Scania
A Region in Europe

Background
The presence of many languages in a country is generally considered to be an important cultural asset. Language is also strongly tied to various forms of cultural expressions and the many different linguistic cultures contain collective experiences that are part of our human cultural inheritance. To preserve minority languages and thereby support cultural diversity is therefore an important task.

Today, many minority languages are under threat. Various activities have therefore been initiated in order to support these languages, but the difficulties are amplified by the existence of forces that directly oppose multicultural linguistic efforts. This report was created in order to illustrate this - using the situation of the Scanian language as an example.

Linguistic diversity around the world
The Summer Institute of Linguistics in the US has made an inventory of global linguistic diversity and found more than 6,000 different languages. But this figure is a low estimate and a more probable figure is closer to 10,000 languages. The problem with this estimate and other evaluations of the number of languages in the world is that the figures are based on information from each country. Every country lists those minority languages that are considered to exist within its borders and this registration is to a high degree an expression of this country's linguistic policies. The cultural policies of a centralised government therefore results in fewer languages being reported than by a government whose policies are multicultural. The government thus determines what popular forms of linguistic expression can be allowed to be called languages. In a number of cases, local and regional languages are defined as dialects. These "dialects" will not be included in the list of languages in the world and will not qualify for the major efforts on behalf of Europe's minority languages that are finance by the EU Parliament.

Currently, some 120 cultural regions have been identified in Europe, most of them with their own languages. This figure is also low. Many minority languages will simply not be included on the official lists, because within Europe there are a number of states that do not wish to accept any linguistic diversity. During the last two decades, the international system of human rights has been erected on the basis of the state as the only legitimate party with a right to negotiate both for conditions within the state and between states. With reference to the assumed rights of the individual state to make sovereign decisions within its own borders, cultural elimination of regional cultural expressions has been allowed to continue for a very long time without any effective resistance. This has hurt minority languages.

Language or dialect?
There is great confusion surrounding the concepts of language and dialect. A dialect is a variant of a majority language on which it is based. In spite of this simple relationship, there are major difficulties. For example, in the Nordic countries we have become used to calling Norwegian and Swedish two different languages while e.g. the Dalarna language and Scanian are described as dialects. Why is this so? Are Norwegian and Swedish more different from each other than Scanian and the Dalarna language, is this why we call the first two languages and the second two dialects? Is the degree of mutual comprehension a determining factor? Is it because of the fact that Norwegian and Swedish are spoken in different countries that they are then considered to be different languages? And is it the fact that Scanian and the Dalarna language are spoken within a single country that makes them dialects?

If we look at the issue from a Nordic linguistic perspective, we find that the different languages developed from a common Nordic language. Thus, both Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish can be described as Nordic dialects. As for Scanian - i.e. the historical Scanian language - it has the same Nordic linguistic base and it was also formed when Scania was a part of Denmark. Therefore, Scanian can also be described as a Nordic dialect - or as Swedish and Norwegian as a Scandinavian language.

The question is what the relevant arguments are when it comes to the definitions of language and dialect. Perhaps it is not possible to arrive at an entirely logical scientific definition. It is therefore reasonable with regard to future developments - as has been claimed by various involved parties - to view the language issue as a cultural political issue. Some have proposed the formulation that "a language is a dialect backed by an army" and this is a good description of how political the issue of language really is.

In recent years, proposals have been put forward to remove the concept of dialect entirely and instead talk about state languages and regional and local languages. This is an opening of the issue, since it also places the issue of the definitions of language and dialect not just in the field of linguistic science but also in politics. Thus, the popular and cultural aspect of the language issue is liberated so that it can be handled as a cultural policy issue.

From a cultural policy perspective, the issue is whether one really wishes to preserve and strengthen linguistic diversity or not. Do we feel that the human cultural identity associated with regional and local languages has a value or not? These issues are important in order to create the conditions for new and more tolerant cultural policies in the area of languages.

The power policy aspect of this issue will then naturally be who has the right to determine the existence of a language. Is it the state that should have the right to determine whether it is worth preserving, maintaining, and developing a regional language? Or is it the population that uses the language and for whom it is a cultural base? This is the heart of the matter in the current linguistic policy challenge. Should the existence and importance of a language be determined from above or below in a society? By the state or by the population?

