Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie
linguistlist.org>
Klintborg, Staffan. The transience of American Swedish. Lund: Lund UP. Lund Studies in English 98. 1999. Reviewed by Carl Isaacson, St. Olaf College Swedish mass migration to the United States ended with the Great Depression. By that time nearly 1.2 million Swedes had left their homeland and arrived in America, settling primarily in the upper Midwest and the Northwest. The intellectuals among these migrants argued that their identity as a people would be preserved as the language and custom of the fatherland was preserved. The success of this attempt was, at best, dubious. As early as 1900 Swedish American journalist Johan Enander doubted that the Swedish language could survive more than 10 or 15 years in the United States. The Swedes, he opined, we far too ready to become Americanized. Despite the attempts of children's clubs, churches and lodges to inculcate the use of "proper" Swedish, the second and subsequent generations of American Swedes failed to master the mother tongue. They could not, wrote novelist Gustaf Malm, because English was "the language of their heart," and Swedish, at best, a second language. Most Swedes in America quickly learned English for their dealings with non-Scandinavians. Amongst themselves they spoke, and wrote, a blended speech which came to be called "Swinglish." In The Transience of American Swedish Staffan Klintborg studies the bilingualism of the last generation to participate in the mass migration from Sweden to the United States. This particular group is not only the last mass group to be born in Sweden and emigrate to America, they are also the last to come primarily from the working class, elementary school educated Swedish population. The Swedish speakers in Klintborg's study are all native born Swedes. Second generation Swedish speakers are excluded. His source material is tape recordings of these Swedes, made for the Emigrant Institute in Vaxja, Sweden, between 1975 and 1985. They are all Midwesterners. Needless to say, the Swedish of the interviewees diverges from standard Swedish. The divergence allows Klintborg to study fairly recent examples of common bilingual traits: code switching, transfer, and the like. He begins his study with a review of the pertinent literature on Swedish-English bilingualism, helpful for any linguist or for that matter, any culture historian. Following Quirk et al, he divides his study between "open class" words (nouns, adjectives, verbs and deadjectival adverbs) and "closed-class" words, (propositions, conjunctions, adverbs, numerals, pronouns). Klintborg's findings are unremarkable in this regard. His analysis of code-switching and transfer among the American Swedes, however, leads him to question sharp demarcations between code-switching and transfer. ". . . it is often impossible to make a clear distinction between switches and transfers . . . In English the article is a separate word and the only bound inflectional noun morphemes are the plural and genitive endings. In Swedish, on the other hand, indefiniteness is expressed by a separate article and definiteness by an ending. Thus, to call and English noun appearing with a Swedish indefinite article a switch, but an English noun with a Swedish definite article a transfer seems completely arbitrary." In general, Klintborg's modest work does not call into question or attempt to re-order the field of bilingual studies. Instead, it "casts doubt" upon some, but not all, of the received wisdom of the field. The modesty is well placed. For this cannot be the final word from Klintborg. It is a grand initial work, but the study works from data with too many gaps. It would be helpful to know, for example, if switching and transfer have any relationship to an individual's native language. Swedish, at least in the pre-TV days, was not a single language, but a series of overlapping regionalisms, often blended with other Scandinavian tongues. Klintborg acknowledges as much in the introduction, where he notes that code-switching from his native Gotland dialect to standard Swedish was his first exposure to bilingualism. The relationship between a speaker's former lexical competence and his current habits cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, Klintborg is forced to leave the matter to one side. Since he uses taped interviews, some over twenty years old, he cannot ascertain the actual L1, but assumes it to be proper Swedish. Syntacically and grammatically that is a safe assumption. But lexically, the assumption is unsound. Further, he does not, nor can he, examine what happens when contact with the mother tongue is renewed. What happens to both switching and transfer in a speaker who has returned to the homeland for a longer or shorter stay? The question is worth putting, since the Swedish speakers were interviewed long after Scandinavian Air Service made it possible to return at a relatively low fair, and telephone conversations with Sweden became affordable even for the working class. Finally, there is a whole new generation of Swedes in America. Though they do not represent a mass migration similar to that which American experienced at the beginning of the century, they are not an insignificant group. The new migrant comes to America with a job, an education, a family. Like previous generations they also attempt to teach their children (many of whom are born in America) the language of the homeland. Motivated by a potential return to Sweden in the near term, their children must be able to speak with native fluency. To study and compare this group with those in the Vaxja archive should enlighten the study of the transience of American Swedish. With the increase in global contact, accompanied by a healthy interest in Scandinavianism by the third generation of Swedish Americans, it may prove that Klinrborg is as overly pessimistic about the "transience" of the Swedish language in America as was Johan Enander a hundred years prior. More crucial for bilingual studies, the new Swedes in America could offer a test of the assumptions made about the occurance of code-switching and transfer. It just might turn out to have wholly other triggers than is assumed. Dr. Isaacson is Assistant Professor of Communication at St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN. Prior to this appointment he was Educator/Curator at the Swedish American Museum Center in Chicago. Among his research projects are an analysis of the demise of Swedish Theatre in Chicago as a cultural marker, and the use of American Swedish as a class distinctive.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue