In October 2000, the Swedish government appointed a parliamentary committee, the object of which was to produce an official report presenting a draft action programme for the Swedish Language. The committee, which had representatives from all parties in the Swedish parliament, finished its work in April 2002 by delivering its proposal to the Swedish minister of culture.

The report Mål i mun (a rough translation of the title could be ‘Finding your tongue’) is a substantial piece of work, in total 735 pages. It contains a number of different suggestions and recommendations regarding how the linguistic situation in Sweden could be improved. In this presentation, I will—of course—not try to cover it all, but will concentrate on matters of relevance to terminology.

The assignment of the committee has been to put forward a proposal for an action programme for the Swedish language. This programme should have two intended purposes: firstly, to advance the position of Swedish, and secondly, to ensure that everyone in Sweden has equally good opportunities to acquire the Swedish language.

Three major changes of the linguistic landscape of Sweden motivate the programme:

English has won an increasingly strong position internationally, thereby also becoming a more and more important language in our country.

Sweden has become an increasingly multilingual country, primarily because of immigration but also as a result of the elevation some years ago of five languages to the status of national minority languages.

There is greater demand in society at large for an ability to use language well both orally and in writing.

The change in the language situation affects linguistic conditions in Sweden in several ways.

2.1 The strong position of English

If there is switch to exclusive use of English in certain connections, Swedish will cease to develop in these areas. In the longer term, this will give rise to domain losses; Swedish terms and concepts will no longer be produced and the position of Swedish will weaken. At the same time, it is obvious that it in many contexts is necessary to employ English and that more and more people need increasing proficiency in English.

The problem of domain losses is the main topic of this paper. However, before going in to that in detail, it is necessary to briefly comments on the two other linguistic changes that motivate the study, in order to give some idea of the general direction of our work.

2.2 A multilingual society

In Sweden today, more and more people speak Swedish as a second or foreign language. This poses a severe challenge to the educational system, as it is essential that everyone has equally good opportunities to acquire the Swedish language. It also has an impact on language matters more broadly, e.g. the view we should take of Swedish that is spoken imperfectly or with a foreign accent. What does a ‘good command of spoken and written Swedish’ mean in a multilingual, multicultural society?

2.3 Increasing demands for language skills

As a result of the increasing demands for an ability to use the language well both orally and in writing, it is becoming more and more important that everyone—irrespective of their linguistic or social background—is given the opportunity to acquire a functional language. Changes in working life, the increasing length of most people’s education and the emergence of an information society in which IT is increasingly vital in most connections mean that a person who lacks a good command of the written language will face serious problems, in both working and private life. What can we do to ensure that everyone has the necessary skills to meet these demands?

As mentioned, the main issue of this paper is the effects of the strong position of English and the resulting domain losses, and how this situation could be handled.

One of the most obvious linguistic trends today is the globalisation of English. In many—perhaps most—countries of the world we see a process of ‘Englishisation’, to employ a term used by Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1999) This trend is clearly noticeable in various spheres of life: mass media, ‘popular’ culture and entertainment, education (on all levels but especially on higher stages), science and research, the business world, to name a few evident examples.

In Scandinavia, the aspect of the strong position of English that the general public seem to notice the most and worry about is English loan words. Such loans are of course not unproblematic. However, most linguists who have studied the matter seem to agree that this is not the main issue. Such borrowings are a normal phenomenon when languages and cultures are in contact with each other. Instead, the problem is that there is a trend to cease to use other languages than English more or less completely in certain contexts. This results in a stop for the other languages to develop as a means of communication within this area. For example, terms and words for new concepts and phenomena will not be produced, and after a while it will be hard to speak and write about matters in this area; the ‘linguistic resources’ that are needed are not available. Such losses of domains are the main problem that needs to be addressed.

It is also obvious that such domain losses are taking place. The Nordic countries provide a convenient example, since during 2001 parallel investigations of losses of domains where conducted all over Scandinavia. The situation of course varies somewhat between the different countries and languages, but still the picture one gets is rather uniform. It is furthermore likely that the situation is comparable for most medium-sized European languages, and that also large languages such as German or French are experiencing similar trends, although perhaps not quite as unequivocal.

