Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.11.2007, Blaðsíða 29

Feature | Reykjavík Grapevine | Issue 17 2007 | 13
ond languages. And interestingly enough, when
one looks at the percentage of countries in which
people speak two languages or more, it becomes
apparent that the Benelux countries along with
the Scandinavian ones are far ahead of, say, Italy,
Spain and Great Britain, in their knowledge of
second languages. However, in a recent article
in Morgunblaðið, Vilhjálmur Egilsson, Secretary
General of the Confederation of Icelandic Em-
ployers, was quoted as saying that “you need to
make a clear distinction between public service
and administration when you speak of a bilingual
administration”. The latter, as he points out quite
correctly, has legal basis in our government; our
decision- and policy-making is and will be in Ice-
landic. Public service on the other hand must be
bilingual in the least – and, as Mr. Egilsson points
out, “English is not necessarily the default main
second language here; Polish, for example, might
be more appropriate”.
Pidgin English?
As odd as it may seem, Icelanders have always
been proud of their skills in foreign languages
while at the same time exulting in their own lan-
guage as one superior to others. Strangely enough,
this veneration of Icelandic and its heritage seems
to be fading. Sölvi Sveinsson, former principal of
the Commercial College of Iceland, speaks an
alarming truth when he says, “once a nation loses
its sense of nationality, it loses all self worth; and
becomes a desolated, backwater nation.” Sveins-
son says, “we need to have considerable knowl-
edge and command of our mother tongue, i.e. in
addition to having at least two other languages
“within our grasp”” thus echoing the European
Union charter.
An important factor when discerning lan-
guage ability is cultural awareness; while you
may speak the language, understanding the nuts
and bolts of a culture and nation is not a given.
An obvious example would be immigrants seek-
ing naturalization in the United Kingdom or the
United States; both countries apply tests of knowl-
edge of the language and culture as criteria in
certain cases. According to the BBC, the purpose
of the Life in United Kingdom test is for “people
[to] integrate and share in British values and tra-
ditions.” Or, to quote Sölvi Sveinsson, “when you
learn French, not only do you learn the language
itself, you also learn its customs, history and cul-
ture – even its culinary mores”.
Since we are constantly being bombarded
by English in all facets of life and entertainment,
you would think that the English that is being
spoken and written here in Iceland would be elo-
quent and of a very high standard. However, that
does not seem to be the case. There is a slew of
examples of Icelanders being culturally blind to
English, not only in a grammatical sense but in
the way they do not understand the cultural and
linguistic fabric in which the language is built,
whether it be an inside reference in the Simp-
sons or Friends, or nuances of difference amidst
verbs or nouns. Even more importantly you need
to have a sound knowledge of literary sources,
particularly if you want to call yourself above
average. As Sveinsson reminds us, “English is a
challenging language which only a few actually
master. People can speak it, and even use it daily;
however, when the need arises to communicate in
more specialized areas many Icelanders run into
“onerous difficulties.””
Katrín Jakobsdóttir, for example, admits, “I
am not horrendous in English, though I consider
myself terrible – and I am not worse than many
others I know; yet every time I have to speak about
political issues in English I feel as if I’m a five-year-
old trying to convey my point”. Despite her modes-
ty, Jakobsdóttir is pretty decent in English as she
has experience working in the tourist industry,
something that most bankers and lawyers do not
have.
When speaking to Auður Torfadóttir, Asso-
ciate Professor at the Iceland University of Educa-
tion, she emphasizes that her research, focusing
on the vocabulary of elementary and secondary
students, revealed that the vocabulary they knew
was very basic; not only was there a lack of tech-
nical vocabulary in areas such as science, but
many were inept at writing simple paragraphs.
Torfadóttir even spoke of the increasing concern
of university staff regarding these problems. Fur-
thermore, because these students are unable
to write coherent essays they fail to uphold the
standards set by the Ministry of Education cur-
riculum.
