Conference by the Vigdís Finnbogadóttir Institute of Foreign Languages of the University of Iceland “Preserving the Future: Sustainability of Language, Culture and Nature”
Keynote Address by President Martti Ahtisaari
Reykjavik, 15 April 2010
Mr. President, Your Excellency Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me begin by expressing my heartfelt congratulations to my friend Vigdís Finnbogadóttir for your 80th birthday. It is indeed a great honor for me to be invited to address this conference today.
**********
I have spent a good deal of my working life with the United Nations. It is an environment where it is easy to be mindful of the fact that although there are some 7000 living languages in the world the six official languages of the UN have a very special role. The total number of speakers of Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish in the world is approximately equivalent of one third of the world population. If we add to that number those who speak one or more of these languages as their second or third language we arrive at even higher numbers. A world organization would not be possible if there would not have been agreement on accepting some of the most widely spoken languages as means of communication. One could even take one step further: globalization as we know it today would not be possible without accepting the fact that some languages are more equal than others.
We Finns, just like you Icelanders, have to accept the fact that our languages are important mainly to ourselves. To others they are, at best, an object of benign curiosity. But to ourselves our native languages are an integral part of our personalities.
Citizens of small nations have both a strong motive and a great need to try to understand the rest of the world. They cannot, the way it often happens among those living in the most populous of countries of the world, ignore other countries and cultures. Small developed nations are normally very much dependent on international cooperation, trade and exchange of capital and ideas. This is why they, in particular those living in countries that represent small linguistic communities, are obliged to learn other languages. As they do that they also develop an interest and an understanding of other cultures. The Nordic countries are a perfect example of this need and also of this mindset. All of them represent small linguistic communities and all of them are tightly integrated into the world community. They also play a larger role in various international endeavors than what one might assume knowing their size. That is a healthy phenomenon and it also contributes to the quality of life in those countries. There are strong reasons for trying to learn from others and to make use of their achievements. Since sources for such information is the whole world, openness becomes an asset in the world wide competition that all open developed economies face.
**********
In the case of Finland it is worthwhile to remember that almost for seven centuries and even beyond, Finland was an integral part of Sweden and the language of administration was Swedish. It had a dominating role in the upper echelons of the society. Latin was for several centuries the language of higher learning. In this respect the situation here in Iceland was rather different. I understand that Danish never achieved a comparable status here in spite of the political union with Denmark. Swedish is even today a national language in Finland along side with Finnish and more than five per cent of Finns speak it as their mother tongue. Swedish is a compulsory language for all students and that has been the case for a very long time.
In recent years there has been a good deal of controversy about this. A considerable number of people feel that the effort to learn Swedish is not worth the trouble. Swedish, like Finnish, both are small languages and they are of no avail in the wider world. What has been said in Finland say that instead of Swedish our students should dedicate their time to French, German or Russian. Too many feel that one language – overwhelmingly English – should be enough in addition to ones mother tongue. The responsible authorities have, however, no intention for changing the existing course. Swedish is and remains part of the obligatory curriculum in Finland.
The debate is, nevertheless, politically relevant. It shows that a large number of people believe that to know their mother tongue and English should be enough as far as basic education is concerned. In the secondary phase of education a second foreign language enters the curriculum. In Finland it is, in most cases, either French, German or Russian but there are even other possibilities. So those who have an intention to pursue their studies in institutions of higher learning, such as universities and other graduate schools have studied typically three languages in addition to their mother tongue. That may sound like a lot but there are very good reasons for it.
So – is there a good case for dropping Swedish from the curricula of our school systems?
I see this rather differently. It is my firm belief that we Finnish speakers are better off in a bilingual Finland. In our contacts with Sweden, and they are many and important, it makes a big difference if we approach our Swedish colleagues in their own language – which is at the same time our other national language. To be able to monitor Swedish developments in the original language gives many more opportunities to learn from them. It does not hurt my pride as Finn to state openly that there are many things where we can benefit from Swedish experiments and achievements. Sometimes it may even be a good idea to wait for a while as the Swedes are conducting their various experiments to see what the results are before trying to benefit from them or not. To be able to do that in the original language is an important advantage.
**********
The case of the Swedish language in Finland is not unique in European context. There are several bi- or even multilingual societies on our continent. Switzerland is an excellent example but by no means the only one. In one respect, however, the case of Swedish in Finland has its own characteristics. In the case of Finland the majority is learning the language of the linguistic minority and vice versa. The status of Swedish is not one of a minority language or a second language but an equal language. That is rare in the European context.
Language has been and still is an important component in nation building. Questions related to language can be a strong unifying factor but it is also possible that they are a divisive factor. A strong sense of national identity, such as ours, is, however, not built on Finnish only but on the fact that both Finnish and Swedish are today integral factors in that sense of national identity. That has not always been the case. There are, as we all know, other nations in Europe this very day where linguistic differences have been a source of unrest and, at times, even violence.
**********
Returning to the more general question of the importance of languages I would like to stress that knowledge of foreign languages is not only a necessity for the good maintenance of international relations, cultural, political, economic and otherwise. It is also a key to the understanding of other cultures, but also to a valuable tool in understanding of our own culture.
