Keywords

3.1 Introduction

From the global perspective, Finland is geographically located in the Far North, on the outskirts of global hubs. Despite this location, processes of globalisation, digitalisation, and migration enable people living in the North to establish transnational networks, contacts, and relations across traditional borders. Finland’s multilingualism is reflected on both individual and societal levels (Blommaert et al., 2012). Having contacts between people from different linguacultural backgrounds is common, the population in Finland is becoming increasingly multicultural, and people are exposed to and need to master different languages in various domains of life (e.g., Karlsson, 2017). For example, in many working life sectors and in higher education, people need knowledge of not only the majority national language, Finnish, but also other languages. Most often the main other language needed is the global lingua franca, English, which is also the foreign language that most pupils in Finland choose to study (Hakulinen et al., 2009; Leppänen et al., 2011; Statistics Finland, 2019). As a result of the multilingualism of Finnish society, education is influenced by multilingualism, too (Szabó et al., 2021). This is apparent in the multicultural backgrounds of the pupils and manifests in the foreign language learning domain and in Finnish pupils’ learning of foreign languages, both compulsorily and voluntarily. Optional language learning (Kangasvieri, 2019) refers to the learning of those foreign languages that are offered by schools, but which are not compulsory subjects (hence excluding Finnish, Swedish, the Saami languages of Finland, and Finnish Sign Language). Additional language learning is a related concept, and it has been used to refer to the learning of language in later years, such as adulthood (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this chapter, additional language learning is used to refer to both situations: optional language learning in basic education and additional language learning in adulthood.

Even though most Finnish schools offer foreign languages in their curricula, Finns’ investment in additional language learning has decreased over the years, and this presents itself as a societal problem because the language reservoir of Finns has started to deteriorate (Pyykkö, 2017). Various reasons have been attributed to the decreasing interest in additional language learning in research and public discussion. One major reason lies in the status of the English language as a global lingua franca which has dominated education in foreign language learning to the extent that fewer individuals choose to learn other foreign languages (Pyykkö, 2017). Research also shows that pupils tend to be more motivated to study English, the compulsory language, rather than optional languages (Kangasvieri, 2019). The language proficiency of Finns is a common topic in public discussion and in the media where one perspective argues that English is enough to build and maintain contacts with people from different linguacultural backgrounds. A counter-perspective highlights the value of multilingualism and knowledge of multiple languages as fostering intercultural understanding and, for example, enabling closing business deals more effectively than with the use of English as a lingua franca (Confederation of Finnish Industries, 2014a, 2014b). Although English is the most common language pupils choose to learn, many individuals do have an aspiration to learn additional languages and want to invest in language learning. However, the possibilities to pursue these additional language learning aspirations may be limited due to various reasons. From the individual point of view, this creates tensions and difficult choices that affect one’s entire life span and future. Although an individual may be interested in and may have started to learn a language, they encounter a structural barrier that prevents them from pursuing their aspirations. These barriers are not only individual-level problems but also societal problems (the deterioration of Finland’s language reservoir, cf. Pyykkö, 2017) which should be considered in the design and development of foreign language education and language policies across different levels. This chapter addresses these problems and aims to find out how individuals, namely higher education students with several years of educational background, talk about their investment in additional language learning in the past, present, and future and the possibilities and constraints they encounter in language learning. This knowledge sheds light on the discursive construction of additional language learning in Finland and further adds to our understanding of the dialectal relationship between individual (micro) and contextual (macro) practices that socially construct our society (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

In order to link the micro and the macro to further our understanding of discourses of additional language learning in Finland, this chapter draws on recent sociolinguistic literature, including critical sociolinguistics (Heller et al., 2017) and the sociolinguistics of globalisation (Blommaert, 2010) as well as the concepts of scale (Canagarajah & De Costa, 2016), discourse (Blommaert, 2005; Gee, 1990, 2005), and investment (Norton, 1997; Darvin & Norton, 2015). In particular, this chapter investigates what kinds of discourses students of higher education draw on when talking about their investment in additional language learning and what scales are entangled with the discourses. In addition to being a category of analysis, scale should be seen as a category of practice, which means that scales emerge from people’s actual practices and orientations (Moore, 2008; Canagarajah & De Costa, 2016). Moreover, scales are in a dynamic relationship with one another and they can be redefined and renegotiated. For example, language policies permeate at national and local scales; practices on the local scalar level can contribute to practices on the national-level scale and vice versa (Canagarajah & De Costa, 2016). Scales can help understand discourses, that is, the ways of representing ideas about something, such as language learning (Gee, 1990, 2005) and learners’ commitment to language learning to achieve their aspirations (here referred to as investment, Darvin & Norton, 2015). The analysis in this chapter focuses on interviews of 18 higher education students coming from different parts of Finland and studying in various fields of technology, and it examines what kinds of scales are at play when individuals talk about foreign languages in general and their investment in additional language learning in particular. The chapter thus examines the role and meaning of languages for the individuals and the ways in which their talk about languages and the learning of them echoes different discourses and their associated scales. The chapter demonstrates how discourses of profit, drawing on neoliberal values of ‘skilling up the self’ (e.g., Allan, 2013; Urciuoli, 2008, 2010), are juxtaposed with discourses of personal growth, humanism, and motivation (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000; for L2 learning motivation, see e.g., Dörnyei 1994). The neoliberal principles of late capitalism that emphasise economic growth have permeated into individual lives in which individualistic, competitive, and entrepreneurial values are also driving forces in language learning (Flubacher & Del Percio, 2017; Salomone, 2022), and, as this chapter demonstrates, are part of the discursive construction of additional language learning in Finland. This chapter thus provides insights into how these discourses related to languages and multilingualism reflect and (re)create the context for linguistic encounters in the Far North.

