"Difficult" languages: Ideology, accessibility and constructing the local in Finland and Hong Kong

How do some languages come to be seen as more difficult to learn than others? Our paper examines discourses surrounding two languages, Finnish and Cantonese, which regularly are named among the “most difficult languages to... [ view full abstract ]

How do some languages come to be seen as more difficult to learn than others? Our paper examines discourses surrounding two languages, Finnish and Cantonese, which regularly are named among the “most difficult languages to learn” in lists circulating on the internet, and are also often regarded as unusually difficult by many speakers of those languages themselves. Instead of attempting to pin down some kind of objective level of difficulty, our presentation draws on work from language ideology (Irvine and Gal 2000, Kroskrity 2010) to ask why these beliefs have come to be widely held among speakers and learners, and how such beliefs can then be mobilized in connection with other social categories and processes.

Namely, in both Finland and Hong Kong, elite migrants are generally not expected to acquire the language beyond a symbolic level, and the “difficulty” of the language is part of the justification for these narratives. On the other hand, non-elite migrants, e.g. refugees or working class ethnic minorities, are subjected to discourses which attribute to them a problematic lack of the “local” language, which is then linked to a perceived failure to “integrate.” The prominent and prestigious role of English in both contexts complicates matters further, giving those with appropriate skills and background the opportunity to live English-speaking ‘ex-pat’ lives while framing others as ‘speaking no language’ (Blommaert et al. 2005). Thus, drawing on ethnographic research conducted in Hong Kong and Finland as well as analysis of policy and media representations in these contexts, we argue that ideologies of “difficulty” are mobilized in service of reinforcing national boundaries and consolidating in-groups and out-groups in ways that are differentiated along lines of race and class. Other work in language ideology has discussed the functions of supposedly neutral judgments of language, but “difficulty” remains an under-explored category. By drawing on data from two geographically disparate contexts we demonstrate some of the ways in which discourses of difficulty and learnability contribute to maintaining group boundaries and social hierarchies.