Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
to Endangered Languages
Language attitudes and ideologies are of key importance in assessing the chances of
success of revitalisation efforts for endangered languages. However, few book-length
studies relate attitudes to language policies, or address the changing attitudes of non-
speakers and the motivations of members of language movements.
Through a combination of ethnographic research and quantitative surveys, this book
presents an in-depth study of revitalisation efforts for indigenous languages in three small
islands round the British Isles. The author identifies and confronts key issues commonly
faced by practitioners and researchers working in small language communities with little
institutional support.
This book explores the complex relationship of ideologies, identity and language-
related beliefs and practices, and examines the implications of these factors for language
revitalisation measures. Essential reading for researchers interested in language
endangerment and revitalisation, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology and language
policy and planning, as well as language planners and campaigners.
JULIA SALLABANK is Senior Lecturer in Language Support and Revitalisation in the
Endangered Languages Academic Programme at the School of Oriental and African
Studies, London.
Attitudes to Endangered Languages
Julia Sallabank
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: http://www.cambridge.org/9781107030619
Julia Sallabank 2013
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
Notes
References
Index
Figures
1.1 Components of language policy (adapted from Spolsky 2009b)
2.1 Map showing the locations of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man
2.2 Map of the Channel Islands
6.1 States of Jersey public information website masthead from
www.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx
6.2 Examples of Manx signs
6.3 Isle of Man success story postcard
7.1 Sign on family support service window, Guernsey, 2009
7.2 Aims and domains of language planning for minority languages
Tables
2.1 Comparison of Guernesiais with other Romance languages
4.1 Literacy practices among traditional Guernesiais speakers
5.1 Overview of results of attitude statement questionnaire
5.2 Attitude progression among young people
Preface
Ever since I was very young I have been fascinated by the indigenous language of
Guernsey, in the Channel Islands between England and France. I consider Guernesiais to
be my heritage language because my mother comes from the island and my father spent
some of his formative years there; but none of my family will admit to speaking
Guernesiais, although I have experienced flashbacks to scenes from childhood when
hearing certain words. From an early age I was also aware that Guernesiais (and its
speakers) were regarded with both affection and ridicule. This fascination fuelled my
passion for languages and how they work and my interest in language attitudes and
ideologies, as well as my concern for linguistic diversity and celebration of
multilingualism.
I mention this autobiographical background because researcher stance is still a hot
topic in linguistics, which as a discipline could be said to lag behind social science and
anthropology in discussion of research methods, positionality, epistemology and their
implications. This book is a sociolinguistic study of peoples reactions to perceived
changes in language use, and such research can only be carried out with people; clinical
detachment will not get you very far.
I thus position myself as an insider with activist leanings, rather than as a
dispassionate external researcher. This involvement is reflected in the use of language in
the book itself: for example, it is the reason why I say in the islands rather than on
Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man.1 My background and my own feelings towards my
heritage language make me aware that subjective attachments to language (or the idea of
a language) are very real for some members of endangered language communities. I will
examine such issues in Chapters 1 and 2, but feel that I should declare the involved
nature of my research from the outset.
As I hope to demonstrate in Chapter 3, an insider perspective, and hopefully insights,
does not preclude a rigorous approach to research; nor does it prevent me from asking
questions which can at times seem difficult and unpopular.
This book is based on thirteen years of sociolinguistic study into Guernesiais, the
endangered indigenous vernacular of Guernsey, Channel Islands, and comparative
research into language policy in other Channel islands and the Isle of Man (see the map
in Figure 2.1). In the preface to their book Saving Languages, Grenoble and Whaley
(2006: ix) point out that because of differences in circumstances it is impossible to make
blanket statements about how language revitalisation should be carried out. That is not
the aim of this book either. I attempt instead to address what it means to save a
language, with particular reference to what it means to people involved and affected
in the specific contexts of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, by
reflecting on the findings in the light of theoretical concepts and frameworks such as
language ideologies, as well as findings elsewhere, I hope that the insights gained will be
of use to people involved and affected in language revitalisation efforts in other contexts
too.
Grenoble and Whaley state that an honest evaluation of most language revitalisation
efforts to date will show that they have failed (2006: ix). They do not state what
benchmark(s) they are using in this somewhat pessimistic assessment, but point out that
In this book each chapter is intended to contribute towards understanding what saving
a language means, informing the discussion in Chapter 7 of success and how it might
be measured. It is clear from experiences around the world that it is probably still rather
early to draw conclusions on success or failure; language revitalisation is still a young
field, and it could be argued that several generations are needed to gauge how well a
language is doing. However, it is possible to discern trends and anticipate some likely
outcomes.
Joshua Fishman (1991; 2001), one of the founders of the field of study of endangered
languages, emphasised that the most important point of reference in saving a language
is the family: Without intergenerational mother tongue transmission . . . no language
maintenance is possible. That which is not transmitted cannot be maintained (Fishman
1991: 113). However, as pointed out by Romaine (2006), the majority of language
campaigners and planners around the world seem to ignore Fishmans advice, focusing
instead on high-stakes spheres such as formal education and official status. Although
there is relatively little discussion of official status in the Channel Islands and Isle of
Man, formal lessons have been a major focus for people who want to save the
language. Why might this be? And why is there hardly any mention of attempting to
reinstate local languages into family life?
Language supporters often launch into activities without what Fishman calls prior
ideological clarification (Fishman 1991, 2001; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998;
Kroskrity 2009). This means, for example, that there is a tendency not to specify short-
and long-term goals (except in very vague terms such as saving the language), and to
avoid evaluating outcomes. In order to investigate motivations for language
revitalisation, as well as its outcomes, it is necessary to consider questions such as the
following:
Why is language revitalisation desirable?
Who is it for?
How do we go about it?
What is being preserved/revived?
What kind of language/culture is envisaged?
Is it effective?
And crucially, who has the authority to decide on such questions?
1.1 Introduction
In the last twenty to thirty years, there has been a significant increase in interest in
minority languages and the phenomena of language shift, endangerment and loss. Public
awareness and institutional support (e.g. from UNESCO or the European Union) have
burgeoned since the turn of the millennium, and popular science publications such as
Crystal (2000), Nettle and Romaine (2000) and Dalby (2002) drew public attention to the
imminent demise of between 50 per cent and 90 per cent of the languages currently
spoken in the world (the proportion cited depends on the source).
Of course, languages have developed, changed, grown and waned in importance, and
ceased being used throughout human history. However, it seems to have been only in the
late twentieth century that the loss of linguistic diversity became a cause for widespread
concern. On the one hand, such concern can be seen as a meme (prevalent idea) of late
modernity, which some relate to globalisation (Robertson 1992; Trudgill 2004; Costa
forthcoming b), and the reassertion of unique cultural identity in the face of what are
perceived as assimilationist trends (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 23). On the other hand,
linguists point to an unprecedented quantifiable decrease in the level of linguistic
diversity (e.g. Krauss 1992; Sutherland 2003) as varieties of major world languages such
as English take the place of a multiplicity of typological diversity among languages.
Indeed, it cannot be denied that there are many languages which are being spoken less
and less including those which are the focus of the case studies in this book.
As noted by Grenoble (2009), In this time, the issue of language endangerment has
engaged increasing numbers of not only anthropologists and linguists, but also members
of the general public, i.e. Western media consumers. A category which is conspicuously
absent from Grenobles list is the people belonging to speech communities that are in the
process of language shift or who are directly affected by it. As pointed out by Moore
(2007), Labov (2008) and Spolsky (forthcoming), all too often the focus in both
linguistic and popular writing is on languages rather than people (see below).
Yet people and their language practices are at the core of language endangerment and
its study: not only the most basic aspect, i.e. language choice and usage, but also their
reactions to language shift, including attempts to halt or reverse it. The term language
policy is often used to refer to such reactions, especially at governmental or group level,
although individuals and families also have language policies, albeit often not overt or
conscious ones (Spolsky 2004; Shohamy 2006). Individual and family practices may be
affected by top-down (official) policies intended to regulate or manage the ways in which
people speak, and thus language policy may be seen as cyclic: both affecting and
responding to language practices. Family practices are also highly likely to be affected by
folk linguistic language ideologies (Nieldzielski and Preston 2003; hIfearnin
forthcoming). Ideology, in its wider sense of deep-seated beliefs about language and how
it should be used, is a major influence on both policies and practices; this will be
discussed specifically in Chapters 3, 5 and 7, although it is related to virtually everything
in this book.
Much of the coverage of language endangerment, for both academic and general
audiences, has been uncritical, characterised by enthusiasm rather than reflection or
evidence-based discussion (Cameron 2007; Lpke and Storch 2013). Treatment of the
issue has also been fairly pessimistic in that it has focused largely on highlighting
language death and the threat to linguistic diversity (often in an alarmist fashion (Hill
2002)) rather than on the numerous language revitalisation movements that have arisen
during the same period.
This book focuses on responses to language endangerment, primarily in the area of
language planning and policy that is concerned with language maintenance and
revitalisation. It looks at examples of language-related activities in sociolinguistically
comparable small island polities around the British Isles the Channel Islands (between
Britain and France) and the Isle of Man (between England, Scotland and Ireland) and
relates them to theoretical issues regarding language policy and revitalisation. These
islands have roughly the same size and population, and similar sociolinguistic and
political status: all three are semi-autonomous polities with indigenous languages in
danger of disappearing. The book compares the contrasting ways in which language
policies have developed in response to the potential loss of the indigenous languages of
each island.
In the Channel Islands, the indigenous vernaculars (varieties of Norman, belonging to
the Ol language family of northern France) declined significantly in the twentieth
century and are now critically endangered (i.e. with a dwindling elderly population of
traditional speakers); however, attitudes in the two main islands, Jersey and Guernsey,
have become noticeably more positive in the last thirty years. In the Isle of Man the last
traditional speakers of Manx died in the 1970s, but since the 1980s there have been
sustained and concerted efforts to bring Manx back into use. In all three locations,
language is increasingly seen as a valuable marker of island distinctiveness, which has
led to a degree of government support, increased visibility in the linguistic landscape
and public rhetoric supporting the island languages and their symbolic value.
The book aims to address two fundamental issues in language policy:
Even in the same small community, diverse stakeholders may have different goals and
understandings of language and policy, and what it means to save a language, which
may not be stated but needs to be inferred from discourses and observations. This book
will examine examples of language-related activities and discourses, and will discuss
their rationale and outcomes and the extent to which language policy effectively supports
the maintenance and revitalisation of the endangered indigenous languages.
To say that a language is dead is like saying that a person is dead. It could be no
other way for languages have no existence without people . . . If you are the last
speaker of a language, your language viewed as a tool of communication is
already dead.
(2000: 12)
Many supporters of endangered languages dislike this finality, especially given the
relative success of efforts to revive dead languages in recent years: e.g. Cornish and
Manx in the British Isles, Miami, Mohegan and Mutsun in the United States, and Kaurna
in Australia, among others. Some feel that using the term language death may in itself
have a causative effect, hastening a languages demise. Campaigners for the Manx
language, for example, trace continuity via linguists and enthusiasts who learnt the
language from traditional native speakers in the 1950s, to a new language community of
highly proficient adult speakers who are bringing up new young native (neo-) speakers;
they are strongly critical of the use of the term language death in connection with Manx,
although the last traditional speaker died in 1974.5
Crystal (2000: 17, n. 31) defines language shift as the conventional term for the
gradual or sudden move from the use of one language to another (either by an individual
or a group). However, in the literature language shift tends to be used for the societal
process, with language loss or language attrition being used on an individual level
(Dorian 1980a; Hyltenstam and Obler 1989; Kouritzin 1999).
It is increasingly common for members of endangered language communities, or their
descendants, to want to start using languages again decades or even centuries after the
last [traditional] speakers (Broderick 1996; Amery 2001; Duffy 2002; Baldwin 2003;
Ager 2009; Zuckermann and Walsh 2011). Campaigners in Australia prefer to speak of
the awakening or regenesis of sleeping or silent languages instead of the revival
of dead or extinct ones, having demonstrated that even languages with relatively few
records remaining can be reconstituted (or reinvented). The term reclaiming is also used
to indicate that the process involves a form of decolonisation, especially where a
language has been prohibited or suppressed, as in the Basque Country (Urla 2012) or in
boarding schools in the United States and Australia. However, even attempts to reframe
such efforts in positive terms and to empower participants may be criticised, e.g. by
Leonard (2012), who claims that reclamation programmes evoke an essentialist notion
of culture whereby participants feel pressure to act, think or speak in certain ways,
particularly those that are deemed to be traditional. This point (which will be discussed
further in Chapter 5) has been raised by other writers in relation to the term reversing
language shift (RLS) introduced by Fishman, which he defines as assistance to speech
communities whose native languages are threatened (Fishman 1991: 1). This could be
interpreted as supporting or maintaining the current community of speakers rather than
developing potential speakers (Marquis and Sallabank 2013; see below). Although
Fishman denies that RLS is backward-looking, Romaine contrasts it with revitalisation,
which she characterises as not necessarily attempting to bring the language back to
former patterns of use but rather to bring it forward to new users and uses (2006: 464).
Some authors refer to this as renewal (Dunbar 2008), while Spolsky (2003) uses the term
regeneration for efforts which focus on widening domains rather than on traditional
domains of use, as in diglossic relationships. The term regeneration has been adopted by
language planning agencies in New Zealand, e.g. the Mori Language Commission,
which issued guidelines in 2007 stating that:
In this book I also follow predominant current usage in the distinction between
revitalisation and maintenance, as summarised by Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 13):
Marquis and I use the term language support as an overarching term for the support
(encouragement, assistance, funding) of any activities that promote the use of an
endangered language, including preservation and development (which are themselves
contested terms).
As mentioned in 1.3 below, some researchers and campaigners have linked language
diversity with the loss of biological diversity and thus with environmental campaigns.
Terms which have entered the field from sociology and environmental studies include
sustainability (King et al. 2008; see below) and resilience. Although there is a certain
amount of jumping on a bandwagon in the use of these terms, the concepts are of direct
relevance to language policies and will be discussed in Chapter 7.
1.2.5 Communities
As Whaley (2011) and Austin and I note (Austin and Sallabank forthcoming b),
documentary linguists often overuse the term community: partly as a form of shorthand,
but it is also often assumed that the community is monolithic. There is a tendency to
talk about the community as a single unit with agreed ideas, as in the language attitude
of the community itself (UNESCO 2003: 13). Costa (2013) characterises this regime of
truth as one that not only essentialises the link between language and community, but
also constructs communities as homogeneous and seeks to minimise internal and external
conflict. In my own research it has become clear that there are profound disagreements
within such communities about language, its status, domains, functions, policy and
about who has the authority or legitimacy to decide any of these. The potential pitfalls for
the nave external researcher are vast: it took me ten years to become aware of the extent
and complexity of community dynamics and their implications in a community with
which I felt relatively familiar.
When documentary linguists use the term community, or even speech community,
sometimes they mean a language community: people sharing a denotational code
(Silverstein 1996: 126) or a group of people who make use of a given lexicogrammatical
code (Jeff Good, personal communication, 18 September 2012): that is, people who
consider that they speak the same language.
Spolsky (1998: 24) explains that:
for general linguistics, a speech community is all the people who speak a single
language (like English or French or Amharic) and so share notions of what is same
or different in phonology or grammar . . . Sociolinguists, however, find it generally
more fruitful to focus on the language practices of a group of people who . . . share
not just a single language but a repertoire of languages or varieties. For the
sociolinguist, the speech community is a complex interlocking network of
communication whose members share knowledge about and attitudes toward the
language use patterns of others as well as themselves.
former speakers (who grew up speaking the language but have lost its use through
many years of disuse (e.g. Ainger 1995);
semi-speakers, rememberers and all the other categories of speaker catalogued
by Grinevald and Bert (2011);
all those who identify themselves ethnolinguistically with the language and what
it means to them: descendants of speakers, learners, teachers, language activists,
etc.
people who would like to claim an association with the language by learning it or
by supporting revitalisation efforts;
other members of the wider community who do not speak or identify with the
language in question, but who interact with speakers and are affected by policies
directed at the language (e.g. their taxes might fund the policy measures).
These last two categories may include language planners (especially in small islands
where politicians and civil servants are also community members) and might also include
external researchers.
In broad terms, in an endangered language community there is frequently a distinction
between members of the traditional speaker community, and new speakers (see 4.4) who
are generally second language speakers or reactivated latent speakers (see below), or
neo-speakers who learn a revived (form of) language as young children. Supporters or
new speakers do not necessarily have or claim an ethnic association with the traditional
language community. According to Adrian Cain, Manx Language Officer: As a speaker
and teacher of Manx Im always going to have more in common with someone who has
only been on the Island for sixth months, but who is learning the language, than an old
as the hills type who has no time for Manx Gaelic. Indeed, Im a firm believer that
anyone who wants to new to the Island or old as the hills can lay claim to the
dubious privilege of being called a Manxie: its an attitude of mind and not a birth right
after all.6
The terms traditional speaker and native speaker occur frequently in this book and are
often equated. As discussed by Marquis and Sallabank (2013), a native speaker is
interpreted as having been brought up in a home where the endangered language was
(one of) the language(s) of socialisation. In many cases, people assume that someone
with such a background will be a fluent speaker; but as I discuss in Sallabank (2010a), in
a language endangerment context, there are decreasing opportunities to use the heritage
language, and many people experience language attrition: decreased fluency, forgotten
vocabulary, simplified structures, reliance on formulaic language. They may not be
aware of this process due to lack of opportunities to stretch their language use: in our
language documentation sessions, Marquis and I have found that several speakers are not
as fluent as they thought, especially when asked to produce language outside their day-
to-day comfort zone. Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 166) also observe that in many
endangered language contexts native does not refer to fluency but to the language of
ones ancestors.
Traditional speakers can also be defined as people who acquired their heritage
language via natural intergenerational transmission, but at a time when the heritage
language was the everyday vernacular or primary medium of socialisation in their family
or immediate neighbourhood. This is an important distinction in the Isle of Man, where
there was a break in intergenerational transmission of some seventy years between the
last children to be brought up speaking Manx by native-speaker parents, and the current
language revitalisation movement; but there are now children learning Manx in the home
as neo-speakers. Traditional speakers may well not be literate in their language, whereas
new speakers may learn the language through formal lessons, including a literary
standard language (see Chapter 6).
Traditional speakers usage may contain more idioms and regional variation than that
of new speakers, and may be seen as more authentic or natural, or be thought to be purer
or to have fewer contact features from the dominant language(s). This is an ideological
viewpoint which is associated with traditionalists in Guernsey and linguistic purism
generally (see Chapter 5). People who consider themselves members of the traditional
speaker community may include some who claim membership by marriage or descent.
This book will not use certain terms which have specific meanings in linguistics but
which have negative connotations in everyday currency, and may even betray less than
respectful ideologies on the part of linguists towards their subjects. Language
obsolescence refers to loss of functions or expressiveness in a language: Gradual
reduction in use, due to domain-restriction, may result in the emergence of historically
inappropriate morphological and/or phonological forms together with extensive lexical
borrowing (Jones 1998a: 56). But because of its connotations of uselessness or
outdatedness, many activists dislike the term obsolescence. Similarly, apart from its
general meaning of about to die, in language endangerment terminology moribund
refers specifically to a language which has only a few elderly speakers who no longer use
the language for day-to-day communication (Krauss 1997). Like obsolescent,
moribund has negative connotations: my computers thesaurus provides synonyms such
as past its best, dilapidated, seen better days.
I will also avoid using semi-speaker, another term commonly used by linguists to
describe speakers with limited language knowledge but who . . . can interact
competently in most situations, possibly using minimal language forms but deploying
them in socio-culturally appropriate ways (Grinevald and Bert 2011: 50). A more
positive-sounding term used by Grinevald and Bert is rememberer, which evokes the
possibility that such speakers may regain or reacquire some partial active use of the
language (2011: 51), although this describes a lower level of proficiency. Basham and
Fathman (2008: 578) use the term latent speaker, an adult raised in an environment
where a heritage language is spoken who did not become a fluent speaker of that
language. From the point of view of potential sensitivities, this is preferable to
Williamsons (1991) passive speaker. Although, according to these definitions, a semi-
speaker may be more fluent than a latent speaker, semi- evokes the now-discredited
semilingual (Edelsky et al. 1983) which is now seen as untenable both scientifically and
pedagogically, and also as pejorative (Cummins and Swain 1983; Martin-Jones and
Romaine 1986; Baker 1999: 14).7
Many of the terms (e.g. death, moribund, revival, awakening) utilise the metaphor of
anthropomorphism, which is fairly common in the field of linguistics (e.g. language
families, genetically related languages, etc.). But as Denison (1977) points out, it is of
course not languages which live and die, but those who speak them. As I discuss in
Sallabank (2012a) and below, the attribution of agency to languages rather than to people
is one of the fallacies which may obscure the causes of language endangerment and
hinder effective policies in support of linguistic diversity.
In fact, some people would applaud language death and say that the reduction of the
worlds languages to just a few would make international communication much
more efficient. It is also true that manufacturing would be much more efficient if we
all wore the same style and the same size of dress apparel, but where would that
leave us in terms of the expression of individual and cultural identity?
Romaine challenges the conflation of language shift and death with the natural
processes of language change and evolution, for failing to distinguish change in general
from language shift and death (2008: 9). Romaines argument here assumes a clear-cut
distinction between languages, which as discussed in 1.2 has been challenged by
postmodern theorists. In the Channel Islands, it seems that some speakers and nominal
supporters of indigenous language maintenance covertly perceive the traditional
vernacular as inferior varieties of French, which until the early twentieth century was the
official language of education, religion and government (see Chapter 2). Even where this
is not the case, members of endangered language communities frequently equate
language change, especially under the influence of a dominant language, with language
decline and death (Aitchison 1981; Dressler 1982; Posner 1993; Dorian 1994c;
Hornberger and King 1996; Florey 2004; Hornsby 2005; Barrett 2008). This is also
pertinent to the case studies in this book (see also Marquis and Sallabank 2013,
forthcoming).
Romaine (2008: 9) also disputes the free market capitalism assumption that people
make a free choice to shift to another language. She notes that proponents of this view
downplay the power imbalances underlying such choices: Language death does not
happen in privileged communities; it happens to the dispossessed and disempowered
(ibid.). However, the contexts which this book focuses on are fairly privileged, Western
European societies, and members of the endangered language communities concerned
might well feel insulted if they heard themselves described as dispossessed and
disempowered. Less one-dimensional explanations for language shift, language
revitalisation, and the shifting attitudes and ideologies that accompany them, therefore
need to be examined.
Position (2), Document endangered languages, is the most frequent response from
academia, as well as from research funders. Numerous foundations dedicated to
preserving threatened languages through documentation have been set up.9 As of 2012
the latest addition is the Google-sponsored Endangered Languages Project, an online
collaborative effort to protect global linguistic diversity, which puts technology at the
service of the organizations and individuals working to confront the language
endangerment by documenting, preserving and teaching them.10 Part of this project aims
to identify existing endangered language documentation on YouTube . . . review videos
that are believed to include endangered language documentation and potentially reach
out to video owners to suggest better metadata practices and participation in the
Endangered Languages Project.11 As will be discussed in Chapter 3, there is an
increasing number of online videos in and about endangered languages, including from
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man; but as this project points out, posting online does
not preserve content long-term in the same way as archiving.
Romaine argues that positions (1) and (2) are similar in that documentation is
considered more neutral, less political and more scientific than engaging with possible
causes and remedies for language shift. Romaine (2008: 10) suggests that most linguists
would agree on the value of documenting endangered languages; yet as noted in 1.2,
even language documentation is considered radical in some strict theoretical
interpretations of the discipline of linguistics. Following Dorian (1993a), Romaine argues
that language documentation is no less a political act than any other intervention,
although numerous linguists are willing to undertake overtly political actions in support
of languages and their speakers.12 The role of the external linguist in language
documentation and revitalisation has been discussed extensively, focusing mainly on
research ethics and collaboration with communities (e.g. Ostler 1998; Hinton 2002;
Grinevald 2003; Newman 2003; Dobrin 2005, 2008; Rice 2009; Speas 2009; Grenoble
and Furbee 2010). In my own research, I have found that simply expressing interest in a
traditionally low-status language variety can contribute towards awareness-raising and
the (re)valorising of that variety, and thus to a general change in attitudes (and perhaps
policies and practices). The researcher thus becomes part of the phenomenon studied
(this will be discussed further in Chapter 3).
There is also a danger that linguists may be perceived as self-serving in their desire to
preserve linguistic diversity as a field of study. I was criticised for this (only partly in
jest) following an interview on BBC Radio Jersey in May 2009. I had previously been
interviewed by radio stations in the Channel Islands several times, but had never been
asked the question why bother saving this language? It seemed to be assumed that
support for language maintenance was normal, and with hindsight I had become lax in
not preparing possible answers to such questions. So I was caught wrong-footed and did
not want to emphasise links between language and identity, as I knew that many
islanders felt fully local without speaking the indigenous language (e.g. Skeet 2000): see
Chapter 5. This meant that I inadvertently gave the impression that a major reason for
saving endangered languages was to ensure jobs for linguists.
Nevertheless, the presumption of greater scientific objectivity is the reason why most
funding bodies provide funds only for language documentation and description, and not
for language revitalisation neither for the efforts themselves (e.g. producing language
teaching materials), nor for studies of the social processes involved. There is an ongoing
and unresolved tension between, on the one hand, the traditional priorities of linguists,
whose main concern is to preserve records of key languages before they become extinct
(from the NEH Documenting Endangered Languages website8), with the main
beneficiaries being descriptive linguistics, especially typology; and secondly, rhetoric
such as the aim to create a repository of resources for the linguistic, social science, and
the language communities (my emphasis), taken from the web page of the Endangered
Languages Documentation Programme,8 whose application form promotes an ethical
position to give something back to language communities. Both stop short of
Romaines position (3), Sustain/revitalise threatened languages, which is what an
increasing number of endangered language community members want (Grenoble 2009).
The production of educational materials for endangered languages is not usually
integrated into language documentation projects (Rice 2010; Mosel 2012); it is difficult
to obtain funding for materials without government support.
Position (3) does not always follow on naturally from (2), language documentation
(Sallabank 2012b). According to Sugita (2007), the main emphasis of endangered
language study remains on documenting linguistic structures by eliciting data through
interviews or storytelling of the oldest informants. Genres such as monologue narratives,
word lists and (sometimes) songs continue to dominate the types of material collected.
Sugita (2007) and Amery (2009) propose that documentation should also include natural
interactional data, language functions, idiomatic expressions and commonly occurring
speech formulas, as well as conversations about everyday life, especially in non-
traditional contexts particularly intergenerational interaction, including code-switching
and the language practices of the younger generation (assuming they speak the language
at all).
Language revitalisation efforts and language documentation often have divergent
goals and strategies. As noted by Kipp (2009), All you need for language revitalization
is a room and some adults speaking the language to some kids. Linguistic experts are not
necessary: You can be an excellent driver without knowing how your cars engine
works, you can be an excellent language teacher without knowing how to do linguistic
analysis (Speas 2009). Conversely, according to Gerdts (2010), linguists who are trained
mainly in phonology, morphology and syntax cannot help with the most crucial needs of
an endangered language (by which Gerdts means teaching). This is increasingly being
recognised, with calls for increased collaboration with both communities and other
specialists such as applied linguists (Christison and Hayes-Harb 2006; Cope 2012). But
community-based activists may not see the point in spending time on documentation
when action for revitalisation is urgent. They may also not welcome what they see as
outside interference: Communities want their language and culture back. They want
control of all aspects of education and research. They want autonomy. They want to do
the work themselves without help from foreign experts (Gerdts 1998).
Like colleagues, I have also heard responses such as that there is no need to document
a language while there are still fluent speakers. Yet if there is to be a record of the
language in use as a medium of communication, with as much as remains of its
idiomaticity and regional, age-related and idiolectal variation, this is the very time that
documentation needs to be done especially if fluent speakers might not be around much
longer. One of the current tenets of applied linguistics and lexicography is that language
teaching and reference materials need a basis in description, which entails the creation of
a corpus of language in use (although this is also an ideological position that some
members of speech communities disagree with, especially those who favour a more
purist approach).
In the Isle of Man, the forethought of policy-makers and linguists in the early and mid
twentieth century in documenting Manx in use was invaluable for the revival of Manx. In
the United States, Breath of Life workshops pair linguists with people from endangered
language communities who no longer have any fluent, first language speakers, in order to
teach them how to access and use archived material.13
Equally, maintaining a language in use extends the time available for documentation,
as well as increasing options in terms of policy-making and language planning (see 1.4).
Romaine (2008: 19) points out that when we lose sight of people and the communities
that sustain languages, it becomes easy to argue, as a number of critics have, that there is
no reason to preserve languages for their own sake.
Romaine (2008) emphasises the importance of an ecological approach to language
planning, that is, maintaining living languages in their linguistic ecologies (Mhlhusler
1992, 2000; Bastardas-Boada 2005; Calvet 2006; Grenoble 2011). The analogy of
ecology, first elaborated by Haugen (1972), was intended to illustrate and promote the
study of the interplay of varieties in their contexts (environments) as opposed to the
discrete study of separate languages. Ecolinguists vary as to how literally they take the
link between language and natural ecology. Haugen originally saw the ecosystem as a
metaphor, and Mackey warns of the dangers of the fallacy of dealing with language as
if it were an organism, emphasising that language is a form of human cultural behaviour
which has to be learned as a trait or skill identified with a group of people ([1980]
2001: 67).
Following Krauss (1992), many of the popular linguistics books mentioned in 1.1, as
well as websites, organisations such as UNESCO14 and Terralingua,15 and media
coverage of language endangerment, draw a parallel between linguistic
diversity/endangerment and biodiversity. However, like many of the arguments which
have been deemed expedient for raising awareness of the issue, this can be seen as
oversimplistic and in some ways inaccurate, and furthermore has been criticised for
avoiding some of the more political or unpalatable aspects and causes of linguistic
marginalisation (e.g. Cameron 2007). This will be explored further with regard to
position (4) below.
At its most radical, an ecological approach to language planning challenges the
traditional distinction between language and dialect (see 1.2) and also the typical
emphasis of language revitalisation on the need for standardisation, questioning the
validity of a single language concept for different ways of speaking (Mhlhusler 2000:
306). This foreshadows the current critical turn in linguistic anthropology which will be
discussed further with regard to (5) below.
Furthermore, it needs to be recognised that for minorities under pressure, their current
social, economic, linguistic, political and cultural ecologies are not necessarily healthy. It
is therefore necessary to look beyond preservation or maintenance towards creating
sustainable contexts in which people are able to make truly free language choices.
In addition to the three positions proposed by Romaine (2008), two further responses
to language endangerment can be identified:
The distinction between corpus planning and status planning was originally suggested
by Kloss and Verdoodt (1969). The original definition of status planning has since been
divided into three separate areas (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 2003), although it is
acknowledged that in practice none of the categories can be implemented without overlap
(e.g. Spolsky 2004; Fishman 2006).
Language-in-education or acquisition planning is the largest arena for language policy
and planning for endangered languages; as noted above, many language planners, both at
community and governmental levels, focus on schools first and foremost. It can include
medium of education, immersion, which languages are taught as school subjects, teacher
training, etc. But language acquisition planning can also be carried out in less formal and
more community-based ways, e.g. the master (or mentor)apprentice programmes
described by Hinton (1997) and Hinton, Vera and Steele (2002). Language acquisition
planning may be seen as involving both corpus planning and status planning, which
encompasses attempts to expand the domains in which a language is used, to secure
official recognition, etc.
The last but not least element of language planning is prestige planning. This term
was introduced by Haarmann (1984, 1990) to differentiate activities aimed at promoting
a positive view of a language from those concerned with political status or functions: not
only the content of planning activities is important but also the acceptance or rejection of
planning efforts (Haarmann 1990: 105). This stage is frequently omitted but is essential
for success: all too often measures omit to foster positive attitudes towards
multilingualism, linguistic diversity or a particular language (Fennell 1981; Dauenhauer
and Dauenhauer 1998). For example, Grenoble and Whaley (2006) argue that Soviet
language policy, while ostensibly supporting minority languages, led to Siberian peoples
becoming passive recipients of language planning rather than active participants, and
thus to lack of enthusiasm for revitalisation projects.
In internal language planning documents in the Isle of Man, Language Officer Adrian
Cain (personal communication, 15 November 2012) uses the Acquisition Status
Corpus framework, but adds a further dimension: planning for language use, which
includes developing the use of Manx in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Along
with other local initiatives, this will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Since the 1990s there has been a growth in interest in language policies which view
linguistic diversity as a good thing and which try to support minority and endangered
languages. Nekvapil (2006), Spolsky (2009a) and some others prefer to use the term
language management rather than language planning in order to demonstrate that these
more enlightened policies are different from old-style promotion of a monolingual
ideology. According to Nekvapil and Nekula (2006), Neustupn and Nekvapil (2003)
and Spolsky (2009a), Language Management Theory (LMT) represents an alternative to
language planning theories. Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) define language management as
metalinguistic activities (behaviour-toward-language (Neustupn and Nekvapil 2003))
that take place in actual everyday discourse (simple management), e.g. a self-correction
of a word form, or in organisations which aim to influence actual everyday discourse
(organised management), e.g. a language reform initiated by a government agency.
Simple management has an ad hoc character, while organised management is more
directed and systematic. Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) and Neustupn and Nekvapil
(2003) claim that LMT is well suited to the analysis of language planning at macro and
micro level. The ideal model of language planning activity is seen as a process, which
Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) describe as follows: the identification of a language problem
in individual interactions the adoption of measures by the particular language planning
institution the implementation of these measures in individual interactions. This might
look like a top-down model, but as Nekvapil and Nekula (2006: 311) emphasise:
Language management takes place within social networks of various scopes. It does
not occur only in various state organisations, with a scope of activities comprising
the whole society these were the major focus of the classical theory of language
planning but also in individual companies, schools, media, associations, families
as well as individual speakers in particular interactions. The theory of language
management therefore deals not only with the macro-social dimension, but also with
the micro-social one.
However, in this book I continue to use the term language planning because it is still
in common use and language management is not, as yet, so well recognised.
According to Spolsky (2004; 2009b), language policy has three components: language
practices, language beliefs and language management (see Figure 1.1). Language
management is one component of language policy, reflecting my distinction between
decisions and implementation.
Figure 1.1 Components of language policy (adapted from Spolsky 2009b; reproduced
with permission from Bernard Spolsky)
In Spolskys model of language policy in Figure 1.1, language practices are what
people do with language, including which languages are used, permitted or prohibited in
public (or even in private). Language beliefs are attitudes towards language or language
varieties, and which language(s) people think should be used, how they should be used
and in what circumstances; this includes perceived distinctions between language and
dialect, which is very much part of language policy. As will be discussed in Chapters 3
and 5, beliefs and attitudes are key elements in the successful implementation of
language policy; managing (or attempting to influence) beliefs thus becomes a vital
aspect. I have therefore added an extra step to Spolskys model: language management
feeds back into language beliefs. At this point a drawback becomes apparent in this
model, in that it is static; there is no indication how to move language policy forward.
The relationship between beliefs and practices (or behaviour) will be discussed in
Chapter 3. The next chapter, however, focuses more specifically on the background to
the case studies in this book.
2 Small islands on the periphery of Britain
At the same time, the islands and their populations have significant links to the UK: in
each island at least half of the population is of British origin, and for historical reasons
the British monarch serves as Head of State,1 although each island has an elected Chief
Minister and cabinet as well as Crown-appointed officials; the monarch is represented by
a Lieutenant-Governor. In many cases, the island governments simply copy legislation
passed by the UK government (sometimes modified to fit local circumstances). This is
sometimes justified by size, on the grounds that each island does not have the capacity to
develop its own stand-alone policies. However, ideological, cultural and economic links
to the UK also play a role in such decisions, for example, in relation to school curricula
(see below). Some informants have voiced concern that the traditional legal systems
(Norman customary law in the Channel Islands, Gaelic and Norse customary law in the
Isle of Man) are being altered by increased influence from the UK, as the islands
jealously guard their traditional rights.
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are also not members of the European Union
(EU),2 which has some implications for language policy and funding for minority
language development. Lsch (2000) sees attitudes towards the EU in the Channel
Islands as varying from enthusiastic vis--vis strengthening ties with Normandy (which
maintains a cultural centre in Jersey3), to negative, an expression of the historical
mistrust of France (Lsch 2000: 101). In all three islands, political and legal
independence from the UK and EU is highly valued and strongly defended.
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man each have their own [separate] parliaments with
law-making authority in their respective jurisdictions, and do not send representatives to
the British Parliament in Westminster (Ministry of Justice 2006).
The Isle of Man parliament, Tynwald, is divided into two branches: the House of Keys
(lower house, with twenty-four elected members or MHKs) and the Legislative Council,
whose eleven members are either indirectly elected or sit ex officio. Tynwald is claimed
to be of Norse origin and over 1,000 years old, and is thus the oldest parliament in the
world with an unbroken existence.4 On Tynwald Day, 5th June of each year, the
members of Tynwald process to Tynwald Hill, an artificial hill in St Johns in the centre
of the island which is one of the ancient open-air sites where the assemblies are reputed
to have met. Legislation which has been enacted during the past year is summarised in
Manx and English. Petitions for redress of grievance can also be presented by members
of the public. The ceremony is followed by a fair and traditional-style music and dancing.
This use of Manx in ceremonial legislature is unique in all three islands in this case
study. It is a significant driver of the development of new terminology in Manx by
Coonceil ny Gaelgey, the Manx Gaelic Advisory Council, a sub-committee of the Manx
Heritage Foundation which is responsible for the provision of authoritative Manx
versions of the titles of government departments, street names and the creation of new
words and phrases.5 Beyond ceremonial occasions such as Tynwald Day and an option
to take the new members Oath of Allegiance in Manx, and some place names, the Manx
language is not used in the parliament itself, and there is no provision for translation of
proceedings into and out of Manx. However, the Tynwald Companion, an official
publication intended to explain the workings of Tynwald,6 provides a list of terms and
expressions in Manx (with a pronunciation guide), which range from specific terms such
as
Ta mee shirrey kied ny Tah me shirra kid na I beg leave to ask the
feyshtyn y chur ta fo my fairshtun a hur tah fo Questions standing in
ennym mennum my name
The Channel Islands are situated in the Gulf of St Malo off Normandy in northern
France (see Figure 2.2). The Channel Islands do not together form a political unit, but are
divided into two Bailiwicks (i.e. a territory headed by a Bailiff; see below). The
Bailiwick of Jersey consists of the island of Jersey plus outlying islets and reefs, while
the Bailiwick of Guernsey includes (in order of size) Guernsey, Alderney, Sark,
Brecqhou, Herm, Jethou, and various small islets.
Figure 2.2 Map of the Channel Islands
The parliaments of Jersey and Guernsey are known as the States. Following reforms in
2004 in Guernsey and 2005 in Jersey, both Bailiwicks now have ministerial systems of
government presided over by a Chief Minister. The role of the Bailiff, which combines
the functions of president of both the legislative assembly and the judiciary, has changed
progressively to focus on judiciary functions, so that the parliamentary role has become
more ceremonial. Alderney and Sark have their own parliaments, though Alderney also
sends two representatives to the States of Guernsey.
The States of Jersey has fifty-one elected members: ten Senators (who are elected
island-wide), twelve Conntables (heads of parishes or administrative areas) and twenty-
nine Deputies, who each represent a parish or, in the case of larger parishes, an electoral
district within a parish; plus five unelected members who are non-voting executive
officials, including the Bailiff and the Lieutenant-Governor.7 At the time of writing
further options for constitutional reform were being debated which would reduce the
number of members of the States and alter voting districts.
The Guernsey legislature or States of Deliberation consists of forty-five Peoples
Deputies, elected every four years to represent multi- or single-member districts. Two
Crown-appointed officers also sit as non-voting members. Since the 2004 reforms parish
representatives (called Douzeniers in Guernsey) no longer sit in the States.
As some constitutional reform is instigated by the UK Government or European Court
of Human Rights, throughout the islands recorded histories it has prompted debate about
identity, rights and privilege, with modernisation, such as the introduction of an
executive, seen by some as entailing a whittling away of Norman customary law, an
important part of island identity, while others see the Guernsey consensus system of
government as slow and unwieldy. There is also periodic debate about seeking increased
independence, most recently in 2009 in Guernsey, but the prevailing view was that
relinquishing the status of Crown Dependency would make the islands less attractive to
financial institutions and therefore have adverse economic consequences.8
In the Channel Islands, the local languages have no official role or status, but French
has traditionally acted as the language of state (see 6.3); it was the working language of
both Bailiwicks States assemblies until the 1920s in Guernsey and the 1930s in Jersey.
Prayers are said in French at the start of a sitting. In Guernsey members of the States vote
verbally in French (vive voix) on legislation, calling out pour (for), contre (against), or Je
ne vote pas (I am not voting) to abstain. Any member can request an appel nominal
(recorded vote), in which members are asked individually for their vote. In Jersey voting
is now carried out either by standing up (members stand to signify their support or
opposition to a proposition), or by an electronic voting system which has taken the place
of the appel nominal. Members press a button to indicate p (for pour), c (for contre)
or a (abstain).9 The Isle of Man also uses electronic voting, and in recent years several
calls have been made for it to be introduced in Guernsey.10 In all three islands
parliaments, the official transcriptions of proceedings are now in English.
In Guernsey the first attempt to allow the use of English in the States was made in
1853, but was rejected by the jurats or senior judges.11 In nineteenth-century Guernsey
this public office was reserved for men who spoke French, but the English-speaking
population was growing, especially in the island capital, St Peter Port, where
Anglophones were rapidly becoming the majority. In 1898 the States resolved that
English should be permitted in debates. The introduction of English was associated with
modernisation and democratisation (Crossan 2007): it coincided with the principle of
direct representation of the electorate, which was incorporated into the electoral system
in 1899 (Marr 2001: 160). The local vernacular, Guernesiais, was never even considered.
One native speaker of Guernesiais who had been a member of the States recounted an
incident that took place in the 1990s:
Although presented jokingly, this vignette illustrates the disdain with which
Guernesiais has been regarded: it has never been taken seriously enough to be seen as a
language of public life.
It can therefore be concluded that the existence of independent legislatures in these
three jurisdictions has not necessarily advanced the use and status of local languages.
Official language policies will be discussed further in 6.3.
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are all members of the British-Irish Council
(BIC), which has identified protection and promotion of indigenous minority languages
as a priority (see Chapter 6). The BIC was set up as part of the Northern Ireland Peace
Process in 1998 to promote positive, practical relationships among its Members, which
are the British and Irish Governments, the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man (British-Irish Council
2004). Members of the legislatures and senior civil servants meet regularly to share
examples of good practice and promote good governance; different members take the
lead on particular areas of interest such as tourism or language.
Although the islands control their own education policies, there is hardly any higher
education on any of the islands, so students tend to attend universities in the UK.
Qualifications therefore need to be recognised by UK institutions, which leads to school
curricula closely mirroring the UK (especially England). It could nevertheless be pointed
out that (1) it would be equally valid to follow a Welsh-style curriculum with bilingual or
local-language-medium teaching; and (2) many non-British students attend UK
universities, which have well-established systems for comparing qualifications.
Many young people find the islands insular and express a desire to leave as soon as
they are old enough. Property prices are very high, which adds to this exodus. Emigration
for education can lead to longer-term emigration, so replacement expertise may be
imported from the UK, especially in key sectors of the economy such as finance, and in
public services such as the civil service, education and healthcare, which in turn leads to
further Anglicisation of policies. The public sectors in these three small island
jurisdictions (Wilson, Johnson and Sallabank forthcoming) or micro-polities (O
hIfearnin 2010) are proportionately larger than they would be in an equivalent-sized
community in a larger national framework, due to the need to deal with the machinery of
government at national and international as well as local level.
Owing to the Celtic connection, there is a tradition of the Manx language movement
comparing itself with its Celtic neighbours rather than with similar-sized polities with a
similar constitutional position such as the Channel Islands. However, more recently
contacts have been developed with a wider range of communities and activists: Rob
Amery, a linguist active in indigenous language revival in Australia, was invited to give
the annual Ned Maddrell lecture in 2010 (named after a prominent last speaker of
Manx), and Chris Moseley from the Foundation for Endangered Languages/UNESCO
was invited in 2011. In 2012 these two strands were brought together, when Emily
McEwen-Fujita from Saint Marys University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, was invited
to talk about the revitalisation of the Gaelic language formerly spoken by descendants of
Scottish migrants to Nova Scotia.
According to official statistics, the Isle of Man has approximately 85,000 inhabitants
(Isle of Man Government 2012), Jersey c. 98,000 (States of Jersey Statistics Unit 2012),
and Guernsey c. 63,000 (States of Guernsey Policy Council 2012). Of the three islands,
Guernsey is the most densely populated and the Isle of Man the least.
A document prepared by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee on the draft
200510 Jersey Cultural Strategy describes Jersey as follows:
Guernsey has a similar landscape, but oriented in the opposite direction, with cliffs in
the south sloping down to sand dunes in the north. Both islands contain numerous varied
and attractive beaches, with clear (but cold) waters.
The Isle of Man contains surprisingly varied scenery in a small area. It is largely
mountainous with the highest peak, Snaefell, reaching 620 metres (2,034 ft) above sea
level. The northernmost part of the island consists of a plain. In the nineteenth to
twentieth centuries, all three islands developed their tourist industries, which may have
contributed to language shift: advertisements for Guernsey in the mid twentieth century
declared that there was no language problem. In the late twentieth century, however,
British holidaymakers began to prefer warmer and cheaper locations, which the islands
could not compete with as mass-market holiday destinations. Tourism remains the
second most important industry, though it now focuses on heritage rather than seaside
holidays: indigenous languages are thus now seen as attracting rather than putting off
tourists.
