LL-L "Language policies" 2002.08.30 (12) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 30.AUG.2002 (12) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net> Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Andy \(Scots-Online\)" <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: "Language policies" [S/E]

John M. Tait wrote:

in reply to Dan
<snip>I have found that the boot
> is on the other foot. It is not a case of my finding a linguistic
> 'reqonquista' artificial. At one time there was a tendency to produce
> this sort of artificially reconstituted Scots, but this is now on the
> wane, I think. It has been replaced by a _laissez faire_ philosophy
> which regards Scots as anything and everything, and which derides those
> of us who speak and write natural 'broad' Scots, and would wish to
> develop it as other languages are developed, as 'purists',
> 'prescriptionists', and in private 'sad' and 'head bangers.' In short,
> it is not a case of 'reconquistadors' (is there such a word?) not being
> tolerated by 'us', it is a case of 'us' not being tolerated by a group
> of largely non-speakers of Scots, based mainly in Edinburgh where
> perhaps less Scots is spoken than anywhere else in the country excepting
> the Highlands, who dominate the so called 'Scots Movement.'
>
> A recent example would be a book published by a James Robertson on the
> Scottish Parliament, intended for use in schools as an exemplar of
> Scots. Robertson - born in Kent and brought up speaking RP English -
> elsewhere rejects any attempt by 'obsessional' people to formalise Scots
> spelling, stating that 'one of the language's very strengths lies in its
> flexibility and its less-than-respectable status: writers turn to it
> because it offers a refuge for linguistic individualism, anarchism,
> nomadism and hedonism... William McIlvanney has spoken of Scots as being
> like English in its underwear, stripped of all pretensions, and in some
> respects this is very apt.' Yet although Robertson regards Scots as an
> intrinsically unrespectable basolect which should be kept in that state
> so that writers may 'turn to' it from their normal English to indulge in
> a little literary slumming, he has gained a government grant to produce
> a book as an example of Scots for schools.

I can only agree with John's comments. Scots seems to becoming used more
an more an 'ersatz' language for 'anarchist dyslexics'.

> As can be expected of someone who has rejected any formalising of Scots,
> when he is faced with writing on a serious subject about Scots all he
> can do is a clumsy word-for-word translation from standard English,
> preserving all the English grammar and phraseology, including stodgy
> officialese. Thus the sentence "Due tae these an ither complications,
> the timetable for completion o the wark has skitit several times." is
> simply standard English with a few Scots forms slotted in - what Sir
> James Murray in his study of the Scots of the borders described as
> "English in masquerade." A passable translation of this sentence into
> natural Scots might be: "Cause o aa thir fankles, an ither anes forby,
> the timetable for feenishin the wark haes been pitten back a puckle
> times." (An artificial 'reconstructionist' translation might be
> something like 'Acause o thir an ither complicatiounes, the tid-buird
> for completioun o the wurk hes been aftentimes hinderputten.'!)
>
> I don't see what advantage there is in supporting this sort of thing -
> Scots written by non-speakers of Scots who dismiss any attempt to learn
> or teach the characteristics of Scots as 'purism' and 'prescriptionism',
> and who demonstrate the consequences in their own jealously-guarded
> incompetence.

The advantage is obvious. It introduces children to standard English
grammar
and phraseology. The adhoc approach to spelling illustrates the inherent
advantages written communication in a regularised or standardised
language
like English has. Children learn the limitations of non-standard
varieties
because the writen form varies from area to area depending on the
perceived
pronunciation deviation from the standard norm 'English'. Thus Scots
dialects are marginalised by being presented as having nothing much in
common with one another. Children learn that if they want to write
anything
serious or for a wider audience it HAS to be done in English because
Scots
simply isn't up to it. It's obviously not of much use because of the
unpredictability of the written form. It obviously has no grammar or
idiom
of its own because if you want to write something in Scots it only works
by
using proper English grammar. Thus anything written in Scots is
subsequently
only of interest or use locally.
It's an excellent way to be seen to be doing some thing for Scots while
at
the same time furthering the destruction of any vestages of real Scots
the
children might have. Scots simply becomes a bit of fun on the side. A
sort
of kryptology game where standard Englsh is simply respelled and
relexified.

End of the 'conspiracy theory'. No I don't think that is the case. If it
was, at least I'd know they knew what they're doing. The truth is worse.
The
self-styled 'experts' really do believe that their respelled and
relexified
standard English is Scots. They call it 'accessible modern Scots'. I
assume
this is based on the fact that many urban working class speakers speak a
variety that is heavily anglicised in pronunciation and lexis. I.e. much
traditional Scots pronunciation and lexis may seem alien. Strangely
linguists always point out that regardless of the anglicisation of
pronunciation and lexis, many Scots grammar features remain. Strangely
these
are ignored in this 'accessible modern Scots' whereas the pronunciation
/x/
for <gh> is slavishly adhered to although it is no longer a feature of
urban
varieties except, perhaps, in a few words with no immediate English
cognates. This 'accessible modern Scots' is only accessible in the sense
that English speaking monoglots can decipher it because, after all, it
is
nothing more that respelled an relexified English - a kryptology
exercise -
not another language.

Now for some 'accessible modern German':

I vas taking my daughter to ze kindergarten. As ve crossed the road I
shouted achtung! jumping out ov ze vay as ze black audi sped past. Now
zat
vas a vorsprung durch technik!

Of course it's German! Lexis: kindergarten, achtung, vorsprung durch
technik. Pronunciation: vas, ze, ve, ov, vay, zat.

I rest my case.

Andy Eagle

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================