Evaluation of the languages in the Master

Now that I have finished the Master (Learning and Communication in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts), and the experience has already started greying out in my mind, it seems like the right time - or the last possible time at least - to write a blog post I had been intending to write, evaluating how I experienced it. Particularly I would like to evaluate some of the practical elements of how the multilingualism so proudly announced in the Master's name and on its website, actually plays out in and around the classroom and the student residences.

Entrance requirements
The Master is trilingual in English, French and German, and when I applied it was specified that you have to have C1 level English and B2 in at least one of the other two languages. Classes are taught in one or more of the three languages, and most of the staff is at least bilingual as well. It was also stated, however, that the degree is not a language learning course, although it included some language classes in the programme.

One of the first points to make here is about those specific language requirements. Because of the way English proficiency is obligatory, but aside from that you can choose either French or German, English is already effectively the lingua franca before the course has even started; through this requirement it is assured that English will be the language everyone has in common.

Teaching multilingually
The way that the classes worked is they were mostly taught in two out of the three languages, usually either French and English or German and English. There were also some ambitious teachers who taught in all three. I think the teachers were explicitly encouraged to make their classes multilingual. The actual balance between the languages differed per class, depending mainly on the teacher's choice of strategy but also on the students' input.

There were for instance teachers who tried switching between the languages while lecturing (the ones really dedicated to the multilingual ideal); teachers who mostly lectured in english but who presented case studies in other languages, with or without paraphrase; and teachers who mostly taught in French or in German but who might occasionally switch to English to accommodate student questions. Often the first class of a course would be more multilingual than the last one, as the teacher realises some of the students cannot follow the class well because their German or French comprehension skills are lacking, or because the students keep asking questions and discussing in English, so that the teacher starts to accommodate. That said I also had classes where students would make a genuine effort to make contributions in the class language, sometimes going so far as to speak it amongst ourselves. I had a few classmates and friends with whom I'd speak German, even though it was neither of our first language - I'm thinking of girls from Romania, Slovakia and China respectively (hi!).

I generally tried to pick classes in all three of the languages every semester, so choosing classes not just based on what I found most interesting, but also making sure I'd have at least a bit of French input. My French comprehension really isn't at an academic level though, as I found out while sitting through lecture after lecture in fast French. I eventually zone out, however hard I am trying to pay attention. If I do my best I will get a sense of what the teacher is saying, but I can't follow the specifics unless they talk slowly and give me some time to let it sink in or look up some words after every line. Powerpoints can help, but they can be distracting too, as you are trying to translate the info on the slides while also trying to follow what the teacher is saying. Somehow, with some teamwork and some bluffing, I did manage to get alright grades for these classes, but I haven't retained very much of what they were actually talking about.

The course as a language learning environment
That brings me onto the next topic, namely that the course wasn't intended to be a language learning course, but rather a multilingual way to deliver a humanities research course. The experience of multilingualism was part of the experience the course directors aimed for us to have, but greater fluency wasn't one of the outcomes on which students were evaluated. Yet almost everyone who chose to do the course, did so hoping to improve their language skills. At the start of the course, some intensive language classes were offered at beginner and intermediate level. I took French intermediate, so my 3rd language of the three course languages. I think people generally chose to do these courses in the course language that they were weakest in. The course I did was fun and it helped me to figure out some French past tenses and the like. In two weeks you are not going to reach fluency and I don't think that was the hope of the course designers. I know that some other students got quite annoyed with their beginner language courses, either because they found German too hard or because they didn't get along with the teacher. The intensive language courses were fairly separate from the rest of the degree and were not explicitly followed up on in the rest of the courses, which might be a tip, to integrate them more through e.g. reflection on how much you can learn in this way, which methods seemed to be most productive and so on.
 
The way the assignments worked is you were allowed to write them in any of the languages that the teacher felt confident marking in - so normally the stated course languages, but I suppose if you had another language in common with the teacher you could write it in that. (I never tried this but I seem to recall that the Luxembourgish students wrote something in Luxembourgish.)

