2.1 The concept of authenticity in sociolinguistics

Authenticity is a central concept in the field of sociolinguistics (Eckert Reference Eckert2003:392). The pursuit of authentic language, which Bucholtz (Reference Bucholtz2003:398) defines as ‘language produced in authentic contexts by authentic speakers’, can be traced back to the field’s origins in dialectology (Bucholtz Reference Bucholtz2003:399). In Finland, the late nineteenth century is typically recognized as the starting point of the systematic study of dialects. At that time, the aim of the research was to document speech that had not been influenced by written standard language, which is why elderly, uneducated, rural individuals were deemed the most authentic informants (Kurki & Mustanoja Reference Kurki and Mustanoja2019:88, 91–93). Authenticity was, and to some extent still is, bestowed by regional origin (Aarikka Reference Aarikka2023:183–184). With the emergence of sociolinguistic research, the influences of which came to Finland in the 1970s, the analytical focus broadened from regional to social variation (Kurki & Mustanoja Reference Kurki and Mustanoja2019:95). The notion of authenticity expanded, although the emphasis on the vernacular remained prominent (Coupland Reference Coupland2007:181, Eckert Reference Eckert2012:88–90).

In what is referred to as the third wave of variation studies (Eckert Reference Eckert2012:93–98) and its socio-constructivist view of language, authenticity is regarded as a construct (Lacoste, Leimgruber & Breyer Reference Lacoste, Leimgruber and Breyer2014:10, Schintu Martínez Reference Schintu Martínez2023:69). According to Eckert (Reference Eckert2014:44), authenticity is ‘something that people claim’. It is a process in which certain groups, individuals and qualities become regarded as authentic through linguists’ and non-linguists’ linguistic and metalinguistic practices (Bucholtz Reference Bucholtz2003:398–399, 407, Eckert Reference Eckert2014:44, 53). With theoretical concepts such as indexicality (Silverstein Reference Silverstein2003, Eckert Reference Eckert2008) and enregisterment (Agha Reference Agha2006), third-wave studies explore the indexical variability of variables, registers and social styles (Eckert Reference Eckert2012:93–97). Studying authentication processes (Bucholtz & Hall Reference Bucholtz and Hall2005:601), performed authenticities (Coupland Reference Coupland2007:184) and contexts where the notion of authenticity appears to be in some way complex (Johnstone Reference Johnstone2014:98) can offer insight into what has become considered authentic and by whom (Lacoste, Leimgruber & Breyer Reference Lacoste, Leimgruber and Breyer2014:9).

Blommaert & Varis (Reference Blommaert, Varis, Duarte and Gogolin2013) link authenticity with the notion of ‘enoughness’ and state that in order to be acknowledged as an authentic member of an identity category, one has to have enough of certain features associated with that identity. Authenticity can be produced through a limited set of recognizable features, or even a mix of emblematic and non-emblematic features (Blommaert & Varis Reference Blommaert, Varis, Duarte and Gogolin2013:146–147, 156). The criteria of enoughness are adjustable and in constant change, depending on who, at any given time, is defining them (Blommaert & Varis Reference Blommaert, Varis, Duarte and Gogolin2013:147, Johnstone Reference Johnstone2014:97–98).

Sociolinguistics has prioritized the study of spoken language over written, and ‘naturally occurring’ speech over fictional or performative uses of language (Bucholtz Reference Bucholtz2003:405–406). The authenticity of literary language as research material has been questioned, although fictional texts have nevertheless served as data sources, for example in historically oriented dialectology in Finland (Keskimaa Reference Keskimaa2018:27–29, Aarikka Reference Aarikka2023:73–77). Contemporary sociolinguistics also examines linguistic representations and performances in pop culture, media texts and everyday interaction (Coupland Reference Coupland2007, Stamou Reference Stamou2014:119). Performances can be seen as central discursive practices that involve negotiations of social identities and, accordingly, authenticity (Moll Reference Moll2015:29). Bell & Gibson (Reference Bell and Gibson2011:570) argue that performed language ‘displays and heightens the social semiotic impact of language’, as performances rely on the reflexivity of both performers and audiences and participate in the formation and shaping of social indexicality (Reference Bell and Gibson2011:559). Authenticity in performances needs to be achieved through discursive practices as opposed to being automatically given (Coupland Reference Coupland2007:184).

