LL-L "Language policies" 2004.04.13 (04) [E]

Tue Apr 13 15:11:06 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 13.APR.2004 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Gavin Falconer <Gavin.Falconer at gmx.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language policies" 2004.04.12 (01) [E]

There is no doubt that the UK Government has recognised Scots as a language,
since it has committed itself to promoting it as such under the European
charter.  Interestingly, the first official recogntion was in legislation
passed
in parallel with the Irish Government to set up cross-border bodies for the
promotion of Ulster Scots under the Good Friday Agreement.  The question of
whether Ulster Scots has been recognised as separate from Scots in Scotland
is
more complex.

While the UK Government has recognised Scots in Ulster in a separate
document from its parent dialects in Scotland under the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages (ETS no. 148), that may simply have been
because
Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate jurisdictions within the UK whose
administrations are capable of delivering on different parts of the charter.
Scots could not be recognised across the entire state because it is not
spoken in
England or Wales, meaning that there would have been no point in according
rights there. The explanatory report  to the European charter explicitly
states the need to define the territorial base of a language.

Territorial base:
33. The languages covered by the charter are primarily territorial
languages, that is to say languages which are traditionally used in a
particular
geographical area. That is why the charter seeks to define the "territory in
which
the regional or minority language is used". It is not only the territory
within which that language is dominant or spoken by the majority, since many
languages have become minority languages even in the areas where they have
their
traditional territorial base. The reason why the charter is mainly concerned
with languages which have a territorial base is that most of the measures
which it advocates necessitate the definition of a geographical field of
application other than the state as a whole. Obviously there are situations
in
which more than one regional or minority language is spoken on a given
territory;
the charter also covers these situations.
Definition of the territory of a regional or minority language (Article 1,
paragraph b)
34. The territory referred to is that where a regional or minority language
is spoken to a significant extent, even if only by a minority, and which
corresponds to its historical base. Since the terms used in the charter in
this
respect are inevitably fairly flexible, it is up to each state to define
more
precisely, in the spirit of the charter, the notion of regional or minority
languages' territory, taking into account the provisions of Article 7,
paragraph 1.b, regarding protection of the territory of regional or minority
languages.
35. A key expression in this provision is "number of people justifying the
adoption of the various protective and promotional measures". The authors of
the charter avoided establishing a fixed percentage of speakers of a
regional
or minority language at or above which the measures laid down in the charter
should apply. They preferred to leave it up to the state to assess, within
the spirit of the charter, according to the nature of each of the measures
provided for, the appropriate number of speakers of the language required
for the
adoption of the measure in question.

The fact that the European charter advocates a "geographical field of
application other than the state as a whole" suggests that the Scots
dialects of
Scotland and Ulster are not defined against each other, meaning that the
question of their being the same language is at least left open. The
declaration
made by the UK Government when it accorded rights to Scots-speakers in
Scotland
and Ulster also allows varying interpretations .

b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of
the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the
Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of
Part II
of the Charter.

"A regional or minority language" could be taken to mean that there is only
one language rather than two, varying as it does from the declaration for
Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Cornish.

a) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2
and Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Charter that it will apply the following
provisions for the purposes of Part III of the Charter to Welsh, Scottish
Gaelic
and Irish.

There is a possibility that the UK Government was trying to keep everyone
happy. There was a certainly a degree of creative ambiguity in the Good
Friday/Belfast Agreement, which was negotiated before the UK Government
signed and
ratified the European charter. The agreement refers to "the Irish language"
and "Ulster-Scots", the latter undignified by any reference to language
status.
However, the statement made by Nic Craith (2001: 24) that "The perception
that Ullans is a dialect rather than a language offends many of its
speakers"
is unlikely to apply to a majority. Many of the most vehement defenders of
language status and dedicated activists are not native speakers. Indeed,
some
have very little linguistic competence, whether practical or theoretical, at
all.

The most explicit official declaration from the UK Government on the status
of Ulster Scots is in Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 859 The North/South
Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which
states
that:

Ullans [i.e. Ulster Scots] is to be understood as the variety of the Scots
language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal.