In recent years it has become increasingly obvious that the so-called nation state is too small for the new technological and economic reality while at the same time it is too large for the democratic, cultural, and linguistic areas. A number of European conventions and agreements have also recently placed cultural and linguistic issues at the regional level. This conforms well with the general popular opinion - that regional and local languages belong to "those who speak them" and not to the state machinery. Consequently, there is a conflict between the state on the one hand and the conventions and the population on the other.

This conflict can be illustrated by the treatment of the Scanian language in Sweden - seen against the background of cultural human rights that will be discussed briefly here.

The activities of the EU and the Council of Europe in the area of language
Both the EU and the Council of Europe have paid attention to the erosion of our cultural linguistic diversity. In the EU treaties (Maastricht and Amsterdam) it was indicated that cultural and linguistic issues have borders that are different from those of the state. Therefore, the Maastricht Treaty (further reinforced by the Amsterdam Treaty) created for the first time a political forum for Europe's regions - the Regional Committee. Furthermore, in this treaties it was determined that issues of language and culture are to be dealt with by the Regional Committee before decisions are made on matters that involve these areas.

It has become clear to some that many states in Europe have neither the ambition nor the will to preserve and promote the linguistic diversity of Europe. Therefore, the Council of Europe, among others, have negotiated various conventions in order to assert pressure on these governments. There are four conventions that are of particular interest. These are:

1. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992)
2. The European Convention for the Protection of Cultural Minorities (1993)
3. ILO Convention No.169 for the protection of Indigenous peoples (1989)
4. The European Charter of Regional Self-Government (1997)

1. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 1992 - was a result of the inability of the nation states to preserve the linguistic diversity of the world. The threat against many of the regional languages in Europe, as well as in the rest of the world, is great. At present, four languages disappear each month globally. This negative development appears to be worsening and half of the world's languages are in danger of disappearing in this century. This means that more than 3,000 languages in the world are on the list of extinction.

It is on the basis of this linguistic impoverishment that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages came into existence. The charter contains regulations to the effect that those who use a language must also be able to influence measures that involve the use of this language. In practice, this means that all decisions in matters regarding language and culture must be delegated to the affected cultural regions for political decisions. For example, the charter establishes that the state must ensure that at least one radio and TV channel is established in the affected cultural regions as an alternative to the state sponsored channels.

In Sweden, this charter has been the object of two studies. The conclusion of the first study at the beginning of the 90's was that Sweden would not have to sign the charter since "we in Sweden are so far ahead when it comes to the dealing with human rights, that it is not necessary to manifest this by adhering to this type of charter" (statement made by a government civil servant).

In connection with Sweden's entry into the European Union, the issue was brought up regarding joining the European convention on minority languages. The Swedish government then appointed a commission. The author- ity that headed the commission was the Ministry of Agriculture, a fact that surprised many since language and cultural matters are hardly of an agricultural nature. In the directives of the Ministry of Agriculture (May 1995) are found, among others, the following items that illustrate the the official position of the Swedish government:

• The charter, which is to be considered a cultural convention, is designed to protect and develop "historic" regional languages and minority languages.
• Each state will determine by itself, with certain limitations, which sections or paragraphs that it wants to enforce.
• It is possible for a state to admit that a certain minority language is spoken within its borders, but to abstain from applying the regulations.
• The charter does not aim at protecting either dialects or immigrant languages.
• Each state will determine by itself whether a language is spoken by a sufficient number of people in order to be covered by the charter.
• Proposals for financing costs should be developed on the basis that total public sector expenses should not be increased.

This summary clearly shows two things. One is that it is the Swedish state that assumes the right to determine the future for the regional languages and cultures within its borders and the second is that the Swedish government already in the directives to the study group, directly or indirectly, established the limitations for the results of the study.