The Channel Islands and Isle of Man have been inhabited since prehistoric times and
contain several important archaeological sites (Sebire 2005; Davey forthcoming). All
three were substantially influenced by Viking (Norse) raids and empire-building from the
ninth to eleventh centuries. In 911 the Duchy of Normandy was created from land ceded
to the Viking chief Rollo; the Channel Islands were incorporated into it in 933
(Lemprire 1980, Johnstone 1994). Duke William of Normandy then conquered England
in 1066. The French monarch Philip II invaded Normandy in 1204 and seized the
mainland but not the Channel Islands. The islanders swore allegiance to the British
Crown in return for protection and privileges (the origin of their current political and tax
status). This is the date from which Guernsey and Jersey count their history as
independent polities (Johnstone 1994: 35). Many people in the Channel Islands (only
partly in jest) consider Britain to be their oldest posssession, since (as part of
Normandy) they won the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
The Channel Islands formed a valuable staging point and strategic outpost between
London and the French possessions of the English Crown. This strategic border position
may have encouraged islanders to distance themselves from a French identity (Lsch
2000). As early as 1206, King John ordered the construction of Castle Cornet to
safeguard the harbour in St Peter Port (the Guernsey capital and the main harbour in the
Channel Islands) from attacks by enemies in France. Thus, from the very beginning of
their history as independent polities, the Channel Islands were seen as bastions of the
English Crown against the French. Throughout the mediaeval period, the rivalry between
the monarchs of England and France continued, culminating in the Hundred Years War
from 1337 to 1443 (Lemprire 1980: 31). Nevertheless, much trade continued with
Normandy, which reinforced the use of Norman languages. It must also be remembered
that at this time Anglo-Norman was still the language of the upper classes and legal
system in England (Paradis 2005).
During the English Civil War (162549), Guernsey took the side of the
Parliamentarians, due to the strength of religious nonconformism in the island, while
Jersey took the Royalist side. Cromwell planned to incorporate the islands into
Hampshire, like the Isle of Wight (Johnstone 1994: 45), but this was not carried out after
it was recognised that the Channel Islands were not governed by English law. As a result
of its support for the Parliamentarian cause, Guernsey almost lost its rights and privileges
on the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, which was only avoided through exceptional
grovelling; Johnstone (1994: 59) considers this the closest Guernsey has ever come to
losing her self-government.
The Channel Islands neutrality, which had led to prosperity through trade with
France, was revoked by William of Orange in 1689. The islands once again assumed
strategic importance as exposed outposts of the English Crown. Until the beginning of
the nineteenth century, Channel Island-based privateers preyed on enemy ships, through
which enterprising island families gained wealth and status.
In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Channel Islands were in the front
line of hostilities in the Napoleonic wars, which brought an influx of British troops and
cut the Channel Islands off from France. Largely because of this threat, new roads and
fortified towers were built. These improvements facilitated intra-island movement and
therefore linguistic contact and change; previously it had taken nearly two days to cross
from the westernmost point of Guernsey to the capital, St Peter Port (Johnstone 1994:
65).
Channel Islanders do not consider themselves colonised, despite the heavy British
military presence in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In effect cultural
colonisation did occur in the nineteenth century due to increased immigration and
tourism (Inglis 1835; Anon. 1845; Crossan 2007).
The Isle of Man is in the Irish Sea, approximately equidistant from England, Ireland
and Scotland. It is approximately 30 miles/50 kilometres long, and 15 miles/25
kilometres wide at its broadest point. Like the Channel Islands it was taken over by the
Vikings in the eighth to ninth centuries. It was the seat of the Kingdom of Mann and the
Isles in the eleventh and twelfth centuries before coming under Scottish rule in 1266.
During the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, England and Scotland fought for possession
of the Isle of Man, with control passing between the two until 1346, when England won a
decisive victory at the Battle of Nevilles Cross in Durham, North-East England. The
Crown delegated control to a succession of feudal lords, with the Stanley family in
charge from 1405 to 1830 (Stowell 2005, Ager 2009; New History of the Isle of Man14).
In 1765 the Revestment Act was passed, whereby the island was sold to the British
Crown. This was followed by harsh economic conditions which led many islanders to
emigrate, while at the same time immigration from England and Scotland increased. A
similar pattern of emigration and immigration was also seen in the Channel Islands in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Crossan 2007).
From the sixteenth century on, knitting became an important industry in the Channel
Islands, and the name Jersey is now synonymous with woollen pullover in English; the
word gansey is used for jumper in Manx and other Celtic languages (and some dialects
of English). In all three islands smuggling, or running as it was known in the Isle of
Man, has also been a source of income for some sectors of the population at various
points in history.
As in most of Europe, the nineteenth century saw industrialisation, particularly in the
Isle of Man due to its deposits of lead, silver and zinc. Some iconic industrial architecture
such as the Big Wheel at Laxey and the steam and electric railways, which are now
tourist attractions, date from this era. In the Channel Islands the major heavy industry
was granite quarrying, apart from some attempts to mine other metals such as tin in Sark
(for which miners were brought from Cornwall) and a short-lived silver mine in
Guernsey. Other industries which were of importance in the nineteenth century, but have
since declined, include shipbuilding in all three islands (until the replacement of wooden
sailing ships with metal ones), cider-making in the Channel Islands, and in the Isle of
Man handloom weaving. Until the second half of the twentieth century, the mainstays of
all three islands economies were agriculture and horticulture, together with fishing
(mainly for home consumption). The Guernsey and Jersey breeds of dairy cattle are
known worldwide, as is the Jersey Royal potato. Horticulture (tomatoes and early
flowers) was a major industry in the Channel Islands in the twentieth century, but has
also declined with increased fuel costs and competition from further afield. In most of
these industries, the main target for exports was the UK, although the dairy industry has
links with North America due to the export of cattle. An interviewee from the Guernsey
Dairy noted that, like the local language, traditional aspects of island economies are
declining:
The dairy industry has been around for an awful long time in Guernsey its one of
the last remaining bastions of island life after the demise of the tomato industry, and
the fishing industry is probably not too clever at the minute and is dying a slow
death, and really farming and agriculture is probably one of the more traditional
ways of earning a living on the island and of course the farmers are custodians of
the countryside. (GE18)
This interview excerpt draws on the metaphor of language and ecology, but in the
context of the use of local languages in branding local products: perhaps ironically, the
island vernacular, which for hundreds of years was not seen as conferring any economic
advantage, is now seen as bestowing prestige on high-end products (see Chapter 6).
From 1940 to 1945 the Channel Islands were occupied by the Germans. Nearly half of
the population of Guernsey was evacuated to the UK beforehand (just after Dunkirk),
including most of the children; approximately a third of the Jersey population was
evacuated. The evacuation of civilians from Guernsey was felt to be necessary, partly
due to fear of German atrocities, and partly because it was realised that the islands were
dependent on imports for food, which indeed became scarce later in the war (Uttley
1966: 210; Bunting 1995), while Jersey is larger with more agricultural land. The
evacuation and subsequent repatriation are commonly viewed as a major factor in the
decline of Guernesiais, effectively stopping intergenerational transmission.
I can think of several people who went away during the war who understand every
word of it but have never spoken it, even when they came back and their parents
did, but they didnt, and so you know I think that was what well I mean its not dead
by any means but that was a major factor in its decrease. (GF39)
However, the extent of the evacuations influence on language use and attitudes is
open to question: a much smaller proportion of the Jersey population was evacuated
(Bunting 1995); yet Jrriais is now also highly endangered, and language shift is a
common phenomenon worldwide. One informant placed the start of shift earlier, at the
First World War, as men went away and did not speak the language for years. The First
World War was similarly identified as a factor in Breton language shift by Kuter (1989:
80).
During the German occupation, Guernesiais and Jrriais were used more among the
islanders who stayed, as a language of solidarity and secrecy.15 Returning evacuees who
wanted to speak Guernesiais and Jrriais did not always find it easy. Some non-evacuees
objected to returnees Anglicised twang. Numerous informants have recounted how
mistakes were not tolerated among children deemed to be native speakers, so confidence
and motivation to speak the local languages were undermined.
Returning evacuees also brought back disparaging attitudes towards insularity and
traditional language practices, which became so prevalent that in the post-war period the
prestige of the island languages was at its lowest ebb. This interviewee indicates the
effect on family language use of societal attitudes:
After the war we were thought to be country bumpkins so my parents would not
let me speak it. (QGE3)
The Channel Islands benefited from UK economic aid, which, however, led to reliance
on British expertise. Tourism increased, bringing yet more English speakers, and the
advent of mass media brought English into the home, and influenced aspirations and
lifestyle. As noted by Wilson et al. (forthcoming), all three islands have undergone
considerable economic change over the last four decades, transitioning from economies
centred on traditional industries and tourism to post-industrial economies based on
banking and financial services.16 For example, by 2005 the finance sector accounted for
half of Jerseys output, and tourism accounted for one-quarter of GDP.17 The main
trading partner is the UK: culturally and economically the islands are overwhelmingly
oriented towards the UK.
During the First and Second world wars, non-British nationals were interned in the
Isle of Man, plus prisoners of war during the Second World War. In the occupied
Channel Islands, Alderney became a prison camp for workers brought in by the Germans
to build fortifications (mainly from Eastern Europe).
The last two to three centuries have seen all three islands move from being largely
self-sufficient economically to reliant on imports for all raw materials and fuel, as well as
for a large proportion of foodstuffs (although agriculture remains important in Jersey).
The islands economies are now largely based on service industries. While this transition
has had both positive and negative impacts on the islands and their inhabitants, Wilson et
al. (forthcoming) argue that it has provided higher and more stable rates of economic
growth, which, in turn, have translated into increased revenues for the governments and a
relatively high standard of living for most islanders. Walker (1993) and Wilson (2008,
2011a) claim that economic security enables language movements to grow.
2.1.1 Islandness
Although many of the factors and features of language shift, reclamation, practices and
policies in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not unique to small islands and
their populations, it can be argued that insularity (in its broadest and narrowest senses)
has played an important role in the development of these three jurisdictions. The growing
field of Island Studies asserts that islandness intensifies notions of distinctiveness,
isolation, boundedness and self-reliance. Taglioni (2011) cites Bonnemaisons (1990:
119) statement that islandness is an integral aspect of the field of representation and
metaphor; it relates not to facts but to vision: in this view islandness corresponds to
the vision islanders have of their island, whereby they locate it in the centre of the world
and in the centre of their world (Taglioni 2011: 47). Baldacchino (2008: 29) describes as
a fallacy the common notion attributed to islands . . . that they are convenient
microcosms, scaled down versions of what takes place elsewhere, yet recognises that
After all, islandness and its associated characteristics (such as boundedness by water,
remoteness, proneness to exogenous shocks, and relative resource scarcity) are
themselves variables that could intervene and cut across many natural and human
processes.
There is a certain tendency towards romanticised and essentialised notions in the field
of Island Studies, and I remain to be convinced that islandness as a factor has been
defined in a rigorous way, since other small communities face similar pressures and react
in similar ways. McCall (1994: 106) proposes study of islands on their own terms,
moving on to argue that islands can learn from each other. Like Baldacchino, he rejects
the notion that islands should simply be taken as smaller and more limited versions of
continents, yet is not convinced that there is a direct relationship between the
geography of a place and the personality of the inhabitants (ibid.). Taglioni (2011: 54)
recognises that
It could be argued that the boundedness inherent in living on an island might help to
define/construct (socio)linguistic boundaries. However, it is unclear whether this has
actually contributed to the designation of Manx, Guernesiais and Jrriais as distinct
languages rather than stages on dialect continua (see 2.2). With regard to the Isle of Man,
it can be argued that political autonomy has played a greater role in distinguishing Manx
from Irish or Scottish Gaelic, while in Jersey and Guernsey there is still some debate
about whether the local varieties are languages or dialects.
Small island communities are not imagined communities in the same way as large
nation-states (Anderson 1991): their reality is readily grasped due to their size, and the
highly tangible boundary (coast) is small enough to be walked around in a day or two.
The population is small enough for a high proportion to be personally known and related
to each other; the endangered language speaker community is even smaller, with even
denser social networks (cf. Sallabank 2010a). It could therefore be argued that for a small
island, a national language is not so necessary in order to create the idea of a
community as in a large nation-state. However, this description is also true of non-island
micro-states such as Andorra or Monaco.
Taglioni (2011) points out that a small size and population are no longer seen as
automatically precluding political self-determination and economic sustainability, so that
an increasing number of micro-states and micro-territories are recognised by the United
Nations. But this very smallness may also affect the economic and political development
of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in terms of their client relationships with the
UK and with international finance and the necessity of engaging with globalisation. This
in turn cannot fail to influence culture and language. Wolfram (2008: 12) observes that
This book addresses such issues. What happens when traditional (views of) languages
encounter (post)modernity, and the language shift, adaptation and change which ensue,
are issues which arouse considerable debate in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man,
especially when confronted by purist language ideologies. This will be discussed in
Chapter 5.
The fact that many of those who habitually spoke Jrriais themselves regarded it as
a patois is certainly a significant factor in its decline, in so far as it made them less
committed to the survival of the vernacular, and influenced the attitude of their
children.
However, in both Jersey and Guernsey the term patois is still used by both speakers
and non-speakers simply as a name for the local languages, without necessarily any sense
of it being derogatory.
These comments by an interviewee in Jersey illustrate the confusion that such loaded
terms can cause:
In recent years the names Jrriais and Guernesiais have grown in use due to the
efforts of language campaigners and a degree of official support. In my first survey in
Guernsey the majority of native-speaker respondents stated that Guernesiais was the
name they preferred. In an announcement of a new language policy for Guernsey in
February 2013 (see 6.3.4), the presenter, Deputy Darren Duquemin, used the term the
Guernsey Language. The name Guernesiais /rnzje/ is hard for Anglophones to
pronounce, partly due to spelling pronunciation, especially when it is written with an
acute accent on the second e, as in the Dictiounnaire Angllais-Guernsiais (De Garis
1967/1982/2012), which is often mistakenly interpreted as a stress marker (the stress
should be on the first syllable). Calling it the Guernsey Language is a way of not
having to try to pronounce the name Guernesiais, while at the same time underlining its
status as the island language, and also avoiding terms such as Guernsey French (which
can imply a subaltern position to French, or a locally accented French), as well as patois.
Many people in the Channel Islands still call French the good French even people
involved in teaching and promoting the island languages which may reveal deep-seated
deficit ideologies about language status, as will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Duquemin also recognised that this can be seen as an obstacle to promoting Guernseys
own language.
Whether the former vernaculars are viewed as languages or dialects is of key
importance to language campaigners. As noted in Chapter 1, sociolinguists and linguistic
anthropologists increasingly see distinctions between languages as a hegemonic construct
rather than as having objective existence. However, Calvet (2006: 67) recognises that
languages are not merely an invention of linguists, they also exist in the minds of
speakers who say that they are talking one language or another . . . Languages
exist because and since speakers believe in them, because they have ideas about
them and images of them.
Separation from the mainland has allowed many islands to develop unique cultures
and languages, but as the Isle of Man case will demonstrate, being an island does
not insulate a place and its culture from outside influences.
Guernesiais and Jrriais (along with the other former Channel Island (CI) vernaculars)
are branches of Norman, part of the Ol language family of northern France. Although
Jones (2001, 2007) refers to them as dialects, it has become a tenet of many language
supporters in Guernsey and Jersey that their varieties should be construed not as dialects
of French (as Ol varieties are often characterised) but as languages in their own right.
Reclaiming prestige is an important principle: e.g. Price (1984: 208) asserts that These
are . . . varieties of Norman French and the idea that they are a corruption of standard
French is devoid of all foundation. Milroy and Milroy (1999) note that attitudes towards
language expressed by many ordinary people are prescriptive, which leads to antipathy
towards non-standard varieties. Although notions of superiority or inferiority, beauty or
ugliness, and logicality or illogicality are irrational at the level of language system, they
may well be relevant at the level of beliefs and may thus affect usage.
To avoid the controversy of describing langues dOl (the varieties of northern France)
as dialects of French, the term collateral language has been coined to describe languages
which have developed differently from a common origin (Eloy 2004; Eloy and
hIfearnin 2007). Judge (2008) suggests that using this terminology, Scots may be
described as a collateral language of English, and vice versa. hIfearnin (2004) uses
this term to describe Manx in relation to Irish and Scottish Gaelic.
The German linguist Heinz Kloss (1967) provided a framework which incorporates
both political and linguistic factors in his theory of Ausbau and Abstand, elaborated over
several works (Kloss 1952, 1967, 1978, 1993) and further explored by Klosss follower
Muljai (1986, 1989) and other linguists (Goebl 1989; Irvine 1989; Trudgill 1992). To
summarise briefly, some languages, for example Basque or Hungarian, are clearly
differentiated from other languages or from their neighbours; they are Abstandsprachen
(languages by differentiation). Others, such as Danish or Urdu, have established their
identity by emphasising features which distinguish them from related languages; these
are termed Ausbausprachen (languages by elaboration). This is similar to the concept of
individuation developed by Jean-Baptiste Marcellesi (Marcellesi 1986; Thiers 1986;
Marcellesi, Bulot and Blanchet 2003). Claims to establish languages in their own right
are often furthered by use as a symbol of identity in struggles for political independence.
In the relationship between Channel Islands Norman and French, French, the more
powerful relative, is in Klosss terms the Dachsprache literally roof language, but
sometimes interpreted as overarching language (Muljai 1982, 1984, 1989). Green
(1993: 10) notes that roofed language varieties risk loss of identity through gradual
assimilation or abandonment through erosion of what little remains of their social
prestige. According to Kloss (1952), it should in theory be easier for a language variety
to develop into an Ausbausprache if its speakers are politically independent of the
overarching variety. As the Channel Islands are politically separate from France, this
should, in theory, allow Guernesiais and Jrriais to develop into languages in their own
right. However, the Channel Islands have been politically autonomous since 1204, but
their indigenous languages are now highly endangered. It could even be possible that
they have lost prestige due to the lack of need for them as a symbol of independence (see
2.1). Likewise, regarding the Isle of Man, Clague (2009a: 194) states: The Manx
language is not a badge of identity for the majority of the Manx people. We are
physically separate by virtue of being an island, and are, for the most part, under our own
jurisdiction. Instead of taking advantage of being a roofless dialect to develop as
Ausbausprachen, Guernesiais and Jrriais seem to have scuttled18 under another roof,
English. This is one possible explanation for the prevalence of contact features from
English.
In the early twenty-first century, however, the island governments have begun to
emphasise local distinctiveness as an important aspect of defining their political
independence and place in the wider world. In 2004 the Isle of Man launched Freedom
to Flourish:
The Isle of Mans strategy to enhance its national identity at home and abroad is
rooted in the promise shown above. It is a strategy approved by Tynwald to
promote, protect and improve the Isle of Man. It has been developed after extensive
research across our community, government, businesses and customers. It is
intended to:
After the loss of mainland Normandy in 1204, the Normans in England adopted an
English identity, and eventually the English language, although ironically given its
current subaltern position, Norman French remained important in England for several
hundred years, especially in legal terminology, and had a profound influence on the
development of English (Bailey and Maroldt 1977; Milroy 1984; Thomason and
Kaufman 1988).
It is thought by supporters that Norman is now more widely spoken in the Channel
Islands than in mainland Normandy, which is supported by recent research.20 Guernsey
language supporters claim that Norman has maintained some archaic features most
strongly in Guernsey, and also that Guernesiais has been less influenced by French than
its counterpart in Jersey, which is closer to France and has received more French-
speaking immigrants. However, just as there has been influence on Norman from French
in mainland Normandy, there has been convergence between Norman and English in the
Channel Islands (Jones 2002). As will be discussed in 5.4, influence from French can
also be discerned in the usage of speakers who have few opportunities to speak
Guernesiais.
Manx is a Celtic language very closely related to the now extinct Gaelic dialects of
neighbouring Ulster and Galloway (Thomson and Pilgrim, n.d.: 1, cited in Sebba 1998:
1). Ager (2009: 15) states that Manx or Manx Gaelic (Gaelg/Gailck) is a member of the
Goidelic branch of the Insular Celtic languages.21 It developed from the Old Irish
(Gaelic) brought to the Isle of Man during the fourth and fifth centuries AD by
missionaries and others from Ireland. It is interesting that the name of the language in
Manx itself is not differentiated from Gaelic.
Manx originally formed part of a Gaelic dialect continuum stretching from the south
of Ireland to the north of Scotland. Owing to language shift, parts of this chain (e.g. in
north-west Ireland) have been broken, which facilitated the differentiation (or Ausbau) of
Manx from Irish; the fact that the Isle of Man was under English control is also said to
have contributed to this separation ( hIfearnin 2007a; Ager 2009). However, it led to a
hegemonic relationship with English which may in the long run have been more
deleterious to indigenous language practices and the maintenance of Gaelic in the Isle of
Man.
Riddell comments that What was considered to be traditionally Jersey was brought
into question, and a cultural space had to be found for the values arriving into the Island
from outside. In unpublished attitude research that I carried out with Goodith White in
2006, comparing attitudes towards Guernesiais, Guernsey English and other languages
used in Guernsey, and Irish Gaelic and Irish English in Cork, Ireland, there was also
some indication that Portuguese was now so well established in Guernsey that it was
accepted as a language of the island (Sallabank and White 2006).
Gawne (2002) reports that in the 1960s and 1970s the Isle of Man experienced a
considerable influx of immigrants from the UK. Several informants have commented that
there was resentment among islanders that some incomers continued to relate primarily
to their British origins rather than to the Isle of Man.
The new resident policies led to massive social and cultural upheaval with
population growth of 13% in the sixties followed by a 21% growth in the seventies.
The severe strain that the arrival of so many outsiders placed on close-knit
traditional Manx communities saw the rapid growth of nationalist politics.
(Gawne 2002: 2)
But the problem we had [in Jersey] which may not have been so evident in the Isle
of Man: post-war, most of our recruiting of teachers was external . . . Whereas a lot
of those have now integrated, for the first ten years or more they werent thinking
locally, they were thinking Bolton, Manchester, Newcastle they could not have an
island mind . . . it took them a long time to understand some of the issues to do with
an island community . . . theyre all very intelligent, able people but havent got a
clue about Jersey . . . some not all problems politically are down to advice thats
been given to politicians by folk who dont feel Jersey. (JE13)
On the other hand, the same informant opined that this lack of local knowledge can
also be to the advantage of language activists because they knew very little about the
language they had no grounds to oppose it.
There are no official services in any languages apart from English. The 2001 Guernsey
and Manx censuses only asked about indigenous languages, but from my own
observations the populations include speakers of Portuguese, French, Polish, Latvian,
Russian, Dutch, German, Spanish, Basque, Thai, Chinese, Philippine and Indian
languages, and no doubt more. While there are some who argue that immigration has had
a negative impact on indigenous island cultures and languages, unpublished research by
myself, Gary Wilson and Henry Johnson indicates that some newcomers with little or no
connection to the islands where they relocate may become passionate supporters of island
culture. This will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Fluently
A little
Not at all
Fully
A little
Not at all
It did not ask about reading and writing; as will be discussed in 4.2, Guernesiais is
considered by many islanders to be an unwritten language.
The 2001 Jersey census30 asked:
Q 9 Which languages do you speak?
These categories were paraphrased in the census report as main language and
secondary language (States of Jersey 2002).
Although censuses collect demographic data such as age, place of birth and domicile,
gender and occupation, the published reports often do not correlate all of these with
languages: the Isle of Man census report correlates Manx speaker numbers with
administrative divisions, while the Guernsey census only correlates them with country of
birth. The raw figures are not usually published. In addition, like all self-reporting data,
census figures need to be treated with caution (Benton and Benton 2001). An official
who helped to draft the Guernsey census commented that the number of people who
reported speaking or understanding a little might include those who only understand
swear words or know 23 words. Judge (2008) notes that asking somebody whether
they can or whether they do speak a language may lead to quite different responses, as
is shown by the Jersey results.
The age profile of speakers of CI Norman is rising inexorably. There are probably no
young native speakers of any of the varieties, and a decreasing number of middle-aged
speakers, many of whom are not fully fluent. There is thus a strong likelihood of
imminent tip (Dorian 1981) once the eldest generation of speakers dies. The next two to
three decades will therefore be a critical period for Jrriais and Guernesiais. Most
traditional native speakers will pass away, and two of the three Jersey Language Officers
will retire. Unless effective language revitalisation policies are implemented rapidly, by
the 2030s the number of proficient speakers of Jrriais and Guernesiais will be countable
on one or two hands. For language preservation purposes, systematic language
documentation is therefore urgent (see 2.2.3). Chapter 6 will discuss language planning
in response to the demographic challenge, and what might be learnt from the Isle of
Mans experience.
The Isle of Man has a considerably longer history of asking language questions in its
census. As Gawne (2002) notes:
Although the 19th Century began with the overwhelming majority of residents
speaking Manx, by the time the Manx language census of 1901 was recorded the
number of speakers had fallen to 4,419 only 8.1% of the population. By 1921 the
figures had fallen to around 1.5% and they continued to decline until the 1961
census when only 165 people (0.34%) spoke the language. Despite a slight
improvement by the 1971 census (up to 0.52%) the language appeared doomed and
when the last traditional native speaker, Ned Maddrell, died in 1974, many
academics declared the Manx language to be extinct. Indeed, no question on Manx
was asked in the 1981 census. From this desperate position, the 1991 census made
surprising reading: 740 people were recorded as being able to speak, read or write
Manx around 1% of the population.
As discussed above, census figures need to be treated with caution. Ager (2009)
reports that Carl Marstrander, Professor of Celtic at the University of Oslo, could find
only forty people who spoke Manx to some extent in the late 1920s, and that in 1934 he
believed that only one native speaker remained, even though the 1931 census had listed
529 Manx speakers. In 1946 Charles W. Loch located twenty native speakers (Stowell
2005).
Language vitality is a controversial issue in the Isle of Man. UNESCOs Atlas of the
Worlds Languages in Danger originally categorised Manx as extinct (Moseley 2010),
but agreed to change its classification to Critically endangered with an indication that it
is in the process of revitalisation after protests from the island.31 The Editor of the Atlas,
Christopher Moseley, was invited to the Isle of Man in 2010 to give the annual Ned
Maddrell Lecture and expressed appreciation of language revitalisation efforts. There is a
rhetoric of continuity of language use in the Isle of Man: speakers trace a pedigree of
having learnt Manx (as an adult) from a traditional speaker, or from a linguist who
worked with the last native speakers.
In the 1970s activists who had learnt the language from speakers and linguists
maintained a core of proficient speakers who campaigned for government support (see
Chapter 6); some of them have raised children through Manx. In the 2001 Isle of Man
census, 1,689 people claimed to speak, read or write more than a few words or phrases
of Manx. Agriculture Minister and former Language Officer Phil Gawne notes that this
number had increased tenfold since 1961,32 although attitudes at both periods may have
affected reporting of ability to speak Manx: in the 1960s negative attitudes may have led
to under-reporting, while in the twenty-first century supporters may wish to give an
impression of greater proficiency and vitality. In the 2011 census 1,823 people reported
speaking, reading, or writing Manx; however, the census report (Isle of Man 2012) does
not specify their level of proficiency, or distinguish between productive and receptive
skills. Language supporters estimate the number of fully fluent speakers at between 60
and 150. Ager (2009: 44) reports that in 2009:
Estimates of the current number of fluent Manx speakers range from 50 to 500.
There is a large difference between these estimates because they are based on
different definitions of fluency. The lower estimate is the number of people who are
very fluent in Manx, while the higher estimate is the number who are able to have
a conversation in Manx (Stowell, 2009), (Kermode, 2009) & (Gawne, 2009). [The
references are to interviews.]
As of 2013 sixty-nine children are enrolled in Manx-medium primary education at the
Bunscoill Ghaelgagh in St Johns; it is unclear whether they are included in these
numbers. Perhaps because all current speakers of Manx are second language speakers,
Clague (personal communication, 11 November 2008) feels that fluent is a loaded term
and prefers to use highly competent speakers. This distinction highlights the possible
pitfalls in attempting to evaluate language vitality by numerical means. In any case, as I
argued in Chapter 1, perceptions of the urgency of action to save languages matter
much more to endangered language community members than objective measures of
vitality.
2.3 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined background information relevant to the case studies of
language policies which follow. It can be seen from this chapter that there are both
similarities and differences between the islands. The most obvious difference is
geographical, which relates to culture.
The Isle of Man is situated between Ireland, England and Scotland and originally
formed part of a Gaelic Celtic cultural continuum. The Channel Islands are
geographically close to Brittany as well as Normandy, which have been parts of France
for many hundreds of years. There are also similarities, differences and rivalries between
the islands, especially between the two Channel Islands jurisdictions of Jersey and
Guernsey. In all three polities there has been considerable influence and immigration
from the UK, especially England, with a more varied cultural and population mix in
recent years (although all three have been at crossroads of international trade and politics
for millennia).
In all three islands these similarities and differences are reflected in beliefs, attitudes
and ideologies concerning language and culture, which in turn affect language policies.
Although (or because) there has been considerable influence and immigration from
England, Manx language activists and planners have frequently looked to their Celtic
neighbours for both emotional and practical support; this influence can be seen in
language policy measures and outcomes (see Chapter 7).
In the Channel Islands the geographical closeness to France, but political affiliation to
Britain, are reflected in the sociolinguistic situation. Linguistic and cultural ties with
Normandy are highlighted by some language supporters, especially in relation to a
language festival which reinforces links between the islands and the Norman mainland.
The degree of relationship between French and the CI Norman varieties, and the extent
and acceptability of linguistic influence from English, is a matter for ideological debate,
especially in Guernsey; this will be discussed further in Chapters 4 and 5.
3 Researching language attitudes and ideologies
These particular dimensions may not be relevant in all contexts, but the multiple
aspect tallies with recognition of the multidimensionality of ideologies: Language
ideologies are profitably conceived as multiple because of the multiplicity of meaningful
social divisions (class, gender, clan, elites, generations, etc.) within sociocultural groups
that have potential to produce divergent perspectives expressed as indices of group
membership (Kroskrity 2000b: 12).
The best-known distinction in language attitudes (or orientations in their terms) is
between integrative and instrumental (Gardner and Lambert 1972), but Baker (1992: 35
6) notes that research in second language learning has found only a small proportion of
success attributable to an integrative orientation. Baker recommends that language
planners exercise discretion in which orientations they invoke: integration may not
necessarily be the most appropriate, for example if young people see a minority language
as old-fashioned (see Chapter 5).
Garrett et al. (2003: 9) note that the amount of accord between stated attitudes and
behaviour can vary according to the complexity of domains: for example, whether the
behaviour involves a long-term commitment (such as learning a language) or a short-
term adjustment (e.g. of speech style in a job interview). They suggest that negative
attitudes can affect behaviour in opposite ways: if speakers of a particular variety fare
worse in the labour market, the education system, etc., awareness of such consequences
might lead to language shift. Alternatively, psychological reactance might set in,
leading to concerted efforts to protect and promote the language variety and to change
attitudes and behaviours (2003: 1213).
Schiffman (1996: 5) notes that the beliefs (one might even use the term myths) that a
speech community has about language (and this includes literacy) in general and its
language in particular (from which it usually derives its attitudes towards other
languages) are part of the social conditions that affect the maintenance and transmission
of its language. He adds that language policies do not evolve ex nihilo; they are not
taken off a shelf, dusted off, and plugged into a particular polity; rather, they are cultural
constructs, and are rooted in and evolve from historical elements of many kinds, some
explicit and overt, some implicit and covert (1996: 22). He terms this linguistic culture
rather than ideology, but there are clear parallels with Schieffelin, Woolard and
Kroskritys (1998) and Irvine and Gals (2000) discussions of ideologies, as well as
Bourdieus (1977, 1990, 1991, 1993) notion of habitus, which Bourdieu (1993: 78, 86)
defines as the product of social conditions . . . which has become durably incorporated
in the body in the form of permanent dispositions.
Language ideologies have been described and (re)defined numerous times, so rather
than propose a new definition I will adapt the discussion by myself and Peter Austin
(Austin and Sallabank forthcoming b). They may be defined very broadly, as in:
ideas about language and about how communication works as a social process
(Woolard 1998: 3)
socioculturally motivated ideas, perceptions and expectations of language,
manifested in all sorts of language use (Blommaert 1999: 1)
language attitudes and ideologies . . . are often seen as ideas which people just
happen to have (Blommaert 1999: 10).
This definition conveys the notion that ideologies are a social phenomenon shared by
members of a group (see the discussion of endangered language community in Chapter
1); however, it does not make any mention of the unconscious acceptance of ideologies,
which makes them all the more powerful as drivers of practices, since many people are
unaware that their actions and reactions are based on socioculturally inculcated beliefs.
Attitudes and ideologies do not simply arise without foundation: they are based on
deep-seated dispositions and strongly held beliefs and perceptions concerning both
language practices (what people do) and policies (what people should do). These
dispositions are acquired through a gradual process of inculcation in which early
childhood influences are particularly important (Bourdieu 1991: 12). Such received
ideologies often go unchallenged because they help organize the tremendous complexity
of human experience into fairly simple, but frequently distorted, images that serve as
guide and compass for social and political action (Steger 2003: 93). Stegers definition
is not specific to language ideologies, so it can be complemented by that of Schieffelin et
al. (1998: 34): representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the
intersection of language and human beings in a social world.
I propose to use as a working definition McCartys (2011) summary:
Baker (1992: 14) notes that the difference between ideology and attitude is partly
about different traditions of research, theory and expression, particularly between
sociology and social psychology. He refers to Cooper and McGaugh (1966), who regard
ideology as:
All of these processes can be seen in the decline of Guernesiais, Jrriais and Manx, as
will be discussed in 4.1.5. For example, as noted by Broderick (1999), the domains in
which Manx was traditionally used became increasingly restricted by the mid twentieth
century, which led to a spiral of reduced use; this is a common feature of endangered
languages (Dorian 1989).
However, erasure is not necessarily the final stage in the development of language
ideologies with regard to endangered languages. There are also ideologies which emerge
during language revitalisation efforts, especially in relation to purism, language change
and control of language policy (see Chapter 5). Marquis and I (forthcoming) have
identified two main divergent trends in current language ideologies in Guernsey, which
we have termed static and dynamic viewpoints, and which are discussed more fully in
7.3.1. Another major source of ideological debate (in the terms of Blommaert 1999) in
language planning and revitalisation is how language itself is defined and conceived:
many campaigners and policy-makers assume that small, minority languages can and
should follow the hegemonic standardisation model of larger nation-state languages such
as French and English. As Marquis and I (forthcoming) note, ideologies are largely
unstated yet profoundly influence language planning and policy at both personal and
public levels. In the conclusion to this chapter, and in Chapter 7, I will discuss the
interface between ideology and language policy.
Although these distinctions may overlap, they are common to many language contexts.
However, in the contexts discussed in this book, the national versus regional distinction
may not be so relevant, as the islands are micro-states rather than regions of a larger
country; however, despite political independence the islands are heavily influenced by
the cultures of their larger neighbours. This will be discussed further in Chapter 5 as
there are important differences in self-representation in this respect.
Use of a minority language comes to be stigmatised, so that speakers feel ashamed of
it: When the children object to speaking a language, gradually forget it or pretend to
have forgotten it because they are ashamed of it, its future is much less assured (Calvet
1998: 75).
This is the scenario painted by most studies of language attitudes before the turn of the
millennium. But a gradual shift in language ideologies can be discerned worldwide over
the last tenthirty years towards a broadly positive rhetoric in favour of saving
endangered languages, at grass-roots, academic, official and right up to
intergovernmental levels. The islands that this book focuses on are no exception. During
the course of my research in Guernsey in the first decade of the twenty-first century, it
became evident from interviews, anecdotal reports and the media that attitudes towards
Guernesiais were becoming more positive. Wherever I went I found anecdotal reports of
changing attitudes:
A student working in a stationery shop where I photocopied some questionnaires
expressed interest and asked for a copy.
A 27-year-old graphic designer I met at a museum exhibition said she was very
interested in Guernesiais and was in favour of teaching it, expressing the opinion
that children should know more about Guernsey culture and history.
A man in late middle age at the same event told me he had wanted to learn
Guernesiais that winter but had too much on; he said he would like to document it
when he retired.
I therefore decided to conduct research2 to test these reports of attitude shift, a term I
use to echo language shift, although the direction of attitude shift tends to support a
reversal of language shift. This phenomenon could even be referred to as ideology shift
because it seems to be happening on a society-wide basis (even a worldwide one, given
the upsurge in interest in endangered languages in the 1990s and 2000s). Although this
shift has been noted for some time (Baker 1992; Dorian 1993a), the processes have not
been widely studied. It has been identified as common among the generation whose
parents shifted language for economic reasons (Crystal 2000: 106).
Wilson (2008) argues that the economic stability and growth that have occurred as a
result of the success of the offshore banking and services industry in the Isle of Man have
provided the basis for changes in language attitudes. He cites Ingleharts (1977: 3) claim
that the values of western publics have been shifting from an overwhelming emphasis
on material well-being and physical security toward greater emphasis on quality of life.
This is reminiscent of Walkers (1993) interpretation of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs:
basic needs such as food and security have to be satisfied before higher concerns such
as esteem and self-actualisation. Thus, people whose main concern is food and security
are motivated to learn a language which they perceive as more likely to fulfil those needs
indeed, in many cases the dominant language or a language of wider communication is
the only route to education and jobs. Their descendants are more economically secure,
having benefited from increased economic opportunities through language shift. This
third generation has the leisure (self-actualisation, in Maslows (1954) terms) to regret
what was lost, to concern themselves with identity issues, and to start language
revitalisation campaigns. This theory (which is as yet unproven empirically) goes some
way towards explaining why language revitalisation movements reported through
academic literature tend to be found in Westernised contexts. However, it is debatable
whether economic security is a prerequisite for identity and other self-actualisation issues
to be considered by individuals (Friederike Lpke, personal communication, February
2009). It is also quite possible that small revitalisation projects away from mainstream
media and academic scrutiny are less well known, for example a project in Northern
Nigeria reported by my former colleague Stuart McGill (personal communication, May
2010).
Kroskrity (2000b: 13) observes that even dominant ideologies are dynamically
responsive to ever-changing forms of oppositions, e.g. the move from generic he to he
or she in English since the 1980s. He suggests that the more aware group members are
of ideologies, the more these can be challenged/contested (2000b: 1819). By
researching and revealing unconscious language ideologies, and challenging socially
accepted attitudes, I aim to confront deeply ingrained beliefs about, for example, the
inferiority of a particular way of speaking, or the notion that acquiring a language of
wider communication necessitates abandoning a language of identification.
Earlier research into attitudes towards minority and endangered languages focused
largely on the attitudes of the (remaining) speakers and how these attitudes relate to the
relative vitality of the language: how many speakers, their age profile, whether the
language is being passed to children, etc. (e.g. Dorian 1981; Giles and Johnson 1987;
Priestly 1989; Williamson 1991; Currie and Hogg 1994; Jones 2001, to name but a few).
Such studies tend to emphasise decline; until recently there was little research into the
motivation of people involved in attempts to halt or reverse language shift. Dorian
(1993a) warned that research which reports on only the abandonment phase of a
language, and which concentrates on negative attitudes, can obscure a longer-term
dynamic by overlooking reactivation efforts by later generations. It is therefore a
welcome development to see that recent studies are starting to address this issue (King
2001; Kroskrity and Field 2009; Reyhner and Lockard 2009; Meek 2011; Urla 2012),
perhaps another sign of the growing maturity of the field and also of changing attitudes
and growing confidence.
But endangered languages are not spoken in isolation: language shift is a response to a
situation which involves contact with at least one other language community, in an
unequal power relationship. Given that they are in a minority, speakers attitudes do not
necessarily carry weight with decision-makers. The language revitalisation movements
that are usually seen as the most successful generally start as grass-roots campaigns,
which eventually lobby for official support and funding, e.g. Mori in New Zealand, or
Welsh in Wales (Spolsky 2004; Edwards and Newcombe 2005b; Grenoble and Whaley
2006). Accomplishing this would not be possible without at least implicit support from
the majority community, whose taxes are needed to fund government-funded language
planning measures. In Jersey and the Isle of Man, and perhaps to a lesser extent in
Guernsey, the efforts of grass-roots language campaigners in raising awareness of
minority languages have contributed to majority acceptance of a role for government in
language planning, and to a political consensus that support for maintaining a distinct
linguistic identity is a good thing. However, despite official and unofficial contacts and
sociolinguistic parallels, language policy has developed differently in each island, which
highlights the importance of understanding contextual and ideological factors.
The attitudes of members of the community who do not speak or use a minority
language are thus relevant both to the practices of speakers and to the stances and
policies adopted by gatekeeping and funding authorities. Yet the attitudes of non-
speakers are even less studied than those of language activists. The case of Mori is a
rare example where a government has taken active steps to promote a minority
indigenous language to the majority population, albeit with mixed results (de Bres 2011).
The few studies which do look at majority attitudes (e.g. Edwards 1977; Hoare and
Coveney 2000; Garrett et al. 2003; Annamalai 2004) tend to find negative attitudes (May
2006).
Fishman (1991) prefaces his framework for reversing language shift by an important
caveat, assuming prior ideological clarification, i.e. that campaigners or language
planners have agreed basic foundations such as the relationship between language and
culture, what exactly they are trying to preserve, why it is desirable. In his revisiting of
the framework ten years later, Fishman (2001: 541) admits that it is quite common for
enthusiasts to embark on language planning and revitalisation activities without such
clarification, and without convincing arguments with which to counter critics.
In order to promote ideological clarification in language planning, or even to find out
whether it is worthwhile for language supporters to expend time and energy on
awareness-raising and lobbying officialdom, more research is necessary into: (a) whether
and how predominantly language attitudes and ideologies among both majority and
minority group members can change, and (b) whether, if there is majority-population
support for minority language maintenance, the effectiveness of language planning is
increased (Fishman 1991; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998; Fishman 2001; Kroskrity
and Field 2009).
However, people do not necessarily reveal private beliefs or attitudes when directly
questioned, but may try to project attitudes they feel are more socially acceptable or
which they presume the researcher is looking for (Low 1999). In addition, as Foddy
(1993) points out, the advantages rest on assumptions which are challenged by
qualitative researchers, which I summarise as follows:
Answers are more valid if respondents have not been told why the researcher is
asking the question.
The research situation per se does not influence the nature of the answers.
The process of answering questions per se does not change the respondents
beliefs, opinions, habits, etc.
Responses can vary according to how respondents perceive the researcher, as well as
according to changing ideological undercurrents which make certain dispositions more or
less acceptable. Garrett et al. (2003: 5) admit that evaluative responses in interviews or
questionnaires may be so superficial and unstable that they might be labelled non-
attitudes . . . where people might just make up an evaluation on the spot, perhaps as a
first-reaction to a new topic, or to one that is too complex to evaluate fully. Gomm
(2004: 196) warns that in ethnography too, it cannot necessarily be assumed that studying
people in one situation will tell us about how they behave or think in general, nor that the
themes identified in analysis actually tell us something about the way peoples minds are
organised or their ideologies.
Some researchers believe that attitudes represent dispositions stable enough to be
measured (e.g. Baker 1992; Garrett 2010), while others do not (e.g. Potter and Wetherell
1987). The apparent impasse can be overcome if the researcher takes into account that
the context of filling in a questionnaire or taking part in an interview may have an effect
on expressed overt attitudes, as can normative pressures; and, crucially, if the researcher
accepts that respondents conscious verbalisation of attitudes can provide a window into
underlying belief systems and ideologies. Mason (2002: 64) stresses that peoples
experiences or understandings can only be constructed or reconstructed in interviews.
Many researchers therefore employ indirect approaches such as speaker-evaluation
techniques and ethnography. However, there are problems common to both qualitative
and quantitative approaches: in participant observation, as with quantitative surveys, it is
likely that the very act of conducting research influences respondents behaviour.
Garrett et al. (2003: 6) argue:
Even when social evaluations can be shown to be variable across or within social
situations, this does not preclude the existence of stable subjective trends existing at
higher levels . . . any more than systematic language variation in the speech of an
individual severely problematizes the notion of someone having a dialect, sharing
features with others at the level of community.
Expressed attitudes may thus be seen as the stated articulation of a (perhaps partial)
recognition of an underlying ideology. In addition, ideologies might be said to be social
manifestations of implicit belief systems. Private attitudes may be seen as more closely
reflecting underlying ideologies, but are of course harder to discover than overt ones.
Fluidity in attitudes is also in line with postmodern views of identity as constructed,
fluid, multiple, impermanent and fragmentary (Bendle 2002: 12). This is particularly
salient since my research has found respondents constructions of attitudes and identity
with regard to language to be so intertwined as to be virtually inseparable.
Instability in attitudes is not a problem for language planning, which is predicated on
the notion that attitudes can change and relates back to prestige planning (see Chapter 1):
Baker (1992: 21) observes that attempting language shift by language planning,
language policy making and the provision of human and material resources can all come
to nothing if attitudes are not favourable to changes. Garrett et al. (2003) also note that
common sense and advertising commonly assume that influencing attitudes can alter
behaviour. This is indeed the aim of much language planning, especially prestige and
image planning (Ager 2005). However, Garrett et al. (2003: 79) observe that the
relationship may not be simple and is complicated by the impossibility of directly
observing underlying attitudes as well as by social constraints (or even ideologies) on
behaviour.
Research methods are dictated not only by epistemological approach but by
considerations of the audience for the findings. In order to try to gauge a cross-section of
societal views on language, I conducted a questionnaire-based attitude statements survey
in Guernsey in 2004, which was both preceded and followed by ethnographic interviews
and observations (both participant and non-participant). The survey was carried out in the
form of a questionnaire, partly in order to survey a wider range of respondents than could
be interviewed in the time available, and partly with an eye to the potential impact on
government language policy: quantitative data is more highly valued by decision-makers
than ethnographic data. The results were incorporated into a report commissioned by the
States of Guernsey Culture and Leisure Ministry in 2007. Follow-up interviews were
carried out with 10 per cent of respondents, and politicians and civil servants were also
interviewed. The difficulties inherent in trying to obtain a true picture of attitudes are
illustrated by the fact that in the follow-up interviews, some respondents gave different
answers from their questionnaire ones. Results will be discussed in the following
chapters.
