Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation (Language and Globalization) 3030801888, 9783030801885

Citation preview

LANGUAGE AND GLOBALIZATION

Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation Edited by Huw Lewis · Wilson McLeod

Language and Globalization

Series Editors Sue Wright, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK Helen Kelly-Holmes, FAHSS, University of Limerick, Castletroy Limerick, Ireland

In the context of current political and social developments, where the national group is not so clearly defined and delineated, the state language not so clearly dominant in every domain, and cross-border flows and transfers affects more than a small elite, new patterns of language use will develop. This series aims to provide a framework for reporting on and analysing the lingustic outcomes of globalization and localization.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14830

Huw Lewis · Wilson McLeod Editors

Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation

Editors Huw Lewis Department of International Politics Aberystwyth University Aberystwyth, UK

Wilson McLeod Celtic and Scottish Studies University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK

Language and Globalization ISBN 978-3-030-80188-5 ISBN 978-3-030-80189-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: higyou/Alamy This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book represents one of the main outputs of the Revitalise research network, a project that ran between 2017 and 2019, which had the aim of examining the implications of some of the major social, economic and political changes witnessed across Western societies over the past four decades for established understandings of how to approach the challenge of maintaining and revitalising regional or minority languages. The centrepiece of the network’s activities was a series of four workshops held in Aberystwyth, Edinburgh and Cardiff between May 2017 and February 2019. These events focused in turn on four broad topics that have been prominent in the literature on language revitalisation— the community, the family, the economy and the role of government—and they brought together an international group of academic researchers, spanning the arts, humanities and social sciences, along with a number of prominent language policy practitioners and civil society actors that work in the field of language revitalisation. The project concluded with a conference held in Brussels in April 2019. This event was organised in collaboration with the Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity and attendees included representatives from

v

vi

Preface

the European Commission, the Council of Europe as well as several European regional governments active in the area of regional or minority language promotion. We wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to all of the individuals that contributed to and supported the work of the Revitalise network, including the more than fifty academic researchers and policy practitioners who presented at the various events organised. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made by our friend and colleague, Elin Royles, who worked closely with us to coordinate the work of the network and led on drafting several of the briefing reports that were produced—diolch Elin. We also wish to express our thanks for the generous financial support provided by the AHRC in the form of a Research Network Grant (AH/P007368/1). For further information regarding the work of the Revitalise network, including briefing reports that summarise the discussions during the project’s workshops, as well as short video and audio clips where various contributors discuss their ideas, please visit the project’s website: https:// revitalise.aber.ac.uk. Aberystwyth, UK Edinburgh, UK March 2021

Huw Lewis Wilson McLeod

Contents

Introduction: Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation Huw Lewis and Wilson McLeod

1

Communities The Geography of Minority Language Use: From Community to Network Rhys Jones Minority Languages in the Age of Networked Individualism: From Social Networks to Digital Breathing Spaces Daniel Cunliffe Communities, Networks and Contemporary Language Revitalisation Huw Lewis and Wilson McLeod

37

67

99

vii

viii

Contents

Families Family Language Policy and Language Transmission in Times of Change Kendall A. King and Ling Wang

119

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership in the Early Years to Support Heritage Languages Tina M. Hickey

141

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles: Challenges for Regional or Minority Languages Wilson McLeod and Huw Lewis

175

Economy The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory, Hiring Model and Evidence François Grin and François Vaillancourt

193

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt Mál: Minority Languages as Economic Assets? Mike Danson

225

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy: The Evolution of Structural and Analytical Challenges Wilson McLeod and Huw Lewis

259

Governance The Governance of Language Revitalisation: The Case of Wales Huw Lewis

277

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age: The Retreat of the State Under the Guise of Partnership John Walsh

311

Governance, Policy-Making and Language Revitalisation Huw Lewis and Wilson McLeod

343

Contents

ix

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics Colin H. Williams

363

Index

381

Notes on Contributors

Daniel Cunliffe is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science, University of South Wales. Mike Danson is Professor Emeritus of Enterprise Policy at the School of Social Sciences, Heriot-Watt University. François Grin is Professor of Economics at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva. Tina M. Hickey is an Associate Professor Emeritus at the School of Psychology, University College Dublin. Rhys Jones is Professor of Human Geography at the Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University. Kendall A. King is Professor of Second Language Education at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota. Huw Lewis is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University.

xi

xii

Notes on Contributors

Wilson McLeod is Professor of Gaelic at the Department of Celtic and Scottish Studie, University of Edinburgh. François Vaillancourt is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Economics, Université de Montréal. John Walsh is a Senior Lecturer in Irish, School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, National University of Ireland, Galway. Ling Wang is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the School of Liberal Arts, Nanjing University. Colin H. Williams is an Honorary Professor at the School of Welsh, Cardiff University.

List of Figures

The Geography of Minority Language Use: From Community to Network Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Mobility patterns of Welsh speakers in Cardiff and the surrounding area (by permission of Hywel Jones) Mobility practices of Welsh speakers in eastern Carmarthenshire (by permission of Hywel Jones)

57 58

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory, Hiring Model and Evidence Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Hypothetical distribution of RML skills over 1,000 speakers (Source Adapted from Grin et al. [2010: 128]) Simulations: interaction between language skills, requirements and hiring (Source Grin et al. [2010: 130]) Percentage of use of French at work, Québec, survey data, six years, 1971–2016 (Source Adapted from Vaillancourt [2018: 20])

206 209

212

xiii

List of Tables

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked Individualism: From Social Networks to Digital Breathing Spaces Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Mobile phone and internet usage among older adults in UK Tablet and smartphone and mobile phone ownership and internet use by children in UK Social media profile ownership in UK

75 76 76

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory, Hiring Model and Evidence Table 1

Table 2 Table 3

Increase in % of work done in French, three types of managers, Québec, large employers, 1977–1979 if ownership ‘Québec French’ rather than ‘foreign’ ‘Under-targeting’ of language skills in languages other than the region’s main language Importance of top twenty non-official language groups in Canada, 2016 and use of language at work

201 211 213

xv

xvi

List of Tables

The Governance of Language Revitalisation: The Case of Wales Table 1

Who are the main actors involved in the governance of language revitalisation in Wales?

291

Introduction: Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation Huw Lewis and Wilson McLeod

1

Setting the Context

Over the past fifty years or so, efforts to revitalise the prospects of languages that are perceived to be at risk due to diminishing social use or a decline in the numbers of speakers have become increasingly common across the world. The context of these efforts can vary greatly. At times, the focus will be on seeking to reinvigorate the prospects of indigenous languages in colonial or post-colonial situations (Hobson et al. 2010; Coronel-Molina and McCarty 2016), while in other contexts the aim will be to support and promote lesser-used regional or minority H. Lewis (B) Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK e-mail: [email protected] W. McLeod Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_1

1

2

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

languages in Western societies (Williams 2012, 2013; Ó Flatharta et al. 2014). The scope of the revitalisation effort can also differ. In some cases, such as the Republic of Ireland, it may involve a state-wide dimension, while in other cases the focus may be more on a particular sub-state region or even a small collection of motivated individuals (e.g. Kasstan 2019). Moreover, the nature of the actors that lead on initiatives aiming to promote the target language can vary. Language revitalisation efforts are often led by the language communities themselves (Hinton 2011), but, over recent decades, we have also seen different governmental or quasi-governmental institutions playing an increasingly active role in the process, particularly across parts of western Europe (Williams 2013). Key examples here include the policy programmes developed to promote language revitalisation in Catalonia, the Basque Autonomous Community, Galicia, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Yet despite these important differences, it is important to acknowledge that ‘revitalisation as a general phenomenon is growing and has become an issue of global proportion’ (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 1). Consequently, there are now ‘few regions of the world where one will not find at least nascent attempts at language revitalisation’ (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 1; see also Pérez Báez et al. 2019). Significantly, all this has occurred against a backdrop of profound social change. The period of four decades between 1980 and 2020 that straddled the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first is widely regarded—by political leaders, social philosophers and ordinary citizens—as one that witnessed a series of fundamental social, economic and political transformations. Many societies have become increasingly individualistic, mobile and diverse in terms of ethnicity and identity; their economies have become increasingly interconnected; and their governance structures have become increasingly complex, incorporating a growing number of different levels and actors. Moreover, across each of these fields, rapid advancements with regard to automated, digital and communication technology have had a farreaching impact on how people interact with each other and participate in society.

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

3

Many of the themes that feature prominently in both the academic and public policy literature on language revitalisation—e.g. in connection with the linguistic influence of the family, the local community, the economy or various official institutions—relate to areas of life that are implicated in current patterns of social, economic and political change. This raises the possibility that some established understandings of how to approach the challenge of maintaining and revitalising different minority languages may need to be revisited or that new questions or challenges call for consideration. Yet, overall, it appears that the academic literature on language revitalisation has not featured much sustained reflection on the potential implications of different forms of contemporary macrolevel social change. Recent research also suggests that a similar oversight is evident in the work of relevant policy-makers (Lewis and Royles 2018). This represents an important gap in the current debate concerning how the goal of language revitalisation can and should be pursued. By way of response, this volume brings together a group of academic researchers in order to examine how and to what extent the challenge of language revitalisation should be reassessed and reconceptualised to take account of our fast-changing social context. On this basis, the book aims to advance an agenda of key questions that should concern those working in the field of language revitalisation over the coming years. A further contribution is the manner in which the book advances the case for an interdisciplinary approach to the study of language revitalisation. It includes chapters by academic researchers with backgrounds in numerous different disciplines, including sociolinguistics, education, geography, political science, economics and communication technology. This reflects the fact that language revitalisation is an inherently multifaceted field which touches on questions and challenges that can be illuminated by disciplines spanning the humanities and social sciences. The remainder of this introductory chapter will be structured as follows. First, we will briefly clarify our working understanding of the key concept of language revitalisation and clarify which types of language revitalisation cases are of particular concern for this book. Following that we will elaborate on some of the main instances of recent social, economic and political change that are posited as having potentially

4

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

important implications for current efforts to pursue language revitalisation. Based on that discussion we will then turn to review the literature on language revitalisation in order to highlight instances in which consideration of contemporary circumstances either prompts us to reassess certain traditional perspectives or draws our attention to themes or questions that call for further consideration. Finally, we give an overview of the chapters that follow in the rest of the book.

2

Definition and Clarification

As Nettle and Romaine (2000: 32) observe, ‘some degree of bi- or multilingualism is present to some degree in practically every country in the world’. However, this pattern of linguistic diversity is not fixed or static, nor is it immune from any form of fluctuation. People have, and often exercise, the ability to learn new languages and also to adopt new patterns of language use. Over time, this can give rise to the process termed by sociolinguists as ‘language shift’ (see, in particular, Fishman 1964; Weinreich 1968). In general, language shift is a process of ‘downward language movement’ which involves ‘a reduction in the number of speakers of a language, a decreasing saturation of language speakers in the population, a loss in language proficiency, or a decreasing use of that language in different domains’ (Baker 2011: 72). Put simply, language revitalisation can be viewed as an effort to resist language shift by seeking ‘to increase the relative number of speakers of a language and to extend the domains where it is employed’ (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 13), thus ensuring that the vulnerable language does not decline and disappear, but rather demonstrates ‘a new-found vigour’ (Paulston et al. 1993: 279). This, it is claimed, may occur when various forms of linguistic intervention successfully address a range of factors that influence a language’s ‘overall level of vitality’ (Giles et al. 1977). Of course, language revitalisation is not the only term deployed to describe an effort to either halt or reverse the process of language shift. Other common labels that feature in the academic literature include language maintenance and language revival. With regard to the relationship between revitalisation and maintenance, we follow those who

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

5

posit that the former should be understood as referring to an effort to actively increase a language’s uses and users, while the latter relates to an effort to uphold and protect the current state of affairs (Grenoble and Whaley 2006; Hinton 2011; Hornberger 2010). Hence, although both concepts can be seen as capturing an effort to resist language shift, revitalisation, by its nature, will require that this involves seeking to grow the current speaker base and to change current linguistic practices, while maintenance is more focused on the preservation of existing arrangements (Pérez Báez et al. 2018). The elements of growth and change associated with revitalisation are also relevant to the notion of language revival. Indeed, for some this means that the two terms can be used as synonyms (e.g. Hinton and Hale 2001) while others suggest using ‘revival’ as a single umbrella term (Edwards 1993: 111). However, this book follows those who have argued that it is useful to distinguish between the contexts in which the two terms are used (Dorian 1994; Spolsky 1996). Therefore, on the one hand, we view revival as a concept that captures situations where interventions target a language that has ceased to be used as a day-to-day social medium: as Paulston et al. (1993: 276) put it, ‘the giving of life to a dead language, or the act of reviving a language after discontinuance’. On the other hand, ‘revitalisation does not refer to the rebirth of a dead language, but rather to the new-found vigour of a language already in use’ (Paulston et al. 1993: 279). As noted in our opening paragraph, the nature of contemporary language revitalisation efforts, as well as the linguistic, social, economic and political context in which they take place, can vary substantially. Consequently, it can be difficult to approach the topic of language revitalisation and, in particular, questions concerning how revitalisation efforts are conceived, designed and implemented, from a general global perspective. For example, such is the extent of the difference between the circumstances faced in cases as diverse as those of the Catalan, M¯aori and Kwak’wala languages that it can sometimes be difficult to make meaningful comparisons or to draw practical lessons that could immediately be transferred from one location to the next. Given this, the focus of this book will predominantly be on language revitalisation efforts located within relatively industrialised and Westernised contexts, and in particular, the various revitalisation efforts currently underway across parts of

6

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

western Europe, especially in Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It should be noted that such cases are not the exclusive concern of all of the chapters included in the book and the reader will see that on occasion some of the contributors do take a somewhat broader view. By adopting a predominantly European focus, we make no claims regarding the relative status or importance of such language revitalisation efforts compared to those that take place within very different contexts, for example ones where issues such as colonialism or indigeneity may be more to the fore. Moreover, we do not suggest that the themes and arguments explored in the book will be of no relevance at all to discussions concerning language revitalisation in those different locations.

3

The Backdrop: A Period of Social Transformation

It is generally agreed that instances of societal language shift should be viewed as primarily a sociological, economic and political process rather than a purely linguistic one (King 2001; Baker 2011). As a result, language revitalisation efforts should be awake to important changes to the social, economic and political context in which they occur: as Edwards (2007: 104) emphasises, ‘one cannot maintain a language by dealing with language alone’. Consequently, this section will consult relevant literatures spanning fields such as sociology, geography, economics and political science in order to outline a series of important social transformations that have emerged over recent decades and that have provided a general backdrop for many contemporary language revitalisation efforts. The discussion will be organised thematically, focusing first on instances of social and demographic change, then on instances of economic change and finally turning to instances of political change.

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

3.1

7

Socio-Demographic Change

The socio-demographic profile of most Western societies is evolving rapidly towards one that is increasingly diverse, mobile and individualistic. We are witnessing significant change not only in terms of who make up the population of such societies, but also in terms of where these people live and how they interact with each other. First, a series of ongoing demographic trends have led to important shifts in the population composition of most Western societies. For example, the populations of such societies have become more multi-ethnic and multi-cultural in character and, in some instances, this has reached a level described by Vertovec (2007) as ‘super-diversity’. This change has been driven by the increased prevalence of international migration. In the words of Castles and Miller (2003), this is ‘the age of migration’—a period in which international migratory flows have become more extensive in terms of volume and more ‘global’ in their scope. Current patterns of migration are also increasingly differentiated, with population flows encompassing a combination of permanent residents, skilled labour, refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants and students (see also Bauböck 2015). Also evolving rapidly is the age structure of Western societies as the numbers of older people within the population continues to grow, due to people living longer and also due to ‘well-below-replacement’ rates of fertility. The region most affected by this trend is Europe, where it is projected that by 2050 older people will constitute more than one in three of the population, outnumbering children by nearly two-and-a-half times (Champion 2005: 109). Equally significant has been the transformation of traditional family structures and household patterns (Putnam and Goss 2002: 14– 15), and also the increasing ‘feminization of the labour force’ (Castells 2010: xxii). Such developments, in turn, have had far-reaching implications for patterns of early socialisation among children (Giddens 2001: 63). Given that it is increasingly common for both parents to work fulltime, we have moved away from a process of socialisation that occurred primarily within the home domain, and where the mother tended to play the dominant role, towards one where parents contribute alongside a range of other early-years care and education providers (Crompton 2006).

8

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

These demographic changes have coincided with developments in the spatial organisation of societies. First, in many European countries, the general trend of counter-urbanisation, observed during the 1970s and early 1980s, has reverted to one of urbanisation (Mitchell 2004). Second, this trend has been particularly pronounced among younger age groups, leading to increasingly polarised rural–urban population profiles (Woods 2005: 78–83). Furthermore, there have been fundamental changes in the ways in which people live their lives and interact with each other. An increase in personal mobility, due mostly to wider car ownership, better infrastructure and the intensification of commuting, has led to lives that span ever-wider geographic areas. This has had consequences for employment patterns and leisure practices as well as the manner in which people engage with a range of core services—contributing over time to the trend of service rationalisation within urban centres (Bowler 2005: 241–242). On top of this, the spread of information and communication technology (ICT) and the explosion in the use of different virtual or online platforms has created a context in which important day-to-day interactions—be they of a professional or social nature—need not take place on a face-to-face basis within physical spaces (Castells 2010). Hence it is argued that social, economic and political processes that might once have been tied to or bound within a specific territories are now able to escape it, thus ‘taking us from a world marked by contiguous spaces to one marked by spaces of flows’ (Keating 2013: 16). Mobility and technology are also factors that provide a backdrop to the changes witnessed across many Western societies in the nature of civil society and in norms of social connectedness. Overall, the trend is one of declining engagement in civic life and in informal ad hoc social interaction—e.g. with close neighbours or others within our immediate locality—and towards thinner, more formalised and more individualistic forms of engagement (Halpern 2005; Putnam 2000, 2002). The latter are considered less conducive to the promotion of social capital and the bonds of social trust, solidarity and reciprocity that are associated with it (Putnam 1993).

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

3.2

9

Economic Change

Underpinning a number of the trends discussed above are a series of economic transformations. First, recent decades have witnessed fundamental changes in the structure of Western economies, as they have moved away from traditional arrangements based primarily on industrial production, and towards new ones where information and forms of knowledge underpin economic growth. The emergence of this new economic system—labelled as either the ‘post-industrial economy’ or the ‘knowledge economy’ (Smart 2011; Giddens 2001)—has had a significant impact on the occupational structure of Western societies. Increasingly, employment in such societies is dominated by servicebased administrative and managerial occupations, while manual forms of employment, specifically manufacturing, have receded rapidly. And although many jobs in the new knowledge economy may resemble those in manufacturing insofar as conditions of work are concerned— the check-out in a supermarket may be as routine and monotonous as the factory assembly line (Giddens 2001: 4)—the activity itself is no longer focused primarily on the ‘physical production and distribution of material goods’, but on ‘their design, development, marketing, sale and servicing’ (Giddens 2003: 378). To a large extent, the structural changes described above are tied to the wider process of economic globalisation, which has stimulated a shift from an age of distinct national economies towards one characterised by an increasingly interconnected and interdependent global economy (Castells 2003: 311). Transnational corporations are considered as one of the main drivers of this change through their promotion of globalised production chains (Castells 2003: 319). The emergence of transnational corporations also highlights the significant degree of openness in contemporary trade and financial markets, which arises from the move towards deregulation, privatisation and liberalisation (Genschel and Seelkopf 2015: 240; Keating 1998: 73–75). Technological advancement is another factor that has stimulated the move towards greater economic interdependence. Much of the infrastructure on which the globalised economy

10

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

now depends for its day-to-day operation centres on the various developments in information and communication technology witnessed over recent decades (Castells 2003: 311). In terms of social impact, many scholars suggest that economic globalisation has exacerbated inequalities and regional disparities, with the impact being felt in both rural and urban locations. The ability of the state to respond to such processes by investing in declining regions is also constrained due to global trading rules and competition policies (Keating 2013: 56). Furthermore, despite the undoubted influence of the digital revolution, the notion of ‘technological inequality’ remains a reality in many contexts (Castells 2010: xviii), and often serves to exacerbate socio-economic exclusion, both between and within states (Smart 2011: xxxii).

3.3

Political Change

No less significant are the far-reaching political changes witnessed over recent decades that have challenged the traditional authority and institutional strength of the nation-state. While works published in the mid-1990s professing the ‘end of the nation-state’ (Ohmae 1995) may have been misjudged, there is no doubt that there has been ‘an important transformation in the state and a disarticulation of the various spheres of social, economic and political action which it formerly encompassed’ (Keating 1998: 75). The power and authority of the state has been challenged from three different directions (Keating 1998, 2013). First, it has been challenged from above, both by the changing international market and by the emergence of new international institutional regimes. In the case of the former, the increased mobility of international capital and the rise of transnational corporations mean that the state has been deprived of its traditional capacity to manage the economy (Pierre 2000: 1). With regard to the latter, the significant growth, since the 1950s, in the number of international organisations has meant that in an increasing number of policy areas the locus of decision-making has shifted from the domestic to the international arena (Schakel et al. 2015). Second, the

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

11

state has been challenged from below by regional or minority nationalist movements demanding a restructuring of governing arrangements (Keating 1998, 2001). As Hooghe et al. (2010) argue, recent decades can be characterised as an ‘era of regionalisation’—a period during which decentralisation and a transfer of autonomy to the regional level has emerged as a clear trend across Europe, for example in places such as Belgium, Spain, the UK, France and Germany (Keating 2013), as well as parts of Latin America, North America and Southeast Asia (Schakel et al. 2015). Third, the power of the state has been eroded laterally by the advance of the market. The economic crisis of the late 1970s paved the way for the neoliberal wave that swept across many industrialised democracies and that sought to ‘solve’ the perceived problem of ‘government overload’ by privatising public enterprises, contracting out public services and commercialising the remaining public sector, most notably through the introduction of new public management reforms (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 6; Cairney 2012: 159). These processes have resulted in a profound shift ‘in the balance between government and society away from the public sector and more towards the private sector’ (Kooiman 1993: 1). Furthermore, over time they have led to ‘an increasingly fragmented public sector’ (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 7), which, in turn, has contributed to ‘the diminished ability of central governments to control the direction of policy’ (Cairney 2012: 157). This latter change, sometimes described as the shift from government to governance (Rhodes 1997), has involved a gradual decline in the monopoly of formal governmental institutions over the public policy process as a number of non-governmental stakeholders such as civil society groups, interest groups, citizens’ groups, expert agencies, consultancy firms and private businesses have come to play an increasingly significant role in the development, implementation and evaluation of public policy (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 8). The result, it is claimed, has been the emergence of policy-making processes whereby ‘governments do not simply take decisions and then enforce them with state power’, but rather spend a great deal of time ‘negotiating with other organizations, non-governmental and governmental, in order to knit together agreed courses of action’ (Colebatch 2004: 78).

12

4

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation: New Questions and Challenges

In the preceding section we outlined a series of important social, economic and political changes that have transformed the nature of dayto-day life across many Western societies. While all these changes may not necessarily be directly interconnected, each of them, in different ways, has potential implications for patterns of language acquisition and language use, as well as the development and implementation of language revitalisation initiatives. In this section, we go on to examine this claim further by reviewing the academic literature on language revitalisation. Given the space available here, this will not be an exhaustive review by any means. However, we will seek to highlight a series of instances in which consideration of contemporary circumstances either prompts a reassessment of certain traditional perspectives or draws our attention to themes or questions that call for further attention. As Hornberger reminds us (2010: 412), work that focuses on analysing and documenting the process of language shift has a long history (e.g. Fishman 1964; Gal 1979; Dorian 1981). However, since the 1990s, an increasing emphasis has been placed on research that seeks to identify what can be done to arrest the decline of weak or endangered languages and to revitalise their prospects, with the post-2000 period witnessing the publication of a number of prominent monographs and edited collections (e.g. Grenoble and Whaley 2006; Hinton and Hale 2001; King 2001; Tsunoda 2005). By today there is a substantial literature surveying language revitalisation efforts in a wide range of different cases spanning North America, Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Pacific region and Europe (see, for example, the extensive list of examples cited by Pérez Báez et al. 2018: 470; see also Hinton et al. 2018). There is also an extensive literature that describes and analyses different types of language revitalisation projects or methods, including, but not limited to, various school-based approaches, community-based interventions and family-focused initiatives (see Hinton 2011 and Pérez Báez et al. 2018 for useful overviews).

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

13

However, a criticism of this literature advanced in several recent publications points to a perceived lack of theoretical development with regard to the key question of how to approach language revitalisation. For example, Comajoan-Colmé and Coronel-Molina (2020: 3) contend that while the general knowledge base relating to language revitalisation has expanded significantly over recent years, ‘the theoretical frameworks surrounding it have not expanded at the same pace’. Hence it has been claimed that the crucial question of how to approach language revitalisation remains ‘under theorised’ (Austin and Sallabank 2011: 22; see also Huss 2017), and that this reflects the fact that ‘the literature has not moved beyond case studies and toward synthesis’ (Pérez Báez et al. 2018: 471). Indeed, on the crucial issue of how a language revitalisation effort should be planned and implemented, it appears that the main theoretical reference point continues to be the approach outlined by Joshua Fishman in his foundational 1991 volume, Reversing Language Shift (ComajoanColmé and Coronel-Molina 2020; Grenoble 2013; Huss 2017; Lewis and Simons 2010; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020). As is well-known, Fishman’s theory is centred on the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS)—a diagnostic scale that can be used to assess the general vitality of particular language communities. Fishman compared his GIDS scale to the Richter Scale—the higher the level assigned to a particular language the greater the degree of disruption and shift that has taken place. The scale ranges from Stage 1, where the language is most secure (used nationwide in higher education, the media, government and the higher levels of the economy), to Stage 8, where it is in a highly threatened position, only used by a handful of socially isolated older people (Fishman 1991, 2001). When it comes to seeking to reverse language shift by planning a revitalisation effort, Fishman argues that the GIDS scale should be used as a guide that can prompt a ‘first things first approach’ (1991: 109) and ensure ‘the proper sequencing of efforts’ (1991: 111). Vitally, he argues that this should entail accepting that the first priority is to address any weaknesses in the language community that relate to the lower stages of his GIDS diagnostic scale. Targeting such ‘lower, foundational stages’ (stages 8–6) should always be prioritised, according to Fishman, before ‘moving ahead to more advanced ones’ (stages 5–1) which relate

14

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

to the language’s use in high-status public domains such as the education system, the media, government and the economy. As he famously summarised: ‘Castles in the sky are alluring but they do not make for safe living quarters’ (1991: 110). Moreover, as part of his careful, gradualist approach Fishman stresses a particular set of circumstances that activists must strive to maintain or to recreate as a matter of priority—that which is captured by the Stage 6 descriptor on his GIDS—the organisation of ‘the intergenerational and demographically concentrated home-family-neighbourhood’ (1991: 395). According to Fishman, this descriptor captures a state of affairs where the language is used for ‘informal, spoken interaction between and within all three generations of the family’ (1991: 92) and where a collection of such families have gathered together ‘through planned concentration in particular neighbourhoods’ (1991: 92), thus enabling the language to also become the medium of ‘interfamily interaction, of interaction with playmates, neighbours, friends and acquaintances’ (1991: 93). Achieving such circumstances is deemed to be essential according to Fishman, because by doing so it is possible to ensure that the language will continue to be transmitted from one generation to the next and that it will be used as a natural medium for intimate and informal communication in day-to-day family and community life. Indeed, the centrality of the close-knit family unit and the immediate community or neighbourhood for how Fishman thinks language revitalisation should be pursued is underlined when he claims that ‘it is inescapably true that the bulk of language socialization, identity socialization and commitment socialization generally takes place “huddled together”, through intergenerationally proximate, face-to-face interaction’ (1991: 398). It is of course important to acknowledge that the Fishmanian theory of language revitalisation has not been without its critics. For example, Williams (1992: 122) forcefully criticised what he saw as ‘the highly conservative orientation’ of Fishman’s perspective and its tendency to emphasise consensus and equilibrium rather than conflict and power. Moreover, Williams argued that Fishman’s focus on the notion of stable diglossia was problematic as it meant that it became ‘virtually impossible to express the anger and frustration experienced by members of

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

15

minority language groups confronted by a process of language shift’ (1992: 122). Others, for example Ó Riagáin (2001) and Hornberger and King (2001), have suggested that Fishman’s approach does not give sufficient consideration to the influence of the broader socioeconomic context on people’s language behaviour. As Baker has observed: ‘Economic prescriptions are needed to provide a strong rationale for intergenerational transmission. Integrative motives and cultural sentiment may not be enough to persuade parents, educators and students to use the minority language’ (Baker 2011: 55). Yet, despite such arguments, it appears that the assumptions and arguments that underpinned Fishman’s theory—specifically his emphasis on the centrality of the intimate and informal ‘home-family-community nexus’—still carry a lot of weight when it comes to work that seeks to grapple with the challenging question of how language revitalisation should be pursued in practice. For example, according to Lewis and Simons (2010: 118), ‘it has provided the theoretical underpinnings of much of what practitioners of language revitalisation have engaged in’, while Ó Giollagáin et al. (2020: 7) recently argued that it continues to represent the ‘mainstream approach’ to minority language sociolinguistics. However, as we have established, recent decades have witnessed a series of significant social, economic and political changes that have had far-reaching implications for how people live, work and socialise, how they raise and care for their children and how the societies in which they live are governed. Given this context, we contend that it is timely to revisit some of the key perspectives that have traditionally shaped assumptions concerning how to pursue language revitalisation. To what extent does consideration of contemporary circumstances either prompt a reassessment of some of these assumptions or draw our attention to new questions that call for further reflection?

4.1

Intergenerational Transmission and the Evolution of the Family Unit

As indicated above, Fishman stressed that a key priority for any revitalisation effort should be to ensure stable and consistent transmission

16

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

of the language from one generation to the next. Moreover, Fishman stressed that the education system can only play a secondary role and that the main driver of successful intergenerational transmission must be the family and the language practices adopted by parents in relation to their children within the home. For him the family home is at ‘the heart of the entire intergenerational transmission pursuit’ (1991: 398)—it has ‘a natural boundary’ and ‘its association with intimacy and privacy gives it both a psychological and sociological strength that makes it peculiarly resistant to outside competition and substitution’ (Fishman 1991: 94). Such views are echoed by other prominent contributors to the literature. For example, Nettle and Romaine (2000: 187) emphasise that there is ‘an important distinction to be made between learning a language in the artificial environment of the classroom and transmitting it in the natural environment of the home’. Indeed, they claim that ‘without safeguards for language use at home sufficient to ensure transmission, attempts to prop the language up outside the home will be like blowing air into a punctured tire’ (Nettle and Romaine 2000: 178; see also Baker 2011; Hinton 2011; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020). Therefore, following Fishman the literature on language revitalisation has tended to place a substantial emphasis on the role of the family as the central driver and guarantor of intergenerational transmission. Yet, as highlighted earlier, recent decades have seen a significant transformation in both the composition of the family unit and also the manner in which families organise their day-to-day lives and care for their children. As a result, the manner in which children today experience the process of early socialisation—including early linguistic socialisation—has changed substantially. We have moved away from a model in which the process is one that occurs mainly within a single home domain, and where it is usually the mother that plays the dominant role, towards one where care and early stimulation is provided by a mix of family members and professional institutions. In this context it appears increasingly unrealistic to accept Fishman’s contention that the family domain can be viewed as a bounded space where intergenerational transmission can proceed free from ‘outside pressures, customs and influences’ (1991: 94). Indeed, this is a contention that can be questioned even further when we also consider how rapid technological developments—games, apps, smart speakers,

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

17

etc.—are transforming how young children play and learn during their formative years, thus creating more and more potential scenarios where active use of the majority language may be required within the home.

4.2

Mobility, Community and Daily Language Use

Another prominent feature of the approach to language revitalisation advocated by Fishman is the emphasis placed on seeking to draw together a concentration of speakers within ‘small-scale’ communities or neighbourhoods (1991: 4). The maintenance or rebuilding of such areas is deemed to be vital for efforts to arrest and reverse language shift, due to the assumption that they provide a bounded social environment within which the target language ‘can be on its own turf ’ (1991: 58) and can thus be used naturally as the main medium of intimate and informal face-to-face interaction. As Fishman argues, ‘via demographic concentration, those who initially constitute generationally diverse speakers that are organised only on an individual family basis strive to attain an even higher form of social organization: beginning with family they attain community’ (1991: 93). This type of highly local, community-based, approach to language revitalisation has also been advocated by a number of more recent contributors to the literature (e.g. Nettle and Romaine 2000; Tsunoda 2005; Lewis and Simons 2016; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020). However, given the nature of contemporary social trends, there are strong grounds for reassessing some of the basic assumptions on which it is based. As outlined in the previous section, significant increases in levels of personal mobility, combined with the influence of new technologies, have meant that everyday social practices are now being stretched across ever-wider geographic areas. These trends, along with the shift away from primarily informal, ad hoc norms of social engagement—e.g. with close neighbours or others within our immediate locality—have clear implications for how people interact with each other from day to day, and, by extension, how and where they use their languages. This affects children and adults alike, and impacts on matters such as school attendance, employment patterns, engagement in leisure activities, use of public services and

18

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

consumer behaviour (Jones and Lewis 2019). Consequently, there is a need for language revitalisation models to critically evaluate the extent to which it is still credible to assume that the local neighbourhood or community where people happen to reside still holds the same influence over their day-to-day language practices. Indeed, following Grenoble and Whaley (2020), we posit that there is a need to ‘problematise’ the notion of community in language revitalisation. This should involve reflecting critically on the different forms of language communities that can exist—geographical communities, communities of interest, online communities—and taking account of the different roles that they can play in our increasingly networked and mobile lives. This trend towards more spatially dispersed lifestyles, together with the widely observed thinning of civic and social participation, also has other ramifications for language revitalisation. As the reach, influence and authority of community institutions and community leaders diminish, there is a reduced potential for co-ordinated action at community level, in connection with language revitalisation as with other kinds of social action. Williams (1992) argued that Fishman’s model of society assumed an established structure of community institutions and an ethos of recognised authority, deference and group-based consensualism; such assumptions appear increasingly untenable in the light of recent developments and trends. These shifts may also mean that the role of formal language policy and management in ‘community’ language revitalisation, involving public institutions and ultimately directed by government, may need to become more prominent.

4.3

Globalisation and the Link Between Language and Economic Development

Economic globalisation has had a significant impact upon Western societies. As discussed in the previous section, it has heralded a shift from distinct national economies towards an increasingly interconnected and interdependent global economy prompting major changes in patterns of work and strengthening the position of transnational actors, particularly multinational corporations. As these trends have unfolded, those

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

19

who have sought to outline approaches to language revitalisation have varied in terms of the emphasis placed on economic factors. On the one hand, the link between the economy and language sustainability does not feature prominently in the GIDS framework advanced by Fishman (1991). Moreover, the Language Vitality Index advanced by UNESCO (2003), compiled by a group of internationally prominent linguists and sociolinguists (see Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 4), makes no reference to economic variables. On the other hand, alternative approaches place a substantial emphasis on economic factors. For example, Baker (2011: 55) claims that ‘the economic status of a minority language is likely to be a key element in language vitality’, while Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 125) go as far as stating that economics ‘may be the single strongest force influencing the fate of endangered languages’ (see also Crystal 2000: 132; Spolsky 2004: 215). However, overall, as Harbert (2011: 411) has argued, the connections between regional and minority languages and economics remain understudied (notwithstanding notable exceptions, e.g. Grin 1993; Grin and Villancourt 1999). More specifically, while work on regional or minority languages does regularly stress ‘the impact of globalisation’ (Comajoan-Colmé and Coronel-Molina 2020: 3), the particular ways in which the economic consequences of that process can influence the sustainability of such languages, either in terms of the overall numbers of speakers, their geographical distribution or their propensity to use the language from day-to-day, are not well understood. In this context, it is important to note that some of the most significant economic changes seen in Western societies in recent decades may not actually have had particularly strong impacts on areas where regional or minority languages are widely spoken (RML areas)—or rather, their strongest and most immediate impacts may have been felt in other, more central areas and their impacts on RML areas can be understood as secondary or ‘knock-on’ consequences. For example, the rapid growth in the volume of international trade—one of the principal elements in ‘globalisation’—primarily affects major manufacturing centres, main ports and the largest consumer markets, rather than lightly populated, peripheral areas where we typically find a higher density of regional or minority language speakers. The impact of the substantial shift of industrial production, especially manufacturing, from Europe and North

20

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

America to Asia has mainly affected large industrial centres, not regions where industrialisation never developed to such a significant degree. The related decline in union density has similarly been felt most strongly in urban areas that had the largest concentrations of unionised workers. Financialisation, i.e. the growth in the role of financial services in the overall economy, has had far-reaching impacts in recent decades (in terms of the increased levels of mergers and acquisition activity, the emphasis on achieving ‘shareholder value’ and so on) but their most immediate consequences have involved increasing employment (and related multiplier effects) in the main financial centres. The increase in inequality, understood in terms of the share of income and wealth flowing to the top tier of the population, is perceived most acutely where the extremes of wealth and poverty collide, typically in the largest cities; peripheral rural areas, such as those where regional or minority languages predominate, tend to have a flatter income and wealth distribution. However, all of these wider developments may have significant knock-on effects on peripheral areas: financialisation tends to intensify economic dynamism, including employment opportunities, in the main cities, thereby further exacerbating long-standing trends by which workers in RML areas are pulled away, while the increasing concentration of wealth may have adverse consequences for housing markets in rural areas (including some RML areas) that wealthy urbanites find attractive for tourism and recreation. The dramatic transformation in information and communications technology has also been very significant for the economies of RML areas in terms of ‘flattening’ distance in some respects, but also has important consequences in relation to changing notions and experiences of community, as discussed above. From the standpoint of economic development, however, it is problematic that peripheral rural areas (including RML areas) have tended to lag behind main urban centres in terms of access to new ICT infrastructure such as high-speed broadband and new generations of cellular networks, technological innovations that are linked to some of the most fundamental economic changes of recent decades.

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

4.4

21

Governance, Policy-Making and Language Revitalisation

Overall, the need for official language promotion by government is not a factor that plays a central role in Fishman’s theory of revitalisation (Fishman 1991). As we have seen, the significance of unofficial, voluntary initiatives undertaken within families and communities is accorded much greater prominence. Yet a number of other contributors to the literature have placed a substantial emphasis on the nature of ‘the government’s language policy’ (Tsunoda 2005: 54), and the need for such policies to actively promote and support the continued acquisition and use of the target language (see also Giles et al. 1977; Grenoble and Whaley 2006; Spolsky 2004). Indeed, the literature includes a number of efforts to outline general typologies of official language policies and to identify how they vary in terms of their support for RMLs, and thus their support for the objective of language revitalisation. For example, Tsunoda (2005: 55) distinguishes between four general types of official policies: those that proscribe use of the RML; those that tolerate its use at least in the private sphere; those that allow for its limited promotion in certain public domains; and finally, those that recognise the language as the official (or co-official) language of the territory. A slightly different model is outlined as section of UNESCO’s Language Vitality Index, in which government treatment of the RML vis-à-vis the majority language is divided into six different potential categories: equal support; differentiated support; passive assimilation; active assimilation; forced assimilation; and outright prohibition (see Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 11–12). Yet as established in the previous section, a series of general structural changes—regionalisation, internationalisation and the move to new post-welfare models of governance—have transformed the context for contemporary governance and there is a need to consider in greater detail how such processes have influenced the contemporary practice of language revitalisation, specifically the extent of public policy support and the nature of the role played by public institutions. If we focus on the European context, we see in cases such as Wales, Catalonia, the Basque Autonomous Community and Scotland that

22

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

regionalisation—the establishment of new sub-state tiers of government—has led to the creation of a political and institutional context that is more conducive to the development of planned policy interventions in support of such languages (Williams 2012). At the other end of the spectrum, the development of continental-level structures, above the state, specifically the Council of Europe and the EU, also appear to have had a broadly positive impact, both through the promotion of basic norms relating to RMLs or by offering alternative funding avenues for language revitalisation projects. Moreover, the formation of continental language networks, most recently the Network to Promote Language Diversity (NPLD), has facilitated a greater degree of policy learning and transfer which, in turn, has influenced developments at more domestic levels (Williams 2013). These institutional developments also draw our attention to an apparent shift in the nature of the actors that lead many European language revitalisation efforts. In cases such as those mentioned above the endeavour seems to have moved away from being one that is based primarily on the language community itself working through private, civil society organisations, towards being one where public officials, located within different governmental or quasi-governmental institutions, are increasingly influential (Williams 2013). However, it is clear that civil society is not out of the picture completely. Indeed, in Wales and Scotland, as well as in Ireland, where governmental involvement in language revitalisation has a much longer history, various types of civil society organisations are presented as key partners that contribute to the work of seeking to meet objectives outlined in official language strategies, for example with regard to the promotion of greater social language use. Yet this means that a key question that needs to be considered is what types of governmental-stakeholder relationships have developed in such cases and how has this influenced the effectiveness of the language revitalisation effort. Consideration of relevant literature from the fields of public policy and public administration (e.g. Torfing et al. 2019; Pierre and Peters 2020) points to the possibility that such interaction between governmental and non-governmental actors can either lead to

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

23

more inclusive, democratic and effective ways of working or, alternatively, that it diffuses responsibility and accountability while allowing stronger players to dictate terms (Pierre and Peters 2005).

5

Overview

The remainder of this book will seek to develop further the discussion of the themes and questions raised above. Together the chapters will seek to assess the implications of some of the major social, economic and political changes identified in this introduction for our understanding of how the challenge of language revitalisation can and should be approached as we enter the third decade of the twenty-first century. In what ways do some of the observed shifts in how people live, work and socialise, how they raise and care for their children and how the societies in which they live are governed call on us to reassess established assumptions or to consider new questions? This will involve reflecting on questions such as the following: • To what extent does the increasingly mobile nature of day-to-day life, along with far-reaching changes in patterns of social interaction among individuals, have implications for our understanding of how to approach the challenge of promoting greater social use of RMLs? • To what extent do recent changes in the form and composition of families, as well as changes in how families organise their day-to-day lives and care for their children, have implications for our understanding of how family units can support intergenerational language transmission? • To what extent do the far-reaching changes associated with economic globalisation and the advent of skills-based employment have implications for our understanding of the nature of the economic challenges that confront RML communities? • To what extent does the recent trend of ‘state transformation’ and the emergence of multi-level and multi-actor modes of governance have

24

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

implications for our understanding of how public policy interventions aiming to support the prospects of RMLs are formulated and implemented? In order to address these types of questions, the book has been divided into four thematic parts that will focus in turn on four broad topics that have been prominent in the literature on language revitalisation: the family, the community, the economy and the role of government. Each of these parts will comprise two chapters, written by invited contributors, which will discuss aspects of the research on language revitalisation within that particular thematic area. These chapters will then be followed by a brief summative essay, written by the editors, which will draw out key themes arising from the two earlier chapters in order to reflect on the questions outlined above. Our hope is that this structure will ensure that the volume engages systematically with its core aim of assessing the implications of contemporary social change for understandings of how the challenge of language revitalisation can and should be approached. We elaborate further on the content of the different contributions below.

5.1

Part I: Community

In the first chapter in the Community part, ‘The geography of minority language use: from community to network’, Rhys Jones argues that Welsh language revitalisation strategy has been dominated by an assumption that Welsh language use takes place in an unplanned, unmarked manner within face-to-face community settings, which are largely uniform, rural and territorially bounded in character. He contends that this understanding is no longer fully functional given the ways Welsh speakers now live their lives, in the light of increased mobility and connectivity, and that Welsh language policy should consider alternative geographies of language use which reflect more network-based interpretations of social and spatial life that align more closely with contemporary reality. In the second chapter, ‘Minority languages in the age of networked individualism: from social networks to digital breathing spaces’, Daniel Cunliffe explores the ramifications of social media for

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

25

RML speakers and assesses the new kinds of networks and communities that they have engendered. He focuses in particular on the ways in which these new networks may serve as digital ‘breathing spaces’ for RMLs, examining the necessary characteristics of such digital breathing spaces and the challenges that arise in connection with the creation and maintenance of such spaces. As information and communication technology continues to develop, he argues, it will be increasingly necessary to consider online and offline social networks as a single, inseparable social network in which the social use of minority languages takes place. The editors’ summative essay, ‘Communities, networks and contemporary language revitalisation’, highlights different understandings of community—the traditional territorial understanding and the newer networked one—and considers how language use can best be understood in the context of social lives that are increasingly stretched across diverse physical and virtual spaces. It concludes with a series of reflections regarding the practical implications of these changing understandings for initiatives aimed at promoting greater social use of RMLs.

5.2

Part II: Family

In the first chapter in the Family part, ‘Family language policy and language transmission in times of change’, Kendall King and Ling Wang review how the field of family language policy has evolved and expanded in recent decades against a background of significant social, economic and cultural change. They highlight in particular the role of overarching structural factors discussed elsewhere in the volume, including globalisation, urbanisation, (hyper)mobility and technological saturation, as well as important changes in the structures of families and the ways they now live their lives. These shifts have required changes both in the focus of studies in the field and the paradigms and methods used to conduct this research. In the second chapter, ‘Family language policy: promoting partnership in the early years to support heritage languages’, Tina Hickey addresses the role of these wide-ranging changes to family structure and childcare arrangements in the context of Ireland and the Irish language. She considers how parents’ family language choices are affected

26

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

by the available childcare and education options, which often disadvantage Irish-speaking families, and examines ways to promote partnerships with parents that are supportive of the minority/heritage language as their children progress through early years education and into primary schooling. The editors’ summative essay, ‘Changes in family structure and lifestyles: challenges for regional or minority languages’, focuses on challenges for RMLs in relation to family language policy, focusing in particular on the role of migration beyond ‘heartland’ territories; the role of ICT in family life in the light of the structural disadvantages of RMLs in relation to ICT development and availability; and the various sociolinguistic challenges connected to language shift, including the role of grandparents and the role of ‘new speaker’ parents.

5.3

Part III: Economy

In the first chapter in the Economy part, ‘The economics of ‘language[s] at work’: theory, hiring model and evidence’, François Grin and François Vaillancourt assess the contribution of language economics to the question of what language (or languages) is (or are) used at work. After reviewing some essential cornerstones of language economics and its approach to language at work, they examine the determinants of language use in the workplace, and analyse the role of language in hiring procedures. They look in particular at the available evidence from Switzerland and Canada. Study of the economics of RMLs presents a range of analytical difficulties, but they offer a framework to ask the right questions and carry out the work to answer them in specific cases. In the second chapter, ‘Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and føroyskt mál: minority languages as economic assets?’, Mike Danson explores the challenges of economic development, sustainability, enterprise and resilient communities in peripheral areas and the potential role of RMLs within this, focusing in particular on Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the Faroe Islands. The analysis is informed by a range of field research over the last two decades, which endeavoured to investigate how each of these jurisdictions and economies is nurturing and realising the potential promised by their respective languages. The chapter concludes with a summary

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

27

of the opportunities for regional economies offered by supporting their minority languages and cultures, as well as the broader benefits to the nation and beyond. The editors’ summative essay, ‘Regional and minority languages and the economy: the evolution of structural and analytical challenges’, then focuses on a range of specific practical and analytical problems involving RMLs and the economy, giving particular attention to the Gaelic, Welsh and Irish contexts. In each of these, long-standing underlying dynamics of relative under-development, outmigration and pull to the centre constrain initiatives to expand the economic role of the languages, while opportunities may mainly lie in niche sectors whose economic impact is relatively limited.

5.4

Part IV: Governance and Policy-Making

In the first chapter in the Governance and policy-making part, ‘The governance of language revitalisation: the case of Wales’, Huw Lewis considers how the growth of focused language policy in support of European RMLs has proceeded in the context of significant structural transformation in the operation of the state and in the location and exercise of political authority. These transformations have involved both a diffusion of power and control among a range of governmental institutions operating at different territorial levels and a blurring of the boundary between these institutions and a variety of societal actors, such as civil society groups, interest groups and private businesses. These issues are then explored in detail in relation to the governance of language revitalisation in Wales, and in particular in connection with the implementation of the Welsh Government’s most recent national language strategy. In the second chapter, ‘The governance of Irish in the neoliberal age: the retreat of the state under the guise of partnership’, John Walsh focuses more specifically on the case of Ireland, analysing the retreat of the Irish government from language planning in recent decades and the intersection of this shift with national and international trends in political economy. He considers closely the influence of the Irish state’s approach to governance, its political culture, language policy and the role of individual civil servants in its execution. He then assesses the impact on

28

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Ireland of more recent international trends such as the changing nature of governance and the ongoing reconfiguration of relationships between state, society and market. The editors’ summative essay, ‘Governance, policy-making and language revitalisation’, reflects on the significance for contemporary language revitalisation programmes of regionalisation, internationalisation, the continued advance of the market and the emergence of post-welfare models of governance, drawing on evidence from Wales, Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Autonomous Community and Ireland. These trends clearly have important implications for the context in which language revitalisation takes place and thus for which types of actors are involved and how relevant initiatives are formulated, funded and implemented. The volume then concludes with a perceptive Afterword by Colin H. Williams, ‘Forging hope in the company of cynics’. Professor Williams reviews the aims and achievements of the Revitalise project as a whole and the principal themes and arguments advanced in this book. He situates this research within the context of other contemporary academic initiatives and the fundamental shift, which he deems ‘the metropolitan multilingual turn’, that requires us to reorient our analysis to ask how minority language speakers may benefit from co-occupying increasingly multilingual spaces. He concludes by laying down a serious challenge: that the project needs to be purposeful in arming policy-makers and social activists with arguments, proven best practice principles and procedures, and a sense of the moral and empirical worth of the continued effort to nurture, protect and reimagine the conditions of possibility which sustain the minority languages. We hope that this volume will serve a useful function in advancing this mission.

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

29

References Ansell, C., and J. Torfing. 2016. Introduction: Theories of governance. In Handbook on Theories of Governance, ed. C. Ansell and J. Torfing, 1–17. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Austin, P.K., and J. Sallabank. 2011. Introduction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ed. P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank, 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bauböck, R. 2015. Migration and the porous boundary of democratic states. In The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, ed. S. Leifbfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J.D. Levy, F. Nullmeier, and J.D. Stephens, 516–531. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowler, I. 2005. Rural alternatives. In Human Geography: Issues for the TwentyFirst Century, ed. P. Daniels, M. Bradshaw, D. Shaw, and J. Sidaway, 229– 245. Harlow: Pearson Education. Cairney, P. 2012. Understanding Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Castells, M. 2003. Global informational capitalism. In The Global Transformations Reader, ed. D. Held and A. McGrew, 311–334. Cambridge: Polity. Castells, M. 2010. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Castles, S., and M.J. Miller. 2003. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Champion, T. 2005. Demographic transformations. In Human Geography: Issues for the Twenty-First Century, ed. P. Daniels, M. Bradshaw, D. Shaw, and J. Sidaway, 87–112. Harlow: Pearson Education. Colebatch, H. 2004. Policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Comajoan-Colmé, L., and S.M. Coronel-Molina. 2020. What does language revitalisation in the 21st century look like? New trends and frameworks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01434632.2020.1827643. Coronel-Molina, S.M., and T.L. McCarty (eds.). 2016. Indigenous Language Revitalization in the Americas. London: Routledge. Crompton, R. 2006. Employment and the Family: The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorian, N. 1981. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorian, N. 1994. Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival. Language in Society 23 (4): 479–494. Edwards, J. 1993. Language revival: Specifics and generalities (review of Our Own Language (G. Maguire) and Reversing Language Shift (J. Fishman)). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 (1): 107–113. Edwards, J. 2007. Language revitalization and its discontents. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (1): 101–120. Fishman, J.A. 1964. Language maintenance and language shift as a field of enquiry. Linguistics 2 (9): 32–70. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. (ed.). 2001. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gal, S. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press. Genschel, P., and L. Seelkopf. 2015. The competition state: The modern state in a global economy. In The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, ed. S. Leibfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J. Levy, F. Nullmeier, and J. Stephens, 237–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giddens, A. 2001. Introduction. In The Global Third Way Debate, ed. A. Giddens, XX–XX. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. 2003. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giles, H., R.Y. Bourhis, and D.M. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, ed. H. Giles, 307–348. London: Academic Press. Grenoble, L. 2013. Language revitalisation. In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. R. Bayley, R. Cameron, and C. Lucas, 792–811. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grenoble, L., and L. Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grenoble, L., and L. Whaley. 2020. Toward a new conceptualisation of language revitalisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1827645.

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

31

Grin, F. 1993. Minority language promotion: On the practical usefulness of economic theory. In Economic Development and Lesser Used Languages: Partnerships for Action, ed. Ll. Dafis, 24–49. Llanbedr Pont Steffan: Iaith. Grin, F., and F. Vaillancourt. 1999. The Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Minority Language Policies: Case Studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues. Halpern, D. 2005. Social Capital . Cambridge: Polity Press. Harbert, W. 2011. Endangered languages and economic development. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ed. P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank, 403–422. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobson, J.R., K. Lowe, S. Poestch, and M. Walsh. 2010. Re-awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Hinton, L. 2011. Revitalization of endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ed. P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank, 291– 311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinton, L., and K. Hale (eds.). 2001. The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. Boston: Brill. Hinton, L., L. Huss, and G. Roche (eds.). 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. London: Routledge. Hooghe, L., G. Marks, and A.H. Schakel. 2010. The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Countries. London: Routledge. Hornberger, N. 2010. Language shift and language revitalisation. In The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. R.B. Kaplan, 412–420. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornberger, N., and K. King. 2001. Reversing Quechua language shift in South America. In Can Threatened Languages be Saved?, ed. J.A. Fishman, 166–194. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Huss, L. 2017. Researching language loss and revitalisation. In Research Methods in Language and Education, ed. K.A. King and N.H. Hornberger, 99–111. New York: Springer. Jones, Rh., and H. Lewis. 2019. New Geographies of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kasstan, J. 2019. New speakers and language revitalisation: Arpitan and community reformation. In French Language Policies and the Revitalisation of Regional Languages in the 21st Century, ed. M.A. Harrison and A. Joubert, 149–170. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, M. 1998. The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

32

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Keating, M. 2001. Nations Against the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, M. 2013. Rescaling the European State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, K.A. 2001. Language Revitalization Processes and Prospects. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Koomian, J. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage. Lewis, M.P., and G. Simons. 2010. Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine De Linguistique 55: 103–120. Lewis, M.P., and G. Simons. 2016. Sustaining Language Use: Perspectives on Community-Based Language Development. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Lewis, H., and E. Royles. 2018. Language revitalisation and social transformation: Evaluating the policy frameworks of sub-state governments. Policy and Politics 46 (3): 503–529. Mitchell, C. 2004. Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (1): 15–34. Nettle, D., and S. Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ó Flatharta, P., S. Sandberg, and C.H. Williams. 2014. From Act to Action: Language Legislation in Finland, Ireland and Wales. Dublin: Fiontar. Ó Giollagáin, C., G. Camshron, P. Moireach, B. Ó Curnáin, I. Caimbeul, B. MacDonald, and T. Péterváry. 2020. The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Study of Scottish Gaelic. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Ó Riagáin, P. 2001. Irish language production and reproduction 1981– 1996. In Can Threatened Languages be Saved? ed. J.A. Fishman, 195–214. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies. London: The Free Press. Paulston, C.B., P.C. Chen, and M.C. Connerty. 1993. Language regenesis: A conceptual overview of language revival, revitalization and reversal. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14 (4): 275–286. Pérez Báez, G., R. Vogel, and E.O. Koller. 2018. Comparative analysis in language revitalisation practices. In The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages, ed. K.L. Rehg and L. Campbell, 466–489. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pérez Báez, G., R. Vogel, and U. Patolo. 2019. Global survey of revitalization efforts: A mixed methods approach to understanding language revitalization practices. Language, Documentation and Conservation 13: 446–513.

Introduction: Language Revitalisation …

33

Pierre, J. 2000. Understanding governance. In Debating Governance, ed. J. Pierre, 1–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2005. Governing Complex Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2020. Governance, Politics and the State. London: Red Globe Press. Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R.D. 2002. Conclusion. In Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, ed. R.D. Putnam, 393–415. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Putnam, R.D., and K.A. Goss. 2002. Introduction. In Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, ed. R.D. Putnam, 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press. Schakel, A.H., L. Hooghe, and G. Marks. 2015. Multilevel governance and the state. In The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, ed. S. Leibfried, E. Huber, and J. Stephens, 269–285. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smart, B. 2011. Post-industrial society and information technology. In PostIndustrial Society, ed. B. Smart, xxi–xivi. London: Sage. Spolsky, B. 1996. Conditions for language revitalisation: A comparison of the cases of Hebrew and Maori. In Language and the State: Revitalisation and Revival in Israel and Eire, ed. S. Wright, 177–201. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Torfing, J., B.G. Peters, J. Pierre, and E. Sørensen. 2019. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsunoda, T. 2005. Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. UNESCO. 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment: Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. Document adopted by the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding Endangered Languages, Paris, March 10–12. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6): 1024–1054.

34

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Weinreich, U. 1968. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Williams, G. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A Sociological Critique. London: Routledge. Williams, C.H. 2012. Language policy, territorialism and regional autonomy. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, ed. B. Spolsky, 174–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, C.H. 2013. Minority Language Promotion, Protection and Regulation: The Mask of Piety. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Woods, M. 2005. Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring. London: Sage.

Communities

The Geography of Minority Language Use: From Community to Network Rhys Jones

1

Introduction

Minority languages have been studied from a geographical perspective for decades. One of the most prevalent and straightforward ways in which the geography of minority languages has been examined, of course, has been in the context of mapping. Geographers and others have used maps to represent the distribution of different languages and dialects, and the prevalence or otherwise of particular languages within space (Zelinsky and Williams 1988; Johnstone 2010; Schrambke 2010). They have also engaged with the idea of mapping in more metaphorical ways in order to examine the connections that exist between languages and defined territories (Williams 1988, 1991; Withers 1988). After a period of relative decline in interest, the process of mapping languages has received R. Jones (B) Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_2

37

38

R. Jones

somewhat of a fillip in recent years linked to the growing significance and use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) techniques within the discipline (e.g. Luo et al. 2007). Such work has helped academics and policy-makers to understand how language ability varies in spatial terms and how this can change over time. It has thus been a useful source of information for those seeking to support minority or lesserused languages. My focus in this chapter is on another set of issues, one that is gaining more traction in academic, policy and public debate; namely, how one can understand patterns of language use and utilise this understanding as a way of devising interventions that can promote the use of minority languages (Jones and Lewis 2019). My claim is that there are important geographies to language use but that they have, up until now, remained relatively under-explored, especially when compared with the amount of research that has focused on the mapping of language ability. My empirical focus in this chapter is on the academic and policy attempts that have been made to promote Welsh language use. These attempts have been underpinned by an implicit geography. As I shall show below, it is a geography that is predicated on a particular conceptualisation of space; one in which Welsh is portrayed as a community language and where Welsh language use occurs—one might even argue should occur—in an unplanned, unmarked manner within face-to-face community settings, which are largely uniform, rural and territorially bounded in character. I argue that this geographical imagination has tended to dominate Welsh language policy to date. I claim that there is a need for Welsh language policy to consider alternative geographies of language use, ones which reflect more network-based interpretations of social and spatial life (e.g. Jones and Merriman 2012). There is a need to address these alternative geographies because: (1) they may well reflect more accurately the reality of contemporary Welsh language use; (2) they may well lead to the development of more effective Welsh language policy. In the following section, I begin by critically examining the way in which the Welsh language has been understood as a community language in both empirical and more normative contexts. I then proceed to complicate this conceptualisation of Welsh as a community language

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

39

by developing an alternative understanding of language use which foregrounds the significance of networks of people. I conclude the chapter by discussing the implications of these different ways of approaching the geographies of the Welsh language for language policy and planning in Wales and further afield.

2

Welsh as a Community Language

Particular understandings of communityhave played a key role over a number of years in structuring discussions among academics, policymakers and activists about the nature of Wales, Welshness and the Welsh language. The study of Welsh communities was inspired in many ways by the pioneering research of Rees (1950) in his study of Life in a Welsh Countryside. Many different themes characterised this research and the body of work that followed it (e.g. Davies and Rees 1960; Frankenberg 1966). First of all, there is a clear sense in which communities are understood to constitute defined and bounded spatial entities. The studies conducted in Wales by Owen (1960), Jones Hughes (1960) and Jenkins (1960), for instance, testify to an interest in understanding the character of rural communities that were almost self-evidently defined, spatially unproblematic and bounded entities. The second aspect of this research follows on directly from the first; work on communities has tended to view them as relatively uniform entities and ones that are largely characterised by social and cultural stasis. Admittedly, authors such as Rees (1950) recognised some of the socio-economic and cultural challenges facing rural communities but there is still a sense in which these communities were viewed as repositories of age-old traditions and customs. In this sense, they were deemed to be places of uniformity and stasis, especially when compared with the more transient and heterogeneous ways of living that were said to characterise towns and cities. The third aspect of early research on communities, again, follows on from the second theme, and that is the normative value placed by many authors on rural communities. Rural communities, in this sense, were viewed as an effective antidote to the rapid social and cultural changes that characterised more urban areas (Delanty 2003: 33–36). As Rees (1950: 170) notes in

40

R. Jones

the final sentence of his book, ‘[t]he completeness of the traditional rural society—involving the cohesion of family, kindred and neighbours—and its capacity to give the individual a sense of belonging are phenomena that might well be pondered by all who seek a better social order’. One of the key themes addressed within these historic studies was the place of the Welsh language within rural Welsh communities, along with the various socio-economic, cultural and demographic challenges facing the language. What is most significant in the context of the present chapter, however, is the extent to which these conventional understandings of community continue to inform—at least implicitly—academic and policy interpretations of the use of Welsh. My analysis of contemporary documents shows that the idea of community—still understood in conventional bounded, territorial and largely rural ways similar to those espoused by Rees and his disciples—is consistently deployed in relation to Welsh language use in two main contexts. First, I shall show that the idea of community, first, is employed as a socio-spatial framework for understanding the actual use of Welsh by individuals and groups. Communities are said to influence the opportunities that are available for individuals to use Welsh. Second—and following on from the first point—I argue that there is a sense in which the maintenance and development of Welsh-speaking communities is viewed as a key normative goal for Welsh-language policy. Welsh-speaking communities, in this respect, are viewed as the most appropriate socio-spatial entities within which a vibrant Welsh language—in terms of its everyday use—can thrive. Following on from this, it is argued that there is a perceived need to devise appropriate and specific interventions that can allow the Welsh language to be used within Welsh-speaking communities as the default medium of interaction. I briefly discuss and critique these two approaches in this section.

2.1

Making Sense of Language Use in the Community

First, certain kinds of communities are said to create conditions propitious to the use of Welsh, with the most significant communities being those with the highest percentages of Welsh speakers. Clearly, there is

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

41

some link between the use of Welsh and the preponderance of Welsh speakers within the geographical location in which the language is being used. There is empirical evidence that shows the link between the relatively high proportions of Welsh speakers in the Welsh-speaking rural ‘heartland’ or ‘Y Fro Gymraeg’ (those areas that lie in the north and the west of Wales, and which have been designated by policy-makers and activists alike as having great significance for the Welsh language and culture) and higher levels of daily use of Welsh. Conversely, there is a corresponding association between relatively low levels of daily use of Welsh and relatively low percentages of Welsh-language ability in areas beyond this ‘heartland’ (Welsh Language Commissioner 2016: 248– 249; Welsh Government/Welsh Language Commissioner 2015: 43–45). While there is some correlation between these two types of statistic— between levels of Welsh-language use and percentages of Welsh-language ability—there is a pressing need to understand the nature of the processes that explain these kinds of associations. In doing so, one needs to uncover both the way in which the idea of a community is conceived of within policy literatures, along with its purported connection with particular patterns of Welsh language use. The significance of a conventional bounded, uniform and often rural interpretation of community appears at the most basic level in relation to the attempts that have been made to explain the statistical links between the preponderance of Welsh speakers and the day-to-day use of Welsh. The figure of 70% has been viewed as a significant threshold in relation to Welsh-language use, as the following statement from the previous Welsh Language Strategy (2012–2017) produced by the Welsh Government makes clear (Welsh Government 2012: 8; see also Welsh Government 2017a: 61–63): The number of communities where over 70 per cent of the population was able to speak Welsh dropped to 54 in the 2001 census, compared with 92 in 1991. It has long been argued that such a density of speakers is required in order for Welsh to be an everyday language of the community.

The threshold of 70% is significant, of course, because it reflects a simple arithmetical account of the likelihood of Welsh-language conversations

42

R. Jones

taking place by chance in any given area: if 70% of a population in any area—ward, local authority and so on—speak Welsh then there is a more or less even chance that Person A will be able to converse in Welsh with Person B (0.7 × 0.7 = 0.49 or 49%). Hence it is assumed that within such areas it will be possible to maintain Welsh as the community language—the default language of interaction that is used in an unplanned, unmarked manner across a variety of contexts. But of course, there is a danger that this kind of reasoning grossly oversimplifies the processes whereby individuals choose to speak one language (Welsh) instead of another (English). Such thinking is guilty of an ecological fallacy or, in other words, assuming that one can infer individual level data from areal level data; just because 70% of individuals can speak Welsh in an area does not mean that half of the interactions taking place in that area will occur through the medium of Welsh. For instance, not all individuals who can speak Welsh will choose to do so, even when encountering other fluent Welsh speakers. Language interactions become even more complicated when dealing with interactions between more than two individuals. Academics and language activists alike are aware of the disproportionate impact that a non-Welsh speaker, or even a less confident Welsh speaker, would have on language interactions within groups of three or more. One needs to be wary, therefore, of using simple mathematical models as a way of demonstrating patterns of language use, coexistence and competition (Stauffer and Schulze 2007; Pinasco and Romaelli 2006). And by extension, one also needs to be wary of the kind of geographical imagination that underpins such mathematical models. At one level, we need to recognise that the only way in which such models make sense is if we imagine that Welsh speakers exist and interact with each other within defined and discrete communities which exist in relative isolation from each other. At another, one also needs to consider the spatial scale at which such arithmetically based linguistic interactions should be calculated. Put bluntly, which spatial scale—Lower Super Output Area, community, ward, local authority—should form the basis of the mathematical models of language use? Should one be focusing on geographical units of smaller scales in order to reach the ‘magic figure’ of 70%? Or does that risk creating even more unrealistic portrayals of modern

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

43

life, where individuals—for the purpose of mathematically modelling language use—become tied to ever-smaller geographical units? Other, more detailed and thoughtful, accounts exist of how, why and where individuals use Welsh on an everyday basis. Various surveys of the use of Welsh have been undertaken in a specific community or in a range of communities. In addition to broad national surveys, more targeted surveys have studied the factors affecting language use within different geographical settings. A recent report commissioned by the Welsh Government, Welsh Language Use in the Community (Welsh Government 2015), is particularly instructive in this respect. It draws attention to the fact that certain groups are better catered for than others in terms of the social use of Welsh. Younger children and parents, for instance, are deemed to have more opportunities to use Welsh socially than older children and young adults (ibid.: 111). There are also important geographical variations in the opportunities available to individuals to use Welsh within the community. The study focused on a range of case study locations; Cardigan, Bangor, Llanrwst, Ammanford, Aberystwyth and Porthmadog (all of which lie within or on the borders of the area viewed as the Welsh-speaking ‘heartland’). It was noticeable, in this respect, that there were significant geographical variations in the perceived opportunities that were available for individuals to make use of Welsh in their respective communities; perceived opportunities that were lower than would be expected given the density of Welsh speakers within those communities. Ammanford and Cardigan were particularly problematic in this regard. While these surveys are more useful, they still conceive of Welsh speakers who use the Welsh language within territorially bounded communities. By being preoccupied by a geographical frame of reference—for instance, what are the opportunities that exist to use Welsh in somewhere like Aberystwyth or Cardigan—they do not recognise the more complex ways in which Welsh speakers might live their lives. For instance—and at a very basic level—are such surveys interested in how a Welsh speaker from Cardigan might use the Welsh language on the streets of Aberystwyth when visiting that town? Another key source of information about the localised and community-based use of the Welsh language are the surveys that have been commissioned by some Mentrau Iaith. Mentrau Iaith are language

44

R. Jones

initiatives that have emerged in various parts of Wales since the 1990s and whose aim, primarily, is to support the use of the Welsh language in the communities that they serve (for a review of their work, see Evas et al. 2013: 6). The most systematic attempts to define and understand more local patterns of language use have occurred in south–east Wales, with surveys commissioned in Cardiff (Menter Caerdydd 2016a) and the Vale of Glamorgan (Menter Caerdydd 2013, 2016b). These surveys draw attention to a number of familiar themes in relation to Welsh-language use, including the lack of opportunities to speak Welsh in everyday life, the link between Welsh-language use and fluency, the significance of the transmission of Welsh within the home for day-to-day Welsh language use and the limited use of Welsh within workplaces in Cardiff and the surrounding Vale of Glamorgan. Such surveys and reports are important. They show that the processes affecting Welsh language use are neither simple nor straightforward; nor are they governed strictly by a territorial logic in which the existence of a Welsh-speaking community—however that is defined—will lead almost automatically to certain levels of Welsh language use. Moreover, the reports and surveys from south–east Wales or, in other words, areas of Wales that lie outside of the so-called Welsh-speaking ‘heartland’ (Jones and Fowler 2007), also begin to question the manner in which the notion of community language is traditionally understood in Wales. In the South East, where Welsh is a minority language in every geographical community, it is essential to maintain and facilitate communities of Welsh speakers across each age range to ensure a future for the language. Of course, the word community has several meanings when we refer to Welsh speakers. A community is more than a geographical location, it exists across the boundaries of an area and a region, and now, with social media, it could be argued on one level that there are no boundaries to such a Welsh language community. The Welsh language unites people socially and culturally. It is an added feature to an identity that creates a link between people and stimulates activity and interaction. (Menter Caerdydd 2016a: 19; b: 18)

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

45

The above statement highlights, I believe, a number of important issues. First, it demonstrates quite clearly that certain organisations— most clearly Mentrau Iaith—concede that Welsh cannot be viewed as a community language in places like Cardiff and the Vale or, at least, not in the territorial sense in which the concept is understood and used in other parts of Wales. Second, it shows that there exists a more open and flexible understanding of the notion of communityin Cardiff and the Vale, one that is not as tightly bound to a geographic vision of community life. Patterns of language use are therefore viewed as more complex and do not follow a straightforward territorial logic characterised by boundedness and linguistic self-sufficiency, and the use of Welsh by individuals and groups is seen to take place through more extensive kinds of social interaction. Third—and following on from the previous two points—there is perhaps a far greater realisation among Welsh-language organisations in somewhere like Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan of the complex ways in which individuals and groups use Welsh from day to day. I examine the saliency of these arguments in more detail in Sect. 3.

2.2

Community Language as Normative Goal

I want to argue that there is a worrying tendency within much of the policy and more popular literatures concerning Welsh-language use to almost view Welsh-speaking communities as being almost the only places within which Welsh—as a language and as an associated culture—can be practised in an ‘authentic’ manner (Jones and Fowler 2007; Bowie 1993). While it is recognised that there has been a valuable ‘quiet revolution’ (Aitchison and Carter 1987) in terms of the growth of Welsh speakers in places such as Cardiff, there is still a residual sense in policy and activist circles that the Welsh-speaking communities that lie within the Welsh-speaking ‘heartland’—and the kind of language use that occurs within them—must be protected at all costs. The geographical settings within which Welsh is used in non-Welsh-speaking communities—and the perhaps different ways in which the Welsh language and its associated culture is practised here—almost recedes from policy view.

46

R. Jones

Various political parties and pressure groups have promoted the need to protect and promote Welsh as a community language in the north and west of the country with some regularity over the course of the twentieth century. I would argue that these political goals are underpinned by an implicit geographical imagination, which is once again based on a bounded, relatively uniform and largely rural vision of community life. Witness, for instance, Plaid Cymru’s attempt to encourage individuals to go ‘back to the land’ (Gruffudd 1994) during the interwar period and the postwar discussion by J. R. Jonesand others of the concept of ‘cydymdreiddiad’ or, in other words, the positive inter-penetration that should exist between land and language (Jones 1966). Significantly, Jones’s writings were to inspire Welsh-language activists to undertake practical attempts to invigorate communities in the Welsh heartland. The creation of Adfer (literally Restore) during the early 1970s was viewed by many as a concrete manifestation of a commitment to energising the Welsh-speaking communities of ‘Y Fro Gymraeg’; socially, economically and culturally (Llywelyn 1976; Phillips 1998: 148). Since the 1970s, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg has also consistently viewed itself as an organisation that should be committed to supporting Welshspeaking communities, since it is these that provided a social, cultural and economic foundation for the Welsh language to thrive (e.g. Davies 1973: 252; more recently see Cymdeithas yr Iaith 2010). The issue achieved a particular prominence following the establishment of the pressure group Cymuned (literally Community) in 2001 (Jobbins 2001; Brooks 2001; Cymuned 2004). While Cymuned’s existence proved to be short-lived, there is no doubt its activities during the 2001–2004 period served to focus public and political attention on the prospects of Welshspeaking communities located in the north and the west of the country. Indeed, for some of Cymuned’s leading activists, it was this perception of external threat to, and cultural conflict within, Welsh-speaking communities that necessitated the formation of the organisation in the first place. One leading Cymuned activist illustrated this point clearly in an interview: The main reason for founding Cymuned was the pitiful situation of Welsh speaking communities. The decline that was happening because

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

47

of the in-migration, and because of the out-migration of young people. And I saw communities dying in front of my eyes to be honest, on a very, very fast scale. I saw that because I went away from this area in ’70 and came back in the nineties. And had an incredible eye-opener of seeing what had happened in those twenty years. And it was happening faster and faster still.

Part of the significance of these debates is the fact that they have been mirrored in public policy debates concerning the use of Welsh within Welsh-speaking communities (Jones and Fowler 2007, 2008). The Welsh Government’s first national language strategy, Iaith Pawb—published in 2002 at the height of Cymuned’s period of public prominence—stated clearly: ‘we have no doubt that the dynamic health and evolution of the Welsh language will be seriously threatened if it ceases to be a language with a strong presence in the community’ (Welsh Government 2003: 21). A series of subsequent policy statements by the Welsh Government—and by many other organisations concerned with the long-term future of the Welsh language—have reinforced this commitment to protecting Welsh-speaking communities (e.g. Welsh Government 2013). Such statements, moreover, have helped to sustain a normative view that Welsh-speaking communities are the most important geographical locales within which Welsh is used (e.g. Welsh Government 2012: 6). Welsh-speaking communities—defined in quite conventional, territorial and largely rural terms, which would be recognisable to authors such as Rees (1950)—still play an important role in recent policy statements concerning the Welsh language. The most recent Welsh Language Strategy, admittedly, accedes to the existence of ‘more varied interpretations of concepts such as the family unit and “community”’ (Welsh Government 2017a: 15) but gives no detail on the nuances of these interpretations or their ramifications for language policy. It questions whether ‘[w]e need to assess the extent to which the local community/neighbourhood remains a major influence on the language practices of individuals’ (ibid.: 48). At the same time, it notes at the outset that ‘we need to ensure the future vitality of Welsh-speaking communities as places that facilitate the use of the language in every aspect of life’

48

R. Jones

(ibid.: 7). The danger of course, in such a situation, is that the policies and interventions that are developed in order to support one kind of geographic Welsh-language community hinder or distract from the kinds of policies and interventions that might be developed to support a more networked kind of language community. This is a theme to which I will return in Sect. 3. In all this we witness how Welsh language policy and activism possesses a certain geographical vision of how the Welsh language is and should be used. Surveys of language use conducted by the Welsh Government and by Mentrau Iaith start on the basis of a territorial logic or, in other words, seek to understand how the language is used within defined, and relatively bounded and uniform communities: they try to understand how the Welsh language is used in geographically parcelled areas of Wales (e.g. Welsh Government 2015; Menter Caerdydd 2016a). There is little recognition here of how Welsh language use might stretch across different boundaries or even take place in heterogeneous ways within specific territories. A second territorial logic is associated with the Welsh Government’s attempts to understand Welsh language use, as well as in relation to activists’ understandings of Welsh language use. This second logic relates to the need to understand, protect and reenergise Welsh language use that occurs in communities located within the Welsh-speaking heartland. After all, when seeking to understand the community use of the Welsh language, the study commissioned by the Welsh Government (2015) discussed earlier only focused on a series of communities located either within or on the boundaries of the ‘heartland’. Welsh language use beyond the ‘heartland’ did not qualify to be included in this study. Once again, one wonders whether the kind of Welsh language use that occurs beyond the ‘heartland’ is not deemed to be of the same significance as the language use that takes place in areas of Wales where conventional geographical imaginations of territorially bounded, relatively uniform and rural communities still hold sway. The upshot of such normative statements about the value of Welsh as a community language is the development of a whole series of policy interventions which have sought to preserve territorially defined Welshspeaking communities and the language practices contained therein. Two short examples will help to illustrate the importance of such a

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

49

policy imperative. The first relates to the attempts that have been made to protect Welsh-speaking communities using the planning system in Wales (for reviews, see Tewdwr-Jones et al. 2002; Gallent et al. 2002). The key mechanism for protecting the Welsh language and culture in the planning system is Technical Advice Note 20 (hereafter TAN20) which was adopted originally in the late 1980s and has been revised on several occasions since (see Welsh Government 2017b for the most recent version). As noted by Gallent et al. (2002: 476), the aim of TAN20 is to ‘to avoid patterns of housing provision that are likely to generate new housing demands and subsequently “swamp” small, culturally sensitive communities’. Admittedly, there have been few uses made of TAN20 by local planning authorities to date mainly because it is not seen to offer a clear and robust methodology to conduct language impact assessments (Welsh Language Commissioner 2013; BBC Cymru Fyw 2017), meaning that decisions could therefore be legally challenged by developers (Gallent et al. 2002: 476). And yet, the territorial ethos that underpins TAN20 is significant, particular in the context of the arguments discussed in this section. Insofar as the planning system in Wales is founded on an area-based vision of development plans and a consideration of individual planning applications taking place within defined communities, its commitment to the Welsh language through TAN20 is also similarly predicated on a territorial conception of Welsh as a community language. It posits the need to consider the effects of developments on Welsh-language use in ‘local communities and the wider plan area together’ (Welsh Government 2017b: 7). Again, we are confronted by a territorial vision of implicitly bounded ‘local communities’, where highly localised developments have the potential to have deleterious effects on the Welsh language. A similar emphasis on the need to protect Welsh as a community language emerges in relation to ongoing debates about the role of village schools in parts of rural Wales. It is apparent that schools take on a series of different roles in rural communities. As well as educating children and young people, they also help ‘keep communities functioning, particularly when other local services [are] under threat and sometimes closing’ (Reynolds and Jones 2007: 2). Moreover, in areas where regional

50

R. Jones

or minority languages are spoken, village schools are said to ‘promote the cultural characteristics of their localities, especially distinctive language communities’ (ibid.). It is with these sentiments in mind that a number of vocal campaigns have been pursued in recent years by parents and Welsh-language activists alike to protect village schools from closure or from amalgamation into larger entities (e.g. Daily Post 2019). Again, we witness a confluence of themes with respect to village schools. As well as being educational establishments, they are deemed to be sites that are anchors of community life. One cannot be a viable community— certainly a vibrant Welsh-speaking community—so the argument goes, without a school (Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, n.d.). Communities, especially Welsh-speaking ones, should in this respect be self-sufficient, with schools acting as focal points for Welsh-language interactions that are constituted in highly territorial terms. We witness above how a conceptualisation of bounded communities has played a key role in defining conventional attempts to understand and promote Welsh language use. I proceed in the next section to demonstrate how conceptual developments in geography and the broader social sciences, as well as the emergence of new empirical realities, might help us to question the usefulness of such territorial understandings of Welsh language use.