Now, writing an assignment for university is hard in any language. Mostly every sentence costs a lot of thought and effort. You need to make sure your argument makes perfect sense, your explanations are well-written and sensible, your sources are quoted in relevant ways. But there is a lot of time pressure and you're also working on a few other assignments. Little surprise, then, that students do not venture to write in languages that they aren't very confident in. My German is at a fairly high level - I used to talk to my boss in German, I can maintain a long and nuanced conversation, albeit with some wrong inflections, I know words like ausbilden and eintrichteren and I know you can call money Mäuse. But academic writing is absolutely a skill apart. The teachers are aware that it is, and the course does offer classes in academic writing in French, German and English. I took the German one and enjoyed it, but it was a bit intimidating that I was doing the same assignments as the native speakers who were in the class with me (why they didn't take the French class instead is beyond me).

I think that the course could have developed its facilities for the students to develop their languages more, importantly by explicitly rewarding students for writing an assignment in another language. I suggested this to the course coordinators and they felt it would be hard to enforce this - as it would mean differentiating between a German native speaker writing in German, and a Greek person writing in German; or even between a Greek person who has lived in Germany before and a Greek person who hasn't; the implementation would be either quite subjective, or very complicated.

Timeline of Luxembourgish history and policies on Luxembourgish

...taking into account, of course, that these are only snapshots of a dynamic and changing social context, in which overall historical developments weigh heavier than the policies reflecting them. Nevertheless, a summary of main events.

Let's start with the history up until the fall of Napoleon. The following is all scraped together from Wikipedia and I promise it won't appear in any sort of final project. Frankly, all Wikipedia pages I read have made different selections of events. It seems a fair summary to say Luxembourg passed through a lot of noble hands from different origins: the Bourbons, Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns and the French. From this information you can't really tell how the everyday life of people in Luxembourg was affected, though.

963 Count Siegfried acquires the region and builds the first fortifications of what is now the Casemates.
1345 Luxembourg becomes a Duchy. ("The House of Luxemburg ... became one of the most important political forces in the 14th century, contending with the House of Habsburg for supremacy in Central Europe")
1411 Some dick (Sigismund of Luxembourg) loses Luxembourg because he defaulted on a loan
1451 Luxembourg is further sold on and eventually declared part of the Burgundian Netherlands
1547 and now it's part of the Habsburg Netherlands
At this time, as before and after, Luxembourg was pretty catholic; there were few Calvinists and so they had no problems with iconoclasm. During the 80 years war (1568-1648), they (whoever they is in this case) supported the Spanish king.
1648 Now it's part of the Spanish Netherlands, also known as Southern Netherlands
1684 Invasion by Louis XIV of France during the Nine Years' War of the Grand Alliance.
1697 Treaty of Ryswick - Luxembourg given back to Habsburgers.
1714 End of the Spanish War of Succession (after the last Spanish king died childless). Now Luxembourg becomes part of the Austrian Netherlands (I never knew that there were so many Netherlands through the course of history. Wikipedia notes: Luxembourg wasn't connected to the other Netherlands (Liège sat in between) and so Luxembourg "had a sense of own identity and was turned inwards".)
1795 French rule ("Forêts") because of the Napoleonic wars
1815 Congress of Vienna - Luxembourg gets formal independence and status as a Grand Duchy. Yet it's not really de facto independent because they also gave it to king Willem I of the Netherlands and it's also in the German Confederation.

Now we move on to the more language focused part of the timeline, based mainly on Horner & Weber (2013) but also on some things we heard in class.

1839 Independence of Luxembourg
18.. Law on education
1912 Werner/Engelmann develop an ortography for Luxembourgish that is largely based on German spelling
1914-18 WWI
1940-45 WWII. The Nazis oppress Luxembourgish because it is a "dialect" and enforce Hochdeutsch only. They hold a threefold referendum on Luxembourgish language and identity to which the Luxembourgish protest by voting dräimol Nee!
As a backlash to the Nazi policies, Luxembourgish language-nationalism inflares and French language gains in prestige considerably. German language loses a lot of status for a number of decades.
1948 Ortography that is as differentiated from German spelling as possible and based purely on phonetic principles
1950s-70s Luxembourgish steel industry creates need for a lot of additional labour. Guest workers are brought in from mainly Portugal and Italy, bringing their languages with them. French is closer to Portuguese and Italian than German is. This means that the children of the guest workers later struggle in schools, where teaching is traditionally first in Luxembourgish and German before it switches to French around age 12. It may also (over the next few decades) contribute to an increase of prestige for Luxembourgish as a marker of nativeness.
1984 Language law
1999 CPLL spelling reform
2001 New law on applications for naturalisation stipulate a test of Luxembourgish proficiency for those who want to acquire citizenship