Different methods also provide opportunities for approaching the same situation from
different points of view, thus gaining further insight. Garrett et al. (2003: 227) stress the
advantages of an integrated approach and a battery of methods. Mason (1996: 4)
remarks: I do not think research practice has to involve stark either/or choices between
qualitative and quantitative methodology . . . any researcher should always think
carefully about integrating different methods. The use of more than one method or
source of data is referred to as triangulation (Kelle 2001; Bryman 2004: 275). This has
been a guiding principle in my choice of data collection instruments. Questionnaires
were used to generate theories and questions (such as the role of identity and attitude
shift), which were tested and refined using qualitative methods, and vice versa. As noted
by Bryman (2004: 460), qualitative research can facilitate the interpretation of the
relationship between quantitative variables.
In this book I investigate the interplays between changing attitudes, the role of identity
in language attitudes and practices, language-related campaigning and shifts in
underlying ideologies. Individuals attitudes are investigated in order to throw light on
societal tendencies and changing ideologies.
As noted above, for the most part language ideologies are implicit; language
ideological debates (Blommaert 1999) are likewise largely unspoken too. They therefore
need to be construed from expressed attitudes and observations of practices and
statements using methods such as ethnographic interviews, participant and non-
participant observation, and discourse analysis.
A more ethnographic approach also allows the questions who speaks what language
when, and where (Fishman 1965) to be expanded to why. A major issue, which relates
social network models to questions of identity (Gumperz 1982; Milroy 1982, 1987), is
why some people maintain their ancestral language and transmit it to their children, while
others give it up; and why some are motivated to campaign for language maintenance or
revitalisation. Becoming reasonably proficient in Guernesiais has allowed me to observe
actual language practices, which can be compared to self-reported perceptions. Greater
familiarity with informants also enables covert views as well as overt ones to be elicited.
My knowledge of Guernesiais also allows me to understand the majority of Jrriais,
although Jrriais speakers find it harder to understand Guernesiais, especially Western
dialects; my linguistic training also gives me an advantage.
Qualitative research attempts to give respondents a say in how research develops,
which reduces comparability or generalisability of data but increases detail.
Ethnographers frequently claim to be able to observe reality more closely than
quantitative researchers (Hammersley 1993: 13). Dorian (1981: 157) administered
questionnaires, for purposes of comparison with other studies, only after fifteen years of
ethnographic study, and noticed that two sections of her questionnaires produced sizeable
discrepancies from the ethnographic findings (1981: 159); she placed more credence on
her observations and knowledge of the community. In addition, questionnaire responses
have been shown to relate poorly to actual behaviour (Bryman 2004: 444), whereas
qualitative research such as participant observation studies behaviour in context.
Although Ricento links these themes to periods in the development of language policy
research, it is clear that, for example, macro sociopolitical issues did not stop having an
impact at the end of the 1960s; that knowledge paradigms and personal and disciplinary
ideologies have always affected researchers approaches; and that researchers have
always had agendas, even when claiming to be dispassionate. Ricento comments, I
reject the idea that research is unconnected to strategic purposes (2000: 197). It is in the
nature of sociolinguistic research that it is not conducted in a vacuum. Social research is
interested in people, whose responses are not uniform and predictable.
Likewise, the researcherinformant relationship is not a simple linear opposition or
impersonal observation. There is a trend towards advocacy, reciprocity and participatory
research (Cameron 1992; Cameron et al. 1993; Mason 2002; Grinevald 2003; Gomm
2004). Researchers in the field of endangered languages are often motivated not only by
academic curiosity, but also by concern for the loss of linguistic diversity, and often by a
link to the community being studied. (Even if personal friendships did not exist
previously, they almost invariably do after lengthy contact.) Grenoble and Whaley
(1998) consider that the ideal researcher into endangered languages is a member of the
community schooled in linguistic methods; clearly, such a researcher will not be
dispassionate. As I mentioned earlier with regard to my own research, Jaffe (1999a: 5)
notes that in many cases, conversation itself was predicated on some demonstration of
sympathy on my part and overtly states her commitment as a proponent of the Corsican
language. Even from a purely self-interested viewpoint, in such circumstances
detachment would not further research goals or facilitate participant observation. This
argument returns us to a basic tenet of qualitative and ethnographic research: that
intellectual rigour is improved by depth of knowledge of the context being studied.
Nevertheless, some researchers consciously promote a position of neutrality (Edwards
2010). Newman (2003: 6) avoids addressing non-linguistic factors, complaining that
whereas fieldwork does entail real ethical and professional responsibilities to the
people whose language one is studying, I am troubled by the notion that researchers
have an obligation to spend half their time doing what I would call linguistic social
work. I know that this is an unfashionable position nowadays, but I would argue that
there is value in pure basic research and that as scientists we have to resist the ever-
present pressure to justify our work on grounds of immediate social relevance.
He goes on to state:
The view expressed by Newman may be seen as somewhat nave in that it appears to
assume (or at least imply) that:
Walsh (2009) comments that this view impinges on the question of what beliefs and
ideologies linguists have about endangered languages and whether these are in conflict
with those of communities (sic; see 1.2). Although Labov (1982) considered the
possibility that advocacy by a researcher might undermine the validity of findings, he
concluded that the field became more objective and more scientific as a result of
linguists commitment. Bowes (1996), however, warns against an uncritical stance of
empowerment right or wrong, which may not in fact reflect respondents views but may
impose the researchers own, and of the potential for rejection of outsider comment
(which can be the case in Guernsey). Bowes concludes nevertheless that researchers
inevitably retain their ability to address wider audiences, of other researchers, other
professionals, policy makers, and, probably in a more limited way, a wider public.
Communication to these audiences of work which has implications wider than for the
locality of a project is vital, and researchers retain this responsibility. Cameron et al.
(1993: 20) view an advocacy position as characterised by a commitment on the part of
the researcher not just to research on subjects but research on and for subjects. They cite
the example of the Ann Arbor Black English trial in 1979, when a group of African-
American parents in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, brought a lawsuit against the city
schools for their failure to acknowledge and address the specific educational needs of
children whose first language was claimed to be American Vernacular Black English
(also called Ebonics). One of those who acted as an expert witness in support of the
plaintiffs was William Labov. Labov published a retrospective account of the affair,
Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science (1982), which has become a
canonical statement on the social responsibility of linguistic researchers. Cameron et al.
(1993: 201) cite two principles proposed by Labov:
Error correction: if researchers know that people hold erroneous views on
something, they have a responsibility to attempt to correct those views. Cameron
et al. note that this is a clear example of commitment and objectivity serving
the same ends.
The debt incurred: when a community has enabled linguists to gain important
knowledge, the linguist incurs a debt which must be repaid by using the
knowledge on the communitys behalf when they need it.
As Wright (2004: 225) states, The strong post-structuralist argument that language is
contingent falls apart when we witness the difficulties that individuals have when they
are forced to shift language. Mohanty (2000: 32) maintains that there is no necessary
opposition between lived experience and scientific thinking: theory-laden and
socially constructed [interpretation of] experiences can lead to a knowledge that is
accurate and reliable (2000: 36). He goes on to define identities as theoretical
constructions that enable us to read the world in specific ways; they are therefore
valuable and their epistemic status should be taken seriously (2000: 43). A purely
functional view of the world, which ignores emotional factors, can thus miss important
information, not to mention the human impact. Jaffe (1999a: 83) points out that the
discourse of scientific rationality can lead to linguistic value being represented as having
an objective, scientific rather than a social basis and being used as a screen for the
symbolic violence wrought by linguistic domination.
In sociolinguistic and anthropological literature, there is little difference between
identity, ethnicity and culture: ethnicity and its allotropes are principles of
collective identification and social organization in terms of culture and history, similarity
and difference (Jenkins 1997: 179). However, the interface (or continuum) is mostly
one-way: although identity is a necessary part of ethnicity, ethnicity is not an essential
feature of identity. Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1982: 5) distinguish between an old
ethnicity based on common regional background and social networks which joined
people through clusters of occupational, neighbourhood, familial, and political ties, and
a new ethnicity depending less upon geographic proximity and shared occupations and
more upon the highlighting of key differences separating one group from another. This
latter is very similar to Tajfels (1981: 225) definition of social identity: that part of an
individuals self-concept which derives from his [sic] knowledge of his membership in a
social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to
that membership. It could be said that language shift often accompanies a shift from the
first type of ethnicity, which involves close-knit, multiplex social networks (Milroy 1987,
2002), to the second, which involves looser networks more typical of modern societies.
4.1.1 Who uses local language: when, where, how and why?
When I started my research in Guernsey in 2000, it was not yet certain that the 2001
census would include a language question, and if so what form it would take. I therefore
conducted my own survey of language use, which at the time was the largest undertaken
there, with ninety-eight respondents, some via postal questionnaires and some face to
face through semi-structured interviews. As discussed in Chapter 3, an ethnographic
approach allowed the questions who speaks what language when, and where (Fishman
1965) to be expanded to how and why, and this combined with my growing language
proficiency enabled me to observe language practices and compare them to self-reports.
As noted in 2.1, from the late Middle Ages until the early twentieth century, French
was the High variety in Guernsey and Jersey in a classic diglossic relationship. The roles
of language varieties in diglossia are ascertained by looking at the domains in which the
variety is used. High domains include government, the judiciary, education, etc. Low
domains include domestic situations, private purposes and phatic communication, and are
associated with the social identity of speakers.
Using Fishmans (1967) extended definition of diglossia to varieties from different
language groups, the relationship between English and the CI Norman languages, and
between Manx and English, until the late twentieth century can also be described as
diglossic. Indeed, the relationship between English, French and the local CI vernaculars
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could be described as triglossic, as
seen in the subtitle of a trilingual collection of poetry, Fantaisie Guernesiaise by George
Mtivier (1866), who is seen by some as Guernseys national poet (Girard 1980):
Its amazing to hear. They have coffee mornings and events and things and there are
so many Manx speakers, its amazing to hear and its brilliant. (MA24)
A seis nou sen va joua ei carte euchre sa-tu la gaome? Ta oui la gaome
euchre? Et pi demmoi au saer nou va joua whist oua shena nou fait pour des
charita. (GF11)
(This evening were going to play cards euchre do you know the game? Youve
heard of euchre? And then tomorrow evening were going to play whist yes we do
that for charity.)
For participants in such activities, social and enjoyment elements are an important
motivator:
I decided sort of because I knew we were coming back, I thought Ill enter the
Eisteddfod so I entered it before we actually came back and took part that first year
just in readings and poems really and then I got drawn into the group La Guaine
du Vouest . . . Its a lot of fun when weve been practising a play and as a group of
people we gel very well together and its very we have a lot of laughs you know,
its really good fun. (GF39)
Two counterpart organisations in Jersey and Guernsey, LAssemblie dJrriais and
LAssembllae dGuernsiais, were founded in the 1950s to support the local languages.
They organise lunches, church services, traditional customs such as la longue veile (the
long vigil, a Christmas tradition) and social evenings in the language with songs and
card games such as whist and beetle (though increasingly fewer of these as members age
and are less willing to go out in the evenings).
In Jersey, traditional events such as making cider and nir beurre (black butter,
boiled pured apples)2 and bachin (copper bowl) ringing3 are re-enacted both for tourists
and to promote interest in traditional culture and language. However, little Jrriais is used
at these events.
It could be argued that social events do not really constitute domain expansion for
vernaculars which were traditionally used among friends and relatives, but for a highly
endangered language which is hardly used in any domains at all, any increased use
constitutes expansion. In addition, if revitalisation focuses on High domains such as
school (Romaine 2006), phatic and domestic language may be omitted.
Costa (forthcoming b) notes that in relation to Bourdieus analogy of the linguistic
market, the value allocated to minority languages is usually very low on unified
(majority-dominated) linguistic markets, but they may receive a higher valuation on
niche markets where they can index a sense of community and solidarity. He suggests
that Occitan, like Yiddish, is a post-vernacular language (Shandler 2006: 1930), where
the communicative functions of language are no longer the primary reasons for its use.
4.1.3 Language-for-performance
This analysis is borne out by the fact that a major domain for island language-related
activities is the performing arts, or language-for-performance. A number of language
supporters in the Isle of Man recounted how their interest in language had been sparked
by traditional Manx or Celtic music. There is an annual Manx activity week called the
Cooish:
The Manx Language Week (Cooish) is one of the key events that showcases the
language. Held every November the week is a [sic] jointly funded by The Heritage
Foundation, The Arts Council and Yn heshaght Ghailckagh. The week offers a
great opportunity for everyone to try and use their Manx. Events are organised that
are suitable for both the beginner and fluent speaker . . . No festival would be
complete without a musical contribution and the Festival has been fortunate to have
the support of some extremely talented musicians from the [sic] around the Celtic
world, not least the Island itself.4
Manx musicians enter the Celtic heats for Liet, an international festival for music in
minority languages from all over Europe.5 The Manx Language Development Officer
(see Chapter 6) offers to translate songs from English in order to widen both participation
and the repertoire of music included. At the heat I observed in November 2008 (during
Cooish week), the final choice was between a rock band and a traditional-style Celtic
ballad. Rather predictably the ballad won the local round, but it did not progress in the
international competition: Organizers do not want the contest to be a folk festival and
encourage original compositions and contemporary styles including rock and hip hop.6
Compared to the rich Celtic musical tradition, there is a relative paucity of traditional
songs in Channel Island indigenous languages (Heaume 1970; Kennedy 1975a, b; Amy
1988; Locke 1998). In the seventeenth century Guernsey and Jersey were ruled by a strict
Puritan theocracy, which imposed heavy penalties for ungodly behaviour such as
dancing, skittle-playing and gossiping on Sundays (Marr 2001). According to folk
tradition, these rules almost wiped out traditional songs and dances (although according
to one Jersey activist more remain in Guernsey than in Jersey). Whatever the truth of this
(especially since there have been several centuries since in which to compose more), it is
certainly the case that most music now sung by language supporters was originally in
French or English. Songs seen as local/traditional are usually found in more than one
Channel Island and in mainland Normandy (Johnson 2008a, 2013). A Guernsey music
promoter interviewed in August 2009 commented, weve not been able to find shanties,
which we should, being a seafaring island, and you think does it exist, is it there?
As noted by Johnson (2011: 115), local-language songs are performed first and
foremost by people who were either raised as first-language speakers (i.e. a minority and
usually older generation) or are language activists who seek to maintain the languages.
In Jersey Several of the categories of songs point to a practice of constructing tradition
by adapting songs with distinct roots from outside Jersey for use in the promotion of
Jrriais (2011: 116). The use of familiar tunes and translations is a common practice
among language revitalisation movements (e.g. in Australia (Amery 2001)), and
members of the group La Guaine du Vouest in Guernsey (see Johnson 2013) sing
delightful adaptations of English-language songs such as My Grandfathers Clock and
Marys Boy Child. However, such tactics have been criticised in some other contexts as
potentially (or subliminally) undermining the worth of indigenous culture by relying on
the dominant culture as the source (Jaffe 1999b). In the Channel Islands, language
festivals provide one of the few opportunities to speak and hear the indigenous languages
publicly. They are attended mainly by traditional speakers (and fulfil an important social
function for increasingly elderly and isolated speakers), but also by tourists (summer
festivals), friends and relatives of performers, and other interested members of the public.
The festivals include recitals of poems and short stories, songs, short sketches and plays.
They are also an opportunity for creative writing in Guernesiais and Jrriais, although the
majority of performances are of traditional pieces.
The two major language-related festivals in the Channel Islands are the Jersey and
Guernsey Eisteddfods7 and the Fte dla Vieille Langue Normande (also known as La
Fte Nouormande or La Fte des Rouaisons8), hosted in turn by associations in
Guernsey, Jersey and mainland Normandy (Johnson 2008b). Guernsey and Jersey each
have an Eisteddfod Society, which organises annual festivals of creative and performing
arts.9 The Guernesiais section was in abeyance from the Second World War until the
1980s, but since 2000 has expanded from one evening to two evenings and an afternoon.
In both islands there has been an increase in participation from learners, particularly
school-age children: chiefly in choral groups from schools, but increasingly giving
individual performances. However, the classes of entry cater primarily for native
speakers, so that learners or latent speakers who have won the intermediate
(elementary) class several times have to compete against native speakers in the Classe
Suprieure.
The Eisteddfod and other performance-focused events increase the visibility/audibility
of the island languages, both to the immediate audience and more widely through media
coverage. They allow speakers to express pride in their languages, which is important for
personal confidence as well as awareness-raising and prestige. However, the festivals do
little to further day-to-day use of the local languages. When I started participant
observation at the Guernsey-French Eisteddfod in 2002, all announcements and
adjudication took place in Guernesiais. However, entrants and supporters (and even
adjudicators) are less and less fluent, so adjudicators have started using English, first for
beginners and children and recently for the whole event. The same trend can also be seen
in language-interest groups.
Henry and Bankston (1999: 241) describe the effect of increased emphasis on Acadian
heritage in Louisiana as follows:
The linguistic criterion is thus removed from its objective basis, that is whether
people actually know or speak the language. This conceptualization of ethnic
identity allows the language to remain at the center of Cajun self-identification
despite our observations of its declining use.
There are strong parallels with the Channel Island situation. There is a risk that
performance may even take the place of day-to-day use, to the extent that performance is
becoming a goal in itself. Heinrich (2005: 69) describes a similar situation with regard to
reversing language shift activities in the Ryuku Islands, Japan:
Fishmans (1991: 91) description of reversing language shift activities which can
frequently be found at stage 7 also reflects the situation in the Ryukyu Islands, in
that (1) symbolic use of the language prevails (e.g. in speech contests, arts,
entertainment, etc.), (2) activities often focus on the interests of older speakers, and
(3) the means of reversing language shift (e.g. speech contests) are frequently taken
to be the end of language revitalisation.
Heinrich (2005: 69) warns that:
However, it seems that language use in families and neighbourhoods is the hardest
thing to activate in an endangered language. As can be observed in lessons and
performances, it is easier for learners, latent speakers and those who use a language
infrequently to cope with controlled, predictable language. Some speakers whose
performance in language festivals is strong in terms of perceived correctness, or who
teach in the extra-curricular sessions discussed in Chapter 6, lack the confidence or
proficiency to speak Guernesiais and Jrriais in their everyday life, or to transmit them to
their own children. Even people who win prizes cannot always hold a conversation in the
languages. One commented by email:
Preparation for such events becomes a major activity in itself, for example in schools
(where it takes up a large proportion of language lesson time at certain times of the year).
In some cases such preparations can stimulate language use: in the Isle of Man Cooish
planning meetings are usually held in Manx. In addition, collaboratively writing or
adapting an original piece for a festival can involve what second language acquisition
researchers call negotiation of meaning (Lightbown and Spada 2006). In the following
excerpt an interviewee recounts adapting an English play by Agatha Christie for the
Guernsey Eisteddfod:
Weve got a bit in the play where the postmans delivered letters earlier in the day
and comes back later . . . and we had quite a lot of argument about which one
[tense] should it be you know, and some people were saying well you know I think
it ought to be that because jy ai dounna was sort of more recent than jy dounni
you know it sounded a long while away.10 (GF39)
With regard to genre, Watson (1989: 49) warns that Scottish and Irish Gaelic are
associated with an unsophisticated, non-learnt folk culture; enthusiast groups tend to
concentrate on folk songs and dance, poetry, traditional tales and comic plays as tangible
ways of expressing their attachment to the language. Johnson (2008a, 2010) notes that at
festivals Jrriais is foregrounded through song as a way of maintaining and developing
identity (2008a: 73).
The cultural focus at the Channel Island festivals follows this trend, harking back to a
bygone age, with many competitors wearing old-fashioned clothes. They cater to the
tastes of older participants (traditional speakers) and audience members (despite the
increased participation of children), with the implication (which was stated overtly by the
2011 Guernsey-French Eisteddfod adjudicator) that Guernesiais is also bygone: the
language of our youth (see 5.4.2). However, some language activists would prefer to get
away from what they view as folklorisation (Fishman (1987), cited by Crystal (2000:
83)) or hypertraditionalising language practices (Wilkins 2000), which, as pointed out by
Johnson (2008a, b), may actually be reinvented traditions rather than authentic ones.
According to some of my teenage and young adult informants, the focus on tradition,
old-fashioned costumes and the association of language with nostalgia actively put off
potential learners.
The Sark Folk Festival attracts a significantly younger audience, and includes classes
in Guernesiais and Jrriais; in 2012 a song was written in Guernesiais for the occasion.11
A group called Badlabecques (Chatterboxes) in Jersey similarly aims to make Jrriais
language and musical traditions attractive to a younger audience. The founder, Kit Aston,
writes:
Badlabecques are my brand new Jersey-based 8 piece pop folk band who sing in our
indigenous language Jrriais. Founded by yours truly in collaboration with
LOffice de Jrriais, we are attempting to breathe new life into traditional folk songs
with upbeat pop and folk influences from around the world. Its exciting, quirky,
danceable Jrriais magic!12
I mean texts youre losing English because of texts . . . Thats just going to destroy
the language if they start doing that. Youre going to lose the language. The
language is changing all the time . . . I would rather see lessons and things. Id like
to see a website. A proper website where people can click and learn and listen. Not
poems. People wont learn from poems . . . (GF04)
Most traditional speakers of endangered languages are not internet users, but for many
younger people (whose age profile increases steadily), online communication is a
fundamental part of their life. In Sallabank (2010a) I discussed how social networks
(Milroy 1987; Milroy 2002; Lanza and Svendsen 2007) are important in maintaining and
developing language fluency. Might online social networking become a new component
of multiplex social networks? Lanza and Svendsen (2007: 279) note:
Through telephone calls and e-mail and SMS messages, people may in an effective
manner and at relatively low prices maintain contact with family, friends, and
significant others across long distances. Hence dispersed migrant populations are no
longer separated from their homelands by vast oceans and political barriers.
But as I said to you before, if you were speaking Gaelic, well, you would enjoy it
better. If there was other ones in company that understood it. Because you could say
something that would make the company laugh. Because, you know, its got that
much about it, that if you were telling a joke, youd enjoy it far better than telling it
in English. [Brora bilingual, 1972]
I do believe the language is important because if you can joke in a language then
youve really understood the culture I think . . . You cant literally translate some
things, you cant they dont work, you have to have to know the people, you have to
know how it works, you have to know the sense of humour, you have to understand
that in order for it to really work properly. (AQ112)
My husbands English and he doesnt understand the Guernsey French but he loves
listening to it and he always said there are a lot of Guernsey phrases and Guernsey
jokes and just the sense of humour he said, it wouldnt sound funny in English if
you said those things, you know there wouldnt be any humour in it, people would
just look at you and think thats stupid, and yet there are so many phrases and just
words he said oh I love the sound of that word you know, its funny. (GF39)
Carter and McCarthy (2004) claim that creative language use, including humour and
punning, is an important element of phatic communication and interpersonal
relationships, and plays a significant role in the construction of identities. The majority of
pieces presented at cultural festivals involve what is perceived as a peculiarly Guernsey
brand of humour, which some describe as earthy but which can also be anarchic and
almost surreal. This earthiness is also an example of the solidarity value often
associated with minority language varieties (Ryan 1979; Milroy 1982; Hoare and
Coveney 2000; Eggington 2001). It also reflects the fact that in the past Guernesiais was
seen as a low-status peasant dialect, and its associations with agriculture. Several
speakers report being called country bumpkins: a stereotyped insult is you come from
the country you.
As noted by Davies (1987: 39), language is one of the most important factors
determining the identity of both jokes and butts in defining the relationship between them
. . . joke-tellers perceptions of butts speech is shaped by social and political forces.
Being the butt of jokes reflects the status of a language: a low-status language is
portrayed as the language of buffoons. Utterances pronounced with an exaggerated
Guernsey or Jersey accent are intended to make fun of old-fashioned ways; likewise the
addition of cor damme ah but yes at the end of a statement or thats a long way to push
a wheelbarrow. Davies (1987: 50) comments:
Joke tellers perceive the speech of butts as low and old-fashioned . . . An ethnic
group labelled comically stupid on the basis of cultural position and pattern of
speech will be the butt of jokes both about the amusing quality of their defective
manner of speaking and about alleged inability to master the material world.
By reclaiming humour as the domain of the minority language, speakers can turn
the tables on those who previously used humour to denigrate it and also express
solidarity with each other and their language.
Nou joue bowls et nou se dvise, nou vei dei gen l qunou se counni en
guernesiais et lonna passa ya aen haoume qui dit huh, that foreign language!
You come from the country et jli di yes, and all our rubbish goes down the Vale!
(We play bowls and we speak to each other, we see people there we know in
Guernsey French and last year there was a man who said huh, that foreign
language! You come from the country and I told him yes, and all our rubbish goes
down the Vale!)20 (GF11)
As noted by Jaffe (2000), performers of comedy can make use of bilingual repertoires
to revalidate socially stigmatised codes, competences and identities by evoking an
expert bilingual audience. Labrador (2004) suggests that The linguistic practices in the
comedy performances are thus identity acts that help to produce and disseminate ideas
about language, culture, and identity while normalizing [the] Local.
The problem of course is I come from the west and [B]s from the east and weve
got lots of words which are completely different, and pronunciation . . . he talks of
when hes hot fait-i caud /fe ti ko/ fait-i caou! /k/ and I would say fatty cow?
Thats a big fat cow! But fait-i caud /kou/ from the other side . . . and ieau /jo/ for
water and they say /j/ I cant say iaou caoude and I say /jo koud/ like a code
<code> [spelled out]
The same phenomenon is found in Guernsey, except that the geographical direction is
reversed in that // is used more in the West:
[A] li dmeurait justement chu bord-l Sant Pierre et ouque jdi m dieau bioque
dmeurais l et [A] dmeurait l jdi dieau et i di diaou . . . pour la mnque d aen
mile.
([A] lived just over there at St Peters and whereas I say /jo/ [water] although I lived
here and [A] lived there I say /jo/ and he says /j/ for the want of one mile.)
This particular regional variant, /o/~//, is one of the most frequently cited by
speakers, which illustrates its iconic value in perceptions of regional variation as a core
feature of the island ways of speaking. Yet this folk linguistic perception by no means
represents the full range of variation found in recent recordings of native speakers in
Guernsey. A similar phenomenon was found in documentation of traditional Manx:
theres an enormous variety in pronunciation have you seen the book by George
Broderick? He gives the pronunciation of all the native speakers in phonetic script
the different pronunciations that were collected from all these different individuals
and the variety is staggering its quite horrifying really because you think well
how on earth should I pronounce this?. . . I suppose a lot of the people were quite
isolated so they werent hearing anybody else.
The idiolectal variation referred to here is reflected in the language documentation that
Marquis and I are carrying out in Guernsey, which is revealing unexpectedly rich
variation among speakers, which does not necessarily correlate with region, age or
language contact but might be due to increased isolation of speakers (Sallabank 2010a;
see also later in this chapter, and Marquis and Sallabank 2013).
The highly proficient new speaker of Manx quoted above expresses a concern
common to many non-native speakers and latent speakers of minority languages, where
there is no prestige standard variety and few opportunities to interact with fluent native
speaker elders. Until recently it was usual for such speakers or learners to refer to the
older generation as the authorities on correct usage. A Guernsey latent speaker remarked:
We havent got parents now to start with who do we go and ask you know because
I would have asked Mum and well there was always Dad before but you know
sort of oh how dyou say this? Is it like this or is it like that?
As older generations pass away, people are tending to turn more to written resources
such as dictionaries and grammars. This in itself can cause problems in Guernsey, where
such materials are not necessarily based on a reliable corpus of language in use and
contain inconsistencies or even errors. The same interviewee also noted that acceptance
of regional variation implies a lack of a canonical correct way of speaking:
Dad was from down by Richmond and I know once I was learning a recitation and
I said a word a certain way and Mum said to me no, thats not right. Oh, I said, I
thought thats what Dad would say. No you say it like this, so then of course later
on he came along and I was doing it again and he said oh thats not well thats
what Mum said so then she was there so then they said ah yeah then they
realised oh yeah so they said say it the way you want!
Respect for variation is thus combined with a generally accepted perception that
Guernesiais and Jrriais are distinct languages. In this respect they fulfil the definition of
a polynomic language (langue polynomique) as defined by Marcellesi (1983, 1986), a
pluralistic model of language. Marcellesi originally developed the concept with regard to
his own Corsican and later extended it to other minority language varieties (Chiorboli
1990). Marcellesi defines it as follows:
Une langue polynomique est une langue lunit abstraite, auxquels [sic] les
utilisateurs reconnaissent plusieurs modalits dexistence, toutes galement tolres
sans quil y ait entre elles hirarchisation ou spcialisation de fonction. Elle
saccompagne de lintertolrance entre utilisateurs de varits diffrentes sur les
plans phontiques et morphologiques, de mme que la multiplicit lexicale est
conue ailleurs comme un lment de richesse (Marcellesi 1986).21
(A polynomic language is a language whose unity is abstract, and which is
recognised by users as existing in several forms, each tolerated equally without
hierarchical or functional distinctions. It is characterised by mutual acceptance of
phonological and morphological variation by users of different varieties; likewise,
lexical variety is seen as a source of richness [my translation].)
As I note in Sallabank (2010b), the key difference between this and a diglossic model
lies in its rejection of hierarchies and functional distinctions; it thus has much in common
with Mhlhuslers (2000) ecological approach to language planning. The criterion for
language is sociolinguistic, rather than using objective linguistic distinctions between
language and dialect: it relies entirely on the perception of speakers that they speak
the same language within mutually agreed limits, within which no regional variety is
privileged over others. Implications for language planning are discussed in Chapter 6.
As well as regional variation, endangered languages are characterised by widely
varying levels of fluency among speakers (Dorian 1989; Grinevald and Bert 2011),
frequent use of code-switching, and convergence with and influence from the dominant
language(s). Both language-internal and contact-influenced language change are
common (e.g. Mhlhusler 1974; Trudgill 1983; Schmidt 1985; Dorian 1989; Grenoble
and Whaley 1998; Nettle and Romaine 2000). Jones (2001, 2002) documents this process
in Jrriais and Guernesiais, and Broderick (1984, 1986, 1991, 1999) for Manx. Although
some speakers recognise that their own usage is not as fluent as it used to be (Broderick
1999: 6; Sallabank 2010a; see 4.3), this is often seen as decline and as undesirable, rather
than as natural change. It seems that endangered language community members are more
willing to accept regional variation (at least at an iconic level) than language change or
convergence (Jaffe 2008). Such issues have come to the fore in my research in Guernsey,
as will be discussed in Chapter 5 and below.
4.3 Attrition
As noted above, Guernesiais and Jrriais are no longer being passed on to children in the
family, and the majority of fluent speakers are aged over seventy-five.22 Inevitably, as
the speaker base ages, interlocutors (relatives and friends) pass away. Speakers become
housebound and unable to visit friends, or are obliged to move to old peoples homes. As
I discuss in Sallabank (2010a), numerous consultants have reported having few or no
opportunities to speak Guernesiais nowadays.
Chest pas souvent que jdevise en Guernesiais pasque ya pas grndment d gen qui
l devise aoshtaeirr, chest pu lei viarr coum m. (GF36)
(I dont speak in Guernesiais often because there arent a lot of people who speak it
now, its more old people like me.)
I dont speak it as often now as when my brother who died two years ago we
spoke it er all the time and now I dont have er its only when I meet friends
who do speak it that I speak it that I speak it, because I dont actually speak it at
home because my wife speaks English you see. (GF13)
Ive spoken more Guernesiais in the last two hours than I have in the last year.
(GF45)
Lack of practice can lead to lexical erosion, and a furthering of language contact and
code-copying effects (Johansson 2002). Some informants report that English comes more
easily now. The longer the isolation continues, the more of the language they forget, and
consequently they feel less confident when an opportunity does arise.
Since I started researching Guernesiais in 2000, I have witnessed a clear reduction in
the fluency of several consultants, in the complexity of the constructions used in their
speech, and in their ability to remember terms and to distinguish Guernesiais from
French. Increasingly they insert English terms for which there are well-known traditional
Guernesiais equivalents.23 I have even had consultants asking me for words.
Attrition is recognised as a problem by informants themselves. Seventeen of twenty-
six questionnaire respondents who gave their first language as Guernesiais reported
speaking it less well than when younger, plus five of the ten who stated that they had
been bilingual from infancy. Only eight native speakers reported no attrition. Many
interviewees reported becoming rusty, which several attributed to lack of interlocutors.
Because its in my background I feel patois is more expressive but you need to use it
all the time or lose it. I have very few opportunities to use it now . . . Since my
husband died Im finding it more difficult to stay fluent. (GF27)
Its difficult when you dont speak it a lot, youve got to think yourself through it
pasque na pas lchnce d pala autchun avec la maeme langue24 (because
theres no opportunity to speak to anyone with the same language). (GF20)
Ive had nobody to speak it to since my mother died in 1995. (GF9)
I could speak to you in patois all the time but its easier for me to be more fluent in
what Im trying to say and quicker I dont have to think about what I should do,
thats why I speak to you in English. (GF4)
Even in areas where Guernesiais is spoken most, people assume that people under
sixty are unlikely to speak it, and so speakers are unlikely to address them in that
language. Younger learners therefore find few opportunities to practise (and may receive
shocked reactions when they do speak Guernesiais or Jrriais). Lack of interlocutors is
also an obstacle to language-in-education projects and attempts to revive
intergenerational transmission. One native speaker reported offering to teach Guernesiais
to her granddaughter, who replied Who would I speak it to?
Some traditional speakers recognise that it is important to consciously maintain their
fluency and seek/make opportunities to interact with fellow speakers for this reason, e.g.
playing bowls or joining language associations (see above). Some also recognise that
learners face even greater challenges:
Ive certainly lost some words. I was thinking about the [agricultural] show and
different veg and I still havent recalled the word for leeks . . . So if its difficult for
us whove got it all up there, its just not coming to the surface [then] for those
who didnt learn it like us, if were climbing hills, theyre climbing mountains . . .
(GF38)
MA6: The thing I notice is more and more people speaking to each other in Manx.
Maybe thats because people now speak to you in Manx but certainly over
the eight years weve been here theres more Manx being spoken.
MA7: It seems to be but it could just be that were in with the cultural swing if you
like.
We dont get enough chance to use it [Jrriais] really even my in-laws they will
help me and they will use one or two words and Im not in the position yet to hold a
long conversation theres a curious reluctance on the part of a lot of Jrriais
speakers to use it in general or more widely they will amongst themselves.
The decrease in the amount of Guernesiais in the aural environment is also a hindrance
to people trying to learn it:
Weve got Marie de Gariss books and stuff like that but you know, so I refer to
those and its trying to grasp some of the words but its the fact that the language
itself is fading out youre not exposed to it as much and as a consequence of
that you know you dont really hear as much of it so you dont pick up as much.
(AQ166)
There seems to be considerably more confidence among Manx speakers to use Manx
among themselves and with learners; some told me that they had never heard certain
others speaking English, as they always addressed each other in Manx. A Manx teacher
remarked that once learners got to an adequate level of proficiency, he only spoke to
them in Manx. In Jersey the Language Officers took a decision several years ago to use
Jrriais as the main language when in their office, which they report has increased their
fluency. The main stumbling block is finding interlocutors: when I told Jersey informants
that a core of proficient enthusiasts had learnt Manx and kept it alive after the death of
the last traditional speakers, even using it with their children, the reply was how did they
learn it? A long-standing supporter of Manx answered as follows:
This contrasts with the focus of most language revitalisation programmes on formal
education (Romaine 2006). In Sallabank (2010a) I discuss potential ways of encouraging
interaction as a basis for individual and group language maintenance as part of language
planning. Language campaigners often bemoan the failure to transform understanding of
a language (latent speaking in the terms of Basham and Fathman (2008), or
competence in language acquisition terminology (e.g. Scovel 1998) into active use
(performance in language acquisition terminology), but to do so needs careful
encouragement and support. Several informants have told me that they do not have the
confidence to speak spontaneously in their heritage language, even to their own family
as with performance, this is a reason why many prefer to pass on the language in the
relatively predictable environment of a classroom. In an article in a local newspaper in a
series written by members of Les Ravigotteurs (The Revitalisers), a Guernsey language
activist group, Le Cheminant (2001) commented on the 2001 Guernsey census results,
which had just been published:
Jveur faire aen pllaid es seonnes qui lcaomprend l guernsiais ioque aen ptit. . . .
Vous counnite tous au moins quenne persaonne qui dvise la langue bian. Quand
vous la les veis, fait saeure quil vous dvise en guernsiais. Et fait vottes mux de les
repounar en patois tous. Vous frat des maques sans doute, mais iy pas dsouin,
vous ttes pratichet tchique chause quest importante assar de garder envie.
Chest vottes hritage opres tous.26
(I do want to make a plea, though, to those who understand the language just a little
. . . You will all know at least one person who can speak the language very well.
Whenever you meet, please ask him or her to speak to you in patois and in return,
please try to respond in kind. Although you are bound to make some mistakes, the
main thing to remember is that you are practising keeping a valuable treasure alive.
It is your heritage after all.)
Some learners complain, however, that traditional or fluent speakers will not talk to
them in Guernesiais/Jrriais/Manx; more than one felt that there was reluctance to share
the language. This may be partly due to the polite tendency to shift to English in the
presence of monolingual or younger Anglophones, and partly because speakers feel they
are helping learners by making themselves more comprehensible by speaking English
(or French). For some traditional speakers of Guernesiais, the notion that anyone would
make efforts to learn such a low-status language variety is difficult to comprehend.
If people continue speaking the minority language when non-speakers are present, it
can both motivate learners and provide exposure. A thirty-year-old man reported that
when working in a local shop as a teenager he had been intrigued by conversations
between his older colleagues and customers, which had motivated him to attend evening
classes.
In Jersey and Guernsey language planning and revitalisation measures have not yet
succeeded in replenishing the loss of traditional speakers with new speakers beyond
beginner level. In the Isle of Man, however, all the current speakers are new given the
break in intergenerational transmission. Intergenerational transmission is also being re-
established: some new speakers are teaching Manx to children in their families, which
has been a feature of the revitalisation movement there since the late 1970s. A
tremendous amount has been achieved through the commitment of key activists and a
systematic approach to teaching (see Chapter 5). However, the Language Officers
recognise that the number of highly competent speakers is still small and that there is no
room for complacency.
Type of literacy
Examples Language
practice
The categories in Table 4.1 were established by Barton and Hamilton (1998) before
the widespread use of online social media, which have blurred the distinction between
personal and public writing to an extent. As noted above, some new speakers, learners
and teachers are writing in endangered languages consciously to show that they can be
used for non-traditional domains (see also Marquis 1997). More proficient new users also
routinely use these languages for communication by email, texting and also, in the Isle of
Man, for business meetings held in the language (e.g. a committee of the Manx Heritage
Foundation, MHF, a quasi-governmental organisation, on broadcasting in Manx).
Table 4.1 does not distinguish explicitly between reading and writing, although
implicitly some categories are more likely to involve one or the other, for example
keeping a diary involves writing usually just for oneself, while sense making involves
reading a published reference source. Traditional Guernesiais literacy tends to involve
writing more than reading, largely due to the lack of published works available. The
Internet and digital publication have made it easier to overcome the cost barrier to
publishing in a minority language, but as noted earlier, traditional speakers tend not to be
users of digital media. Lsch (2000: 56) notes that strong motivation is needed to write in
a local language because the circle of recipients is limited. Increased availability of
reading materials might encourage maintenance and learning. But the market for print
publications is small, and they need subsidies to be viable. Some funding is available
from government sources (e.g. the Culture and Leisure Department in Guernsey,
LOffice du Jrriais in Jersey) and charitable foundations such as the MHF (which also
receives government funding). Versions of Alice in Wonderland were published in Manx
in 2006 and Jrriais in 2012, and the MHF is publishing a series of readers for adult
learners translated from Irish, as well as Manx versions of childrens books such as The
Gruffalo. Two original novels have been published in Manx, by Brian Stowell and Chris
Lewin. However, because of funding shortages some Manx materials are only published
electronically, e.g. school readers. In Guernsey, La Socit Guernesiaise publishes a few
works (e.g. De Garis 1982; Hill 2000), or authors and friends pay for printing themselves
(e.g. Jehan 1999). Jimmain va la Banque (Jimmy goes to the beach), a childrens book
published by the group Les Ravigotteurs (1999), was subsidised by a charitable trust.
Only 13 per cent of postal respondents to my Guernsey language use questionnaire
said that they ever wrote anything in Guernesiais, but 60 per cent of face-to-face
interviewees claimed to, which is a high proportion considering that there has never been
any schooling or literacy training in Guernesiais. The higher proportion of interviewees
writing in Guernesiais probably reflects the fact that many were active in language
associations. This is also reflected in the nature of what they write: mostly items for
public and formal audiences, such as speeches, sermons, poetry, plays, news scripts and
readings for recitation.
Category 5 in Table 4.1 includes religious instruction. Some minority languages, such
as Manx or Welsh, had their status as literary languages enhanced by the translation of
the Bible, and numerous other languages have first been written down by missionaries.
Nevertheless, the presence of a Manx Bible did not prevent the decline of Manx in its
traditional form, which may lend weight to Fishmans insistence on the primacy of the
family domain for language maintenance.
The Bible has never been published in Guernesiais or Jrriais; after the Protestant
Reformation in the sixteenth century, a French Bible and Prayer Book were used once
the Anglican church realised that nobody understood the English ones. Nevertheless, the
continued use of French in churches contributed to the maintenance of Guernesiais into
the twentieth century. The whole Bible was in fact translated into Guernesiais by Thomas
Martin in the early twentieth century.27 However, the rediscovery of this resource (Jones
2007, 2008) has ironically come too late for the generations to whom a Bible in
Guernesiais might have been valuable if attitudes had accepted it (see 4.1).
Sebba (1998, 2000) recounts how Manx was reduced to writing in the eighteenth
century through the translation of religious texts, largely to enable bilingual preachers
literate in English to read texts such as the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer aloud
to congregations. This is an interesting parallel to Guernesiais in that several individual
folk orthographies (see Sallabank 2002 and 6.5) are also intended to facilitate reading
aloud at festivals. Pronunciation spelling is common practice for recitations, but tends
to be idiosyncratic:
Theres no right and wrong way to write in Guernsey French and everybody has
their own way and very often I will rewrite something phonetically so that I can
understand it I think most people do actually because theyve all got their own
way of doing it. (GF39)
This contrasts with the spelling pronunciation observed in Jrriais lessons which
used textbooks that follow a standardised, French-based spelling system (see 6.5):
several children had problems relating the spelling to the pronunciation. Some teachers in
Jersey also distribute phonetic versions of Eisteddfod recitations to learners, although
they express disapproval of them at the same time. Such phonetic renditions are also
somewhat idiosyncratic and are not necessarily easy to follow:
The majority of my informants who write in Guernesiais claim to use the spelling of
the Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais, and some used to go and see the editor, Marie
de Garis, to ask her to check pieces for public consumption (as happened while I was
visiting her). Despite this and exhortations by Eisteddfod adjudicators to use the
Dictionary, an examination of writing in Guernesiais shows that in practice, writers often
use idiosyncratic spellings (Sallabank 2002). Frequently, authors omit silent endings
which are used in French spelling to mark plurals or gender, or use English <sh> instead
of French-style <ch> for the phoneme //. Often the writings reveal a lack of awareness
of the grammatical structure of Guernesiais. This can be seen in the work of Marjorie
Ozanne (18971973), one of the islands most prolific Guernesiais authors, who wrote
numerous poems, plays and short stories; many of the latter were published in a weekly
column in the Guernsey Evening Press.28 Most of the stories were written between 1949
and 1965, and thus predate the 1967 Dictionary. Hill (2000) collected and published
some, with English translations, for a new generation of readers. In his foreword, Hill
comments that Ozanne seems to be trying to use a form of spelling that would sound
comprehensible to an English speaker, rather than the French-based orthography of
earlier writers such as Mtivier and Corbet. Although she worked as a teacher, Ozanne
clearly had little awareness of how to encode the structure of her native tongue. Word
breaks are not always correctly rendered and there are multiple different spellings of the
same word. For example, on the very first page of the first story, one word is spelt in
three different ways: mesme, maesme, maeme (same); on the same page, I dont know
is rendered first as Jensai, and then seven lines later as Je nsai.29 This lack of
consistency detracts from readability and makes it difficult to develop reading fluency,
especially for second language learners; like dialectal variation, it is often described as a
deficit.
Experiences when recording passages for a speaker-evaluation study reinforced
observations that, in the absence of education in Guernesiais or any literacy training,
speakers and learners who are not aware of its structure (or of French spelling and
grammar) find themselves unable to relate the written form to the spoken one, both when
reading and writing. Issues of spelling as it relates to standardisation will be discussed in
Chapter 6.
4.6 Conclusions
Language practices in an endangered language are not straightforward. As well as the
undeniable fact of a reduction in domains and fluency due to the loss of native-speaker
interlocutors, there is substantial idiolectal variation and accelerated yet disputed
language change in both traditional usage and new users and uses (Romaine 2006:
464). As has been indicated in several instances, many practices are mediated by
ideologies. These will be discussed further in Chapter 5, which will examine how the
practices and aspirations of new users of endangered languages may differ from
traditional practices and how traditional(ist) community members may react. Tensions
concern especially what a language can and should be used for, by whom, and who has
the authority and legitimacy to decide.
5 Language attitudes, ideologies and identity on a
small island
Negative attitudes towards minority languages are common around the world. Often a
vicious spiral develops where negative attitudes and declining domains of use feed each
other. In Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, the cycle of low prestige, both reinforcing
and being reinforced by negative attitudes, led to an ideology of deficit and to language
shift. As with many other minority vernaculars, until the last twenty or thirty years
traditional languages and cultures were associated with backwardness and poverty and
were seen as an impediment to social advancement; English was seen as the route to
economic advantage.
However, in each of these islands there seems to have been a remarkable turnaround in
attitudes towards the end of the twentieth century and in the early twenty-first. As noted
in Chapter 2, in the case of the Isle of Man the last native speakers died in the 1970s,
but for a dead language Manx now seems remarkably vibrant. The prestige of the
native vernaculars is growing, and they are generally now seen as a valuable part of
island heritage and as assets in marketing localness as a brand (Johnson 2010). There
seems to have been a shift in public language ideologies, away from the post-Second
World War monolingual ideal, associated with modernity, to a revalorisation of the value
of linguistic heritage.
