Pietilä P., P. Lintunen & H.-M. Järvinen (toim.) 2006. Kielenoppija tänään – Language Learners of Today. AFinLAn vuosikirja 2006. Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistyksen julkaisuja no. 64. Jyväskylä. s. 335–358.
––––
THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE NATION AND THE USE OF ‘WE’:
FRENCH, BRITISH AND FINNISH PERSPECTIVES
Niini Vartia-Paukku University of Helsinki
This cross-cultural study addresses some pertinent questions about European identity as manifested in the political rhetoric of Prime Ministers from three European Union member states: France, Britain and Finland. Speeches dating from 2004-2005 were coded for the use of 1st person plural pronouns ‘nous’,
‘we’ and ‘me’ and their syntactic and case-dependent morphological variants, which were then classified according to their reference to local, regional, national or global contexts.
The results show that the French rhetoric emphasized the social, political and cultural unity in the European Union. The British data showed evidence of distance from EU matters and concentration on either domestic or global issues. In the Finnish data, the majority of 1st person plural pronouns were used to refer to the nation of Finland. This division showed similarities to a view of European politics that has been proposed by Tiilikainen (1997). She suggests that the Reformation created three main lines of political thinking in Western Europe, namely Christian communitarianism, an individualist tradition and a state tradition.
Keywords: cross-cultural, European Union, we-they, identity
1 INTRODUCTION
Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, said near the end of his life that if he could start all over he would start the process of European integration from culture (Eatwell 1997). Accordingly, Smith (1991: 174) remarks that if there is a basis for a nation-state of Europe, it is located in the patterns of European culture:
The heritage of Roman law, Judeo-Christian ethics, Renaissance humanism and individualism, Enlightenment ration- alism and science, artistic classicism and romanticism, and above all, traditions of civil rights and democracy, which have emerged at various times and places in the continent – have created common European cultural heritage and formed a unique culture area straddling national boundaries and interrelating their different national cultures through common motifs and traditions.
Tiilikainen (1998) suggests that one of the key questions in the present integration project in the European Union is the question of the nature of the Europe that is being constructed. She emphasizes that the differences concerning European political unity can be explained through differences in political culture and traditions of historical origin. According to Tiilikainen, the Reformation divided Western Christianity into Counter-Reformative Catholicism, Calvinism and Lutheranism, which on the basis of their main political emphasis can be characterized as Christian communi- tarianism, individualist tradition, and state tradition, respectively.
According to this view, the Reformation created historical divisions in political thinking in countries like Britain, Finland and even in France, despite the fact that in France some Protestant minorities became a salient in addition to Catholicism.
European identity is also challenged by the implications of immigration and by the very process of Union expansion. The present study acknowledges these challenges, but the main emphasis is to study the issues of the integration process from the national
governmental perspective, to see in what way, if any, the govern- mental institutes have adopted a European Union perspective in their political discourse.
Identities, especially those of nationalism, are constructed.
They are being created rather than born on their own, as can be seen in the Finnish nationalism that was actively constructed from the 1860s onwards amid the elite of the country, and slowly spread to the middle class and the rest of society. It is even said that regions are talked and written into existence, often through politicians and the elite who act as region-builders (Neumann 1994). In the construction process of the European identity, however, this specific model may be unsuccessful, as can currently be seen from the spreading public discontent against the proposed steps for future integration, and the EU constitution itself.
The role of geography also has an effect on identity, and on the language strategies chosen in a country. A country like France, situated at the “core” of the Union, typically chooses different expressions of fidelity to the partnership with EU than for example the Northern countries. Je suis Européen depuis toujours (I have always been European), the expression used by the French Prime Minister Raffarin (Fr IV, p.2), differs notably from the expression of going to Europe, which is still commonly used by both the Finns and British when referring to travels to countries such as France and Italy. Furthermore, the diversity of languages in the European Union complicates the integration process.
2 MATERIAL AND METHODS
Critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1995) was used to examine the use of the 1st person plural pronoun in the public speeches of Prime Ministers from three European Union nations: France, Britain and Finland. This analysis, based on Fairclough’s three-level method (1992) of textual analysis, is further accentuated by a cultural
investigation of the data through pragmatic methods. Verschueren (1999) suggests that language use requires a choice, and this choice is governed by various rules that fulfil the communicative needs of those involved in the communicative situation. Östman (2005) uses the term implicit anchoring to describe implicit choices we make to express ourselves in relation to the demands of, for example, cultural contexts. By using both qualitative and quantitative methods I intend to examine, how the speakers use the 1st person plural pronoun to ‘anchor’ their audiences to local, regional, national or global contexts.
