Promotion in times of endangerment: the Sign Language Act in Finland

Abstract

The development of sign language recognition legislation is a relatively recent phenomenon in the field of language policy. So far only few authors have documented signing communities’ aspirations for recognition legislation, how they work with their governments to achieve legislation which most reflects these goals, and whether and why outcomes are successful. Indeed, from signing communities’ point of view, it appears most current legislation leaves much to be desired. One reason for this is the absence of language acquisition rights and the right to access services directly in sign language. This paper, through appealing to a critical language policy framework and employing principles of the ethnography of language policy, will illustrate this by critically analyzing the ambitions and motives, as expressed by the Finnish Association of the Deaf, for a Sign Language Act in Finland. It also compares the situation of signers in Finland with that of the Sámi, the other minority group mentioned in the constitution with designated language legislation. The findings suggest that the Act is innovative and internationally unique in different aspects but does not reflect FAD’s most important pursuits, and is very different from the Sámi Language Act. An exploration of the reasons behind this difference, which makes Finland’s sign languages both promoted and endangered, can make significant contributions to the field of sign language policy but also to the wider (critical) language policy field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2015/20150359.

  2. 2.

    Interviews were conducted in International Sign. Quotes provided in this article were translated by the author from International Sign to English.

  3. 3.

    http://www.kotus.fi/kielitieto/kielet.

  4. 4.

    K. Alanne, Director of FAD Development Department (personal communication, May 14, 2013).

  5. 5.

    M. Jokinen, FAD Executive Director (personal communication, May 3, 2012).

  6. 6.

    While this has rightly been criticized by FAD, compared to other European countries where many hearing parents do not receive sign language teaching at all, let alone at home free of charge, this situation is very progressive.

  7. 7.

    K. Alanne, Director of FAD Development Department (personal communication, April 19, 2012).

  8. 8.

    http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2014/02/12/passiv-assimileringspolitik.

  9. 9.

    http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/explore/projects/sign_languages_in_unesco_atlas_of_world_languages_in_danger.php.

  10. 10.

    Such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Finland is expected to ratify in 2016.

  11. 11.

    An authority is defined in the Act as courts and other authorities of the state, municipal authorities, independent public law institutions and bureaus of the Parliament. The Act would also pertain to other institutions managing public administration. Beside the state, government officials include municipalities, federations of municipalities, the province of Åland, the Evangelical-Lutheran church and other autonomous units as well as independent organisations of public administration such as the Social Insurance Institute and public law associations.

  12. 12.

    M. Soininen, Senior Officer at the Ministry of Justice (personal communication, April 9, 2015).

  13. 13.

    Meanwhile, the Finnish Government has established a sign language advisory working group to promote communication and information between key actors, monitor implementation of the Sign Language Act and draw up a report on the overall situation of FinSSL (http://www.oikeusministerio.fi/fi/index/valmisteilla/kehittamishankkeita/viittomakielenyhteistyoryhma.html).

  14. 14.

    M. Soininen, Senior Officer at the Ministry of Justice (personal communication, April 17, 2015).

  15. 15.

    http://www.kotus.fi/kielitieto/kielet/karjala#Karjalanpuhujatjakarjalankielenasema.

  16. 16.

    In the very same week as the Sign Language Act was approved, the Finnish Parliament rejected a law on the reform of the Sámi Parliament (and the definition of Sámi), which constitutes a serious violation of the Sámi’s right to self-determination—of which an important element is the right to define group membership.

  17. 17.

    A useful commentary about the tensions between top-down and bottom-up language planning efforts is noted in Gras (2008).

  18. 18.

    K. Alanne, Director of FAD Development Department (personal communication, April 19, 2012).

  19. 19.

    http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/explore/projects/multilingual_behaviours_sign_language_users.php.