Nevertheless, overtly expressed attitudes may not reflect covert ideologies or practices
(see Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998). This chapter goes on to explore these
incongruities and examines to what extent underlying ideologies have really changed. It
also looks at the role of identity in language maintenance and revitalisation activism, and
whether identity and heritage are useful foci for language revitalisation efforts.
GF39: When I was little it [Guernesiais] was the first language that I learnt and my
mother took a lot of stick for allowing me
INTERVIEWER: Why was that?
GF39: It was because I think it was early 50s, the war was over and so on and it
wasnt fashionable at the time
INTERVIEWER: So who was giving her the stick?
GF39: Oh a lot of the other mothers: oh gosh you know youre letting her speak
patois and when she goes to school she wont be able to learn shell be a
dunce and all the rest of it.
Another reported that when his brother started school, he had been told to go home
and come back when you can speak English.
A Jersey interviewee recounted:
It was finished, Jersey French . . . Im ninety now, over ninety when I started
school at six we didnt know anything but Jersey French everybody spoke it now
its totally different, which is good really. Ive got two children and I used to tell
em when they went to school the master didnt want the children to speak . . . old
folk used to go mad when the kids came back and said youre not allowed to speak
Jersey French I said its because he wants you to learn the proper French if you
go anywhere and you know French fluently and English, youll get a job anywhere
but the Jersey French is just amongst ourselves really, but were proud to think
weve got our own language.
These quotations illustrate the dilemma of parents faced with disapproval of their
language at school, and their rationalisation of their choices. Given such experiences,
combined with the di-/triglossic relationship where the local language was always the
Low partner, first to French and then to English, it is not surprising that attitudes among
these generations reflect a classic social-psychological split of status vs. solidarity
(Giles and Ryan 1982; Giles and Johnson 1987).
Negative attitudes persisted until relatively recently. A retired teacher reported that
Guernesiais lessons were proposed at secondary schools in the 1970s, and a survey was
carried out of how many pupils could speak it: not one would admit to it, although she
knew that some did. A small survey carried out in Guernsey in the 1990s (Domaille
1996) indicated that at that time the ethnolinguistic vitality of Guernesiais was still
declining in terms of speaker numbers, visibility/audibility and attitudes.
But towards the end of the twentieth century, attitudes gradually changed. A
respondent to my attitude questionnaire (see 5.2) proclaimed:
When I was at school [1960s], it was the perception that Guernsey French was an
inferior language, a language of peasants! One was looked down upon as being
countrified if one was associated with the language. There seemed to be no
comprehension, or if there was, no acceptance, that Norman French was the
language of William the Conqueror; that it preceded French; that it is our heritage!
As such, I feel strongly that it should not be allowed to disappear . . . I believe there
has to be a greater effort yet to promote the language at the political level, at this
eleventh hour, so as to try to ensure that our own heritage is preserved. (AQ23)
* The term Guernsey Norman French was used, following the example of the Census, to avoid
ambiguity. See the discussion of language naming in 2.2.
That was the perception that if you learnt this language you were going to be stupid
you know you wouldnt be able to manage in English and you wouldnt be able to
learn at school and so on. I mean nowadays being bilingual is something to be proud
of but in those days . . . (GF39)
I dont think youll find one person in Guernsey whos not keen . . . well there are
some who dont think its progressive, why should we go back, Ive had one or two
why should we waste all our time in learning about Guernsey French? So what can
you say? Well its up to you but I dont think its a waste of time. Thankfully theres
a lot more people that feel the same . . . We do things ourselves, we try to encourage
departments to take up some of our phrases. Our letters go out with Guernsey
French.
Negative responses to the survey followed two main themes: firstly that language
diversity reduces intercultural understanding:
A second, more frequent, objection was that local languages are not useful in the
modern world:
No point in trying to revive waste of time Latin far more valuable. (QGE45)
Time and money should be spent on teaching French, Spanish and German. No need
for Norman French in a modern world. (AQ53)
I dont want to get rid of Guernsey French but its a problem if languages divide
people. I would be very upset if English had been marginalised . . . if Guernsey
French was resurrected one group of people would have special status. (GE28)
This comment reflects two commonly held tropes: firstly, that linguistic diversity is
potentially divisive (see Chapter 1), and secondly, giving voice to a commonly held
perception in Guernsey, that the island language is the property, or purview, of a
particular group (specifically traditional speakers), rather than a resource available to the
whole population or to anyone who wants to learn it. Implications of this view will be
discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter 7.
The results of this survey were presented to the Guernsey Culture and Leisure
Committee in 2007 and contributed to the subsequent decision to support language
revitalisation by appointing a Language Officer (see Chapter 6).
I subsequently carried out further qualitative research on attitudes in Guernsey in
20047 and on language policy in all three islands in 200812, interviewing language
activists, politicians and officials, as well as ordinary islanders. I also conducted a small-
scale questionnaire survey in shopping centres on each island to gauge awareness of the
governments language policies as well as language attitudes. One of the most negative
opinions was expressed by a homeless retired caretaker in St Helier, the Jersey capital,
who felt that the government should not be spending money on a dead language. He
was of Jersey origin, but had been born in England during the Second World War. A
strongly contrasting attitude was expressed by a Chilean-born journalist, who felt that it
was extremely important for the island to retain its own identity; she felt that language
was a really important part of island identity but was being lost; island identity was
being stolen while British culture was being imposed. Along with the results from
Guernsey with regard to class, occupation and origin described above, this illustrates that
language attitudes cannot be simplistically correlated with a traditional essentialist
interpretation of ethnic identity and nationalism, especially as the islands become
increasingly ethnically diverse.
In both Jersey and the Isle of Man, language activists efforts to persuade the island
governments to fund (or at least facilitate) school lessons in the indigenous languages
were supported by surveys which provided evidence of shifts in public opinion. In
Jersey, parents of primary-aged children were surveyed in 1998 to ask whether they
would send their children to Jrriais lessons if these were available. Even campaigners
were surprised at the level of support expressed in the survey (Tony Scott-Warren,
personal communication, June 2000). A member of Le Don Balleine Trust, which
manages the teaching team, recounted how careful preparations were made to raise
language awareness before the survey:
Whenever I said we should teach it in schools, people would say its too late or its a
waste of time, what economic benefit would it have. Some of those views are still
around today . . . I was conscious that . . . unless you present people with the
information you cant expect a reasonable answer . . . I then set about talking to the
media: Post, Radio Jersey in particular, but also Channel TV . . . they all agreed to
do a series of articles or programmes to illustrate the value of the language in
understanding history, the depth of the language in terms of the expressions we use
and how it relates to Jersey culture. All of this was rolled out over three to four
months and then we did a questionnaire . . . asking parents . . .if Jrriais classes were
available, would you want your child to learn Jrriais. Having rolled this out in the
media their awareness was raised considerably, and we were staggered to find that
600 families, nearly a thousand children would be interested . . . my hope was a
hundred.
In the Isle of Man a general quality of life survey was carried out by the government in
1986. One of the questions asked whether respondents would be in favour if their
children were given the opportunity to learn Manx; a third of respondents said yes. This
survey is cited by language activists as a major turning-point in official language policy.
Although Manx was traditionally looked down on as a peasant language (Marie Clague,
personal communication, 11 November 2008), Manx now has a growing number of
speakers, official recognition, public examinations and a rapidly expanding functionality
(Kewley Draskau 2001). There is a vigorous language revitalisation movement and
considerable government support. Chapter 6 will discuss in more detail how language
policy developed.
Since the 1970s/1980s, in all three islands, grass-roots campaigning has contributed to
a political climate in which government support for the indigenous languages came to be
seen as desirable by both the general public and politicians. Research demonstrating
attitude shift among the general public has been able to influence government policy.
Positive attitudes and awareness-raising cannot in themselves save a language without
more concrete measures; however, they can lead to public support for such measures.
Year 7 (aged 1112), one class, during French Studies lesson; French teacher
present
A group of sixth formers (aged 1618): eighteen students, optional session with
credit; no teacher present
Year 8 (aged 1314), 2 classes (approximately sixty children) during Citizenship
lesson; class teacher present
Year 9 (aged 1516): five students; supply teacher present
Five female sixth formers (aged 18), no teacher present (organised by one of the
students)
Individual seventeen-year-old girl; parents present.
Age group
Attitude Motivation
(approx.)
Several older interviewees noted that it was common for people to reject traditional
values in their teens and twenties, but become enthusiastic about Guernesiais in middle
age or later:6
Another pointed out that the increased self-confidence of mature people helps
overcome peer pressure:
Now Im older I dont feel so intimidated by people saying it sounds odd its us,
why shouldnt anyone learn it? (QGF39)
It should be emphasised, however, that despite peer pressure age groups are not
homogeneous, and that in the questionnaire differences between them were not
statistically significant. On several occasions two or three generations of a family were
interviewed together: in about a third of these family focus groups, the younger
generation seemed more positive than the older; in another third, vice versa; for the
others there was no clear difference in attitudes.
Despite the focus of language supporters on teaching young children, it was assumed
by some older speakers that young people and immigrants will not be interested in
Guernesiais, and language maintenance activities can perpetuate this attitude by focusing
on traditional culture. As one interviewee in her twenties stated:
Learning Guernsey French is not cool, there is nothing to encourage the younger
generation the Eisteddfod7 is mostly for older people. (GE16)
This indicates that if language planning measures are to attract younger people, they
may need to be of a type which interests them. But as will be seen below, this may not be
the priority for organisers of such events.
Although over half of the school pupils interviewed reported having little interest in
Guernesiais, a small but significant proportion independently expressed interest in
learning it as a secret language of our own. A seventeen-year-old, who according to her
parents had never spoken about language issues before, stated (unprompted): [children]
should be forced to speak it in primary school. She also commented it would be quality
to have our own language. This sentiment was echoed independently by some of the
Year 8 schoolchildren: A secret language of your own cool. This indicates a different
type of affective interest in language and may offer a way for language planners to sell
traditional language and culture to young people, as teenagers have little interest in
typical language promotion events, which usually celebrate traditional culture and thus
reinforce the old-fashioned reputation of the traditional language.
The language was really ignored and downgraded and thought of as a sign of
inferiority and poverty and this still lingers on with old people, and I tend to upset
some people when they say whats caused the change in attitude and I say all those
old people died. Which is actually partly, largely true.
Another former Manx Language Officer corroborated this: The grim reaper is doing
his work . . . so I think people are now more open to all sorts of things that people want
to learn in schools. Some implications of these ideological incongruities for the
development of language policy, in the Isle of Man and elsewhere, are discussed in
Chapter 7.
Identity can be manifested in both private and public spheres: private acts of identity
(linked to covert attitudes) affect language choice and transmission, while overt, public
acts of symbolic identification (such as performance at festivals and the use of local
languages in signage) promote the idea of language, and perhaps linguistic self-
confidence.
In all three islands, attitudes towards the local languages are closely connected to
notions of identity. As mentioned in Chapter 1, many of my informants expressed fairly
conventional, essentialist views of links between language and identity:
Support for the language is to do with mortality: when your language and culture
die, part of you dies too. (GF41)
Such feelings are not necessarily dependent on ability to speak the language:
Dr Sallabank Veen
[Dear Dr Sallabank]
Moghrey mie (Good morning)
Thank you for your email and your on-going interest in Manx Gaelic my own
Manx is very limited but I use a few words in every email to raise awareness! (Isle
of Man civil servant, by email, 2 November 2012)
As a Jerseyman I like the fact that we have our own language because thats
another form of being distinct from being part of Britain . . . we have a distinct
heritage and part of that distinct heritage is a distinct language and it would be a
terrible shame if that language were to die out . . . (Jersey Anglophone, 50s)
I think that being such a small island there is a strong national identity and I
imagine the biggest part of that is the language it puts our heritage at the forefront
really and its something that I think a lot of people are quite proud of. (Parent at
Bunscoill Manx medium primary school)
Many of these respondents linked language to heritage and culture. Some expressed a
profound emotional attachment to language as part of their identity. One wrote on the
questionnaire Culture, language, both interdependent, as language fades, so culture
dies. When interviewed subsequently this informant elaborated as follows:
Ones identity I think is very tied back into ones traditions and background they
are what make you and the culture that you exist in different to any other, in my
opinion. And as a result of that if you have a language which adds and enrichens
[sic] that then I think that its very important that that be continued . . . My dearest
wish is that before the language dies completely in Guernsey that it be not
resurrected but given rebirth really to some extent people who still speak it can
encourage the people who want to learn it thats my feeling. (AQ112)
Im rather fatalistic about the survival of Guernsey-French. Another fifty years and
it will have passed into history. Im not too worried about that. I dont feel
particularly attached to it . . . I dont feel any the less Guernsey for that. (GE11)
Fishman (1991) claims that one cannot be Xish through language Y. However, in a
survey of speakers of Jrriais, Skeet (2000) asked this very question and found that
although most respondents retained a strong affective attachment to and identification
with Jrriais, they saw in their daily lives numerous people who were adequately
identified both by themselves and by others as fully Jersey without speaking the
indigenous language, so were forced to conclude that speaking Jrriais was not an
essential indicator of Jerseyness. To maintain that it is both flies in the face of observed
reality and also risks alienating the majority population. Feelings of distinctive ethnic
identity are multifaceted and can outlive objective measures such as language and
culture, so that a Guernsey person can still feel pride at being from Guernsey, although
linguistically and culturally they may well be indistinguishable from someone from
England.
One interesting facet of identity construction on the three islands is that the Isle of
Man describes itself as a nation, whereas the Channel Islands are not usually thought of
as a nation, or even as an entity. A link between language and national identity is often
assumed in discourse on language and ethnicity, but just what the national identity is in
the Channel Islands is not easy to ascertain. Falla (2000) states: My passport says Im a
British citizen with no EU national rights. Ive never felt English. Ive always been very
clear to call myself British. Maybe, like all Guerns, I have a bit of an identity crisis.
Ive been known to say but youre English No Im not Im Guernsey. But thats
English No its not it is not English Ive been known to have arguments with
people in France No Im not English thank you. (GF34)
It annoys me that I have to say Im from the UK when I buy things on the internet
because Im not from the UK, Im from Great Britain, but theres no option.
(AQ123)
Liddicoat (1993: 8), in a paper on the social identity of speakers of Serquiais, claims
that The strategy of individual mobility and the adoption of English is perceived by
Norman-French speakers as successful in attaining a positively valued self identity . . .
This identity seems to have been radically changed from Norman French to British.
However, Liddicoat refers to the Channel Islands as part of Great Britain/the United
Kingdom, which is incorrect, although subjectively islanders may consider themselves
British (and many non-Serquiais-speaking community members have immigrated from
the UK).
But islanders also view themselves as part of the British Isles, for example in sport,
athletes compete for Britain or England.8 Guernseys football team has joined an English
county league and has commissioned a Guernesiais-language slogan. There are strong
royalist sentiments in the Channel Islands towards the British Crown due to the historical
link through the Duchy of Normandy: the traditional toast is la Royne not Duc (the queen
our duke). There are some links with France/Normandy (e.g. town twinning; a pan-
Norman cultural festival; Maison de Normandie, a cultural centre funded by the
mainland Normandy regional government in Jersey), but culturally and economically the
islands face almost entirely towards the UK.
There are strong (if good-natured) rivalries between Guernsey and Jersey, especially in
inter-island football matches. Although politically they are slightly more independent
than the Isle of Man, in terms of identity they may see Britain as their overarching
nation.9 Even within each island there is rivalry between parishes (administrative
divisions). Each parish has its own character and formerly had its own distinct dialect of
Guernesiais. In February 2006 I saw a car with a bumper sticker with the Vale parish
crest saying: Jsis d l Vall me ouque t d? A literal translation might be: Im
from the Vale me where you from?10 I found it very interesting to see this modern-
format act of regional identity in what purported to be Guernesiais, but was unable to
talk to the driver as I was in the car behind. However, when I asked informants (who
happened to be from western parishes) for their views on it, their only reaction was cant
see why theyre proud to be from the Vale responding without exception in terms of
regional rivalry rather than to the grammar and spelling, or to the value of such an item
for prestige language planning.
Association with the Vikings is an iconic element of identity construction in all three
islands. However, in all three islands the Vikings seem to have accommodated quickly to
the local languages: the Manx language has only minimal Norse influence on the local
language and very few words of Norse origin (Ager 2009: 15), although a number of
place and family names are of Viking origin. In the Channel Islands some form of
Romance language has been spoken for over 2,000 years, with only a few Norse
elements being added, relating particularly to ships, the sea and shoreline, e.g. vraic
(seaweed), hala (to haul), dicq (embankment, dyke), bnque (low cliff, beach), hou
(island) in Guernesiais.
Chapter 6 will discuss further how language is consciously being used as an identity
marker in language revitalisation, e.g. to market local products.
Our difference from everywhere else in the world is what makes Guernsey unique
and if we wish to remain unique and independent we must use every opportunity
and every difference that we have from the rest of the world to make that case. Why
is it important to promote and preserve our differences? I offer a simple answer, and
one that has been used widely by others extinction is forever. Our Guernsey
French language is an example of what we could lose unless we take the appropriate
steps to preserve it.
A major strand in the literature on language and ethnic identity is the view of language
as marker of inter-group identity (e.g. Tajfel 1974; Giles 1977; Giles and Johnson 1981;
Hogg and Abrams 1988, 2001, inter alia), although there are wide variations in the
definition of a group (Husband and Saifullah-Khan 1982: 200). Potter and Wetherell
(1987) note that the exercise of identifying group boundaries is often problematic; in
these island contexts it is not clear where ethnic or group boundaries can be drawn. Local
language speakers and Anglophones are physically and culturally indistinguishable, and
even native-speaking campaigners admit to having problems telling from the accent in
English who is a speaker of local languages. As noted previously, speaking Jrriais can
no longer be viewed as a prerequisite of Jerseyness (Skeet 2000). There has been a
certain degree of intermarriage, so that it would cause family rifts to identify English
speakers as an out-group. It is likely that such peaceable inter-group coexistence
contributes to language shift; but would conflict be preferable?
I dont make much effort to find [opportunities to speak Guernesiais] really apart
from meeting people you know that know it I dont go to any societies that
specifically speak in Guernsey French I didnt join lAssembllae dGuernesiais
because my wife doesnt know it and I feel that it would be a division you know?
(GF13)
I wouldnt want to go to a whole evening where no English is spoken because I
wouldnt be able to take my wife. (GF4)
People mistakenly think that the revival of Manx will be harmed by people coming
here from the Philippines, Poland, and other countries . . . but the fact is the exact
opposite, because these people know exactly what the situation is over languages,
because theyve been living in situations where their own languages might be under
threat and theyre living in a very complicated shifting world which people here
havent experienced at all . . . other cultures around the world greatly respect people
who respect their own culture or respect a different culture and again this is a thing
which some people are still finding very hard to understand.11
Many incomers are keen to protect local distinctiveness, which in many cases is what
first attracted them to the island. Some immigrants to Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of
Man have learnt the indigenous languages and become active or influential in language-
related activities. One volunteer in an after-school Guernesiais session stated that non-
local parents especially had warmed to the idea of having something unique and local
(GF23). Another respondent commented:
It is noticeable that in the last ten years that the uneasy/negative attitudes to the
language are being dropped and ironically are not even present in the group of
incomers from the UK. (GE13)
An Isle of Man politician noted that new residents were generally more sympathetic to
local language. It may be that recent immigrants from the UK and Europe have been
influenced by the promotion of indigenous languages such as Welsh and Cornish, and are
bringing these attitudes with them. An interviewee of Cornish origin commented that she
would not wish Guernesiais to go the way of Cornish.12
A crucial factor in this apparent majority-population support for minority languages
may be that the majority population increasingly see local languages as part of their
heritage too, not only that of the dwindling number of native speakers. This is even true
of people who are not of island origin. In the Isle of Man especially, there is a conscious
effort to use local language as a unifying identity focus.
A teacher commented:
Theres a huge immigrant population mostly from England and a lot of them are
looking for an alternative identity . . . traditionally, the English kids resented being
here, parents would talk about things they did growing up in Manchester . . . as a
Manx kid that always annoyed me . . .why dont you just embrace where you are?
. . . kids that have got a few words is all part of forging an identity here . . .
A Jersey language activist reported that in the survey of parents in 1998 to gauge
potential interest in learning Jrriais, the majority of folk who wanted their children to
learn Jrriais are not Jersey born people. A civil servant reported, my father came to
live in Jersey in 1970 and the first thing he went to was a Jrriais evening class.
As will be discussed in 5.4 and in Chapter 7, promoting an inclusive identity based on
indigenous language has implications not only for identity construction, but also for the
self-image of essentialist nationalists (in the Isle of Man) and the remaining traditional
speakers in Jersey and Guernsey, some of whom valorise their native-speaker status as
language owners or guardians.
Many of these features are shared by the three languages of this case study. Broderick
(1984, 1991, 1999) gives examples of simplification and influence from English on what
he calls late Manx before the death of the last traditional speakers. Jones (2001, 2002)
cites widespread examples of language change in Jrriais and Guernesiais, including
lexical impoverishment (loss of vocabulary knowledge), calques (copying of
grammatical patterns), simplification of grammar and morphology, and English influence
on pronunciation.
Owing to the gaps in documentation and the timescale involved, there is a lack of
comparative data from pre-contact spoken varieties of Guernesiais and Jrriais (if such
ever existed), apart from a few recordings and a body of literature (see Jennings and
Marquis (2011)), which does not necessarily reflect spoken usage but the writers
perceptions of both actual and desirable usage (see 5.4.3). Evidence of long-standing
contact-induced changes over at least the last two centuries can be identified in Manx,
Guernesiais and Jrriais through this literature and in old recordings (as noted in Chapter
2, the first recordings of Manx were made at the beginning of the twentieth century).
Older speakers of Guernesiais, while maintaining that they speak like their grandparents,
admit that they find Mtiviers nineteenth-century poetry difficult to understand,
although this is also because Mtivier attempted to civilise Guernesiais by importing
French elements:
Its not your common-or-garden patois as they know it, you know its the sort of
lite almost. (GF39)
The use of verbs in ways which are homonyms in English but not in French, e.g.
saver, to know (a fact) for to know (a person or language); travailler, to
work (employment, labour) generalised to cover work as in function where
French would use marcher:
There is also new terminology and usage developing because of the way language is
used in school, especially in Mathematics. According to head teacher Julie Matthews
(interviewed 7 November 2012), a decision had been taken to adapt the traditional Manx
counting system to be closer to the English system, which is easier to manipulate in
decimal calculations.
One Manx teacher opined that it might be possible that the system of initial consonant
mutations on nouns and adjectives, which is iconic of Celtic languages, might eventually
reduce or disappear in non-native-speaker Manx; this was strenuously denied by some
others. Supporters of Manx disagree as to the extent of ongoing change; the varying
opinions probably reflect the degree of purist views held (see 5.4.1).
Of course, endangered languages would have continued to change if they were still
vital: the English of teenagers is different from that of their grandparents too. Clague
(personal communication, 11 November 2008) comments that in any language children
speak differently from their parents, and adults speak differently from the way they spoke
as children; there will always be some people who resist new language practices. Several
informants commented that the Bunscoill cannot always wait for official terminology to
be decided by Coonceil ny Gaelgey [The Manx Gaelic Advisory Council] (see Chapter
6).
The call for papers for a conference entitled New Speakers of Minority Languages: A
Dialogue in Edinburgh in 201214 described the phenomenon as follows:
New speakers are defined here as individuals who use the language of a particular
minority linguistic community in everyday life but are not native speakers . . . New
speakers of indigenous minority languages are also emerging in situations where
traditional linguistic practices are changing and new ones appearing. In many parts
of the world, traditional communities of minority language speakers are being
eroded as a consequence of increased urbanization and economic modernization. At
the same time, new speakers are emerging as a result of revitalization efforts and
more favourable language policies, prompting some individuals to become speakers
of the minority language and to invest in its provision for the next generation.
The linguistic varieties being used by new speakers can often be significantly
removed from the norm associated with traditional native speakers. Different factors
may be at play here: new standardized forms may be used in educational and other
formal contexts, new terminology may be developed to make the language
functional in new domains, and new speakers language may show the influence of
their first language (typically the dominant state language) in terms of syntax and
pronunciation. New speakers often tend to be concentrated in urban areas that may
be very different in social and socioeconomic terms from the traditional rural
communities.
Because of underlying linguistic, sociolinguistic, socioeconomic, socio-
geographical and very often ideological differences between native and new
speakers, these groups can sometimes perceive themselves as being socially and
linguistically incompatible. This may lead to tensions between different minority
language speakers which can sometimes have a negative effect on the process of
linguistic revitalization.
Revitalisation in the Channel Islands has not yet reached the point where divergence is
a real (as opposed to a perceived) danger, although some community members express
concern about language change. As noted by Costa (forthcoming b) and Marquis and
Sallabank (forthcoming), the conflicts stem partly from differing views on authority in
language and who counts as a legitimate speaker.
The article by Le Cheminant (2001) cited in 4.4 is an example of someone who is
willing to express himself in Guernesiais in public despite being aware that he does not
have full productive mastery of all areas of grammar. People learning a new or heritage
language from scratch have few or no intuitions about its grammar or pronunciation, as
noted by Marcellesi (1983 [2003]).
When traditionalist Guernesiais and Jrriais supporters mention language change, they
are referring to convergence with English. They express worries that influence from
English or insufficiently acquired accuracy will lead to language change. For example:
No offence but I wouldnt say that youre good enough that your Guernsey French
is good enough to teach children its like the Ravigotteurs you see, theyre going
to change the language to teach it it wont be the Guernsey French we know.
(GF19a)
The Presidents Report for the year 2009 of LAssembllae dGuernsiais Guernsey
language association included the following comment:
I am also glad to report that lessons on Guernsey French are continuing in the
schools. We have a good band of teachers who are giving up their time to teach . . .
It is good to know that the children are taught the traditional Guernsiais. Not a new
way that some would like to introduce.15
They cant pronounce it like I do for instance . . . if I tell you si bein aise dte veis
. . . Et dgarder not langage en allant pace qu lafthe ne va paon trop bein. Si
chest qu jpourrons pon pler le Jrriais . . . mais ya pas fort qui lplent. Il savent
et l[s]autes sont lapprendre, chest comme les mousses, i sont ichin apprendre et
i sont keen pour lapprendre mais quand il arrivent siez ieux, ya personne pour
garder lu langage en allant, chest pour chenna, mes mousses messerment, ils ne
plent pas achteu, ils savent bein . . . All that means, the young ones are keen to
learn but when they go home theyve got no-one to hold a conversation with them
therefore they forget til they meet to the class again . . . They [teachers] know
Jersey French better than many many . . . but when they come to talk, its not quite
le vrai Jrriais [real Jrriais], you know theres something in their tongue thats
turned to like English . . . I think its going to be the way for the children because
they were brought up speaking English so theyre going to have different accents.
What I hope we dont do in Jersey French is bastardise it its a seventeenth
century language and if we have to put in twenty-first century idioms, thats what
they stay, so the language stays pure. (JE1)
I used to have an assistant [name] and her dad was a Jrriais speaker and he would
go into the shops in St Martin and if anybody whod learnt it in night class spoke
hed just shut up because he said it grated on him. Its not the same. (JE2)
English does accumulate constantly whereas if you try and introduce something into
Manx, people say oh thats artificial! (Manx teacher 1)
When Brian started there was a letter to the paper saying that the Manx taught in
schools was not the genuine article. (Manx teacher 2)
I think the pronunciation is becoming anglicised and in a lot of the more modern
Manx that you will hear in the Bunscoill the Manx grammar is going out the
window quite a bit . . . [Language change] seems to be quite accelerated in some
cases. (Manx teacher 2)
This can lead to tensions between what is seen as traditional versus Bunscoill
Manx:
Quite often the Manx for GCSE and A-level differs considerably from what is being
used in the Bunscoill because I suppose were trying to stick more to the older
Manx really and the Manx in the textbooks whereas theyre using a language which
is much more vibrant probably but tends to have a lot of English influence in word
order and so on . . . its inevitable really. The number of homes where the parents
actually speak Manx with the children here is very small, two or three.
On the other hand, some would welcome an even faster pace of change. A parent of a
child at the Bunscoill commented:
We have an early edition of the First Thousand Words in Manx and theres some
words in there that they dont use those words theres a few weve noticed . . . it
may be an alternative, but certainly my boys dont use those words for those things
. . . there have been changes no doubt about it, the pace of it is so much faster
because its forced faster . . . its great.
And . . . they all do their best . . . some of the seasoned old Jrriais people say, Oh
but the accent isnt quite the same, I dont know why the students are . . . And my
answer is you give it a go! (JE4: Jrriais teacher, 60s)
I will say to all Jrriais speakers how would you say X? So Im not leading them.
Would you say it this way and theyll say definitely not . . . theres a lovely one,
the past present: this morning I went to X school A matin je fus . . . you cant say
that. Hier je fus. A matin jetais [Yesterday I was. This morning I was] . . . ever so
subtle. . . its unfair to expect them [non-native-speaker teachers] to know frankly
what they do is unbelievable . . . occasionally there are words that come out that are
not in the right context its very subtle . . . This is the future though, there will be
more non-native speakers. Its a view I took early on look were either going to
save the language and accept . . . or no language . . . in fairness theyre not going to
get it all right. (JE5: language supporter, 60s)
It is recognised that, as discussed in 2.2.3, the Manx of the last traditional speakers
contained numerous contact features and does not necessarily constitute the best model
for learners:
This raises the question of whether it is better to retain at least part of a language in
use (or to let it evolve), or to let it die with its morphological boots on (Dorian 1978:
608). More research is needed in the area of language change in revitalisation, widening
the scope of comparisons between the usage of neo-speakers and traditional speakers.
Insights might also be gained from findings in second language acquisition research,
although this tends to focus on major standardised languages, especially English, which
unlike most minority languages have a large number of potential interlocutors for
learners, and widely available, corpus-based reference and learning materials. Research
into the revitalised language might also be informed by studies of native vs. non-native-
speaker usage (e.g. Davies 2003; Houghton and Rivers 2013) and of English as a lingua
franca (Jenkins 2002; Timmis 2002; Seidlhofer 2006; Mauranen and Ranta 2009), which
includes discussion of language ownership (see 5.4.4). Another fruitful line of research
is being carried out into the experiences and strategies of latent speakers re-activating or
re-learning their ancestral languages (Basham 1999; Basham and Fathman 2003).
A topic which links language change with domain expansion is the development of
new terminology for languages which were traditionally used in restricted domains. Like
any language planning, this can happen in a managed or unplanned manner. Chapter 6
will discuss the mechanisms by which it is attempted in the three islands.
Guernsey French is wonderful . . . peoples eyes dance when they speak it. (GF17)
If I was kidnapped like Terry Waite or on a desert island, although Im a Christian
and I should say Id like the Bible, what would mean the most to me would be a
recording of someone speaking Guernsey French. (GF33)
You see now the way the world is with a bit of recession quite often we look
inwards dont we . . . talking about food . . . where people go back to more
traditional foods because its like a comfort, and perhaps there could be something
in that in languages as well . . . (JE18)
Several informants have told me that when relatives were dying, they reverted to their
first language. For many older speakers, the language is connected with memories of
loved ones who have now passed away perhaps bittersweet memories make for
ambivalent attitudes. One respondent reported that when his brother was dying he only
got a reaction by speaking to him in Guernesiais:
With my brothers when we were having a fun evening we used to tell each other a
lot of stories which were really funny and I always meant for us to record it
when we were having one of those sessions but it never actually happened and
its lost now. (GF13)
In the Isle of Man, Manx is consciously promoted as a living language: for example,
the title of a supporters newsletter is Gaelg Vio (Living Manx).18 A former Language
Officer commented:
And theres also the issue of if its heritage looking backwards . . . I know the
description of our language is heritage languages, but Im not awfully keen, fond of
that . . . heritage implies something of the past whereas I think language planning
implies the future. (Phil Gawne, personal communication, 4 November 2008)
The issue at stake here is who is considered a legitimate speaker, what is legitimate
usage and who has the right to decide. Costa (forthcoming) argues that:
a new speaker is not simply a new speaker, someone who has recently learnt a
language. A new speaker is a term that comes with a loading of moral and political
issues about what it means to be a genuine member of a given group, about what a
language is or should be, and about who has the right to define who gets to use the
language or not. This is particularly the case in minority language groups . . .
This is also an issue for major international languages such as English, where non-
native speakers also now outnumber native speakers (Crystal 2003), as Jenkins (2007)
has found.
Costa compares the association of ordinary (or traditional) speakers with descriptors
such as rural, old, working class, and representing continuity, tradition, authenticity
with those associated with new speakers: urban, young, middle class, rupture,
artificiality.
The parallels with Kuters (1989: 76) symbolic values enshrined in the use of Breton
(as a traditional local language) and French (the national language, enshrining modernity
and education) are striking. Language ownership and the claiming of legitimacy are thus
another aspect of the tendency identified by Romaine (2002a) to reproduce traditional
hegemonic language hierarchies (see Chapter 1). They reinforce Schieffelin et al.s
(1998: 17) observation that
movements to save minority languages are often structured, willy-nilly, around the
same received notions of language that have led to their oppression . . . language
activists find themselves imposing standards, elevating literate forms and uses, and
negatively sanctioning variability in order to demonstrate the reality, validity, and
integrity of their languages.
Costa (forthcoming b) poses a question that will resonate with many who are used to
minority language settings:
Why are children and learners both eagerly expected to learn minority languages,
while at the same time very often negatively evaluated in their actual practice of
said languages? What ideological mechanisms underpin such attitudes?
Costa illustrates how pupils at an Occitan-medium school negotiate their own notions
of language-related legitimacy through, for example, seniority, length of time spent
learning the language, ease/speed of language learning; this has relevance to the situation
in the Isle of Man. Costa also points out that academics and teachers play a particularly
powerful role as gatekeepers, as they tend to set norms and need to construct their own
legitimacy with respect to native speakers.
5.5 Conclusions
The research presented in this chapter indicates a sea change in attitudes towards
indigenous languages from the late twentieth century on. In all three islands, public
discourse now supports at least the idea of local language being an important element of
building a distinct local identity.
If the aim is for an endangered language to survive as a living language, it needs new
speakers. As time takes its toll, the last generation of fluent traditional speakers will
disappear, as it did in the Isle of Man by the 1970s.
Manx is promoted not only as a symbol of distinctiveness, but as a living language, as
noted in 5.4.2; and it is notable that rhetoric is backed up by practice, in that there is a
small community of people who use Manx in much of their personal and business lives.
In the Channel Islands, however, it is not clear to what extent the broad public support
for the indigenous languages involves their continued use for communicative purposes,
since to date there has been no public discussion regarding the aims of language policy,
and no ideological clarification (Fishman 2001; see Chapter 3). This will be discussed
further in Chapter 7.
6 Language planning and policy: bottom-up and
top-down
Regrettably I am one of the worst type of hypocrites! I wish the language to remain
a part of the islands culture but find excuses not to do something about it myself.
(AQ187)
The aim is basically to preserve a lot of our traditions. Its a social group we have
a function monthly, an annual lunch . . . in January we have a little concert . . . in
February we had bingo; March is annual lunch . . . in April theres a spring
Christian service, one year Church of England, one year Methodist led by a member
of the Assemblie. (JE16)
In a way its good because weve been able to develop the school very much from a
bottom-up movement its not ever been something that somebody in the
Department of Education has said we must have a Manx-speaking school. No its
completely its come from the bottom. (MA19)
In the initial stages of language revitalisation, public opinion and private initiatives are
ahead of official policy. But most campaigners have little knowledge of linguistics,
sociolinguistics or language planning theory, although some informants report having
been inspired to read literature on linguistics and sociolinguistics. There have also been
fruitful links made between language-related groups and individuals in the three islands
and elsewhere. Government support can encourage the professionalisation of language
planning, in these cases through participation in intergovernmental networks such as the
British-Irish Council (see Chapter 2), which share expertise and good practice.
Urged on by the common perception that Government and new residents alike were
treating the Manx as second-class citizens, a number of Manx people and some
incomers looked to the Manx language and its associated culture to re-establish a
strong Manx identity.
(Gawne 2002: 2)
Paulston (1987: 156) suggests that learning a regional language can sometimes be a
form of conscious or unconscious protest . . . it is significant that in Occitanie, the area
that boasts the greatest number of learners of Occitan is the Aude: the most
disadvantaged department in the region. In southern France, language activism is linked
to social movements and broadly left-wing political activism (Lafont 1992, 1997; Costa
2013), whereas in many other places, including the Channel Islands, concern with
language issues may be seen as a middle-class concern as it is less vital than more
concrete problems: one Guernsey Anglophone commented that the only people who
want to save the language are intellectuals (GE12). However, a Guernsey language
activist (GF07) suggested that the teaching of local culture in schools had been
deliberately discouraged in order to inhibit nationalist sentiment. Another respondent
commented:
Another reason why some language campaigners bypass official channels is the lack
of effective implementation. Romaine (2002b) points out that simply conferring official
status does not reinstate intergenerational transmission: it is far easier to establish
schools and declare a language official than to get families to speak a threatened
language to their children . . . Many language-policy statements are reactive ad hoc
declarations lacking a planning element (2002b: 3). Romaine gives examples of policies
such as legislation to protect Native American languages which, when tested in the
courts, proved to be effectively unenforceable. It should be noted, however, that most
studies of language policies refer to large nation-states, rather than to small jurisdictions
and even smaller language communities.
If the government gets behind something it becomes a government thing and when
its a government thing people dig their heels in, certainly over here, unless they
agree with it and they might agree with it but the problem is, what the States of
Guernsey would probably do is pay a ridiculous amount of money for some English
consultants to come over and tell us how it should be done and um everyone
would kick up a big fuss about it the way its been arranged and the money thats
been wasted and the whole meaning of the reason behind it would be lost. (AQ123)
From the beginning the definition of Support [see Chapter 1] in this job title
[Language Support Officer] was problematic. It was interpreted narrowly by
stakeholders and some politicians as support for (particular) groups, initiatives or
individuals, with preservation and development of the language increasingly
ignored. It proved impossible to develop a cohesive strategy based on agreed goals;
Marquis resigned the post in July 2011 and has not been replaced.
Up to the time of writing, little progress has been made in developing a replacement
strategy, despite consultations by the Ministry with language supporters. As well as the
interpretation of support, the interpretation of language community is also
problematic: Guernesiais is presumed to be chiefly the concern of traditional or native
speakers, so that learners and members of a potential new speaker community have had
little input into policy-making to date.
All three islands are members of the British-Irish Council (see Chapter 2), which has
identified protection and promotion of indigenous minority languages as a priority. Other
regions, especially Wales, which is the lead member on language policy, see maintaining
regional identity as increasingly important in the era of globalisation, with languages a
key element. All three islands have been sharing information on indigenous language
revitalisation with other members through this forum. As the only member not to have
recognised or promoted its indigenous language, Guernsey came under strong pressure in
the first decade of the twenty-first century to initiate a language policy to support
Guernesiais. The government was put in the position of having to be seen to do more, to
project the desired external image (Ager 1996: 26).
One issue which challenges both the rhetoric of government support for language
revitalisation, and the reliance on Language Officers as drivers of language planning, is
the value placed on the posts themselves, which may indicate an underlying lack of
commitment to long-term language policy implementation. The jobs of Language
Officer and teacher of [Jrriais] do not yet seem to have full validity as career paths. In
all three islands the Language Officer posts were initially temporary, and although there
is now a degree of tenure in the Isle of Man and Jersey, both rely on voluntary
organisations for management functions. None has any administrative support, and
opportunities for career progression are limited. In Jersey and the Isle of Man, peripatetic
teachers of the indigenous languages are employed on a part-time basis. In Jersey they
are paid an hourly rate plus petrol expenses; in Guernsey, most school-based sessions are
taught by volunteers, who are not even given expenses. In Guernsey the grading of the
Language Officer post was not commensurate with officers in other departments. The
Jersey Language Officer posts and the Heritage Foundation-managed Language Officer
post in the Isle of Man do not have pensions attached (although Department of Education
posts do). In addition, planning for the long-term continuation of provision seems to be
lacking or ad hoc, for example with regard to training potential future officers and
teachers: in Jersey two of the current Language Officers will retire shortly, but there are
few potential candidates with the requisite language skills. Manx-medium education
provision in the Isle of Man is also reported by practitioners to be planned on a short-
term, ad hoc basis, and complaints have been voiced about the lack of teacher
development (see 6.6).
6.3.2 Official language status
It might be thought that a first step in government support for a minority language would
be to recognise it as an official language or to recognise the right to use it in certain
contexts, before funding to preserve/promote it can be sought. However, this is not
always or necessarily the case. In both Jersey and Guernsey, some political support and
funding has been provided without or before moves to officialise the languages. Indeed,
it seems that the fact of funding a Language Officer does not necessarily mean the
language is official, although a Guernsey civil servant informed me in 2008 that it meant
that Guernesiais was de facto recognised.
There are also voices that oppose officialisation or see it as unnecessary or irrelevant
to grass-roots activities, especially if a language is seen as primarily an oral vernacular.
Phil Gawne, former Manx Language Development Officer, feels that any official
recognition would inevitably state that English was the main language and that Manx
could hold only a secondary position. In addition, recognition of a minority language by
use in public services is often symbolic rather than functional. Mougeon and Beniak
(1989: 293) note that by the time it is thought to offer bureaucratic services in minority
languages, they are usually superfluous because most speakers have perforce become
bilingual in the dominant language. Several informants in the Isle of Man expressed
scepticism about a campaign in Wales to have the right to receive tax forms in Welsh,
which they see as of low priority and irrelevant. A recent email correspondent stressed
that a good teaching and learning experience for students was more important.
Les Pages Jrriaises website states that L Jrriais est la langue minnoritaithe
officielle d Jrri (Jrriais is the official minority language of Jersey).6 However, the
Jersey governments website does not mention official status, describing Jrriais as
precious and as an important part of Jerseys heritage.7 Nevertheless, its general
website masthead includes a translation of the heading (see Figure 6.1) which is included
on all pages, not only the one about Jrriais. This feature, which highlights the fact that
Jersey has its own language in a highly visible flagship location, was praised by
Guernsey Deputy (member of parliament) Darren Duquemin, who has taken
responsibility for language policy in the States of Guernsey (see 6.3.4).
The Jersey Language Office reports that Jrriais is recognised as a regional language
by the British and Irish governments within the framework of the British-Irish Council,
which proceeds on the basis that all the languages are equal, but benefit from different
structures and are in need of different support. Approaches, methodologies and policies
are agreed by officials and ministers, so that governments sign up to principles that
would have been a hard sell if wed had to argue for them in our own little corners
(Geraint Jennings, Offici assistant du Jrriais (Assistant Jersey Language Officer),
personal communication, 18 December 2012).
According to LOffice du Jrriais, the 2005 Island Cultural Strategy proposed the
adoption of Jrriais as Jerseys official minority language, and the investigation of
ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.8 Some
objections were raised on the (spurious?) grounds that Jrriais was seen as a dialect of
French, which has an official function in legislation, unlike Jrriais (a consequence of the
diglossic relationship with French described in Chapters 2 and 5). However, lOffice du
Jrriais explained the definition as laid out in the Charter; that satisfied the requesting
party (Geraint Jennings, 17 December 2012).
Manx is recognised as a regional language of the UK under the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages, which from the point of view of island sovereignty is
not entirely satisfactory since it is not part of the UK. Kelly (2005) writes:
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages offers two levels of
commitment to Manx. Part Two protection involves a general commitment, while
Part Three makes more specific requirements, including provision for the language
to be used in court proceedings and governments dealing with the public.
While the Isle of Man already meets the Part Three requirements in some respects,
including education and heritage, it has opted for Part Two protection at this stage,
and will keep the question of Part Three protection under review.
As noted above, in 1985 Tynwald passed a resolution to give the Manx language
limited official recognition for the first time in Manx history. It recommended the
following policies:
(Gawne 2002)
All of these recommendations were eventually carried out, although for some it took
twenty years. It can be argued that legislation may eventually lead to concrete language
planning actions; and in this case, it led to the development of several further phases of
integrated language strategies, as well as to activism to remind the legislators of their
stated intentions.
In the Channel Islands the de facto language of officialdom had been French ever
since the sixteenth century, although Lewis (1895), who sat in on some debates in the
States of Guernsey when researching his doctoral dissertation, observed that the French
used was sometimes not very standard. In 1926 English was accepted for use in the
States and in courts of law. Johnstone (1994: 12) makes the common assumption that this
meant that English was adopted as an official language of the Island. However, there is
no legislation defining official language(s), merely permitted languages. The Island
Archivist, Darryl Ogier, commented in March 2010: I dont think we have an official
language or languages in the sense of one or more laid down by law. All we can say is
that English became admissible in the States at a particular date and in the Courts at
another (most lately in re conveyancing in 1969). Billets dEtat (bills for debate) were
published in French until 1946, when local government was reorganised following World
War II. Conveyances of Realty continued to be drawn up in French until 1969 (Darryl
Ogier, March 2010) and the titles of bills are still in French.
The legislative status of the indigenous languages can be seen to be related to their
perceived status as languages or dialects, which is related in turn to ideologies about
language. Trudgill (1992) observes that whether a variety is designated a language or not
is related not only to linguistic characteristics (such as degree of relatedness or difference
to the majority language), but also to social and economic factors (see 1.2).
Im very supportive. Always have been . . . Yes absolutely a hundred per cent,
weve made it very much part of our culture and leisure strategic policy. All the
island knows about it. Were now at the first stepping stone and we just need to
keep going . . .
Yet it is also evident from interviews that many politicians know (or care) relatively
little about language issues, especially in Guernsey and Jersey. This may be problematic
when it comes to the formulation of workable strategies and budgeting. There are many
ways in which the Manx government funds language revitalisation, e.g. formal
education, peripatetic teachers, adult education, bilingual signage, partnerships with
business, etc. The total amount of government language support is not stated, and
estimates range from 100,000 to 1 million per year. This lack of clarity is because
much of the funding is indirect, via organisations such as the MHF (which employs yn
Greinneyder, the Manx Language Development Officer), Manx National Heritage, the
Centre for Manx Studies (an offshoot of Liverpool University but with some funding
from the Manx government), the Mooinjer Veggey Trust which runs pre-schools, the
Manx-medium primary school and secondary immersion classes, the Arts Council (e.g.
