Go ealáska, de lea váttis dápmat

Abstract

Dán giellasosiologalaš dutkamušas guorahalan davvisámegiela etnolingvisttalaš ceavzinnávccaid guovtti gránnjágielddas; Deanus Norgga bealde ja Ohcejogas Suoma bealde. Mákrodásis, mesodásis, sámi servodatdásis ja mikrodásis dutkojuvvojit áššáigullevaš bealit mat ovttas hábmejit sámegiela ceavzinnávccaid dán guovtti gielddas. Erenoamáš fuopmášumi bijan dasa, mo mákrodási nuppástusat váikkuhit mikrodási sámegiela geavaheapmái sámegiela ealáskahttináigodagas mii álggii 1990-logu álggus. Dutkamušas geavahan dokumeantaanaliissa, jearahallanskovi, áiccademiid, áššejearahallamiid ja kvalitatiiva dutkanjearahallamiid. Dokumeantaanaliisa ja áššejearahallamat leat dehálamos metodat mákrodási, sámi servodatdási ja mesodási dutkamis. Gažadanskovi lean geavahan guorahallat 10–16-jahkásaččaid giellamáhtu, giellageavaheami, gielalaš historjjá, gielalaš doaladumiid ja etnihkalaš identitehta. Dát dutkamuš lea veahkadatguorahallan, mas leat fárus gaskacehkiid ja nuoraidcehkiid/ gaska- ja badjedási oahppit gávcci skuvllas Deanu ja Ohcejoga gielddas. Oktiibuot 193 oahppi dahjege 71 proseantta gielddaid skuvllaid oahppiin oassálastet dán veahkadatguorahallamii. Bohtosiid geavahan analyseret sámegiela ceavzinnávccaid mesodásis ja mikrodásis. 12 bearraša leat fas fárus kvalitatiiva dutkanjearahallamiin. Das guorahalan váhnemiid sámegiela oččodeami, sámegiela lingvisttalaš oktavuođaid individuála fierpmádagaid ja dáid fierpmádagaid rolla sámegiela sirdáseamis mánáide. Guovddáš gažaldat lea maid, mo váhnemat árvvoštallet sámegiela ceavzinnávccaid ja mo sin mielas ođđa sámepolitihkka lea čađahuvvon ruovttugielddas. Dutkamušas boahtá ovdan ahte sámegiela giellamolsun dárogillii ja suomagillii lea dáhpáhuvvan dutkanguovllus, muhto giellamolsun lea dál measta bisánan dan láhkai, ahte eanaš sámegielat váhnemat sámástit mánáideasetguin. Sámegiela giellamolsuma jorgaleapmi dáhpáhuvvá maid dan láhkai, ahte muhtimat giellamolsuma vásihan sápmelaččain leat oahppan sámegiela ja/dahje sin mánát máhttet sámástit. Eanaš sámemánát eai dattetge oahpa sámegiela nu bures ahte šaddet aktiiva hállin, jos ii leat sámegielat váhnen guhte sámásta singuin ruovttus. Váhnemat geat ieža eai sámás, vásihit ahte mánáidgárddit ja skuvllat eai nagat oahpahit sámegiela sin mánáide. Váhnemat geat leat nagadan bajásgeassit mánáid sámegielagin, atnet fas mánáidgárddiid, fulkkiid ja ustibiid nana doarjjan mánáid sámegiela oččodeamis. Skuvllaid rollas mánáid sámegiela oččodeamis lea gielddaidgaskasaš erohus. Deanu gieldda váhnemat atnet skuvlla dehálaš sámegiela doarjjan. Ohcejoga gieldda váhnemat fas atnet skuvlla hehttehussan mánáid sosialiseremis sámegielagin. Dán dutkamuša analiissas boahtá ovdan ahte hehttehusat, maid váhnemat vásihit, bohtet sihke mákrodásis ja mesodásis. Dáro- ja suomagielat sámemánáin ii leat mákrodási láhkavuogádagas vuoigatvuohta oahppat sámegiela beaktilis oahpahusmálle mielde dego giellabesiin ja vuođđoskuvlla giellalávgunluohkáin. Mákrodássi addá vejolašvuođa dákkár beaktilis oahpahusmálliide, muhto mesodási gielddat eai lágit oahpahusa mánáide beaktilis oahpahusmálle mielde. Mákrodássi addá maid vejolašvuođa ásahit sámegielat skuvllaid, muhto dákkár skuvlabálggis ii leat sámegielat mánáid vuoigatvuohta. Deanu gielda lea dattetge válljen lágidit sámegielat oahpahusa sierra sámegielat skuvllain. Ohcejoga gielda lea válljen lágidit sámegielat oahpahusa sámegielat luohkáin suomagielat skuvllain. Dát válljemat váikkuhit čielgasit mánáid ja nuoraid giellaválljemii ja joatkagis mesodási válljemat váikkuhit dáid mánáid sámegiela máhttui. Vai sámegiela ealáskahttin lihkostuvašii buorebut dutkanguovllus, de dárbbašuvvojit nuppástusat sihke mákro- ja mesodásis. Mákrodássi sáhttá mearridit ahte lea mánáid vuoigatvuohta beassat vázzit sámegielat skuvlla ja oažžut sámegielat beaivedivššu ja oahpahusa beaktilis oahpahusmálle mielde. Mesodási gielddat sáhttet dál juo dálá mákrodási rámmaid siskkobealde rievdadit iežaset mánáidgárde- ja oahpahusvuogádagaid nu ahte dat vástidivčče buorebut giellaealáskahttima dárbbuid.