3

Understanding Welsh Language Use in Networked Terms

There has been a fundamental change over the past twenty or so years in the way in which geographers and other social scientists understand space, place and territory. Much of the emphasis in this body of research has been on questioning and, in some cases, seeking to undermine the boundedness of these concepts from empirical and conceptual perspectives. The empirical grounds for questioning the boundedness of space, place and territory are plain to see and have come about as a result of far-reaching technological changes in our increasingly globalised and mobile world. As Harvey (1992) has maintained, we are living in a

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

51

world that has experienced a far-reaching process of ‘time-space compression’, which has had profound effects on our understanding of our place in the world. The many processes associated with globalisation and the increased mobility of people, ideas and goods have also led to re-evaluations of how we should conceptualise the alleged boundedness of space and place. As a result of Massey’s (1991) influential work on networked understandings of place, academics have increasingly begun to question the significance of bounded understandings of space and place, preferring instead to view places as open, dynamic, relational entities (existing in connection with other places ‘external’ to them) and also in a continual process of ‘becoming’ (always evolving, rather than being in any way fixed). Places and spaces are connected, therefore, by flows of people, ideas and material things (Allen 2004; Amin 2004). Building on these ideas, geographers and others have promoted the need to think about space in relational and networked terms (Martin and Secor 2014). Relational accounts of space start from the premise that the world is always being formed or maintained through numerous, intricate associations and connections between people and things. Largely as a result of changing technologies, authors have argued that the significance of linear notions of proximity and distance is diminishing, to be replaced by a world in which relational connections between distant places (as well as socio-spatial disjunctures between sometimes proximate places) are becoming far more important (Amin 2004). Amin, Massey and Thrift (2003: 6) have maintained that ‘an era of increasingly geographically extended spatial flows’ and ‘an intellectual context where space is frequently being imagined as a product of networks and relations’ is, increasingly, challenging ‘an older topography in which territoriality was dominant’. Such arguments might be expected to have far-reaching implications for how we consider language use. Instead of thinking about language use as being tied to particular communities and territories, we also ought to consider how it is ‘stretched’ in different ways or how, according to Deleuze and Guattari (1987: 7), a language ‘evolves by subterranean stems and flows, along river valleys and train tracks’. Similarly, networked interpretations of society and space speak of the need to consider the heterogeneity that characterises all places. Places—or communities—are

52

R. Jones

not uniform and there is a need to trace the lines of interaction that exist within them, and the way in which these interactions are influenced by institutions, things and practices of different kinds. There are indeed signs that these new ways of thinking about language use have informed the academic and policy literature on minority languages but I contend that their impact has been limited to two main areas of enquiry: the impact of (inter)national mobility on language use and the use of languages in virtual spaces. First, academic research has examined how individual and group mobilities are creating new opportunities and challenges with respect to language use. Work on ‘new speakers’ of minority languages illustrates how mobility—whether international or national— connects in complex ways with language reproduction and use ‘across time and space’ (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015; Jacquemet 2010) (although of course even ‘new speakers’ can be argued to acquire language in the relatively ‘fixed’ settings of, for instance, schools). Second, research has examined how the use of languages in more virtual spaces has challenged further the conventional connections made between languages and bounded spaces (e.g. Cunliffe et al. 2013a, b; Gibson 2015; Lackaff and Moner 2016). And yet, despite this welcome focus on the more fluid and networked geographies of language use, it is evident that much of the attention of policy-makers and language activists—at least in Wales—remains on territorially defined communities of Welsh language use. As well as being misplaced empirically, I claim that the continuing focus in language policy on Welsh as a community language has the potential to hamper attempts to promote the use of regional and minority languages such as Welsh. I demonstrate the veracity of these claims in the remaining paragraphs of this section. I begin by returning once more to the work of Mentrau Iaith. At present, there are twenty-three Mentrau Iaith in operation across Wales and, at face value, they represent a prime example of organisations created to promote the use of Welsh as a so-called community language (Mentrau Iaith Cymru 2016a: 3; b: 4). As the document that was published to celebrate their twenty-fifth anniversary noted, they represent ‘the first point of contact for communities in Wales with regard to various Welsh language related matters’ (Mentrau Iaith Cymru 2016a: 4).

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

53

Furthermore, there is no doubt that Mentrau Iaith all view the community use of Welsh as a key area of intervention. Support is provided for a range of Welsh-medium community-based activities: leisure opportunities; community education; public health projects; Welsh-language interest clubs; social care projects; concerts and nosweithiau llawen (variety concerts); supporting Welsh learners; family and community holidays; supporting and marketing community events (Mentrau Iaith Cymru 2016a: 4; for more detailed accounts, see www.mentergorllewin sirgar.cymru, accessed on 17 May 2017, http://www.mentrauiaith-gog ledd.com/conwy/downloads/cyflwyniad.pdf, accessed on 17 May 2017). While such initiatives reinforce our interpretation of the key role played by Mentrau Iaith in supporting Welsh as a community language, a more detailed analysis shows a more complicated and nuanced picture. It is evident that initiatives to support Welsh as a community language are not as prevalent in those Mentrau located in the more urbanised parts of Wales that lie beyond the boundaries of Y Fro Gymraeg. Menter Bro Morgannwg’s primary aim, for instance, is to ‘increase the use of the Welsh language in the Vale [of Glamorgan], and create opportunities for the county’s people to use the language outside school and work hours’ (Menter Bro Morgannwg 2014: 3). There is no reference to a promotion of Welsh as a community language here and this may be understandable, since the patterns of Welsh language use witnessed in these kinds of areas—where the overall density of Welsh speakers is relatively low—do not fit with the kinds of normative ideals traditionally associated with the notion of community language. Admittedly, Menter Bro Morgannwg refers to the need to ‘develop and provide opportunities to use the language in the community’ (ibid.: 8) as its first ‘field of operation’, yet the majority of the initiatives that it supports are not connected to specific communities (understood as defined and relatively enclosed socio-spatial entities). Gigs Bach y Fro/The Vale’s Small Gigs, for instance, seeks to support a calendar of Welsh-medium music, poetry and comedy nights in various locations across the Vale of Glamorgan. Similar themes become apparent when one examines the initiatives supported by Menter Caerdydd in the capital. Its mission is to ‘promote and increase the use of Welsh on a community basis in the capital’ (Menter Caerdydd 2016b: 4). The activities that it supports

54

R. Jones

include the successful annual Tafwyl festival, the Bwrlwm holiday play scheme and other accredited evening courses for Welsh learners (ibid.: 8–14). While these activities reflect good examples of how Mentrau Iaith in this part of Wales can support a social and non-school based use of Welsh, they do not necessarily equate to an everyday—understood in the literal sense of daily—use of Welsh, as Menter Caerdydd’s support of the showpiece annual Tafwyl festival shows. Nor, would I argue, do they necessarily equate with the idea of Welsh as a community language, at least in the more normative sense in which this idea has traditionally been understood. I would contend that the kind of Welsh-language use promoted by Mentrau Iaith, particularly outside the Welsh-speaking ‘heartland’, reflects an understanding of places or communities that are far more heterogeneous in character. Welsh language use here is more occasional, almost fleeting, occurring in the context of organised activities taking place in specific locations at designated times; a social use of Welsh that is more networked than conventional interpretations of community might lead us to expect. Perhaps the key problem here relates to the loaded nature of the term ‘community’and the way in which it speaks to a form of social (and linguistic) interaction that is sustained, almost organic in nature, taking place in enclosed, defined and relatively uniform communities (Delanty 2003). This is a form of Welsh-language use that Mentrau Iaith operating outside of the Welsh-speaking heartland would find difficult to recreate. If the above discussion begins to show how networked understandings of language might be used to interpret language policy and planning in Wales, the following two brief examples show how that particular agenda might be furthered. The first example I discuss highlights the embodied and networked nature of Welsh language use and demonstrates the ecological fallacy associated with deriving any conclusions about Welsh language use on the basis of aggregate statistics linked to the census and other data-collection exercises. Contra the kinds of assumptions that underpinned the work of individuals such as Rees (1950), communities are not homogeneous social and cultural entities. Nor do they represent a homogeneous set of language practices, as the information in Box 1 indicates.1

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

55

Box 1 Rhys Jones’ Language Practices on a Typical Working day Thursday. Wake up, prepare breakfast for the children. Take the children to school. Go to work just before 9. A meeting of the University’s Appeal Panel, 9-11. Lecturing for two hours on second-year module, 11-1. Meeting students to discuss dissertation ideas, 1-3. Fetch the children from school, 3.30. Help the children with their homework and prepare supper until 5.30. Take my son to a karate lesson, and shop in Morrisons during the lesson. Head home, put the children to bed. Read work for the following day. Key: Black: no language used; Red: Welsh; Green: English

As one can see from the information provided above, my language practices on a given working day are very mixed. Welsh is my first language. My three children speak Welsh and attend Welsh-medium schools in the town and, as a result, my conversations with them take place solely through the medium of Welsh. My wife, originally from Stoke on Trent in England, has learnt Welsh and uses it in the home and with friends. I teach Geography partly through the medium of Welsh and there are another eight Welsh speakers in the department where I work. The majority of my colleagues, however, do not speak Welsh and the majority of Aberystwyth University’s administration takes place through the medium of English. I can access some services in Welsh in the town where I live but the majority of them are in English. To what extent is an understanding of Welsh as a community language useful in interpreting my language practices? As can be seen from the above, although I live in the town of Aberystwyth, my language practices are not governed by that fact. One cannot, with any certainty, deduce anything from the fact that I live in the electoral division of Aberystwyth Bronglais, where 37% of the population could speak Welsh according to the 2011 census. More fundamentally, if asked, I would find it difficult to point to a Welsh-language community—existing as a bounded and relatively homogeneous territorial entity—that was applicable to me and to my family. Admittedly, the fact that I live in Aberystwyth has some influence over my language practices; but it does not determine them. It is, in fact, the networked connectionsbetween individuals and groups—within place—that influence my language practices (e.g. my home, my place of work, places where my children socialise, shops and so on). If this is the case, then such patterns point to the need for a

56

R. Jones

different kind of language policy. Instead of focusing on the notion of promoting Welsh as a community language, should language policy focus more attention on targeting those networks—and key nodes within those networks—to ensure that as many of them as possible can either remain or become Welsh in character? How might one change a young person’s karate lessons so that they could become Welsh-medium or bilingual? How might one enable meetings of the University’s Appeal Panel to be held in Welsh or bilingually? The key point here is that one begins to ask different kinds of questions and seek different kinds of solutions to the challenge of increasing Welsh language use when one shifts one’s attention from territorial to more networked frames of reference. The second brief example of how we might approach language use in non-territorial ways examines the issue of mobility; not mobility at the international and national scale (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015) but the smaller-scale mobilities associated with commuting. The maps of language ability that Welsh language planners work with tend to portray a static world in which Welsh speakers are anchored in place, whether that be the Lower Super Output Area, the ward or the local authority in which they live. And yet, there are alternative ways in which this data can be analysed that can help to provide a greater sense of the mobile lives that Welsh speakers live; and the implications of this mobility for understanding and promoting Welsh language use (Bellin et al. 1999). One possibility, here, revolves around using information from the census, and particularly the questions that distinguish between place of residence and place of work. Using this information, it is easy to produce maps to show those areas that—in a general sense—lose Welsh speakers during the day and other areas that gain Welsh speakers. These maps cannot show the specific movements of individuals (in other words, one cannot trace the movement of individuals from one Lower Super Output Area to another) but they do give a generic picture of the collective commuting patterns of Welsh speakers (statiaith.com, accessed on 29 November 2017). Two such maps are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. The first focuses on Cardiff and the surrounding area and gives a clear sense of how Welsh speakers commute from different communities in the Cardiff hinterland (areas in pink, which lose Welsh speakers) in order to work in the city, including to the University and Welsh Government offices

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

57

located in the Cathays area to the north of the city centre, along with the area surrounding Cardiff Bay (areas in all other colours).2 The second map is one of the areas between Carmarthen and Swansea in South Wales, which is ostensibly a region that straddles ‘Y Fro Gymraeg’ and other parts of Wales, where the language is less prevalent. The patterns of mobility are equally as significant in this respect, showing the commuting practices of Welsh speakers to urban centres such as Carmarthen and Swansea. These two maps convey effectively the daily mobilities of Welsh speakers, ones that encourage us to think differently about: (1) the location of the Welsh-speaking ‘heartland’, and (2) Welsh as a community language. There are obvious implications, in the first place, in relation to how we conceive of the Welsh-speaking heartland, particularly in the context of Fig. 2. What exactly does it mean to say that eastern Carmarthenshire—such as parts of the Gwendraeth and Aman Valleys— is part of the Welsh ‘heartland’ or ‘Y Fro Gymraeg’ when the numbers of speakers located there, on a normal working day, are much lower than the basic numbers recorded in the census would suggest? Should we be

Fig. 1 Mobility patterns of Welsh speakers in Cardiff and the surrounding area (by permission of Hywel Jones)

58

R. Jones

Fig. 2 Mobility practices of Welsh speakers in eastern Carmarthenshire (by permission of Hywel Jones)

thinking about a Welsh-speaking heartland that is bleeding or seeping outwards to surrounding areas on a daily basis? Instead of viewing it as a fixed territory, should we view it as a lung that expands and contracts on a daily basis? What does this expansion and contraction mean for the conceptual and territorial category of the Welsh-speaking heartland? Similar kinds of daily movement may well occur in other areas in the heartland as, for instance, Welsh speakers commute from rural Ceredigion to work in a relatively more Anglicised Aberystwyth or as Welsh speakers commute from the villages of Gwynedd to work in a relatively more Anglicised Bangor. By the same token, what do these maps have to say about Welsh as a community language? These maps show quite clearly that Welsh speakers—no more or no less than the speakers of any language—are not tied to the communities where they live. They are mobileand must move on a daily basis to commute to work, to attend schools and to access other services. Now, none of this is particularly surprising. And yet, it seems to be a realisation that tends to escape those advocating a conceptualisation of Welsh language use in which bounded and territorial communities are centre stage. As well as highlighting the conceptual

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

59

flaws that underpin the idea of Welsh as community language, these maps also encourage us to consider more practical questions. What kinds of policy or intervention would be most effective as a way of promoting language use in the kinds of mobile scenarios portrayed in these two maps (see the discussion in Lewis and Royles 2017)? To take a straightforward example, where should one seek to locate Welshmedium childcare in this kind of situation? In the communities where Welsh speakers reside or in those locations where Welsh speakers work? I acknowledge that asking these kinds of questions is contentious, painful even. And yet, to what extent is a continued adherence to the idea of Welsh as a community language—even in the face of evidence that contradicts some of the fundamental assumptions that underpin this idea—problematic, misplaced and ultimately counterproductive?

4

Conclusions

My aim in this chapter has been to broaden our interpretations of what might constitute a geography of language. I explored the implicit and more explicit geography associated with attempts to understand and promote minority language use, drawing on the specific example of Wales and the Welsh language. I showed how language policy in Wales has been predicated on a set of assumptions about language use, with the Welsh language being viewed as something that is used in communities that are territorially defined and relatively static in character. I proceeded to question the validity of such conceptualisations and highlighted, in particular, how more networked understandings of the nature of social and spatial life might enable us to approach the geography of language use in alternative ways. This is not to say that the spatial contexts within which the Welsh language is used are insignificant. Rather, there a need for an alternative geographical imagination, which emphasises the networked ways in which the people of Wales live their lives. Additionally, there may be a need for an alternative lexicon, with the loaded concept of community being replaced by a more neutral one describing a social or perhaps day-to-day use of Welsh. I hope that such a discussion has been enlightening and interesting at an academic level. But I have also hinted throughout that there

60

R. Jones

is a need to consider the real-world implications—for language policy and planning—of approaching minority language use in these different ways. To put it bluntly, is there a danger that seeking to preserve or, at worst, recreate coherent and cohesive Welsh-speaking communities fails to recognise the more complex and networked ways in which people now live their lives? More seriously, are those associated with language policy and planning in Wales guilty of misdirecting policy, public attention and resources to goals that are, ultimately, not consonant with the actual geographies of Welsh language use? Would efforts to promote Welsh-language use in Wales be more successful and effective—thus contributing to one of the key goals of the most recent Welsh Language Strategy (Welsh Government 2017a)—if they were directed towards the realities of current language use instead of being targeted at an idealised image of language use within ‘the community’? My empirical focus in this chapter has been on Wales and the Welsh language. Readers might well question whether the discussion holds any implications for those studying and seeking to promote regional and minority language in other geographical settings. There may well be something that is distinctive about Wales’s approach to promoting language use; something that might place it at odds with the patterns of language use in other countries. But even if this is the case, I maintain that there are fundamental lessons that can be learnt from my discussion of the specific case study of Wales. First, there are always geographies to language use; ones that reflect the actual language practices of speakers of regional and minority languages and others that reflect the way in which language practices are imagined or constructed. At the very least, those involved in language planning and policy must become aware of these actual and imagined geographies of language use, and of their impact on language policies and interventions of different kinds. Second, there is a need to consider the extent to which these geographies relate to each other. In Wales, as we saw, these actual and imagined geographies had the potential to diverge markedly from one another. The key issue that must be addressed, in this respect, is the extent to which language policy and planning can be skewed as a result of these sometimes unhelpful constructions; particularly when these constructions portray a pattern of language use that is divorced from contemporary realities. These are not

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

61

merely academic worries; they are quite literally matters of life or death for the minority languages concerned.

Notes 1. I am grateful to Kathryn Jones for showing an early example of a similar portrayal of language practices. 2. The maps are based on a simple comparison of the numbers of Welsh speakers in a particular Lower Super Output Area during the evening and weekends (place of residence) and during the day (place of work).

References Aitchison, J., and H. Carter. 1987. The Welsh language in Cardiff: A quiet revolution. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 12: 482–492. Allen, J. 2004. The whereabouts of power: Politics, government and space. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography 86: 19–32. Amin, A. 2004. Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography 86: 33–44. Amin, A., D. Massey, and N. Thrift. 2003. Decentering the Nation: A Radical Approach to Regional Inequality. London: Catalyst. BBC Cymru Fyw. 2017. Llywodraeth Cymru yn ‘diystyru’r’ Gymraeg. https:// www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/42369802. Accessed 22 October 2020. Bellin, W., S. Farrell, G. Higgs, and S. White. 1999. The social context of Welsh-medium bilingual education in anglicised areas. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 173–193. Bowie, F. 1993. Wales from within: Conflicting interpretations of Welsh identity. In Inside European Identities, ed. S. MacDonald, 167–193. Oxford: Berg. Brooks, S. 2001. Hawl Foesol i Oroesi. Barn 463: 6–8. Cunliffe, D., D. Morris, and C. Prys. 2013. Investigating the differential use of Welsh in young speakers’ networks: A comparison of communication in face-to-face settings, in electronic texts and on social networking sites.

62

R. Jones

In Social Media and Minority Languages: Convergence and the Creative Industries, ed. E.H.G. Jones and E. Uribe-Jongbloed, 75–86. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cunliffe, D., D. Morris, and C. Prys. 2013. Young bilinguals’ language behaviour in social networking sites: The use of Welsh on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18: 339–361. Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg. 2010. Cymunedau Cymraeg Cynaliadwy: Cynllun Adfywio Cymunedau Penllyn. Aberystwyth: Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg. Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg. n.d. Ymateb Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg i ymgynghoriad Cyngor Ynys Môn ar ad-drefnu ysgolion yn ardal Llangefni. https://cymdeithas.cymru/Ymateb_Llangefni. Accessed 22 October 2020. Cymuned. 2004. Datganiad y Fro Gymraeg. https://web.archive.org/web/200 81209044046/http://cymuned.net:80/blog/?cat=2. Accessed 11 May 2018. Daily Post. 2019. School closure plans to be halted amid concern over council decisions, 3 May. Davies, C. 1973. Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg. In The Welsh Language Today, ed. M. Stephens, 248–263. Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer. Davies, E., and A.D. Rees (eds.). 1960. Welsh Rural Communities. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Delanty, G. 2003. Community. London: Routledge. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Evas, J., D. Mac Giolla Chríost, C.H. Williams, and C. Campbell. 2013. A Review of the Work of Mentrau Iaith, Language Action Plans and the Aman Tawe Language Promotion Scheme. https://gov.wales/review-work-mentrauiaith-language-action-plans-and-aman-tawe-language-promotion-scheme. Accessed 15 February 2021. Frankenberg, R. 1966. Communities in Britain: Social Life in Town and Country. London: Penguin. Gallent, N., A. Mace, and M. Tewdwr-Jones. 2002. Delivering affordable housing through planning: Explaining variable policy usage across rural England and Wales. Planning Practice and Research 17: 465–483. Gibson, M. 2015. A framework for measuring the presence of minority languages in cyberspace. In Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, 61–70. http://ifapcom.ru/ files/2015/khanty/yak_mling_2015.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2021. Gruffudd, P. 1994. Back to the land: Historiography, rurality and the nation in interwar Wales. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19: 61–77.

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

63

Harvey, D. 1992. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Jacquemet, M. 2010. Language and transnational spaces. In Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 1: Theories and Methods, ed. P. Auer and J.E. Schmidt, 50–69. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Jenkins, D. 1960. A study of a coastal village in South Cardiganshire. In Welsh Rural Communities, ed. E. Davies and A.D. Rees, 12–23. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Jobbins, S. 2001. D. J. Barn 461: 16–17. Johnstone, B. 2010. Language and geographical space. In Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 1: Theories and Methods, ed. P. Auer and J.E. Schmidt, 1–17. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Jones, J.R. 1966. Prydeindod . Llandybïe: Llyfrau’r Dryw. Jones, R., and C. Fowler. 2007. Where is Wales? Narrating the territories and borders of the Welsh linguistic nation. Regional Studies 41: 89–101. Jones, R., and C. Fowler. 2008. Placing the Nation: Aberystwyth and the Reproduction of Welsh Nationalism. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Jones, R., and H. Lewis. 2019. New Geographies of Language: Language, Culture and Politics in Wales. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, R., and P. Merriman. 2012. Network nation. Environment and Planning A 44: 937–953. Jones Hughes, T. 1960. The social geography of a small region in the Llyn Peninsula. In Welsh Rural Communities, ed. E. Davies and A.D. Rees, 121– 184. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Lackaff, D., and W.J. Moner. 2016. Local languages: Global networks: Mobile design for minority language users. In SIGDOC ’16 Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. https://dl. acm.org/doi/10.1145/2987592.2987612. Accessed 15 February 2021. Lewis, H., and E. Royles. 2017. Language revitalisation and social transformation: Evaluating the language policy frameworks of sub-state governments in Wales and Scotland. Policy and Politics 46 (3): 503–529. Llywelyn, E. 1976. Adfer a’r Fro Gymraeg. Pontypridd: Cymreig Cyf. Luo, W., J. Hartmann, J. Liu, and P. Huang. 2007. Geographic patterns of Zhuang (tai) kinship terms in Guangzi and border areas: A GIS analysis of language and culture change. Social and Cultural Geography 8: 575–596. Martin, L., and A. Secor. 2014. Towards a post-mathematical topology. Progress in Human Geography 38: 420–438.

64

R. Jones

Massey, D. 1991. A global sense of place. Marxism Today, June 24–29. Menter Bro Morgannwg. 2014. Menter Bro Morgannwg: Adroddiad Blynyddol 2014. Cardiff: Menter Bro Morgannwg. Menter Caerdydd. 2013. Review of the Social Use of the Welsh Language in the Vale of Glamorgan. Cardiff: Menter Caerdydd. Menter Caerdydd. 2016a. Menter Caerdydd: Proffil Iaith 2016 . Cardiff: Menter Caerdydd. Menter Caerdydd. 2016b. Menter Caerdydd: Adroddiad Blynyddol 2015 –16 . Cardiff: Menter Caerdydd. Mentrau Iaith Cymru. 2016a. Y Mentrau Iaith: 25 Mlynedd o Gefnogi’r Gymraeg. Wrexham: Mentrau Iaith Cymru. Mentrau Iaith Cymru. 2016b. Mentrau Iaith Cymru: Adroddiad Blynyddol 2015 –16 . Wrexham: Mentrau Iaith Cymru. O’Rourke, B., and J. Walsh. 2015. New speakers of Irish: Shifting boundaries across time and space. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 63–83. Owen, T.M. 1960. Chapel and community in Glan-llyn, Merioneth. In Welsh Rural Communities, ed. E. Davies and A.D. Rees, 185–248. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Phillips, D. 1998. Trwy Ddulliau Chwyldro: Hanes Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg 1962–1992. Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer. Pinasco, J.P., and L. Romanelli. 2006. Coexistence of languages is possible. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 361: 355–360. Rees, A.D. 1950. Life in a Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Reynolds, D., and M. Jones. 2007. Small School Closures in Wales: New Evidence. Cardiff: Institute of Welsh Affairs. Schrambke, R. 2010. Language and space: Traditional dialect geography. In Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 1: Theories and Methods, ed. P. Auer and J.E. Schmidt, 87–106. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Stauffer, D., and C. Schulze. 2007. Monte Carlo simulation of the rise and fall of languages. International Journal of Modern Physics C: Computational Physics and Physical Computation 16: 781–787. Tewdwr-Jones, M., N. Gallent, and A. Mace. 2002. Second Homes and Holiday Homes and the Land Use Planning System. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Government. 2003. Iaith Pawb: A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.

The Geography of Minority Language Use …

65

Welsh Government. 2012. A Living Language: A Language for Living. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2013. Increasing the Number of Communities Where Welsh is the Main Language: Report of the Task and Finish Group. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2015. Welsh Language Use in the Community. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2017a. Cymraeg 2050: A Million Speakers. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2017b. Technical Advice Note 20: Planning and the Welsh Language. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government/Welsh Language Commissioner. 2015. Welsh Language Use in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Government and Welsh Language Commissioner. Welsh Language Commissioner. 2013. Study of Local Planning Policies and the Welsh Language. Cardiff: Welsh Language Commissioner. Welsh Language Commissioner. 2016. The Position of the Welsh Language 2012–2015. Cardiff: Welsh Language Commissioner. Williams, C.H. (ed.). 1988. Language in Geographic Context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Williams, C.H. (ed.). 1991. Linguistic Minorities, Society and Territory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Withers, C.W.J. 1988. Gaelic Scotland: The Transformation of a Culture Region. London: Routledge. Zelinsky, W., and C.H. Williams. 1988. The mapping of language in North America and the British Isles. Progress in Human Geography 12: 337–368.

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked Individualism: From Social Networks to Digital Breathing Spaces Daniel Cunliffe

1

Introduction

Since the mid-twentieth century, societies around the globe have been undergoing a digital revolution, of similar significance to the preceding agricultural and industrial revolutions. This revolution is driven by significant advances in information and communications technology (ICT). Computer processors have become more powerful, smaller and cheaper. The Apple iPhone 4, released in 2004, had the same processing power as a Cray-2 supercomputer from the mid-1980s (Routley 2017). Data storage is available in greater capacity, smaller physical format and at lower cost. Data is now often stored in the cloud, via services such as Microsoft’s OneDrive, Google Drive or Apple’s iCloud, providing access from any location across a variety of devices. Networks have greater D. Cunliffe (B) School of Computing and Mathematics, University of South Wales, Trefforest, Wales, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_3

67

68

D. Cunliffe

capacity, are more widely available and access is cheaper. This has enabled new services including streaming video and audio, for example Netflix and Spotify, and networked devices, such as smart speakers. Public and private data is now typically produced digitally, allowing it to be easily shared, copied, reused, sampled and stored for the long term. The availability of vast quantities of digital data, including personal data about individuals, their behaviours and their social networks, is in turn facilitating advances in Big Data analytics and Artificial Intelligence. The emergence of social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube has provided new opportunities for the creation and maintenance of social networks, allowed the creation of personal networked audiences, and provided extended reach, allowing individuals to reach audiences in the tens of millions. The smartphone is arguably the perfect expression of these advances. It can provide access to processing, software applications, data, services etc. which are always available and always on. Smartphones are also relatively cheap, which means they are widely owned, and highly portable, which means they are deeply integrated into many people’s lives. More economically developed countries which are able to take advantage of these advances are entering an information age, characterised by the emergence of knowledge economies and information societies (Benkler 2006; Castells 2010). Both knowledge economies and information societies are predicated on the existence of skilled, digitally literate citizens who are able to create, manipulate and understand digital information for economic and social purposes. This chapter examines some of the effects that these changes might be having on minority language communities and on minority language speakers. In particular it considers the effect of changes in social networks and the increased use of social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, to create and maintain those social networks. Based on Fishman’s notion of breathing spaces for minority languages (Fishman 1991: 58), it explores the possibility of creating digital breathing spaces on social media platforms. The chapter examines in detail the necessary characteristics of digital breathing spaces and the challenges that may be faced in creating and maintaining such spaces.

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

2

69

Social Networks and Networked Individuals

Social networks are networks of social relationships between people (see for example, Milroy 1987; Kadushin 2011; Scott 2017). The interpersonal ties that make up a social network can be of different types (e.g. work colleagues, family, friends) and of different strengths (e.g. strong ties between close family members, weak ties between members of a fan community). Social networks are of differing sizes (the number of individuals in the network) and of differing density (how interconnected all the individual members of the network are). Social networks can provide important sites for minority language use and maintenance, but also for language shift, by which speakers start using the majority language in preference to the minority language. A social network may involve individuals with different linguistic repertoires, competences and attitudes. Using one language rather than another may be a necessity, may be established as a social norm, or may bring advantages of different kinds in certain social networks. The relative advantage of one language over another in a social network is dynamic and may be affected by a range of factors, from changes in an individual’s life, through to community-level responses to higher-level social, political or economic changes (Milroy 2001). The use or non-use of a minority language within different social networks can be seen as an indicator of the vitality of that language, both at a community and individual speaker level. There are a number of ways in which social networks where a minority language is used can support minority language use by individual speakers and the wider speaker community. Social networks are important for the development of language skills (Morris 2007; Ó Riagáin et al. 2008), provide support for speakers and a way of resisting external pressure (Li 2000; Milroy 2001). The use of a minority language in a social network can help establish and reinforce the normality of minority language use. Social networks with high levels of vitality can make membership of the language community appear more attractive (Lee 2006) and the network may play a role in enhancing an ethnic identity associated with the language (Lanza and Svendsen 2007).

70

D. Cunliffe

Traditionally, social networks tended to be shaped by physical location and proximity. Because people tended to live and socialise close to their place of work, there was little differentiation between types of social networks (work colleagues were often family or friends) and the networks were densely interconnected (everyone knew everyone else). However, social networks have been changing over time, driven by a number of factors including increased access to affordable transportation and ICT (Rainie and Wellman 2012). Social networks have become more personal, more differentiated and more specialised, often with sparse, loose ties between a diverse and geographically separated membership (Wellman et al. 1988). While these new types of social network are realised in different ways, ICT generally, and social media platforms (also referred to as social network/ing sites or social media) in particular, provide a powerful tool for their creation and maintenance (Wellman et al. 2003). These online networks can still support strong ties and may include family and friends who know each other offline. One commonly observed effect of these networks is a strengthening of these existing close social relationships, particularly with people who were previously hard to reach, for example due to distance (Benkler 2006). The second commonly observed effect is an increase in limited-purpose, loose relationships (Benkler 2006). These networks are typically supporting a specialised relationship (for example, a shared interest), with weak ties between people who do not know each other offline (Wellman and Gulia 1999). The membership of these networks is typically more dynamic and more geographically widespread than that found in traditional social networks, and these online networks tend to have a larger number of members. Rainie and Wellman (2012) describe a ‘triple revolution’ brought about by changes in the nature of people’s social networks, the internet and mobile connectedness. They suggest that this has led to the emergence of a new ‘social operating system’; a new way for people to connect, communicate and exchange information. At the heart of this new social operating system is the ‘networked individual’. The networked individual’s offline and online life is so closely integrated that it is meaningless to make the distinction. Supported by technology, the networked individual operates across multiple social networks, often simultaneously

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

71

and often in real-time. The networked individual has a ‘continuous presence and pervasive awareness of others in the network’ (Rainie and Wellman 2012: 12). Physical separation by space or time is no longer a significant barrier. Communities now exist as ‘spatially dispersed, differentiated personal networks’ (Rainie and Wellman 2012: 146). Social networking platforms, such as Facebook and TikTok, serve to make these social networks more salient and facilitate the sharing and capturing of increased amounts of information. The nodes in a social network on one of these platforms are typically some form of profile representing an individual or sometimes an organisation or brand. The vertices which link the nodes represent a relationship of some kind, whether these are Facebook’s ‘friends’, Twitter’s ‘followers’ or LinkedIn’s ‘connections’. The word used to describe the relationship can provide some insight into the intended purpose of the social networking platform. Facebook is intended to support social connections between friends, whereas LinkedIn is intended to support professional relationships between colleagues. Using these platforms, individuals create meaningful networks that provide emotional or functional value. This value is realised through the content that is created and shared between people in the network. Content is shared across the relationships, either broadcast to the entire network, narrowcast to a particular subnetwork or sent to a specific individual. While most social networking platforms support a mix of different media content, there is often one which is predominant. For example, Twitter is predominantly text-based, Facebook is predominantly text and image-based, Instagram and SnapChat are predominantly imagebased, TikTok, Twitch and YouTube are primarily video-based. Different social media platforms often favour or support a specific form of the media content which predominates. For example, TikTok videos are short form, whereas YouTube videos are typically longer form. Twitter text is short form, whereas Medium text is typically longer form. Another point of difference is between those where the content creation is essentially immediate, such as Twitch or Twitter, and those that typically involve greater planning and production, such as a long-form YouTube video. Platforms generally provide an opportunity to give feedback or

72

D. Cunliffe

comment on other people’s posts. Many platforms support quick, oneclick responses; for example on Facebook you can ‘Like’, ‘Love’, ‘Care’, ‘Haha’, ‘Wow’, ‘Sad’ or ‘Angry’ in response to someone’s post, whereas on Twitter you can only ‘Like’. Some platforms also provide a quick, oneclick mechanism for resharing other people’s content, such as Twitter’s ‘Retweet’. Initial concerns that early, predominantly text-based, social media platforms would lead to the exclusion of languages without a formalised writing system have been to some extent mitigated, partly by the wide range of media now supported and partly by the emergence of informal language varieties, commonly known as text talk (Crystal 2008). However, a lack of confidence and concerns about lack of proficiency can still present barriers to using a minority language on social media platforms, particularly in written form (Mentrau Iaith Cymru 2014). The increasing use of ICT and multimodal communication has challenged traditional notions of what it means to be literate (Crystal 2008; Kral 2012). The ability to communicate effectively through technology requires new, as well as traditional, reading and writing skills (Baker et al. 2010). Indeed it has been suggested (Carew et al. 2015) that users with little or no literacy are able to operate multimodal digital interfaces due to their spatially orientated and icon-based interfaces.

3

The Challenge of Technology

The impact of ICT on minority language communities will vary due to differences in the extent to which technology is taken up by, and embedded in, each community. The impact is likely to be greatest in more developed regions where the underpinning infrastructure is robust and ICT is widely used. Among the typical benefits claimed are that ICT provides a new domain for minority language use, it connects minority language speakers, and there are affective benefits for the language through an association with modernity. While the potential role of ICT in maintaining minority languages has been recognised for some time (e.g. Crystal, 2000), there is concern that many minority languages are facing

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

73

a ‘digital time-bomb’ (Hicks et al. 2018) and ‘digital language death’ (Kornai 2013) as speakers of those languages are increasingly unable to use them in emerging knowledge economies and information societies. This has led to interest in defining and measuring digital language vitality (e.g. Kornai 2013; Gibson 2015; Ceberio et al. 2018). Digital language vitality can be broadly understood as the extent to which a language is used as a means of communication in the digital domain. Ceberio Berger et al. (2018) identify three types of digital vitality indicators: Digital Capacity—the extent to which a language has digital infrastructure and technological support; Digital Presence and Use—how, and how much, a language is used digitally, particularly for the creation of content; and Digital Performance—the range of purposes for which a language is used digitally. While it is relatively easy to determine the availability of public digital artefacts, such as language resources (e.g. online dictionaries), content (such as Wikipedia), services (e.g. e-government services) and presence on social media platforms, it is significantly more difficult to assess the use of these public artefacts and the effects of this on minority language use. It is also difficult to assess the use of language in more private digital spaces, such as in emails, messaging applications, texts and private spaces on social media platforms. Tools for measuring digital language vitality may be useful for surveying the current situation, identifying gaps in provision and assessing change over time. However, digital vitality may be implicitly benchmarked against majority languages or some notion of an idealised path of digital ascent. Often, the use of a minority language on social media platforms is seen as a first step towards more widespread use of the language in ICT (Gibson 2015). In practice, however, different language communities will adopt different technologies, to different extents, in a different sequence and for different purposes (e.g. Jones 2010, 2017; Leggio 2020). ICT is also constantly developing, meaning the benchmark is constantly being redefined. Inappropriate benchmarking may result in a lack of focus on language community needs and scarce resources being expended on developing digital artefacts that are not useful to or valued by the community.

74

D. Cunliffe

ICT typically amplifies the dominance of the majority language. While it may provide opportunities for the minority language community in terms of connecting speakers and the production, dissemination and consumption of minority language content, it will typically provide the same opportunity to connect with non-speakers and to produce, disseminate and consume majority language content. Given the relative size (in terms of wealth, power and number of speakers) of the majority language community, using ICT in the majority language provides a greater opportunity to connect with a wider range of people, a greater audience for content production and a greater source of content to be consumed and shared. Newly developed ICT applications are almost always initially only available in a few, large, majority languages. Minority languages are always under-resourced when compared to the majority language. Equivalent minority language applications may become available only after a delay, or may never become available. The significance of the nonavailability of a minority language within an application will vary greatly between different types of application. Most social media platforms were not originally available with minority language interfaces, but this did not stop people creating and sharing content in their minority language on these platforms. Where a multiplayer online computer game provides all its content only in a majority language, there may still be opportunities to use a minority language when communicating between players, either within the game (for example in Guild chat areas) or in backchannels (where a separate application is used for communication while playing the game, for example Discord). The non-availability of a minority language in more recent applications which rely on spoken language to interact with the application, for example virtual assistants such as Siri, Alexa and Google Assistant, is more significant. This technology is increasingly embedded in devices, such as computers and smart phones, smart speakers, appliances, cars and wearable technology. ICT also embodies a particular cultural perspective and set of values. The idea of unrestricted information sharing through a social media platform may seem perfectly natural in some cultures, but would be inappropriate in a culture where information sharing was traditionally selective, based on gender, age and cultural status (Featherstone 2013).

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

75

While in some cultural contexts a mobile phone is a personal, private device, in others it may be a shared resource, used by several members of the same family, for instance. Younger speakers, who may have weaker minority language skills, will often be early adopters of new ICT. Given that these may only be available in the majority language and are likely to reinforce the dominance of the majority language, this may undermine the perceived value and relevance of the minority language to their lives (Eisenlohr 2004). Older speakers, who often have stronger minority language skills, may be late or non-adopters of new ICT. When they do adopt them, their use may be more limited than that of younger speakers. This may result in an overall lack of depth and diversity in the language of digital content that is produced. Featherstone (2013) notes concerns about a ‘generational divide’ in which the cultural authority of older people is reduced and the importance of traditional knowledge and values among younger people is diminished. Data for 2019 from the UK communications services regulator, Ofcom, illustrates some of the differences that might be found in the use of ICT between younger and older people in a developed region (Ofcom 2020a, b, c). While rates of mobile phone use among older adults is high (Table 1), rates of internet usage tail off significantly in the older age groups, with less than half of the 75+ age group using the internet. There is also significant ownership of both tablets and smartphones among children (Table 2) and use of the internet is higher among 3– 4 year olds than among 75+ year olds. In 2019, half of 10 year olds owned a smartphone, with ownership doubling between the ages of 9 (23%) and 10 (50%), which Ofcom Table 1 Mobile phone and internet usage among older adults in UK Age

Use a mobile phone (%)

Do not use the internet (%)

55–64 65–74 75+

95 88 75

17 30 51

Source Ofcom (2020c)

76

D. Cunliffe

Table 2 Tablet and smartphone and mobile phone ownership and internet use by children in UK Have own Have own Have own smartphone mobile phone Use the Age tablet (%) (%) (%) internet (%) 3–4 5–7 8–11 12–15

24 37 49 59

0 5 37 83

0 1 6 2

57 77 92 99

Source Ofcom (2020a, b)

Table 3 Social media profile ownership in UK Age

Have a social media profile (%)

3–4 4–7 8–11 12–15 16–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75+

1 3 19 70 95 93 88 82 58 39 21

Source Ofcom (2020b, c)

suggests marks ‘an important milestone in children’s digital independence’. Given that 45% of 8–11 year olds and 74% of 12–15 year olds who own a mobile phone are allowed to take it to bed with them, it is clear that children are being allowed a high degree of autonomy. Social media sites are popular among young people, with a 12–15 year old being more likely to have a profile on a social media platform than a 55+ year old (Table 3). The social media platforms most used by children (3–15) were WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram. Newer platforms such as TikTok and Twitch were gaining popularity, with TikTok being used by 13% of 12–15 year olds and Twitch by 5%. Among adult (16+ ) social media users, those aged 65+ were more likely than average to identify Facebook as their main social media platform, while those aged 16–24

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

77

were less likely than average to do so and were more likely than average to select Instagram or Snapchat. Only 2% of adult social media users had an account on TikTok, though this rises to 8% for 16–24 year olds. The majority of children aged 3–15 watched YouTube. Children between the ages of 8 and 15 preferred to watch YouTube than subscription video-on-demand (e.g. Netflix, NowTV, Amazon Prime Video) or TV (BBC, ITV, Channel 4/5 or Sky). Vloggers and YouTube influencers were watched by 27% of 8–11 year olds and 41% of 12–15 year olds, with Ofcom (2020a) reporting an increasing number watching peer-topeer or local influencers, suggesting an interest in people in their local area, or with similar interests to themselves. The majority of children aged 8–15 played online games. The picture that emerges is one in which young children in the UK have both the technology and the digital skills to create online social networks, to consume and produce digital content and to participate in a variety of online settings. These children appear to have a significant degree of autonomy in these digital activities. These new ICT, dominated by majority languages, are increasingly prevalent in the home and interpersonal and family relationships, domains that are considered significant for minority language maintenance. These technologies are increasingly intimate, increasingly private, increasingly portable and increasingly on. For many people, ICT are deeply embedded in their daily lives, their relationships and the performance of their identity. How minority language communities respond to the challenge of ICT is likely to be a significant factor in their medium-term survival.

4

Online Social Networks

Offline social networks typically relate to relationships in distinct domains, e.g. work, family and social. These domains are often associated with particular activities and places. Communication is usually with an individual or a few members of the network. It is rarely, if ever, to all members of the network or to members of different networks at the same time. Particular networks may, in some cases, operate exclusively through

78

D. Cunliffe

the medium of the minority language, others may be mixed or operate exclusively through the medium of the majority language. Because there is little overlap in the membership, each network is relatively distinct and there is little direct linguistic impact from one to another. For example, a person may use a minority language in a network of family members, and a majority language in a network of work colleagues. Because there is little overlap of membership between the two networks, there is no direct pressure from the language attitudes and norms of the work colleagues network on the family network. Online social networks often include several networks from different domains on the same digital platform. For example, a person who uses Facebook may have a mix of family, friends, work colleagues, people who share a common interest, or even strangers in their network of ‘friends’. While it may be possible to distinguish the different domain networks, more usually they form a single, undifferentiated, composite network with no defined borders between the different domain networks. Communication is usually with all network members on the platform, rather than to a particular domain network (e.g. family) or individual. This led to concerns over ‘context collapse’—the idea that the distinction between the different domain networks would be lost and the composite network could only be addressed as a single audience (Wesch 2009; Marwick and Boyd 2011). The composite set of domain networks belonging to an individual minority language speaker on a particular digital platform is more likely to contain a mix of speakers and nonspeakers, even if particular domain networks use only the minority language. In a situation of composite networks containing members from different domains, the lack of separation may lead to an overall dominance by the majority language as it becomes the norm. For example, if a person uses a minority language in a network of family members, and a majority language in a network of work colleagues, their online social network, say on Facebook, may contain members of both networks. The fact that the composite online social network contains work colleagues, who perhaps do not speak the minority language, may influence the language behaviour of that person and they may use the majority language in the online social network out of courtesy. This might result in the majority language becoming the norm for

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

79

online (and possibly, offline) communication with their family network. Their change in language behaviour and the association of the majority language with technology may in turn influence language behaviour among (particularly younger) members of the family network. Despite the concerns around context collapse and the effects of audience accommodation, in practice minority language speakers (and other multilinguals) demonstrate a range of sophisticated language behaviours similar to those they deploy in offline situations (e.g. Cunliffe et al. 2013; Johnson 2013; Jongbloed-Faber 2015; Tagg and Seargeant 2014). A range of different intrinsic and extrinsic motivations underlies the use (or non-use) of a minority language on social media platforms (Ní Bhroin 2013). Even when domains are not separated, and the composite network contains both speakers and non-speakers of the minority language, an individual may use the minority language to target particular domains within the composite network (e.g. to send a message that is only really relevant to family members), or may simply use the language naturally without being concerned that not everyone in the network will understand it. Indeed, Lillehaugen (2016, 2019) suggests that there may be benefits in using a minority language on social media platforms, even when there is little or no audience. Another concern expressed about online social networks is that they act as filter bubbles or echo chambers in which people only associate with other people who are like them and who share the same views. This leads to reinforcement of the person’s existing views and a lack of exposure to alternative views. While the algorithms used on social network platforms tend to encourage this by using similarity as a basis for making recommendations for people to follow or content to view (Nikolov et al. 2015; Davies 2018), it is important to recognise that people’s offline social networks will often demonstrate a high degree of homogeneity (McPherson et al. 2001). There is some limited evidence that minority language speakers on social media platforms are more likely to follow someone else if they also use the minority language (Jones et al. 2013). This may be considered a desirable outcome in terms of creating social networks among minority language speakers. In some cases, domain separation is supported by the use of different platforms for networks from different domains, e.g. LinkedIn for the

80

D. Cunliffe

professional domain, Facebook for the social domain and WhatsApp for the family domain. In some case, users may make use of the facilities provided by a platform to define separate domains, for example, Facebook ‘Friends’ might be divided into ‘Work friends’, ‘Close friends’ and ‘Family’. Communication can then be targeted at members of a particular domain network on that platform. This separation of different domains makes it more likely that the minority language will be maintained in domain networks where it is used. Online social networks also offer the possibility for the creation of networks in which the shared minority language itself forms the basis of the relationship, supporting weak ties between people who may not otherwise know each other. These could include networks created within a platform such as Twitter (Jones et al. 2013), or private spaces such as Facebook Groups (Honeycutt and Cunliffe 2010). Alternatively, this could be provided by an exclusively minority-language social media platform, such as Abairleat (http://www.abairleat.com), a messaging app designed to facilitate social engagement in the Irish language, Maes-e (http://maes-e.com), a Welsh-language message board site, or Clecs (https://www.clecs.cymru/), a Welsh-language social media platform similar to Twitter. This may be particularly significant if there is a low density of speakers or speakers who form a diaspora. Networks of this type may also serve to create, or maintain a sense of language community. From the perspective of language maintenance and promotion, the outcome of a minority language being used in online social networks should be to encourage wider language use (Cormack 2007). While this can be seen as the ultimate goal and the most desirable outcome, it is important to recognise that there are other forms of engagement that can bring benefit to the minority language community. These can be loosely categorised into seven levels of engagement, which describe how a person reacts when they receive a message in a minority language through one of their social networks on a social media platform. 1. Receive—receives the message, but does not recognise the language 2. Recognise—receives the message, recognises the language, but does not understand it

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

81

3. Like—receives the message, recognises the language, understands the gist, reacts in an affirmatory non-linguistic manner 4. Share—receives the message, recognises the language, understands at least the gist, reacts in an affirmatory manner by propagating the message through their own networks 5. Reproduce—receives the message, recognises the language, understands the content, copies and reuses the content in a new message which they propagate through their own networks 6. Reply—receives the message, recognises the language, understands the content, replies with a new message in the language 7. Create—receives the message, recognises the language, understands the content, influenced by the presence of a message in the minority language creates a new original message in the language which they propagate through their own networks. These different levels of engagement require increasing language competence, increasing digital literacy and increasing resources. They also represent an increasing recognition and assertion of the value and right of the minority language to be used in that network. Even levels 1 and 2, in which the receiver cannot understand the message, serve to help define the network as a multilingual space.

5

From Online Social Networks to Digital Breathing Spaces

The richly multilingual spaces potentially provided by online social networks would appear to offer significant opportunities for translanguaging and multilingual practices which would allow minority language speakers to beneficially draw on their full linguistic repertoire. In practice, however, many online social networks are not linguistically inclusive or linguistically tolerant spaces. The introduction of any non-norm language into an online social network can provoke a variety of responses, including rejection and hostility (Axelsson et al. 2003). The introduction of a minority language in particular may provoke mockery (Cunliffe

82

D. Cunliffe

2019: 457), demands for translation (Cunliffe 2019: 458) and accusations of political motivation (Fernandez 2001). A number of researchers (e.g. Cenoz and Gorter 2019; O’Rourke 2019) have questioned whether multilingual practices and translanguaging are necessarily beneficial for the maintenance of minority languages. This critical reconsideration of translanguaging and multilingual practices has led to renewed interest in the provision of separate spaces for minority language use, for example in the context of education (Cenoz and Gorter 2017). Discussions around these separate spaces often draw on Fishman’s notion of the need to provide ‘physical breathing spaces’ for minority language communities (Fishman 1991: 58). Fishman describes these spaces as ‘demographically concentrated space’ in which the minority language is ‘predominant and unharassed’ and which provide ‘potential oases of authenticity and centres of increased cultural self-regulation’ (Fishman 1991: 58, 59). The potential for applying the concept of breathing spaces to online networks on social media platforms has been recognised by researchers (e.g. Belmar and Glass 2019; Cunliffe 2019). The concept of breathing spaces may have a number of different applications in the digital domain. First, it can be used as an interpretive lens for examining existing online networks. Second, it can provide a model for deliberative intervention on social media platforms. Third, it can be used as an indication of digital language vitality, for example by considering the number, vitality and diversity of digital breathing spaces available in a particular minority language. Given the potential for social media platforms to provide breathing spaces for minority languages, there is a need to consider how the concept can be operationalised. Depending on the purpose underlying the application of the concept, there might be a need for definitions, socio-technical requirements and ways of measuring vitality and diversity. Belmar and Glass (2019) have made an important contribution to the definition of digital breathing spaces. Based on their initial work and drawing on Fishman’s original characterisation of breathing spaces, a closer definition of digital breathing spaces can be outlined:

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

83

1. A defined or bounded space exists This appears to be axiomatic, but still leaves open the question of how the space is defined, how permeable the boundaries are, under what conditions the boundaries can be crossed, who controls the boundaries and so on. 2. This space is occupied by people who interact with each other Cunliffe (2019: 467) suggests that parallels can be drawn between Fishman’s breathing spaces and three types of ‘language-empathetic social media enclaves’—networks within majority language social media platforms, minority language social media platforms and aggregators of minority language content and accounts. Networks within majority language social media platforms would include, for example, groups on Facebook where a minority language is used (e.g. Honeycutt and Cunliffe 2010). These have the potential to act as breathing spaces. Minority language social media platforms are social media platforms designed to be used exclusively or predominantly in a specific minority language, such as the Welsh-language social media platform Clecs. It has been argued that this type of platform may be beneficial in some language contexts (Lackaff and Moner 2016). These can be seen as deliberate attempts to create breathing spaces. Examples of aggregators of minority language content and accounts would include Blogiadur (http://www.blogiadur.com), which aggregates content from Welshlanguage blogs (Cunliffe and Honeycutt 2008) and Indigenous Tweets (http://indigenoustweets.com), which provides a directory of people who tweet in a particular language (Scannell 2011; Ní Bhroin 2015). These aggregators do not provide the typical features of social networking sites, such as the creation of a personal profile and a network of social connections. While networks within majority language social media platforms and minority language social media platforms are possible ways in which digital breathing spaces could be realised, it is not clear that aggregators are. While the minority language may be predominant and unharassed

84

D. Cunliffe

and aggregators may be of value to the minority language community, they lack the participants and interaction implied by Fishman’s characterisation. 3. The minority language is predominant in interactions within this space While this characteristic may also appear to be axiomatic, the definition of ‘predominance’ bears further scrutiny. Belmar and Glass (2019: 14) suggest that a virtual community can be considered to be a breathing space under certain conditions: (a) the minority language is the only language used in the community; (b) the minority language is the preferred language of the community, although the use of other languages is accepted; this is often the case in communities of learners where the dominant language and/or English are sometimes used; (c) the minority language (its sociolinguistic context, grammar, lexicon, etc.) is the subject of discussion, especially if these discussions take place in the minority language. In cases (a) and (b), predominance is defined in terms of actual language use. The minority language is predominant simply because it is used most frequently in interactions within the community. Due to the code switching that is a natural feature of many minority language speakers’ language behaviour, case (a) may be relatively rare. Case (c) appears to cover two different situations, one in which the discussion about the minority language is conducted predominantly through the medium of that language and one in which it is not. In this second situation, predominance is defined in terms of topic orientation, rather than language use. We can therefore consider two alternative formulations of this characteristic. A formulation with strong language-use requirement: The minority language is predominant in terms of its use in interactions within this space.

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

85

And a formulation with a weak language-use requirement: The minority language is predominant in terms of its use in interactions within this space, or in terms of it being the focal topic of interactions within this space.

For the purposes of the discussion here, a strong language-use requirement will be assumed, except where explicitly noted otherwise. 4. The minority language is unharassed in interactions within this space Those who harass the minority language are either excluded from the space or denied a voice within the space. There are a range of behaviours that could constitute harassment, including hostility, mockery, questioning the value of the minority language and requests for interactions in the minority language to be translated. Belmar and Glass (2019: 14) identify a fourth condition for describing a virtual community as a breathing space, ‘d) the status of the minority language as language (rather than dialect) is not contested’. 5. The space is demographically concentrated with regard to the density of minority language speakers This characteristic would appear to derive from the fact that Fishman’s breathing spaces are physical spaces. If a physical breathing space was occupied by a large proportion of people who could not speak the minority language, it would be difficult for minority language speakers to find each other and difficult for the minority language to be predominant. In an online network it is common for there to be ‘lurkers’ who may observe the conversation, but who choose not to contribute (Nonnecke and Preece 2003). The presence of these lurkers does not normally interfere with interactions or the management or conduct of the network. Thus, the demographic makeup of the virtual network is of less importance than the predominance of the minority language in interactions. Demographic concentration is likely to occur in any case,

86

D. Cunliffe

as a consequence of the minority language being predominant (assuming a strong language-use requirement). It therefore appears that for digital spaces, this characteristic may be less significant. 6. The interaction within this space is authentic and regulated by members of the minority language community While Fishman frames authenticity and cultural self-regulation as potential outcomes of interaction within a breathing space, they may also usefully serve as defining characteristics. Authenticity and self-regulation could be considered as other aspects in which the minority language is predominant. The definition of ‘the speaker community’ and who is an ‘authentic’ member of that community may in itself be a point of debate. For example, it may be necessary to think carefully about the notion of authenticity when considering learners and new speakers. Belmar and Glass (2019) argue that the definition of a breathing space will depend not only on the sociolinguistic situation of the language, but also on the language profile of the speaker.

6

Creating and Sustaining Digital Breathing Spaces

Fishman writes that movements seeking to reverse language shift must ‘strive to provide’ breathing spaces (Fishman 1991: 58). This raises the question of whether digital breathing spaces will just emerge naturally from the interactions between members of the minority language community when they are online, or whether it will be necessary to deliberately create these spaces and nurture networks within them. Many digital breathing spaces may emerge simply as a result of people bumping into each other when they are online, as Rheingold (1994) suggests is the case with many online social networks. This will often be the case when the breathing space is a network within a majority language social media platform. In the case of minority language social media platforms, and sometimes in the case of networks within majority

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

87

language social media platforms, the digital breathing space exists as a result of deliberative intervention. While the above discussion of digital breathing spaces is useful in terms of their identification and provides a starting point for their study, it provides little guidance in terms of deliberative intervention that could lead to their creation. It also says little about how we might assess the success and vitality of a digital breathing space. The existing literature on computer-mediated communication (e.g. Iriberri and Leroy 2009; Young 2013) can provide models of the different stages of the online social network1 lifecycle, from inception to mitosis or death. It can also provide guidance for creating successful online social networks and for monitoring the success of those networks (e.g. Preece 2001; Iriberri and Leroy 2009; Young 2013). The available guidance tends to focus on quite formally constituted and organised networks, but all networks are organised and regulated to some extent. Indeed, social media platforms are often highly regulated linguistic spaces (de Bres 2015). Preece (2001) suggests that the success of an online social network depends on usability and sociability. Usability refers to the interaction between a person and the platform (the physical device and the software). Sociability refers to the social interaction between people, via the platform. While usability is obviously important, and there might be specific considerations when designing for minority language speakers, the focus here is on the issue of sociability. Rather than consider all the dimensions of sociability, the focus will be on those that might be of particular relevance to digital breathing spaces, reframing dimensions drawn from a number of sources (Preece 2001; Iriberri and Leroy 2009; Young 2013). Preece (2001) identifies three key components of sociability— purpose, people and policies. In online social networks, ‘purpose’ refers to the shared focus and reason for belonging to the network. With online breathing spaces, we need to consider an additional meta-purpose, namely the maintenance of the minority language itself. For a breathing space to be successful it needs not only to provide a vibrant space for members to discuss the topic of interest, it should also be building linguistic competence and confidence through minority language use.

88

D. Cunliffe

One of the key considerations is the extent to which the language is the focus. The minority language itself could be the topic of the network. The topic could be one which naturally lends itself to discussion in the minority language, e.g. culture, events, sports, television programmes or celebrities associated with the language. It may be that the topic has no particular affiliation with the language and is equally of interest to non-minority language speakers. In this case there are likely to be non-minority language social networks which will appeal to minority language speakers. The key consideration is to select a topic which the language community is likely to want to discuss in their minority language and which will deliver value for the community, because it is a topic that matters to them. The number of interactions per network member is an indication of how well the social network serves its purpose. The quality of interactions, the degree of reciprocity and the extent to which focus is maintained on the topic are also useful indicators. For a breathing space, it would be important to examine the proportion of interactions that are in the minority language. Improvements in minority language skills or increased frequency of minority language use by individuals over time might also be monitored. It might be possible to measure the quality and range of the minority language used. Depending on the topic, it may be appropriate to examine the extent to which new minority language vocabulary develops and the spread of this into the wider offline community. ‘People’ refers to the interactive participants who may assume particular roles within the social network, and who develop a relationship with other network members. The choice of topic should consider whether there are sufficient numbers of minority language speakers interested in the topic and willing to use their minority language to discuss it. In some contexts, it may also be necessary to consider whether or not these speakers have access to the social media platform. It is common to use the number of members, or of active members, or length of membership as an indication of vitality. Additionally, the minority language skills present or the number of members with minority language skills could be used as a measure of success. Language

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

89

confidence might be an indicator. Where the minority language community is small and the topic is sufficiently broad, the proportion of speakers who are members of the online network might be relevant. A more qualitative aspect could be the nature of the relationships developed, particularly in terms of connecting geographically dispersed speakers. In some cases there may be a perceived need to maintain control over participation in the network. A certain level of language proficiency may be required, or criteria for membership may be established. In the case of some indigenous communities, membership criteria may involve a formally recognised tribal affiliation. This may need to be balanced with the desire of members to remain anonymous within the network. ‘Policies’ refer to the formal and informal policies that guide interactions between network members and which contribute to the emergence of social norms. A successful social network is one which experiences few violations of its policies and norms. For a digital breathing space, probably the most important policy to consider is the language policy. If a strong language-use requirement is adopted, then the minority language is to be predominant in terms of its use in interactions. However, it is not clear what this actually means. Presumably, there will be some numerical characterisation of predominance, for the sake of discussion, say 75% of interactions. But how is this measured in an online network? At least 75% of interactions in the network are in the minority language. At least 75% of people use the minority language in their interactions in the network. Every person in the network uses the language in at least 75% of their interactions. Every interaction in the network is at least 75% in the minority language. Some of these definitions would permit social network members who never use the minority language, others would require members to use the minority language in every interaction. If the measure of predominance is at the level of individual members, would the language

90

D. Cunliffe

policy be different for learners? Are these measurements over a particular timeframe, or over the entire past history of interactions? It may also be necessary to consider the often contentious issue of the quality of the language used. To what extent will code-switching, poor grammar, poor spelling, colloquial style, informal registers and text talk be accommodated? In addition to policies concerning general flaming and uncivil behaviour, a policy specifically on language-related harassment will be required. There is also the practical issue of how policies will be monitored and enforced and what penalties are to be applied and by whom. The questions associated with the creation and maintenance of digital breathing spaces discussed above illustrate some of the complexity and challenge involved, particularly when they are deliberately created and actively managed. While online social networks which either meet the definition of a breathing space, or come close to it, have been identified previously in the literature (e.g. Honeycutt and Cunliffe 2010; Stern 2017; Belmar and Glass 2019; Cunliffe 2019), there are few studies of their day-to-day activities, their effect on language use or their long-term sustainability. When a breathing space does fail, there is usually no record of the factors which lead to that failure and therefore no opportunities to learn from them. One of the few cases in which an explanation has been given is that of the Welsh language social media platform, Clecs. Clecs was launched in 2015 and closed in 2018. It was reported to have 5,000 registered users in 2016 (BBC Cymru Fyw 2016). When Clecs was closed down, its owners posted a message to their Facebook account explaining the reasons. The most significant reason they cited was lack of money. Clecs decided to be advertisement-free and did not want to monetise user data, but failed to secure the necessary sponsorship. They were also unsuccessful in applying for Welsh Government grants. This meant they had insufficient funds to undertake ongoing development work and to pay for costs in relation to a change in data protection regulations. They also noted an interest, but lack of support, from celebrities, MPs and organisations. They reported a drop off in user numbers and new registrations over time. While Clecs was relatively unusual in trying to create a complete minority language platform, the case does give some

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

91

insight into the complex range of factors which can impact the long-term viability of a digital breathing space.

7

Conclusions

Social networks, traditionally shaped by physical location and proximity, have provided important sites for minority language use and maintenance. The nature of these social networks has changed over time and continues to change, driven by a number of factors, including increased access to affordable transportation and ICT. The current changes in the nature of social networks can be understood in the context of societies entering an information age, characterised by knowledge economies, information societies and the networked individual. This chapter has considered some of the implications of these changes for minority languages. In particular, it has focused on social media platforms in which new forms of social networks achieve powerful expression. Based on Fishman’s notion of creating physical breathing spaces for minority languages, it has considered the possibility of creating digital breathing spaces on social media platforms as a way to promote minority language use and to resist language shift. The chapter has examined in detail the necessary characteristics of digital breathing spaces and the challenges that may be faced in creating and maintaining such spaces. These digital breathing spaces can provide a lens through which online social networks may be interpreted, and an additional way to measure and monitor digital language vitality. Perhaps most importantly though, they can provide a tool for language maintenance and activism. While the move towards knowledge economies and information societies will affect minority language communities, it will also affect language policy and planning and the understanding of those communities. When considering the social use of a minority language, it will be increasingly necessary to consider online and offline social networks as a single, inseparable social network. When considering access to news and entertainment media in a minority language, it will be increasingly necessary to look at social media platforms. Language policy and planning must necessarily include a consideration of ICT. There is also a

92

D. Cunliffe

wider social responsibility on the part of policy-makers, commerce and technology companies who are driving the move towards knowledge economies and information societies to recognise the potential for, and to mitigate against, digital exclusion and the loss of intangible cultural heritage.

Note 1. The literature often refers to online communities, but networks is used here to distinguish them from traditional community forms.

References Axelsson, A.-S., Å. Abelin, and R. Schroeder. 2003. Anyone speak Spanish? Language encounters in multi-user virtual environments and the influence of technology. New Media & Society 5 (4): 475–498. Baker, E.A., P.D. Pearson, and M.S. Rozendal. 2010. Theoretical perspectives and Literary Studies: An exploration of roles and insights. In The New Literacies: Multiple Perspectives on Research and Practice, ed. E.A. Baker, 1–22. New York: The Guilford Press. BBC Cymru Fyw. 2016. Mwy o Glecs? www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/37418544. Accessed 31 January 2020. Belmar, G., and M. Glass. 2019. Virtual communities as breathing spaces for minority languages: Re-framing minority language use on social media. Adeptus 14. Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cunliffe, D., and C. Honeycutt. 2008. The Blogiadur–a community of Welshlanguage bloggers. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication (CATaC 2008), ed. F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovec, and C. Ess, 230–244. Nimes, France.

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

93

Carew, M., J. Green, I. Kral, R. Nordlinger, and R. Singer. 2015. Getting in touch: Language and digital inclusion in Australian indigenous communities. Language Documentation and Conservation 9: 307–323. Castells, M. 2010. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. Chichester: WileyBlackwell. Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2017. Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38 (10): 901–912. Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2019. Multilingualism, translanguaging, and minority languages in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 103: 130–135. Ceberio, K., A. Gurrutxaga, C. Soria, I. Russo, and V. Quochi. 2018. How to Use the Digital Language Vitality Scale. The Digital Language Diversity Project. http://www.dldp.eu/sites/default/files/documents/DLDP_Digi tal-Language-Vitality-Scale.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2020. Ceberio Berger, K., A. Gurrutxaga Hernaiz, P. Baroni, D. Hicks, E. Kruse, V. Quochi, I. Irene Russo, T. Salonen, A. Sarhimaa, and C. Claudia Soria. 2018. The DLDP Digital Language Survival Kit. http://www.dldp.eu/ sites/default/files/documents/DLDP_Digital-Language-Survival-Kit.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2020. Cormack, M. 2007. The media and language maintenance. In Minority Language Media: Concepts, Critiques and Case Studies, ed. M. Cormack and N. Hourigan, 52–68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. 2008. Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cunliffe, D. 2019. Minority languages and social media. In The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and Communities, ed. G. Hogan-Brun and B. O’Rourke, 451–480. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cunliffe, D., D. Morris, and C. Prys. 2013. Investigating the differential use of Welsh in young speakers’ social networks: A comparison of communication in face-to-face settings, in electronic texts and on social networking sites. In Social Media and Minority Languages: Convergence and the Creative Industries, ed. E.H.G. Jones and E. Uribe-Jongbloed, 75–86. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Davies, H.C. 2018. Redefining filter bubbles as (escapable) socio-technical recursion. Sociological Research Online 23 (3): 637–654. de Bres, J. 2015. Introduction: Language policies on social network sites. Language Policy 14: 309–314.

94

D. Cunliffe

Eisenlohr, P. 2004. Language revitalization and new technologies: Cultures of electronic mediation and the refiguring of communities. Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (1): 21–45. Featherstone, D. 2013. The Aboriginal invention of broadband: How Yarnangu are using ICTs in the Ngaanyatjarra lands of Western Australia. In Information Technology and Indigenous Communities, ed. L. Ormond-Parker, A. Corn, C. Fforde, K. Obata, and S. O’Sullivan, 27–52. Canberra: AIATSIS Research Publications. Fernandez, L. 2001. Patterns of linguistic discrimination in internet discussion forums. Mercator Media Forum, 5, 22–41. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gibson, M. 2015. A framework for measuring the presence of minority languages in cyberspace. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace, 61–70. http://www.ifapcom. ru/files/2015/khanty/yak_mling_2015.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2020. Hicks, D., P. Baroni, K. Ceberio Berger, A. Gurrutxaga Hernaiz, E. Kruse, V. Quochi, I. Russo, T. Salonen, A. Sarhimaa, and C. Soria. 2018. Roadmap to Digital Language Diversity. http://www.dldp.eu/sites/default/files/docume nts/DLDP_Roadmap.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2020. Honeycutt, C., and D. Cunliffe. 2010. The use of the Welsh language on Facebook: An initial investigation. Information, Communication and Society 13 (2): 226–248. Iriberri, A., and G. Leroy. 2009. A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM Computing Surveys 41 (2). Johnson, I. 2013. Audience design and communication accommodation theory: Use of Twitter by Welsh-English biliterates. In Social Media and Minority Languages: Convergence and the Creative Industries, ed. E.H.G. Jones and E. Uribe-Jongbloed, 99–118. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Jones, R. 2010. Cilfachau electronig: Geni’r Gymraeg ar-lein, 1989–1996. Cyfrwng 7: 21–36. Jones, R. 2017. ‘Porn shock for dons’ (and other stories from Welsh pre-web history). In The Routledge Companion to Global Internet Histories, ed. G. Goggin and M. McLelland, 256–268. New York: Routledge. Jones, R.J., D. Cunliffe, and Z.R. Honeycutt. 2013. Twitter and the Welsh language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34 (7): 653–671. Jongbloed-Faber, L. 2015. Friezen op Sosjale Media. Leeuwarden: Mercator Research Centre, Fryske Akademy.

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

95

Kadushin, C. 2011. Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts and Findings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kornai, A. 2013. Digital language death. PLoS ONE 8 (10): e77056. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077056. Accessed 31 January 2020. Kral, I. 2012. Talk, Text and Technology: Literacy and Social Practice in a Remote Indigenous Community. Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Lackaff, D., and W.J. Moner. 2016. Local languages, global networks: Mobile design for minority language users. In SIGDOC’16 Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. Silver Spring, MD, USA. 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): 275–300. Lee, J.S. 2006. Exploring the relationship between electronic literacy and heritage language maintenance. Language Learning and Technology 10 (2): 93–113. Leggio, D.V. 2020. Romani on the Internet. In The Palgrave Handbook of Romani Language and Linguistics, ed. Y. Matras and A. Tenser, 515–537. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Li, W. 2000. Towards a critical evaluation of language maintenance and language shift. Sociolinguistica 14: 142–147. Lillehaugen, B.D. 2016. Why write in a language that (almost) no one can read? Twitter and the development of written literature. Language Documentation and Conservation 10: 356–393. Lillehaugen, B.D. 2019. Tweeting in Zapotec: social media as a tool for language activists. In Indigenous Interfaces: Spaces, Technology, and Social Networks in Mexico and Central America, ed. J.C. Gómez Menjívar and G.E. Chacón, 201–226. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Marwick, A., and D. Boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13 (1): 114–133. McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J.M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444. Mentrau Iaith Cymru. 2014. The Welsh Language and Social Networks. Llanrwst: Mentrau Iaith Cymru. Milroy, L. 1987. Language and Social Networks, 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

96

D. Cunliffe

Milroy, L. 2001. Bridging the micro-macro gap: Social change, social networks and bilingual repertoires. In Theories on Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages: Towards a More Integrated Explanatory Framework, ed. J. KlatterFolmer and P. van Avermaet, 39–64. Munich: Waxmann. Morris, D. 2007. Young people’s social networks and language use. Sociolinguistic Studies 1 (3): 435–460. Ní Bhroin, N. 2013. Small pieces in a social innovation puzzle? Exploring the motivations of minority language users in social media. In Media Innovations: A Multidisciplinary Study of Change, ed. T. Storsul and A.H. Krumsvik, 219–238. Göteborg: Nordicom. Ní Bhroin, N. 2015. Social media innovation: The case of Indigenous Tweets. The Journal of Media Innovations 2 (1): 89–106. Nikolov, D., D.F.M. Oliveira, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. 2015. Measuring online social bubbles. PeerJ Computer Science 1: e38. https://doi.org/10. 7717/peerj-cs.38. Nonnecke, B., and J. Preece. 2003. Silent participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In From Usenet to CoWebs: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ed. C. Lueg and D. Fisher, 110–132. London: Springer. Ofcom. 2020a. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2019. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childr ens/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2019. Accessed 30 July 2020. Ofcom. 2020b. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2019—Research Annex. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/ media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitu des-report-2019. Accessed 24 November 2020. Ofcom. 2020c. Adults’ Media Use & Attitudes Report 2020. https://www. ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/adults/adultsmedia-use-and-attitudes. Accessed 30 July 2020. Ó Riagáin, P., G. Williams, and X. Moreno. 2008. Young People and Minority Languages: Language Use Outside the Classroom. Dublin: Centre for Language and Communications Studies, Trinity College Dublin. O’Rourke, B. 2019. Carving out breathing spaces for Galician: New speakers’ investment in monolingual practices. In Critical Perspectives on Linguistic Fixity and Fluidity: Languagised Lives, ed. J. Jaspers and L.M. Madsen, 99– 121. New York: Routledge. Preece, J. 2001. Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology 20 (5): 347– 356.

Minority Languages in the Age of Networked …

97

Rainie, L., and B. Wellman. 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rheingold, H. 1994. A slice of life in my virtual community. In Global Networks: Computers and International Communication, ed. L.M. Harasim, 57–80. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Routley, N. 2017. Visualising the trillion-fold increase in computing power. Visual Capitalist, 3 November. Scannell, K. 2011. Welcome/Fáilte! http://indigenoustweets.blogspot.co.uk/ 2013/12/mapping-celtic-twittersphere.html. Accessed 11 November 2020. Scott, J. 2017. Social Network Analysis. London: Sage. Stern, A.J. 2017. How Facebook can revitalise local languages: Lessons from Bali. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38 (9): 788– 796. Tagg, C., and P. Seargeant. 2014. Audience design and language choice in the construction and maintenance of translocal communities on social network sites. In The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. P. Seargeant and C. Tagg, 161–185. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wellman, B., and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’t ride alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M.A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167–194. London: Routledge. Wellman, B., P.J. Carrington, and A. Hall. 1988. Networks as personal communities. In Social Structures: A Network Approach, ed. B. Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz, 130–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, B., A. Quan-Haase, J. Boase, W. Chen, K. Hampton, I. Diaz, and K. Miyata. 2003. The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8 (3). Wesch, M. 2009. YouTube and you: Experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorations in Media Ecology 8 (2): 19–34. Young, C. 2013. Community management that works: How to build and sustain a thriving online health community. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15 (6): e119.

Communities, Networks and Contemporary Language Revitalisation Huw Lewis and Wilson McLeod

1

Introduction

Together the chapters in this section of the book considered the implications of social lives that are increasingly mobile, networked and reliant on new forms of communication technology for efforts to promote greater use of minority languages. In doing so, both Jones and Cunliffe engaged critically with concepts such as community, territory, space and social networks. In this short essay we seek to build on these discussions by drawing out key questions and themes that, we contend, call H. Lewis (B) Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK e-mail: [email protected] W. McLeod Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_4

99

100

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

for further consideration by those working in the area of language revitalisation, either in an academic capacity or as practitioners. We begin by distinguishing between two different understandings of community that have been evident in the preceding chapters and highlight how each one can be linked to different perspectives on language use. We then go on to assess the respective merits of these two perspectives in the context of social lives that are increasingly stretched across diverse physical and virtual spaces. As part of this, we consider to what extent territory should still be viewed as the principal factor that shapes the use of minority languages. Finally, we conclude with a series of reflections regarding the practical implications of the arguments advanced in this section of the book for the design and implementation of initiatives aimed at promoting greater social use of minority languages.

