. https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/act-­on-­foreigners_html/Act_On_Foreigners_No_96_2002.pdf

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

213

Althing. (2006). Act respecting the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies No 40. https://www.government.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-­media/ media/frettatengt2016/Thyding-­l og-­u m-­Stofnun-­A rna-­Magnussonar-­ juli-­2016.pdf Althing. (2008a). Preschool act No 90. https://www.government.is/media/ menntamalaraduneyti-­media/media/MRN-­pdf_Annad/Preschool_Act.pdf Althing. (2008b). Compulsory school act No 91. https://www.government.is/ media/menntamalaraduneyti-­m edia/media/law-­a nd-­r egulations/ Compulsory-­School-­Act-­No.-­91-­2008.pdf Althing. (2008c). Upper secondary education act No 92. https://www.government.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-­media/media/law-­and-­regulations/ Upper-­Secondary-­Education-­Act-­No.-­92-­2008.pdf Althing. (2009). Code of criminal procedure. https://www.government.is/lisalib/ getfile.aspx?itemid=bc7cb7af-­0572-­11ea-­9450-­005056bc4d74 Althing. (2011). Act on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic Sign Language No 61. https://rritrends.res-­agora.eu/uploads/32/Icelandic-­ Language-­Act%2061-­2011.pdf Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2017). Using English at university. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 143–162). Springer. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2014). English at the University of Iceland. In A. K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 179–192). John Benjamins. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2017). Simultaneous Parallel Code Use. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 163–178). Springer. de Meulder, M. (2015). The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15, 498–506. De Meulder, M., & Murray, J. J. (2017). Buttering their bread on both sides? The recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities. Language Problems & Language Planning, 41, 136–158. https://doi. org/10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem Derry, T. K. (1979). A history of Scandinavia. University of Minnesota Press. Emilsson Peskova, R. (2021). School experience of plurilingual students: A multiple case study from Iceland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iceland. Government of Iceland. (2013). Viðmiðunarreglur flóttamannanefndar (Guidelines of the committee for quota refugees). https://www.stjornarradid.is/

214 

E. D. Faingold

verkefni/utlendingar/flottafolk/adlogun-­f lottafolks/vidmidunarreglur-­ flottamannanefndar/ GunnÞórsdóttir, H., Barrillé, S., & Meckl, M. (2018). Multiculturalism in Icelandic schools: Parents’ and teachers’ voices. In H. Ragnarsdóttir & S. Lefever (Eds.), Icelandic studies on diversity and social justice in education (pp. 180–200). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Harðardóttir, E., Magnúsdóttir, B. R., & Dillabough, J.-A. (2019). Understanding the politics of inclusion, the ‘refugee’ and nation: Analysis of public policies and teacher narratives in Iceland. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1707306 Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. M. (2006). Protectionist language policies in the face of the forces of English: The case of Iceland. Language Policy, 5, 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-­006-­9027-­2 Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. M., & Kristinsson, A. P. (2009). Iceland’s language technology: Policy versus practice. Current Issues in Languages Planning, 11, 207–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200903554966 Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. M., & Kristinsson, A. P. (2010). The language situation in Iceland. Current Issues in Languages Planning, 10, 361–376. https://doi. org/10.1080/14664208.2010.538008 Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. M., & Kristinsson, A. P. (2013). The language situation in Iceland. In R. B. Kaplan, R. B. Baldauf Jr., & N. M. Kamwangamalu (Eds.), Language planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland, and Luxembourg (pp. 100–169). Routledge. Holmarsdottir, H. (2001). Icelandic: A lesser-used language in the global community. International Review of Education, 47, 379–394. Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2017). University’s instructors’ views on using curriculum materials in English. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 179–195). Springer. Ingvarsdóttir, H., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2017). Writing English for research and publication purposes (ERPP). Personal identity and professional voice. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 197–2014). Springer. Ingvarsson, L., Egilson, S. N., & Skaptadottir, U. D. (2016). “I want a normal life like everyone else”: Daily life of asylum seekers in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6, 416–424. https://doi.org/10.310 9/11038128.2016.1144787

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

215

Innes, P. J., & Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2016). Icelandic for adult foreigners: Effects of imposing an Icelandic language test. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(1), 1–19. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20 Júlíusdóttir, M., Skaptadóttir, U. D., & Karlsdóttir, A. (2013). Mapping gendered migration in turbulent times in Iceland. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 67, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.847483 Karlsson, G. (2000). The history of Iceland. University of Minnesota Press. Kristinsson, A. P. (2014). Ideologies in Iceland: The protection of language forms. In A. K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 165–178). John Benjamins. Kristinsson, A. P. (2018). National language policy and planning in Iceland— Aims and institutional activities. In G. Stickel (Ed.), Contributions to the EFNIL conference 2017 in Mannheim (pp. 242–249). Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Kristjánsdóttir, E. S., & Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2019). “I’ll always be a refugee”: The lived experience of Palestinian refugee women of moving to a small society in Iceland. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 17, 389–404. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2018.1499065 Larsson, G. (2013). Iceland. In J. S. Nielsen (Ed.), Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, 5 (pp. 327–332). Brill. Loftsdóttir, K. (2017). Being “the damned foreigner”: Affective national sentiments and racialization of Lithuanians in Iceland. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 7, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/njmr-­2017-­0012 Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. (1990). Deaf and hard of hearing communication centre act. https://www.government.is/media/ menntamalaraduneyti-­media/media/frettatengt2016/Log-­nr.-­129_1990-­ um-­S amskiptamidstod-­h eyrnarlausra-­o g-­h eyrnarsker tra%2D% 2D-­ENSKA.pdf Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. (2011a). Icelandic national curriculum guides. http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/publications/curriculum/ Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. (2011b). Icelandic national curriculum guide for preschools. https://www.government.is/lisalib/getfile. aspx?itemid=3e4939f4-­cb84-­11e7-­9421-­005056bc530c Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. (2014a). White paper on education reform. http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/menntamal/hvitbok/ Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. (2014b). Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools-with subjects areas. https://www.government.is/library/01-­M inistries/Ministry-­o f-­E ducation/Curriculum/ adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf

216 

E. D. Faingold

Ministry of Social Affairs. (2007). Government policy on the integration of immigrants. https://www.government.is/media/velferdarraduneyti-­media/media/ acrobat-­enskar_sidur/stefna_integration_of_immigrants.pdf Ministry of the Interior. (2008). Regulations No. 1129 on Icelandic language tests for persons applying for Icelandic citizenship. https://www.legislationline.org/ download/id/3902/file/Iceland_Regulations_language_test_for_person_ applying_for_citizenship_2008_en.pdf Ministry of Welfare. (1997). Patients’ rights act. https://www.government.is/ media/velferdarraduneyti-­m edia/media/acrobat-­e nskar_sidur/Patients-­ Rights-­Act-­No-­74-­1997.pdf OECD. (2016). Education policy outlook: Iceland. OECD. https://www.oecd. org/iceland/Education-­Policy-­Outlook-­Country-­Profile-­Iceland.pdf Rafik Hama, S. (2020). Experiences and expectations of successful immigrant and refugee students while in upper secondary schools in Iceland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iceland. Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2018). Building empowering multilingual learning communities in Icelandic schools. In P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 577–594). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­44694-­3_44 Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2021). Multilingual childhoods of refugee children in Icelandic preschools: Educational practices and partnerships with parents. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29, 410–423. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1928719 Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Lefever, S. (2018). Introduction. In H. Ragnarsdóttir & S. Lefever (Eds.), Icelandic studies on diversity and social justice in education (pp. 1–6). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Rafik Hama, S. (2018). Refugee children in Icelandic schools: Experiences of families and schools. In H. Ragnarsdóttir & S. Lefever (Eds.), Icelandic studies on diversity and social justice in education (pp. 82–104). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Rancew-Sikora, D., & Skaptadóttir, U. D. (Eds.). (2016). Mobility to the edges of Europe: The case of Iceland and Poland. Scholar Publishing House. Robinson, O. W. (1992). Old English and its closest relatives: A survey of the earliest Germanic languages. Stanford University Press. Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2015). What happened to the migrant workers? In E. P. Durrenberger & G. Palsson (Eds.), Global debt: Iceland’s rise and fall in the global economy (pp. 175–186). University Press of Colorado.

5  Language Rights and the Law in Iceland 

217

Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2019). Transnational practices and migrant capital: The case of Filipino women in Iceland. Social Inclusion, 7, 211–220. https://doi. org/10.17645/si.v7i4.2320 Skaptadóttir, U. D., & Innes, P. (2017). Immigrant experiences of learning Icelandic and connecting with the speaking community. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 7, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/njmr-­2017-­0001 Skaptadóttir, U. D., & Loftsdóttir, K. (2016). The tourist and the migrant worker: Different perceptions of mobility in Iceland. In D. Rancew-Sikora & U. D. Skaptadóttir (Eds.), Mobility to the edges of Europe: The case of Iceland and Poland (pp. 17–37). Scholar Publishing House. Stefánsdóttir, V., Kristinsson, A. P., & Hreinsdóttir, J. G. (2019). The legal recognition of Icelandic sign language: Meeting deaf People’s expectations? In M. De Meulder, J. J. Murray, & R. L. McKee (Eds.), The legal recognition of sign languages: Advocacy and outcomes around the world (pp. 191–205). Multilingual Matters. Thorhallsson, B. (2018). Iceland: The dominant party in thrall to its past discourse. In M. Stegmann McCallion & A. Brianson (Eds.), Nordic states and European integration: Awkward partners in the north? (pp. 103–127). Palgrave Macmillan. Tran, A.-D., & Lefever, S. (2018). Icelandic-born students of immigrant background: How are they faring in compulsory school? In H. Ragnarsdóttir & S. Lefever (Eds.), Icelandic studies on diversity and social justice in education (pp. 39–59). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Tryggvadóttir, H., & Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2018). Borders, boundaries, and exclusion in the Icelandic asylum system. Refuge, 34, 16–27. https://doi. org/10.7202/1055573ar University of Iceland. (2016). University of Iceland language policy. https://english.hi.is/university/university_of_iceland_language_policy Wojtyńska, A. (2011). History and characteristic of migration from Poland to Iceland. In M. Budyta-Budzyńska (Ed.), Integration and assimilation? Polish immigrants in Iceland (pp. 29–42). Scholar Publishing House.

6 Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands

The Faroe Islands consist of 18 islands in the North Atlantic Ocean, located to the west of Norway, between Iceland and the Shetland Islands. About 50,000 people live in the 29 municipalities of the Faroe Islands, with a population of about 21,000 people living in the capital city, Tórshavn. The second most populated municipality is Klaksvík with a population of about 5000, followed by Runavík with 3900, and Eysturkommuna and Vága municipalities with 2000 residents each. The rest of the population lives in municipalities with populations below 2000 people, some of which have less than 500 inhabitants. The population of the Faroe Islands is made up almost entirely of native Faroese people, originally of Nordic and Gaelic origin. The largest group of non-­ Faroese residents comes from Denmark and represent about 7% of the population. Nationalities other than Faroese or Danish constitute about 3% of the population, representing more than 80 different countries (Samuelsen, 2017; https://www.faroeislands.fo/people-­society/people-­ of-­the-­faroe-­islands/population/). The first known settlers in the Faroe Islands were Irish monks who arrived around the year 400 AD. In the mid-ninth century, Norse Vikings from western Norway took possession of the Faroe Islands, and in 1135 they became a tributary state of Norway. In 1271 the Faroe Islands © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_6

219

220 

E. D. Faingold

became subject to the Norwegian crown by an Act of Parliament, which resulted in the Faroese parliament (Alting) being replaced by a legislative assembly (Løgtingið). In 1380, Norway was absorbed by the Kingdom of Denmark and, as a result, the Faroe Islands came under Danish rule. In 1662, with the rise of absolutism in Denmark, the Løgtingið was compelled to swear allegiance to the Danish king, and the Danish crown began to gain control of the territory and the economy of the Faroe Islands. Thus, the Faroe Islands came under the authority of Danish sheriffs who demanded that the Faroese pay taxes to the Danish crown on a regular basis. In 1709 all trade with the outside world became a monopoly of the crown. However, in 1849, with the implementation of the first democratic constitution, Denmark became a representative democratic monarchy and the Faroe Islands received, for the first time, the right to send representatives to the Danish parliament. Notably, the rise of nationalism in Europe in the 1880s resulted in the emergence of a Faroese national movement which aimed towards reviving and revitalizing the Faroese language as well as Faroese native culture and literature (Adler-­ Nissen, 2014). The Second World War and the German occupation of Denmark in 1940 brought about the dissolution of the Danish insular empire: First, despite opposition from the Danish government, in 1944 the Icelandic authorities unilaterally terminated the personal union arrangement in which Denmark and Iceland shared a single head of state—the Danish monarch (see Chap. 5). At that time, in the Faroe Islands, where the UK had established a protectorate during the Second World War, many Faroese came to believe that they could dispense with the support of the Danish crown. Thus, inspired by Iceland’s recent independence from Denmark, on September 14, 1946, the Faroese held their own referendum on independence from the Danish crown (Adler-Nissen, 2014). The referendum, which resulted in a small majority of the Faroese voting in favor of secession, was followed by a vote in the Faroese parliament to declare independence from Denmark. However, the Danish government quickly rejected the Faroe Island’s declaration of independence, dissolved the Faroese parliament, and called for a general election. The election was eventually won by the parties that supported the union with Denmark.

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

221

However, soon after this, negotiations between the Faroese authorities and the Danish government led to an agreement, the Home Rule Act (1948), that greatly increased the power of the local Faroese government, which assumed new legislative and executive powers within a number of policy areas and made the Faroe Islands an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Most importantly for our purposes, with the Home Rule Act, for the first time in the history of the islands, Denmark recognized the Faroese language as the main language of the Faroe Islands (Adler-Nissen, 2014). This chapter studies the ways in which the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the issue of language rights of the native Faroese-speaking majority vis-à-vis a small but growing non-Faroese-speaking immigrant minority from Scandinavia, Europe, and Asia. As the chapter shows, positive attitudes towards immigrants and immigration by Faroese authorities and employers result in laws and regulations that support the language rights of immigrants to obtain a permanent residence permit without having to pass a Faroese language exam; to communicate with the courts, health services, and other agencies of the Faroe Islands with the help of interpreters and translators; and to use immigrant languages at all times, as well as to expect reasonable linguistic accommodations and in-house language support in the Faroese workplace. Above all, since the passing of the Home Rule Act in 1948, Faroese has been adopted as the official language of instruction in the schools in the Faroe Islands from elementary school to high school. However, due to a shortage of lecturers proficient in Faroese, as well as to the lack of regulations for the use of foreign languages in higher education, Danish and English are the main languages of instruction, while Faroese remains a minoritized language in higher education. Finally, the language rights of immigrant children who do not speak Faroese remain unaddressed by Faroese education legislation, but that is likely to change, due to a growing population of non-Faroese-speaking immigrants coming to the Faroes Islands from more than 80 different countries.

222 

E. D. Faingold

Language Policy in the Faroe Islands As noted earlier, the Faroe Islands were settled in the mid-ninth century by Norse Vikings from western Norway. In this early period of Faroese history, as a study of Faroese language history succinctly puts it, the language spoken in the Faroe Islands “remained closely tied to the dialects of western Norway…The Faroe Islands became subsequently increasingly isolated…The language grew apart from the West Norwegian dialects” (Leonard, 2011, p. 58). However, as the author notes, “unlike Iceland, we know very little about this early period of Faroese history because there are very few written texts from the medieval period…Prior to the end of the eighteenth century when the language was written down in its present orthography, Faroese had therefore almost no written linguistic history of its own” (Leonard, 2011, p. 58). From the Reformation period onward most documents were written in Danish. Yet, despite having disappeared as a written language around the beginnings of the sixteenth century, Faroese remained the spoken language of the Faroese people. Thus, Danish became the language employed by the administration, the church, and the courts in the Faroe Islands, but no sector of the Faroese population adopted the Danish language in everyday use (Debes, 1995). Above all, as the author points out, “the Faroese language was not only an instrument of communication…; it was the preserver of an old culture, manifest in an extensive oral tradition of ballads (kvæði) and legends which still constitute classic Faroese literature” (Debes, 1995, p.  67). Crucially, in the 1800s a number of Faroese language books were published in Denmark, including a collection of ballads, the first biblical texts in Faroese, and the Fœreyinga, the Saga of the Faroe Islands, which tells the story of how the Faroe Islands became part of Norway. As the author notes, “the tradition of writing ballads in the classical style was revived…as a nostalgic retrospect to an old Faroese grandeur which had come to a tragic end with the loss of self-­ government” (Debes, 1995, p. 69). Thus, notwithstanding the Faroe Islands’ loss of independence, first to Norway in the eleventh century and later to Denmark in the fourteenth, Faroese developed as a separate language which, despite being surrounded

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

223

by Danish (films, TV, popular books, comics, magazines, computer software, food packaging, and technical manuals), continues to be spoken by nearly the entire population of the islands to this day (Benati, 2009). The Faroe Islands can be described as linguistically homogenous. This is because about 95% of the population of the Faroe Islands speak Faroese as their first language and nearly all adult Faroese-speakers are bilingual in Faroese and Danish (Bugge, 2018). As another study of Faroese-­ Danish language contact puts it, “there are no monolingual speakers on the Faroe Islands. All inhabitants master Danish with a high level of proficiency…, but very few Danes speak Faroese” (Petersen, 2011, p. 101). Thus, as the author notes, the language contact situation in the Faroe Islands “is one of asymmetrical bilingualism, where Danish has had and still has a considerable influence on the Faroese syntax and lexicon, but Faroese does not have any influence on Danish” (Petersen, 2011, pp. 117–118). A major development in the history of the Faroese language was the creation of written standards for Faroese in the nineteenth century. At that time, the goal of the Faroese national movement’s language ideology was to produce a linguistic standard that would help keep the Faroese and Danish languages maximally different from each other (Leonard, 2011). As the author explains, Faroese needed to go back to the old language, the ancient norm, in the way that the Icelanders had done…The motivation for this in Iceland was the medieval manuscripts which are sacred there and underpin the Icelandic identity…In the Faroe Islands, almost no medieval manuscripts exist, however. The Faroese were told that they were going back to the old Faroese language in accepting this written norm, but we are left to conjecture what this norm might have been. (Leonard, 2011, p. 66)

