Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 03 March 2022
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.803922
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 1March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Edited by:
Peter Siemund,
University of Hamburg, Germany
Reviewed by:
Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska,
Opole University, Poland
Heli Paulasto,
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
*Correspondence:
Elizabeth Peterson
elizabeth.peterson@helsinki.fi
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Language Sciences,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Communication
Received: 28 October 2021
Accepted: 07 February 2022
Published: 03 March 2022
Citation:
Peterson E (2022) Views on “Good
English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
in Finland. Front. Commun. 7:803922.
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.803922
Views on “Good English” and “Nordic
Exceptionalism” in Finland
Elizabeth Peterson*
Department of Languages, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
In the Nordic countries, widespread proficiency in English is positioned as a positive
and even critical component of overall global competitiveness and competence. Indeed,
maps illustrating who speaks the “best” English in Europe show a swath across the
Nordic countries, and the number of people in the Nordic countries claiming proficiency
in English is only a few percentage points below those in places such as the UK and
Ireland. At the same time, the Nordic countries are routinely listed as the “happiest,” the
most egalitarian, the most classless, least corrupt, and an epicenter for so-called “tender
values.” In recent years, there has been a spate of publications highlighting how Nordic
exceptionalism carries with it some unfortunate downsides, including the possibility for
people to ignore or fail to acknowledge issues such as racism, sexism, and other social
inequalities because of the affordance: “But our society is equal.” There is a parallel in
the use of English. The entrenched notion that “everyone is good at English” overlooks
that certain segments of the population—such as the elderly, immigrants and rural
inhabitants—do not have the same level of access to the symbolic capital represented
through facility in English. In this sense, the use of English presents social/class-based
barriers that the national languages do not. This article offers a critique of the social
realities relating to the use of English in the Nordic Countries within the context of the
social welfare system and “Nordic exceptionalism,” focusing mostly on Finland. Making
use of examples of discourse in newspapers, previous research and language policy
documents, the chapter highlights how aspects of the use of English in Finland parallel
other potentially hyped yet unequitable social issues.
Keywords: English as a foreign language, Finland, Nordic countries, education, language attitudes, social welfare
model
INTRODUCTION
This submission to the special issue on Englishes in a globalized world offers a critical perspective
on values and ideologies about English in a specific setting, Finland, while situating aspects about
the use of English within the wider social, economic and political landscape. The submission is
thus in line with the overall aims of this collection in offering a critical discussion on the spread and
function of English as a global language, including the analysis of public opinions and discourse.
Key issues brought to the forefront in this discussion include Finland’s role as one of five nation
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
states comprising what is commonly referred to as “the Nordic”
countries of Europe1, discussed further in section Definitions of
Nordic Exceptionalism, along with definitions of what is referred
to as “Nordic exceptionalism.” In recent years, there has been
a spate of positive publicity about the Nordic nations and their
success in achieving a high level of equality and “happiness.”
While these notions are widely propped up as desired and even
perceived realities, they nonetheless have been questioned in
recent accounts, demonstrating that the Nordic states are not
without faults, both historically and in the current era. The
common adage that “everyone speaks English in Scandinavia2”
proves problematic in much the same way, and it is this notion
that is explored here, using the concept of Nordic exceptionalism
as a window to view the phenomenon of English language use.
The article first lays some groundwork by presenting an
overview of the English language profile in the Nordic countries,
zeroing in on the particular context of Finland—Finland serving
as the main focal point of this discussion. The article then goes
into detail describing similarities in the governing and social
system of the Nordic countries, as these aspects are considered
key elements in understanding the role of English in the Nordic
setting, as well as arguments that are raised later in the article.
As a final piece of background information, the article offers a
summary of literature concerning the colonialism and coloniality
surrounding the spread of global English as a foreign language.
These elements, too, link to later arguments in the article.
The article concludes by offering evidence of the extension of
“exceptionalism” to the use of English in Finland in three areas:
social class, language attitudes, and social exclusion.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IN
THE NORDIC COUNTRIES
The widespread adoption of English as a foreign language in the
Nordic countries can be seen as an outcome of several concurrent
historical occurrences, associated to a large extent with a push
toward modernization and the related social reform that emerged
in the second half of the 20th century (McRae, 1997; see overview
of English in Finland in Leppänen and Pahta, 2012, p. 146–147).
In this sense, the concerted effort to introduce English language
learning in the school curriculum reflects priorities connected to
the education principles of the social welfare state (see section
Definitions of Nordic Exceptionalism). At the same time, it would
be faulty not to acknowledge that the concerted push toward
English language learning was (and still is) a component part
of globalization in relation to the outcome of World War II,
with America emerging as a major player in global economics
and politics, and Great Britain retaining, in part through the
1Definitions of what constitutes the Nordic region of Europe vary. As sovereign
political entities, the most common definition includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden. Other classifications include the autonomous Faroe Islands
(Denmark), Greenland (Denmark) and Åland (Finland). Still other definitions
might include Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, or other states in the northern
parts of Europe.
2“Scandinavia” is a term often used to refer to the same geographical area as the
Nordic. For the purposes of this article, Scandinavia is understood as comprising
Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
continued use of the English language, at least some of its
historical influence (Seargeant, 2012; Piller, 2016; Pennycook,
2017). Thus, the eventual outcome of widespread proficiency
and use of English in the Nordic countries can be viewed as
a mutually inclusive, if implicit, agreement: engagement in the
modern global stage for the Nordic countries and a toehold via
language and political and socioeconomic influence for the USA
and Great Britain.
The eventual outcome of this marriage of intentions is that,
as of the early 21st century, a majority of the population in
each of the Nordic countries claims proficiency in English. A
highly cited 2012 EU Barometer survey asked European Union
citizens which languages they can speak well-enough to have a
conversation (European Commission, 2012). The highest self-
reports came from the UK and Ireland, with over 95 percent of
respondents claiming they can have a conversation in English.
The next highest reported score came from the Netherlands at
90 percent, followed by Denmark and Sweden at 86 percent,
Austria at 73 percent and Finland at 70 percent3. While the
results are based on self-reported proficiency, it is nonetheless
of note that citizens of some EU nations, including some Nordic
countries, lay claim to proficiency levels only a few percentage
points below those of citizens of countries where English is
the majority native language. Self-reports aside, demographic
facts support the proficiency in English claimed by citizens of
the Nordic countries. The English Language Proficiency Index
(EPI), a for-profit English language skills company, measures
the English language aptitude of people who are interested in
knowing their ranking. Therefore, the measure is biased and
non-representative—yet it nonetheless serves as an example of
a global measure. Since the survey was first made available on
the internet in 2012, ∼1.7 million individuals have taken the
exam. The survey results place countries in Northern Europe,
including the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, in the same
overall category as countries where English is a dominant mother
tongue. In the EPI survey, the highest-ranking country was
the Netherlands, followed by Denmark, Finland, Sweden and
then Norway.
It is important to keep in mind that English is spoken as
an additional, foreign language for the vast majority of people
in the Nordic countries (excluding a tiny portion of the overall
population which has English as a mother tongue). The European
Parliament (2017) recommends that European citizens learn
their mother tongue plus two foreign languages. In fact, in the
Nordic countries at least, the common reality is that the overall
population speaks English in addition to a domestic/national
language, according to Eurobarometer data from 2006. This
statistic is especially telling in the context of Finland, the only
Nordic country that has two constitutional languages: Finnish
and Swedish. According to Finnish law, Finnish pupils who
speak Finnish as a mother tongue are required to learn Swedish
3Iceland and Norway were not reported in the survey as they are not EU member
states. It can be assumed that the overall language profile of Iceland and Norway
patterns with other Nordic countries in their overall language profile +English.