As written linguistic performances, literary representations of dialect are involved in the processes of defining and negotiating authenticity. Schintu Martínez (Reference Schintu Martínez2023:70) describes dialect writing as a ‘conscious indexical process’, emphasizing an author’s influence in the enregisterment of dialect variants with regional and social meanings. The written, fictional nature of literary dialect representations does not reduce their value as linguistic data. That being said, Stamou (Reference Stamou2014:123) suggests that fictional discourse should be analyzed not by comparing its authenticity to everyday speech, but by examining its influence on audiences’ perceptions of the language of different social groups and the associated linguistic and social stereotypes.

2.2 Authenticity in perceptual dialectology, literary fiction, and reading group discussions

Linguists and non-linguists are likely to approach authenticity in somewhat different ways. Folk linguistics, the study focused on non-linguists’ language regards (the term first used in Preston Reference Preston, Gilles, Scharloth and Ziegler2010), established itself as a field of research in the 1980s, but it was preceded by fundamentally folk linguistic studies carried out in Japan and the Netherlands in the mid-1900s. Within folk linguistics, perceptual dialectology focuses on non-linguists’ dialect beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (see e.g. Preston Reference Preston and Preston1999). In Finland, a substantial amount of this knowledge has been accumulated since the early 2000s (see e.g. Mielikäinen & Palander Reference Mielikäinen and Palander2014), although the interest in language users’ language regards was already present in research during the twentieth century (see Aarikka Reference Aarikka2023:137, 250–253).

According to Preston (Reference Preston1996:40–41), folk linguistic awareness can be divided into four relatively independent modes: availability, accuracy, detail, and control. Each mode can be understood as a continuum that represents one aspect of how non-linguists perceive language (Preston Reference Preston1996:40–45). Another way of conceptualizing folk linguistic awareness is to analyze metalanguage: drawing on Niedzielski & Preston (Reference Niedzielski and Preston2003:302, 308), metalanguage 1 refers to overt language commentary and metalanguage 2 to shared beliefs and presuppositions about language and its users. When discussing language, non-linguists and linguists alike often refer indexically outside of it to language users, groups, places, and their characteristics (Niedzielski & Preston Reference Niedzielski and Preston2003:302–314, Mielikäinen & Palander Reference Mielikäinen and Palander2014:80, 104).

Language users’ views on authentic language can affect language use (Johnstone Reference Johnstone2014:98). Folk linguistic authenticity has been examined, for example, through authentication practices: how language users evaluate authenticity and negotiate it individually and as members of different groups (Moll Reference Moll2015:184, 256). In the third wave of sociolinguistics, speakers are regarded as ‘stylistic agents’ (Eckert Reference Eckert2012:97–98), who may view some variants, speakers, and varieties as more authentic than others, or claim authenticity for themselves in order to identify with certain categories and qualities (Eckert Reference Eckert2014:44, Johnstone Reference Johnstone2014:98). Authenticity remains an important factor in the construction of personal and social identities, as a sense of authenticity enables language users to feel connected to communities and places (Coupland Reference Coupland2007:427, Coupland Reference Coupland2014:19, 21; see also Bucholtz & Hall Reference Bucholtz and Hall2005).

Language users can view dialect as an intrinsic part of one’s social identity and authentic self (Siegel Reference Siegel, Ghimenton, Nardy and Chevrot2021:288–289, 291). As a residue of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century romanticism and its emphasis on rurality, dialects have been associated with the notions of rootedness and authenticity (Bucholtz Reference Bucholtz2003:399). These associations are activated when dialects are represented in literary fiction. In Finland, the growing regional consciousness has fostered dialect appreciation since the late 1990s and early 2000s, reflected in the expanded use of dialects in written texts. Literary fiction may also use different dialects to evoke different associations. (Makkonen-Craig & Vaattovaara Reference Makkonen-Craig, Vaattovaara, Riikonen, Kovala, Kujamäki and Paloposki2007:402, 404–405, 411.) Central to this study, perceptual dialectological research has indicated that non-linguists often describe the Far Northern dialects as old-fashioned and primordial – an impression possibly shaped by the romanticized, exotic portrayals of Finnish Lapland in media representations (Mielikäinen & Palander Reference Mielikäinen and Palander2014:85, 95, 109).

In evaluating dialect authenticity in literary fiction, it is essential to consider that written dialect representations are inherently partial and cannot fully capture the features of spoken language (Leech & Short Reference Leech and Short2007:128–137, Johnstone Reference Johnstone2014:104, Stockwell Reference Stockwell2020:363). Furthermore, fiction writers can be assumed to be primarily concerned with creating an illusion of dialect, rather than striving for a precise linguistic representation (Leech & Short Reference Leech and Short2007:121, 136). In literary fiction, dialects serve literary aims (Keskimaa Reference Keskimaa2018:57–64), and deviations from the established conventions of language use can be interpreted as the author’s creativity (Busse & McIntyre Reference Busse, McIntyre, Busse and McIntyre2010:16). Instead of reflecting reality, fictional discourse can, and arguably should, be regarded as a construction of sociolinguistic style (Stamou Reference Stamou2014). It is also worth noting that sociolinguistic authenticity is connected to adjacent social practices, and a representation of speech is perceived as authentic only within an otherwise authentic setting (Johnstone Reference Johnstone2014:100). For readers, the perceived authenticity of a literary dialect may depend on the narrative credibility of the literary work they are reading (see Tammilehto Reference Tammilehto2023:524–526).

The perceived (in)authenticity of a literary dialect is constructed partly individually, partly together with other language users. It is debated on, for example, in reading groups. Peplow (Reference Peplow2016:1) defines reading groups as collectives who ‘meet regularly to discuss a book that all members (should) have read’. Individual members’ identities have an influence on the conversation, but final interpretations are created in cooperation with other group members (Peplow Reference Peplow2016:4–5; see also Swann & Allington Reference Swann and Allington2009:262). According to Ahola’s (Reference Ahola2013) research on Finnish reading groups, readers pay attention to literary language and even refer to it as the most crucial component of a good book (Reference Ahola2013:138). Through language discussion, reading groups can form shared interpretations of dialect authenticity and its value within the context of literary fiction.

3.1 Reading groups

The Helsinki reading group had three members present at the recorded meeting, while the Tornio group had thirteen attendees. The Helsinki participants were aged between 50 and 60, and the Tornio participants were over 60 years old. All the participants were women, reflecting common patterns in gendered reading group participation (Ahola Reference Ahola2013:68–71). The readers’ age and gender may have shaped their approach to the novel and its dialect: the participants were experienced readers accustomed to literary discussion (see Ahola Reference Ahola2013:134–135), and female readers have been shown, for instance, to be more likely to interpret fictional worlds through their own life experiences (Andringa Reference Andringa2004:237).

Given that dialect perception requires exposure to variation (Dossey, Clopper & Wagner Reference Dossey, Clopper and Wagner2020:347) and readers’ familiarity with the represented dialect affects how it is evaluated and interpreted (Stockwell Reference Stockwell2020:370, Schintu Martínez Reference Schintu Martínez2023:83–84), the group members were asked about their residential history as part of the background information collection. The participants were asked where in Finland they felt they were from, and whether they had resided in the region of Lapland. All the Tornio group members had lived in Lapland, where Far Northern dialects are spoken, for over twenty years. Of the thirteen members, four had origins outside Lapland (in the regions of Central Ostrobothnia, South Karelia, South Savo, and Uusimaa). In the Helsinki group, only one member had lived in Lapland, for less than five years. Two out of three members identified regions other than Uusimaa (Central Ostrobothnia, Kainuu) as their home region, despite the members currently residing and the group gathering in Helsinki. For the purposes of this study, the groups are referred to as the Helsinki and Tornio groups, irrespective of individual residential histories, to highlight their differing exposure to the Far Northern dialects. The relevant aspects of the readers’ backgrounds are, however, addressed in the analysis.

