Migration and the Language Border1 ERIC DE GEER P h .D octor University of Uppsala, Sweden When people move they take their language with them. What happens, how­ ever, when they cross a language border? Naturally, this depends on piany causes — for instance on how many of them there are, the level of education they possess, on the functions in which they come, and so on. The language border as a barrier for migration was dealt with earlier by the author.2 Particular interest was focused on the Swedish— Finnish language border in Finland and its implications on internal migration and emigration.3 Here I want to give further examples on the subject. However, I will start from the other end and first present some empirical evidence that migration may in its turn affect the language border. Accordingly, the first part of this paper will deal with the effects which the number of migrants can have within a language border region in the long run. The second part deals with the oppo­ site approach. Here a number of studies are tested (most of them are my own, one in cooperation with Holger Wester, and one by Martin Klövekom) for the effects of the language border on different kinds of migration. The language border has a barrier function regarding communication and information between people. It is, therefore, not surprising that deficits in infor­ mation result in lower internal migration or in differences in emigration inten­ sities. The investigation areas of this study are the parish of Myrskylä 4, (in Swedish Mörskom), some 80 km east— north— east of Helsinki (in Swedish Helsingfors), the town of Kokkola (Swedish: Gamlakarleby) in Ostrobothnia (Swedish: öster- botten, Finnish: Pohjanmaa) and a line of communities in the south— western corner of Ostrobothnia: i.e. the small town of Kristinestad (Finnish: Kristiinan­ kaupunki) and the parishes of Lappfjärd (Finnish: Lapväärtti) and Isojoki (Swedish: Stora). All investigation areas are situated at, or near, the language border and have language minorities of different sizes and in different stages of development. The language majorities of Myrskylä and Kokkola changed 1 This paper was originally presented as a lecture, held at the Vth Nordic Con­ ference on Labour Migration Research in Norway (Sole, Oslo) in October 1979. 2 De Geer (1977), Chapters VI, V II and VIII. 3 Ibid., pp. 75— 83; De Geer (1960a), maps 2a— c and 4a— b with comments and De Geer (1960b), map 11; De Geer (1975) passim; De Geer/Wester (1975), pp. 68— 82, figure 13 and the m ap appendices 1— 2, figures 16.1— 16.6. 4 The spelling of the place-names is determined by the local language majority d u rin g the investigation tim e (1866— ) 1900— 1950. 63 at an early date (about 1900 and 1920 respectively), whereas that of Kristine- stad changed recently (about 1970). It is uncertain, when, or even if, the lan­ guage majority of Lappfjärd will change. In Isojoki the former small Swedish minority has disappeared (Figure 1). The periods investigated are 1861— 90, 1901— 05, 1931, 1938, 1949 53 and 1968— 72. I will also refer to studies on the periods of 1811— 20 and 1826— 30. The material used for the study of internal migration consists first of the migration records in the parish registers. These records are also used for the study of the influence fields in Finland of the Finnish Parish, Stockholm. Second, the census of 1950 is used to determine the birthplace fields of some Finnish towns. For emigration I have studied the passport registers and in some cases the official statistics. 1. The migration influencing the language border The influence of migration on the language border in Myrskylä parish The maps in figures 2 and 3 show the net migration for the periods 1901— 05 64 Figure 2. M yrskylä/'M örskom . Net m igration 1901— 1905. Towns: Nastola Iit t i 1. Lahti 2. Borgl/Porvoo 3. Lovisa/Loviisa Parishes: 4. Helsinge 5. Sibbo/Sipoo 6. Pornainen 7. Borgä 8. Perna/Pernaja 9. Ruotsinpyhtää/ Elimä Strömfors 10. Liljendal 11. Lapinjärvi/ Lappträsk 12. Artjärvi/Artsjö 13. Orimattila 14. Pukkila 13. Askola 16. Mäntsälä Outside the map are -21 and ♦ 35 Helsinki/Helsingfors • Gain of one migration unit----------------------------------- parish border H Gain of ten migration units Wvvs the language border - Loss of one migration unit The language border is modified after riovekor □ Loss of ten migration units a migration stream of ten or more migration units — > a migration stream of three to nine migration units a migration stream of less than three migration units Source: The migration register in the parish archiv. and 1949— 53.5 For the first of these periods the map gives us a picture of migration by stages. Myrskylä gains strongly from the neighbouring parishes to the north and partly from the east— south— eastern direction, whereas the 5 The total in- and out-migration was 803 and 568 migration units respectively (families or single migrants). 