The Ministry of Agriculture appointed a committee - The Minority Language Committee - that presented its report in 1997, delayed several years. The regional languages in Sweden were dismissed as being Swedish dialects and thus not covered by the regulations of the charter. Both the report of the Minority Language Committee and the bill in parliament were characterised by obvious shortcomings, for example the following:

• In its bill, the government did not take into consideration important portions of the content and scope of the mentioned charter on minority languages. It disregarded the regional linguistic pattern in Sweden, in spite of the fact that this pattern constitutes a central part of the text of the charter.
• The government also completely disregarded the fact that the EU, according to the Maastricht treat (further reinforced by the Amsterdam treaty), delegated matters of language and culture for regional discussion and not to central state authorities as was the case with the preliminary work for the bill.
• The government lacked openness in the issue and circumvented regional debate, which is necessary for this type of cultural and language issues. The issue of the survival of regional languages is not a matter that can or should be determined in closed, central study rooms.
• The government obscured the issue by incorrectly translating the original English text of the charter for crucial points. "Charter on Regional or Minority Languages" was translated "European regulation on languages of parts of the country or minorities". The concept of region in a European context is not identical to the concept of "part of a country" but is a concept that crosses borders, while "part of a country" means within one state. This is an essential and crucial difference when it comes to human rights. It is surprising that the manipulation in the translation of the central and principal portions of an international charter could pass legal review, although the incorrect translation had been pointed out.
• The language issue was further obscured when two different issues were included in the bill - and two proposals - and the combined bill was called "Steps towards a minority policy". The bill thus comprised two different issues: the adherence to the European minority language charter and the adherence to a very different convention, the European Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. This made it more difficult for outsiders - in particular for the members of the parliament - to make a decision regarding to the two separate issues at hand.

The Swedish parliament passed the bill "Steps towards a uniform minority policy" on December 2, 1999. The regional linguistic patterns in Sweden - and thereby the historical Scanian language - were not mentioned or recognised.

2. The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Minorities
The nation state has been found to by the major enemy of every minority. The nation state has striven to assimilate other national groups within its borders. Some European states have attempted to carry on a deliberate and offensive policy of assimilation. In Sweden, this policy is still on the offical politcal agenda. It is called "integration". The state thus attempts to create a homogenous national people within its borders.

In states that resort to constructing a single culture, minorities have serious problems. Because of this type of centrally based cultural policy, the Council of Europe has developed a convention to protect Europe's cultural minorities and regional characteristics.

The convention contains a large number of comprehensive rights for minorities in Europe. They are given the right to use their own languages in various areas, to receive instruction in their own language about their own culture and history and also the right to post signs for places, roads, etc. in their own language.

This convention - the Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - deals with the protection of cultural minorities and has been the object of several reports. In a memorandum from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs we find: "The Convention does not contain a definition of the concept of national minorities. This was in part because they realised that there could not possibly be an agreement on such a definition."

It is not mentioned that Sweden was the state that protested most strongly in the Council of Europe against the used of the word "people" in the text of the convention. Sweden demanded that the concept of "people" be replaced by "population". Sweden did not wish to risk a questioning of the official myth about a homogenous "Swedish people", i.e. the current myth about Sweden as a country with "one people, one history, one language and one culture".

3. ILO resolution No. 169
Sweden has not, as opposed to Finland and Norway, signed and ratified the UN/ILO Resolution No. 169, which gives indigenous peoples rights at several levels, not least the territorial level. For Sweden, this resolution applies to the Sami people. It is primarily Section 14 (that gives the Sami the right to own and decide over the land areas that traditionally and historically belong to them) that the Swedish government finds problematic. The "Sami parliament" that was created during the 90's is not a decision-making parliament and therefore does not have the power the make decisions about land issues. Instead, it is by definition a consultative Swedish authority. It also surprised others when Sweden took a road directly opposite the one indicated by the convention and in the mid 90's withdrew the sole right of the Sami to hunt small animals within their land area. This directly contravenes the spirit of the resolution.

A prominent minister in the Swedish government publicly stated a couple of years ago that Sweden did not wish to ratify Resolution No. 169 "first it wanted to evaluate the consequences for the two neighbouring countries of Norway and Finland before Sweden would join the resolution".

In this context it is interesting to note that Sweden did not incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights from 1949 into Swedish laws either. Sweden was one of the very last states in Western Europe to do this. It was done on January 1 1995 since it was an EU requirement for Sweden's membership of the union, i.e. 46 years after the creation of this convention.