2

Language and Community

Over the years, the notion of community has featured prominently in discussions of both language shift and language revitalisation. As Jones demonstrated in his chapter, this has been a particular feature of debates concerning the position of the Welsh language in Wales. And yet, as Jones suggested while critiquing aspects of the debate in Wales, proponents of language revitalisation need to be more aware of different socio-spatial understandings of community that underpin their arguments and, specifically, the ways in which these understandings can inform different perspectives on the way languages are used from day to day. The traditional understanding of community—community as locality—is one in which the concept is seen to represent a defined, bounded and usually small-scale territorial entity (Mayo 2000). Moreover, it is an entity that is typically imagined as existing in a predominantly rural context (Lawthom and Whelan 2012). Jones linked this perspective on community to the work of prominent Welsh scholars active in the field of community studies in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g. Rees 1950; Davies and Rees 1960). Yet it is also an understanding of community that echoes classic discussions of the concept across the

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

101

social sciences, stretching back to Tönnies’s conception of community as Gemeinschaft —a cohesive and homogenous rural enclave in which people maintain close face-to-face relationships within a defined locality (Tönnies 1887; Aull Davies 2003). As Jones demonstrated, it is this traditional understanding of community, foregrounding notions such as boundedness, territory and rurality, that has tended to underpin a great deal of the discussion in Wales concerning language use. In these discussions the tendency has been to employ this understanding of community as a socio-spatial frame for understanding how the Welsh language is used by individuals and groups—i.e. it is the local territorially bounded community that shapes the opportunities available for people to use the language from day-to-day. From this perspective, social interaction and, by extension, language use are assumed to occur predominantly in the context of face-to-face engagements, often unplanned, within defined and relatively small-scale geographical areas. For languages such as Welsh, a key objective in the process of resisting language shift is to maintain the number of areas in which the language retains its position as the ‘community language’—a term that is rarely defined explicitly, but that is typically used to mean the default language for day-to-day interaction between those who reside within that community. In Wales, as Jones demonstrated, it has been assumed that the Welsh language will play this role when over 70% of the people living within the boundaries of a particular community are able to speak Welsh (see H. Jones 2008, 2012). Hence, a key goal for Welsh language activists and policymakers alike over the years has been to maintain the number of areas that meet this threshold and that can thus be characterised as ‘Welsh-speaking communities’. In all this we see a particular territorial logic at work that conceives of the Welsh language as a medium that ‘is and should be used’ within distinct ‘geographically parcelled areas of Wales’ (Jones, p. 48). Significantly, this understanding of the relationship between community, territory and language use is not one that only features in debates concerning the Welsh language. For example, if we turn to another Celtic context, we see that a recent study on the position of the Gaelic languagein the Hebridean islands of Scotlandfocuses on the use of the language within a series of separate ‘study districts’ with a view to assess the extent to which

102

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

it remains ‘a vernacular community language’ within these areas (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020). Indeed, we contend that a perspective that views the bounded and small-scale territorial community as the most appropriate socio-spatial frame for thinking about language useis a perspective that underpins a great deal of the academic literature on language shift and language revitalisation. Perhaps this is most clearly expressed in Joshua Fishman’sfoundational work Reversing Language Shift (1991). While Fishman’s primary frame of reference was urban neighbourhoods rather than the more rural enclaves described by Jones, a consistent theme throughout his work is the need for those engaged in language revitalisation to prioritise interventions that will maintain informal ‘face-to-face’ use of the target language within bounded, small-scale and intimate ‘local communities’ (1991: 4). This goal, it is claimed, will be facilitated greatly through a high level of ‘demographic concentration’ (1991: 5, 92), and if such circumstances do not already exist, advocates of language revitalisation should seek to promote a process of ‘planned concentration in particular neighbourhoods’ (1991: 92). According to Fishman, ‘Every pro-RLS movement must strive to provide physical breathing-space for its constituency, demographically concentrated space where Xish can be on its own turf , predominant and unharassed’ (1991: 58, emphasis added). Indeed, the link between Fishman’s perspective on language use and the traditional bounded and territorial understanding of community as locality discussed earlier is underlined by the fact that he explicitly invokes Tönnies’s notion of Gemeinschaft in order to convey the type of small-scale,intimate community life that he argues will facilitate use of the minority language (Fishman 1991: 393). At the same time, Fishman is by no means alone in interpreting dayto-day language use as being shaped to a significant extent by the nature of one’s immediate territorial community. For example, the contention that patterns of language use are ‘geographically determined’ and, thus, are mainly a function of the demographic profile of the area in which one happens to live, is an idea also advanced by Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 7). Furthermore, Nettle and Romaine (2000: 177) stress the importance of a ‘bottom-up approach’ to language revitalisation. They argue consistently that ‘action needs to begin at the most local level’ as reversing

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

103

language shift is, in their view, essentially a matter of ‘preserving local habitats’ (2000: 177–179). In sum, the different accounts highlighted above seem to be based on a territorial logic that is not dissimilar to that identified by Jones in his critique of the language policy debate in Wales. It is a perspective that assumes that much of our day-to-day social interaction and, by extension, language use occurs primarily on anunscheduled, face-to-face and basis within relatively small-scale geographical areas. Consequently, in order to avert language shift, the focus should be on maintaining defined and discrete ‘communities’, ‘neighbourhoods’ or ‘habitats’ within which the target language retains its position as the ‘vernacular community language’ (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020). The same principle would then apply to initiatives to develop new communities as part of an effort to reverse language shift. A different way of thinking about how individuals use language from day-to-day emerges if we consider alternative understandings of community advanced by social scientists. A prominent alternative to the traditional territorially based idea of community as locality is the more recent notion of community of interests (Wilmot 1986; Mayo 2000). In this case, the community is not viewed as a specific geographic entity with defined boundaries, but rather as a grouping of people that are drawn together due to shared interests. Hence communities of interest are closely linked to the notion of social networks (Lawthom and Whelan 2012). These entities may be ‘more invisible’ or ‘less obvious’ than communities with geographic boundaries as they will ‘pull in and link, through common experiences and concerns, individuals who may be scattered across a geographical area’ (Lawthom and Whelan 2012: 16). For example, we may think of members of sports clubs, political groups, religious denominations or particular occupations as forming communities of interest in which the members ‘may not live in close proximity but may have much in common with each other, depending on each other for help and support’ (Lawthom and Whelan 2012: 16). Communities of interest can also be viewed as formations that may develop around shared life experiences, rather than personal interests, and, as Lawthom and Whelan (2012: 16) demonstrate with the following example, a key factor in their emergence may be one’s particular stage in life:

104

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Mothers with pre-school or school age children may form a ‘school gate’ community of interest around the politics of school and share things whilst children are at school. Playgroups and mother and baby groups may function in the same way for pre-school interest. Here, the community is one in which membership is evolving—there is always a ‘school gate’ community although members may come and go.

Overall, therefore, communities of interest are not social formations that are defined primarily on the basis of their members’ residing within a common geographic area. Clearly, notions such as space and place are not irrelevant for our understanding of these forms of community; for example, the members of sports clubs will need to meet in particular locations. Yet in such cases we are not tied to the bounded and territorial understanding of space and place that shape more traditional interpretations of community. Another key feature to highlight in relation to communities of interest is the voluntary nature of these social formations and the relatively intentional and planned character of the interactions that they support. Participation in the community stems from a willingness on the part of the individual to engage and, if necessary, to travel in order to meet with other members in specific locations at designated times. This contrasts with the more unplanned, ad hoc and almost involuntary vision of interaction within the more traditional territoriallydefined local community (Glyn 2010; Mayo 2000). Significantly, the alternative understanding of community outlined above, along with the more networked view of social interaction that it implies, seems to echo many of the ideas that were implicit in the statements of some of the Mentrau Iaith located in parts of south– east Wales that were discussed by Jones. Indeed, as Jones suggested, by following the lead of these Mentrau Iaith in conceiving of social interaction as occurring primarily through a series of different communities of interest, as opposed to within a single territoriallybounded geographic community, we gain a different understanding of how people may use language from day-to-day. From this alternative perspective, social interaction and, by extension, language use do not follow a ‘straightforward territorial logic’ (Jones, p. 45) in which the majority of our day-to-day engagements take place within a relatively small geographical area close

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

105

to home, so that our linguistic practices are determined by the demolinguistic profile of that home locality. Rather this perspective allows for the possibility that on any given day we may move across a series of different spaces or domains—some of which may be located very close to home while others are further afield—and that each of these contexts—some relating to work and others to leisure or social life—may be characterised by a different sociolinguistic environment in which use of a particular language may either be essential, expected, possible or indeed impossible. Moreover, from this perspective it is also possible to take account of some of the important arguments advanced by Cunliffe in his chapter and recognise that by today, given rapid advances in information and communications technology (ICT), not all of our linguistic interactions may take place on a face-to-face basis within physical locations.

3

Territory, Space and Language Use

The previous section distinguished between two different understandings of community—community as locality and community of interests— and associated them with two distinct ways of thinking about where and how individuals use language from day-to-day. Here we develop the discussion further by seeking to address a key theme that has run through both of the chapters in this section of the book, namely: to what extent should territory still be viewed as a key factor that shapes the use of minority languages? Among other things, doing this will allow us to assess the respective value of the two perspectives on community when it comes to thinking about how to plan contemporary language revitalisation efforts, and in particular, how to plan efforts to promote greater social use of a minority language. Over recent years there has been a great deal of debate across the social sciences regarding the extent to which we have witnessed a decline in the significance of territory as a factor influencing different aspects of social, economic and political life. The context for this has been a growing awareness of the impact of far-reaching structural and technological developments that have prompted a move towards a more mobile and interconnected world (Jones and Lewis 2019). These are trends that

106

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

are regularly discussed at the global level, for example by referencing the increase in international migration, the growth in air travel or the role of ICT in facilitating international business transactions. Yet their impact is also evident at more domestic levels, for instance in relation to wider car ownership or the rise in commuting and associated changes in travel to work patterns. As a result, it has been claimed that we are living in a world that has witnessed a process of ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey 1992) which has significant implications for how people experience life and engage with others, both professionally and socially. As Jones highlighted in his chapter, this has led social scientists to reevaluate how we should think about notions such as space, place and territory, most notably the tradition of conceptualising them as being clearly delimited and bounded. For example, geographers such as Massey (1991, 2005) and sociologists such as Castells (2010) have emphasised the need to appreciate how different locations are now tied together by complex flows of people, materials and ideas. Hence, it is claimed that social, economic and political processes that may once have been tied to or bound within a specific territory are now able to escape it, thus ‘taking us from a world marked by contiguous spaces to one marked by spaces of flows’ (Keating 2013: 16). This, in turn, has prompted the development of more relational and topological understandings of social life in which our day-to-day practices are portrayed as being stretched across ever-wider geographical areas and where specific locations are seen as nodes or meeting points for different networks (Amin, Massey and Thrift 2003). However, as Keating (2013: 17) has argued, while the significance of such arguments should be acknowledged, ‘it would be unhelpful to define territory out of social analysis altogether’. Indeed, he contends that ‘from a political and institutional perspective’ bounded territories continue to ‘look rather real’. Moreover, in more recent work, Keating (2017: 124) links this argument specifically to how we think about the place of different languages within society, most notably the relevance of territory for people’s ability to use particular languages as part of their day-to-day life. After all, policies and legislation that accord official recognition to certain languages and thus enable individuals to use them while conducting public business and engaging with public officials usually apply to specific territoriallybased jurisdictions. Similarly,

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

107

education systems continue to be arranged on a territorial basis. And yet, as Keating (2013: 17) also acknowledges, how we understand and use concepts such as territory and space as part of contemporary social analysis depends a great deal on the type of question that we are seeking to address. Building on this, we would contend that the value of thinking about day-to-day language use in the context of bounded territorial units declines significantly if we move from focusing on formal public settings where speakers are engaging with official institutions—e.g. government offices, the courts or the education system—to more informal social interaction. Moreover, we would also contend that the relevance of the bounded territory declines if the spatial scale that we use as our reference point is not that of the state or sub-state region (which is the focus of Keating’s work on political rescaling), but rather the small-scale local community or neighbourhood so evident in much of the literature on language shift and language revitalisation. Both chapters in this section of the book included material that served to support these claims. The language diary discussed by Jones, as well as the maps that distinguished between the place of residence and place of work of Welsh speakers, highlighted the networked and mobile nature of many people’s day-to-day lives. Through this we saw how there are strong grounds on which to question the extent to which the demolinguistic profile of the local community where one happens to reside actually determines our day-to-day language practices. After all, once we begin to track the daily interactions and mobilities that tend to characterise contemporary life we soon see that our engagements with others are rarely confined to our immediate territorial locality. Rather, our day-to-day life can be seen to feature a variety of networked connections that entails us moving through a series of different settings—some close to home while others are further afield—and in which we interact with a variety of individuals or groups. Hence, it is the nature of these networked interactions and the nature of the diverse spaces in which they take place—the home, the workplace, the places where we or our children go to socialise etc.—that influences how, and how often, we use different languages. Furthermore, as Cunliffe clearly demonstrated, the growing significance of ICT in relation to so many aspects of both our social and professional lives only serves to challenge further

108

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

the conventional connections that have been made between language use and particular territorial communities. Indeed, the explosion in the use of different virtual or online platforms and associated methods of digital communication has added to the sense that our day-to-day linguistic interactions are now stretched across geographically dispersed areas and, importantly, that these interactions do not always take place on a face-to-face basis within physical spaces. If we now turn back to the different conceptions of community and the related perspectives on language usethat were outlined in the previous section, what can be said about their respective merits when it comes to thinking about how to plan contemporary language revitalisation efforts? Based on the discussion here, in which we have questioned the value of thinking about day-to-day language use in the context of bounded territorial units and have stressed the need to appreciate the increasingly networked and mobile nature of contemporary life, it would seem that it is the insights afforded by the communities of interest perspective, as opposed to those associated with the community as locality perspective, that are likely to be most useful. It is the former, after all, which aligns closer with the notion that social life is based on a variety of networked connections that entail us moving through a series of different settings— many of which may be geographically dispersed—and in which we interact with a variety of individuals or groups. Moreover, it is arguably this perspective which is better placed to capture the potential impact on our language practices of the observed decline across many Western democracies in norms of social connectedness, in particular how regularly we interact and socialise face-to-face with close neighbours or others within our immediate locality (Halpern 2005; Putnam 2000, 2002). While earlier research focusing on Wales (Glyn 2010) presented the community as localityand the community of interestsperspectives as alternatives whose relevance depends on the demolinguistic profile of the area under consideration—the former relevant in areas with a high concentration of minority language speakers and the latter more relevant when the concentration is lower—we would suggest that such an approach may be overly simplistic. After all, while we can expect that the likelihood of interaction with fellow speakers of the minority language will be higher for someone living in a higher concentration area (say

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

109

parts of Arfon or the Llyn Peninsula in Wales or parts of Donegal in Ireland), this does not mean that one’s day-to-day interactions and, by extension, patterns of language use, will be more likely to be confined to a pre-set geographic locality than if one lives in an area with a lower concentration (say Cardiff or Dublin). Moreover, if the higher concentration area happens to be relatively rural in character, we need to allow for the very real possibility that the geographic extent of one’s day-today mobilities may actually be more far-reaching than those of someone that lives in a large town or city. Indeed, earlier work by Ó Riagáin (1997) focusing on patterns of Irish language use among members of the rural Corca Dhuibhne community in the southwest of Ireland highlighted how changes in employment patterns, specifically the move away from agriculture, along with a significant rise in car ownership during the final decades of the twentieth century prompted a move towards social networks that were stretched across a wider geographical area and involved a greater level of ‘rural–urban interaction’ than had been the case before the 1960s (Ó Riagáin 1997: 123). Yet in advancing these arguments, we also acknowledge—indeed we stress—that fully grasping the significance of the increasingly networked and mobile nature of contemporary life for how language use should be understood in particular locations requires further empirical research. Moreover, we note that it is quite possible that such research could also highlight that factors such as mobility, social networks and territory might feature in different ways and to different degrees depending on the nature of the context at hand. Think, for example of the higher-density Gaelic speaking areas in Scotland, which are all found on islands, and where simple geographical reality may place a limit on the mobility that features as part of people’s day-to-day lives. However, to a large extent, this point only adds to the general case that we are seeking to advance here. After all, our core argument in this section is that efforts to support the prospects of minority languages stand to gain if it is possible to break out of the conventional ‘spatial fix’ in which the local community or neighbourhood is adopted at the outset as the basic frame for understanding how the language is used as well as the appropriate scale for interventions that seek to augment that use. Rather, we contend that a more fruitful approach would be one that seeks to develop a picture

110

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

of how the speakers of the language live their lives from day to day and, through this, build an understanding of the particular networks and spaces that are significant in terms of where and how they use different languages. Importantly, this type of approach would not start with a predetermined geographically parcelled area in mind and, hence, it would allow for a more nuanced understanding of the respective influence of notions such as mobility, social networks, space and territory to emerge based on the social practices that are observed. We reflect further on some of the practical implications of these arguments in the next section.

4

A Network-Based Approach to Language Revitalisation

Overall, this essay has questioned the conventional connections that have been made between language useand particular territorial communities and has argued in favour of an approach to language revitalisation that is more sensitive to the increasingly networked and mobile nature of contemporary life. As we suggested above, this requires a break from the conventional ‘spatial fix’ in which the local community is adopted at the outset as the basic frame for understanding how a language is used as well as the appropriate scale for interventions that seek to augment that use. Yet as we argue here, this does not mean that there is a need to refrain from focusing on the notion of distinct linguistic spaces altogether. As part of his critique of the emphasis traditionally placed on the local community as part of discussions concerning language promotion in Wales, Jones argued that a more effective approach would be to focus on the different networks (family, work, leisure etc.) that feature in people’s day-to-day life. Specifically, he emphasised the need to identify and target some of the ‘key nodes within these networks’—which we can understand as constituting some of the key settings or locations where different network members come together—with the aim of ensuring ‘that as many of them as possible can either remain or become Welsh in character’ (p. 56). Meanwhile, as part of his examination of the types of circumstances that can either hinder or facilitate the use of a minority language on different social media platforms, Cunliffe

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

111

proposed the concept of ‘digital breathing spaces’ as a tool that can both help to assess current levels of digital language vitality and guide interventions aimed at promoting greater use of a language online. What these points serve to highlight is that an approach to language revitalisation that is more sensitive to the increasingly networked and mobile nature of contemporary life does not entail discounting the significance of creating and maintaining particular spaces—in some contexts spaces that can be understood in relatively bounded terms—where use of the target language is encouraged or even expected. Indeed, while Cunliffe adapted Fishman’s notion of ‘breathing spaces’ (1991: 58) specifically to the online world, we would contend that it is a concept that can also capture key elements of what is required when targeting key nodes within some of the more physically based social networks discussed by Jones. However, what is of vital importance is the need to detach such notions from their traditional territorial underpinnings and the assumption that the space in question should be that of the bounded local community or neighbourhood. Rather, due to the more mobile nature of contemporary life, we need to allow for the fact that on any given day people are likely to move through a series of different social spaces—both physical and virtual—that are not necessarily tied together within one discrete and relatively small geographical area. As Cunliffe acknowledged as part of his analysis of social media platforms, it is possible that breathing spaces that facilitate social use of a minority language will emerge naturally; this is also quite possible the case with more physical forms of interaction. For example, certain physical spaces, such as pubs or cafes, can, over time, come to be associated with or be ‘occupied’ by particular social groups, be they members of a particular language community or ethnic community, members of a particular profession or supporters of a particular football club. Nevertheless, when our concern is with planned language revitalisation there will also be a need to consider how active intervention can help to augment the number and range of breathing spaces that exist. In the context of online platforms, Cunliffe highlighted what he described as ‘three key components of sociability’ (Cunliffe, p. 87)—purpose, people and policies—as factors that need to be considered when deliberately seeking to create and maintain digital spaces that will facilitate greater

112

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

use of a minority language. To a large extent, these are also important factors that should frame our thinking when it comes to the development of more physical spaces that are likely to support the use of the target language. For example, Cunliffe explained that the notion of purpose refers to the ‘shared focus and the reason for belonging to the network’ and that a key consideration in this context should be ‘the extent to which the language itself is the focus’ of activities (Cunliffe, p. 88). This is a question that would also be worth considering in the more physical context, for example in relation to debates regarding the merits of establishing designated minority language centres (see, e.g. Gruffudd and Morris 2012) as opposed to focusing on spaces associated with social networks that, in themselves, have no particular affiliation with the language. A further issue that we suggest requires consideration—perhaps especially in the context of discussions concerning the development of physical spaces—is the degree to which interventions should aim to create a parallel minority language space that exists alongside the existing one where the majority language is dominant (e.g. a minority language karate club, as an alternative to the existing one(s) that operate(s) through the medium of the majority language), or whether the focus should be on seeking to adapt an existing majority language space into one that either operates bilingually or where the minority language comes to be treated as the default. We do not make any claims here regarding whether any of these options should be favoured—indeed it is more than likely that there will not be simple right or wrong answers and that the nature of the sociolinguistic context at hand will be a significant consideration. We merely seek to highlight that these are the types of questions that need to be considered when seeking to create spaces that can facilitate greater use of a minority language. A final issue that we wish to reflect upon here is the potential implications of adopting an approach to language revitalisation that is more attuned to the networked and mobile nature of contemporary lifefor the institutional design of any supportive language planning structures. When it comes to organised efforts to promote greater social use of minority languages, there is a danger that we adopt structures that simply mirror long-established administrative boundaries. For example, the Mentrau Iaith discussed by Jones in his chapter, which are currently

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

113

seen as one of the main agents responsible for promoting greater social use of Welsh in different parts of Wales, are all arranged to align with the current boundaries of Wales’s 22 local authorities. While this may be convenient in an administrative sense, there are grounds to question whether this clear authority-by-authority structure is the best way to arrange agencies that, in terms of their core work, need to be able to respond to how and where Welsh speakers or learners in different parts of Wales work and socialise. To give a simple example, for a young family that that happens to live in Llandysul in the south of the county of Ceredigion it is likely that the market town of Carmarthen, which is located across the county border in Carmarthenshire, will represent a key geographical node within many of their social networks. Yet it is not clear how the fixed county-by-county structure of the Mentrau Iaith helps them to understand and respond to the linguistic implications of these dynamics. Indeed, this type of approach to how we structure language revitalisation work stands in contrast with current thinking in other fields. As Healy (2013: 1325) demonstrates, a greater emphasis on relational thinking and an awareness of the need to ‘destabilise and overturn orthodox administrative categories and divisions of space’ has been a feature of discussions among spatial planners for a number of years. This, in turn, has led to policy development in areas such as planning and regional development to reassess the value of working on the basis of set administrative boundaries and to focus more on the links that exist between different types of settlements due to daily mobilities linked to employment, commerce or the pursuit of leisure activities. It could be argued that such a relational and spatially integrated approach should also be considered seriously by language planners. In this context, it is interesting to note how in Ireland the establishment of the 26 Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas following the Gaeltacht Act 2012 also involved establishing the category of ‘Gaeltacht Service Towns’. The latter are defined as ‘towns that are situated in or adjacent to Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas and which have a significant role in providing public services, recreational, social and commercial facilities for those areas’ (Government of Ireland 2019). We see here an interesting effort to think relationally about how different geographical areas link together

114

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

and how this could be significant in terms of planning efforts to influence people’s language practices. Yet, while potentially significant at a conceptual level, it must be stressed that any practical lessons that may be gleaned from this Irish example are likely to be tempered by the significant weaknesses evident in the institutional structure that underpins the current language planning arrangements in the Gaeltacht (see Walsh in this volume; see also Ó Ceallaigh 2020)—and we would not want our general point here regarding the need for language planners to think in more relational and topological terms to be seen as an approval of those particular institutional arrangements.

5

Conclusion

Overall, this section of the book has focused predominantly on the question of how to approach the challenge of seeking to promote greater social use of minority languages and, in doing so, how the different contributions have engaged critically with concepts such as community, territory, space and social networks. As the chapters by Jones and Cunliffe demonstrated in different ways, contemporary changes linked to technological development and levels of personal mobility have challenged traditional understandings of such concepts, and this has important implications for how we plan efforts to promote greater social use of minority languages. Consequently, in this summative essay we have questioned the conventional connections that have been made between language use and particular territorial communities and we have argued in favour of an approach to language revitalisation that is more sensitive to the increasingly networked and mobile nature of contemporary life. In particular we have argued for a break with the conventional ‘spatial fix’ in which the local community is adopted at the outset as the basic frame for understanding how a language is used as well as the appropriate scale for interventions that seek to augment that use. Yet as we have also argued here this does not mean that there is a need to refrain from focusing on the notion of distinct linguistic spaces. What is of vital importance is the need to detach such notions from their traditional territorial underpinnings and the assumption that the space

Communities, Networks and Contemporary …

115

in question should always be that of the bounded local community or neighbourhood.

References Amin, A., D. Massey, and N. Thrift. 2003. Decentering the Nation: A Radical Approach to Regional Inequality. London: Catalyst. Aull Davies, C. 2003. Conceptualizing community. In Welsh Communities: New Ethnographic Perspectives, ed. C. Aull Daviesand and S. Jones, 1–23. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Castells, M. 2010. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Davies, E., and A.D. Rees (eds.). 1960. Welsh Rural Communities. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Glyn, J. 2010. Asesiad o Effeithiolrwydd Strategaethau Ieithyddol Cymunedol Cyfredol yng Nghymru. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aberystwyth University. Gaeltacht Act 2012. No. 34 of 2012. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/ act/34/enacted/en/html. Accessed 25 February 2021. Government of Ireland. 2019. Gaeltacht Service Towns. https://www.gov.ie/en/ publication/c6102-gaeltacht-service-towns/. Accessed 7 December 2020. Grenoble, L., and L. Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gruffudd, H., and S. Morris. 2012.Canolfannau Cymraeg and the Social Networks of Adult Learners of Welsh. Swansea: Academi Hywel Teifi. Halpern, D. 2005. Social Capital . Cambridge: Polity Press. Harbert, W. 2011. Endangered languages and economic development. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ed. P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank, 403–422. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, D. 1992. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Blackwell, Oxford. Healy, J. 2013. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and spatial governance in postdevolution Wales. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (4): 1325–1348.

116

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Jones, H.M. 2008. The changing social context of Welsh: A review of statistical trends. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11 (5): 541–557. Jones, H.M. 2012. A Statistical Overview of the Welsh Language. Cardiff: Welsh Language Board. Jones, R., and H. Lewis. 2019. New Geographies of Language: Language, Culture and Politics in Wales. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, M. 2013. Rescaling the European State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keating, M. 2017. The territorial state. In Reconfiguring European States in Crisis, ed. D. King and P. Le Galès, 121–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lawthom, R., and P. Whelan. 2012. Understanding communities. In Inclusive Communities: A Critical Reader, ed. A. Azzopardiand and S. Grech, 11–22. Boston: Sense Publishers. Massey, D. 1991. A global sense of place. Marxism Today, June 24–29. Massey, D. 2005. For Space. London: Sage. Mayo, M. 2000. Cultures, Communities, Identities. New York: Palgrave. Nettle, D., and S. Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2020. Neoliberal globalisation and language minoritisation: Lessons from Ireland 2008–18. Language and Communication 75: 103–116. Ó Giollagáin, C., G. Camshron, P. Moireach, B. Ó Curnáin, I. Caimbeul, B. MacDonald, and T. Péterváry. 2020. The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Study of Scottish Gaelic. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Ó Riagáin, P. 1997. Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland 1893– 1993. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R.D. 2002. Conclusion. In Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, ed. R.D. Putnam, 393–416. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rees, A.D. 1950. Life in a Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Tönnies, F. 1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag. Willmott, P. 1986. Social Networks, Informal Care and Public Policy. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Families

Family Language Policy and Language Transmission in Times of Change Kendall A. King and Ling Wang

Studies of family-based language learning and multilingualism, and family language policy (FLP) in particular, have been defined in recent decades by two interwoven and complementary trends: one demographic and material, and one conceptual, paradigmatic and theoretical (King and Lanza 2019). In demographic, physical and material terms, the lives of many families worldwide are increasingly impacted by forces that broadly can be characterised as those of globalisation, urbanisation, (hyper)mobility and technological saturation. Researchers of FLP are beginning to document the ways in which, for instance, hypermobility and transnational migration shape, influence and in many instances K. A. King (B) University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. Wang Nanjing University, Nanjing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_5

119

120

K. A. King and L. Wang

define family life (e.g. Al-Salmi and Smith 2015; Ferguson and Iturbide 2015). Recent work, for example, reveals how transnational families ‘practice simultaneous and ongoing belonging across significant temporal and geographic distances’ (King-O’Riain 2015: 256) and how migrant mothers, in particular, use technology to assert and construct new forms of intimacy with family members who do not migrate (Parreñas 2014). The second defining trend is related, but more conceptual, paradigmatic and theoretical. As King and Lanza noted (2019), researchers of multilingualism and family language learning are beginning to come to terms with these material and demographic changes, as the methodological tools and even the questions asked have shifted. Researchers are increasingly interested in how families are constructed through multilingual language practices, and how language functions as a resource for this process of family-making and meaning-making in contexts of transmigration, social media and technology saturation, and hypermobility. Much of the early research in this area essentially has asked: What beliefs, practices and conditions lead to what child language outcomes (King 2016)? In contrast, more recent FLP work has posed a different set of questions. For instance: How do families make sense of multilingualism across generations and how is language woven into family dynamics (Hua and Li 2016)? How does meaning emerge and evolve through repeated and varied performance in everyday talk in multilingual homes (He 2016)? How do families make decisions about language (and come to understand those decisions) in changing, so-called ‘superdiverse’ contexts (Curdt-Christiansen 2016), and how, for instance, is ‘success’ defined in varied contexts (Smith-Christmas et al. 2019)? This chapter describes some of these shifting sands—both material and conceptual—and reviews how the field of FLP has evolved and expanded in recent decades. We highlight foundational and recent research, and then consider some of the challenges and changes in the field, in particular the nature of families and the changing nature of epistemologies and paradigms, including who we study, what we study and how we study in our work on family language policy.

Family Language Policy and Language …

1

121

Overview and Central Findings

Early work (e.g. King et al. 2008) in FLP defined this field as the study of explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members. The aim of this framework was to provide an integrated analysis of how languages are managed, learned and negotiated within families by bringing together two independent and somewhat disconnected fields of study: language policy and child language acquisition. Work within this new framework focused, for instance, on the role of language ideologies in shaping family language practices, and on the connections between different family language policies, such as the socalled one person–one language (OPOL) approach, and child language outcomes. Early writings in this area argued that family language policies are important as they shape children’s linguistic developmental trajectories, connect in significant ways with children’s formal school success, and collectively determine the maintenance and future status of minority languages (King et al. 2008). Thus, FLP provided a frame for examining child-caretaker interactions, parental language ideologies (which are linked to broader societal attitudes and ideologies about language(s) and parenting) and child language development. This period saw a large number of empirical studies in this area (see King and Fogle 2013 for an overview). Some of this work sought to examine which parental practices lead to which child outcomes. Wellknown quantitative studies include De Houwer’s (2007) analysis of questionnaire data from 1,899 families in Flanders in which at least one of the parents spoke a language other than the majority language. Questionnaires asked about the home language use among families consisting of at least one parent and one child between the ages of 6 and 10. De Houwer found that all children spoke the majority language of the community (Dutch), but that minority language use was not universal. Differences in parental language input patterns at home correlated with differences in child minority language use. In particular, home input patterns in which both parents used the minority language and in which at most one parent spoke the majority language had a high chance of success. This research provided the most convincing evidence to date

122

K. A. King and L. Wang

that the OPOL approach provides neither necessary nor sufficient input conditions for balanced bilingual development. More recent work has emphasised the importance of attitudes and focused parental attention on language. For instance, Kang (2015) surveyed 480 Korean-American families to determine which demographic variables in combination with particular language practices, language management approaches and ideologies best predicted maintenance of the Korean language for these U.S.-based families. She found that child gender, age of English exposure and parental attitudes towards bilingualism were strong predictors of oral and literacy skills in Korean. While length of settlement in the U.S. and language-practice patterns predicted maintenance of oral skills, in contrast, concerted languagemanagement strategies were required for retention of literacy skills in Korean. As she summarises: Simple exposure to authentic input at home might not be sufficient for developing literacy in the home language. Instead, parents’ effortful strategies to (re)enforce opportunities for literacy instruction and practice are needed for home-language literacy development. (Kang 2015: 289)

Shen Huishu’s (2008) study on a family of three generations in China’s Ewenki minority autonomous region also found that even with input of the ethnic minority language (in this case, the Ewenki language) at home, parents and other family members’ attitudes and practices towards the Ewenki language render the home not conducive to the development of the next generation of Ewenki speakers. Huishu reports that grandparents and parents used Ewenki with each other, but their language use varied when they talked to the youngest member of the family (a fourteen-year-old boy). The boy’s grandfather and his mother used Ewenki; his grandmother used Ewenki and Mandarin Chinese; and his father only used Mandarin Chinese to communicate with this boy. The boy’s father and mother reported that speaking Mandarin Chinese and writing Chinese characters were more beneficial to their child’s future study, taking the college entrance examination and finding a future job. Therefore, they urged their child to speak more Mandarin Chinese and

Family Language Policy and Language …

123

write more Chinese characters. The child’s Ewenki language skills and use dropped significantly in junior high school. Other important research unpacked the interactional patterns of family language policy as well as challenges parents face. For instance, Okita (2001) described the social context and experiences of Japanese– English bilingual parenting in England. The author focused on the pressures and demands faced by Japanese mothers, who were solely responsible for their children’s Japanese language and Japanese and English literacy development. Through qualitative research using interviews, Okita showed how this ‘invisible work’ and ‘pro-activist’ mothering is largely unrecognised (both by society and within the family). This account was one of the first book-length treatments of child bilingualism to draw attention to the experience of mothers and the importance of the broader cultural and social context in shaping that (largely negative) experience. King and Fogle (2006), in other early work, examined how parents explained and framed their family language policies. The authors conducted interviews with 24 families in the U.S. who were attempting to achieve additive Spanish–English bilingualism for their young children. Parental participants differed from those of previous studies, as their FLP required them to use and teach a language that was not the primary language of the wider community nor, in many cases, the parents’ first language. It emerged that parents primarily relied on their own personal experiences with language learning in making decisions for their children. As with many early studies in the field, their findings revealed how parents make these decisions; how parents position themselves relative to ‘expert’ advice; and how these decisions are linked to their identities as ‘good’ parents.

2

Challenges and Changes Within the Field

This early foundational work deepened and expanded our understanding of the intimate nature of family language practices, the ideologies that shape them and their interactional implementation in everyday life.

124

K. A. King and L. Wang

However, this initial work was also somewhat limited, both methodologically and conceptually. As highlighted below, the field has begun to correct for these shortcomings by revisiting who we study and how that work is done, and with what objectives. Meeting this challenge demands deep consideration of the changing nature of family structure and family life on the one hand, and the epistemologies we take up on the other hand.

3

The Changing Nature of Families

As suggested above, the study of FLP has been appropriately critiqued (e.g. King and Wright Fogle 2013) for not keeping up with the changing nature and definitions of family, and concomitantly, as biased towards documenting two-parent, heteronormative, middle-class homes in which children are acquiring more than one European language (e.g. Lanza 1992, among many others). More recent work has given greater emphasis to how these language socialisation and interactional processes play out within minority language and/or non-traditional (e.g. adoptive, gay, single-parent) families in transnational or diasporic contexts (e.g. Canagarajah 2008). More broadly, the study of FLP has increased focus on and intentional inclusion of a broader, more diverse range of family types, languages and social contexts. As evident here, however, this work is ongoing and in-process as the nature of family life is also rapidly shifting. One major change is the increasing (and increasing recognition) of the transnational nature of families and family life. As a term, transnationalism broadly refers to the social processes by which migrants establish social fields that cross political, demographic, social and cultural borders, maintaining relationships and connections that span nation-state borders (see Schiller et al. 1992). These transnational aspects of many family lives have been highlighted in recent work. Gallo and Hornberger (2019), for instance, examined the experiences and language practices of families, who, due to U.S. deportation policies, were tenuously spread across the U.S.–Mexico border. Likewise, Said and Zhu Hua (2019) analysed the language practices of one four-member family within the UK. The

Family Language Policy and Language …

125

family’s transnational connections and investment in local transnational institutions resulted in the two boys (aged 6 and 9) speaking a mixture of Yemeni, Algerian Arabic, Classical Arabic and English. While technically not ‘transnational’, for regional or minority language families, mobility is driven by similar economic and social forces and likewise increasingly common. For instance, families who were once rooted in a core territorial base in a relatively isolated rural area now engage in outmigration to urban centres (e.g. to Dublin in the case of Irish or to Cardiff in the case of Welsh), and concomitantly often have the technologies and mobility to remain in contact with family and community members in the rural strongholds of the language (if they wish). For many of these families, movement and residence in the cities means not just living among people who are less likely to speak or understand, say Irish or Welsh, but who are increasingly likely to speak additional languages such as Polish, Chinese and Arabic, languages which are kept vital via ongoing human migration and technological access. In Dublin, as an example, the number of households with one or more Irish speakers was lower than the national average, with non-Irish nationals representing 12% of the overall population in Dublin in 2012, and coming from 199 different countries (Carson et al. 2015). FLP in such contexts must thus take up not just the challenge of balancing the majority and minority language (say, English and Irish in this case), but do so in an increasingly complex multilingual urban ecology. As Carson et al. (2015: 2) observe, ‘the city is thus the locus for multilingualism and plurilingualism in all its functions (learning and communication) and in all its sites (institutional, commercial, educational, governmental and private)’. Indeed, in some countries such as China increased social mobility as a result of urbanisation has made the coexistence of multiple languages and multiple dialects a common phenomenon even in rural villages and towns. Moreover, this greater social mobility has also altered traditional intermarriage patterns. In past decades, limited mobility meant that most marriages were local, with people tending to marry within their own ethnic and regional group. Urbanisation in China radically changed this. Currently, many ethnic minority areas are also home to migrant and nonlocal residents who are members of other ethnic groups. Local ethnic

126

K. A. King and L. Wang

minorities commonly marry non-locals, or other ethnic minorities, such as Han. This shift has profound implications for language use patterns in the family domain. These minority dialects are perceived as difficult to learn and often, as having limited utility. Thus, Mandarin Chinese has become a very important communication tool in everyday life in many of these families. Further, even if all the family members are local or have the same ethnic identity, the increasingly high prestige and importance of Mandarin Chinese often means that the younger generation in these families prefer to use Mandarin over the minority language. Through a survey of 34 families in the Daur ethnic minority village of Qiqihar, China, Wang Sai (2019) found that, in order to maintain emotional connections with grandparents, almost all family members can speak basic Daur (the ethnic minority language); however, as many families (about 60%) now choose to live separately from their grandparents, these families become two generation (parent–children only). In this situation, in addition to the Daur language, parents also use Mandarin to communicate with their children, and 70% of these families mainly use Mandarin. In addition to the fact that parents think that Mandarin is more conducive to their children’s learning and future academic and professional development, a more important reason is that in some families, a member of the local Daur ethnic minority marries someone from the Han minority. Many Han minority family members reported that it is a great challenge for them to learn the local language (the Daur language). In order to promote communication among family members and to avoid family conflict, these families tend to choose Mandarin as the main communication language of the family. These sorts of transnational and regional connections across family and community members can be facilitated by technology, and increasingly, the lives of many families can best be described as technologically saturated. Data from the U.S., for instance, suggest that adults spend more than 11 hours per day watching, reading, listening or interacting with media (Nielsen 2019). Parents with children aged 8–18 years of age spend only slightly less time, on average 9 hours, with screen media each day (Common Sense Media 2016). The same survey found children aged 8–12 were spending 6 hours per day interacting with media (2016); and other research suggests children aged 0–8 spend around two

Family Language Policy and Language …

127

and a half hours per day in front of a screen (e.g. watching TV, videos, gaming) (Rideout and Robb 2020). Data from the UK suggests a similar pattern, with reports indicating that children aged 5–16 spend an average of 6.5 hours a day in front of a screen compared with around 3 hours in 1995 (BBC News 2015). Scholars of FLP are only beginning to document and unpack the ways that screens and technological devices shape, limit and/or promote varied and particular interactional patterns among family members. This is crucially important work with significant impacts on family language learning. For instance, while substantial research supports the idea that children do not learn language from passive exposure to language (that is, by viewing videos in a language) (Kuhl et al. 2003), a growing body of work suggests that if exposure is socially contingent, that is if there is back-and-forth, two-way interaction, language learning can and does take place (Roseberry et al. 2013). As interactive social media technology become ubiquitous in many homes, this raises important questions about the nature of family and language learning and transnationally (or transregionally) connected families. As an example, it is not uncommon in some homes for geographically dispersed families to spend hours daily interacting multilingually through tools such Skype, Facebook or WeChat, (re)defining family language boundaries and mechanisms for intergenerational language transmission. Indeed, as a reflection of these trends, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2019) recently revised media guidelines for young children. While previously they had recommended disallowing screen usage for children younger than two years of age, the new guidelines allow for children under two to engage in video-chatting as part of family conversations. Two-way video communication technologies such as Zoom, Facetime and Skype simultaneously provide opportunities for families to connect and interact in myriad ways with fellow members of their language community, and concomitantly, endless distractions and intense competition. Here, as in many contexts, technology can be best understood as a double-edged sword, providing both vital connections to family and friends who are fellow members of the minority language community, and simultaneously, access to often-enticing majority-language media.

128

K. A. King and L. Wang

Lastly, in many parts of the world, and in particular among middle- and upper-class communities in OECD countries, approaches to parenting are increasingly defined by what has been called ‘competitive’ or ‘concerted cultivation’ approaches. Indeed, family language policy has expanded as a field in step with ‘concerted cultivation’ parenting. This term, popularised by Annette Lareau (2003), refers to a parenting style or practice characterised by parental attempts to foster their child’s talents by incorporating organised activities in their children’s lives and cultivating particular ways of adult-like talk such as debate and negotiation. Lareau qualitatively documented and described the cultural logic of highor hyper-investment parenting common among middle and upper– middle class parents in the US. Subsequent quantitative work, in turn, has found broad evidence that middle-class parents in the U.S. and elsewhere engage in concerted cultivation parenting (e.g. Potter and Roksa 2013). Matsouka (2019) reported, for instance, that Japanese collegeeducated parents shifted their focus of parenting practices from providing diverse experiences to narrower academic preparation as the time for lower secondary education approached. Matsouka (2019) demonstrated that ‘unequal childhoods’—defined as the accumulated disparities in adult-led structured experiences—lead to unequal success in the transition to junior high school education, a critical period of preparation before the mass educational selection (i.e. high school admissions). Economists explain this intensive parenting as not just the driver, but the result of increasing economic inequality. Doepke and Ziliboti (2014), for instance, examined the relationships between economic inequality in countries such as Sweden, China, Spain and the U.S. and preferences for intensive (e.g. authoritarian and authoritative) parenting styles in those countries over time. Overall, countries with high levels of economic inequality favour pushier parenting that emphasises the importance of perseverance and hard work; countries with lower levels of economic inequality favour more laissez-faire parenting which emphasises, for instance, creativity and independence. Doepke and Ziliboti (2014) also find that in the 1960s and 1970s, when anti-authoritarian, laissez-faire parenting reached the peak of its popularity, economic inequality was also at an all-time low. This makes sense: given the relatively low returns

Family Language Policy and Language …

129

to education, there was little reason for parents to push their children. However, as they note, The last 30 years, in contrast, have seen ever-rising inequality combined with increasing returns to education. Children who fail to complete their education can no longer look forward to a secure, middle-class life, and consequently parents have redoubled their efforts to ensure their children’s success.

They predict that ‘if the march towards higher inequality continues, the current era will mark the beginning of a sustained trend towards ever pushier parenting’. The rise of so-called ‘pushier’ competitive parenting, or ‘concerted cultivation’ approaches has deep implications for the field of family language policy. On the one hand, competitive parenting has given rise to an ever-increasing number of books, blogs, advice columns and ‘how to’ manuals aimed at soothing worried parents’ concerns over the ‘right’ or ‘best’ approaches to promote bilingualism in the home (e.g. King and Mackey 2007, now published in German, Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese). Increasingly, these advice texts are shaped by neoliberal objectives that treat language as a commodity and skill to be developed for individual cognitive, academic and professional gain, rather than as a means for interpersonal connections or cultural meaning (e.g. Kidspot 2017). On the other hand, by most definitions, language policy of all types requires some overt, explicit attention to language. This trend towards ‘concerted cultivation’ suggests that such attention to language is increasingly common in some sectors, but as Lareau (2003) and others suggest, not in all. Thus, this careful attention to language teaching, or for instance, as is described below, to at-home ‘language workouts’, has the potential to further drive existing differences in family language practices, and ultimately, inequalities. For minority language families, this neoliberal ‘selling’ of the cognitive, academic and economic advantages of bilingualism can, again, play out in varied ways. In many instances, these advantages are ‘sold’ or promoted as applying to any and all combination of language (e.g. Bilingualism Matters, https://www.bilingualism-matters.ppls.ed.ac.uk/).

130

K. A. King and L. Wang

While such claims are well intended (and generally accurate), they can also inadvertently undermine support for less widely spoken, less economically powerful languages (e.g. Ojibwe or Dakota in the US, or Welsh in the UK). For instance, the economic advantage or international travel arguments generally do not apply to Indigenous languages in the U.S., and only serve to make ‘big’ languages like Spanish or French attractive.

4

Changing Nature of Epistemologies and Paradigms

While FLP as a field has increasingly engaged with broader and more diverse definitions of family, how scholars study families and what they seek to learn has also shifted. Indeed, as researchers of multilingualism and family language learning begin to come to terms with these material and demographic changes, the methodological tools and even the questions asked have changed. Researchers are increasingly interested in how families are constructed through multilingual language practices, and how language functions as a resource for this process of family-making and meaning-making in contexts of transmigration, social media and technology saturation, and hypermobility. As more recent work examines meaning-making and the language-mediated experiences of multilingual families, this shift in focus has implications for research methodology. As King and Lanza (2019) write: The contexts of family communication have become the target of (often ethnographic) investigation, rather than something that is assumed, as meaning is seen as both produced and interpreted within particular places, activities, social relations, interactional histories, and cultural ideologies. (2019: 719)

Moreover, this close analysis of semiotic data is increasingly taken by researchers as essential to understanding its significance, given that meaning is ‘far more than just the “expression of ideas”, and biography, [rather] identifications, stance and nuance are extensively signalled in the

Family Language Policy and Language …

131

linguistic and textual fine-grain’ (Blommaert and Rampton 2011: 10). This shifting methodological gaze brings ideology, identity and agency into central focus in the study of multilingualism and transnational families. Concomitantly, this newer work is more likely to draw from multiple, complementary methodological and empirical approaches. Recent examples of such work include Smagulova’s (2019) use of both a survey and conversational analysis (CA) to uncover the ideologies of language in Kazakh language revival. Smagulova’s close analysis of code-switching in adult–child interactions uncovers how this reimagining of Kazakh is accomplished, and identifies four mutually reinforcing metalanguaging practices. These include limiting Kazakh to pedagogic formats, constructing Kazakh as school talk, confining Kazakh to reproduction of ‘prior text’ (e.g. text of verse) and the co-occurrence of shift to Kazakh with a shift to a meta-communicative frame. Smagulova’s findings expand our understanding of the discursive processes through which ideologies of language revival are both created and sustained. As another example, Purkarthofer (2017) critically examined the language expectations of three multilingual couples, each of whom has a different language background and varied experiences of migration, and each of whom is expecting, or has just had, their first child. Purkarthofer adopted speaker-centred qualitative methods, including what she defines as language portrayals and biographic narratives, to analyse (real and imagined) constructed spaces of interaction. Close analysis of three coconstructed narratives based on the expectations of the future parents revealed the construction of the child as a multilingual self in her or his own right. Purkarthofer’s multimodal analysis of drawings and interviews demonstrates the collective and interactive construction of three-dimensional future family spaces, and provided a window into the parents’ imagined language future of these children. Purkarthofer’s work highlights the importance of imagination, and also the ways in which parents’ planning for multilingualism can remain open to new possibilities. Other researchers have introduced newer methods to the field, such as autoethnography, to deepen our understanding of family language policy experiences and interactions. Autoethnography is a research approach that explicitly acknowledges and accommodates the messy, uncertain and

132

K. A. King and L. Wang

emotional nature of social life by showing people in their process of figuring out what to do and how to live, and the social cultural meanings of their struggles (Adams et al. 2015). Rather than try to limit the subjectivity of the researcher, it embraces the researcher’s subjectivity as they are the primary participant. Liu and Lin (2018) take up this method to explore their experiences in family language planning in English as a foreign language, a language which is non-native to both parent-authors. They develop and share personal narratives of their bilingual parenting experience and analyse their decision-making processes, the concerns they encountered, their bilingual parenting practices and their reflections on their ‘journey’. In a similar vein, other scholars have recently (re)examined and deepened how ‘success’ is defined within FLP by unpacking the nexus of a parent’s prior experiences, expectations surrounding language use and overt and covert language policies (Smith-Christmas et al. 2019). This work, which builds on long-term, large-scale ethnographies of FLP in an immigrant context (Turkish in the Netherlands), an autochthonous minority language context (Gaelic in Scotland), and an officially bilingual state (Swedish in Finland), underscores how it is. not simply each parent’s own sense of identity that determines the degree to which languages may be successfully maintained within the home and by whom it is done but rather the intersection of personal identities (historical body) with wider sociopolitical realities (interaction order and discourses in place) and the complex and multifaceted nature of these sociopolitical identities. (2019: 98)

These less outcome-focused, more post-structural research approaches have highlighted, among other dynamics, the critically important role of the child. Revis (2019), for instance, emphasised child agency in FLP among a less-typically studied population in her work. Drawing on rich ethnographic data from research in two refugee communities in New Zealand, Revis provided examples of the micro-processes of language transmission by focusing on children as powerful agents who alternatively collaborate with or subvert their parents’ language policy.

Family Language Policy and Language …

133

Her work shows how their language choices were influenced by exposure to the educational field and alignment with their peer groups, and sometimes explicitly tied to ethnic identity constructions. In particular, Revis demonstrates how the notion of habitus (Bourdieu 1977) mediated between structure and agency in an everyday life situation in migrant families. As she explains, on the one hand, children were. confined by structures that shaped their habitus: among others, they were affected by the dominant ideologies particularly in the educational field and the rules and practices enforced by their parents. Given the partly diverging cultural and linguistic norms and attitudes conveyed in these contexts, the children acquired a ‘cleft-habitus’ (Bourdieu 2007, 69). On the other hand, the children were agents of cultural and linguistic change. (Revis 2019: 187)

Other recent research approaches, by looking closely at family interactions, have uncovered important routines that suggest concerted cultivation approaches to parenting. Fernandes (2019), for instance, analyses instructional routines, what she terms to be a ‘language workout’. Her examination of Swedish–Russian mother–child interactional patterns reveals use of ‘teacher-talk register (e.g. corrections, questions with known answers, hyper-articulation)’, common in many middle-class families. Her findings suggest that the realisation of language policy in bilingual families relies not only on parental input and language choice, but also on the position of the child as a speaker and learner vis-à-vis the parent and highlights a format that allows for educational, affective and engaging exploration of bilingual language use with young children at home. As Fernandes explains, ‘in mobilising a teacher talk-register, it resembles classroom discourse and so-called home lessons. Yet, it is specific in its sequential organisation and consistent employment of a parent talk-register, which dialectically invokes educational and intimate dimensions’ (2019: 97). Song (2019), in turn, examined a South Korean migrant family’s language socialisation practices in a U.S. city, presenting a sociolinguistic analysis of a five-year-old child’s (Yongho) code-switching practices. Song focuses on how the social meanings of languages and language ideologies

134

K. A. King and L. Wang

enacted in his home were brought into play through Yongho’s codeswitching during a dispute with his mother. The analysis demonstrated how Yongho’s code-switching arranged and shifted different voice tones, speech acts, and stances according to the situated context. Song’s work highlights how Yongho’s code-switching practice ‘establishes an alignment with social types of persons that the particular linguistic practice indexes, through which he shifted and negotiated his social relation to others—a submissive self in Korean and an authoritative figure in English’ (2019: 103). These recent examples of research illustrate a close commitment to careful analysis of language use in naturalistic contexts, and in many cases, to the ways in which the broader political, cultural and ideological context shapes family life and family language practices in particular. While many of the papers above have focused on the European and U.S. contexts, similar trends are evident in other parts of the world, such as China. Indeed, what is happening in China in some ways illustrates processes apparent all over the world with respect to urbanisation and rapid industrialisation, as well as widening geographic and income inequalities. Ling’s (in press) research reveals how language ideologies with respect to dialect maintenance vary across Chinese cities, and how these ideologies shape young people’s dialect proficiencies and linguistic futures. Ling examined language ideologies and language practices in three Chinese cities. She found that usage patterns were closely linked to ideologies. While China has one official language, Mandarin Chinese (or Putonghua), it is also home to more than 55 ethnolinguistic groups (e.g. Uighur, Miao, Zhuang and Li) as well as many millions of speakers of regional dialects (e.g. Shanghai dialect, Cantonese, Hokkien). China, as much or more than other parts of the world, is undergoing a process of intense urbanisation, with increasing geographic mobility. This mobility means that on the one hand, speakers of different ethnic and regional dialects are in increasingly close and regular daily contact. On the other hand, there are fewer domains for use of non-Mandarin languages. National-level policies, such as the October 2000 National Common Language and Writing Law, further support and promote Mandarin as the common language and official medium of instruction in school. In

Family Language Policy and Language …

135

light of these changes over the last two decades, the family has become the most important if not the only domain for dialect use and acquisition. Recent work has suggested that even this domain faces challenges and is no longer secure (Zhang and Xu 2008; Yu and Yang 2016; Wang 2016). To examine these processes, Ling surveyed and interviewed 167 households about their language beliefs and practices in three cities in Eastern China: Yangzhou, Nanjing and Shanghai. These ideologies and practices can be grouped into four broad categories: ‘Mandarin Chinese dominant’, ‘dialect dominant’, ‘bilingual mix’ and ‘whatever works’. These ‘Mandarin Chinese dominant’ families stress the status and role of Mandarin Chinese for educational and professional success, and furthermore recognise the status of Mandarin Chinese as a lingua franca. These families tend to engage in ‘concerted cultivation’ of Mandarin skills in their children by, for instance, using only Mandarin (and avoiding the use of the parental dialect) with their children. Other families adopt a ‘dialect dominant approach’, wherein there are clear expectations concerning the child’s ability and use of the dialect, and it is taken as central to family and local identity. Shanghai families, perhaps unsurprisingly given the relatively high prestige and social value of Shanghai dialect, were most likely to express these views. A third group of families expressed what might be called a ‘bilingual mix ideology’, taking both the local and national dialect as useful and appropriate for particular stages of child development. Again, this approach was most common among Shanghai families, where growing concern about the perceived lack of Shanghai skills has given rise to initiatives such as the ‘Shanghai Dialect Competition’. Promotional campaigns and language regulations supporting Mandarin are stronger in Shanghai than other cities such as Nanjing and Yangzhou. A final group of parents can be said to have a ‘whatever works’ approach with respect to language in the home, and with little concerned cultivation or language management geared towards the young generation. With respect to links between the stated ideologies of parents, on the one hand, and the reported language proficiencies of the children on the other hand, the nature and strength of these relationships vary by region and dialect. In particular, in Nanjing and Yangzhou, parental

136

K. A. King and L. Wang

language ideologies were strongly aligned with young people’s reported dialect abilities (e.g. the children of pro-Mandarin parents spoke only Mandarin). In contrast, in Shanghai, there is no correlation between caregivers’ language ideology and teenagers’ reported dialect ability. For Shanghai families, despite the high status of the dialect, many families have shifted to Mandarin, largely due to perceived academic and professional needs. In Shanghai, the heavy-handed Mandarin-promotion policies and programmes in school and society seem to outweigh family language policies and parental preferences. This cross-city comparative work in a rapidly changing context provides a clear reminder of the variable ways in which what happens outside of the home impacts language use within families.

5

Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted some of the ways the field of FLP has evolved and expanded in recent decades. We reviewed central and recent research, and then considered some of the challenges and changes in the field. The study of families has been biased towards two-parent, middleclass and heterosexual homes, most likely because those are familiar to researchers in the field and/or are easy to access for recruitment. This is a serious lapse, and this bias limits the claims the field can make as well as our understanding of everyday families and language learning within them. As we have suggested here, who we study, how we study and what we study in family life is continuing to evolve, in step with changes in social science as well as in the nature of everyday family life. This is to the benefit of the field, and we hope does greater justice to the many millions of variably configured multilingual families around the world. Disclosure Statement This paper is supported by Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of the Ministry of Education, China (No. 17YJA740052).

Family Language Policy and Language …

137

References Adams, T.E., S.H. Jones, and C. Ellis. 2015. Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Al-Salmi, L., and P. Smith. 2015. Arab immigrant mothers parenting their way into digital biliteracy. Literacy in Composition Studies 3: 48–66. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2019. Healthy digital media use habits for babies, toddlers and preschoolers. https://healthychildren.org/English/ family-life/Media/Pages/Healthy-Digital-Media-Use-Habits-for-Babies-Tod dlers-Preschoolers.aspx. Accessed 6 January 2021. BBC News. 2015. Children spend six hours or more a day on screens. https:// www.bbc.com/news/technology-32067158. Accessed 6 January 2021. Blommaert, J., and B. Rampton. 2011. Language and Superdiversity. Diversities 13: 1–22. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practise. Cambrige, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. 2007. Sketch for a Self-analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Canagarajah, A.S. 2008. Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (2): 143–176. Carson, L., S. McMonagle, and D. Murphy. 2015. Multilingualism in Dublin. Trinity College: LSE Academic Publishing. Common Sense Media. 2016. The Common Sense Census: Plugged-In Parents of Tweens and Teens, 2016. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/ research/the-common-sense-census-plugged-in-parents-of-tweens-and-teens2016. Accessed 6 January 2021. Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. 2016. Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language practices in Singaporean bilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (7): 694–709. De Houwer, A. 2007. Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 411–424. Doepke, M., and F. Zilibotti. 2014. Tiger moms and helicopter parents: The economics of parenting style. VOX CEPR Policy Portal . https://voxeu.org/ article/economics-parenting. Accessed 6 January 2021. Ferguson, G.M., and M.I. Iturbide. 2015. Family, food, and culture: Mothers’ perspectives on Americanization in Jamaica. Caribbean Journal of Psychology 7: 43–63.

138

K. A. King and L. Wang

Fernandes, O.A. 2019. Language workout in bilingual mother-child interaction: A case study of heritage language practices in Russian-Swedish family talk. Journal of Pragmatics 140: 88–99. Gallo, S., and N.H. Hornberger. 2019. Immigration policy as family language policy: Mexican immigrant children and families in search of biliteracy. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (3): 757–770. He, A.W. 2016. Discursive roles and responsibilities: A study of interactions in Chinese immigrant households. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (7): 667–679. Hua, Z., and W. Li. 2016. Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (7): 655–666. Kang, H.S. 2015. Korean families in America: Their family language policies and home-language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal 38 (3): 275– 291. Kidspot. 2017. 10 amazing benefits of being bilingual. Bilingual Kidspot. https://bilingualkidspot.com/2017/05/23/benefits-of-being-bilingual/. Accessed 6 January 2021. King-O’Riain, R.C. 2015. Emotional streaming and transconnectivity: Skype and emotion practices in transnational families in Ireland. Global Networks 15: 256–273. King, K.A. 2016. Language policy, multilingual encounters, and transnational families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (7): 726– 733. King, K.A., and L. Fogle. 2006. Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9 (6): 695–712. King, K.A., and L. Fogle. 2013. Family language policy and bilingual parenting. Language Teaching 46 (2): 172–194. King, K.A., and E. Lanza. 2019. Ideology, agency, and imagination in multilingual families: An introduction. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (3): 717–723. King, K.A., and A. Mackey. 2007. The Bilingual Edge: How, When and Why to Teach Your Child a Second Language. New York: HarperCollins. [Translated and published in German by Parthas Verlag in 2009; in Korean by Moonye in 2012; in Vietnamese by Quangvan Books in 2014; in Chinese by Beijing Language and Culture University Press in 2019] King, K.A., L. Fogle, and A. Logan-Terry. 2008. Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 1–16.

Family Language Policy and Language …

139

Kuhl, P.K., F. Tsao, and H. Liu. 2003. Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (15): 9096–9101. Lanza, E. 1992. Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child Language 19 (3): 633–658. Lareau, A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Liu, W., and X. Lin. 2018. Family language policy in English as a foreign language: A case study from China to Canada. Language Policy 18: 1–17. Matsuoka, R. 2019. Concerted cultivation developed in a standardized education system. Social Science Research 77: 161–178. Nielsen. 2019. The Nielsen Total Audience Report: Q3 2018. https://www.nie lsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2019/q3-2018-total-audience-report.html. Accessed 6 January 2021. Okita, T. 2001. InvisibleWork: Bilingualism, Language Choice and Childrearing in Intermarried Families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Parreñas, R.S. 2014. The intimate labour of transnational communication. Families, Relationships and Societies 3: 425–442. Potter, D., and J. Roksa. 2013. Accumulating advantages over time: Family experiences and social class inequality in academic achievement. Social Science Research 42: 1018–1032. Purkarthofer, J. 2017. Building expectations: Imagining family language policy and heteroglossic social spaces. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (3): 724–739. Revis, M. 2019. A Bourdieusian perspective on child agency in family language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22 (2): 177–191. Rideout, V., and M.B. Robb. 2020. The Common Sense census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight, 2020. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/ 2020_zero_to_eight_census_final_web.pdf. Accessed 9 January 2021. Roseberry, S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, and R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. Skype me! Socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Development 85 (3): 956–970. Said, F., and Zhu Hua. 2019. ‘No, no Maama! Say “Shaatir ya Ouledee Shaatir ”!’ Children’s agency in language use and socialization. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (3): 771−785. Schiller, N.G., L. Basch, and C. Blanc-Szanton. 1992. Towards a definition of transnationalism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 645: ix–xiv.

140

K. A. King and L. Wang

Shen, H. 2008. A case study of Ewenki family language—An interview with buhejirigala family in huisumu, Ewenki banner. Manchu Studies 1: 34–40. Smagulova, J. 2019. Ideologies of language revival: Kazakh as school talk. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (3): 740–756. Smith-Christmas, C., M. Bergroth, and I. Bezcio˘glu-Göktolga. 2019. A kind of success story: Family language policy in three different sociopolitical contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal 13 (2): 88–101. Song, J. 2019. Language socialization and code-switching: A case study of a Korean-English bilingual child in a Korean transnational family. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22 (2): 91–106. Wang, L. 2016. Language awareness and family language planning. Language Studies 1: 112–120. Wang, S. 2019. The hidden danger of Daur language from the change of family structure type: A case study of Hanbodai village in Qiqihar. New West 30: 110–111. Yu, W., and J. Yang. 2016. The changing trend and influencing factors of dialect use and ability of Shanghai teenagers in the past 15 years. Language Applications 4: 26–34. Zhang, J., and D. Xu. 2008. Population mobility and the popularization of Putonghua. Language Applications 3: 43–52.

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership in the Early Years to Support Heritage Languages Tina M. Hickey

An rud a chíonn an leanbh a níonn an leanbh What the child sees, the child does. Ní fhanann trá le fear mall The tide does not wait for the slow man.

1

Introduction

Recent years have seen growing recognition of the diversity of family composition and the significant changes that have occurred in how families care for their children. Among the societal developments that have impacted on families are the increasing participation of women in the labour market, and related changes in how parents care for their children, either within the family or in collaboration with professional or informal carers. Such factors require some reshaping of our definition T. M. Hickey (B) School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_6

141

142

T. M. Hickey

of family (Palviainen 2020a) to recognise that families are dynamic in time and space, and impacted on by external as well as individual factors (Curdt-Christiansen 2018). Such a shift towards viewing families as fluid rather than fixed units allows for more sensitive and appropriate explorations of family language policy (henceforth FLP) in particular. Some of these factors will be considered here in relation to family language policy in studies done on Irish in the Republic of Ireland, but also taking into account other Celtic languages and international research. The terminology used is important in framing the context here: terms such as minority, indigenous and autochthonous have previously been used in relation to Irish, Gaelic or Welsh. However, Montrul (2016: 15) included in her definition of ‘Heritage Languages’ (HL) those ‘that are national minority languages: Irish in Ireland, Welsh in Wales, Basque in Spain and France, Catalan in Catalonia, Frisian in Netherlands and Germany’. She defined heritage speakers as ‘early bilinguals of minority languages’ (p. 17). Thus, the early bilingualism of young heritage language speakers (henceforth HSs) is highly relevant to their language development, serving as a reminder of its impact on their heritage language proficiency. It also helps to highlight the commonalities in experience across different heritage language groups experiencing a decline in intergenerational transmission, and high contact with the majority language, as well as with large numbers of L2 learners of varying levels of proficiency also in many cases. Such a framing facilitates a better appreciation of the particular needs of children raised in HL homes. Family language transmission and use of minority or heritage languages (HLs) have long been recognised as the cornerstone of survival for threatened or less widely spoken languages (Fishman 1991). Recent years have seen more acknowledgement of the impact on the family domain of wider social changes such as shifts in childcare arrangements that are of central relevance to family language policy in HL situations. Here, these changes are considered in terms of their effect on Irish language transmission in the home and use in wider society. Section 1 examines how the social context and changes in family structure in Ireland have impacted on childcare provision and outlines relevant aspects of the sociolinguistic context of Irish. Section 2 looks at how

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

143

parents’ family language choices are affected by the available childcare and education options. The final section (3) considers approaches to promoting a partnership with parents that is supportive of the minority/heritage language as their children progress through early years education and into primary schooling.

1.1

Changing Families

Analysis of factors that influence families in Ireland in recent decades has shown ‘a mixture of stability and change’ (Lunn et al. 2009: vii). Among the stable trends seen are later age of marriage on average in Ireland and a lower divorce rate than elsewhere. Divorce was legalised in Ireland only in 1995 and remains quite uncommon: Connolly (2020) reports the Irish rate at 0.6 per 1,000 people, compared to 1.9% in the UK and 3.2% in the US. Ireland consequently has a lower rate of re-marriage than other developed nations, but also has a higher rate of single parenthood (Lunn and Fahey 2011). Patterns of family formation in Ireland show relatively rapid change: civil partnership for same-sex couples was introduced in 2011 and the Constitution was amended to allow marriage equality in 2015. Despite these changes, it remains the case that alternative family structures in Ireland are more likely to involve cohabiting parents and single mothers, while step-families and second relationships remain less frequent in Ireland as yet. A special analysis of the 2006 Census (not yet available for later census data) showed that, of the 1.15 million children in Ireland in 2006, the majority (75%) lived with two married parents, 18% with a lone parent, 6% with cohabiting parents and just 2.6% in step-families (Lunn and Fahey 2011). While Ireland’s birth rate remains high by European standards, a notable changing trend is delayed fertility, leading to smaller families than were the norm in previous decades (Connolly 2020). The birth rate has declined significantly since the 1970s, when the average mother had four children, dropping to two to three children in 2006 (Lunn et al. 2009); and today it is less than two per mother (Connolly 2020). Ireland’s maternal age is now one of the oldest in the EU: the average age that women give birth in Ireland rose from 28 years in 1990 to 32

144

T. M. Hickey

years in 2012. Commenting on the decline in family size related to the delay in child-bearing, Lunn et al. (2011) pointed to the rapid increase in the number of mothers at peak child-bearing age in Ireland who have a third-level qualification. This affects participation in the labour force: a higher proportion of mothers whose youngest child was under age 3 (60%) were employed in Ireland in 2013 than the rate found across the OECD (54%: 27 country average) (OECD 2014a). This higher participation of women in the labour force during their children’s preschool years requires childcare arrangements that may include a mixture of formal and informal provision. Given the overlap with the critical years of language acquisition, the choices available regarding childcare impact directly on minority language transmission and are thus highly relevant to family language planning decisions, as will be discussed further below.

1.2

Childcare in Ireland

The compulsory age for starting primary school in Ireland is 6 years, although primary schools accept children from age 4, and over 90% of 4-year-olds are now enrolled in either pre-primary or primary education (OECD 2017a, b, c). Childcare for children under 4 years in Ireland was, until relatively recently, funded privately by the majority of families who did not qualify for income-support subsidies; as a result, the Irish childcare system was described as one of the most expensive in the OECD (OECD 2014b). Statistics on childcare indicate that in 2016, the majority (62%) of children under 3 years in Ireland were in parental care, with 46% in non-parental childcare, of which formal settings such as crèches made up just 19% (Central Statistics Office 2017). This helps to explain the low proportion of children under 3 years in formal childcare in Ireland in the EU-SILC survey, which showed that only 21% of Irish children under 3 were in formal childcare in 2011, compared to the UK rate in that year of 34% and the EU area average (19 countries) of 34% (Eurostat 2020). The lower participation rate overall was also unevenly distributed, showing the impact of cost: 57% of children from high-income families in Ireland in 2014 were in formal Early Childhood

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

145

Care and Education (henceforth ECCE) programmes, compared to just 12% of children from low-income families (OECD 2016). Rapid change in participation rates has occurred as a result of recent Irish government initiatives to expand childcare provision. As a result, the proportion of 0–3 year-olds in formal childcare in Ireland increased from 21% in 2011 to 38% in 2018 (Eurostat 2020), closing the gap with the 39% rate in the Eurozone and the UK for the same year. Conversely, Eurostat statistics show a rapid decline in parental-only care of pre-schoolers in Ireland, from 62% in 2011 to 43% in 2018; thus, the Irish rate is now even lower than the Eurozone average (19 countries) of 46%, and closer to the UK rate of 37% parental-only care in 2018. A new National Childcare Scheme was announced in 2017 which provides childcare subsidies to families in Ireland with children aged between 24 weeks and 15 years, with non-means-tested subsidies to families with children under 3 years in formal childcare settings. These initiatives have led to increased demand for formal childcare that outstrips supply, and capital funding was allocated in 2019 to increase the provision of places in crèches for children between 0–3 years. A national policy framework for children (DCYA 2019a) included a commitment to promoting accessible, affordable and quality Early Learning and Care (ELC). This is linked to a ‘whole-of-Government strategy for babies, young children and families’ (DCYA 2019b) which aims to offer parents a broader range of options to balance working and caring, a new model of parenting support and reform of the ELC sector. Every preschooler in Ireland has had access since 2017 to a childcare subsidy either through universal or targeted programmes (Pobal 2019). The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) scheme is a universal programme now available to children in Ireland aged from 2 years 8 months to 5 years 6 months. The ECCE programme offers recognised pre-school education for three hours per day, five days per week over 38 weeks per year (September to June). The educational programme adopted by ECCE providers must follow the national framework for early years education (Síolta) and the national early years curriculum (Aistear ). As of June 2019, there were 108,137 children participating in the ECCE programme in Ireland, or 81% of the eligible cohort (Pobal 2019). The majority of parents in Ireland avail of the ECCE programme

146

T. M. Hickey

or another form of childcare, or opt to start their child at primary school before the compulsory age, leaving only about 3% of children aged 3– 6 years in Ireland who are cared for only by their parents (Eurostat 2020), compared to 15% in the UK and 12% in the Netherlands for this age-group. In addition to Irish state investment that increases the available formal childcare options, a draft Childminding Action Plan was proposed in 2019 to regulate paid informal childcare by non-relatives (non-crèche), which serves a significant proportion of preschool children in Ireland. There is limited oversight of informal childcare by extended family, although this has played a significant role in Ireland prior to recent state initiatives. A poll of parents (Irish Times/ Ipsos MRBI Family Values 2015) reported that the childcare they most frequently reported using at that time was grandparents (42%) and other family members (14%) or non-family childminders (20%), while formal childcare (crèches 20%) was in the minority at that point. Grandparents and other family members are likely to be of particular importance for families who speak a heritage language (HL), since they may be more capable of providing childcare through that language. This issue is discussed further in Sect. 2.1. The evidence from Ireland shows that state investment can bring about rapid change in families’ childcare arrangements for children under 3. Such policy changes and investments have possible implications for efforts to promote Irish language acquisition among young children that need to be monitored. While efforts have been made to adopt a more coordinated approach between government departments concerned with provision for babies, preschoolers and families, it is not clear how well the childcare changes have been coordinated with the government initiative to support the Irish language (20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010–30 Government of Ireland 2010). Before exploring this further in Sect. 2, relevant aspects of the sociolinguistic context of Irish are first outlined.

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

1.3

147

Sociolinguistic Context of Irish

In Ireland, while the Constitution recognises Irish as the ‘first official language’ of the state, only a minority speak Irish on a daily basis, and English, the language spoken by the majority, is recognised as a second official language. Efforts at revitalising the Irish language since Irish independence in 1922 had mixed success (Ó Riagáin 1997; Ó Duibhir 2018). Comparison of census data over the decades shows significant growth in Irish speakers, with 1.76 million people (about 38.5% of the population) reporting ‘ability to speak Irish’ in the 2016 Census (Central Statistics Office 2017). However, this increase in speakers with (some) ability in Irish is not matched by increased daily use of the language, since the census showed that nationally only 1.7% (73,803) ‘speak Irish daily outside the education context’. Of even greater concern were the low figures reported as daily speakers of Irish in officially designated Irish-speaking areas known as the Gaeltacht , rural areas located mainly on the western seaboard (see map in Walsh, this volume (p. 57‚58)). Census data show that even in these language heartland areas, only 21% (20,586) reported daily use of the language, a fall of 11% since the census in 2011 (CSO 2017). It was evidence of low levels of use of the language and declining intergenerational transmission that caused Fishman (1991: 143) to characterise Irish as a ‘test case’ that all involved in reversing language shift should ponder, in order to discover ‘what went wrong’ with the Irish revitalisation effort. State intervention to promote Irish revitalisation focused from the outset on the educational system. The policy was two-pronged: providing for the teaching of Irish as a second language (L2) in schools and the maintenance of Irish as a mother-tongue (L1) in the Gaeltacht . Schools were seen as the main means of revitalising Irish, with a focus on teaching the language to the majority of pupils learning Irish as L2 in primary schools throughout the state, with less coordination regarding maintaining the language in its heartlands (Ó Riagáin 1997; Ó Giollagáin 2014; Nic Fhlannchadha and Hickey 2019). A range of sources points to a decline in recent decades in the number of homes where Irish is spoken to children (e.g. Hindley 1990; Ó Riagáin 1997; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007). As a result, L1 speakers of Irish have been a minority

148

T. M. Hickey

in many Gaeltacht classrooms for some time, with little formal recognition of their particular language needs (Mac Donncha et al. 2005; Hickey 1999a; Péterváry et al. 2014; Nic Fhlannchadha et al. 2019) until Gaeltacht education policy changes were announced (DES 2016). These challenged schools and early years settings in the Gaeltacht to ‘opt-in’ to providing high-quality Irish-medium education for their diverse learners and committed governmental support and dedicated resources to such schools to support heritage speakers. A significant feature of the Irish sociolinguistic context has long been the universality of bilingualism among Irish speakers from an early age (Stenson 1993). The ubiquity and prestige of English regardless of location results in high levels of contact between Irish and English. The declining number of home-generated Irish speakers has contributed to a significant decline in teenagers’ use of Irish with their peers (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007) and evidence of attenuation and convergence with English in the Irish spoken by heritage speaker (L1) children in Gaeltacht communities (Péterváry et al. 2014; Nic Fhlannchadha et al. 2019; Nic Fhlannchadha and Hickey 2021; Müller et al. 2019). Ó Giollagáin (2014) warned that Irish is approaching a tipping point, given the increasing numbers of L2 learners speaking a variety of Irish heavily influenced by English, and declining numbers of L1 speakers; he argued that the latter now show both attenuation in their Irish and convergence with English due to that having become their dominant language by middle childhood. Thus, in Ireland as in some other heritage language contexts, there is evidence for the emergence of new varieties of the HL both among younger speakers in the Gaeltacht and new speakers elsewhere (Ó Murchadha and Ó hIfearnáin 2018). A number of factors are identified as contributing to this, including the decline in domains of use offering opportunities to interact with a community of fluent HL speakers (Gollan et al. 2015), and greater exposure to large numbers of L2 speakers who offer grammatically variable input (Nic Fhlannchadha and Hickey 2019, 2021; Gathercole and Thomas 2009). The resulting levels of Irish proficiency among children have been variously interpreted as showing ‘incomplete acquisition’ of the HL (Montrul 2008, 2016; Péterváry et al. 2014), the consequences of high levels of contact with English

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

149

(Ó Curnáin 2012; Silva-Corvalan 2015), or evidence of linguistic innovation in the HL (Otheguy 2016; Ó Murchadha and Ó hIfearnáin 2018). As in other endangered language contexts, there is some evidence of ideological tensions between different groups of speakers and questioning of HL speakers’ language authenticity and authority (Hornsby 2017; Nic Fhlannchadha and Hickey 2018; Dunmore 2018). In conclusion, studies of children raised in the Gaeltacht indicate that Irish now appears to be coming under unsustainable pressure (Péterváry et al. 2014; Nic Fhlannchadha and Hickey 2019, 2021; Müller et al. 2019). This, in turn, may further depress intergenerational transmission among families capable of raising children as Irish speakers, despite the ambitions of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language (Government of Ireland 2010) or Gaeltacht education reform (DES 2016). To be effective, such initiatives must also consider the impact of the wider social context on how heritage language parents use and support the language in the home during their children’s early years, and how well teachers are prepared and resourced for teaching different groups of learners through that language. Regardless of whether parents develop a family language policy consciously (by design) or unconsciously (by default), they do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, they must make a succession of significant decisions for their child based on their means, values, circumstances and capabilities, choosing among the childcare and educational options that are available to them. These issues are discussed in the next section.