The reading groups differed in their organization. The Helsinki group gathered at a member’s home, and aside from the host starting the discussion, the meeting remained informal and unstructured. In contrast, the Tornio group met in a public space. The group had a prominent leader who guided the conversation, and the meeting featured more overlapping talk and less individual speaking time. This may have influenced the members’ willingness to express differing views or take up space in the conversation, as the established discursive practices within the group affect readers’ voiced interpretations (Swann & Allington Reference Swann and Allington2009:250, Peplow Reference Peplow, Chapman and Clark2014:310), and the leader’s role is a central factor influencing participant involvement in reading groups (Ahola Reference Ahola2013:85–87).

To minimize interference with authentic observations, participants were initially given a general description of the study as focusing on readers’ experiences of the novel and its language. During the meetings, the groups discussed the novel without intervention, although the researcher’s presence and the recording of the meetings may have influenced the readers. Towards the end of each meeting, the specific focus on the novel’s dialect representation was disclosed, and participants were asked further questions regarding their views on dialect authenticity in literary fiction.

The participants were informed about the course of the study and the processing and protection of their personal data.Footnote ¹ They were given the opportunity to ask questions, and it was emphasized that participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. After this, they were asked to sign consent forms. In order to protect participator privacy, personal data collection in the study was minimized, and the readers’ names were pseudonymized during the transcription process.

3.2 The novel Erään kissan tutkimuksia and its dialect representation

The novel discussed by the reading groups tells the story of two women from different generations of the same family, connected by a spirit guide that appears in the form of a cat. As is typical of Kettu’s works (see Viertola Reference Viertola2012:52–58, Jytilä Reference Jytilä2022:59–61), the novel features dual timelines, multiple perspectives, and a blend of historical accuracy and magical realism. The author is known for her distinctive style that incorporates dialects and made-up words (Viertola Reference Viertola2012:53, Jytilä Reference Jytilä2022:67), a feature briefly noted in the reading group discussions (see example (9) in Section 4.3). With its unique language and various places, times, and dialects, the novel allows for diverse interpretations and serves as fertile ground for discussions on literary dialect.

The story is set partly in Helsinki but primarily in a place called Saari (‘Island’) or Perukka (‘Back end’), located far in the north and near the Finland–Russia border. While several locations from Lapland and Kainuu are mentioned, the exact location of Saari remains open to interpretation. Similarly, the novel’s dialect representation is ambiguous (see Tammilehto Reference Tammilehto2024). It features dialect variants commonly present in the Far Northern dialects (see Rapola Reference Rapola1969:131–134), such as the first-person singular pronoun mie (minä ‘I’) and the h in non-initial syllables (e.g. mithän for mitään ‘anything’, taivahalla for taivaalla ‘in the sky’). However, these variants are not systematically employed in a way that corresponds with dialectological descriptions, for example the h in non-initial syllables can be seen in linguistic environments where it is not generally found (see Mantila Reference Mantila1992), as in pithää (pitää ‘have to’). Additionally, these variants are combined with widespread variants (e.g. participle ollu for ollut , a past form of ‘to be’) (see Mielikäinen Reference Mielikäinen2009) and variants from other Finnish dialects, notably Kainuu (e.g. the ht variant of standard Finnish ts, as in kahtelemme for katselemme ‘we are looking’) (see Rapola Reference Rapola1969:39–45, 141). Thus, the novel’s dialect representation diverges from the dialectological description of an authentic Far Northern dialect.

3.3 Thematic analysis of the data: analysis process, codes, and themes

To explore the readers’ experiences of the novel’s dialect and its authenticity, thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2022) was applied to the transcriptions of the video recordings and participant notes using the Atlas.ti software. After dataset familiarization, recurring meaning-based patterns were identified and grouped under codes such as ‘dialect mixing’ and ‘getting used to the language’. Transcription passages, ranging from individual turns to longer stretches of conversation, were tagged with one or multiple codes. Dividing the transcription into passages of different lengths was based on topic shifts in the conversation.

The codes were clustered into broader themes, reviewed, and named in relation to the research questions. The four themes and the most significant codes associated with each of them are as follows.