Nowadays, the issue of language purism, i.e., the rejection of Danish and English loanwords (while Icelandic words can be accepted as a source for coining neologisms), is at the forefront of the ongoing debate on language policy in the Faroe Islands. Accordingly, in 2007, a language commission established under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Research, and Culture of the Faroe Islands produced a proposal for an

224 

E. D. Faingold

official Faroese language policy which stated the need to develop new technical terminology for the Faroese language that could be used by all branches of industry (Mortensen, 2015). Notably, as the author points out, the commission’s report emphasized the importance of recognizing Faroese “by law as the language of instruction at higher educational establishments, in particular in the first semesters,” helping Faroese to become “a full and complete language in all areas of society and to maintain and develop Faroese further” (Mortensen, 2015, p.  64). As the author continues, Every day people in the Faroe Islands are able to see films, mostly American and British, with Danish subtitles, Danish and Nordic entertainment programmes, Danish or English language documentaries and one half hour of news that is partly in Faroese and partly in English or another Nordic language…The recommendation of the committee is that these issues are looked into with a view to providing adequate funding for translation of foreign television programmes and films…For example, all cartoons shown on the Faroese broadcasting channel have been dubbed into Faroese. However, allocating resources for Faroese youth television has not been a priority among authorities and planners…Also, nearly all foreign-made programmes for adults are still broadcast with Danish subtitles. (Mortensen, 2015, p. 65)

In 2013, in an attempt to strengthen the status of Faroese, the Faroese Language Council (Málráðið) was established as the government body responsible for managing the official language policy of the Faroe Islands, to advise and inform public institutions and the public in general about language issues, both written and oral. Institutions and individuals can contact the Language Council directly with questions concerning the Faroese language and other issues related to language policy in the Faroe Islands. Importantly, no legislative powers have been vested in the Faroese Language Council by the Faroese authorities (Mortensen, 2015). Despite all efforts by the Faroese Language Council, the growing influence of English over the past two decades has resulted in increasing challenges to the goal of developing Faroese as “a full and complete language in all areas of society” (Mortensen, 2015, p. 64). This is not surprising

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

225

given the Language Council’s lack of legislative powers and weak decision-­ making role within the governance of the Faroe Islands. Moreover, a significant change in the language attitudes of young people and academics is resulting in both young people and academics becoming more favorable towards the use of English in the Faroe Islands (Mortensen, 2015). In a similar vein, another study of language attitudes in the Faroes Islands notes “the increasing dominance of English among young Faroe Islanders, while the cosmopolitan function of Danish is now challenged by English within some domains” (Knudsen, 2010, p. 142).

Language and the Law in the Faroe Islands As noted earlier, through the Home Rule Act (1948), which greatly increased the power of the local government, the Faroes Islands assumed legislative and executive powers within a number of policy areas. In 2005, the Home Rule Act was supplemented by the Assumption Act of Matters and Fields of Responsibility (2005), which extended the areas of powers transferred to the Faroese self-government even further, including all policy areas that affect internal affairs. The Assumption Act reiterates that those matters and fields of responsibility not assumed by the Faroe Islands under the new Act remain within the purview of Denmark, including “the Constitution of the Danish State” and “Citizenship of the Danish State” (Assumption Act of Matters and Fields of Responsibility by the Faroese Authorities, 2005, Section 1, Article 2). Notably, a number of important fields of administration have not yet been taken over by the Faroese government (i.e. banking, family, and migration/refugee law as well as the police and justice). Portfolios that have not been taken over by the Faroese government remain the responsibility of the Danish government and are financed by Denmark (Mortensen & Suksi, 2019). Thus, Section 2 of the Home Rule Act (1948) establishes that “those affairs and fields of affairs enumerated in the accompanying List A are in principle considered special Faroese matters” (Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands, 1948, Section 2). List A itemizes “fields of administration designated as ‘Special Faroese Affairs’ … transferred with immediate effect to the Faroese Home Government or transferred later at the request

226 

E. D. Faingold

of the ‘Løgting’ or the National Government” (Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands, 1948, List A). Notably, List A establishes that the school system in the Faroe Islands, including “elementary schools, secondary schools and courses, teachers’ training, people’s high schools, post-­ primary schools and vocational schools, such as commercial schools, technical schools, navigation schools, etc.,” is designated as a “special Faroese affairs” area to be immediately transferred to the Faroese Home Government (Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands, 1948, List A). Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, Section 11 of the Home Rule Act, which is the main piece of legislation governing language rights in the Faroe Islands, establishes that “Faroese is acknowledged as the principal language, but Danish shall be taught well and carefully, and Danish may be used as well as Faroese in public affairs” (Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands, 1948, Section 11).

L egislation Concerning Language and Immigration in the Faroe Islands As we have seen, the population of the Faroe Islands is made up almost entirely of native Faroese people, with the largest group of non-Faroese residents coming from Denmark (about 7% of the population), and an immigrant population representing about 80 nationalities other than Faroese and Danish (about 3% of the population) (https://www. faroeislands.fo/people-­s ociety/people-­o f-­t he-­f aroe-­i slands/population/). In 2020, the total population of the Faroe Islands was 52,854 (https://hagstova.fo/en/population/population/population-­0), including an immigrant population of about 1700 (3.2% of the population), with about 250 citizens each from the Philippines and Iceland, 230 from Romania, 210 from Norway, 200 each from Poland and Greenland, 180 from Thailand, 110 from the UK, 100 from Sweden, and 80 from India (https://hagstova.fo/en/population/population/birth-­country). While the Faroe Islands enjoy a high degree of autonomy within the Kingdom Denmark, as we have seen, the area of immigration has not yet

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

227

been transferred to the Faroese authorities, and thus, it is Denmark that decides who can live and work in the Faroe Islands. Hence, Nordic citizens from Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are free to move to the Faroe Islands to work, study and live. Citizens from all other countries need a Work and Residence Permit before they can take up residence or employment in the Faroe Islands. This also applies to EU citizens; since the Faroe Islands are not a member of the European Union, the regulations on free movement for citizens of EU countries do not apply to the Faroe Islands. In order to receive permission to work and reside in the Faroe Islands, foreign nationals need to apply with the Danish Immigration Service, which will process the application in consultation with the Faroese Government. (https://www.government.fo/en/ foreign-­relations/visas-­and-­work-­permits/)

Thus, according to Danish immigration law, persons seeking to obtain a permanent residence permit to live and work in the Faroe Islands are required to meet the following conditions: (a) they meet the requirements for their original residence permit; (b) they do not have overdue public debts above DKK 83,910.14 (2021 level); and (c) they may not have been sentenced to conditional/unconditional incarceration or have been found guilty of another form of crime that can be punishable by incarceration (https://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-­GB/You-­want-­to-­apply/ Permanent-­residence-­permit/Permanent-­Faroe-­Islands). As noted earlier, Section 11 of the Home Rule Act (1948) establishes that Faroese is the “principal language” of the Faroe Islands (Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands, 1948, Section 11). However, as the Faroese immigration handbook notes, “Faroese language learning is not mandatory by law” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p.  20). Accordingly, a language exam is not required to obtain permanent residence status in the Faroe Islands, while those seeking to obtain a permanent residence permit to live and work in Denmark “need to pass the Danish language test 2 (Prøve i Dansk 2), or a Danish exam of an equivalent or higher level” (https://nyidanmark.dk/en-­GB/You-­want-­to-­apply/ Permanent-­residence-­permit/Permanent-­residence/?anchor=3782BDC6 97D947FFB6BD6C9A86587386). Applicants for permanent residency

228 

E. D. Faingold

in Denmark have to meet also a “Supplementary requirement--Danish language test 3…(Prøve i Dansk 3), or a Danish exam of an equivalent or higher level” (https://nyidanmark.dk/en-­GB/You-­want-­to-­apply/ Permanent-­residence-­permit/Permanent-­residence/?anchor=3782BDC6 97D947FFB6BD6C9A86587386). Of course, since there is no Faroese citizenship as such, and most inhabitants of the Faroe Islands are Danish citizens, it is the Danish rules for citizenship that apply to foreign nationals who wish to become naturalized citizens in the Faroe Islands, and these rules include passing a Danish language proficiency examination that is even harder than the language test required to obtain a permanent resident permit in Denmark (see Chap. 3). As noted above, the New to the Faroe Islands Handbook (2017) states that “Faroese language learning is not mandatory by law” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 20). However, the Faroese immigration handbook emphasizes that immigrants should “enrol in Faroese language courses…Learning Faroese is an important first step, not only to obtain important information about your rights, obligations, and available services, but also to making the Faroe Islands feel like home” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 20). Accordingly, Faroese language courses are offered by evening schools (kvøldskúli), which are managed by municipalities and financed by the Ministry of Culture and Education. Depending on the school, language courses consist of an introductory course divided in two or three levels for beginner, intermediate, and advanced students. Some schools have separate courses for L2 learners who are speakers of Nordic languages or English. The level and the design of the classes are usually based on the student’s needs and language proficiency. Introductory courses deal primarily with language and partly with culture and society and include an introduction to the local community with visits to public agencies and workplaces (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017). Evening school Faroese language and culture classes are free of charge for “all foreign nationals who do not have Faroese as a first language and are registered with an identification number, p-tal” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p.  22). Other options are available to Faroese language learners, including private lessons taught by a local instructor or through social media. The University of the Faroe Islands offers academic level courses in Faroese for foreigners

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

229

each semester, and a 3-week summer course (International Summer Institute) every 2 years, which is aimed, but not limited, to immigrants from Nordic countries (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017). Thus, a language test is not required to live and work in the Faroe Islands, which are part of the Kingdom of Denmark (but not Denmark proper), while in Denmark, to obtain a permanent residence permit applicants must pass a very difficult Danish language proficiency test (see Chap. 3). As with Sweden and Greenland, the Faroese policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the person seeking to become a permanent resident of the Faroe Islands is the one who has the responsibility to learn the Faroese language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for organizing language courses (see Chaps. 2 and 7). Since there is no Faroese citizenship as such, and most residents of the Faroe Islands are Danish citizens, Danish rules for citizenship apply to immigrants who wish to become naturalized citizens in the Faroe Islands, which include a very difficult Danish language proficiency examination (see Chap. 3).

L egislation Concerning Language in the Courts and the Health Care System in the Faroe Islands In the Faroe Islands, as stipulated in the Danish Procedural Code, in criminal cases interpretation services must be provided free of charge, when deemed necessary by the courts. In non-criminal cases, however, interpretation costs are considered part of the overall court costs (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017). Similarly, as stipulated by the law on Faroese health insurance, “the National Health Insurance pays the costs of interpretation when it is needed in connection with a primary doctor’s or a specialist’s appointment” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 22). As the Faroese immigration handbook explains, At a hospital, it is vital that the patient understands what is being said about a treatment and the health situation. In the act governing patient’s rights in the Faroe Islands, it is stated that the patient has a right to get

230 

E. D. Faingold

information on his/her health situation and possible treatment, including risks and side-effects. Furthermore, it is stated that information about for instance intended treatment, should be given in a manner that is appropriate for the receiver…In matters relating to health services and the judicial system, (non-Faroese-speakers) may be provided with an interpreter and/or translated documents. In other contexts the user might have to pay the expenses or find a solution together with the agency concerned. (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, pp. 22–23)

As the immigration handbook continues, Several languages are interpreted in the Faroe Islands, typically in court and with the police, and from time to time at the police station or the national hospital in Tórshavn… Interpreting services from abroad might be used via telecommunication, e.g. in court--interpreting into English or Danish…The languages that have been interpreted in the Faroe Islands with an interpreter present in the islands are, besides the Nordic languages, the following: English, French, German, Polish, Spanish, Russian, Serbian. Individuals living in the Faroe Islands who speak the following languages fluently are also available for help with interpretation tasks: Italian, Portuguese, Arabic, Filipino (Tagalog), Ilocano (ethno-based language in the Philippines) and Thai. (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 85)

Thus, the right of non-Faroese speakers to communicate with the courts and health services of the Faroe Islands is protected by Danish procedural rules and Faroese healthcare legislation. A comprehensive system of interpretation services in more than a dozen languages enables individuals who do not speak Faroese as their first language to understand important procedural acts carried out concerning them. Most notably, as we have seen, “the National Health Insurance pays the costs of interpretation when it is needed in connection with a primary doctor’s or a specialist’s appointment” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 22).

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

231

L egislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in the Faroe Islands In an interview with the Nordic Labour Journal in 2017, Henrik Old, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure, and Labor of the Faroe Islands, expressed a more positive attitude toward immigration in general and immigrants in particular than we usually hear from government officials in Scandinavia: I want the Faroese society and labour market to be ready to receive all of those who come to us and want to be part of helping the Faroe Islands get ready to face the challenges of the future…This of course involves both Faroese and others who wish to come to us. This can be refugees, even though the refugee policy is part of Danish jurisdiction, which means we do not have much influence…87 different nationalities are registered in the Faroe Islands. In recent years the Faroe Islands have introduced more targeted measures in order to integrate foreigners into Faroese society--first and foremost by introducing them to the language and the culture. (Nordic Labour Journal, February 2, 2017)

Accordingly, as a recent study of the interaction between Faroese and immigrant workers and supervisors at a fish-processing plant reveals Language policies and practices in this workplace attempted to be inclusive, for example through written information to staff in both English and Faroese, through foremen’s adaptive language practices, and in terms of non-interference in people’s conversations if, for example, a whole group of Thai or Filipinos sit together, which is common. The breaks therefore seem to be workers’ ‘free time’ to communicate with whom they like and in their language(s) of preference. (Holm et al., 2020, p. 403)

Similarly, multilingualism prevails at another workplace in the Faroe Islands. At this work site, a cleaning company, as the authors reveal, most workers don’t speak Faroese, or even the same language. Nevertheless, the company strives “to ensure communication between employees and the employer, suggesting there is an implicit language policy in place within the company” (Holm et al., 2020, p. 405). As the authors explain,

232 

E. D. Faingold

At the cleaning site, the manager introduced the company as follows: “This is a Faroese company, so we must speak Faroese”. However, when asked directly about the company’s internal communication, the language practices that he described and supported were highly flexible and multilingual…This particular employer employs multilingual strategies in one of the training courses which he runs for staff on quality issues in cleaning…jointly with two or three employees of migrant origin…They have Russians and Polish speakers as well as workers from other Eastern European countries who understand Russian, but who understand neither Faroese nor English. In such cases, when English does not work, it is a Russian-speaking employee who translates, communicates with participants, mediates content, and works with the Russian-speaking cleaners. (Holm et al., 2020, pp. 403–404)

As the authors continue, This is a company that has employees from 24 different countries; often they manage with English as a lingua franca, but not always. To cope with that challenge, the company has employed one of their multilingual staff to manage communications…; this is a cleaner who understands Faroese and is fluent in at least three non-Nordic languages and can thus mediate communication with a relatively large number of cleaning staff…These cleaners receive good pay for the ad-hoc translation services they provide…These examples show that much language work and language brokering is going on in the cleaning company to ensure communication between employees and the employer, suggesting there is an implicit language policy in place within the company. (Holm et al., 2020, pp. 404–405)

In contrast, in Denmark it is not illegal to establish rules that prohibit the use of languages other than Danish at all times in the workplace, including breaks and meals. Notably, more often than not, the Danish Board of Equal Treatment, the administrative agency in charge of enforcing the prohibition of discrimination and harassment in the Danish workplace (Danish Parliament, 2008), rules against immigrant plaintiffs claiming language discrimination by their employers (see Chap. 3).

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

233

Thus, multilingualism is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in the Faroese workplace, if mostly for economic and pragmatic reasons (i.e., to ensure effective communication between workers and managers). For example, unlike in Denmark, Faroese employers such as those studied by Holm et al. (2020) not only do they not establish rules prohibiting the use of languages other than Faroese at all times in the workplace but they also provide reasonable linguistic accommodations and in-house language support for foreign workers who do not speak Faroese. Unlike in Denmark, employers in the Faroe Islands seem more concerned in bridging communication gaps between immigrant workers and Faroese managers than policing the linguistic behavior of their employees (see Chap. 3).