Notwithstanding, there are individual differences among Nordic countries (see
e.g., Kristiansen, 2010).
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 2March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
at school, and pupils who speak Swedish as a mother tongue
are required to learn Finnish at school (this is the general
law; deviations exist according to region and language setting;
Finnish Ministry of Justice, 2013). While in practice this means
that Finnish citizens should be proficient in both of the two
national languages, this is not the common reality: there is a
marked decrease in widespread proficiency in Swedish (see e.g.,
Vaarala et al., 2017). According to the 2006 Eurobarometer report
cited previously, 69 percent of the Finnish people polled report
speaking only one language in addition to Finnish, and English is
reported as being the main other language, spoken by 63 percent
of the population. In Finland, 47 percent or respondents claimed
to speak two languages in addition to their mother tongue. The
main second additional language (after English) was Swedish, at
41 percent.
The general widespread proficiency in English in the Nordic
countries has been explained through a number of factors.
Common explanations, in no particular order, include: subtitled
rather than dubbed English language television programs and
films, the relatively small population base, and the fact that most
citizens of the Nordic countries speak a Germanic language as
their first language (see Peterson, 2019, p. 13–14). An additional
explanation is the age of acquisition: Throughout the Nordic
countries, formal classroom learning in English begins by Grade
3, with formal learning extensively boosted by informal learning
outside the classroom (Norrby, 2015). A 2002 study (in Swedish;
see English summary in Norrby, 2015) comparing the English
skills of 9th grade students from eight European countries placed
the Swedish and Norwegian students nearly consistently in the
top tier across the four areas tested, with the Netherlands, Finland
and Denmark occupying the middle tier and Spain and France
the lower tier.
Each of these explanatory factors, however, can be countered,
and therefore cannot be considered to have too much individual
explanatory power. For example, many countries in the world
have subtitled programs and films and yet do not exhibit high
levels of language proficiency in the language of target media.
Likewise, not all European countries with small populations
exhibit overall high proficiency in English. In addition, Finnish
and other languages spoken by Nordic populations (for example
Meänkieli, the Sámi languages and Kven) are not Germanic
languages (as the Scandinavian languages are), yet speakers of
these Finno-Ugric languages are also able to achieve a high level
of proficiency in English, despite speaking a genetically unrelated
language as a mother tongue4. The most plausible explanation
for the widespread proficiency is that there is a confluence of
various factors, as described so far in this section. And, of course,
an additional overarching factor that cannot be dismissed is the
4While, overall, Finnish speakers have achieved a high level of proficiency in
English according to the measures cited in the article, it is important to note that
the overall level of proficiency reported is lower than other Nordic countries where
a Germanic/Scandinavian language is the main language. In addition, research in
Finland shows that Swedish-speaking Finns exhibit a lower level of nonstandard
features in their English than Finnish-speaking Finns, lending credence to the
argument that L1 could be a factor (see Meriläinen, 2021 – and thank you to an
anonymous reviewer for pointing this out).
enormous hegemonic social pressure to achieve high proficiency
in English (Piller, 2016).
In Finland, like other Nordic countries, English as a classroom
language starts in basic education, currently in grade 15. English
is the main (A1) foreign language for 89.9 percent of school
children in Finland (Finnish National Agency for Education,
2019), especially for Finnish speaking children, who constitute
the population majority. For Swedish-speaking children, who
constitute about 5.3 percent of the total population of Finland,
Finnish is the main A1. A large-scale survey on everyday language
use in Finland, including the use of English, was conducted in the
early 2000’s, with the results published in 2011 (Leppänen et al.,
2011). The survey, with responses from 1,495 people in Finland,
demonstrated that the majority of people surveyed claim that
English plays a significant role in their life; in fact, as many as
80 percent of the respondents said they encountered English in
their everyday surroundings (Leppänen et al., 2011, p. 63).
DEFINITIONS OF NORDIC
EXCEPTIONALISM
Definitions of what comprises the Nordic region vary, but many
accounts include the five countries Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden, all sovereign nations in Europe which
lie above a 55 degree north latitude. While historically these
nations have by no means constituted a consistently unified
political bloc, there are nonetheless reasons to view them as
sharing similarities in the current era (Vik et al., 2018). All of
these countries are characterized by relatively small populations,
especially in relation to the amount of geographic territory
(most) occupy, and the governing system in each country is
a social welfare democracy. Denmark, Norway and Sweden all
have a constitutional government and a monarch as head of
state. Iceland and Finland, as former territories of Denmark
and Sweden, respectively, have a constitutional government with
presidents as head of state. A governing union between Denmark
and Norway ended in 1814. The sovereign nation now known as
Finland was an eastern territory of Sweden for several centuries,
until 1807. Iceland became a sovereign nation in 1918 but shared
a monarch with Denmark until 1944.
As pointed out in the previous section, there are two
main language families represented among the populations of
the Nordic countries—although clearly there are many more
languages among the total population due not only to migration
but also with respect to long-standing minority groups, such as
speakers of Russian, Romani and Tatar (Latomaa and Nuolijärvi,
2002). The most heavily represented languages population-
wise are the Scandinavian languages, a subset of the Indo-
European/North Germanic language group, further divided
into Old East Norse (Swedish and Danish) and Old West
Norse (Icelandic and Norwegian). The second most represented
are Balto-Finnic languages, including Finnish and the Sámi
languages. Obviously, linguistic boundaries do not coincide with
national borders. Finland, for example, can be considered part of
5Grade 1 since 2020; prior to 2020, the A1 language was introduced in Grade 3.
The numbers reported here are from 2017.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 3March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
the Scandinavian speaking area (Norrby, 2015) due to its shared
history with Sweden, the fact that Swedish is a constitutional
language, and part of its population has Swedish as mother
tongue. Likewise, there are Balto-Finnic-speaking populations
outside of Finland, for example in the northern regions of
Norway, Sweden and Russia, as well as longstanding heritage
language speakers throughout Sweden (see e.g., Sundberg, 2013
for more information).
In terms of alliances and official associations, three Nordic
countries, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, are in the European
Union (EU), but all five countries, including Iceland and Norway,
are part of the European Economic Area (EEA). In recent
decades (as well as historically; the Kalmar Union existed from
1397 to 1523), the Nordic countries have purposefully enhanced
their cooperation and cohesiveness through a shared Nordic
cooperation6
It is important to establish this shared set of both real
and potentially imagined factors that combine the nations of
the Nordic area into a logical and self-evident bloc. For the
purposes of the arguments presented in this article, this is a
crucial foundation in viewing the concept known as Nordic
exceptionalism, a term that seems to have been circulating
roughly since the early 2000s7.
