 |
|
Ulster Scots: Realities and Myths
by John M Kirk
Model for Language Status
In an internationally long-serving four-criteria typology of national multi-lingualism (Stewart 1968) and applied to Scots by Aitken (1981), Ulster Scots qualifies as only a 'dialect' because it has only two of the four possible criteria. It possesses only 'historicity' (with the earlier Scots language) and 'vitality' (because it is still spoken as a dialect); it lacks 'standardisation' (the conventions of a written form) and 'autonomy' (which, in this case, specifically refers to the ability to develop in ways not shared by standard English and to be immune to changes in standard English). Whereas some effort towards 'standardisation' and 'autonomy' is, of course, being attempted by the revivalist and neologising efforts of the Ulster-Scots Language Society, it is likely that these creative acts of word formation (e.g. the revival of the obsolete word sennicht for a 'week', or the invention of the hybrid word simmit-sark for a 't-shirt') will only be adopted into active currency if sufficient present-day speakers do so. The more Ulster Scots is planned and designed, the more it becomes, in Stewart's typology, an 'artificial' variety, a tongue that nobody spoke4.
If the stakes for Ulster Scots are down, an enhanced status, it seems, is
possible but likely only achievable through politics. Since Ulster Scots
was never a language, and is not spoken province-wide, it would require
nothing short of the clout of political independence (as happened for Scots
at an earlier period) as well as the will of the people thereafter for Ulster
Scots to be chosen as the province's language, in an assertion of identity
that, presumably, would be neither English, nor Irish, nor indeed Scottish,
as such an Ulster Scots language would actually be as never before: 'New
Ulster Scots'. It is conceivable that, perhaps, the ultimate goal of the
revivalist movement is political independence for the Scots community in
Ulster. No matter how successful the language planning for such a political
situation might be, it remains doubtful whether such a New Ulster Scots
would enjoy the support of the majority of people even in an independent
Northern Ireland state. If the majority of people so wished an Ulster Scots
language, extension of purpose, elevation of status, widening of the range
of communicative and performative purposes, and maintenance and reinforcement
of divergence could certainly follow in principle, and, besides, there would
likely be fewer impediments in practice. Even then, however, how many would
be prepared to sacrifice the global resources and utilitarianism of English,
particularly at a time when European countries are increasingly elevating
English to the first language of trade, commerce and industry and when,
in the European Union, to match the common currency, English is the obvious
front runner as a candidate for a single language? No doubt, English would
remain a communicative option, as it does with Irish Gaelic in the Republic
of Ireland, but wouldn't Ulster Scots be redundant? If Ulster Scots were
preferred, its use would certainly imply a challenge to English. |
|
Return
to Essay
|