However, the aim of this study was not to arrive at gene- ralisations about cultural behaviour in a certain state, but rather to point out, without classifications set a priori, whether the use of we follows any pattern, and then to reflect upon the implications of the results for the cultural characteristics of a specific nation. The EU is undoubtedly one of the most daring economic, socio-political collective continental undertakings of our time, and as such it clearly influences the political rhetoric in member states more than other present international collectives.
The three nations represent the typical array of EU member countries: France as a founding member, Britain as one of the so called core countries since 1975, and Finland as a representative of small, newer EU states, a member since 1995. The French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin represents the right wing UMP party, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair the left wing Labour party and the Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, the liberal Centre Party.
The data (from years 2004–2005) include 8 speeches for France, 8 for Britain and 11 for Finland, representing about 16 500 words for each set of data. The speeches were obtained from the official governmental websites of the Prime Ministers in each of the three countries. These written, prepared speeches were selected without prior categorising of the contexts of the speeches. The abbreviations Fr for France, Br for Britain and Fi for Finland are used. These
speeches are numbered I, II, III, etc. with page specifications. The speeches from Prime Minister Raffarin and Prime Minister Vanha- nen were presented in French and in Finnish, respectively. The English translations of the French and Finnish examples referred to in this study can be found in Appendix 1. The list of speeches used in the study can be found in Appendix 2.
The speeches were systematically coded for the use of 1st per- son plural pronouns nous (French), we (English), me (Finnish) and their syntactic and case-dependent morphological variants. The pronouns were then classified according to their reference to local, regional, national, European and global context. Categories such as government, society, nation, the European Union, the United Nations, and the global world were established. Collocations can be strategically exploited to attach the audience to our implicit views of the world (Östman 2005). Collocations of the 1st person plural pronouns with positive/negative nouns and noun phrases were elicited.
3 THE USE OF WE
Table 1 shows the distribution of the use of the 1st person plural pronoun in the data. It is evident at a first glance that ‘we’ is used in France and Britain to refer evenly to the government, society, nation and the audience and also to the European Union. In Fin- land there seems to be a stronger tendency to use 1st person plural pronouns to refer to the nation. The brackets in Table 1 indicate the use of contrastive, emphatic ‘we’ in Finnish, which is further examined in section 3.3.1. ‘Society’ is used as a reference when the internal matters of a nation, such as employment and education are discussed without reference to other nations. ‘Nation + nation’
is used in reference to the particular nation of the Prime Minister in connection with another nation.
‘Ambiguous’ includes pronouns that from the context cannot be definitely placed in any one category, or in some cases the pronoun may be used to replace passive.
TABLE 1. The use of 1st person plural pronouns.
Reference to France % Britain % Finland %
Government 9.1 12 4.2
Society 27.8 11.4 10.5
Nation 33.1 22.4 73.3 (2.4)
Global 0.5 9.2 0.5
Mankind 0 6.8 0
Reference to the audience 6.2 16 1.4 (0.9)
The UN 0 2 0
The EU 9.5 9.8 4.5
Nation + Nation 3 0 0
Other 4 3,8 0
Ambiguous 6.8 6.6 2.3
Total % 100 100 100
Total No. of references 213 192 211
( ) signifies the use of “me” in Finnish
The grammatical structure of different languages significantly influences the use of the pronoun ‘we’. This is notably manifested through the differing quantitative use of French ‘nous’ (213 tokens), English ‘we’ (192) and Finnish ‘me’ (8) in each set of data consisting of approximately 16 500 words. In Finnish, there are 203 cases where the 1st person plural pronoun is embedded as a suffix in the grammatical construct, for example, seuraamme (we follow).
In sections 3.1–3.3 I will look at the qualitative aspects of the use of the pronoun ‘we’ in the political speeches from the Prime Ministers of France, Britain and Finland.
3.1 THE FRENCH CONNECTION
In the French data, the European Union is seldom criticized. The political rhetoric of the French Prime Minister does not show evidence of open criticism of the EU; on the contrary, the attitude taken towards the European Union is consistently positive. France and the European Union appear socially, politically and economically closely connected, sometimes one unity, as is indicated in the following excerpts by Prime Minister Raffarin:
(1) C’est cela, cette nouvelle Europe, dans laquelle la France pourra faire exister ses idées (Fr II, p.3).