2

Childcare and Family Language Policy

Internationally, the importance of family language transmission for minority languages has been recognised for some years, but King et al. (2008) re-framed the discussion by emphasising that family language policy (FLP) is less a binary choice between languages than a ‘dynamic, muddled, and nuanced process’ that takes place against the backdrop of both the immediate and the wider context. Recent years have seen a burgeoning in the literature on family language policy (e.g. King and Fogle 2013, 2017; Schwartz 2010, 2020; Spolsky 2012; Palviainen 2020a; Curdt-Christiansen 2018; King and Wang, this volume). Many

150

T. M. Hickey

of these move to reconceptualise FLP away from a focus on explicit language planning in static family units to explore more dynamic and implicit planning over time as family members grow and interact within and between generations. Palviainen (2020a) stressed the need for FLP to encompass wider enquiry into ‘who is in the family’ and to draw upon interdisciplinary approaches including sociological and psychological research on families. She argued that researchers should not take an exclusively ‘linguacentrist’ approach to FLP, just as parents do not, since it obscures the contribution of other factors such as family communication style, child and parent personalities and emotional issues (such as hopes and fears about the future, close interactions, attraction, aversion, dependency, alienation, closeness) as discussed by Tannenbaum (2012). Also noteworthy is the shift in recent years to include the child’s voice in discussions of FLP (e.g. Smith-Christmas 2020) and recognise children’s agency, so that they are not seen as the passive recipients of FLP, but active participants whose reactions, compliance and attitudes change as they grow, thereby helping to shape their families’ FLP (see Sect. 3.3). Palviainen’s (2020a) definition of FLP stressed the importance of considering ‘explicit, overt as well as implicit, covert planning across the members of a family network in relation to their language use and literacy practices across time and space’ (Palviainen 2020a: 238). This inclusion of implicit language planning encompasses family language policy that is based on unconscious decision-making among some groups of parents, as discussed by Gathercole et al. (2007): they found that the decision to transmit Welsh to their child is more likely to be an unconscious decision when both parents are from primarily Welsh-speaking backgrounds, whereas in other couples, where one or both parents may have lower levels of Welsh proficiency, such a strategy is more often based on explicit planning and discussion. Evas et al. (2017) showed that, in Wales, parents’ beliefs and identity, their proficiency and their perception of the social norms about language use in their community were central in their family language planning. They highlighted the fact that families choosing to speak a HL in their home have to implement their family language plan within the constraints of their work commitments and the options available to them in terms of childcare and school type. As a result, their experience of transmitting the heritage language to

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

151

their children in the home can differ radically from the experience of their own parents, given the significant recent changes in how families organise their day-to-day lives and care for their children. Childcare is a very significant issue for every family, and becomes even more challenging for parents seeking childcare options through the medium of a minority language. Factors relating to cost, availability and accessibility can determine which childcare options are feasible for a family and rule out others. This is particularly relevant in Ireland, given the significant recent increase in the proportion of children aged 0–3 who are now cared for in formal settings. An unintended consequence of increased support for formal childcare could be that HL families are steered towards the more readily available English-medium settings when their child is very young, and away from other options, including informal care, which would be more supportive of their child’s Irish acquisition. A significant concern in this regard is the lack of data on the demand for, and supply of Irishmedium childcare: while official statistics on childcare note provision for migrant children whose home language is ‘neither English nor Irish’, unfortunately they fail to record data on children whose home language is Irish separately from those whose home language is English. Consequently, an increase in the placement of babies and young children from Irish-speaking homes in formal childcare may result in earlier exposure to English (from carers and from other children), with potential negative effects on their acquisition of the minority language. There is a clear need to examine the Irish-medium childcare options available to parents raising children through Irish, many of whom are based in rural areas in the Gaeltacht , or dispersed throughout English-dominant areas. A related issue concerns the limited data currently available regarding language practices in Gaeltacht childcare: Department of Education inspectors observed that only 46% of publicly funded early years settings in the Gaeltacht actually operated through Irish (DES 2016). Regarding children aged about 3 years who attend sessional preschools for three hours per day, POBAL (2019) reported that overall, only 5.2% (199) of the 3,821 preschools operating in the state sector are naíonraí (Irish-medium pre-schools), serving just 4% of all children attending early years services nationally. Looking at where these groups are located

152

T. M. Hickey

and their attendance, Gaeloideachas (2020) reported that in 2018– 2019 they coordinated 160 naíonraí in English-speaking areas (61% of which were private services), attended by 4,980 children. The nearest comparable statistics available for Gaeltacht areas relate to 2016/17 when 75 naíonraí were in operation there, attended by approximately 1,200 children (Comhar Naíonraí na Gaeltachta, personal communication). It is unclear whether the provision of Irish-medium crèches and preschools has expanded in parallel with the increased investment in childcare discussed in the previous section. The difficulty in getting statistics on the supply and demand for childcare through Irish for children from Irish-speaking homes is a matter of significant concern, given that they are currently not reported separately from children from English-speaking homes. Furthermore, even where Irish is the official language of a naíonra or childcare setting and is supported by staff speaking the minority language, research indicates that young L1 Irish speakers in mixed groups with English-speaking children (attending as early L2 learners) tend to switch to English with their peers (Hickey 2001, 2007). Thus, simply placing a young heritage language speaker in childcare that aims to support that child’s home language does not rule out exposure to English when English L1 children are also included in that setting; such mixed groups are deemed necessary or even desirable in some Irish and Welsh early years settings due to insufficient numbers of children from HL-speaking homes to ensure feasibility of the group (Hickey et al. 2014), but in many cases do not include differentiated provision to meet the particular language needs of L1 speakers. In conclusion, it is argued that initiatives to implement progressive social policy aiming to increase children’s participation in quality early years education need to be checked for possible unintended consequences for minority language transmission and support. Such initiatives are more likely to dilute heritage language maintenance efforts by adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach tailored to the majority language, neglecting to ensure suitable early years provision through the minority language and appropriate ongoing language enrichment for heritage speakers throughout childhood. Effective support for family language transmission of Irish requires the development of a range of formal and informal quality childcare options if the number of children acquiring

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

153

Irish is to be increased in line with the state’s own 20–YearStrategy for the Irish Language (Government of Ireland 2010).

2.1

Grandparents and FLP

Survey results showed that, prior to recent childcare initiatives, more than half (56%) of children (of all ages) who were not cared for by their own parent(s) were reported to be cared for by grandparents or relatives, at least for part of the day (after school for older children) (Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI 2015). A breakdown of the poll findings showed that grandparents were involved in caring for children of all ages, from toddlers to teenagers in secondary school. The involvement of grandparents in childcare is likely to stem from a wish to promote a relationship with the child, with ancillary advantages of offering lowcost flexible childcare. However, laudable attempts to raise standards in formal childcare risk inadvertently devaluing non-professional informal care by grandparents and other relatives, implicitly promoting a belief that formal childcare is necessarily superior. The focus on the nuclear family supported by childcare in formal settings may have a more negative impact on families who set out wishing to speak the heritage language at home, but find that they cannot access childcare through that language, contributing to a gradual shift in their FLP. Grandparents have the significant advantage that they may be proficient speakers of the heritage language, so it is imperative that their potential contribution to informal childcare is not undermined by a societal valorisation of professional care in formal childcare settings. Regular contact with the older generation of speakers offers particular benefits for young heritage language speakers, given the evidence of attenuation in their language already discussed. Studies of Bengali-speaking grandparents interacting with preschool children in their London homes (Kenner et al. 2007) showed how valuable activities such as cooking together were in extending young children’s heritage language vocabulary development. Research on the involvement of fluent grandparents has explored the value of their linguistic and cultural contribution in the Kohanga Reo

154

T. M. Hickey

(M¯aori-medium language nests) in New Zealand (see, e.g. King 2001; Mutu 2005). Much of the research on grandparents and heritage languages has looked at migrant contexts in which the grandparents do not speak the majority language of the children’s community, where parents are motivated to transmit the HL to their children as a ‘communication bridge’ to their monolingual grandparents (Braun 2012; Braun and Cline 2014). For example, Welsh and Hoff (2020) found that grandparents were the main source of exposure to Spanish outside the home for preschool Spanish-speaking children in the US. However, in situations of almost universal bilingualism such as Ireland and other Celtic countries, even older generations of speakers are usually bilingual in English, thus removing the immediate need to incorporate the HL into the family language policy for purposes of intra-family communication. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that bilingual grandparents support the HL even when parents do: Braun (2012) found that bilingual grandparents in his study chose to speak English with their grandchildren rather than the HL (as the parents wished), because of their life experience of the greater prestige attached to English. Thus, the beliefs of the grandparental generation arising from their experience of the differences in the status of their languages may conflict with the FLP of parents, even when parents support transmission of the HL. Where grandparents are supportive of the parents’ HL transmission, they may need guidance to identify supportive ways of enriching children’s acquisition of the language. It may also be necessary to raise their awareness that the tendency among older speakers to criticise the new variety of the language used by younger HSs runs the risk of damaging self-esteem and alienating children from the language. This has been noted not only in endangered languages (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007; Dunmore 2018), but also among migrant groups. In Turkish migrant families, younger speakers accustomed to a bilingual mode of speaking with peers reported anxiety about speaking their HL with their grandparents, who demanded the monolingual mode familiar to them (Sevinç and Dewaele 2018). Younger speakers’ lack of confidence in speaking the HL with more proficient older speakers has also been observed to

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

155

strain family relationships (De Houwer 2015). Even when grandparents do support the family’s language policy, as in Smith-Christmas’s (2017) study of a Gaelic-speaking family in Scotland, others in the grandparental generation can be actively antagonistic to the language and attempt to undermine the policy. Other issues noted by Smith-Christmas among older speakers such as grandparents concerned unrealistic expectations about children’s language outcomes from their Gaelic-medium school, and how negatively children may respond to attempts by grandparents to make the child ‘perform’ the language, which risks reifying the language, inadvertently making it seem non-normal to the child. In conclusion, grandparents who are proficient in a HL may be a valuable resource who offer childcare that is accompanied by a richness of language not easily available among younger HL speakers. However, given the complexity of the sociolinguistic context, they may also need support to help them to manage language-related tensions when interacting with grandchildren speaking a new variety of the HL, in order to promote language enrichment in positive and affirming ways. Ideally, such support for grandparents should be included in outreach to families raising children with Irish as the language of the home, and other community-based language planning efforts.

2.2

FLP and Digital Communication

Some families now include members whose main mode of participation in family interaction is online, or virtual. Recent research on FLP shows the important role that communication platforms play in facilitating communication between family members at a transnational level, allowing international couples to maintain the relationship between children and grandparents (King O’Riain 2014). Palviainen (2020b) detailed one migrant mother’s use of digital communication to connect her preschool child with his grandmother in Russia on a daily basis. The routine-ness of such free and easy connection is critical in normalising this mode, even allowing the grandmother in Russia to ask a child in Finland to tell her about the TV programme he was watching, or to ‘babysit’ while the mother was in another room.

156

T. M. Hickey

Thus these easily available technologies offer valuable opportunities to HL parents to maintain important intergenerational relationships and increase contact with proficient speakers (Little 2019). Nor are these advantages only available transnationally: the experience of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic showed how valuable they can also be ‘translocally’ in allowing communication between family members who actually live fairly close to each other but may not be easily accessible. Such isolation was also found to act as a catalyst for the adoption of communication technologies among the grandparental generation to keep contact with extended family they could not visit. Taipale (2019) described how ‘digital families’ form connections between generations, and use information and communication technology to enhance functional and associational forms of intergenerational solidarity. This topic offers a rich vein for future research to explore how the accelerated growth of digital family communication during the pandemic could be deployed to the advantage of families speaking a minority language to promote interaction between speakers who do not live together.

3

Promoting Partnership with Parents

Hindley (1990) commented that supporters of Irish engaged in ‘loyal lies’ when putting a ‘brave face’ on the level of endangerment facing Irish in the Gaeltacht . Thirty years later that brave face appears to have disappeared in the light of research showing poor outcomes in Irish among Gaeltacht children. Denvir (2017) commented on dioscúrsa an éadóchais—‘the discourse of despair’ that became a talking point in the media around the feasibility of raising a child to be a proficient Irish speaker in the Gaeltacht. Evaluation of language outcomes for Gaeltacht children is necessary but insufficient in itself; what is urgently required is action to offer parents and communities the resources and appropriate supports to address the needs of young Irish speakers, in a way that provides parents with practical support rather than wishful thinking or sermons, as discussed by Ó Murchadha (2019) and Ó Drisceoil (2019). Gaeltacht parents who are proficient in Irish but who opt for English or

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

157

low use of Irish with their children may report a desire that their children become bilingual by acquiring the language in school, as noted by Ó hIfearnáin (2013). He recommended supports for parents in this situation to help inform them about research (e.g. Gathercole and Thomas 2009) showing that, while acquisition of the majority language is not at risk, the outcomes in terms of their children’s HL proficiency are likely to be significantly lower, conferring fewer cognitive benefits of the bilingualism many of them assume will happen under their approach. Outreach efforts and support initiatives need to listen to parents (Ciriza 2019) as well as inform, so that they can be receptive to their concerns as well as advising them about what does and does not work. Support programmes need to harness the information gained from FLP research regarding the need for higher levels of HL home input particularly in the early years, the need for differentiated provision in school to enrich the language acquisition of heritage speakers and evidence regarding their outcomes in the majority language. The 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language (Government of Ireland 2010) set out ambitious objectives to treble the number who speak Irish daily outside of the education system (from 83,000 to 250,000), and to increase by 25% the numbers speaking Irish daily in the Gaeltacht, with proposed action in education, legislation and status. Significantly, it included positive measures to support home use of Irish, both within and outside the Gaeltacht . The Strategy promised ‘Family Support Services: childcare services, pre-school services, language advisory services for families, after-school services, networks for Irish-speaking parents and children, pre-marital and ante-natal advice services, language awareness programme for families, speech therapy and psychological services, public health services’ (p. 20). Thus, the strategy appears to recognise the challenges facing parents who wish to raise their children as Irish speakers and the particular needs of those families and children for support in preschool and school. However, the changes proposed depend heavily on local commitment to language planning initiatives which have been criticised (Walsh, this volume) as evidence of the state shifting its responsibilities to the language to local communities. Furthermore, implementation of the services proposed requires significant long-term resourcing to expand Irish-medium options, including increases in the

158

T. M. Hickey

supply of teachers who receive adequate preparation to teach in Gaeltacht schools. The long-sought provision in 2019 of specialist pre-service teacher education specialising in teaching in Irish-medium schools is a welcome if overdue development; it is vital that this serves both immersion and Gaeltacht schools and attracts students from both sectors, and promotes action research among the graduating teachers. A problem in assessing the outcomes of the Strategy for the Irish Language is that some of the most significant changes for families and Gaeltacht schools, such as the Policy on Gaeltacht Education (Department of Education and Science 2016) (discussed further below) have only begun to be phased in, needing long ‘lead-in’ periods. Much depends on the political commitment and continuity of investment in implementing these initiatives.

3.1

Holistic Approaches to Promoting HL Awareness and Confidence Among Parents

Awareness-raising and confidence building for FLP in a heritage language is more likely to be effective if it is peer-led and includes both listening to parents’ concerns and sharing of other parents’ experiences of how to approach some of the challenges (see for example, Nic Cionnaith 2008; Ó hIfearnáin 2013). Such ‘horizontal’ support from other parents is preferable to a predominantly ‘top-down’ model of outreach (Ó Murchadha and Migge 2017). In the Irish context, since the launch of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language, parent-led groups such as Tuismitheoirí na Gaeltachta (Gaeltacht Parents) and Tús Maith (A Good Beginning) have formed to offer peer-support programmes supporting minority language awareness and practices. Parent-led outreach also needs to recognise diversity among the parent group and attempt to listen to the concerns of parents from a range of educational and social backgrounds. Such community language efforts that offer support from peers and older parents can effectively offer practical guidance, highlighting for example, the value of increasing HL input to the child through home literacy activities and suggesting helpful strategies to promote this. Parents within the community are aware of the obstacles to developing

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

159

and strengthening Irish when English is ubiquitous; establishing and funding active parent networks facilitates effective sharing of resources, and awareness of the options available to diverse family profiles. Some parents committed to raising children as Irish speakers were not themselves raised in Irish-speaking homes but became proficient ‘new speakers’ in school (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015, 2020). A significant practical concern for this group can be their lack of confidence with regard to child-directed speech (CDS), the current term for what was previously called the ‘baby-talk’ register or ‘motherese’. This concern has been noted elsewhere even among parents with high proficiency gained in a formal setting: Gathercole et al. (2007) discussed the need to offer modelling and support for parents in Wales to help them to become comfortable with CDS in Welsh. Cameron and Hickey (2011) showed how important parents’ frequently used phrases are in shaping toddlers’ early acquisition of Irish, giving children formulas that offer them a ‘foothold’ in the language (see Hickey 1993). Tuismitheoirí na Gaeltachta recently initiated a study of CDS in Irish, in response to a need they identified among parents for terminology and expressions in Irish that are appropriate to this register but also encompassing new baby/toddler equipment and entertainment. In addition to promoting parent-led initiatives, it is vital that centrally provided supports are accessible to minority language families, such as speech and language therapists and special education specialists who are resourced and trained to cater for the needs of HL children. Such professionals need measures to evaluate children’s proficiency in the HL and assess whether there is evidence of delay, which can be problematic in bilingual children, as reported by speech and language therapists and psychologists in Ireland (see O’Toole and Hickey 2013, 2017).

3.2

Promoting Seamless Transitions from Home to Preschool to School

Parents choosing to transmit a HL such as Irish in the home expect that their child’s language acquisition will continue to be supported effectively

160

T. M. Hickey

in Irish-medium preschools and schools. However, as home transmission of the language has declined, Gaeltacht preschools and schools have found themselves dealing with more L2 learners (Mac Donncha et al. 2005). In many Gaeltacht preschools, the presence of more beginners than native speakers led to a de facto prioritisation of what were construed as the more urgent needs of L2 learners over those of young HL speakers in need of language maintenance and enrichment (Hickey 2001, 2007). The Policy on Gaeltacht Education (Department of Education and Science 2016), recognised explicitly for the first time the need to support appropriate educational provision for children who are being raised through Irish. Schools must now meet certain criteria in order to gain recognition as a Gaeltacht school, including focusing particular attention on the differentiated language needs of native Irish speakers as well as learners of Irish. The Gaeltacht education policy is a vitally important strand of the 20-Year Strategy, but its implementation so far has been on a phased basis with limited resourcing and it remains unclear whether there will be the necessary funding and political will to implement it fully. It is important to remind ourselves that parents’ concerns generally extend beyond an exclusive focus on language and tend to include a desire to maximise educational and social benefits for their child. There is a growing literature that considers why parents choose to send their child to a school teaching through a heritage language (e.g. Schwartz and Palviainen 2016; Edwards and Pritchard Newcomb 2005; Morris and Jones 2007; Hodges 2012; O’Hanlon 2015; Evas et al. 2017). In a national survey of parents who chose to send their child to an Irish-medium naíonra (preschool), Hickey (1997, 1999b) found that the majority (60%) reported that they chose an Irish-medium preschool for a combination of both language and educational reasons, similar to findings in O’Hanlon and Paterson’s (2017) study of parents in Gaelic-medium education in Scotland. Once parents have chosen Irish-medium preschool and primary education for their child, there is robust evidence that supporting parents to become real educational partners with their child’s school improves children’s academic outcomes (see Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2005; Whitaker 2019). Supporting heritage language families requires

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

161

schools to offer tailored outreach to parents: Ciriza (2019) documents initiatives in a Basque-immersion school where L1 speakers of Basque are taught separately from the L2 learners until grade 3, with differentiated outreach to parents who are fluent HL speakers and those who are language learners, in order to deliver appropriate strategies for parents with differing levels of Basque proficiency. Ciriza’s model of involving parents builds on an adapted model of parental involvement proposed by Hickey (2016) and Kavanagh and Hickey (2013), whereby Irish-medium school principals and teachers seek to empower parents to engage in home-based activities that support their child’s language and academic development. They considered some of the practical supports that could help to promote more effective models of home-based educational partnership, with outreach to parents of all social classes and educational backgrounds and improved home-school liaison (Nic Cionnaith 2008) for all parents. This is an issue that requires greater consideration in initial and in-service teacher education, particularly in the recently developed specialist pre-service teacher education for teaching in Irishmedium schools. Development of a more integrated approach to families supporting Irish would include ongoing information about the value of continuity in parental support for the language, the need for consistently high levels of home input in the minority language, particularly in the early years, and the critical role of home literacy activities in the language in enriching children’s developing proficiency.

3.3

Recognising Child Agency

It is vital that we recognise the agency of the child in influencing language behaviours in the home. As every parent finds out, the darling baby becomes a child with a mind of their own, and may go through transient or longer-term phases of refusing to speak the HL at home. Palviainen (2020a) noted that research on FLP has begun to include child perspectives in recent years, acknowledging that children are participants in, rather than passive recipients of family language policy (e.g. Bergroth and Palviainen 2017; Smith-Christmas 2020; King and Fogle 2013; Schwartz 2018). In this view, the child is a co-producer of

162

T. M. Hickey

FLP, who can shape, reject and change policies. This aligns with societal shifts towards recognising the importance of hearing the voice of children regarding other aspects of their experience, family life and wellbeing. Family language transmission is necessarily an inter-generational endeavour, but the various participants in that endeavour can have differing sociocultural experiences, leading to different expectations around childcare and family practices. Adopting a view of FLP as a dynamic process that changes over time, we are more able to recognise that children’s role and participation change as they grow, and as they experience life in different contexts outside of their immediate family. Efforts to support parents’ FLP are more likely to be successful if they recognise the impact of child agency in the family language patterns, and offer informed advice on dealing with pressure from the majority language and reluctance to speak the HL.

3.4

Future Research

Studies of the impact of the state language strategy and Gaeltacht education policy initiatives are needed to assess how effectively these initiatives are implemented. Currently there is a troubling lack of data on children who are (L1) heritage speakers of Irish attending different models of childcare, given that the language of the home is only reported in statistics if it is ‘neither English or Irish’, making it difficult to assess the demand for, and provision of, services through Irish for pre-school Irish-speaking children. Furthermore, appropriate provision for Irishspeaking children urgently requires standardised tests to assess their L1 Irish appropriately (see O’Toole et al. 2020; Antonijevic-Elliott et al. 2020) as well as increased specialist training in language support and pedagogical strategies for early years educators (Hickey 2020). Further research is needed on the supply and demand for specialist services in Irish, and studies that identify specific needs among parents in home language transmission, such as the proposed study of child-directed speech (Tuismitheoirí na Gaeltachta). Juvonen et al. (2020) stressed the need to understand how social factors and affective factors impact on HL maintenance: when parents experience rapid social change there is

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

163

a merit in re-visiting earlier research such as that by Nic Cionnaith (2008), Ní Shéaghdha (2010) and Ó hIfearnáin (2013) to update and build on their findings about family language transmission and Gaeltacht schools. Other research that would be welcome in the Irish context would be studies of language input environments and of ‘harmonious bilingualism’ (De Houwer 2011, 2015); the development of outreach and support materials for grandparents and extended family members; and exploration of how digital family communication can increase input to children in the heritage language. Further research on children’s agency (see Smith-Christmas 2020) is needed to examine changes up to the teenage years in children’s attitudes to family language use in the Irish context.

4

Conclusions

Family language policy (FLP) is enacted at the nexus of changes in society that impact significantly on how families form and manage childcare, the equality of women and their participation in the labour force, and the recognition of children’s agency, among other factors. Parents embarking on an FLP supporting a heritage language like Irish must negotiate terrain that is strongly tied to tradition in some ways, and yet in other ways has altered radically within a generation. Despite revitalisation efforts over the last century, Irish has reached a stage where it has limited domains of use even in Gaeltacht areas. Changes in Gaeltacht education policy now being implemented offer what may be the last chance to provide the necessary language maintenance and support for home-generated Irish speakers. These educational reforms are linked to initiatives to generate language planning in communities that include outreach to inform and extend Gaeltacht parents’ understanding of bilingualism in a HL context. Ideally, such community-based HL planning needs to offer seamless and systematic family language support to HL families from before a child’s birth and throughout that child’s school years, in order to address the challenges that arise over time within families pursuing a heritage language policy. Effective interventions to promote HL transmission also needs to be agile enough

164

T. M. Hickey

to adapt to children’s agency impacting on FLP as they—and their families—grow; as well as adjusting to broad societal changes such as in childcare, and specific changes such as accelerated ICT penetration in the post-pandemic era offering opportunities for intergenerational connectedness. Parents raising children as speakers of a heritage language need all the support that they can get, and such support needs to plot a course between unrealistic expectations and beliefs promoting ineffective strategies, on the one hand, and a growing defeatism that risks discouraging individual and communal attempts to maintain the language, on the other. Outreach to parents needs to begin before parenthood itself, initiating discussion with older teenagers and young adults about their values and identifying what strategies do—and do not—support those values. Such discussion needs to include evaluation of the impact on the child’s heritage language acquisition of different childcare options, and the psycho-emotional dimensions of how families and family members negotiate their FLP (Tannenbaum 2012). Greater recognition of the contribution of these dimensions would enhance current efforts to support family language planning in contexts such as Ireland. Children arriving in Irish-medium preschools and schools from Irish-speaking homes have not reached their language ‘destination’; instead they have arrived at only the first stop on their language journey, where they find out how the world beyond home regards and uses their language. If that stop is not to represent the beginning of the end for their heritage language, then the childcare, educational settings and community services they attend must adequately address these children’s particular language needs and empower their parents to be educational partners who support their children’s optimal bilingual development. It must be recognised that time is not on the side of languages such as Irish, whose heritage speakers urgently need coordinated, effective and well-resourced multi-agency support.

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

165

References Antonijevic-Elliott, S., et al. 2020. Language assessment of monolingual and multilingual children using non-word and sentence repetition tasks. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 34 (4): 293–311. Bergroth, M., and Å. Palviainen. 2017. Bilingual children as policy agents: Language policy and education policy in minority language medium early childhood education and care. Multilingua 36 (4): 375–399. Braun, A. 2012. Language maintenance in trilingual families—A focus on grandparents. International Journal of Multilingualism 11 (4): 423–436. Braun, A., and T. Cline. 2014. Language Strategies for Trilingual Families: Parents’ Perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cameron, T., and T.M. Hickey. 2011. Form and function in Irish child directed speech. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (3): 569–594. Central Statistics Office (CSO). 2017. Census 2016: The Irish Language. http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/popula tion/2017/7._The_Irish_language.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2020. Ciriza, M.D.P. 2019. Bringing parents together: An innovative approach for parental involvement in an immersion school in the Basque Autonomous Community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40 (1): 50–63. Connolly, L. 2020. The ‘Irish’ Family. Presentation to Citizens’ Assembly, January 2020. http://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/what-we-do/meetings/evo lution-of-irish-family-linda-connolly.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2020. Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. 2018. Family language policy. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, ed. J.W. Tollefson and M. PérezMilans, 420–441. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Houwer, A. 2011. Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition. Applied Linguistics Review 2: 221–240. De Houwer, A. 2015. Harmonious bilingual development: Young families’ well-being in language contact situations. International Journal of Bilingualism 19 (2): 169–184. Denvir, G. 2017. Ná géillimis do dhioscúrsa an éadóchais maidir le tógáil clainne le Gaeilge. [Let us not yield to the discourse of despair regarding raising children with Irish]. Tuairisc, 15 May. https://tuairisc.ie/na-geilli mis-do-dhioscursa-an-eadochais-maidir-le-togail-clainne-le-gaeilge-gearoiddenvir/. Accessed 20 December 2020.

166

T. M. Hickey

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA). 2019a. Better Outcomes, Better Futures: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014 –2020. Dublin: Stationery Office. Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA). 2019b. A Whole-ofGovernment Strategy for Babies, Young Children and Their Families 2019– 2021. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Department of Education and Science (DES). 2016. Policy on Gaeltacht Education 2017–2022. https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-Sys tem/Policy-on-Gaeltacht-Education-2017-2022/. Accessed 20 December 2020. Dunmore, S. 2018. New Gaelic speakers, new Gaels? Ideologies and ethnolinguistic continuity in contemporary Scotland. In New Speakers of Minority Languages, ed. C. Smith-Christmas, et al., 23–44. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Eurostat. 2020.Childcare arrangments in the EU 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200427-1. Accessed 20 December 2020. Edwards, V., and L.P. Pritchard Newcombe. 2005. When school is not enough: New initiatives in intergenerational language transmission in Wales. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8 (4): 298–312. Evas, J., J. Morris, and L. Whitmarsh. 2017. Welsh Language Transmission and Use in Families: Research into Conditions Influencing Welsh langUage Transmission and Use in Families. Cardiff: Welsh Government. https://gov.wales/welsh-language-transmission-and-use-families-0. Accessed 20 December 2020. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gaeloideachas. 2020. Statistics [Naíonraí]. https://gaeloideachas.ie/i-am-a-res earcher/statistics/. Accessed 20 December 2020. Gathercole, V.C.M., and E.M. Thomas. 2007. Language Transmission in Bilingual Families in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Language Board. Gathercole, V.C.M., and E.M. Thomas. 2009. Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12 (2): 213–237. Gollan, T.H., J. Starr, and V.S. Ferreira. 2015. More than use it or lose it: The number-of-speakers effect on heritage language proficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22 (1): 147–155.

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

167

Government of Ireland. 2010. 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010– 2030. Dublin: Stationery Office. Hickey, T.M. 1993. Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 20 (1): 27–42. Hickey, T.M. 1997. Early Immersion Education in Ireland . Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Hickey, T.M. 1999a. Luathoideachas trí Ghaeilge sa Ghaeltacht [Early Education Through Irish in the Gaeltacht]. Dublin: Údarás na Gaeltachta and Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Hickey, T.M. 1999b. Parents and early immersion: Reciprocity between home and immersion pre-school. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 2 (2): 94–113. Hickey, T.M. 2001. Mixing beginners and native speakers in minority language immersion: Who is immersing whom? Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (3): 443–474. Hickey, T.M. 2007. Children’s language networks in minority language immersion: What goes in may not come out. Language and Education 21 (1): 46–65. Hickey, T.M. 2016. Beyond the immersion revolution: Meeting ongoing challenges. Plenary address at the 6th International Conference on Immersion (CARLA), Minneapolis, 16–19 October. https://carla.umn.edu/conferences/ immersion2016/speakers.html#hickey. Accessed 20 December 2020. Hickey, T.M. 2020. Heritage language early immersion: Irish-medium preschools in Ireland. In Handbook of Early Language Education, ed. M. Schwartz. Springer. Hickey, T.M., G. Lewis, and C. Baker. 2014. How deep is your immersion? Policy and practice in Welsh-medium pre-schools with children from different language backgrounds. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17 (2): 215–234. Hindley, R. 1990. The Death of the Irish Language: A Qualified Obituary. London: Routledge. Hodges, R.S. 2012. Welsh-medium education and parental incentives—The case of the Rhymni Valley, Caerffili. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15 (3): 355–373. Hoff, E., C. Core, and K. Shanks. 2020. The quality of child-directed speech depends on the speaker’s language proficiency. Journal of Child Language 47: 132–145.

168

T. M. Hickey

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., et al. 2005. Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal 106 (2): 105–130. Hornsby, M. 2017. Finding an ideological niche for new speakers in a minoritised language community. Language, Culture and Curriculum 30 (1): 91–104. Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI. 2015. Family values poll. http://edition.pagesuiteprofessional.co.uk//launch.aspx?pbid=eed7756b-e2ca-4db4-94a4-7d94ad fedc99. Accessed 20 December 2020. Juvonen, P., et al. 2020. Researching social and affective factors in home language maintenance and development: A methodology overview. In Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development: Social and Affective Factors, ed. A. Schalley, C. Eisenchlas, and A. Susana, 38–58. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Kavanagh, L., and T.M. Hickey. 2013. ‘You’re looking at this different language and it freezes you out straight away’: Identifying challenges to parental involvement among immersion parents. Language and Education 27 (5): 432–450. Kenner, C., et al. 2007. Intergenerational learning between children and grandparents in East London. Journal of Early Childhood Research 5 (3): 219–243. King, J. 2001. Te K¯ohanga Reo: M¯aori language revitalization. In The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, ed. K. Hale and L. Hinton, 119– 128. New York: Academic Press. King, K.A., and L.W. Fogle. 2013. Family language policy and bilingual parenting. Language Teaching 46 (2): 172–194. King, K.A., and L. Fogle. 2017. Family language policy. In Language Policy and Political Issues in Education: Encyclopedia of Language and Education, ed. T. McCarty and S. May, 315–326. Cham: Springer. King, K., L. Fogle, and A. Logan-Terry. 2008. Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (5): 907–922. King O’Riain, R. 2014. Transconnective space, emotions and Skype: The transnational emotional practices of mixed international couples in the Republic of Ireland. In Internet and Emotions, ed. E. Fisher and T. Benski, 131–143. New York: Routledge. Little, S. 2019. ‘Is there an app for that?’ Exploring games and apps among heritage language families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40 (3): 218–229.

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

169

Lunn, P., and T. Fahey. 2011. Households and Family Structures in Ireland: A Detailed Statistical Analysis of Census 2006. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Lunn, P., T. Fahey, and C. Hannan. 2009. Family Figures: Family Dynamics and Family Types in Ireland, 1986 –2006 . Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Mac Donnacha, S., et al. 2005. Staid reatha na scoileanna Gaeltachta 2004 [The Current Situation of Gaeltacht Schools]. Dublin: An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta. Montrul, S.A. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. 2016. Heritage Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morris, D., and K. Jones. 2007. Minority language socialisation within the family: Investigating the early Welsh language socialisation of babies and young children in mixed language families in Wales. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28 (6): 484–501. Müller, N., S.A. Muckley, and S. Antonijevic-Elliott. 2019. Where phonology meets morphology in the context of rapid language change and universal bilingualism: Irish initial mutations in child language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 33 (1–2): 3–19. Mutu, M. 2005. In search of the missing M¯aori links—Maintaining both ethnic identity and linguistic integrity in the revitalization of the M¯aori language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 172: 117–132. Nic Cionnaith, P. 2008. Léargas ar dhearcadh agus tuairimí i dtaobh an chórais oideachais Gaeltachta ag tuismitheoirí Gaeltachta atá ag tógaint a gcuid páistí le Gaeilge [Study of the atttitudes and experiences of Gaeltacht parents’ raising children through Irish to Gaeltacht schools]. Unpublished master’s dissertation, NUI Galway. Nic Fhlannchadha, S., and T.M. Hickey. 2018. Minority language ownership and authority: Perspectives of native speakers and new speakers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21 (1): 38–53. Nic Fhlannchadha, S., and T.M. Hickey. 2019. Assessing children’s proficiency in a minority language: Exploring the relationships between home language exposure, test performance and teacher and parent ratings of school-age Irish-English bilinguals. Language and Education 33 (4): 340–362. Nic Fhlannchadha, S., and T.M. Hickey. 2021. Where are the goalposts? Generational change in the use of grammatical gender in Irish. Languages 6 (1): 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010033.

170

T. M. Hickey

Ní Shéaghdha, A. 2010. Taighde ar dhea-chleachtais bhunscoile i dtaca le saibhriú/sealbhú agus sóisialú teanga do dhaltaí arb í an Ghaeilge a gcéad teanga. Dublin: An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta. OECD. 2014a. OECD Family Database. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/dat abase. Accessed 20 December 2020. OECD. 2014b. OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Ireland 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. 2016. Who uses childcare? Background brief on inequalities in the use of formal early childhood education and care (ECEC) among very young children. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/Who_uses_childcare-Bac kgrounder_inequalities_formal_ECEC.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2020. OECD. 2017a. Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. 2017b. Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. 2017c. OECD Family Database. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/dat abase.htm. Accessed 20 December 2020. Ó Curnáin, B. 2012. An chanúineolaíocht [Dialectology]. In An tSochtheangeolaíocht: Feidhm agus Tuairisc, ed. T. Ó hIfearnáin and M. Ní Neachtain, 83–110. Dublin: Cois Life. Ó Drisceoil, F. 2019. Gaeilgeoirí a labhraíonn Béarla lena bpáistí – an tabú ar gá é a phlé [Irish-speakers who raise their children with English: the taboo that needs to be discussed]. Tuairisc, 23 January. https://tuairisc.ie/ gaeilgeoiri-a-labhraionn-bearla-lena-bpaisti-an-tabu-ar-ga-e-a-phle. Accessed 20 December 2020. Ó Duibhir, P. 2018. Immersion Education: Lessons from a Minority Language Context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ó Giollagáin, C. 2014. Unfirm ground: A re-assessment of language policy in Ireland since independence. Language Problems and Language Planning 38 (1): 19–41. Ó Giollagáin, C., et al. 2007. Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht: Principal Findings and Recommendations. Galway. Acadamh na hOllscolaíochta Gaeilge. Ó hIfearnáin, 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): 348–365. Ó Murchadha, N. 2019. Is furasta locht a fháil ar Ghaeilgeoirí a labhraíonn Béarla lena bpáistí, ach ceist chasta í [It is easy to find fault with

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

171

Irish-speakers who speak English to their children but it is a complex issue]. Tuairisc, 29 January. https://tuairisc.ie/is-furasta-locht-a-fhail-arghaeilgeoiri-a-labhraionn-bearla-lena-bpaisti-ach-ceist-chasta-i/. Accessed 20 December 2020. Ó Murchadha, N., and T. Ó hIfearnáin. 2018. Converging and diverging stances on target revival varieties in collateral languages: The ideologies of linguistic variation in Irish and Manx Gaelic. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39 (5): 458–469. Ó Murchadha, N., and B. Migge. 2017. A Celtic view on minority language dynamics: Support, transmission, education and target language varieties. Language, Culture and Curriculum 30 (1): 1–12. Ó Riagáin, P. 1997. Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland 1893– 1993. Oxford: Clarendon Press. O’Hanlon, F. 2015. Choice of Scottish Gaelic-medium and Welsh-medium education at the primary and secondary school stages: Parent and pupil perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18 (2): 242–259. O’Hanlon, F., and L. Paterson. 2017. Factors influencing the likelihood of choice of Gaelic-medium primary education in Scotland: Results from a national public survey. Language, Culture and Curriculum 30 (1): 48–75. O’Rourke, B., and J. Walsh. 2015. New speakers of Irish: Shifting boundaries across time and space. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 63–83. O’Rourke, B., and J. Walsh. 2020. New Speakers of Irish in the Global Context: New Revival? London: Routledge. O’Toole, C., and T.M. Hickey. 2013. Diagnosing language impairment in bilinguals: Professional experience and perception. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29 (1): 91–109. O’Toole, C., and T.M. Hickey. 2017. Bilingual language acquisition in a minority context: Using the Irish-English Communicative Development Inventory to track acquisition of an endangered language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20 (2): 146–162. O’Toole, C., et al. 2020. Findings from the first phase of developing a receptive vocabulary test for the Irish language. International Journal of Bilingualism 24 (4): 572–587. Otheguy, R. 2016. The linguistic competence of second-generation bilinguals: A critique of “incomplete acquisition.” In Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), ed. C. Tortora, et al., 301–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

172

T. M. Hickey

Palviainen, Å. 2020a. Future prospects and visions for family language policy research. In Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development: Social and Affective Factors, ed. A. Schalley, C. Eisenchlas, and A. Susana, 236–253. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Palviainen, Å. 2020b. Video calls as a nexus of practice in multilingual translocal families. Zeitschrift Für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 25 (1): 85–108. Péterváry, T., et al. 2014. Iniúchadh ar an gCumas Dátheangach: An sealbhú teanga i measc ghlúin óg na Gaeltachta / Analysis of Bilingual Competence: Language Acquisition Among Young People in the Gaeltacht. Dublin: An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta. Pobal. 2019. Annual Early Years Sector Profile Report 2018–19. Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Schwartz, M. 2010. Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review 1 (1): 171–192. Schwartz, M. 2018. Pre-school bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents. In Preschool Bilingual Education, ed. M. Schwartz, 1–24. Cham: Springer. Schwartz, M. 2020. Strategies and practices of home language maintenance. In Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development: Social and Affective Factors, ed. A. Schalley, C. Eisenchlas, and A. Susana, 39–58. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Schwartz, M., and Å. Palviainen. 2016. Twenty-first-century pre-school bilingual education: Facing advantages and challenges in cross-cultural contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19 (6): 603– 613. Sevinç, Y., and J.M. Dewaele. 2018. Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism 22 (2): 159–179. Silva-Corvalán, C. 2015. Early bilinguals and adult heritage speakers: What are the links? Boletín De Filología 50 (1): 165–191. Smith-Christmas, C. 2017. ‘Is it really for talking?’: The implications of associating a minority language with the school. Language, Culture and Curriculum 30 (1): 32–47. Smith-Christmas, C. 2020. Child agency and home language maintenance. In Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development: Social and Affective Factors, ed. A. Schalley, C. Eisenchlas, and A. Susana, 218–235. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Family Language Policy: Promoting Partnership …

173

Spolsky, B. 2012. Family language policy—The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (1): 3–11. Stenson, N. 1993. English influence on Irish: The last 100 years. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 2: 107–129. Tannenbaum, M. 2012. Family language policy as a form of coping or defence mechanism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (1): 57–66. Taipale, S. 2019. Intergenerational Connections in Digital Families. Cham: Springer International. Welsh, S., and E. Hoff. 2020. Language exposure outside the home becomes more English-dominant from 30 to 60 months for children from Spanishspeaking homes in the United States. International Journal of Bilingualism https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920951870. Whitaker, M.C. 2019. The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of the parent involvement process. In The Wiley Handbook of Family, School, and Community Relationships in Education, ed. S.B. Sheldon and T.A. Turner-Vorbeck, 419–443. Medford, MA: Wiley.

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles: Challenges for Regional or Minority Languages Wilson McLeod and Huw Lewis

In their chapters, King and Wang and Hickey discuss a range of significant issues that have brought about changes to the structure of families and the ways in which they live their lives in recent decades, and analyse the ways scholars of family language policy (FLP) have taken different approaches to their assessment of these dynamics. For the purposes of this volume, a central question is the extent to which wider international trends are equally apparent in the social and sociolinguistic contexts of regional and minority languages (RMLs) and in what ways the position of RMLs may be distinct. This summary essay will review some of the W. McLeod (B) Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] H. Lewis Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_7

175

176

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

salient issues that arise here and raise a number of questions that require closer attention and further research. Among the major recent developments noted by King and Wang and Hickey are the diversification of family structure and the changing definitions or understanding of family; the increase in migration (especially transnational migration); the impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on family interactions and relationships; and the growing prominence of ‘competitive’ or ‘concerted cultivation’ approaches to parenting. The general trends that King and Wang note in relation to research on FLP in general appear to apply to work on RMLs as well, although there is of course a great deal less relevant scholarship on RML contexts than on cases involving more widely spoken languages. Smith-Christmas (2015) has done important work on the transmission of Gaelic in an extended family across three generations, for example, while Chantreau and Moal (2021) have considered the impact of separation or divorce on Breton language transmission. Although RMLs such as Welsh have often been associated with rurality and social conservatism, indeed stereotyped as such (see Jones, this volume), the important social changes of recent decades in relation to family structure and lifestyles also extend to RML families. There is no reason to believe that households with RML-speaking parents are less diverse than in the population as a whole, so that they may encompass nuclear families, single-parent families, families with alternating childcare arrangements following separation or divorce, blended families (children from more than one relationship), families with same-sex parents, extended families with members of different generations living together and so on. Some of these permutations seem likely to be disfavourable to RML use, at least when the proportion of RML speakers in the local area where the family lives, or indeed in the wider society, is low. For example, if only 10% of the population can speak the RML, the chances that a divorced parent’s new partner (and their children, if applicable) will also speak the RML are slight. It is notable, for example, that the rate of Welsh transmission in single-parent households is significantly lower than in households where two parents speak Welsh.1 Both King and Wang and Hickey draw attention to the growing emphasis on child agency as an area of investigation within FLP studies.

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

177

This is of course part of a much wider shift that has been identified and promoted in a range of fields, including education, sociology and law. The lens may be particularly relevant to RMLs, particularly as children have long been identified as important agents in the process of language shift (Macdonald 1997: 223–224; Gafaranga 2010), although in some cases this may be a rationalisation, given that to a significant extent children’s linguistic competences and preferences tend to reflect the input from family members and other adults in their lives. A stronger emphasis on child agency could have significant ramifications in relation to different matters affecting the position of RMLs, including matters like educational choice, which has traditionally been understood as a matter for parents rather than children. Significantly, various challenges or dilemmas may also arise: for example, how should parents or activists that wish to take the agency of children seriously respond appropriately in a context where a child, either explicitly or implicitly, resists the RML (e.g. refuses to speak the RML and answers in the dominant language)? Questions of this kind may tend to become increasingly prominent as RML planners and activists endeavour to move towards a more childfocused approach to language transmission and language revitalisation more generally.

1

The Role of Migration

Much work in the field of FLP consists of studies focusing on the transmission and use of a particular language variety—typically a standardised, strongly institutionalised language with many millions of speakers—on the part of parents and children living outside the language’s ‘home territory’. This should not be considered surprising: there would be little of interest, for example, in studying how monolingual French-speaking families living in France transmit French to their children (except with regard to internal linguistic questions, e.g. matters of dialect v. standard, the development of morphological accuracy etc.). As such, there is much emphasis in the FLP literature on the language practices of parents who have migrated, typically to another country in which the parents’ first language is little spoken. The context of RMLs is different in important respects. There are of course some RML-speaking

178

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

families who have migrated to other countries, and many more to parts of the ‘home’ territory where the density of RML speakers is relatively low; their situation may be analogised to those of migrant speakers of more widely spoken languages. For RMLs, however, there is also the challenge that the position of the language in the ‘home territory’ may not be secure; this issue does not arise in relation to widely spoken, ‘national’ languages. In other words, language transmission may be increasingly difficult even within the RML’s ‘heartland’, as there may be a breakdown (whether partial or near-total) of family-based intergenerational transmission in the community that is contributing to language shift. Hickey’s essay provides a valuable exploration of these issues in the Irish context, with its emphasis on the challenges facing families in the Gaeltacht, the traditional ‘heartland’ now challenged by language shift; scholars and practitioners familiar with other RML contexts will doubtless see many parallels. For most RMLs, language transmission is almost never accidental; strategic planning (whether at the institutional or family level, or indeed both) is required. Similarly, the role of globalisation, and within it the increased trend towards urbanisation, receives considerable attention in the FLP literature, but these phenomena tend to have quite specific inflections in the context of RMLs. As noted in the introduction, many of the principal socio-economic impacts of globalisation tend to be felt primarily in central or urban areas rather than the peripheral or rural areas where the densest concentrations of RML speakers are to be found. Urbanisation comes into play, however, through the pull of urban centres in terms of employment and educational opportunities (as discussed in the Economy section of this volume) and in such low-density environments the challenges of supporting the use of the RML in family contexts can be analogised in some respects to those of emigrant families who are working to bring about the successful transmission of the ‘large’ languages of their country of origin. There may be important variations here, however, with some RMLs being more disadvantaged than others, depending on the relative size of the RML community in the urban setting in question and the range of institutional provision that is available (which will depend to no small extent on the policy/political context).

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

179

At the same time, as also noted in the Economy section, an important factor that impacts on provision for RMLs in relation to childcare and education provision is the extent to which international migrants have become increasingly numerous in ‘heartland’ RML areas and, more generally, in countries such as Ireland and Scotland that were long characterised by heavy outmigration and little international in-migration. Thus, while language policy in such areas once tended to involve a simple binary—the RML and the dominant language—there may now be a much more complex mix of languages for policymakers and providers to take into account in relation to childcare and education provision. In this context, it may be more difficult to ensure attention and resourcing for RMLs, particularly given that in many urban contexts (such as Dublin) there are many more speakers of allochthonous languages than of the RML. Hickey identifies how some of these issues play out to the disadvantage of Irish speakers. In smaller, more peripheral communities, meanwhile, it becomes more difficult to implement strong policies to promote the RML, notably in relation to school education, when there are increasing numbers of children who speak neither the RML nor the dominant language. Since the 1980s, Gwynedd Council in northwest Wales has operated language centres which offer intensive 8 or 12 week ‘Welsh language course[s] for incomers to enable them to assimilate with the bilingual society and fully participate in bilingual educational experiences’ (Gwynedd Council 2017: 12). Provision of this kind is expensive, however, particularly as the number of pupils requiring it increases, and thus requires a strong commitment on the part of local authorities. Comparative research by Carlin suggests that the presence of regional or nationalist political parties within local government can be a particularly important factor in this context (Carlin 2013).

2

Defining and Assessing Success

King and Wang raise the important question of how ‘success’ is to be defined in various FLP contexts (p. 132). Unrealistic expectations in this regard will lead to disappointment and frustration. This is an especially salient issue in relation to RMLs, which are all (by definition)

180

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

experiencing pressure from contact with a more powerful language. This contact is often manifested in non-transmission of the RML or language shift in favour of the dominant language, and in many cases (sadly neither extreme nor unusual) intergenerational transmission may become rare or non-existent. In such circumstances the difficulty of transmission, and the sense of isolation even within one’s own community as other families in the area shift towards the majority language, may lead to feelings of helplessness and associated ‘discourses of despair’, as Hickey notes (p. 156). A key strategic challenge in terms of FLP, then, is to set appropriate goals and develop effective strategies that are relevant and useful given the specific sociolinguistic conditions of particular RML contexts. Some scholars challenge the heavy emphasis, indeed insistence, of scholars such as Fishman (1991) on the importance of intergenerational familybased transmission, arguing that this may simply be unachievable and unrealistic in some contexts and that expectations need to be calibrated accordingly (Romaine 2006). Similarly, the long-established concept of language ‘maintenance’ may be somewhat inappropriate, as this may posit a conservative, indeed static understanding of language that does not properly account for intergenerational change, even as sociolinguistic contexts evolve (Ó hIfearnáin 2015: 50). In particular, in contexts of language shift and revitalisation there may need to be a more flexible acceptance of linguistic change among younger RML speakers, even if some older speakers find it difficult to recognise or accept the new variety spoken by younger people as the same as their own (Dorian 1994, 2019). In this regard, scholarship on issues of RML transmission and language change aligns with work on the transmission and acquisition of heritage languages in immigrant contexts, although in the latter situation a ‘core’ language community in the home territory will remain unaffected by the linguistic changes in question (e.g. Benmamoun et al. 2013). The central challenges for RMLs in relation to FLP, as all other aspects of maintenance and revitalisation efforts on behalf of RMLs, relate to contact with the dominant language. In this regard, the ability of emigrant speakers of ‘large’ languages to draw upon resources developed in the language in the home territory (an important support mechanism discussed by King and Wang, p. 127) has no real parallel in the RML

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

181

context. Depending on the relative size of the RML community, the range of publications and media products may be very limited—certainly much less than even for a relatively ‘small’ national language such as Danish or Hungarian—and there can be issues of cultural specificity and authenticity; in the Gaelic context, for example, a very large proportion of children’s books are translated from English (McLeod 2012: 15).

3

The Growing Role of Technology

Broadly similar challenges arise in relation to the growing role of electronic media and communication technology: RML families will be relatively disadvantaged compared to families that speak more widely used languages. In general, RML speaking families can be assumed to be equally likely to make use of these new technologies,2 some of which may assist the process of language transmission and others may impede it. RML speakers can readily make use of platforms such as Skype or FaceTime that are essentially language-neutral and involve active language use in real time. When family members are geographically separated, this means of communication will be every bit as beneficial as it is for emigrant families speaking to relatives in their country of origin, or indeed for majority-language speakers. Conversely, predesigned material such as games and apps are much less likely to be made available with an RML interface, so that children’s use of these technologies through the medium of the dominant language may be detrimental to the development of their RML skills and their affective relationship to the language. In this sense, even for relatively well-supported RMLs such as Welsh, the situation in relation to technology today may be less favourable than it was twenty years ago, when television broadcast through the medium of an RML might have been expected to be more successful in engaging the attention of children. An additional layer of complexity comes with the increasing popularity of smart speakers (such as Alexa and Siri) which require the user to speak to the device in order to execute commands. Because communicative software is only available in more widely spoken languages, the RML speaker wishing to make use of these devices is compelled to use

182

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

the dominant language. Specifically, this means that the RML speaker must actually use the dominant language in order to engage with the device. This situation stands in stark contrast to Fishman’s notion that the home could serve as a safe space within which the RML could flourish behind fixed boundaries and from which the majority language would be excluded (Fishman 1991: 94). This notion has long been contestable given the role of radio and television—sometimes described as the majority-language speaking ‘childminder in the corner of the living room’ (MacDonald 1990: 22)—but the dynamics have arguably now become considerably more challenging. As with other aspects of ICT, there are initiatives to support RMLs in this area by developing new voice recognition programmes (McLoughlin 2018), but it is undeniable that RMLs are systematically underserved in relation to ICT and that provision for them is behind the curve, sometimes far behind (Cunliffe, this volume).

4

Sociolinguistic Challenges

Another important factor that differentiates RML contexts is the role of universal bilingualism. In many RML contexts, especially in Europe, all speakers of the RML can also speak the dominant language of the country and are effectively required to live part of their lives through the dominant language, even in areas with a high density of RML speakers. This means that the process of transmitting the RML will involve a degree of choice and determination that is not evident in cases when parents’ linguistic competence means that using the RML is simply the only practical option for them. The issue of concerted cultivation, discussed by King and Wang (pp. 128–29), also plays out in distinct ways in the RML context. Traditionally, such languages were considered—by their speakers and by non-speakers alike—to hold very little economic value or cultural capital in the wider society. This may still be the case with some RMLs which receive very little institutional support and as to which traditional discourses of devaluation essentially continue unabated. In other cases, where institutional support means that the language is perceived to offer

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

183

at least some advantages in terms of career prospects or to allow for children receiving education in the RML to gain the ‘benefits of bilingualism’, some parents may be motivated to seek acquisition of the RML by their children for at least partly instrumental reasons (Macleod 2021; McLeod 2020: 309–10). Acquisition in such circumstances may form part of a wider family strategy to bring the RML into their lives. Ideally this will draw upon the linguistic resources of a wider community, but in some cases there may be no support from the wider family (who may have no ability or interest in the RML) or the wider community. The former scenario will obviously be more helpful in terms of consolidating the child’s language skills and affective relationship to the language. In some RML contexts, particularly when there has been significant disruption to intergenerational transmission of the language, ‘new speaker’ parents may play an important role (Smith-Christmas and NicLeòid 2020). Hickey identifies some of the key challenges facing new speaker parents in the context of FLP, notably in terms of the facility of such parents in relation to informal language use and particularly in relation to child-directed speech. In this regard, however, it is important to point out that linguistic repertoires in relation to RMLs are better conceptualised in terms of a spectrum of competences rather than a binary distinction between ‘native’ speakers with a full range of competences and new speakers with restricted skills (Walsh and Lane 2014). Notably, in sociolinguistic contexts where language shift has been underway for some time, many ‘native’ speakers will themselves lack certain skills and the extent of their own socialisation in the RML may well be variable. In this connection, to elaborate on a point noted above, there is also a question of the relative ‘newness’ of new speaker parents—some will have close family connections to the RML, with RML-speaking relatives, while others will have no such connections, so that ‘family’ language policy will relate strictly to the nuclear unit. Unfortunately, the central finding of Evas et al.’s research (2017) on Welsh in families (discussed by Hickey)—that unconscious, unplanned transmission by parents for whom Welsh is firmly established as their primary language of communication is more effective than planned efforts on the part of parents without such family links—cannot be

184

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

considered helpful from the standpoint of strategic language planning. Such family circumstances clearly cannot be created or stimulated through institutional policy. However, it is very important to provide effective and appropriate support for all families, whether this be informational, in terms of providing advice concerning effective transmission strategies, or organisational, for example by offering structured provision of different kinds. In some respects the role of new speaker parents can be analogised to that of immigrant parents who endeavour to use the language of their new host country in the domestic context, even though this will not be their first language, and even though they may have limited competence in this language. Although this is certainly a widespread phenomenon, and is probably more prevalent than programmatic attempts at heritage language transmission, it has actually been relatively little studied within FLP scholarship. In other respects, the situations are very different: there are strong social and ideological pressures on immigrants to assimilate linguistically to the new country, and (in many but not all cases) many opportunities to access the new language, whereas many RMLs exist in sociolinguistic contexts in which their value is constantly questioned and there may be few opportunities to hear and use the language. A related phenomenon is the issue of communication between children and the grandparent generation, which has particular ramifications in the context of RMLs facing challenges of language shift. The principal dynamic presented in much of the literature concerning migrant families—that children’s acquisition of the language of family origin is necessary to allow for communication between grandchildren and grandparents (e.g. Nesteruk 2010)—does not apply in contexts such as those of Irish, Welsh and Gaelic, where all speakers, even those of the grandparent generation, can also speak the dominant language (Hickey, p. 154). However, as noted by Hickey (p. 153), in the context of language shift, older speakers who grew up at a time when RML use in the community was more pervasive tend to have (or be perceived as having) stronger skills in the RML and thus can serve as a particularly rich source of RML input to children. Targeted initiatives to encourage and assist grandparents in the process of language transmission may therefore play a particularly useful role in transmission strategies (see, e.g. Irvine et al.

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

185

2008: 42–43; Smith-Christmas 2015). Yet even if older people, especially grandparents, can be an important resource for children’s language development, various practical or ideological challenges may still arise. As Hickey notes (p. 153), the increased ‘societal valorisation of professional care in institutional or formal childcare settings’ that has been observed in recent decades tends to reduce the potential scope for grandparents to take an active role in caring for their grandchildren, and thus diminishes this potentially rich language input. In addition, because language shift contexts tend to involve the devaluation of the language on the part of individual speakers, it cannot be taken for granted that all grandparents will be supportive of transmission of the RML, even if they have strong skills in the language (Hickey, p. 154). Finally, puristic attitudes among some older speakers concerning the language use of younger speakers (which often reflect the influence of the dominant language) can discourage or alienate younger speakers (Dorian 2019). These dynamics are clearly less applicable to widely spoken, standardised national languages, although it is significant that the dynamics King and Wang describe in relation to Ewenki in China (pp. 122–23) align closely with those seen in relation to European RMLs such as Gaelic.

5

The Role of Institutional Provision

Hickey flags up several difficulties that may arise from the shift towards institutional childcare and early years education provision that has emerged in many Western countries in recent decades. This shift is linked in no small part to the increasing feminisation of the workforce— which has itself brought about a significant change in the dynamics of family life—and the concomitant need to expand institutional childcare and early years provision. The growth of formal institutional provision has brought with it a more complex regulatory environment, in terms of employee qualifications, official inspection regimes and so on, and also served to create a perception that institutional settings are to be considered superior to more informal arrangements, such as care by grandparents or other relatives (Lewis et al. 2017: 10–11). In addition, as Hickey notes (p. 152), a generally ‘progressive social policy that aims

186

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

to increase children’s participation in early years’ education may also dilute [RML] maintenance and transmission if it offers a “one size fits all” approach that is suited to the majority language’. There is clearly a risk that provision for the RML will be an afterthought, or will not be properly taken into consideration at all. Here too the greater linguistic diversity of many urban areas in Europe may make it more difficult to ensure there is suitable provision for the RML; policy-makers may effectively see it as one language among many rather than a particular priority (although this will vary according to the relative strength of commitment of authorities to the maintenance and revitalisation of the RML). Hickey notes the further issue of the need to ensure ‘appropriate language enrichment’ for all RML-speaking children in institutional childcare and early years settings. Even in ‘heartland’ areas, the proportion of children being brought up through the medium of the RML at home may be diminishing, so that provision may be aimed principally at children without such home input and with weaker language skills. Such mixing of children from different family language backgrounds may be to the detriment of children with stronger skills in the RML. Unfortunately, demography and economics may play a decisive role here; in small rural communities (sometimes with declining populations) there may simply not be enough high-fluency children to make separate provision viable.

6

Conclusion

The use of RMLs in the domestic sphere and in family relationships can be considered one of the most important spaces for RMLs. Ensuring that RMLs continue to be used in these fundamental contexts clearly plays a key role in efforts to sustain RMLs. At the same time, family language policy by its nature is fundamentally different from other aspects of language policy. Some scholars take the view that it should not properly be classified as a form of ‘policy’ at all—taking ‘policy’ to encompass actions by governments to alter aspects of their own or of social behaviour in order to carry out some end or purpose while family language policy amounts to no more than a series of private

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

187

decisions, behaviours and practices (Gazzola et al. 2021). However, in the context of language revitalisation policy, we often see initiatives of different kinds to influence the behaviour of parents, children and other family members in terms of language acquisition or to offer institutional support measures of different kinds (for example in the form of early years settings or the funding of early years settings). A broad-ranging overarching strategy, whether at a national or local level, will clearly need to take the crucial family sphere into account.

Notes 1. According to the 2011 census, 82.2% of 3–4 year-old children in twoparent households where both parents speak Welsh could also speak Welsh, compared to only 53% in lone-parent families where at least one of the adults in the household could speak Welsh (Evas et al. 2017: 50). 2. In some cases, however, connectivity may be an issue here: some rural RML areas are disadvantaged by poor broadband and mobile telephone infrastructure that may impede the use of some technologies. This issue is discussed more generally in the Economy section of this volume.

References Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2013. Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39 (3–4): 129–181. Carlin, P. 2013. Doing as they are told? Subregional language policies in the Basque Country, Catalonia and Wales. Regional and Federal Studies 23 (1): 67–85. Chantreau, K., and S. Moal. 2021. The transmission of Breton in the family: The effect of family rupture and recomposition. In Transmitting Minority Languages: Complementary Reversing Language Shift Strategies, ed. M. Hornsby and W. McLeod. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

188

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

Dorian, N.C. 1994. Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival. Language in Society 23 (4): 479–494. Dorian, N.C. 2019. Speaking Gaelic—cò tha dì-beathte? In Cànan Is Cultar/Language and Culture: Rannsachadh na Gàidhlig 9, ed. M. Bateman and R.A.V. Cox, 105–122. Sleat, Isle of Skye: Clò Ostaig. Evas, J., J. Morris, and L. Whitmarsh. 2017. Welsh Language Transmission and Use in Families: Research into Conditions Influencing Welsh Language Transmission and Use in Families. Cardiff: Welsh Government. https://gov.wales/welsh-language-transmission-and-use-families-0. Accessed 20 December 2020. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gafaranga, J. 2010. Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society 39 (2): 241–270. Gazzola, M., et al. 2021. Introduction. In The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, ed. M. Gazzola et al. Abingdon: Routledge. Gwynedd Council. 2017. Welsh in Education Strategic Plan 2017–20. Caernarfon: Gwynedd Council. Irvine, F., G. Roberts, L. Spencer, P. Jones, and S. Tranter. 2008. Twf and Onwards: Impact Assessment and the Way Forward—Final Report for the Welsh Language Board . Bangor: Centre for Health-Related Research, Bangor University. Lewis, H., E. Royles, and W. McLeod. 2017. Revitalise Workshop Briefing Report 2—Workshop theme: Language revitalisation and the transformation of family life. https://revitalise.aber.ac.uk/en/media/non-au/revitalise/Revitalise---Wor kshop-Briefing-Report-2-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2021. MacDonald, M. 1990. The Gaelic language and Scottish broadcasting. Media Education Journal 9: 21–23. Macdonald, S. 1997. Reimagining Culture: Histories, Identities and the Gaelic Renaissance. Oxford: Berg. Macleod, M. 2021. Family language policy in the face of a shrinking community language: Gaelic on the Isle of Lewis. In Transmitting Minority Languages: Complementary Reversing Language Shift Strategies, ed. M. Hornsby and W. McLeod. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. McLeod, W. 2012. Young children and Gaelic: A language planning perspective. In Young Children Learning in Gaelic Investigating children’s Learning Experiences in Gaelic-medium Preschool , C. Stephen, J. McPake, W. McLeod,

Changes in Family Structure and Lifestyles …

189

and I. Pollock, 10–15. Research Briefing 6E. Stirling: School of Education, University of Stirling. McLeod, W. 2020. Gaelic in Scotland: Policies, Movements, Ideologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McLoughlin, I. 2018. How to teach AI to speak Welsh (and other minority languages). The Conversation, 29 October. https://theconversation.com/ how-to-teach-ai-to-speak-welsh-and-other-minority-languages-105675. Accessed 24 January 2021. Nesteruk, O. 2010. Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31 (3): 271–286. Ó hIfearnáin, T. 2015. Sociolinguistic vitality of Manx after extreme language shift: Authenticity without traditional native speakers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 45–62. Romaine, S. 2006. Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy 5: 443–475. Smith-Christmas, C. 2015. Family Language Policy: Maintaining an Endangered Language in the Home. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Smith-Christmas, C., and S. NicLeòid. 2020. How to turn the tide: The policy implications emergent from comparing a ‘post-vernacular FLP’ to a ‘proGaelic FLP.’ Language Policy 19: 575–593. Walsh, J., and P. Lane. 2014. Activity of Working Group 1: Report on conceptualisations of new speakerness in the case of indigenous minority languages. Position paper of COST Action New Speakers in Multilingual Europe: Opportunities and Challenges. www.nspk.org.uk/images/downloads/CON CEPTUALISATIONS_OF_NEW_SPEAKERNESS_final.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2021.

Economy

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory, Hiring Model and Evidence François Grin and François Vaillancourt

1

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the contribution of language economics to the question of what language (or languages) is (or are) used at work. It takes ‘language(s) at work’ as a dependent, or ‘explained’ variable, and assesses the role of several variables as explanatory variables. Though retaining a basic supply-and-demand framework in our treatment of this question, we show that allowance must be made for the intrinsic F. Grin (B) Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] F. Vaillancourt Department of Economics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_8

193

194

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

complexity of demand and for the way in which this demand manifests itself. Some expressions of this complexity can be handled by economic modelling, while the treatment of others would benefit from more sustained interdisciplinary cooperation between economics and sociolinguistics. This chapter is broken down in five sections. In Sect. 2, we review some essential cornerstones of ‘language economics’ and its approach to language at work. In Sect. 3, we examine the use of language at work through the determinants of language use in the workplace. Section 4 presents a model of optimal recruitment and analyses the role of language in hiring procedures. Section 5 examines the some available evidence from Switzerland and Canada. Section 6 concludes by advocating strongly interdisciplinary approaches in the further study of the economic dimensions of language at work. This analysis is of relevance for regional or minority languages (RMLs) since the question of the economic usefulness of such languages is often raised when setting the relevant regional and language policies. Questions range from why the state educational system should teach these languages at all; if it does should it be only for the minority or regional language group concerned, or for the entire school-going population in the jurisdiction; and what net benefit this is expected to deliver for society. Proponents of the teaching of RMLs often argue that such policies boost local economic activity, for example, by sharpening the profile of local tourism and local consumption goods and in some cases by facilitating exports. This chapter provides a framework to ask the right questions and carry out the work to answer them in specific cases. However, it cannot provide a “one-size-fits-all” answer to such questions, given the extreme variability of linguistic and regional contexts.

2

Language Economics and Its Approach to Labour: Setting the Scene

Language economics is a small but expanding area of research in economics. For lack of space, we do not propose a general overview of language economics, referring the reader to recent survey papers and

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

195

chapters instead (Grin 2016a, 2020; Gazzola et al. 2016). We move directly, in this opening section, to the connections between language on the one hand, and work on the other hand. The question of what may explain which languages are used at work is itself a part of the broader topic of ‘language at work’, in which the classical concept of human capital plays a central role. Economists generally agree that language skills are, among other things, an element of human capital that employers may legitimately require (Becker 1976).1 Requiring such skills would generally not be seen as discriminatory, because they may be deemed necessary for discharging one’s duties; for example, it is quite uncontroversial to expect a teacher of Russian to know Russian, or a waiter at a restaurant in Vienna to be able to understand orders placed by patrons in German. It can be more controversial in other cases. Consider suppliers in Montréal who, because of the neighbourhood where they operate, generally serve a predominantly anglophone clientele‚ whether clients speak English as a mother tongue or as a second language. Such a situation can arise because of the geolinguistic makeup of the Montréal metropolitan area. Requiring such suppliers to be capable of serving a francophone client in French (the majority language of the province) may be problematic, and the issue can be seen as a distributional one: should a francophone client wanting to be served in French be able to do so anywhere in Québec, or should she be required to spend time and money to access a French-speaking supplier? This ambiguity may explain the resistance by some to Québec’s language law introduced in 1977 (Bill 101) that widened the use of French.2 The content of those duties are normally defined by the employer. Exceptions include unreasonable obligations set by the employer, which may be challenged in court, such as that an employee prove competence in a language that is manifestly irrelevant to the duties to be performed. However, employers, including public sector ones, usually have substantial leeway in deciding what counts as a reasonable requirement, For example, it was deemed acceptable under European law for the Irish educational authority to require a knowledge of Irish from a teacher who taught a subject usually taught in English.3 Notwithstanding a wealth of qualitative research from applied linguistics on multilingual linguistic practices in the workplace (e.g. Lüdi

196

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

et al. 2016), suitable quantitative data on language use at work are scarce, possibly even more so in the case of RMLs where small numbers make the existence of large databases uncommon. Although data about language use at work are becoming less exceptional,4 what is most relevant to the issue at hand is language use at work in relation to a speaker’s linguistic attributes, and suitable data sources are even fewer. Bearing this restriction in mind, this chapter focuses on quantitative research in language economics. Language economics can be characterised as an analytical perspective that relies on the paradigm of economic theory and uses its concepts and tools in the study of the relationships in which language variables are present usually along economic variables (Grin 1996). Much of language economics examines issues related to the status of languages in environments where more than one language is used for market activities. The single largest strand of research on language at work is devoted to the econometric estimation of the effect of linguistic attributes on labour income or ‘earnings’. Some of the older work of this type analyses the pay gap between Anglophones and Francophones in Québec5 ; this analysis revealed that such differences remained, even at similar levels of education and professional experience. Since the latter variables are, in principle, the fundamental determinants of labour income, the persistence of income gaps had to proceed from other causes, such as, for example, discrimination based on linguistic affiliation measured by the ethnicity or mother tongue (L1) of workers. In such cases, pay gaps both reflect and renew social, political and economic hierarchies that correlate with people’s linguistic attributes. These pioneering contributions have therefore relied in part on a demand/supply framework (Hocevar 1975), but they also invoke a series of concepts such as network theory (Migué 1970) statistical discrimination (Raynauld and Marion 1972), the combined impact of language skills and mother tongue (Vaillancourt 1980) or the costs (through the acquisition of language skills) of everyday communication (Lang 1986). Much of this work overlaps with the subfield of labour economics (see e.g. Chiswick and Miller 2015)‚ where various empirical studies may be arranged in four categories as listed below. Corresponding references to the literature may be found in Sect. 2.1.1.4 (‘Language, earnings and

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

197

the labour market’) in Gazzola et al. 2016; see in particular pp. 65– 75).6 Given the abundance of literature in some categories, only one or two sources are provided by way of example. The four categories are the following: • impact of official language skills on earnings in specific countries or regions: the cases that have been most studied are those of Canada and Québec (e.g. Aldashev and Danzer 2016; Vaillancourt et al. 2007); • impact on earnings of skills in the dominant or national language among immigrants: a standard illustration is the case of Spanishspeaking immigrants in the USA, where English is the dominant language (Bleakley and Chin 2010; Grenier and Nadeau 2011); • impact on earnings of skills in foreign languages—that is, in languages other than the local majority, dominant or official language: examples include the value of English, Spanish or Turkish language skills in the German labour market, or the value of the official languages used in another language region, in cases that apply strict language territoriality (Dustmann 1994; Grin 1999; Isphording 2014); • economic benefits associated with skills in RMLs such as Irish and Welsh (Borooah et al. 2009; Henley and Jones 2005). In all these cases, the fundamental assumption made is that there exists a relationship between, on the one hand, individuals’ language skills and their earnings, and, on the other hand, the use of, or at least some economic need for, language skills at work. Note that this assumption may not always hold, at least not in a strict sense. Consider the case of language policies mandating a bilingual profile for particular positions‚ whether in the public or in the private sector, or requiring workers to have certain language skills‚ for example, when physicians’ or lawyers’ right to practise is conditional on their possessing certain language skills. In such cases‚ the effect on language skills on earnings may be due less to a material need for such skills than to the deliberate creation of such a demand through legislation. This, however, does not make such demand less ‘economic’, precisely for the reason mentioned before: economic agents7 may have perfectly good non-financial (sometimes called ‘symbolic’) reasons for wanting a particular outcome.8

198

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

Such policy-driven processes, which may be reflected in wage premiums, are likely to play a significant role in the case of RMLs, precisely because the basin of RML speakers tends to be small or, more relevantly, the number of monoglot speakers of small languages is often negligible. The processes at hand, however, are difficult to tease apart since in the case of RMLs, the absence of suitable databases means that there exist relatively few estimates of rates of return on skills in these languages. Nevertheless, the contributions referred to in the fourth bullet point of the list above suggest that the capacity to read and write Welsh at a sufficiently high level generates an earnings advantage in the region of 6–7% (when the effects of different types of Welsh language skills are estimated separately; Henley and Jones 2005). As to competence in Irish, its influence has been studied in terms of occupational outcome. Borooah, Dineen and Lynch (2009) show that it significantly increases, holding a number of other relevant explanatory factors constant, the likelihood of working in the upper echelons of a socioeconomic category, while significantly reducing the likelihood of being unemployed. The causal direction considered in this strand of research essentially runs from ‘language’ to ‘economics’, and more specifically from ‘linguistic attributes’ to ‘labour income’. From an economic standpoint, the fact that some language skills are, on average, rewarded on the labour market through a wage premium over and above the earnings of otherwise similar workers who do not possess these language skills would be interpreted as the outcome of the interplay between supply and demand, on the labour market, of suitably trained workers with the required language skills. Remember that, as pointed out above, ‘demand’ encompasses a politically manifested requirement, among voters, for an environment presenting certain linguistic features, possibly including the use of an RML in professional contexts. However, we must take into account another phenomenon that complicates matters: the fact that language skills are rewarded does suggest some kind of equilibrium between supply and demand, but it does not automatically follow that these skills are actually being used at work, or that they are necessary for a good, service or commodity to be available to a client, particularly in the case of RML skills. Arguably, value emerges as much from potential as from actual use of the RML concerned.

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

199

This observation suggests that patterns of language use in economic activity‚ as distinct from the value, estimated by way of the rates of return to language skills in the context of economic activity‚ deserve closer examination. In the following sections, we take a closer look at the interplay between supply and demand and how they relate to the actual use of various languages, before focusing more specifically on the demand for language skills by employers. As we shall see, this is a multifaceted question, which may be approached from a variety of angles, even within language economics.