In this sociolinguistic dissertation I examine the ethno-linguistic vitality of North Sámi in the two neighbouring municipalities of Deatnu/Tana in Norway and Ohcejohka/Utsjoki in Finland. Different factors on macro, meso, Sámi society and micro level together shape the ethno-linguistic vitality of the Sámi language in these two municipalities. The Sámi language revitalization era began throughout Sápmi in the early 1990s but manifested differently in different areas. I argue this is based on the larger socio-political conditions – thus the macro society influences language on a micro level. My research focuses on how these differences influenced local level revitalization processes. I utilized a variety of qualitative research methods including: document analysis, participant observation and interviews in addition to creating and analyzing questionnaires. Although document analysis and case study analysis proved most informative to locate larger socio-political trends, I used questionnaires to focus on the actual practice of language and language revitalization. Specifically the questionnaires solicited information on the ethnic identities, linguistic history and language skills as well as actual language use of my informants: children and youth age 10-16 years in the primary schools and upper secondary schools in Deatnu/Tana and Ohcejohka/Utsjoki. All together 193 pupils or 71 percents of the pupils took part in the research. The results of the questionnaires have been used to analyse the ethno-linguistic vitality of Sámi language on meso and micro level. I interviewed 12 families focusing on their roles in language revitalization. The interviews focused on their process in learning Sámi language and their network of linguistic contacts and specifically the role of these networks in the transmitting of Sámi language to the children. The underlying question in most of these interviews is how parents evaluate the vitality of Sámi language and the role of the new Sámi policy in their home community. One result of my research is that although there was a language shift in the past away from Sámi to Norwegian and Finnish among some of the Sámi people this language shift has nearly stopped because most of the Sámi speakers now are speaking Sámi to their children. In fact one can argue there is a reverse language shift occurring where some of the Sámis that had lost their ancestors’ language as children have chosen to learn Sámi as adults and are now speaking it with their own children. There are even cases where the parents haven’t learned the language themselves but encourage their children to do so thus ensuring the Sámi language is alive and developing for the next generation. The findings of my research indicate that children involved in the Sámi language revitalization processes most often come from homes with at least one, and sometimes two, Sámi speaking parents. Although formal education in Sámi language is important so are larger extended linguistic networks. For the parents that have raised their children as Sámi speakers, kindergarten, extended family and friends are the most important supporters for the language learning of the children. When it comes to the role of the school, there is a clear difference between the municipalities. The parents in Deatnu/Tana municipality consider the school to play a significant role in the promotion of Sámi language. In Ohcejohka/Utsjoki most of the parents consider the school as an obstacle for the children’s socialisation as Sámi speakers. In parents opinion the obstacles have roots both on the macro and meso levels. Linguistically assimilated Sámi children lack legal rights to learn Sámi language through strong forms of bilingual education such as language nest or immersion classes in the formal school setting. Although the state provides provisions for intensive language learning methods, the municipalities don’t implement these possibilities for those children who are not already speaking Sámi in the home. And although the state does provide for the possibility of separate Sámi language schools these are also implemented very differently in the two different municipalities. Deatnu/ Tana municipality organizes education in Sámi language for the Sámi speakers in separate Sámi schools whereas Ohcejohka/Utsjoki municipality organizes education with Sámi and Finnish as the languages of instruction in the same Finnish schools. My data from questionnaires with children and youths shows that these ways of organisation Sámi language education influences clearly the use of Sámi language among children. The children on the Finnish side use Sámi language considerably less than the children on the Norwegian side. As a consequence of these meso level decisions, the children on the Finnish side also feel that they master Sámi language less fluently than the children on the Norwegian side. In conclusion I argue there is a need for changes both on the macro and meso levels in order to enhance revitalization of Sámi language in the researched area. The macro level should decide that education in Sámi language shall be given in separate Sámi language schools and furthermore, Sámi children should have a legal right to get strong forms of bilingual education in kindergarten and elementary school. And in addition, the municipalities as the meso level should change their kindergarten and school structure in order to better meet the requirements of the revitalization of Sámi language.