(2) si nous sommes suffisamment attachés à la défense de ce patrimoine intellectuel, culturel et moral de la France, si nous sommes suffisamment attachés à nos valeurs pour les faire exister au coeur même du projet européen (Fr II, p.4).
The French typically see the European Union as a natural continuation of the French ideological domain, its values and ideas.
The romanticised vision of the Union representing the new Europe, where French ideas can flourish and where French values exist even in the heart of the European project are poetic expressions, typically French, and typical of Prime Minister Raffarin.
What is less clear is whether the French are so attached to the values of their culture that they would like them to be the values of the whole of Europe. The French Prime Minister finds it natural to express the Frenchmen’s wish to construct the European Union “à notre rythme” (in our rhythm) (Fr II, p.4), to talk about “L’Europe, notre grand dessein” (Europe, our great design) and to remind the audience that Europe needs “la réussite française” (a success like the French success) (Fr VII, p.8).
Nous, ‘we’ in reference to the EU is typically used in collocation with abstract nouns and noun phrases such as l’histoire (history), valeurs (values), paix (peace), l’avenir (the future), declaration (declaration), débat européen (the European debate), and liberté (liberty), i.e. words and phrases that carry strong positive
connotations in the context and which tend to refer to the future.
The European Union is seen as a political, economic and social construction that will gradually embrace the whole of Europe, bringing western development and peace to all its member states (Fr IV, p.2).
The French were pleased with the social and political development of the EU as it was in 2004. Prime Minister Raffarin reminded his audience of how this has not always been the case: in the beginning there were those who believed in an integrated Europe, i.e. a federal Europe, and then there were those – such as the British – who believed in a Europe only as a free economic zone.
(3) Entre ces deux types d’Europe, il fallait choisir et finalement aujourd’hui, nous avons une organisation européenne qui s’est élargie. Le premier mai nous avons accueilli dix pays nouveaux, nous couvrons une grande majorité maintenant du continent, nous avons accueilli ces pays qui avaient besoin de la liberté occidentale pour leur propre développement (Fr IV, p.2).
There is often an ambiguity in the referent of the pronoun nous in the French data. For the French, living in the centre of the European continent, the land and the union have a tendency to merge in French political rhetoric.
(4) Comment ne pas réfléchir sur ce bouleversement radical de l´histoire de notre continent ? (Fr I, p.2).
enquires Prime Minister Raffarin and refers to the history of our continent. Somewhat later in the same speech PM Raffarin continues:
(5) L’Europe est l’oeuvre de nos morts tout autant que la nôtre (Fr I, p.2).
where the reference is still to the territory of Europe that has been built by many generations.
(6) Cette Europe qu’ont construit de nos pères, il nous appartient de la transmettre à nos enfants. La génération de nos parents a construit l’Europe pour faire la paix a l’intérieur de nos frontières.
Le devoir de notre génération, de ma génération est, aujourd’hui, de conforter l’Europe pour faire la paix à l’extérieur de nos frontières, sur une planète toujours menacée par ses déséquilibres (Fr I, p.2).
In the excerpt above the reference is still, quite ambiguously, to the land, until the reference to our union, becomes clear in the phrase that follows:
(7) Notre union ne peut être fondée que sur nos valeurs, sur un humanisme européen initié par l’humanisme français. Notre union doit nous permettre de rapprocher nos diplomaties et nos armées pour agir, ensemble au service de la paix du Monde. Là est notre projet (Fr I, p.2).
In his conclusion to this speech, the French Prime Minister wishes that the young people of today would have the enthusiasm to build a strong Europe and thus protect ‘la France éternelle!’ (Fr I, p.3).
The European Union represents home-ground for the French.
Globalisation, by way of contrast, causes hesitation. The Prime Minister reassures his audience about the positive challenges of globalisation:
(8) Alors bien sûr la mondialisation est un challenge, bien sûr c’est une compétition, bien sûr c’est difficile, mais nous n’avons pas le choix, le monde est comme cela et donc nous ne pouvons pas rester spectateurs d’un monde qui vit sans nous. Nous devons prendre part au développement du monde … (Fr IV, p.1).
