ECMI Minorities Blog. The Role of Discourse in Language Recognition: The Case of Elfdalian in Sweden
*** The blog posts are prepared by the authors in their personal capacity. The views expressed in the blog posts are the sole responsibility of the authors concerned and do not necessarily reflect the view of the European Centre for Minority Issues. ***
Author: Willem Adriaan Cornelis Koen | https://doi.org/10.53779/AXNL2236
* Willem A. C. Koen is currently writing his master’s thesis in European Studies at Aarhus University. He concluded his bachelor’s degree in Japanese at Lund University. Academic areas of interest include linguistics, history, area and heritage studies, especially in Northern Europe and Japan. After completing his master’s degree, he intends to pursue doctoral studies. During his internship at the ECMI, he wrote an article that forms the basis of this blogpost. Please feel free to send any feedback to 202302087@post.au.dk.
Elfdalian in Sweden
Despite conjuring up images of Tolkienesque fantasy stories, much more lies behind the stereotypical images that the internet conveys on this ‘hidden Viking forest language’. Last year, Ulum Dalska, the local grassroots organisation advocating for language recognition since 1984 whose name means 'Let’s Speak Elfdalian’, celebrated its 40th anniversary. Never have they been closer to their goal than they are now. Rising international interest has ignited lively discussions in the Swedish parliament on whether to add Elfdalian to Sweden’s list of recognised minority languages.
Determining how the overall debate is shaped will shed light on the extent its discourse affects the recognition process and in which ways the situation might develop. By analysing discourse and framing in parliamentary initiatives, themes amongst local advocates and argumentative patterns of governmental sources, as well as the dynamic between them, this study explores which areas of conflict arise and whether these have stood in the way of recognition for Elfdalian. This study makes use of all parliamentary initiatives between 2005 and August 2024, as well as six interviews I conducted with leading local language advocates during the summer of 2024. The study finds that a discursive deadlock between local advocates and the government’s interpretations of official language status may constitute an obstacle for full recognition. Finally, it proposes two ways forward out of this deadlock.
The remote western reaches of central Sweden are home to Elfdalian, part of the so-called Dalecarlian vernaculars and spoken by up to 3,000 people. This peripheral dialectal continuum has birthed vernaculars that retain such remarkably conservative and innovative linguistic features that many specialists treat them as separate languages. The area surrounding Älvdalen is home to Elfdalian, which retains the largest number of speakers of all remaining Dalecarlian vernaculars and stands out with its unique characteristics. For example, out of all surviving Germanic linguistic varieties Elfdalian is the last that retains nasalised vowels, suggesting that it branched off from Old East Norse more than 700 years ago.
Runic inscriptions and past studies show that Elfdalian evolved more or less independently well into the 20th century, until factors like increased popular mobility and state-driven policymaking precipitated dialectal levelling nationwide. Knowledge of Elfdalian plummeted and a 2008 survey shows that a mere third of the community still displayed proficiency. This decline slowed in recent years and support for the preservation of Elfdalian rose sharply. Now, Elfdalian enjoys quasi-recognition by the municipality, and it is firmly rooted in Älvdalen’s linguistic and cultural landscape. Revitalisation projects have increased the prestige of Elfdalian and boosted interest amongst younger people. Nevertheless, concerns such as the aging of the core speaker base and the rapid approximation to standard Swedish amongst younger generations remain. Added to this precarious sociolinguistic situation is Sweden’s enduring reluctance to recognise Elfdalian.
Before ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) in 2000, Sweden ordered a specialist-led minority language committee to determine what languages were to be included. This committee categorised Elfdalian as a so-called folkmål (whereas this term literally means ‘folk vernacular’ or ‘folk speech’, this text will italicise folkmål due to the weight it carries in the discussion and the inadequacy of the English translation). It argued against including such folkmål into Sweden’s new law on minority and regional languages, because, it explained, folkmål would not profit from increased usage in public and administrative spheres. Sweden instead opted to recognise Sámi, Finnish, and Meänkieli as co-official languages in selected municipalities, as well as Yiddish and Romani as non-territorial minority languages.
