Artiklarna behandlar vitt skilda ämnen: ljudförändringar, perspektiv i skönlitteratur, substantivböjning, dialogicitet och dolda konflikter i myndighetstext, adjektivens grundläggande betydelser, ordet vikings historia, svenskans sätt att uttrycka uppmaningar och åtskilligt annat. Genomgående kännetecknas de av att omsorgsfull empirisk kartläggning förenas med djupgående diskussion av modeller och teorier. För den som vill förstå hur en modern lingvist arbetar vetenskapligt med svenskt och nordiskt språk finns här mycket att läsa och lära.

It is possible to characterize the Swedish standardization praxis as very extensive. Standardizing institutions such as the Swedish Academy and the Language Council are occupied with pronunciation, orthography, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, without any formal restrictions. But there are several modifying factors.  First, none of the standardizing institutions has a supreme position; misleading measures by one of them are corrected by the others. Second, the standard language norm does not seem to be a central battlefield of symbolic language conflicts in Sweden, in contrast to multilingualism. Third, it seems that most of the Swedes are well integrated in the speech community and easily identify themselves with the idea of the standard norm; thus they are linguistically self confident to question the standard, without disclaiming it. Fourth, the standardiser often leaves the writer some choice (with the exception of spelling). The causes and effects of this standardization praxis are discussed in the paper.

To Govern Languages. On the Possibilities and Limitations of Language Policy.

Sweden has a general language law since the 1th of July 2009. It states inter alia that Swedish is the principle language in Sweden, that public authorities have a particular responsibility for Swedish being used and developed, that the public authorities have a particular responsibility for protecting and promoting the five national minority languages and the Swedish sign language. The law also states that the public authorities are responsible for the individual’s access to language: Swedish, national minority languages and other mother tongues.

The law is the result of a long political process, starting in the late 1990s. It marks a breakthrough for a manifest, national language policy in Swedish political life.

The article discusses the possibilities and limitations of a national language policy and different opinions on the theme. It distinguishes between three attitudes towards language planning and language policy: “leave your language alone”, language planning as a forceful tool for social engineering – an attitude particularly strong in the international debate the decades after World War II – and a sceptical notion, common today, that language policy has a limited influence on linguistic practice. However, the optimistic language planning ideology never went very strong in Sweden, which may surprise considering that social engineering was a widely accepted concept in many social contexts. 

A paradox of language policy in today’s society is formulated: The goal of the policies is to get every citizen capable to assert oneself linguistically in as many speech and writing situations as possible. The more this I done, the more diversified patterns of communication will arise, thus the more difficult it will be to public authorities to govern the speech community.

The latter part of the article concerns the present language situation in Sweden. The linguistic practice is characterized by the same tendencies as in other European countries: the risk of the national language(s) loosing key domains to English, the rise of a multilingual society, in Sweden with something in between 150 and 200 different languages as mother tongues, the growth of computer mediated communication, intimisation of the language of public life.  In spite of the new laws, ideological thinking on language policy is weak in Sweden, mixing in a somewhat unreflected way the ideas of a national language from the French revolution and German romanticism, with the notions of linguistic rights and social engineering. Surveys of linguistic attitudes report a fairly inconsistent and unconcerned thinking among Swedish people in general. Language policy does not seem to be a very hot topic. In this context, it is hard to say what will be the outcome of the intensified national language policy. The daily linguistic practice  of the Swedish citizens will decide.

The article takes it point of departure from the concepts of practice communities and mediating tools.Following Swales 1990 and Blåsjö 2004, it is argued that an academic discipline constitutes a practicecommunity, developing specified and standardized mediating tools for the purpose of internal communication.Genres and linguistic features discussed at some length are research article introductions,in relation to the cars model (Swales), and different kinds of hedges. The dialogical nature of thesetools is underlined. The student’s learners approach to academic writing is analysed in terms of conflictingpractice communities, the student’s and the research scholar’s. Finally, some attention is paid tothe research scholar writing for a general public audience; the lack of well defined practice communitiesforces the writer to rely on the general discourse on the subject in question – examples are drawnfrom linguistics. The conclusion is the need of a deeper textual awareness among research scholars.

Personliga pronomen är giftiga. Det har dagens fin­författare förstått, och undviker inledande han, hon och de.