4. The European Charter of Regional Self-Government
In 1995, the Council of Europe introduced a new convention - the European Charter of Self-Government - which will govern the relationship between the state and the regions in the new "Europe of Regions" that is developing. A sufficient number of states in Europe have signed and ratified this convention in order for it to take force. Formally, this convention does not apply to Sweden, since it has chosen not to sign and ratify it, but it will still be difficult to offend against the spirit of the convention, since Sweden is now a member of the European community.

The European Charter of Regional Self-Government says, among other things, that the state must not earmark cultural subsidies to the regions, which actually currently is done in Sweden in almost 100% of cases. In this convention, the principle of subsidarity that controls how decisions are distributed between the state and the region is described in the clearest manner.

The historical Scanian language
The Scanian language is an excellent and illustrative example of the abovementioned democratic and political issue. The Scanian language here refers to the language spoken in Scania in historical times and that developed within Scania while it was a part of the Danish kingdom. This also applies to the other East Danish provinces of Halland, Blekinge, and Bornholm. We encounter this language in the Scanian Law from the 11th century and it was spoken by the common people. On a popular level, it was not affected until the Swedish public school system was developed during the latter half of the 19th century and it was spoken by the people up to only a generation or two ago. This historical Scanian language is thus not the "Scanian" spoken today by the population of the region. This old language can be given different names, but in no respect is it Swedish. The linguistic scientific background for the Scanian language is described by Prof. Helmer Lång, PhD.

The situation of the Scanian language
The situation of this old Scanian language is difficult and is related to the official Swedish policy of disregarding the non-Swedish background of Scania. The results were that there was no education in Scanian-Danish history and a profound neglect of Scanian culture and Scanian forms of expression. The Scanian language was also assigned "to the archives" and is ridiculed in various ways. Prohibition against speaking Scanian on the radio by employees of the Swedish government radio and TV broadcasting service were in force only a decade or two ago, etc.

A striking and illumination example of the negative attitude of the central powers in Sweden appeared in connection with the handling of the preliminary work for the bill that preceded Sweden's signing of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1999. The government simply refused to discuss the matter with any Scanian cultural organisations.

When the Minority Language Committee was appointed, two Scanian cultural organisations prepared reports and memoranda about the cultural regional pattern in Sweden and specifically about the historical Scanian language. Proposals were put forward on how this and other regional languages in Sweden were to be acknowledge in the bill for a new Swedish cultural policy. They were based on various convention texts from the Council of Europe regarding language and culture. These two organisation were the Foundation for the Future of Scania (Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid (SSF)) and the Scanian Academy (Skånska Akademien) that independently approached the investigators, the government, and its committees. SSF based its documents on the texts of international conventions about cultural group rights and the evaluations of Danish linguistic researchers, while the Scanian Academy has considerable linguistic expertise among its members.

The purpose of this document and previous memoranda in the language issue is to preserve the knowledge and survival of the Scanian language so that future generations will:

• have an understanding of their own culture.
• have access to the written Scanian cultural heritage.
• have an understanding of the historical background.
• be given the respect for their own language and the cultural forms of expression that create pride and confidence in individuals.

Thus, the issue is not about replacing the established Sweden written language with Scanian. Experiences from other parts of Europe show both that the use of several languages is both possible and desirable and that having a particular home language creates a special attachment to the immediate environment. Additional knowledge of languages in daily life thus improves the quality of culture. The acceptance of more languages does not exclude others, on the contrary, it enriches people.

Nor is the issue of language related to ethnicity. Language is one of the cultural forms of expression that is tied to the regions and gives them their specific characteristics. In today's integrated world, people move in and out of regions. Taking into consideration and protecting a specific regional character is thus tied to the place (the cultural region) and not to the individuals that happen to live in the region at a particular time.

