What has been done, by whom, to revive Ulster Scots?

 Demagogia (2011) by Iván Capote. Source. More of his work.

In the revival of Ulster Scots, most of the steps listed in the previous post have been or are being taken which can be demonstrated through examples.

Selection
Key documents: Good Friday agreement, European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, North-South agreement.

The listed documents all bestow rights and status upon Ulster Scots, thus exemplifying step 2(b) of Haugen's framework, allocation of norms.

From the Good Friday agreement:

3. All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.

From the North-South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 no. 859, Annex 1, part 5:

Language

One Body, with two separate parts, with the following functions:

Irish Language

•     promotion of the Irish language;
•     facilitating and encouraging its use in speech and writing in public and private life in the South and, in the context of Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in Northern Ireland where there is appropriate demand;
•     advising both administrations, public bodies and other groups in the private and voluntary sectors;
•     undertaking supportive projects, and grant-aiding bodies and groups as considered necessary;
•     undertaking research, promotional campaigns, and public and media relations;
•     developing terminology and dictionaries;
•     supporting Irish-medium education and the teaching of Irish.

Ulster Scots
    promotion of greater awareness and use of Ullans and of Ulster Scots cultural issues, both within Northern Ireland and throughout the island.

From the Application of the ECRML in the United Kingdom (Full charter text here) :

1.3.5 Ulster Scots
27. The Ulster Scots language has been used in Ireland since the early seventeenth century when Scottish and English Protestants were settled in the northern part of the Island. The Scottish settlers who came from the Lowlands used the Scots language, which became the Ulster Scots language. The use of Ulster Scots has declined, mainly because of its closeness to English.
28. There are no official figures on the number of speakers of Ulster-Scots. According to recent research the language is spoken by an estimated 100,000 people in Northern Ireland and in Ireland.
29. There is no specific legal act governing the use of Ulster-Scots in public and private life in Northern Ireland. The main legal foundations guaranteeing its use are therefore the following:
    - the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999, through which the North/South Language body was founded. This body has two agencies, namely the Foras na Gaeilge (the Irish Language Agency) and Tha Boord o Ulstèr Scotch (the Ulster-Scots Agency);
    - the Belfast Agreement (Good Friday Agreement) - signed on 10 April 1998.
30. As a result of the Belfast Agreement, both Irish and Ulster Scots cross-border bodies have been established, to promote these languages in both Northern Ireland and in Ireland.

The texts vary in style and purpose; the first text is the peace agreement of Northern Ireland, from 1998. Here the granting of "respect, understanding and tolerance" to Ulster Scots as well as Irish was important as a condition to allow for peace, though noticeably the agreement does not specifically refer to Ulster-Scots as a language but rather leaves it vague. The text of the statutory instrument of the North-South Co-operation does not specifically confer status onto Ulster-Scots, but rather sets up an implementation body with two parts, one to promote Irish and one to promote Ulster-Scots, thereby implicitly giving it some recognition. Again it does not specifically refer to Ulster-Scots as a language, but it refers to "use of Ullans", which it intends to promote. The ECRML is a treaty that consists of five parts. Part II outlines basic protection objectives and principles for minority languages, which all signatories must ratify for the minority languages they wish to recognise. They may furthermore choose to ratify Part III for some or all of the languages, which consists of measures to promote the use of the language in public life. The application of the ECRML in the United Kingdom explains that for Ulster Scots, Part II has been ratified (but not Part III). Thereby the United Kingdom has recognised Ulster Scots as a regional or minority language, and promised to at least try to give Ulster Scots some protection and recognition. To answer the question, "by whom" is the language being revived: all of the above are clearly top-down initiatives, as they are initiated by the government, governmental agencies and inter-governmental organisations.


Standardisation and codification
Key documents: the Ulster Scots Spelling Guide and the Ulster Scots Glossary, both by the Ulster Scots Academy Implementation Group (USAIG) and funded by the Ministerial Advisory Group on Ulster Scots (MAGUS); Philip Robinson's "Ulster-Scots: A Grammar of the traditional written and spoken language"; James Fenton's "The Hamely Tongue: A Personal Record of Ulster-Scots in County Antrim". Also others not listed here.

The listed documents exemplify graphisation (USAIG's spelling guide), grammatication (Philip Robinson's grammar), and lexication (Fenton's vocabulary; USAIG's glossary.) Interestingly Fenton and Robinson are both "just" interested individuals (if scholars); they wrote their works out of personal interest and out of personal conviction of the importance of the subject matter, meaning their books can be seen as bottom-up initiatives. The MAGUS, being a ministerial advisory committee, would be nearer to the top. However, there are links between the aforementioned authors and USAIG; at the time of writing, Robinson is the chair of USAIG; he in turn mentions considerable help from Fenton with his grammar in the foreword thereof.