------

For more on this, a book I can recommend is Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts: Policies, communities and schools in Luxembourg, by Kathryn Anne Davis, written in 1994. Here it is on Google Books.

Munich master courses

 Studenten am TUM Asia in Singapur. Source: Focus.de

Topical: the Technical University of München plans to swap to English for all its Master courses by 2020. I couldn't find much about it on their website though, maybe they want to keep it on the down-low after the negative publicity? Alternatively, maybe they just don't publish plans and visions on their news page.

If true this is a good example of the progress towards English as a world language, and equally of protest against it doing such. I do not think that English will replace the languages that people in Europe learn as children: even if all courses in German universities are taught in English, German will still remain the mother tongue. However, there is a real move towards English as the new Latin, as the language of all scientific publications. This seems to show that despite the pride of languages for the rights of which people fought one, two centuries ago, there is also simply a need for a language which everyone can communicate in easily.

I do not agree with the university's decision. I understand the need for good ability in English, but simultaneously there needs to be good backing to show that German students who are taught in English, in Germany, will still reach enough fluency that their learning of the subject at hand is not impeded, and that they will still reach enough fluency that they can write good-quality academic articles which can compete internationally (it is really hard to get to a level where you can't just write, but actually write well). Moreover, whether or not the English competency of the students at this university would be perfect, the German language will still be irreparably harmed. If a register is not practised, it dies. If people stop talking about a certain kind of chemical technology in German, the German terms for this technology are eventually forgotten and, more importantly, words for new developments within the technology are no longer created in the German language. This is very hard to reverse, as testified in the writings on language revival on this blog. (I would like to write a blog post sometime about the inkhorn revolution, where the English vocabulary was drastically extended to make it fit for use at universities. The one thing I never quite understood yet is what triggered them doing that.)

It could be a good alternative to encourage students EU-wide to study abroad, to gain experience with speaking different languages such as English and working in multilingual environments. Also, language courses should be strongly promoted if not an obligatory part of the course.

Great Service from the Customar Service

From the collection "Intimacy Under the Wires" by Sivan Askayo, taken from Ignant.de

I have compared the first page of the translation to Ulster Scots of the "Customer Service Standards2007-2008" of the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) to the original (English) version. From my analysis it is clear that this translation does not follow the "strategy for Ullans" which Kirk has recorded after reading the DARD “Hannlin Rede 2010-2011”. This strategy consists of the following steps:

·     Avoid French- or Latin-derived vocabulary

·     Avoid abstractions lexically and at every other level

·     Avoid mass nouns

·     Maximise dynamic actions or activities

·     Use lexical obsolence

·     Use dialectisms, including any Ulsterisms

·     Maximise synonyms or alternatives

·     Maximise use of alternative syntax

·     Maximise respellings (use eye dialect)

(Kirk 2013: 295)

In the DEL “Customar Service Staunarts” French- and Latin-derived vocabulary is not avoided, as the title already shows. Within the excerpt we find among others: depairtment, qualitie, pairticular, access and formats.

The “Hannlin Rede” explicitly sets out the vision (spaesicht) of the DARD, while the “Customar Service Staunarts” talk about specific rules and measures for the treatment of DEL customers. The “Hannlin Rede” is therefore on the whole a level of abstraction higher than the “Staunarts”, which is reflected in the language use by fewer abstract references or mass nouns. This makes it a bit hard to compare, but overall it seems like abstraction is not avoided in the DEL translation. The abstraction employment is translated to employ. Employ is only listed as a verb ("to make use of") in the Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL), indicating it may be a recent coinage, possibly modeled on the French emploi. It bears the same degree of abstraction as employment. The abstract terms service and commitment  have been left untranslated.