L egislation Concerning Language and Education in the Faroe Islands In 1845, Danish government representatives who had recently arrived in the Faroe Islands from Denmark founded elementary schools where Danish (a language not spoken by most Faroese children) was used as the medium of instruction. In 1861, the Danish authorities established a secondary school in the capital, Tórshavn, to help prepare Faroese children for grammar schools in Denmark and for admission to the University of Copenhagen. In 1870, 2 years before the Danish authorities in the Faroe Islands made school attendance compulsory for all children ages 7 through 14, a teachers’ training school was established in Tórshavn (Debes, 1995). Notably, as the author points out, “these two institutions produced a Faroese intelligentsia who eventually became the catalysts of the awakening national movement…This new sentiment of identification arose both as protest and inspiration in these Danish schools where no subject related to Faroese society and culture existed” (Debes, 1995, p. 70). In 1899, the founding of the Faroese Folk High School—the first-­ ever school in the Faroe Islands, where the Faroese language was taught— contributed even more to strengthening Faroese nationalism and to its transformation into an effective political movement (Debes, 1995). Thus,

234 

E. D. Faingold

less than two decades later, the Education Act of 1912, which for the first time authorized the use of Faroese as an auxiliary language of instruction in the Danish classroom, was passed into law (Knudsen, 2010). However, as the author notes, “paragraph 7 of the Education Act stressed that Faroese children were to learn Danish so that it could be used in all school subjects…The actual use of Faroese within different institutions remained officially unrecognized until after the Second World War with The Home Rule Act” (Knudsen, 2010, p. 130). As we have seen, since the passing of the Home Rule Act in 1948, the school system in the Faroe Islands has remained under the jurisdiction of the Faroese authorities, and notably, Section 11 of the Home Rule Act established that Faroese is the “principal language” of the Faroe Islands, while “Danish shall be taught well and carefully” (Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands, 1948, Section 11). Thus, in the post-Home Rule Act period, Faroese became the main medium of instruction in the Faroese school system. Language classes for first and second graders consist of Faroese language classes, while Danish classes begin in third grade, and English classes are introduced in fourth grade. In eighth and ninth grades, the curriculum consists of required subjects that prepare the students for upper secondary school, and a number of elective courses from which students can choose from are also offered. At the end of ninth grade, students must take an exam to enter upper secondary schools (https:// www.faroeislands.fo/people-­society/education-­research/). In upper secondary education, which is optional in the Faroe Islands, the language of instruction is Faroese, while Danish, English, and German are taught as required subjects (Knudsen, 2010). Finally, according to the Faroe Islands’ immigration handbook, “pupils who do not have Faroese as a first language may be entitled to additional lessons in Faroese. This is assessed at the local school by the teacher and the school administration office” (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 53). Parents of children who do not speak Faroese as their first language can have an interpreter present in parent-teacher meetings. As the handbook explains,

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

235

In the public school system, from 1st to 9th/10th grade, … parents and teachers of a class get together once or twice a year. In addition, the contact teacher invites each pupil’s parents to a parent-teacher talk once or twice a year. At such meetings the teacher usually informs the parents about how their child is learning and about their progress at school and the parents are asked about their view on the child’s development…The school expects parents to attend such talks. Parents receive a notice in advance. If you need an interpreter, please contact the school in advance. (New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 2017, p. 54)

In regard to higher education in the Faroe Islands, as noted earlier, the plan for an official language policy for the Faroe Islands in 2007 stressed the need to recognize “Faroese…by law as the language of instruction at higher educational establishments, in particular in the first semesters” (Mortensen, 2015, p. 64). However, the University of the Faroe Islands in Tórshavn has not as yet established any written rules or regulations for the use of foreign languages such as those created by the Centre for Internationalization and Parallel Language Use at the University of Copenhagen (see Chap. 3). The attitude toward language choice at the University of the Faroe Islands is more of a pragmatic and relaxed kind…In their efforts to be … rated among the best in the world, Nordic universities have tried to attract foreign students and staff to their establishments. This has meant that the universities have had to offer courses in other languages than the national one, especially in English …This means that a significant part of the students’ teaching (lectures, assignments etc.) will be in a foreign language (most likely English or, perhaps, one of the Scandinavian languages), as it cannot be assumed (or even less expected) that (foreign) professors will be fluent in Faroese. (Mortensen, 2015, p. 64)

Thus, the education system of the Faroe Islands has come a long way since the pre-Home Rule Act period (when the Faroese language was at most an auxiliary language in the Danish classroom) to this day (in which Faroese remains the main medium of instruction in the primary and secondary schools of the Faroe Islands). By contrast, the major languages of instruction at the University of the Faroe Islands are Danish and English,

236 

E. D. Faingold

while Faroese remains a minoritized language in higher education. The reason is two-fold: firstly, there is a shortage of lecturers with adequate proficiency in Faroese; and secondly but equally important, the Faroese authorities have not as yet created any written rules or regulations for the use of foreign languages at the University of the Faroe Islands, such as those established by universities in Denmark. Finally, in the schools of the Faroe Islands, children who do not have Faroese as a first language may be entitled to receive additional lessons in Faroese, if approved by the teacher and the school administration office at the local school. However, the language rights of immigrant children who do not speak Faroese remain unaddressed by Faroese education legislation, but that is likely to change, due to changing patterns and characteristics of immigrant populations in the Faroe Islands (i.e., a growing population of non-­ Faroese-­speaking immigrants coming to the Faroes Islands from more than 80 different countries).

Conclusion This chapter studied the ways in which the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the issue of language rights of the Faroese-speaking majority vis-à-vis a small but growing non-Faroese-speaking immigrant minority. In recent years, the Faroe Islands has seen an albeit small but steady influx of immigrants (3.2% of the total population) from Scandinavia, Europe (Eastern Europe and the UK), and Asia. In the Faroe Islands, an assumably positive attitude towards immigrants and immigration by Faroese authorities and employers results in laws and regulations that support the language rights of immigrants to obtain a permanent residence permit without having to pass a Faroese language exam; to communicate with the courts, health services, and other agencies of the Faroe Islands with the help of interpreters and translators; and to be able to use immigrant languages at all times, as well as to expect reasonable linguistic accommodations and in-­ house language support in the Faroese workplace. Thus, in the Faroe Islands a language exam is not required to receive permanent resident status. In contrast, in Denmark proper, to obtain a

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

237

permanent residence permit applicants must pass a very difficult Danish language proficiency examination (see Chap. 3). As with Sweden and Greenland, the Faroese policy in this area is based on the idea that the person seeking a permanent residence permit to live and work in the Faroe Islands is the one who has the responsibility to learn the local language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for providing language courses (see Chaps. 2 and 7). Importantly, however, since there is no Faroese citizenship as such, and most residents of the Faroe Islands are Danish citizens, Danish rules for citizenship apply to immigrants who wish to become naturalized citizens in the Faroe Islands, which include a tough Danish language proficiency examination (see Chap. 3). The right of non-Faroese speakers to communicate with the courts, healthcare services, and other agencies of the Faroe Islands is protected by a system of laws that allows immigrants to receive government paid interpretation services in legal settings (according to the Danish Procedural Code) and medical situations (according to the law on Faroese health insurance). Just as important, multilingualism is a common phenomenon in the Faroese workplace, if only because of pragmatic reasons (i.e., to ensure effective communication between workers and managers). Unlike in Denmark, Faroese employers not only do they not establish any policies that prohibit the use of languages other than Faroese in the workplace at all times, but they provide reasonable linguistic accommodations and in-house language support for foreign workers who do not speak Faroese. Unlike in Denmark, in the Faroe Islands employers seem more concerned in bridging communication gaps between immigrant workers and Faroese managers than policing the linguistic behavior of their employees (see Chap. 3). Since the passing of the Home Rule Act in 1948, the school system in the Faroe Islands has remained under the jurisdiction of the Faroese authorities. More importantly, however, under the Home Rule Act, Faroese has been adopted as the official language of instruction in all schools of the Faroe Islands. Thus, the education system of the Faroe Islands has come a long way from the pre-Home Rule Act of 1948 period, when Faroese was at most an auxiliary language in the Danish classroom, to the present time, when it is the sole medium of instruction in the primary and secondary schools of the Faroe Islands. By contrast, the major

238 

E. D. Faingold

languages of instruction at the University of the Faroe Islands are Danish and English. The reason is two-fold: firstly, there is a shortage of lecturers with adequate proficiency in Faroese, and secondly, the Faroese authorities have not as yet established any written rules or regulations for the use of foreign languages in higher education. Just as important, in the schools of the Faroe Islands, students who do not have Faroese as a first language may be entitled to receive additional lessons in Faroese, if approved at the local school by the teacher and the school administration office, but these may not be enough to create an inclusive and welcoming classroom for immigrant children. Thus, the language rights of immigrant children who do not speak Faroese remain unaddressed by Faroese education legislation.

References Adler-Nissen, R. (2014). The Faroe Islands: Independence dreams, globalist separatism and the Europeanization of postcolonial home rule. Cooperation and Conflict, 49, 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713514150 Assumption Act of Matters and Fields of Responsibility by the Faroese Authorities. (2005). https://www.government.fo/en/the-­government/ act-­of-­responsibility-­by-­the-­faroese-­authorities/ Benati, C. (2009). Faroese: A national language under siege. In S.  Pertot, T. M. S. Priestly, & C. H. Williams (Eds.), Rights, promotion, and integration issues for minority languages in Europe (pp. 189–196). Palgrave Macmillan. Bugge, E. (2018). Attitudes to variation in spoken Faroese. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22, 312–330. Danish Parliament. (2008). Act on the board of equal treatment. https://www. legislationline.org/download/id/4104/file/ACT_no_387_of_27_ May_2008_on_the_Board_of_Equal_Treatment_02_02_2011_16_11.pdf Debes. (1995). The formation of a nation: The Faroe Islands. In S. Tägil (Ed.), Ethnicity and nation building in the Nordic world (pp.  63–84). Southern Illinois University Press. Holm, A.-E., O’Rourke, B., & Dansen, M. (2020). “Employers could use us but they won’t”: Voices from blue-collar workplaces in a northern periphery. Language Policy, 19, 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-­019-­09513-­4

6  Language Rights and the Law in the Faroe Islands 

239

Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands. (1948). https://www.government.fo/en/ the-­government/the-­home-­rule-­act/ Knudsen, K. J. (2010). Language use and linguistic nationalism in The Faroe Islands. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 128–146. Leonard, S. P. (2011). Ethnolinguistic identities and language revitalization in a small society: The case of The Faroe Islands. Journal of Northern Studies, 1, 57–64. Mortensen, B. (2015). Policies and attitudes towards English in the Faroes Islands. In A.  Linn, N.  Bermel, & G.  Ferguson (Eds.), Attitudes towards English in Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 57–73). De Gruyter Mouton. Mortensen, B. O. G., & Suksi, M. (2019). Respecting autonomies and minorities. In P. Letto-Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B. O. G. Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan. New to the Faroe Islands Handbook. (2017). Tórshavn, Faroe Islands: Immigration Office. https://d1d6zxt0xmx99c.cloudfront.net/media/1935/ ensk-­%C3%BAtg%C3%A1va.pdf Petersen, H. P. (2011). Related languages, convergence, and replication: Faroese-­ Danish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 101–120. https://doi. org/10.1177/1367006910397203 Samuelsen, I. (2017). Faroe Islands heading for dream target – 50,000 citizens. Nordic Labour Journal, February 2. http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-­fokus/in-­focus-­2017/the-­100-­year-­wave-­hitting-­nordic-­labour-­market/articl e.2017-­01-­30.7365890332

7 Language Rights and the Law in Greenland

With a surface of over 2 million km2, Greenland is the largest island in the world (https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/2017/10/06/image-­of-­the-­ week-­the-­true-­size-­of-­greenland/); and with most of its nearly 57,000 inhabitants living along the west coastline, and about one-third of the population in the capital city, Nuuk, Greenland has the lowest population density in the world (https://www.worldometers.info/world-­ p o p u l a t i o n / g re e n l a n d -­p o p u l a t i o n / # : ~ : t e x t = Gre e n l a n d % 2 0 population%20is%20equivalent%20to,0%20people%20per%20mi2). Importantly for our purposes, although it is geographically located in North America, due to its centuries-long political ties with Denmark (https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en/About-­government-­of-­greenland/About-­ Greenland/Politics-­in-­Greenland), and to its special relationship with the European Union as one of the EU’s OCTs (Oversees Countries and Territories), Greenland is geopolitically part of Europe (https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en/Naalakkersuisut/Greenland-­Representation-­to-­the-­EU/ European-­Union-­and-­Greenland/Partnership-­Agreement). Politically, the history of Greenland can be divided in four major periods: (1) the colonial period (1721–1953), in which Denmark governed Greenland as a colony; (2) the county period (1953–1979), in which Greenland was incorporated into the Danish kingdom as an amt (county) © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_7

241

242 

E. D. Faingold

of Denmark and Greenlanders became Danish citizens; (3) the home rule period (1979–2009), in which Greenland obtained limited autonomy to administer internal matters, with its own parliament and government, while Denmark maintained control of foreign policy, security, and natural resources; and (4) the self-government period (2009–present), in which judicial affairs, policing, and natural resources were transferred to Greenland, while its indigenous people, the Greenlandic Inuit, obtained recognition as a separate people under international law. During the first two periods, all important decisions were made in Denmark. It was only in the 1960s and 1970s that political parties were first established in Greenland and the indigenous Inuit people began to articulate demands for self-determination. The first political party to appear in Greenland was the Inuit party which emerged in 1964 as a protest party in reaction against the way Greenlanders were being treated by Denmark vis-à-vis the Danish population in Greenland, the main bone of contention being that Danes were allowed by law to receive better salaries and housing opportunities than Greenlanders in Greenland, and that Greenlanders were treated like second-class citizens in their own country. In the 1970s, more political parties began to form during the struggle for home rule, which received added impetus from Greenland being forced into the European Economic Community (EEC) when Denmark joined it in 1973. Notably, referenda held at that time in both Denmark and Greenland produced opposite results: Denmark voted in favor of EEC membership while Greenland voted against it. Consequently, the Greenlandic authorities felt compelled to reevaluate Greenland’s political status as a county of Denmark (Ackrén, 2017). Thus, in a referendum held on January 17, 1979, 63% of the voters in Greenland backed home rule, which led to the passing of the Home Rule Act on May 1, 1979, and to new political and legal opportunities for Greenland to achieve extensive self-governance powers. Finally, during the last years of the twentieth century, the unfolding of new trends in the globalization of the world economy, which exacerbated the struggle between the values and traditions of the Inuit and those of the Western world, resulted in the Greenlandic authorities feeling compelled to reassess Greenland’s relationship with Denmark as established by the Home Rule Act of 1979. Consequently, in a new national referendum held in

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

243

May 2008, the Self-Government Act was approved by 75% of the voters, and thus on June 21, 2009, Greenland National Day, the Home Rule Act was officially replaced with the Greenland Self-Government Act of 2009 (https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en/About-­government-­of-­greenland/About-­ Greenland/Politics-­in-­Greenland). Article 1 of the Self-Government Act of 2009 lists legislative, executive, and judicial powers reserved for the Greenlandic government. An appendix to the Self-Government Act provides two lists that set forth government areas that can be transferred directly to the Greenlandic government, including work insurance, health, traffic, property rights, and taxation (Act on Greenland Self-Government, 2009, List I), and government areas where further negotiations with the Danish government need to take place, including treatment of offenders, passport, citizenship, foreign and security matters, monetary issues, and others (Act on Greenland Self-Government, 2009, List II). Notably, by way of the Home Rule Act (1979), Greenland obtained the right to elect its own parliament and government. Accordingly, a legislative assembly or parliament (Inatsisartut) composed of 31 members is elected for four-year terms. Decisions in parliament are made according to the principle of majority rule, and for a decision to be legally binding at least half of the assembly members must be present. Notably, the meetings in the Greenlandic parliament are held in Greenlandic, while interpretation to Danish is provided, and parliamentary proceedings are translated into both Greenlandic and Danish. The government (Naalakkersuisut) is appointed by the parliament according to the parliamentary system of government. The prime minister or head of the government is elected by the parliament, while a Danish High Commissioner (riksombundsmand) serves as the liaison between the Greenlandic and Danish governments (Ackrén, 2017). Through the Self-Government Act of 2009, Greenland established its own courts, including courts of first and second instance and judges who follow the same rules regarding court procedures and qualifications as in Denmark. There are four district courts (kredsretter) and one Greenlandic Court (retten i Grønland), which functions as a court of first instance, and the so-called Country Court in Greenland (Grønlandslandsret), which serves as court of second instance. District courts in each municipality

244 

E. D. Faingold

hear cases and enforce decisions on criminal, estate, and family issues, while the Greenlandic Court deals with civil affairs, bankruptcy, specific special laws, and registration and legal fees. The Country Court in the capital city, Nuuk, hears appeals from the lower courts, and decisions by the Country Court can be challenged before the Supreme Court of Denmark which is the final arbiter of the law in Greenland (Ackrén, 2017). Notably, since the adoption of the Self-Government Act in 2009, Greenland has the legal right to declare independence from Denmark. This is because the Self-Government Act contains a special provision that allows Greenland the right to become an independent country (Act on Greenland Self-Government, 2009, Chapter 8, Section 21)—unlike the Faroe Islands, where the Home Rule Act of 1948 and Assumption Act of 2005 contain no such provision (see Chap. 6). As two experts in Scandinavian law point out, “the pre-conditions for full independence are approval of the independence plan in an advisory referendum in Greenland and the negotiated agreement between the Greenlandic and the Danish government as well as the consent of the legislative assembly of Greenland” (Mortensen & Suksi, 2019, p. 68). Accordingly, a seven-­ member constitutional commission representing all parties in the Inatsisartut (Greenlandic parliament) was established by the Naalakkersuisut (government of Greenland) in 2017. The drafting of a constitution for Greenland by the constitutional commission was expected to be finalized and made available to the Greenlandic government by June 21, 2021, the date marking the 300th anniversary of the beginning of the colonization of Greenland by Denmark. However, in early 2020, the constitutional commission announced that it needed more time to finish its work (https://www.nationalia.info/brief/11313/ work-­on-­greenlands-­constitution-­drafting-­resumes). This chapter studies the ways in which Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the language rights of the indigenous Greenlandic Inuit majority vis-à-vis a small population of Danish in-migrants and foreign nationals. First, unlike in Denmark proper, a language test is not required to reside in Greenland. The Greenlandic policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the person coming to live and work in Greenland is the one who has the responsibility to learn the official language, while the authorities are

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

245

primarily responsible for providing language classes. Second, while the right of both Greenlandic-speakers and Danish-speakers to use their own languages in government and legal settings is protected by the Language Policy Act (2010), Danish remains essential for Greenland’s public administration and the judiciary, which struggle to provide services in Greenlandic. Similarly, the Language Policy Act establishes the right of businesses and organizations to create their own language policy. Yet, in Greenland, since it is up to each business or institution to set up its own policy, language arrangements can vary from workplace to workplace. Employees are often allowed to use languages other than Greenlandic as they see fit, and thus Greenlandic could start losing ground to Danish and English in the Greenlandic workplace. Finally, since Danish is the major language of instruction in upper secondary and university education, primarily Greenlandic-speaking students who had not acquired a high level of Danish proficiency while in primary or lower secondary school are at a great disadvantage when they start upper secondary education or apply to university in Greenland or Denmark. This chapter suggests that there is a need for making targeted investments in education, to help foster literacy in all Greenlandic, Danish, and English.