References

  1. Bakker, P. (2001). Romani in Europe. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), The other languages of Europe (pp. 293–313). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Batterbury, S. (2014). Legal status for BSL and ISL (Discussion paper). http://www.bda.org.uk/News/155. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  3. Batterbury, S., Ladd, P., & Gulliver, M. (2007). Sign language peoples as indigenous minorities: Implications for research and policy. Environment and Planning, 39(12), 2899–2915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyes-Braem, P., & Rathmann, C. (2010). Transmission of sign languages in Northern Europe. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Cambridge language surveys: Sign languages (pp. 19–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bryan, A., & Emery, S. (2014). The case for deaf legal theory through the lens of deaf gain. In H.-D. L. Bauman & J. Murray (Eds.), Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity (pp. 37–62). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Conama, J. B. (2010). Finnish and Irish sign languages: An egalitarian analysis of language policies and their effects (Doctoral thesis, University College Dublin, Dublin). https://library.ucd.ie/iii/mobile/record/C__Rb1870441?lang=eng. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  7. De Meulder, M. (2015a). A barking dog that never bites? The British sign language (Scotland) bill. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 446–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Meulder, M. (2015b). The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. De Meulder, M. (2015c). Sign language recognition: tensions between specificity and universalism in international deaf discourses. In A. Kusters & M. Friedner (Eds.), It’s a small world. International deaf spaces and encounters (pp. 160–172). Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Emery, S. D. (2011). Citizenship and the deaf community. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finnish Government (2009). Report of the Government on the application of language legislation 2013. http://oikeusministerio.fi/material/attachments/om/julkaisut/6K2MUGLwd/language-legislation-2013.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  12. Finnish Government. (2013). Report of the Government on the application of language legislation 2013. http://www.oikeusministerio.fi/material/attachments/om/julkaisut/6K2MUGLwd/language-legislation-2013.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  13. Finnish Government. (2014a). Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle viittomakielilaiksi. Ensimmäinen käsittely. Hallituksen esitys HE 294/2014 vp. Perustuslakivaliokunnan mietintö PeVM 10/2014 vp [Government proposal to Parliament for a Sign Language Act. First reading. Government bill HE 294/2014 vp Constitutional Law Committee report 10/2014 vp.]. https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/Vaski/sivut/trip.aspx?triptype=ValtiopaivaAsiakirjat&docid=ptk+167/2014#KOHTA2. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  14. Finnish Government. (2014b). Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle viittomakielilaiksi [Government proposal to Parliament for a Sign Language Act] (HE 294/2014 vp). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2014/20140294. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  15. Gras, Victòria. (2008). Can signed language be planned? Implications for interpretation in Spain. In C. Plaza-Pust & E. Morales-López (Eds.), Sign Bilingualism: Language development, interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations (pp. 165–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hedren, J., Hoyer, K., Londen, M., Wenman, L., Westerholm, H., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Finlandssvenska teckenspråkiga i dag. In J.-O. Östman (Ed.), Nordica Helsingiensia no. 4. FinSSL, finlandssvenskt teckenspråk (pp. 113–122). Helsingfors: Nordica.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., & Smith, S. R. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9, 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ihalainen, P., & Saarinen, T. (2014). 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. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Johnston, T. (2006). W(h)ither the deaf community? Population, genetics, and the future of Australian sign language. Sign Language Studies, 6(2), 137–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jokinen, M. (2000). Kuurojen oma maailma—kuurous kielenä ja kulttuurina. In A. Malm (Ed.), Viittomakieliset Suomessa [Sign Language users in Finland] (pp. 79–101). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jokinen, M. (2001). “The Sign Language Person”—A term to describe us and our future more clearly? In L. Leeson (Ed.), Looking forward: EUD in the 3 rd millenniumThe deaf citizen in the 21st century. Proceedings of a conference to celebrate 15 years of the European Union of the deaf (pp. 50–63). Gloucestershire: Douglas McLean Publishing.

