Introducing the Concept of the ‘65 Words’ to the Public in Finland

Abstract

The authors report and reflect on their experiences of popularizing the ‘65 words’ method in various domains of public life in Finland. The ‘65 words’ method is a simplified version of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage, modified and adapted to the Finnish language. Case studies are presented from media, business, politics, the church, and education.

Appendix 1: Translation of the Finnish Article in Helsingin Sanomat 14.3.2016. Available Online http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/a1457922654693

Theory: All things in the world can be explained with 65 words—this is how the theory opens Finnish politics. According to a researcher, politicians often explain their difficult terminology with other difficult words, which leads to circular definitions.

Even all abstract things, such as the competitiveness pact and other terms used by the Finnish politicians, can be explained by ca. 65 words, according to the mini-language theory.

Linguistic theory on Natural Semantic Language is based on the common core all languages have. With the help of primitive words, everything should be globally understandable.

In Finland, speech trainer Juhana Torkki and linguist Ulla Vanhatalo have set up a Finnish website in order to open the theory. Vanhatalo has a Ph.D. on synonymy, and she has done research on the mini-language theory in Australia. Now she is popularizing the method.

‘It is clear that in politics, for example, difficult words are used. Things are complicated, and it is reflected in the words. The problem is that the meanings are not disclosed’, Vanhatalo explains.

According to her, politicians often explain their terms by other difficult words, which end up with circular definitions.

‘The interpretations are arbitrary, because no one knows what is being hunted’.

In politics, a word used by another party can often not be accepted; people rather come up with their own counter word. The primary words reach to the roots of things, but it is required that people really want to understand the other point of view.

‘The purpose of language is communication, but perhaps an even more important feature is that language can be used to mask the real thoughts, feelings and desires. Playing around with words can be fun and clever, but it will not take things forward’, Vanhatalo concludes.

How could the method then explain the Finnish political debate? Here Torkki and Vanhatalo disclose the concept of competitiveness pact and the related terms in the language of 65 words.

Competitiveness: Finland wants to be better than the others. If we now do more work, or what other people want, after some time, we can do more of what we want.

Pact/Contract: Now all can say how they want this to be done. All say what they do that this happens.

When a compound word is dismantled into two parts, it still seems that all parties have the same opinion on this matter.

But it feels that there is deep distrust in the Finnish political debate.

‘Often the core of the lack of confidence is that each party thinks that the other one does not understand something. These structures can be opened by the primary word language’, Vanhatalo and Torkki explain.

They suggest how the parties could disclose their thoughts into words.

The labor union people think: The government does not know that many people already now have very few good things. If they have even less, they cannot live as people live.

The government thinks: The labor union people do not know that if we do what they want, maybe after a short time, it feels good, but after a longer time, very bad things happen to all people.

And why does the government talk about contracts or pacts, opposition about mandatory legislation?

Perhaps the opposition experiences that the government is saying like this: If all do not say what they want to do, then we say, what will be done. We do not want anymore to hear what you say. After that, you can think what you want.

‘Should we close the sipiläs, lylys and selins¹² one more time in the conference room—so that everyone should tell their goals by the language of 65 words’, Juhana Torkki suggests.