Exceptionalism is a collective (often self-held) belief that a
group or community, for example a nation state, possesses
inherent characteristics that distinguishes it and makes it more
special than other groups or nations. The term exceptionalism
has often been used in conjunction with ideologies of the
United States: American exceptionalism, which has been defined
as “a political doctrine as well as a regulatory fantasy that enabled
U.S. citizens to define, support, and defend the U.S. national
identity” (Pease, 2009, p. 11). Further fuel for America’s sense
of exceptionalism draws from its dominance on the world stage
after World War II, its historical lack of a feudal system, and
its unique historical background (among other factors; see e.g.,
Fredrickson, 1995; Pease, 2009). It is crucial to note that a
shared sense of exceptionalism makes it possible for the groups
who consider themselves “exceptional” to avoid responsibility or
blame due to the overriding ideology that they are a special group
to which the “usual” rules do not apply, thereby allowing the
group to eschew culpability or avoid compensatory action for
systemic racism, colonization, or genocide, for example (for an
overview on the context of Finland, for example, see Hoegaerts
et al., 2022).
Within the context of the Nordic countries, exceptionalism is
treated, at least for the purposes of this article, as emerging from
two distinct but overlapping directions. One set of ideologies is
borne out of the current era, relating largely to the outcome of
the social welfare model and discourse surrounding the “success”
of the Nordic countries with respect to social equity. The second
6Available online at: https://www.norden.org/en/information/official-nordic-co-
operation.
7Searches for the term Nordic exceptionalism yielded zero hits on corpora such as
the BNC and COCA at the time this article was being written. However, research
on the topic indicates that the term began circulating in academic circles in perhaps
the early 2000s; (see, e.g. Delhey and Newton, 2005).
set of ideologies relates to colonial exceptionalism. Within the
Nordic context, colonial exceptionalism is perpetuated through
the belief that the Nordic countries were not actively involved
in the colonization of the Americas, Asia and Africa to the
extent or in the same manner as other European nations,
thereby affording an overall notion that Nordic countries are
in some ways “innocent” (see Keskinen et al., 2019). In some
Nordic countries, including Finland, such ideologies are further
enhanced by the historical absence of a monarchy and an elite
ruling class (compare to exceptionalism in the United States and
the historical lack of a feudal system).
The Social Welfare Model in the Nordic
Countries
While the typical system of governance in much of Europe is the
social welfare model, a system dependent on taxation of citizens
for the redistribution of goods and services, the Nordic countries
stand out as being particularly well-known for this model. In
fact, many would consider the Nordic countries to be exemplars
of the social welfare model (Hilson, 2008). For most people in
the Nordic countries, education, health care and childcare are
provided by the state, either free of charge or heavily subsidized
(Pratt and Eriksson, 2013, p. 66). Unlike in countries that do
not utilize the social welfare model, or enact it to a lesser extent,
these services are not just available for the lower socioeconomic
classes, but for everyone. The availability of these services for
everyone, regardless of socioeconomic class, is in fact a key
equalizing component of the model8. Assistance is also available
for certain non-citizens, for example new migrants who are not
yet employed.
Citizens in the Nordic countries can be taxed as much as 80
or 90 percent, depending on income. The average taxation rate
in Finland is about 40 percent, compared to a global 34 percent
[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), 2021]. Sweden and Denmark were the first Nordic
countries to adopt this particular social welfare model relying
on taxation, with Finland adopting the system later on (for
more, see Kangas and Palme, 2005; Kvist et al., 2012). Social
services expanded from the post-World War II period into the
1960’s, peaking in the 1970’s (ibid) concurrent, incidentally, with
changes to the education system, including the introduction and
subsequent dominance of English as a foreign language in the
education system.
Explanations for the “success” of the social welfare system
in the Nordic countries vary. It has been pointed out, for
example, that the Nordic countries “went on to reproduce their
already existing value systems: the emphasis on moderation,
egalitarianism and uniformity [. ..]; the emphasis on individual
responsibility” (Pratt and Eriksson, 2013, p. 66) in many
ways carried on functionalities and ethos of the region’s most
dominant religion, Lutheranism. The outcome is that the Nordic
countries are those in Europe to demonstrate most precisely the
8An anonymous reviewer points out another important equalizing factor: the
“freedom to roam” laws, entitling every person to access nature even on privately
held lands – for example hiking, fishing, and picking mushrooms and berries. This
freedom to roam law exists in all of the Nordic countries except Denmark.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 4March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
principles of the social welfare system, and, in relation, they are
generally regarded as having made the greatest efforts to curb
social inequity (Kvist et al., 2012, p. 5). The properties play a key
role, for example, in the selection of the Nordic countries as the
“happiest,” according to rankings reported by Cambridge, Gallup,
and the World Happiness Report.
In 2012, the United Nations launched its first World
Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2012), a ranking carried
out by several group and independent experts. Denmark was
ranked in the number one position in the report’s 1st year, with
Finland and Norway in second and third positions, respectively.
In the ensuing years, the Nordic countries have been ranked
consistently in the top positions, with Finland being ranked first
for the past 4 years, 2018 to 2021. The ranking is based on
scores across several different areas, including gross domestic
product per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy,
freedom to make one’s own life choices, generosity of the general
population, and perceptions of internal and external corruption
levels (Helliwell et al., 2021). An interesting twist to the World
Happiness Reports is the extent to which Anglo-centric notions
of “happiness” map—or rather, don’t map—onto to existing
notions in the Nordic countries (Levisen, 2012, 2014). A range of
reactions, from the academic to the journalistic (e.g., Savolainen,
2021) venture that “happiness” in the Nordic is more accurately
described as being content with what one has, a concept that
relates back to the overall tendencies described previously.
Levisen (2012) demonstrates compelling evidence that the Anglo
concept of “happiness” does not accurately translate into Danish,
nor other languages, rendering it a vague or even misleading
measure. Indeed, backlash commentary about the “happiness”
rankings tends to refer to the relatively high rate of depression
and suicide in Nordic countries, compounded by the darkness
and harsh weather that exists much of the time (e.g., The
Guardian, 2018).
As a summary, then, the “success” of the social welfare
model in the Nordic countries has fed into numerous reports
and discourse which actively indulge ideologies about Nordic
exceptionalism, contributing to a sense of pride and positive
branding (Levisen, 2012). This is a contemporary manifestation
of exceptionalism that, prior to the 1970’s, could not have existed
in what were, for the most part, relatively poor, marginalized and
peripheral populations. At the same time, it should be noted that
there is a decided backlash and what could even be considered a
counter ideology to the “happiness” reports.
Colonialism and Exceptionalism
In the current era, a great deal of research has treated issues
of colonialism, migration and language in the Nordic countries
(Loftsdóttir and Jensen, 2012; Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2019;
Keskinen, 2019; Keskinen et al., 2019; Kujala, 2019; Ranta and
Kanninen, 2019), highlighting the tension between a sense of
exemption—also termed exceptionalism—on the one hand, and
a history of colonialism as well as contemporary racism on the
other. For example, Finland, the “happiest” country for 4 years
running, has also been named the most racist country out of 12
EU countries studied (European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2018).
Finland and the other Nordic countries were never colonized
by Britain or the United States, although Iceland was occupied
by British, Canadian and US troops during World War II. Some
of the Nordic countries, namely Denmark and Sweden, were
involved in the European colonization of the Americas and
Africa, with the other Nordic countries engaging in involvement
through their governing affiliation with Sweden and Denmark,
or through religion and missionary work (see Keskinen et al.,
2019). In addition, there are both historical and contemporary
examples of colonialism in the Nordic region involving, for
example, Danish rule of Norway and parts of Sweden, Swedish
rule of Norway and Finland, and Danish rule of Iceland, not to
neglect the ongoing Danish control of Greenland. A discussion
of colonialism in the Nordic countries would be remiss not to
highlight the exceptional mistreatment of Sámi territory and
people, and the attempted erasure/integration of the indigenous
languages and cultures (see e.g., Kuokkanen, 2020), as well as the
segregation and attempted erasure of linguistic groups such as the
Kven in Norway (Lane, 2016).
