Iceland Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Nathan Albury September 2012 University of New England Supervisor: Dr Finex Ndhlovu For the degree of Master of Arts (Linguistics) LING600: Dissertation in Linguistics or Applied Linguistics Orð eru til alls fyrst It all begins with words Contents Chapter one: Introduction 4 1.1 Aim of the study 5 1.2 Approach to the study 5 Chapter two: A critical review of the term language policy 7 2.1 Language policy or language planning? 7 2.2 Finding the real language policy 8 2.3 Language policy as practice, ideology and management 9 2.4 Implications for exploring language policy 11 Chapter three: Four forces for national language policy 13 3.1 The first force: National ideology 13 3.2 The second force: English as a global language 15 3.3 The third force: Sociolinguistic situation 16 3.4 The fourth force: Interest in linguistic minority rights 17 3.5 Towards an analysis of Spolsky’s four forces in Iceland 18 Chapter four: National ideology 20 4.1 Iceland’s Golden Age of literature 20 4.2 Icelandic nationalism 21 4.3 National ideology in language ideology 22 4.4 National ideology in language management 23 4.5 National ideology in language practice 25 4.6 Conclusion: Has national ideology determined language policy? 28 Chapter five: English as a global language 30 5.1 30 Riding the tidal wave: English as a foreign language Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 1 5.2 Resisting the tidal wave: Iceland’s second branch of corpus planning 34 5.3 Conclusion: Has English as a global language determined language policy? 37 Chapter six: Sociolinguistic situation 38 6.1 Sociolinguistic situation in language practice 38 6.2 Sociolinguistic situation in language management 43 6.3 Sociolinguistic situation in language ideology 46 6.4 Conclusion: Has the sociolinguistic situation determined language policy? 47 Chapter seven: Interest in linguistic minority rights 48 7.1 Icelandic Sign Language 48 7.2 Migrant languages 49 7.3 Icelandic as a minority language 52 7.4 Conclusion: Has an interest in linguistic minority rights determined language policy? 54 Chapter eight: Conclusion 55 Bibliography 57 Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 2 Abstract Iceland is as an extraordinary language environment. Centuries of linguistic homogeneity and relative language stability lead Icelanders today to boast that their language is, by and large, that of their ancient Norwegian ancestors. The planning and politics of Icelandic remain intrinsically characteristic of contemporary Iceland, particularly as this small community battles the linguistic pressures inherent to globalisation. This dissertation explores the motivations of language policy in Iceland by applying and testing the four co-existing forces that Bernard Spolsky sees as determining language policy in any independent nation, within the framework of his definition of language policy. This means analysing whether, and how, the workings of Icelandic national ideology, the impact of English as a global language, Iceland's sociolinguistic situation, and the internationally growing interest in linguistic minority rights have determined language practices, ideology and management in Iceland. The research finds that all forces except an interest in linguistic minority rights have in some way driven Icelandic language policy: national ideology, steeped in medieval literary culture and linguistically-inspired nationalism, has fostered linguistic purism; the force of English has created a dichotomised response that harnesses the international benefits of English proficiency while remaining sceptical of language contact; and the recent onset of societal multilingualism has ushered in political steps to affirm the primacy of Icelandic. Unlike Spolsky’s framework, Iceland's current language policy is not sympathetic to linguistic minority rights, other than those pertaining to Icelandic Sign Language. Instead, Iceland has constructed a right for immigrants to learn Icelandic and integrate into the Icelandic community. The dissertation proposes that Icelandic language policy interventions, discourse and research often reveal a self-reflexive interest in linguistic minority rights, whereby Icelandic is emphasised as a relative global minority in need of protection. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 3 Chapter one: Introduction Nestled at the fringe of Scandinavia, as a small and traditionally homogenous community, Iceland may not appear on first glance as a likely setting for vivacious language policy. Virtually no dialectal differences exist (Karlsson, 2004, p. 7) and Icelandic is flourishing more than ever in scholarship and the arts (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 386). The policy situation, however, is far from mundane. Icelanders have remained passionately engaged in the politics and planning of their language since Norwegian settlement between 870 and 930 (Árnason, 2003, p. 245), specifically to advance a preoccupation with linguistic purism that would sustain and nourish ancient Old Norse, resist the linguistic influences of larger languages, and legitimise an Icelandic sense of self. This engagement has by no means waned, and remains intrinsically characteristic of Icelandic society, prompting Icelanders to boast that their language is that of their medieval ancestors. What then is the nature of Icelandic language policy and what shapes it? Bernard Spolsky’s (2004, 2009) ideas are central to any contemporary language policy research. He explains that language policies are individual and group decisions concerning language (Spolsky, 2009, p. 1) as expressions of unique community dynamics (Spolsky, 2004, p. 217ff.). Language policy is, therefore, broader than sociolinguistics. Instead, its genesis is a nation’s political, cultural, religious, educational and economic complexities, ambitions and realities (Spolsky & Shohamy, 2000, p. 3), making discourse about language across different nations infinitely unique and policies infinitely nuanced. Acknowledging that the platform for language policy research is multidisciplinary and necessarily contextualised, Spolsky (2004, p. 219) proposes four common and co-existing forces that he considers responsible for determining language policy: national ideology, a nation’s sociolinguistic situation, the role of English as a global language, and an increasing interest in linguistic rights within the human and civil rights framework. These forces, Spolsky (2004, p. 133) claims, drive language policy in any modern independent nation, and should be tested, he adds, against actual cases. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 4 Spolsky (2004, 2008) has previously referred to Iceland, however his discussions are ephemeral and specifically illustrate Iceland as a purist polity or a phenomenal example of a potentially monolingual nation. Given he depicts Iceland as exceptional, and knowing Iceland’s language tradition is rooted in purism and Nordic heritage, it is worthwhile testing whether Spolsky’s forces are sufficiently robust to explain Iceland’s language policy. 1.1 Aim of the study The aim of this study is to ascertain whether, and how, Spolsky’s four determinants of language policy motivate language policy in Iceland, or whether divergences exist. 1.2 Approach to the study The dissertation takes each of Spolsky’s four forces and analyses their relevance to Icelandic language policy. This is supported in the first instance by necessary theoretical background. The structure is as follows: • An introduction to the term language policy, with special regard to Spolsky’s definition which forms the understanding of language policy in this dissertation. • An introduction to Spolsky’s four forces, with brief examples that illustrate the relevance of the framework. • A chapter for each of Spolsky’s four forces. The research presents the Icelandic context, analyses whether this has manifested into language policy, describes the policies, and ascertains whether Spolsky’s theory can explain language policy in Iceland. • A conclusion that draws on chapter findings to develop a final position on whether Spolsky’s framework accounts for Iceland’s language policy. The research used a qualitative methodology involving a systematic review of primary and secondary literature in English. This included collating relevant information from academic journal articles, books, book chapters, theses and unpublished literature through the University of New England library services and Google Scholar, such as: Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 5 • literature on the term language policy. Particular attention was given to Spolsky’s (2004, 2005, 2007, 2009) definition that frames his four forces; • Spolsky’s theory on the four forces, especially his publication Language Policy (2004) and his paper (2005) presented at the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism where he discusses his theory. This was supplemented by material that explores the themes inherent to the forces. Drawing on research findings, further searches were undertaken to identify illustrative examples where these forces have manifested into a nation’s language policy; and • literature on the Icelandic language and policy situation relevant to the four forces. Attention was paid to publications of prominent scholars in Icelandic sociolinguistics, including Árnason (2003), Arnbjörnsdóttir (2007, 2010, 2011), Hálfdanarson (2003, 2005), Hilmarsson-Dunn (2003, 2006, 2009), HilmarssonDunn & Kristinsson (2010, 2009), Kvaran (2003, 2004, 2010), Rögnvaldsson (2008, 2011) and Svavarsdóttir (2008). The research also drew on primary sources that provide insights to, and evidence of, Iceland’s language policy. This included: • Icelandic government and government-funded websites, such as the Ministry of Science, Education and Culture, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (and its agencies), the Alþingi1, Statistics Iceland, the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, the University of Iceland, the University of Akureyri, and the Multicultural and Information Centre; and • the Iceland Review and IceNews websites to locate news stories, editorials and opinions relevant to language policy. 1 The Alþingi is the Icelandic parliament which was founded in 930 AD (Alþingi, n.d.). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 6 Chapter two: A critical review of the term language policy It becomes quickly apparent in the literature that language policy does not lend itself easily to a single definition. Instead, understanding what language policy encompasses is in itself a topic of scholarly discussion. Theoretical understanding is therefore important to language policy research, and this chapter explores some key interpretations and approaches. 2.1 Language policy or language planning? A useful starting point is to note that scholars, such as Bugarski (1992, p. 18) and Cloonan and Strine (1991, p. 268ff.), distinguish between language policy and language planning. Whereas language policy can be considered the plan a community has for a particular language, language planning is the implementation of that plan (Baldauf, 2006, p. 149). Bugarski (1992, as cited in Schiffman, 1995, p. 3) adds that language policy is a community’s set of positions, principles and decisions regarding a language, while language planning equates to measures within language policy (Bugarski, 1992, p. 18). In essence, while language policy is the political infrastructure (such as legislation, rules, ideas and practices), language planning is the promulgation of policy (Baldauf, 2006, pp. 148-149). Hornberger (2006, p. 24) reminds us that language policy and planning are inextricably linked, and a distinction is not always obvious. She reflects on Fettes’ (1997) position that language planning “must be linked to the critical evaluation of language policy: the former providing standards of rationality and effectiveness, the latter testing these ideas against actual practice…” (p. 14). Therefore, the field is commonly and usefully referred to as Language Policy and Planning (LPP) (Hornberger, 2006, p. 24). LPP is configured through a broadly accepted framework (Baldauf, 2006, p. 150). An initial distinction is made between policy planning with a macro-perspective of a language in its community, and cultivation planning with a micro-perspective, generally concerned with the distribution of a language and its literacies. Interventions are categorised as status planning (concerning the function of a language in a community), acquisition planning (concerning opportunities to learn a Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 7 language) or corpus planning (about managing the form of a language through grammars, dictionaries and other codified texts). Nations may be concerned with all such aspects. For example, in New Zealand the Māori Language Act spearheads status planning, while acquisition and corpus planning are responsibilities of the Māori Language Commission to cultivate the language (Te Puni Kokiri, 2003, p. 13). 2.2 Finding the real language policy Sociolinguists agree, however, that language policy is about decision-making. Because all speakers often make decisions about the language they use, the true policy cannot be found solely within the interventions of a government. Instead, communities, including neighbourhoods, workplaces and families, can also be influential language policy makers (Ricento, 2006, p. 21), and all societal domains are capable of hosting policies (Spolsky, 2009, p. 19). This means that common language norms that present as policy at the societal level can exist in the absence of any government language policy intervention. This is evident in the Unites States, where a fervent English-only ideology (Schmidt, 2006, p. 99) thrives in the absence of official policy on the status of English (Bratt Paulston & Heidemann, 2006, p. 299). For Clyne (1997, pp. 67-68), Australian language policy proves that a government’s interventions may favour a particular portfolio – in this case education – meaning official interventions alone may not constitute a complete policy situation. Government language policy interventions are therefore only likely to be one aspect of a language policy narrative. Schiffman theorised this complexity when reflecting on difficulties in typologising language policies. For Schiffman (1995, p. 5), the LPP distinction remains practical, but he places the genesis of language policy in linguistic culture. This, he considers, is “the sum totality of ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, myths, religious strictures, and all other cultural “baggage” that speakers bring to their dealings with language from their culture” (Schiffman, 2006, p. 112). This dynamic environment is as responsible for sociolinguistic patterns of a community as for any politically-driven interventions. Language policy can therefore be the official, de jure, overt policies of a language community, as well as the covert policies which form the unwritten, de Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 8 facto, sociolinguistic norms. Importantly, these covert norms may not reflect overt policy (Schiffman, 2006, p. 112) because they are triggered by community-based agents of LPP (Baldauf, 2006, p. 147). Examples such as the maintenance of Polish in the school system contrary to Soviet policy (Schiffman, 2006, p. 116), and the convincing grip of French mythology about a language policy that never truly existed until the Loi Toubon laws of the 1990s (Machill, 1997, p. 479), prove that sociolinguistic realities can exist contrary to, or in the absence of, overt policy. This brings Schiffman to his position that language policy can only be understood from the perspective of its unique linguistic culture. 2.3 Language policy as practice, ideology and management Spolsky (2009) agrees that language policy is about “the choices made by individual speakers on the basis of rule-governed patterns recognized by the speech community (or communities) of which they are members” (p. 1). Examining actual practice is therefore as imperative as examining overt policies, leading Spolsky (2005, p. 257) to propose that language policy comprises three components: Language practices - the language pattern of selecting among the varieties that make up its linguistic repertoire; its language beliefs or ideology2 – the beliefs about language and language use; and any specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning or management (Spolsky, 2004, p. 5). Whereas Schiffman’s core distinction is between what is meant to happen and what actually happens, Spolsky’s framework comprises what actually happens, what the community believes should happen, and how authorities intervene. Spolsky positions language ideology as an independent component of language policy, unlike Schiffman who situates ideology within linguistic culture as the genesis of policy. Given this dissertation critically evaluates the relevance of Spolsky’s theory on what 2 Spolsky (2007, p. 3) notes that the terms language belief and language ideology are synonymous. He personally prefers the term language belief due to political connotations that language ideology may carry. For the purposes of this dissertation, the term language ideology will be used and will remain synonymous to language belief. This is because language ideology is commonly used by other sociolinguists, including those whose work is considered in this study. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 9 determines language policy, it is only fair to Spolsky’s scholarship that we apply his view of what language policy is, as presumably it is with this definition in mind that he theorised about the determinants of language policy. It is therefore important to explore his definition. Spolsky (2007, p. 3) firstly explains that language practices are the observable behaviours of a language community. The interest is in societal norms that are “regular and predictable” (Spolsky, 2007, p. 3) and therefore appear as policy. These, by their very nature, exclude language choices that are not habitual. This presents with little complexity for researchers and language data collectors, other than potential challenges in ascertaining whether a particular language practice is regular and predictable enough to be considered language policy. Language ideology, however, is more nebulous. In essence, language ideology is a community’s beliefs about language (Silverstein, 1979, p. 193). This may include its objectives for the role of language (Health, 1977, p. 53), shared notions of the nature of language in the world (Rumsey, 1990, p. 346) and the “cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests” (Irvine, 1989, p. 162). Language ideology is not just about language, but about language as a manifestation of social, political and cultural principles that represent an “indeterminate area of investigation with no apparent bounds…” (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 56) because “there is a complex but nonarbitrary relationship between beliefs about language and beliefs about other things” (Cameron, 2006, p. 151). Scholars debate how and where language ideology is best pinpointed (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 68), but a fundamental understanding is that language ideologies are totalising, in the sense that “elements that do not fit [the] interpretive structure – that cannot be seen to fit – must be either ignored or transformed” (Irvine & Gall, 2000, p. 39). At a practical level, this means that the interpretation of ideology, and as a product of linguistic culture, can be powerful and responsible for sociolinguistic changes in a community (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 69). However, Blommaert (2006, p. 243) cautions that the relationship between language ideology and community can in itself be ideological. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 10 This means that although language ideology strikes close to the heart of what a language community envisages about language, it must still be seen as distinct from practice, because a dichotomy can exist between what speakers believe and actually do, in the same way one can exist between overt and covert policies. Language management is broadly synonymous with overt language policy. Spolsky (2007) views this as the “explicit and observable efforts by someone or some group that has or claims to have authority over the participants in the domain to modify their practices and beliefs” (p. 4). The definition is not restricted to any specific type of language planning activity (Spolsky, 2005, pp. 258-260) or to any specific policy maker (Spolsky, 2005, p. 264). Language management may include any form of planned intervention within the LPP framework, including status, acquisition, and corpus planning initiatives under policy planning or cultivation planning, at any level of society. For national language policy, this would likely emphasise government instruments, such as legislation, policy statements and official programmes. Significant to Spolsky’s (2004, p. 218) definition is its emphasis on the context of language policy. Here, research into a nation’s language policy should consider the role of all language varieties within a sociolinguistic situation and remain cognisant that language policy exists within the range of dynamic contexts that create human society – social, political and otherwise. This prompts Spolsky’s (2005a) reflection on what is a frequent conundrum in language policy research: “Language practices, beliefs, and management are not necessarily congruent…One is therefore faced regularly with the question, which is the real language policy?” (p. 2160). 2.4 Implications for exploring language policy As illustrated, language policy research should apply a wide lens because a central aim is to answer the broader question of “how and why things are the way they are…” (Ricento, 2006, p. 6). Theoretical and methodological contributions have appeared across the social sciences. For example, political theory interprets the role of language policy in disputes and political landscapes (Schmidt, 2006, p. 107). This draws political theorists to explore, for example, the political motivations of “English Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 11 only” advocacy in the United States (Schmidt, 2006, p. 99) or contentions in normalising minority languages in public arenas, such as in Catalonia or the Baltic states (Patten, 2001, p. 691). Geopolitical analysis concerns “historical patterns of human contact and interaction between and among different cultural groups”, often with a geographical perspective (Cartwright, 2006, p. 200), such as the status of languages via territorial distribution in Switzerland (Spolsky, 2005, p. 259). Ethnographic research explores the bottom-up, localised and attitudinal perspectives on language policies (Canarajah, 2006, p. 153): through fieldwork, ethnographers acquire data about patterns of language use, which forms an etic perspective, as well as the way these are understood by speakers themselves, which forms an emic perspective (Hornberger, 1988, pp. 4-11). Linguists use discourse analysis to understand policy through authentic texts, speeches and conversation (Wodak, 2006, pp. 170-172). These examples by no means constitute the full extent of possible approaches. Although this dissertation is premised on Spolsky’s factors that contribute to national language policy, rather than on deconstructing policy through a specific approach, analysis clearly benefits from different disciplines as needed in order to effectively interpret a language policy situation. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 12 Chapter three: Four forces for national language policy Having established Spolsky’s definition of language policy, we can now explore his theory on what drives language policy. The previous chapter identified that his approach to language policy conceptualises components of language policy and a need to consider the context in which language policy is located. This means an understanding of language policy has been established. However, what causes language policy? Spolsky (2004, 2005) claims that four fundamental forces are responsible for determining the language policy of any independent nation state: • national ideology; • English as a global language; • a nation’s sociolinguistic situation; and • an increasing interest in the rights of linguistic minorities3. This chapter explores what these forces mean and provides brief examples where they have been relevant to national language policy. 3.1 The first force: National ideology Spolsky (2004, p. 219) proposes that language practices, ideology and management will reflect a community’s national (or ethnic) ideology or claims of identity. National identity draws necessarily on sociological and psychological theories and processes (Mandler, 2006, p. 271) and may be either ascribed (by a community) or attributed (by authority or outsiders) (Blommaert, 2006, p. 238). Scholars puzzle over how to best describe national ideology, and Spolsky does not appear to provide a solution. For the purposes of this dissertation, national identity is the ascribed sense of belonging to a national group and what it means to be a member of that group, known as psychological citizenship (Sindic, 2011, p. 206). 3 This is not the same order in which Spolsky (2004, 2005, 2007) presents these four forces in his literature. However, his discussions about the four forces do not suggest that the order in which they are presented or discussed is pertinent. The forces have been ordered as shown above to facilitate a logical discussion of language policy, and Spolsky’s framework, in Iceland. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 13 It is important to distinguish between national ideology and the concept of language ideology discussed in the previous chapter. For Spolsky, national ideology is a precursor to language ideology (which he positions as an independent component of language policy). This causality seems likely: language is widely recognised as a marker of claimed identity (Baker, 2011, p. 398) and nationhood (Blommaert, 2006, p. 242), meaning language can be critical in nation-building processes (Blommaert, 2006, p. 240). It is also well-established that language plays a significant role in constituting a sense of self (Besemeres, 2002, p. 4). This means that matters of identity can easily funnel into language choice (Spolsky, 2004, p. 219) and that language ideology can be a nest for power and authority (Blommaert, 2006, p. 242). Belgium offers a tangible example of national ideology within language policy. The proclaimed linguistic and cultural prestige of the Francophone south, and its economic and political dominance (Cartwright, 2006, p. 200), fuelled the nationalist 19th century Flemish Movement for political and cultural equality (De Keere & Elchardus, 2011, p. 222). Flemish gained official status (De Keere & Elchardus, 2011, p. 222), but the south remained opposed to a bilingual Wallonia (Cartwright, 2006, p. 201). Aspirations for a linguistically unified Belgium became futile when the country was partitioned in 1963 along its language borders, with Brussels becoming a zone of linguistic transition (De Keere & Elchardus, 2011, p. 222). Today, Belgium is a collection of ideologically monoglot regions (Blommaert, 2006, p. 243) whereby each region is constructed and perceived as monolingual without regard to any actual societal multilingualism (Silverstein, 1996, in Blommaert, 2006, p. 243). Spolsky (2004, p. 133) explains that post-colonial states especially confront language dilemmas, and supports Fishman’s (1971, pp. 39-40) hypothesis that newly independent states with a sufficiently Great Tradition - “a widely accepted and visibly implemented belief-and-behaviour system of indigenously validated greatness” (Fishman, 1971, p. 31) - usually pursue endoglossic language policies. This means adopting the pre-colonial language as the national language in the post-colonial era (Batibo, 2005 p. 12). The indigenous language serves as an established avenue of national, cultural and political expression, legitimised by the Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 14 greatness of an aspect of the indigenous society. For example, in northern African nations, Arabisation after French or Italian imperialism instituted Arabic as an official language on the primacy of its commonly shared Great Tradition: the Qur’an (Spolsky, 2004, pp. 133-135). Contrast this with Bangladesh where no single Great Tradition drives a universal construct of Bangladeshi identity: English elitism in education and government has instead persisted (Spolsky, 2004, p. 139) as an exoglossic policy (Batibo, 2005, p. 12), even if Bangla is the state language and merely 3% of the population use English (Islam, 2011, p. 49ff.). Bangladesh is also religiously heterogeneous (Oionen, 1999, p. 24) and suffers severe social and economic disparities (Islam, 2011, p. 49). The absence of a common Great Tradition results in post-colonial Bangladeshi language policy perpetuating English elitism. 3.2 The second force: English as a global language English is “powerful and pervasive” (Baker, 2011, p. 83). Globalisation has fostered a “tidal wave of English that is moving into almost every sociolinguistic repertoire” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 220) and nations are responding with language policies. That the world is now at its most globalised, and English the language of that globalisation, is rarely contested (Bamgboe, 2001, p. 357). Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1996, pp. 437-438) describe English as the most triumphant language of the current age and the language of capitalism, science, technology, post-colonial modernisation, and the internationalisation of public and private domains. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000, p. 24ff.) stresses that 90% of the world’s languages will disappear or become moribund this century if the world’s largest languages, where English is on top, continue to spread. How then did English achieve linguistic domination and therefore become a policy concern? The British Empire diffused English, however in most colonies the number of English-speaking settlers was relatively small (Spolsky, 2004, p. 82). SkutnabbKangas (2000, p. 25) and Phillipson (1998, p. 102) hypothesise a coordinated attempt at linguicide by the United States and Great Britain, which Spolsky (2004, pp. 78-86) generally rejects as an unfeasible conspiracy theory. De Swaan (2001, p. 20) explains that the world is comprised of language constellations, including an Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 15 array of peripheral languages used only in a spoken form, around 100 central languages that generally appear as national languages, and a handful of supercentral languages. English, like Arabic or Russian, is supercentral because it is used as a lingua franca between speakers of central languages, such as Dutch or Ukrainian. For De Swaan (2001, p. 20), English has a high Q-value, taking into account its supercentral position and number of speakers, which motivates acquisition of English as a second language (L2). Unlike Phillipson or Skutnabb-Kangas, De Swaan (2001, p. 186) does not view this dominance as premeditated, but a result of decisions that were oblivious to their consequences for language ecology. It appears then that the answer is found in economics: if English is the language of globalisation, including the internationalisation of commerce and culture, then English language proficiency is considered economically advantageous. Mackey (2003, p. 72) cautions, however, that the quest for prosperity can inflate the perceived value of the languages that dominate world commerce. This means language policies might confirm, harness, or resist the English tidal wave (Spolsky, 2004, p. 220). Dutch policy, for example, emphatically prioritises English as an L2 (Ytsma, 2000 p. 228). Compared to many Europeans, English proficiency amongst the Dutch is particularly high (Crystal, 2003, p. 6), providing the Netherlands with a competitive edge in international business (Crystal, 2003, p. 19). This proficiency has also helped transform the Dutch tertiary education sector into an export commodity where English is the language of postgraduate studies (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008, p. 93), and allows English media to assume a significant profile domestically (Hoffman, 2000, p. 8). Meanwhile, neighbouring Germany discloses a simmering worry about English loanwords and the instability of German as the national language of immigrants (Thomas, 2006, para. 6). Germany’s interests also include the abatement of English as the de facto language of the European Union (EU) (Berlin Protests, 2006, 21 April). 3.3 The third force: Sociolinguistic situation Perhaps the most predictable aspect of the framework is Spolsky’s (2004) claim that a sociolinguistic situation - “the number and kinds of languages, the number and Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 16 kinds of speakers of each, the communicative value of each language both inside and outside the community being studied” (p. 219) - influences language policy. The sociolinguistic situation would naturally be in direct causal relationship with language practices. However, this force is not only concerned with the factual sociolinguistic setting, but also with subjective perceptions about what languages are spoken and how important these are (Spolsky, 2004, p. 219). Singapore visibly shows how both these aspects can be relevant. Singapore is home to Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups, where 23% speak English at home, along with Mandarin (35%), Chinese dialects (24%), Malay (14%), and Tamil (3%) (Department of Statistics Singapore [DoSS], 2000, p. 27). In 1956, legislation codified English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil as official languages and a requirement to teach these in schools (Vaish, 2008, p. 218). In this respect, the sociolinguistic situation is clearly evident in language management that supports multilingualism. However, Singaporean law is silent on the non-Mandarin Chinese varieties spoken by nearly a quarter of all Singaporeans (DoSS, 2000, p. 28). The community acknowledges these exist, such as Hokkien, Cantonese and Hainanese, but perceives them as subversive (Wee, 2009, p. 18). Wee (2009, p. 18) suggests that government silence on these non-Mandarin Chinese dialects advances their systematic erasure. This would mean Singaporean language policy supresses their communicative value. Ideological motivations would be at play, but this situation illustrates how policy might both promote and supress a sociolinguistic reality. 3.4 The fourth force: Interest in linguistic minority rights Spolsky (2004) claims that a recent influence on national language policies is the internationally increasing interest in “linguistic pluralism and an acceptance of the need to recognize the rights of individuals and groups to continue to use their own languages” (p. 220). The American civil rights movement sparked international awareness of minority issues (Spolsky, 2005a, p. 2159), and international human rights instruments from the 20th century affirm and protect the rights of language minorities either explicitly or implicitly. This includes, for example, the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations with their concerns for linguistic minorities, the Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 17 1945 United Nations Charter on fundamental freedoms, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights under which language must not be used for discrimination (Spolsky, 2005a, p. 2158), and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe [CoE], 1992). Such instruments position language as an element of human rights and have prompted nations to recognise, in some way, language rights for their minorities. This could include, for example, establishing rights in legislation, such as provisions for minority language-medium schooling (Spolsky, 2004, pp. 220-221). An imperative for linguistic rights is enthusiastically reflected in academic discourse, where Phillipson and SkutnabbKangas take lead. They express concern that despite the 20th century interest in linguistic rights, globalisation, the democratisation of post-communist states, and international polities can, without careful planning, incur language shift or loss for minorities (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996; Phillipson, 1998). May (2006, pp. 265-266) also reflects these sentiments when proposing that tenets of international be applied to further develop linguistic human rights, and urging consideration of rights in respect to both indigenous and migrant minorities. However, no common definition underpins linguistic rights, meaning legal cultures interpret and apply the term differently and to varying degrees (Bratt Paulston, 1997, p. 75). Belgium, discussed earlier, applies a territorial principle, in that rights are specific to geographical regions (Baker, 2011, p. 70). Meanwhile, New Zealand applies a personality principle, affording the right to use Te Reo Māori anywhere in New Zealand (Kymlicka & Patten, 2003, p. 275). Contrary to the widespread Englishonly ideology and absence of any centralised language management in the United States, linguistic rights are inherent to its vigorous civil rights legislation (Spolsky, 2005a, p. 2158). This last example hints that existent language rights may not necessarily align with predominant language ideologies. 3.5 Towards an analysis of Spolsky’s four forces in Iceland The four forces presented above are the co-existing drivers which Spolsky claims account for language policy in any independent nation today. Spolsky (2004, 2005) envisages these at the national level, meaning sub-national language policies, such Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 18 as within organisations and families, are not of interest to this framework. Spolsky (2004, p. 221) admits his four forces may be intrinsically interrelated. This is the case in Iceland. For the sake of clarity: • discussion about word coinage under Icelandic corpus planning is discussed in Chapter Five about English as a global language. Although corpus planning is motivated by national ideology, Iceland’s current approach to word coinage specifically targets English influences; • discussion about English in Icelandic language domains is reserved for Chapter Six on the sociolinguistic situation (not Chapter Five on English as a global language) because English is also considered a domestic language choice; and • discussion about the status of Icelandic Sign Language (ISL) is reserved for Chapter Seven on linguistic minority rights (not Chapter Six on the sociolinguistic situation) because legislation on ISL is driven by human rights interests and is usefully contextualised within broader discussion on language rights. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 19 Chapter four: National ideology This first chapter on applying Spolsky’s four forces in Iceland assesses whether national ideology has motivated language policy. It is necessary to ascertain what Icelandic national ideology is before examining its influence. Comprehensively exploring all dimensions of Icelandic-ness is impossible in this dissertation, however it appears Icelandic psychological citizenship traditionally draws on two interrelated sources: Iceland’s Golden Age of medieval literature (Helgason, 2007, p. 37) and nationalism against Denmark’s colonial rule legitimised by Iceland’s literary tradition and language (Hálfdanarson, 2003, p. 195). 4.1 Iceland’s Golden Age of literature Iceland’s literary Golden Age in the 13th and 14th centuries (Árnason, 2003, p. 245) narrated Scandinavian mythology and Iceland’s settlement, and recalled ancient kings (Sapir & Zuckermann, 2008, pp. 297-298). Prominent works include the Book of Settlements, the Saga of Icelanders, Sagas of Kings, manuscripts of Skaldic poetry, and Snorri’s renowned Edda poetry (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 212); commonly written from a heroic, post-settlement perspective steeped in the social equalisation of the early Icelandic experience (Einarsson, 1957, p. 378). The Old Norse language itself was also a focus. Poetry updated lexicon for the Icelandic context (Ottosson, 2002, p. 1997) and determined correct language usage (Árnason, 2003, p. 252) and Snorri’s Edda included four Grammatical Treatises (Ottosson, 2002, p. 1997) that touched on “fundamental questions in linguistics” (Árnason, 2003, p. 261). The first treatise, for example, described Old Norse pronunciation and prescribed rules for orthography (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 213), and the second described syllabic structure and phonology (Árnason, 2003, p. 262). This Golden Age can be fairly tagged as Iceland’s Great Tradition from Fishman’s (1971, pp. 39-40) perspective, not only because the literature became “the basis for their national glory” (Sæmundsson, 1835, as cited in Hálfdanarson, 2005, p. 57), but because the literature became integral to Icelandic cultural life and captured wider Scandinavian attention. Transcribing the manuscripts and kvöldvaka - a tradition of Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 20 reading the literature aloud – became and remained a popular pastime (HilmarssonDunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 365), made possible by continuous and widespread literacy (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 2). The monarchy and intellectuals during Denmark’s reign of Iceland from 1262 also revered the literature (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 213), decorating Icelandic as the proto-Scandinavian language and an essential window to Nordic history. By the 17th century, Icelandic and its literature par-excellence counted as the redeeming assets of what was otherwise disregarded as an impoverished barbarian Danish province (Hálfdanarson, 2005, p. 58ff). This fostered a keen interest domestically and internationally to preserve Icelandic so that the Golden Age literature and Nordic history stayed accessible to modern Scandinavians (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 213). The literature even remains an important source of popular culture in Iceland today (Kristinsson, 2000, as cited in Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 387). 4.2 Icelandic nationalism Icelandic nationalism was for the most part founded by the Fjölnir periodicals between 1835 and 1847 (Ottosson, 2002, p. 2002). A national ideology to preserve the Golden Age language continued, but Danish had become the language of prestige under Denmark’s rule. The threat of Danish contaminating the ancient language had become potent (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 62), prompting the Fjölnir authors to radically seek to remove all Danish influences (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 66). Many Icelandic writers followed their lead, allowing Fjölnir to awaken and vocalise anti-Danish sentiments grounded in language preservation (Ottosson, 2002, pp. 2002-2003). Sigurðsson harnessed the groundwork of Fjölnir (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 65) to claim that Danish rule in Iceland was unequivocally unnatural because languages are markers of nationhood and Iceland’s language was clearly unlike Denmark’s. He urged Iceland to “show courage and pursue its right, so it can fulfil its divine destiny” (Sigurðsson, 1841, as cited in Hálfdanarson, 2005, p. 57). Iceland’s linguistic interests had acquired a nationalist accent, and Icelanders asserted the perceived superiority of Icelandic as the proto-Scandinavian and Golden Age language (Helgason, 2007; Kristmannsson, 2004). Nationalism did not simply Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 21 mean speaking a language other than Danish. Instead, Icelandic needed to be “as close to its medieval form as possible” (Hálfdanarson, 2005, p. 62). This even evoked a misguided perception by the 20th century that Iceland’s language had never undergone change (Leonard, 2011, p. 170) which, we shall see, is not true. While it is common for political self-assertion to harness language differences (Hobsbawn, 1996, p. 1078), Iceland was unique because, unlike in Norway where Norwegian had been lost, Icelandic stayed wilfully grounded during Copenhagen’s rule within antiDanish hostility and a reverence for the Golden Age (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 12). Denmark’s own endorsement of Icelandic as proto-Scandinavian rendered Iceland’s move to independence in 1918 relatively smooth (Hálfdanarson, 2003, p. 195). Language was therefore both the trigger for nationalism and the basis of its success, linking nationalism and literature to form Iceland’s national ideology. 4.3 National ideology in language ideology The centrality of language within Icelandic-ness designed a purist language ideology to preserve Icelandic as an unbroken link to the Golden Age (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 62). Although nationalism is commonly a precursor to linguistic purism (Thomas, 1991, p. 52) and certainly aided Iceland’s purist agenda, Icelandic purism clearly pre-dates nationalism. Therefore it is primarily an archaising type because it aspires to a glorious historic literary form (Thomas, 1991; Geers, 2005). In fact, Icelandic-ness is considered so contingent on the pure form of Icelandic that the language is commonly referred to as the egg of life (Kristmannsson, 2004, pp. 59-60) because “if the language changes, then the national compact will automatically dissolve” (Hálfdanarson, 2005, p. 56). Consequently, public discourse is frequently preoccupied with the state of Icelandic (Hálfdanarson, 2005, p. 56) and a nationwide Gallup survey in 1987 identified that three quarters of Icelanders felt language protection was important (Óladóttir, 2009, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 220). Linguistically-oriented entertainment programmes are popular, including the radio programme Íslenskt Mál (Icelandic language) where linguists discuss language matters with the public, and the Orð Skulu Standa (Words Shall Stand) quiz show on lexicon and phraseology (META-NET, 2011, p. 13). An interesting case is Mjólkursamsalan, the national milk company, with its corporate Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 22 motto Icelandic is our matter: Mjólkursamsalan has fostered language preservation by printing proverbs and grammar rules on milk cartons and awarding scholarships for Icelandic language research (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 388). However, the alignment between national ideology and language ideology may be widening. Younger Icelanders, who generally support Iceland’s economic and political internationalisation with Europe, are often perceived as less likely to attribute their Icelandic-ness to language and heritage (Friðriksson, 2008, pp. 68-69). Friðriksson’s (2008, p. 289) research hints at an ideological shift, as he found that only 46.3% of 108 Icelandic informants were clearly negative about language change. Interestingly, teenagers were more likely to be negative than adults (38.89% compared to 27.78%). This potentially means language ideology is in a state of flux and as such, further research is needed (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 72). 4.4 National ideology in language management In any case, Icelandic national ideology, via a traditionally purist language ideology, is echoed in official interventions to preserve Icelandic as the archaic Scandinavian language. Just as Fishman (1971, pp. 39–40) predicts for post-colonial nations with a Great Tradition, the Icelanders pursued an endoglossic language policy after achieving independence, in which Icelandic swiftly replaced Danish as the prestige and working language of administration (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 67). Of course in Iceland, where anti-colonial nationalism was premised squarely on language and Icelandic had persisted under colonial rule, this is hardly surprising4. The Árni Magnússon Institute of Icelandic Studies (AMIIS)5 is commissioned to undertake corpus planning by increasing “awareness of the Icelandic language and its development and preservation in spoken and written form, and providing advice 4 However, it was not until 2011 that Iceland adopted legislation that confirmed Icelandic as the national and official language of Iceland (Alþingi, 2011). The sociolinguistic situation in Iceland as a determinant of language policy, including the status of Icelandic, is discussed in Chapter Six. 5 The functions of the Icelandic Language Institute, the University of Iceland Institute of Lexicography, the Árni Magnússon Institute, the Sigurður Nordal Institute, and the Place-Name Institute of Iceland were merged into the AMIIS from 1 September 2006 (AMIIS, n.d.b, para. 1). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 23 and instruction on an academic basis regarding linguistic matters” (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture [MESC], 2009, p. 20). Importantly, preservation is about “maintaining linguistic continuity from one generation to another with the aim of preserving the link between modern language and the earliest Icelandic literature” (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 102), clearly reflecting the national ideology. To execute this, the AMIIS operates a word-bank, publishes dictionaries and language handbooks, (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 226) and maintains a database of Icelandic’s complex inflectional system6 (AMIIS, n.d.e, para 1). It has often reinstated archaic morphological inflections where change occurred7 and publishes revived standards in handbooks (Árnason, 2003, p. 273). The AMIIS’ corpus planning also modernises old and archaic lexicon by avoiding loanwords (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 364), however the current approach is typically perceived as a response to the influx of anglicisms and will be explored in Chapter Five. At this point, it is interesting that word coinage, like grammatical corpus planning, has at times recycled Old Norse to create neo-archaisms (Karlsson, 2004, p. 66). For example, the noun sími (telephone) was created from the archaic word for thread (Sapir & Zuckermann, 2008, p. 21), and the noun skjár (screen) was recycled from its former meaning of “membrane covering an opening in the roof (used in Old Icelandic homes before the window came to use)” (Sapir & Zuckermann, 2008, p. 33). This re-enlivens the Golden Age language. The AMIIS also fields public and academic queries on appropriate language use. The popularity of these services8 suggests this language planning caters to the language needs of the community (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 226). 6 Icelandic has retained the four original cases of Old Norse: the nominative, accusative, dative and genitive, such as what existed in Old English, currently exists in German, but has been lost from Danish, Swedish and Norwegian (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 11). 7 For example, inflections on ia-stem nouns, such as læknir (doctor), had changed from Old Norse. However, language management reinstated the archaic forms. For example, the archaic lækn-ar (plural nominative) replaced lækn-irar, and the archaic lækn-is (single genitive) replaced lækn-irs (Árnason, 2003, p. 273). 8 It appears the popularity of AMIIS services has increased. Between 1988 and 2006, the number of requests to the AMIIS for language advice rose from 400 to 2,600 per year. Requests have decreased since 2006, however this is probably because more information has been uploaded onto the AMIIS website, reducing the need for direct enquiries (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 226). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 24 An enthusiasm for the Golden Age also seemingly underscores investment in Icelandic language tuition abroad, which Spolsky and Shohamy (2000, p. 12) would term diffusion policy. In 2001, Iceland committed funding to 16 overseas universities9 (Bragason, 2001, para. 5) and Iceland operates the free web-based Icelandic Online course in Icelandic as a foreign language (FL) (AMIIS, n.d.a) with its tutor-assisted version Icelandic Online Plus (Icelandic Online, 2012). International scholarships are awarded for in-country study (AMIIS, n.d.c) and the AMIIS maintains a database of Icelandic courses abroad (AMIIS, n.d.d). The rationale for these initiatives is not stated, but presumably stems significantly from the perceived value of the Golden Age, rather than demand for Icelandic as a FL. Firstly, following De Swaan’s (2001, p. 20) framework, Icelandic is a small language without a high Q-value that motivates learning it as a FL for communicative purposes. Secondly, demands for Icelandic as an L2 are already addressed through in-country investments targeting migrants and foreign students (University of Iceland [UoI], 2012), and the multimedia Carry on Icelandic: Learn Icelandic and enjoy it! course for exchange students (AMIIS, n.d.). Instead, an instrumental motivation (Baker, 2010, p. 128) to learn Icelandic exists specifically for scholarship in the Golden Age literature and Old Norse (MESC, 2001). This is reflected in the Snorri Sturluson Fellowships awarded to “foreign writers, translators and scholars, in order to travel to Iceland to improve their knowledge of Icelandic language, culture and society” (AMIIS, n.d.f). 4.5 National ideology in language practice Knowing language ideology and management reflect the linguistic protectionism inherent to Iceland’s national ideology, the remaining question is whether language practices indeed foster an unbroken link to the Golden Age. Changes in languages are natural (Fromkin et al, 2009, p. 446), and Iceland is no exception. Icelandic underwent drastic phonetic and phonological changes between the 14th and 17th centuries (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 3), including new vowel realisations and the 9 An update as at 2012 is not apparent in the literature, including in Ministry for Foreign Affairs information about the promotion of Icelandic language and arts. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 25 disappearance of some distinct vowels10 (Karlsson, 2004, p. 11ff.), making modern Icelandic substantially different in sound to Old Norse (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 213). Modern attempts to stop further phonetic changes have been successful. A study commissioned by the government to compare data from 1940 and 1986 identified that language planning had arrested the flámæli trend - the merging of front-mid vowels that make some unrelated words sound identical - by promoting alternatives as more prestigious (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, pp. 4-5). Soft Icelandic pronunciation - voicing stops where standard Icelandic uses voiceless stops11 - is only a minor deviation which, as a result of systematic planning in schools, is confined to the few Icelanders with minimal education (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, pp. 5-6). Nonetheless, a national ideology that modern Icelandic should be as close as possible to Old Norse has not prevented pronunciation changes. Svavarsdóttir (2008, p. 444) explains that, despite some rhetoric that Icelandic has never changed, linguistic purism especially focussed on the written language, not spoken Icelandic, given Iceland’s preoccupation with its literature. This explains why only very minor structural changes have arisen. The few changes that have occurred are morphological (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 12), mostly associated with the case system (Svavarsdóttir, 2008, p. 446). We already noted actions to reinstate archaic inflectional paradigms, however the most discussed language change is the so-called dative sickness. This is the tendency for accusativecase objects to become dative (Smith, 1994, p. 675), but also refers generically to accusative pronouns replacing nominative pronouns before the verbs hlakka (to look forward to) and kvíða (to be anxious). Friðriksson (2008, pp. 112-113) researched nominative sickness, whereby accusative or dative forms are used instead of the nominative, within a broader inquiry into case sickness amongst Icelandic children. Case sickness was surprisingly infrequent. Only 13.13% of 108 informants showed any signs of case sickness, and frequency was especially low in Reykjavík (Friðriksson, 10 It appears that changes to consonants also occurred, although to a lesser extent. For a comprehensive overview of the historic sound changes in Icelandic, see Karlsson (2004). 11 For example, the standard crisp pronunciation of tapa (to lose) becomes taba, and the crisp strákur (boy), becomes strágur (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, pp. 5-6). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 26 2008, pp. 212-213), which is home to over 60% of Icelanders (Statistics Iceland [SI], 2010, p. 14). Maling and Sigurjónsdóttir (2002) identified case variations amongst adolescents in forming the passive voice, which they termed the new impersonal concerning “a morphological passive auxiliary and participle which is able to assign accusative case to a post-verbal argument” (p. 97). The vast majority of 1,695 adolescent respondents claimed to use the new impersonal, but in practice, frequency was again very minimal in Reykjavík (Maling and Sigurjónsdóttir, 2002, p. 97). Ultimately, the structure of Old Norse has persisted (Kvaran, 2003, para. 1) and Icelandic is relatively stable (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 349) despite phonetic changes, because any grammatical variations are unsystematic (Svavarsdóttir, 2008, p. 443). In fact, Icelanders easily rely on modern Icelandic to read the Old Norse Golden Age literature (Kvaran, 2004, p. 144). This poses the question whether Icelandic’s relative stability is attributable to the workings of national ideology. Geographic isolation is ruled out as a significant cause, because Icelanders maintained contact with Norwegians, Brits, Germans and obviously Danes (Svavarsdóttir, 2008, p. 441), evidenced by loanwords12 dating back to around 1,000 AD (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 9). Karlsson (2004, pp. 64-65) suggests the reasons are varied, including widespread literacy and minimal immigration. He also points to a surprising frequency of travel across the island throughout history, especially for Alþingi meetings, family estates, intermarriages, to the few schools that existed and for seasonal work, meaning the form of Icelandic was maintained between communities. Hilmarsson-Dunn (2003, p. 9) bundles these factors to draw on Milroy’s (1992, p. 196) view that language change is minimal within tight social networks with characteristics such as those Karlsson describes for Iceland. Such communities lean towards linguistic conservatism (Milroy, 1987, pp. 184-185) to create norms and express solidarity (Milroy, 1980, p. 194). Iceland was indeed a tight social network from the time of colonisation, even before the Golden Age, meaning Milroy’s theory probably applied (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 9). Literary vitality and pride in the Golden Age throughout Icelandic history also 12 For example, some of the first loanwords include prestur (priest) and kirkja (church) from Old English and altari (altar) and djöfull (devil) from Old Saxon (Svenonius, 2002, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 9). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 27 reportedly helped to resist language change (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 12). Language stability is, therefore, probably attributable to both Milroy’s theory and Iceland’s ongoing engagement with its literature, but it is unclear how much relative weight these factors held. In any case, Milroy’s theory became less applicable by the mid-19th century when societal networks began to change but language stability continued. At that time, Icelandic nationalism, as new aspect of national ideology, likely became a driving influence (Friðriksson 2008, p. 45) because corpus planning, such as Fjölnir’s, promulgated purist language practices and anti-Danish linguistic purism came to define Icelandic-ness. This process reconfirmed Iceland as an independent language community and favoured stability (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 108). The impact of Golden Age literature on language stability requires closer attention. Icelandic literature has been identified as both a concrete marker of Icelandic national ideology, and a continuous aspect of popular culture (Kristinsson, 2000, as cited in Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 387). This means the literature has been palpable in contemporary life. As such, language stability may also be a practical consequence of the literature’s continued popularity throughout the centuries, rather than of national ideology per se, even if the popularity of the literature is in itself a creation of national ideology. In other words, it is not clear from the research whether the language stability motivated by the Golden Age literature was in some part simply practical, because the literature remained a popular source of entertainment, beyond its role in founding Icelandic-ness. 4.6 Conclusion: Has national ideology determined language policy? Icelandic national ideology has reliably motivated two out of three aspects of Spolsky’s definition of language policy: language ideology and language management. National ideology centres squarely on Iceland’s Great Tradition of Golden Age literature and on nationalism against Denmark, empowered by endorsements of Icelandic as the proto-Scandinavian language. This inspired a correspondingly purist language ideology to fervently preserve Icelandic as a continuous link to Iceland’s glorious past as a defining element of Icelandic-ness and resist language change. However, language ideology may be evolving parallel to Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 28 Iceland’s internationalisation, and further research could identify whether Icelandic national ideology is becoming less crucial to language ideology. Nonetheless, language management interventions have preserved, restored and promoted Icelandic through corpus planning, at times flavoured with nationalism, and through a diffusion policy to promote Icelandic study internationally. In terms of language practice, the purist of nationalists would lament that national ideology has not prevented Old Norse from undergoing dramatic deviations in phonetics and phonology. However, the structure remains largely intact as only minor morphological changes have arisen, allowing Icelandic to be touted as a successfully stable language. This stability is partly a consequence of Iceland’s reverence for its Golden Age literature. Here, the motivation to resist language change is not only steeped in the workings of national ideology but may, at least in part, be instrumental because the literature has been a continuous aspect of popular culture, rather than simply an ideological souvenir. Even if this is the case, this instrumental motivation can nonetheless be viewed as a product of national ideology. Added to this, language stability has not exclusively been a product of the Golden Age literature, but also, to an uncertain degree, the result of Iceland’s tightknit social network since Norwegian settlement. This means national ideology only partially accounts for language practices and the extent of its role is unclear, but it has certainly influenced language policy generally. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 29 Chapter five: English as a global language Regardless of its tradition of linguistic purism, Iceland is not immune to the English tidal wave (Spolsky, 2004, p. 62). Iceland’s stance on English evolved with globalisation and the diffusion of Anglo-American culture (Svavarsdóttir, 2008, p. 442) and is dichotomised: Icelanders pursue the global benefits of English language proficiency, but counter its influence through protectionist language policy. This chapter considers this dichotomy as it relates to English in the international arena. However, English is not simply an external concern, but is firmly grounded within Iceland’s sociolinguistic landscape (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2007, p. 52), which is explored in Chapter Six. 5.1 Riding the tidal wave: English as a foreign language Language acquisition planning reflects Iceland’s pragmatic concern that FL skills are imperative to its international success (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 228). Subsequently, Icelandic education has long valued FLs and at present, 10.27% of compulsory education is committed to at least two FLs; more than for science and information technology (IT) (MESC, 2012, p. 50). FL education historically targeted Danish: ideologically, in the interests of heritage and Nordic communications, (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2009, p. 49), and pragmatically, because textbooks were typically in Danish and Icelanders generally pursued higher education in Denmark (Rasmussen, 2002, p. 29). Interests in FL acquisition began shifting in the 1940s in favour of British and American interests (Rasmussen, 2002, p. 29), when English became Europe’s primary lingua franca (Cogo & Jenkins, 2010, p. 271ff.) and L2 of 90% of European students. English’s Q-value – the value of learning English motivated by its centrality and number of speakers (De Swaan, 2004, p. 577) – had outweighed Danish’s. It also seemingly surpassed the historical relevance of Danish as the initial FL, because in 1999 Iceland inverted the English/Danish balance. This occurred because “1) English gradually became more dominant in relations with other countries; 2) English became more dominant within Icelandic society in the form of films and television, Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 30 the Internet and popular music” (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2009, p. 49). The curriculum now prescribes English as the first FL, and renders Danish an option for fulfilling the second FL requirement alongside Norwegian and Swedish (MESC, 2012, p. 50). English proficiency is so fundamental that many schools begin English instruction before it becomes compulsory in grade 4 (MESC, 2007, as cited in Hilmarsdóttir, 2010, p. 15), and it is a mandatory year 10 examination besides mathematics and Icelandic (MESC, 2012, p. 57). English is compulsory for at least two years in uppersecondary schooling, whereas Danish may be dropped after one (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 235). By the end of formal schooling, students anticipate up to a C1 level of English13 (Jeeves, 2012, p. 4). Danish, however, does not begin until grade 7 (SI, 2011, para. 4) and the little ground it retains is traceable to the Nordic Language Declaration. This asserts a right for Scandinavians to acquire “an understanding of the other Scandinavian languages so that they can take part in the Nordic language community” (Nordic Council of Ministers [NCM], 2006, p. 92) supplementary to a language of international importance. Interestingly, an interest in Asian language acquisition is growing. In 2011, Chinese was studied for the first time (41 students) and Japanese had increased to 147 students (SI, 2011, paras. 6-8). As Hilmarsson-Dunn and Kristinsson (2010) state clearly, English at school is “cool” (p. 232). MESC research of 23 teachers and 788 students found that learners and educators value English highly. Over 90% of students agreed English is important for international communication, most found it useful for the media and the internet, and almost all enjoy learning it (Lefever, 2006, p. 10). Jeeves’ (2010, p. 8) survey of 16 students across Iceland found that English competence is linked to a youthful Icelandic sense of self in the international arena: English is considered a prerequisite to overseas travel and education, journalism, and communication with international tourists, including as a lingua franca (Jeeves, 2010, p. 7). Jeeves’ (2012, p. 15ff.) later research revealed that the English curriculum is especially valued for developing writing skills and consolidating grammatical knowledge reportedly acquired from 13 C1 is an advanced proficiency based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL). For information on the CEFRL and a description of proficiencies by level see CoE (2008). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 31 English language media. Danish, on the other hand, is mostly considered “irrelevant” (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 300). Describing the practical result of this enthusiasm on language proficiency is difficult beyond generalisations. In 2001, it was found that at least 90% of Icelanders have some English competence, and 64% claimed to use it well (Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2001, as cited in Svavarsdóttir, 2008, p. 455). Icelanders are heavily exposed to English outside classrooms via the media and popular culture, which reportedly underpins widespread and advanced proficiency comparable to other Scandinavians (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2011, p. 1). Lefever (2010, p. 15) found that even before English instruction begins, Icelandic children often present with communicative competence up to A2 on the CEFRL, and Jeeves (2010, p. 10) found that high school students selfprofess advanced competency14. Evaluating the impact of the English curriculum is however hampered by listening and speaking skills regularly being omitted from assessments (Arnþórsdóttir, 2009, pp. 79-80), the reasons for which are not apparent. Nonetheless, Arnbjörnsdóttir’s (2010, p. 12) research provides insights because, despite superficial self-reporting, 44% of Icelandic students admit they cope in English-medium university courses (but not without challenges and a larger study load). Academic English is of course advanced proficiency, and it is safe to conclude that Icelanders are generally highly proficient English users. The second aspect to language practice is whether Icelanders use English when communicating internationally as the curriculum assumes. Iceland’s relationships with Europe and beyond are chiefly in English (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006; Kvaran, 2010), reflecting the much-discussed trend of English as a global language (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996, p. 429ff.) and as a European lingua franca (Cogo & Jenkins, 2010; Cramer, 2007; Kachru, 1985). At a minimum this is reflected in the Icelandic/English bilinguality of Iceland’s foreign ministry and Trade with Iceland websites (Ministry for Foreign Affairs, n.d.; Trade with Iceland, n.d.), and online business advisories which assure Europeans of Iceland’s exemplary command of 14 However, exposure to English media normally advances a passive competency and reportedly leads young Icelanders to overestimate their overall proficiency (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2007, p. 59). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 32 English (Inspiresme, n.d.; Kwintessential, n.d.). Promotional material from the Invest in Iceland agency is not available in Icelandic, but, interestingly, in English, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Danish, German and French (Invest in Iceland [IiI], n.d.). This multilingualism appears under construction, as most information beyond the homepage is only in English. The earliest Chinese publication is from 2008 (IiI, n.d.a), the year of the devastating Icelandic financial crisis (Arnbjörnsson & Grönvold, 2009, p. 153). Reflecting on this, knowing government has promoted foreign investment following the financial crisis (Dennis, 2012, para. 5), and recalling the emergence of Asian languages in schools, further research could examine whether the crisis is diversifying Iceland’s international language policy. The dominance of English is, to a degree, challenged in formal intra-Scandinavian relations. The Nordic Language Declaration aims for intra-Scandinavian dialogue through Scandinavian languages paralleled, and not replaced, by English15 (NCM, 2006, pp. 93-94). On the basis of the assumed mutual-intelligibility of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, Icelanders have traditionally used Danish in intraScandinavian communication (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 259), appeasing Iceland’s elite who now tend to perceive Danish less as a linguistic threat and more as an opportunity to avoid English (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 294). However, actual practice is more complicated. The assumed mutual-intelligibility is questioned by L2 speakers, such as the Finns who use Swedish but complain they cannot understand Danish. Scandinavian cooperation has also expanded to include the Baltic states (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, pp. 259-260), and young Icelanders tend to feel that no country should be advantaged by using their first language (L1) (Kvaran, 2010, p. 120). Consequently, intra-Scandinavian relations often resort to English (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 259). 15 The Nordic Language Declaration states that the “basis for Nordic language policy is that the languages of the Nordic countries essential to society are and will remain strong and vital, that those that are essential to society will remain so, and that Nordic cooperation will continue to be carried out in the Scandinavian languages” (NCM, 2006, p. 92). It lists all Scandinavian languages, including Sámi varieties and Faroese, as essential to society because they are used for official purposes, such as in education and legislation, and affirms that Icelandic, unlike smaller Scandinavian languages, is essential to the state (NCM, 2006, p. 91). It is notable, and left unexplained in the declaration, that Icelandic is omitted from being a language of Nordic cooperation (NCM, 2006, p. 92). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 33 5.2 Resisting the tidal wave: Iceland’s second branch of corpus planning We previously saw that preservation is a branch of Icelandic corpus planning, and we now explore the second branch: corpus planning through neologisms. Iceland is renowned for its purist preoccupation with avoiding foreign loanwords (Kvaran, 2004; Svavarsdóttir, 2008), dating back to settlement when calques were formed for religious matters, rather than accepting Latin loanwords (Ottosson, 2002, p. 1997). Chapter Four explained that the Fjölnir editors ousted Danish influences in the interests of purism and nationalism in the 19th century (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 66), however formalised corpus planning first emerged in 1919 when a word committee began coining neologisms for technical terminology (Ottosson, 2002, p. 2005). In 1952, the Education Minister secured funding to support this approach, and a formal language committee was founded in 1965 (Ottosson, 2002, p. 2006). Interventions to coin new words seek to ensure Icelandic can “cope with the modern world” (Árnason, 2003, p. 246). Managing anglicisms in the face of globalisation is not just a motivation of corpus planning (Spolsky, 2004, p. 62), but also the cornerstone of contemporary Icelandic language management (Sapir & Zuckermann, 2008, p. 24). The AMIIS, along with around 50 voluntary committees (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 367), replace anglicisms (AMIIS, n.d.g) that arise in the media, society, science and technology with neologisms (Holmarsdottir, 2001; Kvaran, 2004). Neologisms apply Icelandic morphology and often use compounding techniques (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 221). For example, tölva (computer) was created from tölur (numbers) and völva (fortune-teller), later inspiring tölvupóstur (email) (Kristinsson, 2000, as cited in Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 388) and spjaldtölva (iPad) (ESA, 2011, para. 4). Corpus planners also use a phonosemantic approach by coining a word with the sounds of the foreign word while remaining semantically sensible. For example, eyðni is a phonosemantic match to AIDS, but derived from eyða (to destroy) and -ni (nominal suffix) (Sapir & Zuckermann, 2008, p. 27). Official corpus planning is often complemented by individuals who confront vocabulary problems, such as journalists and advertisers (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 222). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 34 This work aligns with a pervasive language ideology that preserving Icelandic necessitates avoiding loanwords. Naturally, lexical borrowing can occur without dire consequences for a language, and English is a prime example (Appel & Muysken, 2005, p. 173). However, Iceland’s concern is that any foreign influence is detrimental, for the ideological reasons presented in Chapter Four. This means that interventions to counter anglicisms are intimately tied to linguistic purism as a dimension of Icelandic national ideology (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 297). Corpus planning is indeed “widely supported, both officially and among the general public” (Svavarsdóttir, 2008, p. 455) and “Icelanders are extremely proud of their language and are extremely determined to continually develop it” (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 391). Some evidence lies in the popularity and voluntariness of the word committees and Iceland’s annual language day that raises awareness of Icelandic and the threats it faces, especially anglicisms (Icelandic Language Day, 2010, November 16). Graedler (2004, p. 16) quantified these sentiments when she found that of all Scandinavians, Icelanders are most exposed to English but also most sceptical of it, with 63% agreeing neologisms are appropriate. However, current word coinage is not necessarily a response to English per se, but to foreign influences generally. In fact, as an outcome of European history, Latin, Greek and Danish were previous preoccupations of Iceland’s language purists (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 387). Views on anglicisms would ideally be analysed relative to views on influences from other sources. This would show whether Icelanders today are specifically apprehensive about anglicisms under the tidal wave, or whether their concerns reflect traditional linguistic purism. Insights do not appear in the literature, however this is an important query because English is not simply an addition to Iceland’s list of historic linguistic threats, but the language of mass globalisation. In any case, corpus planning cannot always plug the influx of anglicisms. Loanwords are processed and introduced with Icelandic inflections. Recent additions include seiva (save) and dílíta (delete) (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 298) in computer terminology16. An impediment to plugging loanwords is the time required to invent 16 See Kvaran (2004) for a comprehensive overview of English loanwords in Icelandic, including morphological phonologic constraints and processes. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 35 neologisms, assign grammatical properties, and publish coined words (HilmarssonDunn, 2006, p. 298), compared to the spontaneity of loanwords (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 368). Secondly, the government holds no monopoly on dictionary-making, meaning anglicisms can appear in commercial dictionaries beyond the AMIIS’ intervention (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2009, pp. 298-299). Using loanwords can also carry prestige (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 368), especially in domains “traditionally associated with the higher echelons of society” where anglicisms are acceptable, even among proponents of Icelandic purism (Pálsson, 1996, as cited in Friðriksson, 2008, p. 106). Here, it is again important to consider context: modern Icelandic vocabulary is not devoid of nonEnglish influences. Instead, Danish loanwords have especially been normalised into Icelandic vocabulary17, and only around 72% of loanwords that appear in print are from English18 (Graedler & Kvaran, 2010, p. 33). Nonetheless, the tidal wave of anglicisms is not unchecked. Icelandic’s structural complexities filter out unacceptable anglicisms, because loanwords are only feasible if they can comply with Icelandic phonology and morphology, if the first syllables are stressed, and if they are phonetically possible in orthography. Otherwise the word is unlikely to fully enter the vocabulary (Kvaran, 2004, p. 146). It is therefore often easier to create neologisms (Árnason, 1999, as cited in Friðriksson, 2008, p. 103). Secondly, other than in domains of higher echelons, loanwords are mostly confined to informal speech, SMS and emails (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 222) and deemed inappropriate in formal registers (Kvaran & Svavarsdóttir, 2002, p. 87). For example, Graedler and Kvaran’s (2010, p. 33) analysis of newspaper corpora between 1975 and 2000 found that only 17 out of 10,000 words in Icelandic newspapers were loanwords, compared with 111 and 109 in Norway and Sweden. This was confirmed again by Graedler (2004, p. 10), when more analysis found only 0.2% of words in Icelandic newspapers were loanwords. Thirdly, Icelanders are seemingly loyal to corpus planning efforts. It appears the frequency of loanwords might decrease after a neologism is promulgated, such as tölva (computer) which 17 Examples include akkúrat (precisely), edrú (sober) and fatta (grasp) (Svenovius, n.d., para. 6). 