The translation cannot be said to maximise dynamic actions or activities. Some changes are more and others less dynamic. Expect ("the standards of service that you can expect from us") has been replaced with leukan tae get. Expect in this sentence implies "regard as likely to happen", which is a passive thing to do. Leukan tae get implies much more activity and it is also a change of tone towards the more colloquial. At the other hand tells you about has been replaced with gies you wittins anent, which is more formal and more abstract. Because "giving information" is more abstract than "telling about" it is also less dynamic.

Alternative words and synonyms have not been maximised in this excerpt; such words as business, programs and customar could have been replaced, but have not. One could even ask if it is always justified to leave the original word; for instance for customar the only result in the DSL is "An official having charge of the customs; a customs officer." However if a word with the meaning of the English customer did not yet exist in Ulster-Scots, it seems fair enough to borrow that meaning into the language as it is less obfuscatory than the periphrasis tha yins we'r fennin/dalin wi (DARD 2010: 1).

There are some notable syntax changes. In two instances superlatives are created through adding -maist as a suffix. This is not mentioned in Robinson's grammar guide (1997), however it is mentioned in an online Scots language course: "In words of two or more syllables the comparative is formed by prefixing mair, and the superlative is formed by suffixing maist." (Eagle 2001: Adjectives). 

In some subordinate clauses the finite verb is left out: An us no aible for tae dae it, we will gie an expoun. Verbless subordinate clauses are indeed a common feature of Scots, although  Robinson (1997: 111) suggests they are normally used to express surprise or indignation, which is not the case here.

There is one instance of a verbal concord in the excerpt: Some airts o our business haes customers staunarts relate to aefauld programs. There is also one instance of the form bes of the verb 'to be': We will mak sicar our facilities bes redd up, bien an open. Robinson (1997: 149) indicates that the verb form bes can be used to indicate a "'habitual' or ongoing condition". This means that its use here is appropriate.

Alternative spellings are used, but not maximised; a lot of words are left the same as in the English version. Where respellings are used they are consistent and usually they have precedents in Scots or Ulster Scots literature. Examples are prent/prentit, appyntment (precedent: appeynt, DSL), Inglis. Depairtment is cited in the DSL with several precedents starting in 1985, suggesting that it is an innovation from the current wave of language revival. Caars is a logical, if slightly confusing, adaption of caa which is a precedented way of spelling the cognate of "call" in Ulster Scots, seen for instance in Philip Robinson's poetry. The spelling -fu for the suffix as in helpfu is widely used in Ulster Scots, respelled to reflect distinct pronunciation (See for instance "mournful" in Fenton 2006: 250). Some alternative spellings that have been used in other Ulster Scots texts have note; for instance for is used here, whereas the Hannlin Rede uses fur and service is used whereas the Euraip Chairtèr fur Kintra-pairt ur Unnèr-Docht Leids uses sarvice (DFP 2005: 16).

So, what strategy does the DEL document use? The text can be seen in the context of Jean Ure's explanation of how new registers are developed (see chapter 2). As said, to develop new registers either contemporary registers may be drawn upon and extended; where forms from an earlier period are preserved these provide patterns that may be activated to suit new needs; and other languages may provide models on which new registers can be based. The DEL text employs a mix of these to create a new register in Ulster Scots. Colloquial Ulster Scots (caars, meenit, leukan tae get, helpfu) is mixed with medieval Scots conventions (qualitie, prent/prentit, Inglis, verbal concord), thus extending contemporary Ulster Scots registers and reactivating forms from an earlier period. The English-language original text is translated word for word and phrase for phrase into Ulster Scots, meaning that the conventions of the model register are maintained in the new register in Ulster Scots. The result is clearly Ulster Scots, yet it does not come off as de-intellectualised but rather as suitably formal for the text's purpose. Within the confines of the genre – Civil Service Ulster Scots – this is the best kind of translation one could have hoped for.