The chapter begins with a review of the sociolinguistic discussion on language as a resource with value and the concept of investment, followed by an introduction to multilingualism and foreign language learning in Finland. The sections that follow introduce the interview data and analytical approach used in the study and comprise an analysis of the interview data. The chapter ends with a discussion and conclusion.

3.2 Language as a Resource with Value

Sociolinguists have emphasised the need to conceptualise language as a resource that can enable, or restrict, an individual’s participation in certain spheres of life (e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Heller, 2003, 2010). Part of this discourse is the understanding of language as a gateway to intercultural understanding; this discourse is specifically related to foreign language learning. In the context of working life, the conditions of which have largely shifted from production-based jobs to a globalised economy involving various types of knowledge work including immaterial, entrepreneurial, digital, collaborative, and knowledge-focused skills (Iedema & Scheeres, 2003; Nissi et al., 2023), language is seen as a symbolic resource (Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Heller, 2003). As a resource in globalised economy, language becomes a marketable commodity, the use of which determines one’s productivity for example in the way and extent of phone calls taken, words translated, products and services sold, or successful interactions carried out with tourists (see Chun, 2016; Duchêne & Heller, 2012, p. 326; Heller et al., 2017). The exchange value of a language on the market of symbolic goods plays a role in individuals’ desire to learn that language (Kramsch, 2019, p. 50). Multilingualism—which includes translingual practices—is becoming a resource to manage these new task structures (Canagarajah, 2020, p. 561).

Critical sociolinguistics has shown how discourses of neoliberalism circulate around language use in the working life (see Canagarajah, 2020; Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Duchêne et al., 2013; Garrido & Sabaté-Dalmau, 2020; Flubacher & Del Percio, 2017). According to neoliberal logic, in order to meet the demands of the changing working life and economy, workers should engage in ‘(re)skilling’ themselves and constantly ‘up-grade’ their repertoires in order to be valid (Canagarajah, 2020, p. 7; see also Duchêne & Heller, 2012). As Urciuoli (2016, p. 32) points out, all contemporary work life is embedded in this global capitalist discourse where ‘any capacity for action that gives workers a market edge becomes a “skill”’. Workers with multi-competences in languages and genres thus acquire new forms of symbolic capital (e.g., Duchêne and Heller, 2012). Neoliberal discourse involves values that organise late capitalist societies and ideals of what work means from the societal point of view and how individuals should adapt to it. From the societal point of view, this creates a discourse that underscores the need for multilingualism where it is emphasised that multilingual competence becomes a competitive edge enabling citizens to engage in global encounters and discussions with people from different backgrounds and to understand multiple perspectives in global crises (Salomone, 2022). From the individual point of view, this discourse manifests in the need to take responsibility for one’s own development and enskillment to remain competitive in the globalising working life where one’s competitiveness determines one’s individual market value (Urciuoli, 2008, 2010) and the market value of languages (Bourdieu, 1977, 1991; see also Blommaert, 2010). Central in this discourse of enskillment and building of one’s capital and competence are language and communication skills (Allan, 2013), the development of which can (and, as the discourse often maintains, ‘should’) begin early on in the childhood as conscious choices in formal education and continue throughout the lifespan as life-long learning across various socialisation trajectories (Duff, 2019; Räisänen, 2018) and formal and informal education and learning. However, not all languages and communication skills have equal market value, and the market value of languages may clash with the market value of other skills (e.g., Bourdieu, 1977; on language ideologies in the Finnish context see for example Criss, 2021; Nikula et al., 2012; Nuolijärvi, 1986). This inequality creates a tension from the individual point of view, as will be discussed later.

As part of their desire to become successful employees, individuals invest their time and effort in skilling themselves by means of learning. A key mechanism in the skilling process is the capitalist notion of investment. Investment refers to a commitment to developing one’s skills to achieve one’s aspirations (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 1997). Norton’s investment theory that draws on Bourdieu’s (1991) work combines metaphors from economics and social approaches to second language learning. By implication, by investing in and committing themselves to developing and learning specific skills and semiotic resources such as languages, individuals expect to gain returns on their investment—that is, an accumulation of their capital. These expected returns can be instrumental ones; they can also relate to identity and the aim to become part of a(n imagined) community (see Iikkanen, 2019; Karhunen et al., 2023; Ros i Solé, 2013). The returns may come in the form of career advancement, an imagined identity, and aspired community membership (Darvin & Norton, 2015). For example, a language learner may invest time, effort, or money in learning a foreign language with the hope to gain a desired job or a career, or the learner may envision an imagined identity gained through access to the language (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Kanno & Norton, 2003). Wishing to be a part of the global worker community requires investment in language learning. The notion of investment hence closely relates to discourses on skills and upskilling oneself in the new economy (Urciuoli, 2008, 2010). Although English is the language of global business and knowledge work and a key resource of global professionals’ repertoires (Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011; Räisänen & Kankaanranta, 2020), this chapter shows that many individuals want to invest in other foreign languages in order to cope in different environments. This neoliberal skilling of the self for the globalising marketplace characterises education today, where individuals make choices in their investment efforts. Investment in language learning (re)constructs discourses of multilingualism as something desirable.

However, as sociolinguistic research has shown, language in many ways functions as a constraint—a problematic resource—that can restrict an individual’s capabilities and opportunities to participate in certain aspects of life or engage in a specific type of action. Not everyone has equal access to language resources or can use and develop them in desired ways. What is particularly important here is that not everyone is able to invest in language learning in desired ways and not all languages are equally valued and therefore offered to be studied, as shown for example by a report of Finnish universities’ language policies (Ylönen, 2015). The values attributed to languages point to power and inequality, and they matter to people socially, politically, and economically (Blommaert, 2010; Heller et al., 2017). This chapter addresses the discourses related to investment in additional language learning and traces the possibilities and constraints that are involved.