18 We will see, however, that loanwords in print are rare. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 36 may have virtually replaced its preceding anglicism (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 368). This leads to a consensus that corpus planning has been successful in keeping Icelandic fit-for-purpose and countering anglicisms (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 267). 5.3 Conclusion: Has English as a global language determined language policy? English is driving language policy in Iceland in that English is viewed as crucial to Iceland’s interaction with the global community. It has trumped Danish as Iceland’s international language, the language of highest Q-value, and the initial FL in schools. The curriculum, aided by extra-curricular exposure to English, has allowed Icelanders to develop relatively advanced proficiency. This leads Iceland to primarily use English in international relations, including to an increasing degree within Scandinavia. Whereas Iceland has traditionally used Danish under the Nordic Language Declaration, the pressure to resort to English is mounting. However, the response is dichotomised. Linguistic purism is apprehensive about language contact, and corpus planning that replaces anglicisms with neologisms enjoys hearty ideological support. However, purism characterised Icelandic language policy long before globalisation, and loanwords from other languages have been both adopted and rejected in the past. Iceland’s response to anglicisms has not been contextualised, as it is unknown whether attitudes reflect the traditional scepticism of loanwords or are somehow unique to English as the language of globalisation. Nonetheless, today’s corpus planning is clearly focussed on checking the English tidal wave into Icelandic vocabulary, and Icelanders seem loyal to these efforts in practice, at least because the anglicisms that do emerge generally become refined to informal registers. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 37 Chapter six: Sociolinguistic situation This chapter considers how Iceland’s sociolinguistic situation has determined Icelandic language policy. Spolsky (2004) claimed that Iceland is “monolingual in practice, ideology and language management” (p. 62). However, in the last decade the foreign population has almost doubled to 6.6% (SI, 2012), meaning Iceland is touted as increasingly heterogeneous (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 210). Spolsky (2004) also proposes that the cornerstone of a country’s sociolinguistic situation, as the third force for language policy, is “not so much the factual situation as common perception of the situation” (p. 219), implying that practice is secondary to ideology and management. For Iceland, the factual situation is imperative, not only because of its ascendant multilingualism, but because English is grounded in the sociolinguistic landscape (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2007, p. 52). Language practice is both crucial to Icelandic policy discourse and necessary background for ideology and management. 6.1 Sociolinguistic situation in language practice Icelandic and ISL are the native languages (Spolsky, 2004, p. 61), and Icelandic is the vastly predominant language (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010; Svavarsdóttir, 2008) of Iceland’s 320,000-strong population (SI, 2012a). In line with Fishman’s (1971, p. 31) predictions for nations with Great Traditions, Iceland pursued an endoglossic policy after Danish rule whereby Icelandic cemented itself as the language of government, schools (META-NET, 2011, p. 10), journalism and radio broadcasting (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 249). This makes Icelandic a central language from De Swaan’s (2001, p. 20) perspective. Unlike most languages, Icelandic is broadly monodialectal (Karlsson, 2004; Holmarsdottir, 2001). Leonard (2011, p. 174ff.) explains that social upheaval in Norway incurred dialectal mixing and koineisation before Old Norse migrated to Iceland. Reverence for Icelandic literature, people movements, and protectionist language policy then sustained the migrated koine (Leonard, 2011, p. 180). ISL developed from 1910 when deaf Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 38 Icelanders were no longer sent to Denmark for schooling (Ethnologue, 2009). It is likely around 320 people use ISL today19. Migrant languages steadily emerged with immigration (Finnbogadóttir, 2008, p. 42). The 1956 Hungarian uprising, 1968 Czech rebellion, and Vietnamese refugee crisis of the 1970s created an initial trickle of multilingualism (McBride, 1998, p. 27) beyond limited Scandinavian migration. However, immigration became substantial in 1996 (SI, 2009, p. 17). Whereas in 1995 Iceland accepted 938 new migrants, 9,318 arrived in 2007 (SI, 2012b). Iceland now hosts around 25,000 immigrants, over 2,500 second-generation immigrants, and almost 14,000 Icelanders with a foreign-born parent. The largest groups are the Poles (9,049) and Lithuanians (1,605)20 (SI, 2012c). The arrival of Poles as economic migrants is well-documented (Tworek, 2010, p. 65), and both Poland’s and Lithuania’s recent accession to the European Economic Area (EEA) now offers unrestricted access to Iceland’s labour market (EFTA, 2012). With almost 8% of the population without Icelandic origins, and assuming immigrants retain their L1 in homes and communities21, Iceland is not monolingual in practice. Chapter Five examined English as an international concern, however the tidal wave is also flooding domestic language domains, to the extent that English is described as a domestic L2 (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2007, p. 52). Businesses often favour English or bilingual cultures (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010; Jónsdóttir, 2011) because as a small economy, corporate expansions are necessarily international (Foreign Affairs, 2008, p. 13). Karlsson and Jónsdóttir (2008, as cited in Kvaran, 2008, p. 118ff.) had found that exclusive or prominent use of English for communications, meetings and 19 No up-to-date estimates are available on the number of users, but approximately 0.1% of the population in other Scandinavian countries uses sign languages (Ethnologue, 2009a). 20 Other groups include Germans (919), Danish (900), Latvians (673), British (600), Filipinos (582), Thais (586), Vietnamese (221) and Chinese (220) (SI, 2012c). 21 Hilmarsson-Dunn and Kristinsson (2010, p. 210) also noted in their research that data is not available on L1s in Iceland, but decided to deduce L1s from nationalities, meaning the Poles are determined to be speakers of Polish, the Lithuanians speakers of Lithuanian etc. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 39 guidelines in Iceland’s banking and export companies was minimal22. However, this pre-dated the impacts of the financial crisis and was refined to Icelandic companies. Jónsdóttir’s (2011, p. 20ff.) cross-sector research found that 74.7% of working Icelanders use English daily, especially for reading documents and writing emails. In recovering from the financial crisis, corporate language choices will depend on how internationally accented businesses become (Kvaran, 2008, p. 121), particularly the banking sector, which necessarily halted offshore investment (Woodward, 2009, para. 6). Nonetheless, English is clearly grounded in Icelandic business. English is also bonded to tertiary education. Researchers publish in English to compete in academia internationally (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 385), and the diversification of university populations, such as through the Bologna Process23 (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency [EACEA], 2009, p. 13), prompts a shift to English for lecturing. Stated and actual practice are, however, notably contradictory. The University of Akureyri (UoA) (2008) requires that “a sufficient choice of courses in English must be ensured (even entire study programmes)” (p. 2) but aims to “strengthen the use of the Icelandic language as far as possible in all aspects of its academic activities” (p. 1). UoA therefore claims its Bachelor degrees are in Icelandic (UoA, 2009, para. 1) but lists 25 English-medium undergraduate units (UoA, 2012). The UoI’s guidelines confirm Icelandic as the medium of instruction and research, unless the teacher or class are non-Icelandic (Menntamálaráðuneyti, 2008, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2009, p. 52). This renders little meaning: UoI boasts a plethora of English-medium courses across all faculties24 (UoI, 2012a), premises itself on international collaboration and publication, hosts 1,100 22 For example, of 50 Icelandic companies, only four claimed to write emails exclusively in English, seven claimed to write in both English and Icelandic, and only one company claimed to hold meetings in English (Karlsson and Jónsdóttir, 2008, as cited in Kvaran, 2008, p. 118). 23 The Bologna Process committed Iceland to “a series of meetings of Ministers responsible for higher education at which policy decisions have been taken in order to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010” (EACEA, 2009, p. 13). This included a focus on facilitating the mobility of students and teacher within Europe. Iceland has been a member since 1999 (EACEA, 2009, p. 13). 24 A full list of courses offered in English in the faculties of Education, Engineering and Natural Sciences, Health Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences is available on the UoI website (UoI, 2012a). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 40 international students (UoI, 2011, p. 5), and 75% of doctoral dissertations are in English (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 264). Professors of Icelandicmedium courses are even said to entertain requests to shift to English (Robert, 2011, para. 12), and the government has criticised universities for preferring English “to the detriment of Icelandic” (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 262). The shift is exacerbated by Icelanders generally being willing and able to pursue Englishmedium studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2010, p. 1). Media and popular culture, other than Golden Age literature, are predominantly in English. First broadcasts were even in English, under the Marshall Aid programme to promote American ideology (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2010, p. 12) and from the American military base (Kristmannsson, 2004, p. 61). Iceland embraced English media as it represented advancement at a time when Iceland was technologically inferior (Kristmannsson, 2004, p. 65). The persistence of American broadcasts prompted subtitling (Kristmannsson, 2004, p. 61ff.), except for young children’s programmes which remain dubbed (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2010, p. 13). However, it appears young Icelanders often feel subtitling is unnecessary, and download un-subtitled movies from the internet (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 304). Icelandic film and television is expensive and also less popular than English media amongst Icelandic youth, with channels televising up to 88% in English (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2010, p. 252). In addition, satellite technology facilitates direct access to broadcasts from Englishspeaking countries (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2010, pp. 13-14). English language music is popular (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2003, p. 17), along with modern English literature, rather than native or translated books, especially with the immediacy of online books (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 305). The pervasiveness of English in IT prompts speculation that Icelandic will lose this domain (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 305). Non-computer technology, such as teletext and mobile phones, has embraced Icelandic functionalities (Rögnvaldsson, 2008, p. 2). However, 95% of Icelanders are online (META-NET, 2011, p. 15) where Icelandic holds little ground. Secondary students willingly research English websites, consider Icelandic webpages alone insufficient, and use English for online Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 41 entertainment (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2005, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 368). Computer programmes are generally purchased with pre-installed English software (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 371), meaning schools and homes mostly use English product versions (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, pp. 306-307). Even Icelandic computer programmers develop software in English, as the language in which they were trained. Consequently, interest groups have sought to translate open-source software (Rögnvaldsson, 2008, p. 2), which is easily modified for Icelandic (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 363), and the government is actively supporting Icelandic IT25. English also seems to compete with Icelandic for communication with immigrants. Einarsdóttir (2011, pp. 66-67) found that out of eleven migrants, only four claimed to speak Icelandic, and a common impediment is that Icelanders switch to English when immigrants attempt to speak Icelandic, potentially out of intolerance for incorrect grammar. Þórarinsdóttir (2011, as cited in Berman, Lefever & Woźniczka, 2011, p. 3) recently identified that 40% of Poles view their residence in Iceland as temporary. This means many would have little circumstantial motivation (Baker, 2011, p. 4) to acquire Icelandic (other than school children who present an instrumental motivation) (Loetherington, 2004, p. 705). Instead, many rely on English to manage day-to-day activities or even view Iceland as an opportunity to improve their English proficiency, rather than learn Icelandic (Zaorska, 2012 p. 31ff)26. The Filipino and Thai communities also reportedly favour English (Skaptadóttir, 2010; Bissat, 2008) and it is possible Icelanders rely on English with the refugee community, because Icelandic is rather difficult, or very difficult, for around 50% of refugees (Ministry of Social Affairs [MSA], 2005, pp. 5-6). However, the language choice between Icelanders and migrants has not yet been comprehensively investigated (A. Hilmarsson-Dunn, personal communication, July 27, 2012). Such research would help to ascertain the breadth of English in Iceland’s sociolinguistic landscape. 25 These interventions will be discussed under 6.2 Sociolinguistic situation in language management. 26 This was identified in undergraduate research at the University of Iceland, supervised by Icelandic sociolinguist Arnbjörnsdóttir (Zaorska, 2012), who is cited elsewhere in this dissertation. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 42 6.2 Sociolinguistic situation in language management Icelandic policy is void of controversies concerning language standardisation as the “process of variation reduction” (Deumert & Vandenbussche, 2003, p. 3) that often characterises LPP (Hornberger, 2006; Baldauf, 2006). In Norway, for example, language disputes led to standardising two varieties, struggles over the Bokmål standard, and a government-imposed language peace (Jahr, 2003, pp. 349-350). In Iceland, however, a standard was always clear. Old Norse poetry founded a norm before Icelandic was even written (Árnason, 2003, p. 255ff.) and dialectal homogeneity with keen linguistic purism prevented contestations (Leonard, 2011, p. 180). Árnason (2003, p. 267) notes the historical absence of debate over a written standard, and modern spelling, which began in the 18th century (Árnason, 2003, p. 272), also advanced without significant debate. This means language management has been largely unconcerned with standardisation. Homogeneity also meant that status planning seemed irrelevant until recently (Friðriksson, 2008; Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009). Linguistically homogenous societies, as Spolsky suggested for Iceland, are typically uninterested in status planning (Lambert, 1995, p. 4ff.), however this is the second focus of Iceland’s language management (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 367). Interventions accelerated with multilingualism and the English tidal wave into language domains, and Icelandic was legislated in 2011 as the national and official language; seemingly responding to perceived threats to its status (Friðriksson, 2008; Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009). This also confirmed the statutory role of the Icelandic Language Council to submit policy advice and report on the status of Icelandic, and requires authorities to promote Icelandic in all parts of society (Alþingi, 2011, Article 2). The 2011 Act built on existing interventions that position Icelandic at the peak of the language hierarchy and afford it greatest value and importance, when considering Spolsky’s (2004, p. 219) framework. The Alþingi approved the Íslenska Til Alls (Icelandic for Everything) policy in 2009 to foster Icelandic in public domains (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 229), including universities, schools, Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 43 business, software, the arts and the media (MESC, 2009, p. 5)27. Íslenska Til Alls presides a suite of existing portfolio-specific interventions. The Broadcasting Act (Alþingi, 2000) requires broadcasters to “strengthen the Icelandic language” (Article 7), provides for licenses to broadcast multilingually only “in special cases” (Article 7), and requires all foreign broadcasts to be subtitled or dubbed (Article 8). We saw that English television programmes and films are pervasive, suggesting that Article 7 is either difficult to implement or English media constitutes a special case. Education legislation (Alþingi, 2008a; Alþingi, 2008b) confirms Icelandic as the medium of instruction, although other languages are permitted in compulsory education when “entailed by the nature of the matter or by the National Curriculum Guide” (Alþingi, 2008a, Article 16). Legislation is silent on language in tertiary education (HilmarssonDunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 262), but prescribes a fund to support original Icelandic literature (MESC, 2009, p. 10) and requires advertising that targets Icelanders to be in Icelandic (Alþingi, 2005, Article 8). Government has also invested heavily in Icelandic IT. The Office for ICT Development works to foster Icelandic software and digital content (MESC, 2005, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 306), building on the Language Technology Program (2000 to 2004) that created “basic resources for Icelandic language technology work” (Rögnvaldsson, 2008, p. 1)28. Investment fell short of creating a sustainable IT environment, especially as Icelanders are largely competent in Englishlanguage technology, and the cost of tailored products for a small market inhibits government’s capacity to continue its investment. This underpins speculation that the domain will shift entirely to English (Rögnvaldsson, 2008, p. 4). Immigration and citizenship laws recognise linguistic diversity by anticipating linguistic integration. Permanent residence applicants must demonstrate completion of Icelandic language studies (Útlendingastofnun, n.d., para. 6) and 27 Íslenska Til Alls (MESC, 2009a) is only available in Icelandic. These domains were identified by using Google Translate to translate the contents page of the Íslenska Til Alls document. 