The Language Revival Efforts of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

 The Department's promotional image on their Rural Development page.

Now that we have a solid impression of Ulster-Scots poetry, it is time to move on to an analysis of a wholly different genre that has popped up in the last few decades: Civil Service Scots, or official translations from English-language government documents to Ulster-Scots.

1(a) Why was this text created?

The question of why official documents are translated into Ulster-Scots is an interesting one. Especially if the translations contain unprecendented spelling and neologisms that may make the text quite hard to understand to actual Ulster-Scots speakers, the translations appear as unnecessary money waste at best and actually harmful to the development of the language at worst. Gavin Falconer (2004: 68-70) argues that the "minor revolution in official translation" that is underway in Northern Ireland is a result of parity of esteem and human rights discourse gone wrong. He writes:

 "Some of the commissions received by us have been instigated by a single individual's decision to make an issue out of the fact that a document has been translated into one language without any equivalent translation into the other - a precarious basis both for a business and for language revival. Some of our lengthiest translations have been commissioned on the off-chance of such a complaint arising without any intention of publication."

It is not clear that this is the common treatment of translations of all government departments. The DARD states in their 2011 document Language Policy for Irish and Ulster Scots that translations will routinely and pro-actively be done of material if it is intended for wide usage; if it is of particular relevance to Irish and Ulster-Scots speakers, or if it will contribute to safeguarding and promoting the language. Information leaflets do not necessarily need to be printed in all languages, but should be made readily available digitally "when required". Furthermore "when requested", translations of other documents will be considered, "subject to cost and value for money considerations".

Rural cottage in Co. Tyrone, on filmlocations.co.uk

In a later article Falconer (2005: 57) suggests six criteria for what makes a good translation into Ulster Scots:

• Will readers be able to access the information in the text by drawing on a familiarity with traditional Ulster-Scots literature? 
• Since so many users, even of full Ulster Scots, are literate only in English, will readers be able to access the information in the text drawing on a familiarity with the ortographic practices of that language? 
• Is the spelling of the text logical and consistent?
• Is all the information in the English text given in the Scots translation?
• Are the translations used for individual terms consistent, including across different translations, or are they being coined on an ad hoc basis?
• Would a back translation into English produce something close to the original, in a comparable register and without excessive paraphrase?

Thocht-Polis, by Philip Robinson

  

Funny cow number 22, from FunnyPica.com

Full text of the poem: Thocht-Polis, by Philip Robinson.

1(a) Why was this text created?
  (b) What motivations does the author have for his style choices? (Extent of distinctive Scots vocabulary and grammatical aspects; neologisms and other innovative language use; spelling; distinctive form; imagery.)

Philip Robinson is well-known among modern-day Ulster-Scots enthousiasts, for his novels and poetry in the language and his position on various boards, societies and councils for Ulster-Scots (read more here), and importantly for the extensive Ulster-Scots grammar guide of his hand. As well as two published volumes of poetry he has three poetry weblogs, one for contemporary free-verse, one for humorous poems and one for poetry in traditional stanzas. The wide range of genres and styles suggests Robinson is consciously trying to expand the literary "reach" of the Ulster-Scots language.

He grew up in Boneybefore, which is not far from James Orr's native Ballycarry. His language use is similar to that of Orr, but with considerable differences in spelling and noticeable neologisms here and there. His own spelling is not consistent across or even within the poems.

"Thocht-Polis" is one of the poems in Alang tha Shore (published 2005), and it is also featured on his blog Mair rhymin Ulster-Scotch crack, the one with humourous poems, or as Robinson puts it "writ fur a bit o a lach". It brings opponents of the Ulster-Scots language on stage as "tha Flet-Earth Societie". To them everything is black or white, and hence they cannot understand the Ulster Scots, who fall between two traditions; they are "black and white" at the same time just like the Frisian cows.