Colonialism and Language in Greenland Colonialism usually entails the use of violence and oppressive military force by the colonizing power to impose its rules and ideologies on the indigenous population of the colony or territory, often resulting in the imposition of the colonizer’s language and the marginalization of indigenous languages. However, the colonization of Greenland by Denmark was achieved with little or no violence, and notably, Greenlandic Inuit, the language spoken by the majority of Greenland’s indigenous population, was maintained. Thus, the Greenlandic Inuit avoided the same fate as many other indigenous groups whose languages became endangered or even extinct as a result of European colonization (Kuokkanen, 2017). Crucially, as we have seen, the Home Rule and Self-Government acts resulted in the implementation of important principles of self-­ determination for Greenland’s indigenous population who are now in

246 

E. D. Faingold

charge of most of their own affairs and economic resources. However, as a study on colonialism and self-government in Greenland notes, except for replacing the Danish terms for the parliament and the government with Greenlandic ones, little or no changes were made to the colonial governance structures of Greenland in the self-government agreement (Kuokkanen, 2017). As the author explains, “[I]ndirect, subtle colonial control continues in the presence of a large number of Danish civil servants who come with mainstream, Western institutional and cultural practices and priorities” (Kuokkanen, 2017, p.  191). However, as the author notes, For many self-rule represents Inuit governance based on Inuit values for two reasons: because of the central role of Inuit Greenlanders in drafting the self-government agreement, and second because of the overwhelming Greenlandic support the agreement received in a referendum. … The recognition of Greenlandic as the official language (is) considered especially significant as well as it being quite widely spoken by the members of the Inatsisartut (Greenland’s parliament). The strong presence of the Greenlandic language may represent a central, yet limited way of incorporating Inuit values into the institutions of governance. (Kuokkanen, 2017, p. 184)

Finally, since the very beginning of the Danish mission, Greenlandic was the language spoken in schools and churches of Greenland, where a strong Greenlandic hymnody tradition also existed in the liturgy at the time. Notably, in 1750, soon after the beginning of the colonization period, Poul Egde, a Danish-Norwegian theologian, scholar, and Lutheran missionary in Greenland, published the first Greenlandic-­ Danish-­Latin dictionary, and a translation of the New Testament into Greenlandic also appeared in 1766, resulting in that reading and writing in Greenlandic spread very fast in Greenland in the 1800s. Thus, Greenlandic has a long history as a written language and is also the first language of the vast majority of the population in Greenland. Notably, Greenlandic is nowadays in a very strong position vis-à-vis the other Eskimo-Aleut languages, which have been historically marginalized in Alaska, Canada, and Russia but not in Greenland (Jacobsen, 2003).

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

247

Language and the Law in Greenland As noted above, due to emerging trends in the globalization of the world economy during the last years of the twentieth century, which exacerbated the struggle between the values and traditions of the Inuit and those of the Western world, the Greenlandic authorities felt compelled to reevaluate the home rule arrangement that established Greenland as an autonomous nation within the Danish realm. Accordingly, in an effort to achieve the goal of obtaining more direct control over its own affairs, the Greenlandic authorities established the 1999/2000 Commission on Self-­ Governance (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003). The Commission consisted of nine members, representing all political parties in the Greenlandic parliament, which included experts on Inuit language and culture. The Commission’s report, which was submitted for consideration to the government of Greenland on April 11, 2003, was approved unanimously by all the Commission members and without including any dissenting statements (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003). Notably, not long after it was established, the Commission on Self-Governance expanded the scope of its legal mandate to include language policy deliberations, including two important issues affecting the status of Greenlandic and Danish in Greenland. The first issue concerned Section 9 of the Home Rule Act, according to which “Greenlandic is the principal language of Greenland, while a thorough teaching of Danish is mandatory, and using either language in dealings with the public administration must be possible” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p. 13). On this matter, the Commission recommended that “initiatives be set up, including the teaching of Greenlandic, in order to make it attractive for those Greenlanders with few or no Greenlandic language skills to take up residence in Greenland … (and) to seek employment as well as remain in the Greenlandic labour market” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p.  14). Importantly, the Commission noted with concern that half of Greenland’s young population speak primarily Greenlandic, and that there is a dearth of Greenlandic higher education learning materials in existence, resulting in a lack of higher education programs available to Greenland’s

248 

E. D. Faingold

predominantly Inuit population that can be completed in Greenlandic. Accordingly, the Commission’s report concluded that “language issues should not hinder anyone from completing an education, especially not in a community such as ours which suffers from a serious lack of skilled labour” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p. 14). The second issue was related to “Section 53 of the Act of the Landsting (Home Rule Act) under which negotiations, while conducted in Greenlandic, … if a member speaks only Danish, then it must be possible to follow the meeting in Greenlandic” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p. 14). As the Commission’s report concluded, “it does not seem right that a person who has obtained the right to vote and is as such eligible to the Landsting (Greenlandic parliament) should be prevented from using the language most natural for him/her” (Commission on Self-­ Governance, 2003, p. 14). Accordingly, the Commission recommended that “the present provision in Section 53  in the Act of the Landsting (Home Rule Act) be maintained” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p. 15). Crucially, the Commission declared that in future legislation concerning the introduction of a provision establishing that only Greenlandic may be spoken from the rostrum in the Greenlandic parliament should consider the need to enact comprehensive legislation on integration: “This would result in non-Greenlanders being offered an opportunity to learn Greenlandic and thus being able to express themselves in the Greenlandic language. This requires the preparation of effective teaching material on the Greenlandic language as a foreign language” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p. 15). Finally, the Commission deliberated on the detrimental effects of the fact that goods and products sold in Greenland, including hazardous materials, are seldom labeled in Greenlandic. To this end, the Commission recommended that “information be provided in Greenlandic where possible and should be compulsory when dealing with dangerous products” (Commission on Self-Governance, 2003, p. 15). The basic legislation for language policy in Greenland can be found in Chapter 7, Section 20, of the Self-Government Act of 2009, which declares that “Greenlandic shall be the official language in Greenland” (Act on Greenland Self-Government, 2009, Chapter 8, Section 20), but

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

249

which is silent on the status of Danish in government affairs. As a noted expert on Greenlandic legislation explains, The history of the wording is a product of long-term negotiations in the joint Greenlandic-Danish Self-Government Commission, which was established in 2004 and lasted through 2008. … The joint Commission found that there are no constitutional restrictions on leaving the Danish language and its application to the Self-Government authorities. Leaving the Danish language to the Self-Government authorities was to be agreed on certain terms, for example that the language was to be regulated and administered independently within the framework of some given principles. (Motzfeldt, 2018, p. 3)

Accordingly, on May 19, 2010, the Greenlandic parliament passed the Language Policy Act (Act on Language Policy, 2010), “to ensure a clear framework for the country’s language policy, including on linguistic integration” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 1). As established in Section 1 of the Language Policy Act (2010), the goal of the new legislation is fourfold: (1) to “ensure the Greenlandic language as a complete and communities bearing language”; (2) to “strengthen the Greenlandic language and developing it as a mother tongue and second language”; (3) to “counteract and eliminate existing language barriers and (ensure that) bilingualism and multilingualism can be a strength and wealth”; and (4) to “promote continuity of language learning in society to enhance Greenland as a knowledge society” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 1). The Language Policy Act is concerned also with the linguistic integration of (1) “those who need to learn Greenlandic”; (2) “those who need to learn Danish and English”; and (3) “those in need for introduction into Greenlandic culture, history and society” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 2). The Language Policy Act defines linguistic integration as the “removal of language barriers and reinforcement of language acquisition … in order to improve the opportunities for civic participation and strengthening of the Greenland sense of community and identity” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 2). Importantly, Section 3 of the Language Policy Act of 2010 clarifies the status of Greenlandic vis-à-vis Danish: “The Greenlandic language is the

250 

E. D. Faingold

official language in Greenland and (is) used for official purposes. … The Danish language can be used for official purposes; … (and) English and other languages (can be) used as needed” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 3). Accordingly, Danish can be legally used along with Greenlandic for official purposes. Thus, Greenlandic-speakers living in Greenland have the right to use their own language to communicate with public officials, and Danish-speakers have the same right. Finally, Section 4 of the Language Policy Act declares that “private companies with 10 or more employees, public enterprises and authorities should develop a language policy” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 4); and Section 5 establishes that “persons with permanent residence in Greenland have the right to acquire Greenlandic and Danish … with an international scope, in speech and writing, so that they can participate in society and use and develop their native language” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 5).

L egislation Concerning Language and Immigration in Greenland In 2020, the total population of Greenland was about 56,000 (https:// www.worlddata.info/america/greenland/populationgrowth.php), including small populations of Danish in-migrants and foreign nationals amounting to 1762 (or 3.4% of the population) and 149 (0.3% of the population), respectively (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1112213/ immigration-­to-­greenland-­by-­citizenship/). While Greenland enjoys a high degree of autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark, as we have seen, the area of immigration has not yet been transferred to the Greenlandic authorities, and thus it is Denmark that decides who can live and work in Greenland. Accordingly, “Nordic citizens may freely settle and work in Greenland. However, certain occupations require special permission, even if (one is) a citizen of a Nordic country. Citizens from countries outside the Nordic region must have a work and residence permit in order to live and work in Greenland” ­(https://www. norden.org/en/info-­norden/work-­and-­residence-­permits-­greenland).

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

251

Thus, Danish immigration law establishes that persons seeking to obtain a permanent residence permit to live and work in Greenland are required to meet the following conditions: (a) they must meet the requirements for their original residence permit; (b) they do not have overdue public debts above DKK 84,917.06 (2022 level); and (c) they may not have been sentenced to conditional/unconditional incarceration or have been found guilty of another form of crime that can be punishable by incarceration, while being a resident of Greenland (https://nyidanmark.dk/ en-­GB/Applying/Permanent%20residence%20permit/Permanent%20 Greenland). As we have seen, the basic legislation for language policy in Greenland is found in Chapter 7, Section 20, of the Self-Government Act of 2009, which declares that “Greenlandic shall be the official language in Greenland” (Act on Greenland Self-Government, 2009, Chapter 8, Section 20). However, neither Danish in-migrants nor foreign nationals residing in Greenland are required to pass a Greenlandic language test to live and work in Greenland. In contrast, persons seeking to obtain permanent residence status in Denmark properly “need to pass the Danish language test 2 (Prøve i Dansk 2), or a Danish exam of an equivalent or higher level.” Applicants for permanent residency in Denmark have to meet also a “Supplementary requirement—Danish language test 3 … (Prøve i Dansk 3), or a Danish exam of an equivalent or higher level” (https://nyidanmark.dk/en-­G B/You-­w ant-­t o-­a pply/Permanent-­ residence-­permit/Permanent-­residence/?anchor=3782BDC697D947FF B6BD6C9A86587386). Importantly, as in the Faroe Islands, since there is no Greenlandic citizenship as such, and most inhabitants of Greenland are Danish citizens, it is the Danish rules for citizenship that apply to foreign nationals who wish to become naturalized citizens in Greenland, and these rules include passing a Danish language proficiency examination that is even harder than the language test required to obtain a permanent resident permit in Denmark (see Chap. 3). Thus, as in the Faroe Islands, a language test is not required to obtain a permanent residence permit to live and work in Greenland, while in Denmark proper, to obtain a permanent residence permit applicants must pass a tough Danish language proficiency test (see Chap. 3). The Greenlandic policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the

252 

E. D. Faingold

person coming to live and work in Greenland is the one who has the responsibility to learn the official language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for providing language education services (see Chaps. 2 and 6).

L egislation Concerning Language in the Government and the Courts in Greenland As noted above, according to Section 3 of the Language Policy Act, “the Greenlandic language is the official language in Greenland and (is) used for official purposes. … The Danish language can be used for official purposes; … (and) English and other languages (can be) used as needed” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 3). However, as a noted Greenlandic jurist and politician points out, in reality “Danish is very much the language of power in the administration. … The fact is that Greenland is still dependent on legislation in Denmark. If we want to introduce new legislation, it is hard to avoid the existing legislation in Denmark. … Our country of reference has always been Denmark, and still is” (Motzfeldt, 2018, p. 7). It is therefore not surprising that, after centuries of colonial rule, the Danish language is firmly established as a language essential to Greenland’s public administration. This is the case, for example, in the recruitment process for filling up a government job vacancy, in which the Greenlandic government follows the same procedures as any Danish authority (Ackrén, 2017). The requirements for a specific job in the Greenlandic administration are normally advertised with a recommendation that the applicant be familiar with Greenland or the Greenlandic language. In practice, however, it has not always been the case that new hires to the Greenlandic administration have been required to have even a working knowledge of Greenlandic to do the job (Ackrén, 2017). As the author explains, “it is usually a recommendation to be familiar with Greenland or the Greenlandic language. However, this is not an absolute condition” (emphasis added) (Ackrén, 2017, p.  14). As the author concludes, “the process of

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

253

Greenlandization of the public administration is seen as a long-term goal. … Due to the small number of Greenlanders entering higher education, the autonomous administration is still dependent on personnel from outside the island” (Ackrén, 2017, p.  14). As another study on Greenlandic government policy succinctly puts it, There is an increasing number of Greenlanders in the administrative apparatus, especially in the areas of language and culture, but many key positions continue to be occupied by Danish professionals. These are often young Danish men who come to Greenland to start their careers, build their resumes and make money. They stay in these jobs for only a couple of years. … There is also a tendency for the Danish administrative staff to import consultants from Denmark and to direct trade to Denmark and Danish companies. … During their brief stints Danish professionals do not acquire an understanding of Greenlandic culture, values or language. … Dependency on Danish expertise and civil servants who lack cultural competence may impede the implementation of a more Greenlandic version of governance. (Kuokkanen, 2017, p. 190)

In regard to language rights in the legal system, in accordance with Section 3 of the Language Policy Act, the right to use Greenlandic and Danish in court received de jure recognition by the judicial system of Greenland, and either language can be used in legal proceedings. As a noted Greenlandic jurist and politician explains, “this provision is based on recognition of the fact that Greenland has been and still is a bilingual society and that it was not considered possible to prefer either Greenlandic or Danish as the court language” (Motzfeldt, 2018, p. 6). Nevertheless, as the author points out, according to the Human Rights Council of Greenland (HRC Greenland) there still are significant challenges in using the Greenlandic language in the courts of Greenland: “Confusion of legal terms is frequent as different interpreters and translators translate Danish legal terms differently in Greenlandic.” … However, the major problem identified is the impairment of the right of primarily Greenlandic speaking/reading persons to prepare and present their case in court: “(There is no) guarantee that … central documents of evidence be available in a language understood by the parties. Evidence provided by

254 

E. D. Faingold

public authorities is almost always provided in Danish, whereas the mother tongue of most people in Greenland is Greenlandic.” (Motzfeldt, 2018, p. 6)

Thus, the right of both Greenlandic-speakers and Danish-speakers to use their own languages in government and legal settings in Greenland is protected by the Language Policy Act (2010). Nevertheless, after centuries of colonial rule, the Danish language remains essential to Greenland’s public administration and the judiciary, which are struggling to conduct their affairs in the Greenlandic language. For example, Danish remains of crucial importance, while knowledge of Greenlandic is often considered dispensable in the hiring of government employees. Similarly, documentation and evidence provided by the authorities in court are often unavailable in Greenlandic or are incorrectly interpreted or translated from Danish to Greenlandic.