3.3 Multilingualism and Foreign Language Learning in Finland

The two national languages of Finland, Finnish and Swedish (see Frick, Räisänen & Ylikoski, this volume), are the main media of mainstream education, while English has become a language of instruction (referred to as English-medium instruction, EMI, see Macaro et al., 2018) in higher education in various programmes (Ylönen, 2015). As society has become increasingly multilingual through immigration, all levels of education have had to adapt to this change (Szabó et al., 2021; see also Kalaja & Pitkänen-Huhta, 2020).

According to Szabó et al. (2021), pupils have traditionally studied various languages in Finnish schools. Most of this learning is mandatory, since pupils are required to learn at least one foreign language and the national language of Finland that is not the students’ first language (Swedish for students who take part in Finnish-medium education, starting from grade six at the latest, and similarly, Finnish for those students studying in Swedish-medium programmes) (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019). Before 2020, foreign language learning started at the age of 9–10, in grade three, but since 2020 when an education renewal was introduced, it is already at the age of 6–7, in grade one, when pupils start to learn their first foreign language (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019). One of the reasons for this renewal is the goal to expand the language repertoire of Finns, since the recommendation is for the first foreign language chosen to be some other language besides English (Pyykkö, 2017)—an interesting recommendation, considering that English has enjoyed the status of the most studied, and offered, foreign language. Indeed, English has been the most often chosen foreign language, and up to 90% of pupils studied English as their only foreign language (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019). As the renewal is so recent, its long-term repercussions remain to be seen, as does the question of whether it has actually created the desired effects on Finland’s language reservoir. Even before the reform, Finnish pupils have had the possibility to learn optional languages in addition to the mandatory foreign language—the A1 language (most often English)—and Swedish. In grades four to five, pupils could choose an A2 language from a selection of languages decided on the local level. It is here important to note that children are assigned to schools automatically based on their home address, which in practice may mean that the language selection tray may be limited even for pupils living in large cities. While in major cities and densely populated areas the pool of languages available for selection can be relatively large (ranging from European/Germanic languages such as German, Spanish, and French to Asian languages such as Chinese; but this is not a given), in smaller towns and sparsely populated areas there may only be a few options available, and these may even vary between different years. Despite the availability of languages to choose from, groups may not be formed every year if there are too few students who have selected a specific optional language. Another selection point for additional language learning has been in the upper level of comprehensive school, in grades 7–9, when students can choose a B2 language. Even after that, in high school and in tertiary education there are further opportunities to start learning additional languages.

What is common in all these curricula, old and new, is freedom of choice. Now, at as early an age as six to seven, pupils, and most likely their parents, need to decide the future of the children in terms of foreign language learning, and they weigh between different options: What is good for the child and what is useful for them? This trend continues throughout one’s lifespan. How individuals make their choices regarding their investment in foreign language learning—what motivates them to choose, or not choose, foreign languages—is an interesting and important question. The question has been addressed by Kangasvieri (2019, 2022) and Kangasvieri & Leontjev (2021) in their L2 motivation research on Finnish comprehensive school students. These studies show that the reasons behind choosing, or not choosing, optional languages are manifold. According to Kangasvieri (2022), Finnish students choose optional languages based on their own or their parents’ choice, or due to seeing the language as obligatory (English). The reasons may also be structural, and students may not choose languages because the language is not offered at school or there are no language groups. It may also be that the students do not want or manage to study more languages (Kangasvieri, 2022). As English continues to enjoy a special status as a global lingua franca, one can also ask how much room there is for additional language learning. The statistics show that interest in optional language learning was at its highest in Finland in the mid-1990s. In 1997, 41% of 5th graders studied an A2 language, while in 2017 the number fell down to 27%. As for B2 language learning, 43% of 8th and 9th graders studied it in 1996, while only 17% studied it in 2017 (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019). Recent statistics and research have shown that high school students in particular select optional languages less than before (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019; Kiehelä & Veivo, 2020). According to Kiehelä and Veivo’s (2020) survey study, the reasons behind this decrease are structural: The two most common reasons high school students attribute to this have to do with the lack of time and the number of other subjects to be studied. Moreover, high school subjects have their specific scores and weights that matter when students apply to tertiary education, especially to university. Voluntary languages have not traditionally scored very high in the system compared to other subjects. This chapter takes an in-depth approach to the question of investment in additional language learning and examines how students of higher education talk about their language learning in the past, present, and future and what discourses are drawn on in their talk.

3.4 Interviews and Multiscalar Approach

This chapter is part of a research project on the development of professional communicative repertoires funded by the Academy of Finland in 2016–2019. The data used in this chapter include 18 interviews with engineering students enrolled at a university in Finland where their education was fully or partly in English. The interviewees were selected on the basis of their work experience: They had to have at least some work experience. Participation in the study was voluntary. The interviews were conducted in 2016. The interviewees signed a consent form and gave permission for the use of the data for research purposes. All personal details have been changed and pseudonyms are used to protect the participants’ identities. All participants except two had Finnish as their mother tongue. One participant had lived abroad and studied Finnish after returning to Finland. Table 3.1 illustrates the participants’ field of study, language learning background in formal education (all levels), work experience, and languages used at work. The preliminary results of the study have been published in Räisänen and Karjalainen (2018).

Table 3.1 Participants
Full size table

Table 3.1 illustrates a wide range of fields of study among the participants. All the participants had studied at least English as a foreign language at school, and most of them also Swedish (Swe). Most of them had also studied an additional language: German (Ger), French (Fre), Spanish (Spa), Italian (Ita), Russian (Rus), Italian (Ita), Chinese (Chn), or Korean (Kor), or a combination of these. Table 3.1 illustrates that while some students clearly had an aspiration to learn multiple languages, most of them had studied only one additional language. The students’ field-specific work experience ranged from none to 15–20 years. At work, Finnish was their most used language, especially with colleagues, and English was mostly used in documentation, meetings, and with customers. Other languages were used for example with a supervisor or with colleagues. It should be noted that only some interviewees had contacts with customers at work.

