In many countries the official status of minority languages has become stronger in recent years. This is also the case in Sweden, where for example Finnish is one of the official national minority languages. It has a protected legal position and its users have legal rights to use their language, and in some municipalities, also to get services in Finnish in pre-school and elderly care. However, thus far, there is little research on language beliefs or language use of the Finnish-speakers in Sweden. Specifically, the beliefs and language use of minority language teachers of Finnish have not been studied extensively. Investigating these beliefs and experiences is important for several reasons: beliefs and values influence actions and language policies (Borg, 2006; Johnson, 2013), and teachers’ beliefs may influence the language choices their students’ parents make at home (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Spolsky, 2012). This is important since supporting first language skills results in better learning outcomes (Eunjung Relyea & Amendum, 2019; Ganuza & Hedman, 2018).

Maintaining national minority languages might be threatened, if the speakers do not recognize the benefits of multilingualism (Purkarthofer, 2020). Promoting multilingualism means valuing all languages and considering them equal, as well as supporting the use of all the languages speakers know (de Jong, 2011). Several studies have shown a cognitive advantage in bilingual adults and children (for systematic reviews, see Adesope et al., 2010; van den Noort et al., 2019). Behind the language choices, i.e. language use and language policies, are always power dynamics and social contexts (Tseng, 2020); those in power, often also schools and teachers, determine what languages are considered appropriate. The home surrounding plays an important role in motivating children to maintain and develop their languages, but societal pressures related to assimilation may cause language loss, especially if minority languages are discriminated against (Cho et al., 1997). Thus, in order to be able to understand the possibilities for maintenance of minority languages, it is important to get to know how national minority language teachers use different languages, in this study mainly Finnish Swedish and English, as well as how they perceive the value of these languages. Understanding minority language teachers’ beliefs and language use also contributes to developing the education of minority speaker students.

This study aims to fill the aforementioned gaps by seeking responses to the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the language beliefs of teachers of Finnish as a national minority language in Sweden regarding Finnish, Swedish and English?

RQ2: How do teachers of Finnish as a minority language in Sweden use their languages?

In this study, we use the term (official/national) minority language to refer to the languages that have an official status as national minority languages in Sweden, including specific legal rights aiming to keep the language alive and guarantee certain services in that language to its speakers. In the case of Finnish in Sweden, also the term heritage language has been used. This term has an affiliative dimension, since sometimes heritage language speakers might only have a cultural connection to the language, no actual skills (Eisenchlas & Schalley, 2020). However, since Finnish has an official minority language status in Sweden and since our participants have skills in Finnish language, we prefer using the term (official/national) minority language. Additionally, we use the term first language when we refer to the language that an individual has the strongest skills in, or whcih they have learned in their homes. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that none of these terms is neutral and there are some problems related to their use (see e.g. Eisenchlas & Schalley, 2020).

This research is a mixed-method study, where the data is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The survey contained 20 questions with alternative answers, some of which were fixed answer options (n=13), others with open answer options (n=7). The questions were asked in Finnish, but some response options were in Swedish, as these choices do not exist in Finland, e.g. adult education according to the Swedish model. The answers to the multiple-choice questions were analysed both by describing them quantitatively and by classifying them into different categories. The distribution of responses across the different categories is quantified. The responses to the open-ended questions were analysed qualitatively using a data-driven content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018). These responses are also partially described quantitatively, but it should be noted that the relatively small sample size means that broad generalisations cannot be made. Data were collected in the autumn of 2022 via an online survey that was partially created based on a language attitude survey by Lasagabaster (2007). Additionally, especially open-ended questions considering the use of Finnish in Sweden were added to the instrument. A link to the survey and a cover letter (in Finnish) that included information about the purpose of the study and protection of the data were sent to Finnish minority language teachers that participated in an in-service training occasion at the University of X. In total, 37 people responded to the survey out of 50 participants on the training day. Most of the respondents were women in the age range of 40-60 years, who are also, according to self-reporting, 95% fluent in both Finnish and Swedish, and half (51%) fluent in English. Of the respondents, about half lived in a municipality with a population of 70,000-300,000, i.e. a medium-sized city. 87% had some form of higher education, of which 43 had a bachelor's degree and 38 a master's degree. 33% of them had their education mainly in Finnish, 43% entirely in Finnish, from which it can be concluded that almost half have received their higher education in Finnish, probably in Finland. On the other hand, 43% have also received their entire higher education in Swedish, probably most of them in Sweden, although a Finland-Swedish background may be considered to account for some of these responses. Similarly, 46% have received most of their higher education mainly in Swedish, probably in Sweden.

In terms of attitudes towards different languages, respondents believed that it was important to know different languages, and that it was considered important for children to learn Finnish both at home and at school. It was also considered important for children to use several languages in parallel. In addition, respondents felt that it was equally important to know Finnish and Swedish. No one thought that children are confused by using several languages, and only few felt that children should only use Finnish at home. Thus, multilingualism and fundamental assumptions about its value were reflected in the responses. Additionally, a balance of competence in Finnish and Swedish was considered desirable, and knowledge of English was valued almost as highly as knowledge of Finnish and Swedish. When asked to rate their use of different languages, respondents often answered that they worked both in Swedish and in Finnish, but participated in professional training mainly in Finnish. Additionally, they watched the news in Swedish, but surfed the web as much in Finnish as in Swedish. Finnish was most often used with parents and siblings, as well as with other relatives, while Swedish was most often used with neighbours. Additionally, respondents' interaction through different languages in their leisure time was relatively Swedish-dominated. To conclude, our results show that although the use of Swedish was slightly more dominant, the respondents live a highly bilingual life and they value multilingualism. This indicates that there is a good basis for Finnish language maintenance and revitalisation in Swedish schools by these heritage language teachers. This is a relevant outcome also from the European perspective since many heritage languages struggle with staying alive, and revitalisation of minority languages is needed in many countries (SOU 2017:91), and teachers have a crucial role in this process.

Adesope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T. & Ungerleider, C. (2010) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80, 207–245. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Cho, G., Cho, K., & Tse, L. 1997. Why ethnic minorities want to develop their heritage language: The case of Korean‐Americans. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 106–112. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Huang, J. (2020). Factors influencing family language policy. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 174–193). De Gruyter Eisenchlas, S. A., & Schalley, A. C. (2020). Making sense of “home language” and related concepts. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 17–37). De Gruyter. Eunjung Relyea, J., & Amendum, S. J. (2019). English reading growth in Spanish-speaking bilingual students: Moderating effect of English proficiency on cross-linguistic influence. Child Development, 91(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13288 Ganuza, N., & Hedman, C. (2018). Modersmålundervisning, läsförståelse och betyg. Nordand, 13(1), 4–22. de Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education from principles to practice. Caslon Publishing. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications. Lasagabaster, D. 2007. Language Use and Language Attitudes in the Basque Country. In D. Lasagabaster & Á. Huguet (Eds.) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes, 65–89. Multilingual Matters Purkarthofer, J. (2020) Intergenerational challenges: Of handing down languages, passing on practices, and bringing multilingual speakers into being. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 130–149). De Gruyter. Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy – the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072 Tseng, A. (2020). Identity in home-language maintenance. In A. C. Schalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development. Social and affective factors (pp. 109–129). De Gruyter. van den Noort, M., Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S.,…Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating factors? A systematic review. Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030027