L egislation Concerning Language in the Workplace in Greenland As we have seen, Section 4 of the Language Policy Act establishes that “private companies with 10 or more employees, public enterprises and authorities should develop a language policy” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 4). However, since it is up to each business or institution to set up and implement its own language policy, language arrangements tend to vary significantly from workplace to workplace, and they can sometimes have a detrimental impact on the language rights of primarily Greenlandic-speakers in the workplace. For example, at the University of Greenland, Danish and English are used as the main languages of instruction and research communication, while Greenlandic remains on the margin of the higher education system (see below). A further example of language policy in the Greenlandic workplace is the language policy created by Nuuk Transport, a Greenlandic business where 95% of workers speak primarily Greenlandic (while a few employees are Greenlandic-Danish bilinguals and managers speak mostly English), which grants “priority (to) Greenlandic (over) Danish and

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

255

English” (Nuuk Transport, n.d., p.  1). In practice, however, at Nuuk Transport, employees “answer phone calls, emails, and other communications in one of the three languages” (Nuuk Transport, n.d., p. 1). The company’s language policy also states that “security procedures are always prepared in Greenlandic, Danish and English—in the same instructions set” (Nuuk Transport, n.d., p. 1.). Lastly, in a nod to Section 5 of the Language Policy Act of 2010, which establishes that “persons with permanent residence in Greenland have the right to acquire Greenlandic and Danish” (Act on Language Policy, 2010, Section 5), the company’s language policy “encourages employees to improve their language skills … (and) Nuuk Transportation can grant subsidies for language learning, for example through the municipal night school” (Nuuk Transport, n.d., p. 1). Thus, in Greenland, since it is up to each business or institution to set up and implement its own language policy, language arrangements can vary from employer to employer, and these may hinder the language rights of primarily Greenlandic-speakers in the workplace. For example, at the University of Greenland, Greenlandic is used to a much lesser extent than Danish and English (see below). A more Greenlandic-friendly policy was established by Nuuk Transport, a Greenlandic business where most workers are primarily Greenlandic-speakers. However, in practice employees at Nuuk Transport are allowed to communicate with each other and with clients in either Greenlandic, Danish, or English as they see fit, whether electronically or in person. Hence, Greenlandic could start losing ground to Danish and English at Nuuk Transport and other Greenlandic businesses with similar language policies (as is already the case at the University of Greenland). Finally, and most notably, as a study of language policy and immigration in Greenland points out, the “importation of several thousand temporary foreign workers, mainly Chinese, in the construction of mines … in a sparsely inhabited country with a population of 57,000 … can have an impact … on the status and use of the Greenlandic language” (Kuokkanen, 2017, p.  190). Hence, as another author concludes, “it is only a matter of when Greenland will become a raw material producing country. … Large scale mining in Greenland can only succeed with the import of foreign manpower, probably from Asia.

256 

E. D. Faingold

And it is very likely that English will be the workplace language in many companies” (Motzfeldt, 2018, p. 9).

L egislation Concerning Language and Education in Greenland In Greenland, all children aged 6–16 are required by law to attend school free of charge for at least 10 years. The education cycle in Greenlandic schools is divided in three cycles. The first cycle is for the youngest children and lasts three years (1st to 3rd grade); the second or intermediate cycle lasts for four years (4th to 7th grade); and the third cycle is for the oldest children and lasts three years (8th to 10th grade). After the first and intermediate cycles all children are tested to assess learning outcomes (standardized testing), allowing teachers to adjust their teaching accordingly. At the end of the third and final cycle (10th grade), students take their final exams, after which they receive a school-leaving certificate. After completing the 10th grade, students can attend upper secondary education, which is provided by GUX, a preparatory program for academic education that can be taken over two, three, or four years. Students can also take a one-year upper secondary supplementary course in Sisimiut. This is an opportunity for students to improve or supplement their upper secondary grades to a higher level, which may be a requirement for admission to a particular program of higher education. Another option is for students to attend a vocational education program, or EUD, which offers school classes and practical training and can last from one to five years. Some vocational programs are offered only in Greenland while others require that students travel to Denmark to take some classes. Students accepted to a vocational program must be both enrolled in a trade school and have an internship placement in hand (https://www. norden.org/en/info-­norden/educational-­system-­greenland). The Greenlandic parliament is responsible for establishing the legal and governance framework for primary and lower secondary schools, and the national government is responsible for creating the framework particulars (i.e., the documents detailing the specific core terms of the

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

257

legislation, including scheduling, budget, personnel, etc.). Each municipality has a municipal council in charge of setting up the rules that regulate school goals and educational activities, while a local school board establishes the goals and activities of the school according to the rules set by the municipal council. Accordingly, schools in Greenland are regulated by the municipality, which also assumes responsibility for the school’s administrative and pedagogical management, but enables individual schools to establish their own programs and to adopt their own visions, missions, and values (Lennert, 2018). The basic legislation for language and education in Greenland can be found in Chapter 4, Section 9, Articles 1 and 2, of the Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School Act (2012), which establish (1) that “the languages of instruction are Greenlandic and Danish” (Act on Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School, 2012, Chapter 4, Section 9, Article 1), and (2) that “as part of students’ language learning, English can also be the language of instruction” (Act on Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School, 2012, Chapter 4, Section 9, Article 2). However, as a noted Greenlandic jurist and politician reveals, an evaluation of Greenland’s primary schools performed by the Danish Evaluation Institute in 2015 indicated that “many teachers find that their students have difficulties reaching the learning objectives in Danish and English” (Motzfeldt, 2018, p. 4). In the 1980s, in the aftermath of the Home Rule Act of 1979, with the home rule government assuming responsibility for the education of children in Greenland, one of the main goals of primary education became how to make effective decisions about educational programs that would improve the teaching of Greenlandic in the schools. In the 1990s, however, this trend was reversed: Greenland’s education system moved away from emphasizing the teaching of Greenlandic in the schools and toward Danish language instruction. The reasoning underlying the change in policy was the growing realization that Greenlandic instruction constituted a limiting factor for those students whose main or only language is Greenlandic. Having received a primary and lower secondary education in Greenlandic, primarily Greenlandic-speaking students are hindered from continuing their education in upper secondary school. The reason

258 

E. D. Faingold

is that the language of instruction of upper secondary schools in Greenland is Danish (Brincker & Lennert, 2019). As the authors explain, While Greenlandic-speaking students do not experience language problems in the primary and lower secondary schools, they are disadvantaged upon entry to upper secondary school if they do not have good Danish language skills. … A shortage of Greenlandic-speaking teachers qualified to teach at the secondary level and the lack of instructional materials written in Greenlandic appear to be the main reasons. … Hence, contrary to the hopes and good intentions invested in the long line of education reforms that have been implemented since the introduction of home rule in 1979, Greenland’s tendency to reproduce social, most notably linguistic, barriers that date back to the period of colonialism remains. Danish, the language of the former colonial ruler, is still the language of social mobility. (Brincker & Lennert, 2019, p. 51)

Moreover, as the authors continue, The vast geographical distances and small population scattered along the coastline with a predominance of settlements in the west create difficulties for the settlements and smaller towns along the coast and especially in the east, south and north to attract, to select and to retain trained teachers. … Inevitably, this affects the quality of education and exacerbates the negative effects of the current structure in which primary and lower secondary school instruction is conducted in Greenlandic and upper secondary school instruction is conducted in Danish. … This arrangement promotes a bilingual, highly educated local elite who typically reside in the major cities, especially the capital. This group is left in a relatively more advantageous position than those who live in the outlying areas. (Brincker & Lennert, 2019, p. 52)

Notably, according to the World Bank, Greenland’s expenditure on education as a share of its GDP (10% of total GDP in 2018) is about 25% higher than Iceland’s, Norway’s, and Sweden’s (each spending 7.6% of their total GDP in education in 2018) and Denmark’s and the Faroe Islands’ (each spending 7.8 and 8.2 of their total GDP in education in 2017, respectively) ­ (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

259

TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=GL). However, despite the highest spending, according to the Greenlandic government, in 2014, 4 years after finishing lower secondary school (Grade 10), 59% of Greenlandic students had dropped out of school (Lennert, 2021). Similarly, according to the Ministry of Education in Greenland, in 2017, 40% of the children who graduated from primary and lower secondary schools did not continue to further their education beyond the 10th grade (Lennert, 2018). Moreover, according to the Ministry of Education in Greenland, 71% of students who completed lower secondary school in 2015 received a diploma with one or more grades that are insufficient for meeting the admission requirements to attend upper secondary education in Greenland. Not surprisingly, according to the Greenlandic government, in 2018, 62% of Greenland’s workforce still had no schooling beyond primary and lower secondary education and 32% of the age group 16–25 were neither in school nor working (Lennert, 2021). As the author pithily puts it, After three decades and billions of funds the education system is still struggling to provide quality education. There is a general discourse that the quality of education in the primary and lower secondary school is poor, and how the education level of the Greenlandic population is too low— compared to the Nordic countries. … Given that the education system was based on the Danish education system, the reality was, and still is today, that for Greenlandic students to continue studying after primary and lower secondary school it is a prerequisite that they have a working knowledge of the Danish and English language. (Lennert, 2018, pp. 4–5)

In regard to higher education, the University of Greenland offers degrees in a small number of academic disciplines (e.g., business administration, theology, language, literature, and media), and the number of students enrolled is low in comparison with other universities in Europe and North America. Nevertheless, in spite of its small size, the University of Greenland offers a practical alternative to those students in Greenland who wish to attend a university at home. This is particularly true in the case of students who wish to pursue a career in education. For example, the Teacher Training College of Greenland (Ilinniarfissuaq) offers a four-­ year degree in education, and there are also a number of vocational

260 

E. D. Faingold

schools that offer programs in metallurgy, fishing, mechanics, and clerical work (Wyatt, 2007). The major languages used at the University of Greenland are Danish and English. This is largely due to a lack of Greenlandic-speaking lecturers and pedagogical materials published in Greenlandic (Motzfeldt, 2018). Thus, Greenlandic remains a minoritized language at the University of Greenland. Notably, as with the Faroe Islands, in Greenland there are no laws or regulations, or even a policy, similar to the rules for parallel language education established at the University of Copenhagen, to manage the use of languages in higher education (see Chaps. 3 and 6). Finally, since Greenlanders are Danish citizens, they have the same rights to attend Danish institutions of higher learning as native Danes, and due to a special agreement between the Greenlandic and Danish governments, Greenlandic students are exempt from the highly restrictive Danish higher education quota system in admissions. As a result, Greenlanders have significant opportunities to access a career of their choosing at universities in Denmark. This arrangement was created to equalize differences in living standards between Greenlanders and Danes in Greenland, and to promote Greenland’s self-reliance and path to independence. Nevertheless, there is a markedly high dropout rate among Greenlandic students enrolled at the University of Greenland and Danish universities (Flora, 2017). Notably, as the author reveals, “of the reasons given as to why some students consider dropping out, language is an important one. Greenlandic students sometimes struggle to keep up in courses where the material and lectures are in English since English remains a third language in Greenland and not a second as it is in Denmark” (Flora, 2017, p. 77). Thus, the legislation on primary and lower secondary school establishes that Greenlandic and Danish are the teaching languages in Greenlandic schools, while English can also be used as an additional language. Nevertheless, since Danish is the main language of instruction of upper secondary education in Greenland, primarily Greenlandic-speaking children who did not have language problems while in primary or lower

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

261

secondary school start to experience language difficulties in upper secondary school. Hence, primarily Greenlandic-speaking students, who lack a good working knowledge of Danish and/or English, are at a great disadvantage when they start upper secondary education in Greenland, a problem compounded by a lack of Greenlandic-speaking teachers qualified to teach high school and of educational materials written in Greenlandic. Importantly, compared to the rest of Scandinavia, despite a significantly higher expenditure on education in Greenland, a remarkably high number of children who graduated lower secondary school in Greenland do not continue their education beyond the 10th grade, or have grades that are insufficient for being admitted to high school. This chapter suggested that a possible solution to the predicament confronting Greenland’s education system, and the concomitant shortage of well-educated workers in Greenland, is to make targeted investments in education, i.e., recruiting, training, and retaining teachers who can teach a subject efficiently in Greenlandic, Danish, and English, and establishing programs that help foster multilingual language literacy in primary school and thus prepare all Greenlandic children to pursue a high school and college education. In regard to higher education, as we have seen, the main teaching languages at the University of Greenland are Danish and English, while Greenlandic remains a peripheral language, mainly because the Greenlandic authorities have not as yet established any rules or regulations that protect the use of Greenlandic vis-à-vis Danish and English in higher education. Finally, due to a special agreement between the governments of Greenland and Denmark, Greenlanders have the legal right to attend Danish universities, and they also receive an exemption from the restrictive Danish higher education quota admissions system. However, there exists a high dropout rate among Greenlandic students enrolled at the University of Greenland and at Danish universities, since they tend to struggle in courses where the materials and lectures are delivered in Danish and English but not in Greenlandic.

262 

E. D. Faingold

Conclusion This chapter studied the ways in which Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the language rights of the indigenous Greenlandic Inuit majority (about 96% of the population) vis-à-vis a small population of Danish in-migrants (about 3.4% of the population) and foreign nationals (about 0.3% of the population). As we have seen, unlike in Denmark, a language test is not required to obtain a permanent residence permit to live in Greenland (see Chap. 3). Like in Sweden and the Faroe Islands, the policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the person coming to live and work in Greenland is the one who has the responsibility to learn the official language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for providing language classes (see Chaps. 2 and 6). The right of both Greenlandic- and Danish-speakers to use their own languages in government and legal settings is protected by the Language Policy Act (2010). Nevertheless, Danish remains essential for Greenland’s public administration and the judiciary, which struggle to provide services in Greenlandic (e.g., knowledge of Greenlandic is often disregarded in the hiring of government employees; more often than not, legal documentation and evidence provided by the authorities in court are available in Danish only and incorrectly interpreted or mistranslated into Greenlandic). Similarly, the Language Policy Act establishes the right of both private and public businesses and organizations with ten or more employees to create their own Greenlandic-friendly language policy. In practice, however, language arrangements vary from one business or organization to another (e.g., Greenlandic is used to a much lesser extent than Danish and English at the University of Greenland; at Nuuk Transport, where most workers are primarily Greenlandic-speakers, employees are allowed to communicate in Greenlandic, Danish, or English, whether electronically or in person, as they see fit). Hence, Greenlandic could start losing ground to Danish and English at Nuuk Transport and other Greenlandic businesses with similar language policies (as it is already the case at the University of Greenland).

7  Language Rights and the Law in Greenland 

263

Since Danish is the major language of instruction in upper secondary and university education, primarily Greenlandic-speaking students who have not acquired a high level of proficiency in Danish while in primary or lower secondary school are at a great disadvantage when they start upper secondary education or apply to university in Greenland or Denmark. Thus, compared to the rest of Scandinavia, despite a significantly higher expenditure on education in Greenland, a remarkably high number of Greenlandic children who graduated lower secondary school in Greenland do not continue their education beyond the 10th grade, resulting in the vast majority of Greenland’s workforce having no schooling beyond primary and lower secondary education, as well as in a large number of teenagers and young adults who are neither working nor in school. This chapter suggested that there is a need for making targeted investments in education, such as recruiting, training, and retaining teachers who can teach a subject efficiently in Greenlandic, Danish, and English, and establishing education programs that help foster multilingual literacy from primary to lower secondary school and beyond. Finally, the language rights of those who speak neither Greenlandic nor Danish remain unaddressed by Greenlandic legislation, but that is likely to change, due to changing patterns and characteristics of immigrant populations coming to Greenland (i.e., the importation of foreign workers to work in the mines of Greenland).

References Ackrén, M. (2017). Greenland. In Autonomy arrangements in the world. http:// www.world-­autonomies.info/tas/Greenland/Documents/Greenland.pdf Act on Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School. (2012). https://lovgivning. gl/lov?rid=%7BA9CD7C8F-­DC91-­4860-­A7F0-­B88BA752ED35%7D Act on Greenland Self-government. (2009). https://naalakkersuisut.gl//~/ media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Engelske-­tekster/Act%20on%20 Greenland.pdf Act on Language Policy. (2010). https://www.global-­regulation.com/translation/greenland/5961148/parliament-­a ct-­n o.-­7 -­o f-­1 9-­m ay-­2 010-­o n-­ language-­policy.html

264 

E. D. Faingold

Brincker, B., & Lennert, M. (2019). Building a nation in the class-room: Exploring education policy in post-colonial Greenland. In M.  C. Beaton, D. Hirshberg, G. R. Maxwell, & J. Spratt (Eds.), Including the North: A comparative study of the policies of inclusion and equity in the circumpolar north (pp. 43–57). Lapland University Press. Commission on Self-governance, a Presentation. (2003). https://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Naalakkersuisut/DK/ Selvstyre/Betaenkning/Resum%C3%A9%20af%20 bet%C3%A6nkning%20ENG.pdf Flora, J. (2017). Different from all the “others”: Mobility and Independence among Greenlandic students in Denmark. Arctic Anthropology, 54(2), 71–82. Jacobsen, B. (2003). Colonial Danish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 159, 153–164. Kuokkanen, R. (2017). ‘To see what state we are I’: First years of the Greenland self-government act and the pursuit of Inuit sovereignty. Ethnopolitics, 16, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1074393 Lennert, M. (2018). Coherence in the Greenlandic education system? Educational Planning & Evaluation in Greenland from a Complexity Theory Perspective. Arctic Yearbook, 2018, 1–19. Lennert, M. (2021). The administrative context of the Greenland primary and lower secondary school system: A governance system misaligned with learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Institute of Social Science, Economics & Journalism, University of Greenland. Mortensen, B. O. G., & Suksi, M. (2019). Respecting autonomies and minorities. In P. Letto-Vanamo, D. Tamm, & B. O. G. Mortensen (Eds.), Nordic law in European context (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan. Motzfeldt, V. (2018). The need to safeguard an official language by law: The case of Greenland. The Yearbook of Polar Law, 10, 1–10. Nuuk Transport. (n.d). Language policy. https://transport.gl/en/about-­us/ language-­policy Wyatt, T. R. (2007). National school reform in Greenland: Cultural compatibility and an externally developed model of effective schooling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI.