3

Investigating Language(s) at Work

Multilingual practices in various aspects of life have been attracting increasing interest in recent decades, as a result of various large-scale evolutions in politics, economy and society, not least globalisation, which broadens the range of everyday situations in which agents are confronted with linguistic diversity (Grin 2016a). The question of the language, or languages, required and/or used at work fits into this general trend, and this is reflected in the development of language surveys that include questionnaire items about language(s) at work. However, given the difficulty of operationalising many of the variables at hand, as well as the high cost of precise data collection in this area, many of these studies are qualitative or focus on a very specific case. Even among surveys adopting a quantitative angle, many are essentially descriptive. They certainly document, with varying degrees of detail, more or less multilingual practices at work. However, the representativeness of the samples, and hence the generalisability of the findings, is uneven (see Grin et al. 2010 for a review). Out of this considerable body of research, then, relatively few contributions offer an analytical perspective intended to explain which language(s) are used at work; the problem is undoubtedly more acute in the case of RMLs. Our focus here, therefore, is on the analytical approach to the questions at hand, offering pointers, mutatis mutandis, for future research into RML situations. An early foray into these issues by Sabourin (1985) modelled the process that ensures the optimal matching‚ given the supply and demand

200

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

for language skills‚ between the linguistic profiles of employees on the one hand and specific positions on the other hand. This matching model provides a conceptual framework within which the role of actual motivations for defining a job as having this or that language profile may be fitted. The linguistic profile of a job can then be traced back to various variables such as: 1. the nature of the specific tasks to be discharged; 2. the economic sector in which a private (firm) or public (agency, department) producer—and thus employer—operates; 3. the language characteristics of the target markets (whether domestic or foreign); 4. the share of international markets in a company’s sales (reflecting the sometimes hasty assumption that a firm operates in a ‘local’ or ‘national’ language, and that selling abroad means accessing clients who speak a ‘foreign’ language); 5. the needs (whether merely assumed or factually established) of effective internal communication within the firm or public-sector entity; 6. the main language(s) of a firm’s owners or managers; 7. quasi-policy orientations, set by the employer, with or without public policy guidelines or requirements, regarding the internal or external identity of the company. These reasons, of course, are not mutually exclusive and may be highly correlated. For example, catering to a certain segment of a market (variable 3) may imply interacting with a certain type of client, thus defining the nature of an employee’s tasks (variable 1).9 To our knowledge, no existing study to date has attempted to consider, let alone estimate, the role of all these variables jointly. However, some of them have been tested, taking advantage of the availability of data in specific contexts. Vaillancourt et al. (1994) estimates empirically the relationship between language use in the workplace and the characteristics of the employer, such as its ownership and the markets it serves. Using Québec data for both individuals (bilingual Francophones10 ) in 1979 (N = 2,716) and large (500+ employees) employers, they find that the use of French increases with francophone ownership of firms, and decreases

201

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

when firms serve markets outside Québec. Table 1 presents key results for large employers. They show that ownership matters more for higher level management jobs than lower level ones and more for the use of written than oral language skills. Detailed results, not reported here, show an impact of the specific industry on the use of French that appears linked in part to their location within Québec. Thus, by comparison with agriculture, French is used as intensively in mining, but it is used less intensively in petrochemicals (−16%). Both sectors have a low share of Francophone ownership, but the first operates in parts of Québec with an overwhelmingly Francophone labour force, while the second is mainly located in Montréal, where English-speaking workers are easily available (Vaillancourt et al. 1994, Table 2). If the focus is shifted a little in order to concentrate less on a job’s language profile than on the variables that may determine language practices at work, it is possible to propose a slightly different approach. This approach highlights the interaction between three external (or economicenvironmental) factors, and three internal choices by firms in setting the language needs, and thus language-related hiring activities (Grin et al. 2010). The three external factors are: 1. the language skills of the workforce available; 2. the language skills of the providers of inputs; 3. the language skills of the markets to be served; Table 1 Increase in % of work done in French, three types of managers, Québec, large employers, 1977–1979 if ownership ‘Québec French’ rather than ‘foreign’ Language skills

Oral

Management level

Higher

Mid

Lower

Written Higher

Mid

Lower

24

19

13

47

35

24

The dependent variable in the regression used is the share of work done in French. The independent variables are the ethnicity of the owners and the industry to which a business belongs. The R2 values range from 0.10 to 0.30. They are higher for written than for oral language skills and decreasing in both cases from higher to lower level of management. All coefficients are significantly different from zero at the 5% level using a t-test Source Vaillancourt et al. (1994), Table 5

202

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

Let us examine each of them in turn. Language skills of the workforce available. The available work force will depend on the non-language skills required and on the geography of employment. If one needs workers to answer basic consumer queries over the phone, then this presumably requires less non-language knowledge than if one needs engineers to draw up technical specifications in a given language. Employers’ requirements will differ between miners in a specific place and programmers writing lines of code that can be sent over the internet. Thus, the availability of a given set of language skills will vary between settings. One finding for Québec noted above was that even if mining employers were mainly non-Francophones, the use of the French language was quite common as mining usually occurred in regions of Québec were Francophones were already settled as farmers and loggers, the two most common occupations associated with new settlements. Non-Francophones were not present and therefore could not be hired to carry out most of the work, although some often moved in to occupy management and technical positions.11 The language skills of the providers of inputs. Input providers are individuals and firms who, through selling, make available semiprocessed goods, raw materials and, in general, the full range of inputs needed to produce goods and services. They may also lease equipment, structures and technology (cloud computing for example). The language content of each input will differ. Building a road requires interaction between the purchaser and the builder, but once it is completed, language skills are no longer involved in its use (except for road signage) although they will also be needed for maintenance work. On the other hand, interaction between the user of a computer and the machine will require the ongoing use of language skills. The availability of the relevant software in a given language has an impact on actual language practices and, hence, on an employer’s recruitment choices. The language skills of the purchasers in markets to be served. The purchasers of intermediate or final (consumers) goods and services may have a weak or a strong preference (or, conceivably, no particular preference) for being served in the language they know best, which often means their L1. For a given provider of a specific good or service, the existence of such a preference may create an incentive to hire a

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

203

more linguistically diverse set of workers than it would do otherwise.12 It is particularly important, in the context of RMLs, not to assume preferences to be solely the expression of narrowly financial considerations. Rather, the conditions surrounding consumers’ choices need to be taken into account. At a given moment in history, these preferences will reflect past and current public policies, the ingrained attitudes of the minority and majority language speakers towards the use of one or another language, and the odds of success when expressing preferences (see Grin 2016b). While economists treat preferences as exogenous at a given point in time, they allow for the possibility that preferences may change—a process, however, which may proceed from a variety of causes, including deliberate policy choices. Thus, policy-makers (normally, in response to the democratically expressed wishes of citizens) may engineer such change through a panoply of regulatory and incentive-based measures intended to modify the behaviour of individuals, households, businesses and administrations.13 Let us now turn to the firm’s activities proper, which requires decisionmakers to make three fundamental choices. These are: 1. what to produce 2. how to produce it 3. how to make it available to markets Let us discuss each of these three choices in turn. What to produce. Most firms start small, many die, some survive as small businesses and a few thrive and can even become large firms, possibly becoming part of an oligopoly, or even a monopoly. When seen in this diachronic perspective, a business can be said to have an original owner with a set of language skills, and this owner is ‘situated’ in a given language environment. The language skills of entrepreneurs will reflect those of the society they emerge from, frequently suggesting a pattern of path-dependence. Thus, Dutch entrepreneurs are more likely to know two L2s, usually English and German, than American entrepreneurs who, historically, tended to be predominantly monolingual. Old-school entrepreneurs‚ by which we mean entrepreneurs operating originally in

204

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

a technological environment that predates the development of information and communication technologies‚ usually began by targeting the local market, that is, a geographically small one. This pattern applies to a wide range of consumer goods and to numerous businesses that now have a multi-country reach. Examples includes restaurants and café chains (e.g. McDonald’s, Starbucks), retail services (e.g. Walmart, Carrefour, Spar), the automobile industry (e.g. Volkswagen, Ford, Renault-NissanMitsubishi) and sporting goods (e.g. Adidas). As a result of technological developments in the past two decades, some entrepreneurs in high-tech sectors claim to have been targeting a global market from the start; an example is that of applications for smartphones. However, globalisation or internationalisation are frequently interpreted as requiring the use of one dominant language, with the result that even when such agents operate from a country where one might expect a certain degree of multilingual awareness, they often do so in English, with little mention, if any, of other languages. This may occur not only where other languages could include an RML, as in the case of a technological institute in Ireland,14 but also relatively large languages, as in the case of Airbus, a European consortium of aircraft makers with subsidiaries in Britain, France, Germany and Spain‚ as well as China since 2009.15 Research on the actual linguistic practices of companies with international activities, however, reveals a more nuanced pattern (Piekkari et al. 2015). Entrepreneurs usually draw on their technical expertise (and their evaluation of a potential demand, based on their perception of a specific need) in order to start a business, but despite their global ambitions, they usually operate in their L1 or, among migrant communities, in a combination of L1 and L2. As they grow larger and diversify geographically, businesses tend to adopt more formal language policies (Sanden 2015). A large number of small entrepreneur-driven start-ups, therefore, may thus be less multilingual in their initial phases of existence, but as they grow, the range of languages used may increase informally by dint of recruiting a more varied workforce, without the company becoming more multilingual formally‚ owing to formalised and constraining language policies that require the sole use of a company language.

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

205

How to produce it. Numerous decisions must be made when setting up a production process. Such decisions include the use of home-based work or employer-provided workspace, the geographical location of such space‚ whether plant or office, the desired capital/labour ratio, the degree of flexibility in production, etc. Most of these decisions require implicit or explicit choices regarding what language(s) should be used in internal and external activities. One example is that of the language(s) in which safety instructions‚ e.g. for technical or biomedical equipment used by staff or pay scales are posted. As noted above, some of these choices may be mandated by law, while others are not.16 How to sell (lease) it. The degree of embeddedness of language in a given good or service will affect how it can be sold. A ton of aluminium has little language content and can be sold through a few intermediaries in almost any language. A computer program’s user interface is normally available in a limited number of human languages, and an artistic production such as a song is typically available in one specific language, even if it may be translated. A business may want to offer multilingual sales services in-house or let outside firms provide them. The three types of decisions made by the firm result in a set of overall linguistic needs, which can in principle be parsed into linguistic needs for each job. These can then be combined into a vector of linguistic needs characterising the firm, with each item in the vector referring to a job or job profile (Sabourin 1985). These needs will then be reflected in the firm’s recruitment policy.

4

Optimal Recruitment Policy

Firms optimise production choices in order to maximise profits and minimise costs. One of these choices involves the matching of language needs with labour supply. The optimal recruitment model used here explores the implications of a rational recruitment policy for the expected average level of language skills of an applicant for a vacant position. It suggests an explanation for the gap that can be observed (in the few cases where quantitative data are available) between the level of language skills

206

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

required by the position to be filled and the level of language skills of the successful candidate. The core assumption of this model, initially proposed in Grin et al. (2010), from which the rest of this section is adapted, is that a company sets up its recruitment campaign in order to minimise the total cost of selection, recruitment and employment of the new employee. For simplicity, let us consider two languages only, a majority (possibly national and/or official) language called Y and an RML called X ‚ which may or may not have the status of a ‘national’ or of an ‘official’ language. The recruitment procedure is assumed to be such that all applicants meet the non-linguistic professional competence requirements. Assume that the levels of an applicant’s language skills in X (required by the position to be filled, possibly as a result of language policy regulations) range from 0 (pure monolingual) to 1 (perfect bilingual). Further assume that, in the recruitment pool, the distribution of potential applicants, according to their level of proficiency in that language, is as shown in Fig. 1, with a modal value of 0.7. According to Fig. 1, speakers with a skill level close to or equal to 0.7 outnumber pure monolinguals or perfect bilinguals. We can therefore expect that it will be more difficult, and therefore costlier for the employer, to find the ideal candidate if the level of language skills required by the position is further away from 0.7.

Number of workers

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

RML skill level 0=nil and1= full knowledge Fig. 1 Hypothetical distribution of RML skills over 1,000 speakers (Source Adapted from Grin et al. [2010: 128])

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

207

In this context, three types of costs can be associated with a company’s hiring procedures: • a salary cost, which increases with the applicant’s language skills.17 In the case of skills in relatively ‘large’ languages, this phenomenon is borne out by a long tradition of empirical research in Canada (Vaillancourt and Pes 1980; Vaillancourt 2018), showing that not only is the knowledge of a second language (provided it is a language that is relevant in the local labour market) usually associated with higher earnings, but that better knowledge is associated with an increase in earnings. Similar results began to appear in Europe in the 1990s, in the few cases where data allows for the estimation of languageaugmented earnings equations.18 For reasons discussed earlier, few empirical results are available for RMLs, but a similar pattern may be expected once such skills become‚ possibly as a result of regulation‚ the object of significant demand by employers. • a recruitment effort cost, which is directly related to the scarcity of workers who possess the language skills needed, particularly at the level required for the job; • an inefficiency cost which, given an ideal level of RML skills Â, is defined by the cost of compensatory or additional actions‚ such as translations commissioned to a professional outside the company‚ needed to supplement the work of an insufficiently linguistically agile worker, and/or the risk of losses resulting from inadequate language skills.19 Salary costs are straightforward, and for the purposes of this model, they are assumed to be broken down in two parts, namely, a fixed component compensating for non-linguistic professional skills‚ which is assumed to be evenly distributed in the total workforce of size N , and a variable component, which is a positive linear function of workers’ RML skills. The recruitment cost depends on the number n of applicants out of a total labour force of size N . This number of applicants, in turn, depends on two things, namely (i) a search cost that depends on the proportion of workers in the RML skills target range and (ii) a selection cost determined by the effort invested in the procedure‚ including

208

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

advertising, scouting for talent, etc. Finally, the ineffectiveness cost is linked to the RML skills gap between the ideal level  and the actual skills level of the newly hired worker A 0 . If A 0 < Â, the employer incurs a cost proportional to this gap. The company’s programme, that is, the paradigm combining constraints, actions and objectives forming the heart of the model, can be summarised as follows. Given the three types of costs, the degree of language sophistication required by the position, and the number of speakers (distributed according to their level of relevant language skills) in the recruitment pool (constraint), the company chooses the level of language skills—typically, by setting a minimum and, possibly, a maximum around which to focus the recruitment campaign. It also chooses the amount to be invested in the recruitment campaign (action), in order to minimise the total cost of employment and recruiting (objective). Given the analytical complexity of the programme, it was solved by numerical simulations in the case where prospective employees’ language portfolio is expected to include skills in some major foreign language (Grin et al. 2010: 128–131), but the results carry over, mutatis mutandis, to the case where this concerns an RML instead. This programme suggests that the company may decide, in some cases, to advertise a position by requiring language skills lower than those actually needed for the position to be filled, in order to reduce the recruitment costs‚ because looking for the good speakers when they are scarce is expensive‚ and reduce payroll costs. In return, if the candidate has insufficient skills, the company will have to face the risk of loss resulting from an inadequate use of the language concerned in the operations involving the new employee; this will vary according to the type of job held (internal audit work is different from interactions with customers in sales or service jobs). The main implication, in terms of the questions addressed in this chapter, is that the level of language skills around which the recruitment campaign will focus may not correspond to the level of language skills formally identified for the job. Thus, it is quite possible for a firm to hire staff without explicitly requiring certain skills, even if such skills may be useful and actually turn out to be used for performing his or her duties. The interaction between the supply of skills, the demand for skills and

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

209

the actual use of those skills turns out to be a complex one, and merely observing a market equilibrium as reflected in a wage premium does not tell us the whole story, even if contains an account of crucial aspects of it. The model has been applied to several scenarios. For each of them, Grin et al. (2010) have calculated the average difference between the language skills of the workers and the skills that an employer would ideally like to secure for the position to be filled. The scenarios considered are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

bilinguals are numerous and the inefficiency cost is high; bilinguals are numerous and the inefficiency cost is low; bilinguals are rare and the inefficiency cost is high; bilinguals are rare and the inefficiency cost is low.

Language knowledge targeted thr0ugh hiring

The main results of these simulations are summed up in Fig. 2. The four curves, one per scenario, represent the average values of the language skills of the applicants recruited (vertical axis) for a given level of language skills defined for the position (horizontal axis). The ‘equi’ line (at a 45-degree angle from the axes) denotes equality between the 1.2 1 equi line 0.8 bilinguals rare, low cost inefficiency

0.6

bilinguals rare, high cost inefficiency

0.4

numerous bilinguals, low cost inefficiency

0.2

numerous bilinguals, high cost inefficiency

0 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

job language requirements

Fig. 2 Simulations: interaction between language skills, requirements and hiring (Source Grin et al. [2010: 130])

210

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

two percentages. In what follows, ‘language skills’ may refer equally to competences in an RML or in some major foreign language. Summing up, the model shows that it is possible for the differences between the language profile of the workers and the language profile of the jobs they take to result not from errors in the hiring procedure or from miscalculations by the firm. Rather, differences may stem from a perfectly rational decision-making process. This model can explain why companies may hire bilingual workers, even when the tasks to be performed do not require the use of foreign languages. However, the model also explains why bilingual workers, hired after a selection process formally targeting monolinguals, find themselves using their RML or foreign language skills if the nature of the tasks associated with the position requires them to, even though language skills were not a condition for being hired. And finally, this explains why there may be linguistic mismatches between the skills of workers and the requirements of employers/jobs.

5

Empirical Evidence

In this section, we report some relevant empirical evidence. First we present findings for Switzerland that allow us to measure the degree of mismatch between the job requirements and the use of the three most common official languages by language region. Second‚ for Canada, we discuss the cases of English and French and then turn to the relationship between community size and the use at work of twenty minority non-official languages. Again, for reasons explained above, lack of data prevents us from calibrating the following discussion on a standard RML case. Data collected in a previous survey on language use in Switzerland, prior to the development of the analytical model presented in the preceding section, shows that the percentage of workers who regularly use their foreign languages is significantly higher than the percentage of those from whom such skills were explicitly required at the time of hiring. The figures were collected in a representative sample (N = 2,400) of adults in the country’s three main language regions, where, owing

211

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

to strong, legally enforced language territoriality, the respective dominant languages are German, French and Italian.20 Table 2 indicates the difference between the percentage of respondents who reported using a foreign language (any other national language and/or English) daily, and the percentage of respondents who reported being explicitly requested, at the time of hiring, to possess the corresponding foreign language skills. This difference can therefore be interpreted as an indicator of the ‘under-targeting’ of foreign language skills that results from employers’ optimisation behaviour. In every single combination, the percentage of respondents using nonregional language skills on a daily basis exceeded the percentage of those who reported that they were requested to have such skills in order to be hired to a position. Although this might be explained in part by the normality of having foreign language skills in a country such as Switzerland, this explanation should not be overplayed. The first reason for this is that Switzerland operates with a strong territoriality principle with sharply demarcated language regions (except in the case of Romanche, spoken as a first language by less than 1% of the total population). In other words, in any given language region, other languages, though official at the federal level, have no official status and no visibility, and their speakers enjoy no particular language rights.21 Second, although basic skills in other national languages (generally acquired at school in language courses included in the curriculum) are quite widespread, only a minority of residents possesses high-level skills in those languages.22 Table 2 ‘Under-targeting’ of language skills in languages other than the region’s main language Language used → Language region ↓ French-speaking region (west) German-speaking region (north, centre, east) Italian-speaking region (south, south–east)

French

German

Italian

English

– 18.2

14.9 –

10.9 14.7

12.3 17.6

36.6

28.9

–

13.3

Percentage of respondents with daily or quasi daily use of FL skills minus percentage of respondents reporting that skills were requested upon hiring (N = 2,400, Switzerland, 1994–95) Source Adapted from Grin et al. (2009: 35)

212

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

Therefore, being able to operate in another language is not, even in multilingual Switzerland, regarded as a matter of course. It follows that an employer not requesting such skills from a prospective employee cannot take their existence for granted. Canada is a dual labour market where English is mainly used outside Québec and French is mainly used inside Québec.23 One result of interest may be the evolution of the use in Québec of French at work over the 1971–2016 period. This is presented in Fig. 3; it increases from before Bill 101 (1971) to after (1989+) by six percentage points. Some of this increase can be attributed to that language policy. A second finding pertains to the use of non-official minority languages in Canada where 2016 findings24 show that 99.2% of Canadian workers reported using English or French at work but not exclusively.25 The data reveal that the proportion of workers who use more than one language at work was 15.4% in 2016. The percentage of respondents who indicate mostly using ‘other’ languages (i.e. other than English and French) at work is about 5% across the country, but less than 2% of the population used them predominantly. Table 3 presents information on the relationship between mother tongue and the use of a language other than English or French in the workplace, whether exclusively or partly for the twenty most important non-official mother tongue groups in Canada.26 92

91

90

89

89

89

88 88 86 84

% use of French

83

82 80 78 1971

1979

1989

1997

2007

2016

Fig. 3 Percentage of use of French at work, Québec, survey data, six years, 1971–2016 (Source Adapted from Vaillancourt [2018: 20])

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

213

Table 3 Importance of top twenty non-official language groups in Canada, 2016 and use of language at work

Language

% of nonEnglish or Absolute French number pop (1) (2)

% of exclusive % using users % of the among total language users at population at work work (3) (4) (5)

% exclusive users in Total population (6)

Mandarin Cantonese Punjabi Tagalog Spanish Arabic Italian German Urdu Portuguese Farsi Russian Polish Vietnamese Korean Tamil Hindi Gujarati Greek Ukrainian Dutch Romanian

610,835 549,030 543,495 510,425 485,090 486,525 407,450 404,745 243,090 237,000 225,155 195,920 191,770 166,830 160,455 157,125 133,925 122,455 116,460 110,580 104,505 100,615

1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

5.9 6.9 3.3 0.2 1.3 0.6 0.2 1.2 0.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 0.5 2.9 3.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4

7.9 7.7 7 6.6 6.4 6.3 5.3 5.2 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.1 2 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3

24.1 23.1 17.9 9.2 19.9 7.4 7.0 8.4 5.8 12.5 9.5 12.2 7.9 15.2 18.5 6.7 12.6 2.8 7.3 5.8 4.3 4.2

24.4 29.7 18.5 2.6 6.4 8.2 2.2 13.8 5.3 12.0 10.6 10.1 6.6 18.7 20.3 9.7 4.6 19.9 4.8 7.8 8.4 9.2

Mother tongue: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dvvd/lang/index-fra.cfm; Language at work: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/IPS/dis play_f?cat_num=98-400-X2016095 Source Calculations by the authors using Census data. Twenty main L1s for language groups with more than 100,000 speakers, by decreasing size of the group.

It shows that the frequency and intensity of use is generally linked to the size of the mother-tongue group; the correlation coefficient between the language’s share in the total population (3) and the share of those using the language at work (4) is (0.85) and with exclusive use at work(6) is 0.74.27 Of course what is meant by ‘use at work’ is uncertain given the

214

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

wording of the question asked: such use might be among co-workers, with customers, with suppliers, or with the owner of the business, and could concern oral and/or written use. The foregoing discussion suggests that in general, the study of ‘language at work’ needs to be duly contextualised. This requires the development of complex indicators combining, at least, information about workers’ language skills, patterns of language use (taking into account frequency of use, purposes of use and level of skills needed), and employers’ formal demands as well as their expectations. In addition, this information needs to be interpreted against the demographic, political and linguistic backdrop that characterises the role of different languages as part of a given linguistic environment.

6

Concluding Remarks

Although ‘language at work’ is one of the better-known subfields of language economics, a number of issues in this area are only partly understood and deserve further investigation. The results reported in this chapter show that an extensive range of explanatory variables deserve to be considered. In addition to variables that fit quite directly into standard microeconomic analysis, such as the linguistic attributes of the workforce, of the suppliers of inputs, and of the target markets, additional and less common variables, such as those that characterise the ownership of firms, may prove to be important determinants of linguistic practices at work. As shown by the optimal recruitment model, cost-minimising behaviour by employers can further complicate matters and generate patterns that depart from what a prima facie observation of the overall linguistic environment could lead us to predict. This set of theoretical and empirical findings, however, only constitute a stepping-stone in the direction of more focused and more comprehensive research. In our opinion, substantial conceptual work remains necessary in order to strengthen the contribution of economics, including language economics, to our understanding of links between language skills and work. Let us note in particular that ‘economic’ and ‘social’ aspects are difficult to tease apart, illustrating a challenge frequently

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

215

encountered in language economics (Grin 2003), but also beyond it, in particular for the purposes of managing linguistic diversity through public policy (Grin et al. 2018). This observation suggests prioritising strongly interdisciplinary approaches, and the following remarks are formulated accordingly. Such interdisciplinarity may be more natural for language economics than for other specialities within economics, because it needs solid sociolinguistic concepts in order to develop a sharper analysis of languagerelated processes, including the use of language(s) in the workplace. More generally, collaboration between language economics on the one hand and sociolinguistics on the other keeps us alert to the complexity of the issues involved. For example, the notion of ‘language skills’ probably needs to be refined well beyond the usual operationalisation that merely distinguishes between skills levels (e.g. from A1 to C2); it needs to be contextualised, with due regard to the difference between actual language practices and language representations (Beacco et al. 2017). The link-up between ‘unregulated’ cases, where economic agents operate independently of (state) language policies and economic ‘forces’ operate freely (to the extent that they may, for shorthand, be labelled as such), and ‘regulated’ cases, in which these policies play a major role in guiding or constraining the practices of agents, deserves more sustained attention in economic research on language at work. Some ‘language regimes’ (for example, the set of rules governing the use of languages in the submission, examination and granting of patents at the European Patent Office or at the World International Property Organisation; see Gazzola 2014) are very specific and may be seen as a reliable proxy of the actual language practices in these organisations, particularly when it comes to translation. At the same time, fieldwork in multilingual companies often reveals a gap between an organisation’s official policies and actual practices, confirming that numerous facets of the relationship between work and language use await further exploration. A number of specific issues arise with respect to RMLs. First, as pointed out on several occasions in this chapter, the modesty of numbers involved raises acute evaluation problems. These have to do with the low total number of speakers and actual users, of businesses in the geographical areas in which the RML has a significant demolinguistic

216

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

presence, as well as with the comparatively limited range in the nature of the economic sectors of activity of such businesses. The very notion of sampling, in such contexts, is problematic. Purely qualitative approaches, however, may not offer a solution, given the very real risk of overemphasising observations of a merely anecdotal character. The only suitable methodology may be to engage in exhaustive quantitative work, combining surveys and the exploitation of administrative statistics. A second issue has to do with the particular importance of language policies for RMLs. Who should be responsible for language policies‚ and thus for their costs‚ to protect and promote RMLs is a question that presents special interest to economists. The intersection of the concepts of ‘minority’ and ‘region’ is strategically crucial, since RML communities without a strong regional anchoring, along with the associated institutions, cannot rely on the policies and spending power of a regional entity whose policies could be influenced through the minority’s local political weight. This, of course, requires that such entities exist. A worldwide increase in decentralisation since World War II, whether in Europe (e.g. in Belgium, Spain or the UK) or on other continents (e.g. in Ethiopia, Indonesia or Kenya),28 has led to more autonomy in language policy setting; this raises the issue of the distribution of the cost of these policies, bearing in mind that not all segments of the population stand to gain from them in equal measure (Grin and Vaillancourt 2000, 2002). A third and closely related issue is that of the type of economic discourse in terms of which the protection and promotion of RMLs is framed. Typically, four main paradigms may be used in order to advocate such policies, giving rise to four distinct lines of argument: ‘diversity generates creativity and increases effectiveness in production’; ‘the use of minority languages stimulates the development of regional economies’; ‘public promotion of minority languages stimulates the economy as a whole’; ‘linguistic diversity is a public good which contributes to overall welfare’ (Grin 2009; emphasis added). While each of these arguments has its merits, they are not equally persuasive in all cases; much depends on local empirical realities and on the sound analysis of those realities. This, in turn, underscores the importance of a lucid analytical perspective on multilingualism, particularly when the latter involves regional or minority languages.

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

217

Notes 1. We observe in passing, in order to dispel one of the most obdurate confusions encountered in the writings of some commentators (typically from outside the discipline of economics), that there is nothing intrinsically ‘neoliberal’ about this reference to ‘capital’. It simply means that alongside other characteristics and certainly not confined to this particular one, people may decide to ‘invest’ in their language skills, whether by learning another language or honing their skills in a language they have already acquired. Their motivations for doing so may be market-related or not; they may be financial or non-financial and reflect a wish to connect to one’s heritage, improve one’s knowledge of the cultural heritage of one’s spouse, intellectual curiosity, etc. 2. For an examination of forty years of Bill 101 see 40 Years of Bill 101 in Québec (special issue of Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2) (2019)). 3. See Groener v. Minister for Education and City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, Case 379–87, https://www.biicl.org/files/1968_c379-87.pdf. However, examples going in the opposite direction also occur. For example, the European Court of Justice, in a ruling issued in 2013, struck down a piece of Belgian legislation mandating the use of Dutch in Flanders for relations between employers and employees, on the grounds that ‘such legislation is liable to have a dissuasive effect on non Dutch speaking employees and employers from other Member States and therefore constitutes a restriction on the freedom of movement for workers’ (Anton Las v. PSA Antwerp NV (Case C 202/11), http://curia.eur opa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136301&pageIndex= 0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1852282 (last accessed 15 February 2021). 4. Basic information about language use at work appears in the Eurobarometer survey; see http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (last accessed 15 February 2021). 5. For example, the analysis of census data for individuals with identical levels of education and experience and the same number of weeks worked shows that in 1970, unilingual Anglophone men earned 10% more than unilingual Francophone men, whereas there was no difference for women. In 2010, Anglophone men earned 10% less and Anglophone women 9% less than their Francophone counterparts. Various factors such as an outflow of

218

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

Anglophones from Québec associated with a fear of secession, the growing importance of the French-speaking public sector, the growth of Francophone ownership of the private sector and the language laws explain this; see Vaillancourt (2018) for further detail. An on-line version of this bibliography is available at https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2681016 (last accessed 23 March 2020). In economics, ‘agents’ are individuals, households or abstract legal entities (businesses, often referred to as ‘firms’, as well as governments) that operate as decision units interacting on various markets. To most intents and purposes, economists’ ‘agents’ are analytically similar to sociologists’ ‘actors’. In other words, the reasons why people express a demand (through the market or through the political decision-making process) for some privately usable good or service, or some collective commodity (such as a more or less multilingual environment) is something that, from an economic standpoint, is not a relevant question. In economic analysis, rationality does not reside in what people opt for, but in the way in which they make their decisions. Relatedly, the distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘instrumental’ motivations is not relevant in economics (except from the very specific perspective of Becker’s ‘household production function approach’, which indeed is used in language economics; see Becker 1976; Grin 2016a, b). Let us also note that a problem of endogeneity may arise, in that the definition of a job’s linguistic profile may not be wholly exogenous. The availability (or lack thereof ) of certain language skills in a pool of applicants may lead the employers to redefine a profile accordingly. We return to this problem in Sect. 3. Given that our variable of interest is the use of one out of two languages we must carry out our analysis for bilingual individuals who can make such a choice. The number of Anglophones and allophones was too small to allow Vaillancourt et al. (1994) to analyse their case. A similar situation has been observed in the aluminium plants located in the Saguenay region of Québec to benefit from inexpensive hydroelectricity produced there. While owned first by ALCOA, an American firm, and later by ALCAN, a Canadian firm, these plants adopted a policy requiring middle managers to know French. See https://quebecfra ncais.org/la-langue-commune and http://www.uqac.ca/vision2050/wp-con tent/uploads/2016/08/l%C3%A9volution-du-syndicalisme-chez-Alcan. pdf (p. 170) (last accessed 15 February 2021).

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

219

12. Incidentally, this has a bearing on the inclusiveness that company language policies may foster, through two indicators: first, the extent to which actual or potential buyers feel respected by the seller, and second, the range of linguistic profiles among the workers hired for the sales activities of the firm. 13. Analytically similar examples include rules introduced since the 1960s in various jurisdictions on the mandatory provision and use of seatbelts in cars; or, generally since the 1990s, the progressive prohibition of smoking in enclosed spaces; and, more recently, the mandatory wearing of masks in response to the coronavirus epidemic. 14. See for example https://www.gmit.ie/news/14-new-entrepreneurs-targetglobal-markets (last accessed 15 February 2021). 15. The most egregious example is the Japanese firm Rakuten, whose leaders decided to use English only even for internal communication in their premises in Japan, with cafeteria menus and lift directories no longer provided in Japanese. 16. For a discussion of industrial action regarding the use of languages in French companies, see Cuisiniez (2011). 17. Obviously, this positive relationship only obtains for languages that are relevant on the labour market concerned, such as English in the US, German in Austria, etc. Some commentators, usually hailing from critical sociolinguistics, point out that immigrants’ possibly rich and varied language skills are not generally rewarded on the labour market (which is true). On this basis, however, some conclude that the abundant econometric results on the value of (local) language learning by migrants do not constitute a valid basis for setting language proficiency requirements for immigrants applying for permanent residence or citizenship. However, such a claim amounts to a confusion between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Common language skills are necessary in the sense that inadequate skills in the language are typically associated with a penalty on the labour market, but not a single econometric study has ever claimed that such skills, as such, were sufficient to guarantee access to a fulfilling or well-paying job, which usually require additional skills. 18. Using a basic regression model for the logarithm of earnings as a dependent variable, with education, experience, experience squared and foreign language skills as independent variables, Grin (1999) reports that among residents in French-speaking Switzerland, those who speak German earn a net wage premium of 14% over unilingual residents; those who speak

220

19.

20.

21.

22.

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

English get, on average, a 10% net premium. Among residents in Germanspeaking Switzerland, those who speak French earn 14% more, and those who speak English 18% more. In the case of RMLs, whose speakers are frequently bilingual in X and Y , the latter risk will tend to be smaller than in situations where the language skills needed for the position are in some major foreign language Z whose speakers (customers, colleagues in foreign subsidiaries, etc.) generally do not have command of the majority language Y . Switzerland is a federal country where German, French and Italian are recognised as official languages at the federal level. These three languages are also defined, together with Romanche, as national languages. Romanche is not official, except for the specific purposes of communication between the federal authorities and Romanche-speaking residents. At the cantonal (as distinct from federal) level, Romanche is official in the eastern canton of Graubünden/Grischun/Grigioni, alongside German and Italian. English is not an official or national language of Switzerland, whether at the federal or at the cantonal level. Romanche is not studied here given both the very small number of speakers that makes it costly to properly sample them, and the fact that given the deep germanisation of erstwhile Romanche-speaking valleys, the very notion of a Romanchespeaking region (let alone a region where economic activity unfolds mainly in Romanche) is one that has been called into question since the 1980s. For example, a French-speaking family moving to the German-speaking city of Zürich has no unconditional right to French-medium education‚ even in private schools; such education is only available privately, and the Federal Supreme Court has confirmed that the local education authorities may restrict attendance to a certain number of years. Symmetrical conditions apply to a German-speaking family moving to the French-speaking city of Lausanne. Swiss federal censuses do not collect information on the level of residents’ second/foreign language skills, but some surveys do. For example, a survey of over 40,000 young men conducted in 2008–2009 shows that despite a massive investment in second/foreign language teaching, which are compulsory school subjects for several years in the curriculum, the levels achieved remain modest. Among German speakers, the percentage of respondents with a level of competence in French at level B2 or higher was 40.6% among respondents with a pre-university education (roughly comparable to British ‘A Levels’, albeit on a wider selection of school subjects), 11.1% among those who had completed an apprenticeship and

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

221

17.1% among those who had only completed compulsory education. Symmetrical figures for French speakers’ skills in German stood at 28.2%, 11.6% and 22.2% respectively (Grin et al. 2015: 316 ff.). 23. The population of Canada in 2016 was 35.7 million. 75.4% spoke English and 22.8% spoke French but in Québec (population 8.1 million) these percentages were 13.7 and 85.4; see https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/en/statis tics/canada ((last accessed 15 February 2021). 24. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/ 2016031/98-200-x2016031-eng.cfm (last accessed 15 February 2021). 25. The language of work question (45) is as follows (https://www12.sta tcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/guides/003/98-500-x2016003eng.cfm): (a) In this job, what language did this person use most often? (b) Did this person use any other languages on a regular basis in this job? 26. These twenty groups account for 81.6% of speakers of non-official language mother tongues. 27. See http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/olc-cel/olc.action?objId=98-400-X20 16094&objType=46&lang=en&limit=0 and https://www150.statcan. gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019011-eng.htm. 28. Often in the wake of a longer process of decolonisation (particularly in Africa) and redrawing of borders (e.g. in Indian states after independence); see OECD (2019).

References Aldashev, A., and A.D. Danzer. 2016. Bilingualism and economic performance. In The Economics of Language Policy, ed. M. Gazzola and B.-A. Wickström, 313–327. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Beacco, J.-C., H.-J. Krumm, D. Little, and P. Thalgott (eds.). 2017. The Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants. Strasbourg: Council of Europe and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Becker, G. 1976. The Economics of Human Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

222

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

Bleakley, H., and A. Chin. 2010. Age at arrival, English proficiency, and social assimilation among US immigrants. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (1): 165–192. Borooah, V., D. Dineen, and N. Lynch. 2009. Language and Occupational Status: Linguistic Elitism in the Irish Labour Market. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Chiswick, B.R., and P.W. Miller. 2015. International migration and the economics of language. In Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, ed. B. Chiswick and P. Miller, vol. 1A, 211–269. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Cuisiniez, J.-L. 2011. Le droit français au travail face aux inconséquences des choix politiques: Analyse des actions syndicales dans le contexte français. Français & Société 22 (23): 33–47. Dustmann, C. 1994. Speaking fluency, writing fluency and earnings of migrants. Journal of Population Economics 7: 133–156. Gazzola, M. 2014. The Evaluation of Language Regimes. Theory and Application to Multilingual Patent Organisations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gazzola, M., F. Grin, and F. Vaillancourt. 2020. The economic evaluation of language policy and planning: An introduction to existing work. In Bridging Linguistics and Economics, ed. C. Vigouroux and S. Mufwene, 109–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gazzola, M., F. Grin, and B.-A. Wickström. 2016. A concise bibliography of language economics. In The Economics of Language Policy, ed. M. Gazzola and B.-A. Wickström, 53–92. CESifo Series, Boston: MIT Press. Grenier, G., and S. Nadeau. 2011. Immigrant access to work in Montreal and Toronto. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 34 (1): 19–32. Grin, F. 1996. The economics of language: Survey, assessment and prospects. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121: 17–44. Grin, F. 1999. Compétences et récompenses. La valeur des langues en Suisse. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg. Grin, F. 2009. Promoting language through the economy: Competing paradigms. In Language and Economic Development, ed. J.M. Kirk and D.P. Ó Baoill, 1–12. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona. Grin, F. 2016a. 50 years of economics in language policy. In The Economics of Language Policy, M. Gazzola and B.-A. Wickström, 21–52. CESifo Series, Boston: MIT Press.

The Economics of ‘Language[s] at Work’: Theory …

223

Grin, F. 2016b. Challenges of minority languages. In The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language, ed. V. Ginsburgh and S. Weber, 616–658. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Grin, F., and P.A. Kraus. 2018. The politics of multilingualism: General introduction and overview. In The Politics of Multilingualism: Europeanisation, Globalisation and Linguistic Governance, ed. P. A. Kraus and F. Grin, 1–16. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Grin, F., and F. Vaillancourt. 2000. On the financing of language policies and distributive justice. In Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education, ed. R. Phillipson, 102–110. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grin, F., and F. Vaillancourt. 2002. Minority self-government in economic perspective. In Minority Governance in Europe, ed. K. Gál, 73–86. Budapest: Open Society Institute. Grin, F. 2003. Economics and language planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 4 (1): 1–66. Grin, F., C. Sfreddo, and F. Vaillancourt. 2009. Langues étrangères dans l’activité professionnelle (LEAP). Report to the Swiss National Science Foundation. Grin, F., C. Sfreddo, and F. Vaillancourt. 2010. The Economics of the Multilingual Workplace. London: Routledge. Grin, F., J. Amos, K. Faniko, G. Fürst, J. Lurin, and I. Schwob. 2015. Suisse— Société multiculturelle. Ce qu’en font les jeunes aujourd’hui. Glarus/Chur: Rüegger Verlag. Grin, F., et al. 2018. Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe: The MIME Vademecum. Geneva: the MIME Project. Henley, A., and R.E. Jones. 2005. Earnings and linguistic proficiency in a bilingual economy. The Manchester School 73 (3): 300–320. Hocevar, T. 1975. Equilibria in linguistic minority markets. Kyklos 28: 337– 357. Isphording, I.E. 2014. Language and Labor Market Success. Research Report 8572. Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Lang, K. 1986. A language theory of discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Economics 101 (2): 363–382. Lüdi, G., K. Höchle Meier, and P. Yanaprasart (eds.). 2016. Managing Purilingual and Intercultural Practices in the Workplace. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marschak, J. 1965. Economics of language. Behavioral Science 10: 135–140. Migué, J.-L. 1970. Le nationalisme, l’unité nationale et la théorie économique de l’information. Revue Canadienne D’économique 3: 183–194.

224

F. Grin and F. Vaillancourt

OECD. 2019. Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers. Paris: OECD. Piekkari, R., D.E. Welch, and L.S. Welch. 2015. Language in International Business: The Multilingual Reality of Global Business Expansion. London: Edward Elgar. Raynauld, A., and G. Marion. 1972. Une analyse économique de la disparité inter-ethnique des revenus. Revue Économique 23: 1–19. Sabourin, C. 1985. La théorie des environnements linguistiques. In Économie et langue, ed. F. Vaillancourt, 59–82. Québec: Conseil de la langue française. Sanden, G.R. 2015. Corporate language policies—What are they. Journal of Economics, Business and Management 3 (11): 1097–1101. Shorten, A. 2017. Four conceptions of linguistic disadvantage. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38: 607–621. Vaillancourt, F. 2018. Analyse économique des politiques linguistiques au Québec: 40 ans de Loi 101. Montréal: CIRANO. Vaillancourt, F., and J. Pes. 1980. Revenus et niveaux de bilinguisme écrit et oral: les hommes québécois en 1971. L’actualité Économique 56 (3): 451– 464. Vaillancourt, F., R. Champagne, and L. Lefebvre. 1994. L’usage du français au travail par les francophones du Québec: une analyse économique. In Langues et Sociétés en Contact, ed. P. Martel and J. Maurais, 483–493. Tübingen: Niemeyer-Canadiana Romanica. Vaillancourt, F., D. Lemay, and L. Vaillancourt. 2007. Laggards No More: The Changed Socioeconomic Status of Francophones in Quebec. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt Mál: Minority Languages as Economic Assets? Mike Danson

1

Introduction

The economy, society and environment of nations are impacted, threatened and driven by worldwide factors of globalisation, homogenisation and the global climate emergency. To recognise and address these interacting and reinforcing forces, the United Nations has established seventeen ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (United Nations 2019), which are intended to be relevant at all levels and in all localities and places. Consistent with the aims of these goals, and somewhat contrary to the global forces, is the promotion of foundational and wellbeing economics, craft and artisan products and services. Complementing these approaches, local and community empowerment have been increasingly offered as routes out of poverty, inequality, environmental degradation and alienation. These opposing forces are generating tensions between supporting M. Danson (B) School of Social Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_9

225

226

M. Danson

autarky and localism on the one hand and xenophobia, isolationism and trade wars on the other, often in contradictory and complex ways. Small nations, especially stateless nations and those based on islands or on the periphery, face particular challenges as they seek to navigate these multi-dimensional stormy waters, literally in the case of those in the North Atlantic. Realising the benefits of some of these very characteristics of insularity and marginality, applying advantages of uniqueness, natural resources and intangible capital, resilience and social capital against the negativities of limited size, distance and the barriers generated by the dominant players has become critical for the sustainable development of the Nordic and Celtic ‘fringes’. Further, while the traditional languages and cultures of these communities are frequently considered as obstacles to embracing modernity and to participating fully in the global economy and supply chains, it is also claimed that they offer unique selling points and iconographic images and metaphors for their nations. It is important to understand and analyse the roles, contributions and advantages of the languages of the nations on the periphery. This is important both for these communities of place and communities of interest themselves but also to inform, disseminate and transfer knowledge and lessons to other communities in similar circumstances. This chapter aims to introduce to this volume consideration of the economic aspects of minority languages, not as a means to commodify but to promote understanding and appreciation of their impacts and contributions to employment, incomes and enterprise. The rest of this chapter therefore proceeds as follows. In the next section, we introduce theories applied to explore these issues by reviewing the literature with regard to labour markets and skills, followed by an exploration of economic development, sustainability, enterprise and resilient communities within the context of minority languages. The environments across and within various peripheral and remote societies where minority languages are embedded and defining for their peoples are addressed next, describing the nature of their interactions with, and locating these within, wider ecosystems and economic systems. The methodologies used to collect information on the case study islands and peripheral communities which inform this chapter are based on field research over the last two decades and they are then described in detail within the respective referenced

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

227

studies. Essentially this underpinning catalogue allows the importance of the contextualisation of the research to be undertaken first, in turn setting up the ensuing analyses. Examples of minority languages in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the Faroe Islands are presented to provide a picture of the position of these languages (Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and føroyskt mál) and how each jurisdiction and economy is nurturing and realising the potential promised by their respective languages. The chapter concludes with a summary of the opportunities for regional economies offered by supporting their minority languages and cultures, as well as the broader benefits to the nation and beyond.

2

Labour Markets, Human Capital and Careers

Many analyses of minority languages are undertaken in the context of literary, cultural, and arts and humanities disciplines and theories. Until recently, many of the social sciences, and economics and entrepreneurship especially, have been marginal in this discourse, with a few notable exceptions and examples that are referenced below. Even then, much of this economic and enterprise research and commentary, particularly in the public policy sphere, has focused on the costs of supporting and sustaining the minority language. Reference to the expenditure of public money on a ‘dying’ language is juxtaposed with the purported modernity and importance of the national language, contrasting the global use of English, for example, with the irrelevance of a tongue that has no economic value in the twenty-first century (explored in e.g. Sproull 1996; Grin and Vaillancourt 1999; DC Research 2014; SPICe 2020). Similarly, there is criticism in terms of the opportunity costs of local and national funds being diverted to minority language and culture provision rather than invested in the health, education and business development services (discussed in e.g. Awan-Scully 2016; Sugden 2018; O’Hanlon and Paterson 2019). Such arguments dominate the discussions and critiques but seldom recognise or apply other economic and entrepreneurship dimensions to the contributions of minority languages

228

M. Danson

to jobs, incomes and enterprise. The literature on economic development, however, offers an entry to identifying and analysing the significance of characteristics of local place and culture in markets and institutions to offer balance to these arguments. Being able to identify and realise the potential benefits of investing in people with a minority language and in supporting businesses which adopt and apply the language and culture in their enterprises can be elements of wider strategies of sustainable, inclusive growth and development. Within the policy environment offered by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2019), as embedded into government frameworks and programmes in Scotland and Wales, for example, investment and support can be discerned as encouraging a cohesion and integration between language and economic policies and objectives (Scottish Government 2019a). These links between recognition of minority languages and cultures and incomes, jobs and economic activities are often played out in the more remote and island parts of the national territory. So, the traditional heartlands of the minority languages communities being considered here—the Gàidhealtachd (Gàidhlig), Gaeltacht (Gaeilge), Y Fro Gymraeg (Cymraeg)—all tend to be on the periphery of their respective countries and marginalised within the relevant political territories. Often these heartlands in the remoter parts of Scotland (Clements and Clements 2019), Faroes (Coull 1967), Ireland (Nic Craith 2020), Wales (Martin and Williams 2019) and elsewhere (Watson 1998) have tended to experience periods of ageing and declining population over the decades, reducing the natural home of their languages. By contrast, each of these languages has also made revivals in their respective urban and capital regions, although the position of føroyskt mál in the Faroe Islands is somewhat different and is discussed further later. Our previous work on the importance of the more remote geographical locations and their associated relevance in each economic, social and political case has suggested that in these peripheral communities there are both disadvantages of distance and emerging opportunities of ‘otherness’ (Burnett and Danson 2016, 2017). Nevertheless, contradicting these features of peripherality, many of the iconographic elements of branding the ‘nation’ are derived from these very areas and cultures and applied and embraced nationwide (Burnett

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

229

and Danson 2004). Describing and understanding the relative significance of these contrasting attitudes and application of a country’s minority language(s) in both centre and peripheral locations means exploring the economies of each, their drivers and markets, and the relationships between them. Although research on the labour markets where a minority Celtic language is still spoken suggests that there are few jobs where one of these languages is considered ‘essential’ or even ‘desirable’, studies have suggested that a knowledge of Gàidhlig (Campbell et al. 2008), Gaeilge (Borooah et al. 2009), Cymraeg (Henley and Jones 2005) offers the opportunity to earn a higher wage during the worker’s career. Similarly in the Faroe Islands competence in føroyskt mál offers a wider range of employment pathways and again an apparent wage premium, as is apparent for many migrant workers without the language, who tend to be constrained to lower-level jobs (Holm et al. 2020). The evidence seems to point to workers having a prime attachment to their profession or occupation, which often necessitates or rewards locating to the core metropolitan areas where career ladders are focused. Workers then require an added incentive to take the risk of removing themselves from this milieu (Campbell et al. 2008; Chalmers and Danson 2012). Training and development, promotion and career development tend to become progressively focused on this core urban region, further attracting and retaining graduates. In contradistinction to the advantages of being in this escalator region (Fielding 1992)—where advancement is more rapid than in smaller, more peripheral labour markets—staff in professions and occupations outwith the geographical centre will face slower progression and fewer opportunities. Career progression may be stunted or impossible in the heartland areas of the minority language for all but a few, therefore, and even then long-distance commuting to the capital or core may be required to maintain continuous professional development (see Arnesen et al. 2012 for analogous discussions in the Norwegian context). As education and skills formation and personal and public improvement in language capabilities are encouraged in the cities, so these drivers may reinforce the transformation of the language from being characterised as rural and backward to being a (post)modern element of the cosmopolitan centre.

230

3

M. Danson

Economic and Community Development

For some, there is a danger in this confluence of the concentration of better, higher-paid jobs—resulting from these reinforcing forces of centralisation of key steps in career ladders and posts with prospects— and of the populations of the remote heartlands tending to be declining and ageing. As a recent report for the European Parliament argued, ‘regions that lose population tend to be rural, already sparsely populated and remote’ (Eatock et al. 2019: 13) so that this intersection of economic and demographic drivers threatens to realise the formula of ‘no jobs, no people; no people, no Gaeltacht’ (Williams 1988: 279). Therefore, the regeneration of a minority language in the metropolitan core through the creation of education, training and employment opportunities can encourage mobility from the traditional remote heartlands for university and then work, with a concomitant restriction on inclusive and sustainable growth in the periphery. The improvement in the prospects for ‘minority language’ speakers can present opportunities for the individual but may undermine the sustainability of their home communities, unless economic and labour market adaptations can be identified and implemented and new activities can be generated in these locations. In this regard, and confirming the interrelationship between people and place, there has been an evolving recognition that language, culture and diversity can act as a motor for economic change through their impacts on ‘human capital’. The creative sectors have become key elements in generating economic development in both rural communities (Goodwin-Hawkins 2019; Burnett and Stalker 2018) and cities (Florida 2005; Leadbeater and Oakley 1999), partly based on suggested causal links between cultural sectors and the attractiveness of cities (Leadbeater and Oakley 1999): The cultural industries based on local know-how and skills show how cities can negotiate a new accommodation with the global market, in which cultural producers sell into much larger markets but rely upon a distinctive and defensible local base. […] Cultural industries and entrepreneurs will play a critical role in reviving large cities that have

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

231

suffered economic decline and dislocation over the past two decades. (1999: 14–16)

These arguments are evident in both the general academic literature and the policy agenda of local development agencies regarding the significance of ‘intangible assets’ (primarily intellectual capital in the form of knowledge, skills, research and development) in economic development. Essential to that greater awareness has been an appreciation of how social attributes—such as diversity—may give comparative advantage in aiding innovation and local development through the mobilisation and organisation of resources, and particularly human resources (Chalmers and Danson 2012). In the context of minority languages, diversity can be understood in its widest sense—including aspects of cultural and linguistic difference—and those arguments and drivers can be applied to the other geographical contexts of minority languages and cultures, and their peripheral heartlands in particular. Yet, this promotion of cultural assets usually has locational consequences, with tendencies for concentration and centralisation of ‘national’ assets and companies, especially of the majority—but also of the minority—language and culture (Lorentzen and van Heur 2012; Stark et al. 2013). As these national dominant facilities in turn attract resources and significant elements in their respective supply chains to co-locate in the centre, so they become mutually reinforcing and confirm that ‘agglomeration externalities may be an essential element here’ (Kourtit et al. 2013: 14). However, it is also suggested that outputs in peripheral and remote areas may be more strongly associated with natural resources and attractions (Office for National Statistics 2020 captures these for Scotland), which have fairly constrained impacts in terms of value added, volume and spread across their region (Storrank 2017; García-Esparza 2019). Together these different economic drivers for the development of cultural assets and resources are consistent with the labour market factors of centralisation on the core and capital regions; activities and markets for enterprises and for workers who are attracted to and recognise the greatest potential for growth and development through joint locations in large metropolitan areas. Significant agglomeration economies are

232

M. Danson

realised and progressively reinforced in these cores, establishing a selffulfilling virtuous spiral of consolidation as further public and private investments secure competitive advantages. By contrast, the cultural and natural resources of more rural and peripheral communities and places are often constrained through limited market size, staff and skill shortages, restricted access to supply chains and income streams and related poor multiplier effects, with significant leakages of consumer spending out with the local economy. Most entrepreneurs are not motivated by aspirations for growth and high profits (Galloway and Mochrie 2006), and so there can be an attraction in locating a new venture in the traditional minority language heartland, with the intention of utilising the cultural distinctiveness of the language as a unique selling point for visitors or as the everyday language of the local population. However, the higher costs and smaller market capacity offered by an isolated and depopulated community can limit turnover, income and potential for sustainable operations. In a reasonably connected situation, some of these barriers to encouraging and achieving enterprising behaviour can be addressed, but businesses in outlying areas also face competition from more accessible and centrally located competitors. Attempts to pursue economies of scale and scope can offer some promise of countering the advantages of these businesses selling out from the centre and so ameliorating the underpinning centripetal forces, but this may require major planning, investment and coordination by the state (Bakhshi et al. 2013; Arts Council England 2015). In times of austerity, with competing demands on public budgets and high mobility of human and financial capital, winning the argument for such a significant diversion of funds and infrastructure support can be very challenging. Even with access to European Union grants and national funding schemes for such ‘anchor’ developments at the heart of an embryonic cluster (Heil and Tétényi 2016; Benneworth et al. 2003), there are relatively few projects that manage to pass the project evaluation criteria of the European Commission (e.g. Scottish Government 2019b) and national agencies (e.g. HM Treasury 2018) and are then initiated successfully and sustained towards their full potential (Boyne 2006; Markusen and Gadwa 2010; Lorentzen and van Heur 2012).

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

233

These discussions suggest that the magnet of the core or centre, progressively reinforced by public and private investments, will tend to centralise significant shares of human capital, skill and professional groups, and enterprises and activities. The periphery, often continuing to accommodate the persisting traditional heartlandsof the nation’s minority languages and cultures, will be tasked with providing either facilities and activities as museum curiosities or a restricted range of opportunities for entrepreneurs, crafts and arts, or other niche production and service operations.

4

Geographies

With the consequences described above, almost without exception, the cores and capitals of the countries of Europe tend to dominate the decisions and developments working to establish a majority ‘national language’ (Kuzio 2001; Caviedes 2003) and therefore by definition surviving minority languages are on the margins, on the periphery, protected by distance and lack of proximity. Although international treaties and appreciation of the need to preserve the continent’s lesserused languages now offer some belated though often begrudging protection, the long erosion of minority language use has been exaggerated by the centralisation of powers at the core. As outlined in the section above, labour markets and supply chains focused on the centre progressively exacerbate the tendency for career ladders and major developments to advantage the core at the expense of the periphery, but whether this is a zero-sum game with no net contribution to protecting or to disadvantaging minority languages is open to debate. Based on peripherality in terms of geography, therefore, there are clear significant drivers of marginalisation across history, society and economy (Burnett 2011). The intersectionality of location, minority language and culture with other dimensions of being on the edge are evident in relation to the UK (where Gàidhlig is identified primarily with the Gàidhealtachd of the islands and north-west Highlands, and where Cymraeg is now mainly associated with the Welsh-speaking areas of west and north-west Wales, and particularly Cornish—Kernewek—in the English

234

M. Danson

context with Kernow in the south-west peninsula), Denmark (føroyskt mál only recognised and spoken in the Faroe Islands), Ireland (with Gaeilge often perceived as reserved for the Gaeltacht). The othering of the traditional and original is most apparent in these remote geographies by which improvements in transport infrastructure and telecommunication innovations tend to be disseminated out from the core and centre. Waves of progress and investment are seldom designed to deliver the means to shrink the disadvantages of distance, and usually serve to exaggerate and further isolate the relative positions and status of the minority language heartlands. Against these subliminal and systematic tendencies to ‘other’ and stigmatise the cultures and communities of the Celts and smaller Nordic societies, their respective historical mobilities and connections to the centres and further afield offer countervailing powers of acceptance, although perhaps tolerance rather than influence over the centre. Longestablished trading, commuting and family links outwith the region and especially to the capitals, coupled with the appropriation of elements of the culture, language and place for iconic branding of the nation (Burnett and Danson 2004; Nic Craith 2020), present opportunities for penetration of the values and essence of the periphery into the mainstream. Centuries of population flows and interactions have ensured that the language of the Gael is recognised by most across Scotland, for instance, as being in and of the nation as a whole (McLeod 2020: 36–38). Legislation to protect and promote Gàidhlig likewise is both an enabler and a reminder of the role of the language in Scottish society and economy, albeit that a vocal minority challenge the worth of either investment and preservation (McLeod 2020: 279–281). The revival of interest in and commitment to the traditional languages and cultures of Europe, and of those of the Celtic and Nordic nations especially, means that markets and customers for their enterprises are not necessarily restricted to speakers in the traditional heartlands or even to new speakers of the languages resident elsewhere (Chalmers and Danson 2012). The drivers for selling many goods and products are not constrained by distance or geography, therefore, especially where these are directly related to the culture and creative sectors, such as music and its derivatives. It is important to consider the extent to which the

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

235

economies of the islands and traditional heartlands of these languages are able to realise the values of such export-based sectors as they can facilitate employment and income creation and retention locally. Outwith the periphery, across the country but particularly in the metropolitan core, those with a minority language may be able to apply their skills and expertise in these cities and regions as many jobs and enterprise opportunities based on the language are being generated, especially in cultural, education and media sectors (Chalmers and Danson 2012), as suggested by Campbell et al. (2008), Borooah et al. (2009), Henley and Jones (2005) and Thomas et al. (2020) in various contexts. So, through circular flows of funds and people between the periphery and the centre and these complementary activities in the core regions, there are opportunities for economies of scale and scope to be achieved across their nations. Connected to and interacting with the cultural sectors, economic and enterprising activities in tourism, tourism and leisure experiences, hospitality, education and learning, and other services and craft industries can be attracted to the heartlands. Each of these potential areas of growth and development is inherent and endogenous to the physical and natural geographies of these communities (DC Research 2014); and these have afforded elements of protection and separation from being absorbed by the mainstream. Within communities where a minority language represents the vernacular of the majority, the local people are offered an additional distinctive barrier to some forms of competition from imports and the nation’s majority/dominant language. In a similar vein, as discussed above, for some workers, and for professionals especially, this capacity to extend their executive skills offer to the marketplace may be rewarded with a wage premium and greater market range and share in city, remote space and both alike. For those in careers, industrial and occupational labour markets where acceptance and progression to a greater or lesser extent depends on competence in the local language, there is an additional barrier to non-native migrant workers achieving comparable opportunities. In summary, it is not inconsequential that the physical geography and natural heritage of each of the heartlands of Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg,

236

M. Danson

føroyskt mál and Kernewek are typically of rugged mountainous environments, lochs and seas, massive cliffs, wild weather, volcanic rocks and peat bogs. These support flora and fauna, and landscapes generally, which contrast with the lowlands of their respective capital and core regions to the south and east. These characteristics not only offer natural barriers to some market competitors and to earlier threats to impose a majority language but also generate unique selling points founded on iconic images and cultural heritages that suggest potential entry to markets locally, nationally and in the global context.

5

Economic and Business Policy

Uneven economic development is endemic to capitalist systems, with core and capital regions tending to capture higher functions, powers, headquarters of private and public sector organisations and other key elements of the national economy and society. This serves to progressively embed their relative superior positions in terms of incomes, employment and entrepreneurship, leading the country in upturns and restructuring peripheral and declining regions to patterns of successive underdevelopment and dependency (Danson 1991). In most of the developed world, under the post-war consensus, a regional policy was engaged as an integral component of Keynesian strategic economic management, and so a series of policies and institutions were established and promoted to address the challenges of regions which were lagging, rural or suffering from deindustrialisation (McCann 2016; Ward and Brown 2009). In the 1980s and 1990s, the state’s approach tended to transform from supporting these regions through nationalised industries and development grants for businesses to focusing on ‘an unmet need for internally generated growth, particularly through small and medium enterprises’ (Danson 1991: 91). Across different countries and the European Union in particular, this move to growth and diversification through endogenous development based on new firm formation has been endorsed and encouraged by regional, national and international development agencies (Fritsch 2013; OECD 2019).

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

237

As discussed earlier, apart from delivering local products and services to their own local markets, enterprises in most rural and remote communities have gravitated to or been established in the cultural and creative sectors (DC Research 2014). Consistent with the transition to sponsoring local economies through indigenous development, the European Union’s Working Group on Cultural and Creative Industries (2012: 3) has argued that such businesses can transform their communities through smart specialisation with policies: to better sensitize local, regional and national authorities as well as the cultural community of the potential of cultural and creative industries in boosting regional and local development.

Willie Roe, the former chair of Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), which has been a model development agency for over fifty years (Burnett 2011; Danson and Lloyd 2012), has developed this argument specifically to apply to the minority language context of Gàidhlig: Placing more value on, and investing in, the native language and cultural traditions of the region will result in fortifying cultural identity and sense of place, increasing confidence and self-esteem. This in turn can lead to population retention, inward migration, greater entrepreneurial activity, business creation and ultimately higher GDP. Quite simply, at Highlands and Islands Enterprise we believe that there is a direct link between levels of confidence and levels of economic activity and economic growth. Our investment in Gaelic language and Gaelic arts and culture not only brings about the direct creation of employment in the Gaelic sector, jobs which are largely based in the Highlands and Islands, but represents an investment in the seedbed of the cultural and creative sector […] Increased cultural vibrancy and nurturing a ‘creative cluster’ make the area more attractive as a location, helping drive economic growth. Gaelic not only plays an essential and crucial part in this, but it also helps reinforce the culture of sustainable development across the region, which is at the heart of everything we do at HIE. (Roe speaking at Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2006)

238

M. Danson

Roe made these comments at the launch of the Gaelic Arts report on the links between language, culture and the economy and captures the economic rationale for support for Gàidhlig in the region (Sproull and Chalmers 2006). This confirmed his comments from 2005 on the evaluation of 25 Years of the Fèisean (Willie Roe, quoted in Fèisean nan Gàidheal 2009: 56): This study shows that there are tangible economic and demographic benefits associated with our traditional heritage and we should look to build on the renewed sense of pride and of vibrancy amongst young people in the Highlands and Islands and help strengthen bonds between the people growing up in the area and their sense of place.

These messages on policy interventions from the international institutions—OECD and EU—down to the particular development agency covering the Gàidhealtachd illustrate the direction of travel across the economic communities where minority languages and cultures still persist. Recent years have seen these communities increasingly supported through the promotion and adoption of business and economic development strategies and policies based on such arts, culture and creative sectors. This has involved, on the one hand, extending the powers and responsibilities of local language agencies to consider enterprise and employment and, on the other hand, pursuing the sorts of approaches advocated by HIE of explicitly focusing on the indigenous culture as a strength and market advantage. The Welsh Government (2017: 12), for example, has included in its strategy for the promotion and facilitation of the use of the Welsh language the specific objective to ‘develop a new regional focus to economic development to help all parts of Wales to benefit from prosperity and support each area to develop its own distinctive identity’. Similarly, the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language includes the aim to ‘encourage more and more people throughout the state to choose to do their business in Irish over time’ (Government of Ireland 2010: 3). Contrasting with these developments and the underpinning degrees of optimism that these countries are proactively aiming to promote their respective minority languages as business opportunities, earlier the

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

239

European Parliament commissioned a review of The European Union and Lesser-Used Languages (CIEMEN 2002). This revealed a stagnating or deteriorating position across many minority language societies concluding, for instance in the case of Gàidhlig, that: There is little confidence in the ability of the existing social, political and economic structures to sustain the production and reproduction of Gaelic. The reproduction context is weakening and the forces responsible for producing the language are ill defined. (CIEMEN 2002: 136)

Political changes, including the UK’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages giving context to diversity and tolerance of language provision in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in 1998, and initial appreciations of economic potential, however, confirmed a growing realisation that positive paths might be followed and new activities established (NIHRC 2010). These developments and potentials for improvements in the environments for minority languages were becoming better established, and these are now discussed in their different national contexts.

6

Contrasting Developments and Fortunes Across Celtic and Nordic Cases

The Celtic and Nordic nations with minority languages face different and varying contexts. These include numbers with competence in the language—delineating the size of their home markets; proximity and accessibility to competing population centres—defining potential competition; and potential customers among those who are learning the language or have no ability but an interest in the heritage and related elements of the community’s culture. There is a lack of consistency in definitions, coverage and methods of recording language ability, but the headline figures offer some comparisons. Wales has retained reasonably significant numbers able to speak Cymraeg, with estimates between half a million (fluent) and 855,000 (some ability) or 20–30% of the

240

M. Danson

nation; the Republic of Ireland now records about 1.7 million with the ability to speak Irish and about 70,000 daily speakers despite its larger population overall. The Faroe Islands, located in an archipelago relatively removed from Denmark, has a population of 50,000 and has a society almost completely able to speak føroyskt mál as well as Danish, with many competent in additional tongues (Holm et al. 2020). By contrast, Gàidhlig in Scotland is spoken by 58,000 in a nation of 5.3 million. Apart from the Faroe Islands, all of these represent severe declinescompared with historical numbers and proportions of their respective populations. Reducing the different national estimates of daily speakers to reasonably consistent bases (see Central Statistics Office, n.d. for Ireland and Welsh Government 2020 for Wales) suggests that while Wales has the largest numbers of regular speakers, the language plans and strategies referred to above appear to offer a fairly passive approach to realising potential growth and diversity through exploiting the language and culture. While the 2017 Welsh language strategy (Welsh Government 2017) includes the suggestion that ‘in other fields [i.e. not concerning teaching, disseminating and developing the language itself ] – such as culture, media and tourism – the language could be an integral part of the provision’ (62), there is little evidence that it is indeed being used ‘as a unique selling point’ (62). The most recent research confirms this with comparisons between Wales and other places where minority languages are spoken: There appears to be a lack of evidence examining the wider, cumulative economic outcomes resulting from activities relating to the Welsh language. In Scotland and the Basque Autonomous Community, economic assessments have focused on outcomes related to languagerelated activity at a macro level (e.g. aggregate contributions to employment or turnover), while in Wales the focus has tended to be at institution-level (e.g. economic value of S4C) or linked to a specific activity (e.g. economic benefits of the National Eisteddfod). (Thomas et al. 2020: 84)

The Irish language strategy does include reference to an aspiration to ‘put in place[a series of initiatives and state supports] to encourage

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

241

entrepreneurship and economic activity among the Irish language speaking community on a company, sectoral or local basis (Government of Ireland 2010: 30; emphasis added). While this strategy continues to suggest ‘the approach will be threefold’, the crucial objective for expanding the economic and business benefits are focused on efforts to: Encourage entrepreneurship through training programmes, business incubation, campus companies and the creation of economic networks (emphasis added); [and for supporting and developing the language economy itself ] Measures will include start-up support, mentoring services, product development, marketing and promotion advice, and management development services. (2010: 30)

The general objectives outlined in the strategy have given rise to recent initiatives that seek to advance the language by linking it to potential commercial and economic opportunities, offering the potential for incomes and jobs. These developments build upon previous projects and programmes to raise the profile of Irish within and outwith the Gaeltacht which have limited and perhaps transitory impacts. A study of experiences in and near the Gaeltacht in Ireland reported that, although some owners and managers readily framed their commercial engagement with Irish in terms of enhanced positioning on certain markets, seemingly aligning with the idea of language being commodified as a source of added value, the majority acknowledged the profit potential of using Irish, but articulated their mobilisation of the language with social projects that go beyond the market (Brennan et al. 2016). The Faroe Islands face a different set of conditions, primarily that it has an economy heavily dependent on one sector—deep sea fishing and processing—which necessarily requires and attracts significant numbers of migrant workers to reach economies of scale. As many of these workers are committed to making the archipelago their home, learning føroyskt mál—a minoritised language within the context of a state where, in European terms, the national language (Danish) is itself a minority language—presents challenges for any worker seeking advancement in the Faroese, Danish or wider international labour market. Analysis of

242

M. Danson

the Faroese institutional language policies suggests they may be shaping migrants’ experiences of settling and contributing fully to local societies and economies, and how migrants enact their own language-related policy decisions and practices on the ground in terms of investing in acquiring and using the language (Holm et al. 2020). The distinctive language, culture and natural heritage of the Faroes are unique characteristics which offer the islands the potential for sustainable development. In analogous circumstances of close psychic distance (Beckermann 1956; Brewer 2007) on the one hand and a more plentiful and enterprising labour supply on the other, these promise a more diversified future based on these features and attributes, with føroyskt mál underpinning a dynamic culture: ‘with increasingly varied literary publications, in contemporary songs and the Faroese art scene, the language has not only persevered, but is thriving’ (Faroe Islands, n.d.). Compared with the situation in Ireland and Wales where the traditional heartlands have retained higher percentages of speakers and prominence within the community, or the resilient Faroe Islands with their distinct economic structure and conflicted relationship with Denmark, Gàidhlig in Scotland presents a range of economic research, analyses, strategic initiatives and interventions that contrast but also align with each of these neighbours’ experiences. As noted earlier in discussing the labour market for those with the language, growth of professional and management and of associated jobs will be related to economic development in the Central Belt of Scotland, with centralisation and concentration of careers which use level 4 and 5 (i.e. university) qualifications in Glasgow and Edinburgh and their metropolitan areas. This is in some contrast to other minority language communities where many jobs are focused on the traditional heartlands in lower-status occupations (Cantoni 1997; Grin 1990). Much of this centralisation is driven by state investment in education, media and cultural activities and facilities which are concentrated in the core cities to build on existing agglomeration economies in these sectors (Chalmers and Danson 2012) and in recognition of the fact that higher-level workers want to locate in these ‘escalator regions’ (Fielding 1992). Attachment to their occupations and to Scotland means Gaels are reluctant to move out with the labour

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

243

market clusters in the core cities unless jobs, incomes and opportunities for advancement in the Gàidhealtachd periphery are commensurate (Campbell et al. 2008), with Findlay et al. (2008) discussing the strength of such factors in the broader Scottish context in influencing job location decisions. Nevertheless, there has been a growing appreciation of the potential offered to the Gàidhealtachd and Scotland from promoting enterprise, entrepreneurship, penetration into new markets and diversification of product and service ranges based on Gàidhlig language and culture (Chalmers and Danson 2012, and as argued by HIE in the quotes above). Supporting and encouraging such development in rural Scotland has featured in economic strategies for some time. The Scottish Government has argued, for example, that: Rural Scotland needs to become more confident and forward looking, both accepting change and benefiting from it, providing for people who want to continue to live and work there and welcoming newcomers. (Scottish Government 2005: 2, reflected in Scottish Government 2018)

Echoing the approaches and practices across rural and regional economic development, including those being applied in other minority language areas of Europe, in 2013 HIE commissioned an in-depth study into how to realise more value from Gaelic ‘as an economic and social asset’ (DC Research 2014). This aimed to ‘consider, evaluate and robustly evidence the current and potential use of Gàidhlig as an asset to the economy and society of the Highlands and Islands and Scotland as a whole’ (DC Research 2014: 3). Applying a methodology which embraced inclusive, participatory action research, this study involved a comprehensive review of comparative policies, surveys and focus groups of key actors, businesses and communities, published notes for companies and enterprises, case studies (14 in number) and sector overviews (5 in number) and made recommendations for innovative means to support further interventions. Besides these, many more examples were identified where Gàidhlig was being used as an asset by entrepreneurs to enhance their performance and enterprises.

244

M. Danson

Consistent with the broader literature, the islands and similar places in the Gàidhealtachd were revealed to be attracting workers and entrepreneurs who work directly with cultural resources such as language, the arts, food and heritage—both historical (cultural) and environmental (natural)—with returning locals and migrants engaging with cultural work strongly attracted or ‘pulled’ to remote rural spaces (Burnett and Danson 2016). This confirms our own findings (Danson and Burnett 2014: 165) that: Artists, craftworkers, food and drink, heritage, literary or media related professionals are often drawn to remote and peripheral spaces in order to capitalize on key raw materials, or inherent cultural experiences that sparsely populated, environmentally rich and culturally distinct regions offer.

As these entrepreneurs are focused on markets for ‘luxury’ goods and services—that is where income elasticity is positive and customers reduce their spending when their own incomes decrease—and also where there is competition from many other suppliers, the instability of these activities needs to be emphasised. So, many cultural and creative workers (often self-employed) and entrepreneurs establishing in these sectors and locations suffer from precarious incomes, insecurity and isolation, with economic activity often sporadic and individuals necessarily having to be prepared to be mobile and to adopt fluid employment patterns. Building resilience—the capacity to survive and prosperous over the seasons, cycles and other periods in challenging circumstances—in local communities is an essential complement to promoting and exploiting the economic value of a minority language, therefore, with land reform, institutional formation and development, and business advice and guidance all important elements of strategic interventions (Danson and Burnett 2016). These considerations aside, the DC Research (2014) study concluded that there was a substantial feeling of goodwill towards Gàidhlig and that this extended well beyond speakers of the language, so that the markets for goods and services which embedded characteristics of the language were substantial and not restricted to native or new speakers. Allied to

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

245

this, the study revealed an increasing acknowledgement by entrepreneurs and practitioners of the benefits of Gàidhlig to firms, workers and the local economy, and in helping decode Scotland’s past and the benefits of bilingualism. Under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 , the requirement on public authorities to prepare Gaelic Language Plans has allowed local approaches to Gàidhlig to be discussed; this has been changing the nature of Gàidhlig communities presenting opportunities and challenges. Finally, and especially significantly in economic and business terms, the positive economic role that Gàidhlig can play has been uncovered. The focus of existing Gàidhlig economic activities in three of Scotland’s ‘Growth Sectors’ (Creative Industries, including digital; Food and Drink, excluding agriculture; and Sustainable Tourism, tourism-related industries) led the consultants to suggest that the potential aggregate economic value of Gàidhlig as an asset to the Scottish economy could be in the region of between £81.6 and £148.5 million depending on the degree of investment, involvement and external market factors (DC Research 2014: 10). Businesses surveyed noted that using Gàidhlig in their operations enhances the distinctiveness and uniqueness of their products and services; enhances customer perceptions of authenticity and provenance of their products and services; and increases the appeal of their products and services to target markets. Applying these advantages and unique selling points is along the lines anticipated from the theories on entrepreneurship and marketing in competitive sectors where customers’ tastes and preferences can be met by many and diverse suppliers. Therefore, as expected, businesses that identified Gàidhlig as being critically important are most commonly in creative industriessectors (e.g. music, art, design, performance, theatre, media, publishing, digital/ICT). Complementing these are enterprises in the heritage and learning sectors where the language and culture are seen as critical to establishing and developing operations.

246

7

M. Danson

Recent Developments and Potential for the Future

Many of the challenges facing minority language communities—ageing and declining populations, peripheralisation of enterprises, skills and cultures—are long-established trends, as discussed earlier. While over the last century they have varied in intensity (for example, there were some counter-urbanisation trends in the 1970s (Jones et al. 1986) and some in-migration of workers from EU accession countries to remote and rural areas in the early 2000s (Danson 2007), the dominant forces have remained as the centripetal, concentration and centralisation agglomeration draw of cities (Fielding 1992; Florida 2005). Nevertheless, within this wider narrative of persistent peripheralisation of the remote and rural economic and social geographies of the minority language heartlands of the Celtic countries (Danson and de Souza 2012), there have been some countervailing developments in recent decades, as explored above. These offer some promise for these societies regarding the potential to exploit minority languages as economic assets for community benefit (DC Research 2014; Glór na nGael 2019; Welsh Government 2017). In particular, they can be considered as key components in an economic strategy for those ‘peripheral’ regions which are consistent with many current development tropes focusing national and international strategic interventions in the economy— addressing the climate emergency, pursuing inclusive and sustainable growth, community wealth-building and wellbeing. The promotion of the foundational or circular economy, based on localism and neighbourhoods, has been encouraged under various strategic and informed policy interventions (e.g. Just Transition Commission 2020a; Welsh Government 2019a). Typically the objectives of these strategies are as captured in the Economic Action Plan for Wales: ‘a broader and more balanced approach to economic development with a shift towards a focus on place and making communities stronger and more resilient’ (Business Wales, n.d.). Indeed, encouraging such movements has been further underpinned by actions to progress towards net zero emissions within the next two or three decades (Just Transition Commission 2020a).

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

247

Recently, many of the underlying forces generating inequality and marginalising communities, and especially those in relatively remote and peripheral places where minority languages survive in daily life, have been revealed and highlighted under the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Local community efforts to moderate the worst effects of the consequential isolation and breaks in the supply chains during this period have reinforced the arguments for ‘building back better’, developing greater resilience in local and regional communities to address future disruptions, to reduce carbon footprints and to (re)establish production and consumption capacities in the locality, and these have been captured in commentaries and official reports alike (e.g. Fraser of Allander Institute 2020; Just Transition Commission 2020a; Harper 2020). The need for some fundamental changes in economic and social linkages and resources to meet these evolving circumstances also complements the sorts of economic, social and environmental strategies that advantage minority language use in the periphery. In particular, these responses in the locality and region can be considered as key components in an economic strategy that can indirectly support the revitalisation of minority languages by regenerating their economies. As Councillor Joe Cullinane, the leader of North Ayrshire Council in Scotland, has argued, ‘we want to work in partnership with communities, businesses and trade unions to build a strong local economy which supports fair work, encourages local spend and uses the land and property we own for the common good so that wealth stays local’ (Cullinane 2020). A range of commissions, advisory groups, bodies and organisations—including the Just Transition Commission, Economic Advisory Group, Commission for Economic Renewal, Wellbeing Alliance, Common Weal, Scottish Trades Union Congress and Climate Emergency Response Group—have been publishing analyses and plans that suggest a consensus is building around foundational and wellbeing principles (captured in Just Transition Commission 2020b) that are consistent with the preconditions identified for creating jobs, incomes and prosperity in the Gàidhealtachd, Gaeltacht and Y Fro Gymraeg. Critically, these contemporary changes are not founded in sectoral policies and strategies but rather in the moves for reorientation of the

248

M. Danson

economy and society towards improving resilience and addressing selfsufficiency. As discussed in earlier sections, these are complementing the potentials identified in the reports and proposals published by DC Research (2014), the Welsh Government (2019a), Thomas et al. (2020) and the Glór na nGael (2019). Illustrated in the Letters from Nordic countries we commissioned during the pandemic (https://www. facebook.com/groups/nordichorizons/files), the resilience of each of their communities of minority languages is inherent in but also carried across their enterprises, sectors, occupations and localities. They still have strong foundational local economies, compared with the hollowed-out bases of the Celtic peripheries where external ownership, tourism and insecure employment have come to dominate. Although DC Research focused on particular sectors, especially in the education, creative and hospitality sectors, their arguments for the future were applicable more generally across the economy. Similar potential has been identified in the Welsh Government (2019a, b) policies and is evident in the Faroes’ and Icelandic responses to COVID-19 (see respective letters in https://www. facebook.com/groups/nordichorizons/files), with emphasis on broadly based recoveries. The roles of minority languages in underpinning the USPs of the exporting elements of the peripheries of Celtic and Nordic Europe, described in the previous section, are supported and further strengthened under these strategies and scenarios.