Needless to say, the chances of Ulster Scots surviving are much lessened if
it is split away from Scots in Scotland. If the General Registry Office's
estimate of 1.5 million speakers in Scotland and Lee Reynolds's guess of
100,000
in Ulster made at the McCracken Summer School on 25 July 2000 is correct,
users of the Ulster variety represent around 6% of the total. According to
the
Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, the number of speakers of Ulster
Scots is even lower, standing at 33,000. An independent Ulster Scots would
be of
massively reduced utility, and its speakers might conceivably have to resort
to English to write to Scots-speakers from their ancestors' villages in
Scotland, despite the fact that face-to-face communication would not be
nearly so
difficult. The market for educational materials and literature would also be
considerably diminished, despite the fact that they could be self-funding if
also sold to the Scottish market and, since Scots in Northern Ireland has a
head start, institutions such as Stranmillis University College would be
well
placed to capture a lucrative share.

Moreover, the Irish Government, which passed parallel legislation with the
same definition, has never signed the European charter. There are
potentially
huge problems if a different definition of Ulster Scots is adopted on the
two
sides of the Foyle, and one wonders how that might be justified from a
perspective of supporting Ulster Scots, which has few enough speakers as it
is; if
true, there may have been a blunder on the part of the Northern Ireland
Office. Of course, one could also argue that the charter grants only the
right to
separate development, since any definition of Ulster Scots as independent
can hardly have been based on a linguistic analysis - or, for that matter, a
poll of users - and the logic of joint development with Scotland remains
ineluctable. There is also the possibility that the European charter is an
instrument for according rights, though it explicitly denies that aim, and
the
implementation bodies legislation a framework for language promotion,
meaning that
there is no conflict. Scottish Gaelic and Welsh certainly did not "become"
languages when they the rights of their speakers were recognised under the
European charter. However, press releases and parliamentary answers have
referred
to Ulster Scots as being a language. For example, on 4 June 1999 the
Northern Ireland Office issued a press release headed "Paul Murphy Announces
Progress on Language Recognition". It stated:

The Government has decided that Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland will be
recognised as a regional or minority language for purposes of Part II of the
Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This will
bring
Ulster-Scots into line with the treatment of the Scots language in Scotland.

During the Deloitte and Touche consultation in autumn 2003, a Department of
Culture, Arts and Leisure civil servant failed to elucidate the Government
position when activists referred to Ulster Scots as a language. When the
present writer raised the issue of the definition in the implementation
bodies
legislation, she stated that any Ulster-Scots academy would be set up under
the
European charter. It therefore appears that, regardless of the ultimate
juridical interpretation of the charter, the UK Government is indeed working
under
two separate and contradictory definitions of Ulster Scots. However, the
European charter is not binding in law, meaning that its only legal import
may be
to put the UK Government in breach of its obligations under the
implementation bodies legislation, enacted in parallel by the UK and Irish
Governments in
March 1999, which has the force of an international treaty. There is also
the question of whether advertising jobs and services connected with a
geographically qualified "Ulster Scots" or, worse, "the Ulster-Scots
language",
discriminates against Scots-born speakers resident in Northern Ireland on
the
basis of accent. The English equivalent would be insisting on people
speaking RP.

--
All the best,

Gavin

Gavin Falconer

"Tharfor wordly happe es ay in dout
Whilles dam fortune turnes hir whele about."

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language policies

Dear Gavin,

Thank you very, very much for your thorough explanations and interpretations
above!  I appreciate your effort very much indeed.

I was delighted to read your confirmation of my assumption (or hope) that
Scots has indeed be recognized officially, and that the UK government acted
responsibly at least as far as recognition is concerned.  (I hear that even
Cornish has been recognized. What about Norman French of the Channel Isles
though?)

Whilst this does not mean that Scots is suddenly out of the woods,
recognition probably improves its survival chances at least and hopefully
creates a climate in which the language will have a better image, will
receive more protection and support and might be able to truly blossom, at
least be invigorated to some extent.  Restoration of some of Scotland's
political and administrative autonomy hopefully will go a long way in
creating a more favorable climate for this.  Hopefully, this will affect the
status and treatment of Ulster Scots as well, especially if Scots can attain
a public image of its own there, one that is not entirely part and parcel of
political partisanship and ethnic stereotyping.

Thanks again, Gavin.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* 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.
=======================================================================