The Scots language
I write as a private individual with a passion for the Scots language, the ancient state language of Scotland in pre-Union times and the language of writers from Dunbar and Lyndsay, through Burns, to Lochhead and Kelman today. My own knowledge of Scots was learned from my father and grandfather, and despite my "posh" mother and teachers' attempts to beat "that slang" out of me, I can and do still read and write in Scots. Sadly however I have lost the spoken idiom of my father. The decline of spoken Scots is a national tragedy, and it would be a disaster if Scots were only to survive as an arcane literary curio. One key to a Scots language revival lies with the IT sector and the media - which currently spends millions on Gaelic broadcasting services to only approx. 60 000 speakers. I know many more people who speak Scots or Urdu than Gaelic, and yet I cannot recall one second of publicly-subsidised broadcasting in those languages. I do not wish to belittle the beautiful Gaelic tongue, but it doesn't take a genius to see the inequities at play here. Media organisations and software developers should be encouraged to up the profile of the language and the creation of more Scots-friendly products and relevant content. For example, there is a Gaelic option in Microsoft Office, there are options for Urdu and all seven different dialects of the Scandinavian Sami language, but no option for Scots. Given that studies show around 1.5 million citizens still speaking some form of Scots, this situation is quite scandalous. If a threatened, non-indigenous community language was being officially neglected in the way that Scots has been, then rightly there would be a national outcry. There is currently a consultation by a Scottish Parliament working group to add a question on Scots to the 2011 Census in order to gain information on the state of the language.
Sent by: Colin
Comments
As an Irishman with a Scottish father I would say Scots should be an Offical Language of Scotland along with Scots Gaelic like English and Welsh in Wales.
David,
Scots has no grammatical rules or structure. English, Polish, Gaelic, Portuguese etc do.
Those are the facts. It's a nice dialect and I hope it survives.
I'm Argentine of Scots descent, have tried to lear gaidhlig, and have a smattering of Scots from my father. I try my best to transmit the little Scots I have to my children, and get them to hear gaidhlig in the bargain. But it is not an easy thing. Spanish is their first language, and teaching them English for me is a priority. English will be much more useful to them here.
The same reasons that led Scots immigrants in Argentina to drop their native Scots or gaidhlig and learn english are still here. You give your kids the languages that will give them the best chances.
If Scotland's govt cared abt her native languages, and relations with her diaspora, as other countries do, my task would be a little easier.
as things stand, i'll be glad if my kids end up speaking good english, and know that their greatgrandparents, spoke another language, and that they gave them up for economic reasons.
While languages are historically interesting, the main objective of modern language should be to improve spoken and written communications, which are bad enough even when we all speak the same language. I lived in central Scotland for 21 years and didn't notice a Scots language. There were plenty of Scottish words around an English base.
Ewan, I think defending Scots from persecution is quite justified. I don't care if you call it a language or a range of dialects. I bet Polish has a lot of words and grammar shared with Russian, Slovak and other European languages. Yet you spell it differently, pronounce it differently and have many of your own words and forms, and it defines a Polish community. The same is the case with Scots, which is descended from Anglo-Saxon - it shares a huge number of words and forms with related languages - particularly Frisian and Modern English, but also Dutch, German and Danish. To forcibly replace Scots with modern standard English is a tragic loss to Britain and Ireland. (By the way, did you notice that academic linguists don't really classify things into languages and dialects - to them they are just varieties and families - for example Geordie, standard American English and Scots are all varieties in the Anglo-Frisian family - it doesn't help much with language politics, does it?)
As with many languages which have a common base, Scots and English will be very similar in many cases. The same is also true of Spanish and Portugese. Languages will also develop. What is the Russian for Coca Cola ? If a language has enough difference to make it unique, as Scots does - anglified or not, it is a separate language and should be given a place. The place of Scots however, is not as an alternative to English, which is a world language. We are lucky to speak one of the main languages of 'business' as native speakers and should value and promote the advantages it gives us. Scots should be regarded as a language to be used as an equal to English when Scots coverse with Scots.
What people, even Scottish people, don't realise is that Scots really was a seperate language, and documents were actually written in Scots just four hundred years ago. People tend to think Scots is just dialectical, and because of that think that it should not be written down, because it is not 'proper' English. This attitude exists purely because this is what we are now taught. Scots used to be the official language of Scotland, and all official documents were written in Scots. The Scottish Parliament website has a function which can translate the page into Scots, and I think this is very positive. However, more needs to be done. School children should be encouraged to write and speak in Scots as well as English, instead of being taught it is wrong. Many great pieces of literature have been written in Scots; Trainspotting, Sunset Song, all of Robert Burns' work, and I think does a lot in proving that Scots is adequate enough to express the full range of emotions and thoughts that are required from a language.
I'm glad that the 'Scots' language programme has been made and view it with interest. It has certainly made me think. As someone born and bred in the Highlands (with grandparents from Barra, Caithness, Glenlivet and Poland) I don't really come from a 'Scots' speaking area - so my view may be polarised/parochial (as may the views of those promoting Scots language, it could equally be stated). I admire the 'Scots' movement in which I strongly believe (being a nationalist and patriot) because anything to do with Scottish identity should be promoted. I'm confused though as to the term 'language' when applied to Scots. I am not, by any means a linguist. I'm pretty much bilingual in English and Polish - with a smattering of Gaelic, learnt at childhood. I sincerely love the richness of the variation of dialect and accent in our country - which doesn't exist in (eg.) Poland to nearly the same extent. I suppose it depends what anyone defines as a 'language' - but a language to me has almost total content of exclusive words and distinct patterns and rules. Scots (to my limited knowledge) seems to have little rules and mainly English language content - with some 'Scots' dialect thrown in. I don't mean to offend anyone by this and may well be wrong. But I just can't see it as a language. Can it really be justified to call Scots a language rather than a wonderful dialect - which varies greatly within it's own country? I'm not sure... I sometimes wonder if there is justification to do so - although to see books with Scottish dialect in them is wonderful (eg. Irving Welsh). However, the idea of reverting books to old Scots seems ludicrous and against what I see as the 'Scots revolution'. It makes me wonder that if someone discovered a 'Rosetta Stone' to decipher how the Picts spoke, if those same folk would push for books to be written in Pictish! In fact didn't we all come from Ethiopia originally? Why not have books in Scotland written in Amharic? Maybe it's important - I don't know. Undoubtedly it's an emotive subject - and open to passionate debate. A great personal paradox to me is that I'm a proud 'Scot'/'Pict'/'Gael'/'Pole' but I really don't think that, in the long term, it makes any sense. Although a 'Scottish patriot' I know that I'm an internationalist at my core and that the only way forward for the world and mankind as a whole is for internationalism to grow. It makes me wonder, therefore, if the need to defend a dialect so much and classify it as a 'language' is one of our last struggles at identity in a shrinking world - as ever country is now suffering. Slainte/Cheers/Na Zdrowie/Lang may yer lum reek etc.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the enhancement of the status of Scots in our media and schools is one of the most effective ways of raising the national self-esteem? How much more tolerant we would become once we experienced that self-confidence and knowledge of ourselves and others which would allow us to shed both the "cringe" and the attendant OTT embarrassing patriotism that accompanies it. Gaelic and Scots must move forwards together. We need more Gaelic/Scots texts in which Scots takes the place of English.
Comment
Have your say
Send to a friend
© MMX
Colin, isn't the Scots language also more properly known as the Scots-English language?
The Scots language is undergoing a revival alright - in Ulster, not Scotland!
Who else is in agreement with me on this?
Flag this comment