28 Various IT initiatives were funded, including a new Master’s degree in language technology, morphological and syntactic parsing for synthesising Icelandic texts, developing text-to-speech software, and machine translation (Rögnvaldsson, 2008, pp. 1-2). Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 44 citizenship applicants must pass an Icelandic language examination (Alþingi, 2008, Article 1) at the A2 level on the CEFRL (European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance [ECRI), 2012, p. 11). The impact of these laws is probably restricted because the largest migrant groups are from within the EEA and may reside in Iceland without applying for residence or citizenship (Útlendingastofnun, n.d.a, para 1). Nonetheless, these laws and the other status planning measures described above, intimate that Icelandic language management is motivated by a mosaic sociolinguistic reality (Lambert 1995, p. 4ff.), rather than actual or perceived monolingualism. This means status planning is monolingual only in that it emphasises the primacy of Icelandic. Iceland also operates linguistically-oriented laws on personal names (Willson, 2009, p. 8) that pre-date recent status planning. The Personal Names Act (Alþingi, 1996) states that for Icelanders Forenames shall be capable of having Icelandic genitive endings or shall have become established by tradition in the Icelandic language. Names may not conflict with the linguistic structure of Icelandic. They shall be written in accordance with the ordinary rules of Icelandic orthography unless another orthography is established by tradition (Article 5). Names established by tradition are those approved by the Personal Names Committee, and any intention to deviate from the list requires formal approval (Willson, 2006, p. 9). The approach is widely criticised as breaching civil rights (Willson, 2009, pp. 9-10), however children of foreign parents or a foreign mother are exempt (Alþingi, 1996, Article 10). Surnames are also legislated to follow the ancient patronymic or matronymic tradition29, and family names may only be used as second names, subject to having Icelandic roots and being incapable of carrying a genitive ending (Alþingi, 1996, Article 6 & Article 8). The Personal names Act is clearly motivated by Scandinavian tradition, within historical sociolinguistic 29 This is the tradition of surnames being formed as a combination of the father’s or mother’s forename in the genitive case, followed by the Icelandic morpheme –son (son) or –dóttir (daughter) (Willson, 2006, p. 9). For example, the daughter of Arinbjörn would be Arinbjörnsdóttir. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 45 homogeneity and linguistic purism that supports the Icelandic standard (Willson, 2006, p. 8). 6.3 Sociolinguistic situation in language ideology How Iceland’s new multilingual sociolinguistic reality manifests in language ideology is less transparent and has undergone little investigation (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 82), but the signs indicate that ideology does not accentuate linguistic diversity. For example, Iceland may have a monoglot ideology (Silverstein, 1996, p. 285), whereby the speech community is characterised by diversity, but the linguistic community will “pledge allegiance to a single norm” (Blommaert, 2008, p. 11). Despite migrant languages and the role of English, language management described so far indeed ascribes allegiance to Icelandic by heralding and protecting its status, resisting foreign influence, and even managing personal names through a monolingual lens. Public discourse implies that migrant communities are marginalised and interactions with foreigners are often minimal, or sometimes even hostile (Iceland Faces, 2008; Middleton, 2001; Sass, 2012); a matter which worries the ECRI (2011, p. 19) and would create a chasm between Icelanders and others. Indeed, the term Icelander is reserved for “those who speak Icelandic and share Iceland's history and culture” (Bragason, 2001, para. 2), necessarily keeping Icelandic psychological citizenship linguistically (and culturally) homogenous. Iceland is also concerned that if the Icelandic language disappears, Iceland “will cease to be a nation” (Morgunblaðið, 2005, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2009, p. 367). This is a manifestation of national ideology, premised squarely on Icelandic as the catalyst of heritage, independence and Icelandic-ness, and likely impedes a mosaic ideology. Alternatively, a bilingual ideology may be sprouting within Iceland’s enthusiasm for English, when considering insights identified so far. We have just seen that English especially dominates the media, IT, and tertiary education. Chapter Five identified that Iceland reconfigured education to promote English, that young Icelanders prefer English-language media and entertainment, and that English constructs a modern international sense of Icelandic self. It also seems young Icelanders may identify with English as an L2 and, as Chapter Four showed, national ideology may be Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 46 diversifying beyond the Golden Age and anti-Danish nationalism. Jónsdóttir (2011) even discovered a prevailing attitude that English is “a natural part of the Icelandic business environment” (p. 21). Even if language ideology is traditionally monolingual, these ingredients might usher its evolution to embrace English as crucial aspect of Iceland’s domestic linguistic identity. However, no research as yet fully describes Icelandic perspectives on its sociolinguistic landscape. 6.4 Conclusion: Has the sociolinguistic situation determined language policy? Iceland is by no means monolingual in practice. The English tidal wave is flooding language domains, especially tertiary education, business, IT and the media, and immigration has established a mosaic of linguistic minorities, where Polish is the largest group. Status planning was previously considered unnecessary because Icelandic had always held a monopoly, however increasing heterogeneity has recently prompted interventions to secure Icelandic as the official and national language and encourage its use. In this sense, language management, albeit palpably monolingual in principle, is a response to multilingualism. Language management also reflects sociolinguistic tradition: laws on personal names recall a monolingual and purist tradition by avoiding non-Icelandic names, and Iceland’s monodialectal history means contestation in agreeing a standard Icelandic is absent in the policy narrative. Whether sociolinguistic ideology now reflects Iceland’s monolingual past or the English-led mosaic of multilingualism could be pursued as further research. Nonetheless, Spolsky’s (2004, p. 62) commentary that Iceland is monolingual in practice, ideology and management can be partly updated to multilingual in practice, and monolingual in management whereby policy asserts the primacy of Icelandic in response to increasing societal multilingualism. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 47 Chapter seven: Interest in linguistic minority rights It so far seems doubtful that linguistic minority rights would be instrumental to Iceland’s current language policy. This is precisely because Iceland was overwhelmingly homogenous until immigration began accelerating in 1996; policy is keenly concerned with the primacy of Icelandic; migrant communities are described as living parallel to Icelanders; and many immigrants plan to stay only temporarily. Whereas other Scandinavian nations, such as Sweden and Norway, have engaged the question of Sámi rights (Rasmussen & Nolan, 2011, p. 35ff.), Iceland has no indigenous linguistic minority other than ISL (Minority Rights Group International, 2007, para. 3). This chapter explores whether Iceland’s language policy is informed by linguistic rights by using language cohorts as departure points. 7.1 Icelandic Sign Language The most notable achievement for minority language rights was the recognition of ISL in the 2011 Act on languages (Alþingi, 2011, Article 3). The Act affords ISL equal status with Icelandic and prohibits discrimination against ISL users (Alþingi, 2011, Article 13). The legislation is seen as marking the end of a 20-year long battle to protect the rights of the deaf by formally elevating ISL (Deaf Celebrate, 2011, paras. 3-6). Authorities are instructed to support and nurture ISL by developing its lexicon and ensuring opportunities to learn it (Alþingi, 2011, Article 3), and the Act prescribes the ISL Council’s role to develop policy and advise on ISL’s status (Alþingi, 2011, Article 7), mirroring the Icelandic Language Council’s role for Icelandic. The peculiarity of the legislation is that the government preferred to elevate ISL, the language of only around 320 deaf people, rather than recognise larger minorities, such as Polish which has almost 30 times more speakers. A rationale is not apparent, but is likely explained by non-linguistic human rights concerns (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 238), or status planning in the interests of deaf education (Reagan, 2006, p. 333). Affording ISL status may also have been politically and ideologically innocuous because, as a marker of a small but native deaf community (Baker, 2011, p. 365), ISL is complementary to Icelandic and does not threaten Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 48 Icelandic purism and homogeneity. In any case, ISL now holds relative ideological advantage above other minorities, given language rights by nature involve the negotiation of “power, status and entitlement” (May, 2006, p. 255), rather than numbers of speakers. 7.2 Migrant languages Indeed, Iceland’s approach to migrant languages aligns less with an increasing interest in language rights proposed under Spolsky’s (2004, 2006) framework30, and more with Spolsky’s (2004) own caveat that “rights are much more likely to be granted to indigenous groups than to immigrants, and even less likely to people marginalized as foreign workers” (p. 221). The 2011 Act is silent on languages other than Icelandic and ISL, but constructs a hegemonic right for non-Icelanders to acquire Icelandic as an L2 (Alþingi, 2011, Article 2). This presides the government’s existing policy that premises integration on a right to learn Icelandic and subsidises 200 hours of instruction in Icelandic language and values (MSA, 2007, pp. 8-9). As Chapter Six indicated, these courses are stepping stones to satisfying the language requirements for Icelandic residence and citizenship. However, policy execution is problematic: the nature of the course materials, tuition costs, availability of classes, and lack of time amongst working migrants are barriers to attending classes (MESC, 2009, as cited in Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 241), and as already mentioned, EEA residents are generally unaffected by the language requirements in immigration and citizenship law. Classes also allegedly ignore the needs of illiterate/semi-literate learners, especially high-needs Asian learners, and indirect discrimination occurs in the job market on the basis of immigrants not commanding ‘perfect’ Icelandic (Icelandic Human Rights Centre [IHRC], 2011, p. 12). Social marginalisation often means migrants do not have sufficient opportunity to practise 30 It is noteworthy that Iceland has signed, but not ratified, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (CoE, 2012). However, the Charter specifically does not cover migrant languages and as such, Iceland is not host to any languages within the Charter’s concern (EÖKIK, n.d.). Iceland is also party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of language (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 261), however these do not concern the development of minority languages rights relevant to Spolsky’s (2004, p. 220) framework. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 49 Icelandic (IHRC, 2011, p. 12), leading many to use English with Icelanders (especially seeing many immigrants only stay temporarily, as Chapter Six indicated). These influences limit the value of the L2 acquisition planning framework for both the immigrant and the integration policy. Only Icelandic may be used as a medium of instruction in compulsory education, by default constraining minority language maintenance. Instead, law requires schools to implement reception plans that ensure immigrant children learn Icelandic (Alþingi 2008a, Article 16). This is implemented to varying degrees, and the programme’s success has not been evaluated (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 240). However, the IHRC (2011, p. 11) is concerned that immigrant students drop-out of school more frequently than Icelanders. This potentially reflects the difficulties schools report in adapting to multiculturalism and implementing reception plans (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 240). Where possible, a minority language may be studied as a FL instead of a Nordic language (MSA, 2007, p. 14), however SI (2011) has not reported any students recently studying Polish or Lithuanian (the largest minorities). Migrant communities are therefore left to independently find opportunities to maintain their L1, disadvantaging those who cannot afford instruction (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 240). Nonetheless, the government provides some language services. The 2011 Act codifies a right for non-Icelanders to access interpreters in courts of law, but falls curiously short of ensuring this in other government business, such as mainstream social services. Instead, “anyone who does not understand Icelandic is able to obtain a resolution of his issues and comprehend the substance of any documents and identification papers of relevance to him” (Alþingi, 2011, Article 9), but how that should be achieved is not prescribed. However, a right to a free interpreter does feature in health care, asylum, and deportation legislation (MSA, 2007; Alþingi, 2003). In addition, the Multicultural and Information Centre (MIC) distributes multilingual advice about public services and Icelandic courses and operates a register of interpreters (MIC, n.d., p. 2). Online information is available in Icelandic, English, Polish, Thai, Lithuanian, Serbo/Croatian, Spanish and Russian (MIC, n.d.a), Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 50 along with telephone information in Polish, Thai and Serbo/Croatian (MIC, n.d., p. 2). In practice, the accessibility of multilingual health care information is criticised (The Icelandic Cancer Society, 2005, p. 7ff.) and medical professionals frequently use English with immigrants, rather than engaging an interpreter (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 247). The quality of interpreter services is also criticised, because certified interpreters are generally only employed for court proceedings (ECRI, 2011, p. 21). No research is apparent regarding Icelandic ideologies on language rights. It is clear the overt policy does not support migrant language speakers beyond a basic infrastructure of services, seemingly motivated by traditional linguistic purism and homogeneity, and chasms exist between policy and practice. However, it is not known whether Icelanders believe immigrants should enjoy more rights in their heritage language, or whether rights are appropriately restricted. Some insight was provided when the immigrant radio station, funded by Hafnarfjörður municipality, was shut down in 2008 following financial constraints and “neighbour municipalities refused to lend their support” (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 250). This hints at minimal ideological interest in migrant languages. The belief that Iceland would dissolve if Icelandic disappeared (indicated in Chapter Six) possibly creates apprehension about affording rights to linguistic minorities. However, a more liberal perspective could emerge if changes in Icelandic national ideology and language ideology are indeed underway amongst Iceland’s youth (see Chapters Four and Six). These young Icelanders are described as well-educated advocates of internationalisation, especially accession to the EU (Friðriksson, 2008, p. 69). Within the EU, languages rights are important policy concerns, including an agenda to improve educational outcomes of immigrants through linguistically diverse classrooms, spelt out in a 2008 green paper (EU, 2008, para. 1), and support for the Language Rich Europe (n.d.) project “to discuss and develop better policies and practices for multilingualism” especially in “education, business, public services and the media” (para. 1). Iceland’s accession to the EU, if it occurs, may necessitate a more liberalising language rights ideology and management infrastructure. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 51 Rather than supporting language rights, the current situation may even risk initiating language shift, when considering May’s (2006, p. 258) discussions on minorities. The school system for immigrants is an assimilation/subtractive environment, because it formalises a submersion model where L2 lessons are distinct from mainstream education, therefore aspiring to a monolingual outcome or, at best, limited bilinguality (Baker, 2011, p. 209). Secondly, as May (2006, p. 258) would predict, this type of language management mounts pressure to abandon minority languages in favour of Icelandic, especially in formal domains. This is evident in the overt policies, including hegemonic language legislation, the reception plans, absence of minority language-medium education, language requirements in immigration and citizenship law, and the limited (and allegedly often mediocre) publicly-funded interpreter services (Island.is, n.d., para. 1). It is also evident in ideologies and practices already examined: without commanding (especially advanced) Icelandic, immigrants are reportedly marginalised (see Chapters Six and Seven), which could mount pressures on long-term immigrants to assimilate linguistically. When pressure to use Icelandic is alleviated, it is commonly replaced with English - either as a lingua franca or the language of a domestic domain (see Chapter Six). Further research could investigate whether, and to what extent, immigrants who settle in Iceland experience language shift as May (2006, p. 258) might predict for future generations. 7.3 Icelandic as a minority language Iceland’s interest in linguistic rights seems predominantly self-reflexive, because policy frequently positions Icelandic as a relative minority language internationally in need of protection. This dissertation already revealed a recurring theme of encroaching language majorities, and other perceived threats, motivating Icelandic language policy, including Danish (Chapter Four), the English tidal wave, and the growing multilingual mosaic (Chapters Five and Six). Icelandic was also illustratively framed as a minority when Iceland mounted a battle, spearheaded by the Icelandic Language Institute and the Prime Minister, against Microsoft. Microsoft had refused to develop Icelandic-language software (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 390), arguing that the size of Iceland’s market did not justify its investment, and that Icelanders were proficient in English-language versions (Walsh, 1998, para. 9). Iceland viewed Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 52 Microsoft’s stance as a disastrous imposition of supranational language policy on a minority (Holmarsdottir, 2001, p. 390) and the obstruction of domestic policy, because “you cannot implement a language policy if the computer talks to you in some other language” (Kristinsson, 1998, as cited in Walsh, 1998, para. 10). Importantly, as Chapter Six discussed, this IT policy specifically tackles English, a language giant, to save Icelandic, a comparative minority language. Iceland eventually won against Microsoft in 1999 (Hilmarsson-Dunn, 2006, p. 306). Minoritisation discourse is also evident in the Nordic Language Convention. This confirms a right to use Icelandic (via interpreting/translation services) with Scandinavian authorities, out of concern that as a relative minority, Icelanders would otherwise resort to a dominant lingua franca (Hilmarsson-Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010, p. 261). Wider discourse also follows suit. Hálfdanarson (2005) mentions that alarmist concerns about Icelandic’s future are premised on the language’s comparative minority status “at a time when English is penetrating linguistic communities” (p. 55). Whelpton (2000, as cited in Friðriksson, 2008) adds that Icelanders have a tendency to view themselves as “something extraordinary in comparison to other countries and languages” (p. 82). Academic literature also frames Icelandic as a minority through a critical research approach. For example, Holmarsdottir (2001) describes Icelandic policy achievements as remarkable “despite the relatively small number of people who speak the language” (p. 379) and groups Iceland with minorities that “suffer stigmatisation as a result of the removal of the language from areas of social, economic and political power” (p. 391). Hilmarsson-Dunn (2006) discusses the precarious status of Icelandic under “the ubiquitous influence of English” (p. 293) and proposes that “Icelandic requires continued strong support from the state and a positive attitude from its citizens to prevent it succumbing to market pressures” (p. 309). As critical theory proposes, these perspectives examine Icelandic in reference to “social, political, and economic inequality, with the aim of developing policies that reduce various forms of inequality”, whereby the scholars are not “distant from the “subjects” of the research”, but hold a keen interest in language maintenance (Tollefson, 2006, p. 43). This is usefully contrasted with Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 53 Svavarsdóttir’s (2008) empirical argument that Icelandic, as the overwhelmingly predominant language of Icelanders with a standardised form and strong literary tradition, is undeniably a majority language and “there is no obvious justification for this feeling of an external threat to the language in present times” (p. 455). 