The case of foreign cultures is obvious. Without understanding the language of another culture we can never penetrate the thinking of others. A good translation can be very helpful but even a less than impeccable command of a foreign language gives more. It helps one to understand how the others think and how they feel.
Most nations, in particular the nationals of small nations are keenly interested in how others see them, what others think about them. This is not only a matter of idle curiosity. It may have some very practical implications. Unless we know how others see us we cannot choose the right strategy in communicating with them. We do not know how to win their confidence or how to build bonds of friendship. We may even look upon ourselves with different eyes if we know how others see us. That may be very useful.
Language, although as important as it is, is however not the only factor that helps people to communicate across the borders. There are many cultural phenomena which help in that respect. Similarities in education are such a thing. Music is understood across the borders. Certain classics are, especially in Europe, shared property. They all contribute towards an understanding even across the borders even when there is no common language. All this is very relevant as our own continent, Europe, is, once again, closer to open up. Borders mean less with travel without passports, with a common labor market, with study opportunities abroad, in a word, life in an open Europe.
**********
As someone who has spent a good deal of my working life in international negotiations, I have often thought about the importance of language. There is an important difference between negotiations conducted in a language common to the parties and in using professional interpreters. Knowing the language of the negotiating parties has many advantages. Those who have a profound knowledge of others in most cases also have a good understanding of their culture. Understanding the culture means understanding how the mind works. Nothing could be more helpful in a negotiating situation.
Such occasions are, however, rare. In most cases the parties to the negotiation are using a working language which is a foreign language to both parties. That introduces an element of evenhandedness to the process. On the other hand it increases the risk of misunderstandings. Lack of a common languages and the resorting to a foreign language to both parties often misses the all important fine points or nuances which may be politically decisively important. Here the role of experienced, professional interpreters can be invaluable.
In the United Nations it happens from time to time that the very competent interpreters not only have a full command of the language with all its political important jargon expressions but they also have developed a respectable expertise in the substance matters. I remember occasions when the interpreter has corrected the substance of the speeches of some delegates who have been sloppy with their homework and use wrong terminology, err on numbers etc. That, of course, is a risky thing to do for an interpreter. Sometimes such oversights are intentional and correcting them may distort the intention of the speaker.
It may also happen that the interpreter, especially the non-professional, has a strong emotional relationship to the substance matter in the negotiations. It may lead to a slanted rendering of the thoughts of either side. In such cases even a modest command of the language used by the parties may come in handy for the negotiators.
**********
As some of you might know my own academic training is in education. That may be why an interesting piece of research was brought to my attention as I was organizing my thoughts for this event. Among the vast body of research on the topic of the interrelationship between culture and language there is a very interesting sample of Norwegian research. Professor Birgit Brock-Utne from the University of Oslo has done research on how the use of foreign language teaching material is perceived in some African countries. Her observations prove that if foreign language texts are translated in the local language the results may be unintelligible however professional the translation is. The reason is that the text has been produced in such a cultural environment which is entirely strange to the students. The examples given, the proverbs used, the environment described all are either difficult to understand or totally irrelevant to the students who have no personal experience related to the text. It takes much more that a translation of the texts to make them useful and even usable to students coming from another culture.
Sometimes I feel that what is said here may have some relevance even in the context of international negotiations of a political nature. Perhaps the reason for thinking so is in the fact that during my studies I was specializing in how to teach those who are very slow in the process of learning new things.
In international political negotiations there is the risk that the parties make use of examples, idioms and expressions which, although properly translated, may be too strange to be understood. There may even be a risk of serious misunderstandings. Once again the message is: it is not enough to have a common language or a proper translation to succeed in negotiations. Just as important as the verbal communication is the understanding of the way others think, the meaning of their subtle hints, the deeper meaning of their words.
Birgit Brock-Utne states in the paper the following:
“Language is more than culture”. But she also concedes:”Culture is more than language”. In other words: the two are inseparable. There is no way of understanding a culture without understanding the language. And there is no way of understanding the language unless one also understands the culture. That is, of course, the ideal, the desirable state of affairs even in international negotiations. In reality that is, however, often more than what is possible in practical terms. My own experience shows that it is a great strength to have someone who really understands the culture and the language in question in my negotiation team. In the very difficult peace negotiations concerning the conflict between Free Aceh Movement and the Government of Indonesia my team benefitted from a member who had an excellent understanding of the issues and a profound understanding of the language and the culture of the parties. That was a great asset although most of the talks were held in English.
Dear Friends,
The importance of language, the strength of language has been understood for a very long time. Professor Birgit Brock-Utne makes use of the famous book by Lewis Carroll, “Alice in Wonderland”. That book was published already in 1865 but it still finds many readers. And for a good reason. It still has a useful message to all of us who take an interest in the power of language and words
“When I use a word”, Humpty Dumpty said”, in a rather scornful tone , ”it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more or less.” “The question is”, said Alice “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”The question is”, Humpty Dumpty said “which is to be master – that´s all”.
Language is, and is often used, as an instrument of power. That is one reason why it is so important to be mindful of the many uses – and abuses – of languages.