Implementation
The implementation is mainly the work of the Ulster-Scots Agency and the Ulster-Scots Academy Implementation group. Possibly also the Ulster-Scots Language Society and the Ullans Centre.

From the website of the Ulster Scots Agency:

The aims of the Ulster-Scots Agency are to promote the study, conservation, development and use of Ulster-Scots as a living language; to encourage and develop the full range of its attendant culture; and to promote an understanding of the history of the Ulster-Scots.

Ulster Scots is not yet in the stage where schools are being set up that commit to teaching in it; so far groups and agencies mostly focus on trying to create a more positive image of the language as part of the overall heritage of the Ulster Scots people and culture.

While the Ulster Scots Agency in word commits to, as cited above, "study, conservation, development and use of Ulster-Scots as a living language", they reacted disapprovingly to initiatives to set up an Ulster-Scots Academy in 2008, stating that Ulster-Scots should not be seen as a separate language: "The implementation group (of the academy) seem to be planning to be concerned with a language separate from Scots, which they are calling Ulster-Scots, though this appears to be something distinct from the language variety traditionally spoken in Ulster". (BBC: 31/07/2008)
More news later on whether they ever retracted this statement.


Elaboration
Key works and initiatives (Post-1998): James Fenton, "Thonner an Thon"; "Guid Wittins Frae Doctèr Luik"; official translations of government documents to Ulster-Scots.

Stylistic development: The listed works and initiatives are all different genres of writing in Ulster Scots. Perhaps Fenton's work is the least relevant here, as it is building on one genre that has existed in Ulster-Scots for a couple of centuries now, namely poetry; yet his work does make a contribution to maintaining both the genre and the language. The second listed work, "Guid Wittins Frae Doctèr Luik", is a translation of the Gospel according to Luke, done by the Wycliffe Bible Translators in cooperation with groups of native speakers. Bible translations are a bit of a milestone for small developing languages, and for many languages it is the first thing that is ever written in them. While the translation of the book of Luke may not be the first thing to have ever been written in Ulster Scots, it does create an opportunity for a more formal, sacred style of Ulster Scots to be developed. Finally, of the works listed here the official translations of government documents to Ulster Scots form the clearest effort to forge new registers for roles that the language had ceased to have (see Ch. 3 (which as of yet still needs written.) ).

Terminological development: there have been efforts toward this, both for existing terms which may have been perceived to be too close to English (e.g. 'phone' v. 'langbletherer'); but I am not yet clear on who exactly initiated that, or whether it was meant as a joke. The official translations also include a lot of neologisms.

What processes are usually part of reviving a language?

In the following section I argue that revival is one type of language planning, with its own specific difficulties and considerations. Haugen's overall model for language planning is useful here as it provides concepts to understand the revival process. It describes which steps may be taken in language planning, and distinguishes between linguistic aspects of planning (corpus planning) and societal aspects (status planning). He further distinguishes policy planning and language cultivation, although these may be much more wrought up than he suggests. All of the categories and most of the steps outlined in the framework also apply to revival of a language, as I will demonstrate below. They are not necessarily followed in the order given; rather all of them are often ongoing at the same time through different initiatives.

Haugen's language planning model as revised by Kaplan (1997: 29). 

Selection
The selection of languages as understood by Haugen is a top-down decision as to which languages should be used in a society. The problem identification stage consists of considerations made by the political leaders in choosing what languages to promote. These considerations may include: 

• the wish to modernise or to participate in the world economy (which may for instance lead to the promotion of colonial languages in post-colonial states), the wish to retain or promote a distinct identity (such as the promotion of Estonian over Russian in Estonia),
• the connotations of a competing language (such as the rejection of colonial languages in post-colonial states e.g. German in Namibia),
• the actual vitality of competing languages or dialects in the country, the variety favoured by the leaders themselves (such as the spread of the Parisian dialect of French),
• the resources needed to implement and elaborate a language (i.e. a language is more attractive for nation-wide promotion if good teaching materials are already available, meaning a lot if not all countries in the world now opt to teach English at least as a second language),
• and other situation-specific considerations.

Based on these considerations the allocation of norms follows, meaning the decision of which languages are granted what kind of official status and where which language should be used, e.g. which languages official documents will be published in; which languages can be used to communicate with government officials; which languages will be used as a medium and which taught in schools. 

In revival situations, the language may have been promoted from the bottom up before it gains official recognition. The considerations often include a notion that a part of culture will be lost if the language is allowed to die; the rights of minority language speakers whose access to services may be impaired by the lack of recognition of their language, as well as their sense of an identity that they are allowed to feel proud of; and a wish to mobilize aspects of ethnic identity in reaction to or to serve certain political views or goals. 