The interviews were semi-structured, with the main themes consisting of the participants’ language learning background, languages used in education and at work, intercultural and multimodal communication, and their future plans. The interviews were conducted in Finnish and they lasted between 1–1.5 hours. The interviews were roughly transcribed in order to identify instances in which the learning and use of additional languages were mentioned. After collecting these instances, they were analysed in their content and language choices. In the instances, the participants reflected on their choices in additional language learning and discussed their success in the past and present as well as future plans. They also told stories about their language learning and use. The interview examples in this chapter are provided in both the original language, Finnish, and in English as a translation.

The analysis applies a discourse analytical approach called multiscalar analysis (Canagarajah & De Costa, 2016) and considers the multiple intersecting scales circulating the interview instances where additional language learning is discussed. The multiscalar approach considers scales to be categories of practice that manifest in interactions (Blommaert, 2015; Canagarajah & De Costa, 2016; see also Moore, 2008). Discourses are being shaped and are shaping scales that reach beyond the interactions. Discourse refers to ways of using language that reflect certain worldviews and reconstruct them at the same time (Fairclough, 2003, p. 124). How we talk about additional language learning and thereby the discourses we draw on are tied to the ways in which we construct social identities and relationships and participate in various groups and institutions (see Blommaert, 2005). Multiscalar analysis thus provides a dynamic approach to investigating discourses that can be seen to operate on various scalar levels—temporal and spatial—and should thus be seen as deriving from various assemblages of human and non-human actors, materials, and ideologies (e.g., Canagarajah, 2018). Using the multiscalar approach, the analysis focuses on the interviewees’ answers in the interviews and investigates what kinds of word choices, explanations, and descriptions they provide when talking about their investment in additional language learning. In their talk, the participants draw on discourses related to their investment in additional language learning. Moreover, their word choices and references to time and space reveal the scales on which discourses operate. For example, based on a participant’s answer, a discourse of personal motivation to invest in an additional language may be persistent across the life trajectory of an individual (temporal scale), while local communicative practices at the workplace (spatial scale) play a role in what other discourses emerge related to additional languages. Scales can thus help understand the dynamic interplay of the factors behind learners’ investment, or lack thereof, in language learning.

In practice, using multiscalar analysis means examining how the students’ interview accounts entangle them with multiple temporal and spatial scales of discourse beyond the here and now. The multiscalar analysis aims to show how, at the same time, the interviews reflect local- and individual-level investment as well as macro-level global flows related to human mobility, technology, and economy (see Appadurai, 1998 on flows; see also Räisänen, 2018). In essence, this approach enables the understanding of the discursive construction of additional language learning in Finland. The students’ accounts of their additional language learning are entangled with temporal scales (past, present, future) and local, institutional, and transnational scales. These scales emerge from the practices of the participants and the institutions they are affiliated with.

3.5 Findings

Regarding the use of foreign languages, all the interviewees talk about the use of English as an everyday practice in their free time, during their education, and partly at work, while their talk about the learning and use of other foreign languages provides a more complex picture of their practices. All the participants had started learning English in the third grade at the latest, with some of them even learning it earlier due to having lived abroad, having gone to an English-speaking day care, or having had basic education in English. One interviewee mentioned how having basic education in English was their ‘parents’ invention’ (vanhempien keksintö). The following analyses focus on discourses related to investment in the learning of additional languages in the past, present, and future. The analysis is illustrated with examples from interviews in which the interviewees discuss when, how, and why they had started learning additional languages, what learning additional languages means for them, and what challenges there have been, continue to be, and may come to be that involve studying and using them. The analysis is divided according to the three main emerging discourses: language learning as pleasure/enjoyment, language learning as a struggle, and language learning as an instrument to gain profit. Although these discourses are discussed separately in the following sections, the examples show that these discourses and the intersecting scales do not have clear boundaries, but rather that discourses are embedded with each other and various scales could be identified in them.

3.5.1 Discourses of Language Learning as Pleasure/Enjoyment

Some interviewees seemed to have a general interest in and fascination for languages. Their talk about learning being fun and motivating in its own right points to the emergence of a discourse of language learning as pleasure/enjoyment. For instance, Hannes (P18) describes himself as being somewhere in between the engineering sciences and humanities when he explains his interest in languages.

Hannes

kyllä mua kielet kiehtoo ihan yleisesti

että vaikka opiskelen insinööritieteiden korkeakoulussa täällä virallisesti

niin en pidä itseäni täysin insinöörinä

tää kaupunkisuunnittelu on kuitenki jotain insinööritieteiden ja

humanismin puolimaastosta

tavallaan ihan luontevasti tulee opiskeltua erilaisia asioita

ja ehkä myös ton lapsuuden takia kielet on ylipäänsä kiinnostanu

että opiskelisin kyllä mielellään ihan mitä tahansa kieltä mikä tulee

vastaan

I am fascinated by languages just in general

although I study in a higher education institute of engineering sciences

officially

I do not consider myself as an absolute engineer

this urban development is after all somewhere between engineering and

humanities

it comes sort of naturally to study different things

and perhaps also due to my childhood I have been interested in languages

in general

I would be glad to study any language I encounter

Hannes’ explanation for his curiosity towards languages is interesting. He categorises himself as ‘not an absolute engineer’ (en … täysin insinöörinä), which implies that ‘an engineer only’ would not be interested in languages. Hannes also provides his field of study (urban planning) as an explanation for his self-categorisation, that is, being somewhere between engineering and humanities, and mentions that it is natural for him to study different things. The distinction between seeing oneself as an engineer and a humanist is significant and reflects the overall tension between the investment in engineering and the core sciences and the investment in languages, that is, humanities subjects.