Manx Music), Manx Radio, etc. There is also significant investment via the Education
Department, which has a Manx Language Officer and a team of peripatetic teachers who
provide optional Manx lessons in approximately half of the island schools. A former
Language Officer commented, we cant really complain. But then for many hundreds of
years they did nothing, so theyre only making up for lost time.
Jersey and Guernsey language activists and politicians frequently allude to the fact
that funding for language support is significantly higher in the Isle of Man. Yet a Manx
civil servant interviewed in 2008 admitted that the Education Department had originally
underestimated the take-up of Manx lessons, and should have appointed five teachers
rather than two. It is difficult to say what a reasonable amount of funding for language
support might be, especially since economic constraints have also led to language being
deprioritised in relation to more essential services. A Guernsey civil servant observed:
There wont be any money around for years . . . its a double whammy . . .
international world problems, the banking, and the confidence, but coupled with that
for Jersey, Guernsey and to a lesser extent the Isle of Man there is the transition, the
zero-ten in Guernsey terms where weve had millions of pounds wiped off our
revenue by the changes of the economic structure . . . and the unplanned world
economic situation.
Having appeared to be almost reluctantly providing what people wanted and lagging
slightly behind their wildest aspirations has been actually an amazingly effective
factor in determining its continuation and its success and I would say now that
politically there would be utterly no chance of it being opposed because the sixteen
year bedding in period has been so free from problems and contentions that
politically everybody is on board now and therefore the momentum and support for
propagating the Manx language is stronger than ever before, certainly our
departments commitment is big it really is big.
Wilson (2008: 79) suggests that economic stability has been crucial in amassing this
support:
The gradual expansion of the Isle of Mans political and economic autonomy during
the 20th century and its particular status as a Crown Dependency have provided the
government with the policy tools and jurisdiction to pursue a program of cultural
and linguistic revitalization. The governments ability to maneuver on this issue has
been supported by the revenues it has derived from a thriving off-shore banking and
services sector. Despite the concerns that the new economy has threatened the
indigenous culture and language by initiating an influx of immigrants who have
little or no connection to Manx language and culture, the future of the linguistic and
cultural revival is largely dependent on the continued growth and development of
the island economy.
Wilsons paper was written just before the current economic downturn. Although
support for language revitalisation seems embedded in government culture in the Isle of
Man, activists are aware that economic problems may lead to reduced funding and the
reduction of provision, especially since in 2011 funding for the peripatetic teaching of
French was withdrawn. At the time of writing, there is therefore a move to establish a
new independent campaigning and fundraising organisation, which actively seeks
support from people who do not necessarily speak the language, as well as from the
private industry sector.
Support for Manx seemed widespread and secure until economic problems arrived.
Although the islands economy remains relatively healthy, government finances were hit
hard by changes in UK tax regulations in 2009: the wheels have just fallen off the IOM
economy; its fairly catastrophic and theres no guarantee well have jobs in 6 months10
(Adrian Cain, Manx Language Development Officer, personal communication, 22
October 2009); nevertheless, government support for Manx seems robust: at the time of
writing at the end of 2012, the Language Development Officer remains in post and the
government continues to support Manx language initiatives.
There are indications that the establishment of a Language Officer post can act as a
catalyst for non-governmental language-related activities. In Guernsey the appointment
of a Language Officer provided a contact point for language-related enquiries. This led to
increased inclusion of some Guernesiais in the branding of local products and services,
and to requests from local businesses and organisations for translations of slogans: e.g.
bus timetables, notices at an agricultural show, signs at sports centres and a family
centre. One interviewee reported that:
The Guernsey Press run this thing children draw advertisements for local companies
and I noticed this year in the newspaper bit with all these advertisements, four or
five of them had put in a little Guernsey French phrase. (GF38)
There was something somewhere a while ago that Guernsey was employing a
Language Officer, and it stuck in my mind . . . so then it was case of find out who it
is and can they help . . . so he was just very helpful . . . came up with loads of
different ideas. So thats how it came about in a way Yan made it easy, because he
was there and its his job to do this. Otherwise it wouldnt have been difficult one
of my mothers friends speaks patois . . . she says that different parishes speak
different so I can imagine trying to get a consensus out of them would have been a
nightmare. (GE17)
In Guernsey and the Isle of Man, Language Officers remits include the production of
language strategy documents. In the Isle of Man, strategy documents have been produced
by the Manx Language (Development) Officers in 1995, 2000 and 2010. These vary
considerably in format and the amount of budgetary detail included, but they generally
include reasons why Manx should be promoted and achievements to date as well as
recommendations for future implementation. The 2010 recommendations11 include
(amongst others):
teacher development;
promotion of family use of Manx;
Manx as a properly timetabled subject in all secondary schools;
ensuring progression amongst learners of Manx;
the publication of a pocket dictionary for learners;
support for the Manx Gaelic Youth Group;
encouragement for businesses and other government departments to use Manx in
appropriate ways;
an increase in the amount of Manx in the media;
support for academic research into Manx Gaelic, which will specifically improve
the quality of language instruction on the Island.
Reading between the lines of these recommendations, it is clear that although nearly
all the recommendations of the 2000 Integrated Development Programme were
implemented, including the establishment of the Manx-medium primary school, there is a
perceived need to strengthen the implementation of Manx language policies.
The Guernsey Language Strategy for 20111512 included a comprehensive range of
Objectives and Actions on such aspects as:
aims;
objectives;
the partners that the Department will need to work with;
the time by which the action should be delivered;
the actions to be carried out;
progress with the action.
The document is candid in that some of the Objectives, notably corpus planning and
increasing the web presence of Guernesiais, were behind target when it was compiled.
Nevertheless, four of the eight Objectives are listed as on target for completion within
the allotted timeframe, or is progressing to a satisfactory standard in terms of: schedule,
finance and resources; these include Development of language policy and
Development of opportunities for people to learn Guernsiais. The overall Cultural
Strategy for 20111513 assesses all language-related objectives and actions as on target;
I would argue that this presents a considerably more optimistic view of progress than is
the case from observations.
A source in Jersey suggested that ticking off boxes on government strategy
documents is largely a bureaucratic exercise, so that, for example, although the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has not been ratified (which was an aim in
the 2005 Jersey Cultural Strategy), as long as things are taking place as though
ratification has occurred (without the reporting requirement), progress is being made. I
would argue that to present such a picture does not support effective language planning.
Both Guernseys and Jerseys plans include official recognition of the islands
languages. The Guernsey Language Strategy for 201115 includes as an Action
Guernsiais recognised as a regional language of Europe (behind target for completion
within the allotted timeframe, but still progressing at a rate which is not causing financial
or resource-driven problems), while the Jersey Education, Sport and Culture Business
Plan 200914 includes, as clause 9, Recognise Jrriais under EC Charter for
Regional/Minority languages. The Key Performance Indicator in the Jersey policy is
listed as Expansion of teaching provision and measures to promote Jrriais, with the
target of Increased adult and youth interest in Jrriais by 2009. The Key Risk is given
as Lack of States [government] support for charter extension. The frankness of the last
point is notable, but the performance indicator (expansion of teaching provision) does
not relate directly to the aim of official recognition for Jrriais.
Most of the strategy documents cited look a maximum of five years ahead. Given that
language revitalisation is by its nature a project that could and should take generations
(especially given the rhetoric on intergenerational transmission), it might be seen as
useful to plan for periods of twentythirty years. Revitalisation efforts in the Isle of Man
have been in process since 1985, with Language Officers in post since 1992, so there is a
retrospective available against which to compare potential goals, achievements and
challenges.
On 6 February 2013 a new language strategy was announced for Guernesiais,
following elections in 2012. Prior to the announcement Culture and Leisure Department
member Deputy Darren Duquemin, who has taken on responsibility for language policy,
consulted numerous people involved in language-related activities, asking questions
which included the following:
Where they would like to see Guernesiais in 2016, 2022 and in 2025
What they, others and government can do for Guernesiais
What they saw as the main obstacles or problems
Which ten places or times they would like to see/hear Guernesiais used in ten
years time
How the success of language activities should be measured.
Few details are available of the exciting new initiatives of this strategy at the time of
writing; a Language Commission has been set up to develop more detailed plans. The
presentation in February 2013 highlighted the importance of having benchmarks, and
stated that the aim was to increase both numbers of speakers and levels of fluency, while
recognising that not all learners could or would become fluent. Suggested benchmarks of
success included:
These somewhat vague elements were combined into a slogan: Whether we are fluent
or use just a few phrases, islanders of all ages are proud of Guernseys own language.
Awareness and recognition were stated as key features (i.e. prestige planning), with the
repeated exhortation to aim high. Thus, although there are signs that the need for a
longer-term perspective and strategic planning are being recognised in Guernsey,
concrete benchmarks are lacking so far.
The Manx Language Development Officer recognises that he has little power over
other government departments (personal communication, 19 December 2012), so a key
recommendation of the Strategic Review for 201015 is the creation of a Manx
Language Advisory Committee which could help unify policy towards the language,
with representatives from key departments and voluntary groups.
In order to be effective, language policy needs to be joined up; it needs to permeate
thinking in all areas, in much the same way as environmental policy otherwise policy
statements become simply lip service or window dressing.15 In an interview in 2009,
the then Guernsey Language Support Officer, Yan Marquis, stressed that each
department which forms part of the government should be embracing the language in
every way it can . . . Ideally each department should have someone who is responsible
for the language. In Jersey and Guernsey, language activists and officers have
complained that initiatives such as signage in local languages have been delayed, blocked
or reversed by other departments or by privatised service providers. For example, in
Guernsey the planning office was reluctant to approve signs in Guernesiais, and in Jersey
in 2008, a redesign of the government website removed Jrriais versions of several pages
without consultation. This highlights the need for internal marketing of local languages
or prestige planning within the machinery of government and for pro-indigenous
language policies to be fully integrated into the work of government as a whole.
In the Isle of Man, a new bus operating company has removed Manx place names
from destination boards, despite protests from the Language Office. In both Jersey and
Guernsey, signs in the local languages have been removed from the airports (see 6.4 for
more on local language in the print environment). A Jersey language activist complained
that they had worked hard to get welcome signs at airports and harbours . . . the new
airport director from Australia didnt understand and got them removed. An official
commented:
Im not asking for much, at the entrance to each parish something saying Bianvnu
. . . its been given to the parishes, and responses have been positive overall.
Something as simple as that has taken so much of my time because of what I see as
stalling techniques by the Environment dept. They have a procedure and they have
to have boxes ticked but were talking about a little sign. It does seem to me that
there could be a little opposition. It does seem to me that Environment havent
embraced language or the idea that they have a role . . . I dont think theres enough
internal marketing. A lot of the planning officers are non-locals, they perhaps dont
appreciate the significance of having a little sign in a funny little language . . . One
has the impression in the Isle of Man that its a corporate language of the Isle of
Man its in there at the core. Whereas here its still something that the happy
department does, sports and leisure department.
As stated in this excerpt, language or local culture are not seen as priorities for
government intervention: the Guernsey Minister of Education, interviewed in 2009,
stated that science and technology were more important foci when establishing local
higher education opportunities. In the Isle of Man, by comparison, the Isle of Man
College has established qualifications in cultural tourism and marketing.
In the Channel Islands the study of language in the public space is complicated by the
use of standard French on street signs as the High written form in the former diglossic
relationship. Many street names are written in English and French, but are not necessarily
direct translations: for example, in St Helier, the capital of Jersey, La Rue du Pilori
(Stocks Street) in French (the earlier version) is rendered as Quay Street in English. The
reclamation of place names is a frequent focus of revitalisation efforts, e.g. in Ireland and
Australia. LOffice du Jrriais has made a concerted effort to increase the amount of
Jrriais in public signage, either bilingual JrriaisEnglish or trilingual with French: for
example, its website shows recycling bins with Jrriais on one side and English on the
other.16 Smaller but highly visible components of the print environment are included in
this drive: for example, the latest Jersey banknotes have the denominations written in
Jrriais as well as English and French, albeit in smaller print. Darren Duquemin, a
Guernsey politician who is spearheading a new government initiative to support language
revitalisation, identified such tokenism as an important element of language promotion.
High-circulation items such as banknotes, milk cartons and websites are seen as
flagship items which increase the currency of the language and help to sell the
islands difference to investors such as the finance sector (see 6.4.1).
In the Channel Islands the major food retailer was Jersey-based until 2010 when it was
bought by Waitrose, a UK-based chain, who removed the local-language signage, food
labelling and receipts which had been introduced by its predecessor. Knowledge of the
fact that another multinational food retailer has deemed it appropriate to include some
Manx in its signage is one example of how information-sharing might be used as
leverage in other places such as the Channel Islands.
As noted by Edwards (2001), bilingual signs have both a functional and a symbolic
value. In all these islands, tourism is now a major consideration in regard to language
visibility, and many bilingual or trilingual signs, in Jersey especially, seem to be aimed at
tourists. In Guernsey there has also been an increase in the number of items aimed
mainly at tourists which include some written in Guernesiais, e.g. postcards, tea towels,
childrens T-shirts, bookmarks.
Unlike larger minority European languages such as Welsh and Basque, there are few
public media in Jrriais, Guernesiais or Manx; the Manx Language Development Officer
has identified this as a priority to address. There is five minutes of news a week on BBC
Radio Guernsey, and a saying of the week on a commercial radio station. The BBC
Guernesiais news is broadcast early in the morning at weekends, yet a large proportion of
speakers, and also many non-speakers, reported listening to it. On BBC Radio Jersey
there is one weekly radio item, the Lettre Jrriaise (Jrriais letter), written and recorded
by a team of Jrriais-speaking volunteers in turns, on a topic of their choice. It was
realised in the mid-2000s that there was no need to repeat the news as all Jrriais
speakers understood English. Manx Radio announces itself in Manx (Shoh Radio Vannin,
This is Manx Radio) and broadcasts some Manx language-related programmes on
Saturday mornings, but these are mainly about the language rather than in it. Innovative
formats are used to provide interesting Manx-related content: e.g. language lessons
combined with music, or a magazine programme, Shiaght Laa (Seven Days), presented
in English and Manx, which previews forthcoming events as well as reporting from such
varied locations as ploughing matches or linguistic seminars.17 A Manx Broadcasting
Committee (which holds its meetings in Manx) promotes such programming and also
develops Manx audio-visual and digital media.
Series of articles in Guernesiais and Jrriais were published in local newspapers
between the nineteenth century and the 1960s. Occasional articles with English
translations still appear in the Jersey Evening Post, as well as a daily proverb. The
Guernsey Press carries a weekly Donkey dialogue18 (short phrases or proverbs in
Guernesiais), and a similar item is broadcast on a local commercial radio station. In the
Channel Islands the amount of local languages in the media has decreased in the last few
years because of a shortage of people willing and able to write or recite them. On Sark,
until 2009, very short pieces in Serquiais appeared in an island newsletter, but this has
ceased publication. In Jersey, publications in and about Jrriais are sponsored by Le Don
Balleine Trust, which also publishes a quarterly magazine, Les Nouvelles Chroniques du
Don Balleine, which encourages new writing in Jrriais; in Guernsey occasional
materials are published by La Socit Guernesiaise, and in 2012 the Culture and Leisure
Department published a full-colour introduction to Guernesiais for children, Warro! The
1982 De Garis Dictionary, which had been out of print, was also slightly revised and
reprinted.
However, as noted in the previous section, linguistic landscape is one of the areas of
language policy that can suffer if there is a lack of coordination or commitment, or if pro-
local-language policies of either governments and private organisations are reversed; this
highlights a major disadvantage of relying on top-down policies and window dressing
taken most literally.
6.4.1 Branding
Increased awareness of local languages has acted as a catalyst for their inclusion in
commercial branding, especially on locally produced food and drink products, e.g. by a
Guernsey coffee-roasting company. This indicates that in all three islands, firms perceive
that including some of the local language will enhance their products marketability by
stressing island identity. A Guernsey entrepreneur stated:
I dont think well ever get to the stage where our staff will greet people in Jrriais
because I think its fairly crass to greet people in a language that they havent a clue
what the hell theyre talking about. (JE03)
The image presented may not necessarily coincide with one of the Language Officers
reasons for linking language and business, to promote an image of local languages as
adaptable for modern purposes. With regard to a local cheese which had been given a
Guernesiais name (Frie dor, golden meadow), a marketing manager commented:
The heritage of the Guernsey cow goes back a long way theres a lot of history
about it, so when we went through the sort of initial rebranding phase of the
business . . . we were keen to promote a luxury branded item but also try and keep
some of the sort of countrified or heritage side of thats why we went for the
ginghamy type of approach as well . . . trying to embrace Guernseys history and
heritage. (GE18)
It is significant that local-language branding is now seen as a selling point, given the
historical low status of the islands vernaculars. The same interviewee continued:
We found this niche market, high value niche market, really good PR for the
business as well, because it went into the local media . . . On the back of the Frie
dor pack what weve tried to do is to explain to people what the name means . . . to
subtly underline the fact that we do have a traditional Norman name in language . . .
So again were just doing our bit to raise the profile of the brand and give people a
bit of interest into our heritage.
But a lack of coherence in language policy can damage such initiatives: for example,
the sale of the Guernsey Airport shop has led to the removal of not only Guernesiais-
language signs, but also of a high-profile outlet for small local producers.
The Language Offices in the Isle of Man and Jersey have made a particular effort to
involve local businesses in language promotion. A YouTube video produced by LOffice
du Jrriais demonstrates some uses of Jrriais in marketing, and exhorts businesses to
Faithe srvi du Jrriais (Use some Jrriais).19 Perhaps ironically, however, this video
is in Jrriais only, without subtitles, so the purported target audience of business-people
is unlikely to understand it.
The Manx language is promoted as an island success story (see Figure 6.3). Apart
from increasing the amount of Manx in the linguistic landscape, another motivation for
promoting Manx among local businesses is to raise sponsorship for other language-
related activities.
Figure 6.3 Isle of Man success story postcard (reproduced with permission from Manx
Heritage Foundation)
The Manx language was originally a central pillar of the Isle of Mans Freedom to
Flourish island branding strategy initiated in 2003,20 which promotes the island in
economy, politics, international relations, culture and education. The Brand Book itself21
is bilingual in English and Manx, and promotes indigenous language and culture as a key
element that differentiates and distinguishes the Isle of Man from other places (or
economic competitors).
Wilson (2011b), citing Kaneva (2011), defines Place Branding as a form of
marketing which aimed at both internal and external audiences. He notes that it is a
function of globalisation and global competition (especially with other low-tax
jurisdictions such as Jersey and Guernsey).
The Isle of Man Positive National Identity Guide Oayllys Jarrroo-enney Ashoonagh
Jarrooagh, for island residents who want to communicate the Islands advantage to the
outside world, provides both basic marketing advice such as presentation, design and
copy-writing, and reasons to be proud of the island. Its introduction, Why use this
guide?, states:
We must cherish and protect our unique culture, language and way of life at a time
of globalisation where it is increasingly difficult to spot the difference between
towns and even countries.22
Page 15, entitled Pride in our language, not only emphasises the symbolic value of
language, but offers some Manx phrases to use:
Just as you dont have to be born in the Isle of Man to want to promote its values,
nor do you have to be born in the Isle of Man to enjoy and benefit from its rich
language. Incorporating some Manx phrases in your communications and customer
service greetings is an interesting point of difference . . . Here are a few words and
phrases to get you started and help is at hand if you want to explore further.
By contrast, Johnson (2010: 15), describing a similar exercise by the States of Jersey
in 2007, observes that:
Perhaps one of the most striking features of this particular branding exercise is the
absence of any distinct celebration of Jerseys Norman heritage. By Norman
heritage, I refer to aspects of island life such as Jerseys unique minority language
(Jrriais), archaeology, architecture, and legal administration that point to Norman
influences on the island.
Johnson nevertheless argues that Jerseys Norman past has renewed meaning today as
an aspect of island heritage in a broader political context. An earlier Cultural Strategy
document had stressed that:
Language brings distinctiveness, a sense of localness and a whole new set of skills
all of which are important qualities in attracting the creative economy. It is
fundamental to the Islands identity.
(States of Jersey 2005)
One might observe that the lack of coordination in language policy and planning noted
earlier extends to other aspects of policy too.
The Guernsey Language Officer observed in 2009 that prestige language planning can
learn from marketing:
It needs to be marketed that its good for business somehow identity. Theres a lot
of marketing in this job. Raising a language that is essentially hidden for most
people, and of low status. You have to market a product. People eat McDonalds . . .
its beautifully marketed. Its the experience.
It is no coincidence that the Isle of Man Greinneyder likens himself more to a used
car salesman than a linguist. Meanwhile promotion of Jrriais has benefited from
McDonalds marketing: McDonalds sponsors the recycling bins mentioned above.23
However, some private companies that have erected signage in Guernesiais have come
under criticism for ignoring local heritage architecturally, e.g. a supermarket located in a
large, distinctive glass complex, or a caf in the style of a German bunker. Such cases
might even lead to suggestions of cynical manipulation of language as symbolic identity.
Some of these examples also serve as a reminder that agencies whose priorities are not
language itself, but which utilise (the idea of) language for their own purposes, cannot be
relied upon for long-term support and are no substitute for actual use of a language in the
community. The Channel Islands supermarkets mentioned above were bought by a UK
chain in 2012, which removed all local-language signs. It has also been noticed that the
presence of Manx language in island branding has diminished over time.24
It is also notable that many of these symbolic uses of language for identity expression
focus on tourism or external commerce. Wilson (2011b) queries whether the Freedom to
Flourish brand message is aimed primarily at an external (as opposed to internal)
audience, and whether this should be perceived as a problem? Arguably, if increasing the
number of speakers or amount of a language used is an aim, the use of language in the
linguistic landscape should arguably focus on raising awareness and selling the
language to the island population rather than to an external audience. Chapter 7 will
discuss this in relation to overt versus covert aims of language planning measures.
We had expected a low number of writers of Jrriais as nobody had been taught to
write the language in Island schools until the launch of the teaching programme by
LOffice du Jrriais in 1999. Even so, a creditable 4% reported that they can write
some common words and phrases. It is clearly desirable to increase the number of
Jrriais writers in order to serve the much higher proportion of readers!27
Despite the claim of success for the teaching programme, unlike the Welsh census
until 2012, there is no clear increase in the number of younger people reporting being
able to understand or use Jrriais, although full age-correlated data are not available. The
number who report being able to read some Jrriais may reflect not only the teaching
programme, but simply that Jrriais is a Romance language whose spelling system is
similar to that of French, which is taught in all schools; as noted in 2.2.1, there are also a
comparatively large number of speakers of Portuguese, another Romance language, in
Jersey.
In minority-language contexts which follow a domain expansion language planning
model (see Chapter 7), it is common for a unified standard to be developed for use in
education, e.g. Basque (Urtaga 2005), Breton (Jones 1998b), Welsh (Jones 1998a) or
Gaelic (Dorian 1981: 88). Paulston (1987: 46) notes that the written standard form of
Occitan is so divergent from its spoken dialects that its speakers feel as alienated from
the movements Occitan as they do from French. Although the stated aim of endangered
language activists and European Union agencies such as the Network to Promote
Linguistic Diversity28 is to preserve linguistic diversity, it can be argued that by
promoting standardisation as a route to recognition of minority languages, their efforts
may paradoxically bring about a loss of diversity. The promotion of minority languages
can thus undermine diversity in language practices (Gal 2006; see also Sayers 2009). Gal
(2006: 21) paraphrases Whiteley (2003) in characterising this as killing the language in
order to save it.
The standard approach presupposes a definition of linguistic diversity as maximising
the number of recognised languages, rather than the wider range of ways of speaking
present in linguistic repertoires: varieties, dialects, vernaculars, registers, jargons, mixed
codes, etc. As noted by Sayers (2009: 4), linguistic diversity is a term that so far has
been under-defined. What definitions exist tend towards reductionism, often reducing
diversity to a series of distinct languages. Sayers prefers a definition of diversity that
can be represented by all the dialects of all the languages in the world; and the potential
for language to change in new ways (2009: 5). Nevertheless, Gal (2006: 27) observes
that
However, as Marcellesi ([1983] 2003: 216) points out, the polynomic ideal is not as
easy to implement in a language revitalisation or revival context as in a maintenance one.
People with a reasonable level of language competence, whose linguistic intuition is
secure, are familiar with regional variations of their area and have no problems in
identifying and decoding variants that differ from their own way of speaking. But second
language learners need a model to aim at. From my research in Guernsey, it appears that
people who were exposed to the language in their youth but who do not have full
productive mastery also feel the need for norms and models. The majority of learners and
potential learners of Manx, Guernesiais and Jrriais have little previous knowledge of the
language and virtually no exposure to it in their daily lives.
Recognising that identity is a major reason for learning a heritage language (see
Chapter 5), Marcellesi (1983 [2003]) describes seven linguistic features (including
regional variants) which, he suggests, act as markers of Corsican linguistic identity.
Corpora of language use, collected through language documentation, could provide
useful data for identifying such markers in other languages (Marcellesi 1987). In
addition, iconic regional features identified through research into folk-linguistic
perceptions (Nieldzielski and Preston 2003), such as the /o/~// distinction in Guernsey
and Jersey, are a necessary element of a polynomic and identity-based approach.
To reflect perceptions of authentic usage (see Chapter 5), learners would still need to
be taught how to distinguish and combine the variants in an acceptable manner according
to traditional regional norms, which raises the question of how authentic revived
regional variations could be. As I note in Sallabank (2010b), language ecologies are not
static, and an endangered language which remains as a range of unwritten oral
vernaculars will not survive for long if it is not being transmitted in the family. As in the
Isle of Man, it may be argued that continued use of at least one version of an endangered
language is preferable to the loss of all of them. It can also be argued that in a post-
vernacular language (Shandler 2006), promoting an idea, or even an impression, of a
heritage language may be as valid an aim as copying what is perceived to have been
traditional usage.
Development of a distinctive orthography is often linked to Ausbau (see Chapter 3)
and the promotion of language for differentiation. In the terms of Eloy (2004) and Eloy
and hIfearnin (2007), all these island languages can be seen as collateral to larger
neighbouring languages, i.e. linguistically, geographically and culturally close, but they
may also be perceived as inferior to, or as dialects of, their larger neighbours (see
Chapter 2). The use of French-style spelling can also be interpreted as implying that the
island languages are inferior forms of French. A Jersey interviewee commented:
Where weve used instructions [in Jrriais] in the past, e.g. please pay here and
park, most French people have thought its just badly written French. (JE03)
The use of apostrophes to indicate that Guernesiais does not have as many schwa
sounds as French can also give the impression of inadequacy, or that it is slang or
deficient French.
Although spoken revitalised Manx is more standardised than traditional Jrriais or
Guernesiais (see Chapter 4), and most informants who speak Manx insist that there is a
standard spelling, there seems to be more tolerance than in Jrriais lessons. Although
Manx spelling was designed by and for bilinguals literate in English, the spelling is not
necessarily transparent and teachers notice spelling pronunciation. A teacher at the
Bunscoill Ghaelgagh expressed no disapproval when a child who had been in Manx-
medium education for three to four years wrote mora mie instead of moghrey mie (good
day), i.e. a more phonetically transparent version, when I visited the school in November
2012. There also seem to be two equally accepted spellings of the word Gaelic in
Manx: Gaelg/Gailck (Ager 2009: 15). The adjectival form may be spelt <G(h)aelgagh>,
as in Bunscoill Ghaelgagh or the Department of Educations Unnid Gaelgagh, or <
Ghailckagh > as in Yn heshaght Ghailckagh, the Manx Gaelic Society. (The variant
<G>~<Gh> marks gender through initial consonant mutation, although this is
occasionally omitted, as on a YouTube video of the Bunscoill Gaelgagh (sic).29)
Stowell (2005) uses <Ghailckagh>, while Stowell (2000) uses both this and
<Ghaelgagh>. Neither he nor papers about Manx spelling by Sebba (1998) and
hIfearnin (2007a) mention a reason for this variation.
Clague (2009a and personal communication) has catalogued carvalyn or carvals,
verses in Manx whose written form dates from the mid eighteenth to late nineteenth
centuries, which were sung or chanted in chapels and churches on Christmas Eve. She
notes that although there was some influence from the Manx Bible, the carvalyn were
largely written in a way that was trying to show the sounds: the writers were not
following any dictionary or rule-based system. As in some Guernesiais writings (e.g. by
Marjorie Ozanne, collected by Hill (2000)), the same word is spelt in many different
ways, some of which may indicate a degree of uncertainty regarding parts of speech.
The Manx spelling system, originally developed for priests who were literate in
English, is riddled with exceptions and some inconsistencies (Kewley Draskau 2008:
xix). As stated by Sebba (1998), one of the most persistent criticisms is that it does not
resemble the orthographies of its closest relatives, Scots and Irish Gaelic. The view of
Douglas Fargher, compiler of a seminal Manx dictionary, is quoted by both Sebba (1998)
and hIfearnin (2007a):
My own view, also shared by many respected and authoritative speakers of the
language, is that this system is a historical abomination, separating, as it does, Mann
from the rest of Gaeldom, and thus destroying the linguistic unity of the Gaels
without replacing it with anything better in the way of a truly phonetic orthography.
(Fargher 1979: vi)
However, Sebba (2007: 66) comments that while the English-influenced spelling
paved the way for transitional bilingualism and the loss of Manx as a spoken language,
. . . it may have helped to preserve Manx as an independent language when it could have
been constructed as a dialect of Scottish or Irish Gaelic. hIfearnin (2007a) conducted
research into a perceived debate about making a new Gaelic orthography for Manx and
found divided opinions. He points out that:
Acutely aware of the orthography wars which have divided people in Cornwall and
Brittany, many respondents were fearful of any major debate on reforming the
Manx orthographic system at all, let alone adopting a Gaelic one, for fear of
possible ill-feeling among the small speech community.
( hIfearnin 2007a: 167)
hIfearnin (ibid.) also recognises that due to Norse influence and language change
in Manx, it would not be straightforward to map Irish or Scottish Gaelic-style spelling on
to Manx.
It can thus be seen that from a similar situation, where the majority of the population
are monolingual and literate in English but the indigenous language is collateral to, or
roofed by, the language of a neighbouring larger country, the Isle of Man and Jersey
have chosen diametrically opposite orthographic solutions.
Guernesiais differs in that it has no universally recognised or officially sanctioned
standard spelling; although the De Garis dictionary (1967, 1982) is perceived by many as
a prestige model, it is inconsistent and difficult to use in practice. Learners, and some
speakers and latent speakers, find pronunciation difficult to deduce from current written
materials, especially given inconsistencies in spelling practices (see Sallabank 2002).
Spelling pronunciation is a problem for performers in the Eisteddfod festival, for
example (see Chapter 4). There are contradictions between stated and observed practices:
most of the respondents to my language use questionnaire who said they wrote in
Guernesiais reported following the De Garis dictionary. Despite this, and exhortations by
some Eisteddfod adjudicators to use the Dictionary, an examination of written pieces in
Guernesiais shows that in practice, writers often use idiosyncratic spelling. Common
trends include English-influenced <sh> for the // sound instead of French <ch>, and the
omission of written grammatical endings which are silent in both spoken French and
Guernesiais. Experiences when recording passages for speaker-evaluation research
reinforced the conclusion that, in the absence of any literacy training in Guernesiais, even
native speakers are not aware of its structure (or of French spelling and grammar) and
find themselves unable to relate the written form to the spoken one, either when reading
or writing. Learners make their own attempts to render the sounds, which are generally
influenced by English spelling: for example, <bear> where a worksheet has <bere> [to
drink] or <oo> for <us> [door].
In 2009 the Guernsey Language Officer proposed an interim Progressive learner
spelling which was intended both to promote the concept of Guernesiais being a
language in its own right rather than a dialect of French, and to facilitate acquisition by
Anglophones. This proposal was received positively by young adult and adult learners,
and by some speakers. But it was received negatively by leading volunteer teachers, who
prefer the French-based spelling in the 1967 De Garis dictionary (although this too is
inconsistent). Spelling has proved to be a symptom of deep-seated issues to do with fear
of language change and the direction of language maintenance/revitalisation. Suggesting
that Guernesiais might come out from under the roof of French (Kloss 1967, 1978;
Muljai 1989) is not necessarily welcomed by traditionalists. As we recount in
Marquis and Sallabank (2013):
In August 2010 the authors conducted a small-scale experiment, asking both native
speakers and learners of Guernesiais to listen to recorded words and phrases and
write them however they felt looked right. While the resulting spellings are so
diverse as to be difficult to analyse for the purposes of orthography development,
the process was very revealing of attitudes and ideologies. Learners were more
willing to have a go than native speakers, some of whom expressed concern that
they might not spell correctly and even seemed too intimidated to try. The
experiment itself was strongly criticised by a prominent speaker with considerable
influence in the community, who raised concerns about what was perceived as an
attempt to change the language by challenging traditional prestige spelling.
chrge = remit
chrgi = task
clise dpolitique = policy area
dgangue d faithe et dfinni = task and finish group
drannettie sociale = social networking
pallion dconsulttion = forum for consultation
parchonnnie dbouonne part = constructive relationship
progranme davanchchie = forward work programme
progranme du travas vnn = future work programme
seurvilyi = monitor [verb]
It can be seen from this that language change or modernisation is not perceived as
problematic in Jersey to the same extent as in Guernsey. Voluntary groups dominated by
traditional speakers seem to have ceded control of language policy to LOffice du
Jrriais. This may be due to the fact that traditional speakers are aging and reducing their
activities, or they may simply not be aware of what is being said in online media. It may
also reflect a longer time span to develop a working relationship since the establishment
of LOffice in 1998. In 2000 some Jersey activists reported disagreements between
language support groups, which seem to have been resolved since. There are occasional
criticisms of terminological coinages, especially where words are borrowed from French
or English and rendered with Jrriais spelling, e.g. progranme above, compiuteu or
ordinnnateu (computer, taken from English and French respectively), or the long-
standing borrowing ssse-paine (saucepan). Although in such instances spelling is being
used to differentiate Jrriais, it can also be perceived as indicating deficiencies.
Theyre just not interested in the language and dont see why anybody else would be
which is a bit strange for a teacher, especially a head teacher. Youd think theyd
want a fantastic variety of things going on in their schools.
25 years later, the Ramas attitude towards their ethnic language has changed: it has
become a precious asset they are proud of, one they refer to as their treasure
language . It is their language , our language, one they own and that makes
them identifiable individuals, distinct from other ethnic groups . . ., a language that
has no purpose of ever being spoken fluently again, a language that isnt and
probably never will be a mother tongue again. But the demand remains strong in the
community to have this treasure language revitalized within a formal education
programme for school children.
Rama is now primarily used for symbolic ritual purposes. Pivot and Grinevald point
out that there needs to be clarification regarding
the particular status of these endangered languages of strong symbolic value, which
become objects of revitalization programmes with no aim for revernacularization.
Their transmittal raises the question of a relevant didactic approach, yet to be
invented at this point. If this challenge isnt faced, there will remain a great
confusion in the minds of local revitalization players and an education system
claiming to be multicultural and bilingual (or multilingual) but doesnt acknowledge
the special status of treasure language [JF1].
6.8 Conclusions
This chapter shows how three islands with many social, political and sociolinguistic
similarities, and a considerable degree of contact and cross-fertilisation between
government officials and Language Officers, have all chosen a similar route for language
planning (the appointment of Language Officers), but have different levels of political
commitment and funding, and have implemented quite different policies.
Although it might be argued that unplanned language planning (Baldauf 19931994)
is a necessary feature of enthusiast-driven language planning, especially at the early
stages of awareness of language endangerment, it seems that for measures to proceed
beyond awareness-raising a degree of conscious planning and public support is
necessary. The form and level of that support is a matter for public discussion, which
arguably should entail some degree of ideological clarification (see Chapter 3) with
regard to short- and long-term objectives and strategies. To date overt discussion of these
seems to be lacking, or stifled, in Guernsey and Jersey, with the result that there is a
mismatch between what stated goals there are, and effective action to achieve those
goals.
7 Implications
It seems to be the second and third of these that drive language policies, and in turn
(perhaps) practices. People do not necessarily want to know how they actually speak,
even if presented with a recording how they think they speak and what they believe
about language are much more powerful. Research has to take into account practices,
discourses and ideologies, and evidence-based language policy development needs to
start from this point. But, as was pointed out by some colleagues from Lancaster
University (Anna Hultgren, Johnny Unger, personal communication, September 2010), it
should not necessarily stay there. Policy-making may entail changing ideologies which,
as noted above, relies on raising awareness of them. Concrete planning measures tend to
reflect widespread ideologies, but also, arguably, need to go beyond them in order to
have broad-reaching effect. Some language ideologies may preclude a broader vision,
however. Efforts by both voluntary and government-funded bodies in the Channel
Islands to date have contributed to more positive attitudes towards the indigenous
languages, but have not necessarily (yet) changed linguistic behaviour, or some
underlying ideologies.
the cultural identity of Guernsey is forever moving on; change is a fact of life, and
should be embraced as an opportunity for expansion and development. The
challenge is to ensure that change is balanced with the continued care and respect
for cultural identity and historic environment.
(States of Guernsey 2010: 7).
With regard to Jersey, Johnson (2008b, 2010, 2013) observes that some traditions
which express island identity are in effect invented or re-invented. In a well-known quote
from an interview in 1985, Jean-Marie Tjibaou, a leader of the independence movement
in New Caledonia, stated that what are thought of as traditions are actually in a constant
state of evolution:
(The return to tradition is a myth. No people has ever experienced it. Insofar as I am
concerned, the search for identity, the model, lies before us, never behind. It is being
constantly reformulated
[translation from Waddell 2008: 102].)
This quote, originally aimed at people struggling for self-determination on the other
side of the world, is just as relevant to the revitalisation of heritage languages in twenty-
first-century Europe as to cultural traditions. However, this acceptance of cultural
identity as dynamic, and of language as both traditional and modern, is not fully shared
by everyone involved in language-related activities. In Guernsey especially, there are
tensions between the maintenance of the community who speak [a language], the
language ownership attitude described in Chapter 5 and the desire by some revitalisers
to have local languages and cultures continue in whatever form they may take
(Goodfellow 2009: 21).
In the Isle of Man, although some activists consider that attitudes towards the
language have changed since older community members died (see 5.2.2), it appears that a
degree of purist belief about language remains, especially in the discourse of continuity,
which sees the most legitimate speakers as those who learnt Manx from traditional
speakers (rather than through lessons), and the best Manx as resembling that used in the
eighteenth century (as perceived via the Manx Bible).
In the Channel Islands, and sometimes in the Isle of Man too, a language of the past
discourse tends to be the default image presented when language promotion is not carried
out in consultation with, or not controlled by, the Language Office. For example, an
article in Jrriais in the Jersey Evening Press in June 2000 was illustrated by a silhouette
caricature of two old men conversing, which had no relevance to the content of the
article. In 2008 I received a postcard from a non-speaker who supports Guernesiais
language maintenance and revitalisation, provided by an estate agent in Guernsey for
change of address notification, announcing Nou sra changier dmaisaon (were moving
house2), illustrated with old photos of families in a horse-drawn cart and posing on a pile
of timber.
In the Manx Museum in Douglas, recordings of traditional speakers of Manx can be
listened to, but they are juxtaposed with a recreation of the inside of a traditional rural
cottage, reinforcing associations of Manx with peasant, folklore and poverty. The
Manx National Heritage web page on the Manx language asserts that Since its inception,
Manx National Heritage has been a strong supporter of the Manx language. Manx
National Heritage was the first agency of Government to ensure that the Manx language
appeared on its letter-head . . . and has funded the post of a Manx Language
Development Officer. But this is the only page of the website to include a translation in
Manx, and it is illustrated by a photo of Harry Kelly, a Manx speaker who died in 1935
and whose cottage was the first acquired for the National Folk Museum in Cregneash
village. Conversely, Wilson (2011b) queries whether the Freedom to Flourish brand
ignores key aspects of the traditional cultural heritage of the Isle of Man in order to
emphasise more modern and dynamic characteristics of the islands economy and
society.
The point of highlighting these examples is not to be needlessly over-critical of what
are no doubt well-intentioned attempts to express support for local languages or to
integrate them into marketing (see Chapter 6); I am merely trying to point out potential
contradictions and ironies which may reflect unstated ideologies about language and
unintentionally undermine attempts to widen participation in language-related activities
(although the change of address cards may be intentionally ironic).
In terms of language planning approaches, a careful line needs to be trodden between a
nostalgic approach (which appeals to the traditional indigenous speaker base in Guernsey
and Jersey, most of whom are over the age of seventy) and what might appeal to younger
potential learners and supporters from less traditional backgrounds. As mentioned in
Chapter 5 and discussed later in this chapter, top-down policies in Jersey and the Isle of
Man may explicitly aim to create an inclusive island identity through indigenous
language, including young people and incomers.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in Chapter 5, there can be a mismatch between the aim of
encouraging new speakers and the conservative instincts of older community members.
As Costa (forthcoming b) argues with regard to Occitan in southern France, there is a
discrepancy between the stated desire of language revitalisation movements to teach the
language to young people, and frequent criticism of their linguistic achievements.
Parsons Yazzie and Reyhner (2009) observe a similar trend in a Navajo language
community in North America, citing an elder as stating:
Our grandchildren are buying things that we grandparents do not use, do not know
how to use or just have no use for. That is why we are having a hard time
communicating with our grandchildren. It is like living in two different homes. We
do not know how to name the things that are in our grandchildrens home, so we
have a hard time living there and we have a hard time talking with them. If our
grandchildren would get used to simple things again, then we will be able to speak
the same language again and live in the same home again.
(Parsons Yazzie and Reyhner 2009: 59)
But even if grandchildren could and wanted to stop using digital media and speak the
same language again (i.e. speak just like their grandparents, on topics of interest to
them), such statements could be seen as disingenuous. Costa (forthcoming b) argues:
Sometimes they [traditional speakers] may say they wish there was a younger
generation that knew the language, but they do not really do anything about it. At an
unconscious level, some of them may even enjoy being the last real native speakers
. . . Such people might be quite upset to find out that there is a young speaker or
there is still a club of young speakers . . . older speakers sometimes do not even seek
new ways of re-establishing the inter-generational connection in light of the fact that
they can only do the things they have been doing . . . They have their cohorts; they
have their hobby group or their club; and those things are age-graded. The things
they talk about, the things they sing about, are old age-graded and no young person
is going to get any pleasure out of these kinds of conversation.
(Fishman [1996] 2007: 169)
In order to address and move on from such attitudes, they need to be acknowledged.
As noted above, in the Isle of Man this has happened to a certain extent (although there
has been no full recent survey of language attitudes). In Jersey, when contacting older
members of language associations I was repeatedly told go and see that [Tony] Scott
Warren (Language Officer), which indicates that overt responsibility for language policy
has been passed from traditional owners to the Language Office but as noted in
Chapter 5, purist beliefs regarding language practices remain, and as discussed in
Chapter 6, some covert negative language attitudes among members of government
departments and schools may undermine implementation. In Guernsey the discourses of
both community members and politicians (as well as of some linguists), while generally
supportive of the language, tend to assume that the community is homogeneous, or try
to ignore or paper over intra-communal tensions and disagreements. In Guernsey
especially, there has been a tendency to prioritise the maintenance of the existing or
traditional speaker community, and to valorise the perceived language practices of iconic
good speakers, ignoring the actual and potential contribution of new speakers or non-
speaker supporters. In an interview on Radio Guernsey in July 2011 about the
development of language policy following the resignation of the Language Officer, the
Minister for Culture and Leisure, Mike OHara, stated that he wanted to:
assist and strengthen the language and to encourage the sharing of the vast
experience of the present language speakers to enable training and succession
planning to develop . . . We cant just go off and say this is what youre gonna do
because they will feel threatened and we dont want that, but I would like to see a
body of some description that doesnt interfere with anything the Guernsey
language speakers do, and I think thats the way forward.
In all these three contexts (as well as in many others), there are stated and unstated
debates concerning correctness and language change as it may occur in revitalised
language. Some suggestions for further research into such linguistic changes were made
in Chapter 5. However, the implications for language planning of (perceived) language
change, and the need to cater for and valorise new generations of speakers, also need to
be investigated.
An Isle of Man politician, interviewed in November 2008, provided the following
advice for supporters of Guernesiais revitalisation:
Dont be looking for the old wood, look for new wood . . . a language moves on, if
you were gay thirty years ago it means totally different to what gay means today
a language moves on, and a living language needs to move on. Thats the absurdity
we had . . . we have, banana is corran buigh you know its absolute crap, if
bananas not English, banana is bananey! . . . consequently what youve got to do is
youve got to try and get people to realise that your language cant stay if you
have them all fighting amongst themselves that we want to talk fourteenth-century
Guernesiais and twentieth-century Guernsey, a language you know, French,
English, German, they all take words from other languages, that doesnt make them
weak and I think thats what youve got to get over to people, you know,
bungalow is Indian . . . Youve got to get people saying Id rather youd say it
badly [than not at all] . . . and you need to get over to your learners that you dont
speak English perfectly at four and you might be a thirty-six-year-old or a
seventy-three-year-old, but youre a two-year-old at the language and you should be
encouraged . . . youve got to get rid of the elitism the oh well be the last speakers
sort of syndrome you know we had all that crap, dyou know what I mean, and we
got rid of that.
He also advised getting people involved in language promotion who do not speak the
language, and who may be unsuccessful when they try to learn, but who can provide help
in other areas, such as fundraising and technical support. In Guernsey some non-speakers
are keen to offer expertise but are not sure they are allowed to contribute:
The language doesnt just belong to old people; give new people a voice.
Nostalgia glorifies the past, ignores the future.
Ownership issues.
