Language, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland
by Aodan Mac Poilin
Minority language movements often give prominence to eccentric linguistic theories which would be ignored by more secure language communities. In the case of Ulster-Scots some of these eccentricities have been placed centre stage, partly for political reasons. Because the potential Ulster-Scots offers itself as a unionist equivalent to Irish, and because the only linguistic model available to unionists is Irish, some of its advocates feel that they must go into direct competition with Irish at all levels, including the level of its linguistic status. As a result, issues of spelling and grammar have acquired a distinct political tinge.
Unfortunately, it is much easier to make the case for the distinct linguistic status of Irish than for either Scots or Ulster-Scots. Even in the sixteenth century, the common origin of Scots and English was reflected in the fact that Scots was called 'Inglis' (= English) as often as it was called 'Scots'. Since that time, as has been noted, Scots has been in a process of converging again-in some cases almost merging-with English. Speakers of all varieties of Scots range from those who demonstrably speak English with a Scots flavour and those whose Scots diverges markedly from standard English. It is only at the further end of the spectrum that the case for Scots being a separate language can be sustained, but it must be acknowledged that even at this level of difference its status is still often questioned.
A. J. Aitken, former editor of The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, after studying this issue over a long period, ultimately came down firmly on both sides of the fence: '... if Scots is not now a full "language" it is something more than a mere "dialect". A distinguished German scholar once called it a Halbsprache-a semi-language'.26 In an earlier essay, memorably entitled, 'The Good Old Scots Tongue: Does Scots have an Identity?', he was rather less positive. He measured Scots against the widely-accepted typology devised by William Stewart in 1968 (standardisation, autonomy, historicity and vitality), and came to the conclusion that: '... Scots qualifies as no more than a Dialect and neither as a Standard or a Classical language', adding that: 'Equally, of course, there is no sense at all in which Scots could count as a national or an official language according to the terminology proposed in the 1951 UNESCO report on Vernacular Languages'.27
Much of this debate is now redundant. On 4th June 1998, the UK Government stated its intention to sign the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, specifying '... the Welsh language in Wales and ... the Gaelic language in Scotland ...', and '... the Irish language in Northern Ireland at an early date'.28 Interestingly, the reference to '... the Scots language' was not specific to any territory. On 8th March 1999, the UK Government published a Draft Statutory Instrument to enable the setting up of six cross-border Implementation Bodies, one of which was for language, and to include Irish and Ulster-Scots. Called 'Ullans'-the term used in the Belfast Agreement-Ulster-Scots was defined under the Order as: '... the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal'29 (emphasis added).
One of the criteria for deciding the linguistic status of a speech-form is whether or not it has been accepted as a language by the state. Swedish, Danish and the two standard varieties of Norwegian are regarded as being a single language, using strictly linguistic criteria. However, they are recognised as separate languages, because they have been designated as such by their governments.30 Scots is therefore, by government decree, a language, and Ulster-Scots is by government decree a variety of that language. It is notable that the first legislation relating to the linguistic status of Scots was formulated, in response to a political imperative, for Northern Ireland rather than Scotland.
Maximally differentiated Ulster-Scots
This development could be beneficial to the development of Ulster-Scots, as its advocates now need not feel that they must enter into direct-and unequal-competition with Irish on the issue of linguistic status. Previously, some enthusiasts appeared to believe that they could make their case only by using a maximally differentiated form of Ulster-Scots-a form as far removed as possible from standard English, and as incomprehensible as possible to English-speakers. Advocates of the position that Ulster-Scots is a different language to Scots suffered from the added complication of having to fight on two fronts. Maximally differentiated Scots, it should be added, except among a declining number of rural speakers, is essentially a phenomenon of the printed page and the public platform.
|