English has a more profound and all-con-
suming effect in Iceland now than a decade or
two ago. Therefore, you might expect the newer
generation to be better. However, Torfadóttir men-
tions that “Results show that Icelandic school-
children are capable of communicating verbally
in a very manageable manner, or at least when
they are allowed to speak freely about their own
interests and daily life, however that diminishes
in a structured setting.” Furthermore, the results
show that schoolchildren who score high grades
tend to display this discrepancy between written
and spoken language.
Essentially, proponents of English admin-
istration make no distinction between listening,
speaking and writing skills. Furthermore, sec-
ondary school courses, as they are conducted
now, are very different depending on the area
of specialty. Students of language learn not only
more advanced English than students of sociol-
ogy, science or business, but also over a longer
period of time. Most of the people working in the
business sector matriculate from business or sci-
ence courses. To clarify what English proficiency
is, Torfadóttir explains that “the Common Europe-
an Framework divides learners into three broad
divisions which can be divided into six subdivi-
sions.” It defines a C2 learner, i.e. a proficient user,
as being able to “understand with ease virtually
everything heard or read, [being able to] summa-
rize information from different spoken and written
sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts
in a coherent presentation … express[ing] him/
herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely,
differentiating finer shades of meaning even in
more complex situations.” How many Icelanders
qualify for that status?
Icelandic and Icelandic Banks
Interestingly enough, one of the CEOs of Lands-
bankinn bank, Sigurjón Th. Árnason, is quoted
in Morgunblaðið as saying that some companies
in Iceland have already started emailing amongst
each other in English, “even if the recipients are
only Icelandic it is because it is maybe forward-
ed abroad and any given individual in a foreign
country must be able to read and know the back-
ground of the these transactions.” Mr. Árnason
goes on to mention the apparent need to bolster
English teaching in schools, reminding one of the
old riddle of whether the chicken or the egg came
first. These transactions worry Guðrún Kvaran,
Professor at the University of Iceland and cura-
tor of the University Dictionary: “At the Icelandic
Language Committee, we think it is a grave misun-
derstanding if the business sector believes that it
needs English to communicate better in its expan-
sion abroad. It is more pressing for the companies
to educate their employees in communicating
efficiently within the Icelandic business sector
notwithstanding the English-speaking market
abroad”.
Sölvi Sveinsson is adamant about Iceland’s
need for a second English college course, to be
taught at the Commercial College of Iceland, the
International Baccalaureate of Business. Despite
having campaigned for this course he stresses the
importance of keeping Icelandic in high esteem
and that the same demands will be made in Ice-
landic in the curriculum as for other students.
Sveinsson insists that without our national identity
and language, Icelanders would never have been
able to expand so exponentially in the global mar-
ket. Losing Icelandic is not an option according to
him.
The Minister of Education and Culture, Mrs
Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, concurs in a
recent interview with Morgunblaðið. She under-
stands Ágústsson’s proposal as a way of facili-
tating communication with the global business
world which, in effect, is unnecessary according
to her: “it is easy enough as it is now, whether
in Nordic languages or English itself. We do not
need bilingual administration. And by doing that
we are sending a message of sorts that Icelandic
be placed aside, something I do not find very fea-
sible”.
Conclusion
It is obvious that the business sector here in Ice-
land is speaking another language entirely when
it comes to the value of Icelandic. Various opin-
ions are thrown around that have little basis in re-
ality – and the experts are being disparaged as an
ancient and conservative force that wishes to hin-
der Icelanders with Icelandic. The debate is still
raging to a certain degree and will continue to do
so, but the wheels have already been set in motion
and Icelandic seems to be fighting a tough battle.
However, a report by the Icelandic Language Com-
mittee on Icelandic language policy is imminent,
including a resolution specifically on the unfortu-
nate request and extreme development of English
in the business sector specifically. Will the fate of
our language be decided in boardroom meetings
with intermediate knowledge of English?
Text by Marvin Lee Dupree
Big Business vs. Icelandic