1. (i) Dialect as a mix of multiple dialects and voices: dialect mixing; familiar and unfamiliar variants; dialect perceived as incorrect; dialect evoking images of familiar people and places.

2. (ii) The precedence of the story over dialect authenticity: getting used to the language; getting engrossed in the narrative; the richness and abundance of the story; accepting the novel’s world; good enough dialect is enough.

3. (iii) Dialect as a product of the author’s (un)conscious choices: the novel interpreted in relation to the author’s residential history and life events; the author’s creativity; questioning readers’ linguistic knowledge; thematic explanations for observations.

4. (iv) Dialect variation as authentic: literary fiction is not spoken language; literary fiction is fictional; variation recognized as an integral part of language; questioning authorities.

The following section presents a more detailed account of each theme.

4.1 Dialect as a mix of multiple dialects and voices

The study participants note that the novel’s dialect representation includes variants from several dialects. The readers mention the dialects of Northern and Eastern Finland, and more specific places such as Rovaniemi, Kemi, and Tornionlaakso (from the Far Northern dialect group), Kainuu (the Kainuu dialect group, Eastern Finland), even White Karelia (Northern Karelian dialect, Eastern Finland) and Helsinki. The readers recognize both familiar and unfamiliar variants.

In example (1), Ritva’s initial enthusiasm at recognizing her dialect in the novel shifts to confusion upon encountering a word she does not associate with it. Anne, in example (2), expresses greater displeasure, describing the dialect as a ‘jumble’ that bothered her. The ‘mixing’ of linguistic varieties may be viewed negatively when contrasted with ideals of purity and originality (Mielikäinen & Palander Reference Mielikäinen and Palander2014:229), particularly if a dialect is a part of a language user’s identity (Siegel Reference Siegel, Ghimenton, Nardy and Chevrot2021:284, Tammilehto Reference Tammilehto2023:520–522). Given that in the background information collection, both readers identified Tornio as the place they feel they are from, it can be assumed that the Tornio dialect holds significance for them. This is supported by Ritva’s use of the phrase ‘our dialect’. However, Anne is the only reader to express outspoken irritation towards the novel’s perceived mixing of dialects. For most participants, regardless of their regional background, it is a relatively neutral issue, as indicated in example (3).

Jaana from the Helsinki group observes that the novel’s dialect is neither ‘pure’ nor ‘superimposed’. The ‘creative’ use of both Eastern Finnish and Northern Finnish dialects does not bother her, even though she has named Kainuu as her home region and refers to her regional background several times during the discussion.

Language users’ degree of familiarity with a dialect influences their perceptions and evaluations (Preston Reference Preston and Preston1999:xxxv, Schintu Martínez Reference Schintu Martínez2023:83–84). This is evident in how both reading groups identify familiar and unfamiliar elements in the novel’s dialect but focus on different aspects. The Tornio group, for instance, discusses the correct spelling of the Far Northern dialect word kläp(p)i (‘child’), while the Helsinki group focuses on where they have previously encountered the word. Another example is Jaana’s reflection on the words and phrases she associates with the Kainuu dialect, absent in the discussion of the Tornio group. All the dialect variants are not equally available to all readers, nor are they characterized with the same amount of detail or accuracy; to follow Preston (Reference Preston1996:41), the modes of folk linguistic awareness are relatively independent.

Folk perception of dialects is shaped by sociocultural factors, such as contacts to other dialect speakers and dialect representations seen in media and culture (Preston Reference Preston1996:72, Preston Reference Preston and Preston1999:xxxv, Mielikäinen & Palander Reference Mielikäinen and Palander2014:80). In reading group settings, readers engage in literature discussion with their group members, but also with other voices, including those of characters, authors, absent readers, and critics (Peplow Reference Peplow, Chapman and Clark2014:170, Reference Peplow2016:57). The readers of this study hear echoes of familiar voices, places, and people in the novel’s dialect, as reflected in the written notes of one Helsinki group reader.