The area where a widespread use of English is most evident is quite clearly higher education, science and research within the fields of natural science, medicine and technology. In these areas, English has for a fairly long time been the dominating language for scientific articles, PhD-theses etc., and today hardly any scientists publish scientific articles in a more strict sense in the Scandinavian languages; this is done in English, and preferably in international journals. English is also the dominating language of textbooks for students; at graduate level it is almost exclusively English texts that are used. English is furthermore becoming more and more frequently used as the language for instruction, lectures etc., and the students mostly write term papers etc. in English.

The Scandinavian languages may be used for popular science articles etc., but within a number of sub-disciplines, as it seems with increasing difficulty. Specialists within such fields appear to feel that they do not really have a possibility to discuss such matters in the local languages; their entire body of knowledge is based on English and expressed in English. It appears to be undeniable that there within natural science, medicine and technology is justifiable to talk about a genuine loss of domains.

Partly as a result of the Anglicisation of higher education, English is also becoming increasingly important on lower educational levels. In Swedish primary and secondary schools, English is nowadays quite often used for teaching other subjects such as biology, mathematics and history. One of the reasons for this is that one wants to introduce the students to the English for specific purposes that they will have to use on higher stages in the educational system. Another reason is probably that using English presents the school as a modern, progressive and successful institution, which will make it easier to attract students. Such developments of course put Swedish under even harder pressure.

Another area where the use of English is widespread, and increasing, is the business world. Many companies in Scandinavia have made English their ‘Company language’, ‘Working language’, ‘House language’ or whatever term they use. This does of course not mean that all communication at work takes place in English. What seems to happen—at least in Sweden—is a kind of stratification of the languages. The more official and the more important a document is, the more likely it is that it will be in English, and similarly the more important let us say a meeting is, the more likely it is that it will be held in English. The higher up in the company hierarchy a person is, the more he or she will use English. Power, importance, and influence appear to be the hallmarks of English.

Why are domain losses a problem? Does it matter if for example scientists publish all their articles in English, and find it hard to express their expert knowledge in other languages than English?

There are several reasons why that question must be answered with at “yes”.

4.1 Expert—layman communication

First, if expert knowledge cannot be adequately expressed in other languages than English, communication between experts and laypersons will become more difficult. This is problematic from many points of view. It will for instance be more difficult to write popular science articles, or in other ways spread new knowledge outside the expert circles and out into society. It might also be more difficult to commercially exploit new inventions if language barriers hinder contact between the business world and scientists or between experts and the general public. Another example is that a physician might need to be able to explain also complicated medical facts to a patient, which of course will be harder if only English terms are available. The list could easily be made longer.

4.2 Efficiency

Secondly, it is obvious that one in general functions better intellectually when using one’s own language, than when working in a foreign tongue. In a situation when many of the intellectually demanding tasks have to be carried out in English, this is a fact worth contemplating. Do students always do as well as they could have, when all their study-material is in English? How well do businessmen negotiate in a foreign language, and are our engineers as creative as they could have been if they had had better possibilities to work in their mother tongue?

Not only in a completely pessimistic vein, but also in a more realistic, one could well imagine that Sweden, and other countries in similar situations, will before too long be facing a situation where English will be the only language that may—or at least is—used for certain important and demanding tasks. However, English will not be the language in which the majority of the persons having to carry out these tasks function optimally. A foreign language, predominantly learnt at school, is, even if you master it quite well, something else than your mother tongue.

4.3 A multilingual world

Thirdly, the question of domain losses has strong connections to the multilingualism of the world. It has been estimated that around 6 500 different languages are spoken in the world today. The number is, however, rapidly diminishing; a widespread language death is going on right now. Predictions have been made that say that only 200 languages will survive the next 100 years.

This is unfortunate from several perspectives. From the point of view of the individual, one’s language is a fundamental part of one’s identity. Respect for other people therefore demands respected for their language. From the point of view of society, one can say that language and culture are interconnected. If we want to preserve the cultural diversity of the world, its various languages must be kept alive.

A multitude in languages and cultures has of course a value in itself. A world with only a few languages, or perhaps solely one; would certainly be a much less exciting place to live in. But multilingualism and multiculturalism probably are an asset also because pluralism creates better possibilities for creativity and development on many different levels: in terms of culture, science, business etc. The European Commission rightly states on its homepage: ‘In the modern era, linguistic diversity can no longer be considered an obstacle to progress but is an essential part of the multicultural heritage which has made Europe what it is today.’