The crucial difference between the considerations listed above and those of a revival movement is that those listed above pertain to multiple competing languages, whereas revival movements focus on one language that they want to promote. As such the question is not, "which language should be used where", but "how can the usage of this language (in as many domains as possible) be achieved?"

Standardisation / Codification

The standardisation and codification of a language are considered necessary in order to promote and teach the language; they consist of the decision on one correct way of speaking and writing the language. This includes deciding on a writing system and an ortography, in the framework called graphisation; a standard grammar (grammatication) and inventarising the vocabulary of the language (lexication), which to an extent overlaps with terminological modernisation as mentioned in the "Elaboration" category; it may include lexical innovation in order to prepare the language for usage in new domains or in order to emphasize the distinctiveness of the language (for instance in the adoption and promotion of dialectal terms for existing concepts during the synthesis of Nynorsk). The new standards are subsequently codified in spelling guides, grammars, dictionaries and teaching materials.

Which steps are more and which less relevant for the revival of a language depends very much on the extent of deterioration of the language, the amount of written records and the amount of speakers that still speak some variety of it. The attitude of the speakers to the correctness of their own use is also crucial for the outcome. For the formation of the writing system revivalists may draw upon written records of the language, as in Irish, which cultivated a rich literary history until well into the 17th century. They may also consider the way that the language is actually spoken by its community, or which writing system is most likely to be easily understood by the potential learners. Dorian explains that some communities are more prescriptive or conservative about what the language should be like; for instance after the independence of India, Hindi language reformers disapproved of the many loanwords from Persian and English that had started to be commonly used by Hindi speakers, and pressed for grammatical and lexical standards based on Sanskrit. Other communities are more permissive of transformation of the language; they may accept loanwords as a suitable solution to the need to create words for all the new concepts that are created by the world's rapid modernisation ('mp3-player', 'to update', etc.) Although not a language in a revitalisation process, an example would be Dutch, which draws heavily upon English for terms related to new technologies, leaving the English spelling and pronunciation intact but integrating the words into the Dutch morphological system (e.g. 'gedownload'). Dorian argues that purism or heavy reliance on archaic forms of the language may be an obstacle to revitalisation as it can alienate speakers from the language they actually speak, or make them feel that their usage is inferior or not up to standards, thus resulting in a move away from the language rather than renewed vitality. This is in line with the conclusions of Bentahila and Eirlys (1993) who argue that while language revivalers often hope to restore the language to a previous, healthier state, they are more likely to achieve transformation of the language to suit new roles. 

Implementation

The next step is the implementation of the policies that have been decided upon in the previous steps; the adoption and spread of the language by the community. Correction is the (somewhat vague) term used by Haugen for specific measures taken to implement the social aspects of a language plan. In practice this means planning how exactly the language will be disseminated through education and otherwise; the considerations at this stage are how to organise teacher training, how to promote the language to students and parents, what the specific objectives of study should be, and how to fund it all. The implementation has to be evaluated and monitored; how does the population react? Are the teaching materials well-received and effective? Are the study objectives realised?

For languages that are subject to revival, education is often an important target, either to ensure that minority language speakers do not experience disadvantage (for instance if they speak a different language at home than they have to use at school, thus impairing their ability to understand what is being taught - this can lead to a model where children speak their mother tongue in their early primary school years, but transfer to a more widely used language at a later stage of their education); or to ensure the vitality and usage of the language in the future. Some languages are however still very far away from being viable for use in the classroom, for instance due to a lack of available teaching materials, a lack of teachers, or a lack of enthusiasm from within the community. In this case the implementation may consist of awareness campaigns to promote the language and privately arranged language courses rather than ones integrated into the national curriculum. Evaluation may take place in the form of, for instance, questions on censuses to find out how many people use the language at home, or fieldwork by linguists who investigate usage of the language by interviewing speakers.

Elaboration

It is crucial to the maintenance of a language that it is actually used and kept up to date with modern developments in terms of the range of registers available, words for new concepts, and styles to suit different purposes. In the framework this is called "functional development", which reflects the need to adapt the language to new roles and functions. Terminological development is done on a large scale in all living languages, mostly by individual writers and speakers though it may be controlled and regulated by language academies. Words may be borrowed from other languages, coined, for instance by the producer or inventor of a new product or through recombination of existing terms, or archaic terms may be reintroduced to serve new meanings. Sometimes newly introduced words may be very controversial or considered ugly or ridiculous by speakers - see the inkhorn controversies in 18th Century English. However, as the inkhorn terms show, such controversies may not always mean that the changes are halted.