In addition to having developed a general interest in languages, some interviewees mentioned the influence of other people on their choice to start learning additional languages. This was clear in Aimo’s (P1) interview where he explained how his brother invited him to join Spanish classes at university:

Aimo

espanjaa aloin lukee [yliopistossa], veli sano että tuu kans, mä olin eka

et öö, se oli sit oikeesti ihan kivaa, luin kaikki kuus kurssia

I started studying Spanish at [university], my brother said come along,

I was first like aa, but it was actually quite nice, I studied all six courses

Aimo’s reaction to his brother’s invitation to join him in Spanish classes seems to be that of surprise or hesitation based on his description of his reaction (mä olin eka et öö—‘I was first like aa’). This indicates that perhaps Aimo had not really considered studying the Spanish language before, but having a close person, a brother, give the first push made a major difference in his choice to start and eventually continue studying all the university courses available for the language. From the point of view of investment, this indicates the importance of other people in the development of motivation for language learning and thus reflects a local scale in language choices. Aimo seemed to have developed a steady motivation to study Spanish for a longer time, and this indicates that the temporal scale for investment has extended to longer timescales.

Another example of other people’s influence in additional language learning comes from Aatos (P3), who had studied Russian in high school. An incentive had come from his acquaintances who had started learning Russian earlier.

Aatos

no tää oli oikeestaan pari mun kielistä kiinnostunutta tuttavaa oli

alottanu vuotta aiemmin venäjän opinnot lukiossa

ja mäkin aattelin että olis hyvä ja hauska opiskella useampaa kieltä

well actually two acquaintances of mine interested in languages had

started Russian studies in high school a year before

and I also thought that it would be good and fun to study more languages

Aatos not only mentions how it would be ‘fun’ to study more languages, but also says how it would be ‘good’, which implies yet another different discourse than that of language learning as pleasure/enjoyment. The word choice ‘good’ here may be taken to signal the word ‘useful’, which would imply a discourse of profit which will be discussed more in a later section. Nevertheless, there are implications to different discourses here. In addition to other people’s initial push, a channel through which some interviewees had developed an interest in additional language learning was their hobbies. An example of this is Kari (P14), who had become interested in Korean through his taekwondo hobby. Perhaps not surprisingly, several participants mentioned that they initially developed an interest in English through gaming.

3.5.2 Discourse of Language Learning as a Struggle

As discussed previously, some participants seemed to have a genuine interest in languages and language learning, thus reflecting a discourse of language learning as pleasure/enjoyment, and some of them described themselves as having a talent for languages. However, there were participants who did not see themselves as good at languages at all, but wanted to study them in order to upskill themselves for the future, for example for the global job market. Many of them reflected on their personal struggles in the learning of additional languages. These struggles illuminate the circulation of different intersecting temporal and spatial scales in the emerging discourses. In this section, Aksel (P8) and Pekka (P7) describe their struggles in the learning of German over time. Aksel explains how his relationship to German is that of ‘love and hate’:

Aksel

saksaan mulla on tämmönen love-hate relationship heheh

alotin lukee sitä ala-asteella ja lopetin

ja alotin taas yläasteella ja lopetin

ja sit yläasteella alotin uudestaan

ja sitä mä oon opiskellu nyt semmonen neljä kurssii

towards German I have this kind of love hate relationship heheh

I started learning it in elementary school and stopped

I started again in upper comprehensive and stopped

and then in upper comprehensive I started again

and I have now been studying it for about four courses

Aksel describes how he has started and given up on the study of German twice at different times (elementary school and upper comprehensive school), while at the time of the interview he was enrolled in German courses again. He explains elsewhere in the interview how his interest in additional languages was related to his aspiration to work in an international environment, abroad, and in different cultural contexts. Clearly here the relevant scales reach beyond the local to the transnational level, which plays a role in Aksel’s language learning efforts. It seems that for him, work in global contexts requires an investment in language learning even though learning may mean personal struggles, as illustrated by the metaphor ‘love and hate relationship’.

Pekka’s interview answer also points to his challenges with German. Similar to Aimo earlier, his parents’ decision to enrol Pekka in German classes from grade five onwards, and his brother’s example, were crucial in the initial investment efforts. In the following, Pekka describes his motivation to study German and his self-evaluation of his German proficiency.

Pekka

ajatuksena kun englanti tulee kuitenkin, niin jotain lisäkielitaitoa

kuitenkin,

emmä koskaan hyvä ollu saksassa, kyl mä sen (pitkän saksan) lukiossa

kuitenki kirjotin, just ja just läpi

the thought behind [everything] was that English will come anyway so

some additional language competence anyway

I was never good at German but I did take the matriculation exam in

it (advanced/long German) in high school anyway and barely passed it

In the interview, Pekka describes himself as not being good at German. Despite this, he had eventually (kuitenki, ‘anyway’) taken the matriculation examination in long German, which is the most demanding German test in the matriculation programme. Pekka further describes that he just barely passed the exam, which indicates that his scores were low. Hence, despite the self-evaluation of not being good in the language, Pekka had succeeded in the exam to the extent of passing it. Thus, his investment, initially launched by his parents’ choice, had paid off when considered from the point of view of testing. As the interview example suggests, Pekka had experienced personal struggles during his studies, which shows in his devaluing of his competence and his description of his performance in the test in somewhat negative terms: ‘barely passed’ (just ja just läpi). The importance of the local, family-level scale thus shows in Pekka’s investment in additional language learning in the past, as do the ideas of ‘English will come anyway’ (englanti tulee kuitenkin) and ‘additional language competence anyway’ (jotain lisäkielitaitoa kuitenkin) as the mentioned reasons for learning German.

3.5.3 Discourse of Language Learning as an Instrument to Gain Profit

The most prominent discourse related to the investment in additional language learning emerging in the interviews is that of language learning as an instrument in order to gain profit. Traces from the neoliberal discourse of skilling the self by means of additional language learning were visible in all the interviews, although the individual explanations and descriptions were different.

