Yksi, kaksi vai monta kirjakieltä? Vienankarjalaisten kanta kirjakielidebattiin

• Main Author: Kunnas, Niina
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: Finnish
• Published: Kotikielen Seura 2006
• Subjects: kansanlingvistiikka; karjala; kieliasenteet; Viena; vähemmistökielet; Kunnas; Rene; karelian; karelians
• Online Access: https://journal.fi/virittaja/article/view/40477

How many literary forms of Karelian? A Viena Karelian viewpoint on the literary language debate (englanti)2/2006 (110)How many literary forms of Karelian? A Viena Karelian viewpoint on the literary language debateThe article examines the opinions of Viena Karelians concerning the ongoing development of several different forms of literary Karelian, and whether the informants responses confirm the hypotheses presented by Rene van Bezooijen (2002) about the way people generally assess languages. In addition, the writer analyses the attitudes of Viena Karelians towards their own language and other dialects of Karelian, and the language ideologies behind the views they expressed. The study data consists of thematic interviews with 28 elderly Viena Karelians. These interviews were conducted by the writer in the villages of Kalevala (Uhtua) and Jyskyjrvi in summer 2001.A majority of the informants expressed no opinion on whether a common literary language should be established or whether the development of several different literary languages should continue. The same informants did, however, state very clearly that they disliked Olonets Karelian (Livvian). Underlying this view is the influence of the ideology of detraction. The familiarity driven hypothesis is also borne out in the responses: ones own familiar, local variety is considered better than that which represents the unfamiliar, i.e. Olonets Karelian.The second largest group consisted of those informants who felt it was good that both Olonets Karelian and Viena Karelian have their own literary forms. They justified this view on the grounds that, for example, mutual understanding of the respective spoken forms is poor anyway, and that they are actually two separate languages. These responses thus constitute evidence in support of the intelligibility driven hypothesis. The views of those supporting the existence of several literary languages are also based on a pluralistic language ideology: these informants have a positive view of the diversity of the Karelian language and of the existence of several literary forms.The smallest group among the informants consisted of those who support a common Karelian literary language. There was also one interviewee who felt that Viena Karelian would be an appropriate literary language for all Karelians, and another who considered that Finnish could be the Karelian literary language. These responses displayed evidence of the ethnicity ideology and the nationalistic ideology: many were of the view that the Karelian language is an essential part of the Karelian identity, and that the development of two literary forms would split the Karelians in two. One of the responses also exhibited evidence of the economy ideology: the development of several different literary forms was seen as detrimental, as it would lead to economic losses. There was also one informant who valued Viena Karelian on the grounds of it being a communication tool enabling contact with Finns. Underlying this response is the instrumental language ideology. The comments concerning Finnish were all evidence of the context driven hypothesis: many Viena Karelians see Finns as having a high status, and so they probably also value the Finnish language.Niina Kunnas