  22. Jokinen, M. (2005). Deaf community in a rapidly changing world. PowerPoint presentation at NAD Forum, Latvia, 19 May–21 May 2005.

  23. Krausneker, V. (2000). Sign Languages and the Minority Language Policy of the European Union. In M. Metzger (Ed.), Bilingualism & identity in deaf communities (Vol. 6, pp. 142–158). Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Krausneker, V. (2009). On the legal status of sign languages: A commented compilation of resources. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 351–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., Friedner, M. & Emery, S. (2015). On “diversity” and “inclusion”: exploring paradigms for achieving Sign Language Peoples’ rights (MMG Working Paper 15-02). http://www.mmg.mpg.de/publications/working-papers/2015/wp-15-02/. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  26. Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A. (2003). Language rights and political theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics and the deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Latomaa, S., & Nuolijärvi, P. (2002). The language situation in Finland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 3(2), 95–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Latomaa, S., & Nuolijärvi, P. (2005). The Language Situation in Finland. In R. B. Kaplan & R. B. Baldauf (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 125–232)., Hungary, Finland and Sweden Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Locker McKee, R. (2008). The construction of deaf children as marginal bilinguals in the mainstream. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(5), 519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Locker McKee, R., & Manning, V. (2015). Effects of language planning and policy on language rights and the vitality of New Zealand sign language. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 473–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. May, S. (2011). Language and minority rights. Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd ed.). Routledge: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McCarty, T. L. (Ed.). (2010). Ethnography and language policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McKee, R. (2006). The eyes have it! Our third official language—New Zealand sign language. Journal of New Zealand Studies, 45, 129–148. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/jnzs/index Accessed January 28, 2016.

  36. McKee, R. (2011). Action pending: Four years on from the New Zealand Sign Language Act. VUW Law Review, 42(2), 277–298. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  37. Minde, H. (2005). Assimilation of the Sami—Implementation and consequences. Acta Borealia, 20(2), 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mitchell, R. E., Young, T. A., Bachleda, B., & Karchmer, M. A. (2006). How many people use ASL in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign Language Studies, 6(3), 306–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murray, J. (2015). Linguistic human rights discourses in deaf community activism. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 379–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ó Flatharta, P., Sandberg, S., & Williams, C. (2013). From act to action: Implementing language legislation in Finland, Ireland and Wales. Dublin City University. http://doras.dcu.ie/19655/. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  42. Punch, R., & Hyde, M. B. (2011). Communication, psychosocial, and educational outcomes of children with cochlear implants and challenges remaining for professionals and parents. International Journal of Otolaryngology, 4, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Quer, J. (2012). Legal pathways to the recognition of sign languages: A comparison of the Catalan and Spanish sign language acts. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 565–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reagan, T. (2006). Language policy and sign languages. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy. Theory and method (pp. 329–345). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Reagan, T. (2010). Language policy and planning for sign languages (Vol. 16). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Reffell, H., & Locker McKee, R. (2009). Motives and outcomes of New Zealand sign language legislation: a comparative study between New Zealand and Finland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Salmi, E. (2010). Linguistic turns in teaching of the deaf in Finland. HUMAK University of Applied Sciences.

  48. Salmi, E., & Laakso, M. (2005). Maahan lämpimään. Suomen viittomakielisten historia [To the Warm Earth. A History of Sign Language Users in Finland]. Kuurojen Liitto Ry.