The following documents were sent by Scanian cultural organisations - NGO's - to the government agencies that dealt with this issue in preparation for Sweden's signing of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, among them the Minority Language Committee, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Swedish Government:

• Letter from the Scanian Academy to the Swedish Government "Scanian - a language to be recognised". 99-06-21
• SSF's letter to the Parliamentary Committee on Culture "Protest against incorrect translation". 99-09-14
• SSF's letter to the Parliamentary Groups "Call not to approve the Bill". 99-09-01
• SSF's fourth letter to the Government "The Government removes SSF from the list of consultative agencies". 99-03-11
• SSF's third letter to the Government "The Government violates EU agreement". 97-04-06
• SSF's second letter to the Government "Indigenous languages in Sweden" 96-05-28.
• SSF's first letter to the Government "The situation of the Scanian language in Sweden. Viewpoints and proposals." 96-04-24.

None of these documents received an answer, in spite of reminders. This lack of willingness to communicate with citizens and interest organisations beyond the public sector appears exceptionally remarkable since Sweden is a strong proponent of openness in public administration. In this issue, the Government has taken no contact whatsoever with any of the involved cultural organisations.

It is equally remarkable that in the text of the study on which the decision of the Parliament was based in the minority language issue, the Scanian language was described as "a Swedish dialect". This is both historically and linguistically completely incorrect. No explanation was given for how a language that developed in a region that was part of Denmark for a very long time (i.e. outside of the borders of Sweden until 1658) could be a Swedish dialect.

It becomes very obvious that Sweden does not live up to the four conventions on this issue that were mentioned above.

Necessary measures
Currently, state powers around the world must adapt to a new situation where human cultural group rights are respected. It is then not sufficient to ensure that basic constitutional rights are written into laws and the like. It is equally crucial for the state to act actively and positively in such a way that these rights are respected and that the regional cultures within its borders are recognised, developed and provided support to do so.

When it comes to the survival of minority languages around the world, active measures must be taken. In Europe, funds are made available by the EU Parliament for support of minority languages. In Sweden, the regional languages that exist and have their roots in Danish, Norwegian, or Gutnish origins have no opportunity to benefit from the EU's support for languages. This is not because the people involved do not wish to, but because the Swedish state has neglected to recognise the regional linguistic pattern in the country and therefore has not recognised these languages prior to ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages from 1992.

A diversity based regional policy
It is clearly necessary that if the state as an institution is going to be able to function in a positive manner with regard to cultural policies in the new "Europe of Regions" that is about to develop, state powers must adopt a completely new view of culture. This view must be based on a genuine desire to respect, support, and develop the regional cultural patterns that have developed in the regions throughout history. The issue of language is part of such a cultural policy.

For Sweden this means:

1. That Sweden be regarded and accepted as regionally multicultural state, i.e. it consists of regions with diverse historical and cultural origins.
2. That a logical regional division be created, where both historical factors and considerations for the future are included. For example, the historical, political and administrative borders must coincide with the EU adjusted borders.
3. That the system of decisions within the state be distributed on the municipal, regional, and national level in accordance with the subsidarity principle (see the European Charter of Regional Self- Government).
4. That cultural policies be entirely delegated to the regional level, which means that it is doubtful that any cultural activities at all should be managed by the state.
5. That state radio and television be supplemented by independent regional units.
6. That representation in the EU, e.g. in the EU's Regional Committee be given a clearly regional mandate.
7. That the responsibility for schools and education be regionalised.
8. That construction, planning, and environmental issues be regionalised.
9. That the regional political representation and responsibility be strengthened and developed.

Demands in the area of minority languages
With this document follows the demand for a modern, regionally based cultural policy in Sweden. This new policy is already well established in several federal EU states. In others, such as Great Britain, Belgium, and Spain, it is moving ahead strongly. However, there are a few centralist states, such as France and Sweden, who oppose this policy and in these states it is more difficult to establish regionally based cultural policies.

For Sweden, this means that a new regionally based cultural policy must be created where the historical regional languages are given some form of recognition. The issue must be moved from the central level of the state to regional institutions, closer to the people. This is necessary in order to be able to preserve the regional linguistic diversity in the country and, not least, so that the Scanian language will be able to receive funds from the EU's major effort in the area of minority languages.

Marieholm, 21 February, 2001

Göran Hansson
Marieholm

Peter Broberg
Landskrona

© SSF

Back
Main Page