Differences in spelling between Orr and Robinson's poems include such common words as the, I and they, spelled in that way by Orr. Robinson spells the article tha, the first person pronoun A and for they he variously uses the' (in "Whit ir the' at?" and "The' lach and rage"), they (in "Whuniver they thegither play", "They cannae thole" and "To bigger beece they turn't"). It isn't entirely clear what the distinction depends on, though most likely the' is the unemphasised version. The verse is written in iambic tetrameter, but the they spelling is variously used in the emphasised and unemphasised positions. The' however is only found in unemphasised positions. The spelling of the word what is not consistent either; in the online version of the poem it is spelt whit thrice and once whut. The version that was reprinted in Frank Ferguson's anthology of Ulster-Scots writing uses whit once, whut twice and once what. In other poems he uses quhit as a spelling too, e.g. in The Gaelic Archipelago.

Where Burns and Orr both use ca'  (for call) and a' (for all), Robinson uses caa and aa. He uses thocht while Orr spells this word thocht and roon where Orr uses roun'. Altogether Robinson uses a lot more spellings that mark the words as distinct from standard English. As said the discussed poems by Burns and Orr were both in relatively "thin" Scots. Yet the poem "Donegore Hill" by Orr which was in thicker Scots still contains the same spellings as "Death and Burial" does, it just contains more Scots words than the latter.

Why might Robinson be using more distinctive spelling? It may be just be an idiosyncratic thing; in an unstandardised language much is allowed. But the distinctiveness of his spelling choices seems to be in line with the general rule that the more suppressed a language group feels about their language use, the more they will try to emphasise the distinctiveness of their language. James Orr was writing before the education laws of the 1830s, with a nationalised corpus which enforced use of standard English in the classroom. These laws contributed a lot to the stigma against the Ulster-Scots language, as children were told from early on that their way of talking was wrong. Indeed Thocht-Polis is railing against the stigma on the language. In Tha Gaelic Archipelago, too, Robinson hints at the stigma in the lines "Ay. / Sorry - Yes. / We'r learnt we maun aye say YES."

The extent of distinctively Scots words in Thocht-Polis, as in ones that do not have a cognate word in English, is actually not that big. Gin is used, ocht, thole and blethers and the expression deil a haet. This is still more sistinctive language than used by other contemporary Ulster Scots poets. Charlie Reynolds in his poem Mae Mither's Tunge uses almost exclusively what John Kirk (2013: 283) terms "grammatical respellings" and "lexical respellings", or words which are part both of Ulster-Scots and English, but which are spelled to indicate the Ulster-Scots pronunciation:

Hae daen haes best tae change oor Tunge
Tae him its worth wus joost lake dung,
It wus English, English moarn til nicht
An oor ain mither tunge wus niver richt.

These poems seem to indicate that the distinctiveness of Ulster Scots from English has decreased considerably since the end of the 18th century, although the amount of distinctive spellings used has increased.


2 How successful was this text in reaching its audience?

Philip Robinson is well-known within the Ulster-Scots community for his efforts to promote the language. Outside of the community however he is hardly known at all. For instance, despite having published four novels and two volumes of poetry, Robinson does not at the time of writing have a page on Wikipedia, in English nor in Scots. Arguably though, his audience is those who are interested in Ulster Scots. A selection of his poetry, like Orr's, has been included in Frank Ferguson's anthology of Ulster-Scots writing.

Case studies: textual analysis

For the third and last chapter of the dissertation I'm going to analyse two sets of texts with plenty of help from secondary sources. The first set will be some poetry in Ulster Scots. I have not quite decided yet which poems exactly but I think I will read one or two Rhyming Weaver poems and a modern one, probably by James Fenton. The second set will be official translations of government documents into Ulster Scots. Dr John Kirk has written at least two articles with close readings of what he calls "Ullans" texts (with a somewhat unusual definition of "Ullans", namely that it is a constructed, inauthentic language based on Ulster Scots but not spoken by anyone). I'd like to discuss those articles and 're-read' the texts he analyses.

Where Ulster Scots poetry and literature belong to the few registers that have continued to be written throughout the history of the language, official translations of government documents into Ulster-Scots are a prime example of an attempt to forge a new register, or at least to write in a genre that the language has not since long been used for.

Still from a Shutterstock video of a researcher measuring an Eastern Spiny Softshell.