This was the first time that such issues had been cited in public in Guernsey as
obstacles to progress. Personality and intra-community rivalries were also highlighted,
and Duquemin stressed that Nobody is bigger than the language. However, exhortations
to all sing from the same hymn-sheet have had little effect in the past, since each
faction assumes that the hymn-sheet should be their own. To attempt to circumvent such
problems, the Language Commission is composed entirely of people who have hardly
been involved in language-related activities and are not associated with any of the
factions, but who have expertise in fundraising, marketing and public relations, in effect
taking the advice of the Isle of Man politician. The main drawback to this approach is
that the members of the Commission know very little about the language itself or about
language policy and planning.
7.3 Is language policy about language?
Findings from both my own and other research indicate that language policy is not
necessarily about language itself: language is generally seen by activists and policy-
makers as serving other ends, such as political autonomy or empowerment of a (sub-
)group. Language may be mobilised or invoked as a necessary or logical component of
action as a political tool for an indirectly related political struggle, as often occurs in
indigenous rights movements (Boynton forthcoming). Campaigns for language rights or
language revitalisation can thus be seen as part of wider social movements and are
increasingly claimed to have wider social benefits (Dorian 1987; Ricento and Wiley
2002; Romaine 2008; King forthcoming).
According to King (forthcoming), activities associated with the revitalisation of the
Mori language, especially the language nest immersion pre-schools, were originally
conceived to improve general well-being among the indigenous Mori population, and to
counter delinquency, alcohol abuse and destitution, which are widespread among
indigenous populations in post-colonial contexts.
In Western countries, language revitalisation is often seen as a middle-class or
intellectual concern. Bilingualism is now recognised as conferring cognitive advantages,
especially when it is accompanied by social recognition and literacy in both languages
(Grosjean 1982; Cummins and Swain 1986; Bialystok 1991; Alladina 1995; Jessner
1995; Johnson et al. 1997; Swain 2000; Wei 2000; Baker 2001; Wei, Dewaele and
Housen 2002; Hornberger 2003a), but where this is widely known, as in the Isle of Man
or Wales, bilingual education tends to be adopted largely by middle-class families.
Several Bunscoill parents interviewed cited the benefits of bilingualism as a major reason
for choosing the Manx-medium school for their child; some admitted that they were not
necessarily Manx activists and would have been happy for their child to be immersed in a
more widely spoken language. As noted in 1.4, Mooinjer Veggey, the organisation which
runs the Bunscoill and Manx pre-schools, won a contract in the mid-2000s to run pre-
schools in disadvantaged areas; although it lost the contract in 2012, a major advantage
proposed was that the benefits of bilingualism should be available to children from less
advantaged backgrounds. In light of this, it was interesting to see the window of a family
support organisation in Guernsey dominated by the Guernesiais word Bianvnu
(welcome) in 2009 (see Figure 7.1). Although, in the past, speaking Guernesiais was
associated by Anglophones with hardship and the people who worked in the
greenhouse, the use of a Guernesiais word in this context nowadays is unlikely to be for
practical purposes: in terms of age and social background, recipients of family support
services may be among the least likely of Guernseys population to speak Guernesiais. In
relation to the promotion of local languages as inclusive, it is also interesting to note that
the letters of Bianvnu are surrounded by pictures of a multi-ethnic group of children.
Figure 7.1 Sign on family support service window, Guernsey, 2009
These examples of local languages being associated with social benefits may mean
that there is no longer a stigma attached to speaking them, at least among younger
generations; they may even be seen as cool. Earlier generations may have experienced
linguistic self-hatred, but increasingly it is perceived that pride in language and culture
can regenerate communities and individuals.
For some Guernesiais teaching volunteers, there seems to be a blurred line between
language revitalisation and personal revitalisation. As observed in Chapter 5, teaching
Guernesiais provides a powerful boost to their own self-image on two grounds: firstly by
affirming their language expertise, and secondly by enabling them to assuage any guilt
they might feel at not having taught Guernesiais to their own children and grandchildren.
Marquis and I comment that:
Due to the societal pressures . . . some of the volunteer teachers realised the
importance of linguistic heritage too late to raise their own children through
Guernesiais. There may thus be an unstated element of conscience-salving in
involvement in these sessions, which are thus not only (or even mainly) about
language transmission.
(Marquis and Sallabank 2013)
Measures to add new linguistic forms or social functions (King 2001: 24) to
endangered languages can be roughly divided into two main spheres: firstly, formal
education as the primary site of language reproduction; secondly, a broader approach to
using language in the community. The second approach can include top-down measures
such as increasing the visibility/audibility of a language in the linguistic landscape
through bilingual signage, the media, etc., as well as more informal forums for language
use or practice (and where these overlap such as online blogs, social media, etc.). Small-
scale, grass-roots efforts are often undocumented, unevaluated and unreported in the
academic literature.
Until the appointment of a government Language Officer at the beginning of 2008, all
language planning efforts in Guernsey were bottom-up, by private groups and
individuals, with little knowledge of linguistics, sociolinguistics or language planning
theory. Michel Bert (personal communication, July 2012) queries whether bottom up is
necessarily always the best route for effective language support. Like the associatifs or
members of language associations with whom he works in south-east France, many lay
language supporters reveal restricted or dogmatic thinking, false consciousness,
insularity, and a lack of vision of a big picture or strategic thinking.
This means that there may be a discrepancy between discourses in favour of saving a
language, and the lack of clear outcomes. The Mission Statement displayed at LOffice
du Jrriais states:
The objective of the Jrriais programme in schools is to ensure the survival of
Jerseys own language for the benefit of future generations by capturing the
imagination of students with the colour, piquancy and vigour of Jrriais.
Arguably, mission statements are, by their nature, nebulous; this might even be
deliberately ironic in its lack of specificity regarding means to achieve the objective. In
2009 this mission statement was accompanied by a wish list of items ranging from
Bilingual signs everywhere to Audio and video archive to Jrriais medium school.
Achievements may seem tangible: in Jersey, for example, these include the number of
children learning Jrriais, the informative and topical websites, the increased presence of
Jrriais in the linguistic landscape, etc. But these consist mainly of inputs on the part of
the Language Office. Uptake of these efforts in terms of language practices does not
appear to have been measured; in particular, there is apparently no increase in the
number of proficient speakers.
If long-term planning is envisaged, language planning might learn from other fields
such as ecology, with which, as noted in Chapter 1, parallels are often drawn. Key related
notions in this respect are sustainability (King et al. 2008) and resilience (Bradley 2010;
Le Nevez 2011).
The term resilience is increasingly frequent in discussions about environmental
concerns. Resilience theory arose through sociological studies of stressed populations,
which have obvious relevance to language endangerment. It was extended into ecological
sciences and agriculture as a way of looking at why some systems collapse when they
encounter shock, while others are maintained. Resilience theory focuses on how systems
and societies cope with change, which can also be a key issue in language revitalisation
(see 5.4). It has been defined as: The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and
reorganize while undergoing change . . . that is, the capacity to change in order to
maintain the same identity (Folke et al. 2010). As in language ecologies, Diversity is
what makes environments resilient, able to adapt to change and successfully tolerate
climate variation, natural disasters, infestations of pests, and other potentially destructive
conditions (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003: 12). A particular focus of resilience theory is
an analogy with the adaptive cycles of nature, characterised by four phases: rapid growth,
conservation, release and reorganisation. These can be seen as related to phases of
development of social movements (including revitalisation) identified by Wallace (1956)
and Bruce (1999) for the sociological development of groups. Wallace (1956), who
according to Costa (2010) was the originator of the term revitalization, identified a clash
of values due to social, economic and technological innovation, urbanisation,
colonisation etc. which caused individual and social stress. According to his thinking,
social movements need to promote idealised, but revised, world-views in order to cope
with change.
The issue, as ever, is how to transform theories and aims into practical solutions.
Bradley (2010: 123) proposes bottom-up, collaborative solutions:
A resilience approach, empowering the community and giving it the respect, control
and resources to document and use its traditional knowledge and make its own
decisions about language, may allow many groups to achieve a new stability in the
face of linguistic and cultural globalization and top-down language policies.
The aim should not be to maintain the current linguistic situation, nor to return to
some earlier situation, but rather for communities to make informed decisions
whether their languages should persist, in what form and to what degree.
(Bradley 2010: 138)
Sustainability has not really been examined in detail with regard to language
revitalisation; it seems to be used more as a kind of bandwagon for awareness-raising
about language endangerment. King et al. (2008) do not discuss the term itself, but if one
considers sustain in its lay meanings of endure, maintain, continue and nourish,
nurture, the long-term viability of language maintenance and revitalisation is central. In
this respect, in the Isle of Man concern has recently been expressed about what may be
an emerging plateau in the level of interest in Manx. Is there a saturation point for the
proportion of a population who will be interested in heritage languages? Does a
movement which is perceived as successful precipitate a reduction in the sense of
urgency to save the language, as has been observed by language activists in Wales and
New Zealand? Or is there simply a process of natural wastage, as there is with a course
of study, with a small, committed core continuing long-term to advanced knowledge,
while others feel unable to progress or have competing priorities? This plateau
phenomenon has yet to be clearly defined and measured, and as a potential further stage
in language revitalisation (see 7.4.3) it requires further research.
The issue of confidentiality has not been given sufficient attention by documentary
linguistics, which in terms of sustainability tends to focus on the long-term viability of
language archives. Copyright and intellectual property have been discussed, but without
satisfactory conclusions: many recordings remain in effect the property of universities.
This leads to King et al.s next question (from the point of view of an academic linguist,
as discussed in Chapter 1): How do we maintain the trust of the speakers whose
generosity we depend on as we seek to further our knowledge of the full scope of human
language variety? There are some signs, unfortunately, of research fatigue among the
dwindling population of Guernesiais speakers. There are really very few fully fluent
speakers now, who are very elderly. Yan Marquis reports that increasingly often
documentation sessions are cancelled due to illness. There are also perceptions among
some that linguists demand a lot of help but give little back to community members; this
may be partly because of the time it takes to transcribe and analyse recordings, and then
to produce reference and learning materials, but also because of the proprietary attitude
towards data and intellectual property taken by some researchers and institutions, which
is not always in the spirit of open access and is at odds with some community members
feelings of ownership of their language and words. Even when data is archived following
current best practice, language archives and multimedia materials tend to be accessible
only via computers, which the elderly speakers whose voices are recorded are unable to
access, so all they see in return for their efforts may be an audio CD or video provided by
the researcher.
In terms of the sustainability of recordings, Broderick (1999: 669) compares the
usefulness for linguistic analysis of various recordings of traditional Manx (see Chapter
2). He points out that many of the earlier recordings are now very scratchy and some
parts are quite difficult or well nigh impossible to make out. Metadata in the form of
phonetic transcriptions and texts provided by the informants themselves are therefore
invaluable in making the linguistic data accessible. In addition, for both technical and
methodological reasons, some of the recordings do not contain connected or natural
speech, but read prose pieces or recited songs (1999: 68) (as in the Channel Island
Eisteddfods), or elicited words or sentences.
As I suggested in Chapter 2, documented traditional forms are not necessarily the most
useful models for revitalised, reconstructed languages to follow. Corpus planners may
use, excise or adapt loanwords and contact features. Neighbouring language varieties
may also be mined to plug gaps: Manx has turned to Irish and Scottish Gaelic especially,
while Cornish looked to its closely related neighbours Welsh and Breton. Clague (2007a,
2007b and personal communication) notes that children in Manx immersion education
are developing their own language norms in the absence of input outside school. They
also have no access to the corpus of recordings and written literature in traditional Manx,
and little contact with the group of highly proficient speakers who learnt their Manx from
the last traditional speakers.
Although it is a tenet of documentary linguists that adequate documentation is a
prerequisite for revitalisation, language activists do not necessarily agree, as was
discussed in Chapter 1. In this respect it is interesting to note that for the most recent
corpus-based (and widely praised) grammar of Manx, Kewley Draskau (2008) used
recordings made in 2004 of highly proficient non-native Manx speakers (including
linguists), rather than older recordings of traditional speakers.7 Ferguson (2012) points
out that there is a common belief that the oldest speakers of Guernesiais (aged 80102 at
the time of writing) speak the best, use the proper words/grammar, etc. However, in
twenty years time, Guernesiais speakers who are currently in their fifties and sixties will
be considered to speak the language correctly or the best, but their usage is likely to
be different from that of the current oldest generation (see the discussion of language
change in 5.4). It is likely that when they were recorded, the last speakers of traditional
Manx had a comparable level of fluency to Channel Islands Norman speakers currently
in their fifties and sixties, whose usage differs in various ways from that of older
speakers (Ferguson 2012; Yan Marquis, personal communication; also from my own
observations). There is a corpus of written material in Manx dating from the eighteenth
century, which reflects the language at an earlier stage of language contact,8 although
since it consists mainly of religious texts, it is probably written in a more formal register
than everyday speech. Second language speakers who have studied this legacy may
therefore actually speak purer Manx than the last traditional speakers: it is considered a
compliment to say that someone speaks Manx like in the eighteenth century, i.e. that
their Manx is reminiscent of that in the Bible. In Jersey, La Section de la Langue de la
Socit Jersiaise9 focuses on preserving written literature in Jrriais, some of which is
referred to in corpus planning.
Mhlhusler (1990, 1996) asserts that the identification of languages and the way they
are named are far from being an act of objective description; standardisation processes
connected with the creation of literacy norms may likewise constitute a violation of the
linguistic ecology of a given area. It can be argued that this criticism is also valid for
documentation, since the processes involve the reification and commodification of
languages (Dobrin et al. 2009). This raises problematic issues in crystallising a
language, which are related to language change in progress (at what stage should you
crystallise a language?) and inter-speaker variation (whose language should you
crystallise?) (Ferguson and Sallabank 2011). When crystallising a description of the
language (or documentary variety) linguists usually require a working orthography, and
both the description and the orthography may differ from speakers perceptions of
desirable usage. Compromises associated with standardisation may be deemed necessary
or acceptable in order to save at least part of a language, even at the risk of being
subjected to criticism from postmodern-influenced academics. If documentation is to
make any contribution to corpus planning, such issues need to be addressed.
A group of Jersey language planners (members of the island parliament and key
activists) visited the Isle of Man in the late 1990s and adapted the Manx primary
textbook Bun Noa for Jrriais; however, there have not been any recent visits (which was
commented on by some Manx language planners during my visits there). While both
officials and activists in Jersey are under the impression that they are following the Isle
of Mans example, language planning in Jersey has omitted elements or steps which
seem to be key to the relative success of the revitalisation of Manx to date. These
include:
The Guernsey Ministers of Education and Culture, and senior civil servants (including
the Language Officer), also visited the Isle of Man in 2009 and were reported to be
impressed by the Manx-medium school, the amount of Manx in the linguistic landscape,
etc., but due to political and economic developments little or no concrete action followed
in Guernsey.
Contacts between the three islands are also maintained at ministerial and senior
executive level through the British-Irish Council, but some of those tasked with
implementing language policy complain that they receive little or no feedback on the
meetings. More structured sharing of information and good practice at coalface level
might be helpful in implementing language planning measures effectively.
In the Channel Islands, activities such as town twinning links and the Fte Normande
place importance on common cultural and linguistic ties with Norman on the mainland.
The existence of another closely related language, Gallo in Brittany (just south of
Jersey), is less well known although it has an active revitalisation movement and
LOffice du Jrriais blog reported in December 2010 that:
There is little contact with the Breton language movement despite its geographical
proximity, or with non-governmental groups from linguistic minorities in the UK, even
Cornish which is also relatively close geographically. Perhaps because of their distance
from the UK, the islands are seen as distinct, and traditionalist language support groups
especially have few links with language revitalisation movements outside the Norman
sphere (and those there are, are infrequent). On small islands there is inevitably a degree
of insularity, and some traditionalist language supporters in Guernsey cast doubt on
suggestions that they could learn from other language movements. Reports of measures
such as TWF in Wales are dismissed with comments such as it would never work here
or what do they know about Guernsey?.
There is a risk that presenting campaigners on a small island with examples from
planning for a minority language such as Welsh with a quarter of a million speakers, and
considerably more state funding, might be demotivating rather than inspiring. It can be
argued that the situation of a language spoken by a very small number of people, with
very little in the way of institutional support, is quite different from that of a larger
minority language with substantial official support such as Welsh or Mori (Bndicte
Pivot, University of Lyon, personal communication, January 2012). Links with
endangered language communities with similar experiences are thus even more valuable.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, because of perceived Celtic ethnic links, language
planners and campaigners in the Isle of Man have modelled their strategies on Ireland
and Scotland, even though they are larger and have more resources. Consequently these
strategies have always been ambitious. It might be argued that because of this,
achievements have been commensurately higher, e.g. the Manx-medium school.
However, it should be remembered that such achievements have taken twenty to thirty
years: as well as being ambitious, planning for language revitalisation needs to be long-
sighted.
7.4.3 What does saving a language mean?
At this point I need to confront my own ideologies. A linguicentric view of language
revitalisation (Spolsky forthcoming; see Chapter 1) may be discerned in comments
throughout this book, especially regarding desirable levels of language use and
proficiency, as well as the desirability of saving a language compared with other aims
such as personal fulfilment (which is arguably a component of any altruistic or voluntary
activity). As discussed earlier in this chapter, language activists and politicians may not
see language itself as their prime motivator in language policy, and laypeople may not
even reify language as an entity rather than as a social practice (although language
activists may do). Language campaigners may relate the status of a language to that of
the language community (which may well be perceived in an essentialised way as
cohesive and monolithic).
Around the world, many language revitalisation movements are still at early stages in
their development (especially if revitalisation is seen as a project that lasts several
generations). Bruce (1999) suggests that groups such as religious sects tend to develop in
predictable ways, akin to the developmental stages found in language acquisition
(Lightbown and Spada 2006). There are likewise some common strands which can be
identified in the development of revitalisation movements, for example the tendency to
focus on introducing the minority language in schools, despite research evidence that this
may not be the most effective strategy, rather than promoting speaking the language in
the home. Communities and activists may find it easier to campaign to change the school
curriculum than to change their own and their neighbours linguistic practices.
Yet a common tenet of language revitalisation movements is that they aim to restore
vitality to a language in a literal sense, i.e. to reintroduce it to children in the setting of
the family. This is due largely to the influence of Joshua Fishman, a key figure in the
literature (1991, 2001). Romaine (2006) observes that, as noted above, most
revitalisation movements to date do not follow Fishmans advice of focusing on the
family first, but go straight for domain expansion, formal education, etc. Fishman too
recognised that:
It is easier to concentrate on the upper stages [of his scale of language vitality, i.e.
education]. However, these stages are characterized by two overriding minuses . . .
(a) being removed, as they are, from the actual nexus of [mother-tongue]
transmission, and (b) they do lead directly to increased dependence upon,
confrontation with or rivalry with the dominant language-in-culture . . . Stressing
the wrong priorities is a very costly example of lacking a proper social theory or
model of what RLS [reversing language shift] entails.
(1991: 112-13)
According to Fishman, the right front would be focusing on the family as the most
important locus of language transmission. But is reinstating an endangered, or even
dead, language as a primary medium of socialisation a realistic aim? Romaine (2006:
443) suggests that we need to question the assumptions and theoretical perspectives
underlying terms such as Reversing Language Shift and language revitalization and
to reconceptualize what it means for a language to be maintained and survive without
inter-generational mother tongue transmission. Romaine (2006: 443) queries whether in
the future linguistic diversity will be sustained by quite different patterns of reproduction
than it has been in the past. She also points out that focusing on formal education is
a resource-heavy approach which requires investment in each new generation (ibid.),
especially compared to the lesser long-term cost to the state of stable family language
transmission. Romaine suggests that instead of continuing to maintain that the family is
key, according to Fishmans model, current practices in language planning should be
recognised and incorporated into ideological clarification.
Including local languages in the public space makes a statement about language
validity. It is especially significant that in all three islands it is now seen as a selling
point, given the historical low status of the islands vernaculars. In such contexts fluency,
and even accuracy, in the language may come to be seen as unnecessary. Examples from
Jersey were discussed in Chapter 5, where the wrong gender article on a restaurant name
was thought to look better. Another example is a range of engraved jewellery marketed
by a Guernsey firm, where rings, lockets, etc. are engraved with what are intended to be
romantic words and phrases in Guernesiais. Some of the Guernesiais does not reflect
speakers usage: e.g. Toujours et alafin, intended to mean always and forever but
toujours is French (always is terrou or terjou in Guernesiais), and alafin has the
meaning at last or in the end. What is more, the advertisements mis-spell toujours in
two different ways, so that it appears even more impenetrably as touyours and tongours.
These seem to be examples of the idea of Guernesiais discussed in Chapter 5, perhaps
as an expression of ethnolinguistic identity rather than as a means of communication. As
such they do not need to be accurate, just to look a bit Guernesiais.11
In response to the suggestion that the linguistic landscape might raise awareness of
local language but does not in itself increase the amount spoken, Adrian Cain, Manx
Language Development Officer, commented: Language awareness raising isnt an end
in itself and if it doesnt encourage people to learn and speak then it hasnt worked
(personal communication, 18 December 2012). Language in the print landscape thus
needs to be seen as part of an overall strategy, rather than as an end in itself or as a
replacement for language acquisition measures.
It could be argued that measures which raise awareness of a language are a necessary
precursor to increasing use among the population. However, Sarah Croome, a doctoral
candidate at SOAS, University of London (personal communication, September 2012)
calls such efforts, as well as campaigns for legal status (such as ratification of the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages), window-dressing, and not only
questions their efficacy in promoting language use but suggests that focusing on such
issues may even hinder the development of effective policies for language use.
Thieberger (2002: 325) argues that token maintenance may be adequate if the aim of
language revitalisation is promoting a distinctive image and identity: language revival
need not be an all or nothing venture. A focus on ritual greetings and symbolic
phrases is a common feature of language revitalisation movements in Australia, where
some indigenous languages are being pieced together from fragmentary records after not
being used for up to 200 years (Rob Amery, personal communication, January 2011), and
in some North American programmes cited by Thieberger.
It is a theme of this book that beliefs, perceptions and ideologies may contribute to a
mismatch between desired results and activities undertaken. Expectations and
assumptions may stand in the way of achievable goals, for example written materials are
necessary to teach a language, or formal lessons will lead to resumption of
intergenerational transmission (which are both commonly heard tropes in all three
islands). Another comment frequently heard as a reason for the decline of
Guernesiais/Jrriais is that they were never a written language. As well as being
inaccurate (see 4.6), such ideologically based statements assume that writing is both a
badge of languagehood and is necessary to save a language.
Although some islanders are reluctant to compare themselves with indigenous peoples
on other continents, the comments of Dr Richard Littlebear, President of Chief Dull
Knife College in Montana, USA, and a prominent Cheyenne language activist, are
pertinent in this respect:
Our Native American languages have been oral since time immemorial. Some of
them have been written only in the last three centuries. We must remember this oral
tradition when we teach our languages. We sometimes negate this oral tradition by
blindly following the only model for language teaching we know: the way we were
taught the English language with its heavy emphasis on grammar. Teaching our
languages as if they had no oral tradition is one factor which contributes to the
failures of our Native American language teaching programs so that we now have
what amounts to a tradition of failure.
(Littlebear 2007: xi)
7.5 Conclusions
After nearly thirty years of government-supported active language revitalisation, it is still
too early to see whether Manx will ever be safe (cf. UNESCO 2003c); indeed, as
mentioned above, there is some concern that Manx revitalisation may have reached a
plateau.
Some language activists in the Isle of Man see the Bunscoill as the raison dtre of the
language revitalisation movement. Activists place great store on the cohort of children
who have completed Manx-medium primary education and are entering secondary
school, but at the time of writing no child has completed primary and secondary Manx-
medium education, so predictions of outcomes are premature. It cannot be assumed that
children who did not choose to be part of a language experiment will grow up to be
tomorrows activists and teachers, as has been found in Wales (Edwards and Newcombe
2005). As pointed out by Marie Clague (personal communication, 11 November 2008), it
cannot be assumed that because fifty children have gone through Manx-medium
education, there will be fifty fluent speakers.
As noted by Anderson (2011), language revitalisation can mean anything that
language supporters wish it to. The important thing is to approach it with eyes open and
ideology clarified. To date there has been no open discussion in Guernsey and Jersey
regarding the short- and long-term aims of language revitalisation. In Guernsey,
consensus is seen by some as essential for moving forward, and as with standardisation,
debating substantive issues may be seen as potentially divisive. There is therefore a
concern that fluency in Guernesiais and Jrriais may disappear before adequate
documentation has been carried out; and that the languages may slip into a minimalised,
symbolic role without ideological clarification having taken place, and without other
options having been explored.
Not to end on a down note, however, it must be remembered that public opinion in all
three islands now seems to support the maintenance of at least a symbolic part of the
island languages, if not more. This research aims to contribute towards ideological
clarification and to maximise the effectiveness of language policies and practices.
The next two to three decades will be a challenging period for Jrriais and Guernesiais
(and not forgetting Serquiais). Practically all traditional native speakers will pass away
and the Channel Islands will enter a phase that the Isle of Man went through in the 1970s.
Learning from this experience, with foresight, documentation and a core of committed
language enthusiasts, the islands languages might be retained and, eventually, re-
established as a core value: not only as symbols but as an accepted part of islanders
linguistic repertoires.
Notes
Notes on Preface
1 I would like to thank Henry Johnson (personal communication, 12 April 2011) for this
insight.
Notes on Chapter 1
3 Although the ECRML comes under the Council of Europe rather than the EU. See
www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/, accessed 30 Nov 2012.
4 See www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/catalan-language-in-danger,
accessed 30 November 2012.
5 See www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-language-is-not-in-danger-
scholar-1-2725967. The debate following the publication of UNESCOs Atlas of World
Languages in Danger, which labelled Manx and Cornish extinct, led to its revision.
One of my students has also pointed out that the Learnmanx website
(www.learnmanx.com/index.html, accessed 26 May 2010), published by the
government-funded Manx Heritage Foundation, does not mention the endangered status
of Manx; the focus is on learning and using Manx as a living language. I am indebted to
Rachel Watson for this insight.
6 Ynsee Gaelg blog, 21 January 2013,
www.learnmanx.com/cms/news_story_248553.html, accessed 16 April 2013.
8 For example,
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/are_dying_languages_worth_savi.html,
accessed 22 August 2012.
9 The largest of these are the Hans Rausing Endangered Language Project,
www.hrelp.org/languages; the Volkswagen Foundation-sponsored DoBeS
(Dokumentation Bedrohter Sprachen), www.mpi.nl/DOBES; and the US National
Endowment for the Humanities/National Science Foundation Documenting Endangered
Languages program www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/del.html. Smaller programmes
include the Chirac Foundation funded Sorosoro http://blog.sorosoro.org/en/, launched on
9 June 2008, and the World Oral Literature Project, www.oralliterature.org/ (all accessed
15 October 2012).
11 The potential ethical issues with regard to intellectual property and re-use/wider
publication of data are manifold but outside the scope of this book. For further discussion
see Dwyer 2006 and Nathan 2011.
12 E.g. the Linguists for Nicaragua organisation of the 1980s (Colette Grinevald,
personal communication, November 2010) and the invitation on the website of the
Linguistic Society of Americas Committee on Endangered Languages and their
Preservation to Click here to urge President Obama to support Native American
languages! and Sign up here to be informed of opportunities for political action in
support of endangered languages (http://lsacelp.org/, accessed 14 September 2012).
Notes on Chapter 2
1 In Jersey and Guernsey, the Queen is known as the Duke of Normandy and in the Isle
of Man, she is the Lord of Mann
(www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/, accessed 23 October
2012), although Henry III surrendered the title of Duke of Normandy in 1259.
2 Each island has a special relationship with the EU as a result of the UKs accession to
the European Economic Community (later the European Union) in 1972. As noted by the
States of Jersey, In simple terms, the Island is treated as part of the European
Community for the purposes of free trade in goods, but otherwise is not a part of the EU
(States of Jersey 2012).
8
www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/articles/2009/10/22/constituion_debate_feature.shtml,
accessed 24 April 2013.
9
www.statesassembly.gov.je/about/MembersMeetingsProceedings/Pages/StatesProceedings.aspx
accessed 24 April 2013.
11 Until electoral reforms in 1948, which separated the judiciary and legislatures, jurats
sat in the States assemblies.
13
www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Development%
accessed 17 December 2012.
15 Wardhaugh (1998), third edition, claims that it was banned by the occupying
authorities for this reason, but this is not confirmed by islanders I have interviewed who
were resident during the occupation, and in personal correspondence (September 2001).
Wardhaugh was unable to identify his source for this claim.
16 For understandable reasons, the island governments dislike the term tax haven and
emphasise the robustness of their regulatory procedures.
17 www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/je.html, accessed 11
February 2011.
18 I use this metaphor deliberately: the spidercrab is a local delicacy which has become
an identity symbol, e.g. www.spidercrab.net, the Internet Directory for the Channel
Islands (accessed 16 September 2006).
20
www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/articles/2009/09/23/norman_french_in_guernsey_feature.shtml
accessed 25 October 2012.
21 These languages (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx) are also called q-Celtic because of
their use of the /k/ sound where the p-Celtic or Brythonic branch (Welsh, Breton,
Cornish, etc.) uses /p/. It is thought that the q-Celtic settlers arrived earlier than the
second wave of Celtic settlers and that the /k/ sound reflects a retention of earlier Indo-
European or proto-Celtic /kw/. Indeed, some words in Manx use /kw/ where Welsh uses
/p/, e.g. in the word for five: pump /pmp/ in Welsh, queig/kweg/ in Manx.
23 Since 1598 the Edict of Nantes had allowed followers of la religion prtendue
reforme (the so-called reformed religion) to meet for public worship.
24 Owing to the high salaries for workers in the finance industry, there is a shortage of
local people willing to take on less-well-paid work such as in the catering, retail and care
sectors. In the 1970s Madeira was suffering from economic depression and had a number
of unemployed, trained catering professionals, so a mutually beneficial agreement was
reached.
26 The 2001 Guernsey census was the first and only one to ask a language question. The
2006 census was cancelled, and from 2009 censuses were replaced by annual population
bulletins which do not include language information.
27 www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=859, accessed 14
December 2012.
28 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/commeunitchi-es-medias-press-
release.html, accessed 14 December 2012.
29 Tony Scott-Warren reports hearing that there was a speaker of Auregnais living in
the UK in the 1990s.
31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/isle_of_man/8210192.stm,
www.gov.im/lib/news/cso/unescoacceptsman.xml, accessed 22 October 2012.
34 www.gov.im/mnh/heritage/shops/publications.aspx?
sectionid=10&publicationid=152, accessed 28 November 2012.
39 Campaigners in both islands had aimed to publish in 1966 to mark the 900th
anniversary of the Norman conquest of England.
Notes on Chapter 3
3 Impact is the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and
the economy . . . Maximising impact requires engaging and working with users,
researchers and knowledge transfer professionals, to ensure that strategies, incentives and
mechanisms generate and support impact, innovation and enterprise
(www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/maximising/Pages/home.aspx, accessed 30 November 2012).
4 However, raising such issues with local language planners remains fraught with
difficulties.
Notes on Chapter 4
2 www.jersey.com/English/eatingout/genuinejersey/Pages/BlackButter.aspx, accessed
23 November 2012.
3 Wires are used to make a cacophonous sound with copper bowls: Faire braire les
polles [to make the bachins bray] an ancient Midsummer ritual carried out in the
Northern parishes of Jersey, to frighten away evil spirits and promote fertility. Conch
shells and cow horns were blown as well. www.myspace.com/video/giles/bachin-
ringing-1/32326320, accessed 23 November 2012 (which includes a video).
4 www.manxheritage.org/language/english/the_cooish.html, accessed 24 November
2012.
7 These festivals are named after the Welsh Eisteddfod and include domestic crafts such
as cake-making and sports such as artistic roller-skating, as well as music and language
arts.
10 In Guernesiais and Jrriais, the past historic tense is used for actions in the past
before today; the present perfect is used for actions done on the day of speaking. Many
learners, and latent speakers as here, do not grasp the distinction; I am grateful to Yan
Marquis for pointing it out to me.
20 The granite quarries which drew immigrant labourers in the nineteenth century,
especially to Vale and St Sampsons parishes in northern Guernsey, are now used as
rubbish tips. The North is seen by others as more influenced by Anglicisation.
22 A few under-twenties were reported in the 2001 Guernsey census, but activists are
unaware of such families, so the reporting is regarded as an anomaly.
23 As distinguished from normal lexical and structural borrowing from English such
as refrigerator.
24 This speaker has replaced Guernesiais daov or atou with Standard French avec, an
example of convergence due to attrition.
25 For a relevant typology of speaker proficiency, see Grinevald and Bert (2011).
26 I have copied the original grammar, spelling and translation faithfully. Written
language practices will be discussed in 4.6.
27 Martin was a prolific but unpublished translator who as well as the Bible left a large
number of notebooks containing translations of a hundred plays from the work of
Shakespeare, Longfellow, Pierre and Thomas Corneille, Molire and Voltaire.
28 Ozanne was more widely known for her bird hospital, which was featured on British
television.
29 Traditionalists might say that the second spelling reflects the grammar more
accurately, but unlike in French, the first-person subject pronoun in Guernesiais // does
not have a vowel sound but is elided (or omitted). Jones (2008) points out that the
negative particle ne can be reversed (metathesis) to form en, as in this example.
Notes on Chapter 5
6 In several cases this literally involved moving away from the island then moving back;
this is also the case for some language activists in the Isle of Man.
7 The major annual cultural festival in Guernsey, which includes a Guernsey-French
section including poetry and story recitations, short plays, songs, etc.
8 Although there are also international Island Games where athletes from small islands
compete on a more equal footing: www.islandgames.net/, accessed 31 December 2012.
9 In sport, athletes from all three islands usually compete for England or Great Britain.
10 The Vale is the northernmost parish of Guernsey. Vall (usually spelt Valais) is the
adjectival form of the name in Guernesiais; hence the sticker is ungrammatical. In
English the same word is used for both adjective and noun for this parish name.
12 The last native speakers of traditional Cornish died in the eighteenth or nineteenth
centuries, but there has been a remarkably successful revival: see
www.magakernow.org.uk/ and Ellis (1974).
14 www.sml.hw.ac.uk/departments/languages-intercultural-studies/new-speakers-
minority-languages.htm, accessed 25 November 2012.
Notes on Chapter 6
2 For example, the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages, www.eblul.org/, the
Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning,
www.mercator-research.eu/ (which hosted the 2008 Foundation for Endangered
Languages conference) and the Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity, www.npld.eu
(all accessed 10 December 2009).
4 A reference to a welcome sign in Jrriais at the ferry port in St Helier. This interview
took place in 2005, before the government appointed a Language Officer.
6 The website of the language section of La Socit Jersiaise, a cultural and natural
history society: members.societe-jersiaise.org/geraint/jerriais.html, accessed 11
December 2012.
8 I have been unable to locate a copy of this Strategy. A number of documents available
online report on its development and on a review held in 2010, but none of these
mentions the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Development%
http://shimajournal.org/issues/v1n1/j.%20Ridell%20Shima%20v1n1.pdf;
www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewTranscripts/2010/Transcript%20-
%20Cultural%20Strategy%20Review%20-%20Jersey%20Arts%20Centre%20-
%2011%20October%202010.pdf, all accessed 23 December 2012.
9 www.thisisjersey.com/2011/05/17/its-not-the-head-that-keeps-on-funding-say-the-
teaching-of-jerriais-%e2%80%93-its-the-heart/#ixzz1T72oMRII, accessed 25 July 2011.
11 www.manxheritage.org/pdfs/Jannoo%20Shickyr%20Traa%20Ry%202010.pdf,
accessed 19 December 2012.
14
www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/BP%202009Educati
accessed 19 December 2009.
15 In this respect it is interesting that the States of Jersey web page Environment and
greener living focuses on what members of the public can do to reduce waste and
emissions, rather than stating what the government is doing
(www.gov.je/pages/Accessibility.aspx, accessed 17 December 2012).
27 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/commeunitchi-es-medias-press-
release.html, accessed 14 December 2012.
28 www.npld.eu/, accessed 22 November 2012.
33 See
https://www2.sch.im/groups/decnews/wiki/ae67a/Developments_in_Manx_language_teaching.html
(accessed 20 December 2012) for a report on how Manx school teaching expanded from
1992 to 2011.
34 An additional cause for disapproval was that the childrens book used the learner
orthography (see 6.5) which has been contested by traditionalists.
35 https://twitter.com/darrenduquemin/statuses/300320920143294464, accessed 18
April 2013.
Notes on Chapter 7
3 http://eureco.ku.dk/arrangementer/afholdte_arrangementer_underside/meps/, accessed
21 December 2012.
5 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/commeunitchi-es-medias-press-
release.html, accessed 14 December 2012.
8 Sebba (1998; 2000) observes that Manx was probably originally written for preachers
who were bilingual in Manx and English to be able to give religious instruction to
monolingual Manx speakers. At this stage there had been contact with English for at least
200 years, so contact features were probably already present in Manx.
10 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/intensive-gallo.html, accessed 5
January 2013.
11 Yan Marquis reports that the jewellery seems to have sold well and that the company
has commissioned more (and hopefully better) translations. Such items seem to respond
to a desire to express emotions through the local language.
Notes on Reference
1 The pages of this journal are numbered from rear to front, following Japanese
practice.
References
Abley, M. 2003. Spoken here: travels among threatened languages. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Achard, P. 1982. Preface to Llus Aracil, Lo bilingisme coma mite [Bilingualism as
Myth], 927. Magals: Institut dEstudis Occitans.
Adler, M. 1977. Welsh and the other dying languages of Europe: a sociolinguistic study.
Hamburg: Buske.
Adler-Nissen, R. and U. Gad (eds.) 2012. European integration and postcolonial
sovereignty games: The EU overseas countries and territories. Abingdon: Routledge.
Adrey, J.-B. 2009. Discourse and struggle in minority language policy formation:
Corsican language policy in the EU context of governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ager, D. E. 1996. Language policy in Britain and France: The processes of policy.
Open Linguistics: Continuum.
Ager, D. E. 2001. Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ager, D. E. 2005. Prestige and image planning, Current Issues in Language Planning
6(1): 143.
Ager, S. 2009. A study of language death and revival with a particular focus on Manx
Gaelic, MA dissertation, Bangor University.
www.omniglot.com/pdfs/languagerevival.pdf, accessed 20 April 2013.
Ainger, L. M. 1995. My case unpacked: Memories of evacuation from Guernsey in
World War II. Dunstable: Self-published.
Aitchison, J. 1981. Language change: Progress or decay. London: Fontana.
Alladina, S. 1995. Being bilingual: A guide for parents, teachers, and young people on
mother tongue, heritage language, and bilingual education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Amery, R. 2001. Language planning and language revival, Current Issues in Language
Planning 2: 141221.
Amery, R. 2009. Phoenix or relic? Documentation of languages with revitalization in
mind, Language Documentation and Conservation 3(2): 13848.
Amy, A. 1988. Original songs in the Jersey language. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflection on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, G. 2011. Language hotspots: what (applied) linguistics and education should
do about language endangerment in the twenty-first century, Language and Education
25: 27389.
Anderson, G. and K. D. Harrison 2007. Global language hotspots: Language
maintenance and revitalization. Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages.
www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/langhotspots/revitalization.html, accessed 7 January
2013.
Annamalai, E. 2004. Public perceptions of language diversity, paper presented at the
Linguapax Congress Dialogue on Language Diversity, Sustainability and Peace,
Barcelona, May 2004.
Anon. 1845. Economy; or, A Peep at our Neighbours [in the Channel Islands]. London:
G. Ollivier.
Argenter, J. A. and R. McKenna Brown (eds.) 2004. On the margins of nations:
Endangered languages and linguistic rights. Proceedings of the eighth conference of
the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath: Foundation for Endangered
Languages.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, P. K. and J. Sallabank (eds.) forthcoming a. Endangered languages: Beliefs and
ideologies. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford University Press.
Austin, P. K. and J. Sallabankforthcoming b. Introduction, in Austin and Sallabank
(eds.) forthcoming a.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (ed.) 1993. European models of bilingual education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bailey, C.-J. N. and K. Maroldt 1977. The French lineage of English, in J. M. Meisel
(ed.), Langues en contact. Tbingen: TBL-Verlag Narr. 2153.
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 1999. Encyclopaedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bakker, P. and M. Mous (eds.) 1994. Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language
intertwining. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and
Language Use (IFOTT).
Baldacchino, G. 2008. Trains of thought: railways as island antitheses, Shima: The
International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 2(1): 2940.
Baldauf, R. B., Jr. 19931994. Unplanned language policy and planning, Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 14: 8289.
Baldauf, Richard B., Jr. 2004. Micro language planning, in P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson,
W. Grabe, W. G. Eggington and V. Ramanathan (eds.), Directions in applied
linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan on the occasion of his 75th birthday.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 22739.
Baldwin, D. 2003. Miami language reclamation: From Ground Zero A lecture
presented by the Center for Writing and the Interdisciplinary Minor in Literacy and
Rhetorical Studies. Speaker Series No. 24. University of Minnesota: Center for
Writing.
Bankston, C. L. II and J. Henry 1998. The silence of the gators: Cajun ethnicity and
intergenerational transmission of Louisiana French, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 19(1): 123.
Bankston, C. L. I. and J. Henry 2000. Spectacles of ethnicity: festivals and the
commodification of ethnic culture among Louisiana Cajuns, Sociological Spectrum
20(4): 377407.
Barb, P. 1995a. Guernsey English: my mother tongue, Report and Transactions of La
Socit Guernesaise 23(4) [1994]: 70023.
Barb, P. 1995b. Guernsey English: a syntax exile?, English World Wide 15(1): 136.
Barrett, R. 2008. Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in
Guatemala, Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(8): 273305.
Barton, D. and M. Hamilton 1998. Local literacies: Reading and writing in one
community. London: Routledge.
Basham, C. 1999. On acquiring an ancestral language as an adult, paper presented at
the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Stamford, CT, 8 March 1999.
Basham, C. and A. Fathman 2003. Developing language skills of latent speakers,
paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics annual
conference, Arlington, Virginia, March 24, 2003.
Basham, C. and A. Fathman 2008. The latent speaker: attaining adult fluency in an
endangered language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
11: 57797.
Bastardas-Boada, A. 2005. Linguistic sustainability and language ecology, Language
& Ecology 1(4) [Online journal no page numbers].
www.ecoling.net/bibliography/4563132828, accessed 8 January 2013.
Batibo, H. M. 2005. Language decline and death in Africa: Causes, consequences and
challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bdier, J. (ed.) 1968. La Chanson de Roland. Paris: Piazza.
Bendle, M. 2002. The crisis of identity in high modernity, British Journal of
Sociology 53(1): 118.
Bentahila, A. and E. E. Davies 1993. Language revival: restoration or transformation?,
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14(5): 35574.
Benton, R. and N. Benton 2001. RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand 19891999, in
Fishman (ed.), 42350.
Bialystok, E. (ed.) 1991. Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge
University Press.
Bielenberg, B. 1999. Indigenous language codification: cultural effects, in Reyhner et
al. (eds.), 10312.
Blackwood, R. J. 2008. The state, the activists and the islanders: Language policy in
Corsica. Heidelberg: Springer.
Blommaert, J. (ed.) 1999. Language ideological debates. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Blommaert, J. 2001. The Asmara Declaration as a sociolinguistic problem: reflections
on scholarship and linguistic rights, Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(1): 13142.
Blythe, J. and R. McKenna Brown (eds.) 2003. Maintaining the links: Language,
identity and the land. Proceedings of the seventh conference of the Foundation for
Endangered Languages. Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Boland, H. 1885. Les institutions de langue franaise Guernesey, Revue
Internationale 8: 6685 and 190212.
Bonnemaison, J. 1990. Lespace rticul [Reticulated space], in B. Antheaume, C.
Blanc-Pamard, J.-L. Chaleard, A. Dubresson, V. Lassailly-Jacob, J. Y. Marchal, et al.
(eds.), Tropiques, lieux et liens: Florilge offert Paul Plissier et Gilles Sautter
[Tropics, places and links: A festschrift for Paul Plissier and Gilles Sautter]. Paris:
ORSTOM. 50010.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1993. Sociology in question. London: Sage.
Bourhis, R., H. Giles and D. Rosenthal 1981. Notes on the construction of a subjective
vitality questionnaire for ethnolinguistic groups, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 2(2): 14555.
Bowern, C. 2011. Planning a language documentation project, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 45982.
Bowes, A. M. 1996. Evaluating an empowering research strategy: reflections on action-
research with south Asian women, Sociological Research Online 1(1) [Online
journal]. www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/1.html, accessed 15 July 2013.
Boynton, J. forthcoming. The costs of language mobilisation: Wangkatha ideologies
and Native Title, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Bradac, J. J., A. C. Cargile and J. Halett 2001. Language attitudes: retrospect, conspect,
and prospect, in W. P. Robinson and H. Giles (eds.), The new handbook of language
and social psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 13755.
Bradley, D. 2010. Language endangerment and resilience linguistics: case studies of
Gong and Lisu, Anthropological Linguistics 52(3): 12340.
Bradley, D. and M. Bradley (eds.) 2002. Language endangerment and language
maintenance: An active approach. London: Routledge.
Brasseur, P. 1997. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand. Paris: ditions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Bright, W. 1997. Editorial note, Language in Society 26: 469.
British-Irish Council. 2004. Work of the British-Irish Council: minority and lesser-used
languages. www.britishirishcouncil.org/work/language.asp (no longer available),
accessed 24 September 2004.
Broderick, G. 1984. A handbook of Late Spoken Manx, Vol. I: Grammar and texts;Vol.
II:Dictionary. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Broderick, G. 1986. A handbook of Late Spoken Manx, Vol. III:Phonology. Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Broderick, G. 1991. The decline and death of Manx Gaelic, in P. Sture Ureland and G.
Broderick (eds.), Language contact in the British Isles: Proceedings of the eighth
International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man.
Tbingen: Max Niemeyer. 62126.
Broderick, G. 1996. Language decline and language revival in the Isle of Man, Ned
Maddrell Memorial Lecture, Manx Museum, Douglas, Isle of Man, 28 November 1996.
www.gaelg.iofm.net/ARTICLE/Broderick/maddrell.html, accessed 10 January 2008.
Broderick, G. 1999. Language death in the Isle of Man. Tbingen, Max Niemeyer.