Phraseology like challenge (challenge), compétition (competition), difficile (difficult), rester spectateurs (remain spectators), un monde qui vit sans nous (the world that goes on without us) and the use of negative statements such as nous n’avons pas le choix (we don’t have a choice) are uncommon expressions, rarely used in connection with the European Union in the French data.
We have thus seen that the French tradition of highly figurative language use and romanticised expressions of ‘grandeur’ is notably manifested in the discursive strategies of the French Prime Minister.
The assimilation of France and the EU is accomplished through positive collocations often referring to the great future of our continent. Sometimes there is an ambiguity in the reference, whether it is to France or to the whole of Europe carrying French values.
Victor Hugo, one of the finest masters of French literature, already envisioned a unified Europe at the Paris International Peace Congress in 1849. This historical tradition is manifested in the use of cultural presuppositions in the discourse of Prime Minister Raffarin.
3.2 THE BRITISH PREFERENCE
The language used by the British Prime Minister in reference to the European Union is polite and diplomatic. He uses the 1st person plural pronoun in connection with the European Union only rarely.
One might even imagine, from some of Blair’s speeches in this study that the European Union has ceased to exist, or never was initiated.
The use of ‘we’ in the British data is situational, as seen in Table 1. Prime Minister Blair refers to the nation but also more than his French and Finnish colleagues to the audience, thus profiting from the speaking situation for coherence. Table 1 shows a tendency for the British Prime Minister to concentrate on domestic affairs, with strong reference to the nation (22.4 %), government (12 %) and society (11.4 %) in general. The British Prime Minister frequently speaks globally, crossing the European frontiers into world affairs, as if history had already prepared him for that. He speaks of the international community and reducing conflict, making trade fairer, and supporting the developing world:
(9) This will be a top priority for me personally at the G8 summit in Gleaneagles in July, in Britain’s presidency of the European Uni- on from July, at the UN Summit in September and at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong in December (Br II, p.3).
The British Prime Minister sees globalisation as a prime opportunity in the world, “not only for higher education sector but for many other highly successful British industrial and service sectors…
globalisation was made for Britain”, reminded Prime Minister Blair in his 2004 speech on economy addressed to an audience at Napier University in Scotland (Br VI, p.3).
Prime Minister Blair uses the 1st person plural pronoun in reference to the European Union quite restrictively in my data, only when he made his statement on the European Council to the Parliament.
(10) There were other significant decisions at this European Council.
We confirmed the conclusion of accession negotiations with Bul- garia and Romania. Both should join in January 2007. We decided to begin accession negotiations with Croatia on 17 March 2005, subject to their full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal. We decided on several new areas of action and co- operation in the fight against terrorism. We welcomed the agreement reached with Iran on nuclear issues and future co- operation, following negotiations conducted by the UK, France and Germany. If, however, this process is to succeed, as we all want, Iran must sustain its full suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities (Br V, p.1).
The vocabulary choices are matter-of-fact, lacking emotional appeal typical for the French political rhetoric in a similar context. We in the excerpt above is inclusive of the speaker, but exclusive of the audience. It is used with natural ease, as the speaker himself is personally involved in the European Council decision making process. We confirmed, we decided, we welcomed an agreement, all include active verbs of participation, expressions that typically characterize the public rhetoric of the British Prime Minister in other contexts, too.
‘We’ and its variants are used in the British data in collocation with expressions like human rights, action, co-operation, democracy, support, economic advance, job placement policy, stability and prosperity. The influence of the political background of the speaker naturally affects the linguistic strategies chosen here, too.
Prime Minister Blair often uses ‘we’ in reference to the British government, and frequently when referring to collectives such as NATO. In a statement to the British Parliament on a NATO Summit and European Council in June 2004, ‘we’ is used again in evaluating the processes in the NATO meeting:
(11) We endorsed capabilities targets to ensure we make the best use of NATO forces. We supported the further reform …. we agreed to end the NATO mission in Bosnia (Br VIII, p.1).
Further in the same speech PM Blair mentions the European Council briefly, distinctly diplomatically but from a more distant stance:
(12) Finally Mr Speaker, on the way back from Istanbul I attended a special European Council. It agreed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso as the new Commission President.
He is an excellent choice: committed to economic reform, committed to the trans-Atlantic Alliance, committed to an EU of nation states. It was a good finale to a brilliant Irish Presidency of Europe (Br VIII, p.2).
