In the late 90s, I spent three years at a Finnish high school. Before that, I’d moved from one country to another every two to four years throughout my life. I had never had to confront my ethnicity before, but in Finland, I learned that saying I am half-Finnish and half-Thai meant I had to choose which one I was ’more’ of. Through interactions with much older men and the snarky comments of fellow teens, I also learned something that back then, I experienced as deeply shameful. I learned that in Finland, my Thai half was highly sexualised and associated with prostitution.
In retroactive self-psychoanalysis, I think my teenage self saw two choices. The first choice was to reject my Thai side. Then, perhaps I’d fit in with my peers and avoid predatory men. The other choice was to own my Thai-ness, challenge race-based sexual stereotypes, and label those who perpetuated them – in this case, ’all Finns’ – as ignorant racists. I chose the latter (albeit subconsciously). I was a rebellious teen, after all.
I almost categorically rejected Finns as friends. I disowned the Finnish language. After graduating from high school, I burned bridges and left Finland, swearing never to come back. Then, I got around to ‘becoming’ what I claimed to be: I learned to read and write Thai at 18, and years later, was able to function in Thai in a professional setting.
The public discussion surrounding language teaching and maintenance often focuses on the ethnocultural dimension of language as an economic good. The discussion frames language as instrumental; as a tool.
Language
- is a tool that allows for trade and international communication.
- facilitates various modes of thinking and cultural identity, and diversity is good for business and innovation.
Thus, the teaching and preservation of languages is an economic good to be invested in.
None of this is wrong. However, framing the discussion around economic benefits diminishes one very intrinsically human element of language: identity. Language is so closely tied to how we identify that it arguably has a greater impact on the motivation to learn a language than any material good. Conversely, negative stereotypes surrounding a group of language users can effectively block language learning.
First-contact maternity, postnatal and early childhood clinics (the Finnish ’Neuvola’) advise parents to ”just speak your language to your child, whether or not they speak it. They’ll start speaking it eventually”.
This seems to be based on what works for large minority communities, such as Fenno-Swedes in the capital city region. Yes – if you are speaking to your child in Swedish and the child is not responding at all or at least not in Swedish, this is ok. They will eventually be exposed to enough people from the community and start producing Swedish.
However, when it comes to smaller minority groups, it may be just one parent who is responsible for almost all of a child’s language exposure. A common complaint is ”My child understands, but refuses to speak”.
Humans are communicative animals and we are very efficient about language use. Essentially, if we do not need a language, or some parts of it, we are hard-wired to use our cognitive capacity on other things. In other words, if a child knows their parent understands the dominant language, why would they bother producing the other language? Minority language speakers are often not surrounded by their language community. Thus, it is crucial they demand, by other means, that their child also speak the language. Otherwise, the child only learns to understand the language, but not to speak it.
But that’s only part of the equation. The other part is identity and belonging. If a child experiences bullying, racial slurs and negative stereotypes, how will that child respond in terms of language learning? Some may react the way I did and find identity through conflict. Many will choose the ‘easier’ path and reject their minority language. Some children may become true multilinguals. During the identity-seeking teenage years, this may be especially visible.
Linguistics research documents examples of teenage migrants learning a new country’s language to native-level proficiency, whereas some ‘locally born’ migrants’ children never fully become proficient in the national language despite daily exposure. Generally, linguists agree that successful language learning requires a mix of motivation, exposure and neuroplasticity. Broadly speaking, exposure comes from one’s surroundings, and neuroplasticity with youth. Where does motivation come from, though? Many scholars emphasise the importance of identity in language learning.
It is not always enough to expose children to language from a young age and make sure there is value in speaking it. In addition to this, we need an environment where languages are equally valued. Languages express ethnocultural identity, and this is often tied to race. If we really want to encourage language learning, we need communities that are egalitarian and anti-racist, too. If we lived in that world, perhaps I’d have a healthier relationship with the Finnish language and my roots. More importantly, we’d have a lot more young people not being confronted with having to ’choose’ between identities, and thus languages.