Languages die because one stops to use them. In such a process domain losses make up the central part; domain after domain is lost, until very few areas of usage remain. That a language is put to use is the fundamental requirement for its survival, and if a language ceases to be used, all other efforts for its advancement will be futile.

Of course, the national languages of Europe hardly belong to the languages that run a risk of not surviving the coming century. Compared to most languages in the world they are in a very favourable position. Nevertheless, the perspective of language survival is still worth to keep in mind. If we want to have a world with many strong and vital languages, it is necessary to try to keep our own respective languages in as good shape as possible. The fundamental way of doing this is to make sure that they can be used in as many and as varying domains as possible.

From this perspective, it must also be taken into account that even a restricted domain loss has an influence on a language, viewed as a whole. A certain text is closely linked to other texts through a network of relationships of different types. The meaning of a text is therefore partly dependent on such intertextual links. If certain genres, texttypes etc. disappear within a particular language, this affects the web of intertextuality. This in turn has detrimental consequences for the remaining texts; it limits and reduces their meaning potential, through a process of what perhaps could be labelled loss of intertextuality. To put it a bit trivialised: if no medical science is written in Swedish, one cannot in a literary novel include a part where such texts are alluded at, for example in the form of a parody. This results in a small reduction of the stylistic spectrum. This could be regarded as an initial step in a process that eventually may lead to the phenomenon ‘monostylism’, a situation usually associated with late stages in a language shift development.

Another consequence of a restricted loss of domains could be a loss of prestige. Many of the areas where English is becoming the dominant language are prestigious and important domains of language use. English may therefore to many appear to be a superior language, with richer resources for intellectual reasoning etc. and more apt to handle the ‘hot’, ‘modern’ aspects of society and life at large. Such attitudinal aspects are of course of great importance for the role, function and status of a language within a country, and therefore for the future of that language.

4.4 Inequality

Finally, one can look upon the issue of domain losses from the point of view of equal rights and possibilities. If English will be the language used in formal and important situations such as work and higher education, good English skills will of course be a prerequisite for success at school, in your career etc. However, not everyone will have equal opportunities to acquire the English language. Some children will for instance have been brought up in an international or ‘inter-European’ environment and as a result of this have acquired a native like command of English, while others will live in more ‘local’ circumstances. This might lead to sharp social divisions along linguistic lines, i.e. between those who are native or near native speakers of English and those who are not. Eventually a result could be a class society with strongly reduced possibilities of social mobility etc.

It must stressed that the report of our committee is not anti-English. Of course, it is a great asset that we have an international language, and that for instance scientists and businessmen can communicate with each other through a common language. The aim of the proposals in our report is not in any way to try to force out English. Swedish researchers should of course publish their results in English, in order to be a part of the international scientific community, and it goes without saying that Swedish student should read textbooks and articles in English. Neither do we see it as a problem that many Swedes, especially among the younger generation, are quite proficient in English. On the contrary, this is an advantage both for our country and for the individual, and we would like to see it strengthened: Swedes should learn more English, not less!

What we want to avoid is that English be used exclusively in certain domains. The basic strategy therefore should be to promote parallel usage of Swedish and English, also within areas where English now seems to be taking over altogether. We should have both Swedish and English—certainly not Swedish instead of English but not English completely without Swedish either.

We present a number of suggestions about how to promote such parallel usage of Swedish and English. A few examples, that hopefully suffice to give an idea about the general direction of the propositions, might be:

University programmes should include courses in scientific communication, where both English and Swedish should be treated

One objective of educational programmes at Swedish universities shall be that the students acquire a capacity to exchange knowledge in their areas of specialisation in both national and international connections, both orally and in writing, and for diverse target groups.

PhD-students who write their theses in a foreign language (mainly English)—which should be the normal thing to do within many areas—should include a summary and an abstract in Swedish.

Product information, safety information etc. should be available in Swedish when you purchase an item (it could of course be in many other languages as well)

Employees should have the right to get manuals, safety instructions for machinery etc, in Swedish if they demand to get that.

Trade unions should have the right to negotiate in Swedish, if they choose to do so.

Employees should have the right to get a contract of employment and a job description in Swedish, if they want to have that.