The new Commission President is committed to the British agenda for the European Union; that of economic reform, good relations to the USA and the importance of nation states in the Union. Thus PM Blair uses the exceptionally positive adjective excellent in referring to the choice.
The British data show evidence of the use of ‘we’ in reference to the audience more than the data from France and Finland (Br 16, Fr 6.2, Fi 2.3). Prime Minister Blair typically creates coherence by engaging the audience through his inclusive use of ‘we’.
The analysis of the British data shows evidence of polite diplomacy towards the European Union, if it is mentioned in the discourse at all. European issues are often ignored, and emphasis is either on domestic issues or on world affairs. The rhetoric concerning the EU is matter-of-fact, emphasizing economic matters and lacking emotional appeal typical of the French political rhetoric in similar contexts. The EU is seen as one platform of co-operation amongst many others.
3.3 BETWEEN BORDERS: THE FINNISH ‘WE’
Table 1 makes evident that altogether 75.7% of the 1st person plural pronoun and its variants in the Finnish data refer to the nation of Finland, 10.5 % to society and 4.5% to the European Union.
Compared to the British data, the reference to the audience is low in Finnish political public speaking (Br 16%, Fi 2.3%). Most of the 1st person plural pronouns in the Finnish data are embedded in verbs or nouns (See Section 3.3.1, below, for clarification).
Prime Minister Vanhanen uses expressions like meillä Suo- messa (with us in Finland) (Fi X, p.1) and refers explicitly to the nation of Finland and the Finnish people in his public discourse through the use of me ‘we’: Olemme myös osaajavaltio (We are also a nation of know-how) (Fi III, p.2), Olemme ... kovenevalle kilpailulle altis maa (We are a country facing stronger and stronger competition) (Fi X, p.3).
The European Union is referred to in the political rhetoric as an intergovernmental organisation and its activities are evaluated in nationalist terms. ‘We’ with reference to the European Union is rarely found in the political discourse of the Finnish Prime Minister in these data. The majority of the examples are found in a speech given by Prime Minister Vanhanen on the special occasion of Europe Day, May 9th, 2005. Yet the European Union is mentioned in most of the Prime Minister’s speeches as a political and economical arrangement, an organisation whose membership the nation and the people of Finland can profit from and contribute to.
The attitude taken towards the European Union is generally positive and constructive as is manifested in the following example:
(13) Päätöksemme liittyä Euroopan unioniin oli oikea. Jäsenyyspäätös oli Suomelle sekä poliittinen että taloudellinen ratkaisu. Jäsenyys- aikamme on ollut menestys, unioni on meille oikea viitekehys mo- lemmissa suhteissa (Fi V, p.1).
Membership is the key word in the political rhetoric of the Prime Minister from Finland when referring to the European Union.
Membership guarantees mutual political and economic benefits in an organisation, without demanding further commitment to integration. The actual status of the Finnish membership is brought forward frequently in the discourse.
(14) Suomen asema unionin jäsenenä on jakamaton. Emme ole mis- sään marginaalissa tai lisälauseessa (Fi IX, p.2).
(15) Jäisimme automaattisesti pois EU-kumppaniemme kelkasta (Fi IX, p.3).
The examples above manifest a typical situation where Finland as a borderline country reconfirms its membership. As a reaction to this situation, Finland has found its method of contributing to the European Union, especially in the Nordic Dimension that it introduced to the Union in 1997 as a platform for co-operation of north-eastern EU states. In all, Vanhanen does not exclusively practice a positive approach. Constructive critique towards the EU is also explicitly expressed:
(16) Euroopan unionin sisäinen kehitys on tällä hetkellä pysähtynei- syyden tilassa (Fi I, p.3).
In his speech on Europe Day, Prime Minister Vanhanen urges the European Union to keep its eyes open and concentrate on the new global challenges:
(17) Meidän eurooppalaisten on silmien sulkemisen sijasta pidettävä ne nyt tiukasti auki ja keskityttävä edessä oleviin välttämättömiin toimiin (Fi I, p.2).
The European Union is mentioned in collocation with nouns such as jäsenyys (membership), jäsenyysaikamme (time of membership), turvallisuus (security), kilpailukyky (competitiveness), muutos (change), talous (economy), kriisinhallinta (crisis management).
The EU is typically seen as a framework influencing security, competitiveness, politics and the economy in member states.