65 Figure 3. Myrskyla/Morskom. Net migration 1949— 1953. For an explan­ ation of symbols and names of parishes, see fig. 2. losses go in a southerly direction to the neighbours nearer the coast and to the coastal towns of Borgà (Porvoo), Helsinki and Lovisa (Loviisa). A minor loss to the then small market town of Lahti can be noticed. How does migration influence the proportions of the language groups? There is no doubt that out-migration is affecting both the Swedish- and the Finnish­ speaking populations. Considering the fact that most of the out-migrants are moving to more or less Swedish-dominated areas — Liljendal (12 °/o Finnish­ speaking), Lovisa (16 %>), Borgâ town (25 °/o), Borgâ parish (22 °/o), Pernâ (9 °/o) and Helsinki (53 °/o) — it is more than probable that the majority of the migra­ tion losses of about 100 migration units were Swedish-speaking. The net-migra- tion gains, numbering about 50, are chiefly coming from the purely Finnish­ speaking neighbouring parishes in the northwest to northeast — Pukkila, Orimattila and Artjärvi (Swedish Artsjö). The migration exchanges with the rest of Finland show a deficit of — 2 to Swedish-speaking and of — 27 to Finnish­ speaking areas.6 The result is that there is a loss of about 85 Swedish-speaking 6 Lappträsk (Lapinjärvi), Ruotsinpyhtää (Strömfors) and Viipuri (Viborg) have a net loss of — 8 to Myrskylä but as they have a mixed language population they are not included. 5 66 migration units, while for the Finnish-speaking population the gains and losses are about equal. The next map (Figure 3) gives us the situation half a century later. The pic­ ture is almost completely changed. The net out-migration is now going in all directions, most intensely in a northerly direction to Lahti (now a town of con­ siderable size) and west— south— west to the capital. Only a small stream is going south, the main direction of the earlier out-flow. The net plus is coming from distant areas in the eastern and the northerly central parts of the country. The exchange with the Swedish-speaking areas is now relatively small and corresponding only to Myrskylä, with now not more than 19 per cent Swed­ ish-speaking population, the mixed areas taken into consideration. Table 1. The migration exchange of Myrskylä 1949— 53 With following On the map Outside the map To ta l areas I n - O u t- I n - O u t- I n - O u t- migr. migr. migr. migr. migr. migr. Swedish-speaking + 17 — 15 = + 2 0 0 = 0 17 — 15 = 2 M ixed 1 + 45 — 98 = — 53 + 7 — 14 = — 7 52 — 112 = — 60 Finnish-speaking + 62 — 118 = — 56 + 111 — 81 = + 3 0 173 — 199 = — 26 To ta l 242 — 326 = — 84 1 Mixed is generally used in the sense that the minority is more than a third of the population. Of a total of 568 migration units, two-thirds of the exchange was with Finn­ ish-speaking, 29 per cent with mixed and 6 per cent with Swedish-speaking parishes. The net outflows are going to Finnish-speaking and mixed areas, whereas the net inflow is coming from purely Finnish-speaking areas (cf. Table 1). The conclusion is that the proportions between the language groups are still changing in favour of the Finnish-speaking population. This, in turn, is chiefly dependent on the migration factor. The influence of migration on the language situation in the town of Kokkola/Gamlakarleby in 1866— 1953 Kokkola/Gamlakarleby is situated near the northernmost part of the Swed­ ish-speaking area in Ostrobothnia. The development of the language situation has been remarkable: from an almost Swedish-speaking town (84 */o) a century ago to a town today with an equally large Finnish-speaking majority (83 */o) (see also figure 17). Migration has been investigated for the periods of 1866— 70, 67 Table 2. The net migration results of Kokkola during the periods of 1866— 70, 1901— 05 and 1949— 53 The influence area Distant areas To ta l (on the maps) (outside the maps) Swedish- Finnish­ Swedish- Finnish­ Swedish- Finnish­ speaking speaking speaking speaking speaking speaking 1866— 70 38 42 -38 -53 0 -11 1901— 05 33 108 5 + 41 38 149 m ixed m ixed m ixed 1949— 53 25 -145 747 4 -176 -61 29 -321 686 The Swedish -5 -33 -1 4 -60 -7 -1 -93 -8 parish 1949— 53 The Finnish 30 -112 748 0 -116 -54 30 -228 694 parish 1949— 53 The number of registered migration units in the investigations are as follows: 1866— 70 526 1901— 05 690 1949— 53 4 549 (2 702)1 To ta l 5 765 (3 923) F o r the F in n ish parish in 1949— 53 a 50 °/o sample was taken (1 040 in -m ig ra tio n units and 802 out-migration units), which has been doubled.