Stylistic development entails that genres and styles are developed in the language. This is the work of poets, authors, television broadcasters, parlementarians, academics and really anyone who puts the language to new purposes; however the government may often grant funding specifically to support this goal. Jean Ure (1982) writes about possibilities for what she calls "developing register range". When a new purpose calls for a new register, the contemporary repertory may be drawn upon, extending the applicability of existing registers, then gradually modifying and differentiating the style to suit the new purpose. She gives the example of video messages of soldiers in the second world war for the people back home, which were shown on cinema newsreels. The soldiers would talk in letter form, starting and ending with letter greetings: "Now bye-bye and love to everyone at home from Johnny." A second possibility is when forms from an earlier period are preserved, either oral or written; these provide patterns that may be activated to meet new needs. Finally, other languages can provide models on which new registers may be based. Here her example is Tok Pisin, which has a narrative register influenced by speaker's original mother tongues and an official register influenced by English.

Kaplan has added internationalisation to the steps listed in this section, as he argues preparing the language for use abroad means it faces new challenges; for instance where subtle cultural differences in writing practises may obstruct interlingual understanding even if the language is the same. However, these are problems for languages in a far stage of development, rather than for minority languages that are struggling to even be spoken in their region of origin. However, terminological development and stylistic development are very important for languages that are being revived, and will be practised more or less in the way described above, with the difference that they are often just starting out on this endeavour and that they still have to develop fairly basic registers (such as appropriate styles to talk to one's teacher, bank teller or doctor), whereas more developed languages such as Italian or Polish can already be used for a wide variety of purposes and already have a long literary history, that they merely need to maintenance.


Perhaps one important aspect has been left out of Haugen's framework, which is nonetheless quite important especially for languages subject to revival; namely the work of linguists in mapping out the grammar and lexicon of a language, or salvaging what is left of a language in far stages of deterioration. An example would be the extensive fieldwork of 19th century linguists on native american languages, which has been crucial in promoting awareness of the languages and in some cases preserving enough of them to allow for a revival later on, as in the case of the Yurok language which is now being taught at schools again. This could be grouped in the codification category, as writing a language down and inventarising it is closely related to codifying it; with the difference that the former aims to be descriptive where the latter is essentially prescriptive.

Definition of revival

Language revival versus language revitalisation
 

Source: I found this picture on loads of different websites.

"Revival" is used to mean increasing usage and esteem for a language that once had plenty of both within a certain community but subsequently became less used and/or less well-esteemed, in favour of another language. Nancy Dorian (1994) makes the distinction between revitalisation of a language, which is done when a language, although threatened, has still got some speakers left that can model the usage of the language and that remember how to pronounce it; and revival of a language, which is to bring back a language which has ceased to be spoken as a vernacular (whether recently or a long time ago), but which may still be used in "fossilized forms" by some individuals. She notes that revival is considerably harder and more rare than revitalisation, as it is hard to convince new learners of the urgency of learning a language that is not normally spoken by anyone. I would argue that the line may be hard to draw between the two: as registers dwindle one by one the language goes down the sliding scale towards what Dorian calls "fossilized forms", for instance in the form of dialectal words which have become part of the local variety of a dominant language, or as remembered prayers or slogans (such as the Khoisan motto of South Africa) of which the precise meaning may or may not be exactly clear. Indeed most scholars refer to both types simply as "revival" - even if it is good to consider the differences between the developmental processes of the respective "ideal types". For instance in the case of revival, the correct pronunciation of the language may be a matter of significant debate, as it was for Hebrew and for Cornish. In the case of revitalisation there may be more of a debate between rivalling dialects of a language, as for Quechua and for Irish and Scottish Gaelic.

Guy's knowledge applied to that of Grinevald Craig

Cave house in Cushendun. Photo by David McFarland.

How do Guy's types of language change apply to Grinevald Craig's types of language death?

Change into a different language may happen through internal change or language contact. This can even affect very big, powerful languages such as Latin. Yet internal change is not enough for a language to actually die. A language dies either if all speakers die (Sudden death) or if all of its speakers shift to another language (Gradual death) until the original language is forgotten, its remains sometimes integrated into the language towards which the shift happened. This means that gradual death is inherently a result of language contact, for there has to be a language towards which the community shifts. Whether the outcome of language contact is death of one of the languages in contact, or mere language change, depends on the size, prestige, and dominance of the respective languages as outlined in the post about Guy's article. Sudden death may be through disease, famine, natural disaster or genocide. Some form of language contact may happen in the latter, but with a very abrupt ending. There may not be enough time for the language contact to result in shift or borrowings, nor perhaps the will.