Olavi (P10) is a particularly interesting case in the way the discourses are reflected in his talk. He had already studied English, French, German, and Swedish by the time he finished high school. When I asked how his language studies had gone in basic education and in high school, he discusses a tension between his lack of interest and proficiency and the usefulness of additional language learning competence.

Olavi

niin no tässä on nyt vähän tämmönen henkilökohtainen, miten sen nyt

sanois

että mä en itse pidä kielten lukemisesta enkä mä oo niissä hyvä

mutta mä oon aina tykänny et ne on hyödyllisiä ja aina yrittäny niitä

lukea

mut ei oo menny mitenkään hirveen hyvin koskaan kielet

[---] emmä tiiä, ei oo mitenkään niinku vanhempien pakottamaa

[---] en mä koskaan aatellu että ois semmonen vaihtoehto että ei valitsis

sit mä olin ihan ihmeissään ku muut sano että ei ne ottanu mitään

well here there is this kind of personal, how should I say it

I myself don’t like studying languages and I’m not good at them

but I’ve always thought that they are useful and always tried to study

them

but languages/language learning hasn’t gone very well

[---] I don’t know I wasn’t in any way forced by my parents

[---] I never thought that I had a choice of not choosing

then I was really astonished when others said that they hadn’t chosen

anything

Olavi’s interview clearly demonstrates the way different scalar forces are at play in the discourses of additional language learning: Olavi makes a distinction between his personal qualifications (not good at languages, enkä mä oo niissä hyvä) and interests and the usefulness of knowing languages (mä oon aina tykänny et ne on hyödyllisiä, ‘I’ve always thought that they are useful’). The word ‘useful’ (hyödyllinen) is explicitly mentioned and by implication it refers to the idea of seeing languages as useful, or instrumental, in order to gain something. Olavi’s talk can be seen to point towards the discourse of profit. What is interesting here is that Olavi explicitly mentions his parents as not having forced him into choosing languages: The fact that he does this indicates that parental decision (or force) is a wider phenomenon, and this was indeed mentioned by other interviewees as the reason behind their additional language learning selections. This example is also interesting in terms of the amount of negation it contains: It seems that Olavi positions himself through these negations (not liking language studies, not being good at them, not having succeeded in them, not being forced by parents, not having thought about not choosing any languages, others didn’t select anything), through which he identifies himself as a somehow deviant case.

The notion of the ‘usefulness’ of additional languages emerges in other students’ interviews as well, and it is often attributed to work contexts especially if the participants already had more field-specific work experience. Harri (P2) explains how German would be useful with German-speaking customers.

Harri

jooo se [saksan opiskelu] on ihan hyödyllistä ja ihan omasta innostuksesta

mut sen oon niinku tuol töissäkin huomannut että tota

koska meillon aika paljon saksalaisia tai Keski-Euroopasta asiakkaita ja

näin

niin tota on ollu joitai tilanteita missä ois ollu ihan

et asiakkaalta vaik tulee joku dokumentti

tai sitte on sähköpostikeskustelu tai joku

ois ollu ehkä kiva et ei ois tarvinu tukeutuu siihen et joku saksaa osaava

kaveri kääntää

yes it [studying German] is quite useful and also from my personal

enthusiasm

but I have also noticed at work

because we have quite a lot of Germans or customers from Central Europe

and so on

so there have been some situations where it would have been quite

so you get a document from the customer

or there is an email exchange or something

it would have perhaps been nice if you wouldn’t have had to resort to

having someone who knows German translate it

Harri, after having experienced concrete situations at work, is able to explain the actual usefulness of German: At work, for example when reading a document or an email, it would be nicer if you knew German yourself compared to asking for another colleague’s help in translation. This demonstrates that with additional languages, one is more capable of handling work situations. Harri had a colleague to turn to, but such a resource is obviously not always available. In his talk, Harri speaks from the point of view of the local scale of the workplace, which he uses as an explanation for the need for languages. German is mentioned also by Matti (P11), who explains how it would have been of use many times, and the same applies to French. Matti had several years of working experience in an engineering company. I asked him what other languages (besides English) he had studied and this is what he responded:

Matti::

no ruotsia oon opiskellu

Tiina::

mikäs rooli sillä sitten on

Matti::

ei oo tarvetta ollu koskaan,

mulla on ollu projektei ruotsiinki ja kaikki ollu englanniks,

itse asias mulla on kollegoita jotka puhuu hyvin ruotsii niin ne on sanonu että jos puhut ruotsiin ruotsii niin ne vaihtaa englanniksi

että ei ne haluu puhuu ruotsii,

se on hukkaan heitettyy aikaa meille periaatteessa opettaa kaikille ruotsii

saksalle ois ollu käyttöö kyllä monesti

se on semmonen minkä oon pannu tässä merkille että saksa ja jopa ranska ois ollu

Matti::

well I’ve studied Swedish

Tiina::

what kind of a role has it had

Matti::

never needed it

I’ve even had projects in Sweden and all of them have been in English

in fact I have colleagues who speak good Swedish and they’ve told me that if you speak Swedish to Sweden they switch to English

that they don’t want to speak Swedish

it is a waste of time for us basically that everyone is taught Swedish

German would have been of use many times though

it’s something I’ve paid attention to that German and even French would have been

Matti is rather strong in his manifestation of his opinion regarding the values of languages. First of all, he says how he has never needed Swedish and provides an example from work: He says how he has heard from his Swedish-speaking colleagues that their Swedish colleagues had switched to English and that they do not want to speak Swedish with them. Matti even says that teaching, and by implication also learning, Swedish is a ‘waste of time’ (hukkaan heitettyy aikaa). According to him, better value for the time would be gained by learning languages that matter and are of use, that is, German and French. Matti thus explicitly ascribes values to German and French but not to Swedish, which is a compulsory subject for Finnish school children due to its status as a national language in Finland. Matti’s interview points to the timescale of the past when he had learnt Swedish in basic education, as well as the local scale of the workplace where he has not needed Swedish but where he has noticed (semmonen minkä oon pannu tässä merkille, ‘something I’ve paid attention to’) the usefulness of other languages. Both Harri’s and Matti’s talk indicates the importance of the workplace and experiences therein in terms of determining the need for additional languages.