A comprehensive description of many of these colonial
relationships can be found in a volume by Loftsdóttir and
Jensen (2012), who also use the term exceptionalism to refer
to a pattern of exemption or non-culpability. For example,
drawing on discourse about “happy” and “peace-loving” people
(Loftsdóttir and Jensen, 2012, p. 2) note that exceptionalism can
refer to “current forms of internationalism” (ibid., also addressed
in section The Social Welfare Model in the Nordic Countries
of this article), as well as nation branding and contemporary
activities since the 1970’s that pose anachronistic conflicts with
a history of domination and conquest during the colonial period.
Such notions are perhaps especially interesting when applied
to the context of Finland. Historically, a common ideology
among Finnish people has been that they are an oppressed people,
even victims (see Hoegaerts et al., 2022; see also Keskinen, 2019).
Such an ideology is the outcome of several historical factors,
including the fact that Finland did not gain independence until
1917, after more than 100 years as a Grand Duchy of Russia
and hundreds of years as a territory of Sweden before that.
Finland has been a relatively poor, agrarian country, with what
was for much of its history considered a marginalized vernacular,
Finnish, along with a majority population who were in some
accounts considered racially inferior (ibid.). It was only in recent
decades that Finland has emerged on the world stage as a
competitive force. These factors may contribute further to a sense
of exceptionalism: it can be difficult to critically observe inequity
and oppression when an overriding ideology is that of succeeding
in spite of being a victim.
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND
COLONIALITY
English is not and never has been an empty vessel of a language,
devoid of historical and cultural baggage. On the contrary, the
language itself is permeated with and has been created through
conquest and exploitation. A foremost fact that should underlie
any discussion of the “success” of English is exactly how English
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 5March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
came to occupy this rarified status (see Saraceni, 2019). While in
the current day and age it is not uncommon to hear arguments
that English is a “neutral” choice (Lemberg, 2018) this is in fact
not a straightforward assessment. Rather, as with the discussion
of exceptionalism in the Nordic context, it is an assessment
that clouds over the fact that present-day widespread use and
accessibility of English is entrenched in historical injustices
and domination (see also Pennycook, 2017). Furthermore, it
should not be overlooked that the English language norms that
make their way into foreign language textbooks and guides in
English-speaking settings around the world are based on the
standardized forms of English, which are directly linked to the
English language use of elite, white, upper-class speakers (see e.g.,
Lippi-Green, 2012; Peterson, 2019, p. 17–27; Peterson, 2020; see
also Pennycook, 2017).
These ideals of English are ideals of English are so successfully
transferred to foreign language settings that so far it is unattested
for English to undergo stabilization in the same way it has, for
example, in some post-colonial settings (Buschfeld and Kautzsch,
2017). The prescriptive transference of norms and ideologies
has been attributed to a number of factors, including not only
ideologies present in language teaching materials, but further
reinforcement of exonormative ideals through English language
media (ibid 118). What this means in practice is that places with
no direct colonial history with Great Britain or the United States
adopt the English language ideologies that are established by
the norm-providing countries, although ostensibly it should be
possible to not do so. Of the numerous different perspectives
on the development of English as a global language, some
posit that it would actually be highly unlikely for English to
be anything other than exonormative (that is, norm-following,
to use terminology from Kachru’s classic 1982 delineation) in
foreign language settings, in large part because it is an additional
language rather than a widespread first language. Therefore, it
is mostly a learned language rather than a language acquired
from intergenerational transmission or a speech community. In
other words, language settings such as Finland do not create
the right conditions for endormativity and might even, in fact,
preclude this possibility, making the adherence to external norms
of English a necessity (see Leppänen and Nikula, 2008, p. 21)9.
COMBINING THE THREADS:
EXCEPTIONALISM AND THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE IN FINLAND
So far the discussion in this article has concentrated on first
establishing shared characteristics in the Nordic countries that
led to a phenomenon best described as Nordic exceptionalism,
followed by an overview of coloniality in relation to the English
language itself. For the remainder of the article, these broader
notions are applied to a much narrower focal area: Finland. The
purpose of this exercise in effect demonstrates that a sense of
9Thanks to an external reviewer for highlighting this perspective and for the
example from the literature.
exceptionalism with regard to the use of English runs parallel
with a sense of exceptionalism in other areas.
In a discussion of English use at the level of the
individual speaker, I have argued (Peterson, 2019, p. 76)
that a foreign-language user of English has an opportunity
(aptitude notwithstanding) of stylistic choice and identity
through English—for example, by espousing a New York City
accent—that first and second language speakers might not
possibly have access to, in part for ethical reasons. The same
level of choice and freedom does not likely apply at the national
level; for example, when it comes to the teaching of English,
basic accessibility of materials and pedagogical practicality point
toward the adoption of a standardized, prescriptive variety of
English (Young and Walsh, 2010). A possibility that can be
espoused through a national curriculum, however, is that of
tolerance and education about the rich expanse of varieties of
English, as well as imbuing learners with an understanding of
the sociolinguistic underpinnings and relative esteem placed on
these varieties. Put in another way: does increased proficiency
in English cause a population to become more tolerant and
accepting of the multiple ways of using English, or does it induce
even further instantiation of prescriptivism and coloniality of
language use? These are the notions that are explored in
the remainder of the article. The exploration concentrates on
three main areas: social class, language attitudes about English
speakers, and social exclusion.
Social Class and English
An outcome of the ideology of equality in the Nordic region, in
this discussion Finland in particular, is that it is not a class-based
society (see e.g., Erola, 2010). With regard to spoken English,
particularly in Great Britain, it is well-established that accent
is a strong indicator of social class (see Hughes et al., 2012;
Sharma et al., 2019). Here, the term accent refers specifically
to pronunciation and prosodic features. In Finland, accents of
spoken Finnish are generally more perceived as indexing region
than socioeconomic class, although clearly these factors can be
closely connected (Nuolijärvi and Vaattovaara, 2011)10. When
it comes to English accents and social class, however, Finnish
people nonetheless can exhibit a high degree of awareness of the
social capital of certain accents over others (see Bourdieu, 1977),
as demonstrated here.
For example, Peterson (2022), presents a journalistic sample
obtained from an article in Finland’s major daily newspaper,
Helsingin Sanomat. The newspaper article, which describes the
spoken English language skills of then-Minister of Finance,
Katri Kulmuni, begins with the headline and subheading “Katri
Kulmuni’s delightful British English dropped jaws on social
media—we asked linguists if she would be an upper- or lower-
class Brit” (Helsingin Sanomat 2020, January; author’s own
translation). The article goes on to describe how an assessment
from various linguists confirmed that the Finnish Minister of
Finance, a native speaker of Finnish and a foreign language
speaker of English, spoke English like an upper-class [sic]
10As this article focuses on English in Finland, second-language accents of Finnish
are not discussed. The topic of migrants in Finland is addressed later in the article.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 6March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
Brit—which she asserted she learned in part from watching
the television series Emmerdale. The fact that a report of this
nature was deemed newsworthy in a daily newspaper in Finland
merits further inspection. First, it demonstrates a high-level of
awareness and, whether intentional or not, complicit compliance
with socioeconomic class divisions and their relation to British
English accents. This fact is further emphasized by its presence
in a major daily newspaper: while it impossible to validate, it
is unlikely the story would have been deemed newsworthy if
the minister in question spoke working class British English (an
unlikely but still plausible scenario), or, indeed, “Finnish” English.