The results indicate that the Finnish express their loyalty to the partnership in the Union, yet without an explicitly expressed
‘we’-spirit, i.e. ‘a sense of community’. The political rhetoric of the Finnish Prime Minister shows Finland’s position in the Union as a member, involved in the process of European integration but on national terms. Although the attitude taken is positive, criticism of economic and political issues is expressed explicitly towards the European Union.
3.3.1 The Emphatic Finnish me
The making of identity involves inclusion and exclusion. In order to have ‘we’ there needs to be those who are ‘not us’. One way of expressing this emphasis on we versus the others in Finnish is by the use of the pronoun me ‘we’ to add emphasis to the subject, as the conjugation of the verb with the case suffix -mme would in itself express the 1st person plural. In these data there were 8 examples of this particular use of me ‘we’ (6 referring to the nation of Finland, 2 to the audience). For example, (bold added, NVP):
(18) Suomella on rohkaisevaa kerrottavaa Kiinan kaupasta. Siinä mis- sä osa muista (unionin jäsenvaltioista) haluaisi rajoituksia Kiinan tuonnille, me olemme uskoneet siihen, että yhteistyö ja Kiinan markkinoille meno auttaa myös meitä (Fi I, p.2).
(19) .. olisimmeko me yksin oikeassa ja muut 24 maata väärässä (Fi V, p.3).
Official governmental political discourse in this study represents the formal public speaking genre, which resembles the written genre in its use of the 1st person plural pronoun. The formality of the speeches in these data is seen in the omission of the 1st person plural pronoun in the majority of verbal constructs, as is seen for example in constructs like olemme, otamme, tarvitsimme, instead of me olem- me, me otamme, me tarvitsimme. In the same manner the possessive suffixes can be used without the genitive forms of the pronouns, as in jäsenyytemme, meidän jäsenyytemme.
4 ‘WE’ IN THE PAN-EUROPEAN PROJECT
Who are we? is no doubt a complex question that can hardly be answered by classifying simple linguistic tokens such as ‘we’ in the political rhetoric of EU member states. Yet this linguistic device, a political pronoun or a pronoun of solidarity, as we may call it, gives guidelines as to whom the Prime Ministers of these three nations identify themselves with. In this study it became evident that, besides audience and topic related factors in a speaking situation, there are three main elements that influence the European spirit of togetherness.
First, to understand how people in European member states perceive the European Union, one must understand the culture which constructs the identity of each distinct country. The linguistic bridge from the Reformation of the 16th century into the use of the 1st person plural pronoun in 2004–2005 European rhetoric may be difficult to construct. Yet the results of a limited study like this indicate that, accepting that the historical chain of meanings continues to be embedded in words, this bridge may yet exist.
The second point affecting the use of ‘we’ is the geo-political situation of the country. It is logical for France, situated at the core of Europe, to assimilate itself with the European Union. The geographical position of Britain may provide further distance from
the European Union: the Union barely exists in the vocabulary of Prime Minister Tony Blair, except in speeches concerning the EU.
Finland identifies itself as an official member in the Union, benefiting from economical and political co-operation between the member states. From being a ‘strange relative’ (Tiilikainen 1997) in Europe, Finland currently approaches Europe on political, economic and historical, i.e. linguistic fronts (see Östman & Raukko 1995).
Thirdly, language as a construct serves as a carrier of culture.
France, Britain and Finland all represent individualistic cultures, where independent self-construals traditionally predominate (Hofstede 2001; Vartia-Paukku 2005). Yet collectivism is generally associated with Catholic cultures and individualism with cultures with a Protestant religion (Trompenaars 1995). Trompenaars sug- gests that the French Catholic tradition supports such collectivism, through the authority of religious, economic and intellectual hierarchies. Such collectivism has a tendency to affect the mode of communication in society. This may partly explain why the French data manifested more emphasis on European social and cultural unity than was shown in the British and the Finnish data.
A mere technical analysis of linguistic devices is not an adequate tool to perform a cross cultural comparison of any kind.
To make the comparison more accurate, it would be important to acknowledge the different contexts in which the speeches are delivered. Furthermore, a researcher needs to have contextual knowledge of the subjects analysed: of their social, political, economic dimensions and, more demandingly, of the mental and spiritual atmosphere prevalent in a nation during the period of research.
5 CONCLUSION
In their political rhetoric, the Prime Ministers of France, Britain and Finland use their democratically given freedom to draw boundaries of coherence. The audience can either accept the boundaries as defined by their political leaders or disapprove of them. These fictive borders of ‘we’ change with time, and within a political speech, even within a sentence.