8 Summary, Conclusion, and Directions for Future Research

Language rights and the law in Scandinavia studied the language policies that result from the promulgation of linguistic laws in the constitutions, legal statutes, and regulations established by the four Scandinavian nations, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the two autonomous Danish territories, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, where the Scandinavian languages, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese, and a great variety of other languages are spoken, including Greenlandic Inuit, the language spoken by the great majority of the population of Greenland, several official minority languages, national sign languages, and immigrant languages. Thus, this work focused on linguistic minority groups who do not speak a Scandinavian language as their native language, who rely on the use of sign language in their daily lives, or who may seek to maintain the use of a minority language for reasons of cultural identity, and uncovered the types and degrees of legal protections that impinge on the acquisition, learning, use, and maintenance of minority languages in the areas of immigration, the courts and public services, the workplace, and education from preschool to higher education. Chapter 2 studied the ways in which Sweden addresses the language rights of the Swedish-speaking majority vis-à-vis those of linguistic © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6_8

265

266 

E. D. Faingold

minorities. First, unlike in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, a language test is not required for immigration purposes in Sweden. Swedish policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the immigrant is the one responsible for learning Swedish, while the authorities are mainly responsible for providing language classes. Second, the right of access to the courts and government services for all linguistic minorities in Sweden is protected by law (i.e., interpreters are hired and compensated by the government). Third, the Education Act (2010) protects the right of all minority children to receive language acquisition support in both Swedish and Swedish Sign Language, official minority languages, and immigrant languages in Swedish education from preschool to high school. Thus, children who are deaf or hard of hearing have the right to attend special schools for the deaf, which are responsible for developing students’ bilingualism in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language; or they can choose to go to a mainstream school in their municipality of residence, where teachers are required to adapt instruction to the unique needs of students who use sign language. Students who speak a language other than Swedish at home have the right to receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory and upper secondary education, if there are at least five students who wish to receive it and if a suitable teacher can be found. Students who belong to an officially recognized linguistic minority group (i.e., Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani Chib, and Yiddish) also have the right to receive mother tongue instruction in compulsory and upper secondary education, but this right is constraint by the School Ordinance (2011) which severely limits the amount of time that can be dedicated to mother tongue instruction in the schools. In higher education, the main teaching languages are Swedish and English, and immigrant languages remain on the periphery, while the official minority languages are conspicuous by their absence. Chapter 3 focused on the degree of legal protection afforded Danish vis-à-vis linguistic minority groups who do not speak Danish as their native language, i.e., the official minority language (German) and widely spoken immigrant languages (Arabic, Urdu, Polish, Somali). In Denmark, a large segment of the population seems to feel threatened by the arrival of immigrants, mainly because they appear to fear that immigration inflicts cultural and linguistic deterioration, harming Danish as the

8  Summary, Conclusion, and Directions for Future Research 

267

majority language of Denmark. Growing negative feelings toward immigration in Denmark have become associated with the growing number of Muslim immigrants and their descendants, leading to the passing of a wide array of laws with provisions that have increasingly hampered the language rights of non-Western immigrants in the areas of naturalization and education, including laws and regulations that promote mainstream Danish language and culture in the educational system from kindergarten to high school and disregard the languages and cultures of immigrant children. These laws greatly restrict or outright ban mother tongue education for immigrant children from non-Western countries. Other laws make excessive demands in Danish proficiency for non-­Western (mostly Muslim) immigrants seeking to obtain residence or naturalization but establish no such language requirements for Western immigrants working at universities and international companies. Chapter 4 studied the ways in which Norwegian legislation addresses the language rights of Norwegian-speakers vis-à-vis linguistic minorities in Norway. First, as in Denmark and Iceland, applicants for Norwegian residence and citizenship must pass a language and a citizenship test that can hinder immigrants from obtaining Norwegian residence or citizenship. Second, Norwegian law establishes the right of linguistic minorities to have access to a qualified interpreter in encounters with the law and healthcare systems, but quality interpreters are often unavailable, and the law offers no provisions on the government obligations of providing the financial resources to guarantee that interpreters are available when needed. Third, employers in the construction industry created Norwegian-­ only regulations that can hinder immigrant workers from obtaining permanent employment in the industry, as the use of immigrant languages on construction sites is deemed likely to compromise safety and security standards. Fourth, in Norway, preschool regulations establish the right of Sámi children to learn their language and recognize the value of sign language in kindergarten. However, deaf children are vulnerable, and often excluded, in interactions with hearing classmates and kindergarten staff. Preschool regulations also establish that kindergarten must promote “linguistic and cultural diversity,” but this term is neither explained nor detailed by the regulations. Fifth, Norwegian educational laws protect the use of Norwegian dialects (Bokmål and Nynorsk), Sámi, Kven, and

268 

E. D. Faingold

Norwegian Sign Language in school. However, there are very few municipal programs or classes taught in Norwegian Sign Language, and children who rely on it for their education spend most of their time in school with hearing children and teachers who are not expected to acquire even a minimum knowledge of sign language. As for immigrant children, like in the rest of Scandinavia, the focus of language policy in Norwegian schools is on providing adapted language education in Norwegian with as little bilingual support as possible. Finally, in regard to higher education, the main teaching languages are Norwegian and English, while Sámi is the principal language at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Kautokeino. Kven language and culture classes are offered at the University of Tromsø and Norwegian Sign Language and sign language interpreting programs are available at universities across Norway. Chapter 5 focused on the ways in which Iceland addresses the language rights of the native Icelandic-speaking majority vis-à-vis Icelandic Sign Language users and a growing non-Icelandic-speaking immigrant population. As in the rest of Scandinavia, in recent years, Iceland has seen a large influx of immigrants, mainly from Poland, but also from Lithuania, the Philippines, and other countries. As in Denmark, in Iceland, language nationalism and a linguistic protectionist culture that promotes the use of Icelandic above all other languages and in all domains of language use results in laws and regulations that may hinder the opportunities of immigrants to become naturalized citizens; to access services they need, especially in the healthcare system; and to receive an education that includes the child’s home language in the school curriculum and daily activities. Finally, a number of linguistic laws, regulations, and policies have been established by the Icelandic parliament and government authorities to promote the right of Icelandic Sign Language users to equal access to public services (i.e., interpreting), especially in the healthcare system, and to learn and use Icelandic Sign Language in compulsory schools and in higher education. However, as in Norway, no legal provisions have been established on the government obligations of providing the financial backing necessary for guaranteeing equal access to public services and education for Icelandic Sign Language users. Chapter 6 studied the ways in which the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the language rights

8  Summary, Conclusion, and Directions for Future Research 

269

of the native Faroese-speaking majority vis-à-vis a small but growing immigrant minority. Unlike in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, positive attitudes toward immigrants and immigration by Faroese authorities and employers result in laws and regulations that support the language rights of immigrants to obtain a permanent residence permit without having to pass a Faroese language exam; to communicate with the courts, health services, and other agencies of the Faroe Islands with the help of interpreters and translators; and to expect reasonable linguistic accommodations and in-house language support in the workplace. Above all, since the passing of the Home Rule Act in 1948, Faroese has been adopted as the official language of instruction of the schools in the Faroe Islands from elementary school to high school. However, Danish and English remain the main languages of instruction in Faroese higher education, due to a shortage of lecturers proficient in Faroese and to the lack of regulations for the use of foreign languages in higher education. Finally, the language rights of immigrant children who do not speak Faroese remain unaddressed by Faroese education legislation, but that is likely to change, due to a growing population of non-Faroese-speaking immigrants coming to the Faroes Islands from more than 80 different countries. Chapter 7 studied the ways in which Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, addresses the language rights of the indigenous Greenlandic Inuit majority vis-à-vis a small population of Danish in-migrants and foreign nationals. First, unlike in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, a language test is not required to reside in Greenland. As in Sweden and the Faroe Islands, the Greenlandic policy in this area seems to be based on the idea that the person coming to live and work in Greenland is the one who has the responsibility to learn the official language, while the authorities are primarily responsible for providing language classes. Second, while the right of both Greenlandic-speakers and Danish-speakers to use their own languages in government and legal settings is protected by the Language Policy Act (2010), Danish remains essential for Greenland’s public administration and the judiciary, which struggle to provide services in Greenlandic. Similarly, the Language Policy Act establishes the right of businesses and organizations to create their own Greenlandic language policy, but employees are allowed to use languages other than Greenlandic as they see fit, and thus Greenlandic could

270 

E. D. Faingold

start losing ground to Danish and English in the workplace. Finally, since Danish is the major language of instruction in upper secondary and university education, primarily Greenlandic-speaking students who had not acquired a high level of Danish proficiency while in primary or lower secondary school are at a great disadvantage when they start upper secondary education or apply to university in Greenland or Denmark. This chapter suggested that there is a need for making targeted investments in education, to help foster literacy in all Greenlandic, Danish, and English. As noted in Chap. 2, immigrant languages are never specifically mentioned in Swedish linguistic legislation. Crucially, no mention is made of Arabic, which is the most widely spoken foreign language in Sweden. However, this comes as no surprise, since the exclusion of immigrant languages from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) reflects a widely held view among scholars and other agents of influence in language policy that immigrant minorities are less entitled to language rights than indigenous groups (Faingold, 2015, 2020). Yet, the notion that the language rights of indigenous minorities necessarily supersede those of all immigrant groups is not etched in stone. As one study points out, As time passes migrant languages are spoken by second- or third- rather than first-generation groups and the dividing line between migrancy and indigeneity becomes less obvious...In recent times, ‘migrants’ have taken up citizenship of the country in which they live and the dividing line between migrants and non-citizens is becoming increasingly dubious. As the status of migrant changes from that of incomer to citizen, it may be logical to ask what the implications for their languages are. The change in status may make the non-recognition of their languages increasingly untenable. (Nic Craith, 2006, p. 162)

As another study succinctly puts it, “it may be possible for languages of immigrants to become sufficiently established on the territory of a state that they become, with the passage of time, ‘a regional or minority language’” (Dunbar, 2008, p. 45). Accordingly, due to “their historical presence in Sweden” (Norrby, 2008, p. 65), Yiddish and Romani Chib were granted official minority status by the Swedish Parliament in 1999.

8  Summary, Conclusion, and Directions for Future Research 

271

Thus, it is not unthinkable that within two or three generations, Arabic, which is by far the most widely spoken foreign language of Sweden, could acquire a new status as an officially recognized minority language of Sweden. As in Sweden, widely spoken immigrant languages are never specifically mentioned in Danish (i.e., Arabic, Urdu, Polish, Somali), Norwegian (i.e., Arabic, Polish), and Icelandic (i.e., Polish, Lithuanian, Tegalog) linguistic legislation. Again, this comes as no surprise, since, as noted above, the exclusion of immigrant languages from ECRML reflects a widely held view that immigrant minorities are less entitled to language rights than local groups. However, the notion that the languages spoken by local minorities necessarily supersede those of all immigrant groups is not immutable. As time goes by, if immigrant languages continue to be spoken by second and third generations of immigrant groups in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, it may be possible for some of the most spoken immigrant languages to become sufficiently entrenched that they acquire the status of a regional or minority language. As noted above, this book offered a comprehensive and systematic analysis of language legislation affecting linguistic minorities in the four Scandinavian nations, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the two autonomous Danish territories, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, where Scandinavian languages, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese, and a great number of other languages are spoken, including Greenlandic Inuit, several official minority languages, national sign languages, and immigrant languages. However, a study of language rights of linguistic minorities in Finland, which together with the Scandinavian countries forms part of Norden (the Nordic region), was left out of this book. As noted in the preface, I made the conscious—and to some extent arbitrary—decision to exclude Finland from this study because the Finns are a people of Finno-Ugric descent (originally from a geographical area located between the Baltic Sea and the Ural Mountains), and speak a language of non-Scandinavian origin, while the Scandinavian nations share a common historic and linguistic background as the heirs to the Viking empire (e.g., Sanders, 2017; Titlestad, 2018). Clearly, the linguistic laws and regulations affecting the use of Swedish (e.g., Boyd & Palviainen, 2015; Carlsson, 2017; Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2019; Hult

272 

E. D. Faingold

& Pietikäinen, 2014; Ihalainen & Saarinen, 2015; Jalkanen & Nikula, 2020; Saarinen, 2020; Suksi, 2023; Ylönen, 2014), Sámi (e.g., Aikio-­ Pouskari, 2023; Heltai & Bartha, 2017; Joona, 2018; Keskitalo, 2012; Pohjola, 2016; Solbakk, 2006), Finnish Sign Language (e.g., Conama, 2010; De Meulder, 2017), and immigrant languages (e.g., Carlsson, 2017; Degni et  al., 2012; Harju-Autti et  al., 2022; Lähteenmmäki & Pöyhönen, 2015; Ojwang, 2021; Vorobeva et  al., 2022) in Finland deserve close scrutiny. But that is a story for another day.

References Aikio-Pouskari, U. (2023). Linguistic human rights of indigenous Sámi in the Finnish education system. In T.  Skutnabb-Kangas & R.  Phillipson (Eds.), The handbook of linguistic human rights (pp. 477–491). Wiley Blackwell. Boyd, S., & Palviainen, Ȧ . (2015). Building walls or bridges? A language ideological debate about bilingual schools in Finland. In M. Halonen, P. Ihalainen, & T. Saarinen (Eds.), Language policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons (pp. 57–89). Multilingual Matters. Carlsson, N. (2017). Navigating two languages: Immigrant integration policies in bilingual Finland. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 16, 41–66. Retrieved from Navigating Two Languages  - Immigrant Integration Policies in Bilingual Finland  – Publicly Available Content Database – ProQuest. Conama, J. B. (2010). Finnish and Irish sign languages: An egalitarian analysis of language policies and their effects. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University College Dublin, Dublin. http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/96610/Dcotoral%20Thesis%20Janaury%202010.pdf?sequence=1 De Meulder, M. (2017). Promotion in times of endangerment: The sign language act in Finland. Language Policy, 16, 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10993-­016-­9403-­5 Degni, F., Suominen, S., Essén, B., El Ansari, W., & Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K. (2012). Communication and cultural issues in providing reproductive health care to immigrant women: Health care providers’ experiences in meeting Somali women living in Finland. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 14, 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-­011-­9465-­6 Dunbar, R. (2008). Definitively interpreting the European charter of regional or minority languages: The legal challenges. In Council of Europe (Ed.), The

8  Summary, Conclusion, and Directions for Future Research 

273

European charter for regional or minority languages: Legal challenges and opportunities (pp. 37–61). Council of Europe Publishing. Faingold, E. D. (2015). Language rights in the European Union and the treaty of Lisbon. Language Problems and Language Planning, 39, 33–49. https://doi. org/10.1075/lplp.39.1.02fai Faingold, E.  D. (2020). Language rights and the law in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. Harju-Autti, R., Mäkinen, M., & Rättyä, K. (2022). ‘Things should be explained so that the students understand them’: Adolescent immigrant students’ perspectives on learning the language of schooling in Finland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 2949–2961. https://doi. org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1995696 Harju-Luukkainen, H., Amakye, D., & Cederberg, L. (2019). Instructional practices in early Swedish immersion in Finland. In S.  Garvis, H.  Harju-­ Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families, children, and early childhood education (pp. 119–138). Palgrave Macmillan. Heltai, B. P., & Bartha, C. (2017). Ideologies and practices in a kindergarten offering early education in Northern Sámi outside the Sámi homeland. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 11, 7–28. https://doi. org/10.17011/apples/urn.201712104582 Hult, F., & Pietikäinen, S. (2014). Shaping discourses of multilingualism through a language ideological debate: The case of Swedish in Finland. Journal of Language and Politics, 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1075/ jlp.13.1.01hul Ihalainen, P., & Saarinen, T. (2015). Constructing ‘language’ in language policy discourse: Finnish and Swedish legislative processes in the 2000s. In M. Halonen, P. Ihalainen, & T. Saarinen (Eds.), Language policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons (pp.  29–55). Multilingual Matters. Jalkanen, J., & Nikula, T. (2020). Redesigning the curriculum to develop multilingual academic literacies: An analysis of language conceptualizations. In M. Kuteeva, K. Kaufhold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp. 113–135). Palgrave Macmillan. Joona, T. (2018). Safeguarding cultural rights of Sámi children and youth in Finland, with special emphasis on the linguistic part of cultural identity: Current challenges. The Yearbook of Polar Law, 9, 109–129. https://doi. org/10.1163/22116427_009010006

274 

E. D. Faingold

Keskitalo, P. (2012). Sámi education in Finland. Early Childhood Development and Care, 182, 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.646723 Lähteenmmäki, M., & Pöyhönen, S. (2015). Language rights of the Russian-­ speaking minority in Finland: Multi-sited historical arguments and language ideologies. In M. Halonen, P. Ihalainen, & T. Saarinen (Eds.), Language policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons (pp. 90–115). Multilingual Matters. Nic Craith, M. (2006). Europe and the politics of language. Palgrave Macmillan. Norrby, C. (2008). Swedish language policy: Multilingual paradise or utopian dream? In J. Warren & H. M. Benbow (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Reflections on language identity (pp. 63–76). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ojwang, F. (2021). Social justice in learning of the second language among immigrant children in Finland: Conventional narratives and perceptions. EUREKA: Social and Humanities, 5, 82–100. https://doi. org/10.21303/2504-­5571.2021.002063 Pohjola, A. (2016). Language as a cultural mediator in social work: Supporting Sámi culture with services in Sámi. International Social Work, 59, 640–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872816646818 Saarinen, T. (2020). Tensions on Finnish constitutional bilingualism in neo-­ nationalist times: Constructions of Swedish in monolingual and bilingual contexts. In M.  Kuteeva, K.  Kaufhold, & N.  Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp.  85–111). Palgrave Macmillan. Sanders, R. H. (2017). The languages of Scandinavia: Seven sisters of the North. The University of Chicago Press. Solbakk, J. T. (2006). The Sámi people: A handbook. Språksenteret. Suksi, M. (2023). Finnish and Swedish as national languages of Finland: A linguistic human rights success story—Why and How? In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), The handbook of linguistic human rights (pp. 445–452). Wiley Blackwell. Titlestad, T. (2018). Viking legacy: A cornerstone of world civilization. Saga Bok. Vorobeva, E., Jauhiainen, J. S., & Tammaru, T. (2022). Language, networks, and virtual transnationalism: The case of Russia speakers from Estonia living in Finland. International Migration, 6, 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/ imig.12969 Ylönen, S. (2014). The position of Finnish and Swedish as well as other languages at universities in Finland. In F. X. Vila & V. Bretxa (Eds.), Language policy in higher education: The case of medium-sized languages (pp. 64–102). Multilingual Matters.