Brooks, S. 1907. The new Ireland. Dublin: Maunsell.
Bruce, S. 1999. Sociology. Oxford University Press.
Brumfit, C. 2006. A European perspective on language as liminality, in Mar-Molinero
and Stevenson (eds.), 2843.
Bryman, A. 2004. Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Bunting, M. 1995. The model occupation. London: HarperCollins.
Calvet, J.-L. 1998. Language wars and linguistic politics. Oxford University Press.
Calvet, J.-L. 2006. Towards an ecology of world languages. Cambridge: Polity.
Cameron, D. 1992. Researching language: Issues of power and method. London:
Routledge.
Cameron, D. 2007. Language endangerment and verbal hygiene: history, morality and
politics, in Duchne and Heller (eds.), 26885.
Cameron, D., E. Frazer, P. Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton and K. Richardson 1993. The
relations between researcher and researched: ethics, advocacy and empowerment, in
D. Graddol, J. Maybin and B. Stierer (eds.), Researching language and literacy in
social context. Clevedon: The Open University/Multilingual Matters. 1825.
Cantoni, G. (ed.) 1996. Stabilizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona
University.
Cargile, A. C. and J. J. Bradac 2001. Attitudes toward language: a review of speaker-
evaluation research and a general process model, in W. B. Gudykunst (ed.),
Communication yearbook 25. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 34782.
Carr, A. 1972. EnglishJersey language vocabulary. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy 2004. Talking, creating: interactional language, creativity,
and context, Applied Linguistics 25(1): 6288.
Castells, M. 2000. The power of identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter 2006. Linguistic landscape and minority languages,
International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1): 6780.
Chaurand, J. (ed.) 1999. Nouvelle histoire de la langue franaise. Paris: Seuil.
Chiorboli, J. (ed.) 1990. Actes du colloque internationale des langues
polynomiques:PULA (Publications Universitaires de Linguistique et dAnthropologie).
Corsica: Centre de Recherches Corses, University of Corsica.
Christison, M. A. and R. Hayes-Harb 2006. The role of applied linguistics in language
revitalization programs, paper presented at the Joint Conference of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) and the Association Canadienne de
Linguistique Applique/Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (ACLA/CAAL),
Montreal, 1720 June 2006.
Clague, M. 2007a. The developing Manx of immerision educated children: role of
applied linguistics in language revitalization programs, unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Liverpool Centre for Manx Studies.
Clague, M. 2007b. Narratives in Manx: linguistic strategies in immersion acquired
language, Journal of Applied Linguistics 4: 26184.
Clague, M. 2009a. Carvalyn Ghaelgagh: a curious literature, paper presented at the
Liverpool Symposium on Current Research in the Isle of Man, University of Liverpool,
21 September 2009.
Clague, M. 2009b. Manx language revitalization and immersion education, E-Keltoi
Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 2: 16598 [Online journal].
www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol2/2_5/clague_2_5.pdf, accessed 21
December 2012.
Collas, J. P. 1931. A critical examination of the Atlas linguistique de la France as it
concerns the island of Guernsey, BLitt. dissertation, University of Oxford.
Collas, J. P. 1934. Some aspects of the Norman dialect in the Channel Islands, with
special reference to Guernsey, Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise 12: 21325.
Collge des Pieux 2000. Auteurs normands: Vous avez dit patois? Les Pieux: Foyer
Socio Educatif du Collge Le Castillon.
Coluzzi, P. 2005. Language planning for the smallest language minority in Italy: the
Cimbrians of Veneto and Trentino-Alto Adige, Language Problems & Language
Planning 29(3): 24769.
Conathan, L. 2011. Archiving and language documentation, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 23554.
Cooper, J. B. and J. L. McGaugh 1966. Attitude and related concepts, in M. Jahoda
and M. Warren (eds.), Attitudes. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 2732.
Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge University
Press.
Cope, L. (ed.) 2012. Applied linguists needed: Cross-disciplinary networking in
endangered language contexts. London: Routledge.
Corbet, D. 1871. Les fleurs de la fort. Guernsey: F. Clarke.
Corbet, D. 1884. Le chant du dran rimeux. St Peter Port, Guernsey: Gurin.
Costa, J. 2010. Revitalisation linguistique: discours, myths et ideologies: approche
critique de mouvements de revitalisation en Provence et en Ecosse, PhD thesis,
University of Grenoble. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/AOM/tel-00625691/fr/, accessed
30 November 2012.
Costa, J. 2011. Du local au global: essai de clarification idologique pralable: discours
concurrents et revitalisation linguistique en Provence, in F. Manzano (ed.), Unit et
diversit de la linguistique. Lyon: Publications du Centre dEtudes
Linguistiques/Editions de Luniversit Jean Moulin, Lyon 3. 23355.
Costa, J. 2013. Language endangerment and revitalisation as elements of regimes of
truth: Shifting terminology to shift perspective, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 34 (4): 31731.
Costa, J.forthcoming a. Must we save the language? Childrens discourse on language
and community in Provenal and Scottish language revitalization movements, in
Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Costa, J.forthcoming b. New speakers, new language: on being a legitimate speaker of
a minority language in Provence, International Journal of the Sociology of Language,
231 (2015).
Crawford, J. and S. Krashen 2007. English learners in American classrooms: 101
questions, 101 answers. New York: Scholastic.
Crawhall, N. and N. Ostler 2005. Creating outsiders: Migration and marginalisation.
Proceedings of the ninth conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Crossan, R.-M. 2005. The retreat of French from Guernseys public primary schools,
18001939, Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise 25(5): 85188.
Crossan, R.-M. 2007. Guernsey, 18141914: Migration and modernisation.
Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Crystal, D. 2000. Language death. Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. and M. Swain 1983. Analysis-by-rhetoric: reading the text or the readers
own projections? A reply to Edelsky et al., Applied Linguistics 4(1): 2341.
Cummins, J. and M. Swain 1986. Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory,
research, and practice. London: Longman.
Currie, M. and M. A. Hogg 1994. Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 97115.
Dalby, A. 2002. Language in danger. London: Penguin.
Dauenhauer, N. M. and R. Dauenhauer 1998. Technical, emotional, and ideological
issues in reversing language shift: examples from Southeast Alaska, in Grenoble and
Whaley (eds.), 5798.
Davey, P. (ed.) forthcoming. A new history of the Isle of Man, Vol. II: Prehistory.
Liverpool: Centre for Manx Studies.
Davies, A. 2003. The native speaker: Myth and reality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Davies, C. 1987. Language, identity, and ethnic jokes about stupidity, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 65: 3952.
de Bres, J. 2011. Promoting the Mori language to non-Mori: evaluating the New
Zealand governments approach, Language Policy 10(4): 36176.
De Garis, M. (ed.) 1967. Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais. Guernsey: La Socit
Guernesiaise.
De Garis, M. 1977. Philology section report, Report and Transactions of La Socit
Guernesiaise 20: 1856.
De Garis, M. 1982. Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais, 3rd edn. Chichester:
Phillimore.
De Garis, M. 1985. Guernesiais: a grammatical survey. Guernsey: La Socit
Guernesiaise.
De Garis, M. 2012. Dictiounnaire Angllais Guernsiais, 4th edn. Chichester:
Phillimore.
Denison, N. 1977. Language death or language suicide?, International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 12: 1322.
Denison, N. Dictionnaithe AngliaisJrriais 2008. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Denison, N. Dictionnaithe JrriaisAngliais 2004 (2nd edn 2008). Jersey: Le Don
Balleine.
Dobrin, L. M. 2005. When our values conflict with theirs: linguistics and community
empowerment in Melanesia, in P. K. Austin (ed.), Language documentation and
description,Vol. III. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 4252.
Dobrin, L. M. 2008. From linguistic elicitation to eliciting the linguist: lessons in
community empowerment from Melanesia, Language 84(2): 30024.
Dobrin, L. M., P. K. Austin and D. Nathan 2009. Dying to be counted: the
commodification of endangered languages in documentary linguistics, in P. K. Austin
(ed.), Language documentation and description, Vol. VI. London: School of Oriental
and African Studies. 3752.
Domaille, D. R. F. 1996. Analyse sociolinguistique du Guernesiais, MA dissertation,
University of Bristol.
Dorian, N. C. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death,
Language 54: 590609.
Dorian, N. C. 1980a. Language shift in community and individual: the phenomenon of
the laggard semi-speaker, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25: 85
94.
Dorian, N. C. 1981. Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect.
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dorian, N. C. 1987. The value of maintenance efforts which are unlikely to succeed,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 5767.
Dorian, N. C.(ed.) 1989. Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction
and death. Cambridge University Press.
Dorian, N. C. 1993a. A response to Ladefogeds other view of endangered languages,
Language 69: 5759.
Dorian, N. C. 1994a. Choices and values in language shift and its study, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 110: 11324.
Dorian, N. C. 1994b. Varieties of variation in a very small place: social homogeneity,
prestige norms and linguistic variation, Language 70: 63196.
Dorian, N. C. 1994c. Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language
revival, Language in Society 23: 47994.
Dorian, N. C. 1998. Western language ideologies and small-language prospects, in
Grenoble and Whaley (eds.), 321.
Dorian, N. C. 1999. Linguistic and ethnographic fieldwork, in J. Fishman (ed.),
Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford University Press. 2541.
Dressler, W. U. 1982. Acceleration, retardation, and reversal in language decay?, in
R. L. Cooper (ed.), Language spread: Studies in diffusion and social change.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 32136.
Dressler, W. U. and R. Wodak-Leodolter 1977. Language death, International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 12: 5144.
Duchne, A. and M. Heller 2007. Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in
the defence of languages. London: Continuum.
Duffy, J. 2002. Back from the dead: UKs new language, 22 August 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2206191.stm, accessed 23 August 2002.
Dunbar, R. 2008. Minority language renewal: Gaelic in Nova Scotia, and lessons from
abroad. Nova Scotia: FIOS (funded by the Nova Scotia Governments Office for
Gaelic Affairs).
Dwyer, A. M. 2006. Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork, in J. Gippert,
N. P. Himmelmann and U. Mosel (eds.), Essentials of language documentation. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter. 3166.
Eastman, C. M. 1984. Language, ethnic identity and change, in J. Edwards (ed.),
Linguistic minorities, policies and pluralism. London: Academic Press. 277305.
Eckert, P. 1980. Diglossia: separate and unequal, Linguistics 18: 105364.
Edelsky, C., S. Hudelson, B. Flores, F. Barkin, B. Altwerger and K. Jilbert 1983.
Semilingualism and language deficit, Applied Linguistics 4(1): 122.
Education and Home Affairs Panel 2010. Cultural Strategy Review. St Helier: States of
Jersey.
Education Committee 1998. Teaching of Jrriais in Primary Schools. Lodged au Greffe
on 9 June 1998. St Helier: States of Jersey.
Edwards, John R. 1977. Students reactions to Irish regional accents, Language &
Speech 20(3): 2806.
Edwards, John R. 1984. Language, diversity and identity, in J. R. Edwards (ed.),
Linguistic minorities, policy and pluralism. London: Academic Press. 277310.
Edwards, John R. 1999. Redefining our understanding of language attitudes, Journal
of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 10110.
Edwards, John R. 2001. The ecology of language survival, Current Issues in Language
Planning 2(2): 23141.
Edwards, John R. 2010. Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Edwards, V. and L. Pritchard Newcombe 2005a. Language transmission in the family
in Wales: an example of innovative language planning, Language Problems &
Language Planning 29(2): 13550.
Edwards, V. and L. Pritchard Newcombe 2005b. When school is not enough: new
initiatives in intergenerational language transmission in Wales, International Journal
of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 8(4): 298312.
Eggington, W. G. 2001. Language revitalization planning within a power/solidarity
framework, Current Issues in Language Planning 2(2): 24250.
Ellis, P. B. 1974. The Cornish language and its literature. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Ellis, P. B. and S. mac a Ghobhainn 1971. The problem of language revival. Inverness:
Club Leabhar.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod 2008. The study of second language acquisition, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press.
Eloy, J.-M. (ed.) 2004. Des langues collatrales: problmes linguistiques,
sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximit linguistique. Actes du Colloque
international runi Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001, Vol. I. Paris: LHarmattan.
Eloy, J.-M. and T. hIfearnin (eds.) 2007. Langue proche Langue collatrale: Near
languages Collateral languages. Actes du Colloque international runi Limerick,
du 16 au 18 juin 2005. Paris: LHarmattan.
Evans, N. 2001. The last speaker is dead: long live the last speaker!, in Paul Newman
and Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge University Press. 25081.
Evans, N. 2010. Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us.
Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Evenou, E. 2000. La langue bretonne en qute de lgitimit. Spzet: Keltia Graphic.
Falla, J. 2000. What are your true colours?, Guernsey Evening Press, 24 June 2000.
Fargher, D. C. 1979. Farghers EnglishManx dictionary, ed. B. Stowell and I. Faulds.
Douglas: Shearwater Press.
Fasold, R. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fennell, D. 1981. Can a shrinking minority be saved? Lessons from the Irish
experience, in E. Haugen, J. D. McClure and D. Thompson (eds.), Minority languages
today: A selection from the papers read at the First Conference on Minority Languages
at Glasgow University 83 September 1980. Edinburgh University Press. 329.
Ferguson, C. 2012. Authenticity in an endangered language: the case of Guernsey
French, unpublished PhD thesis, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Ferguson, C, and J, Sallabank. 2011. Ideologies of authenticity in an endangered
language: change and correctness in Guernsey French, paper presented at the British
Association of Applied Linguistics annual conference, University of the West of
England, Bristol, 1 September 2011.
Ferguson, C. F. 1959. Diglossia, Word 15(2): 32540.
Ferrer, R. C. 2004. Transmission, education and integration in projections of language
shift in Valencia, Language Policy 3(2): 10731.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishman, J. A. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when, La Linguistique
2: 6788.
Fishman, J. A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and
without bilingualism, Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 2938.
Fishman, J. A.(ed.) 1974. Advances in language planning. The Hague: Mouton.
Fishman, J. A. 1987. Language spread and language policy for endangered languages,
in P. H. Lowenberg (ed.), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics 1987. Washington, DC, Georgetown University. 115.
Fishman, J. A. 1988. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A.(ed.) 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical
foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. 1996 (revised 2007). Maintaining languages: what works and what
doesnt, in Cantoni (ed.), 16575. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/SIL/Fishman2.pdf,
accessed 25 November 2012.
Fishman, J. A.(ed.) 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language
shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. 2006. Do not leave your language alone. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Flores Farfn, J. A. and F. F. Ramallo (eds.) 2010. New perspectives on endangered
languages: Bridging gaps between sociolinguistics, documentation and language
revitalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Florey, M. 2004. Countering purism: confronting the emergence of new varieties in a
training programme for community language workers, in P. K. Austin (ed.), Language
documentation and description, Vol. II. London: School of Oriental and African
Studies. 927.
Foddy, W. 1993. Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and
practice in social research. Cambridge University Press.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
systems analyses, Global Environmental Change 16: 25367.
Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockstrm 2010.
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability, Ecology
and Society 15(4): 20. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/, accessed 15 July
2013.
Freeland, J. and D. Patrick (eds.) 2004. Language rights and language survival:
Encounters. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Gal, S. 1978. Peasant men cant get wives: language change and sex roles in a bilingual
community, Language in Society 7(1): 116.
Gal, S. 1979. Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual
Austria. New York: Academic Press.
Gal, S. 2006. Migration, minorities and multilingualism in Europe: language ideologies
and the practices of language difference, in Mar-Molinero and Stevenson (eds.), 13
27.
Gardner, R. C. and W. E. Lambert 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second-language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, P., N. Coupland and A. Williams 2003. Investigating language attitudes: Social
meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Gawne, P. 2002. Securing the future of Manx Gaelic, in P. Davey, D. Finlayson and P.
Tomlinson (eds.), Mannin revisited: Twelve essays on Manx culture and environment.
Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies. 17383.
www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/gawneseminar.html, accessed 15 December 2012.
Gerdts, D. 1998. The linguist in language revitalization programmes, in N. Ostler
(ed.), Endangered languages: What role for the specialist? Bath: Foundation for
Endangered Languages. 1322.
Gawne, P. 2010. Beyond expertise: the role of the linguist in language revitalization
programs, in Grenoble and Furbee (eds.), 17392.
Giles, H. (ed.) 1977. Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. European
Monographs in Social Psychology. London/New York: Academic Press.
Giles, H. and E. B. Ryan (eds.) 1982. Attitudes towards language variation: Social and
applied contexts. London: Edward Arnold.
Giles, H. and P. Johnson 1981. The role of language in inter-group relations, in J. C.
Turner and H. Giles (eds.), Intergroup relations. Oxford: Blackwell. 2033.
Giles, H. and P. Johnson 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological
approach to language maintenance, International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 68: 6699.
Gill, W. W. 1934. Manx dialect words and phrases. London/Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith.
Girard, P. 1980. George Mtivier, Guernseys national poet, Report and Transactions
of La Socit Guernesiaise 20: 61733.
Goebl, H. 1989. Quelques remarques relatives aux concepts Abstand et Ausbau de
Heinz Kloss, in U. Ammon (ed.), Status and function of languages and language
varieties. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 27890.
Gomm, R. 2004. Social research methodology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goodfellow, A. M. (ed.) 2009. Speaking of endangered languages: Issues in
revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Goodfellow, A. M. and P. Alfred 2002. Maintaining indigenous languages in North
America: what can we learn from studies of pidgins and creoles?, in B. Burnaby and J.
Reyhner (eds.), Indigenous languages across the community. Flagstaff: University of
Arizona. 21318.
Gorter, D., H. F. Marten and L. Van Mensel (eds.) 2011. Minority languages in the
linguistic landscape. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Trans. Q.
Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith. New York: International.
Green, J. N. 1993. Representations of romance: conflict, bilingualism and diglossia, in
R. Posner and J. N. Green (eds.), Bilingualism and linguistic conflict in romance, Vol.
V. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 340.
Grenoble, L. A. 2009. Conflicting ideologies and beliefs in the field, paper presented
at ELAP Workshop Endangered languages: beliefs and ideology, School of Oriental
and African Studies, London, 28 February 2009.
Grenoble, L. A. 2011. Language ecology and endangerment, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 2744.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. N. Furbee (eds.) 2010. Language documentation: Practice and
values. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. J. Whaley (eds.) 1998. Endangered languages: Language loss
and community response. Cambridge University Press.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. J. Whaley 2006. Saving languages: An introduction to language
revitalization. Cambridge University Press.
Grenoble, L. A. and S. S. Whitecloud forthcoming. Conflicting goals, ideologies and
beliefs in the field, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Grimes, B. F. 2001. Global language viability: causes, symptoms and cures for
endangered languages, Notes on Linguistics 4: 20523.
Grin, F. 1999. Language policy in multilingual Switzerland: Overview and recent
developments. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues.
Grin, F. and F. Vaillancourt 1997. The economics of multilingualism: overview and
analytical framework, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17: 4365.
Grin, F. and F. Vaillancourt 1999. The cost-effectiveness of minority language policies:
Case studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. Flensburg: European Centre
for Minority Issues.
Grinevald, C. 2003. Speakers and documentation of endangered languages, in P. K.
Austin (ed.), Language documentation and description, Vol. I. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies. 5272.
Grinevald, C. and M. Bert 2011. Speakers and communities, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 4565.
Grinevald, C. and B. Pivot 2010. How to teach a mother tongue . . . when it no longer is
a mother tongue?, Sorosoro blog, 18 December 2010. http://blog.sorosoro.org/en/how-
to-teach-a-mother-tongue%E2%80%A6-when-it-no-longer-is-a-mother-tongue,
accessed 5 January 2013.
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guillemin, M. 1985. tude sur la situation du franais et des parlers normands dans les
les Anglo-Normandes, Diplme dtudes approfondies, Universit de Paris III
Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Language and social identity. Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. 1989. Types of linguistic communities, in J. A. Fishman (ed.), Readings
in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton. 46072.
Gumperz, J. J. and J. Cook-Gumperz 1982. Introduction: language and the
communication of social identity, in J. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity.
Cambridge University Press. 122.
Haarmann, H. 1984. Sprachplanung und Prestigeplanung [Language planning and
prestige planning], Europa Ethnica 41: 819.
Haarmann, H. 1990. Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: a
methodological framework, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 86:
10326.
Hale, K. 1992. Endangered languages, Language 68: 142.
Hammersley, M. 1993. Introducing ethnography, in D. Graddol, J. Maybin and B.
Stierer (eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context. Milton
Keynes/Clevedon: The Open University/Multilingual Matters. 117.
Hansen, E. 2001. Roma minorities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Issues,
institutions and policies pertaining to data collection. Oslo: FAFO.
Harbert, W., S. McConnell-Ginet, A. Miller and J. Whitman (eds.) 2009. Language and
poverty. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Harrison, K. D. 2007. When languages die: The extinction of the worlds languages and
the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Hartley, L. C. and D. R. Preston 1999. The names of US English: valley girl, cowboy,
yankee, normal, nasal and ignorant, in T. Bex and R. J. Watts (eds.), Standard
English: The widening debate. London: Routledge. 20738.
Haugen, E. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Havard, N. 2008. Language revitalisation on Guernsey, MA dissertation, University of
Sheffield.
Heaume, D. O. 1970. Guernsey songs and dances. Guernsey: LAssembllae
dGuernsiais.
Heinrich, P. 2004. Language planning and language ideology in the Ryukyu Islands,
Language Policy 3(2): 15379.
Heinrich, P. 2005. What leaves a mark should no longer stain: progressive erasure and
reversing language shift activities in the Ryukyu Islands, Refereed papers from the
First international Small Island Cultures conference, Kagoshima University Centre for
the Pacific Islands, 710 February 2005: 6172. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC1/j.%20ISIC1P%20Heinrich.pdf, accessed 16 April 2013.
Heller, M. 2004. Analysis and stance regarding language and social justice, in
Freeland and Patrick (eds.), 28386.
Heller, M. 2010. The commodification of language, Annual Review of Anthropology
39: 10114 (DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104951).
Heller, M. 2011. Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and
identity. Oxford University Press.
Heller, M., M. Campbell, P. Dalley and D. Patrick 1999. Linguistic minorities and
modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman.
Henry, J. and C. L. Bankston III 1999. Louisiana Cajun ethnicity: symbolic or
structural?, Sociological Spectrum 19(2): 22348.
Hicks, D. 2001. Opening of the first Manx-medium primary school class. www.breizh-
brittany.com/sections/rbe-international, accessed 9 September 2002.
Hill, J. H. 2002. Expert rhetorics in advocacy for endangered languages: who is
listening and what do they hear?, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2): 11933.
Hill, K. (ed.) 2000. The collected works of Marjorie Ozanne 18971973 in Guernsey-
French with English translations. Guernsey: La Socit Guernesiaise.
Hinton, L. 1997. Survival of endangered languages: the Californian Master-Apprentice
program, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 123: 17791.
Hinton, L. 2002. Commentary: internal and external advocacy, Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 12(2): 1506.
Hinton, L. and J. Ahlers 1999. The issue of authenticity in Californian language
restoration, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 30(1): 5667.
Hinton, L. and K. Hale (eds.) 2002. The green book of language revitalization in
practice. San Diego/Oxford: Academic Press.
Hinton, L., M. Vera and N. Steele 2002. How to keep your language alive: A
commonsense approach to one-on-one language learning. Berkeley, CA: Heyday
Books.
Hoare, R. 2000. Linguistic competence and regional identity in Brittany: attitudes and
perceptions of identity, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21(4):
32446.
Hoare, R. and A. Coveney 2000. The linguistic marking of identity among young
people in Brittany, Revue-Parole 14: 93125.
Hoffman, K. E. 2006. Berber language ideologies, maintenance, and contraction:
gendered variation in the indigenous margins of Morocco, Language &
Communication 26: 14467.
Hogg, M. A. and D. Abrams 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A. and D. Abrams 2001. Intergroup relations: Essential readings.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Holton, G. 2009. Creating sustainable language communities through creolization, in
Goodfellow (ed.), 23865.
Hornberger, N. H. (ed.) 2003. Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for
educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H.(ed.) 2008. Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and
practice on four continents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hornberger, N. H. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning, in
Ricento (ed.), 2441.
Hornberger, N. H. and K. King 1996. Language revitalization in the Andes: can the
schools reverse language shift?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 17: 42741.
Hornsby, M. 2005. No-breton and questions of authenticity, Estudios de
Sociolingstica 6(2): 191218.
Houghton, S. and D. J. Rivers 2013. Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics
in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hudson, A. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia, International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 157: 148.
Husband, C. and V. Saifullah-Khan 1982. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality: some
creative doubts, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3(3): 195
205.
Hyltenstam, K. and L. Obler 1989. Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of
acquisition, maturity, and loss. Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. 1972 (revised from 1967). Models of the interaction of language and social
life, in J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The
ethnography of communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 3571.
Inglehart, R. 1977. The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among
Western publics. Princeton University Press.
Inglis, H. D. 1835. The Channel Islands. London: Whittaker.
Irvine, J. 1989. When talk isnt cheap: language and political economy, American
Ethnologist 16: 24867.
Irvine, J. T. and S. Gal 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation, in
Kroskrity (ed.),. 3583.
Isle of Man Government 2012. Isle of Man Census 2011: Summary Results. Douglas,
Isle of Man: Government Treasury Economic Affairs Division.
Jaffe, Alexandra 1999a. Ideologies in action: Language politics on Corsica. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaffe, Alexandra 1999b. Locating power: Corsican translators and their critics, in J.
Blommaert (ed.), Language ideological debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 3966.
Jaffe, Alexandra 2000. Comic performance and the articulation of hybrid identity,
Pragmatics 10(1): 13959.
Jaffe, Alexandra 2005. Lducation bilingue corse et la polynomie, Marges
Linguistiques 10: 282300.
Jaffe, Alexandra 2008. Language ecologies and the meaning of diversity: Corsican
bilingual education and the concept of polynomie, in A. Creese, P. Martin and N. H.
Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edn, Vol. IX: Ecology
of Language. Berlin: Springer. 22536.
Jehan, R. 1999. Des pomes en Guernsiais. Guernsey: Jehan.
Jenkins, J. 2002. The pronunciation of English as an international language. Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity.Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, R. 1997. Rethinking identity. London: Sage.
Jennings, G. and Y. Marquis (eds.) 2011. The toad and the donkey: An anthology of
Norman literature from the Channel Islands. London: Francis Boutle Publishers.
Jessner, U. 1995. How beneficial is bilingualism? Cognitive aspects of bilingual
proficiency, Grazer Linguistische Monographien 10: 17382.
Johansson, L. 2002. Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework, in M. C.
Jones and E. Esch (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and
extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 285313.
Johnson, H. 2008a. Localising Jersey through song: Jrriais, heritage and island identity
in a festival context, Shima 2: 7398.
Johnson, H. 2008b. Constructing islandness on Jersey: a study of language and La Fte
Nouormande, Refereed papers from the third International Small Island Cultures
Conference, Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, 29 June
2 July 2007, ed. Iren Novaczek. 5563. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC3/l.%20ISIC3P%20Johnson.pdf, accessed 16 April 2013.
Johnson, H. 2010. Branding Jrri: art, image, and identity in contexts that celebrate
Jerseys Norman heritage, Refereed papers from the sixth International Small Island
Cultures Conference, Guernsey, 2325 June 2010, ed. A. Grydehj. 112. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC6/e.%20ISIC6P%20Johnson.pdf, accessed 3 January 2013.
Johnson, H. 2011. Jrriais, song, and language revitalization, in G. Baldaccino (ed.),
Island songs: A global repertoire. Plymouth: Scarecrow Press. 10318.
Johnson, H. 2013. The Group from the West: song, endangered language and sonic
activism on Guernsey, Journal of Marine and Island Cultures 1(2): 99112.
Johnson, P., H. Giles and R. Bourhis 1983. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality: a
response, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4: 25569.
Johnson, R. K., M. Swain, M. H. Long and J. Richards (eds.) 1997. Immersion
education: International perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Johnstone, P. 1994. A short history of Guernsey. Guernsey Press.
Jones, M. C. 1998a. Language obsolescence and revitalization. Oxford University
Press.
Jones, M. C. 1998b. Death of a language, birth of an identity: Brittany and the Bretons,
Language Problems and Language Planning 22: 12942.
Jones, M. C. 2000. The subjunctive in Guernsey Norman French, Journal of French
Language Studies 10(1): 7399.
Jones, M. C. 2001. Jersey Norman French: A linguistic study of an obsolescent dialect.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones, M. C. 2002. Mette a haut dauve la grippe des angllais: language convergence
on the island of Guernsey, in M. C. Jones and E. Esch (eds.), Language change: The
interplay of internal, external and non-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
14368.
Jones, M. C. 2007. The Martin manuscript: an unexplored archive of Guernsey Norman
French, French Studies 61(3): 32951 (DOI: 310.1093/fs/knm1124).
Jones, M. C. 2008. The Guernsey Norman French translations of Thomas Martin: A
linguistic study of an unpublished archive. Louvain: Peeters.
Jones, M. C. 2012. Variation and Change in Sark Norman French, Transactions of the
Philological Society 110(2): 14970 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1467968X.2012.01288.x).
Joseph, J. E. 1987. Eloquence and power: The rise of language standards and standard
languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Judge, A. 2007. Linguistic policies and the survival of regional languages in France
and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Judge, A. 2008. Different approaches towards regional languages in France and the
UK, lecture presented on 12 March 2008, University of Edinburgh.
Kaneva, N. 2011. Nation branding: toward an agenda for critical research,
International Journal of Communication [Online journal].
http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/704, accessed 4 June 2011.
Kaplan, R. B. and R. B. Baldauf 1997. Language planning: From practice to theory.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kaplan, R. B. and R. B. Baldauf 2003. Language and language-in-education planning
in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kelle, U. 2001. Sociological explanations between Micro and Macro and the
integration of qualitative and quantitative methods, Forum: Qualitiative Social
Research 2(1): n.p. [Online journal]. www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/966, accessed 9 January 2013.
Kelleher, J. D. 1928. The triumph of the country: The rural community in nineteenth-
century Jersey. St Ouen, Jersey: John Appleby Publishing in association with la Socit
Jersiaise.
Kelly, P. 2005. Multilingual nation: Manx,
www.bbc.co.uk/print/voices/multilingual/manx.shtml, accessed 17 January 2005.
Kennedy, P. 1975a. French songs from the Channel Islands: Folktrax 012. Gloucester:
Folktrax and Soundpost Publications.
Kennedy, P. 1975b. Guernsey and Sark songs, dances and customs: Folktrax 213.
Gloucester: Folktrax and Soundpost Publications.
Kewley Draskau, M. J. 2008. Practical Manx. Liverpool University Press.
Kewley Draskau, M. J. 2001. The sociolinguistics of terminology, with especial
reference to less widely-used and revitalised languages, paper presented at the
International Conference on Language and Society, Academy of Science, Moscow,
Russia, 2326 October 2001 and at the Centre for Manx Studies, University of
Liverpool, 19 February 2002.
King, J. forthcoming. Revitalising the Mori language?, in Austin and Sallabank
(eds.).
King, K. A. 1999. Inspecting the unexpected: language status and corpus shifts as
aspects of Quichua language revitalization, Language Problems and Language
Planning 23(2): 10932.
King, K. A. 2001. Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the
Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
King, K., N. Schilling-Estes, L. W. Fogle and J. J. Lou (eds.) 2008. Sustaining linguistic
diversity: Endangered and minority languages and language varieties. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
King, R. 1989. On the social meaning of linguistic variability in language death
situations: Variation in Newfoundland French, in N. Dorian (ed.), Investigating
Obsolescence. Cambridge University Press. 13948.
Kipp, D. 2009. Encouragement, guidance and lessons learned: 21 years in the trenches
of indigenous language revitalization, in Reyhner and Lockard (eds.), 19.
Kloss, H. 1952. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischen Kultursprachen von 18001950.
Munich: Pohl & Co.
Kloss, H. 1967. Abstand languages and Ausbau languages, Anthropological
Linguistics 9: 2971.
Kloss, H. 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischen Kultursprachen seit 1800.
Dsseldorf: Schwann.
Kloss, H. 1993. Abstand languages and Ausbau languages, Anthropological
Linguistics 35(1): 15870.
Kloss, H. and A. Verdoodt 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: A report.
Quebec: C. I. R. B.
Kouritzin, S. G. 1999. Face[t]s of first language loss. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krauss, M. 1992. The worlds languages in crisis, Language 68: 410.
Krauss, M. 1997. Indigenous languages of the north: a report on their present state, in
H. Shoji, H. and J. Janhunen (eds.), Northern minority languages: Problems of
survival. Senri Ethnological Studies, no. 44. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. 1
34.
Kress, G. R. 2009. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.) 2000a. Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities.
Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.) 2000b. Regimenting languages, in Kroskrity (ed.) 2000a, 134.
Kroskrity, P. V. and M. Field 2009. Native American language ideologies: Beliefs,
practices, and struggles in Indian country. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Kuter, L. 1989. Breton vs. French: language and the opposition of political, economic,
social, and cultural values, in Dorian (ed.), 7591.
Labov, William 1963. The social motivation of a sound change, Word 19: 273309.
Labov, William 1966. The effect of social mobility on linguistic behavior, Social
Inquiry 36: 186203.
Labov, William 1982. Objectivity and commitment in the linguistic sciences: the case
of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor, Language in Society 11: 165202.
Labov, William 2008. Unendangered dialects, endangered people, in King et al. (eds.),
21938.
Labrador, R. N. 2004. We can laugh at ourselves: Hawaii ethnic humor, local
identity and the myth of multiculturalism, Pragmatics 14(23): 291316.
Lach-Szyrma, W. S. 1888. Manx and Cornish: the dying and the dead, Journal of the
British Archaeological Association 44: 2838.
Ladefoged, P. 1992. Another view of endangered languages, Language 68: 80911.
Lafont, R. 1992. La situation sociolinguistique de la France, in Henri Giordan (ed.),
Les Minorits en Europe: droits linguistiques et droits de lhomme. Paris: Kim. 145
63.
Lafont, R. 1997. Quarante ans de sociolinguistique la priphrie. Paris: LHarmattan.
Landry, R. and R. Allard 1994a. Diglossia, ethnolinguistic vitality and language
behaviour, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 1542.
Landry, R. and R. Allard 1994b. Introduction: special issue on ethnolinguistic vitality,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 513.
Landry, R. and R. Bourhis 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an
empirical study, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16: 2349.
Lanza, E. and B. A. Svendsen 2007. Tell me who your friends are and I might be able
to tell you what language(s) you speak: social network analysis, multilingualism, and
identity, International Journal of Bilingualism 11(3): 275300.
Le Cheminant, K. 2001. Parlez vous patois?, Globe, 3 October 2001, 6.
Le Huray, C. P. 1956. Philological report, Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise 16:
32.
Le Huray, C. P. 1969. The Bailiwick of Guernsey. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Le Maistre, F. 1967. Dictionnaire JersiaisFranais. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Le Maistre, F. 1982. The language of Auregny. Jersey: Le Maistre.
Le Page, R. B. and A. Tabouret-Keller 1985. Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches
to language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press.
Le Sauteur, Tony 2004. La buonne vielle langue jerriaise au Tchubec!,
http://tonylesauteur.com/arbre8.htm, accessed 17 January 2005.
Lebarbenchon, R. J. 1980. Des filles, une sorcire, dame toumasse et quelques autres.
Azeville: Self-published.
Lebarbenchon, R. J. 1988. La Grve de Lecq: Littratures et cultures populaires de
Normandie, Guernesey et Jersey. Cherbourg: Isote.
Lee, T. S. and D. McLaughlin 2001. Reversing Navajo language shift, revisited, in
Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Bristol: Multilingual
Matters. 2343.
Lemprire, R. 1980. History of the Channel Islands. London: Robert Hale.
Le Nevez, A. 2011. Exploring language resilience, paper presented at Languages of
the Wider World: Understanding Resilience and Shift in Regional and Minority
Languages Conference, Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and
Language Learning, Fryske Akademy, Leeuwarden (Netherlands), 68 April 2011.
Lenfestey, T. 1875. Le Chant des fontaines. Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Leonard, W. Y. 2012. Reframing language reclamation programmes for everybodys
empowerment, Gender and Language 6(2): 33967.
Lepelley, R. 1987. Guillaume le duc: extraits du Roman de Rou de Wace, Pote
Normand du XIIe sicle. Caen: Centre de Publications de lUniversit de Caen.
Les Ravigotteurs 1999. Jimmain va la Banque. Guernsey: Les Ravigotteurs.
Lewis, E. G. 1975. Attitudes toward language among bilingual children and adults,
Linguistics 158: 10325.
Lewis, E. S. 1895. Guernsey: Its people and dialect. Baltimore: Modern Language
Association of America.
Lewis, M. P. (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, TX: SIL
International.
Lewis, M. P. and G. Simons 2010. Assessing endangerment: expanding Fishmans
GIDS, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique/Romanian Review of Linguistics 2:10320.
Liddicoat, A. J. 1986. Le patouais, le bouon franais et langliaichinnie: dialect,
French and anglicization in Jersey and Sark, University of Melbourne Working Papers
in Linguistics 12: 2738.
Liddicoat, A. J. 1993. Social identity and language death: the case of Sark Norman
French, paper presented at AILA World Congress, Amsterdam, 913 August 1993.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2000. The ecological impact of a dictionary, Current Issues in
Language Planning 1(3): 42430.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2001. Lexicon of Sark Norman French. Munich: LINCOM.
Liddicoat, A. J.(ed.) 2007. Language planning and policy: Issues in language planning
and literacy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada 2006. How languages are learned. Oxford University
Press.
Lippi-Green, R. 1994. Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext
in the courts, Language in Society 23: 16398.
Lippi-Green, R. 2011. English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination
in the United States. London: Routledge.
Lissenden, S. 2004. Showcase: The story of the Eisteddfod. Jersey: La Socit Jersiaise.
Littlebear, R. 2007. Preface, in Cantoni (ed.), xixiii.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jar/SIL.pdf, accessed 28 December 2012.
Locke, M. J. 1998. Songs of Sark. Sark: Martin J. Locke.
Lodge, A. R. 1993. French: From dialect to standard. London: Routledge.
Long, D. 2007. When islands create languages or, Why do language research with
Bonin (Ogasawara) Islanders?, Shima: The International Journal of Research into
Island Cultures 1/1: 1527.
Long, D. and D. R. Preston (eds.) 2002. Handbook of perceptual dialectology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lsch, H. 2000. Die franzsichen Varietten auf den Kanalinseln in Vergangeneit,
Gegenwart und Zukunft. Vienna: Edition Praesens.
Low, G. 1999. What respondents do with questionnaires: accounting for incongruity
and fluidity, Applied Linguistics 20(4): 50333.
Lukcs, G. [1920] 1971. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lpke, F. and A. Storch 2013. Repertoires and choices in African languages. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Mackey, W. F. [1980] 2001. The ecology of language shift, in A. Fill and P.
Mhlhusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics reader. London: Continuum. 6774.
Mahy, T. H. 1922. Les dires et penses du Courtil Poussin. Guernsey.
Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook (eds.) 2006. Disinventing and reconstituting languages.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Malik, K. 2000. Let them die, Prospect (November): 1617.
Manx National Heritage [1948] n.d. Skeealyn Vannin: Stories of Mann. Douglas, Isle of
Man: Manx National Heritage.
Marcellesi, J.-B. 1983. Identit linguistique, exclamatives et subordonnes: un modle
syntaxique spcifique en Corse, tudes Corses 2021: 399424. Repr. in Marcellesi et
al. (eds.), 20934.
Marcellesi, J.-B. 1986. Actualit du processus de naissance de langues en domaine
roman, Cahiers de Linguistique Sociale 9: Sociolinguistique Romane. Rouen:
University of Rouen. 219. Repr. at http://membres.lycos.fr/bulot/cauchois/marcel.htm
(accessed 30 August 2010).
Marcellesi, J.-B. 1987. Laction thmatique programm: individuation
sociolinguistique corse, tudes Corses 28: 520. Repr. in Marcellesi et al. 2003, 252
70.
Marcellesi, J.-B., T. Bulot and P. Blanchet 2003. Sociolinguistique: pistmologie,
langues rgionales, polynomie. Paris: LHarmattan.
Mar-Molinero, C. and P. Stevenson (eds.) 2006. Language ideologies, policies and
practices: Language and the future of Europe. Language and globalization.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marquis, J. 1997. La situtiaon dla langue en Guernesi depis la Rformtiaon au jour
dogniet, Le Viquet: 616.
Marquis, Y. and J. Sallabank 2009. Issues in orthography development: examples from
Dgernesiais / Guernsiaus / Giernesiei / Djernezi, paper presented at workshop on
Writing Systems: Analysis, Acquisition and Use II, Institute of Education, London, 28
November 2009. Full version in preparation.
Marquis, Y. and J. Sallabank 2013. Speakers and language revitalisation: a case study
of Guernesiais (Guernsey), in M. C. Jones and S. Ogilvie (eds.), Keeping Languages
Alive. Cambridge University Press.
Marquis, Y. and J. Sallabank forthcoming. Ideologies, beliefs and revitalization of
Guernesiais (Guernsey), in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Marr, J. 2001. The history of Guernsey: The Bailiwicks story. Guernsey Press.
Martin-Jones, M. and S. Romaine 1986. Semilingualism: a half-baked theory of
communicative competence, Applied Linguistics 7: 2638.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative researching, 2nd edn. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matras, Y. 1999. Writing Romani: the pragmatics of codification in a stateless
language, Applied Linguistics 20(4): 481502.
Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds.) 2009. English as a lingua franca: Studies and
findings. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
May, S. 2004. Rethinking linguistic human rights: answering questions of identity,
essentialism and mobility, in Freeland and Patrick (eds.), 3554.
May, S. 2006. Contesting minority language rights: addressing the attitudes of majority
language speakers, plenary, Sociolinguistics Symposium 16, Limerick, Ireland, 68
July 2006.
McArdle, F. 2006. Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh, in J. T. Koch (ed.), Celtic culture: A
historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. 407.
McCall, G. (1994) Nissology: the study of islands, Journal of The Pacific Society
17(23): 10693.1
McCarty, T. L. (ed.) 2011. Ethnography and language policy. New York: Routledge.
McDonald, M. 1989. We are not French! Language, culture and identity in Brittany.
London: Routledge.
McKenna Brown, R. (ed.) 2002. Endangered Languages and their literatures:
Proceedings of the sixth conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Medgyes, P. 1992. Native or non-native: whos worth more?, ELT Journal 46(4): 34
349.
Meek, B. A. 2011. We are our language: An ethnography of language revitalization in a
Northern Athabaskan community. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Menger, L. E. 1904. The Anglo-Norman dialect. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mtivier, G. 1831. Rimes guernesiaises par un Ctelain. Guernsey: Barbet.
Mtivier, G. 1843. Rimes guernesiaises. London.
Mtivier, G. 1866. Fantaisie Guernesiaise: Dans le langage du pays, la langue de la
civilisation, et celle du commerce. Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Mtivier, G. 1870. Dictionnaire Franco-Normand, ou Recueil des mots particuliers au
dialecte de Guernesey: Faisant voir les relations romaines, celtiques et tudesques.
Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Mtivier, G. 1883. Posies guernesiaises et franaises, avec glossaire. Guernsey:
Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Michaelis, S. 2011. The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures project and first
results, presentation in School of Oriental and African Studies Linguistics Seminar
series, London, 1 March 2011. Abstract available at
www.hrelp.org/events/seminars/abstracts/michaelis.pdf, accessed 1 April 2011.
Milroy, J. 1984. The history of English in the British Isles, in P. Trudgill (ed.),
Language in the British Isles. Cambridge University Press. 531.
Milroy, J. and L. Milroy 1999. Authority in language: Investigating language
prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge.
Milroy, L. 1982. Language and group identity, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 3(3): 20716.
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, L. 2002. Social networks, in J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-
Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 549
72.
Ministry of Justice 2006. Background briefing on the Crown Dependencies: Jersey,
Guernsey and the Isle of Man. London: Ministry of Justice, Crown Dependencies
Branch.
Mohanty, S. P. 2000. The epistemic status of cultural identity, in P. M. L. Moya and
M. R. Hames-Garcia (eds.), Reclaiming identity: Realist theory and the predicament of
postmodernism. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2966.
Monteil, M. 2000. Les relations entre la France et les les anglo-normandes de la fin du
XIXe sicle au milieu du XXe sicle: un episode majeur limmigration franaise
Jersey de 1850 1950, PhD thesis, Universit de Provence.
Moore, A. W. 1924. A vocabulary of the Anglo-Manx dialect. Oxford University Press.
Moore, R. E. 2007. From endangered to dangerous: two types of sociolinguistic
inequality (with examples from Ireland & the US), Kings College London Working
Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 45: 122.
Morgan, P. 2000. The Gael is dead; long live the Gaelic: the changing relationship
between native and learner Gaelic users, in G. McCoy and M. Scott (eds.), Gaelic
identities: Aithne Na Ngael. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queens University.
12632.
Moriarty, M. 2011. New roles for endangered languages, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 44658.
Mosel, U. 2012. Creating educational materials in language documentation projects:
creating innovative resources for linguistic research, in F. Seifart, G. Haig, N. P.
Himmelmann, D. Jung, A. Margetts and P. Trilsbeek (eds.), Potentials of language
documentation: Methods, analyses, and utilization. Language Documentation &
Conservation Special Publication No. 3. Mnoa: University of Hawaii Press. 11117.
Moseley, C. (ed.) 2010. Atlas of the worlds languages in danger. Paris: UNESCO.
Moseley, C., N. Ostler and H. Ouzzate (eds.) 2001. Endangered languages and the
media: Proceedings of the fifth conference of the Foundation for Endangered
Languages. Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Mougeon, R. and E. Beniak 1989. Language contraction and linguistic change: the case
of Welland French, in N. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge
University Press. 287312.
Moya, P. M. L. 2000. Introduction: reclaiming identity, in P. M. L. Moya and M. R.
Hames-Garcia (eds.), Reclaiming identity: Realist theory and the predicament of
postmodernism. Berkeley: University of California Press. 226.