7.4 Conclusion: Has an interest in linguistic minority rights determined language policy? It is difficult to perceive Icelandic language policy as motivated by linguistic minority rights in the way Spolsky envisages. Whereas Spolsky (2004) claims this force “has to do with the gradually increasing recognition that language choice is an important component of human and civil rights” (p. 220), such interests do not yet feature in Iceland’s language management. The exception is the official recognition of ISL, but this was probably driven by non-linguistic human rights. Instead, policy addresses minority interests through an Icelandic hegemony that constructs a right for migrants to learn Icelandic and forbids minority language-medium education. This risks initiating language shift amongst immigrants who remain in Iceland in the longterm. However, the integrative policy objectives are difficult to achieve due to impediments to migrants attending language classes, difficulties in accommodating non-Icelandic school children, a tendency to marginalise immigrant communities, and the temporary residence of many migrants. Furthermore, no ideological research has been conducted on what linguistic rights Icelanders believe immigrants should enjoy. Instead, Iceland’s interest in linguistic minority rights appears self-reflexive. Policy, discourse and scholarship commonly position Icelandic as a global minority needing protection. This was particularly evident in Iceland’s case against Microsoft’s supranational English-language policy and is found in discourse that fears losing Icelandic in the face of globalisation. Similarly, academic literature commonly adopts a critical approach that identifies Icelandic as minoritised, illustrates concerns of inequality, and seeks to garner empathy for Iceland’s allegedly precarious situation. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 54 Chapter eight: Conclusion This dissertation has argued that only three of Spolsky’s four forces currently drive language policy in Iceland: national ideology, English as a global language, and the sociolinguistic situation. National ideology, steeped in a reverence for Iceland’s Golden Age of literature and linguistically-inspired nationalism, fostered a tradition of linguistic purism that has resisted language change. Indeed, Icelandic today is by and large the language of Iceland’s ancient Norwegian forefathers. This language stability may be partly attributed to the sociolinguistic impact of Iceland’s tight social network, but is also a product of the Golden Age literature that remains inherent to popular culture since the middle ages and nurtures an unbroken link to Old Norse. The purist tradition of rejecting foreign influences is harnessed in Iceland’s response to English as a global force, by resisting the influx of anglicisms and creating native neologisms. The protectionist policy is largely successful, but is dichotomised with a pragmatic interest in acquiring FLs as a cornerstone of Iceland’s international success, where Iceland’s attention has shifted from Danish to English. English language proficiency is valued, popular, advanced, inherent to a youthful international sense of self, and harnessed in international dialogue. However, English is more than just an outside force; rather it is firmly grounded in Iceland’s sociolinguistic landscape. This even inspires propositions that English is Iceland’s L2 and, along with the recent advent of immigration, has broken linguistic homogeneity. This renders Iceland’s sociolinguistic situation a mosaic of multilingualism and has prompted reactions to elevate and confirm the status of Icelandic in language management. However, it is unclear whether, and how, ideology on Iceland’s multilingual reality is evolving. An interest in the rights of linguistic minorities to foster and use their languages has not informed Iceland’s language policy. Other than recognising ISL from a broader human rights perspective, language rights for immigrants primarily amount to a legislated right to learn Icelandic in the interests of social integration. Rather than encouraging language maintenance, policy affords no status or rights to migrant languages, probably as a reflection of a purist and hegemonic ideology that is Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 55 apprehensive about linguistic diversity. While it is possible language ideology will evolve to liberalise perspectives on minority rights parallel to societal multilingualism, this is not yet apparent in language management. Instead, official policy even risks initiating language shift within immigrant communities. However, discourse on Icelandic, including policy, ideology and scholarship, reveals a notably self-reflexive interest in Icelandic as a relative linguistic minority. This purposely positions Icelandic as a globally vulnerable minority language in battle with supranational language policies. In summary, this means that at present only three of Spolsky’s four forces are relevant determinants of language policy in Iceland. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 56 Bibliography Alþingi. (n.d.). Establishment of the Alþingi. Retrieved from http://www.Alþingi.is/kynningarefni/index_en.html Alþingi. (1996). Personal Names Act No. 45 of 17th May 1996. Retrieved from http://eng.innanrikisraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/english/personal-names/ Alþingi. (2000). Broadcasting Act No. 53, May 17 2000. Retrieved from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/Acts/nr/2429 Alþingi. (2003). Regulation on Foreigners (No. 53 of January 23rd 2003 with Amendments of July 8th 2003 Since Amended by Regulation 769/2004 of September 20th 2004). Retrieved from http://www.humanrights.is/english/laws/icelandiclaw/foreigners/nr/1710 Alþingi. (2005). Act No. 57/2005 on Supervision of Unfair Commercial Practices and Transparency of the Market. Retrieved from http://eng.innanrikisraduneyti.is/lawsand-regulations/english/consumers/nr/6818 Alþingi. (2008). Regulations No. 1129/2008 on Icelandic Language Tests for Persons Applying for Icelandic Citizenship. Retrieved from http://eng.innanrikisraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/english/citizenship/nr/6759 Alþingi. (2008a). The Compulsory School Act No. 91, 12 June 2008 . Retrieved from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRNpdf_Annad/Compulsory_school_Act.pdf Alþingi. (2008b). The Upper Secondary School Act. Retrieved from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRNpdf_Annad/Upper_secondary_school_Act.pdf Alþingi. (2011). Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language 2011 No. 61 7 June. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.fi/uploads/files/Act_on_the_Status_of_the_Icelandic_Language_an d_Icelandic_Sign_Language.pdf Appel, R. & Muysken, P. (2005). Language Contact and Bilingualism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Árnason, K. (2003). Icelandic. In A. Deumert & W. Vandenbusche (Eds.), Germanic Standardizations (pp. 245-280). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2007). English in Iceland: Second Language, Foreign Language, or Neither? In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Teaching and Learning English in Iceland (pp. 51-78). Reykjavík: Haskolautgafan. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 57 Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2010). Coping with English at University: Students Beliefs. Retrieved from http://netla.khi.is/menntakvika2010/008.pdf Arnbjörnsdóttir, B (2011). Exposure to English in Iceland: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/menntakvika2011/004.pdf Arnbjörnsson, G. & Grönvold, H. (2009). The Financial Crisis in Iceland. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 1(9), 153-158. Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.). Carry on Icelandic: Learn Icelandic and Enjoy It!. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/carry_on_icelandic Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.a). Courses in Icelandic. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/a_inter_courses_in_icelandic Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.b). History of the Institute. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/a_history Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.c). Icelandic Government Scholarships. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/a_inter_scholarships_info Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.d). Icelandic World Wide. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/a_database_icelandicworldwide Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.e). Modern Icelandic Inflections. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/a_modern_icelandic_inflections Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies (AMIIS). (n.d.f). Scholar’s [sic] and Grants. Retrieved from http://www.arnastofnun.is/page/a_inter_scholars_and_grants Arnþórsdóttir, B. (2009). Assessing English Language Learning in Iceland: A Study of Assessment Methods Used in Icelandic Primary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved from http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/2441/7950/1/Thesis_fixed.pdf Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Great Britain: Multilingual Matters. Baldauf, R. (2006). Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2-3), 147-170. Bamgboe, A. (2001). World Englishes and Globalization. World Englishes, 20(3), 357-363. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 58 Batibo, H. (2005). Language use optimisation as a strategy for national development. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and Development: Africa and Beyond, Proceedings of the 7th International Language and Development Conference (pp. 12-20). Addis Ababa: British Council. Berlin Protests Sidelining of German at EU. (2006, April 21). Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1975387,00.html Berman, R., Lefever, S. & Woźniczka, A.K. (2011). Attitudes Towards Languages and Cultures of Young Polish Adolescents in Iceland. Retrieved from http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/12394/30759/1/robert.pdf Besemeres, M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Besemeres (Ed.), Translating One’s Self: Language and Selfhood in Cross Cultural Autobiography (pp. 9-35). Oxford; New York: Peter Lang. Bissat, J. (2008). Thai Immigrants and Relative Success of Integration in Iceland. Retrieved from http://epc2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80364 Blommaert, J. (2006). Language Policy and National Identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 283-254). Malden: Blackwell. Blommaert, J. (2008). Language, Asylum, and the National Order. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/groups/ldc/publications/workingpapers/50.pdf Bragason, U. (2001). Attitudes to the Icelandic Language. Retrieved from http://arnastofnun.is/page/attitudes_ub Bratt Paulston, C. (1997). Language Policies and Language Rights. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 73-85. Bratt Paulston, C. & Heidemann, K. (2006). Psycho-Sociological Analysis in Language Policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 292-310). Malden: Blackwell. Bugarski, R. (1992). Language in Yugoslavia: Situation, Policy, Planning. In R. Bugarski & C. Hawkeswort (Eds.), Language Planning in Yugoslavia (pp. 9-26). Unites States: Slavica Publishers. Cameron, D. (2006). Ideology and Language. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 141-152. Canarajah, S. (2006). Psycho-Sociological Analysis in Language Policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 153-169). Malden: Blackwell. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 59 Cartwright, D. (2006). Geolinguistic Analysis in Language Policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 194-209). Malden: Blackwell. Cloonan, J.D. & Strine, J.M. (1991). Federalism and the Development of Language Policy: Preliminary Investigations. Language Problems and Language Planning, 15(3), 268-281. Clyne, M. (1997). Language Policy in Australia—Achievements, Disappointments, Prospects. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18(1), 63-71. Cogo, A. & Jenkins, J. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. European Journal of Language Policy, 2(2), 271–294. Council of Europe (CoE). (1992). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm Council of Europe (CoE). (2008). EAQUALS Can Do SIP. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elpreg/Source/Key_reference/EAQUALSBank_levels_EN.pdf Council of Europe (CoE). (2012). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages CETS No.: 148. Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=148&CM=8&DF=&C L=ENG Cramer, J. (2007). English in the Expanding European Union. Revisiting Berns’ Evaluation of “The Twelve”. Retrieved from http://ling.uta.edu/~lingua/conference/15-utascilt 2007/presentations/Cramer_UTASCILT.pdf Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Deaf Celebrate New Icelandic Sign Language Law. (2011, May 28). IceNews. Retrieved from http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/05/28/deaf-celebrate-newicelandic-sign-language-law/ De Keere, K. & Elchardus, M. (2011). Narrating Linguistic Conflict: A Storytelling Analysis of the Language Conflict in Belgium. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(3), 221-234. De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the World. The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity Press. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 60 De Swaan, A. (2004). Endangered Languages. European Journal of Language Policy, 2(2), 271-294. Dennis, B. (2012, January 17). Iceland Makes Fledgling Recovery From Its Economic Meltdown. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/iceland-makes-fledglingrecovery-from-its-economic-meltdown/2012/01/12/gIQAW1q83P_story.html Department of Statistics Singapore (DoSS). (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2000adr/chap4.pdf Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. (2003). Standard Languages: Taxonomies and Histories. In A. Deumert & W. Vandenbusche (Eds.), Germanic Standardizations (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). (2009). Higher Education in Europe 2009: Developments in the Bologna Process. Brussels: Author. EFTA. (2012). EEA Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.efta.int/eea/eeaagreement.aspx Einarsdóttir, K.A. (2011). Young Unemployed Migrants in Iceland: Opportunities on the Labour Market and Situations After the Economic Collapse with Regard to Work, Social and Financial Aspects. Retrieved from http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/7978/20802/1/MA_ritgerd_lokaeintak_til_pre ntunar_og_i_skemmu.pdf Einarsson, S. (1957). Iceland and its Literature. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 101(4), 375-378. EÖKIK. (n.d.). Database by Language. Retrieved from http://languagecharter.eokik.hu/byLanguage.htm ESA. (2011, November 16). On Icelandic Language Day, IR Goes More Icelandic. Iceland Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/On_Icelandic_Language_ Day,_IR_Goes_More_Icelandic_0_384524.news.aspx Ethnologue. (2009). Icelandic Sign Language. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=icl Ethnologue. (2009a). Languages of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/country_index.asp?place=Europe European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance. (2011). ECRI Report on Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-bycountry/iceland/ISL-CbC-IV-2012-001-ENG.pdf Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 61 European Union (EU). (2008). Migrant Children and Education: A Challenge for EU Education Systems. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1092&format=HT ML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Fettes, M. (1997). Language Planning and Education. In R. Wodak & D. Corson (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (pp. 13-22). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Finnbogadóttir, V. (2008, August). Education for All in the Language of their Cultural Heritage. Paper presented at the International Conference Globalization and Languages: Building on Our Rich Heritage, Tokyo, Japan. Foreign Affairs. (2008). Icelandic Business is a Global Business. Foreign Affairs, 87(4), 13. Friðriksson, F. (2008). Language Change vs. Stability in Conservative Language Communities: A Case Study of Icelandic. Sweden: University of Gothenburg. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N., Collins, P., Amberber, M. & Harvey, M. (2009). An Introduction to Language. Australia: Cengage Learning. Geers, M. (2005). A Comparative Study of Linguistic Purism in the History of England and Germany. In N. Langer (Ed.), Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages (pp. 97-109). Berlin: De Gruyer. Graedler, A. (2004). Modern Loanwords in the Nordic Countries. Presentation of a Project. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 5-21. Graedler, A. & Kvaran, G. (2010). Foreign Influence on the Written Language in the Nordic language Communities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 204, 31-42. Hálfdanarson, G. (2003). Language, Ethnicity and Nationalism: The Case of Iceland. In G. Hálfdanarson (Ed.), Racial Discrimination and Ethnicity in European History (pp. 193-203). Pisa: Edizioni Plus. Hálfdanarson, G. (2005). From Linguistic Patriotism to Cultural Nationalism: Language and Identity in Iceland. In A.K. Isaacs (Ed.), Languages and Identities in Historical Perspective (pp. 55-67). Pisa: Edizioni Plus. Health, S.B. (1977). Social History. In Center for Applied Linguistics (Ed.), Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives Volume 1 (pp. 53-72). Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Helgason, J.K (2007). The Mystery of Vínarterta: In Search of an Icelandic Ethnic Identity. Scandinavian-Canadian Studies, 17, 36-52. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 62 Hilmarsdóttir, J. (2010). Early L2 English Teaching in Iceland: A Literature Review of Possible L2 Effects on L1 Early Literacy Development. Retrieved from http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/4373/12714/1/Thesis_fixed_J%C3%B3na_Katr %C3%ADn_Hilmarsd%C3%B3ttir.pdf Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2003). Icelandic: Linguistic Maintenance or Change? The Role of English. Centre for Language in Education: Occasional Paper no 66. University of Southampton. Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2006). Protectonist Language Policies in the Face of the Forces of English: The Case of Iceland. Language Policy, 5, 293-312. Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2009). The Impact of English on Language Education Policy in Iceland. European Journal of Language Policy, 1(1), 39–59. Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2010). The Impact of Global English on Language Policy for the Media: The Case of Iceland. In M. Georgieva & A. James (Eds.), Globalization in English Studies (pp. 2-22). United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. & Kristinsson, A. (2009). Iceland’s Language Technology: Policy Versus Practice. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(4), 361-376. Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. & Kristinsson, A. (2010). The Language Situation in Iceland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(3), 207-276. Hobsbawn, E. (1996). Language, Culture and National Identity. Social Research, 63(4), 1065-1080. Hoffman, C. (2000). The Spread of English and Growth of Multilingualism with English in Europe. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language (pp. 1-21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Holmarsdottir, H. (2001). Icelandic: A Lesser-used Language in the Global Community. International Review of Education, 47(3-4), 379-394. Hornberger, N. (1988). Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: A Southern Peruvian Quechua Case. Dordrecht: Foris. Hornberger, N. (2006). Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 24-41). Malden: Blackwell. Iceland Faces Immigrant Exodus. (2008, October 21). BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7680087.stm Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 63 Icelandic Human Rights Centre (IHRC). (2011). Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Iceland: 12th UPR Session October 2011. Retrieved from http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/IS/JS1-JointSubmission1eng.pdf Icelandic Language Day Celebrated Today. (2010, November 16). IceNews. Retrieved from http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/11/16/icelandic-language-daycelebrated-today/ Icelandic Online. (2012). Icelandic Online PLUS. Retrieved from http://icelandiconline.is/info/plus.php Inspiresme. (n.d.). How to Do Business in… Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.inspiresme.co.uk/business-planning/How-to-do-business-in---/how-todo-business-in----iceland/ Invest in Iceland (IiI). (n.d.). Invest in Iceland: Iceland’s Gate to Direct Investment. Retrieved from http://www.invest.is Invest in Iceland (IiI). (n.d.a). Publications. Retrieved from http://invest.is/publications/ Irvine, J.T. (1989). When Talk Isn’t Cheap. American Ethnologist, 16(2), 248-267. Irvine, J. & Gall, S. (2000). Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of Language. Ideologies, Polities and Identities (pp. 35-83). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Islam, M. (2011). A Pragmatic Language Policy in Relation to English: Bangladesh Contexts. Language in India, 11, 47-57. Island.is. (n.d.). Interpreter Services. Retrieved from http://www.island.is/english/icelandic-courses/Interpreter-services/ Jahr, E.H. (2003). Norwegian. In A. Deumert & W. Vandenbusche (Eds.), Germanic Standardizations (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jeeves, A. (2010). English at Secondary School: Perceptions of Relevance. Málfríður, 27(2), 4-9. Jeeves, A. (2012, June). Learning to Write Correct English Was the Most Useful Thing: Young Icelanders’ Perceptions of Writing in English. Paper presented at the Conference of the Association of Teachers of English in Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 64 Jónsdóttir, H. (2011). To What Extent Do Native and Non-native Speakers Believe That Their English Proficiency Meets Their Daily Communication Needs Within the Business Environment?. Málfríður, 27(2), 20-23. Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk & H.G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literature (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karlsson, S. (2004). The Icelandic Language. Exeter: Short Run Press. Kristmannsson, G. (2004). Iceland’s “Egg of Life” and the Modern Media. Meta: Translators' Journal, 49(1), 59-66. Kvaran, G. (2003). Icelandic Language Policy in Past, Present and Future. Paper presented at the European Federation of National Institutions for Language Conference, Stockholm, Sweden. Kvaran, G. (2004). English Influence on the Icelandic Lexicon. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 143-152. Kvaran, G. (2010). The Icelandic Language in Business and Commerce in Iceland. In G. Stickel (Ed.), Language Use in Business and Commerce in Europe (pp. 117-122). Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH. Kvaran, G & Svavarsdóttir, A. (2002). Icelandic. In M. Görlach (Ed.), English in Europe (pp. 82-107). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Kwintessential. (n.d.). Doing Business in Iceland – Business Etiquette. Retrieved from http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/etiquette/doing-business-iceland.html Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A. (2004). Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lambert, R. (1995). Language Policy: An Overview. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Language Policy, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Language Rich Europe. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.languagerich.eu/home/about/about-us.html Lefever, S. (2006). English Language Teaching in Icelandic Compulsory Schools. Málfríður, 22(2), 9-12. Lefever, S. (2010). English Skills of Young Learners in Iceland “I started talking English when I was 4 years old. It just bang… just fall into me.” Retrieved from http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/7811/20404/1/021.pdf Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 65 Leonard, S.P. (2011). Relative Linguistic Homogeneity in a New Society: The Case of Iceland. Language in Society, 40, 169-186. Loetherington, H. (2004). Bilingual Education. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 695-718). Malden: Blackwell. Machill, M. (1997). Background to French Language Policy and its Impact on the Media. European Journal of Communication, 12(4), 479-509. Mackey, W. (2003). Forecasting the Fate of Languages. In J. Maurais & M. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a Globalising World (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press. Maling, J. & Sigurjónsdóttir, S. (2002). The ‘New Impersonal’ Construction in Icelandic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 5, 97–142. Mandler, P. (2006). What is “National Identity?” Definitions and Applications in Modern British Historiography. Modern Intellectual History, 3(2), 271-279. May, S. (2006). Language Policy and Minority Rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 255-272). Malden: Blackwell. McBride, F. (1998). Iceland's Gentle Wave of Immigration. Scandinavian Review, 86(2), 27-33. META-NET. (2011). META-NET White Paper Series: Languages in the European Information Society – Icelandic –. Retrieved from www.meta-net.eu Middleton, R. (2011, March 11). 'Racist' Migrants Bill Splits Iceland. The Observer, p. 26. Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic Variation & Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Milroy, L. (1987). Language and Social Networks. Second ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Ministry for Foreign Affairs. (n.d.). Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.is Ministry of Social Affairs (MSA). (2005). Attitudes and Experience of Refugees Regarding Adaptation to Icelandic Society. Reykjavík, Iceland: Author. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (MESC). (2001). Icelandic – At Once Ancient and Modern. Retrieved from http://bella.mrn.stjr.is/utgafur/enska.pdf Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 66 Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (MESC). (2009). Culture. Reykjavík, Iceland: Government of Iceland. Retrieved from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-PDF-Althjodlegt/culture2008.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (MESC). (2009a). Íslenska Til Alls. Retrieved from http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/SearchResult.xsp?documentId=DD 71C093C9345C2E002576F00058DCE9&action=openDocument Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (MESC). (2012). The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory School: General Section: 2012. Retrieved from http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/Utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/RSSPage.xsp?documentId=C590D1 6CBC8439C500257A240030AE7F&action=openDocument Ministry of Social Affairs (MSA). (2007). Government Policy on the Integration of Immigrants. Retrieved from http://eng.velferdarraduneyti.is/media/acrobatenskar_sidur/stefna_integration_of_immigrants.pdf Minority Rights Group International. (2007). World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Iceland: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4954ce0323.html Multicultural and Information Centre (MIC). (n.d.). Multicultural and Information Centre. Retrieved from http://www.mcc.is/media/frettir//Web_baklingur_enska.pdf Multicultural and Information Centre (MIC). (n.d.a). Fjölmenningarsetur. Retrieved from http://www.mcc.is/english/ Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM). (2006). Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2007746/at_download/publicationfile. Oionen, H. (1999). India, Pakistan, Bangladesh: Great Traditions, Bright Future? PIMA's ... Papermaker, 81(11), 24-27. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/31/38469224.pdf Ottosson, K. (2002). Language Cultivation and Language Planning IV: Iceland. In B. Oskar, K. Braunmüller, E.H. Jahr, A. Karker, H. Naumann & U. Teleman (Eds.), The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages (pp. 1997-2007). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyte. Patten, A. (2001). Political Theory and Language Policy. Political Theory, 29(5), 691715. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 67 Phillipson, R. (1998). Globalizing English: Are Linguistic Human Rights and Alternative to Linguistic Imperialism?. Language Sciences, 20(1), 101-112. Phillipson, R. & Skutnabb-Kangas (1996). English Only Worldwide or Language Ecology?. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429-452. Rasmussen, P. (2002). Globalisation. Málfríður, 18(1), 27-31. Rasmussen, T. & Nolan, J.S. (2011). Reclaiming Sámi Languages: Indigenous Language Emancipation from East to West. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 209, 35-55. Reagan, T. (2006). Language Policy and Sign Languages. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 329-345). Malden: Blackwell. Ricento, T. (2006). Language Policy: Theory and Practice - An Introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 10-23). Malden: Blackwell. Ricento, T. (2006). Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy: An Overview. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 3-9). Malden: Blackwell. Robert, Z. (2011, October 16). Language of Instruction. Iceland Review. Retrieved from http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/Language_of_Instruction _%28ZR%29_0_383254.news.aspx Rögnvaldsson, E. (2008). Iceland Language Technology Ten Years Later. Collaboration: Interoperability Between People in the Creation of Language Resources for Less-resourced Languages. Paper presented at the SALTMIL workshop, LREC 2008, Marrakech, Morocco . Retrieved from http://notendur.hi.is/eirikur/english.htm Rögnvaldsson, E. (2011). Icelandic Language Technology: An Overview. In G. Stickel & T. Varadi (Eds.), Language, Languages and New Technologies: ICT in the Service of Languages. Contributions to the Annual Conference 2010 of EFNIL in Thessaloniki (pp. 187–195). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Rumsey, A. 1990. Wording, Meaning and Linguistic Ideology. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 346-361. Sapir, Y. & Zuckermann, G. (2008). Icelandic Phonosemantic Matching. In J. Rosenhouse & R. Kowner (Eds.), Globally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English Vocabulary in Other Languages (pp. 19-44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 68 Sass, A. (2012, May 6). Outsiders in the Melting Pot. Iceland Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id =389711 Schiffman, H. (1995). Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London & New York: Routledge. Schiffman, H. (2006). Language Policy and Linguistic Culture. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 111-126). Malden: Blackwell. Schmidt, R. (2006). Political Theory. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 95-110). Malden: Blackwell. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In R. Clyne, R. Hanks & C. Hofbauer (Eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 284-306). Boulder: Westview. Sindic, D. (2011). Psychological Citizenship and National Identity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 202–214. Skaptadóttir, U. (2010). Integration and Transnational Practices of Filipinos in Iceland. E-migrinter, 5, 36-45. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Human Rights and Teachers of English. In J.K. Hall & W.G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 2244). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Smith, H. (1994). “Dative Sickness" in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12(4), 675-736. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2005). Language in its Social Context. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(3), 254-272. Spolsky, B (2005a). Language Policy. In J. Cohen, K.T. McAlister, K. Rolstad & J. MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 2152-2164). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 69 Spolsky, B. (2007). Towards a Theory of Language Policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 22(1), 1-14. Spolsky, B. (2008). Language Policy: The First Half-Century. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages (pp. 137-154). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Management. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. & Shohamy E. (2000). Language Practice, Language Ideology and Language Policy. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy Essays in Honor of A. Ronald Watson (pp. 1-42). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Statistics Iceland (SI). (2009). Immigrants and Persons with Foreign Background 1996–2008. Retrieved from http://www.statice.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?ItemID=9077 Statistics Iceland (SI). (2010). Population 1 January 2010. Retrieved from http://www.statice.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?ItemID=10823 Statistics Iceland (SI). (2011). Foreign Language Study in Compulsory and Upper Secondary Schools 2010-2011. Retrieved from: http://www.statice.is/Pages/444?NewsID=5571 Statistics Iceland (SI). (2012). Foreign Citizens 1950-2012. Retrieved from http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1174&src=/temp_en/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN040 01%26ti=Foreign+citizens+19502012++++%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/Rikisfang/%26lang=1%26units=Number Statistics Iceland (SI). (2012a). Key Figures. Retrieved from http://www.statice.is/pages/916 Statistics Iceland. (2012b). Migration. Retrieved from http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1171&src=/temp_en/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN014 04%26ti=External+migration+by+sex%2C+countries+and+citizenship+19862011+++%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/Buferlaflutningar/%26lang=1%26units=Nu mber Statistics Iceland (SI). (2012c). Population by Origin and Citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1174&src=/temp_en/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN430 00%26ti=Population+by+origin%2C+sex%2C+age+and+citizenship+19962011++++++++++++++%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/Uppruni/%26lang=1%26unit s=Number Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 70 Svavarsdóttir, A. (2008). Icelandic. In U. Ammon & H. Haarman (Eds.), Sprachen des Europäischen Westens / Western European Languages I (pp. 441-457). Wieser Verlag: Klagenfurt. Svenovius, P. (n.d.). On Icelandic. Retrieved from http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/lingua/structure/about/about_is.html Te Puni Kokiri. (2003). Māori Language Strategy. Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri & Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori. The Icelandic Cancer Society. (2005). Preventing Cancer Across Cultures. Paper presented at the NCU Conference, Malmö, Sweden. Thomas, G. (1991). Linguistic Purism. London: Longman. Thomas, V. (2006). Language Policy – A Debate About the Role of the German Language. Retrieved from http://www.goethe.de/lhr/prj/mac/spw/en1903077.htm Tollefson, J. (2006). Critical Theory in Language Policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 42-59). Malden: Blackwell. Trade with Iceland. (n.d.). Trade with Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.islandsstofa.is/en/trade-with-iceland Tworek, K. (2010). Motives of Migration and Types of Migration - The Case of Polish Immigrants in Iceland. Retrieved from http://migracje.civitas.edu.pl/index.php/en/motives-of-migration-and-types-ofmigration--the-case-of-polish-immigrants-in-iceland University of Akureyri (UoA). (2008). The Language Policy of the University of Akureyri. Retrieved from http://english.unak.is/static/files/Stjornsysla_stefnumal/The%20Language%20Policy %20for%20UNAK.pdf University of Akureyri (UoA). (2009). International Office. Retrieved from http://english.unak.is/international/ University of Akureyri (UoA). (2012). Courses Offered in English. Retrieved from http://english.unak.is/education/page/namskeidaensku University of Iceland (UoI). (2011). Policy of the University of Iceland 2011-2016. Retrieved from http://english.hi.is/files/afmaeliforsida/policy_2011-2016.pdf University of Iceland (UoI). (2012). Icelandic as a Second Language. Retrieved from https://english.hi.is/school_of_humanities/faculty_of_icelandic_and_comparative_c ultural_studies/icelandic_second_language Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 71 University of Iceland (UoI). (2012a). Single Courses Taught in English. Retrieved from https://ugla.hi.is/kennsluskra/index.php?tab=skoli&chapter=content&id=24273 Útlendingastofnun. (n.d.). Permanent Residence Permit. Retrieved from http://utl.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=90&lang= en Útlendingastofnun. (n.d.a). Who Does Not Need a Residence Permit After a Certain Period. Retrieved from http://www.utl.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=10 2&lang=en Vaish, V. (2008). Globalisation of Language and Culture in Singapore. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(3), 217-233. Walsh, M. (1998, July 5). Iceland Chilly Toward Microsoft - Software Giant Won't Translate Windows Into Island's Language. The Dallas Morning News, p. 19A. Wee, D. (2009). Singapore Language Enhancer: Identity Included. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 15-23. Willson, K. (2009). Name Law and Gender in Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/academic-year-2008-09/articlepdfs/Jun09_willson.pdf Wodak, R. (2006). Linguistic Analyses in Language Policies. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy Theory and Method (pp. 170-193). Malden: Blackwell. Woodward, C. (2009, January 21). Global Financial Crisis Overwhelms Tiny Iceland. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0121/global-financial-crisis-overwhelmstiny-iceland Woolard, K. & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language Ideology. Annual Review Anthropology, (23), 55-82. Ytsma, J. (2000). Trilingual Primary Education in Friesland. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language (pp. 222-235). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Zaorska, K.D. (2012). Language Use by Polish Immigrants in Iceland: English or Icelandic? Retrieved from http://skemman.is/en/item/view/1946/11702 Nathan Albury | Iceland: Applying Spolsky’s Four Determinants of Language Policy Page | 72