For all of the texts I will consider the following questions:

1(a) Why was this text created?
  (b) What motivations does the author have for his style choices? (Extent of distinctive Scots vocabulary and grammatical aspects; neologisms and other innovative language use; spelling; distinctive form; imagery.)
Analysis of individual texts may not be the most obvious choice for tracking language change; what can you really say about the language as a whole from its usage by some individuals? Indeed the results may not be generalised carelessly. Yet textual analysis does give an opportunity to take a closer look at the micro-dynamics of language use. Ulster Scots lends itself particularly well to this endeavour. As not much has been written or standardised, an author has to make choices about every aspect of a text including aspects that are very common-sense in the more dominant languages. The consideration of how "English" to make your text would be a tad absurd if you are writing in English. Through looking at the historical and political context of a text, its purpose, and what we know about the author, we may gain insight into why they made the choices that they made. This in turn will tell us something about what effect external factors can have upon language use.

Moreover, because not much has been written in Ulster Scots, every text that is written now may have a big impact upon the language and its speaker community. Not everyone who writes in English will have heard of Carol Ann Duffy, but it is likely that everyone who takes enough of an interest in Ulster Scots to be writing in it will know of James Fenton. The findings of textual analysis of Ulster Scots texts may therefore be reasonably fruitful in saying something about the direction of change in the language as a whole.

Still from a Shutterstock video of a woman looking through a microscope.

2 How successful was this text in reaching its audience?
Language innovations contained in the texts (innovative choices made by the authors) can have an impact on wider language use if many people look at them as an inspiring and/or authoritative source. Robert Burns'  work is a good example of a source that reached many people and inspired a good deal of them to try their own hand at writing in the Scots language. However there is a clear sentiment that if the language is "pushed too far" in a source it will alienate its speakers. Faced with a text written in a spelling they cannot read and archaic or uncommon words that they do not recognise, people may figure that they are not competent speakers of the language the text purports to be written in. A consideration of the success of a source is therefore necessary in asking what impact on the language as a whole it may have. To 'measure' the success, good indications of the work reaching a wide audience would be sales statistics, reviews, numbers of references or citations and reprints in collections and such. The reviews should also give a good impression of whether the work was positively or negatively received.

(Conclusion)
3(a) To what extent is the language used in the analysed sources a result of revival policy and efforts as described in c (is there anything you can say about that based on the findings)? 

  (b) What does this tell us about the result of language policy on the language as a whole?

Following the conclusions of chapter 1 and 2, we should see evidence both of language deterioration and influence of the language contact with English, and of language innovation to patch the gaps left by deterioration.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions about Ulster Scots

Here's a link to the DCAL FAQ on Irish and Ulster-Scots and the DCAL's position on language diversity. The first set of questions and answers are in English. If you scroll down it turns out that (unexpectedly) there is a whole set of Irish translations of the questions and answers (it would probably be better if they indicated this at the start of the page, but sure.) However there's no such section in Ulster Scots even though this is the government's official page to explain to minority language speakers how to contact the government if they're more comfortable in their own language. How should we interpret that - is it the government's admission that they don't actually think there is anyone who would read such a page? In any case I've found a rich source of information here on the government's official line, so I'll be reading and posting about that this week (tomorrow!)

Impact of language contact on language change

Argument 1: Individual bilingual speakers will transfer aspects from their one language into the other.

 Nancy Rourke: ASL at ease, 2011. Website.

What sort of forces cause language change? Summarise the article by Gregory R. Guy.

How does language change? Gregory R. Guy makes a distinction between three major types of causes. Firstly internal or spontaneous change, such as sound change, semantic broadening, narrowing or pejoration, coinages etc. This would happen even if the speaker community was entirely isolated from other languages.  The other two types both arise when the speaker community is not isolated, but is in contact with other language communities. In borrowing speakers of a given language (L1) import aspects of another language (L2) into their own. Imposition or interference entails that speakers of L1 inadvertently use rules and devices from L1 when speaking L2, thus affecting L2.

For both language contact causes there needs to be some degree of bilingualism of some percentage of the speaker community, here understood to mean that speakers speak at least a bit of more than one language, wether learned as a child or later on in life. In order to import words from another language one needs to have some sense of what they are used for in that language first.