8

Conclusions

Faced with the loss of young skilled people to cosmopolitan centres, seemingly endemic decline of the language in their peripheral heartlands and challenges from more competitive suppliers in the central and core regions, different minority language development agencies have introduced initiatives and innovations to attempt to reverse these trends. Each language community and national authority has adopted its own path to address their particular circumstances and contexts but lessons have been learnt and exchanged between territories and environments. A growing recognition of the advantages of realising the potential values of intangible cultural heritages, embedded into products and services to confirm

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

249

provenance (Burnett, Burnett and Danson 2021; Museums Galleries Scotland, n.d.), supports positively treating Gàidhlig as an economic and social asset, as revealed by the HIE study (DC Research 2014); the recommendations following from that analysis can be transferred to the other Celtic and Nordic minority language communities. There is a need to confront the challenge of ensuring employment underpins the language in the community, as acknowledged in the DC Research report (DC Research 2014: 4). Confirming the essential interactions between the social and economic dimensions of the minority language, a key theme emerging from the DC Research study and comparative work around these issues in Ireland (Brennan et al. 2016), the Faroe Islands (Holm et al. 2020) and elsewhere about the wider interrelationships between Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg, føroyskt mál and economic development highlights the ‘importance of normalisation of the language, including the use of Gàidhlig by businesses, but also more generally (e.g. in the media), in education (i.e. Gàidhlig Medium Education) and in wider society’ (DC Research 2014: 5). The prospects for the respective languages and the economic and social wellbeing of their communities can each be enhanced through supporting the development of workers, entrepreneurs and enterprises in utilising and accepting the inherent value of the cultural and natural heritage of their places and spaces. The intrinsic values of these tangible and intangible assets are both long-established and also evolving, with opportunities appearing to exploit international interest in such mass media as Outlander, Game of Thrones and so on. As with the other Celtic and Nordic locations being analysed here, with investment and promotion, there can be benefits and contributions to the minority language communities, their economies and enterprises. Ultimately the world will be better for preserving and nurturing the precious languages and cultures of these and other peripheral but essential societies. Setting these analyses in the form of strategies which jointly and collectively promote the economies, societies and minority languages, the foregoing suggests that re-establishing a range of basic economic sectors in the local communities is most likely to be consistent with sustainable, inclusive and resilient elements of the increasingly relevant foundational economy paradigm. By definition all types of sectors in an

250

M. Danson

area are supportive of the retention and attraction back of young skilled minority language speakers, regardless of whether their occupation or sector requires the language as essential or desirable (Campbell et al. 2008). However, beyond this recognition of the need for any jobs and enterprises, if people are to be able to live in the minority language heartlands, other complementary sectors in education, creative industries and tourism have shown that they can benefit from realising the economic value of the language. As DC Research (2014) and Thomas et al. (2020) have demonstrated, this argument regarding economic value does relate to the external use of the language in terms of branding, marketing material, signage etc. (see Brennan et al. 2016, for the cases of Scotland and Ireland) but this complements and reinforces the language of internal operations to the enterprise. There is little research on the significance of the economic value argument when considering the use of the minority language within a company although DC Research (2014) and Thomas et al. (2020) have suggested where further exploration could be undertaken. Reports by Borooah et al. (2009) and Campbell et al. (2008) identify benefits in the marketplace for individual employees on the one hand (e.g. employment opportunities and wages) as well as for enterprises on the other hand (e.g. in terms of visibility, sales and profit, as projected by DC Research 2014 and Thomas et al. 2020), though the work of Holm et al. (2020) also reveals the limits and unintended consequences that may arise. In brief, there is potential to address the climate emergency, to boost local and national resilience as well as to support minority languages in their traditional heartlands through promotion of a foundational economy strategy that rebuilds capacity and resources at the base and reverses the mantra of ‘no jobs, no people; no people, no Gaeltacht’ (Williams 1988: 279), recognising that it is jobs and the economy that can help to drive the development of Gàidhlig, more than the use of Gàidhlig on its own that can help to drive the economy (DC Research 2014: 4).

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

251

References Arnesen, T., et al. 2012. Transcending orthodoxy: The multi-house home, leisure and the transformation of core periphery relations. In Regional Development in Northern Europe: Peripherality, Marginality and Border Issues, ed. M. Danson and P. de Souza, 182–195. London: Routledge. Arts Council England. 2015. Rural evidence and data review: Analysis of Arts Council England investment, arts and cultural participation and audiences. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/downloadfile/Rural_evidence_and_data_review_0.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Awan-Scully, R. 2016. Attitudes to the Welsh Language, I, Blogs Elections in Wales—Etholiadau yng Nghymru. https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinw ales/2016/12/11/attitudes-to-the-welsh-language-i/. Accessed 16 February 2021. Bakhshi, H., N. Lee, and J. Mateos-Garcia. 2013. Capital of culture? An econometric analysis of the relationship between arts and cultural clusters, wages, and the creative economy English cities. In Creative Communities Art Works in Economic Development, ed. M. Rushton, 190–216. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Beckermann, W. 1956. Distance and the pattern of intra-European trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics 38 (1): 31–40. Benneworth, P., et al. 2003. Confusing clusters? Making sense of the cluster approach in theory and practice. European Planning Studies 11: 511–520. Bòrd na Gàidhlig. 2006. Gaelic arts have a key role in language survival. Press release, 28 November. https://studylib.net/doc/6799824/gaelic-arts-have-akey-role-in-language-survival. Accessed 16 February 2021. Borooah, V., D. Dineen, and N. Lynch. 2009. Language and occupational status: Linguistic elitism in the Irish labour market. Economic and Social Review 40: 435–460. Boyne, R. 2006. Methodology and ideology in the evaluation of cultural investments. In Cultural Industries: The British Experience in International Perspective, ed. C. Eisenberg, R. Gerlach, and C. Handke, available via Humboldt University Berlin, EdocServer. http://edoc.hu-berlin.de. Brennan, S., M. Danson, and B. O’Rourke. 2016. Selling a language to save it? The business-oriented promotion of Gaelic and Irish. In Cànan & Cultar/Language & Culture: Rannsachadh na Gaidhlig 8, ed. W. McLeod, A. Gunderloch, and R. Dunbar, 205–221. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

252

M. Danson

Brewer, P.A. 2007. Operationalizing psychic distance: A revised approach. Journal of International Marketing 15: 44–46. Burnett, J.A. 2011. The Making of the Modern Scottish Highlands 1939–1965. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Burnett, K., and M. Danson. 2004. Adding or subtracting value? Rural enterprise, quality food promotion and Scotland’s cluster strategy. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 10: 381–403. Burnett, K., and M. Danson. 2016. Sustainability and small enterprises in Scotland’s remote rural ‘margins.’ Local Economy 31 (5): 539–553. Burnett, K., and M. Danson. 2017. Enterprise and entrepreneurship on islands and remote rural environments. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 18 (1): 25–35. Burnett, K.A., and L.H. Stalker. 2018. ‘Shut up for five years’: Locating narratives of cultural workers in Scotland’s islands. Sociologia Ruralis 58: 239–257. Burnett, K., R. Burnett, and M. Danson (eds.). 2021. Scotland and Islandness: Explorations in Community, Economy and Culture. Oxford: Peter Lang. Business Wales. n.d. Foundational Economy. https://businesswales.gov.wales/ foundational-economy. Accessed 16 February 2021. Campbell, I., et al. 2008. Measuring the Gaelic labour market: Current and future potential: Final report for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Inverness: Hecla Consulting. Cantoni, G. 1997. Keeping minority languages alive: The school’s responsibility. Teaching Indigenous Languages, Northern Arizona University. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415059.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Caviedes, A. 2003. The role of language in nation-building within the European Union. Dialectical Anthropology 27: 249–268. Central Statistics Office. n.d. Census of Population 2016—Profile 10 Education, Skills and the Irish Language. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublica tions/ep/p-cp10esil/p10esil/ilg/. Accessed 16 February 2021. Chalmers, D., and M. Danson. 2012. The economic impact of Gaelic arts and culture within Glasgow: Minority languages and post-industrial cities. In Cultural Political Economy of Small Cities, ed. A. Lorentzen and B. van Heur, 95–109. Abingdon: Routledge. CIEMEN. 2002. The European Union and Lesser-Used Languages. Education and Culture Series, EDUC 108 EN. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Clements, P., and D. Clements. 2019. ‘Abandoned Isles’, Lonely-Isles. https://paulmclem.weebly.com/abandonedisles. html.

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

253

Coull, J. 1967. A comparison of demographic trends in the Faroe and Shetland Islands. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41: 159–166. Cullinane, J. 2020. Remarks at launch of ‘Council becomes first Scottish local authority to join Wellbeing Economy Alliance’. https://www.north-ayrshire. gov.uk/news/Council-becomes-first-Scottish-Local-Authority-to-join-Wellbe ing-Economic-Alliance.aspx. Accessed 16 February 2021. Danson, M. 1991. The Scottish economy: The development of underdevelopment? Planning Outlook 34: 89–95. Danson, M. 2007. Migrant integration in rural areas—Evidence from new countries of immigration. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 9 (1): 13–34. Danson, M., and K. Burnett. 2014. Enterprise and entrepreneurship on islands. In Exploring Rural Enterprise: New Perspectives on Research, Policy and Practice, ed. C. Henry and G. McElwee, 151–174. Emerald: Bingley. Danson, M., and K. Burnett. 2016. Current Scottish land reform and reclaiming the Commons. Building community resilience. Paper presented at Ploughing up the Landed Commons: Indigo International Symposium, Leuven, Belgium. Danson, M., and P. de Souza (eds.). 2012. Regional Development in Northern Europe. Peripherality, Marginality and Border Issues. London: Routledge. Danson, M., and G. Lloyd. 2012. Devolution, institutions, and organisations: Changing models of regional development agencies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30: 78–94. DC Research. 2014. Ar Stòras Gàidhlig: Economic and Social Value of Gaelic as an Asset (Final Report May 2014). Inverness: Highlands and Islands Enterprise. https://www.hie.co.uk/media/5585/hieplusreportplus2014plusfinalplu sonline.pdf. Accessed 29 October 2020. Eatock, D., V. Margaras, I. Zamfir, and A. Orav. 2019. Demographic outlook for the European Union 2019’, PE 637.955 report for EPRS—European Parliamentary Research Service. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/IDAN/2019/637955/EPRS_IDA(2019)637955_EN.pdf. Accessed 29 October 2020. Fraser of Allander Institute. 2020. The impact of the coronavirus on our economy and society—Views from 17 experts. https://fraserofallander. org/fai-publications/coronavirus-impact-on-economy-society-17-experts/. Accessed 16 February 2021. Faroe Islands. n.d. Arts & Culture. https://www.faroeislands.fo/arts-culture/. Accessed 16 February 2021.

254

M. Danson

Fèisean nan Gàidheal. 2009. Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors, 29 May. https://www.feisean.org/wp-content/uploads/FnG-Boa rd290509.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Fielding, A.J. 1992. Migration and social mobility: South East England as an escalator region. Regional Studies 26: 1–15. Findlay, A., et al. 2008. Getting off the escalator? A study of Scots outmigration from a global city region. Environment and Planning A 40: 2169–2185. Florida, R. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. London: Routledge. Fritsch, M. 2013. New business formation and regional development: A survey and assessment of the evidence, foundations and trends. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 9: 249–364. Galloway, L., and R. Mochrie. 2006. Entrepreneurial motivation, orientation and realization in rural economies: A study of rural Scotland. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 7: 173–183. García-Esparza, J. 2019. Beyond the intangible/tangible binary: An analysis of historic built environments in Valencia, Spain. International Journal of Intangible Heritage 14: 124–137. Glór na nGael. 2019. I dTreo Straitéis Forbartha Fiontraíochta, Glór na nGael, Baile Átha Buí. Goodwin-Hawkins, B. 2019. ‘Culture as connection in rural Europe’, Rural Dialogues, ARC2020. https://www.arc2020.eu/rural-dialogues-culture-asconnection-in-rural-europe/. Government of Ireland. 2010. 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010– 2030. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Grin, F. 1990. The economic approach to minority languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11: 153–173. Grin, F., and F. Vaillancourt. 1999. The cost-effectiveness evaluation of minority language policies: Case studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. ECMI Monograph #2. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI). Harper, C. 2020. Why localism offers a path to building resilient communities post Covid-19. https://nation.cymru/opinion/why-localismoffers-a-path-to-building-resilient-communities-post-covid-19/. Accessed 16 February 2021. Heil, P., and T. Tétényi (eds.). 2016. The Use of New Provisions During the Programming Phase of the European Structural and Investment Funds. Brussels: European Commission.

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

255

Henley, A., and R.E. Jones. 2005. Earnings and linguistic proficiency in a bilingual economy. The Manchester School 73: 300–320. Highlands and Islands Enterprise. 2006. Launch of the report on the demand for Gaelic arts. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-153720093192 4256974. HM Treasury. 2018. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl oads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Holm, A.-E., B. O’Rourke, and M. Danson. 2020. ‘Employers could use us, but they don’t’: Voices from blue-collar workplaces in a northern periphery. Language Policy 19: 389–416. Jones, H., J. Caird, W. Berry, and J. Dewhurst. 1986. Peripheral counterurbanization: Findings from an integration of census and survey data in Northern Scotland. Regional Studies 20 (1): 15–26. Just Transition Commission. 2020a. Just Transition Commission Interim Report. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Just Transition Commission. 2020b. Just Transition Commission: Advice on a Green Recovery. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Kourtit, K., et al. 2013. The spatial distribution of creative industries and cultural heritage in the Netherlands. TI 2013–195/VIII, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam. https://papers.tinber gen.nl/13195.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Kuzio, T. 2001. Nationalising states or nation-building? A critical review of the theoretical literature and empirical evidence’. Nations and Nationalism 7: 135–154. Leadbeater, C., and K. Oakley. 1999. The Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs. London: Demos. Lorentzen, A., and B. van Heur, eds. 2012. Cultural Political Economy of Small Cities. Abingdon: Routledge. Markusen, A., and A. Gadwa. 2010. Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: A review and research agenda. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 379–391. Martin, S., and M. Wiliam. 2019. Debating nationhood, c. 1945–2000. In The Cambridge History of Welsh Literature, ed. G. Evans and H. Fulton, 491–506. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCann, P. 2016. The Regional and Urban Policy of the European Union Cohesion, Results-Orientation and Smart Specialisation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press.

256

M. Danson

McLeod, W. 2020. Gaelic in Scotland: Policies, Movements, Ideologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Museums Galleries Scotland. n.d. Intangible cultural heritage. https://www. museumsgalleriesscotland.org.uk/projects/intangible-cultural-heritage/. Accessed 16 February 2021. Nic Craith, M. 2020. The Vanishing World of the Islandman. London: Palgrave Macmillan. NIHRC. 2010. Minority language rights. The Irish language and Ulster Scots. Briefing paper on the implications of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, European Convention on Human Rights and other instruments. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. https://www.nihrc.org/uploads/publications/briefing-paper-minoritylanguage-rights-and-ecrml-june-2010.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. OECD. 2019. OECD Principles on Rural Policy. https://www.oecd.org/rural/ rural-development-conference/documents/Rural-principles.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. O’Hanlon, F., and L. Paterson. 2019. Seeing is believing? Public exposure to Gaelic and language attitudes. Scottish Affairs 28: 74–101. Office for National Statistics. 2020. Scottish Natural Capital Accounts: 2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/sco ttishnaturalcapitalaccounts/2020. Accessed 16 February 2021. Scottish Government. 2005. Scottish Planning Policy 15: Planning for Rural Development. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20624/ 51512. Accessed 16 February 2021. Scottish Government. 2018. United Kingdom—Rural Development Programme (Regional)—Scotland. https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/ 0054/00544562.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Scottish Government. 2019a. Sustainable Development Goals. Information on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. National Performance Framework. https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/sustainable-develo pment-goals Accessed 16 February 2021. Scottish Government. 2019b. European Structural and Investment Funds: Operation application form. https://www.gov.scot/publications/esif-operat ion-application/. Accessed 16 February 2021. SPICe. 2020. SPICe FAQ—Gaelic road signs. Scottish Parliament Information Centre blog. https://spice-spotlight.scot/2020/05/18/spice-faq-gaelicroad-signs/. Accessed 16 February 2021.

Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and Føroyskt …

257

Sproull, A. 1996. Regional economic development and minority language use: The case of Gaelic Scotland. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121: 93–117. Sproull, A., and D. Chalmers. 2006. The Demand for Gaelic Arts: Patterns and Impacts. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University and the Gaelic Arts Strategic Development Forum. Stark, P., C. Gordon, and D. Powell. 2013. Rebalancing our cultural capital. A contribution to the debate on national policy for the arts and culture in England. https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/sites/artsprofessional.co.uk/ files/rebalancing_our_cultural_capital.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Storrank, B. 2017. Unlocking regional potentials. Nordic experiences of natural and cultural heritage as a resource in sustainable regional development. TemaNord 2017: 521, Nordic Council of Ministers. https://norden.diva-por tal.org/smash/get/diva2:1089623/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Sugden, M. 2018. Scottish Labour in “anti-Gaelic” row. The Herald , 4 April. Thomas, H., et al. 2020. The Welsh language and the economy: A review of evidence and methods. GSR report number 10/2020. Cardiff: Welsh Government. United Nations. 2019. Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sus tainabledevelopment/. Accessed 16 February 2021. Ward, N., and D. Brown. 2009. Placing the rural in regional development. Regional Studies 43: 1237–1244. Watson, I. 1998. The challenge of maintaining parity for offshore islands. Middle States Geographer 31: 132–137. Welsh Government. 2017. Cymraeg 2050: A Million Welsh Speakers. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2019a. Prosperity for All: Economic Action Plan. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2019b. Beyond Recycling: Making the circular economy a reality in Wales. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2019-12/ summary-circular-economy-strategy.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2021. Welsh Government. 2020. Welsh language data from the Annual Population Survey: April 2019 to March 2020. https://gov.wales/welsh-lan guage-data-annual-population-survey-april-2019-march-2020. Accessed 16 February 2021. Williams, C.H. 1988. Language planning and regional development: Lessons from the Irish Gaeltacht. In Language in Geographic Context, ed. C.H. Williams, 267–302. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

258

M. Danson

Working Group of EU Member States Experts (Open Method of Coordination) on Cultural and Creative Industries. 2012. How can cultural and creative industries contribute to economic transformation through smart specialisation? European Agenda for Culture, Work Plan For Culture 2011–2014. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/20182/84453/ 120420_CCI_Policy_Handbook_%28FINAL%29.pdf/3a645b54-4d8e4cf9-95f9-bf60658cf5b2. Accessed 16 February 2021.

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy: The Evolution of Structural and Analytical Challenges Wilson McLeod and Huw Lewis

In their essays, Grin and Vaillancourt and Danson raise a wide range of analytical and strategic issues concerning language and economy in general and the economics of regional or minority languages (RMLs) in particular. A central difficulty for analysis of issues concerning the economy and RMLs is, as Grin and Vaillancourt rightly observe, ‘the extreme variability of linguistic and regional contexts’ in which these languages are situated (p. 194). The underlying category of ‘regional or minority languages’ is extremely broad in geographical, demographic and sociolinguistic terms, and the range of relevant economic variables adds W. McLeod (B) Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] H. Lewis Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_10

259

260

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

further diversity. Even within western Europe, the geographical, demographic and sociolinguistic positions of Gaelic, Catalan, and German in Belgium, for example, are profoundly different. The situations of minority languages in Africa, Asia and South America will be very different again. Given these difficulties with generalised discussions of RMLs, the analysis in this summary essay will draw in particular on the related contexts of Gaelic, Irish and Welsh, which share important similarities in their economic and sociolinguistic situations, even if Welsh has a significantly larger speaker base and greater overall linguistic vitality than Irish and especially Gaelic. Issues relating to other languages will also be noted as appropriate, however. The principal focus is on areas with a high density of RML speakers (‘RML areas’) such as the Gaeltacht in Ireland and Y Fro Gymraeg in Wales, although the relationship between these areas and more dominant urban areas also plays an important role in the analysis. From the standpoint of economics, a number of linguistic variables constitute important differentiating factors between cases, including the absolute size of the language group in terms of speaker numbers; the density of RML speakers in particular markets; the extent to which language shift in favour of the dominant language of the area has taken or is taking place; the linguistic distance between the RML and related varieties; and, as Grin and Vaillancourt note (p. 198), the extent to which speakers of the RML also know the dominant language (thereby making use of the RML more a question of choice or preference rather than strict necessity). Similarly, a number of physical and more obviously economic factors also come into play, such as the relative proximity of the RML area to major markets and population centres; the structure of the regional economy in occupational terms; the presence or absence of valuable natural resources in the area; and the relative perceived attractiveness of the area in touristic terms. Economics has always been central to the prospects of minority languages and indeed the very definition of minority languages. Although the basic arithmetic understanding of the term ‘minority’ sometimes comes into play, minority languages are best conceptualised in terms of their marginal position in relation to political, cultural, ideological, symbolic and economic power (Pedley and Viaut 2019).

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

261

Among these, perceptions of the subordinate role of minority languages in economic terms may often play the most important role. Key life decisions and ambitions—including the decision to transmit or not transmit a minority language to the next generation—are often shaped by perceptions of the economic role of the language vis-à-vis other more powerful varieties. In considering the position of RMLs in economic terms, it is therefore important to try to distinguish between factors that have been in place for centuries, factors that are long-standing but have taken a new form in recent decades and factors which have emerged recently and which can be considered entirely distinct or unprecedented.

1

Economic Change and the Position of RMLs

As noted in the introduction to this volume (p. 19), many of the most significant economic changes of recent decades have had their principal impacts in central rather than peripheral areas, although there have been important secondary consequences in RML areas that have served to further widen the gap between centre and periphery in some respects. Financialisation of the economy, for example, has worked to exacerbate regional disparities in employment opportunities and increase inequalities in income and wealth, while innovations in ICT have disproportionately benefited urban areas, leaving peripheral areas lagging well behind. In general, however, the long-standing economic challenges facing many RML areas remain in place despite the important transformations of recent decades. These can be summarised as relative underdevelopment, challenges involving the range and quality of employment opportunities and ‘the centripetal, concentration and centralisation agglomeration draw of cities’ (Danson, p. 246). Since the late 1970s the economic and social impact of neoliberalism has been pervasive and profound, and RML areas have been strongly affected by this wider shift (Ó Ceallaigh 2020b). Indeed, in important respects, neoliberalism may have served to further disadvantage peripheral areas, notably as a result of the consequent decrease in emphasis on

262

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

regional policy and attempts at strategic coordination of the economy. ‘Neoliberalism’ is a much-overused term that can be understood in different ways but three aspects are particularly relevant to RML communities. First is the general reconception of the role of government in the economy, moving away from state intervention in economic matters and more towards the facilitation of free markets. In particular, this has had the effect of downplaying the importance of regional policy and non-market rationales for the support of economically vulnerable areas (although policy interventions such as the European structural funds have played an important offsetting role). As Danson notes, in peripheral areas (including RML areas) this aspect of the neoliberal shift has tended to bring a new emphasis on the ‘unmet need for internally generated growth, particularly through small and medium enterprises’ (p. 236). Realising this need remains a profound strategic challenge, of course. Second is the discursive impact, by which policies and initiatives to support RMLs are typically conceptualised and structured in terms of outputs, targets, performance indicators and so on (McEwan-Fujita 2005) and framed and justified in terms of their claimed economic benefits. An obvious example in this connection is the now-routine practice of commissioning studies to quantify the positive economic impact of particular RML cultural events and initiatives, such as the Urdd in Wales and the Mòd in Scotland (e.g. Urdd Gobaith Cymru 2018; An Comunn Gàidhealach 2020), or even the overall economic impact of the language in a particular territory (SIADECO 2015; see Urla and Burdick 2018: 85–87). In a slightly different way, these aspects of neoliberalism can be connected to the phenomenon of ‘concerted cultivation’, discussed in the family section of this volume (p. 129), by which language acquisition—including, in some circumstances, RML acquisition—is valorised in terms of developing marketable skills. A third important development is the so-called1 commodificationof language, and in particular the increasingly powerful notion that a given language—for current purposes, an RML—may index a marketable set of attributes. Relatedly, particular geographical areas in which RMLs are spoken may be packaged for marketing purposes in certain specified terms. Perhaps ironically, the more fragile a language may be from a sociolinguistic standpoint, the more socially peripheral the RML area is

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

263

and the more geographically distinct and remote it is, the more it can be presented and marketed as ‘authentic’ or ‘unique’. This dynamic clearly applies to Gaelic and Irish, which are sometimes packaged in the context of discourses rooted in eighteenth-century romanticism (misty mountains, ancient traditions and so on), but is less the case with certain other RMLs, such as Scots, which does not trigger such warming stereotypes and indeed is often associated with urban deprivation. It may be that some languages are more commodifiable than others, as Costa (2015) has argued. The Gaelic Tourism Strategy adopted by VisitScotland, Scotland’s national tourism authority, provides a useful illustration of this approach. Gaelic is presented as ‘an asset to be marketed to visitors’ and ‘a Unique Selling Point differentiator and authentic part of the experience of visiting Scotland’ (VisitScotland 2018: [13], [i]). It is characterised as a ‘value-adding opportunity’ with ‘significant economic potential’ in ‘an increasingly competitive, global market’ (VisitScotland 2018: [2], [4]). Notably, as used in the strategy, the term ‘“Gaelic” refers to both the Gaelic language and its associated culture’ (VisitScotland 2018: [1] fn.), thereby implying that the use of ‘Gaelic’ for tourism purposes need not necessarily involve the Gaelic language itself. In terms of the linguistic role of Gaelic in terms of staffing, some of those connected to Gaelic tourist activity will be Gaelic-speaking but others merely ‘Gaelicaware’ (VisitScotland 2018: [30]). Finally, it is notable that the strategy, the first of its kind, was only adopted after VisitScotland was given a statutory notice to prepare a Gaelic language plan under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 ; it did not emerge through observation of market dynamics on the part of VisitScotland or the tourism industry more generally. Nevertheless, it is important that policy intervention has required the agency to put Gaelic on its agenda and take the language into strategic consideration. A structural difficulty highlighted by Danson is that development strategies that emphasise ‘authenticity’, ‘provenance’ or ‘uniqueness’ are only likely to be effective in relation to specific, relatively narrowly circumscribed kinds of goods or services. Enterprises that manufacture nails or manage financial assets are unlikely to be able to take advantage of their use of an RML or their location in a scenically attractive area.

264

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

It is thus no accident that, as Danson notes, ‘enterprises in most rural and remote communities have gravitated to or been established in the cultural and creative sectors’ (p. 237). Yet not only are these niche sectors that generate relatively little employment, they also involve considerable precarity, as Danson points out. The key challenge, then, is to avoid RML areas simply providing ‘facilities and activities as museum curiosities or a restricted range of opportunities for entrepreneurs, crafts and arts, or other niche production and service operations’ (p. 233). Certainly Danson’s urging of the development of a more diversified, more resilient local economy in RML areas, rooted in a range of basic economic sectors, presents an attractive scenario, as does the model of the foundational or circular economy, based on localism (p. 246). The operational feasibility of such an approach will vary from context to context, though in all cases integrated strategic planning and support will be necessary. Crucially, though, the extent to which an RML can play a meaningful role in such strategies will be highly variable, and it is certain that economic imperatives will always trump sociolinguistic considerations.

2

Economic Development and Language Planning

The oft-quoted phrase ‘no jobs, no people, no people, no Gaeltacht, no Gaeltacht, no language’ may be overly simplistic.2 It presupposes that all, or at least the majority, of the ‘people’ who live in purportedly minority language speaking areas (the Gaeltacht in the Republic of Ireland or its counterparts in other jurisdictions) know and use the minority language. This cannot always be assumed to be the case, due to either in-migration of non-speakers or language shift within the established community. For example, migrant workers may play an important role in the local economy of an RML area, whether they are recruited due to shortages that cannot be filled locally (as with the fish processing industry of the Faroes today, discussed by Danson (p. 241)), or through the general pull effect of attractive opportunities (as with the coalfieldsof South Wales in their pre-1914 heyday) (Owen 2018: 13–14). It is by no means true

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

265

of Ireland’s Gaeltacht today, where the 2016 census indicated that only 66.3% of the population can speak Irish and only 21.4% speak Irish on a daily basis outside the education system.3 It is also implicit in the ‘no jobs, no people, no people, no Gaeltacht’ formula that the presence of jobs in the area will contribute to language maintenance. If the minority language is not actually used in the course of the jobs in question, however, it may be that they contribute to the momentum of language shift in the community, either by further normalising the use of the dominant language in the community or by attracting employees who cannot speak the RML.4 As such, close evaluation of the actual functioning of the RML in particular work contexts and particular local economies is required, and initiatives to promote economic growth and job creation need to pay specific attention to the issue of actual language use in relation to economic activity. In a sociolinguistic environment in which transmission and use of the minority language in the community is unstable, careful planning, regulation and monitoring will be required; these matters cannot simply be left to operate in an uncontrolled manner on the assumption that the area in question is inherently an RML-speaking one. It is important to distinguish between three main kinds of economic activity when considering the role of minority languages. The first is the use of the RML by the workforce itself, i.e. the language used to carry out internal operations and to conduct internal communications (both oral and written). Second is the use of the RML in transactions with external parties, e.g. customers and suppliers of different kinds. Third is the use of the RML for purposes of marketing and communications, including branding, labelling and packaging, advertising and promotion. Some of these activities are more susceptible to planning and management in support of the RML; it is easier for an employer to control internal language use rather than language use with external customers or suppliers, which will often depend on their own needs or preferences. The last is clearly most susceptible to symbolic rather than substantive language use, particularly if the client group or customer base contains a substantial proportion of non-RML speakers.

266

3

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

RMLs and the Economy: Evaluation and Persuasion

A number of key issues concerning RMLs were highlighted in Grin and Vaillancourt and Danson’s chapters in this section. One of these is the relationship between the operation of markets and the impact of language policy measures. It is clearly unhelpful, indeed meaningless, to imagine a market that can be conceptualised independent of any language policy concerns, so that it is not really possible to disentangle the ‘natural’ operation of the market from the regulated or ‘artificial’ impact of language policy measures. Grin and Vaillancourt point out that the issue of RML use in relation to demand for a given product or service is to some extent a social and policy question, so that the preferences of customers and service users ‘will reflect past and current public policies, the ingrained attitudes of the minority and majority language speakers towards the use of one or another language, and the odds of success when expressing preference and so on’ (p. 203). This creates scope for strategies to promote the ‘active offer’ of RML-medium products and services, or innovative marketing strategies that seek to bring about changes in established patterns of preference. In this regard, Grin and Vaillancourt’s observation (p. 218) that ‘the reasons why people express a demand’ is not ‘a relevant question’ in economic terms is helpful; it is not meaningful to depict some kinds of choices and behaviours as rational (and thus inherently legitimate) and others as driven by non-rational, affective or ‘political’ motivations of one kind or another. As Grin and Vaillancourt suggest, much work concerning language and economy addresses the situation of commercial firms, for which market forces will obviously play a central role in decision-making. In relation to the position of RMLs, however, it is important to bear in mind that the share of public sector employment tends to be much greater in RML areas than in core metropolitan areas, so that the public sector plays a much greater role in the overall economy of these regions, with a relatively smaller role for the commercial sector. For example, the proportion of the labour force employed in the sectors of public administration, education and health and human social work activities is almost

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

267

twice as high in the core Gaelic-speaking area of the Western Isles and the core Welsh-speaking area of Gwynedd as in London: 38.7% and 38.4% as against 21.6%.5 Ideally, development strategies would promote a stronger commercial sector and a broader employment base in areas like the Western Isles and Gwynedd, but this dependence on the public sector appears to be deeply rooted. Although there are obviously many similarities in the positions of public sector employers and commercial employers, public sector organisations are more likely to fall within the scope of language legislation, so that they may have concrete obligations in relation to language, and in general there is more scope for policy and political considerations to affect their decision-making than is the case for firms driven by commercial imperatives. An important issue that emerged from Grin and Vaillancourt and Danson’s essays is the need for richer, better-quality data concerning the role of different RMLs in particular economic contexts, including specific national or regional economies. There are not enough studies of any kind relating to the economics of RMLs, especially, as Danson notes, concerning ‘the significance of the economic value argument when considering the use of the minority language within a company’ (p. 250). Often the studies that have been conducted to date are relatively small in scale or scope. As Grin and Vaillancourt note, consideration of the role of RMLs involves ‘acute evaluation problems’, so that comprehensive studies combining qualitative and quantitative methods are required in order to give a comprehensive and realistic picture (p. 215). There is also clearly a difficulty that many of the studies carried out to date are somewhat anecdotal in nature or indeed have been commissioned as part of a language promotion agenda, with their findings being deployed for strategic purposes. These shortcomings are not simply analytical and intellectual in nature, but are significant in relation to their potential policy impact. If an RML is actually playing a meaningful role in a particular sector or a particular regional economy, then that role should be demonstrable through convincing evidence. Convincingness is not merely a matter of academic integrity but is critical if such research is to have a wider policy impact, shaping the perceptions and decisions of multiple different kinds of actors, from government departments charged with economic development to individual business owners to school

268

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

guidance counsellors to individual students making decisions concerning educational pathways and career planning. This is particularly the case given that ideological perceptions of the economic irrelevance of RMLs are so deeply embedded. An important if now well-established proposition, articulated by Danson (p. 237), is that promoting RMLs can lead to ‘an enhanced sense of cultural identity and sense of place, increasing confidence and selfesteem’ and thereby to ‘greater entrepreneurial activity’ and economic activity. However, it is not clear how claims of this kind can be validated by convincing, concrete evidence that moves beyond the anecdotal.

4

RMLs in the Workplace: Analytical and Practical Issues

A recurring difficulty concerning assessment of the role of RMLs in the economy is the distinction between the ability to speak a language and actual use of that language (in relation to economic activity and more generally). As Grin and Vaillancourt note, ‘it does not automatically follow that these skills are actually being used at work’ (p. 198). This can create important analytical problems if there is a significant gap between stated language ability and actual use. For example, in Ireland there is a notable correlation between stated ability in Irish and educational attainment/socio-economic status (Borooah et al. 2009), but an even more pronounced divergence between stated ability in Irish and actual use of the language.6 The fact that individuals who claim the ability to speak Irish enjoy a wage premium may thus have little relevance from the operational standpoint of language policy. As a fall-back position, though, there may be an incentive for RML acquisition if a perception gains currency that skills in the language will increase employment opportunities or yield a wage premium—even if that employment does not actually involve use of the RML or the individual in question makes little active use of the language in other aspects of their life. This is a different way in which, as suggested by Grin and Vaillancourt, ‘value emerges as much from potential as from actual use of the RML concerned’ (p. 198).

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

269

A more specific practical issue in relation to RMLs in the workplace is the nature and level of language skills involved. Depending on the degree to which the language in question is embedded in the education system, speakers of the language may have limited formal skills in the language, both in terms of reading/writing skills and general command of formal vocabulary. In this regard, it is unhelpful that some of the data sets concerning RMLs, notably national censuses, characterise language skills in binary terms (can speak Gaelic/is unable to speak Gaelic, fluent/nonfluent etc.). As Grin and Vaillancourt observe (p. 214), much more careful calibrations of language skills, adjusted to the specific contexts of particular work settings, are required. The issue of variable language skills has consequences in terms of access to different kinds of employment for which RML skills are considered to be essential and also to the potential for uptake of products or services that are offered through the medium of an RML. These variables then have impacts on labour market mobility as professional jobs requiring advanced skills (in public administration, broadcasting, language services etc.) are more likely to be located in urban areas— and to the prospects for success of initiatives seeking to promote the use of RMLs in the offer of goods and services. An illustrative study in this regard was the investigation of the different language use patterns and cultural associations of middle-class service providers and workingclass service users in the court and probation system in northwest Wales, which demonstrated that the latter (although native Welsh speakers) felt alienated from the formal Welsh used by public officialdom and tended to opt for English-medium services instead (Madoc-Jones et al. 2013). These trends can be connected to the widely observed phenomenon of ‘reverse diglossia’ in RMLs, by which policy-driven provision for an RML in sectors such education, broadcasting and public administration tends to bring about a realignment of the sociolinguistic associations of the language from the informal to the formal (Smith-Christmas and Ó hIfearnáin 2015: 262–264) and—more importantly for present purposes—generate white-collar employment opportunities connected to these kinds of institutional settings. As discussed in detail in the communities section of this volume, many RMLs, including Welsh and Gaelic, are currently experiencing a pattern

270

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

of declining demolinguistic density in ‘heartland’ areas, the growth of networked communities in lower-density areas and an increasing role for ‘virtual’ communities. Unfortunately, this pattern may not be advantageous to efforts to promote the RML in relation to the economy and the provision of public services. As Grin and Vaillancourt note (p. 216), ‘the intersection of the concepts of “minority” and “region” is strategically crucial’, since RML communities without a strong regional anchoring may not have enough concentrated spending power to influence the behaviour of firms or enough political power to influence regional government policies. If the RML population becomes a minority (or only a small majority) everywhere, this weight will be lacking. In addition, recruitment of RML speakers in low-density environments may be more difficult (particularly for relatively low-wage, non-specialist jobs) and in such environments, there is less likely to be a critical mass of customer/service user demand that would render an RML offer commercially attractive. Again, there will be niche opportunities for the marketing of RML-related cultural products in ways that do not depend on geographical concentration (through online sales and so on) but these are unlikely to generate significant numbers of jobs for RML speakers, whether in RML areas or elsewhere. A very important sociolinguistic variable in relation to minority languages and the economy is the extent to which speakers of the RML also know the dominant language of the relevant national market (and, in some cases, languages of wider communication such as English). If a significant proportion of the local labour force, supplier network and customer base cannot communicate in the dominant language (as is the case with French speakers in Québec in relation to English, for example) there are clear economic imperatives to accommodate the RML in business operations. Conversely, if all speakers of the RML are also able to speak the dominant language—as is the case with Gaelic, Irish and Welsh speakers in relation to English—strict necessity is removed from the calculus, although language preference may remain a significant factor, and policy imperatives to promote the use of the RML may also be present. Similarly, satisfaction levels among bilingual employees and customers may be higher if a company facilitates the use of their language of choice. When all RML speakers also know the majority

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

271

language, however, it may be more difficult to exclude workers who know only the majority language, whether these be migrants or ‘local’ people who do not know the RML. To the extent that language development policy seeks to break down diglossic patterns of use that disfavour the RML, and to proactively encourage the use of the RML in circumstances where using the dominant language is not only feasible but the established default option, the (perceived) need to accommodate such non-speakers of the RML may be significant inhibitory factors. Migrant workers have come to play an increasingly important economic and social role in many RML areas in recent decades, partly as a response to outmigration to urban areas on the part of some local workers. As discussed in the first Revitalise workshop (Royles 2019: 12–13), migration to rural and remote RML areas contributes to the sustainability of public and private services against a background of outmigration and depopulation and addresses the need to fill skills and labour shortages. However, the increasing presence of migrants can complicate endeavours to establish the RML in economic life, particularly if (as if often the case) there are few opportunities for migrant workers and their families to acquire the RML. Overall, more nuanced language policy interventions are needed in order to ensure that they align with trends in migration, rather than conflict with them, in order to strengthen the promotion of RMLs in the economic sphere and more generally. This is no small challenge.

5

Conclusion

Although the trends are not entirely negative, it would be difficult to demonstrate that the significant economic changes of recent decades have brought aggregate benefits to RML areas. Rather, the long-standing underlying dynamics of relative under-development, outmigration and pull to the centre remain in place, even if the specifics have changed in some respects. Although the prospects for at least some RMLs appear more favourable than was once the case, Danson is unquestionably correct that ‘it is jobs and the economy that can help to drive the development of Gàidhlig [and other RMLs] more than the use of Gàidhlig

272

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

on its own that can help to drive the economy’ (p. 250). The direct benefits of using an RML in economic activity may be relatively circumscribed and should not be overstated. The challenge, then, is to develop innovative but realistic policies in the economic sphere that can make a meaningful contribution to wider language revitalisation efforts.

Notes 1. This now well-established concept requires to be understood metaphorically. As Grin has noted elsewhere (Grin 2022), language per se simply cannot be a commodity in the strict economic sense. 2. This oft-quoted statement was originally made by Tom O’Donnell, Minister for the Gaeltacht from 1973–1975 (Ó hAoláin 2007: 82). This summary essay focuses on the relationship between language and economy and in particular on the second proposition here, ‘no jobs, no Gaeltacht’. The third proposition, ‘no Gaeltacht, no language’—the claim that the vitality of the language is inherently linked to its vitality in particular bounded geographical spaces with a high concentration of speakers—throws up a separate set of issues; see the Community section of this volume and O’Rourke and Walsh (2020). 3. See Central Statistics Office (2017: 69). Note that the proportion of daily speakers exceeds 50% in the strongest Gaeltacht areas, however (see https://dahg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=7090794ee2ca4b53bb785b84c2bd9ad8). 4. Note also that even if the workforce can speak the RML and do actually use the RML in their work, new economic opportunities may also attract returning migrants who are accompanied by non-RML speaking partners and children, thereby contributing to language shift in the community in question (Ó Ceallaigh 2020a: 2019). 5. Figures from labour market profiles compiled by the Office of National Statistics (www.nomisweb.co.uk). Data are from 2020 in respect of London and from 2019 for Gwynedd and the Western Isles. Note further that a larger proportion of workers in education and health services in London would be employed by private providers than in Gwynedd or the Western Isles.

Regional and Minority Languages and the Economy …

273

6. Only 4.2% of respondents who claimed an ability to speak Irish in the 2016 census reported that they used the language on a daily basis outside the education system, and 23.9% reported that they never used it (Central Statistics Office 2017: 66).

References An Comunn Gàidhealach. 2020. Mod 2014 generates £3.5 million. https:// www.ancomunn.co.uk/nationalmod/moddetail/mod-2014-generates-3.5million. Accessed 19 December 2020. Borooah, V., D. Dineen, and N. Lynch. 2009. Language and Occupational Status: Linguistic Elitism in the Irish Labour Market. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Central Statistics Office. 2017. 7. The Irish language. https://www.cso.ie/ en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2017/7._The_ Irish_language.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2020. Costa, J. 2015. Toute langue est-elle marchandable? Vendre le gaélique ou l’écossais dans l’Ecosse actuelle. La Bretagne Linguistique 19: 1–14. Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. 2005 asp 7. https://www.legislation.gov. uk/asp/2005/7/contents. Accessed 26 February 2021. Grin, F. Forthcoming 2022. Reflections on language as a vehicle of economic value. In Language, Policy and Territory: A Festschrift for Colin H. Williams, ed. W. McLeod, R. Dunbar, K. Jones, and J. Walsh. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Madoc-Jones, I., O. Parry, and D. Jones. 2013. The ‘chip shop Welsh’: Aspects of ‘Welsh speaking’ identity in contemporary Wales. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 13: 394–411. McEwan-Fujita, E. 2005. Neoliberalism and minority-language planning in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171: 155–171. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2020a. Neoliberalism and language shift: The Great Recession and the sociolinguistic vitality of Ireland’s Gaeltacht, 2008–18. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2020b. Neoliberal globalisation and language minoritisation: Lessons from Ireland 2008–18. Language & Communication 75: 103–116.

274

W. McLeod and H. Lewis

Ó hAoláin, P. 2007. Sustaining minority language communities: Yin and yang juncture for Irish. In Sustaining Minority Language Development: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland , ed. J.M. Kirk and D.P. Ó Baoill, 81–88. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona. O’Rourke, B., and J. Walsh. 2020. New Speakers of Irish in the Global Context: New Revival? London: Routledge. Owen, L. 2018. ‘A Species of Heathen?’ A Social History of English Migrants in Wales, c.1850–1914. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aberystywth University. Pedley, D., and A. Viaut. 2019. What do minority languages mean? European Perspectives. Multilingua 38 (2): 133–139. Royles, E. 2019. Revitalise Workshop Briefing Report 3—Workshop theme: Language revitalisation and economic transformation. https://revitalise. aber.ac.uk/en/media/non-au/revitalise/Revitalise---Workshop-Report-3--FINAL.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2021. SIADECO [Sociedad de Investigación Aplicada del Desarollo Comunitario]. 2015. Value and Economic Impact of the Basque Language. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco. Smith-Christmas, C., and T. Ó hIfearnáin. 2015. Gaelic Scotland and Ireland: Issues of class and diglossia in an evolving social landscape. In Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory, ed. D. Smakman and P. Heinrich, 256–269. London: Routledge. Urdd Gobaith Cymru. 2018. The Urdd worth £25.5m to the Welsh economy in 2017–18. https://www.urdd.cymru/en/news-press/urdd-gob aith-cymru-yn-werth-255-miliwn-i-economi-cymru-yn-2017-18/. Accessed 19 December 2020. Urla, J., and C. Burdick. 2018. Counting matters: Quantifying the vitality and value of Basque. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 252: 73–96. VisitScotland. 2018. Ro-innleachd Turasachd na Gàidhlig do dh’Alba/Gaelic Tourism Strategy for Scotland . Edinburgh: VisitScotland.

Governance

The Governance of Language Revitalisation: The Case of Wales Huw Lewis

1

Introduction

Over the past forty years, public policy programmes aimed at revitalising the prospects of regional or minority languages have become increasingly common across different parts of Europe (Williams 2013). Indeed, in the case of languages such as Catalan, Basque, Galician, Gaelic and Welsh, policy interventions have gradually become more systematic and farreaching in scope, touching on a number of important fields, including education, media, economy and public administration (see for instance Strubell and Boix-Fuster 2011; Urla 2015; McLeod 2020). Significantly, these European language revitalisation efforts have developed during a period in which we have witnessed a structural transformation in the operation of the state and in the location and exercise of political H. Lewis (B) Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_11

277

278

H. Lewis

authority. There is a vast literature discussing this process of ‘state transformation’ (Sørensen 2004), but, overall, the key developments can be summarised as involving two main elements: on the one hand, a diffusion of power and control among a range of governmental institutions operating at different territorial levels, and on the other hand, a blurring of the boundary between these institutions and a variety of societal actors, such as civil society groups, interest groups and private businesses (Pierre and Peters 2020: 50). The first of these processes, sometimes described as ‘rescaling’ (Keating 2013), has been two sided. First, it has involved a shift in authority away from the state and upwards towards higher levels. At the global level, since the 1950s, there has been a significant growth in the number of international organisations and their role and authority has also increased considerably (Sørensen 2004). Bodies such as the IMF, World Bank, World Health Organisation, UNESCO and the OECD monitor the performance of states and influence their policy deliberations (Bache and Flinders 2004). Moreover, in certain instances, the governing arrangements and powers of these organisations encompass supranational elements; that is to say that they have the authority, in certain circumstances, to stipulate that states behave in a certain way and can introduce sanctions if they do not comply (Schakel et al. 2015). There have also been important developments at the regional or continental level. In the areas of trade and economic policy the policy-making autonomy of states has been impacted by the establishment of regional agreements and forums such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or the Economic Community of West African States. Yet, by far the most far-reaching development is the evolution of the European Union, which has led to the transfer of authority over a wide range of policy areas to supranational continental structures. Second, the process of rescaling has entailed a significant shift in authority downwards towards sub-state or regional governments. As Hooghe et al. (2010) argue, recent decades can be characterised as an ‘era of regionalisation’. Their assertion is based on a study of 42 states between 1950 and 2006—a period during which decentralisation and a transfer of autonomy to the regional level was observed in 29 of the

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

279

cases studied, while a decline was observed in only two cases (Hooghe et al. 2010: 54). Prominent examples include Belgium, Spain, the UK, France and Germany. While some have criticised the literature on regionalisation for being overly Eurocentric (Cox 2009), others argue that the transfer of power to sub-state and regional forms of government constitutes a ‘global trend’ (Rodriguez-Pose and Gill 2003: 1). Since the 1980s there have been moves towards decentralisation across many parts of Latin America and Southeast Asia (Schakel et al. 2015), in parallel with a gradual increase in decentralisation in well-established federations, such as the US, Canada and Australia (Hooghe et al. 2010). Alongside the vertical reconfiguration of political power and authority described above, it has also been argued that over recent decades we have witnessed a significant shift in the horizontal distribution of influence between governments and numerous non-governmental organisations (Koomian 1993; Rhodes 1997). This latter change has involved a gradual decline in the monopoly of formal governmental institutions over the public policy process, as a number of non-governmental stakeholders such as civil society groups, interest groups, expert agencies, consultancy firms and private businesses have come to play an increasingly significant role in the development, implementation and evaluation of public policy (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 8). A number of different developments are seen to have instigated this process, including the neoliberal reforms of the 1970s and 1980s which sought to respond to a perception of ‘government overload’ by privatising public bodies or contracting out public services and the associated adoption of New Public Management practices, which sought to limit the role of elected governments to the setting of general policy objectives, while the role of delivery and implementation was transferred to private firms or specialist agencies (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 6). Also of importance was the Third Way movement of the 1990s with its emphasis on civic engagement partnership and collaboration (Torfing et al. 2019: 19). The result, it is claimed, has been the emergence of a policy-making process where ‘governments do not simply take decisions and then enforce them with state power’, but rather spend a great deal of time ‘negotiating with other organisations, non-governmental and governmental, in order to knit together agreed courses of action’ (Colebatch 2004: 78).

280

H. Lewis

Unsurprisingly, it has been argued that the types of political developments described above have far-reaching implications for how contemporary societies are governed and for how public policies are formulated and implemented. Consequently, seeking to analyse the nature of a governance process that is increasingly multi-level and that involves a complex mix of governmental and non-governmental actors has been a key concern for many scholars working in areas such as policy analysis and public administration (Cairney 2011). For example, there have been studies assessing the significance of these trends for policy-making in areas such as environmental policy (Wälti 2010), economic policy (Enderlein 2010), social policy (Graser and Kuhnle 2010) and policing (Herschinger et al. 2010). Such research, we contend, is also required by those working in the broad area of language policy, and more specifically in the context of this volume, language policy development. Earlier work (see e.g. Loughlin and Williams 2007; Williams 2012) has already highlighted the relevance of recent structural changes in the distribution of political authority—both vertical and horizontal in nature—for our understanding of language policy as a distinct area of public policy. However, these contributions have offered discussions that are primarily of a conceptual nature. There is a need, therefore, for further work that is more empirical in focus in order to assess how contemporary trends such as the diffusion of power across multiple levels of government or the blurring of the boundary between governmental institutions and different societal actors are actually influencing policy-making in relation to regional or minority languages. Are these trends evident when we consider some of the policy programmes developed in different parts of Europe over recent decades to revitalise the prospects of such languages? And if so, how and to what extent are they influencing the policy process, either in terms of the substance of the policies being developed or the types of actors that are able to shape those policies? Recent research (see Royles and Lewis 2019; Lewis and Royles 2021) has sought to engage with these types of questions by focusing on the implications of the first general trend described above—the vertical restructuring of political authority. This work has highlighted how policy-making in relation to European regional and minority languages is now a process that can be influenced by institutional forces located at

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

281

multiple territorial levels—local, regional, state, continental and global. While continental or global institutional structures appear to play a less direct role in shaping policies relating to regional or minority languages, interactions at these higher levels create an overarching context that can influence policy activity at the state or sub-state levels (Royles and Lewis 2019). However, this chapter will follow a different direction by focusing in more detail on the second important trend highlighted above—the horizontal distribution of influence and authority between governmental and non-governmental organisations. To what extent is this also a trend that is influencing policy-making in relation to European regional and minority languages? For the purpose of this chapter we will consider this issue through an exploratory study focusing on one specific case of European language revitalisation, the case of the Welsh language in Wales. Our aim will be to assess what model and method of governance seems to characterise the current language revitalisation effort in Wales. To do this we will critically examine the nature and the extent of the interplay between governmental and non-governmental actors in the work of formulating and implementing policy interventions linked to the Welsh Government’s most recent national language strategy, Cymraeg 2050 (Welsh Government 2017a). In terms of structure, the chapter will be arranged as follows. The next section will review relevant literature from the fields of political science and public administration and it will identify different models of governance that reflect varying levels of participation and influence on the part of governmental or non-governmental actors: (i) government-centred governance, (ii) interactive governance, (iii) collaborative governance; and (iv) network governance. The chapter then proceeds to examine the current approach to language revitalisation in Wales, focusing first on identifying the different types of actors that contribute to the process and then assessing the nature of their involvement in relevant policy formulation and implementation activity. The next section then reflects on the main findings arising from this analysis and argues that although the influence of governmental actors has steadily increased over recent years, the current Welsh approach to language revitalisation appears to align primarily with the model of interactive governance, with some limited instances of practices that resemble the more far-reaching model

282

H. Lewis

of collaborative governance. At the same time, the Welsh Government maintains an ability to shape the context within which engagement with external actors takes place. The chapter concludes by reflecting briefly on the significance of these findings for our understanding of how language revitalisation is pursued, both in Wales and further afield, as well as highlighting avenues for future research.

2

The Transformation of Governance

In parts of the current literature the trend towards greater interaction and collaboration between governments and various non-governmental actors in the formulation and implementation of public policies is presented in terms of a shift from government to governance. However, strictly speaking, this expression is slightly misleading. The etymology of the term governance revels that it has its roots in the Latin word gubernare, meaning ‘to direct or guide’, and the Greek kybernan, meaning ‘to steer’ (Torfing et al. 2019: 12). Hence it has been argued that, strictly defined, governance should be understood as a term that refers to the process of ‘steering’ or ‘guiding’ society and the economy in pursuit of collective goals (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 4; Torfing et al. 2019: 12; Pierre and Peters 2020: 43). This is a function that, traditionally, has been dominated by the formal institutions of government, although it can also be carried out through alternative arrangements involving a greater level of interplay between government and various non-governmental actors from across society (Pierre and Peters 2005). Therefore, governance should not be understood as a concept that, in its fundamental sense, signals a contrast with, or an opposition to, government. As Pierre and Peters (2020: 43) contend, ‘governance, strictly defined, is as old as government’. Consequently, rather than signalling a shift from government to governance, it is better to understand the growing influence of non-governmental actors in policy-making as representing a significant transformation in how the governance of society is organised—that we are witnessing a move away from traditional and hierarchical government-centric modes of governance.

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

283

However, this process can manifest itself in many different ways, with varying levels of power and influence being exercised by either governmental or societal actors. Indeed, as Pierre and Peters (2020: 20) have argued, it is possible to conceptualise the different possibilities as a continuum of governance models, ranging from ones where governmental institutions still dominate through to ones where societal actors hold the upper hand and where there is ‘government without governance’ (Rhodes 1997). To illustrate this point, the remainder of this section will offer an overview of prominent models of governance discussed in the literature that represent different points along this continuum: (i) government-centred governance, (ii) interactive governance, (iii) collaborative governance and (iv) network governance. This will help to inform the analysis in the subsequent section when we turn to examine the model of governance that characterises the current language revitalisation effort in Wales. (i) The first of the models, government-centric governance , represents the traditional interpretation of the role of government. Here the relationship between governmental and societal actors is characterised by hierarchy and the exercise of ‘top-down’ authority. Following Pierre and Peters (2005: 11–12; 2020: 47–50) it is possible to break this general category down into three subcategories. First, the Étatiste model where the hierarchy is most apparent as government ‘is the principal actor for all aspects of governance and can control the manner in which societal actors are permitted to be involved, if they are at all’ (Pierre and Peters 2005: 11). Following this, we have the Pluralist model where government is the principal actor in governance, but where a range of interest groups or other societal actors compete to influence its policy deliberations. Here, government ‘is not totally shielded from influence by society’, but at the same time, it is able to pick and choose the external actors ‘that it will permit to have influence’ (Pierre and Peters 2005: 11, emphasis in original). Finally, there is the Corporatist model where government remains at the centre but has institutionalised its relationships with certain peak interest organisations representing labour and capital. Here government is ‘more

284

H. Lewis

bound to its partners’, yet it retains substantial powers through its ability to either ‘accept or reject partners’ (Pierre and Peters 2005: 11). Despite the differences between these sub-categories, they also feature key similarities that mean that they all fit into the general category of government-centric governance. For example, in each case, government is viewed as ‘conceptually and empirically separate from the rest of society’ and the governance arrangements are such that government ‘retains unique capabilities and a societal role no other actor can play’ (Pierre and Peters 2020: 48). (ii) Further along the continuum we have the model of interactive governance where the notion of hierarchy is less apparent and the separation between governmental and societal actors becomes a little more blurred. According to Torfing et al. (2019: 3), while the more traditional forms of governance discussed above rely on top-down imposition of authority, interactive governance assumes that the policy process will feature more open, direct and regular engagement between governmental and non-governmental actors and a greater emphasis on the notion of governing through ‘partnership’ and the sharing of knowledge and expertise. Moreover, interactive governance as a model will feature participation by a more complex and diverse mix of actors than that witnessed in relation to traditional corporatist models of governance (Torfing et al. 2019: 14). Particular forms of interactive governance may include: the establishment of informal partnerships; the co-management or co-delivery of certain services, programmes or initiatives; longterm contractual arrangements between government and private actors or between government and civil society organisations; consultation with actors likely to be impacted by particular policy initiatives and consideration of their interests when designing new programmes or introducing regulation; and the existence of institutionalised policy networks that facilitate communication, knowledge sharing or coordination between different stakeholders (Pierre and Peters 2020: 37). Hence, while the instruments of governance associated with more traditional models ‘depended heavily on command and control’ and ‘unilateral action’ by government, those associated with interactive governance are more likely to

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

285

feature consultation, negotiation and bargaining (Torfing et al. 2019: 3). Yet, while interactive governance allows for a greater degree of involvement by societal actors in the policy process, those that have advanced the concept remind us that this contribution will usually occur within a context that has been shaped by official governmental actors. Therefore, despite the emphasis on notions of partnership, interactive governance may always be conducted within a ‘shadow of hierarchy’ (Torfing et al. 2019: 4). (iii) A close relation to interactive governance that is situated a little further along the continuum is the model of collaborative governance. Ansell and Gash (2007: 544) define collaborative governance as follows: A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decisionmaking process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.

There is a high degree of similarity between the features associated with interactive and collaborative governance. However, it is claimed that the latter tends to be more specific about the type of interplay that can be observed between governmental and nongovernmental actors (Torfing et al. 2019: viii), with what appears to be greater emphasis, in the case of collaborative governance, on the involvement of external voices not only in policy implementation, but also policy formulation and decision-making. First, it is argued that collaborative governance ‘is never merely consultative’ and that there will be evidence of ‘two-way communication and influence’ between government and external stakeholders. Second, the collaboration must be such that non-governmental organisations are ‘directly engaged in decision making’, either with regard to the original formulation of policies or their subsequent implementation (Ansell and Gash 2007: 546). The ultimate authority for these decisions may be in the hands of government, but there must be avenues that allow external stakeholders to directly participate in

286

H. Lewis

the process and exert clear influence. Thus, advisory committees or management boards may be a form of collaborative governance ‘if their advice is closely linked to decision making outcomes’ (Ansell and Gash 2007: 546). A third feature is the need for the collaboration to be of a formal nature and to involve ‘joint activities’ or ‘joint structures’ (Walter and Petr 2000: 495). This distinguishes collaborative governance from more casual forms of interaction between government and external actors and underlines that collaboration is being pursued as an explicit governing strategy (Ansell and Gash 2007: 546). (iv) Finally, at the furthest point along the continuum we have the model of network governance (Rhodes 1997, 2007). Here the shift in influence away from government and towards non-governmental actors is most pronounced. In its most developed form this model of governance will feature a state of affairs described in the literature as ‘governance without government’. While the interactive and collaborative models discussed above capture arrangements where governmental actors are working alongside other social actors to different degrees, the network governance model takes us towards a situation where it is claimed that governance has been delegated to these social actors. Under this model policy development and implementation in certain sectors will be driven by ‘selforganising, interorganisational networks’ (Rhodes 1997: 15) that feature only limited direct involvement by government. These networks will be ‘structured around shared interests in public policymaking and implementation’ and policies will ‘emerge from bargaining between network members’ (Rhodes 2007: 1244). In certain cases these networks will become sufficiently cohesive to form almost autonomous ‘self-steering governance arrangements’ (Pierre and Peters 2005: 12) and it is argued that in such circumstances attempts on the part of government to seek to impose its authority ‘may be met with resistance and evasion’, and that this evasion ‘is likely to be successful’ (Pierre and Peters 2020: 35). The models of governance discussed above highlight the different ways in which the interplay between governmental and non-governmental

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

287

actors can manifest itself in contemporary policy-making. Overall, it is argued that recent decades have witnessed a shift away from the first, government-centric model of governance towards the more societycentred models that involve greater degrees of involvement on the part of civil society organisations, private businesses and so on. There is today more ‘interaction’ with such external ‘partners’; more emphasis on ‘collaboration’ in policy development and implementation; and a greater willingness on the part of government to recognise that it does not possess all the expertise to make good decisions. However, it should be acknowledged that ‘there are differences across policy areas and across countries in the extent to which government has altered its role in the process of governance’ (Pierre and Peters 2020: 36). In certain fields there may be extensive networks that drive the process of governing and that may ‘supplant the authoritative actions of governments’ (Pierre and Peters 2020: 36). However, in other fields the level of transformation may have been more limited and there may be certain policy fields—for example defence or revenue collection—that remain largely governmental in nature (Torfing et al. 2019: 2).

3

The Governance of Language Revitalisation in Wales

Building on the previous discussion, this section goes on to examine what type of governance model is apparent in relation to the current language revitalisation effort in Wales. It will do this by analysing what different actors are included in the work of formulating and implementing policy interventions linked to the Welsh Government’s most recent national language strategy, Cymraeg 2050 (Welsh Government 2017a), as well as analysing the nature of the engagement between these different actors. The data underpinning the analysis was gathered by studying a wide range of publicly available documents. These included numerous Welsh Government publications such as strategy documents, action plans and annual reports, ministerial statements, annual reports published by nongovernmental organisations as well as publicly available minutes from relevant meetings. The documentary material is supplemented by 10

288

H. Lewis

informal interviews with key actors, including civil servants, members of governmental forums or advisory boards and also representatives from civil society organisations or arm’s-length bodies. These interviews were conducted during September and October 2020. To encourage interviewees to speak openly in order to gain valuable insight, the interviews were unrecorded and conducted with an assurance that all contributions would be unattributed. According to the most recent census results from 2011, Welsh is spoken by 562,000 individuals (aged 3 and over), roughly 19% of Wales’s population (ONS 2016). Efforts to promote the Welsh language and to reverse the decline in numbers of speakers and levels of use witnessed since the second half of the nineteenth century have a long history (see e.g. Löffler 2000). However, the 1960s are widely regarded to mark a step change in the language revitalisation effort, with more concerted action being taken, first by various civil society organisations and then, increasingly, by governmental institutions in Wales (Jones and Lewis 2018; Williams 2014). Indeed, an important point to emphasise at the outset when considering the evolution of the Welsh language revitalisation effort over recent decades is the fact that the main locus of activity has gradually shifted away from the language community itself, working through different civil society organisations, and towards public officials located within different governmental or quasi-governmental institutions. This process commenced during the 1980s—prior to the formation of regional government in Wales—when the Welsh Office (the UK Government’s department of state for Wales) began to accept the argument that maintaining the language would require a measure of proactive planning on the part of public officials (Edwards et al. 2014). This resulted in a greater status being accorded to the Welsh language in fields such as education, the establishment of the Welsh language television channel S4C and greater use of public funds to support the work of various Welsh language and culture civil society organisations. Later, the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the establishment of the Welsh Language Board as an arms-length statutory language planning agency signalled a further institutionalisation in arrangements for promoting the Welsh language. Since the advent of devolution in

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

289

1999, the Welsh Government has come to play an increasingly ‘handson’ role. Initially, this occurred in partnership with the Welsh Language Board, which played a central role in both the formulation and implementation of the first two national language strategies adopted postdevolution (Williams 2014). Yet, the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 dissolved the Welsh Language Board and established the post of the Welsh Language Commissioner, whose responsibilities are primarily focused on monitoring the compliance with bilingual standards established under the 2011 Measure in relation to areas such as service provision and policy-making. This change meant that responsibility for coordinating and funding work focused on promoting greater acquisition and social use of the Welsh language was transferred to the Welsh Government’s civil service. Consequently, since 2012, competence over Welsh language promotion lies within government itself. As Williams (2015: 193) observed, when reflecting on these more recent developments: ‘the central political and policy message that one can derive from the passage of the [2011] measure is that the Welsh Government has taken unto itself the prime responsibility for Welsh language promotion’. The process described above is significant as it suggests that recent trends with regard to language policy in Wales do not fit neatly into the general narrative of ‘governmental retreat’ that seems to underpin much of the political science and public administration literature that examines current trends in governance (Koomian 1993; Rhodes 1997). As was demonstrated in the preceding section, this literature claims that over recent decades we have witnessed a gradual blurring of the boundary between governmental and non-governmental actors as a variety of external stakeholders have come to play an increasingly influential role in policy-making (Pierre and Peters 2020: 50). Moreover, the usual contention is that this process has been facilitated by governments abandoning their traditional monopoly over public policy-making. Yet, the picture that emerges when considering the evolution of policy activity relating to the Welsh language does not seem to fit this general narrative of retreat on the part of government. In contrast, it seems that a prominent feature of the Welsh language revitalisation effort since at least the 1980s has been the increasing importance and influence of government.

290

H. Lewis

Nevertheless, while the influence of governmental actors over efforts to support and promote the Welsh language has clearly increased, care is needed when considering how to describe the governance model that has emerged as a result. As will be demonstrated in the following sections, which will focus on policy activity linked to the Welsh Government’s most recent national language strategy, Cymraeg 2050 (Welsh Government 2017a), while the underlying trajectory over recent decades may have been one that featured a growth in the influence of government, it may be too simplistic to characterise the process as signalling a shift towards the classic hierarchical, top-down model of government-centric governance.

3.1

Actors

As a first step in the process of analysing the governance model that underpins the current language revitalisation effort in Wales, it is useful to map out the various types of actors that contribute to the process. To achieve this, the current national language strategy (Welsh Government 2017a), along with its associated action plans and annual reports (e.g. Welsh Government 2017b, 2018a, 2019a, b, 2020a, b), were analysed to identify different organisations that are described as playing some formal role in policy work linked to pursuit of the strategy’s general objectives. The findings from this exercise were then cross-referenced with a list of relevant actors that were mentioned during the informal interviews. This exercise led to a typology that distinguished between eight different categories of actors: (i) governments; (ii) commissioners and regulators; (iii) non-departmental public bodies; (iv) publicly funded arm’s length bodies; (v) public service broadcasters; (vi) civil society organisations; (vii) private sector companies; and (viii) private individuals (see Table 1 for examples of each type of actor). Therefore, it is evident that the work of seeking to pursue the general objectives set out in the Cymraeg 2050 strategy involves contributions from a broad range of actors. Moreover, it appears that these actors can be placed on different points on a continuum in terms of their closeness to government. First, we have the governmental institutions

Arts Council of Wales National Library of Wales National Museum Wales

Welsh Language Commissioner Ofcom (UK Gov)

BBC Cymru Wales (UK Gov) S4C (UK Gov)

Public service broadcasters

Civil Society/Third Sector Mudiad Meithrin Mentrau Iaith Cymru Individual Mentrau Iaith (×23) Urdd Gobaith Cymru Yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru Merched y Wawr Clybiau Ffermwyr Ifainc Cymru Papurau Bro

Publicly funded arm’s length bodies National Centre for Learning Welsh Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol Books Council of Wales

Contract research companies (e.g. Arad, OB3) Iaith

Private sector

Individual members of governmental forums or advisory groups Academic researchers

Key individuals

UK Gov is noted in brackets this denotes that the organisation is formally answerable to the UK Government rather than the Welsh Government

* Where

Welsh Government Local Government UK Government

Government

Non-departmental public bodies

Commissioners and regulators

Table 1 Who are the main actors involved in the governance of language revitalisation in Wales?

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

291

292

H. Lewis

themselves, located at the local, regional and state levels. Then further down the continuum we have a series of different quasi-governmental or arm’s length bodies (categorised here as non-departmental public bodies, publicly funded arm’s length bodies and public service broadcasters) that exist outside of government, but that nevertheless are formally answerable to government. Finally, we have a collection of actors in the form of civil society organisations, private companies (particularly contract research companies) and private individuals (in particular the members of advisory boards) that are clearly separate from government. It was also clear from the documentary analysis that these different actors did not operate in isolation from each other. Taken together they can be conceived of as the main players in a broad Welsh language policy network. It is argued that such networks are defined by a set of ‘formal and informal institutional links between governmental and other actors’ (Rhodes 2007: 1244) and that these actors are ‘linked through their interest in a specific policy sector’ (Bache 1997: 576), which are both features that capture the relations between the actors mentioned here. The literature on policy networks also highlights that these entities can vary in terms of their degree of ‘integration’ and also the centrality of different actors to the network (Bache 1997). This was also evident in the case of the Welsh language as the categories of governmental and nongovernmental actors that were identified during the analysis did not appear to play an equally prominent or central role in the governance of the Welsh language revitalisation effort. Rather, particular categories of actors, and also particular organisations within those categories, appeared to be more directly involved in the process. These were governments (particularly the Welsh Government and local governments in Wales); commissioners and regulators (particularly the Welsh Language Commissioner); publicly funded arm’s length bodies (particularly the National Centre for Learning Welsh and the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol); civil society organisations (particularly Mudiad Meithrin, the Mentrau Iaith and Urdd Gobaith Cymru); and private individuals (specifically those that served as appointed members of governmental forums or panels).

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

293

Overall, this mapping exercise shows that the current approach to language revitalisation in Wales does involve a fair degree of engagement between the Welsh Government and a range of different nongovernmental actors. However, this only takes us so far. In order to understand what type of governance model seems to characterise the current Welsh approach, it is necessary to look in more detail at the nature of the engagement that takes place between some of the different actors identified here. This is what the following two sections will do.

3.2

Policy Implementation

First, the discussion focuses on the nature of the engagement between the Welsh Government and various nongovernmental actors with regard to policy implementation work linked to the Cymraeg 2050 strategy. Of concern here is policy work that focuses on putting in place and administering specific projects, programmes or interventions that seek to advance the strategy’s general objectives of significantly increasing the number of Welsh speakers and increasing daily use of the language. Examples relating to intergenerational language transmission, early years language acquisition, the promotion of Welsh language use by business and the promotion of greater social use of Welsh will be considered. In the areas of language transmission and early years acquisition a key actor is Mudiad Meithrin, a voluntary organisation established in 1971 that provides early years care and education through the medium of Welsh. First, Mudiad Meithrin is central to the work of realising the Welsh Government’s policy aim of significantly expanding Welshmedium early years provision (Welsh Government 2020a, b). The organisation has been tasked with implementing a specific action plan that will lead to the establishment of 40 new nursery groups by 2021 and a total of 150 new groups by 2027. In return for this work the Welsh Government announced a £1 million increase in the annual grant that Mudiad Meithrin receives from its Welsh Language Education Unit. Mudiad Meithrin also works with the Welsh Government on the implementation of its Cymraeg i Blant (Welsh for Kids) programme, which has the aim of encouraging parents to use the Welsh language with their children and to

294

H. Lewis

then opt for Welsh-medium childcare and education (Lewis et al. 2019). To support its work on this programme Mudiad Meithrin receives an annual budget of £725,000, which is used primarily to employ 26 local officers across Wales who are each responsible for coordinating relevant projects and activities in their areas (Lewis et al. 2019). As part of the general objective of seeking to increase the daily use of Welsh, Cymraeg 2050 committed the Welsh Government to develop a national programme that would work to encourage businesses across Wales to make greater use of the language (Welsh Government 2017b). This led to the establishment of the Welsh for Business programme in 2017, which is implemented in collaboration between the Welsh Government and Mentrau Iaith Cymru (the umbrella organisation that coordinates and represents the network of 23 local Mentrau located across Wales).1 To support its contribution to the programme, Mentrau Iaith Cymru receives an annual budget of £400,000, which is used to employ a network of 12 Local Business Officers that are responsible for implementing specific interventions that aim to encourage small or medium-sized businesses to consider making greater use of Welsh either on public signage, marketing material or as part of their day-to-day work (Mentrau Iaith Cymru 2018; Welsh Government 2020a). Engagement between government and civil society organisations is also evident when considering the implementation of projects and activities that seek to promote greater social use of Welsh. When describing the approach adopted in this area, Welsh Government documentation emphasises how it is ‘working with’ a number of ‘core partners’ that lead on arranging different social activities that have the aim of promoting greater use of the Welsh language in informal settings (e.g. Welsh Government 2019a: 27; b: 16). The main mechanism for facilitating this partnership between government and civil society is the Welsh Language Promotion Grant Scheme, which currently has a budget of just over £4 million per year (Welsh Government 2020a: 31) and which supports the work of 27 different Welsh language or cultural organisations as well as 52 different papurau bro(community newspapers) (Welsh Government 2019c: 2). Recent reviews of the scheme estimate that it supports the employment of 205 individuals (54 full-time and 151 parttime) in different parts of Wales (Welsh Government 2018b: 15) as well

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

295

as the organisation of close to 30,000 events or activities annually that aim to promote greater social use of Welsh (Welsh Government 2020a: 31). In sum, we see that there is quite extensive engagement between the Welsh Government and various nongovernmental actors as part of policy implementation work linked to the Cymraeg 2050 strategy. However, what is the nature of this engagement? As highlighted earlier, a theme in some sections of the governance literature is that the relationship between government and other actors has become less top-down and directive and is increasingly characterised by two-way conversations and an ability for actors outside government to not only contribute to the work of implementing policy but also to shape how that work is conducted. Interestingly, with regard to the different examples discussed above, the evidence from the interviews conducted suggests that current practices relating to the Welsh language encompass both types of relationship. In the case of the Welsh Language Promotion Grant Scheme, several interviewees observed that partner organisations have a considerable degree of autonomy when it comes to planning their annual action plans setting out what types of activities and events will be arranged. It was explained that there is an expectation on the part of the Welsh Government that the general objectives and key thematic areas identified in the Cymraeg 2050 strategy should act as a general framework for these plans. It was also noted that over the past few years the government has placed an emphasis on the need for their civil society partners to strengthen their internal administrative capacity by engaging with quality assurance programmes available to third sector bodies.2 However, beyond that, it seems that the individual organisations have the scope to set priorities and to decide on how individual projects will be designed and actioned. Indeed, two respondents from different civil society partners observed that in their experience, the level of top-down direction and also the level of scrutiny associated with monitoring arrangements had receded over the past few years, and that the current narrative coming from Welsh Government officials was that they should try to be ‘creative’ with their plans, to be willing ‘to try out new ideas’ and ‘to not be afraid if things did not come off from time to time’.

296

H. Lewis

However, the evidence pointed to other instances where collaboration with nongovernmental actors on policy implementation work featured firmer control and direction on the part of the Welsh Government. Interviewees with experience of both the Cymraeg i Blant programme, where Mudiad Meithrin acts as an external contractor, and the Welsh for Business programme, which involves collaboration with Mentrau Iaith Cymru, observed that the approach taken by Welsh Government officials contrasts sharply to that taken when the work falls under a general grant scheme. As one respondent commented, ‘there is much less scope for us to be creative’, and as another observed, ‘there is much more micro-management’. First, it was noted that in both instances Welsh Government officials tend to be much more ‘hands on’ when it comes to planning the type of work that will be undertaken by the partners from year to year, with the level of direction in relation to the Welsh for Business programme involving setting out which particular sectors the Local Business Officers should target and also the particular type of activities that they should prioritise. Second, it was observed that monitoring arrangements are much tighter, with regular project meetings and a greater emphasis placed on using quantitative indicators to measure progress. Moreover, in terms of the public image of these contractbased programmes, it appears that Welsh Government wishes them to be viewed primarily as its own work, with the ability of the civil society partners to publicise their particular contribution (e.g. in marketing material or in the media) being regulated quite closely. This latter point is one that seems to be reinforced when one looks at how both programmes are presented online: the relevant websites carry gov.wales URL’s and clear Welsh Government branding.3 A further theme to emerge from the interviews that adds to our understanding of the role played by non-governmental actors in policy implementation work is a perceived unwillingness on the part of Welsh Government officials to involve external partners in detailed scrutiny of whether initiatives are being implemented as planned. This was a view expressed by various individuals that have experience of serving on formal advisory forums, such as the Welsh Language Partnership Council or the Language Promotion Planning Board.4 Meetings were

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

297

described as involving ‘a lot of listening’ and involving regular presentations by government officials on ongoing work, but it was stressed that the scope for subsequent discussions to grapple in detail with whether programmes or initiatives were being implemented effectively was limited. One respondent suggested that this highlighted a ‘key tension’ and that it demonstrated how the power to determine the role played by these forums lies primarily ‘in the hands of the officials’.

3.3

Policy Formulation

The above section focused on the nature of the engagement that takes place between the Welsh Government and various non-governmental actors with regard to policy implementation work linked to the Cymraeg 2050 strategy. However, the literature discussing new models of governance stresses that changes in policy-making practices over recent years are not limited to this type of contribution and that the influence of non-governmental actors is also increasingly evident further up the policy cycle at the formulation and adoption stage. To what extent is this also evident with regard to language revitalisation policy in Wales? Overall, it is a mixed picture that emerges from the evidence. The Promotion Group is a forum that brings together all of the civil society partners that receive funding through the Welsh Promotion Grants, along with various other key stakeholders such as S4C, the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol and the National Centre for Learning Welsh (Welsh Government 2020a: 31). Several interviewees familiar with its workings described its function as being primarily focused on sharing information: first, that the meetings offer an opportunity for Welsh Government officials to disseminate messages to its various partners, and second, that they enable those organisations to update each other on their activities. It was also mentioned that the meetings allow different organisations to identify areas for potential collaboration, with staff training being highlighted as one area that has been discussed recently. On this basis, it seems that the Promotion Group does act as a forum that loosely supports implementation work. However, it does not appear to be a channel that facilitates input by non-governmental actors in discussions

298

H. Lewis

concerning the formulation of new policy initiatives linked to Cymraeg 2050 . Indeed, several interview respondents suggested that a series of structural factors mean that the Promotion Group would be ill-suited for a more substantive policy role. First, it was highlighted that the organisations brought together at its meetings differ significantly in terms of their priorities, given that they work in areas as diverse as education, childcare, the media, youth work, community development, voluntary work and translation, to name but a few. Hence it may be particularly challenging in such circumstances to seek to coordinate productive sector-wide deliberation on the formulation of new policy initiatives. Second, it was observed that the organisations also differ significantly in terms of their size, internal capacity and also their priorities vis-à-vis government, with some happy to limit their role to the receipt of an annual grant, while others are better positioned and keen to engage in more detailed policy discussions. Third, one attendee at these meetings suggested that moving the focus of discussions towards policy formulation could be challenging given that this would probably entail questioning the current work of certain partners or the current role played by the Welsh Government itself in relation to certain projects. It was questioned whether organisations would be willing to engage in such discussions in an open forum; it was also suggested that this reflected a distinct weakness in the ‘Welsh language sector’—‘we are all just too nice to each other’. In the case of the Welsh Language Partnership Council, there was some ambiguity regarding the extent of its role in policy formulation. On the one hand, one of its members emphasised that the Council ‘is not there to approve anything’ and that it does not have a formal role in decision-making—‘it is not a joint management board’. Moreover, several interviewees familiar with the Council’s meetings argued that its input into policy discussions is not ‘formal and systematic’. On the other hand, it emerged that the Council is able to request reports from officials on issues that members feel require consideration and that subsequent discussions can give rise to policy relevant advice. It is also normal practice for the Council to consider and to offer feedback on drafts of new policy documents before they are published, for example the Welsh Government’s (2020c) new draft policy on intergenerational language transmission and the annual action plans linked to the Cymraeg

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

299

2050 strategy. More recently, members of the Council have been invited to lead the work of three thematic sub-groups that will consider, respectively: the nature of institutions underpinning Welsh language use at the community level; bilingualism and education; and the links between economic development and the Welsh language (Welsh Language Partnership Council 2020). One interviewee involved in this process noted that the expectation is that the deliberations of these thematic groups will help to inform a new phase of policy work linked to Cymraeg 2050 . Overall, then, while the Welsh Language Partnership Council may not be a forum that exists primarily to influence policy formulation work, it does appear that it has some avenues to input into such discussions. Yet, this input is usually in the form of general advice to government without any obligations, reflecting the fact that the Council is a few steps removed from actual decision-making. An example that points to arrangements that allowed for a more formal and direct input by non-governmental actors in the formulation of new policy initiatives is the processes leading to the development of the Welsh Language Technology Action Plan (Welsh Government 2018c). This was described as a ‘co-creative’ process that resulted from discussions during three workshop sessions that brought together officials from the Welsh Government’s Welsh Language Division and members of the government’s Welsh Technology Board, including representatives from prominent Welsh public bodies such as the National Library and the National Museum, the media sector and the Welsh-medium education sector as well as members from the Hacio’r Iaith technology group (see Welsh Government 2018c: 30). The research also highlighted certain instances where Welsh language organisations were able to influence policy formulation through more bilateral engagement with the Welsh Government. One relevant example was the process that led to the adoption of the current policy objectives in the area of Welsh-medium early years provision—the establishment of 40 new nursery groups by 2021 and a total of 150 new groups by 2027 (see Welsh Government 2020a, b). As mentioned above (Sect. 3.2), the responsibility for implementing a specific action plan that seeks to achieve these targets has been passed to Mudiad Meithrin. However, of significance here is the fact that the organisation’s role also extended to playing an active part

300

H. Lewis

in the discussions that led to the adoption of these particular targets and the allocation of the associated annual budget. These discussions took the form of ‘a two-way conversation’ where Mudiad Meithrin was asked to advise on what type of targets were likely to be realistic and achievable within the intended time-frame. Indeed, it seems that the key factor linking the two examples highlighted here of a more collaborative approach to policy formulation is that they both relate to areas where Welsh Government officials acknowledged that necessary expertise was held by external partners.

4

Discussion: Locating the Welsh Approach to Language Revitalisation

Earlier, a continuum of different governance models discussed in the political science and public administration literature was presented to highlight the various ways in which the interplay between governmental and non-governmental actors can manifest itself in contemporary policymaking. In light of the above analysis of current practices linked to the Cymraeg 2050 strategy, which, if any, of these models seems to capture the current approach to language revitalisation in Wales? First, it appears that it is not possible to describe current arrangements as reflecting the notion of ‘governance without government’ associated with Rhodes’s model of network governance (Rhodes 1997, 2007). The evidence does point to the existence of a relatively structured and institutionalised policy network encompassing a diverse mix of actors that are drawn together by their shared interests in policy relating to the Welsh language in general and Cymraeg 2050 specifically. Also, alongside an overarching network of organisations, there is also evidence of smallerscale networks emerging at certain points to focus on specific issues, such as intergenerational language transmission or the Welsh language and new technology. Moreover, it should be noted that in the area of language policy these networks appear to be ones that often feature participation by individuals operating in a personal capacity (as opposed to representing particular bodies), which aligns with Klijn’s (2008: 10)

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

301

claim that network actors ‘can consist of individuals, groups or organisations’. Indeed, it can be speculated that the prominent role played by individuals is perhaps a particular feature of the Welsh language sector when compared to other policy sectors in Wales.5 However, despite these findings, overall, the Welsh language policy networks observed cannot be described as ‘self-steering’ entities that ‘confront’ government and that can operate separate from it, as the network governance perspective suggests (Rhodes 1997: 34). It is clear that Welsh Government is a pivotal actor within these networks and that it often acts as an important instigator for the inter-organisational interactions that they facilitate. Indeed, this reflects the key point that the influence of governmental actors over efforts to promote the Welsh language has steadily increased, rather than receded, over recent decades. Yet, while the increase in the influence of governmental actors means that the network governance model and its notion of ‘governing without government’ does not appear apposite when considering the current approach to Welsh language revitalisation, it does not follow that we must conclude that the approach is therefore closer to the hierarchical, command and control features of traditional government-centric governance. As Pierre and Peters (2020: 20) suggest, a weakness in parts of the literature focusing on governance approaches in different contexts is the assumption that the question is essentially one of deciding between these two ‘dichotomous’ extremes. However, such a perspective oversimplifies matters and blinds us to the existence of alternative models, such as those of interactive governance and collaborative governance, that involve a more complex mix of governmental and non-governmental influence. This is certainly a valuable point to consider in relation to the case of Welsh language revitalisation, as evidence pointing to the relevance of these two alternative models was clearly evident at different points. While the traditional approach of government-centred governance relies on top-down imposition of authority and the network approach involves the delegation of governance to societal actors, interactive governance assumes that the policy process will feature more direct and regular engagement between governmental and non-governmental actors and a greater emphasis on the notion of governing through ‘partnership’ (Torfing et al. 2019). Multiple examples of practices associated with this

302

H. Lewis

model were evident when considering the current approach to language revitalisation in Wales. These included: the Welsh Government’s use of grant schemes such as the Welsh Language Promotion Grant to enable civil society partners to undertake activities that align with and that seek to further some of the Cymraeg 2050 strategy’s key objectives; the use of formal contracts to enable government to co-deliver programmes such as Cymraeg i Blant and Cymraeg Byd Busnes with external organisations; and the existence of stakeholder forums such the Promotion Group or advisory boards such as the Welsh Language Partnership Council and the Welsh Technology Board that facilitate consultation on the part of government. Although it is acknowledged that there is a high degree of similarity between many of the features associated with interactive and collaborative governance (Pierre and Peters 2020; Torfing et al. 2019), one key difference seems to be a greater emphasis, in the case of collaborative governance, on the involvement of non-governmental actors not only in policy implementation, but also in policy formulation and decisionmaking (see e.g. Ansell and Gnash 2007). Overall, the evidence regarding language policy in Wales suggests that the input and influence of nongovernmental actors at this earlier stage in the policy cycle was not as significant and consistent as is the case in relation to implementation work. On this basis it would perhaps be best to describe the Welsh approach to language revitalisation as being primarily interactive rather than collaborative. There were certain instances where it seems that the development of policy objectives or programmes linked to the Cymraeg 2050 strategy did result from a relatively ‘collaborative’ process that featured ‘two-way communication and influence’ (Ansell and Gash 2007: 546). These included examples where policy formulation work seems to have been channelled through a multilateral process in which government engaged in discussions with several stakeholders, as in the case of the Welsh Technology Action Plan, and more bilateral negotiation with a specific organisation, as in the case of the policy targets guiding current activity in the area of Welsh-medium early years provision. Yet these seemed to be isolated examples and thus not indicative of collaboration being pursued as an explicit governing strategy.

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

303

More broadly, while the evidence points to the existence of a relatively interactive mode of governing in relation to language revitalisation in Wales, it should be stressed that the type of relationships observed between government and its external partners are not ones where each side seem to stand on an equal footing. Based on its control of key financial resources, for example in the form of grants or contracts, as well as relevant organisational and administrative resources, the Welsh Government retains both the ability and authority to set the terms of these interactions. Indeed, as was seen when comparing its approach to the Language Promotion Grant scheme with those projects that are subject to contractual arrangements, it seems that government has the ability to decide when its interaction with other actors will be more directive and top-down and when it will allow its partners more autonomy to shape how they implement projects or activities linked to furthering the objectives of the Cymraeg 2050 strategy. Moreover, as seen in the limited cases where there was evidence of more direct input by non-governmental actors in policy formulation, this was a course that civil servants chose to follow when it was acknowledged that necessary expertise was held by external partners. All of this seems to confirm Torfing et al.’s (2019: 3) contention that even where there is an apparent embrace of more interactive modes of governing, ‘public actors generally remain important for defining and shaping the arenas within which interactions may be occurring’.

5

Conclusion

As argued elsewhere (Sonntag and Cardinal 2015; Royles and Lewis 2019) there is a need for more research that studies language policy, and language revitalisation policy in particular, from a political science perspective, drawing on some of the concepts and approaches that have emerged in that field. Among other things, such research can help to highlight the broad structural changes witnessed over recent years in the distribution of political authority—both vertical and horizontal in nature—and analyse the relevance of these trends for policy-making in relation to minority languages. This chapter sought to contribute to this

304

H. Lewis

general endeavour. First it reviewed the recent political science literature in order to identify a series of different governance models that reflect the various ways in which the interplay between governmental and nongovernmental actors may manifest itself in contemporary policy-making. Following that, it proceeded to examine whether these models could help to capture and understand the governance approach that underpins the current language revitalisation effort in Wales by focusing on initiatives linked to the Welsh Government’s current national language strategy, Cymraeg 2050 . The empirical discussion demonstrated that although the influence of governmental actors has steadily increased over recent years the process of formulating and implementing policy interventions linked to Cymraeg 2050 features extensive participation by a diverse mix of non-governmental actors. Overall, the manner in which these actors contribute to the language revitalisation effort appeared to align primarily with the model of interactive governance in that there was an emphasis on consultation, partnership working, co-delivery of programmes and the use of advisory forums. At times, the evidence also pointed to practices that resembled the more far-reaching model of collaborative governance, but these tended to be ad hoc examples and thus not indicative of collaboration being pursued as an explicit governing strategy. Yet, despite these trends, it should be acknowledged that the types of relationships that emerge are not ones where government and its external partners stand on an equal footing. Moreover, the evidence does not suggest that non-governmental actors have the capacity to confront or dictate to government, as implied by the network governance perspective. Rather, the Welsh Government maintains both the ability and the authority to shape the context within which its engagement with external actors takes place, which suggests that interaction and collaboration with regard to the governance of language revitalisation in Wales must be seen as taking place in the ‘shadow of hierarchy’ (Torfing et al. 2019: 4). More broadly, the primary contribution of this chapter has been to draw together a series of governance models that could be used to analyse the interplay between governmental and non-governmental actors in relation to language revitalisation efforts elsewhere. In doing so it has taken forward earlier discussions that suggested that the new governance

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

305

perspective, with its emphasis on greater interaction between government and various societal partners, is one that offers a useful frame that can help to conceptualise current approaches to language policy, including language revitalisation efforts in jurisdictions such as Wales (e.g. Loughlin and Williams 2007). The empirical evidence analysed in this chapter also allows us to push beyond these earlier conceptual discussions and begin to assess what particular type of governance model offers the best characterisation of the current language revitalisation effort in Wales. In the future, further research which considers the governance approach underpinning policy-making with regard to minority languages in cases that differ, either in terms of the demolinguistic context, or in terms of the political, institutional and constitutional context, would be extremely valuable. Such research would help to further understand how current trends relating to the distribution of political authority are impacting developments in this area, and through this, contribute to better appreciation of the nature of language policy as a distinct policy field.

Notes 1. The Mentrau Iaith are a network of local language promotion organisations that either take the form of a registered charity or a limited company. Wales comprises 22 local authority areas and by today a Menter Iaith is located in each of these areas, with two located in the county of Powys. Each Menter focuses on activities that seek to support and increase the day-to-day use of Welsh within its locality. For further discussion on the work of the Mentrau Iaith, see Evas et al. (2014). 2. See, for example, the National Council’s for Voluntary Action’s quality standards: https://www.ncvo.org.uk/practical-support/quality-and-standards (accessed 9 October 2020). 3. See Cymraeg Blant, https://llyw.cymru/cymraeg-i-blant (last accessed 9 October 2020) and Helo Blod https://businesswales.gov.wales/heloblod/ (accessed 9 October 2020). 4. For further information regarding the Welsh Language Partnership Council, see https://gov.wales/welsh-language-partnership-council?_ga= 2.204344853.402278319.1602149240-783953798.1599559159 (accessed

306

H. Lewis

9 October 2020). For the Language Promotion Planning Board see: ‘Blwyddyn Gyntaf y Rhaglen Hybu’ at https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/ publications/2019-07/ATISN%2013144doc22.pdf (accessed 9 October 2020); and ‘Written Statement—Programme to Promote Use of the Welsh Language’ at https://gov.wales/written-statement-programme-promote-usewelsh-language?_ga=2.178628641.402278319.1602149240-783953798. 1599559159 (accessed 9 October 2020). 5. This was a point raised by two different interviewees that also have extensive experience of working in other policy sectors in Wales. It is an observation that seems to be reinforced when surveying the membership arrangements for many of the Welsh Government’s current formal policy networks, working groups or advisory boards; see https://gov.wales/organisations?key words=&field_organisation_type%5B783%5D=783 (accessed 13 October 2020). However, further research is needed to fully substantiate this claim.

References Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration and Practice 18: 543–571. Ansell, C., and J. Torfing. 2016. Introduction: Theories of governance. In Handbook on Theories of Governance, ed. C. Ansell and J. Torfing, 1–17. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bache, I. 1997. Government within governance: Network steering in Yorkshire and the Humber. Public Administration 78 (3): 575–592. Bache, I., and M. Flinders (eds.). 2004. Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cairney, P. 2011. Understanding Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Colebatch, H. 2004. Policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Cox, K. 2009. ‘Rescaling the state’ in question. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2 (1): 107–121. Edwards, A., D. Tanner, and P. Carlin. 2014. The conservative governments and the development of Welsh language policy in the 1980s and 1990s. The Historical Journal 54 (2): 529–551.

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

307

Enderlein, H. 2010. Economic policy-making and multi-level governance. In Handbook of Multi-level Governance, ed. H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, and M. Zürn, 423–440. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Evas, J., D. Mac Giolla Chríost, C.H. Williams, and C. Campbell. 2014. Review of the Work of Mentrau Iaith, Language Action Plans and the Aman Tawe Language Promotion Scheme. Cardiff: Cardiff University. https://gov. wales/review-work-mentrau-iaith-language-action-plans-and-aman-tawe-lan guage-promotion-scheme. Accessed 13 October 2020. Graser, A., and S. Kuhnle. 2010. Social policy and multi-level governance. In Handbook on Multi-level Governance, ed. H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, and M. Zürn, 399–410. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Herschinger, E., M. Jachtenfuchs, and C. Kraft-Kasack. 2010. International policing: Embedding the state monopoly of force. In Handbook on Multilevel Governance, ed. H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, and M. Zürn, 477–486. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hooghe, L., G. Marks, and A. Schakel. 2010. The Rise of Regional Authority. London: Routledge. Jones, Rh., and H. Lewis. 2018. New Geographies of Language: Language, Culture and Politics in Wales. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, M. 2013. Rescaling the European State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klijn, E.H. 2008. Networks as perspective on policy and implementation. In Handbook of Inter-Organisational Relations, ed. S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, and P. Ring, 18–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koomian, J. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage. Lewis, H., and E. Royles. 2021. Governance, complexity and multi-level LPP. In The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, ed. M. Gazzola et al. Abingdon: Routledge. Lewis, S., H. Thomas, T. Grover, E. Glyn, C. Prys, Rh. Hodges, and E. Roberts. 2019. Process Evaluation of Cymraeg for Kids. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Available at: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-andresearch/2019-02/process-evaluation-of-cymraeg-for-kids-final-report.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2021. Löffler, M. 2000. The Welsh language movement in the first half of the twentieth century: An exercise in quiet revolutions. In Let’s Do Our best for the Ancient Tongue: The Welsh Language in the Twentieth Century, eds G. H. Jenkins and M. A. Williams, 173–205. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

308

H. Lewis

Loughlin, J., and C.H. Williams. 2007. Governance and language: The intellectual foundations. In Language and Governance, ed. C.H. Williams, 57–103. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Democratic Audit. http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/07/20/tilting-at-lin guistic-windmills-a-million-welsh-speakers/. Accessed 13 October 2020. Mentrau Iaith Cymru. 2018. Adroddiad Blynyddol 2017 –2018. https://www. mentrauiaith.cymru/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Adroddiad-MIC-17-18. pdf. Accessed 13 October 2020. McLeod, W. 2020. Gaelic in Scotland: Policies, Movements, Ideologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ONS. 2016. Proficiency in Welsh. http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationan dcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/201 1censuskeystatisticsforwales/2012-12-11#proficiency-in-welsh. Accessed 26 February 2021. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2005. Governing Complex Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2020. Governance, Politics and the State. London: Red Globe Press. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rhodes, R.A.W. 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisational Studies 28 (8): 1243–1264. Rodriguez-Pose, A., and N. Gill. 2003. The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21 (3): 333–351. Royles, E., and H. Lewis. 2019. Language policy in multi-level systems: A historical institutionalist analysis. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 21 (4): 709–727. Schakel, A.H., L. Hooghe, and G. Marks. 2015. Multilevel governance and the state. In The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, ed. S. Leibfried, E. Huber, and J. Stephens, 269–285. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sørensen, G. 2004. The Transformation of the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sonntag, S.K., and L. Cardinal. 2015. Introduction: State traditions and language regimes—Conceptualizing language policy choices. In State Traditions and Language Regimes, ed. L. Cardinal and S.K. Sonntag, 3–28. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

The Governance of Language Revitalisation …

309

Strubell, M., and E. Boix-Fuster (eds.). 2011. Democratic Politics for Language Revitalization: The Case of Catalan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Torfing, J., B.G. Peters, J. Pierre, and E. Sørensen. 2019. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Urla, J. 2015. Reclaiming Basque. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. Wälti, S. 2010. Multi-level environmental governance. In Handbook of Multilevel Governance, ed. H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, and M. Zürn, 411–422. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Walter, U.‚ and C. Petr. 2000. A template for family centered interagency collaboration. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 81: 494–503. Welsh Government. 2017a. Cymraeg 2050: A Million Welsh Speakers. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2017b. Cymraeg 2050: Work Programme 2017–21. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Governmen. 2018a. Cymraeg 2050: Action Plan 2018–19. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2018b. Welsh Language Strategy: Annual Report 2016–17 . Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2018c. Welsh Language Technology Action Plan. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2019a. Cymraeg 2050: Annual Report 2017–18. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2019b. Cymraeg 2050: Action Plan 2019–20. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2019c.Specification for a Review of the Welsh Government’s Grants Scheme to Promote and Facilitate the Use of Welsh. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2020a. Cymraeg 2050: Annual Report 2018–19. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2020b. Cymraeg 2050: Action Plan 2020–21. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2020c. Consultation Document: National Policy on Welsh Language Transmission and Use in Families. Cardiff: Welsh Government. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2020-02/national-pol icy-on-welsh-language-transmission-and-use-in-families-consultation-doc ument_0.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2021.

310

H. Lewis

Welsh Language Partnership Council. 2020. Minutes of meeting held on 30 April 2020. https://gov.wales/welsh-language-partnership-council-meeting30-april-2020-html#section-45854. Accessed 11 October 2020. Williams, C.H. 2012. Language policy, territorialism and regional autonomy. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, ed. B. Spolsky, 174–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, C.H. 2013. Minority Language Promotion, Protection and Regulation: The Mask of Piety. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, C.H. 2014. The lightening veil: Language revitalization in Wales. Review of Research in Education 38: 242–272. Williams, C.H. 2015. Cultural rights and democratization: Legislative devolution and the enactment of the official status of Welsh in wales. In Cultural Rights and Democratisation, eds I. Urrutia, J. P. Massia and X. Irujo, 183–203. Clermon-Ferrand: Institut Universitaire Varenne.

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age: The Retreat of the State Under the Guise of Partnership John Walsh

1

Introduction

In 2020, the Irish state was halfway through its 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language2010–2030, which aims to increase the number of daily speakers from 83,000 to 250,000 and promises a range of additional institutional supports for the language (Government of Ireland 2010). Ominously, the Strategy was published in the same week that the government signed a ‘bailout’ programme with international borrowers following the calamitous banking collapse and subsequent economic crisis. A decade later, while aspects of the Strategy have been implemented, there is little confidence that its ambitious aims can be achieved and Irish remains marginal in the work of government. J. Walsh (B) School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_12

311

312

J. Walsh

This chapter seeks to explain why this is the case, by analysing the retreat of the Irish government from language planning and the intersection of this with national and international trends in political economy. Section 2 provides a map of the current architecture of language policy governance which illustrates how the role of Irish plays out in the work of government departments, regulators, promotional agencies, civil society organisations and language activists. The following two sections seek to identify internal and external factors that have contributed to that retreat, in order better to explain the historical trajectory of language policy. Focusing on internal factors, Sect. 3 considers the influence of the state’s approach to governance, its political culture, language policy and the role of individual civil servants in its execution. Section 4 assesses the impact on Ireland of more recent international trends such as the changing nature of governance and the ongoing reconfiguration of relationships between state, society and market.

2

Current Architecture of Irish Language Governance

2.1

Central Government Departments

There are two central government departments, north and south, that have direct and explicit responsibility for overseeing policy in relation to the Irish language, although most functions are transferred to related agencies. In the Republic of Ireland, the department was renamed the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media (https://www.gov.ie/ga/eagraiocht/an-roinn-turasoire achta-cultuir-ealaion-gaeltachta-spoirt-agus-mean/) in 2020 following a change of government. The Gaeltacht, which refers to scattered districts mostly along the western seaboard officially designated as Irish-speaking, has loomed large in Irish language policy throughout the 100 years of the state’s existence. Defined first geographically by the Gaeltacht Commission in 1926, the governance of the Gaeltacht always presented a challenge as it was highly fragmented territorially and its borders did

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

313

not coincide with existing administrative boundaries of counties (Walsh 2019). The original Department of the Gaeltacht was established in 1956, more than 30 years after independence. The Department of Education took control of key initiatives related to Irish in the early decades. The delay in establishing a dedicated department was due to the widespread belief that Irish was the responsibility of every section of government and that its promotion should be embedded in all governmental activity. When the slow progress of the language revitalisation project became undeniable in the 1950s, a separate department was established but it has always been on the edge of government in terms of power and prestige. For instance, an infamous report1 on cutting public expenditure commissioned by the Irish government in 2008 in response to the banking crisis recommended that the department containing the Gaeltacht portfolio be abolished, a reflection of its weak political status (McCarthy 2009). Ominously, the full impact of the 2008 economic crisis was being felt just as the Department was working on its 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language, supposedly a co-ordinated national language plan that would cut across all government departments (Government of Ireland 2010). The Strategy was itself an outcome of developments in the language policy arena in the 2000s including a new Gaeltacht Commission (Coimisiún na Gaeltachta 2002) and commissioned research on the actual use of Irish in the Gaeltacht (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007). One of the early outcomes of the Strategy was the Gaeltacht Act 2012, leading to the Department’s ‘Language Planning Process’ which aimed to promote a primarily linguistic rather than geographic definition of the Gaeltacht. This divided the Gaeltacht into 26 ‘Language Planning Districts’ and created the new territorial categories of ‘Gaeltacht Service Towns’ and ‘Irish Language Networks’. The term ‘Gaeltacht Service Towns’ refers to urban centres mostly adjacent to the Gaeltacht (although some are inside the Gaeltacht) with which Irish-speaking communities have important socio-economic ties and ‘Irish Language Networks’ refer to local Irish language projects in other settings with no direct connection to the Gaeltacht.

314

J. Walsh

However, there are a number of flaws in the legislation, most notably the fact that it transfers the responsibility for language planning from the state to ‘lead organisations’, usually community or voluntary groups in the Gaeltacht. Such organisations, often lacking technical expertise in language planning, are expected to develop and implement local language plans aimed at strengthening Irish (Walsh 2019). Progress has been slow and after almost a decade, only 23 of 26 Gaeltacht Language Planning Districts had approved plans (Údarás na Gaeltachta 2020) and only three Gaeltacht Service Towns. The language plans of the five Irish Language Networks had been approved by the end of 2020 but implementation had not yet begun. While no independent review of the implementation of the Strategy has been disseminated, unpublished research conducted by the author in 2015 found low levels of engagement in most government departments outside the department with responsibility for the Gaeltacht itself and the Department of Education (Walsh 2015). An ‘action plan’ for the Strategy was published by the Department of the Gaeltacht to cover the years 2018–2022 (Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht 2018). Since 1993, the title and functions of the Department have changed several times and Irish has since been relegated to just one part of a much broader canvass of policy areas including—at various times—culture, the arts, heritage, equality, rural affairs and the islands. In what was essentially an amalgamation of two previous departments, media, tourism and sport were added to culture, arts and the Gaeltacht in 2020. This created a large and unwieldy department where Irish risked being even more marginalised than before. In the first 40 years following its establishment, all Ministers of the Gaeltacht were capable of speaking Irish at least relatively well. The norm was broken 20 years ago and there is no longer any guarantee that either the senior Minister or even the Minister of State for the Gaeltacht, who occupies a more junior role, will be a fluent speaker (Ó Coimín 2016; Tuairisc.ie 2018). In the Republic particularly, the Department of Education also has a key role in relation to language because it is responsible for driving the language-in-education policy that has been a linchpin of the promotion of Irish since independence. Irish remains a core subject of primary and secondary education and must be studied by all students although

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

315

an increasingly discredited system of exemptions has allowed those of adequate means to avoid the requirement by purchasing reports from private psychologists (Harris 2008; Tuairisc.ie 2020). As a result of the 20-Year Strategy, the Department of Education developed a new Gaeltacht education policy aimed at strengthening the use of Irish as vehicular language in Gaeltacht schools (Department of Education and Skills 2016). Other government departments could also be said to impact indirectly on language governance as they all have statutory obligations in relation to provision of Irish language services, even if they appear reluctant to recognise this themselves (Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga 2017). In Northern Ireland, Irish had no place in government structures before the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Following the establishment of Northern Ireland as a political entity in 1921, Irish was sidelined by decades of unionist government and concomitant institutional hostility (Andrews 1997). Following the Agreement, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) was established as part of the new power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive with responsibility for the promotion of Irish, Ulster-Scots as well as various cultural activities. DCAL was dissolved in 2016 and its linguistic responsibilities subsumed into the Department for Communities (https://www.communities-ni. gov.uk/). Because of a political stalemate in Northern Ireland, the Executive collapsed in January 2017 and with it the post of the Minister with responsibility for languages. Disagreements between unionists and nationalists over an Irish Language Act became a major obstacle to the restoration of the Executive but in 2020 the New Decade, New Approach agreement included a commitment to language legislation, thereby breaking the deadlock (Walsh 2020b).

2.2

Language Agencies

Foras na Gaeilge (www.forasnagaeilge.ie) is one part of the Language Body of the North-South Ministerial Council established in 1999 under the Good Friday Agreement. Foras na Gaeilge replaced the Republic’s

316

J. Walsh

language promotion agency, Bord na Gaeilge, which had been on a statutory footing since 1978. Foras na Gaeilge has responsibility for some macro-language planning functions such as lexicography but most of its budget is spent on funding community schemes or voluntary organisations charged with carrying out language planning on the ground (see Sect. 2.5 below). The establishment of Foras na Gaeilge was not without controversy; a leading sociolinguist pointed out that by closing its state agency to promote Irish and tying the governance of language policy to the vagaries of a potentially unstable cross-border arrangement, the Irish government was engaging in a major policy retreat on Irish (Ó Murchú 2002). During periods of political stalemate in Northern Ireland, particularly between 2017 and 2020, Irish became a victim of the political vacuum and as a result, the work of Foras na Gaeilge was stymied (Williams 2009). Central budgets for Foras na Gaeilge were reduced by 28% (38% when inflation is taken into account) in the ten-year period of austerity following 2007 (Conradh na Gaeilge 2017: 8). Údarás na Gaeltachta was established in 1980 as an industrial development agency for the Gaeltacht, replacing a previous body, Gaeltarra Éireann, which was set up in 1957. Gaeltarra Éireann was the state’s response to the economic needs of the Gaeltacht, following the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority (now IDA Ireland) in 1949. Údarás na Gaeltachta had a wider economic role and Gaeltacht residents were also permitted to choose 17 of the 20 board members through direct elections (Walsh 2012: 297–336). Until 2012, Údarás na Gaeltachta had responsibility for financing employment schemes in the Gaeltacht and attracting grant-aided industry from both Ireland and abroad to locate in Gaeltacht areas. The nature of the governance of Údarás was transformed by the Gaeltacht Act 2012, which broadened the body’s functions from an industrial development agency to a hybrid economic development and language body with responsibility for language planning across the Gaeltacht. While this might appear on the surface to be a belated acknowledgement of the inter-relatedness of language and socio-economic development, a number of caveats are necessary. Firstly, the elections in which Gaeltacht residents could choose Údarás board members were abolished, reducing a key direct link between the

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

317

community and the agency. Strengthening the democratic aspect of Gaeltacht governance had been a key demand of the campaign which led to the replacement of Gaeltarra with Údarás in 1980. Secondly, the Údarás budget was reduced significantly in the decade of austerity that followed the 2008 crash. Economic research on the Gaeltacht revealed that the capital budget of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht was twice as big in the period 2006–2017 as it was promised to be for the subsequent ten years under the National Development Plan. The state’s gross capital expenditure shrank by 16% per annum during the period 2009–2013 but the reduction was 33% in the case of the Gaeltacht. The report also showed that there was more expenditure every year on arts than on the Gaeltacht (Byrne 2018a, b). Údarás na Gaeltachta suffered an enormous 73% reduction in its funding between 2008 and 2015, despite a 48% increase in the IDA Ireland budget during the same period (Ó Ceallaigh 2019: 96). It is clear that the work of the IDA marketing Ireland as an English-speaking destination for FDI is far more important to the Irish state than the underfunded hybrid economic development and language planning functions of Údarás na Gaeltachta. Thirdly, Údarás na Gaeltachta is not directly responsible itself for language planning on the ground. Instead, that function is outsourced to voluntary committees and groups at community level, most of whom have little technical expertise in language planning. In other words, most day-to-day language planning activity now takes place at arm’s length from the state, is underfunded and lacks long-term stability. Other relevant agencies operate under the auspices of the Departments of Education on both sides of the border, in the Republic An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta (Council for Irish Language and Gaeltacht Education; www.cogg.ie) and in Northern Ireland Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (Council of Irish-Medium Schooling; www.comhai rle.org).

318

2.3

J. Walsh

Ombudsman and Compliance Agency

The office of An Coimisinéir Teanga2 (language commissioner; www. coimisineir.ie) was established in 2004 by the provisions of the Official Languages Act 2003. It is an independent office acting as ombudsman and compliance agency for state services in the Irish language and has responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Official Languages Act and other legislation governing Irish. The Act applies to over 400 public bodies and aims to increase the level and standard of public services available in Irish. Given its statutory remit and its powers in relation to compliance, the office of An Coimisinéir Teanga is the most significant aspect of the governance arrangements relating to Irish. Following an initial flurry of activity in the early years, since 2008 the implementation of the Act has been stymied by institutional reluctance and legislative weakness. Public bodies agree language schemes—supposedly the main mechanism to deliver services in Irish—with the Department of the Gaeltacht, and their implementation is then monitored by the commissioner. However, the commissioner and others have found many of the schemes not fit for purpose due to weak, sometimes unenforceable commitments and a decline in service provision in subsequent schemes. This runs contrary to the aims of the process which intends to enhance Irish language service delivery over time. The Act also suffers from an absence of provisions about the recruitment of bilinguals to public bodies and fails to ensure that the state would deliver its services in Irish in the Gaeltacht. The commissioner has come up against many hurdles when attempting to ensure the delivery of even minimal Irish language services (An Coimisinéir Teanga 2017). A review of the Act announced in 2011 took eight years to complete, reflecting the low political priority accorded to it (Williams and Walsh 2018). A revised bill was published in 2019 but fell well short of expectations. It fell victim to the change of government in 2020 but the new Programme for Government contained a pledge that a new Act would be enacted by the end of the year (Government of Ireland 2020: 103). The Covid-19 crisis provided further evidence of the legislation’s weakness, as the majority of public health information provided in government was in English only (Walsh 2020a).

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

2.4

319

Local Government

Local government in Ireland is administered by 31 local authorities, including 8 which cover Gaeltacht areas. The ability of local government to contribute to language policy governance—or indeed any other form of governance—is limited in the extreme. Ireland spends less of its GNP on local government than any other European Union member state and local government have very restricted powers and no tax-raising ability (Ó Broin and Waters 2007; Larragy and Bartley 2007). The impact of local government on policy efforts to promote Irish is limited to the statutory language schemes that councils are expected to produce under the Official Languages Act. These schemes are generally minimalist in terms of the obligations they impose in relation to the Irish language, with the stronger end of the continuum applying to Gaeltacht counties with high proportions of Irish speakers (Walsh and McLeod 2008). There are 11 local government areas in Northern Ireland, whose functions are more limited than local government in the rest of the UK. Some local authorities in nationalist areas have non-statutory Irish language policies (e.g. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council).

2.5

Civil Society

Irish language civil society is a shadow of its former self and now dominated by the six ‘lead organisations’ appointed by Foras na Gaeilge in 2014, following a tortuous process of ‘streamlining’ funding to the voluntary sector that lasted for six years. This aggressive move reduced the number of funded organisations from 19 to six, in the process destroying the expertise and experience of many bodies which had been built up over decades. Described by Foras na Gaeilge as a ‘partnership approach’, this was strongly disputed by the voluntary sector itself. One of the sector’s leading advocates accused Foras na Gaeilge of acting without respect for democracy or transparency and of failing to communicate clearly with the voluntary bodies (Ó Murchú 2014: 238–258). The lead organisations are responsible for the following areas of work on an all-island basis:

320

J. Walsh

• Gaeloideachas: Irish-medium education. • Gael-Linn: Education in the English-language sector, adult learning, use of Irish by school children. • Glór na nGael: Community and economic development. • Oireachtas na Gaeilge: Use of Irish and establishing networks for adults. • Conradh na Gaeilge: Awareness, language protection and representation. • Cumann na bhFiann: Development of networks for young people (Foras na Gaeilge 2019). Foras na Gaeilge also funds two community radio stations broadcasting in Irish, Raidió na Life in Dublin and Raidió Fáilte in Belfast. A small number of voluntary Irish language organisations continue to exist entirely or largely independent of state funding. In the Gaeltacht, many community partnerships and co-operatives provide certain local services and are funded by Údarás na Gaeltachta or the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. In Language Planning Districts in the Gaeltacht and the small number of Irish Language Networks elsewhere, voluntary committees with meagre funding are tasked with developing language plans under the Gaeltacht Act 2012. All of this has occurred under the guise of empowerment and participation of communities but instead risks fostering cynicism and apathy about the process. The Foras na Gaeilge funding model can be seen as stifling critical voices within the voluntary sector and the only organisations to criticise government policy on a sustained basis tend to be those whose funding was cut (Ó Murchú 2014: 258). Irish is largely absent from the remainder of civil society although there are exceptions in the fields of culture, heritage, sport and activism, such as the small left-wing protest group Misneach.

2.6

Private Sector

Irish is similarly marginal in the private sector except in a limited sense such as occasional bilingual signage, usually framed by neoliberal

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

321

ideology as a marketing tool to drive profits. There are local examples of support for such initiatives such as in Galway city (Walsh 2012: 373–398; see also Brennan and O’Rourke 2019). A handful of companies—for instance in the fields of cultural tourism, publishing, media and translation—aim specifically at Irish speakers or are based directly on the language itself. Gaeltacht companies grant-aided by Údarás na Gaeltachta are requested to promote Irish in limited ways such as bilingual signage and stationery but usually their business is unrelated to the language in any way (Brennan and O’Rourke 2019: 224–227). Generally, the private sector has no statutory obligations to Irish apart from highly circumscribed or poorly defined provisions applied to insurance companies and independent broadcasters. Research on the Irish language on radio reveals that on average only 2% of the output of independent radio is in Irish or bilingual and that most of this is broadcast outside peak hours (Walsh et al. 2018).

3

National Factors Influencing Governance

The previous section offered an overview of the current institutional architecture relating to the promotion of Irish and highlighted the way in which the Irish government has sought to retreat from the scene over recent years. The next two sections will go on to examine factors that help to explain this retreat. First, I will focus on various internal factors. These relate to the nature of Irish political culture and its impact on policy formation, including the influence of the dominant party Fianna Fáil. They also include the changing nature of the governance of the state, both in terms of its economic policy and language policy. The role of the civil service is also considered.

3.1

Irish Political Culture

Irish political culture—the way that the state operates and the values underpinning it—is a key factor in the political economy of the past

322

J. Walsh

century. The roots of Irish political culture go back to the nineteenth century when the country was still under British rule: peripherality, conservatism, rurality, peasant culture, weak industrialisation and a powerful and conservative Catholic Church. It has been argued that this led to values such as authoritarianism, conformism and antiintellectualism that continue to pervade Irish political culture. This culture has been dominated by a dearth of long-term vision, politicians have little interest in strategic planning and policy formation tends to be ad hoc: ‘The state became increasingly captured by vested interests with strong veto power to stop reforms in their tracks; this leads to a frozen landscape of public policy reform often characterised by paralysis and failure to respond effectively’ (Kirby and Murphy 2011: 28). Ireland has been characterised as a highly centralised state with a localised electoral system. Despite such centralisation, the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) is notorious for being ineffective in making public policy or overseeing the executive and an electoral system that is mired in localism and clientelism (Kirby and Murphy 2011: 25). Similarly, local government is weak and has only limited powers by comparison with other European countries (Ó Broin and Waters 2007: 21). The Irish electoral system, PR-STV, is based on proportional representation and a single transferable vote in multi-seat constituencies, and its use in general elections is unusual in an international context. It features candidates of the same parties vying for seats in the same relatively small areas, thereby playing down policy or ideology in favour of localism. The way that PR-STV has developed in Ireland has been criticised as fostering ‘shorttermism’ and ‘personalism’ which militate against strong national policy development (Collins and O’Shea 2003). Until recently, Irish political culture was dominated by the presence of the largest political party for most of the twentieth century, Fianna Fáil.3 Populist rhetoric has been used by the party since its foundation, in relation to the Irish language as well as other issues. Fianna Fáil casts itself historically as having espoused a project of national development through state-led industrialisation and massive social investment. It held power for 80% of the time in the twentieth century, making it one of the most enduring political parties in the western world, but its achievements were sullied by corruption scandals revealed in the late twentieth

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

323

century (Kirby and Murphy 2011: 33). Writing at the time of its collapse as the country’s predominant political force, one commentator argued that Fianna Fáil was more than a political party but in fact a key institution of the Irish state (O’Toole 2011, in Kirby and Murphy 2011: 31). Fianna Fáil traces its establishment to 2 April 1926 and the second of its founding aims—second only to the unity of Ireland as a Republic—was ‘to restore the Irish language as the spoken language of the people and to develop a distinctive national life in accordance with Irish traditions and ideals’ (Whelan 2009: 19). This language policy was strongly associated with its leader Éamon de Valera, who would go on to serve several terms as Taoiseach (Prime Minister) or President of Ireland. Fianna Fáil’s aims in relation to Irish were modified only in the 1990s to the following: ‘To develop a distinctive national life in accordance with the diverse traditions and ideals of the Irish people as part of a broader European culture, and to restore and promote the Irish language as a living language of the people’ (Whelan 2009: 19–20). The latter wording is less essentialist and recognises the changing national and European context: Irish is to be restored and promoted as a living language of the people rather than the living language.

3.2

Governance and the Irish Language

Ireland has been characterised as a Newly Industrialising Country (NIC) due to its atypical historical development trajectory in comparison with other European capitalist economies (Kirby 2010: 16). In the nineteenth century, industrialisation did not take hold except in the northeast and the economy became more and more dependent on agricultural production, particularly pasture. The population plummeted by the early twentieth century and the new state was essentially devoid of industries. Three phases of Irish development policy since independence have been identified (Kirby 2002: 14–20; 2010: 16–22) and in this section, the trajectory of language policy is mapped onto them.

324

J. Walsh

3.2.1 Comparative Advantage, 1922–32 In the decade following independence, the national development philosophy of the Cumann na nGaedheal4 government has been described as essentially an agricultural development policy, with the new state emphasising what it saw as its ‘comparative advantage’ (Kirby 2010: 16) in producing and exporting dairy and food produce. The state took no active role in fostering socio-economic development in this period, industry was largely neglected and the cabinet and civil service have been characterised as deeply conservative both socially and economically. The Minister for Finance, Ernest Blythe (Earnán de Blaghd), and his officials were wedded to an ideology of ‘ruthless entrenchment to balance the budget’ (Lee 1989: 156) and ‘public servants who did not worship at the shrine of laissez-faire tended to feel intellectually isolated’ (Lee 1989: 192). It was little surprise, therefore, that despite being a committed Irish speaker himself, Blythe scuppered the Gaeltacht Commission report of 1926 on the basis that its proposals would cost too much to implement (Lee 1989: 134–135).

3.2.2 Developmental Nationalism, 1932–59 The second period is characterised by Kirby (2010: 17) as one of ‘developmental nationalism’, marked by a key change in economic policy on the ascent to power of Fianna Fáil. It was spearheaded by the ambitious young Minister for Industry and Commerce, Seán Lemass, a proponent of free trade who ‘looked with wistful approval at the faraway huge continental market of the US’ (Garvin 2009: 125). However, such was the dominance of protectionism across the European continent that Lemass accepted the reality that it was here to stay for some time to come. The new approach consisted of using the state to push for native industrialisation behind high tariff barriers, a policy known as Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI). Protectionism was introduced for infant native industries, with high tariffs in place. The state had been passive and minimalist under Cumann na nGaedheal but became dynamic and interventionist following the change in government. Lemass was responsible

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

325

for the creation of almost 30 state companies, including a tourism board, a national transport company, a national turf production company, a sugar production company, the first national airline and several private bus companies (Garvin 2009: 131). Fianna Fáil also implemented major changes in social policy, expanding welfare and engaging in large-scale social housing schemes. The changes were resisted strongly by the Department of Finance but the new government persisted: ‘Fianna Fáil policy had to be pushed through in the teeth of the public derision of the professional economists and the somewhat more discreet distaste of many civil servants’ (Lee 1989: 192). Following initial success, ISI had reached its limits by the 1940s and economic stagnation, severe emigration and political instability in the 1950s led to another paradigm shift (Kirby 2010: 17–19). The party of Éamon de Valera was not so decisive in the realm of language policy, however.

3.2.3 Revival and Gaelicisation, 1922–65 The periods of comparative advantage and developmental nationalism correspond roughly with what is seen as the first period of language policy (1922–65), which we can call ‘revival’ or ‘Gaelicisation’, consisting of the maintenance of Irish in the Gaeltacht and its revival in the rest of the country (Ó Riagáin 1997). Although there was a distinction between the approaches of Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal to the economy, the difference in terms of Irish language policy was less marked in the early years. Such was the nationalist rhetoric of the new state that both the Cumann na nGaedheal government and subsequent Fianna Fáil governments implemented significant policy measures in favour of Irish, although Fianna Fáil always cast itself as more proactively pro-Irish language than its main political opponent. The civil society organisation Conradh na Gaeilge (the Gaelic League), which had seen much of its clothing stolen by the government in 1922, became suspicious of Cumann na nGaedheal’s intentions and had high expectations when Fianna Fáil assumed power in 1932 (Ó Cathasaigh 2009). Key institutional and legal supports for Irish introduced under de Valera included initiatives in relation to the Gaeltacht, constitutional

326

J. Walsh

protection and the standardisation of the written language. Nevertheless, Conradh na Gaeilge remained unconvinced even of Fianna Fáil’s support as it became apparent by the 1940s that the party was less than fully committed to the revival aims. It does not seem that a paradigm shift in language policy was apparent when Fianna Fáil came to power, despite the party’s claims to the contrary, particularly in its 1932 election manifesto (Whelan 2009: 47).

3.2.4 Liberalisation, 1959 to Present The third period of economic development identified by Kirby is characterised as one of ‘liberalisation’ (Kirby 2010: 19–22). The rise to power of Lemass in 1957 and the retirement of de Valera in 1959 coincided with the publication of the First Programme for Economic Expansion covering the years 1959–63. The plan was written by the dynamic new Secretary of the Department of Finance, T. K. Whitaker, who took over in 1956 after decades of conservative fiscal policy (Lee 1989: 342). Following the change in government, Lemass and Whitaker came to symbolise the swift liberalisation that occurred, based on tax breaks and grants to encourage exports, attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) to Ireland and dismantling protectionism. The state switched from ISI to exportled industrialisation (ELI) and embarked on an expansive fiscal policy in both productive and social investment.

3.2.5 Bilingualism (1965 to Present) Coinciding neatly with the liberalisation policy, the 1960s are also seen as a critical juncture in the Irish state’s approach to language policy and there is a clear link between the economic and language policy shifts. During this period, the rhetoric of Gaelicisation was softened and replaced with a less clearly defined policy of bilingualism where Irish would be promoted in the context of an English-speaking Ireland. The shift—the first overt move away from the concept of Irish as the ‘national’ language—came in the government’s White Paper on Irish from 1965 (Government of Ireland 1965). The White Paper was a

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

327

response to a report published a year before by a government commission on the Irish language established by de Valera just before he left office (An Coimisiún um Athbheochan na Gaeilge 1964). The commission’s report amounted to a reiteration of the jaded 1920s approach to Irish: Gaelicisation steeped in an ideology of early twentieth-century cultural nationalism (Ó Tuathaigh 2011). The role of the civil service, particularly the new Department of Finance under Whitaker, in altering the language policy is described in the following section.

3.2.6 Case Study: The Role of the Civil Service The shift in industrial policy spearheaded by Lemass and Whitaker had important implications for language policy for two reasons. Firstly, Lemass had no interest in the revival of Irish, in spite of the exhortations of de Valera and others that he should be able to speak it. When he assumed the Taoiseach’s office, Lemass made little secret of his lack of interest, preferring instead to focus on his industrial development plans in association with Whitaker (Garvin 2009: 7, 180). The new era of economic liberalisation took no inspiration from Irish, but instead relied heavily on marketing Ireland as attractive to FDI precisely because it was English-speaking (since the 1950s this has been one of the mantras of IDA Ireland which is responsible for attracting FDI). In fact, Lemass’s rise to the top of Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach’s office speaks volumes about what we may call the ‘real’ language policy when the bluster is stripped away: that what mattered was English and that Irish was merely cultural window-dressing (Shohamy 2006). The second important point is that Whitaker was himself a fluent Irish speaker who had spent time in the Gaeltacht as a child, brought his family on Gaeltacht holidays every year and had a deep knowledge of the literature and history of Irish. However, that did not mean that he supported unconditionally the traditional aims of Gaelicisation pronounced since the 1920s. Lemass—as noted, himself uninterested in Irish—appointed Whitaker to co-ordinate the government’s White Paper in response to the Commission on the Restoration of the Irish Language. In so doing he gave Whitaker, the trusted senior civil servant in Finance,

328

J. Walsh

unprecedented influence not only over the future of development policy but also over governance of the Irish language. Whitaker’s interpretation of the Commission’s report was that it recommended the ‘replacement’ of English with Irish (Government of Ireland 1965: 340–342). There is no evidence that this was ever the ‘real’ language policy of any Irish government but the idea that ‘replacement’ was the desired outcome of the language policy measures was gaining ground by the 1960s. This perception was exploited by the Language Freedom Movement (LFM)—a civil society group set up in 1966 to oppose the measures of compulsion—who claimed repeatedly that the government intended to ‘replace’ English with Irish (Rowland 2015). Be that as it may, Whitaker considered such a view to be unrealistic and that it would serve only to ‘sharpen the antagonism of those who see no point in preserving Irish, alienate the sympathy of those who cherish Irish but value the possession of English and discourage even idealists who recognise such an extreme aim to be unattainable’ (Whitaker 1983: 228 in Chambers 2008: 341). His pleas fell on fallow soil, Lemass was supportive and Whitaker’s ideology towards Irish was stamped all over the White Paper. Crucially, the Paper’s co-ordination was overseen personally by Whitaker in the Department of Finance, not in the newly established Department of the Gaeltacht or in the Department of Education which for so long had steered language policy (Chambers 2008: 341–342). A senior civil servant working with Whitaker later described the White Paper as the ‘new realism’, perhaps reflecting a sense of relief from within government that the foundational language policy had been abandoned (Ó Ciosáin 1988: 266). It is instructive how, in a small state like Ireland, one influential and respected senior civil servant can exert a critical influence on the direction of national language policy, even outside their own specialism. Whitaker was an exceptional person and the best-known Irish civil servant of the twentieth century, but he was an economist and had no technical or academic knowledge of the emerging discipline of sociolinguistics or of minority language promotion. That did not stop him from playing a key role in the most significant shift in Irish language policy in the twentieth century. Whitaker’s knowledge of Irish provided a convenient excuse for

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

329

a lukewarm Lemass to soften the language policy in tandem with other more pressing economic changes.

3.2.7 From ‘National’ to ‘Minority’ Language Liberalisation since the 1960s has led to several significant policy changes in relation to Irish, some positive and some negative, but on balance there is greater evidence of increasing marginalisation of the language during this period. Language activists saw as deeply damaging to the status of Irish the removal of the policies of so-called compulsion from 1973 onwards. The new coalition government of Fine Gael (as Cumann na nGaedheal had become in 1933) and Labour agreed to the demands of the small but vocal LFM and removed the requirement to pass Irish in order to pass the final school Leaving Certificate examination and the requirement for civil servants in general grades to pass an entrance examination in Irish (Rowland 2015). Following a retreat from the original policy by Fianna Fáil itself, a change of government in 1973 heralded a yet more liberal approach to language policy. While there had been little between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’s approach to Irish in the nationalist fervour of the 1920s and 1930s, differences came into focus from the 1960s onwards. The smaller parties became decidedly lukewarm, at times hostile, with Fine Gael swept along by the tide of liberalism and Labour influenced by the left’s traditional antipathy to minority languages (see Sect. 4). Since the 1980s the ideology of Irish as a minority language has strengthened (Mac Giolla Chríost 2005: 171–177, 190–191), with policy increasingly framed in terms of minority rights rather than the discourse of the national language. This can be seen, for instance, in how the Labour Minister for Communications and Culture, Michael D. Higgins—now President of Ireland—drew on Habermasian theories of the public sphere, democratic media participation and minority rights in order to establish the Irish language public television channel Teilifís na Gaeilge (now TG4) in 1996. Higgins’s commitment to such values and his fluency in Irish played a key role in removing bureaucratic and financial obstacles to the new channel, whose establishment was a major policy

330

J. Walsh

initiative in favour of Irish (Ó Gairbhí 2017). Another key development was the enactment of the Official Languages Act in 2003 driven by a Fianna Fáil Minister, Éamon Ó Cuív, grandson of Éamon de Valera. A co-ordinated campaign by Irish language civil society groups combined with Ó Cuív’s doggedness within government and parliament ensured that the Act reached the statute books.

4

International factors

While the above factors are all endogenous in nature—Irish political culture, the role of its political parties and civil service, the trajectory of governance towards the economy and language itself—all have occurred in a broader European and international context. The policy planks of ELI and FDI, followed later by the membership of the European Economic Community, allowed greater influence from exogenous trends in international political economy. This section aims to discuss these, and to consider how they help us explain the current state of Irish language governance.

4.1

Changes in International Trends of Governance

The world in which the Irish state has grown over the past century has been transformed on a number of occasions, leading to fundamental restructuring of the state and of the relationships between state, society and market (Martinussen 1997). In the early decades of the state, despite the nationalist rhetoric in vogue, Ireland was heavily reliant on Britain for its ideas on how to organise society. Although rarely discussed overtly, the dominance of English was of course a major impetus in Ireland’s dependency on the old colonial master. ‘Automatic imitation of the British model, Ireland’s traditional substitute for thought’ was how the relationship was described by J. J. Lee (1989: 192), one of a handful of scholars to analyse the links between the promotion of Irish and Ireland’s socio-economic development (ibid.: 658–674). Coupled with the deep

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

331

conservatism of the first cabinet and of the Department of Finance, no radical moves could be expected in the first decade of independent government and austerity reigned supreme. Following the ascent to power of Fianna Fáil in 1932, the focus changed considerably but Lemass would have to wait almost 30 years before giving free rein to his long-standing admiration for free trade. At the time of these moves towards the deeper insertion of Ireland into the global economy, a post-war European consensus still existed around the ‘Welfare State’ model based on a Keynesian approach to economic governance. Parties of various ideological hues accepted the need for a large, expansionary state which would actively intervene in economy and society and assist in the redistribution of wealth. The localism encouraged by the Irish electoral system and the lack of a strong parliamentary left-wing tradition impeded a fuller implementation of this approach in Ireland but the period of developmental nationalism included major state-led socio-economic initiatives nonetheless, particularly in the realm of public housing and semi-state companies. In terms of culture, the welfare state model viewed regional languages as impediments to modernisation and obstacles to progress, often reducing them at best to folkloric interest only and viewing efforts to revitalise them as irrelevant or parochial. Although not a major factor in Ireland due to the dominance of centrist and centre-right parties, the classical left during the welfare state period was hostile to minority languages and saw language shift as an inevitable by-product of modernisation. It was not until the end of this period that it began to become more supportive of such a constituency, often on a social justice basis (Loughlin and Williams 2007: 79–80). Evidence of such a shift can be seen among leftist Irish political parties such as Labour in recent decades, particularly in the contributions of Michael D. Higgins to public discourse. The ‘Post-Welfare State’ model, generally taken to date from the oil crisis in 1973, represented a ‘paradigm shift’ in economic governance. Enormous pressure on public finances caused by the economic shock disrupted the consensus around the interventionist state and increasing globalisation and European integration reduced the capacity of nationstates to act decisively. In what would become known as a neoliberal model of governance, the role of the market became paramount and was

332

J. Walsh

prioritised over that of the state. Governance became more horizontal than vertical, with the state increasingly facilitating or steering policy processes, which became far more complex administratively, involving a myriad of actors both private and public. Neoliberal managerial reforms came to be characterised as ‘New Public Management’ (NPM), which led to the application of a market-led approach to the public sphere. Ostensibly aimed at improving ‘efficiency’ and measuring outcomes in the public service, NPM has been described as a ‘management strategy for neoliberalism’ (Lynch 2012: 89, in Ó Ceallaigh 2019: 137) and influenced the Irish government well in advance of the economic recession following the banking crisis (OECD 2008: 18, in Ó Ceallaigh 2019: 137; see also Ó Ceallaigh 2020). Kirby and Murphy argue that while NPM had less impact on Ireland than other liberal democracies, it has nonetheless led to greater administrative fragmentation and complexity, with implications for accountability (2011: 52; see also Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004: 182–202). As well as adding complexity to the public service, another impact of the ‘Post-welfare state’ model has been to undermine public confidence in the state itself, leading to demoralisation among civil servants: The perception is that the public sector is slow, inefficient, and costly, while the private sector is dynamic and efficient. One could even ask, is government better than the private sector in managing anything? The view is widely held in the Western world that the way to make an economy more dynamic and more competitive is to reduce the role of government. In brief, the private sector is regarded as the dynamic force while the public sector as the inertial one. (Savoie 2015: 4)

In the cultural realm, the changes in the structure of governance brought about by the post-welfare state model ushered in a greater tolerance of pluralism in language policy and the impact of the multilingual policy of the European Union forced a rethinking of the notion of national languages. Culture also began to be seen as a variable in economic development, leading to efforts to commodify certain forms of cultural diversity (Loughlin and Williams 2007: 80–82).

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

333

Loughlin and Williams also discuss the ‘Third Way’ model associated strongly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and sociologist Anthony Giddens, describing it as a response by centrist and left-of-centre parties which were dissatisfied with the post-welfare state approach. They argue that the ‘Third Way’ is not simply neoliberalism in social democratic clothing, but rather an approach that accepts the market while aiming to modify its influence by giving a central role to the state. The model also includes an emphasis on partnership, a horizontal approach to governance involving consultation with, for instance, civil society interests and its influence on language governance in various jurisdictions has been traced (Loughlin and Williams 2007: 69). The development of language policy through partnership is mentioned, emphasising the involvement of both central and local government as well as public and private interests. Loughlin and Williams also point to the recognition by the ‘Third Way’ approach to the economic and social disintegration of areas where minority languages are spoken, although they conclude that there is little evidence of improved policies on the ground (2007: 83). The influence of these broader global trends on Ireland and Irish language policy specifically will now be considered.

4.2

Influence of Changing Trends in Governance on Ireland

Because of the exceptionalism of the Irish political system until very recently—the absence of a clear left/right divide—it can be difficult to map these changes in the trends of governance directly onto the Irish trajectory of governance, but many exogenous influences on language policy can be detected nonetheless. The retreat in the 1960s from the foundational language policy is interlinked with the emergence of the liberalisation model introduced by Lemass and Whitaker. Both were proponents of free trade whose time had come and Lemass’s lack of interest in Irish, combined with Whitaker’s circumscribed support for it, combined to dilute the existing language policy. The first significant step towards dismantling the policy

334

J. Walsh

of revitalisation, the shift from the rhetoric of Gaelicisation to bilingualism in 1965, was in keeping with liberal concepts of choice and individual freedom. These would gain ground further as the post-welfare state approach took hold in the 1970s and it was no coincidence that the removal of the civil service and Leaving Certificate requirements in relation to Irish happened in the same period. This philosophical shift was assisted by the rise to power of parties less committed to the language historically than Fianna Fáil. Elements of Fine Gael were ideologically liberal and many in the Labour Party shared the left’s historical hostility to minority languages. The influence of these changes was significant, particularly in the civil service, whose ability to provide Irish language services collapsed entirely once the language requirement was abolished. As described above, post-welfare and particularly Third Way models have granted recognition to minorities within the neoliberal framework and this can be seen in the increasing retreat of the Irish state from the historical ideology of Irish as ‘national’ language in which everyone had to have a stake, to a minority language only relevant to a small percentage of the population. Evidence of this approach is to be found in the decision to establish, after decades of broken promises, a separate Irishspeaking radio station for the Gaeltacht in 1972, a recognition that the state broadcaster Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) had failed to serve Irish speakers. The same applied in 1996 with the belated establishment of the television channel Teilifís na Gaeilge, later TG4. Both radio and television stations emerged from civil society campaigns whose demands were reluctantly accepted by the state after decades of activism. Similarly, the 1970s saw the growth of Gaelscoileanna, separate Irish-medium schools sought by a minority of parents, the old state-led system of Irish-medium schooling having collapsed by the previous decade. The enactment of the Official Languages Act in 2003, itself a timid piece of legislation which provides for limited public services in Irish, is also a result of the rise of the minoritisation discourse. The establishment of Bord na Gaeilge in 1975 was an example of the state, in this case the Department of the Gaeltacht, distancing itself from its original policy by establishing an agency at arm’s length to carry out language-related functions. The funding structures of Foras na Gaeilge, established in 1999, appear to have been strongly influenced by the

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

335

changing international trends in governance, particularly its ‘partnership’ process with voluntary language bodies. The transfer of responsibilities to both Foras na Gaeilge and Údarás na Gaeltachta, and the further outsourcing of language planning responsibilities by both bodies to ‘lead organisations’, creates complex layers of administration and diffuses the locus of responsibility, in line with international trends.

4.3

Social Partnership

Section 2 referred to the language planning process and how it has been presented as partnership with local communities. This can be seen as part of a broader process of emasculation of the voluntary and community sector that has been unfolding over the past 30 years as part of deepening international trends towards neoliberalism in economic policy. Despite the vibrancy of the civil sector before independence, after 1922 voluntary and community organisations settled into a relationship of dependency on the state. Fianna Fáil either co-opted social movements or ensured that they never became a threat to its hegemony, a good example being Conradh na Gaeilge. However, it and other civil society groups became increasingly despondent with state policy and a more radical critique emerged in the 1970s from an increasingly secular and critical community and voluntary sector working with poor and marginalised sectors of the population. This critique faded again from the 1980s as civil society in general was drawn more and more into the web of dependency on the state. On the back of new models of governance internationally, ‘social partnership’ was launched by Fianna Fáil in 1987, drawing the state and civil society together in various initiatives often in areas of acute problems. The community and voluntary sector were formally invited into social partnership in 1996 as were environmental NGOs in 2009 (Kirby and Murphy 2011: 35). However, the Irish language sector had no involvement in those important structural changes in the state’s governance. Ó Murchú (2003) argues that it sought no active role in social partnership and that the state appeared to consider it irrelevant to socio-economic development (see

336

J. Walsh

also Donoghue 2004). Social partnership has been criticised as a mechanism of co-opting dissent within civil society, so it could be argued that staying outside the walls was a wise strategy on the part of Irish language organisations. However, they have since become enmeshed in a parallel and pale imitation of social partnership directed by the state agency for Irish, Foras na Gaeilge. Indeed, the debacle of Foras na Gaeilge’s new funding model could be seen as an impoverished form of social partnership in miniature without the status or influence over the operations of government. Similarly, the Gaeltacht language planning process whereby Údarás na Gaeltachta chooses community or voluntary groups to prepare language plans, is another example of diffusing the locus of accountability and distancing it from the state itself. Social partnership has been criticised as being imbued with the values of neoliberalism because it orients citizenship away from activism and radical critique and towards weak articulations of citizenship such as self-reliance (Kirby and Murphy 2011: 37). This frame also appears very appropriate for critiquing the governance of Irish language civil society. Ó Murchú concludes her extended analysis of the Foras na Gaeilge new funding model with a pertinent question: [W]ill it be possible for the voluntary sector, now so closely enmeshed with the State sector, having seemingly lost the struggle for autonomy, to retain an independent voice on behalf of Pobal na Gaeilge [the Irish language community] or will it gradually begin to see the world solely through the perspective of the funding agency on which it depends for its existence? (2014: 258)

5

Conclusions

If we look at all the elements of the architecture of Irish language governance, we see a weak framework which confers only a marginal and symbolic role to Irish in the Republic of Ireland. The status of Irish is weaker still in Northern Ireland, although the nascent language legislation may go some way towards remedying that situation. South of the

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

337

border, Irish is the central concern of only a small section of a department that is considered relatively unimportant politically and has seen its functions amended with almost every change in government in recent years. While the Department formulates language policy, most of the day-to-day work of promoting Irish is the responsibility of two agencies, Foras na Gaeilge and Údarás na Gaeltachta. Both in turn farm out much of the promotional work to civil society groups, some funded and others voluntary. Although the Official Languages Act imposes statutory responsibilities in relation to Irish on public bodies, there is only weak institutionalisation of bilingualism in the public sector in general. The elements of this architecture can be linked to various national and international trends in governance and changing ideologies around the relationships between state, society and market. The substratum is the ideological context of the primacy of English to Ireland, the ‘real’ language policy, somewhat tempered by public support for an ideology of Irish as the ‘national’ or ‘native’ language but only in a symbolic or cultural sense. With the emergence of the discourse of minority rights and the decline of the national language ideology since the 1980s, many of the current promotional efforts find themselves falling between these two stools. The increasing complexity of governance arrangements relating to the promotion of Irish and the associated retreat of the state can be linked to international trends in governance orienting the state towards ‘efficiency’, ‘transparency’ and ‘partnership’, with a resultant blurring of the lines of accountability and responsibility. The current ideological terrain has been forming since at least the 1950s and has been promoted by key figures in politics and the civil service, aided by the consolidation of neoliberalism as a political ideology, particularly since the 1980s. In the face of dwindling numbers of speakers in the Gaeltacht and weak growth elsewhere, Irish language civil society must strive to protect its independence and never lose sight of the impact on its work of broader trends in political economy and governance.

338

J. Walsh

Notes 1. The report was also known as the ‘McCarthy Report’ after its principal author, economist Colm McCarthy and dubbed ‘An Bord Snip’ (‘the snip board’) by the media, reflecting the historical tendency to give state boards an Irish language title (Walsh 2012: 416). 2. This is the official title of the post in question and the only one used in the English-language version of the legislation and in the English-language website of the office. 3. Literally ‘warrior band of Ireland’ although frequently mistranslated in journalistic parlance as ‘soldiers of destiny’, this having a pejorative tinge. Fianna Fáil was the dominant force in Irish politics from 1932 until 2011 when its vote collapsed following the banking crisis and subsequent deep recession. 4. Literally, ‘association of Gaels’ (Irish speakers). Cumann na nGaedheal merged with other minor parties in 1933 and was renamed Fine Gael (‘tribe of Gaels’). It led governments from 2011–2020 and was part of the coalition government formed in 2020.

References An Coimisinéir Teanga. 2017. A Commentary on the Language Scheme System/Tráchtaireacht ar Chóras na Scéimeanna Teanga. Report by An Coimisinéir Teanga in accordance with Section 29 of the Official Languages Act, 2003/Tuairisc an Choimisinéara Teanga faoi Alt 29 d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003. https://www.coimisineir.ie/userfiles/files/Trachtaireacht-Lea gan-Bearla.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2019. An Coimisiún um Athbheochan na Gaeilge. 1964. An Tuarascáil Dheiridh. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Andrews, L. 1997. The very dogs in Belfast will bark in Irish: The Unionist government and the Irish language, 1921–43. In The Irish Language in Northern Ireland , ed. A. Mac Póilin, 49–94. Belfast: ULTACH Trust. Brennan, S., and B. O’Rourke. 2019. Commercialising the cúpla focal : New speakers, language ownership, and the promotion of Irish as a business resource. Language in Society 48 (1): 125–145.

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

339

Byrne, S. 2018a. An Plean Forbartha Náisiúnta agus an Ghaeltacht 2018– 2027. Document published by Teacht Aniar, received by email by the author. Byrne, S. 2018b. Interview with economist Dr Seán Byrne. Adhmhaidin, RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta, 24 May. Chambers, A. 2008. T. K. Whitaker: Portrait of a Patriot. Dublin: Transworld Publishers. Coimisiún na Gaeltachta. 2002. Tuarascáil/Report. Dublin: Coimisiún na Gaeltachta. Collins, N., and M. O’Shea. 2003. Clientelism: Facilitating rights and favours. In Public Administration and Public Policy in Ireland: Theory and Methods, ed. M. Adshead and M. Millar, 88–107. London: Routledge. Conradh na Gaeilge. 2017. Infheistíocht sa Ghaeilge agus sa Ghaeltacht ó 2018 ar aghaidh: an cás le haghaidh maoiniú breise [Investment in the Irish Language and the Gaeltacht from 2018 Onwards: The Case for Additional Funding]. Dublin: Conradh na Gaeilge. https://cnag.ie/images/GaelV%C3%B3ta/24S A2017_Plean_MaoiniuBreise.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2020. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. 2018. Action Plan 2018–2022. Na Forbacha: Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. https://www.chg.gov.ie/gaeltacht/20-year-strategy-forthe-irish-language-2010-2030/action-plan-2018-2022/. Accessed 9 October 2020. Department of Education and Skills. 2016. Polasaí don Oideachas Gaeltachta 2017 –2022. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. https://www. education.ie/ga/Foilseach%C3%A1in/Tuarasc%C3%A1lacha-Beartais/Pol asai-don-Oideachas-Gaeltachta-2017-2022.pdf Accessed 14 December 2020. Donoghue, F. 2004. Comhsheasmhacht agus Diansheasmhacht: Rólanna,Comhchaidrimh agus Acmhainní na nEagraíochtaí Deonacha Gaeilge/Consistence and Persistence: Roles, Relationships and Resources of Irish Language Voluntary Organisations. Dublin: Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge. Foras na Gaeilge. 2019. A Partnership Approach. https://www.forasnagaeilge. ie/about/about-foras-na-gaeilge/a-partnership-approach/?lang=en. Accessed 16 December 2019. Garvin, T. 2009. Judging Lemass. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Government of Ireland. 1965. Athbheochan na Gaeilge: The Restoration of the Irish Language. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

340

J. Walsh

Government of Ireland. 2010. Straitéis 20 Bliain don Ghaeilge 2010–2030 [20Year Strategy for the Irish Language]. Dublin: Government Publications. Government of Ireland. 2020. Programme for Government: Our Shared Future. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Harris, J. 2008. Irish in the education system. In A New View of the Irish Language, ed. C. Nic Pháidín and S. Ó Cearnaigh, 178–190. Dublin: Cois Life. Kirby, P. 2002. The Celtic Tiger in Distress: Growth with Inequality in Ireland . London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kirby, P. 2010. The Celtic Tiger in Collapse: Explaining the Weaknesses of the Irish Model . London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kirby, P., and M.P. Murphy. 2011. Towards a Second Republic: Irish Politics After the Celtic Tiger. London: Pluto Books. Larragy, J., and B. Bartley. 2007. Transformations in governance. In Understanding Contemporary Ireland , ed. B. Bartley and R. Kitchen, 197–207. London: Pluto Books. Lee, J.J. 1989. Ireland 1912–1985: Politics and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loughlin, J., and C.H. Williams. 2007. Governance and language: The intellectual foundations. In Language and Governance, ed. C.H. Williams, 57–103. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Lynch, K. 2012. On the market: Neoliberalism and new managerialism in Irish education. Social Justice Series 12 (5): 88–102. Mac Giolla Chríost, D. 2005. The Irish Language in Ireland: From Goídel to Globalisation. London: Routledge. Martinussen, J. 1997. Society, State & Market: A Guide to Competing Theories of Development. London: Zed Books. McCarthy, C. 2009. Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. Dublin: Government Publications. Ó Broin, D., and E. Waters. 2007. Governing Below the Centre: Local Government in Ireland . Dublin: TASC. Ó Cathasaigh, A. 2009. Ré Nua os comhair na nGael? Conspóidí Chonradh na Gaeilge 1932–1939. Dublin: Coiscéim. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2019. Neoliberalism and language shift: The Great Recession and the sociolinguistic vitality of Ireland’s Gaeltacht, 2008–2018. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2020. Neoliberal globalisation and language minoritisation: Lessons from Ireland 2008–18. Language and Communication 75: 103–16.

The Governance of Irish in the Neoliberal Age …

341

Ó Ciosáin, S. 1988. Language planning and Irish. Language, Culture and Curriculum 1 (3): 263–280. Ó Coimín, M. 2016. Údar mór díomá don Chonradh nár ceapadh Aire Gaeltachta le Gaeilge. Tuairisc.ie, 6 May. https://tuairisc.ie/udarmor-dioma-don-chonradh-nar-ceapadh-aire-gaeltachta-le-gaeilge. Accessed 16 December 2019. Ó Gairbhí, S.T. 2017. Súil Eile. Dublin: Cois Life. Ó Giollagáin, C., S. Mac Donnacha, F. Ní Chualáin, A. Ní Shéaghdha, and M. O’Brien. 2007. Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht: Principal Findings and Recommendations. Dublin: Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Ó Murchú, M. 2002. Ag Dul ó Chion? Cás na Gaeilge 1952–2002. Dublin: Coiscéim. Ó Murchú, H. 2003. Limistéar na Sibhialtachta: Dúshlán agus Treo d’Eagraíochtaí na Gaeilge. Dublin: Coiscéim. Ó Murchú, H. 2014. More Facts about Irish: Volume 2. Dublin: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. Ó Riagáin, P. 1997. Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland, 1893– 1993. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ó Tuathaigh, G. 2011. An stát, an féiniúlacht [sic] náisiúnta agus an teanga: cás na hÉireann. In Féiniúlacht, Cultúr agus Teanga i Ré an Domhandaithe, ed. B. Mac Cormaic, 76–112. Dublin: Coiscéim. O’Toole, F. 2011. Everything and nothing has changed. The Irish Times, Weekend Review, 12 March, 1. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rowland, H. 2015. Conradh na Gaeilge agus an Language Freedom Movement (LFM): Coimhlint Idé-eolaíochta 1965–1974. Unpublished PhD thesis, NUI Galway. Savoie, D. 2015. What Is Government Good At? A Canadian Answer. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Tuairisc.ie. 2018. I got a B in my honours Irish 30 years ago. I try to use it in all my speeches—Aire na Gaeltachta sásta go bhfuil a ceart á thabhairt don Ghaeilge aici. Tuairisc.ie, 2 November. https://tuairisc.ie/i-got-a-b-inmy-honours-irish-30-years-ago-i-try-to-use-it-in-all-my-speeches-aire-na-gae ltachta-sasta-go-bhfuil-a-ceart-a-thabhairt-don-ghaeilge-aici/. Accessed 16 December 2019.

342

J. Walsh

Tuairisc.ie. 2020. Ardú mór ar líon na ndaltaí iarbhunscoile a fuair díolúine ón nGaeilge ó tugadh isteach córas nua. Tuairisc.ie, 20 November. https:// tuairisc.ie/ardu-mor-ar-lion-na-ndaltai-iarbhunscoile-a-fuair-dioluine-onngaeilge-o-tugadh-isteach-coras-nua/. Accessed 11 December 2020. Údarás na Gaeltachta. 2020. Pleananna Teanga Ceadaithe. https://www.udaras. ie/an-ghaeilge-an-ghaeltacht/pleanail-teanga/pleananna-faofa/. Accessed 14 December 2020. Walsh, J. 2012. Contests and Contexts: The Irish Language and Ireland’s Socioeconomic Development. Oxford: Peter Lang. Walsh, J. 2015. Athbhreithniú ar Fheidhmiú na Straitéise 20 Bliain don Ghaeilge: Tuarascáil arna hullmhú do Chonradh na Gaeilge. Unpublished Report on 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language for Conradh na Gaeilge. Walsh, J. 2019. Sainiú na Gaeltachta: Pobail, ceantair agus líonraí. In An tSochtheangeolaíocht: Taighde agus Gníomh, ed. T. Ó hIfearnáin, 185–210. Dublin: Cois Life. Walsh, J. 2020a. Covid-19: the pandemic and the monolingual state. https:// mooreinstitute.ie/2020/07/14/covid-19-the-pandemic-and-the-monoli ngual-state/. Accessed 14 December 2020. Walsh, J. 2020b. What’s the real deal with Stormont’s Irish language proposals? RTÉ Brainstorm, 15 January. https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0115/110 7583-whats-the-real-deal-with-stormonts-irish-language-proposals. Accessed 14 December 2020. Walsh, J., R. Day., and P. Fogarty. 2018. Research on Use of the Irish Language on Radio (Phase Two). Galway and Limerick: NUI Galway and University of Limerick. https://audioresearchcentre.wordpress.com/research/. Accessed 19 July 2021. Walsh, J., and W. McLeod. 2008. An overcoat wrapped around an invisible man? Language legislation and language revitalisation in Ireland and Scotland. Language Policy 7 (1): 211–246. Whelan, N. 2009. Fianna Fáil: A Biography of the Party. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. Whitaker, T.K. 1983. Interests. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. Williams, C.H. 2009. Foras na Gaeilge and Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg: Yoked but not yet shackled. Irish Studies Review 17 (1): 55–88. Williams, C.H., and J. Walsh. 2018. Minority language governance and regulation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and Communities, ed. G. Hogan-Brun and B. O’Rourke, 101–129. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Governance, Policy-Making and Language Revitalisation Huw Lewis and Wilson McLeod

1

Introduction

In the academic literature, language policy is often understood as a diffuse mechanism that guides language use patterns in different social contexts (Johnson 2013). On these terms, language policy can encompass any deliberate effort to influence linguistic behaviours, general social attitudes regarding different languages as well as longstanding patterns of linguistic interaction. For example, in his influential account Spolsky (2004: 5) argued that language policy is comprised of three distinct H. Lewis (B) Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK e-mail: [email protected] W. McLeod Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_13

343

344

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

elements: first, general attitudes regarding different languages (beliefs); second, habitual patterns of linguistic interaction (practices); and third, deliberate efforts to influence either these beliefs or practices (management). However, as Grin (2003: 30) has argued, language policy can also be conceived in a more limited sense: as a particular form of public policy. It has been this more specific notion of language policy that has been the focus of the two chapters in this section of the book, which focused on the governance of language policy, that is to say the structures and mechanisms of language policy formation and implementation. Together, the chapters by Lewis and Walsh have highlighted a series of general structural changes that have transformed the context for contemporary governance and policy-making. These included regionalisation, internationalisation, the continued advance of the market and the emergence of post-welfare models of governance. In this short essay we seek to reflect further on the significance of these trends for our understanding of contemporary language revitalisation efforts. We do so with reference to a series of relevant European cases, such as Wales, Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Autonomous Community and Ireland. Overall, it will be argued that while the changing nature of contemporary governance is not something that should prompt a reflection on the very substance of language revitalisation activity to the same degree as some of the trends encountered in the sections focusing on family or community life, it is a trend that has important implications for the context in which such activity takes place and, consequently, for which types of actors contribute to the language revitalisation effort as well as how associated initiatives are formulated, funded and implemented.