The reactions to this politician’s way of speaking English show
a high level of regard for a prestigious variety of British English,
a level of awareness which is directed toward an external model
of English (as discussed in section The English Language and
Coloniality). In comparison, there is evidence of a low level of
regard for an internally influenced way of speaking English, or
in other words English that is perceived as exhibiting strong
influence from L1 Finnish. Indeed, there are a few names,
all derogatory, for English used by Finns that is perceived as
exhibiting strong influence from Finnish, including rallienglanti
and tankeroenglanti. The former term comes from Finnish rally
competitive drivers and their use of English in media interviews.
The latter term is associated with a former Finnish prime minister
who was reported to mispronounce the English word dangerous,
instead uttering something that was heard as “tankeros.” While
they can hardly be considered representative of everyday Finns
and their attitudes toward English, it is nonetheless noteworthy
that an informal survey of English majors at the University of
Helsinki shows a preference to speak with a “British” accent
if possible. None of the students polled expressed a desire
to speak English with a “Finnish” accent. English majors are
likely a biased group of English language users, and in contrast,
research of workplace English in Finland indicates a high level
of negotiability and context sensitivity to the use of language,
including English pronunciation. That is, there seems to be a level
of acceptance in practice of Finnish-accented English (Oksaharju,
2021), although the examples used here show that politicians, no
doubt due to their public status, can be held to a higher level
of scrutiny.
Moving beyond the level of pronunciation, it is telling to note
the relationship between the English language—indeed, certain
foreign languages in general—and social class. Historically,
knowledge of foreign languages has been a marker of higher
socioeconomic class and intelligentsia in Finland. With the
Finnish nationalist movement, starting at the end of the 19th
century “authors, poets, writers and journalists ... resembled
the archetype of a French intellectual. They were academically
educated, well-traveled individuals, skilled in languages— virtual
renaissance figures, who participated in artistic circles and were
interested in various social, political and cultural issues. The
resemblance to France was not coincidental” (Kortti, 2014, p. 7).
An overview of the history of the study of English in Finland
(Pahta, 2008) demonstrates a clear connection between the
characteristics described with the intelligentsia of the nationalist
movement and the establishment of English as an academic
field of study in Finland. In the current era, the relationship of
foreign language access and social class continues. For example,
compared to municipality-owned schools, the number of foreign
languages learned in private and state-owned schools is higher,
41 percent compared to 20 percent. Research shows that students
from higher socio-economic rankings are more likely to study
multiple foreign languages other than English, while students
from poorer and more rural areas are likely to have access only
to English (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019; see also
Vaarala et al., 2017).
Whose English Is “Best”?
A topic related to social class and pronunciation of English is
the social hierarchy imposed on varieties of English. English, of
course, is the very definition of a pluricentric language (Clyne,
1992); given its colonial history and subsequent emergence as
a global language and lingua franca (Crystal, 2003)—it is a
language with many homes and different kinds of speakers. An
issue raised earlier in this article questions if populations who
use English as a foreign language are inclined to be relatively
accepting of different varieties of English, or rather if they
enact language attitudes mirroring those of inner circle, aka
native-speaker settings (see Peterson, 2019). An openness toward
varieties of English would be in keeping with ideologies of
equality which are for many perceived to be part of Nordic
exceptionalism. Indeed, tolerance toward variation of domestic
languages in the Nordic countries is a hallmark of overall equality
(but see, for example, Røyneland, 2009). It is therefore interesting
to observe if the tolerance and acceptance of varieties of English
is in evidence, or rather if externally modeled attitudes against
certain varieties of English manifest.
As early as the 1990’s, research on immigration to Finland
highlighted the linguistic allowances afforded to English speakers
from certain countries, for example the United States (Latomaa,
1998). English-speaking immigrants from inner-circle settings
(Kachru, 1982) to Finland are stereotyped and indeed are
demonstrated to be in a privileged position, hinging in large
part on their language capital (Latomaa, 1998; Latomaa and
Nuolijärvi, 2002; Koskela, 2020). What this means in practice
is that an English-speaking migrant, especially one from a rich
nation, is in a more amenable social position than an immigrant
from a poorer nation, especially one who does not speak English.
These characteristics were reported in a recent PhD thesis
(Koskela, 2020) on migrant “elites” to Finland. An example from
the researcher’s fieldnotes described an incident when a Finnish
migrant from Kenya, a Black man, needed to defend himself
against the unwanted verbal abuse of two (intoxicated) Finnish
men who approached him on the street in Helsinki. The Kenyan
man, who spoke good Finnish, nonetheless chose to respond
to the two harassers in English, thereby switching not only the
language of the exchange but also the content. Through speaking
English, he was able to present himself as an educated, skilled
migrant—and he was thus able to distinguish himself from other
Black migrants, who are often associated with refugee status
(Koskela, 2020). In fact, when asked by the researcher about
his choice to switch to English during the exchange, the man
explained, “‘if you’re black and you speak Finnish, it’s more likely
that you came as a refugee. If the person speaks fluent Finnish,
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 7March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
the person has gone into the integration plan” (Koskela, 2020,
p. 6). With this observation, the person in question refers to
the language skills programs that are typically made available for
refugees who arrive as asylum seekers, with the aim to help them
integrate into the work force and to participate more fully in
Finnish society. For various reasons, clearly including race but
also language, migrants from African and Asian countries to the
Nordic region have been less successful at gaining employment
than those from other regions (Gerdes and Wadensjö, 2012, p.
192). Overall, these systematic disadvantages lead to increased
levels of poverty, crime and lack of access to public goods
and services.
While there do not appear to be scientific studies of this
phenomenon, there is evidence in the current era that some
workplaces, even English-speaking workplaces, prefer to hire
English-speaking Finnish people rather than English-speaking
migrants. If demonstrable, this tendency would point toward
an acceptance of Finnish-English on par with that of a native
speaker from an inner circle setting. An example from my own
field notes (personal communication, November 12, 2021) serves
as an illustration. In an interview from an ongoing project
on English in the workplace, a migrant, highly skilled worker
in the field of professional communication explained that they
applied for a job at the headquarters of a multinational Finnish-
based company. The job description they responded to called for
applicants who were native speakers of English, specifying that
the work would be carried out 100 percent in English–as English
was the workplace language for the company headquarters, in
Finland. The job applicant was a native speaker of US English
and did not speak Finnish. The person was highly qualified with
many years of experience in the relevant field. However, the
applicant was informed by a human resources director that the
company was going to hire a Finnish person who could speak
Finnish as the social language of the company and working
group—despite the fact that the job description explicitly
requested a native speaker of English who would work totally
in English.