Post-ratification, the Elfdalian speaker community embarked upon aproject that included some degree of linguistic standardisation, the creation of extracurricular courses for schoolchildren, and language conferences in cooperation with the municipality and academia. This buoyed domestic and international support. Key were the recommendations and demands from the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Committee of Experts on the ECRML. Suggestions for status reassessment surfaced already since 2011, but the CoE’s classification of Elfdalian as a language in 2020 invigorated an already growing and unprecedented parliamentary debate on Elfdalian recognition. This debate allows for a discursive analysis into how definitions of language, identity, and sociolinguistics play out in higher politics and in what ways the parliamentary dimension relates to attitudes of the speaker community and the government’s position.
Recognition Discourse
Part I: Discourse and Framing in Parliament
From 2005 up to 2024, the Swedish parliament saw 36 motions, three written questions, and two interpellations that addressed Elfdalian recognition. Of these 41 parliamentary initiatives, most date from after 2015 and the yearly numbers have been gradually increasing, hinting at rising political interest. This section maps these initiatives and applies discursive framing analysis to determine which aspects are highlighted in this parliamentary debate and by whom.
Overall, two thirds of the initiatives came from members of parliament (MPs) from the Centre Party and Sweden Democrats. As international attention grew, MPs of all major parties took an interest, with those from the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats tabling more initiatives in recent years. Apart from the Left Party and Christian Democrats, no party took an official stance in the matter, limiting the number of motions to MPs’ individual political interests and priorities.
Nevertheless, the wide spectrum of political movements represented through the initiatives hint at broad ideological support that allows comparative analysis into how MPs from different parties frame the issue. While analysing the parliamentary initiatives, I differentiated eight mutually compatible framing techniques, the most prominent of which are discussed below. The overall spread of these is relatively even in all 41 initiatives, but interesting differences reveal themselves when dividing the initiatives along party lines.
For instance, it becomes apparent that MPs from the Centre Party – and to a lesser extent the Christian Democrats – tend to emphasise the CoE’s role more frequently than the others. The role of the CoE shapes 35% of the Centre Party’s and 26% of the Christian Democrats’ framing tendencies. This contrasts starkly to 6% amongst the Social Democrats and Sweden Democrats. MPs from the Christian Democrats also tend to highlight Elfdalian’s de facto status as a local language much more than any other party. On the other hand, the Sweden Democrats predominately frame Elfdalian as being a language through distinction due to its perceived ancientness and therefore as a worthy part of Swedish cultural heritage. Statements classifying Elfdalian’s grammar as ‘from the Viking Age’ define the discourse. In agreement with the populist counterhegemonic colouration familiar to that party, framing tendencies by MPs from the Sweden Democrats stand in stark contrast to those of other parties. Finally, though MPs from the Social Democrats were inactive for much of the debate, their focus on including it in school curricula and fulfilling existing legal standards for speakers of different languages stand at the forefront. Nearly 60% of all frames utilised by MPs from the Social Democrats focus on this human or language rights dimension. In summary, there is no unitary form to present a case for Elfdalian recognition and MPs from all parties do so differently.
Moreover, when subdividing framing techniques into the general discussion of what constitutes a language, it becomes clear that most of the discussion revolves around this issue. In fact, up to three-quarters of all frames do so, albeit from different angles. This means that only 25% of the total frames address practical issues like language and human rights.
Part II: Themes amongst Local Language Advocates
All interviewees cited the urgent need for revitalising a rules-bound form of Elfdalian in order to reverse certain effects of approximation to Swedish and increase proficiency amongst members of younger generations. The work needed for realising this important objective depends on a wide range of available funding opportunities, which was the second main theme of the interviews. Here, participants described the continued dependence on domestic short-term project funding schemes as a liability to the long-term efforts needed for successful revitalisation. Other major reasons for recognition given by the participants are the symbolic meaning such an act would have for amending the injustices committed against speakers of Elfdalian (who were forbidden from speaking or learning their language) and the preservation of the Elfdalian language as a celebration and acknowledgement of its uniqueness. In summary, desires of the speaker community and demands for recognition revolve around securing more funding opportunities, amending historical injustices, and supporting Elfdalian’s exceptionalism through facilitating revitalisation efforts.
The specificities remain indistinct amongst those participants who addressed what form of recognition they desired. However, all agreed that there was no aspiration to conduct official communication with the authorities in Elfdalian, such as in courts. Instead, any form of recognition that would empower the language community in such a way that it can continue its current revitalisation trajectory is deemed to suffice.
Part III: The Government’s Argumentative Patterns and Discourse
In spite of voicing support for the preservation and revitalisation of Elfdalian, the Swedish governments has rejected all initiatives for recognition since 2005. An analysis of parliamentary interpellations and reports drawn by the Committee on the Constitution reveals a selection of argumentative and discursive patterns that revolve around three focal points.
Firstly, the government stresses the non-binding nature of the CoE’s recommendations and signatories’ right to choose which languages to protect under the ECRML. Secondly, the government uses the 1997 Minority Language Committee’s findings as the foundation of its current legal framework on minority languages up to this day. Thirdly, with reference to the upward trend that Elfdalian is experiencing and the support it receives from the municipality and existing Swedish funding sources, the government argues that current legal realities suffice for revitalising the language.
Discursively, governmental communications show a clear break with those from the parliament or local advocates because of their frequent usage of the term folkmål. Lacking a legal or even a clear linguistic definition, the term appears freely and in contradiction to other governmental communications, sometimes appearing as a separate category and sometimes synonymous to dialects.
Areas of Discursive Conflict
When viewing the discussion of Elfdalian recognition in its entirety, two areas of conflict arise. Firstly, this discussion inevitably bogs down in the subjective nature of what a language is, especially when the government describes Elfdalian as a folkmål. Despite the term’s prevalence in governmental communications, neither parliamentary initiatives nor the local advocates use it. The term’s legal and social ambiguity frustrates constructive dialogue and creates discursive conflict. This ambiguity becomes especially problematic when considering that most of the parliamentary debate is about this very issue. Clarity on what the government understands by folkmål and a shift away from the subjective and partial nature in which the language is discussed are therefore crucial to better dialogue. A more facts-based approach, which includes central themes important to local advocates and the speaker community as a whole, might prove constructive for future discourse in parliament.
The second area of conflict is the different definitions of what recognition entails. The local advocates’ specific wish for recognition and the nature of the government’s policy position on minority languages are incompatible. The minority language committee’s conclusion that the purpose of Swedish minority language law primarily consists of using these languages in administrative, public, and official domains goes against the local advocates’ assurances that they, in fact, do not desire such rights. Whereas both groups address the matter of recognition, they have different understandings of what this comprises.
Discussion & Future Outlook
In conclusion, this blogpost has shown how the term folkmål beclouds the language debate on Elfdalian and how incompatible interpretations of what recognition means generate discursive conflict. Adding to this the current legal realities, the government’s position has – and continues to be – legally tenable vis-à-vis Elfdalian. With this in mind, I sketch two possible scenarios going forward.
The first would be continuing current efforts to garner popular – and increasingly official and international – support, as well as revitalising Elfdalian within the existing legal realities whilst increasing pressure on the Swedish government to find a suitable form of recognition for Elfdalian within the framework of the ECRML. A formal legal definition of folkmål might prove helpful in such a case. This strategy has met success so far. Indeed, Elfdalian enjoys a unique allure like no other existing minority language in Sweden, and local enthusiasm is growing.
Another possibility would entail working with the existing laws on minority languages and adapting calls for recognition to the current legal realities as they are in Sweden, meaning that Elfdalian would become a co-official language in the Municipality of Älvdalen alongside Swedish and Sámi. Independent advocates for recognition often refer to Meänkieli, due to its sociolinguistic similarities with Elfdalian. The model of Meänkieli is interesting for advocates of Elfdalian recognition, because, similarly to the situation between Elfdalian and Swedish, Meänkieli was once thought of as nothing more than a variant of Finnish. However, it now enjoys full recognition as a minority language and co-official status in five municipalities. Even though the legal realities of full recognition as a regional minority language are not entirely in line with the wishes of the speaker community, such an approach might shift the discourse of the discussion surrounding ‘recognition’ by setting a precedent and generating leeway for negotiations.
Either way, the beleaguered sociolinguistic situation that Elfdalian finds itself in would greatly benefit from any form of recognition in which the needs mentioned by the interviewees could be met. Ultimately, the aims of recognition and the role it will play in the revitalisation of Elfdalian remain first and foremost to be determined by the speaker community.
***
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I kindly thank Yair Sapir, Ing-Marie Bergman, Björn Rhenström, Ulla Schütt, Peter Egardt, and Emil Andersson for their time and invaluable contributions.