2

Language Revitalisation and Regionalisation

In the introduction to his chapter, Lewis argued that one key development that has transformed the nature of contemporary governance is the process of ‘rescaling’ (Keating 2013), which involves the migration of political functions to new territorial scales. One manifestation of this process has been the general shift in authority away from the central state

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

345

downwards towards sub-state and regional governments. By drawing on extensive comparative research by Hooghe et al. (2010), Lewis argued that recent decades can be characterised as an ‘era of regionalisation’—a period during which decentralisation and a transfer of autonomy to the regional level has emerged as a clear trend across Europe (Keating 2013) as well as across parts of Latin America, North America and Southeast Asia (Schakel et al. 2015). In several European cases, the move towards greater regional autonomy does seem to have had significant implications for efforts to maintain and revitalise regional or minority languages (RMLs). It has often meant the creation of a political and institutional context that is more conducive to the development of planned public policy interventions that support such languages (Williams 2012: 199). For example, the re-establishment of regional government in Catalonia in the 1970s following the fall of the Franco regime greatly facilitated the development of the far-reaching Catalan revitalisation effort. It allowed for the creation of new language planning institutions, most prominently the Generalitat’s Directorate-General for Language Policy. It also allowed for the introduction of a range of supportive legislative and policy measures touching on areas such as public administration, education, the media, immigration and employment (McRoberts 2001; Strubell and Boix-Fuster 2011). Similarly, in the Basque Autonomous Community, regional autonomy led to the establishment in the early 1980s of the Sub-Ministry for Language Policy, attached to the Basque government’s Ministry of Culture, and also the Basque language unit within the Ministry of Education, both of which have come to play leading roles in the coordination of policies aimed at promoting greater acquisition and use of Basque (Gardner et al. 2000; Williams 2013a). In a different context, it is clear that an expansion in official policy activity in support of the Welsh language became possible with the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999. Subsequent years have seen the devolved Welsh Government introducing new legislation to strengthen the legal status of the Welsh language and also adopting three national language strategies (Welsh Government 2003, 2012, 2017) that have sought to ensure a more systematic and planned approach to initiatives seeking to promote greater acquisition and use of

346

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

the language (Williams 2014; Lewis and Royles, 2021). Indeed, when reflecting on these post-devolution developments, Williams (2014: 257) observed that ‘in terms of policy and legislation, one can justifiably argue that the Welsh language has never been in such an advantageous position’. It also appears that the establishment of regional government in Scotland, also in 1999, created a context that facilitated the introduction of new policy measures in support of the Gaelic language. In particular, the legislative powers of the new Scottish Parliament allowed for the adoption of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 . This new legislation established Bòrd na Gàidhlig as a statutory body with responsibility for the promotion of Gaelic as an official language. It also mandated that the Bòrd should prepare a national Gaelic language plan every five years (e.g. Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2018) and that it should instruct certain public bodies to prepare and implement their own Gaelic language plans (McLeod 2020: 254–256). However, while the significance of regionalisation as a catalyst for the introduction of new policy measures in support of several RMLs should be acknowledged, it is also important not to fall into the trap of assuming that the establishment of regional government represents some kind of ‘year zero’ for such policy activity. This is particularly pertinent in relation to the Welsh and Scottish cases. In both instances, the origins of the process of using public policy to support the prospects of the Welsh and Gaelic languages predate the establishment of devolved parliaments and governments at the end of the 1990s. In Wales, as Lewis argued in his chapter, the process commenced during the early 1980s when the Welsh Office—the UK Government’s department of state for Wales—began to accept the argument that maintaining the Welsh language would require a measure of proactive planning on the part of public officials (Edwards et al. 2011). Similarly, early steps in support of the Gaelic language were taken by the Scottish Office—the UK Government’s department of state for Scotland—during the 1980s. This involved initiatives in the areas of education and media as well as funding Comunn na Gàidhlig as a language development agency (McLeod 2020: 32–35). Moreover, while the advent of regional government may have facilitated an expansion in policy activity in support of Welsh and Gaelic—both in terms of volume and ambition—it has been argued that in terms of substance—e.g. the

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

347

prioritisation of key fields such as education, public status and social language use—there is a significant degree of continuity between preand post-devolution language policy (see McLeod 2020 on Gaelic and Lewis and Royles, forthcoming on Welsh). In contrast, in the Catalan and Basque cases, the establishment of regional governments with significant policy-making autonomy does seem to have enabled a more profound break with the preceding language policy regime (Royles and Lewis 2019: 722). Of course, this reflects how regionalisation and language revitalisation in these regions of Spain coincided with the broader process of liberalisation and democratisation that followed the fall of Franco’s repressive regime (McRoberts 2001). Yet even in such cases where regionalisation does prompt a radical change in course and can thus be seen as a ‘critical juncture’ for language revitalisation efforts (Royles and Lewis 2019: 722), the influence of prior historical legacies still need to be acknowledged. For example, Williams (2013b: 105) has noted how many of the promotional initiatives undertaken in the Basque Autonomous Community since gaining autonomy derive from the 1927–1936 language revitalisation movement that pre-dated the onset of fascism.

3

Language Revitalisation and Internationalisation

The second key feature of the rescaling process identified by Lewis is the migration of political and economic activity upwards towards higher continental or global levels. This process is manifested by developments such as the rise of transnational corporations and the significant growth, since the 1950s, in the influence of international organisations, both of which have prompted important shifts in the locus of decision-making away from the domestic level (Schakel et al. 2015). Accompanying such developments, we have witnessed a gradual internationalisation in the nature of policy communities and civil society networks (Peck 2011). In the European context at least, these are also trends that have influenced the context in which language revitalisation efforts take place and the type of actors that influence related initiatives. For example, while

348

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

the EU has never held any formal competence in the area of language policy, it has exerted influence over activity aimed at supporting European RMLs. The origins of the EU’s work in this field can be traced back to the early 1980s. In 1983, the European Commission established the Action Line for the Promotion and Safeguarding of Minority and Regional Languages and Cultures, a specific budget line that had the aim of providing funding to support European RMLs. This step followed the passing of a resolution by the European Parliament in 1981 that called for European-level action in support of regional languages and cultures (Gazzola et al. 2016: 37). Between 1983 and 2000 the funding made available through this programme grew from 100,000 euro to 4 million euro per year and provided financial support for a wide range of projects and networks which had the aim of supporting RMLs (Jones 2013: 25). However, following the European Court of Justice’s ruling in 1998 that all EU-level activity should possess an explicit legal basis, the specific RML budget line was suppressed. Therefore, since the early 2000s financial support from the EU for initiatives like the supporting of RMLs has been ‘mainstreamed’ and channelled through several broader programmes (Jones 2013: 25). As Gazzola et al. (2016) have demonstrated, this enforced change has meant that the total outlay by the EU on initiatives that have the goal of promoting RMLs has decreased, because it has been difficult for small language communities to secure funds when competing against larger languages. Yet despite the decline in funding, the EU has not receded into an irrelevant actor in the field of RML promotion. First, while the EU’s Structural Funds, which are aimed at reducing regional and economic disparities across the block, have no specific linguistic remit, in certain locations they have been targeted as funding instruments that can potentially be used to support language maintenance and revitalisation (Gazzola et al. 2016). For example, previous Welsh Government language strategies have outlined efforts to harness EU LEADER funding in order to facilitate economic opportunities in areas where there is a high density of Welsh speakers (Welsh Government 2003). Moreover, Welsh third sector organisations, particularly the Mentrau Iaith, have tapped into programmes linked to the EU’s structural funds in order to support ventures which seek to combine community development with language promotion. There have

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

349

been similar efforts to take advantage of European-level structures in other cases as well. For example, in Ireland Údarás na Gaeltachta has been involved in implementing LEADER programmes in the Donegal and Múscraí Gaeltacht areas (Údarás na Gaeltachta 2018: 33–34), while in Scotland Comunn na Gàidhlig has drawn on funding from the same source to support its Spòrs Gàidhlig project that seeks to combine Gaelic promotion with the creation of employment opportunities in the outdoor activities sector (Cairngorms Trust, n.d.). Yet arguably of more significance over the past three decades has been the financial support provided by the EU to support the creation and maintenance of networks that allow for collaboration between different RML communities, specifically the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, the Mercator Network, and, more recently, the Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity (NPLD). The development of such networks has facilitated a greater degree of engagement, collaboration and information-sharing between both policy officials and civil society actors working in the area of language revitalisation across numerous European jurisdictions. For example, the current membership of the NPLD includes a mix of regional governments, language planning agencies, universities and civil society organisations spanning regions and states such as the Basque Autonomous Community, Brittany, Catalonia, Corsica, Friesland, Friuli, Ireland, Occitania, Sardinia, Scotland and Wales, among others. Furthermore, as Williams has argued, the impact of these European networks has not only been symbolic: many of those who now run or influence language planning agencies and regional/national government departments of language and culture received much of their international exposure and political training in language policy affairs within these informal networks. (Williams 2013c: 19)

This general argument is also supported by more recent research focusing specifically on language policy development in Wales, where policy practitioners report that regular engagement with other European partners through the NPLD was one important source of policy ideas that helped shape aspects of the Welsh Government’s most recent national language

350

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

strategy, Cymraeg 2050 (Jones and Lewis 2019). Of course, looking to the future, it will be necessary to assess how the Brexit process impacts the ability of European-level structures to inform or influence the work of language policy practioners across the UK. At this point, it is clear that the option of seeking to exploit mainstream EU funding programmes to back projects that support language maintenance and revitalisation will no longer be possible. Yet, significantly, it does not seem that the important engagement, collaboration and information-sharing opportunities afforded by networks such as the NPLD will be closed off completely.

4

Language Revitalisation: The Influence of Governmental and Non-Governmental Actors

The previous two sections reflected on the implications of different aspects of the vertical reconfiguration of political power for the context in which contemporary language revitalisation efforts take place. Yet contemporary governance and policy-making has also been transformed along a horizontal axis, primarily due to the continued advance of the market. As argued in the introduction to this volume, the economic crisis of the late 1970s paved the way for the neoliberal wave that swept across many industrialised democracies and that sought to ‘solve’ the perceived problem of ‘government overload’ by privatising public enterprises, contracting out public services and commercialising the remaining public sector, most notably through the introduction of new public management reforms (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 6; Cairney 2012: 159). These processes have resulted in a profound shift ‘in the balance between government and society away from the public sector and more towards the private sector’ (Kooiman 1993: 1). Furthermore, they have led to ‘an increasingly fragmented public sector’ (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 7), which, in turn, has contributed to ‘the diminished ability of central governments to control the direction of policy’ (Cairney 2012: 157). It has been argued that one of the significant outcomes of this shift

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

351

towards ‘a post welfare state’ (Laughlin and Williams 2007) has been a gradual decline in the monopoly of formal governmental institutions over the public policy process as a number of non-governmental stakeholders such as civil society groups, interest groups, citizens’ groups, expert agencies, consultancy firms and private businesses have come to play an increasingly significant role in the development, implementation and evaluation of public policy (Ansell and Torfing 2016: 8; Pierre and Peters 2020: 50). In different ways, the chapters by Lewis and Walsh both sought to examine whether such trends are also evident when considering contemporary policy-making with regard to RMLs. Both chapters highlighted how the formulation and implementation of official language revitalisation strategies entail a significant degree of interaction between a mixture of governmental, quasi-governmental and non-governmental actors. First, Lewis demonstrated that in Wales a diverse range of actors interact with the Welsh Government on policy work linked to the current national language strategy, Cymraeg 2050 , and that these actors vary significantly in terms of their closeness to government. They encompass a series of different quasi-governmental or arm’slength bodies, which exist outside of government but remain formally answerable to it (e.g. Welsh Language Commissioner, the National Centre for Learning Welsh or the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol), along with a wide range of civil society organisations (e.g. Mudiad Meithrin, the Mentrau Iaith and Urdd Gobaith Cymru), private companies (particularly contract research companies) and private individuals (in particular the members of advisory boards) that are clearly separate from government. Similarly, Walsh outlined how in the Republic of Ireland governance and policy-making with regard to the Irish language encompass central government along with a mixture of arm’s-length regulators and executive agencies (e.g. An Coimisinéir Teanga, Foras na Gaeilge and Údarás na Gaeltachta), civil society organisations (e.g. Glór na nGael, Oireachtas na Gaeilge and Conradh na Gaeilge) and, significantly, since 2012 a series of voluntary community-level language planning committees. A brief consideration of other relevant cases suggests this interaction between governmental, quasi-governmental and non-governmental actors as part of language revitalisation is not limited to Welsh and Irish

352

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

cases. For example, in Scotland since the passing of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 , a central role is played by Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the executive non-departmental public body, which leads on the preparation and delivery of the National Gaelic Language Plan (for the most recent version see Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2018). In turn, Bòrd na Gàidhlig works with a series of ‘delivery partners’ in order to ‘promote Gaelic usage, learning and status’ (Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2020). These partners include various civil society organisations (e.g. Comunn na Gàidhlig and Comann nam Pàrant) as well as charitable companies (e.g. Stòrlann Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig and Comhairle nan Leabhraichean) that receive funding from the Bòrd in return for their work running projects that either seek to promote the public status of Gaelic or promote its acquisition and use in different settings (Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2020). Similarly, in Catalonia we see that, alongside the Generalitat’s Directorate-General for Language Policy, an influential role is played by arm’s-length public bodies such as the Consortium for Language Normalization, as well as the influential advisory commission, the Social Council for the Catalan Language and TERMCAT, the body responsible for Catalan terminology. Moreover, once again we see that public bodies draw on the contribution of civil society organisations and charitable companies by offering grants and subsidies to ‘partners’ to coordinate projects that seek to promote the Catalan language (Generalitat de Catalunya 2020a). Yet, while the evidence seems to point to a high degree of interaction between governmental, quasi-governmental and non-governmental actors as part of the governance of contemporary language revitalisation efforts, what can be concluded regarding the role and influence of governments themselves? As outlined in the introduction to Lewis’s chapter, the general narrative evident in parts of the political science and public administration literature that examines current trends in governance is that recent decades have witnessed a significant decline in the influence of government, vis-à-vis other societal actors, as part of the public policy process (Koomian 1993; Rhodes 1997; Pierre 2000). Yet, overall, the picture that emerges when considering policy activity relating to RMLs, particularly within the European context, is more complex and does not seem to fit this general narrative. Indeed, it seems that a prominent feature of many European language revitalisation efforts since

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

353

roughly the 1970s has been the gradual emergence of governmental institutions, elected ministers and public officials as increasingly important and influential actors. As highlighted earlier (Sect. 2), in Catalonia and the Basque Autonomous Community, this was a process that was prompted by the re-establishment of regional autonomy in the late 1970s following the fall of the Franco regime. In Catalonia, for example, the re-establishment of the Generalitat in 1977 meant that language revitalisation efforts that had been channelled through private institutions during the 1960s and early 1970s began to be increasingly coordinated by governmental actors (McRoberts 2001: 140). A key development in this process was the establishment of the Generalitat’s Directorate-General for Language Policy in 1980. Ever since, this powerful policy unit has been the central actor in the Catalan language revitalisation effort, driving different legislative and policy initiatives in support of the language (Williams 2013a: 9). Today, the unit is attached to the regional government’s Ministry of Culture and also encompasses a Sub-Directorate-General for Language Policy, which, in turn, oversees the work of a series of ‘service’ sections, including the Service for Fostering the Use of Catalan, the Language Resources Service, which aims to disseminate resources that facilitate acquisition and use of Catalan, and the Information, Dissemination and Studies Service, which is charged with informing public bodies and civil society organisations about new activities or developments (Williams 2012: 200; Generalitat de Catalunyia 2020b). The growing influence of government and public officials over the coordination of language revitalisation activity is also a feature of the Welsh and Scottish cases. As highlighted earlier (Sect. 2), in these cases the roots of the process predated the establishment of regional parliaments and governments at the end of the 1990s. Yet in both instances the institutionalisation of language revitalisation has continued and increased as we have moved into the post-devolution period. In Wales, the Welsh Government has come to play an increasingly ‘handson’ role. Initially, this occurred in partnership with the Welsh Language Board, an arm’s-length executive agency. However, following the institutional reforms instigated by the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure (2011), primary responsibility for coordinating and funding activity that seeks

354

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

to promote greater acquisition and social use of the Welsh language lies within government itself (Williams 2014). In Scotland, the passing of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 led to further institutionalisation with the establishment of Bòrd na Gàidhlig in 2005 as an executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government with responsibility for Gaelic. In summary, the cases discussed above seem to suggest that recent trends in policy making with regard to several European RMLs do not fit neatly with the general narrative of ‘governmental retreat’ that is evident in much of the political science and public administration literature that examines current trends in governance. The evidence does point to a high degree of engagement between government departments, arm’slength agencies and various civil society actors as being a feature of many contemporary language revitalisation efforts. Moreover, as Lewis demonstrated as part of his examination of current practices in Wales, the nature of these engagement patterns does often resemble the type of interactive or collaborative governance practices that have become familiar in other more established policy fields, such as transport, housing and planning or economic development. However, in contrast to these other fields, engagement between governmental and non-governmental actors in the development and implementation of language revitalisation strategies does not reflect a decline in the influence and authority of the former. Rather, what we have witnessed over recent decades in places such as Catalonia, the Basque Autonomous Community, Wales and Scotland is a continuous growth in the influence of governments and public officials over the direction of the language revitalisation effort. Indeed, across each of these cases, the notion of governmental retreat from the area of language promotion was just not possible until roughly the late 1970s—there was simply nothing for it to retreat from. However, since that point—driven to a large extent by pressure from different language organisations within civil society—governmental involvement has grown steadily. Consequently, in several prominent European cases we have witnessed a significant shift in the locus of activity—language revitalisation has moved away from being an endeavour that is based primarily on the language community itself working through private, civil society organisations, towards being one where public officials

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

355

located within different governmental or quasi-governmental institutions are increasingly influential.

5

Ireland: A Cautionary Tale?

In many ways, the Republic of Ireland can be viewed as an important exception in relation to some of the themes considered in this essay. It may also represent an important note of caution when assessing the implications of certain trends in governance and policy-making for those concerned with language revitalisation. First, it is important to acknowledge that the general trend of regionalisation has not impacted the Republic of Ireland to the same degree as many other European states. Overall, it has maintained a relatively centralised system of government, and while the mid-1990s saw the establishment of eight regional authorities tasked with coordinating the delivery of public services and monitoring the management of EU structural funds, this had no impact on the distribution of policy-making authority with regard to the Irish language (Hooghe et al. 2010: 84). Hence, the question of whether the establishment of new sub-state tiers of government can create a political and institutional context that allows for different approaches to language promotion has not arisen in the same way as it has in cases such as Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Autonomous Community, Wales or Scotland.1 Second, and more importantly, the Republic of Ireland also seems to stand out in comparison to some of the other cases discussed above when we consider the nature of the role of played by government—be that regional-level or state-level government—in relation to language revitalisation. As Walsh highlighted in his chapter, the evolution of Irish language policy since roughly the 1960s is characterised by an increasing withdrawal on the part of government. It has been argued that this shift has been manifested by a series of different developments. These include the general narrowing since the 1960s in the overall objectives of the government’s language revitalisation effort; the consistent emasculation of the central government department with responsibility for the Irish language and the Gaeltacht; and the increasing tendency on the part

356

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

of government to refrain from properly implementing and monitoring key language policy strategies. Indeed, as Ó Ceallaigh (2019, 2020) has demonstrated, it appears that this process of governmental withdrawal has gathered pace significantly since the 2008 economic crisis, as evidenced by the disproportionate cuts in public funding experienced by governmental agencies associated with the promotion of Irish or with the Gaeltacht. It is also during this more recent period that the Gaeltacht Act 2012 was introduced, which has transferred operational responsibility for language promotion across Gaeltacht communities away from the executive governmental agency, Údarás na Gaeltachta, to a series of voluntary community committees. Therefore, the Irish case seems to stand out when compared with other prominent European cases of language revitalisation where we have seen governments gradually assuming a more hands-on role. At the same time, perhaps we need to reflect a little further on the nature of the shift that has occurred in Ireland with regard to the governance of language revitalisation. In other policy sectors, research has documented a process whereby a decline in the direct involvement of government and a greater emphasis on the contribution of nongovernmental actors leads to an erosion in government’s overall influence over that sector and its ability to shape outcomes (Rhodes 1997, 2007). The result, according to Colebatch (2004: 78), is that public officials then need to spend a great deal of time ‘negotiating with other organisations’ in order to ‘knit together agreed courses of action’. Yet this does not seem to be the case here. While, at one level, there is clear evidence of a decline in the level of direct engagement by government in efforts to promote the Irish language, it can be questioned whether this process has also entailed a decline in governmental influence or authority visà-vis other relevant actors. First, as analysis by Walsh and others (e.g. Ó Ceallaigh 2019; Ó Giollagáin 2014) suggests, the process of gradual governmental retreat appears to be one that has been instigated and driven from above by a succession of key ministers and civil servants. Put simply, the process has not been one in which other societal actors involved in Irish language promotion have pressured the government to play a less active role by arguing that this would lead to a more effective approach. Second, while direct engagement by government in efforts

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

357

to promote the Irish language may have gradually declined, as the case of the Gaeltacht Act 2012 underlines, it continues to exercise control over the general context—both institutionally and financially—that all other actors must work within (Ó Ceallaigh 2019). Third, while government itself has stepped back, it is not out of the picture completely in that quasi-governmental actors such as Foras na Gaeilge and Údarás na Gaeltachta still play an important operational role. Moreover, as Walsh argued, through its funding model the former is able to dictate to civil society, as opposed to power and influence working in the other direction. Therefore, in summary, while the retreat of government over recent decades means that the Irish approach to language revitalisation stands out when compared with other prominent European cases, it still appears to be a case in which government holds substantial influence vis-à-vis other societal actors and where the governance occurs ‘in the shadow of hierarchical authority’ (Scharpf 1994: 41). A further point that the Irish case prompts us to reflect upon is the danger in assuming that an approach to governance that entails greater involvement by non-governmental actors will always bring with it benign consequences. The advocates of governance approaches that entail greater partnership, collaboration or interaction with various societal actors have argued that such approaches allow for more effective and more democratic forms of governing—more effective because they ‘involve individuals and groups who are knowledgeable about the policies in question’ and more democratic because they ‘involve affected interests in society more directly and continuously’, rather than depending upon ‘periodic elections and representative democracy’ (Torfing et al. 2019: 3). Moreover, there is a tendency to assume that interactions will take the form of ‘well-intended, open minded and harmonious collaboration’ (Torfing et al. 2019: viii) and that ‘decision-making will be nonconflictual and accommodative’ (Pierre and Peters 2005: 92). Yet, as Walsh’s discussion of the Irish case highlights, such benign assumptions may not capture the reality of the processes involved. Indeed, his concerns regarding how the current architecture of language policy governance in Ireland diffuses responsibility across numerous actors and weakens structures for ensuring accountability echoes arguments voiced elsewhere in the public policy literature:

358

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Governance today frequently includes a wide variety of actors such as public-private partnerships, voluntary associations, private businesses, political institutions existing at different levels of government and so on […] Some of these actors – most of the political actors – can be held to account through the electoral process […] but most cannot. True, the problem of allowing nonelected actors access to the policy-making process is not in any way new […] but that having been said, governance poses a real problem in terms of accountability. (Pierre and Peters 2005: 127)

Beyond the important notion of accountability, Walsh’s discussion of the relationship between Foras na Gaeilge and different Irish language civil society organisations also reminds us that we need to be awake to the power and resource imbalances that may be inherent in interactions between different governmental, quasi-governmental and nongovernmental actors. Hence, such interactions may not always be characterised by inclusion or accommodation. Rather, outcomes may be imposed and ‘consensus dictated by stronger players’ (Pierre and Peters 2005: 92). These observations are also relevant in relation to other cases. For example, as Lewis highlighted in the conclusion to his chapter, while the evidence suggests that language revitalisation in Wales is underpinned by a relatively interactive mode of governing, the type of relationships observed between the Welsh Government and its external partners are not ones where each side stand on an equal footing. Rather, based on its control of key financial resources, for example in the form of grants or contracts, the Welsh Government retains the ability to set the terms of these relationships. Indeed, this type of dynamic is only heightened in the case of those language organisations that are overwhelmingly dependent on public funding.

6

Conclusion

As Williams (2012: 178) has argued elsewhere, ‘it is important to locate language policy within the broad field of policy development and to relate the specific application of policy to structural reform and state reconfiguration’. In the context of this volume, we contend that this

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

359

appeal is particularly relevant with regard to policies that focus specifically on the maintenance and revitalisation of regional or minority languages. The chapters by Lewis and Walsh, along with this summary essay, have served to highlight two processes of contemporary structural change that are relevant to thinking about governance and policy-making in relation to such languages: on the one hand, the vertical diffusion of power and control among a range of governmental institutions operating at different territorial levels, and on the other hand, the horizontal blurring of the boundary between these institutions and a variety of quasi-governmental or non-governmental actors, such as specialist agencies, regulators, charities, civil society organisations and private businesses. Given the nature of these processes, they do not have implications for the very substance of language revitalisation activity in the same way as some of the trends linked to technology, mobility and the nature of social interaction encountered in earlier sections of this book focusing on family or community life. However, they should not be discounted. As we have seen in this essay, recent trends with regard to governance and policy-making have important implications for the political and institutional context in which contemporary language revitalisation efforts take place and can influence which types of actors contribute to such activity as well as how associated initiatives are formulated, funded and implemented.

Note 1. Of course, it could be argued that the (re)establishment of devolved government for Northern Ireland in 1999 as part of the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement has created a context that has allowed for greater policy discussions with regard to Irish within that jurisdiction. Yet to date, the actual impact of such discussions, specifically the calls for the introduction of an Irish Language Act, have been limited, as legislative proposals have failed to secure the required cross-community support to ensure passage through the Assembly’s consociational structures. However, we do not pursue these issues further here because we wish to focus on recent language policy developments in the Irish Republic.

360

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

References Ansell, C., and J. Torfing. 2016. Introduction: Theories of governance. In Handbook on Theories of Governance, ed. C. Ansell and J. Torfing, 1–17. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bòrd na Gàidhlig. 2018. National Gaelic Language Action Plan 2018–2023. Inverness: Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Bòrd na Gàidhlig. 2020. Funding Schemes. https://www.gaidhlig.scot/bord/ fundraising/. Accessed 5 November 2020. Cairney, P. 2012. Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cairngorms Trust. n.d. Spòrs Gàidhlig—Community Development. https:// cairngormstrust.org.uk/performance-and-impact/case-studies/143-spors-gai dhlig-capacity-development. Accessed 25 February 2021. Colebatch, H. 2004. Policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Edwards, A., D. Tanner, and P. Carlin. 2011. The Conservative governments and the development of Welsh language policy in the 1980s and 1990s. The Historical Journal 54: 529–551. Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. 2005 asp 7. https://www.legislation.gov. uk/asp/2005/7/contents. Accessed 25 February 2021. Gardner, N., I. Puigdevall, M. Serralvo, and C.H. Williams. 2000. Language revitalization in comparative context: Ireland, the Basque Country and Catalonia. In Language Revitalisation: Policy and Planning in Wales, ed. C.H. Williams, 311–361. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Gazzola, M., F. Grin, J. Häggman, and T. Moring. 2016. The EU’s financial support for regional and minority languages: A historical assessment. Journal of Ethnic Studies 77: 33–66. Generalitat de Catalunya. 2020a. Subsidies: Grants awarded by the DirectorateGeneral for Language Policy for promoting the Catalan language. https:// llengua.gencat.cat/en/direccio_general_politica_linguistica/subvencions/. Accessed 5 November 2020. Generalitat de Catalunya. 2020b. Directorate-General for Language Policy. https://llengua.gencat.cat/en/direccio_general_politica_linguis tica/. Accessed 5 November 2020. Grin, F. 2003. Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Governance, Policy-Making and Language …

361

Hooghe, L., G. Marks, and A. Schakel. 2010. The Rise of Regional Authority. London: Routledge. Johnson, D.C. 2013. Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, M.P. 2013. Endangered Languages and Linguistic Diversity in the European Union. Brussels: Policy Department B, European Parliament. Jones, R., and H. Lewis. 2019. New Geographies of Language: Language, Culture and Politics in Wales. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, M. 2013. Rescaling the European State: The Making of Territory and the Rise of the Meso. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koomian, J. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage. Lewis, H., and E. Royles. 2021. Towards a million speakers? Language policy post-devolution. In The Impact of Welsh Devolution, ed. J. Williams and A. Eurig. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Loughlin, J., and C.H. Williams. 2007. Governance and language: The intellectual foundations. In Language and Governance, ed. C.H. Williams, 57–103. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. McRoberts, K. 2001. Catalonia: Nation Building Without a State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLeod, W. 2020. Gaelic in Scotland: Policies, Movements, Ideologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2019. Neoliberalism and language shift: The Great Recession and the sociolinguistic vitality of Ireland’s Gaeltacht, 2008–18.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Ó Ceallaigh, B. 2020. Neoliberal globalisation and language minoritisation: Lessons from Ireland 2008–18. Language and Communication 75: 103–116. Ó Giollagáin, C. 2014. From revivalist to undertaker: New developments in official policies and attitudes to Ireland’s ‘first language’. Language Problems and Language Planning 38 (2): 101–127. Peck, J. 2011. Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobilitymutation. Progress in Human Geography 35 (6): 773–797. Pierre, J. 2000. Understanding governance. In Debating Governance, ed. J. Pierre, 1–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2005. Governing Complex Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2020. Governance, Politics and the State. London: Red Globe Press. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press.

362

H. Lewis and W. McLeod

Rhodes, R.A.W. 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisational Studies 28 (8): 1243–1264. Royles, E., and H. Lewis. 2019. Language policy in multi-level systems. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 21 (4): 709–727. Schakel, A.H., L. Hooghe, and G. Marks. 2015. Multilevel governance and the state. In The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, ed. S. Leibfried, E. Huber, and J. Stephens, 269–285. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scharpf, F.W. 1994. Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6: 27–57. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strubell, M., and E. Boix-Fuster (eds.). 2011. Democratic Politics for Language Revitalization: The Case of Catalan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Torfing, J., B.G. Peters, J. Pierre, and E. Sørensen. 2019. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Údarás na Gaeltachta. 2018. Annual Report and Accounts 2018. Na Forbacha: Údarás na Gaeltachta. Welsh Assembly Government. 2003. Iaith Pawb: A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Government. 2012. A Living Language: A Language for Living—Welsh Language Strategy 2012–2017 . Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Government. 2017. Cymraeg 2050: A Million Welsh Speakers. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Welsh Language (Wales) Measure (2011). 2011 nawm 1. https://www.legislation. gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/contents/enacted. Accessed 25 February 2021. Williams, C.H. 2012. Language policy, territorialism and regional autonomy. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, ed. B. Spolsky, 174–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, C.H. 2013a. Official Language Strategies in a Comparative Perspective. Cardiff: Network for the Promotion of Linguistic Diversity. Williams, C.H. 2013b. Perfidious hope: The legislative turn in official minority language regimes. Regional and Federal Studies 23 (1): 101–122. Williams, C.H. 2013c. Minority Language Promotion, Protection and Regulation: The Mask of Piety. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, C.H. 2014. The lightening veil: Language revitalization in Wales. Review of Research in Education 38: 242–272.

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics Colin H. Williams

1

Introduction

One can hardly enter the world of language revitalisation without being acutely conscious of the degree to which exceptionalism rules in this Kingdom of the Fragmented Malcontents! No one in their right mind, the cynics trump, would waste their time, energy and emotional resources into flogging a dying language into life.1 Far better to go with the inexorable flow of humankind and attach oneself to a successful, major language and culture, like German, French or English, than row against the tide in a tempest. Such actions merely feed the discontented and promote a culture of grievance and self-hate, because its ambition is incapable of being fulfilled. In truth, it is an expression of false consciousness. C. H. Williams (B) School of Welsh, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2_14

363

364

C. H. Williams

Yet it is surprising how many of us actually do engage in such irrational and superfluous activity, and in some bizarre manner enjoy the experience of being different, playing the outsider, feeding the soul which struggles against the odds to give meaning to this short life, a sigh between two sorrows (Williams 2018). Why this is so awaits consideration for another day, but judged from the standpoint of rational instrumentalists, the social commitment of so many to their mother tongue or adopted lesser-used language and its culture, defies simple logic. But we cannot abandon being critical intellectuals and opt merely to be apologists for our own prejudices. Accordingly, judgments, interpretations, justifications even, have to be offered in defence of such efforts and from my perspective, it is far better to arm ourselves with our own set of critical defences than to be silent as we are assailed by those who bear us ill. We cannot be complicit in our own degradation! But we can uphold the spirit of resistance!

2

The Revitalise Project as a Network and Programme

What can be said about this initiative? It seeks to build on many generations’ involvement in language promotion and revitalisation issues. It has demonstrated undoubted success in addressing four salient themes, namely language transmission in the family, community transformation, the economy and governance. The network involved a diverse range of disciplines, and by engaging specialists at different stages in their careers a widespread set of skills and previous experience was brought to the discussions. Engagement has been demonstrated, but it remains to be seen to what extent the results and insights of the project will impact on policy makers and civil activists. Let me critique each of these themes in turn. Language transmission in the family is the most fundamental and fastchanging theme of the network. King and Wang survey the richness of recent studies drawn from Asia and North America, which demonstrate how language functions as a resource for the process of family-making and meaning-making in contexts of transmigration, social media and

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

365

technology saturation and hypermobility. A focus on these new variables should go some way towards countering the imbalance of previous work which has been biased towards documenting two-parent, heteronormative, middle-class homes in which children acquire more than one European language. It is well known that mobility and urbanisation have a clear effect on code-switching, language shift and dialect maintenance, but the data from China reveals the scale of such changes which favour language uniformity, especially among the teenage population. Conscious that globalisation has introduced newer forms of multilingual language practices, the authors call for a new research focus on how geographically dispersed families may maintain regular contact. One promising avenue is to promote autoethnographic methods which focus on the use of IT, the increased prevalence of Skype, Facebook or WeChat. A more focused study on the maintenance of Irish as a heritage language in early childhood is provided by Hickey. The interpretation warns against adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach tailored to the majority language, thereby neglecting suitable early years provision and language enrichment through the minority language. Recent investment by the Irish state which brought about rapid change in families’ childcare arrangements for children under 3 was welcomed, while in general the evidence suggests that family language practice is more complex and unpredictable than initially postulated. Rather than being seen as a binary choice between a minority and hegemonic language, Hickey argues that the resultant behaviour is more a mélange, a finding repeated by Jones for Wales. A grave concern is the faltering provision of childcare, educational settings and community services which do not necessarily cater for either the children’s particular language need or the engagement of parents in offering support. In analysing community transformation both Jones and Cunliffe argue for a more accurate representation of actual language use as the evidence base for interventionist language planning. By contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of two types of community perspective, territorial and interest network, the authors demonstrate the limitations of using bounded space as the frame for action and policy. This is a longestablished criticism of interventionist planning in support of minority

366

C. H. Williams

languages as both Williams and Morris (2000) and Williams (1992) have detailed. The implications of adopting a networked, community of interest approach are developed in the editors’ summary in a very clear and helpful manner. Yet no one would advocate jettisoning the significance of a territorial frame, not least because public services are organised on a territorial basis and as a consequence, when official interventions are sanctioned, resourced and evaluated, they tend to be organised on a local government or regional basis. Cunliffe offers several fresh perspectives on the impact of online social networking. A particular insight is the seven-fold level of engagement for minority language speakers. Again, we are presented with a realistic range of engagement, rather than a reliance on the binary divide as decried by Hickey. It is argued that such engagement requires increasing language competence, digital literacy and resources. By so doing the value and right of the minority language to be used in that network is asserted and reinforced as a normal expectation rather than the exceptionalism which has characterised so much of IT and AI application to date. A second welcome emphasis is on the digital breathing spaces required of minority language speakers, a concept which has found favour among educationalists concerned with translanguaging in the Basque Country (Cenoz and Gorter 2017, 2019, 2021), new speakers of Irish (O’Rourke and Walsh 2020) and several who have advocated the establishment of safe spaces as represented by the Canolfannau Cymraeg in Wales (Gruffudd and Morris 2012). The policy implications of this significant interpretation are clear and urgent. Cunliffe argues that policy-makers and commercial and technology corporations have a special responsibility not to allow minority language users to fall too far behind or to be excluded from ongoing and future developments. How pressure and leverage is to be applied to such corporations is an unresolved question. This may be the biggest challenge faced by decision-makers as they seek to cater for the needs of such speakers in the burgeoning knowledge economies and information societies. Despite its being central to the material wellbeing of both individuals and communities, the role of economic considerations in language revitalisation has not attracted many international specialists. The early

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

367

work of Grin (1993) and Grin and Vaillancourt (1999) offered some promising avenues, but as a discipline mainstream economics has not been overly concerned with analysing the use and potential of minority languages. Why this lacuna should persist reflects the difficulty in establishing a definitive and directional relationship in most aspects of the general economy, let alone the generation of robust data. The relationship between a minority language and the economy remains a major challenge to language policy-makers and without a thoroughgoing engagement and set of evidence-based arguments, obliges civil society advocates to concentrate on the public sector for fertile ground and purposeful policy interventions. And in so doing of course they severely limit the potential of any language’s full applicability. That is why the chapter by Grin and Vaillancourt is such a valuable contribution to the discussion on language and the development of skills in the labour market. In clear demonstrable terms they set out the benefits and limitations of ‘language economics’ and illustrate the potential of this approach by reference to a number of contexts. They also usefully draw out some of the counter-intuitive outcomes, as when one uses the optimal recruitment model, whereby cost-minimising behaviour by employers can further complicate matters. They argue that this can generate patterns that depart from what a prima facie observation of the overall linguistic environment could lead one to predict. Further difficulties can be discerned in relation to the question of RMLs per se, such as the comprehensive quantitative data required to undertake accurate evaluations of decisions and processes adopted. A second issue relates to the relevant regional/spatial frame of authority and the issue of equity in relation to how the costs of these policies are distributed, for as they remind us not all segments of the population stand to gain in equal measure (Grin and Vaillancourt 2000, 2002). A third issue relates to the ideological and conceptual framing of the protection and promotion of RMLs, particularly as this relates to economic discourse. Competing paradigms produce different interpretations and anticipated results, but the acid test is how sufficient they are in relation to the specific context at hand, rather than a priori assumptions. Fortunately, there are a plethora of local and specific case studies to draw upon. It is far easier to identify such connections within specific

368

C. H. Williams

sectors, geared to satisfying linguistically segmented clientele, such as the media, agribusiness and tourism. The various works of Sproull and Chalmers (1998), Puigdevall (2005) and Chalmers and Danson (2012) offer significant cameos as to how to analyse the language-workplace relationship. In this volume Danson makes a strong argument that economic sectors within local communities are the most likely to be consistent with sustainable, inclusive and resilient elements of the increasingly relevant foundational economy paradigm. He illustrates this maxim with reference to Gàidhlig, Gaeilge, Cymraeg and føroyskt mál and suggests that an increased awareness of late has led to a more favourable disposition towards the value of minortity languages. Essential to that greater awareness has been an appreciation of how social attributes—such as diversity—may confer a comparative advantage in aiding innovation and local development through the mobilisation and organisation of different resources including human resources (Chalmers and Danson 2012). In the context of minority languages, diversity can be understood in its widest sense—including aspects of cultural and linguistic difference—and those arguments and drivers can be applied to the other geographical contexts of minority languages and cultures, especially to their peripheral heartlands. The net conclusion is that cultural and language characteristics can act as a motor for economic change through their impacts on ‘human capital’. When allied to ecological considerations and an appreciation of environmental assets as both a resource and an attraction, the economic benefits of developing regions, such as the far west of Ireland or the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, should be vital to the fortunes of native Irish and Gaelic speakers. Tourism, further and higher education, communications, agribusiness, salmon and scallop harvesting have each added to the traditional economic portfolio of such regions. However, as the editors note in their summary, it is hard to garner consistent evidence of these activities being a sufficient economic base for more wide-scale entrepreneurial activity. Relative underdevelopment is the norm, and this has only been leavened, of late, by employment opportunities in capital-intensive projects such as energy production, commercial-scale tidal stream array, offshore wind farms and the like. Typically, such investment involves the importation of a highly paid,

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

369

skilled and external workforce which can exacerbate the dearth of suitable opportunities for local employment. In addressing the fourth theme, language and governance, the Revitalise project assembled rich case studies from a variety of jurisdictions, the UK and Ireland, Europe and Canada. The conventional analysis of nationalism, regionalism and territorial politics was supplemented by more nuanced approaches and a concern with the impact of the regulatory state on language policy, education, local government and employment conditions as regards the use of one or more minority language within a jurisdiction. I would judge that this was the most innovative and satisfying part of the project. The two chapters included here by Lewis on Wales and Walsh on Ireland demonstrate quite variable relationships between the state and its stakeholders as regards language management. For Wales, the period since devolution has witnessed a horizontal distribution of influence and authority between governmental and non-governmental organisations. The increased institutionalisation of the language policy process has resulted in a perceived diminution of the direct role of the language community working through different civil society organisations, and a greater shift towards public officials located within different governmental or quasi-governmental institutions. This transition is a direct result of the professionalisation of the language planning process and should not be interpreted as a neglect of the language lobby or interest network. Legislative changes and the introduction of over 560 language schemes have established a framework of statutory duties and responsibilities as public authorities implement an active offer of service for their clientele (Cardinal and Williams 2020). This new cadre of languagerelated officials has added a strong dimension to the national infrastructure of language management and in turn has given rise to positive changes in the administrative culture of public bodies. A similarly positive change has been occasioned by the government’s employment of a co-creation and partnership empowerment approach, which Lewis ably demonstrates in relation to the operation of the Welsh Language Partnership Council and the Welsh Language Technology Action Plan (Government of Wales 2018). When set alongside the more well-established government support for key agencies in Welsh

370

C. H. Williams

language life, such as the Mentrau Iaith, Mudiad Meithrin and the National Eisteddfod, it is evident that a relatively stable model has been constructed, one which allows some degree of autonomy for the recipients of government grants in agenda setting and project realisation, always subject to central fiscal control and outcome evaluation. The acid test of the adequacy of this model is the steps taken in the realisation of the current language strategy, Cymraeg 2050 (Government of Wales 2017). The government’s Welsh Language Unit is acutely aware of the challenges which this strategy entails and has devised a time-specific plan designed to meet targets and evaluate progress to date. The Irish case appears to offer a divergent pattern of state-agency relationship, according to John Walsh’s interpretation. His is a call for the Irish language civil society to protect its independence so as to maintain its influence on mitigating the deleterious impact of broader trends in political economy and governance. Structural changes in the state’s governance have largely marginalised the language lobby or rendered it a supplicant, being over-dependent on largess and state funding and complicit in a downward spiral of effectiveness when it comes to major policy initiatives such as managing the decline of the Gaeltacht or the promotion of new speakers of Irish (O’Rourke and Walsh 2020). The net effect of the ‘post-welfare state’ model has been to undermine public confidence in the state itself, leading to demoralisation among civil servants. This trend has been analysed superbly by Marquand (2004), who contends that a parallel hollowing out of the state renders its ability to act and to intervene less effective. Walsh suggests that this malaise is not a matter of structural capacity, but rather a reflection of lukewarm political will and commitment to the promotion of the state’s first language. It need not be thus, for as he demonstrates through the illustration of the extraordinary career of the senior civil servant T. K. Whitaker, and the politician Éamon Ó Cuív, much can be achieved in small country by determined individuals.

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

3

371

Integrative Threads

Clearly the Revitalise project is but one of a number of contemporary initiatives which in many ways overlap and can offer mutual support if they are extended or can spawn new advances in the field. The two most cogent fellow travellers are the EU COST New Speakers project, under the direction of Bernadette O’Rourke and Joan Pujolar and the MIME project, under the direction of Franç ois Grin.2 The New Speakers project has produced a great deal of empirical material, largely derived from ethnographic accounts from across Europe. Several of its key concepts, such as muda, which relates to the transition process by which individuals become active speakers of a particular language, could easily be extended to cover the transition interface between two or more spaces which would offer both a safe sanctuary for the use of a chosen language and a zone in transition whereby use of the language would become the default position as one entered into such a zone. Accordingly, it would be advisable to explore the role of social spaces in developing new communities of practice, especially for new speakers. A second area worthy of much more detailed work which derives from the COST Network is the incorporation of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Promising early work on such themes has been undertaken by Bermingham and Higham (2018), Augustyniak and Higham (2019) and Higham (2020). The MIME project has also produced a great deal of fresh material, designed to answer a range of questions, such as can the free market manage linguistic diversity? How can migrants’ existing language skills be used to help them learn the host country language? How can multilingualism be promoted in EU consumer legislation?3 The Vademecum (Grin 2018) is a rich resource both for research results and for policy recommendations and will surely repay close attention over the medium term as more publications are derived from this interdisciplinary network. Yet despite this flowering of large-scale international consortia there remain many questions and challenges related primarily to what may be called the metropolitan multilingual turn.

372

4

C. H. Williams

The Metropolitan Multilingual Turn

It is now very evident that much of our theoretical prowess and modelling has been rooted for far too long in a convention of analysing predominantly peri-rural, lagging communities. They may yet have their day as so many retreat to the relative calm of small-scale rural environs and are able to work within a virtual reality, hastened by Covid-19 among other developments. But for the moment such contexts have witnessed the long-term atrophying of language bastions and strongholds and it is in the urban centres where new socio-economic and educational opportunities are to be found. Accordingly, we need to reorient our analysis to ask how minority language speakers may benefit from cooccupying increasingly multilingual spaces. Whether we are discussing the fortunes of Gaelic in Glasgow, Basque in Donostia or Swedish in Helsinki, we need to determine which stakeholders and agencies are most likely to benefit from absorbing and adopting some of the recommendations to be found in this volume. It is thus imperative that we are clear in our own minds what we are about and what general areas we want to progress and what realistic recommendations we would action for decision-makers at several levels in the policy community hierarchy. There has been a tendency to consider the issue of language revitalisation in the context of a struggle between a lesser-used language and a dominant, hegemonic language. Increasingly this concern with bilingualism, whether stable or unstable, has been superseded by the realisation that a more appropriate framework is some version of a bilingualism-multilingualism continuum. This change of paradigm opens up new possibilities for investigation and policy recommendations, including consideration of the home language of students in formal bilingual education, the influence of mixed marriages on language transmission, the previous linguistic repertoire of adult learners, the rich vein of studies prompted by new speaker research, migration patterns, the consideration of refugees and asylum seekers, the implementation of statutory language testing as a consideration for citizenship, the commercial, diplomatic and military advantages of multilingualism etc. One pressing concern is to maximise the potential of all the language revitalisation efforts of the past two generations. We know that language

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

373

acquisition does not automatically lead to increased use; thus, we need to focus on how to trigger skill into routine use so that more of the potential can be realised. Of the several possible reactions I want to draw attention to the Basque realisation that the formal assessment of various skills and competencies do not match the expectations of professionals and parents.4 Beyond the school gates it was recognised that the spectacular growth in Basque speakers did not automatically produce greater use in everyday life. In consequence in November 2018 the government and local authorities initiated the ‘Euskarak 365 egun’ campaign programme under the Euskaraldia initiative. Its general aim was to change language habits and encourage the taking of steps in order that as many people as possible start to make greater use of the Basque language (Basque Autonomous Community 2019). The ‘Euskaraldia: 11 days in Euskera’ campaign ran from 23 November to 3 December 2019 (International Day of the Basque Language). Adult speakers were encouraged to use Euskera in their daily relations with the aim of breaking inertia and promoting linguistic practices in Euskera. Citizens become either ‘ahobizi’ (an active mouth), i.e., people who will speak in Euskera with anyone who understands the language and will carry an identifying pin, or ‘belarriprest’ (an attentive ear), i.e. people who at the least understand Euskera and who invite others to talk to them in Euskera. The initial results derived from the 316 participating local committees proved to be positive and a successive campaign in 2020 consolidated this attempt at changing language use among the general populace. While both Catalonia and Wales have had innovative language promotion campaigns involving the wearing of pins, badges and lanyards, nothing matches this short, intensive intervention seeking to change language use behaviour. In terms of policy formulation, it is evident that while interventions in education, local administration and community development are necessary, they are clearly not sufficient if language revitalisation is to be achieved. Above and beyond these types of specific interventions there is a need to develop truly holistic language revitalisation policies which transcend the embedded structural character of established government departments and their programmes. In the past two decades, despite real

374

C. H. Williams

progress, much lip service has been paid to mainstreaming and joinedup thinking, but only joined-up financing and implementation will lead to the desired outcomes, not just outputs. This requires a committed effort to bringing the economy back into policy considerations so as to provide instrumental justification for maintaining language competence in as many domains as is possible. In short, the acquisition and maintenance of new language skills has to be seen to be worth it in commercial, not just in socio-cultural terms.

5

Mobilising Communities and Agencies

Given the salience of respecting the newer types of community interaction identified by Jones and Cunliffe, what evidence is there that equally new forms of civic engagement and mobilisation have been developed to press for medium-term intervention in support of minority languages? One of the persistent limitations to such pressure is the long-standing dependence of many communities on government programmes, finance and largesse. Thus, we may ask how may the role of communities be reimagined so that they become co-construction partners rather than supplicants in any sustained intervention programme? This, of course, speaks to the distribution of power within society, and more acutely the sustained exercise of power in the name of a language’s interest, rather than to an episodic call to action or short-term remedial measures. If policy is one area for improvement, ideological consideration is another. There is a common presumption that because linguistic minorities have been discriminated against, they are necessarily worthy, honourable, and therefore deserving of sympathy, support and restitution. The dominant trope has been a culture of grievance and the urgent plea is for some degree of restitution to a basis of equality. However, when comparisons are undertaken they are usually of two types, the first being between a dominant and lesser-used language. The basic fact of life is that most linguistic minorities live cheek by jowl within a hegemonic language framework. Indeed, so many of the members of linguistic minorities have made their way in life as members also of a hegemonic speech community that it hardly matters in material terms whether they

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

375

are designated representatives of a majority or a minority community. To be blunt, Welsh or Irish will never be able to fully compete with English in terms of reach, significance or functional utility. It is a different story in terms of meaning, of significant values, of identity construction. So that leads to a fundamental question, namely what are the limits of ambition of linguistic revitalisation? The second type of comparison is between some fixed point in the past and today. In communal terms, a way of life supported and sustained the language community whose principal familial and socio-economic functions were conducted through the language, what is called in Welsh buchedd. For Celtic societies this related to an agrarian, peasant or working-class social order, where divisions based on religion, language and access to formal political and legal power and education disadvantaged the majority of the populace. By today several of the most egregious grievances have been overcome, formal education in the previously discriminated language has been achieved, there is political representation and legal redress and often a Language Commissioner to investigate infractions. Nevertheless because of an apparently inexorable decline in the number of ‘real’ regular speakers, it would appear that no amount of progress within the formal domains of society can assuage a deep feeling of loss, of communal fragmentation and solidarity. Part of this disjuncture is played out within the revitalisation process as it addresses a conflict of rights, duties and recompense between the former hegemonic and the resurgent, ‘intrusive’ sections of society in fields such as education, public administration and health care services. The contribution of professional government and academic lawyers and others concerned with the construction of a suite of language-related rights has been a significant development. This has been manifested both at the national level (Generalitat de Catalunya 2007) and the international level, where the basic principles contained in such agreements as the Council of EuropeFramework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Eide 2008) or the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Dunbar 2008) have been instrumental in advancing the various claims for greater legal protection. Such reforms have been aided by the institutional development of the EU and the Council of Europe for the Committee of the Regions of

376

C. H. Williams

the EU has grown in strength since its establishment, while the Council of Europe’s Congress of Regional and Local Authorities is also quite powerful and respected for its work on developing democracy at the local level. Accordingly, reforms at the superstructural level have offered a new perspective within which the issues of language promotion and rights may be managed. And yet, there remains the deep troubling concern that while the supportive architecture of language infrastructure may be better framed, the base, the lived reality of everyday use of a chosen language continues to weaken and atrophy in so many places.

6

Conclusion: Social Criticism in the Service of Immanence and Transcendence5

The Revitalise programme offers some hope and engaging evidence by which one may dent the cynicism of critics. But to be truly effective it needs to be purposeful in arming policy makers and social activists with arguments, proven best practice principles and procedures, and a sense of the moral and empirical worth of the continued effort to nurture, protect and reimagine the conditions of possibility which sustain the minority languages. Language revitalisation should concern itself simultaneously with the here and now to answer the question, what is to be done, as well as with imagining how the target language might function in two or three generations’ time, so that in seeking some degree of transcendence a higher, better future may be imagined. Both ambitions need to be mobilised simultaneously, but both need not be articulated and implemented by the same agencies. There is an advantage in establishing the case for the needs of future generations, as exemplified by the Welsh model of a Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and a corresponding Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales.6 When allied to a government strategy to achieve a million speakers by 2050, the broad parameters of a framework and more promising supportive infrastructure may be discerned (Government of Wales 2017).

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

377

The fundamental basis on which such measures rely remains the engagement of local communities and interest networks in long-term activities in support of the language. Care should be taken to nurture this element and not take it for granted as it is the essential base of community support and involvement which is the most cost-effective and natural way to give meaning to the social context of language revitalisation. Seen from within this cultural world view, such promotional efforts are not exceptional, but rather the normal, everyday, if at times banal activities of an active vibrant network of speakers. In other words, the very opposite of exceptional, for it stands as a local variant of a universal trope, the playing out of human needs, desires and considerations as social engagement. The educational system may provide the requisite language skills, but it is social interaction within the communal and economic spheres which gives meaning and purpose to the reproduction of core values and the utilisations of such skills as a worthwhile enterprise.

Notes 1. This is a revised version of ‘Language Revitalisation in the 21st Century’, the plenary closing address to the Promoting Regional or Minority Languages in the Global Age, Revitalise/NPLD conference, Brussels, 10 April 2019. 2. See https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/policy_briefs/ mime_pb_092018.pdf. 3. Neither the MIME project nor the MIME Vademecum make formal recommendations and are particular about not advocating examples of best practice. Nevertheles it is inevitable that others will adapt their insights and mould the project’s conclusions to their own agenda. See https://ec.europa. eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/policy_briefs/mime_pb_092018.pdf, p. 5. 4. The Basque education system is an excellent illustration. A generation ago some 20% of pupils were enrolled in ikastolas (Basque-medium schools), now it is 80% plus Basque-medium with only some 5% enrolled in conventional Spanish-medium schools. This is a result of a massive swing in parental choice and has been accompanied by a significant investment by successive governments and educational authorities in teacher training, educational resources and assessment bodies (Williams 2021).

378

C. H. Williams

5. I use these terms, not in any Hegelian sense to distinguish religion which operates as the lower level of representations (Vorstellungen) from philosophy which works at the level of concepts (Begriffe), but to draw out a distinction between the pressing inherent nature of language survival and the more creative ability to go beyond the conventional boundaries of thought and action. Were one to compare the situation of Welsh or Basque in the statutory education system as they existed in the 1950s with today’s situation, one could argue that the visionaries of the immediate post-war world transcended their current limitations and spelled out an agenda for action which has been realised in large part over the subsequent two generations. 6. See https://www.futuregenerations.wales/careers/ and https://senedd.wales/ Laid%20Documents/GEN-LD11108/GEN-LD11108-e.pdf.

References Augustyniak, A., and G. Higham. 2019. Contesting sub-state integration policies: Migrant new speakers as stakeholders in language regimes. Language Policy 18 (4): 513–533. Basque Autonomous Community. 2019. Euskarladia 1: An Analysis of the Results. Donostia: Department of Language Policy and Culture. https://eus karaldia.eus/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Txostena_ENG-1.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2021. Bermingham, N., and G. Higham. 2018. Immigrants as new speakers in Galicia and Wales: Issues of integration, belonging and legitimacy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39 (5): 394–406. Cardinal, L., and C.H. Williams. 2020. Bridging the gap between the politics of recognition and the politics of language service delivery in Ontario and Wales. Treatises and Documents 84: 5–31. Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2017. Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38 (10): 901–912. Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2019. Multilingualism, translanguaging, and minority languages in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 103 (S1): 130–135.

Forging Hope in the Company of Cynics

379

Cenoz. J., and D. Gorter. 2021. Pedagogical Translanguaging in the Context of Multilingual Education. Presentation in the Plurilingual Lab Speaker Series, Education Department, McGill University, 28 January. Chalmers, D., and M. Danson. 2012. The economic impact of Gaelic arts and culture within Glasgow: Minority languages and post-industrial cities. In Cultural Political Economy of Small Cities, ed. A. Lorentzen and B. van Heur, 95–109. Abingdon: Routledge. Dunbar, R. 2008. The Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In Synergies in Minority Protection, ed. K. Henrard and R. Dunbar, 155–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eide, A. 2008. The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. In Synergies in Minority Protection, ed. K. Henrard, K. and R. Dunbar, 119–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Generalitat de Catalunya. 2007. Legislació lingüística de Catalunya. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Government of Wales. 2017. Cymraeg 2050: A Million Welsh Speakers. Cardiff: Government of Wales. Government of Wales. 2018. Welsh Language Technology Action Plan. Cardiff: Government of Wales. Grin, F. 1993. Minority language promotion: On the practical usefulness of economic theory. In Economic Development and Lesser Used Languages: Partnerships for Action, ed. Ll. Dafis, 24–49. Llanbedr Pont Steffan: Iaith. Grin, F. (ed.). 2018. The MIME Vademecum:Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe. https://www.mime-project.org/vademecum/. Accessed 25 February 2021. Grin, F., and Vaillancourt, F. 1999. The Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Minority Language Policies: Case Studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues. Grin, F., and F. Vaillancourt. 2000. On the financing of language policies and distributive justice. In Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education, ed. R. Phillipson, 102–110. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grin, F., and F. Vaillancourt. 2002. Minority self-government in economic perspective. In Minority Governance in Europe, ed. K. Gál, 73–86. Budapest: Open Society Institute. Gruffudd, H., and S. Morris. 2012. Canolfannau Cymraeg and Social Networks of Adult Learners of Welsh. Swansea: Swansea University.

380

C. H. Williams

Higham, G. 2018. A Report on the Role of Minority Languages in Healthcare: A Theoretical and Practical Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018. 1429454. Higham, G. 2020. Creu Dinasyddiaeth i Gymru: Mewnfudo Rhyngwladol a’r Gymraeg. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Marquand, D. 2004. The Decline of the Public. Cambridge: Polity Press. O’Rourke, B., and J. Walsh. 2020. New Speakers of Irish in a Global Context. New York and London: Routledge. Puigdevall, M. 2005. Challenge of language planning in the private sector: Welsh and Catalan perspectives. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff University. Sproull, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The Demand for Gaelic Artistic and Cultural Products and Services: Patterns and Impacts. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University. Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. 2015 anaw 2. https://www. legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2015/2/contents/enacted. Accessed 25 February 2021. Williams, C.H. 1992. Identity, autonomy and the ambiguity of technology. In Globalisation and Territorial Identities, ed. Z. Mlinar, 115–128. Aldershot: Avebury. Williams, C.H. 2018. A sigh between two sorrows: Reflections on language policy. Inaugural Memorial Lecture, Léacht Uí Fhlatharta, Fiontar & Scoil na Gaeilge, Campas na Naomh Uile, Dublin City University, 12 April. Williams, C.H. 2021. Minority language revitalization: European conundrums. In Language, Culture and Colonialism, ed. D. Boucher. Cape Town: HRS Press. Williams, G., and D. Morris (eds.). 2000. Language Planning and Language Use: Welsh in a Global Age. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Index

A

Aberystwyth v, 43, 55, 58 Aberystwyth University 55 Active offer 266, 369 Adfer 46 Age of marriage 143 Agglomeration 231, 242, 246, 261 Agriculture, decline of 109 Alexa 74, 181 Allochthonous languages 179 Aman Valley 57 Ammanford 43 An Bord Snip 338 An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta (Council for Irish Language and Gaeltacht Education) 317 An Coimisinéir Teanga 318, 351 Apple 67 Apps 181

Arfon 109 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 278 Asylum seekers 7, 371, 372 Authenticity 86, 149, 181, 245, 263 Autoethnography 131

B

Bangor 43, 58 Basque Autonomous Community 2, 21, 28, 161, 240, 344, 345, 347, 349, 353–355, 373 Basque education system 377 Basque language 373 Basque language policy 347, 378 Bilingualism 122, 129, 148, 154, 157, 245, 299, 326, 334, 337, 372 child 123

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H. Lewis and W. McLeod (eds.), Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation, Language and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80189-2

381

382

Index

early 142 harmonious 163 universal 182 Bill 101 (Québec) 195 Blair, Tony 333 Blythe, Ernest 324 Bord na Gaeilge 316, 334 Bòrd na Gàidhlig 262, 346, 352, 354 Breathing spaces 25, 68, 82–88, 91, 111 Brexit 350 Broadband 20, 187

C

Canolfannau Cymraeg 366 Cardiff v, 44, 45, 56, 109, 125 Cardigan 43 Career progression 229 Carmarthen 57, 113 Car ownership 8, 106, 109 Catalan language policy 345, 352, 353 Catalonia 2, 21, 28, 142, 344, 345, 349, 352–355, 373 Catholic Church 322 corporatism 283, 284 Cellular networks 20 Centralisation 230, 231, 233, 236, 242, 246, 261 Ceredigion 58, 113 Child agency 132, 150, 161–164, 176, 177 Childcare 7, 25, 59, 144–146, 151–153, 162, 164, 179, 185, 186, 365 Childcare arrangements 142, 144, 146, 176

Child-Directed Speech (CDS) 159, 162, 183 Child language acquisition 121 China 122, 125, 126, 128, 134, 135, 365 Circular economy 246, 264 Civic engagement 8, 279, 374 Civil partnership, same-sex couples 143 Civil society organisations 22, 284, 287, 288, 290, 292, 294, 312, 325, 349, 351–354, 358, 359, 369 Clecs 83, 90 Climate emergency 225, 246, 250 Coal industry 264 Code-switching 84, 90, 131, 133, 134, 365 Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol 292, 297, 351 Comann nam Pàrant 352 Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (Council of Irish-Medium Schooling) 317 Comhairle nan Leabhraichean 352 Commodification of language 262 Community(ies) communities of interest 103, 104, 108 community as locality 100, 108 rural 39, 49, 372 understandings of 18, 39, 40, 42, 45, 54, 71, 100, 101, 103, 108, 111, 365 Community language 38, 42, 45, 46, 52–59, 101–103 community language initiatives 158

Index

Community of interest 103–105, 108, 366 Commuting 8, 56, 58, 106, 229, 234 Computer-mediated communication 87 Comunn na Gàidhlig 346, 349, 352 Concerted cultivation 128, 129, 135, 176, 182, 262 Congress of Regional and Local Authorities 376 Conradh na Gaeilge 316, 320, 325, 326, 335, 351 Conversational Analysis (CA) 131 Corca Dhuibhne 109 COST New Speakers project 371 Council of Europe vi, 22, 375 Counter-urbanisation 8, 246 COVID-19 156, 247, 248, 318, 372 Creative industries 230, 234, 235, 237, 245, 250, 264 Cultural industries. See Creative industries Cumann na bhFiann 320 Cumann na nGaedheal 324, 325, 338 Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg 46, 50 Cymraeg 2050 281, 287, 290, 293–295, 297–300, 302–304, 350, 351, 370 Cymraeg Byd Busnes 302 Cymraeg i Blant 293, 296, 302 Cymuned 46, 47

D

Danish 240, 241 Daur language 126 Decentralisation 278, 279, 345

383

De Houwer, Annick 121 Deindustrialisation 236 Demographic change 7, 228, 230, 246 Denmark 240, 242 Depopulation 271 Deregulation 9 de Valera, Éamon 323, 325, 327, 330 Development agencies 236 Digital breathing spaces 68, 81–83, 86, 87, 89–91, 111, 366 Digital communication 155 Digital language death 73 Digital language vitality 73, 82 Digital literacy 81 Digital revolution 10 Diglossia 271 Divorce 143, 176 Donegal 109 Dublin 109, 125

E

Early Childhood Care and Education scheme (Ireland) 145, 146 Economic Action Plan, Wales 246 Economic Community of West African States 278 Economic development 230, 231, 235, 238, 265 Economic policy 280 Economics of RMLs 267 Economies of scale 232 Edinburgh 242 Education, in language revitalisation 16 Employment professional 269

384

Index

public sector 266 white-collar 269 Employment patterns 17, 109 Endogenous development 236 Entrepreneurship 203, 204, 227, 232, 236, 241, 243–245, 268 Environmental policy 280 Escalator regions 229, 242 Étatiste model 283 EU accession countries 246 European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages 349 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 239, 375 European Commission 232, 348 European Court of Justice 217, 348 European Economic Community 330 European Parliament 230, 239, 348 European Union 22, 236, 238, 278, 332, 348, 350, 375 European Union grants 232 European Union Structural Funds 262, 348, 349, 355 Europe Committee of the Regions 375 Euskaraldia 373 Ewenki language 122 Export-Led Industrialisation (ELI) 326

F

Facebook 68, 71, 76, 78, 80, 83, 127, 365 FaceTime 127, 181 Family communication, digital 163 Family Language Policy (FLP) 119 Faroe Islands 229, 240–242

Faroese 241 Fertility 143 Fianna Fáil 321–327, 329–331, 334, 335, 338 Financialisation 20, 261 Fine Gael 329, 334, 338 Fishing 241 Fishman, Joshua 13–17, 21, 68, 82–86, 91, 102, 111, 182 Fish processing 264 Foras na Gaeilge 315, 316, 319, 320, 334, 336, 337, 351, 357, 358 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 326, 327 Føroyskt mál 229 Foundational economy 225, 246, 250, 264, 368 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 375 Free markets 262 Free trade 324 French 195, 200, 202, 270

G

Gaelicisation 325–327, 334 Gaelic language 101, 132, 155, 181, 234, 237, 239, 240, 242–245, 249 higher density areas 109 Gaelic Language Plans 245 Gaelic language policy 346, 349, 352 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 245, 263, 346, 352, 354 Gaelic League. See Conradh na Gaeilge Gaelic-medium education 160

Index

Gael-Linn 320 Gaeloideachas 320 Gaelscoileanna 334 Gaeltacht 147–149, 151, 156–158, 160, 162, 163, 178, 228, 230, 241, 264, 265, 272, 312, 317, 355, 356, 370 Gaeltacht Act 2012 113, 313, 316, 320, 356, 357 Gaeltacht Commission (1926) 312, 324 Gaeltacht Commission (2002) 313 Gaeltacht education 149 Gaeltacht Language Planning Districts 113, 313, 314 Gaeltacht Service Towns 113, 313, 314 Gaeltarra Éireann 316, 317 Gàidhealtachd 228, 233, 238, 243, 244 Gàidhealtachd (Scotland) 243 Galway 321 Gemeinschaft 101, 102 Generalitat de Catalunya 345, 352, 353 Directorate-General for Language Policy 352, 353 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) 38 Geography of language 38, 59, 60 Giddens, Anthony 333 Glasgow 242 Globalisation 9, 10, 18, 19, 23, 51, 119, 178, 199, 204, 225, 331, 365 Glór na nGael 320, 351 Good Friday Agreement 1998 239, 315, 359 Google 74, 239

385

Governance 11, 21, 23, 282, 286, 290, 297, 304, 312, 332, 333, 335, 337, 344, 350, 352, 354, 357, 359, 369 collaborative governance 285, 286, 302, 304, 354 government-centred governance 283, 301 interactive governance 284, 301, 303, 304, 354, 358 network governance 286, 300, 301, 304 Governmental retreat 354 Government of Ireland Department of Education 313, 314 Department of the Gaeltacht 313, 314, 318 Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media 312, 320 Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Fishman) 13, 14, 19 Grandparents 122, 126, 146, 153–155, 184, 185 Gwendraeth Valley 57 Gwynedd 267 Gwynedd Council 179

H

Habitus 133 Han minority 126 Heartland. See Language heartlands Hebridean islands 101 Heritage Languages (HL) 142 Higgins, Michael D. 329, 331 Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) 237, 238, 243

386

Index

Home-family-community nexus 15 Housing markets 20 Housing provision 49 Human capital 195, 368

I

Iaith Pawb 47 Ikastolas (Basque-medium schools) 377 IMF 278 Incomplete acquisition 148 Indigenous Tweets 83 Industrial Development Authority (IDA Ireland) 316, 317 Industrialisation 20, 322–324 Inequality 10, 20, 128, 134, 261 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) 8, 10, 20, 67, 70, 72–75, 77, 91, 105, 106, 126, 156, 181, 261 Instagram 76 Intangible assets 231 Intangible cultural heritage 248 Intellectual capital 231 Intergenerational transmission 15, 16, 23, 127, 142, 147, 149, 180, 364, 372 International organisations 10, 278, 347 Internet 70 Ireland 22 Irish electoral system 322, 331 Irish government 312 Irish language 147, 195, 268 demography 147 in education 314 on social media 80 policy 113, 240, 351, 355

Irish Language Act (Northern Ireland) 315, 359 Irish Language Networks 313, 314 Irish language radio 320, 334 Irish language skills 198 Irish language television 329, 334 Irish local government 319 Irish-medium education 148, 158, 160 Irish political culture 321, 322

J

Japanese language 123, 219 Job creation 270 Jones, J.R. 46

K

Kazakh language 131 Keating, Michael 106, 107 Keynesianism 236, 331 Knowledge economy 9 Korean language 122, 134

L

L2 learners 142 Labour economics 196 Labour force feminization of 7 women in 141, 185 Labour force participation 144 Labour income 196, 198 Labour Party (Ireland) 329, 331, 334 Land reform 244 Language acquisition 157, 262 by children 154, 157, 159

Index

Language development agencies 248 Language economics 194, 196, 367 Language Freedom Movement 328 Language heartlands 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 58, 147, 178, 179, 233, 234 Language legislation 195, 267. See also Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005; Official Languages Act 2003 (Ireland); Welsh Language Act 1993; Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 Language maintenance 4, 80, 180 Language planning initiatives, local 157 Language Promotion Planning Board 296 Language requirements in employment 195, 197, 200–202 Language revitalisation 5, 17–19, 108, 110, 111 definition of 4, 5 theory of 3, 12 Language shift 4, 6, 12, 69, 103, 178, 180, 260, 265, 270, 365 Language skills 197, 269 in employment 197, 198, 229, 235, 250, 265, 268–270 Language use 43, 45, 103, 365 and community 40, 41, 47, 48, 51, 58, 59, 101, 102, 107, 109, 110 in social networks 69 in workplace 195, 196, 200 networked understandings of 54, 55, 59, 107, 110 online 72–74, 80, 81, 83–86, 88–90, 105, 108, 366

387

Language Vitality Index (UNESCO) 19, 21 Lemass, Seán 324, 326, 327, 331, 333 Linguistic change 180 Linguistic repertoires 183 LinkedIn 71 Literacy development 123 Llandysul 113 Llanrwst 43 Llyn Peninsula 109 Localism 246 London 267 Loughlin, John 333 Lower Super Output Area 42, 56

M

Mandarin Chinese 122, 126, 134–136 Manufacturing 19 Marketing 262, 266, 270 Marquand, David 370 Marriage equality 143 McCarthy Report 313 Mentrau Iaith 43, 45, 48, 52–54, 104, 112, 113, 292, 294, 296, 305, 348, 351, 370 Mercator Network 349 Microsoft 67 Migrant worker(s) 229, 235, 241, 264, 271 Migration 7, 119, 177, 229, 230, 271 MIME project 371 Minority language education, reasons for choosing 160 Minority languages critiques of support for 227

388

Index

definition of 260 economic value of 244 perceptions of 268 Misneach 320 Mobile telephone 187 Mobility 8, 17, 23, 51, 52, 56–58, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 125, 134, 365 Mòd 262 Montréal 195 Mudas 371 Mudiad Meithrin 292, 293, 296, 299, 300, 351, 370 Multilingualism 120, 125, 130, 371, 372 Multinational corporations 18 Multiplier effects 232

Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity (NPLD) 22, 349, 350 New Public Management (NPM) 11, 279, 332, 350 New speaker parents 184 New speakers 52, 159, 183, 366 Non-governmental organisations 279, 281 North American Free Trade Agreement 278 North Ayrshire Council 247 Northern Ireland 315, 316, 319, 336, 359 North-South Ministerial Council 315

O N

Nanjing 135 National Centre for Learning Welsh 297, 351 National Childcare Scheme (Ireland) 145 National Common Language and Writing Law (China) 134 National Eisteddfod 240, 370 National Gaelic Language Plan 352 Nationalised industries 236 National languages 233 Native speakers 183 Neoliberalism 11, 129, 217, 261, 262, 279, 320, 331–333, 335–337, 350 Netflix 68 Networked community 270 Networked individualism 70

Ó Cuív, Éamon 330 OECD 238, 278 Ofcom 75, 77 Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales 376 Official language policies 21, 106 Official Languages Act 2003 (Ireland) 318, 319, 330, 334, 337 Official language strategies 22 Oireachtas (Irish parliament) 322 Oireachtas na Gaeilge 320, 351 One Person–One Language (OPOL) approach 121, 122 Optimal recruitment model 367 Ó Riagáin, Pádraig 109 Outmigration 271

P

Papurau bro 294

Index

Parenting styles 128 Peripheral communities 232 Peripheralisation 233, 246 Place branding 228, 250 Plaid Cymru 46 Planning system 49 Pluralism 283 Policing 280 Policy on Gaeltacht Education 158, 160 Political authority, vertical restructuring 280 Population, decline 228, 230, 240, 246 demographic change 240 Porthmadog 43 Post-industrial economy 9 Privatisation 9, 11, 350 Public sector organisations, language policy in 267 Purism 185 Purkarthofer, Judith 131

Q

Qualitative research 131, 195 Québec 195, 196, 200, 202, 270

R

Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) 334 Rees, Alwyn D. 39 Refugees 371 Regional development 113 Regionalisation 11, 21, 22, 278, 279, 344–347, 355 Regional policy 262 Rescaling 278, 344 Resilience 244, 247–250

389

Reverse diglossia 269 Revitalisation 15 Roe, Willie 237 Romanche 220 Romanticism 263

S

S4C 288, 297 Scotland 22, 234, 240, 242 Scots language 263 Scottish Government 243 Self-sufficiency 248 Shanghai 136 Shanghai dialect 135 Shen Huishu 122 Single-parent households 176 Siri 74 Skype 127, 181, 365 Smartphones 68 Smart speakers 181 Snapchat 71, 76 Social interaction 103, 104, 106, 107 Socialisation 7, 16 Social life, networked understandings of 108, 110–112 Social media 68, 70, 72–74, 76, 79, 82, 83, 86, 91, 110, 111 Social mobility 125 Social networks 68–70, 77, 79, 91, 103, 109, 111–113 online 70, 71, 78–81, 85–88, 90, 366 Social partnership 335, 336 Social policy 280 Song, Juyoung 133 Space networked understandings of 51

390

Index

understandings of 50, 51, 106 Spanish language 123 Speech and language therapists 159 Spòrs Gàidhlig 349 Spotify 68 State power 10 State transformation 278 Stòrlann Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig 352 Strategy for the Irish Language 158 Superdiversity 7, 120 Sustainable development 228, 246 Sustainable Development Goals (UN) 228 Swansea 57

Twitter 68, 71, 80

T

Vale of Glamorgan 44, 45 Video communication technologies 127 Village schools 49, 50 ‘Virtual’ communities 270 Virtual spaces 52 VisitScotland 263 Voice recognition programs 182

U

Údarás na Gaeltachta 316, 317, 320, 321, 335–337, 349, 351, 356, 357 UK Government 346 Underdevelopment 236 UNESCO 278 Uneven economic development 236 United Nations 225 Urbanisation 8, 125, 134, 178, 365 Urdd Gobaith Cymru 262, 292, 351 V

Technical Advice Note 20 (TAN20) 49 Technological change 16 Teilifís na Gaeilge (TG4) 329, 334 Territory 105–107, 109 Third Way 279, 333, 334 TikTok 71, 76 Tönnies, Ferdinand 101, 102 Tourism 20, 235, 240, 245, 250, 263, 321 touristic 260 Trade unions 20 Translanguaging 366 Transnational corporations 9, 10, 347 Transnationalism 124 Tuismitheoirí na Gaeltachta 158, 159 Tús Maith 158 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 146, 149, 153, 157, 158, 160, 238, 311, 313, 315 Twitch 71, 76

W

Wage premiums 198 Wang, Ling 135 Wellbeing economics 225 Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 376 Welsh for Business 294, 296 Welsh Government 47, 48, 90, 287, 289, 290, 292–297, 299, 300, 303, 304, 345, 351, 353, 358 Welsh Language Division 299 Welsh Language Education Unit 293

Index

Welsh language 38, 40, 101, 113, 150, 269, 378 demography 41, 43 on social media 80, 83, 90 policy 45, 47, 56, 59, 101, 238, 240, 287, 345, 346, 348, 349, 351 policy network 292, 300, 301 Wales 240 Welsh Language Act 1993 288 Welsh Language Board 288, 289, 353 Welsh Language Commissioner 289, 292, 351 Welsh Language Partnership Council 296, 298, 299, 302, 369 Welsh Language Promotion Grant Scheme 294, 295, 303 Welsh Language Promotion Group 297, 298, 302 Welsh language skills 198 Welsh Language Technology Action Plan 299, 369 Welsh language transmission 176, 183

391

Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 289, 353 Welsh Office 288 Welsh-speaking community 40, 44, 45, 47–50, 55, 60, 101 Welsh Technology Action Plan 302 Welsh Technology Board 299, 302 Western Isles 267 WhatsApp 76 Whitaker, T.K. 326–328, 333 White Paper on Irish (1965) 326–328 Wikipedia 73 Williams, Colin H. 333 Williams, Glyn 14, 18 Working Group on Cultural and Creative Industries (EU) 237 World Bank 278 World Health Organisation 278

Y

Yangzhou 135 Y Fro Gymraeg 41, 43, 46, 53, 57, 228 YouTube 68, 71, 77