The previous examples in this section indicate that there is
high social value placed on “native”-like accents produced by
Finnish people when they speak English. The latter examples
indicate, at the same time, a preference for a Finnish speaker
of English over a native speaker of English—even one from
an inner-circle setting—for certain workplace settings. A recent
study by Peterson and Hall (2017) likewise demonstrates a
tendency to place Finnish L2 English (and other Nordic
Englishes) on par with inner-circle Englishes within the context
of institutions of higher education. This study observes data from
Nordic universities’ admission requirements for international
MA programs in English. Higher education in Finland is free
of charge for EU citizens and EEA member states, but since
August 1, 2017, tuition fees have been in place for students
who are not EU or EEA member states citizens (Finnish
Ministry of Education and Cultur, 2020). Individual universities
and university programs differ with regard to not only their
fee rates but also their admissions criteria, which extends to
language requirements, as well. In recent years, there has been
an upsurge in the number of English language medium programs
in institutions of higher education in the Nordic countries, as
detailed, for example in Hultgren et al. (2014). In 2020, English
medium programs in Finnish Institutes of Higher Education
received a record number of applications from foreign applicants,
8000 – more than 2000 more than received the previous year
(Finnish National Agency for Education, 2021). The language
medium of education, as well as the content, is indicative
of the changing role and related tensions of achieving global
competitiveness while at the same time serving the needs of the
nation and welfare state (Hultgren et al., 2014; Saarinen and
Taalas, 2017; Saarinen, 2020).
An analysis of English language requirements from 25
universities in five Nordic countries (Peterson and Hall, 2017)
demonstrated that applicants to English medium programs
from six English speaking countries—Australia, the Republic
of Ireland, English-speaking Canada, the USA and the UK—
are exempt from having to submit proof of proficiency in
English, for example through a standardized test such as the
TOEFL. While in one way this allowance seems straightforward,
it nonetheless draws a concerning line dividing relatively more
privileged English speakers from those who are less privileged.
While these six English-speaking nations were uniformly exempt
across settings, exemptions for other English-speaking regions
varied widely. For example, in Icelandic universities, citizens
of English-speaking countries throughout the Americas and
the Caribbean are exempt from proving proficiency in English,
whereas universities in Sweden offer certain kinds of exemptions
for citizens of India, Pakistan and 17 different English-
speaking African nations. Narrowing the focus to Finland, the
language requirements of the University of Helsinki—the highest
ranking and biggest university in Finland—specify that English-
language exemptions are offered to applicants who finished
upper secondary school in the Nordic Countries, Australia,
Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK or the USA. In addition,
exemptions are made for applicants who have a university degree
in English from an EU/EEA country or Switzerland, Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, the UK or the USA. While various
other exemptions are made—for example, a diploma from
an International Baccalaureate program—the details already
supplied merit further inspection. Perhaps most noteworthy is
the fact that across Nordic universities, there are two kinds of
English speakers who are uniformly exempt from demonstrating
language proficiency through standardized tests: assumed native
speakers who come from so-called inner-circle settings, and
foreign language speakers of English from Nordic countries (and,
in some instances, from EU/EEA countries).
From a purely practical standpoint, it can be considered
reasonable that Nordic universities would favor applicants
from their own citizenship, especially considering the role of
universities in contributing to nationhood and also Nordic
cooperation. English, being the language currently most used in
higher education, plays an obvious role in the global viability of
any university. What is noteworthy about this study, however,
is the evidence it supplies about Nordic countries not only
mimicking but reinforcing inequity with regard to varieties of
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 8March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
English. It might be argued that this is a price to pay for being
competitive on the global front, but at the same time a more
critical stance would acknowledge the benefits of participating in
coloniality through the use of English.
Exclusion From English
To date, the only large-scale survey on the use of English in
Finland (Leppänen et al., 2011; discussed in section English
Language Proficiency in the Nordic Countries) was conducted
nearly 20 years ago. A similar survey today would likely gain
at least some different results, considering the wide reach of
English-based social media even to peripheral areas in recent
history (see e.g., Laitinen et al., 2020). Considering the survey
as an output of its time, it is of note to recognize that it
demonstrated a clear divide in terms of region and age. English
tends to be a more a part of the everyday experience of people in
urban regions of Finland compared to rural regions. Given the
relatively recent history of widespread education in English as a
foreign language in Finland, it is not surprising that the survey
showed that many Finns aged 45 and above (at the time of the
survey) had not studied English at all, and that older people rated
their own English skills considerably lower than younger people
(Leppänen et al., 2011, p. 94, 97).
In the context of Finland, the main urban region is the
capital city area, Helsinki, geographically located in the southern
portion of the nation. The greater urban Helsinki area is home
to some 1 million inhabitants. The overall population of Finland
is 5.53 million. In addition, there are several relatively larger
municipalities serving as local urban centers; for example, Oulu,
population 200,000, situated in the west central region of Finland
(see Vaattovaara and Peterson, 2019). Research on the use of
English language borrowings into Finnish has demonstrated that
such borrowing are more associated with urban speech, and
survey data also demonstrates that urban dwellers are the most
likely to claim using the English language borrowings tested.
For example, research on the borrowing pliis “please” in Finnish
indicated that it is indexical of an urban style (Peterson and
Vaattovaara, 2014), especially younger, urban women. Likewise, a
survey investigation of English-language swearword borrowings
into Finnish demonstrated that many of the respondents
associate English swearword variants, for example damn, as
more regionally neutral, whereas the Finnish swearword variant,
perkele “damn” was more associated with rural (and male)
speakers. Note, however, that while open (written) comments
from the respondents supported the notion of an urban/rural
division of use, regression analyses of the claims of usage of damn
and perkele, modeled against demographic features, did not show
significant differences for region. In fact, age was the only factor
consistently significant in the regression analyses of damn in
comparison to Finnish variants perkele and the mild swear word
hitto “darn.” Other demographic features, such as region, level
of education and gender were not consistently significant across
the models.
Such findings point toward intersectionality, but also toward
a reality in which certain segments of the overall population,
including the elderly and those who live in rural areas, do not
have the exposure to English that would ensure their inclusion
in many aspects of contemporary linguistic life in Finland.
Such a reality is detailed, for example, in an ethnographic
investigation of an elderly married couple, a man and woman,
who live in rural Finland (Pitkänen-Huhta and Hujo, 2012).
The elderly woman in the study, whom the researchers call
Aino, relates that when she and her husband go into town, they
“bump into” English words that come up, words they do not
understand. The same couple also reflect on the fact that it is
more likely to need English in bigger towns, where there are more
foreigners. At the same time, however, the couple reveal that
they have learned a few English expressions from television, for
example “I love you.”
CONCLUSIONS
The social aspects explored in the article—social class and its
relation to the English language, attitudes toward varieties of
English and social divisions—are certainly not specific to Finland,
nor is it a realistic or an intended aim to point the finger at
Finland as a particularly problematic case. While a cross-setting
analysis is beyond the scope of this article, it can be assumed
with a high level of certainty that such divisions and inequities
with regard to English can and do exist in other settings. The
critical stance taken here is not intended to push Finland into
a critical or damning light, but rather, as the author’s academic
home and research setting, Finland has been utilized as a case
study to explore the relationship of Nordic exceptionalism and
the use of English.
Such an exploration is revealing for several reasons. For many
people around the world, the Nordic states, including Finland,
serve as highly regarded models of social equity, education, and
other desired societal affordances. In various global rankings,
these countries top the list of “most equal” in the world. An
outcome of this level of recognition is a phenomenon termed
Nordic exceptionalism. The same term is used in application
to a historical disavowal of colonialism or even colonial
complicitness—in essence, an assumed innocence. These notions
are not entirely borne out in reality, neither in the past nor in
the present. The role of English in itself becomes a telling tool
for further inspection of these properties. That is, contemporary
English is the outcome of the colonial history of Great Britain,
and the vastness and varieties of English hold testament to the fact
that not all Englishes hold equal prestige across settings. Indeed,
certain varieties of English are demonstrated to be associated
with grave social injustices levied against people who speak them,
for example in the workplace, in schools and in courts of law
(see Peterson, 2019).