  49. Saukkonen, P. (2012). The Finnish paradox: Language and politics in Finland (RECODE working paper series. Online working paper no. 5). http://www.recode.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Saukkonen-Pasi-2012-RECODE.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  50. Saukkonen, P. (2013). Multiculturalism and cultural policy in Northern Europe. Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift, 16(2), 178–200.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Saukkonen, P., & Pyykkönen, M. (2008). Cultural policy and cultural diversity in Finland. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(1), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights?. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010). Language rights. In J. Jaspers, J-O Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatic highlights. Society and Language Use (Vol. 7, pp. 212–232). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  54. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Aikio-Puoskari, U. (2003). Exclusion or inclusion—linguistic human rights for a linguistic minority, the deaf sign language users, and an indigenous people, the Saami. In P. Lee (Ed.), Many voices, one vision: The right to communicate in practice (pp. 59–88). London: Southbound.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Statistics Finland (2014a). Appendix figure 4. Country of birth, citizenship and mother tongue of the population 31.12.2013. http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/vaerak/2013/vaerak_2013_2014-03-21_kuv_004_en.html. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  56. Statistics Finland (2014b). Foreign-language speakers account for 90 per cent of the population growth in 2013. http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/vaerak/2013/vaerak_2013_2014-03-21_tie_001_en.html. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  57. Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. In Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.

  58. Suomen viittomakielten kielipoliittinen ohjelma. (2010). [The Language Policy Programme for the National Sign Languages in Finland] Helsinki: Kuurojen Liitto ry & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. http://www.kotus.fi/index.phtml?s=3834. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  59. Takkinen, R. (2012). Two Languages in the Lives of Children Using a Cochlear Implant: A Multiple Case Study. In L. Leeson & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Working with the deaf community education, mental health and interpreting (pp. 69–87). Interesource Group Publishing: Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Takkinen, R., Jantunen, T., & Ahonen, O. (2015). Finnish sign language. In J. Bakken Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. LutaloKiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world (pp. 1–19). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tallroth, P. (2012). Multilingualism in Finland: A legal perspective. Language & law, 1. Advance online publication. http://www.languageandlaw.de/volume-1/3339. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  62. Tapio, E., & Takkinen, R. (2012). When one of your languages is not recognised as a language at all. In J. Blommaert, S. Leppänen, P. Pahta, & T. Räisänen (Eds.), Dangerous multilingualism—Northern perspectives to order, purity and normality (pp. 284–308). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Tervoort, B. (1953). Structurele analyse van visueel taalgebruik binnen een groep dove kinderen [Structural analysis of visual language use within a group of deaf children]. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeverij.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Torikka, M. (2003). Karjala. Kielikello, 1/2003. http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=1404. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  66. Wang, X., Spotti, M., Juffermans, K., Cornips, L., Kroon, S., & Blommaert, J. (2014). Globalization in the margins: toward a re-evalution of language and mobility. Applied Linguistics Review, 5(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wheatley, M., & Pabsch, A. (2012). Sign language legislation in the European Union (2nd ed.). Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wheeler, A., Archbold, S. M., Hardie, T., & Watson, L. M. (2009). Children with cochlear implants: The communication journey. Cochlear Implants International, 10(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wilcox, S., Krausneker, V., & Armstrong, D. (2012). Language Policies and the Deaf Community. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 374–395). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Williams, C. H. (2013). Minority language promotion. Protection and regulation. The mask of piety. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  71. World Federation of the Deaf and European Union of the Deaf (2015). Submission to the Day of General Discussion on the right to education for persons with disabilities [White paper]. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/DGDontherighttoeducationforpersonswithdisabilities.aspx. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  72. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I give special thanks to the (former) staff of the Finnish Association of the Deaf, especially Kaisa Alanne, Markku Jokinen, Liisa Kauppinen, Karin Hoyer, Virpi Thurén and Seppo Pukko for sharing their perspectives with me. I would like to thank John Bosco Conama, Verena Krausneker, Paddy Ladd, Ritva Takkinen and Luk Van Mensel for their very useful comments on earlier drafts of this article. I also thank the two anonymous reviewers from Language Policy and the University of Jyvaskyla for providing translation of documents in Finnish.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maartje De Meulder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Meulder, M. Promotion in times of endangerment: the Sign Language Act in Finland. Lang Policy 16, 189–208 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9403-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sign language legislation
  • Sign language planning and policy
  • Finland
  • Critical language policy