Furthermore in contact situations, the relative size, dominance, prestige and degree of standardisation of the languages that are in contact have a lot of influence on the linguistic outcome. If one language has a much larger speaker community, the changes will take longer to filter through to each speaker, although a local variant can develop that shows a lot of influence from language contact in that locality. For a small community, language innovations can reach all speakers of the language more easily. Moreover the motivation for borrowing is often based on status. Therefore the direction of the borrowing will be mostly from the more prestigious language to the less prestigious one, e.g. from that spoken by the upper or ruling class to that spoken by lower and middle class people. Interference is usually not as conscious of a choice as borrowing, and therefore it is not status based. It occurs often in learning or shift situations, where one community has to adapt to the language of another, and where bilinguals are likely to be fluent in their native language but in the process of learning the language that the imposition happens to. However in cases of coexistence of two languages, or for balanced bilinguals, the interference can go both ways. Both languages will influence one another.

I am making a distinction between the dominance of a language and its prestige, dominance describing the status of the language in terms of being used for official purposes and spoken by people with more power. Prestige on the other hand is the "coolness" factor, which language is in fashion depending on current ideology. Often prestige and dominance go hand in hand, as with French in modern France, but social upheaval can lead to resistance against a dominant language and preference for another, which then gains prestige. Such would have been the case in Norway during the rise of Nynorsk, by way of protest against the Danish influence.

The degree of  standardisation of a language is important because a language for which there are authoritative reference guides for word meanings, spelling, grammar and pronunciation will be much less inclined to change.


How is the situation of Ulster Scots in Guy's terms?

Ulster Scots coexists in Northern Ireland mainly with English and also with Irish, although the communities that speak Ulster Scots and the ones that speak Irish can be expected to be fairly segregated, i.e. bilingual Ulster Scots and Irish speakers will be rare. There is a coexistence situation, that is, Ulster Scots has been spoken alongside of English for centuries and speakers are not coerced to shift. Yet English is clearly the more sizable and dominant of the languages, being spoken worldwide by about 340 million speakers as a native language and another 430 as a second language (Ethnologue: English). According to the Ethnologue there are 90,000 speakers of Scots in the United Kingdom and 10,000 in Ireland (Donegal), and there is no separate entry for Ulster Scots. Both in Ulster and in Scotland the language has been relegated entirely to the informal sphere, whereas English is used for education and all official purposes. Sheila Douglas writes: "Many Scots people are still half-stifled by a social environment that frowns on the use of Scots for anything more important than casual conversation." Of the people in the communities that speak Scots or Ulster Scots, 97% speak English as well (Ethnologue: Scots) which makes them bilingual speakers.

Due to the revivals of the past centuries Scots and Ulster Scots are gaining in prestige again. Children who speak the language in the playground would now not be beaten, although they might still be corrected. Ulster Scots has benefited from the Good Friday Agreement with considerable funding and some governmental endorsement, and it has been promoted as a marker of a distinct identity.


What can we, therefore, expect to find with regards to language change in Ulster Scots?

Since the speaker community of Ulster Scots consists mostly of balanced bilinguals who use Ulster Scots for informal registers (provided the other speaker understands it) and English for more formal ones, it can be expected that there will be a lot of cross-influence from Ulster Scots on the local variety of English and from English on Ulster Scots.  Due to the great intensity of the language contact this influence can be expected to be quite far-reaching, affecting all aspects of Ulster Scots i.e. phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon etc. The influence on English as a whole will be small because of English' giant speaker base, and its high degree of standardisation will mean that the local influence is limited to less formal registers as the standard variety is preferred for the more formal ones.

It may be hard to tell apart the effects of borrowing and intereference. Because the speakers are such balanced bilinguals (fluent in both languages) no useful distinction can be made between their L1 and their L2. The only distinction that is then left between borrowing and interference is whether the innovator made a conscious choice to use a certain aspect from the one language in the other, or whether it was a "mistake". Yet this may show variation on a case by case basis - the one's mistake may be another's conscious choice.