A question posed earlier in this article is reintroduced:
does increased proficiency in English cause a population to
become more tolerant and accepting of the multiple ways of
using English, or does it induce even further instantiation of
prescriptivism and coloniality of language use? These possibilities
are of unique application to the context of the Nordic countries.
As established earlier in this article, the populations of the Nordic
countries are among those in the world that exhibit some of
the highest levels of overall proficiency in English. At the same
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 9March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
time, these are also some of the countries in the world which are
most regaled and recognized for their efforts to promote equity
and equal opportunity to social benefits such as education. What
then, about equality and English? The evidence presented in this
article, stemming from the setting of Finland, suggests that equity
and the use of English are not, unfortunately, a straightforward
pairing. However, to address this imbalance, some policy makers
and educators in Finland are actively working to take into
account the special properties of the English language today,
namely its wide variability and multiple uses, such as English
as a lingua franca. For example, the most recent version of the
New National Curriculum for basic studies (Finnish National
Board of Education, 2016) calls for increased exposure to varieties
of English.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and
has approved it for publication.
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, J., and Sivonen, S. (2019). Orjia ja isäntiä – Ruotsalais-suomalainen
siirtomaaherruus Karibialla. Helsinki: Into Kustannus.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Soc. Sci. Inform. 16,
645–668. doi: 10.1177/053901847701600601
Buschfeld, S., and Kautzsch, A. (2017). Towards an integrated approach to
postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes: Towards an integrated approach
to postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes. World Eng. 36, 104–126.
doi: 10.1111/weng.12203
Clyne, M. G. (1992). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations,
Contributions to the Sociology of Language. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
doi: 10.1515/9783110888140
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486999
Delhey, J., and Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social
trust: global pattern or nordic exceptionalism? Eur. Sociol. Rev. 21, 311–327.
doi: 10.1093/esr/jci022
Erola, J. (2010). Luokaton Suomi? Yhteiskuntaluokat 2000-luvun Suomessa.
[Classless Finland? Social classes in 21st century Finland] Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
European Commission (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and Their
Languages. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/
ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf/
European Parliament (2017). Language Policy. Fact Sheets on the European
Union. Available online at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/
142/language-policy.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018). Being Black in the EU.
Second European Union Minorities and Disctimination Survey – Summary.
Available online at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/being-black-eu-
summary
Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (2020) Basic Education. Available
online at: https://minedu.fi/en/basic-education
Finnish Ministry of Justice (2013). Report of the Government on the Application of
Language Legislation. Available online at: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.
fi/bitstream/handle/10024/80741/englanti_web2013.pdf?sequence=1&
isAllowed=y
Finnish National Agency for Education (2019). What Languages Do Pupils Study
in Basic Education? Available online at: https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/
documents/factsexpress1c_2019.pdf
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2021). Number of Applicants by Field,
First Joint Application to Higher Education. Available online at: https://www.
oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/kevaan-1.-yhteishaun-hakijamaarat_
2020_en_11_2_2020_0.pdf (accessed February 18, 2022).
Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic
Education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
Fredrickson, G. M. (1995). From exceptionalism to variability: recent
developments in cross-national comparative history. J. Am. History 82,
587–604. doi: 10.2307/2082188
Gerdes, C., and Wadensjö, E. (2012). “Is immigration challenging the
economic sustainability of the Nordic welfare model?” in Changing
Social Equality: The Nordic Welfare Model in the 21st Century,
eds J. Kvist, J. Fritzell, B. Hvinden, and O. Kangas (Bristol and
Chicago: Policy Press). doi: 10.1332/policypress/9781847426604.00
3.0009
Helliwell, J. F., Richard, L., and Jeffrey, S. (2012). World Happiness Report. New
York, NY: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Helliwell, J. F., Richard, L., Jeffrey, S., and Jan-Emmanuel, N. (2021). World
Happiness Report. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Hilson, M. (2008). The Nordic Model Since 1945. London: Reaktion Books.
Hoegaerts, J., Liimatainen, T., Peterson, E., and Hekanaho, L. (2022). Finnishness,
Whiteness, and Coloniality. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Hughes, A., Trudgill, P., and Watt, D. J. L. (2012). English Accents & Dialects:
An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British
Isles (Fifth edition). London: Hodder Education. doi: 10.4324/97802037
84440
Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F., and Thøgersen, J. (2014). English in Nordic
Universities: Ideologies and Practices. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
doi: 10.1075/wlp.5
Kachru, B. B. (1982). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
Kangas, O., and Palme, J. (2005). “coming late — catching up: the formation
of a ‘nordic model.” in Social Policy and Economic Development in the
Nordic Countries, eds O. Kangas and J. Palme (Palgrave Macmillan).
doi: 10.1057/9780230523500_2
Keskinen, S. (2019). Intra-nordic differences, colonial/racial histories and
national narratives: rewriting finnish history. Scand. Stud. 91, 163–181.
doi: 10.5406/scanstud.91.1-2.0163
Keskinen, S., Skaptadóttir, U. D., and Toivanen, M. (2019). Undoing
Homogeneity in the Nordic Region: Migration, Difference, and the
Politics of Solidarity (1st ed.). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/97813151
22328
Kortti, J. (2014). Media, the elite and modernity - defining the modern among
the finnish cultural intelligentsia in the twentieth century. Int. J. History Cult.
Modernity, 2, 1–24. doi: 10.5117/HCM2014.1.KORT
Koskela, K. (2020). Negotiating the ’Migrant Elite’: Boundary Making and Social
Identities Among Skilled Migrantsin Finland. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki.
Kristiansen, T. (2010). Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards
English influence in the Nordic countries: Evidence for two levels of
language ideology. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 2010:204. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.20
10.031
Kujala, A. (2019). Kivenmurskaajat. Kolonialismin historia. Jyväskylä:
Atena Kustannus.
Kuokkanen, R. (2020). Reconciliation as a threat or structural change?
The truth and reconciliation process and settler colonial policy making
in Finland. Human Rights Rev. 21, 293–312. doi: 10.1007/s12142-020-0
0594-x
Kvist, J., Fritzell, J., Hvinden, B., and Kangas, O. (2012). Changing
Social Equality: the Nordic Welfare Model in the 21st Century.
Bristol: Policy Press. doi: 10.1332/policypress/9781847426604.00
1.0001
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 10 March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
Laitinen, M., Paulasto, H., and Meriläinen, L. (2020). “Samaan aikaan
somessa: havaintoja englannin kielen käytöstä itäsuomalaisessa tviittivirrassa,”
[Meanwhile on social media: Observations of English language use in tweets
in Eastern Finland]. in Ääniä idästä: Näkökulmia Itä-Suomen monikielisyyteen
[Sounds from the East: Perspectives on the Multilingualism of Eastern Finland],
eds L. Kolehmainen, H. Riionheimo, and M. Uusitupa (Helsinki: SKS).
Lane, P. (2016). Standardising Kven: participation and the role of users.
Sociolinguistica 30:7. doi: 10.1515/soci-2016-0007
Latomaa, S. (1998). English in contact with “the most difficult language in the
world”: the linguistic situation of Americans living in Finland. Int. J. Sociol.
Lang. 133, 51–72. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.1998.133.51
Latomaa, S., and Nuolijärvi, P. (2002). The language situation in Finland.