3.5.4 Tensions in Discourses of Profit

Although all the participants saw the investment in additional languages as worthwhile and as something that will enable them to be part of the global work community and participate in various working life situations, their talk reflected tensions in the profit discourses. As all the interviewees were students of engineering, their primary education was technology-focused and education in languages was secondary from the point of view of their degree. English was an exception to this as it enjoyed a special role in their lives: Their education was fully or partly in English, they used English in their free time, and all of them also used English at work. The status and role of additional languages varied between the participants, although similar tendencies could be identified, as discussed in the earlier sections. Despite many participants’ interest in investing in additional languages, the structural conditions of their education and the fact that most of their degree credits had to be earned in technology-focused subjects and courses meant that the students have had to withdraw from additional language education in order to expand their field-specific expertise. Profit is seen elsewhere than in language learning.

The following examples illustrate the challenges faced when attempting to invest in additional language learning. This is how Pinja (P6) explains the situation:

Tiina::

entäs sitte ooksä opiskellu muita kieliä

Pinja::

no ruotsin tietysti ja sit vähän venäjää niinku yhen kurssin lukiossa et ne aakkoset oppi

ja näin,

seki oli ihan mukavaa mut siinä vaiheessa ois tullu niin

hirveesti kursseja lukioon et piti vaan karsia jotain pois

niin ja keskittyy just näihin luonnontieteellisiin

Tiina::

so have you studied other languages

Pinja::

well Swedish of course and then a little bit of Russian like one course in high school so that I learnt the alphabet and so on,

it was quite nice too but at that point I would have had so many courses in high school that I just had to cut something

yeah and focus on these natural sciences

Pointing to her past studies in high school, Pinja explicitly mentions how she has enjoyed learning an additional language—Russian—but then juxtaposes her enjoyment with the structural constraints: Due to the large number of courses in high school she would have had with additional language learning courses, she had to ‘cut something’ (piti vaan karsia jotain pois). This cut meant not learning any more Russian but instead focusing on natural sciences, which she began to study at university later on. Pinja’s interview demonstrates that despite individual aspirations, the system is designed in a way that there is no room for learning additional languages especially if you are going to specialise in natural sciences.

Another example comes from Anita (P9), who not only mentions the lack of time for language studies but also introduces yet another structural problem:

Tiina::

onko sulla sitte käyny mielessä että ois pitäny opiskella vaikka aikasemmin jotain muuta kieltä [--] oisko sitä aikaa ollu joskus mutta ei oo vaan tullu sitte

että onko sellasta käyny mielessä

Anita::

no ei oo oikeestaan että ei mulla silleen oo ollu aikaa,

sillon ehkä ku täällä alotti niin sillon ois ehkä kiinnostanu lukee kieliä enemmän mut sillon oli tosi hankala mahtuu mukaan mihinkään niistä

Tiina::

so has it crossed your mind that you perhaps should have studied another language earlier [---] would you have had the time sometimes but you just haven’t has anything like this occurred to you

Anita::

well not exactly since I sort of haven’t had the time,

perhaps when I started (studying) here I perhaps was interested in studying languages more

but it was really difficult to get into any of them

In my question I specifically ask Anita to reflect on her choices and whether she has ever reconsidered her past choices in terms of language studies. The temporal scale is clearly introduced by the interviewer, who also leads the interviewee to reflect on her choices. Anita provides a negative answer and then reflects on the beginning of her studies at the university when she had some interest in studying languages more, but had encountered a problem of ‘not getting in’ (oli tosi hankala mahtuu mihinkään niistä). Although it is not exactly clear what she refers to here, she seems to point to the limited size of language groups meaning that not everyone is accepted into those groups. Hence, despite an individual’s interest, the institutional scale intervenes with individual investment and prevents them from expanding their repertoire by means of additional language learning. Anita does not mention any specific language here. Olavi, on the other hand, mentions the Chinese language when he discusses the possibility to study additional languages:

Tiina::

eli minkä verran sä ehdit sitä kiinaa

Olavi::

no hyvin vähän,

että en väittäis että osaan kiinaa

mutta kuitenki sen verran että tajuan miten se kieli toimii

Tiina::

haluaisiksä opiskella sitä vielä

Olavi::

ehkä joskus,

tässä vaan tulee ajankäyttö taas vastaan että mistä on oikeesti hyötyä itelle

Tiina::

so how much have you studied Chinese

Olavi::

well very little,

I wouldn’t say I know Chinese

but at least that I know how the language works

Tiina::

would you like to study it more

Olavi::

maybe at some point,

it’s just the use of time again and what is actually useful for myself

Olavi starts to describe his Chinese studies with negation: When asked how much he had studied Chinese, Olavi answers ‘very little’ (no hyvin vähän) and adds that ‘I wouldn’t say I know Chinese’ (en väittäis että osaan kiinaa). After this, he shifts his stance with ‘but’ and says ‘at least enough to know how the language works’ (kuitenki sen verran että tajuan miten se kieli toimii). I then ask him whether he would like to study Chinese more. His answer (‘maybe at some point’, ehkä joskus) implies that there is a possibility sometime in the future to study the language. After this, Olavi again makes a shift in this stance: The word choice tässä vaan (‘it’s just’) indicates this shift, and it is followed by an explanation of time constraints in terms of doing something that is useful for oneself. By implication, this points to Olavi’s own decisions on what to choose and what not to choose. All of these are related to the timescale of the future and Olavi’s aspirations and what is eventually beneficial for oneself. Olavi thus mentions investment possibilities which, when juxtaposed with the usefulness discourse (what is useful for myself), seem more hypothetical. The temporal scale is clearly mentioned here (use of time), which interestingly is entangled with the idea of usefulness and profit: the use of time. Hence, time is critical and determines what kinds of investment choices to make. These are the ways in which discourses of profit emerge in Olavi’s interview. Additional languages are not seen as valuable enough for one’s investment. There thus seems to be tension between the restrictions of time and the value of one’s investments.