Example (4) illustrates how the novel evokes memories in Kirsi. The memories involve language (‘the dialect spoken by father on the phone’) but also non-linguistic characteristics (poverty, severity, religion) and places (homestead, the north). Both levels of folk metalanguage, metalanguage 1 and 2 (see Niedzielski & Preston Reference Niedzielski and Preston2003:302–314), are present. Places are shaped and experienced partly through language, and vice versa, the experiences of places can shape the way language is experienced (Johnstone Reference Johnstone and Mesthrie2011:210). Kirsi’s notes suggest that dialects, places, and people can become so closely intertwined that distinguishing between them may be unfeasible (see Tammilehto Reference Tammilehto2024:167). The novel’s dialect is seen as a mix of dialects, voices, and memories emerging in the readers’ minds.

4.2 The precedence of the story over dialect authenticity

Discussion about the novel’s characters and narrative dominated the conversation in both reading groups at the expense of language talk, similar to what Swann & Allington (Reference Swann and Allington2009:253) have observed. This is exemplified in how the reading groups, after briefly addressing language, repeatedly shift their conversation towards the novel’s themes, plot events, and character evaluations. The story can be so engrossing that readers do not pay attention to the language.

In example (5), the Helsinki group discusses getting used to the novel’s dialect. Kirsi interprets the novel’s combination of dialect and standard forms as systematic, enabling readers to become accustomed to it, and Jaana mentions ‘buying’ into the novel’s world. The readers overlook the unconventional use of dialect and see it as a part of the novel’s reality. Linguistic details are overshadowed by the communicative function of language (Preston Reference Preston1996:46–48), so that the dialect performance is influenced by what language users observe on the level of content, not just on the level of language (Moll Reference Moll2015:257). The same can be seen in how both reading groups describe the novel’s language as ‘rich’ and ‘abundant’, often conflating linguistic and narrative aspects.

However, the readers’ approval of a dialect representation depends on certain criteria being met.

In example (6), Kirsi expresses that a dialect representation must allow the reader to identify the setting of the story, but at the same time, the representation does not need to be fully accurate. A stylized language performance is successful as long as its target is recognizable (Bell & Gibson Reference Bell and Gibson2011:569). To apply the concept of ‘enoughness’ (Blommaert & Varis Reference Blommaert, Varis, Duarte and Gogolin2013), a good enough dialect representation is enough. It can feature a limited set of distinguishable dialect variants and also include some non-emblematic variants (Reference Blommaert, Varis, Duarte and Gogolin2013:147, 156) that are not ‘correct’.

4.3 Dialect as a product of the author’s (un)conscious choices

In reading groups, readers are aware that the book they are reading will be collectively discussed. Rather than purely immersing themselves in the narrative, they might approach the text analytically, with the understanding that it is a construct created by the author (Ahola Reference Ahola2013:134, 139–140). This is evident in how the study participants attempt to explain the novel’s unconventional use of dialect. For instance, the author’s background is discussed in the meetings, especially among the Tornio group. In example (7), the group debates what dialects they recognize in the novel.

Several Tornio group readers refer to the author’s residential history when identifying the dialects in the novel. Tuula, Leena, and Ritva note that Katja Kettu has not lived ‘here’, in Tornio, but rather in Rovaniemi. The discussion implies that the readers view the author’s dialect background as influencing the use of dialect in the novel, a view also assumed by earlier studies on literary dialect in Finland (e.g. Palander Reference Palander1987:214–221, Mantila Reference Mantila1993). This can, to some extent, be seen to reflect the notion that dialect speaker legitimacy is contingent upon a language user’s birthplace or at least residency in a specific location (see Aarikka Reference Aarikka2023:183–187). The notion may offer an explanation to why the unfamiliar variants in the novel’s dialect do not appear to notably disturb the Tornio readers: since the author has not lived in Tornio, the novel’s dialect is not seen as the Tornio dialect.

The novel’s dialect may also be viewed as the result of conscious choices made by the author. Both reading groups emphasize the author’s creativity, imagination, and talent, and prioritize her artistic freedom over dialect authenticity, even when the perceived mixing of dialects is found annoying. This is exemplified by Anne, whose irritation was presented previously in example (2) in Section 4.1.