The French rhetoric emphasized the social, political and cultural unity in the European Union. The British data showed evidence of distance to European matters and concentration on domestic or global issues. In the Finnish political rhetoric the majority of ‘we’ and its variants were used to refer to the state of Finland. This division in the use of ‘we’ in France, Britain and Finland showed similarities to a view presented by Tiilikainen (1997), which suggests that Christian communitarianism, an individualist tradition and a state tradition as the three lines of European political thinking originated in the Reformation. But to what extent could past religious traditions in a country influence the linguistic choices that governmental representatives make in their political speeches? A researcher of national political rhetoric and contemporary developments in the European integration process may benefit from a retrospective look into the religions of the EU member-states. In the same way as nations interact with each other in the European Union, they interact with their past.
Identity is built on symbols and often on symbols of a collective future, if a collective past is not evident. The European Union has used traditional nation building strategies such as a common flag, a common currency, a common passport and the European anthem to establish a new identity. This European Union integration process was interrupted unexpectedly in 2005 by the rejection of the EU constitution in France, the core member in the establishment of the European Union. During such ‘intellectual collisions’ in and between nations, be they caused by cultural misunderstandings,
religion, nationalism or any other -ism yet to be specified, a search for such causes is called for. Understanding how the public political rhetoric is influenced by the cultural background of speakers is essential in trying to avoid general political misunderstandings, and even preventing conflicts, in intercultural communication.
REFERENCES
Breakwell, G. (ed.) 1992. Social Psychology of Identity and the Self Concept. London: Surrey University Press.
Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cowles, M. & M. Smith 2000. The State of the European Union. Vol 5.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Eatwell, R. (ed.) 1997. European Political Cultures, Conflict or Convergence. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman.
Haller, M. & R. Richter 1994. Toward a European Nation? London:
Sharpe.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hutchinson, J. & A. D. Smith (eds.) 1994. Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laffan, B. 1996. The politics of identity and political order in Europe.
Journal of Common Market Studies 34, 81–104.
Lakoff, R. T. 2001. The Language War. London: University of California Press.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liebkind, K. (ed.) 1989. New Identities in Europe: Immigrant Ancestry and the Ethnic Identity of Youth. Gower: Aldershot.
Neumann, I. B. 1994. A region-building approach to Northern Europe.
Review of International Studies 20, 53–74.
Östman, J.-O. & J. Raukko 1995. The ‘pragmareal’ challenge to genetic language tree models in S. Suhonen (ed.) Itämerensuomalainen kulttuurialue – The Fenno-Baltic Cultural Area. Castrenianumin toimitteita 49, 31–69.
Östman, J.-O. 2005. Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (eds.) Persuasion across Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 183–212.
Scollon, R. & S. Wong Scollon 2001. Intercultural Communication.
Blackwell.
Smith, A. D. National Identity 1991. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Tiilikainen, T. 1997. Europe and Finland; Defining the Political Identity of Finland in Western Europe. Ashgate: Aldershot.
Trompenaars, F. 1995. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Vartia-Paukku, N. 2004. Culture and Politeness in Public Speaking.
Unpublished. CLPG. University of Helsinki.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Appendix 1
Translations of the French and Finnish examples in the data:
Chapter 3.1
(1) In this new Europe France will be able to make her ideas exist.
(2) .. if we are so attached to the defence of this intellectual, cultural and moral patrimony of France, if we are so attached to our values that we will make them the values in the very heart of the European project
(3) Choice had to be made between the two models for Europe, and finally today we have an enlarged European organisation. On May 1st we have been joined by ten new countries, we now cover a major part of the continent, we have accepted these countries that needed the western liberty to be able to develop properly.
(4) How can one not think about these dramatic events in the history of our continent?
(5) Europe has been built both by our forefathers as well as by us.
(6) This Europe has been built by our fathers and we must pass it on to our children. The generation of our parents built Europe to establish peace inside our borders.
(7) Our union cannot be built on other values except our values, on the European humanism that was initiated by the French humanism.
Our union must allow us to align our diplomacies and our militaries to act together for world peace. That is our project.
(8) Certainly globalisation is a challenge, certainly it means competition and difficulties, but we don’t have a choice, the world is like that and we cannot remain spectators in a world that goes on without us. We need to take part in developing the world ...