Index

A

Aarhus University, 91 Action Plan for Integration and Social Inclusion of the Immigrant Population and Goals to Social Inclusion (Action Plan for the Immigrant Population), Norway (2006), 122 Act of Parliament, Norway, 220 Act on an Introduction Programme and Norwegian Language Training for Newly Arrived Immigrants (Introduction Act), Norway (2003), 122–123 Act on Foreigners, Iceland (2002), 182–183 Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, Sweden (2009), 16, 45 establishment of administration areas under, 18

Finnish language under, 17–22 legal documentation under, 25–28 Meänkieli language under, 17–22 Sámi language under, 17–22 Act on the Board of Equal Treatment, Denmark (2008), 75, 78 Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, Iceland, 193, 210 in court systems, 188–189 goals of, 176, 178 Icelandic as national language under, 182 Icelandic Sign Language under, 198 language rights for deaf and hard of hearing under, 177 use of interpreters under, 179, 189–190

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. D. Faingold, Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43017-6

275

276 Index

Administrative Procedure Act, Sweden (2017), 45 Althing (parliament), in Iceland, 171–172, 175 Arabic language, use of in Norway, 149, 160 in Sweden, 50 Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, 174–175 Assumption Act of Matters and Fields of Responsibility, Faroe Islands (2005), 225–226 Asylum seekers, in Denmark, 64 Autonomy of Faroe Islands, 226–227 of Greenland, 250 for minority populations in Scandinavian countries, 2 B

Bilingualism in Denmark, 86, 95–96 in Faroe Islands, 223 in Greenland, 253–255 in Norway, 158–159 in Sweden, 13, 15–16, 35, 46 Black Death, in Norway, 105 Board of Equal Treatment (Denmark), 75–76, 78, 80–81, 232 Bokmål language, in Norway, 113–115 ‘Book language,’ in Norway, 106 The Book of Icelanders, 169 The Book of Settlements, 169

C

Child welfare laws, in Denmark, 82 Christian VIII (King), 171–172 Christian IX (King), 172 Christianity, in Iceland, 170 Citizenship Act of 2001, Sweden, 24 Citizenship, qualifications for under Citizenship Act of 2001, 24 in Denmark, 70, 73–74 in Faroe Islands, 228 in Greenland, 251 in Iceland, 183–188 under Icelandic Citizenship Act, 184 Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, 184–188 in Norway, 123–124 in Sweden, 24 Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S., 78–80 Code of Civil Procedure, in Iceland, 179, 189 Code of Criminal Procedure, in Iceland, 179, 189 Colonialism, in Greenland, 245–246 Colonial period, in Greenland, 241–242 Commission on Self-Governance (Greenland), 247 Compulsory School Act, Iceland (2008), 196–198, 200, 210 Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination in the Labour Market, Denmark (2008), 75–76, 78

 Index 

direct discrimination under, 77 indirect discrimination under, 77 Copenhagen-Bonn Declarations, 63 County period, in Greenland, 241–242 Court systems, language rights in under Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, 188–189 in Faroe Islands, 229–230 in Greenland, 243–244, 252–254 in Iceland, 188–193 in Norway, 125–134 in Sweden, 25–28 Cultural diversity, in Sweden, 22 D

Danish Immigration Service, 69 Danish language, use of in Faroe Islands, 221, 225, 235–236 Faroese language as distinct from, 223 in Greenland, 245, 260, 262–263 in Iceland, 197 mother-tongue instruction and, 87 in Norway, 105–106 as official language in Denmark, 42, 64, 73–74, 95–96 as second language, in Denmark, 87 in Sweden, 44, 49–50 Danish Procedural Code, 229 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, Iceland (1990), 177–178, 190

277

Deaf and hard of hearing persons under Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, 177 under Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, 177–178, 190 in Norwegian health care systems, 132–133 under Patients’ Rights Act, 132 See also Sign languages Deaf or hard of hearing students (DHH students) under Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, 177–178, 190 in Norway, 140–141 in Sweden, 34–39, 46–47 Swedish Sign Language and, 13, 34–39 See also Sign languages Denmark, language rights and law in, 266–267 Aarhus University, 91 Act on the Board of Equal Treatment, 75, 78, 81 for asylum seekers, 64 bilateral agreements with Germany, 63 bilingualism in, 86, 95–96 Board of Equal Treatment, 75–76, 78, 80–81, 232 in child welfare laws, 82 citizenship guidelines, 70, 73–74 under Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination in the Labour Market, 75–78, 81

278 Index

Denmark, language rights and law in  (cont.) under Copenhagen-Bonn Declarations, 63 Danish as official language in, 42, 64, 73–74, 95–96 Danish Immigration Service and, 69 Danish Procedural Code, 229 Denmark Technical University, 91 in educational contexts, 82–96 English language use, 92–94 Equal Treatment in the Workplace Act, 80–81 ethnic homogeneity in, 62, 76 European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages and, 2, 63 European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 2, 63 First Schleswig War and, 61 for foreign-born residents, 64 German language use, 61–63 German occupation of, 173, 220 in Hanseatic League, 9 in higher education, 90–91 Home Rule Act, 221, 225–227, 234, 237–238 Icelandic citizenship in, 172–173 immigrant populations in, 64–65 immigration policies and, 64–75 for individuals with Post-­ Traumatic Stress Disorder, 72–73 integration policies in, 67–68 in Kalmar Union, 59 Karl Gustav Wars and, 60 language policy in, 2 language tests, 74

in legislative contexts, 64–75 liberal attitudes in, 66 linguistic homogeneity in, 62 for linguistic minorities, 95–96 Lutheran Reformation in, 170 under Maastricht Treaty, 71 mother-tongue instruction in, 85–88, 96 Muslim immigrants in, 62, 65–66 National Compromise and, 71 naturalization policies and, 66, 72–73 Norway and, 105–106, 171 opting out of Directive on the Right of Family Reunion, 71 parallel language use, 92 political parties and, 74, 87 in preschool education, 82–83, 85 in primary school education, 84–85 Protestantism in, 170 Public School Act, 85 refugees and, 83 residence policies, 73 Second Schleswig War and, 61 Sweden and, 171 territorial losses and, 60 Torstensson’s War and, 60 in Twin-Kingdoms, 59–60 University of Copenhagen, 91–94, 233 in workplace contexts, 75–82 See also Faroe Islands; Greenland; Iceland Denmark Technical University (DTU), 91 DHH students, see Deaf or hard of hearing students Direct discrimination, 77

 Index 

Directive on the Right of Family Reunion (EU), 71 Discrimination under Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination in the Labour Market, 77 direct, 77 indirect, 77 Diversity, see Cultural diversity DTU, see Denmark Technical University Dutch Integration Act of 1999, Denmark, 67–69, 72 E

ECRML, see European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages Education Act, Denmark (1912), 234 Education Act, Norway (1998), 142–143, 146–149, 156–158 Sámi language (Norway) under, 144–145 Education Act, Sweden (2010), 13 children’s home languages under, 31 inclusive education goals, 31, 45–46 linguistic diversity goals under, 30 national minority students under, 32–33, 47 Ordinance on the Curriculum for the Preschool of 2018 and, 29 preschool education under, 28, 46 primary school education under, 31–32

279

promotion of Swedish language under, 30–31 Sámi language under, 29 upper secondary education under, 34 Educational institutions, language rights and law in under Compulsory School Act, 196–198, 200, 210 in Denmark, 82–96 under Education Act (Denmark), 234 under Education Act (Norway), 142–149, 156–158 under Education Act (Sweden), 13, 28–34, 45–47 in Faroe Islands, 233–236 in Greenland, 246, 256–261 Greenlandic language use in, 246 under Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School Act, 257 in Norway, 107, 139–152 in Norwegian language, 107 under Preschool Act, 194–196, 210 under Public School Act, 85 for Sámi language, in Norway, 107, 110 in Sweden, 13–14, 28–44 See also Higher education; Preschool education; Primary school education; Secondary education EEC, see European Economic Community EEOC, see Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

280 Index

Egde, Poul, 246 English language, use of in Denmark, 90–94 in Faroe Islands, 221, 225, 235–236 in Greenland, 259–260 in higher education, in Denmark, 92–94 in Iceland, 197, 212 in Sweden, 13 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), U.S., 79–81 Equal Treatment in the Workplace Act, Denmark (2008), 80–81 Eskimo-Aleut languages, 246 Ethnic homogeneity in Denmark, 62, 76 in Iceland, 181–182 EU, see European Union European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), 270–271 Denmark and, 2, 63 Norway and, 2, 109, 160 Sweden and, 11–12 European Economic Community (EEC), 242 European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 63 European Framework Convention on National Minorities, 2 European Social Survey, 65 European Union (EU) Directive on the Right of Family Reunion and, 71 EU Blue Card program, 71–72 European Economic Community, 242

Greenland’s geopolitical connection to, 241 immigration policy in, 71 Sweden accession to, 11 See also specific countries F

Faroe Islands, language rights and law in, 2, 268–269 Assumption Act of Matters and Fields of Responsibility, 225–226 autonomy of, 226–227 bilingualism in, 223 citizenship issues in, 228 in courts systems, 229–230 Danish citizens in, 219, 226 Danish language use in, 221, 225, 235–236 under Danish Procedural Code, 229 under Danish rule, 220 declaration of independence by, 220, 222–223 early settlers in, 219–220 under Education Act (Denmark), 234 in educational systems, 233–236 English language use in, 221, 225, 235–236 Faroese as principal language, 227 Faroese Folk High School, 233 Faroese Language Council, 224–225 Filipino immigrants in, 226 Foereyinga, the Saga of the Faroe Islands, 222 Greenland immigrants in, 226

 Index 

in health care system, 229–230 for health insurance, 229 in higher education, 233, 235 Home Government in, 226 Home Rule Act, 221, 225–227, 234, 237–238 Icelandic immigrants in, 226 immigration policy and, 226–229, 234 Indian immigrants in, 226 under Kingdom of Denmark, 220 language courses for, 228–229 language policy in, 222–225 language proficiency tests, 229 language purism in, 223 in legal contexts, 225–226 linguistic homogeneity in, 223 Ministry of Education, Research, and Culture of the Faroe Islands, 223–224 minority languages in, 237 multilingualism in, 231–233 nationalism in, 233 New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 228 Norse Vikings in, 219–220 under Norwegian Act of Parliament, 220 Norwegian immigrants in, 226 Polish immigrants in, 226 Polish language use in, 232 in primary school, 233–234 during Reformation Period, 222 Romanian immigrants in, 226 Russian language in, 232 in secondary schools, 233 Swedish immigrants in, 226 technical terminology for, 224 Thai immigrants in, 226

281

Tórshavn school, 233 University of Faroe Islands, 235–236, 238 in workplace, 231–233 during World War II, 220 Faroese Folk High School, 233 Faroese language, use of biblical texts in, 222 Danish language as distinct from, 223 historical development of, 223 under Home Rule Act, 227 language purism for, 223 in literature, 222 as minority language, 236 as principal language, 227 Faroese Language Council, 224–225 Finland, language rights and law in European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages and, 2 European Framework Convention on National Minorities and, 2 Finno-Ugric peoples and, 271 in Norway, 110 Finnish language, use of under Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 17–22 administrative area for, 18 estimated population of speakers, 16–17 Kven as dialect of, 111 in legal documentation, 25–28 mother-tongue instruction in, 40–41, 48–49 in Norway, 144 recognition as official language, 12, 16 in Sweden, 11–14

282 Index

Finnish Sign Language, 272 Finno-Ugric peoples, 271 First Schleswig War, in Denmark, 61 Foereyinga, the Saga of the Faroe Islands, 222 Framework Plan for Kindergartens (Norway), 140–152, 155–156 Sámi language and, 139 G

German language, use of in Denmark, 61–63 in Iceland, 170 in Sweden, 49 Germany bilateral agreements with Denmark, 63 Denmark occupied by, 173, 220 Globalization, 247 Greenlandic language, use of in educational systems, 246 in hymnody traditions, 246 under Language Policy Act, 245 as official language, 249–250, 252, 262 Greenland, language rights and law in, 2, 269–270 autonomy of, 250 bilingualism in, 253–255 for Chinese foreign workers, 255 citizenship issues, 251 colonialism as influence on, 245–246 colonial period for, 241–242 Commission on Self-­ Governance, 247 during county period, 241–242

in court systems, 243–244, 252–254 in Danish kingdom, 241–242 Danish language use in, 245, 260, 262–263 drafting of constitution in, 244 in educational systems, 246, 256–261 English language use in, 259–260 in European Economic Community, 242 geopolitical connection to Europe, 241 Greenlandic as official language, 249–250, 252, 262 Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School Act, 257 in higher education, 247–248, 259–261, 263 Home Rule Act, 242–243, 247–248, 257–258 during home rule period, 242 Human Rights Council of Greenland, 253–254 immigrants from, 226 in immigration policies, 250–252 Inuit language use in, 247 as knowledge society, 249 Language Policy Act, 245, 249–250, 252–255, 262 language proficiency tests, 251–252, 262 in legislative contexts, 247–250 Nordic citizens in, 250 Nuuk Transport in, 254–255 under parliamentary laws, 256–257 political parties in, 242

 Index 

population density of, 241 in primary schools, 256–257, 260–261 in secondary schools, 256–257, 260–261, 263 Self-Government Act, 243–244, 248–249, 251 during self-government period, 242 University of Greenland, 259–261 in workplace, 250, 254–256 Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School Act (2012), 257 H

Haakon VI (King), 172 Hanseatic League, 9 Hard of hearing students, see Deaf or hard of hearing students Health care systems, language rights in deaf and hard of hearing persons in, 132 in Faroe Islands, 229–230 in Iceland, 188–193 interpreters as part of, 130 in Norway, 125–134 under Patients’ Rights Act (Iceland), 190–191 under Patients’ Rights Act (Norway), 126–132, 153–154 Health insurance, in Faroe Islands, 229 Higher education, language rights in Aarhus University, 91 in Denmark, 90–94

283

Denmark Technical University, 91 English language use, 92–94 in Faroe Islands, 233, 235 in Greenland, 247–248, 259–261, 263 in Iceland, 174–175, 201–208 Icelandic Sign Language in, 208 for Kven language, 151–152 in Norway, 107, 150–152, 158–159 for Sámi language (Norway), 150–152 in Sweden, 13–14, 41–43 University of Bergen, 150 University of Copenhagen, 91–94, 233 University of Faroe Islands, 235–236, 238 University of Greenland, 259–261 University of Iceland, 174–175, 201–208 University of Tromsø, 6, 107, 151–152, 159, 268 Home languages, mother-­ tongues and under Education Act (Sweden), 31 See also Mother-tongue instruction Home rule in Greenland, 242 in Iceland, 172 Home Rule Act, Denmark (1948), 221, 225–226, 234, 237–238 Faroese as principle language under, 227 Home Rule Act, Greenland (1979), 242–243, 247–248, 257–258

284 Index

House of Vasa, Sweden and, 59 Human Rights Council of Greenland (HRC Greenland), 253–254 Hymnody traditions, in Greenlandic language, 246 I

Icelandic Citizenship Act (2008), 184 Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, 184–188 Icelandic language, use of in Golden Age of literature, 175–176 Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, 184–188 linguistic nationalism for, 207–208 linguistic purism of, 174 linguistic structure for, 171 in national media, 176 as official national language, 175, 182 Old Icelandic sagas, 171 as second language, 198 Icelandic Nationality Act (1952), 183–184 Icelandic Sign Language, 173 under Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, 176–179, 182, 188–190, 193, 198, 210 in higher education, 208 as indigenous minority language, 177

Iceland, language rights and law in, 2, 268 Act on Foreigners, 182–183 under Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, 176–179, 182, 188–190, 193, 198, 210 Althing (parliament) and, 171–172, 175 Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, 174–175 The Book of Icelanders, 169 The Book of Settlements, 169 under Christian VIII, 171–172 under Christian IX, 172 Christianity in, 170 citizenship requirements and tests, 183–188 under Code of Civil Procedure, 179, 189 under Code of Criminal Procedure, 179, 189 Compulsory School Act, 196–198, 200, 210 in court systems, 188–193 cultural profile of Icelanders, 181–182 Danish citizenship in, 172–173 Danish language use in, 197 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communication Centre Act, 177–178, 190 Denmark and, 170 emigration to Faroe Islands, 226 English language use in, 197, 212 ethnic profile of Icelanders, 181–182 Filipino immigrants in, 173, 180

 Index 

foreign words in, 174 German language in, 170 Government Policy on Immigrants in, 191–192 in health care system, 188–193 in higher education, 174–175, 201–208 home rule and, 172 Icelandic as official national language, 175, 182 Icelandic Citizenship Act, 184 Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship, 184–188 Icelandic Nationality Act and, 183–184 Icelandic Sign Language, 173, 198, 208 immigrant population in, 180 in immigration policy, 179–188 Irish settlers in, 169 language planning, 175 language policies in, 173–176 language proficiency tests, 183–188, 209 language protectionist ideologies in, 207–208 in Late Middle Ages, 170 in legislation contexts, 176–179 linguistic nationalism in, 207–208 linguistic purism in, 174 linguistic structure of Icelandic, 171 Lithuanian immigrants in, 173, 180 Lithuanian language use, 180 Lutheran Reformation in, 170 morphological system of language, 174