If we want to be able to use Swedish also within specialized domains, it is of course essential that terms in Swedish are available. At the same time it is a prerequisite that Swedish be used, in order for terminology within a certain field to continue to develop. Language use and terminology development mutually presuppose each other, and can both support and weaken each other in either a positive or a negative spiral. Therefore, terminology work is one of the most fundamental aspects of trying to keep a language complete in the sense that it can be used in all the domains where we whish to use it. Terminology is, of course, also important from other points of view. In particular, we point in our report at the importance of standardized and appropriate terms for an effective and well-functioning activity within various fields, for example the industrial sector. Hence, we put forward a number of suggestions related to terminology work.

First, we mean that it should be viewed as a public utility that terminology work can take place. We furthermore point out that, at least in Sweden, it is necessary that public money be allocated to support such work. Not all of the necessary activities the Swedish Centre for Terminology can support themselves financially, and therefore funding must be provided by the state, as a part of upholding the needed linguistic infrastructure of our country.

Secondly, we stress that the work done by special terminology groups such as The Joint Group for Swedish Computer Terminology and The Joint Group for Swedish Life Sciences Terminology is very important. For instance, the group for computer terminology has been successful at getting an impact in broad circles for their recommendations. To reach out to the languages users is of course vital; to produce terms that are not put to use is obviously of limited value. The work within the joint groups also involves specialists within the field, and such a close cooperation between terminologists and specialists is necessary for a successful outcome. We therefore propose that more such groups be established, and that they should get increased financial support.

Thirdly, we point at the need for multilingual terminology work. Specialists often work in a global environment, and need to communicate across language borders. In such a work, resources such as multilingual term databases are necessary. Databases such as Eurodicautom are important tools for among others translators within the union.

Fourthly, we point at the responsibility various national agencies have for terminology within their different fields. For instance, in Sweden, the work of the National Board of Health is important for the Swedish terminology within healthcare, medicine etc. Terminology work should be recognized as an important part of their work, and resources allocated in the budget for such purposes. It is also important that the various national agencies cooperate in these matters, and that the responsibility of different bodies is clearly established.

Fifthly, we stress the importance of terminology work for the development of IT. One aspect of this is that a standardized and suitable terminology is a prerequisite for the development of ‘soft infrastructure’ within this field. If we want to get well-functioning services of all kinds on the Internet, standardized terms must be used. Another aspect has to do with language technology. For the development of tools for information retrieval, text processing, text correction, translation support etc. questions of terminology are of vital importance.

In this context, it could also be said that the question of domain losses is central within the IT-world. If we want to support the multilingualism of the world, it is important that the Internet has also a non-English content, and that IT-tools can handle other languages than English.

Sixthly, we propose that research and education at a university level in the field of terminology should be built up in Sweden; at the moment we have no such resources in our country.

Policy decisions of various types have consequences for the language sector, and linguistic issues vice versa influence politics. When it comes to Sweden, one can however say that we have so far not had a language policy in a strict sense of the word; language issues have instead been dealt with as part of other areas such as education policy, cultural policy, minorities policy, integration policy, etc. One of the most important parts of our report—at least that is what we think ourselves—is that we propose that a language policy be established in Sweden, on par with policies for education, environmental protection etc.

In the Swedish political system, different policy areas must have a set number of goals or objectives. We suggest that the objectives of the Swedish language policy shall be:

that all people shall have a right to language: their mother tongue, Swedish and foreign languages

that Swedish shall be a complete language, serving and uniting our society

that Swedish in official and public use shall be correct and function well.

If we look at these three objectives, we can see that terminology is important for all of them. Terminological work is necessary to keep our languages complete and able to serve our various societies in all different fields of human activities—that is goal number two. Terminology is important for a well-functioning work within different fields, not the least business, industry and administration—that is goal number three.
When it comes to goal number one there is perhaps not a completely straightforward connection to terminology. However, it is not very far-fetched to say that there is a link. Because if we, all of us, try to keep our own respective language in as good shape as possible—and the basic effort in that struggle is to counteract domain losses—we support the multilingualism of the world. In doing so we support everyone’s right to his or her own language.

A conclusion could be that there is a need for a language policy on a national, a European and perhaps even a global level. In such as policy terminological questions are of crucial importance.

Mål i mun. Förslag till handlingsprogram för svenska språket. SOU 2002:27. Stockholm.

Phillipson, Robert and Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, 1999: Englishisation: One dimension of globalisation. In: D. Graddol and U. H. Meinhof (eds) English in a Changing World. AILA Review 13 (pp 13–36). Oxford.