Chapter 3.3
(13) Our decision (pronoun embedded in noun) to join the European Union was the right one. For Finland, it was both a political and an economic decision. Our (pronoun embedded in noun) period of membership has been a success, and for us, the Union has been an appropriate frame of reference in both politics and economics.
(14) Finland’s position in the union is without question. We (pronoun embedded in negative auxiliary) are not placed in any marginal or appendix clauses.
(15) We (pronoun embedded in verb) would be automatically outsiders in the company of our partner members in the EU.
(16) The internal development in the EU is currently in a state of stagnation.
(17) Instead of closing our eyes, we Europeans need to keep our eyes wide open now and focus on the necessary tasks that lay ahead.
(18) Finland has encouraging news to tell about trading with China.
While some ot the countries would like to restrict imports from China, we believe that co-operation and presence at the Chinese market will help us, too.
(19) ...would we alone be right in this matter and the other 24 countries wrong.
Appendix 2
List of speeches used:
Speeches by Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister of France:
I On the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Royan, a commemo- rative speech addressed to governmental and military represen- tatives. April 17, 2005.
II To address the President of France and the Senate on the EU constitutional debate. April 6, 2005
III To address an audience of representatives of French employees in preparation for the National Day of Solidarity. April 28, 2005.
IV On the occasion of the inauguration of the London branch of ESCP- EAP, the European School of Management, to address represen- tatives of the Chamber of Commerce, governmental representatives and students of the school. November 30, 2004.
V At the National Conference of the Family 2004, to address the participants of the conference on the theme of ‘The Adolescence’.
June 30, 2004.
VI At the Economic and Social Council, to address the presidents of the departments and members of the Councils on French current events. June 10, 2004.
VII The Chamber of Deputies, to address the President of France and the deputies, on the occasion of accepting the leadership of a new government. April 5, 2004.
VIII At a press conference in Matignon, to announce his resignation as Prime Minister of France, and the resignation of his government.
May 31, 2005.
Speeches by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain:
I At a press conference in Tuscany speaking to journalists after the rejection of the proposed EU constitution by France. May 30, 2005.
II At ‘Faithworks’, London, to address an invited audience of representatives of churches and Christian organisations, to pay tribute to the Faithworks Movement. March 22, 2005.
III On the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, to address the survivors of the holocaust. January 27, 2005.
IV At World Economic Forum in Davos, to address politicians and business leaders on poverty in Africa and on climate change.
January 26, 2005.
V Parliament, a statement of the European Council meeting on December 16/17 December 20, 2004.
VI Napier University, Scotland to address the audience at the univer- sity on economy. December 3, 2004.
VII ‘Commission for Africa’ meeting, Addis Ababa, to address the commission members on the problems of the African continent.
October 7, 2004.
VIII Parliament, statement on the NATO summit and the European Council. June 30, 2004.
Speeches by Matti Vanhanen, Prime Minister of Finland:
I On Europe Day, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Finland’s membership in the EU. May 9, 2005.
II University of Oulu, inauguration of Tietotalo II, to address the academic audience. April 18, 2005.
III ‘Pellervon Päivä’ Seminar, a greeting to the participants at the seminar of ‘The Central Organisation of Farmers’ Co-operation’.
April 13, 2005.
IV On receiving the final report on ‘Communication in Public Administration 2007’, addressing the project leaders and participants in the study. April 7, 2005.
V The EU jubilee seminar celebrating Finland’s 10 years of membership in the EU, to address the President of Finland and the seminar audience. March 4, 2005.
VI The opening ceremony of ‘Tieteen Päivät’ 2005, to address the participants of the Seminar on Science on current scientific events.
January 12, 2005.
VII Jyväskylä University, ‘Martti Ahtisaari -lecture’, to address the audience in a seminar in Jyväskylä on the EU, Finland and Russia.
November 30, 2004.
VIII Parliament, the preliminary debate on The Report of the Future to the Members of the Parliament. November 24, 2004.
IX Kaleva Seminar on Security Policy in Oulu, to address the seminar audience on security issues. November 16, 2004.
X Dipoli Centre, Espoo, seminar on ’Finland in the Global Economy’, a speech about employment to invited guests and partakers of the seminar. April 16, 2004.
XI Parliament, to address the Members of the Parliament on Nordic Dimension and current events in the EU. June 8, 2005.