285

mother-tongue instruction and, 195–196 under new constitution, 172 Norway and, 169–170 Norwegian settlers in, 169 Patients’ Rights Act, 190–191 Polish immigrants in, 173, 180 Polish language use, 180 political parties in, 184 Preschool Act, 194–196, 210 in preschool education, 193–196 Protestantism in, 170 as quasi-republican polity, 169–170 refugee status in, 180–181 in secondary education, 199–201 settlement history of, 169 Tagalog language use, 180 University of Iceland and, 174–175, 201–208 Upper Secondary Act, 199–201 Venezuelan refugees in, 180 during Viking Age, 169–170 during World War II, 172–173 Immigrant groups under Action Plan for Integration and Social Inclusion of the Immigrant Population and Goals to Social Inclusion, 122 under Act on an Introduction Programme and Norwegian Language Training for Newly Arrived Immigrants, 122–123 in Denmark, 64–66 in Faroe Islands, 226 under Government Policy on Immigrants, in Iceland, 191–192 from Greenland, 226

286 Index

Immigrant groups  (cont.) from Iceland, 226 from India, 226 from Iraq, 121 from Lithuania, 173, 180 minority populations as distinct from, 2 from Morocco, 120 from Norway, 226 from Pakistan, 120 from Philippines, 173, 180, 226 from Poland, 173, 180, 226 from Romania, 226 from Sweden, 226 from Syria, 23 from Thailand, 226 from Turkey, 120 from Ukraine, 23 Immigrant languages, in Sweden, 11 Immigration law and policy in Denmark, 64–75 Directive on the Right of Family Reunion, 71 in Faroe Islands, 226–229, 234 Government Policy on Immigrants (Iceland), 191–192 in Greenland, 250–252 in Iceland, 179–188 in Norway, 120–124 in Sweden, 13, 22–25 Inclusive education, under Education Act (Sweden), 31, 45–46 India, immigrants from, 226 Indigenous languages Eskimo-Aleut languages, 246 Inuit language, 247 Meänkieli language, 11–14, 16–22, 25–28, 40–41

See also Sámi language, in Norway; Sámi language, in Sweden Indirect discrimination, 77 Integration policies, in Denmark, 67–68 Interpretation Act, Norway (2022), 133–134 Interpreters under Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, 179, 189–190 under Interpretation Act, 133–134 in Norwegian health care system, 130 under Ordinance on Authorization of Interpreters and Translators, 27 Introduction Act, see Act on an Introduction Programme and Norwegian Language Training for Newly Arrived Immigrants Inuit language, 247 Iraq, immigrants from, in Norway, 121 J

Josephson, Olle, 39 K

Kalmar Union, 59 Karl Gustav Wars, 60 Knowledge society, Greenland as, 249

 Index 

Kven language, in Norway, 106–107, 109, 144, 153 as Finnish dialect, 111 grammar of, 111 in higher education contexts, 151–152 under Language Act (Norway), 112–113 legislative restrictions against, 110 Norwegianization of, 110 L

Language Act, Norway (2021), 117–120 Bokmål language under, 113–115 Kven language under, 112–113 Language Council of Norway and, 116 language equality under, 112 Norwegian as national language under, 112, 114 Nynorsk language under, 113–115 parallel language use under, 115 Roma language under, 112–113 Romani language under, 112–113 Sámi language under, 112, 116 workplace regulations under, 136–139 writing competence requirements under, 115 written communications under, 113 Language Act, Sweden (2009), 16–17, 25, 49 goals of, 15, 41 language standardization under, 15

287

national minority languages under, 15 Sweden as principal language under, 14 Language Council of Norway, 116 Language equality, under Language Act (Norway), 112 Language Policy Act, Greenland (2010), 245, 249–250, 252–255, 262 Language proficiency tests in Denmark, 74 in Faroe Islands, 229 in Greenland, 251–252, 262 in Iceland, 183–188, 209 in Norway, 124–125, 136–137 Language protectionist ideologies, in Iceland, 207–208 Language rights for Indigenous populations, 3 methodological approach to, 3–8 in Sweden, 11–51 See also specific countries Late Middle Ages, in Iceland, 170 Linguistic diversity in Denmark, 62, 95–96 under Education Act (Sweden), 30 in Faroe Islands, 223 See also Minority languages Linguistic nationalism, in Iceland, 207–208 Linguistic purism for Faroese language, 223 in Iceland, 174 Lithuania, immigrants from, in Iceland, 173, 180

288 Index

Lithuanian language, use of, in Iceland, 180 Lutheran Reformation, in Iceland, 170 M

Maastricht Treaty, 71 Meänkieli language, in Sweden under Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 17–22 administrative area for, 18 estimated population of speakers, 16–17 in legal documentation, 25–28 mother-tongue instruction in, 40–41 recognition as official language, 12, 16 in Sweden, 11–14 Ministry of Education, Research, and Culture of the Faroe Islands, 223–224 Minority languages under Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, Sweden (2009), 16–22, 25–28, 45 under European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages and, 2, 11–12, 63, 109, 160, 270–271 in Faroe Islands, 237 Faroese language, 236 in Iceland, 177 legal protections for, 3 in Norway, 106–107, 109

See also Mother-tongue instruction; specific languages Minority populations under Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 16–22, 25–28, 45 autonomy for, 2 under European Framework Convention on National Minorities, 2 immigrant groups as distinct from, 2 refugees as distinct from, 2 in Scandinavian countries, 2 See also Immigrant groups Minority students under Education Act (Sweden), 32–33, 47 See also Minority languages Morocco, immigrants from, in Norway, 120 Mother-tongue instruction Danish language and, 87 in Denmark, 85–88, 96 under Education Act (Sweden), 31 Finnish language and, 40–41, 48–49 in Iceland, 195–196 in Meänkieli language, 40–41 in Norway, 147–149 in Romani Chib language, 40–41, 48–49 in Sámi language (Sweden), 40–41, 48–49 in Sweden, 39–41, 47–49 in Yiddish language, 40–41

 Index 

Multilingualism, in Faroe Islands, 231–233 Muslim immigrants, in Denmark, 62, 65–66 N

National Compromise, in Denmark, 71 Nationalism in Faroe Islands, 233 linguistic, 207–208 Naturalization policies in Denmark, 66, 72–73 in Norway, 124 New to the Faroe Islands Handbook, 228 Norse Vikings, in Faroe Islands, 219–220 Norway, language rights and law in, 267–268 Action Plan for the Immigrant Population, 122 Act of Parliament, 220 Arabic language use and, 149, 160 bilingualism and, 158–159 Black Death in, 105 as ‘book language’ in Norway, 106 Christianization of, 105 for citizenship, 123–124 in court systems, 125–134 Danish language use in, 105–106 for deaf and hard of hearing persons, 132–133 for deaf and hard of hearing students, 140–141 Denmark and, 105–106, 171 Education Act, 142–149, 156–158

289

in educational institutions, 139–152 European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages and, 2, 109, 160 European Framework Convention on National Minorities and, 2 Finnish language use in, 144 foreign workers in, 135 Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 139–152, 155–156 Haakon VI, 172 in health care system, 125–134 in higher education, 107, 150–152, 158–159 immigrants in Faroe Islands, 226 in immigration policy, 120–124 immigration population in, 120–121 Interpretation Act, 133–134 Introduction Act, 122–123 Iraqi immigrants in, 121 in Kalmar Union, 59 under Language Act, 112–120, 136–139 Language Council of Norway, 116 language policy in, 2 language proficiency tests, 124–125, 136–137 legislation for, 112–120 for linguistic minorities, 106–107, 109 Moroccan immigrants in, 120 mother-tongue instruction and, 147–149 for naturalization, 124 Nordic Labour Journal, 231

290 Index

Norway, language rights and law in (cont.) under Norwegian Constitution, 120 Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act, 154–155 in Norwegian media, 111–112 Norwegian Sign Language, 106–107, 141–144, 152–153, 156–160 Pakistani immigrants in, 120 parallelingualism and, 149–150, 159 parallel language, 115 Patients’ Rights Act, 126–132, 153–154 Polish language use and, 149, 160 preschool education and, 107, 139–142 in primary education, 141–142 for residency, 123–124 Sámi Act, 116–120, 125 Sámi mission and, 109 in secondary education, 141–142, 146–147 Sweden and, 171 Turkish immigrants in, 120 University of Tromsø, 6, 107, 151–152, 159, 268 in workplace, 107, 134–139 writing competence requirements, 115 See also Kven language; Romanes language; Romani language; Sámi language, in Norway Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act (2015), 154–155 Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, 135–136

Norwegian language, use of in educational contexts, 107 under Language Act (Norway), 112, 114 in Sweden, 44, 49–50 Norwegian Sign Language, 106–107, 141–144, 152–3, 156–60 Nuuk Transport, in Greenland, 254–255 Nynorsk language, in Norway, 113–115 O

OECD, see Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Old, Henrik, 231 Old Icelandic sagas, 171 Ordinance on the Curriculum for the Preschool of 2018 (Sweden), 29 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 88–90 P

Pakistan, immigrants from, in Norway, 120 Parallelingualism, in Norway, 149–150, 159 Parallel language in Denmark, 92 in Norway, 115 in Sweden, 42 Parliamentary laws Act of Parliament (Norway), 220 in Greenland, 256–257

 Index 

in Iceland, 171–172, 175 Norwegian Act of Parliament, 220 Swedish language under, 16 Patients’ Rights Act, Iceland (1997), 190–191 Patients’ Rights Act, Norway (1999), 126–127, 131, 153–154 deaf and hard of hearing persons under, 132 Sámi language (Norway) under, 128–130 Philippines, immigrants from in Faroe Islands, 226 in Iceland, 173, 180 Poland, immigrants from, in Faroe Islands, 226 Polish language, use of in Faroe Islands, 232 in Iceland, 180 in Norway, 149, 160 Political parties in Denmark, 74, 87 in Greenland, 242 in Iceland, 184 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), 72–73 Preschool Act, Iceland (2008), 194–196, 210 Preschool education, language rights and in Denmark, 82–83, 85 under Education Act (Sweden), 28, 46 in Iceland, 193–196 in Norway, 107, 139–142 under Preschool Act (Iceland), 194–196, 210 Primary school education, language rights and

291

in Denmark, 84–85 under Education Act (Sweden), 31–32 in Faroe Islands, 233–234 in Greenland, 256–257, 260–261 in Norway, 141–142 Procedural codes Code of Civil Procedure (Iceland), 179, 189 Code of Criminal Procedure (Iceland), 179, 189 Danish Procedural Code, 229 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 26–27, 45 Protestantism, in Iceland, 170 PTSD, see Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Public School Act, Denmark (2007), 85 Public sector languages, in Sweden, 25–28 R

Rasmussen, Anders Fogh, 68 Reformation Period, 222 Refugees in Denmark, 83 in Iceland, 180–181 minority populations as distinct from, 2 in Sweden, 22–23 from Venezuela, 180 Religion, see Christianity; Lutheran Reformation; Protestantism Residency policies in Denmark, 73 in Norway, 123–124 Ribbenvik, Mikael, 23

292 Index

Roma language, in Norway, 112–113 Romanes language, in Norway, 106, 109, 153 Romania, immigrants from, 226 Romani Chib language, in Sweden estimated population of speakers, 16–17 mother-tongue instruction in, 40–41, 48–49 recognition as official language, 12, 16, 51 in Sweden, 11–14 Romani language, in Norway, 106, 109, 153 under Language Act, 112–113 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 173 Russian language, use of, in Faroe Islands, 232 S

Sámi Act, Norway (1987), 116, 125–126 judicial systems under, 118–119 in public administrative bodies, 117–118 public health information under, 119 public instruction under, 119–120 translation requirements under, 117 Sámi language, in Norway definitions of, 116–117, 125 in educational contexts, 107, 110 in educational institutions, 139–140 under Framework Plan for Kindergartens, 139

in higher education, 150–152 under Language Act (Norway), 112 under Norwegian Constitution, 120 Norwegianization of, 110 under Patients’ Rights Act, 126–132 restrictive legislation against, 109–110 under Sámi Act, 116–120, 125–126 Sámi language, in Sweden under Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 17–22 administrative area for, 18 estimated population of speakers, 16–17 in legal documentation, 25–28 mother-tongue instruction in, 40–41, 48–49 recognition as official language, 12, 16 in Sweden, 11–14 Sámi mission, in Norway, 109 Sámi peoples, in Scandinavia, as Indigenous group, 11 Scandinavian countries codification of constitutions in, 3 future research on, 265–272 jurisprudence traditions in, 3 language recognition claims in, 1 majority languages in, 1 minority languages in, 1 Sámi peoples in, 11 See also specific countries Secondary education, language rights in

 Index 

under Compulsory School Act, 196–198, 200, 210 under Education Act (Denmark), 234 under Education Act (Norway), 142–149, 156–158 under Education Act (Sweden), 13, 28–34, 45–47 in Faroe Islands, 233 Faroese Folk High School, 233 in Greenland, 256–257, 260–261, 263 under Greenland Primary and Lower Secondary School Act, 257 in Iceland, 199–201 in Norway, 141–142, 146–147 under Public School Act, 85 under School Ordinance of 2011 (Sweden), 13, 33 Tórshavn school, 233 under Upper Secondary Act, 199–201 upper secondary education, 34, 199–201, 210 Second Schleswig War, in Denmark, 61 Self-government Commission on Self-­ Governance, 247 in Greenland, 242 Self-Government Act, Greenland (2009), 243–244, 248–249, 251 Sign languages under Act on the Status of Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language of 2011, 176–179, 182, 188–190, 193, 198, 210

293

Finnish Sign Language, 272 Icelandic Sign Language, 176–179, 182, 188–190, 193, 198, 210 Norwegian Sign Language, 106–107, 141–144, 152–153, 156–160 Swedish Sign Language, 13, 34–39 Stockfleth, N. V., 109 Students, see Deaf or hard of hearing students; Minority students Sweden, language rights and law in, 265–266 after accession to European Union, 11 Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages, 16–22, 25–28, 45 Administrative Procedure Act, 45 Arabic language use in, 50 bilingualism in, 13, 15–16, 35, 46 for citizenship, 24 Citizenship Act of 2001, 24 Danish language use in, 44, 49–50 for deaf or hard of hearing students, 34–39, 46–47 Denmark and, 171 Education Act, 13, 28–32, 45–46 in educational contexts, 13–14, 28–44 emigration to Faroe Islands, 226 English as majority language, 13 European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages and, 2, 11–12, 16, 50 European Framework Convention on National Minorities and, 2

294 Index

Sweden, language rights and law in (cont.) German language use in, 49 in higher education, 13–14, 41–43 House of Vasa and, 59 imbalance for language rights in, 12–13 immigrant languages in, 11 immigrant population demographics, 23–24 for immigration policy, 22–25 immigration requirements in, 13 in Kalmar Union, 59 Karl Gustav Wars and, 60 lack of cultural diversity in, 22 Language Act, 14–17, 25, 41, 49 language in public sector, 25–28 language policy in, 2 in legal courts, 25–28 in legislation contexts, 22–25 for mother-tongue instruction, 39–41, 47–49 under National Courts Administration guidelines, 27–28 Norway and, 171 Norwegian language use in, 44, 49–50 Ordinance on Authorization of Interpreters and Translators, 27 parallel language use in, 42 recognition by Parliament, 16 refugee emigration to, 22–23 School Ordinance of 2011, 13, 33 Swedish as principle language, 13–14

Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 26–27, 45 Swedish Sign Language, 13, 34–39 Syrian immigrants in, 23 Torstensson’s War and, 60 Ukrainian immigrants in, 23 in upper secondary education, 34 See also Finnish language; Meänkieli language; Romani Chib language; Sámi language, in Sweden; Yiddish language Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 26–27, 45 Swedish language, use of in administrative contexts, 14, 41 as principle language in Sweden, 13–14 promotion under Education Act, 30–31 use in public sector, 13, 15 Swedish Sign Language, 13, 34–39 Syria, immigrants from, in Sweden, 23 T

Tagalog language, use of, in Iceland, 180 Thailand, immigrants from, 226 Thuesen, Frederick, 80–81 Tórshavn school, in Faroe Islands, 233 Torstensson’s War, 60 Turkey, immigrants from, in Norway, 120 Twin-Kingdoms, of Denmark and Norway, 59–60

 Index  U

Ukraine, immigrants from, in Sweden, 23 United States (U.S.) Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78–80 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 79–81 workplace discrimination protections in, 78–80 University of Bergen, 150 University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 91–94, 233 University of Faroe Islands, 235–236, 238 University of Greenland, 259–261 University of Iceland, 174–175, 201–208 University of Tromsø, 6, 107, 151–152, 159, 268 Upper Secondary Act, Iceland (2008), 199–201, 210 Upper secondary education in Iceland, 199–201, 210 in Sweden, 34 U.S., See United States V

Venezuela, refugees from, 180 Viking Age, 169–170 Faroe Islands and, 219–220 W

Wilson, Woodrow, 172 Workplace, language rights in Act on the Board of Equal Treatment, 75, 78, 81

295

Board of Equal Treatment (Denmark), 75–76, 78, 80–81, 232 under Consolidation Act on Prohibition of Discrimination in the Labour Market, 75–78, 81 in Denmark, 75–82 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (U.S.), 79–81 under Equal Treatment in the Workplace Act, 80–81 in Faroe Islands, 231–233 for foreign workers in Norway, 135 in Greenland, 250, 254–256 under Language Act (Norway), 136–139 Nordic Labour Journal, 231 in Norway, 107, 134–139 Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, 135–136 by size of company, 137–138 in U.S., 78–80 World Bank, 258–259 World War II Faroe Islands during, 220 Iceland during, 172–173 Writing competency, language rights and, in Norway, 115 Y

Ygeman, Anders, 23 Yiddish language mother-tongue instruction in, 40–41 recognition as official language, 12, 16, 51 in Sweden, 11–14