Example (8) illustrates Anne interpreting the novel’s unconventional dialect as an expression of the author’s artistic abilities. Despite her annoyance with the dialect, she does not leave the book unfinished (cf. Tammilehto Reference Tammilehto2023:522).

The reading groups, particularly the Helsinki group, believe that the author makes her stylistic choices intentionally. Both groups reflect on the reasons behind the author’s decision to use various dialects, and as noted earlier in example (5) of Section 4.2, Kirsi sees the dialect use in the novel as systematic. Paveau (Reference Paveau2011:41–43) conceptualizes language knowledge as a permeable continuum, with writers positioned between the extremes of professional linguists and non-linguists with no professional engagement in linguistic practices. According to this view, writers may possess more linguistic knowledge than most non-linguists, a belief shared by the study participants. The readers trust the author’s expertise and regard her as a linguistic authority. In contrast, they question their own abilities to evaluate dialect authenticity, as shown in the next example.

Maria’s reflections in example (9) follow the Helsinki group’s discussion about whether literary dialect representations should be authentic. Maria remarks that for a reader from the represented dialect area, it would be good if the dialect was accurately depicted, but for her, dialect authenticity is not essential, especially in a novel as rich and imaginative as the one read by the group.

The readers place such high trust in the author’s expertise that they seek explanations for the unusual dialect variants in the novel, discussing possible reasons behind the author’s choices. Explanations are sought, for example, in the narrative and thematics. This is illustrated by Kirsi’s description of the dialect as a bridge between different narrational worlds.

In example (10), Kirsi deduces that a single dialect variant is used to draw the reader into another world. The novel’s dialect is seen as conveying meanings related to the thematics of the novel, and as such, it is regarded as the result of the author’s intentional and creative literary choices.

4.4 Dialect variation as authentic

The partly unconventional representation of the Far Northern dialect is accepted as a part of the novel’s world (see Section 4.2), which is understood to be an outcome of authorial creativity (Section 4.3). Literary fiction is perceived as a distinct context of dialect use: a literary dialect representation is not, as the readers remark, spoken language.

In example (11), Jaana discusses the ‘permissive effect’ of literary fiction, acknowledging that literary dialect representations are ‘stylized’, not accurate transcriptions. Tuula, in example (12), takes the idea further and points out that nothing in the novel is actually true. The readers understand that the authenticity of fictional speech cannot be evaluated against actual speech (see Leech & Short Reference Leech and Short2007:129) and that literary fiction is artificial in nature.

Moreover, the ‘permissive effect’ does not apply solely to literary fiction, but also to spoken language. The participants accept variation as an integral part of language. The Helsinki group members discuss how their own idiolects have changed throughout their lives, and the Tornio group deliberates on language variation on an even more general level:

In Benson & Risdal’s (Reference Benson, Risdal, Evans, Benson and Stanford2018) study of language users’ valuing of sociolinguistic variation, a notion they call ‘sociolinguistic receptivity’, approving attitudes toward variation were linked to higher levels of linguistic awareness and acceptance of nonstandard language features (Reference Benson, Risdal, Evans, Benson and Stanford2018:80–81). This is comparable to Päivi declaring, in example (13), that language users well-versed with Finnish dialects cannot be pedantic about their representation. She argues that ‘amateurs’ tend to dismiss dialect representations as inaccurate if they differ from their personal understanding. In this way, Päivi positions herself against an imagined outgroup of ‘amateurs’ and presents herself, and possibly her whole reading group, as a more informed language user acquainted with Finnish dialects (see Peplow Reference Peplow, Chapman and Clark2014:167).

The Tornio group challenges the notion of linguistic authorities.

The readers in examples (14) and (15) state that no one can definitively judge dialect usage as right or wrong. Literary critics, for instance, are not regarded as language experts. On the contrary, the readers seem to distinguish themselves from critics (see also Peplow Reference Peplow2016:83) by questioning their understanding of how dialect can vary from village to village and still be ‘correct’. As discussed in Section 4.3, the reading groups emphasize the author’s linguistic freedom. They also seem to extend this principle to all language users, valuing linguistic variation over static ideals of authenticity. In Tuula’s words, ‘you can write what you want’ and ‘say as you want’.