Gaelic and Scots – why are they treated differently?

Nihtinen, A. (2005) Scotland’s linguistic past and present: paradoxes and consequences“, Studia Celtica Fennica, No. 2, pp. 118-137

Atina Nihtinen, a Finnish scholar, has written several papers on Scots based on the work she did in the mid-naughties for her thesis on the language of the Shetlands. This paper sets out the broader Scottish contexts, and it is a reminder of how useful it is sometimes to “see oursels as ithers see us”. She explores the widely diverging historic and current attitudes towards Gaelic and Scots, aiming perhaps to explain the differences in funding and status, which to an outsider (and many insiders) appear illogical if not downright bizarre. This is not to ding doon Gaelic; most active Scots speakers, sensitised to linguistic variety, seem to be quite fond of our ‘other national tongue’ and envy rather than begrudge the hugely disproportionate funding it attracts.

How did Gaelic achieve this fortunate position as the symbol of Scottish linguistic diversity while Scots, spoken by perhaps twenty-five times more Scottish inhabitants, remains the neglected stepchild, locked away the cellar?

Remember until the 16h century Scots was the language of state at a time when Gaelic, even then very much a declining minority tongue, was barely regarded as Scottish at all, considered even speakers as a dialect of Irish.

Nihtinen, drawing on the work of Horsborugh pins the blame on the Celtic romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries when the post-Culloden Gaels, now forever neutered as a threat to the British state could safely be romanticised. Celticism was developed as and remains today a safe, tourism-friendly largely depoliticised identity. Gaelic is well-funded because of not despite of being spoken by comparatively few people ‘far away’ from the centres of power. Why fund it at all? Funding Gaelic provides a tokenistic fig-leaf of Scottish linguistic diversity; overt linguistic oppression, went out of fashion soon after Welsh activists started burning holiday homes.

Which brings us to Scots. Scots is everything that Gaelic is not; widely spoken by voters all over the lowlands, easy-to-learn, and a far stronger indicator of Scottish identity than Gaelic, wonderful tongue that it remains, ever can be. This makes Scots a political hot-tattie, not because there is a language question per se in the sense of linguistic demands, but that the British state fears that increased Scots awareness leads to an increased sense of Scottishness and they can’t have that, for rather obvious reasons. Nihtinen points to various research showing their fears are maybe well-founded. This is why we have seen ever since the rise of modern nationalism increasing attempts to downgrade Scots, as we have seen regarded as separate Scottish language long before Gaelic as a ‘dialect’. The discourse of dialect is a political not a linguistic discourse but has become so successfully ‘normalised’ that even Scots activists habitually defend themselves  against this trumped-up charge. As evidence for this look 15 miles west of Scotland. In Northern Ireland the British state actually want Scots speakers to feel more ‘Ulster’ so Ullans, the dialect of Scots spoken there, is enormously well funded and seems to have been promoted to full language status.

Nihtinen’s paper is now a few years old but is still an excellent introduction to these bizarre paradoxes, hinting at rather than exposing (as I have started here) the political underpinnings of the Scottish ‘language question’.

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmmavocado/6682790417

Lowland Scotch

Isna the interwab no jist wunnerfu? Ye can noo buy for jist £22 a verra guid qualitie hairdback reprent o James Wilson’s 1915 ‘Lowland Scotch’.

Basit on interviews wi bodies fae the Pairthshire village of Dunnin (whaur a yaised tae bide, monie year syne), an prentit in 1915 it’s a carefu investigation o pre-WW1 ilkadey speech in thon airt: pronooncin, gremmar, wordleets, seyins, idioms, expressions etc. Fowk sey this wis the beuk that inspirit Hugh MacDiarmid to stairt screivin awa in Scots, an A’m no surpreesed. Wilson’s phonetic orthographie is a joy in itsel an aw!

Lowland Scotch: As Spoken in the Lower Strathearn District of Perthshire (1915)

~ James Wilson (author) More about this product


List Price: £23.21
Price: £22.83
You Save: £0.38 (2%)

Embedly Powered

via Amazon

F.U.D.

Wis awa at a conference in Belgium raicent-like an a speaker wis bletherin awa aboot the spreid o technologie in organisations.

A wis hauf in a dwam until he stairtit on aboot hoo we need tae owercome “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt”.

A luikit up an on his slide wis jist the muckle letters FUD.

As the ainlie Scot in the haa, a doot naebodie cud unnerstaun whit a wis sniggerin aboot.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFUD was first defined with its specific current meaning by Gene Amdahl the same year, 1975, after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: “FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products.”

Embedly Powered

Welcome to The Scots Haunbuik

The Scots Haunbuik aims to provide teaching and learning resources to help you speak and write modern Scots.  Scots is a close realtion to English and used in Lowland Scotland, Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands by an estimated 1.6 million people.

Scots is one of the three indigenous tongues of Scotland. Gaelic is a Celtic language spoken by about 80,000 people in the Western Highlands and Islands and Scottish English, spoken by nearly all of Scotland’s 5.1 million inhabitants, is the dominant medium of communication, education and commerce.

Over the last fifteen years, as interest in and recognition of Scots has grown, there has been a rapid growth of resources on the web and elsewhere. So far however there has been little to help native Scots brush up their own knowledge of this astonishing but little-understood language.

The site will focus on three aspects – speaking Scots, writing Scots and teaching/learning Scots. The aim is therefore educational rather than political but sadly even the modest aim of teaching our fascinating and fun language is sometimes seen as a provocative and political act.

If Scots is to survive in any form, people must learn about it and above all learn to use it. A language variety which is not used on a daily basis is effectively dead, even though it may have attractions as an esoteric hobby. Over the next few weeks three volumes of learners’ materials will be released, The Scots Learners’ Grammar, The Scots Learners’ Dictionary and a guide to Scots idioms.

Those who have read this far will notice that The Scots Handbuik has not so far answered the implied query Is Scots really a language? To some extent this is a non-question. Scots, however we chose to label it and whatever we think of it, is of significant importance historically, linguistically and culturally. It is the closest living relation to English and is the carrier of a key part of Scottish identity. In this sense the Scottish ‘soundscape’ is as essential as the Scottish urban and rural landscape.

Scots says much about who the Scots people are and where we came from. But where are we heading? Scots, in its eventual repression or renaissance, will tell us about that, too.