Mufwene, S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Mufwene, S. 2004. Language birth and death, Annual Review of Anthropology 33:
20122.
Mhlhusler, P. 1974. Pidginization and simplification of language. Canberra:
Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National
University.
Mhlhusler, P. 1990. Reducing Pacific languages to writing, in J. E. Joseph and T.
J. Taylor (eds.), Ideologies of language. London: Routledge. 189205.
Mhlhusler, P. 1992. Preserving languages or language ecologies? A top-down
approach to language survival, Oceanic Linguistics 31(2): 16380
(DOI:110.2307/3623012).
Mhlhusler, P. 1996. Linguistic ecology. London: Routledge.
Mhlhusler, P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology, Current Issues in
Language Planning 1(3): 30667.
Muljai, Z. 1982. Zur Kritik des Terminus dachlose Aussenmundart: Beitrag zur
Typologie der romanischen Ausbausprachen, Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie und
Linguistik 49(3): 34450.
Muljai, Z. 1984. Il fenomeno Uberdachung tetto, copertura nella sociolinguistica
(con esempi Romanzi), Linguistica 24: 7796.
Muljai, Z. 1986. Lenseignement de Heinz Kloss (modifications, implications,
perspectives), Langages 21(83): 5364.
Muljai, Z. 1989. ber den Begriff Dachsprache, in U. Ammon (ed.), Status and
function of languages and language varieties. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
25677.
Myhill, J. 1999. Identity, territoriality and minority language survival, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20(1): 3450.
Nathan, D. 2011. Digital archiving, in P. K. Austin and J. Sallabank (eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge University Press. 22574.
Nekvapil, J. 2006. From language planning to language management, Sociolinguistica
20: 92104.
Nekvapil, J. and M. Nekula 2006. On language management in multinational
companies in the Czech Republic, Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2&3): 307
27.
Nettle, D. and S. Romaine 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the worlds
languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neustupn, J. V. and J. Nekvapil 2003. Language management in the Czech Republic,
Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 181366. Repr. in R. B. Baldauf and R.
Kaplan (eds.), Language planning and policy in Europe, Vol. II. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. 16201.
Newman, P. 2003. The endangered languages issue as a hopeless cause, in M. Janse
and S. Tol (eds.), Language death and language maintenance: Theoretical, practical
and descriptive approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 114.
Nieldzielski, N. A. and D. R. Preston 2003. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nikolov, M. 1999. Why do you learn English? Because the teacher is short: a study
of Hungarian childrens foreign language learning motivation, Language Teaching
Research 3(1): 3356.
Norton, B. 2000. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Harlow: Longman.
hIfearnin, T. 2004. Le mannois entre dialecte moribond du galique commun et
langue nationale de lle de Man, in Eloy (ed.), Vol. II, 47383.
hIfearnin, T. 2007a. Manx orthography and language ideology in the Gaelic
continuum, in Eloy and hIfearnin (eds.), 15970.
hIfearnin, T. 2007b Promoting difference: autochthonous language policy in
European micro-polities, paper presented at In/Difference: Current and Historical
Perspectives on Cultures in Contact, Conference of the Modern Languages Committee
of the Royal Irish Academy, University of Limerick, 9 November 2007.
hIfearnin, T. 2010. Language policy, revitalisation and regeneration after language
shift: language policy in European micro-polities, paper presented at Sociolinguistics
Symposium 18, University of Southampton, 14 September 2010.
hIfearnin, T. 2013. Family language policy, first language Irish speaker attitudes and
community-based response to language shift, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 34(4): 34865 (special issue on attitudes towards
endangered languages).
hIfearnin, T. forthcoming. Paradoxes of engagement with Irish language community
management, practice and ideology, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.
London: Pinter.
Ostler, N. (ed.) 1998. Endangered languages: What role for the specialist? Proceedings
of the second conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath:
Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Ostler, N.(ed.) 1999. Endangered languages and education: Proceedings of the fourth
conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath: Foundation for
Endangered Languages.
Ostler, N. and B. Rudes (eds.) 2000. Endangered languages and literacy: Proceedings
of the fourth conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath:
Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Paradis, M. 2005. Not in Latine or French or any other language than English . . .,
paper presented at LingO: Postgraduate Linguistics Conference, Mansfield College,
Oxford University, 2324 September, 2005.
Parsons Y., E. Reyhner and J. Reyhner 2009. Prospects for the Navajo language, in
Goodfellow (ed.), 4769.
Patrick, D. 2004. The politics of language rights in the eastern Canadian Arctic, in
Freeland and Patrick (eds.), 17190.
Patrick, P. L. 2002. The speech community, in J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N.
Schilling-Estes (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change. Oxford:
Blackwell. 573600.
Paulston, C. B. 1987. Catalan and Occitan: comparative test cases for a theory of
language maintenance and shift, International Journal of the Sociology of Language
63: 3162.
Payne, G. and J. Payne. 2004. Key concepts in social research. London/Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. 2005. Postmodernism in language policy, in Ricento (ed.), 6076.
Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pluquet, F. 1827. Le Roman de Rou et des ducs de Normandie. Rouen.
Posner, R. 1993. Language conflict in romance: decline, death and survival, in R.
Posner and J. N. Green (eds.), Bilingualism and linguistic conflict in romance, Vol. V.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 4175.
Posner, R. 1997. Linguistic change in French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Potter, J. and M. Wetherell 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes
and behaviour. London: Sage.
Preston, D. R. 1989. Perceptual dialectology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Preston, D. R.(ed.) 1999. Handbook of perceptual dialectology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Preston, D. R. 2000. Some plain facts about Americans and their language, American
Speech 75(4): 398401.
Price, G. (ed.) 1984. The languages of Britain. London: Edward Arnold.
Price, G.(ed.) 2000a. Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Priestly, T. 1989. Our dialect sounds stupid: the importance of attitudes to so-called
sub-standard languages codes as a factor in the (non-)retention of Slovene in Carinthia,
Austria, in D. Gorter, J. F. Hoekstra, L. G. Jansma and J. Ytsma (eds.), Fourth
International Conference on Minority Languages, Vol. II: Western and Eastern
European Papers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 13548.
Ramisch, H. 1989. The variation of English in Guernsey, Channel Islands. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Rampton, B. 2006. Language in late modernity. Cambridge University Press.
Reyhner, J. (ed.) 1997. Teaching indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona
University.
Reyhner, J. and L. Lockard (eds.) 2009. Indigenous language revitalization:
Encouragement, guidance & lessons learned. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Reyhner, J., G. Cantoni, R. N. St Clair and E. Parsons Yazzie (eds.) 1999. Revitalizing
indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Reyhner, J., J. Martin, L. Lockard and S. W. Gilbert (eds.) 2000. Learn in beauty:
Indigenous education for a new century. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Reyhner, J., O. Trujillo, R. L. Carrasco and L. Lockard (eds.) 2003. Nurturing native
languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/NNL.
Rice, K. 2009. Must there be two solitudes? Language activists and linguists working
together, in Reyhner and Lockard (eds.), 3759.
Rice, K. 2010. The linguists responsibility to the community of speakers: community-
based research, in Furbee and Grenoble (eds.), 2536.
Ricento, T. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and
planning, Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 196213.
Ricento, T.(ed.) 2006. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ricento, T. and T. G. Wiley 2002. Editors introduction: language, identity, and
education and the challenges of monoculturalism and globalization, Journal of
Language, Identity and Education 1(1): 15.
Riddell, A. 2007. Jersey: the development of an Island Cultural Strategy, Shima: The
International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 1(1): 7287.
http://shimajournal.org/issues/v1n1/j.%20Ridell%20Shima%20v1n1.pdf, accessed 17
December 2012.
Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization. London: Sage.
Romaine, S. 2002a. Can stable diglossia help to preserve endangered languages?,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157: 13540.
Romaine, S. 2002b. The impact of language policy on endangered languages,
International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4(1): 194212.
www.unesco.org/shs/ijms/vol4/issue2/art3, accessed 31 January 2013.
Romaine, S. 2006. Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity, Language Policy
5(4): 44173 (DOI щ410.1007/s10993100061903610991).
Romaine, S. 2008. Linguistic diversity, sustainability, and the future of the past, in
King et al. (eds.), 722.
Roussel, J. 1997. The big plough, Review of the Guernsey Society 53(3): 6871.
Rubin, J. and B. H. Jernudd (eds.) 1971. Can language be planned? Honolulu: East-
West Center.
Ruz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning, NABE Journal 8(2): 1534.
Ryan, E. B. 1979. Why do low-prestige language varieties persist?, in H. Giles and R.
N. St Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. 14557.
S., D. F. 1882. The Channel Islands and islanders. Edinburgh.
Sallabank, J. 2002. Writing in an unwritten language: the case of Guernsey French,
Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 21744.
Sallabank, J. 2005. Prestige from the bottom up: a review of language planning in
Guernsey, Current Issues in Language Planning 6(1): 4463.
Sallabank, J. 2010a. Endangered language maintenance and revitalisation: the role of
social networks, Anthropological Linguistics 52(3): 184205.
Sallabank, J. 2010b. Standardisation, prescription and polynomie: can Guernsey follow
the Corsican model?, Current Issues in Language Planning 11(4): 31130.
Sallabank, J. 2011a. Norman languages of the Channel Islands: current situation,
language maintenance and revitalisation, Shima: The International Journal of
Research into Island Cultures 5(2): 1641.
Sallabank, J. 2011b. Language policy for endangered languages, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 27790.
Sallabank, J. 2012a. Diversity and language policy for endangered languages, in B.
Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy. Cambridge University
Press. 10023.
Sallabank, J. 2012b. From language documentation to language planning: not
necessarily a direct route, in F. Seifart, G. Haig, N. P. Himmelmann, D. Jung, A.
Margetts and P. Trilsbeek (eds.), Potentials of language documentation: Methods,
analyses, and utilization. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 11825.
Sallabank, J. 2013. Can majority support save an endangered language? A case study of
language attitudes in Guernsey, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 34(4): 33247 (special issue on attitudes towards endangered languages).
Sallabank, J. and G. White, 2006. Attitudes towards regional varieties of English in the
Inner Circle, paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 16, 68 July 2006,
Limerick, Ireland. Also presented at the British Association of Applied Linguistics
Annual Conference, Cork, Ireland, September 2006.
Sayers, D. 2009. Reversing Babel: declining linguistic diversity and the flawed
attempts to protect it, PhD thesis, University of Essex.
Schieffelin, B. B., K. A. Woolard and P. V. Kroskrity 1998. Language ideologies:
Practice and theory. Oxford University Press.
Schiffman, H. F. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge.
Schiffman, H. F. 2002. Comment, International Journal of the Sociology of Language
157: 14150.
Schiffman, H. F. 2004. Diglossia as a sociolinguistic situation, 12 December 2004.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/messeas/diglossia/node3.html., accessed 27 August
2005.
Schjerve, R. R. 1980. Bilingualism and language shift in Sardinia, in Minority
languages today: A selection from the papers read at the first Conference on Minority
Languages, Glasgow University. Edinburgh University Press. 20817.
Schjerve, R. R.(ed.) 2003. Diglossia and power. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, A. 1985. Young peoples Dyirbal: An example of language death from
Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, E.W., K. Burridge, B. Kortmann, R. Mesthrie and C. Upton (eds.) 2004. A
handbook of varieties of English. Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schreier, D. 2003. Isolation and language change: Contemporary and sociohistorical
evidence from Tristan da Cunha English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schreyer, C. 2011. Re-building language habitats: connecting language planning and
land planning for sustainable futures, in J. Sallabank (ed.), Language documentation
and description, Vol. IX. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 3557.
Scovel, T. 1998. Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Sealey, A. and B. Carter 2001. Social categories and sociolinguistics: applying a realist
approach, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 152: 119.
Sealey, A. and B. Carter 2004. Applied linguistics as social science. London:
Continuum.
Sebba, M. 1998. Orthography as practice and ideology: the case of Manx, Working
Papers of the Centre for Language in Social Life, Lancaster University 102: n.p.
www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/pubs/clsl/clsl102.pdf, accessed 9 January 2013.
Sebba, M. 2000. Orthography as literacy: how Manx was reduced to writing, in
Ostler and Rudes (eds.), 6470.
Sebba, M. 2005. Holiday notes on the Manx revival, 18 September 2005.
http://web.onetel.com/~marksebba/Manx/Manxrev.html, accessed 18 September 2005.
Sebba, M. 2007. Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around
the world. Cambridge University Press.
Sebire, H. 2005. The archaeology and early history of the Channel Islands. Stroud:
Tempus.
Seidlhofer, B. 2006. Towards making Euro-English a linguistic reality, in K. Bolton
and B. B. Kachru (eds.), World Englishes. London: Routledge. 4750.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209
41.
Shandler, J. 2006. Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular language and culture.
Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Silverstein, M. 1996. Monoglot standard in America: standardization and metaphors
of linguistic hegemony, in D. Brenneis and R. K. S. Macaulay (eds.), The matrix of
language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 284
306.
Sjgren, A. 1964. Les Parlers Bas-Normands de lle de Guernesey. Paris: Librairie C.
Klincksieck.
Skeet, R. M. 2000. Remarks on language revival and survival: a case study of Jersey
Norman French, MA thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1999. Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity
and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., L. Maffi and D. Harmon 2003. Sharing a world of difference: The
earths linguistic, biological and cultural diversity. Paris: UNESCO/Terralingua/World
Wide Fund for Nature.
Speas, M. 2009. Someone elses language: on the role of linguists in language
revitalization, in Reyhner and Lockard (eds.), 2336.
Spence, N. C. W. 1993. A brief history of Jrriais. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Spivak, G. C. 1999. A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing
present. Cambridge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spolsky, B. 1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2003. Reassessing Maori regeneration, Language in Society 32(4): 553
78.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009a. Language management. Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009b. Language management for endangered languages, paper presented
at Workshop on Endangered Languages: Beliefs and Ideologies, School of Oriental
and African Studies, London, 2728 February 2009. Published as Language
management for endangered languages: the case of Navajo, in P. K. Austin (ed.),
Language documentation and description, Vol. VI. London: School of Oriental and
African Studies. 11731.
Spolsky, B. forthcoming. Language beliefs and the management of endangered
languages, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
States of Guernsey 2002. 2001 Guernsey census: Report on the census of population
and households. Guernsey: States of Guernsey Advisory and Finance Committee.
States of Guernsey. 2010. Our way of life: A cultural strategy for Guernsey 201014.
www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=13534853, accessed 23 June
2011.
States of Guernsey Policy Council (2012). Guernsey Annual Population Bulletin. St
Peter Port: States of Guernsey.
States of Jersey 2002. Report on the 2001 census. St Helier: Etat Civil Committee.
States of Jersey 2005. Development of a cultural strategy for the island. Jersey: States
Greffe.www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/22189-12814-
1972005.htm, accessed 21 June 2010 (no longer available January 2013).
States of Jersey Statistics Unit 2012. 2012 Jersey population projections. St Helier:
States of Jersey.
Steger, M. B. 2003. Globalization. Oxford University Press.
Stowell, B. 2000. Manx Gaelic in the year 2000.
www.gaelg.iofm.net/INFO/naaclt/mx3.htm, accessed 19 December 2012.
Stowell, B. 2005. The case of Manx Gaelic / Yn Ghailckagh, in D. Nill (ed.),
Rebuilding the Celtic languages: Reversing language shift in the Celtic countries.
Talybont, Ceredigion: Y Lolfa. 383416.
Sugita, Y. 2007. Language revitalization or language fossilization? Some suggestions
for language documentation from the viewpoint of interactional linguistics, in P. K.
Austin, O. Bond and D. Nathan (eds.), Language documentation & linguistic theory,
Vol. I. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 24350.
Sutherland, W. J. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and
species, Nature 423: 27679.
Swain, M. 2000. French immersion research in Canada: recent contributions to SLA
and applied linguistics, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 199212.
Tagliamonte, S. and A. DArcy 2004. Hes like, shes like: the quotative system in
Canadian youth, Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(4): 493514 (DOI:410.1111/j.1467
9841.2004.00271.x).
Taglioni, F. 2011. Insularity, political status and small insular spaces, Shima: The
International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 5/2: 4567.
Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behavior, Social Science Information
13: 6593.
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.
Tauli, V. 1968. Introduction to a theory of language planning. University of Uppsala.
Taylor, A. R. (ed.) 1992. Language obsolescence, shift and death in several Native
American communities, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 93
(special issue).
Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mori Mori Language Commission 2007. Planning for
Mori language regeneration. Wellington: Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mori Mori
Language Commission.
Thieberger, N. 2002. Extinction in whose terms?, in Bradley and Bradley (eds.), 310
28.
Thiers, G. 1986. Epilinguisme, elaboration linguistique et volont populaire, trois
supports de lindividuation sociolinguistique corse, Langages 21(83): 6574.
Thomason, S. G. and T. Kaufman 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic
linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomson, R. L. 1969. The study of Manx Gaelic: Sir John Rhys memorial lecture, 1969.
Repr. in the Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 55. London: Oxford University
Press.
Thomson, R. L. 2000. Manx, in G. Price (ed.), Languages in Britain and Ireland.
Oxford: Blackwell. 5869.
Thomson, R. L. and A. J. Pilgrim 1988. Outline of the Manx language and literature. St
Johns, Isle of Man: Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh (The Manx Gaelic Society).
Timmis, I. 2002. Native speaker norms and international English: a classroom view,
ELT Journal 56: 2409.
Tjibaou, J.-M. 1985. Entretien. Les Temps modernes 464: 15871601.
Tollefson, J. W. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the
community. London: Longman.
Tollefson, J. W. 2006. Critical theory in language policy, in Ricento (ed.), 4259.
Tomlinson, H. 1994. The teaching of Guernsey French, M.Ed. dissertation, University
of Wales.
Tomlinson, H. 2008. A descriptive grammar of Guernsey French: With phonetic
pronunciation guide and verb tables. Guernsey: Self-published.
Trosset, C. S. 1986. The social identity of Welsh learners, Language in Society 15(2):
16592.
Trudgill, P. 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
Trudgill, P. 1992. Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of language status in
contemporary Europe, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2(2): 16777.
Trudgill, P. 2004. Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe, in
A. Duszak and U. Okulska (eds.), Speaking from the margin: Global English from a
European perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 3549.
UNESCO, Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. 2003a. Language vitality
and endangerment: by way of introduction.
www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerm
accessed 9 January 2013.
UNESCO. 2003b. Intangible heritage.
www.unesco.org/culture/heritage/intangible/html_eng/index_en.shtml, accessed 29
November 2003.
UNESCOAd Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. 2003c. Language Vitality
and Endangerment: By way of introduction. Paris: UNESCO.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001836/183699E.pdf, accessed 6 July 2013.
Ureland, P. S. and G. Broderick (eds.) 1991. Language contact in the British Isles:
Papers from the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe,
Douglas, Isle of Man. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Urla, J. 2012. Reclaiming Basque: language, nation, and cultural activism. Reno/Las
Vegas: University of Nevada Press.
Urtaga, E. 2005. La langue basque au dbut du XXIe sicle (The Basque language in
the early 21st century), Marges Linguistiques 10: 17589.
Uttley, J. 1966. The story of the Channel Islands. London: Faber.
Viereck, W. 1988. The Channel Islands: an Anglicists no-mans land, in J. Klegraf
(ed.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics. Heidelberg: Julius
Groos. 46878.
Waddell, E. W. 2008. Jean-Marie Tjibaou, Kanak witness to the world: An intellectual
biography. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Walker, R. 1993. Language shift in Europe and Irian Jaya, Indonesia: toward the heart
of the matter, in K. De Bot (ed.), Case studies in minority languages. Erfurt, Germany:
Association Internationale de la Linguistique Applique (AILA), 7187.
Wallace, A. F. C. 1956. Revitalization movements, American Anthropologist 58(2):
26481.
Wallace, C. 1992. Reading. Oxford University Press.
Walsh, J. 2006. Language and socio-economic development: towards a theoretical
framework, Language Problems & Language Planning 30(2): 12748.
Walsh, J. 2010. Contests and contexts: The Irish language and Irelands socio-
economic development (Reimagining Ireland). Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.
Walsh, M. 2009. Linguistic social work and the hopeless cause: the role of
linguists in dealing with endangered languages, paper presented at ELAP workshop:
Beliefs and ideologies, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 2728
February 2009.
Wardhaugh, R. 1998. An Introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Watson, S. 1989. Scottish and Irish Gaelic: the giants bed-fellows, in Dorian (ed.),
4159.
Watts, R. and P. Trudgill (eds.) 2002. Alternative histories of English. London:
Routledge.
Wei, Li 2000. The bilingualism reader. London: Routledge.
Wei, Li, J.-M. Dewaele and A. Housen 2002. Opportunities and challenges of
bilingualism. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Whaley, L. J. 2011. Some ways to endanger an endangered language project,
Language and Education 25: 33948.
Whiteley, P. 2003. Do language rights serve indigenous interests? Some Hopi and
other queries, American Anthropologist 4: 71222.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication. Oxford University
Press.
Wilkins, D. P. 2000. Even with the best of intentions. . .: some pitfalls in the fight for
linguistic and cultural survival (one view of the Australian experience), in F.
Queixalos and O. Renault-Lescure (eds.), As linguas amaznicas hoje / Les langues
dAmazonie aujourdhui. Belem: Museu Goeldi/IRD/ISA/MPEG. 6184.
Williams, G. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A sociological critique. London: Routledge.
Williamson, R. C. 1991. Minority languages and bilingualism: Case studies in
maintenance and shift. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wilson, G. N. 2008. The revitalization of the Manx language and culture in an era of
global change, Refereed papers from the Third International Small Island Cultures
Conference (Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, 29 June 2
July). 7481, ed. I. Novaczek. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC3/o.%20ISIC3P%20Wilson.pdf, accessed 2 January 2013.
Wilson, G. N. 2009. But the language has got children now: language revitalisation
and education planning in the Isle of Man, Shima: The International Journal of
Research into Island Cultures 3(2): 1531.
Wilson, G. N. 2011a. Social change and language revitalization in the Isle of Man: a
post-materialist perspective, in J. Sallabank (ed.), Language documentation and
description, Vol. IX. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 5876.
Wilson, G. N. 2011b. The role of culture in branding small islands: A case study of the
Isle of Man, plenary presentation at North Atlantic Forum: The Arts and Cultural
Heritage as Engines of Regional Development Conference, 1315 October 2011, St
Johns, Newfoundland, Canada.
www.mun.ca/harriscentre/policy/conferencesworkshops/naf/plenary2/P2_-
_Wilson.pdf, accessed 3 January 2013.
Wilson, G., H. Johnson and J. Sallabank forthcoming. Im not dead yet: a
comparative study of indigenous language revitalization in Jersey, Guernsey and the
Isle of Man. To be submitted to Current Issues in Language Planning.
Wmffre, I. 2007. Breton orthographies and dialects, Vol. II: The twentieth-century
orthography war in Brittany. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Wolfram, W. 2008. When islands lose dialects: the case of the Ocracoke Brogue,
Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 2/1: 113.
Woolard, K. A. 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of enquiry, in
Schieffelin et al. (eds.), 350.
Wright, S. 2004. Language rights, democracy and the European Union, in Freeland
and Patrick (eds.), 21942.
Zuckermann, G. A. and M. Walsh 2011. Stop, revive, survive: lessons from the Hebrew
revival applicable to the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of Aboriginal
languages and cultures, Australian Journal of Linguistics 31(1): 11127.
Index
accountability 76, 205
acquisition 6, 52, 98, 114, 131132, 135, 145, 186, 198
of attitudes 61, 64
of performance vs. competence 98, 186
acquisition planning 26, 151, 185, 186
activists 12, 54, 69, 76, 86, 89, 91, 105, 142, 196, 200, 202, 206
and documentation 19, 212
and government support 146, 155
and standardisation 138, 172
as politicians 140, 150
Guernsey 98, 149150, 157, 200
Isle of Man 112, 115, 128, 145, 148, 158, 192, 200201, 219
Jersey 112, 150, 157, 179
linguists as xi, 17, 77, 131
activities 141, 204
for new speakers 84
for traditional speakers 84, 146, 193
Jrriais 151
Manx 168
of voluntary groups 145
performing arts 85
social 186
adult education 156, 185, 213
adult learners xiv, 141, 185
of Guernesiais 145, 217
of Jrriais 145
of Manx 54, 102, 114, 213
vs. children 114, 128
advocacy 7475
African American Vernacular Black English 21, 74
age 53, 68, 84, 90, 95, 113115, 117, 125, 193
Guernesiais 127, 161, 186, 212
Jrriais 172
Alderney 33, 40, 56
Anglo-Norman 37, 47, 100
anthropology xi, 1, 20, 78
linguistic 4, 21, 23, 44, 64
Aranes 186
archiving 17, 19, 5556, 208, 210211
assimilation 15, 45
attitude shift 67, 69, 7172, 105, 112113, 146, 182
and underlying beliefs 117118
in Channel Islands 111, 190
in Isle of Man 118, 192
attitudes 4, 8, 17, 28, 39, 6062, 105106, 112, 117, 188, 198
and identity 119
definition 61
Guernsey 34, 43, 50, 66, 110112, 114
Jersey 43
modifying 26, 194
negative 62, 66, 105107, 112
of language communities 11
of new speakers 128
of non-speakers 69
of traditional speakers 128
of young people 109, 115
overt and covert 16, 62, 70, 72, 105, 135, 194, 206
researching 60, 68, 70
to Irish 205
to Manx 54
to non-standard varieties 45, 95
to policy 12, 26, 141
attrition 9, 13, 57, 9596, 125, 135, 177
Guernesiais 177
Auregnais 52, 56, 58
Ausbau 45, 48, 174, 199
Australia 86, 163, 218
authenticity 125, 135136, 138, 173
authority xiii, 11, 104, 118, 125, 129, 137, 189, 197
Guernesiais 136137
of traditional speakers 12, 94, 198
awareness 60, 69, 87
Guernesiais 161
Jrriais 113, 151
of endangerment 1, 8, 126, 187
of government policy 112
of ideology 68, 190
awareness-raising 17, 113, 143, 146, 151, 159, 167, 170, 184, 187, 189190, 204,
206, 209, 213, 218
Badlabecques 8990
Basque 9, 45, 77, 148, 165, 172, 199
behaviour 22, 28, 6162, 71, 77, 190
beliefs 28, 6163, 68, 74, 188190, 219
covert 117, 207
Bible
Guernesiais 82, 102
Jrriais 83, 102
Manx 83, 102, 171, 175, 192, 212
bilingual education 182, 196, 205
bilingualism 93, 143144, 175, 205, 207
benefits of 181, 196
societal 82
blogs 91, 207
Jrriais 90, 172, 178
Manx 134
borrowing 179, 195, 211
English 178
Guernesiais 178
branding 39, 105, 142, 166, 169, 199, 201
and correctness 134, 203, 218
and status 167
Guernesiais 158, 166167
Jrriais 167, 169
Manx 167168, 170
Brecqhou 33
Breton 39, 49, 66, 138, 144, 172, 175, 177, 211, 214
British-Irish Council 34, 60, 147, 152, 154, 178, 214
Brittany 58, 199
Bunscoill Ghaelgagh 54, 128129, 174, 181182, 186, 196, 219
and Manx at home 128, 131, 146, 181, 185
and terminology development 178
founding of 147, 181
business 141, 156, 167, 199
English in 82
Guernesiais in 158, 167, 169
Jrriais in 168, 186
Manx in 46, 101, 139, 168, 184, 200
calques 126127
Catalan 7, 186, 201
Celtic 5, 58, 215
census 51, 53
Guernsey 4, 52, 81, 98, 108
Isle of Man 5354
Jersey 5152, 213
Wales 172
Channel Islands
background 29, 31
history 36
languages or dialects 41, 44
links to UK 29
other languages spoken in 51
political structure 33
status of local languages 33
topography 36
Cheyenne 219
children 66, 68, 78, 89, 9899, 107, 113, 117, 144, 179, 183, 188, 204, 216
and Manx 114, 128, 183, 211, 219
at Eisteddfods 87, 114
choice 2, 16, 20, 76, 106107, 119, 144, 181, 198
Chumash 23
code-switching 4, 95
collateral language 45, 174175, 210
colonialism 9, 22, 25, 196, 199
commitment 62, 148, 166, 204, 209, 220
of government 153, 155157, 184, 187, 213
of learners 186, 217
of researchers 7374
community conflict 1112, 76, 129, 191, 194, 197
Guernsey 195, 220
Isle of Man 200
community dynamics 11, 61, 76, 189
competence 54, 98, 173, 186, 193, 198
consensus 68, 150, 159, 220
contact 4, 46, 68, 96, 125, 128, 131, 211212
and language change 6, 95, 118, 126, 203
cultural 66, 118
Guernesiais 177
Manx 132, 136
convergence 95, 130
in Guernesiais 96, 135, 137, 202
Cooish (Manx Language Week) 8586, 88
Coonceil ny Gaelgey (Manx Gaelic Advisory Council) 31, 129, 149, 155, 161, 178
Corbet 103
Cornish 9, 124, 175, 210211, 214
corpus planning 26, 141, 170, 177, 206, 211
and documentation 213
Guernesiais 160, 200
Jrriais 151, 212
Manx 149
correctness 12, 39, 57, 88, 94, 125, 134136, 138, 189, 194
Guernesiais 135, 137
Jrriais 171
Manx 136
Corsican 94, 105, 152, 173
counting languages 34
creative writing 86, 88, 100, 103
creoles 55, 131
critical turn 2021, 23
cross-fertilisation 152, 165, 183, 187, 189, 202, 213
Guernesiais and Jrriais 213
Guernesiais and Manx 194, 214
Jrriais and Gallo 214
Jrriais and Manx 213
Manx and Gaelic 215
of data 211
with Norman 214
culture xiii, 8, 2223, 58, 69, 78, 199
Danish 45
de Garis, Marie 82, 98, 103
demographic swamping 78, 122, 199, 201
dialects 23, 28, 82, 171172
dictionaries 94
Guernesiais 44, 103, 166, 170, 175176
Jrriais 57, 170171, 202
Manx 55, 159, 175
online 189
prestige of 170
Serquiais 57
digital media 17, 9091, 163, 177, 189
and purism 90
Guernesiais 177
Manx 5556, 166
diglossia 8, 21, 8182, 95, 106, 198, 206
in Channel Islands 46, 81, 105, 107, 155, 163, 177, 201
discourse 2324, 156, 190
grass-roots 113, 208
Guernsey 194
Manx 192
of difficulty 144, 216
of endangerment 22
official 113
distinctiveness 3, 2324, 42, 46, 122124, 135, 141142, 182, 199, 218
Guernesiais 120
Manx 139
of Jersey 165, 169
divergence 129, 141, 172
documentation 17, 19, 24, 55, 210
and awareness-raising 17
data 18
methodology 21
of Guernesiais 126, 159, 211, 220
of Jrriais 58, 126, 220
of Manx 19, 211212
reactions to 17, 57
domain expansion 8485, 89, 97, 101, 118, 129, 172, 205207, 216
and language change 133
and terminology development 133
Guernesiais 198
Manx 134, 205
domains 21, 26, 62, 83, 100, 159, 206207, 216
and attitudes 105, 206
and diglossia 81
digital 8990, 193, 206
Guernesiais 8384, 100
loss of 104, 126
Manx 65, 149
Don Balleine Trust 113, 151, 166, 180, 183
Facebook 9091
family 13, 24, 62, 88, 9899, 114, 123, 188, 207
and government support 24, 185
and societal attitudes 39
Guernesiais in 106
importance of language in xii, 83, 102, 113, 179, 205206, 215217
Manx use in 146, 159, 181
policy and planning in 24, 27, 140141, 143
practices 2, 8, 83, 143
Faroese 148, 210
Fte Normande 87, 214
finance industry 35, 40, 49, 67, 108, 157158, 165
fluency 13, 54, 95, 9798, 104, 114, 172, 188
in Guernesiais 96, 161, 177, 186, 220
in Jrriais 51, 213, 220
in Manx 181, 212, 219
in reading 104, 170
of adult learners 185
of learners 114, 186
folk culture 79, 86
folk linguistics 2, 16, 93, 110, 114, 173
folk orthographies 103
folklorisation 89, 91
football 84, 121, 186
Freedom to Flourish 46, 168, 170, 192
French 7, 22, 100, 158
Acadian 4748, 55, 87, 201
and Guernesiais 4748, 96, 102, 135, 176, 198, 201202
and Jrriais 47, 135, 155, 171172, 174, 179, 201
and Occitan 172
and orthography 103
in Brittany 66, 138
in Channel Islands 16, 33, 4445, 49, 51, 59, 81, 83, 105, 155156, 163, 201
in Corsica 106
in Mtiviers poetry 127
in religion 82
Norman 46, 55, 100, 107, 178
Frisian 140
funding 18, 68, 102, 142, 153, 156, 158, 187, 205, 214
Irish 205
Jrriais 157, 180, 213
Manx 102, 147, 156, 200
of research 18, 75
Hebrew 179
hegemony 21, 23, 44, 48, 65, 138, 189, 205
heritage 4, 105, 108, 116, 119, 123, 142, 191
and branding 167
and majority population 125, 200
and young people 203
Isle of Man 134
Jersey 169
Herm 33
humour 9193, 100
in Guernesiais 9192
Hungarian 45, 144
identity xiii, 4, 8, 18, 20, 2223, 46, 66, 77, 81, 88, 105, 112, 191, 197, 199
and postmodernism 7778
construction of 44, 77, 92, 119, 121122, 125, 139, 181, 203
cultural 1, 79, 191
ethnic 23, 78, 121, 200, 202
ethnolinguistic 4, 12, 22, 77, 79, 123, 199, 218
Guernsey 33, 108, 120122, 191
Isle of Man 23, 46, 148, 181
Jersey 120, 169, 191
language as symbol of 45, 77, 173
Serquiais 121
ideological clarification xii, 69, 75, 139, 142, 187, 189, 217, 220
ideology 2, 17, 19, 24, 26, 6063, 74, 79, 89, 105, 188190, 197, 219
and correctness 135, 138
changing 173, 190
covert 190, 192, 197
definition 6364
Guernsey 184, 193
new vs. traditional speakers 129
researching 7, 60, 64, 76, 190
static vs. dynamic 65, 197198, 200, 202, 209
ideology shift 6667, 72, 105
immersion education 26, 179, 182
Manx 181, 196
immigrants 117, 123125, 193
and Jrriais 125
and Manx 124
support of 51, 124
immigration 35, 38, 4849, 58, 78, 82, 124
Guernsey 49, 110
Isle of Man 50, 122, 158
implementation 153, 159, 187, 197, 204
and attitudes 194
evaluating 161
Guernsey 151152, 177, 186
Isle of Man 150, 159
of immersion education 181
of policy 2526, 28, 60, 80, 141, 149150, 188189, 200, 203, 205, 214
inclusiveness 122, 196, 198, 202
individuation 45, 199
inequality 21, 24
intangible cultural heritage 6, 142
intergenerational transmission xii, 8, 13, 19, 72, 83, 95, 97, 99, 143, 161, 172, 203,
205, 216217
and official support 149
and status 202
and variation 174
Guernesiais 39, 136, 197
Irish 205
Jrriais 107, 151
Manx 14, 99, 146, 205
vs. lessons in schools 113, 179, 205, 217, 219
intermarriage 4, 49, 123
internet 101, 189
Guernesiais 90, 160
Jrriais 90, 151, 154, 162, 178179, 186, 190, 208, 213
Manx 185, 192
interviews 18, 72, 112
Guernsey 71, 8182, 102, 108, 117
in schools, Guernsey 114115, 117
on language planning 141
Ireland 149, 163, 186
Irish 78, 88, 140, 147148, 205, 207, 209
and Manx 41, 45, 102, 128, 175, 181, 211
compulsory 110, 148
islandness 4042
Isle of Man
background 29
history 3637
links to UK 29
political structure 31
topography 36
isolation 42, 96
Guernesiais 94, 96, 186
Italian 47
Jrriais
as language name 43
Jersey Language Office. See LOffice du Jrriais
Jethou 33
Kaurna 9
Kubokota 4
Madeira 49
majority population 69, 121, 124, 145, 179, 201
majority support 68, 112, 139, 187, 206, 220
Manx
and Celtic 35, 58
and Gaelic 128
Bunscoill variety of 128, 131, 211
consonant mutation 128, 144, 174
continuity of use 54, 134, 192
counting system 128
origins 48
Manx Heritage Foundation 31, 101, 150
Manx National Heritage 55, 150, 156, 192
Manx pre-schools 25, 90, 150, 181, 183, 196, 205
Manx-medium education 114, 146, 153, 156, 159, 174, 178179, 181182, 196,
205, 211, 214215, 219
secondary level 183
Manx-medium youth club 186
Mori 10, 68, 147, 196, 215
marginalisation 20, 64
marketing 105, 142, 162, 192, 206, 218
and heritage 192
Guernesiais 169
Jrriais 168, 170
Manx 169
master-apprentice programmes 26, 186187
media 16, 20, 27, 40, 60, 75, 82, 87, 89, 113, 165, 189, 207
Guernsey 191
Manx 159, 166
Serquiais 166
metadata 17, 56, 211
Mtivier, George 81, 100, 103, 127, 135
Miami 9
minoritisation 8, 20
modernisation 106, 129, 198, 201
Guernesiais 178
Jrriais 178, 205
Manx 134
modernity 1, 89, 105, 111, 119, 138, 191
Guernesiais 115, 120
Isle of Man 192
Jrriais 178, 191
Mohegan 9
Monaco 46
monolingual ideology 8, 16, 27, 105
monolingualism 7, 20, 207
Mooinjer Veggey Trust (Manx-medium education) 25, 150, 156, 183, 196
motivations 68, 72
and gender 144
and Manx-medium education 181
of activists 215
of businesses 170
of communities 75
of learners 99, 188
of parents 181
of policy-makers 142
of politicians 215
of researchers 18, 73
of young people 114115, 117, 183, 189
multilingualism 7, 25, 27, 143
music 56, 86, 210
Guernesiais 86, 89
Jrriais 86, 8889, 146
Manx 85, 156, 183
Normandy 86
Mutsun 9
mutual intelligibility 4
in Channel Islands 43, 47, 72
patois 4344, 5657, 82, 91, 96, 107, 111, 127, 159
perceptions 21, 23, 26, 28, 57, 61, 63, 76, 79, 9495, 190, 212, 219
of Guernesiais 107, 111, 178
of inferiority 118, 174
of Manx 7
of researchers 211
of variation 93
researching 60
performance 8688, 93
and nostalgia 198
Guernesiais 102, 130, 135
phatic communication 81, 85, 92, 100, 147, 205, 216
Picard 100
place names 163
Manx 31, 149, 155, 162
planning for language use 185
plateau 209, 219
poetry 100, 102103
in Guernesiais 100
policy-makers 19, 24, 74, 141, 196
and ideology 80
policy-making 19, 25, 141142, 190
and ideologies 188, 190
and new speakers 152, 198
bottom-up and top-down 24, 140, 145
Guernsey 152, 160
researching 7, 190
Polish 49, 124
in Guernsey 51
politicians 13, 71, 112113, 141142, 145, 156157, 194
politics xiii, 4, 13, 20, 58, 60, 73, 196, 199
and linguists 17
polynomie 94, 173, 175
Portuguese 49, 124, 172
in Guernsey 4951
in Jersey 201
positionality xi, 24, 60, 7275, 76
postmodernism 4, 2223, 71, 73, 7679, 173, 203, 206, 213
postmodernity 42
poverty 21, 25, 105106
and Manx 106, 118, 192
power 16, 25, 68, 75
prestige 6, 39, 45, 83, 87, 105, 171, 198, 203
and branding 105
and examinations 181
and orthography 171, 176
and schools 179
Guernesiais 175, 179, 198
Jrriais 180
prestige planning 26, 60, 71, 122, 161162, 185, 206
Guernsey 169
Jersey 151
pride 25, 87, 107, 197
print environment 84, 162163, 189, 217218
Guernesiais 170
Jrriais 151, 165
Manx 163
proficiency 8, 14, 52, 159, 215
in Guernesiais 88, 108, 136
in Jrriais 88, 208
in Manx 54, 98, 181
of learners 129, 131, 180, 184, 216
of researcher 81
pronunciation 126, 210
of Guernesiais 127, 144, 176
of Jrriais 132, 171
of Manx 131
Protestantism 49, 82, 102
Provenal 46
publications
in Guernesiais 166
in Jrriais 166, 171, 192
in Manx 171
purism 6, 12, 14, 19, 42, 57, 65, 84, 118, 125, 134, 190, 194, 198
Guernesiais 177
Jrriais 130
Manx 128, 131, 192, 212
radio 18
Guernesiais 165
Jrriais 165
Manx 156, 165
Rama 182
reading 99, 101
Guernesiais 176
Jrriais 172
recognition 147
and standardisation 172
of Guernesiais 153, 160161
of Jrriais 154, 160
of Manx 154155
official 26, 205
symbolic 154
recordings 56
of Guernesiais 5657, 126
of Jrriais 58, 126
of Manx 55, 127, 192, 211
of Serquiais 57
religion 82, 102
and English 102
and French 102, 105
and Guernesiais 82
and literacy 102
in Channel Islands 16, 46, 86
rememberers 12, 14, 198
research methods xi, 6061, 66, 69, 71, 76, 108, 211
researcher stance 17, 60, 70, 72, 74, 76, 79
researchers paradox 60, 70, 72, 76
researchers 13, 75, 141
as participants 75
resilience 11, 208209
reversing language shift (RLS) 9, 23, 69, 87, 216217
revitalisation 17, 2425, 84, 129, 147, 191, 209210, 219
alternative terms 9
and documentation 18, 210, 212
and education 83, 179, 185
and language change 131132
definition 910
methodology 21
of dead languages 8, 68
of Guernesiais 120, 194
of Manx 9, 145, 213
researching 6, 74
vs. maintenance 202
Romantic movement 5, 100
Ryuku Islands, Japan 87
Sardinia 116
Sark 33, 52, 56, 89
schools 2627, 179
and language policy 141142
Guernesiais in 107, 179
Jrriais in 107
Scotland 37, 149, 216
Scots Gaelic 45, 88, 177
and Manx 41, 45, 175, 211
script. See orthography; corpus planning
Second World War 3940, 106, 137
secret language 117, 203
self-actualisation 67
self-esteem 6667, 136, 148
Guernesiais 197
self-identification 23, 87, 118, 189, 202203
Guernsey 198
self-report 53, 61, 6970, 72, 81
of attitudes 70
semi-speakers 12, 14, 198
Serquiais 43, 56, 121
speakers of 52
signage 119, 156, 162163, 165, 207
Guernesiais 162, 167, 170
Jrriais 162163, 208
Manx 149, 165
simplification 126
of Guernesiais 127, 132
social networking 16, 89, 91, 101, 207
Jrriais 178
social networks 27, 72, 79, 90, 140, 143
Guernesiais 186
socialisation 8, 13, 136, 200, 217
sociolinguistics 41, 44, 61, 64, 78, 129, 156
Guernesiais xi, 29, 58
Jrriais 29, 58
Manx 29
solidarity 23, 85, 92, 107, 202
and humour 92
songs. See music
speaker numbers 68
Guernesiais 51, 107
increasing 97, 161, 170, 186, 198, 201, 204
Jrriais 51, 186, 201, 208
Manx 53
spelling pronunciation 103, 174, 176
stakeholders 12, 151152
standardisation 6, 20, 2526, 65, 129, 143, 170, 172173, 212
and education 172, 206, 212
Guernesiais 220
Jrriais 171, 202, 205
lack of 9394
Manx 174, 178
status 4, 17, 21, 23, 83, 107, 119, 142143, 182, 189, 202, 215
increase in 82, 102, 169, 179
of Guernesiais 43, 82, 136
of Jrriais 43, 82, 184
official xii, 16, 26, 153154, 156
status planning 26, 185, 206, 216
Guernesiais 200
Jrriais 151
strategic planning 141, 159160
Guernesiais 161
Manx 185, 213
street names 163
Channel Islands 163
Manx 31, 155, 163, 178
sustainability 11, 20, 209210
symbolic ethnicity 100, 118, 203
symbolic identity 78, 119, 122, 142, 148, 170, 182, 199, 201
and Guernesiais 120
and Jrriais 119, 123, 191
and Manx 169
symbolic use of language xiii, 87, 138, 199, 203, 217218, 220
Guernesiais 220
Irish 209
Jrriais 220
value (of languages) 8, 77, 85, 92, 147, 191, 198, 203
of Guernesiais 116
variation 19, 93, 95, 125, 172, 212
and new speakers 129, 173
and traditional speakers 135
idiolectal 94, 104
in Channel Islands 4344, 93
in Guernesiais 93, 122, 127
in Jrriais 93, 171
in Manx 9394
Vikings 36, 122
in Isle of Man 37
vitality 21, 24, 51, 68, 109, 129, 141, 203, 206, 215
of Guernesiais 107
of Manx 54, 105, 134, 139, 163
perceptions of 60, 163
vocabulary 18, 84
see also terminology development
Jrriais 178
voluntary groups 141, 143, 145146, 153, 204
and government support 152, 185
Guernsey 146, 151, 180, 190
Isle of Man 155, 200
Jersey 151, 179, 190
language practices of 146
traditional 145, 151
Wales 68, 77, 116, 149, 152, 186, 204, 209, 214, 216, 219
Welsh 68, 102, 124, 154, 165, 172, 201, 211, 214, 216
Welsh-medium education 205
women 144
writing 99, 101, 219
Guernesiais 103, 176, 219
Jrriais 172, 219
Manx 102
Yiddish 85
Yn heshaght Ghailckagh (Manx Gaelic Society) 55, 85, 98, 150, 174
yn Greinneyder (Manx Language Development Officer) 150, 156, 170
young people 35, 62, 89, 113, 117, 131, 144, 173, 193194
and Guernesiais 114, 116, 203
and higher education 185
and internet 90, 193
and Jrriais 151, 160, 172
and language planning 117
and Manx 183
and tradition 89, 193, 203
attitudes of 114115, 198, 203
Manx 159
YouTube 17, 89
Jrriais 167
Manx 174