One of the explicit interview themes was plans for the future. When participants were asked about their future plans and how they envisioned the role of languages in their future, all of them mentioned that both Finnish and English will have a major role especially in their working life in various forms: speaking with colleagues and customers, reading and writing documents, and using different applications and software. Other languages were also mentioned: For example, if there is a work trip to Spain, Spanish will be needed, or if a longer job opportunity arises in China, the need for the Chinese language will become evident. Although many participants mentioned the lack of time available for language studies, some of them developed their language competences in their free time for example by studying German, Spanish, or French via the Duolingo application or by reading in the specific language while taking a bus. These practical examples demonstrate some of the participants’ personal interest towards languages and their concrete investment efforts in language study during their free time.

3.6 Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter has examined discourses of investment in additional language learning in Finland among 18 students of higher education. The multiscalar discourse analysis of interview data resulted in the emergence of three main discourses: language learning as pleasure/enjoyment, language learning as a struggle, and language learning as an instrument to gain profit where various types of spatial and temporal scales circulated. On the spatial scale, local, institutional, and transnational scales could be identified as connected to the discourses, while on the temporal scale, the participants’ talk pointed towards the past, the present, and the future. When the participants talked about their past and their early days of schooling, they referred to the investment in additional language learning that they had made by themselves (e.g., Olavi) and that were influenced by other people (family members; friends in the case of Aatos, Pekka, and Aimo for example). On the timescale of the more recent past, namely high school and current studies at the university, the discourse of profit emerged more specifically, as did the need to make selections on the basis of the usefulness of additional languages for example at work and on the basis of time constraints. Olavi’s answer shows explicitly how the scale of time was entangled with the discourse of profit: Time should be used wisely to gain the most profit from one’s investment.

The interviews showed different discourses at play at the same time as well as tensions between them: On the one hand, a student may enjoy language learning in its own right and have a personal aspiration for it, while on the other hand, they may struggle in their learning efforts and view their skills in negative terms (not being good at it, not having done well at it, not knowing the language) while simultaneously seeing the benefits and profits to be gained from their investment. The investment in additional language learning is hence a multifaceted phenomenon which should be understood in relation to various scales and where the analysis of individuals’ own accounts and their reflections of their past, present, and future aspirations becomes important (see also Iikkanen, 2019).

The findings of this study resonate with those found in earlier research and provide in-depth, individual perspectives to the topic of investment in additional language learning. The challenges in additional language learning across various levels of education are clear, and many students in Finland are not able to choose an additional, optional language even if they wanted to (see also Kangasvieri, 2022). As also highlighted in Kiehelä and Veivo’s (2020) study, the main reason for this is structural: High school students specifically simply do not have the time to study languages because the curriculum forces them to study many other subjects as well. Based on the present study, the same pattern seems to persist in higher education. Notably, as shown in the present study, the value ascribed to natural sciences in high school and later on to technology and engineering-focused subjects and courses in engineering fields, is a major hindrance to individuals’ abilities to invest their time and effort in additional language learning. One solution that some students have found is to invest in language learning during their free time, using language learning phone applications that allow them to engage in learning for example during their trips to school, work, or hobbies. This may be one solution to expand one’s repertoire, but more policy-level measures are needed to foster the development of the language reservoir of Finns.

This chapter on individuals’ experiences of additional language learning in different educational levels has provided discourse analytic insights into how individuals encounter foreign languages in Finland through formal education and how they describe their investment in language learning. The investment in additional language learning has presented itself as a multiscalar phenomenon: Investment choices are made on various temporal and spatial levels. The study has shown the importance of pupils’ and engineering students’ contacts with other people, family, friends, acquaintances, and colleagues in their investment efforts and aspirations in additional language learning in particular. Overall, the participating engineering students had multicultural contacts and they saw the value of foreign languages. However, despite the aspirations to study and learn languages, reality sets constraints that are structural and temporal. Also, due to the fact that English works as a shared language, there fails to be a real need to study additional languages. Although there are national-level calls for the development of the language reservoir of Finns (see Pyykkö, 2017) and educational renewals have lately been implemented, there should be more support for individuals’ language learning efforts (see also Kiehelä & Veivo, 2020). Individuals are now subject to structural constraints, and they need to navigate amidst the tension between discourses of profit and pleasure (see also Singleton & Záborská, 2020) and amidst imagining the profit gained by investing in languages compared to investing in technology-focused subjects that seem to be more supported by the educational systems. The local community, especially parents, families, and friends, has a crucial role in encouraging initial efforts in language learning and in helping pupils and students keep up in their language studies despite their struggles.

Although this study has been able to demonstrate how individuals describe their investment opportunities and aspirations for additional foreign language learning, it has its limitations. Due to its focus on students of higher education in engineering fields only, the findings cannot be seen to reflect a popular opinion. Nevertheless, with its focus on individuals’ stories of their language learning histories and future endeavours, this chapter has provided insights into the discursive construction of additional language learning in Finland and how different discourses related to languages reflect, reinforce, and (re)create the context for linguistic encounters in the Far North where neoliberal values and logic permeate language learning practices and individual motivations. While the future is unpredictable, it is hoped that future children, students, and professionals could see themselves as multilingual also in terms of their additional language competence.