Curr. Issues Lang. Plann. 3, 95–202. doi: 10.1080/146642002086
68040
Lemberg, D. (2018). “The universal language of the future”: decolonization,
development, and the American Embrace of Global English, 1945–1965.
Modern Intellect. History 15, 561–592. doi: 10.1017/S14792443170
00166
Leppänen, S., and Nikula, T. (2008). “Johdanto [Introduction],” in Kolmas
Kotimainen: Lähikuva englannin käytöstä Suomessa [Third domestic language:
Close-ups of the use of English in Finland], eds S. Leppanen, T. Nikula, and L.
Kääntä (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura).
Leppänen, S., and Pahta, P. (2012). “Finnish culture and language endangers
– language ideological debates on English in the Finnish press from
1995 to 2007,” in Dangerous Multilingualism: Northern Perspectives
on Order, Purity and Normality, eds J. Blommaert, S. Leppänen, P.
Pahta, and T. Räisänen, T (Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1057/978113728
3566_7
Leppänen, S., Pitkänen-Huhta, A., Nikula, T., Kytölä, S., Törmäkangas, T.,
Nissinen, K., et al. (2011). National Survey on the English language in
Finland: Uses, meanings and attitudes Studies in Variation, Contacts and
Change in English. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change
in English.
Levisen, C. (2012). “Are danes truly the happiest people on earth?” in Happiness
and “Pain” Across Languages and Cultures, eds C. Goddard and Z. Ye
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Levisen, C. (2014). The story of “Danish Happiness”: Global discourse
and local semantics. Int. J. Lang. Cult. 1, 174–193. doi: 10.1075/ijolc.1.
2.03lev
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English With an Accent: Language, Ideology and
Discrimination in the United States (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
doi: 10.4324/9780203348802
Loftsdóttir, K., and Jensen, L. (2012). Whiteness and Postcolonialism in the Nordic
Region: Exceptionalism, Migrant Others and National Identities. Farnham:
Ashgate.
McRae, K. D. (1997). Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Finland.
(Vol. 3). Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Meriläinen, L. (2021). “The interplay between universal processes and
cross-linguistic influence in the light of learner corpus data: examining
shared features of non-native englishes,” in Learner Corpus Research
Meets Second Language Acquisition, eds B. Le Bruyn and M. Paquot
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/97811086745
77.005
Norrby, C. (2015). “English in scandinavia: monster or mate? Sweden as a
case study,” in Challenging the Monolingual Mindset, eds J. Hajek and
Y. Slaughter (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters). doi: 10.21832/9781783092
529-004
Nuolijärvi, P., and Vaattovaara, J. (2011). “De-standardisation in progress in
Finnish society?” in Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing
Europe, eds K. Tore and C. Nikolas (Novus Forlag).
Oksaharju, J. (2021). English as a Corporate Language: Employees’ Perceptions of
Business English Lingua Franca. MA thesis, University of Jyväskylä.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021).
Taxing Wages 2021: Finland. Available online at https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-
policy/taxing-wages-finland.pdf
Pahta, P. (2008). “The history of english studies in Finland,” in European English
Studies: Contributions towards the History of a Discipline Vol. II, eds B. Engler
and R. Haas (Leicester: The English Association for ESSE).
Pease, D. E. (2009). The New American Exceptionalism. Minnesota: University of
Minnesota Press.
Pennycook, A. (2017). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.
Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315225593
Peterson, E. (2019). Making Sense of “Bad English”: an Introduction to
Language Attitudes and Ideologies. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/97804293
28343
Peterson, E. (2020). The US is not enough: Why the real
world of linguistics needs your voice (Response to Charity
Hudley et al.). Language, 96, e247–e253. doi: 10.1353/lan.2020.
0076
Peterson, E. (2022). The English language in Finland: tool of modernity or tool
of coloniality?
Peterson, E., and Hall, M. (2017). English Prescriptivism in Higher Education
Settings: Focus on Nordic Countries. in The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic
Prescriptivism, eds J. Beal, M. Lukaˇ
c, and R. Straaijer (Routledge).
Peterson, E., and Vaattovaara, J. (2014). Kiitos and pliis: The relationship of
native and borrowed politeness markers in Finnish. J. Politeness Res. 10:11.
doi: 10.1515/pr-2014-0011
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice: An
Introduction to Applied Sociolinguistics (First edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937240.0
01.0001
Pitkänen-Huhta, A., and Hujo, M. (2012). Experiencing Multilingualism —
the Elderly Becoming Marginalized? Dangerous Multilingualism: Northern
Perspectives on Order, Purity and Normality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi: 10.1057/9781137283566_12
Pratt, J., and Eriksson, A. (2013). Contrasts in Punishment: An Explanation
of Anglophone Excess and Nordic Exceptionalism. London: Routledge.
doi: 10.4324/9780203096116
Ranta, K., and Kanninen, J. (2019). Vastatuuleen. Saamen kansan
pakkosuomalaistamisesta. Helsinki: SchildtsandSöderströms.
Røyneland, U. (2009). Dialects in Norway: Catching up with the rest
of Europe? Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 2009, 196–197. doi: 10.1515/IJSL.20
09.015
Saarinen, T. (2020). Higher Education, Language and New Nationalism
in Finland: Recycled Histories (1st ed. 2020). Palgrave Macmillan.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-60902-3
Saarinen, T., and Taalas, P. (2017). Nordic language policies for higher
education and their multi-layered motivations. Higher Educ. 73, 597–612.
doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9981-8
Saraceni, M. (2019). “The politics of world englishes,” in The Cambridge
Handbook of World Englishes, eds D. Schreier, M. Hundt, and E. W. Schneider
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/97811083494
06.027
Savolainen, J. (2021). The Grim Secret of Nordic Happiness. Available online
at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/finland-happiness-lagom-
hygge.html
Seargeant, P. (2012). Exploring World Englishes: Language in a Global
Context. Routledge.
Sharma, D., Levon, E., Watt, D., Ye, Y., and Cardoso, A. (2019). Methods for the
study of accent bias and access to elite professions. J. Lang. Discrim. 3, 150–172.
doi: 10.1558/jld.39979
Sundberg, G. (2013). Language policy and multilingual identity in
Sweden through the lens of generation Y. Scand. Stud. 85, 205–2332.
doi: 10.5406/scanstud.85.2.0205
The Guardian (2018). Why Nordic Countries Might Not Be as Happy as You Think.
Available online at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45308016
Vaarala, H., Riuttanen, S., Kyckling, E., and Karppinen, S. (2017). Language reserve.
Now! Follow-up on Pyykkö’s Report Multilingualism into a strength. University
of Jyväskylä.
Vaattovaara, J., and Peterson, E. (2019). Same old paska or new shit?
On the stylistic boundaries and social meaning potentials of swearing
loanwords in Finnish. Ampersand 6:100057. doi: 10.1016/j.amper.2019.
100057
Vik, H. H., Jensen, S. L., Lindkvist, L., and Strang, J. (2018). Histories of Human
Rights in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 36, 189–201.
doi: 10.1080/18918131.2018.1522750
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 11 March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
Peterson “Good English” and “Nordic Exceptionalism”
Young, T. J., and Walsh, S. (2010). Which English? Whose English? An
investigation of ‘non-native’ teachers’ beliefs about target varieties. Lang. Cult.
Curriculum 23, 123–137. doi: 10.1080/07908311003797627
Conflict of Interest: The author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Peterson. This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution
or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org 12 March 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 803922
